<13005E>30 On the Greek Article

A Few Idiomatic Cases
The Case of Proper Names
Proverbial Expressions


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 itself I did state, I find, some years ago in the "Christian Witness," but entered into no general development of it.}

The rule is simply this, illustrated in the known form of a proposition in Greek, That whenever a word* presents the 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.

{*It has been suggested, that "combination of words" should be added. As indebted to the suggestion of another, I add it in a note.}

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 reference, 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 vigour 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 shew, that in translating Greek into English, "a," or "the," or neither,* may be required: for that depends on the genius of English; our enquiry, on the genius of Greek. Our great point will be the truth of the fact.

{*As in the case of an abstract word, which in Greek has the article, in English not: for example, ὁ νόμος, law.}

31 If I say ὁ ἄνθρωπός ἐστι ζωὸν λογικόν, the object before my mind to be described is  ὁ ἄνθρωπος.  Ζωὸν λογικόν 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, when the article is used, it always marks the totality of the subject named, because it is a definite entire object before my mind and of course complete in itself. This is sometimes of little, sometimes of great, moment, but always true. The word to which the article is attached is universal; that is, an ideal abstract, or individual, that is, a particular case of the term, and to the exclusion there of others. It cannot have the sense of some. A word without the article may be numerically one, as is evident, if in the singular; but it is not any particular one, but characteristic.}

Hence, too, the well-known usage in reciprocal propositions, that both nouns have it. That is, they are co-extensively 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; that is, of the terms so modified. Thus in ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία the terms are reciprocal, because both are taken in the abstract totality of the things in their nature. But ἡ ζωὴ ἦν 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.

32 And now to open a little more the metaphysical order in 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 ἐστὶν ἡ ἁμαρτία.  Ἀνομία, lawlessness, is the object before my mind-that is, sin. So also sin is ἀνομία. They are different titles of the same object. But ζωὸν λογικόν 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.


To take now various examples, as they present themselves in a chapter of the New Testament (John 1): Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. the question is not at all if Θεός is supreme; it is something affirmed of λόγος. Were it  ὁ Θεός, it would exclude from Deity the Father and the Spirit, and confine the unity of the Deity to the Word.

33   Ὁ λόγος ἦν. Λόγος is the object before my mind. It existed in the beginning.

Ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. Here again God is an objective being to my mind, with whom the Word was. It has been supposed that there can be no rule given for prepositions. I believe, though the cases require more power of abstraction and apprehension of the relation of ideas, the one rule holds.

Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. Here the same word characterizes λόγος. We have again πρὸς τόν 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 αὐτῳ ζωὴ ἦν. Is it not evident here that the possession of ζωή characterizes the person or being spoken of? And ζωή becomes a noun characteristic of the existence affirmed. Hence constantly with verbs substantive, when the thing is generally affirmed, the article is wanting. A thing which could be called life was found in him: that name characterized the existing thing. It might in many other cases too, and hence it is only characteristic of the existence implied in the verb substantive. The existence is before the mind, and hence the verb is called substantive. There was … what? Life. This will be entered into fully farther on, for it is true of all impersonal verbs, there "was," "fell," etc. Had it been ἡ ζωή, there would have been no life anywhere else, for the whole thing designated by ζωή 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 ἦν instead of ἐστί.  Ἦν 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 ἦν. 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 ἦν.* 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 ζωή, 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. Ἡ ζωή ἐστι τὸ φῶς would have made life and light names of the same object. The word ἦν, as we have seen, confirms this; it is historical, not affirmative of the constant nature of the thing like ἐστί. It supposes there may be ζωή in some other circumstances, and says nothing of it; that is, it is historically, or in that fact, not abstractedly, though exclusively true. So of φῶς.

{*This is an admitted principle of Greek. The difficulty of the case arises from the depth of the subject, and being abstract and historical at the same time: divine, too, and human. Life in the Word was (not abstractedly is) a certain thing. Hence it is limited and reciprocal at the same time-the most difficult of propositions to seize, and requiring most accuracy specially on such a subject.}

34 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 φῶς. 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 τῃ 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 άνθρωπος ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ Θεοῦ ὄνομα αὐτῳ  Ἰωάννης. Here we have examples of the absence of the article, which at once raises a question. Were it simply ὁ Ἰωάννης, the object would be evident, and the mind would wait for this. This is evident; for if there were merely ἐγένετο άνθρωπος ἀπεσταλμένος 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 άνθρωπος ἐστί … 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 αὐτῳ  Ἰωάννης. So again, εἰς μαρτυρίαν (for witness; that is, not himself to be an object of faith) is characteristic of what he came for. The use of the article with φῶς has already been spoken of.

{*If directly a description, it would be ἦν.  Ἐγένετο is impersonal in sense.}

35 In verse 9 we have another case-that of an adjective-which is a common one, and will thus explain many others. The article, as the designation of the object, takes in the adjective, as that without which the real complete object would not be before the mind, φῶς and ἀληθινόν making one idea in such a phrase. But though the two make one idea, there is a difference of force when the noun comes first with the article; the mind rests on it for a moment, as τὸ φῶς, and is in suspense till something follows, if the word be not abstract and so complete in itself. If it be not, the article regularly follows before the adjective, and has its proper indicative force and becomes emphatic; that is, puts the adjective in contrast with some other quality of an opposite character: the light, not the false, but the true. When the adjective comes first, it is simply a quality of the right way, to press in the strictest way only one idea, but the adjective first in the mind: τὸ ἀληθινὸν φῶς ; there is no contrast; something else is affirmed about the true light. When the adjective follows with the article it is really affirmed about the substantive.  The real logical structure of this phrase, however, is τὸ φῶς ὃ φωτίζει τὸ φώτιζον, etc., ἐστὶ τὸ ἀληθινόν. Of that light, of which I can affirm φώτιζον, etc., I can affirm ἀληθινόν. And, as to light, the lighting everybody and true are reciprocal and co-extensive; a light which is not the true cannot light everybody; and a light which does not light everybody is not the true light; and one which lights everybody cannot be other than the true. The sentence is really το φῶς τὸ φώτιζον … ἐστί τὸ ἀληθινόν [φῶς].

36 The first form then (τὸ ἀληθινὸν φῶς) gives ἀληθινόν as distinctive, 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 τό ; but its truthfulness is the thing referred to. Hence τὸ ἀληθινὸν τὸ φῶς would give two objects (for ἀληθινόν would refer to something else, of which, qualified by ἀληθινόν, 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.**

{*There is a general principle here equally true of Greek, English French, and (I suppose) other languages, though Greek be more determinate in its usage; namely, that when the adjective follows it is contrast, when it precedes it is definitely distinctive. This is very simple. The mind speaks first of what occupies it; thus, "fine weather," "la belle saison," τὸ ἀληθινὸν φῶς, the emphasis is on the adjective. Φῶς, weather, saison, are merely the subject and the thing pointed out is its state indicated by the adjective I am speaking or thinking about.}

{**Τὸ φῶς has fixed it on an idea complete in itself (that is, light) and then ἀληθινόν qualifies it as a quality, which is a sort of mental contradiction. When τὸ ἀληθινόν 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.}

37 In  τὸ φῶς 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; that is, the true light, which contrasts with any other light. Here the general abstract idea or object is φῶς, τὸ -> φῶς: but there is an added object of the mind to which attention is substantively drawn: ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον , equivalent to τὸ φώτιζον of which it is affirmed, not that it is ἀληθινόν, (a mere character in that case), but τὸ ἀληθινὸν [φῶς], distinctly and definitely that one particular light in contrast with false ones. 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 (that is, adjectives), as objects, the substantive being assumed or expressed for clearness' sake. Were this not so, the mind could only have actual existences, and not actings or characters, for its object; but this is not true. This designation by the article in the case of infinitives, participles, and adjectives, by making them objects, makes, in fact, nouns of them in the mind. Thus, 1 John 5:20, γινώσκωμεν τὸν ἀληθινόν, 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. Ἐστί 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, τῳ πιστεύοντι, 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 ἐξουσίαν. 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; that is, characteristic. Were it a known object, it would have it. Δέδωκε ζωήν, "he gave life," τὴν ζωήν, if a particular life before mentioned was before the mind, or that the noun was abstractedly viewed in its absoluteness.

38 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, that to which the revelation is made, characterizing the manner of the reception of the revelation. Ἐκ πίστεως, again (Rom. 3:30), on the principle of faith, for they had sought it  ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, by law-works; the Gentiles  διὰ τῆς 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 ἵνα κατὰ χάριν (Rom. 4:16); so verse 14, οἱ ἐκ νόμου; their character a little after (ver. 16), τῳ ἐκ τοῦ νόμου, that is, the law, Jews; οἱ ἐκ νόμου, those who claimed it by law, on that principle. Then we have τῳ ἐκ πίστεως  Ἀβραάμ, a remarkable case, meaning "of Abraham-faith"; not by Abraham's faith, but on the same principle-that kind of thing. These may afford a clue to many passages, and shew how little also the prepositions are out of the rule. But it is so important a principle in Paul's writings that we may consider it further hereafter.

To return: ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο needs no remark, unless that ἐγένετο makes a proposition like ἐστί. Τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ - αὐτοῦ gives the article as designating necessarily that glory as a specific object: δόξαν ὠς, "glory as of," evidently only characterizes the subject. Consequently, μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός 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 τῆς χάριτος 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 ἐλάβομεν, καὶ χάριν, etc., 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 ἀντί 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.

{*Παρά, with a genitive, has not exactly the sense of the English from, save as coming from, derived or flowing from, associated with, in the way of derivation; as with a dative it is "associated with," in the sense of being with or at: the accusative being near, and hence sometimes opposition and comparison.}

39 We come then to a difficult case, but one which attaches to the nature of the word: speaking of that which is so little within the limit of human thought, and especially in the expressions of one whom the Holy Ghost employed to speak more profoundly than all but one on these subjects. Still the gracious Lord meant us to understand as far as it is conveyed, and as it is; and I judge, that while the application is special, it confirms the principle which we seek to use in the explanation of the word: I refer to Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακε πώποτε. I believe this absolute negative purposely sets aside objective personality here. If it had been τὸν Θεόν, it would have been a designated object, and hard to speak thus of, hard to point out an object to say it could not be seen; or inconsistently, as one seen by faith. But the object here was to keep Him in the unseen unseeable majesty of His being; He was such a one as could not be seen. It was not ὁ, that being pointed out to the mind, but one dwelling in the light unapproachable. And this is exceedingly confirmed by the absence of a αὐτόν after ἐξηγήσατο. If that had been there, it should have been τόν, for He would have been an objective person known. It may perhaps partially confirm this, that in Matthew 5:8, we have αὐτοὶ τὸν Θεὸν ὄφονται. There He is the object of creature-vision as a person or being in whose presence they are, as far as that can be.

40 It is a specific testimony in verse 19, ἡ μαρτυρία has it from τοῦ  Ἰωάννου. Αὕτη is the predicate, and is in fact ἡ αὕτη.*

{*That is, without discussing the etymology of οὗτος it is evident that οὗτος is as designative at least as ὁ, which therefore could have no place. The same is true of  ἐκεῖνος, which does not receive the article, and which is really practically an adjective made of  ἐκεῖ; that is, specially designative-οὗτος, this; ἐκεῖνος  that; that is, even more specially designative than ὁ.}

This leads me to a controverted passage, Luke 2:2. The natural rendering would be, "The enrolment itself first took place, Cyrenius ruling Syria." Otherwise the regular structure would have been αὕτη ἡ ἀπογραφὴ ἡ πρώτη, "this first enrolment," supposing others, and designating that one as the one in question; or, if not supposing others, supposing their previous possibility, and emphatically designating that there had been none before: as we say, "This is the first time he did so," though I might say as characteristic, "This is a first fault."

Αὕτη, 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.

