Has anyone ever noticed that in Greek this is in the present tense but in English it is in the past tense.both English words rejected(set aside and died(dies)
Lane in his WBC commentary (Vol. 47B, p. 274) translates: "Anyone who violates the law of Moses dies without pity on the evidence of two or three witnesses." He notes: "The present tense of ἀποθνῄσκει has a frequentative idea (i.e., it refers to an action that recurs from time to time with different individuals). cf. 7:8 (Moulton, Grammar, 1:114)." The Holman Christian Standard Bible translates: "If anyone disregards Moses’ law, he dies without mercy, based on the testimony of two or three witnesses." Other translations use the past tense to express the "frequentative" idea.
I suspect, and avoiding theologies, that Christian translators mangle that verse royally (and not referring to the verb tense).
Thank you for the references Timothy, I will check them out
Will
QUESTION—What does the present tense of ἀποθνῄσκει ‘he dies’ indicate? 1. It is a timeless present tense [NIGTC; NAB, NASB]; it refers to the law as it stands, whether or not the law was still in effect [EGT, NIGTC, TH]. 2. It indicates an action repeated from time to time [WBC]. 3. It refers to past action [KJV, NIV].J. Harold Greenlee, An Exegetical Summary of Hebrews, 2nd ed. (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2008), 390.
The Exegetical Summaries are a good source for answers to questions such as yours. However, note one is a participle and the other a finite verb so an agreement in tense is less expected.
Peace, MJ! Wow! Well-Done, eh?! *smile*
Greek is no harder read than English. Little grade school kids in Greece read it every day. What is hard is making it fit our theological systems!
Thank you MJ. and I agree with Milford
What is hard is making it fit our theological systems!
[:D]
What we have here seems to be an IMPLIED condition. While there is no formal protasis, this is supplied by the participle.
(β) Implied Conditions
. Sometimes the apodosis is expressed, while the protasis is merely implied by a participle, an imperative or a question. In such examples one must not think that the participle, for instance, means ‘if.’ Thus in Ro. 2:27 τελοῦσα with κρινεῖ suggests a condition of either the first or the third class according as one conceives it. The condition is hinted at, not stated. The same thing is true of λαμβανόμενον in 1 Tim. 4:4 p 1023 and μετατιθεμένης in Heb. 7:12. Cf. also Heb. 2:3; 1 Cor. 11:29; Gal. 6:9. This use of the participle is still very frequent in the N. T. In Mt. 16:26 we have ἐὰν κερδήσῃ, while in Lu. 9:25 note κερδήσας. In Lu. 19:23, κἀγὼ ἐλθὼν σὺν τόκῳ ἂν αὐτὸ ἔπραξα, the apodosis calls for a condition of the second class (context). The imperative is used where a protasis might have been employed. Thus in Mk. 1:17, δεῦτε ὀπίσω μου, καὶ ποιήσω. The adverb δεῦτε has the force of an imperative. There is an implied condition here. So also 11:24, πιστεύετε καὶ ἔσται. Cf. Mt. 7:7; 11:28; 19:21; Lu. 7:7; Jo. 2:19; 14:16; Jas. 4:7. The imp. may be (Jas. 1:5) the apodosis of an expressed condition and the implied protasis of another conclusion. In Eph. 4:26; ὀργίζεσθε καὶ μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε, two imperatives together practically answer as protasis and apodosis. In Mt. 7:10, ἢ καὶ ἰχθὺν αἰτήσει—μὴ ὄφιν ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ; the two questions do the same thing in a rough sort of way (anacoluthon), not technically so. In Mt. 26:15, τί θέλετέ μοι δοῦναι κἀγὼ ὑμῖν παραδώσω αὐτόν; the question takes the place of the protasis. Here καί joins the two parts of the sentence, but in Jas. 5:13 we have question and imperative in separate sentences. Cf. also 1 Cor. 7:21. These devices are all found in the classic idiom.
Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, pp 1022-23. Logos Bible Software, 1919.
George! *smile* Peace and Every Blessing to you this morning!
Thanks for your post ................ I enjoyed perusing it! The following information is not for the others reading this thread -- but for you -- since you got your Robertson out ... You probably noticed the following also on Robertson page 604 -- However! Just in case .... I'm posting it to you for your perusal if you should so want to peruse it, eh?! *smile*
Kindest personal greetings! Here's the quote from Robertson ..
