dissertation.¹

          A few minor limitations are also necessary. Though

it would be desirable to compare and contrast all the

parallel passages containing temporal expressions, this

will not be attempted since this could be a separate study.

Where it is important to the purpose of the dissertation,

the unacceptable views of the liberals will be cited and

discussed. There will not be an extensive rebuttal given

to the liberal method of interpretation. Because of the

subject matter there will not be exegetical elaborations

but rather the conclusions from the exegesis process.

 

                       Goals of This Study

          There are two primary goals of this work. The first

is to collect and to classify every word, phrase and gram-

matical expression pertaining to time in the Gospels. The

second is the establishing of the precise meanings of these

references to time. Berkley Nickelsen says that the basic

objective of every interpreter of the Scriptures should be,

 

          ¹ It is accepted that the comments found in Greek

grammars concerning case significance of time words are

correct. The following distinctions should be maintained

unless there are strong contextual reasons not to do so:

(1) the genitive case implies the time within which some-

thing takes place but states nothing as to duration;

(2) the dative case answers the question 'when?' and des-

ignates a point of time; (3) the locative case (particu-

larly when e]n occurs) regards the period from the point

of view of a point even if it is of some length; and (4)

the accusative case when used of time expresses duration

over the whole period.
                                          6

"to find out the meaning of a statement (command, question)

for the author and for the first hearers or readers, and

thereupon to transmit that meaning to modern readers."¹

This well states the second goal of this study. The end

result hopefully will be a wordbook of temporal expressions

in the Gospels that will provide a basic tool in the inter-

preting and understanding of historical and temporal

passages in the Gospels.

 

                         Method of This Study

          The major approach of this study will be a word

study. This necessitates, (1) a knowledge of the possible

word meanings in the period in which they occur, (2) an

examination of the context of each writer to understand the

initial reception of the message, and (3) a careful

avoidance of fine distinctions of synonyms and etymological

determinations unless there is strong contextual support.

It must be noted that "linguistically, it is the syntactical

complexes, in which the lexical items are used, and not the

lexical items themselves, which constitute communication."²

Great care must be taken to avoid a lexical structure for

 

          ¹ A. Berkley Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible (Grand

Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1963), p. 5.

          2 James Barr, Biblical Words for Time (London: SCM

Press Ltd., 1961), p. 155. "(Hereinafter referred to as

Time.)"

 

                                            7

the Gospels that sets forth the outlines of Biblical

thought about this subject since there can be variations

between languages and thought patterns of the writers

themselves.

          More specifically the expressions for time will

each be explored in three areas. The use of a word in non-

biblical Greek includes several considerations. The

etymology of a word is important if it can be ascertained.

Then the use of each word has to be examined in Classical,

other Koine literature and the papyri. A second area to

explore is the use of each word in the Old Testament. This

often can be studied from the Greek word through its Hebrew

counterpart, as well as the uses of the word in the

Septuagint. After this the final area of study can begin.

Each use of the word in the four gospels is syntactically

and contextually considered. For greater ease of compre-

hension, the Gospels are discussed separately, Matthew

through John, with appropriate conclusions placed in the

final paragraph of each discussion.

          The last major area of the dissertation consists of

a grammatical investigation of the temporal infinitives,

participles, adverbs and conjunctions. This second area of

study completes the examination of all the expressions for

time in the Gospels with the exception of time as is indi-

cated by the verb tenses. This, however, is not a

consideration of the dissertation.

 

                       Preview of This Study

          Following this introductory chapter the first major

part of the dissertation, "Word Study," begins. The initial

major chapter contains a discussion of the temporal words

that were common and popularly used by all Jews. This

chapter is not an extensive lexical study but rather the

citing of the various meanings for the most frequently used

words, such as, "year," "day" and "hour." These common

words provide a basis for later discussion. Their variety

of meanings establishes early that linguistic dogmatism

solely on the basis of a word unscientific.

          The next three chapters contain words expressing

time. They are divided into "Words Indicating Time

Unspecified," "Words Time in a Year," and "Words for Day

and its Parts." In each chapter the words will be examined

alphabetically as to their use in (1) non-biblical Greek,

(2) the Old Testament, and (3) the Gospels.

          The second major part of the dissertation, "A

Grammatical Study," begins with chapter six. It is a study

of "Infinitival Expressions of Time." These are clearly

identified in the Gospels and are examined both grammati-

cally and contextually. Chapter seven is an investigation

of "Participial Expressions of Time." Primarily this is a

study of the grammar because it is too difficult to deter-

mine this function of the participle. Only illustrations

                                        8

                                          9

of this are cited. The last chapter of this second part is

a discussion of the "Conjunctive and Adverbial Words for

Time." These are cited alphabetically and in accordance

with their recognized major function, adverbial or

conjunctive.

          A summary and conclusion completes the dissertation

setting forth the findings of the investigation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                    PART I.  WORD STUDY

                               CHAPTER II

                COMMON WORDS FOR TIME

                        IN THE JEWISH YEAR

          Expressions of time in the Gospels are subject to

misunderstandings for at least three reasons: (1) the

large number of Gospel passages indicating time which often

differ in parallel passages, (2) the lack of specific

knowledge about certain first century dating practices, and

(3) the errant equating of contemporary concepts of time

with those of the Gospel era. Much of the confusion can be

alleviated by a general understanding of the time expres-

sions commonly used within the Jewish year. The indications

of time considered in this chapter are: year, month, week,

day, hour and feasts.

 

                                        Year

          The year, hnAwA in Hebrew, has been reckoned by

many methods at different points in Biblical history. This

practice provides a variety of calendars for the New Testa-

ment era. Both the length of year and the nature of the

calendar year create problems for determining the correct

method of Biblical calendation.

          The primary system the Hebrews used for indicating

chronology was by the year. But even among the Jewish

people the principles of chronology varied sufficiently to

                                             11

                                            12

give Old Testament scholars great difficulty. Within the

past few decades significant efforts have been made toward

understanding the chronological reckoning of the Jews both

during the period of the Kings¹ and the restoration of

Judah back to the land of Palestine.² Although all the

conclusions have not been met with universal acceptance

they provide the basis for Old Testament time reckoning.

          In the Old Testament both a solar, a luni-solar

year³ and a lunar year⁴ have been suggested as being

followed. Morgenstern writes in support of the luni-solar

year, that is, a calendar year based on lunar months with

a system of intercalation to harmonize with the sun:

                Now it is of utmost significance that, working on

          altogether independent, astronomical grounds, Charlier

          reached exactly the same conclusion, that the temple

          must have been so built that on the two annual equi-

          noctial days the first rays of the rising sun shone

          directly in through the eastern gate. He has shown

          further that these two equinoctial days were the 1st

          of the first month and the 10th of the seventh month,

 

          ¹ Edwin R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the.

Hebrew Kings  (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing

Company, 1965).

          ² Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein,

Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.-A.D. 75 (Providence, R.I.:

Brown University Press, 1956).

          ³ Julian Morgenstern, "Supplementary Studies in the

Calendars of Ancient Israel," Hebrew Union College Annual,

X (1935), 3-5.

          ⁴ Henri Daniel-Rops, Daily Life in the Time of Jesus,

trans. by P. O'Brian (New York: Mentor-Omega Books, 1962),

p. 179. "(Hereinafter referred to as Daily Life.)"

 

                                             13

          the latter the late Biblical Yom Kippur. . . .¹

          Those who accept a lunar or embolistic year actually

assert the same basic reckoning of time since an embolistic

month, a second Adar, was added about every third year to

bring the lunar year into agreement with the solar year.

          The beginning of the Jewish year could begin either

in Nisan (March-April) or Tishri (September-October)

depending on the system followed at a particular time. The

first month of the year varied during Jewish history after

the division of the kingdom. Later in 1 Maccabees the

method of designating the months by name and number indi-

cates that the first month of the Jewish year about 165 B.C.

was Nisan. This probably was the case in Palestine during

the first century A.D., since it was just before Nisan that

any type of correction for the length of the year had to be

made in order to make the ripening of the barley correspond

to the celebration of the Passover in Nisan. Further, no

political events had occurred to force the Jews to change

from the practice of the Maccabbean times.

          Shortly after the time of the Maccabean revolt the

Qumran community provided a calendar quite distinct from

all others. Found in the Book of Jubilee 6:23-32, this

system of dating reckons a year as 364 days. Thus each

 

          ¹ Julian Morgenstern, "The Gates of Righteousness,"

Hebrew Union College Annual, VI, (1929), 18-19.

 

                                          14

year was errant one and one-half days with the cycle of the

sun unless some method of intercalation was practiced. The

year itself is divided into four quarters of ninety-one days

with two months being thirty days and one being thirty-one

days in each quarter. The advantage of this system is that

every feast day was on the same day of the week each year.

Feast days came regularly on Wednesday, Friday and Sunday.¹

Since the Passover, Nisan 15, according to this system falls

on a Wednesday, some scholars have taken liberty to recon-

struct the entire passion accounts.²    Though this view has

created much interest and speculation that Jesus and his

disciples may have used this calendar, most scholars do not

consider this likely. Perhaps the greatest weakness of

this Jaubertian calendar system is the lack of knowledge

about the yearly intercalations which must have been made

in both the solar and traditional calendars at the time of

Christ. An acceptance of this system adds many more

problems to the passion week chronology than it solves.³

 

          ¹ Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology

(Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1964),

pp. 54-55. "(Hereinafter referred to as HBC.)"

          ² This is especially true of Annie Jaubert, The

Date of the Last Supper, trans. by Isaac Rafferty (Staten

Island, N.Y.: Alba House, 1965).

          ³ For an excellent analysis and refutation of Annie

Jaubert's chronology see Clifford Wood Hardin, "An Exami-

nation of Jaubert's Chronology of the Passion Week,"

(unpublished Th. M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary,

1969).

 

                                             15

There is no evidence that this calendar was used outside of

the Qumran community nor is it certain how long it was

followed there.

          By the time of Christ several calendars were in use

in Palestine making it more difficult to be dogmatic when

asserting dates.

                    Matters were much complicated, however, by the fact

          that by no means all the inhabitants of Palestine used

          the official calendar of the Jewish community. . . .

          And in a Greek city of the Decapolis there might

          perfectly well be three concurrent calendars, the

          Jewish, the Syrian and the Egyptian, quite apart from

          the Roman.

                    And lastly it now seems quite certain, since the

          discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, that some religious

          groups who were faithful to the tradition of the Book

          of Jubilees still used the ancient calendar of 364

          days, which had four terms of ninety-one days each, and

          which were each made up of thirteen weeks. This had

          the advantage of making the great feasts, such as the

          Passover, fall on a given date.¹

          The reckoning of time by the aforementioned calen-

dars could produce different times for both the length of

the year and the beginning of the year. For example, the

Egyptian calendar after 22 B.C. consisted of twelve months

of thirty days or three hundred sixty days with five

epagomenal days added after the twelfth month. Every year

preceding the leap year of the Julian calendar was an

intercalary year and six epagomenal days were added so that

the Egyptian yearly calendar averaged 365 1/2 days. The

 

          ¹ Daniel-Rops, Daily Life, p. 183.

                                              16

beginning of the year fell on August twenty-ninth or

thirtieth.¹

          The Syrian calendar followed the Macedonian which

began in October and followed a lunar calendar-system with

the probable insertion of intercalary months. Though this

dating system seems to be followed in 1 Maccabees² it

appears to be of no consequence in the New Testament.

Whether the Jewish year began in the fall adopting the

Syrian system or in the spring following the Babylonian

calendar is not known. However, "at the time of Christ it

is quite certain that the lunar year of 364 days was in

use."³ That is to say, the lunar year with an intercalated

lunar month which permitted the lunar year to coincide with

the solar year.

          Of course there were other problems of Jewish time

reckoning:

                    There are some interesting facts to learn, as that

          the Hebrews, in counting an interval of days (or weeks,

          or months, or years) between two events would probably

          (though not necessarily) include in the interval both

          the day (or week, or month, or year) of the first event

          as well as the second.⁴

 

          ¹ Finegan, HBC, pp. 28-29.

          ² Ibid., p. 121.

          ³ Daniel-Rops, Daily Life, p. 180.

          ⁴ John Marsh, The Fulness of. Time (New York: Harper

& Brothers Publishers, 1962), p. 20. "(Hereinafter

referred to as Time.)"

                                               17

          This is known as inclusive reckoning and must be

considered in matters of chronology (particularly in

connection with the use of h[me<ra). Fortunately, most

other words for time are not affected by this principle of

chronology. In a subsequent chapter, the two Greek words

for year, e]niauto<j and e@toj which translate hnAwA will

be examined in detail.

 

                                       Month

          Twelve months, written mh<n in both the Septuagint

and the New Testament, made up the Jewish year. Each month

had twenty-nine days and began "when the thin sliver of the

new moon appeared in the sky:  if it did not appear, then

necessarily the month had thirty days."¹ It must be under-

stood that the Jewish month was based totally on visible

lunar calculation, as is attested by the two Hebrew words

for month, wdH , meaning "glittering new moon" and Hry

meaning "moon" or "month."

          The decision for determining the new month was the

work of the Sanhedrin.

                    If the members of the court found that the new

          moon might be visible, they were obliged to be in

          attendance at the courthouse for the whole thirtieth

          day and be on the watch for the arrival of witnesses.

          If witnesses did arrive, they were duly examined and

          tested, and if their testimony appeared trustworthy,

          this day was sanctified as New Moon Day. If the new

         

          ¹ Daniel-Rops, Daily Life, p. 181.

                                            18

          crescent did not appear and no witnesses arrived, this

          day was counted as the thirtieth day of the old month,

          which thus became an embolistic month.¹

          This shifting of the month from twenty-nine to

thirty days based on the visual sighting of the new moon

and the decision of the Sanhedrin to begin a new month

makes the certain determination of a new month or a parti-

cular day in the month during the first century an

impossible task.

          There was even a greater difficulty in reckoning

time by months. Since a solar year is eleven days longer

than a lunar year, every third year an extra month had to

be added to the calendar in order to celebrate the feasts

at the correct time each year.

                    This was done by adding a second Adar (the Baby-

          lonian name for the twelfth month), February-March, so

          contrived that the Passover, celebrated on the 14th

          Nisan (the first month), should always fall after the

          spring equinox.²

          In this way the spring season of the year coincided

with the month Nisan and the first sheaf of barley would be

fully ripened, ready to be offered on the sixteenth of

Nisan. To correlate the beginning of the Jewish year with

the Julian calendar would demand knowledge of every inter-

calation and the decision of the Sanhedrin for all these

 

          ¹ Jack Finegan, Light From the Ancient Past (New

York: Princeton University Press, 1946), p. 578.

          ² G. Gordon Stott, "Month," HDCG, II (New York:

Charles Scribner's Sons, 1912), 731.

 

                                           19

years.

          Perhaps the aforementioned difficulties explain why

the words for month and year occur only a few times in the

Gospels. The names for the months are not used at all.

There is actually no evidence that the object now called a

calendar and which shows the months, weeks and days at a

single glance was known to the average Jew.

 

                                           Week

          The modern method of determining time by weeks was

not followed by the Gospel writers. The Hebrew fbw from

the numeral seven was translated by the Greek sa<bbaton,

This seventh day of the Jewish week began Friday at sunset

and extended through the daylight of Saturday. This was

the Jewish sabbath and was known by that name. On several

occasions in the Old Testament various feast days are also

called sabbaths.¹ Consequently, the word "sabbath" could

refer to a feast no matter which day of the week it was

observed or to the seventh day of the Jewish week.

          The day prior to the weekly sabbath was the day of

preparation for the sabbath and seems to be designated as

the paraskeuh<, the preparation day.²  Once in Mark 15:42

 

          ¹ An excellent discussion of the meaning of Sabbath

in the context of feast days can be found in an unpublished

monograph by Homer A. Kent Jr., "The Day of that Sabbath

was a High Day," pp. 25-31.

          ² Josephus Antiquities 16. 6.2. (Perhaps this is

also intended in Mt. 27:62; Lk. 23:54; Jn. 19:31, 42).

                                            20

it is called prosa<bbaton and was also known as "the eve

of the sabbath."¹ Six times in the Passion week account

paraskeuh< occurs and may have the function of indicating

"Friday," the day before the Sabbath. That paraskeuh< can

refer to Friday of any week is indicated by the Didache,

“. . .  but do ye fast on the fourth day and the Preparation

(Friday)."²  Josephus writes, ". . . and that they need not

give bond (to appear in court) on the Sabbath or on the day

of preparation for it (Sabbath Eve) after the ninth hour."³

The meaning of paraskeuh<,  Friday, became so fixed in

Greece that to this day Friday is known by this title.

          However, paraskeuh< can also refer to "the day

before any feast which required special preparation that

could not be made on the feast day itself."⁴ That this can

be applied for example to Nisan 14, the day before the

eating of the Passover, is illustrated by many passages in

Rabbinic literature.⁵ The Septuagint never uses paraskeuh<  

in connection with any type of a feast or Sabbath day.

 

          ¹ Daniel-Rops, Daily Life, p. 184.

          ² Didache 8.

          ³ Josephus Antiquities 16. 6.2.

          ⁴ Solon Hoyt, "Did Christ Eat the Passover?"

(unpublished monograph, Grace Theological Seminary, 1945),

P. 34.

          ⁵ Babylonian Talmud Pesachim 4:1, 5, 6; 5:1; 10:1.

 

                                          21

          Thus, two uses of paraskeuh< in the New Testament

times are possible. It may mean Friday, including the

evening of Thursday, which is the day before a weekly

Sabbath. Or, it could mean any day before a feast day such

as the Passover, Nisan 15. This distinction must be con-

sidered in matters of chronology. The other days in the

week were named simply by their numerical order, so that

"the first of the week (mi%> sababa<twn) in Matthew 28:1 is

Saturday evening and Sunday until sunset. The word for

week, sa<bbaton, occurs often since every Jew was oriented

to the sabbath observance on the seventh day of the week.

 

                                             Day

          The most frequently used word expressing time in

the Gospels is h[me<ra, day. The Hebrew         MOy and its

translation h[me>ra were popularly used to indicate both a

twenty-four hour solar day and the daylight period. The

Greek language also had nuxqhme<ron to indicate the

complete cycle of light and darkness but this is used only

once in the New Testament, 2 Corinthians 11:25. "Usually,

however, the 'day' which includes the nightime and the day-

time is simply designated with the word h[me<ra, and the

context makes plain what is meant. . ."¹

          The sequence of time in a day was measured by one

 

            ¹ Finegan, HBC, p. 8.

                                          22

of four methods: (1) a sunclock, po<loj, (2) a sundial,

gnw<mwn, (3) a water-clock, kleyu<da (for the night

especially),¹ and (4) estimation. It is quite certain that

the common people would use the last method.

          In the ancient world the day began at dawn in

Egypt; at evening in Ancient Mesopotamia, Greece and in the

Old Testament; whereas the Roman day began at midnight.²

          Bickerman writes concerning the Jewish reckoning:

                    On the other hand, the complete day, for the purpose

          of the calendar, is generally reckoned in conformity

          with the respective calendar systems. The peoples who

          use lunations as the basic time-measurement (Athenians,

          Gauls, Germans and Hebrews) counted the twenty-four

          hour day from evening to evening.³

          Though it is not universally accepted, most New

Testament scholars accept that the beginning of the day

among Jews in Palestine was at sunset. If this is correct,

the appearance of the stars was the sign that the day had

ended⁴ and a new day begun.

          The darkness part of the day is called night, nu<c,

and can be broken down into several divisions of time. The

early evening was designated e]spe<ra.  The entire night,

 

            ¹ Finegan, HBO, p. 12.

            ² Ibid., pp. 8-9.

            ³ Elias J. Bickerman, Chronology of the Ancient 

World (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University :Press, 1968),

p. 13. "(Hereinafter referred to as Chronology.)"

            ⁴ Babylonian Talmud Berakoth 1:2.

                                      23

nu<c contained four watches according to both the New

Testament and Josephus^l with each watch representing one-

fourth part of the night. This differed from the Old Testa-

ment practice of having only three watches. The watches

came in the following order: (1) o[ye<, (2) mesonu<ktion,

 (3) a]lektorofwni<a and (4) prwi~.²  In fact, in Talmudic

literature the word "evening" at times also included the

entire afternoon. The afternoon was divided into two

periods, 12 to 2:30 and 3:30 to 6:00, called evenings.³

The time for the slaying of the Passover lamb according to

Josephus⁴ was between the two evenings.

          As light began to dawn in Palestine a new day

began. "This was true in Greece and Rome, in Babylonia

and Egypt, as it is true for our own usage."⁵ This was an

accurate way of speaking even though the twenty-four hour

day began at sunset in some countries and mid-night in Rome.

According to the Jerusalem Talmud the earliest period, dawn,

was divided into four parts: (1) the gazelle of the

morning (a[me<raj ble<faron), (2) when one can distinguish

 

          ¹ Josephus Antiquities 18. 9.6.

          ² F. R. Montgomery Hitchcock, "Dates," DCG, I

(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1906), p. 417.

          ³ Finegan, HBC, p. 14.

          ⁴ Josephus Wars 6. 9.3.

          ⁵ Bickerman, Chronology, p. 13.

                                      24

blue from white (prwi~, skoti<aj e@ti ou@shj),  (3) when east

began to grow light (o@rqroj baqu<j), and (4) twilight

(li<an prwi~, a]natei<lantoj tou? h[liou<).¹   Consequently,

prwi~ and o@rqroj and their cognates are used of this time

period in the Gospels. Rather than reckon time hour by

hour the daylight part of the day was often divided into

three-periods, the middle of the morning, noon and the

middle of the afternoon. These correspond to 9 a.m., noon

and 3 p.m.

                    It seems to me more likely that in spite of the

          opportunity offered by an hourly nomenclature the

          ancients found that for many purposes the simpler

          three-hour interval was sufficiently definite. For

          the culture represented by the evangelists and in a

          society without clocks or watches one could often be

          satisfied with phrases no more specific than our mid-

          morning, midday (or noon), mid-afternoon together

          with dawn or sunset.²

          Thus it is seen that within a solar day there can

be many expressions of time and most are inadequate in

indicating a precise moment of time. The more easily fixed

points of time during the day would be daybreak, nightfall

and midday.

 

          ¹ John M'Clintock and James Strong, eds., "Day,"

CBTEL, II (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1882),

pp. 702-703.

          ² Henry J. Cadbury, "Some Lukan Expressions of

Time," JBL, LXXXII (September, 1963), 278. "(Hereinafter

referred to as "Time.")"

                                             25

                                           Hour

          Another popular way to speak of time is by the hour,

w!ra. The earliest known use of hours by the Jews came

during the Intertestament Period and is recorded in the

apocryphal book 3 Maccabees 5:14. This hour had little

similarity to modern reckoning. Any hour identification

could only be relative since its length depended on the

time of the year and the geographical latitude.

                    The twelve hour system then in use throughout the

          Roman empire, had of course no relation to ours. Our

          hours are each the twenty-fourth part of a legal day

          calculated mathematically; the Roman system was

          based upon the durations of the sun's presence in the

          sky: on December 25th, therefore, the winter sol-

          stice, when there were but eight hours and fifty-four

          minutes of possible sunlight in the day, the day-time

          hour shrank to less than forty-five of our minutes,

          while each of the night-hours draw out to an hour and

          a quarter of our time.¹

          It is important to notice that every day had twelve

hours of relatively equal length and these hours were

numbered from daybreak to nightfall (Mt. 20:3-12). Of the

method by which time was actually determined in the

Biblical period, we know little. The division of time into

sixty minute hours was a late refinement, which must have

become generally used only when some sort of a sundial or

hourglass became readily available.²

          ¹ Daniel-Rops, Daily Life, p. 186.

          ² Roger T. Beckwith, "The Day, Its Divisions and Its

Limits, In Biblical Thought," The Evangelical Quarterly,

XLIII, (October, 1971), 220. "(Hereinafter referred to as

The Day.)"

                                          26

          The night likewise was divided into twelve equal

parts from sundown to sunrise. Ramsay states:

                    Though the Roman legal Day began at midnight, yet

          the hours of the day were counted only as beginning from

          sunrise; and the hours of the night (in rare cases in

          which the hours of the night were spoken of) only from

          sunset. In popular usage probably no night hours were

          spoken of except the third, sixth and perhaps the ninth,

          as the beginnings of the second, third and fourth

          watches; and those expressions were used, not because

          there was any device in ordinary use for dividing the

          night into twelve hours, but simply by analogy from

          the three main customary divisions of the day.¹

          From the earliest times the daylight period had to

be divided by visual observation rather than any other

means, at least by the common people. In the Talmud there

is a discussion of the extent of reasonable error about a

man's estimate of a given hour appealing to the fact that

"in the sixth hour the sun stands in the meridian."²   It

can be expected that many references to a particular hour

in the Gospels would also be based on estimation rather

than on mechanical means. The most frequently used hours

were the third hour (9 a.m.), the sixth hour (noon) and the

ninth hour (3 p.m.).

          The Hebrew word for hour hbw, translated by w!ra,  

can also mean an inexactly defined period of time so that

in Daniel 3:6 it is best translated "immediately." The

 

          ¹ William Ramsay, "Numbers, Hours, Years and Dates,"

HDB, V. (New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1904), 477.

          ² Babylonian Talmud Pesahim, 11b-12b.

                                       27

Greek word could be used to refer to time in general, "the

time is coming."¹  These various meanings of w!ra necessi-

tate careful study of this often used word in a later

chapter.

 

                                      Feasts

          During the Jewish year several feasts are observed

and these are identified in the Gospels by name or by the

word "feast," e[orth<.  By itself e[orth< cannot give a

clear meaning and in a given context scholars can disagree

as to the identity of the feast.² Although the time of the

year for the feasts varies slightly because of the inter-

calation practice of the Jews, some chronological identifi-

cations can be made particularly in John by understanding

the time of the feasts. Of the six major feasts--Passover,

Unleavened Bread, Weeks, Tabernacles, Trumpets and Day of

Atonement--mentioned in the Old Testament only three are

found in the Gospels by name. The Passover, Unleavened

Bread and Tabernacles together with the later Maccabean

festival, Dedication, provide feast time indications.

 

          ¹ James Barr, Time (London: SON Press Ltd., 1961),

p. 121.

          ² The feast of John 5:1 for example has been identi-

fied with the Passover by Lightfoot and Greswell, with

Pentecost by Bengel and Browns, with Tabernacles by

Cocceius, Ewald and Zahn, with the Day of Atonement by

Caspari, with Trumpets by Westcott, and with Wood-gathering

by Edersheim.

                                         28

          The Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread occur

during the same month, Nisan, and seem at times to be almost

interchangeable. Both feasts are found several times in the

accounts of the crucifixion. The month Nisan is the time

when the first barley was ripening. On the tenth of this

month the head of each home set aside a lamb for the paschal

offering and groups were formed for the proper celebration.

These lambs would be selected from the flocks outside

Jerusalem. For each lamb a minimum of ten persons was

necessary for the eating of the lamb. On the fourteenth

the women removed all leaven from the home and in the after-

noon the lamb was slain in the temple by the priests then

taken to a home and cooked. That evening, which began the

fifteenth, all the lamb would be eaten. If they needed

additional meat because of the large number of guests a

Chagigah could be offered.¹  It is uncertain how many Old

Testament practices were retained at the time of Christ

and there are almost as many differing opinions about the

first century practice as there are writers on the subject.

          It is unfortunate that the word for the Passover

feast, pa<sxa, which is found a total of twenty-five times

within the four Gospels, can be used at least five

 

          ¹ Alfred Edersheim, The Temple Its Ministry and 

Services (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,

1958), pp. 218-19. (Also see his discussion of the

Passover on pp. 208-48). "(Hereinafter referred to as

Temple.)"

                                        29

different ways because it greatly complicates chronologi-

cal reckoning. Theodor Zahn gives four different senses

of pa<sxa. (1) It can refer to the Passover lamb as the

object of qu<ein or fagei?n.  (2) The observance of Nisan

14 with the slaying of the lamb and the feast of the

Passover, as distinguished from the Feast of the Unleavened

Bread which began on the fifteenth, is called the Passover.

(3) The name a@zuma, Unleavened Bread, refers not only to

the seven days following the slaying of the Passover but

it is also applied many times in the Old Testament to the

fourteenth day which precedes it. (4) Likewise, pa<sxa

can be applied to cover all the days of a@zuma so that the

terms a@zuma and pa<sxa are used quite synonymously.¹

Further, it would seem possible that the Passover could

refer to the Paschal meal alone on Nisan 15 or to Nisan 14

excluding the feast which began after sunset. Edersheim

further maintains that pa<sxa can mean the Chagigah sacri-

fice offered on the fifteenth.²

          Four references to pa<sxa occur before the Passion

Week account.³ Each of these references appear to be

general indications of the Passover season without reference

 

          ¹ Theodor Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament,

trans., M.W. Jacobus, III (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications,

1953), 296-98. "(Hereinafter referred to as Introduction.)"

          ² Edersheim, Temple, pp. 218-19.

          ³ Luke 2:41; John 2:13, 23; 6:4.

                                         30

to a more specific time intended. Attempts to be dogmatic

concerning the days and nights at the time of the Passover

meet with frustration because of the probable existence of

more than one way of expressing days.

                    Consequently, when a day and night or a definite

          number of days and nights are being set apart from

          manual labor for religious purposes, it is necessary

          to decide which nights are being set apart in this

          way as well as which days. This was especially true

          of the passover, when the main celebration took place

          by night, but even in this case the special circum-

          stances made it as natural for Josephus to think of

          the new day as beginning after the night was over as

          before it began, since he cannot have failed to see

          that the lamb connected the night as intimately with

          the day preceding as the unleavened bread did with

          the day following.¹

          The festival of Unleavened Bread follows immediately

after the Passover and lasts seven days, Nisan fifteenth to

the twenty-first. It is called by Josephus e[orth> tw?n

a]zu<mwn and ai[ h[me<rai tw?n a]zu<mwn.²  Apparently in popular

speech the fourteenth of Nisan was also included in the

feast of Unleavened Bread in Mark 14:12. However, the

second day of Unleavened Bread was considered to be the

sixteenth of Nisan and the time when the first sheaf of

barley was offered in the Temple. From this point also

began the counting for the seven weeks to Shabuot or

 

          ¹ Beckwith, "The Day," p. 226.

          ² Josephus, Antiquities 3.10.5. and 18.2.2.

                                           31

Tabernacles.¹  The unleavened bread eaten during this time

was a remembrance of the deliverance from Egypt. The time

sequence of these two feasts and the events which accompany

them further complicate the reckoning of time during the

Passover season.

                    The Mishnah tractate Pesahim brings the entire

          ritual to a complexity widely removed from the his-

          toric night of the Exodus. The dating of the

          recurrent, commemorative festival is important for

          Gospel exegesis. The night of the Passover proper

          (14-15 Nisan) and the feast of Unleavened Bread (15-

          21 Nisan) are distinguished in Leviticus 23:5f and

          Numbers 28:16f., but telescoped in Luke 22:1. Doubt-

          less they had long become telescoped in popular

          thought and practice, as Josephus and the Mishnah bear

          out. The first day of Unleavened Bread was strictly

          15th Nisan, though the 14th was often loosely so

          called, as in Matthew 26:17; Mark 14:12. The prepara-

          tion of the Passover began at 6 p.m. on 13th Nisan,

          ending at the same hour on the 14th. This is an

          analogical extension of the normal weekly Friday or

          prosa<bbaton (Mark 15:42), when cooking and all

          laborious preparations for the sabbath had to be

          performed.²

This complexity is not found in the other feasts.

          Tabernacles was celebrated in Tishri (the early

fall) fifteenth to the twenty-first. Also known as Sukkot,

Succoth or skhnophgi<a, it commemorated the period of

wilderness wanderings after the Exodus which was during the

formative period of the Jewish nation. During these years

 

          ¹ Louis Finkelstein, The Pharisees, I (Philadelphia:

Jewish Publication Society of America, 1940), 174.

          ² Roy A. Stewart, "The Jewish Festivals," The Evan-

gelical Quarterly, XLIII (July, 1971), 153-54.

                                         32

the Jews lived like nomads in temporary dwellings.¹  At

this festival temporary dwellings of palm branches and wood

sticks, not tents, were made to dwell in. This feast was

held in high regard in Josephus' time as is seen by his

description of Tabernacles; e[orth> sfo<dra a[giwta<th kai>

megi<sth² and ei]j ta> me<lista throume<nh.³ Though

mentioned often by Josephus and in the Septuagint, it is

found only in John 7:2 in the Gospels. Most scholars

place this event about six months prior to the crucifixion.

Following Jesus' teaching at this feast He remained in

Judea until the feast of Dedication according to John 10:22.

          The festival of Dedication (Hanukkah) or e]gkai<nia

is mentioned only in John 10:22 about three months before

the crucifixion. John identifies this as being winter

which corresponds with the festival date of Kislev or

December. The celebration is actually a memorial to the

Maccabean wars of freedom over the Syrians and Antiochus

Epiphanes who had desecrated the Temple area. After

Antiochus defiled the temple on Kislev twenty-fifth, B.C.

167, the Jews led by Judas Maccabaeus regained the temple

cleansed t and restored its worship. The whole festival

 

          ¹ Julius H. Greenstone, Jewish Feasts and Fasts

(New York Bloch Publishing Company, 1946), p. 60. "(Here-

inafter referred to as Feasts.)"

          ² Josephus Antiquities 8.4.1. VIII, iv, 1.

          ³ Ibid., 15.3.3.

                                          33

has particular reference to "the rededication of the Temple

and the altar after these had been in the hands of the

heathens for two years and were polluted by them with

heathen worship and sacrifice."¹ The festival was similar

to Tabernacles:

                    And they kept eight days with gladness in the

          manner of the Feast of Tabernacles. . . they bare

          branches and fair boughs, and palms also, and sang

          psalms unto Him that had given them good success in

          cleaning His place. They ordained also by a common

          statute and decree, that every year those days should

          be kept of the whole nation of the Jews.²

          The Festival of Dedication was a national holiday

rather than a religious festival.

          While the New Testament also uses many words and

grammatical expressions for time, the purpose of this

chapter was to present the commonly known designations for

time and to show that those in the New Testament era could

use many expressions of time. These popular methods of

reckoning time--by year, month, week, day, hour, and

feasts--often had many interpretations which is true of

these words in current speech. This diversity of meanings

has produced problems in understanding these time designa-

tions. For this reason, many occurrences of these time

words must be studied at greater length in the following

chapters.

 

          ¹ Greenstone, Feasts, p. 115.

          ² II Maccabees 10:6-8.

 

 

                              CHAPTER III

 

          WORDS INDICATING TIME UNSPECIFIED

 

          In the Gospels three words expressing time need

special consideration in that the words by themselves

specify a concept of time more than an exact expression of

time. These words, ai]w<n, kairo<j and xro<noj, are the

subject of much discussion especially by current

theologians. Since these words occur often in the Gospels

this chapter will examine each word in the above mentioned

order considering (1) their use in non-biblical Greek,

(2) their use in the Old Testament and (3) their use in

the Gospels. This last area of examination will also

include the substance of the contemporary discussion of the

three words.

 

                                         Ai]w<n

          As a general indication of time, ai]w<n is used in a

number of places and expressions which, when examined,

provide the necessary insight as to the correct meanings

of this word.

In non-biblical Greek

          Regarding etymology Richard C. Trench connects ai]w<n  

with a]w<, and a]h<mi meaning to breathe. He further comments,

                                                 34

                                                35

                    Like ko<smoj it has a primary and physical and then

          superinduced on this, a secondary and ethical sense.

          In its primary, it signifies time short or long, in

          its unbroken duration, often times in classical Greek

          the duration of a human life.¹

Curtius argues that ai]w<n is from the Sanskrit  e?naj

meaning "course or walk" and in the plural, "habit or

custom."²  Others connect ai]w<n,  with the Sanskrit ayu which

conveys the idea of life and especially long life. Moulton

and Milligan comment more cautiously concerning the

etymology and the meaning of ai]w<n:

                    The word, whose root is of course futile to dig

          for, is a primitive inheritance from Indo-Germanic

          days, when it may have meant 'long life' or 'old age'

          --perhaps the least abstract idea we can find for it

          in the prehistoric period. . . . In general the word

          depicts that of which the horizon is not in view,

          whether the horizon be an indefinite distance. . . or

          whether it lies no farther than the span of Caesar's

          life.³

          Thus, the basic idea of ai]w<n relates to time

especially as it pertains to human life whether it be that

of an individual or that of the human race.

 

          ¹ Richard C. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament

(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1953),

p. 217. "(Hereinafter referred to as Synonyms.)"

          ² Georg Curtius, Principles of Greek Etymology,

trans. by A.S. Wilkins and E.B. England, I (London: John

Murray, 1866), 354.

          ³ James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The

Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament From the Papyri and 

Other Non-literary Sources (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's

Publishing Company, 1963), p. 16. "(Hereinafter referred

to as Vocabulary.)"

                                         36

 

          The earliest meanings of ai]w<n include "lifetime,

life, long time, an age and eternity."¹  Consequently, in

early times ai]w<n could signify the duration of human life

as being limited to a specific space of time or to denote

an age or generation as the space of human life. The

expansion from these meanings to the conception of time

unlimited was easy.² Some of the Greek philosophers

frequently made use of ai]w<n to indicate the concept of

time unlimited. Plato has ai]w<n as "timeless, ideal

eternity" in which there are no specific designations of

time such as days, months or years. Plutarch and others

have ai]w<n in the sense of eternity or unending time.³  When

the preposition ei]j was linked to ai]w<n  the concept of pro-

longed time and even the sense of "forever" developed.

Prior to he time of the New Testament era ai]w<n acquired a

religious significance inasmuch as  Ai]w<n became the name of

the God of eternity.⁴ Interesting examples of these uses

 

          ¹ Ernest DeWitt Burton, New Testament Word Studies

(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1927), p. 76.

“(Hereinafter referred to as Word Studies.)"

          ² Hermann Cremer, Biblico-Theological Lexicon of 

the New Testament Greek, trans. by W. Urwick (Edinburgh:

T. & T. C ark, 1954), pp. 74, 75. "(Hereinafter referred

to as Lexicon.)"

          ³ For a more detailed study of the philosopher's use

of ai]w<n examine TDNT, I, pp. 197-78.

          4 Hermann Sasse, ai]w<n, TDNT, trans. and ed. by

Geoffrey W. Bromiley, I (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans

Publishing Company, 1964), 198.

                                     37

can be cited in the early centuries A.D. An athlete

claiming to have established a new Olympic record exclaimed

mo<noj tw?n a]p ] ai]w?noj neikh<saj  ]Olu<mpia. Another time

one who was led off to death is led "from life"  a]p ] ai]w?noj.

Also the cry to the emperor was heard "the emperors for-

ever," ei]j to<n ai]w?na.¹

          From the instances cited above it is clear that

ai]w<n had a varied number of meanings in the Greek language

ranging from life to eternity. Because of the wide-range

of uses only the context itself can determine the best

translation.

