Of the Possibility of the Middle Voice
As you note, Wallace argues against κατηρτισμένα (katērtismena) being a "direct middle," being translated as "having prepared themselves." Let's examine the validity of his arguments first:1
"The direct middle is quite rare" (418) — which to some extent is an assertion both begging to be proved and seeking relevancy. As to proved, he noted it "was frequently used in classical Greek" (416), and it may be demonstrable (I'll accept that it is) to show it being rarer in the NT, it still exists as a possibility (especially in light of classical usage). As to relevancy, because it is possible, then "rarity" means nothing as to whether this instance is one or not.
VERDICT — Irrelevant.
"With καταρτίζω: nowhere else in the NT does it occur as a direct middle" (418) - he footnotes (n.28) the other seven middle/passive uses, which his statement is worth quoting for discussion (emphasis added):
The verb occurs 13 times in the NT, seven as a middle or passive form.
Of those seven, two are definitely middle, being aorist (Matt 21:16;
Heb 10:5), and both are obviously indirect middles. The other four
(Rom 9:22 being excluded from the count) are all almost surely passive
(Luke 6:40; 1 Cor 1:10; 2 Cor 13:11; Heb 11:3).
For non-Greek readers, the reason the aorist is "definitely middle" is because the word form is different between the middle and the passive in the aorist tense. So there is no ambiguity like there is in the present tense.
But are the two aorists "obviously indirect middles"? An indirect middle is not as "direct" :-), having the idea of doing something for one's own interest. So the translation (if it is even brought out in the translation) would be "prepared for themselves" rather than "prepared themselves." Subtle, but significant. The two passages are Mt 21:16 and Heb 10:5, and yes, they are "obviously" indirect, because both passages have a direct object (praise and body, respectively) different from the subject, so it is not "direct."
However, what I find interesting that Wallace ignores is the fact that these are two incontestable examples of using the middle voice with this verb. That seems far more significant to me than had none existed. It shows that the middle voice is used with this verb.
Are the other four "almost surely passive"? (Does one detect a less than dogmatic statement here?) The passages are Luke 6:40, 1 Cor 1:10, 2 Cor 13:11, & Heb 11:3. I have to disagree on these passages:
Οὐκ ἔστιν μαθητὴς ὑπὲρ τὸν διδάσκαλον αὐτοῦ· κατηρτισμένος δὲ πᾶς
ἔσται ὡς ὁ διδάσκαλος αὐτοῦ. [1st αὐτοῦ is missing in minority texts.]
NKJV — A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone who is perfectly trained will be like his teacher.
Though Wallace says it is rare, I see no reason not to see this as possibly a "causative middle" where "The subject has something done for or to himself or herself" (423). That certainly captures the idea of a student being prepared by the teacher.
1 Cor 1:10
Παρακαλῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ
χριστοῦ, ἵνα τὸ αὐτὸ λέγητε πάντες, καὶ μὴ ᾖ ἐν ὑμῖν σχίσματα, ἦτε δὲ
κατηρτισμένοι ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ νοῒ καὶ ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ γνώμῃ.
NKJV — Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions
among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind
and in the same judgment.
What is it that is to cause them to "be perfectly joined together" (ESV — "united," NASB — "made complete"), or rather, "you be prepared in the same mind..."? Is it not that they "speak the same thing"? The verb κατηρτισμένοι is a plural, so the "you" is a "ye" in older English, a plural "y'all" (in the southern USA). To me, this is clearly a "reciprocal middle" (427), of which Wallace says:
The middle voice may be used with a plural subject to represent
interaction among themselves. There is an interchange of effort among
Again, he pulls the rarity card in his discussion of whether reciprocal middles exist, saying "It is quite rare in the NT, most of the examples being disputed" (427). Yet the grammatical form and the context almost demand that it have that meaning here. They are to be "preparing themselves" by the interaction of speaking the same to one another to come to a meeting of the minds.
