Christ Is Risen!
🌞
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.
Liturgy:
Acts X, 1 — 'ἐν Καισαρίᾳ' — 'en Kaisaria' - in Caesarea
. Where. 'ἐκ σπείρης' - 'ek speires' - from the cohort; of the cohort
. Whence. The preposition 'ek' indicates here whence that centurion was.
Acts X, 3 — 'ἐν ὁράματι φανερῶς' — 'en oramati phaneros' - in a vision clearly
. That is, the vision was clear, distinct, and manifest.
Acts X, 4 — 'αἱ ἐλεημοσύναι σου ἀνέβησαν εἰς μνημόσυνον ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ θεοῦ' — 'hai eleemosynai sou anebesan eis mnemosynon emprosthen tou theou' - your alms have gone up as a memorial before God
. The preposition 'eis' indicates here whither or better said for what purpose these alms were offered up. The expression indicates that these alms came to outweigh everything else, after which the Lord will show further mercy and will exalt the centurion.
Acts X, 5 — 'εἰς Ἰόππην' — 'eis Ioppen' - into Joppa
. Whither.
Acts X, 6 — 'οὗτος ξενίζεται παρά τινι Σίμωνι βυρσεῖ' — 'houtos xenizetai para tini Simoni byrsei' - he is lodging with one Simon a tanner
. The preposition 'para' here with the dative case indicates that what is spoken of is the (friendly) closeness of Peter and that host, Simon the tanner. 'ᾧ ἐστιν οἰκία παρὰ θάλασσαν' - 'ho estin oikia para thalassan' - who has a house to the proximity with the sea
. The preposition 'para' here with the accusative indicates that that house is situated on the way to the sea, near the shore.
Acts X, 8 — 'εἰς τὴν Ἰόππην' — 'eis ten Ioppen' - into (that same) Joppa
. Whither.
Acts X, 12 — 'ἐν ᾧ' — 'en ho' - in it
. Where.
Acts X, 15 — 'ἐκ δευτέρου' — 'ek deuterou' - a second time
. Common expression.
Acts X, 16 — 'εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν' — 'eis ton ouranon' - into the heaven; up into the heaven
. Whither. By the content of the vision — back, whither it had descended. Indicates here that this vision concerns God's will.
The centurion Cornelius with his household became an example of devout and good Gentiles who became Christians — and later, at the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem in 51 AD, this story will be recalled by Peter as a sign that the Lord is pleased to preach not only to Jews but also to Gentiles.
Therefore the significance of the story is enormous and universal, and the vision must be understood in this context. Peter's vision means that the non-Jews — people whom the Jews considered as not being directly called to unity in faith with the Jews and therefore not the sphere of their direct preaching and mission — are in fact also called by God to participation in the faith of the fathers, the prophets, and the apostles, to participation in the Church of Christ and in the Kingdom of God.
What God has cleansed, do not call (do not make) common
— important words concerning the fact that the Lord has called all people to Himself. And those called by God have no special advantage on account of their origin.
These words are also personally memorable to me. For my surname Zhabenko comes from the word zhaba
(toad/frog), and frogs were considered unclean animals under the Law of Moses — Jews were not permitted to eat them. Moreover, in Revelation frogs are mentioned in connection with the devil, the Antichrist, and the false prophet — see Revelation XVI, 13.
If anyone wishes to see in this mention a prohibition on my preaching, I can respond with the words of the Holy Spirit — What God has cleansed, do not call (do not make) common
.
I too am called to the Church of Christ and the Kingdom of God.
Concerning the words your merciful deeds are remembered before God
, spoken by the angel to Cornelius in the vision — they are parallel to the non-canonical Old Testament book of Tobit (Tobias), where the archangel Raphael (God's healing
) was sent by God to heal and help the family (and those who joined it) which showed mercy and was faithful to God.
More concerning the reading see at the links:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/12052025.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/08052023.html
John VI, 56 — 'ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ πίνων μου τὸ αἷμα ἐν ἐμοὶ μένει κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ' — 'ho trogon mou ten sarka kai pinon mou to haima en emoi menei kago en auto' - the one who eats my Body and drinks my Blood abides in Me and I in them
. Here what is spoken of is the perichoresis of Christ and the faithful through the partaking of the Eucharistic Gifts. It is precisely Christ Who unites all the constituent elements of His words about the Eucharist into one whole — it is He who transmits eternal blessed life to the faithful through His Body and Blood. He is the Living One, He bestows life, He is the Saviour, He received all from the Father, He unites the faithful with the Trinity, He descended from the heaven, He is the Alpha and the Omega, as Revelation says. Therefore the Eucharist is performed in remembrance of Christ
. See more in particular at the links:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/01052026.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/30042026.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/29042026.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/28042026.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/09042026.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/10042026.html
John VI, 58 — 'οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς' — 'houtos estin ho artos ho ex ouranou katabas' - this is the bread that descended from heaven
. Again the Lord returns to the explanation of the bread from heaven
. See more at the links:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/28042026.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/29042026.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/30042026.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/01052026.html
'εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα' — 'eis ton aiona' — for ever
. Common expression.
