Grace Theological Journal 9.2 (1988) 233-56.
[Copyright © 1988 Grace
Theological Seminary; cited with permission;
digitally prepared for use at
RELATIVE CLAUSES
IN THE
GREEK NEW TESTAMENT:
A STATISTICAL STUDY
JAMES L. BOYER
Relative
clauses form one of the two main forms of subordinate
clauses in NT Greek. Relative clauses may function adjectivally,
nominally, or adverbially. A special use of the relative clause is
found
alternating clauses connected by me<n and de<. A relative clause is
introduced by a relative pronoun that relates the clause to an ante-
cedent. Generally, the relative agrees with the antecedent in
gender
and number, but its case is determined by its function in its
own
clause. Examination of its use in the NT, however, reveals several
categories of exceptions to this general rule. The use of moods in
relative clauses is governed by the same principles as those in
effect
for independent clauses. Generally, there is little confusion
over the
use of relative pronouns and their antecedents. However, there
are a
few problem passages (e.g., Matt 26:50,. 2 Pet 1:4, 3:6; and 1
John
* * *
INTRODUCTION
STRUCTURALLY
there are two main forms of subordinate clauses in
NT
Greek: those introduced by relatives and those by conjunc-
tions. The relative clauses
are the subject of this article.1
A relative clause is introduced by a relative
word, either a rela-
tive pronoun or adjective or
adverb. The statement made by the
1 (Statistical information used in the
preparation of this article was generated using
GRAM
CORD, a computer-based grammatical concordance of the Greek NT (see my
article, "Project Gramcord:
A Report," GTJ 1 [1980] 97-99).
The present article is part
of the following series of my articles based on
GRAMCORD published in GTJ:
"First
Class
Conditions: What Do They Mean?" GTJ
2 (1981) 75-114; "Second Class Con-
ditions in New Testament
Greek," GTJ 3 (1982) 81-88;
"Third (and Fourth) Class
Conditions,"
GTJ 3 (1982) 163-75; "Other
Conditional Elements in New Testament
Greek,"
GTJ 4 (1983) 173-88; "The
Classification of Participles: A Statistical Study,"
GTJ 5 (1984) 163-79;
"The Classification of Infinitives: A Statistical Study," GTJ 6
234
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
relative clause might stand alone as an
independent sentence, but the
speaker chooses to "relate" it
subordinately to some noun or other
substantival expression in the main
clause by using a special relative
word for that purpose. The element to which it is
related is called the
antecedent.
The relative pronouns that will be under
consideration in this
study are the regular relative, o!j, h!, o!, the indefinite relative
o!stij
h!tij, o!
ti, the correlatives o!soj, oi$oj, o[poi?oj, and h[li<koj.
The last
four sometimes also function adjectivally and the
last only as an
adjective. Clauses introduced by relative adverbs
could also be in-
cluded in a study of relative
clauses, but they are sufficiently distinc-
tive to merit separate
consideration as adverbial clauses.2 However,
those clauses introduced by an adverbial phrase that
incorporates the
relative pronoun (such as a]nq ] w$n or e!wj ou$) will be included here
since they involve a relative pronoun directly.3
CLASSIFICATION OF RELATIVE CLAUSES
Clauses may be analyzed on the bases of
structure (main, coor-
dinate, or subordinate),
grammatical function (nominal, adjectival, or
adverbial), and semantical
function. Relative clauses are subordinate
and may function in any of the grammatical categories
listed. Seman-
tically, relative clauses may
be classified as temporal, conditional,
causal, modal (manner), purpose, or result.
Adjectival Relative
Clauses
The primary, basic significance of the relative
clause is adjectival.
In
a sense all relative clauses are adjectival. Like the substantive use
of an adjective, a relative clause by the omission
of the antecedent can
become a substantive or noun clause and by association
with various
words and with prepositions the adjective may become
adverbial. But
(1985)
29-48; "The Classification of Subjunctives: A Statistical Study," GTJ 7 (1986)
3-19;
"A Classification of Imperatives: A Statistical Study," GTJ 8 (1987) 35-54; and
"The Classification of Optatives:
A Statistical Study," GTJ 9
(1988) 129-40.
Infor-
mational materials and listings
generated in the preparation of this article may be
found in my "Supplemental Manual of Information:
Relative Clauses" (available
through interlibrary loan from the Morgan
Library, Grace Theological Seminary, 200
able through my co-developer Paul R. Miller, Project
GRAM CORD, 18897 Deerpath
Road,
2 I plan to undertake a statistical study
of adverbial clauses in the future.
3 There is one use of the relative pronoun
that does not always involve a clause,
and thus does not fall strictly within the scope
indicated by the title of this paper.
However,
since it usually does so, it will be included. See "The Alternating Use of
the
Relative,"
below.
BOYER:
RELATIVE CLAUSES IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 235
the true adjectival use is by far the most frequent
(1079 [64%] out of
1680).
Adjectival relative clauses may be descriptive
or restrictive (identi-
fying), just as other
adjectives. Adjectival clauses are descriptive when
they ascribe a quality or attribute to the
antecedent, and restrictive
when they define or identify the antecedent. The two
categories are
not mutually exclusive, and they may overlap,
requiring subjective
judgment on the part of the interpreter. For
example, e]c h$j
e]gennh<qh
]Ihsou?j = 'from whom Jesus was
born' (Matt
ing Mary as Jesus' mother,
or it could be distinguishing her from
others of the same name (i.e., the Mary who bore
Jesus). The context
seems to suggest the descriptive sense. But in spite
of the subjectivity,
the distinction is real and useful. In Matt 2:6 the
sense is clearly
descriptive ("a Ruler, who will shepherd My
people
2:9
the relative clause is clearly restrictive ("the star, which they had
seen in the East"). There are, based on my
judgment, 225 descriptive
and 432 restrictive relative clauses in the NT).5
Another category needs to be recognized which
goes beyond the
functions of regular adjectives. Blass, in his
treatment of sentence
structure, speaks of two types of Greek prose; the
periodic style,
characterized by artistically
developed prose, and the running or
continuous style, characterized by plain and
unsophisticated language.
The
running style is found in two patterns. One pattern has a series of
separate sentences, usually connected by kai<. The other pattern ex-
tends the first statement by means of participial
phrases, clauses
introduced by o!ti, or relative clauses.
Blass defines this 'Relative
Connective'
as "a loosening of the connection of the relative clause to
the preceding complex sentence; something
intermediate between a
relative clause and a demonstrative clause: o!j = and this, but this,
this very thing."6
The relative connective use of the relative
clause becomes quite
obvious when modern speech English versions of
the NT are com-
pared with older translations that follow the grammar
of the Greek.
