The Rapture

[DanielGracely]

I have to admit I tire of hearing the implication that because such 'n such doctrine wasn't taught until year x that it cannot be true. All of this assumes the historicity of biblical scholarship (I use the word "scholarship" with the reader's understanding) couldn't be wrong. In fact, often it has been wrong, and in fairly serious matters.

For example, in John 10 we often hear the phrase "and they shall never perish." But in fact this phrase is in the middle voice, subjunctive. It should be translated "they ought not to destroy themselves." Now perhaps some bible scholar from centuries past has raised the same complaint I'm mentioning now; I don't know. But what I do know is that every major Bible translation on BlueLetterBible.com hasn't seen fit to render this phrase correctly. How many centuries of 'learning' and how many 'scholars' does this represent? Hundreds in each case? But if, theoretically, some new translation were to arrive on the scene that did render the phrase correctly, wouldn't we hear people say how such a phrase can't find endorsement in any major translation until the 21st century, thus implying its rookie status equates to error?

Another example. When I wrote against the doctrine of original sin about 6 years ago, I gave biblical evidence why the form, not content, of man's knowledge is the thing Adam's descendents inherit. As far as I know, no one else has really advanced this view. But because I'm a nobody theogian, i.e. because I have no formal seminary education or publishing credentials by peer-reviewed magazines, etc., nor teach at a recognized bible college or university, my arguments are ( of course) completely off the radar. I've come to understand that is how it will always be. But must it also mean that because an idea is 'new', it cannot be biblical?

[backwoodsman]

For example, in John 10 we often hear the phrase "and they shall never perish." But in fact this phrase is in the middle voice, subjunctive. It should be translated "they ought not to destroy themselves."

(John 10:28) Can you offer some basis for that interpretation? It doesn't seem to fit the context of the passage, and Robertson (who, I think, knew a little about Greek grammar) disagrees with you.

[Paidion]

Daniel, in the years in which the NT was written, the true use of the middle had disappeared. But if this were a true middle, it would not be translated, "They ought not to destroy themselves", for the middle is not reflexive. Rather it would be translated "no way do they destroy for themselves." There is nothing in the Greek which suggests "ought".

Actually, the middle in Greek in New Testament times has two usages. Either

1. it is a deponent, that is a verb in the middle voice but with an active meaning. For example "ερχομαι" is a middle, but it means "I am coming" or "I am going". The meaning is active.
or
2. It has one active meaning in the active voice, and a different active meaning in the middle voice. For example, the active "αρχω" means "I am ruling" whereas the middle form of the same verb, "αρχομαι", means "I am beginning".

The verb "απολλυμι" seems to belong to case 2 above. In the active voice it means "I am destroying" but in the middle voice it means "I am perishing".

However, if you still think your translation is correct, then consider the following verses with "απολλυμι" in the middle voice when translated in the same way as you translate John 10:28.

And they went and woke him, saying, “Save us, Lord; we are destroying ourselves.” (Matthew 8:25)

Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will destroy themselves by the sword. (Matthew 26:52)

But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion. And they woke him and said to him, “Teacher, do you not care that we are destroying ourselves?” (Mark 4:38)

Do not labor for the food that destroys itself, but for the food that endures to eternal life ... (John 6:27)

[DanielGracely]

Daniel, in the years in which the NT was written, the true use of the middle had disappeared. But if this were a true middle, it would not be translated, "They ought not to destroy themselves", for the middle is not reflexive. Rather it would be translated "no way do they destroy for themselves." There is nothing in the Greek which suggests "ought".

Actually, the middle in Greek in New Testament times has two usages. Either

1. it is a deponent, that is a verb in the middle voice but with an active meaning. For example "ερχομαι" is a middle, but it means "I am coming" or "I am going". The meaning is active.
or
2. It has one active meaning in the active voice, and a different active meaning in the middle voice. For example, the active "αρχω" means "I am ruling" whereas the middle form of the same verb, "αρχομαι", means "I am beginning".

The verb "απολλυμι" seems to belong to case 2 above. In the active voice it means "I am destroying" but in the middle voice it means "I am perishing".


However, if you still think your translation is correct, then consider the following verses with "απολλυμι" in the middle voice when translated in the same way as you translate John 10:28.

