Actual statements by synergists

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Yes, easily disproved. v.9 follows v.8 and is in THAT context, not in the context of the next paragraph starting in v.10.

Note the beginning word in v.9, "de" in the Greek. This is what my lexicon says about it:
"a conjunctive particle, marking the superaddition of a clause, whether in opposition or in continuation, to what has preceded, and it may be variously rendered but, on the other hand, and, also, now, etc."

What is important is what I bolded for emphasis: "what has preceded". So, what just preceded v.9? v.8 of course, where the author used "pas" 3 times while quoting from Psa 8, which was about mankind being over ALL creation. The contrast between v.8 and v.9 is that while man was put over ALL of creation, Jesus died for all of humanity.

That is proper exegesis. Your attempt to force v.9 into v.10 violates the Greek conjunctive participle and is a blatant attempt at eisegesis.

So then, what are your thoughts on γὰρ in 2:10?

 

[Jack Terrence]

So then, what are your thoughts on γὰρ in 2:10?

Exactly!

"He tasted death for every man. FOR (γὰ&#961 it was fitting... in bringing the many sons to glory to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings."

It does NOT say that the salvation of every human being accomplishes the goal.

 

[Skala]

Exactly!

"He tasted death for every man. FOR (γὰ&#961 it was fitting... in bringing the many sons to glory to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings."

It does NOT say that the salvation of every human being accomplishes the goal.

Further, a few verses later, it says that by his death, he "Helps the sons of Abraham" (Those in covenant), NOT the "sons of Adam" (every individual)

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

His argument is self-defeating. He first attacks a straw man, as if we are suggesting that 2:9 should be isolated from the prior context. I don't believe anyone has suggested such a thing. In fact I would agree with with the quotation:

Note the beginning word in v.9, "de" in the Greek. This is what my lexicon says about it:
"a conjunctive particle, marking the superaddition of a clause, whether in opposition or in continuation, to what has preceded, and it may be variously rendered but, on the other hand, and, also, now, etc."

However there is a failure of consistency on the same exegetical principle here:

Yes, easily disproved. v.9 follows v.8 and is in THAT context, not in the context of the next paragraph starting in v.10.

The failure comes in that γὰρ is a coordinating or explanatory conjunction, meaning that the prior concept (or concepts) are being drawn out and explained in what is to come. Citing Louw and Nida, it is "a marker of cause or reason between events." Thayer states "Now since by a new affirmation not infrequently the reason and nature of something previously mentioned are set forth, it comes to pass that, by the use of this particle, either the reason and cause of a foregoing statement is added, whence arises the causal or argumentative force of the particle, for; or some previous declaration is explained, whence γὰρ takes on an explicative force." Hence we would perfectly within the bounds of greek scholarship to say:

...so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone, because it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering, because he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source.

Please also remember there were no divisions within the manuscripts. The did not have chapters and verses like we do now to help with categorization.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The Universalists don't think they are different groups. 1 Corinthians 15:22 is one of their proof texts. I can't believe you had to ask. The Calvinists don't think they are different groups.

And with respect, I don't care what either groups thinks about the verse.

No, it does NOT indicate different groups. Universalists don't think so. And Calvinists don't think so. Universalists say that "all" refers to every human being in both clauses. Calvinists say it is about the people of God in both clauses.

And both views are wrong. It's clear that Adam's sin effected the entire human race, which is why Paul told the Ephesian believers that they used to be dead in sins. That's because of Adam's sin, which was transferred to everyone.

To claim that Adam's sin was applied ONLY to "God's people" leads to the idea that all the "non-God's people" didn't have Adam's sin, and therefore, don't need saving. Oh, that leads to universalism. Only the elect need saving, and the non-elect don't need it. Therefore all become saved. Wow.

Huh? I don't follow you. Verse 8 speaks about all His enemies being put under His feet. Verse 10 indicates the PURPOSE of His death which was to bring the "many sons" to glory. Purpose = extent.

