⬇ EPUB

GREEK PREPOSITIONS

Note that, as to its primitive force, the genitive is anything in its nature, origin, or character, “of.”

The dative is immediate connection or proximity to.

The accusative is objective, towards. These senses are modified by the preposition, or, rather, the preposition borrows the sense of the case, and adds its own peculiar meaning to give a special form to the thought, as parav, periv, metav, ejkv: parav with a genitive, “from,” but it is genus still; periv, around or about you, is more remote from the radical sense, but still the circumstances draw their character from the relationship to the governed word; what they are is peri; uJmwsee footnoten, etc. With the accusative it is the object whom they do or will refer to, peri; ejmev. jEk is only source and characteristic source, hence has only the genitive. Metav is like periv, the thing is characterized by its association, meq jhJmwsee footnoten. They are thought of as associated with “us.” This characterizes them: meta; tausee footnoteta they are separated, and they are a distinct object by themselves when tausee footnoteta are complete, hence they come after. Prov” and parav have genitive, dative, and accusative.

^[p. 121] jAnav: besides the idea of respectively, each, we have only ajna; mevson, Matthew 13: 25, Mark 7: 31, 1 Corinthians 6: 5, Revelation 7: 17, among, between, in the midst of. 1 Corinthians 14: 27 shews connection of prepositional and adverbial use, ajna; mevro”, [each] for [his] part, in his turn, by course; so, by fifties, or fifty each, man by man, each man. jAnav has the accusative from its objective force, up to, reaching up to, in all cases, even when it means each respectively. The translation of it may be various. jAnav mevson is not ejn mevsw/, which may be a point unconnected with the rest. jAnav connects the thing which is ajnav with that ajnav (up to) which it is, so as to have to say to all. He fills up that to which ajnav applies. It is not mittelpunkt but mitten unter. Not in the middle but in the midst.

jAntiv, in the place of, and so for, sometimes because; the force being, I apprehend, “you get this as a recompense,” ajntiv, “answering to.” So Luke 1: 20; 12: 3; 19: 44; 2 Thessalonians 2: 10, and Ephesians 5: 31, it passes, by use, into the more general sense of because. The rest are correspondence, or instead of, James 4: 15, the last, John 1: 16, “grace upon grace,” one grace taking the place of another in succession — a beautiful idea.

Ama is used for a preposition instead of suvn, Matthew 13: 29.

jApov, genitive: point of departure. Hence, by reason of, occasioned by, Matthew 13: 44; 14: 26; Luke 22: 45, Acts 11: 19; Hebrews 5: 7; Matthew 18: 7. On the part of, not simply by but of, away from, Luke 9: 22; 17: 25; but here, after ajpodokimavzw. So Acts 2: 22, where ajpov is in the verb, not in 2 Corinthians 7: 13. It is not for uJpov. The cases are after ajpov in the verb, or after ajnapevpautai, which supposes toil, and ceasing to have it; not the present effect of an agent (uJpov) under whose power and influence the matter happens, or the person is. In a good state, Titus might have been received and cheered uJpov; though scarcely this last, but not ajnapevpautai when they had been going wrong before. His refreshment now proceeded from them: “peace from” is simple, “delivered from,” also; so with parevlqh/, Mark 14: 35. The point of departure is clear in ajf j eJautousee footnote, ajfï¿½jï¿½eJautwsee footnoten, etc., Luke 12: 57; John 5: 19; 10: 18; 16: 13. It is used of material, of clothes, or food. A mass is supposed, and the part is taken “from” it; as we say, “made from wool.” So, choice from, Matthew 7: 16, ajpov, point of departure of the judgment: it is a conclusion drawn “from,” not by means of, instrumentally; in the same verse materially “from.” Luke 14: 18, ajpov miasee footnote” is idiomatic; said to be, “one point of view left out as understood”; if so, it is simple. Their minds started from one point to the common conclusion.

^[p. 122] jEk, genitive: out of, a place, set of people, or what any one is sunk in, or the like. Hence it is a moral source, and goes deeper than ajpov: ajpov is a motive; this a principle. English uses it so too. He did it “out of fear,” “from fear.” Both are English. There is a shade of difference in the sense. Fear in the latter case is a motive, the point of departure of the mind. jEk supposes one more in the state referred to. I can say, ajpo; tousee footnote udato”; one leaves the water to be on land; ejk tousee footnote udato”, out of the water in which one was. What answers to ajpov is “at,” to ejk is “in.” Hence ejk is more abstract; ejk pivstew” on that principle. jApo; eujlabeiva”, that was the actual governing and producing motive. jEk is sometimes merely a shade of meaning different from ajpov, but there is the difference noticed. Hence ejk has the force of the character of anything: ejk tousee footnote kosmousee footnote, ejk tousee footnote diabolousee footnote, ejk tousee footnote patrov”. And this tone of thought is found even where place is in question and the article is used. “New Jerusalem descended ejk tousee footnote oujranousee footnote ajpo; tousee footnote Qeousee footnote .” It came out of, no doubt, but it stamps its character in revealing its source. jApov is the point of departure. It came from God Himself. It was heavenly but it came from God — was not merely divine. Speaking of time, it differs little practically from ajpov, though the ideal difference remains: ajpo; pollwsee footnoten ejtwsee footnoten since many years, ejk crovnwn iJkanwsee footnoten a long while, beginning from many years ago, and taking its rise in a period which still lasted. The first is a date, the last a characterized period; so ejk neovthto”. But characterizing, as marking origin out of which anything is, is the common use, where not materially used. “The baptism of John, was it ejx oujranousee footnote“: hence, Matthew 1: 20, “is of the Holy Ghost”; John 1: 13, “born of God.” Hence characteristic of the state or thing which causes the action of the verb, as one “lives by (ejk) faith.” It is not diav, the means of living, but the character of the life. “A tree is known ejk tousee footnote karpousee footnote,” Matthew 12: 33 and Luke 6: 44. In Matthew 7: 16, 20, it is ajpov. The former is characteristic in the thing, the latter is a conclusion in knowledge, “from.” “OiJ ejk peritomhsee footnote“:” “oJ ejx oujranousee footnote:” “oJ ejk thsee footnote” ghsee footnote“:” “ejk tousee footnote kosmousee footnote laleisee footnoten:” “oiJ ejx ejriqeiva”.” In a multitude of shapes it is used for characterizing, as the source of anything does, only that its use to express character goes far, as in ejk mevrou”, partly, in part, ejx ijsovthto”. It becomes thus adverbial. Thus, he agreed with the labourers ejk dhnarivou: we say, at a penny, Matthew 20: 2. jEk is commonly used where we have the genitive, where it is one or more from among set of objects whether left or not.

