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 senses of a word. But when it was merely the question of using his labors, undertaken in and for his own New Testament studies, for the service of others who may profit by the labor 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 labors he may find them useful. They are in no sense offered as anything complete or final. They were formed in bond 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 the questions for enquirers which the paper itself may not solve. One only can guide us into truth and the mind of God in His Word.
GREER. PARTICLES.
Av 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, μετανοησαναν, Matt. 11:20,21; so chap. 12: 7, and often. When the possibility or hypothetical case is stated in the verb to which αν belongs, the verb is in the subjunctive, as ὁς αν απολμση, ἐως αν ειπω ὁπως αν ποτιση: as to times, 1 Cor. 11:25, ὁσακις αν πινητε, i.e., whenever they did do it: the doing it was uncertain. So as to place, Μark 9: 18, ὁπου αν καταλαβη, wherever he did, but the taking him was occasional and uncertain; ὁπως αν κηρυχθη (Mark 14:9), the preaching was incidental.
Av means, I think, in that case, ever, every, (immer). Eav is practically et ay. Hence, when αν (if not to be read eav, which always has the subjunctive, as uncertain) leaves the act uncertain or not accomplished (cases of time αχρις οὑ αν θη, Om 1 Cor. 15:25), it has the subjunctive. Where the act is assumed or done, αν is still ever, but the verb is in the indicative. Thus, Mark 6:56, ὁπου αν εισεπορευετο εις κωμας, because it is an assumed fact, he went into the villages, had gone into them, when they wanted to touch him; but κ’αν ἁψωνται, uncertain whether they could. Then ὁσοι αν ἡπτοντο, where it is the fact; but Matt. 10:11, as εις ἡν δ’αν πολιν εισελθητε,
because it was a future uncertain possibility. So Luke 9:57, James 3:4, Rev 14:4, Mark 14:9, wherever he went' may be αν, but indicative; wherever he might go,' αν with subjunctive. The same rule applies to time as to other cases; if the hypothesis is stated previously. the verb with αν is in the indicative, as Matt. 11:23, " they would have remained" εμειναν αν. Otherwise, as a future is not a fact, it is in the subjunctive, ἑως αν θω, and a multitude of cases. Is not its real force ava, 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, αν 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,' i.e.,' every one I possibly could,' it is possibility.
‘Απαξ, εφαπαξ, 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, εφαπαξ, into the holy place." It is not that He once did it,ἁπαξ, 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 Rom. 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. ‘Απαξ 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."
Apa is not ουν, 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 ουν, so then it always, I think, gives the idea of this being so; or if a question, is it indeed so that. Thus, Matt. 12:28. It was not ουν, therefore, but " then this being so, the kingdom of God is come to you," So Matt. 7:20, αραγε, γε strengthening the consequence, thus then surely (alio iα), Rom. 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 Matt. 18:1, τις αρα μειξων, 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 αρα refers to the Lord's whole conception of the condition of the servant. Compare Matt. 24:45, where the Lord evidently answers what is passing in his own mind. In Luke 1:66, the antecedent circumstances are evident. So 8: 25. In Luke 22:23, since some one, would,' `it being so—τις αρα?' It is less evident but the same sense in 11: 48, you being what you are, and doing what you are, αρα μαρτυρειτε. With ει it is uncertain possibility under the circumstances; still this being so,' hence it increases the improbability of ει, Acts 8:22;17: 27. Rom. 5:18, αρα ουν ' therefore this being so;' Rom. 8:1, ' This being so, there is none,' and Rom. 14:19 is the same. In 1 Cor. 7:14, it is elliptical, if it were as you say, and you had to leave the husband or wife,' but the force of αρα is the same. 1 Cor. 15:15, if indeed it be so.' Gal. 3:7, 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.
