On the Greek Article

The doctrine which, for nearly thirty years, has satisfied my own mind on the subject of the use of the Greek article is so simple, and at the same time (as being merely the intelligent application of a universally well-known principle of Greek grammar) so readily appreciable, that I have been surprised no one has stated and developed it. Nothing but my own habits, the conviction of how little I could pretend to critical scholarship, and the pressure of other service, has hindered my giving it publicity. But as it is a material help to the study of Scripture, I venture to do so.
The rule is simply this-illustrated in the known form of a proposition in Greek, that whenever a word presents an OBJECT about which the mind is occupied, as objectively present to it, the article is used; whenever a word is merely characteristic, it is not.
In most simple cases, this will be self-evident. It will confirm, also, many subordinate rules given in treatises on the subject; as, for example, those relating to abstract nouns, previous references, and the like. In some cases it will leave a choice of using or not using the article, so far as the sense is concerned, and merely affect vigor of style: in some it will require the power of abstraction, a power absolutely demanded for the critical study of the Greek Testament. But it will explain all, and give the special force of a vast number otherwise left uncertain. This last reason, and the more perfect understanding of Scripture connected with it, is what leads me thus to give it publicity.
The metaphysical reasons may be subordinately interesting, and confirm the rule. It may cause the article to retain its name of "definite", though I should perhaps prefer "objective." It may explain its early Homeric pronominal use. It may show, that in translating Greek into English, "a," or "the," or neither, may be required; for that depends on the genius of English; our inquiry, on the genius of Greek. Our great point will be the truth of the fact.
If I say ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐστὶ ζωὸν λογικὸν, the object before my mind to be described is ὁ ἄνθρωπος. Ζωὸν λογικὸν is the description-that which characterizes, in an explanatory way, the object about which I am occupied: it is not an object, but the character given to an object. The object is ἄνθρωπος. It may be the archetypal idea of the race (that is, an ideal object), or an actual individual previously spoken of; but it is the object before my mind to be spoken of; ὁ designates it; ἄνθρωπος names the thing designated. The anarthrous word describes, or attaches a descriptive idea to, the designated object. Hence, though the usage was subsequently lost, we can easily conceive that where some one had been named, it stood alone as a pronoun, answering to " he;" and in many phrases is rightly rendered "this," or "that," when in English the reference is specific, though equally well in general "the."
Hence, too, the well-known usage in reciprocal propositions-that both nouns have it. That is, they are coextensively predicable, one of the other; or, rather they both name or designate one identical object. This will only be the case as to the terms themselves, when the two words stand alone. When one is limited by the annexation of a governed noun or otherwise, it will only be true, of course, within that limit; i.e., of the terms so modified. Thus, in n ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡἀνομία, the terms are reciprocal, because both are taken in the abstract totality of the things in their nature. But ἡ ζωὴ ἠν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων necessarily limits the reciprocity to the historical, facts by the verb, and to a certain sphere of fact by the genitive following τὸ φῶς. That is, the article, as presenting an object, presents the whole thing named. If it be abstract, it is the whole thing in its nature, as ἡ ἁμαρτία, ἡ ἀνομία; and in this case the terms are properly reciprocal. If not, it affirms it as a fact within the limits given in the sentence. It requires some close attention of mind to see that limited propositions are reciprocal; but they are really so. In practice and in translations it is little attended to. The mind generally makes an ordinary proposition of it, and has all that is really important; but it would not have become me to pass over the case, as explaining the use of the article. The doctrine that an article to each noun makes the proposition reciprocal, is one universally admitted; so that it does not affect my idea of the article. It was the limited case which had to be explained.
And now to open a little more the metaphysical order hi the mind. The mind is ignorant; that is, has to receive, and be directed to, an object whose existence is assumed, or recognized: it has to be informed about that object. Ὁ turns its attention to an object (designates it, as an intellectual finger-post), supposed, I suspect, in all cases to be before the mind, named or unnamed; and next, what accompanies ὁ gives the object its name, as ἄνθρωπος. The predicate informs the mind about the object. Now, in a reciprocal proposition, both are names attached to the same object. Hence both are objective, and both descriptive. Ἡ ἀνομία ἐσὶν ἡ ἁμαρτία. Ἀνομία, lawlessness, is the object before my mind-that is, sin. So also sin is ἀνομία is. They are different titles of the same object. But ζωὸν λογικὸν is not an object at all. It is a descriptive idea, to enlarge so far my idea of my object, ἄνθρωπος. It may be applied, perhaps, to other objects.
Hence, too, the effort of the ancient logicians to define by the genus and essential difference; because one gave the general race or character of being, and the other that.which distinguished the object from all other classes, and thereby made it one to itself. It was really classification, and so far well, but no more. Locke's attempt to give, instead of that, all the qualities, informed more but was not a remedy: first, because many of those qualities were common, and not distinctive; secondly, because some might be individual. Hence the various efforts at classification in different branches of natural history by collections of distinctive marks sufficiently generalized.
EXEMPLA.
To take, now, various examples, as they present themselves in a chapter of the New Testament (John 1):- θεὸς ην ὁ λόγος, the question is not at all if θεὸς is supreme; it is something affirmed of λογος. Were it ὁ θεὸς, it would exclude from Deity the Father and the Spirit, and confine the unity of the Deity to the Word.
Ὁ λόγος ην is the object before my mind. It existed in the beginning.
Ἠν πρὸς τὸν θρόν. Here again God is an objective being to my mind, with whom the Word was. It has been supposed that there can no rule be given for prepositions. I believe, though, the cases require more power of abstraction and apprehension of the relation of ideas, the one rule holds.
Θεὸς ην ὁ λόγος. Here the same word characterizes λόγος. We have again πρὸς τὸν for the above reason (verse 2).
The passage now leads us to another case-the use of the article with a verb substantive. This is generally left as optional. It is true, the noun accompanying such verb is used with and without an article; but the meaning is not the same. Ἐν αὐτῶ ζωὴ ην. Is it not evident here that the possession of "con characterizes the person or being spoken of? And ζωὴ becomes a noun characteristic of the existence affirmed. Hence constantly with verbs substantive, when the thing is generally affirmed, the article is wanting. A thing which could be called life was found in him: that name characterized the existing thing. It might in many other cases too, and hence it is only-characteristic of the existence implied in the verb substantive. The existence is before the mind, and hence the verb is called substantive. There was.... what? Life. This will be entered into fully further on, for it is true of all impersonal verbs, there "was," "fell," etc. Had it been ἡ ζωὴ, there would have been no life anywhere else, for the whole thing designated by ζωὴ would have been in Him.
