tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13493010.post114270128214410299..comments2011-10-05T17:55:15.178-04:00Pittsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15701313028266975294noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13493010.post-1143428194581199382006-03-26T21:56:00.000-05:002006-03-26T21:56:00.000-05:00That was one of the ways I would have nuanced his discussion. I am in basic agreement with Wallace's identification of the infinitives. I understand that <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801026148/sr=8-1/qid=1143427543/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-2224611-2814510?%5Fencoding=UTF8" REL="nofollow">Hoehner</A> is pretty close to that interpretation as well.<BR/><BR/>The substantive agreement that I found with Hoekema and Murray was twofold:<BR/><BR/>(1) The infinitives do not need to be understood as commands for daily Christian living because the syntactical options are broader than might be readily apparent. (2) The first and last infinitives refer to actions that had already been taken by the Ephesian audience.<BR/><BR/>Hoekema got those two points across well enough for my purposes, but I agree that his exegesis could have benefited from some of these later studies.Pittsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15701313028266975294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13493010.post-1143331051538697792006-03-25T18:57:00.000-05:002006-03-25T18:57:00.000-05:00Jeremy,<BR/>On the infinitives in Eph. I wonder if you have looked at Wallace. He makes what may be a better argument that they are infinitives in indirect discourse. I followed his lead in my article in the Journal on the two natures.Bill Combshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04518995238424328281noreply@blogger.com