Tαρ 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 theγαρ or inference does not refer to what has been stated, but to what is in the writer's mind; but which confirms the general thought. A singular case of this is in Matt. 1:18, where the matter is wholly in the writer's mind, and he has only said ' thus. So that all that follows with γαρ is the explanation of οὑτως. This is an extreme case perhaps, but this use of γαρ is very common with the Apostle Paul, and we should not seize his meaning without seeing it. Thus Rom. 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, γαρ has not this direct force, but begins a long series of proofs of what made that gospel necessary; and he returns to the point laid down in verse 17, only in 3: 21. But it all bears on it, 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 show 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 Rom. 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 7: 14, where, as in many cases, the connection is so obvious that it creates no difficulty. But in 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 is not the proof of it. You could not say in verse 2, ὁτι or διοτι which for ' in English often answers to. It aids in proving the general point, but by a collateral testimony. He 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 chap. 6. had shown one, and the end of 7. thee dummy 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 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.. Matt. 27:23, τι γαρ κακον εποιησε: 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, μη γαρ εκ της Ταλιλαιας ὁ Χριστος ερχεται, 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.
But γαρ has certainly the sense of indeed, even, immo,. perhaps כִ֖י, as Acts 16:37, ου γαρ no indeed. The connection with its usual force may be seen perhaps in 1 Thess. 4:10.
In Acts 2:15, ου γαρoy is not for,' I suspect, but, these indeed are not as you suppose, drunk, for these are in no way.'
So with και, γαρ 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., Matt. 15:27. In John 7:41, γαρ has the force of indeed, but with a question: as above, denying it thus; but its force is indeed. Again, 1 Cor. 9:10, δἰ ἡμας γαρ, indeed, surely, even, for us' James 4:14 again helps us to the connection of the two sentences. We must say even, perhaps, but it is giving the reason why it is the weak thing which the question supposes-' it is as nothing, for it is a vapor:' 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, bow indeed should I. And in this use of it, I do not see, however unusual, it may not be η γαρ εκεινος, Luke 18:14, than surely that other, one' γαρ being merely increased affirmation as כִֽי in Hebrew, or ja ' in German, or immo. It was then left out as difficult in Greek; rather, yea, than that other for the other thought himself so. In Rom. 3:2, we have πρωτον γαρ, first indeed, first surely, etc., 15: 27, ευδοκησαν γαρ. Again, 'they were pleased indeed'-the mind stops, says, no doubt.' It is the more striking here, for in verse 26 we have ευδ. γαρ in the usual sense of for. If the force of yap 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 η γαρ εκεινος, 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 Cor. 9:10, Acts 4:16,ὁτι μεν γαρ, for then indeed, or for indeed, for that indeed, etc. Rom. 3:2,πρωτον μεν γαρ, first then indeed, first indeed. In 2 Cor. 12:1, we have a special use of it. Well (δη) it is not expedient for me to glory, I will then now come,' etc. 1 Cor. 11:22, have ye not then.' Και γαρ has essentially the sense of since, literally for even. It gives a confirming proof, as και γαρ Ταλιλαιος εστιν, Luke 22:59; 1 Cor. 5:7; 2 Cor. 13:8, since, or for, for even if, since if Matt. 15:27, Mark 7:28, for even or since.
Τε, does not present much difficulty, though not easy a 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 και, Luke 19:42, even, at any rate, at least; 1 Cor. 9:2, "at any rate I am to you." Sometimes even is the best, in the same sense substantially. Acts 2:18, Rom. 8:32, the latter ὁς γε, where (ja in German) even is right, but cold; not even better perhaps. Acts 2:18,και γε, yea even, or yea by itself, or yea on the very, Luke 24:21. αγγα γε is more difficult. 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, bas taken place.' Acts 8:30; do you, at least then, understand as you are reading (αρα) 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 Cor. 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.
Aλλα πλην,δε. The force of πλην as a preposition is simple, besides, except, but only in Mark 12: 32, John 8:10, Acts 8:1;15. 28, xxvii. 28. These I believe are all we have; πλην ὁτι, Acts 20:23.
Δε is distinction, not opposition, a second thing,— αλλα is opposition. Δε may be often translated now' as Matt. 1:18. It supposes some thought to have been in the mind if not expressed, and goes on to what follows: &act, as fondern after a negative in German, is in contrast. So Rom. 7:7, no, I do not say that, but I do say that,' etc. Δε 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 psi was there. Acts 22:28, εγω δε.Se. But you may generally translate and' without altering the sense, as Rom. 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 δε. Δε is a continuation of the same reasoning, a completing it, though the subject matter may be opposed. So Matt. 12:26-28.
