When we say this thread is in the second year, what that's suppose to mean?
I asked this question because the significance of EN may not always carry
the force of locale or "being in it" or "in something". EN does carry a
spatial concept as so often taught in elementary Greek particularly when a
man wearing a safari suit is "in the mouth of the lion". But EN does have
other connotations or to coin a phrase "lexical force" (I am still
searching my grammars - pardon the word - for the proper technical term -
but please, don't flame me on this!). EN, of course, as had been
mentioned, carries a time or temporal concept, like the one above, "in the
second year", but were we not "in the first year"?
One that has caught me by surprise (?!) is the use of EN to denote
"accompanying circumstances" and in this I would perhaps get a better
picture of its basal significance which I could extend to its otherwise
incomprehensible application of "instrumentality".
EN ARXHI HN HO LOGOS would denote the existence of the LOGOS in the
accompanying circumstances of beginning but not necessarily being inside
the beginning or having His origin in the beginning. A paraphrase may have
aptly communicated its significance when it paraphrases this sentence as:
"In the beginning the Word always was..." Take the case of Gal. 1:24
EDOXZAZON EN EMOI TON QEON, ",,,they glorified God in me...". Does this
mean "...they glorified *God* in me...", an objective characterization of
God in the case of Paul, or "...they glorified *God in me*...", a
subjective characterization of God who is mystically in Paul?
But considering the larger sphere of the phrase EN ARXHI, it is interesting
to note that the phrase occurs in the inscriptions, but nowhere in the
Perseus database. I searched for about half of the morning and all I got
were ARXHN, ARXAS, ARXON which could not really be contributary to our
discussion here. But the NT does have its share of the use of the
preposition like APO and EXZ and the declensions of ARXH. When EN is used,
one always finds ARXHI. What is the point I am driving at? John is
careful in his use of the phrases EN ARXHI and APO ARXHS and what these
signify (cf John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1). Going back to the second paragraph
of my premise, the indication of the phrase makes sense in all the passages
where it appears in the NT: Acts 11:15 ...hWSPER KAI EP' hHMAS EN
ARXHI..."as also on us in the beginning [the circumstances surrounding the
coming of the Holy Spirit in the day of Pentecost]..." Phil.4:15 ...hOTI
EN ARXHI TOU EUAGGELIOU, hOTE EXZHLQON APO MAKEDONIAS..."that in the
beginning [the circumstances surrounding the start of Paul's ministry in
the peninsula] of the gospel, when I went out from Macedonia..." The use
of these phrases is also consistent in other parts of the NT: Mark 10:6
...APO DE ARXHS KTISEWS..."...but from the beginning of creation..." Luke
1:2 ...hOI AP' ARXHS AUTOPTAI..."...the ones from the beginning
eyewitnesses..."
How would we then view EN ARXHI? This I take as a prepositional phrase
denoting a temporal concept. The Logos was present in the accompanying
circumstances surrounding the creation of the universe. Thus, He was there
but outside of the creative order when everything began.
But what one may find noteworthy is the use of the imperfect HN as applied
to the Person of the Logos. John used this verb in John 1:1 and 1 John
1:1. The imperfect has been discussed elsewhere (in grammar books, of
course!). This is what one book says: "The imperfect denotes an
incomplete action, one that is on its course, and is not yet brought to its
intended accomplishment. It implies that a certain thing was going on at a
specified time, but excludes the assertion that the end of the action was
attained." To add further, "Since its essential force is identical with
that of the present, it follows that its uses should be practically
parallel." The use of HN is therefore consistent with the use of EIMI in
the statement of Christ in John 8:58: ...AMHN AMHN LEGW hUMIN, PRIN ABRAAM
GENESQAI EGW EIMI... The literal rendering would be: Amen, Amen, I say to
you, I am before Abraham became.
How about that phrase in Rev. 3:14 hH ARXH THS KTISEWS TOU QEOU? The
lexical force would be in ARXH and not in THS KTISEWS, a case of the
objective genitival phrase: Christ is the *ARXH* THS KTISEWS not the *ARXH
THS KTISEWS*. He stands apart from the creative order.