Next we have ἡ ζωή. Now it becomes the object before my mind. This life (life as in Him) was τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων: a reciprocal proposition. But it is directly affected by the use of ην instead of ἐστί. Ἠν confines the reciprocity to the time, place, and circumstances of which it speaks. It amounts to a revelation, that life, as in the Word, gave itself up to be exclusively that in the circumstances historically spoken of by the word ην. The light of men and the life in the Word, then and there, are names of one identical object. It is evident, that the addition "of men" gives it a particular application. It gives it exclusive application there, as does the ην. There is no other light of men: man is darkness. If I find light in man, true light, it is the life in the Word. In man himself was death and darkness. Christ alone was light there, whether it shines on or shines in, for both may be true. Nor was life, as here spoken of, light to others than men. But it does not state it in the whole extent of ζωὴ, as being an equivalent term in itself to φῶς, because τῶν ἀνθρώπων gives a specific application, and takes it out of the nature of the thing; nor is it life abstractedly, but life in the Word, under given circumstances; that is, it ceases to be purely abstract. Ἠ ζωη ἐστὶ τὸ φῶς would have made life and light names of the same object. The word ην, as we have seen, confirms this; it is historical, not affirmative of the constant nature of the thing like ἐστι. It supposes there may be ζωὴ in some other circumstances, and says nothing of it; i.e., it is historically, or in that fact, not abstractedly, though exclusively true. So of φῶς.
In the following words we have another case: τὸ φῶς Here it is the object still; abstractedly, I believe; but as there is none other than the one mentioned, the abstraction and the individual object previously mentioned coincide. Which, therefore, is specially meant, is a question of mental intelligence. It is the whole object represented by φὼς. If that has been recently mentioned in such a manner as that it should be the object before the mind, the mind recurs to it. If not, it is the abstract, mental idea.
Ἐν τη σκοτία. Here again it is abstract, that is, an ideal object, and presents no difficulty, only adding a clear example of a principle. This is common in cases of contrast, where, by the contrast, two objects are put definitely before the mind.
Ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ θεοῦ. Here we have examples of the absence of the article, which at once raises a question. Were it ὁ Ἰωάννης, the object would be evident, and the mind would wait for this. This is evident; for if there were merely ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος απεσταλμένος παρὰ θεοῦ, the mind asks, Who? What man? The answer is, ὁ Ἰωάννης. The previous phrase then would be characteristic of John-his description. He was a man sent from GOD-so as to be sent from GOD. It was characteristic of John. A man sent from GOD was what he was. Man in mission from God was the thing that described him. Παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, would have been true, but it would not have been merely descriptive of John, but introduced the Being, God himself, as an object before the mind. This would have explained all had it been ὁ Ἰωάννης. But, as it stands at present, another form of the principle is introduced; one, however, familiar, though perhaps undefined to the English reader-the impersonal use of verbs without any object; existence, or the event described by the verb, being itself the object. " There was," " there fell," "there lived," etc., the being, falling, living, first occupies the mind, and then the thing spoken of comes in as a descriptive circumstance; the anarthrous word in either case answering the question What? Ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐστὶ,... What? Ἐγένετο....What? In English: Man is... What? There was... What? the answer to "what" being the predicate, and therefore without the article. A verb substantive would not have the article after it, unless for some reason connected with other parts of the sentence or context, save in a reciprocal proposition, because the word following is a predicate. But the rule is wider; and every impersonally used verb contains within itself its object, and what follows is predicated of that. Hence we have a new phrase in the case before us-ὄνομα αὐτω Ἰωάννης. So again, εἰς μαρτυρίαν (for witness, i.e., not himself to be an object of faith) is characteristic of what he came for. The use of the article with φῶς has already been spoken of.
In verse 9, we have another case-that of an adjective -which is a common one, and will thus explain many others. The article here continues the designation of the object to the adjective, as that without which the real complete object would not be before the mind, φῶς, and ἀληθινὸν, making one idea in such a phrase. But though one idea, φῶς is presented as the primary substantive object, it must be corrected, or limited, by an ἀληθινὸν, or rather really by ὄ φωτίζει, κ. τ. λ.. The mind is in suspense till then, and hence the need of another article. The difference is this: τὸ φῶς , κ. τ. λ., makes me think of light as that which I am to pay attention to, as the thing importantly in question, and is thus my object. But it would not be true alone in this case, and I limit it by designating another thing, ὄ φωτίξει = τὸ φώτιζον. In τὸ ἀληθινὸν φῶς, I assume φῶς as the known subject, and give a characteristic word, τὸ ἀληθινὸν, to designate the particular kind. φῶς is added to avoid mistake where needed; but is assumed in the mind of the speaker, not presented as an object to which he calls attention. If in the mind of the hearer too, it is not mentioned. This, then, is the difference between τὸ ἀληθινὸν and τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν. The first gives ἀληθινὸν as a contrast, or at any rate distinctive (as a contrast with ψεῦδος, or any pretended light), and makes it the leading idea, φῶς being assumed as the subject. The idea comprised in the adjective and substantive together is one, marked by τὸ but its truthfulness is the thing referred to. Hence τὸ ἀληθινὸν τὸ φῶς would give two objects (for ἀληθινὸν would refer to something else, of which, qualified by ἀληθινὸν, φῶς would be declared to be truly the name); or it would be the idea of truthfulness and the abstract idea of light; τὸ ἀληθινόν having fixed the mind already on an object much more abstract than light. τὸ φῶς ἀληθινόν is not usual Greek; for the object really before the mind is the truthfulness of the light. Light is of course needed to characterize the truthfulness before the mind.*
(** Τὸ φῶς has fixed it on an idea complete in itself, that is light and then ἀληθινὸν qualifies it as a quality, which is a sort of mental contradiction. When τὸ ἀληθινὸν is used, it gives the true light as alone the object-not light, but true light. Τὸ ἀληθινὸν φῶς is equally one object, and of which the adjective qualifying character is put first. There are, perhaps, cases of the usage above; but, if real, they must be taken from peculiar circumstances, as mentally one word: as ἡ ζωὴ αἰώνιος, (1 John 5.20); but the reading is questionable.)
In τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, φῶς is presented as the object; but in itself it would not be sufficient: it would be distinctively the light as contrasted with all other objects, and therefore the mind has to resume its exercise, and to fix it on a particular light; i.e., the true light. But the real mental, or logical order of the phrase we are considering is the following: τὸ φῶς ὄ φωτίζει, κ.τ.λ., ἐστὶ τὸ ἀληθινον (φῶς). Here the general abstract idea or object is φῶς, τὸ to φῶς; but there is an added object of the mind to which attention is substantively drawn: ὄ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον, equivalent to τὸ φώτιζον, of which it is affirmed, not that it is ἀληθινὸν (a mere character in that case), but τὸ ἀληθινὸν φῶς, distinctly and definitely that one particular light. It is a reciprocal proposition. The last word, φῶς, comes in merely as repeated, to secure from mistake, as the subject-matter of the truthfulness contended for. Its being the true one, is the object of affirmation. This merely amounts to the mental phenomenon, that the mind can have not only existences for an object, but acts or qualities; that is the article can be used with verbs, or participles and characteristics (i. e., adjectives), as objects, the substantive being assumed, or expressed for clearness' sake. Were this not so, the mind could only have actual existences, and not actings or characters for its object; but that is not true. This designation by the article in the case of infinitives, participles, and adjectives, by making objects, makes, in fact, nouns of them in the mind. Thus, 1 John 5:20, γινῶσκομεν τὸν ἀληθινὸν, where the person is absolutely designated by having that quality. So, in a bolder form, Mark 9:23, τὸ εἰ δύνασαι πιστεῦσαι, the question of power lies in believing, the man having said to Jesus, εἴ τι δύνασαι. Ἐστὶ being understood, gives πιστεῦσαι without any article; otherwise it would make believing absolutely identical with power as a reciprocal term. The verb-substantive constantly, indeed, takes away the article, as we shall see. In the same verse, we have the article with a participle, τῶ πιστεπυοντι, not exactly equivalent to " a believer" (though for most purposes it is), because it supposes the act, and not merely the abiding quality.
The next case which requires remark in the chapter of John we are examining, is ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσιάν. Now, δίδωμι, will regularly have a noun without an article, unless some other principle introduces one as being united to a possessive genitive, or reference to previous mention of the subject, or the like; so that it is the designation to the mind of a specific object for that reason. Otherwise the phrase is a general one, and the thing given comes in merely as characterizing the giver and the gift. This will apply to every ordinary case of a simply active verb, because the word governed is merely the complement, or explanation of the idea in the sentence, though many other rules may introduce it as a specifically designated object to the mind. It is merely the kind of thing given; i.e., characteristic. Were it a known object, it would' have it. Δέδωκε ξωὴν, "he gave life," τὴν ζωὴν, if a particular life before mentioned was already before the mind.
We next come, after obvious cases, to the cases in verse 13,-ἐκ without an article. This signifies the mode or manner of something else (which something else is the object), here, of being born. Hence all are without it. An important instance of this is ἐκ πίστεως (Rom. 1:17), the manner or principle of the revelation; εἰς πίστιν, the thing revealed to, still characterizing the manner of the revelation. Ἐκ πλιστεως again (Rom. 3:30), on the principle of faith, for they had sought it ἐξ ἔργνω νόμου by law-works; the Gentiles διὰ τὴς πίστεως, because here it is presented as the actual faith they had. Hence, inasmuch as it was ἐκ πίστεως, and not in virtue of being a Jew, they could be justified too. So διὰ τοῦτο ἐκ πίστεως ἴνα κατὰ χάριν(Rom. 4:16); so verse 14, of οἱ ἐκ νόμου a little after (verse 16), τω ἐκ τοῦ νόμου, i. e., the law; Jews, οἱ ἐκ νόμου, those who claimed it by law, on that principle. Then we have τω ἐκ πίστεως Ἀβραὰμ, a remarkable case, meaning " of Abraham-faith"; not by Abraham's faith, but on the same principle, that kind of thing. These may afford a clue to many passages, and skew how little also the prepositions are out of the rule. But it is so important a principle in Paul's writings, that we may consider it further hereafter.
To return:-ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετοneeds no remark, unless that ἐγένετο makes a proposition like ἐστι. Τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ;- αὐτοῦ gives the article as designating necessarily that glory as a specific object: δόξαν ὡς, "glory as of," evidently only characterizes the subject. Consequently, μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρὸς characterizes the glory. The glory is assumed to be before GOD, or it would not be true glory; but it was glory of an only-begotten from his Father. So χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας characterize his habitation here. It might have been said, τῆς σάριτος καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας, and stated the fact of these two things. But the whole passage is characteristic of the Word made flesh, and not relating facts, though of course the facts must have existed to make the character true. Of ὁ ἐρχόμενος, and ἐλάωομεν, καὶ χάριν, κ.τ.λ., the principle has been already given. Χάριτος cannot receive here the article; it would destroy the sense, because τῆς χάριτος would be the whole abstract thing, χάρις; and no other χάρις could be ἀντι that. It is some grace, some other grace or other. Hence, when it is used as an abstract idea, contrasted with ὁ νόμος given by Moses, we have ἡ χάρις, and ἡ ἀλήθεια.I am disposed to think that there is no article before Μωσέως and Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, not because they have not been mentioned, but as being the means and manner of the coming of law and grace. But we will consider proper names apart.
We come then, to a difficult case, but one which attaches to the nature of the word; speaking of that which is so little within the limit of human thought, and especially in the expressions of one whom the Holy Ghost employed to speak more profoundly than all but one on these subjects. Still the gracious Lord meant us to understand as far as it is conveyed, and as it is; and I judge, that while the application is special, it confirms the principle which we seek to use in the explanation of the word: I refer to θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακε πώποτε. I believe this absolute negative purposely sets aside objective personality here. If it had been τὸν θεὸν, it would have been a designated object, and hard to speak thus of; or inconsistently, as one seen by faith. But the object here was to keep him in the unseen, unseeable majesty of His being; it was not ὁ, that being pointed out to the mind, but one dwelling in the light unapproachable. And this is exceedingly confirmed by the absence of αὐτὸν after ἐξηγήσατο. If that had been there, it should have been τὸν, for He would have been an objective person known. It may perhaps partially confirm this, that in Matt. 5:8, we have αὐτοὶ τὸν θεὸν ὄψονται. There He is the object of creature-vision as a person or being, in whose presence they are, as far as that can be.
In verse 19, ἡ μαρτυρια has it from τοῦ Ἰωάννου Αὔτη is the predicate, and is in fact ἡ αὔτη.
This leads me to a controverted passage, Luke 2:2: the natural rendering would be, " The enrollment itself first took place, Cyrenius ruling Syria." Otherwise the regular structure would have been αὔτη ἡ ἀπογραφὴ ἡ πρώτη, " this first enrollment", supposing others, and designating that one as the one in question; or, if not supposing others, supposing their previous possibility, and emphatically designating that there had been none before: as we say, " This is the first time he did so", though I might say as characteristic, " This is a first fault."
Αὔτη, however, constantly takes an article with the noun following. The difference of meaning when the order is different, though it be not sometimes more than a difference of style, will best explain the use of it.
