Matthew 7.23: 'Depart further from me, you who are accursed'

[Nina]

In another thread (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=61302#post61302) Rick commented:


Dear Nina,

Thanks for your post, this is very interesting to me. Especially the part quoted above. I will take a look at this when I can using my 'baby Greek' skills, but, I wonder if you could give me a head start on the grammar here of this passage?

In Christ,
Rick





Matthew 7:23 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&passage=Matthew+7%3A23) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.I took a quick look and I am seeing the verb [apochoriete] to which you point used in the imperative present active second person plural--so I'm not seeing the support for "further and further" here? Possibly with your Greek skills you can bring me up to speed.

Thanks again.

In Christ,
Rick

Dear Rick,
I do not think you have 'baby Greek' skills. :) Plus I see that you have the sources also. :)

Yes it is very important to know languages (in this case NT Greek) and linguistics; and yes as I have told you I read these things from the Fathers because I am neither saint, nor original. I think the verse from the Bible is Matthew 25:41 and not 7:23. However this is my fault (although I had no time) since I needed to remember where I had read it and provide the source. Sorry. Here it is:


5. "Depart further from me, you who are accursed".

In the original Greek version of the Bible, the Lord uses a form of the verb which means "keep on departing". That is, those in Hell continue to make their way away from the Lord. They go even deeper into Hell. They are continuously getting further away from God. "For they compare that fire to a river, ever flowing in the direction away from God" (Saint Gregory Palamas, on the Gospel of the Second Coming, 21). As the Righteous in Paradise make progress towards God all the time [as it is said "from glory to glory"], so the condition of the sinners in Hell continuously worsens. All the time, they become increasingly estranged from God. In consequence, their torment becomes even greater.

The same is true of the demons. (p.128) After Death by Archim. Vasilios Bakogiannis

Hope this helps. If you would like more Greek and grammar on that verse, post please. There are many here, starting with Father Matthew, that can help further. :)

[Rick H.]

Dear Nina,

Very good Nina! :) And, now that I seem to be on the trail, as I look at this one (Matthew 25:41), while I have to admit that I still do not see the justification for translating this "keep on departing" as shared by Archim. Vasilios Bakogiannis, because the verb here is imperative present active second person plural too . . . however, there is something interesting here as it relates to our topic. The ending on this verb can be translated middle or passive depending on context, so keeping in mind this is 2nd person plural, or y'all as Paul says in Texas, the command here is either along the lines of 'you depart for yourselves' or they are commanded to depart but they are being swept away, they are being taken away passively, so to speak.

So thanks again Nina for this interesting aspect. Possibly, some of the big guns will weigh in on this and share how they would translate this (mid or pass) based on the context of this passage?

In Christ,
Rick

[Nina]

Dear Nina,

Very good Nina! :) And, now that I seem to be on the trail, as I look at this one (Matthew 25:41), while I have to admit that I still do not see the justification for translating this "keep on departing" as shared by Archim. Vasilios Bakogiannis, because the verb here is imperative present active second person plural too . . . however, there is something interesting here as it relates to our topic. The ending on this verb can be translated middle or passive depending on context, so keeping in mind this is 2nd person plural, or y'all as Paul says in Texas, the command here is either along the lines of 'you depart for yourselves' or they are commanded to depart but they are being swept away, they are being taken away passively, so to speak.

So thanks again Nina for this interesting aspect. Possibly, some of the big guns will weigh in on this and share how they would translate this (mid or pass) based on the context of this passage?

In Christ,
Rick

Rick,

I am neither expert, nor scholar; and I do not know many things, however I think Father Vasilios is right:

The verb (Πορεύομαι)Πορεύεσθε Matthew 25:41 (second person present middle imperative plural) -used also in Matthew 28:19-, has as one of the meanings "to depart/go (away, on )" and also another meaning (besides many other meanings) "to continue/pursue a path/journey that one has started/entered". Since sin (in the case of an unrepentant sinner) is a journey that has started on earth and which is a journey that has led a soul to depart from God, it is correct that father Vasilios states that it indeed means to depart further, away, go away, far from, or keep on departing from God, since the sinner has already begun that journey.

See... it is difficult to render strictly/loyally the meaning. Something is often lost in translation. I am reminded here about some words from Elder Paisios, which if you would like I can post to illustrate this case.

[Rick H.]

That would be great if you could post some words by Elder Pasios when you may have time, the more I read of him the more I want to read of him. As far as the grammar goes, possibly I am holding on a bit to tight there; but, as the Beach Boys used to sing, "Be true to your school . . . ba-ba." :)

Thanks again.