In the Old Testament

          The meaning of ai]w<n in the Old Testament can be seen

by two basic means: (1) the meaning of the Hebrew words

translated by ai]w<n in the Septuagint and (2) the meaning of

ai]w<n in its contextual environment in the Septuagint. These

will be considered in the aforementioned order.

          There are nine Hebrew words translated by ai]w<n.

However, the word MlAOf almost always the word with its

several variations which is translated by ai]w<n, although

occurs about sixty times. The seven other words occur from

one to five times each and have no real significance on the

 

          ¹ Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, p. 16.

                                              38

understanding of ai]w<n.¹  Both dfa and  MlAOf have the same

basic meanings of "eternity, forever, and eternal." In

fact, the word ai]w<n may derive its meaning from the

Assyrian ullu(m) meaning "yonder, remote."² William Rice

Hall indicates both words can signify "perpetuity with a

distinctive emphasis upon concealment."³ This perpetuity

will be indefinite or concealed as to limits in definition  

though not necessarily in the context. Some of the

references to MlAOf aid in illustrating Hall's comment.

In Deuteronomy 15:17 there is mention of a perpetual slave

and in Genesis 9:16 a perpetual covenant. Each of these

indicate a perpetuity only after a time of inauguration.

In fact even the permanence of their perpetuity may be

limited. Girdlestone writes:

                    Eternity is endless; and this idea is only qualified

          by the nature of the object to which it is applied, or

          by the word of God. When applied to things physical,

          it is used in accordance with the revealed truth that

          the heaven and earth shall pass away, and it is limited

          by this truth. When applied to God, it is used in

          harmony with the truth that He is essentially and

          absolutely existant and that as He is the causa causarum

          ¹ Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath, A Concordance to

the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old 

Testament, I (Gratz, Austria: Akademische Druk, 1954), 39-

41. "(hereinafter referred to as Concordance.)"

          ² Frank Herbert Brabant, Time and Eternity in 

Christian Thought (London: Longmans, Green and Company,

1937), p. 238. "(Hereinafter referred to as Time.)"

          ³ William Rice Hall, "The Concept of Time and

Eternity in the Old Testament" (unpublished Th.M. thesis,

Dallas Theological Seminary, 1960), p. 33.

                                        39

          and without beginning, so in the very nature of things

          it must be held that no cause can ever put an end to

          His existence.¹

          The extent of the perpetuity therefore can be

limited depending upon the object and its relation to ai]w<n.

In those cases where God is so related, nothing less than

the totality of eternity would be meant.

          There may also be MlAOf, perpetuity, in two direc-

tions, namely, the past² as well as the future. "These

observations are equally true whether the definite article

is used with the Hebrew or not."³ Obviously care must be

taken to let the context indicate the extent of time

intended.

          In the Septuagint ai]w<n translates MlAOf with two

meanings: (1) a duration of a definite space of time, and

(2) an unending duration of time which could be either past

or future depending on the context.⁴ Past time stretching

indefinitely backward is seen in Genesis 6:4 "the mighty

men that were of old." More frequently the time intended

is future and can be limited only by the context as in

 

          ¹ Robert Baker Girdlestone, Synonyms of the Old

Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Win. B. Eerdmans Company,

1953), P. 317.

          ² Cf. Joshua 24:2 and Jeremiah 28:8 as good illus-

trations of perpetuity in the past.

          ³ James Barr, Time (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1961),

p. 70.

          ⁴ Cremer, Lexicon, p. 75.

                                     40

II Samuel 12:10, "the sword shall not depart out of your

house forever (e!wj ai]w?noj). Initially ai]w<n had the idea

of hidden or distant time belonging to the remote past or

future from the standpoint of the present. Only later did

ai]w<n in translating MlAOf develop the meaning of endless

time or eternity. Cremer substantiates this by saying:

                    MlAOf the Hebrew word meant primarily a remote,

          veiled, undefined, and therefore unlimited time, past

          or future, and only secondarily, a definite (especially

          a future) period whose limits must be ascertained from

          the context, it was the natural choice to have ai]w<n

          translate this word.¹

          While ai]w<n has several lexical meanings ranging from

life, lifetime, an age, a space of time and eternity it is

certain that ai]w<n may signify an indefinite period of time

either past or future (including the present) whose extent

is limited by the context more than by word meaning and

may designate only a brief period in one's life or extend

as far as eternity (or any point in between). In that ai]w<n

was used to translate the Hebrew MlAOf primarily it must be

understood that the New Testament use ai]w<n  has the Old

Testament world of thought behind it.²

 

          ¹ Cremer, Lexicon, p. 75.

          ²Alan Richardson, A Theological Word Book on the 

Bible (New York: NacMillan, 1956), p. 266. "(Hereinafter

referred to as Word Book.)"

                                           41

In the Gospels

          Some fourteen different expressions occur in the

Gospels where the word ai]w<n is included. In general two

basic ideas seem to be present among these uses: (1) an

indefinitely long period, that is a period without assign-

able limits, and (2) one of the two great periods of the

world's history.¹

          Regarding the first idea it should be noted that

"only in the light of the context can it be said whether

ai]w<n means 'eternity' in the strict sense of simply

'remote' or 'extended' or 'uninterrupted time."²  Sasse

further suggests that the use of the plural "presupposes

knowledge of a plurality of ai]w?nej, of ages and periods

of time whose infinite series constitutes eternity."³

          The two great periods of the world's history are

the present time which began with creation and culminates

with judgment and the Messianic or Kingdom age. Brabant

remarks,

                    In the NT Aion is used of this life in opposition

          to the Age of the Kingdom which is called o[ me<llwn or

          e]kei?noj o[ ai]w<n: from this it comes to mean this World

          Order under the rule of an evil angel.⁴

 

          ¹ Burton, Word Studies, p. 77.

          ² Sasse, ai]w<n, I, 198-99.

          ³ Ibid., p. 199.

          ⁴ Brabant, Time, p. 43.

                                     42

          The many variations of expression using ai]w<n are

thought to be only an "intensification of the tendency

already displayed in the LXX to replace the simple formulae

by more complicated."¹

          In recent years considerable discussion of ai]w<n,

kairo<j an xro<noj has taken place.² These divergent views

have developed into two general ideas about these words.

The two basic positions concerning  ai]w<n are set forth by

Oscar Cullmann and James Barr.

          Cullmann argues that ai]w<n in the New Testament

designates a duration of time which may be a limited or

unlimited extent of time. Actually his scheme allows for

four elements: (1) the entirety of time, (2) the period

before creation, (3) the period between creation and the

final events, and (4) the period from the final events to

infinity.³ When ai]w<n is used to show a limited duration

of time it, should be translated "age." If unlimited

duration is indicated the translation "eternity" is pre-

ferred.   The plural ai]w?nej is preferred when the sense

 

          ¹ Sasse, ai]w<n, I, 200.

          ² Some of those who reflect this recent discussion

are: J. Marsh, The Fulness of Time; A. Richardson, A

Theological Word Book of the Bible; J.A.T. Robinson, In

the End, God; C. Cullmann, Christ and Time; and J. Barr,

Biblical Words for Time.

          ³ James Barr, Time (London: SCM Press Otd., 1962),

p. 74.

                                      43

"eternity" is intended. However, this "eternity" is not

something different than time but the whole of time.¹   To

Cullmann "eternity" is, "the linking of an unlimited series

of limited world periods, whose succession only God is

able to survey."²

          In his reply to Cullmann's position James Barr

argues against Cullmann's methodology and conclusion that

eternity (ai]w<n) is synonymous with the entirety of earth's

limited times. He maintains for example, that ai]w<n in its

popular phrase ei]j to>n ai]w?na may be used "firstly for the

totality of time and secondly for a perpetuity in some

state for the whole of a limited period, and negatively for

the continual avoidance of a particular action"³ either for

the whole or a limited period. In other words ai]w<n may

have several meanings which are not necessarily parts of

the same whole. He further suggests that the use of the

plural of ai]w<n probably can be traced to or influenced by

the Hebrew olamim (or similarly the Aramaic),⁴ and not to

the combining of time periods. Richardson appears to

restrict this meaning of ai]w<n too severely when he

comments:

 

          ¹ Oscar Cullmann, Time, trans. by F. Filson (Phila-

delphia: he Westminster Press, 1950), pp. 45-46.

          ² Barr, Time, p. 64.

          ³ Ibid., p. 77.                     ⁴ Ibid., p. 65.

                                          44

                    In this connexion it is important to observe that

          neither there, nor in any Jewish literature current at

          the time, was the word aion used to express the view

          that the history of the world is made up of a number

          of aions or 'ages', nor even the notion of two aions 

          or ages -- the present and the one to come.¹

Such a conclusion can hardly be supported by the context

of many New Testament passages.

          In summary, Barr appeals to the syntactic contexts

to determine whether  ai]w<n should be translated "forever"

(which he believes is true in most contexts) with "never"

in negative contexts and for the past "from all time" or

eternity.²  The consideration of the context and the

historic uses of ai]w<n to determine the correct meaning of

ai]w<n is a much better approach than Cullmann's self-

designed system of limited time periods which when compiled

extend from the beginning to the end of eternity. With

this background in mind an examination of the use of ai]w<n

in the Gospels is now possible.

          The several uses of ai]w<n, are translated most

often by "age," "forever," and in the negative by "never."

The time indicated may extend from the time of creation to

the eternal state.

          Matthew uses ai]w<n with tou<t& in a general way to

speak of this present age or time of history in contrast

 

          ¹ Richardson, Word Book, p. 266.

          ² Barr, Time, p. 69.

                                       45

with the coming age which is climaxed by the eternal state

(12:32). Similarly ai]w<n is found in "the worry of the age"

(13:22; Mk. 4:19).  Perhaps it is best to understand this

as the present evil time¹ or world system which culminates

in judgment.

          The expression sunte<leia ai]w?noj, "end of the age"

is found in five places and always with ai]w<n in the geni-

tive singular.²  Although it is found nowhere else in the

Gospels, this expression is frequently found in Jewish

apocalyptic literature especially in the Book of Baruch.

Each reference indicates a future time period of limited

duration. It may be the time of spiritual harvest (Mt. 13),

the time just prior to the Messianic kingdom (24:3) and the

end of this dispensation at the Rapture (28:20). At least

two differing points in time are indicated therefore, the

expression does not seem to refer to a particular point

but a period of time. To the dispensationalist the promise

of Matthew 28:20 extends only to the Rapture since there

will be no need for the promise after the Rapture. The

other occurrences will be fulfilled in conjunction with

the Second Coming, with the events of the Tribulation and

 

          ¹ Ezra P. Gould, A Critical and Exegetical Commen-

tary on the Gospel According to St. Mark (Edinburgh: T.

& T. Clark, 1961), p. 76. "(Hereinafter referred to as

Mark.)"

          ² Mt. 13:39, 40, 49; 24:3; 28:30.

                                      46

the judgment of all living (Mt. 13). Thus the same expres-

sion refers to differing periods of limited duration.

          Following the end of this age time continues.

While Matthew does not use ai]w<n to describe the eternal

state he may suggest it in recording the cursing of the fig

tree "there shall no longer be fruit from these forever"

(21:19). The expression used is the familiar Old Testament

phrase ei]j to>n ai]w?na or "into perpetuity." Concerning this

phrase Lenski writes: "The belief that whatsoever is

allowed to see that age will continue to exist, in that age,

makes ei]j to>n ai]w?na equivalent to forever."¹ And yet in a

sense even this use of ai]w<n may extend only so far as the

life of the fig tree. If this is true, the most Jewish of

the Gospels has ai]w<n primarily to indicate time within the

existing period which is prior to the eternal state.

          Of Mark's four references,² two are parallel to

accounts in Matthew. However, Mark 10:30 introduces the

coming age (e]rxomen<& ai]w<n) which has as its character-

istic life eternal. It is clear that this coming age is

a distinct future period following "this age" which is

qualified as to its nature only by the phrase "eternal

life." Its extent of time is unspecified.

 

          ¹ Richard C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St.

Luke's Gospel (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House,

1964), p. 34. "(Hereinafter referred to as Luke.)"

          ² Mark 3:29; 4:19; 10:30; 11:14.

                                          47

          In the phrase ei]j to>n ai]w?na which occurs in Mark

3:29, "hath not forgiveness forever," it must have the

meaning of eternal duration rather than "age." The "for-

ever" indicates the duration of the not being forgiven

which must last as long as the individual exists. It is

later referred to as an eternal (ai]w<nioj) sin. Here only

in Mark does ai]w<n indicate a long period of time including

both the present and future ages.

          The third Gospel, Luke, incorporates all of the

previous uses of ai]w<n though sometimes with differing ex-

pressions. He writes of the sons of the present period of

time in 16:8, tou? ai]w?noj tou<to. The terminus of the

present age will not be reached until the coming age (18:

30). "This age" (tou<tou) in Luke 20:34 is not to be con-

fused with "that (e]kei<nou) age" (20:35). Perhaps more

pointedly here than any other place Jesus shows there is a

distinction between the present age, a time for marrying,

and the future age, a time of resurrection. The periods

are distinct and do not overlap. The ei]j to>n ai]w?na is

found in both the singular (1:55) and the plural (1:33).

This is the only plural use of ai]w<n in the Gospels. The use

of ai]w<n in the singular "toward Abraham and his seed for-

ever" may be indicating that up to the time of Luke's

inscripturation only a single ai]w<n had transpired whereas

the plural "reign over the house of Jacob forever" would

cite that a multiplication of eons in an indefinite

                                         48

succession portray the magnitude of eternity.¹ However, it

is best to understand the singular or plural uses as

optional ways of saying the same thing, "forever," unless

there is contextual evidence which would indicate otherwise.

          Luke 1:70, "from of old" introduces a use of ai]w<n 

which looks backward into time. It is not from an eternal

past but a time period being reckoned from the time when

the holy prophets began to emerge. Here ai]w<n indicates a

past time within this age but removed from eternity or

forever.

          In John only two types of ai]w<n expressions are

found. The first expression in 9:32 is e]k tou? ai]w?noj

"since the world began" and suggests the time as being since

the beginning of this age commencing with creation. This

is the only such use in the New Testament though it is

used freely by non-biblical authors.²

          The most popular phrase ei]j to>n ai]w?na is found in

the singular all eleven times. In John 8:35 Jesus uses an

illustration concerning the tenure of a servant and a son

in a household. The servant is not remaining "forever" but

the son remains "forever." That is, his tenure is not lost

 

          ¹ Lenski, Luke, p. 68.

          ² J H. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commen-

tary on the Gospel According to St. John, II (Edinburgh:

T. & T. Clark, 1962), 336. "(Hereinafter referred to as

John.)”

                                           49

as long as he lives. Obviously the time of this illustra-

tion extends only as far as the life of the servant and the

son. Though "forever" may be considered the best transla-

tion it can be misleading since the "forever" is limited

to a lifetime. The other uses of this phrase in John are

translated "forever"¹ or its negative "never"² which is an

unending avoidance. Among these are the popular Johannine

phrases "never die," "live forever," and "never taste death."

In some of these cases the "forever" had a beginning though

no end. Yet the same expression is used in referring to

the abiding of the Son (12:34) which has no beginning or

ending. Correct theology demands that ai]w<n in these places

be understood as an unending period of time. In all these

passages ai]w<n cannot specify the period of time. Only the

context can determine this. The comment of A. H. Strong

concerning the meaning of ai]w<n and ai]w<nioj is most fitting:

"They do, however, express the longest possible duration of

which the subject to that which they are attributed is

capable."³

          By way of summary, ai]w<n is found in several phrases

and designates time that has varying lengths. It may refer

to time past, from creation, Abraham or the prophets. In

 

          ¹ Jn. 6:51, 58; 12:34; 14:16.

          ² Jn. 414; 8:51, 52; 10:28; 11:26; 13:8.

          ³ Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Philadel-

phia: The Judson Press, 1907), p. 1044.

                                        50

other places it indicates the existing world system, this

age, or the coming age. The expression, sunte<leia ai]w?na,

used only by Matthew, signifies the consummation of the age

either at the Rapture or the Second Coming. The most

popular expression is ei]j to>n ai]w?na which is translated

"forever."¹ Yet even the "forever" often had a beginning

unless it was ascribed to Jesus. It can have an ending at

the end of one's life as well. To suggest a common trans-

lation for these multiple uses would be impossible. Each

context must determine the time and duration signified by

ai]w<n.

                                   kairo<j

          A second important time word is kairo<j which is

often translated "time." However, there are several other

translations and uses of this word.

 

          ¹  Since ai]w<nioj is an adjective it was not considered

separately. The assertion by Strong, Systematic Theology,

p. 1044 that both ai]w<n and ai]w<nioj have the same basic

meaning makes an in depth study unnecessary. Only the

nature of its uses need be cited. In the Gospels the ad-

jective ai]w<nioj has the meaning "eternal." This is also the

nuance of ai]w<n.   Of the twenty-nine uses of ai]w<nioj all but

five occur with zwh< in the expression "eternal" life. The

other uses are: (1) "eternal" fire (Mt. 18:8; 25:41);

(2) "eternal" punishment (Mt. 25:46); (3) "eternal"

dwellings (Lk. 16:9); and (4) "eternal" sin (Mk. 3:29).

                                           51

In non-biblical Greek

          While the etymology of kairo<j, "time," is uncertain

and gives place to several differing conclusions, the early

temporal uses of this word suggest two basic meanings: (1)

exact or critical time, season or opportunity and (2) time,

period or season of the year.¹ Typical of the first meaning

is the sentence "the time (kairo<j) for the delivery of the

corn had passed."²  In other words kairo<j refers to a

specific point of time. James Barr similarly states,

"where kairo<j has a reference to time in a classical author

like Aeschylus the sense is roughly that of opportune

time."³ In its second sense it may mean a short space of

time, a stretch of time, time of the year or an age.⁴

          Generally, kairo<j is in some way limited or defined

by the use, of other words, such as prepositions or words

following in the genitive case to indicate the reason why

the time is set apart. Delling shows strong preference for

the first meaning when he writes "the linguistic development

 

          ¹ George Henry Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-

English Lexicon, I (London: At the Clarendon Press, 1940),

859. "(Hereinafter referred to as Lexicon.)"

          ² Moulton and Milligan, Ibid., p. 315.

          ³ Barr, Ibid., p. 32.

          ⁴ Gerhard Delling, kairo<j, TDNT, trans. and ed.,by

Geoffrey W. Bromiley, III (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans

Publishing Co., 1965), 457-58.

                                       52

of the term clearly suggests that the basic sense is that

of the decisive or crucial place or point, whether

spatially, materially or temporally."¹

In the Old Testament

          From the Hebrew several observations can be made.

Most often kairo<j translates tfe which "in reference to

determining the nature of the concept of time in the Old

Testament, it is basic that it refers primarily to the

juncture of circumstances, the specific occasion."² Conse-

quently, it can be said that tfe refers directly to the

occasion itself. It must be stated further that tfe is

translated by many other Greek words including w!ra, h[me<ra,

and xro<noj. However, kairo<j also occurs for dfeOm,

"appointment" which is used to indicate natural periods

such as feasts and MlAOf which refers to remotest time or

perpetuity.

          The use of kairo<j in the Septuagint continues the

earlier meanings of kairo<j, namely: (1) a decisive point

in time, as in Genesis 17:21 "at this set time in the next

year" and (2) a more general indication of time. As a

general rule, kairo<j in the Septuagint signifies a point of

time at which something happens though on some occasions it

 

          ¹ Delling, Ibid., p. 455.

          ² John H. Wilch, Time and Event (Leiden: E. J.

Brill, 1969), p. 167.

                                        53

seems to suggest the meaning of xro<noj, a "period of time."¹

This period of time can be shorter or longer, a regular

fixed time or a general statement of time.²

In the Gospels

          The use of kairo<j in the Gospels is limited to

thirty places, three of which occur in the plural. It is

generally accepted that kairo<j has two or more senses.

Often it means a fixed time or decisive point. For this

reason it can be thought of as "the right time." A second

meaning is more general and is limited or defined by the use

of other words or prepositional phrases. This seems to be

the general use.³ It is also possible that a third use,

that of the plural, occurs to denote periods⁴ of time.

Several translations conveying the idea of time, "right,

proper time, opportunity"⁵ may result depending on the use

involved. However, these several meanings are not accepted

 

          ¹ However, Barr, Time, pp. 35-37 lists many illus-

trations which seem to have just the opposite of their

normally accepted meanings.

          ² E. Jenni, "Time," Interpreter's Dictionary of the

Bible, IV (New York: Abingdon Press, 1962), 645.

          ³ Cremer, Lexicon, p. 324.           ⁴ Ibid.

          ⁵ William P. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek

English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early 

Christian Literature (Chicago: The University of Chicago

Press, 1957), p. 395. "(Hereinafter referred to as

Lexicon.)"

                                            54

by all the scholars.

          Among the recent theologians commenting on the

significance of kairo<j several maintain that it stands for

"realistic time," that is, time of opportunity and fulfill-

ment¹ which is in contrast with xro<noj meaning "a period

of time." More pointedly, Robinson comments " kairo<j is

time considered in relation to personal action, in

reference to ends to be achieved in it."² Thus, it always

must be thought of as a "point of time defined by its

content."³ It becomes a critical or decisive moment. For

this reason it is argued that times are "known and dis-

tinguished not so much by their place in some temporal

sequence as by their content: i.e. they are known

realistically, rather than chronologically."⁴ Therefore,

it is the sum total of these kairoi< that provide a line of

realistic time. This is of theological importance to

Oscar Cullmann for it is his "working out of the series of

decisive moments or kairoi chosen by God, the joining

together of which furnishes Cullmann with his line, so

important for his understanding of time."⁵

 

          ¹ John Marsh, Time (New York: Harper & Brothers

Publishers, 1952), p. 20.

          2 John Arthur Thomas Robinson, In the End (New York:

Harper and Row, 1968), p. 258.

          ³ Cullmann, Time, p. 39.

          ⁴ Marsh, Time, p. 21.        ⁵ Barr, Time, p. 63.

                                          55

          That Barr does not accept this limited definition

of kairo<j is clear when he says, "If there is a difference

between xro<noj and kairo<j in the New Testament usage it is

clear that it cannot correspond to the distinction between

chronological and realistic time."¹ Actually, in some of

the passages of theological significance "there may be good

reason to suppose that there is no real difference between

the words."²  In many places xro<noj and kairo<j appear to

exchange the meanings usually given to them.³ Barr

concludes his argument:

                    But the main point has been abundantly established

          namely that the correlation of two great conceptions

          of time with the two Greek words is thoroughly erro-

          neous and that all arguments about time in biblical

          thought are misleading in such proportion as they

          depend upon this correlation.⁴

          It must be noted that two differing views con-

cerning the meaning of kairo<j prevail: (1) it points only

[emphasis mine] to a specific point in time, or (2) it has

in addition to the first meaning the meaning of xro<noj

which is normally understood to be its opposite. With this

in mind the meaning of kairo<j in the Gospels can better be

 

          ¹ Barr, Time, p. 22.

          ² Ibid., p. 31; see also Caird, The Apostolic Age,

p. 694.

          ³ Barr, Time, cites many illustrations of this from

both the Septuagint and the New Testament beginning on

p. 35.

          ⁴ Ibid., p. 44.

                                           56

explored.

          In Matthew on some occasions kairo<j must indicate

a specific point in time. For example, he writes of the

demons not wanting to be tormented pro< kairou? "before the

time" (8:29). The omission of the article is not to

generalize the statement but it occurs because it is a

time designation after a preposition.¹ The time indicated

is the appointed time of judgment. Similarly in 24:45 a

faithful steward puts food before the household e]n kair&?

"at the right time." This use of e]n kair&? without further

qualification seems to be an idiom and can be found with

this meaning outside of Biblical Greek.² The sense remains

that of a specific point of time though the exact time is

unspecified. Jesus indicates this idea also when He

remarks near His crucifixion "my time is near" (26:18).

          Also in Matthew kairo<j has the meaning of "season"

when connected with the grain (13:30) and fruit (21:34)

coming ripe for harvesting. While this is not a single

point of time it does convey a very limited expanse of time

at the harvest season. It is not so much an exact chrono-

logical reference as it is a time to do something. A more

 

          ¹ Nigel Turner, Syntax, Vol. III., A Grammar of New

Testament Greek, ed. by J.H. Moulton (3 vols; Edinburgh:

T. & T. Clark, 1919-63), p. 179. "(Hereinafter referred to

as Syntax.)"

          ² Xenophon Anabasis 3.1.39.

                                               57

general expression, e]n e]kei<n& t&? kair&?, "at that time" is

found in 11:25, 12:1 and 14:1. The context of each usage

clearly indicates that this is not a specific time indica-

tion. George Ogg remarks concerning this expression, "It

may be a mere transition or introductory formula; it may

refer to some definite season about the limits of which,

however, nothing is known. In neither case can a scienti-

fic chronology obtain any help from it."¹ Mark 12:23

which is parallel to Matthew 12:1 has "and it came to pass"

which is a general indication of sequence more than time.

On two occasions, 16:3 "signs of the times" and 21:41

"proceeds in their seasons," the plural of kairo<j is used.

In these places kairo<j seems more like the chronological

reckoning indicated by xro<noj. Time here is presented as

periods of eschatological and agricultural reckoning.

Therefore, Matthew uses kairo<j with three basic ideas:

(1) a specific point of time, (2) a limited expanse of

time, and (3) a period of time.

          Mark's account has kairo<j five times always in the

singular. Like Matthew it is used to indicate a specific

event in time, such as, the coming of the kingdom, "the

time is fulfilled" (1:15) and the time of the second coming

(13:33). Yet, in each instance the time of the event does

 

          ¹ George Ogg, Chronology of the public Ministry  of

Jesus (Cambridge: At the University Press, 1940), p. 17.

“(Hereinafter referred to as Chronology.)"

                                       58

not appear important, rather the event. In Mark 11:13

kairo<j denotes that it was not the "season" of figs, but in

12:2 it was the "season" for receiving the produce of the

vineyard. The use in Mark 10:30 "he shall receive one

hundred fold now in this time" is a general reference to

one's lifetime as contrasted with the coming age which is

mentioned later in the verse. Here, as in Matthew, kairo<j

has in some of its uses an appeal to a non-specific period

of time which is also true of xro<noj and ai]w<n.

          Luke has kairo<j thirteen times. In addition to the

parallels in the other Gospels, Luke uses kairo<j to indicate

a specific time in 1:20 where Gabriel tells Zacharias that

his words concerning the birth of John "shall be fulfilled

in their time," the time of John's birth. If, however, the

whole prophecy is being indicated here then kairo<j would be

better translated "season" and would include the ministry

of John thus becoming a general time indication. Jesus

indicates that false prophets will declare themselves to be

the Christ and will say, "the time is at hand" (21:8). That

is, from time to time the false prophets will declare it is

the appropriate time to follow them. The Devil leaves

Jesus at the end of the temptation, a@xri kairou?, "until a

right or favorable time" (4:13). The word is believed

until the "time of temptation" (8:13). Luke seems to stress

not the "when" of the event but that it does take place at

some point in time.

                                           59

          At times Luke's use of kairo<j indicates a period of

time. It may be the "time of your visitation" (19:44), that

is, the "time" of the ministry of Christ to Israel. In

addition kairo<j can indicate a period when, "for a time,"

there are those who believe the word (8:13). Also found is

e]n au]t&? kair&? (13:1) as a general indication of time

which places Luke twelve and thirteen in the same time

period though not necessarily indicating immediacy of time

sequence. These passages do not suggest an event taking

place at a single point in time as do the earlier references

in Luke. However, the event seems more important than the

time.

          In Luke 21:24 the plural occurs, "until the times

of the Gentiles be fulfilled." Theologically it is

generally accepted that these times began in Daniel's day

and extend until the Second Coming. Here then is a clear

passage where kairo<j must mean what xro<noj seems usually to

signify, a chronological time indicator.

          John adds nothing to what is already stated. His

two uses, 7:16 and 7:8, indicate the exact or precise moment

for Jesus to manifest His glory in the crucifixion and

exaltation.

          By way of summary, in the Gospels kairo<j refers to

time that may be (1) a specific moment, (2) a more general

span of time, and (3) a period of time which can extend

even over two thousand years. For this reason a variety of

                                         60

translations including "moment, season, time, opportunity

and right time" are possible. It is the context rather

than the word which conveys the various meanings of the

word. It must be remembered that kairo<j is not normally

used to indicate time in its chronological sequences but

rather events which occur at some time. In other words,

with kairo<j the event is emphasized as occurring without a

specific emphasis as to its time relationships to other

events. Therefore, it could be said that kairo<j indicates

time as conceptualized rather than time realized.

 

                                   xro<noj

          The final word considered in this chapter is

xro<noj.  Like ai]w<n and kairo<j it occurs in a variety of

contexts but it has only the one translation, "time."

In non-biblical Greek

          The use of xro<noj in expressing time is most often

contemplated simply as the succession of moments. That is

xro<noj "embraces all possible kairoi<, and, being the larger

more inclusive term, may be often used where kairo<j would

have been equally suitable, though not the converse."¹   In

earliest Greek it expressed time both specific, such as,

lifetime, season of the year or some definite time period

 

                    ¹ Trench, Synonyms, p. 210.

 

                                            61

as well as abstract time.¹   These same meanings can also

be found in the New Testament era among the papyri litera-

ture. Sometimes xro<noj is found with kairo<j as in "to say

nothing of so long time (xro<non) having passed and such

times (kairw?n)."²  This illustrates well the often

suggested difference between these two words, that of a

period and an event.

          Expressions which include xro<noj, such as, polu>j

xro<noj,  a long time, i!kanoj xro<noj, considerable or long

time,³ and dialipw>n xro<non, after a while, or dialeipw>n

xro<non at intervals,⁴ suggest a rather long period of

time especially when they occur in the plural.⁵

In the Old Testament

          Thirteen differing Hebrew words and expressions

are translated by xro<noj,⁶ The most frequent Hebrew word

is MOy which normally is translated "day." In places

where xro<noj is used for MOY, whether in the singular or

 

          ¹ Liddell and Scott, Lexicon, II, 2008.

          ² Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, p. 694.

          ³ Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon, p. 896.

          ⁴ Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge,

Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966), 10. 458. "(Herein-

after referred to as Grammar.)"

          ⁵ Jenni, xro<noj, TDNT, IV, 645.

          ⁶ Hatch and Redpath, Concordance, II, 1476.

                                        62

plural, it indicates a general or prolonged period of

time as in Genesis 26:1, "in the days (time) of Abraham"

and Joshua 4:14, "all the days (time) of his life." The

other two frequently translated Hebrew words, tfe and MlAOf,

are translated by both kairo<j or xro<noj. However, these

Hebrew words are not often translated by xro<noj. The five

times MlAOf is found it is in an ei]j to>n ai]w?na xro<non

expression. A perusal of the context of these Hebrew words

that are translated by xro<noj indicates usually an extended

period of time. The time may apply to the time of one's

life (Deut. 12:19) or eternity (Isa. 14:20) or any similar

period of time.

          On some occasions xro<noj appears definitely to

refer to a specific time as in Jeremiah 49:8, "the time that

I shall visit him," though sometimes the time is a more

extended period as in the "time  (xro<noj) of Jacob's

trouble" (Jer. 30:8). In Daniel 2:16, "appoint him a time,"

xro<noj also must be interpreted as a specific point in time

and seems to convey the idea normally associated with

kairo<j.  Yet, later in Daniel 2:21, xro<noj appears to refer

to a larger period of time. In both places xro<noj trans-

lates the same Aramaic word, rmAz;. These considerations

certainly suggest that xro<noj refers generally to a period

of time though it may at times point to a specific time.

In such places its meaning seems to overlap that of kairo<j.

                                                63

In the Gospels

          The translation of xro<noj is "time" which is often

qualified by a supporting word, phrase or clause.¹  In each

Gospel xro<noj occurs with several expressions. One of the

problems with xro<noj is that some see no difference between

xro<noj and kairo<j.   Frame comments, "in Jewish usage the

terms are interchangeable."²   However, some more contempo-

rary writers believe that xro<noj in the New Testament is

the word [emphasis mine] for chronological time,³ that is,

measured time or duration.⁴  Robinson elaborates that

xro<noj is

                    time abstracted from such a relation, time, as it

          were, that ticks on objectively and impersonally,

          whether anything is happening or not; it is time

          measured by the chronometer, not by purpose, momentary

          rather than momentous.⁵

          In other words Robinson believes that xro<noj

"time," is to be regarded as self-determining. Further,

it is held that time expressed xro<noj is not of

importance.  

 

          ¹ Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon, p. 896.

          ² James Everett Frame, A Critical and Exegetical 

Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians  

(New York: Charles Scribner's sons, 1912), p. 180.

          ³ Marsh, Time, p. 20.

          ⁴ Alan Richardson, Word Book, p. 258.

          ⁵ Robinson, In the End, God, p. 45.

                                             64

                    We usually think of time as something which can be

          counted in hours. The New Testament designates this sort of time by the

          word chronos. Every event has its          place in the sequence of time. We then

          have the tendency to depict time on a straight line with different events as

          points along this line. We usually ask when this or that event occurred and

          how long it lasted. . . . Differing from us, however, the Biblical

          authors concentrated far more on the content of a certain event than on its

          place in the sequence of time. They did not ask first of all when an event

          took place, but what happened, what content the event had.¹

          While credence can be generally given to this line

of thinking, a further observation is necessary. To Barr,

xro<noj time most often has reference to some kind of real

time "in which something was happening, or some time the

elapse of which was important for the understanding of the

description of some event."²   Yet in some locations xro<noj

and kairo<j have no significant differences.

                    In the LXX and NT kairo<j keeps the special meaning,

          in which it shows opposition to xro<noj, of 'right

          time,' only in certain contexts; and that over a large

          area of the usage, much larger than the number of the

          examples we have already cited, the two words mean the

          same thing;   . . . In particular in those theologi-

          cally important cases which speak of the 'time' or

          'times' which God has appointed or promised the two

          words are most probably of like meaning.³

          As in the case of ai]w<n and kairo<j the major views

concerning xro<noj are two. The first maintains that xro<noj

indicates measured or chronological time. The second view,

         

          ¹ Jindrick Nanek, "The Biblical Concept of Time and

Our Gospels," New Testament Studies, VI (October, 1959),

pp. 46-47.

          ² Barr, Time, D. 79.

          ³ Ibid., p. 42.

                                          65

upheld by Barr, allows for a wider scope of meaning so that

it can also have the same meaning as kairo<j.  Thus, only

the context can determine whether the word meaning is the

same as kairo<j or refers to an extended period of time.

          Of the three references to xro<noj in Matthew, two

occur in connection with the birth of Christ. Herod

inquired exactly of the wisemen "the time" of the appearing

star (2:7) that marked the birth of Christ. Later in 2:16

Herod slew the infants two years and under "according to

the time which he accurately ascertained from the magi."

In both uses a precise reckoning of calendar time was

calculated and this became the time basis for Herod's

actions. This specific period of time was not over two

years. The third reference to xro<noj is in Matthew 25:19,

"now after much time" in the parable of the talents. The

parable itself indicates a lengthy undesignated period of

time passed so that xro<noj must be used here to indicate a

period of time.

          Mark 2:19 has o!son xro<non, "so long a time (as)"

and 9:21 po<soj xro<noj, "how long a time." Again the time

is unspecified but real calendar time. An undesignated

period of time passes between the events described.

          Luke, however, has several interesting and varied

uses of xro<noj.  In 1:57 it may have a part of the meaning

of kairo<j when "the time of her (Elizabeth's) bearing" is

spoken of.  While this is an event in chronological time

                                            66

it culminated at a "specific moment" rather than over a

period. It seems little different from Luke's expression

"the time (kairo<j) of temptation" (8:13). If, however, the

nine months of Elizabeth's pregnancy are in view as a

chronological indication, the concept of chronological time

rather than a specific moment is intended.

          Satan in Luke 4:5 shows to Christ all the kingdoms

of the world "in a moment of time" e]n stigm^? xro<nou.

That is, all the kingdoms were shown to Christ not in a

chronological series but simultaneously.¹   Here, xro<noj is

qualified by a prepositional phrase to refer to a single

moment of time. Normally it is kairo<j that expresses this

concept. Luke 18:4 "for a time," and 20:9 "for a long

time" all indicate periods of time which may even extend

into years.

          Herod is also said to be desirous of seeing Christ

"of (for) a long time" e]c i[kanw?n xro<nwn (23:8). This use

of xro<noj with i!kano<j, because of the context must mean

"enough and to spare, much." This combination of words is

quite frequent in the writings of Luke.² In Luke 8:27 the

man possessed with demons "for much (i[kan&?) time" had worn

no clothes. "For many times" (8:29) the demon had seized

 

          ¹ Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary

on the Gospel According to St. Luke (Edinburgh: T. & T.

Clark, 1964), p. 111. "(Hereinafter referred to as Luke.)"

          ² Ibid., p. 199.

                                          67

him. Here the change to the plural form of xro<noj would

show either the demon had been troubling him for a long

period of time or it had often times seized him. The dif-

ference is between one long seizure and a series of many

seizures on different occasions.

          John's use of xro<noj adds nothing new. In 5:6

Jesus saw the sick man by the pool and knew he had been

there "a long time" polu>n xro<non.  Later Jesus uses

tosou<t& xro<n&  "so long a time" (14:9) to speak of His

being with Philip. On two occasions (7:33; 12:35) mi<kroj

and xro<noj are used to show that Jesus would be with them

a "little time." The first use is six months before the

crucifixion and the last a few hours. Both are periods of

time with undesignated lengths. Thus, in John xro<noj always

means extent and never point of time.

          In conclusion it can be stated that xro<noj usually

expresses time in its duration. Thus there are the expres-

sions "much time, so long a time" etc. Yet, there are a few

instances which may indicate an event taking place at a

point in time. In such instances xro<noj seems to parallel

the idea of kairo<j. One further observation is in order.

All the instances of xro<noj in the Gospels occur in con-

texts that are a matter of history. They are not time con-

ceptualized. These events may have taken place (1) in a

moment of time, (2) a period of time, or (3) on several

occasions. At least the first two uses are also true of

                                     68

kairo<j.  For this reason the differences between xro<noj 

and kairo<j cannot be sought in the duration of time.

Rather xro<noj emphasizes more the time of the event whereas

kairo<j seems to stress the event which takes place in time.

However, there are some places the words seem to share the

same meaning.

                                    CHAPTER IV

 

                 WORDS INDICATING TIME IN A YEAR

 

          Assertions have already been made about the

meanings of the words for time which were most often used

by the common people of Palestine in the first century

A.D.¹ During the passing of a year some of these words and

other words were used in a variety of ways to indicate time.

This chapter is not a duplication of the earlier chapter

but an examination of all the appearances of the words in

the Gospels. It is necessary to understand the use of each

word in the non-biblical Greek, the Old Testament and then

the New Testament in order to assert conclusions about

their temporal meaning. The words studied in this chapter

include expressions for time in a year except for the word

"day" and its parts. The order of the words considered in

this chapter are: year, month, week, tomorrow and yesterday.

