I have not read the posted article, but don't think I need to in order to
address this question. A faulty treatment of conditional sentences is one of
the things one encounters in some well-known NT Greek grammars. The problem
with the "first class" condition is that it is often used where we, the
readers, assume the protasis to be true for theological or common-sense
reasons. But as with many other issues in Greek, this has nothing to do with
the grammar, and the error occurs in redefining the grammar based on context
and assumptions. EI + indicative implies nothing about the truth or untruth
of the protasis. To use this in argument is a rather effective rhetorical
trick, i.e. effective against a less logical or competent opponent. The user
of the condition attempts to create a logically invalid condition based on
an assumption (the protasis) that he hopes his opponent will accept because
of the opponent's special circumstances. The protasis may even be one that
the user himself accepts as well. The opponent is placed in the somewhat
awkward position of appearing to deny his own beliefs if he rejects the
conclusion (the apodosis). There is no need to assume something true about
the EI, which in fact would be contrary to the grammar; the truth of the
protasis is assumed from the context and/or special circumstances of the
opponent. Indeed, this is the same kind of argument as that of the child
telling his parents, "If you really love me, you'll let me go to this
party." We would think the parents extremely naive and incompetent if they
agreed with the child. We would expect them instead to explain that they do
love the child, and that that is the very reason for not letting him go--or
at all events just say "No." The child doesn't need to say "Since...," and
in fact that would have less rhetorical force because it would not lay the
same onus on the opponent as suggesting that there is some doubt in the
user's mind about the truth of the apodosis (i.e. "I'm not so sure you love
me--prove it!"). In the passage in question, our Lord responds in the best
way possible both on a rhetorical and factual level. The right response to
this kind of rhetorical baiting is to make it clear that the user of the
condition has pieced together an invalid cause-and-effect relationship; if
one can deliver another blow at the same time, so much the better.
Don Wilkins