^[p. 123] jEn governs the dative. It means properly “in”: then, with plurals, “amongst.” Where it is connected with words of motion, it indicates the result in which that motion places and leaves them, ajnelhvfqh ejn dovxh/. It is used to mean what accompanies and characterizes, where we should say, “with,” “in the power of,” ejn rJavbdw/ “with a rod.” It is not the origin of the character as a source,⁺ but characterizes the power by which we act; see Colossians 1: 8, ejn pneuvmati. A strong case of this instrumental character is in Luke 14: 31; if ejn devka ciliavsi ... “with ten thousand.” So Hebrews 9: 25, ejn aimati ajllotrivw/: Matthew 6: 7, ejn polulogiva/. Hence it is not the effective instrument of activity, that is diav, but what characterizes: polulogiva/ is not looked at as the means, but as the character of the prayer which will be heard. Hence the state or occasion, 1 Corinthians 15: 52, ejn savlpiggi ejscavth/; at or during, within, when referring to time, John 2: 19, 20, ejn trisi;n hJmevrai”. So (here more literally used) Matthew 11: 25; 12: 1, ejn ejkeivnw/ twsee footnote/ kairwsee footnote/, John 5: 16, ejn sabbavtw/. It has thus the force of the “means by which,” ejn touvtw/ gnwvsontai, John 13: 35. We have a peculiar case in ejn uJmisee footnoten krivnetai oJ kovsmo”, 1ï¿½Corinthians 6: 2 — “If the judgment of the world shall be characterized by your doing it, surely,” etc.: “if ejn uJmisee footnoten — if such be the case with the judgment of the world.” It is not simply as instruments; but if such a judgment be found to be in the hands of the saints, and so characterized as to be “by us”; if that be the case with that judgment. So in Hebrews 10: 10, ejn w/| qelhvmati. Christ comes to do God’s will. That is what sanctifies us; that will (that is, God’s) which Christ was to do is what sanctifies us. One must in English say “by,” but the emphasis is on “which.” But it is not the diav of an instrument, but the ejn or character of what does it. So, he came, Luke 2: 27, “ ejn twsee footnote/ pneuvmati into the temple.” It is not the instrument, but what characterized His coming: only twsee footnote/ personifies the Spirit, that is, gives personality to the thought, “the Spirit,” as one acting not merely ejn pneuvmati which is the state of the person. He casts out devils, Matthew 12: 24, ejn twsee footnote/ a[rconti twsee footnoten daimonivwn. It was what characterized His power (personally again) or miracle. Acts 20: 19, ejn taisee footnote” ejpiboulaisee footnote”, that was the state of things in which he found himself, and which causes his tears. It was not diav, simply instrumentally, but what characterized the situation.

⁺We have the same difference with the same prepositions in French, Il l’a fait en homme de courage; c’est un prix de fou.

Hebrews 11: 2, ejn tauvth/; Colossians 1: 16, ejn aujtwsee footnote/ ejktivsqh (diav in the same verse), and compare verse 20, and Hebrews 1: 1, 2; compare ejn uJmisee footnoten, 1ï¿½Corinthians 6: 2; Matthew 12: 24, 27, 28; and see use of ejn and diav in Romans 5: 9 (comp. verse 10).

Is not diav an historical word when the fact that took place is looked at as taking place at a given time? Whereas ejn is the abiding character and being of him or it, by which the work is wrought, ejn w/| ejktivsqh, diï¿½j aujtousee footnote e[ktistai, Colossians 1: 16, 17. So Romans 5: 9, 10, justified ejn twsee footnote/ aimati, reconciled dia; tousee footnote qanavtou. Then when any one is looked at as a distinct agent or means, it is diav, Romans 5: 9, diï¿½j aujtousee footnote; so Colossians 1: 20, diï¿½j aujtousee footnote, because Christ is looked at as such, as a distinct person, as a man, though ejn aujtw/see footnote is applied to the fulness of the Godhead. Hebrews 1: 1, 2, God spoke ejn uiJwsee footnote/. There they are not separated, but diï¿½j ou| ejpoivhse, a particular historical act, and God is looked at as distinct; see John 1: 3, diï¿½j aujtousee footnote ejgevneto. There He is looked at as a distinct person, verse 2, pro;” to;n Qeovn, and it is an historical fact. Colossians 1: 16, ejn aujtw/see footnote ejktivsqh, its literal ordinary cause and abiding characteristic, diï¿½j aujtousee footnote in verse 20, historical (see the cases farther on). Diav is the instrument of a fact, ejn an abiding cause or state (diav may be used as a state through which we pass, but it is then also only temporary), what characterizes a state which produces a consequence. Thus 2 Corinthians 6: 5, ejn plhgaisee footnote” would be in that state of things he proved himself a minister: dia; plhgwsee footnoten would have been the means of proving himself so. Hence 2 Corinthians 6: 7, diï¿½j oplwn, because that was the proof. It might be thought that verse 8 dia; dusfhmiva” kai; eujfhmiva” was in going through it, but I doubt it.

^[p. 125] In 2 Corinthians 6 we have a string of examples, of different shades of meaning, still shewing that in which he approved himself a minister of God; that in which the characterizing power came out in which he was shewn to be suitably such. It was not merely that in those states his conduct proved it, nor simply by these things as a means: all concurred in giving evidence. This case is the more remarkable because he changes it after a while to diav. This is only a change of style occasioned by oplwn, which were clearly instruments, and not merely characteristic as to the state he was in; and diav goes on rightly because there is contrast: the most opposite things were the means of shewing it. The “yet” inserted in English (verse 8) is wrong. So “the unbelieving husband is sanctified by (ejn) the wife” — not “by means of” (diav). Then it would be more real; but just as a Jew was profaned in the Gentile wife — was so characterized in respect of the wife, as quï¿½ husband of the Gentile woman, the marriage giving him this character — so the converse held good in Christianity: the other stood, as wife, sanctified by the husband; or, vice versï¿½. This characteristic force is plain in many cases, ejn ajlhqeiva/, ejn dovlw/, ejn kruptwsee footnote/, ejn proswvpw/, lovgo” ejn ejxousiva/ — where it does not mean being really in Christ, it is the same with “Christ,” or “the Lord.” “Receive her in the Lord,” “only in the Lord”; that is, the sense of the Lord, and what He is in the soul, and what the person is as respects His will and claims, is to characterize the reception, the marrying, etc. So of “children, obey your parents in the Lord.” “Ye are not in flesh but in Spirit.” This characterizes your state, if the Spirit of God dwells in you. So Christ was declared to be Son of God “in power,” ejn dunavmei, this characterizing the state of sonship of which the proof was given. On the whole, when it is not used in a material or local sense, ejn characterizes (not in its source, that is ejk, but) what accompanies it; very commonly in English it must be rendered with or by. So in English, “He did it out of hatred” to me: that was its source, cause. “He did it in hatred” or “with hatred”; this characterizes the act when he was doing it. “He did it in self-will.” It is the description of the state or condition in which he who acts is.

