ἵνα μὴ ἃ ἐὰν θέλητε ταῦτα ποιῆτε (Gal 5:17b)

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Gregory Hartzler-Miller
Posts: 122
Joined: May 23rd, 2015, 10:09 pm

Re: ἵνα μὴ ἃ ἐὰν θέλητε ταῦτα ποιῆτε (Gal 5:17b)

Post by Gregory Hartzler-Miller »

Jason Hare wrote: January 13th, 2022, 1:54 am
Gregory Hartzler-Miller wrote: January 12th, 2022, 8:41 pm I think I understand this interpretation so far, but I'm not clear where it leads vis-a-vis the exegesis of the passage in question: ἵνα μὴ ἃ ἐὰν θέλητε ταῦτα ποιῆτε (Gal 5:17b). What is your interpretation of these words?
ἡ γὰρ σὰρξ ἐπιθυμεῖ κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα κατὰ τῆς σαρκός, ταῦτα γὰρ ἀλλήλοις ἀντίκειται” (Galatians 5:17a) places the flesh and spirit at odds with one another, just as Paul did in Romans 8. This means “πνεύματι περιπατεῖτε καὶ ἐπιθυμίαν σαρκὸς οὐ μὴ τελέσητε” (Galatians 5:16). The desires of the flesh are the things that you want to do by nature (which Paul listed in Galatians 5:19–21).

The reason this was brought up in a discussion of law keeping? Because Paul is saying that being free from observance of Torah law does not mean that you are free to do any old thing that you want to do. You are not free to be immoral just because you are not under law. Rather, those who walk with the spirit with produce the fruit of the spirit (Galatians 5:22–23).
I understand that interpretation because it is the interpretation I held for a long time. But I doubt it now. One reason is the nuance of the word θέλω and the nuance when Paul uses it combination of the word ποιέω. The two words are found together, not in Romans 8, but in the outcry or lament of Romans 7:14-22 where the "I" voice expresses a combination of on one hand, being under the law, but on the other hand: οὐ γὰρ ὃ θέλω ποιῶ ἀγαθόν ἀλλὰ ὃ οὐ θέλω κακὸν τοῦτο πράσσω (7:19).

I was aware of that, and still I held the view you expressed because Galatians is not Romans, and I still thought it fit Galatians. But what doubled my doubt is when I studied the nuance of the word θέλω in Galatians and found that in every other usage Paul is characterizing what the troublemakers and those under their influence might "want"; that is, except for the one usage where Paul says he himself "wants" to see the Galatians because he is perplexed about them (Gal 4:20). In this exception, Paul is expressing a want for something good; on the other hand, it is a want that Paul seems not to expect to carry out. So even that exception fits the pattern of wanting something that you will not do. Apart from Gal 5:17, is there any place in the NT (or in the Greek) where θέλω is used to describe "wanting" to do something that the doer thinks of as vice? I know of none, but I should ponder such an usage if there is one out there. Anyone know of one?

When Paul addresses his Galatian audience saying, Λέγετέ μοι, οἱ ὑπὸ νόμον θέλοντες εἶναι...(Gal 4:21), this audience fits the profile of the "I" in the pericope framed by Rom 7:14 (We know that [the] Law is spiritual...) and Rom 7:22 (For in [my] inner being I delight in God’s Law). They want to be under the law, and by extension they surely also want to do good things under the law.

With that as background, it became difficult for me to imagine that ἵνα μὴ ἃ ἐὰν θέλητε ταῦτα ποιῆτε (Gal 5:17b) did not mean something like this: ...in order that (or with the result that) you (who want to be under the law) do not do the good things you want. How frustrating for someone who identifies with οἱ ὑπὸ νόμον θέλοντες εἶναι. Such a person may well ask: Is he really addressing us with such bad news--οἱ ὑπὸ νόμον θέλοντες εἶναι? The next line's mention of being "under the law" seems to answer that question in the affirmative--i.e. you who aspire to a life of doing good works while being under the law will not do what you might want, "But (by liberative contrast) if you are led by the Spirit, (the good news is) you are not under the law" (Gal 5:18).

Thus my new "thesis", which I am altering (but I am not at present rejecting it). I still present it here as a thesis because I am still subjecting it to reasons for doubting it.
Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 611
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: ἵνα μὴ ἃ ἐὰν θέλητε ταῦτα ποιῆτε (Gal 5:17b)

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen »

To be honest I don't see how this discussion fits into this forum. About everything which has been said could have been said without resorting to Koine.
One reason is the nuance of the word θέλω and the nuance when Paul uses it combination of the word ποιέω.
Quoting Greek words and passages feels like a red herring here. Such nuances come from context and have nothing to do with Koine. The words allow even totally unique nuances contextually, and you can't say that because you don't find similar nuances in other contexts, it can't "mean" something in some certain context.

