TIP OF THE DAY 152: Prepositions in analyzing time

I am adding these posts to the previous tip list L/V 10 Tip of the Day (when it doesn't time out)

POST ISSUE: Relationship between intervals expressed by preposition

Earlier we discussed the possible relationship between two events/intervals:

Before: Action A starts and ends before action B.

Meets: Action A starts; when A ends, action B starts.

Overlaps: Action A starts, action B starts before action A ends; action B ends after action A ends.

Starts: Actions A and B start at the same time but end at different times.

During: Action A starts, action B starts and ends before action A ends.

Finishes: Actions A and B start at different times but end at the same time.

Equal: Actions A and B start and end at the same time.

These relationships are often expressed by prepositions – the topic of the next few questions.

QUESTION: Give 5 examples of Bible commentaries using prepositions relating to time for their interpretation.

SOFTWARE: A precise book search on Bible Commentaries and the search argument of prepositions WITHIN 5 WORDS time was used to find these examples.

ANSWER: from Hannah, John D. 1, 2 and 3 John: Redemption’s Certainty. Focus on the Bible Commentary. Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus, 2016.

Yet it would seem that the least problematic interpretation, and the most textually consistent Johannine approach, is that the phrase looks to a single event—the death of Jesus, and not to two events in His life (if two events were envisioned, separated by some time, one would expect two prepositions, not one). In this instance, the conjunction ‘and’ governs ‘water’ and ‘blood’ as a unity. John elsewhere indicates that ‘blood and water’ flowed from the pierced side of Jesus (John 19:34). While the phrase in the gospel is ‘blood and water’, John may have reversed the order here to stress the point of his disagreement with his opponents, the atoning blood of Jesus.[1]

From Brug, John F. A Commentary on Psalms. Vol. 1 & 2. Milwaukee, WI: Northwestern Publishing House, 2005.

In verse 2 יוֹמָם וָלָיְלָה are examples of the so-called adverbial accusative (WO 10:22). In English we normally must use a preposition before a noun which we are using adverbially: “He lived in a house.” Hebrew often omits the preposition and lets the adverbial noun stand alone: יָשָׁב בַּיִת, “he lived … house.” In English we can often omit the prepositions with words indicating time, just as Hebrew speakers do: “He talked [for] an hour.” It is debatable if the term adverbial accusative is appropriate as the name for this Hebrew construction since biblical Hebrew does not have case endings as some of the other Semitic dialects do. In this instance, however, it is claimed that the adverbial ending ָם in יוֹמָם preserves the old accusative ending a followed by an enclitic mem (WO 5.7e and note 29).[2]

From Godet, Frédéric, and Timothy Dwight. Commentary on the Gospel of John: With a Critical Introduction. Vol. 1. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1886.

But Jesus was never in the position of a disciple with relation to John, and no more did He become his master. Besides, the words μείζων and ἐλάσσων would have presented themselves much more naturally for the expression of this idea. Let us remember that the evangelist has as his aim to prove by the testimony of the forerunner the dignity of the Logos incarnate, which is attributed to Jesus; now it is precisely the temporal sense which is adapted to this aim, and if one of the two prepositions refers to time, the other must refer to it also: for the apparent contradiction of the two terms is what gives this saying all its meaning. “He who is my successor preceded me” (Luther, Meyer, Bäumlein, Weiss, Keil, etc.). My successor: as to the Messianic work; Jesus appeared on the stage after John. And yet He was before Him. How so? By His presence and activity in the whole period of the Old Covenant. The Christ really preceded His forerunner in the world; comp. 12:41; 1 Cor. 10:4, and the passage in Malachi (3:1), where John the Baptist found this idea, as we shall see. The perfect γέγονε does not mean existed, but was there (in fact); comp. 6:25.[3]

From Toy, Crawford Howell. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Proverbs. International Critical Commentary. New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1899.

