Luke 21:32 and the Aorist Tense in Greek

[1 John 4:1]

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/21-32.htm I was having an argument with my friend about this verse and he is saying the aorist tense in Greek means that the last word in this verse does not necessarily mean everything has completed just that everything has started to happen:
1096 [e]
genētai
γένηται
shall have taken place
V-ASM-3S

He got this from looking up the aorist tense in the Merriam Webster dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aorist "an inflectional form of a verb typically denoting simple occurrence of an action without reference to its completeness, duration, or repetition"

However when I look at aorist on this site: http://www.ntgreek.net/lesson22.htm it says:

"In English, the tense we use for this is the simple past. If I say, I hit the ball, I do not indicate the action was ongoing or repeated. . . . Consider the first of these pairs of sentences. If I say I was hitting the ball, that suggests I mean to describe a process, perhaps an iterative process, perhaps repeated hitting: I was hitting the ball well yesterday until the 14th hole. But if I say, I hit the ball well yesterday, it may be that I hit the ball only once, or it may be that I hit the ball several times. I conceive of the action as if it were punctiliar, but that doesn't mean it was punctiliar. I may say, I attended college. Most likely, this happened over a period of years. But I describe the action as a single, simple event without reference to the duration."

To me, it just seems to not describe the duration or whether it was repeated it doesn't mean that the action wasn't complete. So does it mean everything has happened or just that everything has started?

 

[συνείδησις]

I think aorist is indefinite, i.e., independent of time. Simple past doesn't work consistently. For example abolished and brought to light are aorist in 2 Timothy 1:10, but death hasn't been abolished. The indefinite would be Christ abolishes death and brings to light life and immortality:

But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought to light life and immortality through the gospel: 2 Timothy 1:10​

More if you're interested:
http://www.scripture4all.org/help/isa3/articles/The_Greek_and_English_Indefinite.htm

 

[Radagast]

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/21-32.htm I was having an argument with my friend about this verse and he is saying the aorist tense in Greek means that the last word in this verse does not necessarily mean everything has completed just that everything has started to happen

In general, one can't draw conclusions from the fact that an aorist tense was used.

You can, however, look at other uses of the same tense: http://biblehub.com/greek/gene_tai_1096.htm

 

[Hank77]

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/21-32.htm I was having an argument with my friend about this verse and he is saying the aorist tense in Greek means that the last word in this verse does not necessarily mean everything has completed just that everything has started to happen:
1096 [e]
genētai
γένηται
shall have taken place
V-ASM-3S

He got this from looking up the aorist tense in the Merriam Webster dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aorist "an inflectional form of a verb typically denoting simple occurrence of an action without reference to its completeness, duration, or repetition"

However when I look at aorist on this site: http://www.ntgreek.net/lesson22.htm it says:

"In English, the tense we use for this is the simple past. If I say, I hit the ball, I do not indicate the action was ongoing or repeated. . . . Consider the first of these pairs of sentences. If I say I was hitting the ball, that suggests I mean to describe a process, perhaps an iterative process, perhaps repeated hitting: I was hitting the ball well yesterday until the 14th hole. But if I say, I hit the ball well yesterday, it may be that I hit the ball only once, or it may be that I hit the ball several times. I conceive of the action as if it were punctiliar, but that doesn't mean it was punctiliar. I may say, I attended college. Most likely, this happened over a period of years. But I describe the action as a single, simple event without reference to the duration."

To me, it just seems to not describe the duration or whether it was repeated it doesn't mean that the action wasn't complete. So does it mean everything has happened or just that everything has started?

From your Greek lesson link.
Remember that Greek tenses indicate not only time of action, but more especially kind of action. The aorist tense is a secondary tense, and accordingly, in the indicative mood it indicates past action. In other moods, it does not indicate absolute time, and often does not even indicate relative time.

In this verse the verb 'be fulfilled' is in the subjunctive mood. So it does not give an absolute time or even indicate relative time.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/luk/21/32/t_conc_994032

'this generation' is what tells us about the time indicated in the verse. This would be like in your quote "I hit the ball well yesterday." So the time was yesterday.

What we do know is that when Jesus spoke those words the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple was still in the future but was actually accomplished in 70 AD.

imo, which isn't just my opinion, 'this generation' is the generation of Jews living during that time.

