Is there any greek scholars that can explain the aorist particle, and how it is used with the syntax? For example
Col 2:13
Here's what Wallace says:
1] Aorist Participle
The aorist participle is normally, though by no means always, antecedent in time to the action of the main verb. 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.
This can be seen in the frequently used redundant participle in the formula ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν (“answering, he said”). The answering does not occur before the saying—it is the speaking.
We see this in the epistles, too. In Eph 1:8–9 we read ἐπερίσσευσεν [τὴν χάριν] εἰς ἡμᾶς γνωρίσας ἡμῖν (“He lavished [his grace] upon us making known to us”). It would be difficult to see God’s action of making his grace known to us (thus, effectual) as other than contemporaneous with his lavishing such grace upon us.
The NT is filled with theologically significant texts related to the temporal participle. Just within Eph 1, note the following: Eph 1:4–5 (ἐξελέξατο προορίσας [are election and predestination simultaneous or sequential?]); 1:13–14 (ἀκούσαντες πιστεύσαντες ἐσφραγίσθητε [does the Spirit seal believers after they believe the gospel, or when they believe?]); 1:19–20 (although discussed earlier in another context, the issue here would be whether God’s power was demonstrated after he raised Christ from the dead or when he raised him [ἐνήργησεν ἐγείρας]).
With a present tense main verb, the aorist participle is usually antecedent in time.Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Zondervan Publishing House and Galaxie Software, 1999; 2002), 624-25.
Thanks, I read many differing perspective, after I first read
" the aorist usually denotes past time, while an aorist participle usually refers to antecedent time with respect to the main verb. "
Michael S. Heiser, Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology (Logos Bible Software, 2005; 2005).
Some talked about the aorist participle in reference to the future tense,(which is rare but does occur) and other calling for a simultaneous timing. I am still not fully understanding how one differs from the antecedent usage as opposed to the simultaneous usage. I see your quote but, I am still not seeing how to differentiate between the two usages. For example in Col 2:13 " made alive" is the main verb "fogiven" is the aorist participle. It seems to me that the forgiving would be the antecedent to making alive, even if you do not look at the morphology.
Is there any greek scholars that can explain the aorist particle, and how it is used with the syntax? For example Col 2:13
The aorist passive participle expresses action antecedent to the main verb similar to other aorist participles. The passive voice indicates that the subject receives the action. The kind of action is “undefined.”Summers, R., & Sawyer, T. (1995). Essentials of New Testament Greek (Rev. ed.) (108). Nashville, TN.: Broadman & Holman.Dana, H.E. & Mantey, Julius R. (1955), A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: McMillan).Hence, Mark 16:16 Believes and is baptized both aorist and are actions that occur prior to the main verb which is "shall be saved."Same with Acts 2:38 where repent is an aorist imperative and be baptized is an aorist passive imperative and the for/unto denotes purpose which in essence means that some one repents and is baptized in order to receive remissions of sin.On eis (acts 2:38) the following solves the problem once and for all:On the day of Pentecost, at the conclusion of his presentation, the apostle Peter issued the following command.
“Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto [‘for’ KJV] the remission of your sins . . .” (Acts 2:38 ASV).
The Greek preposition eis (for/unto) has long been a point of controversy between those who believe that baptism is essential to salvation, and those who repudiate that idea. It has been common over the years for scholars to allege thateis has a causal force, i.e., its meaning actually conveys this thought: “. . . be baptizedbecause of the remission of your sins.” “Forgiveness,” it is claimed, is received at the point of faith — and that alone.
A.T. Robertson, the premier Baptist grammarian, argued this case in his famous work, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1930, III, 35-36). In addition, J.R. Mantey contended for the “causal” sense of eis in Acts 2:38, though he classified that use of the preposition as a “remote meaning.” His discussion clearly indicated, however, that he yielded to that view because of his conviction that, if baptism was “for the purpose of the remission of sins,” then salvation would be of works, and not by faith (a false conclusion) (see: H.E. Dana & J.R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, New York: Macmillan, 1955, 103-04). Those of the Baptist persuasion constantly appeal to Robertson and Mantey as authorities on this matter.