And they went and woke him, saying, “Save us, Lord; we are destroying ourselves.” (Matthew 8:25)

Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will destroy themselves by the sword. (Matthew 26:52)

But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion. And they woke him and said to him, “Teacher, do you not care that we are destroying ourselves?” (Mark 4:38)

Do not labor for the food that destroys itself, but for the food that endures to eternal life ... (John 6:27)

Hi Paidon,
I was a little startled to read your claim that there was no true Greek middle voice used in the N.T., and thus no self-reflexive action. It made me go back and review an article by one, Carl Conrad (Prof. Emeritus of Classical Languages, Washington University (St. Louis), and moderator of the once active B-Greek online site), regarding “active” and “middle-passive” voice. His article can be read at http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/d ... cGrkVc.pdf. Years ago, I remember reading another comment by Conrad in which he stated that there was no more useless term than “deponency.” (Incidentally, I hasten to add that in citing Conrad I do not pretend to represent any particular doctrinal positions of his.)

In short, it appears Conrad would not agree with you that there cannot be a Greek predicate form with an aspect of self-reflexive action. He also believes that “middle-passives” should not be thought “middle” OR “passive,” but rather both, in the sense that e.g., the one who undergoes baptism is nevertheless actively submitting himself to be the object of action, thus demonstrating an aspect of self-reflexive action. It appears Conrad also mentions that biblical contexts play a key role in determining how much active the “middle’ is, in middle-passives.

However, I think I would go beyond Conrad to say there does seem to be at least one example of a true middle voice in the N.T. Furthermore, if there is at least one true middle, it seems to me there could be more than just one. In fact, if there is no true middle voice of self-reflexive action, then it seems to me Jesus’ teaching in Luke about marriage/divorce/remarriage is in contradiction to statements he gives in Matthew on the same subject. This argument (about there being at least one example of a true middle voice) will take a little time to unpack, so please bear with me.

It is well known that Matthew alone mentions the exception clause for remarriage in case of divorce. Or at least, that is the general claim. Here is the passage from Matt. 5:31-32:

It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

The last clause, “and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery,” is understood in context to also be subject to the exception clause, i.e., “except for the cause of fornication.” And so Matthew implies that in the case of a fornicating spouse, there is a legitimate ground for the innocent party to remarry.

However, in recording Jesus’ teaching, neither Mark nor Luke seem to endorse any grounds whatsoever for legitimate remarriage. Thus Mark 10:4-12:

And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Even more directly does Luke (16:18) seem to contradict Matthew, when stating that the innocent wife who has been subjected to the divorce process, likewise commits adultery when she remarries:

Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Now, it seems strange to me that neither Mark nor Luke would expect their readers to have a proper understanding about marriage, divorce, and remarriage, when they fail to include the exception clause which Matthew carefully inserts. But I suppose at least Mark could be excused on the grounds that his focus is doubtless upon the unjust aggressor/initiator of the divorce. For he speaks of the man who would put away his wife, and the wife who would put away her husband. And so, arguably, remarriage is simply not part of what Mark is addressing, as he concerns himself only with the unjustified aggressor in the divorce.

But that still leaves Luke, which is even more problematic. For why would he suggest that an innocent woman who has been subjected to the humiliation of divorce (by a husband intent on marrying another), will nevertheless be committing adultery when she remarries, even though it had been the husband who had fornicated?

The answer is that the Bible doesn’t really say what the Bible seems to say, that is, in the English translation. For the phrase “is put away” in Luke 16:18 is listed in sources such as BlueLetterBible.com and Spiros Zodiates’ Greek Key Study Bible as a perfect passive participle, when in fact the middle voice takes the same spelling as the perfect passive participle. (BTW Zodiates discovered his mistake and showed in a subsequent book on marriage, divorce, and remarriage that he believed “is put away” in Luke 16:18 should be understood as middle, self-reflexive.) In other words, instead of rendering “is put away,” the translators should have rendered “puts herself away”, showing again, as in Mark, the aggressor in each case. Otherwise, reading the current English translation of Luke 16:18 forms a contradiction to Matthew’s granting a remarriage for the innocent party. And how do we know the woman is innocent in the first clause of Luke 16:18, when we are told her husband put her away? Because if she were otherwise Jesus would have had to grant the husband the exception clause, and not describe him as an adulterer.