{*The difficulty in the usual rendering is its absence before πρώτη. However, there seem to be some instances of such a practice, which I will examine. It is really connected with ἐγένετο.}

Οὗτος ὁ τελώνης (Luke 18:11). The publican had been spoken of before. Hence he was a designated object, ὁ τελώνης. Οὗτος designated more emphatically, often so as to be contemptuous, specially where alone (given in the word "fellow" in the English version), the individual there. Οὗτος ὁ τελώνης designates first the individual, and then designates him by his character; This [fellow] the publican; but, the person being supposed, the character becomes the object, as we have seen in the case of the adjective, as τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν. If ὤν were there, it would not have the article; it would be merely characteristic, οὗτος τελώνης ὤν. The whole object is evidently οὗτος.  Ὦν is a kind of copulative participle, giving τελώνης as a predicate, as σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὤν, etc. (John 10:33.)

41 Both these forms continually occur. I cite sufficient to shew the use.

Αὕτη ἡ ἀσθένεια. John 11:4.  Oὗτος ὁ λαός. Mark 7:6.

Τοῦτο τὸ γένος. Mark 9:29. Οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος. John 7:46.

Τούτου τοῦ ἄρτου. John 6:51.  Ταύτην ἐποίησε τὴν ἀρχήν. John 2:11.

In all these cases we have something mentioned immediately before, emphatically designated by οὗτος-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, γένος, or enlarging or peculiarly characterizing the particular object. The  οὗτος is complete and emphatic-this, whether thing or person. And the noun with the article presents the object, the word  οὗτος necessarily specifying one.

I add instances of the other use: he [namely] the man, it [namely] the generation.

Ὁ λόγος οὗτος. Luke 7:17.   Ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος. Acts 28:4.

Ὁ ἀλλογενὴς οὗτος. Luke 17:18.   Ὁ μακαρισμὸς οὗτος. Rom. 4:9.

Ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος. Mark 15:39.   Ὁ λόγος οὗτος. Rom. 9 : 9.

Ὁ λαὸς οὗτος. 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 οὗτος precedes, it is the individual person or thing; when the descriptive adjective or noun, it is the designation of the object by its name existing in the individual case.

Now, of these in the first three, the emphasis is particularly on the word to which οὗτος is joined; the other form would have weakened and made it unnatural in point of style, though the sense is the same as a fact, but not in mental apprehension. No English can mark the difference well. The first two are so distinctly thus, that "the rumour of this" and "the stranger from among all these" would have been nearly equivalent. 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 more energetic, as designating formally the Jewish people in their iniquity (represented by the Pharisees addressed). It is so in the LXX. Mark's is more historically given, contrasting them with other people. It is plain this is a mere question of style. Οὗτος 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.

42 I would make the same remark on Acts 28:4, and Romans 4:9. The subject of the sentence is more present in the mind of the writer than the particular identification of the fact or person referred to.  Οὗτος is almost supplementary. Romans 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-ἱερεῖς καὶ Λευΐτας is the character of the persons who went. Had it been said τούς, 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 enquiry and expectation of those who went out.

We have another instance of the example already explained in ἀπόκρισιν. Ἐγὼ φωνή etc. requires more remark. It is a quotation, varying in some words, from the LXX, and a sort of public, prophetic title affixed by the Lord on John-"I am that passage," not merely that thing. Hence it is stronger than saying ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ φωνή. It is an oracle recited attached to ἐγώ.*  Εἰμί (understood) does not indeed require the article, unless it is specifically reciprocal-that is, exclusive of all others: as ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινή,-ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς,-ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος ὁ καταβὰς ἑκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. John 15:1 and 6:41, 48.

{* Ἐγώ is as an article, and what follows is the oracle predicated about it: ἐγὼ ἡ φωνή would have been merely an assertion of John about himself.}

Κυρίου comes under the question of proper names, not meaning a title of Jesus, save as He is Jehovah.

Ἐν ὕδατι-the character of the baptism. John 1:26.

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 as used for husband. It is a man. It characterizes, or gives the quality of man to him of whom all this is said. Ὁ ἀνήρ would have quite another sense. Ἔρχεται ἀνήρ 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. Ὁ ἀνήρ would have been some known man.

43 In verse 26, John specifically characterized his baptism. Here (in verse 31), though many authorities have not the τῶ, 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 ὕδατι is referred to as the known matter employed, with the water as I have said or of which I have spoken. Hence, when he is again contrasting the character or nature of it, we have ἐν ὕδατι and ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ, 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.

Τῃ ἐπαύριον was one particular to-morrow, that is, of the day previously spoken of.

Ὁ ἀμνός, 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 ὁ υἱός, or ὁ ἀμνός, 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: afterwards  οἱ δύο, because now we have them as the designated two, though unknown.

Verse 40 (Gr.), ἐκείνην coming after necessarily makes a specific day as an object before the mind.

Ὥρα requires more attention. It is indeed an exception to general rules. It never receives an article with a noun of number, unless some other reason makes it an especial object, as previous mention, a particular hour, or the like. Such idioms as to time are found in all languages. It is the haste of familiar style, being an accompaniment to any act in general, shewing when anything was done. This applies to many familiar and commonly used words.

44 There is one apparent exception to this, Matthew 20:3; but the article there is rejected by all the editors. On the other hand, when the mind is to be directed to a particular hour as a point of time as being a remarkable or definite one, the article is there, but attached to the numeral as the leading idea. (Matt. 20:6.) This exception remarkably confirms the rule. It is to be remembered that ὥρα did not mean "hour" in Greek till very late in the history of the language. When it is used in the original way as a word, it follows the usual rules in connection with numerals marking the hour of the day. It has become a kind of name, as a known thing every day, and the article is never used-the same when used for a portion of the day in general; as if "time" had become in English the name for an hour. We should speak of spring-time, winter-time, etc., and also it was at seventh-time, eighth-time, which would shew it then meant hour, and attach as to time a character to the act done. But when in Greek a specific point of time is meant, then ὥρα with the numeral takes the article. The cases of absence are too numerous to quote. We have περὶ τρίτην ὥραν, περὶ ἕκτην ὥραν, περὶ ἐννάτην ὥραν, etc. So ἕως ὥρας ἐννάτης. So we have when it merely means much of the day, ἤδη ὥρας πολλῆς, ἤδη ὥρα πολλή. (Mark 6:35.) But then we have, when noticed as a critical point of time, Matthew 27:46, περὶ δὲ τὴν ἐννάτην ὥραν; chapter 20:6, περὶ δὲ τὴν ἑνδεκάτην ὥραν, and so chapter 20:9. So Mark 15:34, καὶ τῃ ὥρᾳ τῃ ἐννάτῃ. Τῃ ὥρᾳ τοῦ θυμιάματος, and such cases are common where the word follows the usual rules. So John 12:23, ἐλήλυθεν ἡ ὥρα. Acts 3:1, ἐπὶ τὴν ὥραν τῆς προσευχῆς τὴν ἐννάτην. So Acts 10:30, ταύτης τῆς ὥρας … καὶ τὴν ἐννάτην ὥραν.

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 ὥρα: 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"; that is, κατὰ τετάρτην (or τὴν τετάρτην) ἡμέραν, ἀπὸ ταύτης τῆς 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.

45 I have owed this to the reader to shew that  ὥρα 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. 48 Gr.) Two reasons might seem to deprive δόλος of the article here. First, the verb ἐστί; because, unless in the case of a reciprocal proposition, ἐστί makes what follows it a character of the subject. And this is so much the case that when another verb is such as to make the following noun characteristic, it has not the article. So in τίνος αὐτῶν ἔσται γυνή; γυνή characterizes the relationship-"Shall she be wife?"-bear that character.   Ἡ γυνή would have fixed the mind on the person, and meant rather the woman in that relationship. (Mark 12:23.) So, in the same verse, ἔσχον … γυναῖκα, "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 ἔχομεν will have the article after it whenever the word is not merely characteristic, but positively fixing the mind on a definite object. Ἐν ῳ 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 Philippians 1:23, τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν ἔχων. The same principle very plainly applies to Ephesians 3:12, ἐν ῳ ἔχομεν τὴν παῤῥησίαν. Now this might seem rather a contradiction, but if examined illustrates remarkably the principle. It is not here a quality in Paul, but a special designated boldness to which he refers: τὴν παῤῥησίαν καὶ τὴν προσαγωγὴν ἐν πεποιθήσει διὰ τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ, that boldness and confidence of access which we have before God through Him. Where παῤῥησίαν is used as a quality or state of the person, it has not the article, as Hebrews 10:19; 1 John 2:28; 3:21.

46 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 αὐτῳ 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 ἔστιν ὁ Θεὸς 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, Psalms 13:1 and 52:1, we have οὐκ ἔστι Θεός, there is no God. In Mark 12:27, on the contrary, we have the idea in a different shape: οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ Θεὸς νεκρῶν. If this be not elliptical, and if so, identical with Matthew, the sense is different, and ὁ Θεός becomes a proper object of the mind based on what has been said, and is a term of relationship, as ὁ Θεὸς Ἀβραάμ etc. He is not the God of dead persons, as called their God. If this be so, the article as designating a positive object is positively necessary. It is a question of spiritual intelligence which is the meaning here. The grammatical rule is maintained equally by either. I incline to the latter. The cases of 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 enquiry, or, if recently mentioned, refer to it as so mentioned; only that English is neither as accurate nor consequently as uniform, nor as universal in application of the principle.

This leads me to another principle-application, that is, of our principle: if a noun singular be taken distributively, or a noun plural partially, which is the same thing at bottom, there will not be an article; if the singular, as already spoken of in totality, that is, abstractedly, or the plural universally, there will. The former is merely a case of the non-existence of a definite object pointed out to the mind. This connects itself with the employment of prepositions also. A singular noun is taken distributively when it is not an abstract complete idea, but as applied to any given existences of the case. 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.) Ἐάν τινος ἀδελφὸς … καταλίπῃ γυναῖκα.  Ἔλαβε γυναῖκα … οὑδὲ αὐτὸς ἀφῆκε σπέρμα. So in the plural ἑπτὰ ἀδελφοὶ ἦσαν.  Ὁ Θεὸς νεκρῶν.  Ὅταν 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 ἀναστάσει τῶν δικαίων, because all would rise, as a definite object-these persons. So εἰδότες τὰς γραφάς, 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 ὅλος involves the article, τινές excludes it. Hence we know πᾶς 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 Ephesians 3:15; πᾶσα πατριά "every family" (where ἐν οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ 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. (Is. 63:19.) All the families-every heavenly, or earthly family-were ranged under the name and authority of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

47 I will now go through several difficult cases in which, from the extreme exuberance of matter and the narrowness of human language to meet it, and yet the need of accuracy in divine things, and the certainty of it in revelation, we shall find the principle most severely tested, but most fully proved. And here I shall particularly take notice of prepositions which come as fully under the rule as every other case.

Ephesians 1:1, ἀπόστολος, characteristic of Paul. Διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ the same thing. He was an apostle by divine will.

Verse 2, χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη 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, etc., gives the character of the grace and peace, that kind. It is not a wish that it should come from Him, but that grace and peace thence might be with them.

48 Verse 3. In this verse we have the article, for Θεός, etc., is presented as a personal object. I will revert to this as an instance of an important point. Τοῖς, before ἐπουρανίοις, shews where they were, or had the blessing. It was not the blessing merely characterized by that place.

Verse 4, πρὸ καταβολῆς 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.

Verses 4, 5.  So ἐν ἀγάπῃ characterizes the saints, εἰς υἱοθεσίαν 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.

Verse 6. We now come to some more difficult cases, because complicated, where they have in part, in part not, the article; but it flows from what we have been seeing we are to be; our whole state, and the work which has brought us there, εἰς ἔπαινον δόξης. This is to characterize the matter. But the grace is a positive designated object, which is thus glorified and praised, or gloriously praised. Hence we have τῆς (called for, indeed, by αὐτοῦ). His grace is set before us as praised and glorified. This apparent anomaly is therefore at once made easy by this simple principle.

