Matthew 24:7

The following academic exegesis transforms a discussion thread concerning the interpretation of specific Greek verb forms in Matthew 24. While the original subject lines refer to “Semantic Range of βαπτιζω/βαπτισμα,” the actual content of the discussion pertains exclusively to the verb ἐγείρω and the broader question of the middle versus passive voice in Koine Greek, specifically verbs formed with the -θη- morphoparadigm. This study will therefore focus on the exegetical issues raised concerning ἐγείρω.

The Voice of ἐγείρω in Matthew 24:7, 11, 24: Passive or Middle?

This exegetical study of The Voice of ἐγείρω in Matthew 24:7, 11, 24: Passive or Middle? is based on a b-greek discussion from December 7, 2002. The initial query concerns the verbs ἐγερθήσεται (Matthew 24:7) and ἐγερθήσονται (Matthew 24:11, 24), which are morphologically future passive forms. Despite this, many English translations render them in an active or intransitive sense, such as “will rise” or “will arise,” rather than “will be raised.” This prompts the question of why translators opt for an active rendering and whether a passive translation, implying divine agency (e.g., God causing nations to rise against nations or false prophets to appear), should be considered.

The main exegetical issue centers on the precise semantic range of Greek verbs exhibiting the -θη- morphoparadigm, which traditionally signifies the passive voice. The debate explores whether these forms invariably denote a passive sense in Koine Greek, implying an external agent, or if they can function as middle (or even intransitive active) forms, particularly when an agent is not explicitly stated. This distinction is crucial for understanding the agency attributed to various entities (nations, false prophets, false Christs) in Matthew 24 and, by extension, the theological implications regarding divine sovereignty, human responsibility, and the nature of eschatological deception.

Greek text (Nestle 1904)

Matthew 24:7
ἐγερθήσεται γὰρ ἔθνος ἐπὶ ἔθνος καὶ βασιλεία ἐπὶ βασιλείαν…

Matthew 24:11
καὶ πολλοὶ ψευδοπροφῆται ἐγερθήσονται καὶ πλανήσουσιν πολλούς.

Matthew 24:24
ἐγερθήσονται γὰρ ψευδόχριστοι καὶ ψευδοπροφῆται καὶ δώσουσιν σημεῖα μεγάλα καὶ τέρατα ὥστε πλανῆσαι, εἰ δυνατόν, καὶ τοὺς ἐκλεκτούς.

• Key differences with SBLGNT (2010): No textual variants for the verbs ἐγερθήσεται and ἐγερθήσονται are noted between Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT 2010 in these passages.

Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG)

From a textual critical perspective (NA28), the readings of ἐγερθήσεται and ἐγερθήσονται in Matthew 24:7, 11, and 24 are uniformly attested across major manuscript traditions. There are no significant textual variants that would alter the form or meaning of these verbs, indicating a stable textual basis for exegetical analysis.

Lexically, the verb ἐγείρω (KITTEL, BDAG) broadly means “to arouse,” “to awaken,” or “to raise up.” It can appear in active, middle, or passive voice, with varied nuances. KITTEL often emphasizes the causative aspect of the active voice (“to cause to rise”). BDAG, in its extensive entry, notes that in the passive, ἐγείρω means “to be raised/aroused/awakened,” frequently implying an external agent. However, BDAG also acknowledges instances where the passive form can convey a middle-like or intransitive sense, meaning “to rise up” or “to appear,” without explicitly naming an agent. This inherent flexibility in the verb’s usage in different voices forms the crux of the exegetical debate in Matthew 24, where the morphological passive could be interpreted either as a true passive (indicating external agency, perhaps divine) or as an intransitive middle (indicating the subject’s own emergence or action).

Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

The discussion highlights a central tension in translating Greek verbs of the -θη- morphoparadigm, particularly the future passive forms of ἐγείρω in Matthew 24. Some scholars initially propose that a passive translation (“will be raised”) could indicate divine agency, suggesting that God is actively involved in the eschatological events, even the rising of false prophets or nations against each other. This interpretation finds some contextual support in broader theological themes, such as God’s sovereign hand in history, even when it involves challenging or deceptive phenomena, as seen in passages like 2 Thessalonians 2:11, where God causes a strong delusion.

