Ah ok mate that sorta clears it up for me. So when erchorami is listed as the word used in 1 John 4 it doesn't show the verbal addition to give tense but simply the primary verb ?
My GNT gives εληλυθοτα G2064 so that does make sense thanks. I still don't see how this necessarily implies current position because perefct presnt may also imply a completed past event.
The PRESENT PERFECT TENSE is formed with a present tense form of "to have" plus the past participle of the verb (which can be either regular or irregular in form). This tense indicates either that an action was completed (finished or "perfected") at some point in the past or that the action extends to the present:
I have walked two miles already [but I'm still walking].
I have run the Boston Marathon [but that was some time ago].
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/tenses/present_perfect.htm
How do you definitively suggest that the verb εληλυθοτα implies continuing to the present if it doesn't have a modifying verb to suggest this ?
Hi Agua,
Where do you see a present perfect tense? Everything I have says it's 2 perfect.
This doesn't really make sense to me mate because we know Jesus left heaven and wasn't a man there right ? Now He emptied Himself and became a man and died and was resurrected as the first fruits of the resurrection. all this was done as a man I agree. After this though Jesus ascended to heaven which is something men don't do right ? So this suggests He returned to his previous state/position. Can you show me where it's suggested Jesus is still a man and why currently being a man is necessary for His work on Earth to be a valid representation of a man's actions ? As an example I could become a soldier and perform a duty and then leave the force. This doesn't negate the fact that I was once a soldier and performed as one.
Jesus had already ascended when John wrote the epistle. The main thing about the perfect tense is that the result of the action persisted from the event to the time of the speaker. This means that Jesus was still in the flesh when John wrote. That means that Jesus ascended as a man. I don't see anything in Scripture suggesting that Jesus changed after He ascended. The angels at the tomb say He would return in like manner which means that He will return as a man. God promised David that the seed of his loins would sit on his throne forever. The fruit of David's loins would have to be a man.
29 Men and brethren,
let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. {let me: or, I may} 30
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. (Act 2:1 KJV)
Jesus Has to reign as a man on the throne of David in order for God to fulfill His promise to David.
2 For I have said, Mercy shall be built up for ever: thy faithfulness shalt thou establish in the very heavens.
3 I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant,
4
Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations. Selah. (Psa 89:2-4 KJV)
I still don't see this mate considering the perfect tense can imply a finished action. Why do I have to take the present perfect verb as continuous without a modal verb to suggest this ?
I'm not sure where you see a present perfect. Did you read the intro to the Perfect tense from Wallace?
I accept it is perfect tense thanks for that. Using Strong's can be a bit misleading without getting the actual verb from the Greek. I'll be careful with that.
Dictionaries and Lexicons give the root word and the meaning. The word's spelling changes depending on how it's used. It's called inflection English does it some but not like the Greek. It's like ran and run, they both mean the same thing but because one is past tense it is spelled differently.
Yeah i agree the context decides the meaning. Can you show me why we must assume John is talking about the ongoing fleshly state of Jesus when it could also imply a past event that has ongoing implications or that the past event was completed. Why must I accept the continuous tense when there's no modal verb to suggest this ?
Also if this word is used elsewhere to show a past completed event/action does this mean John may also have meant this ?
Here is Wallace on the Perfect tense.
Introduction
As a general introduction, for the most part, the perfect and pluperfect tenses are identical in aspect though different in time. Thus
both speak of an event accomplished in the past (in the indicative mood, that is) with results existing
573
afterwards
–the perfect speaking of results existing in the present, the pluperfect speaking of results existing in the past.
I. The Perfect Tense
Introduction
Although this section on the perfect tense will be brief, one must not assume that the length of discussion corresponds to the significance of the topic. We are brief because the primary uses of the perfect are fairly easy to comprehend, though they are not insignificant. As Moulton points out, the perfect tense is “the most important, exegetically, of all the Greek Tenses.”2 The perfect is used less frequently than the present, aorist, future, or imperfect; when it is used, there is usually a deliberate choice on the part of the writer.3
Definition
The force of the perfect tense is simply that it describes an event that, completed in the past (we are speaking of the perfect indicative here), has results existing in the present time (i.e., in relation to the time of the speaker).
Or, as Zerwick puts it, the perfect tense is used for “indicating not the past action as such but the present ‘state of affairs’ resulting from the past action.”4
BDF suggest that the perfect tense “combines in itself, so to speak, the present and the aorist in that it denotes the
continuance of
completed action. . . .”5
574
Chamberlain goes too far when he suggests that the perfect sometimes is used to “describe an act that has
abiding results.”6 The implication that “the perfect
tells you that the event occurred and
still has significant results”7 goes beyond grammar and is therefore misleading. Even more misleading is the notion, frequently found in commentaries, that the perfect tense denotes
permanent or
eternal results. Such a statement is akin to saying the aorist tense means “once-for-all.” Implications of this sort are to be drawn from considerations that are other than grammatical in nature. One must be careful not to read his or her theology into the syntax whenever it is convenient.
The bolding and underlining are mine.
