A question regarding Acts 28:23

[teemo2711]

Hello, I am a 17 year old trying to convince my female youth group leader who is the director of youth ministry who is teaching and exercising spiritual authority over three other male youth group leaders, of the truthfulness of "complementarianism", and my concern is from the fact that the number of the word anēr in 1 Timothy 2:12 is singular. For the past few months I engaged in a constructive discussion with her, and by the evidence presented to her about the syntactic and morphological information of the greek in 1 Timothy and other relevant texts it came to the point where her inquiries of doubt regard my explanations and her confidence in her understanding of her stance from the bible subsided. However in Acts 28:23, it is written that Paul "ektithēmi diamartyromai ho basileia ho theos", "ektithēmi" being the word used in Acts 18:26. The reason why I brought this up because previously by considering the NT systematically, the difference between didasko and propheteuo has been settled between us, which I defined didasko being "a form of teaching or instruction done in a position of authority, either formally or informally, in a public or private setting, regarding the inerrant word of God.", but it seems that Paul in Acts 28:23 verse is doing just that. Ultimately, my question is that seeing "ektithēmi" as the main verb, with "diamartyromai" then later "peithō" being participles, is "diamartyromai" and "peithō" the outcome of "ektithēmi", or are they distinct from each other? Right now what I see is that since the participles are present participles, they are happening in a simultaneous fashion to "ektithēmi", hence it seem to suggests that they are the same thing. Thank you in advance.

[Jonathan Robie]

Welcome to B-Greek!

I approved this post, since you are new here, but I'll also tell you a few things about how this forum works and how to post.

Hello, I am a 17 year old trying to convince my female youth group leader who is the director of youth ministry who is teaching and exercising spiritual authority over three other male youth group leaders, of the truthfulness of "complementarianism", and my concern is from the fact that the number of the word anēr in 1 Timothy 2:12 is singular. For the past few months I engaged in a constructive discussion with her, and by the evidence presented to her about the syntactic and morphological information of the greek in 1 Timothy and other relevant texts it came to the point where her inquiries of doubt regard my explanations and her confidence in her understanding of her stance from the bible subsided.

B-Greek is about the meaning of Greek texts and the Greek language, it's not about controversies or who is right, and it's best to just focus on the text here. Let's try to stick with focused attention on what specific things can reasonably mean.

However in Acts 28:23, it is written that Paul "ektithēmi diamartyromai ho basileia ho theos", "ektithēmi" being the word used in Acts 18:26. The reason why I brought this up because previously by considering the NT systematically, the difference between didasko and propheteuo has been settled between us, which I defined didasko being "a form of teaching or instruction done in a position of authority, either formally or informally, in a public or private setting, regarding the inerrant word of God.", but it seems that Paul in Acts 28:23 verse is doing just that.

Please don't use transliterations here, please use real Greek in the Greek alphabet.

Which Greek lexicons did you consult for the meaning of these two words? Here's one definition for δῐδάσκω - the exact meaning depends heavily on context, it can mean teaching anything from how to ride a horse to how to interpret the weather or how to give a speech.