Verse 7. I have noticed this already. We have all these as God's part, noticed as positive objects of our soul (save  σοφίᾳ καὶ φρονήσει, which characterize the grace, verse 8). So verse 9.

Verse 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 fulness of times was a positive object before the mind. It did not characterize the administration. It is a direct subject of thought. We have seen before ἐν οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς   characterize* every family. Here they are designated as places where the things are pointed out as such, and they have the article.

{*This is not the same thing as being heavenly (it states that their being there characterized them), nor earthly, but being there. The English will render this, but the distinctions are rarely maintained. "In heaven and earth" would hardly be distinguished, though there is a difference, from "in the heavens and in the earth."}

49 Verse 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  δι᾽ ἔργα, but κατὰ πρόθεσιν, and that of Him who, etc.

Verse 12. The  ἡμᾶς is the subject, εἰς ἔπαινον its character: to praise. We are to be such. It is the character we clothe. The τῆς before δόξης, though disputed, is, I judge, rightly maintained. We are "to praise" as according to purpose, but it is of His glory, presented again as the direct object of the mind. We have then several with the article, evidently presenting positive objects, till we come to

Verse 14, ἀῤῥαβών characterizing merely in this case the Holy Ghost: ἡμῶν accounts grammatically for the article after κληρονομίας according to the principles previously stated. It is a specific object. But the words which receive the article here are spiritually full of the most perfect interest and weight of instruction. Ὁ ἀῤῥαβών 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 ἀῤῥαβών as εἰς οἰκονομίαν previously did the purpose, κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν αὐτοῦ.

Verse 15, τὴν ἀγάπην τήν I notice as merely a new form of the principle, the second τὴν necessarily making the first objective.

Verse 17, ὁ πατὴρ τῆς 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, that is, 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.

50 Verse 18. We get a succession of positive objects presented to the mind as so known.

Verse 20. So here, where we have only to remark the resurrection of Christ: it is not ἀνάστασις ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, that is, not from designated persons, but a state. It characterized the resurrection, and did not point out persons. It is ἀνάστασις ἐκ νεκρῶν, that is, from that condition.

Verse 22, κεφαλήν, as head.

Ephesians 2:2. In this verse, note, we have the evil system presented, not as characterizing the walk merely, but as a positive subsisting system, according to which they walked. And so all through till we get our resulting character. Τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς, this characterized us.

Verse 5, χάριτι, the principle which characterized the way of salvation. Then,

Verse 7. It was by goodness to us that He shewed the positive things spoken of Him: that goodness (χρηστότης) characterized it.

Verse 8. We have τῃ 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.

Verse 10, ποίημα characterizes us; so ἐπὶ ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς characterizes the condition of the creation: ἐν σαρκί, verse 11, the manner again.

Verse 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 ἔθνων. Ye 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. Ἀποκαταλλάξῃ τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους (ver. 16), necessarily an object; but ποιῶν εἰρήνην (ver. 15), εὐηγγελίσατο εἰρήνην (ver. 17), this characterized the making and preaching. There are two classes of accusatives after the active verb: one the object, the other the fruit of the action. Τὴν ἔχθραν 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 κατά very often have anarthrous nouns (not always), simply because, from their meaning, they speak of what characterizes something else.

51 One point remains, of which this chapter gives two examples, and of which we may therefore speak here. I mean the use of one article with two nouns of different meaning, and even necessarily sometimes distinct. Thus we have ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατήρ (chap. 1), τοὺς ἀποστόλους καὶ προφήτας (chap. 2, 3), and in chapter 4, τοὺς ποιμένας καὶ 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 Matthew 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 τὴν μαρκαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης. Δόξης is the governing idea here. Grace had appeared (ver. 11). They were waiting for glory: that was their hope (that is object of hope, so used elsewhere), and it would appear hence, the object of hope and the apparition were identical, namely, the glory. Hence, τὴν marks both. But what glory? That is the question. Τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν  Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. 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 that 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, for they were one in glory.

52 There are many other examples: 1 Thessalonians 3:11, 13; 2 Corinthians 11:31; Romans 15:6. We have 2 Peter 1:1, ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ 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 ἐπιγνώσει 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 (ver. 16) τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν  Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δύναμιν καὶ παρουσίαν. The power and presence are in one scene or one object before the mind. Compare Romans 1:20.

{*The error of Granville Sharp and Bishop Middleton seems to have been this: in supposing, not that there was a common point of union, but that this was a person represented by the article, and described by the nouns following.}

In two of the above passages, ἐπιγνώσει and δικαιοσύνῃ have not the article, because by ἐν they designate the manner or principle on which the main subject is received or escaped. So, 2 Peter 1:10, we have βεβαίαν … τὴν κλῆσιν καὶ ἐκλογὴν 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.

53 In French, where two ideas are sufficiently near to make one only an explanation of another, a similar idiom may be observed. "Sa tranquillité, son calme a," not "ont"; because I have only one idea, which my first word imperfectly expressed. With that one idea in the mind the verb agrees.

Note in Ephesians 2:22, 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 shew the fallacy of any conclusion that it is not the Holy Ghost personally, because of the absence of τῳ.

It is, I think plain, from the examination of a number of passages, that in cases where one article is used with several nouns, (while the grammatical agreement of the article is, by attraction and the usual analogy, partially with the nouns which follow*), the object designated by the article is mentally another, to which all the nouns used apply, or with which they associate themselves. Where each is made a distinct definite object of, each will have the article. That mental object may be a person, who unites in himself the various names or titles. It may be association in a common object or common circumstance. In a word, the nouns are united in some common fact which the mind has before it, so as to group them together. This may be expressed or understood from the context. Thus it is expressed in the following: Titus 2:13; Ephesians 5:5; 2 Thessalonians 1:12; 2 Peter 1:1.

{*This is not the case strictly as to number, because, as we have seen, the object before the mind is necessarily one. If the article and nouns be plural, it is, as before remarked, the whole body in question, though made up of many individuals. Hence, in this sort of passages, we get one common idea in which the various words are united, and then the article is singular; or we get the class of persons united in one common idea, and then the article is of course plural.}

In 1 Timothy 5:21, it is contained in the preposition ἐνώπιον, which gives the idea of "the presence of"-the one idea which governs the mind, but Κυρίου is left out by most. This may be a person, as Matthew 12:22; 13:23; Mark 16:16. In Luke 11:28 we have several grouped in one class. Hebrews 3:1 is a very plain and express case. In Philippians 1:7, it is the work in which the Philippians sympathized with Paul, which consisted in these two things: ἀπολογίᾳ καὶ βεβαιώσει. So in Romans 15:6. It is readily understood from the context. In a word, there is always one definite object before the mind, of which the various nouns come in, not merely descriptively, but as together forming the completeness of that object. The grammar follows the noun, as the relative pronoun does, in its case, that to which it is related.

54 I shall now give some cases in which it evidently is not one person, and in which the common idea is not expressed in the passage. Only before citing them I will here recall the principle I have laid down, as we are at one of the most important and difficult applications of it. The article points to some definite object of the mind. The noun following gives the name to this object. In some cases, where this is sufficiently certain by specific contrast, the name is not even added, as ὁ μέν, ὁ δέ. Earlier in the language, this was more extensively the case; and it hence became a pronoun, as in Homer. The object is assumed to be one we have before us, and known as an object, though we add a name (but a name known as designating that object), and much perhaps else about it.

Now in the cases we are about to mention, the object is not named, but the nouns used combinedly make it up. The article supposes the common object in which they are united.

To proceed to the cases: Philippians 1:7, τῃ βεβαιώσει καὶ ἀπολογίᾳ. 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. Matthew 17:1, παραλαμβάνει ὁ  Ἰησοῦς τὸν Πέτρον καὶ  Ἰάκωβον καὶ  Ἰωάννην. Acts 3:11, κρατοῦντος δὲ αὐτοῦ τὸν Πέτρον καὶ  Ἰωάννην. Acts 4:19, Ὁ δὲ Πέτρος καὶ  Ἰωάννης. In the plural the same thing, Acts 14:5, ὁρμὴ 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  Corinthians 13:11 we have an example where the peace he desired the Corinthian disciples to be in, as a means of enjoying the presence of God, at once introduces, as thus speaking of God's presence, that love which necessarily accompanied it, and made one thought with the peace. Love and peace were together one idea of the blessed power and sweetness of the divine presence.

55 There are many other examples in scripture, but these sufficiently explain the principle, and, by this much debated point, confirm its soundness in the fullest way. Reference to Middleton, Green, etc., will furnish examples. I have examined them, and confine myself to having satisfied my mind that the same principle alike explains them all. Quotations from profane authors will be found there, equally proving the same general principle. Contrasted cases, where the object of the author was to make two separate objects before the mind, confirm also the doctrine.

Thus Hebrews 11:20, εὐλόγησε … τὸν  Ἰακὼβ καὶ τὸν  Ἠσαῦ, where it is evident they were to be kept in mind as distinct objects. There is another text which I will notice as presenting an interesting question of interpretation-2 Thessalonians 1:8:  διδόντος ἐκδίκησιν τοῖς μὴ εἰδόσι Θεόν, καὶ τοῖς μή ὑπακούουσι τῳ εὐαγγελίῳ, etc. Here the apostle, or rather the Holy Ghost, designates two classes or forms of guilt, which elsewhere may be in the same persons. Openly hostile heathens and idolatrous enemies certainly are supposed, for they were the then persecutors; and Jews, who could not be said exactly not to know God, but who were disobedient to the gospel. There were those who professed to obey the gospel, yet did not really know God. There were these two moral classes designated by the Holy Ghost as objects of judgment; a description which must both have been applicable then, and be so at the return of the Lord to judgment.

Acts 15 furnishes notable instances of the introduction and omission of the article. Γενομένης οὖν στάσεως καὶ συζτήσεως οὐκ ὀλίγης τῳ Παύλῳ καὶ τῳ Βαρνάβᾳ πρὸς αὐτούς. Here they were the Paul and Barnabas whose history we have had in what precedes. Ἔταξαν ἀναβαίνειν Παύλον καὶ Βαρνάβαν 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. (ver. 2.). Again (ver. 12), ἤκουον Βαρνάβα καὶ Παύλου. Here again we have the relaters of the facts brought for the first time before the assembly in this character. Then (ver. 22) ἐκλεξαμένους ἄνδρας ἐξ αὐτῶν πέμψαι εἰς  Ἀντιόχειαν σὺν τῳ Παύλῳ καὶ Βαρνάβᾳ. Here they were jointly concerned as representatives in this matter, and one article is used to both. They were associated in one objective idea in the mind of the writer. Paul and Barnabas have an article, being known as already engaged in it: Judas and Silas are new persons, and hence their names are without the article.

I may remark, in passing, the evident sense of 2 Peter 1:19 is, we have the prophetic word confirmed, namely, by the vision of Christ's glory. And this passage leads me to remark that, when a word is characteristic of the action of the verb, it does not claim an article. 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 clear up the use of the article after prepositions, which is indeed to the full as simple as any other part of the subject. We shall meet with others.

I will now proceed to notice-


In such cases as τὸ ὄρος, I judge it is idiomatic, from the locality being objectively contrasted with τὸ πεδίον. It is the same in French: "Il est à la montagne" is no particular mountain, but they go in summer there from the plain. We say it as to "the plain." It is the whole tract in contrast with the plain. Τὸ πλοῖον-I believe also that is aboard. Middleton's reference to a ship which was to attend him would be good grammatically. Ὁ ἄρτος is occasionally used technically for the bread at the Lord's supper, when the subject is spoken of, though in Matthew 26:26 τὸν ἄρτον means the loaf on the table for the supper. These are questions of usage, not of grammar. Who would ask what particular loaf was meant, or what emphasis, if in a history of a family I should say, "The child said at the end of supper, 'Give me the loaf, or the bread'"? The only emphasis is that it is the one they had to eat: that made it a particular object. So we should all feel the difference, if I said, "he spoke at breaking of bread," or "at the breaking of the bread." One refers to a common usage; the other gives a particular objective act. The Lord took bread, ἄρτον, or τὸν ἄρτον-the bread that was there. Κλάσας ἄρτον is the fact given; τῃ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου  is the specific act of the Lord's supper. (Acts 2:42, 46.) Ἐν τῃ ἐπιστολῃ (1 Cor. 5) is clearly some letter known to them, to which he refers. The rest is matter of interpretation, whether the letter he was writing (which would perfectly answer to the words),* or another letter, of which the Spirit of God has only preserved this.

