EXEMPLA
EXEMPLA
To take now various examples, as they present themselves in a chapter of the New Testament (John 1): Qeo;” h\n oJ lovgo”. the question is not at all if Qeov” is supreme; it is something affirmed of lovgo”. Were it oJ Qeov”, it would exclude from Deity the Father and the Spirit, and confine the unity of the Deity to the Word.
JO lovgo” h\n. Lovgo” is the object before my mind. It existed in the beginning.
\Hn pro;” to;n Qeovn. Here again God is an objective being to my mind, with whom the Word was. It has been supposed that there can be no rule given for prepositions. I believe, though the cases require more power of abstraction and apprehension of the relation of ideas, the one rule holds.
Qeo;” h\n oJ lovgo”. Here the same word characterizes lovgo”. We have again pro;” tovn for the above reason, verse 2.
The passage now leads us to another case — the use of the article with a verb substantive. This is generally left as optional. It is true, the noun accompanying such verb is used with and without an article; but the meaning is not the same. jEn aujtwsee footnote/ zwh; h\n. Is it not evident here that the possession of zwhv characterizes the person or being spoken of? And zwhv becomes a noun characteristic of the existence affirmed. Hence constantly with verbs substantive, when the thing is generally affirmed, the article is wanting. A thing which could be called life was found in him: that name characterized the existing thing. It might in many other cases too, and hence it is only characteristic of the existence implied in the verb substantive. The existence is before the mind, and hence the verb is called substantive. There was ... what? Life. This will be entered into fully farther on, for it is true of all impersonal verbs, there “was,” “fell,” etc. Had it been hJ zwhv, there would have been no life anywhere else, for the whole thing designated by zwhv would have been in Him.
Next we have hJ zwhv. Now it becomes the object before my mind. This life (life as in Him) was to; fwsee footnote” twsee footnoten ajnqrwvpwn: a reciprocal proposition. But it is directly affected by the use of h\n instead of ejstiv. \Hn confines the reciprocity to the time, place, and circumstances of which it speaks. It amounts to a revelation that life, as in the Word, gave itself up to be exclusively that in the circumstances historically spoken of, by the word h\n. The light of men and the life in the Word, then and there, are names of one identical object. It is evident that the addition “of men” gives it a particular application. It gives it exclusive application there, as does the h\n.+ There is no other light of men: man is darkness. If I find light in man, true light, it is the life in the Word. In man himself was death and darkness. Christ alone was light there, whether it shines on or shines in, for both may be true. Nor was life, as here spoken of, light to others than men. But it does not state it in the whole extent of zwhv, as being an equivalent term in itself to fwsee footnote”, because twsee footnoten ajnqrwvpwn gives a specific application, and takes it out of the nature of the thing; nor is it life abstractedly, but life in the Word under given circumstances; that is, it ceases to be purely abstract. JH zwhv ejsti to; fwsee footnote” would have made life and light names of the same object. The word h\n, as we have seen, confirms this; it is historical, not affirmative of the constant nature of the thing like ejstiv. It supposes there may be zwhv in some other circumstances, and says nothing of it; that is, it is historically, or in that fact, not abstractedly, though exclusively true. So of fwsee footnote”.
+This is an admitted principle of Greek. The difficulty of the case arises from the depth of the subject, and being abstract and historical at the same time: divine, too, and human. Life in the Word was (not abstractedly is) a certain thing. Hence it is limited and reciprocal at the same time — the most difficult of propositions to seize, and requiring most accuracy specially on such a subject.
[p. 34] In the following words we have another case: to; fwsee footnote”. Here it is the object still, abstractedly, I believe; but as there is none other than the one mentioned, the abstraction and the individual object previously mentioned coincide. Which therefore is specially meant is a question of mental intelligence. It is the whole object represented by fwsee footnote”. If that has been recently mentioned in such a manner as that it should be the object before the mind, the mind recurs to it. If not, it is the abstract mental idea.
jEn thsee footnote/ skotiva. Here again it is abstract, that is, an ideal object, and presents no difficulty, only adding a clear example of a principle. This is common in cases of contrast, where, by the contrast, two objects are put definitely before the mind.
jEgevneto a[vnqrwpo” ajpestalmevno” para; Qeousee footnote o[noma aujtwsee footnote/ jIwavnnh”. Here we have examples of the absence of the article, which at once raises a question. Were it simply oJ jIwavnnh”, the object would be evident, and the mind would wait for this. This is evident; for if there were merely ejgevneto a[vnqrwpo” ajpestalmevno” para; Qeousee footnote, the mind asks, Who? What man? The answer is, oJ jIwavnnh”. The previous phrase then would be characteristic of John — his description.+ He was a man sent from God — so as to be sent from God. It was characteristic of John. A man sent from God was what he was. Man in mission from God was the thing that described him. Para; tousee footnote Qeousee footnote would have been true, but it would not have been merely descriptive of John, but introduced the Being, God Himself, as an object before the mind. This would have explained all, had it been oJ jIwavnnh”. But, as it stands at present, another form of the principle is introduced; one, however, familiar, though perhaps undefined to the English reader — the impersonal use of verbs without any object, existence or the event described by the verb being itself the object. “There was,” “there fell,” “there lived,” etc., the being, falling, living, first occupies the mind, and then the thing spoken of comes in as a descriptive circumstance, the anarthrous word in either case answering the question, What? JO a[vnqrwpo” ejstiv ... What? ejgevneto ... What? In English: Man is ... What? There was ... What? the answer to “what” being the predicate, and therefore without the article. A verb substantive would not have the article after it, unless for some reason connected with other parts of the sentence or context, save in a reciprocal proposition, because the word following is a predicate. But the rule is wider; and every impersonally used verb contains within itself its object, and what follows is predicated of that. Hence we have a new phrase in the case before us — o[noma aujtwsee footnote/ jIwavnnh”. So again, eij” marturivan (for witness; that is, not himself to be an object of faith) is characteristic of what he came for. The use of the article with fwsee footnote” has already been spoken of.
+If directly a description, it would be h\n. jEgevneto is impersonal in sense.