Long
sentences are broken down into many shorter ones in con-
formity to modern style. In many
instances the break occurs where
the Greek has a relative. For example, Paul's
"long sentence," Eph
1:4-14,
is divided by the KJV into three sentences; the last two
sentences open with a relative clause. The NASB
and the NIV break
it into six sentences; after the first sentence
all but two breaks come at
4 Translations will be given from the NASB
unless otherwise stated.
5 Lists of these and many other helpful
details which cannot be included in this
article are available in the supplementary
manual listed in n. 1.
6 BDF, 239.
236
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
a relative. Even the Nestle26 Greek
text divides the passage into four
sentences; after the opening one each begins with
a relative.
Another indication that the Greek relative
serves as a connective
is seen in an examination of the ways in which the
NASB, which
follows the Greek syntax more closely than other
modern versions,
translates the relative in the NT. In approximately
10% of all occur-
rences (160 out of 1680) it
translates the relative by using a personal
or demonstrative pronoun, even on occasion
inserting a noun, thus
removing the "relation" supplied by the
relative.
Such relative connectives are still adjectival
and could probably
be classified as either descriptive or
restrictive, but the consideration
that has prompted their separate treatment is the
fact that they move
the thought of the sentence into a new area. By my
count, there are
422 relative connectives in the NT.
Nominal Relative Clauses
There are 473 relative clauses in the NT for which
the antecedent
of the relative pronoun is lacking, left to be
supplied, or understood.
The
relative pronoun is usually translated by "the one who," "that
which," or "what" (= "that
which," not the interrogative). Actually, it
is better to consider the relative as containing in
itself its antecedent,
and the entire clause becomes in effect a substantive.7
The clause itself
becomes the subject or object of the sentence,
or fills some other
function in the sentence.
When a nominal relative clause comes at the
beginning or early
in a sentence, it sometimes happens that a
redundant personal or
demonstrative pronoun is used later
in the sentence. The redundant
pronoun is called a pleonastic pronoun. This
construction was found
in Classical Greek, but it is much more common in
biblical Greek,
due probably to the influence of a similar Semitic
idiom.
A nominal relative clause may be categorized
according to its
function in a sentence. The two most common
functions are subject
or direct object of a verb, but other noun functions
are found as well.
Subject
of the Verb
Of the nominal relative clauses, 139 (29%) serve
as subject of a
sentence. Examples are Luke 7:4; a@cio<j e]stin &$ pare<c^ tou?to, "the
7 Grammarians describe this situation
differently. For example, BAGD (p. 583)
says, "A demonstrative pron.
is freq. concealed within the relative pron." But W. W.
Goodwin
(Greek Grammar, rev. C. B. Gulick [Boston: Ginn, 1930] 219)
says, "In such
cases it is a mistake to say that tau?ta, e]kei?noi, etc. are understood.
. . . The relative
clause here really becomes a substantive, and contains
its antecedent within itself."
BOYER:
RELATIVE CLAUSES IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 237
one to whom you should grant this is worthy"
(my translation; the
NASB alters the sentence
structure, "He is worthy for you to grant
this
to him") and John
kai>
me<non e]h ] au]to<n, ou$to<j
e]stin o[ bapti<zwn,
"He upon whom you
see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him,
this is the one
who baptizes." The last example illustrates
also the pleonastic pro-
noun, ou$toj, which repeats the
subject. Eleven subject clauses use a
pleonastic pronoun.
Direct
Object of the Verb
The largest number of the nominal relative
clauses, 222 (47%),
function as direct object of the verb; in 31
instances a pleonastic
pronoun is also used. Mark
se<negke peri>
tou? kaqarismou?
sou a{ prose<tacen Mwu*sh?j, "offer for
your cleansing what Moses commanded." In Rom
7:15, 16 this con-
struction occurs four times,
three of them with the pleonastic pro-
noun (e.g., a]ll ] o{ misw? tou?to
poiw?, "the thing I hate, this I do" [my
translation]).
Other
Nominative
Other than as subject, the nominal relative
clause is found in a
nominative case relationship most frequently as a
predicative nomina-
tive in a copulative
sentence (19 times). An example is found in John
said." In four instances there may be a
nominative absolute construc-
tion (Matt
Other
Accusative
Other than as direct object, the nominal
relative clause is in an
accusative relationship 17 times: as object of a
preposition (10 times);
as the complement of a direct objective (twice);
and once each as
accusative of person, of thing, and of respect; in
apposition to a direct
object; and subject of an infinitive. For example, in
2 Cor
pwj
e]lqw>n ou]k oi!oj qe<lw
eu!rw u[ma?j ka]gw> eu[reqw?
u[mi?n oi$on ou]
qe<lete, "afraid that. . .
I may find you to be not what I wish and may
be
found by you to be not what you wish," the clause ou]x
oi!ouj qe<lw
is the complement to the direct object u[ma?j.
In the latter part of the
sentence the same construction is somewhat
obscured by the verb
changing to passive.
clause as accusative object of a preposition: di ] a! e@rxetai
h[ o]rgh> tou?
qeou?, "on account of
which things the wrath of God comes" (my I
translation).
238
GRACE
THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
Genitive
Substantive
The nominal relative clause occurs in a genitive
relation to the
sentence 31 times: as genitive object of a
preposition (17 times), as a
partitive genitive (6 times), as
an epexegetic genitive (4 times), as a
genitive of comparison (twice), as a genitive of
relationship (once),
and as a genitive of content (once). An example of
a partitive genitive
is
found in Rom
sato
Xristo>j di ] e]mou?, "For I will not
presume to speak of anything
except what Christ has accomplished through me."
A genitive of
comparison is found in John 7:31: o[
Xristo>j o!tan e@l^ mh> plei<ona
shmei?a
poih<sei w$n ou$toj e]poi<hsen;
"When the Christ will come, He
will not perform more signs than those which this
man has, will He?"
Dative
Substantive
The nominal relative clause is dative 41 times
(13 with a pleon-
astic pronoun): as indirect
object (19 times), as object of a preposition
(15
times), as dative of possession (5 times), and once each as dative
of respect and of instrument. An example of an
indirect object is
found in Gal 3:19: to> spe<rma &$ e]ph<ggeltai, "the seed. . . to whom
the promise had been made." A dative of
possession is found in Mark
this mountain. . . it shall be granted him
[literally 'it shall be to him',
or, 'it shall be his']." Here the pleonastic
pronoun au]t&? helps
to
identify the case and the construction.
