<snip>
> >A question of mine concerning the tense in the last clause of v. 27 is,
> >how broad is the significance of the perfect? I.e., I realize that the
> >tense can indicate something which is completed in the past and the
> >consequences of which continue to the time of the statement, but can it
> >also be used to refer to a state? Can the second clause of v. 27, the
> >LELUSAI, be used to describe someone who is in the state of being loosed
> >from a wife because he never was bound in the first place?
> >
> >Still very much in the learning process
> > And separated from my library by 10,000 miles :-(
> >
> >Paul Zellmer
> >Southern Methodist Missions
> >
>
William Dicks wrote:
>
> I am just wondering about your last thoughts there, Paul. Surely, if this
> person was never bound Paul, the apostle, that is, could have used another
> word - maybe AGAMOS "unmarried" - to try and explain a state of never being
> married.
>
>
> William G Dicks (Systems Analyst - C++ & Theology Graduate) wd@isis.co.za
> ISIS Information Systems
> Gauteng
> South Africa
William, I am trying hard to find any real support for a case that would
permit this clause to be used for anyone who is not divorced, which
might allow it to be the equivalent of PARQENOS in vv. 25 & 28. If the
perfect can be used as a stative without necessitating a previous
action, then this possibility becomes more likely and we move away from
what appears to be a strong case for remarriage after divorce. If, on
the other hand, the "independent" stative is not an option with the
perfect, I see a much stronger case for the ones who hold to divorce and
remarriage. This was, I believe, your original question. The problem I
have is that my personal library is in the Philippines, and I have not
found the time to go to the nearest seminary and use their references.
Therefore I posted the open question to the list.
Hope this explains what I was looking for.
Paul