[p. 35] In verse 9 we have another case — that of an adjective — which is a common one, and will thus explain many others. The article, as the designation of the object, takes in the adjective, as that without which the real complete object would not be before the mind, fwsee footnote” and ajlhqinovn making one idea in such a phrase. But though the two make one idea, there is a difference of force when the noun comes first with the article; the mind rests on it for a moment, as to; fwsee footnote”, and is in suspense till something follows, if the word be not abstract and so complete in itself. If it be not, the article regularly follows before the adjective, and has its proper indicative force and becomes emphatic; that is, puts the adjective in contrast with some other quality of an opposite character: the light, not the false, but the true. When the adjective comes first, it is simply a quality of the right way, to press in the strictest way only one idea, but the adjective first in the mind: to; ajlhqino;n fwsee footnote”; there is no contrast; something else is affirmed about the true light. When the adjective follows with the article it is really affirmed about the substantive. The real logical structure of this phrase, however, is to; fwsee footnote” o� fwtivzei to; fwvtizon, etc., ejsti; to; ajlhqinovn. Of that light, of which I can affirm fwvtizon, etc., I can affirm ajlhqinovn. And, as to light, the lighting everybody and true are reciprocal and co-extensive; a light which is not the true cannot light everybody; and a light which does not light everybody is not the true light; and one which lights everybody cannot be other than the true. The sentence is really to fwsee footnote” to; fwvtizon ... . ejstiv to; ajlhqinovn [fwsee footnote“].
[p. 36] The first form then (to; ajlhqino;n fwsee footnote“) gives ajlhqinovn as distinctive, and makes it the leading idea, fwsee footnote” being assumed as the subject.+ The idea comprised in the adjective and substantive together is one, marked by tov; but its truthfulness is the thing referred to. Hence to; ajlhqino;n to; fwsee footnote” would give two objects (for ajlhqinovn would refer to something else, of which, qualified by ajlhqinovn, fwsee footnote” would be declared to be truly the name); or it would be the idea of truthfulness and the abstract idea of light; to; ajlhqinovn having fixed the mind already on an object much more abstract than light. To; fwsee footnote” ajlhqinovn is not usual Greek; for the object really before the mind is the truthfulness of the light. Light is of course needed to characterize the truthfulness before the mind.++
+There is a general principle here equally true of Greek, English French, and (I suppose) other languages, though Greek be more determinate in its usage; namely, that when the adjective follows it is contrast, when it precedes it is definitely distinctive. This is very simple. The mind speaks first of what occupies it; thus, “fine weather,” “la belle saison,” to; ajlhqino;n fwsee footnote”, the emphasis is on the adjective. Fwsee footnote”, weather, saison, are merely the subject and the thing pointed out is its state indicated by the adjective I am speaking or thinking about.
++To; fwsee footnote” has fixed it on an idea complete in itself (that is, light) and then ajlhqinovn qualifies it as a quality, which is a sort of mental contradiction. When to; ajlhqinovn is used, it gives the true light as alone the object — not light, but true light. To; ajlhqino;n fwsee footnote” is equally one object, and of which the adjective qualifying character is put first. There are, perhaps, cases of the usage above; but, if real, they must be taken from peculiar circumstances, as mentally one word: as hJ zwh; aijwvnio” (1 John 5: 20); but the reading is questionable.
In to; fwsee footnote” ajlhqinovn, fwsee footnote” is presented as the object; but in itself it would not be sufficient: it would be distinctively the light as contrasted with all other objects, and therefore the mind has to resume its exercise, and to fix it on a particular light; that is, the true light, which contrasts with any other light. Here the general abstract idea or object is fwsee footnote”, to;? fwsee footnote“: but there is an added object of the mind to which attention is substantively drawn: o� fwtivzei pavnta a[nqrwpon, equivalent to to; fwvtizon of which it is affirmed, not that it is ajlhqinovn, (a mere character in that case), but to; ajlhqino;n [fwsee footnote“], distinctly and definitely that one particular light in contrast with false ones. It is a reciprocal proposition. The last word, fwsee footnote”, comes in merely as repeated, to secure from mistake, as the subject-matter, of the truthfulness contended for. Its being the true one is the object of affirmation. This merely amounts to the mental phenomenon, that the mind can have not only existences for an object, but acts or qualities; that is, the article can be used with verbs, or participles and characteristics (that is, adjectives), as objects, the substantive being assumed or expressed for clearness’ sake. Were this not so, the mind could only have actual existences, and not actings or characters, for its object; but this is not true. This designation by the article in the case of infinitives, participles, and adjectives, by making them objects, makes, in fact, nouns of them in the mind. Thus, 1 John 5: 20, ginwvskwmen to;n ajlhqinovn, where the person is absolutely designated by having that quality. So, in a bolder form, Mark 9: 23, to; eij duvnasai pisteusee footnotesai, the question of power lies in believing, the man having said to Jesus, ei[ ti duvnasai. jEstiv being understood, gives pisteusee footnotesai without any article; otherwise it would make believing absolutely identical with power as a reciprocal term. The verb-substantive constantly, indeed, takes away the article, as we shall see. In the same verse we have the article with a participle, twsee footnote/ pisteuvonti, not exactly equivalent to “a believer” (though for most purposes it is), because it supposes the act, and not merely the abiding quality.
The next case which requires remark in the chapter of John we are examining, is e[dwken aujtoi’” ejxousivan. Now divdwmi will regularly have a noun without an article, unless some other principle introduces one, as being united to a possessive genitive, or reference to previous mention of the subject, or the like, so that it is the designation to the mind of a specific object for that reason. Otherwise the phrase is a general one, and the thing given comes in merely as characterizing the giver and the gift. This will apply to every ordinary case of a simply active verb, because the word governed is merely the complement, or explanation of the idea in the sentence, though many other rules may introduce it as a specifically designated object to the mind. It is merely the kind of thing given; that is, characteristic. Were it a known object, it would have it. Devdwke zwhvn, “he gave life,” th;n zwhvn, if a particular life before mentioned was before the mind, or that the noun was abstractedly viewed in its absoluteness.
[p. 38] We next come, after obvious cases, to the cases in verse 13 — ejk without an article. This signifies the mode or manner of something else (which something else is the object), here of being born. Hence all are without it. An important instance of this is ejk pivstew” (Romans 1: 17), the manner or principle of the revelation; eij” pivstin, that to which the revelation is made, characterizing the manner of the reception of the revelation. jEk pivstew”, again (Romans 3: 30), on the principle of faith, for they had sought it ejx e[rgwn novmou, by law-works; the Gentiles dia; thsee footnote” pivstew”, because here it is presented as the actual faith they had. Hence, inasmuch as it was ejk pivstew” and not in virtue of being a Jew, they could be justified too. So dia; tousee footnoteto ejk pivstew” ina kata; cavrin (Romans 4: 16); so verse 14, oiJ ejk novmou; their character a little after (verse 16), twsee footnote/ ejk tousee footnote novmou, that is, the law, Jews; oiJ ejk novmou, those who claimed it by law, on that principle. Then we have twsee footnote/ ejk pivstew” jAbraavm, a remarkable case, meaning “of Abraham-faith”; not by Abraham’s faith, but on the same principle — that kind of thing. These may afford a clue to many passages, and shew how little also the prepositions are out of the rule. But it is so important a principle in Paul’s writings that we may consider it further hereafter.
