Revelation 22:11

Rev. 22:11 and 3rd person imperatives boyd at huxcomm.net boyd at huxcomm.net
Thu Oct 18 18:57:21 EDT 2001

What Do We Make of CWRIS and ANDRES? Greek Courses Online I’ve had a lingering question about 3rd person imperatives, which was further kindled by Revelation 22:11. Here’s the text:hO ADIKWN ADIKHSATW ETI KAI hO hRUPAROS hRUPANQHTW ETI, KAI hO DIKAIOS DIKAIOSUNHN POIHSATW ETI KAI hO hAGIOS hAGIASQHTW ETI.Wallace (sorry Clay 🙂 discusses how the normal English translation of 3rd person imperatives (“let him . . .”) often gives the wrong idea–permission–when in fact, “It’s force is more akin to _he must_, or periphrastically, _I command him to . . ._” (GGBB, 486). Do you agree with this assessment? A few pages later he has a category of “Permissive Imperative (Imperative of Toleration),” under which he places a couple of 3rd person imperatives. Are these “permissive imperatives” exceptions to normal usage of 3rd person imperatives?What are we to make of the imperatives in this verse? Wallace himself calls it an “ironic command” (p. 491, n. 109). Thanks,Jonathan BoydHuxley, IA

What Do We Make of CWRIS and ANDRES?Greek Courses Online

Rev. 22:11 and 3rd person imperatives c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Fri Oct 19 01:59:48 EDT 2001

OIDA and YINWSKW (II Cor 5:16) Rev. 22:11 and 3rd person imperatives (corrected) on 10/18/01 3:57 PM, boyd at huxcomm.net wrote:> I’ve had a lingering question about 3rd person imperatives,> which was further kindled by Revelation 22:11. Here’s the text:> > hO ADIKWN ADIKHSATW ETI KAI hO hRUPAROS> hRUPANQHTW ETI, KAI hO DIKAIOS DIKAIOSUNHN> POIHSATW ETI KAI hO hAGIOS hAGIASQHTW ETI.> {snip snip}> What are we to make of the imperatives in this verse?Jonathan,In this passage the imperatives are stating what is going to take place.They are not functioning as a command at all. The FORM is a command but thesense is a pronouncement of what will indeed happen without fail.To undersigned this you should not go digging around in grammars which are abad place for solving theological problems. You should start by finding agood commentary or two on Isaiah* and take a look at Isaiah 6:9-10 which isthe classic statement on this topic. Note the other echoes of Isaiah 6:9-10in the Apocalypse. I will not tell you where they are, you can find them.Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062* commentaries on Isaiah, E.J. Young, John Calvin, Watts (WBC)

OIDA and YINWSKW (II Cor 5:16)Rev. 22:11 and 3rd person imperatives (corrected)

Rev. 22:11 and 3rd person imperatives (corrected) c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Fri Oct 19 02:09:41 EDT 2001

Rev. 22:11 and 3rd person imperatives What Do We Make of CWRIS and ANDRES? *the infernal spell checker doesn’t seem to be able to read and understandwhat I am trying to say, here is a better version, not perfect justbetter****on 10/18/01 3:57 PM, boyd at huxcomm.net wrote:> I’ve had a lingering question about 3rd person imperatives,> which was further kindled by Revelation 22:11. Here’s the text:> > hO ADIKWN ADIKHSATW ETI KAI hO hRUPAROS> hRUPANQHTW ETI, KAI hO DIKAIOS DIKAIOSUNHN> POIHSATW ETI KAI hO hAGIOS hAGIASQHTW ETI.> {snip snip}> What are we to make of the imperatives in this verse?Jonathan,In this passage the imperatives are stating what is going to take place.They are not functioning as a command at all. The FORM is a command but thesense is a pronouncement of what will indeed happen without fail.To understand this you should not go digging around in grammars which are abad place for solving theological problems. You should start by finding agood commentary or two on Isaiah* and take a look at Isaiah 6:9-10 which isthe classic statement on this topic. Note the other echoes of Isaiah 6:9-10in the Apocalypse. I will not tell you where they are, you can find them.Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062* commentaries on Isaiah, E.J. Young, John Calvin, Watts (WBC)

Rev. 22:11 and 3rd person imperativesWhat Do We Make of CWRIS and ANDRES?

Rev. 22:11 and 3rd person imperatives Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Oct 19 09:45:41 EDT 2001

hEPTA + KIS? instances of (accusative) objects in passive constructions At 10:57 PM +0000 10/18/01, boyd at huxcomm.net wrote:>I’ve had a lingering question about 3rd person imperatives,>which was further kindled by Revelation 22:11. Here’s the text:> >hO ADIKWN ADIKHSATW ETI KAI hO hRUPAROS>hRUPANQHTW ETI, KAI hO DIKAIOS DIKAIOSUNHN>POIHSATW ETI KAI hO hAGIOS hAGIASQHTW ETI.> >Wallace (sorry Clay 🙂 discusses how the normal English>translation of 3rd person imperatives (“let him . . .”) often gives>the wrong idea–permission–when in fact, “It’s force is more>akin to _he must_, or periphrastically, _I command him to . . ._”>(GGBB, 486). Do you agree with this assessment?> >A few pages later he has a category of “Permissive Imperative>(Imperative of Toleration),” under which he places a couple of>3rd person imperatives. Are these “permissive imperatives”>exceptions to normal usage of 3rd person imperatives?> >What are we to make of the imperatives in this verse? Wallace>himself calls it an “ironic command” (p. 491, n. 109).Clay has responded to the issue of interpretation of the imperatives inthis verse. I’d like to comment on what you cite from Wallace, p. 486. Ithink that Wallace’s note #97 on that page is fundamentally correct, but Ithink that the problem involved in our translating 3rd person imperativesas “LET him/her/them perform X (action)” has more to do with the relativerarity of the expression and the failure of readers/hearers to recognizethis as a standard imperative formulation in English: the reader/hearersenses an emphasis on the “let” as permissive when in fact it isn’tintended thus. Already in Koine Greek the 3rd person imperative wasbeginning to be supplanted by AFES/AFETE and, optionally: acc. + inf. orhINA + subj. Modern Greek has a third person imperative that is theend-result of the latter development: AS NA + subj. (AS < AFES; NA < hINA).Different languages have their own idiomatic ways of expressing thethird-person imperative notion:French: que + pron. + subj., e.g. “qu’ils viennent” = “let them come”German: (a) moegen + inf., e.g. “moegen sie kommen” = “let them come” (b) lassen + acc. + inf., e.g. “lassen sie kommen” = “let them come”– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