In Christ,
Rick

[Nina]

That would be great if you could post some words by Elder Pasios when you may have time, the more I read of him the more I want to read of him. As far as the grammar goes, possibly I am holding on a bit to tight there; but, as the Beach Boys used to sing, "Be true to your school . . . ba-ba." :)

Thanks again.

In Christ,
Rick

Dear Rick,

Thank you for being considerate about my time about typing words from Father(s). I will, God willing.

I do not know Beach Boys and this song but I will youtube it to understand you better. :) See context and meaning is everything. :)

Maybe is it helpful to note that the same verb is used in Matthew 25:41 and Matthew 28:19. However it is translated as 'depart' and 'go' respectively. Given the context, it has the meaning 'to disperse and continue something started'. However do not rely on me and my explanation. I know nothing.

[Rick H.]

I know nothing.




Yeah, you and Sgt. Schultz! :)

Now you are going to have to You Tube "Hogan's Heroes." You have been busy today, thanks for the great posts. I'll quit now ;)

[Michael Stickles]

A couple of notes from my own rudimentary Greek:

First, my lexicon shows the active form (Πορεύω) as meaning "to bring, carry, convey", while the middle/passive form (Πορεύομαι) means "to be carried or carry oneself, to go, walk, travel; depart". According to my Thayer's Lexicon, the meaning "to continue on one's journey" is connected with the addition of the construction "τὴν ὁδόν ___" (in the way/road of ___) to the middle/passive form, as is seen in Acts 8:39 (but is not present in Matt 25:41).

However, remember that in the imperative mood the tense has aspect rather than time meaning (in the indicative it may have both). To say simply "depart" (as a one-time, unique or instantaneous event) would more probably be rendered in the aorist imperative. The present imperative refers to actions viewed as "attempted, continuous, repeated, or customary", and so here could be rendered "Keep departing just as you have been doing all along". "Depart further" seems like a reasonable rendering (with the added benefit of being more concise :-).

Another interesting thing I would note is that the Greek present imperative and present indicative Ω-forms are the same for the second person (both singular and plural, and both active and middle/passive). So, Πορεύεσθε can be translated either as "Y'all go" or "Y'all are going". It appears to be equally correct grammatically to render this as "Depart (as you are already doing) from me, accursed ones, into the everlasting fire...", or "You are continuously departing from me, accursed ones, into the everlasting fire...".

Looking at those together reminds me of the words of one of Michael Card's songs - "...this sad separation was their choice, so they can tell, He simply speaks the sentence that they have passed upon themselves."

In Christ,
Mike

[Nina]

The present imperative refers to actions viewed as "attempted, continuous, repeated, or customary", and so here could be rendered "Keep departing just as you have been doing all along". "Depart further" seems like a reasonable rendering (with the added benefit of being more concise :-).

In Christ,
Mike

:) Yes Mike. Also the quote that says 'depart further' is also a translated one from a book that was written in Greek originally. Therefore it is a translation explaining another translation. :) However Father Vasilios who is the author -being a Greek and theologian- knows I think what he is saying. His book (http://www.stspress.com/detail.aspx?ID=1580) -where the quote is from- is very good and theologically correct at least compared to what I have read in other Orthodox sources. And he explains the meaning of the quote as we can see. However things are always lost in translation and that is what Geronda Paisios says in one of his talks, that God willing I will post it when I can. Thanks again :) you are always so good at help and meticulous in your research.

[Michael Stickles]

Also the quote that says 'depart further' is also a translated one from a book that was written in Greek originally. Therefore it is a translation explaining another translation. :)

Yikes! Multiple opportunities for variant vocabulary and rearranged readings!

Humor aside, I looked at the link you provided and the book sounds quite interesting. Thanks for bringing it up - I'll have to see if someone in our parish has a copy I can borrow (I think we've already overdrawn our family budget for buying books this year :-).

Mike

[Rick H.]

First, my lexicon shows the active form (Πορεύω) as meaning "to bring, carry, convey", while the middle/passive form (Πορεύομαι) means "to be carried or carry oneself, to go, walk, travel; depart". According to my Thayer's Lexicon, the meaning "to continue on one's journey" is connected with the addition of the construction "τὴν ὁδόν ___" (in the way/road of ___) to the middle/passive form, as is seen in Acts 8:39 (but is not present in Matt 25:41).




