An Exegetical Examination of the Voice of δοξασθῇ in John 11:4
This exegetical study focuses on the verbal form δοξασθῇ (doxasthē) in John 11:4, a crucial component of a purpose clause explaining the significance of Lazarus’s illness. The central exegetical issue concerns the precise semantic nuance of this aorist passive subjunctive form: whether it functions as a strictly passive voice, indicating an action performed upon the Son of God by an external agent, or if it carries a medio-passive or even an intransitive sense, implying a more active involvement or inherent glorification on the part of the Son himself, particularly in light of the accompanying prepositional phrase δι’ αὐτῆς. This analysis will explore grammatical possibilities, lexical ranges, and rhetorical implications to inform potential translation approaches.
Ἀκούσας δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν, Αὕτη ἡ ἀσθένεια οὐκ ἔστιν πρὸς θάνατον, ἀλλʼ ὑπὲρ τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα δοξασθῇ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ διʼ αὐτῆς. (Nestle 1904)
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- SBLGNT omits the comma before ἀλλʼ (all’). This is a minor punctuation difference and does not alter the lexical or grammatical content.
Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes
The textual tradition for John 11:4, particularly concerning the verbal form δοξασθῇ and the prepositional phrase δι’ αὐτῆς, is exceptionally stable. The critical apparatus of the Nestle-Aland 28th edition (NA28) indicates no significant variants that would impact the interpretation of these specific words. The text as found in Nestle 1904 is consistently attested across major manuscripts, affirming its reliability for exegetical purposes.
Lexical Notes
- δοξάζω (doxazō):
- **BDAG (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich):** The primary meanings include “to praise, honor, extol” (e.g., God, humans), and “to cause to be glorious, glorify, exalt.” In the passive voice, it signifies “to be glorified, receive glory” or “to reveal one’s true nature or character in a splendid way.” The semantic range points to both external recognition and internal manifestation of glory.
- **KITTEL (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament):** Emphasizes the multifaceted nature of δόξα (doxa) and δοξάζω. In the context of God, it denotes the visible manifestation of His majesty and power. When applied to Christ, it refers to His divine glory revealed through His life, death, and resurrection. The passive voice “to be glorified” in theological contexts often implies divine action (God glorifying Christ) but can also encompass the self-revelation of Christ’s intrinsic glory.
Translation Variants and Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis
The verb δοξασθῇ is morphologically an aorist passive subjunctive, 3rd person singular, derived from δοξάζω. This form typically indicates a passive action, meaning the subject (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, “the Son of God”) is the recipient of the action of glorification. The clause ἵνα δοξασθῇ establishes a purpose: the illness exists “for the glory of God, so that the Son of God might be glorified through it.”
A key point of contention arises regarding the precise semantic force of this passive form. While morphologically passive, Greek verbs, particularly in the aorist, often exhibit a semantic range that extends beyond a strictly external passive action. This is commonly referred to as the medio-passive ambiguity or a middle voice implication, where the subject is either actively involved in the outcome, acts for its own benefit, or the action results in a state for the subject. The Greek middle voice expresses the subject’s particular interest in the action, often translating as “to glorify oneself” or “to be glorified in oneself.”
The presence of the prepositional phrase δι’ αὐτῆς (di’ autēs, “through it,” referring to the illness) further complicates the interpretation. Grammatically, διά (dia) with the genitive case typically indicates the *instrument* or *means* by which an action occurs, rather than the primary *agent* (which would usually be marked by ὑπό (hypo) with the genitive). Thus, the illness is the means through which the glorification takes place, not the agent performing the glorification. This grammatical observation implies that the glorifying agent (e.g., God the Father) is implied rather than explicitly stated, or that the glorification is an intrinsic process.
