Colin Brown_New Dictionary New Testament Theology_Prepositions

7/27/2019 Colin Brown_New Dictionary New Testament Theology_Prepositions

1/46

MOORE THEOLOGICAL COLLEGELIBRARY

FORM OF NOTICE FOR PARAGRAPH

49(7)(c) OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT1968

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Copyright Regulations 1969

WARNING

This material has been provided to you pursuant to section 49 of the

Copyright Act 1968(theAct) for the purposes of research or study.The contents of the material may be subject to copyright protection

under the Act.

Further dealings by you with this material may be a copyrightinfringement. To determine whether such a communication would be

an infringement, it is necessary to have regard to the criteria set out in

Part 3, Division 3 of the Act.


2/46


3/46

APPENDIX

Jkata:1. Root meaning 2. kata sarkaand kata pneuma 3. katadenotingcorrespondence or conformity 4. Distributive kata

K meta

Lpara:1. Basic sense 2. Transferred meanings 3.parain the Fourth GospelMpeniNpros:1. Jn. l:lb 2. 2 Cor. 5:8 3. 1 In. 5:16 f.O syn:1. Relation to meta 2. einai synChristo in Paul

III SPECIAL PROBLEMSAPrepositions with baptizo

1. Non-prep. constructions 2. Prep. constructions: (a)pert(b)pros (c) dia(d) en (e) epi with dat. (f) epi with ace. (g) eis with ace. 3. Concluding obser-vations

B Prepositions with pisteuo (and pistis)1. Non-prep. constructions 2. Prep. constructions: (a)pen (b)pros(c) dia

(d) en (e) epi with dat. (f) epi with acc. (g) eis with ace. 3. Concluding observa-tions

IV SELECTBJBLIOGRAPHV

The discussion that follows is not intended as a comprehensive classification of the

meanings and uses of all prepositions ("proper" and "improper") which occur in NT

Gk. (on which see the standard lexica and grammars). Attention is focused on someuses of the major prepositions which are judged to be theologically significant. Thereis no treatment of the meaning of prepositions in compounds (on which see Moulton,Grammar, II, 292-328).

IGENERAL OBSERVA TIONS

A. The Origin and Function of Prepositions

To judge from Vedic Sanskrit and Homeric Gk., preps. were originally adjuncts to

verbs, "adverbs". How adverbs came to be attached to nouns is illustrated byHomer, Il. 11, 89, "desire for sweet food seizes his heart round about" (peni

phrenas). In Homer most preps. were also used adverbially, but in the NT only rarelyis this original adverbial nature of preps. apparent (e.g., hyper ego, "1 more," 2 Cor.11:23), although words such as engys and exo are used either as adverbs or as preps.Recognizing that in origin preps. were "ad-verbs," grammarians have traditionally (ifarbitrarily) referred to preps. that can be compounded with verbs as "proper" (some

18 in the NT); those that cannot, are termed "improper" (42 in the NT).Most preps. may denote three relations (local, temporal, mental or ideal) but the

primary representation is local: (1) motion to eis (into),pros (to); (2) motion from ana(up from), apo (from), dia (through), ek(out of), kata (down from); (3) at rest anti (over against), en (in), epi(upon), hyper(over, above), hypo (under, beneath),meta (behind),para (beside),pen(around),pro (before, in front of), syn (with).However, it is not always possible to trace clearly this basic spatial sense (the "rootmeaning") in extended metaphorical uses of the preps. With regard to the main ideal

1172


4/46

APPENDIX

relations, the preps. may be grouped as follows (reflecting principal usage): (1) origin(, ek, para); (2) cause or occasion (dia, epi, ek, apo); (3) purpose or object (eis,

pros, epi, hyper); (4) result (eis,pros); (5)association or identification (syn, meta, en,

dia); (6) relation (peri, hyper, pros, eis); (7)agency (hypo; sometimes , dia, para,or en); (8) instrumentality or means (dia, ek, en); (9) correspondence (kata, pros);(10) opposition (kata, para, pros).

Strictly speaking, from the point of view of historical development, a prep. doesnot "govern" the case of a noun but rather adds a certain precision to the case-meaning of the noun whose case is determined by its relation to the verb or toanother noun. For example, elthen eis ten polin, "he went to-the-city I acc. denotingmotion to] inwards [adverb]," i.e. "he went into the city." But, in ever-increasing

measure, the case-ending itself came to be divested of special significance because in-

flection expressed such diversified relations, and the accompanying prep. assumedpart of the meaning of the case. Therefore it is somewhat artificial to analyse the caseof a noun in cl. or Hel. Gk. apart from the "meaning" of the adjoining prep.; thewriters themselves probably regarded preps. as "governing" or determining the caseof the noun.

In seeking to determine the meaning of a prep. phrase the NT exegete should (atleast ideally) consider: (1) the primary meaning of the prep. in itself (i.e. the localrelation) and then its range of meanings when used with a particular case; (2) thebasic significance of the case that is used with the prep.; (3) the indications afforded

by the context as to the meaning of the prep.; (4) the distinctive features of prep.usage in the NT which may account for seeming irregularities.

B. Distinctive Features of Prepositional Usage in NT Greek

1. Several characteristics are in keeping with general tendencies apparent in He!.Gk.

(a) Preps. followed by the acc. are, in general, preferred over preps. used with thedat. (although enwith the dat. gains ground andpenwith the acc. loses ground incomparison with cl. usage). This occasions no surprise since the dative case, which isfound in modern demotic Gk. only in a fossilized form, had already begun to beeclipsed in the NT era, although its disappearance was not complete until the tenthcentury A.D. (see J. Humbert, LaDisparitionduDatifenGrec, 1930; P. F. Regard,Contribution L'tudedesPrpositions danslaLanguedu Nouveau Testament,1919, 325-376, 677).

(b) Prep. phrases are often used instead of simple cases (e.g., eis hymnsin 1 Pet.1:4 replaces hymin; enwith the dat. serves for the simple dat.; compare Matt. 7:2and Lk. 6:38) (see further N. Turner in Moulton, Grammar, III, 251-253).

(c) "Improper" preps., used only with the gen. (except for engys, hamaan dparaplesion), become more numerous (42 in the NT), reflecting the tendency towardsfuller expression and the preference for uniformity that markHel.Gk. (see M.Zerwick, Biblical Greek, ET 1963, , 83, , 480 f.). For example, emprosthen ( =Heb. lipn)is preferred overproto denote "before" in a spatial sense, although it isvery rare outside biblical Gk.

(d) Preps. are commonly combined with adverbs, especially those denoting time

1173


5/46

APPENDIX

or place (e.g., apo perysi, "a year ago", "since last year', 2 Cor. 8:10; 9:2) (seeRegard,Prstins, 679).

(e) In comparison with cl. Gk., the variety in the use of "proper" preps. is cur-

tailed. When a prep. has multiple uses, the least important usage tends to disappear(Regard,Prsitins, 681). In theonly epi, para (andpros: once with the gen.)take three cases, while the dat. is no longer used with meta, pert, and hypo(as it wasin cl. Gk.). anaand anti have restricted use.

(f) Undoubtedly the tendency of the greatest significance for exegesis andtheology is that the "overlap" or "confusion" between various preps. (when bearingcertain senses) becomes more apparent. Evidence of such occasional enallage maybe derived from: parallel passages in the synoptic gospels; repetition of an identicalnoun with different preps. within a single context or within a literary corpus; textual

variants, which sometimes represent a scribal attempt to clarify meaning by remov-ing ambiguities and irregularities in prep. use; the proleptic or pregnant use of preps.,especially in a local sense; the use of two different preps. in close proximity, apparen-tly without distinction; and, on occasion, simply the seemingly irregular use of aprep.

The more important instances of this "interchange" include the following: (i) hyperandpert (e.g., pert pollon in Matt. 26:28 is hyper llnin Mk. 14:24; Lk. 22:20);following desis, Rom. 10:1 compared with Eph. 6:18 f.; note also Jn. 1:30; Acts8:24; 2 Cor. 1:7 f.; 7:14; 8:23; 12:8; 2 Thess. 2:1; and the textual variants in Gal.1:4; Heb. 5:1, 3; 1 Pet. 3:18; (ii)oand ek (e.g., Lk. 2:4; Jn. 11:1; 1 Thess. 2:6;with dekat,Heb. 7:2, 4; Matt. 7:16 compared with Lk. 6:44; and the textualvariants in Matt. 28:7; Mk. 3:8; Lk. 15:16; Acts 18:1; 2 Pet. 2:21; Rev. 1:5; 6:4;20:9); (iii)oan dpara (e.g., Jn. 13:3 compared with Jn. 16:27, 28 v.1.. 30); (iv)oor ekmay stand for hypo (e.g., o Matt. 11:19; Acts 15:4 v.1. and cf. 15:3; 2 Cor.7:13; ek2 Cor. 1:11; 7:9; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12a and b; (v) pros and eis (e.g., Mk. 5:38 f.;11:1; Jn. 20:3; Phlm. 5); (vi) en and dia (e.g., 1 Sam. 28:6, ter; Heb. 1:2, "the ensignifies dia,"Chrysostom); (vii) en and eis (e.g., Mk. 1:9; 8:26; Lk. 4:44 v.1.; 9:61;11:7; 23:42 v.1.; with kolpos, Jn. 1:18 compared with Jn. 13:23; with cheir, Jn. 3:35compared with Jn. 13:3; Acts 7:53; 1 Pet. 5:12); (viii) hypermay stand for anti (e.g.,

Jn. 11:50; Phlm. 13).Some of these examples are debatable, to be sure, but it is now generally

recognized by grammarians that in Hel. Gk. the distinction between some preps.used in certain senses was becoming more and more blurred. This is not to suggest,however, that preps. were arbitrarily or indiscriminately substituted for one another.

Indeed, the incidence of such "interchange" needs to be carefully analysed, for each

preposition has its own history and each writer his own idiosyncrasies. Concerningeis and en, for example, it appears that apart from Mark and Luke-Acts, where eismay stand for en and en for eis, the exegete should presume that eis retains its dis-

tinctive sense until the context or other considerations show that this is impossible orimprobable (cf. Zerwick,Biblical Greek, '106; N. Turner in Moulton, Grammar,III, 255).

2.As a result of Semitic influence, often mediated through the Septuagint, theuse of preps. gained several distinctive characteristics.