Οὔτος ὁ τελώνης. (Luke 18:11). The publican had been spoken of before, thence he was a designated object, ὁ τελώνης. Οὔτος designates more emphatically, often so as to be contemptuous, specially where alone (given in the word " fellow' in the English version), the individual there. Οὔτος ὁ τελώνης designates, first, the individual and then designates him by his character; but the person being supposed, the character becomes the object, as we have seen in the case of the adjective, as τὸ φῶς τὀ ἀληθινόν. If ιὤν were there, it would not have the article: it would be merely characteristic, οὔτος τελώνης ὤν. The whole object is evidently οὔτος. Ὤν is a kind of copulative participle, giving τελώνης as a predicate, as σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὤν, κ.τ.λ. (John 10:33).
Both these forms continually occur. I cite sufficient to show the use.
Αὔτη ἡ ἀσθένεια. John 11:4.
Τοὐτο τὸ γένος. Mark 9:29.
Τοὐτου τ[ου ἄρτου. John 6:51.
Οὔτος ὁ λαός. Mark 7:6.
Οὔτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος.John 7:46.
Ταύτην ἐπςἰητε τὴω ἀρχήν. John 2:11.
In all these cases we have something mentioned immediately before, emphatically designated by οὔτος-this before our eyes or mind; this just spoken of, but requiring (or clearer by having) the name of what the object designated was, the added word sometimes giving special force, as ἀρχὴν, γἐνος, or enlarging, or peculiarly characterizing the particular object. The οὔτος is complete and emphatic-this, whether thing or person. And the noun with the article presents the object, the word οὔτος necessarily specifying one.
I add instances of the other use:-
Ὁ λόγος οὔτος. Luke 7:17.
Ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὔτος. Acts 28:4.
Ὁ ἀλλογενὴς οὔτος. Luke 17:18.
Ὁ μακαρισμὸς. Rom. 4:9.
Ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὔτος. Mark 15:39.
Ὁ λόγος οὔτος. Rom. 9:9.
Ὁ λαδς οὔτος. Matt. 15:8.
In all these latter cases, the object is simply given first in the usual form, and then particularly recognized as an object already under consideration. These cases, and those previously mentioned, are examples of the general rule, that the mind naturally first mentions the object which occupies it. When οὔτος precedes, it is the individual case; when the descriptive adjective or noun, it is the designation of the object by its name found in the individual case.
Now, of these in the first three, the emphasis is particularly on the word to which οὔτος is joined; the other form would have weakened and made it unnatural in point of style, though the sense is the same as a fact, but not in mental apprehension. No English can mark the difference well. The first two are so distinctly thus, that " the rumor of this" and " the stranger from among all these" would have been nearly equivalent. Matt. 15:8 deserves notice, because it is parallel with Mark 7:6. It is evident here the sense must be the same. I should say the passage in Matthew was the most energetic, as designating formally the Jewish people in their iniquity (represented by the Pharisees addressed). It is so in the LXX. Mark's is more historically given, contrasting them with other people. It is plain this is a mere question of style. Οὔτος so used has often in itself a contemptuous force; but I should doubt that in this case. The Lord was referring to them. He cared for this people. Others did not so draw nigh. In Matthew it is the character of the people. The whole people did so. It was their common guilt.
I would make the same remark on Acts 28:4, and Rom. 4:9. The subject of the sentence is more present in the mind of the writer than the history of the fact referred to. Οὔτος is almost supplementary. Rom. 9:9 requires another remark. The translation should be, " For this word is of promise." Ἐπαγγελίας without the article characterizes the λόγος. Τῆς ἐπαγγελίας had preceded-" the promise;" and then the Apostle declares that promise characterizes the word he is going to quote about it. Further, the preceding remark is confirmed.
To continue our original chapter- ἱερεἴς καὶ Λευίτας is the character of the persons who went. Had it been said τοὺς, it would have held up the priests before the mind, and would have meant all of them.
Then ὁ προφήτης, the prophet, as has been remarked by others, before the mind of John and of the speakers, who should come. That Christian faith recognizes that the prophet spoken of by Moses was the Christ proves nothing to lead us to suppose any inconsistency in the ill-informed inquiry and expectation of those who went out.
We have another instance of the example already explained in ἀπόκρισιν. Ἐγὼ φωνὴ κ.τ.λ., requires more remark. It is a quotation, varying in some words, from the LXX., and a sort of public, prophetic title affixed by the Lord on John-" I am that passage," not merely that thing. Hence it is stronger than saying ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ φωνή. It is an oracle recited attached to εγω. Εἰμι (understood) does not indeed require the article, unless it is specifically reciprocal-i.e., exclusive of all others: as ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινὴ, ἐγώ είμι ὁ ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς, ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος ὁ καταβὰς ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ.
Κυρίου comes under the question of proper names, not meaning a title of Jesus, save as He is Jehovah.
Ἐν ὔδατι-the character of the baptism.
Ἔρχεται ἀνήρ. Here we have no article, because it is not any particular man designated as an object to the mind, nor the whole class as an ideal object, which, indeed, would be rather ἄνθρωπος, save used as husband. It is a man. It characterizes, or gives the quality of man to him of whom all this is said. 'Ο ἀνὴρ would have quite another sense. Ἐρχεται ἀνὴρ is, a being comes, he is not any other thing, he is a man: that is the quality of the comer. It is really impersonal, and comes under that rule.
In verse 26, John specifically characterized his baptism. Here (in verse 31), though many authorities have not the τω I judge it is well retained, because he is speaking of the fact that actually occupied him. He therefore does not refer to the manner merely, but to the fact, and the ὔδατι is referred to as the known matter employed. Hence, when he is again contrasting the character or nature of it, we have ἐν ὔδατι and ἐν Πνεύματι ἁγίω where, remark, therefore, the absence of the article does not touch the question of what πνεῦμα is meant. It is not there, because it only characterizes the baptism.
Verse 34-ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ is evidently a specific title, and complete ideal object in itself.
Τῆ ἐπαύριον was one particular to-morrow, i. e. of the day previously spoken of.
Ὁ ἀμνὸς, one particular lamb, the Lamb of GOD. A genitive following necessarily involves in such a case the article as designating a specific object. A Christian would understand ὁυἱὸς, or Ὁ ἀμνὸς, from his previous knowledge, as a reference to one particular known Son and known Lamb. But here it follows-the designation -by a subsequent genitive, which confines it to a designated object. Here we have also τῶν μαθητῶν- the whole body of them so called as an object, and δύο, some two of them, but specifically designated:-afterward οἱ τύο, because now we have them as such designated two, though unknown.
Verse 40-ἐκείνην coming after, necessarily makes a specific day as an object before the mind.
"Ωρα requires more attention. It is indeed an exception to general rules. It never receives an article with a noun of number, unless some other reason makes it an especial object, as previous mention, as a particular hour, or the like. Such idioms as to time are found in all languages. It is the haste of familiar style, being an accompaniment to any act in general, sheaving when anything was done.
