Cheryl Schatz

Mark you said:

By the way here are some true representations of what the Present Greek Tense denotes or means… The durative (linear or progressive) in the present stem: the action is represented as durative (in progress) and either as timeless (????? ? ????) or as taking place in present time (including, of course, duration on one side or the other of the present moment: ????? ‘I am writing [now]’;…The present stem may also be iterative: ??????? ‘threw repeatedly (or each time)’. (Blass & DeBrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 166.)

Sorry my blog program doesn’t allow the Greek characters and that is why the question marks showed up. I haven’t been able to fix that.

The quotes that you made actually refute your view and support mine. DeBrunner shows that the present tense is action in progress or timeless (i.e. “being” such as Jesus saying that He is the “I AM” which is a present tense sense of “being” which does not end thus timeless) Where is the present tense listed as a past action? You gave no reference for DeBrunner. And for Ephesians 2:1 in the timeless sense would mean a “being” that is constantly “dead” to something. It was hardly helpful to your position at all.

Now in the A.T. Robertson quote, if you had kept on going on pgs 824 – 825 it would have caused you some trouble.

Time in the participle is only relative to the principal verb. It is thus kind of action, not the time of the action, that is expressed in these forms….It is only by the augment (probably an adverb) that past time is clearly expressed.2 “Homer and later Greek writers often use the present with an adverb of time instead of a past tense, a construction which has an exact parallel in Sanskrit and which is therefore supposed to be Indo-Germanic.”… But past time was objective and the three kinds of action (punctiliar, durative, perfected) were regularly expressed with the tenses (aorist, imperfect, past perfect). There is Aktionsart also in the present and future time, but the tense development did not go on to the full extent here. There are only two tense-forms in the present and practically only one in the future. But both punctiliar and linear action are expressed, but not differentiated, in the present time by the same tense, as is true also of the future. The kinds of action exist, but separate tense-forms unfortunately do not occur.4 There might thus have been nine tenses in the indicative: three punctiliar (past, present, future), three linear (past, present, future), three perfect (past, present, future).5 Because of this difference between the indicative and the other moods in the matter of time some grammars6 give a separate treatment to the indicative tenses. It is not an easy matter to handle, but to separate the indicative perhaps accents the element of time unduly. Even in the indicative the time element is subordinate to the kind of action expressed. A double idea thus runs through tense in the indicative (kind of action, time of the action).
Robertson, A. (1919; 2006). A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (824–825).

We see that Robertson affirms that the time element is relative in the participle to the principal verb which is “being”. He also says that past time is clearly expressed only by the augment which is probably an adverb. Where is such an adverb of time in Ephesians 2:1 that clearly expresses past time? It doesn’t qualify for a “clearly expressed” past time per A.T. Robertson in the very pages that you quoted from. It must be a disappointment that he doesn’t give you the backing that you were looking for. Robertson also says: “But past time was objective and the three kinds of action (punctiliar, durative, perfected) were regularly expressed with the tenses (aorist, imperfect, past perfect).” As far as action what is “regularly expressed” as “past time” is three tense and present tense is not listed here. I am wondering why you didn’t quote further from Robertson? Is it because the present time and/or the present state of being (without end) fits with how I have interpreted the passage and it falls short of a proven past time tense for you?
You said:

Finally here is a good definition of how the greek tenses work

The issue of what is the “being” that is timeless and the actual presen tense is simply not helpful for you in trying to prove that a state of being is no long applicable but only in the past.

Here is a thoughtful presentation of how the Greek tenses work from a fellow who I dialoged with years back on the women’s issue. I think that his presentation is clear and consistent and he presents the issues of the present tense in a way that the layman can understand:

When we think of tense, we usually think only in terms of the TIME of the action: Past, present, and future.

While the Greek language has these distinctions, there is also an equal emphasis on the TYPE of action and whether it is viewed as continuously happening or as happening in a single point of time.

The technical terms for these are “punctiliar action” (point action) and “linear action” (continuous or line action).

1. PRESENT TENSE.

This generally indicates continuous action in the present time (If we are continually confessing our sin… – 1 John 1:9).

It is the linear tense.

Jesus uses the present tense when he says “Before Abraham was, I AM” (John 8:58). The emphasis here is that He is continually existing – there is no beginning or end of His existence in view. There are other uses of the present tense.

A successive use of the present is seen in 1 Corinthians 15:31 where Paul says, “I am dying daily.” This implication is that this is something that takes place on a regular basis.

John continues about the expression of past action:

2. IMPERFECT TENSE.

This tense is also linear. It describes continuous action in the PAST. It is used three times in John 1:1…

“In the beginning CONTINUALLY WAS the Word, and the Word CONTINUALLY WAS with God, and the Word CONTINUALLY WAS God.”

Another express of past tense is the plurperfect:

6. PLUPERFECT TENSE.

This is the perfect tense of the past. It describes action that took place in a point in past time and which had results that continued for a time, but which then ceased.

So my question remains where is the proof that the present tense of Ephesians 2:1 is “clearly expressed” as a past action or a sense of “being” that was but no longer is? What appears to be consistent is that the grammatical marks are what is key that would make a present tense to be a past action. There has to be additional grammar that would define the structure of the sentence as past action that ended. It isn’t derived from the context but from grammar. Do you have any proof that the context is what defines the “past time” from a present verb? Who are you going to quote that says this?

I am still behind in answering your comments but my family is here another couple of days and it is difficult to keep up as it is. I hope that you continue to have patience with me, Bud.