Well, obviously you're not following me. v.9 begins with 'de', which is a conjunctive participle, marking the superaddition of a clause, wherher in opposition or in continuation, to what has PRECEDED, and it may be variously rendered but, on the other hand, and, also, now, etc.[/U].

iow, v.9 is directly connected to WHAT HAS PRECEDED, which is v.8, which contains 'pas' 3 times.

There is NO connection between v.9 and v.10. v.10 begins a new paragraph and the word 'de' clearly refutes the notion that v.9 is attached to v.10.

v.9 is attached to v.8 for context.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Acts 13:48 is a beautiful synergistic picture.

God "appoints" the Gk tasso is not just "get in line for" it's (táss&#333 was "primarily a military term meaning 'to draw up in order, arrange in place, assign, appoint, order'

Gee whiz. And all that actually describes basically "getting in line". Anyone in the military knows all about lines.

2 Peter 1:10 is also beautiful: We are called and elected, we are to make this sure in our lives.

What is the purpose of this election?

 

[FreeGrace2]

So then, what are your thoughts on γὰρ in 2:10?

First, are you denying the meaning of 'de' at the beginning of v.9, which directly links v.9 to v.8?

Here are my thoughts on gar:
a causal participle or conjunction,for; it is, however, frequently used with an ellipsis of the clause to which it has reference, and its force must then be variously expressed.

Hebrews 2:10
For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings.

The "for" links what was fitting for Christ in bringing many sons to glory, by being perfected as author of their salvation.

There isn't anything here to pull v.9 towards v.10. Nothing. And because of the force being "variously expressed", there are probably lots of views on it.

But the force of 'de' trumps gar by directly linking v.9 and v.8.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

First, are you denying the meaning of 'de' at the beginning of v.9, which directly links v.9 to v.8?

No.

Hebrews 2:10
For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings.

The "for" links what was fitting for Christ in bringing many sons to glory, by being perfected as author of their salvation.

Can you give just one example of this construction anywhere in the NT, where γὰρ is linking two clauses which are both stated directly after γὰρ? Can you quote one commentator who links γὰρ in the way you have?

William L. Lane, author of his Hebrews commentary in the Word Biblical Commentary series says "2:10 - ἔπρεπεν γὰρ αὐτῷ, “for it was appropriate to him.” The writer’s intention is to provide a commentary on the last clause of v 9."

David Peterson in the IVP-NB commentary says [regarding 2:10] "God’s plan for humanity was fulfilled through the one man, Jesus Christ (cf. Rom. 5:12-21). It was supremely fitting for God, as the one who created all things for his own purposes, to bring many sons to glory in this way. Jesus is the head of a great company of people, destined to share in his honour and glory. They are variously designated in this passage as sons (10), brothers (11-12), children (13) and Abraham’s descendants (16). Jesus is the author (Gk. archēgon, as in 12:2) of their salvation, or perhaps more accurately ‘the pioneer of their salvation’. He certainly accomplished something unique on behalf of others (9) and is rightly called ‘the source of eternal salvation’ in 5:9."

Got anything to specifically argue against the normative use and function of γὰρ in 2:10?

There isn't anything here to pull v.9 towards v.10. Nothing. And because of the force being "variously expressed", there are probably lots of views on it.

γὰρ necessitates it, and you haven't given any reason to think it doesn't.

But the force of 'de' trumps gar by directly linking v.9 and v.8.

Trumps? What do you mean by "trumps"? How can you be claiming to perform any sort of reasonable exegesis by saying that one particular word is more important than another?

 

[konroh]

It would seem that the force of gar in v. 10 is emphatic, it should be translated "indeed", Jesus having tasted death for everyone, it is fitting indeed that this One to whom and for whom are all things should bring many sons to glory, being the author and perfector of their salvation. What salvation would this be? That the one who is above the angels should take men who are below the angels and also make them with Him above the angels. This is the larger sense of this passage, to show the superiority of Christ above the angels.

 

[konroh]

Gee whiz. And all that actually describes basically "getting in line". Anyone in the military knows all about lines.


