Grace Theological Journal 6.1 (1985) 91-112.
[Copyright © 1985 Grace Theological
Seminary; cited with permission;
digitally prepared
for use at
THE SEMANTICS AND
EXEGETICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF
THE
OBJECT-COMPLEMENT
CONSTRUCTION
IN
THE NEW
TESTAMENT
DANIEL B.
WALLACE
A survey of the grammatical terminology, identification,
and
semantics of the
object-complement construction in the Greek NT
demonstrates that the
treatment of this construction in the ma:jor
grammars is inadequate.
A rather extensive listing of NT examples
of this construction
supports the thesis that the object complement
construction is
semantically equivalent to the subject-predicate nom-
inative construction. Thus, any principles which apply to subject-
predicate nominative
constructions (e.g., "Colwell's Rule') are equally
applicable to
object-complement constructions.
*
* *
INTRODUCTION
Although
some would insist that grammar is one of those elemen-
tary things which is better left behind as we press
on to maturity,
there
are still a few die-hards who feel that not all has been said on
the
topic. Lars Rydbeck, for example, recently asked the
question,
"What
happened to New Testament Greek grammar after Albert
Debrunner?"1
H is answer is that it "has come almost to a standstill,
one
of the reasons being that "There is a prevalent but false assump-
tion that everything in NT Greek scholarship has
been done already.”2
Rydbeck goes on to suggest that one major area
in NT grammar
which
has yet to be resolved is the nature of NT Greek.3 This, indeed,
l The title of a paper
presented to the Fifth International
Congress on Biblical
Studies (Oxford: September.
1973), published in NTS 21 (1974-75) 424-27.
2 Ibid., 424.
3 Ibid., 425.
92
GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
is
a critical issue; but there are others. Among them is the relation of
structure
to semantics. This is a problem area because most grammars
are
satisfied with presenting the structural phenomena of the NT in a
descriptive manner (i.e., a mere
tagging of structures as belonging to
certain
syntactical categories), while hardly raising the question of the
differences
in the fields of meaning that 'synonymous' structures can
possess.4
One construction which can be profitably put through the
structure-semantics
grid is that of the object-complement double
accusative.
DEFINITION
OF TERMS
Not all are agreed on which terms to
use when describing this
grammatical
phenomenon. Thus it is appropriate to begin by defining
terms.
Double Accusative
The nomenclature "double
accusative" is customarily used in
grammars
to refer to two different kinds of constructions:5 (1) a
person-thing
double accusative (in which a verb takes two direct
objects
in the accusative, one being the person affected, the other
being
the thing effected);6 and (2) an object-complement double
4 Some specific areas of
inquiry with reference to this problem are: the genitive of
possession
vs. the dative of possession; the simple infinitive vs. the genitive articular
infinitive
(or ei]j/pro<j plus the accusative articular infinitive) to express purpose; the
overlap
in the use of simple cases and prepositions plus cases (e.g., simple dative vs.
e]n
plus
the dative); the anarthrous generic noun vs. the articular generic noun; the various
structures
used to express result, causality, etc. To be sure, some of these topics are
discussed
in the grammars, but as of yet, grammars by and large make no attempt to
be
systematic in dealing with the differences in the fields of meaning that
'synonymous'
structures
can have.
5 There are other double
accusative constructions as well, but which occur so
infrequently
as to call for little attention in the grammars. Besides the person-thing and
object-complement
constructions, BDF list the "accusative of object and cognate
accusative"
and "accusative of object and of result" (86-87).
6 Cf. BDF, 85; A. T.
Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New
Testament in the
Light of Historical
Research
(4th ed.;
A Treatise on the
Grammar of New Testament Greek, translated and revised by W. F.
Moulton
(3d ed., revised;
Grammar, revised by G, M.
Messing (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1956)
363-64.
Others call this construction "an Accusative of the remoter object as well
as of
the
immediate object" (C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek
[2d
ed.;
sonal and impersonal object" (H. E. Dana and J.
R. Mantey, A
Manual Grammar of
the Greek New Testament [
WALLACE:
THE OBJECT-COMPLEMENT CONSTRUCTION 93
accusative.
This paper is concerned only with this second type of
construction.
Object-Complement
An object-complement double
accusative is a construction in
which
one accusative is the direct object of the verb and the other
accusative
(either noun, adjective or participle) complements the object
in
that it predicates something about it.7 This construction is called
a
double
accusative of object and predicate accusative by Robertson,
Blass-Debrunner, Turner, Smyth, Mayser,
Kuhner, Jannaris, and
others.8
It is described as "an accusative of the object affected and an
object
complement" by Funk,9 "accusative of subject [!] and predi-
cate" by Winer,10 and "A direct and predicate object" by
Dana and
Mantey.11
Others describe the construction in still different terms,12
even
as I have done. I use the name "object-complement" because it is
brief
and to the point.13
7 Another way of defining
this construction which perhaps is technically more
correct
is that given by Goodwin and Gulick: "A verb and
an accusative depending on
it
may together be treated as a single word having another accusative as its
object"
(W.
W. Goodwin, Greek Grammar, revised by
C. B. Gulick [
1930]
227).
8 Robertson, Grammar, 480; BDF, 86; J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testa-
ment Greek, vol. 3: Syntax, by N. Turner (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1963) 246; Smyth,
Greek Grammar, 362; E. Mayser, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptole-
maerzeit, vol. 2, part 2: Satzlehre
(Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1934) 320 ("Ein Akkusativ
des
Objekts und ein Pradikatsakkusativ"); R. Kuhner,
Grammar of the Greek Language
(Boston:
B. B. Mussey, 1849) 398; A. N. Jannaris,
An Historical Greek Grammar
(London:
Macmillan, 1897) 332; H. P. V. Nunn, A
Short Syntax of New Testament
Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge
University, 1943) 41; Goodwin and Gulick, Greek
Grammar, 228; C. Vaughan and V.
E. Gideon, A Greek Grammar of the New Testa-
ment (Nashville: Broadman, 1979) 66.
9 R. W. Funk, A Beginning-Intermediate Grammar of
Hellenistic Greek (2 vols.;
2d,
corrected ed;
10 Winer,
Treatise, 285.
11 Dana and Mantey, Manual
Grammar, 94.
12 J. A. Brooks and C. L.
Winbery (Syntax
of New Testament Greek [
D.
C.: University Press of America, 1979] 47) describe the construction as
involving "a
direct
or primary object and a predicate or secondary object"; William Webster (The
Syntax and Synonyms of
the Greek Testament
[
that
"The second accusative often appears as a tertiary predicate or an
apposition";
Moule (Idiom-Book,
35) comes close to the 'normal' description when he speaks of
"The
Accusative used Predicatively, i.e. to "predicate" something of a
noun already in
the
Accusative."
13 It should be observed that those
grammars which do speak of the "object com-
plement" mean by this the second accusative
only, i.e., the predicate accusative. By the
use
of the hyphen in "object-complement," I am indicating both
accusatives (hence, the
whole
construction)--the object and its complement.
94
GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
THE PROBLEM
There are three issues I wish to
discuss, namely, (1) the identifi-
cation of the construction (i.e., how does one know
when he has an
object-complement
construction?), (2) the identification of the com-
ponents (i.e., how can one tell which is object
and which is comple-
ment?), and (3) the semantics of the construction
(i.e., in addition to
the
obvious fact that predication is involved, what else can the
construction
indicate?).