To return: oJ lovgo” sa;rx ejgevneto needs no remark, unless that ejgevneto makes a proposition like ejstiv. Th;n dovxan aujtousee footnote — aujtousee footnote gives the article as designating necessarily that glory as a specific object: dovxan wj”, “glory as of,” evidently only characterizes the subject. Consequently, monogenousee footnote” para; patrov” characterizes the glory. The glory is assumed to be before God, or it would not be true glory; but it was glory of an only-begotten from His Father.+ So cavrito” kai; ajlhqeiva” characterize His habitation here. It might have been thsee footnote” cavrito” kai; thsee footnote” ajlhqeiva”, and stated the fact of these two things. But the whole passage is characteristic of the Word made flesh, and not relating facts; though of course the facts must have existed to make the character true. Of oJ ejrcovmeno”, and ejlavbomen, kai; cavrin, etc., the principle has been already given. Cavrito” cannot receive here the article; it would destroy the sense, because thsee footnote” cavrito” would be the whole abstract thing, cavri”; and no other cavri” could be ajntiv that. It is some grace, some other grace or other. Hence when it is used as an abstract idea, contrasted with oJ novmo” given by Moses, we have hJ cavri”, and hJ ajlhvqeia. I am disposed to think that there is no article before Mwsevw” and jIhsousee footnote Cristousee footnote, not because they have not been mentioned, but as being the means and manner of the coming of law and grace. But we will consider proper names apart.
+Parav, with a genitive, has not exactly the sense of the English from, save as coming from, derived or flowing from, associated with, in the way of derivation; as with a dative it is “associated with,” in the sense of being with or at: the accusative being near, and hence sometimes opposition and comparison.
[p. 39] We come then to a difficult case, but one which attaches to the nature of the word: speaking of that which is so little within the limit of human thought, and especially in the expressions of one whom the Holy Ghost employed to speak more profoundly than all but one on these subjects. Still the gracious Lord meant us to understand as far as it is conveyed, and as it is; and I judge, that while the application is special, it confirms the principle which we seek to use in the explanation of the word: I refer to Qeo;n oujdei;” eJwvrake pwvpote. I believe this absolute negative purposely sets aside objective personality here. If it had been to;n Qeovn, it would have been a designated object, and hard to speak thus of, hard to point out an object to say it could not be seen; or inconsistently, as one seen by faith. But the object here was to keep Him in the unseen unseeable majesty of His being; He was such a one as could not be seen. It was not oJ, that being pointed out to the mind, but one dwelling in the light unapproachable. And this is exceedingly confirmed by the absence of a aujtovn after ejxhghvsato. If that had been there, it should have been tovn, for He would have been an objective person known. It may perhaps partially confirm this, that in Matthew 5: 8, we have aujtoi; to;n Qeo;n o[fontai. There He is the object of creature-vision as a person or being in whose presence they are, as far as that can be.
[p. 40] It is a specific testimony in verse 19, hJ marturiva has it from tousee footnote jIwavnnou. Auth is the predicate, and is in fact hJ auth.+
This leads me to a controverted passage, Luke 2: 2. The natural rendering would be, “The enrolment itself first took place, Cyrenius ruling Syria.” Otherwise the regular structure would have been auth hJ ajpografh; hJ prwvth, “this first enrolment,” supposing others, and designating that one as the one in question; or, if not supposing others, supposing their previous possibility, and emphatically designating that there had been none before: as we say, “This is the first time he did so,” though I might say as characteristic, “This is a first fault.”
Auth, however, constantly takes an article++ with the noun following. The difference of meaning when the order is different, though it be not sometimes more than a difference of style, will best explain the use of it.
Ou|to” oJ telwvnh” (Luke 18: 11). The publican had been spoken of before. Hence he was a designated object, oJ telwvnh”. Ou|to” designated more emphatically, often so as to be contemptuous, specially where alone (given in the word “fellow” in the English version), the individual there. Ou|to” oJ telwvnh” designates first the individual, and then designates him by his character; This [fellow] the publican; but, the person being supposed, the character becomes the object, as we have seen in the case of the adjective, as to; fwsee footnote” to; ajlhqinovn. If w[n were there, it would not have the article; it would be merely characteristic, ou|to” telwvnh” w[n. The whole object is evidently ou|to”. \Wn is a kind of copulative participle, giving telwvnh” as a predicate, as su; a[nqrwpo” w[n, etc. (John 10: 33.)
+That is, without discussing the etymology of ou|to” it is evident that ou|to” is as designative at least as oJ, which therefore could have no place. The same is true of ejkei’no”, which does not receive the article, and which is really practically an adjective made of ejkei’; that is, specially designative — ou|to”, this; ejkei’no” that; that is, even more specially designative than oJ.
++The difficulty in the usual rendering is its absence before prwvth. However, there seem to be some instances of such a practice, which I will examine. It is really connected with ejgevneto.
[p. 41] Both these forms continually occur. I cite sufficient to shew the use.
Auth hJ ajsqevneia. John 11: 4. Ou|to” oJ laov”. Mark 7: 6.
JTousee footnoteto to; gevno”. Mark 9: 29. Ou|to” oJ a[nqrwpo”. John 7: 46.
JTouvtou tousee footnote a[rtou. John 6: 51. Tauvthn ejpoivhse th;n ajrchvn. John 2: 11.
In all these cases we have something mentioned immediately before, emphatically designated by ou|to” — this before our eyes or mind; this just spoken of, but requiring (or clearer by having) the name of what the object designated was, the added word sometimes giving special force, as ajrch;n, gevno”, or enlarging or peculiarly characterizing the particular object. The ou|to” is complete and emphatic — this, whether thing or person. And the noun with the article presents the object, the word ou|to” necessarily specifying one.
I add instances of the other use: he [namely] the man, it [namely] the generation.
JO lovgo” ou|to”. Luke 7: 17. JO a[nqrwpo” ou|to”. Acts 28:4.
JO ajllogenh;” ou|to”. Luke 17: 18. JO makarismo;” ou|to”. Romans 4: 9.
JO a[nqrwpo” ou|to”. Mark 15: 39. JO lovgo” ou|to”. Romans 9: 9.
JO lao;” ou|to”. Matthew 15: 8.
In all these latter cases the object is simply given, first in the usual form, and then particularly recognized as an object already under consideration. These cases, and those previously mentioned, are examples of the general rule, that the mind naturally first mentions the object which occupies it. When ou|to” precedes, it is the individual person or thing; when the descriptive adjective or noun, it is the designation of the object by its name existing in the individual case.