What is the purpose of this election?

Indeed, the motto is "Hurry up and wait!"

I'd say the purpose of the election comes first from v. 2 "through the knowledge of him that called us by his own glory and virtue;" and then v. 9 "having forgotten the cleansing from his old sins." So the calling and election are linked to the fact that we are called to exhibit the character traits that are listed, having been elected to be cleansed from old sins, so why should we walk in them? We thus even more so should make these sure and secure, building on their foundation with faith architecting the virtues culminating in love.

 

[FreeGrace2]

No.

Seems that you are.

Can you give just one example of this construction anywhere in the NT, where γὰρ is linking two clauses which are both stated directly after γὰρ? Can you quote one commentator who links γὰρ in the way you have?

I gave you the meaning of gar directly from my lexicon, and there was NOTHING in that definition to link gar backward, as Calvinists must do to link "all" in v.9 with "many sons" in v.10.

But, since you claim that you don't deny the meaning of 'de' at the beginning of v.9, you have no right to claim that gar links "all" forward to "many sons". None at all.

William L. Lane, author of his Hebrews commentary in the Word Biblical Commentary series says "2:10 - ἔπρεπεν γὰρ αὐτῷ, “for it was appropriate to him.” The writer’s intention is to provide a commentary on the last clause of v 9."

He's a Presby, meaning reformed. And it seems from his comments he has denied the meaning and force of 'de' in v.9, which links backeward to v.8.

David Peterson in the IVP-NB commentary says [regarding 2:10] "God’s plan for humanity was fulfilled through the one man, Jesus Christ (cf. Rom. 5:12-21). It was supremely fitting for God, as the one who created all things for his own purposes, to bring many sons to glory in this way. Jesus is the head of a great company of people, destined to share in his honour and glory. They are variously designated in this passage as sons (10), brothers (11-12), children (13) and Abraham’s descendants (16). Jesus is the author (Gk. archēgon, as in 12:2) of their salvation, or perhaps more accurately ‘the pioneer of their salvation’. He certainly accomplished something unique on behalf of others (9) and is rightly called ‘the source of eternal salvation’ in 5:9."

Got anything to specifically argue against the normative use and function of γὰρ in 2:10?

Already gave you the meaning of 'de', which links to what is preceded. That's plenty enough.

γὰρ necessitates it, and you haven't given any reason to think it doesn't.

Your claim is refuted by the meaning of 'de' in v.9.

Trumps? What do you mean by "trumps"? How can you be claiming to perform any sort of reasonable exegesis by saying that one particular word is more important than another?

I didn't say "more important". That is just your made up view. But the meaning of 'de' deals with what has preceded, while there is no such meaning attached to gar.
And I explained how gar works for v.10. And you've ignored it. If it was wrong, you need to deal with what I said to show me how it was wrong.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Your claim is refuted by the meaning of 'de' in v.9.

I didn't say "more important". That is just your made up view. But the meaning of 'de' deals with what has preceded, while there is no such meaning attached to gar.
And I explained how gar works for v.10. And you've ignored it. If it was wrong, you need to deal with what I said to show me how it was wrong.

How does δὲ, which links the prior ideas (2:5-8) to 2:9, refute that γὰρ in 2:10 does expand and explain the statement in 2:9? You have merely stated it without offering any reason or evidence, clearly because it would have pretty damning results to your view of 2:9.

Since you just want to write off quotations of scholars without explaining why they are wrong, let's continue:

Strongs says this:

1063. γάρ gar, gar; a primary particle; properly, assigning a reason (used in argument, explanation or intensification; often with other particles): — and, as, because (that), but, even, for, indeed, no doubt, seeing, then, therefore, verily, what, why, yet.

Thayer says this (about γὰ&#961 :

"Now since by a new affirmation not infrequently the reason and nature of something previously mentioned are set forth, it comes to pass that, by the use of this particle, either the reason and cause of a foregoing statement is added, whence arises the causal or argumentative force of the particle, for; or some previous declaration is explained, whence gar takes on an explicative force: for, the fact is, namely. Thus the force of the particle is either conclusive, or demonstrative, or explicative and declaratory."