 

                          Year (dieth<j, e]niauto<j, e@toj )

          Years were cited by one of three Greek words—dieth<j,

e]niauto<j and e@toj. These words are found in differing con-

texts and must be examined separately to show the

distinctions and similarities of meaning.

 

          ¹ See Supra, chapter II for these comments.

                                        69

                                          70

dieth<j

          Actually, dieth<j is an infrequent combination of

two words di<j meaning two and e@toj which is the usual word

for year.

          In non-biblical Greek.--Only a few uses of this

word can be cited and all of these must be translated "two

years." This is true whether the word is used by

Herodotus¹ or Josephus.²  Often dieth<j is accompanied by

xro<noj as in the rental agreement "I will guarantee your

tenancy for the period of two years."³

          In the Old Testament.--This word is not found in

the Old Testament probably because of the Hebrew custom of

expressing more than one year with two or more separate

words. However, dieth<j is found once in II Maccabees 10:3,

"They brought a sacrifice after two years time" (meta<

dieth? xro<nou). This verse follows the pattern of the non-

biblical Greek.

 

          ¹ George Henry Liddell and Robert Scott, Lexicon,

I (London: At the Clarendon Press, 1940), 351.

          ² Josephus Antiquities 2.5.4. This is the only

place it occurs in Josephus according to Henry St. John

Thackeray, A Lexicon to Josephus, III (Paris: Librarie

Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1945), 174. "(Hereinafter

referred to as Lexicon.)"

          ³ Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary (Grand Rapids:

Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1963), p. 160.

                                              71

          In the Gospels.--The sole use of dieth<j in the

Gospels occurs with the preposition a]po<, "from two years

old and under" (Mt. 2:16). Luke also uses dieth<j in Acts

24:27 and 28:30 where full two year periods are acknowledged

by virtually all commentators. As far as being helpful in

establishing an approximate date for the birth of Christ,

this expression suggests that Jesus was born at least two

years before the death of Herod. This assumption seems

reasonable for the following reasons. Herod's decree to

slay the infants was based on the time he exactly learned

from the wisemen. Further, in Classical Greek the genitive

may denote the time "since" an action has happened.¹ Here,

the a]po> dietou?j kai> katwte<rw indicates the starting point

in time for those infants who fell under the decree of Herod.

If Herod extended the time beyond the time learned from

the wisemen, the two year time indication is less meaningful.

However, by assuming that the two years indicates the approx-

imate age of Jesus at the time of Herod's decree and since

Herod died shortly after an eclipse of the moon and before

the Passover of 4 B.C. as history seems to indicate,² and

since Christ was born before the death of Herod, it can be

asserted that the birth of Christ could hardly occur after

 

          ¹ Herbert Weir Smyth, Grammar (Cambridge, Mass.:

Harvard University Press, 1966), p. 337.

          ² Jack Finegan, HBC (Princeton: Princeton University

Press, 1964), pp. 231-33.

                                          72

6 B.C. unless dieth<j indicates something less than two

years. It should be noted that these are possible variables

which could alter the conclusions often stated about the

birth date of Christ. The most important reason why it is

impossible to be specific as to which year Christ was born

from this Scripture reference is that the date of this

decree by Herod is not known. It may have been close to

his death in 4 B.C. but there is no reason why it could not

have been earlier in 5 B.C. etc. Consequently a conclusion

as to the date of Christ's birth cannot be dogmatically

asserted on the basis of this passage. However, the meaning

of dieth<j must indicate two years since it is not qualified.

e]niauto<j

          This seldom used word denoting a year occurs only

four times in the Gospels though more often in other

literature.

          In non-biblical Greek.--Throughout all the Greek

writings e]niauto<j is found with the translation and meaning

of a "whole year."¹ For example, in the papyri e]niauto<j

is found, "for the first year prwtou? e]niautou? she

received her wages for nursing."²  However, on a few

 

          ¹ Liddell and Scott, Lexicon, I, 567.

          ² Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, p. 215.

                                            74

occasions e]niauto<j is used more generally of a period of

time. Once Josephus indicates a period that is actually

six hundred years by the expression o[ me<gaj e]niauto<j.¹

          In the Old Testament.--Occurring about one hundred

times, e]niauto<j is found mostly in the historical sections.

In nearly every instance it translates hnAwA which usually

means a literal year. Very seldom does e]niauto<j occur with

a number. For this reason there are only a few times where

e]niauto<j indicates the length of a king's reign (I Kg. 14:

21). In recording the time of the building of Solomon's

temple both e@toj and e]niauto<j are used apparently as

synonyms (I Kgs. 6:1), because the four hundred and

eightieth year (e@toj) since the Exodus from Egypt and the

fourth year (e]niato<j) of Solomon's reign are the same year.

          Several other passages have e]niauto<j and e@toj in

the same context. In II Kings 24:18 "Zedekiah was twenty

and one years" (e]niauto<j ) and "he reigned eleven years"

(e@toj). This example could be repeated many times and it

suggests that e]niauto<j and e@toj are often identical in

meaning.

          In some places e]niauto<j is a "year" conceptualized

rather than historic. Genesis 1:14 says the lights in the

 

          ¹ Josephus Antiquities 1.3.9. For other instances

where e]niauto<j signifies a period see Arndt and Gingrich,

Lexicon (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957),

p. 266.

                                         75

heaven are "for days and for years." Once in the year

(e]niauto<j) the high priest made atonement (Lev. 16:34) for

sins. Also, the children of Israel were commanded to keep

a feast unto Jehovah "seven days in the year" (Lev. 23:41).

          In the Old Testament e]niauto<j occurs with these two

nuances. In a minority of places e]niauto<j when used with

numbers becomes a chronological indication. However,

e]niauto<j usually conveys the concept of a year such as the

"year of Jubilee" (Lev. 25:13) and "all the months of the

year" (I Chr. 27:1). In both senses, the meaning indicated

is a literal year.

          In the Gospels.--The four references to e]niauto<j

in the Gospels are without the use of numbers just as it

often occurs in the Septuagint. Three of the passages state

that Caiaphas was the highpriest "that year," tou? e]niatou?

e]kei<nou (Jn. 11:49, 51; 18:13). The expression "that year"

should probably be understood as "that fatal year" when

Christ was crucified rather than the thought that Caiaphas

held office for only one year.¹ Since the dates for

Caiaphas being the high priest extend from A.D. 18 to 36, he

was the high priest both before and after this year but

 

          ¹ Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Critical and Exe-

getical Hand-book to the Gospel of John, trans. by

Frederick Crombie (New York: funk & Wagnalls, Publishers,

1884), p. 357. "(Hereinafter referred to as John.)"

                                         76

only "that year" is brought into consideration by John.

          The other use of e]niauto<j occurs in the quotation

"the acceptable year of the Lord" (Lk. 4:19) which is taken

from Isaiah 61:2. Some early commentators such as Clement

of Alexandria¹ took this as a literal statement and

limited Christ's earthly ministry to twelve months. How-

ever, according to the three Passovers mentioned in John

2:13, 6:4 and 11:55 the view of Clement cannot be correct.

The only possible solution to this use of e]niauto<j is to

understand it as figurative of the new era that the Messiah

will usher in.² Perhaps, the question should be asked, "Why

is e]niauto<j used when a literal year is not meant?" This

passage is an accurate quotation from the Septuagint and

would be inaccurate if altered. The other Gospel passages

demand that this be understood as figurative though it is  

 translated "year."

e@toj

          The most frequent word expressing a year is e@toj  

in every period of Greek studied.

          In non-biblical Greek.--The use of e@toj, "year," is

attested throughout all stages of Greek. It is used to

 

          ¹ Clement Homilies 17.9.

          ² R.C.H. Lenski Luke (Minneapolis: The Augsburg

Publishing House, 1961), p. 252.

                                         77

cite both the year of a king's reign, "to> [p]empton e@t[o]j

Domitianou?,"¹ as well as the age of an individual, "h#n  e@twn,

w[j tria<konta."² These would be natural and frequent

reasons for a common person to reckon anything by years.

They usually are written with an accompanying number.

          In the Old Testament.--The Greek of the Septuagint

uses e@toj over five hundred times and on almost every

occasion it translates hnAwA meaning "year." It is found

in geneologies (Gen. 5, 11) and in stating the years of a

king's reign (I Kg. 15:25; 16:23). The years of reign are

helpful in determining the time of prophecies (Hag. 1:1)

and important historical events such as the invasion of

foreign armies (Dan. 1:1). Some events are dated by the

age of people, such as, the time of the flood (Gen. 7:6)

and the defeat of Israel by the Philistines (I Sa. 4:15)

in the ninety-eighth year of Eli. Even the time of dura-

tion of certain events is given in years. Two years pass

while Joseph is in prison (Gen. 41:1) and Israel sojourns

in Egypt for four hundred and eighty years (Ex. 12:41). A

few times e@toj designates an unspecified number of years,

though this is usually reserved for e]niauto<j.  One such

use is found in Proverbs 3:2 "years of life."

 

          ¹ Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, D. 258.

          ² Xenophon Anabasis 2.6.20.

                                         78

          The important aspect to keep in mind is that e@toj

normally is used to indicate a particular number of years.

          In the Gospels.--Most uses of e@toj do not indicate

important chronological events. At times e@toj is used to

indicate the number of years a person has been ill.¹ Also,

the age of a person may be given for a particular event.

Jesus was twelve years when He went to the temple (Lk. 2:

42). A damsel that Jesus raised from the dead was twelve

years of age (Lk. 8:43). Once Luke uses e@toj to indicate

the duration of the drought in Elijah's day (4:25).

          On two occasions e@toj is used not as a reference to

a specific number of years but it indicates an undesignated

lengthy period longer than a year. The rich farmer laid up

goods "for many years" (Lk. 12:19), just as the elder son

served his father "these many years" (Lk. 15:29).

          In Luke 2:41 it is reported, "Jesus' parents went

to Jerusalem kat ]  e@toj, or yearly.²  This construction is

a distributive genitive which indicates that this was the

habitual annual practice of Joseph and Mary. This is the

only New Testament location of this expression though it

can be found in the Septuagint.

 

          ¹ Mt. 9:20 (Mk. 5:25; Lk. 8:43); Jn. 5:5; Lk. 13:

11, 16.

          ² Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, p. 258.

                                            79

          There are four places where e@toj expresses time

that is important to the chronology of Christ. The first

relates that John the Baptist began his ministry in the

"fifteenth year of Tiberius" (Lk. 3:1). It is generally

agreed that Jesus began His ministry about six months after

John so that if the beginning of John's ministry can be

established, the time of Jesus' ministry can also be

ascertained. The determining of the fifteenth year of

Tiberius is a Problem because Tiberius began a co-reign

with his step-father on October 23, A.D. 12, from which

time he governed the Roman provinces jointly and held the

census with Augustus. About two years later, August 19,

A.D. 14, Augustus died and Tiberius assumed control of the

empire and later was confirmed by the vote of the Senate

on September 17, A.D. 14. Adding to the complexity of

establishing the beginning year of Tiberius' reign is the

uncertainty about whether the accession or nonaccession

year method was followed.¹ The monarchs of the Seleucid

dynasty in Syria began their regnal year in September-

October and it is assumed that this is the pattern followed

by Luke.² With these areas of possible interpretation "the

 

          ¹ For a full discussion of this problem see Finegan,

HBC, pp. 259ff.

          ² Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of 

Luke (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,

1954), p. 134.

                                         80

fifteenth year of Tiberius" could be A.D. 26, 27, 28 or 29

depending on the year used in beginning his reign, 12 or

14 A.D., and the method of reckoning the regnal year,

accession or nonaccession. Because the "fifteenth year"

has several possible interpretations, it cannot be used by

itself to determine a certain calendar date for the

beginning of John's ministry.

          Luke 2:23 states that Jesus was "about thirty

years," w[si> e@twn tria<konta, when He was baptized and

began His ministry. Few, other than Irenaeus, interpret

this to mean that Jesus had begun but not completed His

thirtieth year.¹ The use of w!sei would suggest several

years leeway is possible. Cadbury writes:

                    Having for many years read the volumes of Greek

          papyri as they were published, I formed the impression

          that the ages of adults which were given in them tended

          to occur for the multiples of five far out of propor-

          tion to the other numbers.²

          If this conclusion is correct and is applied to

Luke's statement, one thing is clear. Thirty was not

necessarily Jesus' nearest birthday. This assertion is

also suggested by Luke's use of w[sei<.  Since the exact

year of Jesus' birth is as unspecific as the statement of

 

          ¹ Irenaeus Irenaeus Against Heresies 2.22.5.

          ² Henry J. Cadbury, "Time," Journal of Biblical 

Literature, LXXXII (September, 1963), 275-76.

                                           81

this verse, it can only be concluded that the birth of

Jesus was approximately thirty years prior to the fifteenth

year of Tiberius.

          A third expression, "forty and six years was this

temple built" (Jn. 2:20) is an equally difficult chronolog-

ical problem for several reasons. First, the word trans-

lated temple is nao<j and this usually but not always means

the inner sanctuary. However, the nao<j could refer to the

major temple rebuilding project which began two years later

than the construction of the inner area of the temple where

the sacrifices were offered. Second, the beginning point

for the reckoning of the years could be 19 A.D. when Herod

began the sanctuary rebuilding or 17 A.D. when the work on

the larger area commenced. Therefore, a two year variation

in determining the forty-sixth year results. A third

problem is the use of the aorist passive verb oi]kodomh<qh.

It may indicate that the length of time since the nao<j was

completed was forty-six years, that the nao<j was in the

process of being built for forty-six years and was still

incomplete, or that it had just been completed in its forty-

sixth year of building.¹ Depending on the beginning date

 

          ¹ An excellent explanation of this expression of time

is found in Frank Stagg, "The Abused Aorist," Journal of 

Biblical Literature, XCI (June, 1972), 228. He states: "The

temple had been under construction for forty-six years,

there had been interruptions and resumptions of work, and

the temple was not yet completed. The aorist indicative

                                        82

chosen and the interpretation of the nao<j the forty-sixth

year would be either A.D. 27 or 29. The date of A.D. 27 is

accepted by most contemporary scholars¹ as the date of the

first Passover in Jesus' public ministry, in the "forty

and six years" of John 2:20.

          The last date is found in John 8:57 where Jesus is

said not yet to be "fifty years" old. Irenaeus in taking

this literally remarks:

                    Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who

          has already passed the age of forty, without having as

          yet reached His fiftieth year, yet is not far from this

          latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old

          it would unquestionably be said, 'Thou art not yet

          forty years old.'²

          For this reason Irenaeus demands a public ministry

of more than ten years and a date of birth much earlier

than commonly accepted. An incidental remark found in

Josephus may better explain why Jesus was categorized as

being under fifty. Josephus states that it was the men

aged twenty to fifty who had to contribute the half-shekel

temple tax.³ The sarcasm of the Jews may have been that

since Jesus was still young enough to pay this tax, being

 

does not here designate a single action of the past. . . .

This is a normal aoristic usage, a simple allusion to an

action without description, i.e., a-oristic or undefined."

          ¹ For a more complete discussion of this date see

Finegan, HBC, pp. 276-80.

          ² Irenaeus Irenaeus Against Heresies 2.22.6.

          ³ Josephus Antiquities 3.8.1.

                                           83

under fifty, He could hardly have seen Abraham. No one

seriously accepts the view of Irenaeus that Jesus minis-

tered until He was nearly fifty.

          In summary, e@toj translated "year" usually is

found with a numeral giving the years of events, age of a

person or the duration of an event. It also may record an

unspecified time of years or a yearly custom by using the

distributive genative kat ] e@toj. Four times e@toj is used

in connection with Christ's ministry but none of the

references are exact enough to give by themselves a certain

date on the Julian calendar. All the accompanying informa-

tion is sufficiently imprecise to make uncertain the exact

time intended. Consequently no little discussion could

accompany the possible interpretation of these temporal

expressions.¹

                                         Month (mh<n)

          Another familiar indication of time is mh<n, "month."

Though not occurring too often in the Gospels it is none-

theless a major time indicator.

In non-biblical Greek

          It appears that mh<n was first used in the sense of

a measure and then later referred to the period of time

 

          ¹ In Finegan's discussion in HBC he has twenty-three

pages devoted to these four expressions regarding the time

of Jesus' public ministry.

                                              84

marked off by the moon, therefore a month.¹    This indication

of a period of time being determined by the moon is as

natural a consideration as reckoning time by the sun. The

cycle of the moon from month to month is calculated as a

period of twenty-nine or thirty days. So handy was this

for noting the passing of time that the Greeks established

contractural agreements by the month and interest rates of

two drachma were charged each month (to<n mh?na e!kaston).²

In the Old Testament

          About two hundred times mh<n is used as a translation

of wd,Ho and a few times for hray,.  Both of these words can

be translated moon although wd,Ho is used to indicate the

"new moon," the day on which the crescent reappears.³ For

the most part  mh<n is used temporally in three similar ways.

It is used to indicate the time of certain historic events

such as the beginning of the Noahic deluge (Gen. 7:11) and

the entrance into Canaan (Jo. 4:19). It also indicates the

length of time between two events. For example, the ark was

in Philistine hands seven months (I Sam. 6:1) and David

reigned in Hebron seven years and six months (II Sam. 2:11).

 

          ¹ Gerhard Delling, mh<n, TDNT, trans. and ed. by

Geoffrey W. Bromiley, IV (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans

Publishing Co., 1967), 638.

          ² Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, p. 410.

          ³ Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, eds.,

Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden: E. L. Brill,

1958), p. 279. "(Hereinafter referred to as Lexicon.)"

                                        85

          Most frequently mh<n is used to establish the time

of an event during a king's reign (Hag. 1:1) or a prophet's

message (Hag. 2:1). This practice greatly aided the

reckoning of Old Testament chronology. In each case mh<n

signified that period of time commonly called a month and

most likely included any part of a month as a whole month

unless the number of days were also given.

In the Gospels

          Three separate incidents in the Gospels have a

reference to months. The first occasion has four uses of

mh<n and they occur in connection with the birth account of

John the Baptist. Elizabeth hid herself for five months

following conception (Lk. 1:24) and in her sixth month

(Lk. 1:26) Gabriel appeared to Mary to announce the concep-

tion of Jesus. This last reference indicates that John was

six months older than Jesus. This is confirmed by Gabriel's

comment that Elizabeth was in the sixth month of her preg-

nancy (Lk. 1:36) at the time of Mary's conception.

Following this, Mary abode with Elizabeth about three months

(w[j mh?naj trei?j). This would be approximately until the

time of John's birth.

          In a second incident Jesus indicates that the length

of the drought in the time of Elijah was three years and

six months (Lk. 4:25). Thus, every reference to mh<n in

Luke does no doubt refer to calendar lunar months.

                                       86

          Jesus remarks in John 4:35, "say not ye, there are

yet four months and the harvest is coming." Here the

number four and  mh<n are combined in the single word

tetra<mhno<j.   There has been much discussion whether this

passage is a chronological time indication or only an agri-

cultural proverb.¹  From this statement the time when Jesus

passed through Samaria, if it is to be taken as literal,

can be calculated as being in December or January since the

harvest time in Samaria would normally begin in April or

late March. If this is correct then Jesus' early Judean

ministry would extend from the previous April through

December. Some insist that this statement of time should

be taken as a proverb.²   Thus, the reference to four months

would not indicate a point in time four months prior to the

harvest of the fields of Sychar.³ If this is the correct

view then no chronology can be established or confirmed by

it. Regardless of which view is taken, the use of  mh<n

conveys a concept of four months which are literal cycles

established by the rising of the new moon. There is no

 

          ¹ For representatives of this view see R.C.H.

Lenski, The interpretation of St. John's Gospel (Minneapolis:

The Augsburg Publishing House, 19b1), p. 334, and H.A.W.

Meyer, John, trans. by Frederick Crombie (New York: Funk &

Wagnalls Publishers, 1884), p. 161. "(Hereinafter referred

to as John.)"

          ² This view is clearly presented by George Ogg,

Chronology (Cambridge: At the University Press), 1940.

          ³ J. H. Bernard, John, I (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,

1962), 155-56.

                                       87

lexical or contextual reason to take them otherwise..

                           Week (sa<bbaton)

          A week is comprised of a sequence of seven days.

The New Testament indicates this by sa<bbaton.

In non-biblical Greek

          From the earliest periods of the Greek language

nothing has been preserved concerning the formation of days

into a "week."¹ By the first century B.C. there is suffi-

cient evidence that there was a seven day week. The days

of the week were given the names of gods and perhaps earlier

the Egyptians named the seven days after the heavenly

planets.² It is also asserted that in the post-exilian

period the reckoning by weeks became more frequent so that

the week days were often enumerated.³

In the Old Testament

          At the time of Creation God established for mankind

a six day work week and a seventh day for rest. Later when

God instructed Israel as they left Egypt, He identified the

seventh day, fbAwe, as a sa<bbaton.  The concept of rest is

 

          ¹ References to "week" in Greek lexicons are all

directed to references to the Hebrew sabbath in the Septua-

gint and the New Testament.

          ² Finegan, HBC, pp. 15-16.

          ³ "Time," CBTEL, X, 412.

                                88

inherent in the word sa<bbaton. On this one day in seven

the Jews were told to abstain from work (Ex. 16:26) as a

reminder of their covenant with Jehovah (Ex. 31:16). An

examination of the uses of sa<bbaton in the Septuagint

reveals that it usually refers to the seventh day rather

than the whole period of seven days which is a week.

Occasionally certain feasts, such as the Day of Atonement,

were called a sa<bbaton (Lev. 17:31) even though they did

not necessarily fall on the seventh day. The seventh or

sabbatical year of rest is likewise called a sa<bbaton

(Lev. 25:2). The mention of offering a burnt-offering on

the sabbaths, new moons and set feasts (I Chron. 23:31) may

be an indication of the practical ways that the passing of

days was calculated in the Old Testament. The counting of

days in groups of sevens would be easy by the keeping of

the sa<bbaton.  The months were calculated by the new moon.

The division of the year by feasts would be larger

divisions than months. A better system could hardly be

designed for common people.

          There is only one use of sa<bbaton which can legiti-

mately be translated "week" (II Chr. 8:13). Here it is the

feast of weeks which was one of the special observances of

the year. The other English translation "week" in Genesis

29:27, "fulfil the week of this one," is the number seven,

e!bdoma and may just as easily be translated "fulfill the

seven (days) of this one."

                                         89

The majority of Old Testament locations of sa<bbaton

refer to the seventh day of the week in the Jewish

calendar,¹ whether the word is singular or plural. When

plural it can signify one or more sabbaths.² Yet implicit

in the use of this word when referring to the Jewish sabbath

is the concept that time was reckoned by a period of seven

days which climaxed on the seventh day.

In the Gospels

          The only word for week in the Gospels is sa<bbaton.

As is true in the Old Testament, sa<bbaton does have other

meanings in addition to "week." Used most often in the

singular, sa<bbaton often refers simply to the sabbath, the

seventh day of the week.³ At other times sa<bbaton is

combined with h[me<ra, to indicate that the particular day was

a sabbath day.⁴  Many passages refer to Jesus teaching on

the sabbath day (Mk. 6:2) and the sabbath day controver-

sies⁵ of Jesus with the Jews. On two occasions Jesus iden-

tifies Himself as "Lord of the Sabbath" (Mt. 12:8; Mk. 2:28).

 

          ¹ William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, Lexicon

(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 74

          ² Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, p. 567.

          ³ Mt. 24:20; Mk. 2:27 (2).

          ⁴ Lk. 4:16; 13:14, 16; 14:5; Jn. 5:9; 9:14.

          ⁵ Lk. 6:1, 5, 6, 7, 9; 13:14, 15; 14:1, 3; Jn. 5:10,

16, 18; 7:22, 239(2); 9:16.

                                           90

          In each of these places sa<bbaton obviously refers to the

seventh day of the Jewish week and not to the whole week.

          There are several instances where sa<bbaton occurs

without a numeral in the plural but the context suggests

that it refers to a single sabbath day.¹ At other times

the plural probably refers to several sabbath days² as is

found in the question, "Is it lawful on the sabbath [days]

to do good or harm"? The occasional use of the plural

rather than the singular may have arisen from the Aramaic

sabbetha which at an early date also gave its name to the

entire week.³ Both the plural and singular forms can be

found in the same contexts often with no difference in

meaning or translation.

          There are ten places where sa<bbaton occurs in the

passion week description. Four⁴ of these instances have

only sa<bbaton and may refer either to the weekly sabbath

day or the Passover which, being a feast, is also a sabbath.

These two days could be either simultaneous, consecutive

or even separated by one day.⁵

 

          ¹ Mt. 12:1, 10, 11, 12; Mk. 1:21; 2:23, 24; 3:2.

          ² Mk. 3:4; 6:2; 13:10.

          ³ G. Gordon Stott, "Time," HDLG, II, 731.

          ⁴ Mk. 16:1; Lk. 23:54, 56; Jn. 19:31.

          ⁵ For this reason various books and articles have

been written debating whether the crucifixion took place

on Wednesday, Thursday or Friday and the resurrection on

Saturday or Sunday.

 

                                            91

          Several times mi%? tw?n sabba<twn, or its equivalent¹

is used to speak of the morning of the resurrection day.

It was the usual custom to number the days of the week

rather than to name them. The first of the sabba<tw

would be the first day after the sabbath, "the first of

the week." It literally means the first day reckoned from

the weekly sabbath day.² In Mark 16:9 prw<th is used with

the singular sabba<tou instead of mi%? but the meaning

remains the same even though the expression is altered.

Whether the translation of sabba<ton should actually be

"week" perhaps is questionable. Yet regardless of the

translation the meaning is obvious. It must be remembered

that each day of the week began at sunset and ended on the

following day at sunset.

          The sixth day of the Jewish week was the day of

preparation for the sabbath. Because of all the necessary

preparations for the next day, "preparation day" or

paraskeuh< became the name for Friday. On six occasions

paraskeuh< is used in the Gospels.³ Unfortunately this was

also the term applicable to the day of preparation

 

          ¹ Mt. 28:1; Mk. 16:2; 1k. 24:1; Jn. 20:1, 19.

          ² Friedrich Blass and Albert Debrunner, A Grammar of 

the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, ed.

and rev, by Robert  Funk (Chicago: university of Chicago

Press, 1967), p. 129. "(Hereinafter referred to as

Grammar.)"

          ³ Mt. 27:62; Mk. 15:42; Lk. 23:54; Jn. 19:14, 31, 42.

                                           92

preceding any of the sacred feasts, including the Passover.

This was true no matter what day of the week it was.¹  One

other name, prosa<bbaton, was given to this day preceding a

sabbath (Mk. 15:42). Because of the, uncertainty as to

whether paraskeuh< and prosa<bbaton refer to the weekly

sabbath, the Passover sabbath or both, much question

remains concerning the chronology of the passion week.

          Only one use of sabba<ton remains for examination.

In Luke 18:12 the Pharisee claimed to fast "twice during

the week." Here sabba<ton must mean a week, the period of

seven days that is bounded on each side by the sabbaths.

Any other meaning of sabba<ton would be unintelligible.²

This is the only place in the Gospels where the meaning of

sabba<ton is a whole week.

          In conclusion, a few times when sabba<tou is found

with a numeral it identifies a day within the week.

Usually sabba<ton refers to the seventh day of the week

which more than anything else reminded the Jews of the

passing of time. There is also the possibility that

sabba<ton sometimes may refer to a feast day regardless of

the day of the week when the feast was observed. Only once

does sabba<ton mean a "week." These multiple meanings of

 

          ¹ David Smith, "Preparation," HDCG, II, 409.

          ² Alfred Plummer, Luke (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,

1964), p. 417.

                                    93

sabba<ton and words used with it make exactness in

reckoning time during the passion week difficult.

                               Tomorrow (au@rion )

          In contemporary language the day which follows an

existing day is most often designated "tomorrow." This

practice, was followed in the Greek language which expressed

this by the word au@rion.

In non-biblical Greek

          From earliest times au@rion meant "tomorrow," and is

equivalent to the phrase "on the morrow." It is used this

way several times in Josephus.¹ It is to be distinguished

from today (sh<meron). On one occasion it is used con-

cerning a boy who each day goes to a seller of barley beer.

The seller says "today, tomorrow [aur[e]in] (you shall get

it), but he never gives it."² At first glance the thought

might be to understand this as the next day. However,

au@rion also came to mean "soon, in a short time, now."³

Consequently two different senses developed, (1) the next

day and (2) shortly or soon. When found in the time of

Homer with the sense of the next day, au@rion is never used

after sunset to refer to the next day. From these it is

 

          ¹ Henry St. John Thackeray, Lexicon, II, 93.

          ² Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, p. 92.

          ³ Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon, p. 121.

                                             94

concluded that the Greek day began at sunset. Consequently,

after sunset the Greek always says "in the morning" appar-

ently because au@rion would have meant a different thing.

In the Old Testament

          The Hebrew rHAmA and its variations are translated

by au@rion over fifty times in the Old Testament, usually in

the historical sections. Many times the expression is the

same as Exodus 9:5, "tomorrow, Jehovah shall do this

thing." It is clear in many places by the context that

au@rion must mean the next day following. In Exodus 32:5,

Aaron declares, "Tomorrow (au@rion) shall be a feast to

Jehovah." The next verse says, "And they rose up early on

the morrow." This meaning is also indicated in Exodus 16:

23 where the Jews are exhorted to prepare extra food for

"tomorrow is a solemn rest,"

          On several occasions au@rion must mean a future time

that is not necessarily the next day. The children of

Israel are exhorted to keep the commandments of God so that

when a son will ask "in time to come" (au@rion) why the

fathers keep the laws, they can give an answer to their

sons. Obviously au@rion does not refer to the next day but

rather refers to a future time.

 

          ¹ George Melville Bolling, "Beginning of the Greek

Day," The American Journal of Philology, XXIII (1902), 434.

                                             95

In the Gospels

          Only once does au@rion occur in an historical

setting meaning the next day. In the parable of the good

Samaritan "on the morrow" (au@rion) the Samaritan gave the

innkeeper two denarii (Lk. 10:35). This came after one

night at the inn.

          In Matthew 6:30 and Luke 12:28 Jesus refers to a

grasslike foliage which exists on one day and au@rion

(tomorrow) is thrown into an oven. Most likely the next

day is not meant here since the foliage would not become

a burnable fuel in a single night. It must refer to any

morrow, an indefinite future day. The same sense is found

in "do not worry unto the morrow for the morrow shall worry

for itself" (Mt. 6:34). Both verses could translate au@rion

with the sense of "the future or soon."

          Two other times au@rion is found, Luke 13:32, 33,

. . . Behold I cast out demons and I perform healings

today and tomorrow, and on the third I am being finished.

Nevertheless it is necessary for me today and tomorrow and

the one coming to go." In these verses au@rion may mean

either (1) tomorrow, (2) a short time, or (3) a long time.

Exodus 19:10, 11 has this same expression where it must

refer to three literal days. It is probable that au@rion

also should be taken as "tomorrow" here.

          Thus, au@rion follows the pattern of earlier Greek

and may mean both (1) "tomorrow," the next day and (2) a

                                           96

time in the future.

                                  Yesterday (e]xqe<j)

          A day prior to an existing day is understood as

"yesterday." In Greek this is expressed by e]xqej which had

both this and other meanings.

In non-biblical Greek

          The adverb e]xqe<j, "yesterday," is found in many of

the periods of Greek history and is especially frequent in

the papyri.¹ It can also be found in the writings of

Josephus where e]xqe<j has an additional meaning of "the past

as a whole."²

In the Old Testament

          The Hebrew wm,x,, and lOmt;x, sometimes occurring with

a m; prefix and lOmT; an are translated by e]xqe<j.  Though the

most frequent English translation is "yesterday," lOmT;,

which is the most frequently used word, can be translated

by "heretofore, in times past."³ This has the sense of

before the present time without a specific past time in

view. All these varied meanings can be illustrated from

the Septuagint.

 

          ¹ Liddell and Robert Scott, Lexicon, I, 748.

          ² Josephus Against Apion 2.154.

          ³ Koehler and Baumgartner, Lexicon, p. 1031.

                                             97

          Three times in Genesis¹ e]xqe<j refers to an event

taking place on the previous evening and is best translated

"yesternight." On most occasions e]xqe<j refers to a past

time event rather than simply the previous day. For

example, the Philistines feared the shout of the Hebrews

and replied "for there hath not been such a thing hereto-

fore" (I Sam. 4:7). During the early reign of David the

tribes of Israel reply, "In times past (e]xqe<j), when Saul

was king" (II Sam. 5:2). They did not mean the previous

day but past time. Consequently the sense of e]xqe<j can

vary depending on the context.

In the Gospels

          Only once, in John 4:52, does e]xqe<j occur. A

nobleman sought Jesus to heal his son. When the man

returned home he was told his son began to be healthy

"yesterday at the seventh hour." Obviously, the previous

day is intended since not only is there the use of e]xqe<j

but also the citation of the hour. This is in agreement

with the meaning of e]xqe<j.

          Each of the words when used in the Gospels express

a time which in the majority of cases reflects a single

obvious meaning. Though some words are capable of several

meanings, it is the contexts that specify the meaning. In

 

          ¹ Genesis 19:34; 31:29, 42.

                                            98

a few instances words appear in accounts where some uncer-

tainty of meaning remains. This is due to the fact that

words by themselves do not always carry a single exact

meaning. They can only be understood by the words used

with them. It is the lack of a more complete context that

creates the problem of determining exact time. It appears

that the Gospel writers did not intend to give a time-

centered message but rather a message that took place in

time.

      

 

                                 CHAPTER V

       

              WORDS FOR DAY AND ITS PARTS

 

          The most frequent reminder of the passing of time

to the majority of people in the ancient world was the day.

Quite naturally a day was an easy method of relating events

to history. Within the period of the day many specific and

some general points of time could be indicated. The con-

tent of this chapter consists of the words for a day and

its parts. The material is considered in the following

order: (1) the day, (2) the division of the day, (3) the

night, (4) the division of the night, and (5) other indi-

cations of time.

                                     Day

          The alteration of light and darkness brought about

by the apparent rising and setting of the sun marked out

the day in every ancient civilization. The day, h[me<ra had

several meanings which varied greatly as to the length of

time it indicated. These meanings become very important in

interpreting the Gospels because h[me<ra occurs more often

than any other word which expresses time.

In non-biblical Greek

          In Greek the "day" was named h[me<ra. However, h[me<ra

as it then was used developed several meanings: (1) a civil

                                        99

                                       100

day of twenty-four hours, (2) a state or time of life, "life

of misery," (3) time, (4) in the plural, an "age,"¹ which

consists of a number of literal days. To these can be

added (5) daytime (the period of daylight).² The length of

time indicated by h[me<ra depends on the context rather than

the meaning of the word. For example, in the papyri litera-

ture a woman who has been ordered to vacate her house asks

for "time," h[me<ra. The time requested is longer than a

single day.³

          Many references can be cited to illustrate the use

of h[me<ra when it means a day, whether a civil day of twenty-

four hours or daylight. Both Xenophon, "you shall see as

soon as day has come,"⁴ and Josephus, "and when day came he

went,"⁵ have h[me<ra, meaning the daylight part of the day.

Josephus joins nu<c with h[me<ra stating that the "high

priests pass their nights and days performing certain rites

 

          ¹ George Henry Liddell and Robert Scott, Lexicon, I

(Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1940), 770.

          ² William F. Arndt and Wilbur F. Gingrich, Lexicon

(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 340.

          ³ James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, Vocabulary

(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1903),

p. 280.

          ⁴ Xenophon Anabasis 7. 2.34.

          ⁵ Josephus Antiquities 10. 10. 3.

                                      101

of purification."¹ At times ka<q ]  h[me<ra is used with the

translation "daily" or "every day" as in "and every day saw

this war being fanned into fiercer flame."² Numerals are

used with h[me<ra by Josephus in the expression, kia> pro> mia?j

h[me<raj th?j e[orth?j which is translated, "And one day before

a festival the treasurers would go to the commander of the

Roman garrison and . . . , would take the robe."³ These

illustrations show both variety in meaning and expression

and indicate that caution must be observed in translating

h[me<ra.

          Because a civil day, which is indicated by h[me<ra,

began at different times in different countries,⁴ any

chronological reckoning could easily be in error even when

the translation is accurate. Only the context can deter-

mine which of several possible translations is the correct

one.

          An important note concerning the beginning of the

Jewish day is provided by Josephus. It is commonly agreed

that the Jewish day in the first century began at sunset.

This is illustrated by the eating of the Passover which was

 

          ¹ Josephus Against Apion 1. 199.

          ² Josephus Wars 2. 13. 1.

          ³ Josephus Antiquities 15. 11. 4.

          ⁴ Finegan, HBC (Princeton: Princeton University

Press, 1964), p. 8.

                                     102

slain on Nisan 14 in the late afternoon and was eaten that

night, on Nisan 15. All the lamb was to be consumed that

night and none could be left until the morning of the

fifteenth day. However, in one instance Josephus states

that the morning of the "next day" is the fifteenth day.¹

From this comment Beckwith asserts, "This shows that

Josephus is equally happy with a second way of reckoning

the days of these festivals, according to which they begin

and end at daybreak."²   In other words at least two

systems of reckoning the beginning of the day by the Jews

may have existed. One would begin at sunset and the other

at sunrise.

In the Old Testament

          Over two thousand times h[me<ra is found in the

Septuagint. Of these less than ninety are found as a

translation of words other than MOy.³ This Hebrew word

has the same variety of meanings that Ilgepc/ does in Greek.⁴

In Genesis 1:5 h[me<ra refers both to the period of daylight,

 

          ¹ Josephus Antiquities 3. 10. 5.

          ² Roger T. Beckwith, "The Day, Its Divisions and its

Limits, In Biblical Thought," The Evangelical Quarterly,

XLIII (October, 1971), 225.

          ³ Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath, Concordance, I

(Gratz, Austria: Akademische Druck, 1954), 607.

          ⁴ Koehler and Baumgartner, Lexicon (Leiden: E. J.

Brill, 1958), pp. 372-73.

                                       103

"and God called the light day," and to the civil day of

twenty-four hours, the evening and morning were "one day."

The greatest number of uses of h[me<ra fall into one of these

two meanings and they occur in a variety of expressions.

Yet, other meanings are also found. According to the

geneology in Genesis 5:5, "all the days Adam lived were

nine hundred and twelve years." Though h[me<ra is translated

"days," here it can have the meanings, "time," "lifetime,"

or "age." The children of Israel passed over the Jordan

at "the time (h[me<ra) of harvest" (Jo. 3:15). Often days

and nights are joined by kai< in describing the length of

an event (Gen. 7:12) but it appears to have no more signi-

ficance than the mention of days without the nights (Gen.

7:17). The insertion of o!lhn, "all" with day and night

(Ex. 10:13) shows the extent of time the locusts plagued

Egypt but it cannot be concluded that the absence of o!lhn

would indicate a lesser period of time.