There is one apparent exception to this, Matt. 20:3; but the article there is rejected by all the editors. On the other hand, when the mind is to be directed to a particular hour as a point of time, as being a remarkable or definite one, the article is there, but attached to the numeral as the leading idea (Matt. 20:6). This exception remarkably confirms the rule. It is to be remembered that Spa did not mean " hour" in Greek till very late in the history of the language. When it is used in the original way as a word, it follows the usual rules in connection with numerals marking the hour of the day. It has become a kind of name, as a known thing every day, and the article is never used-the same when used for a portion of the day in general; as if " time" had become in English the name for an hour. We should speak of spring-time winter-time, etc., and also it was at seventh-time, eighth-time, which would show it then meant hour, and attach as to time a character to the act done. But when in Greek a specific point of time is meant, then Spa with the numeral takes the article. The cases of absence are too numerous to quote. We have περὶ τρίτην ὤραν, περί ἔκτην ὤραν, περὶ ἐννάτην ὤραν, κ.τ.λ. So ἔως ὤρας ἐννάτης. So we have when it merely means much of the day- ἤδη ὤρας πολλῆς, ἤδη ὤρα πολλὴ, (Mark 6:35). But then we have, when noticed as a critical point of time, Matt. 27:46, περὶ δὲ τὴν ἐννάτην ὤραν-20:6, περὶ δὲ τὴν ἑνδεκάτην ὤραν, and so 20:9. So Mark 15:34, καὶ τῆ ὤρα τῆ ἐννάτη. Τῆ ὤρα τοῦ θυμιάματος and such cases are common and the word follows the usual rules. So John 12:23, ἐλήλυθεν ἡ ὤρα -Acts 3:1, ἐπὶ τὴν ὤραν τὴς προσευχῆς τὴν ἐννάτην. So Acts 10:30, ταὐτης τῆς ὤρας..καὶ τὴν ἐννάτην ὤραν.
Thus its exceptional use, when used as a name of the hours of the day, does not affect the general rule. Nor is this confined to the word ὤρα: in expressions relative to time we have ἀφ'ἡμερῶν ἀρχαίων, ἀπὸ πέρυσι, ἀπὸ τετάρτης ἡμέρας (Acts 10:30). In this last the ellipse or irregularity of construction is much greater than relates merely to the article; as indeed in the first also. The last means " four days ago" i.e. κατὰ τετάρτην ἡμέραν, ἀπὸ τετάρης ἡμέρας. It is contracted, and ἀπὸ attracts the government to itself. As regards these idiomatic expressions as to time, we are familiar with them in English. We say "last year," "next month"; whereas we must say " the next king that reigns," " the last that reigned." They are merely idiomatic habits when a word is very frequently used, and lead to no mistake or uncertainty of grammar.
I have owed this to the reader to show that ὤρα is no such exception as in the smallest degree to set aside the rule: being merely an idiom found in other languages where the general grammar is certain. The truth is, from the peculiar circumstances in such a case as the hours of the day, the number becomes the designating power to the mind as the article in other cases.
One other case remains in this chapter important to notice-δόλος οὐκ ἔστι (ver. 38). Two reasons might seem to deprive δόλος of the article here. First, the verb ἔστι,; because, unless in the case of a reciprocal proposition, ἔστι makes what follows is a character of the subject. And this is so much the case that when another verb is such as to make the following noun characteristic, it has not the article. So τίνος αὐτῶν ἔσται γυνη; Γυνὴ characterizes the relationship-" Shall she be wife?"-bear that character. Ἡ γυνὴ would have fixed the mind on the person in that relationship (Mark 12:23). So, in the same verse, ἔσχον...γυναἴκα, " to wife," as wife. Again, as, μόνος ἔχων ἀθανασίαν (1 Tim. 6:16); ἔχοντες χρείαν very frequently; ἔχοντες ἐξουσίαν. This was the condition or state of the persons spoken of, of God himself. The anarthrous nouns are attributes or conditions of something. Yet grimy will have the article after it, whenever the word is not merely characteristic, but positively fixing the mind on a definite object. Ἐν ῶ ἔχομεν τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν (Eph. 1:7). Redemption is more than a characteristic of us. It is a positive object marked out to the mind. So Phil. 1:23, τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν ἔχων. The same principle very plainly applies to Eph. 3:12, ἐν ῶ ἔχομεν τὴν παρρησίαν. Now this might seem rather a contradiction, but if examined, illustrates remarkably the principle. It is not here a quality in Paul, but a special designated goodness to which he refers:-τὴν παρρησίαν καὶ τὴν προσαγωγὴν ἐν πεποιθήσει διὰ τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ, that boldness and confidence of access which we have before God through Him. Where παρρησίαν is used as a quality or state of the person, it has not the article as Heb. 10:19; 1 John 2:28;3. 21.
But to return to δόλος οὐκ ἔστι -δόλος is not a predicate here, nor exactly characteristic of Nathanael. The negative modifies the sentence. It is not merely that the complete abstract idea-guile-is not in him, but there is none of it. To put it in another shape; you cannot make an object as existing before the mind of what is denied to exist. Hence we have δόλος οὐκ ἔστι, rightly translated "no guile." So in 1 John 3:5, ἐν αὐτῶ ἁμαρτία οὐκ ἔστι, " in Him is no sin." The same holds with ἔχει used in a similar way, as John 4:44, τιμὴν οὐκ ἔχει. We have a confirmation of this by seeing that where it is a positive object- about which something is denied, and not the denial of the existence of the thing, οὐκ does not alter the common rule; thus: οὐκ ἔστι ὁ θεὸς, νεκρῶν (Matt. 22:32). It is not, " God is not." God is presented as the object, and He is denied to be Θεὸς νεκρῶν. Whereas in (LXX. Psa. 13:1, and 52:1), we have οὐκ ἔστι θεὸς, there is no God. In Mark 12:27, on the contrary, we have the idea in a different shape -οὐκ ἔστι ὁ Θεὸς νεκρῶν. If this be not elliptical, and if so, identical with Matthew, the sense is different, and ὁ θεὸς becomes a proper object of the mind based on what has been said, and is a term of relationship, as ὁ Θεὸς Ἀβραὰμ, κ.τ.λ. He is not the God of dead persons, as called their God. If this be so, the article as designating a positive object is positively necessary. It is a question of spiritual intelligence which is the meaning here. The grammatical rule is maintained equally by either. I incline to the latter. The cases of οὐκ ἔστι and similar forms without an article are too numerous to mention.
An English expression here may assist the reader. In "similar forms without an article," an article', is merely characteristic of form.' It is a form without an article. The article would fix my mind on the article itself as the subject of inquiry, or, if recently mentioned, refer to it as so mentioned; only that English is neither as accurate nor consequently as uniform, nor as universal in application of the principle.
