Romans 6:10

richard smith rbsads at aol.com
Sun Jun 23 22:03:01 EDT 2002


hO GAR APEQANEN, THi hAMARTIAi APEQANEN EFAPAX.  hO DE ZHi, ZHi TWi qEWi.

The explanation in Robertson's Word Pictures, which has been recommended
to me and the list by Carl, is that the relative pronoun is a cognative
accusative with APEQANEN.

"The death that he died (o apeqanen). Neuter relative, cognative
accusative with apeqanen. Once (epapax). Once and once only (Hebrews
9:26), not pote (once upon a time). The life that he liveth (o zh).
Cognate accusative of the relative." Roberson’s Word Pictures

I am struggling with this description as a cognate accusative.  First,
because there does not seem to be a word with a derivative root.  Wallace
describes a conceptual cognate accusative that can have the root thought,
without an actual root derivative word.  Second, but even in this category
of a conceptual cognate, Wallace indicates that the cognate accusative is
a direct object.

The verbs in question APOQNHSKW and ZAW seem to be generally intransitive.
There can be an almost adverbial direct object thought with these verbs,
descriptive of a style of death or life (died a noble death, lived a
humble life), but such an adverbial thought seems to be unintroduced
within the context. Therefore the intent is undefined. Paul does not
describe what is the death he died or the life he lives, such that a
pronoun could be used to refer back to that death or life.

Both the NIV and the NRSV follow this translation.

I have an interlinear translation by Nestle-Marshall that renders the
phrases as “For in that He died” and “for in that He lives.” I am not sure
what is meant by these words.

And I am not sure what is meant by the Robertson, NIV and NRSV
translations either.  What is the death that He died and what is the life
that he lives? How did His death especially cause Him to die to sin, as
opposed to another death that one might die?

Might it be possible and acceptable, maybe simpler, to read the neuter
relative pronoun as a nominative.

The phrase would be something of an epexegetical aside. And it seems to me
that this comment would fit logically with the context.

“For what has died, has died once for all for/to/by sin, And what lives,
continues living for/to/by God.”

Thank you for any help.

Richard Smith
Chattanooga, TN



More information about the B-Greek mailing list