(a) Certain preps. or prep. usages become more frequent or assume a newsignificance. It is not that the following constructions or uses are without parallel in

1174


6/46

APP E N D IX

contemporary papyri, inscriptions or literary usage. Sometimes it is the greater num-

ber of instances that points to direct or indirect Semitic influence. Notably, under the

influence of the Heb. be, enoften expresses accompaniment ("with") (e.g., Mk. 5:2,

25; 1 Cor. 4:21; Heb. 9:25), instrumentality (e.g., Lk. 22:49; Rev. 6:8; and note enhaimati[where en = Beth pretii, cf. GeseniusKautzsch, Grammar, . 1 1 9 p ) 1 inRom. 3:25; 5:9; Rev. 5:9; but cf. 1 Pet. 1:18 f.), and causality (e.g., Isa. 61:6; Matt.6:7; Acts 7:29; 24:16; Rom, 1:24; 1 Cor. 7:14; Col. 1:21; and note the conjunctionen ho, "because," e.g., Rom. 8:3; Heb. 2:18). For a contrary view, see H. St. J.Thackeray, The Old Testament in Greek, 1903, 47. Also to be mentioned here is thefrequent use ofemprosthen(84 times in LXX for Heb. l ipne) (e.g., Matt. 11:26;18:14) which is very rarely found outside biblical Gk.; the temporal force ofenwith the infinitive (a characteristically Lukan feature), reflecting the Heb. b e with the

infinitive construct; the gerundival use of the infinitive (with or without tou, eis toor

pros to)[cf. the Heb. and Aram. lewith the infinitive) (for this, see M. Zerwick,Biblical Greek, 391 f.) (e.g. Matt. 5:28); the frequency of prep. phrases (usingago, epi, andpro)withprosopon( Moulton, Grammar, II, 466); the frequency of aprep. phrase with eisafter ginesthai, einaior logizesthai(cf. Heb. lewith hyh)in -stead of a nominative predicate (Matt. 19:5 f., where sarx miafollows eis sarkamian; 21:42; Acts 19:27; Rom. 2:26; 4:3; 9:8; 1 Cor. 15:45, bis; 2 Cor. 6:18). G. A.Deissmann's inscriptional parallels (Light from the Ancient East, E 1927, 120 n.10, 121 n. 1) to this latter construction are unconvincing since they relate only toeinai eisand only to the sense "be for the purpose of."

(b) The repetition of a prep. with each noun connected by kai, occurs so frequen-tly in certain NT books as to be a feature of biblical Gk. attributable to Semitic in-fluence. Of course in itself a repeated prep. need not betray Semitic practice, for any

Gk. writer may repeat a prep. with several substantives in one regimen in order tohighlight the distinction between them. N. Turner has ascertained that, when there is

an opportunity to repeat a prep. with a series of nouns, LXX Ezekiel (B-text) accepts

it 84% of the time (78:93), Revelation 63% (24:38), Romans, 1 Cor. 58% (14:24),Eph. 37% (6:16), Pastorals 17% (4:24), John 53% (8:15), Mark 38% (10:26),Matthew 31% (11:35), and Luke-Acts 23% (25:111) (Moulton, Grammar, III, 275;Moulton, Grammar, IV, 93), while such repetition is infrequent in the Ptolemaic

papyri (E. Mayser, Grammatik, II. 2, 516). See the debate on this matter between A.W. Argyle ("An Alleged Semitism," ExpT66, 1954-5, 177; 67, 1955-6, 247) andN. Turner ("An Alleged Semitism," ExpT66, 1954-5, 252-254).

C. Exegetical Dangers

Not only is the detailed examination of prep. usage richly rewarding; it is an un-dertaking made hazardous by several pitfalls that must be carefully avoided. Toisolate these hazards will be useful before we examine some of the theologically

significant uses of the major preps.1. Insistence on classical Greek Distinctions. One of the principal characteristicsof NT Gk. in general, highlighted by N. Turner (Moulton, Grammar, III, 2 and

passim; cf. P. F. Regard, Prsitins, 688), is the absence of cl. Gk. standards. Inthe days before the papyri finds from Egypt were available for comparison with theNT texts, it was not uncommon, for example, for commentators to find in the Johan-

1175


7/46


8/46

material of water or to rise from and above water (ex hydatos)(a gloss on Gen. 1:2,6-8) and to stand amidst water or to exist by the action of water (in descending to filllow areas and ascending to form clouds) (di' hydatos).

In addition, a distinction usually should be drawn between the same prepositionused in the same sentence or in parallel or similar passages with different cases (e.g.,diain 1 Cor. 11:9, 12; Heb. 2:10; but note epiwith the gen. and acc. in Matt. 19:28and with the ace. and dat. in Matt. 24:2 and Mk. 13:2 vi., in parallel passages, withapparently no difference in meaning).

4. Denial of a Double Entendre. No one will doubt that a repeated prepositionmay beat two different senses with the same case within one sentence (e.g.. 2 Cor.2:12, local and telic eisexpressing movement and purpose; Heb. 9:11 f., instrumentaldiaand diaexpressing attendant circumstances; 2 Pet. 1:4, local and instrumentalen). But in addition it seems illegitimate, simply on a priorihermeneutical principles,to exclude the possibility that on occasionan author may use a single preposition in adual sense. For example, it is not because of any reluctance to make a decisionbetween evenly balanced exegetical possibilities but because the author may have in-tended a double meaning that some commentators (e.g., B. G. Selwyn, The FirstEpistle of St. Peter, 1946, 202 f.; J. N. D. Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and of Jude,BNTC, 1969, 159) take diesthsan di' hydatosin 1 Pet. 3:20 to mean both "theywere brought safely through water" (local dia)and "they were preserved by means ofwater" (instrumental dia). Kelly's rendering, "a few (eight persons, in fact) weresaved through water" (op. cit., 158), retains the ambiguity in translation. 1 Tim. 2:15

affords a comparable example. The woman who continues in faith, love, holiness andmodesty will be "saved throughchild-bearing" (sbthseta ... dia ts teknogonias).Does the exegete have to choose between the concepts of "priority in time" and"supremacy in rank" in discussing autos estin pro antnin Col. 1:17 (cf. F. F.Bruce in Commentary on The Epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians, NLC,1957, 200: "the words not only declare His temporal priority to the universe, butalso suggest His primacy over it"; so also B. F. C. Atkinson. The Theology ofPrepositions, 1944, 8, but with a reversal of emphasis)? Certainly, editors of theGreek text must choose between two accentuations of estin; but Moffatt appears to

reproduce the ambiguity ofproin his translation "he is prior to all". But care needsto be exercised in determining an intended double entendre. It would scarcely bedefensible to find in the phrase en pneumati hagi(which appears in the midst of acatalogue of moral virtues, 2 Cor. 6:6) both the sense "in holiness of spirit" and themeaning "by gifts of the Holy Spirit" (NEB).

But what of prepositional phrases that may be construed either with what precedesor with what follows? Is a double entendreever to be found here? Probably not. Theexegete must choose between "Christ is the goal of the law, and so [ecbatic eis]righteousness is available to every believer" and "In the case of every believer, Christis the end of the law viewed as a means of gaining (telic eis)righteousness" (or, "in its

relation to righteousness," referential eis) (eis dikaiosynn)(Rom. 10:4; cf. 10:5;Phil. 3:9). Similarly, in the Pauline citation of Habakkuk 2:4 in Rom. 1:17 and Gal.3:11, ek pistesmust be taken either with ho (de) dikaios("it is the person who isrighteous by faith that will live") or with zsetai("the person who is righteous willlive by faith"). It would hardly be permissible to affirm that Paul is saying both that

faith is characteristic of the life of the person who is righteous before God and that

1177


9/46

APPENDIX

faith in Christ is the means to divine approval and eternal life. There is a comparable

ambiguity of construction in Lk. 4:21; Jn. 3:15; Acts 22:3; Rom. 4:18; 1 Cor. 3:13;2 Cor. 5:16; Phil. 2:13; Col. 3:16; 1 Thess. 4:14; Heb. 2:9; 9:11.

5.Neglect o f the Possible S ignifi cance of (a) the Non-repetition of the Preposition

with Copulated Nouns, and (b) the Order of Nouns that follow a Preposition.Generally speaking, a prep. tends to be repeated before a series of nouns joined by

kai more frequently in biblical Gk. (under Semitic influence) than in non-biblical Gk.(see above, I.B.2.(b)). Sometimes, therefore, the non-use of a second or third prep. inNT Gk. may be theologically significant, indicating that the writer regarded theterms that he placed in one regimen as belonging naturally together or as a unit inconcept or reality. ex hydatos kai pneumatos (Jn. 3:5) shows that for the writer (orspeaker) "water" and "Spirit" together form a single means of that regenerationwhich is a prerequisite for entrance into the kingdom of God ( = birth anthen, Jn .3:3, 7). No contrast is intended between an external element of "water" and an in-

ward renewal achieved by the Spirit. Conceptually the two are one. Similarly, inMatt. 3:11 the phrase en pneumati hagi kai pyri points not to two baptisms (viz.,the righteous with the Holy Spirit, the wicked with fire), but to a single baptism in

Spirit-and-fire, that may be interpreted either as the messianic purification and judg-ment that would be effected by the Spirit (cf. Isa. 4:4; 30:28) and experienced by all,

or as the outpouring of the Spirit on believers at Pentecost that would refine and in-flame them. (See further on these two examples J. D. G. Dunn,Baptism in the HolySpirit, SBT, Second Series 15, 1970, 8-14, 190-192.) The fact that "God ourFather" and "the Lord Jesus Christ" are joined together under the bond of a single

prep. (po) in all Pauline salutations (e.g., 1 Cor. 1:3) suggests that the apostle en-visaged the Father and the Son as a joint source of "grace and peace," rather than asdistinct sources or as source and channel (respectively). They sustain a single relation(not two diverse relations) to the grace and peace that come to believers.

A related matter concerns the order of nouns that follow a prep. (see the discus-

sion of A. Buttmann,A Grammar of the New Testament Greek, ET 1873, , 295). Ifprep. is followed by two anarthrous substantives both in the genitive case, it always

qualifies the former. ex ergn nomou (Rom. 3:20; Gal. 2:16 bis; 3:2, 5, 10) means"by the works of the law," not "by the principle of works." (Cf. ek dexin mou, Matt.20:23, 22:44; dia mesou autn, Lk. 4:30.) Thus in 2 Cor. 3:18 ao kyriou pneumatos

does not mean "by the Spirit of the Lord," but "by the Lord (= Yahweh, 3:16 f.)who is the Spirit" or "by the Lord (Jesus) who is spirit" (cf. 1 Cor. 15:45; 2 Cor.3:6). Even when the prep. is followed by a noun in a case other than the genitive, thelimiting genitive generally follows the prep. phrase (e.g. eis aphesin hamartin, Mk.1:4; but note the exceptional Matt. 13:33; Rev. 7:17). Similarly, when the nouns in-volved are articular, any limiting genitive usually follows the prep. phrase (e.g.,o

tou nomou tes hamartias kai tou thanatou, Rom. 8:2), but occasionally it may be in-serted according to the ABBA word-order (e.g., ek ts tou diabolou pagidos, 2 Tim.2:26).

II S O M E T H E O L OG IC A L L Y IM P OR T A N T INSTANCES OFT H E MAJOR PREPOSITIONS

References to discussions of individual preps. in the standard monographs on thesubject (viz., R. Helbing, M. Johannessohn, F. Krebs, W. Kuhring, C. Rossberg)

1178


10/46

APPENDIX

may be found in the relevant footnotes in Moulton, Grammar, III, 249-280.

