Oleksandr Zhabenko 🇬🇧
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 Google Gemini Pro, 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.

From Easter begins a new cycle of Biblical readings, effectively a liturgical New Year. Although the church year begins in September, which is connected to the ancient Roman state.

Also, from Easter to Pentecost, the counting of the days of the week begins with Resurrection days, Sundays, because the Resurrection is the beginning and eternity of renewed life (the well-known image of the eighth day, which is also the first, just as the eternal Kingdom of God is called by many the eighth eternal day (six days of creation, the seventh is now, and the eighth is the Kingdom of God), in which there will be no sunset, for the Lord will be the Sun, see: Revelation XXII, 3-5; Matthew XIII, 43; XVII, 2).

Liturgy:
(Acts I, 12-17; 21-26)
Acts I, 12 — 'εἰς Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἀπὸ ὄρους τοῦ καλουμένου ἐλαιῶνος' — 'eis Hierousalem apo oros tou kaloumenou elaionos' - into Jerusalem from the mountain that is called Olives (Olivet). The preposition 'eis' points here to the place and arrival at the destination, whilst the preposition 'apo' points here to the fact that the disciples completely descended from the territory of the Mount of Olives.

Acts I, 13 — 'εἰς τὸ ὑπερῷον' — 'eis to hypeoon' - into the upper room; into the upper chamber (in a multi-storey house).

Acts I, 15 — 'ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ταύταις' — 'en tais hemerais tautais' - in those days; during those days. 'ἐν μέσῳ τῶν ἀδελφῶν' - 'en meso ton adelphon' - in the midst of the brothers. That is, where.

Acts I, 17 — 'ἐν ἡμῖν' — 'en hemin' - in us.

Acts I, 21 — 'ἐν παντὶ χρόνῳ' — 'en panti khrono' - in all times; at all times. A set phrase. It generally means constantly, and not inseparably and everywhere.

Acts I, 22 — 'ἀπὸ τοῦ βαπτίσματος Ἰωάννου' — 'apo tou baptismatos Ioannou' - from the baptism of John (the Forerunner). That is, from the beginning of the public ministry of the adult Jesus. The preposition 'apo' indicates here the starting point of time. 'ἀνελήμφθη ἀφ’ ἡμῶν' - 'anelemphthe aph hemon' - was taken up from us. The preposition 'apo' in its form before the following 'he' indicates here that Christ visibly distanced Himself from the disciples in body and soul, whilst not leaving them of His saving and sanctifying presence, as He had promised. See also the material at the link:
https://www.instagram.com/p/DWeM7ZmjTMD/?img_index=1
and what is written at the links:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/10042026.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/09042026.html

Acts I, 24 — 'ἐξελέξω ἐκ τούτων τῶν δύο ἕνα' — 'exelexo ek touton ton duo hena' - chose for Yourself from these two one. The preposition 'ek' points here to the fact that it is about a representative out of two. The verb shares a root with the word Church, which also indicates that it is about the Church, and is also a parallel to Christ's words that many are called, but few are chosen. See also:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/uk/commentaries/27112024.html

Acts I, 25 — 'ἀφ’ ἧς παρέβη Ἰούδας' — 'aph hes parebe Ioudas' - from which Judas transgressed (that is, fell away through a grave fall into sin). The preposition 'apo' in its form before the following 'he' indicates here that Judas completely ceased to be an apostle, entirely losing his belonging even to the disciples of Jesus in general. 'εἰς τὸν τόπον τὸν ἴδιον' - 'eis ton topon ton idion' - into his own place. That is, where to. Since one of the reasons for Judas's fall was that he used common funds for his own, private interests, it is precisely about such an attitude of Judas that the Apostle Peter speaks here. It is not about some predestination, appointment, destiny, fate, or the like.

I shall provide here a testimony of faith regarding coincidences, which was written in 2023 and dedicated to the blessed memory of Huub Oosterhuis (
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100011682977942
)

The history of the election of the 12th apostle after the Ascension of the Lord to the place of Judas Iscariot, the traitor who perished. This 12th apostle became Saint Matthias, not to be confused with the apostle and evangelist Matthew; their names differ in the original. The commemoration of this newly elected apostle of the 12 is on the 09th of August.

The number 12 is important, as there are that many tribes of Israel, and the number of apostles closest to Jesus corresponds to this number. Also, in the sacrifice of Elijah, we see that the number 12 is important, and this sacrifice is, in particular, a prefiguration of Pentecost.

The choice is made not by voting, but by lot, since the calling of the 12 apostles was done by the Lord Jesus Himself, by God, and not by men, so the election of the 12th apostle was also to be done by God Himself.

