Definite Relative Clauses
A relative clause with a **specific referent** commonly uses an indicative, but indicative is not a test of specificity or objective truth. John 4:14 has a future indicative inside a relative clause. General relative constructions can also have indicatives (§61.2).
The relative's gender and number normally relate to its antecedent; its case normally reflects its role in its own clause. In the second water-expression in John 4:14, **τὸ ὕδωρ** is the nominative subject of γενήσεται, whereas **ὃ** is the accusative object of δώσω. Neuter nominative and accusative forms look alike, so sentence structure is needed to distinguish them. Do not leave the contextual parse at 'nominative/accusative'. Attraction is a marked qualification to the ordinary case rule (§61.7).
**John 4:14, excerpt** — **ἀλλὰ τὸ ὕδωρ ὃ δώσω αὐτῷ, γενήσεται ἐν αὐτῷ πηγὴ ὕδατος** ("but the water which I will give him will become in him a spring of water"). τὸ ὕδωρ is nominative neuter singular in the main clause; ὃ is accusative neuter singular as object of future active indicative δώσω. This is the second water-expression in the verse; compare its earlier attracted οὗ in §61.7.
Indefinite Relative Clauses
**General or indefinite reference** concerns a person or thing satisfying a description, rather than a single previously identified individual. NT patterns include a relative with **ἄν + subjunctive** and relatives with **indicative**, including future indicative. Mark 8:35 and Matthew 10:32–33 illustrate different constructions; a subjunctive is not obligatory for every 'whoever' translation.
The compound **ὅστις** can characterize a referent and can also occur with a specific antecedent, as feminine **ἥτις** does with Philippi in Acts 16:12. Its historical composition is not an exceptionless rule that every occurrence means 'whoever'. Identify pronoun, particle, mood, and discourse reference separately. Do not call an actual ἄν quotation an example of the spelling ἐάν.
**Mark 8:35, excerpt** — **ὃς γὰρ ἂν θέλῃ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ σῶσαι, ἀπολέσει αὐτήν** ("For whoever wants to save his life will lose it"). ὃς is nominative masculine singular; θέλῃ is present active subjunctive, third singular, with ἄν. σῶσαι is aorist active infinitive, complement of θέλῃ.
**Matthew 10:32, excerpt** — **Πᾶς οὖν ὅστις ὁμολογήσει ἐν ἐμοὶ ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων** ("Therefore everyone who acknowledges me before people"). ὁμολογήσει is future active indicative, third singular. No ἄν occurs in this excerpt.
**Matthew 10:33, excerpt** — **ὅστις δ᾽ ἂν ἀρνήσηταί με ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων** ("but whoever denies me before people"). ἀρνήσηται is aorist middle subjunctive, third singular, with ἄν; the added accent in ἀρνήσηταί accompanies enclitic με. The middle form has the active English meaning “denies”.
Restrictive Relative Clauses
A **restrictive** or **defining** relative limits or identifies the referent or range of its antecedent. In John 6:37, the relative specifies the scope of Πᾶν. This function is not confined to specific individual referents or to a fixed mood. Punctuation and proximity can help a reader, but neither is a decisive test.
Compare **Πᾶν ὃ δίδωσί μοι ὁ πατήρ** with **πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων**. The first has a relative pronoun and a finite verb; the second an article and a participle. The article belongs to the participial construction: πᾶς does not govern an article before a relative pronoun, and ὃ is not an article. Similar English translations must not erase these differences.
**John 6:37, excerpt** — **Πᾶν ὃ δίδωσί μοι ὁ πατήρ, πρὸς ἐμὲ ἥξει** ("Everything that the Father gives me will come to me"). Πᾶν functions as nominative neuter singular subject of ἥξει; ὃ is accusative neuter singular, object of δίδωσι. The referential scope is supplied by the relative construction.
**John 3:16, excerpt** — **πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν** ("everyone who believes in him"). ὁ is the article and πιστεύων is a present active participle, nominative masculine singular. This is a substantival participial expression, not a finite relative clause.
Non-Restrictive Relative Clauses
A **non-restrictive**, **supplementary**, or **appositive** relative adds a predication about a referent already identified in the discourse. This does not make the added information unimportant. Proper names and definite expressions can support this reading, but they are not automatic proof of it. Modern editorial commas can represent an interpretation; they do not establish it independently.