My point in all this is to ask how the contradiction can be avoided unless we grant a true middle voice in the case of “is put away” in Luke 16:18?

Similarly (re: Perfect Passive Participles), in Romans 9:22 we are told that God endures with great patience those “fitted to destruction.” But who is doing the fitting? For if it is God who is fitting these wicked for destruction, ordaining even their rebrobate acts (as Calvinists would have us believe) in order to create glory for Himself in His punishment of the wicked, why then does God endure with much longsuffering their wickedness, since He could just as well save them and thus spare Himself the misery of patience? Indeed, if the Calvinist were correct, one would think God wouldn’t feel the emotion of longsuffering but of anticipated delight. And so it cannot be God who “fits them” for destruction. And when we look at this verb we see another instance where a ‘Perfect Passive Participle’ has been rendered, which instead could have been translated in the Middle voice, i.e., ”fitting themselves for destruction”. This makes more sense, i.e., that God endures with longsuffering those vessels fitting themselves for destruction.

Moreover, a true middle voice seems probable in Mark 9:31, when Jesus says:

The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.

Here the word “rise” is in the middle voice. But lest it be thought that Jesus primarily has in mind that he shall rise only because the Father would raise him (i.e., an example of what Conrad describes as a middle-passive verb), it should be noted that, unlike the apostles in Acts who focused on the aspect that it was God who raised Christ, it is interesting to note that Christ himself pointed to his own ability to raise himself. Thus He tells his antagonists, “Destroy this Temple and I will raise it up in three days,” i.e., referring to his body. And again Christ says: “I have the power to lay down my life and the power to take it up.” Given, then, Christ’s propensity to ascribe his resurrection to Himself, why should we insist that the middle voiced verb “rise” in Jesus’ phrase, “he shall rise the third day,” in Mark 9:31 wouldn’t be better understood if it read “he shall raise himself the third day”?

Even so, I have no problem with the context of John 10:28 suggesting a true middle, and so I have rendered it that way. By using the word “ought” I was simply aiming at the subjunctive. But if “should” would suit your taste I would have no objection. IMO certain other words sometimes used to express the subjunctive, such as “may” or “might” would not fit the context here.

As for those examples you cite in which you apparently feel I ought to be consistent, and thus e.g., render a translation that has the disciples saying “we are destroying ourselves,” I think Conrad is right when he says that individual contexts determine on a case to case basis just how much “middle” we should apply in the case of “middle-passives”. And so I might concede that in the example you give (about the disciples crying out they were perishing), the context shows that not much “middle” is present here, though as seasoned fishermen on this lake they may have felt a little chagrined at having been caught in a storm. And yet I could argue the opposite, and insist, especially given the disciples’ astonishment upon Jesus calming the winds and the waves, that they woke him up more out of resentment for not helping in their dilemma, than in any expectation of a miracle. Thus they may have been referring to their heavy exertion in trying to row themselves to shore, yielding perhaps a colloquialism that has its modern counterpart in English, I,e, “We’re killing ourselves, Jesus! And there you are sleeping in the bottom of the boat?!!”

But to return to the first point in my first comment on this thread, and to move the conversation forward in a more specific and germane way, given this thread’s subject of the Rapture, I must say that despite my sidelong challenge in a number of threads during the last half-year or so, about my claim that archaeological records support only an Exile of 70 years if the years are of 360 days each, and how this ought to inform the debate between preterists and dispensationalists, I have yet to have anyone seriously challenge the biblical and extra-biblical historical records I cite. Instead, preterists here are predictably hiding out under their assumption that they, not dispensationalists, follow the historical-grammatical hermeneutic by recognizing hyperbolic, apocalyptic, and poetically exaggerative genres in all the places where they occur, apparently while feeling no real obligation to test their theological assumptions against the facts of history I mentioned. But of course theologians of all stripes, preterists and dispensationalists included, are going to interpret ‘genres’ according to what will support their particular eschatology! That is why the argument must be taken beyond these presupposed positions, to a place where they are examined under the light of historical evidence of biblical and extra-biblical sources.

And so I just hope I don’t have to hear from some non-dispensationalist the implication that because my argument for a 69 'normal' year Exile didn’t appear until year x, it cannot be true.