2 Cor 13:10
Λοιπόν, ἀδελφοί, χαίρετε· καταρτίζεσθε, παρακαλεῖσθε, τὸ αὐτὸ
φρονεῖτε, εἰρηνεύετε· καὶ ὁ θεὸς τῆς ἀγάπης καὶ εἰρήνης ἔσται μεθʼ
NKJV — Finally, brethren, farewell. Become complete. Be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you.
I am amazed Wallace considers this even questionably as being passive. The word is a middle/passive imperative (a command). That of itself means that the ones commanded are to do the action to make it come about, and so it has to be middle.
Πίστει νοοῦμεν κατηρτίσθαι τοὺς αἰῶνας ῥήματι θεοῦ, εἰς τὸ μὴ ἐκ
φαινομένων τά βλεπόμενα γεγονέναι
NKJV — By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.
This is probably passive. It is a perfect infinitive form ("to have been framed") and so the accusative case of τοὺς αἰῶνας seems certainly acting as the subject (192), and were not participating in the process themselves.
So 2 uses are clearly middle, 3 uses contextually lean heavily toward a middle, and only 1 is clearly passive. In fact, the only usage that seemed clearly passive was the one that did not involve a human element.
VERDICT — Inconclusive, but leaning heavily to middle being standard usage
"In the perfect tense, the middle-passive form is always to be taken as a passive in the NT (Luke 6:40; 1 Cor 1:10; Heb 11:3)" (418) — considering the above analysis, I disagree. Only the Heb 11:3 appears to be certainly a passive form.
VERDICT — False, or at least not certain
"The lexical nuance of καταρτίζω, coupled with the perfect tense, suggests something of a 'done deal.' ... complete preparation" (418) — this could have validity, except for one small factor. First, what Wallace is saying is that with the perfect tense (indicating a completed action with present consequences) and the idea of the verb καταρτίζω being a "preparation," it is thus a completed action. Fine. But what does it take for a person to be a vessel of wrath that is completed for destruction? One sin (James 2:10)2, making one unrighteous (Rom 3:10-18), or (depending upon one's view, and I take this view) simply being a child of Adam (Rom 5:12-14; Eph 2:3). So this idea of a completed action of preparing hardly disqualifies it from being a middle voice.
VERDICT — Inconclusive
A block quote is in order here:
The context argues strongly for a passive and completed notion. In v
20 the vessel is shaped by God’s will, not its own (“Will that which
is molded say to its maker, ‘Why have you made me this way?’”). In v
21, Paul asks a question with οὐκ (thus expecting a positive answer):
Is not the destiny of the vessels (one for honor, one for dishonor)
entirely predetermined by their Creator? Verse 22 is the answer to
that question. To argue, then, that κατηρτισμένα is a direct middle
seems to fly in the face of grammar (the normal use of the voice and
tense), lexeme, and context. (418)
There is strong merit here for Wallace's point. Verses 20-21 are putting God in the position of the potter, who is the one that prepares (i.e. determines the design of) the vessels as he sees fit. This at least points strongly toward God being involved in the preparation in some way.
VERDICT — appears to rule out the direct middle as Wallace argues
Why No Other Middle Considered?
Wallace argues against a "direct middle" idea in v.22. But he fails to discuss at all the possibility of other types of middle voice nuances to the passage. As noted in the previous section, there appears to be a strong argument that of the other six uses of the middle/passive form of καταρτίζω in the NT, only 1 is certainly passive, 2 are certainly middle, and the other three strongly lean to other middle ideas than the direct middle.
So consider two other likely options:
- Reciprocal middle: This would be translated much like a direct middle "the vessels of wrath having prepared themselves for destruction." The difference is that a direct middle is reflecting one for one, a vessel prepares itself for its own destruction, whereas a reciprocal middle is reflecting a one another relation, where the vessels of wrath feed off one another in preparing themselves for destruction. This fits the same idea as Rom 1:32.
- Causative middle: In short, this middle nuance allows for the vessels of wrath to be partakers in their own "cause" of destruction, while also still leaving more exegetical space for God's also being involved in their destruction (it is, after all, His wrath against them that is also a "cause" of their destruction).
