1 Timothy 2:5 verb tense

Dizerner

Well-known member
There is a bit of a discussion in the A/C forum over the tense of the implied Greek verb in this verse.

εἷς γὰρ θεός, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς (1Ti 2:5 BGT)

How likely could there be a past tense sense to the mediator as mentioned here ("there was one mediator").
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
There is a bit of a discussion in the A/C forum over the tense of the implied Greek verb in this verse.

εἷς γὰρ θεός, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς (1Ti 2:5 BGT)

How likely could there be a past tense sense to the mediator as mentioned here ("there was one mediator").
This is a verbless clause. The verb is understood for both εἷς γὰρ θεός = there is one God and εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ = there is one mediator. It would be the same to-be verb and the same tense, as far as I know always present tense.

So if it were to be past tense it would also be "there was one God" and that's highly unlikely.

However at verse 6 the verb is aorist so the act of giving as a man was in the past, not his identity as the mediator.
 
Last edited:

Sethproton

Well-known member
This is a verbless clause. The verb is understood for both εἷς γὰρ θεός = there is one God and εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ = there is one mediator. It would be the same to-be verb and the same tense, as far as I know always present tense.

So if it were to be past tense it would also be "there was one God" and that's highly unlikely.

However at verse 6 the verb is aorist so the act of giving as a man was in the past, not his identity as the mediator.
I am interested in your answer as I am the person who stirred up conversation about Him as mediator.
I had not noticed, but it was interesting that you connected verse 5 to 6, as i read it I thought that six was a kind of explanation of 5.
Also, just in case in interests you, I was faulting some people for trying to make a doctrinal position based on an implied verb. basically they were saying since the English translation of 5 goes "There IS one mediator" that means He is currently mediating, and that the implied "is" in verse 5 is proof that He is still mediating.
I would be interested to hear your thoughts. And then allow me to question you if it goes over my head
 

Johnnybgood

Well-known member
This is a verbless clause. The verb is understood for both εἷς γὰρ θεός = there is one God and εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ = there is one mediator. It would be the same to-be verb and the same tense, as far as I know always present tense.

So if it were to be past tense it would also be "there was one God" and that's highly unlikely.

However at verse 6 the verb is aorist so the act of giving as a man was in the past, not his identity as the mediator.
Could you comment on this verse as the poster does not believe when Hebrews 8:6 was written that Jesus was a present mediator . I told him the writer of Hebrews would of used a past tense verb if that were true. I do not know Greek but I do understand basic English. Thank you.

Hebrews 8:6
But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.
 

Johnnybgood

Well-known member
Sorry, was distracted.

Hebrew 8:6 explicitly says Jesus is the mediator using the present tense form of the to-be verb, the one that is understood at 1 Ti 2:5.

That settles the question of tense for me.

Does that help?
Yes as the person says he is not the present mediator since he claims it was completed in the past on the cross. I told him that is a circular argument which he denies. Would I be correct with saying it’s a circular argument or a different fallacy ? Thank you
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Yes as the person says he is not the present mediator since he claims it was completed in the past on the cross. I told him that is a circular argument which he denies. Would I be correct with saying it’s a circular argument or a different fallacy ? Thank you
I'm only looking at the grammar. It does not seem like he is. I observe that a lot on CARM where people assert things and don't provide any basis for it. It used to happen on this forum a lot but the ones who consistently did that left the forum.
 
Johnnybgood said:
Yes as the person says he is not the present mediator since he claims it was completed in the past on the cross. I told him that is a circular argument which he denies. Would I be correct with saying it’s a circular argument or a different fallacy ? Thank you
Not a single fallacy but a whole series of erroneous assumptions about natural language, hermeneutics, exegesis, theology ... Navigating Cape Horn in a small wooden rowboat during a typhoon. When a qualified participant attempts to clarify the verb tense/aspect issue the people who raised the verb tense/aspect problem apparently have no framework to support the clarification. You can't discuss verb tense/aspect in a vacuum. This happens not only here but often on the biblical language fourms.
 
Last edited:

Johnnybgood

Well-known member
Not a single fallacy but a whole series of erroneous assumptions about natural language, hermeneutics, exegesis, theology ... Navigating Cape Horn in a small wooden rowboat during a typhoon. When a qualified participant attempts to clarify the verb tense/aspect issue the people who raised the verb tense/aspect problem apparently have no framework to support the clarification. You can't discuss verb tense/aspect in a vacuum. This happens not only here but often on the biblical language fourms.
So we can say at the time Heb 8:6 was written Jesus at the time is our mediator as in the present time the book was written correct ?
 
Heb. 8:6 νυν[ὶ] δὲ διαφορωτέρας τέτυχεν λειτουργίας, ὅσῳ καὶ κρείττονός ἐστιν διαθήκης μεσίτης, ἥτις ἐπὶ κρείττοσιν ἐπαγγελίαις νενομοθέτηται.

