This is way informative for understanding the ancient Greek middle voice! I had come across Justin Martyr's _Dialogue with Trypho_ chapter 91 verse 2 in Greek and hoo boy, his description of the cross is infamous! For he describes the cross as an assembly of horns and notes there is one in the middle. Then he writes in his Greek a verb and a participle that are in both the middle and passive voices: " _ep' hw epoxountai hoi stauroumenoi_ " which the Donaldson translation reads as, "on which are supported those who are crucified" using the passive tense, but when I used the middle tense it translated instead as, "upon which 'ride' those who are crucifying themselves". Wait, what!? 😳😳😳
the way I looked at it was "I go" your also leaving "I'm going here" "I left there" and that's how I understood it at least so far in my studies a verb that typically can be something that effects you by 2 perspectives. your description is so much easier to understand lol
The color, if you will, of the middle voice is interesting. Since there is not a middle concept in English, I've been paying attention to when I see it in the Greek. Spirit-based phenomenon translated from Greek is a curious subject. Understanding what is meant by demon-possessed, demonically oppressed, or afflicted by unclean spirits seems linked to understanding the voicing.
Hey Daryl, I appreciate your explanation up to 6 minute point, and thoughts and agree. Here are some thoughts. You are right, it is not "I go for myself" when in Middle voice for πορεύω. According to LSJ, for ACTIVE voice, here is what we have. πορεύω Active voice--> make to go, carry, convey, (seems to be a causative verb) So using the standard MIDDLE voice idea, if I make MYSELF to go, or convey myself... then we get the πορεύομαι form. And as LSJ says for Passive and Middle voice, we see this. πορεύω Pass. and Med., to be driven or carried, * Now I put this together while listening to the rest of your video, so after listening to it all, I am sure you would agree. Seems we are saying the same thing.
Suggestion for future video - why is grammar important for even your native language many view grammar like math as something non-essential.. Yet understanding Greek grammar has enriched my understanding of my native languages (English and Spanish) which I just used without understanding the reasons each language was built a specific way.
Another suggestion for future video is the importance of finding a teaching method that develops a thirst for deeper exploration. Many teaching methods focus on rote memorization that promotes a “learn enough for the test and then forget” Your approach whets the appetite.
The example of passive voice at time-stamp 1:26 has a problem in that the voice narrative does not agree with the video screen text. "The ball" should come before "was hit."
As usual, your teaching helps me whenever I'm not sure about a certain grammatical aspect. Thanks a lot. Would you please comment on "Aspect and Time in the Greek Verb" by Mark Stanton Beatty? Thanks in advance.
Not perfect examples by any means, but English also has some intransitive verbs that could be interpreted as being a “middle” voice. For example, to say “the door closed” would be odd from an active sense, since doors don’t close things, and the passive construction isn’t used there, so no one is specified as the person closing the door. The subject is highlighted as being the only significant agent - it essentially closed itself as far as the speaker is concerned. Another example would be to say “this shirt fits”. The shirt is not actively fitting anything, and not being fitted by anything. It merely conforms to the wearer, not by any deliberate or active process being initiated by it or acted upon it.
Thanks young man! I have a question and would love to obtain your opinion. Which of these two English versions do you believe is "closer" to the Greek text: ASV-1901 or the ESV? Which is more "accurate" in the sense of conveyance from Greek into English? Finally, what is your opinion of the RSV? Thank you.
So I translate and have a translation of the Bible. From best to least I would say; No, I take that back; I'll just list some of the best: HCSB, LEX, ESV, NASB, LSB HCSB - Holman Christian Standard Bible is great; used to be CSB. LEX - Lexham Bible is the good translation. When I say good I don't know what older translation could match it. ESV - reads like an updated NASB (new american standard Bible). The NASB came from the ASV, which of course was a good scholarly translation for its time. But yes, the ESV is superior to the ASV. LSB = legacy bible - john macarthur - it's new; haven't had time to read much. I actually should not list it here because I haven't confirmed that it is faithful. However, John MacArthur has taught me a great many things over the years. His favorite pulpit Bible was the NASB and they were just trying to update that version.
