House Church Talk - A Person!

SameSpecies samespecies at
Sun Apr 11 09:25:36 EDT 2004

Hi brothers,

Hope, is a Person in Rom 8:25, the Source of the redemption of our body in
Rom 8:23.  1 Tim 1:1 "From Paul... of Christ Jesus our Hope,".  David, I
appreciate and thank-you, for providing this below concerning Rom 8:25.  I
certainly agree that these are rules of translation you have stated below,
and that they have a correctness.  David wrote:  "But the pronoun used here
takes different forms in that actual Greek text.  In this case, it is "ho."
The three forms are "hos," "he," and "ho" which would be in the masculine,
feminine, and neuter respectively." and "This is an example of where a
little bit of knowledge of Greek tools can get you into trouble.  Because
the Greek relative pronoun is written as neuter instead of male or female
gender, it should be translated as "that" instead of "who" or "whom."
David, Yes, these are the rules applied in translation of Greek to English.
Yes, I also agree we must look at surrounding context, Yes, also a little
bit of knowledge of Greek tools or a little bit of knowledge of allot of
other things, can get us into trouble.  Now, I would like to say something
that may even sound more crazier to some then what I stated in my email
titled "Hope our effort or concept? or a Person?".  Knowledge is not the
same as experiencing.  Our perception, the appearance of something is not
necessarily the reality, or the manifestation of the reality.  I know we all
have experienced this, I know I can't explain it to anyone, I know I can't
make anyone see it.  Now, please don't anyone think I am saying that you
haven't seen this Person, or that I see more of this Person then anyone
else, or that I think, I am, or feel that I am anything, or some how clearer
then another, or better, or more righteous, or something like that.   That's
not were I am coming from at all.  What I want us to see is that It is A
Person, that the reality, the manifestation of reality is only this Person.
This Person is all, in all, and through all.  This Person is all, is all to
us.  When we see the Person, then the Person becomes everything.  But, I
feel the Lord would have me try again to make the statement that it is A
Person.  Again, it will probably be a poor attempt on my part, so please
forgive me.  First, let me give a couple of Biblical examples to explain
what I am trying to say, and then I will go back to the rules of
translation, the laws, the knowledge of the Greek, all of which are good
things, and attempt to show again that it is A Person in Rom 8:25, using
these rules of translation we hold.  It's a little like these Biblical
examples;  Some ask what is truth?, Jesus said "I am the Truth", Joh 14:6.
Some ask what is the resurrection?, Jesus said "I am the Resurrection", Joh
11:25.  Some ask what is the way, what is the path, what is the anointing
(the Christ), what is the door, what is life, what is to be eaten, etc.,
etc.?  Jesus said "I AM", "I AM", Joh 6:48, 51, 8:12, 24, 28, 9:5, 10:7,
9,11,11:25, 14:6, 15:1, 5.  It's a little like this, that Jesus said in Joh
5:39 "You study the scriptures thoroughly because you think in them you
possess eternal life, and it is these same scriptures that testify about me,
40 but you are not willing to come to me so that you may have life."  "I am
the Life", Joh 11:25.  It's a little like this; we are told that we have
eternal life, we acknowledge, or understand we will live for ever, that is
why we also call it everlasting life.  So we have this at a knowledge level,
but in the reality, the experience of the reality we have revelation, and
see that Christ is The Eternal Life, 1 Joh 5:11, 12, Joh 11:25,  Jude 21,
Rev 22:13, He is the Eternal One, He is Life.  Now, it's a little like this;
we think about the resurrection from the dead, we understand there will be a
resurrection from the dead, we look forward to the resurrection from the
dead.  Let me just ask you this;  is Christ the Resurrection?  Were you dead
in you trespasses and sin?  Should we let "the dead, bury the dead" and
follow Christ?  Does he call to us "Awake!, oh sleeper from the dead, and
Christ will shine on you"?  All I can say again, that you must see is Christ
is the Resurrection.  You must see that Christ is calling us now, to Awake,
that He is the Light, the Shining.  Well, I am sure you must think I am mad,
because I am trying to tell you that the appearance and our understanding of
things, are not the reality.  I know I can't even tell you, you have to see
it, experience it, I can only try to point you in the right direction, only
One can free us, and did free us, Joh 8:26, Joh 8:32, 2 Cor 3:17.  After
looking up these verses, just remember that the Son, the Truth, the Spirit,
that gives this freedom, that will free us, that has freed us, is A Person.