.anti

Since the root sense ofanti is "(set) over against, opposite" (cf. German ant- inantworten), the prep. naturally came to denote equivalence (one object is set overagainst another as its equivalent), exchange (one object, opposing or distinct fromanother, is given or taken in return for the other), and substitution (one object, that isdistinguishable from another, is given or taken instead of the other).

1. Equivalence ("for", "as the equivalent of '; cf. Homer,Il., 9, 116 f.). Under thelex talionis (Exod. 21:23-25), one eye was required as equivalent compensation foranother eye (ophthalmon anti ophthalmou, Matt. 5:38), a tooth for a tooth. In 1 Cor.11:15 Paul's point is not that a veil is superfluous for a woman since nature has givenher hair in place ofa covering, but rather, arguing analogically, he infers from thegeneral fact that "hair has been given to serve as a covering" (anti' peribolaiou) (p 4 6DG omit ante, "to her") that the more generous supply of hair that a woman has whencompared with a man shows the appropriateness of her being covered when sheprays or prophesies in the Christian assembly.

2. Exchange ("in return for", "for the price of"). In return for evil received (antikakou) the Christian is not to do evil (Rom. 12:17; 1 Thess. 5:15; 1 Pet. 3:9), whenabused he is not to give abuse in exchange (loidorian anti loidorias, 1 Pet. 3:9). Itwas for the price of a meal (anti brses) that Esau sold his birthright (Heb. 12:16;

see Arndt, 73 s.v. anti 3).3. Substitution ("instead of", "in the place of"). It is improbable that anti ever has

the diluted sense of "for the benefit of", "on behalf of". The half-shekel tax alluded toin Matt. 17:24 was regarded as redemption money (Heb. kper, LXX lytron, Exod.30:12) that would release the donor from hypothetical slavery or absolve him fromthe divine anger (cf. T. Shek. 1:6). Accordingly, when Jesus commanded Simon Peterto give the collectors the shekel he would find in the fish's mouth anti emou kai sou("for me and for yourself", Matt. 17:27), Matthew probably wished his readers tounderstand that the redemption tax was a substitutionary offering designed to releasethe giver from obligation (see further R. E. Davies, "Christ in our place the Con-

tribution of the Prepositions", TB 21, 1970, 79 f.; N. Turner, Grammatical Insightsinto the New Testament, 1965, 173). In its prevailing sense in LXX Gk. (see M.Johannessohn,Der Gebrauch der Prsitionen in der Septuaginta, 1926,198-200), as in non-biblical Gk. (e.g., Xen.Anab. 1, 1, 4) including the papyri( Moulton-Milligan, 46; cf. antis in modern Gk.), anti clearly denotes a sub-stitutionary exchange. Abraham offers up the ram as a burnt offering instead of(anti) Isaac his son (Gen. 22:13). Judah offers to remain in Egypt instead of(anti)Benjamin as a slave to Joseph (Gen. 44:33). Lamenting the death of his son Ab-salom, David says "Would that I had died instead of [anti] you, I instead of [ a n t i ]

you" (2 Sam. 19:1, LXX). Archelaus reigns over Judea in place of (anti) his fatherHerod (Matt. 2:22). See also Lk. 11:11; Jas. 4:15. In Jn. 1:16 charm anti charitos("grace upon grace"; "one blessing after another", New International Version)denotes a perpetual and rapid succession of blessings, as though there were no inter-val between the arrival of one blessing and the receipt of the next. Alternatively, theidea of constant renewal may be less prominent than the notion of the replacement of

1179


11/46

APPENDIX

"old" grace by "new" grace (sometimes taken to refer to the spiritual presence of theHoly Spirit in place of the physical presence of Christ). Two disputed passagesremain to be discussed. When the author of Hebrews observes that Jesus endured the

cross anti ts rkeimens aut charas (Heb. 12:2), the meaning of the prep. phrase

could be (a) "in exchange for" or "in order to obtain" the joy that was in prospect forhim, that of seeing "the fruit of the travail of his soul" (Isa. 53:11); or (b) "insteadof the joy of continued fellowship in God's immediate presence that lay before himas a distinct possibility within his grasp. The second alternative seems preferable inlight of: the use o fprokeimai in Heb. 6:18; 12:1 (cf. 2 Cor. 8:12) to denote a presentreality; the prevailing substitutionary sense ofanti; the inappropriateness of any hintof reciprocal bargaining between Jesus and God, or of personal advantage as the

primary motive of Jesus for his suffering; the parallel in 11:25 f. with reference toMoses. (This view is defended by P. Andriessen and A. Lenglet, "Quelques passages

difficiles de l'ptre aux breux (5:7, 11; 10:20; 12:2)".Bib. 51. 1970, 207-220.)Finally, anti polln in Mk. 10:45 ( = Matt. 20:28) should be construed not withdounai ("to give.., on behalf of [ = hyper] many) but with lytron("a ransom in theplace of many"). The life of Jesus, surrendered in a sacrificial death, brought aboutthe release of forfeited lives. He acted on behalf of the many by taking their place. Asin 1 Tim. 2:6 (antilytron hyper pantn), the notions of exchange and substitution areboth present. It is hardly a sound hermeneutical procedure to appeal to a contestable"wider" sense ofanti (viz. "on behalf of') in Matt. 17:27 (or Gen. 44:33) as the keyto the proper understanding ofanti in this passage where the customary sense of theprep. (viz., exchange-substitution) gives an unobjectionable meaning and the term

lytron is applied to a human life. For a discussion of the theological implications of"substitution", see J. I. Packer, "What did the Cross achieve? The Logic of PenalSubstitution", TB 25, 1974, 3-45.

B.o

1. a and ek. In general they are related as ab is to ex in Lat.odenotes motionfrom the edge or surface of an object; ek, motion from within. But often a markssimply the general point from which movement or action proceeds. Thus"Joseph went up from [a] Galilee, out of[ek] the city of Nazareth" (Lk. 2:4).However the fact that is regularly used with exerchomai in Lk. (13 times) showsthat even the broad distinction is not everywhere applicable. In fact the process inwhich a ultimately absorbed ekhas already commenced in Hel. Gk. So we findthat both preps. may be used in the following senses: (a) temporal (e.g., , Matt.11:12; ek, Jn. 9:1); (b) causal (a, Matt. 18:7; Lk. 19:3; Acts 12:14; 22:11; ek, Jn .4:6; Rev. 16:10-12); (c) instrumental (o,Matt. 11:19 = Lk. 7:35; ek, Lk. 16:9;Jn. 6:65); (d) adverbial (a, 2 Cor. 1:14; 2:5'; ek, 2 Cor. 9:7); (e) to denote place oforigin (ao and ektogether, Jn. 1:44; 11:1); (f) to denote membership (ao. Acts12:1 "church members"; ek, Acts 6:9 "members of the synagogue"). Such overlap-

ping of function betweenoand ekmakes one hesitate to distinguish between the ekt hydatos of Mk. 1:10 (cf. Acts 8:38 f.) and the a tou hydatos of Matt. 3:16(both phrases being preceded by a form ofanabain, "go up"), as though the laterMatthean tradition testified to baptism by affusion or aspersion rather than by im-mersion (as in the Markan tradition). The preps. throw no definitive light on the mat-

1180


12/46

APPENDIX

ter (paceN. Turner, Insights, 29; but see his earlier remark in Moulton, Grammar,III, 259). The most that may be said, if the preps. are here distinguishable, is thatMatthew'so

does not exclude Mark's ek. On the relation ofo

to hypo, see below1I.I.2. For the influence of the Heb. prep. min on the NT use ofo,see Moulton,Grammar, II, 460-462.

2. Some Notable Instances of a.(a) 1 Cor. 11:23. In the controversial phrase a tau kyriou(D readspara)the

use ofois in itself indecisive as to the nature of the transmission and accords witheither of the following views: (i) the Lord was the ultimate origin of a tradition thatreached Paul in reliable form through unbroken transmission; (ii) the Lord was theimmediate source or originator of the tradition or the authority constantly operating

through human tradition and confirming it by his Spirit. That intermediaries were in-

volved is not suggested by the use ofo(as thoughparanecessarily implied im-mediate communication) but by the two verbsparalamban ( =Heb. gibbl)and

paradidmi (=Heb. msar)which were technical terms for the transmission oftradition. See the discussions of E. B. ll, Premire ptre aux Corinthiens, 1956309-316; O. Cullmann, "Kyriosas Designation for the Oral Tradition concerningJesus", SJT3, 1950, 180-197.

(b) Heb. 5:7. eisakoustheis a ts eulabeias could mean "his prayer was heard(and so he was delivered) from his anxious dread (of death)," but more probablyo

is causal ("he was heard on account of his godly fear") since eulabeiain Heb. 12:28and eulabeomaiin Heb. 11:7 both refer to reverent awe before God. But see Funk, ,211.

(c) Rev. 1:4. The remarkable phrase (eirn)o ho n kai ho n kai hoerchomenoshas been explained as: the result of the Seer's reverence for the divinename which kept him back from submitting it to declensional change (R. H. Charles,The Revelation of St. John, ICC, 1920, I,10); a paraphrase of the indeclinabletetragrammaton Y H W H , "He who is" (J. M. Ford, Revelation, Anchor Bible, 1975,376); a nominative apposition which was originally preceded by four dots standingfor the tetragrammaton (G. Mussies, The Morphology of Koine Greek as Used in theApocalypse of St. John, 1971, 93 f.).

C. dia

Originally diasignified "passing through and out from," a sense reflected in Matt.4:4 ("... every word that proceeds from [ekporeuomen dia]the mouth of God")and 1 Cor. 3:15 ("he himself will be saved, but only as one who escapes throughfire", dia pyros). When this notion of "extension through" is applied to temporalcategories, the meaning is "during the course of" (e.g., dia nyktos, "during the night",Acts 23:31). In itselfdi' hmern tesserakonta(Acts 1:3) could mean either "con-tinuously throughout a 40-day period" (though this would more commonly be ex-pressed by tesserakonta hmeras)or "intermittently (or repeatedly) during the courseof 40 days" (cf. Acts 13:31, "over a period of(epi)many days"), but the referencesto "many (separate) convincing proofs" (1:3a) and to various self-presentations(l:3a;parestsenis a constative aorist) and repeated appearances (1:3b;optanomenosimplies iteration) clearly show that the prep. here signifies "intermit-tently throughout" (so also Funk, ' 223 (1) and see references in A. Oepke, dia,


13/46

APPENDIX

TDNT 11 66 n. 3). Earth was not necessarily the place of Jesus' whereabouts in theinterval between his resurrection and ascension.