Adverbial Clauses
Ninety times in the NT the relative, together
with a preposition
or some specific word expressing an adverbial
idea, or both, becomes
an introductory phrase for a clause functioning
adverbially. The
adverbial sense does not derive from the relative
but from the preposi-
tion and the antecedent of
the relative. Fuller treatment of adverbial
clauses (including those introduced by a
relative) is planned for a
future study, but a brief discussion is included here
for the sake of
completeness.
Temporal
Clauses
Of the approximately 420 subordinate temporal
clauses in the
NT,
57 are introduced by a relative phrase. The temporal sense is
indicated by the antecedent of the relative,
sometimes expressed but
more commonly omitted. When it is not stated it can
be determined
reasonably by the gender of the relative and the
analogy of instances
where it is used. The antecedent most frequently is xro<noj in its
proper case form (47 times, 5 of them actually
expressed), then h[me<ra
BOYER:
RELATIVE CLAUSES IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 239
(9
times, .7 expressed), and w!ra (once only, understood from the
context). The simple relative o!j; is used in 36
instances, o!stij is seen 5
times in the phrase e!wj
o!tou, and the correlative o!soj
6 times.
The actual phrases and the number of occurrences
in the NT
are listed here. Brackets indicate that the
antecedent is left to be
understood:
a]f ] h$j
h[me<raj 3
a]f ] h$j [ h[me<raj 2
a]f ] h$j [ w!raj 1
a]f ] ou$ [ xro<nou 4
e]n &$ [ xro<n& 4
e]f ] o!son xro<non 2
e]f ] o!son
[ xro<non 1
o!son
xro<non 3
a@xri h$j h[me>raj 4
a@xri ou$ [ xro<nou 4
a@xrij ou$ [ xro<nou 5
me<xri
ou$ [ xro<nou 2
e!wj
ou$ [ xro<nou 7
e!wj
o!tou [xro>nou 5
Causal
Clauses
There are 16 clauses classified as causal
clauses introduced by
relative phrases. The causal sense is indicated
by the prepositions
used, by the antecedent, or by both. The phrases and
number of
occurrences are:
di ] h$n ai]ti<an 5
di ] h$n 1
h$n
ai]ti<an 1
a]nq
] w$n 5
e]f ] &$ 2
ei@neken ou$ 1
ou$
xa<rin 1
Dia< with accusative, ei!neken
and xa<rin all mean 'on account
of',
or 'because of'. ]Anq
] w$n 'in exchange for these
things' may be
understood as "because of these things." ]Ef
] &$ may be contracted
from
e]f ] &$ tou<t&
o!ti 'for this reason
that' or 'because.8 Six times the
causal sense is shown by ai]ti<a as the antecedent, one time without a
preposition. Once (2 Pet
cedent, not ai]ti<a, yet the sense is causal
rather than temporal, as dia<
8 Cf. BAGD, 287.
240
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
with the accusative requires. Nine times the
relative is neuter with no
antecedent, pointing to the general context for the
reason or cause.9
Clauses
Expressing Degree or Measure
Ten adverbial relative clauses express degree or
measure, in each
case introduced by the correlative o!soj, a word involving the idea of
quantity or measure. The adverbial clause answers
the questions, how
much? or to what degree?
In three of these clauses the relative has an
adverb as its ante-
cedent (ma?llon in Mark
Actually
the last two do not involve a clause at all, functioning as
simple adverbs. These are unusual constructions, but
not improper.
Clauses
Expressing Manner
The phrases o{n
tro<pon (5 times) and kaq ] o{n tro<pon (twice)
both mean "according to the manner which."
These phrases clearly
introduce a clause of manner.
Other Adverbial Clauses?
Mention should be made here of certain relative
clauses, called
by some grammarians "conditional relative
clauses" and "relative
purpose clauses" (and a few others which,
if valid, should be included
here but are not). I have previously discussed
"conditional relative
c!auses," and concluded
that, while the clauses may contain a sugges-
tion of condition, they are
not, and should not be, classified as
conditional sentences.10
The situation is much the same with the so-called
"relative pur-
pose clause," or other clauses that may suggest
other adverbial senses.
As
A. T. Robertson says,
Almost any sentence is capable of being changed
into some other form
as a practical equivalent.
The relative clause may indeed have a resul-
tant effect of cause,
condition, purpose or result, but in itself it expresses
none of these things. It is
like the participle in this respect. One must
not read into it more than
is there. . . 11 As in Latin, the relative clause
may imply cause, purpose,
result, concession or condition, though the
sentence itself does not say
this much. This is due to the logical relation
in the sentence. The sense
glides from mere explanation to ground or
9 Some see a similar
causal or instrumental sense in some of the occurrences of
e]n
&$ (Rom
8:3;
10 See my article,
"Other Conditional Elements in New Testament Greek," 185-86.
11 A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the
Light of
Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman, 1934) 956.
BOYER:
RELATIVE CLAUSES IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 241
reason. . . . 12
The indefinite relative like o{j
e]a>n qe<l^ (Mk.
o!stij
o[mologh<sei (Mt.
clause with e]a<n
tij or ei@
tij. But, after all, it is not a conditional
sentence any more than the
so-called causal, final, consecutive relative
clauses are really so. It is
only by the context that anyone inferentially
gets any of these ideas out
of the relative.13
Alternating Use of
Relative with Me<n,
De<
The relative pronoun is used with the particles me<n and de< to
express alternatives, such as are expressed in
English by "the one. . .
the other" or "some. . . others."
This is about the only remainder in
NT
Greek of an original demonstrative sense of the relative pronoun.14
The
article also (o[
me<n . .
. o[ de<) is used in this alternating construc-
tion, reflecting the same
historical origin as a demonstrative. Certain
other words, a@lloj (24 times), e!teroj (10 times), and the indefinite
tine<j (5 times), are also so
used. Often these different patterns are
mixed together in one set of such alternative
expressions. Even a@lloj
and e!teroj mingle in the same set
in a way that seems to defy
explanation (cf. 1 Cor
12:8-10). The number of occurrences in the
NT
for these alternating expressions are as follows:
Relatives only (o{j
me<n . .
. o{j de<) 13
Article only (o[
me<n . .
. o[ de<) 10
Other words only 9
Relative combined with article 2
Relative combined with other words 5
Article combined with other words 7
Total sets of alternatives 46
Total number of relatives involved 38
The
sets may consist of two alternatives (26 times), of three (11
times), of four (6 times), and one set of nine
alternatives.