The Jews of that time believed that random events occur in such a way that the Lord can clearly reveal Himself in them. Therefore, the lot was a way to see the will of God.

It must be said that Christians from the time of Pentecost understand this thought more fully.

I will set forth further my reflections on this matter, in the bold hope that they are from God.

We believe that everything that happens, happens either according to God's will (and then it is good), or by God's permission (and then God does not want it, but allows it so that the freedom of creation may be realised).

We believe that what we consider random is known to God beforehand. Chance as such is created by God, it is one of His creations, for God Himself does not act randomly, but always meaningfully and consciously.

One might reason that God's freedom is not limited by chance (creation), but exists, and therefore God freely, at liberty knows what will happen, even when chance acts as a creation.

Moreover, God's action can be completely secret and implicit to creation, if the Lord so wills, and then there is no way to distinguish where purely creation acts (chance, but the result of which is known to God beforehand), and where He intervenes and ensures this or that result. It is impossible to tell, unless God reveals it Himself. This also sheds light on how the Lord can work some of His miracles.

When the Church (here the assembly of the faithful, the apostles, and the Mother of God) turns to the Lord, He answers the prayer in one way or another. Then, if there are no objections, one can think that chance becomes in fact God's action (that is, it is no longer strictly just chance, but under its guise God Himself acts). And thus Matthias was chosen in the place of Judas Iscariot.

See more about the reading at the links:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/21042025.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/17042023.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/06052024.html

(John I, 18-28 )
John I, 18 — 'ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός' — 'ho monogenes hyios ho on eis ton kolpon tou patros' - the Only Begotten Son [God, see further], Being into the bosom of the Father. The preposition 'eis' here is unusual, since it points either to movement into the bosom of the Father (that is, where to, which is unusual, for He is already there anyway), or to a certain unsettledness, movement within the bosom of the Father (as if indicating the movements of an unborn infant in the mother's womb). The first option means that Christ presents the Father through Himself in such a way that the faithful can draw near to the bosom of the Father, that is, in the case of humans, this means — to draw near to the state of beloved children of God, for whom God cares with tenderness and grace especially. Regarding this, see the links:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/21022026.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/01032025.html
The second option points to the fact that, just as a mother comes to know her unborn child more deeply and communicates with them by listening to their movements, so too the Revelation of God in the Son has the same power and depth of closeness to the Father as that mother and her child.
Has not seen — literally has not peered attentively, has not examined the face as a close person — God (that is, the Father; in most New Testament texts, God refers precisely to the Father). Also the continuation — literally showed the way, led to the Father. Jesus gave people the opportunity to peer into the face of God as a close Friend, both His own, and the Father's, and the Spirit's; He Himself also showed the way in Himself.
See also another place where similar words are explained.
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/20022023.html
These words, generally speaking, do not primarily relate to Old Testament prohibitions on depicting God, but have a different original meaning. Therefore, attempts to apply them against the veneration of holy icons are vain.
Also, there is a well-known textual variant here, which Google Gemini Pro explains as follows (I have added a clarification regarding Christ at the end)
https://gemini.google.com/share/d8a6443a6fea

