From: Iver Larsen (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Mar 04 2002 - 16:56:15 EST
> In Acts 2:38 we have . . . .
> PETROS DE EFH PROS AUTOUS METANOHSATE KAI BAPTISQHTW EKASTOS hUMWN EPI TW
> ONOMATI IHSOU XRISTOU EIS AFESIN AMARTIWN KAI LHYESQE THN DOREAN
> TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS
> Here is my question: Must the second part of this verse, KAI LHYESQE THN
> DOREAN TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS be grammatically equal (in its relationship to
> the verbs METANOHSATE and BAPTISQHTW) with the prepositional phrase EIS
> AFESIN AMARTIWN. I.E. if one gets AFESIN AMARTIWN does it necessarily
> follow from the grammar that one must get THN DOREAN TOU hAGIOU
> PNEUMATOS as
> well. Or is it possible that these could be two separately obtainable
> things the second being unrelated to the verbs of the first?
> It seems to me that KAI LEGESQE THN DOREAN TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS is an
> independent clause that stands alone and that if THN DOREAN TOU hAGIOU
> PNEUMATOS had been intended to follow from the verbs (METANOHSATE and
> BAPTISQHTW) in the first clause then it would have been as follows: . . .
> BAPTISQHTW . . . EIS AFESIN AMARTIWN KAI THN DOREAN TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS.
> But instead we have BAPTISQHTW . . . EIS AFESIN AMARTIWN KAI
> **LHYESQE** THN
> DOREAN TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS. So, if both EIS AFESIN AMARTIWN and
> THN DOREAN
> TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS are results of the METANOHSATE KAI
> BAPTISQHTW, then why the LHYESQE?
EIS very often marks result, and it seems clear that forgiveness of sins is
a result of both repent and be baptized, just as Mark 1:4 says.
I would say that KAI in itself does not indicate result or consequence. In
and by itself it indicates addition.
But when you have an aorist infinitive followed by KAI and a main verb in
the future, this construction seems to indicate a consequence or at least
that the imperatives are prerequisites for the promise indicated by the
future main verb. There are many examples of aorist imperatives followed by
a future main verb. Whether this is from Semitic influence, I am not sure.
Let me just quote a couple of examples:
Matt 19:21 hUPAGE PWLHSON SOU TA hUPARCONTA KAI DOS TOIS PTWCOIS KAI EXEIS
QHSAURON EN OURANOIS
John 2:19 LUSATE TON NAON TOUTON KAI EN TRISIN hHMERAIS EGERW AUTON
My feeling is that the EIS indicates a clear, even automatic result, but the
KAI indicates a more loose connection of consequence which may be less
automatic or definite.
The LHMYESQE is needed because a verb is needed to govern the nominal phrase
"the gift of the Holy Spirit". "forgiveness" governs "sins" and "receive"
governs "the gift of the Holy Spirit".
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 - 15:37:20 EDT