          One important study of h[me<ra, is its use with

numbers. This, more than any other use of h[me<ra, affects

precise chronological reckoning. Sometimes the reference

to days is done simply by mentioning the time in the nomi-

native or accusative case, such as, "I was there three

days" (Neh. 2:11), and water prevailed "a hundred and fifty

days" (Gen. 7:24). On other occasions the dative case is

used apparently to show an event that happened during the

days specified. For example, Abraham circumcized Isaac "on

                                    104

the eighth day," t^? o]gdo<^ h[me<r%  (Gen. 21:4).

          Sometimes there is a clarification of the length

of time given in the same passage. David, following the

death of Saul (II Sam. 1:1, 2), abode "two days," h[me<raj  

duo<, in Ziklag. And it came to pass "on the third day,"

t^? h[me<r% t^? tri<t^, suggests that the "two days" of verse

one are civil days for it was during the third day that the

next recorded event took place. A similar circumstance is

recorded in Genesis 40:13, 20. Joseph tells Pharoah's

butler, "yet three days," e]ti< trei?j h[me<rai, and he would be

restored. This came to pass "on the third day," e]n t^?

h[me<r% t^? tri<t^. The three days before the restoration do

not mean three complete days but two days with the restora-

tion on the third day. Esther commands all the Jews in

Shushan to fast "for three days," e]pi> h[me<raj trei?j, night

and day and "then I will enter before the king" (Est. 4:16).

However, she went before the king (Est. 5:1) "on the third

day," e]n t^? h[me<r% t^? tri<t^.  From these passages it would

appear that a numerical reference to days could include any

part of a day as well as the complete twenty-four hour

period. Great care must be taken when determining the

length of days that are qualified by numbers.

          The Old Testament also reveals that the civil day

was begun at sunset. This is proven by several Scriptures.

The feast days were observed beginning at the evening (Lev.

23:32). The Sabbath began at sunset (Neh. 13:19). For

                                           105

anyone who was unclean ceremonially, his uncleanness ended

at evening (Lev. 11:24). In I Samuel 11:9-11 both the

morning watch of the night and the morning of the day are

both "on the morrow." These passages prove that the day

began at sunset. Yet, there is at least one occasion where

a night is reckoned with the previous day. Michal told

David, "If you save not your life tonight, tomorrow, you

will be slain" (I Sam. 19:11). This seems to indicate that

in popular speech the days were sometimes reckoned from day-

light. This appears to be the same method as was used in

Josephus.¹ If two systems of reckoning the beginning of a

day did exist, the reckoning of time by days is made much

more difficult.

In the Gospels

          There are at least four basic ideas for h[me<ra

found in the Gospels: (1) a day appointed for special

purposes, (2) a civil day, (3) daylight and (4) a longer

period of time.² Unfortunately the translation for each is

most often "day."

          Of the days appointed for special purposes Matthew's

"day of judgment,"³ e]n h[me<ra kri<sewj is a phrase with

 

          ¹ Josephus Antiquities 3. 10. 5.

          ² Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon, pp. 346-48.

          ³ Mt. 10:15; 11:22, 24; 12:36.

                                      106

particular temporal meaning. The context of each passage

indicates that it refers to the final judgment of the

unsaved. Because of the masses of people involved and the

nature of the judgment (Rev. 20:12-15), more than one

literal day is involved. For this reason a better under-

standing of e]n h[me<r% kri<sewj would be "in a time of judg-

ment." The length of time indicated by this expression is

unspecified but would seem to be longer than a literal day

since Scripture suggests there is an individual judgment of

all individuals born into this world (Rev. 20:13).

          Another use of day that has a special purpose is

John's "in the last day," t^? e]sxa<t^ h[me<r%.¹  Five times

this day is identified with the resurrection of the

righteous and once with the future judgment. Since all the

righteous will not be resurrected on the same day and since

all believers will not be judged on the same day, t^? e]sxa<t^

h[me<ra could be translated "in the last time." Such a

translation best preserves the meaning of h[me<ra when used

figuratively of a day which is appointed for special

purposes.

          When h[me<ra occurs without any qualifying words it

can be used figuratively of an unspecified day (Jn. 8:56;

9:4), of a lifetime (Lk. 1:75), of old age (Lk. 2:36) and

 

          ¹ Jn. 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:24; 12:48. Though 7:37

has this expression it is clear by the context that an

historical day is in view.

                                   107

even of years. In this last instance, in Luke 1:7

Zacharias and Elizabeth are advanced in "days," actually

meaning "years," just as, Elizabeth is advanced in "years"

(Lk. 1:18).

          Quite often h[me<ra is translated "day" with the

sense of an unspecified length and point of time. In these

instances it could be translated "time" when singular¹ and

"time" or "times" when plural.²  Among the times indicated

is the day (time) of Elijah, of Lot, and of the coming of

the Lord.

          Several times when h[me<ra occurs in the singular it

refers to the daylight part of the day.³ From this it is

learned that there are twelve hours in this daylight period

(Jn. 11:9). Men could be hired to work by the hour (Mt. 20).

This daylight period is the time for activity.

          Most references to h[me<ra, refer to a civil twenty—

four hour day. The day can be in the singular⁴ and the

 

          ¹ Mt. 24:42, 50; 25:13; Lk. 9:51; 17:24, 26(2).

          ² Mt. 2:1; 9:15 (Mk. 2:20; Lk. 5:35); 23:30; 24:37

(Lk. 17:26), 38 (Lk. 17:27); 28:20; Lk. 1:5; 4:25; 17:22,

28; 19:43; 21:6, 22; 23:29.

          ³ Mt. 20:2, 6, 12; Lk. 4:42; 6:13; 9:12; 22:16;

Jn. 11:9(2).

          ⁴ Mt.28:15; Mk. 6:21; Lk. 1:20; 80; 4:16; 13:14,

16; 14:15; 17:4, 27, 29, 30; 22:7; 23:54; Jn. 7:37; 9:14;

12:7; 19:31.

                                      108

plural.¹  The day may be a single unspecified day such as

the day when John was beheaded, "a convenient day" (Mk. 6:

21) or a single specific day such as a sabbath day (Lk. 4:

16). Several times feast days are indicated by h[me<ra

(Lk. 22:7; 23:54; Jn. 7:37; 19:31).² The plural form

indicates a sequence of continuous days as in "they abode

not many days" (Jn. 2:12).

          The civil day is qualified on certain occasions by

the demonstrative pronoun ou$toj, "this" and in the plural

"these." In each instance where it is found whether singu-

lar or plural it refers to an historical calendar day³ or

days.⁴  Similar to this is the use of e]kei?noj with h[me<ra.

It occurs in the singular to point out a specific day on

 

          ¹ Mk. 13:20(2); Lk. 1:23, 25; 2:6, 22, 43; 9:51;

15:13; Jn. 2:12.

          ² Three of these references are important for con-

structing a chronology of the passion week. Luke 22:7

indicates "the day of unleavened bread came in which it is

necessary to slay the passover." This must be construed as

Nisan 14 unless the Jews also sacrificed the passover lamb

on the thirteenth. The body of Jesus was placed in a tomb

on the day of Preparation (Lk. 23:54). Though Friday was

the weekly day known as preparation, this could refer to

any day of the week preceding a feast such as, the Passover.

According to John 19:31, "the day of that sabbath was a

great (high) day," when Jesus was crucified. These days

were specific civil days but because the customs and termi-

nology of this period are uncertain, the identity of these

days is unclear. Thus, three views of the day for the

crucifixion--Wednesday, Thursday and Friday--have scholarly

proponents.

          ³ Lk. 19:42; 23:12; 24:13.

          ⁴ Lk. 1:24, 39; 6:12; 23:7; 24:8.

                                           109

which something took place.¹ The plural is used to indicate

a period of days during which time an event happened.²  On

several occasions e]kei?noj and h[me<ra are used together in

both the singular³ and the plural⁴ to refer to the future

eschatological day. This day may refer to the time of

tribulation, the second coming, the judgments or the saved

being with Christ. Though "day" is the usual translation

of h[me<ra, the context sometimes reveals that "time" is a

better translation, especially when the time indicated is

clearly longer than a day.

          The idiom ka<q ]  h[me<ran is found seven times⁵ and is

translated "daily" or "every day." In this construction

kaq ] h[me<ran is used distributively⁶ indicating that the

activity occurs day by day.

          On seven occasions h[me<ra and nu<c are joined

together by kai<.⁷  Of these seven passages three have nu<c

 

          ¹ Mt. 13:1; 22:23, 46; Mk. 4:35; Jn. 1:39; 5:9; 11:

53; 20:19.

          ² Mt. 3:1; 24:38; Mk. 8:1; Lk. 2:1; 4:2; 9:36.

          ³ Mt. 7:22; 24:36 (Mk. 13:32); 26:29 (Mk. 14:25);

Mk. 2:20; Lk. 6:23; 10:12; 17:13; 21:34; Jn. 14:20; 16:23,

26.

          ⁴ Mt. 24:19 (Mk. 13:17; Lk. 21:23), 22(2), 29 (Mk.

13:24); Mk. 1:9; 13:29; Lk. 5:35.

          ⁵ Mt. 26:55 (Mk. 14:49; Lk. 22:53); Lk. 9:23; 11:3;

16:19; 19:47.

          ⁶ Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon, p. 407.

          ⁷ Mt. 4:2; 12:40(2); Mk. 4:27; 5:5; Lk. 2:37; 18:7.

                                        110

first and four have h[me<ra. It does not appear that this

expression, "night and day" is always the equivalent of a

twenty-four hour period. For example, Anna worshipped in

the temple "night and day." She did not reside in the

temple but rather was present in the temple whenever it

was open (Lk. 2:37).¹  In a similar passage, the demoniac

was crying always "night and day" (Mk. 4:27) in the tombs.

This cannot mean that he cried twenty-four hours each day.

In these places nu<c and h[me<ra seem to express the idea of

"daily" or at night and at day unless numerals are used to

indicate a specific number of days. It was "forty days and

forty nights" that Jesus fasted (Mt. 4:2). Jonah was in

the fish "three days and three nights" and Jesus said that

he also would be the same length of time in the heart of

the earth (Mt. 12:40). While it may seem natural to equate

each of the days as twenty-four hours, it must be remem-

bered that the Jews used inclusive reckoning so that any

part of a day was counted as a whole day. It is clear

that the use of nu<c and h[me<ra together do not necessarily

indicate a twenty-four hour period. This meaning is

possible but it must be proven not by any expression but

by the contextual evidence in the passage.

          A number of passages have numerals with h[me<ra.

 

          ¹ Plummer, Luke (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1964),

p. 72

                                      111

Yet when the number of days is given it is difficult to

determine how much time is indicated. For example, a great

multitude followed Jesus "three days" and had nothing to

eat (Mt. 15:32; Mk. 8:2). This may indicate a period from

seventy-two hours to one full day plus a part of the pre-

ceding and the following days. This latter method of

figuring time is called inclusive reckoning.

                    This method included in the reckoning of a time

          interval both the day (or year) in which any period of

          time began and also that on which it ended, no matter

          how small a fraction of the beginning and the ending

          day (or year) was involved.¹

          In many passages² it is difficult to ascertain

whether inclusive reckoning was followed because so little

information is given. Occasionally the length of time is

clear. Luke singles out a day in the expression "one of

the days."³ Six days were set aside for work each week

(Lk. 13;14). However, on the eighth day of a boy's life he

was circumcized (Lk. 1:59; 2:11). This could be six full

days plus the day of birth and the day of circumcision.

It appears that the passing of a full week was indicated

by "after eight days" (Jn. 20:26) and "about eight days"

 

          ¹ Francis D. Nichol (ed.), Seventh Day Adventist 

Commentary, V (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald

Publishing Association, 1956), 249..

          ² Mt. 15:32 (Mk. 8:2); 17:1 (Mk. 9:2); Mk. 1:13

(Lk. 4:2); Lk. 2:46; Jn. 2:1.

          ³ Lk. 5:17; 8:22; 17:22; 20:1.

                                       112

(Lk. 9:28). That is, seven days have passed and it is now

the eighth day, or a week later.

          Even when additional information is given, there

is difficulty in interpreting the number of days. John

says that Jesus abode in Samaria two days (Jn. 4:40) and

after two days He went into Galilee (Jn. 4:43). If Jesus

arrived about noon, His stay could have been a period of

less than twenty-four hours or up to forty-eight hours

depending on whether the day of His arrival is considered

as the first day.¹

          A greater problem exists in the expressions of

time in the Passion Week chronology. Jesus arrived in

Bethany "six days before the Passover," pro> e]c h[merw?n

tou? pa<sxa (Jn. 12:1). The Passover would be either Nisan

14 or 15 depending on whether the slaying of the lamb or

the Passover meal is in view. Six days before the Passover

could include (1) both days at each extreme or (2) only one

of the days at the extreme. Hence the day specified could

be Nisan 8, 9 or possibly 10.² The difficulty of deter-

mining these more precise expressions is the uncertainty

 

          ¹ A similar problem exists in connection with the

raising of Lazarus who was in the tomb four days (Jn. 11:6,

17). This time could be a full four days or parts of four

days reckoned as whole days.

          ² The same reasoning may be followed in the expres-

sion "after two days the Passover cometh" (Mt. 26:2;

Mk. 14:1). The two days mean either (1) the next day or

(2) the day after tomorrow.

                                         113

about what these words meant then and the method or methods

of reckoning time.

          In the Gospels there are eighteen statements

recorded about the length of time between the death and

resurrection of Jesus. Eleven of these statements are

recorded as being from Jesus. Of these, Matthew has a

reference to Jonah with an application to Jesus (12:40).

His three other references to the three days are in the

dative case without accompanying prepositions.¹ Mark, in

referring to the three days in accounts parallel to Matthew

has meta> trei?j h[me<raj (Mk. 8:31; 9:31; 10:34).  Luke

follows Matthew (Lk. 9:22; 18:33; 24:46). John 2:19 states

that the resurrection would be e]n trisi>n h[me<raij.  All of

these passages must refer to the same length of time. The

preference for the dative and e]n indicates that the resur-

rection took place not after the three days but that the

resurrection "is to take place within that space of time,

consequently before its expiration.² The Jewish leaders

in referring to this time period prefix the three days with

several different prepositions which also must have the

 

          ¹ kai> t^? tri<t^ h[me<r%  Mt. 16:21; 17:23; 20:19.

          ² George B. Winer, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New

Testament (7th ed.; Andover: Warren F. Draper, 1877),

p. 386. "(Hereinafter referred to as Grammar.)"

                                        114

same temporal meaning.¹ They express belief that a guard

is necessary e!wj "until the third day" (Mt. 27:63). This

"third day" seems to be the terminus ad quem. After the

third day the guard is unnecessary. Later the disciples

spoke to Jesus late on the first day of the week and they

remark, "It is now the third day since all these things

came to pass" (Lk. 24:21). It would appear that the three

days from the death to the resurrection no matter how they

are expressed extend back to Friday if inclusive reckoning

is followed or Thursday if a full seventy-two hour period

is intended.

          In spite of the use of numerals with h[me<ra to

indicate the passing of chronological time, the uncertainty

about the manner of counting days makes exactness of inter-

pretation difficult. In addition to indicating chronology

h[me<ra can also be used: (1) figuratively, (2) of daylight,

(3) of an extended period of time having a translation

"time" or "days," and (4) of a civil day whether a whole

or a part.

          In the Gospels a "day" can also be expressed by

 

          ¹  dia< is used in Mt. 26:61; Mk. 14:58; e]n in Mt. 27:

40; Mk. 15:29; and meta< in Mt. 27:63. However, Norman

Walker, "After Three Days," Novum Testamentum, IV (December,

1960), 261-62, argues that the expression in Mt. 27:63

means the "fourth day." He also postulates that the three

day time reckoning should begin with the rejection of Jesus

on Thursday (basing this on a supposed two day trial) rather

than the crucifixion which he maintains came on Friday. He

lists no evidence for this view other than the supposed two

day trial.

                                       115

sh<meron which appears to be a varient of h[me<ra.  In the

Old Testament MOy, "day," appears about eighteen hundred

times and is translated by sh<meron 286 times in the

Septuagint.¹  Most often sh<meron translates MOy.ha or MOy.ha

hz.,ha "this day." In the Gospels it is found twenty times

conveying the meaning "this day" or "today." It is the

opposite of au@rion, "tomorrow" (Mt. 6:30). The daylight

and what belongs to it,² the entire civil day,³  and the

night which belongs to the day⁴ are all a part of          sh<meron.

From these uses it appears that sh<meron is more restrictive

than h[me<ra and indicates the present literal day or its

parts.

                                 Division of the Day

          One of the frequently occurring words to record

the passing of time is w!ra, "hour." It is this word that

was chosen to divide the daylight or the solar day into

its parts.

 

          ¹ Ernest Fuchs, sh<meron,  TDNT, trans. and ed. by

Geoffrey W. Bromiley, VII (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans

Publishing Co., 1971), 270.

          ² Mt..6:11; 21:28; Lk. 5:26; 12:28.

          ³ Mt. 6:30; 11:23; 16:3; 27:8, 19; 28:15; Lk. 2:11;

4:21; 13:32, 3; 19:5, 9; 23:43; 24:21.

          ⁴ Mk. 14:30; Lk. 22:34.

                                          116

In non-biblical Greek

          The early meanings of w!ra, include (1) a "fitting

time," (2) a "season," and (3) "any period fixed by

natural laws and revolutions whether of the year, month,

or day."¹  This last concept can be understood as including

translations such as, "right time," "time,"² as well as

"hour." Other meanings include "in one second," "in a

moment" and "instantly."³ The use of w!ra to denote any

short span of time seems to have been the earliest meaning

and only later, when time was determined by the "hour," did

the meaning "hour" develop.⁴

          At a time contemporary with the writing of the New

Testament, the Jewish historian Josephus uses w!ra to speak

of a specific hour in the day.⁵ On one occasion he writes

concerning the Roman war with the Jews:

                    The ten assenting to these proposals, early next

          morning he dispatched the rest of the men under his

          command in the various directions, to prevent any

          discovery of the plot, and about the third hour called

          to the Romans from the tower.⁶

 

          ¹ Liddell and Scott, Lexicon, II, 2035.

          ² Cremer, Lexicon (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1954),

p. 589.

          ³ Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, ID. 702.

          ⁴ Cadbury, "Time," Journal of Biblical Literature,

LXXXII (September, 1963), 276.

          ⁵ Josephus Wars 6. 1. 7. and Antiquities 6. 14. 6.

          ⁶ Josephus Wars 5. 13. 2.

                                           117

          From this it can be concluded that to Josephus the

third hour was early in the day. This corresponds to

9 a.m. according to the Jewish reckoning of the third hour.

A second quotation from Josephus indicates that Josephus

reckoned hours from sunrise.

                    The majority, however were not convinced by these

          speeches, and a riot would inevitably have ensued, had

          not arrival of the sixth hour, at which it is our

          custom on the Sabbath to take our midday meal, broken

          off the meeting.¹

          Josephus clearly indicates that the customary

Jewish midday meal on a Sabbath day came at the sixth hour.

Being the midday meal, the sixth hour was reckoned from

sunrise. Josephus was writing primarily to Romans from the

city of Rome and still he uses the Jewish custom of

reckoning hours from sunrise. The importance of this will

be realized later in the section dealing with w!ra in the

Gospels. It is clear that w!ra early had a variety of

meanings.

In the Old Testament

          Although found less than forty times in the Septu-

agint, the use of w!ra occurs primarily as a translation for

tfe which is usually translated "time." In a few places

w!ra translates hfAwA.²   In no place does w!ra occur with a

 

          ¹ Josephus Life 54.

          ² Dan. 3:6; 4:16; 5:5.

                                        118

numeral to indicate a specific hour in the day. The only

places where w!ra appears to give the sense of "hour" is in

the often repeated phrase "tomorrow about this time" and

its equivalents. Even here the sense is more of general

period of time than a literal hour. Sometimes w!ra is

translated "time" with the idea of eschatological time

(Dan. 11:40), of time for the evening oblation (Dan. 9:21)

and time to eat (Ru. 2:14). The sense of "season" is clear

in the account of Abraham's promise of a son (Gen. 18:14).

The Lord promises to return to Abraham and Sarah "when the

season (w!ra) cometh around." The "season" was the time

when Sarah could conceive. Also w!ra has the translation

"season" when referring to the time when rain comes (Deut.

11:14). In Daniel 3:6, "in the same hour cast in the

burning fiery furnace," and 5:5, "the same hour came forth

the fingers of a man's hand," w!ra is usually translated

"hour." However, the context does not demand a literal

"hour." The translation "at the same time," is equally

suitable if not superior. These examples show that the

variety of meanings found in the non-biblical Greek were

for the most part found in the Septuagint.

In the Gospels

          Nearly seventy-five times w!ra is found in the

Gospels. At times the translation "hour" is not the best

                                        119

rendering. Luke uses w!ra with au]th< six times.¹  Most

English versions translate this "the same hour" or "that

very hour." Matthew Black asserts that this is actually

a translation equivalent of two closely related Aramaic

temporal conjunctions which convey the meaning "at the same

time," "immediately," "forthwith," and sometimes "then," or

"thereupon."² All these translations reflect the meaning

"time" and contextually are more meaningful translations

than "hour." Even if Black's assertion is incorrect, the

first three suggested meanings are the same as the earlier

historical uses of w!ra.

          Many times w!ra appears to express "time" in the

sense of an "instant of time." This is clear in the healing

miracles of Jesus.³ For example, "the servant was healed

in that hour" (Mt. 8:13). "The woman was made whole from

that hour" (Mt. 9:22). Both of these verses express the

same result, an instantaneous cure.

          Other places must also have the same sense of

"time," rather than "hour." Mark 11:11 has, "the hour

(time) already being evening" Jesus went out. At the

feeding of the five thousand the disciples announced that

 

          ¹ Lk. 2:38; 10:21; 12:12; 13:31; 20:19; 24:33.

          ² Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels 

and Acts (Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1967), p. 79.

          ³ Mt. 8:13; 9:22; 15:28; 17:18; Lk. 7:21; Jn. 4:53.

                                           120

"the hour (time) is already past" (Mt. 14:15). Jesus tells

the Samaritan woman, "the hour is coming and now is" (Jn.

4:23). There was also the promise of a "coming hour (time)

of resurrection (Jn. 5:28). There is no reason to believe

that a specific hour was in view in these passages. Rather,

w!ra indicates specific "time" without a specified time des-

ignation. In Hebrew this is expressed by tfe but in the

Greek by w!ra.

          The same idea is present in the eschatological pas-

sages which teach of the Second Coming being at an unknown

"hour" (time).¹  Likewise, on a few occasions w!ra refers to

a specific time which recurred every day and is similar to

the popular expression "dinner time." Luke also speaks of

the "hour of incense" (1:10) and the "hour of supper" (14:

17; 22:14).

          Throughout the Gospels Jesus speaks of "the hour,"

"my hour" and "this hour."² The meaning of w!ra in these

places cannot be a literal "hour" but rather "time." A

survey of the passages indicates that the hour relates to

the events of His passion. Since more than an hour trans-

pired during this time, or less if only His death is in

 

          ¹ Mt. 10:19 (Mk. 13:11; Lk. 12:12); 14:15; 18:1;

26:55; Mk. 6:35(2); 11:11; Lk. 22:53; Jn. 4:21; 23; 5:25,

28; 16:2, 4, 21, 25, 32; 19:27.

          ² Mt. 26:45; Mk. 14:35, 41; Jn. 2:4; 7:30; 8:20;

12:23, 27; 13:1; 17:1.

 

                                         121

 

view, w!ra could best be translated "time."

          In one instance, "Ye were willing to rejoice for

a season in his light" (Jn. 5:35), w!ra is translated

"season." The reference is to John the Baptist. The light

which he cast was not for a literal hour or for a brief

time but for an extended period. While this is the only

place this translation is found in the Gospels, it is

historically permissible and contextually necessary.

          The remaining twenty-one uses of w!ra occur with

numerals. From these passages it is known that there are

twelve hours in a day (Jn. 11:9). The w!ra would vary in

length in accordance with the season of the year since

every day was divided into twelve equal parts. The first

hour of the day began at sunrise and the twelfth hour con-

cluded at sunset. In the parable of the vineyard the

third, sixth, ninth and eleventh hours of the day are

mentioned (Mt. 20:3, 5, 9, 12). At each of these hours

workers were hired to work in the vineyard. The hours

mentioned correspond to mid-morning, noon, mid-afternoon

and two hours before dark. This was the usual method of

reckoning time during the day time and it was done by

estimation. In the Garden Jesus reproved the disciples

because they could not watch one hour while He prayed (Mt.

26:40; Mk. 14:37). There is also an indication of time in

connection with the denials of Christ by Peter. Matthew

and Mark indicate that "after a little while" (meta< mikro<n)

                                         122

Peter denied the Lord a third time but Luke relates that

it was "after the space of about one hour" (Lk. 22:59).

          Concerning the crucifixion the Synoptists agree that

from (a]po<) or about (w!sei) the sixth hour there was dark-

ness.¹ The darkness lasted until (e!wj) the ninth hour

(Mt. 27:45; Mk. 15:33). About (peri<) the ninth hour Jesus

cried out with a loud voice (Mt. 27:46; Mk. 15:34).

Shortly after this He died. The time when darkness covered

the earth would be from noon to 3 p.m. To this, Mark 15:25

adds, "now it was the third hour and they crucified Him."

This would be 9 a.m. reckoning from sunrise.

          Before examining John's use of "hour" it must be

noted that there is disagreement about the method which

John used in reckoning time. Much can be said in favor of

adopting the "Roman method" of reckoning time. Finegan

writes: "when various hourly notations are considered in

the Gospel according to John it is found that they do in

fact work out well in terms of Roman reckoning."² David

Smith expand; this thought:

                    The Romans reckoned their sacerdotal and their

          civil day from midnight to noon and again from noon to

          midnight. So also the Egyptians counted their hours.

          Nor is evidence lacking that a like system obtained in

          Asia Minor. Polycarp was martyred in the Stadium at

          Smyrna w!ra o]godo<^, and this must mean 8 a.m. since

 

          ¹ Mt. 27:45; Mk. 15:33; Lk. 23:44.

          ² Finegan, HBC, p. 12.

                                  123

          public spectacles began at an early hour. The Synop-

          tists follow the ordinary Jewish method, but it was

          natural that John, writing at Ephesus, should follow

          the method in vogue in Asia Minor, and so he appears

          actually to have done.¹

          Perhaps the most convincing evidence that such a

method of reckoning hours did exist is from Pliny, who

wrote saying:

                    The actual period of a day has been differently kept

          by different people: the Babylonians count the period

          between the two sunrises, the Athenians that between

          two sunsets, the Umbrians from midday to midday, the

          common people everywhere from dawn to dark, the Roman

          priests and the authorities who fixed the official day,

          and also the Egyptians and Hipparchus the period from 

          midnight to midnight. [emphasis mine]²

          Therefore, according to this system, the sixth hour

would be either 6 a.m. or 6 p.m. rather than noon, which it

would be if the Jewish method were followed.

          However, many do not believe that such a system ever

existed. William Ramsay points out several important

reasons against reckoning a day beginning at midnight. He

relates that there is no certain historical instance when

Roman hours are reckoned from midnight. Further, even when

the Romans described the civil day they began counting the

hours from sunrise. They called midnight (the beginning of

their twenty four hour day) the sixth hour of the night.

          ¹ David Smith, The Days of His Flesh (London:

Hodder and Stoughton, 1910), pp. 529-30.

          ² Pliny, Natural History 2. 79. 188.

                                         124

And finally, the Greek civil day began at sunset. With his

investigation finished, Ramsay firmly asserts that hours

were reckoned in only one way.¹ An additional consideration

comes from Josephus, the Jewish historian, who wrote to

first century Romans. He remarks that on the sabbath the

midday meal was "the sixth hour."² This has to be noon.

This testimony is from a first century Jew writing to

Gentiles in a Gentile country about Jewish customs. These

seem to be similar to the circumstances of John who wrote

the Fourth Gospel.

          The first mention of w!ra with a numeral occurs at

the conversion of John who remained that day with Jesus.

John writes, "It was about the tenth hour" (Jn. 1:39), which

is about 4 p.m. according to Jewish reckoning or 10 a.m.

according to Roman reckoning.

          A reference to the "sixth hour" (Jn. 4:6) takes

place at Jacob's well near Sychar. This would be noon

according to the Jews or 6 p.m. according to the Romans. If

this is 6 p.m. as some believe, many events had to take

place in a very short period of time in order for this to

be completed before dark. This incident probably occurs in

winter (4:35) and darkness would come early, perhaps even

 

          ¹ William N. Ramsay, "The Sixth Hour," The Expositor,

XVIII (June, 1896), 458. "(Hereinafter referred to as "The

Sixth Hour.")"

          ² Josephus, Life, 54.

                                            125

before the 6 p.m. of Roman reckoning. After meeting the

woman the following events took place: (1) the lengthy

discourse, (2) the return of the woman to the city, (3) the

return to Jesus by the woman and the townspeople at a time

of sufficient light for the people to see their way and be

seen by the disciples, and (4) the return to the city for

all involved. It is possible for these events to take

place in this period of time only if some were concluded

after dark. Although 6 p.m. is the normal time for drawing

water, Josephus indicates that water was also drawn at mid-

day.¹

          If the sixth hour is noon, all the events of John

four have sufficient time to occur. To interpret the sixth

hour as being 6 p.m. in this passage appears to have greater

difficulties than the noon interpretation.²

          The nobleman's son was healed (4:52, 3) at the

seventh hour. This is 2 p.m. by the Jewish system and

7 a.m. or 7 p.m. by the Roman system. It could be argued

that each of these hours gives plenty of time for the noble-

man to return home to Capernaum which is at least a twenty

mile journey by the next day. This journey would necessi-

tate an overnight rest during the lengthy trip home. Since

a twenty mile journey is longer than an average day's

 

          ¹ Josephus Antiquities 2.11.1. and 2.11.2.

          ² George Ogg, Chronology (Cambridge: At the Univer-

sity Press, 1940), p. 32.

                                     126

journey the seventh hour may better indicate 7 a.m. or

2 p.m., following the Jewish reckoning. Especially is this

true since it appears that the man departed immediately

after hearing Jesus' words. If this miracle took place at

7 p.m. he could not travel far before dark. However, it

was still possible for him to arrive home the next day.

The conclusions drawn from either system of reckoning are

equally plausible in light of the evidence which John

records. Therefore, on the basis of this testimony alone

the seventh hour could be 7 a.m. or 2 p.m. but probably not

7 p.m.

          The last reference to w!ra in John is most difficult

to explain. John writes that Jesus was delivered up to be

crucified "about the sixth hour" (Jn. 19:14). The other

gospel writers indicate that Jesus was already on the cross

before the sixth hour. Many attempts have been made to

harmonize the accounts. Some claim that the Roman method

of reckoning hours from midnight was followed by John.¹

Thus, John's sixth hour would be 6 a.m. Others believe

there was a manuscript error through the misreading of the

copyists.²  However Ramsay, who accepts the Jewish method

 

          ¹ Archibald T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels 

(New York; Harper and Brothers, 1922), pp. 284-87.

          ² Eugen Ruckstuhl, Chronology of the Last Days of 

Jesus, trans. by V. Drapela (New York: Desclee Company,

Inc., 1965), pp. 47-48.

                                       127

of reckoning time, acknowledges the differences in the

Gospel records but he believes that the times given in the

Gospels are reasonable estimates and he "cannot feel any-

thing serious in such difference of estimate between

witnesses who naturally would be thinking little about the

hour."¹ Thus, according to Ramsay it is possible that the

sixth-hour of John is reckoned from sunrise and would

correspon to the period of midday.

          If the Jewish system is followed, that the sixth

hour of John is noon, the following reconstruction appears

necessary.

          The Synoptists agree that darkness covered the land

from the sixth hour to the ninth. The mention of the sixth

hour must refer not to the period of time when Jesus was on

the cross but the time when darkness began. Each account

mentions the sixth hour and immediately after this relates

an event about the ninth hour. It is possible that the

Synoptists wrote giving the total time of darkness, the

sixth to the ninth hour, whereas John wrote setting the

time that Jesus was delivered up for crucifixion as about

midday. Mark's third hour (Mk. 15:25) or mid-morning would

have to be an estimation of the time when it was clear from

the proceedings that Jesus would be crucified. John, who

wrote his Gospel after the Synoptists, clarifies the time

 

          ¹ William M. Ramsay, "The Sixth Hour," 457-58.

                                      128

by stating that Jesus was not crucified until about midday,

the sixth hour. He was an eyewitness (Jn. 19:26, 27) and

his testimony concerning the time of crucifixion must be

the more exact indication of time.

          However, if the Jewish reckoning of the sixth hour

is accepted, a careful examination of the four Gospels

reveals a hopeless contradiction between the Synoptics and

John. Only one point needs mentioning to illustrate this

irreconcilable position. In the Synoptic Gospels it is

recorded that Jesus was crucified the "third hour" (Mk. 15:

25) and that He had been on the cross and had already

uttered several of His sayings by the sixth hour (Mt. 27:

45; Lk. 23:44). However, John places the sentencing in

Pilate's Hall at about (w[j) the "sixth hour." After this

Jesus was led away to Golgotha and the crucifixion took

place. Either John or the other Gospels are in error if

the Jewish method of reckoning hours was used.

          However, if the Roman reckoning of hours from mid-

night was used by John, his sixth hour would be 6 a.m.

This would allow for a harmonization of all the accounts.

John presents the time, 6 a.m., when Jesus was in Pilate's

Hall for judgment, the mockings and scourgings. Mark indi-

cates the exact time of the crucifixion, 9 a.m. Matthew and

Luke indicate that from noon until 3 p.m. darkness covered

the earth

          The question may legitimately be asked, "Why did

                                              129

John adopt Roman reckoning of hours?" Norman Walker states

that

                    the use of 'modern' or Egyptian hour-reckoning by

          the author suggests either Alexandria or Ephesus. Pre-

          cise time-reckoning and knowledge of the stars was all

          important for navigation, and time-reckoning from mid-

          night was in use among Egyptians, and two and a half

          centuries before the Fourth Gospel was written, the

          great astronomer Hipparchus had resided both at Rhodes

          and at Alexandria, cataloguing the stars and reckoning

          the hours from midnight, as did the Egyptians. There

          is also evidence from the recorded martyrdoms of

          Polycarp and Pionius that the manner of reckoning

          obtained in Asia Minor.¹

          Therefore, if John was influenced by the reckoning

of time in Ephesus where he spent much time and if Pliny's

comments about the Roman authorities reckoning the day from

midnight are correct, it is both probable and logical that,

at least in this passage, John followed the Roman reckoning

of hours from midnight. The events which he records were

acts of a Roman official and these may have been set forth

in official Roman records as taking place at the "sixth

hour," 6 a.m. It does not necessarily follow that all

other references to w!ra by John must be reckoned by the

Roman method.

          In reviewing the uses of w!ra, it can be seen that

most often w!ra should be understood as "time" not in the

sense of a literal "hour" but with the idea of "a moment

of time." Only once (Jn. 5:35) does it appear that w!ra,

          ¹ Norman Walker, "The Reckoning of Hours in the

Fourth Gospel," Novum Testamentum, IV (January, 1960), 72.

                                      130

must be translated "season," which is a lengthy period.

When w!ra occurs with numerals it refers to a particular

twelfth part of the daytime if the time is being reckoned

by the Jewish method. The first hour commenced at sunrise

and the twelfth concluded at sunset. In at least one

instance, John 19:14, the hour must be reckoned from mid-

night to harmonize with the Synoptic Gospels. This Roman

time reckoning was practiced then although this was not the

common Jewish method of indicating hours. Whether any

other hour references in John are also reckoned from mid-

night is not certain. Either method of reckoning, Roman or

Jewish, is possible though the Jewish system appears to be

better.

                                           Night

          From the beginning of creation the darkness which

followed the day provided an easy method of reckoning time.

This period of darkness which encompassed half of the civil

day was called nu<c.

In non-biblical Greek

          The period of time that is opposite to the daylight

is the "night," nu<c. When used literally nu<c could occur

with prepositional phrases which sometimes qualify the part

of the night intended. For example, u[po> nu<ktan means "at

                                     131

dusk," and dia> nukto<j "under the cover of night."¹

Occasionally nu<c is figurative of "blindness," "derelection"

and "harm."² word used by Josephus to indicate the

passing of a whole night is          dianuktereu<ein.³

In the Old Testament

          The period of darkness, commonly called nu<c for

the Hebrew hlAy;la  had many divisions within it. The

earliest part of the darkness, the evening twilight, is

called o]ye< (Job 24:15). The time when the stars occur is

designated by e[spe<ra or e[spe<rinoj (Gen. 49:27). The lengthy

period of darkness is nu<c (Gen. 1:5) and the time of the

morning twilight just prior to the sunrise is prwi~ (I Sam.

31:12).⁴ The night could also be divided into three

watches. The first is called the "beginning of the watches"

(Lam. 2:19), the second is the "middle watch" (Jd. 7:19)

and the third is the "morning watch" (Ex. 12:4). This

system of watches was in use also during the intertestament

period according to Jubilees 49:10, 12.

          The word nu<c itself occurs more than two hundred

times in the Old Testament. From these references the

 

          ¹ Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, p. 432.

          ²Gerhard Delling, nu<c, TDNT, IV, 1123.

          ³Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon, p. 186.

          ⁴ "Night," A Dictionary of the Bible Comprising Its 

Antiquities; Biography, Geography and Natural History,

p. 626.

                                        132

Jewish meaning given to nu<c can best be understood. The

time of darkness is called nu<c (Gen. 1:5). It was a time

of supernatural revelation for Samuel (I Sa. 15:16) and a

time of military maneuvers for Joshua (Jo. 8:3). Some

references to the night appear to refer only to a part of

the night since the whole night was indicated by the use

of o!lhn with nu<c (I Sa. 28:20; 31:12). Many times h[me<ra

and nu<c were joined in the same sentence with h[me<ra        usually

first. This may suggest in popular speech the Jews could

reckon their day as beginning in the morning as well as

the evening.¹

          When "day and night" are combined in a single

expression such as forty days and forty nights, it is

difficult to determine if this must mean solar days. Some

times it could (Gen. 7:4). At other times it appears to

mean "daily" or "perpetually." The Levites were employed

in their work "day and night" (I Chron. 9:33). The Jews

were exhorted by Solomon to keep their eyes open to the

temple of God "day and night" (II Chron. 6:20). Joshua

challenge Israel to meditate in the law "day and night"

(Jo. 1:8).  Nehemiah prayed for Jerusalem "day and night"

 

          ¹ It is generally accepted that the Hebrews

officially reckoned their day from sunset to sunset from

the time they became a nation. However, if this were the

only system which they used why does the expression "day

and night" sometimes place h[me<ra before nu<c?  It is very

possible that this was the result of a popular custom or

manner of speaking.

