Criswell Theological
Review 3.2 (1989) 353-372.
Copyright © 1989 by The
]ORGIZESQE IN EPHESIANS 4:26:
COMMAND OR CONDITION?1
DANIEL B. WALLACE
It
would be very appropriate to develop in this paper something of a
"theology of anger," or, more specifically, a
"theology of righteous
human anger." Such a study is sorely needed. But
it must be built on
the exegesis of several key passages. Our goal,
therefore, is far more
modest: we wish to focus on only one text which,
nevertheless, con-
tributes heavily to such a theme. Eph 4:26 is
arguably the crux inter-
pretum in the NT regarding the
validity of man's dikai<a
o]rgh< (as the
Greeks
put it)--man's righteous indignation.
Why is this so? How can this one
verse be regarded as so crucial
to the issue? It is simply because we have great
difficulty finding
explicit statements in the NT in praise of human
wrath. (One overly
zealous writer went so far as to use the anger
of the king in the
parable of the wedding feast [Matt 22:7] as a
proof-text for the
validity of righteous human indignation2--in
spite of the fact that
1 This is a revision of a
paper read at the annual meeting of the Evangelical
Theological
Society held at Gordon-Conwell Seminary (December 5,1981).
2 H. C. Hahn,
"Anger, o]rgh<," in The New International Dictionary of New
Testament Theology [=DNTT] (3 vols.; ed. C. Brown; Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1915) 1.110. Further, even if the
king in this parable could be interpreted as representing
man (rather than God), the incidental comment by
Jesus of the king's wrath (w]rgi<sqh
in
Matt 22:1; o]rgisqei<j; in Luke 14:21) is
hardly adequate as proof of his sanction of
human anger, for elsewhere he uses questionable moral
models in his parables as an
illustration in a different realm of
a good moral virtue (cf. the parable of the workers in
the vineyard [Matt 20:1-16]: he is not advocating
that every landowner pay the same
wage to all-day and part-day workers; and the
parable of the talents [Matt 25:14-30]:
surely he is not here equating wealth with
righteousness [cf. also Luke 16:1-9]. Our
point is simply that the parables do not always have
a direct, literal application--often,
if not usually, they are illustrative of a truth
in an entirely different realm).
354
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
most would view the king as representative of God.)
Consequently,
the imperative o]rgi<zesqe, "be angry,"
in Eph 4:26, if taken as a
command,
becomes the most explicitly positive statement of human
anger in the NT.
I. Possible Syntactical Nuances for ]Orgi<zesqe in Eph 4:26
That o]rgi<zesqe is a command is by no means
a settled issue
among the commentators; in fact, some even doubt that
it is an
imperative. Altogether I have found in the
commentaries seven differ-
ent syntactical options--five
of which treat the form as imperative,
two as indicative:
(1) Declarative indicative:
"You are angry, yet do not sin."
(2) Interrogative indicative:
"Are you angry? Then do not sin."
(3) Command imperative: "Be
angry, and do not sin."
(4) Permissive imperative: "Be
angry (if you must), but do not
sin."
(5) Conditional imperative: If you are angry, do not sin."
(6) Concessive imperative: “Although you may get angry, do not
sin.
(7) Prohibitive imperative: "Do
not be angry and do not sin."
In order to make this discussion
manageable, we need to pare
down the field. We will do this in two ways: first,
three options will be
quickly dismissed since their exegetical bases
are tenuous at best;
second, three nuances will be grouped as one because
in this passage
there is very little difference among them.
A.
Implausible Options
The two approaches which treat o]rgi<zesqe as an indicative and
the one which sees it as a prohibition are
implausible on their face. I
have seen but one commentator treat the verb here as
a declarative
indicative. R. O. Yeager argues that “o]rgi<zesqe in our verse can be
present middle indicative. Taken with concessive
kai> such a transla-
tion makes as good sense [as
an imperative] and fits the context
well."3 He translates it,
"Although you are provoked, do not go on
sinning," rendering this not materially
different from a concessive
imperative.4
3 R. O. Yeager, The Renaissance New Testament (18 vols.;
14.307.
4 Yeager apparently is
uncomfortable with the concessive imperative view: "There
is nothing in the imperative mode itself to imply
consent or permission" (ibid.), which
has probably prompted him to attempt to make his
view rest on more solid syntactical
ground (since declarative indicatives, unlike
concessive imperatives, are common).
Wallace: ]ORGIZESQE IN EPHESIANS 4:26 355
There are three primary5
difficulties with this view however:
(1)
o]rgi<zesqe
is in the thick of an overtly parenetic section, Eph
4:25-32,
being surrounded by ten imperatives and two hortatory sub-
junctives; though there are three
indicatives6 here, they all speak of
positive realities which God has effected for the
believer and as such
constitute the basis for the parenesis.7
The flow of argument, there-
fore, is decidedly against an indicative o]rgi<zesqe. (2) To treat the kai>
which joins o]rgi<zesqe to mh> a[marta<nete
as concessive (or adversative)
is doubtful enough between two imperatives (a]lla> or de> would be
expected), but to consider it as introducing the
abrupt shift from
indicative to imperative seems especially
unnatural.8 (3) Finally, the
entire clause, o]rgi<zesqe kai>
mh> a[marta<nete,
exactly reproduces the
LXX
rendering of Ps 4:4, where it must be taken as an imperative.9
Whether
or not the apostle intentionally alluded to this text is not the
point here: even if he used if rhetorically, it is a
supreme case of
petitio principii to view the formal
correspondence with the Psalm as
having no effect on the syntax in the Ephesians
passage.10 This ap-
proach, therefore, must be
judged highly improbable--at best.
The second view, that o]rgi<zesqe is an interrogative
indicative
(held by Beza, Meyer, and J. Eadie),11 comes under the same judgment
5 A fourth difficulty
(though less significant) also presents itself: Yeager's view
tends to see Ephesians as written to a specific,
identifiable situation (for anger is stated
as a present problem in the community), rather
than as a circular letter. Attempts to
treat Ephesians as addressed to a specific community
with a specific set of prob-
lems/needs have not been entirely
persuasive. See later discussion.
6 e]sme>n in v 2.5; e]sfragi<sqhte in v 30; and e]xari<sato in v 32.
7 If o]rgi<zesqe as a declarative
indicative were treated the same way, then anger
would be seen as a permanent and positive moral
virtue (and one which, incidentally,
believers did not possess before salvation).
