John 3:16-17

Hi BadDog

A gnomic truth pertains to maxims. It expresses what is true in general. It is a universal timeless truth. Hence, it has nothing to do with what is customary or habitual.

In Greek, the gnnomic truth is typically introduced by the definite article + present participle construct. However, the work "pas" is also another marker for the gnomic present.

I made the remark wrt John 3:16, "whosoever believes." You have inappropriately shifted the context to John 1:12,13 where there are a bunch of aorists. The only present tense (in verse 12) is without the gnomic markers and hence cannot fulfill the requirements for a gnomic present. Beware of the implications you make without capturing the complete intended message and unwittingly bring false accusations.

Context governs the application of grammar and syntax!
Lloyd

 

Hey BadDog

Since it appears that you have Wallace's text, "Beyond the basics," refer to page 523 for a discussion of the gnomic present.

Lloyd

 

Lloyd,

Thanks. FYI, Zane Hodges uses the fact that a phrase in the aorist tense is equated with a phrase in the present tense to make the argument that the present tense intended for John 1:12, 13 is not linear but punctiliar in nature. That IS focusing on the context.

But I do not understand your concern since the present tense used in John 1:12 IS the articular participial form: TOIS PISTEUSIN - present active dative masculaine plural participle -"to the ones believing on His name"

And thanks for the info. on Wallace's grammar - I had actually read what he said there on it after your earlier comments. You must have the same revision as I have (CR 96). He speaksd of hO + PAS + participle. In John 1:12 we do not see PAS, but do see an articular present participle. Hodges says this generally speaks of completed action. Wallace says a substantival participle (which would almost have to be articular) tends to be gnomic (especially with PAS). That occurs often in John's gospel.

He also said that the customary (habitual) present tense denotes regularly recurring action while the gnomic present tense refers to a general timeless fact, and is generally "atemporal." Not sure what he means by that... (I suppose he could mean that the aspect is significant, but not the time.)

The aorist tense in the indicative mood is often said to be a sort of generic tense which speaks more just that something occured and not much about the aspect/kind of action. So an articular present tense (PISTEUW-believe) equated with an aorist tense would seem to be focusing on just the fact and we should probably be careful about trying to say too much about the kind of action or time.

Bottom line: those who try to say from John 3:16 and other verses in John's gospel regarding believing in Christ, including John 1:12, that the believer must continue to believe are greatly simplifying the grammar. They are ignoring the fact that the present tense has double duty in the indicative mood as well as the fact that the present tense in John is an articular present participle, which would make it more likely a "gnomic" present tense which would not have linear aspect.

Am I getting close? Thanks for the grammar lesson. I am sorry to continue pushing this thread down too technical a vein. Bottom line: John 3:14-17 and John 1:12, 13 - in both instances the context is clear, if we just use a little common sense. Someone was expected to look once and be "healed." And if we receive Him in a moment in time, then the believing must also not be referring to continual kind of action.

FA

 

Hi FA

Yes! This is also a gnomic truth. I must confess that when I first read it, I ignored, (or did not see) the definite article.

"Atemporal" means not related to past/present/future. It is a synonym for "gnomic."

I have been noticing a lot of potential TSKS constructs. I wonder what a fast research into scholarly literature (or bthe web) would yield.

Lloyd

 

Yes! This is also a gnomic truth. I must confess that when I first read it, I ignored, (or did not see) the definite article.

"Atemporal" means not related to past/present/future. It is a synonym for "gnomic."

I have been noticing a lot of potential TSKS constructs. I wonder what a fast research into scholarly literature (or bthe web) would yield.

Lloyd </font>[/QUOTE]Wallace has an excellent treatment of the article in his grammar. He appears to be mildly reformed, but that grammar is an excellent resource. Have you read his handling of the Granville Sharp rule? I'm curious if you consider that rule to be valid.

Thx,

FA

 

Hi FA

Yes! I've read his treatment of Granville Sharp's rule. There seems to be several important variants. I'm thinking of compiling a list of every reference to God and Jesus with the word "and" just to see how this might work. It is low on the list and I have several things ahead of me yet.

The most immediate is finishing the last step of the dissertation. I still haven't received your book. Ahead of your book is:

Hill, Jonathan. The History of Christian Thought. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2003.

I am on page 100 now.


Then, I'd like to translate, phrase outline, outline, parse, and provide a commentary on Ephesians. I have to do something to stay up on Greek.

God bless!
Lloyd

 

Lloyd,

Sounds exciting. Are you going to diagram it? Grassmack has a great book on it - though it is a ton of work. But it you can disgram it, I always feel like you know how various Greek sentences/clauses are related. The problem is that I never have confidence when I'm done that it's right. I did a little diagramming, parsing and outlining of Ephesians in my 2nd semester 2nd yr. course... don't know what I did with it though.

When you finish, if you care to send it my way, I'd love to read it... even perhaps share some thoughts. Nice project.

The G-S rule must be implimented following ALL of his rules. When e do that, it is very consistent. But the issue is that people try to apply it to plural nouns, proper nouns, etc.

Have a great weekend.

FA