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 VI, 8 — 'ἐν τῷ λαῷ' — 'en to lao' - among the people
. Where.
Acts VI, 9 — 'τινες τῶν ἐκ τῆς συναγωγῆς' — 'tines ton ek tes synagoges' - some from the synagogue
. The preposition 'ek' indicates here that these are their representatives, who generally held a similar position. Libertine
— that is, the synagogue composed of freed former Roman slaves (this is their general designation — the Libertines). 'καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ Κιλικίας καὶ Ἀσίας' - 'kai ton apo Kilikias kai Asias' - and of those from Cilicia and Asia
. The preposition 'apo' may indicate origin on the maternal line, but far more likely indicates here that these people had entirely and completely left Cilicia and Asia, having relocated to Jerusalem.
Acts VI, 11 — 'ῥήματα βλάσφημα εἰς Μωϋσῆν καὶ τὸν θεόν' — 'rhemata blasphema eis Moysen kai ton theon' - words (here — expressing views, a position, that is, such as were generally understood in precisely this way by the listeners and opponents — the Jews) contemptuous with respect to Moses and God
. The preposition 'eis' indicates here with respect to whom these words are directed.
Acts VI, 12 — 'εἰς τὸ συνέδριον' — 'eis to synedrion' - into the council
. Whither. The variant for the council
in the sense of for a trial before it is possible, but in that case it points to the direct intentions of the accusers.
Acts VI, 15 — 'ἀτενίσαντες εἰς αὐτὸν πάντες οἱ καθεζόμενοι ἐν τῷ συνεδρίῳ' — 'atenisantes eis auton pantes hoi kathezomenoi en to synedrio' - all those who gazed intently at him, those who were seated in the council
. That is, looked at whom, in the direction of whom.
Acts VII, 2 — 'ἐν τῇ Μεσοποταμίᾳ' — 'en te Mesopotamia' - in Mesopotamia
. Where. 'ἐν Χαρράν' - 'en Kharran' - in Haran
. Where. More concerning the story of Abraham see at the links:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/20032026.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/23032026.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/24032026.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/20042026.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/25032026.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/27032026.html
Acts VII, 3 — 'ἔξελθε ἐκ τῆς γῆς σου καὶ ἐκ τῆς συγγενείας σου, καὶ δεῦρο εἰς τὴν γῆν ἣν ἄν σοι δείξω' — 'exelthe ek tes ges sou kai ek tes syngeneias sou, kai deuro eis ten gen hen an soi deixo' - go out from your land (from your homeland) and from your kin, and go into the land that I will show you
. The pair of prepositions 'ek'-'eis' indicates here that what is spoken of is departure from whence and entry whither. It also indicates origin.
Acts VII, 4 — 'ἐκ γῆς Χαλδαίων' — 'ek ges Khaldaion' - from the land of the Chaldeans
. Whence. 'ἐν Χαρράν' - 'en Kharran' - in Haran
. Where. 'εἰς τὴν γῆν ταύτην εἰς ἣν ὑμεῖς νῦν κατοικεῖτε' - 'eis ten gen tauten eis hen hymeis nyn katoikeite' - into this land, into which you now have settled
. That is, whither.
Acts VII, 5 — 'κληρονομίαν ἐν αὐτῇ' — 'kleronomian en aute' - an inheritance in it
. Where. 'εἰς κατάσχεσιν αὐτὴν καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ μετ' αὐτόν' - 'eis kataskhesin auten kai to spermati autou met auton' - for a possession of it and for his seed after him
. The preposition 'eis' indicates here the purpose.
Acts VII, 48 — 'οὐχ ὁ ὕψιστος ἐν χειροποιήτοις κατοικεῖ' — 'oukh ho hypsistos en kheiropoietois katoikei' - the Most High does not dwell in what is made by hand
. That is, God as perfect Spirit has no need of any dwelling, including one made by human hands, but can fill all things according to His own will.
Acts VII, 53 — 'εἰς διαταγὰς ἀγγέλων' — 'eis diatagas angelon' - through/by the ordinances of angels (note: according to Strong)
. A difficult passage to translate literally. Instead of the usual for the ordering of angels
, Google Gemini Pro with well-reasoned argument offers this translation variant with the following additional argumentation, with which I agree. I cite:
The phrase consists of three words and translates literally as 'through/by the ordinances of angels':
eis (εἰς): This is a preposition that normally means 'in' or 'to' (indicating direction). However, in this specific context it indicates the circumstances or manner of action, and is translated as 'through', 'by means of', 'in accordance with', or 'as'.
diatagas (διαταγὰς): Accusative plural of the noun διαταγή (diatage). This word means 'command', 'ordinance', 'decree', or 'order'. It derives from the verb meaning 'to order' or 'to arrange'.
angelōn (ἀγγέλων): Genitive plural of ἄγγελος (angelos) — 'messenger' or 'angel'.
