[B-Greek] Aorist Future - Jn 13:31-32
Iver Larsen
iver_larsen at sil.org
Sun Oct 5 02:57:28 EDT 2008
----- Original Message -----
From: "Elizabeth Kline" <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>
To: "BG" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: 4. oktober 2008 23:18
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Aorist Future - Jn 13:31-32
>
> On Oct 3, 2008, at 11:56 PM, Iver Larsen wrote:
>
>> In my view the confusion stems from questionable assumptions about
>> the reference intended for
>> EDOXASQH, as if the reference was future ...
>> ... So, when both past and future verbs are used, the past ones
>> refer to the past steps and the future
>> to the future steps.
>
> Thank you Iver,
>
> I understand and appreciate your position, it is logical and makes
> sense out of the tense-aspect sequence, but for these passages in John
> 12 & 13 I cannot agree.
Which means I have to explain in more detail. I apologise for the length of this post.
> It seems to me that the hH hWRA Jn 12:23 should be understood as a
> unity, not as a sequence of isolated events (Beasly-Murray 1999,
> p246). At the time of speaking hH hWRA is just beginning, mostly
> future.
That is IMO an unneccesary and misleading dichotomy. They are not isolated events, but a carefully
planned succession of steps in a unified process that can also be looked at as a unity. If the event
is just beginning, but mostly future, is it not the beginning of a process with several steps?
We also need to understand DOXAZW in context, since "glorify" in Latin-English does not properly
convey the range of meaning of this word. People tend to connect it to the final elevation of Jesus
through his death and resurrection, but it also has the sense of " bring honor to". BAGD lists these
two senses as:
1. praise, honor, magnify
2. clothe in splendor, glorify, of the glory that comes in the next life
Unfortunately, BAGD makes the mistake of listing all the occurrences in John of the word under sense
2, when many of them should be listed under sense 1. The confusion in BAGD is seen by their own
comments:
"It is a favorite term in John ... in which the whole life of Jesus is depicted as a glorifying of
the Son by the Father (J 8:54; 12:28; 13:31; 17:1, 4...) and, at the same time, of the Father by the
Son (13:31f; 14:13; 17:1). The glorifying of the Son is brought about by the miracles which the
Father has him perform 11:4 ... through the working of the Paraclete 16:14 and through 'his own'
17:10, who also glorify the Father 15:8, esp. in martyrdom 21:19"
Many of these references in John do not refer to a splendor that comes in the next life, but of how
Jesus brought honour to the Father through his deeds on earth.
I don't have a copy of the German Bauer, so I am not sure whether the confusion is caused by the
unclear Biblish word "glorify".
Maybe BDAG has cleared up the confusion.
Now, John's use of hWRA must be understood from the same perspective, bringing God's plan of
salvation to completion through a number of steps in a unified process. John uses it not so much as
a time word than as a word that indicates one of these steps to be fulfilled, or said differently: a
time when Jesus is doing one of the Father's planned deeds which have been set for him to do.
I just did a brief study of the 26 times hWRA appears in John, since I don't fully trust BAGD or
commentators. I prefer to go to the text itself and do my own contextual and semantic analysis.
He uses the word in three senses:
1. an hour (1/12 of a day) - 1:39; 4:6,52,53; 11:9; 19:14
2. a time, a more or less unspecified time period - 4:21,23; 5:25,28,35; 16:2,4,25,32; 19:27
3. fulfilment of an expected/planned event at an appointed time - 2:4; 7:30; 8:20; 12:23,27; 13:1,
16:21, 17:1
It is number three which is most interesting. It may be best exemplified from 16:21 since this
passage is not about Jesus.
"A woman giving birth to a child has pain because her time has come; but when her baby is born she
forgets the anguish because of her joy that a child is born into the world." (NIV)
What is important to that woman is not the time of the birth, but the event of the birth. Likewise,
when John uses hWRA in sense 3, the focus is not on the time, but that an event which God has
planned to do through Jesus is being birthed.
Translators are often puzzled by John 2:4, because we tend to focus far too much on the time aspect.