Both words are very common and generic. You should first prove that Paul has some parallel context and usage in mind, which I don't see as plausible.
Gregory Hartzler-Miller
Posts: 122
Joined: May 23rd, 2015, 10:09 pm

Re: ἵνα μὴ ἃ ἐὰν θέλητε ταῦτα ποιῆτε (Gal 5:17b)

Post by Gregory Hartzler-Miller »

Eeli Kaikkonen wrote: January 13th, 2022, 4:46 pm To be honest I don't see how this discussion fits into this forum. About everything which has been said could have been said without resorting to Koine.
One reason is the nuance of the word θέλω and the nuance when Paul uses it combination of the word ποιέω.
Quoting Greek words and passages feels like a red herring here. Such nuances come from context and have nothing to do with Koine. The words allow even totally unique nuances contextually, and you can't say that because you don't find similar nuances in other contexts, it can't "mean" something in some certain context.

Both words are very common and generic. You should first prove that Paul has some parallel context and usage in mind, which I don't see as plausible.
It is pretty clear that you disagree with my exegetical thesis for ἵνα μὴ ἃ ἐὰν θέλητε ταῦτα ποιῆτε (Gal 5:17b), but I don't know what you are advocating. What is your exegesis of this New Testament Greek text?
Jason Hare
Posts: 951
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: ἵνα μὴ ἃ ἐὰν θέλητε ταῦτα ποιῆτε (Gal 5:17b)

Post by Jason Hare »

Gregory Hartzler-Miller wrote: January 13th, 2022, 8:28 pm It is pretty clear that you disagree with my exegetical thesis for ἵνα μὴ ἃ ἐὰν θέλητε ταῦτα ποιῆτε (Gal 5:17b), but I don't know what you are advocating. What is your exegesis of this New Testament Greek text?
Exegesis isn’t generally among the purposes of B-Greek, though, is it? Hasn’t this specific conversation gone far enough? We understand that you hold your own personal interpretation of this phrase. Must you convince us of its correctness?
Jason A. Hare
The Hebrew Café
Tel Aviv, Israel
Gregory Hartzler-Miller
Posts: 122
Joined: May 23rd, 2015, 10:09 pm

Re: ἵνα μὴ ἃ ἐὰν θέλητε ταῦτα ποιῆτε (Gal 5:17b)

Post by Gregory Hartzler-Miller »

Jason Hare wrote: January 15th, 2022, 1:22 am
Gregory Hartzler-Miller wrote: January 13th, 2022, 8:28 pm It is pretty clear that you disagree with my exegetical thesis for ἵνα μὴ ἃ ἐὰν θέλητε ταῦτα ποιῆτε (Gal 5:17b), but I don't know what you are advocating. What is your exegesis of this New Testament Greek text?
Exegesis isn’t generally among the purposes of B-Greek, though, is it? Hasn’t this specific conversation gone far enough? We understand that you hold your own personal interpretation of this phrase. Must you convince us of its correctness?
Yes, I respect the exegetical autonomy of all who interact with me here on the forum, and I am grateful for all that you have shared with respect to the Greek in question.
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3350
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: ἵνα μὴ ἃ ἐὰν θέλητε ταῦτα ποιῆτε (Gal 5:17b)

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Jason Hare wrote: January 15th, 2022, 1:22 am
Gregory Hartzler-Miller wrote: January 13th, 2022, 8:28 pm It is pretty clear that you disagree with my exegetical thesis for ἵνα μὴ ἃ ἐὰν θέλητε ταῦτα ποιῆτε (Gal 5:17b), but I don't know what you are advocating. What is your exegesis of this New Testament Greek text?
Exegesis isn’t generally among the purposes of B-Greek, though, is it? Hasn’t this specific conversation gone far enough? We understand that you hold your own personal interpretation of this phrase. Must you convince us of its correctness?
Yeah, the long-term ban on theology has always meant to keep B-Greek about language and not about everything that exegesis touches upon. As best I can tell, to the extent that there’s a Greek language component to the exegesis is whether θέλω has a negative valence or apprisal (sensu Halliday) in Paul. Personally, I have my doubts since this is one of the basic vocabulary words where it is generally used in all kinds of contexts, positive, neutral, and negative, so the evidence would have be really strong to show otherwise, but there simply isn’t going to enough in Paul’s limited corpus to do it.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Gregory Hartzler-Miller
Posts: 122
Joined: May 23rd, 2015, 10:09 pm

Re: ἵνα μὴ ἃ ἐὰν θέλητε ταῦτα ποιῆτε (Gal 5:17b)

Post by Gregory Hartzler-Miller »

Thanks. Point well taken.
jangus
Posts: 2
Joined: May 3rd, 2022, 7:17 am

Re: ἵνα μὴ ἃ ἐὰν θέλητε ταῦτα ποιῆτε (Gal 5:17b)