Identification of the Construction
The problem in identifying the construction is
due primarily to
the
fact that every verb which can take an object-complement con-
struction is not required to do so.14
Consequently, not all would make
a
positive identification of the construction in a given instance.15
For
example,
Phil
klai<wn le<gw [,] tou>j e]xqrou>j
tou? staurou?. It is possible to take tou>j
e]xqrou>j as an appositive to ou{j (thus, "whom often
I used to mention
to
you, and now weeping I say, [they are] the enemies of the
cross.
..").16 But a second possibility is to consider le<gw
as having
the
meaning 'I call' here and to treat tou>j
e]xqrou>j as the complement
to
an implied pronominal object (thus, ". . . but now, weeping, I call
[them]
the enemies of the cross. . .").17 There are not many question-
able
constructions such as this, but there are a few that are exegetically
significant.
Identification of the
Components
The problem in identifying the components is that
occasionally
the
natural order of object, then complement, is reversed. In most of
14 E. V. N. Goetchius,
The Language of the New Testament (
Scribner's
Sons, 1965) 141. It is to be noted, however, that some verbs regularly or
almost
exclusively take object-complements (e.g., h[ge<omai, o]noma<zw, and
fa<skw).
15 No grammar gives an exhaustive list of
object-complements in the NT. Conse-
quently such lists cannot be compared to
discover the questionable instances. But by
comparing
translations and by attempting to reconstruct the semantic range of every
possible
object-complement construction (i.e., to see whether the construction in ques-
tion must be or might be an object-complement), the
definite and the questionable
instances
can be determined.
16 In support of this view, cf. Winer, Treatise,
665; Robertson, Grammar, 413;
M.
R. Vincent, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians
and to Philemon (ICC; Edinburgh: T.
& T. Clark, 1897) 117.
17 In support of this view, cf. H. A. A.
Kennedy, "The Epistle to the Philippians" in
vol.
3 of The Expositor's Greek Testament,
ed. W. R. Nicoll (
Mead
& Co., 1897) 461.
WALLACE:
THE OBJECT-COMPLEMENT CONSTRUCTION 95
the
instances it is obvious which is object and which is complement.
For
example, Phil 3:1 7 reads e@xete
tu<pon h[ma?j.
A very literal trans-
lation would not render this, "you have a
pattern/example in us," for
that
would require e@xete
tu<pon h[mi?n. Rather, it should be
rendered,
"you
have us as [a] pattern/example."
It is obvious, then, that this is
an
object-complement construction and that the order has been
reversed.
Such a clear instance demonstrates the reversal phenomenon
and,
at the same time, raises two questions: (1) What are the criteria
for
determining which is which since word order is not an infallible
guide?
and (2) Why is the order sometimes reversed?
The Semantics of the
Construction
The third issue involves the semantics of the
construction. As
mentioned
earlier, by definition an object-complement construction is
a
construction in which a predication is made. But beyond this given,
what
else can the construction indicate? Specifically, what is the dif-
ference semantically between the order of
object, then complement
and
complement, then object? For example, is it possible that when
Paul
wrote e@xete
tu<pon h[ma?j in
Phil
same
thing as e@xete
h[ma?j tu<pon?
THE INADEQUATE TREATMENT IN THE GRAMMARS
Concerning the identification of the construction,
the standard
grammars
make almost no advances beyond defining the construc-
tion18
and giving an abridged list of the kinds of verbs which take
object-complements.
Some of the grammars do point out that the
complement
is often preceded by ei]j or w[j.19
Unfortunately, not only
is
there a very high percentage of cases where ei]j and w[j are absent,
but
even when either one is present, there is not, ipso facto, an object-
complement
construction.20 With reference to the identification of the
components,
only one of the more than thirty grammars examined
explicitly
addressed the question of order in an object-complement
18 Goetchius (Language, 141) is a lone exception to
the silence of the grammarians:
"Object
complements occur only with certain verbs (all of which also occur with
'ordinary'
direct objects, i.e., without object complements), e.g., call, make, find, think,
deem, choose, elect. Some of these verbs
also occur with indirect objects (e.g., call,
make, find), so that it may not
always be immediately apparent whether sentences
containing
them are structurally similar to (3) ['The child gave the dog a bone'] or to
(4)
['The general called the captain a fool']; usually, however, the meanings of
the
nouns
N2 and N3 [in the construction N1-V-N2-N3]
are compatible with only one
interpretation
(and, hence, with only one structural analysis) of a sentence."
19 Robertson, Grammar, 480-81; BDF, 86-87; Turner, Syntax, 246-47.
20 Cf., for example, Matt 9:38;
96
GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
construction.21 Some grammars did, however, deal with the
issue of
order
implicitly, giving some guidelines which will be discussed below.
Concerning
the semantics of the construction, apart from the fact
that
the complement is making an assertion about the object, again
only
one grammar gave any explicit guidelines.22 But not one ad-
dressed
the question of the difference in force between the normal
order
and the reversed order.
SOLUTIONS TO THE
PROBLEMS
Method of Research Used
In order to come to any sound conclusions, it
was necessary to
be
as exhaustive in the inductive process as possible. By means of the
grammars,
thesaurus, concordance, and lexicon, I discovered more
than
fifty verbs which take object-complements23 and more than three
hundred
object-complement constructions in the NT. The raw data
gathered
is at least enough to provide guidelines which may help to
inform
and possibly resolve the three issues.
Solution Proper
In dealing with each of the three issues, some guidelines
or prin-
ciples that have been derived from the study are first
set forth, and
then
some of the exegetically significant passages affected by this
study
are briefly discussed.
21 Goetchius (Language, 142) again was the lone
exception, stating, "The constitu-
ents of these Greek sentences may, as we might
expect, occur in any order; both the
direct
object and the object complement are in the accusative case, but the direct
object
is
always more 'definite' than the object complement."
22 Goetchius, Language, 142.
23 Included in the list of verbs are the
following: a[gia<zw,
a@gw, ai]te<w, a]natre<fw,
a]podei<knumi, a]polu<w, a]poste<llw, geu<omai, ginw<skw,
de<xomai, di<dwmi, doke<w, e]gei<rw,
ei#don,
ei#pon, e]kba<llw, e]kle<gw,
e]ndeiknumi, e]pikale<w,
eu[ri<skw, e@xw, h[ge<omai, qe<lw,
qewre<w,
i[
zomai,
nomi<zw (in spite of the
protests by BDF [86] and Robertson [Grammar, 480]
that
nomi<zw
does not take an object-complement in the NT, there are two unmistakable
instances
[cf. I Cor
twn
porismo>n ei#nai th>n eu]se<beian]),
oi#da,
o[mologe<w, o]noma<zw, paralamba<nw, par-
e<xw, pari<sthmi,
proxeiri<zw, suni<hmi,
suni<sthmi (sunista<nw), ti<qhmi,
u[pokri<nomai, u[ponoe<w,
u[yo<w, fa<skw, xrhmati<zw.
In addition to these are three questionable verbs—katakli<nw,
katanoe<w, and o]ri<zw. As well, the NT uses e]pile<w, e]ponoma<zw, and prosagoreu<w in
the
passive which, in the active, would take object-complements (in the passive,
the
object
is converted to the subject and the complement to the predicate nominative/
adjective).
WALLACE:
THE OBJECT-COMPLEMENT CONSTRUCTION 97
Identification
of the Construction
General
Principles.