His mother asked him to perform a miracle, and Jesus said: "OUPW hHKEI hH hWRA MOU". Jesus is saying
that he hasn't heard from God yet that he should do a miracle. The hWRA here does NOT refer to his
final "glorification" (as some commentators claim), but to a glorification through doing a
miraculous sign. Apparently he did hear from God shortly after, since he went ahead and did his
first miracle. Maybe Jesus was as surprised as some of us that God told him to make water into
wine?!
Allow me to quote Carson on this verse:
"Second, although the entire Gospel moves towards the cross ... it must not be thought that Jesus'
ministry before the cross was irrelevant, or mere preparation. Rather, individual elements in that
ministry anticipated the glorification of Jesus on the cross, in much the same way that Jesus'
healing miracles in the Synoptic Gospels are said to anticipate the cross. That is why John reports,
at the end of this first sign, that the disciples witnessed Jesus' glory, and believed on him (2:11;
cf. 11:4; 20:29-30). ... Any aspect of this ministry could never be in response to human schedules;
it could reflect only the timing of the Father's will. In exactly the same way, Jesus' brothers
encourage him to go to Judea, but he replies, 'The right time for me has not yet come; for you any
time is right' (7:6)-yet he does make the trip a short time later." (In 7:6 KAIROS is used, but that
is close to how John uses hWRA in sense 3.)
You mentioned 12:23:
> Jn 12:23 hO DE IHSOUS APOKRINETAI AUTOIS LEGWN: ELHLUQEN hH hWRA
> hINA DOXASQHi hO hUIOS TOU ANQRWPOU.
This indicates a turning point in the Gospel. Here the aorist is not indicative and indicates a
completive aspect rather than tense. The "glorification" process starts now and is not restricted to
the cross and resurrection. The phase with miracles as bringing honour to God and Jesus has ended.
Now comes the phase where Jesus must suffer, the passion phase if you want, which leads to the final
glorification. This is clearly indicated in the following words about dying and losing one's life in
order to produce a new kind of life. John transitions into this phase already from 11:49.
> In like manner NUN EDOXASQH JOHN 13:31, not a past event, sepeart and
> distinct from the future DOXASEI, but a single event which is just
> starting and streaching into the future.
>> JOHN 13:31 hOTE OUN EXHLQEN, LEGEI IHSOUS: NUN EDOXASQH hO hUIOS TOU
>> ANQRWPOU KAI hO QEOS EDOXASQH EN AUTWi: 32 EI hO QEOS EDOXASQH EN
>> AUTWi, KAI hO QEOS DOXASEI AUTON EN AUTWi, KAI EUQUS DOXASEI AUTON.
It certainly is a past since it is an indicative aorist, but it is not separated from the future in
v. 32. The betrayal by Judas was a crucial step in the process and that step was decided when he
left the group. Many languages use a past tense and/or completive aspect to indicate that an event
is as good as done, even if not fully implemented.
John makes that connection explicit at the beginning of v. 31, and we cannot ignore his intention in
doing so.
Notice that are two futures in v. 32, one is the immediate future (EUQUS) of Gethsemane, the other
the more distant future of the cross and resurrection.
>
> One option, which doesn't get much support in the literature, is to
> read NUN EDOXASQH as a prophetic perfect (Jude 14, [1]). The
> prophetic perfect together with the future could be understood as a
> sort of aspectual paraphrasis, all in reference to a single unified
> 'event' (once again see Beasly-Murray 1999, p246).
Yes, the prophetic (proleptic) past, i.e. an event described with a past tense but not yet
fulfilled, is common enough in the Bible. The origin and explanation for this is that most
prophecies come in the form of visions. The prophet sees the vision with his/her "inner eye" and
describes what is seen. Such a description is naturally given in past tenses - like the aorist HLQEN
in Jude 14 - because the vision is in the past relative to the time of telling it. However, the
fulfillment of the vision is in the future. REB handled this quite well: "I saw the Lord come with
his myriads of angels.."
This is irrelevant for John 13:31-32, and is rightly not much supported in the literature.
Iver Larsen
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list