Ephesians 4:26

Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Sat Apr 15 02:22:07 EDT 2000


In a message dated 4/14/2000 11:02:44 PM Central Standard Time, 
JFantin at aol.com writes:

<< 
 2. On the surface I agree with the Stein quote mentioned: "An imperative is 
 an imperative, is an imperative."  However, it is easy to confuse 
 "imperative" with "command."  Some of the problem with imperative analysis 
is 
 the terminology. I share gfsomsel's frustration with the term "permission" 
as 
 a label for a usage of the imperative.  My research of the imperative has 
 caused me to conclude that the essence of the mood is volitional (and to 
some 
 extent 'directive' using a term from speech act theory--using the term with 
 its primary meaning within the theory without full acceptance of the 
theory). 
   >>

No, an imperative is not simply a command.  It can be used in a slightly 
different sense as well.  Cf. the Merriam-Webster Collegiate dictionary entry 
s.v. "imperative."

im*per*a*tive [1] (adjective)

[Middle English imperatyf, from Late Latin imperativus, from Latin imperatus, 
past participle of imperare to command -- more at EMPEROR]

First appeared 15th Century

 1 a : of, relating to, or constituting the grammatical mood that expresses 
the will to influence the behavior of another

   b : expressive of a command, entreaty, or exhortation

So an imperative could signify an entreaty or exhortation as well as command 
-- but it is not "permissive" (He even feels the need to say that it has a 
little more force than saying "It's OK.").  Wallace also speaks of a 
"permissive middle."   There I think he is on firmer ground.  He states


426

•    The permissive middle has a certain affinity with the direct middle in 
that with both the subject is the receiver of the action. But whereas with 
the direct middle the subject is also the actor, with the permissive middle 
the subject does not perform the action.

•    The permissive middle is also like a passive in that the subject is the 
receiver of the action, but it is unlike the passive in that the middle 
always implies acknowledgment, consent, toleration, or permission of the 
action of the verb. The passive normally implies no such cognition. 
An exception to this principle is the permissive passive. It is important to 
note that although both categories are rare (some grammarians even dispute 
the legitimacy of the permissive passive), the volitional element is almost 
always a part of the middle voice while it is almost always lacking in the 
passive. 


Wallace, Daniel B., Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Exegetical Syntax of 
the New Testament, (Garland, TX: Galaxie Software) 1999, c1996.Œ

Note, however, that the concept of "permission" here is derived from the fact 
that the subject of the verb is the recipient, but not the initiator, of the 
action.  This may carry over somewhat in the imperative of 1 Cor. 7.15

EI DE hO APISTOS XWRIZETAI, XWRIZESQW

Here the subject is permitting something to happen ("Let him leave").  It is 
needlessly confusing, however, to speek of a "permissive" imperative. The 
imperative gives a command, entreaty or exhortation.  That the command (etc.) 
is to allow something to happen does not make it permissive.  

It is even more apparent that Eph 4.26 cannot be "permissive."  

ORGIZESQE KAI MH hAMARTANETE

This is not allowing something to happen.  The subject addressed by the 
imperative also effects the act.  "Be angry and/but do not sin."  This is not 
"It's OK to be angry", but "Go ahead, do it."

gfsomsel



More information about the B-Greek mailing list