                                    133

(Neh. 1:6). These references do not indicate a single

twenty-four hour period but rather they suggest an activity

which should take place during any day, hence the meaning

"daily."

          It appears to be impossible to prove that an entire

twenty-four hour period is meant by a "day and night." For

example, Jonah was in the fish's belly "three days and

three nights" (Jon. 2:1). A literal interpretation demands

one of two interpretations: (1) three twenty-four hour

solar days or (2) three days in which one or two may be

less than twenty-four hours in length. While Scripture

does not indicate which is correct, Esther 4:16 and 5:1 may

shed light on the expression. Esther tells Mordecai to

gather the Jews of Shushan and command them to fast for

"three days, night or day." Then she promises to go in to

the king which she does "on the third day." In other words,

she does not wait for three solar days to pass but on the

third day she enters before the king.  Later that same day

she broke the fast (Est. 5:4-6). Esther does not appear to

have broken her word and gone before the king prior to the

right time. This passage suggests that the day in Jewish

time reckoning, even if qualified by "night or day," at

times can refer not just to the entire twenty-four hour

period but any part of a day. Therefore nu<c though it

refers to the darkness part of the solar day, may refer to

the entire period of darkness, only part of the period, or,

                                         134

when combined with h[me<ra, it may indicate either an entire

solar day or only a part of the day.

In the Gospels

          This discussion of nu<c in the Gospels is limited to

those passages where nu<c is not combined with h[me<ra.¹   In

most places nu<c refers to the period of darkness that is a

time for sleeping or fishing.²   It is also the time of

Jesus' betrayal and arrest.³ That the night was divided

into four watches is made clear because Jesus walked on the

water in the fourth watch of the night.⁴ This is the last

fourth of the night immediately preceding the sunrise.

          On five occasions⁵  is in the genitive case and

must be translated "at night" or "by night."⁶ It was "by

night," that is, under the cover of darkness that Nicodemus

came to Jesus. Jesus was taken to Egypt "by night." Then

the expression dia> o!lhj nukto<j occurs in Luke 5:5 it is

clear that the disciples had fished "through the whole

night."

 

          ¹ These have already been considered under h[me<ra.

Supra.

          ² Mt. 25:6; Lk. 21:37; Jn. 21:3.

          ³ Mt. 26:31, 34 (Mk. 14:30); Jn. 13:30.

          ⁴ Mt. 14:25 (Mk. 6:48).

          ⁵ Mt. 2:14; 28:13; Lk. 2:8; Jn. 3:2; 19:39.

          ⁶ Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, p. 431.

                                       135

          The figure of the night being a time for stumbling

because of the absence of light is applied by Jesus to the

spiritual realm. Those without Jesus when He, the

spiritual light, would be removed, will be in danger of

stumbling in spiritual darkness (Jn. 11:10).¹

          On a few occasions nu<c is used metaphorically of

the time of judgment for the rich farmer (Lk. 12:20) and of

the time of Christ's coming (Lk. 17:34). This last passage

does not mean that Christ's coming will be at night for

there is always night somewhere on earth. In John 9:4

speaks of the time when work is over and the time for rest

begins. Here, nu<c appears to refer to the "night" of

physical death.²

          These uses of nu<c in the Gospels are quite clear.

Most often nu<c refers to a part or the whole of the period

of darkness when the sun is not shining. On a few occasions

it has a figurative or metaphorical sense of "spiritual

darkness," though its translation is "night."

                              Divisions of the Night

          The earliest portion of the night was identified as

the "evening," e[spe<ra. As darkness settled, the military

watches (fulakh<) became the method of noting time during

 

          ¹ J. H. Bernard, John, II (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,

1962), 377.

          ² Delling, nu<c, IV, 1125.

                                       136

the absence of the sun. The four watches in order of

occurrence were:   (1) o]ye<,  (2) mesonu<ktion,

(3) a]lektorofwni<a and (4) prwi~.  In the latter part of the

fourth watch came the "early morning,” o@rqroj.

 e[spe<ra.

          A most important part of the night was the "evening,"

e[spe<ra. It was especially significant to the Jews for the

night marked the beginning of a new day.

          In non-biblical Greek.--Only two meanings are

listed for e[spe<ra in classical Greek: (1) "evening" and

(2) the "west."¹ The second meaning no doubt developed from

the fact that the sun set in the west. The first meaning

is illustrated by Josephus who states of David's victory

over the Amalekites, "David's companions too continued the

slaughter from the first hour until evening" (e[spe<ra)²

Here, e[spe<ra  must mean the initial period of dark at the

time of sunset. The adjective form, e[sperino<j, also is

translated "evening."

          In the Old Testament.--Both of these words are used

for the Hebrew word br,f,.  Much importance given to e[spe<ra

resulted from its designation as the period of time for the

 

          ¹ Liddell and Scott, Lexicon, I, 697.

          ² Josephus Antiquities 6.14.6.

                                    137

sacrifices. Each day a burnt offering of one lamb was

sacrificed in the "evening," e[spe<ra.  The Hebrew, NyBi

MyiBar;fahA should be more literally translated "between the

evenings" instead of the Septuagint pro>j e[spe<ran.  If the

interpretation of the Mishnah and the accompanying Gemara 

is accepted, the phrase "between the evenings" refers to

three periods of time. The first evening was from noon to

two-thirty) and the second evening from three-thirty until

6 p.m. Between these two periods from two-thirty to three-

thirty the evening burnt offering was sacrificed.¹   This

could make e[spe<ra, "evening" in some passages equivalent

to the entire afternoon and in others only a part of the

afternoon. For example, when the children of Israel ate

quail "in the evening" (Ex. 16:12), it appears that e[spe<ra

meant the close of the day as darkness set in.

          The adjective form, e[sperino<j, three times indi-

cates the evening sacrifices which take place in mid-

afternoon.²  It also is the time when Jehovah's Passover

began (Lev. 23:5). It is not clear whether darkness or the

time for the slaying of the lamb is meant. In Proverbs 7:9

e[sperino<j occurs in a series of statements about the night,

"in the twilight, in the evening  ( e[sperin&?) of the day, in

 

          ¹ Finegan,  HBC, pp. 13-14 has an extensive discus-

sion of this.

          ² II Kg. 16:15; Dan. 9:21; Ps. 141:2.

                                      138

the middle of the night and in the darkness. Here,

e[sperino<j  seems to be equated with the early evening before

deep darkness.

          It can be concluded about e[spe<ra, and e[sperino<j

that they pertain to the closing part of the daylight hours

from Jewish reckoning. This period could include the time

of the evening sacrifices which began about noon until the

early evening when the stars began to appear.

          In the Gospels.--The only use of e[spe<ra occurs in

Luke 24:29. Jesus had been walking with two of the

disciples toward Emmaus and it was "toward evening," pro>j

e[spe<ran.  It is also stated that the day was far spent and

it was before the evening meal (v. 30). Consequently, pro>j

e[spe<ran appeals to be late afternoon in this passage. It

was early enough for the disciples to leave Emmaus and

return to Jerusalem (v. 33) before dark.

fulakh<

          While fulakh< does not indicate a specific time

reference, it does occur with numerals to indicate specific

watches of the night. For this reason it is important.

                                  139

          In non-biblical Greek.--How early in history the

night was divided into watches is not known. It is

commonly accepted that the Romans had four watches in the

night.¹ However, Josephus in mentioning the siege of

Jerusalem makes reference only to three.

                    Having enclosed the city within this wall and posted

          garrisons in the forts. Titus went round himself during

          the first watch of the night and inspected everything;

          the second watch he entrusted to Alexander, for the

          third the commanders of the legions drew lots.²

          No mention is made at this time of a fourth watch.

 

          In the Old Testament.--The Jews had at least three

watches: (1) the beginning of the watches (Lam. 2:19),

(2) the middle watch (Jd. 7:19) and (3) the morning watch

(I Sa. 11:11). If there was not a fourth it means that the

Jews divided the night into three periods of four hours

each. The length of each watch varied with the time of the

year. The watches were designated by these names and not

numbers.

          In the Gospels.--Most comments about the watches are

predicated on the Roman custom of dividing the night into

four watches. In Matthew 14:25 and Mark 6:48 the fourth

watch is mentioned. However, in two instances there is an

 

          ¹ Liddell and Scott, Lexicon, II, 1960.

          ² Joselphus Wars 5.5.10.

                                    140

allowance that perhaps only three watches are in view.

Matthew 24:4 does not enumerate the number of the watches

but says, "I the master of the house had known what watch

the thief was coming." In Luke 12:38 the master returning

late from the marriage feast is said to return perhaps in

the "second watch and if in the third." Why is not the

fourth mentioned? It is probable that only the three Jewish

watches are in view.¹   If this is correct there would be at

least two systems of dividing the night that were practiced

concurrently in New Testament times.

o]ye<  (o]yi<oj )

          The first watch of the night according to the

Romans was identified as o]ye< . However, o]ye<  usually func-

tioned as an adverb meaning "late" indicating a time late

in the day. It also may function as an improper preposition

meaning "after" in one passage (Mt. 28:1).²

          In non-biblical Greek.--Two basic meanings of this

word are found in the Greek. Both the general meaning of

"after a long time," "at length," "late" and the more

specific "late in the day," "at even"³ are found.

 

          ¹ Alfred Plummer, Luke (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,

1964), p. 33,

          ² Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon, p. 606.

          ³ Liddell and Scott, Lexicon, II, 1282.

                                   141

          In the Old Testament.--The adverb o]ye<  translates

br,f, meaning "evening" and Jw,n meaning "late." In one

instance, Exodus 30:8, 6; o]ye< used for the Hebrew phrase

"between the evenings." No clear indication exists that

this refers to anything other than the late part of the

daylight or early evening.

          In the Gospels.--Jesus in Mark 11:11 and 11:19 left

Jerusalem because o]yi<aj h@dh ou@shj th?j w!raj and o!tan o]ye>

e]ge<neto. Either of two interpretations is possible. He

may have left when it was late (in the afternoon) or his

departure may have corresponded with the coming of the

first watch, o]ye<. Both views place the departure late in

the day just before or after sunset.

          The remaining usage of o]ye< is a particular problem

because it occurs in a sentence with several words for

time. Matthew 28:1 reads, o]ye< de> sabba<twn, t^? e]pifwskou<s^

ei]j mi<an sabba<twn.  Several interpretations are possible:

(1) o]ye< could mean "late on the Sabbath day," Saturday

afternoon; (2)  o]ye< could mean after the Sabbath day or

early Saturday evening;¹ or (3) it may mean, after the

Sabbath at the dawning of the first day of the week, "about

 

          ¹ Ezra P. Gould, Mark (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,

1961), p. 300. This view assumes that the "dawning toward

the first day of the week" (Mt. 28:1) means the beginning

of the new day at sunset.

                                           142

dawn on Sunday." The third possibility which corresponds

closely to Mark's account of the resurrection is inconsis-

tent with the other uses of o]ye<  in the Gospels which

always designate o]ye<  as a time either late in the day or

the first watch of the night.

          A related study is in order at this point. The

adjective form, o]yi<oj, which is not used in the Septuagint,

is found fourteen times in the Gospels. It occurs in the

expression "when evening was come" and equivalent phrases

most often.²  The "evening" appears always to have the

meaning of the time just before darkness sets in. This idea

is found in several passages. Though "evening" was come,

Jesus took time for the feeding of the five thousand before

He sent the people away (Mt. 14:15). Sufficient daylight

must have been available in order for the miracle to take

place. The "evening" came at the end of the work day at a

time after the eleventh hour since the laborer who went out

at that hour did enough work to get paid (Mt. 20:8). It

was the time when the sun set in Mark 1:32. When "even"

was come, Joseph of Arimathea sought the body of Jesus from

Pilate (Mt. 27:57; Mk. 15:42). This was after 3 p.m. when

Jesus died but before the beginning of the next day which

 

          ¹ This view harmonizes Matthew 28:1 with the resur-

rection accounts of the other Gospels.

          ² Mt. 8:16; 16:2; 26:20; Mk. 4:35; 6:47; 14:17;

Jn. 6:16.

                                       143

was a sabbath (Mk. 5:42). In no instance, unless it would

be John 20:19, "evening on that day, the first of the week,"

does o]yi<oj signify a period after dark. However, this

passage does not demand that it was dark. Rather, all the

evidence suggests a time in the late afternoon prior to the

time of the setting of the sun.

          This single meaning of o]yi<oj suggests that the o]ye<

of Matthew 28:1 would most naturally be translated "late"

on the Sabbath day. However, scholars are divided about

the meaning of o]ye< in this passage.

          Those who harmonize Matthew 28:1 with the other

accounts of the Resurrection translate o]ye<  "after." This

allows them to equate Matthew's time reference "after the

Sabbath" to "dawn on Sunday." Moulton writes: "This use of

o]ye< =after involves an ablative gen., 'late from.' . . .

this seems a natural development, but the question is not

easy to decide."¹  The basis for o]ye< being translated

"after" comes from Philostratus, a second to third century

A.D. writer who uses o]ye< tou<twn which is translated "last

of all." The entire quotation is as follows:

                    Now those who come to the Pythian festival are,

          they say, escorted with sound of pipe and song and lyre

          and are honored with shows of comedies and tragedies;

          and then last of all [emphasis mine] they are presented

 

          ¹ James Hope Moulton, Prolegomena Vol. I of A Grammar

of New Testament Greek (3 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,

1919), 72-73. "(Hereinafter referred to as Prolegomena.)"

                                     144

          with an exhibition of games and races run by naked

          athletes.¹

          The use of o]ye< musthri<wn in Philostratus is also

cited as evidence for o]ye< meaning "after."

                    It was the day of the Epidaurian festival at which

          it is still customary for the Athenians to celebrate

          the mystery at a second sacrifice after both proclama-

          tion and victims have been offered; and this custom was

          instituted in honour of Aesclepius, because they still

          initiated him when on one occasion he arrived from

          Epidaurus too late [emphasis mine for the mysteries.²

          Whether these two quotations adequately prove that

o]ye< can at times be translated "after" remains a problem.

H. A. W. Meyer says o]ye< "always denotes the lateness of the

period thus specified and still current.³ However, Meyer

contradicts this conclusion in order to avoid an alleged

discrepancy between Matthew and the other Gospels.

                    We are not to suppose Saturday evening to be

          intended, . . . but far on in the Saturday night, after

          midnight, toward daybreak on Sunday, in conformity with

          the civil mode of reckoning, according to which the

          ordinary day was understood to extend from sunrise till

          sunrise again.⁴

          In support of this view the last portion of Matthew

28:1, "at the dawning unto the first of the week," is

 

          ¹ Philostratus Life of Apollonius 6. 10.

          ² Ibid. 4. 18.

          ³ Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Critical and Exe-

getical Handbook to the Gospel of Matthew, trans. by F.

Crombie (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, Publishers, 1884), p. 519.

          ⁴ Ibid.

                                        145

brought into consideration. Goodspeed argues against "late"

saying,

                    But this sense is precluded by the very next phrase,

          which the King James translates 'as it began to dawn

          toward the first day of the week,' or, as we would say,

          'as the first day of the week was dawning,' for the

          Sabbath did not last until the dawn of Sunday but ended

          with sunset or dark Saturday night.^l

          By this Goodspeed means, as the daylight of Sunday

was about to dawn. Thus it has been concluded: "When both

language and context permit interpreting ch. 28:1 in harmony

with the unanimous statements of the other Gospel writers,

there is no valid reason for doing otherwise."²

          Perhaps this is sufficient evidence to translate

o]ye<, "after." However, there is an alternate view that

should be considered. In keeping with the other uses of

o]ye< in the Gospels, Matthew 28:1 could read, "late on the

Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the

week" (NASV). The assumption that "at the dawning" (Mt. 28:

1) is the equivalent of sunrise is not borne out in the use

of this word in Luke 23:54, "It was the Preparation Day,

and the Sabbath was about to dawn" [emphasis mine]. This

can only mean the beginning of a new day (at dusk) was at

hand.

 

          ¹ Edgar J. Goodspeed, Problems of New Testament

Translation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1945),

p. 43.

          ² Francis Nichol ed. The Seventh Day Adventist Bible 

Commentary, I (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald

Publishing Association, 1956), 554.

                                      146

          It is not at all certain that the evidences cited

for o]ye< being translated "after" prove anything. Thayer

writes: "An examination of the instances just cited (and

others) will show that they fail to sustain the rendering

"after."¹  Rather, o]ye< when followed by the genitive always

appears to be a partitive, signifying "late" in the period

specified by the word in the genitive.² For this reason

Allen writes, "It is however, very difficult to believe that

o]ye< sabba<twn can mean anything else than either 'as the

Sabbath ended,' or 'when it had ended'."³ The implications

of this views are indicated by A. T. Robertson:

                    This careful chronological statement according to

          Jewish days clearly means that before the sabbath was

          over, that is before six P.M. this visit by the women

          was mad 'to see the sepulchre.'⁴

          This view would necessitate at least three visits

to the tomb by the women. The first came on the day of the

crucifixion (Lk. 23:55). A second appears to occur at the

conclusion of the weekly Sabbath, Saturday afternoon (Mt.

28:1). At this time the women came "to look at the grave."

 

          ¹ Joseph Henry Thayer, Lexicon (Grand Rapids:

Zondervan Publishing House, 1962), p. 471.

          ² Ibid.

          ³ Willoughby C. Allen, A Critical and Exegetical 

Commentary of the Gospel According to St. Matthew (Edin-

burgh: T. & T. Clark, 1965), p. 301.

          ⁴ Archibald Thomas Robertson, Word Pictures in the 

New Testament, I (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1950), 240.

                                      147

The final visit to the tomb is recorded by the other Gospel

writers. This time the stone had been rolled away revealing

the empty tomb. The major criticism of this view is that

it produces an unnatural break between Matthew 28:1 and

28:2-15 in that Matthew does not relate how the women

arrived at the tomb on the "third" visit. Both views have

merit.

          If o]ye< is translated "late" in every instance except

when it refers to the first watch of the night, Matthew 28:1

must refer to the end of the Sabbath. However if o]ye< can

be translated "after" in this passage then it no doubt

refers to the dawn of Sunday. Word meaning and grammar are

indecisive.¹

mesonu<ktion

          The second watch for the Romans was called

mesonu<ktion. Though this is not necessarily an exact hour

indication, it serves as an approximate time indicator in

the night.

          In non-biblical Greek.--Because of its obvious

meaning of "midst of the night," mesonu<ktion often had the

translation "at midnight." There is no evidence from Greek

literature that it indicated a watch of the night.

 

          ¹ Archibald Thomas Robertson, Grammar (Nashville:

Broadman Press, 1934), p. 644.

                                     148

          In the Old Testament.--The five uses of mesonu<ktion

in the Septuagint are translated "midnight." This is the

literal meaning and a suitable translation for hlAy;l.Aha tOchE,

its Hebrew counterpart.

          In the Gospels.--There is one occasion where

mesonu<ktion can be translated "midnight," with the meaning

of "the midst of the night." In the parable of the impor-

tunate friend, the neighbor was awakened at "midnight"

(Lk. 11:5). The translation "midnight" is not to be under-

stood as an exact hour and "the midst of the night" is an

equally good translation.

prwi~, prwi~aj

          While prwi~ is the title given to the fourth watch

of the night (Mk. 13:35), it more often has the translation

"early," or "morning." The adjective form is prwi~aj.

          In non-biblical Greek.--The most frequent use of

the adverb prwi~ is to indicate the time "early" in the day,

"morning." It appears to be the opposite of o]ye<.¹  The

adjective prwi~aj has the same meaning except that it can

also indicate "early in the year."²

 

          ¹ Liddell and Scott, Lexicon, II, 1543-44.

          ² Ibid.

                                    149

          In the Old Testament.--The Septuagint has prwi~

usually as the translation of rq,Bo, "morning." It is found

in the phrase "and there was morning" in Genesis one. In

Genesis 22:3 Abraham rose up "early in the morning," prwi~.

Joseph went in to his fellow prisoners (prwi~ ), "in the

morning" after they had their visions (Gen. 40:6). Samuel

slept until morning (prwi~) and he arose early (I Sam. 3:15).

From these uses it is clear that prwi~ as a translation of

had at least two translations: (1) the specific time

of early morning when the sun came up and (2) the general

time of morning (Gen. 1).

          In the Gospels.--The reason for the fourth watch of

the night being called prwi~  (Mk. 13:35) probably occurred

because the early morning (prwi~) was the concluding time of

that watch. With the prwi~ came the light of day

and consequently the translation "early," "early in the

morning."¹

          A few passages indicate that prwi~  included the time

just before the dawn. In Mark 1:35 a literal translation

of kai> prwi~ e@nnuxa lia<n would be "and in the morning, very

much at night."² Yet, a similar phrase kai> lia<n prwi~

(Mk. 16:2) is used though the sun had already risen. Later

 

          ¹ Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon, p. 732.

          ² Gould, Mark, p. 28.

                                      150

 

in Mark 16:9 the time indicated is prwi~  "early." But John

records this same event saying that the women were coming

early, "while it was dark" (Jn. 20:1). Evidently, the

women left while it was yet dark and arrived shortly after

daybreak. The meaning of prwi~  was broad enough to include

not only the final hours of darkness each night but also

the beginning of the daylight period. This is suggested by

the following passages. It was early, prwi~, when the San-

hedrin took council against Jesus (Mt. 27:1; Mk. 15:1).

After the meeting it was still prwi~ when they led Jesus from

Caiaphas to the Praetorium (Jn. 18:28). This is the time

that John calls the sixth hour which according to Roman

reckoning is 6 a.m. It is the time when the fourth watch

of the night would end. In John 21:4 prwi~aj is used to

indicate that morning was breaking.

          At other times prwi~  indicates the early hour of

travel (Mt. 21:18; Mk. 11:20), the time to hire workers for

the first hour Mt. 20:1) and the time for determining the

weather for the day (Mt. 16:3). Though the time allotted

to prwi~  could extend backward into the fourth watch of the

night, it seems in the Gospels to refer more often to the

period at dawn. At times it was still dark or just the

beginning of the light. This is the time expressed by prwi~.

 

.

                                                 151

o@rqroj (o]rqrino<j)

          Another division between the night and day is

expressed by o@rqroj and o]rqrino<j, "dawn, early dawn." Each

word is used only once in the resurrection account.

          In non-biblical Greek.--Both in early Greek litera-

ture and in Josephus o@rqroj refers to the time just before

or about daybreak.¹ The same meaning is given to the

adjective form o]rqrino<j.

          In the Old Testament.--The Septuagint reveals that

o@rqroj refers to the beginning of the daylight period.

Angels hastened to Lot "when morning arose" (Gen. 19:15).

Jacob wrestled all night until the angel of Jehovah

demanded release "for the morning breaketh" (Gen. 32:26).

The citizens of Gaza intended to wait "until morning light"

before they killed Samson (Ju. 16:2). In each of these

places the time described is early morning and is connected

with the dawn of the day.

 

          ¹ Liddell and Scott, Lexicon, II, 1250.

                                     152

 

          In the Gospels.--Luke alone uses o@rqroj (24:1) and

o]rqrino<j (24:22) to describe the early morning visit¹ of the

women to the tomb. This visit came about daybreak on the

first day of the week, Sunday. Instead of using prwi~ like

the other Gospel writers, Luke uses two words that appear to

be synonyms of prwi~. Thus, he writes that it was "deep" or

"early-morning" (24:1). This is the first part of the

morning.

                             Other Indications of Time

          There are several words which by themselves or in

conjunction with other words express time in the day. These

words are considered in the following order: braxu<j,

eu]kairi<a, (eu]kairo<j), i[kano<j, o]li<goj, and proskairo<j.

Because the words are used so seldom, the uses of each word

will be discussed in a single paragraph.

braxu<j

          While often used to indicate a short distance or

shortness of stature braxu<j also indicates "a short time."²

Josephus used it many times to indicate a "brief" or "short

 

          ¹ The first visit to the tomb appears to have taken

place in the late afternoon of the crucifixion day. At

this time the women visited the tomb (Lk. 23:54-55),

observed His body and returned home to prepare spices for a

final preparation of the body. The second recorded visit

by Luke occurred on Sunday morning.

          ² Liddell and Scott, Lexicon, I, 328.

                                       153

time."¹ In the Septuagint braxu<j translated NFomA which

does not have a temporal meaning. Only in Luke 22:58,

"after a short time" does braxu<j occur. This use is found

in the midst of Peter's denial of the Lord. Peter first

denies the Lord and "after a short time" another person

approaches Peter which leads to the second denial. This is

the only testimony that Peter's second denial followed close

to the first.

eu]kairi<a (eu]kairo<j)

          Both words are combinations of eu], "good" and

kairo<j, "time." The translations for eu]kairi<a include

"favorable opportunity," "the right moment" or "right

time."² For the adjective eu]kairo<j the translations are

"well-timed," "suitable"³ and "seasonable time, well timed,

suitable to the time."⁴ Both words are translations of tfe

in the Septuagint and have meanings related to time.⁵ The

two places where eu]kairi<a is found in the Gospels are best

translated "right time" (Mt. 26:16; Lk. 22:6). These

places are parallel and indicate that Judas Iscariot sought

 

          ¹ Josephus Antiquities 10.11.3. and 14.4.5. and

11.3.2.

          ² Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon, p. 321.

          ³ Liddell and Scott, Lexicon, I, 717.

          ⁴ Cremer, Lexicon, p. 740.

          ⁵ Delling, eu]kairi<a,  TDNT, III, 462.

                                      154

for the right or good time to turn Jesus in to the Jewish

leaders. The adjective, eu]kairo<j, found only in Mark 6:21

is used with h[me<ra, of the day when Herodias decided to have

John the Baptist killed. When Herod planned a feast,

Herodias knew it was a "right time" (day). This literal

translation gives the sense of a convenient, favorable and

opportune time.

i[kano<j

          Another word, which can designate a portion of time,

is i[kano<j.  This adjective has the meaning of "sufficient,"

"enough," and "considerable."¹   The word appears to come

from the verb i!kw, "to reach," "to attain."² When desig-

nating time it refers to a long or considerable length of

time.³ Though it is not found in the Septuagint, Luke

expresses the sense "a long time" with i[kano<j and xro<noj.

It had been a long time since the demoniac had worn clothes

(Lk. 8:27). In the parable of the vineyard, the owner went

into another country "for a long time" (Lk. 20:9). Herod

Antipas "for a long time" was desirous of seeing Jesus

(Lk. 23:8). In answer to the question, "How long a time

does i[kano<j suggest?," it can only be answered from the

 

          ¹ Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon, p. 375.

          ² Rengstorf, i[kano<j, TDNT, III, 293.

          ³ Liddell and Scott, Lexicon, I, 825.

                                       155

basic meaning of the word, "considerable."

o]li<goj

          The various translations of o]li<goj give the idea of

"brevity" when it is used temporally irregardless of the

prepositions or nouns used with it. In the Septuagint it

is best translated "few" (Gen. 29:20; Ex. 25:52) when it

modifies a noun. Used by itself it expresses "a short

time," "a little while."¹ It is this last sense which

occurs in "come ye apart into a desert place and rest ye a

little while" (Mk. 6:31).

proskairo<j

          As a member of the kairo<j family this expresses a

"temporary," "transitory" time.²    It is not found in the

Septuagint except in IV Maccabees 15:2, 8, and 23 where the

idea of "temporary" is present even though it is translated

"present." Both uses in the Gospels³ occur in the parable

of the seed which is planted but it is not having root in

itself. It lasts only "for a time." Barr remarks con-

cerning proskairo<j "all the cases in the Bible (3 in 4

Macc. and 4 in NT) have the meaning of 'temporary, lasting

only a short time,' which depends on the sense of kairo<j

 

          ¹ Thayer, Lexicon, D. 442.

          ² Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon, p. 722.

          ³ Mt. 13:21; Mk. 4:17.

                                         156

as 'time' or perhaps 'moment.'"¹

          These words have temporal meanings that are clear

and easily identifiable by the context and the basic

meaning of the word. The time expressed is usually not too

specific.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

          ¹ Barr, Time (London: SCN Press Ltd., 1961), p. 43.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                         PART II. GRAMMATICAL STUDY

                            CHAPTER VI

 

       INFINITIVAL EXPRESSIONS OF TIME

 

          In addition to words for time the Greek language

had grammatical expressions which indicated time relation-

ships. One such method of expression is the temporal use

of the infinitive. This construction occurs fifty-seven

times in the Gospels with sufficient diversity of meaning

that it necessitates examination. This chapter sets forth

(1) the background, (2) the tenses, (3) the identification,

and (4) the occurrences of temporal infinitives.

 

              Background of Temporal Infinitives

          While extensive study of the temporal use for the

infinitive in the various areas of Greek literature is not

available, it is possible to set forth principles concerning

its use. The article and a preposition always immediately

precede the temporal infinitive.

                    The infinitive preceded by the article is used,

          like a noun, as the object of a preposition. The

          article assumes the genitive, dative or accusative

          form according to the case required by the preposi-

          tion, but it is always of the neuter gender.¹

 

          ¹ Clyde Votaw, The Use of the Infinitive in Biblical 

Greek (Chicago: Published by the author, 1896), p. 19.

"Hereinafter referred to as The Infinitive.)" This study

by Votaw is the authority on the use of the Infinitive in

(all) Biblical Greek. The only place where copies of this

have been located is the University of Chicago.

                                          157

                                            158

          The article must be preceded by either (1) meta<,

(2) pro<, (3) pri<n, or (4) e]n.  It is through the use of the

preposition with the infinitive that temporal relations are

expressed. Antecedent action is indicated by pri<n or pro<

tou? and the infinitive.¹ Contemporaneous action is

described by e]n t&? with the infinitive.² Subsequent

action is set forth by meta> to< and the infinitive.³

          The use of the temporal infinitive is not confined

to Biblical Greek. It also is found among Greek writers.

For example, in Polybius e]n, meta<, and pro< are found with

the infinitive in the same approximate frequency and func-

tion as these same infinitives in Genesis.⁴ However, this

is not necessarily true of other Greek writers.

          In the entire Old Testament e]n is found four hundred

fifty-five times, pro< forty-six times and meta< ninety-nine

times.⁵  Votaw concludes, "The Hebraistic influence is

chiefly of two kinds: it affects the frequency of occurrence

 

          ¹ Archibald T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New

Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville:

Broadman Press, 1934), p. 1091. "Hereinafter referred to

as Grammar.)"

          ² Ibid., p. 1092.                 ³ Ibid.

          ⁴ Hamilton Ford Allen, The Use of the Infinitive in

Polybius Compared With the Use of the Infinitive in Biblical

Greek Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1907),

p. 49.

          ⁵ Votaw, The Infinitive, p. 20.

                                        159

of the infinitive, and it affects the uses which the infini-

tive is made to serve."¹    The Hebrew language also expressed

a temporal idea with a preposition and the infinitive.

Contemporaneous action could be indicated by with the

infinitive.²

          While the temporal idea of the infinitive had early

roots in the Greek language, the Hebraic manner of

expressing time with the infinitive was a strong influence

when putting Hebrew thought into the Greek language. For

example, A. T. Robertson writes concerning e]n t&?:

                    Examples of this idiom occur in the ancient Greek

          (16 in Xenophon, 6 in Thucydides, 26 in Plato) and the

          papyri show it occasionally. But in the LXX it is a

          constant translation of B;a and is much more a undant

          in the N.T. as a result of the LXX profusion.³

          It may well be that e]n t&? and the infinitive began

to replace the classical Greek genitive absolute as a

temporal designation in the New Testament.⁴

 

          ¹ Votaw, The Infinitive, p. 55.

          ² Bruce Waltke, "Advanced Hebrew" (unpublished class

notes in Advanced Hebrew, Dallas Theological Seminary,

1963), p. 25.

          ³ Robertson, Grammar, p. 587.

          ⁴ John Charles Doudna, The Greek of the Gospel of

Mark (Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature and

Exegesis, 1961), p. 54.

                                                160

                       Tenses of Temporal Infinitives

          Only two tenses, the present and the aorist, occur

with the temporal infinitive in the Gospels. The signifi-

cance of the tenses is basically the same as is found in

the moods. Goodwin inaccurately relates that

                    The Aorist Infinitive here presents no peculiarity,

          and that it differs from the Present only in the ordi-

          nary way, by referring to a single or momentary act

          rather than to a repeated or continued act.¹

          Votaw makes a very precise distinction between the

tenses saying:

                    The common grammatical distinction between the

          present and the aorist tenses of the infinitive is here

          also observed, the present indicating that the action

          or state denoted by the infinitive is thought of as in

          progress the aorist indicating that the action or state

          is thought of indefinitely as regards progress.²

          To this Stagg adds concerning the aorist:

                    It tells nothing about the nature of the action

          under consideration. It is 'punctiliar' only in the

          sense that the action is viewed without reference to

          duration, interruption, completion or anything else.³

He then comments,

                    The aorist can properly be used to cover any kind

          of action: single or multiple, momentary or extended,

          broken or unbroken, completed or open-ended. The

 

          ¹ William Watson Goodwin, Syntax of the Moods and

Tenses of the Greek Verb (New York: St. Martin's Press,

1965), p. 240. "(Hereinafter referred to as Syntax.)"

          ² Votaw, The Infinitive, p. 59.

          ³ Frank Stagg, "Aorist," Journal of Biblical Litera-

ture, XCI (June, 1972), 223.

                                          161

aorist simply refrains from describing.¹

          From this it is clear that the tense of the infini-

tive expresses action not time. The present tense indicates

continuing action and the aorist indefinite action. The

continuation of action will not be indicated by the aorist

infinitive alone.

                 Identification of Temporal Infinitives

          The temporal infinitive is introduced in the Gospels

by one of four prepositions and the article. The action of

the main verb is either antecedent, contemporary or subse-

quent to the infinitive. It must be considered that

                    The infinitive itself is properly timeless, though

          the time relation is usually suggested by the meaning

          of the preposition or by this combined with that which

          the tense implies respecting the progress of the

          action.²

Antecedent action

          The correct formula for showing that the action of

the main verb is antecedent to the infinitive is pro> tou?

and the infinitive. There are nine examples of this in the

New Testament and six of these are in the Gospels.³ All

 

          ¹ Stagg, "Aorist," p. 223.

          ² Esrnest DeWitt Burton, Syntax of the Moods and

Tenses in New Testament Greek (Chicago: University Press in

Chicago, 1897), p. 49. "(Hereinafter referred to as

Syntax.)"

          ³ Mt. 6:8; Lk. 2:21; 22:15; Jn. 1:48; 13:19; 17:5.

                                       162

have the accusative with the infinitive except John 13:19.

That this construction was not too common is suggested by

the Septuagint which according to A. T. Robertson has only

thirty-five uses.¹

          The function of pro> tou? with the infinitive is set

forth clearly by Burton:

                    By pro< with the infinitive antecedence of the

          action of the principal verb to that of the Infinitive

          is expressed, and the action of the Infinitive is

          accordingly relatively future. But here also the time

          relation is expressed wholly by the preposition.²

          In other words, both the time of the action in the

infinitive and the main verb are in relation to each other

with the action of the main verb always preceding the

action of the infinitive.

          An alternate construction to pro> tou? is pri<n or pri<n

h@. There seems to be no reason for the presence or absence

of h@ after pri<n.

                    The use of h@ after pri<n, which occurs twice in the

          Iliad, frequently in Herodotus, and rarely in Attic

          writers, is well attested in three of the thirteen

          instances in the New Testament in which pri<n is used

          with the Infinitive, and occurs as a variant in other

          passages.³

          Whichever form occurs with the infinitive the

 

          ¹ Robertson, Grammar, p. 978. However, Nigel Turner,

Syntax, III (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963), p. 144 cites

nearly fifty uses in the Old Testament.

          ² Burton, Syntax, p. 49.

          ³ Ibid., p. 152.

                                 163

result is the same. "The infinitive, preceded by the

temporal adverb pri<n or  pri<n h@, is used to indicate an

action or state antecedent in time to that denoted by the

verb to which it stands related."¹ Thus, both pri<n and  pro<  

used with the infinitive indicate that the action of the

leading verb is antecedent in time to the infinitival

action.

Contemporaneous action

          It is the primary function of e]n t&? with the infin-

itive to indicate contemporaneous action.

                    The preposition e]n, which occurs in this construc-

          tion nearly as many times (through Hebraistic influence)

          as all others, indicates generally a relation of

          contemporaniety or attendant circumstance between the

          act or state denoted by its infinitive and that of the

          verb to which it stands related.²

          That the construction e]n t&? and the infinitive is a

Hebraism can be seen from the high frequency of uses of it

in the Septuagint. While it occurs fifty-five times in the

New Testament, most of them being in the Gospels, it is

found five hundred times in the Septuagint but only twenty-

six in Plato, sixteen in Xenophon and six in Thucydides.³

          However, of the thirty-nine uses of e]n t&? with the

 

          ¹ Votaw, The Infinitive, p. 16.

          ² Ibid., p. 20.

          ³ Turner, Syntax (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963),

pp. 144-45.

                                         164

infinitive in the Gospels, many times the aorist infinitive

is used by Luke instead of the present infinitive. Zerwick

makes the following distinction between the present and

aorist infinitive.

                    Where e]n t&? with the infinitive is used temporally,

          the present infinitive naturally indicates, in general,

          contemporary action, and the aorist preceding action;

          not that the forms indicate of themselves any relation

          of time, but because the aspect which they indicate

          normally corresponds to these relationships. . . .

          The present represents action in progress, the aorist

          represents it simply as posited.¹

          Turner says, when e]n t&? occurs with the aorist

temporal infinitive it indicates "anterior action."² How-

ever, Burton argues that this construction relates the time

"at which the action expressed by the principal verb takes

place. The preposition does not seem necessarily to denote

exact coincidence, but in no case expresses antecedence."³

          It can be compared to o!te with the aorist indica-

tive, "which simply marks in general the time of the event

denoted by the principal verb, leaving it to the context to

indicate the precise nature of the chronological relation."⁴

A distinction between the two tenses used with e]n t&? must

 

          ¹ Maximillian Zerwick, Biblical Greek Illustrated by

Examples, trans. by Joseph Smith (Rome: Scripta Pontificii

Instituti Biblici, 1963), pp. 134-35.

          ² Turner, Syntax, p. 145.

          ³ Burton, Syntax, p. 50.

          ⁴ Ibid.

                                          165

be observed. The present tense preceded by e]n t&? indicates

action contemporaneous with that of the main verb. The

significance of the aorist infinitive, other than showing

indefinite action, must be determined from the context.

Subsequent action

          The use of meta> to<, To with the infinitive is found five

times in the Gospels, fifteen times in the entire New Testa-

ment and one hundred eight times in the Septuagint.¹  meta>

to< always has the resultant meaning of "after" and occurs

with the aorist tense in the Gospels. Its function is well

expressed by Burton who writes:

                    By meta< with the infinitive antecedence of the

          action denoted by the Infinitive to that of the main

          verb is expressed, but this meaning manifestly lies in

          the preposition, not in the tense of the verb. That

          the Aorist Infinitive is almost constantly used . . .

          is natural, since in dating one event by another the

          latter is usually, conceived as an event without

          reference to its progress.²

          It should be noted that the tense of the temporal

infinitive indicates continuing action, if present tense,

or an event without reference to its progress if aorist

tense. It is the addition of the preposition or adverb

that projects the action of the infinitive as being ante-

cedent, contemporary or subsequent to the action and conse-

quently the time of the main verb. Therefore the time

 

          ¹ Burton, Syntax, p. 51.