This leads me to another principle-application, that is, of our principle: if a noun singular be taken distributively, or a noun plural partially, which is the same thing at bottom, there will not be an article; if the singular as already spoken of in totality, i.e. abstractedly, or the plural universally, there will. It is merely a case of the non-existence of the definite object pointed out to the mind. This connects itself with the employment of prepositions also. A singular noun is taken distributively when it is not an abstract complete idea, but as applied to any given existences of the case. Δόλος οὐκ ἔστι comes under this, and has led me to it. It is not merely that the abstract thing δόλος is not, but that nothing coming under that title is there. So of all the cases given above with οὐκ. Other cases are very numerous. (Mark 12:19,20, 21). Ἐαν τινος ἀδελφὸς...καταλίπη γυναῖκα. Ἔλαβε γυναῖκα...Οὐδὲ αὐτὸς ἀφῆκε σπέρμα. So in the plural ἑπτὰ ἀδελφοὶ ἤσαν. Ὁ θεὸς νεκρῶν. Ὄταν γὰρ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστῶσιν, dead people, that condition,- not as an object before the mind-all the dead. So ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν frequently, but Luke 14:14. Τῆ ἀνάστασει τῶν δικαίων because all would rise as a definite object - these persons. So εἰδότες τὰς γραφὰς, all these writings so designated. So εἰς χεῖρας ἀνθρώπων men's hands. It is characteristic. Instances of the converse are found in every page: οἱ μαθηταὶ, οἱ ἀδελφοί. So ὄλος involves the article, τινὰς excludes it. Hence we know vas with an article following has not the meaning it has with a noun without it. In the last case it is distributive-" every": in the former not, but means " the whole." Πᾶσα ἡ γῆ " the whole earth." Πᾶσα φυτεία, " every plant." Hence, note Eph. 3:15; πᾶσα πατριὰ " every family" (where ἐν οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπι γῆς γῆς characterizes the families and therefore have not the article); that is, as Jehovah knew only Israel of all the families of the earth (Amos 3:2), the rest being not called by His name (Isa. 63:19). All the families-every heavenly, or earthly family, was ranged under the name and authority of the GOD and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I will now go through several difficult cases in which, from the extreme exuberance of matter and the narrowness of the barium language to meet it; and yet the need of accuracy in Divine things, the certainty of it in revelation; we shall find the principle most severely tested, but most fully proved. And here I shall particularly take notice of prepositions which come as fully under the rule as every other case.
Eph. 1:1. ἀπόστολος, characteristic of Paul. Διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ; the same thing. He was an apostle by Divine will.
2. χάρις καὶ ἐιρήνη are used distributively with ἔστω understood. It is not the abstract word pointed out as an object, but that these things may be with-characterize-the condition and state of the people. The apostle did not wish grace and peace in their abstract totality to be so, but that their state might be characterized by these qualities. Ἀπὸ θεοῦ κ.τ.λ. gives the character of the grace and peace, that kind. It is not a wish that it should come from Him, but that grace and peace thence might be with them.
3. In this verse we have the article, for θεὸς κ.τ.λ. is presented as a personal object. I will revert to this as an instance of an important point. Τοἴς, before ἐπουρανίοις, shows where they were, or had the blessing. It was not the blessing merely characterized by that place.
Eph. 1:4. Πρὸ καταβολής κόσμου characterizes the election by the date; does not relate the fact by a date: that is, it is not given as a specific date to which attention is drawn, but that which preceded, or the infinity preceding that, characterized the election. It renders it much stronger. " Ere a mountain was formed," or " a foundation of the world laid," would not give a date but contrast a period in character.
5. So ἐν άγάπη characterizes the saints, εἰς υἰεθεσίαν their predestination. It was predestination to adoption; but it was not κατ'εὐδοκίαν merely. The good pleasure of His will is made the object before the mind of the source from which it flowed.
6. We now come to some more difficult cases, because complicated, where they have in part, in part not, the article; but it flows from what we have been seeing we are to be; our whole state, and the work which has brought us there, εἰς ἔπαινον δόξης. That is to characterize the matter. But the grace is a positive designated object, which is thus glorified and praised, or gloriously praised. Hence we have τῆς (called for, indeed, by αὑτοῦ). His grace is set before us as praised and glorified. This apparent anomaly is therefore at once made easy by this simple 'principle.
7. I have noticed this already. We have all these as God's part, noticed as positive objects of
8. our soul (save σοφία καὶ φρωνήσει, which characterize the grace). So verse 9.
10. But εἰς οἰκονομίαν. It was a will, or purpose of, or for administering this will or purpose was such. This gave its character and quality to the will or purpose; but the fullness of times was a positive object before the mind. It did not characterize the administration. It is a direct subject of thought. We have seen before ἐν οὐρανοἴς καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς characterise every family. Here they are designated as places where the things are pointed out as such, and they have the article.
11. Again we have the unusual form κατὰ πρόθεσιν τοῦ. But κατὰ πρόθεσιν denotes the nature of the predestination, and connects itself with predestinated. We are predestinated according to purpose (not the particular purpose), of Him who, etc. And then we have again the article associated with this work in God where it has its source, and it is presented as a positive object of the mind. We are merely characterized, and our predestination by purpose. Our predestination was not δἰ ἔργ, but κατὰ πρόθεσιν, and that of Him who, etc.
Eph. 1:12. It was to praise. The τῆς, though disputed, is, I judge, rightly maintained. We are to praise as according to purpose, but it is of His glory, presented again as the direct object of the mind. We have then several with the article, evidently presenting positive objects, till we come to
14. ἀῤῥαβὼν, characterizing merely in this case the Holy Ghost. Ἐστὶν and ἡμῶν account grammatically for this, according to the principles previously stated. But the words which receive the article here are spiritually full of the most perfect interest and weight of instruction. Ὁ ἀῤῥαβὼν would be pretty much a reciprocal proposition: here it is a predicate of an ordinary proposition. The inheritance, again, is an object presented. Εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν characterizes ἀῤῥαβὼν, as εἰς οἰκονομίαν previously did the purpose, κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκἰαν αὑτοῦ.
15. Τὴν ἀγάπην τὴν, I notice as merely a new form of the principle, the second τὴν necessarily making the first objective.
17. Ὁ πατὴρ τὴς δόξης is not the same as ὁ πατὴρ δόξης, or πατὴρ δόξης. He is the author, source, and head of glory; the glory that is actually to be, as Father, as GOD of our Lord Jesus Christ. Πνεῦμα σοφίας καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως characterized what was given to them. It was not τὸ, i.e. the whole of it abstractedly to them. It may be the Holy Ghost; but what is stated here from ὑμῖν to αὐτοῦ is the character of the thing given. I should translate "the Spirit." It is surely by the Holy Ghost, and the form of His presence and power in the mind; but it is that form of it which is spoken of here.