δῐδάσκω IE *dn̥s-; cf. Skt. dáṃsas-; see δήνεα impf. ἐδίδασκον, mid. pass. ἐδιδασκόμην ‖ fut. διδάξω, mid. διδάξομαι ‖ aor. ἐδίδαξα, mid. ἐδιδαξάμην ‖ pf. δεδίδαχα (causat.), mid. pass. δεδίδαγμαι ‖ later ppf. mid. pass. δεδιδάγμην ‖ aor. pass. ἐδιδάχθην ‖ fut. pass. [διδαχθήσομαι] ① act. ⓐ causat. to cause to learn, teach, instruct ▶ with acc. IL. 9.442, 11.832 etc.; ▶ δ. τί τινα to teach sthg. to s.o. or instruct s.o. in sthg. OD. 8.481 PIND. N. 3.55 PLAT. Theaet. 201b (read. τούτους) etc.; σε … ἱπποσύνας ἐδίδαξαν παντοίας they taught you every kind of horsemanship IL. 23.307 | ▶ δ. τινὰ περί τινος to instruct s.o. in sthg. ARISTOPH. Nub. 382 | ▶ with inf. IL. 5.51 PIND. P. 3.45 etc. | ▶ with acc. and inf. OD. 1.384 = ▶ rar. with dat. and inf. PLUT. Marc. 12.4 | ▶ with implied inf. CHARON 1 etc.; τούτους … ἱππέας to be horsemen PLAT. Men. 94b; πολλοὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς ῥήτορας διδάσκουσιν many men teach their sons to become orators STOB. 3.4.105 ⓑ to explain, demonstrate AESCHL. Eum. 431 THUC. 2.60.6 etc.; λέγων διδασκέτω let him speak, and it will prove the matter XEN. An. 5.7.11 | ▶ with interrog. or rel. AESCHN. 3.238 etc.; περὶ τῶν πεπραγμένων διδάξοντας ὡς ξυνέφερε giving a version of events that suited them THUC. 3.71.2 ‖ to be a sign ▶ with gen.: χειμῶνος συναγειρομένοιο διδάσκοι (the moon) signals a gathering storm ARAT. 793 ‖ theatr. to represent, put on stage HDT. 1.23 (dithyramb), 6.21.2 (drama) ARISTOPH. Ran. 1026 PLAT. Prot. 327d etc. ② mid. ⓐ causat. (usu. = act.) to cause to learn, teach, instruct PIND. O. 8.59 etc. | ▶ τινα s.o. PLAT. Menex. 238b etc. διδαξάμενος χορὸν ἀνδρῶν having instructed your chorus of men SIM. (AP 6.213.3) | ▶ τινά τι sthg. to s.o. PLAT. Prot. 325b etc. | ▶ τινα and inf. PLAT. Rp. 467e | ▶ with implied inf. XEN. Mem. 4.4.5; τὸν ὑὸν ἱππέα ἀγαθόν to teach one’s son to be a good horseman PLAT. Men. 93d ‖ to reveal PIND. fr. 122.16 ⓑ to learn (for oneself), instruct oneself ARISTOPH. Nub. 127 | ▶ with acc. φθέγμα καί … φρόνημα καί … ὀργὰς ἐδιδάξατο he learned word, thought and passions from himself SOPH. Ant. 355 ③ pass. to receive instruction, be instructed, frequently to learn, understand ▶ with gen.: διδασκόμενος πολέμοιο being instructed (i.e. expert) in war IL. 16.811 | ▶ with acc. τά σε … φασιν Ἀχιλλῆος δεδιδάχθαι that they say you have learned from (= in which they say you were instructed by) Achilles IL. 11.831; οὔτ’ ἐδιδάχθη οὔτε εἶδε καλὸν οὐδέν he neither learned nor saw anything good HDT. 3.81.2; διδάξω καὶ διδάξομαι λόγους I will explain my reasons and learn theirs EUR. Andr. 739 | ▶ with inf. HDT. 2.69.2 EUR. Suppl. 914 etc. | διδασκόμενος ὡς being informed or knowing that XEN. Hel. 2.3.45 aor. inf. also διδασκῆσαι HES. Op. 64 ‖ ppf. mid. pass. 3. pl. ἐδεδιδάχατο AFRIC. Cest. 1.11.13 ‖ cf. *δάω for epic forms connected by signf. and etymol.

Franco Montanari, ed. Madeleine Goh and Chad Schroeder, The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2015).

[Jonathan Robie]

... but it seems that Paul in Acts 28:23 verse is doing just that. Ultimately, my question is that seeing "ektithēmi" as the main verb, with "diamartyromai" then later "peithō" being participles, is "diamartyromai" and "peithō" the outcome of "ektithēmi", or are they distinct from each other? Right now what I see is that since the participles are present participles, they are happening in a simultaneous fashion to "ektithēmi", hence it seem to suggests that they are the same thing. Thank you in advance.

I don't understand your question.

If I am riding a unicycle while whistling and playing a drum, all at the same time, that doesn't mean that these verbs mean the same thing. Or if I am writing to you now, looking for a clear way to explain, that doesn't mean that these things don't have different meanings, writing and explaining are not identical in meaning, looking for a clear way is not the same as writing.

Do you have a question about the meaning of this Greek?

Ταξάμενοι δὲ αὐτῷ ἡμέραν ἦλθον πρὸς αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν ξενίαν πλείονες οἷς ἐξετίθετο διαμαρτυρόμενος τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ, πείθων τε αὐτοὺς περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἀπό τε τοῦ νόμου Μωϋσέως καὶ τῶν προφητῶν, ἀπὸ πρωῒ ἕως ἑσπέρας.

If so, can you be clearer about what your question is?

[teemo2711]

Thank you for your reply and your clarification, I will ask according to the rules of this forum. The websites that I use for my bible studies that provide the definition and grammar of the Greek words are Blue Letter Bible, STEP bible, Bible Hub and NET Bible. Currently, I am in the process of analysing how the words ἐκτίθημι, διδάσκω and προφητεύω are used in the different contexts of different passages so that I will have a better idea of what God is communicating regarding the nature of the action presented in those verbs. I guess what I wanted to ask is that since the definition for ἐκτίθημι is "to set out of", would the definitions of διαμαρτύρομαι and πείθω in Acts 28:23 be a subset of the definition of ἐκτίθημι? I ask this because I see that the action of διαμαρτύρομαι and πείθω could still be a form of setting forth knowledge and wisdom. Overall I desire to know the difference in the definition of ἐκτίθημι and διδάσκω.

