Ephesians 6:17 ῥῆμα θεοῦ

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Post Reply
David Lee
Posts: 17
Joined: April 19th, 2013, 7:19 am

Ephesians 6:17 ῥῆμα θεοῦ

Post by David Lee »

Hello,

This is a question regarding Ephesians 6:17
καὶ τὴν περικεφαλαίαν τοῦ σωτηρίου δέξασθε, καὶ τὴν μάχαιραν τοῦ πνεύματος, ὅ ἐστιν ῥῆμα θεοῦ

It seems that the popular interpretation of the second half is that the sword of the Spirit is the ῥῆμα θεοῦ. However, the neuter article ὅ seems to indicate that πνεύμα is the ῥῆμα θεοῦ. In other words, not the sword, but the Spirit himself is the ῥῆμα θεοῦ.

The only thing I have come across that seems to address this is Robertson saying, that the ὅ is an "explanatory relative (o) referring to the sword (macairan)". Can somebody chime in on whether or not the ὅ here should be taken as an explanatory relative rather than a relative pronoun?

Also, if indeed the Spirit is ῥῆμα θεοῦ, are there other passages that support this notion?
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Ephesians 6:17 ῥῆμα θεοῦ

Post by cwconrad »

David Lee wrote:Hello,

This is a question regarding Ephesians 6:17
καὶ τὴν περικεφαλαίαν τοῦ σωτηρίου δέξασθε, καὶ τὴν μάχαιραν τοῦ πνεύματος, ὅ ἐστιν ῥῆμα θεοῦ

It seems that the popular interpretation of the second half is that the sword of the Spirit is the ῥῆμα θεοῦ. However, the neuter article ὅ seems to indicate that πνεύμα is the ῥῆμα θεοῦ. In other words, not the sword, but the Spirit himself is the ῥῆμα θεοῦ.

The only thing I have come across that seems to address this is Robertson saying, that the ὅ is an "explanatory relative (o) referring to the sword (macairan)". Can somebody chime in on whether or not the ὅ here should be taken as an explanatory relative rather than a relative pronoun?
I think that an "explanatory relative pronoun" is a relative pronoun, one introducing an expression that explains what is meant by what precedes: ὅ ἐστιν = Lat. id est = Eng. "which is to say" or "that is to say". Robertson gives numerous examples (p. 411 of the big grammar).
Also, if indeed the Spirit is ῥῆμα θεοῦ, are there other passages that support this notion?
I can't say, but it seems to me that the traditional interpretation is consistent with Heb 4:12:
Ζῶν γὰρ ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐνεργὴς καὶ τομώτερος ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν μάχαιραν δίστομον καὶ διϊκνούμενος ἄχρι μερισμοῦ ψυχῆς καὶ πνεύματος, ἁρμῶν τε καὶ μυελῶν, καὶ κριτικὸς ἐνθυμήσεων καὶ ἐννοιῶν καρδίας·
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 2159
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Ephesians 6:17 ῥῆμα θεοῦ

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

I have to admit that until I read this post it never even occurred to me that it could be anything else other than an explanatory relative pronoun as Carl explicates. Of course, the first thing we learn about the relative pronoun is that it agrees with its antecedent in number and gender, and that the closest noun that can be the antecedent usually is. The key word is in the last sentence is "usually." As we get out into the real word of Greek as native or near native speakers actually used it, we find such phenomena as attraction or such usages as here, where the context makes it clear, I think, that the id est interpretation is the only one that really makes sense.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter, M.A., Th.M.
Ph.D. Student U of FL
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.
Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 1141
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Ephesians 6:17 ῥῆμα θεοῦ

Post by Stirling Bartholomew »

