Every correction of scripture is of moment. I beg to suggest one, the occasion for which it appears to me exceedingly mars the sense. I refer to the expression "It pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell." The English reader may see upon the face of it, that the word "Father" is put in by our translators. This is extremely bad theology, depriving us of the development of glory in the Person of our most blessed Lord. "All the fulness was pleased to dwell in him." In its present reading it is merely the pleasure of the Father about the Son, which I apprehend to be a mischievous derogation from the divine glory of the Son, to deprive us of the revelation of that in which to me Christianity consists -- a revelation of the Trinity known in the relationship in which we are brought by faith to it. In the second chapter we have the fact, "All the fulness of the Godhead dwells in him bodily;" that is, in the incarnation of the Son. While He was the Son in personal union with flesh as Jesus, there could be no separation of the Son from the Father or the Spirit, though most distinct in their relationship. Therefore the Lord says, though He wrought Himself the miracles, "The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works"; and again, "If I cast out devils, by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you." That He was the Son, however, is the direct object of faith, but revealing the Father; and therefore "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." In a word, the fulness of the Godhead (as is declared by the Spirit concerning Him) "dwelt in him bodily." These things may be difficult as to human explanation, but not as to communion, where the Spirit of God is; for He reveals in communion, according to the power of truth, and no way else. And I believe that, while the human intellect will break itself to pieces against the glory of the divine revelation, the fulness of our joy and hope, and the soundness of our Christianity, and, consequently christian strength and energy, chiefly depends upon the distinctness with which we are cognizant of the unity and trinity, withal made known to us in the Incarnation, which is the revelation of it. "God resisteth the proud but giveth grace to the humble." I believe it to be a revelation, and known, where only it can be known, in communion, by those made partakers of the Spirit by faith in Christ Jesus: all else will stumble somewhere, and these too, if they be not humble.
To the Editor of The Investigator.
Sir, I do not pretend to an adequate knowledge of Hebrew for a criticism dependent on the language. It appears to me, however, that interpreters have hindered their apprehension of the general force of the passage in Haggai, by confining themselves to the English translation, valuable as it may generally be. The passage does not apparently contemplate two houses at all, but negatives the idea very carefully. The spirit of the prophecy is contained in this: "According to the word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt, so my Spirit remaineth among you: fear ye not." The fact of two houses of course was before them; so it has been before us. God in the exercise of His love obliterates this idea (which we have rekindled), and will allow only of a different state of the same house, and that was one of far greater glory. "Who is left among you that saw this house (ˆwOvarIh; wOdwObkeBi hZ
Then the Lord says (after the verse above quoted, stating His continuance with them), "Thus saith Jehovah; Yet it is a little while," etc., and He will shake all that whose apparent stability has been against the people of His love, and "I will fill this house with glory: great shall be the glory of this house, the latter than the former": or, simply, "the latter glory of this house [looked at in its unity] shall be greater than the former."
Such seems the idea and the construction of the passage. I find the Septuagint follows it. The thought of God's mind seems to run through this construction, and to be borne upon the plain terms of the passage itself, and to be fully given by it only.
As to the other part of the passage I confess the difficulty. But it is clear to me, that it is much more abstract in intention than is generally supposed. It is not Christ shall become the desire of the Jews, nor merely the gold and silver after which the nations of the world should seek; but that that on which the heart of the Gentiles would be set should be not among them (to wit, the power and the glory), but in those that were broken and despised -- God's house now among them, in its power attracting round itself all the honour and glory of the nations whose rebellious stability and consistency had been shaken to pieces.
+[This letter appeared in the "Investigator," No. 9, vol. 2, page 334, April 1833. Ed.]
You are aware probably of the view of Parkhurst; and that, if I remember rightly, some manuscripts insert the Cholem.
I am, Sir, yours faithfully,
Dear Sir, I would renew my purpose to take notice of any passages in which it would appear to me more light might be thrown on the word, as read in English; which I conceive would be a valuable thing to many interested in the study of the scriptures. Often on an isolated expression much chain of argument depends; and again, a single expression often contains a head of argument which clears and satisfies the mind as to its bearings. I do not attach any extraordinary importance to the observations; only I feel that whatever clears scripture to the ordinary reader is of importance -- I will add, of importance to God in His lovingkindness to us. I will, trusting to the Lord's guidance, advert to one or two passages in the epistle to the Romans.
First, Romans 1: 18: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness." It appears to me, that the ordinary punctuation here mars the sense. Its force I apprehend is this, "all ungodliness, and unrighteousness of men that hold the truth in unrighteousness"; and this is a most important distinction, for it brings in the whole Gentile world guilty; as the apostle afterwards proves. God having been revealed in Christ, wrath is revealed against all ungodliness without exception, because it is such, and as ungodliness, ajsevbeian. Your Greek readers will remember that worshipping Gentiles are called by the opposite word to this, that is, sebomevnou", or "devout." Hence we have two great classes -- ungodliness universal; and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness .
I would add another remarkably beautiful circumstance of the most accurate word of God in this passage: wrath is not revealed in Him. In Him, or therein, the righteousness of God is revealed; but there is no "therein" or "in him," when the wrath is spoken of. It is universally revealed. What we have revealed in Christ is, "that he died for the ungodly" (the same word), and of God, that in and by the gospel He justifies the ungodly.
There is another expression which often puzzles the reader, which seems to me very plain by attention to the use of the words of the original -- "revealed from faith to faith"; ejk pivstew" eij" pivstin. Now I believe that ejk (the word here translated "from") always, when thus used with an abstract word, means the character, or order, or manner, of the thing which is spoken of. Thus salvation is ejk pivstew" here, "from faith," as we should say, "faithwise" (a form retained in many common words). This is its manner, order, the dispensation according to which salvation comes. The literal meaning is its source, "out of," which very readily in an abstract word is used in the sense of its order or dispensation. Even in English the expression is not unusual; for example, "It is out of kindness he does it," as we might in a similar sense add, "not through severity." Now I believe this to be the uniform sense of the preposition ejk used abstractedly, or in its moral sense, and hence also especially when it is used without the definite article in Greek following it. Applying this to this sentence, of which I will give further instances explanatory of passages in this book, "The righteousness of God is revealed from faith"; that is, according to the principle of faith, or a dispensation of faith, in this order or manner -- "to faith," therefore, which is the recipient power consequently in man. The statement is a most perfect abstract of the character of the dispensation: a revelation; the subject of that, "the righteousness of God"; the character of the dispensation by which it is revealed, ejk pivstew", and, consequently, that to which it is so revealed, "faith."
The following may be taken as instances: ajkrobustiva ejk fuvsew", "uncircumcision by nature"; and in Romans 2: 29 we have an instance of the remark as to the leaving out of the article, e[paino" ejx ajnqrwvpwn, that is, "human praise"; that is, the character of their praise: expressions, in this instance, adequately represented by the English of them.
Again, chapter 3: 20, diovti ejx e[rgwn novmou, "by the works of the law," that is, in this way. And hence we have the plain sense of another passage in this book, which has perplexed English readers: "justify the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith"; ejk pivstew" ... dia; thsee footnote" pivstew" . The circumcision had been seeking justification, but they had been seeking it ejx e[rgwn novmou, in that way, the wrong way -- by works of law. God would now justify them, not in that way but in another way, that is, ejk pivstew", "by faith," according to that principle or dispensation. But, inasmuch as it was upon this principle, the same God would justify, must justify, him who had the principle; and therefore a Gentile who had this faith (God's gift) would be justified through or by it, dia; thsee footnote" pivstew". The former being the principle of the dispensation, which involved justification, when the thing existed, the person who had it was justified necessarily upon this principle; and therefore by the same God the believing Gentile was necessarily admitted. It was therefore eij" uJpakoh;n pivstew", for the obedience of faith to all nations for His (Christ's) name, the object and subject matter of faith, in whom the Lord requiring the obedience was revealed.
So, in chapter 4: 2, ejx e[rgwn ejdikaiwvqh, justified by works, that is, in that way. So oiJ ejk peritomhsee footnote" -- oiJ ejk novmou --
I have alluded to the use of the article or its omission; and it seems to me a most important point in the use of the Greek Testament. My observation has led me (and in these things we are as dependent on the Lord's guidance, and as much debtors to His mercy as in any thing) to this conclusion that, whenever the article is used, it denotes a or the substantive object of the sentence; and where it is not used, the word is always characteristic; and that this rule holds good in all circumstances, though more difficult of discovery, to a mind not accustomed to abstract, in some cases than in others. Granville Sharp and Bishop Middleton have elaborately treated the article, and with great value in many respects; but I believe the above simple rule involves the true decision of every case. Bishop Middleton makes all prepositions an exception; I believe them none. The principle is recognized distinctly in a formal proposition: that is, the subject has, the predicate has not the article; so much so, that if it has, the proposition becomes what is called reciprocal: that is, the terms are so identical in extent, that either could be affirmed of the other. I would note, before I pass on, an instance of this, the mistranslation of which I believe to have been a cause of as much error in the Church as any one thing: hJ aJmartiva ejsti;n hJ ajnomiva, "sin is the transgression of the law." The apostle states no such thing. Sin is lawlessness; or lawlessness, that is insubordination, is sin. Disobedience is sin. This may be proved in breaking the law in a given instance: that is, transgression of the law is sin; but sin is not the transgression of the law, for, a[cri ga;r novmou aJmartiva h\n ejn kovsmw/. Yet I suppose upon this false translation half the formal judgment of the Church upon what sin is has been founded; but it is not my business to reason upon this here. It is exceedingly interesting from its connection with 2 Thessalonians 2: 3, 7, 8, where we have the man thsee footnote" aJmartiva" of sin; and then the mystery thsee footnote" ajvnomiva" of iniquity (the two terms of the reciprocal proposition above), concluding with oJ a[nomo" the wicked one; and I believe it to assist much in the solution or understanding of that passage. I believe there is a much higher characteristic of sin than the breach of a commandment -- the spirit of disobedience.
The rule destroys the folly of many Socinian comments, easily else destroyed, such as Wakefield's and the like. "In the beginning was the word," etc.; kai; Qeo;" h\n oJ lovgo". Qeov" here is the predicate of lovgo", and if it had had the article, it would have proved that there was nought else at all God but the Word -- that the extent of Godhead was equivalent to oJ lovgo". It has nothing whatever to do with any emphatic sense of Qeov", a sense which I believe Qeov" never can be proved to have.
Take another illustrative instance; Romans 1: 21: diovti gnovnte" to;n Qeovn, oujc wJ" Qeo;n ejdovxasan -- not clearly as a subordinate God: the apostle's argument is directly the other way. But when they knew God, the Person, the one God, the object of reverence, they glorified Him not in that character. Had the other notion been right or in any instance true, this passage would have no force, unless it were wJ" to;n Qeovn. I believe then, in every instance where the article is omitted, the noun is characteristic, adjectival in its character; where inserted, it presents the substantive object of thought.
The observations of Granville Sharp quite fall in with this, but are only an instance of it. Thus in to;n movnon despovthn Qeo;n kai; Kuvrion hJmwsee footnoten jIhsousee footnoten Cristovn, the tovn belongs to jIhsousee footnoten Cristovn -- all the rest is characteristic of Jesus Christ, "the only [master] God and our Lord Jesus Christ." The rule has been drawn of old from the reading of the New Testament. If any student of it would take the first seven verses of the epistle to the Romans -- a book in which the observation has peculiar value from the character of the reasoning -- I think he will find the light it throws on the subject, and be recompensed through the whole of the rest of scripture for his trouble. I am aware it may be found to militate against many reasonings of individuals, with whose results at the same time I may fully agree. I have no doubt myself of its universal applicability and use.
The undoubted truth of it in the case of a preposition is a strong argument for the truth of the principle. To take a single example, Romans 1: 3, peri; tousee footnote uiJousee footnote aujtousee footnotesee footnote, this is the substantive object of that sentence. In the next, His identification as Jesus (whom we have known as man) is so. Hence we have tousee footnote, that is, jIhsousee footnote Cristousee footnote tousee footnote Kurivou hJmwsee footnoten -- oJrisqevnto" uiJousee footnote Qeousee footnote ejn dunavmei, that is what He is. Again, ejx ajnastavsew" nekrwsee footnoten. Now this might perhaps, with almost equal (I do not say equal) force, be dia; thsee footnote", though it would then be aujtousee footnote; but it states here the manner of the determination, not the fact by which it is declared, therefore it is simply ejx ajnastavsew" nekrwsee footnoten. So in English we might say "by resurrection," or again, "by the resurrection"; both would be true, their force would be different.
The application of this rule is of most extensive, and consequently immense importance, remembering it is applicable to scripture. I have myself no doubt of its universal truth, but I should feel obliged by any of your correspondents suggesting any passage, if there be any, which falsifies it.
One instance destroys a principle, not a human custom; where there is only one distinct act, the insertion or omission makes no difference in sense, only in force; and hence some apparent difficulty, which for this reason alone I notice.
Thus, in an instance I take casually, pollavki" paqeisee footnoten ajpo; katabolhsee footnote" kovsmou: nusee footnoten de; apax ejpi; sunteleiva/ twsee footnoten aijwvnwn. (Hebrews 9: 26.) The point was His often suffering; the other was a necessary, not the substantive part of the sentence. On the matter it would have been equally true ajpo; thsee footnote" katabolhsee footnote" tousee footnote kovsmou, but the sentence would not have carried the same quantity of moral truth. It gives the characteristic of the period, not the period itself. As in vulgar English, often more pregnant with force than what is accounted refined grammatical language, we say "in kingdom come," it would be much less expressive to say, which is all I am now concerned in, "the kingdom to come"; it would state the same fact, but would not in the same way apply the character of it to the subject of conversation. So again, ejpi; sunteleiva/. Here again the whole force of it arose from this being one of the characteristics of the suffering (indeed that suffering had an essential characteristic from it); whereas if it had been put merely aijwvnwn it would have lost much of its force; for there were specific ages, the closing of which as definite things constituted the object which characterized the appearing of the Lord. Thus we shall find the apparent difficulty highly illustrative of the principle.
I believe many an effort at a various reading has arisen from a want of understanding of the sense, and I confess that learned criticisms have often proved to me children playing with toys. I do not despise their value in their place; but no one unspiritual, no one untaught of God, is fit to be a judge (he may be a servant) in the interpretation of the divine word.
I would instance in this Bishops Horsley and Lowth, because of their eminence; men, masters in criticism confessedly, and to be used as such it may be; but in interpretation founded on it by using it alone by intellect, the well taught reader of a mere English Bible would be more to be trusted in all the sense of the scripture writers than they are.
I am well aware of the opinion which would be formed of such an assertion, but I do not make it lightly; and while I would be thankful for their service, as for a grammar or a dictionary, or for their intellect as God's gift, judgment and deference to it I believe to be so far ruin to the Church. I do not say they were in nothing taught of the Spirit: so far as they were, they will be blessed; so far as not, they will be confusion and bad guides to others, so that both would fall into the ditch. I am quite willing, and desire, any remark I make to be subject to the same rule; I need not say that as mere grammatical critics, though not bound by them, I should be content to learn from them, or those far indeed below them.
I add another passage of which the mistranslation is apparent, and its application mischievous in the study of the divine mind. It is one of the very few passages in the wonderful, though human, translation we have of the New Testament, in which I confess I believe the translators judged of the translation from the sense, which I am perfectly satisfied they, if it be so, mistook. It is Romans 11: 31, outw kai; ou|toi nusee footnoten hjpeivqhsan tw/' uJmetevrw/ ejlevei, ivna kai; aujtoi; ejlehqwsee footnotesi, so these have now disbelieved your mercy (that is, the mercy to the Church or the Gentiles), that they might be objects of mercy. That is, Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, and that the Gentiles should glorify God for His mercy; but they, having rejected Christ as mercy to the Gentiles, forbidding to preach to the Gentiles that they might be saved, have now lost this ground, and stand upon mercy themselves; and yet God's faith abounding over their lie shall make His promise good, yet so as it shall be mercy. This marvellous wisdom of order and dealing it was which made the apostle cry out "O the depths of the wisdom," etc. The present English translation destroys all this, and mistakes the purposes of God. His mercy they will have; but it is indeed mercy to them now ejn ajpeiqeiva/ where the Gentiles otherwise once were, now they, ina kai; ejlehqwsee footnotesi. And thus ignorant of this mystery, the Gentiles -- the Church -- has become wise in its own conceits, subject, in the true judgment of God, to be cut off.
I add, in Hebrew, one which is to me of great interest in Psalm 89. The Holy One of Israel, and the Holy One, are both spoken of, but the words in the original are quite different; in verse 18 it is laer:c]yI vwOdq]liw], in verse 19 it is Úd,ysij€li, a word which I believe will be acknowledged ordinarily to mean goodness or mercy. What makes it interesting here is, that it is the same word as is used in verse 1, "I will sing of the mercies of Jehovah for ever." It is a concentration of the mercies of Jehovah in the person of the man chosen out of the people -- David His servant, one able to sustain all the attributes of Jehovah, spoken of before as the medium of, and making them all, mercy towards His people. It is the same word in verses 24, 28, 33. The whole seems to be the presenting Christ as the sustaining person of Chesed, and the consequences towards those with whom He is united. The same word is used in Psalm 16, when the resurrection of our Lord is spoken of.
I have a strong conviction that the words abstractedly might be applied to either; yet that, when they have a definite formal application, Chasidim applies to the Jewish, Kedoshim to the Gentile or Church saints; but the thing cannot be taken as a simple general rule without more understanding of the subject.
I remain, dear Sir,
[This appeared in "The Christian Witness," vol. 1, page 313-320, Plymouth, July 1834. Ed.]
Dear Sir,
I would here first take notice of the difference of eij" and ejpiv, the use of either of which distinctly is intimately connected with the question of God's love to the world, and the absolute salvation of the Church: to which, important as it is, I refer here only in connection with the texts I take notice of.
Romans 3: 22: "The righteousness of God by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all, and upon all them that believe"; not unto and upon all them that believe, but the righteousness of God is unto all, and upon all them that believe; dikaiosuvnh Qeousee footnote eij" pavnta", kai; ejpi; pavnta" tou;" pisteuvonta". The Jews had been convinced of sin; the Gentiles had been convinced of sin; they had no righteousness in which to stand with God. Whether Jew or Gentile, they had no hope in themselves; but the righteousness of God through faith of Jesus Christ was not towards Jew or Gentile, but towards all, eij" pavnta". Moreover it was upon all (ejpiv tou;" pisteuvonta") those that believe; they stood in that righteousness.
We have another most important instance in verse 18 of chapter 5. "Therefore as by one offence towards (eij") all men, to (eij") condemnation." This was the aspect of the result of the offence (intercepted, as regards them that believe, by the death of Christ); "so by one righteousness towards (eij") all men, to (eij") justification of life"; if, as in the English translation, it had been "upon," for which the scriptures use ejpiv, all would have been justified. We know it is not so, nor does the scripture say so. The aspect of the act is as wide as the aspect of the act of the first Adam; the effect is quite another and a distinct question. We have, in the former passage, seen it to be pronounced upon them that believe. These remarks make, I believe, quite clear what the English translation renders very difficult to comprehend. The word translated (Romans 5: 18) "upon all" is the same as "unto all" in Romans 3: 22, not as "upon all" them that believe. It shews that the free gift was unto (that is, towards) all in its aspect; but that its effect, and the acceptance of people under it, is quite a distinct question. The accuracy and perfectness of scripture is additionally illustrated. Eij" seems to exhibit the natural consequence, the effect of anything looked at in itself: it may or may not involve the coming to the result; taken in itself it has the effect, for the tendency of anything is that which per se, or left to itself, it would produce or arrive at. The word may be seen in many passages of chapter 6 so used.
I would add a few words on Romans 7.
The expression gevnhtai ajndri; eJtevrw/ is translated "married to," which seems to be more than its force; as in verse 3, "if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man." It seems a more general phrase, though in an honest sense it may of course have this force. But while it may be said in a certain way that the soul is married to the risen Christ, the Church, I believe, as such, is never said to be married to Christ. It is said, as to a particular body, that "I have espoused you as a chaste virgin unto Christ."
In Revelation 19 we have the joyful celebration, "Hallelujah, for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth; let us be glad and rejoice, for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready." This is after the judgment of Babylon. And again, in chapter 21: 9, "I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife." Here we have then the Church confessedly not married to the Lamb; and I believe this to be a most important difference: error as to which has produced as much mistake as any other at all concerning scripture. It may be said to be espoused or destined for him, but the marriage is not yet come. This takes place on being united to Him in that day when He shall appear in His glory, when He calls them up into the air; then shall He "present it to himself a glorious church, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing."
The Jewish body was so married, "for I am married unto you, saith Jehovah." (Jeremiah 3: 14; Is. 54: 4-6.) "Fear not, for thou shalt not be ashamed; neither be thou confounded, for thou shalt not be put to shame; for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more: for thy Maker is thy husband; for Jehovah hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth when thou wast refused, saith thy God." And we shall find this remarkably maintained throughout. Thus the Jewish body is ever called an adulteress, as in Hosea 3; the Church as corrupt, but not breaking covenant. "Thou hast judged the great whore," and fornication is the sin of the Church.
Now this difference affects the whole position we are set in. The Church has never yet been brought into the position with God, in which the whole argument of the great body of comments on scripture supposes it to be placed (and this is another instance of the evil of applying Old Testament statements to New Testament subjects as if they belonged to them), though faith, by the Spirit, sees that place to belong to it, and therefore keeps itself for it. It is the part of Babylon to corrupt itself with all the kings of the earth; but we, though with long protracted affections, know the faithfulness of the Redeemer's love, and remain in solitude till He who has loved us shall appear. For we are "espoused to one husband," and this shall be in the resurrection, for the second Adam is known to us in the resurrection. We were taken out of Him in death: He is dead to all but faith now, and the Church is therefore still taken out of Him; and in resurrection we shall be one with Him, married unto Him. We are indeed one spirit with Him now, and therefore know the blessing; but the whole body of the Church shall be finally united to Him in the joy of its Lord.
I think it will be found that all the scriptures will bear out this difference; and, clearly, it strongly affects our position, while we learn distinctly the aspect of faithfulness which the Church should present; its utter separation from the world and all secular help; in its character, a chaste virgin unto Christ: genomevnh ajndri; eJtevrw/, it has lost all its character as well as relationship. When the spirit of the risen Saviour is in me, I am so far united unto Him, and so ought I to keep myself: I am vitally and everlastingly one with Him; but the Church corporate is not so married unto Him, for indeed it is not yet formed. To assume the privileges of a wife does not become her position; not to have more than the modesty of one in her deportment as ill suits her state. She shall reign queen over all her Lord's goods, and rule in His house with Him: fidelity of hope to one long absent from His pledged love -- as a stranger therefore in the midst of all that knows Him not -- her present portion. Whether receiving the tokens of His love to her from on high or not, faithfulness to Him is her clear part. The world may count her case foolish and hopeless; but she knows in whom she has believed, and she may be content to abide the jest of those who know it not, because she has the secret of His love by His Spirit dwelling in her, and will rejoice in that day when He makes good His faithfulness, and celebrates hers, before those that have despised her. (Compare Revelation 3: 8, 9.)
I am daily more and more convinced that this is the real, the only, position of the Church. It may have the desolateness of widowhood, but the keenness and poignancy of affection of one a widow before she was a wife. Babylon has no need to be sorrowfully and separatedly waiting; she has wasted her affections upon ten thousand lovers, who shall hate her in the end. But the true-hearted believer, as partaker of the spirit of the Church, will, as separated from the world, wait for Him in whom his hope is, in the spirit of holy separation.
I would also add, that we find I think a remarkably beautiful association of the act of God and of man in the person of the Lord, in the connection of Genesis 2: 22 and Ephesians 5: 27.
Let me add another suggestion here: the force of dwvsei toisee footnote" or taisee footnote" in the Revelation appears to me to have the force of making effectual the thing spoken of, making them to be what they are as, but could not be effectually without this interference. We have instances of this in chapter 8: 3 and chapter 11: 3.
I would desire to make some use of the remarks I made on the Greek article in your last number, as they intimately open out the proper deity of our Lord, connected both with His relationship as the incarnate Son with the Father, and with us therein: points which, with that presence of the Spirit by which they are known, form the great scope of Christianity; and it is of great importance in the present day to give the full scope of Christianity. For occupation in the fulness of this is that which preserves the mind under grace, and meets that wandering into things not taught of God -- questions of no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers, to which the mere reasoning of the mind is the complete slave, the creatures of intellectual reasonings or imaginings -- things which, if not our hands, our intellects have made. No one not acquainted with the extent to which the Gnostic heretics went, could imagine how far subtle creations of the human intellect misled could go, and from which it can find no retreat but utter humbling. May we be led of the Spirit, and kept fast by the word! There is intellectual idolatry as well as physical, quite as subtle, quite as dangerous, and (if the imagination be less vivid in our days or regions in external or mental objects) there is not the less departure in its duller movements from God, wherever anything but Himself, as taught by the Spirit, is the object of our minds, instead of our being subject to Him thus known in Christ.
Substantially they made the article the person of the sentence, and the words without it the character of that person, or what he was when it is used. This often gives much blessed instruction; thus we have in
Galatians 1: 4, tousee footnote Qeousee footnote kai; patro;" hJmwsee footnoten, He who is God and our Father.
Philippians 4: 20, twsee footnote/ de; Qewsee footnote/ kai; patri; hJmwsee footnoten, to Him who is God and our Father.
Colossians 3: 17, twsee footnote/ Qewsee footnote/ kai; patri;, who is God and Father: shewing here Father to be a distinct characteristic, just as Son might be.
1 Thessalonians 1: 3, tousee footnote Qeousee footnote kai; patro;" hJmwsee footnoten, both again denominations of tousee footnote. 1 Thessalonians 3: 11, aujto;" de; oJ Qeo;" kai; path;r hJmwsee footnoten, that very one who is God and Father.+
James 1: 27, twsee footnote/ Qewsee footnote/ kai; patriv, Him who is God and Father.
We have a remarkable instance of this construction, in which it was not possible to give this in English from an ordinary participle intervening,
Jude 24, twsee footnote/ de; dunamevnw/ ... movnw/ sofwsee footnote/ Qewsee footnote/, etc. The structure is just the same as the former; if translated as the others it ought, in sense, to read if the English could bear it; "To him who is able ... the only wise God"; the particle to, in verse 25, alone mars the English.
We have another remarkable instance in which it is not rightly given in English,
1 Timothy 1: 17, twsee footnote/ de; basileisee footnote twsee footnoten aijwvnwn, ajfqavrtw/, ajoravtw/, movnw/ sofwsee footnote/ Qew/see footnote, "to him who is the king eternal, incorruptible, invisible, only wise God, honour and glory," etc.
I would now mention some others which have been noticed before, but I bring them in juxta-position with those previously mentioned, as shewing the usage of the language; passages in which our Lord is spoken of as God, in the same way, adding some other characteristic than Father.
Titus 2: 13, tousee footnote megavlou Qeousee footnote kai; swthsee footnotero" hJmwsee footnoten jIhsousee footnote Cristousee footnote, "Him who is the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ"; compare tousee footnote Qeousee footnote kai; patro;" hJmwsee footnoten. Galatians 1: 4.
+In 2 Thessalonians 2: 16 it is more correctly translated, "to God even our Father."
Jude 4, to;n movnon despovthn [Qeo;n] kai; Kuvrion hJmwsee footnoten jIhsousee footnoten Cristovn. The structure here is the same, "Him who is the only Lord [God] and our Lord Jesus Christ." I will not adduce other passages to this point; as I stated, it has already been done. These shew the identity of construction of both, while God is the common or one name of both, and the other titles distinctive to each, or common as Saviour. We have another instance in 1 Timothy 5: 21 of distinctive title annexed.
I now advert to some other passages, which further illustrate the principle and shew this unity with us, so as to magnify our blessing, by the same uniform construction. There is an intermediate form in Revelation 1: 6; kings and priests twsee footnote/ Qewsee footnote/ kai; patri; aujtousee footnote -- "to him who is God and his Father." This is the Person to whom He has made us priests.
In Ephesians 1: 2 God is called our Father. Then, because all fulness dwelt in Him, fulness of relationship as the incarnate object of love, in verse 3 we have this blessed association: oJ Qeo;" kai; path;r tousee footnote Kurivou hJmwsee footnoten jIhsousee footnote Cristousee footnote, "He who is God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." The great object of this epistle specially here is to shew the identity in sonship given us in Jesus. So, precisely, in Colossians 1: 2, 3, we have first, our Father, verse 2, then, twsee footnote/ Qewsee footnote/ kai; patri; tousee footnote Kurivou.
In 1 Peter 1: 3, we have the same title given to the holy One, oJ Qeo;" kai; patri; tousee footnote Kurivou. Thus we have on one hand the use of it as to the Father, identifying that name with God; then with the Lord, identifying His name with God; and then identifying Him with us, so as to give us all the blessing which He held with God as man, His God and our God, His Father and our Father. oJ Qeo;" kai; pathvr. Qeo;" kai; swth;r jIhsousee footnote" Cristov". Qeo;" kai; path;r tousee footnote Kurivou hJmwsee footnoten jIhsousee footnote Cristousee footnote. oJ Qeo;" kai; path;r hJmwsee footnoten. Kings and priests twsee footnote/ Qewsee footnote/ kai; patri; aujtousee footnote. What a blessed chain! It is extremely sweet to see the blessed truths, in which our whole hope stands, shining out in all their gracious beauty, combined into their places by the same hand which has given the same link of assurance (wonderful mystery!) to one and the other, and the closest criticism, as it appears to me, alike establishing both on the same ground, instead of invalidating them, which superficial assertion would sometimes say that it did.
There are two other passages the force of which is opened out by these remarks. "This is the true God and eternal life." ou|to" He (that is, uiJo;" aujtousee footnote jIhsousee footnote" Cristov") is the true God, oJ ajlhqino;" Qeov";, kai; [hJ] zwh; aijwvnio". Now this, placed as an affirmation concerning ou|to", is affirming the identity of predicate and subject in extent.
Now if we compare John 17: 3, we shall see the amazing force of that expression, and the meaning of this: "This is life eternal, that they should know thee, the only true God [that is the Father], and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." That they may know thee, tovn -- that one, or Him, who is the only true God, contrasted with gods many and false gods, and Him whom thou hast sent, Jesus Christ. How does He give them this eternal life, this knowledge? I answer, By their being planted in Himself: "he that hath the Son hath life": but they are thus in Him that is true, and consequently, being in Him that is true -- that is, in His Son -- they dwell in God and God in them. They know the Father, who Himself is the only true God; and they know Jesus Christ whom the Father hath sent, and none else can know Him. Being in Christ and knowing His love, we are in the true God, and so know the Father as being in the Son, and we know Jesus Christ.
I would remark that this passage (John 17: 3) seems to me to embrace true religion as referable to Jews and Gentiles. Unless known as the Father, there was no knowing Him at all; and this by knowing Him in the Son; if they knew not Jesus Christ whom He had sent, they knew nothing of that ministration in which, as Messiah, He had fulfilled the purposes of God, and manifested eternal life in sonship. This was eternal life, for He was the living God. Therefore He says "power over all flesh." The Epistle was written, as the Gospel, to shew them what eternal life was, to prove to them that they had it already. He sums up all from first to last (against all the ramifications of intellectual imaginations, in which men, creating trouble for their own minds, were apt to wander) in the person of Jesus Christ, putting everything in its place in and round that centre. Whoever studies the three closing oi[damen of John's Epistle will at once see the amazing and stern comprehensiveness of the passages, and in the last especially; the closing of all cavil in the person of Jesus Christ -- "Him that is true" -- "the true God and eternal life." If the object of the two books, as stated, John 20: 31, and 1 John 5: 13, be observed, the meaning and combined power of these passages will be most apparent. Simplicity of faith is the real secret -- the kernel of all knowledge.
I would make further a few remarks on 1 Corinthians 15: 24, et seq. I do not think it is sufficiently observed that there are two very distinct though closely connected passages referred to there; and I think a little attention will make it plain. The two distinct things are, His "putting his enemies," and putting "all things under his feet." There is also a direct distinction between putting them under Him, and His subjecting them.
I would first remark that the supremacy of man is the point in question -- man in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ; as a little farther on, verse 47, "the second man, out of heaven." The whole chapter is the power of the resurrection: the progressive steps of this resurrection occupy the apostle's attention. The putting all things under man's feet is the express subject on which the apostle dwells from Psalm 8. The union of the other with it, being Lord as well as Son of David, is that which must always puzzle the unbeliever, as the Lord did the Jews with it; it is the strength and comfort of faith. It is the same Jesus who was made Lord and Christ, whose coming to take His kingdom is here celebrated.
The whole subject then is the kingdom of man (in resurrection) as a given kingdom, contrasted with God. Hence, the Father never becoming incarnate and remaining in office (I speak after the manner of men) Supreme Deity, the kingdom is delivered up to Him, to God, even the Father, twsee footnote/ Qewsee footnote/ kai; patriv -- that God (as contrasted with man) may be all and in all, instead of Christ the Man being all in all. This is clearly the subject: the contrast of God and the given kingdom of the risen Man, the Head of the new world.
With this personal supremacy of Christ, the Lord from heaven, there are two things connected; "the putting his enemies" and putting all things under His feet being quotations from Psalms 110 and 8.
