Ephesians 6:17 - the sword of the Spirit

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Fri Oct 25 02:40:39 EDT 2002


>
>[Steven:] Don't think so. It is not uncommon for a relative pronoun to be
> attracted to the gender of the predicate nominative in this
> construction (RP-ESTIN-PN). In this case, the neuter singular
> nominative relative pronoun hO/ is attracted to the gender of the
> predicate nominative hRHMA, which is also neuter singular nominative.

Although this is the standard, classical analysis, I have never been quite
satisfied with it, because it does not answer the question why the relative
sometimes is attracted to the following predicate and why sometimes it is
not.

Therefore, I am exploring an alternative analysis as a kind of compromise.
Maybe the relative pronoun in certain contexts is not dependent on either a
preceding or following noun, but an implicit noun or pronoun? We know that
it is much more common in Greek than in English to have such general,
implicit nouns. Sometimes the implicit noun is actually made explicit in the
following context, in which case one can say that the implicit noun
anticipates the explicit one.

As a start I would look at
Lk 17:31: hOS ESTAI EPI ... MH KATABATW..
En English we need to supply the implicit pronoun to say "he who". Or we
could supply an implicit general noun: "the person who". In Greek, the
masculine relative pronoun implies a (masculine)person.

In Eph 6:17 we have the common hO/ ESTIN which is explanatory: "that is", id
est. Here I would supply the general neuter "thing" and explicate as "which
thing is". The sword of the Spirit, which thing is the Word of God.

This construction also occurs in the plural as hA (ESTIN) or hATINA (ESTIN)
"which things are" but not so commonly as in the singular.
For hA ESTIN cf. Col 2:17,22; Rev 4:5, 21:12.
For hATINA cf. John 21:25, Gal 4:24, 5:19, Phil 3:7, Col 3:23.

In Rom 16:5 we have TON AGAPHTON MOU hOS ESTIN APARCH
Here hOS is not attracted to APARCH. One can say that it simply has the
gender of the preceding noun, but this is my problem. How does the Greek
speaker decide whether to attract or not attract? On the other hand, if I
connect the masculine hOS with an implicit masculine noun like person, I can
more easily account for both options: my brother, which person (i.e. who) is
a firstfruit.

What about some other examples from Ephesians:

1:14 ...ESFRAGISQHTE TWi PNEUMATI THS EPAGGELIAS TWi hAGIWi hO/ ESTIN
ARRABWN
the neuter relative is not attracted to the following masculine noun. One
could say it refers back to the neuter PNEUMA, and it may do so, but one
could also supply an implicit "thing": which thing is a deposit. In this
case, it may not just be the Spirit who is being referred to, but the event
of the sealing with the Spirit. Some who take the relative to refer directly
back to the Holy Spirit might object to calling the Spirit a thing, and some
manuscripts as Aleph and D have actually changed hO/ to hOS.

1:23 EDWKEN ... THi EKKLHSIAi hTIS ESTIN TO SWMA AUTOU
The hHTIS does not attract to the following neuter noun. It clearly refers
back to the preceding feminine noun. One could still repeat the noun: Which
(church) is his body. The Church is the topic, the body a picture.

4:15 hOS ESTIN hH KEFALH, CRISTOS
hOS is not attracted to KEFALH, but the word person is implied: which
(person) is the head.

5:5 PAS ... PLEONEKTHS hO/ ESTIN EIDWLOLATRHS

The neuter hO/ is surrounded completely be masculine nouns, so the hO/ must
mean "which thing is".

> Note other passages like this:
>
> Gal 3.16: TWi SPERMATI SOU, hOS ESTIN CRISTOS. Rather than agree with
> the neuter antecedent, hOS is attracted to the masculine predicate
> nominative.

Or to the implied masculine concept "person".

> Eph 3.13: DIO AITOUMAI MH EGKAKEIN EN TAIS QLIYESIN MOU hUPER hUMWN,
> hHTIS ESTIN DOXA hUMWN. Here the whole request, MH EGKAKEIN EN TAIS
> QLIYESIN MOU hUPER hUMWN, is the antecedent of hHTIS. Though we might
> have expected the neuter relative pronoun here, we have hHTIS, which is
> attracted to the feminine predicate nominative DOXA.

Or to the implied feminine concept QLIYIS. It cannot grammatically refer
directly to the plural noun, but can still in my analysis be dependent on
the concept of tribulation, a feminine noun. This is somewhat akin to
"constructio ad sensum".
>
> Eph 6.2: TIMA TON PATERA SOU KAI THN MHTERA, hHTIS ESTIN ENTOLH PRWTH
> EN EPAGGELIA... Here again, as above, we might have expected the neuter
> relative pronoun, but hHTIS is attracted to ENTOLH.

Or to an implied ENTOLH, since the preceding sentence is a well known
ENTOLH: Which (commandment) is the first commandment...

> 2Th 3.17 hO ASPASMOS THi EMHi CEIRI PAULOU, hO/ ESTIN SHMEION EN PASHi
> EPISTOLHi... Rather than the masculine of the antecedent ASPASMOS, hO/
> is attracted to the gender of SHMEION.

Which thing, i.e. the greeting by his own hand.
>
> 1Tim 3.15: OIKWi QEOU ... hHTIS ESTIN EKKLHSIA QEOU ZWNTOS. Rather than
> agree with the masculine OIKWi, hHTIS is attracted to the feminine
> gender of EKKLHSIA.

The "house of God" is just a picture for the church, so the implied concept
is not a house but the church as is made explicit in the following words.

Often there is more than one possible analysis of a linguistic phenomenon,
since such analyses are theoretical abstractions from actual language data.

Iver Larsen




More information about the B-Greek mailing list