22. Synonymous, quaternary-ternary. Instead of Yahweh Targ. has God.—The rendering formed (= created) is supported by the parallel expressions in v. 23, 24, 25 (made or ordained and brought into being); the translation possessed (RV.) is possible, but does not accord with the context, in which the point is the time of Wisdom’s creation.—The Hebrew, all the Greek Versions, and the best MS. of the Vulgate (Cod. Amiatinus) have as the beginning, Clementine Vulgate, Syriac, Targum in the beginning (so RV.); the two readings are substantially identical in meaning, but that of the Hebrew is favored by the form of second cl. (first), and by the similar phrase in Job 40:19, where Behemoth is described as the chief (lit. beginning) of the creation of God.—Creation is lit. way, = procedure, performance (Job 26:14; 40:19); Grk. has plu. ways, which is perhaps favored by plu. works of second cl.—First (RV. margin) is the more natural rendering of the Hebrew; before (RV. and some Anc. Vrss.) is hardly allowable.—Cf. the beginning of the creation of God (Rev. 3:14), and the firstborn of all creation (Col. 1:15).—In days of yore (RV. of old) = “in remotest antiquity”; see note on the parallel expression in next verse.—23. Synonymous, binary. While v. 22 describes Wisdom as the first of Yahweh’s works, v. 23 gives the time of her creation in general terms. The Hebrew prepositions introduce the point of time not before which (RV., some Anc. Vrss.) but at which the creation took place. Primeval time (usually everlasting in RV.) is time hidden by distance, remote, dim, in the past or in the future; in Mic. 5:2(1) it is used to express the remote origin of the Davidic house: a ruler in Israel whose origin is long ago in the distant past. The familiar expression from everlasting to everlasting gives the two termini of a long period, = from a remote past to a remote future; so in ψ 90:2, where the termini, applied to God, are indefinitely remote, though the Hebrew word has not the modern sense of the temporally infinite.—The rendering fashioned is favored by the formed of v. 22 (see also the verbs expressing birth in v. 24, 25). It seems, however, to be forcing the terms when it is held (Frank.) that v. 22, 23 refer to Wisdom’s conception in the womb, and v. 24–26 to her birth; both paragraphs relate to her birth, the difference between them being that the first is general, the second specific. The rendering (see ψ 2:6) ordained, established (RV. set up), = placed in position, is permitted by the connection, but is less apposite.—The origin (lit. first times) of the earth = the beginning of Yahweh’s work.—Wisdom, though coeval with the beginning of the divine activity, is created at a definite point of time, and thus differs from the Logos of Philo and the Fourth Gospel. The date and occasion of the beginning are not defined (though Wisdom precedes the physical world), and nothing is said of the existence of Wisdom or of the nature of the life of God before the creative work begins.[4]

From Padilla, Osvaldo. The Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary. Edited by Eckhard J. Schnabel. Vol. 14. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. London: InterVarsity Press, 2022.

For Paul, Jesus Christ is the centre of the gospel. Thus, Paul concludes verse 9 by linking God’s gracious election to Jesus Christ: This grace was given to us in Christ Jesus before the ages began. The two Greek prepositions, in (en) Christ Jesus before (pro) the ages began, clarify Paul’s main thought. At the same time, the prepositions may lead us to ask what precisely in Christ and before the ages mean. Some understand this admittedly difficult clause as merely indicating that God planned our salvation before creation, and that, in time, Christ became the agent of God’s election by his incarnation. Thus, in this view, Christ himself played little or no part in the eternal decree of election: this was the work of the Father, who then in time sent the Son to make the election effective.[5]

[1] John D. Hannah, 1, 2 and 3 John: Redemption’s Certainty, Focus on the Bible Commentary (Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus, 2016), 187.

[2] John F. Brug, A Commentary on Psalms, vol. 1 (Milwaukee, WI: Northwestern Publishing House, 2005), 116.

[3] Frédéric Godet and Timothy Dwight, Commentary on the Gospel of John: With a Critical Introduction, vol. 1 (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1886), 275–276.

[4] Crawford Howell Toy, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Proverbs, International Critical Commentary (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1899), 173–174.

[5] Osvaldo Padilla, The Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary, ed. Eckhard J. Schnabel, vol. 14, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (London: InterVarsity Press, 2022), 164.