6. With the Locative. Here ἐπί is more simple, though still with a variety of resultant ideas. Blass2 observes that with the purely local sense the genitive and accusative uses outnumber the locative with ἐπί. But still some occur like ἐπὶ πίνακι (Mt. 14:8), ἐπὶ τῇ πηγῇ (Jo. 4:6), ἐπὶ ἱματίῳ παλαιῷ (Mt. 9:16), ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω (Mt. 16:18; cf. some MSS. in Mk. 2:4, ἐφʼ ᾦ κατέκειτο), ἐπὶ τοῖς κραβάττοις (Mk. 6:55), ἐπὶ τῷ χόρτῳ (Mk. 6:39), ἐπʼ ἐρήμοις τόποις (Mk. 1:45), ἐπέκειτο ἐπʼ αὐτῷ (Jo. 11:38), ἐπὶ σανίσιν (Ac. 27:44; cf. also ἐπί τινων). In Lu. 23:38, ἐπιγραφὴ ἐπʼ αὐτῷ, the resultant idea is rather that of ‘over,’ Mt. 27:37 having ἐπάνω τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ. As with the accusative and genitive, so with the locative the idea of contiguity sometimes appears, as in ἐπὶ θύραις (Mt. 24:33), ἐπὶ τῇ προβατικῇ (Jo. 5:2), ἐπὶ τῇ στοᾷ (Ac. 3:11). Here the wider meaning of the substantive makes this result possible. Cf. also ἐπὶ τῷ ποταμῷ (Rev. 9:14). Ἐπί is used very sparingly with the locative in expressions of time. Cf. ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων (Heb. 9:26). The use of ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ μνείᾳ ὑμῶν (Ph. 1:3), οὐ συνῆκαν ἐπὶ τοῖς ἄρτοις (Mk. 6:52), θερίζειν ἐπὶ εὐλογίαις (2 Cor. 9:6) wavers between occasion and time. Cf. also ἐπὶ τῇ πρώτῃ διαθήκῃ (Heb. 9:15). The notion of ἐπὶ τρισὶν μάρτυσιν (Heb. 10:28) is rather ‘before,’ ‘in the presence of.’ Cf. ἐπὶ νεκροῖς (Heb. 9:17). All these developments admit of satisfactory explanation from the root-idea of ἐπί, the locative case and the context. There are still other metaphorical applications of ἐπί. Thus in Mt. 24:47, ἐπὶ πᾶσιν, ‘over’ is the resultant meaning. So in Lu. 12:44 ἐπὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς ὑπάρχουσι. The notion of basis is involved in ἐπʼ ἄρτῳ μόνῳ in Mt. 4:4, ἐπὶ τῷ ῥήματί σου in Lu. 5:5, ἐλεύσονται ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου in Mt. 24:5, ἐπʼ ἐλπίδι in Ac. 2:26, etc. Ground or occasion likewise may be conveyed by ἐπί. Thus note ἐπὶ τούτῳ in Jo. 4:27 and in particular ἐφʼ ᾧ, like ἐπὶ τούτῳ ὅτι, in Ro. 5:12 and 2 Cor. 5:4. Cf. ἐφʼ ᾦ ἐφρονεῖτε (Ph. 4:10) where ‘whereon’ is the simple idea. See p 605 also ἐπὶ παροργισμῷ ὑμῶν (Eph. 4:26), cf. 2 Cor. 9:15. The idea of aim or purpose seems to come in cases like ἐπὶ ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς (Eph. 2:10), ἐφʼ ᾧ καὶ κατελήμφθην (Ph. 3:12). Note also Gal. 5:13, ἐπʼ ἐλευθερίᾳ; 1 Th. 4:7, οὐκ ἐπʼ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ (cf. ἐν ἁγιασμῷ), ἐπὶ καταστροφῇ (2 Tim. 2:14). Cf. ἐπʼ ἐλευθερίαι inscr. at Delphi ii/b.c. (Deissm., Light, p. 327). The notion of model is involved in ἐκάλουν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι (Lu.[1]
2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 137.
[1] Robertson, A. T. (1919). A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (pp. 604–605). Logos Bible Software.
Or the law is still in effect and the idea it isn't is the strong delusion...hence "lawlessness".
Of course the law is still in effect. The laws of Moses weren't simply the decrees of some ruler such as "You shall not wear brown shoes on Tuesday" which have no consequence for one's life unless the one making the law chooses to enforce it. The laws of Moses are rather based on the foundation of the laws inherent in creation as God established them. Some discussion has taken place here regarding Beale's We Become What We Worship. The point is that whatever we consider to be of worth (worth-ship) is the manner in which we pattern our lives. Then there are cases such as "You shall not bear false witness …" The bearing of false witness (perjury) destroys the system of justice. It is important to know the degrees of consanguinity so the violation of the law "You shall not commit adultery" has the consequence that it might be possible to marry someone too closely related and end up with physical or mental problems in one's offspring if you don't know the parents.
I think David nailed it.
thank you, everyone for all your input