1. Means or Instrument. From the local sense ofdie there naturally developed theinstrumental sense, which marks the medium

through which an action passes beforeits accomplishment. Thus, in the expression pistis di' agps energumen (Gal. 5:6),love is specified as the means by which faith becomes visibly operative or effective.Expressions of love (= good works) must intervene between faith in its infancy andfaith in its maturity. Thus stated, Paul's view of the interrelationship of faith and(good) works is similar to that of James (Jas. 2:14-26). Several more examples ofthis instrumental use ofdie may be given. Paul represents the angels not as theauthors (hypo) of the law but as the mediate agents (dia in its enactment or transmis-sion, Gal. 3:19). When the apostle says that at the tribunal of Christ recompense willbe received for both good and bad actions that have been performed by means of theearthly body (dia tou smatos, 2 Cor. 5:10) and therefore during life on earth, he ex-cludes the possibility of reward or punishment for any conceivablepost-mortem ac-tion. Again, everything that pertains to life and godliness is granted to believers byGod's divine power but comes through (dia) the knowledge of Christ (2 Pet. 1:3).Sometimes, however, dia seems to express not the efficient cause but the principal orsole cause, not mediation but agency (e.g., Rom. 11:36 where God the Father isdesignated the source (ek), agent (die), and goal (eis) of all creation; 1 Cor. 1:9; Heb.13:11). It follows, as M. Zerwick observes, that when the rle of Christ as creator(e.g., Jn. 1:3, 10) or redeemer (e.g., Rom. 5:9) is expressed by dia, the idea of hismediation may not be prominent (Biblical Greek, , 113). Accordingly, Col. 1:16 (ta

panta di' autou ... ektistai) may be emphasizing the agency, rather than the media-tion, of Christ in creating and sustaining the universe. On the other hand, in 1 Cor.8:6 the function of God the Father as the source of creation (ex hou to panta) is dis-tinguished from Christ's rle as mediator of creation (di' hou to panta), while in 2Cor. 5:18 God is the reconciler and Christ the divinely appointed means (dieChristou) ofreconciliation (cf. Rom. 5:11; Col. 1:20). On the relation between diand hypo, see below, 11.1.1 .

2. Attendant Circumstances. Not infrequently die expresses the circumstances

that accompany an action or state, and in this function the prep. overlaps with en.Abraham received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the faith-righteousness whichhe had while he was as yet uncircumcised (en t akrobystia), thus becoming thefather of all who are believers while being uncircumcised (di' akrobystias) (Rom.4:11). Since, then, dia may denote accompaniment as well as instrumentality, it isspecial pleading to distinguish between meta in 1 Tim. 4:14 (used of the elders' im-position of hands) and die in 2 Tim. 1:6 (used of Paul's imposition of hands) inregard to the consecration of Timothy, as if an apostolic laying on of hands were aprerequisite for "ordination" while the imposition of presbyters' hands was simply a

desirable concomitant (contra F. Prat, The Theolgy of St. Paul, ET 1945, 1I, 270 n .1). On the other hand, ifdie ts epitheses tn cheirn mou (2 Tim. 1:6) does denotethe instrumental cause of Timothy's receipt of his gift, the actual participation of thebody of elders in this imposition of hands need not be excluded: the presbytery andthe apostle may have acted conjointly. The use ofmeta rather than die in 1 Tim.4:14 may well be explained (on this view) by the presence of another die phrase (die

prphteias). die pistes in 2 Cor. 5:7 also probably belongs to this category of ac-

1182


14/46

APPENDIX

companying circumstances ("we walk in the realm of faith, not of sight") since it is

difficult to take (peripatoumen ou) dia eidous in a modal sense. This use ofdia ex-

tends even to marking circumstances that turn out not to help but sometimes even tohinder an action. "Even with" ( "in spite of one's having") the written code andcircumcision (dia grammatos kai peritoms), transgression of the law occurs (Rom.

2:27; cf. 5 :20a), although one would expect such circumstances to aid in keeping theprecepts of the law. dia tou pneumatos in Acts 21:4 is difficult, since the advice not

to go on to Jerusalem given to Paul by the Tyrian disciples (= prophets? cf. Acts11:28) "through the Spirit" conflicted with his own resolve "in the Spirit" (en t

pneumati, Acts 19:21) and with the constraint and testimony of the Spirit (Acts20:22 f.). 1t is noteworthy that Agabus's subsequent prophecy at Caesarea (Acts21:11) that predicts Paul's suffering in Jerusalem and begins "Thus says the HolySpirit" does not include an injunction or exhortation to Paul not to go to Jerusalem

(but cf. Acts 21:12-14). Perhaps therefore the crucial prep. phrase in Acts 21:4should be rendered "while under the inspiration of the Spirit" (but C. F. D. Moule,

Idiom-Book, 57tentatively suggests "as a spiritual insight"). In his condensed state-ment Luke has not distinguished between a prophecy regarding Paul's suffering atJerusalem (doubtless given by the Tyrian disciples before their exhortation) that wasdelivered at the direction of the Spirit (cf. Acts 21:11) and their own personal exhor-tation (cf. Acts 21:12) that was occasioned by the prediction and immediatelyfollowed it. The verse may be paraphrased thus: "Prompted by a prediction of theSpirit they told Paul not to go on to Jerusalem."

3. Cause or Ground. The two principal non-local meanings of dia are "by meansof", "through" (Lat.per) and "on account of", "because of" (Lat. oh andpropter).

The inter-relation of these two senses is evident from the fact that dia with the acc.

may occasionally denote the efficient cause (e.g., Jn. 6:57a, the Father is the sourceof the Son's life, as in Jn. 5:26; Rev. 12:11; see Arndt 180, s.v. dia, B. II. 4), and iswell illustrated by the textual variants in Rom. 8:11, where the revivification of mor-

tal bodies is attributed to the agency of the indwelling Spirit (dia with gen.) whoalready is active in the transformation of character (2 Cor. 3:18) or (in the inferiorreading ofdia with acc.) it is grounded in the fact that a life-giving Spirit (Rom. 8:2;

1 Cor. 15:45; 2 Cor. 3:6) indwells believers, the Spirit of him who raised Jesus fromthe dead. On other occasions these two most common uses ofdiaare found jux-

taposed (in paronomasia, Heb. 2:10 where di' hou refers to the Father as the prin-cipal cause and di' hon perhaps stands for the Pauline ex autou kai . .. eis auton[Rom. 11:361; 1 Cor. 11:9, dia tn gynaika, and 11:11, dia ts gynaikos; and cf.Rom. 12:3 and 15:15).

4. Purpose. Just as there has been debate whether eis ever bears a retrospective

( = causal) sense in the NT (see below, II. D. 3), so there is no unanimity concerningthe alleged prospective ( = telic) sense ofdia. If, occasionally, it were to bear thismeaning in the NT, it should occasion no surprise since: (a) dia with the a cc. excep-

tionally has a prospective sense in cl. Gk. (e.g., Thuc.,History, ii. 89. 2; v. 53;Aristot.,Eth. Nic., 4, 3, 31; Plato,Rep. 524 C cited by H. G. Meecham "Romansiii, 25 f., iv, 25 the meaning ofdia c. acc.", ExpT50, 1938-9, 564; cf. Liddell-

Scott, 389 s.v. dia B. III. 3) and Hel. Gk. (e.g., Polyb. 2, 56, 12); (b) in modern Gk.yia (=dia)with the acc., "for," is used to express purpose (G. N. Hatzidakis,Einleitung in die neugriechische Grammatik, 1892, 212 f.). There a re, in fact, several

1183


15/46

APPENDIX

NT examples where dia approaches a prospective sense (Matt. 24:2; Mk. 2:27; Jn.11:42; 12:30; Rom. 11:28; M. Zerwick, Biblical Greek, , 112, compares the diatouto ... hinaformula in Rom. 4:16; 1 Tim. 1:16; Phlm. 15), but the alleged in-stances that are most regularly adduced are Rom. 3:25; 4:25. In the former verse diatn paresin seems to mean "on account of his passing over" rather than "with a view

to (or, through) his forgiving". Paul is observing that the purpose or outcome ofGod's provision of Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice was the demonstration of hisown righteousness, a righteousness that needed vindication because, in his patience(not his indifference), God had refrained from exacting the full and proper penalty foracts of sin committed previously. God had not always left sin unpunished, but he had

temporarily suspended, withheld or set aside appropriate punishment in light of hiseternal purpose to provide an altogether adequate basis for the forgiveness of sin inthe atoning death of Christ. It seems thatparesis ( =remission of punishment or

debt) should be distinguished fromphesis (=remission of sin) (references inMoulton-Milligan, 493 s.v.paresis, and the distinctive view of S. Lyonnet,Exegesis

Epistulae ad Romanos, 1963 3 ,217 f., 222-238, that this whole phrase refers to theprovisional and anticipatory remission of sin accorded the Jewish people) and that anunusual telic or instrumental sense need not be given to dia with the acc. when themore regular causal meaning accords with the context. The matter is more complexin Rom. 4:25, where there is a parallelism between the two diaphrases (dia to

parptmata hmn and dia ten dikaisin hmn) that would suggestprima faciethat each should be taken in the same sense, yet a causal sense is difficult in v. 25b

(viz. "and was raised to life because of our justification"). Three solutions may bementioned (in ascending order of probability). (i) dia in final in both clauses: "in or-der to deal with", v. 25 (cf. 1 Cor. 15:3); "with a view to", v. 25b. (ii) dia is causal inv. 25 ("because of"; cf. Isa. 53:12, LXX) but final in v. 25b ("in order to achieve",or, better, "to confirm [or, guarantee]"). (iii) dia is causal in both clauses: "becauseof (the need to atone for)", v. 25; "because of (the need to achieve or confirm)", v.25b (cf. the parallel in Rom. 13:5); or, alternatively, just as the delivering up of Jesusto death was the consequence of our sin, so his resurrection was the consequence ofour justification (that had been achieved by his death, Rom. 5:9 f.). On this latter

view, the conceptual sequence would then be: our sin Jesus' death our justifica-tion Jesus' resurrection, with the resurrection being here regarded as the inevitableconsequence of, and the seal of divine approval on, Christ's procurement of our

justification. But seeper contraD.M. Stanley, Christ's Resurrection in PaulineSoteriology, AnBib 13, 1961, 171-173.

