Glory Be to Jesus Christ!
🌞
Since in the work published at the link:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/02082025.html
and even earlier in others, published at the links:
https://churchandsociety.org.ua/pdf/projects/zbirnyk.pdf
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/17082024.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/12112025.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/27112024.html
it is written that the use of prepositions has important significance for the correct understanding of important and topical questions, particularly the question of power, I am writing comments regarding the use of precisely these prepositions. As advice regarding reading what is written — one can read the verse in translation or/and original (whoever has such possibility), and then the corresponding comment regarding prepositions here. Then it is necessary to understand which part of the verse the comment concerns, and also to consider what essential for understanding it affirms — or more rarely — denies. Such thoughtful reading helps to deepen understanding and protects from the mentioned mistakes.
I prepared an improved version of my research, the presentation of which is available at the link:
https://www.facebook.com/Oleksandr.S.Zhabenko/posts/
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/uk/commentaries/vystup-2025-hypo-genitive-Romans-XIII_1.pdf
The research material is currently being prepared for publication. I hope, God willing, to present fuller results later after the publication comes out.
I will update the list of references regarding prepositions at the links:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/02082025.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/uk/commentaries/Pryjmennyky.html
the latter — once or twice a month (in Ukrainian), to keep the text version current and up to date.
Translated from Ukrainian by Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Anthropic AI), with subsequent editing by me.
Strong's references (note: according to Strong) in the translation of the original text mean that the word is taken from Strong's dictionary, and the specific meaning was chosen following the translation and commentary by Google Gemini Fast 3.
As Great Lent has begun, the readings from the New Testament are replaced with readings from the Old Testament, in order to urge people more towards repentance.
As it is spoken of several Ancient Greek (Koine) prepositions, the Old Testament readings will continue to be commented upon, examining the first complete translation into Ancient Greek — the Septuagint.
The most widely read are the book of the prophet Isaiah, who is also called the Old Testament evangelist
on account of the clarity of his prophecies concerning Christ, the book of Genesis, from which we learn much concerning the meaning and the need for salvation and concerning God's will, and the book of the Proverbs of Solomon, which is an instructive canonical book, called to raise a person above the commonplace to the threshold of eternity, to prepare them for the higher through the seeking of wisdom rather than of certain earthly gains. All three books, as indeed the whole of the Old Testament, bear witness to Jesus Christ, notwithstanding that each of the books does so in an entirely different manner.
The theme is very profound, but it must be noted at once that the readers and hearers of the Old Testament in its own time differed from people today. The most essential difference was that the depth of understanding, especially the understanding of repentance, conversion and purification, was being formed at that time, and it is precisely for this reason that the reading of Old Testament books takes place first and foremost in the time of the fast, in the time of repentance and preparation, for that which those people encountered is also relevant today.
At the 6th Hour:
Isaiah V, 16 — 'ἐν κρίματι' — 'en krimati' — in judgement; with judgement (note: according to Strong)
. Both translation variants are possible, and the second indicates that God's very Judgement will be a manifestation of God's majesty. 'ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ' - 'en dikaiosyne' - in righteousness; with righteousness (note: according to Strong)
. Analogously to the previous.
Isaiah V, 21 — 'ἐν ἑαυτοῖς' — 'en heautois' - in themselves
. A common expression.
Isaiah V, 24 — 'ὑπὸ ἄνθρακος πυρὸς' — 'hypo anthrakos pyros' - by a coal of fire (note: according to Strong)
. 'ὑπὸ φλογὸς' - 'hypo phlogos' - by a flame
. The preposition 'hypo' here with the genitive case indicates the passive voice of the verbs here (by what the grass is easily destroyed).
Isaiah V, 25 — 'ἐν μέσῳ ὁδοῦ' — 'en meso hodou' - in the midst of the way (note: according to Strong)
. 'ἐν πᾶσι τούτοις' - 'en pasi toutois' - in all these things (note: according to Strong)
.
Again Isaiah prophesies concerning God's judgement upon sins, upon that which becomes idols, upon the pride and arrogance of people (here specifically upon these, more concretely).
I shall dwell on verse V, 21 — wise in themselves and knowing in their own sight (note: according to Strong)
— this concerns the arrogance of people who have rejected the Lord, whether openly or implicitly.
In effect, this also applies to the state of people who, instead of revealing God's will, say: We know within ourselves what is good and what is evil, we do not wish to, we will say nothing
— whereas they ought to speak.
But someone might say: And is not the prophet, when prophesying great things, judgement upon sinners, himself that same person 'wise in their own eyes'?