8 Further, we would most
naturally expect the concession to come at the beginning
of v 26--either implicitly (e.g., instead of o]rgi<zesqe we might expect Paul to
have
written
o]rgizo<menoi)
or explicitly (e.g., kai<per).
9 Although there is doubt
over the lexical choice of the LXX translator, he has
correctly rendered the syntax of the Hebrew Qal imperative vzgr.
10 H. A. W. Meyer (Ephesians in MeyerK,
2.54) argues cogently against the inter-
rogative indicative view on the
basis of the quote of Ps 4:4: “Against
this we cannot
urge--the objection usually taken since the time of
Wolf--the kai>, which often in rapid
emotion strikes in with some summons. . . ; but
we may urge the fact that Paul
reproduces a passage of the LXX (which, it is true, is quite arbitrarily denied
by Beza
and
Koppe) in which o]rgiz. is imperative, and that such an abrupt and impassioned
question and answer would not be in keeping with
the whole calm and sober tone of
the discourse." Similarly, cf. J. P. Lange, Ephesians in Commentary on the Holy
Scriptures (
burgh: T. & T. Clark, 1897]) 140.
11 See MeyerK, 2.52 and J. Eadie, A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle
of Paul to the Ephesians (reprint ed.;
names. The view is no longer popular.
356
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
for the same reasons: it would be an uneasy
indicative in the midst of
imperatives, the allusion to Ps 4:4 shows that an
imperative is in Paul's
mind, and the use of kai> in the sense of
"then" or "therefore" is not
natural here.12
The third implausible view is the
prohibitive imperative view-
i.e.,
that the negative mh> governs both a[marta<nete and
o]rgi<zesqe.13
This
view takes a "180-degree" turn from treating o]rgi<zesqe as a
positive injunction. In spite of the theological
difficulty caused by the
prima facie reading of "be angry" as a command, this view is impos-
sible grammatically.
B. Permissive, Conditional, and Concessive Grouped Together
On
a popular level especially, the permissive, conditional, and
concessive views are all neatly separated. But
several writers hold out
for the distinction, at least, between permissive
and conditional.14
Thus,
J. L. Boyer states that "in Eph 4:26 it is difficult to understand
'Be
angry and sin not' as a command or even a permission, expecially
[sic] in light of the context. . . . It is much easier to
take it as a
condition. . ."15
This distinction is usually made
because the imperative can have
a permissive or conditional nuance. Grammarians,
however, make no
12 Not only would we
normally expect a@ra or ou#n here, but in Paul's usage
especially we are accustomed to seeing explicitly
paratactic structure if that is what he
meant.
13 C. Hodge seems to
entertain this view (A Commentary on the
Epistle to the
Ephesians [
. . . the
words of the apostle may mean, do not commit the sin of being angry. To this it
is
objected,
that it makes the negative qualify both verbs, while it belongs really only to
the
latter. It
is not necessary to assume that the apostle uses these words in the precise
sense
of the
original text; for the New Testament writers often give the sense of an Old
Testament passage with a
modification of the words, or they use the same words with a
modification
of the sense.
14 Aquinas embraced the
permissive view; more recently, cf. H. Alford, The
Greek Testament, vol:
3: Galatians-Philemon (3 vols.; rev. E. F. Harrison;
Moody,
1958) 125 (though he calls it "assumptive"); R. P. Martin, Ephesians in The
Broadman Bible Commentary (12 vols.;
seems to lump conditional, concessive and permissive
ideas together, his translation
reflects the permissive idea: "You may be
angry. ..if you can't help it. . . .”). Others
have held the conditional view, considering it as
different from the permissive view: cf.
C.
L. Mitton, Ephesians
(NCB; ed. M. Black;
1973)
168: "It is quite wrong to take it as a command or even a permission to be
angry";
J.
Gnilka, Der Epheserbrief (in HTKNT) 235, asks, "Wird hier der
Zorn fur gewisse
FaIle konzediert?" ("Is the anger allowed here for particular
cases?") He answers in the
negative because anger in v 31 is prohibited.
15 J. L. Boyer,
"Other Conditional Elements in New Testament Greek," GTJ 4
(1983) 185.
Wallace: ]ORGIZESQE IN EPHESIANS 4:26 357
distinction between a conditional imperative and a
concessive im-
perative.16 And semantically, of
course, concession is one kind of
condition. In this context, since o]rgi<zesqe is followed by a
prohibition,
any real difference between condition and
concession is imperceptible.
Consequently,
we will treat the conditional view and the concessive
view as one and the same.
But what about the
difference between permission and condition?
Many
grammarians make a distinction between these two.17 But not
all do. No less an authority than the grammar by
Blass- Debrunner
lumps the permissive, concessive and conditional uses
together.18
M.
Barth, in his meticulous commentary on Ephesians,
does the same:
he translates o]rgi<zesqe "if you are
angry," labels it a "concessive
imperative," then defines what he means by
saying that "a factual
permission is granted by this imperative"
(italics mine).19 It may be
significant that, almost universally, those who
distinguish the two opt
for the conditional nuance, arguing that permission
is closer to com-
mand. C. L. Mitton is representative: "It is quite wrong to take
it as a
command or even a permission to be angry. . . here
the quotation
means: 'If you do get angry. ..'"20
In this context, however, one has difficulty
even determining the
difference between permission and condition. This
is due to the follow-
ing prohibition, mh> a[marta<nete,
which somehow governs the opening
imperative. There is very little difference between
"be angry, if you
16 E.g., A. T. Robertson,
A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in
the Light of
Historical Research (4th ed.;
usage "Concession or Condition"; cf. also
J. M. Stahl, Kritisch-Historische Syntax des
Griechischen Verbums der
Klassischen Zeit (reprint ed.;
1965)
239, 362; W. D. Chamberlain, An Exegetical Grammar
of the Greek New
Testament (New York: Macmillan,
1941) 86; C. Vaughan and V. E. Gideon, A Greek
Grammar of the New
Testament (Nashville:
Broadman, 1979) 107; B. L. Mandilaras,
The Verb in the Greek
Non-Literary Papyri (
Sciences, 1973) §729.
17 See n. 15.
18 BDF
§387. They list three uses: command, request, concession.
In discussing
John
2:19 they consider lu<sate to be equal to e]a>n kai> ju<shte (which they call
concessive). And regarding our passage, they argue
that it "most probably means 'you
may be angry as far as I am concerned (if you can't
help it), but do not sin thereby"'--
a rendering which is normally equated with the
permissive view. Cf. also H. Schlier
(Der Brief an die Epheser
[Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1963]
224, n. 3) who, though calling the
imperative concessive, cites Blass-Debrunner in support.