I've used the ESV a bit in the past (before I learned the languages) and think it is a generally faithful translation. Ultimately there is no way to bring everything in the Greek into English, so every translation falls short. I tend to use the NASB if I'm using English, though I do like the HCSB (though not so much the newer CSB) and the LSB which is probably better than the NASB.
Well, first of all the voice is related, as a rule, to the "external" -morphological features of the verbs, and mainly to their endings. With the mood of the verb, on the other hand, we utilize the endings of the verbs (the two voices) to express the relationship of the Subject. They are not the same thing but they complement each other. Second, the only word as a Greek native speaker that I didn't understand from the whole video was the only greek word that you used (πορευομαι) and I don't know why this happened🙄🙄 Last but not least you didn't mention the neutral mood of the verbs and also you didn't mention the middle allelopathic verbs (eg they kissed each other (φιληθηκαν) or they hugged each other (αγκαλιαστηκαν)). Tip, if you don't know anything in the Greek grammar you can send me an email, in order to help you! 😊😊
I'm not sure if you noticed, but this is a video about Koine Greek, not modern Greek. There are some significant differences (I'm sure you know). I hope that helps!
That seems like a strange comment to make. Have I offended you in some way? I earn my living by serving people, but nobody has to sign up unless they feel they're getting value. Every teacher (including school teachers) make money from filling in the blanks of other people's understanding, and I'm not sure this is a negative thing. Can you help me understand where you're coming from here?
Firstly, I want to ask you a few questions: 1) Can you please tell me the mood of the verb σωφρωνῶ? 2) And the verb ζῶ? Both are neutral mood Still, the verb λυποῦμαι is middle dynamic verb (a subcategory of middle mood) Moreover, the verb ἀμιλλᾶσθαι is middle allelopathic (subcategory of middle mood again) To summarize, maybe there are a few differences between Koine Greek and modern Greek, though modern Greek are from Koine Greek. There are so many similarities like the one in our example One more question.. Let's say that I teach the English grammar a little bit wrong, as an Australian wouldn't you be offended?
Let me see, regarding Phil 2:12 when Paul says "Work out your own salvation" should I pay attention to A.T Robertson who wrote a classic greek grammar or should I pay attention to you? Robertson wrote this: " Work out (κατεργαζεσθε [katergazesthe]). Perfective use of κατα [kata] (down) in composition, work on to the finish. This exhortation assumes human free agency in the carrying on the work of one’s salvation". And he wrote this also " He exhorts as if he were an Arminian in addressing men. He prays as if he were a Calvinist in addressing God and feels no inconsistency in the two attitudes. Paul makes no attempt to reconcile divine sovereignty and human free agency, but boldly proclaims both". Yes monergism is so wrong and Robertson is not the only Greek Master who rejects monergism as wrong. And by the way, this proves Sola Scriptura is so useless to teach as a catholic truth, that is as the only truth for all christians, what is the real meaning of a Biblical verse. Take a look at Rom 11:14; 1 Cor 7:16; 9:22; Jas 5:20; Jude 23 yes we must save ourselves and others and monergism is not patristic vocabulary when it comes to salvation but a calvinist innovation. Towner wrote "Timothy exists to serve others, and his realization of the fullness of salvation is incumbent upon a faithfulness that stretches from personal character to the quality of his teaching and service to others" and even Mounce had to accept there is human responsibility here not to mention Marshall who wrote this in his ICC commentary: " τοῦτο γὰρ ποιῶν καὶ σεαυτὸν σώσεις καὶ τοὺς ἀκούοντάς σου Finally, the command is backed up by the salutary reminder that the leader needs to persevere in doing this (τοῦτο ποιῶν) lest he himself should fail to be saved; by a full commitment to his tasks he will bring both himself and his congregation to final salvation". Even Towner and Mounce's commentaries on 1 Tim 4,16 do not give support to monergism And please do not say that you can only defend the Deity of Christ if you believe in salvation by faith alone which is rejected over and over again by Jesus, Peter, Paul, James etc, because none of the greek fathers believed in salvation by faith alone and they believed in the Deity of Christ. Just read Thomas Torrance´s "The Doctrine of grace in the apostolic fathers" and he was a calvinist patristic scholar who accepted that according to his protestant view the apostolic fathers betrayed Paul's (protestant) doctrine of grace because they were leaning toward works righteousness and read also Michael J. Thomas´´ "Paul´s works of the law and its second-century reception" published in the WUNT series by Mohr Siebeck and it is also published by IVP and yeah the early church fathers taught clearly that good works were necessary to receive final salvation and that salvation can be lost. Does middle voice support monergism? Not at all. I leave you with the words of Ben Witherington III a well-known NT Scholar who said that reading the Bible in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek made him not want to be a calvinist...yes, Sola Scriptura really means "What I think the Bible says". May Jesus blesses you more. Read Witherington´s "The Problem with Evangelical Theology" and "Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up: A New Look at Today's Evangelical Church in the Light of Early Christianity" by David Bercot and "Not by Faith alone" by Robert Sungenis", thank you.
