Greek Particles and Prepositions

J. N. Darby.

106

Greek Particles
Greek Prepositions

Preface

The following notes on particles and prepositions were the fruit of private research for private use in studying the New Testament, so that the reader must not expect anything of a complete treatise on the subject to which they apply; and, perhaps, he will find sometimes what may not satisfy his judgment as to the metaphysical connection of the literal with the moral sense of a word. But when it was merely the question of using one's labours, undertaken in and for his own New Testament studies, for the service of others who may profit by the labour without adopting all that is said, he could have no objection to their being printed. The reader may learn how many nice points of meaning there are in the use of these words, and may use these notes to come to a more just appreciation of the force of words and shades of meaning than the notes themselves can furnish. As a help to his further labours he may find them useful. They are in no sense offered as anything complete or final. They were formed in bonâ fide noting down the remarks and fruits of private research for private use. The reader can profit by them and draw his own conclusions. They will, at least, supply a pretty large index to the New Testament use of these words, and raise questions for enquiries which the paper itself may not solve. One only can guide us into truth and the mind of God in His word.

Greek particles

Ἄν expresses what is hypothetical possibility. When the ground of hypothesis is stated before, it is accompanied by the indicative; the consequence is asserted as a fact: it would so happen in that case, μετενόησαν ἄν, Matthew 11:20, 21; so chap. 12:7, and often. When the possibility or hypothetical case is stated in the verb to which ἄν belongs, the verb is in the subjunctive, as ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ, ἕως ἂν εἴπω, ὅπως ἂν φανῶσι, ὃς γὰρ ἂν ποτίσῃ. As to time, 1 Corinthians 11:25, ὁσάκις ἂν πίνητε, that is, whenever they did do it, the doing it being uncertain. So as to place, Mark 9:18, ὅπου ἂν καταλάβῃ, wherever he did, but the taking him was occasional and uncertain; ὅπου ἂν κηρυχθῆ (Mark 14:9), the preaching was incidental.

107 Ἄν means, I think, in that case, ever, every, (immer).  Ἐάν is practically εἰ ἄν. Hence, when ἄν (if not to be read ἐάν, which always has the subjunctive, as uncertain) leaves the act uncertain or not accomplished (cases of time ἄχρις οὗ ἂν θῆ,   1  Cor. 15:25), it has the subjunctive. Where the act is assumed or done, ἄν is still ever, but the verb is in the indicative. Thus, Mark 6:56, ὅπου ἄν εἰσεπορεύετο εἰς κώμας, because it is an assumed fact. He went into the villages, had gone into them, when they wanted to touch Him; but κἂν ἅψωνται, uncertain whether they could. Then ὅσοι ἂν ἥπτοντο where it is the fact; but Matthew 10:11, εἰς ἣν δ᾽ ἂν πόλιν εἰσέλθητε, because it was a future uncertain possibility. So Luke 9:57, James 3:4, Revelation 14:4, Mark 14:9, "wherever he went" may be ἄν, but indicative; "wherever he might go," ἄν with subjunctive. The same rule applies to time as to other cases; if the hypothesis is stated previously, the verb with ἄν is in the indicative, as Matthew 11:23, "they would have remained" ἔμειναν ἄν. Otherwise, as a future is not a fact, it is in the subjunctive, ἕως ἂν θῶ, and a multitude of cases. Is not its real force ἀνά, each, every one? As we say, whoever, whosoever, and, in German, immer. The fact and non-fact is more plain in cases of time than others, though the principle is identical. "Till it come," "it remains till." The first is non-fact, the second fact, though based on an hypothesis, but if — then the fact is so. Finally, if the hypothesis precedes, ἄν has the indicative. So without an hypothesis (Mark 6:56), where it is connected with an assumed or actual fact. It answers to the English ever, and affects style: "as many as ever I could," that is, "every one I possibly could," it is possibility.

Ἅπαξ, ἐφάπαξ, once, and once for all, or all at once, on once, auf einmal, at one time, as we say, at once. It is not merely that he did it, or it happened once, but that all that is in question is brought into that once; "Five hundred saw him at one time." "He entered in, ἐφάπαξ, into the holy place." It is not that He once did it, ἅπαξ, but that, not like the high-priest, who repeated his entrances, the work not being finished, Christ did it once for all. It was all summed up and complete and enduring in effect on that one entrance to stay there. So of His offering the same; so Romans 6:10, it is not merely that He did it once, not twice, but that all His dying to sin was in that act, and that it was absolute, complete, and final; He had no more to do with it. It was all done then in that act and completely. We reckon ourselves to have died, and once for all too, have no more to do with it. Ἅπαξ is simply once, not twice; only it is used (as in English) for a past time which has not continued. "You once knew this;" "once delivered".

108 Ἄρα is not οὖν, a consequence drawn, but resumes what has been gone through and gives its real force, assuming its truth as a witness of something which follows. Hence, it is often accompanied by οὖν, so then it always, I think, gives the idea of this being so; or if a question, is it indeed so that? Thus, Matthew 12:28. It was not οὖν, therefore, but "then, this being so, the kingdom of God is come to you." So Matthew 7:20, ἄραγε, γε strengthening the consequence, thus then surely (also ja), Romans 10:17. So in questions; only it often takes its force from what is passing in the mind, the tacit assumption of facts or statements, as Matthew 18:1, τίς ἄρα μείζων, that is, "Seeing there is a kingdom, and you say it is going to be set up, and you say such and such things concerning it, Who is to be greatest in it?" So Luke 12:42, where it is given occasion to by Peter's question, which is not meant to be directly answered, and the ἄρα refers to the Lord's whole conception of the condition of the servant. Compare Matthew 24:45, where the Lord evidently answers what is passing in His own mind. In Luke 1:66 the antecedent circumstances are evident. So chapter 8:25. In Luke 22:23, "since some one would," "it being so — τίς ἄρα?" It is less evident but the same sense in chapter 11:48, "you being what you are, and doing what you are, ἄρα μαρτυρεῖτε." With εἰ it is uncertain possibility under the circumstances; still "this being so:" hence it increases the improbability of εἰ, Acts 8:22, 17:27. Romans 5:18, ἄρα οὖν "therefore, this being so"; Romans 8:1, "This being so, there is none"; and Romans 14:19 is the same. In 1  Corinthians 7:14 it is elliptical, "if it were as you say, and you had to leave the husband or wife"; but the force of ἄρα is the same. 1 Corinthians 15:15, "if indeed it be so." Galatians 3:7, in the sense is the same. It is the application in proof of what has been said, "This being so," etc. The other cases are all simple, indeed all are, when once its proper force is seized.

