> We don't really have to interpret both paticiples as grammatically
>Although they have endings that are identical, APOLLUMENOIS may be middle,
>and SWZOMENOIS may be passive, "being saved."
With such statements is one not granted a Ph.D. One must take a position
and defend it. I don't know which position is most logical at this point,
so that is why I'm asking here and others everywhere. If APOLLUMENOIS is
middle, then we are making a statement about their participation in being
APOLLUMENOIS, no? And if we are taking SWZOMENOIS as passive, then we are
making a statement about their non-participation in being SWZOMENOIS. I
find this construct untenable as such, but am intrigued by the Lutheran
theology that seeps out in such statements. But, more importantly, how
does one demonstrate what is middle and what is passive in the context? I'm
leaning toward the position that BOTH forms are PASSIVE because of 1.19
"APOLW THN SOFIAN" and 1.20 "OUXI EMWRANEN O QEOS THN SOFIAN TOU KOSMOU;".
APOLW par APOLLUMENOIS and MWRIA par EMWRANEN. Both transitive verbs,
hence, transitive participles, hence, passive objects, hence, one active
person/thing being GOSPEL/CROSS/GOD.