Louw and Nida puts it this way:

"a marker of cause or reason between events"

UBS Lexicon translates the conjunction in these ways:

γάρ conj. for, since, then; indeed, certainly

A.T Robertson, one of the most respected Greek scholars in history, says one clearly understood sentence:

"The γάρ clause is merely explanatory."

And then expands specifically on the conjunction itself:

"Γάρ. There is no doubt as to the origin of this word. It is a compound of γέ and ἄρα and is always postpositive. It is called σύνδεσμος αἰτιολογικός, but it does not always give a reason. It may be merely explanatory. We have seen that ἄρα itself was originally just correspondence and then later inference. So then γέ can accent as an intensive particle either of these ideas. It is a mistake, therefore, to approach the study of γάρ with the theory that it is always or properly an illative, not to say causal, particle. It is best, in fact, to note the explanatory use first."

So, are you still going to deny that γάρ in 2:10 indicates that 2:10-16 is an explanatory clause of 2:5-8? Even after all of this evidence?

 

[FreeGrace2]

How does δὲ, which links the prior ideas (2:5-8) to 2:9, refute that γὰρ in 2:10 does expand and explain the statement in 2:9? You have merely stated it without offering any reason or evidence, clearly because it would have pretty damning results to your view of 2:9.

Sorry. I assumed one would have not only read the context, but the actual Psa that was being quoted, Psa 8. What is clear from each context is that God had put mankind over ALL, including ALL animals, etc. So the author was using 'pas' in an exhaustive sense, not a limited sense. So, just as man was put over ALL (things), so also Jesus tasted death for ALL (people).

Since you just want to write off quotations of scholars without explaining why they are wrong, let's continue:

Strongs says this:

1063. γάρ gar, gar; a primary particle; properly, assigning a reason (used in argument, explanation or intensification; often with other particles): — and, as, because (that), but, even, for, indeed, no doubt, seeing, then, therefore, verily, what, why, yet.

Thayer says this (about γὰ&#961 :

"Now since by a new affirmation not infrequently the reason and nature of something previously mentioned are set forth, it comes to pass that, by the use of this particle, either the reason and cause of a foregoing statement is added, whence arises the causal or argumentative force of the particle, for; or some previous declaration is explained, whence gar takes on an explicative force: for, the fact is, namely. Thus the force of the particle is either conclusive, or demonstrative, or explicative and declaratory."

Louw and Nida puts it this way:

"a marker of cause or reason between events"

UBS Lexicon translates the conjunction in these ways:

γάρ conj. for, since, then; indeed, certainly

A.T Robertson, one of the most respected Greek scholars in history, says one clearly understood sentence:

"The γάρ clause is merely explanatory."

And then expands specifically on the conjunction itself:

"Γάρ. There is no doubt as to the origin of this word. It is a compound of γέ and ἄρα and is always postpositive. It is called σύνδεσμος αἰτιολογικός, but it does not always give a reason. It may be merely explanatory. We have seen that ἄρα itself was originally just correspondence and then later inference. So then γέ can accent as an intensive particle either of these ideas. It is a mistake, therefore, to approach the study of γάρ with the theory that it is always or properly an illative, not to say causal, particle. It is best, in fact, to note the explanatory use first."

So, are you still going to deny that γάρ in 2:10 indicates that 2:10-16 is an explanatory clause of 2:5-8? Even after all of this evidence?

OK, but I'm not impressed. I gave my understanding of gar for v.10 previously.

But here it is again:

Hebrews 2:10
"For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings."

The "for" links what was fitting for Christ in bringing many sons to glory, by being perfected as author of their salvation.

The question is who is "Him"? This refers to God the Father, who "perfected the author" of "many sons" to bring them to glory.