I think Robertson and I would agree on Phil 2:12 - neither of us would regard this as referring to “coming to Christ” but say that Paul is exhorting believers about their focus after salvation. If you want to follow Witherington, be warned that might well lead you into skepticism about NT history as we understand it. Thanks for your comments!
@@bma I agree with you regarding initial salvation but even then a person must accept the gift of the faith hence the question of the Jailer in Acts 16:31 "What do I have to do to be saved". Salvation is not an accomplished fact after doing all 3 things that a person must do to recelive INITIAL salvation (to believe, repent, and be baptized Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38)). Neither Jesus nor Paul teaches final salvation by faith alone, for example, a question: Do you have to avoid sexual sins so that God does not send you to hell, yes or no? If you say NO, then you contradict both Jesus and Paul see Mat 5:29-30; Romans 8:13 which proves that both OSAS and final salvation by faith alone are wrong. Regarding Witherington III the fact persists: he says the study of Hebrew, aramaic and greek made him not want to be a Calvinist. Sola Scriptura really never worked, because the division is a work of the flesh Gal 5:22.
Yes we have to save ourselves just like Peter says in Acts 2 in Pentecost and Paul in 1 Timothy 4:16 regarding present and final salvation also in Phil 2:12, calvinism and monergism is so wrong.
Typically theology doesn't hang on the voice of a verb in two verses like this. If the use of the middle voice in those two verses is your best argument, it isn't a very good one. So, no, this is not an argument against monergism, nor do either of those verses support arminianism. But that gives me an idea for a video! Thanks!
Let me see, regarding Phil 2:12 when Paul says "Work out your own salvation" should I pay attention to A.T Robertson who wrote a classic greek grammar or should I pay attention to you? Robertson wrote this: " Work out (κατεργαζεσθε [katergazesthe]). Perfective use of κατα [kata] (down) in composition, work on to the finish. This exhortation assumes human free agency in the carrying on the work of one’s salvation". And he wrote this also " He exhorts as if he were an Arminian in addressing men. He prays as if he were a Calvinist in addressing God and feels no inconsistency in the two attitudes. Paul makes no attempt to reconcile divine sovereignty and human free agency, but boldly proclaims both". Yes monergism is so wrong and Robertson is not the only Greek Master who rejects monergism as wrong. And by the way, this proves Sola Scriptura is so useless to teach as a catholic truth, that is as the only truth for all christians, what is the real meaning of a Biblical verse. Take a look at Rom 11:14; 1 Cor 7:16; 9:22; Jas 5:20; Jude 23 yes we must save ourselves and others and monergism is not patristic vocabulary when it comes to salvation but a calvinist innovation. Towner wrote "Timothy exists to serve others, and his realization of the fullness of salvation is incumbent upon a faithfulness that stretches from personal character to the quality of his teaching and service to others" and even Mounce had to accept there is human responsibility here not to mention Marshall who wrote this in his ICC commentary: " τοῦτο γὰρ ποιῶν καὶ σεαυτὸν σώσεις καὶ τοὺς ἀκούοντάς σου Finally, the command is backed up by the salutary reminder that the leader needs to persevere in doing this (τοῦτο ποιῶν) lest he himself should fail to be saved; by a full commitment to his tasks he will bring both himself and his congregation to final salvation". Even Towner and Mounce's commentaries on 1 Tim 4,16 do not give support to monergism And please do not say that you can only defend the Deity of Christ if you believe in salvation by faith alone which is rejected over and over again by Jesus, Peter, Paul, James etc, because none of the greek fathers believed in salvation by faith alone and they believed in the Deity of Christ. Just read Thomas Torrance´s "The Doctrine of grace in the apostolic fathers" and he was a calvinist patristic scholar who accepted that according to his protestant view the apostolic fathers betrayed Paul's (protestant) doctrine of grace because