Now under the risen Man, as entitled in every sense thereto by glorifying God, by purchase at His life's cost back again, by overcoming all His enemies personally, God on His resurrection and glorifying put all things under Him, not in actual subjugation, but title of subjection; they were His by victory, by purchase, by worth, in the purpose of the divine glory: so Psalm 8.
It is quite otherwise as to the other. There Jehovah says, "Sit thou at my right hand till I make thy foes thy footstool." He is to sit there till it is done. Ruling "in his enemies" and "over all," are quite distinct things; as to both, the gift of dominion by the Father is distinct from subjugation by the Son. In this latter (that is, subjugation by the Son) the two become coincident. The reign of verse 25 I take to be the direct assertion of what is consequent upon His receiving the power of ruling among His enemies till the time when He delivers it up (the last enemy being destroyed, which is death). Further, "sit thou at my right hand till I make" -- here is the Father making Christ's enemies His footstool, consequent on which He rules in the midst of His enemies.
Now this act of the Father's the apostle does not speak of; because, after speaking of the resurrection of Christ's people at His coming, the time of this kingdom, he goes on to the end when He delivers up the kingdom; "for," says the apostle, "he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet." This is the Son's by His actings in power, as the risen Man. The Father having put His enemies under His feet, or made them His footstool when He comes, having till then sat at God's right hand; "for he hath put all things under his feet." This is another great truth; and here the general act of the Father is spoken of (namely, putting all things under Christ's feet); but as a thing already done -- God hath put all things under His feet. This is His enjoyed power -- a power the results of which we by no means see accomplished. When they are, when all things are subjected, then He, the Man, will deliver up the kingdom, that God may be all in all.
The same truth as to all things being not subjected by Christ, when all things are put under His feet by the Father, is stated in Hebrews 2, where, quoting the same Psalm 8, the Spirit of God adds for us, "Howbeit we see not yet all things put under him, but we see Jesus," exalted.
Here then we find the title of all in inheritance (in Christ determined the Son of God with power) in the resurrection. He waits for the time when the subjugation of His enemies shall make all things His, His enemies not yet being made His footstool. The saints are gathered out, meanwhile, to reign with Him; He acting by His Spirit and controlling also thereby through the world, they are raised at His coming. For His enemies are now put under His feet, and He takes the inheritance, subjecting His enemies; and they having been destroying the inheritance, as well as injuring the heirs in it, He vindicates
the inheritance, and we see all things put under Him. For the putting His enemies, and all things under His feet, are two distinct acts; yet the subjugation of the one is the vindication of the other. But we by faith must own that all things are put under Him -- glory and honour, power and title His, though we do not see it here; for He sits at God's right hand till His enemies are made His footstool -- we being tried therefore meanwhile. We believe therefore that His enemies are not made His footstool, for He yet sits; we waiting longingly, delighting in His glory at the right hand of Jehovah. When He comes, His enemies being made His footstool, we, coming with Him or meeting Him, shall know this also and see all things put under His feet. All things are put under Him because of His title there. His enemies are made His footstool when He leaves it and comes here into these lower regions of earth and heaven, where His enemies are. There He has none: all adore Him. Oh, for the time when it shall be so, and the Father's will be done on earth as it is in heaven, all men honouring Him as they honour the Father! We see the same thing taught us in Revelation 11: 17, 18; but I here dwell upon the passage rather than teach or interpret the doctrine. The distinction between the Father's act in putting under, and the fact of their subjection by, the Lord Christ, is manifest in verses 27, 28, as it is also in Hebrews 2.
The end of Christ's given kingdom is stated in verse 24: the way in which the subjection of His enemies by Him is connected with His power in verse 25: in verse 27 the extent and character of the dominion is given, but not the state of things under it, because resurrection is the subject, and they, though under it in blessing, are not in it; so neither the intermediate state of Psalm 110: 1; for the apostle is speaking of the exhibited resurrection state in Christ and in us, and this in full, consequent upon His leaving the right hand of the majesty on high, His enemies now made His footstool.
I send you some additional verbal criticisms, of importance connected with truth, though comparatively insignificant in point of learning. Those who love the truth will not despise them.
It appears to me that while in general the authorized English translation is one of incomparable value, on the subject of the dispensation of the glory to come there are several passages which the translators have forced from their plain sense, in consequence of their not seeing or not believing in it, and therefore not seeing how it could be possible to take it in the sense the passages plainly represented -- otherwise their pains are very remarkable.
Some of these passages I will notice. There is one very important passage, of some length, exceedingly obscured by a fear (I suppose) of popular mistake. The word translated "condemnation" in John 5: 24, and in verse 29 "damnation," is the identical word rendered "judgment" in verses 22 and 27, and correctly so rendered. The word properly used for "condemnation" is different, as in Romans 8: 1: krivsi" is the word in John, katavkrima in Romans. A plain and beautiful passage is obscured by this effort to meet common thoughts, or by a fear of strange ones.
The statement of the passage is, that there are two things in which respectively the Son's glory is shewn -- quickening and judging. In the former, as a blessing, He exercises His power conjointly with the Father; in the latter, as the vindication of His honour against those that have despised it, He is alone, and executes it in the way in which He was despised. He judges as Son of man: but as to those who are quickened, there is no need of bringing them into crisis, for they through grace have honoured the Son when the rest dishonoured Him unrighteously; and it is just out of such crisis they are saved, as the subjects of the exercise of the Son's quickening power; but that all men should honour Him, judgment is committed entirely to Him whom they dishonoured, securing His honour as the Father's.
These then are the two great instruments by which honour is brought and secured to the Son -- quickening power, and crisis. They therefore that are quickened do not come into crisis; they have passed from death into life. How are they known? They hear Christ's word, and believe God the Father who sent Him: thus we know that they have eternal life, and shall not come into crisis at all. Before the bhsee footnotema of Christ they may stand to have righteous appointment before Him; but into crisis they do not come. This is the statement of 2 Corinthians 5: 10: "We must all appear before the bhsee footnotema of Christ, to receive the things done in the body, good or evil." This then is the positive assertion of the Lord, that the quickened shall not come into crisis, but have everlasting life. The same is the result of resurrection, when this truth is disclosed. They that are in their graves shall come forth at the power of the same voice: they that have done good to the resurrection of life, of which they have been made partakers; not to crisis; and they that have done evil to the resurrection of judgment, a distinct thing, which is the result of the exercise of Christ's voice on an unquickened soul, and in which none at all can stand, as in Psalm 142 (LXX) mh; eijsevlqh" eij" krivsin, Enter not into judgment with thy servant. (Hebrews and Eng. Psalm 143.) Thus the resurrection of life is the filling up the quickening power of Christ as to this mortal body, mortality being swallowed up of life: the resurrection of judgment is to crisis, that is, for the wicked only, for none can stand in it.
The connection of this with present blessing is manifest; the beautiful connection with the exhibition of the power of Christ is made most plain. The change of the word destroys the consequence and connection of the passage. We cease to have the double exhibition of the power of Christ in its pursued effects, and we lose the present peace which results from knowing (conformed to our complete justification in Him who is Himself the judge) that we shall not come into crisis -- into question of judgment as to our reception at all. How indeed should Christ do it, save as despising His own sacrifice and righteousness, when it is before Him we stand? Our resurrection is a resurrection of life, whatever our responsibility, which 2 Corinthians 5 maintains complete in its place.
To turn to another passage (1 Corinthians 11: 29, et seq.), where this word is misused: "He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself." The apostle is speaking of Christians fallen under chastenings of sickness, or even temporal death -- sleeping (the common christian word for a believer's death), because of evils into which they had fallen; and tells them they are but eating and drinking judgment to themselves; but that, when they were judged, they were chastened of the Lord, that they should not be condemned with the world. They were Christians, and therefore chastening judgment came upon them here, that they should not be condemned along with the world. But if, says the apostle, we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged of the Lord. The first word "judge" is here again a different one, diakrivnei, discern oneself. If by the cherished use of the presence of the Lord with our souls, by the Holy Ghost, we discerned the springs of evil or circumstances of evil therein, which were the occasions of what called forth the chastening, we should not come under it. Examine yourselves -- and how? By the light of the presence of the Spirit of God; and hence the importance of keeping it undimmed, ungrieved in the soul, and exercising oneself by examining watchfulness so as not to lose it: otherwise the very power of discernment is gone comparatively, by which the evil is discerned; we become blind, and cannot see afar off. The good Shepherd may restore us, and does, for His name's sake; but it is by chastening, and possibly sorrowful evil. Our wisdom is the spirituality by which evil is seen in its springs, not in its effects; and the watching ourselves in this, so as that unconsciously the power of discernment be not weakened by losing the sense of the very evil which calls for it, and the remedy be the sorrowful but still loving stroke of the Lord's hand. "Make the heart of this people fat" is the worst sorrow of judgment; but any measure of it in us is a grievous evil. May we, by thus discerning ourselves, be kept or made very bright and joyful in spirit, of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord; our estimate of holiness high; because our communion, and consequently understanding, is bright, even with Him who makes us partakers of His holiness!
Another passage I will now refer to (Acts 3: 19): "Repent, and be converted, so that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." Read, "so that [opw" a]n] the times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord." The mission of Jesus, whom they had lost as a nation, would be on their repentance. It is not here, "Repent and be baptized every one of you," and individual matter of salvation, as in the former sermon; but an address to the assembly of the Jews, explaining the position in which they stood by the rejection of Jesus; but that even so, upon their repentance, Jesus would be sent to them again; and on their repentance and conversion the times of refreshing would come from the presence of the Lord: opw" a]n e[lqwsi, the only sense of which is "so that they may come." The sermon is a Jewish sermon to them as Jews. It states, verse 18, the sufferings; verse 21, restitution of all things; Jesus in heaven till then; and on their repentance the seasons of refreshing to come. I would also remark that "raise up," verse 26, refers, I apprehend, not to resurrection, but to the same words "raise up," verse 22, stating that what the prophet promised was indeed raised up in the person of God's Son Jesus; the "sent him to bless you," was on His mission from the Father, but it was not done on repentance now, for He would send Him, now fore-preached, in the times of refreshing which would be on their repentance. The prokekhrugmevnon answers to the prohlpikovta" of Ephesians 1: 12. The alteration prokeceirismevnon, as to the matter, comes to the same sense, though it is of stronger reproach to the Jews as actually manifested and produced to them. But the whole passage is completely a Jewish sermon. "To you first" -- "ye are the children of the prophets." The translators (I suppose) could not see the national repentance, or the dealing of the Lord with the Jews still, as a nation; and the passage is quite changed into rather unintelligible Gentile theology.
We have a similar instance in Romans 11: 31: "Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also might obtain mercy." This is asserting that the Jews as a nation are to obtain mercy by the Gentiles' mercy. So, doubtless, the translators thought; but it is a mistranslation, outw kai; ou|toi nusee footnoten hjpeivqhsan twsee footnote/ uJmetevrw/ ejlevei ina kai; aujtoi; ejlehqwsee footnotesi: "These have now disbelieved in the mercy to you Gentiles, that they also might be brought upon terms of mercy." Promises had belonged to the Jews; but they forbad to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always, so that wrath is come upon them to the uttermost. Thus, like mere sinners of the Gentiles, it was a matter, though true to Himself, of sovereign mercy to bring in the Jews: fulfilment of promises they had rejected in Him, who was a minister of circumcision to confirm them. God concluded all in unbelief: the Gentiles naturally, the Jews now in the wisdom of dispensation, that both might come in on like terms of mercy, as the Jews surely shall in the latter day.
There is another passage which sometimes perplexes people with deep enquiries, which (I believe) take their rise merely from obscurity of expression.
In Revelation 22: 9 we have, "For I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book; worship God." And again, chapter 19: 10, "I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus." Now this is commonly taken as if the angel had the testimony of Jesus, and was himself as one of the prophets. But it appears to me the rendering is simply this: suvndoulov" souv eijmi kai; twsee footnoten ajdelfwsee footnoten sou twsee footnoten ejcovntwn, "I am but a fellow-servant of thee, and of thy brethren the prophets"; thee and the prophets being in apposition, not the angel and the prophets: in the other, "of thy brethren which have the testimony of Jesus," which makes the passage very simple.
I would repeat here what has been noticed elsewhere, which makes an obscure passage very easy: "The glory of this latter house shall be greater than the glory of the former." (Haggai 2: 9.) This should be, I apprehend, "The latter glory of this house shall be greater than the former"; and this is not yet properly fulfilled. If we refer to verse 3, we shall see at once how "this house" is used as to both its states. The house is looked at as one thing -- it is Jehovah's house, the temple, in different states; of which her first glory is one; and then "how do ye see it now?" The unity of the house in all its states makes the sentence very plain. Many of these passages may seem very simple; but it must be remarked that one passage, where the mind is subject to scripture, will arrest it in all its course; and thus all its principles will be more or less affected: and thus it becomes of great importance to free the mind from its difficulty.
There is a slight correction in 1 Peter 1: 11, which makes it more strong and clear: the sufferings; the glories after these, meta; tausee footnoteta dovxa" . It enlarges the scope of the abounding glories of Christ to come, not His present glory merely at the right hand of the Father.
This Psalm is God manifested as before the ark, that is, among the Jews; the clouds, the seat of celestial authority, the place where the Lord rides when He exercises power, the visible seat of authority, the ejpouravnia. (Compare Deuteronomy 33: 26, Psalm 89: 6, and Daniel 7: 13, 14.) The whole Psalm is the effect of "Let God arise."
"Let Elohim arise, let his enemies be scattered, and they which hate him flee before him. As smoke is driven away, thou wilt drive them away; as wax melteth in the presence of fire, so let the wicked perish in the presence of Elohim. And let the righteous be glad, let them rejoice in the presence of Elohim, let them be glad with joy."
This is the contrast thereupon of the wicked and the righteous, the great Jewish principle.
"Sing to Elohim, praise his name, make your triumph in him that rideth in the deserts, in Jah his name, exult in his presence."
This recognizes Elohim as the Jah that was with them in the wilderness. "I AM hath sent me unto you."
"A father of orphans and judge of widows [is] Elohim in his holy habitation."
This is the character of God as preserver of the desolate, in which he stands towards the real Jews in that day. (See Jeremiah 49: 11.)
"Elohim settling or establishing the separated ones in a house, causing the bound in chains to go forth in prosperity. But [on the contrary] the rebellious shall dwell in a dry land," that is, in desolation.
The manner in which this is exhibited in result, distinguishing the poor isolated remnant, and the captivity, and settling them in a house, and the body of the Jews being brought (as rebellious) into desolation: thus much is the full title and subject -- the Elohim as manifested. This is the character of God as arisen in respect of the remnant, and the rebellious body of the Jews: while evil prevails there is no unity but in separation; when He comes whose right it is, then He will gather together into one all things in heaven and earth, and it will not be so; the "yachidim" mydyjy are then the united ones; those driven into separated union with Messiah in hope, but by His Spirit separated from the mass and thereby made essentially one, then shall be settled in a house. That is one fruit of God's arising; next He brings the bound out of captivity, loosing the bonds; and as to the rebellious, the revolters exercising proud will against Him and the poor, them He puts in desolation.
"O Elohim, in thy going before thy people, in thy marching through the wilderness; the earth shook, the heavens also dropped before the presence of Elohim: this Sinai before the presence of Elohim, the Elohim of Israel."
Here he refers to Elohim's presence amongst them before: "marching" is a bad word, it is a word of solemnity rather, often used of God's going.
"A rain of plentifulness [liberalities] thou didst pour, O Elohim, of thine inheritance, when weary thou didst establish it."
His inheritance is not left as a dry land: God is interested in it. (Deuteronomy 11: 11, 12.)
"Thine incorporated people [thy body] shall dwell in it, thou hast prepared in thy goodness for the poor, O Elohim."
Elohim having prepared the inheritance therein to place the remnant, now made into an incorporated people, the poor whom He had prepared for in His goodness, Adonai (Jesus as we shall see farther) gives the word, and a multitude carries the message of His goodness abroad. (Is. 66: 19, 20.)
"Adonai gives the word: great the host of the publishers."
"Kings of armies [hosts] flee, flee, and the housewife divides [distributes] spoil."
"Though ye lie amongst the grates, as the wings of a dove overlaid with silver, and her feathers with yellowness of gold shall ye be."
"In Shaddai dispersing [or, when Shaddai disperses] kings in her, she is covered as with snow in Salmon," "snow," that is, white and glittering with beauty.
"The mountain of Elohim [is as] the mountain of Bashan; a mountain of summits [as] the mountain of Bashan."
Perhaps Bashan had its name from ˆv; a tooth or cliff.
"Why are ye jealous, ye mountains of summits, [at] the mountain of desire of Elohim for his resting place? yea, Jehovah shall dwell for ever [in it]."
"They shall be ashamed for their envy at the people." (Is. 26: 11.)
"The array of cavalry [or chariots] of Elohim are multitudes of thousands multiplied. Adonai is in them -- Sinai in the holy place."
"Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive. Thou hast received gifts in man, and even for the rebellious, for the dwelling [there] of Jah Elohim."
"Blessed be Adonai [that] day after day heapeth upon us [blessings], the El who saveth us."
Here we have Adonai recognized: it was thus that gifts were received for man, and the rebellious became a dwelling-place of Jah Elohim. "In man." The Hebrew preposition Beth gives a very simple force, not exactly answered by any English preposition; as before "dispersing kings in her," it is not merely as being in her, nor merely for her or her sake, but in her case, as putting Himself as the agent of power in her; it is the sphere or place of God's action or blessing, etc., as the case may be.
"Our El is the El of salvations; and to Jehovah Adonai are [belong] deliverances [goings forth], even from death."
"Even from death," even as to this, which they as a nation had been obliged to go through. Deliverances belonged to Jehovah Adonai, and He was their El too.
"But Elohim shall smite [or break] the head of his enemies, and the scalp of him that walketh [or goeth about] in his wickedness."
"Adonai spake from Bashan. I will cause to return -- I will cause to return from the depths of the sea" -- return to blessing or from captivity.
"So that thou mayest plunge thy foot in blood. The tongue of thy dogs [has] its portion from enemies."
The Hebrew word WhNEmi clearly (I should think) portion, its allotted portion -- the kind of thing it had to eat, precisely the force of the sentence. We have the same word in Genesis 1: 12.
"They have seen thy goings, Elohim, the goings of my El, my King, in the sanctuary. The singers go first, the players on stringed instruments after; between [or in the midst] were chorister damsels playing on the tabrets."
"In the congregation bless ye Elohim Adonai, ye descendants of Israel."
"There [is] little Benjamin their ruler, the princes of Judah their company, the princes of Zebulun, and the princes of Naphtali."
"Thy Elohim hath ordained thy strength; confirm, O Elohim, that which thou hast wrought for us."
"Because of thy house at Jerusalem, to thee shall kings bring presents."
"Rebuke the beast of the reed, the company of the bulls [or strong ones], with the calves of the peoples -- submitting himself with pieces of silver: he hath scattered the peoples, they shall desire to approach."
"Bulls," untamed, strong, proud enemies. (Psalm 22.) The general sense of this verse, taken with the preceding and succeeding, is interesting. It is on the rebuke of Antichrist, Pharaoh the beast of the reed, and the complete subjection and scattering of the peoples, the entire setting them aside as incorporated, before that the peoples shall come willingly up to worship at Jerusalem. But the latter part is so abrupt as to be extremely difficult.
"The Hashemanim [or princes] shall come from Egypt. Cush shall speedily bring his power [or submit] to Elohim."
"Ye kingdoms of the earth, sing ye to Elohim; celebrate Adonai."
"To him that rideth on the heavens, the heavens of old. Lo! he uttereth his voice, a voice of strength."
"Ascribe ye [give the praise of] strength to Elohim; over Israel [is] his majesty [or excellency], and his strength in the clouds [the glory of manifested power, the heavens]."
Adonai (Jesus) is the same Elohim who rode on the heavens -- exercised the former authority in the wilderness. See Deuteronomy 33: 26-29, to which all this refers, or rather to that which is then spoken of -- now fulfilled over Israel.
"Wonderful art thou, Elohim, in thy sanctuary."
It is remarkable that this word "wonderful," or terrible, is the same as is applied to Israel in their restoration in Isaiah 18: 7. Sanctuary is in the plural in the Hebrew, as Psalm 73: 17; whence in Greek aJgiva that which was within the veil (so we know Him), to which He was now returned in power on behalf of the children of Israel.
"The El of Israel, he it is who giveth strength and might to the people. Blessed is Elohim."
"The El of Israel," etc. That is, the person who exercised that authority over the Jews, is the same person who now over the same recognized Israel ruleth in the heavens, and this is Adonai Jesus.
If this be compared with Deuteronomy 33, and the return of God to Israel in strength be seen, nothing can be more bright or plain or beautiful than this Psalm.
The doctrine which, for nearly thirty years, has satisfied my own mind on the subject of the use of the Greek article is so simple, and at the same time (as being merely the intelligent application of a universally well-known principle of Greek grammar) so readily appreciable, that I have been surprised no one has stated and developed it. Nothing but my own habits, the conviction of how little I could pretend to critical scholarship, and the pressure of other service, has hindered my giving it publicity. But as it is a material help to the study of scripture, I venture to do so.+
The rule is simply this, illustrated in the known form of a proposition in Greek, That whenever a word++ presents the object about which the mind is occupied, as objectively present to it, the article is used; whenever a word is merely characteristic, it is not.
In most simple cases this will be self-evident. It will confirm also many subordinate rules given in treatises on the subject; as, for example, those relating to abstract nouns, previous reference, and the like. In some cases it will leave a choice of using or not using the article, so far as the sense is concerned, and merely affect vigour of style: in some it will require the power of abstraction, a power absolutely demanded for the critical study of the Greek Testament. But it will explain all, and give the special force of a vast number otherwise left uncertain. This last reason, and the more perfect understanding of scripture connected with it, is what leads me thus to give it publicity.
The metaphysical reasons may be subordinately interesting, and confirm the rule. It may cause the article to retain its name of "definite," though I should perhaps prefer "objective." It may explain its early Homeric pronominal use. It may shew, that in translating Greek into English, "a," or "the," or neither,+++ may be required: for that depends on the genius of English; our enquiry, on the genius of Greek. Our great point will be the truth of the fact.
+The rule itself I did state, I find, some years ago in the "Christian Witness," but entered into no general development of it.
++It has been suggested, that "combination of words" should be added. As indebted to the suggestion of another, I add it in a note.
+++As in the case of an abstract word, which in Greek has the article, in English not: for example, oJ novmo", law.
If I say oJ a[nqrwpov" ejsti zwo;n logikovn, the object before my mind to be described is oJ a[nqrwpo". Zwo;n logikovn is the description -- that which characterizes, in an explanatory way, the object about which I am occupied: it is not an object, but the character given to an object. The object is a[nqrwpo". It may be the archetypal idea of the race (that is, an ideal object), or an actual individual previously spoken of; but it is the object before my mind to be spoken of+; oJ designates it; a[nqrwpo" names the thing designated. The anarthrous word describes, or attaches a descriptive idea to, the designated object. Hence, though the usage was subsequently lost, we can easily conceive that where some one had been named, it stood alone as a pronoun, answering to "he"; and in many phrases is rightly rendered "this," or "that," when in English the reference is specific, though equally well in general "the."
Hence, too, the well-known usage in reciprocal propositions, that both nouns have it. That is, they are co-extensively predicable one of the other; or, rather, they both name or designate one identical object. This will only be the case as to the terms themselves, when the two words stand alone. When one is limited by the annexation of a governed noun or otherwise, it will only be true, of course, within that limit; that is, of the terms so modified. Thus in hJ aJmartiva ejsti;n hJ ajnomiva the terms are reciprocal, because both are taken in the abstract totality of the things in their nature. But hJ zwh; h\n to; fwsee footnote" twsee footnoten ajnqrwvpwn necessarily limits the reciprocity to the historical facts by the verb, and to a certain sphere of fact by the genitive following to; fwsee footnote". That is, the article, as presenting an object, presents the whole thing named. If it be abstract, it is the whole thing in its nature, as hJ aJmartiva, hJ ajnomiva; and in this case the terms are properly reciprocal. If not, it affirms it as a fact within the limits given in the sentence. It requires some close attention of mind to see that limited propositions are reciprocal; but they are really so. In practice and in translations it is little attended to. The mind generally makes an ordinary proposition of it, and has all that is really important; but it would not have become me to pass over the case, as explaining the use of the article. The doctrine that an article to each noun makes the proposition reciprocal is one universally admitted; so that it does not affect my idea of the article. It was the limited case which had to be explained.
+Hence, when the article is used, it always marks the totality of the subject named, because it is a definite entire object before my mind and of course complete in itself. This is sometimes of little, sometimes of great, moment, but always true. The word to which the article is attached is universal; that is, an ideal abstract, or individual, that is, a particular case of the term, and to the exclusion there of others. It cannot have the sense of some. A word without the article may be numerically one, as is evident, if in the singular; but it is not any particular one, but characteristic.
And now to open a little more the metaphysical order in the mind. The mind is ignorant, that is, has to receive, and be directed to, an object whose existence is assumed or recognized; it has to be informed about that object. JO turns its attention to an object (designates it, as an intellectual finger-post), supposed, I suspect, in all cases to be before the mind, named or unnamed; and, next, what accompanies oJ gives the object its name, as a[nqrwpo". The predicate informs the mind about the object. Now in a reciprocal proposition both are names attached to the same object. Hence both are objective, and both descriptive. JH ajnomiva ejsti;n hJ aJmartiva. jAnomiva, lawlessness, is the object before my mind -- that is, sin. So also sin is ajnomiva. They are different titles of the same object. But zwo;n logikovn is not an object at all. It is a descriptive idea, to enlarge so far my idea of my object, a[nqrwpo". It may be applied perhaps to other objects.
Hence too the effort of the ancient logicians to define by the genus and essential difference; because one gave the general race or character of being, and the other that which distinguished the object from all other classes, and thereby made it one to itself. It was really classification, and so far well, but no more, Locke's attempt to give, instead of that, all the qualities, informed more but was not a remedy: first, because many of those qualities were common, and not distinctive; secondly, because some might be individual. Hence the various efforts at classification in different branches of natural history by collections of distinctive marks sufficiently generalized.
To take now various examples, as they present themselves in a chapter of the New Testament (John 1): Qeo;" h\n oJ lovgo". the question is not at all if Qeov" is supreme; it is something affirmed of lovgo". Were it oJ Qeov", it would exclude from Deity the Father and the Spirit, and confine the unity of the Deity to the Word.
JO lovgo" h\n. Lovgo" is the object before my mind. It existed in the beginning.
\Hn pro;" to;n Qeovn. Here again God is an objective being to my mind, with whom the Word was. It has been supposed that there can be no rule given for prepositions. I believe, though the cases require more power of abstraction and apprehension of the relation of ideas, the one rule holds.
Qeo;" h\n oJ lovgo". Here the same word characterizes lovgo". We have again pro;" tovn for the above reason, verse 2.
The passage now leads us to another case -- the use of the article with a verb substantive. This is generally left as optional. It is true, the noun accompanying such verb is used with and without an article; but the meaning is not the same. jEn aujtwsee footnote/ zwh; h\n. Is it not evident here that the possession of zwhv characterizes the person or being spoken of? And zwhv becomes a noun characteristic of the existence affirmed. Hence constantly with verbs substantive, when the thing is generally affirmed, the article is wanting. A thing which could be called life was found in him: that name characterized the existing thing. It might in many other cases too, and hence it is only characteristic of the existence implied in the verb substantive. The existence is before the mind, and hence the verb is called substantive. There was ... what? Life. This will be entered into fully farther on, for it is true of all impersonal verbs, there "was," "fell," etc. Had it been hJ zwhv, there would have been no life anywhere else, for the whole thing designated by zwhv would have been in Him.
Next we have hJ zwhv. Now it becomes the object before my mind. This life (life as in Him) was to; fwsee footnote" twsee footnoten ajnqrwvpwn: a reciprocal proposition. But it is directly affected by the use of h\n instead of ejstiv. \Hn confines the reciprocity to the time, place, and circumstances of which it speaks. It amounts to a revelation that life, as in the Word, gave itself up to be exclusively that in the circumstances historically spoken of, by the word h\n. The light of men and the life in the Word, then and there, are names of one identical object. It is evident that the addition "of men" gives it a particular application. It gives it exclusive application there, as does the h\n.+ There is no other light of men: man is darkness. If I find light in man, true light, it is the life in the Word. In man himself was death and darkness. Christ alone was light there, whether it shines on or shines in, for both may be true. Nor was life, as here spoken of, light to others than men. But it does not state it in the whole extent of zwhv, as being an equivalent term in itself to fwsee footnote", because twsee footnoten ajnqrwvpwn gives a specific application, and takes it out of the nature of the thing; nor is it life abstractedly, but life in the Word under given circumstances; that is, it ceases to be purely abstract. JH zwhv ejsti to; fwsee footnote" would have made life and light names of the same object. The word h\n, as we have seen, confirms this; it is historical, not affirmative of the constant nature of the thing like ejstiv. It supposes there may be zwhv in some other circumstances, and says nothing of it; that is, it is historically, or in that fact, not abstractedly, though exclusively true. So of fwsee footnote".
+This is an admitted principle of Greek. The difficulty of the case arises from the depth of the subject, and being abstract and historical at the same time: divine, too, and human. Life in the Word was (not abstractedly is) a certain thing. Hence it is limited and reciprocal at the same time -- the most difficult of propositions to seize, and requiring most accuracy specially on such a subject.
In the following words we have another case: to; fwsee footnote". Here it is the object still, abstractedly, I believe; but as there is none other than the one mentioned, the abstraction and the individual object previously mentioned coincide. Which therefore is specially meant is a question of mental intelligence. It is the whole object represented by fwsee footnote". If that has been recently mentioned in such a manner as that it should be the object before the mind, the mind recurs to it. If not, it is the abstract mental idea.
jEn thsee footnote/ skotiva. Here again it is abstract, that is, an ideal object, and presents no difficulty, only adding a clear example of a principle. This is common in cases of contrast, where, by the contrast, two objects are put definitely before the mind.
jEgevneto a[vnqrwpo" ajpestalmevno" para; Qeousee footnote o[noma aujtwsee footnote/ jIwavnnh". Here we have examples of the absence of the article, which at once raises a question. Were it simply oJ jIwavnnh", the object would be evident, and the mind would wait for this. This is evident; for if there were merely ejgevneto a[vnqrwpo" ajpestalmevno" para; Qeousee footnote, the mind asks, Who? What man? The answer is, oJ jIwavnnh". The previous phrase then would be characteristic of John -- his description.+ He was a man sent from God -- so as to be sent from God. It was characteristic of John. A man sent from God was what he was. Man in mission from God was the thing that described him. Para; tousee footnote Qeousee footnote would have been true, but it would not have been merely descriptive of John, but introduced the Being, God Himself, as an object before the mind. This would have explained all, had it been oJ jIwavnnh". But, as it stands at present, another form of the principle is introduced; one, however, familiar, though perhaps undefined to the English reader -- the impersonal use of verbs without any object, existence or the event described by the verb being itself the object. "There was," "there fell," "there lived," etc., the being, falling, living, first occupies the mind, and then the thing spoken of comes in as a descriptive circumstance, the anarthrous word in either case answering the question, What? JO a[vnqrwpo" ejstiv ... What? ejgevneto ... What? In English: Man is ... What? There was ... What? the answer to "what" being the predicate, and therefore without the article. A verb substantive would not have the article after it, unless for some reason connected with other parts of the sentence or context, save in a reciprocal proposition, because the word following is a predicate. But the rule is wider; and every impersonally used verb contains within itself its object, and what follows is predicated of that. Hence we have a new phrase in the case before us -- o[noma aujtwsee footnote/ jIwavnnh". So again, eij" marturivan (for witness; that is, not himself to be an object of faith) is characteristic of what he came for. The use of the article with fwsee footnote" has already been spoken of.
+If directly a description, it would be h\n. jEgevneto is impersonal in sense.
In verse 9 we have another case -- that of an adjective -- which is a common one, and will thus explain many others. The article, as the designation of the object, takes in the adjective, as that without which the real complete object would not be before the mind, fwsee footnote" and ajlhqinovn making one idea in such a phrase. But though the two make one idea, there is a difference of force when the noun comes first with the article; the mind rests on it for a moment, as to; fwsee footnote", and is in suspense till something follows, if the word be not abstract and so complete in itself. If it be not, the article regularly follows before the adjective, and has its proper indicative force and becomes emphatic; that is, puts the adjective in contrast with some other quality of an opposite character: the light, not the false, but the true. When the adjective comes first, it is simply a quality of the right way, to press in the strictest way only one idea, but the adjective first in the mind: to; ajlhqino;n fwsee footnote"; there is no contrast; something else is affirmed about the true light. When the adjective follows with the article it is really affirmed about the substantive. The real logical structure of this phrase, however, is to; fwsee footnote" o€ fwtivzei to; fwvtizon, etc., ejsti; to; ajlhqinovn. Of that light, of which I can affirm fwvtizon, etc., I can affirm ajlhqinovn. And, as to light, the lighting everybody and true are reciprocal and co-extensive; a light which is not the true cannot light everybody; and a light which does not light everybody is not the true light; and one which lights everybody cannot be other than the true. The sentence is really to fwsee footnote" to; fwvtizon ... . ejstiv to; ajlhqinovn [fwsee footnote"].