The first item in the list is not always marked
by me<n (9 excep-
tions). Instead, the numeral ei$j, the indefinite pronoun tine<j, the
demonstrative article oi[ de<, even a noun (Heb
genitive phrase (John
item. The alternate items of each list are almost
invariably marked by
de<
the only
exceptions are in the parallel passages, Mark 4:5 and
Luke
8:6, where kai>
a@lla or kai>
e!teron is found, respectively.
1 Cor
12 Ibid., 960.
13 Ibid., 961-62.
14 Ibid., 695-96.
242 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
other" pattern; the numbered items following the
first are not alterna-
tives to, but descriptions
of, the first. Thus it is not classified in this
group.
THE MECHANICS OF RELATIVE
CLAUSES
In this section the various relative pronouns
will be discussed.
This
will be followed by a discussion of the antecedents. Finally, the
matter of agreement between relative pronouns and
their antecedents
will be analyzed.
The Relative Pronoun
By far the most frequently used relative pronoun
is o!j, h!, o!
(1395
times, or 83% of the total). It is found in almost
every gender,
number, and case, and in every functional
classification except one,
where the sense calls for the quantitative o!soj.
!Ostij,
h!tij, o! ti is second in frequency
(153 or 9%). This word
is a compound of the common relative o!j and the indefinite pronoun
tij, with both parts of the
compound experiencing inflection. This
compounding with the indefinite and the use of the
word in the early
Greek
gave it the name Indefinite Relative. But the name is no longer
appropriate in the Greek of the NT. Blass says that o!j and o!stij "are
no longer clearly distinguished in the NT."15
W. F. Howard16 shows
that o!stij occurs almost solely in
the nominative case and in the
accusative neuter, the only exception being an old
genitive singular
neuter form surviving in the stereotyped phrase e!wj o!tou. N. Turner
says,
Already in the Koine
the distinction between the relative pronoun of
individual and definite reference
(o!j and o!soj) and that of general and
indeterminate reference (o!stij and o[po<soj) has become almost com-
pletely blurred. Indeed in
general relative clauses o!j is the rule, and
although o!stij is still used occasionally in its proper sense
of whoever,
it is nearly always
misused, by Attic standards, of a definite and
particular person.17
Cadbury18
makes the difference almost a matter of inflection, asserting
that in Luke the normal inflection is o!j, h!tij, o! (nominative
singular)
and oi!tinej,
ai!tinej, a! (nominative plural).
15 BDF, 152.
16 W. F. Howard, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 2, Accidence and
Word Formation (Edinburgh: T. & T,
Clark, 1920) 179.
17 N. Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 3, Syntax (
T.&T. Clark, 1963)47.
18 H. J. Cadbury, "The Relative
Pronouns in Acts and Elsewhere," JBL
42 (1923)
150-57.
He claims only four exceptions in about 200 occurrences.
BOYER:
RELATIVE CLAUSES IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 243
!Osoj is a correlative
pronoun which adds the concept of quan-
tity to the relative concept
and can be translated ''as much as,'' "how
much," or ''as great as.'' It is used of space
and time, of quantity and
number, or of measure and degree. With pa<ntej
it means "all who."
With
the correlative demonstrative tosou?toj it describes one item by
comparing it with another quantitatively. It
occurs 110 times in the
NT
(about 6.5% of the relatives) and in every major classification of
relative uses.
Oi$oj is much like o!soj but is qualitative
rather than quantitative.
It
is usually translated "of what sort" or "such as.'' It is used
in simple
relative clauses and in indirect questions and
exclamations. Only 14
instances occur (less than 1%).
[Opoi?oj, like oi$oj, is qualitative, "of what sort." It is used, much
as oi$oj, in simple relative
clauses and in indirect questions. There are
only 5 occurrences (less than 0.3%). [Opo<soj ("how great,"
"how
much"), which relates to o!soj in the same way that o[poi?oj does to
oi!oj, does not occur at all
in the NT.
[Hli<koj, "how large,"
"how small," occurs only three times in
the NT, always of size or stature (its cognate noun
h[liki<a is used
both of age and stature). The pronoun is used only
in indirect
questions.
The Antecedent
Definitions
A pronoun is a standardized, abbreviated
substitute for a noun.
Every
pronoun has an antecedent, the nominal in place of which the
pronoun stands. A relative pronoun introduces a
subordinate relative
clause that makes an assertion about the pronoun's
antecedent. In
Luke
shall be for all people." By dropping the relative
“which” and repeat-
ing the antecedent
"joy" the statement may be restated as two
sentences: "I bring you good news of a great
joy. That great joy shall
be for all people." Thus the relative is the subordinating link
and the
antecedent is the point of linkage in putting
together two clauses.
Grammatical
Form of Antecedent
The antecedent of a relative pronoun may be a simple
noun or a
substantival expression. By
approximate count, 900 antecedents of
relative pronouns are nouns, 150 are pronouns,
160 are other sub-
stantival expressions, 100 are
the subject expressed in the person and
number of the verb, and 340 antecedents are left to be
understood
from the context. Very unusual are three whose
antecedent is an
244
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
adverb (see above under the heading, Clauses
Expressing Degree or
Measure).
The large number of noun antecedents needs no
comment. The
pronouns are mostly personal or demonstrative.
The pleonastic pro-
noun antecedent will be discussed below. Also, the
antecedent found
in the inflection of the verb is self-explanatory.
Of the other sub-
stantival expressions, a
pronominal adjective is found most often as
the antecedent of a relative pronoun (forms of pa?j [50+ times]; its
opposite ou]dei<j; [13 times]; specific numbers like ei$j or dw<deka.
[10
times]; and indefinite numbers like polu<j, a@lloj, e!teroj, and loipo<j
[17 times]). Other substantival adjectives account for about 25 ante-
cedents. Substantival
participles are antecedents in 38 instances. In
three places (Acts
an attributive prepositional phrase. A quoted
scriptural passage that
functions as a noun clause is used as the
antecedent of a relative
pronoun in Eph 6:2. Even an infinitive serves as
an antecedent in
Phil
4:10.
In many places the relative has no specific
antecedent stated in
the sentence (about 340 times). In some of these
cases it is possible to
supply from the context a word which may be given as
an understood
antecedent. But in most of these cases the
antecedent is rather to be
seen as implicit in the relative itself. Often the
clue is in the gender of
the relative. Masculine and feminine may mean
"the one who." Neuter
may mean "the thing which," "that
which," or "what." The neuter
relative may also be used to refer generally to
the idea or sense of the
context. This implicit or "understood"19
antecedent is especially com-
mon when a relative clause
itself functions as a noun clause, and the
antecedent implicit in the relative explains why a
following pronoun
is called pleonastic or redundant.