Γάρ requires a little more mental attention. Its simple meaning is an illative for, a reason for what precedes, not a cause but a "because." But it is very often indeed a resuming of a series of thought in the writer's mind, and is no inference from what precedes, but a new statement of the case from facts or thoughts in the writer's mind. The same point is proved, but the γάρ or inference does not refer to what has been stated, but to what is in the writer's mind, and this confirming the general thought. A singular case of this is in Matthew 1:18, where the matter is wholly in the writer's mind, and he has only said "thus": so that all that follows with γάρ is the explanation of οὕτως. This is an extreme case perhaps; but this use of γάρ is very common with the apostle Paul, and we should not seize his meaning without seeing it. Thus Romans 1:17 is a simple plain inference or reason: "he was not ashamed of the gospel, for it was the power of God unto salvation." But in verse 18, γάρ has not this direct force, but begins a long series of proofs of what made that gospel necessary; and to the point laid down in verse 17 he returns only in chapter 3:21. But it all bears on that, and is what his mind goes through to prove the point. It may be filled nominally by an ellipse, as "(and I have these thoughts and can shew the value and necessity of this righteousness, and that this is the only possible righteousness), for the wrath of God is revealed," etc. This is very common with Paul. You have both again in Romans 5:6, 7; the simple use in verse 10; the resumed new proof of what was in his mind in verse 13. So, I believe, in verses 16, 17, for the first part of these sentences is clearer as a question; so, in verse 19, he is proving his general point, not what precedes. So in chapter 7:14, where, as in many cases, the connection is so obvious that it creates no difficulty. But in chapter 8:2, 3, we have two distinct new grounds of argument which prove the main point of what he is at, in connection with what precedes, but not the proof of it. You could not say, in verse 2, ὅτι or διότι, which "for" in English often answers to. It aids in proving the general point, but by a collateral testimony. One is delivered from the whole condition and element to which condemnation applied, and is introduced into another to which no condemnation can apply; he is in Christ, not in the flesh. Verse 3 is another and additional point to prove it. Still chapter 6 had shewn one, and the end of chapter 7 the ἀδύνατον of the law. These verses 2 and 3 resume the whole results, and describe the condition of the man in Christ which had not been spoken of in these chapters. The delivering power of life in Christ is the force of verse 2, and what Christ had done before we are in Him (or God in and by Him as to the flesh) in verse 3. The same reference to the result in his mind is in chapter 8:18. We are not glorified together because he reckoned. He illustrates the state of thought which expressed it by a new series of thoughts. This ground for the question in the thought of the speaker is common in interrogation. Matthew 27:23, τί γὰρ κακὸν ἐποίησε : "I ought not to condemn him," or "why do you seek it? for," etc. Acts 19:35, "Who is there?" "Your judgment about Diana is incontrovertible, for who is there among men?" John 7:41, μὴ γὰρ ἐκ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ὁ Χριστὸς ἔρχεται, "it cannot be as you suppose, for does," etc. It is not that a positive thought is formed in the mind, to which the question refers, as I have filled up the ellipse. It is vague, but assumes to negative doubt, or reject some consequence, by the question which proves it cannot be. "Who then doubts that Diana is great?" His object is to prove them wrong in making an uproar, for, etc.; in demanding Christ's life, for, etc.; in pretending Jesus to be the Christ, for, etc.; and this is put as a question which by its certain answer settles it.

110 But γάρ has certainly the sense of indeed, even, immo, perhaps the Hebrew "ki"; as Acts 16:37, οὐ γάρ no indeed. The connection with its usual force may be seen perhaps in 1  Thessalonians 4:10.

In Acts 2:15, οὐ γάρ is not "for," I suspect, but "these indeed are not, as you suppose, drunk, for" — "these are in no way."

So with καὶ γάρ has the sense of even. It cannot have the sense of for, save very elliptically: "yet you may still do it, for even the dogs," etc., Matthew 15:27. In John 7:41, γάρ has the force of indeed, but with a question as above, denying it thus; but its force is indeed. Again, 1 Corinthians 9:10, δι᾽ ἡμᾶς γάρ "indeed, surely, even, for us." James 4:14 again helps us to the connection of the two sentences. We must say even, perhaps; but the reason is given why it is the weak thing which the question supposes — "it is as nothing, for it is a vapour": but if we do not supply the ellipse, we must say "indeed," "even." Acts 8:31, "I cannot do so, for how should I be able," etc.; but again with the ellipse, we must say, "how indeed should I?" And in this use of it, I do not see, however unusual, it may not be ἢ γὰρ ἐκεῖνος , Luke 18:14, "than surely that other one," γάρ being merely increased affirmation, as "ki" in Hebrew, or "ja" in German, or immo. It was left out as difficult in some mss.; rather, yea, than that other, for the other thought himself so. In Romans 3:2, we have πρῶτον γάρ first indeed, first surely, etc., chapter 15:27, εὐδόκησαν γάρ. Again, "they were pleased indeed" — the mind stops, says, "no doubt." It is the more striking here, for in verse 26 we have εὐδ. γάρ  in the usual sense of for. If the force of γάρ be the mind stopping and affirming anything, inasmuch as, indeed, it being so that, which is the reason for what is spoken of, or what is in the mind, to which the previous part referred.* Then ἢ γὰρ ἐκεῖνος,  Luke 18:14, would be, "than, whatever people may think, that [other] one" "than, yes surely, that other." So Acts 16:37, "Nay, whatever they may pretend to, let them come!" "Nay, surely not." So in 1 Corinthians 9:10, Acts 4:16, ὅτι μὲν γάρ, for then indeed, or for indeed, for that indeed, etc. Romans 3:2, πρῶτον μὲν γάρ first then indeed, first indeed. In 2 Corinthians 12:1, we have a special use of it: "Well (δή) it is not expedient for me to glory, I will then now come," etc. 1 Corinthians 11:22, "have ye not then?" καὶ γάρ has essentially the sense of since, literally for even. It gives a confirming proof, as καὶ γάρ Γαλιλαῖός ἐστιν, Luke 22:59; 1 Corinthians 5:7; 2 Corinthians 13:8, since, or for, for even if, since if. Matthew 15: 27, Mark 7:28, for even, or since.

{*And I suspect that to be the sense of γάρ. If, as alleged, it is composed of γε and ἄρα it is clearly so, and removes question and doubt.

111 Γε does not present much difficulty, though not easy sometimes to put in English. Its general idea is at least, at any rate, Luke 11:8; 18:5, where we may say yet, only it is feeble; so with καί, Luke 19:42, even, at any rate, at least; 1 Corinthians 9:2, "at any rate I am to you." Sometimes even is the best, in the same sense substantially. Acts 2:18, Romans 8:32, the latter ὅς γε, where (ja in German) even is right, but cold; not even better perhaps. Acts 2:18, καί γε, yea even, or yea by itself, or yea on the very.  Ἀλλά γε is more difficult, Luke 24:21. But then, he stops his account of what He was when alive, with "but then there is this," "in spite of all this," "too," "into the bargain," "this, at any rate, has taken place." Acts 8:30; "do you, at least then, understand as you are reading (ἄρα), do you at least (γε) understand it." Acts 11:18, "then indeed," "these things being so, doubtless God has given the Gentiles life," "certainly without question," which is the force of "at any rate," affirming that, in spite of all that might be alleged, it was so; or whatever might be of other cases. 1 Corinthians 6:3, "but indeed things of this life," "not at least things of this life," such as these at any rate cannot be excluded if we are to judge angels. These are all the passages, found only in Luke or Paul's writings.

112  Ἀλλά, πλήν, δέ. The force of πλήν as a preposition is simple, besides, except, but only in Mark 12:32; John 8:10; Acts 8 . 1;  15:28;  27:22. These I believe are all we have; πλὴν ὅτι, Acts 20:23.

Δέ is distinction, not opposition, a second thing, — ἀλλά is opposition. Δέ may be often translated "now," as Matthew 1:18. It supposes some thought to have been in the mind if not expressed, and goes on to what follows: ἀλλά, as sondern after a negative in German, is in contrast. So Romans 7:7, "no, I do not say that, but I do say that," etc. Δέ admits what precedes, but adds or modifies. There is difference but no opposition. It carries on the sentence to another element of thought, another, but carries it on. Mark 5:33, "but the woman being afraid." Mark 9:50, "Salt is good, but if," etc. Sometimes there is more contrast, but it is as if μέν were there. Acts 22:28, ἐγὼ δέ. But you may generally translate "and" without altering the sense, as Romans 2. We say, "I do one thing to one, and another thing to another"; if I say "but," it brings in mere opposition: but in English the opposition lies in the sense, even with "and"; in Greek it is expressed by δέ. Δέ is a continuation of the same reasoning, a completing it, though the subject matter may be opposed. So Matthew 12:26-28.

Ἀλλά negatives the thing it is in contrast with: δέ connects them in reasoning, though it may be the converse, or distinct, "not in circumcision, ἀλλ in uncircumcision," Romans 4:10, Mark 9:8, "they saw no man, ἀλλά they saw Jesus"; chapter 14:29: Romans 3:31, "ἀλλά, on the contrary, we establish"; and chapter 5:14, "sin is not imputed," — that is true — "but death reigned." So Romans 8:37, referring to verse 35, "on the contrary": 1 Corinthians 3:2, "not only do I say this, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδέ, on the contrary ye are not even now." In 1 Corinthians 9:12 we have it twice: the second is evident contrast, the first we have got the power but, etc., in contrast with the natural effect of having it. It is less evident in 2 Corinthians 8:7, but is just a beauty of style. It is as much as to say, "It is as if I doubted of this, and therefore sent Titus. It is not that, but what I want is, that you," etc. Ephesians 5:24, ἀλλά is sometimes used when it is a setting aside a current of thought in the mind to substitute another; so it is used, I take it, here. So 2 Corinthians 11:6. It gives force simply to style, as in 2 Corinthians 7:11, "yea" is well enough, "ay, not only that but."