they were leaning toward works righteousness and read also Michael J. Thomas´´ "Paul´s works of the law and its second-century reception" published in the WUNT series by Mohr Siebeck and it is also published by IVP and yeah the early church fathers taught clearly that good works were necessary to receive final salvation and that salvation can be lost. Does middle voice support monergism? Not at all. I leave you with the words of Ben Witherington III a well known NT Scholar who said that reading the Bible in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek made him not want to be a calvinist...yes, Sola Scriptura really means "What I think the Bible says". May Jesus blesses you more. Read Witherington´s "The Problem with Evangelical Theology" and "Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up: A New Look at Today's Evangelical Church in the Light of Early Christianity" by David Bercot and "Not by Faith alone" by Robert Sungenis", thank you.
This is way informative for understanding the ancient Greek middle voice! I had come across Justin Martyr's _Dialogue with Trypho_ chapter 91 verse 2 in Greek and hoo boy, his description of the cross is infamous! For he describes the cross as an assembly of horns and notes there is one in the middle. Then he writes in his Greek a verb and a participle that are in both the middle and passive voices: " _ep' hw epoxountai hoi stauroumenoi_ " which the Donaldson translation reads as, "on which are supported those who are crucified" using the passive tense, but when I used the middle tense it translated instead as, "upon which 'ride' those who are crucifying themselves". Wait, what!? 😳😳😳
the way I looked at it was "I go" your also leaving "I'm going here" "I left there" and that's how I understood it at least so far in my studies a verb that typically can be something that effects you by 2 perspectives. your description is so much easier to understand lol
The color, if you will, of the middle voice is interesting. Since there is not a middle concept in English, I've been paying attention to when I see it in the Greek. Spirit-based phenomenon translated from Greek is a curious subject. Understanding what is meant by demon-possessed, demonically oppressed, or afflicted by unclean spirits seems linked to understanding the voicing.
Hard to take you serious with that silly pic. Just saying. 😉
Hey Daryl, I appreciate your explanation up to 6 minute point, and thoughts and agree. Here are some thoughts.
You are right, it is not "I go for myself" when in Middle voice for πορεύω. According to LSJ, for ACTIVE voice, here is what we have.
πορεύω
Active voice--> make to go, carry, convey, (seems to be a causative verb)
So using the standard MIDDLE voice idea, if I make MYSELF to go, or convey myself... then we get the πορεύομαι form.
And as LSJ says for Passive and Middle voice, we see this.
πορεύω
Pass. and Med., to be driven or carried,
* Now I put this together while listening to the rest of your video, so after listening to it all, I am sure you would agree. Seems we are saying the same thing.
Suggestion for future video - why is grammar important for even your native language
many view grammar like math as something non-essential.. Yet understanding Greek grammar has enriched my understanding of my native languages (English and Spanish) which I just used without understanding the reasons each language was built a specific way.
Me too. Not just Greek but studying other languages has forced me to understand English grammar better. Yes!!
Studying Greek force me to restudy English grammar!
This is why I wrote my book on English Grammar. Some have called it overly simplistic, but I'm ok with that
Another suggestion for future video is the importance of finding a teaching method that develops a thirst for deeper exploration.
Many teaching methods focus on rote memorization that promotes a “learn enough for the test and then forget”
Your approach whets the appetite.
The example of passive voice at time-stamp 1:26 has a problem in that the voice narrative does not agree with the video screen text. "The ball" should come before "was hit."
That makes a lot of sense, thanks for the explanation!
Very clearly explained. You should add this video into the course work of Beginning Greek, imho.