Location
of Antecedent
The very term antecedent suggests that the
antecedent comes
before the relative, as it actually does in 1089 cases
(about 82%). But
in 244 cases the antecedent follows the relative
in the sentence. If one
subtracts the 69 places where the pleonastic
pronoun is counted as an
antecedent following the relative, there are 175
cases (less than 13%)
in which the antecedent follows the relative.
How far before or after the relative the
antecedent may be found
is not easy to summarize even with all the
statistics at hand. Counting
inclusively (that is, a count of two means it is the
next word) a few
observations may be helpful. Full
statistics are available.
19 See n. 7.
BOYER:
RELATIVE CLAUSES IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 245
Antecedent before relative:
Next word before. 39%
5 words
or less before 25%
10 to
20 words before 10%
over 20 words before 3%
Antecedent after relative:
Next
word after 25%
5 words
or less after 71 %
10 to
20 words after 31 %
over 20 words after 4%
Agreement20
Since a relative has connections with both the
antecedent and the
relative clause, its
grammatical identifiers (gender, number, and case)
do double duty. Normally, gender and number agree
with the ante-
cedent, but the case of the
relative is determined by its grammatical
function in its own clause. This normal rule is
true in the NT more
than 96% of the time. The exceptions to this rule
are often called by
grammarians "ad sensum"
agreement, i.e., agreement in sense but not
in grammatical form. The exceptions may be listed
in five categories.
Natural
or Real Versus Grammatical Gender and Number
There are 25 examples in the NT that may be
classified in this
category. Words like e@qnoj, te<knon,
and plh?qoj; are grammatically
neuter, but since they refer to people, sometimes
masculine relatives
are used with them. Words like karpo<j, spo<roj are grammatically
masculine, but they really are things, so neuter
relatives may be used
with them. Qhri<on is neuter, but when it
is used of the human
"beast" of the Revelation, a masculine relative is used.
Kefalh< is
feminine, but when it is used as a figure for
Christ as head of the
church, a masculine relative is used. This real versus
grammatical
distinction sometimes effects agreement in number
also. Ou]rano<j,
whether singular or plural in grammatical form,
may mean simply
"heaven," and once (Phil
singular relative. Similarly, u!dwr in the singular is
found once as the
antecedent of a plural relative (2 Pet 3:6). Nao<j is singular, but when
it is used collectively for the people of God (1 Cor
to by oi!tinej, a plural relative. In
Luke 6:17-18 plh?qoj, a neuter
20 For the rest of this section on the
mechanics of relative clauses, I have depended
largely on the thorough work of A. T. Robertson
(Grammar, 714-22). Very helpful
also is the discussion of o!s in BAGD, 583-85.
246
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
singular antecedent, is found with the masculine
plural oi!
as relative,
illustrating natural or real
agreement in both gender and number.
Translation
Formulas
A rather distinct group
(7 instances) of these "ad sensum" agree-
ments involve a formula for
the translation of names of persons,
places, titles, etc., from one language to another.
The formula appears
in six closely related forms, all of which begin
with the neuter relative
pronoun, o!. The specific phrases
and their number of occurrences in
the NT are as follows:
o! e]stin 621
o! e]stin meqermhneuo<menon 522
o{ e]stin
lego<menoj 123
o{ le<getai 224
o{ le<getai
meqermhneuo<menon 125
o{ e]rmhneu<etai 226
The
antecedent usually is a word that has no grammatical gender in
Greek,
and the neuter relative is a natural one if we understand it to
refer to the "word" itself rather than that
which it designates, mentally
supplying r[h?ma or o@noma.
Agreement
with Predicate Substantives27
Some of the exceptions to the rule of agreement
show an agree-
ment of a different kind;
the relative clause is a copulative one with a
predicate substantive, and the relative agrees in
gender with the
predicate substantive rather than with the
antecedent in the main
clause. An example is found in Eph 6:17: th>n ma<xairan
tou? pneu<ma-
toj,
o! e]stin r[h?ma qeou?, "the sword of the
Spirit, which is the word of
God." The actual antecedent is ma<xairan (feminine), but the predicate
substantive, which is of course referring to the
same thing, is r[h?ma
(neuter), and the relative neuter agrees with it. In every
instance the
predicate substantive is more prominent than the
actual antecedent.
21 Mark 7:11, 34;
22 Mark
23 Matt 27:33.
24 John
25 John.
26 John 1:42; 9:7.
27 Nine instances: Mark
BOYER:
RELATIVE CLAUSES IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 247
Neuter
of General Notion28
Sometimes the .antecedent seems to be not some
specific word
but the general notion, the concept.
pa?sin
de> tou<toij th>n a]ga<phn, o! e]stin
su<ndesmoj th?j teleio<thtoj,
"And
beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of
unity." The antecedent is a]ga<phn (feminine), but the
sense suggested
by the neuter relative seems to be "that thing,
quality, which is the
uniting bond.
Neuter
of Abstraction
In the NT as also classical Greek, and
especially in John's writ-
ings, the neuter is
frequently used of a person when he is being
thought of in an abstract way. This happens at least 6 times29 in
which a neuter relative is used to refer to an
antecedent who is
obviously a person. An example is found in John
17:24: Pa<ter, o{
de<dwka<j
moi, qe<lw i!na o!pou
ei]mi> e]gw> ka]kei?noi w#sin met ] e]mou?,
"Father,
I desire that they also whom [the neuter, o!] Thou has given
Me be with Me where I am." The antecedent is
obviously not im-
personal. This abstract neuter is used elsewhere
of God (John
and of men (John
1 John 1:1-3 has a list of five relative clauses
serving as object of
a verb in v 3. The relatives are all o!
(neuter) and the antecedent is not
stated. Two interpretations are conceivable: one is
impersonal ("we
proclaim
to you the message which"), the other is personal ("we
proclaim
to you the One who"). The obvious parallel to the prologue
of the gospel of John strongly indicates the
personal view, and the use
of the expression o{ . . . ai[ xei?rej h[mw?n
e]yhla<fhsan, "which our
hands handled" (my translation) requires the
personal view--one
cannot feel a message with his hands. What should be
noted par-
ticularly here is that the neuter
does not require the impersonal
interpretation. It may refer in an
abstract way to "all He was and did,
abstract Deity."