Acts 16:14 adds information about Lydia. In contrast, Galatians 5:4 addresses those described as seeking justification in law. The fact that a letter has known recipients does not establish that its οἵτινες-clause must apply indiscriminately to every recipient or must be non-restrictive. Its rhetorical scope requires contextual argument; οἵτινες alone does not settle it.
**Acts 16:14, excerpt** — **ἧς ὁ Κύριος διήνοιξε τὴν καρδίαν** ("whose heart the Lord opened"). The relative refers to Lydia, already introduced by name in the verse. ἧς is genitive feminine singular, possessive with τὴν καρδίαν; it is not genitive merely because an antecedent happens to be genitive.
**Galatians 5:4, excerpt** — **κατηργήθητε ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ οἵτινες ἐν νόμῳ δικαιοῦσθε** ("You have been severed from Christ, you who seek justification in law"). οἵτινες is nominative masculine plural referring to the addressed group. δικαιοῦσθε is present passive indicative, second plural; “seek justification” is a contextual interpretation, not a separate morphological form. Whether the description delimits the addressees or characterizes them more broadly cannot be decided from the pronoun alone.
Relative Clause Antecedents
An **antecedent** is an expression to which a relative refers. It may be a noun phrase, a pronoun, or a larger stretch of discourse. It need not be the nearest noun or lie within the same modern verse. A free relative can lack a separate noun antecedent. Neuter relatives can refer to content or situations, but not every antecedentless neuter relative resumes an already stated whole clause.
Gender and number agreement are strong clues, not exceptionless tests. In Acts 16:12, **Φιλίππους** is masculine plural in form, while **ἥτις** is feminine singular in a clause that describes Philippi as a **πόλις**. The construction follows the city conception/predicate noun rather than mechanically copying the place-name's form. This is not case attraction. Syntax, lexical meaning, and discourse must be considered together.
**Acts 16:12, excerpt** — **ἐκεῖθέν τε εἰς Φιλίππους, ἥτις ἐστὶ πρώτη τῆς μερίδος τῆς Μακεδονίας πόλις κολωνία.** ("and from there to Philippi, which is a leading city of the district of Macedonia, a colony"). ἥτις is nominative feminine singular, functioning as subject of ἐστί and agreeing with the city conception expressed by πόλις. The named city is specific despite the compound relative; the geographical force of πρώτη is not determined by the relative pronoun.
Omitted Antecedents
Distinguish a **free relative without a separate noun antecedent** from a relative that continues an **explicit antecedent in preceding discourse**. First Corinthians 11:23 uses 'what I also handed on' for the received tradition, whose content is then introduced. First Peter 2:22 instead resumes Χριστός from 2:21. The latter's antecedent is not absent simply because it is in another verse.
Likewise, First Peter 1:8 resumes Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ from 1:7. The teaching text has **εἰδότες**, not ἰδόντες. It must not be parsed as an aorist participle of seeing. Identify the form actually present and keep the inherited translation separate from claims about its morphology.
**1 Corinthians 11:23, excerpt** — **ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑμῖν** ("For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you"). ὃ is accusative neuter singular as object of παρέδωκα. The free relative identifies the content received, without a separate noun antecedent. It need not be described as resuming an already expressed whole clause.
**1 Peter 1:8, excerpt** — **ὃν οὐκ εἰδότες ἀγαπᾶτε** ("whom you love although you have not known him"). ὃν is accusative masculine singular referring to Jesus Christ in 1:7. εἰδότες is perfect active participle, nominative masculine plural, of οἶδα, with stative meaning. This literal rendering follows the saved wording; do not silently substitute a different Greek form to obtain “having seen”.
Relative Attraction
In **relative attraction**, a relative bears the antecedent's case instead of the case ordinarily expected from its role in the relative clause. John 4:14 and Mark 7:13 illustrate the traditional genitive and dative analyses. Attraction is not compulsory, and matching cases alone do not establish it.
**Parse the form actually written**, then explain its relation: an attracted genitive remains morphologically genitive even when it fills the role normally expressed by an accusative object. Do not label it accusative in a morphology answer. First test whether a preposition, verb, noun, or adverbial function independently accounts for the relative's case.