113 Πλήν is always an additional thought that comes into the mind: "Moreover," "but then I add." It is not "but" or "and," but "moreover," though the sentence may not bear the word in English, Matthew 11:22, 24, "I add, moreover": so chapter 18:7. So Luke 22:21, 22, πλήν, moreover, "the hand is there, and the Son of man goes indeed, καὶ μέν, but then I add, woe to that man." Matthew 26:39, "but then I add."

Μενοῦνγε is used only three times in New Testament. Philippians 3:8 is read ἀλλὰ μὲν οὖν in the editions. Luke 11:28, Romans 9:20, 10:18. It has the sense of a kind of "ay, indeed, if you talk of that." So Luke 11:28, "If you talk of blessing, such and such are the really blessed." Romans 9:20, "Ah, indeed, you talk of calling God in question; who are you then?" And chapter 10:18, "If you talk of not having heard, why their sound is gone out into all the world." In the first, "yea"; in the second, "nay but" is all well. in the third, "yea." Literally it is "now then indeed."

For Μηδέ and Μήτε, see 2 Thessalonians 2:2, in editions. Μηδέ adds a subject of negation: μήτε contrasts different points into which the subject spoken of in the negative is divided, "not shaken nor troubled (μηδέ)by word, nor by letter (μήτε)."

Τέ by itself connects two things in a measure in one, καί leaves them two: but when τέ is used with καί it raises the subject of τέ  into prominence. It is not only what follows καί, but what precedes τέ too; but still unites them: saying, not the two, but both, take place. So indeed μήτε . . . . μήτε, both form part of one single subject. There is more bond in τέ than in καί in the two things mentioned, as in 2 Thessalonians 2:2, both are connected with θροεῖσθαι. It is more also, or both, than and. It is found twice as often in Acts as in all the rest of the New Testament; then in Hebrews, Romans, Luke, rarely elsewhere: often it is a mere shade of different aspect of something from καί. James and John, both James and John; bad and good, both bad and good. The sense is the same, only "both" brings them together to the mind as one. The distinct commandments, Mark 10:19, are μή, not μήτε.

Δή is only six times used. It arrests the mind on the noun or verb, impressing it on it, as the important point then in the mind. The passages are Matthew 13:23, Luke 2:15, Acts 13:2, 15: 36, 1 Corinthians 6:20, 2 Corinthians 12:1. It is then, then now; also does well in Matthew 13:23: then now in Luke 2:15, 1 Corinthians 6:20, 2 Corinthians 12, "well it is not," would do.

114 Μέντοι. In John* always however, found elsewhere only in James 2:2, and Jude 8, yet, the sense is the same. It is also in 2 Timothy 2:19.

{*John 4:27; 7:13; 12:42; 20:5; and 21:4.}

Μέν does little more than arrest the mind instead of simply stating the fact. With δέ it contrasts the two members, but often hardly more than "these" and "those" in English, without "indeed" and "but," as Acts 27:44. The difference I believe to be this — when a common statement applies to both, "indeed" and "but" may be left out in English; when the subjects of μέν and δέ are different, then they have their places; thus Matthew 22:5, "they went, — all, — some to one thing, some to another," but verse 8, "the wedding indeed is ready, but they that are bidden." In Luke 8:5, 6, it is μέν and καί; in Matthew 13: 4, 8, μέν and δέ. Luke 3:16, both, no doubt, are baptizers, but "ἐγὼ μὲν ὕδατι, αὐτὸς δὲ ἐν πνεύματι." The contrast is full.

Μὲν οὖν, is always, I think, a fresh start of subject in the mind of the writer, assuming acquaintance with what precedes, and referring to it as the basis of some new statement, where some particular point, connected with what precedes, comes out into relief. The writer has some one or some thing in his mind, shut up in the previous part, which makes the prominent subject in some new statement. Οὖν, I think, connects; μέν fixes the mind on the particular object. Once μὲν οὖν, but then οὖν  has its own ordinary force. I think μὲν οὖν thus always begins a new sentence. It is chiefly found in the narrative of the Acts, as may be supposed. See οὖν .

Ὅμως, even, nevertheless, however, although, found only in John 12:42, 1 Corinthians 14:7, and Galatians 3:15. In this last ὅμως goes with ἀνθρώπου, and in 1 Corinthians 14:7, with ἄψυχα, not φωνὴν διδόντα.

Ὅπως is almost always the expression of object or purpose. Acts 3:19, in A.V. is a mere false translation.* The only exception is Luke 24:20. It is not always so that or that, but always the object or intention, as Matthew 12:14, Mark 3:6, Matthew 26:59, Luke 11:37, Acts 23:23. But ὅπως is the object in the result, not the intention as in the mind. I do a thing ἵνα, that is the intention in my mind.  Ὅπως is the effect of the act, the aim of the act, not the intention of the mind, it is "so that," not essentially "in order that," it is the πῶς of the thing.

{*"When the times of refreshing shall come" should be translated "so that the times," etc.}

115 Οὐδέ, οὔτε, as with μηδέ, μήτε; οὐδέ, an additional object of negation; οὔτε one of two contrasted: only οὐδέ has also the sense of "not even," Matthew 8:10; 27:14; Luke 6:3; 23:40; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 6:5. Οὔτε is peculiar in John 4:11: it is opposed to καί, but the sense is the same.

Οὖν. Therefore (folgerung), sometimes however a mere consequence of facts in the mind, not a cause, then, and its proper sense is not cause but consequence, hence "therefore." I say in the mind, because it is the mind singling out some particular person and thing in a less open way in the mind, in what precedes, and bringing it out into relief and importance. See μέν in connection with which it is thus used. With a question, and with εἰ, it has this force of consequence; for example, "these things being so." Matthew 13:27; 12:12. Εἰ οὖν, chapter 7:11; 22:45, any hypothetical case is as the formal word εἰ: thus ὅταν, chapter 24:15; Mark 12:6, ἔτι οὖν ἕνα υἱὸν ἔχων. "This being so," "if it be so." It has this force even in direct statement and command, as Mark 3:31; 13:35; Luke 3:7; 6:9, 36; John 4:28. The causative and antecedent grounds often run into one another, John 2:20. But the antecedent occasion is as common as the sense of cause (see the discourses in John's Gospel throughout). "This being so, such and such follows" is the sense which rises up into "therefore." A strict cause is διὰ τοῦτο, and can be used with οὖν, "therefore" these things being so, John 5:18. Sometimes what is so is expressed, as is naturally the case with εἰ, "if they are so"; ὅταν, "when they were so, — then," etc.

Μή, when used where we might suppose οὐ could be (for it has its own use besides), gives, I think, the state and character, not the fact; but it is only a shade of meaning. Thus Matthew 1:19, Joseph, δίκαιος ὤν, he being a just man, μὴ θέλων, "a just man, and unwilling"; οὐ θέλων would be the fact. So Acts 27:7, 15; it was the state of things, "the wind not suffering." It is not the fact that the wind then and there did not suffer that the ship should easily make her way, but the wind being such that it could not, and (ver. 15) the ship was caught, and unable. So Acts 12:19; the shape it takes in the mind is the state of Herod, not the fact that he did not find. Compare 2 Corinthians 4:18, 5:21; Matthew 7:26; Luke 12:4; John 7:49; Romans 4:17: so often. Hence it is commonly used with a participle, or future conditional, future at least in thought, as Luke 17:1; see John 12:47, 48, both cases. So of a state, in the infinitive with article, Luke 8:6, 22:34; Hebrews 11:3; or without, as Luke 18:1, where the article is with δεῖν. In many cases, when it refers to a fact, the imperative, its very common use, is understood. In questions it is not merely, as usually stated, the expectation of a negative answer, but a present presentation of it as not so, or of circumstance which made it likely the enquiry would convey a doubt, or undesired, unpleasing possibility, one that can hardly be supposed true, and raises the question — not an enquiry for information. Thus John 18:17, 25; 6:67; Mark 2:19. In the last the negative answer meets it. John 7:47; Mark 12:14, 15, where οὐ is used for indicative negation of fact, μή for the moral propriety with subjunctive For the contrast of affirming expected answer with οὐχί, see John 7:41, 42.

