[B-Greek] The relative pronouns in Ephesians 6:17 and Revelation 5:8‏

Bryant J. Williams III bjwvmw at com-pair.net
Sat Oct 16 18:04:59 EDT 2010


Dear John, Leonard,

ISTM that what is happening is a continuation of STHTE in verse 14. Look at the
use KAI (6x in vss 14-18 [7x if vs 19 included). Most of these KAI's are
followed by a participle and the Accusative case.
    STHTE OUN PERIZWSAMENOI THN OSFUN hUMWN EN ALHQEIAi
        KAI ENDUSAMENOI TON QWRAKA THS DIKAIOSUNHS
        KAI hUPODHSAMENOI TOUS PODAS EN hETOIMASIAi TOU EUAGGELIOU THS EIRHNHS,
            EN PASIN ANALABONTES  TON QUREON THS PISTEWS.
            EN hWi DUNHSESQE PANTA TA BELH TOU PNHROU [TA]PEPURWMENA SBESAI
        KAI THN PERIKEFALLAIAN TOU SWTHRIOU DEXASQE
        KAI THN MAXAIRAN TOU PNEUMATOS,
            hO ESTIN RhHMA QEOU.
    DIA PASHS PROSEUXHS KAI DEHSEWS PROSEUXOMENOI EN PANTI KAIRWi EN PNEUMATi,
        KAI DEHSEI PERI PANTWN TWN hAGIWN KAI hUPER EMOU,
    hINA MOI DOQHi LOGOS EN ANOIXEI TOU STOMATOS MOU,
            EN PARRHSIAi GNWRISAI TO MUSTHRION TOU EUAGGELIOU,
    hUPER hOU PRESBEUW EN hALUSEI,
    hINA EN AUTWi PARRHSIASWMENAI hWH DEI ME LALHSAI.

It appears, then, that hO ESTIN RhHMA QEOU is either explanatory of KAI THN
MAXAIRAN TOU PNEUMATOS or it is in apposition to it.

Furthermore, if one looks at Ephesians 1:18-19, Paul says the following:

    PEFWTISMENOUS TOUS OFQALMOUS THS KARDIAS [hUMWN] EIS TO EIDENAI hMAS
            TIS ESTIN hH ELPIS THS KLHSEWS AUTOU,
            TIS hO PLOUTOS THS DOXHS THS KLHRONOMIAS AUTOU EN TOIS hAGIOIS,
        KAI TI TO hUPERBALLON MEGEQOS THS DUNAMEWS AUTOU EIS hHMAS TOUS
PISTEUONTAS
            KATA THN EVERGEIAN TOU KATOUS THS ISXUOS AUTOU.

ESTIN is understood in the TIS hO PLOUTOS clause explaining TIS ESTIN hH ELPIS
or in apposition to it.

1:23 hHTIS ESTIN TO SWMA AUTOU ... explains THi EKKLHSIAi at the end of verse
22. In fact, there several of the same structures in 19-23 and the use of KAI.

Thus, I would look at what Paul is doing within Ephesians, first, before going
outside to Revelation 5:8. This is especially since John is all over the board
when it comes to grammatical forms in Revelation.

En Xristwi,

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Sanders" <john.franklin.sanders at gmail.com>
To: "Leonard Jayawardena" <leonardj at live.com>
Cc: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek]The relative pronouns in Ephesians 6:17 and Revelation
5:8‏


