I’ve not assumed it, the word “lest” tells us what is to be feared, it connects the fear and what is to be feared.
Not really.
'Freeze, lest I shoot you'. The object of fear is clear. It's connected.
'Freeze, I'll shoot you! The object of fear is clear.
'Freeze!' Not so clear.
Plus, In my opinion, the KJV is substantially different than the rest. Notice how It's placement changes in the NKJV more in line with the point.
Hebrews 4:1 (NKJV)
Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear
lest any of you seem to have come short of it.
As I pointed out, the reason for our fear is so that you don't seem to have come short. Your evidence here is lacking any merit.
Hebrews 4:1 (KJV) _____Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
The point is; there's a substantial and very real difference. The KJV is unclear about what to fear or why. If anything, it tells us to fear the promise. Which seems wrong. Plus it rearranges the conjugate that literally does tie this verse back to the examples of discipline in chapter 3.
Hebrews 4:1 (ESV)
Therefore, while t
he promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear ____ lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it.
Or
Hebrews 4:1 (LEB)
Therefore let us fear, while there remains a promise of entering into his rest, that none of you appear to fall short of it.
Plus none actually say what should be feared in verse 1 but all tie the fear back to the authors previous point. They say why fear is important; "so that none of you appear to fall short".
That ain't loss of salvation.
It’s perfectly logical, one can have a promise but not meet the conditions of that promise and thus not receive that promise. I could promise you $10 if you came to my house, however, if you didn’t come to my house you have fallen short of the promise and do not receive it.
You describe an offer, not a promise. You could offer me $10 to come over. If I did, you owe me $10. If I didn't, you owe me nothing. That's different than promises of eternal life for believing in Christ.
Regarding the “partner” which is Christ, there is something you need to think about in Heb 3:14. The second clause is conditional, but what’s interesting about this that the “Ginomai” translated “made” in the first clause is in the perfect tense. What that means is that, “made”, a past completed action whose results continue to the present (time of writing) is contingent on a future event. Logically this seems impossible. How can a past completed event be contingent on a future action? Yet, that is what the grammar indicates. In order to reconcile this it seems to me (and I’m checking further) that what Paul is saying, is that if we continue steadfast to the end, then God counts all of our Christian life as from the beginning.
.
You check it out and explain how Paul has God "counting all of our life" toward our salvation.
Here I would suggest a more in depth look at the Greek word. I can have other meanings and is translated differently in some translations.
Okay.
-But discipline’s not in view in the passage.
it's not in view if you ignore the "therefore" in the verse.
The point is that God did divorce Israel, yes He does cal them to return and yes He does say He’s married to them. However, He’s married to them as a people, those who don’t repent are outside of the covenant. So, as a people He is married to them yes as individuals who have placed themselves outside of the covenant He is not.
A married divorced person. Now that's a trick. See!!!
