Luke 8:18 βλέπετε

[Eupseiphos]

Must βλέπετε be imperative and not indicative? "βλέπετε οὖν πῶς ἀκούετε" immediately follows the analogy of the "light under the vessel" (which is very visual) and the parable of the sower, which is about how we hear/respond to the word of God. If we hear and respond rightly and the seed is sowed on good soil, then our lamps will not be lit under a vessel and things will be revealed, so we'll see (indicative) in a manner like what we hear. Good soil begets more light. βλέπετε and ἀκούετε link the stories about lamp and the seed together. Or is βλέπετε (imperative) simply a pun?

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Must βλέπετε be imperative and not indicative? "βλέπετε οὖν πῶς ἀκούετε" immediately follows the analogy of the "light under the vessel" (which is very visual) and the parable of the sower, which is about how we hear/respond to the word of God. If we hear and respond rightly and the seed is sowed on good soil, then our lamps will not be lit under a vessel and things will be revealed, so we'll see (indicative) in a manner like what we hear. Good soil begets more light. βλέπετε and ἀκούετε link the stories about lamp and the seed together. Or is βλέπετε (imperative) simply a pun?

The features you're calling attention to are mechanisms of textual cohesion[1].

[1] Halliday and Hasan, Cohesion in English, 1976.

[Barry Hofstetter]

Well, it is possible that the author could be doing something like this on the discourse/literary level, being clever with his choice of words for the purposes you suggest, but that is not relevant to the question of whether βλέπετε is an imperative. The semantic range includes senses like "Be careful" and "Watch out for" which fits nicely with the the indirect question (πῶς), making it difficult to read it as anything other than an imperative.

[Markos]

I like your suggestion. Neither the grammar nor the context rules it out. I'm not sure that it matters, because to the extent that βλέπετε οὖν πῶς ἀκούετε is taken as a general rule for how things work, it implies an imperative.

Given the right context, βλέπετε οὖν πῶς ἀκούετε can mean both:

1. βλέπε οὖν πῶς ἀκούεις. 2. καθὼς οὖν τις ἀκούει, οὕτως βλέπει οὗτος.

Combining the two, Jesus might have said: ἐὰν καλῶς τὸν λόγον ἀκούῃς , τὸ φῶς βλέψεις. καλῶς οὖν ἄκουε.

Or is βλέπετε (imperative) simply a pun?

Yes, probably, I think so. It's a little funnier in Hebrew.

...making it difficult to read it as anything other than an imperative.

παρὰ ἀνθρώποις τοῦτο δύσκολόν ἐστι, παρὰ δὲ Θεῷ πάντα δυνατά ἐστι.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Well, it is possible that the author could be doing something like this on the discourse/literary level, being clever with his choice of words for the purposes you suggest, but that is not relevant to the question ...

You're absolutely right. Made no attempt to address that question. BTW, textual cohesion is not linked to authorial intent. Texts are cohesive or they're not texts. It isn't a conscious process unless you're writing like a poet.

[Barry Hofstetter]

παρὰ ἀνθρώποις τοῦτο δύσκολόν ἐστι, παρὰ δὲ Θεῷ πάντα δυνατά ἐστι.

σύ γε θεὸς οὐκ εἶ...

And just wrong. You will find no translation that does not render it as an imperative, and no commentator that does not so understand it. The fact that it's followed by the indirect question, and then supported by the following γάρ are strong contextual clues that it must be read as an imperative. Jerome saw it as an imperative:

Videte ergo quomodo auditis... No ambiguity with videte.