THE CASE OF PROPER NAMES
THE CASE OF PROPER NAMES
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.
[p. 58] 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.
[p. 59] 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”.
[p. 60] 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.)
[p. 61] 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.
[p. 62] 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.
[p. 63] 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.
[p. 64] Verse 17, oJdovn, any way.
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.
[p. 65] 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 entr�e.” 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.
[p. 66] 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 2. “Is legally bound.”
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 7. “But by law.”
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.
[p. 68] 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.