[teemo2711]

The text that I am referring to in my previous reply 1 hour ago:

Acts 28:23

Ταξάμενοι δὲ αὐτῷ ἡμέραν ἦλθον πρὸς αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν ξενίαν πλείονες οἷς ἐξετίθετο διαμαρτυρόμενος τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ, πείθων τε αὐτοὺς περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἀπό τε τοῦ νόμου Μωϋσέως καὶ τῶν προφητῶν, ἀπὸ πρωῒ ἕως ἑσπέρας.

[Shirley Rollinson]

Hello, I am a 17 year old trying to convince my female youth group leader who is the director of youth ministry who is teaching and exercising spiritual authority over three other male youth group leaders, of the truthfulness of "complementarianism", and my concern is from the fact that the number of the word anēr in 1 Timothy 2:12 is singular. For the past few months I engaged in a constructive discussion with her, and by the evidence presented to her about the syntactic and morphological information of the greek in 1 Timothy and other relevant texts it came to the point where her inquiries of doubt regard my explanations and her confidence in her understanding of her stance from the bible subsided. However in Acts 28:23, it is written that Paul "ektithēmi diamartyromai ho basileia ho theos", "ektithēmi" being the word used in Acts 18:26. The reason why I brought this up because previously by considering the NT systematically, the difference between didasko and propheteuo has been settled between us, which I defined didasko being "a form of teaching or instruction done in a position of authority, either formally or informally, in a public or private setting, regarding the inerrant word of God.", but it seems that Paul in Acts 28:23 verse is doing just that. Ultimately, my question is that seeing "ektithēmi" as the main verb, with "diamartyromai" then later "peithō" being participles, is "diamartyromai" and "peithō" the outcome of "ektithēmi", or are they distinct from each other? Right now what I see is that since the participles are present participles, they are happening in a simultaneous fashion to "ektithēmi", hence it seem to suggests that they are the same thing. Thank you in advance.

Dear teemo2711, it appears that you are trying to "use" the Scriptures to convince someone of the correctness of "your" ideas. It does not matter whether we are using the Greek and Hebrew texts as we have them today, or whether we are working with translations in our native language - it is better to "let the Scriptures speak to us" rather than to impose our present understanding upon them.
In your arguments with your leader, you might do better to keep to a language which you both understand, even though it is a translation. Trying to use Greek (and its grammar) may give one a feeling of superiority, but it is not convincing, and it will not convince anyone else.
You will really do better to stick to English until you have a thorough "feeling" for the Greek text - which you will only get by learning Greek and by reading your GNT regularly - not for polemical or apologetic reasons, but because it is one of the ways in which you can feed on the Scriptures.
All good wishes for your studies
Shirley Rollinson

[Eeli Kaikkonen]

I guess what I wanted to ask is that since the definition for ἐκτίθημι is "to set out of", would the definitions of διαμαρτύρομαι and πείθω in Acts 28:23 be a subset of the definition of ἐκτίθημι? I ask this because I see that the action of διαμαρτύρομαι and πείθω could still be a form of setting forth knowledge and wisdom. Overall I desire to know the difference in the definition of ἐκτίθημι and διδάσκω.

I agree with Shirley (and others). It's difficult to explain what is wrong in some method or view if it's totally different than what you know is right. So it's difficult to explain why your question isn't the right question. But I try.

Greek was a living language. People who wrote the New Testament didn't analyze it like some of the modern interpreters do. You wouldn't handle English like you handle Biblical Greek. Try to imagine that the NT was originally written in English. How would the person who wrote something in it understand it? If it was spoken, how would the hearers understand it? You wouldn't ask if the definitions of "testify" and "convince" could be subsets of the definition of "expound". That question would be nonsense for any normal English speaker or even a language teacher who knows grammar and semantics.

You could do yourself a service and find a copy of Moises Silva's God, Language and Scripture. Your approach reminds me of "gems" or "gold nuggets" described in the introduction of that work.

The best you can do with Greek is to learn to read it as running text, as normal communication, with flow of thought and context.

I don't mean that word study or grammatical details are meaningless. But you should have a wider view first. It's also OK to have a concrete theological question as a motivator, but a theological (spiritual) motivation combined with shaky exegetical and hermeneutical foundation -- including how the Greek is handled -- and especially with predetermined convictions will lead to a house built on sand even though it may feel strong.

