Rom. 6:16 παριστάνετε ἑαυτοὺς δούλους εἰς ὑπακοήν

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
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Rom. 6:16 παριστάνετε ἑαυτοὺς δούλους εἰς ὑπακοήν

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Romans 6:16 wrote:Οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ᾧ παριστάνετε ἑαυτοὺς δούλους εἰς ὑπακοήν , δοῦλοί ἐστε ᾧ ὑπακούετε , ἤτοι ἁμαρτίας εἰς θάνατον , ἢ ὑπακοῆς εἰς δικαιοσύνην ;
The main grammatical "difficulty" in reading this verse seems to be that while the first ᾧ is the indirect object of a verb with an accusative & dative pattern, while the second ᾧ (the direct object of ὑπακούειν) resolves as an αὐτοῦ ᾧ / τοῦτου ᾧ. After that is overcome, there seems to be a difficulty is in the construction of the argument.

In the construction of the argument, there seems to be a "logical" introduction of the idea of δούλους here in this verse. Are there other examples of where this verb is used with the second accusative as a δούλος.

It seems to me that the argument plays on the polysemy (one then the other of the two meanings in BDAG) of the κυριεύειν in verses 14 and 16. In the first instance, sin holds control over someome, and in the second instance the opposite of κυριεύειν within the master - slave relationship is δουλεύειν (as are κύριος / κυρία and δούλος / δούλη in one of their meanings). "Holds sway over" in verse 14 becomes an implied "is the owner of" in verse 16. It seems from the construction of an argument like to work, i.e. for that word-play to have been convincing, παρίστημι would have had to work with δούλον. For that perhaps it needs a nuance of "dedicate for service".

Can anyone untie me from my own contortions?
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Michael W Abernathy
Posts: 20
Joined: June 11th, 2015, 3:43 pm

Re: Rom. 6:16 παριστάνετε ἑαυτοὺς δούλους εἰς ὑπακοήν

Post by Michael W Abernathy »

Stephen,
Why did you decide both uses of ῷ were indirect objects? What if you take the first as a dative of reference and the second as a dative of possession?
"Don't you know that to whatever (or whoever) you present yourselves as slaves in obedience, You are slaves to whatever (or whoever) you obey."
Sincerely,
Michael Abernathy
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Rom. 6:16 παριστάνετε ἑαυτοὺς δούλους εἰς ὑπακοήν

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Michael W Abernathy wrote:Why did you decide both uses of ῷ were indirect objects? What if you take the first as a dative of reference and the second as a dative of possession?
"Don't you know that to whatever (or whoever) you present yourselves as slaves in obedience, You are slaves to whatever (or whoever) you obey."
Is this a question about terminology or about the syntactic structure?

If it is the first type of question, then let me say that I don't like the terms "direct" and "indirect" objects at all, but it is really difficult to get understood here without using them.

If it is about syntactic constructions:

For the first one:
Romans 6:13 wrote:ἀλλὰ παραστήσατε ἑαυτοὺς τῷ θεῷ
I took that in this meaning, the syntactic construction suitable for παρίστημι is a construction like δίδωμι is found in.

For the second one:
δοῦλοί ἐστε ᾧ ὑπακούετε
The person to whom one is obedient to is regularly put into the dative - you can easily verify that for yourself. The case of relative is more often than not significant for the phrase that follows it. The genitive is used in constructions like καὶ ἦμεν τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς, (Eph. 2:3) and ἐσμὲν τέκνα θεοῦ· (Rom. 8:16). So I understand δοῦλοί ἐστε {τοὐτου} ᾧ ὑπακούετε. What you have suggested would be resolved as perhaps; δοῦλοί ἐστε {τοὐτῳ} ᾧ ὑπακούετε. In that reading, the referent of the pronominal portion of both verbs is second person singular, and the cases are both dative singular. One of the ways to remove redundancy in Greek is to put one of the verbs in to the participial form. That would end up with a form perhaps like δοῦλοί ἐστε τῷ ἐπιτάσσοντι (if ἐπιτάσσειν is an appropriate opposite to ὑπακούειν - only used in the active).
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Rom. 6:16 παριστάνετε ἑαυτοὺς δούλους εἰς ὑπακοήν

Post by cwconrad »

Stephen Hughes wrote:
Romans 6:16 wrote:Οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ᾧ παριστάνετε ἑαυτοὺς δούλους εἰς ὑπακοήν , δοῦλοί ἐστε ᾧ ὑπακούετε , ἤτοι ἁμαρτίας εἰς θάνατον , ἢ ὑπακοῆς εἰς δικαιοσύνην ;
The main grammatical "difficulty" in reading this verse seems to be that while the first ᾧ is the indirect object of a verb with an accusative & dative pattern, while the second ᾧ (the direct object of ὑπακούειν) resolves as an αὐτοῦ ᾧ / τοῦτου ᾧ. After that is overcome, there seems to be a difficulty is in the construction of the argument.

In the construction of the argument, there seems to be a "logical" introduction of the idea of δούλους here in this verse. Are there other examples of where this verb is used with the second accusative as a δούλος.

It seems to me that the argument plays on the polysemy (one then the other of the two meanings in BDAG) of the κυριεύειν in verses 14 and 16. In the first instance, sin holds control over someome, and in the second instance the opposite of κυριεύειν within the master - slave relationship is δουλεύειν (as are κύριος / κυρία and δούλος / δούλη in one of their meanings). "Holds sway over" in verse 14 becomes an implied "is the owner of" in verse 16. It seems from the construction of an argument like to work, i.e. for that word-play to have been convincing, παρίστημι would have had to work with δούλον. For that perhaps it needs a nuance of "dedicate for service".

Can anyone untie me from my own contortions?
It may be that the issue is the one at stake in Erasmus' De libero arbitrio and Luther's response in De servo arbitrio. It seems to me that the awkwardness of the argument derives from Paul's readiness to personify abstractions (ἁμαρτία, ὑπακοή) and to play with such contradictions as "servitude to obedience". On the other hand, the antithesis here may well be rooted in the Mosaic perception of the alternatives confronting Israel: bondage to Pharaoh or bondage to YHWH, "whose service is pure freedom". I certainly won't endeavor or dare to broach theological issues or paradoxes here, but I'm suggesting that the difficulty may lie in the way the concepts are manipulated rather than in the grammar.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Michael W Abernathy
Posts: 20
Joined: June 11th, 2015, 3:43 pm

Re: Rom. 6:16 παριστάνετε ἑαυτοὺς δούλους εἰς ὑπακοήν

Post by Michael W Abernathy »

Sorry Stephen,
You confused me. I'm used to seeing dative as a reference to case. Since the dative has multiple uses which can include that of indirect object. I thought you were applying it in that way. Of course the dative is used when indicating one person is obedient to another. But when I read Deuteronomy 6:21 Οἰκέται ἦμεν τῷ Φαραω I think of that as equivalent to "We were Pharaoh's slaves" instead of "We were slaves to Pharaoh." Which I guess is technically correct. It just strikes me as awkward English.
Sincerely,
Michael Abernathy
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Rom. 6:16 παριστάνετε ἑαυτοὺς δούλους εἰς ὑπακοήν

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Stephen Hughes wrote:The person to whom one is obedient to is regularly put into the dative
Michael W Abernathy wrote:You confused me. I'm used to seeing dative as a reference to case
Person here is ἄνθρωπος (人), not πρὀσωπον (人称).
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”