Good idea! Thanks!
I think your passive example was written backwards, bro.
Very informative and helpful. Thanks.
Glad it was helpful!
As usual, your teaching helps me whenever I'm not sure about a certain grammatical aspect. Thanks a lot. Would you please comment on "Aspect and Time in the Greek Verb" by Mark Stanton Beatty? Thanks in advance.
Questioner: What is the middle-voice?
Grammarians throughout history: That’s a good question.
Not perfect examples by any means, but English also has some intransitive verbs that could be interpreted as being a “middle” voice. For example, to say “the door closed” would be odd from an active sense, since doors don’t close things, and the passive construction isn’t used there, so no one is specified as the person closing the door. The subject is highlighted as being the only significant agent - it essentially closed itself as far as the speaker is concerned. Another example would be to say “this shirt fits”. The shirt is not actively fitting anything, and not being fitted by anything. It merely conforms to the wearer, not by any deliberate or active process being initiated by it or acted upon it.
Thanks. Very helpful.
You're welcome!
Thanks young man!
I have a question and would love to obtain your opinion. Which of these two English versions do you believe is "closer" to the Greek text: ASV-1901 or the ESV? Which is more "accurate" in the sense of conveyance from Greek into English? Finally, what is your opinion of the RSV? Thank you.
So I translate and have a translation of the Bible. From best to least I would say; No, I take that back; I'll just list some of the best:
HCSB, LEX, ESV, NASB, LSB
HCSB - Holman Christian Standard Bible is great; used to be CSB.
LEX - Lexham Bible is the good translation. When I say good I don't know what older translation could match it.
ESV - reads like an updated NASB (new american standard Bible). The NASB came from the ASV, which of course was a good scholarly translation for its time. But yes, the ESV is superior to the ASV.
LSB = legacy bible - john macarthur - it's new; haven't had time to read much. I actually should not list it here because I haven't confirmed that it is faithful. However, John MacArthur has taught me a great many things over the years. His favorite pulpit Bible was the NASB and they were just trying to update that version.
I've used the ESV a bit in the past (before I learned the languages) and think it is a generally faithful translation. Ultimately there is no way to bring everything in the Greek into English, so every translation falls short. I tend to use the NASB if I'm using English, though I do like the HCSB (though not so much the newer CSB) and the LSB which is probably better than the NASB.
With these versions the funny thing is that at any verse we could prefer one translation over another.
Whoops - with the English passive example, the nouns were not switched...
Good points, thanks a lot
The reflexive voice is I myself go. This is why it should be called the reflexive voice.
ναὶ, συμφωνῶ σοὶ Δαρηλ καὶ εὐχαριστῶ σοι, δοκεῖ οὖν μοι ὅτι σὺ διεσάφησας ἡμὶν καλῶς περὶ τῶν ῥημάτων ἐπὶ τοῦ μέσου τῆς διαθέσεως.
Well, first of all the voice is related, as a rule, to the "external" -morphological features of the verbs, and mainly to their endings. With the mood of the verb, on the other hand, we utilize the endings of the verbs (the two voices) to express the relationship of the Subject. They are not the same thing but they complement each other. Second, the only word as a Greek native speaker that I didn't understand from the whole video was the only greek word that you used (πορευομαι) and I don't know why this happened🙄🙄
Last but not least you didn't mention the neutral mood of the verbs and also you didn't mention the middle allelopathic verbs (eg they kissed each other (φιληθηκαν) or they hugged each other (αγκαλιαστηκαν)). Tip, if you don't know anything in the Greek grammar you can send me an email, in order to help you! 😊😊
I'm not sure if you noticed, but this is a video about Koine Greek, not modern Greek. There are some significant differences (I'm sure you know). I hope that helps!
That seems like a strange comment to make. Have I offended you in some way? I earn my living by serving people, but nobody has to sign up unless they feel they're getting value. Every teacher (including school teachers) make money from filling in the blanks of other people's understanding, and I'm not sure this is a negative thing. Can you help me understand where you're coming from here?
Firstly, I want to ask you a few questions:
1) Can you please tell me the mood of the verb σωφρωνῶ?
2) And the verb ζῶ?