{*The aorist ("I have written") is applied to a letter, and even to a part of it not yet come to, because the date referred to is the reception of it by the person addressed. So even in English.}

57 I apprehend τῳ ἐκτρώματι (1 Cor. 15:8) means the ἔκτρωμα of the set-like one in comparison with them, and then the article is required. We say "the foot" (as being of a body), "the eye." He was  τὸ ἔκτρωμα of those mentioned. In John 8:7 τὸν λίθον is the stone supposed in the law spoken of. Ὁ διδάσκαλος (John 3:10) is equally simple; it is "teacher" in contrast with "scholar." We should say, as thus laying emphasis, "Are you the teacher of Israel, and yet do not know that?" Such a contrast always leaves out any other individuals who teach, or absorbs them all into one. In the expression "The foot cannot say," it would be feeble to say "a foot," and yet equally good grammar; a mere proposition to state, and not an idea which ought to be evident to the hearer, and hence emphasis laid on what gives weight to that idea. It is viewed as a part of a particular body; and hence, as in every such instance, it is a positive object distinguished from another.


I will now examine a little the case of proper names; and then, for profitable use and further evidence, take some of the more important cases to which the doctrine can be applied in the Epistle to the Romans. I recur to John 1:6, όνομα αὐτῳ  Ἰωάννης. Here it is evidently something referable to αὐτῳ.  Ἐγένετο, as a verb of existence, gave the rest of the phrase the form of attributes of what existed; this, its name.

58 We might expect to find some apparent anomaly here, inasmuch as a name itself designates. But if this be carried in mind, we shall find the usual principles, namely, that where it has become an object (being named) in the sentence, it will take the article: where it has not, it will take none. In verse 15 he is named. Here he is not an object; he has his name as the one bearing witness: so in verse 17, Moses is a description of the giver of the law; Jesus Christ, of him by whom grace and truth came. In verse 19 we have an objective person introduced in a certain position before the Jews: he is the subject of the mind in the sentence. Ἡλίας points out the person, naming him for the first time here. (ver. 21.) Ὁ Χριστός is not properly a name-it is the long expected Messiah the Anointed. (ver. 20.) Ἡσαΐας (ver. 23) designates the person again simply; whereas ὁ  Ἡσαΐας would designate Isaiah as himself the object, not the mere name of a person who did something. In verse 26 Ἰωάννης again becomes a distinctive object already known: in contrast with the others, and in respect of his conduct, he is the subject of thought. So in verse 19.

In verse 28 Bethabara is just a name. Ἰορδάνου takes the article, as designating the river specially as an object: it is an idiom of all languages from the nature of the thing-an object, not a mere name. We say "the Thames," "across the Thames," though we say "across London"; so in French: the division of the country by a river, and the continuity of it, requiring an identification of the object, lead to this. I go forty miles, but it is still the same river, it is the Thames-the Jordan. The "the," or the article, gives unity or completeness as an object, to the whole course of that which would otherwise lose its identity to the mind in separate parts. This may be traced in many such objects, as oceans, tracts of country treated as one district. Ἰωάννης loses the article here: it is his name as acting merely, the acting itself being the object. In verse 29 Jesus is introduced as the positive object of the mind; so evidently is τῳ Israel, verse 31; in 32, it is merely his name historically. In verses 35, 36, both John and Jesus are introduced as specific objects; so verse 38. In verse 41 Ἀνδρέας is just a name, as Σίμωνος; so now again John as having spoken, and Σίμωνα; again shewing that recent mention does not annex the article when merely historically named and not a definite object of the mind. It gives merely the name of his brother. In verse 43 Jesus is twice the object of the mind distinctly. The other names are evidently given as such characteristically. In verse 45 Philip becomes the object. It was the same Philip, this particular person; and the evangelist proceeds to give an account about him who had been just mentioned; but in the next verse, historically mentioned, he loses it: so Moses, so Jesus. Joseph has it as particularly marked to designate who Jesus was, and τὸν ἀπὸ Ναζαρέθ marks this distinctly. Ναζαρέθ, as a mere name, has it not.

59 Ναθαναήλ  is the only case peculiar here. (ver. 46.) Who is he? Why is he thus designated as a special object? Not because he has been mentioned before, according to the ordinary rule, for he has not. As historically mentioned several times in the succeeding verses, he has it not. But, it is to be remarked, the article is designative. It is first in the mind of the speaker; it points out an object of thought to the hearer. Hence, when anything is such, it is used; though why it is only comes out afterwards. Hence it is used anticipatively. So here Nathanael is the subject specially of what follows, and whenever spoken of has the article, though not when mentioned historically.

Galilee (chap. 2:1) is a district on the same principle as Ἰορδάνου: the article gives unity to it as a whole. So Matthew 3:5.

This, which many minds might overlook (I mean as to names), has made the readings sometimes uncertain, and the presence or absence of the article is with the name a delicacy of thought, of which, as far as I know, Greek alone is susceptible. But, though in some cases a careless or inattentive mind, not bred in Greek thought, may scarcely see it, and the historical substance of the passage be no way altered by it, I think enough has been given to shew that, while a name designating a person is, so to speak, an article, yet that, when it becomes an object of thought, it comes completely under the usual rule, and singularly confirms it. A name is evidently in itself either the designation of a person, or a mere attribute or character. Thus, when I say "John said," it points one to a person itself. If I say "His name was John," I attribute to him something characteristic. In neither case would there be an article. If I talk about John, as a subject in the sentence, this comes under the common rule of the objective article. In a rapid conversation, I apprehend the names might have it, having practically the force of   ὁ μέν, ὁ δέ. That is, replying one to another animatedly, they would be kept up as objects before the mind; when it returned to the historical account, they would drop it again. Such distinctions as these would evidently demand entering into the spirit of the author; but they form good writing and style. The presence of the article constantly with the name of Jesus* would stand most clearly and evidently accounted for on the principle here spoken of. He may be named historically, of course, but He was constantly the subject and object before the inspired historian's mind-the central and chief leading figure in the scene, on which the eye was, and was meant to be, fixed. I suspect it will be found that Κύριος is often a name, when used in the New Testament-Jehovah; as Luke 1:16, ἐπὶ Κύριον τὸν Θεὸν αὐτῶν. I doubt that it is simply conversion to the Lord, as characterizing conversion, but to Jehovah. But this would be a subject for enquiry in each case. So ἑτοιμάσαι Κυρίῳ λαόν. It may be questioned whether it be ever otherwise than a name, when used by itself, and not coupled with the name of Jesus, or the like, so as to ascribe lordship to Him.** If the first chapter of Luke be referred to, where there are many names, abundant confirmation will be found of the general principle.

{*In all this part of John 1 it is wanting only in verse 46 where it is a name to designate ὃν ἔγραψε M., etc.}

{**In the "Preface to the Vevay Testament" later in this volume I have given a list of the places and use of Κύριος.}

60 Before noticing the peculiar cases in the Romans, I will state certain applications of the principle, one of which may, to many minds, bring out the principle itself more clearly. We have seen that the article, giving the object of the mind, necessarily gives the definite totality. This is true even of the plural: only that there the entire object is composed of parts, as  οἱ μαθηταί is all the disciples as one whole, but made up of many members. Now the evident consequence of this is that, when a noun does not embrace the totality but means only some, it cannot be such an object. It gives these some as characteristic of a class, so as fully to come under and verify the principle. The use of nouns after active verbs comes really under this head. When a nominative characterizes the action, it will be true of it, as of the accusative. Under this the historically used names and characteristic plurals come. Ποιήσατε ἑαυτοῖς φίλους (Luke 16:9); ἐκβάλλω δαιμόνια (chap. 13:32). But when it is a complete object it has: ἐπέθηκε τὰς χεῖρας. So in singular, δοῦναι ὑμῖν τὴν βασιλείαν, but δότε ἐλεημοσύνην:  so οὐαὶ δὲ ὑμῖν, Γραμματεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι: so προσῆλθον αὐτῳ Σαδδουκαῖοι. On the other hand, συνηγμένων δὲ τῶν Φαρισαίων (Matt. 22:41), as a complete body of people in the mind, though, of course, all the individuals were not there. So  ὅτι τὸ ἕν μέρος ἐστὶ Σαδδουκαίων, τὸ δὲ ἕτερον Φαρισαίων; then στάσις τῶν Φαρισαίων καὶ τῶν Σαδδουκαίων, the body of them there. Σαδδουκαῖοι μὲν γὰρ … Φαρισαῖοι δέ, that kind of persons. (Acts 23:6-8.)

61 The same rule holds with the singular, where it requires more abstraction to see its force-these differences, however, English fully represents-because every one could understand the difference of "Sadducees hold so and so," and "Pharisees so and so"-that is, that kind of persons. It is characteristic of any of a class. "The Sadducees" and "the Pharisees" affirm it as a fact of a whole class.

I now give instances of the singular when used as a nominative, which is the more difficult case. Περιτομὴ ὡφελεῖ: ἡ περιτομή, giving an actual object, would be either the fact of circumcision physically, or, by a figure, the whole class. In fact it means neither, but the state of circumcision-that condition or character; so  καὶ περιτομή καρδίας ἐν πνεύματι.

Another remarkable example of this is δικαιοσύνη γὰρ Θεοῦ ἀποκαλύπτεται … ἀποκαλύπτεται γὰρ ὀργὴ Θεοῦ, a righteousness which is of God, a wrath which is of God.

Another case important to remark is a time which is characterized, and not given as a date, as ἡμέρᾳ κρίσεως. It is not "the" day of judgment, that is, specifying a time; nor "a" day, as if there were many; but "in judgment day," as contrasted in character with men going on their own way without judgment. (Matt. 11:22, 24, etc.)

I turn to the Romans:-

Romans 1:1-7. I do not know that this passage needs other notice than the remarkable confirmation it gives to the rule laid down. First a series of anarthrous words, attached as characters of the name of Paul; then Christ as an object, περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ. Υἱοῦ Θεοῦ, verse 4, characteristic, has it not.

Verse 14. This kind of persons, not the body of persons themselves as an object.

Verse 17 is important. It is not "the righteousness of God," as a known theological object presented to the mind, but "righteousness" which is "of God." This is what man wants, and what makes the gospel a subject of boast, not shame. It is not man's presented, or claimed, but God's revealed.

62 Verse 18. The same remark on ὀργὴ Θεοῦ -wrath from God; this characterizes the revelation. It will often be found that, when a second noun is the most important, and is characteristic, it gives its characteristic form to the other, and forms one characteristic idea. Here the whole expression, ὀργὴ Θεοῦ, δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ characterizes the revelation; but when it is ἡ ὀργή, it must be τοῦ Θεοῦ properly, that particular kind of wrath which belongs to that Being. The wrath is a wrath designated as an object, and then is of that Being-Himself an object therefore too. But if wrath characterizes the revelation, I add, as characterizing the wrath, Θεοῦ. Τοῦ Θεοῦ would suppose some wrath (or other thing) objectively known, which was of that Being. Θεοῦ gives a character merely to some instance of the thing: a wrath (a kind of wrath) which is of God, was revealed.

Chapter 2:4, εἰς μετάνοιαν. The character of the leading: actually it did not lead,  είς τὴν μετάνοιαν.