It has been a matter of long-standing knowledge, however, that the standard Greek lexicons do not define eis as “because of” with reference to Acts 2:38. J.H. Thayer, for instance, translated the term as follows, citing Acts 2:38 — “eis aphesin hamartion, to obtain the forgiveness of sins” (Greek-English Lexicon, Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1958, 94). Wm. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich, in a section where eis is defined as expressing “purpose,” with the sense of “in order to,” rendered the same phrase: “for forgiveness of sins, so that sins might be forgiven . . . Acts 2:38:” (Greek-English Lexicon, Chicago: University of Chicago, 1967, 228).
Elliger states that eis, in Acts 2:38, is designed “to indicate purpose” (Horst Balz & Gerhard Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990, Vol. 1, 399). In his discussion of Acts 2:38, Ceslas Spicq noted: “Water baptism is a means of realizing this conversion, and its goal — something altogether new — is a washing, ‘the remission of sins’” (Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994, Vol. 1, 242). It is hardly necessary to pile up additional testimony.
That brings me to this point. In 1996, Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, an associate professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, published his new book,Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan). It is a scholarly volume of more than 800 pages. In his discussion of eis, Wallace lists five uses of the preposition, and among them “causal” is conspicuously missing!
Prof. Wallace explains the absence. He says that an “interesting discussion over the force of eis took place several years ago, especially in relation to Acts 2:38.” He references the position of J.R. Mantey, that “eis could be used causally” in this passage. Wallace mentions that Mantey was taken to task by another scholar, Ralph Marcus (Marcus, Journal of Biblical Literature, 70 1952 129-30; 71 1953 44). These two men engaged in what Dr. Wallace called a “blow-by-blow” encounter. When the smoke had cleared, the Dallas professor concedes, “Marcus ably demonstrated that the linguistic evidence for a causal eis fell short of proof” (370).
It is not that Prof. Wallace has come to the conviction that baptism is essential for salvation. No, he resorts to other manipulations to resist that conclusion.
He has, however, rebuffed a long-defended argument that eis means “because of.” We are happy for that progress, and we, with genuine sincerity, pray that many of our Protestant, “faith-only” friends will make even further advancements toward the truth of the first-century gospel.
Just to clear things up, this is not a theological discussion is just applying what the original language really says to the word of God.
[Y][Y][Y] nicely done: [*][*][*][*][*]
In connection with my previous post here's the conclusion:
In early September (the 3rd), we featured a “Penpoints” article under the title: {glossSub ("Dallas Professor Rebuffs Common Quibble on "Eis"", "Baptist Professor Surrenders Ground on "Eis"")}. In this article, we reviewed some material in Daniel Wallace’s excellent book, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Zondervan, 1996). We identified Dr. Wallace as a “Baptist,” and we used the expression “the Baptist Dallas Theological Seminary.”
We have received a communication from Professor Wallace correcting us in two particulars.
First, he says, “I’m not Baptist.” We apologize for this mischaracterization.
Second, the expression “the Baptist Dallas Theological Seminary” is likewise incorrect. Though I knew that “Baptist” was not a part of the institution’s official title, my use of “Baptist” was intended as an adjective, reflecting my perception that the institution had strong ties and doctrinal affinities with those of the Baptist persuasion. Nonetheless, it was misleading and I tender my regret with respect to this unintentional error.
We have made the appropriate corrections in the original article.
Aside from the above, Prof. Wallace takes offence at my allegation that he resorted “to other manipulations” in order to escape the obvious connection between baptism and “forgiveness of sins” in Acts 2:38. He states that he merely was “wrestling with the meaning of the text,” but that this by no means suggested that he had adopted the concept of “baptismal regeneration.” Of course, I made it clear that Dr. Wallace was not contending that baptism is essential to salvation.
