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 Fast 3.
Liturgy:
Acts IV, 17 — 'εἰς τὸν λαόν' — 'eis ton laon' - into the people; among the people
. The preposition 'eis' indicates here spreading and diffusion within indefinite and uncontrolled bounds (which the elders wished to avoid).
The apostles rightly acknowledged (confessed) that God must be obeyed more than people. This does not mean that one must deliberately create conflicts and provoke them, but it means that one must take care to fulfil God's will and commandment and not fear people.
More concerning the reading see at the links:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/30042025.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/26042023.html
John V, 19 — 'οὐ δύναται ὁ υἱὸς ποιεῖν ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ οὐδέν' — 'ou dynatai ho hyios poiein aph heautou ouden' - the Son cannot do anything from Himself
. Only doing from Himself
is denied. A similar idea is present concerning speaking from Himself
in the Son, about which I wrote at the links concerning John XVI, 13 and also John XVIII, 34:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/10042026.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/18042025.html
The preposition 'apo' in its form before the following 'he' indicates here that what is spoken of is actions with respect to creation, not within the Trinity: what is implied (though not stated in explicit detail — that is, it is more of an implicit thought) is that within the Trinity, in the relationships within the Most Holy Trinity, the Son can act in a manner that clearly and distinctly manifests His Hypostasis — that He is the Son and not the Father or the Holy Spirit; and also that He Himself sees
what and how the Father creates, and this seeing
is His own, His very own
, whereas here what is spoken of is only deeds concerning creation. In other words, what is spoken of here concerns only creation — whereas with respect to the relationships of the Hypostases within the Trinity one can speak of the Son Himself from Himself
(though in that case it would be better in ancient Greek Koine to use 'ek heautou', since in that context it is impossible to separate
in any way the actions of the Hypostasis from the Hypostasis directly, and therefore 'apo' is inappropriate here). Since none of the divine Hypostases does something externally to the Trinity without prior agreement within the Trinity, one may thereby see more of the richness of the divine relationships — within the Trinity the Hypostases both take counsel together and can act in broader contexts, whereas in creation, externally
, their actions are more united with One Another. Let us recall, for example, the creation of the human being. God addresses the other Hypostases within the Trinity concerning the creation of the human being (the Hypostasis Who speaks evidently acts here somewhat differently — more from Themselves
— since the Others listen), but the act of creation itself is described by a verb in the singular. See also the fine works at the links concerning these themes:
https://www.instagram.com/oleksandr_zhabenko/p/DT6X5acAk52/
https://www.instagram.com/p/DWMTLk3DYIR/?img_index=1
Concerning the passage in general see also at the link where it is mentioned:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/30052024.html
John V, 24 — 'εἰς κρίσιν' — 'eis krisin' — to judgement; for judgement
. The first is more likely, since the second carries the nuance that people somehow have a certain appointed purpose to come to judgement. 'ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου εἰς τὴν ζωήν' - 'ek tou thanatou eis ten zoen' - from death to life
. The pair of prepositions 'ek' - 'eis' emphasises the transition from death to life.
More concerning the reading see at the links:
https://www.instagram.com/p/DWMTLk3DYIR/?img_index=1
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/30042025.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/26042023.html
Glory be to Thee, our God, glory be to Thee!