That's a nice paper that lays out several options, but I have to admit that I am confused by the notion of a conditional imperative.Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:http://ntresources.com/blog/documents/eph4_26.pdf
Is Ὀργίζεσθε in Eph. 4:26 a concesion or command?
-
- Posts: 3351
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Is Ὀργίζεσθε in Eph. 4:26 a concesion or command?
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia
-
- Posts: 3323
- Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
Re: Is Ὀργίζεσθε in Eph. 4:26 a concession or command?
Okay, I see. I've never been to one of those weekends, and I've never preached a sermon putting passages together out of context.Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:Not directly of course, but we also know that the famous "love is..." passage is often repeated in weddings. The general thrust of the passage (or some word) is easily interpreted in light of a more specific application. Something to be aware of when passages are quoted out of context.Stephen Hughes wrote:Have people seen this as a passage about marriage?Mark Cain wrote:the typical explanation of this passage given at every marriage enrichment weekend -- "Don't go to bed angry."
I'm sorry for cutting across back there and "answering" Mark's question for Wes. Looking at my answer now now, it seems so wierd.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Re: Is Ὀργίζεσθε in Eph. 4:26 a concesion or command?
Stephen, have any of those resources approached this phrase from the Greek in the greater context of Ephesians, or are you referring primarily to grammars and the like? I don't believe I have read anything in the former category.
Ἀσπάζομαι μὲν καὶ φιλῶ, πείσομαι δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ θεῷ ἢ ὑμῖν.-Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους 29δ
-
- Posts: 3323
- Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
RJ Decker's article on the two verbs.
I'm not quite sure how to take Decker's paper?Stephen Carlson wrote:That's a nice paper that lays out several options, but I have to admit that I am confused by the notion of a conditional imperative.Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:http://ntresources.com/blog/documents/eph4_26.pdf
It seems to list all the possible things that those verbal forms could be taken as on their own, and then to evaluate which ones would be possible or likely. It doesn't seem that Decker is saying that his is thinking of all of these when he is reading along. It is both exhaustive and simplistic at the same time. What is this sort of style of writing that he is doing?
If the first verb was an participle then talk about if it was conditional would be more appropriate, I think. Also, a discussion about what would happen if the second verb was infinitive, might be useful in defining what it does not say..
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
-
- Posts: 3323
- Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
Re: Is Ὀργίζεσθε in Eph. 4:26 a concesion or command?
Decker's article does that to some small degree.Wes Wood wrote:Stephen, have any of those resources approached this phrase from the Greek in the greater context of Ephesians, or are you referring primarily to grammars and the like? I don't believe I have read anything in the former category.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
-
- Posts: 1105
- Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am
Re: Is Ὀργίζεσθε in Eph. 4:26 a concesion or command?
The confusion seems to come from people treating "grammar" as syntax, and then mixing in pragmatics as if it created extra syntactial categories that are ontologically real.
As an illustration, some of the confusion may come when providing three different labels of "special imperative," Decker's #4-#6, conditional, concessive, permissive. [Decker himself dismisses these as essentially the same: "Numbers 4, 5, and 6 are essentially the same view (despite apparent differences in
English)"]
I'm a "lumper" on the lumper/splitter dichotomy. I'd rather talk about imperatives, and then talk about special ways to use them and what extenuating circumstances are implied. More particularly, I like to interpret by contrasting options: not the options of different English labels, but the different options in Greek, e.g., writing ὀργίζοντες μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε.
What would one choice mean over the other?
The paper was good for leading one to consider a group interpretation, church discipline. Personally, I read the context and some of the plurals as having individual application. But 'be angry' as an imperative probably needs a good negative implied object, since the imperative doesn't signal the inherent flexibility of a participle. "be angry [with evil]."
As an illustration, some of the confusion may come when providing three different labels of "special imperative," Decker's #4-#6, conditional, concessive, permissive. [Decker himself dismisses these as essentially the same: "Numbers 4, 5, and 6 are essentially the same view (despite apparent differences in
English)"]
I'm a "lumper" on the lumper/splitter dichotomy. I'd rather talk about imperatives, and then talk about special ways to use them and what extenuating circumstances are implied. More particularly, I like to interpret by contrasting options: not the options of different English labels, but the different options in Greek, e.g., writing ὀργίζοντες μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε.
What would one choice mean over the other?
The paper was good for leading one to consider a group interpretation, church discipline. Personally, I read the context and some of the plurals as having individual application. But 'be angry' as an imperative probably needs a good negative implied object, since the imperative doesn't signal the inherent flexibility of a participle. "be angry [with evil]."