Ephesians 1:6 has **ἐν ᾗ** in this teaching text, with dative governed by ἐν. First Corinthians 11:23 has **ᾗ** meaning 'on which' with 'night'; this temporal dative does not require an underlying accusative object of passive παρεδίδοτο. Neither is evidence for attraction merely because the cases match.
**John 4:14, excerpt** — **ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος οὗ ἐγὼ δώσω αὐτῷ** ("from the water which I will give him"). οὗ is genitive neuter singular, traditionally analyzed as attracted to τοῦ ὕδατος; giving ordinarily takes an accusative object for the thing given. Compare the later non-attracted ὃ δώσω in the same verse.
**Mark 7:13, excerpt** — **τῇ παραδόσει ὑμῶν ᾗ παρεδώκατε** ("by your tradition which you handed down"). ᾗ is dative feminine singular, traditionally attracted to τῇ παραδόσει, while identifying what was handed down. The morphological parse stays dative; an alternative analysis would need a reason for dative within the relative clause, not merely in the main clause.
**Ephesians 1:6, excerpt** — **τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ, ἐν ᾗ ἐχαρίτωσεν ἡμᾶς** ("of his grace, in which he favored us"). ᾗ is dative feminine singular governed by ἐν. It is not attracted to genitive χάριτος.
**1 Corinthians 11:23, excerpt** — **ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ᾗ παρεδίδοτο** ("on the night on which he was being handed over"). ᾗ is dative feminine singular with temporal function inside its own clause. The relative does not stand for the person handed over; no accusative object is required here.
Inverse Attraction
**Inverse attraction** is the traditional term for the antecedent taking the relative's case rather than the reverse. First Corinthians 10:16 supplies a concrete example traditionally analyzed this way: τὸν ἄρτον is accusative like relative ὃν, although the bread is the topic of the following predication with ἐστιν. A regular subject construction would use nominative ὁ ἄρτος.
An alternative description emphasizes a fronted accusative topic followed by a comment. Record the actual forms and the explanatory analysis separately; this construction should not license silently rewriting the noun or treating every fronted expression as an error. The example also shows why inverse attraction must not be limited to an antecedent becoming genitive or dative.
**1 Corinthians 10:16, excerpt** — **τὸν ἄρτον ὃν κλῶμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐστιν;** ("The bread which we break—is it not a participation in the body of Christ?"). τὸν ἄρτον and ὃν are accusative masculine singular; ὃν is the object of κλῶμεν. Robertson calls the antecedent’s accusative inverse attraction. The description concerns syntax, not a decision about the theological nature of the participation.
Antecedent Incorporation
**Antecedent incorporation** is used here in the narrower structural sense: an expressed antecedent noun occurs within the relative construction rather than as a separate noun before it. Luke 19:37 illustrates the traditional analysis with δυνάμεων placed after ὧν εἶδον. This can coexist with case attraction; it is not simply another name for an omitted antecedent.
Keep three structures distinct: an incorporated noun (Luke 19:37); a free relative without a separate noun (1 Corinthians 11:23); and an articular participle (John 6:37). An English 'the one who' translation does not turn the article into a relative pronoun or prove that a Greek finite relative clause is present.
**Luke 19:37, excerpt** — **περὶ πασῶν ὧν εἶδον δυνάμεων** ("for all the mighty works which they had seen"). δυνάμεων is the genitive plural noun within the relative construction; περί governs the genitive expression. On the traditional incorporation-and-attraction analysis, ὧν is genitive plural attracted to that expression while corresponding to the object of εἶδον.
**John 6:37, excerpt** — **τὸν ἐρχόμενον πρός με οὐ μὴ ἐκβάλω ἔξω** ("the one who comes to me I will certainly not cast out"). τὸν ἐρχόμενον is an accusative substantival participial expression serving as object of ἐκβάλω. ἐρχόμενον is present middle/passive participle in morphology. This is not an incorporated noun inside a finite relative clause.
Conditional Relative Clauses
A general relative may have **conditional force**: 'whoever does X' can often be paraphrased 'if anyone does X'. This is a relation in meaning, not syntactic identity. The relative pronoun still has its role inside the relative clause, and a following pronoun may resume its referent in the main assertion. In Mark 8:35, nominative ὃς is subject of θέλῃ; the associated assertion has future ἀπολέσει.