Well, that's enough, if you're interested, lets try and see it from a
knowledge point of view, by looking at the rules of translation.  But, least
anyone read into what I am saying let me first say;  I am not worthy, I am
not the Christ, Not I, but Christ, Joh 1:20,1:27, Gal 2:20, and I am not one
of the experts in the rules of translating Greek into English.  I can just
tell you what I see, A Person.  David wrote: "If you just look at the
context of the verse, we can see that the object of our hope is our bodily
resurrection, not Christ himself.  Of course, Christ is the source of that
hope, but the specific hope Paul is talking about in this passage is our
hope of being bodily resurrected.  The object of our hope in this passage is
not a person, but an event, the resurrection, which results in the
redemption of our bodies."  David, this I don't agree with, I know you're
not saying that Christ is not our Hope or not the source of our Hope.  It
appears to me you feel that in Rom 8:25, as most scholars do, that's why
most translate it that way, you think the hope talked about is not Christ
himself, but instead the hope of being bodily resurrected.  First, I don't
disagree that there is the adoption, the sonship, the redemption of the
body.  What I see is this redemption spoken of in verse 23, and then Paul
transitioning at the very start of verse 24, to show us the source of the
redemption, which is A Person, the Hope spoken of in verse 24 and 25.  I
feel the majority of scholars have translated this verse in error.  I am
saying that "we don't even have to know Greek or have a Strong's Concordance
to see it", to know in our hearts that what some experts in the rules tell
us, ones who have all the knowledge of it, know the laws of it, appear right
by the rules of it, they may have all this, and still not see the reality of
it, still not see the Person of it, and not see that what they think, is in
error.  I telling you that if you seek, truly One is your true teacher, and
will remind you of all things.  That this One is a Living Word, Matt 23:10,
Joh 14:26, Luk 24:8.  I understand that David said, "ho" is defined as
neuter, we say it is the neuter form of the actual Greek text.  Because the
Greek relative pronoun is written as neuter instead of male or female
gender, it should be translated as "that" instead of "who" or "whom."
David, please explain were I am going wrong with these examples, I am sure
it is because I am lacking in the knowledge of these things, and truly would
appreciate your help.  I enjoy the learning.  First, let's look at Rom
8:24-25 (KJV) "For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope:
for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? 25 But if we hope for that
we see not, then do we with patience wait for it."  The first word is "For"
it is Strong's #1063. γάρ gár; a causative particle standing always after
one or more words in a clause and expressing the reason for what has been
before, affirmed or implied. For, in the sense of because, and so forth
[Zodhiates, The complete word study dictionary].  So now, we see that this
word "for" expresses the reason for what is before it, that is what came
before it in verse 23, which is speaking of the redemption of our body.
But, now the thought is changed to the reason for the condition, and the
subject (the redemption of our body) stated in verse 23.  Look at what verse
24 says; "For we are saved by hope..."  Is this verse starting out to say
that this hope that saves us, is the hope we have of the redemption of our
body?  I don't think so, I think it is saying "For" (the cause) the source
of the redemption of the body is Hope, we are saved by Hope.  The hope that
saves us not being the redemption of our body, but hope as in our Hope,
Christ.  We all know from many other scriptures that Christ is our Hope.
