[B-Greek] Aorist Future - Jn 13:31-32

Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Sun Oct 5 14:40:27 EDT 2008


Iver,

Thank you for the long post. On DOXAZW Danker's 3rd ed. still lists  
all of the John citations under definition #2 which has been reworded.


On Oct 4, 2008, at 11:57 PM, Iver Larsen wrote:

>>
>> In like manner NUN EDOXASQH JOHN 13:31, not a past event, separate  
>> and
>> distinct from the future DOXASEI, but a single event which is just
>> starting and stretching 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.

You wrote: "It certainly is a past since it is an indicative aorist ..."

Another quote from Carson (John 1991, Additional notes on jn13:31-32  
p486) "... The aorists , which many grammarians judge must refer to  
something in the past (if the are in the indicative mood, as  
here)  ... However, it can easily be shown that verbs in the aorist  
tense, even when in the indicative mood, can be past-referring,  
present-referring, and even future-referring, as well as omnitemporal,  
and atemporal (cf. Porter [Verb Aspect] pp. 75-76, 233)."

I know this is old news, twenty years old and people are tired of  
hearing about it, myself included. I would not be surprised if Carson  
has changed his mind on this since 1991.

G.B.Caird, who forty years ago published an often cited study on this  
topic [1], in a later work "The Language and Imagery of the Bible"  
1980, pp. 29-30, has this to say about DOXAZW in Jn13:31-32 "It will  
be obvious that, in this five fold repetition of a single verb, that  
the first instance cannot be equal in all respects to the second and  
third. The first is a true passive: the Son of man is to be glorified  
by God in the bestowal of a new access of glory which he is to share  
with those who will be united with him through his death (cf. 12:32,  
17:22)."

It would appear that G.B.Caird considered the first DOXAZW in Jn13:31  
to be future-referring from the standpoint of the speaker, Jesus, in  
John's narrative. Caird doesn't really focus on this issue but it is  
seems clear enough that he doesn't view the first DOXAZW in Jn13:31 as  
something complete and in the past.

You wrote: "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."

This is a point well taken. I might be willing to concede that Jesus  
is using a figure of speech where DOXAZW appears in the narrative  
tense-aspect, perhaps framing it as a completed event but the referent  
is still future from the standpoint of the speaker, Jesus, in John's  
narrative. Beasly-Murray 1999:246 cites G.B.Caird[1] "With the  
departure of Judas all the actors in the drama, and Jesus in  
particular, are committed to their courses of action, which make [sic]  
the crucifixion virtually accomplished."

Note the word "virtually", what is still future is viewed as if it  
were already completed.


Elizabeth Kline

[1] G. B. Caird, "The Glory of God in the Fourth Gospel: An Exercise  
in Biblical Semantics," NTS 15 (1968/69) 265-77





More information about the B-Greek mailing list