The first form then (to; ajlhqino;n fwsee footnote") gives ajlhqinovn as distinctive, and makes it the leading idea, fwsee footnote" being assumed as the subject.+ The idea comprised in the adjective and substantive together is one, marked by tov; but its truthfulness is the thing referred to. Hence to; ajlhqino;n to; fwsee footnote" would give two objects (for ajlhqinovn would refer to something else, of which, qualified by ajlhqinovn, fwsee footnote" would be declared to be truly the name); or it would be the idea of truthfulness and the abstract idea of light; to; ajlhqinovn having fixed the mind already on an object much more abstract than light. To; fwsee footnote" ajlhqinovn is not usual Greek; for the object really before the mind is the truthfulness of the light. Light is of course needed to characterize the truthfulness before the mind.++
+There is a general principle here equally true of Greek, English French, and (I suppose) other languages, though Greek be more determinate in its usage; namely, that when the adjective follows it is contrast, when it precedes it is definitely distinctive. This is very simple. The mind speaks first of what occupies it; thus, "fine weather," "la belle saison," to; ajlhqino;n fwsee footnote", the emphasis is on the adjective. Fwsee footnote", weather, saison, are merely the subject and the thing pointed out is its state indicated by the adjective I am speaking or thinking about.
++To; fwsee footnote" has fixed it on an idea complete in itself (that is, light) and then ajlhqinovn qualifies it as a quality, which is a sort of mental contradiction. When to; ajlhqinovn is used, it gives the true light as alone the object -- not light, but true light. To; ajlhqino;n fwsee footnote" is equally one object, and of which the adjective qualifying character is put first. There are, perhaps, cases of the usage above; but, if real, they must be taken from peculiar circumstances, as mentally one word: as hJ zwh; aijwvnio" (1 John 5: 20); but the reading is questionable.
In to; fwsee footnote" ajlhqinovn, fwsee footnote" is presented as the object; but in itself it would not be sufficient: it would be distinctively the light as contrasted with all other objects, and therefore the mind has to resume its exercise, and to fix it on a particular light; that is, the true light, which contrasts with any other light. Here the general abstract idea or object is fwsee footnote", to;? fwsee footnote": but there is an added object of the mind to which attention is substantively drawn: o€ fwtivzei pavnta a[nqrwpon, equivalent to to; fwvtizon of which it is affirmed, not that it is ajlhqinovn, (a mere character in that case), but to; ajlhqino;n [fwsee footnote"], distinctly and definitely that one particular light in contrast with false ones. It is a reciprocal proposition. The last word, fwsee footnote", comes in merely as repeated, to secure from mistake, as the subject-matter, of the truthfulness contended for. Its being the true one is the object of affirmation. This merely amounts to the mental phenomenon, that the mind can have not only existences for an object, but acts or qualities; that is, the article can be used with verbs, or participles and characteristics (that is, adjectives), as objects, the substantive being assumed or expressed for clearness' sake. Were this not so, the mind could only have actual existences, and not actings or characters, for its object; but this is not true. This designation by the article in the case of infinitives, participles, and adjectives, by making them objects, makes, in fact, nouns of them in the mind. Thus, 1 John 5: 20, ginwvskwmen to;n ajlhqinovn, where the person is absolutely designated by having that quality. So, in a bolder form, Mark 9: 23, to; eij duvnasai pisteusee footnotesai, the question of power lies in believing, the man having said to Jesus, ei[ ti duvnasai. jEstiv being understood, gives pisteusee footnotesai without any article; otherwise it would make believing absolutely identical with power as a reciprocal term. The verb-substantive constantly, indeed, takes away the article, as we shall see. In the same verse we have the article with a participle, twsee footnote/ pisteuvonti, not exactly equivalent to "a believer" (though for most purposes it is), because it supposes the act, and not merely the abiding quality.
The next case which requires remark in the chapter of John we are examining, is e[dwken aujtoi'" ejxousivan. Now divdwmi will regularly have a noun without an article, unless some other principle introduces one, as being united to a possessive genitive, or reference to previous mention of the subject, or the like, so that it is the designation to the mind of a specific object for that reason. Otherwise the phrase is a general one, and the thing given comes in merely as characterizing the giver and the gift. This will apply to every ordinary case of a simply active verb, because the word governed is merely the complement, or explanation of the idea in the sentence, though many other rules may introduce it as a specifically designated object to the mind. It is merely the kind of thing given; that is, characteristic. Were it a known object, it would have it. Devdwke zwhvn, "he gave life," th;n zwhvn, if a particular life before mentioned was before the mind, or that the noun was abstractedly viewed in its absoluteness.
We next come, after obvious cases, to the cases in verse 13 -- ejk without an article. This signifies the mode or manner of something else (which something else is the object), here of being born. Hence all are without it. An important instance of this is ejk pivstew" (Romans 1: 17), the manner or principle of the revelation; eij" pivstin, that to which the revelation is made, characterizing the manner of the reception of the revelation. jEk pivstew", again (Romans 3: 30), on the principle of faith, for they had sought it ejx e[rgwn novmou, by law-works; the Gentiles dia; thsee footnote" pivstew", because here it is presented as the actual faith they had. Hence, inasmuch as it was ejk pivstew" and not in virtue of being a Jew, they could be justified too. So dia; tousee footnoteto ejk pivstew" ina kata; cavrin (Romans 4: 16); so verse 14, oiJ ejk novmou; their character a little after (verse 16), twsee footnote/ ejk tousee footnote novmou, that is, the law, Jews; oiJ ejk novmou, those who claimed it by law, on that principle. Then we have twsee footnote/ ejk pivstew" jAbraavm, a remarkable case, meaning "of Abraham-faith"; not by Abraham's faith, but on the same principle -- that kind of thing. These may afford a clue to many passages, and shew how little also the prepositions are out of the rule. But it is so important a principle in Paul's writings that we may consider it further hereafter.
To return: oJ lovgo" sa;rx ejgevneto needs no remark, unless that ejgevneto makes a proposition like ejstiv. Th;n dovxan aujtousee footnote -- aujtousee footnote gives the article as designating necessarily that glory as a specific object: dovxan wj", "glory as of," evidently only characterizes the subject. Consequently, monogenousee footnote" para; patrov" characterizes the glory. The glory is assumed to be before God, or it would not be true glory; but it was glory of an only-begotten from His Father.+ So cavrito" kai; ajlhqeiva" characterize His habitation here. It might have been thsee footnote" cavrito" kai; thsee footnote" ajlhqeiva", and stated the fact of these two things. But the whole passage is characteristic of the Word made flesh, and not relating facts; though of course the facts must have existed to make the character true. Of oJ ejrcovmeno", and ejlavbomen, kai; cavrin, etc., the principle has been already given. Cavrito" cannot receive here the article; it would destroy the sense, because thsee footnote" cavrito" would be the whole abstract thing, cavri"; and no other cavri" could be ajntiv that. It is some grace, some other grace or other. Hence when it is used as an abstract idea, contrasted with oJ novmo" given by Moses, we have hJ cavri", and hJ ajlhvqeia. I am disposed to think that there is no article before Mwsevw" and jIhsousee footnote Cristousee footnote, not because they have not been mentioned, but as being the means and manner of the coming of law and grace. But we will consider proper names apart.
+Parav, with a genitive, has not exactly the sense of the English from, save as coming from, derived or flowing from, associated with, in the way of derivation; as with a dative it is "associated with," in the sense of being with or at: the accusative being near, and hence sometimes opposition and comparison.
We come then to a difficult case, but one which attaches to the nature of the word: speaking of that which is so little within the limit of human thought, and especially in the expressions of one whom the Holy Ghost employed to speak more profoundly than all but one on these subjects. Still the gracious Lord meant us to understand as far as it is conveyed, and as it is; and I judge, that while the application is special, it confirms the principle which we seek to use in the explanation of the word: I refer to Qeo;n oujdei;" eJwvrake pwvpote. I believe this absolute negative purposely sets aside objective personality here. If it had been to;n Qeovn, it would have been a designated object, and hard to speak thus of, hard to point out an object to say it could not be seen; or inconsistently, as one seen by faith. But the object here was to keep Him in the unseen unseeable majesty of His being; He was such a one as could not be seen. It was not oJ, that being pointed out to the mind, but one dwelling in the light unapproachable. And this is exceedingly confirmed by the absence of a aujtovn after ejxhghvsato. If that had been there, it should have been tovn, for He would have been an objective person known. It may perhaps partially confirm this, that in Matthew 5: 8, we have aujtoi; to;n Qeo;n o[fontai. There He is the object of creature-vision as a person or being in whose presence they are, as far as that can be.
It is a specific testimony in verse 19, hJ marturiva has it from tousee footnote jIwavnnou. Auth is the predicate, and is in fact hJ auth.+
This leads me to a controverted passage, Luke 2: 2. The natural rendering would be, "The enrolment itself first took place, Cyrenius ruling Syria." Otherwise the regular structure would have been auth hJ ajpografh; hJ prwvth, "this first enrolment," supposing others, and designating that one as the one in question; or, if not supposing others, supposing their previous possibility, and emphatically designating that there had been none before: as we say, "This is the first time he did so," though I might say as characteristic, "This is a first fault."
Auth, however, constantly takes an article++ with the noun following. The difference of meaning when the order is different, though it be not sometimes more than a difference of style, will best explain the use of it.
Ou|to" oJ telwvnh" (Luke 18: 11). The publican had been spoken of before. Hence he was a designated object, oJ telwvnh". Ou|to" designated more emphatically, often so as to be contemptuous, specially where alone (given in the word "fellow" in the English version), the individual there. Ou|to" oJ telwvnh" designates first the individual, and then designates him by his character; This [fellow] the publican; but, the person being supposed, the character becomes the object, as we have seen in the case of the adjective, as to; fwsee footnote" to; ajlhqinovn. If w[n were there, it would not have the article; it would be merely characteristic, ou|to" telwvnh" w[n. The whole object is evidently ou|to". \Wn is a kind of copulative participle, giving telwvnh" as a predicate, as su; a[nqrwpo" w[n, etc. (John 10: 33.)
+That is, without discussing the etymology of ou|to" it is evident that ou|to" is as designative at least as oJ, which therefore could have no place. The same is true of ejkei'no", which does not receive the article, and which is really practically an adjective made of ejkei'; that is, specially designative -- ou|to", this; ejkei'no" that; that is, even more specially designative than oJ.
++The difficulty in the usual rendering is its absence before prwvth. However, there seem to be some instances of such a practice, which I will examine. It is really connected with ejgevneto.
Both these forms continually occur. I cite sufficient to shew the use.
Auth hJ ajsqevneia. John 11: 4. Ou|to" oJ laov". Mark 7: 6.
JTousee footnoteto to; gevno". Mark 9: 29. Ou|to" oJ a[nqrwpo". John 7: 46.
JTouvtou tousee footnote a[rtou. John 6: 51. Tauvthn ejpoivhse th;n ajrchvn. John 2: 11.
In all these cases we have something mentioned immediately before, emphatically designated by ou|to" -- this before our eyes or mind; this just spoken of, but requiring (or clearer by having) the name of what the object designated was, the added word sometimes giving special force, as ajrch;n, gevno", or enlarging or peculiarly characterizing the particular object. The ou|to" is complete and emphatic -- this, whether thing or person. And the noun with the article presents the object, the word ou|to" necessarily specifying one.
I add instances of the other use: he [namely] the man, it [namely] the generation.
JO lovgo" ou|to". Luke 7: 17. JO a[nqrwpo" ou|to". Acts 28:4.
JO ajllogenh;" ou|to". Luke 17: 18. JO makarismo;" ou|to". Romans 4: 9.
JO a[nqrwpo" ou|to". Mark 15: 39. JO lovgo" ou|to". Romans 9: 9.
JO lao;" ou|to". Matthew 15: 8.
In all these latter cases the object is simply given, first in the usual form, and then particularly recognized as an object already under consideration. These cases, and those previously mentioned, are examples of the general rule, that the mind naturally first mentions the object which occupies it. When ou|to" precedes, it is the individual person or thing; when the descriptive adjective or noun, it is the designation of the object by its name existing in the individual case.
Now, of these in the first three, the emphasis is particularly on the word to which ou|to" is joined; the other form would have weakened and made it unnatural in point of style, though the sense is the same as a fact, but not in mental apprehension. No English can mark the difference well. The first two are so distinctly thus, that "the rumour of this" and "the stranger from among all these" would have been nearly equivalent. Matthew 15: 8 deserves notice, because it is parallel with Mark 7: 6. It is evident here the sense must be the same. I should say the passage in Matthew was the more energetic, as designating formally the Jewish people in their iniquity (represented by the Pharisees addressed). It is so in the LXX. Mark's is more historically given, contrasting them with other people. It is plain this is a mere question of style. Ou|to" so used has often in itself a contemptuous force; but I should doubt that in this case. The Lord was referring to them. He cared for this people. Others did not so draw nigh. In Matthew it is the character of the people. The whole people did so. It was their common guilt.
I would make the same remark on Acts 28: 4, and Romans 4: 9. The subject of the sentence is more present in the mind of the writer than the particular identification of the fact or person referred to. Ou|to" is almost supplementary. Romans 9: 9 requires another remark. The translation should be, "For this word is of promise." jEpaggeliva" without the article characterizes the lovgo". Thsee footnote" ejpaggeliva" had preceded -- "the promise"; and then the apostle declares that promise characterizes the word he is going to quote about it. Further, the preceding remark is confirmed.
To continue our original chapter -- iJereisee footnote" kai; Leui?ta" is the character of the persons who went. Had it been said touv", it would have held up the priests before the mind, and would have meant all of them.
Then oJ profhvth", the prophet, as has been remarked by others, before the mind of John and of the speakers, who should come. That Christian faith recognizes that the prophet spoken of by Moses was the Christ proves nothing to lead us to suppose any inconsistency in the ill-informed enquiry and expectation of those who went out.
We have another instance of the example already explained in ajpovkrisin. jEgw; fwnhv etc. requires more remark. It is a quotation, varying in some words, from the LXX, and a sort of public, prophetic title affixed by the Lord on John -- "I am that passage," not merely that thing. Hence it is stronger than saying ejgwv eijmi hJ fwnhv. It is an oracle recited attached to ejgwv.+ Eijmiv (understood) does not indeed require the article, unless it is specifically reciprocal -- that is, exclusive of all others: as ejgwv eijmi hJ a[mpelo" hJ ajlhqinhv, -- ejgwv eijmi oJ a[rto" thsee footnote" zwhsee footnote", -- ejgwv eijmi oJJ a[rto" oJ kataba;" ejJk tousee footnote oujranousee footnote. John 15: 1 and 6: 41, 48.
Kurivou comes under the question of proper names, not meaning a title of Jesus, save as He is Jehovah.
jEn udati -- the character of the baptism. John 1: 26.
[Ercetai ajnhvr. Here we have no article, because it is not any particular man designated as an object to the mind, nor the whole class as an ideal object, which, indeed, would be rather a[nqrwpo", save as used for husband. It is a man. It characterizes, or gives the quality of man to him of whom all this is said. JO ajnhvr would have quite another sense. [Ercetai ajnhvr is, "a being comes," he is not any other thing, he is a man: that is the quality of the comer. It is really impersonal, and comes under that rule. JO ajnhvr would have been some known man.
+ jEgwv is as an article, and what follows is the oracle predicated about it: ejgw; hJ fwnhv would have been merely an assertion of John about himself.
In verse 26, John specifically characterized his baptism. Here (in verse 31), though many authorities have not the tw/', I judge it is well retained, because he is speaking of the fact that actually occupied him. He therefore does not refer to the manner merely, but to the fact, and the udati is referred to as the known matter employed, with the water as I have said or of which I have spoken. Hence, when he is again contrasting the character or nature of it, we have ejn udati and ejn pneuvmati aJgivw/, where, remark, therefore, the absence of the article does not touch the question of what pneusee footnotema is meant. It is not there, because it only characterizes the baptism.
Verse 34, oJ uiJo;" tousee footnote Qeousee footnote is evidently a specific title, and complete ideal object in itself.
Thsee footnote/ ejpauvrion was one particular to-morrow, that is, of the day previously spoken of.
JO ajmnov", one particular lamb, the Lamb of God. A genitive following necessarily involves in such a case the article as designating a specific object. A Christian would understand oJ uiJov", or oJ ajmnov", from his previous knowledge, as a reference to one particular known Son and known Lamb. But here it follows the designation by a subsequent genitive, which confines it to a designated object. Here we have also twsee footnoten maqhtwsee footnoten, the whole body of them so called as an object, and duvo, some two of them, but specifically designated: afterwards oiJ duvo, because now we have them as the designated two, though unknown.
Verse 40 (Gr.), ejkeivnhn coming after necessarily makes a specific day as an object before the mind.
Wra requires more attention. It is indeed an exception to general rules. It never receives an article with a noun of number, unless some other reason makes it an especial object, as previous mention, a particular hour, or the like. Such idioms as to time are found in all languages. It is the haste of familiar style, being an accompaniment to any act in general, shewing when anything was done. This applies to many familiar and commonly used words.
There is one apparent exception to this, Matthew 20: 3; but the article there is rejected by all the editors. On the other hand, when the mind is to be directed to a particular hour as a point of time as being a remarkable or definite one, the article is there, but attached to the numeral as the leading idea. (Matthew 20: 6.) This exception remarkably confirms the rule. It is to be remembered that wra did not mean "hour" in Greek till very late in the history of the language. When it is used in the original way as a word, it follows the usual rules in connection with numerals marking the hour of the day. It has become a kind of name, as a known thing every day, and the article is never used -- the same when used for a portion of the day in general; as if "time" had become in English the name for an hour. We should speak of spring-time, winter-time, etc., and also it was at seventh-time, eighth-time, which would shew it then meant hour, and attach as to time a character to the act done. But when in Greek a specific point of time is meant, then wra with the numeral takes the article. The cases of absence are too numerous to quote. We have peri; trivthn wran, peri; ekthn wran, peri; ejnnavthn wran, etc. So ew" wra" ejnnavth". So we have when it merely means much of the day, h[dh wra" pollhsee footnote", h[dh wra pollhv. (Mark 6: 35.) But then we have, when noticed as a critical point of time, Matthew 27: 46, peri; de; th;n ejnnavthn wran; chapter 20: 6, peri; de; th;n eJndekavthn wran, and so chapter 20: 9. So Mark 15: 34, kai; thsee footnote/ wra/ thsee footnote/ ejnnavth/. Thsee footnote/ wra/ tousee footnote qumiavmato", and such cases are common where the word follows the usual rules. So John 12: 23, ejlhvluqen hJ wra. Acts 3: 1, ejpi; th;n wran thsee footnote" proseuchsee footnote" th;n ejnnavthn. So Acts 10: 30, tauvth" thsee footnote" wra" ... kai; th;n ejnnavthn wran.
Thus its exceptional use, when used as a name of the hours of the day, does not affect the general rule. Nor is this confined to the word wra: in expressions relative to time we have ajf j hJmerwsee footnoten ajrcaivwn, ajpo; pevrusi, ajpo; tetavrth" hJmevra". (Acts 10: 30.) In this last the ellipse or irregularity of construction is much greater than relates merely to the article; as indeed in the first also. The last means "four days ago"; that is, kata; tetavrthn (or th;n tetavrthn) hJmevran, ajpo; tauvth" thsee footnote" hJmevra". It is contracted, and ajpo; attracts the government to itself. As regards these idiomatic expressions as to time, we are familiar with them in English. We say "last year," "next month"; whereas we must say "the next king that reigns," "the last that reigned." They are merely idiomatic habits when a word is very frequently used, and lead to no mistake or uncertainty of grammar.
I have owed this to the reader to shew that wra is no such exception as in the smallest degree to set aside the rule; being merely an idiom found in other languages where the general grammar is certain. The truth is, from the peculiar circumstances in such a case as the hours of the day, the number becomes the designating power to the mind, as the article in other cases.
One other case remains in this chapter important to notice -- dovlo" oujk e[sti. (verse 48 Gr.) Two reasons might seem to deprive dovlo" of the article here. First, the verb ejstiv; because, unless in the case of a reciprocal proposition, ejstiv makes what follows it a character of the subject. And this is so much the case that when another verb is such as to make the following noun characteristic, it has not the article. So in tivno" aujtwsee footnoten e[stai gunhv; gunhv characterizes the relationship -- "Shall she be wife?" -- bear that character. JH gunhv would have fixed the mind on the person, and meant rather the woman in that relationship. (Mark 12: 23.) So, in the same verse, e[scon ... gunai'ka, "to wife," as wife; again, as movno" e[cwn ajqanasivan (1 Timothy 6: 16); e[conte" creivan very frequently e[conte" ejxousivan. This was the condition or state of the persons spoken of, of God Himself. The anarthrous nouns are attributes or conditions of something. Yet e[comen will have the article after it whenever the word is not merely characteristic, but positively fixing the mind on a definite object. jEn w|/ e[comen th;n ajpoluvtrwsin. (Ephesians 1: 7.) Redemption is more than a characteristic of us. It is a positive object marked out to the mind. So Philippians 1: 23, th;n ejpiqumivan e[cwn. The same principle very plainly applies to Ephesians 3: 12, ejn w|/ e[comen th;n parjrJhsivan. Now this might seem rather a contradiction, but if examined illustrates remarkably the principle. It is not here a quality in Paul, but a special designated boldness to which he refers: th;n parjrJhsivan kai; th;n prosagwgh;n ejn pepoiqhvsei dia; thsee footnote" pivstew" aujtousee footnote, that boldness and confidence of access which we have before God through Him. Where parjrJhsivan is used as a quality or state of the person, it has not the article, as Hebrews 10: 19; 1 John 2: 28; 3: 21.
But to return to dovlo" oujk e[sti -- dovlo" is not a predicate here, nor exactly characteristic of Nathanael. The negative modifies the sentence. It is not merely that the complete abstract idea, guile, is not in him, but there is none of it. To put it in another shape; you cannot make an object as existing before the mind of what is denied to exist. Hence we have dovlo" oujk e[sti, rightly translated "no guile." So in 1 John 3: 5, ejn aujtwsee footnote/ aJmartiva oujk e[sti, "in him is no sin." The same holds with e[cei used in a similar way, as John 4: 44, timh;n oujk e[cei. We have a confirmation of this by seeing that, where it is a positive object about which something is denied, and not the denial of the existence of the thing, oujk does not alter the common rule; thus oujk e[stin oJ Qeo;" Qeo;" nekrwsee footnoten. (Matthew 22: 32.) It is not, "God is not." God is presented as the object, and He is denied to be Qeo;" nekrwsee footnoten. Whereas in LXX, Psalms 13: 1 and 52: 1, we have oujk e[sti Qeov", there is no God. In Mark 12: 27, on the contrary, we have the idea in a different shape: oujk e[stin oJ Qeo;" nekrwsee footnoten. If this be not elliptical, and if so, identical with Matthew, the sense is different, and oJ Qeov" becomes a proper object of the mind based on what has been said, and is a term of relationship, as oJ Qeo;" jAbraavm etc. He is not the God of dead persons, as called their God. If this be so, the article as designating a positive object is positively necessary. It is a question of spiritual intelligence which is the meaning here. The grammatical rule is maintained equally by either. I incline to the latter. The cases of oujk e[sti and similar forms without an article are too numerous to mention.
An English expression here may assist the reader. In "similar forms without an article," "an article" is merely characteristic of "form." It is a form without an article. The article would fix my mind on the article itself as the subject of enquiry, or, if recently mentioned, refer to it as so mentioned; only that English is neither as accurate nor consequently as uniform, nor as universal in application of the principle.
This leads me to another principle -- application, that is, of our principle: if a noun singular be taken distributively, or a noun plural partially, which is the same thing at bottom, there will not be an article; if the singular, as already spoken of in totality, that is, abstractedly, or the plural universally, there will. The former is merely a case of the non-existence of a definite object pointed out to the mind. This connects itself with the employment of prepositions also. A singular noun is taken distributively when it is not an abstract complete idea, but as applied to any given existences of the case. Dovlo" oujk e[sti comes under this, and has led me to it. It is not merely that the abstract thing dovlo" is not, but that nothing coming under that title is there. So of all the cases given above with oujk. Other cases are very numerous. (Mark 12: 19, 20, 21.) jEavn tino" ajdelfo;" ... katalivph/ gunai'ka. [Elabe gunai'ka ... ouJde; aujto;" ajfhsee footnoteke spevrma. So in the plural eJpta; ajdelfoi; h\san. JO Qeo;" nekrwsee footnoten. Otan ga;r ejk nekrwsee footnoten ajnastwsee footnotesin dead people, that condition, -- not as an object before the mind -- all the dead. So ajnavstasi" nekrwsee footnoten frequently, but Luke 14: 14, thsee footnote ajnastavsei twsee footnoten dikaivwn, because all would rise, as a definite object -- these persons. So eijdovte" ta;" grafav", all these writings so designated. So eij" cei'ra" ajnqrwvpwn, men's hands. It is characteristic. Instances of the converse are found in every page: oiJ maqhtai;, oiJ ajdelfoiv. So olo" involves the article, tinev" excludes it. Hence we know pasee footnote" with an article following has not the meaning it has with a noun without it. In the last case it is distributive -- "every": in the former not, but means "the whole." Pasee footnotesa hJ ghsee footnote "the whole earth." Pasee footnotesa futeiva "every plant." Hence, note Ephesians 3: 15; pasee footnotesa patriav "every family" (where ejn oujranoi'" kai; ejpi; ghsee footnote" characterizes the families, and therefore have not the article); that is, as Jehovah knew only Israel of all the families of the earth (Amos 3: 2), the rest being not called by His name. (Is. 63: 19.) All the families -- every heavenly, or earthly family -- were ranged under the name and authority of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I will now go through several difficult cases in which, from the extreme exuberance of matter and the narrowness of human language to meet it, and yet the need of accuracy in divine things, and the certainty of it in revelation, we shall find the principle most severely tested, but most fully proved. And here I shall particularly take notice of prepositions which come as fully under the rule as every other case.
Ephesians 1: 1, ajpovstolo", characteristic of Paul. Dia; qelhvmato" Qeousee footnote the same thing. He was an apostle by divine will.
Verse 2, cavri" kai; eijrhvnh are used distributively with e[stw understood. It is not the abstract word pointed out as an object, but that these things may be with -- characterize -- the condition and state of the people. The apostle did not wish grace and peace in their abstract totality to be so, but that their state might be characterized by these qualities. jApo; Qeousee footnote, etc., gives the character of the grace and peace, that kind. It is not a wish that it should come from Him, but that grace and peace thence might be with them.
Verse 3. In this verse we have the article, for Qeov", etc., is presented as a personal object. I will revert to this as an instance of an important point. Toi'", before ejpouranivoi", shews where they were, or had the blessing. It was not the blessing merely characterized by that place.
Verse 4, pro; katabolhsee footnote" kovsmou characterizes the election by the date; does not relate the fact by a date: that is, it is not given as a specific date to which attention is drawn, but that which preceded, or the infinity preceding that, characterized the election. It renders it much stronger. "Ere a mountain was formed," or "a foundation of the world laid," would not give a date, but contrast a period in character.
Verses 4, 5. So ejn ajgavph/ characterizes the saints, eij" uiJoqesivan their predestination. It was predestination to adoption; but it was not kat j eujdokivan merely. The good pleasure of His will is made the object before the mind, of the source from which it flowed.
Verse 6. We now come to some more difficult cases, because complicated, where they have in part, in part not, the article; but it flows from what we have been seeing we are to be; our whole state, and the work which has brought us there, eij" e[painon dovxh". This is to characterize the matter. But the grace is a positive designated object, which is thus glorified and praised, or gloriously praised. Hence we have thsee footnote" (called for, indeed, by aujtousee footnote). His grace is set before us as praised and glorified. This apparent anomaly is therefore at once made easy by this simple principle.
Verse 7. I have noticed this already. We have all these as God's part, noticed as positive objects of our soul (save sofiva/ kai; fronhvsei, which characterize the grace, verse 8). So verse 9.
Verse 10. But eij" oijkonomivan. It was a will, or purpose of, or for, administering: this will or purpose was such. This gave its character and quality to the will or purpose; but the fulness of times was a positive object before the mind. It did not characterize the administration. It is a direct subject of thought. We have seen before ejn oujranoisee footnote" kai; ejpi; ghsee footnote" characterize+ every family. Here they are designated as places where the things are pointed out as such, and they have the article.
+This is not the same thing as being heavenly (it states that their being there characterized them), nor earthly, but being there. The English will render this, but the distinctions are rarely maintained. "In heaven and earth" would hardly be distinguished, though there is a difference, from "in the heavens and in the earth."
Verse 11. Again we have the unusual form kata; provqesin tousee footnote. But kata; provqesin denotes the nature of the predestination, and connects itself with predestinated. We are predestinated according to purpose (not the particular purpose) of Him who, etc. And then we have again the article associated with this work in God where it has its source, and it is presented as a positive object of the mind. We are merely characterized, and our predestination by purpose. Our predestination was not di j e[rga, but kata; provqesin, and that of Him who, etc.
Verse 12. The hJmasee footnote" is the subject, eij" e[painon its character: to praise. We are to be such. It is the character we clothe. The thsee footnote" before dovxh", though disputed, is, I judge, rightly maintained. We are "to praise" as according to purpose, but it is of His glory, presented again as the direct object of the mind. We have then several with the article, evidently presenting positive objects, till we come to
Verse 14, ajrjrJabwvn characterizing merely in this case the Holy Ghost: hJmwsee footnoten accounts grammatically for the article after klhronomiva" according to the principles previously stated. It is a specific object. But the words which receive the article here are spiritually full of the most perfect interest and weight of instruction. JO ajrjrJabwvn would be pretty much a reciprocal proposition: here it is a predicate of an ordinary proposition. The inheritance, again, is an object presented. Eij" ajpoluvtrwsin characterizes ajrjrJabwvn as eij" oijkonomivan previously did the purpose, kata; th;n eujdokivan aujtousee footnote.
Verse 15, th;n ajgavphn thvn I notice as merely a new form of the principle, the second th;n necessarily making the first objective.
Verse 17, oJ path;r thsee footnote" dovxh" is not the same as oJ path;r dovxh", or path;r dovxh". He is the author, source, and head of glory; the glory that is actually to be, as Father, as God of our Lord Jesus Christ. Pneusee footnotema sofiva" kai; ajpokaluvyew" characterized what was given to them. It was not to;, that is, the whole of it abstractedly to them. It may be the Holy Ghost; but what is stated here from uJmisee footnoten to aujtousee footnote is the character of the thing given. I should translate "the Spirit." It is surely by the Holy Ghost, and the form of His presence and power in the mind; but it is that form of it which is spoken of here.
Verse 18. We get a succession of positive objects presented to the mind as so known.
Verse 20. So here, where we have only to remark the resurrection of Christ: it is not ajnavstasi" ejk tw'n nekrw'n, that is, not from designated persons, but a state. It characterized the resurrection, and did not point out persons. It is ajnavstasi" ejk nekrw'n, that is, from that condition.
Ephesians 2: 2. In this verse, note, we have the evil system presented, not as characterizing the walk merely, but as a positive subsisting system, according to which they walked. And so all through till we get our resulting character. Tevkna fuvsei ojrghsee footnote", this characterized us.
Verse 5, cavriti, the principle which characterized the way of salvation. Then,
Verse 7. It was by goodness to us that He shewed the positive things spoken of Him: that goodness (crhstovth") characterized it.
Verse 8. We have thsee footnote/ ga;r cavritiv ejste seswsmevnoi dia; thsee footnote" pivstew". Because it is a positive assertion about this thing presented directly to the soul -- by that thing and by faith, existing faith: not merely as characterizing the salvation, but by these things, so set before our minds.
Verse 10, poivhma characterizes us; so ejpi; e[rgoi" ajgaqoisee footnote" characterizes the condition of the creation: ejn sarkiv, verse 11, the manner again.
Verse 11, ta; e[qnh. He speaks of them as the whole class. It was not some having such a character, but living actual beings as such, taking in in principle the whole body of them, not e[qnh in character from among twsee footnoten e[qnwn. Ye were "the Gentiles." Legovmenoi gives ajkrobustiva the force of character evidently. I have only to remark repeated instances of the noun after an active verb being without the article, as giving the character of the result of activity. Where this is not the case it has the article. jApokatallavxh/ tou;" ajmfotevrou" (verse 16), necessarily an object; but poiwsee footnoten eijrhvnhn (verse 15), eujhggelivsato eijrhvnhn (verse 17), this characterized the making and preaching. There are two classes of accusatives after the active verb: one the object, the other the fruit of the action. Th;n e[cqran enmity, specially known and mentioned: first, assumed as a known object, and then referred to. It was not enmity that was to characterize the act, but a particular enmity, which was before their minds, that is referred to. Eij" and katav very often have anarthrous nouns (not always), simply because, from their meaning, they speak of what characterizes something else.