Some
General Considerations
First, it should be noted that above exceptions
to the rule of
agreement are not mutually exclusive; some
instances fit into two
28 Seven instances: Matt 12:4; Gal 2:20;
Eph 5:4, 5; Col 3:14; 2 Thess 3:17; 1 Tim
29 John 17:24; I John 1: 1-3 (5 times).
There are other places where the neuter
relative has a grammatically neuter antecedent (pa?n), so that the gender mismatch is
obscured: John 6:37, 39; 17:2.
248
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
of the categories. For example, three relatives
listed as translation of
foreign words also show agreement with the
predicate substantive.
Second, a large number of these "ad sensum" agreements involve
the neuter gender (about three-fourths of the
total), and a large
number involve the specific phrase o!
e]stin. That raises the
possibility
that the phrase has become a stereotyped expression
in which the
gender is "neutral" rather than neuter, like
the Latin id est,
"that is,"
used in English and written in abbreviation,
"i.e." A careful study
shows that o! e]stin often seems to act like
that, but there are other
times when it preserves normal agreement in all three
genders, so
such a conclusion cannot be certain. Another phrase,
tou?t
] e@stin,
"that is," is totally neutral in gender and equals the
use of "i.e."
Third, "ad sensum"
agreement is not peculiar to Greek. It is a
very natural construction which usually causes no
problem of
interpretation.
Attraction30
Attraction involves the case of the relative and
antecedent. The
normal rule is that case is determined by the
grammatical function of
the relative within its own clause. But there are
exceptions to the
general rule in which the relative is attracted
to the case of the
antecedent.
The situations that produce the exceptions to
the general rule
involve a relative whose case is attracted to
the case of the antecedent
(a phenomenon also found in classical Greek, particularly if
the
relative clause was separated from the antecedent
by other modifiers).
Most
often (50 times in the NT), the attraction involves a relative
whose grammatical function in its clause calls for an
accusative, but
the antecedent is either dative or genitive; in
such circumstances, the
relative is generally attracted to the case of
the antecedent. In addi-
tion, there are 10 instances
in the NT where the grammatical function
of a relative calls for the dative case, but the
case is attracted to the
case of a genitive antecedent. Cases of
non-attraction are rare in the
NT (Heb 8:2 and a few variant readings for other
passages).
Inverse
Attraction
Sometimes the reverse of what I have described
as attraction
occurs; the antecedent is attracted to the case of the
relative. An
example is found in Matt
30 Grammarians do not agree on the
terminology here. Goodwin (Grammar,
220-
21)
uses the word "assimilation" for what most
grammarians call "attraction," and
"attraction" for what others call
"incorporation."
BOYER:
RELATIVE CLAUSES IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 249
domou?ntej, ou$toj
e]genh<qh ei]j kefalh>n gwni<aj, "The stone which
the
builders rejected, this became the chief
cornerstone" (cf. Mark
and Luke
as such would be nominative, but it is attracted
to the case of the
relative o!n which is accusative as
direct object of its clause. Note also
the pleonastic ou$toj. Also note that in 1
Pet 2:7 the same quotation is
given without this inverse attraction; li<qoj is nominative. In 1 Cor
subjects of their clauses but are attracted to
the accusative case of the
relatives. Luke
tive case. Inverse
attraction in the NT involves the use of an accusa-
tive for a nominative (7
times), an accusative for a genitive (4 times),
an accusative for a dative (once), a nominative
for a dative (once), a
dative for an accusative (once), and a dative for a
genitive (once).
Inverse attraction usually happens when the
relative clause pre-
cedes the main clause, but the antecedent is pulled
forward (for
emphasis) to a position just before the relative.
In some instances
anacoluthon may be involved; the case of the
antecedent results from
a grammatical construction which is begun, but
not completed.31
Incorporation
Frequently (42 times) the antecedent
is moved out of its position
in the main clause and incorporated into the
relative clause. When
this happens, the antecedent does not have an
article, it usually does
not follow immediately after the relative (except
in a few set phrases:
o{n
pro<pon, ^$ h[me<r%, ^$ w!r%,
di ] h{n ai]ti<an), and it is in the same case
as the relative, either by attraction or because
both have the same
natural case. Examples are found in Mark
]Iwa<nnhn,
ou$toj h]ge<rqh,
"John, whom I beheaded, he has risen" and
Luke
which they had seen."
With
Prepositions
When either or both the antecedent and the
relative stand in a
prepositional phrase, a variety of
forms may result. The preposition
may appear with both (e.g., Acts
with the relative only (e.g., John
the antecedent only (e.g., Acts
the antecedent is unexpressed, the preposition may
be the one com-
mon to both (e.g., 2 Cor 2:3: a]f ] w$n), the one which belongs
to the
relative (e.g., Luke 17:1: di ] ou$
= tou<t& di ] ou$),
or the one which
31Cf. Robertson, Grammar, 718.
250
GRACE
THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
would have been used with the antecedent (e.g., John
17:9: peri>
w$n = peri> tou<twn ou!j).
MOODS USED IN RELATIVE
CLAUSES
The relative has no affect whatever on the mood.
The mood in
relative clauses is governed by the same
principles as it would be in an
independent clause, and conveys the same semantic
significance.
Indicative
The indicative is the most common mood used in
relative clauses
(1436 [84%] out of 1680). All the tenses are
represented.
Subjunctive
The subjunctive also is used frequently (159 times
[9%]). Only
present subjunctives (38 times) and aorist
subjunctives (121 times) are
found in relative clauses in the NT.
The basic significance of the subjunctive mood
is potentiality or
indefiniteness, both involving
futurity. This element is always present
in relative clauses which use a subjunctive verb.
Ou]
Mh<, with the Subjunctive
Elsewhere32 this use of the
subjunctive in emphatic future asser-
tions has been discussed. It
is usually found in main clauses but may be
used anywhere an indicative can be used. The
strangeness of the use of
the subjunctive for emphatic assertion may be
explained by the signifi-
cance of the two negatives.
The mh<, immediately preceding
the subjunc-
tive verb negates the verb,
making the clause a doubtful assertion.
The
ou] before the mh<, negates the
doubtfulness, making the total
expression mean "not doubtful," "no
doubt about it." Thus, the
subjunctive is a "positively negated"
future potentiality. It is found in
8
relative clauses in the NT, involving 9 subjunctive verbs.33
Indefinite
Relative Clauses
These are the clauses which in English add the
suffix "ever" to
the relative introducing the clause
("whoever" or "whatever," refer-
ring to an indefinite or general antecedent). Most
(61 %) are nominal
clauses, serving as the subject or object of the
main verb or some
other substantival
function. About one-fourth are adjectival. Typically
they are introduced by a relative with a@n or e]a<n (124); the relative is
32 Cf. my article,
"Subjunctives," 6.