^[p. 126] Diav, genitive and accusative. Its sense is through: with a genitive, simply so, physically and morally, or figuratively: with the accusative more remotely so. It is then a motive or reason for a thing of which the thing is not independent, but not the effective instrument by which an effect is wrought; that is, this is not the sense of diav with an accusative. There are some important passages connected with this distinction: as to time, the literal “through,” dia; triwsee footnoten hJmerwsee footnoten, “in the course of” (Matthew 26: 61); diï¿½j olh” thsee footnote” nuktov”, dia; purov”, 1 Corinthians 3: 15. So, I doubt not, diï¿½j udato”, 1 Peter 3: 20. Hence, for “in a state of,” diï¿½j ajkrobustiva”, and analogously dia; thsee footnote” teknogoniva”, 1ï¿½Timothy 2: 15; the article denotes the childbirth she was to undergo. Romans 4: 10, we have ejn ajkrobustiva/, the state as noticed in “ejn”; that characterized his state. In verse 11, we have ejn thsee footnote/ ajkrobustiva/ and diï¿½j ajkrobustiva”. Diav I apprehend to be more vague and general. That condition specifically and contrastedly characterized Abraham. He was ejn ajkrobustiva/. For Gentile believers it was merely de facto they were in that state. So of teknogoniva”, so of nuktov”. It is a time, state, or period, not a characteristic. For the rest the application of “through” to time, place, and circumstance, is very simple. It then comes to mean the instrument or means by which, or through which, a thing happens, “through” being still the radical thought. It is an intermediate instrument; “all things were made by him.” (John 1: 3). “By whom also he made the worlds.” (Hebrews 1: 2.) It is not that the same Being may not be the author; but that His action in that case, where diav is used, is looked at as the intermediate instrument of His will, or, it may be, an actually intermediate agency if divine — “without him was not anything made.” Thus 1 Corinthians 8: 6, ei|” Qeo;” oJ path;r ejx ou| ... ei|” Kuvrio” diï¿½jou|. Christ is the divine Creator, but He is in this case viewed as an agent of a divine will. So Hebrews 1: 2. The use of diav does not hinder the source of action and the primary agent to be the same person. We read in the chapter, diï¿½jï¿½eJautousee footnote kaqarismo;n poihsavmeno”. So in Colossians 1: 16 we see He was the end and object, ta; pavnta ... eij” aujto;n e[ktistai, which is said, as to us at least, distinctively of God the Father, 1 Corinthians 8: 6; diï¿½j aujtousee footnote being applied to Christ. And in Colossians we have ejn aujtwsee footnote/ ejktivsqh (compare ejn) and diï¿½j aujtousee footnote. Creation was characterized by His action, as the world’s judgment by ours (ejn uJmisee footnoten): but there He was the one by whom all things were created. So, “spoken by the prophets,” here they were intermediate to the Holy Ghost (diav), it was not ajfï¿½jï¿½auJtwsee footnoten, but diï¿½j aujtwsee footnoten, Luke 1: 70, more fully and absolutely.

^[p. 127] The accusative is still through, but a cause or motive, and so more remotely “through”; not the means or instrument. “They had delivered him through envy”; this was the moving cause; their hearts and minds did it; but the medium, intermediate passion, through which they acted, was envy. Matthew 13: 58, “because of their unbelief,” still “through,” but it was not indeed a motive, but a cause, what occasioned it, because. Here we may notice John 6: 57, kajgw; zwsee footnote dia; to;n patevra kai; oJ trw;gwn me, kajkeisee footnoteno” zhvsetai diï¿½j ejmev: “’because’ of the Father, he that eats me even he shall live ‘because’ of me”: again not as motive, but cause or reason why (chapter 14: 19, oti ejgw; zwsee footnote kai; uJmeisee footnote” zhvsesqe). There was such connection between Him and the Father, that because the Father lived, He lived. The Lord only states the fact: we know they were one. What the Lord states is that it was not an independent life, but that, inasmuch as the Father lived, He lived. The two things could not be separated, and He, speaking as on earth, takes the dependent side, yet the connection was such that if His Father did, He did. So, he that eats Him will live by reason of His living. There was an indissoluble connection. Yet our life is dependent on His, but therefore cannot fail. So Revelation 12: 11, “through,” “by reason of.” The use of diav with an accusative for a motive is common: thus, John 7: 13, Matthew 12: 27; so with tov and an infinitive, Luke 2: 4; both genitive and accusative, Romans 5: 12: so, diativ, diov.

There is another point to be mentioned in connection with the intermediate character of diav. When the instrument is the proper cause or instrument, the immediate instrument, the noun is in the dative (the diï¿½j eJautousee footnote of Hebrews 1: 3 only confirming it). The genitive with diav is viewed as another agent from the one who uses it — as a distinct agent. Thus Romans 5: 15, 17, twsee footnote/ tousee footnote eJno;” paraptwvmati; then verse 16, diï¿½j eJno;” aJmarthvsanto”, to; dwvrhma, by the offence of one, it was the act of the offender himself which brought ruin on all that belonged to him; it was not merely through it as a distinct means, but that act of the one brought the evil in on the many; but God’s free gift was by the means of a person brought before us distinctly. So verse 17, twsee footnote/ tousee footnote eJno;” paraptwvmati oJ qavnato” ejbasivleuse dia; tousee footnote eJnov”; here the one Adam is viewed as a distinct person from death personified, but “by the offence of one” was his act; so at the end of verse 17, dia; tousee footnote eJno;” jIhsousee footnote Cristousee footnote. In verse 18, we have it as a distinct act, diï¿½j eJno;” paraptwvmato”, eij” pavnta”, in and by itself as a means, “and so by one righteousness.” Compare the use of “ejn” in this same passage. The dative is a mere means identified with the agent, the diav makes a distinct object to the mind.

In Hebrews 13: 20, “the God of peace brought Christ from the dead, ejn aimati,” in that way and character; but in Hebrews 9, “He entered in once, dia; tousee footnote ijdivou aimato”.” (Verse 12.) This refers to ouj cwri;” aimato” of verse 7. I do not think it means that that was the means of His entering in simply. As to Himself, His person, we all know it was not so: He says, “the Son of man who is in heaven,” and could, as to the external fact, have had twelve legions of angels. This is not the question. But even as to us it is not simply that it was needed, but that was the way and state in which He entered in: not He got in by that means even as to us, but He went in in that way. The glorious work, according to the importance and character of the place, would not otherwise have been suitably done, but He did so enter in diav, for it is the force of diav I enquire into here. Cwri;” aimato”, there could have been no fitting association, however small, between Israel and the most holy place, and He entered in thus offering it (prosfevrei). Christ as our High Priest, and representing us, could not enter thus without blood, or, as regards us, God would not have been glorified: so He entered diav His own, shewing indeed His own worth and perfectness, not only to be there Himself, but to obtain the entrance of others and (before that) guilty ones; and as priest He enters in with this to present in its power and efficacy for others. It was the witness that He had put away their sins, so that they could come to God, and God was fully glorified. The holiness of the place required this blood-shedding, seeing sin had come in, but according to a holy redemption, in which the innocent never would have been. So He entered in diav His own blood. Man could have had that place in no other way. And He had taken up man’s cause. (Christ’s personal place is more in the cloud of incense, which is not in question here.) This is a little obscure, but right. It was His act, not His necessity; He entered in with that in its power, and not (as I have said) got in by it.

Eij” is in general simple — the direction towards; reaching, if not hindered. “I am going to Rome.” It is well known that, where it is used with verbs of rest, it implies arrival there by motion. “Thou wilt not leave my soul eij” a/dou,” where it had gone on leaving the body. (See 2 Thessalonians 2: 4, where it depends on the active force of kaqivsai, sets himself down there.) What is said (Acts 8: 23) of Simon, that he was eij” colh;n pikriva” is different in sense from ejn. jEn would have been a mere state; here there was will, and the bent of his own mind. “Given up to” would not express it. That implies another, possibly final, possession by it. But his mind was gone that way; “your heart is gone into the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity”: o[nta is its state, but its then state was to have given itself to that. Mark 8: 19 is plain enough, being the direction of the act: He broke it to them, giving it to them; the act was towards them. So aJmartavnw eij”, Matthew 18: 15, “against thee,” as to thee; that was the direction his sin took. So Luke 12: 10, speak a word “against,” as to. It is used also for time, verse 19, “laid up for many years”; as we say against winter, as provisions, or for. So for an object, aim, or purpose, Matthew 26: 8, eij” tiv hJ ajpwvleia (Mark 14: 4; 15: 34); “to what purpose is this waste?” (Where it is a contact of violence, ejpiv is used; nation shall rise ejpiv nation.) This use of as to as an object is common. “She has wrought a good work eij” ejmev,” and in several forms, as the baptism of repentance eij” a[fesin aJmartiwsee footnoten, Mark 1: 4, 38, eij” tousee footnoteto ejxelhvluqa.