There isn't anything here to pull v.9 towards v.10. Nothing. And because of the force being "variously expressed", there are probably lots of views on it, of which you've just shared some of them.

But the force of 'de' trumps gar by directly linking v.9 and v.8.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Sorry. I assumed one would have not only read the context, but the actual Psa that was being quoted, Psa 8. What is clear from each context is that God had put mankind over ALL, including ALL animals, etc. So the author was using 'pas' in an exhaustive sense, not a limited sense. So, just as man was put over ALL (things), so also Jesus tasted death for ALL (people).

Why people? Does 2:9 say "people"? And if you are going to limit it to it's prior context only, why not all things?

OK, but I'm not impressed. I gave my understanding of gar for v.10 previously.

Right. I answered it by showing how γὰρ functions, and I claim something near unilateral support. I asked you to provide a single source to validate the way in which you are exegeting it, and you have not. Instead you will simply repeat yourself.

But here it is again:

Hebrews 2:10
"For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings."

The "for" links what was fitting for Christ in bringing many sons to glory, by being perfected as author of their salvation.

The question is who is "Him"? This refers to God the Father, who "perfected the author" of "many sons" to bring them to glory.

There isn't anything here to pull v.9 towards v.10. Nothing. And because of the force being "variously expressed", there are probably lots of views on it, of which you've just shared some of them.

But the force of 'de' trumps gar by directly linking v.9 and v.8.

You never actually explained where you are getting the exegetical principle of using γὰρ to link two later ideas. γὰρ is a postpositive, explanatory conjunction, as Thayer notes, of a previous event. Hebrews is full of examples of this. For example, 2:16 clearly gives commentary on why 2:14-15 only refers to humans and does not include angels (which I may add hearkens back to 1:4, cf 2:5-9):

"Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery - For (γὰ&#961 surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham."

Are you also going to deny it here as well? The entire second chapter is full of layering and reference up to the point 3:1 where Jesus is contrasted with Moses as high priest. Yet you want to divide and separate the text into little pieces so you aren't forced to read them in any complex sort of way.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Why people? Does 2:9 say "people"? And if you are going to limit it to it's prior context only, why not all things?

Well, gee, I thought proper exegesis actually looked at the context to figure that all out. Is there anywhere in Scripture where Jesus would die for anyone but humans? In Hebrews, it says clearly that He doesn't help angels. So, unless there is any reason to think that "all" might include animals, fish, birds, etc, there is NO reason to think that.

The reasonable view is to take the scope of ALL from heb 2:8 and apply it to v.9. I thought that would be obvious. Sorry I misjudged.

But at least it seems that you're getting closer to the truth.

Right. I answered it by showing how γὰρ functions, and I claim something near unilateral support.

I also showed you what gar means, and there was nothing to conclude it refers backward to anything in v.9. In fact, I explained what it meant within v.10 and there hasn't been anything to refute what I said about that.

I asked you to provide a single source to validate the way in which you are exegeting it, and you have not. Instead you will simply repeat yourself.

What is meant by "validate"? Just quoting some commentary or something? I gave you the lexicon meaning and I applied it to v.10 in a logical and sensible manner. If that can be refuted, please proceed.

You never actually explained where you are getting the exegetical principle of using γὰρ to link two later ideas.

Methinks my posts aren't being read very carefully, if at all. I explained that gar links what was "fitting for Him (God the Father)" to do to "perfect the author of their (many sons) salvation." There is nothing linking v.10 with v.9.

γὰρ is a postpositive, explanatory conjunction, as Thayer notes, of a previous event.

Maybe Thayer needs a lexicon.

Are you also going to deny it here as well? The entire second chapter is full of layering and reference up to the point 3:1 where Jesus is contrasted with Moses as high priest. Yet you want to divide and separate the text into little pieces so you aren't forced to read them in any complex sort of way.

I have given the meanings of both 'de' and 'gar', each of which begins a verse. And only the meaning of 'de' actually refers to what has preceded.