Now, of these in the first three, the emphasis is particularly on the word to which ou|to” is joined; the other form would have weakened and made it unnatural in point of style, though the sense is the same as a fact, but not in mental apprehension. No English can mark the difference well. The first two are so distinctly thus, that “the rumour of this” and “the stranger from among all these” would have been nearly equivalent. Matthew 15: 8 deserves notice, because it is parallel with Mark 7: 6. It is evident here the sense must be the same. I should say the passage in Matthew was the more energetic, as designating formally the Jewish people in their iniquity (represented by the Pharisees addressed). It is so in the LXX. Mark’s is more historically given, contrasting them with other people. It is plain this is a mere question of style. Ou|to” so used has often in itself a contemptuous force; but I should doubt that in this case. The Lord was referring to them. He cared for this people. Others did not so draw nigh. In Matthew it is the character of the people. The whole people did so. It was their common guilt.
[p. 42] I would make the same remark on Acts 28: 4, and Romans 4: 9. The subject of the sentence is more present in the mind of the writer than the particular identification of the fact or person referred to. Ou|to” is almost supplementary. Romans 9: 9 requires another remark. The translation should be, “For this word is of promise.” jEpaggeliva” without the article characterizes the lovgo”. Thsee footnote” ejpaggeliva” had preceded — “the promise”; and then the apostle declares that promise characterizes the word he is going to quote about it. Further, the preceding remark is confirmed.
To continue our original chapter — iJereisee footnote” kai; Leui?ta” is the character of the persons who went. Had it been said touv”, it would have held up the priests before the mind, and would have meant all of them.
Then oJ profhvth”, the prophet, as has been remarked by others, before the mind of John and of the speakers, who should come. That Christian faith recognizes that the prophet spoken of by Moses was the Christ proves nothing to lead us to suppose any inconsistency in the ill-informed enquiry and expectation of those who went out.
We have another instance of the example already explained in ajpovkrisin. jEgw; fwnhv etc. requires more remark. It is a quotation, varying in some words, from the LXX, and a sort of public, prophetic title affixed by the Lord on John — “I am that passage,” not merely that thing. Hence it is stronger than saying ejgwv eijmi hJ fwnhv. It is an oracle recited attached to ejgwv.+ Eijmiv (understood) does not indeed require the article, unless it is specifically reciprocal — that is, exclusive of all others: as ejgwv eijmi hJ a[mpelo” hJ ajlhqinhv, — ejgwv eijmi oJ a[rto” thsee footnote” zwhsee footnote”, — ejgwv eijmi oJJ a[rto” oJ kataba;” ejJk tousee footnote oujranousee footnote. John 15: 1 and 6: 41, 48.
Kurivou comes under the question of proper names, not meaning a title of Jesus, save as He is Jehovah.
jEn udati — the character of the baptism. John 1: 26.
[Ercetai ajnhvr. Here we have no article, because it is not any particular man designated as an object to the mind, nor the whole class as an ideal object, which, indeed, would be rather a[nqrwpo”, save as used for husband. It is a man. It characterizes, or gives the quality of man to him of whom all this is said. JO ajnhvr would have quite another sense. [Ercetai ajnhvr is, “a being comes,” he is not any other thing, he is a man: that is the quality of the comer. It is really impersonal, and comes under that rule. JO ajnhvr would have been some known man.
+ jEgwv is as an article, and what follows is the oracle predicated about it: ejgw; hJ fwnhv would have been merely an assertion of John about himself.
[p. 43] In verse 26, John specifically characterized his baptism. Here (in verse 31), though many authorities have not the tw/’, I judge it is well retained, because he is speaking of the fact that actually occupied him. He therefore does not refer to the manner merely, but to the fact, and the udati is referred to as the known matter employed, with the water as I have said or of which I have spoken. Hence, when he is again contrasting the character or nature of it, we have ejn udati and ejn pneuvmati aJgivw/, where, remark, therefore, the absence of the article does not touch the question of what pneusee footnotema is meant. It is not there, because it only characterizes the baptism.
Verse 34, oJ uiJo;” tousee footnote Qeousee footnote is evidently a specific title, and complete ideal object in itself.
Thsee footnote/ ejpauvrion was one particular to-morrow, that is, of the day previously spoken of.
JO ajmnov”, one particular lamb, the Lamb of God. A genitive following necessarily involves in such a case the article as designating a specific object. A Christian would understand oJ uiJov”, or oJ ajmnov”, from his previous knowledge, as a reference to one particular known Son and known Lamb. But here it follows the designation by a subsequent genitive, which confines it to a designated object. Here we have also twsee footnoten maqhtwsee footnoten, the whole body of them so called as an object, and duvo, some two of them, but specifically designated: afterwards oiJ duvo, because now we have them as the designated two, though unknown.
Verse 40 (Gr.), ejkeivnhn coming after necessarily makes a specific day as an object before the mind.
Wra requires more attention. It is indeed an exception to general rules. It never receives an article with a noun of number, unless some other reason makes it an especial object, as previous mention, a particular hour, or the like. Such idioms as to time are found in all languages. It is the haste of familiar style, being an accompaniment to any act in general, shewing when anything was done. This applies to many familiar and commonly used words.
[p. 44] There is one apparent exception to this, Matthew 20: 3; but the article there is rejected by all the editors. On the other hand, when the mind is to be directed to a particular hour as a point of time as being a remarkable or definite one, the article is there, but attached to the numeral as the leading idea. (Matthew 20: 6.) This exception remarkably confirms the rule. It is to be remembered that wra did not mean “hour” in Greek till very late in the history of the language. When it is used in the original way as a word, it follows the usual rules in connection with numerals marking the hour of the day. It has become a kind of name, as a known thing every day, and the article is never used — the same when used for a portion of the day in general; as if “time” had become in English the name for an hour. We should speak of spring-time, winter-time, etc., and also it was at seventh-time, eighth-time, which would shew it then meant hour, and attach as to time a character to the act done. But when in Greek a specific point of time is meant, then wra with the numeral takes the article. The cases of absence are too numerous to quote. We have peri; trivthn wran, peri; ekthn wran, peri; ejnnavthn wran, etc. So ew” wra” ejnnavth”. So we have when it merely means much of the day, h[dh wra” pollhsee footnote”, h[dh wra pollhv. (Mark 6: 35.) But then we have, when noticed as a critical point of time, Matthew 27: 46, peri; de; th;n ejnnavthn wran; chapter 20: 6, peri; de; th;n eJndekavthn wran, and so chapter 20: 9. So Mark 15: 34, kai; thsee footnote/ wra/ thsee footnote/ ejnnavth/. Thsee footnote/ wra/ tousee footnote qumiavmato”, and such cases are common where the word follows the usual rules. So John 12: 23, ejlhvluqen hJ wra. Acts 3: 1, ejpi; th;n wran thsee footnote” proseuchsee footnote” th;n ejnnavthn. So Acts 10: 30, tauvth” thsee footnote” wra” ... kai; th;n ejnnavthn wran.