In connection with the object to which the mind or faith is directed, we have pisteuvw eij”. So ejlpivzw eij”, 2 Corinthians 1: 10; as in John 6: 47; 7: 38; 12: 44, and frequently. When it is the believing simply what a man says, it is the dative, as chapter 10: 37, 38, and elsewhere. 1 John 5: 13, pisteuvousin eij” to; o[noma; and to the same purport, baptivzw eij” to; o[noma,⁺ eij” Mwshsee footnoten,⁺⁺ eij” to; bavptisma jIwavnnou,⁺⁺⁺ eij” Cristovn,⁺⁺⁺⁺. It is that at which they arrived, to which they were attached by the baptism, as they went to Christ: here morally, as to Rome materially. See 1 Corinthians 12: 13, Matthew 28: 19. With Jesus it is ejpi; twsee footnote/ ojnovmati in Acts 2: 38, eij” tov in Acts 19: 4; so 1 Corinthians 1: 13, etc. A singular use of this is in Matthew 10: 41, in the name of a prophet, eij” o[noma. jEn ojnovmati would, it seems to me, be in another’s name (ejpiv, Matthew 18: 5, Mark 9: 37, as the condition of reception), as John 5: 43, where the end of the verse has the same force, pleading, presenting himself, his name, as warrant for reception, as Jesus did the Father’s; whereas here eij” o[noma is not the warrant for receiving, but that to which they were received (that is, according to the honour due to a prophet he was received into that place). jEn ojnovmati is bearing it as a character and warrant of reception, eij” the place and title in (into) which he is received. Where we have eij” to; gevnesqai (Romans 4: 18), it is no purpose in the person, nor so that it so resulted, but the bearing of the act; “he believed in hope to the becoming.” So eij” to; ei\nai divkaion, Romans 3: 26: also 1: 20, Acts 3: 19, 1 Corinthians 8: 10, 2 Corinthians 7: 3, Ephesians 1: 18. See 1 Thessalonians 4: 9. This idea of an effect or the bearing of any act takes sometimes a very peculiar form. “The Ninevites repented eij” to; khvrugma.” They met the preaching by repentance, Matthew 12: 41. So chapter 14: 31, eij” tiv ejdivstasa”; “to what [end] or to what [purpose]?” In the first passage it takes the form of a cause, but having an effect characteristic of the cause. In the second, cause is supposed, “wherefore,” for the question “why” supposes a cause, here the want of one. What was the good of it? But it never loses its etymological sense.

⁺Acts 8: 16; 19: 5, and Romans 6: 3,4.

⁺⁺1 Corinthians 10: 2.

⁺⁺⁺Acts 19: 3; compare verse 4.

⁺⁺⁺⁺Acts 24: 24, Galatians 3: 24.

The idea of “towards” requires little notice: in the sense of for, in favour of, diakoniva” eij” aJgivou”, 2 Corinthians 8: 4; 9: 1: so logiva”, 1 Corinthians 16: 1. The use of it in chapter 15: 54 is striking; “death is swallowed up eij” nisee footnoteko”,” not “in,” as if it were lost in a sea which subsisted, but absorbed “into” a victorious power and gone. The end and object is apparent in Philippians 1: 5, “your fellowship,” eij” to; eujaggevlion; so chapter 2: 22, ejdouvleusen eij” to; eujaggevlion. Chapter 4: 15, 17, eij” lovgon; verse 17 is “to put to the account.” Colossians 3: 10, ajnakainouvmenon eij” ejpivgnwsin. (Comp. 1: 10, aujxanovmenoi thsee footnote/ ej.) So verse 12, iJkanwvsanti hJmasee footnote” eij” th;n merivda, where the force of eij” is the same. It is the goal reached, or to be reached, by ajnakainouvmenoi and iJkavnwsen. Remark on Galatians 3: 17, that it is to Christ, not in. The covenant was confirmed to Him, the Seed (according to Genesis 22); and then we have an example of eij” tov, as the bearing, oujk ajkuroisee footnote, eij” to; katarghsee footnotesai th;n ejpaggelivan to the making of no effect. In 2ï¿½Corinthians 10: 16, besides eij” ta; uJperevkeina, we have, eij” ta; etoima; so in verses 13, 15, eij” ta; a[metra (see Galatians 6: 4); 2 Corinthians 2: 9, “obedient eij” pavnta”; Philippians 2: 16, eij” hJmevran.

^[p. 131] All these and other like cases which present the same difficulty, I apprehend, flow all from the idea of reaching to the object looked forward to, so as to be up to or fail in this. See a peculiar case in Luke 13: 9. As to time this is common: so I suppose “the law a schoolmaster eij” Cristovn,” reaching unto Him as its object (compare Ephesians 1: 14), eij” ta; a[metra, eij” ta; uJperevkeina, and eij” ta; etoima, with some irony; 2 Corinthians 11: 3, eij” to;n Cristovn. But it has the general sense of as to, concerning, as the object of thought: thus 1 Thessalonians 5: 18, Ephesians 5: 32; but in both with “you,” with “Christ,” with “the church,” as the object in view. See Galatians 5: 10. So, above, 2 Corinthians 2: 9, Luke 16: 8, 1 Thessalonians and Ephesians are the strongest, for the mere sense of “concerning,” “as to,” but they have the force of application to, as applying to.

Gevnesqai eij” is simple in structure, — to become anything, what is produced. Logivzesqai eij”, “esteemed such,” is pretty nearly as plain. See the difference of ejllogeisee footnotetai and ejlogivsqh: the former is putting so much to account, Romans 5: 13, Philemon 18 (only, I believe, in these two places); logivzomai is “to esteem, or account as such.”

jEpiv, with genitive, dative, and accusative. The first two mean upon; the last, to, towards, to direct oneself; ejpiv anything (as usual with the accusative), motion, not rest. I state here generally that the genitive is the fact; the dative is more characteristic or permanent connection. With the genitive it signifies on, or before (as “before magistrates,” etc.); ejpi; Tivtou, 2 Corinthians 7: 14, auprï¿½s de. Most cases where the sense is not physical still have the sense of on: miracles on the sick; ejpï¿½jejscavtou twsee footnoten hJmerwsee footnoten, on the last of the days. It is always “at,” or “approximation,” but as added or upon.