John VI, 59 — 'ἐν συναγωγῇ διδάσκων ἐν Καφαρναούμ' — 'en synagoge didaskon en Kapharnaoum' - in the synagogue, teaching in Capernaum
. Where.
John VI, 60 — 'Πολλοὶ οὖν ἀκούσαντες ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ' — 'Polloi oun akousantes ek ton matheton autou' - Many then of His disciples, having heard
. The preposition 'ek' indicates here that what is spoken of is representatives of the disciples — people who in general shared the vision and actions of Christ's disciples.
John VI, 61 — 'ἐν ἑαυτῷ' — 'en heauto' - in Himself
. That is, inwardly as God.
John VI, 64 — 'εἰσὶν ἐξ ὑμῶν τινες οἳ οὐ πιστεύουσιν' — 'eisin ex hymon tines hoi ou pisteuousin' - there are some among you who do not believe
. The preposition 'ek' in its form before the following 'hy' indicates here that what is spoken of is representatives of the disciples — people who are called disciples of Christ. 'ἐξ ἀρχῆς' - 'ex arkhes' - from the beginning
. Common expression. The preposition 'ek' in its form before the following vowel is used instead of the more commonly used 'apo' in similar cases, which indicates the beginning of a new period of time. Here this special usage indicates that the Son of God as God knew this even before He chose the disciples — that is, the moment of choosing the apostles was not the moment when Christ learned
this. He knows everything in advance as God.
John VI, 65 — 'ἐὰν μὴ ᾖ δεδομένον αὐτῷ ἐκ τοῦ πατρός' — 'hean me e dedomenon auto ek tou patros' - if it has not been given to them from the Father
. The preposition 'ek' indicates here that what is spoken of is God Himself, not something merely of God. That is, what is spoken of is not some coincidence of circumstances
which God permitted or blessed, but a direct divine gift manifesting God's love for people and for creation in general. If a person truly receives something, then this good originates from God.
John VI, 66 — 'Ἐκ τούτου οὖν' — 'Ek toutou oun' - from this therefore; therefore because of this
. The preposition 'ek' indicates here a cause and not a time — that is, for this reason, namely that the disciples did not accept the teaching of Christ. 'ἀπῆλθον εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω' - 'apelthon eis ta opiso' - they went back
. That is, whither — in general they left Jesus as Teacher and ceased to be truly disciples.
The conclusion of the conversation concerning the bread of life, which has been read over several days.
Commentators note that Christ in principle did not sacrifice part of His teaching for the sake of making it more appealing to people
. If disciples were stumbling over what He was genuinely revealing, He did not renounce what He had revealed — the divine truth.
I shall dwell on the words to abide in someone
which the Lord uses.
I shall not go deeply into theology here — it is a very profound theme and would require much writing, for which I do not have time at present — but I shall note some fundamental aspects of these words.
In theology there is the concept of perichoresis
— the abiding of someone in someone (else)
. See, for example, in the English-language Wikipedia; there are also versions in other languages, in particular Dutch and Russian (unfortunately, not yet in Ukrainian):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perichoresis
and also in the sources cited there.
See also the fine work concerning the Trinity at the link:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/Trinity.html
Some time ago I recorded a podcast where I explained in detail that God is the Only One who can abide in someone, and in this that someone loses nothing of their own but gains God.
Compare, for example, with demonic possession — a person who is possessed by a demon (or demons) is in them by God's permission, but (at least partially) loses control over themselves, does what those demons desire (at least sometimes) without being able to resist them.
Angels also do not abide in people, just as people do not abide in angels.
And people do not abide one in another, except for a mother and child in her womb (here there is a partial abiding of one person in another — the child in the mother, but not the reverse — the mother does not abide in the child). The state of a pregnant woman with a child in her womb is very different from her state after the child is born, or from that of a woman (girl) who is not a mother.
God alone is the One whose abiding in someone takes away
nothing of substance but only adds
— if God abides in someone, that person fully gains both themselves and God
.
Concerning perichoresis in the Trinity, the mutual abiding of the Hypostases (Persons) in One Another also does not mean their loss of anything, but means the fullness of divine love.
I shall also say that people through their abiding in God can also partially abide in one another — in heart and spirit — which is also called having one heart and one soul
, being of one mind
, having one heart and one mouth
, and the like. Unity with Christ makes it possible to obtain all of this as a gift of God. See also at the link:
https://www.instagram.com/oleksandr_zhabenko/p/DWv_JXXjbPZ/
Also when a person gives themselves to another person in love and in marriage, this too enables them to abide in the other person. See also on this at the links:
https://www.instagram.com/oleksandr_zhabenko/p/DXciQmDje3R/
https://www.instagram.com/oleksandr_zhabenko/p/DV_Kj7Ygn4O/
In general, abiding in someone is desirable for marriage and also personally for me.
More concerning the readings from the Gospel see at the link and others cited there:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/12052025.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/08052023.html
Glory be to Thee, our God, glory be to Thee!