With reference to the identification of the
construction,
I have counted about thirty questionable instances. The
most
common of these involved an infinitive as the complement.24
The
question here is whether the infinitive is functioning substan-
tivally as the complement to the direct object
or in some other
capacity.25
But however the infinitive is tagged, the meaning of the
total
construction is not altered. A second group of instances was
debatable
because the alleged complement could possibly be a simple
appositive
to the direct object.26 Other constructions were questionable
because
of the relation of the adjective to the direct object,27 the
function
of ei]j before a second
accusative,28 the ambiguity of the case
of
the second noun,29 etc.30
Since there was a positive identification of
more than 90% of all
possible
object-complements examined,31 and since the questionable
instances
fell into very specific structural categories, certain principles
for
determining the identification of the construction become evident.
First,
what must be established is that the verb related to the con-
struction in question can, indeed, take an
object-complement. In the
case
of hapax legomena and other
rare verbs, appeal can certainly be
made
to extra-NT Greek literature for verification.32 Second, the
24 Cf. Rom
I
Tim 2:4.
25 In particular, as a complementary infinitive
to the verb.
26 Cf. Matt 27:32 (here a@nqrwpon Kurhnai?on might be a
Semitic periphrastic
construction
[cf. Matt 11:19] in which wyx is left untranslated when followed by
an
appositional substantive. The idiom, however, is also found in Greek. Cf. W. E.
Jelf, A
Grammar of the Greek Language Chiefly from the German of Raphael Kuhner
[2d
ed.; 2 vols.;
8,9,
10; 9. 19,23,25,36, etc.); Acts 13:6,23; Rom 10:9; Phil
27 Cf. Acts 6:13; 24:20 (interrogative
pronoun); Titus 2:10.
28 Cf. Eph 1:5.
29 Cf. Heb 4:7 and Rev 9:11 (here, of
course, ]Apollu<wn
is nominative in form, but
the
author may possibly be treating it as an indeclinable noun functioning as an
accusative).
30 Other constructions were debatable
because the adjective could be substantival
and
the pronominal adjective related to it could be modifying it (John
the
verb was not found with any clear object-complements (I Pet
wedged
between w[sei< and the second
accusative (Luke 9:14).
31 When the instances involving infinitives
are discounted, the positive identifica-
tion is closer to 95%.
32 E.g., a[gia<zw seems to take an
object-complement construction in I Pet 3:15
(though
there are some dissenters among the translations), but no other clear NT
examples
can be found (though I Thess
98
GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
specifics
of the structure in question must have parallels in positively
identified
object-complements. Thus, for example, if the possibility
that
e]sthsa<n te
ma<rturaj yeudei?j is an object-complement
in
Acts
6:1333 is even to be entertained, clear instances of an anarthrous
object
with a predicate adjective must be found. Finally, once these
first
two points are established in a given text, I believe that, barring
contradictory
contextual factors,34 the antecedent probability is that
the
construction in question is indeed an object-complement.35
Exegetically
Significant Texts.
From my count, there are at
least
eight exegetically significant passages which are affected by the
issue
of the identification of the construction.36 Four of these pas-
sages
are affected by the other two issues as well,37 and consequently
will
not be discussed here. Of the remaining four, two passages,
Phil
time.38
are
two examples (Exod 29:1 and 30:30) in which an
infinitive probably functions as a
complement
as well as one example (Isa
which
a[gia<zw clearly takes an
object-complement.
33 The difference exegetically between
taking yeudei?j predicatively and
attributively
is
that a predicative yeudei?j makes more explicit the
intention of Stephen's enemies to
produce
false witnesses (thus, "and they brought forth witnesses [to be]
false").
34 An illustration of
possibly contradictory contextual factors is found in Acts
13:23—o[
qeo>j . . . h@gagen
t&? ]Israh>l
swth?ra ]Ihsou?n. If the construction is taken as
an
object-complement ("God has brought to Israel Jesus [as] Savior")
rather than
simple
apposition ("God has brought to
with
the difficulty that Jesus is introduced in the message as though the residents
of
Pisidian Antioch were already familiar with his
name.
35 This antecedent probability varies in
certainty directly in proportion to how well
the
first two principles are established in a given instance. If they are established
at all,
tagging
the construction as object-complement must at least be given serious con-
sideration.
36 John 2:11;
37 Acts
38 The two remaining constructions are
found in John 2:11 and
reads,
Tau<thn e]poi<hsen a]rxh>n tw?n shmei<wn o[ ]Ihsou?j. The ASV, RSV, NASB
and
NIV all take e]poi<hsen
here in the sense of 'he did,' with the RSV
and NIV treating
a]rxh>n as an appositive to Tau<thn and the ASV and NASB regarding Tau<thn
as
modifying
a]rxh>n. However, if e]poi<hsen
has the sense of 'he made' here, then the
construction
is an object-complement (thus, "Jesus made this [to be] [the] first of his
signs").
The object-complement construction makes more explicit the idea of design on
the
part of Jesus while the other reconstruction of the text only speaks of his
power.
John
translations
all treat e]poi<hsen as 'he did.' Although
they all seem to recognize the
construction
to be an object-complement, they weaken its force by treating e]poi<hsen
as
though it belonged in a relative clause (almost as though they were translating
tou?to
de> pa<lin
h#n deu<teron shmei?on o{ e]poi<hsen).
But if e]poi<hsen has the force of 'he
made'
(thus,
"Now again, Jesus made this [to be] [the] second sign"), then not
only is there
design
in the selection of miracles recorded (cf. John
and
performance of them as well.
WALLACE:
THE OBJECT-COMPLEMENT CONSTRUCTION 99
In
Phil
e@legon
u[mi?n, nu?n de> kai> klai<wn le<gw [,] tou>j e]xqrou>j
tou? staurou?
tou?
Xristou?. If tou>j
e]xqrou>j is in apposition to ou{j, then there
appears
to be a change in description, but not a change in status, of
the
object. One of the problems with this view, however, is the func-
tion of ga<r. Unless it is
equivalent to de<, the polloi> of v 18 apparently
belong
to the same camp as "those who are thus walking" (tou>j ou!tw
peripatou?ntaj) in the previous verse.
However, if le<gw has the sense
of
'I call,' and if nu?n
de> has
a contrastive force rather than a con-
tinuative force, then there is an
object-complement construction here.
If
so, it becomes apparent that there is a shift in status from the ou{j
to
the tou>j
e]xqrou>j (thus, "For many are walking, about whom
often
I
used to speak to you, but now, even weeping, I call [them] the
enemies
of the cross of Christ.")39 Obviously the interpretation of
this
text
cannot be solved on the basis of grammar alone, but the fact that
an
object-complement construction is at least possible here gives
some
breathing room to the exegete in this thorny passage.
In Titus 2:9-10 Paul commands Titus to exhort
Christian slaves
to
be obedient to their earthly masters. In v 10 he describes both a
negative
and a positive aspect of what their conduct is to be. The
positive
aspect is described in the participial clause pa?san
pi<stin
e]ndeiknume<nouj a]gaqh<n. Although most would
understand a]gaqh<n as
an
attributive adjective modifying pi<stin
(thus, "showing forth all
good
faith"), it is possible that a]gaqh<n is a predicate adjective, func-
tioning as the complement to pi<stin
(thus, "showing forth all faith [to
be]
good"). Grammatically and exegetically this may be valid, though
the
grammarians and exegetes do not mention the possibility.