Both are neutral mood
Still, the verb λυποῦμαι is middle dynamic verb (a subcategory of middle mood)
Moreover, the verb ἀμιλλᾶσθαι is middle allelopathic (subcategory of middle mood again)
To summarize, maybe there are a few differences between Koine Greek and modern Greek, though modern Greek are from Koine Greek. There are so many similarities like the one in our example
One more question..
Let's say that I teach the English grammar a little bit wrong, as an Australian wouldn't you be offended?
You didn't mention the subcategories of middle voice, nor the neutral mood...
Let me see, regarding Phil 2:12 when Paul says "Work out your own salvation" should I pay attention to A.T Robertson who wrote a classic greek grammar or should I pay attention to you? Robertson wrote this: " Work out (κατεργαζεσθε [katergazesthe]). Perfective use of κατα [kata] (down) in composition, work on to the finish. This exhortation assumes human free agency in the carrying on the work of one’s salvation". And he wrote this also " He exhorts as if he were an Arminian in addressing men. He prays as if he were a Calvinist in addressing God and feels no inconsistency in the two attitudes. Paul makes no attempt to reconcile divine sovereignty and human free agency, but boldly proclaims both". Yes monergism is so wrong and Robertson is not the only Greek Master who rejects monergism as wrong. And by the way, this proves Sola Scriptura is so useless to teach as a catholic truth, that is as the only truth for all christians, what is the real meaning of a Biblical verse. Take a look at Rom 11:14; 1 Cor 7:16; 9:22; Jas 5:20; Jude 23 yes we must save ourselves and others and monergism is not patristic vocabulary when it comes to salvation but a calvinist innovation. Towner wrote "Timothy exists to serve others, and his realization of the fullness of salvation is incumbent upon a faithfulness that stretches from personal character to the quality of his teaching and service to others" and even Mounce had to accept there is human responsibility here not to mention Marshall who wrote this in his ICC commentary: " τοῦτο γὰρ ποιῶν καὶ σεαυτὸν σώσεις καὶ τοὺς ἀκούοντάς σου Finally, the command is backed up by the salutary reminder that the leader needs to persevere in doing this (τοῦτο ποιῶν) lest he himself should fail to be saved; by a full commitment to his tasks he will bring both himself and his congregation to final salvation".
Even Towner and Mounce's commentaries on 1 Tim 4,16 do not give support to monergism
And please do not say that you can only defend the Deity of Christ if you believe in salvation by faith alone which is rejected over and over again by Jesus, Peter, Paul, James etc, because none of the greek fathers believed in salvation by faith alone and they believed in the Deity of Christ. Just read Thomas Torrance´s "The Doctrine of grace in the apostolic fathers" and he was a calvinist patristic scholar who accepted that according to his protestant view the apostolic fathers betrayed Paul's (protestant) doctrine of grace because they were leaning toward works righteousness and read also Michael J. Thomas´´ "Paul´s works of the law and its second-century reception" published in the WUNT series by Mohr Siebeck and it is also published by IVP and yeah the early church fathers taught clearly that good works were necessary to receive final salvation and that salvation can be lost.
Does middle voice support monergism? Not at all. I leave you with the words of Ben Witherington III a well-known NT Scholar who said that reading the Bible in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek made him not want to be a calvinist...yes, Sola Scriptura really means "What I think the Bible says". May Jesus blesses you more. Read Witherington´s "The Problem with Evangelical Theology" and "Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up: A New Look at Today's Evangelical Church in the Light of Early Christianity" by David Bercot and "Not by Faith alone" by Robert Sungenis", thank you.
I think Robertson and I would agree on Phil 2:12 - neither of us would regard this as referring to “coming to Christ” but say that Paul is exhorting believers about their focus after salvation. If you want to follow Witherington, be warned that might well lead you into skepticism about NT history as we understand it. Thanks for your comments!
