[B-Greek] Once For All Time - Luke 18:9-14

Richard Ghilardi qodeshlayhvh at juno.com
Thu Jul 9 17:54:36 EDT 2009


Hello Folks,

Carl Conrad wrote:

> (1) hILASQHTI. It's true that more recent aspect theory (and I think 
>  
> this applies to all flavors, whether "vanilla" or "plain brown  
> wrapper"or Porter or Fanning or Campbell) looks with disfavor on the 
>  
> notion that the aorist indicates a "once for all time" act. In fact, 
>  
> however, we need only consider such standard aorist imperatives as  
> 
> EIPE MOI or ASPASASQE AUTHN to discern actions that are to be  
> accomplished in a particular instance.

RG: Fine. I agree.

CC: > (2) DEDIKAIWMENOS. I've expressed my opinion previously that the 
> Koine  
> aorist and perfect tenses are in process of assimilation; I'm not  
> convinced that DEDIKAIWMENOS carries a meaning differing 
> substantially  
> from that of DIKAIWQEIS. Perhaps Richard's friend thinks similarly,  
> 
> since he speaks of the perfect participle implying "a once for all  
> 
> time justification." But we can readily find instances of the 
> perfect  
> wherein completion is clearly implicit but there's no indication of  
> 
> the permanence of the action completed: Mk 3:1 tells of  
> an?????p?? ????aµµ???? ???? t??  
> ?e??a [EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA]. EXHRAMMENHN indicates the  
> 
> state of the man's hand, but subsequent verses tell of the 
> restoration  
> of the man's hand (3:5 ???e? t? ?????p?·  
> ??te???? t?? ?e??a. ?a? ???te??e?  
> 
> ?a? ?pe?atest??? ? ?e?? a?t??. LEGEI 
>  
> TWi ANQRWPWi: EKTEINON THN CEIRA. KAI EXETEINEN KAI APEKATESTAQH hH  
> 
> CEIR AUTOU]. (We may note in this verse also that the command to 
> hold  
> out the hand hardly implies that the hand should be held out 
> forever.

RG: Agreed. (But I implicitly agreed with all of the above in my original
post. cf. below)

Evidently I stated my question so unclearly that the only answers I got
were non-responsive. So let me try it this way.
1) Repeat my question.
2) Elaborate a bit.
3) Rephrase my question.

1) Repeat my question.
If the author's claims about the aorist and
perfect cannot be substantiated, what CAN we claim about these two 
verbal forms that will help us understand what Jesus is teaching in this
parable?

2) Elaborate.
My author (he/she shall remain nameless) made explicit certain meanings
of the aorist of hILASKOMAI and the perfect of DIKAIW that he/she
BELIEVES are implicit in the Gospel writer's use of those tenses for
these verbs in this context. We are now all (or mostly) ageed that the
implications he/she drew from the use of those specific tenses are wrong
(probably) based on a newer and presumably better theory of verbal
aspect. So I should think it would be possible to draw new and different
implications from Luke's use of aor. hILASTQHTI and perf. DEDIKAIWMENOS
so as to form a partly new basis for exegesis. My author used English
paraphrase to draw out the implicit meaning of the aorist and perfect. It
should be possible to do the same under the newer verbal aspect theory.

3) Rephrasing the Question.
What are the NEW and DIFFERENT implications of Luke's use of aorist and
perfect tenses for the verbs in question in this text? How do they alter
the exegesis? Can they be put into English paraphrase just as my author
has done?

I trust I have stated my questions more clearly now.

Yours in His grace,

Richard Ghilardi - qodeshlayhvh at juno.com
West Haven, Connecticut USA

=====================================================================

> On Jul 5, 2009, at 11:54 PM, Richard Ghilardi wrote:
> 
> > Hello Folks,
> >
> > I will focus on the last two vss of this parable.
> >
> > Lk 18:13-14 -- hO DE TELWNHS MAKROQEN hESTWS OYK HQELEN OYDE TOYS
> > OFQALMOYS EPARAI EIS TON OYRANON, ALL' ETYPTEN TO STHQOS AYTOY  
> > LEGWN, hO
> > QEOS, hILASQHTI MOI TWi hAMARTWLWi. LEGW hYMIN, KATEBH hOYTOS
> > DEDIKAIWMENOS EIS TON OIKON AYTOY PAR' EKEINON
> >
> > Next I give a recent (2001) interpretation of these vss and the  
> > parable
> > by a man that I have a great deal of respect for. Yet he does seem 
> to
> > miss the boat here. He writes in part:
> >
> > << Jesus' first verb, hILASQHTI, is the aorist passive imperative 
> from
> > hILASKOMAI, "to propitiate," meaning here "be propitiated [now 
> and
> > forever]." (brackets are the author's - RG) ... I would suggest 
> that
> > Jesus' tax collector is praying: "Look upon me mercifully, now 
> and
> > forever -- the sinner that I am -- ... Jesus' second verb,  
> > DEDIKAIWMENOS,
> > the perfect passive participle from DIKAIW, "to justify," means  
> > literally
> > "having been justified." The force of the perfect tense in Greek 
> is to
> > represent an action as complete whose finished result continues to 
>  
> > exist.
> > Here Jesus teaches the instantaneous once-for-all-time 
> justification  
> > of
> > the penitent sinner through the instrumentality of the simple 
> prayer  
> > of
> > faith that looks for God's forgiveness on the ground of the shed  
> 
> > blood of
> > the sacrifice. >>
> >
> > Now I have been around the B-Greek list long enough to know that  
> 
> > view of
> > the aorist and perfect forms adopted above is now considered to 
> be
> > linguistically passe having given way to newer theories of verbal  
> 
> > aspect.
> > I looked at what Wallace has to say about the aorist and perfect 
> and
> > while I understood what he was saying and that he rejected the 
> above
> > understanding of the aorist and perfect, I could not see how 
> Wallace's
> > (and others) view might be applied to the two verbs in this 
> passage.
____________________________________________________________
Find toupees to help you look your best! Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTKtjU7OkpIEEoaGcoIfGanyj6XCAzn1qqjEu4IBVRS3CTaxmOzE6c/



More information about the B-Greek mailing list