Thus its exceptional use, when used as a name of the hours of the day, does not affect the general rule. Nor is this confined to the word wra: in expressions relative to time we have ajf j hJmerwsee footnoten ajrcaivwn, ajpo; pevrusi, ajpo; tetavrth” hJmevra”. (Acts 10: 30.) In this last the ellipse or irregularity of construction is much greater than relates merely to the article; as indeed in the first also. The last means “four days ago”; that is, kata; tetavrthn (or th;n tetavrthn) hJmevran, ajpo; tauvth” thsee footnote” hJmevra”. It is contracted, and ajpo; attracts the government to itself. As regards these idiomatic expressions as to time, we are familiar with them in English. We say “last year,” “next month”; whereas we must say “the next king that reigns,” “the last that reigned.” They are merely idiomatic habits when a word is very frequently used, and lead to no mistake or uncertainty of grammar.
[p. 45] I have owed this to the reader to shew that wra is no such exception as in the smallest degree to set aside the rule; being merely an idiom found in other languages where the general grammar is certain. The truth is, from the peculiar circumstances in such a case as the hours of the day, the number becomes the designating power to the mind, as the article in other cases.
One other case remains in this chapter important to notice — dovlo” oujk e[sti. (verse 48 Gr.) Two reasons might seem to deprive dovlo” of the article here. First, the verb ejstiv; because, unless in the case of a reciprocal proposition, ejstiv makes what follows it a character of the subject. And this is so much the case that when another verb is such as to make the following noun characteristic, it has not the article. So in tivno” aujtwsee footnoten e[stai gunhv; gunhv characterizes the relationship — “Shall she be wife?” — bear that character. JH gunhv would have fixed the mind on the person, and meant rather the woman in that relationship. (Mark 12: 23.) So, in the same verse, e[scon ... gunai’ka, “to wife,” as wife; again, as movno” e[cwn ajqanasivan (1 Timothy 6: 16); e[conte” creivan very frequently e[conte” ejxousivan. This was the condition or state of the persons spoken of, of God Himself. The anarthrous nouns are attributes or conditions of something. Yet e[comen will have the article after it whenever the word is not merely characteristic, but positively fixing the mind on a definite object. jEn w|/ e[comen th;n ajpoluvtrwsin. (Ephesians 1: 7.) Redemption is more than a characteristic of us. It is a positive object marked out to the mind. So Philippians 1: 23, th;n ejpiqumivan e[cwn. The same principle very plainly applies to Ephesians 3: 12, ejn w|/ e[comen th;n parjrJhsivan. Now this might seem rather a contradiction, but if examined illustrates remarkably the principle. It is not here a quality in Paul, but a special designated boldness to which he refers: th;n parjrJhsivan kai; th;n prosagwgh;n ejn pepoiqhvsei dia; thsee footnote” pivstew” aujtousee footnote, that boldness and confidence of access which we have before God through Him. Where parjrJhsivan is used as a quality or state of the person, it has not the article, as Hebrews 10: 19; 1 John 2: 28; 3: 21.
But to return to dovlo” oujk e[sti — dovlo” is not a predicate here, nor exactly characteristic of Nathanael. The negative modifies the sentence. It is not merely that the complete abstract idea, guile, is not in him, but there is none of it. To put it in another shape; you cannot make an object as existing before the mind of what is denied to exist. Hence we have dovlo” oujk e[sti, rightly translated “no guile.” So in 1 John 3: 5, ejn aujtwsee footnote/ aJmartiva oujk e[sti, “in him is no sin.” The same holds with e[cei used in a similar way, as John 4: 44, timh;n oujk e[cei. We have a confirmation of this by seeing that, where it is a positive object about which something is denied, and not the denial of the existence of the thing, oujk does not alter the common rule; thus oujk e[stin oJ Qeo;” Qeo;” nekrwsee footnoten. (Matthew 22: 32.) It is not, “God is not.” God is presented as the object, and He is denied to be Qeo;” nekrwsee footnoten. Whereas in LXX, Psalms 13: 1 and 52: 1, we have oujk e[sti Qeov”, there is no God. In Mark 12: 27, on the contrary, we have the idea in a different shape: oujk e[stin oJ Qeo;” nekrwsee footnoten. If this be not elliptical, and if so, identical with Matthew, the sense is different, and oJ Qeov” becomes a proper object of the mind based on what has been said, and is a term of relationship, as oJ Qeo;” jAbraavm etc. He is not the God of dead persons, as called their God. If this be so, the article as designating a positive object is positively necessary. It is a question of spiritual intelligence which is the meaning here. The grammatical rule is maintained equally by either. I incline to the latter. The cases of oujk e[sti and similar forms without an article are too numerous to mention.
An English expression here may assist the reader. In “similar forms without an article,” “an article” is merely characteristic of “form.” It is a form without an article. The article would fix my mind on the article itself as the subject of enquiry, or, if recently mentioned, refer to it as so mentioned; only that English is neither as accurate nor consequently as uniform, nor as universal in application of the principle.
This leads me to another principle — application, that is, of our principle: if a noun singular be taken distributively, or a noun plural partially, which is the same thing at bottom, there will not be an article; if the singular, as already spoken of in totality, that is, abstractedly, or the plural universally, there will. The former is merely a case of the non-existence of a definite object pointed out to the mind. This connects itself with the employment of prepositions also. A singular noun is taken distributively when it is not an abstract complete idea, but as applied to any given existences of the case. Dovlo” oujk e[sti comes under this, and has led me to it. It is not merely that the abstract thing dovlo” is not, but that nothing coming under that title is there. So of all the cases given above with oujk. Other cases are very numerous. (Mark 12: 19, 20, 21.) jEavn tino” ajdelfo;” ... katalivph/ gunai’ka. [Elabe gunai’ka ... ouJde; aujto;” ajfhsee footnoteke spevrma. So in the plural eJpta; ajdelfoi; h\san. JO Qeo;” nekrwsee footnoten. Otan ga;r ejk nekrwsee footnoten ajnastwsee footnotesin dead people, that condition, — not as an object before the mind — all the dead. So ajnavstasi” nekrwsee footnoten frequently, but Luke 14: 14, thsee footnote ajnastavsei twsee footnoten dikaivwn, because all would rise, as a definite object — these persons. So eijdovte” ta;” grafav”, all these writings so designated. So eij” cei’ra” ajnqrwvpwn, men’s hands. It is characteristic. Instances of the converse are found in every page: oiJ maqhtai;, oiJ ajdelfoiv. So olo” involves the article, tinev” excludes it. Hence we know pasee footnote” with an article following has not the meaning it has with a noun without it. In the last case it is distributive — “every”: in the former not, but means “the whole.” Pasee footnotesa hJ ghsee footnote “the whole earth.” Pasee footnotesa futeiva “every plant.” Hence, note Ephesians 3: 15; pasee footnotesa patriav “every family” (where ejn oujranoi’” kai; ejpi; ghsee footnote” characterizes the families, and therefore have not the article); that is, as Jehovah knew only Israel of all the families of the earth (Amos 3: 2), the rest being not called by His name. (Is. 63: 19.) All the families — every heavenly, or earthly family — were ranged under the name and authority of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
[p. 47] I will now go through several difficult cases in which, from the extreme exuberance of matter and the narrowness of human language to meet it, and yet the need of accuracy in divine things, and the certainty of it in revelation, we shall find the principle most severely tested, but most fully proved. And here I shall particularly take notice of prepositions which come as fully under the rule as every other case.