Although there are other grammatical
arguments in favor of a
predicate
a]gaqh<n,40 the
concern here is only with those which are
39 It should be mentioned that there are
several clear examples of the omission of a
pronominal
object in an object-complement construction (thus paralleling the con-
struction here). Cf. Matt 23:9; John
40 ln
particular, the relation of adjective to noun in anarthrous
constructions could
be
cited in favor of a predicate a]gaqh<n here. In cursory form,
the evidence derived
from
such a consideration is as follows. In non-equative
clauses and phrases I have
discovered
over forty completely attributive relations in adjective-noun-adjective con-
structions in the NT (e.g., Matt
constructions
involving pa?j and only one other
attributive construction had an inter-
vening word between the noun and second adjective (cf.
Rom
pa?j constructions were in
prepositional phrases, a situation which does not parallel
Titus
I also discovered thirteen instances in which
one adjective was attributive and one
was
predicate in non-equative clauses/phrases (e.g., Matt
[here
with pa?j and, interestingly
enough, an object-complement construction]). In four
instances
the second adjective was separated from the noun by an intervening word or
100
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
directly
relevant to object-complements. By applying the three maxims
related
to the identification of an object-complement construction, at
least
the possibility of an object-complement construction here can be
established.
First, e]ndei<knumi does indeed take an
object-complement else-
where
in the NT.41 Second, there are other instances of object-comple-
ments which involve an anarthrous
object and a predicate adjective,42
as
well as scores of passages which exhibit the more general parallel
of
a predicate relation in an anarthrous noun-adjective
construction.43
Third,
other exegetical considerations do allow for this possibility,44
and
there are apparently not any contextual factors which exclude it
phrase
(cf. Mark 7:2; 8:19; Acts 4:16; Rev 15:1). John
verb
between the noun and adjective (polla>
e@rga e@deica u[mi?n kala<), but there is
ambiguity
as to the function of the second adjective.
Therefore, although the attributive
constructions outnumbered the constructions
in
which the second adjective was predicate three to one, the second type of construc-
tion commonly had an intervening word between noun
and second adjective. Further-
more,
none of the definitely attributive relations with pa?j; in the first
attributive
position
had an intervening word between the noun and second adjective. Thus,
although
the construction in Titus
that
it has pa?j before the noun (but
cf.
preceding
the noun is attributive and the adjective following is predicate), it is
similar
to
part attributive/ part predicate constructions in that there is an intervening
word
between
the noun and second adjective. There is, then, a good possibility (might one
even
say, an antecedent probability?) grammatically that a]gaqh<n is a predicate adjec-
tive in Titus 2:10.
For more information on the whole area of the
relation of adjective to noun in
anarthrous constructions, see D. B. Wallace,
"The Relation of Adjective to Noun in
Anarthrous Constructions in the New Testament"
(unpublished Th.M. thesis;
Theological
Seminary: May, 1979) and the article by the same title (which is derived
from
the thesis) in NovT
26 (]984) 128-67.
41Cf. Rom 2:15. As well, at least one of
the cognate verbs also takes an object-
complement
(a]podei<knumi, 1 Cor
4:9). Furthermore, 2 Macc 9:8 has a precise parallel
to
Titus 2:10 (fanera>n
tou? qeou? pa?sin th>n
du<namin e]ndeiknu<menoj). This is obviously an
object-complement
construction because the adjective fanera>n is outside of the
article-
noun
group th>n du<namin.
42 Cf. Luke 3:8; John 9:]; Acts 10:28;
43 See Wallace, "The Relation of
Adjective to Noun"(thesis), Appendix II:73-102
in
which almost 400 such constructions are charted. For the more precise parallel,
cf.
n.
40 above.
44 The main question exegetically has to do
with the meaning of pi<stij. This noun
seems
to be used in the pastoral epistles frequently as a technical term for the
Christian
religion
(cf. I Tim 1:2; 3:9; 4: 1, 6; 2 Tim
occasions
in which pi<stij is modified by an
adjective (in Titus 1:4 koinh<n modifies
pi<stin, suggesting more about
the scope of this faith than about its character), the
adjective
used is a]nupokri<toj (cf. I Tim 1:5; 2 Tim 1:5).
The author seems concerned
that
one's faith be a sincere faith. An insincere faith is apparently not genuine
(cf.
I
Tim
WALLACE:
THE OBJECT-COMPLEMENT CONSTRUCTION 101
from
consideration. Consequently, the antecent probability
is that
Titus
then
the sense of Titus 2:9-10 could be expressed in the following
loose
translation: "Slaves should be wholly subject to their masters
.
. . demonstrating that all [genuine ]45 faith is productive, with
the
result46
that they will completely adorn the doctrine of God.”47
Again, grammar does not solve all of the
exegetical problems by
any
means, but if the principles for identifying object-complement
constructions
have any validity at all, then one must at least deal
seriously
with the possibility of such a construction in Titus
even
though such a possibility apparently has hitherto gone unnoticed.
Identification
of the Components
General
Principles.
With reference to the identification of the
components
of an object-complement construction, it has already
been
pointed out that word order is not an infallible guide. Therefore,
some
other criteria must be used to supplement if not supplant the
principle
of word order.
On the basis of several strands of evidence, I
believe the follow-
ing overall thesis for solving the problem of the
identification of the
components
can be stated: the object-complement construction is
semantically
equivalent to the subject-predicate nominative construc-
tion. This thesis is the major point of this
article. Therefore, any
principles
which help to resolve the identification of the components
in
a subject-predicate nominative construction are equally applicable
to
the object-complement construction. Two points must be estab-
lished in order to validate this thesis. First, it
needs to be established
that
there is analogy between the two types of constructions. And
behavior
(cf. 2 Tim.
outside
the pastorals as well (cf. Eph 2:8-10; Coll:4, 6, 10]).
Thus if a more technical sense for pi<stij
is understood in Titus
["Every
Scripture Inspired by God," Restoration
Quarterly 5 (1961) 35] apparently
leans
toward a more technical sense for pa?j here, for he writes,
". . . the context shows
that
the word pas means 'perfect' or
'complete' faith"), the author maybe instructing
Titus
to exhort slaves to demonstrate that their faith is sincere and that it results
in
holy
behavior.
45 ‘Genuine' may either be implied from the
flow of argument or may be considered
as
part of the field of meaning for pa?j when it is used with
abstract nouns (cf. BAGD
on
pa?j
46 !Ina here is taken as having an ecbatic
force.
47 A further argument to help validate this
sense is the possibility of a synthetic
parallel
between the two halves of v 10 which is evident only when a]gaqh<n is taken as a
predicate
adjective. Thus, to demonstrate that genuine faith is productive is to adorn
the
doctrine of God.
102
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
second,
the thesis needs to be tested on specific object-complement
constructions.