> No, if anything, I would take the sword as a stand-in for GLOSSA.  We are
> still dealing with metaphors.  I fear explaining the metaphors will be
> beyond the permissable guidelines of this venue.
>
> JFS
>
> Suzhou, China
>
> 2010/10/16 Leonard Jayawardena <leonardj at live.com>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > > Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:44:40 +0800
> > > Subject: Re: [B-Greek] The relative pronouns in Ephesians 6:17 and
> > > Revelation 5:8‏
> > > From: john.franklin.sanders at gmail.com
> > > To: leonardj at live.com
> > > CC: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2010/10/15 Leonard Jayawardena>
> > >
> > >
> >  > ________________________________
> > >> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 13:54:35 +0800
> > >> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] The relative pronouns in Ephesians 6:17 and
> > >> Revelation 5:8‏
> > >> From:
> > > john.franklin.sanders at gmail.com
> > >> To: leonardj at live.com
> > >> CC: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> > >
> > >
> > >> Conderning Ephesians 6:17:
> > >>
> > >> I consider the simile to be PNEUMATOS construed with hRHMA QEOU, then
> > >> the simile and the grammar work together. To consider the simile
> > >> something else will require an explanation of why the grammar of the
> > >> relative pronoun is wrong.
> > >> --
> > >> John Sanders
> > >> Suzhou, China
> > >
> > >
> > > LJ: A further comment on above.
> > >
> > >
> > > As I have already mentioned before, I understand hO ESTIN in THN
> > > MACAIRAN TOU PNEUMATOS, hO/ ESTIN rRHMA QEOU in Ephes. 6:17 to be
> > > explanatory hO ESTIN, seen also in the same book in 5:4.
> > >
> > > If the ordinary relative is used, then the "correct" form is hH,
> > > feminine singular, to agree with MACAIRA (feminine noun), which is the
> > > headword in the phrase THN MACAIRAN TOU PNEUMATOS. The word of God,
> > > here meaning the gospel, is metaphorically called a sword. "The sword
> > > of the spirit" is the offensive weapon wielded by the Christian
> > > soldier, the spiritual counterpart of the earthly, literal sword of,
> > > say, a Roman soldier. (A discussion of how exactly the gospel is a
> > > sword would take us beyond B-Greek.)
> > >
> > > Therefore if Paul did not use explanatory hO ESTIN, then we can only
> > > understand the relative pronoun here as being assimilated in gender to
> > > the predicate substantive, viz. rHMA (neuter), in the same way that the
> > > relatives in Rev. 4:5 and 5:8 are.
> > >
> > > PNEUMATOS is not even a possible antecedent for the relative because
> > > construing the relative with PNEUMATOS would make THN MACAIRAN TOU
> > > PNEUMATOS equivalent to "the sword of the word of God." To make any
> > > sense of that, you have to take TOU PNEUMATOS adjectivally, in which
> > > case the phrase means "the-word-of-God sword." But when the relative
> > > clause is addded, we have "the-word-of-God sword, which is the word of
> > > God" (!), which is nonsense.
> >
> > > JFS: I am not sure I am going to buy into that. Once a substitution
> > > has been made, then employing it in the original sentence would insure
> > > redundancy. By seeing the "spirit" as the word-of-God, I see the sword
> > > as the means that "spirit", or word-of-God is spread. I do not require
> > > that you see the simile, or metaphore, as I do. But the metaphor I see
> > > conforms to the "grammar" of the text. You need to amend the
> > > "grammar", so that the text reads differently than what one would
> > > expect. I see no advantage in that admendment and its resultant
> > > reading, but you do. The burden of pursuasion lies with (because you
> > > are admending the expected syntax of the relative pronoun).
> >
> > > John Sanders
> > > Suzhou, China
> >
> >
> > LJ: You are right-I made a mistake in using the relative clause after the
> > substitution was made. In fact I realized my error before I read your post
> > and was going to correct it.
> >
> > However, the substitution of hRHMA TOU QEOU for PNEUMATOS, which you see as
> > the antecedent of the relative pronoun, still results in the phrase "the
> > sword of the word of God" (which, if one is to make any sense at all of it,
> > has to be understood as "the-word-of-God sword," "the word of God" being
> > understood adjectivally).  Your interpretation of this is, "By seeing the
> > 'spirit' as the word-of-God, I see the sword as the means that 'spirit,' or
> > word-of-God is spread." Am I really seeing what I am reading? Are you
> > actually saying that Paul is urging the Ephesians to use a literal sword to
> > spread the message of the gospel?
> >
> >
> > Leonard Jayawardena
> >
>
>
>
> -- 
> John Sanders
> Suzhou, China
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/696 - Release Date: 02/21/2007 3:19
PM




More information about the B-Greek mailing list