          ² Ibid., p. 49.

                                        166

indicated by the temporal infinitive can only be vaguely

expressed.¹

                Occurrences of Temporal Infinitives

          It is important to remember that the time relation-

ship is between the main verb and the infinitive. The main

verb may be (1) antecedent, (2) contemporaneous, or (3) sub-

sequent to the action of the infinitive.

Antecedent action

          The use of pro> tou?, or pri<n with the infinitive in-

dicates that the action of the main verb precedes the action

of the infinitive. In the Gospels on five occasions pro> tou?

is found with the aorist infinitive. Three times the main

verb is also aorist.²  A good illustration of the time

sequence can be seen in Luke 2:21, "the name given by the

angel before he was conceived." Clearly the action of the

main verb precedes in time the action of the infinitive.

This is also true when the main verb is present³ as in, "the

Father knows what you need before you ask" (Mt. 6:8). The

tense of the main verb shows the kind of action expressed

but the temporal infinitive with pro> tou? indicates that the

action of the main verb precedes the action of the

 

          ¹ Robertson, Grammar, p. 1091.

          ² Lk. 2:21; 22:15; Jn. 1:48.

          ³ Mt. 6:8; Jn. 13:19.

                                     167

infinitive. This is not only true with an aorist infinitive

but also a present infinitive (Jn. 17:5).

          The nine times that pri<n or pro> tou? occur with an

infinitive it is always an aorist infinitive which indicates

a specific action. In each instance the action of the main

verb precedes the action of the infinitive. This is true

whether the main verb is present (Jn. 8:58), aorist (Mt. 1:

18), perfect (Jn. 14:20), future,¹ or an aorist imperative

(Jn. 4:49). A good illustration of the sequence of action

between the infinitive and main verb is in Matthew 26:34,

"before the cock crows, you shall deny me thrice." While

both actions are future, the use of  pri<n indicates that the

denial preceded the crowing of the cock.

          There seems to be no functional difference between

pro> tou?  and          pri<n.  In all instances the translation "before"

precedes that of the infinitive and clarifies that the

action of the main verb precedes in time the action of the

infinitive regardless of the tenses involved.

Contemporaneous action

          By far the most frequent use of the temporal infin-

itive is the use of e]n t&? with the infinitive. Both present

and aorist infinitives are temporalized by e]n t&?.²

 

          ¹ Mt. 26:34; 75; Mk. 14:30, 72; Lk. 22:61.

          ² The number of occurrences of this temporal inf in-

itive varies with the Greek text used. A. T. Robertson,

                                     168

          When e]n t&? occurs with the aorist, the main verb is

aorist except in Luke 10:35, "I will repay you when I

return." In each context as the following examples show,

it is clear that the action of the main verb is contempo-

raneous with the action of the aorist main verb. "When the

parents (Mary and Joseph) brought in the child . . . he

(Zacharias) took Him in his arms" (Lk. 2:27). "When Jesus

returned, the multitude welcomed Him" (Lk, 8:40),¹   Luke's

use of the aorist infinitive appears to be for the purpose

of conceptualizing the action expressed by the infinitive

into a single point of time. Consequently, the translation

of  e]n t&? must be "when" or possible "as soon as" rather

than "while."

          The majority of times e]n t&?  occurs with the infini-

tive in the present tense. The preposition and the article

are translated "while" or "as" and the context clearly

demands that the action of the infinitive and the main verb

are contemporaneous. The present infinitive is durative

expressing action that continues over a period of time.

 

Grammar, p. 1427, following Westcott and Hort, lists thirty

one uses with the present and eight with the aorist infini-

tive. J. H. Moulton, Accidence and Word Formation, II, A

Grammar of New Testament Greek accept Nestle's text and

lists twenty-seven uses with the present and ten with the

aorist.

          ¹ The other uses with the aorist infinitive are Lk.

3:21; 9:34, 36; 11:37; 14:1; 19:15; 24:30.

                                  169

This durative action is illustrated by, "while he sows"

(Mt. 13:4), "while men are sleeping" (Mt. 13:25) and "while

performing priestly duties" (Lk. 1:8). The translation

"while" has the sense of "during the time that." In these

same passages the main verb reflects the contemporaneous

action. "While he sows, some seed fell beside the road."

While men are sleeping, the enemy came." "While performing

priestly duties, he was chosen by lot." The action of the

main verb is contemporaneous with the infinitive whether

the verb is present,¹ imperfect,² aorist³ or a periphrastic

(Lk. 5:1). It is the function of the e]n t&? preceding the

infinitive which reveals that the infinitive and the main

verb are contemporaneous.

Subsequent action

          On six occasions⁴ meta> to< is used with the infini-

tive to denote that the action of the main verb follows in

time the action of the infinitive. In each instance the

infinitives are in the aorist tense. The main verbs may be

 

          ¹ Mk. 6:48; Lk. 12:15.

          ² Lk. 1:21; 5:12; 8:42; 18:35; 24:15.

          ³ Mt. 13:4 (Mk. 4:4; Lk. 8:5); 13:25; 27:12; Lk. 1:8;

2:6, 43; 8:5; 9:18, 29, 33, 51; 10:38; 11:1, 27; 17:11, 14;

24:4, 51.

          ⁴ Mt. 26:32; Mk. 1:14; 14:28; 16:19; Lk. 12:5; 22:20.

                                        170

present (Lk. 12:5), future,¹ or aorist² tenses but the

action always follows in time the action of the infinitive.

This is the pattern whether the time of the action is past,

"after John had been taken into captivity, Jesus came" (Mk.

1:14) or future, "after I have been raised, I will go

before you to Galilee" (Mt. 26:32). It is the preposition

that conveys the temporal idea and not the infinitive.

          Perhaps this chapter would more accurately be

titled the use of prepositions with infinitives to indicate

the temporal relationships between an infinitive and its

main verb. Only four prepositions convey a temporal rela-

tionship. When pro> tou? or pri<n are found with an infini-

tive they indicate that the action of the main verb precedes

the action of the infinitive. Contemporaneous action is

described by e]n t&?. The use of meta> to< reveals that the

main verb action follows the action of the infinitive.

Though these uses are not startling in their significance

they do have importance in determining time relationship

between the infinitive and its main verb.

 

          ¹ Mt. 26:32 (Mk. 14:28).

          ² Mk. 1:14; 16:19; Lk. 22:20.

    

                              CHAPTER VII

 

            PARTICIPIAL EXPRESSIONS OF TIME

 

          There remains yet another grammatical method of

expressing time in the Gospels. Like the temporal use of

the infinitive there is a temporal use of the participle.

This construction is not easily recognized nor is there

agreement about its frequency in the New Testament. Since

it would be impossible to locate and prove all the temporal

uses of the participle, this chapter will cite only examples

of this use.¹ The content of the chapter consists of (1)

the possibility, (2) the background and (3) the tenses of

temporal participles.

                    Possibility of Temporal Participles

          The attitude of grammarians toward the temporal

participle varies from Moulton's minimizing of its exis-

tence,² to Machen, who seems to indicate that all parti-

ciples have a temporal idea. He writes,

 

          ¹ The frequency ratio of temporal participles to the

total number of adverbial participles is impossible to

determine. However, in the writings of the Apostolic

Fathers according to H. B. Robison, Syntax of the Participle 

in the Apostolic Fathers, p. 41 there are 1252 adverbial

uses of the participle. Of these 271 are temporal and are

about evenly divided between present and aorist. "(Herein-

after referred to as Syntax.)"

          ² James Hope Moulton, Prolegomena, Vol. I (3 vols.;

Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1919), 230.

                                           171

                                      172

                    It is necessary, therefore, to give up all attempts

          at translating the participle 'literally.' Instead we

          must express the idea which is expressed by the Greek

          participle in an entirely different way--by the use of

          a temporal clause.¹

          The view of most grammarians is somewhere between

these two extremes. A. T. Robertson, who reflects the

majority opinion of Greek scholars, states that a parti-

ciple at times may have a temporal function.

                    It may be said at once that the participle has

          tense in the same sense that the subjunctive, optative

          and imperative have, giving the state of the action as

          punctiliar, linear, completed. In the beginning this

          was all that the tense meant in the participle. The

          participle was timeless. . . . But the tenses of the

          participle may be used for relative time. In relation

          to the principal verb there may be suggested time. .

          . . The relative time of the participle approximates

          the indicative mode and is able to suggest antecedent

          (aorist, present, perfect tenses), simultaneous

          (aorist, present tenses) and subsequent (present,

          future tenses) action.²

          Whenever a participle has a temporal function it is

anarthrous, adverbial and circumstantial. That is, it does

not have an article and it gives an additional statement

which is not an essential part of the verbal notion of the

principal verb. One further indication is needed to

determine whether or not it is a temporal participle. "The

point more exactly is whether a given circumstantial

          ¹ J. Gresham Machen, New Testament Greek for Begin-

ners (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1947), p. 105.

"Hereinafter referred to as New Testament Greek.)"

          ² A. T. Robertson, Grammar (Nashville: Broadman

Press, 1934), p. 1111.

                                    173

participle occurs in a context where the temporal relation

is the main one rather than that of cause, condition,

purpose, etc."¹ An alternate form of the adverbial temporal

clause is the use of the genitive absolute which is found

in each of the Gospels and is fairly regular in Mark.²

There is no need to treat these participles separately since

they are a type of regular adverbial temporal participles.

                Background of Temporal Participles

          In Classical Greek the tenses of the participle

express

                    . . . only continuance, simple occurrence, and

          completion with permanent result. Whether the action

          expressed by the participle is antecedent, coincident,

          or subsequent to that of the leading verb (in any

          tense) depends on the context.³

          The writings of Hesiod provide fifty examples where

the participle seems to be used to indicate the time of one

action with relation to another. The consciousness of this

use of the participle is greatest when temporal adverbs are

used with the participle.⁴ The aorist participle most often

 

          ¹ Ibid., pp. 1125-26.

          ² Nigel Turner, Syntax (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,

1963), p. 322.

          ³ Herbert Weir Smyth, Grammar (Cambridge, Mass.:

Harvard University Press, 1966), D. 419.

          ⁴ George Melville Bolling, "The Participle in

Hesiod," Catholic University Bulletin, III (October, 1897),

433.

                                         174

denotes time prior to that of the main verb and the present

participle reflects contemporary time.¹

          Without clear indication from the context and

temporal adverbs, such as, a!ma and nu?n it would be difficult

to determine the temporal participle in direct popular

speech. In fact, Jannaris indicates that the indefinite-

ness of the temporal participle would often be resolved into

a finite temporal clause or a prepositional infinitive.²

During this time of Classical Greek the present participle

set forth action that is generally coincident (rarely

antecedent or subsequent) to that of the leading verb. The

aorist participle reflects action that is generally ante-

cedent to the leading verb. On a few occasions it may be

coincident to the verb or nearly so.³

          During the period of Koine Greek, the time aspect

of the adverbial participle was not determined from the

participle. Rather the context and at times added particles

indicated the time relationship. In fact, the Koine "does

not on the whole favor this method but prefers a preposi-

tional phrase, a true temporal (etc.) clause, or a further

 

          ¹ Ibid., 435.

          ² A. N. Jannaris, An Historical Greek Grammar 

(London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1897), p. 501. "(Here-

inafter referred to as Grammar.)"

          ³ Smyth, Greek Grammar, pp. 419-20.

                                            175

co-ordinate sentence.¹

          When the Apostolic Fathers made use of the temporal

participle it is indicated "by the facts revealed by the

context taken in association with the indication of the

tense as respects progress."²

          Some general conclusions appear evident from this

brief historical summary. (1) The temporal use of the

participle was never a very clear method of indicating time

relationships. (2) The context and temporal adverbs are

always needed to locate and interpret temporal participles.

(3) Though many other ways of expressing time always

existed in Greek, the temporal participle continued in use

after the New Testament was written. (4) From the histor-

ical evidence it is clear that the aorist participle

preceded in time the leading verb and the present parti-

ciple denoted action and consequently time contemporaneous

with the main verb.

                       Tenses of Temporal Participles

          The participle occurs in four tenses in the New

Testament--the present, aorist, future, and perfect--but

only the present and aorist tense need close examination.³

 

          ¹ Turner, Syntax, p. 153.

          ² Robison, Syntax, p. 11.

          ³ The future participle is rare and is always

                                        176

The present participle

          The present participle is both timeless and dura-

tive. The time comes from the principle verb and this may

be either a past, present, or future tense of the verb in

any mood.

                    The present participle, therefore, is used if the

          action denoted by the participle is represented as

          taking place at the same time as the action denoted by

          the leading verb, no matter whether the action denoted

          by the leading verb is past, present or future.¹

          This is not to say that the present participle must

refer to present time. Rather, "it usually refers to action

in progress at the same time as the action of the main

verb"² regardless of the tense of the main verb. For

example, "walking by the sea of Galilee, He (Jesus) saw two

brothers" (Mt. 4:18). This verse has an aorist main verb

with the present participle. The participle and the context

indicate that the actions were simultaneous, that is, "while

walking, Jesus saw." In Luke 23:5, "He stirs up the people

. . . beginning from Galilee until here." Both the parti-

ciple and verb are present and indicate contemporaneous

 

subsequent in time to the principal verb (i.e. Mt. 27:49)

according to A.T. Robertson, Grammar, p. 1118. The action

of the perfect participle will always be antecedent unless

the tense has lost its true force. Ibid., p. 1117. There-

fore, there is no need to examine participles in these two

seldom used tenses.

          ¹ Machen, New Testament Greek, p. 105.

          ² Eugene Van Ness Goetchius, The Language of the New

Testament (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 19b5), p. 178.

                                       177

action.

          Sometimes the present participle denotes the same

action which is expressed by the leading verb of the clause

in which it stands. In John 6:6 "He was saying this,

testing him," has an imperfect verb and a present parti-

ciple. The participle is the identical action of the verb

but it is described from a different point of view.¹    In

John 21:9, "they saw a charcoal fire and fish and bread

placed on it," a present verb is used with a present parti-

ciple indicating simultaneous action. Therefore, it means

that the disciples saw the fire, the fish and the bread at

the same time.

          It is also possible when a present participle is

used that only antecedent action is indicated. In John 9:25

the man just healed of his blindness says, "being (w@n) blind

now I am seeing."

          On other occasions the present participle shows a

continued action which is both antecedent and simultaneous

to that of the main verb. In Mark 5:25 a woman "being

(ou#sa) with the issue of blood for twelve years . . .

touched His garment." She had been and still was afflicted

when she touched the garment.

          While there are other examples of the present

 

          ¹ Ernest DeWitt Burton, Syntax (Chicago: University

Press in Chicago, 1897), p. 55.

                                        178

participle in the Gospels, these illustrations suffice to

show the temporal uses of the present participle. It is

clear that durative action is expressed. It is also true

that simultaneous action is usually shown whether the main

verb is past, present or future. However, when the context

demands it, the participle can express identical action or

antecedent action. Only the context can determine whether

the participle should be translated as an English parti-

ciple or should be supported by the helping prepositions

or conjunctions, "since," "as," "when," "after," and

"while."

The aorist participle

          Like the infinitive the participle originally had

no temporal function but rather indicated "kind of action."

Burton writes,

                    It is very important . . . that it be borne in mind

          that the proper and the leading function of the tense

          is not to express time, but to mark the fact that the

          action of the verb is conceived of indefinitely, as a

          simple event. The assumption that the Aorist parti-

          ciple properly denotes past time from the point of view

          of either speaker or of the principal verb, leads to

          constant misinterpretation of the form.¹

          In the writings of the Apostolic Fathers the aorist

participle indicated action thought of as a simple event.

"This is its constant and only function. . .         It denotes

neither the time of the action, nor its progress nor the

 

          ¹ Burton, Syntax, p. 59.

                                           179

existence of a result."¹

          Consequently the time of action in relation to the

action of the main verb can only be inferred from the con-

text. Robertson asserts that the original use of the

aorist participle was that of simultaneous action. "From

this was developed quite naturally, by the nature of the

various cases, the antecedent notion."²    Often only exegesis

can decide between antecedent and simultaneous action. Sub-

sequent action is not expressed by the aorist temporal

participle in the New Testament.³

          Machen maintains that the aorist participle normally

denotes action prior to the action denoted by the leading

verb regardless of the time of the leading verb's action.

To this he adds that the translation "when" or "after"

normally should be used in translating the participle.⁴

This is correct when the aorist participle shows antecedent

action. However, the aorist participle does not of itself

mean antecedent action.

          The use of the aorist participle to indicate action

antecedent to the leading verb is easily illustrated. In

 

          ¹ Robison, Syntax, p. 16.

          ² Robertson, Grammar, p. 1112.

          ³ Ibid., p. 860.

          ⁴ Machen, New Testament Greek, pp. 116-17.

                                      180

Mark 1:31, "after coming to her, He (Jesus) raised her up."

Of Judas Iscariot it is written, "after going away, he hung

himself" (Mt. 27:5). The leper "after stretching out his

hand, touched him" (Mt. 8:3). In each context it is clear

that the action of the participle precedes the action of

the main verb consequently the participle can be called a

temporal participle. This is the most frequent use of the

aorist participle. Ballentine concludes, "when a writer

wishes to assert by a participle, in addition to the leading

action, another action which, by even the shortest interval,

preceded it, he always uses the aorist participle."¹

          The most often occurring illustration of an aorist

participle citing simultaneous or identical action with the

action of the leading verb is "when answering, he said" or

its equivalent. Usually, the verb and the participle

describe the same action from a different point of view.²

It may be that Matthew 2:8, "when seeing the star, they

rejoiced" is a good illustration of two different but simul-

taneous actions. Many contexts, and only the context can

decide if it is antecedent or simultaneous action, are not

sufficiently clear to give indisputable illustrations.

Consequently, the general idea that the aorist participle

 

          ¹ William G. Ballentine, "Predicate Participles with

Verbs in the Aorist," Bibliotheca Sacra CLXIV (October,

1884), 787.

          ² Burton, Syntax, p. 65.

 

                                        181

indicates action antecedent to the action of the leading

verb is usually true. However, the aorist participle can

also indicate simultaneous action in some instances. For

example, Herod, "when sending them unto Bethlehem said"

(Mt. 2:8). Obviously, Herod spoke to them at the time that

he sent them. This simultaneous action is also seen in the

common phrase a]pekri<qh ei]pw<n. It can occur also when the

main verb is future (Lk. 9:25), or present (Mk. 8:29).

          The use of the participle to show time relation-

ships is no doubt often misunderstood. The only time that

can be indicated is suggested by the context and other

temporal words. The participle itself indicates "kind of

action" which has a time relationship to the action of the

main verb. The present participle shows simultaneous action

unless the context may demand that it be identical or even

antecedent action. The aorist participle reflects antece-

dent action although simultaneous or identical action may

at times be inferred from the context. This temporal use of

the participle is a very frequent use of the adverbial

participle. The choice of "while," "since," "after," "when"

or "as" to aid in translating the participle is determined

by the context and the preference of the translator.

 

                              CHAPTER VIII

 

CONJUNCTIVE AND ADVERBIAL WORDS FOR TIME

 

          Another method of expressing time is through the

use of conjunctions, adverbs and improper prepositions

functioning as adverbs. Though time thus specified is not

necessarily as specific as that indicated by other temporal

words, conjunctions are implemented to show the time rela-

tionship which exists between clauses. Two methods of indi-

cating time within a clause are by the use of adverbs or

improper prepositions. The subject matter of this chapter

consists of (1) conjunctions and (2) adverbs and improper

prepositions.

                                    Conjunctions

          In expressing time, temporal conjunctions introduce

dependent temporal clauses. These clauses may be either

definite or indefinite depending on whether the indicative

or a non-indicative mood is used. The time may be simul-

taneous, subsequent, or prior to that of the main verb. It

may be that this preference for temporal conjunctions, as

against the genitive absolute is due "to the frequency with

which temporal clauses are introduced by ydiK; or dKa in

                                             182

                                          183

Aramaic."¹ For ease in locating the conjunction, in this

chapter they are examined in alphabetical order.

a]f ] h$j,  a]f ] ou$  

          After the manner of Classical Greek, Luke has a]f ] h$j

and a]f ] ou$, translated "from (the time) when," or "since"

or "after."² When used with the indicative mood these

expressions always convey a definite or a fixed time.³ In

Luke 7:45 a]f ] h$j occurs, "but she since the time I came in."

This is its only temporal use in the Gospels. The same

preposition and pronoun are translated "from which" in Luke

8:2 but the context demonstrates that this is not a temporal

conjunction.

          The kindred expression a]f ] ou$ occurs three times

temporally. In Luke 13:7 and 24:21 it occurs with the indi-

cative mood fixing a definite time, "three years since," and

"the third since." Archibald T. Robertson says it provides

the "terminus a quo."⁴  In both places "since" or "after"

are good translations. The passage in Luke 13:25 has a]f]  ou$

a@n e]gerq^?.  This occurrence with the subjunctive mood and

 

          ¹ Nigel Turner, Syntax (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,

1919-63), p. 321.

          ² A. N. Jannaris, Grammar (London: Macmillan and

Co., Limited, 1897), p. 421.

          ³ Ibid., 465.

          ⁴ Archibald T. Robertson, Grammar (Nashville:

Broadman Press, 1934), p. 977.

                                   184

the particle a@n indicates an indefinite, potential or a

conditional futurity.¹ The best translation would be

"anytime" or "whenever." The other places in Luke where the

preposition and pronoun are found together they do not have

a temporal function or translation.

          The classical a]f ] o!tou translated "since," "ever

since" and e]c ou$  or e]c h$j translated "after," "since," both

denoting time usually prior to that of the principal verb,

do not occur in the Gospels in a temporal sense.

a@xri

          The word a@xri (s) found six times in the Gospels is

used in two ways and never is found in the Gospels with the

final sigma. In Luke 4:13 and Matthew 13:30 it is an

improper preposition meaning "until." As Thayer states, it

is "a particle indicating the terminus ad quem,"² the point

of time up to which an event will take place. This prepo-

sition appears with the relative pronoun and is written

a@xri h$j Luke 1:20 and 17:27 (Mt. 24:38). In each instance

it has the same function and translation of a@xri in the

previously cited uses.

          On one occasion, Luke 21:24, "until the times of the

 

          ¹ Jannaris, Grammar, p. 466.

          ² Joseph Henry Thayer, Lexicon (Grand Rapids:

Zondervan Publishing House, 1962), p. 91.

                                        185

Gentiles would be fulfilled," a@xri ou$ is a subordinating

conjunction meaning "until," "to the time that." Used with

the aorist subjunctive verb it has the force of a future

perfect.¹ The Septuagint has few certain readings of a@xri

which cause difficulty in citing historical illustrations

of its use and meaning. Perhaps this is the reason why some

grammarians state that both a@xri and  me<xri have in general the

same construction and force as clauses introduced by e!wj,

e!wj ou$ and e!wj o!tou.²

e]n &$

          The preposition e]n is combined with the relative

pronoun o!j in the dative case to function as a temporal

subordinating conjunction. It is translated "as long as"

in Classical Greek³ and "while" or "during the time that"

in Koine.⁴ While the function of the dative case is to

indicate a point of time, the addition of e]n demands dura-

tion of time.⁵ Translated "while" in English, the sense

 

          ¹ Robertson, Grammar, p. 974.

          ² Ernest DeWitt Burton, Syntax (Chicago: University

Press in Chicago, 1897), p. 129.

          ³ Jannaris, Grammar, p. 465.

          ⁴ George B. Winer, Grammar (7th ed.; Andover: Warren

F. Draper, 1877), pp. 385-86.

          ⁵ Friedrich Blass and Albert Debrunner, Grammar 

(ed. and rev. by Robert W. Funk; Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 1967), p. 107.

                                     186

includes a duration of time. There are four uses of this

construction in the Gospels, one of which is a parallel

passage. In each passage the meaning is clear. Luke 5:34

(Mk. 2:19) reads, "while (during the time that) the bride-

groom is with them." Luke 19:13 has, "trade ye while

(during the time that) I am coming." "While (during the

time that) I am coming another steps down before me," is

found in John 5:7.

e]pa<n

          There are three uses of e]pa<n in the New Testament

and all are in the Gospels. The only suggested citation in

the Old Testament occurs in Esther 5:13, however, the

accepted text reads o!tan.  In other Greek literature three

translations are suggested: (1) "when" he attains legal age,

(2) "as long as" there is no higher offer, and (3) and "as

soon as" my orders have been carried out.¹   Lexicographers

cite as suitable translations "after," "when"² and "as soon

as.”³

          This conjunction is found once with the present

 

          ¹ James Hope Moulton and Wilbert Francis Howard,

Accidence and Word Formation, Vol. II. A Grammar of New

Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1929), p. 228.

"(Hereinafter referred to as Grammar.)"

          ² Thayer, Lexicon, p. 228.

          ³ William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, Lexicon

(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 282.

                                     187

subjunctive (Lk. 11:34) and suggests an "iterative-action,

indefinite, in the past or future."¹ Matthew 6:22, 23 which

is parallel to Luke 11:34 uses e]a<n twice to introduce the

subordinate clauses. Luke here uses first o!tan "whenever"

and then e]pa<n, "The lamp of thy body is thine eye: whenever

(o!tan) thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of

light;  but when (e]pa<n) it is evil, thy body also is full of

darkness." In the context Jesus was exposing Pharisaism

using the illustration of a lamp to emphasize the truth.

The present tense and subjunctive mode suggest he was

referring to a possible existing condition. His choice of

o!tan, "when," is a frequently used word that would have

little significance. However, the use of e]pa<n with the

present subjunctive, which is a rare construction, empha-

sizes both the existing condition and the point of the

illustration. That is, "as soon as" evil enters the body,

the entire body is full of darkness.

          The use of e]pa<n with the aorist subjunctive indi-

cates a definite action taking place in the future which

precedes the action of the main verb.² The two uses in

Matthew 2:8 and Luke 11:22 clearly speak of a specific act

in the future both subordinate and prior to the action of

 

          ¹ Turner, Syntax, p. 112.

          ² Ibid.

                                   188

the main verb, "and after you would find (him) you shall

bring," and "after a stronger than he . . . he shall over-

come." This translation "after" best expresses the gram-

matical purose of e]pa<n.

e]pei<,  e]peidh<

          There are eight uses of e]pei<, "after," in the

Gospels. Only in Luke 7:1, "after He had ended all his

sayings," is the temporal idea1 showing sequence. In the

oldest manuscripts and Nestle's text e]peidh< is found instead

of e]pei<.  In the Septuagint e]pei< is used with gi<nomai in a

temporal sense but this pattern is not followed in the

Gospels unless it is possible that e]pei< is used this way in

Mark 15:42, "Because it was the Preparation." The e]pei<

would be translated "after" it was the Preparation. How-

ever, this reading and translation is not adopted in any

version or commentary examined.

          The conjunction e]peidh<<, "when now," "after that,"

is often interchanged with e]pei< in Daniel, Luke and Acts,²

but it has the temporal idea only in Luke 7:1, "After that

He had ended all His sayings." This subordinating conjunc-

tion with the temporal idea "after that" can be found more

often in the Greek Old Testament.

 

          ¹ Thayer, Lexicon, p. 229.

          ² Edwin A. Abbott, Johannine Vocabulary (London: Adam

and Charles Black, 1905), pp. 111-12.

                                        189

e!wj

          A frequent word in the Gospels is e!wj which is used

as a temporal conjunction, an improper preposition and an

adverb of time. Its translations include "until," "till,"

"as long as," "while," "until now" and "how long."¹

          As a conjunction e!wj introduces a subordinate clause

functioning as a relative clause which is subsequent in time

to that of the main clause.

                    The idea of a clause with until is that the action

          (or negation) of the leading clause continues to a time

          at which that of the dependent clause takes place. That

          the former action then ceases is an inference generally

          made, but not positively implied in the language, and

          not necessary.²

          Burton explains that e!wj in introducing a temporal

clause

          . . . is properly a relative adverb which marks one

          action as the temporal limit of another action. It does

          this in two ways, either (a) so that the beginning or

          simple occurrence of the action of the verb introduced

          by e!wj is the limit of the action denoted by the prin-

          cipal verb, or (b) so that the continuance of the, former

          is the limit of the latter. In the former case e!wj

          means until, in the latter, while, as long as.³

          The subordinate clause introduced by e!wj has a verb

either in the indicate or subjunctive mode. When used with

 

          ¹ Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon, pp. 334-35.

          ² William Watson Goodwin, Syntax (New York:

Martin's Press, 1965), p. 234.

          ³ Burton, Syntax, p. 126.

                                      190

the present indicative¹ the idea is "while," or "as long as,"

but not "until," and "it is either a contemporaneous event

as in (Mk. 6:45) . . . , or a lively proleptic future

expressed in terms of the present (Jn. 21:22f)."²

          The use of e!wj with the future indicative³ occurs

most often with po<te and adverb of time, answering the

question "how long?" It seems natural to use the future

tense since e!wj is used of a "punctiliarly conceived future

event preceded in time by the action of the main clause."⁴

Here e!wj indicates the end of a period of time, that is,

"where something is spoken of which continued to a certain

time."⁵ The correct translation is "till" or "until."

          When an actual past event is recorded, the aorist

indicative is used as in the ordinary relative clause

referring to past time.⁶ As with the future indicative e!wj

and the aorist indicative denotes the end of a period of

time. Most of the occurrences are combined with adverbs or

pronouns and will be examined later. However, Matthew 2:9

"till it came and stood," "until the flood .          . took them

 

          ¹ Mk. 6:45; Jn. 9:4; 21:22, 23 (and perhaps Mt. 1:17

with an understood verb).

          ² Robertson, Grammar, pp. 975-76.

          ³ Mt. 11:23(2); Lk. 10:14(2); Mt. 17:17(2); Lk. 9:19

(2); Lk. 9:41; Jn. 10:24.

          ⁴ Turner, Syntax, p. 111.              ⁵ Thayer, Lexicon, p. 268.

          ⁶ Burton, Syntax, p. 128.

                                            191

all away" (Mt. 24:39) both illustrate the end of a period of

time in the past and the translation "until."

          In the subjunctive mood only the aorist tense is

used with e!wj in the Gospels. The action is conceived as a

simple event and e!wj is translated "until." The e!wj clause

further denotes that that "commencement of an event is

dependent on circumstances."¹  The statement itself is only

a conception or representation.² Whether the subjunctive

occurs with³ or without⁴ the particleocv , the clause refers

to "a punctiliarly conceived future event preceded in time

by the action of the main clause."⁵ There appears to be no

real difference in the meaning of the constructions. The

same author in passages which are similar in meaning, such

as Matthew 10:23 "until the Son of Man may come" and 16:28

"until they may see the Son of Man," uses first one con-

struction and then the other. Even in parallel passages

such as Matthew 5:26 and Luke 12:59 the a@n is used in one

 

          ¹ Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon, p. 334.

          ² Raphael Kuhner, Grammar of the Greek Language,

trans. by B. B. Edwards and S. H. Taylor (New York:

D. Appleton and Company, 1879), p. 539.

          ³ Mt. 2:13; 5:18(2); 26; 10:11 (Mk. 12:36); 12:20;

16:28; 22:44 (Lk. 20:43); 23:39; 24:34 (Lk. 21:325; Mk. 6:

10; 9:1 (Lk. 9:27).

          ⁴ Mt. 10:23; 18:30; Mk. 14:32; Lk. 12:59; 15:4;

17:8; 22:34.

          ⁵ Turner, Syntax, p. 111.

                                       192

place but not the other. Apparently, during the first

century, a transition was being made from e!wj a@n to e!wj

as is suggested by Turner.¹  In both cases the e!wj is

translated "until" and the verb in the subordinate clause

is either conceived or represented as having a future ful-

fillment which must be preceded in time by the action

indicated in the main clause.

          In the New Testament e!wj is occasionally combined

with ou$ or o!tou.   Though e!wj is a preposition when used with

the genitive of the neuter relative pronoun, the combined

phrases e!wj ou$ or e!wj o!tou function as conjunctions and have

the same use as the simple e!wj. They should be translated

"till" or "until."² They are never followed by a@n. The

use of e!wj ou$ in this same way is frequent in the Septua-

gint. In the Gospels the aorist indicative is used in a

subordinate clause when the event is seen as having already

taken place.³ The aorist subjunctive⁴ is found in a context

where the action in the subordinate clause is viewed as a

future unrealized event as in John 13:38, "The cock shall

not crow till thou has denied me thrice." That e!wj ou$ is

 

          ¹ Ibid.

          ² Burton, Syntax, D. 128.

          ³ Thayer, Lexicon, p. 268.

          ⁴ Mt. 1:25; 13:33 (Lk. 13:21).

                                         193

really not different in function or translation than e!wj

with the aorist tense can be seen by comparing Matthew 26:

36 e!wj ou$ with its parallel Mark 14:32 which uses only e!wj.  

In both places the verb tenses, mode and context are the

same.

          The e!wj o!tou conjunctions are six in number and

occur with the present indicative (Mt. 5:25), the aorist

indicative (Jn. 9:18) and the aorist subjunctive.¹  There

is no functional distinction to be made between e!wj ou$ and

e!wj o!tou or the simple e!wj. The only time that a present

indicative occurs with e!wj o!tou it is translated "while"

indicating a contemporaneous event as does the simple e!wj.

The uses of the aorist, whether indicative or subjunctive,

are identical with e!wj ou$ and are translated "until" or

"till."

          John² combines e!wj with a@rti, which together are

translated "until now," meaning "up to this time." This

construction remains a temporal adverb indicating the

terminus ad quem.

          Another adverb construction e!wj po<te,³ "how long?"

is used a few times in the Gospels. This same construction

 

          ¹ Lk. 12:50; 13:8; 22:16, 18.

          ² Jn. 2:10; 5:17; 16:24.

          ³ Mt. 17:17(2); (Mk. 9:19(2); Lk. 9:41); Jn. 10:24.

                                         194

is found often in the Septuagint and needs no explanation.

          The large number of uses of e!wj that do not occur

with a subordinating clause are prepositional¹ occurring

with the genitive of a noun or its equivalent which usually

is a word for time. The proper translation is "until" or

"unto" and in function it also expresses the terminus ad

quem.

          In summary, e!wj and the combinations e!wj ou$ and  e!wj

o!tou, found with several verb tenses and mood, serve as

temporal conjunctions to denote, usually, the end of a

period of time or occasionally contemporaneousness. A few

times e!wj is used as an adverb of time, and also as a

preposition.

kai<

         On a few occasions the co-ordinating conjunction

appears to have a subordinating temporal use. Several

English versions translate kai< "when" rather than "and."

A good illustration in the Septuagint is found in Tobit 1:18

"Because my father left me an orphan when (kai<) he died."

          The times if any that kai< functions in this manner

in the Gospels are difficult to discern because the form is

the same and the translation "and" also makes good sense.

Yet, there may be at least one use of kai< in each Gospel

 

          ¹ Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon, p. 334.

                                       195

that possibly is a temporal sense. Matthew 26:45 says

"Behold the hour is at hand when (kai<) the Son of Man is

being betrayed." Mark 15:25 states, "And it was the third

hour when (kai<) they crucified Him." Luke 19:43 reads, "For

the days shall come upon you when (kai<) your enemies will

throw up a bank before you." John says, "And it was near

the Passover of the Jews when (kai< ) Jesus went up to Jeru-

salem (Jn. 2:13). While other examples might be cited, these

will suffice to show that kai< could have been and probably

was used with a temporal sense.

          Though this temporal use of kai< is found in earlier

Greek,¹ it seems likely that if it is actually used in the

Gospels it is a Greek method of expressing the Hebrew cir-

cumstantial waw which can be used to indicate a temporal

idea. An examination of the aforementioned passages shows

that the kai< could subordinate its clause to the main clause

and thereby indicate the time when the action happens.

me<xri

          Usually found as a preposition of time in the

Gospels, me<xri has the meaning, "up to the point of."²

Thayer delineates the distinction between a@xri and me<xri

when he comments, "by the use of the former particle the

 

          ¹ Moulton and Howard, Grammar, II, 421-22.

          ² Robertson, Grammar, p. 975.

                                        196

reach to which a thing is said to extend is likened to a

height, by the use of me<xri, to a length; a@xri, indicating

ascent signifies up to; me<xri, indicating extent, is unto,

as far as."¹ Matthew has three uses, all of which are

translated "until" (today, 11:23; 28:15; the harvest, 13:

30). Luke 16:16 uses me<xri  ]Iwa<nou, until (the time of)

John.  In the Septuagint the references to me<xri occur in

poetic passages and cannot be used to substantiate an his-

torical usage. However, Moulton cites a similar usage from

110 B.C.  “me<xri [to]u a]po< pro[kei]menoj. . . I am free

from the labors above mentioned'."² The translation "until"

with the sense "as far as" fits with all the Gospel uses.

          The only other use of me<xri is with the relative

pronoun ou$ in Mark 13:30. Here the translation is "until"

and the construction is a subordinating conjunction. "This

generation shall not pass away, until all these things be

accomplished." A parallel to this occurs in Joshua 4:23,

"until ye were passed over."

          From these uses it can be seen that me<xri in the

Gospels is best translated "until" and may occur as a prepo-

sition of time with the sense of "as far as" and as a

temporal conjunction.

 

          ¹ Thayer, Lexicon, p. 91.

          ² Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary (Grand Rapids: Wm.

B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1963), p. 407.

                                         197

o[po<te

          In the uncertain reading of Luke 6:3 the temporal

particle o[po<te is found in a few manuscripts. If this

reading is correct it is the only attested usage in the New

Testament. In Classical Greek this is translated "when-

ever" and in the papyri it means "when."¹ A clear illustra-

tion of the use in the Septuagint is seen in the title of

the five Psalms² where o[po<te is used to help identify the

time of the writing of the Psalm. In each instance the

particle is used with the aorist indicative mode referring

to a real past event. This is the way it is used in Luke

6:3 "what David did when he was hungry."

 

o!tan

          The conjunction o!tan occurs extensively in the

Gospels with the aorist subjunctive, less often with the

present subjunctive and once each with the present, imper-

fect and aorist indicative. There are only five o!tan con-

structions with the indicative in the New Testament and

three occur in Mark, the only uses in the Gospels. With the

indicative this temporal particle is translated "at the time

that," "whenever," "when" and speaks of an action that is

 

          ¹ Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, p. 453.

          ² Psalm 3, 33 (34), 55 (56), 58 (59) and 59 (60).

                                    198

"conditional, possible, and, in many instances, repeated."¹

In Mark 11:25 o!tan with the present indicative is trans-

lated, "whensoever ye stand praying" obviously indicating

an indefinite number of repetitions in the past, present

and possibly future time. Jesus conceives that such

occasions happen from time to time since the indicative

mode is used.

