AND SENTENCES. It is absolutely necessary that the interpreter
in signification? What is the meaning of eis after verbs of rest, and that of en after verbs of motion? How does dia tes chariots (Rom. 12:3), differ from dia ten charin (Rom. 15:15)? What is the meaning of dia in John 6:57, "even he shall live di' eme"? In Rom. 3:30 the apostle says that God "shall justify the circumcision by (ek) faith, and the uncircumcision through (dia) faith." What is the difference in meaning? How do the prepositions anti, huper and peri differ, when they are used in relation to the work of Christ in connection with sin or in the interest of sinners? Comp. Matt. 20:28; 1 Cor. 15:3; Rom. 5:6; Gal. 1:4. Again, how should huper and peri be distinguished, when they are used in connection with prayer for others? Cf. Matt. 5:44; 1 Thess. 5:25.
4. THE LOGICAL CONNECTION OF THE DIFFERENT CLAUSES AND SENTENCES. It is absolutely necessary that the interpreter have a clear conception of the logical relation in which the various clauses and sentences stand to each other. To that end he will have to study the use of the participles and the conjunctions.
a. The relation indicated by the participle. This may be:
(1) Modal: Matt. 19:22, "… he went away, being sorrowful"; Acts 2:13, "… others, mocking said."
(2) Causal: Acts 4:21, "… they let them go, finding nothing" (i.e., because they found nothing).
(3) Conditional: Rom. 2:27, "And shall not uncircumcision, … fulfilling the law (i.e., if it fulfill the law), judge thee?"
(4) Concessive: Rom. 1:32, "Who, knowing the judgment of God (i.e., though they know), not only do the same."
(5) Temporal: expressing either antecedent, simultaneous, or consequent action. Important exegetical questions may rise in this connection. In John 3:13 the Lord says to Nicodemus: "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven,
even the Son of Man which is (present participle) in heaven. Is it correct to render the participle by "is," or should it be "was"? Again, in 2 Cor. 8:9, the apostle says: "For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, being rich (present participle), yet for your sake He became poor." Is this rendering correct, or should it be, "Though He was rich …" The answer to such questions will depend on the context. The participle itself is timeless. The only question arising is that of its time relative to that of the finite verb. The following rules, derived from Burton's New Testament Moods and Tenses, p. 174, are valuable:
(a) "If the action of the participle is antecedent to that of the verb, the participle most commonly precedes the verb, but not invariably. Such a participle is usually in the Aorist tense, but occasionally in the present."
(b) "If the action of the participle is simultaneous with that of the verb, it may either precede or follow the verb, more frequently the latter. It is of course in the present tense." (This statement of Burton's needs correction. There are many cases in the New Testament in which the aorist participle and the main verb denote coincident or identical action. Cf. Matt. 22:1; Acts 10:33. Cf. Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 133; Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 1112 f.)
(c) "If the action of the participle is subsequent to that of the principal verb, it almost invariably follows the verb, the tense of the participle being determined by the conception of the action as respects its progress." (There is no proof for an aorist of subsequent action. Cf. Moulton, Proleg., p. 132; Robertson, Grammar, p. 1113.)
b. The relation indicated by the conjunctions. The most important means of connecting clauses and sentences are the conjunctions. They furnish the clearest and most decisive index to the logical relation in which the thoughts stand to each other. Their value, as an aid to interpretation, increases with their specificness. The more
numerous their meanings, the more difficult it becomes to determine the precise relation which they indicate. The Hebrew vav, which serves as a conjunctio generalis, offers very little aid. Another difficulty arises from the fact that, in certain instances, one conjunction is apparently used for another.
The conjunction hoti serves to introduce either a causal or an objective clause, so that the question arises as to whether it should be rendered "because" or "that." As a rule, the context will readily answer that question. It makes very little difference how it is conceived of in John 7:23, but in Rom. 8:21 the case is different. The apostle says: "For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, that (or, because) the creature itself shall also be delivered." It all depends on the conception of hoti, whether the last words describe the contents of the hope, or give a reason for it. Some grammarians claim that hina is always final in the New Testament, and therefore introduces a clause of purpose. But though this is undoubtedly its usual meaning, it cannot be maintained throughout. These are cases in which it is practically equivalent to hoti. Cf. Matt. 10:25; Luke 1:43; John 4:34. Moreover, it is also used in an ecbatic sense, to express a contemplated result. This is the case in Gal. 5:17, "… so that ye cannot do the things that ye would"; and in 1 Thess. 5:4, "But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that (hina) that day should overtake you as a thief."
Though it is true that the Biblical authors occasionally depart from the ordinary use of a conjunction—and the interpreter should be ready to admit this—he should never be hasty in ascribing a meaning to a conjunction that is not warranted linguistically. It is an arbitrary procedure to render ki in Isa. 5:10 "yea," seeing that the conjunction is not known to have an explicative meaning, and the usual sense is perfectly appropriate. In the interpretation of Luke 7:47, "Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins are forgiven, which are many; for (hoti) she loved much," some expositors were prompted by their dogmatical