Page 1 of 1

In 1 Peter 3:22 is the subjugation complete or ongoing?

Posted: March 16th, 2019, 11:12 am
by Bill Ross
1 Peter 3:22 ὅς ἐστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ πορευθεὶς εἰς οὐρανόν ὑποταγέντων αὐτῷ ἀγγέλων καὶ ἐξουσιῶν καὶ δυνάμεων
Is the aorist participle saying the angels are currently being subjected or that their subjugation was complete?

Note:
http://www.ntgreek.org/pdf/adverbial_participles.pdf

Re: In 1 Peter 3:22 is the subjugation complete or ongoing?

Posted: March 17th, 2019, 12:26 am
by Stephen Carlson
Can you explain what you're really getting at? Your question appears to be asking whether an aorist is a present or an aorist.

Re: In 1 Peter 3:22 is the subjugation complete or ongoing?

Posted: March 17th, 2019, 7:05 am
by Bill Ross
Stephen Carlson wrote:
March 17th, 2019, 12:26 am
Can you explain what you're really getting at? Your question appears to be asking whether an aorist is a present or an aorist.
From what I understand, which is limited, an aorist doesn't always include a time element (which is why it is called "aorist") and aorist participles never include a time element unless they are in the indicative.

http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/time_ele ... iciple.htm

Ultimately, I'm trying to understand the Peter passage in the light of:

[Hebrews 10:12 MGNT] οὗτος δὲ μίαν ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν προσενέγκας θυσίαν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ
[Hebrews 10:13 MGNT] τὸ λοιπὸν ἐκδεχόμενος ἕως τεθῶσιν οἱ ἐχθροὶ αὐτοῦ ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ

Re: In 1 Peter 3:22 is the subjugation complete or ongoing?

Posted: March 17th, 2019, 7:31 am
by Barry Hofstetter
Bill Ross wrote:
March 17th, 2019, 7:05 am
Stephen Carlson wrote:
March 17th, 2019, 12:26 am
Can you explain what you're really getting at? Your question appears to be asking whether an aorist is a present or an aorist.
From what I understand, which is limited, an aorist doesn't always include a time element (which is why it is called "aorist") and aorist participles never include a time element unless they are in the indicative.

http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/time_ele ... iciple.htm

Ultimately, I'm trying to understand the Peter passage in the light of:

[Hebrews 10:12 MGNT] οὗτος δὲ μίαν ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν προσενέγκας θυσίαν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ
[Hebrews 10:13 MGNT] τὸ λοιπὸν ἐκδεχόμενος ἕως τεθῶσιν οἱ ἐχθροὶ αὐτοῦ ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ
If you read the article you cited above a bit more carefully, you'd have the answer. The aorist participle generally shows action that is antecedent to the action of the main verb. Whether or not that action is completed is more a function of context.

Re: In 1 Peter 3:22 is the subjugation complete or ongoing?

Posted: March 17th, 2019, 6:07 pm
by Stephen Carlson
Bill Ross wrote:
March 17th, 2019, 7:05 am
Stephen Carlson wrote:
March 17th, 2019, 12:26 am
Can you explain what you're really getting at? Your question appears to be asking whether an aorist is a present or an aorist.
http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/time_ele ... iciple.htm

From what I understand, which is limited, an aorist doesn't always include a time element (which is why it is called "aorist") and aorist participles never include a time element unless they are in the indicative.
Bill, I strongly encourage you to take a course on learning Greek as a language. A language isn’t a set of translation rules but a system where everything hangs together. Things won’t make sense unless you can see the bigger picture, and your approach to understanding the Greek text is hampered by trying to come to grips with various “rules” —one at a time and imperfectly— that assume a fuller knowledge of the language.

So, to address your statement. An unqualified term “aorist” is ambiguous between an aspect (perfective) and a particular tense-aspect combination in the indicative mood (the past perfective). As an aspect, it does not indicate (“include” is the wrong word) tense per se (i.e., time relative to some temporal perspective point of the speaker), but in appropriate contexts it will do so. Which contexts? Well, you have to learn the language, i.e., read enough of Greek to get a good feel for it.

Furthermore, no one really knows why the aorist is called “aorist.” The theory that it is called so on the grounds it does not have a time element is unsupported in the Greek grammatical tradition. I have my own theory, but it is irrelevant because we’re ultimately indulging the etymology fallacy.

Finally, your statement “aorist participles . . . unless they are in the indicative” is ill-formed because the indicative, by definition, do not include participles. It is impossible to trigger the unless clause. This shows that you still need to understand the Greek verb system as a system, rather than as one piece here and another piece there in isolation.
Bill Ross wrote:
March 17th, 2019, 7:05 am
Ultimately, I'm trying to understand the Peter passage in the light of:

[Hebrews 10:12 MGNT] οὗτος δὲ μίαν ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν προσενέγκας θυσίαν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ
[Hebrews 10:13 MGNT] τὸ λοιπὸν ἐκδεχόμενος ἕως τεθῶσιν οἱ ἐχθροὶ αὐτοῦ ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ
OK, it seems that you are in search of a linguistic answer for a theological problem. Ironically, it is by learning the language well enough that one can appreciate that theological problems have ... theological answers, and that those who proffer linguistic answers to theological problems are often misguided.

Re: In 1 Peter 3:22 is the subjugation complete or ongoing?

Posted: March 17th, 2019, 10:08 pm
by Shirley Rollinson
Dear Bill
The New Testament (in whatever language) isn't a book for doing grammar chops - it's a book to read with reflection and prayer, to let it speak to us. Learning Greek, and reading the GNT is one of the ways of slowing us down and forcing us to read the text more carefully. I'd encourage you to learn to **read** the Greek rather than to try to analyze it. Read it aloud, slowly (even if you don't understand every word the first time through). If you need help with learning more of the language, you're welcome to try the Online Textbook at http://www.drshirley.org/greek/textbook02/index.html
How did you learn to read English? - by reading simple stories, and picking up the grammar later. So start with one of the Gospels (not Luke - he get's a bit fancy with his language), John gets a bit deep theologically, so I'd recommend trying Mark to start with.
Don't bother with interlinears or any other crutches - open up that GNT and read aloud ten minutes a day.
Above all - enjoy Greek :-)
Shirley Rollinson