          The imperfect indicative is found in Mark 3:11,

"whensoever they were beholding Him." Though the use of

o!tan with a past tense in the indicative mood² is a rare

construction in the New Testament, it is common in the

Septuagint.³ It is natural to use the indicative since real

past events are referred to. The imperfect shows that the

action was often repeated rather than being a general con-

dition which belongs to any time.

          Also o!tan is used with the aorist indicative in

Mark 11:19 (AV) "and every evening he went forth." However

a better translation would be, "whenever evening came"

(NASV). The Koine and Byzantine writers use this construc-

tion to indicate a definite occurrence.⁴ This verse presents

 

          ¹ Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon, p. 592.

          ² Ezra P. Gould, Mark (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,

1961), p. 56.

          ³ Robertson, Grammar, p. 973. For example in the

LXX see Gen. 38:19; 1 Sam. 17:34.

          ⁴ Ibid.

                                       199

the problem of determining whether Mark is viewing the

practice of "every evening" or "the evening of one single

day."¹ Though it might be more natural to use the conjunc-

tion o!te which only occurs with the indicative to express a

single occurrence, o!tan with the aorist indicative in this

context argue that this unusual construction is indicating

the practice of Jesus every evening at the time evening

came. Such a translation is in agreement with the Greek

text, the evening practice of Jesus during this time and the

use of o!tan which normally reflects indefiniteness. This is

true whether the subjunctive or the indicative mood is used.

To indicate a definite single occurrence Mark would normally

use o!te.  Therefore, a good translation would be, "at the

time evening came (each day) He would go outside the city."

These three uses of o!tan with the indicative record real

events. Although these three references in Mark are insig-

nificant in number compared to the uses of o!tan with the

subjunctive they suggest a popular rather than a technical

grammatical style.

          The present subjunctive with o!tan is found in

twenty-one different accounts² in the Gospels indicating

 

          ¹ Gould, Mark, pp. 214-15.

          ² Mt. 6:2, 5, 6, 16; 10:23; 15:2; 26:29 (Mk. 14:25);

Mk. 13:4 (Lk. 21:7), 11 (Lk. 12:11); 14:7; Lk. 11:21, 34,

36; 14:12, 13; Jn. 7:27, 8:44; 9:5; 16:21(2) and probably

Lk. 12:55.

                                           200

iterative or repeated action usually with the idea of future

uncertainty.¹ In two passages the idea of repeated action

is not present. In John 7:27 "when Christ cometh" and Mark

13:4 and Luke 21:7 "what shall be the sign when these things

are about to be accomplished" the action indicated is only

contemporaneous. To indicate this it was necessary to use

the present tense. In all other cases both contemporaneity

and repeated action is permissable. The time indicated by

the construction is obviously future as is expected with

the subjunctive mode. Translated "when" in many English

texts, the sense of the present subjunctive indicates

"during the time when this or that is going on," or "at the 

moment when this is beginning."²    Consequently, the lexical

translations include "whenever," "as often as," and "every-

time that."³ With the exception of John 7:27 the action of

a o!tan clause with a present subjunctive verb is contempo-

raneous with the main clause and suggests a regular repeated

action regardless of the tense or mode of the verb in the

main clause. This is true whether the main clause has a

 

          ¹ Robertson, Grammar, p. 971.

          ² Edwin A. Abbott, Johannine Grammar (London: Adam

and Charles Black, 1906), p. 385.

          ³ Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon, p. 592.

                                    201

present^l or aorist² imperative or a present³ or future⁴

indicative verb. A good illustration of the contemporaneous

and regularly repeated action can be seen in Matthew 6:2

"when therefore thou doest alms, sound not a trumpet." A

good paraphrase would be "during any time that you are

giving alms do not sound a trumpet." Such a translation

demonstrates both the contemporaneous and repeated action

usually in the future which is found with o!tan in a present

subjunctive construction.

          The aorist subjunctive occurs most often with o!tan

According to Nigel Turner o!tan is used "most commonly of a

definite action taking place in the future but concluded

before the action of the main verb. Thus the main verb is

usually future indicative but it may be imperative."⁵ The

suggested lexical translation of o!tan with the aorist sub-

junctive in all instances is "when."⁶ However, Turner's

statement is somewhat misleading. In the Gospels the main

 

          ¹ Mt. 6:16; 10:23; Mk. 13:11 (Lk. 12:11); Lk. 14:12,

13.

          ² Mt. 6:2, 6.

          ³ M1t. 15:2; I. 14:7; Lk. 11:21, 34; Lk. 12:55;

Jn. 8:44; 9:5; 16:21(2).

          ⁴ Mt. 6:5; 26:29 (Mk. 14:25); Mk. 13:4 (Lk. 21:7);

Lk. 11:36.

          ⁵ Turner, p. 112.

          ⁶ Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon, p. 592.

                                      202

verb with the o!tan and aorist subjunctive construction is

most often present indicative,¹ although it is also future

indicative,² present subjunctive,³ aorist subjunctive,⁴

present imperative,⁵ and aorist imperative.⁶   The conjunc-

tion o!tan is found six times in a i!na o!tan construction.⁷

o!te

          The use of o!te as a subordinating conjunction occurs

fifty-four times in the Gospels. It can be translated

"when," "while," and "as long as."⁸ Each time it is found

with the indicative mode it denotes a definite event except

in Luke 13:35 where the reading e!wj h!cei o!te ei@phte          is

found. This is the only place in the New Testament where

o!te is found with the subjunctive mode. The parallel

 

          ¹ Mt. 5:11 (Lk. 6:22); 9:15 (Mk. 2:20; Lk. 5:35); 12:

43 (Lk. 11:24); 13:32 (Mk. 4:32); 23:15; 24:32 (Mk, 13:28;

Lk. 21:30); 24:33 (Mk. 13:29; Lk. 21:31); Mk. 4:15, 16 (Lk.

8:13); Mk. 4:29, 31; 12:25; Lk. 6:22, 26; 12:54; Jn. 2:10;

10:4; 16:21.

          ² Mt. 19:28; 21:40; 25:31; Mk. 12:23; Lk. 13:28;

Jn. 4:25; 7:37; 8:28; 15:26; 16:13; 21:18.

          ³ Jn. 13:19.

          ⁴ Mk. 9:9; Lk. 14:8.

          ⁵ Mt. 24:15 (Mk. 13:14; Lk. 21:20 has aorist); Mk.

13:7; Lk. 17:10.

          ⁶ Mt. 10:19; Lk. 14:10; 23:42.

          ⁷ Lk. 14:10; Lk. 16:4, 9; Jn. 5:7; 14:29; 16:4.

          ⁸ Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon, p. 592.

                                         203

passage in Matthew 23:39 does not retain the o!te so that it

is questionable whether o!te, and the subjunctive is the

correct textual reading.

          On the two occasions where the present tense follows

o!te, the main verb is also present and the translation

"while" or "when" emphasizing an action taking place during

a designated period of time seems most appropriate. This is

true whether the action introduced is a general truth¹ or a

definite event (Mk. 11:1). The uses of o!te with the imper-

fect² are like those of the present except that the main

verb is most often an imperfect tense.

          The future tense within a o!te clause is found once

in Luke 17:22 where the main verb is future and four times

in John³ where the main verb is present. This use of o!te 

introduces a clause suggesting a future indefinite event.

However, in each instance the speaker is Jesus Christ and

this makes the event spoken of in the future tense a cer-

tainty. It is reasonable then to find o!te which is

normally reserved for definite past events, used to indi-

cate these future, events which will take place at a definite

point in time.

 

          ¹ George B. Winer, Grammar, p. 297 (also see Jn. 9:4).

          ² Mk. 14:12; 15:41; Jn. 17:12; 21:8.

          ³ Jn. 4:21, 23; 5:25; 16:25.

                                           204

          The remaining forty-two uses o!te introduce a

clause employing an aorist verb. In each instance a

specific time of past action is in view and the conjunction

must be translated "when." Most of the places¹ are in a

narrative or historical setting. Sometimes in the parallel

passages an aorist participle is substituted for the o!te

conjunction.²    On five occasions in Matthew the familiar

Septuagint narrative expression kai> e]ge<neto³ translating

yhiy;va "and it came to pass" introduces the o!te clause. The

remaining eleven citations of o!te are found in quotations

and indicate specific occurrences at a definite point in

time. That o!te when used with the indicative of past tenses

is to be understood "of a thing actually gone before,"⁴ fits

the pattern found in the Gospels. When used with the

present indicative it refers to a thing "actually existing

at anytime" and when with the future indicative a thing

"actually future."⁵  The choice between using o!tan or o!te

 

          ¹ Mt. 9:25; 21:1 (Mk. 11:1; Lk. 19:29); 27:31 (Mk.

15:20); Mk. 1:32; 4:10; 6:21; 7:17; Lk. 2:21, 22, 42; 6:13;

22:14; 23:33; Jn. 1:19; 6:24; 12:16, 17; 13:12, 31; 19:6,

8, 23, 30; 20:24; 21:25.

          ² Mt. 13:6; 26:20; Mk. 14:17; Mt. 27:35; Mk. 15:22.

          ³ Mt. 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1.

          ⁴ George Henry Liddell and Robert Scott, Lexicon, II

(Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1940), 1265.

          ⁵ Ibid.

                                       205

by the Gospel writers seems to be determined primarily by

the mode of the verb in the dependent clause. The subjunc-

tive mode normally demands the more doubtful o!tan and the

indicative mode requires o!te.

w[j

          The conjunction w[j, originally a relative adverb

from w[j is rather common in the New Testament as a temporal

conjunction.¹ The exact number of times the temporal w[j

occurs varies with each Greek edition and with the interpre-

tation of the text since w[j can be used other than

temporally. Sir John Hawkins gives nineteen uses of w[j in

Luke and sixteen in John. It is found thirty-three other

times in the New Testament.²   A better count in the Gospels

seems to be nineteen in Luke and eighteen in John with the

greatest number of these occurring with verbs in the aorist

tense. All the verbs are in the indicative mode regardless

of the tense. Only in Mark 9:21 is w[j found with the perfect

tense and it is translated "since."³

          On seven occasions w[j is found in a clause with

 

          ¹ Robertson, Grammar, p. 974.

          ² Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels 

and Acts (Oxford: At the Clarendon cress, 1967), p. 89.

          ³ Robertson, Grammar, p. 974.

                                    206

verbs either in the present¹ or imperfect² tense indicating

continuing action and introducing action simultaneous to

the main verb. The translation of w[j can be "while,"

"when," "as long as."³ "While" is a suitable translation

of these passages as is illustrated by John 20:11, "and so

while she was weeping, she stooped and looked into the

tomb."  Luke 24:32, "were not our hearts burning within us

while He was speaking to us on the road while He was opening

the Scriptures to us," is a passage where w[j is used twice

in the same verse. The two actions introduced by w[j,

"while He was speaking" and" while He was opening" signify

action that is simultaneous to the main verb, "were

burning." The disciples' "burning hearts" were directly

related to Christ's speaking and explaining the Scriptures.

In as much as the main verb and the w[j clause verbs indicate

progressive action, the translation of w[j should suggest

this.

          Usually when w[j introduces a temporal clause an

aorist indicative verb is found both in the subordinate

clause and in the main clause. The proper translation is

"after," or "when,"⁴ and is consistently used in most

 

          ¹ Lk. 12:58; 20:37; Jn. 12:35, 6.

          ² Lk. 24:32; Jn. 2:23; 20:11.

          ³ Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon, p. 907.

          ⁴ Ibid., p. 906.

                                        207

English translations. These uses are found in Luke or John¹

and except for one instance the passages in Luke are in non-

parallel material. In the one parallel account, both

Matthew 21:1 and Mark 11:1 have o!te instead of the w[j which

is found in Luke 19:29. In each instance where w[j occurs

with an aorist verb, the clause seems to indicate action

that is either simultaneous with or prior to the main verb.

This is illustrated from Genesis 30:25 "and it came to pass

after Rachel had born Joseph that Jacob said to Laban." A

New Testament example is found in Luke 19:5, "and when Jesus

came to the place, He looked up." That is, Jesus came to

where Zaccheus was and then looked up. In most passages

the action of the w[j clause is totally prior to the action

of the aorist verb. Both, "after they saw that He was

already dead, they did not break His legs" (Jn. 19:33) and

"when they got out upon the land, they saw a fire" (Jn. 21:

9), illustrate that the action of the w[j clause with an

aorist verb does precede in time the action of the main verb.

          The translation "while" introduces a w[j clause which

contains a verb indicating progressive action. When the w[j

clause has an aorist verb, "when" or "after" is a suitable

translation especially when the w[j clause obviously precedes

          ¹ Lk. 1:23, 41, 44; 2:15, 39; 4:25; 5:4; 7:12; 11:1;

15:25; 19:5, 29, 41; 22:66; 23:26; 24:32; Jn. 2:9; 4:1, 40;

6:12, 16; 7:10; 11:6, 20, 29; 11:32, 33; 18:6; 19:33; 21:9.

                                             208

in time the main clause,

                 Adverbs and Improper Prepositions

          The temporal adverbs and prepositions used as

adverbs also aid in explaining time relationships within a

clause. The time indicated can vary considerably and only

after each use is considered separately can the scope of its

meaning be understood. For convenience the words studied

in this section are listed in alphabetical order.

a!ma 

          This preposition occurs in Matthew 13:19 as an ad-

verb and in 20:1 as an improper preposition both expressing

time. In the parable of the wheat and the tares a warning

is given lest the slaves in pulling up the tares "at the

same time" root up the wheat. The concern was that the time

of the two actions would be coincident¹ and the wheat crop

would be ruined. Later in 20:1 the vineyard owner went out

early in the morning to hire workers. The expression used

is a!ma prwi~, a classic idiom which can be literally trans-

lated "at the same time with early dawn."²  The break of day

is the time for starting work in the country. These two

uses of a!ma to indicate time can also be found in the

 

          ¹ Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon, p. 41.

          ² Archibald T. Robertson, The Gospel of Matthew, Vol.

I. Word Pictures (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), p. 159.

                                               209

Epistles, the papyri and Josephus.

a@rti 

          The adverb a@rti, when used temporally, refers to an

event of the immediate past, "just now," of the immediate

present, "at once," "immediately," "now," and in general

"now," "at the present time."¹    This adverb translates hTAfa

in the two Gospels, Matthew and John where it is found.

The position of a@rti in the sentence does not follow any

certain pattern although Matthew "habitually places adverbs

after imperatives but before indicatives."² All the uses

note time closely connected with the present. Once it refers

to an event that is just past, "my daughter has just now

died" (Mt. 9:18). It can also refer to a near future event

"He will at once put at My disposal . . ." (Mt. 26:53). In

the Gospel of John it refers to a present event, "I was

blind, now I see" (Jn. 9:19).³ It appears that each time a

present event is in view an has the sense "at this precise

time."

          The preposition a]po> is joined with a@rti on five

occasions⁴ and is translated "from now" or "from

 

          ¹ Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon, p. 109..

          ² Blass and DeBrunner, Grammar, D. 250.

          ³ See also Jn. 9:25; 13:7, 33, 37; 16:12, 31.

          ⁴ Mt. 23:39; 26:29, 65; Jn. 13:19; 14:7.

                                    210

henceforth." This meaning is clear from the context and

the emphasis is "from the present or precise time" into the

future. In each case or is associated with the present

time.

e]ggu<j 

          Though the adverb e]ggu<j often is used of place it

is also found in seven different accounts in the Gospels¹

referring to time. In each case the time spoken of is

future though it concerns "things imminent and soon to come

to pass."² Each of the four uses in John refers to a feast

and speaks of the nearness of the feast. However, the

closeness of time to the event cannot be stated accurately.

For example, in John 2:13 Jesus was in Capernaum when the

Passover was at hand (e]ggu<j). Yet, Jesus had time to go to

Jerusalem before this Passover was celebrated (v. 23).

Counting the elapsed time for the journey and the arrival

in Jerusalem the term e]ggu<j cannot be understood to give

exact time such as hours. The translation "at hand" with

the general idea of something soon to come to pass is a good

translation. In each instance in the Gospels e]ggu<j occurs

with a form of ei]mi< expressed or understood so that the

adverb is used as a predicate adjective.

 

          ¹ Mt. 24:32 (1,1k. 13:28; Lk. 21:30); 24:33 (Mk. 13:29);

26:18; Jn. 2:13; 6:4; 7:2; 11:55.

          ² Thayer, Lexicon, p. 164.

                                        211

ei#ta 

          The word, ei#ta, translated "then," "next," "after

that"¹ is found as an adverb of time six times in the

Gospels. This represents roughly one-half of the uses in

the New Testament. These references in the Gospels all

appear temporal even though in other places ei#ta can func-

tion as a transition word.²

          On four occasions³ ei#ta a is the first word in the

sentence and each time it indicates a brief intervening time

or sequence of events. A good illustration of the brevity

in time that it indicates is seen in the healing of the

blind man of Bethsaida in Mark 8:25. In verse twenty-four

the blind mn reported that he saw men like trees walking

about. "Then (ei#ta) again He laid His hands upon his eyes,"

undoubtedly after a very brief period of time. In Luke 8:12

ei#ta, occurs in the middle of the verse but it too indicates

that the action which it introduced follows only a short

period of time.

          In one instance, Mark 4:17, "then, when affliction

or persecution arises because of the word," a longer lapse

of time is demanded. After the planting of the seed, which

 

               ¹ Thayer, Lexicon, p. 188.

          ² Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon, p. 233.

          ³  Mk. 8:25; Jn. 13:5; 19:27; 20:27.

 

                                   212

is the Word of God, time passes before persecution comes to

destroy the effect of the Word. Consequently, for exegeti-

cal purposes ei#ta itself does not determine the length of

time between events but rather it notes the sequence of

events in the narrative. For this reason the translation

“then” is proper for it denotes that there is a time

sequence but it does not suggest the length of the time

e@peita

          The adverb e@peita translated "then," "thereupon,"

"thereafter" or "afterwards"¹ occurs twice in the Gospels

and each time with a verb of saying. Though it can refer to

either a short or long period of time, it is like ei#ta in

that it shows a sequence of time or thought. In John 11:7

several days elapse between the sequence of events in view.

And though the e@peita in this passage might be a substitute

for de< in the me<n . . . de< relationship, as was often the

case in Classical Greek, it is more likely that e@peita

occurs without the de< relation to indicate the temporal idea

of simple succession.²   In Luke 16:7 only a brief moment

occurs between the successive statements. The e@peita

 

          ¹ Thayer, Lexicon, p. 230.

          ² Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer,  John, trans. by

Frederick Crombie (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, Publishers,

1884), pp. 337-38.

                                         213

emphasizes the relationship of congruity between the trans-

actions with the first and second creditors.

          In Galatians 1:18 where e@peita is found, a period

of fourteen years separates e@peita from the circumstances

introduced by e@peita.  From these illustrations it is

obvious that e@peita like ei@ta, as an adverb denotes a time

sequence in events rather than a specific time indication.

eu]qe<wj, eu]qu<j

          The synonyms eu]qe<wj and eu]qu<j translated "straight-

way," "immediately," "forthwith," or "at once" have particu-

lar interest because of the use of eu]qu<j in Mark's Gospel.

That these two adverbs must often be equal in meaning can

be demonstrated by seven passages^l in Matthew which use

eu]qe<wj when Mark in his parallel accounts has eu]qu<j.

          Matthew, Luke and John use eu]qe<wj in miracles, in

the calling of Peter and Andrew, in the teaching of Jesus

and in the events of the Passion to show the immediacy of

the action.  One writer suggests that both eu]qe<wj and eu]qu<j

have the sense of immediate consecutiveness.² However, this

idea cannot be substantiated in all passages as is illus-

trated by John 6:21 "and immediately the boat was at the

land." Some time had to elapse between the time when Jesus

 

          ¹ Mt. 4:20; 8:3;13:5; 14:22; 20:34; 26:49, 74.

          ² J. H. Bernard, John, I (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,

1962), 232.

                                       214

walked on the water (vv. 19-21a) and the boat arrived on

shore. This especially clear in Matthew 14:28-34 where

a more detailed account of the same event is given. Jesus

not only entered the boat but the disciples worshipped Him

and some time later they landed the boat (Mt. 14:34).

Therefore, in John's account the use of eu]qe<wj denotes the

next consecutive event in his narrative but not immediacy

of time. In the parable of the sower and the seed (Mt. 13:

5), the seed is scattered and "immediately sprang up because

it had no depth of soil." Obviously the seed did not grow

instantaneously though it would spring up more quickly than

normal. In these three Gospels both eu]qe<wj and eu]qu<j seem

to be used either with the sense of immediacy or with the

idea of next in sequence of events. The time indicated

between event is may vary in length as is illustrated above.

          The Gospel of Mark provides an important area of

study because of its more than forty uses of eu]qu<j and the

absence of eu]qe<wj.

          Nigel Turner suggests some of the problems of this

study when he writes:

                    Nevertheless Mark uses eu]qu<j only five times near

          the verb, i.e., as an adverb (viz. 1²⁸  5¹³ vl. ^{36. 42}

          6²⁵  7²⁵ 1³¹ vl. 3⁶ vl.); elsewhere it is probably merely

          a connective conjunction, occurring at the beginning of

          its, clause. . .  Some thirty of these instances are kai>

         eu]qu<j: and so (consecutive, like the Heb.), like kai>

         i]dou< in Matthew. But it must be said that sometimes, as

          at 6²⁵, eu]qu<j has rather stronger adverbial force: she

 

                                           215

went in immediately.¹

          It can be seen in the passages where Turner cites

eu]qu<j as an adverb that it shows immediacy. For example,

during Jesus' early ministry it is stated, "and immediately

the news about Him went out everywhere" (Mk. 1:28). How-

ever, Turner does not cite Mark 1:43 "and sternly warning

Him immediately He sent him out" as being adverbial even

though it appears to be used this way. Other passages in

Mark follow this pattern of kai> separated from eu]qu<j where

the eu]qu<j ought to be considered as an adverb of time

denoting immediacy.  Still other passages have eu]qu<j alone

as an adverb where immediacy is understood.³

          The use of kai> eu]qu<j which often occurs in Mark may

be like John's ou#n both of which are similar to the Hebrew

waw consecutive which often shows historical sequence or

transition.⁴

          If this is true, the proper translation in

Mark would be "and then," or "then." Yet, most of the

eu]qu<j passages imply by the context not only historical

sequence but immediacy as in the various healing miracles

of Christ. An example of this is found in Mark 1:42, "and

 

          ¹ Turner, Syntax, III, 229.

          ² Mk. 3:6; 5:42; 6:25, 54; 9:20.

          ³ Mk. 4:15, 16, 17; 4:29; 5:2; 9:24.

          ⁴ Bernard, John, I, 38.

                                  216

immediately the leprosy left him."  Both the sequence and

immediacy seem obvious. It may be true that in some

passages there is a primary emphasis on the sequence rather

than the immediacy of the event. In Mark 1:29 it is stated,

"and immediately after they had come out of the synagogue,

they came into the house of Simon and Andrew." Here it can

be argued that a small period of time elapsed between the

leaving of the synagogue and the entering of Simon's house.

Obviously kai> eu]qu<j is sometimes used as a conjunction. But

does this rule out the idea of immediacy from Mark's narra-

tive? If the trip from the synagogue to the home was short

and the only action, the concept of immediacy of time and

action can be maintained within the rules of language. A

complete examination of the uses of kai> eu]qu<j suggest that

Mark combined the idea of the Hebrew waw consecutive with

the immediacy of eu]qu<j to join two closely related events

in their proper sequence and show the immediacy of the time

relationship of the second to the first. A good illustration

of this is found when Herodias told Salome to ask for the

head of John the Baptist. Following this it is written,

"and immediately she came in haste before the king and

asked" (Mk. 5:25).

          In summarizing the use of eu]qe<wj and eu]qu<j it can

be stated that immediacy or near immediacy of time is

indicated between two actions when they are used as adverbs.

For this reason two basic ideas are conveyed in the possible

                                      217

translations. If the context demands immediacy, "at once"

or "immediately" are good translations. But if the verbal

action follows and is not necessarily instantaneous, per-

haps "forthwith" or "then" would convey better this idea.

These translations are accurate whether eu]qu<j is used as an

adverb or with a conjunction.

h@dh 

          The adverb h@dh usually translated "now," "already"

occurs in each of the Gospels and with the indicative mode

expressed or understood except in Luke 21:30 where it is

found in a o!tan clause with the subjunctive mode.  Each of

the major tenses except the future are used with the adverb.

This word always indicates time in the thirty-six distinct

uses in the Gospels.¹

          When used with the present tense h@dh can signify

action that has already taken place and is also true at the

present time as in Matthew 15:32, "they have remained with

Me now three days." At times it suggests what is true of

the present and perhaps of the immediate past, "Lord now (by

this time) the body is stinking" (Jn. 11:39). Sometimes it

refers to what is only currently present "Come, for every-

thing is read now" (Lk. 14:17).

          The imperfect tense is combined with h@dh in "the

 

          ¹ Thayer Lexicon, p. 276.

                                   218

boat was already many stadia away" (Mt. 14:24) showing a

condition that is true in the present and the immediate past.

Also it may indicate something only presently true, "it was

now about the sixth hour" (Lk. 23:44).

          However, the aorist tense and h@dh can look back to

the past referring to an event already completed in the past

as in "Elijah already came" (Mt. 17:12). Something that

happens in the near past and is true in the present such as

"he was dead by this time (already)" (Jn. 19:33) may also

use h@dh with the aorist. It can also express an event just

happening "when the day was now breaking" (Jn. 21:4).

          The perfect tense may refer to a past incident which

is true in the present "the Jews had already agreed" (Jn. 9:

22) or event completed in the immediate past, "all things

are now finished" (Jn. 19:28). At no time does the perfect

plus h@dh suggest an action taking place in the present time.

The translations of h@dh when found with a perfect verb

include "by this time" and "already."

          The construction of h@dh kai< is found only in John

9:27 and is translated "even now" signifying that which was

just done in the present.

          In summary, the uses of this adverb are confined to

three areas: (1) those contexts which indicate an action

completed in the past and true in the present; (2) the

passages which relate an action just completed which

obviously is also true in the present; (3) the constructions

                                      219

expressing an event just happening. The choice of transla-

tions between "now," "already," "by this time" is dependent

upon the context.

meta> tau?ta

          On fifteen occasions the Greek expression meta>

tau?ta is found in three Gospels signifying "in order of

time."¹  It is translated "after these things," "afterward,"

"after that" and "hereafter" in various versions. This

expression introduces action that is subsequent to the

activity of the preceding main clause. The time separating

the two actions may be only a few minutes, as in John 19:38

where the Roman soldiers pierce Jesus' side and "after this"

Joseph approaches Pilate for the release of the body. On

other occasions² the span of time may include minutes or

hours. In John five, Jesus healed a man on the Sabbath Day

and "afterward," apparently on the same day, Jesus meets the

man in the temple (v. 12).

          More often there is a lapse of days³ between events.

For example, when Zacharias received the revelation con-

cerning the birth of a son he completed his ministry and

went home. Then Luke 1:24 states, "and after these days

 

          ¹ Thayer, Lexicon, p. 404.

          ² Cf. Mk. 16:2; Lk. 5:27.

          ³ Lk. 10:1; 17:8; 18:4; Jn. 3:22; 21:1.

                                       220

Elizabeth his wife became pregnant." Obviously several days

passed from his revelation in the temple to the time of

Elizabeth's conception because he had to complete his

priestly duties and arrive home. In the Septuagint a

lengthy period also is seen in Exodus 3:20 where the Lord

promises to smite Egypt and "after this" Pharaoh would

release Israel.

          In some passages the time between events may be a

matter of months or an indefinite length of time as in John

7:1.¹  The events of chapter six take place in the spring

of the year near the Passover, whereas the time of chapter

seven is the fall, the Feast of Tabernacles. Verse one

provides a transition between the six months and it uses

meta> tau?ta.

          The neuter singular form meta> tou?to is only in John.

Of the four uses these two, John 11:11 and 19:38, indicate

a very brief interval of time. However, a lapse of days

takes place in John 2:12 and 11:7.

          In comparing the singular and the plural forms

there is no obvious reason for a preference in form. That

meta> tau?ta occurs more often follows the Greek pattern.

Both forms indicate events in order of time and indicate a

consecutive sequence which may be a short or large expanse

 

          ¹ Cf. Lk. 12:4; Jn. 5:1; 6:1; 13:7.

                                    221

of time separating the two actions. The subsequent action

always follows the meta> tau?ta or meta> tou?to and the context

determines the best translation.

nu?n

          An Often used word indicating present time is nu?n  

which is translated "now" in most Bibles. Though generally

speaking it is used to show present time as opposed to the

past, it does occur with differing senses in several expres-

sions and verb tenses. The adverb nu?n is found with the

present tense¹ and is used of that which will occur soon,

"now Lord you are letting thy bondservant depart in peace"

(Lk. 2:29), or what is present time, "Blessed are you who

hunger now" (Lk. 6:21) or a contemporary custom, "Now you

Pharisees clean the outside of the cup" (Lk. 11:39). When

nu?n is used with the aorist tense² it may refer to something

just completed, "you have now heard the blasphemy" (Mt. 26:

65) or which took place in the recent past, "Bring some of

the fish you have now caught" (Jn. 21:10).

          If the future tense is used, the nu?n indicates

things which are thought of as already begun to be done,

"Now the ruler of this world shall be cast down" (Jn. 12:31).

This is also suggested by the subjunctive mode in a third

 

          ¹ Lk. 2:29; 6:21, 25; 11:39; Jn. 12:31; 16:29.

          ² Mt. 26:65; Jn. 13:31; 21:10.

                                    222

class conditional sentence (Mk. 10:30). The imperfect

tense and nu?n show an event just recently completed as in

"Rabbi, the Jews were just now seeking to stone you" (Jn.

11:8). John uses the perfect tense four times¹ with nu?n

demonstrating an immediate present based on past activity.

The imperative mode,² on the other hand, marks the present

as the proper time to do something, "let Him now come down

from the cross" (Mt. 27:42).

          There are several instances where nu?n is combined

with another word usually indicating immediate present.

When the expression is nu?n de< "but now" there is a contrast

between the past and the immediate present, whether real or

unreal circumstances exist.³ However, on two occasions it

contrasts a past with a near future event (Jn. 16:5; 17:3).

Five times John⁴ uses kai> nu?n ”and now" to indicate the

immediate present as in, "for you have had five husbands;

and the one whom you now have. . . .  "Two other expres-

sions likewise indicate the immediate present. In John 9:

21 there is pw?j de< nu?n "but how he now sees." Later John

16:22 has ou#n nu?n me<n "therefore you too now have sorrow."

          The expression e!wj tou? nu?n in Matthew 24:21, "since

 

          ¹ Jn. 8:52; 12:27; 16:30; 17:7.

          ² Mt. 27:42, 43; Lk. 22:36.

          ³ Lk. 16:25; 19:42; Jn. 8:40; 9:41; 15:22, 24; 18:36.

          ⁴ Jn. 4:18, 23; 5:25; 14:29; 17:5.

                                      223

the beginning of the world until now," relates time up to

the present.  Luke uses the phrase a]po< tou? nu?n¹ indicating

time from the present into the future. In each instance it

is used with a future tense or a futuristic present. An

appropriate translation would be "from this time on," or

"from now on."

          In all passages where nu?n is found the present time

is in view and a contrast with some other time, whether past

or future, is implied.

o]pi<sw 

          Three times during the testimony of John the Baptist

concerning Jesus he employs the preposition o]pi<sw, "after,"

in a temporal sense. One comment is recorded in three

Gospels, "one mightier than I after me" (Mt. 3:11; Mk. 1:7;

Jn. 1:15). John also uses this word with the temporal idea

in 1:27 and 1:30. Most often in the Gospels o]pi<sw includes

a spatial concept which seems to be the most common under-

standing of the word. Only contextual evidence can decide

whether time or place is referred to. In these aforemen-

tioned verses the testimony given to Zacharias taught that

John was to be the temporal antecedent of Jesus to prepare

the people for the coming of the Lord (Lk. 1:17). Histori-

cally, Jesus came to be baptized after these statements of

 

          ¹ Lk. 1:48; 5:10; 12:52; 22:69.

                                       224

John but he never came to take a place behind John.

          Kendrick Grobel tries to show that Jesus assumed the

position of a disciple of John by asserting that Jesus

followed John in place rather than time.¹ He follows the

other usage of o]pi<sw which is spatial. He further maintains

that time would be indicated by meta< with the accusative.²

However, it must be recognized that John was a Jew who would

use o]pi<sw with its Septuagintal background. The Old Testa-

ment antecedent of o]pi<sw is  rHx and its derivatives. The

o]pi<sw in Ecclesiastes 10:14, "a man cannot tell what shall

be; and what shall be after him, who can tell him?", must

be temporal. Other passages also allow for the temporal

idea as in Genesis 17:8, "I will give to thee and to thy

seed after thee." It must be admitted that the temporal

use of o]pi<sw can be substantiated prior to John and al-

though some passages in the Gospels may have a spatial or

spatial-temporal idea, these uses of John can be and con-

textually must be temporal only.

pa<ntote  

          The adverb pa<ntote, occurs temporally nine times in

eight different locations, one of which has two parallel

readings. Thayer cites "at all times," "always," and

 

          ¹ Kendrick Grobel, "He That Cometh After Me,"

Journal of Biblical Literature, LX (1941), 397-401.

          ² Ibid., 398.

                                       225

ever"¹ as the best translations. The problem arises as to

whether the time is limitless, or is limited to this life

or to a given activity of this life.

          In most instances in the Gospels, pa<ntote does not

mean eternal. It refers to the length of time there will

be poor among the human race on the earth (Mt. 26:11).

Found twice in Luke's parables, it indicates the length of

time the elder son is with the father (15:31) and the amount

of time the disciples ought to pray (18:1). Both passages

in Luke teach that the time is no longer than a life time.

John 6:34 indicates that the people wanted bread from God

as long as (pa<ntote) they lived but this does not mean

eternally since the same ones rejected the Lord later in

the chapter. However, twice, in John 8:29 and 11:42, Jesus

speaks of "always" pleasing the Father and the Father

"always" hearing the Son. If these refer only to the time

when Jesus was on earth, they could not express limitless

time. However, since these statements about Jesus are

eternally true they appear to indicate limitless time. They

are the only two uses of pa<ntote that do.

          The final two instances are limited to smaller

periods of time as in John 7:6. Here, the brothers of Jesus

desire Him to go to Jerusalem. He replies it is not His

 

          ¹ Thayer, Lexicon, p. 476.

                                    226

time but "your time is always ready." The context indicates

there was "always" opportunity to go to the feast at Jeru-

salem. Of course, if they delayed too long the feast would

be over. Thus, pa<ntote though meaning "always" can be

greatly limited by its context. In John 18:20 Jesus replies

to the high priest's question, "I always taught in syna-

gogues and in the temple." This statement taken in context

limits the application of  pa<ntote to the time of Jesus

teaching, roughly three years. That is, when Jesus taught

in the synagogue or the temple He always gave His teaching

and the high priest should know what Jesus said. However,

it does not say that Jesus "always" taught in these places

and that He never gave any private teaching.

          Therefore, pa<ntote  should not be understood as "al-

ways" in the limitless sense of "eternal" or "forever." The

context in each instance indicates the extent of the always

to (1) a brief period of days (Jn. 1:6); (2) a period of

years (Jn. 8:29); (3) a lifetime (Lk. 15:31); and (4)

possibly the length of human history (Mt. 26:11 et passim

pote<

          The word pote< occurs only twice in the Gospels,

Luke 22:32 and John 9:13, but about twenty-five times in

the Epistles. As an enclitic particle of time it has an

indefinite meaning of "at anytime," "at some time," "once,"

                                     227

and "formerly."¹ In the Septuagint it is used most often

in the construction mh<pote . When used of time that is past

it is translated "once," "formerly" (at some time or

another) but when used of a time that is future it should

be translated "when.”² The healing of the man born blind

is found in John nine. In this context the Pharisees bring

the healed man to the temple and he is referred to as to>n

pote< tuflo<n. Since the time of his blindness is past, the

correct translation must be "the one formerly blind." How-

ever, in Luke 22:32, Jesus refers to a future repentance of

Peter and the best translation of pote< is "when." Both

translations are imprecise as to a specific time but one is

found in a past context and one is future. A parallel

illustration to Luke 22:32 can be found in Joshua 22:28,

"It shall be, when they say so to us," speaking of a future

time.

pri<n 

          The adverb pri<n occurs seven times in the Gospels

and is translated "before" each time. In Classical Greek

"in Homer pri<n appears as an adverb, as a conjunction, as a

quasi conjunction."³ Most frequently it occurs with an

 

          ¹ Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, p. 530.

          ² Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon, p. 701.

          ³ Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve, "On PRIN in the Attic

Orators," American Journal of Philology, II (1881), 469.

                                   228

aorist infinitive if the notion is only and necessarily

"before" and not "until."¹ "Homer has it 81 times with the

infinitive, six with subjunctive, once with the opt. and not

at all with the indicative."² It is not surprising then

that pri<n occurs six of the seven times with the aorist

infinitive. Although pri<n is an adverb it carries the force

of a conjunction when used with the infinitive and indicates

things past (it. 1:18; Jn. 8:58) or things future (Mt. 26:

34, 75; Jn. 4:49; 14:29). Only in Luke 2:26 are pri<n a@n  

and the subjunctive found together and they express what was

from the point of view of the original statement a future or

unrealized contingency. In this use pri<n really carries the

same translation and idea of pro<teron before, which indi-

cates antecedent time.

pro< 

          The  preposition pro< occurs by itself eleven times

in the Gospels and, always being translated "before," it

shows time that is antecedent. On several occasions pro< is

used to indicate a distinction of time between two or more

individuals (Mt. 5:12; Jn. 5:7; 10:8). It is used by the

Pharisees who accused the disciples of not washing cere-

monially "before the meal" (Lk. 11:38). It also shows the

 

          ¹ Ibid., 476.

          ² Robertson, Grammar, p. 977.

                                  229

sequence of two events that were yet future (Lk. 21:12).

Most often pro< can be found with words indicating a partic-

ular time such as "before the time" (Mt. 8:29), "before the

flood" (Mt. 24:38), "before the Passover" (Jn. 11:55; 12:1;

13:1) and "before the foundation of the world." It is

clear from these uses that no length of time is indicated

by the pro< but rather antecedent time. This use of pro<

should not be confused with the Hebraism pro< prosw<pou  

which is also translated "before" but indicates place.