116 Ναί, though used for "yes," as Matthew 9:28, etc., is, however, something more, as "yea" (from the usus loquendi) is in English. It affirms positively when a matter might be supposed to be in doubt, or reiterates as a certainty that cannot fail, as Luke 11:51. Query, is it more than simply "yes" in Matthew 21:16, a reply, or in any way connected with what follows? But it is very commonly, at any rate, emphatic, as Luke 7:26; 12:5. In Matthew 15:27, Mark 7:28, it is simply "yea, Lord," that is, "yea, Lord, you can do it" even on your own ground, "for even," or "since." It calls in question any opposition.

Ὥστε does not express an intention, but a means or instrument which brings about what follows: ὅτι a fact which exists, when the ὅτι is applied: ἵνα what is in view or intention, when what governs ἵνα is stated.

Ἵνα is the object and intention of the person or thing from its nature, and sometimes amounts to a telic infinitive [all modern Greek infinitives are formed, I learn, by it (να)]. Hence it is not merely in order that, as an indirect consequence; that is, I do one thing in order that, in its turn, another may follow; but in Greek it is immediate also. Ὅτι answers to what or why, meeting the τί, the what or the why is so and so; hence that answering to "what," and for or because answering to "why." But when there is not cause or object* but intention, or end of anything, it is ἵνα. Hence with words of request, command, or wish, desire, as 1 Corinthians 14:1 (and in sense, 2 Cor. 8:7), it is common; Matthew 4:3;  12:10;  20:21, 31, 33;  26:63; Mark 7:32, 36; Romans 15:31; Ephesians 1:17, etc., etc. Some cases are less evident. Matthew 5:29, 30;  8:8; 10:25, and even chapter 26:4, Mark 4:21 shews the connection, the object and intention are there, not merely one act in order to another. Mark 6:12, "preached, ἵνα"; chapter 6:36, "let them go, ἵνα." Thus we have the direct intention and object of the act, or will, or thing. Luke uses it quite as much (it is not used in an ecbatic sense) in chapter 7:6, 36;  8:31, 32;  9:40, 45;  16:27;  18:39, 41, and others. I do not believe, for instance, John 9:2 is for ὥστε; it was not the will of the parents, of course, but the meaning and end of the act. A person may object to this, as contrary to his way of thinking; but so it is. Ἱκανὸς ἵνα is not "so that," but the τέλος of the ἱκανότης in the mind of the writer, and is powerful in style. It is intention, or something to be; ὅτι may be future, if it is a fact, not what is in view as an object. So in chapter 11:50, συμφέρει ἵνα. Is not the sense always future to that on which ἵνα depends, ὅτι an existing fact? To state a cause you must have the caused fact; an intention looks to the future. In John 6:28 it is not "in order that," that is, doing one thing that another may come, but with this intention or object to fulfil it; the direct τέλος of the will in doing, not a subsequent effect: hence ἵνα. And this sentence also gives the clue to its use in chapter 9:22. It was the intention or object of their agreement. In chapter 4:34,"my meat is ἵνα ποιῶ." Ὅτι has no place here; it is an infinitive in sense, but it gives the intention. His meat was not having done it, but to do. "If any man θέλει to do his will, he shall know of the doctrine." Still John carries its use farther. We understand the intention in the works or speaker's mind of an ἱκανότης, fit for (propre à, not pour) that. But John 13:1, ἐλήλυθεν αὐτοῦ ἡ ὥρα, ἵνα it was the intention and meaning of that hour, as the writer viewed it, and divinely so. Still it is a special use of it. So chapter 18:39, a custom, ἵνα the object or meaning of the custom; still it is carrying its use very far. So in 1  John 1:9, "faithful and just ἵνα he might forgive"; again a telic infinitive ὅτι has no place. So chapter 4:21, here it depends on ἐντολή, "the intention of the ἐντολή was," etc. In chapter 5:3, I suppose it is the intention to keep, as in the passage, "my meat is"; but this carries its use very far, as it is evident John does (but ὅτι would have another sense), as before in his Gospel, chapter 4:34. But in John 17:3, it is merely infinitive (not ὅτι, nor ὥστε). So indeed, practically, is 1 John 5:3 (see above). John 11:19, 31, shews how it connects "in order to" with infinitive. John 11:37, we have  ποιῆσαι ἵνα, "caused this man not to die"; not acted so that he had not, but acted to hinder him dying, only ἀποθάνῃ so that it was effectual; after need, John 2:25, for any one to bear witness; chapter 5:7, infinitive; chapter 8:56; 16:2 (a strong case). 1 John 5:3; 2 John 6; 3 John 4. With the pronoun "this," John 6:29, 39, 40;  15:13;  17:3; Luke 1:43. The real point, I believe, is, besides the common use, "in order that," when it is future, a thing in posse, not in esse, an object in view; hence equivalent to "to" with an infinitive; whereas ὅτι is in esse, not merely in posse. In Matthew 26:34, ὅτι seems future, but it is "you will have done it before." In Mark 4:38, it is present, "we are perishing." Ὅτι is used after speak or write in Greek, when in English it is left out, as John 4:42, and a multitude of cases. The only strong case as to ἵνα is after αὐτός. Still, though peculiar and idiomatic, it is an object in view, the thought and will of the person who acts or speaks. Luke 1:43 is the strongest of all, but it is not the fact that she has come, but this, that she should come — should have the thought or mind of coming. So John 17:3, it is not the fact that a person who has known has life, but the thought that to know is or could be life to him that knew. It is the abstract idea, what life eternal is. It is to know, it is found in knowing, which thus stands as an object to be attained before the mind. This was the way of having it. Ὅτι would be that they have known a fact about some people, ἵνα is sollen, what is to be. So in Luke 1:43, "whence" refers to the mind or intention to come, the motive ἵνα for coming. In the case of αὐτός, etc., the thought is, this must be to have the matter in question, a man must know to have; that is, the knowing is looked at as a thing to be necessary, not existing. So with "greater love hath no one than this, that (ἵνα) life must be laid down to make this good"; that is, it is not the fact which (ὅτι), but viewed as needed and so to be, a moral consequence, not a fact; as I have said, ὅτι always refers to a fact, ἵνα to an intention. There may be a future with ὅτι, but it is an assertion of the fact (which may be future), as Luke 19:26; 18:8, not an object in purpose or intention. Not "I command, request, that it should"; but "I say that it will": that it should is in purpose; the other is an assertion of fact, though the fact be future. "That" or "because" are not really different as the meaning of ὅτι; when it means "because" it is practically διὰ τοῦτο ὅτι.

{*See farther on. Hence ὅτι is a present thing, is, or is caused; ἵνα, future to the motive, or causing word.}

119  Ἕως, is as far as, hence can be with verbs, ἕως ἐλήλυθεν, ἕως ἡμέρα ἐστίν, John 9:4, John 12:35, 36, ἔχετε. Hence with the sense of till or while, because both are "as long as." It is not objective; ἕως ἡμέραν, if it were Greek, would be "up to day," "during night." Hence the genitive, which is a genitive absolute. So you can have (which shews its force) ἕως εἰς, Luke 24:50, ἕως ἄνω, John 2:7; and again, ἕως ἔξω, Acts 21:5; ἕως ἔσω, Mark 14:54. There is always the sense of so far as; not merely to as an object, but "up to," "all the way there." It is not εἰς, zu, but bis zu ihm. Hence it is "whilst" with an indicative, as John 9:4 above, or with a conjunctive when it is intention, Mark 6:45, or future προσεύξωμαι, as Matthew 26:36.

