http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2007/10/authority-6-trampling-or-loving-one.html

Suzanne:

My comment to TL about there being no instances of hupotassomai in the Greek NT was simply that – i.e., there are no instances in the NT text of hupotassein in the present middle/passive indicative first-person singular.

My comment wasn’t intended, intentionally or unintentionally, to “disregard” anything about Greek grammar and verb voice. It was simply a statement of fact, not an argument for a position or a meaning of hupotassein.

Where my discussion with TL could be construed as an argument for something was where I then suggested – perhaps insisted – that if one wants to claim an inherent meaning (i.e., one divorced from context or any other words or any other aspect of the context in which the word was found) for the -mai/-omai ending of hupotassein (or of any other verb, for that matter), one would also have to apply that meaning to hupotassein (or any other verb) with the -tai/-etai ending.

That’s why and where I brought in Luke 10:17 – i.e., if one claims or insists that hupotassomai (again, by itself, regardless of the context) MUST mean a certain thing SIMPLY BECAUSE IT ENDS IN -MAI, then hupotassetai ALSO MUST MEAN THE SAME THING SIMPLY BECAUSE IT ENDS IN -TAI, because both hupotassomai and hupotassetai are the present middle/passive indicative singular of hupotassein, the only difference being that one is a 1st-person singular and the other is a 3rd-person singular.

It still comes out that if you are going to cause yourself to learn, then you are in control of the how, when, where, etc.

This still does not address the issues of this topic though. A person can cause him/herself to learn or whatever regardless of whether it is involving an authority figure. Thus, what authority a another person may or may not have must be stated elsewhere in the equation. It is obvious that governments have authority. It is not obvious that leaders, teachers, husbands, etc. have positional authoritative control over others in the same way that governments do. There is a type of authority to perform their responsibilities. So, perhaps the discussion should include what precisely are those responsibilities.

Since you asked Suzanne for a definition of the middle voice, here is what Daniel Wallace’s grammar says:

II . Middle Voice

Definition

Defining the function of the middle voice is not an easy task because it encompasses a large and amorphous group of nuances. But in general, in the middle voice the subject performs or experiences the action expressed by the verb in such a way that emphasizes the subject’s participation.

It may be said that the subject acts“with a vested interest.” “The middle voice shows that the action is performed with special reference to the subject.” Perhaps the best definition is this: “The middle calls special attention to the subject . . . the subject is acting in relation to himself somehow.”

The difference between the active and middle is one of emphasis. The active voice emphasizes the action of the verb; the middle emphasizes the actor [subject] of the verb. “It, in some way, relates the action more intimately to the subject.” This difference can be expressed, to some degree, in English translation. For many middle voices(especially the indirect middle), putting the subject in italics would communicate this emphasis.

Clarification

A few points of clarification are in order before we proceed:

• For Koine Greek, the term middle has become a misnomer, because it inherently describes that voice that stands halfway between the active and the passive. Only the direct middle truly does this (in that the subject is both the agent and receiver of the action). Since the direct middle is phasing out in Hellenistic Greek, the term is hardly descriptive of the voice as a whole.

• Not infrequently the difference between the active and middle of the same verb is more lexical than grammatical. Sometimes the shift is between transitive and intransitive, between causative and non-causative, or some other similar alteration. Though not always predictable, such changes in meaning from active to middle usually make good sense and are true to the genius of the voices.

ALSO:

(II . Middle Voice) Middle (414-30)

Subject performs or experiences the action expressed by the verb in such a way that emphasizes the subject’s participation; subject acts with a vested interest

A . Direct Middle (a.k.a. Reflexive or Direct Reflexive): verb + self (as direct object); subject acts on himself or herself(416-18)

B . Redundant Middle: the use of the middle voice in a reflexive manner with a reflexive pronoun (418-19)

C . Indirect Middle (a.k.a. Indirect Reflexive, Benefactive, Intensive, Dynamic): subject acts for (or sometimes by) himself or herself, or in his or her own interest; key: like active verb + reflexive pronoun in dative (419-23)

D . Causative Middle: subject has something done for or to himself or herself (423-25)

E . Permissive Middle: subject allows something to be done for or to himself or herself (425-27)

F . Reciprocal Middle: verb with plural subject to represent interaction among themselves (427)

G . Deponent Middle: generally, no active form but active meaning; specifically, no active form for a particular principal part in Hellenistic Greek, and one whose force in that principal part is evidently active (428-30)

Bristow talked about it for a few pages. Here is one paragraph that is relevant to our discussion.

”It is difficult for English-speaking persons to grasp the subtle yet important distinction between middle and passive voice in Greek verbs just by reading the definition, and yet we think in ways that the Grk verb forms express. For example, a person may teach _ an active verb. And, one may be taught _ a passive verb. But a person may also teach himself or herself by careful listening, discovering, reasoning, learning. In that sense, the person is both subject and object of the action. That is what the Grk middle voice expresses, a voluntary action by the subject of the verb upon the subject of the verb.”

I looked at the latest comments and I responded there to Suzanne re: her response to what you posted of what I wrote here. Check my response.

Check the latest comments.

Does God ever require humans to do something that is against their will? I tend not to think so. But what if God leaves you in or with a situation where both or all options are against your will (e.g., Sophie’s choice, or seemingly hopeless medical situations)? Would his act of doing nothing or not telling/leading/guiding you be the same as requiring you to do something against your will, when even not to decide is to decide – i.e., you can’t do nothing by simply doing nothing? Or does the fact that you make a choice when you are forced to make a choice thus make your choice = your will, and hence God doesn’t make you or leave you to do something that is against your will?

Rather than define “submit,” which is an English word (and which we know can be used for both voluntary and involuntary obedience), I think a better thing to do would be to determine whether hupotassein means “to yield voluntarily” or “to be obedient involuntarily” or “to be obedient, whether voluntary or not,” etc. Depending on the uses and semantic range of hupotassein, then one could determine if it is ever right to translate it as “submit,” and if so, if that means voluntary submission or forced submission or obedience regardless of whether its voluntary or not, etc., and if it can mean more than one type of submission, when is it proper to translate it as meaning voluntary submission, involuntary obedience, etc.

“FWIW, there are no instances of hupotassomai in the Greek New Testament. (There are instances of hupotassô with other middle and/or passive endings, but no instances of hupotassô in the present middle/passive indicative 1st-person singular – i.e., the -mai ending.)”

This disregards the fact that Greek scholars typically treat the middle/passive as distinct from the active forms and do, in fact, refer to the verb hupotassomai. In fact, in a recent thread on Mike Aubrey’s blog, Carl Conrad made the point that mid/passive verbs should have their own entry in lexicons.

Second, a cursory glance at Conrad’s article will verify that he believes that many verbs which have been translated as passives could be middle in voice. He writes,

“While a “head-count” of verb-forms in either morphoparadigm in a particular literary corpus might well show that a majority of the verb-forms bear passive meaning, I personally doubt this very much and I would argue that Greek-speakers (at least in the Hellenistic and Roman Koine periods) felt that either one of these paradigms was inclusive enough to cover the range from intransitive to middle to passive semantics). ”

In fact, I believe the focus is wrongly put onto the verb hupotassomai in the first place. The issue is whether the other person has authority. In Eph. 5:21, no authority is mentioned, in Luke 10 authority is an important issue. The verb hupotassomai does not give us the relevant information regarding authority.