That we are only saved in Christ, our Hope.  Yes, this will result in the
redemption of our body.  But, for you to say "If you just look at the
context of the verse, we can see that the object of our hope is our bodily
resurrection, not Christ himself", well I can't see that in this verse, even
though redemption is the prior subject.  My gut tells me that the Holy
Spirit is saying to me, that Christ is the Hope in this verse, that Paul is
now going on to tell us that this Hope, this Christ is the Hope, which will
bring about the redemption of our body.  Also, look at verse 23 again, "And
not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit,
even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit,
the redemption of our body."  Paul's stating our condition, our situation,
the results to come (subject).  The word "hope" is not in this verse, a
replacement wording for the Person is, "the firstfruits of the Spirit",
Christ is the firstfruits of the Spirit, 1 Cor 15:20.  Now, in verse 25
below, the KJ's translates the Greek into English as "But if we hope for
that we see not then do we with patience wait for it."  The first thing we
can see in this verse by the Italic type, is the words "then" and "it" are
not in the Greek.  By removing these added words, in the English
translation, we see better that "it" is not an "it", but a "who" or "whom",
a Person.  If we go to the Greek manuscript and translate the Greek to
English in a literal manner this is what the verse says; "If but, whom not
we see, hope, thought patience we await."  Of course, I have added my
punctuation, and the word "we" to help clarify the meaning, as the KJ
translators above did, they added "we" to the Greek words for clarity, it is
implied, and their understanding of were the punctuation should go.  But,
hopefully we see that Paul is not using the word "hope" as a concept, but an
actual, person, the Lord, our Hope whom through patience (the fruit produced
by the Spirit) we await, patience also being again the fruit of the Spirit.
So that is why when I talk of our hope, I would capitalize the word "Hope",
to point out the deity of our Hope.  While in this verse 24 and 25, I would
like to remind us that this One is not visible.  God is invisible, no one
can see God at present, God is Spirit, we see the fruit of the Spirit, but
the Spirit is like the wind, we see the results of the wind, we experience
it, and yes, we have knowledge of it.  More importantly in our experience we
dwell in It and It in us.  Now, lets look at Rom 8:20, the first place we
find the word "hope" in Chapter 8, "For the creation was subjected to
futility—not willingly but because of God who subjected it—in hope."  Do we
see the person there in the word "hope".  We no all things were subjected to
Christ.  Now, lets return to the word "ho", the neuter form of the text.  Is
there exceptions to the rules?  If we turn to Rom 1:2, using the NA 27th
addition, exact publication noted below, and look at the English literal
translation of the Greek text, which is the Greek neuter form of the text,
printed exactly as it is in Rom 8:25, "ho", which can be verified by looking
a this Greek manuscript along with the Greek Lemma, We see in it, that these
scholars have given the literal translation in English as "who".  It appears
these scholar felt it was acceptable to translate the neuter form of the
Greek text "who".  So, lets look at the opinion of some other scholars.  If
we turn to Rom 1:2 using the NET Bible translation, this verse is translated
this way by these scholars, who's credentials can be viewed at  Rom 1:2 "that he promised beforehand through his prophets
in the holy scriptures,".  Here we see that they took the neuter form "ho"
and translated it "that he", to convey what they feel is the correct meaning
in this verse.  "ho" appears to me to be translated "that" and the "he" is
added to convey the meaning.  So I ask what is the conveyed meaning of this
translation by these scholars.  What does "that he" convey to us?  To me it
conveys a "he", a person too.  It still seems that these scholars have take
some liberty, to convey the meaning of "ho" in the verse.  The KJ's goes
with "which he", which is another "who", a person to me.  But, if we compare
what was done with this rule of translation, I quote "Because the Greek
relative pronoun is written as neuter instead of male or female gender, it
should be translated as "that" instead of "who" or "whom.", and this rule
"The three forms are "hos," "he," and "ho" which would be in the masculine,
feminine, and neuter respectively."  In one case the NA 27th addition
scholars in their literal translation translate the neuter "ho", which
should not be translated "who" or is neuter (not "he" or "she"), well they
translate it "who".  So it appears to me they violated the rule, and it
appears to me they violated it twice, because to me a "who" is a he or she
too.  Now, it appears the NET Bible translators did the same thing by
conveying the neuter form "ho" as "that he", because to me that conveys the
meaning of a "he".  Also, the KJ translators too, because a "which he" is a
who, a person to me.  Let's turn to Eph 1:13-4 " were marked with the
seal of the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the down payment of our
inheritance..."  Now, here the NET Bible translators have again taken the
Greek text neuter form and translated it "who".  A violation?  The KJ's goes
with "which", "...were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, 14 Which is
the earnest of our inheritance...".  The word "which" seems to be more
correct in line with the rules.  But, let's ask ourselves which choice
sounds more correct.  I think it depends on whether we see the Person or
not.  Is "sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise" a "which" or a "who", a
person?  I think the scholars in the NET Bible made a better choice in this
particular verse.  Now, this is just a couple of examples of the neuter "ho"
being seen as a "who", I am sure if we had the time, their are many more.
