The seal in Ef 1:13

Roe d.roe at t-online.de
Fri Oct 18 21:38:28 EDT 2002


Hi Iver,

Concerning the timing of the aorist participle PISTEUSANTES in Eph. 1:13,
you finished by saying:

> However, I don't think the grammar will tell us anything about how long it
> took for one event to follow the other.

I'm beginning to think that the grammar also will not tell us anything
conclusively about the *relative* timing of the aorist participle
PISTEUSANTES and the aorist verb ESFRAGISQHTE.  You wrote:

> Normally, a concurrent action would be indicated by a present participle
> rather than an aorist. In this verse we have two aorist participles, first
> AKOUSANTES, then PISTEUSANTES, before the finite aorist verb. I see no
> reason (other than someone's theology) why we cannot maintain the normal
> rule for aorist participles: First they heard, then they believed, then they
> were sealed.

I hadn't imagined what theological bearing the difference could have, but
I can see that now. First, thanks for pointing out the error of my
assumption that the time of the sealing is concurrent with the time of the
dependent participle -- when they believed. I had no grounds for such
confidence.

Still, I'm not inclined to discard at least the possibility that the
ESFRAGISQHTE could be concurrent with their PISTEUSANTES. In agreement
with you, Daniel Wallace writes (CAPITAL letters represent italics in
original): "The AORIST participle is normally, though by no means always,
ANTECEDENT in time to the action of the main verb" (GGBB, p. 624). He than
states: "But when the aorist participle is related to an AORIST main verb,
the participle will often be contemporaneous (or simultaneous) to the
action of the main verb."

When Wallace states that these will "often" be contemporaneous, I do not
know whether he intends that this is the normal or majority case -- i.e.,
that an aorist participle is *normally* contemporaneous with an aorist
main verb. Further, if he did intend this, I do not know whether the
thesis could be supported. We do see examples where the aorist participle
appears to be contemporaneous with an aorist main verb:

Romans 6:18  ELEUQERWQENTES DE APO THS hAMARTIAS EDOULWQHTE TH DIKAIOSUNHi

Philippians 4:14  PLHN KALWS EPOIHSATE SUGKOINWNHSANTES MOU THi QLIYEI

Hebrews 6:10  OU GAR ADIKOS hO QEOS EPILAQESQAI TOU ERGOU hUMWN KAI THS
AGAPHS hHS ENEDEIXASQE EIS TO ONOMA AUTOU  DIAKONHSANTES TOIS hAGIOIS KAI
DIAKONOUNTES


On the other hand, there are many which support your interpretation. One
especially seems to fit our case of two aorist participles followed by an
aorist main verb:

Luke 4:20  KAI PTUXAS TO BIBLION APODOUS TWi hUPHRETHi EKAQISEN  KAI
PANTWN hOI OFQALMOI EN THi SUNAGWGHi HSAN ATENIZONTES AUTWi


In view of all this, I am (thanks to you) no longer so strongly leaning to
my original understanding, but at the same time still "open" regarding
Eph. 1:13... 

Kind regards,

David

D.W. Roe
Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany



More information about the B-Greek mailing list