Post by jangus »

You aren't missing anything, imo. As you say, the desire of the flesh, for the Galatians, is tied to desiring the Law and to be under it, just as they were under similar elementary principles when they were pagans. This 'formula' has been touched on in previous chapters, I think, none more so than 4:21-31, where Paul lumps together Hagar, Ishmael, Mount Sinai, the Law, Jerusalem, and the Old Covenant. As someone else commented, the Law was given by angels through the hands of a mediator, denoting distancing. Notice how God is never mentioned, in context, in regard to this mediated Law, nor is Christ.
Gregory Hartzler-Miller
Posts: 122
Joined: May 23rd, 2015, 10:09 pm

Re: ἵνα μὴ ἃ ἐὰν θέλητε ταῦτα ποιῆτε (Gal 5:17b)

Post by Gregory Hartzler-Miller »

jangus wrote: May 3rd, 2022, 8:00 am You aren't missing anything, imo. As you say, the desire of the flesh, for the Galatians, is tied to desiring the Law and to be under it, just as they were under similar elementary principles when they were pagans. This 'formula' has been touched on in previous chapters, I think, none more so than 4:21-31, where Paul lumps together Hagar, Ishmael, Mount Sinai, the Law, Jerusalem, and the Old Covenant. As someone else commented, the Law was given by angels through the hands of a mediator, denoting distancing. Notice how God is never mentioned, in context, in regard to this mediated Law, nor is Christ.
@jangus,

I'm reflecting on what you wrote:

...the desire of the flesh (ἐπιθυμίαν σαρκὸς),
for the Galatians, is tied to desiring the Law and to be under it (οἱ ὑπὸ νόμον θέλοντες εἶναι),
just as they were under similar elementary principles when they were pagans (...ἐπὶ τὰ ἀσθενῆ καὶ πτωχὰ στοιχεῖα, οἷς πάλιν ἄνωθεν δουλεῦσαι θέλετε; )

Yes, interesting.

------------

Rereading Gal 5:17-18:

ἡ γὰρ σὰρξ ἐπιθυμεῖ κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος,
τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα [ἐπιθυμεῖ] κατὰ τῆς σαρκός, (I'm now re-punctuating this as the small "π" πνεῦμα desires against the flesh)
ταῦτα γὰρ ἀλλήλοις ἀντίκειται,
ἵνα μὴ ἃ ἐὰν θέλητε ταῦτα ποιῆτε (you in your small "s" spirit limitations do not do what you want to do).
εἰ δὲ Πνεύματι ἄγεσθε, οὐκ ἐστὲ ὑπὸ νόμον. ("but" introduces a "Π" solution to the "s" spiritual desire vs fleshly desire problem, i.e. you exist not under the law).

I'm struck by οὐκ ἐστὲ which appears also here in a similar articulation of problem and solution:

Rom 8
8But those existing in the flesh (οἱ δὲ ἐν σαρκὶ ὄντες) cannot please God.
9But you exist not in the flesh (Ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐκ ἐστὲ ἐν σαρκὶ) if the Spirit of God lives in you.

Is Paul saying that "if the Spirit of God lives in you" you exist as Spiritual beings (cf. Gal 6:1 οἱ πνευματικοὶ) manifesting in fleshly form? And if so, your very existence is no longer "under the law" (cf Gal 5:23, κατὰ τῶν τοιούτων οὐκ ἔστιν νόμος, against such things no law exists)?
jangus
Posts: 2
Joined: May 3rd, 2022, 7:17 am

Re: ἵνα μὴ ἃ ἐὰν θέλητε ταῦτα ποιῆτε (Gal 5:17b)

Post by jangus »

I would say that, given Paul’s sharp contrast between flesh and Spirit, both here in Galatians and elsewhere in his writings, he is arguing that a “Spiritual one” is a believer who is not in any way under the Law or under flesh, or controlled by flesh. This is borne out in that, in the contexts of Gal.5:17-18 and Rom.8:8-9, there’s an absolute fracture between Spirit and flesh. That is why, for example, in Galatians 6:1 Paul exhorts the “Spiritual ones” (οἱ πνευματικοὶ) to minister to those in transgression (sin being an activity assoc. with the flesh) (see 1 Cor.2:13, 15; 3:1).

Iow, I think it one of those deals where the overall rhetoric is strongly influencing our reading of grammar. Your questions kind of remind me of the type of concern that perhaps discourse analysis would look into, in which one explores the meaning of the text beyond the mere syntax, etc., of a sentence., but not to the exclusion of sentence analysis. It’s a kind of nebulous area where linguistics, theology, and rhetoric congregate, it seems to me. [E..g, see David L. Yoon, A Discourse Analysis of Galatians and the New Perspective on Paul.]
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”