αἷμα· (aima) in Romans 3:15: Noun Accusative Singular Neuter
αἷμα· (aima) in Romans 3:15
Textual Witness
The witness reads αἷμα in Romans 3:15 within the phrase ἐκχέαι αἷμα, and the form is an accusative singular noun in the provided text.
How The Form Affects Interpretation
The form reinforces the violent image in the verse by marking blood as the thing shed, without adding a separate claim beyond the sentence's own force.
How To Communicate It
This form is best communicated as blood being the object of shedding, which keeps the translation and explanation close to the verse's stark image.
What Not To Say
- Grammatical form should serve context, not override it.
- Accusative case here supports the action, but it does not by itself settle theology or speaker intent.
- Neuter gender is grammatical and should not be turned into a gendered meaning or doctrinal claim.
What Does The Label Mean?
Noun: the word names a reality, here the thing shed or poured out in the clause.
Accusative: the form commonly marks the direct object of a verb or the goal of an action, and here it fits the idea of what is being shed.
Singular: the form is grammatically singular in this occurrence, presenting blood as a single substance or mass idea.
Neuter: the noun belongs to the neuter grammatical class, which does not by itself create a gendered theological claim.
What The Form Does In This Verse
ἐκχέαι
The accusative form is governed by the infinitive ἐκχέαι and names what is being poured out or shed.
It functions as the object of the action, specifying the thing associated with violent shedding in the sentence.
It does not on its own identify the subject, the agent, or a separate theological category.
How Much The Form Matters Here
High: The noun names blood as the object in the violent image of Romans 3:15.
Accusative singular neuter noun governed by an infinitive. identifies blood as what is being shed in the indictment. Attached to the infinitive about shedding or pouring out. Governed by the infinitive that names the violent action. The bloodshed sense comes from the verb and citation context, not from accusative case alone.
What are the feet described as swift to shed? Blood.
Direct: The accusative noun directly supports object wording in "to shed blood."
The accusative marks the object relation and does not name the agent. The singular noun can function as a substance or mass idea in this phrase. This context concerns bloodshed, not sacrificial blood.
Accusative case proves agent or motive: The case marks blood as object; the surrounding indictment supplies the moral force. blood always means sacrifice: This occurrence belongs to a violence citation, not a sacrificial context.
How The Interpretation Is Derived
The witness reads αἷμα in Romans 3:15 within the phrase ἐκχέαι αἷμα, and the form is an accusative singular noun in the provided text.
The lemma αἷμα means blood, so the form continues that lexical idea without changing it into another word or concept.
In this context the accusative fits the action of shedding, so the grammar highlights blood as what is being poured out in a violent sense.
The verse describes feet that are swift toward shedding blood, so the form supports the picture of destructive behavior.
Across Scripture the lexeme can mark literal blood, bloodshed, or sacrificial blood, but this verse uses it in a bloodshed context, not a sacrificial one.
For readers and teachers, the form helps preserve the force of the image while keeping the focus on the action of shedding rather than on a technical label.
Do not derive agent, moral status, or doctrinal conclusions from accusative case alone; those come from the clause and passage context.