19 M. Barth, Ephesians 4-6 (AB;
2 vols.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1960) 2.513.
So
also
"L'imperatif o]rgi<zesqe en soi
n'etait pas un ordre, mais une concession. . . : si vous vous
emportez, ne
pechez point" ("The imperative o]rgi<zesqe is not in fact a
command, but
a concession. . . : "If you are angry, do
not sin").
20 Mitton,
Ephesian,
168.
358
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
must, but don't sin" and "if you are
angry, don't sin." Nevertheless,
the semantic situation found in Eph 4:26 (viz.,
imperative + kai> + a
second verb) fits the pattern required for a
conditional imperative,
though it is quite rare for permissive imperatives.21
Consequently, we
will treat permissive and conditional as one--and,
out of deference to
conditional advocates, call this approach simply the
conditional view.
To sum up: the live options in Eph
4:26 are only two: either
o]rgi<zesqe is a command or a
condition. We now need to examine
several factors which may help us to come down
from the fence on
one side or the other.
II.
Factors Contributing to the Use of o]rgi<zesqe in Eph 4:26
There are four major factors which
help shape our understanding
of the nuance of o]rgi<zesqe in this text: (1) the
use Paul makes of
Ps
4:4; (2) the context; (3) the general biblical teaching on man's
anger; and (4) the specifics of the syntax of the
construction. For
reasons which should soon become obvious, we
will treat the first two
in this section and treat the syntax separately.
However, as our purpose
is to see what contribution Eph 4:26 makes toward
the biblical teach-
ing on human anger, and not
vice versa, we can only touch on this
third category in our examination of the context.
A.
Paul's Use of Ps 4:4
As we mentioned earlier, Paul quotes
verbatim the LXX rendering
of Ps 4:4: o]rgi<zesqe kai>
mh> a[marta<nete.
There are problems with this
translation, however. o]rgi<zesqe renders vzgr which though an impera-
tive, might not mean
"be angry." The basic significance of the stem,
zgr, is simply "tremble,
shake,"22 which may involve--in a given
context--shaking out of fear, trembling in awe
or reverence, or shak-
ing in anger. Though the
LXX renders vzgr, as "be
angry," the Targum
as well as
mentaries are divided on the
issue,24 though those who affirm the
21 But cf. John 19:6 (la<bete. . . kai>
staurw<sate) and Rev 22:11 (a]dikhsa<tw
. . . kai> . . . r[upanqh<tw);
yet even here these "permissive" imperatives bear the sense of
reluctance or toleration rather than positive
permission.
22 A. Bowling in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
(ed. R. L. Harris,
G.
L. Archer, and B. K. Waltke [
meaning of this root is to quake or shake, from
which ideas such as shaking in anger,
fear, or anticipation are derived." Cf. also BDB, 919; KB, 872.
23 NvFHt xlv hynm
vfz ("tremble [in fear] and you will not sin"); klonei?sqe.
24 In defense of "be
angry," cf. F. Delitzsch, Psalms (vol. 5 in
Commentary on the
Old
Testament.by C. F. Keil and
F. Delitzsch [reprint ed.;
Wallace: ]ORGIZESQE IN EPHESIANS 4:26 359
LXX's rendering tend to do so precisely because Paul
quoted it.
Whether
this Psalm is to be connected with the previous one,25
and if
so, whether v 4 is addressed to Absalom's men26 or David's com-
panions,27 are questions difficult
to answer. My tentative preference is
to opt for the meaning "tremble (in awe),"
for vzgr because (1) the
nuance of anger is rare for zgr, and is perhaps never
found in the Qal
stem;28 and (2) the parallel with the rest of v
4 ("meditate. . . and be
still") seems to be a fitting balance with the
idea of "tremble (in awe)
and do not sin,"29 But even if
"be angry" is the meaning of vzgr,
because of the question mark over who is being
addressed as well as
the object of the anger, we cannot be dogmatic
about the force of the
Hebrew
imperative.30
All of this, however, is a moot
point, Paul does not here use one
of his standard introductory formulas;31
he is not putting his apostolic
stamp of approval on the LXX's
rendering. In my judgment, Abbott's
dictum is correct: "It is . . . superfluous, as
far as the present passage is
concerned, to inquire what the meaning of the
original is.
not arguing from the words, but adopting them as
well known, and as
expressing the precept he wishes to
inculcate."32 His use of the Psalm
therefore, rhetorical. Hence, we need to look at
the context into
which Eph 4:26 is set for further clues on the use of
o]rgi<zesqe.
1976])
114-15; W. Kay, The Psalms (London: Rivingtons, 1871) 14; in defense of
"tremble (in awe)," cf. C. A. Briggs, Psalms (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1907) 34;
H.
C. Leupold, Exposition
of the Psalms (Columbus, OH: Wartburg, 1959) 68-69.
25 So Delitzsch,
Psalms; differently, Briggs, Psalms.
26 So Delitzsch,
Psalms.
27 So Kay, Psalms.
28 "be angry, AV. is sustained by Is. 2821 of God's
anger and Pr. 299 of man's. But
in these cases it is rather the quivering and
trembling of passion, which is justifiable;
and is regarded by many as Hiph
v. BDB" (Briggs, Psalms, 34).
29 Not only are the
imperatives taken naturally as commands, but "tremble (in
awe)" and "meditate" are both
God-ward actions. The
angry your hearts, do not do wrong; though you lie
abed resentful, do not break silence")
seems a bit forced.
30 Even if addressed to
Absalom and his men, the idea may well be "be angry (at
your
own wrong-doing) and stop sinning." Yet, if these are the addressees,
Paul's use of it
is decidedly rhetorical, for he is addressing the
community of believers. In large
measure, the use of vzgr just like o]rgi<zesqe, is a problem of syntax
(see section III for
discussion of both).
31 In Ephesians, however,
he uses an IF only twice (4:8; 5:14). See J. P. Sampley,
"Scripture
and Tradition in the Community as Seen in Ephesians 4:25ff," ST 2 (1972)
101-9, for an interesting view on Paul's use of theOT in this section.
32
Abbott, 139-40. Cf. also MeyerK,
Ephesians, 252; Lange, Ephesians, 169. This is
not to say that the quote has no significance, for the very familiarity of the Psalm (at
least to Paul) renders the two indicative views
(discussed earlier) as highly unlikely.
360 CRISWELL
THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
B.
The Context of Eph 4:26
There are at least seven contextual
factors, of varying weight,
which may be helpful in shaping our understanding of
this elusive
imperative.
