Grammar of relative clause in Romans 1:27

[davidwalucy@yahoo.com]

Greetings,

Romans 1:27 reads “Romans 1:27 ομοιως τε και οι αρσενες αφεντες την φυσικην χρησιν της θηλειας εξεκαυθησαν εν τη ορεξει αυτων εις αλληλους αρσενες εν αρσεσιν την ασχημοσυνην κατεργαζομενοι και την αντιμισθιαν ην εδει της πλανης αυτων εν εαυτοις απολαμβανοντες”

The KJV translation is: “And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

My question is about the relative clause: “ην εδει.” What is the actual case of the relative pronoun? Is in in the accusative as given? If so, is it then the subject of an infinitive that is understood or something else? Or is it in the nominative, and the relative was attracted to the case of the antecedent αντιμισθιαν? If so, does δει by itself mean “to be meet?” Or is it none of the above?

Thank You,
David R.

[Jason Hare]

Greetings,

Romans 1:27 reads “Romans 1:27 ομοιως τε και οι αρσενες αφεντες την φυσικην χρησιν της θηλειας εξεκαυθησαν εν τη ορεξει αυτων εις αλληλους αρσενες εν αρσεσιν την ασχημοσυνην κατεργαζομενοι και την αντιμισθιαν ην εδει της πλανης αυτων εν εαυτοις απολαμβανοντες”

The KJV translation is: “And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

My question is about the relative clause: “ην εδει.” What is the actual case of the relative pronoun? Is in in the accusative as given? If so, is it then the subject of an infinitive that is understood or something else? Or is it in the nominative, and the relative was attracted to the case of the antecedent αντιμισθιαν? If so, does δει by itself mean “to be meet?” Or is it none of the above?

Thank You,
David R.

It is what corresponds to the “was meet” in the KJV, but I don’t think that “to be meet” is a modern English expression. It’d be something more like “was appropriate” or “was needing to be.”