One of Professor’s Wallace’s problems is that he has an “either/or” mentality. He feels that if one does not repudiate a cause-and-effect connection between baptism and the remission of sins, he must yield to the dogma of “baptismal regeneration.” And that dogma, as commonly portrayed, is not a biblical proposition. (See our “Archives” for "The Matter of “Baptismal Regeneration”".)
What our friend does not see is that there is solid biblical ground in between the unscriptural theory of salvation by “faith alone,” and the mystical notion that there is innate power to effect pardon in the use of some sort of “holy” water, together with the intoning of certain sacred words.
The Scriptural position is that baptism, together with genuine faith and sincere repentance, is a condition of forgiveness. The act involves nothing merited or earned; rather, it is simply an expression of humble obedience by which one receives the Lord’s pardon. Exactly what, about this concept, is so difficult to fathom?
But Professor Wallace’s resistance is rather easily explained. Each year the Dallas seminary faculty is required to reaffirm their oath of allegiance to the institution’s creed, which, with reference to the matter of salvation is replicated as follows:
“We believe that, owing to universal death through sin, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless born again; and that no degree of reformation however great, no attainments in morality however high, no culture however attractive, no baptism or other ordinance however administered, can help the sinner to take even one step toward heaven; but a new nature imparted from above, a new life implanted by the Holy Spirit through the Word, is absolutely essential to salvation, and only those thus saved are sons of God. We believe, also, that our redemption has been accomplished solely by the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, who was made to be sin and was made a curse for us, dying in our room and stead; and that no repentance, no feeling, no faith, no good resolutions, no sincere efforts, no submission to the rules and regulations of any church, nor all the churches that have existed since the days of the Apostles can add in the very least degree to the value of the blood, or to the merit of the finished work wrought for us by Him who united in His person true and proper deity with perfect and sinless humanity (Lev. 17:11; Isa. 64:6; Matt. 26:28; John 3:7-18; Rom. 5:6-9; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13; 6:15; Eph. 1:7; Phil. 3:4-9; Titus 3:5; James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:18-19, 23). We believe that the new birth of the believer comes only through faith in Christ and that repentance is a vital part of believing, and is in no way, in itself, a separate and independent condition of salvation; nor are any other acts, such as confession, baptism, prayer, or faithful service, to be added to believing as a condition of salvation (John 1:12; 3:16, 18, 36; 5:24; 6:29; Acts 13:39; 16:31; Rom. 1:16-17; 3:22, 26; 4:5; 10:4; Gal. 3:22)."
“We believe that, owing to universal death through sin, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless born again; and that no degree of reformation however great, no attainments in morality however high, no culture however attractive, no baptism or other ordinance however administered, can help the sinner to take even one step toward heaven; but a new nature imparted from above, a new life implanted by the Holy Spirit through the Word, is absolutely essential to salvation, and only those thus saved are sons of God. We believe, also, that our redemption has been accomplished solely by the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, who was made to be sin and was made a curse for us, dying in our room and stead; and that no repentance, no feeling, no faith, no good resolutions, no sincere efforts, no submission to the rules and regulations of any church, nor all the churches that have existed since the days of the Apostles can add in the very least degree to the value of the blood, or to the merit of the finished work wrought for us by Him who united in His person true and proper deity with perfect and sinless humanity (Lev. 17:11; Isa. 64:6; Matt. 26:28; John 3:7-18; Rom. 5:6-9; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13; 6:15; Eph. 1:7; Phil. 3:4-9; Titus 3:5; James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:18-19, 23).
We believe that the new birth of the believer comes only through faith in Christ and that repentance is a vital part of believing, and is in no way, in itself, a separate and independent condition of salvation; nor are any other acts, such as confession, baptism, prayer, or faithful service, to be added to believing as a condition of salvation (John 1:12; 3:16, 18, 36; 5:24; 6:29; Acts 13:39; 16:31; Rom. 1:16-17; 3:22, 26; 4:5; 10:4; Gal. 3:22)."
The above statement is so fraught with errors that it would require a sizable essay to untangle the distortions of New Testament truth contained therein. There are numerous articles on this web site that address these matters. And we especially encourage our readers to review again our {glossSub ("Dallas Professor Rebuffs Common Quibble on "Eis"", “September 3, 2001”)} “Penpoints” dealing with the meaning of Acts 2:38.
