I don't really think so. It is a fact that present imperatives in the 2nd
plural are identical in every respect with the present indicatives, both in
the active and in the middle-passive voices, and this is no less true in
contract verbs like ZHLOW, because it is exactly the same vowels that are
contracted in both the indicative and imperative forms. I personally think
that the logic of 12:30-31 calls for an imperative to follow the rhetorical
questions: "It's not the case, is it, that everybody has the gift of
healing? or that everybody speaks in tongues, or everybody interprets
(tongues)? As for you, however, seek earnestly the greater gifts!"
Of course, it should be added that there are divergent interpretations of
this chapter; some hold that Paul is not really putting "tongues" in a
lower status but simply denying them superior status. Personally I've
always thought that the delicate irony of 13:1 makes pretty clear what Paul
means by "the greater gifts" and that is why I think the adversative DE in
12:31 is important: not everyone can heal, not everyone can speak in
tongues or interpret them, but everybody can show Christ's love, and that
is a considerably greater, more valuable gift, the absence of which can
nullify any value to healing, tongue-speaking, or interpretation.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/