It is used for time, hence Matthew 1: 11, ejpi; thsee footnote” metoikesiva”; so Luke 3: 2, Acts 11: 28. I doubt as to Mark 2: 26, and 12: 26, whether it does not mean the section of Jewish scripture. The general sense is adjunctive apposition, without fixed relationship, with the general thought of superinduced. This connects it with the sense of “before.” Hence we have over anything, in the genitive, or upon, as, oJ w]n ejpi; pavntwn Qeov”, Romans 9: 5. But here peculiarities have to be noticed, and shades of thought in the writer. Ephesians 4: 6, we have again Qeo;” oJ ejpi; pavntwn: so with basileuvei ejpiv, Matthew 2: 22. Kaqivsthmi in Acts 6: 3, ou” katasthvsomen ejpi; thsee footnote” creiva” tauvth”: Acts 8: 27; 12: 20. We may add Revelation 9: 11; 11: 6. In Matthew 24: 45, the genitive (katasthvsw) but in verse 47 the dative. So in Luke 12: 42 the genitive, and verse 44 the dative. Matthew 25: 21, 23, genitive with katasthvsw (ejpi; pollwsee footnoten). The general sense of ejpiv is at, and so upon, before, at, over, against. All these are forms of juxtaposition. But the dative gives more closeness of connection, as in a relative place of charge, when used in the literal sense. As to over, the fact is expressed in the genitive, it is mere place (so of before); “over many things,” “over his household,” the fact of being, living, or placed above, suffices. With the dative it is not the fact, but the relation conferred. One was over the qerapeiva, in a place of course, but in a superior one. So “over many things.” That is in the genitive. So where God is spoken of, it is the genitive. Of course He is above or over all things. But “set him over all his goods” is a distinct, relative, permanent place, definitely given. There it is the dative. Locality is genitive, “before magistrates,” “on a hill”; but ejpiv with the dative characterizes a state, and in such cases without an article, and denotes the state or character, not merely the locality, ejpi; pivnaki, Matthew 14: 8. Acts 9: 33, katakeivmenon ejpi; krabbavtw/ (comp. Mark 2: 4), that was his state. In Mark 6: 55, we have carrying about the sick, ejpi; toisee footnote” krabbavtoi”, the dative; it was their state, but the article shews the beds the sick were lying habitually on. In chapter 7: 30, we have beblhmevnhn ejpi; thsee footnote” klivnh”; it was the fact. “Sitting on horseback,” Revelation 6: 2, 4, 5, is the dative. It was a fixed characteristic relationship, given as such. Chapter 4: 2: on the throne, genitive; it was a fact, a locality. Often sitting has the accusative, as if the act of him who sits; he set himself on. One must not press the grammar as to language in Revelation, but so it is in chapter 4: 4.

^[p. 132] The constant use of the dative is to present the condition, occasion, cause, circumstance, which gives its occasion to the existence of what it refers to: this in a multitude of shapes, but always that by reason or occasion of which the act takes place; sometimes a formal condition, sometimes a mere occasion. The cases are very frequent. Matthew 4: 4, “man lives ejpi; panti; rJhvmati”; it is the condition or occasion of his living: chapter 7: 28, “they were astonished ejpi; thsee footnote/ didachsee footnote/”; it was the occasion, what led to their astonishment; as we say, “at.” This is often found. I add a considerable list: Matthew 19: 9, “by reason of”; chapter 22: 33; Mark 1: 22; 3: 5, “He was grieved ejpi; thsee footnote/ pwrwvsei.” Chapter 9: 37, ejpi; twsee footnote/ ojnovmativ mou; his name was the occasion and motive for receiving: so verse 39, and chapter 10: 22; Luke 1: 14; 5: 5; 9: 48; 13: 17; Acts 3: 12, 16, the second a case worthy of remark, ejpi; thsee footnote/ pivstei (see Philippians 3: 9), “on faith,” we might say; Acts 4: 21; 5: 35, is also a special case, “take heed” ejpi; toisee footnote” ajnqrwvpoi” touvtoi”, it was the occasion or object which was the occasion, what they were was a motive. It is a more unusual case, Acts 8: 2, I suppose, “by his occasion,” “by reason of him.” So we should say in English “over him.” It is almost literal. It is not uJpe;r aujtwsee footnote/. Chapter 14: 3 (see Hebrews 8: 1, Acts 5: 35, 2 Corinthians 9: 14), as to the last the Lord being the occasion and motive, the moving object. “As to” is the nearly resulting sense, but weak. Acts 15: 31; 20: 38; 26: 6, Romans 5: 2; 10: 19; 1 Corinthians 1: 4; 9: 10, moved, sustained by hope. Chapter 13: 6; 16: 17, 2 Corinthians 1: 4; 3: 14, the occasion, but the force of occasioning is small: still it is “at, on that occasion.” Chapter 7: 4, 7, 13, the first is again “occasion” (”as to”) without motive; second, its common use; third, the same again, ejpi; Tivtou (verse 14) is auprï¿½s de, analogous to “before” a magistrate. The sense is very general, “my boasting in the case of Titus, my Titus-boasting.” Chapter 9: 13, 15, are simple cases: as to 14, it is more doubtful; but I believe it to be “in your case”: see 1ï¿½Thessalonians 3: 7. I doubt its being “upon.” Ephesians 2: 10, “with that in view,” “under that condition” — I do not mean as a condition to be fulfilled, — but He so created us, that being the state and character which entered into the conditions of the creation in God’s mind (see 1 Thessalonians 4: 7). Philippians 1: 3, 5; 3: 9; again ejpi; thsee footnote/ pivstei, moyennant. Acts 3: 16, 1 Thessalonians 3: 7, 9; 4: 7. These are “as to,” “by occasion of,” “by reason of,” what comes in as an occasion or ground, Titus 1: 2, ejpï¿½j ejlpivdi; this calls for attention. It is “in view of having that as his object.” As the good works or holiness, so this hope was in God’s mind (now revealed) one of the conditions of existence of this gospel scheme. Philemon 7, Hebrews 7:11, “under that condition and order of things.” The law being the condition of their existence with God, their raison d’ï¿½tre. So Hebrews 9: 10, 15, 17, 26 (8: 1 seems to me a case we have had, amounting in sense to “in respect of,” taking these into view: “as to these this is the sum,” the summing up to be attached to them; see Acts 5: 35, 2 Corinthians 9: 14, Acts 14: 3), Hebrews 10: 28 (this connects with another branch of the same general meaning, but the two or three were the condition of conviction), James 5: 1, Revelation 18 9 (this is, “as to her,” “on her occasion”); so verse 11.

