SPIRIT
SPIRIT
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.
[p. 69] 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.
[p. 70] 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.
[p. 71] 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.
[p. 72] 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.
[p. 73] 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.
[p. 74] 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.
[p. 75] 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.
[p. 76] 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.
[p. 78] 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.
So, verse 6, of the joy.
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.
[p. 79] 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.
[p. 80] 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.
[p. 81] 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.
[p. 82] 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.