Please, I urge us, don't let the appearance of things, the outward law, the
written codes, the knowledge, the rules, etc., replace The Reality, the I
AM, The Person.  He says I AM, the Living God, the Living Word.  He says
hear My Voice while it is still called today!, Heb 3:7, 13, 15, 4:7. Lord,
please let us not have anything before You, please let us not replace You
with anything else.  Not even with the good things, the correct things, the
right things.  We don't even want the good, the right, from the tree of
knowledge of good and evil, instead Lord, we want the Tree of Life.  We want
You, The Person.

Grace to us all,



Alpha Morphological Database and the McReynolds English Interlinear edited
by Kurt Aland, Mat thew Black, Carlo M. Martini
Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren Aland, B., Aland, K., Black, M.,
Martini, C. M., Metzger, B. M., & Wikgren, A. (1993, c1979).

1063. γάρ gár; a causative particle standing always after one or more words
in a clause and expressing the reason for what has been before, affirmed or
implied. For, in the sense of because, and so forth.
(I) When it stands by itself:
(A) After an antecedent sentence expressed (Matt. 1:20), the antecedent
sentence expressed being “fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for
[gár] that which is conceived in her.” Matt. 1:21, “Thou shalt call his name
Jesus: for [gár] he shall save,” also Mark 1:22; 6:18; Luke 1:15. After a
clause of prohibition or caution (Matt. 3:9; 24:5; Luke 7:6). Gár is also
put after two words in a clause (Matt. 2:6; Mark 1:38; Luke 6:23; John 12:8;
Acts 4:20). Gár is often found in two consecutive clauses where the same
idea is expressed twice, that is, affirmatively and negatively or generally
and specifically (John 8:42; 1 Cor. 16:7; 2 Cor. 11:19), or where the latter
clause is dependent on the former (Matt. 10:20; Mark 6:52; John 5:21, 22;
Acts 2:15), or where two different causes are assigned (Matt. 6:32; 18:10,
11; Rom. 16:18, 19). In similar circumstances gár is also found in three
consecutive clauses (Matt. 16:25–27; Mark 9:39–41; Luke 9:24–26; Acts
26:26). In Matt. 26:10, 12 the phrases, “for she hath wrought a good work”
(v. 10) and “for in that she hath poured” (v. 12) refer to the act of the
woman, but in Matt. 26:11 in the phrase “for ye have the poor always” refers
to the objection of the disciples. The gár is also sometimes repeated where
the writer again takes on the sentence which began with gár and was
interrupted (Rom. 15:26, 27; 2 Cor. 5:2, 4).
(B) Elliptically, where the clause to which it refers is omitted and is to
be supplied in thought. In this case it assigns the motive for an opinion or
judgment as in Matt. 2:2, “Where is he that is born King of the Jews? [He
must be born] for we have seen his star”; in Matt. 27:23, “for what evil
hath he done?” (a.t.); Mark 8:37, 38, “what can the man give in exchange for
his soul? [a vain hope!]”; Mark 12:23; Luke 22:37; John 4:43, 44, “he
departed . . . into Galilee [not indeed into Nazareth His own country] for
Jesus himself testified” (cf. Luke 4:16ff.; Acts 13:36; 21:13; 22:26); Rom.
2:25; 8:14, 18 “If we suffer with him that we may also be glorified
together. For [gár] I reckon” (a.t. [see also Rom. 14:10; 1 Cor. 1:18]). In
a quotation where the preceding clause is omitted (Acts 17:28), kaí (2532),
and, gár, kaí gár (Matt. 8:9; Luke 7:8, This I know by comparing my own case
“for [gár] I, too, am” [a.t.]). Matt. 15:27, “yes [or true], Lord; yet still
help me for even [kaí gár] the dogs” [a.t.]). Also ou (3756) gár, for not
(Matt. 9:13; Acts 4:20).
