⬇ EPUB

GREEK PARTICLES

[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 oï¿½” a]n ajpoluvsh/, ew” a]n ei[pw, opw” a]n fanwsee footnotesi, oï¿½” 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.

[^[p. 107] 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, 1ï¿½Corinthians 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” hï¿½n 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 1ï¿½Corinthians 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.

^[p. 110] 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 1ï¿½Thessalonians 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.

^[p. 111] 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.

^[p. 112] 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.”

^[p. 113] 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.

^[p. 115] 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 ï¿½, 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 1ï¿½John 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 1ï¿½Thessalonians 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).

← Previous 19 of 66 Next →