Some scholars contend that in the absence of an explicit agent, or with an instrumental phrase, a passive verbal form can function with a middle or even intransitive sense. In this view, “the Son of God might be glorified” could imply “the Son of God might glorify himself,” or “the Son of God might attain glory,” or “the glory of the Son of God might be revealed.” This interpretation aligns with the understanding that the divine passive often points to divine agency, but it also opens the door for a more active or self-referential glorification on the part of the Son, where his suffering and miraculous acts manifest his inherent glory. The context of John’s Gospel, where Jesus’s glorification is often tied to his passion and resurrection (John 12:23-28), lends support to the idea that his suffering becomes the means by which his divine nature is unveiled and exalted.
Rhetorically, the purpose clause underscores the divine intentionality behind Lazarus’s illness. It serves not as an end in itself (death), but as a catalyst for a greater revelation of glory. Whether this glorification is primarily understood as God the Father glorifying the Son, or the Son’s intrinsic glory manifesting itself through the event, the outcome is the exaltation of Christ. The potential for ambiguity in the Greek allows for a rich theological understanding that encompasses both divine action upon the Son and the Son’s self-manifestation of glory.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
The analysis of δοξασθῇ in John 11:4 reveals that while the verbal form is morphologically passive, its semantic range is open to nuanced interpretation due to the inherent medio-passive nature of Koine Greek and the grammatical function of the accompanying prepositional phrase δι’ αὐτῆς. The absence of an explicit agent for the glorification, coupled with the instrumental nature of “through it,” allows for the possibility of a middle or intransitive sense alongside the traditional passive. The glorification of the Son can thus be understood as either an action primarily performed upon him by God the Father, or as a manifestation of his own inherent glory, or as a blend of both, with the illness serving as the divinely appointed means.
Based on this exegetical understanding, the following translation suggestions capture different aspects of the possible semantic range:
- “so that the Son of God might be glorified through it.”
This rendering emphasizes the Son as the recipient of glorification, implying an external agent (most likely God the Father) who performs the action, with the illness serving as the instrument. It maintains a strict passive voice. - “so that the Son of God might manifest his glory through it.”
This translation leans into a middle voice implication or an intransitive passive, suggesting the Son’s active involvement in revealing his own intrinsic glory, or a glorification that redounds to himself, with the illness as the occasion. - “so that the Son of God’s glory might be revealed through it.”
This option attempts to capture the potential ambiguity by focusing on the manifestation of “glory” itself, allowing for both external action and internal revelation without strictly enforcing one over the other, thus reflecting the broad semantic potential of the Greek.
But that was precisely my qualification of the rule of FWSFOROS, that you cannot assume that the semantic force of a middle-passive form is middle any time it isn’t accompanied by an adverbial indicator of agent or instrument. You have to take into consideration the nature of the verb, particularly whether it’s fundamentally transitive or not.
Yes, I think that “direct reflexive” usage is restricted to certain verbs like NIPTOMAI, KEIROMAI and the like.
Why not “got hit”? I think that “get” as an auxiliary has long been used with participles with an adaptability comparable to that of the Greek middle-passive verb-forms.
Why not “gets hit”?
Always? I really think that a fundamentally transitive verb used in a middle-passive form doesn’t require a prepositional phrase indicating an agent or instrument. I think in such a case the passive sense is ordinarily recognizable.
or “Peter gets hit.”
There certainly ARE middle verbs with passive forms that are really passive, but I don’t think there are very many of them.
Ultimately I think that “knowing” Greek, i.e. reading and/or listening to it and understanding it in its own flow, is not a matter of applying rules for what’s middle and what’s passive; much more it’s a matter of knowing the verbs and their idiosyncrasies. Is APEKRIQH passive? No. Is EBLHQH passive? Almost certainly. And so forth. I still think that this snippet from Alice through the Lookng Glass gets it about right:
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master– that’s all.’
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. ‘They’ve a temper, some of them– particularly verbs, they’re the proudest–adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs–however, I can manage the whole l ot of them! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!’
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
But that was precisely my qualification of the rule of FWSFOROS, that you cannot assume that the semantic force of a middle-passive form is middle any time it isn’t accompanied by an adverbial indicator of agent or instrument. You have to take into consideration the nature of the verb, particularly whether it’s fundamentally transitive or not.