Μή, μήποτε etc., not, that not, but, as is known, intention of the mind, not fact, as Matthew 4:6; μήποτε "thou dash"; μηδέποτε, 2 Timothy 3:7. Οὔποτε is not found replaced by οὐδέποτε. Οὐ and οὐδέποτε are fact. Hence μή with imperative, and with an interrogative, meaning, "can you suppose that . . .?" when the intended answer is "not";  οὐ, when "yes." So in moral reasons, μή: διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν, Matthew 13:5, 6. Hence with participles, as verse 19, μὴ συνιέντος: Luke 2:45, μὴ εὑρόντος. In Matthew 13:5, οὐκ εἶχε γῆν, the fact. The participle is a supposed or assumed state on which the fact is based. So indeed μή in interrogation is a supposition that not. "Μή thou greater than our father Jacob?" John 4:12. It is a state of mind or of things on which something is based, when not the simple expression of a state of mind, as in the imperative. We have οὐ μή, not only in assertion, where it is not at all, but in questions also, οὐ μή, and μὴ οὐ. But I do not think either a mere doubling of the negative  οὐ μή is not, certainly not, but no in no case, under no supposition: the mind cannot entertain the negative. So μὴ οὐ is interrogation, as before, but with the sense "is it to be supposed . . . ?" "are we to lay it down that . . . ?" etc. Οὐ μή is used in an interrogative sense, but with a note of admiration, Luke 18:7. "And God would not avenge his own elect!" — "is that to be supposed?" In Hebrews 10:1, 11 οὐδέποτε approaches the nearest to μηδέποτε, but it is the fact; μηδέποτε, in 2 Timothy 3:7, the character of γυναικάρια. Μηκέτι and οὐκέτι follow the same principle. Οὐκέτι is fact; μηκέτι, command, consequence, ὥστε μηκέτι, not οὐκέτι, but they could not, οὐκέτι. So μηδέ Mark 2:2, μηκέτι with infinitive. In 1  Thessalonians 3:1, 5, it is the participle as before with μή. The same generally with ὥστε, ὥστε οὐκ ἔτι εἶ δοῦλος the fact: ὥστε μὴ ἰσχύειν, the thought as a consequence, not the fact. So Mark 1:45; 2:2; 3:20. The strict sense of ὥστε is "so as," Matthew 15:33: then "so that," "that," Matthew 12:22, Galatians 2:13, or with οὕτως, John 3:16, Acts 14:1, "but that" with "so" understood; that is, not intention (ἵνα) but result, even if in thought.

120 Ἀλλά, when not a contrasted "but"; "not this, but that," is an arrest in the thought, in the sense of this. "Do I say this? nay, but," etc. It stops the mind on what was going before, and brings in something else. The ellipse depends on the passage, as Acts 10:20, "but arise"; or no ellipse really, but, turning to another point, it supposes some contradiction might be urged, or means "not only"; but it is never, I think, copulative, as alleged. See with ἤ, Luke 12:51, 2 Corinthians 1:13 (this peculiar).

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 παρά, περί, μετά, ἐκ: παρά with a genitive, "from," but it is genus still; περί, 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 περὶ ὑμῶν, etc. With the accusative it is the object whom they do or will refer to, περὶ ἐμέ.  Ἐκ is only source and characteristic source, hence has only the genitive. Μετά is like περί, the thing is characterized by its association, μεθ ἡμῶν. They are thought of as associated with "us." This characterizes them: μετὰ ταῦτα they are separated, and they are a distinct object by themselves when ταῦτα are complete, hence they come after. Πρός and παρά have genitive, dative, and accusative.

121 Ἀνά: besides the idea of respectively, each, we have only ἀνὰ μέσον, 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, ἀνὰ μέρος, [each] for [his] part, in his turn, by course; so, by fifties, or fifty each, man by man, each man.  Ἀνά 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.  Ἀνά μέσον is not ἐν μέσῳ, which may be a point unconnected with the rest. Ἀνά connects the thing which is ἀνά with that ἀνά (up to) which it is, so as to have to say to all. He fills up that to which ἀνά applies. It is not mittelpunkt but mitten unter. Not in the middle but in the midst.

Ἀντί, in the place of, and so for, sometimes because; the force being, I apprehend, "you get this as a recompense," ἀντί, "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.

Ἅμα is used for a preposition instead of σύν, Matthew 13:29.

Ἀπό, genitive: point of departure. Hence, by reason of, occasioned by, Matt. 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 ἀποδοκιμάζω. So Acts 2:22, where ἀπό is in the verb, not in 2 Corinthians 7:13. It is not for ὑπό. The cases are after ἀπό in the verb, or after ἀναπέπαυται, which supposes toil, and ceasing to have it; not the present effect of an agent (ὑπό) under whose power and influence the matter happens, or the person is. In a good state, Titus might have been received and cheered ὑπό; though scarcely this last, but not ἀναπέπαυται when they had been going wrong before. His refreshment now proceeded from them: "peace from" is simple, "delivered from," also; so with παρέλθῃ, Mark 14:35. The point of departure is clear in ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ, ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν, 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, ἀπό, 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, ἀπό μιᾶς 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.

122  Ἐκ, 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 ἀπό: ἀπό 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. Ἐκ supposes one more in the state referred to. I can say, ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος; one leaves the water to be on land; ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος, out of the water in which one was. What answers to ἀπό is "at," to ἐκ is "in." Hence ἐκ is more abstract; ἐκ πίστεως on that principle. Ἀπὸ εὐλαβείας, that was the actual governing and producing motive.   Ἐκ is sometimes merely a shade of meaning different from ἀπό, but there is the difference noticed. Hence ἐκ has the force of the character of anything: ἐκ τοῦ κοσμοῦ, ἐκ τοῦ διαβολοῦ, ἐκ τοῦ πατρός. And this tone of thought is found even where place is in question and the article is used. "New Jerusalem descended ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ ." It came out of, no doubt, but it stamps its character in revealing its source. Ἀπό 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 ἀπό, though the ideal difference remains: ἀπὸ πολλῶν ἐτῶν since many years, ἐκ χρόνων ἱκανῶν 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 ἐκ νεότητος. But characterizing, as marking origin out of which anything is, is the common use, where not materially used. "The baptism of John, was it ἐξ οὐρανοῦ": 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 (ἐκ) faith." It is not διά, the means of living, but the character of the life. "A tree is known ἐκ τοῦ καρποῦ," Matthew 12:33 and Luke 6:44. In Matthew 7:16, 20, it is ἀπό. The former is characteristic in the thing, the latter is a conclusion in knowledge, "from." "Οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς:" "ὁ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ:" "ὁ ἐκ τῆς γῆς:" "ἐκ τοῦ κοσμοῦ λαλεῖν :" "οἱ ἐξ ἐριθείας." 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 ἐκ μέρους, partly, in part, ἐξ ἰσότητος. It becomes thus adverbial. Thus, he agreed with the labourers ἐκ δηναρίου: we say, at a penny, Matthew 20:2. Ἐκ is commonly used where we have the genitive, where it is one or more from among set of objects whether left or not.