Mike--After a very long day of shopping with my better half, I'm having trouble getting going with your post here. Possibly you can help me to get started with the first paragraph? I'm sure you know there is no such thing as "the" active form of our verb as there is no such thing as "the" middle/passive form. The 'active form' as you say is simply first person present active indicative singular (with the omega ending), and this would not mean "to bring" which would require an infinitive ending; but this is to be translated in the first person viz. "I" bring. Most folks I know were trained in these tables by memorizing "I loose" viz. w-eis-e . . . omen-ete-ousin . . . and if memory continues to serve the infinitive luein or "to loose," as opposed to luw or "I loose."

But, beyond this, I don't see how Thayer makes the leap that he does above by the simple addition of the definite article "twn." I want some slack here because it's going on ten o'clock and I'm working with my walking around knowledge (and the sun is in my eyes :); however, this seems like total nonsense to me. Working in the masculine singular as he seems to be doing with this, "twn" is genitive/ablative (and plural to boot!) . . . you can pull the of/from here, but working with what you have provided, for the "in the way" you would need the definite article "tw" for the locative or 'in' the way, as you say above. But, even here this seems completely absurd to me to justify a translation "to continue on one's journey" based on a definite article. Honestly Mike, this is not good translation at all.

And, I need to watch it because at the rate I'm going I will be limited to analytical tools and resources such as Thayer's which work with Strongs coding system. But, I have to tell you that the above plus some of the remainder of your post (which I'm not sure what you base some of this on) is not something that holds water very well. For that matter I have a case full of both analytical and manual tools next to me here, and I know who to go to to support what position. It is sad, but even with many of the language scholars their theology can get in the way of their interpretation just as one's theology can get in the way of one's hermeneutics . . . which is what I still perceive to be the case here to date.

In Christ,
Rick

[Michael Stickles]

Mike--After a very long day of shopping with my better half, I'm having trouble getting going with your post here. Possibly you can help me to get started with the first paragraph? I'm sure you know there is no such thing as "the" active form of our verb as there is no such thing as "the" middle/passive form. The 'active form' as you say is simply first person present active indicative singular (with the omega ending), and this would not mean "to bring" which would require an infinitive ending; but this is to be translated in the first person viz. "I" bring. Most folks I know were trained in these tables by memorizing "I loose" viz. w-eis-e . . . omen-ete-ousin . . . and if memory continues to serve the infinitive luein or "to loose," as opposed to luw or "I loose."

Probably I could have chosen my wording better. I was referring to the general meaning of the active and middle/passive form(s), not the specific meaning of a particular conjugation. My primary lexicon (Liddell and Scott) gives general meanings in infinitive wording with the verbs shown in indicative first person singular, and so that's the way I tend to think when defining.


But, beyond this, I don't see how Thayer makes the leap that he does above by the simple addition of the definite article "twn." I want some slack here because it's going on ten o'clock and I'm working with my walking around knowledge (and the sun is in my eyes :); however, this seems like total nonsense to me. Working in the masculine singular as he seems to be doing with this, "twn" is genitive/ablative (and plural to boot!) . . . you can pull the of/from here, but working with what you have provided, for the "in the way" you would need the definite article "tw" for the locative or 'in' the way, as you say above. But, even here this seems completely absurd to me to justify a translation "to continue on one's journey" based on a definite article. Honestly Mike, this is not good translation at all.

Hmm... it should be showing up as "thn" (tau - eta - nu), not "twn", so it's feminine accusative. And I see where the other confusion comes from. The whole bit is "thn odon ___", and I forgot to mention that the "___" stands for a genitive pronoun, not for where the verb goes (sorry - guess my parenthetical wasn't as clear as I'd hoped). It might be clearer if we look at Acts 8:39 where this construction is used:


eporeueto gar thn odon autou xairwn
he-went (for) the road of-him rejoicing

Meaning "For he went the way of him rejoicing", or, in other words, "For he continued on his journey rejoicing." The accusative there would be what Mastronarde calls the "accusative of extent of space" in his Introduction to Attic Greek.


It is sad, but even with many of the language scholars their theology can get in the way of their interpretation just as one's theology can get in the way of one's hermeneutics . . .

Too true, I'm afraid. Although I've more often found in my Greek studies that my translation efforts have gotten in the way of my existing theology, rather than vice versa (of course, I'm not really a "language scholar" - so maybe that's helped :-).

In Christ,
Mike

[M.C. Steenberg]

With all due humour implied, this thread has made me cringe. :) It seems to be going the way these kinds of conversations usually go, which is round and round in lexical circles.