18. We get a succession of positive objects resented to the mind as so known.
20. So here, where we have only to remark the resurrection of Christ: it is not ἀνάστασις ἐκ τὼν νέκρων, that is, not from designated persons, but a state. It characterised the resurrection, and did not point out persons. It is ἀ. ἐκ νέκρων, that is, from that condition.
Eph. 1:22. Κεφαλὴν, as head.
2: 2. In this verse, note, we have the evil system presented, not as characterizing the walk merely, but as a positive subsisting system, according to which they walked. And so all through till we get our resulting character. Τἐκνα φύσει ὀργῆς, this characterized us.
5. χάριτι, the principle which characterized the way of salvation, Then,
6. it was by goodness to us that He sheaved the positive things spoken of Him, that goodness (χρηστὸτης) characterized it.
8. We have τῆ γὰρ χάριτί ἐστε σεσωσμένοι διὰ τῆς πίστεως. Because it is a positive assertion about this thing presented directly to the soul-by that thing and by faith, existing faith: not merely as characterizing the salvation, but by these things, so set before our minds.
10, Ποίημα characterizes us; so ἐπὶ ἔργοις ἀγαθοἴς characterises the condition of the creation: ἐν σαρκὶ, the manner again.
11. Τὰ ἔθνη. He speaks of them as the whole class. It was not some having such a character, but living actual beings as such, taking in, in principle, the whole body of them not ἔθνη, in character from among τῶν ἔθων. You were " the Gentiles." Λεγόμενοι gives ἀκροβυστία the force of character evidently. I have only to remark repeated instances of the noun after an active verb being without the article, as giving the character of the result of activity. Where this is not the case it has the article. Ἀποκαταλλάξε τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους (verse 16), necessarily an object; but ποιῶν εἰρήνην (verse 15), εὐηγγελίσατο εἰρήνην (verse 17), this characterized the making and preaching. There are two classes of accusatives after an active verb: one the subject, the other the fruit of the action. Τήν ἔχθραν, the enmity, specially known and mentioned: first, assumed as a known object, and then referred to. It was not enmity that was to characterize the act, but a particular enmity, which was before their minds, that is referred to. Εἰς and κατὰ very often have anarthrous nouns (not always) simply because, from their meaning, they speak of what characterizes something else.
One point remains, of which this chapter gives two examples, and of which we may therefore speak here. I mean the use of one article with two nouns of different meaning, and even necessarily sometimes distinct. Thus we have ὁ θεὸς Πατὴρ (chap. 1.), τούς ἀποστόλους καὶ προφήτας (chap. 1, 3), and in chapter 4, τοὺς ποιμένας καί διδασκάλους. Now, our rule here is still the same, and much facilitates the apprehension of these cases. The article directs the mind to an object in view; or a whole class seen together in the speaker's mind, as one for the purpose for which he is speaking, as a unity, or as a whole. Thus, in the first, ὁ calls my attention to an object: two names are given to this object-GOD and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Again, τούς calls my attention to a whole class complete in itself, forming as one company the foundation, united in this, apostles and prophets. So shepherding and feeding with the word, present themselves as in one class of persons in the apostle's mind. They may be elsewhere separate ideas, but they are united in one class of persons here. So Matt. 16:21, the Lord Jesus should suffer many things ἀπὸ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ ἀρχιερέων καὶ γραμματέων. They were a joint common band of enemies, and so spoken of as present to the mind of the speaker.
I now turn to an important instance of this, Titus 2:13. First we have τήν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα δαὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης. Δόξης is the governing idea here. Grace had appeared (verse 11). They were waiting for glory: that was their hope (i.e. object of hope, so used elsewhere), and it would appear hence, the object of hope and the apparition were identical, namely, the glory. Hence, τὴν marks both. But what glory? That is the question. Τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτήρος ἡμὼν Ἰησοῦ Δόξης still governs the sentence, and GOD and our Lord Jesus Christ are identified-were in the apostle's mind in the Spirit, in the glory which was to appear. Hence, it was the glory of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, viewed as perfectly one in glory. They are not the least separated in the mind of the apostle, when speaking of that glory. It is certain, that in saying Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος, the apostle had but one object in his mind presented by the Holy Ghost. But I do not myself believe μεγάλου Θεοῦ and Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ are here names of one person, I have not the smallest doubt that Jesus is the true God-Jehovah; and I do not believe that this sentence could have been written, had not the glory of the Great God been ascribable to Him: but I do not see that this statement amounts to His being the same person as the great God (though I do not see how it could be true, were He not).
There are many other examples:-1 Thess. 3:11, 13; 2 Cor. 11:31; Rom. 15:6. We have 2 Peter 1:1, 6, ἐν δικαιοσύνη τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Here the same remark applies, I judge, as to the passage in Titus. The righteousness is one, as the glory there, and both are identified in it-which could not be said unless Jesus were God. But this last is not the statement of the passage. The righteousness here spoken of is, I judge, spoken of as the righteousness which has secured their having the faith, not the object of it. We have a phrase exactly similar, 2 Peter 2:20, ἐν 'πιγνώσει τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Now here the mind acknowledges the identity of person at once: but I judge the mind recognizes it in the words Κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος. So in 2 Peter 1:11, εἰς τὴν αἰώνιον βασιλείαν τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. So we have (verse 16) τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δύωαμιν καὶ παρουσίαν. The power and presence are in one scene, or one object before the mind. Compare Rom. 1:20.
In two of the above passages, ἐπιγνώσειand δικαιοσύνη have not the article, because by ἐν they designate the manner or principle on which the main subject is received or escaped. So, verse 10 of 2 Peter 1 we have βεβαίαν...τὴν κλῆσιν καὶ ὲκλογὴν...ποιεῖσθαι. The two are identified as a common object to the mind, assured together; but they are not one thing, though united in one idea by τήν. And note the singular adjective. In French, where two ideas are sufficiently near to make one only an explanation of another, a similar idiom may be observed. " Sa tranquillite, son calme a", not " ont": because I have only one idea, which my first word imperfectly expressed. With that one idea in the mind, the verb agrees.
Note in Eph. 2:22, κατοικητήριον characterizes the building in its use; but τοῦ Θεοῦ because you have God as a personal object there, not merely characterizing the house: ἐν Πνεύματι because this characterizes the manner of God's presence, and though it be a person, does not speak of the person of the Holy Ghost, but of the manner of God's presence. A multitude of examples show the fallacy of any conclusion that it is not the Holy Ghost personally, because of the absence of τω.