Αλλα negatives the, thing it is in contrast with; δε connects them in reasoning, though it may be the converse or distinct, " not in circumcision, αλλ’ in uncircumcision," Rom. 4:10, Mark 9:8, " they saw no man αλλ’ they saw Jesus," xiv. 29; Rom. 3:31, " αλλα, on the contrary, we establish," and 5: 14, " sin is not imputed,"-that is true-" but death reigned." So Rom. 8: 37, referring to 35, on the contrary:' 1 Cor. 3:2,
"not only do I say this, αλλ' ουδε, on the contrary ye are not even now. 1 Cor. 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 Cor. 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. Eph. 5:24, αλλα 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 Cor. 11:6. It gives force simply to style, as in 2 Cor. 7:11, yea' is well enough, aye not only that but.
Пλην 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, Matt. 11:22,24, add, moreover:' so 18: 7. So Luke 22:21,22, πλην, moreover, 'the hand is there, and the Son of man goes indeed, scat "Lev, but then I add, woe to that man.' Matt. 26:39, but then I add.'
Μενουνγε. is used only three times in N. T. Phil. 3:8 is read αλλα μεν ουν in the editions. Luke 11:28, Rom. 9:20;10. 18. It has the sense of a kind of aye, indeed, if you talk of that.' So Luke 11:28, If you talk of blessing, such and such are the really blessea. Rom. 9:20, Ah, indeed, you talk of calling God in question; who are you then.' And 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 Μηδε and Mητε, see 2 Thess. 2:2, in editions. Mηδε adds a subject of negation: μητε contrast different points into which the subject spoken of in the negative is divided, " not shaken nor troubled (μηδε) -by word, nor by letter (μητε)." Te by itself connects two things in a measure in one, και leaves them two: but when τε is used with και, it raises the subject of τε into prominence. It is not only what follows και, but what precedes τε too; but still unites them: saying, not the two, but both, take place. So indeed μητε....,μητε, both form part of one single subject. There is more bond in τε than in μητε in the two things mentioned as, in 2 Thess. 2:2, both are connected with θροεισαι. It is more, also, or both than and. It is found twice as often in Acts as in all the rest of the N. T.; then in Heb., Rom., Luke, rarely elsewhere: often it is a mere shade of different aspect of something from κια. 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 μη not μητε. Δη only 6 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 Matt. 13:23, Luke 2:15, Acts 13:2;15: 36, 1 Cor. 6:20, 2 Cor.. 12: 1. It is then, then now; also does well in Matt. 13:23, then now in Luke 2:15, 1 Cor. 6:20, 2 Cor. 12, well it is not,' would do.
Mεντοι. 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 Tim. 2:19.
Mεν, does little more than arrest the mind instead of simply stating the fact. With δε 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 ofμεν and δε are different, then they have their places.,- thus Matt. 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 μεν and κια; in Matt. 13:4,8, μεν and δε. Luke 3:16, both, no doubt, are baptizers, but ‘εγω μεν ὑδατι, αυτος δε εω π’ The contrast is full.
Μεν ουν, 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 something in his mind, shut up in the previous part, which makes the prominent subject in some -new statement. Oυν, I think, connects, μεν fixes the mind on the particular object. Once ουν μεν, but then ουν has its own ordinary force. I think μεν ουν thus always begins a new sentence. It is chiefly found in the narrative of the Acts, as may be supposed. See ουν. Ομως, even, nevertheless, however, although, found only in John 12:42, 1 Cor. 14:7, and Gal. 3:15. In this last ὁμως goes with ανθρωπου, and in 1 Cor. 14: 7, with αψυχα, not φωνην διδοντα.
Οπως, 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 Matt. 12:14, Mark 3:6, Matt. 26:59, Luke 12:37, Acts 23:23. But ὁπως is the object in the result, not the intention as in the mind. I do a thing Iva, that is the intention in my mind. Οπως 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 πως of the thing.