I'm far from perfect on what I preach, you can find me paying unwarranted attention to details and having more or less warranted convictions, but I think I have learned something. "Greek is just a normal language among others, so handle it accordingly" is one of the lessons learned.

[Jonathan Robie]

I guess what I wanted to ask is that since the definition for ἐκτίθημι is "to set out of", would the definitions of διαμαρτύρομαι and πείθω in Acts 28:23 be a subset of the definition of ἐκτίθημι? I ask this because I see that the action of διαμαρτύρομαι and πείθω could still be a form of setting forth knowledge and wisdom. Overall I desire to know the difference in the definition of ἐκτίθημι and διδάσκω.

Eeli and Shirley gave great responses. I think Greek lexicography comes after learning to read Greek texts, in Greek, to the point that it is natural. You really have to learn the language first. And once you do that, and can read good Greek lexicons and articles on the subject, I think you will find yourself asking different kinds of questions. You will understand the relationship between the Greek language and our attempts to define them in English. You will be able to read the quotes from a lexicon in context and grasp the shades of meaning.

Your questions are valid, but you aren't really in a position to answer them yet. I hope they will drive you to learn Greek. I suggest that you start as a beginner and learn the language.

Here's what B-Greek policy has to say about this:

https://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/vi ... ?f=38&t=11

B-Greek is about Greek texts and the Greek language, and most of the forums in B-Greek require a working knowledge of Biblical Greek; that is:

• recognition of inflected forms of verbs, nouns, pronouns, adjectives, and adverbs
• recognition of standard syntactic structures
• a grasp of principal parts of common irregular verbs, and the ability to recognize them in a text

In the Beginner's Forum, we welcome beginners who do not yet have a working knowledge of Biblical Greek, and are actively working to learn the language. We want to help. Even basic questions about the meaning of the Greek text are welcome in the Beginner's Forum, and there's no shame in mistakes. Beginners will be gently pushed toward learning these structures over time, pointed to textbooks and other aids that will help them, and coached in how to see these structures in a text. Learning a language is all about learning the structure signals, so we will try to help you learn what these signals are and how to recognize them in a text.

Even in the Beginner's forum, general questions or opinions about doctrine or the meaning of the English text are not welcome. Sometimes we may encourage beginners to postpone questions that are over their head at their current level of understanding.

[Shirley Rollinson]

- - - - snip snip - - - -

Your questions are valid, but you aren't really in a position to answer them yet. I hope they will drive you to learn Greek. I suggest that you start as a beginner and learn the language.

If you' like to try learning some basic NT Greek, you are welcome to try the (free) Online Textbook at http://www.drshirley.org/greek/textbook02/contents.html
Engaging with the Scriptures, and feeding on them in the original languages, is far more rewarding than using academic knowledge in a doctrine-chopping exercise with an adversary

[teemo2711]

Dear teemo2711, it appears that you are trying to "use" the Scriptures to convince someone of the correctness of "your" ideas. It does not matter whether we are using the Greek and Hebrew texts as we have them today, or whether we are working with translations in our native language - it is better to "let the Scriptures speak to us" rather than to impose our present understanding upon them.

Thank you Shirley for your reply. I see it more as two people with contradicting ideas of doctrine engaging in a discussion seeking to know the truth, hence it is actually essential to try to convince the other of one's doctrine as that would be presenting one's understanding of one's belief in a fuller extent, so that the other can investigate the correctness of the rationale well. She and I recognise that theoretically one of us is wrong or both of us is wrong, as we believe in God's infallible word, that He is truth, that truth glorifies Him, and that we desire to glorify Him. Truth is meant to be held by someone which would mean that they would have to use the Scriptures to convince someone of the correctness of their ideas.

In your arguments with your leader, you might do better to keep to a language which you both understand, even though it is a translation. Trying to use Greek (and its grammar) may give one a feeling of superiority, but it is not convincing, and it will not convince anyone else.
You will really do better to stick to English until you have a thorough "feeling" for the Greek text - which you will only get by learning Greek and by reading your GNT regularly - not for polemical or apologetic reasons, but because it is one of the ways in which you can feed on the Scriptures.

I think that the exegetical work would still be improved if she and I were to pay attention to the greek, even when both of us have no formal education in Greek and do not know how to read it as it is, as the interlinear Greek to English dictionaries online are very helpful with providing the definitions of every word, and the grammar of every word; hence we can study it word by word and understand the implications of every word in its context. It is tedious work but both of us are willing to do so and be patient. Yes ultimately we do this to feed on the Scriptures, but we still desire to feed on it rightly, hence I think being polemical on it would aid that purpose. We did also consult articles written by scholars who hold different sides on this and we try to compare them to see who has the coherent argument and why.