From: James H. Vellenga (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Aug 27 1997 - 10:22:50 EDT
> Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 16:57:46 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "Michael A. Ferrando" <email@example.com>
> What strikes me of real interest in your explanation is that
> the power to judge is mentioned in 5.22 as DEDWKEN perfect
> active indicative, while in 5.27 is aorist active indicative
> with a hOTI clause... "because" ESTIN "(a) son of man" or "Son of Man".
> In 5.21, the parallel verse, all the verbs are in the present
> active indicative, EGEIREI, ZWOPOIEI, [Theta]ELEI. Here in 5.26
> the EN hEUTWi also given as being ECEI, ECEIN.
> It seems to me that the hOTI clause indicates some different
> reason in mind, as per the use of the aorist in 5.27.
Hmmm! I note that "(a) son of man" in 5.27 -- hUIOS ANQRWPOU --
lacks the definite articles. When "Son of Man" appears as
a title, it usually has them -- as in John 3.14, TON hUION TOU
So is it possible that (as John sees it), the Father is giving
the authority to "do judgment" to the Son because the Son is
"a son of a human" -- i.e., because he shares in the humanity
of those being judged -- hOTI hUIOS ANQRWPOU ESTIN -- rather
than (or perhaps more than) because of his titular status as
"The Son of Man"?
James H. Vellenga | firstname.lastname@example.org
Viewlogic Systems, Inc. __|__ 508-303-5491
293 Boston Post Road West | FAX: 508-460-8213
Marlboro, MA 01752-4615 |
"We all work with partial information."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:26 EDT