δεῖ inf. (τὸ) δεῖν Lk 18:1, Ac 25:24; AcPlCor 1:9, subj. δέῃ, impf. ἔδει (B-D-F §358, 1; Rob. 885f), fut. δεήσει Josh 18:4; impers. verb from δέω; for Attic ins forms s. Threatte II 634f (Hom.+) Strict classification of usage is not possible because of the multifunctional adaptability of this verb, esp. in colloquial discourse.
① to be under necessity of happening, it is necessary, one must, one has to, denoting compulsion of any kind.
ⓐ of that which takes place because of circumstances or inner necessity, with the context determining the cause (Hdt. [8, 53 ἔδεε κατὰ τὸ θεοπρόπιον]; Appian, Liby. 122 §578 ἁλῶναι ἔδει Καρχηδόνα=it was necessary that Carthage be captured, i.e. it could not escape being captured [Appian’s theological perspective surfaces, s. e.g. 7, 53; 8, 51; 57; 61; 62; 92]; Da 2:28f, 45 Theod; Wsd 16:4; Just., D. 6, 2; 32, 4) Mt 17:10; 24:6 (δεῖ γενέσθαι as Jos., Ant. 10, 142); 26:54; Mk 9:11; 13:7, 10; Lk 4:43; 21:9; 24:46 v.l.; J 3:14, 30; 9:4; 10:16; 20:9; Ac 1:16; 3:21; 4:12; Ro 1:27; 1 Cor 15:53; 2 Cor 5:10; Rv 1:1; 4:1; 22:6; 2 Cl 2:5.
ⓑ of the compulsion of law or custom ᾗ ἔδει θύεσθαι τὸ πάσχα when the paschal lamb had to be sacrificed Lk 22:7.—Mt 23:23; Lk 11:42; 13:14; J 4:20, 24; Ac 15:5; 18:21 v.l. Of the compulsion of Roman law 25:10.
ⓒ of an inner necessity growing out of a given situation, Mt 26:35 (Jos., Ant. 6, 108 κἂν ἀποθανεῖν δέῃ; PFay 109, 5 ἐάν σε δῇ [=δέῃ] τὸ εἱμάτιόν σου θεῖναι ἐνέχυρον; Ath. 24, 1 τί δὲ δεῖ πρὸς ὑμᾶς … μνημονεύειν;), Mk 14:31; J 4:4; Ac 14:22; 21:22 v.l.; 27:21; 2 Cor 11:30.—ὥστε … [τὴν Ἀρτεμύλλαν] μικ̣ρ̣ο̣ῦ δεῖν ἀπόπληκτον γενέσθαι so that Artemilla was on the point of fainting AcPl Ha 3, 33–35 (Demosth. 27, 29; Jos., C. Ap. 2, 119 al.).
ⓓ of compulsion caused by the necessity of attaining a certain result Lk 12:12; 19:5; Ac 9:6; 1 Cor 11:19; 2 Cl 1:1; B 4:1; IEph 7:1.—τὰ δέοντα (PPetr II, 11 [1], 6; BGU 251, 5 al.; pap; Pr 30:8; 2 Macc 13:20) the needs Hs 2, 5 and 8.
② to be someth. that should happen because of being fitting,
ⓐ gener. (Epict. 2, 22, 20 φίλος ἔσομαι οἷος δεῖ; 3, 23, 21 ὡς δεῖ, as Just., D. 114, 1; 2 Macc 6:20; 4 Macc 7:8) 2 Ti 2:6, 24. καθὸ δεῖ as is proper Ro 8:26.—δέον ἐστίν it is necessary, one must (Polyb.; POxy 727, 19f; 1061, 13; BGU 981 II, 6; Sir. Prol. ln. 3; 1 Macc 12:11; EpArist) Ac 19:36; 1 Cl 34:2; without ἐστίν (POxy 899, 40; EpArist 227; 242; Philo, Aet. M. 107; Jos., Bell. 2, 296; Just., A I, 4, 6; A II, 2, 7; D. 11, 2) ITr 2:3; Pol 5:3. εἰ δέον ἐστίν if it must be 1 Pt 1:6 (s. εἰμί 11d); οὐ δέον v.l. for οὐδέν Papias (4).—On the constr. of δεῖ, note that as a rule the acc. and inf. follow it (Jos., C. Ap. 2, 254; Lucian, Charon 13, Pisc. 17; Just., D. 11, 2 al.; B-D-F §408), occasionally the inf. alone Mt 23:23 (Jos., C. Ap. 1, 53a; Just., A I, 4, 6 al.—B-D-F §407); 26:54; Ac 5:29.—To convey the idea that someth. should not happen, δεῖ is used w. the negative οὐ Lk 13:16; 2 Tim 2:24; 2 Cl 1:1; AcPlCor 1:10 or μή. Tit 1:11 (ἃ μὴ δεῖ what is not proper [also Ael. Aristid. 54 p. 687 D.] is prob. a mixture of τὰ μὴ δέοντα 1 Ti 5:13 and ἃ οὐ δεῖ [Job 19:4]; s. B-D-F §428, 4; Rob. 1169); Ac 15:24. εἰ δὲ δεῖ ἡμᾶς … μὴ ποιεῖσθαι τὴν παραβολήν AcPlCor 2:28.
ⓑ of that which one should do (Wsd 12:19; 16:28; EpJer 5; Tob 12:1): one ought or should οὐκ ἔδει σε ἐλεῆσαι; should you not have had mercy? Mt 18:33.—Lk 2:49; 15:32; 18:1; Ac 5:29; 1 Th 4:1; Tit 1:11; 1 Cl 62:2.—In τί με δεῖ ποιεῖν; what shall I do? Ac 16:30, δ. stands for the deliberative subj. (B-D-F §366, 4).
ⓒ to indicate that something that happened should by all means have happened, expressed w. the impf. ἔδει (Jos., Bell. 4, 232; Just., D. 88, 6; 141, 1 al.) had to Lk 15:32; 22:7; 24:26; J 4:4; Ac 1:16; 17:3.
ⓓ to indicate that someth. that did not take place really should have happened, also expressed w. the impf. ἔδει should have, ought to have Mt 18:33; 23:23; Ac 24:19 (Ath. 21, 1; ὃν ἔδει w. inf. TestJos 14:3; οὓς ἔδει w. inf.: Isocr. 3, 40, 35a; Lysias 14, 29; Lucian, Philops. 21); 27:21; 2 Cor 2:3. Cp. B-D-F. §358.—EFascher, Theol. Beobachtungen zu δεῖ im AT: ZNW 45, ’54, 244–52, Theol. Beobachtungen zu δεῖ: RBultmann Festschr., ’54, 228–54; CCosgrove, NovT 26, ’84, 168–90 (Luke-Acts).—JKube, ΤΕΧΝΗ und ΑΡΕΤΗ ’69, 46. Cp. χρή. B. 640f. Schmidt, Syn. III 702–5. DELG s.v. δέω 2. EDNT. M-M. TW. Sv.

William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 213–214.

[Jonathan Robie]

My question is about the relative clause: “ην εδει.” What is the actual case of the relative pronoun? Is in in the accusative as given? If so, is it then the subject of an infinitive that is understood or something else? Or is it in the nominative, and the relative was attracted to the case of the antecedent αντιμισθιαν? If so, does δει by itself mean “to be meet?” Or is it none of the above?

τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν is the antecedent, and it is accusative. ἣν is also accusative because ἣν refers to τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν, therefore the cases agree.