Oυν. 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 μεν, in connection with which it is thus used. With a question, and with ει, it has this force of consequence; 'these things being so.' Matt. 13:27; 12:12. Eι ουν, 7: 11; 22: 45, any hypothetical case is as the formal word ει: thus ὁταν, 24:15; Mark 12:6, ετι ουν ενα υἱον εχων. 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 ground 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 passim). This being so, such and such follows' is the sense which rises up into 'therefore.' A strict cause is δια τουτο, and can be used with ουν, 'therefore' these things being so. John 5:18, sometimes what is so is expressed, as is naturally the case with ει, ',if they are so;’ ὁταν, when they were so,- then,' etc.
Μη. When used where we might suppose ου 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 Matt. 1:19, Joseph,μη θελων, he being a person, μη θελων, a just man and unwilling;' ου θελων would be the fact. So Acts 27:7,15. It was the state of things, the wind not suffering.' It is not the fact that the wind then and there did not suffer that the ship should easily make her way, but the wind being such that it could not, and (verse 15) the ship was caught and unable. So Acts 12:19. The shape it takes in the mind is the state of Herod, not the fact that he did not find. Compare 2 Cor. 4:18;5. 21; Matt. 7:26; Luke 12:4; John 7:49; Rom. 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; _Heb. 11:3; or without, as Luke 18:1, where the article is with δειν. 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 circumstances which made it likely the inquiry would convey a doubt, or undesired, unpleasing possibility, one that can hardly be supposed true, and raises the question -not an inquiry 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 on is used for indicative negation of fact, μη for the moral propriety with subjunctive. For the contrast of affirming expected answer with ουχι, see John 7:41,42.
Nαι, though used for yes,' as Matt. 9:28, etc., is, however, something more, as ' yea,' from the uses 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 Matt. 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 Matt. 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.
‘Ωτεe re does not express an intention, but a means or instrument which brings about what follows.
ὁτι a fact which exists, when the οτι is applied.
ἱνα what is in view or intention, when what governs ινα is stated.
‘Ινα 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. 'Oτι answers to what or why, meeting the τι, 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 ἱνα.
Hence with words of request, command, or wish, desire, as 1 Cor. 14:1 (and in sense, 2 Cor. 8:7), it is common; Matt. 4:3;12:10, 20: 21, 31, 33, 26: 63; Mark 7:32,36; Rom. 15:31; Eph. 1:17, etc. etc. Some cases are less evident. Matt. 5:29,30;8: 8, 10: 25, and even 26: 4, Mark 4:21, shows the connection, the object and intention are there, not merely one act in order to another. Mark 6:12, preached, ‘ινα'; 6: 36, let them go, ινα.' 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 ekbatic sense) in 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 wore; 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. ικανωος ινα is not so that,' but the τελος of the ἱκανοτης in the mind of the writer, and is powerful in style. It is intention, or something to be; ὁτι may be future, if it is a fact, not what is in view as an object. So in 11: 50, συμφερει ἱνα. Is not the sense always future to that on which iva depends: 'Oτι 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,' i.e., doing one thing that another may come, but with this intention or object to fulfill it; the direct τελοσ of the will in doing, not a subsequent effect, hence ἱνα. And this sentence also gives the clue to its use in 9: 22. It was the intention, object of their agreement. In 4:34, " my meat is ἱνα ποιω." 'On 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 θελει 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 ἱκαωοτης, fit for (propre ὰ, not pour) that. But John 13:1, εληλυθεν ἡ ὡρα, ἱνα, 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 18:39, a custom, ἱνα the object, meaning of the custom; still it is carrying its use very far. So in John's 1St Epistle 1: 9, "faithful and just ἱνα he might forgive;" again a telic infinitive, ὁτι has no place. So 4: 21, here it depends on εντολη, ' the intention of the εντολη was,' etc. In 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 ὁτι would have another sense) as before in Gospel 4: 34. But in John 17:3, it is merely infinitive (not ὁτι, nor ὡστε). So indeed, practically, is 1 John 5:3 (see above). John 11:19,31, shows how it connects ' in order to' with infinitive. John 11:37, we have ποιησαι ἱνα, "caused this man not to die;" not acted so that he had not, but acted to hinder him dying, only αποθανη so that it was effectual; after need, John 2:25, for any one to bear witness; 5: 7, infinitive; 8: 56, 16: 2 (a strong case). 