Together the phrase indicates that the Law was transmitted or established with the participation of angelic beings.
Historical and theological context
To understand why Stephen uses precisely this phrase, it is worth drawing attention to the Jewish beliefs of the time:
Angels as intermediaries at Sinai: The Old Testament (Exodus 20) does not directly say that angels transmitted the Law to Moses — there God speaks directly. However, in Judaism of the Second Temple period a tradition became firmly rooted (partly based on the Greek translation of the Septuagint in Deuteronomy 33:2) that God acted through angelic intermediaries.
Parallels in the New Testament: This same tradition is mentioned by other New Testament authors. For example, the apostle Paul writes that the Law was 'ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator' (Galatians 3:19), and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews calls it 'the word spoken through angels' (Hebrews 2:2).
Significance in Stephen's speech
Stephen uses the phrase 'eis diatagas angelon' as a powerful rhetorical blow. His argument amounts to the following:
He is not diminishing the significance of the Law but, on the contrary, exalting it to the maximum. He reminds the religious leaders that they received the Torah not simply from a human being, but through the direct ordinance of heavenly messengers. The tragedy and the accusation of Stephen consists in the fact that possessing so sublime a divinely transmitted revelation, they nonetheless rejected its essence and killed the Messiah about whom this very Law prophesied.
Here is why academic biblical scholarship and philology do not incline toward the variant 'for the ordering of angels':
1. Koine grammar: Subjective or Objective Genitive?
In the phrase εἰς διαταγὰς ἀγγέλων the word ἀγγέλων (angelon) stands in the genitive plural.
As often understood in other passages (Genitivus objectivus): The objective genitive. The action is directed towards the angels (ordinances/ordering for angels or concerning angels).
As it functions in the original (Genitivus subjectivus / auctoris): The subjective genitive or genitive of source. It indicates who performs the action or from whom it originates. That is, the ordinances which angels made or transmitted.
What is decisive here is the verb that precedes the phrase: 'οἵτινες ἐλάβετε τὸν νόμον…' ('you who received the Law...'). The subject that receives the Law and for whom it is intended is the people (Israel), not the angels. Accordingly, the angels function as agents of transmission, not as the object of ordering.
2. The specifics of the preposition 'εἰς' in this context
The preposition εἰς (eis) is mostly translated as 'in', 'to', or 'for'. However, in Hellenistic Greek (and in particular in the works of Luke, the author of Acts) 'eis' often loses its strictly local or purposive meaning.
In this construction grammarians treat it as indicating attendant circumstances or a norm (corresponding to the Hebrew preposition le). The most accurate functional translation here is 'by ordinance of', 'in accordance with the decrees of', or 'by the mediation of'.
3. Historical context: Second Temple Judaism
For Stephen's hearers (the Sanhedrin) this was an entirely transparent and universally known argument.
In the intertestamental period (between the Old and New Testaments) there arose in Judaism a strong tendency which sought to protect the absolute transcendence of God. It was held that God was so holy that he could not directly contact the material world at Sinai. Therefore the transmission of the Torah took place through angels.
In the apocryphal Book of Jubilees (1:27-29) it is directly stated that God commanded the 'Angel of the Presence' to dictate the Law to Moses.
Josephus Flavius (the Jewish historian of the first century) writes: 'We have learned the noblest of our doctrines and the holiest of our laws through angels from God' (Jewish Antiquities 15.136).
Stephen is not introducing here a new mystical concept or allegory. He takes a universally acknowledged fact of the Jewish theology of his time — 'you received the Torah directly from the hands of angels' — and uses it as a rhetorical weapon: '…and yet you have not kept it!'
Acts VII, 55 — 'εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν' — 'eis ton ouranon' - into heaven
. Whither. 'Ἰησοῦν ἑστῶτα ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ θεοῦ' - 'Iesoun estota ek dexion tou theou' - Jesus standing at the right hand of God (the Father)
. That is, in the place where he ascended, in the highest glory which belongs to God alone.