D. eis

1.Its relation to other Preps.(a)pros. Although the distinctions are not uniformly maintained, it is generally

true that with regard to literal movement eis denotes entry ("into") andpros ap-proach ("up to"), and (correspondingly) that eis is used with impersonal objects and

pros with personal (e.g., 2 Cor. 1:15 f.; and see the argument of E. de W. Burton, TheEpistle to the Galatians, ICC, 1921, 96-99, based on Paul's twofold use ofeis inGal. 2:9, that the apostolic division of labour was primarily territorial Jewish lands Gentile lands) rather than racial [Jews Gentiles)). That these are simply tenden-

1184


16/46

APPENDIX

cies is apparent from Mk. 5:38 f.; Jn. 20:3-6, 8; Phlm. 5. As for metaphorical use,both preps. may express purpose (e.g., Rom. 3:25 f.) and result (e.g., eis, Rom. 1:20;

pros, 1 Jn. 5:16 f., on which see below II. N. 3).(b) en. There are two reasons why it is not surprising that eis and en shared some

common territory in He!. Gk. (i) Etymologically eis was a later variation ofen, beingoriginally ens, the s having been added to en on the analogy ofex (= ek-s). With thedisappearance of the n in ens, compensatory lengthening produced eis (see A. T.Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 1934 ", 584-586, 591). Theobsolescence of the dat. case in Gk. meant the disappearance of en from the modernGk. vernacular where only eis (with the acc.) is found (cf. G. N. Hatzidakis,Grammatik, 210 f.). (ii) Hel. Gk. is marked by a general tendency to confuse thecategories of linear motion ("to") and punctiliar rest ("in"). The confusion was inboth directions: eis denoting position (e.g., Gen. 37:17; Jos. 7:22) and en implyingmovement (e.g., Exod. 4:21; Tob. 5:5). Examples of this interchange are not lackingin cl. Gk. but they are relatively infrequent, especially in narrative.

1t was observed above (I. B. 1 (f)) that the interchange of eisand en is notpromiscuous in NT Gk. and that the idiosyncrasies of each author must be ex-amined. Only in Mk. and Lk.-Acts does this interchange occur with any frequency.In Rev, there is only one clear example (Rev. 11:11, where, surprisingly, the eis ofEzek. 37:10 [LXX] has become en). All the apparent exceptions in the FourthGospel to the cl. use ofeis and en have been examined by J. J. O'Rourke, who con-cludes that only in Jn. 1:18 and 19:13 does eis possibly stand for en (1.08% of Jn's.

183 uses ofeis) and only in Jn. 3:35 is en (218 uses) possibly used for eis ("EIS andEN in John",Bible Translator25, 1974, 139-142).

What did John mean when he affirmed (Jn. 1:18) that "the only Son, who is allthat God is and who resides eis ton kolpon tou patros he has revealed him"? Theimagery (kolpos, "bosom") suggests the exclusive and privileged intimacy of a deeplyaffectionate inter-personal relationship, but what is the import of eis? Some give theprep. a dynamic sense, noting that it normally denotes not simply orientation ordirection but "movement towards or into". I. de la Potterie, for example, renders the

whole phrase "turned towards the Father's bosom", and finds two theological truths

expressed: a personal distinction between Father and Son; "the constant orientationof the Son towards the bosom of the Father as towards his origin (eis, notpros), astowards the source of his own life (eis ton kolpon)"("L'emploi dynamique de eisdans Saint Jean et ses incidences thologiques", Bib. 43, 1962, 366-387; quotationfrom page 386). For de la Potterie it is not simply a matter of "filiation" (as in Jn.1:1b and 1 Jn. 1:1), but of "eternal generation" (cf. n and Jn. 6:57) (op. cit., 385),"the eternal act of receiving divine life from the Father" (op. cit., 386). But the idea o feternal generation would comport better with the preps.para(cf. Jn. 6:46) or ek(cf.the reading ek tou kolpou reflected in syr ). If any element of movement is implied in

eis, its direction is in effect reversed, on this view. Other scholars have seen eis asboth static and dynamic in sense. In 1880, before the influence of the papyri findshad been felt, B. F. Westcott wrote: "There is the combination (as it were) of rest andmotion, of a continuous relation, with a realisation of it (comp. i. 1, n pros). The`bosom of the Father' (like heaven) is a state and not a place" (The Gospel Accordingto St. John, 1958 ed., 15, a thought developed still further by E. A. Abbott,

Johannine Grammar, 1906, ,, 2706, 2712). Now, however, the view that prevails

1185


17/46


18/46

APPENDIX

believe, stumble; they who stumble are also appointed for stumbling", J. A. Bengel,Gnomon of the New Testament, 1863, V, 55). Whatever construction we put onthe notoriously difficult skeu orges katrtismena eis pleian in Rom. 9:22 ("the ob-

jects of his wrath, fit only for destruction"), it must be noted that (i) katrtismena

should be distinguished from ha prohtoimasen (Rom . 9:23); and (ii) God w ouldhardly be said to have "tolerated most patiently" a situation that he himself had or-dained.

But whether eis ever expresses a purpose that is actually realized (consecutive orecbatic eis), as opposed to a result that is simply aimed at, has been an issue hotlydebated by grammarians and commentators. That eis sometimes expresses result (cf.the occasional ecbatic use ofhina) seems now to be generally recognized (see, e .g., C.F. D. Moule,Idiom-Book, 70; A. Oepke, eis, TDNT 11 429-431). 1n a thorough arti-

cle that deals with "The Articular Infinitive with eis"in both cl. and Hel. Gk. (JBL

15, 1896, 155-167), I. T. Beckwith concludes that in 8 NT passages (viz., Rom.1:20; 7:5; 12:2; 2 Cor. 8:6; Gal. 3:17; Phil. 1:10; Heb. 11:3; Jas. 3:3) a consecutivesense for eis with the articular infinitive is highly probable. Oepke (op. cit.) givesfurther examples, in which ecbatic eis is followed by articular or anarthrous substan-tives (e.g., 1 Cor. 11:17; 2 Cor. 7:9 f.). In Rom. 10:10 eis dikaiosynen means "[forwith his heart a man believes] and so is justified", although earlier (v. 4) the samephrase may bear a telic sense "[Christ is the end of the lawl viewed as a means ofgaining righteousness". (Compare a similar alternation of senses for eis to with the

infinitive in Rom. 4:11, 16, 18.) Finally, if the consecutive sense ofeis is recognized

in Rom. 12:2, Paul's point is not that the aim of the transformation of character isthe discernment of God's will ( = telic eis), but rather that the Christian's ability toascertain ("determine by scrutiny"; cf. Lk. 12:56) God's will naturally results fromthe renewal of the mind (cf. ecbatic eis with verbs denoting renewal in Col. 3:10;Heb. 6:6). Often, however, the categories of purpose and result merge, for a resultmay be a designedconsequence. Therefore it is sometimes impossible to determinewhich is intended (e.g., in the phrase eis doxan theou in 2 Cor. 4:15; Phil. 1:11; 2:11;but in 1 Cor. 10:31 it is undoubtedly telic), especially when a divine action is spokenof (e.g., eis hen sma ebptisthmen, 1 Cor. 12:13).

3. Causal eis? Can eis be retrospective, giving the cause, as well as prospective,defining the purpose or result? Such a sense for eis seems unlikely in any one of thepassages sometimes adduced (see, e.g., J. R. Mantey, "The Causal Use ofEis in theNew Testament",JBL70, 1951, 45-48): Mk. 15:34 (and Matt. 14:31, "why?");Matt. 3:11 (see below, III. A. 3. (a)); 10:41 (eis onoma prophtou, "within thecategory 'prophet'" = "because he is a prophet" Arndt 577, s.v. onoma 11; cf. M.Zerwick,Biblical Greek, 106); 12:41 (= Lk. 11:32; "atthe preaching of Jonah");Acts 2:38 (see below, 1II. A. 3. (a)); 7:53 ("as delivered by angels," RSV); Rom.4:20 ("looking to the promise of God"); 11:32 ("consigned to disobedience"; cf. Ps.

77:62, LXX); 2 Tim. 2:25 ("repentance that leads to a knowledge of the truth");2:26 ("entrapped by him to dohis will", Weymouth); Tit. 3:14 ("to supply thenecessities"); Heb. 12:7 ("it isfor the benefits ofdiscipline [or, as a discipline] thatyou have to endure"); 1 Jn. 5:10 ("he has refused to believe the testimony"). Liddell-

Scott list no causal uses ofeis.4. logizesthai eis. This phrase, which in the LXX renders hsab l, occurs in the

quotation of Gen. 15:6 found in Rom. 4:3 (cf. vv. 9, 22); Gal. 3:6; Jas. 2:23:

1187


19/46

APPENDIX

"Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (elogisthe auteis dikaisynn)."With regard to Pauline usage, the verse has been interpreted inseveral ways: (a) Righteousness was reckoned to the account of ( = imputed to)

Abraham on the basis of his faith (cf. 1 Macc. 2:52 A; Rom. 9:30; 10:6; Heb. 11:7)(see the discussion of J. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, NLC, 1959, I, 127-139,

336-362, especially 343, 359, where it is argued that the "correlativity" [not theequation] of faith and righteousness permitted Paul to say that "faith was reckonedto Abraham as righteousness", Rom. 4:9). (b) Abraham's faith was reckoned as asubstitute for (law-)righteousness (H. Cremer,Biblico-Theological Lexicon of NewTestament Greek, E 1895, 399). (c) Abraham's faith in God was equivalent torighteousness, i.e. it was in itself the ground of his acceptability (see the comprehen-sive discussion in J. A. Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul, 1972, 43,172-185, 195 f.; and cf. H. W. Heidland, logizomai, TDNT IV289-292).

On the use ofeis with bptiz, see below III. A. 3; withpisteu, III. B. 2. (g) and 3.

. ek

1. Its Basic Signification. Originally eksignified an exit "from within" somethingwith which there had earlier been a close connexion. Therefore it naturally came tobe used to denote origin, source, derivation or separation. So, for example, the prep.

is used of the material out of which something is made (Matt. 27:29), the country of

one's origin (Acts 23:34) or a person with whom a connexion is (to be) severed (Jn.

17:15). Having this root sense, ekis sometimes equivalent to the subjective genitive(e.g., 2 Cor. 8:7 v.1.). However in the stere otyped ho ekor hoi ekbefore a n oun (e.g.,hoi ek nomou, "nomists" or "partisans of the law", Rom. 4:14; hoi ekistes, "menof faith", Gal. 3:7, 9) the notion of belonging is more prominent than that of origin.The ubiquitous ek (tou) theou depicts: (i) the agency of God in effecting spiritualregeneration (Jn. 1:13; 1 Jn. 3:9 bis; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18a; cf. Jn. 8:47 bis; 1 Jn. 4:4, ;

5:19; 3 Jn. 11), corresponding to the rle of the male in the act of physical procrea-

tion (cf. Matt. 1:18) (cf. Arndt, 234 s.v. ek3a); (ii) God as the authoritative source ofJesus' teaching (Jn. 7:17), the giver of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:12a) and of spiritual

gifts (1 Cor. 7:7),the source of all life, both physical (1 Cor. 11:12b) and spiritual (2

Cor. 5:18), the one who empowered Paul to carry out his divine commission (2 Cor.3:5b), the architect of the resurrection body of believers (2 Cor. 5:1),the one whoprovides a new and right relationship with himself (Phil. 3:9), and the one true sourceof love (1 Jn. 4:7).

