Is Ὀργίζεσθε in Eph. 4:26 a concesion or command?

Wes Wood
Posts: 692
Joined: September 20th, 2013, 8:18 pm

Re: Is Ὀργίζεσθε in Eph. 4:26 a concession or command?

Post by Wes Wood »

Stephen Hughes:
Have you begun noticing and looking for the "missing" things in contextual sets of vocabulary yet? Do you suppliment them in your compositions and imaginings by analogy from other contexts, or do you go looking for them in other passages / texts with the same context? Has that started to become "routine" yet?
Pretty much all of this. I just try to read every spare moment I can get. This is where I hope to get to.
Ἀσπάζομαι μὲν καὶ φιλῶ, πείσομαι δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ θεῷ ἢ ὑμῖν.-Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους 29δ
Mark Lightman
Posts: 300
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 6:30 pm

Re: Is Ὀργίζεσθε in Eph. 4:26 a concesion or command?

Post by Mark Lightman »

Stephen Hughes wrote:In your experience / opinion, is a Greek imperative capable of expressing the type of meaning that I have proposed? Is the imperative capable of expressing a "Go on well, do it, but I don't really want you to..." meaning?
Iliad 22:178-181:
‘ὦ πάτερ ἀργικέραυνε κελαινεφὲς οἷον ἔειπες:
ἄνδρα θνητὸν ἐόντα πάλαι πεπρωμένον αἴσῃ
ἂψ ἐθέλεις θανάτοιο δυσηχέος ἐξαναλῦσαι;
ἔρδ᾽: ἀτὰρ οὔ τοι πάντες ἐπαινέομεν θεοὶ ἄλλοι.
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Is Ὀργίζεσθε in Eph. 4:26 a concession or command?

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Wes Wood wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:Have you begun noticing and looking for the "missing" things in contextual sets of vocabulary yet? Do you suppliment them in your compositions and imaginings by analogy from other contexts, or do you go looking for them in other passages / texts with the same context? Has that started to become "routine" yet?
Pretty much all of this. I just try to read every spare moment I can get. This is where I hope to get to.
My aim is/ I hope to get to guessing those things, accurately and without being too aware of the logical basis for my guesses. My ultimate aim is reading / communciating with out an awareness of language. 8-)
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Mark Cain
Posts: 9
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 1:41 pm
Location: Sarasota, FL USA
Contact:

Re: Is Ὀργίζεσθε in Eph. 4:26 a concesion or command?

Post by Mark Cain »

Wes Wood wrote:a very loose paraphrase poorly worded: "Be opposed to sin and don't do it. Don't let the sun go down on your battle against it
This was the exact view of an older preacher/evangelist Dr. Wilfred Fisher whom I knew from the '80's (but posited this view in the '40's) -- his position is contrary to the typical explanation of this passage given at every marriage enrichment weekend -- "Don't go to bed angry." He made the basic observation that it was unlikely that anger was enjoined and prohibited in the same verse. While his view is the most logical of any that i have read, I have found his position wanting in any articles I have read in my 30+ years of pastoral reading.

How did you arrive at this position? What resources have supported your conclusions?
Mark Cain
Sarasota, FL USA

http://www.markcain.com
Wes Wood
Posts: 692
Joined: September 20th, 2013, 8:18 pm

Re: Is Ὀργίζεσθε in Eph. 4:26 a concesion or command?

Post by Wes Wood »

To be honest, I haven't read any sources that espouse this view. As to why I understand this verse this way, I can't give a detailed explanation in a single post and doubt anyone would be interested if I did. I can summarize though by saying that I believe chapter 2 sets up the comparison that the author takes up again in chapter 4. Verse 3 mentions the "children of wrath" and verse 16 talks about the hostility in the body being killed to create unity and peace. By comparing chapter 2 with 4:17 and following which refers to their former conduct, I reach the conclusion that they were "children of wrath," but now they should be a body of peace. Therefore, when the author reaches 4:26 I understand him to mean, "Be angry, but let that anger be directed continually toward sin and its results."
I don't feel that this adequately explains my reasoning, but I hope you won't be too harsh on my spontaneous explanation.
Ἀσπάζομαι μὲν καὶ φιλῶ, πείσομαι δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ θεῷ ἢ ὑμῖν.-Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους 29δ
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Is Ὀργίζεσθε in Eph. 4:26 a concesion or command?