Ephesians 1: 1, ajpovstolo”, characteristic of Paul. Dia; qelhvmato” Qeousee footnote the same thing. He was an apostle by divine will.
Verse 2, cavri” kai; eijrhvnh are used distributively with e[stw understood. It is not the abstract word pointed out as an object, but that these things may be with — characterize — the condition and state of the people. The apostle did not wish grace and peace in their abstract totality to be so, but that their state might be characterized by these qualities. jApo; Qeousee footnote, etc., gives the character of the grace and peace, that kind. It is not a wish that it should come from Him, but that grace and peace thence might be with them.
[p. 48] Verse 3. In this verse we have the article, for Qeov”, etc., is presented as a personal object. I will revert to this as an instance of an important point. Toi’”, before ejpouranivoi”, shews where they were, or had the blessing. It was not the blessing merely characterized by that place.
Verse 4, pro; katabolhsee footnote” kovsmou characterizes the election by the date; does not relate the fact by a date: that is, it is not given as a specific date to which attention is drawn, but that which preceded, or the infinity preceding that, characterized the election. It renders it much stronger. “Ere a mountain was formed,” or “a foundation of the world laid,” would not give a date, but contrast a period in character.
Verses 4, 5. So ejn ajgavph/ characterizes the saints, eij” uiJoqesivan their predestination. It was predestination to adoption; but it was not kat j eujdokivan merely. The good pleasure of His will is made the object before the mind, of the source from which it flowed.
Verse 6. We now come to some more difficult cases, because complicated, where they have in part, in part not, the article; but it flows from what we have been seeing we are to be; our whole state, and the work which has brought us there, eij” e[painon dovxh”. This is to characterize the matter. But the grace is a positive designated object, which is thus glorified and praised, or gloriously praised. Hence we have thsee footnote” (called for, indeed, by aujtousee footnote). His grace is set before us as praised and glorified. This apparent anomaly is therefore at once made easy by this simple principle.
Verse 7. I have noticed this already. We have all these as God’s part, noticed as positive objects of our soul (save sofiva/ kai; fronhvsei, which characterize the grace, verse 8). So verse 9.
Verse 10. But eij” oijkonomivan. It was a will, or purpose of, or for, administering: this will or purpose was such. This gave its character and quality to the will or purpose; but the fulness of times was a positive object before the mind. It did not characterize the administration. It is a direct subject of thought. We have seen before ejn oujranoisee footnote” kai; ejpi; ghsee footnote” characterize+ every family. Here they are designated as places where the things are pointed out as such, and they have the article.
+This is not the same thing as being heavenly (it states that their being there characterized them), nor earthly, but being there. The English will render this, but the distinctions are rarely maintained. “In heaven and earth” would hardly be distinguished, though there is a difference, from “in the heavens and in the earth.”
[p. 49] Verse 11. Again we have the unusual form kata; provqesin tousee footnote. But kata; provqesin denotes the nature of the predestination, and connects itself with predestinated. We are predestinated according to purpose (not the particular purpose) of Him who, etc. And then we have again the article associated with this work in God where it has its source, and it is presented as a positive object of the mind. We are merely characterized, and our predestination by purpose. Our predestination was not di j e[rga, but kata; provqesin, and that of Him who, etc.
Verse 12. The hJmasee footnote” is the subject, eij” e[painon its character: to praise. We are to be such. It is the character we clothe. The thsee footnote” before dovxh”, though disputed, is, I judge, rightly maintained. We are “to praise” as according to purpose, but it is of His glory, presented again as the direct object of the mind. We have then several with the article, evidently presenting positive objects, till we come to Verse 14, ajrjrJabwvn characterizing merely in this case the Holy Ghost: hJmwsee footnoten accounts grammatically for the article after klhronomiva” according to the principles previously stated. It is a specific object. But the words which receive the article here are spiritually full of the most perfect interest and weight of instruction. JO ajrjrJabwvn would be pretty much a reciprocal proposition: here it is a predicate of an ordinary proposition. The inheritance, again, is an object presented. Eij” ajpoluvtrwsin characterizes ajrjrJabwvn as eij” oijkonomivan previously did the purpose, kata; th;n eujdokivan aujtousee footnote.
Verse 15, th;n ajgavphn thvn I notice as merely a new form of the principle, the second th;n necessarily making the first objective.
Verse 17, oJ path;r thsee footnote” dovxh” is not the same as oJ path;r dovxh”, or path;r dovxh”. He is the author, source, and head of glory; the glory that is actually to be, as Father, as God of our Lord Jesus Christ. Pneusee footnotema sofiva” kai; ajpokaluvyew” characterized what was given to them. It was not to;, that is, the whole of it abstractedly to them. It may be the Holy Ghost; but what is stated here from uJmisee footnoten to aujtousee footnote is the character of the thing given. I should translate “the Spirit.” It is surely by the Holy Ghost, and the form of His presence and power in the mind; but it is that form of it which is spoken of here.
[p. 50] Verse 18. We get a succession of positive objects presented to the mind as so known.
Verse 20. So here, where we have only to remark the resurrection of Christ: it is not ajnavstasi” ejk tw’n nekrw’n, that is, not from designated persons, but a state. It characterized the resurrection, and did not point out persons. It is ajnavstasi” ejk nekrw’n, that is, from that condition.
Verse 22, kefalhvn, as head.
Ephesians 2: 2. In this verse, note, we have the evil system presented, not as characterizing the walk merely, but as a positive subsisting system, according to which they walked. And so all through till we get our resulting character. Tevkna fuvsei ojrghsee footnote”, this characterized us.
Verse 5, cavriti, the principle which characterized the way of salvation. Then,
Verse 7. It was by goodness to us that He shewed the positive things spoken of Him: that goodness (crhstovth”) characterized it.
Verse 8. We have thsee footnote/ ga;r cavritiv ejste seswsmevnoi dia; thsee footnote” pivstew”. Because it is a positive assertion about this thing presented directly to the soul — by that thing and by faith, existing faith: not merely as characterizing the salvation, but by these things, so set before our minds.