1. Parenetic Section. As we have already mentioned, Eph 4:25-
32
is a specifically parenetic section in this epistle.
On a mechanical
level, this might tend to favor the command view, for
the other ten
imperatives here must all be taken as commands (or
prohibitions).33
At
the same time, none of the imperatives--except o]rgi<zesqe --fits the
structural requirements for a conditional
imperative (viz., impera-
tive + kai> + second verb), which
might indicate that a conditional
imperative was on the apostle's mind.
2. Community of Faith. Not only is v 26 in a parenetic
section,
but it is in one which addresses the relationship
of individual believer
to individual believer. It begins and ends with
two indicatives ("we
are
[e]smen] members of one
another" in v 25; "God in Christ has
forgiven
[e]xari<sato] you" in v 32), which speak of the divine initiative
toward those who now constitute the believing
community. All this is
to say that, however we take o]rgi<zesqe, it should be seen as
anger
directed within the church. By extension,
perhaps, it can apply to
those outside the faith, but I doubt if that is the
apostle's primary
point. Consequently, those who argue for the command
view on the
basis of a righteous indignation toward unbelievers
have missed the
thrust of the apostle here.34 But this cuts
both ways: if Paul is not here
speaking about judging the world per se, then
arguments against the
command view which presuppose that he is are
equally invalid.35
3. A Specific Situation in View? Not to be discounted entirely
is the possibility that Paul has in mind a specific
situation in 4:25-32.
Formally,
all the injunctions are directed toward the group except
one. o[
kle<ptwn (v 28) may well refer
to a specific individual. Not only
is it singular, but the negative mhke<ti ("no longer")
indicates that the
33 This argument is
helpful against seeing o]rgi<zesqe
as an indicative here, but
probably not against taking it as a specific type
of imperative.
34 So
E. K. Simpson (Ephesians [NICNT;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957]) gen-
eralizes the passage so as to
include individual nations as well as the world (108-9); cf.
also C. R. Erdman, The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians (
1974) 102.
35 So Yeager, New Testament, 308: "Why should he
allow his anger to persist until
it has him shouting at the poor defenseless slaves
of Satan who cannot help behaving as
they do since they are only unregenerated
human flesh?" J. L. Boyer, too, seems to hold
this view ("A Classification of Imperatives: A
Statistical Study," GTJ 8 [1987]
39).
Wallace: ]ORGIZESQE IN EPHESIANS 4:26 361
stealing was already taking place.36
If this exegesis is valid, then the
entire pericope might center
on this problem, and the injunction in
v 26 would then probably mean "be angry
about the fact of such sin
in your midst and do something about it'"37
However, identifying a specific
problem in this epistle is noto-
riously difficult. It depends
not only on taking o[
kle<ptwn as referring
to an individual (rather than generically), but on
seeing other specific
problems addressed in this epistle,38
as well as viewing Ephesians as
primarily intended for one church.39
More than "one thief" will be
It
required to overturn the well-worn view of the epistle as some sort of
circular letter.40
Consequently, this parenetic section is probably very loosely
organized. The rapid-fire imperatives march on
asyndetically;41 these
staccato exhortations are typically Pauline.42
But even this tends to
support the command imperative view, though
hardly conclusively.43
36 The substantival participle also implies this.
37 On the assumption that
the thief had not yet been identified, the pericope
might
have the following force:
v 25: each
man should be open and honest with his neighbor--and not suspect
everyone in the community of stealing--because we
are members of each other.
vv 26-27:
either "be angry" at the fact of such sin within the community of
believers (cf. I Cor
5:1-5) and resolve to do something about it quickly; or, less likely,
“if you are angry” stop sinning by allowing your anger to be
vented on everyone you
suspect.
v 28:
rebuke of the thief directly, which fits in well with the command imperative
view (at least for Paul; again cf. I Cor 5:1-5).
vv 29-31:
rebuke of the congregation: the rest of you have sinned, too. As the thief
has robbed you physically, you have robbed
yourselves spiritually (note the interchange
between xrei?a in v 28 and v 29)--by
suspicious innuendo (v 29) and an escalating
vituperation (v 31)--which grieves
the Holy Spirit (v 30).
v 32:
Because of this one thief in your midst, you have forgotten Christian graces."
But,
remembering what God in Christ has done for you, forgive one another.
38 But cf. C. Rogers,
Jr., who makes a plausible argument for the problem of
drunkenness due to the Dionysian cult in 5:18
("The Dionysian Background of Ephe-
sians 5:18," BSac 136 [1979] 249-57);
nevertheless, the Dionysian cult was not a problem
unique to
39 Even if e]n ]Efe<s& in 1:1 is original, this does not, of course,
mean that the letter
was not intended to be circular.
40 Cf. D. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (
1970) 515. Moving even further away from a specific
destination/specific occasion
view, W. G. Kummel, citing J. N. Sanders, argues
that Ephesians may well be "the
spiritual testament of Paul to the church" (Introduction to the New Testament rev.
ed.;
Note
vv 26, 28, 29, 31.
42 Cf. I Thess 5:15-22; Rom 12:9-17.
43 See n. 32.
362
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
4. Eph 5:1. Barth brings 5:1 (''as beloved
children, be imitators
of God") into the discussion: "Among the
saints who are 'God's
imitators' (5:1) such anger cannot be excluded any
more than in God
himself. . . or in the Messiah (Mark 3:5,
etc.)."44 This, too, would tend
to support the command imperative view45--if
all the moral attributes
of God are to be copied by the believer. But, at
best, this is only an
inference.
5. The Audience. One factor rarely considered is how the audi-
ence would have understood
Paul's words. Assuming that it was
largely Gentile, it may be significant that,
among the Greek philoso-
phers, only the Stoics
categorically condemned human anger.46 Though
the general tenor among the Greeks was a negative
assessment, "the
moral wrath which protects against evil"47
was seen as entirely legiti-
mate in the realm of government and "even
necessary for great acts
and virtues. . . “48
With reference to the Jewish
contingency among Paul's addres-
sees, both the OT49 and rabbinic
literature50 considered righteous
human indignation to be legitimate.51 On
the other hand, Philo had a
difficult time accepting either human wrath or
divine wrath as a
righteous emotion/ act.52 This, of
course, is in keeping with his Stoic
training.
In other words, few Jews or Gentiles
in the first Christian century
would flinch at reading o]rgi<zesqe as a command. In the
least, since
the Stoics and Philo stand apart from the rest of
the ancient world,
those exegetes who would absolutely prohibit human
anger53 might
do well to take stock of the company they keep!