(C) Elliptically and in common usage gár is also simply intens. and merely
serves to strengthen a clause, like the Eng. “then” and “truly.” (1) In
questions where a preceding “No!” may perhaps be supplied (Matt. 27:23; John
7:41, “Shall [then] Christ come out of Galilee?”; Acts 8:31, “How can I
[then]?”; Acts 19:35, “what man [then] is there?”; Rom. 3:3; Phil. 1:18, tí
[5101] gár, “What then?” See also 1 Cor. 11:22). (2) In a strong affirmation
or negation (John 9:30, “truly herein [or, herein then] is a strange thing”
[a.t.]; 1 Pet. 4:15, “let [then] none of you suffer”; Acts 16:37, “No then!
No indeed!”). (3) In exclamations, as of wishing, with the opt. (2 Tim. 2:7,
“may the Lord then give thee” [a.t.]). Used more commonly with ei (1487),
if, followed by gár, ei gár meaning Oh that! (Sept.: Job 6:2, 8).
(D) Put by way of explanation or demonstration: (1) Where it merely takes up
a preceding annunciation and continues or explains it like the Eng.
 “namely,” “to wit,” “that is,” though it is often not to be rendered in
Eng. So also after hoútōs (3779), thus (Matt. 1:18, “the birth of Jesus
Christ was [thus, that is] His mother being espoused” [a.t.]). (2) In a less
strict sense, where it introduces by way of explanation the ground or motive
of what precedes, for, that is, since, and so forth (Matt. 6:7, 16; 10:35;
15:4; 24:7; 1 Cor. 11:26). In this sense it serves to introduce parenthetic
clauses (Mark 5:42; 6:14; 14:40; 16:4; John 4:8; Acts 13:8; 2 Cor. 5:7; Eph.

3739. ὅς hós; fem. hé̄, neut. hó; relative pron. Who, which, what, that.
(I) As a demonstrative pron. it means this, that, only in distinctions and
distributions with mén (3303), a particle of affirmation, dé (1161), an
adversative particle in the expressions hós mén / hós dé, meaning that one /
this one, the one / the other, equal to hó mén / hó dé (Matt. 13:4, 8;
21:35, “one . . . another”; 25:15; Luke 23:33; Rom. 9:21; 2 Cor. 2:16, “to
the one . . . to the other”).
(II) As a relative pron., meaning who, which, what, that, strictly implying
two clauses, in the first of which there should stand with the verb a noun
(the antecedent), and in the second clause the corresponding relative pron.,
each in the case which the verb of its own clause demands, the relative
pron. also agreeing with the antecedent in gender and number. But the form
and power of the relative pron. is varied much, both in construction and
meaning and by the connection with its other particles.
(A) In construction: (1) As to gender, the relative pron. agrees regularly
with its antecedent (Matt. 2:9; Luke 5:3; John 6:51). Thus hós relates to a
more remote antecedent in 1 Cor. 1:8, referring to tó̄ Theó̄ (ho Theós, God
of 1:4 [cf. ho Theós of 1:9]). From this rule there are two departures: (a)
Where the relative pron. with the verb “to be” conforms in gender to the
following noun (Gal. 3:16, spérmatí sou, hós esti Christós, “And to thy
seed, which is Christ”; Eph. 1:14; 6:17, máchairan, hó esti rhé̄ma Theoú,
“and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God”). (b) Where it takes
the gender implied in the antecedent, and not that of its own external form
(Rom. 9:23, skeúē eléous, há proētoímasen . . . hoús kaí ekálesen, “vessels
of mercy, which he had afore prepared”; Gal. 4:19; Phil. 2:15; 2 Pet. 3:16,
en pásais taís epistolaís [fem.] . . . en hoís, referring to the implied
grámmasi [1121], letters [masc.]; 2 John 1:1). So the neut. hó often refers
to a masc. or fem. antecedent taken in the general sense of “thing” (Matt.