On the relation ofekto aposee above II. B. 1.2. Some Notable Instances of ek.(a)Jn . 15:19 bis; 17:14, 16. Parallel to the Pauline antithesis between living en

sarki and yet not acting kata sarka (e.g., 2 Cor. 10:3) is the Johannine contrast bet-ween living en t kosm (Jn. 17:11; cf. 17:15) yet not being ek tou kosmou (Jn. 15:19

bis; 17:14b, 16; cf. 18:36 bis). Christians must live in the world (or flesh) but mustnot display the characteristics of the world (or flesh) (cf. Ep. Diog. 6, 3).(b) Rom. 1:3 f. These two verses refer to two successive stages of Christ's ex-

istence, not to two coexisting states (kata sarka . .. kata pneuma hagisyns). Withrespect to human descent (kata sarka; cf. Rom. 9:5) Jesus Christ was born ofDavid's stock(ek spermatos Dauid). On the other hand, his installation as Son of

1188


20/46


21/46

APPENDIX

of justification or salvation (ekRom. 1:17 bis; 3:26; 5:1; 9:30, 32; Gal. 2:16; diaRom. 3:22, 25; Gal. 2:16; 3:26; Eph. 2:8). (iii) There is a comparable change fromdiapistes to ek pistes in Rom. 3:25 f. and in Gal. 2:16 (in reference to anthrpos).(iv) In Gal. 3:26 the Jews and Gentiles of the Galatian churches (ponies; cf. Gal.3:28) are said to be sons of God dia tspistes; similarly Rom. 3:22, 25. (v) Anysuggestion that there are two distinct means or grounds of justification (mentioned in

Rom. 3:30) would tend to undermine Paul's earlier insistence that there is no dif-ference between Jew and Gentile with respect to sinfulness (Rom. 3:22 f.) or the ul-ti mate ground (= grace) and means (= redemption) of justification (Rom. 3:24). (vi)Stylistic or rhetorical variation is not untypical of Paul (e.g., Rom. 4:11; 10:17).

(e) 2 Cor. 13:4. Without the wider context of 2 Cor. 10-13, one would be temptedto render estaurbthe ex astheneias, "he was crucified in (a condition of physical)weakness", but ekprobably bears a causal sense "because of (his weakness)" (thusArndt, 234 s.v. ek3 f.). The weakness referred to it not physical or moral, but the"weakness" in men's eyes of non-retaliation or non-aggressiveness (cf. 2 Cor.10:1 f., 10 f.; 11:20 f., 30; 12:9 f.; 13:4b, 9 f.), the "weakness" of obedience to God's

will, which, for Christ, involved death on a cross (Phil. 2:8). But in such weakness,divine power comes to its full strength (2 Cor. 12:9).

F. en

1. Its Extended T Use. This is the most popular prep. in the NT (some 2,698

uses). . Turner isolates three factors that contributed to its extended NT use: (a) theincreasing imprecision of the dot.; (b) LXX usage, where en generally rendered thediversified b

e(see above, 1. B. 2 (a)); (c) the influence of distinctively Christian ideas,

such as en Christ, en pneumati ( Moulton, Grammar, III, 261).2. Its Versatility and Ultimate Disappearance. All the more remarkable,

therefore, is the fact that in modern demotic Gk. the prep. is no longer used. The ul-

ti mate disappearance ofen from the spoken language is related to two facts: (a) the

disappearance of the dot. case, a process completed by the tenth century; (b) the ex-tremely diversified use ofen in Hel. Gk. Commenting on this latter point, P. F.

Regard notes that in the case of the infin. also there was an extension of usagesimultaneously with signs of its ultimate eclipse; the more a particular linguistic formis employed, the more it is subject to weakening (resitins, 323 f.). In its diver-sification (note the 20 uses ofen, with various senses, in one sentence in 2 Cor.6:3-7a), en encroached on the territory ofeis (in being employed with verbs express-ing motion e.g., Lk. 23:53; 2 Cor. 8:16), dia with the ace. (in expressing the ground e.g., Matt. 6:7), dia with the gen. (in expressing instrumentality or agency e.g.,Lk. 22:49; Matt. 9:34), metaordiawith the gen. (in denoting attendant cir-cumstances e.g., Col. 2:7c; 4:2c); syn (in expressing accompaniment e.g., Lk.

14:31), and even kata(in indicating a standard of judgment e.g., Eph. 4:16, seeWeymouth). It is not that the distinction between en and any other prep. wasobliterated, but the area and frequency of overlap in usage became greater in Hel.and especially biblical Gk. than it had been earlier. Each potential example of suchoverlapping needs to be carefully weighed. Far example, in Jas. 5:3 we should renderen eschatais hmerais"(you have piled up wealth) in the last days" rather than `forthe last days (as ifen = eis),"given the fact that James does not confuse eis and en

1190


22/46


23/46

APPENDIX

(Deut. 24:16; 2 Sam. 3:27; Pss. 6:8; 30:11; 41:10) in which en = b e ="on accountof", "because of", H. A. A. Kennedy adduces comparable examples from thePauline epistles (Rom. 1:21, 24; 5:3; 1 Cor. 4:4; 7:14; 2 Cor. 12:5, 9; Phil. 1:13)("Two Exegetical Notes on St. Paul. I. A Specia1 Use ofen", ExpT28, 1916-17,

322 f.). To these might be added Matt. 6:7; Jn. 16:30; Acts 7:29; 24:16; Rom.14:21; Col. 1:21. For instances from the papyri, see C. Rossberg, De... Usu, 1909,29 and Moulton-Milligan, 210.

6. en Christ. 1n the many uses of this common Pauline formula, the en has nouniform function but seems to express the following range of ideas or relationships.A paraphrase will bring out the import of the expression in the examples cited.

(a) Incorporative union: "So that, incorporate in the person of Christ, we mightbecome the righteousness of God" (2 Cor. 5:21). "There is therefore now no penalservitude for those who are in union with Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8:1). "Consequently, if

anyone is united to Christ, there is a new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17).(b) Sphere of reference: "1 know a Christian man" (2 Cor. 12:2). "We make our

boast in the sphere of Christ Jesus" (Phil. 3:3). "They were Christians before I was"(Rom. 16:7).

(c) Agency or instrumentality: "They are justified freely by his grace through theredemption accomplished by Christ Jesus" (Rom. 3:24). "The veil is not liftedbecause only through Christ is it removed" (2 Cor. 3:14).

(d) Cause: "You have come to completeness as a result of being in him (Christ)"(Col. 2:10). "All will be made alive by virtue of their connexion and solidarity withChrist" (1 Cor. 15:22).

(e) Mode: "You are all one by being in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28).(f) Location: "The love of God that is focused in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom.8:39). "Have this attitude among you that also characterized Christ Jesus" (Phil.2:5).

(g)Authoritative basis: "We urge you on the authority of the Lord Jesus" (1Thess. 4:1).

For the immense literature on the subject, see E. Best, One Body in Christ, 1955,8-19. If the concept that lies behind Paul's en Christ formula is that of Christ as auniversal personality (A. Oepke, en, TDNT II542), an inclusive personality (C. F. D.Moule, "The Corporate Christ" in his The Phenomenon of the New Testament, SBT,

Second Series 1, 1967, 26), or a corporate personality (B. Best, op. cit. 29), so thatbelievers as a corporate whole dwell "in Christ," in the complementary expression,"Christ (Jesus) in you" (en hymin) (Rom. 8:10; 2 Cor. 13:5; Col. 1:27; cf. Gal.2:20), the notion of a direct relation between two individuals is more pronounced.Only in Johannine thought is there the idea of personal co-inherence (Jn. 6:56;14:20; 15:4 f.; 1 Jn. 3:24; 4:13, 15 f.), patterned on the archetype of divine co-inherence (Jn. 10:38; 14:10 f., 20; 17:21, 23). It is also noteworthy that Paul moreoften depicts Christians as being en Christ and the Spirit as en hymin than Christ asen hymin and Christians as enpneumati. On the relationship between the expressionsen Chris and en pneumati in Paul, see F. Prat, The Theology of Saint Paul, II, ET1945, 394 f.; F. Neugebauer, "Das Paulinische `In Christ' ", NTS4, 1957-8,124-138; H. F. Woodhouse, "Life in Christ and Life in the Spirit",A nglicanTheological Review 47, 1965, 289-293.

2 Cor. 5:19a may be translated in two basic ways: "that through Christ (en

1192


24/46

APPENDIX

Christ) God was reconciling the world to himself" or "that God was in Christ,reconciling the world to himself." Nothing in the immediate context demands thateither of these renderings be excluded as inappropriate, and each embodies a

typically Pauline sentiment. What makes the second translation preferable are thefollowing considerations: (i) it would be awkward for the two elements of aperiphrastic (imperfect) construction (n ... katallassn) to be separated by threewords (cf. Gal. 1:22 f.; Phil. 2:26; Tit. 3:3 is no real parallel); (ii) elsewhere whenal uses the verb katallassein and specifies Christ as God's agent in effecting recon-ciliation, the dia phrase employed to express the latter idea either precedes (as in Col.1:20; cf. Rom. 5:11) or follows (as in Rom. 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:18; cf. Col. 1:22) the fixedorder: verb (katallassein) object(s) of reconciliation goal of reconciliation. Thismight lead us to expect, ifen Christ in 2 Cor. 5:19 specified agency and n .. .

katallassen were a periphrastic imperfect, that the en Christ would precede thethessor follow the heaut (although, on any view, kosmon is not in its normalposition). The finite verb (n) and the participle (katallassen) are perhaps related asexpressing something akin to cause and effect: it was only because God in all hisfullness had chosen to dwell in Christ (Col. 1:19), only because there dwelt embodiedin Christ the total plenitude of Deity (Col. 2:9), that reconciliation was accomplished.A functional christology presupposes, and finds its ultimate basis in, an ontologicalchristology. Not only was Christ God's agent in effecting reconciliation (Rom. 5:10f.; 2 Cor. 5:18; Col. 1:19-22); he also mediated the divine presence, thus giving

validity to his reconciliatory sacrifice. God was in Christ and therefore acted throughChrist (cf. Jn. 14:10b, "the Father who dwells in me does his works"). Paul herealludes to Christ as the locus of divine revelation ("God was in Christ") and thereforeas the means of divine redemption ("reconciling the world to himself"; cf. 2 Cor.5:18). There is also established an identity between the redemptive action of God andthat of Christ. Ubi Christus, ibi Deus: where Christ is, there is God.