Nevertheless, what
the original audience would think is not conclusive
for what an author
44 Barth, Ephesians,
2.513.
45 However, Barth himself sees o]rgi<zesqe as permissive
(=conditional).
46 H. Kleinknecht"
"o]rgh<," TDNT 5.384-85.
47 Ibid.,
384.
48
Ibid.
49 Cf. Exod 32:19; Judg 9:3; 1 Sam 11:6;
2 Sam 12:5; Neh 5:6. J. Fichtner
points out
that "Saul's wrath against the Ammonites. . . .
is attributed to the Spirit of Yahweh (1 S.
11:6)"
(ibid., 394), and further that ". . . one can speak esp. of holy and
righteous anger
when it is a matter of directly championing the
cause of Yahweh. . ." (ibid.; see
references there).
50 See
references in Str-B 3.602 (on Eph 4:26).
51 The OT, however, seems
to view it, at times, as a virtue, while the rabbinic
material simply allows for it.
52 TDNT
5.417.
53 Boyer,
"Conditions," though he advocates the conditional view, categorically
prohibits anger to men: "it seems impossible
to understand this in a good sense. . . .
'righteous indignation' seems never to be approved for
men" (39).
Wallace: ]ORGIZESQE IN EPHESIANS 4:26 363
meant. Two final (and related) contextual arguments
are usually
judged as decisive clues to Paul's meaning here.
6. ]Orgh< Prohibited in v 31. What is normally perceived to be
the strongest argument54 against taking o]rgi<zesqe as a command is the
prohibition against anger In v 31: Let all bitterness
and wrath and
anger [o]rgh<] and clamor and slander be put away from you, with all
malice."55 Formally, it is not just o]rgh< that is prohibited--but
pa?sa
o]rgh< (“all anger").
Vv 26 and 31 clear stand in tension.
Just as it would be wrong-
by appealing only to 26a--to say that all anger is a righteous duty laid
on the believer at all times, so too it would be
wrong--by appealing
exclusively to v 31--to say that all anger is wrong
and utterly sinful at
all times. Indeed, there are two internal clues
which help to resolve
the tension created by v 31.
First, as many commentators point
out,56 this verse apparently
gives a progressively climactic and inherently
cohesive list of vices;
hence, the o]rgh< which springs from qumo<j (which, in turn, is
rooted in
pikri<a) is to be shunned at all times. As C.
Hodge points out, “Verse
31
is not inconsistent with this interpretation [viz., that there is a
righteous anger], for there the context shows
[that] the apostle speaks
of malicious anger--just as ‘all hatred’ means all
malice, and not the
hatred of evil."57
Second, the very fact that Paul
distinguishes between anger and
sin in v 26 indicates that there is an anger which
is not sinful. Now it
might be objected that this is begging the question
because it pre-
supposes an injunctive flavor for o]rgi<zesqe. But that is not the
case.
Even
if we assume the conditional view, “if you are angry, then do
not sin" at least implies that it is possible
to be angry without sinning.
As
A. Tholuck has aptly remarked, “Spricht
Paulus von einem verwerfli-
chen Zorne,
wie kann er das Sundigen
vom Zurnen trennen?"58
And
once it is recognized that the apostle admits of a
non-sinful anger ill
54 So Gnilka,
Epheserbrief,
235.
55 RSV translation.
56 Eadie,
Ephesians, 348-49; B. F. Westcott, St. Pauls Epistle
to the Ephesians
(London: Macmillan, 1906) 74; Barth, Ephesians, 2.521.
57
Hodge, Ephesians, 270.
58 “If Paul speaks [only]
of a reprehensible anger, how can he distinguish between
sinning and being angry?" A. Tholuck, Philologisch-theologische
Auslegung der Berg-
predigt Christi nach Matthaus (Hamburg: Friedrich Perthes, 1833) 186. The underlying
difficulty for the conditional view, in this
regard, is that it cannot handle the apodosis,
mh>
a[marta<nete. To maintain both a
conditional o]rgi<zesqe
and an absolute prohibition
of anger requires a declaration in the apodosis,
not a prohibition: "If you are angry, you
are sinning."
364
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
v 26, then it must be conceded that he does not absolutely prohibit
anger in v 31. Therefore, "conditionalists"
who appeal to v 31 prove
too much: they undercut their own view of o]rgi<zesqe in the process.
7. Eph 4:26b-27. Finally, conditionalists
appeal to vv 26b-27 as
an argument against the command view. Boyer asks,
" . . . if this is a
command to show 'righteous indignation,' why is
the warning added
to end it before the sun goes down?"59
In response, four things can
be said.
First, if, as Boyer believes, Paul
is condemning all human anger,
why would he allow it to last until sundown? Would
it not be more to
the point for him to have said, "Do not get
angry in the first place"?
By
setting a temporal limit60 the apostle lays down a restriction, but
not a prohibition.
Second, no one who maintains the
"command" view would see
o]rgi<zesqe as an unqualified
exhortation. Unless it is impossible for a
command to have a limited and occasional application,
it is difficult to
see the validity of Boyer's point. If I am
commanded to "weep with
those who weep," is this not a limited command?
Or if parents are
told not to spare the rod for that would spoil the
child, does this mean
that all discipline must be corporeal--or worse,
that the only way
they are to relate to their offspring is with a whip
in hand? Surely the
imperative is flexible enough, in a given context,
to make demands
which are limited by time and/or occasion.
Third, no one but the Stoics and
Philo would deny God the
right--even the obligation--to be angry at times. Yet
few would say
that anger is God's leading attribute. Isa 28:21 speaks of the exercise
of God's wrath as his "strange"61
or "unusual"62 work. The point is
that a command to be angry-and yet to limit that
anger--is in
keeping with God's character and may well be, as
Barth has noted, a
specific application of Eph 5:1: "become
imitators of God," Does not
the psalmist say, "His anger is but for a
moment, His favor is for a
lifetime"?63
Finally, entirely apart from these
considerations is the possibility
that we have misconstrued the limitation in v 26b,
Paul might not be
placing a temporal limit on one's anger. When he
says "do not let the
sun go down on your anger," he does not use
the obvious cognate,
59
Boyer, "Imperatives," 39.
60 Which is more than
likely not literal, the point being that one ought not to allow
anger to fester so as to become sin. Even righteous
anger, then, can degenerate, if not
properly guarded.
61 So NEB.
62 So NASB.
63 Ps
30:5 (NASV).
