Chapter 7 of Exegetical Gems deals with the accusative case, and the scripture on which Merkle focuses is Romans 10:9. Why are there such diverse translations of this verse? We find "Jesus is Lord," "Jesus as Lord" and "the Lord Jesus." Before addressing why the diverse renderings exist, the chapter explains how the accusative case functions in Greek. For instance, Dana-Mantey supply a few ways that accusatives work, and they end with noting that the accusative case frequently answers the question, "how far"?
Wallace observes that the accusative "limits as to quantity" and "is concerned about the extent and the scope of the verb’s action" (Quoted in Merkle, page 30). Some functions of the accusative case are signaling the direct object, double accusative, apposition, measure, manner, respect, and subject of the infinitive. Merkle explains that there are two kinds of double accusative constructions--(1) a personal and impersonal object, see 1 Corinthians 3:2; (2) object and complement. See 1 Timothy 2:6.
Chapter 7 of Exegetical Gems then returns to Romans 10:9 (Nestle 1904): ὅτι ἐὰν ὁμολογήσῃς ἐν τῷ στόματί σου Κύριον Ἰησοῦν, καὶ πιστεύσῃς ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς αὐτὸν ἤγειρεν ἐκ νεκρῶν, σωθήσῃ·
How should Κύριον Ἰησοῦν be rendered here? The text is an example of the double accusative being used in an object-complement construction where Ἰησοῦν is the object and Κύριον is the complement (page 31). Merkle reasons that if one were to expect "the Lord Jesus," there should be a definite article before Κύριον, but that is not what we find in Romans 10:9.
He concludes that "Jesus is Lord" is preferable to "Jesus as Lord" since "the object-complement construction is semantically equivalent to the subject-predicate nominative construction" (Wallace quoted in Merkle, page 31). Compare 1 Corinthians 12:3; Philippians 2:11.
It's interesting that NWT 2013 opts for "Jesus is Lord."
2 comments:
many trinitarian use this to assert Jesus is YHWH - however this falls apart with scriptures that state Jesus was made "Lord" and note the absence of the article
Good points. You're absolutely correct. It's funny that Merkle does not explicitly make such a statement in his book, but I checked two major commentaries on Romans and they both state that Romans 10:9 is proof that Jesus is Yahweh or God. Yet you demonstrate the flimsiness of that contention.
Post a Comment