Yes, I think that “direct reflexive” usage is restricted to certain verbs like NIPTOMAI, KEIROMAI and the like.
Why not “got hit”? I think that “get” as an auxiliary has long been used with participles with an adaptability comparable to that of the Greek middle-passive verb-forms.
Why not “gets hit”?
Always? I really think that a fundamentally transitive verb used in a middle-passive form doesn’t require a prepositional phrase indicating an agent or instrument. I think in such a case the passive sense is ordinarily recognizable.
or “Peter gets hit.”
There certainly ARE middle verbs with passive forms that are really passive, but I don’t think there are very many of them.
Ultimately I think that “knowing” Greek, i.e. reading and/or listening to it and understanding it in its own flow, is not a matter of applying rules for what’s middle and what’s passive; much more it’s a matter of knowing the verbs and their idiosyncrasies. Is APEKRIQH passive? No. Is EBLHQH passive? Almost certainly. And so forth. I still think that this snippet from Alice through the Lookng Glass gets it about right:
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master– that’s all.’
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. ‘They’ve a temper, some of them– particularly verbs, they’re the proudest–adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs–however, I can manage the whole l ot of them! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!’
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Hi Tim, Would you be thinking of his contribution “Deponency and Greek Lexicography” in _Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography_ (Eerdmans, 2004)? Ken
Ken M. Penner, Ph.D. St. Francis Xavier University Greek vocabulary software: http://people.stfx.ca/kpenner/flash/
> I’ve been lurking a bit and just noticed this discussion. I can’t > remember where > they are published but Bernard Taylor has written a couple of > articles in whch > he argues that the so-called deponents all have a middle force. He > is mlore > known in LXX circles, but it is interesting that I don’t see much on > the XX when > it is biblical Greek as well. Is there ever much discussion? > > > > ________________________________ > From: Carl Conrad > To: Mark Lightman > Cc: B Greek > Sent: Sat, February 19, 2011 1:53:33 PM > Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Analysis of middle-passive forms (was “John > 11:4 and the > Middle/Passive of DOXAZW”) > > > On Feb 19, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Mark Lightman wrote: > >> Hi, Carl, thanks. Those are all helpful comments. >> >> I guess I would just say that, for me, the most PRACTICAL >> APPLICATION of your >> ideas on voice are: >> >> 1. If you see a passive, whether MAI SAI TAI or QHN QHS QH, don’t >> just assume > >> that it is a passive. See if you can find some “middle” force. If >> not, then >> fine, construe it as a passive. I think Bryant should be applauded >> for trying > >> this out with John 11:4, even if he turns out to be wrong. >> >> 2. If you see a verb that people call deponent, don’t assume it is >> just an >> active. See if you can find some “middle” force. > >> >> Further deponent sayeth naught. > > All I have sought to do in my work on ancient Greek Voice is to > challenge > some misconceptions (the notion of deponency, the notion that > “passive” > verbs have “active” functions, the notion that -QH- endings indicate > a passive sense unless the verb is irregular (“deponent”). I haven’t > tried > to lay down any new rules and I continue to believe that voice usage > in > ancient Greek is a complex matter. Ultimately it is the verbs oneself > and their idiosyncrasies that one must know rather intimately so as to > listen to them when one encounters them in one’s reading. Grammar > and its rules don’t really have much to do with reading and Greek > well; grammar is useful only for texts that one has already basically > understood, to clarify HOW they mean what they mean. > >> Now, I understand why you misunderstood me, but when I said that >> Jesus breaks >> the rules of grammar I meant to say nothing about his own diction. >> What I >> meant >> >> was that statements ABOUT Jesus by his followers break the rules of >> grammar >> because, since He is seen to be, among others things, both God >> and man by his >> >> followers, ordinary logic, among other things, doesn’t apply. I >> don’t want to > >> get into this right now, but just wanted to make this clear. I >> said nothing >> about Jesus’ own grammatical abilities because I don’t know >> anything about >> this. (Not that that has stopped me before. 🙂 > > And here I would contend, as I think George would also, that I > misunderstood > you because you didn’t really say what you meant to say. Jesus spoke > in > riddles — AINIGMATA, PARABOLAI — but that doesn’t mean we should > do so. > > > Carl W. Conrad > Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired) > > > > — >
I’ve been lurking a bit and just noticed this discussion. I can’t remember where they are published but Bernard Taylor has written a couple of articles in whch he argues that the so-called deponents all have a middle force. He is mlore known in LXX circles, but it is interesting that I don’t see much on the XX when it is biblical Greek as well. Is there ever much discussion?