The difference between the translations of John 1:18 — 'the Only Begotten God' (in some modern translations) and 'the Only Begotten Son' (in traditional ones) — is one of the most famous and important issues in New Testament textual criticism.
This discrepancy arose not due to a translator's error, but because various ancient Greek manuscripts have reached us containing different words in this verse.
Here is a detailed explanation of how these two variants emerged and what lies behind them.
1. Two traditions of ancient manuscripts
Originals of the biblical texts (autographs) have not survived, but we have thousands of their manuscript copies. In the case of John 1:18, they divided into two camps:
1) The variant 'the Only Begotten God' (Greek: μονογενὴς θεός — monogenēs theos)
This variant is found in the oldest and, according to most modern scholars, the most authoritative manuscripts of the so-called Alexandrian text-type. This includes the papyri P66 and P75 (dated around 200 AD), as well as the famous Sinaiticus and Vaticanus codices (4th century). Modern critical editions of the Greek New Testament (Nestle-Aland / UBS) consider precisely this variant to be original.
2) The variant 'the Only Begotten Son' (Greek: ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός — ho monogenēs hyios)
This variant appears in later manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type (the majority text), as well as in the Latin Vulgate. It was this text that became the basis for the Textus Receptus (the Received Text), from which the classic Bible translations were made from the 16th to the 19th centuries.
2. Why did scribes change the text? (The rule of the 'more difficult reading')
In biblical textual criticism, there is a rule: Lectio difficilior potior (the more difficult reading is preferred). When scholars see two versions of a text, they ask themselves: 'Which of the variants would a scribe be more likely to change?'
The phrase 'the Only Begotten God' is unique, unusual, and theologically striking. It is found nowhere else in the New Testament.
Conversely, the phrase 'the Only Begotten Son' is very customary for John (it occurs in John 3:16, 3:18, and 1 John 4:9).
Scholars believe that early Christian scribes, upon encountering the unusual phrase 'the Only Begotten God', subconsciously (or consciously) 'corrected' it to the more familiar 'the Only Begotten Son', adapting the text to how it sounds in the famous verse of John 3:16. The reverse process (where a scribe would replace the popular 'Son' with the unusual 'God') is highly unlikely.
3. Linguistic nuance of the word 'Only Begotten'
The Greek word μονογενής (monogenēs) is traditionally translated as 'only begotten', but its etymology consists of monos (only, one) and genos (kind, species, category).
Modern linguists note that a more accurate translation of this word is 'unique', 'one of a kind', or 'one without parallel'. Therefore, the combination monogenēs theos literally means 'Unique God' or 'One-of-a-kind God', emphasising the absolute uniqueness of Christ and His unprecedented connection with the Father.
How this is reflected in translations:
1) Translations based on later manuscripts (Textus Receptus): Use 'Son'. This includes the classic King James Version (KJV), the Synodal translation, as well as the translation by Ivan Ohienko ('the Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He Himself hath declared Him') and Ivan Khomenko.
2) Translations based on the oldest manuscripts (Critical Text): Use 'God'. For example, the modern Ukrainian translation by Rafail Turkoniak, which was done from ancient texts, reads: 'No one has ever seen God. The Only Begotten God, Who is in the bosom of the Father, — He has revealed Him'. Some Western translations (e.g., NIV) convey this thought conceptually: 'the one and only Son, who is himself God'.
Summary:
The discrepancy exists because different translators relied on different generations of manuscripts. Modern scholarship believes that John originally wrote the shocking and profound 'the Only Begotten God' in order to bring the prologue full circle (which begins in 1:1 with the words '…and the Word was God'), but later scribes smoothed this text out to the more customary 'the Only Begotten Son'. Theologically, both variants are correct in the context of Christian dogma, but the first more strongly emphasises the divine nature of Christ.

John I, 19 — 'ἐξ Ἱεροσολύμων' — 'ex Hierosolymon' - out of Jerusalem. That is, whence.

John I, 23 — 'ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ' — 'en te eremo' - in the wilderness. The famous prophecy of Isaiah, which moreover allows for two readings due to the lack of punctuation marks.
Make straight — that is, regarding the direction, and not the surface; meaning the road can be mountainous, but must lead straight to God. The prophecy of Isaiah XL, 3. A famous place where the lack of punctuation marks leads to a duality of meaning: it can be either of one calling: In the wilderness make straight the ways for the Lord! — or — of one calling in the wilderness: Make straight the ways for the Lord!. Historically, the second was fulfilled predominantly in John, but the period of man's purification from sin is sometimes akin to a wilderness, hence the first also holds its meaning.

John I, 26 — 'βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι' — 'baptizo en hydati' - baptise with water; baptise in water. Both translation options are possible. One must understand what John the Baptist said. The meaning of his words becomes clear in the context of verse 17. John is a kind of bridge between the Old and New Testaments, but in the sense of preparation. His immersion in water is not a Sacrament, which is why he speaks of his unworthiness, but his actions are a necessary preparation. Lest I come and smite the whole earth… (fulfilling the Law of Moses, although pleasing to God and worthy of praise, is not yet salvific, whilst failure to fulfil it leads to sins, of which the Apostle Paul testifies a great deal), as the Lord says in the Old Testament prophets. Thus, between receiving grace and fulfilling the Law, there is another preparatory link, which is similar to the actions of the Lord's Forerunner. One can call these actions human spirituality in the sense that this is not yet grace, but human spiritual and bodily preparation for it. Therefore, John can be considered a kind of image (icon) of human efforts in preparing to meet the Lord. And importantly, the calling and design of these actions are from heaven, that is, from God, to which Christ Himself clearly testifies in conversation with the scribes and Pharisees, and also the Baptism of Christ by John in the Jordan. These human actions, being from heaven, require proper recognition and reverence.

John I, 28 — 'ἐν Βηθανίᾳ' — 'en Bethania' - in Bethany. Where.

See more about the reading at the link:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/21042025.html

Glory be to Thee, our God, glory be to Thee!