Wallace: ]ORGIZESQE IN EPHESIANS 4:26 365
o]rgh<. Instead, he uses paraorgismo<j. This is a rare term
which has
been found to date only in biblical Greek.64
“In the LXX it is used as a
rule with an active meaning. . . .”65 In
fact, we may go so far as to say
that the term always has an active meaning except
for one variant
found in codex Alexandrinus.66 It may thus
be translated “the cause of
provocation,” and always refers67 to the
external cause by one party
(usually
parorgismo<j is used but once in the NT, in Eph 4:26.
Perhaps commen-
tators are too hasty to label
it a passive--viz., the feeling of being
provoked.68 If it bears its normal
sense of “that which caused
cation” Paul might well be
saying, “Deal with the cause of your anger
immediately.” And if that cause is another brother
(as would be most
natural in this section), the point might well
be the same as Matt
18:15:
“if your brother sins, go and rebuke him.” V 27 then
would
have the force of --don't let the devil gain a
foothold in the assembly
by letting sin go unchecked."69
Further, mh>
a[marta<nete
in this view
would have the force of “do not sin by doing nothing--act
quickly to
discipline your brother.” If this reconstruction is
correct, then o]rgi<-
zesqe would have to be taken
as a command.70
Perhaps we are reading too much into
the text in this approach.
But
suffice it to say here that, whether 26b is a temporal limit on one's
anger or whether it is an incitement to carry out
church discipline
quickly, there is no good reason to object to o]rgi<zesqe as a command.
To
sum up the contextual arguments: none of the seven points we
have made is decisive. At this stage, o]rgi<zesqe could be either a
64 As well as in
patristic comments on Eph 4:26. My perusal of Thesaurus Lingua
Graece (via the Ibycus
computer-generated concordance) turned up no new instances.
65 J. H. Moulton and G.
Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek
Testament (reprint
ed.;
66 Cf. 3 Kgdms 15:30; 4 Kgdms 19:3; 23:26;
Neh 9:18, 26. The variant reading is
found in Jer 21:5. As well,
the close cognate, paro<rgisma is also found only with an
active meaning (3 Kgdms
16:33; 20[21]:22; 2 Chron 35:19).
67 The v:l. excepted.
68 For an active sense,
cf. H. C. G. Moule, Studies in Ephesians (reprint ed.;
69 See n. 37 for a
possible reconstruction of the incident, if any, that the apostle
might have had in mind.
70 What might give
further support for this view is the fact that o]rgi<zw, rather
than qumo<w, is used. If a
distinction can be made between these two--though, admit-
tedly, there is a great deal
of overlap—o]rgi<zw tends to accent the
volition, while qumo<w
tends to stress the emotion (though it is probably
impossible to extricate emotions
entirely
from o]rgi<zw's connotati~ns).
If such a volitional emphasis, is on the apostle's
mind (a nuance difficult for English-speaking
natives to grasp for anger, be angry),
then the link with decisive action, justice,
(informal) church discipline is thereby
strengthened.
366
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
command or a condition, though I am inclined to
think that the
command view has the edge.
III. The Syntax in Eph 4:26
The final factor deals specifically
with the syntax of o]rgi<zesqe kai>
mh>
a[marta<nete. There are three
arguments to consider here, though
the first two are of minor importance.
A.
Aspect
The aspectual forces of the
imperative are often treated in relation
to present time. Thus, the aorist imperative is
usually considered to
mean "start to do X," while the present
imperative bears the sense,
"continue doing X." The aorist prohibition71
has the force "don't start
to do X," while the present prohibition means
"stop doing X;"72 If this
meaning were pressed in Eph 4:26, the idea might
be, "keep on being
angry, but stop sinning."
But recent studies have shown that
this way of viewing the
imperatives is quite incorrect,73 for the
time element is entirely inci-
dental to the tense used and is to be derived from the
context. As
K.
L. McKay points out, "In the imperative the essential difference
between the aorist and the imperfective [i.e.,
present] is that the
former urges an activity as whole action and the
latter urges it as
ongoing process."74
Consequently, this is a moot point for our present
passage.
B.
The Connective kai>
Several commentators who favor
taking o]rgi<zesqe
as a command
make much of the conjunction joining the two
imperatives. Meyer is
representative: " . . . the mere kai> is only logically
correct when both
imperatives are, thought of in the same sense, not
the former as
permitting and the latter as enjoining, in which
case the combination
becomes exceptive
('only, however'), which would be expressed by
a]lla>, plh>n,
or mo<non . . ."75
This is not a very strong argument for
71 In the NT, all aorist
prohibitions in the second person employ the subjunctive
rather than the imperative.
72 Cf. H. E. Dana and J.
R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of
the Greek New
Testament (Toronto: Macmillan,
1927) 299-303; J. A. Brooks and C. L. Winberry,
Syntax of New Testament
Greek (
1979) 116.
73 Cf. K. L. McKay,
"Aspect in ImperativaI Constructions in New
Testament
Greek,"
NovT 27
(1985) 201-26; Boyer, "Imperatives," 35-54: ,
74 McKay,
"Aspect," 206-7.
75 Meyer, 2.53-54.
Wallace: ]ORGIZESQE IN EPHESIANS 4:26 367
the simple reason that kai> is not here connecting
two naked impera-
tives, but an imperative on
the one side with mh> plus the imperative
on the other. The negative disrupts any simple
connection and, in
fact, probably lends a mildly adversative force to kai>: "be angry, and
yet do not sin." Still, the presence of kai> cannot be construed as
an
argument against the command view and, in all
probability, leans
toward it. Nevertheless, neither of
these first two grammatical argu-
ments is very decisive.
C.
The Semantic Situation of Conditional
Imperatives
The final syntactical argument,
however, may well be decisive.
Those
who hold that o]rgi<zesqe
is a conditional imperative must
reckon with the fact that it is followed by another
imperative. This
would seem unnatural, as we might expect a future
indicative--thus,
in John 2:19 we read, "Destroy this temple
and in three days I will
raise
it up [lu<sate
. . . e]gerw?]." In Boyer's
exhaustive study on im-
peratives in the NT, in fact, he
states the following:
Probably the strangest and most controversial category of impera-
tives is that which seems to express some conditional
element. Here it is
necessary
to distinguish two groups. The first is neither strange nor
controversial;
it includes a large number of instances (about 20) where
an
imperative is followed by kai>
and a future indicative verb [italics
mine]. . . .