I've stated my case, and your citations seem to have missed what the lexicon says about 'de' and 'gar'. There's nothing more that can be done.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Well, gee, I thought proper exegesis actually looked at the context to figure that all out. Is there anywhere in Scripture where Jesus would die for anyone but humans? In Hebrews, it says clearly that He doesn't help angels. So, unless there is any reason to think that "all" might include animals, fish, birds, etc, there is NO reason to think that.

But you said earlier that the context of v9 is vv5-8, which mentions all of creation. I'm just trying to hold you to a consistent interpretation. You want to isolate 2:5-9 when it is convenient for you, and yet you do not wish to deal with the ramifications of isolating the passage from the following explanation. Further, it is quite surprising that you refer to 2:16 to limit 2:9 to only humanity, which simply proves the point that 2:10-16 are explanatory of 2:5-9 (as has already been so clearly demonstrated). Trust me, I don't believe either that 2:9 is referring to all of creation. I think that is made plain in vv10-16, however you are trying to separate the passages and therefore have no way of determining the scope of παντὸς.

The reasonable view is to take the scope of ALL from heb 2:8 and apply it to v.9. I thought that would be obvious. Sorry I misjudged.

Hm? There are three "alls" in v8:

πάντα ὑπέταξας ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ. ἐν τῷ γὰρ ὑποτάξαι [αὐτῷ] τὰ πάντα οὐδὲν ἀφῆκεν αὐτῷ ἀνυπότακτον. Νῦν δὲ οὔπω ὁρῶμεν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα ὑποτεταγμένα·

Which one? And it appears to me that each mention of πάντα in v8 refers to all creation, which is my entire argument against you; if πάντα in v8 refers to all creation, then why in v9 does it only refer to all men?

I also showed you what gar means, and there was nothing to conclude it refers backward to anything in v.9. In fact, I explained what it meant within v.10 and there hasn't been anything to refute what I said about that.

What is meant by "validate"? Just quoting some commentary or something? I gave you the lexicon meaning and I applied it to v.10 in a logical and sensible manner. If that can be refuted, please proceed.

Methinks my posts aren't being read very carefully, if at all. I explained that gar links what was "fitting for Him (God the Father)" to do to "perfect the author of their (many sons) salvation." There is nothing linking v.10 with v.9.

You haven't "explained". That is why I keep asking for you to explain. I am asking a legitimate question here, not trying in particular to prove you wrong. I just want something more than "this is what I think it means". I said this earlier:

"You never actually explained where you are getting the exegetical principle of using γὰρ to link two later ideas."

That is what I want an direct answer to. You seem to be stating that γὰρ joins two clauses that follow it. Tell me if I am misrepresenting you here:

Επρεπεν γὰρ αὐτῷ, δι᾿ ὃν τὰ πάντα καὶ δι᾿ οὗ τὰ πάντα, πολλοὺς υἱοὺς εἰς δόξαν ἀγαγόντα τὸν ἀρχηγὸν τῆς σωτηρίας αὐτῶν διὰ παθημάτων τελειῶσαι

You are saying γὰρ links these two clauses together. As I already pointed out, since γὰρ is ALWAYS postpositive, it always occurs as the second [or later] word. This has no affect on its function as an explanatory conjunction of something said prior to it. Are you disagreeing that that is the case? If so, show me a single use in the NT where it is used similarly. Just one use!

Maybe Thayer needs a lexicon.

Thayer probably didn't need a lexicon much because he was proficient in reading greek. Instead you want to scoff at him and give no counter examples when I quote him.

I have given the meanings of both 'de' and 'gar', each of which begins a verse.

Again, γὰρ is post positive and NEVER begins a verse. Maybe you need a different lexicon.

And only the meaning of 'de' actually refers to what has preceded.

So... everyone that I quoted, including AT Robertson, is wrong on this? I mean are you just flat out denying what they say?

I've stated my case, and your citations seem to have missed what the lexicon says about 'de' and 'gar'. There's nothing more that can be done.