G. epi

1.Its Basic Meaning and Versatility. Basically denoting position on somethingwhich forms a support or foundation, epi is the opposite ofhypo ("under") and dif-fers from hyper("above") in implying actual rest upon some object. In this primarylocal sense of "on", "upon", epi is followed by the ace., the gen. or the dat., oftenwithout distinction in meaning (e.g., with kathmens and thronos, Rev. 4:2 ace.,4:9 f. gen., 21:5 dat.; see also Matt. 25:21). epi, the one NT prep. used frequentlywith three cases (ace. 464 times, gen. 216, dat. 176 Moulton, Grammar, I, 107),has a versatility of use that is matched only by en. From the simple spatial meaningofepi there naturally developed a multitude of derived senses, so that the prep. mayexpress, inter alia:addition (Lk. 3:20; 2 Cor. 7:13; Col. 3:14); superintendence

( Matt. 2:22; Lk. 12:44; Rom. 9:5); cause or basis (Matt. 4:4; Lk. 5:5; Acts 3:16; 1Tim. 5:19); circumstance (Rom. 8:20; 1 Cor. 9:10; Tit. 1:2); and purpose or destina-tion (Gal. 5:13, "you were called to freedom", ep' eleutheria, a statement thatepitomizes the argument of this epistle, "the charter of Christian liberty"; Eph. 2:10,"created ... for doing good deeds"; 1 Thess. 4:7). Of special interest is the use of epi

(with the ace.) to denote the recipients of various spiritual blessings or experiences,such as a trance (Acts 10:10), the word of God (Lk. 3:2), the kingdom of God (Matt.

1193


25/46

APPENDIX

12:28; Lk. 10:9), the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:17 f.; 10:45; Tit. 3:6; 1 Pet. 4:14), thepower of Christ (2 Cor. 12:9), or the grace of God (Lk. 2:40).

2. Some Notable Uses of epi.(a)

epi to auto. In the LXX (e.g., 2 Sam. 2:13; Pss. 2:2; 33:4) the meaning of thisprep. phrase is "together" or "at the same place", while in the papyri it is frequent inthe sense "in all" (denoting the sum total of an account) (E. Mayser, Grammatik, II .2, 418 n. 2). The phrase has the sense of "together" in Acts 4:26 (quoting Ps. 2:2)and in Matt. 22:34; Lk. 17:35. As a euphemism for sexual intercourse, epi to autoeinai occurs in 1 Car, 7:5. Adducing illuminating parallels from the Qumran Manualof Discipline (e.g., 1QS 5:7), . Wilcox has shown that in Acts 2:47 (as in 1:15;2:44, 46D) the phrase is not a mistranslation of the Aram. landd' (as C. C. Torreymaintained see Moulton, Grammar, II, 473) but a quasi-technical expressiondenoting the union of the Christian fellowship: "the Lord was day by day incor-porating into the Fellowship those who were being saved" (The Semitisms of Acts,1965, 93-100). That epi to auto and en ekklsia are sometimes virtually syn-onymous, signifying "in church fellowship", seems evident from the parallelism of 1Cor. 11:18 and 11:20. This meaning, common in the Apostolic Fathers (e.g., 1 Clem.34:7; Ign.Eph. 5:3; 13:1;Mag. 7:1; Phil. 6:2; 10:1; Barn. 4:10 cited by .Ferguson, " When You Come Together':Epi to Auto in Early Christian Literature",

Restoration Quarterly 16, 1973, 205 f.), should be given to the phrase in Acts 2:1, 44v.1., 46D, 47; 1 Cor. 11:20; 14:23 and possibly Acts 1:15. The "togetherness" of theearly Christians was expressed principally in their meeting for public worship "inchurch fellowship" or "in the assembly".

(b) eph' h. The innumerable interpretations of Rom. 5:12 fall into two maingrammatical categories: those that construe h as a relative pronoun (whose antece-dent may be either ho thanatos, "death", or henos anthrpou, "one man"), with epimeaning "in" or "because of"; and those that treat eph' h as a conjunction,equivalent to epi tu hoti, "on the ground of this fact, that", "because." The formeralternatives must be pronounced improbable since elsewhere in Paul (viz., 2 Cor. 5:4;Phil. 3:1; 4:10) eph' h is conjunctional, whatever its precise nuance. The focus ofexegetical attention therefore naturally moves topantes hmartn, which may referto man's corporate involvement in the transgression of Adam or to men's personalsin in imitation of Adam or as a result of inheriting a corrupt Adamic nature. Then,since some nexus between Adam and his descendants with regard to sin seemsdemanded by Paul's Adam-Christ analogy (see Rom. 5:18 f.; cf. 1 Cor. 15:22), themost likely options seem to be: (i) "death spread to all men because all sinned"(either actually in Adam's primal transgression or in their federal representative,Adam) (hmarton being a constative aorist); (ii) "death spread to all men because all(since the time of Adam) have sinned" (hmartn a constative aorist), or". . . do sin"(hmartn a gnomic aorist) (as those who have inherited Adam's nature). See further

the discussions of S. Lyonnet, "Le sens de eph' ho en Rom. 5:12 et l'exgse desPres grecs",Bib 36, 1955, 436-456; C. . B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans,

ICC,119756,

274-281; and S. L. Johnson, Jr., "Romans 5:12 An Exercise in Ex-

egesis and Theology", inNew Dimensions in New Testament Study, ed. R. N.Longenecker and . C. Tenney, 1974, 298-316.

As for 2 Cor. 5:4 the vast majority of commentators agree that a causal senseshould be given to eph' hb. The only viable alternative, viz. eph' ho = "on condition

1194


26/46


27/46

ADX

epi to xylon, "he carried up ... on to the cross." (iii) Although anpher is atechnical term describing the priest's task of bringing a sacrifice and placing it on thealtar (e.g., Lev. 14:20), here the verb does not mean "offer up in sacrifice" (as it does

in Heb. 7:27; Jas. 2:21), since sins could never be conceived of as an offering to Godand Peter has preferred the termxylon ("gibbet") over thysiastrin ("altar"); ratherthe verb should be understood in a non-technical sense, "carry up". The picture isnot of Christ as a priest and the cross as an altar but of Christ as the sin-bearer (cf.Jn. 1:29) and the cross as the place where sin was destroyed (cf. Col. 2:14 f.). E. G.Selwyn finds a possible allusion to Peter's actually having seen Jesus ascendGolgotha as the sin-bearer (The First Epistle of St. Peter, 1946, 96, 181). For theview that anpher epi is a forensic technical expression for the laying of one per-son's debt upon another, see G. A. Deissmann,Bible Studies, ET 1901, 88-91.

On the use ofepi t onomati after baptiz, see below 1II. A. 5; and ofepi with

pisteu, III. B. 2. (e) and (f).

H. hyper

Its original local sense of "over", "above" (Lat. super) is found in cl. Gk. (e.g. Hdt.2, 6, 19) and occasionally in the papyri (C. Rossberg, Dc... Usu, 40) but not in theLXX or . The commonest meaning this preposition bears (viz. "on behalf of")seems to have arisen from the image of one person standing or bending overanotherin order to protect or shield him, or of a shield lifted overthe head which suffers the

blow instead of the person (cf. hyperaspizein, "cover with a shield").1. W ith the A ccusative. Although ingenious efforts have been made to explain the

awkward to m hyper ha gegraptai in 1 Cor. 4:6 as a scribe's marginal gloss thatcrept into the text (see the survey of views in W. F. Howard, "1 Corinthians iv. 6(Exegesis or Emendation?)",ExpT33, 1921-2, 479 f.), the phrase is better un-derstood as a quotation (note the to) of a Pauline slogan (iz., "Do not go beyondwhat stands written") or (conceivably) as Paul's repudiation of a Corinthianwatchword (iz., "Beyond Scripture") (cf. M. D. Hooker, "'Beyond the Thingswhich are Written': An Examination of 1 Cor. iv. 6,"NTS10, 1963-64, 127-132).

2. W ith the Genitive. When the prep. expresses some advantage or favour that ac-

crues to persons, its sense is "on behalf of" (representation) or "in the place of"(substitution). When the benefit is gained by things, the meaning will be "for the sakeof", which approaches a causal sense ("because of").

To act on behalf of a person often involves acting in his place. Hence hypernot in-frequently has the sense ofanti (as in the papyri Rossberg,De ... Usu, 41). Thussou allagma is parallel to hyper sou in Isa. 43:3, antallagto lytron hyper hmn inEp. Diog. 9:2, 5, and Irenaeus has hyper tn hemetern psychn in parallelism withanti tn hmetern sarkn (Haer. 5, 1, 2). Of Onesimus, Paul says to Philemon: "1would have been glad to keep him with me, so that he might serve me as your proxy

(hyper sou) during my imprisonment for the gospel" (Phlm. 13). For the relevantphrase, Moffatt has "as your deputy", and Goodspeed, "in your place". Com-menting on hyper hmn in Col. 1:7, J. B. Lightfoot observes that "as the evangelistof Colossae, Epaphras had representedSt. Paul there and preached in his stead"(Saint Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, 1900, 134). As recorded inthe Fourth Gospel, Caiaphas remonstrates with the Jewish leaders: "You do not un-

1196


28/46

APPENDIX

derstand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people (hyper toulaou)"(Jn. 11:50; similarly in 18:14). It is clear that hyperhere denotes substitution,

not simply benefit or representation, since Caiaphas remarks that such a death "for

the people" would ensure that "the whole nation" did not perish (Jn. 11:50b; lapsand ethnos both refer to the (same) Jewish nation; cf. hyper tou ethnous, vv. 51 f.).That is, politically the death of the one (as a scapegoat) would be a substitute for thedeath of the many. As John saw it (10:41 f.; 18:14), Caiaphas had unwittingly ex-pressed a theological profundity: Christ's suffering was vicarious and redemptive (cf.E. . Abbott,Johannine Grammar, 1906, 276). Very similar is the Pauline affirma-tion that "one died for all" (heis hyper pantn apethanen), where, as R. Bultmannnotes (Der Zweite Brief an die Korinther, 1976, 152 f.), hyperis shown to bear asubstitutionary sense by the inference Paul draws: "therefore all died" (2 Cor. 5:14).The death of Christ was the death of all, because he was dying their death. In becom-ing the object of divine wrath against human sin, Christ was acting vicariously, viz.,hyper hmn, not only "on our behalf" or "with a view to our good" but "in ourplace" (2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13). He assumed the liabilities of others in "being madesin" and "becoming a curse" (katara, "abstractum pro concreto: bearer of thecurse", H. Riesenfeld, hyper, TDNT VIII509; see also A. T. Robertson, Grammar,631). However, in several places where the phrase apothanein (or its equivalent)hyperoccurs, it is difficult to determine whether or not the prep. denotes substitution

(e.g., Rom. 8:32; Gal. 2:20; Eph. 5:2, 25; 1 Thess. 5:10; Tit. 2:14). In Rom. 14:15(hyper /iou, note the singular), any substitutionary notion is unlikely since a parallel

in 1 Cor. 8:11 has di' hon. 1t is striking that, in addition to affirming that Christ diedfor persons (hyper asebn, Rom. 5:6; hyper pantn, 2 Cor. 5:14 f., 1 Tim. 2:6; hyperhmn, Rom. 5:8; 1 Thess. 5:10), al can say that he died or gave himselfhyper tnhamartin hmn (1 Cor. 15:3; Gal. l , v.1.; cf. Heb. 5:1; 7:27), "with reference toour sins", i.e. "to deal with our sin", "to expiate our sins". But why does Paul neversay that Christ died anti hmn (1 Tim. 2:6 is the nearest he comes antilytronhyper pantn)? Probably because the prep. hyper, unlike anti, could simultaneouslyexpress representation and substitution (similarly R. C. Trench, Synonyms of the

New Testament, 1948 reprint of ninth edition, , lxxxii, 310-313; E. . Simpson, The

Pastoral Epistles, 1954, 110-112, "Note on the Meaning of HYPER in Certain Con-texts," where there is an impressive assembling of evidence from cl. and Hel. Gk. toshow that hypernot uncommonly denotes proxyship, "in lieu of '; but seeper contraF. Prat, The Theology of Saint Paul, 1945, II, 197). It is significant that in the papyriwe find that a semi-technical formula (egrapsa hyper autou agrammatou) is used toindicate that one person had written or signed a letter on behalf of and in place ofanother person who was illiterate (see E. Mayser, Grammatik, II. 2, 460; and A. T.Robertson, "The Use ofhyperin Business Documents in the Papyri", The Expositor8th series 18, 1919, 321-327). We may conclude that the emphasis in hyperis onrepresentation, in anti on substitution; yet a substitute represents and a represen-tative may be a substitute. That is, hypersometimes implies anti.