123 Ἐν 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, ἀνελήφθη ἐν δόξῃ. It is used to mean what accompanies and characterizes, where we should say, "with," "in the power of," ἐν ῥάβδῳ "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, ἐν πνεύματι. A strong case of this instrumental character is in Luke 14:31; if ἐν δέκα χιλιάσι . . . "with ten thousand." So Hebrews 9:25, ἐν αἵματι ἀλλοτρίῳ: Matthew 6:7, ἐν πολυλογίᾳ. Hence it is not the effective instrument of activity, that is διά, but what characterizes: πολυλογίᾳ 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, ἐν σάλπιγγι ἐσχάτῃ; at or during, within, when referring to time, John 2:19, 20, ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις. So (here more literally used) Matthew 11:25; 12:1, ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῳ καιρῳ, John 5:16, ἐν σαββάτῳ. It has thus the force of the "means by which," ἐν τούτῳ γνώσονται, John 13:35. We have a peculiar case in ἐν ὑμῖν κρίνεται ὁ κόσμος, 1  Corinthians 6:2 — "If the judgment of the world shall be characterized by your doing it, surely," etc.: "if ἐν ὑμῖν — 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, ἐν ὧ θελήματι. 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 διά of an instrument, but the ἐν or character of what does it. So, he came, Luke 2:27, " ἐν τῳ πνεύματι into the temple." It is not the instrument, but what characterized His coming: only τῳ personifies the Spirit, that is, gives personality to the thought, "the Spirit," as one acting not merely ἐν πνεύματι which is the state of the person. He casts out devils, Matthew 12:24, ἐν τῳ ἄρχοντι τῶν δαιμονίων. It was what characterized His power (personally again) or miracle. Acts 20:19, ἐν ταῖς ἐπιβουλαῖς,   that was the state of things in which he found himself, and which causes his tears. It was not διά, 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.}

124 Hebrews 11:2, ἐν ταύτῃ; Colossians 1:16, ἐν αὐτῳ ἐκτίσθη (διά in the same verse), and compare verse 20, and Hebrews 1:1, 2; compare ἐν ὑμῖν, 1  Corinthians 6:2; Matthew 12:24, 27, 28; and see use of ἐν and διά in Romans 5:9 (comp. ver. 10).

Is not διά an historical word when the fact that took place is looked at as taking place at a given time? Whereas ἐν is the abiding character and being of him or it, by which the work is wrought, ἐν ὧ ἐκτίσθη, δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἔκτισται, Colossians 1:16, 17. So Romans 5:9, 10, justified ἐν τῳ αἵματι, reconciled διὰ τοῦ θανάτου. Then when any one is looked at as a distinct agent or means, it is διά, Romans 5:9, δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ; so Colossians 1:20, δι᾽ αὐτοῦ, because Christ is looked at as such, as a distinct person, as a man, though ἐν αὐτῶ is applied to the fulness of the Godhead. Hebrews 1:1, 2, God spoke ἐν υἱῳ. There they are not separated, but δι᾽ οὗ ἐποίησε,  a particular historical act, and God is looked at as distinct; see John 1:3, δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο. There He is looked at as a distinct person, verse 2, πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, and it is an historical fact. Colossians 1:16, ἐν αὐτῶ ἐκτίσθη,  its literal ordinary cause and abiding characteristic, δι᾽ αὐτοῦ in verse 20, historical (see the cases farther on). Διά is the instrument of a fact, ἐν an abiding cause or state (διά 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, ἐν πληγαῖς would be in that state of things he proved himself a minister: διὰ πληγῶν would have been the means of proving himself so. Hence 2 Corinthians 6:7, δι᾽ ὅπλων, because that was the proof. It might be thought that verse 8 διὰ δυσφημίας καὶ εὐφημίας was in going through it, but I doubt it.

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 διά. This is only a change of style occasioned by ὅπλων, which were clearly instruments, and not merely characteristic as to the state he was in; and διά goes on rightly because there is contrast: the most opposite things were the means of shewing it. The "yet" inserted in English (ver. 8) is wrong. So "the unbelieving husband is sanctified by (ἐν) the wife" — not "by means of" (διά). 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 quâ 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 versâ. This characteristic force is plain in many cases, ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, ἐν δόλῳ, ἐν κρυπτῳ, ἐν προσώπῳ, λόγος ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ — 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," ἐν δυνάμει, 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, ἐν characterizes (not in its source, that is ἐκ, 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.

126 Διά, 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 διά with an accusative. There are some important passages connected with this distinction: as to time, the literal "through," διὰ τριῶν ἡμερῶν, "in the course of" (Matt. 26:61); δι᾽ ὅλης τῆς νυκτός, διὰ πυρός, 1 Corinthians 3:15. So, I doubt not, δι᾽ ὕδατος, 1 Peter 3:20. Hence, for "in a state of," δι᾽ ἀκροβυστίας, and analogously διὰ τῆς τεκνογονίας, 1  Timothy 2:15; the article denotes the childbirth she was to undergo. Romans 4:10, we have ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ, the state as noticed in "ἐν"; that characterized his state. In verse 11, we have ἐν τῃ ἀκροβυστίᾳ and δι᾽ ἀκροβυστίας. Διά I apprehend to be more vague and general. That condition specifically and contrastedly characterized Abraham. He was ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ. For Gentile believers it was merely de facto they were in that state. So of τεκνογονίας, so of νυκτός. 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." (Heb. 1:2.) It is not that the same Being may not be the author; but that His action in that case, where διά 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, εἷς Θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ ἐξ οὗ . . . εἷς Κύριος δι ὀὗ.  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 διά does not hinder the source of action and the primary agent to be the same person. We read in the chapter, δι᾽ ἑαυτοῦ καθαρισμὸν ποιησάμενος. So in Colossians 1:16 we see He was the end and object, τὰ πάντα . . . εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται, which is said, as to us at least, distinctively of God the Father, 1 Corinthians 8:6; δι᾽ αὐτοῦ being applied to Christ. And in Colossians we have ἐν αὐτῳ ἐκτίσθη (compare ἐν) and δι᾽ αὐτοῦ. Creation was characterized by His action, as the world's judgment by ours (ἐν ὑμῖν): 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 (διά), it was not ἀφ᾽ αὑτῶν, but δι᾽ αὐτῶν, Luke 1:70, more fully and absolutely.

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, κἀγὼ ζῶ διὰ τὸν πατέρα καὶ ὁ τρὼγων με, κἀκεῖνος ζήσεται δι᾽ ἐμέ : "'because' of the Father, he that eats me even he shall live 'because' of me": again not as motive, but cause or reason why (chap. 14:19, ὅτι ἐγὼ ζῶ καὶ ὑμεῖς ζήσεσθε). 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 διά with an accusative for a motive is common: thus, John 7:13, Matthew 12:27; so with τό and an infinitive, Luke 2:4; both genitive and accusative, Romans 5:12: so, διατί, διό.

There is another point to be mentioned in connection with the intermediate character of διά. When the instrument is the proper cause or instrument, the immediate instrument, the noun is in the dative (the δι᾽ ἑαυτοῦ of Heb. 1:3 only confirming it). The genitive with διά is viewed as another agent from the one who uses it — as a distinct agent. Thus Romans 5:15, 17, τῳ τοῦ ἑνὸς παραπτώματι; then verse 16, δι᾽ ἑνὸς ἁμαρτήσαντος, τὸ δώρημα, 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, τῳ τοῦ ἑνὸς παραπτώματι ὁ θάνατος ἐβασίλευσε διὰ τοῦ ἑνός; 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, διὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. In verse 18, we have it as a distinct act, δι᾽ ἑνὸς παραπτώματος, εἰς πάντας, in and by itself as a means, "and so by one righteousness." Compare the use of "ἐν" in this same passage. The dative is a mere means identified with the agent, the διά makes a distinct object to the mind.

128 In Hebrews 13:20, "the God of peace brought Christ from the dead, ἐν αἵματι," in that way and character; but in Hebrews 9, "He entered in once, διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος." (Verse 12.) This refers to οὐ χωρὶς αἵματος 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 διά, for it is the force of διά I enquire into here. Χωρὶς αἵματος, there could have been no fitting association, however small, between Israel and the most holy place, and He entered in thus offering it (προσφέρει). 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 διά 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 διά 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.