"The lexicon"? Apparently you have the gold standard of lexicons, eh? Maybe if that were the case, you would quote the entire entry on γὰρ. Why on earth did you decide to leave out that it is denoted as epexegetic, which we know to mean "Adding words or phrases to further clarify or specify a statement already made"???

 

[FreeGrace2]

But you said earlier that the context of v9 is vv5-8, which mentions all of creation. I'm just trying to hold you to a consistent interpretation.

So, does that mean you are trying to force my view to be that Christ died for the "all" of v.8?? That would be absurd, of course.

You want to isolate 2:5-9 when it is convenient for you, and yet you do not wish to deal with the ramifications of isolating the passage from the following explanation.

The "following explanation" has nothing to do with who Christ died for. Nothing at all. v.10ff begins a paragraph about what was "fitting" for the Father to do in order to "perfect the author of their (many sons) salvation".

Further, it is quite surprising that you refer to 2:16 to limit 2:9 to only humanity, which simply proves the point that 2:10-16 are explanatory of 2:5-9 (as has already been so clearly demonstrated).

See above for my response to that view.

Trust me, I don't believe either that 2:9 is referring to all of creation. I think that is made plain in vv10-16, however you are trying to separate the passages and therefore have no way of determining the scope of παντὸς.

Going by what 'de' means, we HAVE to see what has PRECEDED in order to properly understand that the author actually meant that Jesus died for everyone, not some singled out group of people, as RT tries to force it to say.

Hm? There are three "alls" in v8:

πάντα ὑπέταξας ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ. ἐν τῷ γὰρ ὑποτάξαι [αὐτῷ] τὰ πάντα οὐδὲν ἀφῆκεν αὐτῷ ἀνυπότακτον. Νῦν δὲ οὔπω ὁρῶμεν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα ὑποτεταγμένα·

Which one? And it appears to me that each mention of πάντα in v8 refers to all creation, which is my entire argument against you; if πάντα in v8 refers to all creation, then why in v9 does it only refer to all men?

I think the answer here is quite clear. Just as mankind was put over all creation, Jesus died for all people IN creation. It takes no gymnastics to understand this.

'Pas' is used 3 times in v.8 in an all inclusive way, and 'de' links v.9 BACK to v.8. There is no way around it.

You haven't "explained". That is why I keep asking for you to explain. I am asking a legitimate question here, not trying in particular to prove you wrong. I just want something more than "this is what I think it means". I said this earlier:

"You never actually explained where you are getting the exegetical principle of using γὰρ to link two later ideas."

I never suggested that gar links "2 later ideas". I have no idea why you think I did. I gave you my lexicon's meaning of gar, and explained how it works ibn v.10. It neither links ahead of v.10 nor links back from v.10.

It's just that Calvinism must link it backward to modify "all" in v.9, when there is no legitimate reason to.

That is what I want an direct answer to. You seem to be stating that γὰρ joins two clauses that follow it. Tell me if I am misrepresenting you here:

Επρεπεν γὰρ αὐτῷ, δι᾿ ὃν τὰ πάντα καὶ δι᾿ οὗ τὰ πάντα, πολλοὺς υἱοὺς εἰς δόξαν ἀγαγόντα τὸν ἀρχηγὸν τῆς σωτηρίας αὐτῶν διὰ παθημάτων τελειῶσαι

You are saying γὰρ links these two clauses together.

There is no point is providing the Greek words. I have an interlinear and can research any word I need to. So please save yourself some time and effort by avoiding verses in the Greek.

As I already pointed out, since γὰρ is ALWAYS postpositive, it always occurs as the second [or later] word. This has no affect on its function as an explanatory conjunction of something said prior to it.

Not really following you here. Please explain "postpositive". My lexicon made no mention of that. Second, since you note that it "has no affect on its function as an explanatory conjunction of something said prior to it", I don't see how gar leads to the conclusion that "all" in v.9 must refer ahead to the "many sons" in v.10.

Again, from my lexicon:
a causal particple or conjunction, for. it is, however, frequently used with an ellipsis of the clause to which it has refence, and its force must then be variously expressed.