Read the actual morphology. Matthew 10:33 has aorist middle subjunctive in the relative and future middle indicative in the associated assertion. Present and aorist subjunctives differ in aspect, not absolute present versus past time. Present θέλῃ does not require adding 'keeps on wishing', and the aorist does not mean a single momentary act in every context.
**Matthew 10:33, excerpt** — **ὅστις δ᾽ ἂν ἀρνήσηταί με ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἀρνήσομαι αὐτὸν κἀγὼ ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς.** ("But whoever denies me before people, I also will deny him before my Father in heaven"). The relative has aorist middle subjunctive ἀρνήσηται; the main assertion has future middle indicative ἀρνήσομαι. αὐτόν resumes the person described as the object of the speaker’s denial. Conditional paraphrase does not make the Greek relative a literal ἐάν τις clause.
Relative Clauses of Characteristic
A relative can **characterize** a person or class. Here 'characteristic' describes a contextual function, not a separate Greek mood rule. Do not import a rule that subjunctive morphology alone marks a relative 'of characteristic'. Matthew 10:32 uses future indicative in a general relative, and Acts 16:12 uses present indicative with a named city.
Finite relatives, articular participles, and nominal descriptions can all characterize referents, but they are different constructions. Matthew 5:22 provides a useful internal comparison: ὁ ὀργιζόμενος is a participle, whereas ὃς ... ἂν εἴπῃ is a finite relative construction. Neither present morphology nor an English 'who' translation automatically imposes habitual conduct as the only possible reading.
**Matthew 5:22, excerpt** — **πᾶς ὁ ὀργιζόμενος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ εἰκῆ ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει** ("everyone who is angry with his brother without cause will be liable to judgment"). ὀργιζόμενος is present middle/passive participle, nominative masculine singular. The saved teaching text includes εἰκῆ; its presence must not be silently omitted when quoting this complete expression.
**Matthew 5:22, excerpt** — **ὃς δ᾽ ἂν εἴπῃ τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ ῥακά, ἔνοχος ἔσται τῷ συνεδρίῳ** ("but whoever says “Raca” to his brother will be liable to the council"). ὃς is a relative pronoun and εἴπῃ aorist active subjunctive, third singular, with ἄν. This finite relative differs structurally from the preceding articular participle.
Relative Clauses with Indefinite Force
Interpret **indefinite/general reference**, **conditional force**, and **characterization** as related but distinct questions. Does the expression identify a known referent or specify anyone meeting a condition? Can its relation to the main assertion be paraphrased conditionally? Does it characterize a referent? These answers are not all encoded by one ending.
Compare Matthew 10:32's ὅστις with future indicative, Matthew 10:33's ὅστις plus ἄν and subjunctive, and Mark 8:35's ὃς plus ἄν and subjunctive. First John 3:22 supplies an actual relative with ἐάν and subjunctive. This use of ἐάν must be distinguished from the spelling ἄν in the Mark and Matthew examples; it is not merely a longer spelling to substitute freely. Nor should the two Matthean patterns be taught as freely interchangeable in every context.
**Matthew 10:32, excerpt** — **ὅστις ὁμολογήσει** ("whoever acknowledges"). Future active indicative with a compound relative in this context; see the fuller quotation in §61.2.
**Matthew 10:33, excerpt** — **ὅστις δ᾽ ἂν ἀρνήσηταί με** ("but whoever denies me"). The actual text uses ἄν with aorist middle subjunctive. The English general-relative rendering does not entail that this construction and the preceding future indicative have identical morphology.
**1 John 3:22, excerpt** — **καὶ ὃ ἐὰν αἰτῶμεν λαμβάνομεν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ** ("and whatever we ask we receive from him"). ὃ is accusative neuter singular, object of present active subjunctive αἰτῶμεν. The source has ἐάν here. The main predicate λαμβάνομεν is present active indicative; not every general relative has a future main assertion.
Relative Clauses as Discourse-Connecting Devices
A relative clause can continue discourse by taking up a referent already introduced. First Peter 2:22 follows Christ in 2:21; First Peter 1:8 follows Jesus Christ in 1:7. Modern verse boundaries do not make these antecedents absent. In 2:22, nominative ὃς serves as subject of ἐποίησεν; in 1:8, accusative ὃν serves as object of ἀγαπᾶτε. Discourse function does not erase clause-internal syntax.