It is, I think, plain from the examination of a number of passages, that in cases where one article is used with several nouns, while the grammatical agreement of the article is by attraction, and the usual analogy partially with the nouns which follow, the object designated by the article is mentally another, to which all the nouns used apply, or with which they associate themselves. Where each is made a distinct definite object of, each will have the article. That mental object may be a person, who unites in himself the various names or titles. It may be association in a common object, or common circumstance. In a word, the nouns are united in some common fact which the mind has before it, so as to group them together. This may be expressed or understood from the context. Thus it is expressed in the following:-Titus 2:13; Eph. 5:5; 2 Thess. 1:12; 2 Peter 1:1. In 1 Tim. 5:21, it is contained in the preposition ἐνώπιον, which gives the idea of "the presence of"-the one idea which governs the mind. This may be a person, as Matt. 12:22; 13:23; Mark 16:16. In Luke 11:28, we have the plural class.---Heb. 3:1 is a very plain and express case.-In Phil. 1:7, it is the work in which the Philippians sympathized with Paul, which consisted in these two things: ;'απολογία καὶ βεβαιώσει. So in Rom. 15:6. It is readily understood from the context. In a word, there is always one definite object before the mind, of which the various nouns come in, not merely descriptively, but as together, forming the completeness of that object. The grammar follows the noun, as the relative pronoun does, in its case, that to which it is related.
I shall now give some cases in which it evidently is not one person, and in which the common idea is not expressed in the passage.
I will here recall the principle I have laid down, as we are at one of the most important and difficult applications of it, The article points to some definite object of the mind. The noun following gives the name to this object. In some cases, where this is sufficiently certain by specific contrast, the name is not even added, as ὁ μὲν ὁ δὲ. Earlier in the language, this was more extensively the case, and hence became a pronoun, as in Homer. The object is assumed to be one we have before us, and known as an object, though we add a name (but a name known as designating that object), and much perhaps else about it.
Now in the cases we are about to mention, the object is not named, but the nouns used combinedly make it up. The article supposes the common object in which they are united.
To proceed to the cases:- Phil. 1:7, τῆ βεβαιώσει καὶ ἀπολογία. It is evident that Paul is speaking of one single, common work which could only be expressed by using both words-confirming and defending: but he had but one object in his mind. So in a passage already quoted, 2 Peter 1:10, βεβαίαν...τὴν κλῆσιν καὶ ἐκλογὴν...ποιεῖσθαι, calling and election are united in the one thing to be secured, in the security they sought. They could not secure one without the other. They formed one object in the Apostle's mind in the diligence he recommended. God had chosen: God had called them. Being so chosen and called, they were to have this a settled and not uncertain thing in their minds, through the diligence recommended.
A still more remarkable case is where there are several decidedly distinct and independent persons, but who all form one object before the mind. Matt. 17 παραλαμβάνει ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὸν {΄ετρον καὶ Ἰάκωβον καὶ Ἰωάννην. Acts 3:11. Κρατοῦντος δὲ αὐτοῦ τον Πέτρον καὶ Ἰωάννην. Acts 4:19. Ὁ δὲ Πέτρος καὶ Ἰωάννης. In the plural the same thing, Acts 14:5, ὁρμη τῶν ἐθνῶν τε καὶ Ἰουδαίων. This last would come under the class also of cases where the uniting idea is expressed. They were joined in one body in the assault. Gentiles and Jews made only one body, one object in the Apostle's mind, In 2 Cor. 13:11, we have an example where the peace he desired the Corinthian disciples to be in, as a means of enjoying the presence of God, at once introduces, as thus speaking of God's presence, that love which necessarily accompanied it, and made one thought with the peace. Love and peace were together one idea of the blessed power and sweetness of the Divine presence.
There are many other examples in Scripture, but these sufficiently explain the principle, and, by this much debated point, confirm its soundness in the fullest way. Reference to Middleton, Green, etc. will furnish examples. I have examined them, and confine myself to having satisfied my mind that the same principle alike explains them all. Quotations from profane authors will be found there, equally proving the same general principle. Contrasted cases, where the object of the author was to make two separate objects before the mind, confirm also the doctrine. Thus Heb. 11:20, εὐλόγησε...τὸν Ἰακὼβ καὶ τὸν Ἐσαῦ, where it is evident they were to be kept in mind as distinct objects. There is another text, which I will notice as presenting an interesting question of interpretation-2 Thess. 1:8, διδόντος ἐκδίκησιν τοῖς μὴ σἰδόσι Θεὸν, καὶ τοῖς μὴ ὑπακούουσι τω εὐαγγελίω, κ.τ.λ. Here the Apostle, rather the Holy Ghost, designates two classes or forms of guilt, which may be in the same persons. Openly hostile heathens and idolatrous enemies certainly are supposed, for they were the then persecutors; Jews who could not be said exactly not to know God, but who were disobedient to the Gospel. There were those who professed to obey the Gospel, yet did not really know God. There were these two moral classes designated by the Holy Ghost as objects of judgment: a description which must both have been applicable then, and be so at the return of the Lord to judgment.
Acts 15 furnishes notable instances of the introduction and omission of the article. Τενομένης οῦν στάσεως κα συζητήσεως οὐκ 'λίγης τω Παύλω καὶ τω ΒαρναΒα πρὸς αὐτούς. Here, they were the Paul and Barnabas whose history we have had in what precedes. ἔταξαν ἀναβαίνειν Παῦλον καὶ Βαρναβᾶν καί τινας ἄλλους. Here they are presented with several others as persons now chosen for the first time to go on this errand. Then we have τοὺς ἀποστόλους καὶ πρεσβυτέρους, apostles and elders being one company here (verse 2). Again (verse 12), ἤκουον Βαρναβᾶ καὶ Παύλου. Here again we have the relator of the facts brought for the first time before the assembl: in this character. Then (verse 22), ἐκλεξαμένους ἄνδρας ἐξ αὐτῶν πέμψαι εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν σὺν τῷ Παύλῳ καὶ Βαρναβᾷ. Here they were jointly concerned as representatives in this matter, and one article is used to both. They were associated in one objective idea in the mind of the writer. Paul and Barnabas have an article being known as already engaged in it; Judas and Silas are new persons, and hence their names are without the article.
I may remark, in passing; the evident sense of 2 Peter 1:19, is we have the prophetic word confirmed-namely by the vision of Christ's glory. And this passage lead me to remark, that when a word is characteristic of the action of the verb, it does not claim an article. ἡμέρα διαυγάσῃ, not the day, but day. It is the day-light. So φωσφόρος. It is the character of the rising in the heart.
The examples we have had afford sufficient to clea up the use of the article after prepositions, which indeed to the full as simple as any other part of th subject. We shall meet with others.
I will now proceed to notice-