Conversely, a prominent view suggests that many so-called passive forms, especially those in the -θη- paradigm (often referred to as middle-passive or MP2 forms), should not be rigidly interpreted as passive in the English sense. It is argued that in Koine Greek, the distinction between middle and passive in these forms is often not critically important, with the verb simply indicating that the subject *experiences* the action (“rises up”) without necessarily specifying the agent. Therefore, an intransitive active rendering (“will rise”) is seen as more accurate, as an English passive often strongly implies an agent distinct from the subject, a nuance that may not always be present or significant in the Greek idiom.

A dissenting perspective strongly challenges this “new perspective” on the -θη- morphoparadigm. This critique rests on several key arguments:

1. Historical Precedent: The traditional understanding of -θη- forms as predominantly passive has a long historical lineage, spanning centuries. Proponents of this view question how such a fundamental grammatical misunderstanding could have persisted for so long if the “new perspective” were correct. They argue that altering this understanding has significant repercussions for how the New Testament has been interpreted historically.
2. Translation-Driven Interpretation: The argument that a passive sense is “unnatural” in English, and therefore the Greek verb must be middle or intransitive, is criticized as conflating Greek idiom with English translational preferences. Scholars advocating for the traditional passive argue that the acceptability of a construction in Hellenistic Greek should not be judged solely by its “naturalness” in modern English, demanding explicit evidence that a passive reading is unacceptable in the Greek idiom itself.
3. Argument from Exceptions: It is contended that generalizing from a relatively small number of verbs where a middle interpretation of a -θη- form might be warranted to a default middle understanding for all such forms is a methodological flaw. The default interpretation, it is argued, should remain passive unless compelling evidence for a middle sense is present.
4. Decline of the Middle Voice: Many authorities posit that the nuances of the middle voice were largely diminishing in the Koine period. The “new perspective,” however, seems to suggest a robust and highly nuanced middle voice, capable of expressing subtleties not previously recognized (e.g., “you allowed yourselves to be sealed” for ἐσφραγίσθητε in Ephesians 1:13, or “I revealed myself” for εὑρέθην in Romans 10:20). Critics argue that such nuanced middle interpretations are often strained compared to a straightforward passive reading, especially when contextual cues, such as the contrast between “found” and “sought” in Romans 10:20, strongly favor a passive sense.

The rhetorical analysis of Matthew 24:7, 11, and 24 shows that the focus is on the *occurrence* of these events – nations and kingdoms rising, false prophets and Christs appearing. While the traditional passive implies an external cause, the context here, particularly in the Olivet Discourse, speaks of these phenomena as signs of the end times. The question of *who* causes them, while potentially divine, is often left implicit, allowing for interpretations that emphasize either external causation or the inherent emergence of these phenomena as part of the eschatological unfolding.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

The debate surrounding the interpretation of -θη- morphoparadigms, particularly the future passive forms of ἐγείρω in Matthew 24, highlights a complex area of Koine Greek grammar. While the fluidity between middle and passive voices in some contexts is acknowledged, the historical precedent for a default passive understanding and the methodological challenges raised against a generalized “middle” reading maintain the relevance of the traditional view. In the context of Matthew 24, the events described (nations rising, false prophets appearing) are presented as divinely permitted or orchestrated aspects of the end times, suggesting that a passive understanding, even if the agent is implicit, remains a robust interpretation. However, the English language often prefers an intransitive active construction to convey the ‘rising’ or ‘appearing’ without specifying an agent, thus leading to common translation divergences.

Considering these points, the following translation suggestions for Matthew 24:7, 11, and 24 aim to reflect the nuances of the Greek while being mindful of both traditional and modern scholarly approaches:

1. “For nation will be raised up against nation, and kingdom against kingdom…” (Mt 24:7, 11, 24)
   This translation emphasizes a passive sense, implying an external agent (potentially divine) behind the rising of nations, false prophets, and false Christs, aligning with a traditional understanding of the morphological passive.
2. “For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom…” (Mt 24:7, 11, 24)
   This rendering adopts an intransitive active voice, focusing on the event itself without specifying an agent, which captures the phenomenon’s occurrence and aligns with interpretations suggesting a middle or functionally active sense for these verbs.
3. “For nation will be caused to rise (or will come to be) against nation, and kingdom against kingdom…” (Mt 24:7, 11, 24)
   This option attempts to bridge the interpretive gap by either explicitly stating a causative passive or using a more general verb of appearance, thereby acknowledging the potential for both external agency and an emergent, non-agentive sense, reflecting the ongoing scholarly discussion.