Verse 10, poivhma characterizes us; so ejpi; e[rgoi” ajgaqoisee footnote” characterizes the condition of the creation: ejn sarkiv, verse 11, the manner again.
Verse 11, ta; e[qnh. He speaks of them as the whole class. It was not some having such a character, but living actual beings as such, taking in in principle the whole body of them, not e[qnh in character from among twsee footnoten e[qnwn. Ye were “the Gentiles.” Legovmenoi gives ajkrobustiva the force of character evidently. I have only to remark repeated instances of the noun after an active verb being without the article, as giving the character of the result of activity. Where this is not the case it has the article. jApokatallavxh/ tou;” ajmfotevrou” (verse 16), necessarily an object; but poiwsee footnoten eijrhvnhn (verse 15), eujhggelivsato eijrhvnhn (verse 17), this characterized the making and preaching. There are two classes of accusatives after the active verb: one the object, the other the fruit of the action. Th;n e[cqran enmity, specially known and mentioned: first, assumed as a known object, and then referred to. It was not enmity that was to characterize the act, but a particular enmity, which was before their minds, that is referred to. Eij” and katav very often have anarthrous nouns (not always), simply because, from their meaning, they speak of what characterizes something else.
[p. 51] One point remains, of which this chapter gives two examples, and of which we may therefore speak here. I mean the use of one article with two nouns of different meaning, and even necessarily sometimes distinct. Thus we have oJ Qeo;” kai; pathvr (chapter 1), tou;” ajpostovlou” kai; profhvta” (chapter 2, 3), and in chapter 4, tou;” poimevna” kai; didaskavlou”. Now our rule here is still the same, and much facilitates the apprehension of these cases. The article directs the mind to an object in view; or a whole class seen together in the speaker’s mind, as one for the purpose for which he is speaking, as a unity, or as a whole. Thus, in the first, oJ calls my attention to an object: two names are given to this object — God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Again, touv” calls my attention to a whole class complete in itself, forming as one company the foundation, united in this, apostles and prophets. So shepherding and feeding with the word present themselves as in one class of persons in the apostle’s mind. They may be elsewhere separate ideas, but they are united in one class of persons here. So Matthew 16: 21, the Lord Jesus should suffer many things ajpo; twsee footnoten presbutevrwn kai; ajrcierevwn kai; grammatevwn. They were a joint common band of enemies, and so spoken of as present to the mind of the speaker.
I now turn to an important instance of this, Titus 2: 13. First we have th;n markarivan ejlpivda kai; ejpifavneian thsee footnote” dovxh”. Dovxh” is the governing idea here. Grace had appeared (verse 11). They were waiting for glory: that was their hope (that is object of hope, so used elsewhere), and it would appear hence, the object of hope and the apparition were identical, namely, the glory. Hence, th;n marks both. But what glory? That is the question. Tousee footnote megavlou Qeousee footnote kai; swthsee footnotero” hJmwsee footnoten jIhsousee footnote Cristousee footnote. Dovxh” still governs the sentence, and God and our Lord Jesus Christ are identified — were in the apostle’s mind in the Spirit — in the glory which was to appear. Hence, it was the glory of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, viewed as perfectly one in glory. They are not the least separated in the mind of the apostle when speaking of that glory. It is certain that, in saying Qeousee footnote kai; swthsee footnotero”, the apostle had but one object in his mind presented by the Holy Ghost. But I do not myself believe that megavlou Qeousee footnote and jIhsousee footnote Cristousee footnote are here names of one person. I have not the smallest doubt that Jesus is the true God — Jehovah; and I do not believe that this sentence could have been written, had not the glory of the Great God been ascribable to Him. But I do not see that this statement amounts to His being the same person as the great God; though I do not see how it could be true were He not, for they were one in glory.
[p. 52] There are many other examples: 1 Thessalonians 3: 11, 13; 2 Corinthians 11: 31; Romans 15: 6. We have 2 Peter 1: 1, ejn dikaiosuvnh/ tousee footnote Qeousee footnote hJmwsee footnoten kai; swthsee footnotero” jIhsousee footnote Cristousee footnote. Here the same remark applies, I judge, as to the passage in Titus. The righteousness is one, as the glory there, and both are identified in it — which could not be said unless Jesus were God. But this last is not the statement of the passage. The righteousness here spoken of is, I judge, spoken of as the righteousness which has secured their having the faith, not the object of it. We have a phrase exactly similar, 2 Peter 2: 20, ejn ejpignwvsei tousee footnote Kurivou kai; swthsee footnotero” jIhsousee footnote Cristousee footnote. Now here the mind acknowledges the identity of person+ at once: but I judge the mind recognizes it in the words Kurivou kai; swthsee footnotero”. So in 2 Peter 1: 11, eij” th;n aijwvnion basileivan tousee footnote Kurivou hJmwsee footnoten kai; swthsee footnotero” jIhsousee footnote Cristousee footnote. So we have (verse 16) th;n tousee footnote Kurivou hJmwsee footnoten jIhsousee footnote Cristousee footnote duvnamin kai; parousivan. The power and presence are in one scene or one object before the mind. Compare Romans 1: 20.
In two of the above passages, ejpignwvsei and dikaiosuvnh/ have not the article, because by ejn they designate the manner or principle on which the main subject is received or escaped. So, 2 Peter 1: 10, we have bebaivan ... th;n klhsee footnotesin kai; ejklogh;n poieisee footnotesqai. The two are identified as a common object to the mind, assured together; but they are not one thing, though united in one idea by thvn. And note the singular adjective.
+The error of Granville Sharp and Bishop Middleton seems to have been this: in supposing, not that there was a common point of union, but that this was a person represented by the article, and described by the nouns following.
[p. 53] In French, where two ideas are sufficiently near to make one only an explanation of another, a similar idiom may be observed. “Sa tranquillit�, son calme a,” not “ont”; because I have only one idea, which my first word imperfectly expressed. With that one idea in the mind the verb agrees.
Note in Ephesians 2: 22, katoikhthvrion characterizes the building in its use; but tousee footnote Qeousee footnote because you have God as a personal object there, not merely characterizing the house: ejn Pneuvmati because this characterizes the manner of God’s presence, and (though it be a person) does not speak of the person of the Holy Ghost, but of the manner of God’s presence. A multitude of examples shew the fallacy of any conclusion that it is not the Holy Ghost personally, because of the absence of twsee footnote/.
It is, I think plain, from the examination of a number of passages, that in cases where one article is used with several nouns, (while the grammatical agreement of the article is, by attraction and the usual analogy, partially with the nouns which follow+), the object designated by the article is mentally another, to which all the nouns used apply, or with which they associate themselves. Where each is made a distinct definite object of, each will have the article. That mental object may be a person, who unites in himself the various names or titles. It may be association in a common object or common circumstance. In a word, the nouns are united in some common fact which the mind has before it, so as to group them together. This may be expressed or understood from the context. Thus it is expressed in the following: Titus 2: 13; Ephesians 5: 5; 2 Thessalonians 1: 12; 2 Peter 1: 1.
