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.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 ;
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?