One point remains, of which this chapter gives two examples, and of which we may therefore speak here. I mean the use of one article with two nouns of different meaning, and even necessarily sometimes distinct. Thus we have oJ Qeo;" kai; pathvr (chapter 1), tou;" ajpostovlou" kai; profhvta" (chapter 2, 3), and in chapter 4, tou;" poimevna" kai; didaskavlou". Now our rule here is still the same, and much facilitates the apprehension of these cases. The article directs the mind to an object in view; or a whole class seen together in the speaker's mind, as one for the purpose for which he is speaking, as a unity, or as a whole. Thus, in the first, oJ calls my attention to an object: two names are given to this object -- God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Again, touv" calls my attention to a whole class complete in itself, forming as one company the foundation, united in this, apostles and prophets. So shepherding and feeding with the word present themselves as in one class of persons in the apostle's mind. They may be elsewhere separate ideas, but they are united in one class of persons here. So Matthew 16: 21, the Lord Jesus should suffer many things ajpo; twsee footnoten presbutevrwn kai; ajrcierevwn kai; grammatevwn. They were a joint common band of enemies, and so spoken of as present to the mind of the speaker.
I now turn to an important instance of this, Titus 2: 13. First we have th;n markarivan ejlpivda kai; ejpifavneian thsee footnote" dovxh". Dovxh" is the governing idea here. Grace had appeared (verse 11). They were waiting for glory: that was their hope (that is object of hope, so used elsewhere), and it would appear hence, the object of hope and the apparition were identical, namely, the glory. Hence, th;n marks both. But what glory? That is the question. Tousee footnote megavlou Qeousee footnote kai; swthsee footnotero" hJmwsee footnoten jIhsousee footnote Cristousee footnote. Dovxh" still governs the sentence, and God and our Lord Jesus Christ are identified -- were in the apostle's mind in the Spirit -- in the glory which was to appear. Hence, it was the glory of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, viewed as perfectly one in glory. They are not the least separated in the mind of the apostle when speaking of that glory. It is certain that, in saying Qeousee footnote kai; swthsee footnotero", the apostle had but one object in his mind presented by the Holy Ghost. But I do not myself believe that megavlou Qeousee footnote and jIhsousee footnote Cristousee footnote are here names of one person. I have not the smallest doubt that Jesus is the true God -- Jehovah; and I do not believe that this sentence could have been written, had not the glory of the Great God been ascribable to Him. But I do not see that this statement amounts to His being the same person as the great God; though I do not see how it could be true were He not, for they were one in glory.
There are many other examples: 1 Thessalonians 3: 11, 13; 2 Corinthians 11: 31; Romans 15: 6. We have 2 Peter 1: 1, ejn dikaiosuvnh/ tousee footnote Qeousee footnote hJmwsee footnoten kai; swthsee footnotero" jIhsousee footnote Cristousee footnote. Here the same remark applies, I judge, as to the passage in Titus. The righteousness is one, as the glory there, and both are identified in it -- which could not be said unless Jesus were God. But this last is not the statement of the passage. The righteousness here spoken of is, I judge, spoken of as the righteousness which has secured their having the faith, not the object of it. We have a phrase exactly similar, 2 Peter 2: 20, ejn ejpignwvsei tousee footnote Kurivou kai; swthsee footnotero" jIhsousee footnote Cristousee footnote. Now here the mind acknowledges the identity of person+ at once: but I judge the mind recognizes it in the words Kurivou kai; swthsee footnotero". So in 2 Peter 1: 11, eij" th;n aijwvnion basileivan tousee footnote Kurivou hJmwsee footnoten kai; swthsee footnotero" jIhsousee footnote Cristousee footnote. So we have (verse 16) th;n tousee footnote Kurivou hJmwsee footnoten jIhsousee footnote Cristousee footnote duvnamin kai; parousivan. The power and presence are in one scene or one object before the mind. Compare Romans 1: 20.
In two of the above passages, ejpignwvsei and dikaiosuvnh/ have not the article, because by ejn they designate the manner or principle on which the main subject is received or escaped. So, 2 Peter 1: 10, we have bebaivan ... th;n klhsee footnotesin kai; ejklogh;n poieisee footnotesqai. The two are identified as a common object to the mind, assured together; but they are not one thing, though united in one idea by thvn. And note the singular adjective.
+The error of Granville Sharp and Bishop Middleton seems to have been this: in supposing, not that there was a common point of union, but that this was a person represented by the article, and described by the nouns following.
In French, where two ideas are sufficiently near to make one only an explanation of another, a similar idiom may be observed. "Sa tranquillité, son calme a," not "ont"; because I have only one idea, which my first word imperfectly expressed. With that one idea in the mind the verb agrees.
Note in Ephesians 2: 22, katoikhthvrion characterizes the building in its use; but tousee footnote Qeousee footnote because you have God as a personal object there, not merely characterizing the house: ejn Pneuvmati because this characterizes the manner of God's presence, and (though it be a person) does not speak of the person of the Holy Ghost, but of the manner of God's presence. A multitude of examples shew the fallacy of any conclusion that it is not the Holy Ghost personally, because of the absence of twsee footnote/.
It is, I think plain, from the examination of a number of passages, that in cases where one article is used with several nouns, (while the grammatical agreement of the article is, by attraction and the usual analogy, partially with the nouns which follow+), the object designated by the article is mentally another, to which all the nouns used apply, or with which they associate themselves. Where each is made a distinct definite object of, each will have the article. That mental object may be a person, who unites in himself the various names or titles. It may be association in a common object or common circumstance. In a word, the nouns are united in some common fact which the mind has before it, so as to group them together. This may be expressed or understood from the context. Thus it is expressed in the following: Titus 2: 13; Ephesians 5: 5; 2 Thessalonians 1: 12; 2 Peter 1: 1.
In 1 Timothy 5: 21, it is contained in the preposition ejnwvpion, which gives the idea of "the presence of" -- the one idea which governs the mind, but Kurivou is left out by most. This may be a person, as Matthew 12: 22; 13: 23; Mark 16: 16. In Luke 11: 28 we have several grouped in one class. Hebrews 3: 1 is a very plain and express case. In Philippians 1: 7, it is the work in which the Philippians sympathized with Paul, which consisted in these two things: ajpologiva/ kai; bebaiwvsei. So in Romans 15: 6. It is readily understood from the context. In a word, there is always one definite object before the mind, of which the various nouns come in, not merely descriptively, but as together forming the completeness of that object. The grammar follows the noun, as the relative pronoun does, in its case, that to which it is related.
+This is not the case strictly as to number, because, as we have seen, the object before the mind is necessarily one. If the article and nouns be plural, it is, as before remarked, the whole body in question, though made up of many individuals. Hence, in this sort of passages, we get one common idea in which the various words are united, and then the article is singular; or we get the class of persons united in one common idea, and then the article is of course plural.
I shall now give some cases in which it evidently is not one person, and in which the common idea is not expressed in the passage. Only before citing them I will here recall the principle I have laid down, as we are at one of the most important and difficult applications of it. The article points to some definite object of the mind. The noun following gives the name to this object. In some cases, where this is sufficiently certain by specific contrast, the name is not even added, as oJ mevn, oJ dev. Earlier in the language, this was more extensively the case; and it hence became a pronoun, as in Homer. The object is assumed to be one we have before us, and known as an object, though we add a name (but a name known as designating that object), and much perhaps else about it.
Now in the cases we are about to mention, the object is not named, but the nouns used combinedly make it up. The article supposes the common object in which they are united.
To proceed to the cases: Philippians 1: 7, thsee footnote/ bebaiwvsei kai; ajpologiva/. It is evident that Paul is speaking of one single common work which could only be expressed by using both words -- confirming and defending: but he had but one object in his mind. So in a passage already quoted, 2 Peter 1: 10, bebaivan ... th;n klhsee footnotesin kai; ejklogh;n ... poiei'sqai, calling and election are united in the one thing to be secured, in the security they sought. They could not secure one without the other. They formed one object in the apostle's mind in the diligence he recommended. God had chosen; God had called them. Being so chosen and called, they were to have this a settled and not uncertain thing in their minds, through the diligence recommended.
A still more remarkable case is where there are several decidedly distinct and independent persons, but who all form one object before the mind. Matthew 17: 1, paralambavnei oJ jIhsousee footnote" to;n Pevtron kai; jIavkwbon kai; jIwavnnhn. Acts 3: 11, kratousee footnotento" de; aujtousee footnote to;n Pevtron kai; jIwavnnhn. Acts 4: 19, JO de; Pevtro" kai; jIwavnnh". In the plural the same thing, Acts 14: 5, oJrmh; twsee footnoten ejqnwsee footnoten te kai; jIoudaivwn. This last would come under the class also of cases where the uniting idea is expressed. They were joined in one body in the assault. Gentiles and Jews made only one body, one object in the apostle's mind. In 2 Corinthians 13: 11 we have an example where the peace he desired the Corinthian disciples to be in, as a means of enjoying the presence of God, at once introduces, as thus speaking of God's presence, that love which necessarily accompanied it, and made one thought with the peace. Love and peace were together one idea of the blessed power and sweetness of the divine presence.
There are many other examples in scripture, but these sufficiently explain the principle, and, by this much debated point, confirm its soundness in the fullest way. Reference to Middleton, Green, etc., will furnish examples. I have examined them, and confine myself to having satisfied my mind that the same principle alike explains them all. Quotations from profane authors will be found there, equally proving the same general principle. Contrasted cases, where the object of the author was to make two separate objects before the mind, confirm also the doctrine.
Thus Hebrews 11: 20, eujlovghse ... to;n jIakw;b kai; to;n jHsausee footnote, where it is evident they were to be kept in mind as distinct objects. There is another text which I will notice as presenting an interesting question of interpretation -- 2 Thessalonians 1: 8: didovnto" ejkdivkhsin toisee footnote" mh; eijdovsi Qeovn, kai; toisee footnote" mhv uJpakouvousi twsee footnote/ eujaggelivw/, etc. Here the apostle, or rather the Holy Ghost, designates two classes or forms of guilt, which elsewhere may be in the same persons. Openly hostile heathens and idolatrous enemies certainly are supposed, for they were the then persecutors; and Jews, who could not be said exactly not to know God, but who were disobedient to the gospel. There were those who professed to obey the gospel, yet did not really know God. There were these two moral classes designated by the Holy Ghost as objects of judgment; a description which must both have been applicable then, and be so at the return of the Lord to judgment.
Acts 15 furnishes notable instances of the introduction and omission of the article. Genomevnh" ou\n stavsew" kai; suzthvsew" oujk ojlivgh" twsee footnote/ Pauvlw/ kai; twsee footnote/ Barnavba/ pro;" aujtouv". Here they were the Paul and Barnabas whose history we have had in what precedes. [Etaxan ajnabaivnein Pauvlon kai; Barnavban kaiv tina" a[llou". Here they are presented with several others as persons now chosen for the first time to go on this errand. Then we have tou;" ajpostovlou" kai; presbutevrou", apostles and elders being one company here. (verse 2.). Again (verse 12), h[kouon Barnavba kai; Pauvlou. Here again we have the relaters of the facts brought for the first time before the assembly in this character. Then (verse 22) ejklexamevnou" a[ndra" ejx aujtwsee footnoten pevmyai eij" jAntiovceian su;n twsee footnote/ Pauvlw/ kai; Barnavba/. Here they were jointly concerned as representatives in this matter, and one article is used to both. They were associated in one objective idea in the mind of the writer. Paul and Barnabas have an article, being known as already engaged in it: Judas and Silas are new persons, and hence their names are without the article.
I may remark, in passing, the evident sense of 2 Peter 1: 19 is, we have the prophetic word confirmed, namely, by the vision of Christ's glory. And this passage leads me to remark that, when a word is characteristic of the action of the verb, it does not claim an article. JHmevra diaugavsh/, not the day but day. It is the day-light. So fwsfovro". It is the character of the rising in the heart.
The examples we have had afford sufficient to clear up the use of the article after prepositions, which is indeed to the full as simple as any other part of the subject. We shall meet with others.
I will now proceed to notice --
In such cases as to; o[ro", I judge it is idiomatic, from the locality being objectively contrasted with to; pedivon. It is the same in French: "Il est à la montagne" is no particular mountain, but they go in summer there from the plain. We say it as to "the plain." It is the whole tract in contrast with the plain. To; ploisee footnoteon -- I believe also that is aboard. Middleton's reference to a ship which was to attend him would be good grammatically. JO a[rto" is occasionally used technically for the bread at the Lord's supper, when the subject is spoken of, though in Matthew 26: 26 to;n a[rton means the loaf on the table for the supper. These are questions of usage, not of grammar. Who would ask what particular loaf was meant, or what emphasis, if in a history of a family I should say, "The child said at the end of supper, 'Give me the loaf, or the bread'"? The only emphasis is that it is the one they had to eat: that made it a particular object. So we should all feel the difference, if I said, "he spoke at breaking of bread," or "at the breaking of the bread." One refers to a common usage; the other gives a particular objective act. The Lord took bread, a[rton, or to;n a[rton -- the bread that was there. Klavsa" a[rton is the fact given; thsee footnote/ klavsei tousee footnote a[rtou is the specific act of the Lord's supper. (Acts 2: 42, 46.) jEn thsee footnote/ ejpistolhsee footnote/ (1 Corinthians 5) is clearly some letter known to them, to which he refers. The rest is matter of interpretation, whether the letter he was writing (which would perfectly answer to the words),+ or another letter, of which the Spirit of God has only preserved this.
+The aorist ("I have written") is applied to a letter, and even to a part of it not yet come to, because the date referred to is the reception of it by the person addressed. So even in English.
I apprehend twsee footnote/ ejktrwvmati (1 Corinthians 15: 8) means the e[ktrwma of the set -- like one in comparison with them, and then the article is required. We say "the foot" (as being of a body), "the eye." He was to; e[ktrwma of those mentioned. In John 8: 7 to;n livqon is the stone supposed in the law spoken of. JO didavskalo" (John 3: 10) is equally simple; it is "teacher" in contrast with "scholar." We should say, as thus laying emphasis, "Are you the teacher of Israel, and yet do not know that?" Such a contrast always leaves out any other individuals who teach, or absorbs them all into one. In the expression "The foot cannot say," it would be feeble to say "a foot," and yet equally good grammar; a mere proposition to state, and not an idea which ought to be evident to the hearer, and hence emphasis laid on what gives weight to that idea. It is viewed as a part of a particular body; and hence, as in every such instance, it is a positive object distinguished from another.
I will now examine a little the case of proper names; and then, for profitable use and further evidence, take some of the more important cases to which the doctrine can be applied in the Epistle to the Romans. I recur to John 1: 6, o[vnoma aujtwsee footnote/ jIwavnnh". Here it is evidently something referable to aujtwsee footnote/. jEgevneto, as a verb of existence, gave the rest of the phrase the form of attributes of what existed; this, its name.
We might expect to find some apparent anomaly here, inasmuch as a name itself designates. But if this be carried in mind, we shall find the usual principles, namely, that where it has become an object (being named) in the sentence, it will take the article: where it has not, it will take none. In verse 15 he is named. Here he is not an object; he has his name as the one bearing witness: so in verse 17, Moses is a description of the giver of the law; Jesus Christ, of him by whom grace and truth came. In verse 19 we have an objective person introduced in a certain position before the Jews: he is the subject of the mind in the sentence. JHliva" points out the person, naming him for the first time here. (verse 21.) JO Cristov" is not properly a name -- it is the long expected Messiah the Anointed. (verse 20.) JHsai?a" (verse 23) designates the person again simply; whereas oJ JHsai?a" would designate Isaiah as himself the object, not the mere name of a person who did something. In verse 26 jIwavnnh" again becomes a distinctive object already known: in contrast with the others, and in respect of his conduct, he is the subject of thought. So in verse 19.
In verse 28 Bethabara is just a name. jIordavnou takes the article, as designating the river specially as an object: it is an idiom of all languages from the nature of the thing -- an object, not a mere name. We say "the Thames," "across the Thames," though we say "across London"; so in French: the division of the country by a river, and the continuity of it, requiring an identification of the object, lead to this. I go forty miles, but it is still the same river, it is the Thames -- the Jordan. The "the," or the article, gives unity or completeness as an object, to the whole course of that which would otherwise lose its identity to the mind in separate parts. This may be traced in many such objects, as oceans, tracts of country treated as one district. jIwavnnh" loses the article here: it is his name as acting merely, the acting itself being the object. In verse 29 Jesus is introduced as the positive object of the mind; so evidently is twsee footnote/ Israel, verse 31; in 32, it is merely his name historically. In verses 35, 36, both John and Jesus are introduced as specific objects; so verse 38. In verse 41 jAndreva" is just a name, as Sivmwno"; so now again John as having spoken, and Sivmwna; again shewing that recent mention does not annex the article when merely historically named and not a definite object of the mind. It gives merely the name of his brother. In verse 43 Jesus is twice the object of the mind distinctly. The other names are evidently given as such characteristically. In verse 45 Philip becomes the object. It was the same Philip, this particular person; and the evangelist proceeds to give an account about him who had been just mentioned; but in the next verse, historically mentioned, he loses it: so Moses, so Jesus. Joseph has it as particularly marked to designate who Jesus was, and to;n ajpo; Nazarevq marks this distinctly. Nazarevq, as a mere name, has it not.
Naqanahvl is the only case peculiar here. (verse 46.) Who is he? Why is he thus designated as a special object? Not because he has been mentioned before, according to the ordinary rule, for he has not. As historically mentioned several times in the succeeding verses, he has it not. But, it is to be remarked, the article is designative. It is first in the mind of the speaker; it points out an object of thought to the hearer. Hence, when anything is such, it is used; though why it is only comes out afterwards. Hence it is used anticipatively. So here Nathanael is the subject specially of what follows, and whenever spoken of has the article, though not when mentioned historically.
Galilee (chapter 2: 1) is a district on the same principle as jIordavnou: the article gives unity to it as a whole. So Matthew 3: 5.
This, which many minds might overlook (I mean as to names), has made the readings sometimes uncertain, and the presence or absence of the article is with the name a delicacy of thought, of which, as far as I know, Greek alone is susceptible. But, though in some cases a careless or inattentive mind, not bred in Greek thought, may scarcely see it, and the historical substance of the passage be no way altered by it, I think enough has been given to shew that, while a name designating a person is, so to speak, an article, yet that, when it becomes an object of thought, it comes completely under the usual rule, and singularly confirms it. A name is evidently in itself either the designation of a person, or a mere attribute or character. Thus, when I say "John said," it points one to a person itself. If I say "His name was John," I attribute to him something characteristic. In neither case would there be an article. If I talk about John, as a subject in the sentence, this comes under the common rule of the objective article. In a rapid conversation, I apprehend the names might have it, having practically the force of oJ mevn, oJ dev. That is, replying one to another animatedly, they would be kept up as objects before the mind; when it returned to the historical account, they would drop it again. Such distinctions as these would evidently demand entering into the spirit of the author; but they form good writing and style. The presence of the article constantly with the name of Jesus+ would stand most clearly and evidently accounted for on the principle here spoken of. He may be named historically, of course, but He was constantly the subject and object before the inspired historian's mind -- the central and chief leading figure in the scene, on which the eye was, and was meant to be, fixed. I suspect it will be found that Kuvrio" is often a name, when used in the New Testament -- Jehovah; as Luke 1: 16, ejpi; Kuvrion to;n Qeo;n aujtwsee footnoten. I doubt that it is simply conversion to the Lord, as characterizing conversion, but to Jehovah. But this would be a subject for enquiry in each case. So eJtoimavsai Kurivw/ laovn. It may be questioned whether it be ever otherwise than a name, when used by itself, and not coupled with the name of Jesus, or the like, so as to ascribe lordship to Him.++ If the first chapter of Luke be referred to, where there are many names, abundant confirmation will be found of the general principle.
+In all this part of John 1 it is wanting only in verse 46 where it is a name to designate o€n e[graye M., etc.
++In the "Preface to the Vevay Testament" later in this volume I have given a list of the places and use of Kuvrio".
Before noticing the peculiar cases in the Romans, I will state certain applications of the principle, one of which may, to many minds, bring out the principle itself more clearly. We have seen that the article, giving the object of the mind, necessarily gives the definite totality. This is true even of the plural: only that there the entire object is composed of parts, as oiJ maqhtaiv is all the disciples as one whole, but made up of many members. Now the evident consequence of this is that, when a noun does not embrace the totality but means only some, it cannot be such an object. It gives these some as characteristic of a class, so as fully to come under and verify the principle. The use of nouns after active verbs comes really under this head. When a nominative characterizes the action, it will be true of it, as of the accusative. Under this the historically used names and characteristic plurals come. Poihvsate eJautoisee footnote" fivlou" (Luke 16: 9); ejkbavllw daimovnia (chapter 13: 32). But when it is a complete object it has: ejpevqhke ta;" ceisee footnotera". So in singular, dousee footnotenai uJmisee footnoten th;n basileivan, but dovte ejlehmosuvnhn: so oujai; de; uJmisee footnoten, Grammateisee footnote" kai; Farisaisee footnoteoi: so proshsee footnotelqon aujtwsee footnote/ Saddoukaisee footnoteoi. On the other hand, sunhgmevnwn de; twsee footnoten Farisaivwn (Matthew 22: 41), as a complete body of people in the mind, though, of course, all the individuals were not there. So oti to; en mevro" ejsti; Saddoukaivwn, to; de; eteron Farisaivwn; then stavsi" twsee footnoten Farisaivwn kai; twsee footnoten Saddoukaivwn, the body of them there. Saddoukaisee footnoteoi me;n ga;r ... . Farisaisee footnoteoi dev, that kind of persons. (Acts 23: 6-8.)
The same rule holds with the singular, where it requires more abstraction to see its force -- these differences, however, English fully represents -- because every one could understand the difference of "Sadducees hold so and so," and "Pharisees so and so" -- that is, that kind of persons. It is characteristic of any of a class. "The Sadducees" and "the Pharisees" affirm it as a fact of a whole class.
I now give instances of the singular when used as a nominative, which is the more difficult case. Peritomh; wJfeleisee footnote: hJ peritomhv, giving an actual object, would be either the fact of circumcision physically, or, by a figure, the whole class. In fact it means neither, but the state of circumcision -- that condition or character; so kai; peritomhv kardiva" ejn pneuvmati.
Another remarkable example of this is dikaiosuvnh ga;r Qeousee footnote ajpokaluvptetai ... . ajpokaluvptetai ga;r ojrgh; Qeousee footnote, a righteousness which is of God, a wrath which is of God.
Another case important to remark is a time which is characterized, and not given as a date, as hJmevra/ krivsew". It is not "the" day of judgment, that is, specifying a time; nor "a" day, as if there were many; but "in judgment day," as contrasted in character with men going on their own way without judgment. (Matthew 11: 22, 24, etc.)
I turn to the Romans: --
Romans 1: 1-7. I do not know that this passage needs other notice than the remarkable confirmation it gives to the rule laid down. First a series of anarthrous words, attached as characters of the name of Paul; then Christ as an object, peri; tousee footnote uiJousee footnote aujtousee footnote. UiJousee footnote Qeousee footnote, verse 4, characteristic, has it not.
Verse 14. This kind of persons, not the body of persons themselves as an object.
Verse 17 is important. It is not "the righteousness of God," as a known theological object presented to the mind, but "righteousness" which is "of God." This is what man wants, and what makes the gospel a subject of boast, not shame. It is not man's presented, or claimed, but God's revealed.
Verse 18. The same remark on ojrgh; Qeousee footnote -- wrath from God; this characterizes the revelation. It will often be found that, when a second noun is the most important, and is characteristic, it gives its characteristic form to the other, and forms one characteristic idea. Here the whole expression, ojrgh; Qeousee footnote, dikaiosuvnh Qeousee footnote characterizes the revelation; but when it is hJ ojrghv, it must be tousee footnote Qeousee footnote properly, that particular kind of wrath which belongs to that Being. The wrath is a wrath designated as an object, and then is of that Being -- Himself an object therefore too. But if wrath characterizes the revelation, I add, as characterizing the wrath, Qeousee footnote. Tousee footnote Qeousee footnote would suppose some wrath (or other thing) objectively known, which was of that Being. Qeousee footnote gives a character merely to some instance of the thing: a wrath (a kind of wrath) which is of God, was revealed.
Chapter 2: 4, eij" metavnoian. The character of the leading: actually it did not lead, eiv" th;n metavnoian.
Verse 5, th;n sklhrovthtav sou kai; ajmetanovhton kardivan: sousee footnote gives, as in every case of a personal pronoun, the article; but I notice it as another case of the article with two nouns, completing the description of the one mental object, which accounts for ajmetanovhton kardivan: ejn hJmevra/ ojrghsee footnote", etc., is the case already spoken of, a noun of time characteristic, not a date.
Verse 7. All the nouns characterize the seekers or the search. Zwh;n aijwvnion, the gift, as heretofore noticed.
Verse 8. Toisee footnote" de; ejx ejriqeiva", kai; ajpeiqousee footnotesi me;n thsee footnote/ ajlhqeiva/, peiqomevnoi" dev, etc.: several ideas completing the character of toi'", as verse 5. But thsee footnote/ ajlhqeiva/ is known revealed truth. There is a change of grammatical structure from ajpodwvsei to e[stai.
Verse 9, tousee footnote katergazomevnou is attracted to ajnqrwvpou, but really governed by pasee footnotesan yuchvn, as panti; twsee footnote/ ejrgazomevnw/ (verse 10), and denotes (as in all participles standing alone, with an article) an objective person or thing characterized by the participle.
Verse 12, ejn novmw/ characteristic, evidently answering to a[nomo"; so dia; novmou.
Verse 18, tousee footnote novmou, the law, the law of Moses.
Verse 14, e[qnh, characteristic, Gentiles; not the Gentiles, but such persons as they. They have no law -- no such thing. Tousee footnote novmou, the law known well to a Jew.
Verse 15. Note here the work (not the law) is written in the heart.
Verse 16, ote krineisee footnote still only characterizes, so much as hJmevra krivsew".
Verse 17, twsee footnote/ novmw/ presented as an object to designate the Jewish law. jEn Qewsee footnote/ characterizes the boast.
Verse 18, to; qevlhma is remarkable as that will, namely of God, known only to a Jew; tousee footnote novmou. the Jewish known law.
Verses 19, 20 are plain; they characterize what the man is.
Verse 23. In law, in having law. Thou breakest the law.
Verse 25, peritomhv has been noticed; novmou, a law-keeper, a law-transgressor, characterizes the parties: hJ peritomhv, the thing (sousee footnote also necessitates this).
Verse 26, hJ ajkrobustiva the class: hJ ajkrobustiva aujtousee footnote, the actual state of such a one.
Verse 27, dia; gravmmato" kai; peritomhsee footnote" is character. dia; gravmmato" kai; peritomhsee footnote" parabavthn novmou, is all characteristic of to;n. I notice this, for it takes the article from novmou, which otherwise would have it.
Chapter 3: 5, hJ ajdikiva hJmwsee footnoten Qeousee footnote dikaiosuvnhn. This is a remarkable case. The first part is very simple; but the second, which seems the same grammatically, is changed by the sense. Our unrighteousness is a definite objective thing. Divine righteousness is characteristically opposed, not a defined object: th;n ojrghvn, the wrath implied in it. Whereas, verse 3, it is th;n pivstin tousee footnote Qeousee footnote, because there it is not an opposed characteristic quality, but the actual faithfulness already known and shewn: the faithfulness of God -- divine righteousness.
Verse 9. Jews and Greeks as characteristic classes, not touv", the members of them.
Verse 11, oujde; ei|" (verse 10) gives the oJ to suniwsee footnoten, and to ejkzhtwsee footnoten to;n Qeovn. Not that one who, if there had been one, could have been pointed out objectively. As we say in English, There is not "the man living who could do it." This is a matter of style, and stronger than "a man," or suniwsee footnoten, though both could be right. Hence we have (verse 12) oujk e[sti poiwsee footnoten, which must be used here, because it is added, oujk e[stin ew" eJnov". oJ poiw'n with this would have been out of place, for ew" eJnov" was said in that form already. Hence we have divkaio" oujde; ei|", and oJ ejkzhtwsee footnoten.
Verse 19, oJ novmo" ... twsee footnote/ novmw/, the known Jewish law.
Verse 20, dia; novmou, by law is knowledge of sin; ejx e[rgwn novmou, by law-works.
Verse 21. Without law, any law, not the Jewish: tousee footnote novmou, that particular known law. Also we have another example of a righteousness of God, of that character.
Verse 22. It is added that it is by faith of Jesus: that is the manner of it. Eij" pavnta" still characteristic, being of God: it is towards all in character; ejpi; tou;" pisteuvonta", actually on them objectively considered.
Verse 25. The question of thsee footnote" before pivstew" amounts to this: is it the character or manner of being a mercy-seat? or is it the faith in the person who comes? Both would be true.+ Eij" e[ndeixin is the character of the thing. Aujtousee footnote gives the article to dikaiosuvnh": dia; th;n pavresin was an actual overlooking.
Verse 26, prov", not here eij", as it was not the immediate effect, but a result or object of the immediate effect, marked in ejn twsee footnote/ nusee footnoten kairwsee footnote/ (compare Ephesians 4: 12), included in the completion of that aim: to;n ejk pivstew" jIhsousee footnote, one so characterized.
Verse 27. Dia; poivou cannot have the article, for it enquires what is the law. twsee footnoten e[rgwn makes it precise and objective: tousee footnote novmou twsee footnoten e[rgwn, is it that of works? The article disappears in dia; novmou pivstew". It was excluded in that manner -- a faith-law. There was no particular known law of this kind to refer to; it was the character of the excluding power: so verse 28, law-works; pivstei, in that manner, what is called the instrumental dative, but which is practically adverbial, hence characteristic and not a specific object. We are justified is the object, pivstei is how, simply.
Verse 29. Of Jews only; that character of persons, not "the Jews"; so Gentiles.
Verse 30. More remarkably in peritomhvn, that state, not the Jews called hJ peritomhv, though they are the people alluded to; but the apostle refers to the condition and character, not the people. Hence ejk pivstew", in that manner -- ajkobustivan dia; thsee footnote" pivstew", because (the justification being in that manner) the uncircumcision having actually faith, would be justified: hence faith, their faith, becomes a positive object to the mind.
+There is another question here whether there should not be a comma after pivstew" -- through faith, by his blood; whether if, as translated in English, it would not be t. page thsee footnote" ejn, etc. This does not affect what is stated above.
Verse 31. Law, and again, law -- not "the law." He did not establish this as a system; but he gave its full authority to law, in all its extent and requirement, by the doctrine of faith.
Chapter 4: 2, ejx e[rgwn in that manner.
Verse 5, to;n dikaiousee footnotenta, a person known and supposed as an object before the mind. This is the usual case of an article denoting a person or thing and a participle giving his or its character.
Verse 11 offers a peculiar construction: more naturally it would seem to be peritomhvn. To; shmeisee footnoteon thsee footnote" would not do, as shmeisee footnoteon of any thing would specially mean what indicated that thing, not the thing's being a sign; shmeisee footnoteon regularly has not the article after e[labe, as we have heretofore remarked. This, too, takes it away before peritomhsee footnote". Dikaiosuvnh" gets it from the following words, which make it a positive objective thing. Peritomhsee footnote" is the character of the sign; but dikaiosuvnh" is a particular righteousness, characterized by the words which follow it.
Verse 12, patevra peritomhsee footnote", his character; toisee footnote" ejk peritomhsee footnote" one class so characterized; toisee footnote" stoicousee footnotesi toisee footnote" i[cnesi, another class so characterized, namely, believing Gentiles; thsee footnote/ ajkrobustiva/, that condition already spoken of.
Verse 13, dia; novmou, "not by law, but by faith-righteousness," or "righteousness [which is] of faith."
Verse 14, oiJ ejk novmou, those who adopt this principle.
Verse 16, twsee footnote/ ejk tousee footnote novmou, as a fact, the Jews under the law; twsee footnote/ ejk pivstew" jAbraavm, of Abraham-faith, noticed before; not of the faith which he had, but of that kind of faith.
Chapter 5: 2, th;n prosagwghvn. The difficulty of this phrase is as to which reason is the true one for the use of thvn. It might be that particular access there was by faith; but I suspect, from its use in the three places it is found in, that it is a technical word for admission into some favoured place; as we say, "those who have the entrée." jEp j ejlpivdi thsee footnote" dovxh" and, verse 5, dia; Pneuvmato" aJgivou tousee footnote doqevnto"; these examples shew that a preposition, with an anarthrous noun, can be used characteristically, though there be added that which depends on it as a positive object. jEp j ejlpivdi characterized the joy, but tousee footnote Qeousee footnote necessarily makes dovxh" a positive objective glory. So Pneuvmato" aJgivou was the manner of the pouring forth in the heart, but, when spoken of as given, the objective person must be marked.
Verse 6, kata; kairovn, seasonably: uJpe;r ajsebwsee footnoten, for such characters: so verse 7, uJpe;r dikaivou, not for all the persons, but for such a character; whereas tousee footnote ajgaqousee footnote points out in a special manner a remarkable person; as in English, "for the good man."
Verse 13, aJmartiva. There was sin: aJmartiva de; oujk ejllogeisee footnotetai is more obscure, but the obscurity arises only in an English mind. It is not reckoned to the person (the real force of ejllogeisee footnotetai, Philemon 18) as sin; mh; o[nto" novmou is clear. Indeed, the oujk more naturally takes the article away, as in general it does not admit an existing object, never in a general proposition.
Verse 15, oiJ polloiv is in contrast with oJ ei|": the fault does not rest in the individual doer, but involves the body connected with him.
Verse 16, eij" katavkrima, the characteristic tendency or bearing of it: so eij" dikaivwma.