          The unusual construction in John 12:1, pro< e!c

h[merw?n tou? pa<sxa.  It is "six days before the Passover," needs

further examination. It is the only use of pro< with a

numeral in the Gospels. Though grammarians attribute this

to a Latin idiom, Moulton demonstrates that similar idioms

did appear in Doric and Ionic prior to the time of the New

Testament.¹ It is more likely that this is a coincidence

with the Latin. It may be that this construction is "a

natural devielopment from the ablative case with 'starting

from'."²

          There is one good illustration of this construction

in Josephus, “pro> mia?j h[me<raj th?j e[orth?j."  The entire

passage is translated as follows: "and one day before a

 

          ¹ James Hope Moulton, Prolegomena 3rd ed. (Edinburgh:

T. & T. Clark, 1919), pp. 100-01.

          ² Robertson, Grammar, p. 622.

                                      230

festival the treasurers would go to the commander of the

Roman garrison and, after inspecting their own seal, would

take the robe."¹ This seems to indicate that the first day

prior to the festival is the day indicated. If this is true

in John 12:1, the reckoning of the six days begins with the

first day preceding tou? pasxa.  Since pa<sxa can refer to

the day the lamb was slain, Nisan fourteenth, and also the

day it was eaten, Nisan fifteenth, the sixth day prior to

this would be either Nisan eighth or ninth. Without further

clarification in the text it is impossible to determine which

day is meant or which day of the week is meant. Only the

coming of Jesus to Bethany six days prior to pa<sxa is

certain.

pro<teron  

          The neuter comparative form of the preposition

is pro<teron which is found only in John and occurs as an

adverb indicating "earlier," "formerly," "in former times."²

There seem to be two basic uses: (1) to indicate something

prior to something else that is done (Jn. 7:50), and (2) to

contrast the past with the present (Jn. 6:62; 9:8). In none

of these uses does pro<teron have an expressed object. It

merely indicates a time earlier than the present moment.

 

          ¹ Josephus Antiquities 15. 408.

          ² Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon, p. 729.

                                    231

to<te  

          The temporal adverb to<te translated "then," "at that

time" occurs well over one hundred times not including the

parallel passages. It is used extensively in Matthew as a

connective particle to indicate the chronological sequence

of events. Theodor Zahn summarizes the use of to<te:

                    The commonest formula for the continuation of the

          narrative is to<te, which is used in Matt. some ninety

          times in all. This usage is quite unknown in Mark,

          nor is it exactly parallel in Luke and John, for in

          Luke . . . to<te signifies 'at that moment,' immedi-

          ately after the occurrence of what has just been re-

          lated,  in reality; 'thereupon'; so also to<te ou#n

          . . . , uses the word sometimes to denote immediate

          sequence . . . , but very often, also, as an indefinite

          term for approximate correspondence in time, where

          there is no single preceding incident which leads up to

          the account that follows . . . , so that the phrase

          does not differ appreciably from e]n e]kei<n& t&? kair&?

         . . . ¹

 However, it does not of itself specify a definite point in

time.

          As stated above the most frequent use of to<te is to

denote the chronological sequence of events. This may indi-

cate which are removed from each other by an extended

period of time. For example, Jesus ate in the house of

Matthew with sinners and on this occasion gave a discourse.

Immediately following this discourse Matthew 9:14 has to<te 

introducing the statement that the disciples of John came

          ¹ Theodor Zahn, Introduction, trans. by M. W.

Jacobus, II (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1953), 591-

92.

                                          232

to Jesus who was not in Matthew's house. How long a period

of time elapsed is unspecified. Another example showing a

period of time between events coupled by to<te is found in

Matthew 27:58. Here, Joseph asks for the body of Jesus and

then (to<te) Pilate ordered it given to Joseph. The other

Gospels prove that many events, taking perhaps nearly an

hour, occurred between these events.

          Sometimes to<te is used to introduce new subject

matter as in Matthew 15:1, "Then some Pharisees and scribes

came to Jesus." It is clear that to<te does introduce a

subsequent event but that event does not immediately follow

in time the event which precedes.

          Quite often to<te does introduce an event that

follows a preceding event immediately as to time. This may

occur at the beginning of a verse as in Matthew 26:65 or

within the verse as in "And He said to them, . .          then

He arose" (Mt. 8:26). The use of to<te to show consecutive

sequence, whether immediate or non-immediate, occurs most

often with the aorist tense. The translation "then" is

suitable providing it is understood that the context alone

indicates the time rather than to<te.  It is important to

observe that the parallel accounts often do not use to<te

but de< and kai<.  This further suggests that to<te is not

as much an indicator of time as it is of sequence.

          A further use of to<te occurs with the future tense.

In this instance the to<te introduces a future action when

                                     233

the thing under discussion will take place. The eschata-

logical passages in Matthew twenty-four and twenty-five

have many uses of this construction. The translation of

to<te could better be "at that time." Again the to<te sepa-

rates the two future events as to sequence and time.¹

          Another use of to<te is found with events that are

taking place at the same time and are concomitant events.

For example, when Herod slew the infants in Bethlehem,

Matthew records, "then (to<te) that which was spoken through

Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled" (Mt. 2:17). Obviously

there was no time lapse between the slaying and the fulfill-

ment of Jeremiah's prophecy. The slaying and the fulfilling

were at the same time. Perhaps it would be best to under-

stand this use of to<te as indicating logical sequence in a

manner similar to the Hebrew waw consecutive.

          The adverb to<te on a few occasions combines with

to form a]po> to<te which is translated "from that time on."²

The use of a]po< showing source together with to<te showing

point in time following the preceding action contrasts that

which precedes the a]po> to<te to that which follows.

          In summary, to<te, "then," is a connective particle

used to introduce a subsequent event. It is often used in

 

          ¹ Cf. for frequent use of this, see Mt. 24:9, 10, 14,

21, 23, 30, 40 and Mt. 25 passim.

          ² Mt. 4:17; 16:21; 26:16; Lk. 16:16.

                                         234

a narrative to show sequence that may or may not immediately

follow the preceding event.  While most of the events are

past, it is sometimes used to show the sequence of future

events and thus it has the translation "at that time." It

is the context, not to<te that indicates the time of the

subsequent event. In parallel accounts kai> and de< are often

used instead of to<te.  This further suggests that to<te has

the sequential function of the Hebrew waw conversive. The

a]po> to<te introduces subsequent time and is translated "from

that time on."

 

                                CHAPTER IX

 

                SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

 

          The events during the ministry of the Lord took

place in time and it is only natural that many expressions

of time occur throughout the Gospels. These temporal

expressions are conveyed either by word meaning or grammar.

While the expressions were familiar to those in the first

century, they may be misinterpreted. Most temporal expres-

sions are not explicit. In addition, there is a definite

lack of knowledge about the first century dating concepts.

To apply contemporary methods and expressions of reckoning

time to the Gospel era adds further confusion. The time

related in the Gospels must be interpreted through its own

history and contextual setting.

          The clearest way of communicating time is by the

use of time words. To the people of Palestine many words

were commonly used day after day to record the passing of

time. These words include year, month, week, day, hour and

feast (Chapter II). The meaning and use of these words are

obvious most of the time. However, these words have other

meanings which on some occasions produce problems in under-

standing the specific meaning in a particular passage.

          Three words—ai]w<n, kairo<j and xro<noj--are used to

indicate time unspecified (Chapter III). That is, these

                                            235

                                         236

words express extra-calendar time even though they may refer

to an historical event. Each word occurs with several

phrases or expressions. A single common translation is

consequently not possible. Each context must determine the

time and duration intended in order to set forth the proper

translation.

          There are a number of words which express time

during a year--year, month, week, tomorrow and yesterday--

(Chapter IV). Though the words often have more than one

meaning, the context usually indicates the correct meaning.

The meanings are basically the same as those in the Septua-

gint and early Greek.

          The day was the most natural way to relate events

to history. It is not surprising that the day and its many

subdivisions are used most often for this purpose (Chapter

V). There is a diversity of meanings for these words but

the contextual evidence makes these meanings clear. Most

often the time indicated is not a specific point in time

during a day but is an approximation of time.

          In addition to words for time there are also gram-

matical means to indicate time. These ideas are not only

conveyed by the words themselves but by the construction of

the grammar. One such grammatical method of expressing time

is through the temporal infinitive (Chapter VI). The time

expressed is relative since the purpose of tense with the

infinitive is to relate kind of action. The present tense

                                       237

indicates continuing action and the aorist indefinite action.

The action off the infinitive can be antecedent, simultaneous

or subsequent in time to the action of the leading verb.

It is the use of the preposition with the infinitive that

signifies the temporal relationship between the infinitive

and the main verb.

          The Greek adverbial participle (Chapter VII)

especially in the present and aorist tenses can be used to

express a time relationship with the leading verb. This is

also true of the genitive absolute. When a participle is

used temporally, can only be determined from the context.

Usually the present participle shows simultaneous action

and the aorist participle antecedent action. In some

instances the context suggests other action.

          Many conjunctions and adverbs also were employed to

express time with the clauses (Chapter VIII). The temporal

conjunctions introduce dependent temporal clauses which may

be simultaneous, subsequent or antecedent to the main verb.

The adverbs some of which are actually improper preposi-

tions, indicate time relationships within a clause. These

conjunctions and adverbs express many time relationships in

the Gospels but they have no importance for historical

calendar dating.

          Several conclusions are evident. The meanings and

uses of time words in the Gospels follow the earlier Greek

and the Septuagint. There can be no doubt that Hebrew

                                         238

thinking and linguistic patterns had some influence upon

the Gospel writers. For example, the use of B; with the

Hebrew infinitive is translated into Greek by e]n t&? and the

Greek infinitive. Also, the Hebrew Sabbath gave form and

meaning to the Greek sa<bbaton.  How extensive this Hebrew

influence was cannot be ascertained.

          It also appears that the Jewish system of reckoning

time used the same basic terms that were found throughout

the Roman Empire. There is as much knowledge of the Jewish

system as there is of the Roman method and both systems were

adequate for the common people.

          In considering all the expressions of time it

appears that the time indications were a complementary part

rather than a major portion of the message. The inability

to develop a specific chronological diary of the events in

the Gospels should not be taken as a shortcoming of the

writers. It is more an indication that the purpose of the

Gospels was centered in the message. Though the events took

place in time, the Gospels are not time-centered. Instead

of being concerned when the events happened, it is important

to recognize that they happened. Anyone writing of these

same events today would no doubt interweave expressions of

time which would result in similar problems of chronological

interpretation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                     BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

                              BIBLIOGRAPHY

                                       Books

Abbott, Edwin A. Johannine Grammar. London: Adam and

          Charles Black, 1906.

_______. Johannine Vocabulary. London: Adam and Charles

          Black, 1905.

Aland, Kurt; Black, Matthew; Metzger, Bruce; and Wikgren,

          Alan. The Greek New Testament. Stuttgart, Germany:

          Wurttemberg Society, 196o.

Alford, Henry. The Greek New Testament. 4 vols. London:

          Rivingtons, 1874.

Allen, Hamilton Ford. The Use of the Infinitive in Polybius 

          Compared with the Use of the Infinitive in Biblical

          Greek. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1907.

Allen, Willeughby C. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary

          of the Gospel According to St. Matthew. Edinburgh:

          T. & T. Clark, 1965.

American Standard Version of the Holy Bible. Camden, N.J.:

          Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1901.

Andrews, Samuel James. The Life of Our Lord Upon the Earth.

          New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1899.

Arndt, William F. and Gingrich, F. Wilbur. A Greek English

          Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

          Literature. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,

          1957.

Bailey, John Amedee. The Traditions Common to the Gospels 

          of Luke and John. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1963.

Barr, James. Biblical Words for Time. London: SCM Press

          Ltd., 1961.

_______. The Semantics of Biblical Language. London:

          Oxford University Press, 1961.

                                          240

                                     241

Barrett, C. K. The Gospel According to St. John. New York:

          MacMillan and Company, 1955.

Bernard, J. H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the 

          Gospel according to St. John. 2 vols. Edinburgh:

          T. & T. Clark, 1962.

Bickerman, Elias J. Chronology of the Ancient World.

          Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1968.

Black, Matthew. An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and

          Acts. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1967.

_______. The Scrolls and Christian Origins. New York:

          Scribner's Sons, 1961.

Blass, Friedrich and Debrunner, Albert. A Grammar of the  

          New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature.

          Edited and Revised by Robert J. Funk. Chicago: Univer-

          sity of Chicago Press, 1967,

Boman, Thorlief. Hebrew Thought Compared With Greek. Trans-

          lated by J. Moreau. Philadelphia: Westminister Press,

          1960.

Brabant, Frank Herbert. Time and Eternity in Christian

          Thought. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1937.

Brandon, Samuel G. F. History, Time and Deity. New York:

          Barnes and Noble, 1965.

_________. Time and Mankind. London: Hutchinson and Co.,

          1951.

Burton, Ernest DeWitt. New Testament Word Studies. Chicago:

          University of Chicago Press, 1927.

_________. Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament 

          Greek. Chicago: University Press in Chicago, 1897.

Burton, Ernst DeWitt and Goodspeed, Edgar Johnson. A

          Harmony of the Synoptic Gospels in Greek. Chicago:

          University of Chicago Press, 1947.

Buttmann, Alexander. A Grammar of the New Testament Greek.

          Andover: Warren F. Draper, 1880.

Cadbury, H. J. The Style and Literary Method of Luke.

                                          242

          Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1920.

Caird, George B. The Apostolic Age. London: Duckworth,

          1955.

Caspari, Christian Edward. A Chronological and Geographical 

          Introduction to the Life of Christ. Edinburgh: T. &

          Clark, 1876.

Clement of Alexandria. "The Stromata, or Miscellanies,"

          The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. II. Grand Rapids: Wm.

          B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951.

Colwell, Ernest Cadman. The Greek of the Fourth Gospel.

          Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1931.

Cremer, Herrhann. Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testa-

          ment Greek. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1954.

Cullmann, 0scar. Christ and Time. Translated by F. B.

          Filson. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1950.

Curtius, Georg. Principles of Greek Etymology. Translated

          by A. S. Wilkins and E. E. England. 2 vols. London:

          John Murray, 1886.

Dalman, Gustaf Hermann. Jesus-Jeshua, Studies in the 

          Gospels. Translated by F. P. Levertoff. New York: The

          Macmillan Company, 1929.

Dana, H. E. and Mantey, Julius R. A Manual Grammar of the

          Greek New Testament. New York: The Macmillan Company,

          1927.

Daniel-Rope, Henri. Daily Life in the Time of Jesus.

          Translated by Patrick O'Brian. New York: Mentor-Omega

          Books, 1962.

Deismann, Adolf. Light From the Ancient East. Grand

          Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965.

Denniston, J. D. The Greek Particles. Oxford: At the

          Clarendon Press, 1954.

Doudna, John Charles. The Greek of the Gospel of Mark.

          Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature and

          Exegess, 1961.

                                         243

Edersheim, Alfred. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.

          2 vols. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing

          Company, 1959.

________.  The Temple its Ministry and Services. Grand

          Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1958.

Epstein, Isidore, ed. The Babylonian Talmud. Vol. X.

          London: Sonsino Press, 1938.

Farmer, William H. Synopticon. Cambridge: At the Univer-

          sity Press, 1969.

Farrar, Fredick W. The Life of Christ. London: Cassell

          and Co. Ltd., 1963.

Finegan, Jack. Handbook of Biblical Chronology. Princeton:

          Princeton University Press, 1964.

_________.  Light From the Ancient Past. New York: Princeton

          University Press, 1946.

Finkelstein, Louis. The Pharisees. 2 vols. Philadelphia:

          Jewish Publication Society of America, 1940.

Frame, James Everett. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary

          on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians. New

          York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1912.

Geldenhuys, Norval. Commentary on the Gospel of Luke.

          Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1954.

Gildersleeve, Basil Lanneau. Syntax of Classical Greek From

          Homer to Demosthenes. 2 vols. New York: American Book

          Company, 1900.

Girdlestone, Robert Baker. Synonyms of the Old Testament.

          2nd ed. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing

          Company, 1953.

Goetchius, Eugene Van Ness. The Language of the New Testa-

          ment. New York: Charles Scribner's sons, 1965.

Goguel, Naurice. The Life of Jesus. Translated by O. .Wyon.

          New York: Macmillan, 1944.

Goodspeed, Edgar J. Problems of New Testament Translation.

          Chicago University of Chicago Press, 1945.

                                              244

Goodwin, Wiliam Watson. Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of

          the Greek Verb. New York: St. Hartin's Press, 1965.

Gould, Exra.P. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the 

          Gospel According; to St. Mark. Edinburgh: T. & T.

          Clark, 1961.

Green, Samuel G. Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek

          Testament. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1912.

Greenstone Julius H. Jewish Feasts and Fasts. New York:  

          Bloch Publishing Company, 1946.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction, The Gospels 

          and Acts. Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1966.

Hatch, Edwin and Redpath, Henry A. A Concordance to the 

          Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old 

          Testament. 2 vols. Graz, Aust.: Akademische Druck,

          1954.

Hendriksen, William. New Testament Commentary, Exposition

          of the Gospel According to John. 2 vols. Grand

          Rapids: Baker Book house, 1953.

Herodotus. Translated by A. D. Godley. 4 vols. London:

          William Heinemann, 1920-26.

Higgins, A.J.E. The Lord's Supper in the New Testament.

          London: SCX Press Ltd., 1952.

Hill, David. Greek Words and Hebrew Meaning. Cambridge:

          At the University Press, 1967.

Huck, Albert. Synopsis of the First Three Gospels. Oxford:

          Blackwell, 1908.

Irenaeus. "Irenaeus Against Heresies," The Ante-Nicene

          Fathers. Vol. I. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans

          Publishing Company, 1950.

Jannaris, A. N. An Historical Greek Grammar. London:

          Macmillan and Company, Limited, 1897.

Jaubert, Annie. The Date of the Last Supper. Translated

          by Isaac Rafferty. Staten Island, N.Y.: Alba House,

          1965.

                                       245

Jelf, William Edward. A Grammar of the Greek Language.

          2 vols. London: James Parker and Company, 1806.

Jeremias, Joachim. The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. Trans-

          lated by A. Ehrhardt. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1955.

Josephus. Translated by H. St. John Thackeray and R. Marcus.

          8 vols.  London: William Heinemann, 1926-65.

Keil, Carl Fredrich. The Twelve Minor Prophets. 2 vols.

          Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1868.

Kennedy, Harry A. A. Sources of N.T. Greek. Edinburgh:

          T. & C. Clark, 1895.

Kittel, Gerhard and Friedrich, Gerhard, eds. Theological 

          Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by G. W.

          Bromiley.18 vols. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans

          Publishing Company, 1964-72.

Kittle, Rudolph, ed. Biblia Hebraica. Stuttgart, Germany:

          Bibelanstalt, 1937.

Klijn, A.F.J. An Introduction to the New Testament.

          Leiden: E. J. frill, 1967.

Koehler, Ludwig and Baumgartner, Walter, eds. Lexicon in

          Veteris Testamenti Libros. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1958.

Kuhner, Raphael. Grammar of the Greek Language. Translated

          by B. B. Edwards and S. H. Taylor. New York: D.

          Appleton and Company, 1879.

Lenski, R.C.J. The Interpretation of St. John's Gospel.

          Minneapolis: The Augsburg Publishing House, 1964.

________. The Interpretation of St. Luke's Gospel.

          Minneapolis: The Augsburg Publishing House, 1964.

________ The Interpretation of St. Mark's Gospel.

          Minneapolis: The Augsburg Publishing house, 1964.

_________. The Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel.

          Minneapolis: The Augsburg Publishing House, 1964.

Liddell, George Henry and Scott, Robert. A Greek-English 

          Lexicons. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1940.

Lightfoot,  H. St. John's Gospel. Oxford: The Clarendon

                                               246

          Press, 1956.

Machen, J. Gresham. New Testament Greek For Beginners.

          New York: The Macmillan Company, 1942.

Mansoor, Menahem. The Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids: Wm.

          B. Eerdmans, 1964.

Marsh, John. The Fulness of Time. New York: Harper and

          Brothers Publishers, 1952.

________. The Gospel of St. John. Baltimore: Penguin

          Books, 1968.

Mavdig, J. N. Syntax of the Greek Language Especially of 

          the Attic Dialect. Translated by H. Browne. London:

          Rivingtons, 1873.

Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm. Critical and Exegetical 

          Handbook, to the Gospel of John. Translated by F.

          Crombie. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, Publishers, 1884.

_________. Critical and Exegetical Hand-book to the Gospel 

          of Matthew. Translated by 2. Crombie. New York: Funk

          Wagnalls, Publishers, 1884.

Mickelsen, A, Berkeley. Interpreting the Bible. Grand

          Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1963.

Momigliano, Arnaldo. "Time in Ancient Historiography,"

          History and the Concept of Time. Edited by George H.

          Nadel. Middleton, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press,

          1966.

Morgenstern Irvin. The Dimensional Structure of Time.

          New Yor : Philosophical Library, 1960.

Morgenthale, Robert. Statistik des neutestamentlichen

          Wortschties. Zurich: Gotthelr Verlag, 1953.

Moule, C.F.. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek.

          Cambridge: At the University Press, 1953.

Moulton, James Hope. Prolegomena. Vol. I of A Grammar of

          New Testament Greek. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,

          1919.

Moulton, James Hope and Howard, Wilbert Francis. Accidence

                                               247

          and Word Formation. Vol. II of A Grammar of New Testa-

          ment Greek. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1929.

Moulton, James Hope and Milligan, George. The Vocabulary

          of the Greek Testament Illustrated From the Papyri and

          Other Non-Literary Sources. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.

          Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1963.

Moulton, F. and Geden, A. S. A Concordance to the Greek

          Testament. 4th ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963.

Nestle, D.Eberhard, ed. Novum Testamentum Graece.

          Stuttgart: Wurttembargische Bibelanstalt, 1950.

New  American Standard Bible New Testament. Chicago: Moody

          Press, 1960.

Nichol, Francis D., ed. Seventh Day Adventist Commentary.

          8 vols. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing

          Association, 1956.

Ogg, George. Chronology of the Public Ministry of Jesus.

          Cambridge: At the University Press, 1940.

Parker, Richard A. and Dubberstein, Waldo H. Babylonian 

          Chronology,  626 B.C. - A.D. 75. Providence, R.I.:

          Brown university Press, 1956.

Philostratus. Life of Apollonius. Translated by F. C.

          Conybeare.  2 vols. London: dilliam Heinemann Ltd.,

          1960.

Pieritz, G. Wildon. The Gospels From a Rabbinical Point

          of View. London: James Parker and Company, 1873.

Pliny. Natural History. Translated by H. Rackham. 10

          vols. London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1949.

Plummer, Alfred. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on

          the Gospel According to S. Luke. Edinburgh: T. & T.

          Clark, 1964.

Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta. 2 vols. Stuttgart:

          Wurttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1962.

Richardson, Alan. A Theological Word Book of the Bible.

          New York: Macmillan, 1956.

                                         248

Robertson, Archibald Thomas. A Grammar of the Greek New

          Testament in the Light of Historical Research.

          Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934.

________. A Harmony of the Gospels. New York: Harper and

          Brothers, 1922.

__________. Word Pictures in the New Testament. Vol. I.

          Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930.

Robinson, Joan Arthur Thomas. In the End, God. New York:

          Harper and Row, 1968.

Robison, Henry Barton. Syntax of the Participle in the 

          Apostolic Fathers. Chicago: University of Chicago

          Press, 1913.

Ruckstuhl, Eugen. Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus.

          Translated by V. Drapela. New York: Desclee Company,

          Inc., 1965.

Scroggie, W. Graham. A Guide to the Gospels. London:

          Pickerin and Inglis Ltd., 1940.

Sharp, Douglas S. Epictetus and the New Testament. London:

          Charles H. Kelly, 1914.

Smith, David. The Days of His Flesh. London: Hodder and

          Stoughton, 1910.

Smyth, Herbert Weir. Greek Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.:

          Harvard University Press, 1966.

Sophocles, A. Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Bysantine 

          Periods  (from B.C. 146 to A:D. 1100). 2 vols. New

          York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Company, En.d.l.

Stegenga, J.  The Greek-English Analytical Concordance of 

          the Greek-English New Testament. Grand Rapids:

          Zondervan Publishing House, 1963.

Strong, Augustus H. Systematic Theology. Philadelphia:

          The Judson Press, 1907.

Stuart, Moses. Grammar of the New Testament Dialect.

          Andover; Allen and Morrill, 1841.

Swete, Henry Barclay. An Introduction to the Old Testament 

                                             249

          in Greek. New York: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1968.

Taylor, Vinbent. The Gospel According to St. Mark. 2nd ed.

          New York: St. Martin's Press, 1966.

Thackeray, Henry St. John. A Grammar of the Old Testament 

          in Greek According to the Septuagint. Vol. I.

          Cambridge: At the university Press, 1909.

_________.  Lexicon to Josephus. Paris: Librarie Oriental-

          ists Paul Geuthner, 1930.

Thayer, Joseph Henry. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New

          Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House,

          1962.

Thiele, Edwin H. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings.

          Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,

          1965.

Thrall, Margaret E. Greek Particles in the New Testament.

          Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1962.

Trench, Richard Chenevix. Synonyms of the New Testament.

          Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1953.

Turner, Nigel, Syntax. Vol. III of A Grammar of New Testa-

          ment Greek_I. Edited by James Hope Moulton. 3 vols.

          T. & T. C ark, 1919-63.

Votaw, Clyde. W.  The Use of the Infinitive in Biblical

          Greek. Chicago: Published by the author, 1896.

Westcott, Brooke Foss. An Introduction to the Study of the

          Gospels.  New York: E. P. Dutton and Company, 1875.

________. The Gospel According to John. London: John

          Murray, 1892.

Wilch, John  Time and Event. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1969.

Winer, George B. A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testa-

          ment. 7th ed. Andover: Barren F. Draper, 1877.

Xenophon. Anabasis. Translated by Carleton L. Brownson.

          2 vols. London: William Heinemann, 1920.

Zahn, Theodor. Introduction to the New Testament. 3 vols.

          Translated  by M. W. Jacobus. Grand Rapids: Kregel

                                                 250

          Publications, 1953.

Zerwick, Maximillian. Biblical Greek Illustrated by

          Example. Translated by Joseph Smith. Rome: Scripta

          Pontificii Instituti Biblici, 1963.

 

                               Periodicals and Articles

Aldrich, J. K. "The Crucifixion on Thursday Not Friday."

          Bibliotheca Sacra, XXVII (July, 1870), 401-29.

Amadon, Grace. "Ancient Jewish Calendation." Journal of

          Biblical Literature, LXI (1942), 227-79.

________. "The Crucifixion Calendar." Journal of Biblical 

          Literature, LXIII (1944), 177-90.

Bainton, R. H. "Basilidian Chronology and New Testament

          Interpretation." Journal of Biblical Literature, XLII

          (1923); 81-134.

Ballentine William G. "Predicate Participles With Verbs

          in the Aorist." Bibliotheca Sacra, CLXIV (October,

          1884), 787-99.

Barnes, Timothy D. "Date of Herod's Death." Journal of

          Theological Studies, XIX (April, 1968), 204-09.

Barton, George A. "The Exegesis of e]niauto<j in Galatians

          4:10 and its Bearing on the Date of the Epistles."

          Journal of Biblical Literature, XXXIII (1914), 118-26.

________. "Origin of Discrepancy Between the Synoptists

          and the Fourth Gospel as to the Date and Character of

          Christ's Last Supper With His Disciples." Journal of 

          Biblical Literature, XLIII (January, 1924), 28-31.

Beckwith, Roger T. "The Day, Its Divisions and Its Limits,

          In Biblical Thought." The Evangelical Quarterly, XLIII

          (October 1971), 218-27.

Bolling, George Melville. "Beginning of the Greek Day."

          The American Journal of Philology, XXIII (1902), 428-35.

_______. "The Participle in Hesiod." Catholic University 

          Bulletin III (October, 1897), 421-71.

                                         250b

Brown, Raymond E. "Problem of Historicity in John."

          Catholic Bible Quarterly, XXIV (January, 1962), 1-14.

Cadbury, Henry J. "Some Lukan Expressions of Time."

          Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXXII (September,

          1963), 72-78.

Caspari, Charles. "The Date of the Passion of Our Lord."

          Bibliotheca Sacra, XXVIII (July, 1871), 469-84.

Chavel, Charles B. "Releasing a Prisoner on the Eve of the

          Passover." Journal of Biblical Literature, LX (1941),

          273-78.

Christie, W. M. "Did Christ Eat the Passover with His

          Disciples? Or, The Synoptics Versus John's Gospel."

          Expository Times, XLIII (August, 1932), 515-19.

Coleman, L. "Christian Sabbath." Bibliotheca Sacra, I

          (1844)1; 526-52.

Cox, Samuel, ed. "Before the Feast of the Passover." The

          Expositor, XI (1880), 475-80.

Danby, Herbert. "The Bearing of the Rabbinical Code on

          the Jewish Trial Narratives in the Gospels." The

          Journal of Theological Studies, XXI (October, 1919),

          51-76.

"Day." Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesias-

          tical Literature. 1894, II.

                                     251

Delling, Gerhard. "kairo<j." Theological Dictionary of  

          the New Testament. Vol. III.

________. "mh<n." Theological Dictionary of the New Testa-

          ment. Vol. IV.

Doyle, A. D. "Pilate's Career and Date of the Crucifixion."

          Journal of Theological Studies, XLII (1942), 190-93.

Feinberg, Charles Lee. "Sabbath and the Lord's Day."

          Bibliotheca Sacra, LXXLXV (April, 1938), 172-94.

Filmer, W. E. "Chronology of the Reign of Herod the Great."

          Journal of Theological Studies, XVII (October, 1966),

          283-98.

Fotheringham, J. K. "Astronomical Evidence for the Date of

          the Crucifixion." The Journal of Theological Studies,

          XII (October, 1910), 120-27.

________ "The Evidence of Astronomy and Technical Chron-

          ology for the Date of the Crucifixion." The Journal of 

          Theological Studies, XXXV (April, 1934), 146-62.

Fuchs, Ernst. "sh<meron." Theological Dictionary of the 

          New Testament. Vol. VII. 26-9-75.

Geraty, Lawrence T. "The Pascha and the Origin of Sunday

          Observance." Andrews University Seminary Studies, III

          (July, 1965), 85-96.

Gildersleeve, Basil Lanneau. "On  PRIN in the Attic

          Orators." American Journal of Philology, II (1881),

          465-83.

Gilmore, A. "Date and Significance of the Last Supper."

          Scottish Journal of Theology, XIV (September, 1961),

          256-69.

Gray, E. P. "Last Passover and Harmonies." Bibliotheca 

          Sacra, LI (April, 1894), 339-46.

Grobel, Kendrick. "He That Cometh After Me." Journal of 

          Biblical Literature, LX (1941), 397-401.

Hitchcock, F. R. Montgomery. "Dates." A Dictionary of 

          Christ and the Gospels. Vol. I.

                                      252

Hughes, Philip E. "Time, Progress and Eternity." Evangel-

          ical Quarterly, XIX (January, 1947), 21-41.

Jenni, E. "Time." The Interpreter's Dictionary of the 

          Bible. IV.

Jeremias, Joachim. "The Last Supper." The Journal of

          Theological Studies, L (January, 1949), 1-10.

Jones, R. G. "The Time of the Death and Resurrection of

          Jesus Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra, LI (July, 1894),

          505-11.

Kraft, Robert A. "Some Notes on Sabbath Observance in Early

          Christianity." Andrews University Seminary Studies,

          III (January, 1965), 18-33.

Landes, George. "Three Days and Three Nights Motif in

          Jonah 2:1." Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXXVI

          (December, 1967), 446-50.

Lewis, Richard B. "Ignatius and the Lord's Day." Andrews  

          University Seminary Studies, VI (January, 1968), 46-59.

Lohse, Eduard. "sa<bbaton.” Theological Dictionary of the 

          New Testament. Vol. VII.

Lowe, Raphael. "Jerome's Rendering of MlAOf." Hebrew

          Union College Annual, XXII (1949), 25-306.

Mahoney, Aidan. "A New Look at the Third Hour of Mark 15:

          25." Catholic Bible Quarterly, XXVIII (July, 1966),

          292-99.

Manek, Jindrick. "The Biblical Concept of Time and Our

          Gospels." New Testament Studies, VI (October, 1959),

          45-51.

Mann, C. S. "Chronology of the Passion and the Qumran

          Calendar." Church Quarterly Review, CLX (October,

          1959), 446-56.

Montefiore, Hugh. "When Did Jesus Die?" Expository Times,

          CXXII (November, 1960), 53-54.

Morgenstern, Julian. "Additional Notes on Three Calendars

          of Ancient Israel." Hebrew Union College Annual, III

          (1926), 77-107.

                                   253

_________. "The Gates of Righteousness." Hebrew Union 

          College Annual, VI (1929), 1-37.

_________. "Supplementary Studies in the Calendars of

          Ancient Israel." Hebrew Union-College Annual, X

          (1935), 1-148.

Morgenstern, M. "The Calendar of the Book of Jubilees,

          Its Origin and Its Character." Vetus Testamentum, V

          (January, 1955), 37-63.

Muilenburg, James. "The Biblical View of Time." Harvard

          Theological Review, LIV (October, 1961), 225-52.

Murphy, J. C. "The Weekly Sabbath." Bibliotheca Sacra,

          XXIX (January, 1872), 74-113.

"Night." A Dictionary of the Bible Comprising. Its Antiqui-

          ties, Biography, Geography, and Natural History, 1906.

Ogg, George. "Chronology of the New Testament." The New 

          Bible Dictionary.

________. “A Note on Stromateis 144.1-146.4." Journal of 

          Theological Studies, XLVI (January, 1945), 59-63.

O'Herlihy, Donald J. "The Year of the Crucifixion."

          Catholic Bible Quarterly, VIII (July, 1946), 198-305.

Parker, Richard A. "Ancient Jewish Calendation: A Criti-

          cism." Journal of Biblical Literature, LXIII (1944),

          173-76.

Perry, A. N. "Jesus in Jerusalem, A Note on the Chronol-

          ogy." Journal of Biblical Literature, XLIII (January,

          1924), 15-21.

Power, E. "John 2, 20 and the Date of the Crucifixion."

          Biblica, IX (July, 1928), 257-88.

Power, Matthew A. "Nisan Fourteenth and Fifteenth in Gospel

          and Talmud." The American Journal of Theology, XXIV

          (April, 1920), 252-76.

Ramsay, William H. "Numbers, Hours, Years and Dates." A

          Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. V.

________. "The Sixth Hour." The Expositor, XVIII (June,

                                    254

          1896), 457-59.

Robinson, D.W.E. "The Date and Significance of the Last

          Supper." Evangelical Quarterly, XXIII (January, 1951),

          126-33.

Robinson, Edward. "The Alleged Discrepancy Between John

          and the Other Evangelists Respecting Our Lord's Last

          Passover." Bibliotheca Sacra, II (August, 1845), 405-

          46.

Sasse, Hermann. "ai]w<n." Theological Dictionary of the 

          New Testament. Vol. I.

Shea, William H. "The Sabbath in the Epistle of Barnabas."

          Andrews University Seminary Studies, IV (July, 1966),

          149-75.

Shepherd, Massey H. "Are Both the Synoptics and John

          Correct About the Date of Jesus' Death?" Journal of

          Biblical Literature, LXXX (June, 1961), 123-32.

Skehan, Patrick W. "The Date of the Last Supper." Catholic 

          Biblical Quarterly, XX (April, 1958), 192-99.

Smith, David. "Preparation." A Dictionary of Christ and 

          the Gospels. Vol. II.

Springer, J. F. "Is Matthew a Chronological Narrative?"

          Bibliotheca Sacra, LXXX (January, 1923), 115-31.

Stagg, Frank. "The Abused Aorist." Journal of Biblical 

          Literature, XCI (June, 1972), 222-231.

Stewart, Roy A. "The Jewish Festivals." The Evangelical 

          Quarterly, XLIII (July, 1971), 149-61.

Story, Cullen. "The Chronology of the Holy Week." Biblio-

          theca Sacra, LXXXVII (January, 1940), 63-80.

Stott, G. Gordon. "Month." A Dictionary of Christ and the 

          Gospel S. Vol. II.

________. "Time." A Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. II.

_________. "Time." Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesi-

          astical Literature. 1894. Vol. X.

Torrey, Charles C. "The Date of the Crucifixion According

                                       255

          to the Fourth Gospel." Journal of Biblical Literature,

          L (October, 1931), 227-41.

Turner, C. H. "Adversaria Chronologica." Journal of Theo-

          logical Studies, III (October, 1901), 110-23.

_________. "Chronology of the New Testament." A Dictionary

          of the Bible. Vol. I.

Tyson, Joseph B. "Lukan Version of the Trial of Jesus."

          Novum Testamentum, III (July, 1959), 249-58.

Vedder, Henry C. "Trial of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra,

          XXXIX (October, 1882), 648-673.

Walker, Norman. "After Three Days." Novum Testamentum,

          IV (December, 1960), 261-62.

________. "Concerning the Jaubertian Chronology of the

          Passion." Novum Testamentum, III (December,.1959),

          317-20.

________. "Pauses in the Passion Story and Their Signifi-

          cance for Chronology." Novum Testamentum, VI (January,

          1963), 16-19.

________. "The Reckoning of Hours in the Fourth Gospel."

          Novum Testamentum, IV (January, 1960), 69-73.

Walter, James. "The Chronology of the Passion Week."

          Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXVII (June, 1958),

          116-22.

Woolsey, Theodore D. "Year of Christ's Birth." Bibliotheca

          Sacra, XXVII (April, 1970), 190-336.

Zeitlin, Solomon. "Date of the Crucifixion According to

          the Fourth Gospel." Journal of Biblical Literature,

          LI (July, 1932), pp. 73-71.

 

                           Unpublished Materials

Hall, William Rice. "The Concept of Time and Eternity in

          the Old Testament." Unpublished Th. M. thesis, Dallas

          Theological Seminary, 1960.

Hardin, Clifford Wood. "An Examination of Jaubert's Chron-

                                        256

          ology of the Passion Week." Unpublished Th. M. thesis,

          Dallas Theological Seminary, 1969.

Hoyt, Herman A. "Events of the Passion Week." Printed

          class notes for the Life of Christ, Grace Theological

          Seminary, [n. d.] .

Hoyt, Solon. "Did Christ Eat the Passover?" Unpublished

          monograph, Grace Theological Seminary, 1945.

Kent, Homer A. Jr. "The Day of that Sabbath was a High

          Day." Unpublished monograph, Grace Theological

          Seminary, 1950.

Madison, Leslie P. "Problems of Chronology in the Life of

          Christ." Unpublished Th. D. dissertation, Dallas

          Theological Seminary, 1963.

Vennum, Edward Sherwood. "The Exegetical Force of   ]EITA."

          Unpublished Th. M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary,

          1950.

Waltke, Bruce. "Advanced Hebrew." Unpublished class

          notes, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1963.

 

 

||    Pope Shenouda    ||    Father Matta    ||    Bishop Mattaous    ||    Fr. Tadros Malaty    ||    Bishop Moussa    ||    Bishop Alexander    ||    Habib Gerguis    ||    Bishop Angealos    ||    Metropolitan Bishoy    ||