The seal in Ef 1:13
iver_larsen at sil.org
Sat Oct 19 02:28:18 EDT 2002
> [David Roe:]
> Still, I'm not inclined to discard at least the possibility that the
> ESFRAGISQHTE could be concurrent with their PISTEUSANTES. In agreement
> with you, Daniel Wallace writes (CAPITAL letters represent italics in
> original): "The AORIST participle is normally, though by no means always,
> ANTECEDENT in time to the action of the main verb" (GGBB, p. 624). He than
> states: "But when the aorist participle is related to an AORIST main verb,
> the participle will often be contemporaneous (or simultaneous) to the
> action of the main verb."
What is meant by "related"? From the same root? Or just somewhat
semantically related? Does he give examples? (Sorry, I don't have the book).
Whereas I think an aorist participle is normally antecedent in time to the
main verb, I also think one could argue that sometimes the relationship may
be more a logical consequence, than a chronological one, as Waldo mentioned.
I'd be interested in others' comments on this.
> Romans 6:18 ELEUQERWQENTES DE APO THS hAMARTIAS EDOULWQHTE TH DIKAIOSUNHi
The relative time here is still open to interpretation. When were they
freed? When did they become enslaved? The Israelites were freed from slavery
when they left Egypt, but they were not "enslaved" to God until they agreed
to follow the Sinai covenant. This could well be the kind of imagery Paul is
alluding to. There could be a parallel to Ef 1:13. Maybe the Ephesians were
freed when they believed, and enslaved when they were sealed as God's
property? What happened to the Ephesian believers in Acts 19:1-7 is in
interesting background. As usual, interpreting a text is not just a case of
applying grammatical rules. All sorts of presuppositions one already has in
mind apply constantly, and that is why it is often difficult to discuss a
grammatical interpretation without also discussing the non-grammatical
> Philippians 4:14 PLHN KALWS EPOIHSATE SUGKOINWNHSANTES MOU THi QLIYEI
This example looks more like contemporaneous to me. I seem to recall that it
may make a difference whether the participle precedes or follows the main
verb, but I am not sure. If I remember correctly, when the participle
follows, it can give further details of the background for the main verb.
> Hebrews 6:10 OU GAR ADIKOS hO QEOS EPILAQESQAI TOU ERGOU hUMWN KAI THS
> AGAPHS hHS ENEDEIXASQE EIS TO ONOMA AUTOU DIAKONHSANTES TOIS hAGIOIS KAI
So, here we have both an aorist and present participle that indicate details
of how they showed their love, first by initially having helped the saints -
aorist - and then by continuing to do so - present.
> On the other hand, there are many which support your interpretation. One
> especially seems to fit our case of two aorist participles followed by an
> aorist main verb:
> Luke 4:20 KAI PTUXAS TO BIBLION APODOUS TWi hUPHRETHi EKAQISEN KAI
> PANTWN hOI OFQALMOI EN THi SUNAGWGHi HSAN ATENIZONTES AUTWi
Thanks for digging up some more examples,
More information about the B-Greek