 

[bcbsr]

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/21-32.htm I was having an argument with my friend about this verse and he is saying the aorist tense in Greek means that the last word in this verse does not necessarily mean everything has completed just that everything has started to happen:
1096 [e]
genētai
γένηται
shall have taken place
V-ASM-3S

He got this from looking up the aorist tense in the Merriam Webster dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aorist "an inflectional form of a verb typically denoting simple occurrence of an action without reference to its completeness, duration, or repetition"

However when I look at aorist on this site: http://www.ntgreek.net/lesson22.htm it says:

"In English, the tense we use for this is the simple past. If I say, I hit the ball, I do not indicate the action was ongoing or repeated. . . . Consider the first of these pairs of sentences. If I say I was hitting the ball, that suggests I mean to describe a process, perhaps an iterative process, perhaps repeated hitting: I was hitting the ball well yesterday until the 14th hole. But if I say, I hit the ball well yesterday, it may be that I hit the ball only once, or it may be that I hit the ball several times. I conceive of the action as if it were punctiliar, but that doesn't mean it was punctiliar. I may say, I attended college. Most likely, this happened over a period of years. But I describe the action as a single, simple event without reference to the duration."

To me, it just seems to not describe the duration or whether it was repeated it doesn't mean that the action wasn't complete. So does it mean everything has happened or just that everything has started?

Take the college illustration you reference. When you say "I attended college", you're talking about a completed action. If it's ongoing you would say "I attend college". But it's nature the aorist is referring to completed events, not ongoing events, which is why it's always used when referring to historical events. Furthermore the word "all" is included again indicating he's not talking about something which is partially completed.

I think the issue with the verse is what "generation" means.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/21-32.htm I was having an argument with my friend about this verse and he is saying the aorist tense in Greek means that the last word in this verse does not necessarily mean everything has completed just that everything has started to happen:
1096 [e]
genētai
γένηται
shall have taken place
V-ASM-3S

He got this from looking up the aorist tense in the Merriam Webster dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aorist "an inflectional form of a verb typically denoting simple occurrence of an action without reference to its completeness, duration, or repetition"

However when I look at aorist on this site: http://www.ntgreek.net/lesson22.htm it says:

"In English, the tense we use for this is the simple past. If I say, I hit the ball, I do not indicate the action was ongoing or repeated. . . . Consider the first of these pairs of sentences. If I say I was hitting the ball, that suggests I mean to describe a process, perhaps an iterative process, perhaps repeated hitting: I was hitting the ball well yesterday until the 14th hole. But if I say, I hit the ball well yesterday, it may be that I hit the ball only once, or it may be that I hit the ball several times. I conceive of the action as if it were punctiliar, but that doesn't mean it was punctiliar. I may say, I attended college. Most likely, this happened over a period of years. But I describe the action as a single, simple event without reference to the duration."

To me, it just seems to not describe the duration or whether it was repeated it doesn't mean that the action wasn't complete. So does it mean everything has happened or just that everything has started?

Well, a lot was started, obviously,
but also everything that already happened, happened.

 

[1 John 4:1]

Thanks for all your input. Currently, where I am at, is that there is an ingressive aorist that does mean what my friend was arguing. However, whether you take it as an ingressive aorist seems to depend more on your view of the context and eschatology rather than anything that is easily decidable like syntax. See here: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/33874/26041

Personally, I have a hard time seeing the generation as anything but that group of people alive then since that is how it is used in the NT. I tend to take many of the things predicted as fulfilled in the time before and soon after the 70AD destruction of the temple. However, there are obviously things that haven't happened yet "our gathering to him" in 2 Thessalonians 2.

To prevent some confusion, I suspect there are at least two different comings of the son of man, one was a "coming in his kingdom": https://www.christianforums.com/thr...-you-the-hope-of-glory.8072898/#post-72937691 and the other is a coming in judgment: https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/668-what-is-the-meaning-of-matthew-10-23 I'm sure I'm wrong about a bunch of stuff here. Also, the people at hermeneutics.stackexchange.com had some good points against the idea that Matt 24 and Luke 21 were fulfilled in the 1st century that will take some more study on my part.

 

[Radagast]

But it's nature the aorist is referring to completed events

The perfect refers to completed events. The present continuous refers to ongoing events.