TIP OF THE DAY 151: Temporal deixis in Bible commentaries

I am adding these posts to the previous tip list L/V 10 Tip of the Day (when it doesn't time out)

POST ISSUE:

One of the best way to learn to apply temporal deixis to scripture interpretation is to study how Bible commentators use it. Searches on temporal deixis or temporal deictic markers will find places where commentators refer to it explicitly but searching for word that imply deixis e.g. tomorrow, yesterday, next morning … will uncover many more examples.

QUESTION: Give some examples of Bible commentators referencing temporal deixis.

SOFTWARE: a smart Bible search with the prompt temporal deixis or the prompt temporal deictic marker provided appropriate results

ANSWER: from Westfall, Cynthia Long. A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews: The Relationship between Form and Meaning. London; New York: T&T Clark, 2005.

The third contrast is joined with asyndeton, consistent with a close relationship with the preceding co-text. The shaking at Mount Sinai is contrasted with the future shaking in the Day of the Lord. The temporal deixis of the contrast is marked with τότε (then) and νῦν (now) and the process of shaking forms the basis of the comparison. The first element of the comparison is the shaking of the earth ‘then’, which is a reference to the giving of the Law and forms a cohesive tie with vv. 18–22. The second element of the comparison is the focus and receives more expansion with a projection. The projection, an exophoric reference to Hag. 2:6, is elaborated with expository apposition in v. 27 which explains that the shaking will remove everything transitory and leave what is permanent (τὰμὴσαλευόμενα, ‘which are not shaken’). The shaking will remove what can be shaken and leave what cannot be shaken. The idea of permanence or the unshakeable is a cataphoric reference to the kingdom (βασιλείανἀσάλευτον, ‘an unshakeable kingdom’) and provides the grounds for the hortatory subjunctives in v. 28.[1]

From Harmon, Matthew S. Galatians. Edited by T. Desmond Alexander, Thomas R. Schreiner, and Andreas J. Köstenberger. Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Academic, 2021.

So in Galatians where does the emphasis fall? Present or future justification? Although both aspects are present, more often than not Paul has in view future justification. In other words, Paul most often uses justification and righteousness language to refer to what happens on the last day rather than the present status of those who trust in Christ. One helpful way to see the timing of justification in Galatians is to explore the verb tenses used when discussing justification and righteousness.[footnote 109] In 2:16–17 the first occurrence of the verb δικαιόω is in the present tense and seems to have a gnomic quality, while the second is an aorist subjunctive that is part of a purpose/result clause. But most significant is the third occurrence, which is a future indicative. While it is possible that this future tense could also have a gnomic sense, it seems far more likely that it refers to justification as a future reality. If so this would seem to shed light on the previous two uses, as well as the one in 2:17. There Paul refers to “seeking to be justified by Christ”; here δικαιόω is an aorist infinitive completing the present participle ζητοῦντες. The very idea of seeking to be justified suggests the focus is on the future and not the present. In 3:8 δικαιόω is again a present tense (likely with a gnomic sense), but the context suggests a future reference, since Paul asserts that Scripture “saw in advance that God would justify the Gentiles by faith.” This claim is grounded in a combined citation of Genesis 12:3 and 18:18: “All the nations will be blessed through you.” Note again the future perspective, though admittedly it could simply be future from the perspective of the Old Testament passage, not necessarily the Galatians’ current perspective. In 3:11 Paul uses the present tense of δικαιόω to make a gnomic statement that no one is justified by the law, yet in the very next clause cites Habakkuk 2:4, “the righteous will live by faith.” Again, the future tense could simply be from the perspective of the Old Testament audience, but the use of future verbs in the immediate context of justification language is beginning to accumulate. Like the second occurrence in 2:16, Paul uses the aorist subjunctive as part of a purpose/result clause in 3:24, so not much can be gleaned from the timing of justification.[2]

Footnote 109 The relationship between Greek verb tenses and their temporal reference is a longstanding debate within NT scholarship which cannot be settled here; for a helpful introduction to the subject see Constantine R. Campbell, Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008). Key for the discussion that follows is understanding that the tense of a Greek verb does not automatically indicate when an action happens; determining that is based primarily on deictic markers (i.e., elements in the surrounding context such as adverbs, adjectives, prepositions, conjunctions, and particles); see further Rodney J. Decker, Temporal Deixis of the Greek Verb in the Gospel of Mark with Reference to Verbal Aspect, SBG 10 (New York: Lang, 2001), 29–59.[3]

From Allen, David L. Hebrews. The New American Commentary. Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2010.