Hi Tim, Would you be thinking of his contribution “Deponency and Greek Lexicography” in _Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography_ (Eerdmans, 2004)? Ken
Ken M. Penner, Ph.D. St. Francis Xavier University Greek vocabulary software: http://people.stfx.ca/kpenner/flash/
> I’ve been lurking a bit and just noticed this discussion. I can’t > remember where > they are published but Bernard Taylor has written a couple of > articles in whch > he argues that the so-called deponents all have a middle force. He > is mlore > known in LXX circles, but it is interesting that I don’t see much on > the XX when > it is biblical Greek as well. Is there ever much discussion? > > > > ________________________________ > From: Carl Conrad > To: Mark Lightman > Cc: B Greek > Sent: Sat, February 19, 2011 1:53:33 PM > Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Analysis of middle-passive forms (was “John > 11:4 and the > Middle/Passive of DOXAZW”) > > > On Feb 19, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Mark Lightman wrote: > >> Hi, Carl, thanks. Those are all helpful comments. >> >> I guess I would just say that, for me, the most PRACTICAL >> APPLICATION of your >> ideas on voice are: >> >> 1. If you see a passive, whether MAI SAI TAI or QHN QHS QH, don’t >> just assume > >> that it is a passive. See if you can find some “middle” force. If >> not, then >> fine, construe it as a passive. I think Bryant should be applauded >> for trying > >> this out with John 11:4, even if he turns out to be wrong. >> >> 2. If you see a verb that people call deponent, don’t assume it is >> just an >> active. See if you can find some “middle” force. > >> >> Further deponent sayeth naught. > > All I have sought to do in my work on ancient Greek Voice is to > challenge > some misconceptions (the notion of deponency, the notion that > “passive” > verbs have “active” functions, the notion that -QH- endings indicate > a passive sense unless the verb is irregular (“deponent”). I haven’t > tried > to lay down any new rules and I continue to believe that voice usage > in > ancient Greek is a complex matter. Ultimately it is the verbs oneself > and their idiosyncrasies that one must know rather intimately so as to > listen to them when one encounters them in one’s reading. Grammar > and its rules don’t really have much to do with reading and Greek > well; grammar is useful only for texts that one has already basically > understood, to clarify HOW they mean what they mean. > >> Now, I understand why you misunderstood me, but when I said that >> Jesus breaks >> the rules of grammar I meant to say nothing about his own diction. >> What I >> meant >> >> was that statements ABOUT Jesus by his followers break the rules of >> grammar >> because, since He is seen to be, among others things, both God >> and man by his >> >> followers, ordinary logic, among other things, doesn’t apply. I >> don’t want to > >> get into this right now, but just wanted to make this clear. I >> said nothing >> about Jesus’ own grammatical abilities because I don’t know >> anything about >> this. (Not that that has stopped me before. 🙂 > > And here I would contend, as I think George would also, that I > misunderstood > you because you didn’t really say what you meant to say. Jesus spoke > in > riddles — AINIGMATA, PARABOLAI — but that doesn’t mean we should > do so. > > > Carl W. Conrad > Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired) > > > > — >
I’ve been lurking a bit and just noticed this discussion. I can’t remember where they are published but Bernard Taylor has written a couple of articles in whch he argues that the so-called deponents all have a middle force. He is mlore known in LXX circles, but it is interesting that I don’t see much on the XX when it is biblical Greek as well. Is there ever much discussion?