But let us look: this is precisely not the case! First, he nowhere mentions his own wisdom. And the prophet is fully aware that he is revealing not his own wisdom or understanding, but God's revelation. And that the prophets themselves often did not understand God's will as they would have wished. And he does not conceal God's will from people, does not keep it within himself in order to be wise in his own eyes
(to boost self-esteem, as people today would say).
On the readings from the Prophets see the links:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/12032025.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/08032023.html
At Vespers:
Genesis IV, 16 — 'ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ θεοῦ' — 'apo prosopou tou theou' - from the face of God
. The preposition 'apo' indicates that Cain tried to distance themselves fully from God. 'ἐν γῇ Ναιδ' - 'en ge Naid' - in the land of Nod
.
Genesis IV, 20 — 'ἐν σκηναῖς' — 'en skenais' - in tents (note: according to Strong)
. Where.
Genesis IV, 23 — 'εἰς τραῦμα' — 'eis trauma' - literally into a wound (note: according to Strong)
, in the meaning common among commentators — because of a wound
. 'εἰς μώλωπα' - 'eis molopa' - literally into a bruise (note: according to Strong)
, in the meaning common among commentators — because of a bruise, a scratch
. Here the preposition 'eis' indicates the motive of the action — criminal vengeance for a comparatively lesser evil.
Genesis IV, 24 — 'ἐκ Καιν' — 'ek Kain' - from Cain; on account of Cain
. 'ἐκ δὲ Λαμεχ' - 'ek de Lamekh' - from Lamech; on account of Lamech
. The preposition 'ek' here indicates that the motive for vengeance, in the opinion of Lamech (the murderer), derives from the victim, that is, it is the reasoning that in the crime the victim is the cause, the justification for vengeance, that vengeance is justified by the existence of the victim. Lamech does not think about justice, but only about personal interests
. In general the situation shows that among the descendants of Cain evil only worsened — Lamech, because some man had earlier struck him, killed him, and here boasts that he is a more outstanding
criminal, because supposedly someone will protect him incomparably better than God preserved the life of Cain.
Yesterday I wrote that in God's providence Cain had descendants who were of significance for the development of society. More on this is written in yesterday's post at the link:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/03032026.html
Now I shall dwell on the unexpected appearance
of other people besides those named by name. The question is in truth unclear and mysterious; on the existence and certain necessity of which I wrote earlier:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/27022023.html
The general view on this is that Adam and Eve became the forebears of all people. By this (it is commonly accepted) is also explained the fact that all people have an original damage, which is often called original sin
. For example, in Psalm 50 David says: Behold, I was conceived in iniquity, and in sins my mother bore me
— although he was conceived and born in the ordinary manner (as is the great majority of people). Iniquity
here names the impurity which, according to the Law of Moses, arises in sexual relations. And the sins of the mother
— the mother of David sinned during the 9 months of pregnancy, and more than once.
David emerged from an environment
that is afflicted
(as with a disease) by sin and iniquity. And this is the state of almost all people.
But let us look: Jesus Christ is conceived without a man, and there was no iniquity there. The Most Pure Mother, the Most Immaculate Virgin, although not sinless, is Most Pure; she had no guilt before God. But Jesus accepted, notwithstanding His purity and sinlessness, the state of the damage of nature — and together with it the capacity to suffer and to die, which He did for us on the cross. Hence the (not so obvious) conclusion: for the consequences of the fall to pass to people, it is not necessary for them to be conceived and born in an environment afflicted by sin
.
Another example: the state of creation after the fall, apart from the people themselves — it, according to the aforementioned words of the Apostle Paul, was subjected to corruption
on account of the human being
(Romans VIII). But animals, not being fully free, not being personalities, also do not sin. Yet their state also changed.
Yet another example: Paul says: As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
But the latter does not require being born of Jesus, being His bodily descendants. Logically, for the former also, for the whole thought to be true, it is not necessary to be born of Adam and Eve bodily, as David was, in order to die.
Yet another example: to be children of Abraham by the promise, heirs of the promise
, as the Apostle Paul says, it is not at all necessary to be descendants of Abraham in the flesh. But by following his faith, people by God's grace also inherit God's promises.
Non-obligatoriness
means that one cannot state with full certainty that Scripture and the faith oblige
one to think that all people are direct descendants of Adam and Eve in order to have all the consequences of the fall.