The result of this act is Christ’s “having obtained” our redemption (aorist middle participle, implying Christ’s full involvement in the action). The participle can be construed as indicating the results of Christ’s entering, the grounds of his entering (based on his death on the cross, he entered), or temporally (he entered after he obtained redemption)[footnote 963]. Contextually, it is difficult to determine which of these three construals was intended by the author. This redemption is qualified as “eternal,” indicating its complete and unrepeatable nature, and also indicating an eschatological meaning. The use of the word “redemption” semantically incorporates the price paid for it as well.[4]

[footnote 963]: Bruce, Hebrews, 213–14; Hughes, Hebrews, 347. Regarding 9:13, Porter remarks: “Temporal deixis gives past implicature, while the structure and use of emphatic negation reinforces the emphasis of the marked Perfect” (Verbal Aspect, 264).[5]

From Abernathy, David, Paula Bostrom, Milt Jones, James Pohlig, and Holly Zwierzynski. Old Testament Lectionary Exegetical Summary. Exegetical Summaries. Dallas: SIL International, 2018.

f. let- the-rough-ground –become level

ms adj. עָקֹבʿāqōb [HALOT p. 873], [TWOT 1676c]: ‘rough ground’ [NASB, NCV, NIV], ‘rough terrain’ [NET], ‘rough places’ [Oswalt], ‘the crooked’ [Young], ‘uneven ground’ [ESV, NRSV; Childs, Watts, Westermann], ‘hills’ [TEV].

g. let- the-rough-ground –become level

3ms Qal wәqatal ofהיהhyh [HALOT p. 243], [TWOT 491]: ‘become’ [most vc], ‘be made’ [NCV, REB; Oswalt]. Watts gives a temporal deixis: “then uneven ground will become smooth.” Most versions continue translating jussive or future.

h. let- the-rough-ground –become level

מִישׁוֹרmîšôr [HALOT p. 578], [TWOT 930f]. Most vc translate this noun with an adj.: ‘level’ [ESV, NCV, NIV, NRSV; Westermann], ‘straight’ [Young], ‘smooth’ [REB; Childs, Oswalt, Watts]. Others translate it as a noun: ‘a plain’ [NASB, TEV], ‘a level plain’ [NET].[6]

From Adams, Sean A. Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah: Commentary. Edited by Stanley E. Porter, Richard S. Hess, and John Jarick. Septuagint Commentary Series. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2014.

This ceremony of communal confession (ἐξαγορεῦσαι, often semantically linked with “sin”, Muraoka 2009) is not to take place at just any time or in just any location. Rather, the senders delineate a specific place (οἴκῳκυρίου) and time (ἐνἡμέρᾳἑορτῆςκαὶἐνἡμέραιςκαιροῦ). These locative and temporal deictic markers specifically demarcate where and when the book is to be read. Just as in 1:10 and the discussion of the altar sacrifice, the reference to οἴκῳκυρίου has troubled readers, although the text acknowledges that the temple is in poor condition (2:26; cf. Jer 43:8–10). Theodoret (Com.Bar. 1.14), in order to bypass this tension, does not have οἴκῳκυρίου, but rather that the book is to be read τῷθεῷ.

Two occasions are given for the book’s reading: “on the day of the feast” (ἡμέρᾳἑορτῆς) and “on the days of a season” (ἡμέραιςκαιροῦ). The reading of a book on festival days is common both in the Jewish Scriptures (cf. 2 Esdr 19:3, e.g., Lamentations on the Ninth of Ab; Esther on Purim), and in Christian communities. Festival prayers also seem to have been common at Qumran (1Q34; 4Q505–509), and some extant letters encourage other Jews to adopt a new festival (cf. 2 Macc 2:16). The challenge for scholars is to determine on which festival day and in which season Baruch was to have been read.[7]

[1] Cynthia Long Westfall, A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews: The Relationship between Form and Meaning (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 269.

[2] Matthew S. Harmon, Galatians, ed. T. Desmond Alexander, Thomas R. Schreiner, and Andreas J. Köstenberger, Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Academic, 2021), 450–451.

[3] Matthew S. Harmon, Galatians, ed. T. Desmond Alexander, Thomas R. Schreiner, and Andreas J. Köstenberger, Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Academic, 2021).

[4] David L. Allen, Hebrews, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2010), 471–472.

[5] David L. Allen, Hebrews, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2010).

[6] David Abernathy et al., Old Testament Lectionary Exegetical Summary, Exegetical Summaries (Dallas: SIL International, 2018), Is 40:4.

[7] Sean A. Adams, Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah: Commentary, ed. Stanley E. Porter, Richard S. Hess, and John Jarick, Septuagint Commentary Series (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2014), 62.