129 Εἰς 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 εἰς ἅδου," where it had gone on leaving the body. (See 2 Thessalonians 2:4, where it depends on the active force of καθίσαι, sets himself down there.) What is said (Acts 8:23) of Simon, that he was εἰς χολὴν πικρίας is different in sense from ἐν.  Ἐν 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": ὄντα 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 ἁμαρτάνω εἰς, 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, εἰς τί ἡ ἀπώλεια (Mark 14:4; 15:34); "to what purpose is this waste?" (Where it is a contact of violence, ἐπί is used; nation shall rise ἐπί nation.) This use of as to as an object is common. "She has wrought a good work εἰς ἐμέ," and in several forms, as the baptism of repentance εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, Mark 1:4, 38, εἰς τοῦτο ἐξελήλυθα.

In connection with the object to which the mind or faith is directed, we have πιστεύω εἰς. So ἐλπίζω εἰς, 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, πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα; and to the same purport, βαπτίζω εἰς τὸ ὄνομα,* εἰς Μωσῆν,** εἰς τὸ βάπτισμα Ἰωάννου,*** εἰς Χριστόν,****. 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 ἐπὶ τῳ ὀνόματι in Acts 2:38, εἰς τό 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, εἰς ὄνομα.  Ἐν ὀνόματι would, it seems to me, be in another's name (ἐπί, Matt. 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 εἰς ὄνομα 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). Ἐν ὀνόματι is bearing it as a character and warrant of reception, εἰς the place and title in (into) which he is received. Where we have εἰς τὸ γένεσθαι (Rom. 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 εἰς τὸ εἶναι δίκαιον, 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 εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα." They met the preaching by repentance, Matthew 12:41. So chapter 14:31, εἰς τί ἐδίστασας; "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.}

130 The idea of "towards" requires little notice: in the sense of for, in favour of, διακονίας εἰς ἁγίους, 2 Corinthians 8:4; 9:1: so λογίας, 1 Corinthians 16:1. The use of it in chapter 15:54 is striking; "death is swallowed up εἰς νῖκος," 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," εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον; so chapter 2:22, ἐδούλευσεν εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. Chapter 4:15, 17, εἰς λόγον; verse 17 is "to put to the account." Colossians 3:10, ἀνακαινούμενον εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν. (Comp. 1:10, αὐξανόμενοι τῃ ἐ.) So verse 12, ἱκανώσαντι ἡμᾶς εἰς τὴν μερίδα, where the force of εἰς is the same. It is the goal reached, or to be reached, by ἀνακαινούμενοι and ἱκάνωσεν. Remark on Galatians 3:17, that it is to Christ, not in. The covenant was confirmed to Him, the Seed (according to Gen. 22); and then we have an example of εἰς τό, as the bearing, οὐκ ἀκυροῖ, εἰς τὸ καταργῆσαι τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν to the making of no effect. In 2  Corinthians 10:16, besides εἰς τὰ ὑπερέκεινα, we have, εἰς τὰ ἕτοιμα; so in verses 13, 15, εἰς τὰ ἄμετρα (see Gal. 6:4); 2 Corinthians 2:9, "obedient εἰς πάντα"; Philippians 2:16, εἰς ἡμέραν.

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 εἰς Χριστόν," reaching unto Him as its object (compare Eph. 1:14), εἰς τὰ ἄμετρα, εἰς τὰ ὑπερέκεινα, and εἰς τὰ ἕτοιμα, with some irony; 2 Corinthians 11:3, εἰς τὸν Χριστόν. 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.

Γένεσθαι εἰς is simple in structure, — to become anything, what is produced. Λογίζεσθαι εἰς, "esteemed such," is pretty nearly as plain. See the difference of ἐλλογεῖται and ἐλογίσθη: the former is putting so much to account, Romans 5:13, Philemon 18 (only, I believe, in these two places); λογίζομαι is "to esteem, or account as such."

Ἐπί, with genitive, dative, and accusative. The first two mean upon; the last, to, towards, to direct oneself; ἐπί 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.); ἐπὶ Τίτου, 2 Corinthians 7:14, auprès de. Most cases where the sense is not physical still have the sense of on: miracles on the sick; ἐπ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν, 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, ἐπὶ τῆς μετοικεσίας; 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, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός, Romans 9:5. But here peculiarities have to be noticed, and shades of thought in the writer. Ephesians 4:6, we have again Θεὸς ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων: so with βασιλεύει ἐπί, Matt. 2:22. Καθίστημι in Acts 6:3, οὕς καταστήσομεν ἐπὶ τῆς χρείας ταύτης: Acts 8:27; 12:20. We may add Revelation 9:11; 11:6. In Matthew 24:45, the genitive (καταστήσω) but in verse 47 the dative. So in Luke 12:42 the genitive, and verse 44 the dative. Matthew 25:21, 23, genitive with καταστήσω (ἐπὶ πολλῶν). The general sense of ἐπί 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 θεραπεία, 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 ἐπί with the dative characterizes a state, and in such cases without an article, and denotes the state or character, not merely the locality, ἐπὶ πίνακι, Matthew 14:8. Acts 9:33, κατακείμενον ἐπὶ κραββάτῳ (comp. Mark 2:4), that was his state. In Mark 6:55, we have carrying about the sick, ἐπὶ τοῖς κραββάτοις, the dative; it was their state, but the article shews the beds the sick were lying habitually on. In chapter 7:30, we have βεβλημένην ἐπὶ τῆς κλίνης; 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.

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 ἐπὶ παντὶ ῥήματι"; it is the condition or occasion of his living: chapter 7:28, "they were astonished ἐπὶ τῃ διδαχῃ"; 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 ἐπὶ τῃ πωρώσει." Chapter 9:37, ἐπὶ τῳ ὀνόματί μου; 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, ἐπὶ τῃ πίστει (see Phil. 3:9), "on faith," we might say; Acts 4:21; 5:35, is also a special case, "take heed" ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τούτοις, 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 ὑπὲρ αὐτῳ. Chapter 14:3 (see Heb. 8:1, Acts 5:35, 2 Cor. 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, ἐπὶ Τίτου (verse 14) is auprès 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 1  Thessalonians 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 Thess. 4:7). Philippians 1:3, 5; 3:9; again ἐπὶ τῃ πίστει, 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, ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι; 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'être. 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.

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 ἐπί 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 εἰς, 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 ἐπί 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 καταβαῖνον ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν, and καθιέμενον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, there it was actually on it. In Revelation 4:2, 4, you have both with καθήμενον. 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" ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματος. 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 καθήμαι, 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 Rev. 6:2, 4, 5, αὐτῳ of the received text, should be αὐτόν, accusative, according to the best copies). Matthew 9:9, accusative. In chapter 28:2, αὐτοῦ ἐπάνω, being locality always, has always the genitive. The only apparent exception is 1  Corinthians 15:6; but this is attractively governed by ὤφθη. There are a few other cases to notice: John 8:7, ἐπ᾽ αὐτῃ; verse 59, ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν. 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," ἐπί (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.

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 (Matt. 24:45, Luke 12:42), and, when set over in formed determinate relationship, dative (Matt. 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 Heb. 3:6; it does not affect this question).

There remains πιστεύω ἐπί, ἐλπίζω ἐπί, etc. Thus we have 1 Timothy 4:10, ἠλπίκαμεν ἐπὶ Θεῳ; chapter 5:5, ἐπὶ Θεόν; 1 Peter 3:5, ἐλπίζουσαι ἐπὶ τὸν Θεόν; 1 John 3:3, ἐλπίδα ἔχειν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῳ; Hebrews 2:13, ἔσομαι πεποιθὼς ἐπ᾽ αὐτῳ; Romans 15:12, ἐπ᾽ αὐτῳ ἐλπιοῦσι. 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 εἰς), 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, ἐπὶ πᾶσι, ἐπὶ τούτοις. "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 πιστεύω). We say "on trust," or "credit," in the same way (not on hope). It characterizes the state or condition.

