Anger or No Anger?

 

怒或没有?


Is the Bible Contradictory About Being Angry?

 

是矛盾的?

 

Eric Vestrup


 

Eph 4:26 Be ye angry and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath.

 

4:26 

    26

 

Prov 22:24 ...make no friendship with an angry man, and with a furious man thou shalt not go.

 

22:24 

    24

In order for this to be a true problem, it must be established that anger of any form is sinful and wrong, or, it must be established that the type of anger in Prov 22:24 is the same type of anger in Eph 4:26. Can a strong case be made for either of these possibilities? More is needed than the implied assertion that both verses in question contain the words ["angry" and "anger"] which have the exact same root concept.

是一个真问题, 它必建立, 任一个形式怒是有罪和错误, , 它必建立 22:24 是同样类 4:26

有力的例可能被制作或者些可能性? 更多比含蓄的断言需要的, 两首歌在考中包含有确切同根概念的[ "" "" ]

The reader should note that the crux of Eph 4:26 is the Greek orgizesthe is translated by the KJV as a mere imperative: "Be ye angry". Yet, the NIV takes orgizesthe as a more permissive imperative "Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry...". The Blass-Debrunner-Funk grammar, section 387, views this as a concessional imperative: "You may be angry as far as I am concerned (if you can't help it), but do not sin thereby." Robertson's A Grammar of New Testament Greek in the Light of Historical Research , page 949 agrees with the BDB grammar. See also Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament , volume IV, pages 540-1. If Robertson and BDB are correct there is absolutely no case for a contradiction here. However, Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics , pages 491-492 (see footnotes 110-3 as well) does not seem convinced here and seems to conclude that the strongest view is that this text "seems to be a shorthand expression for church discipline, suggesting that there is biblical warrant for dikaia orge (as the Greeks put it) -- righteous indignation." The commentaries as well as the divided between the view of Robertson/BDB and that of Wallace. So the exact sense of what Paul says here can mean one of two things: a concessional imperative, or a strict imperative. If the concessional imperative view is adopted, then the case for contradiction is dogmatically incorrect. But suffice it to say that at the very best for the skeptical charge there is no convincing evidence at all for a contradiction between these two passages, just the mere claim.

应该注意到, 关头 4:26 是希腊人orgizesthe由翻KJV为仅仅规则: "ye " 然而, NIVorgizesthe更加可的规则"太阳落下当您...". Blass Debrunner 缩语, 部分387, 为让步规则: "您可以怒就我所(如果您无法帮助它), 但不罪孽因此。 Robertson's A Grammar of New Testament Greek in the Light of Historical Research , 949同意BDB 法。 Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament , 容量IV, 540-1. 如果Robertson并且BDB是正确的有绝对没有矛盾里。 但是, Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics , 491-492 (脚注110-3) 不似乎里和不似乎认为, 硬的看法是文本"似乎是速表示教会学科, , 有圣的保证为dikaia orge (希腊人投入它) -- 公正的怒。"评论并且被划分在看法之Robertson/BDB并且那Wallace. 如此确切的感罗说儿可能意味二件事的当中一个: 让步规则, 密的规则 如果让步必要的看法被采取, 然后矛盾教条地是不正确的。 但只就那在最佳为怀疑充那里是没有令人相信的据根本一个矛盾在两个段落之, 仅仅要求。