1:23, Emmanoué̄l, hó esti methermēneuómenon [Emmanoué̄l, masc.; hó, neut.];
27:33; Mark 3:17; 12:42, leptá dúo, hó esti kodrántēs [leptá, pl.; hó,
sing.]; 15:16, 42; Heb. 7:2). Also where the neut. hó refers to a whole
preceding clause (Mark 15:34; 1 John 2:8) (2) As to number, the relative
pron. agrees regularly with its antecedent as in the examples above. The
departures from this rule are rare, e.g., (a) A relative sing. pron. after a
pl. antecedent (Phil. 3:20, “in heavens [literal] . . . from which [sing.]”
[a.t.], where hoú may be taken as an adv.). See below B, 7. (b) Relative pl.
masc. hós after a sing. fem. antecedent (Phil. 2:15, en mésō geneás skoliás
. . . en hoís phaínesthe) where the antecedent includes the idea of
plurality (cf. Acts 15:36, katá pásan pólin, en haís [pólin, fem. sing;
haís, fem. pl.]; 2 Pet. 3:1, deutéran epistolé̄n, en haís [epistolé̄n, fem.
sing.; haís, fem. pl.]). (3) As to case, the general rule is that the
relative pron. stands in that case required by the verb of its own clause
(John 1:9, tó phó̄s . . . hó phōtízei pánta ánthrōpon [phó̄s, sing. neut.;
hó, sing. neut.]). Since “light” is neut., the relative pron. (hó) is neut.,
both being the nom. case. In John 1:30, however, since ané̄r (435), man, is
masc., the relative pron. (hós) is also masc., and both are in the nom.
case. See Matt. 10:26; Acts 8:27. As obj. acc. (Matt. 2:9, ho asté̄r, hón
eidón, “the star [nom.] which [acc.]”; Acts 6:3, 6). In the dat. (Acts 8:10,
ané̄r . . . hó̄ proseíchon pántes [ané̄r, man, nom. sing.; hó proseíchon, to
whom, dat. sing.]; Col. 1:27; 1 Pet. 1:12; 5:9). The departures from this
rule are frequent: (a) By attraction, i.e., where the relative pron. in
respect to its own verb would stand in the acc. but the antecedent stands in
the gen. or dat. In this case the relative pron. is attracted by the
antecedent into the same case with itself (Matt. 18:19). In John 4:14,
húdatos (5204), “of the water” (gen.), and then the relative pron. is drawn
into the gen. (hoú) although the proper construction should have been hó
(nom. neut.), because it constitutes the subj. of dó̄sō, “I shall give.” See
John 7:31, 39; Acts 1:1; 24:21; Eph. 4:1; Jude 1:15; Rev. 1:20. In Heb. 8:2,
skēné̄s is in the gen. while hé̄n is in the acc. All of the above except
Heb. 8:2 have nouns in the gen. and they also have the relative pron. in the
gen. The following have a dat. noun and in each instance the relative pron.
is in the dat. case, e.g., Mark 7:13; Luke 2:20, epi pásin hoís é̄kousan
(pásin, dat. pl.; hoís, dat. pl.), “for all the things that they had heard”;
5:9; John 4:50, tó̄ lógō hó̄ eípen Iēsoús (lógō, dat. neut.; hó̄, dat.
neut.), “the word that Jesus had spoken”; Acts 20:38; 2 Cor. 12:21; 2 Thess.
1:4; Sept.: Jer. 15:14. Here the antecedent is often omitted, especially the
demonstrative pron. hoútos (3778), this one, ekeínos (1565), that one
(compare below 4); and then the relative pron. stands alone in a case not
properly belonging to it. The relative pron. itself, then, is like the Eng.