136 Κατά, 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 κατά, according to the sense of the word governed by it, καθ᾽ ἡμέραν, day by day, or every day: κατ᾽ οἶκον. 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 κατά whatever comes under that category: thus καθ᾽ ὁδόν, κατὰ πᾶσαν αἰτίαν, "so far as for every cause." Here the very cause measures the action. So κατ᾽ ἐπαγγελίαν ζωῆς, 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. Περιπατεῖν κατὰ ἀγάπην, ζῆν κατὰ τὴν αἵρεσιν: 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 κατὰ τὰς πλατείας his walk was measured and characterized by the streets of the city, or ὅλην τὴν χώραν, "all the region." Hence it has the sense implicitly of through or thorough, and this is the origin of its use in composition, κρίνω κατακρίνω, καταχρώμενος (where the sense is not "abusing," but "using" it as ours).

A few questions arise. What is 1 Corinthians 15:15, "borne witness κατὰ Θεοῦ?" 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 ἐν, not κατά, as in all New Testament examples, I believe; but Matthew 26 and Hebrews 6, where the solemnity of the case gives κατά, and "against" has the same radical force. The connection of the two is seen in 1 Corinthians 15:15, we have testified of God, κατὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ. 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 καθ᾽ ὅλης τῆς περιχώρου, and ὅλην τὴν πόλιν; 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 καθ᾽ ὅλης is more complete and absolute, more pervading, than καθ᾽ ὅλην, 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 καθ᾽ ὅλης τῆς πολεῶς." 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 καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς 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, κατὰ φύσιν κλάδοι "natural branches, or according to nature," it was their measure, estimate, and character: other branches were not that, but παρὰ φύσιν. Hence κατὰ τὴν ὁδόν, Acts 8:36, journeying characterized the place of the water, it was not κατ᾽ οἶκον, but κατὰ τὴν ὁδόν.

137 Μετά is simple enough, it is juxtaposition; σύν is connection. Hence μετά with the genitive is among, with; but in the accusative, still juxtaposition; but what is μετά 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.

138 Παρά 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: πίπτειν παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν, "by the way side"; περιπατεῖν παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν, ἁμαρτωλοὶ παρὰ πάντας "beyond all"; ἡμέρα παρ᾽ ἡμέρας, beyond, that is, as better, παρὰ φύσιν, "unnatural," "not according to nature," something "beside and beyond it"; παρ᾽ ἐλπίδα, "beyond hope"; παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα, "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." Παρά has also thus the force of comparison, excellent; παρά, because it is beyond the thing compared with. Παρά τοῦτο 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?

Περί 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, οἱ καθήμενοι περὶ αὐτόν: περὶ ἐμέ, Philippians 2:23; αἱ περὶ τὰ λοιπὰ ἐπιθυμίαι, Mark 4:19.

The only thing to remark further is Acts 25:18, where it may be a question whether it is to be connected with σταθέντες, which is hardly the case, and so used physically (compare ver. 7), or with ἐπέφερον, concerning him. It runs into the sense of in reference to. It answers to about in English pretty exactly. There is the well-known peculiarity of οἱ περί τινα being used for the person himself, as Acts 13:13, "including"; πρὸς τὰς περί (M. καὶ M.), John 11:19, where it is the persons themselves, and hence τάς. If Acts 25:18 be not so, there is no example of περί governing the genitive in the New Testament in a material sense. With the noun in the accusative it is frequent. The different shade of meaning may be noticed in Philippians 2:19, 20, 23, περὶ ὑμῶν. In verses 19, 20, it was the actual circumstances that surrounded them, the state they were in. In verse 23, it was what related to him, what was going to happen to him, what referred to him, not what he was then in. But these are mere shades of thought, yet sensible ones, and give beauty and tone to speech. As regards things and places, to which the things which are περί refer, we have seen that in the New Testament, if it be not the one exception, the word after περί is always in the accusative.

139 Πρό, genitive only; before, as to time, place, and hence in front of, as in English. It calls for no particular remark.

Πρός, 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, ἐγγίζοντος πρὸς τὴν καταβάσιν would be "drawing near the descent," but τῃ καταβάσει, "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; πρός τινος, 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 πρός in the direction of, the accomplishment of their safety. Hence "for" is quite right in sense. Πρός 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, πρὸς τὸ ὄρος, towards the mountain"; πρὸς τῳ ὄρει still so, but at it, an der, an die. We have πρὸς ἑαυτούς, πρὸς ἀλλήλους διαλογίζεσθε, 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 περί. "Are not his sisters all πρὸς ἡμᾶς"; Mark 6:3: so 9:19, πρὸς ὑμᾶς (so John 1:2, Mark 2:2; 4:1, 1 Cor. 16:6, 7, 10, 2 Cor. 12:21) "with you," not μετά associated, but apud, not cum. So πρὸς καιρὸν πιστεύουσι, "up to a certain time." A more unusual case is Luke 12:47, πρὸς τὸ θέλημα, not κατά 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: 2  Corinthians 5:10, "received according to what he has done," πρὸς ἅ. Galatians 2:14, πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν, "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 πρὸς τοὺς ἀγγέλους, Hebrews 1:7, 8, as to speaking, with them in view in His mind. As to time, we have πρός towards, πρὸς ἑσπέραν, Luke 24:29, 1 Corinthians 7:5, πρός καιρόν "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 ὥστε πλανῆσαι.

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, 1  Corinthians 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 πρός in fact, and here James 4:5 comes in.

141 Σύν needs no comment. It is with governing a dative. It is different from μετά 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 μετά.

Ὑπέρ requires more attention: over is its natural meaning; only over, not on — that would be ἐπί. Then with the accusative, which always gives an object or motion, "over in place," that is, beyond; ὑπέρ 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 ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν": 2  Corinthians 1:6, "for your consolation" ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμῶν παρακλήσεως: Romans 8:31, 32, Θεὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν: Romans 1:5, ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ: John 17:19, "ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν 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, ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ πρεσβεύομεν, with the context which precedes.

In 1 Peter 3:18, "Christ suffered περὶ ἀμαρτιῶν," so 1 John 2:2; but 1 Pet. 4:1, ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν and in 1 Peter 3:18 ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων. So chapter 2:21 and often. Nor is it merely on our account, through us, that is διά, 1 Peter 1:20, He has been manifested δι᾽ ἡμᾶς; so Christ was περὶ ἁμαρτίας "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 ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν, also in the former case in the same sentence with ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπων. 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 περὶ ἁμαρτίας or περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν and ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν the same thing: περί may be to God, according to the exigency of His righteousness and glory; ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν 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 περί, but I do not apprehend ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτίας 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 περί or διά.

142 Ὑπό, under, genitive and accusative. The meaning, where not physical, as ὑπὸ τῆς γῆς (in Rev. 5:3, 13, it is ὑποκάτω), 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, ὑπὸ τῶν ὄφεων ἀπολέσθαι; Acts 15:4, ἀποδέχεσθαι ὑπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας; John 14:21, ἀγαπᾶσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ Πατρός. The reception, the love (flowed from Him), was the effect of an influence coming out from Him; πάσχειν ὑπό, which gives its essential force, for it is used with the passive, as we say, "suffer under" a thing or person; Mark 5:25, 1  Thessalonians 2:14. 2 Corinthians 11:24, the sense is this with ἔλαβον. so Hebrews 12:3, with ὑπομένω. 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 ὑπό, though it amounts to it in common parlance, as "spoken ὑπὸ τῶν προφητῶν" the person ὑπό 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 ὑπό. Whereas with διά, the person or thing which acts διά is viewed actively: a man is baptized ὑπό John, tempted ὑπό Satan, loved ὑπό τοῦ Πατρός, surnamed ὑπό the apostles, and hence it is so constantly used with the passive. The most peculiar use in this respect is Revelation 6:8, ἐν till you come to the beasts; these being distinct agents, it is ὑπό 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 ὑπό), the word governed is in the genitive: where the sense is active (that is, when the word governed by ὑπό 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 ὑπό, 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 ὑπό is referred to that ὑπό 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 ὑπὸ τὸν νόμον, τὴν κατάραν. It is his position towards the law, the curse destroyed. In ὑπὸ τῶν ὄφεων, the destruction is the effect of this latter.

143 Χωρίς, 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 ἄνευ.