Verse 18, rather by one offence, towards all for condemnation, having that character and bearing; so by one accomplished righteousness towards all for justification of life. It was the bearing that characterizes this accomplished righteousness. Life-justification expressed the bearing of this dikaivwma.
Verse 19, oiJ polloiv again contrasted with oJ ei|", with which it is connected.
Verse 20. But law, not the law. "There entered" ... what? "Law."
Verse 21, ejn twsee footnote/ qanavtw/, in that actually well-known present thing. Dia; dikaiosuvnh" eij" zwh;n aijwvnion, the bearing of the reign of grace.
Chapter 6: 4, qavnaton takes the article, because it is an actual known thing about which they were speaking, into which they were baptized. In verse 3 aujtousee footnote gives it necessarily.
Verse 13, opla ajdikiva" ... opla dikaiosuvnh", affirmed about ta; mevlh. "As," in English, often best renders the anarthrous noun.
Verses 9, 14, qavnato" and aJmartiva are taken as names by reason of kurieuvw.
Verses 14, 15. "Under law ... under grace;" the state they were in, not the law.
Verse 16. All these words are characteristic, dependent on eJautou;" already spoken of.
Verse 17, thsee footnote" ajmartiva", the plain moral fact, this thing; and note dousee footnoteloi, characteristic of the persons spoken of in h\te: thsee footnote" aJmartiva", that which the discussion had already introduced.
Verse 19, eij" th;n ajnomivan, because ajnomiva had been already mentioned, and it ended in that very ajnomiva. The first, with ajkaqarsiva/, are abstract nouns in their moral totality; eij" aJgiasmovn, the characterizing tendency of the dikaiosuvnh to which they served. The remaining cases are easy from the principles stated.
Chapter 7: 1. "Who know what law is" -- not the law. JO novmo" is put abstractedly here from the evident necessity of the argument; this thing, law, that we are speaking of. Tousee footnote ajnqrwvpou, the man we suppose to be under it, whom kurieuvei.
Verse 3, tousee footnote novmou, the law we are speaking of.
Verse 4, twsee footnote/ novmw/: the Jewish law, or law abstractedly; which is a question of spiritual interpretation.
[Up to this point it may be remarked that Cristov" and jIhsousee footnote" Cristov" never have the article, being used historically as the name of a person, not a proper subject of theological teaching.+]
We have here then, for the first time, tousee footnote Cristousee footnote; whence I judge that oJ novmo" means the Jewish law, and that that well-known subject of Jewish theology, the Messiah, is contrasted with the law. There was the law and the Messiah, both well known, and having their proper respective aijwvn: hence oJ novmo" and oJ Cristov". It is not merely an historical person. JEtevrw/ twsee footnote/ rightly translated "even to him"; twsee footnote/ eJtevrw/ twsee footnote/ would be "to the other who;" but it is to another than the law -- whom? "Him who," etc.
Verse 6. I judge ajpoqanovnte": compare verse 4.
Verse 8, "for without law." JAmartiva is, I apprehend, used exactly as a name from its use in a pithy proverbial saying, as in other exact languages like French, a short affirmation about a principle which does not stop to put an object before the mind. So, indeed, in German. See note on proverbial sayings at the end. See page 83.
+In chapter 1: 16, to; eujaggevlion tousee footnote Cristousee footnote -- tousee footnote Cristousee footnote is received by no recent editor.
Verse 21, to;n novmon ... oti. This, or the law that.
Verse 25, novmw/ Qeousee footnote, aJmartiva", is special, like dikaiosuvnh, ojrgh; Qeousee footnote. It characterizes the service; it is service to God-law, that is, divine law, or sin-law, that is, the state of the mind of me myself. It was not presenting one or other as a definite object, but explaining the state of the mind serving. It is a mind that serves God's law, a mind that serves sin's law.+
Chapter 8: 3. We may notice the character of Christ's mission. Peri; aJmartiva" is not affirming that it was about certain sin, but that His mission was such, and, by a well-known phraseology, that this characterized His sacrifice.
Verses 4, 5, kata; sarkav ... kata; pneusee footnotema, their character, and principle of life and being. I notice this as shewing that it does not raise the question of what Spirit, which the following words fully shew to be the Holy Spirit Himself. So verse 9, ejn sarkiv ajll j ejn Pneuvmati, their state.
We will examine all the texts before going farther: --
Matthew 3: 16. Clearly a definite object even of sight.
Chapter 10: 20. So here one speaking -- not they.
Chapter 12: 28. The manner of casting out.
Luke 1: 17. Not the Spirit of God, but manner, "according to."
Chapter 4: 18. A quotation of a prophetic title. It is the constant form of prophetic announcement. See Matthew 2: 18; 3: 3.
John 14: 17. A personal object -- one who was to remain with them.
Chapter 15: 26. The same evidently.
Acts 5: 9. The Spirit of the Lord is a definite person presented. Kurivou I take to be a name; otherwise it would be used, as the name of God may be, to characterize an object.
Chapter 8: 39 first calls for special remark. And here, I doubt not, it is designed, in rapidity and abruptness, and intentionally, to drop the idea of the person. It is not as if the Holy Ghost as a person came and took him. He was rapt, not by man, nor by human means, but by the sovereign power of the Holy Spirit. This was the character and manner of his rapture. He was rapt in spirit from the eunuch's sight; hence it is only said, he was found at Azotus. The article is intentionally and expressly excluded. I do not think, when it is Pneusee footnotema Qeousee footnote, or Kurivou, God's Spirit, Jehovah's Spirit, that the object is to present a person, but a power, or agent emanating thence, as the spirit of a man. Many would call it a Hebraism; but I cannot accept mistakes on important points induced by Hebraisms.
+This passage is a proof that the attempt to rest the anarthrous use of dikaiosuvnh, ojrghv, novmo" -- Qeousee footnote on the Septuagintal use taken from the Hebrew, does not meet the case.
Chapter 16: 16 is on usual principles.
Romans 1: 4. Evidently characteristic of how.
Chapter 8: 2. The grammar is regular and ordinary as to sense. Though doubtless the Holy Ghost is really the power of it, the object is not to present Him as a divine person, but like Christ breathing that communication of life from Him which they had by and from a present Spirit. It was the power of life by the Spirit. Hence in John 20: 22 there is no article.+ Pneusee footnotema agion, the Holy Ghost, I doubt not, was there, but it was as more abundant life, and the power of it. It was not the Comforter sent. "He that is joined to the Lord is one spirit." This comes out more importantly in chapter 8: 9 (compare verse 10), where, though doubtless personally the Holy Spirit, it is spoken characteristically of the state. You are ejn pneuvmati, in that state, if such a Spirit dwell in you, namely, God's. If any man have not Christ's, he is none of His, so Cristov": oJ Cristov" would be His person as an object: here He is a life characteristic of the person, and we get swsee footnotema and pneusee footnotema, two contrasted definite objects, and so with the article. The body is not the spring of living movement (it is held as to its living will to be a corpse), the Spirit is, to such a one.
On the other hand, in verse 11, we find the Spirit brought forward (necessarily) as a definite personal object, for it is on account of His being there that we are raised; so to;n Cristovn. It is Christ who was personally raised; so our bodies, because of the Spirit of Him who raised Him dwelling in us. He could not, if such a one (even the Spirit of that life-giving power or being who raised the Head, Jesus) dwelt in us, leave us under death who were the members. Could the Spirit remain thus? It would belie His nature as the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus. But this is not characteristic; it is a living Being.
+This would be called a Hebraism, ruach hakkodesh (the holy Spirit), but here kodesh has the article, ha.
Verse 14 characterizes the leading.
Verse 15, pneusee footnotema douleiva" is evidently characteristic, and a common case; so pneusee footnotema uiJoqesiva".
Chapter 15: 19. The character of Christ's working.
1 Corinthians 2: 10. Here it is evidently a personal object, one acting. In verse 11, to; pneusee footnotema ajnqrwvpou is marked out definitely as an object, and indeed personified. To; pneusee footnotema tousee footnote Qeousee footnote is clear. In verse 12 to; pneusee footnotema tousee footnote kosmousee footnote follows the ordinary rule, that when a genitive follows, it commonly marks out that particular case of the first noun, and hence is necessarily a definite object of the mind -- not spirit, or any spirit, but the spirit of the world: so to; pneusee footnotema to; ejk tousee footnote Qeousee footnote.
Chapter 3: 16. He is the personal inhabitant, and definitely presented as such, not characterizing a man, but one dwelling in a temple.
Chapter 4: 21. Clearly the character of his coming.
Chapter 12: 10 is plain. It is the kind of spirits: twsee footnoten pneumavtwn would have been some particular known spirits. Here it is the discernment what manner of spirits these were.
2 Corinthians 3: 3. The manner of writing.
Verse 17, ou| de; to; pneusee footnotema Kurivou, the Holy Ghost Himself personally. Kurivou, I suppose here, is a name; or else it is used to characterize pneusee footnotema, to; pneusee footnotema Kurivou being as one word: in verse 16 pro;" Kuvrion, the direction in which it turns. But the Lord in question was actually the spiritual revelation of Him by the Holy Ghost, called to; pneusee footnotema, verse 17; for there is not a setting aside of the person of the Holy Ghost, but often an introduction of Him into that in which He works. "The words I speak are spirit and life." "The letter killeth, the Spirit giveth life." But He is there, and there is liberty. JO de; Kuvrio" to; pneusee footnotemav ejstin is then -- that the Lord (Jesus) is the thought and mind of the Spirit referred to (verse 6) -- actually known in Christ, revealed by a present Holy Ghost; so verse 8. Verses 7-16 are a parenthesis.
Matthew 1: 18. Evident manner with ejk. So verse 20, and chapter 3: 11.
Chapter 4: 1, person objectively.
Chapter 5: 3. Their spirit as men; rightly, in English, "in spirit." jEn pneuvmati would have much rather referred to the Spirit of God, as chapter 22: 43.
Chapter 12: 31, 32. The person as an object.
Chapter 22: 43. The manner of his speaking. (Compare Mark 12: 36.) There it is by the Holy Ghost, not the state of David, but the power by which he spake, that blessed person called the Holy Spirit.
Chapter 26: 41. Their spirit as men.
Chapter 27: 50. His spirit as a man.
Chapter 28: 19. A person objectively.
Mark 1: 8. The character of the baptism.
Verse 10. The Spirit objectively. So verse 12; chapter 3: 29; and 12: 36. (Compare Matthew 22: 43. See above.)
These cases are important as to the article with pneusee footnotema, and confirm the doctrine as to the force of the article, the presence of which is no proof of its application to the Holy Ghost, nor its absence that it is not the Holy Ghost. As to this or man's spirit, it follows the usual rule.
Luke 1: 15 characterizes the condition of John; so, verse 41, of Elizabeth.
Verse 17 gives us another example of a preposition with a mere characterizing anarthrous noun, followed by a specific genitive, which gives its force to the anarthrous characteristic.
Verse 41. "Filled with the Holy Ghost" could hardly be used with an article, for the Holy Ghost would characterize this filling. He could hardly, as a person, be limited to a man's fulness. If used with an article, it would be rather the filling power, than that which filled. Of this there is but one example,+ namely, Acts 4: 31; and then it is tousee footnote aJgivou pneuvmato", not pneuvmato" aJgivou, the force resting specially on aJgivou, the Holy Spirit having filled them; and this gives it personal objectiveness. The expression, "filled with, or full of, the Holy Ghost," is found only in Luke's portion of the scriptures (Gospel and Acts). Ephesians 5: 18 is ejn pneuvmati. In Acts 4: 31, I believe, if we are to read, with some, tousee footnote aJgivou pneuvmato", the difference will be easily found. It is not merely the state of the persons which is in question, but that the holy Child or Servant, Jesus, whom God had anointed, being owned when dishonoured by the opposition of kings and rulers, the Holy Ghost comes to fill and bear testimony with those who suffered according to their prayer in testimony to the name of God's holy Servant Jesus; and they do speak the word with boldness, so that we have the holy Child (Servant) Jesus, God's word, and the Holy Ghost filling and enabling the servants of Him who made heaven and earth to bear the testimony. Hence we have the person of the Holy Ghost objectively brought forward.++
+Nor is this so in most editions.
++All this is based on the fact that I was using Tischendorf. Other editors give ejplhvsqhsan apante" pneuvmato" aJgivou, and it comes under the common form. Alford gives tousee footnote aJgivou pneuvmato" as Tischendorf. It is possible that copyists may have sought to conform the phrase to the otherwise uniform usage. The present power of the Holy Ghost, like the day of Pentecost, may be intended to be noticed by it, as in Acts 1: 8; the new state of the individuals in Acts 2 in virtue of this.
Note here the remarkable difference of the millennial consequences and address of Psalm 2, and of that founded on it here in connection with the presence of the Holy Ghost.
The following are the passages where the phrase is used: --
Luke 1: 15, kai; Pneuvmato" aJgivou plhsqhvsetai.
Verse 41, kai; ejplhvsqh Pneuvmato" aJgivou.
Verse 67, kai; ejplhvsqh Pneuvmato" aJgivou.
Chapter 4: 1, jIhsou;" de; Pneuvmato" aJgivou plhvrh".
Acts 2: 4, kai; ejplhvsqhsan apante" Pneuvmato" aJgivou.
Chapter 4: 8, Pevtro" plhsqei;" Pneuvmato" aJgivou.
Verse 31, kai; ejplhvsqhsan apante" Pneuvmato" aJgivou. Tischendorf reads tousee footnote aJgivou Pneuvmato".
Chapter 6: 3, eJpta; plhvrei" Pneuvmato" aJgivou kai; sofiva".
Verse 5, a[ndra plhvrh pivstew" kai; Pneuvmato" aJgivou.
Chapter 7: 55, plhvrh" Pneuvmato" aJgivou.
Chapter 9: 17, kai; plhsqhsee footnote/" Pneuvmato" aJgivou.
Chapter 11: 24, kaiv plhvrh" Pneuvmato" aJgivou kai; pivstew".
Chapter 13: 9, plhsqei;" Pneuvmato" aJgivou.
Verse 52, ejplhrousee footnotento ... Pneuvmato" aJgivou.
Ephesians 5: 18, ajlla; plhrousee footnotesqe ejn Pneuvmati.
This last, "by the power of." Were it "their spirit" as men, it would be, I am satisfied, twsee footnote/ pneuvmati, the man's spirit, as an object, contrasted with the body.
So Matthew 26: 41; 27: 50; John 19: 30; Matthew 5: 3. So Mark 8: 12 (with aujtou' however). So Mark 14: 38. (I have no doubt also Luke 10: 21; some editions add twsee footnote/ aJgivw/.) John 11: 33; 13: 21. Acts 18: 5, "pressed in spirit" (that is, his, if we take the text in the ordinary version). Acts 19: 21, "in his mind"; chapter 20: 22, "in his spirit within him." Hence Romans 8: 15, 16, the sense is plain; "Ye have not received a spirit of bondage, but of adoption, crying, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself (or Himself) beareth witness with our spirit." We have the nature, or character, of our spiritual condition; then the Holy Ghost; then our spirit, or inner man. Note, such statements may suppose (but do not touch the question of) the renewal of our natures, that it should be so. See 1 Thessalonians 5: 23, where the use of to; pneusee footnotema for the spirit of a man, contrasted with mere soul and body, is evident. See 1 Corinthians 14: 14, seqq.; we have the man's spirit distinct from his intelligence, the vessel of the action, or power of the Holy Ghost.
Note also, in connection with Qeousee footnote, Cristousee footnote, Kurivou, there is an absence of the article, which is worthy of note. We have dikaiosuvnh Qeousee footnote, ojrgh; Qeousee footnote, pneusee footnotema Qeou', pneusee footnotema Kurivou, pneusee footnotema Cristousee footnote: but in all these cases it is characteristic power, righteousness, etc., not an objective thing separately considered from God, but the nature of the person characterizing something else: a refinement of language which English hardly bears, though it does by using divine in some cases -- "for wrath divine is revealed," "divine righteousness." In the case of spirit it does not. Qeousee footnote attached to pneusee footnotema evidently characterizes the man's state contrasted with flesh.
2 Corinthians 3: 18, th;n dovxan Kurivou I notice as again an instance of the remark above. See page 70.
jApo; Kurivou Pneuvmato" is, as regards our rule, the manner of the change. As to the passage, I should rather translate "the Lord the Spirit," perhaps more nearly conveyed in English by "the Lord in Spirit." Thus Moses looked at the Lord and was changed. We look at our Moses and see the glory of the Lord unveiled. We are changed into it thus as by the Lord. But it is only in spirit; that is, the Lord is to us known in the spiritual revelation of Him. It is really and solely (and indeed much more excellently) the revelation of the Spirit, whose presence and power is there, but as revealing (by which we know or see) the Lord. Compare verse 3.
Galatians 4: 6. It is one crying, -- a proper personal object.
Chapter 6: 1 is the manner, and indeed means also disposition.
Ephesians 1: 17, a case already spoken of, dwv/h. It was not the whole person of the Holy Ghost, as an object, that was given. What was given was a spirit of wisdom. Doubtless the power of this was the Holy Ghost.
Chapter 4: 23 requires no remark.
Philippians 1: 19. Here the Spirit objectively as a person, or at any rate as a power, working in him. The remarkable point as to the article in this case is, one article with the request and reply for its common subject, -- thsee footnote" uJmwsee footnoten dehvsew" kai; ejpicorhgiva". These two made up the means of its turning to salvation; they could not be separated in the apostle's thought.
2 Thessalonians 2: 8 calls for no remark. It is an allusion to Isaiah governed by ordinary rules.
Hebrews 10: 29 does not either. The Spirit is specially set up as an object. The sin was worse by His being the Spirit of grace.
1 Peter 1: 11. It was a personal Spirit working in them as an object, not of the Christ as a mystic head, but of that person as a name.
Chapter 4: 14 calls for no remark but that it shews that it is not merely a state, but one who is pointed out who rested on them. Further, it distinguishes the Holy Ghost as the Spirit of glory and power on them, and the Spirit of God, or at any rate of glory: the Spirit of glory and the Spirit of God; not two spirits, but distinct objects in the mind. If we read dunavmew", dovxh" and dunavmew" are the united character connected with the object; Qeousee footnote a distinct one. This reading, adopted by Scholz and Griesbach, I prefer.
1 John 4: 2 calls for no remark. We see, what has been remarked before, that the Holy Ghost is spoken of in that in which He acted. The doctrine as to this is fully taught in 1 Corinthians 12 -- the one Spirit that is in these various gifts. I say this, because of pasee footnoten pneusee footnotema where it is taken as it stands, as a pneusee footnotema in the man. Further, pasee footnoten cannot have the article, because tov giving, as we have seen, the object in its entirety, pasee footnoten to; pneusee footnotema would be all the Spirit, and the distributive pasee footnoten every, cannot have the article.
No passage in the book of the Revelation calls for notice, as far as I am aware, unless chapter 11: 11, where it follows the case which gave rise to this examination. This was what characterized what entered to set them on their feet -- a Spirit of life. It was not to present the Spirit as an object, but what characterized this sudden event in its source. Here it would have been going too far to say, to; pneusee footnotema thsee footnote" zwhsee footnote", which would have amounted to a declaration that the Holy Ghost came and dwelt in them; but this was not the object, but merely that of God, this living power changed the whole state of things. It is not a spirit, as if there were many, nor the Spirit, as if it marked specifically the Holy Ghost. A spirit of life, or the Spirit of life, may either be used in English; the latter giving emphasis to life only, and so making it characteristic, and a leaving it indefinitely, with its force in life. (But in English more depends on emphasis of voice, or italics.) Neither represents the extreme and perfect accuracy of the Greek, specially from a in English being a special sign of distributive unity. It was a man, not a woman; or, it was a man, not two men. But we can hardly say, "spirit of life from God." So Luke 24: 39. Here we have pneusee footnotema, "spirit hath not," a thing of that nature: to; pneusee footnotema would have been evidently quite another sense, either from habit of scripture thought the Holy Ghost, or else the abstract idea -- spirit (hardly, from the ordinary use of pneusee footnotema, a legitimate expression); but the abstract idea would be quite out of place to affirm anything about. Hence "a spirit," or "spirit," is the nearest in English.
In Luke 1: 35 we have a remarkable case of the absence of the article; but I judge, though no other than the Holy Ghost is meant, yet it is looked at as power characteristic of the act. So duvnami", as we have seen, dikaiosuvnh, ojrghv, and other cases. We have seen another case in the rapture of Philip (Acts 8: 39; compare Acts 5: 9), where the Spirit is personally presented.
So chapter 2: 25: we have the principle of what characterizes in power the man;+ whereas, in verse 26, it is a revealing person. So in verse 27 ejn pneuvmati would have merely been his state when he came in: ejn twsee footnote/ pneuvmati, he came, led by the Spirit there, as I judge. So in chapter 4: 1. Chapter 11: 13 is the already noticed case of characterizing the gift.
So John 1: 33 and Acts 11: 16, the baptism. So John 3: 5, the birth; chapter 4: 24, the character of the worship; but this was by the Holy Ghost. In chapter 7: 39 it depends evidently on ou[pw ... h\n, on principles already stated as to a negative. There was no Holy Ghost yet (not therefore an object, its presence being denied). Chapter 11: 33; 13: 21; 19: 30, have been already noticed -- His spirit as a living man. We have then an important passage in John 20: 22. Here it was not the Holy Ghost, come down as a distinct person as on the day of Pentecost, or (in 1 Corinthians 12) distributing to every man severally as He will, but the communication of living power in connection with Jesus, which would act in them (in manner) as it acted in Him. It is not that it was any other than by the Holy Spirit; but as God breathed into Adam's nostrils the pneusee footnotema zwhsee footnote", and he became a living soul, so the Last Adam, who is the Lord from heaven, and a quickening Spirit, breathes into them, so that there should be communion of life, and they have life and spiritual energy through Him. To; agion Pneusee footnotema would have been, if we may so speak, the whole Holy Ghost in person; but then He would have been in such sort communicated and received. Sent He was afterwards, and come He did; but then it was personally acting and willing.
+Pneusee footnotema agion is evidently here a well-known state, while it is distinctly the Holy Ghost. It was a state of the person known and so designated in Israel.
Acts 1: 2, 5 require no comment; it is the manner of the giving commandments, and of the baptism. On the other hand, in chapter 5: 9 the Holy Ghost is presented as a person to whom the lie was really addressed, and who was tempted (that is, wickedly put to the test), as if He could be deceived. For what was Peter? The Lord, or one, Spirit of the Lord, was there. Pneusee footnotema Kurivou is taken as one title, Kurivou being really the name of Jehovah. It was not man's spirit they had essayed to deceive, but Jehovah the Lord's. This often gives an adjectival force to the words, God, Lord, etc., seeing they give the whole bearing to the nature of the thing they are thus affixed to, in a way which nothing else could.
1 Corinthians 2: 4. The whole passage is evidently characteristic of the preaching, and therefore no article is in it; and yet it is evidently the Spirit of God which is in question, in contrast with man. The same chapter, verses 10-12, presents a collection of cases, which, as very simple on the principles presented, require no remark, though confirmatory of them. We may notice to; pneusee footnotema tousee footnote kovsmou as presenting the case of the genitive following, as usually presenting a precise object and shewing that tov does not involve a person, but the way in which the word is used. Verse 13 is most clearly the Holy Ghost in person, and yet there is no article, because the whole phrase is merely characteristic of these speaking.
Chapter 5: 3, twsee footnote/ swvmati, twsee footnote/ pneuvmati, objectively presented as in contrast, but not going beyond himself, as is confirmed by the next verse. So chapter 7: 34, where it has not the article, because it only characterizes the extent of the holiness. Verse 40 of the same chapter (7) is a remarkable case, but instructive. The apostle did not mean to say that he possessed the Holy Ghost objectively spoken of. So Acts 19: 2. We have seen always that such an accusative characterizes the possession, or receiving; and the more especially, as in this case, the possession of the Holy Ghost was characteristic of the judgment Paul had given.
I notice chapter 12: 3, 4, 7-10, only to remark the former as manner; the latter as evidently the Spirit as a person objectively, the force being otherwise the same. Compare also verse 11, where the personality of the blessed Spirit is so plainly and peculiarly stated, with verse 13, where the same Spirit is without controversy meant, but there is no article as being characteristic of the baptism. The use of the article in this last case would have quite altered the sense; it would have been a distinct personal act of the Holy Ghost.
Another remarkable case is found in chapter 14: 14, 16, if we receive the reading of many ancient manuscripts. The first is already noticed; he is speaking of his spirit under the power of the Holy Ghost, in contrast with his mind; but, this contrast existing no longer, he uses ejn pneuvmati as characteristic of the blessing spoken of. This reading, however, is not adopted by Griesbach nor Scholz.
2 Corinthians 3: 3 is a strong case of what characterizes ejpistolh; ejggegrammevnh.
So verse 6: the character of the ministry; and to; pneu'ma is not the Holy Ghost as a person, but the pneuma he is speaking of, as an objective abstraction contrasted with gravmma.
Verse 17 is the same, but in the close of the verse he changes to the power which gives it that character.
Chapter 6: 6. Rightly, I judge, translated "by the Holy Ghost." It has no article, as being the manner of approving himself as a minister of God. Compare the note to page 75.
Chapter 7: 1 is evidently the manner of defilement -- not contrast as objects, but two ways of doing it. Molusmousee footnote is distributive, "every defilement," and so cannot have the article.
Galatians 3: 2 demands notice, because after ejlavbete it has to;, which we have seen often wanting. But here it is not merely the characteristic of the gift, and a possession marking their state. It became important to mark out a well-known and all-distinctive object which was then amongst them, and therefore to; pneusee footnotema alone could be properly used.
In verse 3 we have pneuvmati, characteristic of the manner of their beginning.
Verse 5 is governed by the evident reason already given.
Verse 14, it is a given promise of the Spirit -- not receive "a promise," but "the promise" already made. So Ephesians 1: 13.
Chapter 4: 29 follows the common rule.
Chapter 5: 17, 18, afford illustrations which confirm the proofs already given.
Verse 25, "in the Spirit," hardly renders it. It is the character of our walk.
Ephesians 1: 17. The condition of the man characterizes the gift.
Chapter 2: 22, ejn pneuvmati, the manner of God's dwelling there; but it is the Holy Ghost Himself as in chapter 3: 5.
Chapter 4: 3. Rightly, "the unity of the Spirit," not "of spirit."
Verse 4 is really an impersonal use of the verb substantive.
Philippians 2: 1. Rightly, I believe, "of the Spirit." Ei[ ti" necessarily precludes the article pointing to an object.
Colossians 2: 5, I should translate "in spirit"; the article contrasts it with sarkiv.
1 Thessalonians 1: 5. Rightly "the Holy Ghost." It is the manner of the gospel's presence.
Chapter 4: 8. Here Pneusee footnotema agion has the article, however connected with dovnta, both as linked with aujtousee footnote, and as necessarily presented in the argument as an object personally there, shewing the gravity of the fault referred to.
1 Timothy 3: 16. "In the Spirit" is difficult to understand: ejn pneuvmati, the manner or character of the justification. jEn has constantly the force of the virtue, efficacy, power of; and ejn pneuvmati would be the power of the Holy Ghost.
Hebrews 1: 7. The translation is clearly right: tou;" ajggevlou" is in sense equivalent to a subject; and "being made spirits" is affirmed about them.
Chapter 2: 4 is a clear case of the manner of witness.
Chapter 6: 4, metovcou" Pneuvmato" aJgivou. Here too I judge it characterizes their condition, like the cases of "filled with the Spirit"; not the directing the mind to the person of the Holy Ghost as a complete object.+ In passing, we may draw the attention of the reader to another noticeable case in this verse: geusamevnou" with the genitive has the article thsee footnote". The heavenly gift, being to be tasted of, is necessarily presented as a definite object in itself; and this was the object of the apostle, contrasting the heavenly gift with what the Jews had had as such. It is not merely of such a thing, but of this as contrasted with the earthly. Whereas, when in the subsequent words they are nouns, qualifying with the verb their actual condition, they have it not, as geusamevnou" kalo;n Qeousee footnote rJhsee footnotema.
1 Peter 3: 4. We have two adjectives with an article, as forming one character of spirit. The tousee footnote is at any rate necessary from the o ejstin which follows.
Verse 18. I doubt not the reading which omits twsee footnote/ is the right. Sarkiv and pneuvmati are not two distinct parts of one being contrasted as swsee footnotema and pneusee footnotema, but the manner respectively of putting to death and being quickened, that in respect of, or as to, which it so took place. Were the twsee footnote/ pneuvmati to be read, it would then speak of the person of the Holy Ghost, as the one by whom the resurrection took place. It is, at any rate, the Holy Ghost; but without the article it is the manner of the quickening, and does not draw attention to the personal power. Were it th'/ sarkiv, twsee footnote/ pneuvmati, I should look at it as the spirit of Christ as a man which was quickened, which is quite foreign to the testimony of God: sarkiv, twsee footnote/ pneuvmati would have looked at the Holy Ghost as an extrinsic agent. Sarkiv, pneuvmati are flesh and spirit, as we have said, as the character of the two acts; although the divine character of the latter is undoubted in its power. Compare chapter 4: 6.
2 Peter 1: 21. It is evidently the manner of their being borne along, though we know it to be the Holy Ghost.
1 John 4: 6, I notice merely as giving an example of the transition (from undoubted example of the Holy Ghost and evil spirits personally) to the general idea of its effect or power in operation. Yet we have to; pneusee footnotema induced by the definiteness afforded by the genitives added, forming definite distinctive contrast.
+See note to page 75.
And yet when the Spirit is spoken of by itself, then the article points out the Holy Ghost, because it is to the mind the well-known object whose presence in power distinguished the saints. So chapter 5: 6, where I apprehend the twsee footnote/ is added to udati and aimati, not as reference to these words previously used without it as the manner of the coming, but in an abstract sense, as definitely presenting the thing in its nature to the mind. Verse 6 also shews how completely the Spirit so spoken of -- if a multitude of other passages had not shewn it to us -- is in the mind of the church, then the Spirit known, dwelling, and acting among them down on earth. Thus, it can be said, "the Spirit is truth." No flesh, or fleshly communication, or wisdom, ever was such -- only what the Spirit said or did. Truth and the Spirit were absolutely coincident terms. So John 7: "The Holy Spirit was not yet [given], because that Jesus was not yet glorified." And Acts 19, "We have not so much as heard whether the Holy Spirit is," that is, the one promised by John.
I have now noticed every case, having only not cited those evidently based on the principles explained and confirmed by other examples. I felt it worth while, on a point so important, and where the article so eminently affects the interpretation, to go through all the cases in the New Testament. The Revelation affords us no case which presents a difficulty, unless chapter 11: 11, where it is not to; pneusee footnotema thsee footnote" zwhsee footnote", as if it were some particular or well-known thing, but merely that which was such, had this character in its work in them (not exactly "a" spirit of life, which would imply there were several, nor "the," though that is better), "from God" giving it in English a general character: a certain power so to be characterized, acting in them from God.
I return to examine the cases occurring in the Epistle to the Romans.
Romans 8: 23, uiJoqesivan characterizes their expectation, awaiting adoption; ajpoluvtrwsin the definite object fulfilled then, hJmwsee footnoten making this even necessary.
Verse 24, ejlpi;" blepomevnh is the kind of hope, or characterizes such a hope as is no hope. It is one of many kinds, and thus characterizes the abstract idea. This is often the effect of an adjective or participle.
Verse 33. Against such as are this -- ejklektwsee footnoten.
Verse 35. Qlivyi", etc., any of this kind of thing, such things as these; wJ", as in verse 36, makes this use constantly very plain.
Chapter 9: 4. All these are well-known particular things, presented as objects.
Verse 5. I do not doubt Qeov" applies to Christ. The only question is if there be not two designations: oJ w]n ejpi; pavntwn and Qeo;" eujloghtov".
Verse 8, tausee footnoteta tevkna. Tevkna is a regular predicate; tousee footnote Qeousee footnote is a personal Being, and an object contrasted with sarkov".
Verse 9. I have already remarked that this should be, "for this word is of promise."
Verse 22. Endured vessels of wrath, that kind of persons.
Verse 24. "Not only of Jews" (such kind of persons); so "of Gentiles."
Verse 30. "Gentiles," not "the Gentiles."
Verse 31. "A law of righteousness" -- such a thing, not "the." So they did not attain to any.
Verse 32. "The stumbling-stone," not "that."
Chapter 10: 4. All this is descriptive of Christ; Cristov" all through is an historical name.
Chapter 11: 11, 12. A somewhat striking example: toi'" e[qnesi is simple enough, but verse 12 plousee footnoteto" kovsmou and ejqnwsee footnoten is a strong example of characterizing the fall and loss.
Verse 13, toisee footnote" ejqnesi, ejqnwsee footnoten, the first, the actual people; the second characterizes the apostleship, that of Gentiles.
Verse 19. klavdoi, "branches," not oiJ, which would have been all or some mentioned before; kata; fuvsin, itself characteristic, marks these particular ones out, as objects, with twsee footnoten (verse 21).
Verse 22, crhstovthta kai; ajpotomivan, not abstractedly these qualities, but cases of it; divine goodness and severity; thsee footnote crhstovthti, the goodness spoken of.
