Thread: Perfect Tense in Luke 5:20

I went back and reviewed Mounce concerning the perfect passive indicative of aphiemi in Luke 5:20, "Thy sins are forgiven thee." I am by no means a Greek expert but it seems to me that the use of the perfect, as opposed to the aorist in Rom 4:7 for example, teaches that the man's sins were forgiven and he continues in a state of forgiveness. This means that even if the man sins again in the future, he continues in that state of forgiveness.

Is this good exegesis or am I overstating my case?

Aorist is like a one time in the past thing. Perfect is in many cases something that happened in the past with ongoing effects (affects?).

Does that help. I think you are right or at least on the right track.

Originally Posted by KMK

I went back and reviewed Mounce concerning the perfect passive indicative of aphiemi in Luke 5:20, "Thy sins are forgiven thee." I am by no means a Greek expert but it seems to me that the use of the perfect, as opposed to the aorist in Rom 4:7 for example, teaches that the man's sins were forgiven and he continues in a state of forgiveness. This means that even if the man sins again in the future, he continues in that state of forgiveness.

Is this good exegesis or am I overstating my case?

It appears that your exegesis is sound. The perfect tense indicates completed action with abiding results.

In any case, here's a note from Hendriksen & Kistemaker on your verse.

In verses 20 and 23 note ἀφέωνται, third per. pl. Doric perfect passive indicat. of ἀφίημι, here in the sense of forgive, where the parallels in Matthew (9:2, 5) and Mark (2:5, 9) use the present passive. But whether one says “are forgiven” or “have been and remain forgiven,” the result is the same: the man’s sins are no longer reckoned against him. They “are forgiven.” In verse 21 the aor. infinitive ἀφεῖναι stresses the fact of forgiveness as such, apart from any time reference. By contrast, the pres. active infinitive ἀφιέναι in verse 24 has reference to the continuing forgiving activity of the Son of man.

Hendriksen, William ; Kistemaker, Simon J.: New Testament Commentary : Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke. Grand Rapids : Baker Book House, 1953-2001 (New Testament Commentary 11), S. 301

Originally Posted by Nomad

Originally Posted by KMK

I went back and reviewed Mounce concerning the perfect passive indicative of aphiemi in Luke 5:20, "Thy sins are forgiven thee." I am by no means a Greek expert but it seems to me that the use of the perfect, as opposed to the aorist in Rom 4:7 for example, teaches that the man's sins were forgiven and he continues in a state of forgiveness. This means that even if the man sins again in the future, he continues in that state of forgiveness.

Is this good exegesis or am I overstating my case?

It appears that your exegesis is sound. The perfect tense indicates completed action with abiding results.

In any case, here's a note from Hendriksen & Kistemaker on your verse.

In verses 20 and 23 note ἀφέωνται, third per. pl. Doric perfect passive indicat. of ἀφίημι, here in the sense of forgive, where the parallels in Matthew (9:2, 5) and Mark (2:5, 9) use the present passive. But whether one says “are forgiven” or “have been and remain forgiven,” the result is the same: the man’s sins are no longer reckoned against him. They “are forgiven.” In verse 21 the aor. infinitive ἀφεῖναι stresses the fact of forgiveness as such, apart from any time reference. By contrast, the pres. active infinitive ἀφιέναι in verse 24 has reference to the continuing forgiving activity of the Son of man.

Hendriksen, William ; Kistemaker, Simon J.: New Testament Commentary : Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke. Grand Rapids : Baker Book House, 1953-2001 (New Testament Commentary 11), S. 301

It seems, then, that the perfect indicative of verse 20, and the present infinitive of verse 24, combine to strengthen the case that even the man's future sins shall continue to be forgiven. IOW, he is in a state of forgiveness.

Ken, I think that may be pressing the perfect a bit too hard if we're speaking strictly grammatically. Consider the following parallel: The doctor says to his patient, "Arise and go home, son; all your wounds have been dressed and healed."

Mounce says of Luke 5:20, "The emphasis is on the resulting state of the action (intensive)... Greek For The Rest Of Us; pg 163.

What would be the difference if it (aphiemi) was in the aorist tense? (As it is Rom 4:7)

No, the exegesis is not sound. The perfect tense does not convey any information about whether the current state will or will not continue, or under what conditions the state will continue. I should also mention that contemporary verbal aspect theory is calling into question the traditional account of the perfect, but that I still prefer the traditional understanding.

From Burton's Moods and Tenses:

74. The Perfect of Completed Action. In its most frequent use the Perfect Indicative represents an action as standing at the time of speaking complete. The reference of the tense is thus double; it implies a past action and affirms an existing result.