^[p. 134] I have dwelt on this, because the general idea of the condition of existence of that which is expressed in the verb is (where it is not physical) the main use of ejpiv with the dative. The accusative, as ever, puts the object farther off, and supposes or states movement towards it. Some cases may appear singular, and, as with eij”, verbs of rest are so put, if movement has led to it: and the difference depends on what is in the writer’s mind. Some cases remain; duration of time, “till,” has ejpiv with an accusative; it looks forward to it as a point for time to move on to; as Acts 17: 2; 19: 8, 10; 20: 9, 11, Romans 7: 1, Galatians 4: 1, Acts 18: 20, and doubtless others. When it is a given point attained, we have the genitive, as Hebrews 1: 1, 2 Peter 3: 3 (comp. Luke 3: 2, Acts 11: 28). As to falling and sitting, genitive and accusative will be found, I apprehend, as the writer looks at the act of falling (accusative), or to the result and to the ground (there genitive). One would be fell “to,” the other “on”; compare Matthew 26: 7, the act, with accusative: verse 12, the result when on the body (genitive); Luke 22: 44 accusative. In Acts 10: 11, we have both: the sheet was katabaisee footnotenon ejpï¿½j aujtovn, and kaqievmenon ejpi; thsee footnote” ghsee footnote”, there it was actually on it. In Revelation 4: 2, 4, you have both with kaqhvmenon. In Luke 22: 30, it is genitive (so as to eating at table). In Revelation 20: 4, accusative: “sat” is more active here. Acts 12: 21, genitive: “being set down” ejpi; tousee footnote bhvmato”. Matthew 23: 2, genitive: “sit on Moses’ seat.” Chapter 25: 31, genitive, “on the throne of his glory.” In Matthew 24: 3, we have the genitive; Luke 21: 35, accusative. Then with kaqhvmai, Acts 8: 28, genitive, John 12: 15, accusative. Perhaps we might say, “seated on” for genitive, “sitting on” for accusative. The genitive is the fact of locality, the accusative more the activity of the person. (In Revelation 6: 2, 4, 5, aujtwsee footnote/ of the received text, should be aujtovn, accusative, according to the best copies). Matthew 9: 9, accusative. In chapter 28: 2, aujtousee footnote ejpavnw, being locality always, has always the genitive. The only apparent exception is 1ï¿½Corinthians 15: 6; but this is attractively governed by w[fqh. There are a few other cases to notice: John 8: 7, ejpï¿½j aujthsee footnote/; verse 59, ejpï¿½j aujtovn. The latter is simple and physical. “cast stones at him”: in verse 7 “let him first cast the stone in respect of her, with her in view, as to her.” In Matthew 16: 18, “on this rock” is dative. 1 Corinthians 3: 12, “build on this foundation,” ejpiv (accusative) . The former, I apprehend, is fixed relationship, as we have seen. It is the object to which His activity tends in the actual fact of building. The rock is there; He builds on it. In the second he actively adds materials to the foundation.

^[p. 135] Hebrews 10: 21; 3: 6; 7: 13, and 8: 8, are all accusative, which may be noted. “Over the house,” etc., is always the accusative. There are other passages, as Acts 7: 10, Luke 1: 33. It is not locality, not proper relationship as connected with it, but “set over.” In the case of superiority necessarily and permanently abiding over various things or persons, it is genitive, as we have seen (Matthew 24: 45, Luke 12: 42), and, when set over in formed determinate relationship, dative (Matthew 24: 47, Luke 12: 44). Here with “setting over a house or people,” it is accusative. “He is at the head of the house”; I could not say “at the head of all his goods,” but “over them.” You could not have the immediate relationship with a house, and it falls into the government of what has set him there. (I doubt the word “own” in Hebrews 3: 6; it does not affect this question).

There remains pisteuvw ejpiv, ejlpivzw ejpiv, etc. Thus we have 1 Timothy 4: 10, hjlpivkamen ejpi; Qewsee footnote/; chapter 5: 5, ejpi; Qeovn; 1 Peter 3: 5, ejlpivzousai ejpi; to;n Qeovn; 1 John 3: 3, ejlpivda e[cein ejp j aujtwsee footnote/; Hebrews 2: 13, e[somai pepoiqw;” ejpï¿½j aujtwsee footnote/; Romans 15: 12, ejpï¿½j aujtwsee footnote/ ejlpiousee footnotesi. In these “counting, reckoning, leaning on Him,” as in English. 1 Timothy 6: 17, dative, riches. The difference is the same; the accusative looks out at the object of trust (often eij”), the dative rests in Him on whom we lean. The difference of idea with the same fact is seen in Matthew 26: 7, 12, the act and the result, when it was on His body, the first accusative, the second genitive.

The general idea of adding with a dative is frequent, ejpi; pasee footnotesi, ejpi; touvtoi”. “Besides these I have gained ten, or five, talents more,” Matthew 25: 20, 22. “Besides all this, shut up John in prison,” Luke 3: 20, and in many ordinary cases, as Ephesians 6: 16. What is Romans 4: 18? The condition or state of his mind in believing, as in 1 Corinthians 9: 10, and Romans 8: 20. (The first, Romans 4: 18, is only doubtful because of pisteuvw). We say “on trust,” or “credit,” in the same way (not on hope). It characterizes the state or condition.

^[p. 136] Katav, save in a few isolated cases, does not present any difficulty in its application. It means literally down with a genitive; and with the accusative, down along, primarily; but it seems to me to have more the sense of going through the governed object; even in the genitive it is not “down” to an object, but “down along,” as a hill. Its secondary meaning in the genitive, and more frequent in New Testament, is against. In the accusative it has more distinctly the sense of along, through, amongst, throughout, when literally used. Its secondary meaning is the object governed by it measuring the action which is connected with it by katav, according to the sense of the word governed by it, kaq j hJmevran, day by day, or every day: katï¿½j oi\kon. It is much oftener used in the accusative than in the genitive, and in most cases can be translated according to. It has always the same sense, though it cannot be rendered the same in English; but the action of the sentence is measured or estimated by the word governed by katav whatever comes under that category: thus kaqï¿½j oJdovn, kata; pasee footnotesan aijtivan, “so far as for every cause.” Here the very cause measures the action. So katï¿½j ejpaggelivan zwhsee footnote”, this measured the apostleship and gave it its character. He was an apostle by the will of God in a service morally measured and characterized by that. Peripateisee footnoten kata; ajgavphn, zhsee footnoten kata; th;n airesin: according to love, and the principle of that sect were the measure and character of his walk and life. It is always the same fundamentally, as kata; ta;” plateiva” his walk was measured and characterized by the streets of the city, or olhn th;n cwvran, “all the region.” Hence it has the sense implicitly of through or thorough, and this is the origin of its use in composition, krivnw katakrivnw, katacrwvmeno” (where the sense is not “abusing,” but “using” it as ours).

A few questions arise. What is 1 Corinthians 15: 15, “borne witness kata; Qeousee footnote?” We find also swearing by God, Matthew 26: 63, and Hebrews 6: 13, 16. But I believe the sense to be “reaching to and embracing all through” its object. When the swearing is merely the fact of bringing a person in, it is ejn, not katav, as in all New Testament examples, I believe; but Matthew 26 and Hebrews 6, where the solemnity of the case gives katav, and “against” has the same radical force. The connection of the two is seen in 1 Corinthians 15: 15, we have testified of God, kata; tousee footnote Qeousee footnote. It reached to and embraced even God, so as to comprise Him in the matter: we have said that God raised Him. Hence we can have kaqï¿½j olh” thsee footnote” pericwvrou, and olhn th;n povlin; the general idea being the same, “reaching to and embracing,” “going through”: only the genitive being more of local rest, “throughout,” and the accusative connected with motion, or objective, his walk reached to the whole city and took it in. The kaq j olh” is more complete and absolute, more pervading, than kaqï¿½j olhn, but this, though seemingly a nice difference, is distinct enough when the mind expresses it. “A fame went throughout the whole region” gives the idea of pervading; “he went through all Galilee,” the country he traversed as a general fact, going to different parts of the whole country. Yet these things form the power and beauty of style. I could hardly say “he went kaqï¿½j olh” thsee footnote” polewsee footnote”.” It fills the place too much, unless he went to every house in it, and then there is too much the object of activity. But “reaching to,” “embracing,” and so measured by it materially or morally, is always the leading idea, taking in that and measured by it in the sentence in which it is used, against, according to, down, are the general English translation. Hence we have kaqï¿½j uJmasee footnote” with the sense of apud: see Romans 16: 5, 1 Corinthians 16: 19, Colossians 4: 15, “church in his house.” In English, “your” being the sense, “a poet of yours,” Acts 17: 28. Again in Colossians 4: 7, Ephesians 3: 20, Philippians 1: 12; Ephesians 1: 15, “your faith,” “faith found with you.” It is still carrying the mind on to them and taking them in; what precedes is found there, it singles him out as belonging to them, the measure of his character was that it was theirs. See 1 Peter 4: 14; here “measure,” (we say in English, “as far as they are concerned”), Romans 11: 21, 24, kata; fuvsin klavdoi “natural branches, or according to nature,” it was their measure, estimate, and character: other branches were not that, but para; fuvsin. Hence kata; th;n oJdovn, Acts 8: 36, journeying characterized the place of the water, it was not katï¿½j oi\kon, but kata; th;n oJdovn.