“what,” standing for “that which,” and so forth, as in Luke 9:36 in which
oudén hó̄n heōrákasin stands for oudén toútōn hó̄n (há) heōrákasin (see Luke
23:41; Acts 22:15; 26:16; Rom. 15:18; 2 Cor. 12:17). (b) By inverted
attraction, i.e., where the antecedent is attracted by the relative pron.
into the same case with itself, as e.g.: (i) Where the antecedent remains
connected with its own clause and before the relative pron. (Matt. 21:42,
líthon hón apedokímasan hoi oikodomoúntes, hoútos; “the stone [should have
been líthos, nom.] which [acc.] the builders rejected, the same [hoútos,
masc. nom.]”; Luke 1:73, hórkon [for hórkou, gen.] hón [acc.] ó̄mose; 20:17;
1 Cor. 10:16, tón árton hón kló̄men, ouchí koinōnía). (ii) Where the
antecedent itself is attracted over into the clause of the relative pron.
and stands after it in the proper case of the relative pron. (Mark 6:16,
Hēró̄dēs eípen, hóti hón egó̄ apekephálisa Iōánnēn, hoútos estín stands for
hoútos estín Iōánnēs hón egó̄ apekephálisa). See Luke 1:4; Acts 21:16; Rom.
6:17; 1 John 2:25. (iii) This transposition may also take place when the
antecedent would already stand in the same case with the relative pron.,
e.g., in John 11:6, émeinen en hó̄ é̄n tópō for en tópō en hó̄ é̄n. See
Matt. 7:2; 24:44; Mark 15:22. Here belongs the adv. phrase hón trópon, kath˒
hón trópon, for katá tón trópon hón, meaning in the manner in which, in the
same manner as, and hence equal with “as” (Matt. 23:37; Luke 13:34; Acts
15:11; Sept.: Is. 14:19, 24). (c) Often the case of the relative pron.
depends on a prep. with which the verb is construed. (i) Generally as in
Matt. 3:17, ho huiós mou, en (i.e., the prep. en [1722], in, must take the
dat., hence hó̄) eudókēsa. See Matt. 11:10, with the prep. perí, which takes
a gen.; Luke 1:4; Rom. 10:14; 1 Cor. 8:6, with ex (1537), of, which takes
the gen. (ii) Sometimes the prep. which stands with the antecedent is
repeated before the relative pron. as in John 4:53, en ekeínē té̄ hó̄ra, en
hé̄ eípen; Acts 7:4; 20:18. More commonly, when the prep. stands before the
antecedent, it is omitted before the relative pron., as in Matt. 24:50, en
hēméra (en) hé̄ ou prosdoká. See Luke 1:25; 12:46; Acts 13:2, 39. (iii) By
attraction the relative pron. is joined with the prep. belonging to the
omitted antecedent (cf. above II, A, 3, a), e.g., John 6:29, hína pisteúsēte
eis hón apésteilen ekeínos for eis (toúton) hón. See John 19:37; Rom. 14:22;
1 Cor. 7:1; Gal. 1:8, 9; Heb. 5:8; 2 Pet. 2:12. (d) Sometimes the relative
pron. is not dependent on the verb, but on some noun connected with the
verb, and then the relative pron. is put in the gen. (Matt. 3:11, hoú ouk
eimí hikanós tá hupodé̄mata bastásai where ordinarily hoú should have been
há, referring to hupodé̄mata; also 3:12; Mark 14:32; Luke 13:1; John 1:27;
4:46; 11:2; Acts 16:14; Rom. 2:29; Col. 1:25; Rev. 13:12; Sept.: Dan. 2:11).
(4) As to position, here the relative pron. with its clause regularly
follows the antecedent, as in most of the preceding examples. But for the
sake of emphasis the relative clause may precede the antecedent, especially
where a personal pron. follows such as autós (846), hoútos (3778), this one
(Matt. 26:48, hón án philé̄sō, autós esti; John 3:26; Heb. 13:11; 2 Pet.
