Ben and Jo Crick
ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Tue Mar 26 18:04:20 EST 2002
On Mon 25 Mar 2002 (22:23:32), elijahyoder at characterlink.net wrote:
> I have two questions on this phrase, with the second one being the
> primary one. The answer to the seond question, however, hinges on
> a person's answer to the first.
> (1) Should ORGIZESQE be taken as a command -- "Be angry!" or
> should it be taken as a permissive imperative? It seems to me that
> grammatically it can be taken either way and that one's theology will
> determine the answer given.
> (2) If ORGIZESQE is taken as a command, is the following a
> grammatically possible interpretation: "Be angry! Stop this
> continuing sin (of not being angry)!"? Does the Greek grammar and
> context allow (or support?) this interpretation?
This is a direct quotation from Psalm 4:4 LXX (4:5 in BH).
In the Hebrew RiG:ZuW (be angry) is a Qal Imperative; but W:'aL-ToXo:+a'uW
(and sin not) is a Prohibition with 'aL plus the Imperfect. A Prohibition is
by definition a negative imperative. So yes, it's a double imperative in the
LXX and Paul.
Paul says it's OK to be angry, so long as you do not commit sin thereby. There
is a time when one does well to be angry, and a time when one does not do well
to be angry (compare Jonah 4:9).
Paul goes on to expand on his quotation: do not nurse your anger of let your
anger fester overnight. Get it out of your system before sundown. Jesus in the
Gospels is said to have been angry: but without sinning. Jesus would be Paul's
model, of course. There is such a thing as "righteous indignation".
Revd Ben Crick BA CF, and Mrs Joanna (Goodwin) Crick
<ben.crick at argonet.co.uk>
232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK)
More information about the B-Greek