^[p. 137] Metav is simple enough, it is juxtaposition; suvn is connection. Hence metav with the genitive is among, with; but in the accusative, still juxtaposition; but what is metav is removed on, and at the end of, what is placed in juxtaposition to. Practically it is always with when the noun is in the genitive, and often when in the accusative. I know but one sentence where the sense is doubtful — Luke 1: 72. The English can hardly be borne out. The fathers are looked at as those with whom mercy was in exercise, but in the blessing confirmed in their children, according to the promise made to them.

^[p. 138] Parav is always by, by the side of, and, in genitive and dative, as far as I am aware, “near a person.” In the genitive it is “from with a person”; in the dative, with or near him. In the accusative, having the force of movement withal, it refers also to places, but still with the force of beside: but hence may mean beyond, outside of, out of the way, along, besides, but always with the same radical force: pivptein para; th;n oJdovn, “by the way side”; peripateisee footnoten para; th;n qavlassan, aJmartwloi; para; pavnta” “beyond all”; hJmevra parï¿½j hJmevra”, beyond, that is, as better, para; fuvsin, “unnatural,” “not according to nature,” something “beside and beyond it”; parï¿½j ejlpivda, “beyond hope”; para; to;n ktivsanta, “more than,” “besides, and beyond.” 1 Corinthians 12: 15 is the only difficult passage I am aware of. I do not think it can be “on account of.” Parav has also thus the force of comparison, excellent; parav, because it is beyond the thing compared with. Parav tousee footnoteto is, I apprehend, assuming this to be so, if I set this by the side of the other, supposing it is not a foot, is it therefore not of the body?

Periv is simply about, the accusative, giving as usual more the idea of activity as to the object, even where the sense is substantially the same, oiJ kaqhvmenoi peri; aujtovn: peri; ejmev, Philippians 2: 23; aiJ peri; ta; loipa; ejpiqumivai, Mark 4: 19.

^[p. 139] Prov, genitive only; before, as to time, place, and hence in front of, as in English. It calls for no particular remark.

Prov”, genitive, dative, accusative. Its common use is the accusative with (as ever) the thought of motion toward a remote object, or rather an object not in connection already with that which acts by the preposition. There are in the New Testament but six exceptions (two, new readings) to the objective case, in die Richtung hin. Five have the dative, where it is at, connection, proximity. Thus Luke 19: 37, ejggivzonto” pro;” th;n katabavsin would be “drawing near the descent,” but thsee footnote/ katabavsei, “as he drew near (that is, Jerusalem) at the descent,” etc.

The only case that requires any notice is the one instance of the genitive, Acts 27: 34, in which the genitive force is remote at first sight, but it was towards the side of, connected with, their safety that their eating took place. With the genitive, it seems to me, there is an ellipse; prov” tino”, by some one, that is, “by,” at his side. The text is the same; it was on the side of, associated with their safety. It was prov” in the direction of, the accomplishment of their safety. Hence “for” is quite right in sense. Prov” always directs the thought to; hence the accusative is its natural case, but it may shew me something directing me toward another as its cause or source, and then it is genitive. If directing my thoughts to it, as at, it is dative; if as towards, the accusative, pro;” to; o[ro”, towards the mountain”; pro;” twsee footnote/ o[rei still so, but at it, an der, an die. We have pro;” eJautouv”, pro;” ajllhvlou” dialogivzesqe, because it was in addressing, speaking to, each other. So Acts 28: 25, a more striking case. The objectivity is less sensible in some cases, but still is there, as in periv. “Are not his sisters all pro;” hJmasee footnote“”; Mark 6: 3: so 9: 19, pro;” uJmasee footnote” (so John 1: 2, Mark 2: 2; 4: 1, 1 Corinthians 16: 6, 7, 10, 2 Corinthians 12: 21) “with you,” not metav associated, but apud, not cum. So pro;” kairo;n pisteuvousi, “up to a certain time.” A more unusual case is Luke 12: 47, pro;” to; qevlhma, not katav taking it as the rule or measure, but up to it, reaching it, acting with a view to it, as an object to be attained; he had it as his object. It was not failure in measure merely, but in purpose, and taking it as his measure, the object of his mind and will; and this sense (practically “according to”) goes far in its use: 2ï¿½Corinthians 5: 10, “received according to what he has done,” pro;” a. Galatians 2: 14, pro;” th;n ajlhvqeian, “according to the truth,” keeping it in view as an object; Ephesians 3: 4, 2 Corinthians 3: 4: so “we have peace towards God,” Romans 5: 1, looking at Him as the object; Acts 24: 16, conscience, and Romans 15: 17, a more peculiar case, but the same. Hence it may be comparative, as the object to which we refer, Romans 8: 18. Hence Matthew 19: 8, “Moses in view of the hardness of your heart.” So pro;” tou;” ajggevlou”, Hebrews 1: 7, 8, as to speaking, with them in view in His mind. As to time, we have prov” towards, pro;” eJspevran, Luke 24: 29, 1 Corinthians 7: 5, prov” kairovn “up to a certain time,” “for a season.” It is used as to swearing to any one. Mark 9: 10, some “kept it to themselves.” Mark 13: 22, note, “in order to seduce” the object; in Matthew we find wste planhsee footnotesai.

^[p. 140] It practically has the sense of against with certain verbs. They “murmured against the disciples,” Luke 5: 30, they were the objects of their murmur; Luke 20: 19, “with them in view.” “At” would do in English. Acts 19: 38; 23: 30; 24: 19; 26: 14, 1ï¿½Corinthians 6: 1: so Ephesians 6: 12, but still as the object in view. Thus in Colossians 3: 19, towards would do as well as against, or better. Another use of it, still with the sense of having the other as an objective view, is found 2 Corinthians 6: 14, 15, “fellowship of light with darkness,” “concord of Christ with Belial.” If I bring one to the other, there is no concord or fellowship, nothing in common. In Ephesians 4: 12, the object is the perfecting of the saints: a result to be attained as a second consequence was ministry and the body. It is to be noted that the individual saint comes first in Ephesians, though the epistle be full of the church. Ephesians 5: 31 is somewhat peculiar, “joined to,” not “with.” He was “to leave father and mother and be joined to her.”

The object is distinctly seen in 1 Timothy 4: 7, 8, 2 Timothy 3: 16, 17, 2 Peter 1: 3. In Hebrews 1: 13, it may be doubtful if to or as to be best, on account of its common use after “speaking,” see verse 7, 8. See 1 John 5: 16, 17; we see that object does not mean always mental intention, but prov” in fact, and here James 4: 5 comes in.