Verse 5, τὴν σκληρότητά σου καὶ ἀμετανόητον καρδίαν: σοῦ gives, as in every case of a personal pronoun, the article; but I notice it as another case of the article with two nouns, completing the description of the one mental object, which accounts for ἀμετανόητον καρδίαν: ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ὀργῆς, etc., is the case already spoken of, a noun of time characteristic, not a date.

Verse 7. All the nouns characterize the seekers or the search. Ζωὴν αἰώνιον, the gift, as heretofore noticed.

Verse 8. Τοῖς δὲ ἐξ ἐριθείας, καὶ ἀπειθοῦσι μὲν τῃ ἀληθείᾳ, πειθομένοις δέ,  etc.: several ideas completing the character of τοῖς, as verse 5. But τῃ ἀληθείᾳ is known revealed truth. There is a change of grammatical structure from ἀποδώσει to ἔσται.

Verse 9, τοῦ κατεργαζομένου is attracted to ἀνθρώπου, but really governed by πᾶσαν ψυχήν, as παντὶ τῳ ἐργαζομένῳ (ver. 10), and denotes (as in all participles standing alone, with an article) an objective person or thing characterized by the participle.

Verse 12, ἐν νόμῳ characteristic, evidently answering to ἄνομος ; so διὰ νόμου.

Verse 18, τοῦ νόμου, the law, the law of Moses.

63 Verse 14, ἔθνη, characteristic, Gentiles; not the Gentiles, but such persons as they. They have no law-no such thing. Τοῦ νόμου, the law known well to a Jew.

Verse 15. Note here the work (not the law) is written in the heart.

Verse 16, ὅτε κρινεῖ still only characterizes, so much as ἡμέρα κρίσεως.

Verse 17, τῳ νόμῳ presented as an object to designate the Jewish law. Ἐν Θεῳ  characterizes the boast.

Verse 18, τὸ θέλημα is remarkable as that will, namely of God, known only to a Jew; τοῦ  νόμου. the Jewish known law.

Verses 19, 20 are plain; they characterize what the man is.

Verse 23. In law, in having law. Thou breakest the law.

Verse 25, περιτομή has been noticed; νόμου, a law-keeper, a law-transgressor, characterizes the parties: ἡ περιτομή, the thing (σοῦ also necessitates this).

Verse 26, ἡ ἀκροβυστία the class: ἡ ἀκροβυστία αὐτοῦ, the actual state of such a one.

Verse 27, διὰ γράμματος καὶ περιτομῆς is character.  διὰ γράμματος καὶ περιτομῆς παραβάτην νόμου, is all characteristic of τὸν. I notice this, for it takes the article from νόμου, which otherwise would have it.

Chapter 3:5, ἡ ἀδικία ἡμῶν Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην. This is a remarkable case. The first part is very simple; but the second, which seems the same grammatically, is changed by the sense. Our unrighteousness is a definite objective thing. Divine righteousness is characteristically opposed, not a defined object: τὴν ὀργήν, the wrath implied in it. Whereas, verse 3, it is τὴν πίστιν τοῦ Θεοῦ, because there it is not an opposed characteristic quality, but the actual faithfulness already known and shewn: the faithfulness of God-divine righteousness.

Verse 9. Jews and Greeks as characteristic classes, not τούς, the members of them.

Verse 11, οὐδὲ εἷς (ver. 10) gives the ὁ to συνιῶν, and to ἐκζητῶν τὸν Θεόν. Not that one who, if there had been one, could have been pointed out objectively. As we say in English, There is not "the man living who could do it." This is a matter of style, and stronger than "a man," or συνιῶν, though both could be right. Hence we have (ver. 12) οὐκ ἔστι ποιῶν, which must be used here, because it is added,  οὐκ ἔστιν ἕως ἑνός. ὁ ποιῶν with this would have been out of place, for ἕως ἑνός was said in that form already. Hence we have δίκαιος οὐδὲ εἷς, and ὁ ἐκζητῶν.

64 Verse 17, ὁδόν, any way.

Verse 19, ὁ νόμος … τῳ νόμῳ, the known Jewish law.

Verse 20, διὰ νόμου, by law is knowledge of sin; ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, by law-works.

Verse 21. Without law, any law, not the Jewish: τοῦ νόμου , that particular known law. Also we have another example of a righteousness of God, of that character.

Verse 22. It is added that it is by faith of Jesus: that is the manner of it. Εἰς πάντας still characteristic, being of God: it is towards all in character; ἐπὶ τοὺς πιστεύοντας, actually on them objectively considered.

Verse 25. The question of τῆς before πίστεως amounts to this: is it the character or manner of being a mercy-seat? or is it the faith in the person who comes? Both would be true.* Εἰς ἔνδειξιν is the character of the thing. Αὐτοῦ gives the article to δικαιοσύνης: διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν was an actual overlooking.

{*There is another question here whether there should not be a comma after πίστεως-through faith, by his blood; whether if, as translated in English, it would not be τ. π. τῆς ἐν, etc. This does not affect what is stated above.}

Verse 26, πρός, not here εἰς, as it was not the immediate effect, but a result or object of the immediate effect, marked in ἐν τῳ νῦν καιρῳ (compare Eph. 4:12), included in the completion of that aim: τὸν ἐκ πίστεως  Ἰησοῦ, one so characterized.

Verse 27. Διὰ ποίου cannot have the article, for it enquires what is the law. τῶν ἔργων makes it precise and objective: τοῦ νόμου τῶν ἔργων, is it that of works? The article disappears in διὰ νόμου πίστεως. It was excluded in that manner-a faith-law. There was no particular known law of this kind to refer to; it was the character of the excluding power: so verse 28, law-works; πίστει, in that manner, what is called the instrumental dative, but which is practically adverbial, hence characteristic and not a specific object. We are justified is the object, πίστει is how, simply.

Verse 29. Of Jews only; that character of persons, not "the Jews"; so Gentiles.

Verse 30. More remarkably in περιτομήν, that state, not the Jews called ἡ περιτομή, though they are the people alluded to; but the apostle refers to the condition and character, not the people. Hence ἐκ πίστεως, in that manner-ἀκοβυστίαν διὰ τῆς πίστεως, because (the justification being in that manner) the uncircumcision having actually faith, would be justified: hence faith, their faith, becomes a positive object to the mind.

65 Verse 31. Law, and again, law-not "the law." He did not establish this as a system; but he gave its full authority to law, in all its extent and requirement, by the doctrine of faith.

Chapter 4:2, ἐξ ἔργων in that manner.

Verse 5, τὸν δικαιοῦντα, a person known and supposed as an object before the mind. This is the usual case of an article denoting a person or thing and a participle giving his or its character.

Verse 11 offers a peculiar construction: more naturally it would seem to be περιτομήν. Τὸ σημεῖον τῆς  would not do, as σημεῖον  of any thing would specially mean what indicated that thing, not the thing's being a sign; σημεῖον  regularly has not the article after ἔλαβε, as we have heretofore remarked. This, too, takes it away before περιτομῆς. Δικαιοσύνης gets it from the following words, which make it a positive objective thing.  Περιτομῆς is the character of the sign; but  δικαιοσύνης is a particular righteousness, characterized by the words which follow it.

Verse 12,  πατέρα περιτομῆς, his character; τοῖς ἐκ περιτομῆς one class so characterized; τοῖς στοιχοῦσι τοῖς ἴχνεσι, another class so characterized, namely, believing Gentiles; τῃ ἀκροβυστίᾳ, that condition already spoken of.

Verse 13, διὰ νόμου, "not by law, but by faith-righteousness," or "righteousness [which is] of faith."

Verse 14,  οἱ ἐκ νόμου, those who adopt this principle.

Verse 16,  τῳ ἐκ τοῦ νόμου, as a fact, the Jews under the law;  τῳ ἐκ πίστεως Ἀβραάμ, of Abraham-faith, noticed before; not of the faith which he had, but of that kind of faith.

Chapter 5:2, τὴν προσαγωγήν. The difficulty of this phrase is as to which reason is the true one for the use of τήν. It might be that particular access there was by faith; but I suspect, from its use in the three places it is found in, that it is a technical word for admission into some favoured place; as we say, "those who have the entrée." Ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι τῆς δόξης and, verse 5, διὰ Πνεύματος ἁγίου τοῦ δοθέντος; these examples shew that a preposition, with an anarthrous noun, can be used characteristically, though there be added that which depends on it as a positive object.   Ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι characterized the joy, but τοῦ Θεοῦ necessarily makes δόξης a positive objective glory. So Πνεύματος ἁγίου was the manner of the pouring forth in the heart, but, when spoken of as given, the objective person must be marked.

66 Verse 6, κατὰ καιρόν, seasonably: ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν, for such characters: so verse 7, ὑπὲρ δικαίου, not for all the persons, but for such a character; whereas τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ points out in a special manner a remarkable person; as in English, "for the good man."

Verse 13, ἁμαρτία. There was sin: ἁμαρτία δὲ οὐκ ἐλλογεῖται is more obscure, but the obscurity arises only in an English mind. It is not reckoned to the person (the real force of ἐλλογεῖται, Philem. 18) as sin; μὴ ὄντος νόμου is clear. Indeed, the οὐκ more naturally takes the article away, as in general it does not admit an existing object, never in a general proposition.

Verse 15,  οἱ πολλοί is in contrast with ὁ εἷς: the fault does not rest in the individual doer, but involves the body connected with him.

Verse 16, εἰς κατάκριμα, the characteristic tendency or bearing of it: so εἰς δικαίωμα.

Verse 18, rather by one offence, towards all for condemnation, having that character and bearing; so by one accomplished righteousness towards all for justification of life. It was the bearing that characterizes this accomplished righteousness. Life-justification expressed the bearing of this δικαίωμα.

Verse 19,  οἱ πολλοί again contrasted with  ὁ εἷς, with which it is connected.

Verse 20. But law, not the law. "There entered" … what? "Law."

Verse 21, ἐν τῳ θανάτῳ, in that actually well-known present thing. Διὰ δικαιοσύνης εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον, the bearing of the reign of grace.

Chapter 6:4, θάνατον takes the article, because it is an actual known thing about which they were speaking, into which they were baptized. In verse 3 αὐτοῦ gives it necessarily.

Verse 13, ὅπλα ἀδικίας … ὅπλα δικαιοσύνης, affirmed about τὰ μέλη. "As," in English, often best renders the anarthrous noun.

Verses 9, 14, θάνατος and ἁμαρτία are taken as names by reason of κυριεύω.

67 Verses 14, 15. "Under law … under grace;" the state they were in, not the law.

Verse 16. All these words are characteristic, dependent on ἑαυτοὺς already spoken of.

Verse 17,  τῆς ἀμαρτίας, the plain moral fact, this thing; and note δοῦλοι, characteristic of the persons spoken of in ἦτε:  τῆς ἁμαρτίας, that which the discussion had already introduced.

Verse 19, εἰς τὴν ἀνομίαν, because ἀνομία had been already mentioned, and it ended in that very ἀνομία. The first, with ἀκαθαρσίᾳ, are abstract nouns in their moral totality; εἰς ἁγιασμόν, the characterizing tendency of the δικαιοσύνη to which they served. The remaining cases are easy from the principles stated.

Chapter 7:1. "Who know what law is"-not the law. Ὁ νόμος is put abstractedly here from the evident necessity of the argument; this thing, law, that we are speaking of.  Τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, the man we suppose to be under it, whom κυριεύει.

Verse 2. "Is legally bound."

Verse 3, τοῦ νόμου, the law we are speaking of.

Verse 4, τῳ νόμῳ: the Jewish law, or law abstractedly; which is a question of spiritual interpretation.

