[B-Greek] Re: Romans 12:1

Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Sun Jul 18 17:41:50 EDT 2004


On Jul 17, 2004, at 3:11 PM, Brad Evers wrote:

> The speaker should have first solved this grammatical problem prior to
> drawing theological conclusions.  "It should be noted that neuter 
> plural
> nouns regularly take singular verbs." (Learn to Read New Testament 
> Greek
> by David Alan Black, pg. 26).

Brad, I don't think this is really to the point, since neuter plural 
nouns taking singular verbs is a peculiar grammatical phenomenon 
applying to neuter nouns and does not apply across the board. It also 
does not apply to the particular construction in question in Rom 12.1. 
There we have a double accusative construction in which a plural direct 
object is complemented by a singular noun:

PARAKALW ... hUMAS ... PARASTHSAI TA SWMATA hUMWN QUSIAN ZWSAN, KTL

The main question posed by the original poster is whether, 
grammatically speaking, there should be agreement in number in this 
type of construction. There are other examples in the NT of PARISTHMI 
with accusatives in the object-complement construction:

(1) Singular pronoun-singular adjective (2 Tim 2.15)

(2) Singular pronoun-singular adjectival participle (Acts 1.3; 9.41)

(3) Singular noun-singular adjective (Eph 5.27; Col 1.28)

(4) Plural pronoun-plural adjective (Col 1.22)

(5) Plural pronoun-plural noun (Rom 6.16, 19)

(6) Plural noun-plural noun (Ro 6.13)

(7) Plural noun-singular noun (Rom 12.1; 2 Cor 11.2)

It seems to me that when the complement is adjectival there must be 
agreement in number. However, when both direct object and complement 
are nouns, there may in certain circumstances be disagreement in 
number. This may also be the case with other verbs that may take the 
object-complement construction (cf. Phil 3.7, 17; James 5.10).

But what significance may there be of a plural noun or pronoun direct 
object and a singular noun complement? A close look at 2 Cor 11.2 may 
be instructive:

ZHLW GAR HUMAS QEOU ZHLWi, hHRMOSAMHN GAR hUMAS hENI ANDRI PARQENON 
hAGNHN PARASTHSAI TWi CRISTWi.

Though the pronoun hUMAS is not explicit in the infinitival clause, I 
think most would agree that it must be supplied from the previous 
clause. The idea is not that Paul's purpose was to present a pure 
virgin to Christ, but that his purpose was to present *them* as a pure 
virgin to Christ.

What is significant about this is that Paul's purpose is to present a 
group of people as a "corporate" virgin to one husband, Christ. So here 
the singular noun functioning as the complement DOES seem to indicate a 
corporate entity. And I think Paul's idea of the church as a body is 
not far from his thought here. So I think we must conclude that in 
certain instances when we have a plural direct object and a singular 
complement we should at least consider the possibility that the 
singular noun MAY have a corporate significance.

But what about Rom 12.1? I think it is *possible* that Paul means to 
indicate that the Romans were to offer their bodies as a unified, 
corporate sacrifice. This idea gains some plausibility from the "body" 
metaphor in the following context. However, I don't think one can 
confine this sacrifice to a limited time and place, since there is 
nothing in the context to indicate this. In fact, there is much to 
contraindicate it. So it seems to me that the idea advanced by the 
pastor to whom the original poster referred is improbable and seems 
theologically motivated, though it may have a kernel of truth to it.
============

Steven Lo Vullo
Madison, WI




More information about the B-Greek mailing list