1 John 5:3, 2 John, 6, 3 John, 4. With the pronoun 'this,' 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 ὁτι is in esse, not merely in posse. In Matt. 26:34, On seems future, but it is you will have done it before.' In Mark 4:38, it is present, we are perishing.' On 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 ἱνα is after αυτος; 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. `0τι would be that they have known a fact about some people, ἱνα is follen, what is to be. So in Luke 1:43, whence' refers to the mind or intention to come, the motive ινα for coming. In the case of αυτος, etc., the thought is, this must be to have the matter in question, a man must know, to have, i.e., the knowing is looked at as a thing to be necessary, not existing. So with greater love hath no one than this, that (ἱνα) life must be laid down to make this good '-i.e., it is not the fact which (On), but viewed as needed and so to be, a moral consequence, not a fact; as I have said,ὁτι always refers to a fact, Eva to an intention. There may be a future with ὁτι, 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 an assertion of fact, though the fact be future. That' or because' are not really different as the meaning of ὁτι; when it means `because' it is practically δια τουτο οτι.
'Eως, is as far as, hence can be with verbs, ἑως εληλυθεν, ἑως ἡμερα εστιν, John 9:4, John 12:35,36, εχετε. Hence with the sense of till or while, because both are 'as long as.' It is not objective; ἑως ἡμεραν, if it were Greek, would be up to day,' during night.' Hence the genitive, which is a genitive absolute. So you can have (which spews its force), ἑως εις, Luke 24:50, and 'Eως ανω, John 2:7; and again, Εως εξω, Rev. 22: 23, εσω, 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 εις, zu, but his 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 προσευξωμαι, as. Matt. 26:36.
Mη, μηποτε etc., not, that not, but, as is known, intention of the mind, not fact, as Matt. 4:6; μηποτε, Thou dash '; μηδεποτε, 2 Tim. 3:7. Oυποτε is not found, replaced by ουδεποτε. Oυ and ουδεποτε are fact. Hence μη with imperative, and with an interrogative, meaning, can you suppose that,' when the intended answer is ‘not': ου, when, yes.' So in moral reasons, μη: δια μη εχειν, Matt. 13:5,6. Hence with participles, as verse 19,μη συνιεντος: Luke 2:45, μη εὑροντος. In Matt. 13:5, ουκ ειχε γην, the fact. The participle is a supposed or assumed state on which the fact is based. So indeed μη in interrogation is a supposition that not. ' Μη 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 ου μη, not only in assertion, where it is not at all, but in questions also, ου μη and µη ου. But I do not think either a mere' doubling of the negative ου μη is not, certainly not, but no in no case, under no supposition, " the mind cannot entertain the negative." So μη ου is interrogation, as before, but with the sense is it to be supposed," are we to lay it down that,' etc. Oυ μη 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 Heb. 10:1—11 ουδεποτε approaches the nearest to μηδεποτε, but it is the fact; μηδεποτε, in 2 Tim. 3:7, the character of γυναικαρια. Μηκετι and ουκετι follow the same principle. Ουκετι is fact; μηκετ, command, consequence, ὡστε μηκετι, not ουκετι, but they could not, ουκετι. So μηδε Mark 2:2,1.μηκετι with infinitive. In 1 Thess. 3:1,5, it is the participle as before with, μη. The same generally with ὡστε, ὡστε ουκ ει δουλος the fact: `Ωστε μη ισχυειν, the thought as a consequence, not the fact. So Mark 1:45;2: 2, 3: 20. The strict sense of ὡστε is so as,' Matt. 15:33: then' so that,' that,' Matt. 12:22, Gal. 2:13, or with οὑτως, John 3:16, Acts 14:1, But that' with so ' understood—i.e., not intention (ἱνα) but result, even if in thought.
Αλλα, 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, 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, simply copulative, as alleged. See with 0, Luke 12:51, 2 Cor. 1:13, this peculiar.