@@bma I agree with you regarding initial salvation but even then a person must accept the gift of the faith hence the question of the Jailer in Acts 16:31 "What do I have to do to be saved". Salvation is not an accomplished fact after doing all 3 things that a person must do to recelive INITIAL salvation (to believe, repent, and be baptized Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38)). Neither Jesus nor Paul teaches final salvation by faith alone, for example, a question: Do you have to avoid sexual sins so that God does not send you to hell, yes or no? If you say NO, then you contradict both Jesus and Paul see Mat 5:29-30; Romans 8:13 which proves that both OSAS and final salvation by faith alone are wrong. Regarding Witherington III the fact persists: he says the study of Hebrew, aramaic and greek made him not want to be a Calvinist. Sola Scriptura really never worked, because the division is a work of the flesh Gal 5:22.
Yes we have to save ourselves just like Peter says in Acts 2 in Pentecost and Paul in 1 Timothy 4:16 regarding present and final salvation also in Phil 2:12, calvinism and monergism is so wrong.
Typically theology doesn't hang on the voice of a verb in two verses like this. If the use of the middle voice in those two verses is your best argument, it isn't a very good one. So, no, this is not an argument against monergism, nor do either of those verses support arminianism. But that gives me an idea for a video! Thanks!
Let me see, regarding Phil 2:12 when Paul says "Work out your own salvation" should I pay attention to A.T Robertson who wrote a classic greek grammar or should I pay attention to you? Robertson wrote this: " Work out (κατεργαζεσθε [katergazesthe]). Perfective use of κατα [kata] (down) in composition, work on to the finish. This exhortation assumes human free agency in the carrying on the work of one’s salvation". And he wrote this also " He exhorts as if he were an Arminian in addressing men. He prays as if he were a Calvinist in addressing God and feels no inconsistency in the two attitudes. Paul makes no attempt to reconcile divine sovereignty and human free agency, but boldly proclaims both". Yes monergism is so wrong and Robertson is not the only Greek Master who rejects monergism as wrong. And by the way, this proves Sola Scriptura is so useless to teach as a catholic truth, that is as the only truth for all christians, what is the real meaning of a Biblical verse. Take a look at Rom 11:14; 1 Cor 7:16; 9:22; Jas 5:20; Jude 23 yes we must save ourselves and others and monergism is not patristic vocabulary when it comes to salvation but a calvinist innovation. Towner wrote "Timothy exists to serve others, and his realization of the fullness of salvation is incumbent upon a faithfulness that stretches from personal character to the quality of his teaching and service to others" and even Mounce had to accept there is human responsibility here not to mention Marshall who wrote this in his ICC commentary: " τοῦτο γὰρ ποιῶν καὶ σεαυτὸν σώσεις καὶ τοὺς ἀκούοντάς σου Finally, the command is backed up by the salutary reminder that the leader needs to persevere in doing this (τοῦτο ποιῶν) lest he himself should fail to be saved; by a full commitment to his tasks he will bring both himself and his congregation to final salvation".
Even Towner and Mounce's commentaries on 1 Tim 4,16 do not give support to monergism
And please do not say that you can only defend the Deity of Christ if you believe in salvation by faith alone which is rejected over and over again by Jesus, Peter, Paul, James etc, because none of the greek fathers believed in salvation by faith alone and they believed in the Deity of Christ. Just read Thomas Torrance´s "The Doctrine of grace in the apostolic fathers" and he was a calvinist patristic scholar who accepted that according to his protestant view the apostolic fathers betrayed Paul's (protestant) doctrine of grace because they were leaning toward works righteousness and read also Michael J. Thomas´´ "Paul´s works of the law and its second-century reception" published in the WUNT series by Mohr Siebeck and it is also published by IVP and yeah the early church fathers taught clearly that good works were necessary to receive final salvation and that salvation can be lost.
Does middle voice support monergism? Not at all. I leave you with the words of Ben Witherington III a well known NT Scholar who said that reading the Bible in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek made him not want to be a calvinist...yes, Sola Scriptura really means "What I think the Bible says". May Jesus blesses you more. Read Witherington´s "The Problem with Evangelical Theology" and "Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up: A New Look at Today's Evangelical Church in the Light of Early Christianity" by David Bercot and "Not by Faith alone" by Robert Sungenis", thank you.
See my other reply to the duplicate of this comment on the other video.
@@bma And my response to your response right there too. May Jesus bless you more.