2:19). In both of these positions, the antecedent, especially the personal
pron. autós, hoútos, ekeínos (1565), this one, that one, is frequently
omitted so that the relative pron. is like the Eng. “what,” which can mean
that which, whatsoever, and so forth. See Matt. 13:17, akoúsai há akoúete,
for taúta há; Matt. 14:7; Mark 2:24; Luke 8:17; John 14:22. Note also the
inverted position as in Matt. 7:2; 10:38; 19:6; 25:29; Mark 9:40; Luke 4:6;
12:40; John 8:38; 13:27; Rom. 2:1; Heb. 2:18; 1 John 1:1, 3. Here belongs
the elliptic use of the neut. hó with its clause before another proposition,
in the sense of “as to that,” “in that,” the corresponding tout˒ ésti, tout˒
estín hóti (toúto [5124], this one; estín [1510], is; hóti [3754], that), or
the like, being omitted before the latter clause as in Rom. 6:10; Gal. 2:20.
(B) Meaning: Strictly speaking, the relative pron. serves simply to
introduce a dependent clause and mark its close relation to the leading
proposition (Matt. 2:9, ho asté̄r, hón eídon en té̄, anatolé̄, proé̄gen
autoús, “the star, which they saw in the east [the dependent clause], went
before them”). However, in common use the relative pron. had a wide range of
functions, both as a general connective particle and sometimes as implying
purpose, result, or cause which would properly be expressed by a conj. These
would be equivalent to what, that which, he who. See above II, A, 4. (1) As
a general connective: (a) Generally as in John 4:46; 11:2, “whose brother
Lazarus was sick.” In this way it is not uncommon for both Paul and Peter to
connect two, three, or more clauses by relative pronouns, referring to the
same or different subjects (see Acts 26:7; Eph. 3:11, 12; Col. 1:13ff.,
24–29; 1 Pet. 1:8, 10, 12; 2:22ff.; 3:19ff.; 4:4, 5; 2 Pet. 2:2, 3; 3:16).
(b) Where it is equivalent to a demonstrative, “and this / these”; “and he /
they” (Luke 12:1, 24; Acts 6:6; 7:45; 11:30; Gal. 1:7; Phil. 3:12; Col.
1:29; 1 Pet. 1:12; 2:4). (c) In the formula hón trópon (5158), manner,
means; see above II, A, 3, b, ii. (2) As implying purpose, equivalent to
hína (2443), so that (Matt. 11:10, Egó̄ apostéllō tón ággelón mou . . . hós
kataskeuásei té̄n hodón sou, “I send my messenger . . . which [hós for hína]
shall prepare thy way”; Mark 1:2; Luke 7:27). (3) As marking a result or
event, equivalent to hó̄ste (5620), wherefore, when used after tís (5100),
who (Luke 5:21, Tís estin hoútos hós [who as a result] laleí blasphēmías,
“Who is this which speaketh blasphemies?”; 7:49, hós [who as a result] kaí
hamartías aphíēsi, “Who is this that forgiveth sins also?”). In Luke 11:6,
ouk échō hó parathé̄sō autó̄ which, however, is equivalent to purpose, hína,
not result (cf. John 5:7). (4) As implying cause, ground, or reason,
equivalent to hóti (3754), because (Luke 8:13), equal to since (Luke 4:18).
(5) Once, eph˒ hó̄ (eph˒ [1909], upon) in direct interrogative for epí,
followed by the dat. (Matt. 26:50, “Wherefore [for what purpose] art thou
come?”). (6) Including the notion of a particle of time, as hóte (3753),
when, hótan (3752), when. So aph˒ hé̄s hēméras is equivalent to apó té̄s
hēméras hóte in Col. 1:6, 9; see Luke 7:45; 2 Pet. 3:4. (7) Neut. gen. hoú,
as an adv. of place, meaning where. See Luke 4:16; 23:53; Acts 1:13; Col.
3:1; Heb. 3:9; Rev. 17:15; figuratively in Rom. 4:15; 5:20. So also with
ekeí (1563), there, an emphatic corresponding (Matt. 18:20; 2 Cor. 3:17;
Sept.: Gen. 13:4) with a prep., as epánō (1883), above (Matt. 2:9), ex, ek
(1537), meaning whence (Phil. 3:20).......
Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary : New
Testament (electronic ed.) (G3739). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.

House Church Talk is sponsored by the House Church Network.

House Church Talk has been renamed. These discussions, via the web, now occur at the Radically Christian Cafe.