toward a definition of Verbal Apect

Clwinbery at aol.com Clwinbery at aol.com
Mon Nov 4 12:02:00 EST 2002



In a message dated 11/4/02 10:46:56 AM, normangoos at worldnet.att.net writes:

>[Moderator's note: I have removed items concerned with doctrinal 
implications;
>I would ask any respondent please to reply without getting into doctrinal
>questions;
>just keep the focus upon what the Aorist may or may not imply about the
>finality
>of an event indicated by an Aorist indicative form. --cwc]
>
>Allow me to ask for a clarification.  I am in a denomination where the
>
>punctilliar idea in the Aorist has been used to defend all sorts of 
>"once-for-all" actions, a notion that still persists in many circles. 
>How
>would one explain that this "once-for-all-ness" is not automatically part
>
>of the Aorist aspect, without removing the idea that it "usually indicates
>past 
>time?"  It seems to be that the balance here is not as simply as it 
>sometimes is made to appear.  Thanks for your time.
>
>Pastor Norman Goos

I think that the answer to your question is quite simple, Theologians have 
made the aorist tense in Greek bear weight that it will not bear. Frank Stagg 
wrote an article back in the 50's entitled "The Abused Aorist" that served as 
a corrective for some of this abuse, especially the notion of the aorist = 
one time complete action in the past. I think the article was published in 
SBL. He referred specifically to Romans 3:22-23 and argued for the 
translation, "There is no distinction for all sin and come short of the Glory 
of God."
OU GAR ESTIN DIASTOLH, PANTES GAR hHMARTON KAI hUSTEROUNTAI THS DOXHS TOU 
QEOU.
Stagg argued that the aorist hHMARTON is a gnomic aorist.

Carlton Winbery
Louisiana College



More information about the B-Greek mailing list