Light Giver 13

Waking up away from himself

The phrase ἀφ᾽ οὗ can function either as a temporal conjunction or as a relative pronoun phrase of origin, depending on context. When οὗ is used temporally, it is typically the genitive masculine or neuter singular of the relative pronoun, referring to an implied or explicit noun denoting time (e.g., ὁ χρόνος, τότε), and the phrase thus means "from (the time) which." In contrast, when οὗ refers to a person or agent, it remains genitive singular but takes on the gender of the antecedent, functioning as a personal relative pronoun: "from whom." Notably, the feminine equivalent would be ἀφ᾽ ἧς. Therefore, syntactic, semantic, and gender cues must be considered to distinguish these usages accurately.

Shutting off the Door

This word is used only once in the NT. When ἀποκλείω is followed by an accusative, it typically expresses the action of shutting someone or something out or excluding them. The accusative usually refers to the person or thing being excluded. For example:

• ἀποκλείει τὸν ἐχθρόν — "He shuts out the enemy," where τὸν ἐχθρόν (the enemy) is the accusative object.

In contrast, the verb κλείω is the more general term for "to shut" or "to close" without the sense of exclusion. κλείω is typically used in neutral contexts for closing a door, gate, or container, without any implication of barring access or excluding someone from a place or state. For example:

• κλείει τὴν θύραν — "He shuts the door," where τὴν θύραν (the door) is the accusative, but with no connotation of exclusion or separation.

• κλείει τὰ βιβλία — "He shuts the books," where τὰ βιβλία (the books) is the accusative, indicating the simple action of closing, rather than exclusion.

Thus, ἀποκλείω involves a more forceful or exclusionary action, often with a person or thing being deliberately kept out of something, while κλείω is a more neutral and general term for simply closing or shutting something without such connotations of exclusion.

Quite a beating to the written word here in an effort to figure out the "expression":

Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687–1752), a German Lutheran theologian, biblical scholar, and commentator says:

Τῇ ἐχομένῃ, (on the following day) This expression has a wider meaning than τῇ τρίτῃ, on the third day (the day after to-morrow), which is included in τῇ ἐχομένῃ.

τῇ ἐχομένῃ (from ἔχω) is not typically used in the sense of "following" in the context of "following day" or similar meanings:

1. Etymology and Primary Meaning: The participle ἐχομένῃ comes from the verb ἔχω, meaning "to have" or "to hold." Therefore, its primary meaning is associated with possession or state of holding, not following. It doesn’t normally extend to the idea of following in a temporal sense.

2. Possible Figurative Use: In some contexts, Ancient Greek does employ metaphorical meanings or figurative uses, but these would be rare and usually involve something akin to "holding to" or "adhering to" a path, rather than the literal sense of "following." This would be quite distant from the more conventional usage of "following."

3. "Following Day": For the expression "the following day" or "the next day," Ancient Greek typically uses phrases like:

   • ἡ ἐπομένη ἡμέρα (hē epomenē hēmera) — "the following day."

   • ἡ ἑξῆς ἡμέρα (hē exēs hēmera) — another common way to refer to the next or following day.

4. Examples in Literature: The phrase ἐχομένῃ in classical texts almost always relates to someone who "has" or "holds" something, rather than following in a temporal or sequential sense.

While τῇ ἐχομένῃ could, in a very broad and figurative context, be interpreted as relating to something that follows (such as in "holding to" a sequence or event), this is not its typical or standard use. For "following" in the sense of time (like "following day"), expressions like ἡ ἐπομένη ἡμέρα are used instead.

Already, the phrase, "for it is not possible for a prophet to perish out of Jerusalem" makes little sense. But there are two ways to read this and the morphology of "οὐκ ἐνδέχεται προφήτην ἀπολέσθαι" is open to both interpretations:

1. "Not allowed to destroy a prophet":

   • οὐκ ἐνδέχεται is primarily understood as "it is not permitted" or "it is not allowed." The verb ἐνδέχεται can imply something that is allowable or permissible, and the negation οὐκ indicates that this permission is denied.

   • The infinitive ἀπολέσθαι conveys the idea of destruction or loss, and when paired with ἐνδέχεται, it can imply a prohibition or restriction on that action.

2. "A prophet cannot be destroyed" (passive sense):

   • οὐκ ἐνδέχεται can also mean "it is not possible" or "it is not likely" (when used with a negation). This interpretation focuses on the impossibility of the event. However, this is not the normal word used in the NT to express "impossibility" (cf. ἀδύνατος impossible).

   • In this case, ἀπολέσθαι in the middle voice (meaning "to perish" or "to be lost") could be understood as the passive sense of destruction and thus the phrase would mean "a prophet cannot be destroyed," suggesting that such an event is impossible or would not happen. This reading gave rise to all sorts of speculation and confusion as to why or how this was impossible and "exceptions" as Bengel admits of a particular and serious contradiction:

     • "This phrase admits of exceptions: for instance, John the Baptist was “a prophet” who “perished out of Jerusalem.”—ἀπολέσθαι, perish) by a public judicial procedure."
       
       (Bengel's Gnomen on Luke 13:33)
       

Both interpretations are grammatically and morphologically valid based on the structure of the sentence. The key is choosing the reading that doesn't create serious contradictions.