[Up to this point it may be remarked that Χριστός and Ἰησοῦς Χριστός never have the article, being used historically as the name of a person, not a proper subject of theological teaching.*]

{*In chapter 1:16, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ  - τοῦ Χριστοῦ is received by no recent editor.}

We have here then, for the first time, τοῦ Χριστοῦ; whence I judge that ὁ νόμος means the Jewish law, and that that well-known subject of Jewish theology, the Messiah, is contrasted with the law. There was the law and the Messiah, both well known, and having their proper respective αἰών: hence ὁ νόμος and ὁ Χριστός. It is not merely an historical person. Ἑτέρῳ τῳ rightly translated "even to him"; τῳ ἑτέρῳ τῳ would be "to the other who;" but it is to another than the law-whom? "Him who," etc.

Verse 6. I judge ἀποθανόντες: compare verse 4.

Verse 7. "But by law."

Verse 8, "for without law." Ἁμαρτία is, I apprehend, used exactly as a name from its use in a pithy proverbial saying, as in other exact languages like French, a short affirmation about a principle which does not stop to put an object before the mind. So, indeed, in German. See note on proverbial sayings at the end. See page 83.

68 Verse 21, τὸν νόμον … ὅτι. This, or the law that.

Verse 25, νόμῳ Θεοῦ, ἁμαρτίας, is special, like δικαιοσύνη, ὀργὴ Θεοῦ. It characterizes the service; it is service to God-law, that is, divine law, or sin-law, that is, the state of the mind of me myself. It was not presenting one or other as a definite object, but explaining the state of the mind serving. It is a mind that serves God's law, a mind that serves sin's law.*

{*This passage is a proof that the attempt to rest the anarthrous use of δικαιοσύνη, ὀργή, νόμος - Θεοῦ on the Septuagintal use taken from the Hebrew, does not meet the case.}

Chapter 8:3. We may notice the character of Christ's mission. Περὶ ἁμαρτίας is not affirming that it was about certain sin, but that His mission was such, and, by a well-known phraseology, that this characterized His sacrifice.

Verses 4, 5, κατὰ σαρκά … κατὰ πνεῦμα, their character, and principle of life and being. I notice this as shewing that it does not raise the question of what Spirit, which the following words fully shew to be the Holy Spirit Himself. So verse 9, ἐν σαρκί ἀλλ᾽ ἐν Πνεύματι, their state.

We will examine all the texts before going farther:-


Matthew 3:16. Clearly a definite object even of sight.

Chapter 10:20. So here one speaking-not they.

Chapter 12:28. The manner of casting out.

Luke 1:17. Not the Spirit of God, but manner, "according to."

Chapter 4:18. A quotation of a prophetic title. It is the constant form of prophetic announcement. See Matthew 2:18; 3:3.

John 14:17. A personal object-one who was to remain with them.

Chapter 15:26. The same evidently.

Acts 5:9. The Spirit of the Lord is a definite person presented. Κυρίου I take to be a name; otherwise it would be used, as the name of God may be, to characterize an object.

Chapter 8:39 first calls for special remark. And here, I doubt not, it is designed, in rapidity and abruptness, and intentionally, to drop the idea of the person. It is not as if the Holy Ghost as a person came and took him. He was rapt, not by man, nor by human means, but by the sovereign power of the Holy Spirit. This was the character and manner of his rapture. He was rapt in spirit from the eunuch's sight; hence it is only said, he was found at Azotus. The article is intentionally and expressly excluded. I do not think, when it is Πνεῦμα Θεοῦ, or Κυρίου, God's Spirit, Jehovah's Spirit, that the object is to present a person, but a power, or agent emanating thence, as the spirit of a man. Many would call it a Hebraism; but I cannot accept mistakes on important points induced by Hebraisms.

69 Chapter 16:16 is on usual principles.

Romans 1:4. Evidently characteristic of how.

Chapter 8:2. The grammar is regular and ordinary as to sense. Though doubtless the Holy Ghost is really the power of it, the object is not to present Him as a divine person, but like Christ breathing that communication of life from Him which they had by and from a present Spirit. It was the power of life by the Spirit. Hence in John 20:22 there is no article.* Πνεῦμα ἅγιον, the Holy Ghost, I doubt not, was there, but it was as more abundant life, and the power of it. It was not the Comforter sent. "He that is joined to the Lord is one spirit." This comes out more importantly in chapter 8:9 (compare ver. 10), where, though doubtless personally the Holy Spirit, it is spoken characteristically of the state. You are ἐν πνεύματι, in that state, if such a Spirit dwell in you, namely, God's. If any man have not Christ's, he is none of His, so Χριστός: ὁ Χριστός would be His person as an object: here He is a life characteristic of the person, and we get σῶμα and πνεῦμα, two contrasted definite objects, and so with the article. The body is not the spring of living movement (it is held as to its living will to be a corpse), the Spirit is, to such a one.

{*This would be called a Hebraism, ruach hakkodesh (the holy Spirit), but here kodesh has the article, ha.}

On the other hand, in verse 11, we find the Spirit brought forward (necessarily) as a definite personal object, for it is on account of His being there that we are raised; so τὸν Χριστόν. It is Christ who was personally raised; so our bodies, because of the Spirit of Him who raised Him dwelling in us. He could not, if such a one (even the Spirit of that life-giving power or being who raised the Head, Jesus) dwelt in us, leave us under death who were the members. Could the Spirit remain thus? It would belie His nature as the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus. But this is not characteristic; it is a living Being.

70 Verse 14 characterizes the leading.

Verse 15, πνεῦμα δουλείας is evidently characteristic, and a common case; so  πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας.

Chapter 15:19. The character of Christ's working.

1 Corinthians 2:10. Here it is evidently a personal object, one acting. In verse 11,  τὸ πνεῦμα ἀνθρώπου is marked out definitely as an object, and indeed personified.  Τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ is clear. In verse 12  τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ κοσμοῦ follows the ordinary rule, that when a genitive follows, it commonly marks out that particular case of the first noun, and hence is necessarily a definite object of the mind-not spirit, or any spirit, but the spirit of the world: so  τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ.

Chapter 3:16. He is the personal inhabitant, and definitely presented as such, not characterizing a man, but one dwelling in a temple.

Chapter 4:21. Clearly the character of his coming.

Chapter 12:10 is plain. It is the kind of spirits: τῶν πνευμάτων would have been some particular known spirits. Here it is the discernment what manner of spirits these were.

2 Corinthians 3:3. The manner of writing.

Verse 17, οὗ δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα Κυρίου, the Holy Ghost Himself personally. Κυρίου, I suppose here, is a name; or else it is used to characterize πνεῦμα, τὸ πνεῦμα Κυρίου being as one word: in verse 16 πρὸς Κύριον, the direction in which it turns. But the Lord in question was actually the spiritual revelation of Him by the Holy Ghost, called τὸ πνεῦμα, verse 17; for there is not a setting aside of the person of the Holy Ghost, but often an introduction of Him into that in which He works. "The words I speak are spirit and life." "The letter killeth, the Spirit giveth life." But He is there, and there is liberty. Ὁ δὲ Κύριος τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν is then-that the Lord (Jesus) is the thought and mind of the Spirit referred to (ver. 6)-actually known in Christ, revealed by a present Holy Ghost; so verse 8. Verses 7-16 are a parenthesis.

Matthew 1:18. Evident manner with ἐκ. So verse 20, and chapter 3:11.

Chapter 4:1, person objectively.

Chapter 5:3. Their spirit as men; rightly, in English, "in spirit." Ἐν πνεύματι would have much rather referred to the Spirit of God, as chapter 22:43.

71 Chapter 12:31-32. The person as an object.

Chapter 22:43. The manner of his speaking. (Compare Mark 12:36.) There it is by the Holy Ghost, not the state of David, but the power by which he spake, that blessed person called the Holy Spirit.

Chapter 26:41. Their spirit as men.

Chapter 27:50. His spirit as a man.

Chapter 28:19. A person objectively.

Mark 1:8. The character of the baptism.

Verse 10. The Spirit objectively. So verse 12; chapter 3:29; and 12:36. (Compare Matt. 22:43. See above.)

These cases are important as to the article with πνεῦμα, and confirm the doctrine as to the force of the article, the presence of which is no proof of its application to the Holy Ghost, nor its absence that it is not the Holy Ghost. As to this or man's spirit, it follows the usual rule.

Luke 1:15 characterizes the condition of John; so, verse 41, of Elizabeth.

Verse 17 gives us another example of a preposition with a mere characterizing anarthrous noun, followed by a specific genitive, which gives its force to the anarthrous characteristic.

Verse 41. "Filled with the Holy Ghost" could hardly be used with an article, for the Holy Ghost would characterize this filling. He could hardly, as a person, be limited to a man's fulness. If used with an article, it would be rather the filling power, than that which filled. Of this there is but one example,* namely, Acts 4:31; and then it is τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, not πνεύματος ἁγίου, the force resting specially on ἁγίου, the Holy Spirit having filled them; and this gives it personal objectiveness. The expression, "filled with, or full of, the Holy Ghost," is found only in Luke's portion of the scriptures (Gospel and Acts). Ephesians 5:18 is  ἐν πνεύματι. In Acts 4:31, I believe, if we are to read, with some, τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, the difference will be easily found. It is not merely the state of the persons which is in question, but that the holy Child or Servant, Jesus, whom God had anointed, being owned when dishonoured by the opposition of kings and rulers, the Holy Ghost comes to fill and bear testimony with those who suffered according to their prayer in testimony to the name of God's holy Servant Jesus; and they do speak the word with boldness, so that we have the holy Child (Servant) Jesus, God's word, and the Holy Ghost filling and enabling the servants of Him who made heaven and earth to bear the testimony. Hence we have the person of the Holy Ghost objectively brought forward.**

{*Nor is this so in most editions.}

{**All this is based on the fact that I was using Tischendorf. Other editors give ἐπλήσθησαν ἅπαντες πνεύματος ἁγίου, and it comes under the common form. Alford gives τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος as Tischendorf. It is possible that copyists may have sought to conform the phrase to the otherwise uniform usage. The present power of the Holy Ghost, like the day of Pentecost, may be intended to be noticed by it, as in Acts 1:8; the new state of the individuals in Acts 2 in virtue of this.}

72 Note here the remarkable difference of the millennial consequences and address of Psalm 2, and of that founded on it here in connection with the presence of the Holy Ghost.

The following are the passages where the phrase is used:-

Luke 1:15, καὶ Πνεύματος ἁγίου πλησθήσεται.

Verse 41, καὶ ἐπλήσθη Πνεύματος ἁγίου.

Verse 67, καὶ ἐπλήσθη Πνεύματος ἁγίου.

Chapter 4:1, Ἰησοὺς δὲ Πνεύματος ἁγίου πλήρης.

Acts 2:4, καὶ ἐπλήσθησαν ἅπαντες Πνεύματος ἁγίου.

Chapter 4:8, Πέτρος πλησθεὶς Πνεύματος ἁγίου.

Verse 31, καὶ ἐπλήσθησαν ἅπαντες Πνεύματος ἁγίου.  Tischendorf reads τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος.

Chapter 6:3, ἑπτὰ πλήρεις Πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ σοφίας.

Verse 5, ἄνδρα πλήρη πίστεως καὶ Πνεύματος ἁγίου.

Chapter 7:55, πλήρης Πνεύματος ἁγίου.

Chapter 9:17, καὶ πλησθῃς Πνεύματος ἁγίου.

Chapter 11:24, καί πλήρης Πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ πίστεως.

Chapter 13:9, πλησθεὶς Πνεύματος ἁγίου.

Verse 52, ἐπληροῦντο … Πνεύματος ἁγίου.

Ephesians 5:18, ἀλλὰ πληροῦσθε ἐν Πνεύματι.

This last, "by the power of." Were it "their spirit" as men, it would be, I am satisfied, τῳ πνεύματι, the man's spirit, as an object, contrasted with the body.

