Luke 13:33

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.