Verse 24, thsee footnote" kata; fuvsin ... ajgrielaivou; here again kata; fuvsin leads to the pointing out that olive tree, which, according to nature, was grafted into kallievlaion, a good olive; para; fuvsin being here connected with ejnekentrivsqh".
Verse 33, \W bavqo" I judge to be spoken of this example not abstractedly, though the \W may affect it. Ta; krivmata ... aiJ oJdoiv "all his judgments and ways."
Chapter 12: 8, thsee footnote/ paraklhvsei, that spoken of in parakalwsee footnoten: ejn aJplovthti the manner of giving. Verse 7 explains this clearly in diakoniva and oJ didavskwn.
Verse 17, kakovn, any evil act, such a thing.
Verse 21, uJpo; tousee footnote kakousee footnote the abstract thing; evil as contrasted with tw/' ajgaqwsee footnote/.
Chapter 13: 1, ejxousivai", things of this character, higher powers, not the higher.
Verse 3, oiJ a[rconte", these rulers, whose existence he now supposes, so that he can point them out, or all rulers.
Verse 4, eij" ojrghvn "for wrath"; this character of dealing; but (verse 5) dia; th;n ojrghvn, the wrath just spoken of, or abstractedly.
Verse 5, dia; th;n suneivdhsin, an express object here, because in contrast with th;n ojrgh;n.
Verse 8, novmon peplhvrwke "has accomplished law," that is, whatever law can demand.
Verse 10, plhvrwma novmou is a regular predicate; to; plhvrwma would have made it reciprocal.
Verse 12, ta; e[rga tousee footnote skovtou", all the works which belong to the darkness which the night implies. Rather it is abstract, as opposed to fwtov" here, and not to be taken alone.
Chapter 14: 9, "Both of dead and living"; these two kinds of persons. I note in passing, that I little doubt chapter 16: 25-27 comes in at the end of this chapter, as some affirm.
Chapter 15: 2, eij" to; ajgaqovn is emphatic as abstract good contrasted with mere self-pleasing, and specially set before the mind as an object; for good, ajgaqovn, being abstract, oijkodomhvn merely characterizes the conduct by the actual thing sought: that which was good was in his mind; he should act for edification. Compare Ephesians 4: 12.
Verse 7, eij" dovxan Qeousee footnote, the manner of reception.
Verse 8, peritomhsee footnote", not of the Jewish people as a body, but on this principle.
Verse 12, e[qnwsee footnoten, e[qnh, are remarkable; but it is over this class of persons, not Jews. It is a quotation from the LXX.
Verse 18 gives a notable example of anarthrous words, describing the manner of Paul's work.
Chapter 16: 1, th;n ajdelfh;n hJmwsee footnoten points out the person and is objective: as in every analogous case, hJmwsee footnoten requires it. They would not know which Phoebe else; it points her out as contrasted with other Phoebes: the ou\san itself gives a mere quality to diavkonon. But th;n diavkonon, if indeed admissible, or to;n diavkonon, would distinguish her by this quality from others at Cenchrea, and make her the only diavkonon there. Ou\san diavkonon is a quality and character she had (there might be others), and hence has no article.
So verse 3, tou;" sunergouv" mou.
In verse 7 we have tou;" suggeneisee footnote" mou kai; sunaicmalwvtou" mou, two common qualifications of these persons which marked them out. Hence the first has the article, as in every other case, the second not, according to the rule amply discussed, as making up with the other the complete amount included in tou;".
Verse 17, ta;" dicostasiva" kai; ta; skavndala, all the divisions and offences that might be. The article gives completeness and extent to the idea. Without the article it would have merely characterized. The men cause divisions; any, be they what they may.
Verse 26, diav te grafwsee footnoten profhtikwsee footnoten, "by prophetic writings." That character of writings was the means of making it known, not "the scriptures of the prophets."
Here I close. Enough has now been given to shew the use and application of the article, which is in itself perfectly simple. To my mind it is fully confirmed and proved. I trust it may be the means of throwing light upon, and giving the full force and character to, many passages of the blessed word. The importance of the subject of the Spirit, and speciality of that case, will render the full examination of every instance, I hope, useful.
There is a class of expressions to which it may be well to allude -- short, pithy, or proverbial sayings, which, in many languages, make exception to ordinary grammar, and only claim a metaphysical explanation. It would be said in French, "Chat échaudé craint l'eau froide"; "force lui fut"; in German, "Unwissenheit und Unschuldigkeit sind Schwestern." It is not merely, I judge, the rapidity of expression which give occasion to it, or not always, but a peculiar state of mind which takes up the thought characteristically, but neither abstractedly nor objectively; and it becomes, though an appellative noun, a kind of proper name. It is a way of putting it stronger than a mere descriptive statement. The object is so present to the mind that it does not require an article of any kind. Hence in prophetic oracles we have it, fwnh; bowsee footnotento". As in English, if the Queen were coming, the cry would be, "Queen! Queen!" it characterizes what produces the impression, gives a reason for the effect produced or intended to be produced: so in 1 Thessalonians 2: 5, Qeo;" mavrtu", which stated historically, Philippians 1: 8, is mavrtu" gavr mouv ejstin oJ Qeov". This is not perceived so much in English, all abstract nouns being without the article in whatever way they are used, and names never having it. The definite article is allusive or distinctive. But proverbs are in their nature characteristic.
Every noun which is not itself a proper name is in direct contrast with this latter; it is the name of what a thing is, not of an individual.
When, in the nature of things, there is ostensibly only one, as sun, moon, heaven, imagination easily personifies them. But as John, Peter, etc., are names of individuals, or become so, so tree, table, glass, etc., is the name of a thing, not of an individual. Such a word, or appellative noun, answers to the question What? Just so a proper name answers to the question Who? I say, "Who, what individual, is that?" The reply is, "Peter, John," etc. If I say, "What is that?" the answer is, "It is a tree, a table," etc., that is what it is.
Habits of language may vary. A language may have an indefinite article, or use the number one for it; and either of these individualizes. Thus in French, un homme, a man; and even in Greek, ei|" (one) is often so used in the New Testament. But the noun in itself states what a thing is -- table, chair, etc.
In this lies the whole doctrine of the article, at least the root of it all. The style of language varies as the mind of the people who speak it. An Englishman says "law"; that is, he uses the abstract idea "law" by itself.
French cannot bear this; it must have a positive object before the mind, it cannot deal in abstractions. Hence it can say sans loi, because sans excludes existence, but not par loi. Where the sentence implies existence it cannot use a mere abstract word. It must be toute loi, toute loi quelconque, or something tantamount.
Each nation may insist that its own habits of thought are the best. That does not affect the question which we have to treat.
Whenever a word is merely descriptive of something else, not an individual, it needs no article. So even in French, par bonté. In Latin all is thus abstract. Every noun, when not defined by a pronoun possessive or the like, answers to the question "What?" not to "Who?" It is not individualized. German and Dutch are more like French. Our business now is with the Greek; but the general principle will help us to understand it.
A noun, as elsewhere, is always a quality or kind of being, or answers to "What?" As, for instance, a[nqrwpo", biov", oijkiva, etc. The article makes it individual, oJ a[nqrwpo". A similar principle will be found in Hebrew; and its form, when a word is in regimen, shews the individualizing, indicative, character of the article; Ish ha-Elohim, the man of God, that is, a man, that one, that is of God. So we have ha-Adam, that special race, or being, which God had created, and Himself quickened; so ha-nahar the Euphrates; ha-Baal the lord (Baal). Now, in Greek, when once we have taken a noun substantive for what a thing is called, and the article as indicative of individualization, all becomes easy. Novmo" pareishsee footnotelqe (Romans 5: 20), in English, "law," the thing so called; oJ novmo", the law; that is, of Moses. [Anqrwpo" h\lqe, What (not who) came? A being that was a man, not an angel. In English we should say "a man"; di j ajnqrwvpou, by man. In English, either "by a man," or "by man" would do, but better "by man."
What follows is striking: oJ qavnato"; but ajnavstasi" nekrwsee footnoten, anarthrous. The latter -- this thing, what is called by that name; the former might have been equally anarthrous, but oJ points it out as the well-known king of terrors. It is individualized, a being to the mind. Abstractions are the chief difficulty; for the article individualizes. But a thoroughly abstract word is made a unity of (that is individualized) by contrast with all other things possible compared with it. Hence an individual of any kind, and an abstraction, will both have the article. When I say "man," I individualize the kind or race, I sum up qualities which distinguish him from animals, angels, God, etc., with which the mind would compare him. Thus oJ a[nqrwpo" may be man, that kind of being summed up as an individual being in thought, or a particular individual man, already known. So oJ novmo" may be "law," or "Moses's law," or any known law; less familiar here, because novmo" is more difficult to individualize abstractedly by a tacit comparison with other things: a few particular laws are what we think of, or law simply in its nature, that is, the name for what it is. Law cannot be so abstract a thought -- is more positively instituted. With abstract qualities the case is simple. That particular one is, itself, in contrast with all other qualities, hJ ajnomiva, hJ aJmartiva. I think it will be found that of such words, of those that are in kind familiar to us in detail, we make what is called an abstraction; that is, we sum up the various things as a whole, and it becomes a unity and in Greek has an article: as hJ aJmartiva, hJ ajnomiva. The principle applies anywhere, but such a word as novmo", for example, is less liable to be summed up thus. Species afford facility for this; if accustomed to be viewed as species, they are individualized in contrast with other species. In English every species is not individualized: the word remains a kind of adjective. I say man. I say "the" horse, meaning the horse tribe, and the ox or sheep, that class. God and man are alone, I think, given a personal name thus in English. It is not a set of beings, but a being; it is really a name.
Take, now, to illustrate the principle, John 1. JO lovgo" is an individual personal being; Qeov" a kind of being; pro;" to;n Qeovn a personal being; ejn ajrchsee footnote/ is absolute (ejn thsee footnote/ ajrchsee footnote/ would be a particular beginning, perhaps of all things; but one designated one); zwh; h\n, it is, what was there (hJ zwhv would have individualized it, and there would have been none anywhere else -- that life would have been in Him alone as a whole); then hJ zwhv, because it is the life mentioned, that is, it is individualized. It is not what, but which life. So to; fwsee footnote" to; ajlhqinovn,+ it was the light of men. Here it is clearly individualized, a particular light, and, indeed, the only one owned as of men. In the case of thsee footnote/ skotiva/, it is important. You could not say fwsee footnote" faivnei ejn skotiva/ because there would be no darkness if the nature (the what) of the thing were in question, but thsee footnote/ skotiva/ is a particular darkness -- abstract, no doubt, but what was opposite to the light of men, which was life in Christ the Word. What that found itself in was darkness opposed to it, and which could not comprehend it, the darkness of this world. It is stated mysteriously, but it is that darkness in which the light of men, Christ, shines. That darkness did not comprehend it -- no doubt because it was darkness, but the opposite of that light. Whatever is contrasted has an article, for it is thereby a positive object individualized; consequently, as one whole before the mind; hence as above species.
jEgevneto a[nqrwpo" sent para; Qeousee footnote. What was sent? A man, not an angel; here it is evident. So para; Qeousee footnote is what the being was, he was sent from; para; tousee footnote Qeousee footnote is Greek, but it individualizes God, para; Qeousee footnote characterizes Him. The messenger was a man, but a man sent from God; o[noma aujtwsee footnote/ is not "his name was," but "there was a name to him," John. We have, lower down, to; o[noma aujtousee footnote: then it is a particular name amongst others. Here what had he? a name, which was John. You could not say, I apprehend, as stating a fact, o[noma aujtousee footnote, because the genitive gives a particular name -- his name. It is known that in ordinary cases the possessive pronoun requires the article before the noun. Eij" marturivan, that is what he came for -- his mission: what particular testimony it was, he goes on to say. JO kovsmo" is the one individual world, clearly.
+See earlier Morrish edition.
Ta; i[dia, oiJ i[dioi, I note as being plural, where the plurality itself clearly individualizes, gives positive objects as units to the mind -- only it also embraces all of them -- tav, oiJ, all the units which bear the name or designation of i[dia, i[dioi. jEx aiJmavtwn, etc., is clearly of what: ejk twsee footnoten aiJmavtwn would have specified the particular kinds, that is, individualized each kind of blood -- probably it is meant to exclude all, if not a mere Hebraism. jEk qelhvmato" ajndrov" is noticeable because a genitive very commonly brings an article with it, as giving the particular kind of the governing noun, and so objectively individualizes it (to; fwsee footnote" twsee footnoten ajnqrwvpwn), but here the whole is merely what the thing is, ejk marking nature or quality. Their birth was not of that kind, this was not what it was. It is not merely an actual will supposed to exist in the individual man.
JO lovgo" savrx is a common form of proposition, that individual person or being did now become that.
Th;n dovxan aujtousee footnote, there was the particular actual glory which they saw; dovxan wJ" then, what it was, its quality. This may suffice.
Qeovn stands as a name. Yet involving they saw. Yet even here, where it is used personally and objectively, the article is used; pro;" to;n Qeovn, it was somebody He was with; para; Qeousee footnote, the quality of His mission. So here eJwvrake Qeovn, Him, who is truly such; to;n Qeovn would have been personally, and not have given the force; it would have been the fact. Here it is more in the nature of things.
In John 8 it is ejk tousee footnote Qeousee footnote, for it was from God Himself [that] He came out. In verse 44, Ye are ejk patro;" tousee footnote diabovlou; the devil is personal, individual; but they were not out of him personally but characteristically. They had him morally as their father. From the devil as father, the source of what they were.
To; yeusee footnotedo" objectively contrasted with hJ ajlhvqeia and so individualized; yeuvsth" is what he is.
jEk twsee footnoten ijdivwn -- of distinct things which are his own.
So peri; aJmartiva" is neither one particular sin, nor as an ideal or abstract whole, but what they could or could not convict Him of.
So ajlhvqeian, speak truth, what characterizes the speaking. Hence, as heretofore observed, in such cases of accusatives after verbs, and of the verb substantive, an anarthrous word is usual.
In John 5: 37 we have an instance which might seem strange, fwnh;n aujtousee footnote. It is not properly his voice as one known voice which speaks, but a voice, any voice of his; so ei\do" aujtousee footnote, anything that was his form. It is not one known voice or form, but anything that (what) was that. But to;n lovgon aujtousee footnote (verse 38) because that is one recognized word. In verse 41, para; ajnqrwvpwn, that character of praise, para; twsee footnoten ajnqrwvpwn living individuals in fact. So verse 44, dovxan par j ajllhvlwn, but th;n dovxan th;n para; tousee footnote movnou Qeousee footnote.
John perhaps tests the principle best, from the peculiarly abstract way in which many things are stated by him. In more narrative books it is simpler.
I quote now some more peculiar forms. Acts 14: 3, iJkano;n me;n ou\n crovnon. Here, clearly, it was not the object to designate one particular, pretty long, time, individualizing it from others -- but what the time was; it was a iJkano;" crovno".
With h\n and ejgevneto, as stated, it is the question of what took place; there was a oJrmhv there [ver. 4 and some (h\san) were with the Jews and some with the apostles], verse 5, wJ" de; ejgevneto oJrmh; twsee footnoten ejqnwsee footnoten te kai; jIoudaivwn su;n toisee footnote", etc. The individuals twsee footnoten of both classes.
It is a mistake to think there is never an anarthrous noun followed by an article. When the first noun depends on another word to which it answers, as "What," and the following one is of individuals who refer to that, you will have the first anarthrous, the second not. When the first is an individual whole, dependent on the following genitive, it must have the article, to; plhsee footnoteqo" thsee footnote" povlew".
It was the multitude, the one whole multitude of that city, not of another (verse 4); but oJrmh; twsee footnoten ejqnwsee footnoten, etc., because there it is merely what took place, and does not belong wholly and exclusively as an embodied individual to those people.
Verse 8, kaiv ti" ajnh;r ejn Luvstroi" ajduvnato" toisee footnote" posi;n. The man was ajduvnato" toisee footnote" posivn: his two individual feet, though there is no aujtousee footnote (his); cwlo;" ejk koiliva" mhtro;" (aujtousee footnote), his mother's womb is merely a date to characterize his lameness. The womb is not before us objectively as an existing thing.
Verse 10, ei\pe megavlh/ thsee footnote/ fwnhsee footnote/ is somewhat peculiar but accounted for in the same way; megavlh/ fwnhsee footnote/ would do, but simply characterize the manner of ei\pe: thsee footnote/ fwnhsee footnote/ is his voice, raised to a loud pitch, -- I have not the character of speaking but Paul's voice; megavlh/ fwnhsee footnote/ is practically one word. Hence the article in the plural, unless there be a limiting word, means all of that kind.
Verse 13, tauvrou" bulls: tou;" tauvrou" would be individuals designated; and the what is tauvrou" that is, all that comes under that name.
All this is not a different principle from the previous paper on it, but goes to the root; the other more to the form. The former is grammatical, this metaphysical.
The noun is always characteristic, or the what of something, even when there is an article. The article indicates an individual, or single object (many if plural) which is that "what." The form of subject and predicate is merely an effect of this. The person "oJ" or object I call man, the what of the object is an animal. Other words may take the place of the article in individualizing, as ti", pasee footnote", polloiv. OiJ polloiv is something else; oiJ gives a number of designated individuals in contrast with one, a number of individuals lost in the designation polloiv in contrast with some one or few otherwise connected though contrasted with them -- oiJ hJgemovne", oiJ polloiv; polloiv is, becomes, a qualification, not a mere uncertain number. Hence, as a general rule, an unmentioned individual kind has no article; a[ggelo", a[nqrwpo", pro;" parqevnon. It is what the being is; singular, but known by its character.
When mentioned, the article comes too as a rule, because an individual (now known) is designated.
There is an oracular absence of the article which, though apparently exceptional, only confirms the rule: pneusee footnotema agion: kai; duvnami" uJyivstou. It specially characterizes what it was and is, not merely historical of what took place, in which case the article would have been used. The translation (Acts 1: 8) is right: "Ye shall receive power, the Holy Ghost coming upon you"; not as in the margin: this would have been, I conceive, th;n duvnamin.
All my experience has confirmed the principle stated elsewhere, that the article is used when the object of the mind is spoken of, and is left out when the word or combination of words is characteristic. This does not at all conflict with its being the notion expressed by the substantive as viewed by the speaker as an individual,+ which, as another form of the thought, is correct enough, but gives no expression to the import of the absence of the article. All the particular cases and rules are but reducing expressions under the general principle, often multiplied (as in Middleton) by ignorance of it. I doubt altogether that his notion of the general rule not applying where there is a preposition, or with proper names, etc., has the least truth in it.
Thus, as to abstract nouns++ here, the rule only perplexes. I confess I do not understand particularizing an abstract idea: perhaps individualizing or personifying is meant. JO novmo" may be abstract or not. If I have spoken of a particular novmo", oJ novmo" realizes that novmo" as an individual; or, as I should say, presents it as a definite object to the mind. If I have no such law mentioned, oJ novmo" would be "the thing law," law viewed as an object before my mind as such. Abstract nouns are a kind of personification. "Law" does this, "law" does that. If I say dia; novmou it is something that happens on that principle; it is only characteristic.
Anarthrous nominatives+++ (such as kalo;" ga;r qhsauro;" par j ajndri; spoudaivw/ cavri" ojfeilomevnh, Isocr. page 8 B: lovgo" ajlhqh;" ... kai; divkaio" yuchsee footnote" ajgaqhsee footnote" kai; pisthsee footnote" ei[dwlovn ejstin, Id. page 28 A) express moral characteristics, beings or things that have a certain quality. It is what each is, anything that has this character. It is not an abstraction but a universal, that is, a species which is known by a predicate of each individual that has such a character. There may be many a cavri", and all sorts of lovgoi not such as these. So pavntwn crhmavtwn mevtron a[nqrwpo" (Plat. Theaet. 8) is the character of the measure used. JO a[nqrwpo"would point out an object, the race viewed as one whole, where some specified individual was not meant (that is, if you please, one individual, real or ideal); it is always a subsisting thing to the mind, about which something is affirmed. Hence, as an abstract noun is an objective personification of the idea, it has the article. But a universal, or species, as in these anarthrous instances, is the character of all the individuals composing it. If a characteristic universal be not seized, it is impossible to understand the omission of the article in Greek.
+"The article ... was used merely to represent the notion expressed by the substantive, as viewed by the speaker as an individual, one of a class, and distinct from all the other members of that class." Jelf's Gr. Gr., § 446
++"Abstract nouns, when considered as such, do not take the article, as an abstract noun is not capable of individuality; but the article is used sometimes either to define or particularize the abstract." Jelf's Gr. Gr., § 448.
+++"The subject generally has the article, while the predicate generally is without it ... . When the subject however is spoken of generally, and indefinitely, it has not the article: Plat. Theaet. 8, pavntwn crhmavtwn mevtron a[nqrwpo" ... The subject can also stand without the article as a general notion, while the predicate, as expressing something definite, has it; here the article is demonstrative: Philemon ap. Stob. Floril. Grot. page 211, eijrhvnh ejsti; tajgaqovn." Jelf's Gr. Gr., § 460. ["Anarthrous," in grammar, means without the article.]
An abstract noun as such has always the article, because it is always the personification of the idea, its reduction to an objective individual. But in so intellectual (or if you please imaginative) a language as Greek, it requires keen perception to see why or why not an article is used. Just so in English: "The daylight came." I am thinking of daylight as a positive substantive thing. "It was already daylight." Here daylight characterizes the state of atmosphere, of surrounding nature, spoken of as day. "It" is the mind's object, "daylight" the state or character of it. I could perfectly well say "Daylight came," and I should think of the state of the scene around me, though the thing characterized is not expressed. We have a strong case in novmo" pareishsee footnotelqen. JO novmo" would have been the Jewish law: here it would not do either, to say oJ novmo" for the abstract idea. It was merely the legal principle which characterized the dealings of God, the state of things; but, as "daylight," it means the state in which the world is. This explains eijrhvnh ejsti; tajgaqovn. It is peace, a state of peace. You might have said hJ eijrhvnh, and then it would have been the thing itself. But tajgaqovn is not a predicate characterizing eijrhvnh -- does not affirm that peace is good, but that peace is the good thing, the one good thing. It is the abstract idea individualized. It would have been ajgaqhv if it had been a predicate.
In Matthew 1: 1, (Bivblo" genevsew" jIhsousee footnote Cristousee footnote,) it is the common case of a title, and exceptional; as in English one might say, "Book of Wisdom"; yet were I making a sentence, I should say, "The Book of Wisdom is so and so." It is elliptical. The name of what follows (not anything as to each) is to;n jIsaavk. The article is usually put with known persons, because they are definite objects before the mind. Were one never heard of before, it would be anarthrous; but with the article it would be "that Isaac which you know so well of in Genesis, the well-known Isaac."
The same remark applies to Matthew 7: 25, 27. It is the well-known rain and floods; the rain came on. I should say in English, "The rain was very heavy on a particular day -- the rain spoiled flowers." It is a well-known particular object in nature before the eyes. But it would be better to say, "The rain spoils the flowers," because both become objective. The rain did it. I could say, "Rain spoils flowers." This is aphoristic; which is always anarthrous, because essentially characteristic. If I say, "The rain spoiled," it is again objective -- the rain on a given day in my mind. If I say, "It was not heat, it was rain spoiled them," rain becomes characteristic, in contrast with heat, of a state of the weather. It is something of a proper name, but a proper name has not an article when the person is not known or has not been mentioned.
I do not believe that there is any difference as to Kuvrio" or Qeov", save that they may be proper names. Compare, for Kuvrio", Matthew 1: 20, 22, 24; 2: 15, 19; 3: 3; 4: 7, 10; 21: 9; 23: 39; Mark 11: 9; 13: 20; Luke 1: 16, 17, 32, 38, 45, 58, 66, 68, 76; 2: 9, 23, 24, 26, 39; 3: 4; 4: 8; 5: 17; 19: 38; John 1: 23; Acts 2: 20, 39; 3: 22; 5: 9, 19; 7: 31, 37; 8: 26, 39; 12: 7, 23; 13: 10, 11. JO Kuvrio" is often not a name but an office, as oJ cristov", unless they may have been mentioned before so as to make them a present object here. In Matthew 1: 20, Kurivou is the character of the angel, a[ggelo" is the simple way of saying one when there are many; oJ a[ggelo" would not do if there were many, unless followed by a characteristic word, the angel of the Lord; then I think of one to the exclusion, at least then, of all others.
As to Matthew 13: 6 (hJlivou ajnateivlanto") I do not accept the hJlivou being a proper name. It is at sunrise -- a characteristic state. I might say "the rising of the sun," as in Mark 16: 2; then I have an object. So with ghsee footnote, qavlassa, kovsmo", oujranov", hJmevra, ajnhvr, gunhv, pathvr, etc.
Again, to; o[ro" in Matthew 5: 1; 14: 23; Mark 3: 13 (cf. Luke 6: 12, 17), does not mean some particular mountain well known by this name (as Wetstein and Rosenmuller think); nor "a mountain" (as in the Authorized Version, Campbell, Newcome, Schleusner); but "the mountain" in the sense of the hill-country or highlands, in contrast with "the plain." The same principle accounts for th;n pevtran in Matthew 7: 24, 25; only that this is made more obvious by the expressed contrast in verse 26, of th;n a[mmon. Just so with th;n oijkivan, Matthew 9: 10; 10: 12, 13, in contrast with "without" or "the open air," and twsee footnote/ ajgrwsee footnote/ contrasted with "the city" or "town"; similarly eij" to; ploisee footnoteon "on board ship" (Matthew 13: 2, etc.) in contrast with being "ashore," unless in cases where reference required the article, as perhaps in chapter 4: 21; 9: 1. In Mark 1: 45, eij" povlin is purposely characteristic (and not a licence because of the preposition, as is commonly said) "into town," any town: so eij" ajgrovn, in chapter 16: 12, and eij" oi\kon in chapter 2: 1, meaning "at home." The article might or might not be used in many cases; but the phrase or thought is never precisely the same.
With a proper name as such, one can hardly have an article, save as a reference, and this not immediate, I apprehend. If I say oJ Xenofwsee footnoten, it is the well-known man, or the Xenophon I have been speaking about -- always as a designated object of thought: why so, it may be a question which only appears afterwards, and hence is anticipative. When the person is named historically, the article disappears; when spoken of as a direct object before the writer's mind, and meant to be so pointed out to the reader, the article is used (as in ordinary appellatives). When not thus referred to or presented, one cannot point out a name as a subject-matter of thought: it is a predicate then and anarthrous as usual.
So pasee footnotesa JIerosovluma is not an exceptional case. JIer. is a name, and as such without an article; and the name is necessarily an individual. You cannot gather a name of a city into one as a country or province, like pasee footnotesa hJ jIoudaiva. By the article a country is brought before the mind as one whole. But if one thinks of a name simply, the article is excluded, a name being not a thing but something said about a thing. The sense in this case is pasee footnotesa [hJ povli", which city is called] JIerosovluma. A river has the article; because from its nature, like a district, it needs this sign of unity as a whole.
Romans 4: 13 is a simple case of the general rule, to which I admit no exception for prepositions; dia; novmou was the character or way of his getting the promise. So dia; dikaiosuvnh" pivstew" "by righteousness of faith." It was not by law. The case is a very simple one. So in Romans 1: 17, ejk pivstew" characterizes the revelation, eij" pivstin the manner of its reception. God's righteousness is revealed (not merely dia; but) ejk pivstew", excluding claims of birth, ordinances, works, etc., by faith as the sole ground, eij" pivstin, and therefore open to faith wherever found.
The abstract noun is more abstract, if that could be said, with an article than without. It is in the essence of its nature, all things foreign to it apart; hJ aJmartiva is "that thing called sin," as such in itself. A being is only what it is, or it is not that being, but another. Hence when it is said hJ aJmartiva ejsti;n hJ ajnomiva, they are identical: one of the things before my mind is itself and no more; but the other is the same with it, as itself and no more. This is the effect of an article with an abstract noun.
There are nouns, it may be remarked here, which are generalizations more than abstractions. Thus novmo": in general, it is a certain particular rule, and becomes a general idea of acting on the principle of a rule. In such cases it is hard to use the article without returning to the particular form which one has generalized. Law gives the idea of an actual concrete thing. Hence I have a mental difficulty to decide in Romans 4: 15, whether it is abstract. It would be more naturally abstract law, "the thing law"; but with this word, which is first known as an actual existing objective code, it is difficult, when thus taken by itself, not to return to the particular. When hJ aJmartiva is used, I should have no difficulty.
hr>
Objective is before the mind as an object, objective truths for instance. Subjective is the quality of mind by which opinions are formed. Thus I judge respecting God when I judge what He ought to be by what is in my own mind: objectively He is presented in revelation. Now what is objective has the article. It points out the object. (Logically it becomes the subject in a proposition, but this is another matter wholly.) The use of the article and all speech must depend on the view the mind takes of a thing; only where the speech is formed we have to judge what view has been taken.
Now the theory propounded is that the object of the mind has the article, the attributives or qualities have not, and that mentally. And here Middleton's theory (which indeed is merely the subject and predicate as to the metaphysical side of it) comes in. JO is the object before the mind, that is, refers to it, explained by the word following in its nature or distinctive character. This forms the subject of a proposition; the predicate without the article (unless reciprocal) is affirmed about it. It is very simple, and has nothing to do with the view one's mind takes of the passage. It is a rule positive, that objects have, attributes or characteristics of objects have not, the article. When I find one, there is an object referred to; when none, it is qualification.
As after ei\ce, I have noticed in my paper (as Middleton also recognizes) verbs "to have" as taking an anarthrous noun. JH gunhv would be some particular woman, or woman kind: that thing, the individual before our eyes or mind; or that thing, woman.
In Greek plays the choruses are noted for leaving out the article, and (unless emphatic) the tragedians before names.
That predicates have the article as apposition seems to me want of critical discernment. The bousee footnoten is some well-known ox, and then tovn is necessary.+
Reasoning from English to Greek, save as arriving at abstract principles, is beside the mark. All verbs of existence (as Middleton recognizes) are (save on some exceptional account) without the article; because I must have, if I say "was," something existing before my mind. To the question "what" (qualification) is answered a[nqrwpo". Now here ejgevneto or ejstiv takes the same place as oJ. I point out objectively, that is, affirm existence. I say what? [Anqrwpo". So ei\ce -- what? o[rnin. Th;n o[rnin is Greek equally, but it is a particular bird, already the object of the mind, that bird; not "what," but individual.
The first line of the Iliad, as Middleton remarks from Apollonius D., is not pure Greek. Mhsee footnotenin a[eide, etc. In pure Attic it would be th;n mhsee footnotenin; but such things do not set aside the rule.
Again, with to;n jAlevxandron kai; Fivlippon, which I cannot now trace,++ I should expect to find a mental reference in the writer to the king of Macedonia, or some such object, both names being distinctive or characteristic examples. I do not believe mentally tovn applies to either but may be mere freedom of style -- using the article to the first and not for the second as in the same category; so in Acts 15: 22. It is only where two agents come under one mental thought that this is the case. And I think in reference to it, Paul and Barnabas, or Alexander and Philip, become a single object to the mind. The idiom unites in the one article either two qualities of the same person or two persons under the same quality.
In the case of a proposition it is evident that the predicate is characteristic of the subject, its genus or category. Man is an animal. Where it is simply "there was," h\n or ejgevneto, what is this proposition? The noun answers to "what," just as the predicate does. When I say "was," "something was," what was? A man. In the ordinary proposition I have oJ a[nqrwpo" as a subject before me; when I say ejstivn, I wait to know what. If I say h\n or ejgevneto, I say What h\n or ejgevneto? I answer a[nqrwpo": it characterizes; it is the nature or category of the thing which exists, or an affirmation about it. Existence is the thing affirmed, or a something existing. "What" comes in the noun, and is anarthrous. If not, then a[nqrwpo" would be the subject, or the proposition reciprocal. If I say ejsti;n oJ a[nqrwpo", it is either man is something else, or it is reciprocal with a previous description and way expressed by ou\to", suv, etc. There is an exception where the absolute existing One comes in. I can say oJ Qeo;" h\n, h\n oJ lovgo". But this distinctly shews that existence is formally included in the affirmation of the verb. This only confirms the principle. I could not say e[stin oJ a[nqrwpo". I could say oJ a[nqrwpo" h\n, because there it is historical, not absolute; that category of being was, kai; oujk e[sti. So I could say on the sixth day ejgevneto oJ a[nqrwpo", because it is historical: here oJ a[nqrwpo" is the subject, and existence is affirmed of him. So one might say ejgevneto a[nqrwpo": only here a[nqrwpo" becomes predicate, and hence individual, because "was" is one thing that was, and that one thing was man -- a man. And this gives such a clear force to ejn ajrchsee footnote/ h\n oJ lovgo": ejn ajrch/' deprives it of created existence, giving h\n absolute existence, and oJ lovgo" is necessarily an individual. No man takes it for a category of beings.
+[Compare Donaldson's Gr. Gr. 394 (b) (c), page 349, ed. 2. Ed.]