The following lines of evidence establish, I
believe, that the
object-complement
construction is semantically equivalent to ;the
subject-predicate
nominative construction. (1) By definition, both the
complement
and the predicate nominative make an assertion about
another
noun in the same case. (2) The terms used to describe the
object-complement
construction in most grammars strongly suggest
such
semantic equivalence. As the reader will recall, it was mentioned
earlier
that many of the major grammars call this construction an
object
and predicate accusative construction.48 And Winer
goes so far
as
to call the construction an "accusative of subject and predicate
[italics
mine]."49 (3) The infinitive of the copula occasionally occurs
in
an object-complement construction, linking this construction to the
subject-predicate
nominative construction semantically.50 (4) Many
of
the verbs which take an object-complement also take a declara-
tive/recitative o!ti clause (and even,
occasionally, some other use of o!ti
which
involves its own subject-predicate nominative clause) in which
there
is a subject-predicate nominative construction.51 (5) Occasion-
ally,
the manuscripts even vacillate between an object-complement
construction
and a subject-predicate nominative construction in a o!ti
clause,52
illustrating that the scribes probably considered the two con-
structions to be semantically equivalent. (6) As
several grammars
point
out, when a verb which takes an object-complement construc-
tion in the active is transformed into a passive,
the object becomes
the
nominative subject and the complement becomes the predicate
48 See the definition of terms above and n.
8.
49 Winer,
Treatise, 285.
50 Cf. Matt 16:13; Mark 8:27, 29; Luke
17:7;
19:35 (in D), 20:6, 28:6, Rom 1:22, 14:14, 15:8, 16:19, I Cor
7:7, 26, 32, 10:20, 2 Cor
51 Cf. John
52 Cf. Rom 10:9 (o[mologh<s^j . . . ku<rion ]Ihsou?n in most manuscripts; o[molo-
gh<s^j . . . o!ti ku<rioj ]Ihsou?j in B). We might add here
that the biblical authors
occasionally
vacillate between the two constructions. For example, Mark
mixed
construction (object-o!ti-predlcate nominative: ei#xon to>n ]Iwa<nnhn o@ntwj o!ti
profh<thj h#n) which parallels the
object-complement in Matt
e@xousin
to>n ]Iwa<nnhn).
In John 10:34-35 there are parallel thoughts in which one is an
object-complement
and the other is direct discourse (though not directly introduced by
a
recitative o!ti: o!ti e]gw> ei#pa: qeoi<
e]ste . . . ei] e]kei<nouj ei#pen
qeou>j. Notice also v 36 in
which
the thought is
for
a similar parallel.
WALLACE:
THE OBJECT-COMPLEMENT CONSTRUCTION 103
nominative.53
(7) Occasionally, such a passive transform is in a paral-
lel text to an object-complement.54 (8)
"The predicate nom. and the
predicate
acc. are somet. replaced by ei]j w. acc.",55
suggesting that
both
constructions were treated as semantically identical by the bibli-
cal
and Koine writers. (9) Finally, the few principles
which the
grammars
do mention for distinguishing object from complement are
identical
with the ones they suggest for distinguishing subject from
predicate
nominative.56
Now all of this may seem like a case of
linguistic overkill. How-
ever,
by firmly establishing that the object-complement construction
is
semantically equivalent to the subject-predicate nominative con-
struction, it is possible to make logical
deductions both with regard to
the
identification of the components and with regard to the semantics
of
the construction.57
Having established that the object-complement
construction is
semantically
equivalent to the subject-predicate nominative construc-
tion, principles used in identifying the components
in this latter con-
struction can now be applied to the former.
Unfortunately, as
McGaughy laments, "Although the problem of
subject identification
.
. . appears to be elementary, traditional grammars provide little or
no
help in solving it.”58 The introductory grammar by Goetchius is a
rare
exception.59 Therefore, I will begin with his principles, making
53 Cf. Robertson, Grammar, 485; Radermacher, Grammatik, 120; Goodwin and
Gulick, Greek
Grammar, 228; Kuhner, Grammar, 398. For examples of texts, cf.
Matt
21:13; Luke 1:76; 15:21; Acts 1:23; 4:36; 10:5, 18, 32; 11:13; 1 Cor 4:2; 2 Cor 5:3;
Gal
2:11; Rev 5:4; etc.
54 For similar texts (though not strictly
parallel), cf. Luke
au]tou? ]Iwa<nnhn),
v 59 (e]ka<loun au]to> . . . Zaxari<an), and
]Ihsou?j). These may be
considered parallel in the sense that the verbage is
similar
though
expressed by two different constructions.
55 BAGD, s.v.,
"ei]j," 230. sec. 8.
56 Normally the only principle mentioned
for either construction is that the article
will
be with subject/object, but not with predicate nominative/complement. Goetchius
is
a lone exception, giving five principles by which to identify the subject and
predicate
nominative.
Furthermore, he does, via analogy, apply these principles to the object-
complement
construction (cf. Language, 45-46,
142).
57 Although the exegetical implications are
far greater in relation to the semantics
of
the construction, it is necessary first to establish this semantic equivalence
argument
in
consideration of the identification of the components.
58 L. C. McGaughy,
Toward a Descriptive Analysis of Ei#nai as a Linking Verb in
New Testament Greek (Missoula: Society of
Biblical Literature, 1972) 25.
59 Of the more traditional grammars, S. G.
Green (Handbook to the Grammar of
the Greek Testament [revised ed.;
one
examined to mention that, besides the fact that the subject will have the
article, the
subject
will often be a pronoun.
104
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
refinements
along the way.60 Goetchius states:
We may lay it down as a general principle that,
if two nouns in the
nominative case are connected by an equative verb in Greek, the more
definite of the two is the subject. Thus:
(a) If one of the two
nouns is a proper name, it is the subject. . . .
(b) If only one of the
nouns has the article, it is the subject. . . .
(c) If both nouns are
equally definite (or indefinite), the one which
has the narrower reference is the subject. . . .
(d) If one of the two
nouns has been referred to in the immedi-
ately preceding context, it
is the subject. . . .
(e) If an equative verb joins a noun to a pronoun, the pronoun is
the subject. . . 61
From
a pragmatic point of view, only two refinements need to be made
of
Goetchius' principles. (1) The grid of definiteness
vs. indefiniteness
is
overly simplistic. One should at least bear in mind that this seman-
tic
range is not cut and dried. Rather, there is a continuum from
indefiniteness
to qualitativeness to definiteness.62 (2) Goetchius appar-
ently does not believe that the subject-predicate
nominative construc-
tion can sometimes be a convertible proposition.63
If so, he virtually
stands
alone among grammarians.64
60 From a linguistic standpoint, McGaughy's critique of Goetchius'
principles is
well
taken (Analysis of Ei#nai,
29-33; cf. 36-54 for McGaughy's solution). However,
from
a practical standpoint, Goetchius' treatment does
solve the problems in most
cases.
61 Goetchius, Language, 46.
62 P. B. Harner
has ably pointed out the importance of seeing this continuum
("Qualitative
Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark
75-87).
Perhaps the grid of general to specific might be better nomenclature (so
M.
Zerwick, Biblical
Greek Illustrated by Examples [
Biblici, 1963] 55).
63 Goetchius (Language, 46) uses I John 3:4 as an
example of his principle '(c)' with
the
suggestion that "there are other kinds of lawlessness besides sin." McGaughy
(Analysis of Ei#nai, 32-33) rightly
questions Goetchius' use of I John 3:4 in this way:
"rule
(c) must be questioned since the meaning of 'definite-indefinite' has been
shifted
from
a grammatical to a semantic one. In the example under this rule Goetchius
explains
that he has chosen a[marti<a as the subject of the
sentence because '. . . there
are
other kinds of lawlessness besides sin.' In other words, sin is the subject,
according
to
Goetchius, because it is the more definite of the two
concepts. If one were to
interpret
this verse theologically, however, he could argue for just the opposite inter-
pretation on the basis of Goetchius'
rule: h[ a]nomi<a is the subject because
there are
other
kinds of sin besides lawlessness. In either case, the point to be noted is that
the
determination
of the subject on the basis of rule (c) is arbitrary and inadmissable,
therefore,
as a grammatical rule."