The grammar of Matthew 7.23 is really quite straightforward. Speaking entirely grammatically:


Πορεύομαι is a frequent verb in koine, meaning simply 'go, depart' (and obvious cognates, like 'travel'). It can also means 'live your life', and at one point in the NT (in Luke if I recall, though I'm going by memory) it means 'to die', i.e. 'to depart [this life]'. (Pace to Rick on the issue of the infinitive, which of course is right; but Greek verbs are almost universally referred to in their first person singular form when discussed in abstraction, given the flexibility of the infinitive.)
The verb in its koine usage is deponent, meaning that its middle/passive endings gives it its active meanings (since the active Πορεύω has an entirely different meaning, and is far less common in koine). This means it is not true that it should be read with some middle voice extrapolation (e.g. 'depart for yourselves') or passive (e.g. 'they are being taken away passively, so to speak'). It is active, and in the imperative form means 'Depart'.
An imperative present would normally be translated into English exactly as almost every translation of Matthew 7.23 has it: 'Depart from me...'. However, there is nothing technically wrong with 'Keep on departing from me...', as the present makes no necessary implication of completed action (as the aorist imperative would); though to translate / exegete in this way is to imbue a great deal of extraordinary meaning in what is a perfectly ordinary expression. Nonetheless, it is not grammatically incorrect.
To go beyond this, and take the present form as 'Depart further from me...', seems to stretch the grammatical possibilities beyond their limits. It is extremely unlikely that 'further' is implied in the grammatical construction, not least because koine actually has a fairly standard phrase for 'depart further', which is - not surprisingly - a construction built on the term πορευομαι (namely, πορρωτερον πορευομαι, which if I recall also occurs in Luke). If Matthew had meant this at Matthew 7.23, one suspects he would have said it.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

I've found the passage referred to earlier at the end of my post, from Luke's Gospel:
Luke 24.28: και αυτος προσεποιησατο πορρωτερον πορευεσθαι : 'and he made as though he would carry on further'.
INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Rick H.]

Dear Fr. Dcn. Matthew,

Many thanks for your help with this lexical rabbit! As we consider the translation I took issue with grammatically in the original post:




5. "Depart further from me, you who are accursed".




in light of the following:





To go beyond this, and take the present form as 'Depart further from me...', seems to stretch the grammatical possibilities beyond their limits. It is extremely unlikely that 'further' is implied in the grammatical construction, not least because koine actually has a fairly standard phrase for 'depart further', which is - not surprisingly - a construction built on the term πορευομαι (namely, πορρωτερον πορευομαι, which if I recall also occurs in Luke). If Matthew had meant this at Matthew 7.23, one suspects he would have said it.



This is really the only point I was working toward initially in the thread from which this discussion was spawned. Hopefully, your post provides a sufficient conclusion here.

Regarding the commentary/exposition of this verse, as we ease up on the grammar, I think I will leave that to others. Although, again, I find it most helpful as you wrote about the meaning "keep on departing":




. . . though to translate / exegete in this way is to imbue a great deal of extraordinary meaning in what is a perfectly ordinary expression.



Thanks again for knocking this one down, good long gun, good shot!

In Christ,
Rick

[Michael Stickles]

An imperative present would normally be translated into English exactly as almost every translation of Matthew 7.23 has it: 'Depart from me...'. However, there is nothing technically wrong with 'Keep on departing from me...', as the present makes no necessary implication of completed action (as the aorist imperative would); though to translate / exegete in this way is to imbue a great deal of extraordinary meaning in what is a perfectly ordinary expression. Nonetheless, it is not grammatically incorrect.


I admit to a little confusion here, since it didn't seem to me that "Keep on departing from me..." amounted to anything in the lines of "extraordinary meaning" compared to the ordinary meaning of "Depart from me..."; just an additional nuance which is interesting and hopefully profitable (otherwise, the old dictum "extraordinary claims [meanings] require extraordinary proofs" would apply). The idea seemed to be implicit in some of the Patristic reading I'd done/heard of anyway, even if it isn't taken to be grammatically part of the verse (I could be wrong there, since my reading in this area isn't very extensive, and much of what I think I know comes secondhand).





To go beyond this, and take the present form as 'Depart further from me...', seems to stretch the grammatical possibilities beyond their limits. It is extremely unlikely that 'further' is implied in the grammatical construction, not least because koine actually has a fairly standard phrase for 'depart further', which is - not surprisingly - a construction built on the term πορευομαι (namely, πορρωτερον πορευομαι, which if I recall also occurs in Luke). If Matthew had meant this at Matthew 7.23, one suspects he would have said it.


