5. Participle. The present participle, like the present inf., is
timeless and durative.
(a) The Time of the Present
Participle Relative. The
time comes from the principal verb. Thus in πωλοῦντες ἔφερον (Ac. 4:34. Cf. πωλήσας ἤνεγκεν in verse 37) the time is past; in μεριμνῶν δύναται (Mt. 6:27) the time is present; in ἔσεσθε μισούμενοι (Mt. 10:22), ὁ βλέπων ἀποδώσει (Mt. 6:18), ὄψονται τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενον (24:30) it is future. Cf. Mt. 24:46; Lu.
5:4; 12:43. Further examples of the pres. part. of coincident action are seen
in Mt. 27:41; Mk. 16:20; Jo. 6:6; 21:19; Ac. 9:22; 10:44; 19:9.
(b) Futuristic. Just as the pres. ind. sometimes has a
futuristic sense, so the pres. part. may be used of the future in the sense of
purpose (by implication only, however). Cf. εὐλογοῦντα (Ac. 3:26); ἀπαγγέλλοντας (15:27); διακονῶν (Ro. 15:25). In Ac. 18:23, ἐξῆλθεν διερχόμενος τὴν Γαλατικὴν χώραν, the pres. part. is coincident with the
verb. In 21:2 f. the pres. parts. διαπερῶν and ἀποφορτιζόμενον are futuristic (cf. 3:26; 15:27). Blass, page 189, notes ὁ ἐρχόμενος (Jo. 11:27) and ἐρχόμενον (1:9). This use of the pres. part. is
common in Thuc. (Gildersleeve, A. J. P.,
1908, p. 408).
(c) Descriptive. But usually the pres. part. is merely
descriptive. Cf. Mk. 1:4; Ac. 20:9; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:18. There is no notion of
purpose in ἄγοντες (Ac. 21:16). In τοὺς σωζομένους (Ac. 2:47) the idea is probably
iterative, but the descriptive durative is certainly all that is true of τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους in Heb. 10:14 (cf. 10:10).
(d) Conative. It may be conative like the pres. or
imperf. ind. as in πείθων
(Ac. 28:23) or τοὺς εἰσερχομένους (Mt.
23:14).
(e) Antecedent Time. By implication also the pres. part. may
be used to suggest antecedent time (a sort of “imperfect” part.). So τυφλὸς ὣν ἄρτι βλέπω (Jo. 9:25). See further Mt. 2:20; Jo.
12:17; Ac. 4:34; 10:7; Gal. 1:23. Cf. ὁ βαπτίζων (Mk. 1:4).
(f) Indirect Discourse. Cf. p. 864. An example of the pres.
part. with the object of a verb (a sort of indir. disc. with verbs of
sensation) is found in εἴδαμέν τινα ἐκβάλλοντα δαιμόνια (Lu. 9:49). The pres. part. is common
after εἶδον in Rev. (10:1;
13:1, 11; 14:6; 18:1; 20:1, etc.). Cf. Ac. 19:35, γινώσκει τὴν πόλιν οὖσαν.
(g) With the Article. The present participle has often the
iterative (cf. pres. ind.) sense. So ὁ κλέπτων (Eph. 4:28)=‘the
rogue.’ Cf. ὁ
καταλύων (Mt. 27:40); οἱ ζητοῦντες (2:20). The part. with the article
sometimes loses much of its verbal force (Moulton, Prol., p. 127; Kühner-Gerth, I, p. 266). He cites from the papyri, τοῖς γαμοῦσι, C. P. R. 24 (ii/a.d.). Cf. τοὺς σωζομένους (Ac. 2:47). So in Gal. 4:27, ἡ οὑ τίκτουσα, ἡ οὐκ ὠδίνουσα.
(h) Past Action Still in
Progress. This may be
represented by the pres. part. So Mk. 5:25; Jo. 5:5; Ac. 24:10. Cf. Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 59.
(i) “Subsequent” Action. Blass finds “subsequent” action in the
pres. parts. in Ac. 14:22 and 18:23. But in 14:22 note ὑπέστρεψαν εἰς τὴν Λύστραν—ἐπιστηρίζοντες τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν μαθητῶν, the aorist ind. is “effective” and
accents the completion of the action. The pres. part. is merely coincident with
the “effective” stage. It is a point, not a process in the aorist.
(j) No Durative Future
Participles. The few fut.
parts. in the N. T. seem to be punctiliar, not durative, unless τὸ γενησόμενον (1 Cor. 15:37) be durative, but this
example is pretty clearly ingressive punctiliar. (A. T. Robertson, A
Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research [Logos
Bible Software, 2006], 891-92)