Both ideas would allow for a joint idea of "preparation" coming from both God and the vessels themselves, and both would reflect truth about why these vessels of wrath are so prepared, but it seems the "causative middle" allows for it better. The point here, however, is that while the "direct middle" is probably not in view, some other middle voice idea appears to be likely.
Lack of Subject
It must be remembered that the word here is a participle, and is being used to describe "the vessels of wrath." As such, there is no subject to the verb itself stating who is doing the preparing. This is part of the apparent ambiguity of the passage. The one preparing could be God (as implied by the parallel from v.20-21), or the vessels themselves (as implied by what it is that brings God's wrath — each one's unrighteousness).
If it is merely passive, then it would only be pointing to God as the active preparer, and it leaves mankind's actions completely out of the picture. While that may be true of the illustration of the potter (the pot has no responsibility for its "action" of use to honor or dishonor), it is not true of human beings, who are responsible.
Thus, the middle idea of dual participation seems all the more probable because the nature of mankind as a responsible entity is different than that of a pot (so the picture breaks down at this point). It is God who has determined what makes a person a vessel of wrath or mercy (i.e. the promise of v.8), just as a potter determines what makes a vessel one of honor or dishonor; but just as the clay all has the same properties, so too, mankind all has the same responsibility, and so mankind's nature is part of what determines the preparation.
Wallace noted the "direct middle" had its "roots in Chrysostom, and is later echoed by Pelagius" (417). He does not give a direct reference for locating that information, just that the argument is made in "[C. E. B.] Cranfield, Romans (ICC) 2.495-96" (418 n.27). It may be they are not actually arguing for a "direct middle," but some other middle voice idea.
A witness that seems to take it as a middle voice as well is Irenaeus. While no full Greek manuscript exists of his Against Heresies, he was a Greek speaker, and in that work he makes allusions to a middle voice interpretation in Book 4, ch. 39 (Latin here; I do not read Latin), specifically paragraph 2 here in English (emphasis added):
How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet been made a man? Or
how can he be perfect who was but lately created? How, again, can he
be immortal, who in his mortal nature did not obey his Maker?
For it must be that thou, at the outset, shouldest hold the rank of a
man, and then afterwards partake of the glory of God. For thou dost
not make God, but God thee. If, then, thou art God’s workmanship,
await the hand of thy Maker which creates everything in due time; in
due time as far as thou art concerned, whose creation is being carried
out. Offer to Him thy heart in a soft and tractable state, and
preserve the form in which the Creator has fashioned thee, having
moisture in thyself, lest, by becoming hardened, thou lose the
impressions of His fingers. But by preserving the framework thou shalt
ascend to that which is perfect, for the moist clay which is in thee
is hidden [there] by the workmanship of God. His hand fashioned thy
substance; He will cover thee over [too] within and without with pure
gold and silver, and He will adorn thee to such a degree, that even
“the King Himself shall have pleasure in thy beauty.” But if thou,
being obstinately hardened, dost reject the operation of His skill,
and show thyself ungrateful towards Him, because thou wert created a
[mere] man, by becoming thus ungrateful to God, thou hast at once lost
both His workmanship and life. For creation is an attribute of the
goodness of God; but to be created is that of human nature. If, then,
thou shalt deliver up to Him what is thine, that is, faith towards Him
and subjection, thou shalt receive His handiwork, and shall be a
perfect work of God.3
The language of the clay seems certainly an allusion to the Romans 9 passage by Irenaeus, and yet he is referring to the person hardening their own moist clay (showing some responsibility for their problem, for "by becoming thus ungrateful to God, thou hast at once lost both His workmanship and life").
There seems to be strong evidence for some type of middle voice interpretation (though a direct middle appears out of view) on (1) contextual usages, (2) grammatical grounds, (3) theological grounds, and (4) historical/native speaker grounds.
1 All quotations are taken from Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Zondervan Publishing House and Galaxie Software, 1999), page numbers parenthetically noted.
2 The hermeneutic I use assumes a unity of the texts of Scripture based off God as the Author behind the human authors' words. Hence the notation of James in this argument regarding (primarily) Paul's texts.
3 Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Vol. 1. The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 522-523, translating Irenaeus' Against Heresies 4.39.2.