33 Matt
BOYER:
RELATIVE CLAUSES IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 251
o!j (101 times), o!soj (12 times), or o!stij (11 times). Once the
indefinite
relative o!stij is used without a@n (James
relative is used with the indefinite pronoun ti as its antecedent (Heb
8:3).
One indefinite relative clause is so compressed that it is difficult
to analyze (Acts
subjunctive mood.
Relative
Adverbial Clauses of Time
This group of relative clauses has been
discussed above and
needs here only to be looked at with respect to the
mood used. All of
the other adverbial relative clauses and more than
two-thirds of the
relative temporal clauses use the indicative
mood. But about one-
third of the relative temporal clauses use the
subjunctive. Relative
temporal clauses follow the standard procedure
for all temporal
clauses. When the sense is "until" and
the time "until which" is either
future or unknown, then the subjunctive is used. In
all other instances
the indicative is used. So the subjunctive here is
normal usage and fits
the basic significance of the mood.
Hortatory
Subjunctive
The hortatory subjunctive is usually found in
the main clause of
a sentence, expressing a futuristic and potential
character. In one
instance it occurs in a relative clause with that
same significance (Heb
worship [NIV]).34
Future Indicative as Equivalent to Aorist
Subjunctive?
In a previous study35 the use of the
future indicative in places
where normally an aorist subjunctive would be
expected has been
considered. There are a few places where this may
be true among the
relative clauses. In Mark
or e]a<n is followed by the
future indicative. Both are indefinite relative
clauses that normally use the subjunctive. In
Matt
the future indicative is introduced by pa?n . . . o!, which often is in-
definite. If the future indicative is understood
as subjunctive, the
clause would be indefinite and the sense
"whatever idle word men
should speak." This would fit the context well.
But the particle a@n is
not present, and the sense could conceivably be
definite, "every specific
word which men shall speak."
34 BDF (p. 191, §377) translates the
clause, "through which let us worship." A freer
translation is, "Let us take our grace and by
it let us worship."
35 See my article,
"Subjunctives," 16-17.
252
GRACE
THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
In Luke 11:6 the relative is followed by a
future indicative that, if
understood to function like a subjunctive, could be
an example of a
deliberative question indirectly
quoted in a relative clause. However,
the simple future indicative seems more probable.
Imperative
An imperative verb occurs after a relative in 9
instances, but in
none of them does the relative have anything to do
with the mood. A
relative clause frequently introduces a new
statement by attaching it
subordinately to the preceding one
(see the discussion above under
"Adjectival Relative Clauses). The new statement may
be imperatival,
with an imperative verb. This use of the relative
clause is parallel to
the hortatory subjunctive with a relative. Six such
examples are seen
in the NT.36
Three other imperatives in relative clauses are
to be explained
otherwise. They are found in clauses involved with
the alternating use
of the relative. This alternating relative may put
together sets of
words, phrases, or clauses. In Jude 22-23 three
imperatival clauses
are put together in this manner: "have mercy
on some [ou{j
me<n] . .
. ,
save others [ou{j
de<] . .
. , on some have mercy [ou{j
de<]."
Participle
The alternating use of the relative also
explains the two participles
which follow relatives in Mark 12:5, "beating
some, and killing
others." The two participles are not verbs
governed by the relative,
but rather are two phrases put in an alternating
relationship.
A FEW PROBLEMATIC
PASSAGES
The purpose of language is to communicate, not
to confuse, and
usually it works very well. But when one word is
used for another,
such as a relative pronoun for an antecedent, there
is introduced the
potential for a misunderstanding. One of the
surprising facts arising
out of this study is the rarity of confusion over
the identification of
antecedents. Almost always the antecedent is quite
obvious. However,
there are a few instances in which this is not the
case. I mention four.
Matthew
26:50
When Jesus spoke to Judas in
the betrayal, he said, e[tai?re, e]f ] o{ pa<rei. Two very different
under-
standings have developed out of these words. The
problem centers in
36 2 Tim
BOYER:
RELATIVE CLAUSES IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 253
the use of the relative. Traditional grammarians
have tried to treat it
as
a normal relative pronoun; the phrase e]f
] o! would mean "for
which," and the clause would be translated,
"Friend, for which you
are here." This obviously is incomplete. Two
solutions have become
popular.
Traditional grammarians have usually supplied
the need by in-
serting a verb at the
beginning, not expressed but supplied mentally
to make sense of the statement (cf. NASB: "Friend, do what you have
come for"; most recent translations are
similar). Grammatically it is
proper, the sense is tolerable, but the question
remains, why is the
most important word in the statement left unsaid?
In very early times the words were understood
quite differently;
they were taken as a question, "Why are you
here?" The Old Latin
and Sinaitic Syriac understood it so, as did Luther's German and the
KJV,
"Friend, wherefore art thou come?" There is no conjecture and
the sense is more natural to the context. The
problem is the pronoun;
o! is
a relative, not an interrogative. Grammarians, under the long-
standing dominance of Attic Purists, insisted
that the relative never
was used as an interrogative.
Adolph Deissman37 has shown that this
was no longer true in
later Greek. He quotes an inscription etched on the
side of an ancient
Syrian
glass wine goblet (first century A.D.): e]f
] o{ pa<rei; eu]frai<nou
"Why
are you here? Make merry!" Several other such glasses have
been found, and papyrologists
attest this interrogative use of the
relative for later common Greek. Taking this
understanding the sense
becomes clear and forceful, "Friend, why
are you here?"
2 Peter 1:4
The prepositional phrase, di ] w$n, is found in 2 Peter
1:4. Since
w$n may be any gender, the
only factor of agreement to be checked is
number; it is plural. There are three possible
antecedents in the
context: h[mi?n
(v 3), pa<nta (v 3), and do<ch kai> a]ret^? (v
3). If h[mi?n is
the antecedent, then the sense of vv 3-4, is,
"given to us . . . through
whom (i.e., us) . . . he has given to us
promises." This understanding
of the passage is awkward and makes poor sense.
When pa<nta is
considered to be the antecedent, the sense is,
"given us all things. . .
through which (things) he has given to us
promises." This, too, is
awkward. The last mentioned possible antecedent
is the nearest of the
three, and makes the best sense: "the One who
called us by means of
his own glory and virtue, through which he has
given promises."