So Matthew 26:41; 27:50; John 19:30; Matthew 5:3. So Mark 8:12 (with αὐτοῦ however). So Mark 14:38. (I have no doubt also Luke 10:21; some editions add τῳ ἁγίῳ.) John 11:33; 13:21. Acts 18:5, "pressed in spirit" (that is, his, if we take the text in the ordinary version). Acts 19:21, "in his mind"; chapter 20:22, "in his spirit within him." Hence Romans 8:15-16, the sense is plain; "Ye have not received a spirit of bondage, but of adoption, crying, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself (or Himself) beareth witness with our spirit." We have the nature, or character, of our spiritual condition; then the Holy Ghost; then our spirit, or inner man. Note, such statements may suppose (but do not touch the question of) the renewal of our natures, that it should be so. See 1 Thessalonians 5:23, where the use of  τὸ πνεῦμα for the spirit of a man, contrasted with mere soul and body, is evident. See 1 Corinthians 14:14, seqq.; we have the man's spirit distinct from his intelligence, the vessel of the action, or power of the Holy Ghost.

73 Note also, in connection with Θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ, Κυρίου, there is an absence of the article, which is worthy of note. We have δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, ὀργὴ Θεοῦ, πνεῦμα Θεοῦ, πνεῦμα Κυρίου, πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ: but in all these cases it is characteristic power, righteousness, etc., not an objective thing separately considered from God, but the nature of the person characterizing something else: a refinement of language which English hardly bears, though it does by using divine in some cases-"for wrath divine is revealed," "divine righteousness." In the case of spirit it does not. Θεοῦ attached to πνεῦμα evidently characterizes the man's state contrasted with flesh.

2 Corinthians 3:18, τὴν δόξαν Κυρίου I notice as again an instance of the remark above. See page 70.

Ἀπὸ Κυρίου Πνεύματος is, as regards our rule, the manner of the change. As to the passage, I should rather translate "the Lord the Spirit," perhaps more nearly conveyed in English by "the Lord in Spirit." Thus Moses looked at the Lord and was changed. We look at our Moses and see the glory of the Lord unveiled. We are changed into it thus as by the Lord. But it is only in spirit; that is, the Lord is to us known in the spiritual revelation of Him. It is really and solely (and indeed much more excellently) the revelation of the Spirit, whose presence and power is there, but as revealing (by which we know or see) the Lord. Compare verse 3.

Galatians 4:6. It is one crying,-a proper personal object.

Chapter 6:1 is the manner, and indeed means also disposition.

Ephesians 1:17, a case already spoken of, δῳη. It was not the whole person of the Holy Ghost, as an object, that was given. What was given was a spirit of wisdom. Doubtless the power of this was the Holy Ghost.

74 Chapter 4:23 requires no remark.

Philippians 1:19. Here the Spirit objectively as a person, or at any rate as a power, working in him. The remarkable point as to the article in this case is, one article with the request and reply for its common subject,-τῆς ὑμῶν δεήσεως καὶ ἐπιχορηγίας. These two made up the means of its turning to salvation; they could not be separated in the apostle's thought.

2 Thessalonians 2:8 calls for no remark. It is an allusion to Isaiah governed by ordinary rules.

Hebrews 10:29 does not either. The Spirit is specially set up as an object. The sin was worse by His being the Spirit of grace.

1 Peter 1:11. It was a personal Spirit working in them as an object, not of the Christ as a mystic head, but of that person as a name.

Chapter 4:14 calls for no remark but that it shews that it is not merely a state, but one who is pointed out who rested on them. Further, it distinguishes the Holy Ghost as the Spirit of glory and power on them, and the Spirit of God, or at any rate of glory: the Spirit of glory and the Spirit of God; not two spirits, but distinct objects in the mind. If we read δυνάμεως, δόξης and δυνάμεως are the united character connected with the object; Θεοῦ a distinct one. This reading, adopted by Scholz and Griesbach, I prefer.

1 John 4:2 calls for no remark. We see, what has been remarked before, that the Holy Ghost is spoken of in that in which He acted. The doctrine as to this is fully taught in 1  Corinthians 12-the one Spirit that is in these various gifts. I say this, because of πᾶν πνεῦμα where it is taken as it stands, as a πνεῦμα in the man. Further, πᾶν cannot have the article, because τό giving, as we have seen, the object in its entirety,  πᾶν τὸ πνεῦμα would be all the Spirit, and the distributive πᾶν every, cannot have the article.

No passage in the book of the Revelation calls for notice, as far as I am aware, unless chapter 11:11, where it follows the case which gave rise to this examination. This was what characterized what entered to set them on their feet-a Spirit of life. It was not to present the Spirit as an object, but what characterized this sudden event in its source. Here it would have been going too far to say,  τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ζωῆς, which would have amounted to a declaration that the Holy Ghost came and dwelt in them; but this was not the object, but merely that of God, this living power changed the whole state of things. It is not a spirit, as if there were many, nor the Spirit, as if it marked specifically the Holy Ghost. A spirit of life, or the Spirit of life, may either be used in English; the latter giving emphasis to life only, and so making it characteristic, and a leaving it indefinitely, with its force in life. (But in English more depends on emphasis of voice, or italics.) Neither represents the extreme and perfect accuracy of the Greek, specially from a in English being a special sign of distributive unity. It was a man, not a woman; or, it was a man, not two men. But we can hardly say, "spirit of life from God." So Luke 24:39. Here we have πνεῦμα, "spirit hath not," a thing of that nature: τὸ πνεῦμα would have been evidently quite another sense, either from habit of scripture thought the Holy Ghost, or else the abstract idea-spirit (hardly, from the ordinary use of πνεῦμα, a legitimate expression); but the abstract idea would be quite out of place to affirm anything about. Hence "a spirit," or "spirit," is the nearest in English.

75 In Luke 1:35 we have a remarkable case of the absence of the article; but I judge, though no other than the Holy Ghost is meant, yet it is looked at as power characteristic of the act. So δύναμις, as we have seen, δικαιοσύνη, ὀργή, and other cases. We have seen another case in the rapture of Philip (Acts 8:39; compare Acts 5:9), where the Spirit is personally presented.

So chapter 2:25: we have the principle of what characterizes in power the man;* whereas, in verse 26, it is a revealing person. So in verse 27  ἐν πνεύματι would have merely been his state when he came in:  ἐν τῳ πνεύματι, he came, led by the Spirit there, as I judge. So in chapter 4:1. Chapter 11:13 is the already noticed case of characterizing the gift.

{*Πνεῦμα ἅγιον is evidently here a well-known state, while it is distinctly the Holy Ghost. It was a state of the person known and so designated in Israel.}

So John 1:33 and Acts 11:16, the baptism. So John 3:5, the birth; chapter 4:24, the character of the worship; but this was by the Holy Ghost. In chapter 7:39 it depends evidently on οὔπω … ἦν, on principles already stated as to a negative. There was no Holy Ghost yet (not therefore an object, its presence being denied). Chapter 11:33; 13:21; 19:30, have been already noticed-His spirit as a living man. We have then an important passage in John 20:22. Here it was not the Holy Ghost, come down as a distinct person as on the day of Pentecost, or (in 1 Corinthians 12) distributing to every man severally as He will, but the communication of living power in connection with Jesus, which would act in them (in manner) as it acted in Him. It is not that it was any other than by the Holy Spirit; but as God breathed into Adam's nostrils the  πνεῦμα ζωῆς, and he became a living soul, so the Last Adam, who is the Lord from heaven, and a quickening Spirit, breathes into them, so that there should be communion of life, and they have life and spiritual energy through Him. Τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα would have been, if we may so speak, the whole Holy Ghost in person; but then He would have been in such sort communicated and received. Sent He was afterwards, and come He did; but then it was personally acting and willing.

76 Acts 1:2, 5 require no comment; it is the manner of the giving commandments, and of the baptism. On the other hand, in chapter 5:9 the Holy Ghost is presented as a person to whom the lie was really addressed, and who was tempted (that is, wickedly put to the test), as if He could be deceived. For what was Peter? The Lord, or one, Spirit of the Lord, was there. Πνεῦμα Κυρίου is taken as one title, Κυρίου being really the name of Jehovah. It was not man's spirit they had essayed to deceive, but Jehovah the Lord's. This often gives an adjectival force to the words, God, Lord, etc., seeing they give the whole bearing to the nature of the thing they are thus affixed to, in a way which nothing else could.

1 Corinthians 2:4. The whole passage is evidently characteristic of the preaching, and therefore no article is in it; and yet it is evidently the Spirit of God which is in question, in contrast with man. The same chapter, verses 10-12, presents a collection of cases, which, as very simple on the principles presented, require no remark, though confirmatory of them. We may notice τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ κόσμου as presenting the case of the genitive following, as usually presenting a precise object and shewing that τό does not involve a person, but the way in which the word is used. Verse 13 is most clearly the Holy Ghost in person, and yet there is no article, because the whole phrase is merely characteristic of these speaking.

77 Chapter 5:3, τῳ σώματι, τῳ πνεύματι, objectively presented as in contrast, but not going beyond himself, as is confirmed by the next verse. So chapter 7:34, where it has not the article, because it only characterizes the extent of the holiness. Verse 40 of the same chapter (7) is a remarkable case, but instructive. The apostle did not mean to say that he possessed the Holy Ghost objectively spoken of. So Acts 19:2. We have seen always that such an accusative characterizes the possession, or receiving; and the more especially, as in this case, the possession of the Holy Ghost was characteristic of the judgment Paul had given.

I notice chapter 12:3-4, 7-10, only to remark the former as manner; the latter as evidently the Spirit as a person objectively, the force being otherwise the same. Compare also verse 11, where the personality of the blessed Spirit is so plainly and peculiarly stated, with verse 13, where the same Spirit is without controversy meant, but there is no article as being characteristic of the baptism. The use of the article in this last case would have quite altered the sense; it would have been a distinct personal act of the Holy Ghost.

Another remarkable case is found in chapter 14:14, 16, if we receive the reading of many ancient manuscripts. The first is already noticed; he is speaking of his spirit under the power of the Holy Ghost, in contrast with his mind; but, this contrast existing no longer, he uses ἐν πνεύματι as characteristic of the blessing spoken of. This reading, however, is not adopted by Griesbach nor Scholz.

2 Corinthians 3:3 is a strong case of what characterizes ἐπιστολὴ ἐγγεγραμμένη.

So verse 6: the character of the ministry; and τὸ πνεῦμα is not the Holy Ghost as a person, but the πνευμα he is speaking of, as an objective abstraction contrasted with γράμμα.

Verse 17 is the same, but in the close of the verse he changes to the power which gives it that character.

Chapter 6:6. Rightly, I judge, translated "by the Holy Ghost." It has no article, as being the manner of approving himself as a minister of God. Compare the note to page 75.

Chapter 7:1 is evidently the manner of defilement-not contrast as objects, but two ways of doing it. Μολυσμοῦ is distributive, "every defilement," and so cannot have the article.

78 Galatians 3:2 demands notice, because after ἐλάβετε it has τὸ, which we have seen often wanting. But here it is not merely the characteristic of the gift, and a possession marking their state. It became important to mark out a well-known and all-distinctive object which was then amongst them, and therefore τὸ πνεῦμα alone could be properly used.

In verse 3 we have πνεύματι, characteristic of the manner of their beginning.

Verse 5 is governed by the evident reason already given.

Verse 14, it is a given promise of the Spirit-not receive "a promise," but "the promise" already made. So Ephesians 1:13.

Chapter 4:29 follows the common rule.

Chapter 5:17-18, afford illustrations which confirm the proofs already given.

Verse 25, "in the Spirit," hardly renders it. It is the character of our walk.

Ephesians 1:17. The condition of the man characterizes the gift.

Chapter 2:22, ἐν πνεύματι, the manner of God's dwelling there; but it is the Holy Ghost Himself as in chapter 3:5.

Chapter 4:3. Rightly, "the unity of the Spirit," not "of spirit."

Verse 4 is really an impersonal use of the verb substantive.

Philippians 2:1. Rightly, I believe, "of the Spirit."  Εἴ τις necessarily precludes the article pointing to an object.

Colossians 2:5, I should translate "in spirit"; the article contrasts it with σαρκί.