Literally, "the payment which is necessary". Here are the two key words:

ἀντιμισθία, -ας, ἡ
(< ἀντίμισθος, for a reward),
a reward, requital: in good sense, II Co 6:13; in bad sense, Ro 1:27 (MM, VGT, s.v.).†

δεῖ impersonal (δέω),
[in LXX chiefly for infin. with לְ ;]

one must, it is necessary: c. inf., Mt 26:54, Mk 13:7, Ac 5:29, al.; c. acc. et inf., Mt 16:21, Mk 8:31, Jo 3:7, Ac 25:10, al.; with ellipse of acc., Mt 23:23; of acc., and inf., Mk 13:14, Ro 1:27 8:26; οὐ (μὴ) δεῖ (non licet), ought not, must not: Ac 25:24, II Ti 2:24; impf., ἔδει, of necessity or obligation in past time regarding a past event (Bl., § 63, 4), Mt 18:33, Lk 15:32, Jo 4:4, Ac 27:21, al.; periphr., δέον ἐστίν (as in Attic, χρεών ἐστι = χρή, v.s. δέον), Ac 19:36; id., with ellipse of ἐστίν, I Pe 1:6τὰ μὴ δέοντα (= ἃ οὐ δεῖI Ti 5:13.

SYN.: ὀφείλει, expressing moral obligation, as distinct from δεῖ, denoting logical necessity and χρή, a need which results from the fitness of things (v. Tr., Syn., § cvii, 10; Westc. on He 2:1, I Jn 2:6; Hort on Ja 3:10).

See Jason's definition of δεῖ.

[Barry Hofstetter]

τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν is the antecedent, and it is accusative. ἣν is also accusative because ἣν refers to τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν, therefore the cases agree.

Literally, "the payment which is necessary".

Well, the relative pronoun agrees with it's antecedent in number and gender, but derives its case from its usage in its own clause. Since δεῖ is intransitive and impersonal (it normally takes an infinitive for its subject), and since accusatives cannot be the subject of a finite verb, the relative pronoun can't be the subject as you expressed above. How to explain the accusative? I would supply ἀπολαβεῖν from the context, "the reward which it was necessary for them to receive."

[Jonathan Robie]

τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν is the antecedent, and it is accusative. ἣν is also accusative because ἣν refers to τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν, therefore the cases agree.

Literally, "the payment which is necessary".

Well, the relative pronoun agrees with it's antecedent in number and gender, but derives its case from its usage in its own clause.

Ooops. Yeah, sorry. I should have been more careful.

Since δεῖ is intransitive and impersonal (it normally takes an infinitive for its subject), and since accusatives cannot be the subject of a finite verb, the relative pronoun can't be the subject as you expressed above. How to explain the accusative? I would supply ἀπολαβεῖν from the context, "the reward which it was necessary for them to receive."

Thanks.

[Stephen Carlson]

τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν is the antecedent, and it is accusative. ἣν is also accusative because ἣν refers to τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν, therefore the cases agree.

Literally, "the payment which is necessary".

Well, the relative pronoun agrees with it's antecedent in number and gender, but derives its case from its usage in its own clause. Since δεῖ is intransitive and impersonal (it normally takes an infinitive for its subject), and since accusatives cannot be the subject of a finite verb, the relative pronoun can't be the subject as you expressed above. How to explain the accusative? I would supply ἀπολαβεῖν from the context, "the reward which it was necessary for them to receive."

This is a fine explanation. I would add that even if there was some other verb, the conditions are also right for case attraction of the relative to the accusative. So, as in many cases, there may be more than one (cooperating) explanation in play, but as a general matter attraction should wait as an explanation for a more obvious case.

[davidwalucy@yahoo.com]

τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν is the antecedent, and it is accusative. ἣν is also accusative because ἣν refers to τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν, therefore the cases agree.

Literally, "the payment which is necessary".

Well, the relative pronoun agrees with it's antecedent in number and gender, but derives its case from its usage in its own clause. Since δεῖ is intransitive and impersonal (it normally takes an infinitive for its subject), and since accusatives cannot be the subject of a finite verb, the relative pronoun can't be the subject as you expressed above. How to explain the accusative? I would supply ἀπολαβεῖν from the context, "the reward which it was necessary for them to receive."

This is a fine explanation. I would add that even if there was some other verb, the conditions are also right for case attraction of the relative to the accusative. So, as in many cases, there may be more than one (cooperating) explanation in play, but as a general matter attraction should wait as an explanation for a more obvious case.

Thank you all for your explanations. I suppose a high level summary of the main points discussed are that:

• δει seems to be strictly an impersonal and intransitive verb

• For the case of Romans 1:27 "... και την αντιμισθιαν ην εδει... " the most obvious explanation for the accusative relative would be that it is associated with an understood infinitive dependent on δει such as an accusative object of ἀπολαβεῖν