37 Adolph Deissman,
Light from the Ancient East, 4th ed. (
1922) 125-31.
254 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
2 Peter 3:6
This passage also uses the prepositional phrase, di
] w$n. Two
antecedents would fit well the meaning of the
passage: the flood
waters and the Word of God. But in both cases there
are problems of
agreement. Five explanations have been suggested.
(1) The antecedent
is t&? lo<g& tou? qeou? (v
5); it is singular, but God's Word is made up
of many words. (2) The antecedent is u!dati (v 5); the word is
singular,
but it used twice (e]n u!dati kai> e]c u!dati), and the nature of water is
such that singular/plural is not so relevant. (3) u!dati
plus lo<g&;
together they are plural. However, this is an
unlikely combining of
two disparate items. (4) The antecedent is ou]ranoi> kai> gh?; a very
unrealistic suggestion which does not give good
sense to the passage.
(5)
Variant readings in the text (see NA26) suggest the possibility of
copyist error. However, the evidence for this is
weak. Of these five
explanations I prefer the second.
1 John 3:20
This is a grammatically difficult passage. The
problem centers in
the fact that the word o!ti occurs twice in the
verse, and one of these
seems to be superfluous. There are three basic ways
of understanding
this text.
One way to solve the grammatical difficulty of
this passage is to
say that the first o!ti is not the
subordinating conjunction, but the
indefinite relative pronoun, o!
ti. This explanation is
plausible since,
at the time of the writing of the NT, the
continuous writing of words
without spaces between them was the almost
universal practice. Thus,
there would be no written distinction between o!ti and o! ti. Given this
understanding, e]a<n is indefinite rather
than conditional, and o! ti e]a<n
means "whatever." This way of handling the
passage has been taken
almost universally by modern speech English
translations (e.g., ASV
margin, RSV,
Amplified Bible, Philip's,
NASB, and NIV). However, for many reasons I am
convinced that
this understanding is wrong.
First, the case of o!
ti (accusative) does not
fit. NASB translates
the clause, "in whatever our heart condemns
us"; the case of the
indefinite relative pronoun would depend on the
verb kataginw<skw.
This
verb takes a genitive object to express the fault with which one is
being charged.38 The accusative cannot be
explained by assimilation,
for the antecedent (unexpressed) would not be in
the accusative case
either.
BOYER:
RELATIVE CLAUSES IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 255
Furthermore, if the opening of v 20 was the indefinite
relative a
ti, then the structure of
1 John 3:19-21 would not be consistent with
the contrasting structure of opposite conditions so
characteristic of
this
epistle (cf. 1:6-7, 8-9, 10; 2:4-6, 10-11, 15; 3:6, 7-8, 14-15, 17;
4:2-3,
4-6, 7-8, 10;
structure is introduced is with the phrase, e]n
tou?to ginw<skomen, "in
this we are getting to know." The phrase is
used nine times in this
epistle with only slight verbal variations.
Twice (2:5;
is followed by an indefinite conditional,
"whoever." Three times (
4:2;
5:2) it is followed by one side of a contrasting pair, the other side
being implied. Three times (2:3; 4:2, 6) it is
followed by contrasting,
opposite, conditional sentences. 1 John 3:19-21
seems to fit into this
last category: "if our heart condemns us [v 20]
. . . if our heart does
not condemn us [v 21]."
Finally, the interpretation of the passage that
results from under-
standing the opening words to be the indefinite
relative is out of
character with the rest of this epistle. To
paraphrase with an indefinite
relative, the passage reads as follows:
We know that we are of the truth and shall
persuade our conscience
[the probable sense of kardi<a here] toward God with
respect to any-
thing our conscience may
rebuke us for, because God knows us better
than we know ourselves; he
knows that our conscience is wrong in
condemning us. If our conscience
does not condemn us we already
have this boldness toward
him.
This
interpretation suggests that man is more sensitive about his sin
than God is. But 1 John was written to bring
assurance of salvation
to those who believe (2:3;
amines his life on the basis of a series of tests that
John presents to
separate between believers and unbelievers. The
evidence of God
working in a life is seen when one becomes more
loving and more
Christ-like, living in purity rather than in
sin.
Given the interpretation
that results from understanding John to have used an
indefinite rela-
tive, 1 John 3:19-21 would
be teaching the opposite of the rest of the
epistle; in this one instance one would be told
not to worry about his
conscience, because God knows that he is better
than he thinks he is.
The second basic way to understand this text is
to interpret the
first o!ti as a conjunction
introducing a nominal, conditional (because
of e]a<n) clause that is the
direct object of the verb
second o!ti is superfluous and
should be ignored. The sense is, "We
shall persuade our conscience before God that if our
conscience
condemns us, God is greater than our
conscience." The major problem
with this understanding of the grammar is that
nowhere in Greek, NT
256 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
or otherwise, does
construction uses an infinitive or peri< or i!na. Also, it leaves the
second o!ti unexplained.
The third way to make sense of this passage is
to say that the
first o!ti introduces a causal,
conditional clause. The resultant mean-
ing becomes an explanation
of the confidence expressed in v 19: "We
shall persuade our conscience before God because, if
our conscience
condemns us. . . . " Thus
far the grammar is proper, and the sense is
good. But there is still the problem of the second o!ti. This is variously
explained. Some ignore it or drop it. Alford39
sees the clause as
causal, and by supplying e]sti<n it becomes "it is because God is
greater than our hearts." A. Plummer40
makes it a nominal clause,
with dh?lon to be supplied:
"it is obvious that God is greater than our
hearts." This makes excellent sense, and there is
a possible parallel to
the construction in 1 Tim 6:7, where there is a o!ti clause and in the
critical apparatus (NA26) the variant
readings show dh?lon
o!ti. Two
other examples, but without o!ti, are 1 Cor
variation of this third basic way of understanding
the grammar seems
to be the most defensible.
CONCLUSION
The use of relative pronouns and relative
clauses in the Greek
NT
is rich and varied. This study has statistically analyzed the gram-
matical and semantic functions
of relative pronouns and relative
clauses. Generally, these functions are obvious,
but the use of one
word in the place of another (such as a relative
pronoun in the place
of its antecedent) does introduce the possibility
of confusion.
39 Henry Alford, Greek Testament, New ed. vol. 4 (
40 A. Plummer,
of
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
Grace
Theological Seminary
www.grace.edu
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at:
thildebrandt@gordon.edu