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Mark Cain wrote:How did you arrive at this position? What resources have supported your conclusions?
The reference works and opinions that I have sought for this have all said something similar to "have righteous anger". "Position" and "conclusion" don't really countenance the tenor of my enquiry. I haven't formed an opinion, I'm wondering if that type of imperative as a concession is possible in Greek.
Mark Cain wrote:
Wes Wood wrote:a very loose paraphrase poorly worded: "Be opposed to sin and don't do it. Don't let the sun go down on your battle against it
This was the exact view of an older preacher/evangelist Dr. Wilfred Fisher whom I knew from the '80's (but posited this view in the '40's) -- his position is contrary to the typical explanation of this passage given at every marriage enrichment weekend -- "Don't go to bed angry." He made the basic observation that it was unlikely that anger was enjoined and prohibited in the same verse. While his view is the most logical of any that i have read, I have found his position wanting in any articles I have read in my 30+ years of pastoral reading.
Have people seen this as a passage about marriage? The period after the New Testament has a lot more to say about the regulation of marital relations, and when they shouldn't be enjoyed than the New Testament does. So far as I remember, personal "anger" was not one of the reasons for refraining from intercourse. They seem to be mostly about Lenten abstinence, and preparations for liturgical service.

What is the relationship between "hate" and "anger". It is perhaps that hate μῖσος is a motivation, but anger ὀργή involves a physical outward expression - shouting, fighting, arguing or the like. IMHO, despite the 400 year anachronism, if it were μισεῖτε τὴν ἁμαρτία καὶ μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε it could be possible to take in the way that you feel is possible. But could that be done with ὀργίζεσθαι? "Be angry (at sin) but don't do it."? I don't think that anger could be directed at an abstract idea "sin" rather than at a person as Augustine could with "hate".

The sun not going down as an idea that something should never stop perhaps dates from the age of empires - Spanish and British. It seems to presume that there is a universal time co-ordinate in the popular consciousness so that time can be measured relative to one place, in another.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Wes Wood
Posts: 692
Joined: September 20th, 2013, 8:18 pm

Re: Is Ὀργίζεσθε in Eph. 4:26 a concesion or command?

Post by Wes Wood »

Stephen, I come from a science background. When I use the word "conclusion," it does not have any degree of finality attached to it or imply that you hold a particular conviction strongly or at all. In other words I mean only that you have "concluded" that such and such a meaning may be possible. This is a difficult passage. My "conclusion" and how I understand this passage is no more certain in my mind than your original observation is in yours. I understand where you are coming from and am sorry that you feel at some level that I have put words in your mouth. I mean no offense.
I also agree with you as to the meaning of ὀργίζεσθαι. I understand it to be directed toward an entity or perhaps the results of that entity, but I am trying to avoid theology. It would fit the immediate context as well as the context of chapter 2. I understand parorgismos to mean something like "state of anger." The continuity idea isn't based on a particular phrase but on the assumption that this is a principle to be followed day after day. I see what you are saying, but that was not what I meant. This is one of the problems with a paraphrase. There is no certain way of knowing what thought process led to a particular "conclusion." :) Please don't take offense at anything I have said; I have enjoyed these exchanges. The only way I am going to get better at anything is to make plenty of mistakes along the way, so I will push ahead. However, I hope to be noted as one who does not intentionally offend and will do all that I can to acquire that reputation.
Ἀσπάζομαι μὲν καὶ φιλῶ, πείσομαι δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ θεῷ ἢ ὑμῖν.-Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους 29δ
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Is Ὀργίζεσθε in Eph. 4:26 a concession or command?

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Wes Wood wrote:I understand where you are coming from and am sorry that you feel at some level that I have put words in your mouth.
It is not so serious. I avoided the words that seems to put a finality to the discussion because I value the input of others to my ideas and want to (re-)assert that I see fellow participants as my equals and teachers, and that the discussion is still "open".
Wes Wood wrote:Please don't take offense at anything I have said;
Do reasonable people get so easily offended on being misconstrued or misinterpreted about a matter of speculation?
Wes Wood wrote:The only way I am going to get better at anything is to
make improvements. Mistakes may be indirect steps towards that.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 611
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Is Ὀργίζεσθε in Eph. 4:26 a concesion or command?

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen »

Stephen Hughes wrote: Have people seen this as a passage about marriage?
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.
Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”