[Paidion]

I was a little startled to read your claim that there was no true Greek middle voice used in the N.T.,...

The middle voice if frequently used, but I have yet to find an example of it being used with the classical meaning.

... and thus no self-reflexive action.

This does not follow. Self-reflexive action was expressed by the New Testament writers by use of the reflexive pronoun. Here is an example from Matthew 18:4 (where the last word is a reflexive pronoun)

ὁστις— οὐν ταπεινωσει ἑαυτον
Whoever then shall humble himself

By the way, I think you have a problem in trying to maintain that the verse you quoted from Mark ought to be translated "He shall raise Himself" just because the middle voice is used.

Consider these words of Jesus to Martha:

Jesus said to her, “Your brother shall rise.” (John 11:23)

The gospel writer used exactly the same word here and in the middle voice. Should Jesus' words be translated, "Your brother shall raise himself"?

[backwoodsman]

http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/d ... cGrkVc.pdf

I can't find in that document where he addresses either the word or the passage in question. Would you mind pointing it out, for the benefit of those of us who are a little on the dense side?

To put a little finer point on what I'm really trying to get at, both here and in my last post: Can you give us some reason why we should listen to you above those for whom New Testament Greek was a life's work, particularly when your interpretation doesn't seem to fit the context of the passage?

[Paidion]

Also, the writer states: "I would contend that, contrary to what traditional grammarians have taught, ancient Greek never did have a morphoparadigms that expressed exclusively the concept of the Passive Voice."

That may be true in ancient Greek. I don't know. I have never studied ancient Greek. But I do know that in some of the tenses in Hellenistic Greek (300 B.C. to 300 A.D.) — the Greek of the New Testament — the passive voice is distinct from the middle voice.

[DanielGracely]

http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/d ... cGrkVc.pdf

Can you give us some reason why we should listen to you above those for whom New Testament Greek was a life's work, particularly when your interpretation doesn't seem to fit the context of the passage?

Honestly, I doubt I could offer anything to you that you would construe as a reason, given that our last exchange ended with you making a number of irrelevant ad hominem attacks. In other words, perhaps you are teachable, but I doubt I'm on your list of those from whom you are willing to learn. Nevertheless, I would think that the answer to your question should have suggested itself in principle, had you actually read the linked article in conjuction with my reply to Paidon. If what you did was merely a few word searches to satisfy yourself that your concerns aren't specifically addressed in Conrad's article, I think you're missing the point. On the other hand, if you actually did read it, it doesn't strike me that you really digested it. Either way, it doesn't appear I can help you.

[DanielGracely]

Also, the writer states: "I would contend that, contrary to what traditional grammarians have taught, ancient Greek never did have a morphoparadigms that expressed exclusively the concept of the Passive Voice."

That may be true in ancient Greek. I don't know. I have never studied ancient Greek. But I do know that in some of the tenses in Hellenistic Greek (300 B.C. to 300 A.D.) — the Greek of the New Testament — the passive voice is distinct from the middle voice.

I think what I took away from Conrad's article is that he would disagree with your conclusion, though he would admit his position is against the traditional grammars. The fact is, even today, concepts like the aorist are not agreed upon by the top experts. For though at one time the feeling was widespread that the aorist meant "once, for all," I don't think this is the view held today either by Conrad or his antagonists. But the traditional grammars die hard. One can come out of his cave long enough to shout: "BUT THE MAN WITH THE WITHERED LIMB WAS TOLD TO STRETCH FORTH (AORIST) HIS ARM, YET JESUS CERTAINLY DIDN'T EXPECT THE MAN TO HOLD THAT POSITION FOR ALL TIME," slink back into his cave, and expect traditional grammarians of Greek to thank him for setting them straight. But it just doesn't happen that way.

[backwoodsman]

our last exchange ended with you making a number of irrelevant ad hominem attacks.

You've always reacted very aggressively toward me, and treated my questions and concerns about what you say with apparent contempt. Is that simply because I don't render you the respect and deference you feel you're due because of the spiritual gift you claim, or is there some more substantial reason I'm not aware of? Have I said or done something to offend you in some way, other than failing to unquestioningly accept what you say? If so, let's deal with it and get it out of the way so we can go on to more productive dialog.