Any comments of this view of Aorist
Alan B. Thomas
a_b_thomas at yahoo.com
Wed Dec 6 23:36:12 EST 2000
--- "Steven R. Lo Vullo"
Compare 1 Jn 4.9, 10:
>
> 9 EN TOUTWi EFANERWQH hH AGAPH TOU QEOU EN hHMIN,
> hOTI TON hUION AUTOU TON
> MONOGENH APESTALKEN hO QEOS EIS TON KOSMON....
>
> 10 EN TOUTWi ESTIN hH AGAPH ... hOTI AUTOS HGAPHSEN
> (aorist) hHMAS KAI
> APESTEILEN TON hUION AUTOU....
>
> Note in v. 9 the appositional relationship of the
> hOTI clause to EN TOUTWi.
> The meaning is that it was in the sending of his
> only begotten Son into the
> world that God's love was *manifested* among us. It
> is the revelation of
> God's love in the sending of his Son that is in
> view, not his love in
> general.
The only actions that are "perfective" in these
examples, in my opinion, are the "sending" and the
"manifestation" of God's love, but not the love of God
itself. Although I tend to see a perfective aspect
associated with the Aorist, I would not argue that it
is present ALWAYS. And perhaps never present when used
of AGAPAW or FILEW, and many other verbs.
Here I would agree that the very nature of AGAPAW does
not permit a perfective sense. Both the verbs FANEROW
and APOSTELLW, by their very natures, would lend, if
not require, themselves to a perfective use. Likewise,
I would side with the non-perfective aspect of AGAPAW
in John 3.
I think that whenever you hold to a perfective aspect
of the Aorist in every known occurrence, you will end
up in trouble. It may be that the Aorist as a general
rule is perfective, but to force it in all known
occurrences is ill-advised, in my opinion.
=====
Sincerely,
Alan B. Thomas
"the questions that rose out of the depths of the mystery
of Job were answered only by a deeper mystery....
that of God Himself." (Elisabeth Elliot)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list