64 Cf. Robertson, Grammar, 768; Zerwick, Biblical Greek, 56; Harner,
"Qualitative
Anarthrous Predicate Nouns," 75, 77; et al.
Robertson (Grammar, 769), in fact,
uses
Goetchius' same proof text (I John 3:4) as an
illustration of a convertible proposition!
WALLACE:
THE OBJECT-COMPLEMENT CONSTRUCTION 105
As
far as the application of these principles to the object-com-
plement construction is concerned, all that
needs to be said here is
that
they are, indeed, valid. Of the more than sixty constructions
examined
in which the order had been reversed between object and
substantival complement, the
identification of the object could be
positively
made in every instance by using these principles.65 The
verification
of this is that in only one passage was there even a slight
possibility
of confusion between the object and complement.66 There-
fore,
our examination of the reversed order in object-complement
constructions
has overwhelmingly confirmed the thesis that the
object-complement
construction is semantically equivalent to the
subject-predicate
nominative construction.
Exegetically
Significant Texts.
The only exegetically significant
text
which is affected by the issue of the identification of the com-
ponents is also the only one which was slightly
ambiguous. But both
the
context and the fact that one accusative had the article rendered
the
components in John 5:18 as clearly identifiable. The text reads
pate<ra i@dion e@legen to>n qeo<n. It must, of course, be rendered, "he
called
God his own father," rather than, "he called his own father
God.”
65 For examples involving a proper noun as
the object, cf. Matt 3:9;
Luke
3:8; Acts 8:37 (v.1.); 17:7; Rom 10:9;
noun
as the object, cf. Matt 14:5; 21:46; Mark 10:6; John 16:2; 19:7, 12; Acts 2:36;
involving
the definite article with the object, cf. Matt 16:13; John 8:41; Phil 2:6; Heb
I would also suggest that this analogy between
the object-complement and subject-
predicate
nominative constructions is valid in distinguishing the subject of an
infinitive
from
a predicate accusative. Thus, whereas H. R. Moeller and A. Kramer (“An Over-
looked
Structural Pattern in New Testament Greek," NovT 5 [1962] 27) argue for word
order
as the normal guide when one is faced with "two consecutive case
substantives
constructed
with an infinitive," when such a construction also involves an object-
complement,
there is a better semantic approach than mere word order. Perhaps the
principles
for distinguishing subject from predicate nominative are even valid for all
seventy-seven
infinitival constructions examined by Moeller and Kramer (and would
thus
supplant their word order principle which, at bottom, strikes me more as a
phenomenological
approach than a semantic one).
66 I.e., in all but one text (John
was
object and what was complement. In all of these the 'rules' coincided with the
obvious
sense of the passage. John
'rules,'
one could conceivably see pate<ra
as object
and to>n qeo<n as complement.
However,
in light of the overall context, such a meaning would be absurd. And even if
the
context had been ambiguous, since the validity of the 'rules' has been
established in
all
other reversed order constructions, such grammatical evidence would be wholly
on
the
side of taking pate<ra as complement and to>n
qeo<n as object.
106
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
The
Semantics of the Construction
General
Principles.
With reference to the semantics of the con-
struction, the main question has to do with the
difference in force
between
the order object followed by complement and the order
complement
followed by object. In order to resolve this issue, one can
start
with the established thesis that an object-complement construc-
tion is semantically equivalent to a
subject-predicate nominative
construction.
Specifically, a "rule" developed by E.
C. Colwell comes into
consideration
here. In an article in JBL in 1933,
Colwell stated the
following
rule: "Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb
usually
lack the article.”67 He went on to point out that "a predicate
nominative
which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an
indefinite
or a "qualitative" noun solely because of the absence of the
article;
if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should
be
translated as a definite noun. . . “68 The implication from this
study
is that to the extent that Colwell's rule is applicable to predicate
nominatives
it is equally applicable to predicate accusatives. But
before
making the transfer from nominative to accusative, a warning
is
in order. Colwell's rule has been abused almost from the time it was
penned.
Most grammarians and exegetes have assumed the converse
of
Colwell's rule to be equally true, namely, that anarthrous
predicate
nominatives
which precede the copula will usually be definite. But
such
is not the case, as Harner69 and Dixon70 pointed out. Suffice it
67 E. C. Colwell, "A Definite Rule for
the Use of the Article in the Greek New
Testament,"
JBL 52 (1933) 20.
68 Ibid.
69 Harner,
"Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns,"
75-87.
70 P. S. Dixon, "The Significance of
the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John,"
(unpublished
Th.M. thesis; Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975).
illegitimate
application of the converse of Colwell's rule: "The rule does not say: an
anarthrous predicate nominative which precedes the
verb is definite. This is the con-
verse
of Colwell's rule and as such is not a valid inference. (From the statement 'A
implies
B,' it is not valid to infer 'B implies A.' From the statement 'Articular nouns are
definite,'
it is not valid to infer 'Definite predicate nominatives are articular.' Likewise,
from
the statement 'Definite predicate nominatives preceding the verb are anarthrous,'
it
is not valid to infer 'Anarthrous predicate
nominatives preceding the verb are
definite.'),"
(pp. 11-12).
The problem, methodologically speaking, is that
Colwell began his study with a
semantic
category (definite predicate nominatives which precede the verb) rather than a
structural
category (anarthrous predicate nominatives which
precede the verb). This
problem
was compounded by the fact that Colwell assumed definiteness in certain
passages
(e.g., John 1:1) which were highly debatable. Both Harner
and
with
structural categories and determined the semantic range of such. Their conclusions
were
virtually identical: anarthrous predicate nominatives
which precede the verb are
usually
qualitative (cf. Harner, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns," 87;
"Anarthrous Predicate Nominatives," 54-55).
WALLACE:
THE OBJECT-COMPLEMENT CONSTRUCTION 107
to
say here that anarthrous pre-copulative predicate
nominatives will
fall
within the semantic range of qualitative-definite71 and anarthrous
post-copulative
predicate nominatives will usually fall within the
semantic
range of qualitative-indefinite.72
Unfortunately, the application of Colwell's rule
to the object-
complement
construction is severely hampered by the fact that (1) the
infinitive
of the copula does not usually occur and (2) when it is
present,
the complement usually follows the verb.73
However, there is a further implication derived
from Colwell's
study
which may prove beneficial to the issue at hand. I have dis-
covered
that, as a general rule, in verbless sentences, when
the predi-
cate nominative precedes the subject it has the same
semantic range
as
though it had preceded a verb.74 Thus, by analogy, when an
71 Cf. Harner,
"Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns,"
75-87 and
throus Predicate Nominatives," 31-53, 54-55. As
well, from my cursory observation of
this
phenomenon in the entire NT, I would agree substantially with their conclusions
(allowing
for a somewhat higher percentage of definite predicate nominatives), noting
that
I have not discovered one clear example of an indefinite pre-copulative anarthrous
predicate
nominative. (The implication of this for John 1:1, then, is still that, on
gram-
matical grounds, the translation of qeo>j h#n
o[ lo<goj as "the Word was a god" is
inadmissable.) The passages in the
NT which contain an anarthrous pre-copulative
predicate
nominative that I have discovered thus far are: Matt 4:3, 6;
12:8,
50; 13:39 (twice); 14:26, 33; 23:8, 10; 27:40, 42, 54; Mark 2:28; 3:35; 6:49;
11:17,
32;
12:35; 14:70; 15:39; Luke 4:3, 9, 22; 5:8; 6:5; 11:48; 22:59; 23:6; John 1:1,
12, 14, 49;
2:9;
3:4, 6 (twice), 29; 4:9, 19; 5:27; 6:63 (twice), 70; 7:12; 8:31, 33, 34, 37,
39, 42, 44
(twice),
48, 54; 9:5, 8,17, 24, 25, 27, 28, 31; 10:1, 2, 8, 13, 33, 34, 36; 11:49, 51;
12:6,
36,
50; 13:35; 15:14; 17:17; 18:26, 35, 37 (twice); 19:21; Acts 3:15; 7:26, 33, 52;
9:15;
10:27,
36; 13:33; 16:3, 17 (v. 1.), 21, 37; 22:27, 29; 23:6, 27; 28:4; Rom 1:9; 13:4
(twice),
6;
14:23; I Cor 1:18 (twice); 2:14; 3:16,19; 4:4,16;
6:15, 16, 19; 11:3 (twice); 2 Cor 1:24;
10;
Heb 1:5,10; 3:6; 5:5, 13; 9:15; 11:16; Jas 1:27; 2:23; 4:4; 5:17; I John 1:5;
2:2, 4; 4:8;
and
Rev 17:4;
72 Cf. Harner,
"Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns,"
76.
