From: Steven R. Lo Vullo (doulos@chorus.net)
Date: Sat Jan 13 2001 - 23:12:45 EST
Cindy
Thanks for your reply. I hope you will suffer me a few more comments on a
couple of points below.
> The reason that the "state of death" is not viewed as equal in focus to "the
> state of life" is because of the force of the perfect--it involves a
> state/condition that comes about as a result of the action. The result would
> be the state of life. The state of death would not be a result. If this were
> an aorist, I'd see the same parallel states that you see--in at least one
> instance of the aorist of METABAINW, the focus is on the place departed from
> (Mt. 8:24).
The two "states" spoken of above are only implied. The prepositional phrases
do not describe states per se, but motion "out off" and motion "into"
different domains accomplished by the action of the verb in question. When
you say, "The result would be the state of life," this is correct. But ZWH
as a state is only implied, not stated explicitly. The reason we can speak
of the "state of death" is that it is logical to conclude that if someone
crossed over EK TOU QANATOU that person must have been in a state of death.
Likewise, we can speak of the result here as being "the state of life," not
because it is explicit, but because it is logical to conclude that if
someone crossed over EIS THN ZWHN that person must now be in "the state of
life." But the prepositional phrases do not state these things explicitly;
they only imply them. Denotation of "the state of life" would require
something like EN ZWHi. And it would not be correct to say METABEBHKEN EN
ZWHi, because what is being described is motion (albeit metaphorical) from
one domain to another domain. We wouldn't say, "He has crossed over from
death in life," or "He is crossed over from death in life." This is why it
is important (at least here) to recognize the action itself and its
completion as being prominent features of METABEBHKEN. The idea of motion
"out of" and "into" stated explicitly here makes no sense if only the
resultant state is recognized. The state of life can only come about as a
RESULT of one having passed EK TOU QANATOU and EIS THN ZWHN. That is why I
say that both modifiers are of equal weight in their relationship to the
verb, at least grammatically, and that the actual action and its completion
must be prominent in METABEBHKEN, as well as the resultant state.
> To say the actual time element of the perfect of passing from death to life
> may be "omnitemporal" (or gnomic) as opposed to futuristic is not a big deal
> in my mind. What I am saying, is that Jesus was not talking about a certain
> historic guy who passed (in the past before Jesus' speech) from death into
> life where he was residing at the time that Jesus was speaking (though there
> may have been one). Most think that this was meant to apply primarily to what
> would happen many times to respective individuals--to all who believe in the
> present and future (and maybe the past too)--and that is why this verse has
> posed problems for the traditional view of the perfect and why it has been a
> focus of discussion.
In your post you said:
"Many have seen the reference 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.'"
What I was responding to was not "the move from death to life," but the
"coming into judgment." I agree with you that Jesus' statement is gnomic. It
doesn't apply to any specific individual at any specific time, but to any
who may believe at any time. But this does not rule out temporal features
altogether. What I mean is that, just because a general, timeless truth is
being set forth, that doesn't mean the coming into judgment cannot refer to
future (eschatological) judgment. Why could we not state as a general,
timeless truth the fact that the one who believes (any time, anywhere) has
eternal life (in his/her present) and will not come into judgment (in
his/her future) but has passed out of death into life (a completed action
emphasizing the resultant state that comes about when anyone at any time
believes)? I think this is in better keeping with the context, especially
since John uses ERCOMAI in this sense in this very context. And (though I
fully admit that this may just be denseness on my part) I still fail to see
how this is a great problem for the "traditional" view, if by the
traditional view is meant "a completed action with ongoing (though not
necessarily permanent) results."
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