From: Don Wilkins (dwilkins@ucrac1.ucr.edu)
Date: Mon Dec 09 1996 - 19:58:27 EST
At 6:51 PM 12/9/96, Jonathan Robie wrote:
. . .
>Using Mari's interpretation, "now is the son of man glorified, and God is
>glorified in him." The glorification does not refer to the past - Jesus has
>not yet been crucified - it refers to the "now" in the sentence. Exactly
>when is a matter of interpretation (the time of Christ's crucifiction? the
>time of his ascending into heaven? the time of his resurrection?), but it
>clearly isn't in the past.
Jonathan's post provides another opportunity to illustrate the point I
attempted to make previously. To him, the glorification *must* be future,
thus one must accept this as a possible meaning of the aorist indicative.
From my point of view, one must first prove conclusively that the verb can
not refer to a previous moment, and (as Carson noted) the "traditional"
position would take the aorist proleptically, which preserves the essential
meaning of the aorist while allowing a contextual reference to the future.
We need far more and clearer examples, if we are to untie the gordian knot.
Don Wilkins
UC Riverside
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:59 EDT