73 It should be noted here that the verb
which takes the object-complement con-
struction only introduces the construction but
does not playa part in the semantic
equivalence
of this construction with the subject-predicate nominative construction.
Therefore,
its position is inconsequential with regard to the semantic range of the
substantival complement (cf., e.g.,
Mark 11:17 and Luke 19:46; I Cor 9:5).
74 When an anarthrous
predicate nominative stands before the subject, it will either
be
qualitative or definite. This is apparently due to the fact that (1) had the
verb been
present,
it more than likely would have come after the predicate nominative (thus
approximating
the semantic range of the anarthrous pre-copulative
predicate nomina-
tive), and (2) by placing the predicate nominative
before the subject, an author is mak-
ing the predicate nominative emphatic (cf. BDF,
248) and if emphatic, then by the
nature
of the case, it is moving toward the semantic range of qualitative-definite and
away
from the semantic range of indefinite-qualitative (since it is difficult to
conceive of
an
indefinite predicate nominative being emphasized, though not entirely
impossible).
A
few illustrations ought to suffice. In John
well,
pneu?ma
o[ qeo<j. The anarthrous
predicate nominative comes before the subject and
108
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
anarthrous complement precedes the object, it will
fall within the
semantic
range of qualitative-definite. And when an anarthrous
com-
plement follows the object, it will tend to fall
within the semantic
range
of qualitative-indefinite.
For example, when Jesus is called ui[o>j qeou?
/ a]nqrw<pou in an
object-complement
construction, either ui[o<n is anarthrous
and pre-
cedes
the object (as in John 19:7), or it is articular and
follows the
object
(as in Matt 16:13). When this is compared with the subject-
predicate
nominative constructions, the same pattern emerges. Thus,
in
John
John
Exegetically
Significant Texts.
There are literally scores of exe-
getically significant passages which are affected
by the issue of the
semantics
of the object-complement construction.76 However, one
passage
in particular holds some interest for me. In Rom 10:9 there is,
apparently,
a soteriological-christological confession: e]a<n
o[mologh<-
s^j
e]n t&? sto<mati sou ku<rion ]Ihsou?n . . . swqh<s^. Not only is
this
passage exegetically significant, but it serves as an ideal model
text
to illustrate the validity of all three issues related to the object-
complement
construction. Therefore, this passage will be approached
one
issue at a time.
there
is no verb. Here, despite the KJV's rendering, pneu?ma is most certainly qualita-
tive, stressing the nature or essence of God. In
Phil
]Ihsou?j Xristo<j ("Jesus Christ is Lord"). Here, as in John
and
the anarthrous predicate nominative precedes the subject.
In light of the allusion to
Isa 45:23, it is most probable that ku<rioj should be taken as definite
("the Lord"). In
the
least, it should be taken as qualitative, not indefinite. By the use of
parallel passages
it
is possible to confirm the semantic equivalence a bit further. Phil 1:8 reads ma<rtuj
ga<r
mou o[ qeo<j. Rom 1:9 reads ma<rtuj ga<r mou
e]stin o[ qeo<j. The force of the two
constructions
appears to be identical, though only in one is the verb present. However,
in
both constructions the predicate nominative precedes the subject. Rom 10:4
reads
te<loj ga>r no<mou Xristo>j in which the sense is
most probably, "Christ is the end of the
law."
Cf. also Mark 13:8 and 1 Thess 4:6 for other
examples.
75 For other texts which seem to
demonstrate this analogy, cf. Matt 21:26 with
Mark
11:32 (in which the construction in Matt 21:26 is a reversed order object-
complement
and the construction in Mark
copulative
predicate nominative [see discussion in n.52]); 1 Pet
Matt
26:63. For examples of the semantic range of qualitative-indefinite for a comple-
ment which follows the object, cf. Mark
had
her as a wife"] is parallel to the subject-predicate nominative
construction in the
first
part of the verse: ti<noj au]tw?n e@stai
gunh< ["for which of them shall she be a
wife?"]);
John
stressing
the nature or essence of Jesus); Luke
Acts
26:28;
76 Cf., e.g., Matt
10:33,
35, 36; 19:7; Acts 2:36; 13:23; 14:5; 17:7; 28:6; Rom 2:19; 2 Cor 4:5; Phil 2:6, 11;
2
Thess 2:4; 1 Pet
WALLACE:
THE OBJECT-COMPLEMENT CONSTRUCTION 109
(1) The first question that needs to
be asked here is, Is this an
object-complement
construction? In answer to that, note that it meets
all
three of the principles used in identifying an object-complement
construction:
(a) o[mologe<w is used elsewhere with
the object-
complement
construction;77 (b) there are several clear instances of an
object-complement
construction involving two anarthrous nouns, thus
affording
a parallel to this text;78 and (c) not only are there no con-
textual
factors barring the object-complement from consideration
here,
but there are in fact compelling factors to argue in its favor.79
Consequently,
the antecedent probability is extremely high that this
construction
is, indeed, an object-complement.
(2) The next question involves the
identification of the com-
ponents. The analogy of the subject-predicate
nominative construc-
tion indicates that the proper noun, ]Ihsou?n, must be the object and
ku<rion
its complement.
(3) Finally, the semantics of the construction
needs to be exam-
ined. Specifically, what is the meaning of ku<rion here? Because it
precedes
the object, it has already been established that it falls within
the
qualitative-definite range. If qualitative, then the meaning is
probably
"master." If definite, then the meaning is more likely "Yah-
weh" (i.e., "the Lord”).80 I
believe that the meaning "Yahweh" is
probably
what is meant here. In support of this are the following lines
of
evidence.
(a) From my count, there are five other passages
in which the
assertion
is made that Jesus Christ is Lord (i.e., ku<rioj
is not in
simple
apposition with ]Ihsou?j / Xristo<j, but the two are in a predi-
cate relation). In Col 2:6, the most dubious
example, the text reads
parela<bete to>n Xristo>n ]Ihsou?n to>n ku<rion. This may be read,
"you
received Christ Jesus the Lord" (a statement in which no predi-
cation is made), or "you received Christ Jesus
[as] the Lord" (an
object-complement
construction). If the construction is an object-
complement,
it is not insignificant that, although the complement
77 Cf. John 9:22; I John 4:1; 2 John 7.
Curiously, Robertson only admits these,
ignoring
Rom 10:9 (480), contra BDF (86).