Having said that, let me make one final point.
In 1983, the faculty of the Dallas Seminary produced The Bible Knowledge Commentary — New Testament Edition, under the editorship of John F. Walvoord and Roy Zuck. The production was solely the work of faculty members of that institution. The author of the commentary on the book of Acts was Stanley D. Toussaint, Chairman and Professor of Bible Exposition at the seminary.
In his comments on Acts 2:38, Prof. Toussaint reviews several ideas relative to the meaning of eis in the phrase “for [eis] the forgiveness of sins.” One view, he says, would suggest that baptism “is essential for salvation.” He immediately dismisses this concept since it is not in harmony with the idea that salvation is by “faith alone.”
Toussaint then introduces a second view, in which he says eis may mean “on account of, on the basis of.” This is the so-called “causal” use of eis, which, Prof. Toussaint alleges, is the “possible” significance of the preposition in this passage, though he admits this is not the word’s “normal meaning.”
This is the very viewpoint that Wallace took to the “grammatical woodshed” in his book. In his recent communication to me, though, the scholarly professor says that his “exegetical integrity” would not allow him to accept Mantey’s “causal” position (that eiscan mean “on account of”). And yet this is the same position that his colleague offers as a possibility in The Bible Knowledge Commentary. Apparently, Prof. Toussaint’s “exegetical integrity” was not so readily challenged.
It is hardly accurate, therefore, for Prof. Wallace to allege, as he did to me, that there has been “no concession” on his part. Clearly there has been.
And for it we are grateful.
Can't publish the link where I got this from, but if you're interested just send me a private message. I did not post the name of the author of the article either, but you can get it if u send me a private message.
I looked at Acts 2:38, and they are not aorist participles so I am not seeing how this helps?
My bad, they're just aorist -- the ones on Mark 16:16 are aorist participles....acts 2:38 was just to add to the importance of baptism when analyzing the preposition "eis" -- in other words it was just to supplement.
I think all believers see baptism as a sacrament. I tend not to make doctrines on text with variants (Mark 16:9-20). But, yes I see the participle. I noticed the main verb is in the future tense. So is is speaking of immediate "saved" or the future salvation of believers? Acts 2:38 clearly shows the importance of baptism, that is undeniable.
I'd say is speaking of both "immediate" --saved-- since you were lost and once you believe and are baptized you get saved...AND future --saved--- due to the fact we must not fall away, but work out our salvation with fear and trembling or else the Lord will spit us out of his mouth.
Other than that, though Mark 16:9-20 is a variant yet there's enough evidence in the rest of the NT to support what is written in that textual variant.
I'm really looking forward to studying manuscripts, textual variants, etc. I'm getting some material ready to teach next quarter and I believe is going to be a very profitable study. So many variants but in reality none really affect the text or the over all teaching of the Word of God....mmmm...interesting subject.
Ubs has an interesting article on the alternate ending.. I would says most Christian get baptized before "future" salvation, so if this text means as the morphology implies, then it is not a problem from the protesters. How do you work "immediate" saved into the text from the syntax or morph? Baptism, and salvation, or baptismal regeneration seems to be alluded to in many places in the new testament. Currently, I have not worked out how baptism fits in my doctrines of soteriology. I had a baptist perspective, but in study on baptism, it seems as though my doctrine needs to be regenerated, to make it more in accordance with the word.
I would like to discuss this more but it is getting off topic for this thread. If you click on my name it will take you to a place that has my email. Send me a email response.
God Bless
I would like to discuss this more but it is getting off topic for this thread. If you click on my name it will take you to a place that has my email. Send me a email response. God Bless
I'll e-mail you tomorrow since I got to go to sleep now. Meanwhile, I recommend Jack Cottrell's volume on baptism: http://www.logos.com/product/7934/baptism-a-biblical-study
It's only 12 bucks but I'm sure your sales person can give it to you for less. Good night!
