[B-Greek] Questions about "divine passive" (Rev 13)

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Dec 7 16:05:26 EST 2004


At 6:18 PM -0500 12/6/04, Juan Stam wrote:
>I'm currently reading Grant Osborne's commentary on Revelation (very good!),
>and in chapter 13, as in many other passages, Osborne consistently takes
>EDOThH as a "divine passive" and, via this interpretation, makes divine
>sovereignty the central thought of several texts, even where God is not
>mentioned at all: "God allows blasphemy and slander" (13:5s), "God allows
>the Beast to Conquer the Saints" (13:7a) and "God allows the Beast to
>Receive Universal Worship" (13:7b-8; pp.498-502, 507).  Even though 13:2
>says explicitly, "the dragon gave the beast his power" etc (same verb,
>active voice), Osborne infers from the divine passive that "the beast's
>authority merely appeared to come from Satan; in reality, God was the true
>source"; the beast & his followers only believed their authority came from
>Satan.  To me, this seems to put inference (a possible but not necessary
>interpretation of the passive as divine) above exegesis (clear, direct
>statement that the dragon gave the beast his authority and throne).
>
>My questions:
>
>1) What respected texts on Greek grammar or exegesis explain most
>convincingly the "divine passive"?

This depends very much on which such texts any particular individual
"respects"; I note that A.T.Robertson doesn't talk about it. Wallace talks
about it but seems to question the utility of the term:

Wallace, GGBB, pp. 437-8

"... The passive is also used when God is the obvious agent. Many grammars
call this a  DIVINE PASSIVE (or theological passive), assuming that its use
was due to the Jewish aversion to using the divine name. For example, in
the Beatitudes, the passive is used: "they shall be comforted"
(PARAKLHQHSONTAI [Matt 5:4]), "they shall be filled" (CORTASQHSONTAI [v
6]), "they shall receive mercy" (ELEHQHSONTAI [v 7]). Young argues that
"this circumlocution occurs most often in the Gospels." And Jeremias
especially finds it on the lips of Jesus, seeing in such examples the
ipsissima verba (very words) of the Lord.
	"Although there are certainly several divine passives in the NT,
perhaps the explanation given above is overstated. For not only is "God"
frequently the subject, even in sayings of Jesus, but QEOS as nominative
subject occurs more frequently when Jesus is the speaker than otherwise.
Further, the DIVINE PASSIVE seems to occur frequently enough throughout the
whole NT. Statements such as the following could be multiplied many times
over; all of them seem to imply God as the unstated agent: "a man is
justified" (DIAKAIOUSQAI ... ANQRWPON [Rom 3:28]); "the grace of God [was]
given to me" (THN CARIN TOUQEOU THN DOQEISAN MOI [1 Cor 3:10]); "you were
bought with a price" TIMHS HGORASQHTE [1 Cor 7:23]); "you were called to
freedom" (hUMEIS EP' ELEUQERIAi EKLHQHTE [Gal 5:13]); "by grace you have
been saved" (CARITI ESTE SESWiSMENOI [Eph 2:5]); "you were ransomed from
your futile life" (ELUTRWQHTE EK THS MATAIAS hUMWN ANASTOFHS [1 Pet 1:18]).
	"Such expressions are obviously not due to any reticence on the
part of the author to utter the name of God. It might be better to say that
this phenomenon is due to certain collocations that would render the
repetition of the divine name superfluous, even obtrusive. In other words,
the DIVINE PASSIVE is simply a specific type of one of the previous
categories listed above (e.g., obvious from the passage, due to focus on
the subject, otherwise obtrusive, or for rhetorical effect). That God is
behind the scenes is self-evidently part of the worldview of the NT
writers. The nature of this book demands that we see him even when he is
not mentioned."

>2) Since the author of Revelation shows no hesitation in using the divine
>name very freely, if here he wanted to tell us God was allowing all this,
>why wouldn't he (or she) just say so, rather than resort to the subtlety of
>divine passives?

A good enough question; perhaps Wallace's paragraphs above are sufficient
explanation.

>3) Why can't many of these passages just mean, "Somebody (unspecified)
>granted him this..." ?  If the author did not bother to specify the implied
>subject, why do we need to?  (In Spanish we have an expressi?n, "se dio"
>[also the verb "to give"] which amounts to "it just so happened...").

Well, my own perspective on the question is that the passive is employed by
the writer precisely because he/she wishes to concentrate on what happened
to the subject of the sentence rather than upon the underlying source or
agent; I think that's sufficient reason; others will perhaps or probably
disagree.

>4) No doubt this passive form (as also some third person plurals) can
>sometimes suggest divine agency, but must that always be so?  How can we
>tell when it really does imply divine agency (even permissive)?

We've had discussion of particular verses about which this question has
been asked; all that can be said is that opinions have diverged; I've
argued that the focus upon what happens to the subject is all that's
important; others have argued that such and such a text is a clear-cut
instance of the "divine passive."
-- 

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/



More information about the B-Greek mailing list