I checked H. Hoehner (2002) and J. Eadie (1883), it would appear that the relative pronoun isn't the main issue of disagreement concerning this passage. The referent of ῥῆμα θεοῦ is an exegetical and theological crux. I had some interest in this 40 years ago while reading Barth and Brunner for my thesis. It is way off topic for b-greek. Here is what Eadie had to say about it:
καὶ τὴν μάχαιραν τοῦ πνεύματος, ὅ ἐστιν ῥῆμα θεοῦ—“and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” The last genitive is that of source, and the relative ὅ is neuter, by attraction or assimilation. This is the only offensive weapon which the Christian soldier is to assume. That sword is described as being the “word of God.” By “the word of God” we understand the gospel, or revealed will of God-and to us it is in effect Holy Scripture, not in any restricted sense, as limited either to its commands or its threatenings. Theodore of Mopsuestia says, however, that ῥῆμα θεοῦ is equivalent to θεοῦ ἐνέργεια-referring in proof to such phrases as “by the word of the Lord the heavens were made,” the meaning of which is easily understood. And this weapon—“the word of God”-is “the sword of the Spirit,” for it is the Spirit who supplies it. By the special organic influence of the Spirit, plenary inspiration was enjoyed, and God's ideas became, in the lips and from the pens of apostles and prophets, God's words. The genitive, πνεύματος, thus indicates the relation in which God's word stands to the Spirit. How strange on the part of Harless, Olshausen, Matthies, Stier, and von Gerlach, to make it the genitive of apposition, and to represent the sword as the Spirit Himself! In this erroneous view they had been preceded by Basil, who has adduced this verse as a proof that not only the Son, but the Spirit, is called the Word-the Son being the Word of the Father, and the Spirit the Word of the Son. Contra Eunom. lib. v. cap. 11. Such an exposition only darkens the passage, and compels Olshausen himself to ask in perplexity a question which his own false exegesis originates-How can the Word of God be represented as the Spirit? and he answers the insoluble query by a statement no less erro neous and unintelligible, that the Spirit is an operation which the Word of God produces. Harless argues, that as the previous genitives specifying the pieces of armour are those of apposition, so analogy must justify the same syntax in this clause. But the argument is wholly out of place, and that because the apostle subjoins an explanation. Had he simply said “the sword of the Word,” then according to the analogy of previous clauses the exegesis of Harless and Olshausen would be the correct one, but he enters into fuller and more precise detail. Away at the other extreme from this exposition is that of Chrysostom in one of his interpretations, of OEcumenius and Theophylact, with Michaelis and Grotius, which makes the clause merely mean—“take the spiritual sword of the Word; and still more remote is the lame exegesis of Morus, Rosenmüller, and de Wette, which understands by “spirit” the human spirit, as if the apostle meant to say—“take your soul's best sword, the word of God.”

The word of God is thus the sword of the Spirit, by which the spiritual foe is cloven down. The Captain of salvation set the example, and once and again, and a third time, did He repel the assault of the prince of darkness by three brief and simple citations from Scripture. Diplomacy and argument, truce and armistice, are of no avail-the keen bright sword of the Spirit must be unsheathed and lifted.

found here http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/ ... k=eph&ch=6
Citing this does not imply that I am in agreement with it.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
David Lee
Posts: 17
Joined: April 19th, 2013, 7:19 am

Re: Ephesians 6:17 ῥῆμα θεοῦ

Post by David Lee »

Although the question about the genitives wasn't the main question, it is still interesting nonetheless.
Seems like the options are:
1. Sword belonging to and used by Spirit = ῥῆμα θεοῦ (possession, popular)
2. Spirit, who is the sword = ῥῆμα θεοῦ (apposition)
3. Sword supplied by the Spirit = ῥῆμα θεοῦ (source)
4. spiritual sword = ῥῆμα θεοῦ (description)

If it is #2 (apposition), then it wouldn't matter if ὅ refers to μάχαιραν or πνεύματος, since they are one and the same anyway.

If it is #4, then ὅ could not refer to πνεύματος.
David Lee
Posts: 17
Joined: April 19th, 2013, 7:19 am

Re: Ephesians 6:17 ῥῆμα θεοῦ

Post by David Lee »

After searching online a bit, I found a study by James L. Boyer called, "Relative Clauses in the Greek New Testament: A Statistical Study".
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hil ... es-GTJ.htm

In a section titled "Agreement with Predicate Substantives", it says:
Some of the exceptions to the rule of agreement show an agree-
ment of a different kind; the relative clause is a copulative one with a
predicate substantive, and the relative agrees in gender with the
predicate substantive rather than with the antecedent in the main
clause. An example is found in Eph 6:17: τὴν μάχαιραν τοῦ πνεύματος,
ὅ ἐστιν ῥῆμα θεοῦ, "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of
God." The actual antecedent is μάχαιραν (feminine), but the predicate
substantive, which is of course referring to the same thing, is ῥῆμα
(neuter), and the relative neuter agrees with it. In every instance the
predicate substantive is more prominent than the actual antecedent.
I prefer Boyer's predicate-substantive-agreement explanation over Robertson's explanatory-pronoun explanation.
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”