From: Steven R. Lo Vullo (doulos@chorus.net)
Date: Sat Jan 13 2001 - 17:32:52 EST
On 1/13/01 10:56 AM, CWestf5155@aol.com wrote:
Cindy, et al:
I hadn't planned to get involved in this thread (although I have been
tempted). This is because I do have a theological "bent" that I would like
to think comes from the text rather than being one read into the text. But I
felt I must comment on some of the statements below (at the risk of
embarrassing myself. But I guess that would be nothing new!)
> As Alex noted, these issues have been discussed for a long time. And it is
> interesting to note that in the history of the discussion of the perfect, Jn.
> 5:24 has been one of the 'problem' verses that some believe conflict with the
> traditional view (that it means the past event and the present [permanent]
> consequences).
I think adding "permanent" in brackets above may confuse and prejudice the
mind of one inquiring into this matter. While SOME may have made the mistake
of inferring permanency from the use of the perfect, this is by no means the
crux of, or even the claim of, most of those I know who hold the
"traditional view" (by which terminology you seem to be referring to the
"Calvinistic" or "Reformed" view). Most of the people I know who hold to the
"traditional view" do not read permanency into the perfect tense. Rather,
they have concluded from it the idea that those who believe have eternal
life PRESENTLY. This is not in contrast to those who do not hold to
"perseverance of the saints," but rather in contrast to views that propose
one cannot be in a "saved" state presently. The idea of permanency (in this
view) is rather based on KAI EIS KRISIN OUK ERCETAI (on which I will comment
below), in which ERCETAI is held to be a futuristic present (which it often
is), and which, along with ECEI ZWHN AIWNION sets up the contrast (ALLA)
with the clause in which the perfect in question is found. (I perceive a
chiasm here.) I do not mention this in order to stir up a theological
controversy or to argue one view of salvation over against another, but to
simply be fair and to ensure that we do not set up straw men in this
discussion.
I wanted also to add something with respect to your quote of Rienecker. I am
assuming you are using an old edition, since the revised edition by Rogers &
Rogers is very different. For one thing, Schnackenburg is not quoted in
support of "once saved, always saved" (which you go on to confuse with
"perseverance of the saints"). Rather, his name is in parentheses after the
comment "to go or pass from one place to another, to transform, to move
one's living quarters." And the words "The perfect tense indicates the
permanency of the step of salvation" are not found. What is found is the
following statement: "Perf. indicates the completed state; the believer has
passed into eternal life which begins here (Bernard)." So it seems that the
deficiency to which you refer has been (rightly) corrected.
> First of all, both Mark and Alex have discussed the significance of the use
> of the prepositions EK and EIS with METABAINW, and I'm not sure that one
> should place too much significance on this collocation, since it is used
> elsewhere to denote changing residence (Lk. 10:7, and others such as
> Josephus), which is parallel to the change of domains in view here, as
> opposed to the travel verses that METABAINW normally occurs with in the NT
> (and usually in the aorist).
>
> As far as the idea of 'movement' being included in the lexis--definitely, but
> the state rather than the movement is the focus in the force of the perfect
> tense.
>
> Also, the focus is not on the preceding state/condition of death in the past,
> but the results of the action (so the place of departure doesn't get equal
> focus to the destination).
If one views "death" (TOU QANATOU) as parallel (though not synonymous) to
"judgement" (KRISIN, in the sense of "condemnation") in the structure of the
sentence, then I do not see why the "place of departure" does not get equal
focus to the "destination," especially since grammatically both EK TOU
QANATOU and EIS THN ZWHN modify METABEBHKEN. One has no significance without
the other, and they occur in the writings of one for whom antitheses
constitutes a prominent theme. Indeed, entering into judgement (EIS KRISIN)
and into life (EIS THN ZWHN) are both prominent themes throughout this
section.
> In Jn. 5:24:
>
> The one (who hears Jesus' word and believes on the one who sent him)
> has eternal life (present/process)
The present tense here seems rather to signify a state rather than a
process, particularly considering the lexical meaning of EXW. This would be
in better keeping with METABEBHKEN ... EIS THN ZWHN as well.
> and does not come into judgment (present/process)
This would seem rather to be a futuristic present (rather than a "process"),
again considering its lexical meaning. Note the comments by Brooks and
Winbery:
"The present tense is sometimes used for confident assertions about what is
going to take place in the future. The event, although it has not yet
occurred, is looked upon as so certain that it is thought of as already
occurring. The futuristic present is often used in prophecies. A test for
this use is the ability to translate the Greek present with an English
future, though the future will not always be used in the translation."
Wallace's definition includes some comments on the lexical meaning of verbs
used this way:
"The present tense may be used to describe a future event, though (unlike
the conative present) it typically adds the connotations of immediacy and
certainty. Most instances involve verbs whose lexical meaning involves
anticipation (such as ERCOMAI, -BAINW, POREUOMAI, etc.). This usage is
relatively common."
This is in keeping with Johannine usage of ERCOMAI in the futuristic sense
described above (cf. vv. 25, 28; Jn 4.25; 14.3, 28; see also Jn 16.17
[QEWREITE]). It is also more in keeping with the context (cf. vv. 25, 28f.).
> The reason that Jn. 5:24 caused such problems for the traditional view, is
> that it is difficult to see this content as past action with present
> consequences.
As I stated above, it doesn't cause "such problems" for the traditional
view, rightly understood. And I fail to see how, if the verb describes
"present consequences," there is no past action resulting in the present
consequences, particularly since we are talking about movement from one
domain to another. How does one get from one domain to the other and find
oneself involved in these "present consequences" without a past action
having occurred? You seem to be suggesting above that there was no past
movement resulting in the present state of having moved! While I understand
that oftentimes the idea of "past action" is far from in view (particularly
with perfect participles used adjectivally), I don't see how it can be
eliminated in this case, especially taking other elements (grammatical and
contextual) into consideration. I think in particular you are muting the
significance of the prepositional phrases. You seem to be saying that there
has been movement from one domain to another without anyone having moved or
"crossed over" at any specific point! I realize that the movement is
metaphorical, but it is movement nevertheless.
> Many have seen the reference to to coming into judgment and the
> move from death to life as being future. I tend to think it is all
> omnitemporal, which, as Fanning says, 'could be applied on numerous
> occasions'.
This is highly unlikely. I don't think the the ideas of "coming into
judgment (condemnation)" and "the move from death into life" should be
viewed as contrastive parallels in John 5, with complete temporal
identification. While one may move from death to life in the present age,
there is no similar movement from life to death (or condemnation) described
in John. What I am saying is that, while eternal life may be enjoyed even
now (before the resurrection, which will bring the fulness of that life),
there is not the corresponding idea of passing from life into death, with
that death coming to its fulness in the future. Instead, one who believes
may now cross over from death into life with the prospect of fulness of that
life in the future, while one who disbelieves is already judged (condemned),
and that judgment (condemnation) will be confirmed in the future (vv. 25,
28). While it's true that "the hour is coming and now is" (both must be
given equal consideration), there is no "coming into judgement" in the
present, since this is a state assumed by John to already be the case (cf.
Jn 3.36). And as I pointed out earlier, ERCOMAI most likely is a futuristic
present, which would be in keeping with the statements by Jesus in vv. 28,
29. Note that in v. 29 the future TENSE of EKPOREUOMAI is used, confirming
the future SENSE of ERCETAI in v. 28. And anyway, it doesn't seem to make
good sense to say that someone is in the present process of not coming into
the present process of being condemned.
Steve Lo Vullo,
Madison, WI
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:47 EDT