In 1 Timothy 5: 21, it is contained in the preposition ejnwvpion, which gives the idea of “the presence of” — the one idea which governs the mind, but Kurivou is left out by most. This may be a person, as Matthew 12: 22; 13: 23; Mark 16: 16. In Luke 11: 28 we have several grouped in one class. Hebrews 3: 1 is a very plain and express case. In Philippians 1: 7, it is the work in which the Philippians sympathized with Paul, which consisted in these two things: ajpologiva/ kai; bebaiwvsei. So in Romans 15: 6. It is readily understood from the context. In a word, there is always one definite object before the mind, of which the various nouns come in, not merely descriptively, but as together forming the completeness of that object. The grammar follows the noun, as the relative pronoun does, in its case, that to which it is related.
+This is not the case strictly as to number, because, as we have seen, the object before the mind is necessarily one. If the article and nouns be plural, it is, as before remarked, the whole body in question, though made up of many individuals. Hence, in this sort of passages, we get one common idea in which the various words are united, and then the article is singular; or we get the class of persons united in one common idea, and then the article is of course plural.
[p. 54] I shall now give some cases in which it evidently is not one person, and in which the common idea is not expressed in the passage. Only before citing them I will here recall the principle I have laid down, as we are at one of the most important and difficult applications of it. The article points to some definite object of the mind. The noun following gives the name to this object. In some cases, where this is sufficiently certain by specific contrast, the name is not even added, as oJ mevn, oJ dev. Earlier in the language, this was more extensively the case; and it hence became a pronoun, as in Homer. The object is assumed to be one we have before us, and known as an object, though we add a name (but a name known as designating that object), and much perhaps else about it.
Now in the cases we are about to mention, the object is not named, but the nouns used combinedly make it up. The article supposes the common object in which they are united.
To proceed to the cases: Philippians 1: 7, thsee footnote/ bebaiwvsei kai; ajpologiva/. It is evident that Paul is speaking of one single common work which could only be expressed by using both words — confirming and defending: but he had but one object in his mind. So in a passage already quoted, 2 Peter 1: 10, bebaivan ... th;n klhsee footnotesin kai; ejklogh;n ... poiei’sqai, calling and election are united in the one thing to be secured, in the security they sought. They could not secure one without the other. They formed one object in the apostle’s mind in the diligence he recommended. God had chosen; God had called them. Being so chosen and called, they were to have this a settled and not uncertain thing in their minds, through the diligence recommended.
A still more remarkable case is where there are several decidedly distinct and independent persons, but who all form one object before the mind. Matthew 17: 1, paralambavnei oJ jIhsousee footnote” to;n Pevtron kai; jIavkwbon kai; jIwavnnhn. Acts 3: 11, kratousee footnotento” de; aujtousee footnote to;n Pevtron kai; jIwavnnhn. Acts 4: 19, JO de; Pevtro” kai; jIwavnnh”. In the plural the same thing, Acts 14: 5, oJrmh; twsee footnoten ejqnwsee footnoten te kai; jIoudaivwn. This last would come under the class also of cases where the uniting idea is expressed. They were joined in one body in the assault. Gentiles and Jews made only one body, one object in the apostle’s mind. In 2�Corinthians 13: 11 we have an example where the peace he desired the Corinthian disciples to be in, as a means of enjoying the presence of God, at once introduces, as thus speaking of God’s presence, that love which necessarily accompanied it, and made one thought with the peace. Love and peace were together one idea of the blessed power and sweetness of the divine presence.
[p. 55] There are many other examples in scripture, but these sufficiently explain the principle, and, by this much debated point, confirm its soundness in the fullest way. Reference to Middleton, Green, etc., will furnish examples. I have examined them, and confine myself to having satisfied my mind that the same principle alike explains them all. Quotations from profane authors will be found there, equally proving the same general principle. Contrasted cases, where the object of the author was to make two separate objects before the mind, confirm also the doctrine.
Thus Hebrews 11: 20, eujlovghse ... to;n jIakw;b kai; to;n jHsausee footnote, where it is evident they were to be kept in mind as distinct objects. There is another text which I will notice as presenting an interesting question of interpretation — 2 Thessalonians 1: 8: didovnto” ejkdivkhsin toisee footnote” mh; eijdovsi Qeovn, kai; toisee footnote” mhv uJpakouvousi twsee footnote/ eujaggelivw/, etc. Here the apostle, or rather the Holy Ghost, designates two classes or forms of guilt, which elsewhere may be in the same persons. Openly hostile heathens and idolatrous enemies certainly are supposed, for they were the then persecutors; and Jews, who could not be said exactly not to know God, but who were disobedient to the gospel. There were those who professed to obey the gospel, yet did not really know God. There were these two moral classes designated by the Holy Ghost as objects of judgment; a description which must both have been applicable then, and be so at the return of the Lord to judgment.
Acts 15 furnishes notable instances of the introduction and omission of the article. Genomevnh” ou\n stavsew” kai; suzthvsew” oujk ojlivgh” twsee footnote/ Pauvlw/ kai; twsee footnote/ Barnavba/ pro;” aujtouv”. Here they were the Paul and Barnabas whose history we have had in what precedes. [Etaxan ajnabaivnein Pauvlon kai; Barnavban kaiv tina” a[llou”. Here they are presented with several others as persons now chosen for the first time to go on this errand. Then we have tou;” ajpostovlou” kai; presbutevrou”, apostles and elders being one company here. (verse 2.). Again (verse 12), h[kouon Barnavba kai; Pauvlou. Here again we have the relaters of the facts brought for the first time before the assembly in this character. Then (verse 22) ejklexamevnou” a[ndra” ejx aujtwsee footnoten pevmyai eij” jAntiovceian su;n twsee footnote/ Pauvlw/ kai; Barnavba/. Here they were jointly concerned as representatives in this matter, and one article is used to both. They were associated in one objective idea in the mind of the writer. Paul and Barnabas have an article, being known as already engaged in it: Judas and Silas are new persons, and hence their names are without the article.
I may remark, in passing, the evident sense of 2 Peter 1: 19 is, we have the prophetic word confirmed, namely, by the vision of Christ’s glory. And this passage leads me to remark that, when a word is characteristic of the action of the verb, it does not claim an article. JHmevra diaugavsh/, not the day but day. It is the day-light. So fwsfovro”. It is the character of the rising in the heart.
The examples we have had afford sufficient to clear up the use of the article after prepositions, which is indeed to the full as simple as any other part of the subject. We shall meet with others.