^[p. 141] Suvn needs no comment. It is with governing a dative. It is different from metav in that it is not only accompanying as to being together or near so as to mean after, as we have seen, with the accusative; but association, connection. There is no passage requiring observation. It naturally governs the dative, which is the case of close connection or relationship, as the accusative is of object in view. I add, it is together in something common to both, not mere proximity as metav.

JUpevr requires more attention: over is its natural meaning; only over, not on — that would be ejpiv. Then with the accusative, which always gives an object or motion, “over in place,” that is, beyond; uJpevr with the genitive in the moral sense, in which alone it is used in the New Testament, has the sense of for, in favour of, and as “for” also has in English, in the place of, in that place in which another would have been if the one who is there for him had not, or at any rate taking that place when he cannot. Thus, “to pray for, or in favour of,” it takes hence the sense of for in general in favouring or having any good (i.e., what is favourable) as an object, 2 Corinthians 1: 11, “by prayer uJpe;r hJmwsee footnoten”: 2ï¿½Corinthians 1: 6, “for your consolation” uJpe;r thsee footnote” uJmwsee footnoten paraklhvsew”: Romans 8: 31, 32, Qeo;” uJpe;r hJmwsee footnoten: Romans 1: 5, uJpe;r tousee footnote ojnovmato” aujtousee footnote: John 17: 19, “uJpe;r aujtwsee footnoten I sanctify myself.” Hence it runs into the sense of on our account, as 2 Corinthians 5: 12,” to glory on our behalf”; so chapter 7: 4, and even into in respect of, but still in the sense of favourable feeling: 2 Corinthians 7: 4, 7, 14.

All this is sufficiently plain. It is the same in English with “for.” The remaining point is that as it descends to what is, “in respect of,” so it rises to the sense of “instead of,” “in the place of”: so, in English, “I could not do it, but he has done it for me.” “It is in my favour,” but means withal, “in my stead.” Its being in my favour does not drop out of the sense, but there is the added idea of its being done in my stead. Thus in 2 Corinthians 5: 20, uJpe;r Cristousee footnote presbeuvomen, with the context which precedes.

In 1 Peter 3: 18, “Christ suffered peri; ajmartiwsee footnoten,” so 1 John 2: 2; but 1 Peter 4: 1, uJpe;r hJmwsee footnoten and in 1 Peter 3: 18 uJpe;r ajdivkwn. So chapter 2: 21 and often. Nor is it merely on our account, through us, that is diav, 1 Peter 1: 20, He has been manifested diï¿½j hJmasee footnote”; so Christ was peri; aJmartiva” “a sacrifice for sin,” the technical word therefore for the sin offering, Hebrews 10: 6, 8, and Romans 8: 3. But in Hebrews 5: 1, and 7: 27, we have uJpe;r aJmartiwsee footnoten, also in the former case in the same sentence with uJpe;r ajnqrwvpwn. This is the extreme case noticed of descending to the sense “in respect of.” Still it is in the sense of an object which the favour of the actor or efficacy of the instrument would obtain for us. Nor is peri; aJmartiva” or peri; aJmartiwsee footnoten and uJpe;r aJmartiwsee footnoten the same thing: periv may be to God, according to the exigency of His righteousness and glory; uJpe;r aJmartiwsee footnoten is always, I apprehend, in view of some one “in whose favour,” “to whose advantage,” it is done. The cases are 1 Corinthians 15: 3, Galatians 1: 4, “our” in both cases. Hebrews 5: 1, 3; 7: 27; 9: 7, where the connection of the two, persons and errors, is most complete; chapter 10: 12 is the most abstract of all and like periv, but I do not apprehend uJpe;r aJmartiva” is to be found in the New Testament nor would be put. In general it is the object of interest, favour, or action, not merely a subject but an object, and in the heart of the agent, or purpose of the instrument, and hence different from periv or diav.

^[p. 142] JUpov, under, genitive and accusative. The meaning, where not physical, as uJpo; thsee footnote” ghsee footnote” (in Revelation 5: 3, 13, it is uJpokavtw), is “under the influence or effect of,” “under the power of,” and so the effect of a cause. The accusative, as usual, introducing motion towards an object, at least of thought; thus 1 Corinthians 10: 9, uJpo; twsee footnoten o[fewn ajpolevsqai; Acts 15: 4, ajpodevcesqai uJpo; thsee footnote” ejkklhsiva”; John 14: 21, ajgapasee footnotesqai uJpo; tousee footnote Patrov”. The reception, the love (flowed from Him), was the effect of an influence coming out from Him; pavscein uJpov, which gives its essential force, for it is used with the passive, as we say, “suffer under” a thing or person; Mark 5: 25, 1ï¿½Thessalonians 2: 14. 2 Corinthians 11: 24, the sense is this with e[labon. so Hebrews 12: 3, with uJpomevnw. 2 Peter 1: 17 is more peculiar; it is the principal thing under the effect or influence of which the other happened, though not absolutely a cause or instrument, which directly is not the force of uJpov, though it amounts to it in common parlance, as “spoken uJpo; twsee footnoten profhtwsee footnoten” the person uJpov whom being the agent or vessel, which is its very common use; but it is the effect of their action on, or it is under their hand or mind in it, in its being done. There is a receptive passive condition in the person or thing which is uJpov. Whereas with diav, the person or thing which acts diav is viewed actively: a man is baptized uJpov John, tempted uJpov Satan, loved uJpov tousee footnote Patrov”, surnamed uJpov the apostles, and hence it is so constantly used with the passive. The most peculiar use in this respect is Revelation 6: 8, ejn till you come to the beasts; these being distinct agents, it is uJpov as to them under which men suffer. It may be said of its use in the New Testament that when the sense is passive (when another thing is acted on by what is governed by uJpov), the word governed is in the genitive: where the sense is active (that is, when the word governed by uJpov is that under which something is placed or set; and even with the verb substantive, when the sense is being placed there, or no verb of the sense be such), the governed noun is in the accusative. A man set under authority, who is under authority, not acted on by it, but so placed under heaven, that is, when the subject of the sentence is referred to it objectively, then it is the accusative, and it signifies under. When it is acted on by the word governed by uJpov, the genitive is used, and it signifies by, of, or with, in the same sense as “loved of the Father,” “delivered to me of my Father,” “vexed with the conversation.” The accusative is the relative position towards the governed word (the universal force of the accusative); the genitive a subjected or receptive condition to or from the action of the governed word. The subject of the sentence is the object of the governed word’s action. “I am set under authority”; authority would be accusative. It is my relationship to it. So Matthew 8: 9, “I am directed by authority”; authority would be in the genitive, because I am subjected to its action. Generally, therefore, with the genitive the sentence is passive in form, always in sense. If the governed word be that towards which the subject is in relationship, the form is immaterial; as, “ye are under the law,” “under sin.” It is accusative. It may be expressed thus — when the subject which is uJpov is referred to that uJpov which it is objectively, this latter is in the accusative; when the former is passively under the effect of this latter, this is in the genitive. One is uJpo; to;n novmon, th;n katavran. It is his position towards the law, the curse destroyed. In uJpo; twsee footnoten o[fewn, the destruction is the effect of this latter.

Cwriv”, genitive: without, apart from, “wholly unconnected with,” as not in relationship, so as that, as to the subject, it is the same as if it did not exist. But there is no case requiring any particular notice. Compare a[neu.

← Previous 20 of 66 Next →