1 Thessalonians 1:5. Rightly "the Holy Ghost." It is the manner of the gospel's presence.

So, verse 6, of the joy.

Chapter 4:8. Here Πνεῦμα ἅγιον has the article, however connected with δόντα, both as linked with αὐτοῦ, and as necessarily presented in the argument as an object personally there, shewing the gravity of the fault referred to.

1 Timothy 3:16. "In the Spirit" is difficult to understand: ἐν πνεύματι, the manner or character of the justification. Ἐν has constantly the force of the virtue, efficacy, power of; and  ἐν πνεύματι would be the power of the Holy Ghost.

Hebrews 1:7. The translation is clearly right: τοὺς ἀγγέλους is in sense equivalent to a subject; and "being made spirits" is affirmed about them.

79 Chapter 2:4 is a clear case of the manner of witness.

Chapter 6:4, μετόχους Πνεύματος ἁγίου. Here too I judge it characterizes their condition, like the cases of "filled with the Spirit"; not the directing the mind to the person of the Holy Ghost as a complete object.* In passing, we may draw the attention of the reader to another noticeable case in this verse: γευσαμένους with the genitive has the article τῆς. The heavenly gift, being to be tasted of, is necessarily presented as a definite object in itself; and this was the object of the apostle, contrasting the heavenly gift with what the Jews had had as such. It is not merely of such a thing, but of this as contrasted with the earthly. Whereas, when in the subsequent words they are nouns, qualifying with the verb their actual condition, they have it not, as  γευσαμένους καλὸν Θεοῦ ῥῆμα.

{*See note to page 75.}

1 Peter 3:4. We have two adjectives with an article, as forming one character of spirit. The τοῦ is at any rate necessary from the ὅ ἐστιν which follows.

Verse 18. I doubt not the reading which omits τῳ is the right. Σαρκί and  πνεύματι are not two distinct parts of one being contrasted as σῶμα and πνεῦμα, but the manner respectively of putting to death and being quickened, that in respect of, or as to, which it so took place. Were the τῳ πνεύματι to be read, it would then speak of the person of the Holy Ghost, as the one by whom the resurrection took place. It is, at any rate, the Holy Ghost; but without the article it is the manner of the quickening, and does not draw attention to the personal power. Were it τῃ σαρκί, τῳ πνεύματι, I should look at it as the spirit of Christ as a man which was quickened, which is quite foreign to the testimony of God: σαρκί, τῳ πνεύματι would have looked at the Holy Ghost as an extrinsic agent. Σαρκί, πνεύματι are flesh and spirit, as we have said, as the character of the two acts; although the divine character of the latter is undoubted in its power. Compare chapter 4:6.

2 Peter 1:21. It is evidently the manner of their being borne along, though we know it to be the Holy Ghost.

1 John 4:6, I notice merely as giving an example of the transition (from undoubted example of the Holy Ghost and evil spirits personally) to the general idea of its effect or power in operation. Yet we have τὸ πνεῦμα induced by the definiteness afforded by the genitives added, forming definite distinctive contrast.

80 And yet when the Spirit is spoken of by itself, then the article points out the Holy Ghost, because it is to the mind the well-known object whose presence in power distinguished the saints. So chapter 5:6, where I apprehend the τῳ is added to ὕδατι and αἵματι, not as reference to these words previously used without it as the manner of the coming, but in an abstract sense, as definitely presenting the thing in its nature to the mind. Verse 6 also shews how completely the Spirit so spoken of-if a multitude of other passages had not shewn it to us-is in the mind of the church, then the Spirit known, dwelling, and acting among them down on earth. Thus, it can be said, "the Spirit is truth." No flesh, or fleshly communication, or wisdom, ever was such-only what the Spirit said or did. Truth and the Spirit were absolutely coincident terms. So John 7: "The Holy Spirit was not yet [given], because that Jesus was not yet glorified." And Acts 19, "We have not so much as heard whether the Holy Spirit is," that is, the one promised by John.

I have now noticed every case, having only not cited those evidently based on the principles explained and confirmed by other examples. I felt it worth while, on a point so important, and where the article so eminently affects the interpretation, to go through all the cases in the New Testament. The Revelation affords us no case which presents a difficulty, unless chapter 11:11, where it is not τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ζωῆς, as if it were some particular or well-known thing, but merely that which was such, had this character in its work in them (not exactly "a" spirit of life, which would imply there were several, nor "the," though that is better), "from God" giving it in English a general character: a certain power so to be characterized, acting in them from God.

I return to examine the cases occurring in the Epistle to the Romans.

Romans 8:23, υἱοθεσίαν characterizes their expectation, awaiting adoption; ἀπολύτρωσιν the definite object fulfilled then, ἡμῶν making this even necessary.

Verse 24, ἐλπὶς βλεπομένη is the kind of hope, or characterizes such a hope as is no hope. It is one of many kinds, and thus characterizes the abstract idea. This is often the effect of an adjective or participle.

Verse 33. Against such as are this-ἐκλεκτῶν.

Verse 35. Θλίψις, etc., any of this kind of thing, such things as these; ὡς, as in verse 36, makes this use constantly very plain.

81 Chapter 9:4. All these are well-known particular things, presented as objects.

Verse 5. I do not doubt Θεός applies to Christ. The only question is if there be not two designations: ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων and Θεὸς εὐλογητός.

Verse 8, ταῦτα τέκνα. Τέκνα is a regular predicate; τοῦ Θεοῦ is a personal Being, and an object contrasted with σαρκός.

Verse 9. I have already remarked that this should be, "for this word is of promise."

Verse 22. Endured vessels of wrath, that kind of persons.

Verse 24. "Not only of Jews" (such kind of persons); so "of Gentiles."

Verse 30. "Gentiles," not "the Gentiles."

Verse 31. "A law of righteousness"-such a thing, not "the." So they did not attain to any.

Verse 32. "The stumbling-stone," not "that."

Chapter 10:4. All this is descriptive of Christ; Χριστός all through is an historical name.

Chapter 11:11-12. A somewhat striking example: τοῖς ἔθνεσι is simple enough, but verse 12  πλοῦτος κόσμου and ἐθνῶν is a strong example of characterizing the fall and loss.

Verse 13, τοῖς ἐθνεσι, ἐθνῶν, the first, the actual people; the second characterizes the apostleship, that of Gentiles.

Verse 19. κλάδοι, "branches," not οἱ, which would have been all or some mentioned before; κατὰ φύσιν, itself characteristic, marks these particular ones out, as objects, with τῶν (ver. 21).

Verse 22, χρηστότητα καὶ ἀποτομίαν, not abstractedly these qualities, but cases of it; divine goodness and severity; τῆ χρηστότητι, the goodness spoken of.

Verse 24, τῆς κατὰ φύσιν… ἀγριελαίου; here again κατὰ φύσιν leads to the pointing out that olive tree, which, according to nature, was grafted into καλλιέλαιον, a good olive; παρὰ φύσιν being here connected with ἐνεκεντρίσθης.

Verse 33, Ὦ βάθος I judge to be spoken of this example not abstractedly, though the   Ὦ may affect it. Τὰ κρίματα… αἱ ὁδοί "all his judgments and ways."

Chapter 12:8, τῃ παρακλήσει, that spoken of in παρακαλῶν: ἐν ἁπλότητι the manner of giving. Verse 7 explains this clearly in  διακονία and ὁ διδάσκων.

82 Verse 17, κακόν, any evil act, such a thing.

Verse 21, ὑπὸ τοῦ κακοῦ the abstract thing; evil as contrasted with τῶ ἀγαθῳ.

Chapter 13:1, ἐξουσίαις, things of this character, higher powers, not the higher.

Verse 3, οἱ ἄρχοντες, these rulers, whose existence he now supposes, so that he can point them out, or all rulers.

Verse 4, εἰς ὀργήν "for wrath"; this character of dealing; but (ver. 5) διὰ τὴν ὀργήν, the wrath just spoken of, or abstractedly.

Verse 5, διὰ τὴν συνείδησιν, an express object here, because in contrast with τὴν ὀργὴν.

Verse 8, νόμον πεπλήρωκε "has accomplished law," that is, whatever law can demand.

Verse 10, πλήρωμα νόμου is a regular predicate; τὸ πλήρωμα would have made it reciprocal.

Verse 12, τὰ ἔργα τοῦ σκότους, all the works which belong to the darkness which the night implies. Rather it is abstract, as opposed to φωτός here, and not to be taken alone.

Chapter 14:9, "Both of dead and living"; these two kinds of persons. I note in passing, that I little doubt chapter 16:25-27 comes in at the end of this chapter, as some affirm.

Chapter 15:2, εἰς τὸ ἀγαθόν is emphatic as abstract good contrasted with mere self-pleasing, and specially set before the mind as an object; for good, ἀγαθόν, being abstract, οἰκοδομήν merely characterizes the conduct by the actual thing sought: that which was good was in his mind; he should act for edification. Compare Ephesians 4:12.

Verse 7, εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ, the manner of reception.

Verse 8, περιτομῆς, not of the Jewish people as a body, but on this principle.

Verse 12, ἔθνῶν, ἔθνη, are remarkable; but it is over this class of persons, not Jews. It is a quotation from the LXX.

Verse 18 gives a notable example of anarthrous words, describing the manner of Paul's work.

Chapter 16:1, τὴν ἀδελφὴν ἡμῶν points out the person and is objective: as in every analogous case, ἡμῶν requires it. They would not know which Phoebe else; it points her out as contrasted with other Phoebes: the οὖσαν itself gives a mere quality to διάκονον. But τὴν διάκονον, if indeed admissible, or τὸν διάκονον, would distinguish her by this quality from others at Cenchrea, and make her the only διάκονον there. Οὖσαν διάκονον is a quality and character she had (there might be others), and hence has no article.

83 So verse 3, τοὺς συνεργούς μου.

In verse 7 we have τοὺς συγγενεῖς μου καὶ συναιχμαλώτους μου, two common qualifications of these persons which marked them out. Hence the first has the article, as in every other case, the second not, according to the rule amply discussed, as making up with the other the complete amount included in τοὺς.

Verse 17, τὰς διχοστασίας καὶ τὰ σκάνδαλα, all the divisions and offences that might be. The article gives completeness and extent to the idea. Without the article it would have merely characterized. The men cause divisions; any, be they what they may.

Verse 26, διά τε γραφῶν προφητικῶν, "by prophetic writings." That character of writings was the means of making it known, not "the scriptures of the prophets."

Here I close. Enough has now been given to shew the use and application of the article, which is in itself perfectly simple. To my mind it is fully confirmed and proved. I trust it may be the means of throwing light upon, and giving the full force and character to, many passages of the blessed word. The importance of the subject of the Spirit, and speciality of that case, will render the full examination of every instance, I hope, useful.


There is a class of expressions to which it may be well to allude-short, pithy, or proverbial sayings, which, in many languages, make exception to ordinary grammar, and only claim a metaphysical explanation. It would be said in French, "Chat échaudé craint l'eau froide"; "force lui fut"; in German, "Unwissenheit und Unschuldigkeit sind Schwestern." It is not merely, I judge, the rapidity of expression which give occasion to it, or not always, but a peculiar state of mind which takes up the thought characteristically, but neither abstractedly nor objectively; and it becomes, though an appellative noun, a kind of proper name. It is a way of putting it stronger than a mere descriptive statement. The object is so present to the mind that it does not require an article of any kind. Hence in prophetic oracles we have it, φωνὴ βοῶντος. As in English, if the Queen were coming, the cry would be, "Queen! Queen!" it characterizes what produces the impression, gives a reason for the effect produced or intended to be produced: so in 1 Thessalonians 2:5, Θεὸς μάρτυς, which stated historically, Philippians 1:8, is μάρτυς γάρ μού ἐστιν ὁ Θεός. This is not perceived so much in English, all abstract nouns being without the article in whatever way they are used, and names never having it. The definite article is allusive or distinctive. But proverbs are in their nature characteristic.