hEPTA + KIS?instances of (accusative) objects in passive constructions

Rev. 22:11 and 3rd person imperatives Steven Lo Vullo doulos at merr.com
Fri Oct 19 17:57:48 EDT 2001

instances of (accusative) objects in passive constructions Third person imperatives on 10/19/01 12:59 AM, c stirling bartholomew atcc.constantine at worldnet.att.net wrote:> on 10/18/01 3:57 PM, boyd at huxcomm.net wrote:> >> I’ve had a lingering question about 3rd person imperatives,>> which was further kindled by Revelation 22:11. Here’s the text:>> >> hO ADIKWN ADIKHSATW ETI KAI hO hRUPAROS>> hRUPANQHTW ETI, KAI hO DIKAIOS DIKAIOSUNHN>> POIHSATW ETI KAI hO hAGIOS hAGIASQHTW ETI.>> > {snip snip}> > >> What are we to make of the imperatives in this verse?> > Jonathan,> > In this passage the imperatives are stating what is going to take place.> They are not functioning as a command at all. The FORM is a command but the> sense is a pronouncement of what will indeed happen without fail.> > To undersigned this you should not go digging around in grammars which are a> bad place for solving theological problems. You should start by finding a> good commentary or two on Isaiah* and take a look at Isaiah 6:9-10 which is> the classic statement on this topic. Note the other echoes of Isaiah 6:9-10> in the Apocalypse. I will not tell you where they are, you can find them.Clay,I agree with you that the imperatives in Rev 22.11 are imperatives ofpronouncement. Since someone mentioned Wallace, I looked through the variouscategories of imperatives he discusses. On p. 492 we find “7. PronouncementImperative.” What I found interesting was that he limited this usage topassive voice imperatives. In Rev 22.11 we have alternating active andpassive imperatives. This would seem to call into question Wallace’slimitation of this usage to the passive.– Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI

instances of (accusative) objects in passive constructionsThird person imperatives

Rev. 22:11 and 3rd person imperatives c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Fri Oct 19 21:32:52 EDT 2001

Third person imperatives Luke 18:4a > on 10/18/01 3:57 PM, boyd at huxcomm.net wrote:> >> I’ve had a lingering question about 3rd person imperatives,>> which was further kindled by Revelation 22:11. Here’s the text:>> >> hO ADIKWN ADIKHSATW ETI KAI hO hRUPAROS>> hRUPANQHTW ETI, KAI hO DIKAIOS DIKAIOSUNHN>> POIHSATW ETI KAI hO hAGIOS hAGIASQHTW ETI.>> > {snip snip}> > >> What are we to make of the imperatives in this verse?on 10/19/01 12:59 AM, c stirling bartholomew wrote:>> Jonathan,>> >> In this passage the imperatives are stating what is going to take place.>> They are not functioning as a command at all. The FORM is a command but the>> sense is a pronouncement of what will indeed happen without fail.>> >> To understand this you should not go digging around in grammars which are a>> bad place for solving theological problems. You should start by finding a>> good commentary or two on Isaiah* and take a look at Isaiah 6:9-10 which is>> the classic statement on this topic. Note the other echoes of Isaiah 6:9-10>> in the Apocalypse. I will not tell you where they are, you can find them.on 10/19/01 2:57 PM, Steven Lo Vullo wrote:> > Clay,> > I agree with you that the imperatives in Rev 22.11 are imperatives of> pronouncement. . . .Pronouncement Imperative.” { snip snip}Steve,While it is wonderful to occasionally have someone agree with me, I suspectthat our agreement is somewhat of an illusion. I was not suggesting acategory of the imperative called the “Pronouncement Imperative.” What I wassuggesting is that we have at the formal level here is an imperative verb. Idon’t think it is any kind of imperative, a red one or a blue one, achocolate one or a vanilla one. Just an imperative, plain and unqualified.The total semantic framework of this text is what makes it a pronouncement.The semantic framework includes all kinds of inter-textual connections likeIsaiah 6:9-10, Daniel (Theod.) as well as numerous cultural, historical andtheological issues. Creating yet another category called the “PronouncementImperative” is an attempt to tie the entire semantic framework to the verbinflection. Greek Grammars are a bad place to look for solutions to complex exegeticalproblems. Most exegetical problems are not solved by creating a NEW pigeonhole to stick the verb or noun into. These are pseudo solutions to realproblems. Any grammar that attempts to transform the analysis of the totalsemantic framework into a vast complex system of grammatical categoriesshould be avoided. Stick with grammars which understand what the scope ofgrammar is. Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

Third person imperativesLuke 18:4a