++[It occurs in the speech of Aeschines against Ctesiphon, §85. 33 (Orat. Gr. Reiske, 3: 615). The use of the article strikingly confirms the positions in the text. For in the section before we have to;n Fivlippon, kai; to;n jAlevxandron where the aim was to set in relief the detailed, distinct, and accumulated calumnies laid to the charge of Demosthenes. Afterwards, where the Macedonian king and his son are only alluded to historically, without any such rhetorical object, no article is employed: e[pi Filivppou zwsee footnotento" pri;n jAlevxandron eij" th;n ajrch;n katasthsee footnotenai. Lastly, when he wishes to mark Philip and Alexander as a joint object of abuse on the part of Demosthenes, he employs but one article. It is not correct therefore to treat this case as exceptional, though it is so regarded by Middleton (Doctrine of the Greek Art., Rose's ed., 1855, pages 61, 63, 86). The article thus employed with the first of two proper names indicates the common position (at least pro hac vice) of those named thus together. It is no question of general license, or of neglect, but of strictly regular use, as also with abstract or concrete terms, clauses, etc. -- Ed.]
A noun is a mere name, the designation of "what" or character (not proper names of course). Thus house, man, cat, dog, in any language, names "what" a thing is, not an individual: oJ points out and individualizes. In certain styles (which raise a question), as fables, proverbs, these may in a measure merge, because particular care is there taken to paint a character. Latin is metaphysically special in this and uses all nouns so, as venit homo. Number, unless by special designation, gives individuality, but the genius of the language is to abstract into kind. Greek is more material for individualism as to what is external; that is, oJ is so. French is still more, which makes it the most exact and the most narrow language in the world, incapable of stating abstractions. It individualizes and materializes everything. [Anqrwpo", ajnhvr, gunhv, is "what." Man, or a man, is a question of the style of the language. We think it must be a man, that is, we make it precise by a number. Ein Mensch, ein Mann, un homme, un uomo, un hombre, etc.; but in such a sentence it is really what kind of being came, though I may add only one (ein, a, un). In German, unity is secured by emphasis on ein; in French, when it is distinctive, you must add seul, pas un homme being characteristic. You must say pas un seul homme; but un is not less "one" for all that. JO though singular, is not this (though ei\" is so used at any rate in New Testament); it is indicative of personal individuality, and, if an abstraction or a contrasted part, as hJ ajgaphv or to; swsee footnotema, is still this; it points out an individual in contrast with others. If there were only one man, I could not say oJ unless in contrast with what was not man, as oJ Qeov". Hence oJ lovgo" Qeo;" h\n is no diminution of the force of Qeov", but only shews that it is not the whole individual Being in contrast with all others; oJ Qeov" is. JO a[nqrwpo", a particular known man, or oJ a[nqrwpo" mankind, are both in contrast with others, that is, individualized or pointed out. So hJ ajgaphv does this, hJ ajgaphv does that. It is that quality or kind of thing that does it in contrast with others, as pivsti", ejlpiv". But when these things are names by themselves, existence being in mevnei, it is pivsti", ejlpiv", ajgaphv, but the greatest of these is hJ ajgaphv, here individually contrasted. I know not whether I have brought this out so clearly in my paper, though the principle is there; but so it is.
Shades of style may vary. I may say, the renard, a certain renard, or Maitre Renard; but this a question of poetry or descriptive fable.
Basileuv" is constantly cited as the instance of an appellative passing into a name. It is not so. Thus, if I remember (why, I cannot say), it is used in the beginning of Homer without one -- oJ ga;r basilhsee footnotei> colwqeiv" (I cite from memory), meaning Agamemnon. There were many such titles in the East (Tartan for general, and others) which may have led to the use of it in Greek similarly, basileuv" being the word translated. -- Pasee footnoten ai\ma is no difficulty. It is every case of blood shed, not all the blood as a whole. So pasee footnotesa savrx. The article gives always the entire of what is said, as it points out one object as one: hence pasee footnotesa hJ savrx would have been quite false. jEn panti; crovnw/ also distributes the time: it was not a continuous whole Peter would speak of, but "at every time."
Again, oijkodomhv presents no difficulty. It does not mean "a building" but "building." I doubt that it is ever used for "a building"; if so, by accommodation, as in English. Thus pasee footnotesa oijkodomhv would be every thing added by an act of building. This being adapted it grows to an entire whole. Indeed it is difficult to say pasee footnotesa hJ oijkodomh; au[xei, and perhaps to this answers kai; uJmeisee footnote" sunoikodomeisee footnotesqe. I mean the idea -- without deciding on the reading.
The other two seeming anomalies are proper names. Now with a proper name as such I doubt you can have an article save as a reference, and then it is not immediate, I apprehend. I say pasee footnotesa hJ jIoudaiva, because I think of a country and bring it thus into one whole. But if I think of a name, I cannot use the article: a name is not a thing, but something said about a thing. If I say oJ Xenofwsee footnoten, it is the man well known, or that I have been speaking about, Xenophon. I cannot point out a name as a subject of thought, as it is a predicate of a thing. Hence pasee footnotesa JIerosovluma not an exceptional case; it is a name, as always, without an article. And the name is necessarily an individual. And I cannot gather the name of a city into one as a country: the sense is pasee footnotesa hJ povli" -- which city is called JIer.
I apprehend that pasee footnote" oi\ko" jIsrahvl is similarly circumstanced. Pasee footnote" oJ oi\ko" would give one the idea of a material house. It is possible the figure might be so carried on; but the dropping of the article shews to me that the figure was dropped, and oi\ko" jIsrahvl is as one word. In English we say, "All the house of": the force of the material thing is carried into the figure. But with a name, though we say "all," we have no article; it is "all Israel." We could not say "all the Israel"; we could say "the Israel of God," because we think of all the persons composing it, and assemble them by the "the" into one. Pasee footnote" oJ oi\ko" would arrest my mind at "house," and Israel be only its name -- the name of the house. This is avoided, and oi\ko" jIsrahvl is viewed as a unity carried by the name itself. One of the main points of the article is the gathering a composite thing into unity, making one whole of it to the mind, a name being the name of an individual and allowing by its nature no composite idea. It is one person. This can have no place here. Middleton was right therefore in connecting oi\ko" with jIsrahvl. I judge that pasee footnote" oi\ko" jIsrahvl has a peculiar and exceptional reason, from oi\ko" being used in opposition. In pasee footnote" oJ oi\ko" tousee footnote jIsrahvl Israel would not have been itself the house, but it would have been a house belonging to Israel distinct from Israel. Oi\ko" would have been distinctly designated as an object, and so separated from Israel; it is pasee footnote" Israel, but I mean the house, not the person.
We may add that Middleton takes indefiniteness for granted from the absence of the article, though shewing its presence is not always a proof of definiteness. I have no objection to take oJ as by itself (it is substantially the same principle, but from not seeing the mental or metaphysical noun M. broke down in prepositions and the like) and the noun, etc., as itself something stated about oJ. Only the oJ indicates something clear to the speaker, not yet to the hearer, oJ being the person or thing I have in my mind, which is geraiov", and then the hearer knows. When I say oJ, I say something exists which I am thinking about: what I explain is what follows. Hence ejstivn etc. meets the case without oJ, in words of having. If I have, I must have something, and so on. Accounting for omissions is another thing from accounting for the use. Middleton's work did not require it, and he has not done it, save as illustrating the use and his theory; my principle does, and claims to account for every case, save only common and proverbial expressions which affect brevity, as "he is gone down town," they say in America: it is a useful abbreviation, but no question of grammar. "Gone into harbour" may mean a particular one, but it is a state; and so in Greek, eij" limevna, kata; povlin, of Piraeus and Athens, quoted by Middleton. But these are special cases; not rule, but habit from locality, and found in all languages. I do not find Middleton treat such a case as gunh; ei\ce. But I find no omissions which are not explained by the answer to "What?" That is, an attributive or a personal name. With a genitive it is part of the word. In yuchsee footnote" o[rganon to; swsee footnotema, yuchsee footnote" o[rganon is one idea. You might say to; swsee footnotemav ejsti to; o[rganon thsee footnote" yuchsee footnote", but there it would be reciprocal and exclusive, not merely attributive or a qualification. I take up a[ggelo" faivnetai, a[nqrwpo" ajphvnthse. Supposing for a moment that it was merely the Greeks not having an indefinite article, accounting for the article's use is not touched, nor the explanation of a multitude of omissions, when it might be by a given principle. But I am not content with this. In good Greek we should have generally tiv", as in Luke. [Aggelo" Kurivou I believe may be partly taken as Hebrew language in Matthew 1, 2; but we have in Mark a[nqrwpo"; in Luke a[nqrwpov" ti". I doubt its being strictly good Greek to leave it out, save in proverbs and apologues which affect what is characteristic and abound in such expressions in all languages. Greek has tiv" which has the sense of an indefinite article, and uses it; as we see in Luke 7: 37 (Mark 5: 25, gunhv ti"), Mark 5: 2, 21, Luke 7: 12, etc., Luke 6: 17, Acts 6: 7, John 12: 9, Acts 23: 9, Mark 7: 25, Matthew 9: 20. These passages my memory has furnished from scripture, and such have to be accounted for.
My conviction is that tiv" answers to the indefinite article as to the absence of any word. The difference is this: tiv" notes an individual object like oJ, only generalized like "a," "an." The word by itself answers, as I said, to "what?" oJ, tiv", or osti" gives one whole individual object. When there is nothing, it is a scene before me, the anarthrous word saying "what" it is. Thus several are with ijdouv, what? gunhv, o[clo". The last generally has oJ as contrasted with individuals, or the particular crowd that followed Jesus. But the article would be given with any known body of people, oJ dhsee footnotemo". We have o[clo" poluv", plhsee footnoteqo". We have also a[nqrwpo" as in Matthew 4: 4, 13: 28, 31. A concordance will furnish many others.
The result of the use of these words to my mind confirms the principle: oJ is a whole, a particular individual, tiv" an individual separated in thought from others. The absence of the article simply in the nominative is always characteristic, not individual. In Luke it is generally tiv", and better Greek. [Oclo" ti" could hardly be, because it is a confusion of individuals, a crowd, and can scarcely be individualized; oJ suits, for it is a known pointed out crowd. When I say a[nqrwpo" ti", I separate that man from others; so a[ggelov" ti", I think of other angels, etc. When I say, a[nqrwpo", a[ggelo", gunhv, I think of the kind of being.
Hence in proverbs, parables, fables, which describe, it is more usual to omit the article, unless they read as if a real history. Chat échaudé is the kind of thing, un chat échaudé is an individual cat. English has not this unless very rarely in proverbs. If I say a[ggelo", it is not a[nqrwpo" or other means employed. If I say a[ggelov" ti" it is distinct from other angels. I do not know that I have discussed this form of its application, but it is the same principle. The absence of the article gives kind or attributives, not an objective individual, though it may be such. Grammarians must not make a rule for what is merely the shortening tendency of habits of speech. All aphorisms or substantive statements as such are anarthrous. Perhaps brevity occasioned it; but in fact they are in their very nature essentially characteristic and only so -- it is their object. Chat échaudé craint l'eau froide. Chat échaudé characterizes the thing which fears even cold water; l'eau froide is not grammatical, it would be de l'eau froide.
So pavntwn crhmavtwn mevtron a[nqrwpo" is all essentially characteristic; were it twsee footnoten crhmavtwn, it would be a certain set of things. So here of a[nqrwpo": the being that has this character or title is measure of all things. Here a measure would do in English, or the, because it is merely characteristic, no object: in fact, it is the predicate. Man is not here looked at as a person; it means humanity, or what man is.
Take again Isocr. page 8, B, kalo;" qhsauro;" par j ajndri; spoudaivw/ cavri" ojfeilomevnh: Id. page 28, A, lovgo" ajlhqh;" kai; novmimo" kai; divkaio" yuchsee footnote" ajgaqhsee footnote" kai; pisthsee footnote" ei[dwlovn ejsti.+ In all these cases the phrases express moral characteristics, and are not viewed as objects of the mind. It has the force of anything that has this character -- a cavri" ojf. -- lovgo" ajlhqhv", any one which is such. This is not an abstraction but a universal; that is, a species which is known by a character, a predicate of each individual which has such a character. There may be all sorts of lovgoi, but not such as this. JO points out an object, an individual if you please, a real subsisting thing to the mind about which I affirm something. An abstract noun (not a universal) is an objective personification of the idea, and hence as such would have the article; but a universal, or species, is the character of all the individuals composing it. Its being in the place of the predicate changes nothing. When I say a[nqrwpo", it is evidently such; it is the character of all the beings of the species. It is this character which makes it a mevtron; the individual man is -- that would not be characteristic. And when I put the article, it ceases to be characteristic and becomes an object; oJ a[nqrwpov" ejsti zwsee footnoteon logikovn. I personify the whole race in order to predicate something about it. This would not do for an aphoristic sentence. See the multitude of sentences in James of this character.
+[Compare Jelf's Gr. Gr., § 460. -- Ed.]
Matthew 14: 25 furnishes also a usage from abbreviation as in English. "I had fourth watch": regular English would give "the fourth watch" contrasted with the third. But this is needless; it is the short characteristic of a known object. Quakers say, "fourth day," "third month," not "the." It is the same principle but more obscurely. So as to Matthew 22: 38. The Jews measured the commandments to make out righteousness; as poiva ejntolh; megavlh says the young man (which has this well-known character). The Lord answers, not by formally comparing this with other commandments, but by so characterizing it. I do not think He means a first and great, though the grammar would bear it, but an absolute characteristic. This is first and great; but deutevra only by deutevra, the commandment so to be characterized. But this is brief familiarity of language, not grammatical distinction.
jEn ajrchsee footnote/, John 1: 1, is evident; ejn thsee footnote/ ajrchsee footnote/ would at once lead me to the beginning of something; whereas ejn ajrchsee footnote/ is characteristically (that is, universally and absolutely) such. This form of thought is rare in English, but is found "in measure," "in part," but only where it has become from use characteristic and abstract. In Greek it is much more common, particularly with ejn, as also with ejk. When a word in English is used characteristically, the form is found, particularly in characteristic words, "in anger," "in pain"; but we say "in a bad temper," because it is one kind of temper.
I should rather suppose Acts 7: 36 to be used as a proper name; the rather as we have ejn thsee footnote/ ejrhvmw/ in the same passage. Aijguvptw/ and ejruqrasee footnote/ are as articles, that is, indicate an object, as a name sufficiently does.
In John 4: 37, I apprehend, oJ aJlhqinov" must be taken as an attribute of oJ lovgo", not as a predicate; "in this is the true word" [verified]; whereas in 1 Peter 5: 12 it is the usual form. In the former ejstivn has the sense of subsists. I find Winer and Middleton both take it so.
If we cannot seize characteristic universals, we shall never get at the use of the article.
As to the article in tousee footnote mhnov" it is no way difficult; it is like the month, has the force of each, and points out a particular month, inasmuch as it is each one. Distinctive parts would have the article as in contrast with another part: as "a half" is only a quantity, "the half" is in contrast with the other half. Contrast always has it. A class would bear no article; it is an idea, not an existence, being a predicate of something else, as pathvr is a character, not an existing one pointed out. So a[nqrwpo", Qeov", though the words may become by an article a specifically existing object. Words joined by a conjunction are also persons joined to some idea by the article, or the same person as oJ Qeo;" kai; swthvr. These are qualities of the one who is oJ. It is sometimes irregular in form; as, when there are two ambassadors, oJ is with the first only, but the reason remains the same.
I do not deny that there is a difference when the adjective is first and when the noun is first, though it is hardly apparent sometimes. It is so in French, but the object, c'est un temps rude, is in contrast with doux or agréable; while un rude temps is but one idea. I apprehend it is the same in Greek. I doubt the exactitude of Hermann's rule, that in oiJ oijktroi; paisee footnotede" the principal stress is on oijktroi, in oiJ page oiJ oijktroiv it is rather on paisee footnotede". For in oJ poimh;n oJ kalov" there is emphasis on kalov". In the phrase oJ k. page there is no emphasis anywhere, only distinction from one not kalov". So in to; agion pn. it is the Holy Spirit, not another; but to; pn. to; agion brings agion into relief.
As for the expression twsee footnote/ aJmartwlwsee footnote/ (Luke 18: 13), it is evidently distinctive, as if I should say; Who is the sinner of the world? The publican answers, I am. He is the sinner. It is contrast, but so characterized in comparison with all others.
The following notes on particles and prepositions were the fruit of private research for private use in studying the New Testament, so that the reader must not expect anything of a complete treatise on the subject to which they apply; and, perhaps, he will find sometimes what may not satisfy his judgment as to the metaphysical connection of the literal with the moral sense of a word. But when it was merely the question of using one's labours, undertaken in and for his own New Testament studies, for the service of others who may profit by the labour without adopting all that is said, he could have no objection to their being printed. The reader may learn how many nice points of meaning there are in the use of these words, and may use these notes to come to a more just appreciation of the force of words and shades of meaning than the notes themselves can furnish. As a help to his further labours he may find them useful. They are in no sense offered as anything complete or final. They were formed in bonâ fide noting down the remarks and fruits of private research for private use. The reader can profit by them and draw his own conclusions. They will, at least, supply a pretty large index to the New Testament use of these words, and raise questions for enquiries which the paper itself may not solve. One only can guide us into truth and the mind of God in His word.
[An expresses what is hypothetical possibility. When the ground of hypothesis is stated before, it is accompanied by the indicative; the consequence is asserted as a fact: it would so happen in that case, metenovhsan a[n, Matthew 11: 20, 21; so chapter 12: 7, and often. When the possibility or hypothetical case is stated in the verb to which a[n belongs, the verb is in the subjunctive, as o€" a]n ajpoluvsh/, ew" a]n ei[pw, opw" a]n fanwsee footnotesi, o€" ga;r a]n potivsh/. As to time, 1 Corinthians 11: 25, oJsavki" a]n pivnhte, that is, whenever they did do it, the doing it being uncertain. So as to place, Mark 9: 18, opou a]n katalavbh/, wherever he did, but the taking him was occasional and uncertain; opou a]n khrucqh/see footnote (Mark 14: 9), the preaching was incidental.
[An means, I think, in that case, ever, every, (immer). jEavn is practically eij a[n. Hence, when a[n (if not to be read ejavn, which always has the subjunctive, as uncertain) leaves the act uncertain or not accomplished (cases of time a[cri" ou| a]n qh/see footnote, 1 Corinthians 15: 25), it has the subjunctive. Where the act is assumed or done, a[n is still ever, but the verb is in the indicative. Thus, Mark 6: 56, opou a[n eijseporeuveto eij" kwvma", because it is an assumed fact. He went into the villages, had gone into them, when they wanted to touch Him; but ka]n aywntai, uncertain whether they could. Then osoi a]n hptonto where it is the fact; but Matthew 10: 11, eij" h€n d j a]n povlin eijsevlqhte, because it was a future uncertain possibility. So Luke 9: 57, James 3: 4, Revelation 14: 4, Mark 14: 9, "wherever he went" may be a[n, but indicative; "wherever he might go," a[n with subjunctive. The same rule applies to time as to other cases; if the hypothesis is stated previously, the verb with a[n is in the indicative, as Matthew 11: 23, "they would have remained" e[meinan a[n. Otherwise, as a future is not a fact, it is in the subjunctive, ew" a]n qwsee footnote, and a multitude of cases. Is not its real force ajnav, each, every one? As we say, whoever, whosoever, and, in German, immer. The fact and non-fact is more plain in cases of time than others, though the principle is identical. "Till it come," "it remains till." The first is non-fact, the second fact, though based on an hypothesis, but if -- then the fact is so. Finally, if the hypothesis precedes, a[n has the indicative. So without an hypothesis (Mark 6: 56), where it is connected with an assumed or actual fact. It answers to the English ever, and affects style: "as many as ever I could," that is, "every one I possibly could," it is possibility.
Apax, ejfavpax, once, and once for all, or all at once, on once, auf einmal, at one time, as we say, at once. It is not merely that he did it, or it happened once, but that all that is in question is brought into that once; "Five hundred saw him at one time." "He entered in, ejfavpax, into the holy place." It is not that He once did it, apax, but that, not like the high-priest, who repeated his entrances, the work not being finished, Christ did it once for all. It was all summed up and complete and enduring in effect on that one entrance to stay there. So of His offering the same; so Romans 6: 10, it is not merely that He did it once, not twice, but that all His dying to sin was in that act, and that it was absolute, complete, and final; He had no more to do with it. It was all done then in that act and completely. We reckon ourselves to have died, and once for all too, have no more to do with it. Apax is simply once, not twice; only it is used (as in English) for a past time which has not continued. "You once knew this;" "once delivered".
[Ara is not ou\n, a consequence drawn, but resumes what has been gone through and gives its real force, assuming its truth as a witness of something which follows. Hence, it is often accompanied by ou\n, so then it always, I think, gives the idea of this being so; or if a question, is it indeed so that? Thus, Matthew 12: 28. It was not ou\n, therefore, but "then, this being so, the kingdom of God is come to you." So Matthew 7: 20, a[rage, ge strengthening the consequence, thus then surely (also ja), Romans 10: 17. So in questions; only it often takes its force from what is passing in the mind, the tacit assumption of facts or statements, as Matthew 18: 1, tiv" a[ra meivzwn, that is, "Seeing there is a kingdom, and you say it is going to be set up, and you say such and such things concerning it, Who is to be greatest in it?" So Luke 12: 42, where it is given occasion to by Peter's question, which is not meant to be directly answered, and the a[ra refers to the Lord's whole conception of the condition of the servant. Compare Matthew 24: 45, where the Lord evidently answers what is passing in His own mind. In Luke 1: 66 the antecedent circumstances are evident. So chapter 8: 25. In Luke 22: 23, "since some one would," "it being so -- tiv" a[ra?" It is less evident but the same sense in chapter 11: 48, "you being what you are, and doing what you are, a[ra martureisee footnotete." With eij it is uncertain possibility under the circumstances; still "this being so:" hence it increases the improbability of eij, Acts 8: 22, 17: 27. Romans 5: 18, a[ra ou\n "therefore, this being so"; Romans 8: 1, "This being so, there is none"; and Romans 14: 19 is the same. In 1 Corinthians 7: 14 it is elliptical, "if it were as you say, and you had to leave the husband or wife"; but the force of a[ra is the same. 1 Corinthians 15: 15, "if indeed it be so." Galatians 3: 7, in the sense is the same. It is the application in proof of what has been said, "This being so," etc. The other cases are all simple, indeed all are, when once its proper force is seized.
Gavr requires a little more mental attention. Its simple meaning is an illative for, a reason for what precedes, not a cause but a "because." But it is very often indeed a resuming of a series of thought in the writer's mind, and is no inference from what precedes, but a new statement of the case from facts or thoughts in the writer's mind. The same point is proved, but the gavr or inference does not refer to what has been stated, but to what is in the writer's mind, and this confirming the general thought. A singular case of this is in Matthew 1: 18, where the matter is wholly in the writer's mind, and he has only said "thus": so that all that follows with gavr is the explanation of outw". This is an extreme case perhaps; but this use of gavr is very common with the apostle Paul, and we should not seize his meaning without seeing it. Thus Romans 1: 17 is a simple plain inference or reason: "he was not ashamed of the gospel, for it was the power of God unto salvation." But in verse 18, gavr has not this direct force, but begins a long series of proofs of what made that gospel necessary; and to the point laid down in verse 17 he returns only in chapter 3: 21. But it all bears on that, and is what his mind goes through to prove the point. It may be filled nominally by an ellipse, as "(and I have these thoughts and can shew the value and necessity of this righteousness, and that this is the only possible righteousness), for the wrath of God is revealed," etc. This is very common with Paul. You have both again in Romans 5: 6, 7; the simple use in verse 10; the resumed new proof of what was in his mind in verse 13. So, I believe, in verses 16, 17, for the first part of these sentences is clearer as a question; so, in verse 19, he is proving his general point, not what precedes. So in chapter 7: 14, where, as in many cases, the connection is so obvious that it creates no difficulty. But in chapter 8: 2, 3, we have two distinct new grounds of argument which prove the main point of what he is at, in connection with what precedes, but not the proof of it. You could not say, in verse 2, oti or diovti, which "for" in English often answers to. It aids in proving the general point, but by a collateral testimony. One is delivered from the whole condition and element to which condemnation applied, and is introduced into another to which no condemnation can apply; he is in Christ, not in the flesh. Verse 3 is another and additional point to prove it. Still chapter 6 had shewn one, and the end of chapter 7 the ajduvnaton of the law. These verses 2 and 3 resume the whole results, and describe the condition of the man in Christ which had not been spoken of in these chapters. The delivering power of life in Christ is the force of verse 2, and what Christ had done before we are in Him (or God in and by Him as to the flesh) in verse 3. The same reference to the result in his mind is in chapter 8: 18. We are not glorified together because he reckoned. He illustrates the state of thought which expressed it by a new series of thoughts. This ground for the question in the thought of the speaker is common in interrogation. Matthew 27: 23, tiv ga;r kako;n ejpoivhse: "I ought not to condemn him," or "why do you seek it? for," etc. Acts 19: 35, "Who is there?" "Your judgment about Diana is incontrovertible, for who is there among men?" John 7: 41, mh; ga;r ejk thsee footnote" Galilaiva" oJ Cristo;" e[rcetai, "it cannot be as you suppose, for does," etc. It is not that a positive thought is formed in the mind, to which the question refers, as I have filled up the ellipse. It is vague, but assumes to negative doubt, or reject some consequence, by the question which proves it cannot be. "Who then doubts that Diana is great?" His object is to prove them wrong in making an uproar, for, etc.; in demanding Christ's life, for, etc.; in pretending Jesus to be the Christ, for, etc.; and this is put as a question which by its certain answer settles it.
But gavr has certainly the sense of indeed, even, immo, perhaps yki; as Acts 16: 37, ouj gavr no indeed. The connection with its usual force may be seen perhaps in 1 Thessalonians 4: 10.
In Acts 2: 15, ouj gavr is not "for," I suspect, but "these indeed are not, as you suppose, drunk, for" -- "these are in no way."
So with kai; gavr has the sense of even. It cannot have the sense of for, save very elliptically: "yet you may still do it, for even the dogs," etc., Matthew 15: 27. In John 7: 41, gavr has the force of indeed, but with a question as above, denying it thus; but its force is indeed. Again, 1 Corinthians 9: 10, di j hJmasee footnote" gavr "indeed, surely, even, for us." James 4: 14 again helps us to the connection of the two sentences. We must say even, perhaps; but the reason is given why it is the weak thing which the question supposes -- "it is as nothing, for it is a vapour": but if we do not supply the ellipse, we must say "indeed," "even." Acts 8: 31, "I cannot do so, for how should I be able," etc.; but again with the ellipse, we must say, "how indeed should I?" And in this use of it, I do not see, however unusual, it may not be h] ga;r ejkeisee footnoteno", Luke 18: 14, "than surely that other one," gavr being merely increased affirmation, as yki in Hebrew, or "ja" in German, or immo. It was left out as difficult in some mss.; rather, yea, than that other, for the other thought himself so. In Romans 3: 2, we have prwsee footnoteton gavr first indeed, first surely, etc., chapter 15: 27, eujdovkhsan gavr. Again, "they were pleased indeed" -- the mind stops, says, "no doubt." It is the more striking here, for in verse 26 we have eujd. gavr in the usual sense of for. If the force of gavr be the mind stopping and affirming anything, inasmuch as, indeed, it being so that, which is the reason for what is spoken of, or what is in the mind, to which the previous part referred.+ Then h] ga;r ejkeisee footnoteno", Luke 18: 14, would be, "than, whatever people may think, that [other] one" "than, yes surely, that other." So Acts 16: 37, "Nay, whatever they may pretend to, let them come!" "Nay, surely not." So in 1 Corinthians 9: 10, Acts 4: 16, oti me;n gavr, for then indeed, or for indeed, for that indeed, etc. Romans 3: 2, prwsee footnoteton me;n gavr first then indeed, first indeed. In 2 Corinthians 12: 1, we have a special use of it: "Well (dhv) it is not expedient for me to glory, I will then now come," etc. 1 Corinthians 11: 22, "have ye not then?" kai; gavr has essentially the sense of since, literally for even. It gives a confirming proof, as kai; gavr Galilaisee footnoteov" ejstin, Luke 22: 59; 1 Corinthians 5: 7; 2 Corinthians 13: 8, since, or for, for even if, since if. Matthew 15: 27, Mark 7: 28, for even, or since.
+And I suspect that to be the sense of gavr. If, as alleged, it is composed of ge and a[ra it is clearly so, and removes question and doubt.
Ge does not present much difficulty, though not easy sometimes to put in English. Its general idea is at least, at any rate, Luke 11: 8; 18: 5, where we may say yet, only it is feeble; so with kaiv, Luke 19: 42, even, at any rate, at least; 1 Corinthians 9: 2, "at any rate I am to you." Sometimes even is the best, in the same sense substantially. Acts 2: 18, Romans 8: 32, the latter o" ge, where (ja in German) even is right, but cold; not even better perhaps. Acts 2: 18, kaiv ge, yea even, or yea by itself, or yea on the very. jAllav ge is more difficult, Luke 24: 21. But then, he stops his account of what He was when alive, with "but then there is this," "in spite of all this," "too," "into the bargain," "this, at any rate, has taken place." Acts 8: 30; "do you, at least then, understand as you are reading (a[ra), do you at least (ge) understand it." Acts 11: 18, "then indeed," "these things being so, doubtless God has given the Gentiles life," "certainly without question," which is the force of "at any rate," affirming that, in spite of all that might be alleged, it was so; or whatever might be of other cases. 1 Corinthians 6: 3, "but indeed things of this life," "not at least things of this life," such as these at any rate cannot be excluded if we are to judge angels. These are all the passages, found only in Luke or Paul's writings.
jAllav, plhvn, dev. The force of plhvn as a preposition is simple, besides, except, but only in Mark 12: 32; John 8: 10; Acts 8 . 1; 15: 28; 27: 22. These I believe are all we have; plh;n oti, Acts 20: 23.
Dev is distinction, not opposition, a second thing, -- ajllav is opposition. Dev may be often translated "now," as Matthew 1: 18. It supposes some thought to have been in the mind if not expressed, and goes on to what follows: ajllav, as sondern after a negative in German, is in contrast. So Romans 7: 7, "no, I do not say that, but I do say that," etc. Dev admits what precedes, but adds or modifies. There is difference but no opposition. It carries on the sentence to another element of thought, another, but carries it on. Mark 5: 33, "but the woman being afraid." Mark 9: 50, "Salt is good, but if," etc. Sometimes there is more contrast, but it is as if mevn were there. Acts 22: 28, ejgw; dev. But you may generally translate "and" without altering the sense, as Romans 2. We say, "I do one thing to one, and another thing to another"; if I say "but," it brings in mere opposition: but in English the opposition lies in the sense, even with "and"; in Greek it is expressed by dev. Dev is a continuation of the same reasoning, a completing it, though the subject matter may be opposed. So Matthew 12: 26-28.
jAllav negatives the thing it is in contrast with: dev connects them in reasoning, though it may be the converse, or distinct, "not in circumcision, ajll j in uncircumcision," Romans 4: 10, Mark 9: 8, "they saw no man, ajllav they saw Jesus"; chapter 14: 29: Romans 3: 31, "ajllav, on the contrary, we establish"; and chapter 5: 14, "sin is not imputed," -- that is true -- "but death reigned." So Romans 8: 37, referring to verse 35, "on the contrary": 1 Corinthians 3: 2, "not only do I say this, ajll j oujdev, on the contrary ye are not even now." In 1 Corinthians 9: 12 we have it twice: the second is evident contrast, the first we have got the power but, etc., in contrast with the natural effect of having it. It is less evident in 2 Corinthians 8: 7, but is just a beauty of style. It is as much as to say, "It is as if I doubted of this, and therefore sent Titus. It is not that, but what I want is, that you," etc. Ephesians 5: 24, ajllav is sometimes used when it is a setting aside a current of thought in the mind to substitute another; so it is used, I take it, here. So 2 Corinthians 11: 6. It gives force simply to style, as in 2 Corinthians 7: 11, "yea" is well enough, "ay, not only that but."
Plhvn is always an additional thought that comes into the mind: "Moreover," "but then I add." It is not "but" or "and," but "moreover," though the sentence may not bear the word in English, Matthew 11: 22, 24, "I add, moreover": so chapter 18: 7. So Luke 22: 21, 22, plhvn, moreover, "the hand is there, and the Son of man goes indeed, kai; mevn, but then I add, woe to that man." Matthew 26: 39, "but then I add."
Menousee footnotenge is used only three times in New Testament. Philippians 3: 8 is read ajlla; me;n ou\n in the editions. Luke 11: 28, Romans 9: 20, 10: 18. It has the sense of a kind of "ay, indeed, if you talk of that." So Luke 11: 28, "If you talk of blessing, such and such are the really blessed." Romans 9: 20, "Ah, indeed, you talk of calling God in question; who are you then?" And chapter 10: 18, "If you talk of not having heard, why their sound is gone out into all the world." In the first, "yea"; in the second, "nay but" is all well. in the third, "yea." Literally it is "now then indeed."
For Mhdev and Mhvte, see 2 Thessalonians 2: 2, in editions. Mhdev adds a subject of negation: mhvte contrasts different points into which the subject spoken of in the negative is divided, "not shaken nor troubled (mhdev) -- by word, nor by letter (mhvte)."