On the use ofhyperin 1 Cor. 15:29, see below III. A. 1.

I. hypo

There are several ways in which agency is expressed in the NT: hypo ( Matt. 4:1,

1197


29/46

APPENDIX

bis ),dia (2 Cor. 1:19),o(2 Cor. 3:18), ek(Gal. 4:4) and possiblyparawith thegen., en with the dat. (Matt. 9:34), or the simple dat. (Matt. 6:1) (see A. T.Robertson, Grammar, 635 f., 820).

1. hypo and dia. 1tcannot be maintained that while dia denotes the inanimate in-strument, hypo specifies the personal agent, for diamay express personal agency(e.g., 1 Cor. 15:21) and hypo may be applied to inanimate agencies (e.g., hypo t o unoos, Col. 2:18), to non-human agents (e.g., hypo frt therin, Rev. 6:8) or to per-sonified forces (e.g., hypo anemou, Lk. 7:24). Where the two preps. may be dis-tinguished, diamarks intermediate agency and hypo ultimate or original agency.Thus in Matt. 1:22, the Lord as the ultimate author (hypo kyriou) of the propheticword is distinguished from the prophet Isaiah who acted as a mediate agent (dia tou

prhtou) in speaking the divine word. Compare the similar distinction between

primary origin and subordinate agency in the ek(of God the Father) di (of JesusChrist) contrast in 1 Cor. 8:6 with regard to creation and preservation.

2. hypo ando.The distinction here, when it obtains, is that between immediateand active causation (hypo) and less immediate and less active causation (o),between the direct and indirect origination of an action (cf. Arndt, 87 s.v. a V. 6),between an internal and an external causal relation (cf. A. Buttmann, Grammar,325), or between the efficient cause and the occasional cause ("that from which aresult ensued") (G. B. Winer, Grammar, 369). 1n such casesomay be rendered"at the hands of" (e.g., Mk. 8:31; 2 Cor. 7:13), "by the will (or command) of" (e.g.,Rev. 12:6) or "as a result of" (Rev. 9:18). In the expression

theou peiraaomai(Jas. 1:13), God is viewed as the ultimate cause of temptation but not directly as thetempter. James is saying: "Let nobody say when he is tempted, 1 am being tempted

by circumstances and influences that come from God or are permitted byhim.'"However the following rebuttal of this sentiment ("he himself tempts no one", v. 13c)shows that a direct divine temptation was also in mind. (For the view that James ishere re-interpreting Matt. 6:13a in a distinctively Christian sense, see . Turner,

Insights, 161-163.) But thatooccasionally stands for hypo seems incontestable(see Lk. 7:35; Acts 2:22; 15:4, 33; 20:9; 2 Cor. 7:13; cf. Thuc.,History, 4, 25, 5).

3. hypo and para. There is no clear instance whereparareplaces hypo (but see

Mk. 10:40 v.1.; Acts 10:33 v.l.; 22:30 v.1.). 1n Lk. 1:45 ("... what was spoken to her[ Mary]para kyriou") the prep. may allude to the intermediate agency of the angel(see M. Zerwick,Biblical Greek, 90). Whereasparatraces an action back to itspoint of departure or source, hypo relates an action to its efficient cause (so G. B.Winer, Grammar, 365).

Observing that o, ek, paraand hypo all denote "issuing, proceeding from,"Winer ranges these four preps. in the following order with regard to the degree of in-ti macy of connexion between the objects in question, ekrepresenting the most in-ti mate andothe most remote: ek, hypo. para,o.Onlyoand ekdirectly imply

"disjoining" and "removal" (op. cit., 364 f.).

.kata

1.Root Meaning. The primary, local meaning ofkata seems to have been either"down (from or upon)" (expressing vertical extension) or (less probably) "alongwhile remaining in contact with" (expressing horizontal extension). That kata is

1198


30/46

APPENDIX

closely related to ana is clear from the fact that "down" and "up" simply representthe same idea from opposite viewpoints. Just as anacorresponds to au,"up(wards)", so the prep. kata answers to the adv. ka, "down(wards)". Examples

of the spatial meaning ofkata (with the gen.) include Matt. 8:32; Acts 27:14 ("a tem-pestuous wind swept down from it" [kat' ants] = the island of Crete with its moun-tain ravines); 1 Cor. 11:4. 2 Cor. 8:2 affords a clear example of the developedmetaphorical sense: "poverty reaching down to the depths" (kata bathous) _ "ex-treme poverty." From the local meaning, "down upon", there naturally arose theidea of hostile movement directed against someone or something (where kata is theopposite ofhyper; cf. Rom. 8:31, 33 f.) (e.g., Acts 6:13; 1 Cor. 4:6). 1n this regard 2Cor. 13:8 should not be taken to mean that truth is its own defence (contrast Rom.1:18; Jude 3) ("for we cannot do anything against the truth [kata tes a1 'theiasl").Explaining why he does not expect the Corinthians to discover him to be a falseapostle or counterfeit Christian, Paul is asserting that he would never be able to bringhimself to propagate falsehood or to hinder the advance of the truth without firstchanging his identity as an apostle. In Gal. 5:17 the active mutual antagonism of twoirreconcilable adversaries the flesh and the Spirit is expressed by the wordsepithymei kata: `the cravings of our old nature conflict with the Spirit, and the Spiritwith our old nature." Again, Paul speaks of God's obliteration, through the cross ofChrist, of the signed acknowledgment of indebtedness (cheirographon) "that stoodagainst us [kath' hmn] with its regulations and was directly hostile to us[hypenantion hmin]"(Col. 2:14). The former phrase emphasizes the brute fact of in-

debtedness, while the latter stresses the active hostility produced by this fact; J. A.Bengel finds the distinction to be that between "a state of war and an actualengagement" (Gnomon of the New Testament, FT 1863, IV, 172).

Attention may now be given to several uses ofkatathat provide theologicallysignificant statements.

2. kata sarka and kata pneuma. kata sarkasometimes means simply "withrespect to (physical) descent" (Rom. 1:3; 4:1; 9:3). Appearing in the form t kata

sarka, the phrase has the purpose in Rom. 9:5 either of pointing to a complementaryantithesis (as ifto kata pneuma stood after "God over all") or of affirming that it is

only "as far as human descent is concerned" (cf. Funk, 266 (1)) that the messiah( = Christ) belongs to the Jewish people. Not a few commentators find in 2 Cor.5:16b a Pauline disavowal of interest in the historical Jesus (kata sarka Christon),But kata sarka here signifies "from a worldly [or nationalistici point of view" andqualifies egnkamen ("we regarded"), rather than qualifying Christon with the wholephrase meaning "a physical Christ." Since the time of his conversion Paul hadceased making superficial judgments based on external appearances (cf. 2 Cor. 5:12).Just as he now repudiated as totally erroneous his sincere yet superficial pre-conversion estimate of Jesus as a misguided messianic pretender whose followers

must be extirpated (Acts 9:1 f.; 26:9-11), so he regarded the time-honoured divisionof mankind into Jew and Gentile (2 Cor. 5:16x) as less significant for him than thebeliever-unbeliever distinction (see, e.g., Rom. 2:28 f.; 10:12 f.; 1 Cor. 5:12 f.; Gal.6:10) which was based on a kata pneuma ("in light of the Spirit") or kata stauron("in the light of the cross") attitude. Two basic and profound changes had beenbrought about in Paul's attitude as a result of his Damascus encounter with the risenJesus: he now acclaimed Jesus as messiah and Lord (Acts 9:22; 17:3; Rom. 10:9);

1199


31/46


32/46


33/46


34/46

APPENDIX

Father. (It is the context, and not the preposition itself that has theological implica-tions; not only Jesus (Jn. 9:331 came "from God" para theoul, but John also fin.1:61.)

Similarly in Jn. 15:26 it is not inter-trinitarian relations that John is discussing but

Christ's sending of the Spirit from the presence of the Father. (i)Althoughekporeuetai could imply either an emanation from a divine source or a procession ona mission, only ek tou patros would be appropriate to denote an eternal processionfrom the being of the Father (as the creeds testify, which read to ek tou patrosekporeuomenon a combination of Jn. 15:26 and 1 Cor. 2:12, to pneuma to ek toutheou). Compare Rev. 22:1, where the river of the water of life is described a s flowingfrom (ekporeuomenon ek) the throne of God and of the Lamb. (ii)para tou patros isunlikely to bear two different senses in successive parallel statements. (iii) Following

pemps and preceding martyrsei, the verb ekporeuetai should probably be taken asa futuristic (not a timeless) present. (iv) Just as Jesus was sent by God and thereforecould be said to have come forth from him (Jn. 8:42), so the Spirit would be sent bythe Father (In. 14:26) and therefore could be said to proceed from him (Jn. 15:26).(v) In the context, with its emphasis on the truth of the Spirit's witness to Christ (Jn.15:26b), it would hardly be necessary for John to have indicated the eternal mode of

the Spirit's personal and essential subsistence. For a defence of the view that inter-prets the verse as relating to "the procession of the Spirit", see M. J. Lagrange,

Evangile selon Saint Jean, 1948, 413.

M.per'

The basic, local sense ofperis "around" or "encircling" (Lat. circum) (as in Acts22:6). In its derived, figurative meanings, it designates a centre of activity, an objectaround which an action or a state revolves. Thus hoi pert ton Paulon (Acts 13:13,"Paul and his companions") marks out the apostle as a sun with several satellites.Standing absolutely at the beginning of a sentence, pen i (de) means "(now) concer-ning" (for parallels in the papyri, see Moulton-Milligan, 504) and marks a new sec-

tion of thought (e.g., 1 Cor. 7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1), a point of importance for thereconstruction of the Corinthian letter to al which he answers in 1 Cor. 7-16. Onthe partial