Confusion again, but I wonder if we're understanding that phrase differently. It appears to me that in the Luke verse you mention, πορρωτερον is used as a positional comparative: effectively, "He appeared to be going further (than the disciples)". That wouldn't make sense in the Matthew verse since it doesn't seem to be implying any positional comparison, regardless of how you look at it; just a directional comparison ("Depart from me" vs. "Come to me"). Instead, I was reading "Depart further" in the sense of "Keep on going further", just as Archim. Vasilios seemed to be doing in the quote Nina gave from his book:


5. "Depart further from me, you who are accursed".

In the original Greek version of the Bible, the Lord uses a form of the verb which means "keep on departing".


Maybe I'm grammatically all wet here, but that's how I was seeing things. Apologies if I botched any terminology.

In Christ,
Mike

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Mike,

Thanks for that contribution. I rather agree with you on the first part: namely on 'keep on departing' as interesting additional nuance. I wouldn't want to base a complete exegesis on it, but as I noted it's certainly not wrong (and implied, to some degree, in the present); and it's just these sorts of things that the fathers like to note and comment on.

As to the second part: I'm not sure I follow your comment!

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Michael Stickles]

As to the second part: I'm not sure I follow your comment!

Ah, well, probably best not to worry about it then. Since we're in essential agreement on the first part, the second part is probably a communications breakdown rather than an actual disagreement (my wife and I used to have those all the time - we'd think we were in complete disagreement, only to find we'd really agreed the whole time but were confused because we used the same words to mean different things).

Mike

[Andreas Moran]

my wife and I used to have those all the time - we'd think we were in complete disagreement, only to find we'd really agreed the whole time but were confused because we used the same words to mean different things

Married life, Mike! And imagine what it's like when your wife isn't a native English speaker!! My wife has spoken only Russian this afternoon and evening. It's been very peaceful - I smile, say, 'da', and everything's fine!

[Nina]

Although, again, I find it most helpful as you wrote about the meaning "keep on departing":

In Christ,
Rick

Rick,
as you can see in the book it is used both ways: "depart further" and "keep on departing".


5. "Depart further from me, you who are accursed".

In the original Greek version of the Bible, the Lord uses a form of the verb which means "keep on departing". That is, those in Hell continue to make their way away from the Lord. They go even deeper into Hell. They are continuously getting further away from God. "For they compare that fire to a river, ever flowing in the direction away from God" (Saint Gregory Palamas, on the Gospel of the Second Coming, 21). As the Righteous in Paradise make progress towards God all the time [as it is said "from glory to glory"], so the condition of the sinners in Hell continuously worsens. All the time, they become increasingly estranged from God. In consequence, their torment becomes even greater. The same is true of the demons. (p.128) After Death by Archim. Vasilios Bakogiannis

And as long as God said (and will say) the word "depart from Me" to the goats, what does it matter if they will depart further or if they will keep on departing? The goats will not be with Him. Suffices. And we all know that. What Archimandrite Vasilios is saying makes sense in my opinion, since the Righteous he says will go from glory to glory. However what God does for eternity it is His will and judgment. Important is for us to know that we must strive to not be counted among the goats to whom He told to go away from Him. <---- this is important and this is what Archim. Vasilios is trying to underline. And as St. John Chrysostom has said: It is better for a man to be struck by thousands of thunderbolts, than to see that beautiful, serene face of God and His serene eyes turn away from him. Need we say more? Go away, depart further, leave me alone, get out of here, be gone with you, keep on going and so on are just many versions to communicate the truth that God proclaimed Himself.

P.S You trick me with all those guys from not so distant past! If it were a trivia and we were competing together, you would win. :) :P :D

PPS Maybe for some teens that depart thingie should be translated: I need my space, I need my bubble.

[Rick H.]

P.S You trick me with all those guys from not so distant past! If it were a trivia and we were competing together, you would win. :) :P :D



Maybe so Nina, but I am willing to bet if I was in a cafe in Greece and I sat down with you and Effie to play a trivia game with Greek TV shows it might be a different story! :) I would have to just answer every question with George or Nick and hope for the best ;)

[Nina]

Maybe so Nina, but I am willing to bet if I was in a cafe in Greece and I sat down with you and Effie to play a trivia game with Greek TV shows it might be a different story! :) I would have to just answer every question with George or Nick and hope for the best ;)

Do not worry we are fair. Since we have the benefit to google and youtube things you tell us, there we will go to an internet cafe and will give you space and ask you by cell phone while we drink our frappes and enjoy the sun rays in the outside seating area. :) Since you do not live there it is not a big deal if you do not know them. For me it is embarrassing that I do not know all these guys you mention from the pop culture here, since I live here. :D To my defense: I know Archie Bunker and Lucy though because I learned about them in my 'Pop Culture' course. :)