Anger or No Anger?

 

愤怒或没有愤怒?

Is the Bible Contradictory About Being Angry?

 

圣经是矛盾的关于恼怒吗?

 

Eric Vestrup

 

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

 

以 弗 所 書 4:26 

    26 生 气 却 不 要 犯 罪 ； 不 可 含 怒 到 日 落 ，

 

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

 

箴 言 22:24 

    24 好 生 气 的 人 ， 不 可 与 他 结 交 ； 暴 怒 的 人 ， 不 可 与 他 来 往 ；

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.

为了这是一个真实的问题, 它必须建立, 任一个形式愤怒是有罪和错误的, 或, 它必须建立类型愤怒 箴 言 22:24 是同样类型愤怒 以 弗 所 書 4:26。

有力的实例可能被制作为或者这些可能性吗? 更多比含蓄的断言需要的, 两首诗歌在考虑中包含有确切同样根概念的词[ "恼怒" 和"愤怒" ] 。

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.

读者应该注意到, 紧要关头 以 弗 所 書 4:26 是希腊人orgizesthe由翻译KJV作为仅仅规则: "是ye 恼怒" 。 然而, NIV作为orgizesthe因为更加许可的规则"不让太阳落下当您恼怒...". Blass Debrunner 畏缩语法, 部分387, 观看这作为让步规则: "您可以恼怒就我所关心(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 , 页949同意BDB 语法。 参见Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament , 容量IV, 页540-1. 如果Robertson并且BDB是正确的有绝对没有论点为矛盾这里。 但是, Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics , 页491-492 (参见脚注110-3) 不似乎说服这里和不似乎认为, 最强硬的看法是这文本"似乎是速记表示为教会学科, 建议, 有圣经的保证为dikaia orge (作为希腊人投入它) -- 公正的愤怒。"评论并且被划分在看法之间Robertson/BDB并且那Wallace. 如此确切的感觉什么保罗说在这儿可能意味二件事的当中一个: 让步规则, 或严密的规则。 如果让步必要的看法被采取, 然后论点为矛盾教条地是不正确的。 但只就够了说那在最佳为怀疑充电那里是没有令人相信的证据根本为一个矛盾在这两个段落之间, 仅仅要求。