The second group consists of a few passages where condition has
been
proposed to explain a difficult passage.76
Boyer
then lists only three passages77 which belong to this questionable
category. Eph 4:26 gets the greatest amount of
coverage--and here
Boyer
comes out strongly, on contextual and theological grounds, for
a conditional o]rgi<zesqe. The point is that one
of the leading advocates
of the conditional view--and the only one to
categorize every im-
perative in the NT--was unable
to find any other conditional impera-
tive which was followed by kai> and another imperative.
Boyer has
clearly felt the force of this syntactical
argument and has found that
his only recourse is to argue on the basis of other
factors.
But, to be sure, there are
grammarians who argue that a condi-
tional imperative can be
followed by another imperative. A. T.
Robertson
has made perhaps the most cogent statement along these
lines:
76
Boyer, "Imperatives," 39.
77 Strangely, he includes
John 2:19 in his dubious list, as well as 2 Cor 12:16
and
Eph
4:26.
368
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
Sometimes two imperatives are
connected by kai> when the first suggests
concession.
Thus Eph. 4:26, o]rgi<zesqe kai> mh>
a[marta<nete. So also
e]rau<nhson
kai> i@de (Jo. 7:52). Cf. e@rxou kai> i@de (Jo. 1:46). This seems
simple
enough [italics mine].78
Robertson thus gives two examples
(besides Eph 4:26) of a condi-
tional imperative followed by
another imperative. But what "seems
simple enough" to Robertson does not help the
cause of a conditional
imperative in Eph 4:26 for three reasons.
First, Robertson's identification of
e]rau<nhson
in John 7:52 and
e@rxou in John 1:46 as
conditional imperatives is highly debatable, for
even Boyer--who would like to find such a tidy
semantic parallel to
Eph
4:26--is unable to admit that any construction other than impera-
tive + kai> + future indicative involves a conditional imperative.79
Second, even if we assumed that
Robertson's proof-texts were
valid, a proper parallel has not been drawn for us.
In John 1:46 we
read e@rxou
kai> i@de ("come and
see"). This is Philip's response to
Nathanael's challenge, "Can any good thing come
out of
If
we see e@rxou as a conditional
imperative, rather than entreaty, then
Philip's
response means, "If you come, you will see." In John 7:52, the
Pharisees
suspect that Nicodemus has become a disciple of Jesus.
They
ask, "Are you from
and
see [e]rau<nhson
kai> i@de] that no prophet comes
from
Again,
if e]rau<nhson
is conditional, the Pharisees' retort means, "If you
search, you will see." In other words, in both of
Robertson's proof-
texts the second imperative functions semantically as
a future indica-
tive.80 If we applied that
principle to Eph 4:26 we would get "If you
are angry, you will
not sin"!
Third, there is an additional
problem with Robertson's proof-
texts. The very fact that there is some doubt
concerning the label of
78 Robertson, Grammar, 949. Cf. also A. Buttmann, A Grammar of the New
Testament Greek (Andover: Warren F.
Draper, 1873) 290.
79 Boyer considers e]rau<nhson
kai> i@de (John 7:52) to be
ambiguous semantically,
fitting either the "command" or
"condition" category; he does not deal with John 1:46.
80 It should be noted
here that conditionalists who base their view on a
supposed
conditional imperative in Ps 4:4 must also reckon
with the fact that the same semantics
are operative in Hebrew. Abbott (Ephesians, 140)
aptly points out:
The phrase is frequently explained by
reference to what is called the Hebrew idiom (which is by
no means peculiarly Hebrew) of combining two
imperatives, so that the former expresses the
condition, the latter the result, as in Amos v. 4,
"Seek Me and live." But this would make the
words mean, "Be angry, and so ye shall not
sin."
As well, in all 17 examples listed in GKC of
this idiom, none broke away from the
"condition-consequence"
idea (§110.2.(a)). Indeed, they noted that "In
this case the first
imperative contains, as a rule, a condition, while
the second declares the consequence
which the fulfilment of the
condition will involve" (italics mine). (See also n. 22.)
Wallace: ]ORGIZESQE IN EPHESIANS 4:26 369
conditional imperative for e@rxou and e]rau<nhson is not because others
would give them a radically different nuance. The
idea of injunction
or condition in these two texts is not very far
apart at all. But this is
not due to a blurring in the distinction between
the categories (or.
more accurately, nuances) of command and
condition-otherwise
exegetes would not spill so much ink over Eph
4:26.81 Rather, it is due
to the fact that these conditional imperatives
have not lost their
natural injunctive force. And it is probable
that this is due to their
being linked by kai> with another
imperative. We might even para-
phrase John 1:46 as "If you come--and I urge you
to--you will see"
and John 7:52 as "If you search--as well you
should--you will see." If
this were applied to Eph 4:26, it would mean,
"If you are angry--and
you should be"!
Perhaps we are being unfair to
Robertson, however. After all, he
only supplied two proof-texts, implying that there
may be others.
Because
of this possibility it is necessary to examine every impera-
tive + kai> + imperative
construction in the NT. Altogether, there are
187
imperative + kai> + imperative
constructions in the NT.82 This cer-
tainly seems like a large
enough data base from which to draw some
fairly firm conclusions. I examined each one to
determine whether we
can add any more potentially conditional
imperatives to Robertson's
list. The answer is a qualified yes. In addition to
John 1:46 and 7:52, 21
more imperatives can be added to the list83
of potential conditional
imperatives. I broke these down into two groups:
those which only
had a slight chance of deserving the label and
those which, in their
contexts, looked like good candidates. In the
first group belonged 17
imperatives.84 For example, Mark 2:9
has "rise and take up your bed
and walk." It is just possible that the force
is, "If you rise and take up
your bed, you will walk." Yet, the whole tenor
of the pericope
81 Cf. also John 2:19
where such a blurring of nuances would wreak exegetical
havoc.
82 These data were
derived from Gramcord. Gramcord
is a copyrighted software
package which is able to perform grammatical
searches in the Greek NT. It is distri-
buted solely by the Gramcord Institute, 2065 Half Day Road,
By
creating a contextfield of twelve words, 289
imperative + kai> + imperative
constructions were found. We made it
this broad in order to pick up every legitimate
construction. Gramcord,
however, did not discern whether such imperatives belonged
in the same clause; as well, it multiplied the
examples when more than two imperatives
were used (e.g., Mark 2:9 [which reads e@geire kai> a#ron . . . kai> peripa<tei]
was listed
four times). Consequently, this list of raw data was
pared down to 187 legitimate
examples.
83 Eph 4:26 being omitted
from consideration as that is our target passage.
