1 Corinthians 7:15
fconley at airmail.net
Sun Jan 6 18:13:44 EST 2002
EI DE hO APISTOS CHWRIZETAI, CHWRIZESQW; OU DEDOULWTAI Ho ADELFOS H hH
ADELFH EN TOIS TOIOUTAIS; EN DE EIRHNHi KEKLHKEN hUMAS hO QEOS.
Translators generally render CHWRIZESQW as "let it be so" or "let him
depart" or "let him go" or "let him leave." Now I recall from my elementary
or secondary schooling that in an imperative phrase such as "let it alone,"
"you," the second person, is understood: "You let it alone."
However, I understand CHWRIZESQW to be a third person singular present
passive imperative. Three questions for the grammarians: (1) Isn't it
misleading for translations to imply that this is a second person when it is
not? (2) Would it not be more in harmony with the grammar to render
something like: "Divorce it must be"; or, "it is permitted." See: "They may
separate"(JB); "it is permitted"(LB); or, as I think Moulton in his
Prolegomena implies, p. 172, "If the partner insists on divorce, divorce it
must be." (3) Is this possibly a case of the divine passive?
More information about the B-Greek