From: Bruce Terry (terry@bible.acu.edu)
Date: Wed Dec 06 1995 - 12:57:26 EST
On Fri, 24 Nov 1995, David Moore responded to my post:
>Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu> wrote:
>
>>For me, a more crucial question than the meaning of TO TELEION is the
>>significance of hOTAN in verse 10. Edward Irving argued that this implied
>>that TO EK MEROUS "the thing in part" would not cease (except for times of
>>corruption in the church) *until* TO TELEION should come. I no longer believe
>>this follows. In verse 11, Paul says, hOTE GEGONA ANHR, KATHRGHKA TA TOU
>>NHPIOU "When I became a man [NRSV adult], I put away the things of the child."
>>Paul did not retain all his childish speech, thinking, and reasoning until the
>>age of manhood. Those things gradually passed away as they were no longer
>>needed or appropriate. I see no real difference between hOTE in verse 11 and
>>hOTAN in verse 10 as regards this; he uses hOTAN in verse 10 because the time
>>of the coming of TO TELEION was indefinite and hOTE in verse 11 because he
>>knew when he had become a man. But neither means "At the time of and not a
>>whit before" as oft imagined both by Pentecostals and non-Pentecostals alike.
>
> Caution is certainly advisable when we are dealing with a
>passage the carries as much theological weight, practically speaking, as
>this one. Bruce has mentioned hOTAN and hOTE. The first, used with the
>aorist subjunctive, indicates that the action of the subordinate clause
>precedes that of the main clause (BAGD s.v. hOTAN). I.e., TO TELEION will
>come before "that which is in part" will be done away. hOTE, used in v.
>11 with the imperfect, refers to some extended time that, with his use of
>the perfect of 11b, Paul simply indicates came to an end with the
>establishment of a new situation. It is important to understand that these
>matters from Paul's personal life simply serve as an illustration of what
>he is trying to convey. We must not put more weight on such an
>illustration than it is able to carry.
Thanks, David, for bringing the entry in BAGD to my attention. It basically
says that hOTAN is used with the present subjunctive "when the action of the
subordinate clause is contemporaneous w. that of the main clause" and with the
aorist subjunctive "when the action of the subordinate clause precedes that of
the main clause." I have looked at a number of passages using hOTAN in a
Greek concordance and am prepared to say that as a rule of thumb this seems to
be the case. The problem is that there are exceptions to it as well.
With the AORIST:
Compare Matthew 9:15 (paralleled by Mark 2:20):
ELEUSONTAI DE hHMERAI hOTAN APARQHi AP' AUTWN hO NUMFIOS
"but days will come whenever the bridegroom is taken from them"
The days do not come after the bridegroom is taken from them, but when.
Granted that this one is stative in nature, and thus the days continue.
Compare I Cor. 15:27:
hOTAN DE EIPHi hOTI PANTA hUPOTETAKTAI, DHLON hOTI . . .
"but whenever it says that all things have been subjected, it is clear that"
It is clear at the time that it says this.
Compare II Cor. 12:10:
hOTAN GAR ASQENW, TOTE DUNATOS EIMI.
"for whenever I am weak, then I am strong."
This is at the time, not just afterwards.
With the PRESENT:
Compare Matthew 10:23:
hOTAN DE DIWKWSIN hUMAS EN THi POLEI TAUTHi, FEUGETE EIS THN hETERAN
"but whenever they persecute you in this city, flee to a different one"
Here the fleeing does take place after the persecution. The present tense is
probably used in this case because the action may be repeated.
Compare I Thess. 5:3:
hOTAN LEGWSIN, EIRHNH KAI ASFALEIA, TOTE AIFNIDIOS AUTOUS EFISTATAI OLEQROS
"whenever they say, "Peace and safety," then sudden destruction comes on them"
Here the destruction comes after they say "Peace and safety."
These are enough examples to show that the "rule" in BAGD does not always
hold. Actually the sense of subsequent or contemporaneous action comes not
from the grammar but from the conceptual picture drawn. It is not so much the
aspect as the Aktionsart that is important. Even more than that, the context
clarifies the action.
Ken Litwak has been asking about Porter's view on grammar. If I am not
mistaken, this is a good illustration of Porter's point. The grammar does not
make the meaning here. (This is probably a better way of saying it than to
say that it does not mean anything). Rather, the grammar is often used to
accompany a certain meaning. But there is a world of difference in saying
that the grammar makes a passage mean something and in saying that it is often
used with a certain meaning. To pick up on Ken's example, the negative
present imperative is often used when the writer wants to command someone to
stop doing an action that is on-going, but it does not "mean" to stop an
action; the contruction can be used with other meanings as well.
To return to I Cor. 13:10, I seriously doubt that "the thing in part" is done
away with *after* "the perfect" comes. Rather, the process of doing away will
be finally completed when the perfect arrives. The word hOTAN is not a
mathematical term that means "when and only when." Edward Irving used it like
that in the 1830's; I learned it that way as a child; but now I have learned
enough about the nature of language to understand what one of my mathematics
teachers meant when he once said, "The Bible is not logical." It is written
in human language, and although there is a logic to language, it is not logic
in the mathematical sense. Everything must be understood in context.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:33 EDT