Distinguish this continuation from a **fronted topic resumed later by a pronoun**. Luke 12:48 has dative παντὶ ... ᾧ and later παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ. The dative relative denotes the recipient in its own passive clause; the later genitive follows παρά. Different cases can thus be independently motivated, not simply 'wrong' case or inverse attraction. Use labels such as 'hanging topic' only after analyzing the actual structure.
**1 Peter 2:21, excerpt** — **Χριστὸς ἔπαθεν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν** ("Christ suffered for you"). This supplies the overt antecedent in the preceding verse; the next relative continues this referent.
**1 Peter 2:22, excerpt** — **ὃς ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἐποίησεν** ("who committed no sin"). ὃς is nominative masculine singular, subject of ἐποίησεν, and resumes Christ. This example does not require an antecedent invented from an unspecified wider context.
**Luke 12:48, excerpt** — **παντὶ δὲ ᾧ ἐδόθη πολύ, πολὺ ζητηθήσεται παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ** ("but everyone to whom much was given—from him much will be required"). ᾧ is dative masculine singular for the recipient with aorist passive ἐδόθη. αὐτοῦ resumes that person after παρά. The whole topic-comment relation should be distinguished from the morphological case assigned within each construction.
Paradigms
Relative Constructions: Reference, Function, and Form
These dimensions overlap; they are not an exhaustive set of mutually exclusive mood classes. Parse pronoun and verb, identify the referent, then justify the clause’s contextual function.
| Dimension | Construction / example | Function | Forms and qualifications |
| Specific reference | ὃ δώσω (John 4:14); ἥτις with Philippi (Acts 16:12) | Relates to an identified referent | Indicatives in these examples; neither indicative nor ὅστις alone decides specificity. |
|---|---|---|---|
| General reference | ὃς + ἄν (Mark 8:35); ὅστις (Matthew 10:32–33) | Anyone meeting the description | Present/aorist subjunctive with ἄν, or future indicative in the attested examples. |
| Restrictive function | Πᾶν ὃ δίδωσί μοι ὁ πατήρ (John 6:37) | Delimits the antecedent’s referent or range | No dedicated restrictive mood; distinguish the finite relative from πᾶς + articular participle. |
| Supplementary function | ἧς with Lydia (Acts 16:14) | Adds a predication about an identified referent | Indicative in this example; punctuation or a proper name alone is not the test. |
| Conditional / characterizing function | General relatives in Mark 8:35 and Matthew 10:32–33 | Can support a conditional paraphrase or characterize a referent | Contextual functions, not a separate “characteristic subjunctive” rule. |
| Discourse continuation | ὃς after Χριστός (1 Peter 2:21–22) | Continues an explicitly introduced referent | Antecedent across a verse boundary; the relative’s nominative is explained inside its own clause. |
Chapter glossary
- ὅς — who, which (relative)
hos
pronoun
Relative pronoun: gender and number normally relate to the antecedent; case normally follows its role inside the relative clause. Attraction and sense agreement qualify these defaults. Record morphological case separately from syntactic function.- ὅστις — whoever, whatever
hostis
pronoun
Compound relative pronoun, often general or characterizing; it is not invariably indefinite. Compare general ὅστις in Matthew 10:32–33 with specific feminine ἥτις referring to Philippi in Acts 16:12. Mood and context must be identified separately.- — relative clause
syntax
A clause introduced by a relative pronoun or relative adverb and related to an expressed or contextually recoverable referent. A free relative may function as a nominal expression without a separate noun antecedent. Distinguish finite relatives from articular participles.- — restrictive relative clause
syntax
A relative clause delimiting or identifying its antecedent's referent or range. Restrictive function is a discourse relation, not a dedicated mood or pronoun form. A similar English translation of an articular participle does not make it a finite relative clause.- — non-restrictive relative clause
syntax
A relative clause adding a predication about an already identified referent. Also called supplementary or appositive. The reading depends on discourse; a proper name, definite expression, punctuation mark, or οἵτινες alone does not prove it.- — relative attraction
syntax
A relative takes its antecedent's case instead of the case ordinarily expected from its clause role. Record its actual morphological case, then explain attraction. A preposition-governed or temporal dative need not involve attraction; inverse attraction instead affects the antecedent.- — antecedent
syntax
An expression to which a relative or another pronoun refers, often a noun phrase but sometimes broader discourse. It need not be the nearest noun; free relatives can lack a separate expressed antecedent.