84 Cf. Matt 9:5; 11:29;
15:10; Mark 2:9; 5:19; 7:14; 9:50; Luke 5:4, 23; 24:39; John
4:35; 5:8; 20:27; 1 Cor
11:28; 15:34; Gal 5:1; Eph 5:14.
370
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
seemed to render this unlikely.85 In Luke
24:39 Jesus, in his resur-
rected body, says "Touch
me and see. . ."; the force could
possibly
be “If you touch me, you will see." But
again, the tone of the passage
seems to be against this.86
In the second group--the likely
candidates--belonged, besides
John 1:46 and 7:52, only two other texts. In Luke 7:7 we read of
the
centurion's request that Jesus heal his servant:
"Say the word and let
my servant be healed." Many scribes changed i]aqh<tw ("let him be
healed") to i]aqh<setai ("he will be
healed"),87 indicating that the
second imperative is virtually the equivalent of a
future indicative. "If
you say the word, he will be healed," is not
an inappropriate render-
ing, therefore.88
John 11:34 reproduces the verbage of 1:46 ("come
and see") and consequently may well imply a
conditional nuance.
Significantly,
of all 21 potential example, only two were as con-
vincing as Robertson's two
alleged proof-texts. Thus, out of 187
imperative + kai> + imperative
constructions in the NT, four proba-
bly--or, at least, quite
possibly--involve conditional imperatives. Yet
each of these four could be construed as conditional
imperatives
precisely because the trailing imperative
functioned as a future indi-
cative--a
semantic situation which finds no parallel in Eph 4:26.
However, among the 17 mildly
possible conditional imperatives,
I
found a different phenomenon. In four passages,89
assuming that the
first imperative was conditional, the second still,
most naturally, bore
its injunctive force, thus paralleling Eph 4:26.
However, there were
two major problems with all these examples: first,
they were exceed-
ingly doubtful as legitimate
candidates for conditional imperatives;
and second, the conditional imperative nuance still
carried with it the
full force of a command. Two examples should
suffice. In Mark 5:19
Jesus
told the formerly demon-possessed man, "Go home and tell
them what the Lord has done for you." If we
read u!page conditionally
85 soi> le<gw in v 11 sounds like it introduces a command; the man's
immediate
response suggests that he viewed it as a command;
and the fact that Jesus stresses his
own authority (v 19) would best fit a command
imperative. See also Matt 9:5; Luke
5:2.3;
and John 5:8 for the same expression.
86 The
parallel in v 39a and the apparent eagerness of Jesus to get his disciples to
believe in him are decidedly on the side of
seeing entreaty/command here.
87
In fact, only p75 B L 1241 copsa,bo
are listed in UBSGNT3 in support of the
imperative. A quick check of The New Testament in Greek: The Gospel According to
St. Luke, Part One: Chapters 1-12
(IGNTP; Oxford: Clarendon, 1984) revealed no
more MSS.
88 Cf. also the v.I. in Gal 6:2 (a]naplhrw<sate) where the UBSGNT3(=NA26)
text
has the future indicative.
89 Matt 15:10; Mark 5:19;
7:14; Luke 5:4.
Wallace: ]ORGIZESQE IN EPHESIANS 4:26 371
we--would have, "If you go home, tell them. .
." Though a command
would thereby be preserved in the apodosis, only with
great ingenuity
could we construe u!page as a mere option.90
Luke 5:4 suffers the same
judgment, for Jesus' command to Peter to
"Put out into deep waters
and lower the nets" can hardly, without
torture, be rendered, "If you
put out into deep waters, lower the nets." The
context must virtually
be suffocated to get this idea out of the verse.91
It must be readily admitted that
these examples are very difficult
to swallow. They are included in this discussion
to show that only by
great mental gymnastics is one able to show
legitimate parallels to a
conditional o]rgi<zesqe in Eph 4:26.
To sum up the major syntactical
argument we can make the
following three points:
(1) All the positively identified conditional imperatives in the NT
are followed by kai> + future indicative.
(2) All four of the probable conditional imperatives in impera-
tive + kai> + imperative
constructions require the second imperative
to function semantically as a future indicative
(i.e., stating the con-
sequence/fulfillment of the implied
condition).
(3) All of the 21 potentially conditional imperatives in impera-
tive + kai> + imperative
constructions retained their injunctive force.
These
three syntactical facts I consider to be decisive against a
conditional o]rgi<zesqe because the semantic
situation of conditional
imperatives is so radically different from what we
see in Eph 4:26.92
(In
light of this, we might well consider the distinct possibility that
what the phenomena of the NT display is hardly
unique to itself: the
semantic pattern of conditional imperatives found
in the NT might
just be an aspect of universal grammar as well.)
Furthermore, the
normal expediency of appealing to the use of Ps 4:4,
the context, or
the general biblical teaching on human anger as
that which must
override any notion of command in o]rgi<zesqe is inconclusive at
best,
and, as we have hopefully shown, more than likely
supports the
command view. Eph 4:26, then, can be taken at
face value: "Be angry
and do not sin."
90 Jesus had just
prohibited him from coming with him. This alternative, then, is
not "if you go home rather than coming with
me" because the latter was already
forbidden.
91 In particular, Peter's
response in v 5 indicates that he would have been unwilling
to do this except that Jesus commanded him.
92 If one wishes to
debate whether this verse or that belongs in the category where
I
have placed it, such would not invalidate these three
points. We could just as easily
drop the numbers and say, . . All of the potentially
conditional imperatives. . . ," etc.
372
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
IV. Conclusion and Application
In Eph 4:26 Paul is placing a moral
obligation on believers to be
angry as the occasion requires. As his injunction is
in a parenetic
section dealing with how believers are to
interact with each other-
rather than with the world--he probably has in mind a
righteous
indignation which culminates in church discipline,
though not neces-
sarily in a formal way. Since
this righteous indignation is a part of our
response to imitate God, it must be an
"enlightened wrath, the wrath
whitened by grace."93
As God himself does not dwell in anger, neither
should we. As anger is the dark side of God--his
strange work--so
too wrath must never characterize the believer.
However, if we fail to
obey this injunction, not only will the enemy
continue to make well-
ploughed inroads into our churches, but we
ourselves will, by sup-
pressing our holy indignation, be but "a
maimed sample of humanity."94
93 M.
B. Lang; "Isaiah 1.18 and Ephesians IV.25-29," ExpTim 8 (1896-97) 405.
94
Simpson, Ephesians, 108.
This material is cited with gracious
permission from:
The
www.criswell.edu
Please report any errors to Ted
Hildebrandt at: