ALLHLWN

Gie Vleugels gvleugels at etf.edu
Thu Dec 19 05:35:41 EST 2002


The use of ALLHLOUS in Acts 7:26 is remarkable: hINATI ADIKEITE ALLHLOUS;  In 7:27 (and in the Exodus passage it's referring to) it becomes clear that the ADIKEIN is done by the one to the other, and not vice versa: hO DE ADIKWN TON PLHSION ...  What ALLHLOUS means is that this ADIKEIN happened within the community.
Something similar can be said about Eph. 5:21: hUPOTASSOMENOI ALLHLOIS means subordination within the community, namely wifes should be subordinate to their husbands, children to their parents and slaves to their masters.  Insisting on reciprocity (i.e. husbands to wifes, parents to children and masters to slaves) because of ALLHLOIS in vers 21 is totally missing the point.
Gie Vleugels
www.etf.edu

Opgelet: ajllhvl- is niet altijd strikt wederkerig te verstaan.  In Jak. 5:16 bijvoorbeeld gaat het om eenrichtingsverkeer: de oudsten bidden voor de zieken, en de zieken belijden hun zonden aan de oudsten.  De logica achter het gebruik van het wederkerig voornaamwoord is dat dit eenrichtingsverkeer plaatsvindt binnen één gemeenschap, zodat toch nog sprake is van een zekere wederkerigheid.  Vergelijk Ef. 5:21 en Hand. 7:26-27.


-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Mike Sangrey [mailto:msangrey at BlueFeltHat.org]
Verzonden: woensdag 18 december 2002 15:02
Aan: Biblical Greek
Onderwerp: [b-greek] RE: ALLHLWN


On Tue, 2002-12-17 at 23:57, Iver Larsen wrote:
<snip>
> 
> Acts 19:38 EGKALEITWSAN ALLHLOIS
> 
> If Demetrius and his group have a complaint against someone, then "let them
> bring charges against one another." Again we have two subgroups, the
> accusers and the accused who together form a group of involved parties. The
> first subgroup is not bringing mutual charges against themselves, but it is
> possible that the accusers and the accused will mutually charge one another,
> although we would normally expect one party to bring charges and the other
> party to bring a defense.

We would normally expect one party to bring charges against another;
however, my understanding is their court system worked differently at
that time.  In their case (ummmm, pun intended), the accusser could be
found guilty just as easily as the accused.  In other words, their
judicial system was inherently more reciprocal.

> 
> My guess it that in the particular verse you are referring to, the question
> cannot be resolved by referring to ALLHLOIS alone. There are other crucial
> factors, for instance, is the command really directed to all believers or to
> a subgroup? Context is as always crucial.

Personally, I think the best way of seeing the mutuality of ALLHLOIS is
to view the group from the outside, sort of as a spectator.  For
example, Rev. 6:4 shows, quite obviously, that the action can not be
perfectly and absolutely reciprocal.  How could everyone be killing
everyone?  However, looking at the event from the outside, as a
spectator, the description conveys the idea of utter chaos--the
spectator can not tell who is killing whom.  There's no one individual
who is "standing his ground" and winning.

It's the same with the 1 Pet 5:5 passage.  When looking at the group as
a whole, who is the more humble.  Well, you can't tell.  At least that's
the ideal.  There's a mutual humility going on in the group.

-- 
Mike Sangrey
msangrey at BlueFeltHat.org
Landisburg, Pa.
                        "The first one last wins."
            "A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth."


---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [gvleugels at etf.edu]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu





More information about the B-Greek mailing list