Mark

Cheryl,

I’m a little perplexed with you. As a greek scholar you are being totally unfaithful to how the greek language functions. I have agreed with you that the present indicate can have a linear function. However as I have stated, that is not always the case. The context, adverbs etc determine it’s function and thus is translation and interpretation. But you seem to wish to dismiss this clear fact of greek grammar. Let me show your readers just a few example to prove that the present indicate verb can be used to have a past or future meaning.

Mat 3:1 In those days John the Baptist came preaching…

‘Came’ here is the present indicate, yet the context reveals this is a past action.

Mat 13:44 “Again the kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and hid; and for joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.”

‘buys’ here is the present indicate as are ‘goes, sells and has’. The action however has occurred in the past: the man took the money, paid and the deed was done.

The use of the present in this effect relates the hearer and reader into almost a present position, yet the context shows a past action.

Also the present takes a future meaning in some contexts.

John 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.”

‘will come’ is a present indicative, yet again the context of the passage reveals Jesus is talking about a ‘future’ event.

So no, the present indicate does not always have a present tense continuous function, the context decides that.

Now in relation to Eph 2:1. What is important to know is that verse one does not have a subject or verb, only a present participle. As I stated earlier, the participle functions to show a contrast. It is not until verse 5 that we see Paul’s point, when he states that “But God…made us alive”. Therefore the subject and the verb of ‘umas’ (you) in verse 1 are not introduced until verse 4,5. Note also that verse 1-10 are two greek sentences 1-7, 8-10. Thus verse 1-7 fall into 2 parts, 1-3 and 4-7. The former is called an ‘anacoluthon’ and verse 4-7 give a contrast. Thus verse 1-3 highlight the sinful nature in the past, and verse 4-7 contrasts a new nature.

So thus the first main verb of the passage is in verse 5 “made you alive” is contrasted against the first person plural present participle in verse 1. Verse 2 says ‘in which you once walked” parallel to verse 10 which shows the new way to walk

The ‘kai’ (and) in verse one relates the passage back to chapter 1- a continual theme. Chapter 1 highlights God’s predetermined plan for his people to His glory and thus chapter 2 flows through with this thought.

Now Cheryl claimed that no such ‘additional grammar’ in Eph 2 shows that Paul means a past condition. However in verse 2 is a very clear grammatical feature- ‘tote’ (once). Paul is saying you were ‘once’ like this (dead in sin), “in which you once walked”-verse 2) but are now like this (alive in Christ). SO yes there is an explicit grammatical word talking about a past situation- “once” There are also numerous other grammatical features showing the contrast (besides the present participle). There is the contrast between following satan (verse 2) and Jesus. This is expoused by the ‘sun’ compounds and ‘en christo jesou’. Also in verse 4 we get the ‘But God’ (o de theos) and then the three aorist and perfect of the verb forms in 5,6 which all underline the break between a past and a present situation.

So although this may seem messy to many people with all the technical stuff let me conclude. First the perfect indicate verb can take either past, present or future meaning depending on context. Verse 1 is not even a present indicate but a present participle which by definition means a contrast is being made. Verse 2 has ‘tote’ which is an explicit example of a ‘past’ situation. The main verb is not until verse 5 when we are ‘made alive’, which means verse 1 is grammatically related to verse 5 (contrast of past/present, not present/present). Not only that, the overall context (including verse 11-22) explicitly show a past/present contrast.

Cheryl has not been faithful to how the greek grammar functions. She has only put forward one view of how the present indicative functions when there are many others. Not only that, but the present indicate is not there, but it is a present participle showing contrast. So not only am I confused at how a greek scholar ignores simple greek grammar, but her interpretation in my view is unbiblical and divorces the verse from it’s context. Cheryl you will have to do much better to convince me of your interpretation and please weigh all the evidence up.