75. The Perfect of Existing State. The Perfect is sometimes used when the attention is directed wholly to the present resulting state, the past action of which it is the result being left out of thought. This usage occurs most frequently in a few verbs which use the Perfect in this sense only.

76. There is no sharp line of distinction between the Perfect of Completed Action and the Perfect of Existing State. To the latter head are to be assigned those instances in which the past act is practically dropped from thought, and the attention turned wholly to the existing result; while under the former head are to be placed those instances in which it is evident that the writer had in mind both the past act and the present result.

80. The Aoristic Perfect. The Perfect Indicative is sometimes used in the New Testament of a simple past fact where it is scarcely possible to suppose that the thought of existing result was in the writer's mind.

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

The perfect tense does not convey any information about whether the current state will or will not continue, or under what conditions the state will continue.

You're absolutely right, and if grammar were all we had to work with, then I would agree that the perfect tense in Luke 5:20 wouldn't tell us if the man's situation would last. But, the fact that it was Christ Himself who forgave the man in Luke 5 should be a pretty good indication that his salvation was permanent. If we consider the context as well as the grammar we have sound exegesis.

The perfect tense does not address the future. As Charlie noted, "it implies a past action and affirms an existing result." Grammatically, it does NOT imply a perpetual condition.

Originally Posted by Gomarus

The perfect tense does not address the future. As Charlie noted, "it implies a past action and affirms an existing result." Grammatically, it does imply a perpetual condition.

Did you mean to write, "Grammatically, it does NOT imply a perpetual condition?"

Originally Posted by Nomad

You're absolutely right, and if grammar were all we had to work with, then I would agree that the perfect tense in Luke 5:20 wouldn't tell us if the man's situation would last. But, the fact that it was Christ Himself who forgave the man in Luke 5 should be a pretty good indication that his salvation was permanent. If we consider the context as well as the grammar we have sound exegesis.

The point of the question, though, was not whether the man's sins would stay forgiven. I hardly think there is any doubt about that. The question was whether the perfect tense necessarily leads to that conclusion.

There is a difference between one's conclusion, and one's exegesis (process of "drawing out" the text). Both need to be correct, or one distorts Scripture. KMK's question was a good one, since the tense system is usually one of the hardest aspects of a language to learn. It's very easy to press a nuance that isn't there or vice versa. Charles Ryrie, for example, is notorious for his erroneous "once-for-all" aorist.

Charlie makes a very good point!

One last question: When Jesus uses the perfect of 'grapho' in Luke 4:4 and 4:8, Machen says, "The meaning is 'it stands written'." Since it was written in the past and it stands written today, is there no implication (in the verb alone) that it shall remain written?

Originally Posted by KMK

Charlie makes a very good point!

One last question: When Jesus uses the perfect of 'grapho' in Luke 4:4 and 4:8, Machen says, "The meaning is 'it stands written'." Since it was written in the past and it stands written today, is there no implication (in the verb alone) that it shall remain written?

I don't think that can legitimately be inferred from the verb tense alone. The perfect of γραφω is used often in secular literature, often in a speech to introduce an authoritative quote or to quote a standing law. The NT writers seem to follow this, since almost every instance of the perfect is an OT quote. That certainly seems to indicate that the speaker views the source (or at least that portion) as a standing authority. So, taken in context, I think that Jesus' use proves that he viewed the law as a continually abiding authority.

However, I would not invest the tense itself with that full meaning, since when Demosthenes argues from the law using the perfect, it is doubtful that he views each and every statute he cites as eternally abiding, only presently in effect. Also, if we were to invest the perfect with that kind of power, I think we'd get in trouble on those fewer occasions where the aorist is chosen. Would that mean the NT writer views it as significant to the past only?

There is definitely a weaker use, one might even say a more normal use, of the perfect in the secular literature. It has no notion of authority, simply testifying to a past event. It is fairly interchangeable with the aorist. If I say something today, tomorrow I can either say "I said" or "I have said." Both mean approximately the same thing, although the second could imply that I still mean it.

So, in conclusion, the perfect tense of γραφω can have a special meaning involving the use of authority that is specific to that verb alone, not generic to the tense.

The perfect tense is not a perpetual state. After all, one could be "freed" (perf. tense) and then be enslaved again later.

The real emphasis of the perfect is on the current state that ensues from the past action. So the aorist of "forgiven" would emphasize the act of forgiveness in the past, and the perfect tense would emphasize the state of forgiveness due to the past act.

Not such that we would be dogmatic about the differences, but I believe that the traditional view of tenses has far more to support it than the new view advanced by Mounce.