78 Cf. Luke 23:2; 2 Cor
5:4; Jas 1:2; Rev 9:11.
79 Although the force of o[mologe,w is most compelling on the side of an object-
complement,
I found the
modern
texts examined, I found the same error curiously enough 'preserved' only in
the
New KJV.
80 The qualitative idea, of course, would
stress more what he does rather than
specifying
who he is (cf. I Pet 3:6). A definite ku<rion
would probably have a par
excellence force to it. Thus, by
implication, since Yahweh is the one who deserves the
name
"Lord" above all others, Yahweh could well be implied by a definite ku<rion.
110
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
(ku<rion) follows the object (Xristo>n ]Ihsou?n), it too has the
article.81
2
Cor 4:5 records the apostle's proclamation: khru<ssomen
. . . Xristo>n
]Ihsou?n ku<rion. Since Paul has placed
the complement (ku<rion)
after
the
object (Xristo>n ]Ihsou?n), and has not added the
article, this
could
be an exception to the suggestion made here about Rom 10:9
(i.e.,
it seems, by the grammatical principles laid down, that Paul is
only
declaring Christ to be master here, not Yahweh). But the context
makes
it clear that the author's emphasis is indeed that Christ is
master,
without reference to his deity, for the apostle goes on with the
mildly
antithetic parallel: khru<ssomen. . . e[autou>j de> dou<louj.
There-
fore,
this text in no way nullifies the proposal for Rom 10:9. In
I
Cor 12:3 the apostle puts up the challenge: ou]dei>j
du<natai ei]
Ku<rioj ]Ihsou?j ei] mh> e]n pneu<mati a[gi<&. There is dissension among
the
Greek witnesses, with several of the key Western and Byzantine
texts
converting this into the accusative (and hence, an object-
complement
construction). But even in these manuscripts, the order is
the
same.82 These three texts, in the least, do not argue against the
view
of Rom 10:9 suggested here. In the first text (
complement
followed the object and was articular; in the second
(2
Cor 4:5), though the complement was anarthrous, it was argued
that
Paul's emphasis was on Christ as master, not as Yahweh; and in
the
third (1 Cor 12:3), the statement and word order were
parallel to
Rom
10:9.
There are two other texts, however, which make a
substantial
contribution
to this discussion. In one, Phil 2:11, a subject-predicate
nominative
construction is in a o!ti clause (e]colmologh<shtai o!ti ku<rioj
]Ihsou?j Xristo<j); in the other, 1 Pet
object-complement
construction introduced by a[gia<zw (ku<rion
de> to>n
Xristo>n
a[gia<sate). In both of these texts, there is an allusion
to the
OT
and specifically to Yahweh himself (Isa 45:23 and
tively).83 Thus, in the two parallel
passages where the ku<rioj
clearly
81 This, of course, is in keeping with
Colwell's rule which asserts that a definite
predicate
nominative will either lack the article and precede the verb or have the
article
and
follow the verb (or, in this case, the object).
82 This text is in reality parallel to Rom
10:9 for it too makes a particular con-
fession the test of faith. Rom 10:9 should be
the basis for interpreting I Cor 12:3,
rather
than vice versa, because the evidence for I Cor 12:3
is far more scanty than in
the
Romans text.
83 Isa 45:23
reads, Nvwl-lc
fbwt jrb-lk frkt yl-yk (cf. vv21-22 for the
identification
of the speaker as God [v 22—lx-ynx
yk], i.e., Yahweh [v 21—hvhy
ynx]),
and
the LXX translates, o!ti
e]moi> ka<myei
pa>n go<nu kai> e]comology<setai pa?sa
glw?ssa
t&? qe&?. Paul quotes this text in Rom
to
it in Phil 2:11 with reference to Jesus. Isa 8:13
reads, vwydqt
vtx tvxbc hvhy-tx
(LXX:
ku<rion au]to>n a[gia<sate). (Note that the direct
object marker tx makes possible
an
object-complement
WALLACE:
THE OBJECT-COMPLEMENT CONSTRUCTION 111
refers
to Yahweh, even though this predicate noun is anarthrous,
the
biblical
author places it before the object/subject to indicate that it is
definite.
Apparently, not only was the article unnecessary, but the
reversed
order seems to be the 'normal' way to express the idea that
ku<rioj
is definite.84
(b) Codex Vaticanus
strays from the pack in Rom 10:9, changing
the
object-complement to a subject-predicate nominative construction
following
o!ti. If the preceding
argument has any validity at all, then
the
variant only strengthens the view that ku<rion
is equivalent to
Yahweh
here.
(c) Finally, Paul continues his message in v 13
by adding a quote
from
Joel 3:5, "Everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall
be
saved." The Hebrew text of Joel 3:5 has hvhy for 'Lord' here. In
vv
11 and 12 of Rom 10, Christ is still clearly in view; thus, to suggest
that
kuri<ou
refers to the Father ignores the obvious connection Paul
is
making here: to confess that Jesus is Lord is to confess that he is
the
Lord of v 13. If so, then the confession is of Jesus as Yahweh.
CONCLUSION
The object-complement construction can be
profitably put
through
the structure-semantics grid. Three issues with respect to this
construction
were raised in this study: (1) the identification of the
construction,
(2) the identification of the components, and (3) the
semantics
of the construction. With reference to the identification of
the
construction, three principles were suggested: (a) the verb related
to
the construction must be able to take an object-complement,
(b)
the specifics of the structure in question must have parallels in
positively
identified object-complements, and (c) there must be strong
contextual
overrides to prevent one from so tagging such a construc-
tion.
Under the heading of the identification of the
components the
major
thesis of the paper was stated, namely, the object-complement
construction
is semantically equivalent to the subject-predicate nomin-
ative construction. Hence, the guidelines for one are
guidelines for the
other--both
with reference to the identification of the components
and
with reference to the force of the construction semantically.
construction
in the Hebrew; the Greek is very clear. Elsewhere in the LXX, a[gia<zw
takes
an object-complement [cf. Exod 29:1 and 30:30 and the
discussion of these texts
in
n. 32].)
84 It is possible that the article was not
added to ku<rioj
in order to distinguish the
subject/object
from the predicate noun.
112
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
Concerning the semantics of the
construction, it was noted that
when
the order was complement then object, the complement would
fall
within the semantic range of qualitative-definite. When the com-
plement followed the object it would tend to
fall within the range of
qualitative-
indefinite.
With application to exegesis, just a few of the
scores of passages
affected
by this study were noted. Among them, Titus
Rom
10:9 received lengthy treatments and I suggested that the per-
severance
of the saints and the deity of Christ were implicit in these
texts,
respectively.
In conclusion, although the reader may find some
of the exe-
getical suggestions stated herein to be
debatable, he should remember
that
the purpose of this paper is not primarily to come to exegetical
conclusions,
but to raise exegetical questions on the basis of a better
understanding
of the semantics of a particular grammatical construc-
tion. Therefore, if the grammatical arguments set
forth in this paper
help
the exegete to see new possibilities (e.g., in Titus
purpose
has been accomplished.
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