From: Natali (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Oct 09 2000 - 11:39:31 EDT
(ít.5:39) closely to GNT:
And ([a weak opposition, or rather no opposition, and conjunction may be not
translated here]; because, you know) I expound (word) you not to be opposed
(not to be involved in opposition, not to be drawn in antagonism) for evil
(in a literal sense - for "giving much trouble"); but if any one strikes on
your right (favorable, happy, intelligent, clever, nimble) cheek, it will be
a turning for him the other (alien) too.
I expound you not to be drawn in antagonism for evil that give you much
trouble; but if any one strikes your favorable, intelligent, right side of
reconciling, let also the rigorous letter of the Law brings him to reason.
Christ doesn't cancel the quoted commandment, An eye for an eye, and a tooth
for a tooth (Mt.5:38), by the strong contraposition with conjunction "but".
The Way of Christ is to take all the healthy, principal, rooted and,
displacing attention accents, to supply it with rich soil of new conditions,
so developing growth and bearing potentialities.
Here it's too, by means of careful domain translation we find the following:
1) Christ doesn't belittle the Old Testament but, on the contrary, He raises
it to the ideal. Because out of the text construction it's meant here that
inert, punishing, unfavorable bringing an offender to reason, if it's
necessary, will come itself, rigorously according to the Law, without much
trouble from injured side. And the Law for it (in part of forced sacrifices
and sobering hardships) with proper justice machinery must work impeccably.
2) Generally speaking, Christ advances even more hard elaboration of the Law
in order to bring to light and cut off all the evil in germ (Mt.5:17-48).
But in a preceding steps plan He reserves much more place for repentance and
mercy, that is informal interaction with people, informal side of
retribution for the sin of disregard and forcing (Lk.17:3-4, Mt.18:21-22 in
connection with 18:15-17; Ac.11:18, Ho.6:6 etc). Christ always, and here
too, set as high-priority one's mercy of "clever, favorable", _peaceable_
bringing a conflict to a close.
Well, and first for such mercy it's necessary not to fall for opposition
heat provocation, i.e. "not to be involved in resistance to evil by evil"
because folly always thirsts for confirmation by something alike.
In ancient Greek, as well as in Russian, English and many other people, the
"right" side is associated with something alive, true, good, with
reliability and infallible well-being (when it's "all right" indeed). There
was popular belief among people that happy signs come up just from the right
And finally, there are standard pairs, such as "right"-"left", or "one"-
"another". And what about "right"-"another"? By domain translation of the
Greek words we define the last pair more precisely: "favorable, happy,
alive, nimble, intelligent, clever, intimate..."-"the other, alienable,
Is it correct, please?
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [firstname.lastname@example.org]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:38 EDT