Tev by itself connects two things in a measure in one, kaiv leaves them two: but when tev is used with kaiv it raises the subject of tev into prominence. It is not only what follows kaiv, but what precedes tev too; but still unites them: saying, not the two, but both, take place. So indeed mhvte ... . mhvte, both form part of one single subject. There is more bond in tev than in kaiv in the two things mentioned, as in 2 Thessalonians 2: 2, both are connected with qroeisee footnotesqai. It is more also, or both, than and. It is found twice as often in Acts as in all the rest of the New Testament; then in Hebrews, Romans, Luke, rarely elsewhere: often it is a mere shade of different aspect of something from kaiv. James and John, both James and John; bad and good, both bad and good. The sense is the same, only "both" brings them together to the mind as one. The distinct commandments, Mark 10: 19, are mhv, not mhvte.
Dhv is only six times used. It arrests the mind on the noun or verb, impressing it on it, as the important point then in the mind. The passages are Matthew 13: 23, Luke 2: 15, Acts 13: 2, 15: 36, 1 Corinthians 6: 20, 2 Corinthians 12: 1. It is then, then now; also does well in Matthew 13: 23: then now in Luke 2: 15, 1 Corinthians 6: 20, 2 Corinthians 12, "well it is not," would do.
Mevntoi. In John+ always however, found elsewhere only in James 2: 2, and Jude 8, yet, the sense is the same. It is also in 2 Timothy 2: 19.
Mevn does little more than arrest the mind instead of simply stating the fact. With dev it contrasts the two members, but often hardly more than "these" and "those" in English, without "indeed" and "but," as Acts 27: 44. The difference I believe to be this -- when a common statement applies to both, "indeed" and "but" may be left out in English; when the subjects of mevn and dev are different, then they have their places; thus Matthew 22: 5, "they went, -- all, -- some to one thing, some to another," but verse 8, "the wedding indeed is ready, but they that are bidden." In Luke 8: 5, 6, it is mevn and kaiv; in Matthew 13: 4, 8, mevn and dev. Luke 3: 16, both, no doubt, are baptizers, but "ejgw; me;n udati, aujto;" de; ejn pneuvmati." The contrast is full.
Me;n ou\n, is always, I think, a fresh start of subject in the mind of the writer, assuming acquaintance with what precedes, and referring to it as the basis of some new statement, where some particular point, connected with what precedes, comes out into relief. The writer has some one or some thing in his mind, shut up in the previous part, which makes the prominent subject in some new statement. Ou\n, I think, connects; mevn fixes the mind on the particular object. Once me;n ou\n, but then ou\n has its own ordinary force. I think me;n ou\n thus always begins a new sentence. It is chiefly found in the narrative of the Acts, as may be supposed. See ou\n .
Omw", even, nevertheless, however, although, found only in John 12: 42, 1 Corinthians 14: 7, and Galatians 3: 15. In this last omw" goes with ajnqrwvpou, and in 1 Corinthians 14: 7, with a[yuca, not fwnh;n didovnta.
Opw" is almost always the expression of object or purpose. Acts 3: 19, in A.V. is a mere false translation.++ The only exception is Luke 24: 20. It is not always so that or that, but always the object or intention, as Matthew 12: 14, Mark 3: 6, Matthew 26: 59, Luke 11: 37, Acts 23: 23. But opw" is the object in the result, not the intention as in the mind. I do a thing ina, that is the intention in my mind. Opw" is the effect of the act, the aim of the act, not the intention of the mind, it is "so that," not essentially "in order that," it is the pwsee footnote" of the thing.
+John 4: 27; 7: 13; 12: 42; 20: 5; and 21: 4.
++"When the times of refreshing shall come" should be translated "so that the times," etc.
Oujdev, ou[te, as with mhdev, mhvte; oujdev, an additional object of negation; ou[te one of two contrasted: only oujdev has also the sense of "not even," Matthew 8: 10; 27: 14; Luke 6: 3; 23: 40; 1 Corinthians 5: 1; 6: 5. Ou[te is peculiar in John 4: 11: it is opposed to kaiv, but the sense is the same.
Ou\n. Therefore (folgerung), sometimes however a mere consequence of facts in the mind, not a cause, then, and its proper sense is not cause but consequence, hence "therefore." I say in the mind, because it is the mind singling out some particular person and thing in a less open way in the mind, in what precedes, and bringing it out into relief and importance. See mevn in connection with which it is thus used. With a question, and with eij, it has this force of consequence; for example, "these things being so." Matthew 13: 27; 12: 12. Eij ou\n, chapter 7: 11; 22: 45, any hypothetical case is as the formal word eij: thus otan, chapter 24: 15; Mark 12: 6, e[ti ou\n ena uiJo;n e[cwn. "This being so," "if it be so." It has this force even in direct statement and command, as Mark 3: 31; 13: 35; Luke 3: 7; 6: 9, 36; John 4: 28. The causative and antecedent grounds often run into one another, John 2: 20. But the antecedent occasion is as common as the sense of cause (see the discourses in John's Gospel throughout). "This being so, such and such follows" is the sense which rises up into "therefore." A strict cause is dia; tousee footnoteto, and can be used with ou\n, "therefore" these things being so, John 5: 18. Sometimes what is so is expressed, as is naturally the case with eij, "if they are so"; otan, "when they were so, -- then," etc.
Mhv, when used where we might suppose ouj could be (for it has its own use besides), gives, I think, the state and character, not the fact; but it is only a shade of meaning. Thus Matthew 1: 19, Joseph, divkaio" w[n, he being a just man, mh; qevlwn, "a just man, and unwilling"; ouj qevlwn would be the fact. So Acts 27: 7, 15; it was the state of things, "the wind not suffering." It is not the fact that the wind then and there did not suffer that the ship should easily make her way, but the wind being such that it could not, and (verse 15) the ship was caught, and unable. So Acts 12: 19; the shape it takes in the mind is the state of Herod, not the fact that he did not find. Compare 2 Corinthians 4: 18, 5: 21; Matthew 7: 26; Luke 12: 4; John 7: 49; Romans 4: 17: so often. Hence it is commonly used with a participle, or future conditional, future at least in thought, as Luke 17: 1; see John 12: 47, 48, both cases. So of a state, in the infinitive with article, Luke 8: 6, 22: 34; Hebrews 11: 3; or without, as Luke 18: 1, where the article is with deisee footnoten. In many cases, when it refers to a fact, the imperative, its very common use, is understood. In questions it is not merely, as usually stated, the expectation of a negative answer, but a present presentation of it as not so, or of circumstance which made it likely the enquiry would convey a doubt, or undesired, unpleasing possibility, one that can hardly be supposed true, and raises the question -- not an enquiry for information. Thus John 18: 17, 25; 6: 67; Mark 2: 19. In the last the negative answer meets it. John 7: 47; Mark 12: 14, 15, where ouj is used for indicative negation of fact, mhv for the moral propriety with subjunctive For the contrast of affirming expected answer with oujciv, see John 7: 41, 42.
Naiv, though used for "yes," as Matthew 9: 28, etc., is, however, something more, as "yea" (from the usus loquendi) is in English. It affirms positively when a matter might be supposed to be in doubt, or reiterates as a certainty that cannot fail, as Luke 11: 51. Query, is it more than simply "yes" in Matthew 21: 16, a reply, or in any way connected with what follows? But it is very commonly, at any rate, emphatic, as Luke 7: 26; 12: 5. In Matthew 15: 27, Mark 7: 28, it is simply "yea, Lord," that is, "yea, Lord, you can do it" even on your own ground, "for even," or "since." It calls in question any opposition.
Wste does not express an intention, but a means or instrument which brings about what follows: oti a fact which exists, when the oti is applied: ina what is in view or intention, when what governs ina is stated.
Ina is the object and intention of the person or thing from its nature, and sometimes amounts to a telic infinitive [all modern Greek infinitives are formed, I learn, by it (na)]. Hence it is not merely in order that, as an indirect consequence; that is, I do one thing in order that, in its turn, another may follow; but in Greek it is immediate also. Oti answers to what or why, meeting the tiv, the what or the why is so and so; hence that answering to "what," and for or because answering to "why." But when there is not cause or object+ but intention, or end of anything, it is ina. Hence with words of request, command, or wish, desire, as 1 Corinthians 14: 1 (and in sense, 2 Corinthians 8: 7), it is common; Matthew 4: 3; 12: 10; 20: 21, 31, 33; 26: 63; Mark 7: 32, 36; Romans 15: 31; Ephesians 1: 17, etc., etc. Some cases are less evident. Matthew 5: 29, 30; 8: 8; 10: 25, and even chapter 26: 4, Mark 4: 21 shews the connection, the object and intention are there, not merely one act in order to another. Mark 6: 12, "preached, ina"; chapter 6: 36, "let them go, ina." Thus we have the direct intention and object of the act, or will, or thing. Luke uses it quite as much (it is not used in an ecbatic sense) in chapter 7: 6, 36; 8: 31, 32; 9: 40, 45; 16: 27; 18: 39, 41, and others. I do not believe, for instance, John 9: 2 is for wste; it was not the will of the parents, of course, but the meaning and end of the act. A person may object to this, as contrary to his way of thinking; but so it is. JIkano;" ina is not "so that," but the tevlo" of the iJkanovth" in the mind of the writer, and is powerful in style. It is intention, or something to be; oti may be future, if it is a fact, not what is in view as an object. So in chapter 11: 50, sumfevrei ina. Is not the sense always future to that on which ina depends, oti an existing fact? To state a cause you must have the caused fact; an intention looks to the future. In John 6: 28 it is not "in order that," that is, doing one thing that another may come, but with this intention or object to fulfil it; the direct tevlo" of the will in doing, not a subsequent effect: hence ina. And this sentence also gives the clue to its use in chapter 9: 22. It was the intention or object of their agreement. In chapter 4: 34,"my meat is ina poiwsee footnote." Oti has no place here; it is an infinitive in sense, but it gives the intention. His meat was not having done it, but to do. "If any man qevlei to do his will, he shall know of the doctrine." Still John carries its use farther. We understand the intention in the works or speaker's mind of an iJkanovth", fit for (propre à, not pour) that. But John 13: 1, ejlhvluqen aujtousee footnote hJ wra, ina it was the intention and meaning of that hour, as the writer viewed it, and divinely so. Still it is a special use of it. So chapter 18: 39, a custom, ina the object or meaning of the custom; still it is carrying its use very far. So in 1 John 1: 9, "faithful and just ina he might forgive"; again a telic infinitive oti has no place. So chapter 4: 21, here it depends on ejntolhv, "the intention of the ejntolhv was," etc. In chapter 5: 3, I suppose it is the intention to keep, as in the passage, "my meat is"; but this carries its use very far, as it is evident John does (but oti would have another sense), as before in his Gospel, chapter 4: 34. But in John 17: 3, it is merely infinitive (not oti, nor wste). So indeed, practically, is 1 John 5: 3 (see above). John 11: 19, 31, shews how it connects "in order to" with infinitive. John 11: 37, we have poihsee footnotesai ina, "caused this man not to die"; not acted so that he had not, but acted to hinder him dying, only ajpoqavnh/ so that it was effectual; after need, John 2: 25, for any one to bear witness; chapter 5: 7, infinitive; chapter 8: 56; 16: 2 (a strong case). 1 John 5: 3; 2 John 6; 3 John 4. With the pronoun "this," John 6: 29, 39, 40; 15: 13; 17: 3; Luke 1: 43. The real point, I believe, is, besides the common use, "in order that," when it is future, a thing in posse, not in esse, an object in view; hence equivalent to "to" with an infinitive; whereas oti is in esse, not merely in posse. In Matthew 26: 34, oti seems future, but it is "you will have done it before." In Mark 4: 38, it is present, "we are perishing." Oti is used after speak or write in Greek, when in English it is left out, as John 4: 42, and a multitude of cases. The only strong case as to ina is after aujtov". Still, though peculiar and idiomatic, it is an object in view, the thought and will of the person who acts or speaks. Luke 1: 43 is the strongest of all, but it is not the fact that she has come, but this, that she should come -- should have the thought or mind of coming. So John 17: 3, it is not the fact that a person who has known has life, but the thought that to know is or could be life to him that knew. It is the abstract idea, what life eternal is. It is to know, it is found in knowing, which thus stands as an object to be attained before the mind. This was the way of having it. Oti would be that they have known a fact about some people, ina is sollen, what is to be. So in Luke 1: 43, "whence" refers to the mind or intention to come, the motive ina for coming. In the case of aujtov", etc., the thought is, this must be to have the matter in question, a man must know to have; that is, the knowing is looked at as a thing to be necessary, not existing. So with "greater love hath no one than this, that (ina) life must be laid down to make this good"; that is, it is not the fact which (oti), but viewed as needed and so to be, a moral consequence, not a fact; as I have said, oti always refers to a fact, ina to an intention. There may be a future with oti, but it is an assertion of the fact (which may be future), as Luke 19: 26; 18: 8, not an object in purpose or intention. Not "I command, request, that it should"; but "I say that it will": that it should is in purpose; the other is an assertion of fact, though the fact be future. "That" or "because" are not really different as the meaning of oti; when it means "because" it is practically dia; tousee footnoteto oti.
+See farther on. Hence oti is a present thing, is, or is caused; ina, future to the motive, or causing word.
Ew", is as far as, hence can be with verbs, ew" ejlhvluqen, ew" hJmevra ejstivn, John 9: 4, John 12: 35, 36, e[cete. Hence with the sense of till or while, because both are "as long as." It is not objective; ew" hJmevran, if it were Greek, would be "up to day," "during night." Hence the genitive, which is a genitive absolute. So you can have (which shews its force) ew" eij", Luke 24: 50, ew" a[nw, John 2: 7; and again, ew" e[xw, Acts 21: 5; ew" e[sw, Mark 14: 54. There is always the sense of so far as; not merely to as an object, but "up to," "all the way there." It is not eij", zu, but bis zu ihm. Hence it is "whilst" with an indicative, as John 9: 4 above, or with a conjunctive when it is intention, Mark 6: 45, or future proseuvxwmai, as Matthew 26: 36.
Mhv, mhvpote etc., not, that not, but, as is known, intention of the mind, not fact, as Matthew 4: 6; mhvpote "thou dash"; mhdevpote, 2 Timothy 3: 7. Ou[pote is not found replaced by oujdevpote. Ouj and oujdevpote are fact. Hence mhv with imperative, and with an interrogative, meaning, "can you suppose that ...?" when the intended answer is "not"; ouj, when "yes." So in moral reasons, mhv: dia; to; mh; e[cein, Matthew 13: 5, 6. Hence with participles, as verse 19, mh; sunievnto": Luke 2: 45, mh; euJrovnto". In Matthew 13: 5, oujk ei\ce ghsee footnoten, the fact. The participle is a supposed or assumed state on which the fact is based. So indeed mhv in interrogation is a supposition that not. "Mhv thou greater than our father Jacob?" John 4: 12. It is a state of mind or of things on which something is based, when not the simple expression of a state of mind, as in the imperative. We have ouj mhv, not only in assertion, where it is not at all, but in questions also, ouj mhv, and mh; ouj. But I do not think either a mere doubling of the negative ouj mhv is not, certainly not, but no in no case, under no supposition: the mind cannot entertain the negative. So mh; ouj is interrogation, as before, but with the sense "is it to be supposed ... ?" "are we to lay it down that ... ?" etc. Ouj mhv is used in an interrogative sense, but with a note of admiration, Luke 18: 7. "And God would not avenge his own elect!" -- "is that to be supposed?" In Hebrews 10: 1, 11 oujdevpote approaches the nearest to mhdevpote, but it is the fact; mhdevpote, in 2 Timothy 3: 7, the character of gunaikavria. Mhkevti and oujkevti follow the same principle. Oujkevti is fact; mhkevti, command, consequence, wste mhkevti, not oujkevti, but they could not, oujkevti. So mhdev Mark 2: 2, mhkevti with infinitive. In 1 Thessalonians 3: 1, 5, it is the participle as before with mhv. The same generally with wste, wste oujk e[ti ei\ dousee footnotelo" the fact: wste mh; ijscuvein, the thought as a consequence, not the fact. So Mark 1: 45; 2: 2; 3: 20. The strict sense of wste is "so as," Matthew 15: 33: then "so that," "that," Matthew 12: 22, Galatians 2: 13, or with outw", John 3: 16, Acts 14: 1, "but that" with "so" understood; that is, not intention (ina) but result, even if in thought.
jAllav, when not a contrasted "but"; "not this, but that," is an arrest in the thought, in the sense of this. "Do I say this? nay, but," etc. It stops the mind on what was going before, and brings in something else. The ellipse depends on the passage, as Acts 10: 20, "but arise"; or no ellipse really, but, turning to another point, it supposes some contradiction might be urged, or means "not only"; but it is never, I think, copulative, as alleged. See with h[, Luke 12: 51, 2 Corinthians 1: 13 (this peculiar).
Note that, as to its primitive force, the genitive is anything in its nature, origin, or character, "of."
The dative is immediate connection or proximity to.
The accusative is objective, towards. These senses are modified by the preposition, or, rather, the preposition borrows the sense of the case, and adds its own peculiar meaning to give a special form to the thought, as parav, periv, metav, ejkv: parav with a genitive, "from," but it is genus still; periv, around or about you, is more remote from the radical sense, but still the circumstances draw their character from the relationship to the governed word; what they are is peri; uJmwsee footnoten, etc. With the accusative it is the object whom they do or will refer to, peri; ejmev. jEk is only source and characteristic source, hence has only the genitive. Metav is like periv, the thing is characterized by its association, meq jhJmwsee footnoten. They are thought of as associated with "us." This characterizes them: meta; tausee footnoteta they are separated, and they are a distinct object by themselves when tausee footnoteta are complete, hence they come after. Prov" and parav have genitive, dative, and accusative.
jAnav: besides the idea of respectively, each, we have only ajna; mevson, Matthew 13: 25, Mark 7: 31, 1 Corinthians 6: 5, Revelation 7: 17, among, between, in the midst of. 1 Corinthians 14: 27 shews connection of prepositional and adverbial use, ajna; mevro", [each] for [his] part, in his turn, by course; so, by fifties, or fifty each, man by man, each man. jAnav has the accusative from its objective force, up to, reaching up to, in all cases, even when it means each respectively. The translation of it may be various. jAnav mevson is not ejn mevsw/, which may be a point unconnected with the rest. jAnav connects the thing which is ajnav with that ajnav (up to) which it is, so as to have to say to all. He fills up that to which ajnav applies. It is not mittelpunkt but mitten unter. Not in the middle but in the midst.
jAntiv, in the place of, and so for, sometimes because; the force being, I apprehend, "you get this as a recompense," ajntiv, "answering to." So Luke 1: 20; 12: 3; 19: 44; 2 Thessalonians 2: 10, and Ephesians 5: 31, it passes, by use, into the more general sense of because. The rest are correspondence, or instead of, James 4: 15, the last, John 1: 16, "grace upon grace," one grace taking the place of another in succession -- a beautiful idea.
Ama is used for a preposition instead of suvn, Matthew 13: 29.
jApov, genitive: point of departure. Hence, by reason of, occasioned by, Matthew 13: 44; 14: 26; Luke 22: 45, Acts 11: 19; Hebrews 5: 7; Matthew 18: 7. On the part of, not simply by but of, away from, Luke 9: 22; 17: 25; but here, after ajpodokimavzw. So Acts 2: 22, where ajpov is in the verb, not in 2 Corinthians 7: 13. It is not for uJpov. The cases are after ajpov in the verb, or after ajnapevpautai, which supposes toil, and ceasing to have it; not the present effect of an agent (uJpov) under whose power and influence the matter happens, or the person is. In a good state, Titus might have been received and cheered uJpov; though scarcely this last, but not ajnapevpautai when they had been going wrong before. His refreshment now proceeded from them: "peace from" is simple, "delivered from," also; so with parevlqh/, Mark 14: 35. The point of departure is clear in ajf j eJautousee footnote, ajf j eJautwsee footnoten, etc., Luke 12: 57; John 5: 19; 10: 18; 16: 13. It is used of material, of clothes, or food. A mass is supposed, and the part is taken "from" it; as we say, "made from wool." So, choice from, Matthew 7: 16, ajpov, point of departure of the judgment: it is a conclusion drawn "from," not by means of, instrumentally; in the same verse materially "from." Luke 14: 18, ajpov miasee footnote" is idiomatic; said to be, "one point of view left out as understood"; if so, it is simple. Their minds started from one point to the common conclusion.
jEk, genitive: out of, a place, set of people, or what any one is sunk in, or the like. Hence it is a moral source, and goes deeper than ajpov: ajpov is a motive; this a principle. English uses it so too. He did it "out of fear," "from fear." Both are English. There is a shade of difference in the sense. Fear in the latter case is a motive, the point of departure of the mind. jEk supposes one more in the state referred to. I can say, ajpo; tousee footnote udato"; one leaves the water to be on land; ejk tousee footnote udato", out of the water in which one was. What answers to ajpov is "at," to ejk is "in." Hence ejk is more abstract; ejk pivstew" on that principle. jApo; eujlabeiva", that was the actual governing and producing motive. jEk is sometimes merely a shade of meaning different from ajpov, but there is the difference noticed. Hence ejk has the force of the character of anything: ejk tousee footnote kosmousee footnote, ejk tousee footnote diabolousee footnote, ejk tousee footnote patrov". And this tone of thought is found even where place is in question and the article is used. "New Jerusalem descended ejk tousee footnote oujranousee footnote ajpo; tousee footnote Qeousee footnote ." It came out of, no doubt, but it stamps its character in revealing its source. jApov is the point of departure. It came from God Himself. It was heavenly but it came from God -- was not merely divine. Speaking of time, it differs little practically from ajpov, though the ideal difference remains: ajpo; pollwsee footnoten ejtwsee footnoten since many years, ejk crovnwn iJkanwsee footnoten a long while, beginning from many years ago, and taking its rise in a period which still lasted. The first is a date, the last a characterized period; so ejk neovthto". But characterizing, as marking origin out of which anything is, is the common use, where not materially used. "The baptism of John, was it ejx oujranousee footnote": hence, Matthew 1: 20, "is of the Holy Ghost"; John 1: 13, "born of God." Hence characteristic of the state or thing which causes the action of the verb, as one "lives by (ejk) faith." It is not diav, the means of living, but the character of the life. "A tree is known ejk tousee footnote karpousee footnote," Matthew 12: 33 and Luke 6: 44. In Matthew 7: 16, 20, it is ajpov. The former is characteristic in the thing, the latter is a conclusion in knowledge, "from." "OiJ ejk peritomhsee footnote":" "oJ ejx oujranousee footnote:" "oJ ejk thsee footnote" ghsee footnote":" "ejk tousee footnote kosmousee footnote laleisee footnoten:" "oiJ ejx ejriqeiva"." In a multitude of shapes it is used for characterizing, as the source of anything does, only that its use to express character goes far, as in ejk mevrou", partly, in part, ejx ijsovthto". It becomes thus adverbial. Thus, he agreed with the labourers ejk dhnarivou: we say, at a penny, Matthew 20: 2. jEk is commonly used where we have the genitive, where it is one or more from among set of objects whether left or not.
jEn governs the dative. It means properly "in": then, with plurals, "amongst." Where it is connected with words of motion, it indicates the result in which that motion places and leaves them, ajnelhvfqh ejn dovxh/. It is used to mean what accompanies and characterizes, where we should say, "with," "in the power of," ejn rJavbdw/ "with a rod." It is not the origin of the character as a source,+ but characterizes the power by which we act; see Colossians 1: 8, ejn pneuvmati. A strong case of this instrumental character is in Luke 14: 31; if ejn devka ciliavsi ... "with ten thousand." So Hebrews 9: 25, ejn aimati ajllotrivw/: Matthew 6: 7, ejn polulogiva/. Hence it is not the effective instrument of activity, that is diav, but what characterizes: polulogiva/ is not looked at as the means, but as the character of the prayer which will be heard. Hence the state or occasion, 1 Corinthians 15: 52, ejn savlpiggi ejscavth/; at or during, within, when referring to time, John 2: 19, 20, ejn trisi;n hJmevrai". So (here more literally used) Matthew 11: 25; 12: 1, ejn ejkeivnw/ twsee footnote/ kairwsee footnote/, John 5: 16, ejn sabbavtw/. It has thus the force of the "means by which," ejn touvtw/ gnwvsontai, John 13: 35. We have a peculiar case in ejn uJmisee footnoten krivnetai oJ kovsmo", 1 Corinthians 6: 2 -- "If the judgment of the world shall be characterized by your doing it, surely," etc.: "if ejn uJmisee footnoten -- if such be the case with the judgment of the world." It is not simply as instruments; but if such a judgment be found to be in the hands of the saints, and so characterized as to be "by us"; if that be the case with that judgment. So in Hebrews 10: 10, ejn w/| qelhvmati. Christ comes to do God's will. That is what sanctifies us; that will (that is, God's) which Christ was to do is what sanctifies us. One must in English say "by," but the emphasis is on "which." But it is not the diav of an instrument, but the ejn or character of what does it. So, he came, Luke 2: 27, " ejn twsee footnote/ pneuvmati into the temple." It is not the instrument, but what characterized His coming: only twsee footnote/ personifies the Spirit, that is, gives personality to the thought, "the Spirit," as one acting not merely ejn pneuvmati which is the state of the person. He casts out devils, Matthew 12: 24, ejn twsee footnote/ a[rconti twsee footnoten daimonivwn. It was what characterized His power (personally again) or miracle. Acts 20: 19, ejn taisee footnote" ejpiboulaisee footnote", that was the state of things in which he found himself, and which causes his tears. It was not diav, simply instrumentally, but what characterized the situation.
+We have the same difference with the same prepositions in French, Il l'a fait en homme de courage; c'est un prix de fou.
Hebrews 11: 2, ejn tauvth/; Colossians 1: 16, ejn aujtwsee footnote/ ejktivsqh (diav in the same verse), and compare verse 20, and Hebrews 1: 1, 2; compare ejn uJmisee footnoten, 1 Corinthians 6: 2; Matthew 12: 24, 27, 28; and see use of ejn and diav in Romans 5: 9 (comp. verse 10).
Is not diav an historical word when the fact that took place is looked at as taking place at a given time? Whereas ejn is the abiding character and being of him or it, by which the work is wrought, ejn w/| ejktivsqh, di j aujtousee footnote e[ktistai, Colossians 1: 16, 17. So Romans 5: 9, 10, justified ejn twsee footnote/ aimati, reconciled dia; tousee footnote qanavtou. Then when any one is looked at as a distinct agent or means, it is diav, Romans 5: 9, di j aujtousee footnote; so Colossians 1: 20, di j aujtousee footnote, because Christ is looked at as such, as a distinct person, as a man, though ejn aujtw/see footnote is applied to the fulness of the Godhead. Hebrews 1: 1, 2, God spoke ejn uiJwsee footnote/. There they are not separated, but di j ou| ejpoivhse, a particular historical act, and God is looked at as distinct; see John 1: 3, di j aujtousee footnote ejgevneto. There He is looked at as a distinct person, verse 2, pro;" to;n Qeovn, and it is an historical fact. Colossians 1: 16, ejn aujtw/see footnote ejktivsqh, its literal ordinary cause and abiding characteristic, di j aujtousee footnote in verse 20, historical (see the cases farther on). Diav is the instrument of a fact, ejn an abiding cause or state (diav may be used as a state through which we pass, but it is then also only temporary), what characterizes a state which produces a consequence. Thus 2 Corinthians 6: 5, ejn plhgaisee footnote" would be in that state of things he proved himself a minister: dia; plhgwsee footnoten would have been the means of proving himself so. Hence 2 Corinthians 6: 7, di j oplwn, because that was the proof. It might be thought that verse 8 dia; dusfhmiva" kai; eujfhmiva" was in going through it, but I doubt it.
In 2 Corinthians 6 we have a string of examples, of different shades of meaning, still shewing that in which he approved himself a minister of God; that in which the characterizing power came out in which he was shewn to be suitably such. It was not merely that in those states his conduct proved it, nor simply by these things as a means: all concurred in giving evidence. This case is the more remarkable because he changes it after a while to diav. This is only a change of style occasioned by oplwn, which were clearly instruments, and not merely characteristic as to the state he was in; and diav goes on rightly because there is contrast: the most opposite things were the means of shewing it. The "yet" inserted in English (verse 8) is wrong. So "the unbelieving husband is sanctified by (ejn) the wife" -- not "by means of" (diav). Then it would be more real; but just as a Jew was profaned in the Gentile wife -- was so characterized in respect of the wife, as quâ husband of the Gentile woman, the marriage giving him this character -- so the converse held good in Christianity: the other stood, as wife, sanctified by the husband; or, vice versâ. This characteristic force is plain in many cases, ejn ajlhqeiva/, ejn dovlw/, ejn kruptwsee footnote/, ejn proswvpw/, lovgo" ejn ejxousiva/ -- where it does not mean being really in Christ, it is the same with "Christ," or "the Lord." "Receive her in the Lord," "only in the Lord"; that is, the sense of the Lord, and what He is in the soul, and what the person is as respects His will and claims, is to characterize the reception, the marrying, etc. So of "children, obey your parents in the Lord." "Ye are not in flesh but in Spirit." This characterizes your state, if the Spirit of God dwells in you. So Christ was declared to be Son of God "in power," ejn dunavmei, this characterizing the state of sonship of which the proof was given. On the whole, when it is not used in a material or local sense, ejn characterizes (not in its source, that is ejk, but) what accompanies it; very commonly in English it must be rendered with or by. So in English, "He did it out of hatred" to me: that was its source, cause. "He did it in hatred" or "with hatred"; this characterizes the act when he was doing it. "He did it in self-will." It is the description of the state or condition in which he who acts is.
Diav, genitive and accusative. Its sense is through: with a genitive, simply so, physically and morally, or figuratively: with the accusative more remotely so. It is then a motive or reason for a thing of which the thing is not independent, but not the effective instrument by which an effect is wrought; that is, this is not the sense of diav with an accusative. There are some important passages connected with this distinction: as to time, the literal "through," dia; triwsee footnoten hJmerwsee footnoten, "in the course of" (Matthew 26: 61); di j olh" thsee footnote" nuktov", dia; purov", 1 Corinthians 3: 15. So, I doubt not, di j udato", 1 Peter 3: 20. Hence, for "in a state of," di j ajkrobustiva", and analogously dia; thsee footnote" teknogoniva", 1 Timothy 2: 15; the article denotes the childbirth she was to undergo. Romans 4: 10, we have ejn ajkrobustiva/, the state as noticed in "ejn"; that characterized his state. In verse 11, we have ejn thsee footnote/ ajkrobustiva/ and di j ajkrobustiva". Diav I apprehend to be more vague and general. That condition specifically and contrastedly characterized Abraham. He was ejn ajkrobustiva/. For Gentile believers it was merely de facto they were in that state. So of teknogoniva", so of nuktov". It is a time, state, or period, not a characteristic. For the rest the application of "through" to time, place, and circumstance, is very simple. It then comes to mean the instrument or means by which, or through which, a thing happens, "through" being still the radical thought. It is an intermediate instrument; "all things were made by him." (John 1: 3). "By whom also he made the worlds." (Hebrews 1: 2.) It is not that the same Being may not be the author; but that His action in that case, where diav is used, is looked at as the intermediate instrument of His will, or, it may be, an actually intermediate agency if divine -- "without him was not anything made." Thus 1 Corinthians 8: 6, ei|" Qeo;" oJ path;r ejx ou| ... ei|" Kuvrio" di jou|. Christ is the divine Creator, but He is in this case viewed as an agent of a divine will. So Hebrews 1: 2. The use of diav does not hinder the source of action and the primary agent to be the same person. We read in the chapter, di j eJautousee footnote kaqarismo;n poihsavmeno". So in Colossians 1: 16 we see He was the end and object, ta; pavnta ... eij" aujto;n e[ktistai, which is said, as to us at least, distinctively of God the Father, 1 Corinthians 8: 6; di j aujtousee footnote being applied to Christ. And in Colossians we have ejn aujtwsee footnote/ ejktivsqh (compare ejn) and di j aujtousee footnote. Creation was characterized by His action, as the world's judgment by ours (ejn uJmisee footnoten): but there He was the one by whom all things were created. So, "spoken by the prophets," here they were intermediate to the Holy Ghost (diav), it was not ajf j auJtwsee footnoten, but di j aujtwsee footnoten, Luke 1: 70, more fully and absolutely.
The accusative is still through, but a cause or motive, and so more remotely "through"; not the means or instrument. "They had delivered him through envy"; this was the moving cause; their hearts and minds did it; but the medium, intermediate passion, through which they acted, was envy. Matthew 13: 58, "because of their unbelief," still "through," but it was not indeed a motive, but a cause, what occasioned it, because. Here we may notice John 6: 57, kajgw; zwsee ON HAGGAI 2: 5-9+
J. N. D.SCRIPTURAL CRITICISMS 1
SCRIPTURAL CRITICISMS 2
I would renew my attempt to clear the interpretation of the New Testament by some very simple criticisms.SCRIPTURAL CRITICISMS 3
PSALM 68
ON THE GREEK ARTICLE
EXEMPLA
A FEW IDIOMATIC CASES
THE CASE OF PROPER NAMES
SPIRIT
PROVERBIAL EXPRESSIONS
ADDITIONAL NOTES ON THE GREEK ARTICLE
BRIEF HINTS ON THE GREEK ARTICLE
GREEK PARTICLES AND PREPOSITIONS
PREFACE
GREEK PARTICLES
GREEK PREPOSITIONS