The syntax is not difficult. νυν[ὶ] adverb τέτυχεν verb ind perf act 3rd Pers sg

Linking the temporal semantics of ἐστιν to the time of the writing is perhaps dubious. This might be a timeless existential proclamation about the current state of affairs. In other words the time of the writing isn't important to the argument. The temporal framework is defined by νυν[ὶ] adverb with the τέτυχεν perfect and the perfect passive νενομοθέτηται.
 
Last edited:

Johnnybgood

Well-known member
Heb. 8:6 νυν[ὶ] δὲ διαφορωτέρας τέτυχεν λειτουργίας, ὅσῳ καὶ κρείττονός ἐστιν διαθήκης μεσίτης, ἥτις ἐπὶ κρείττοσιν ἐπαγγελίαις νενομοθέτηται.

The syntax is not difficult. νυν[ὶ] adverb τέτυχεν verb ind perf act 3rd Pers sg

Linking the temporal semantics of ἐστιν to the time of the writing is perhaps dubious. This might be a timeless existential proclamation about the current state of affairs. In other words the time of the writing isn't important to the argument. The temporal framework is defined by νυν[ὶ] adverb with the τέτυχεν perfect and the perfect passive νενομοθέτηται.
@Sethproton read this
 

Johnnybgood

Well-known member
Not a single fallacy but a whole series of erroneous assumptions about natural language, hermeneutics, exegesis, theology ... Navigating Cape Horn in a small wooden rowboat during a typhoon. When a qualified participant attempts to clarify the verb tense/aspect issue the people who raised the verb tense/aspect problem apparently have no framework to support the clarification. You can't discuss verb tense/aspect in a vacuum. This happens not only here but often on the biblical language fourms.
@Sethproton read this
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Heb. 8:6 νυν[ὶ] δὲ διαφορωτέρας τέτυχεν λειτουργίας, ὅσῳ καὶ κρείττονός ἐστιν διαθήκης μεσίτης, ἥτις ἐπὶ κρείττοσιν ἐπαγγελίαις νενομοθέτηται.

The syntax is not difficult. νυν[ὶ] adverb τέτυχεν verb ind perf act 3rd Pers sg

Linking the temporal semantics of ἐστιν to the time of the writing is perhaps dubious. This might be a timeless existential proclamation about the current state of affairs. In other words the time of the writing isn't important to the argument. The temporal framework is defined by νυν[ὶ] adverb with the τέτυχεν perfect and the perfect passive νενομοθέτηται.
Are you calling this a gnomic present? (GGBB 523)

The one making the inquiry wants to know if it is possible that ἐστιν refers to the Son as mediator only in the past when on earth.

The answer is no even with gnomic present, which seems to be an unnecessary designation.
 

froggy

Active member
Are you calling this a gnomic present? (GGBB 523)

The one making the inquiry wants to know if it is possible that ἐστιν refers to the Son as mediator only in the past when on earth.

The answer is no even with gnomic present, which seems to be an unnecessary designation.
I would agree with you here
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Yes and that would also make Him still a man in the present .

No, the grammar cannot force this. And no one has attempted to show it does in this forum, so your conclusion does not come from any evidence presented. If anyone has this for 1 Ti 2:5-6 I'd like to see it.

Does the @The Real John Milton agree Jesus is still a man ?

From my precious discussions, yes he does.

But not based on 1 Ti 2:5 to my knowledge.

And for the record, I don't believe the grammar for this verse proves or disproves the notion.

And if it did, BDAG says on this verse that he is "man" in that he identifies with humanity.
 

Johnnybgood

Well-known member
No, the grammar cannot force this. And no one has attempted to show it does in this forum, so your conclusion does not come from any evidence presented. If anyone has this for 1 Ti 2:5-6 I'd like to see it.



From my precious discussions, yes he does.

But not based on 1 Ti 2:5 to my knowledge.

And for the record, I don't believe the grammar for this verse proves or disproves the notion.

And if it did, BDAG says on this verse that he is "man" in that he identifies with humanity.
And bdag is not scripture
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
UBS Handbook for the NT on the relevant passage:

The second statement is that there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus . There is one in many languages will be rendered as "There is only one person." The word mediator can be understood in two ways: (1) one who helps to bring agreement between two or more parties and who guarantees such an agreement; or (2) one who acts as an intermediary in order to reconcile two or more parties. While these two aspects are interrelated, it is the second that is in focus here; it is Jesus Christ who establishes a new relationship between people and God; so TEV "who brings God and human beings together." Mediator in some languages is expressed idiomatically as "middle person." For men see verse 4 above. For Christ Jesus see 1.1. The word for man is the singular form of the generic word for "people"; its use here accents Jesus' humanity rather than his being a member of the male section of the human race. This stress on Jesus' humanity is offered as a corrective to those who at that time understood Jesus not as a full human being but either as only divine, or as a being higher than humans but lower than God. This second part of the verse may also be rendered as "and there is only one person who brings God and all people (or, humans) together. This person is Christ Jesus" (compare NRSV "Christ Jesus, himself human"). 1 Timothy 2:5​
 
Top