The present indicative in new testament exegesis by

katarge

144

word Mt. Mk. Lk.-Acts Jn.-Rev. Paul Peter total

katoike

klai

kri

lamba

marture

me

nusta

para

paradi

paralamba

pe

penqe

pi

pi

poreu

proa

prosdoka

proseu

spe

sth

telei

th

ti

u[pa

145

word Mt. Mk. Lk.-Acts Jn.-Rev. Paul Peter total

fe

feu

xai

total NT 38 22 34 140 33 6 273

Of the sixty-seven verbs which are found in the futuristic present, only

thirteen occur five times or more. These are their occurrences:

57—e@rxomai 6—a]nabai

39—ei]mi< 6—qewre

24—u[pa

15—e@xw 5—kri

11—e]gei

9—a]poste

7—poreu

Most prominent are verbs of going, especially e@rxomai; in the

short list above they account for half of the total usages. It is be-

lieved that e@rxomai originally had a futuristic meaning in the root,

derived from the classical verb ei#mi.¹ Thus e@rxomai, can be futuristic

whether or not it is prophetic (Mt. 17:11; cf. 24:43).² Futuristic e@rx-

omai, can account for God's "wrath" predicted against the earth to be still

future, at the Tribulation (Eph. 5:6; Col. 3:6; cf. present participle

(he notes that the future form e]leu

Buttmann, A Grammar of the New Testament Greek, pp. 50, 204; Abbott,

Johannine Grammar, p. 353; Simcox, The Language of the New Testament, pp.

99-100.

146

obvious when it is in parallel with a future verb, as in Luke 12:54-55

(e@rxetai . . . e@stai) and John 14:3 (e@rxomai kai> paralh2 The

present participle, "the coming one" is also futuristic, as in Revelation.³

Blass, however, tends to discount this meaning in e@rxomai. He maintains

that the futuristic present "is not attached to any definite verbs, and

it is purely by accident that e@rxomai, appears with special frequency in

this sense."⁴ He tries to neutralize some of the data by stating that

"verbs of going and coming when used in the present also have the mean-

ing of being in course of going (or coming), in which case the arrival

at the goal still lies in the future: Jn. 3:8; 8:14; 14:4-5; Acts 20:22;

Mt. 20:18; Jn. 20:17."⁵ The newer edition of Blass concurs and cites

the same examples.⁶ To some extent Buttmann's grammar tries to argue for

a similar treatment:

By the Future e]leu

of the future action is placed at a distance, by the Present it is

placed more in the present (to be sure, not always in the immediate

present of which the senses take cognizance as John 21:3, but also

proleptically in the imaginary present of prophetic vision.⁷

This argument, however; seems strained. The coming or going is not in

lation by Robert H. Gundry" (postgraduate seminar paper, Grace Theological

Seminary, 1974), p. 63.

² BDF, p. 168.

³ Cf. Mt. 3:11; Buttmann, A Grammar of the New Testament Greek,

p. 204.

147

Macedonia (1 Cor. 16:5), he was not packing his bags--he was planning to

leave later on (cf. vv. 8-9). Many similar examples can be shown from

Jesus' life as well. When He said, "I come to you" (Jn. 14:18), He was

not yet in the process of coming, for He had not even gone yet. It is

better to realize, as most grammarians have, that e@rxomai and related

verbs can take both a progressive use (in progress of coming) or a fu-

turistic use (will come), just as other verbs do. The reason for its

higher percentage is the nature of its meaning and the history of its

root development.

The verb "to be," ei]mi< or gi

verb gi

are only two New Testament examples.¹ Yet not much discussion is given

to futuristic ei]mi<. Zerwick, however, does note the futuristic use of

ei]mi<, and suggests that its high frequency (along with that for e@xw) is

due to an Aramaic speaking background, which language would render them

with a present participal and a temporal adverb.²

Most of the other terms on the most frequent list are special

favorites of one author or of the Synoptic writers. The verbs u[pa

e@xw, poreu

three "going" verbs, along with e@rxomai, are mostly in the Gospel. @Exw

is found also in the visions of Revelation. The alternation in meaning

in e@xw from the Gospel to Revelation is remarkable.
¹ Buttmann, A Grammar of the New Testament Greek, pp. 203-04;

Simcox, The Language of the New Testament, p. 101.

148

ternally, such as eternal life. In Revelation almost all the usages

of this verb are open and visible, such as bodily parts or marks or

objects grasped in the hand.¹

This change in emphasis in e@xw from John to Revelation is typical of the

two books.

The book of John shows the first stages of belief and unbelief. The

world consists of men who are to be convinced that Jesus is the Christ,

and who thereby are to have life. The appeal goes out. Some hear and

understand and accept, and others do not. The words in John are di-

rected to this decision making process.

The book of Revelation, on the other hand, vividly paints the pic-

ture of the outcome of the decision demanded in John. Only occasionally

is the call repeated. The choice of the majority of the world has al-

ready been made. The visible punishments are now to be meted out, as

are the visible rewards. That was in John an inward allegiance becomes

in Revelation an external categorization. The lost have the mark of

the beast; the redeemed have the mark of God. God, who influences the

heart in John, judges the earth in Revelation. The words used in

Revelation point to that emphasis, most of them being interpreted

literally and externally.²

The verb qewre

times has a higher spiritual significance.³ The Synoptic writers account

for the frequency of a]poste

one usage in the three parallel passages. John and Matthew divide a]fi