Oh, I forgot to include the last part when I first explained gar to you:
it is also sometimes epexegetic, or introductory of an intimated detail of circumstances.

Since v.10 begins a new paragraph, I see gar as being introductory to the new subject in the new paragraph.

Are you disagreeing that that is the case? If so, show me a single use in the NT where it is used similarly. Just one use!

Since I've given the lexical meanings of both 'de' and 'gar', there is no need to show anything from Scripture. Is this a suggestion that there are uses of 'gar' in the NT that don't follow what my lexicon says about it?

Thayer probably didn't need a lexicon much because he was proficient in reading greek. Instead you want to scoff at him and give no counter examples when I quote him.

Scoff? Anyone who tries to use 'gar' to force "all" of v.9 to the "many sons" of v.10 surely isn't reviewing their lexicon.

Again, γὰρ is post positive and NEVER begins a verse. Maybe you need a different lexicon.

So what? Gar is the second word in v.10 in the Greek. We all know that word placement has no bearing on the meaning of words in Greek, quite unlike English, where word placement is highly significant.

My lexicon is just fine. Maybe Thayer was a Calvinist, and just trying to defend the RT position. I don't know, and it doesn't matter.

So... everyone that I quoted, including AT Robertson, is wrong on this? I mean are you just flat out denying what they say?

How many of them were Calvinists, Arminians, and Free Grace?

"The lexicon"?[/QUOTE]
OK, the lexicon that I have. Is that better?

Apparently you have the gold standard of lexicons, eh? Maybe if that were the case, you would quote the entire entry on γὰρ.

Well, interestingly, I did miss the last part, which I shared in this post.

If there is more that I've not noted, please share what has been left out from my lexicon.

Why on earth did you decide to leave out that it is denoted as epexegetic, which we know to mean "Adding words or phrases to further clarify or specify a statement already made"???

Well, while my lexicon did use the word "epexegetic", it also indicated that 'gar' is introductory of an intimated detail of circumstances.

So, it's incumbent upon you to prove that this particular use of 'gar' is epexegetical vs introductory of intimated detail.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

FG2, at this point I am fine with leaving the debate where it is, you can have the last word. I believe I thoroughly deconstructed your position, and I do not care to continue in circles with you on this topic.

 

[Jack Terrence]

The word "all" in verse 9 does NOT refer to the seed of Adam (all men without exception), but refers to the seed of Abraham in particular.

Dr. Thomas J. Nettles:

Hebrews 2:9. In question is the phrase, “taste death for every man” [KJV], where “every’ [pantos] (“man” is not in the Greek text) has the thrust of assured certainty as well as plurality.

“Every” has reference to “many sons” (Hebrews 2:10), “they who are sanctified” and “brethren” (Hebrews 2:11), “children which God hath given me” (Hebrews 2:13), “children” (Hebrews 2:14), “seed of Abraham” (Hebrews 2:16), “his brethren” and “his people” (Hebrews 2:17).

Its intent is to give assurance that not a one for whom he has suffered will experience the death of the wicked and, thus, they need not fear it (Hebrews 2:15).

This entire passage is most expressive of the absolute certainty that Christ’s death will have its full effect and cannot be mitigated by any circumstance. His suffering shall not suffer loss.

[Thomas J. Nettles, By His Grace and for His Glory (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), 300]

The epistle is addressed to the believing of the seed of Abraham. The apostle was saying that Christ died for ALL of them.

Christ died for the believing of Gentiles too. But that's NOT what Hebrews is about. The Universal Atonement doctrine CANNOT be proved from Hebrews at all.

 

[Jack Terrence]

FG2, at this point I am fine with leaving the debate where it is, you can have the last word. I believe I thoroughly deconstructed your position, and I do not care to continue in circles with you on this topic.

Yes, let him have the last word or you will have to spend hours and hours on your keyboard. And when you do respond keep it brief and go by the old saying, "There is virtue in brevity."

Nobody reads long dissertations.