And yet, the thought that all people are in truth descendants of Adam and Eve in the flesh is entirely natural, and cannot be denied on the basis of Scripture. An important argument is also the fact that if there were some other people besides Adam and Eve and their immediate descendants, then they:
in parallel, although perhaps not simultaneously), but this is not written about,
Moreover, these people would in any case have had to live outside Paradise from the very beginning (otherwise, about them and about Paradise something would have had to be said separately), and if so, then why would they have had to be deprived of it, while Adam and Eve would have had from God the privileged
position of being settled in Paradise (?).
All these reflections (and there may be others) show that we do not know sufficiently the history of the world of that time.
Returning to today's passage itself, I shall say that Adam and Eve also bore, besides the three sons named by name, other sons and daughters (Genesis V, 4), and that among the faithful it is generally accepted that the Lord at that time permitted sons and daughters to marry one another, since there was no other way of continuing the race, and in this the Lord mysteriously preserved them from possible genetic mutations and various bodily ailments that occur at the birth of children from close relatives.
I shall pause here; the continuation, God willing, I shall write in due course.
For more on the readings from the Law see the links:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/12032025.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/08032023.html
Proverbs V, 15 — 'ἀπὸ σῶν ἀγγείων καὶ ἀπὸ σῶν φρεάτων' — 'apo son angeion kai apo son phreaton' - from your own vessel and from your own well (note: according to Strong)
. The preposition 'apo' indicates that these are gifts.
Proverbs V, 16 — 'ἐκ τῆς σῆς πηγῆς' — 'ek tes ses peges' - from your spring (note: according to Strong)
. The preposition 'ek' indicates from whence those waters come. 'εἰς δὲ σὰς πλατείας' - 'eis de sas plateias' - into your streets; onto your streets (note: according to Strong)
. That is, whereto
.
Proverbs V, 18 — 'συνευφραίνου μετὰ γυναικὸς τῆς ἐκ νεότητός σου' — 'syneuphrainou meta gynaikos tes ek neotetos sou' - rejoice together with the wife who is from your youth (note: according to Strong)
. The preposition 'ek' indicates that that marital union began in youth or early adulthood.
Proverbs V, 19 — 'ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ' — 'en panti kairo' - at all times; in every season
(that is, in effect — when the time comes, arrives, is fulfilled
). 'ἐν γὰρ τῇ ταύτης φιλίᾳ' - 'en gar te tautes philia' - for in that love; for with that love
. Both translation variants are possible. The word philia
used here points to emotional closeness, that is, here to the deep loving relations between a loving married couple.
Proverbs V, 21 — 'εἰς δὲ πάσας τὰς τροχιὰς' — 'eis de pasas tas trokhias' - for all the rims of the wheel; for all the paths (note: according to Strong)
. Here in meaning there may also be the thought that even repeated frequent actions and events which seem to bear no fruit (the wheel
), the Lord can make valuable, filling them with meaning (making them straight
).
Proverbs V, 23 — 'ἐκ δὲ πλήθους τῆς ἑαυτοῦ βιότητος' — 'ek de plethous tes heautou biotetos' - from the fullness (overflow, maximum richness) of their own life (note: according to Strong)
. That is, they perish, having abandoned their life.
Proverbs VI, 3 — 'εἰς χεῖρας κακῶν' — 'eis kheiras kakon' - into evil hands
. That is, they have fallen into a bad situation.
In the reading Solomon continues the theme of faithfulness; see yesterday's commentaries on the theme:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/03032026.html
At the beginning of chapter VI the subject is already surety for a friend
— another practical theme. Solomon teaches caution and wisdom — one must not think that it is easy to stand surety for the future, and consequently for someone, including a friend.
To give one's hand to an enemy
— this is in effect to lose control over one's actions, and a person, even being good, honest, just and so on, truly cannot fully control friends, cannot control the future and must therefore be extremely cautious in such cases. And it is important that if a word has nevertheless been given, one must take care to fulfil it (verse 3).
On the theme of true love and faithfulness, which are examined in the first part of the reading, there are fine works at the links:
https://www.instagram.com/oleksandr_zhabenko/p/DT6fitxAvd9/
https://www.instagram.com/oleksandr_zhabenko/p/DVQxVNPjche/
https://www.instagram.com/oleksandr_zhabenko/p/DVCfQjCAjZp/
https://www.instagram.com/oleksandr_zhabenko/p/DT6e62HgrP5/
https://www.facebook.com/Oleksandr.S.Zhabenko/posts/
https://www.facebook.com/Oleksandr.S.Zhabenko/posts/
For more on the readings from the Poetical Books see the links:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/12032025.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/08032023.html
Glory be to Thee, our God, glory be to Thee!