Acts VII, 56 — 'τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ δεξιῶν ἑστῶτα τοῦ θεοῦ' — 'ton hyion tou anthropou ek dexion estota tou theou' - the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God
. That is, Christ in the glory of the Father. Why is Jesus standing and not seated? To honour the first martyr Stephen. To fulfil the words of Christ Himself (the promise): whoever acknowledges Me before people, I too will acknowledge before My Father
. See more at the link:
https://www.facebook.com/Oleksandr.S.Zhabenko/posts/
Acts VII, 58 — 'παρὰ τοὺς πόδας νεανίου καλουμένου Σαύλου' — 'para tous podas neaniou kaloumenou Saulou' - to the proximity with the feet of a young man (grown) called Saul
. The preposition 'para' here with the accusative indicates that those people trusted Saul entirely as their unanimous and convinced supporter.
A description of the martyrdom of Stephen — abbreviated, since the entire chapter 7 is devoted first to his defence and denunciatory speech and preaching, and then to his martyrdom.
Stephen thereby became the first martyr for Jesus Christ directly (precisely as a follower of Jesus Christ on account of his faith in Him). The accusations of the Jews repeated their accusations against Jesus, and similarly were based on false testimonies, and similarly, as Jesus Himself had done, Stephen refutes these accusations. In his sermon he recounts the history of salvation of the Old Testament Church, beginning from Abraham, who is the progenitor of the Jews and to whom God gave His promises.
Since Stephen was accused of contempt for the temple and the Law, he speaks concerning them — entirely correctly and in the spirit of both the Old and the New Testament.
But this is not merely a learned dispute about truth — it is a testimony to the power of God which fills the faithful in the name of Jesus in the Holy Spirit, of which the signs were the glory of Stephen (the radiance of grace, which was later depicted in the form of haloes) when he spoke, and also the appearance to him of Jesus Christ Himself in His glory and that of the Father.
What most condemned Stephen in their eyes was this glory, for the Jews themselves had nothing of the kind — which definitively exposed them in their resistance to the truth itself, to God.
I shall add that as a witness of the stoning of Stephen, Saul is mentioned — who subsequently became the apostle Paul.
Stephen prays for his enemies, similarly to Jesus, and is not afraid of death.
His name translates as crown
and has become the general symbol of martyrdom and victory. See in particular the profound thoughts on James I, 12:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/07012026.html
and also in general:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/renewal-of-Peter.html
More concerning the reading see at the links:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/renewal-of-Peter.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/05052025.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/01052023.html
John IV, 46 — 'εἰς τὴν Κανὰ τῆς Γαλιλαίας' — 'eis ten Kana tes Galilaias' - into Cana of Galilee
. Whither. 'ἐν Καφαρναούμ' - 'en Kapharnaoum' - in Capernaum
. Where.
John IV, 47, 54 — 'ἐκ τῆς Ἰουδαίας εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν' — 'ek tes Ioudaias eis ten Galilaian' - from Judaea into Galilee
. Whence and whither.
John IV, 52 — 'τὴν ὥραν παρ' αὐτῶν ἐν ᾗ κομψότερον ἔσχεν' — 'ten horan par auton en he kompsoteron eskhen' - the hour from beside them at which he was feeling better (easier)
. The preposition 'para' in its form before the following vowel here with the genitive case. This construction is used concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and concerning the human nature of Jesus Christ. See more at the links:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/Pryjmennyky.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/02082025.html
Here this indicates that both the question of the father of the healed son and the answer of the servants were under the action of the Holy Spirit, according to His will and direct participation.
John IV, 53 — 'ἐν ᾗ' — 'en he' - at which
. When.
The town to which the official went was geographically higher than the locality where his own house was, and therefore in the original the word go down, descend
is used twice — once where he asks Jesus for healing, and once where he returns home. In the first instance the words thus have a double meaning — the literal geographical one and the spiritual one, which is more important — the latter showing the humility and faith of the official. The miracle is similar to several others performed by Jesus, accounts of which are found in the Gospels.
The particular feature is that the man believed the word of Jesus about healing at a distance (the same situation occurred with the Roman centurion and his servant, whose faith Jesus especially praised), and also that he specifies the exact time when it happened, so as to have certainty that this was the miracle of Jesus. He himself was not a direct witness of the recovery, but he believes the words of the servants, who knew nothing of the story with Jesus apart from the fact that the father had gone to Him to ask for healing.
For us this is a lesson in the fact that God's action (here — the miracle) may be broader than we personally encompass, may embrace more people, and when their participation is genuine we must receive their testimony as though we ourselves were witnesses, with similar trust.
More concerning the readings from the Gospel see at the links:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/05052025.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/01052023.html
Glory be to Thee, our God, glory be to Thee!