We come then to the general conclusion, that THE SIGNIFICATION OF ivα IN THE NEW TESTAMENT IS of wide extent, so that it not only designates purpose or design, but also event or effect; and thus it appears very nearly to resemble the German dass [that], and the Latin ut. There are passages even, where both notions are combined in thought; for when we think of any thing as done or to be done, the thought of the intention, or of the cause, or of the manner, is almost necessarily connected with it.

Conjunctions, moreover, should be referred to both parts of the sentence which they connect. Thus Mark 11: 25, ei ti ἔχετε κατά τινος, ἀφίετε, ἵνα ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ἀφῇ ὑμῖν παρπτώμα Ta vuov. The Saviour could not inculcate on his disciples the mere prudential duty of forgiving others, in order that they themselves might obtain forgiveness, (which would be quite foreign to real integrity and purity of mind); but he wished them to consider, that if they cherished an implacable spirit, they could have no grounds to hope for pardon from God; so that if they themselves were not ready to forgive, it was impossible they should obtain forgiveness.

In like manner in Rom. 3: 8, it is plain that the notion of cause and effect [i. e. the notion of such a relation], is comprised in the expression of the men there referred to nonowμev τα κακα, ἵνα ἔλθῃ τὰ ἀγαθά· where some suppose that ἵνα has the sense of quoniam. The men in question, after the manner of the Jesuits, deprecate the blame of base conduct; for they allege that they are free from blame, not because they have sinned with the design that good might come, but because their yevoua (false or treacherous dealing) has been the occasion of making the truth of God to abound; v. 7, comp. Rom. 6: 1. 'We may then do evil,' say they, 'so that good will come.'

The whole dispute about the meaning of iva, as before intimated, has arisen from those passages, in which something recently done is referred to some declaration of the Old Testament in the way of prediction. Let me illustrate my views, then, respecting this particular point, by an example taken from passages of this nature.

It will be conceded to me by all, that in passages of this character the notion of design or purpose is not properly admissible. This has taken place only where a thing which is done, is conceived of as done by the counsel or purpose of another; and this idea, as all must perceive, is alien from the VOL. V. No. 17.

14

passages which we are now considering. Nor does the notion of end or object any better accord with the nature of the thing; for who does not see, that it would be a most absurd declaration, in case we should affirm that those things which happened in the time of Christ, were all done in order that the predictions in the Old Testament might be fulfilled?

Let us briefly examine a few passages in Matthew. In Matt. 1: 2, after the birth of Jesus is related as announced to Joseph, it is added (v. 22), τοῦτο ὅλον γέγονεν, ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν dia v nov, z. t.λ, referring to Isaiah 7: 14. Shall we say now, that the Saviour was to be born merely that this prophecy might be fulfilled?

Again; in Matt. 2: 15 we are told, that Joseph remained concealed in Egypt with Jesus, when the latter was a child, until the death of Herod, ἵνα πληρωθῆ τὸ ῥηθὲν κ. τ. λ, viz. so that what is said in Hosea 11: 1 might be fulfilled. The words of the prophet are not the object of my present consideration, nor shall I now enquire whether they were originally spoken in reference to Jesus or to the Jewish people; for it is quite certain that the end proposed by Joseph, and to be accomplished by staying in Egypt, was not the fulfilment of prophecy.

Was it true, moreover, that Christ came and dwelt for some time at Capernaum (Matt. 4: 13), in order that what Isaiah (8: 23. 9: 1) had said might be accomplished? The like may be said of Matt. 21: 4. 26: 56.

In Mark the formula under examination is employed but once, viz. in 14: 9. Luke uses it neither in his Gospel nor in the Acts. In John it is most frequently' employed, and it occurs 11:38. 13:18. 15:25. 17: 12. 18: 9. 19: 24, 28, 36.

From all these passages it may be most clearly seen, that the particle iva does not signify design or purpose, when it refers even to the most explicit prophecies; nor was there any need, in the interpretation of these passages, that critics should take refuge in the double meaning of the particle iva in them, because they apprehended that all the passages of the Old Testament to which an appeal is made, are not real and veritable predictions. Uniformly the design is, to declare the agreement between the event and the declarations of the Jewish Scriptures.

But the use of "va in an ecbatic way is not confined to declarations of this kind only. There are many passages in which the notion of design or purpose has no place, inasmuch as it would → make the writer speak absurdity. Many passages of this nature occur in John. It is usual with him, when he assigns causality

to any particular thing, to conjoin the effect with the cause by the use of iva. It is even occasionally employed in both its senses, in the very same sentence. E. g. 1: 7. "The same came for a witness, ἵνα μαρτυρήση, in order that he might bear testimony concerning the light, ἵνα πάντες πιστεύωσι δι' avrou, so that all might believe through him." Here the first iva declares the immediate purpose of the witness; the second, the ultimate object brought about by his testimony. Comp. Cor. 2: 9. Rom. 9: 17. John 18: 37.* Xen. Cyrop. II. 5. 2. So in John 17:21, ἵνα ἓν ὦσιν, ἵνα ὁ κόσμος πιστεύσῃ ̇ comp. vs. 23, 24, and John 15: 16.†.

I apprehend, also, that the ecbatic use of ivu obtains, in several passages, where interpreters have given themselves much trouble to make out the sentiment, and at the same time to insist on defending the telic use of "va. E. g. John 9:2, "Who hath sinned... iva tugao's yεvvnʊy; so that this man should be born blind." So John 11: 4, "This sickness is not unto death, ἀλλ ̓ ὑπὲρ τῆς δόξης τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἵνα δοξασθῇ ὁ υἱὸς Tou ou, but for the glory of God, so that the Son of God should be glorified." The death of Lazarus had not this end in view; but it was the occasion of glorifying the Son of God. John 11: 15, "I rejoice on your account, (iva nozevonte, so that you might believe), öri ovn yunv ¿zeî, that I was not there." [Here the immediate object of joy is stated to be, that Jesus was not present at the death of Lazarus, and iva notevonte is only a parenthetic declaration, epexegetical of what is designed by the clause, di vuas.] The meaning is, that Jesus rejoices in the prospect, that the resurrection of Lazarus will be attended.

* Here, however, it may be doubtful whether iva has any thing more than the telic sense. "For this cause was I born, and for this end came I into the world, ἵνα μαρτυρήσω τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, in order that, to the intent that I might bear testimony to the truth;" this latter clause being epexegetical of sis touto, and being logically (although not in point of grammatical form) coordinate with it. The demands of exegesis are fairly satisfied by this. We do not suppose the Saviour to mean, that his coming had no other ends in view.-TR.

This last example, as the reader will see if he consult the original, affords one of the most indubitable cases where "va must have the sense of so that. "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, iva vueis vлάyne, that you should go forth and produce fruit, and your fruit should be perennial, va ö ti äv airýonts, so that whatsoever ye shall ask, etc." Jesus did not ordain them, for the end that whatsoever they should ask they should obtain, but for the purpose of bringing forth much fruit.—-Tâ.

with the effect of confirming the faith of his disciples. John 11: 37, "Could not this man have brought it about, iva xai ovros un ánodávy, that even this person should not have died?" John 11: 42, "On account of the multitude who stood by I said, ἵνα πιστεύσωσιν, ὅτι σύ με απέστειλας, so that they might believe [parenthetic exegetical declaration thrown in], that thou hast sent me. John 11:50, "It is expedient, va tis ävvowπος ἀποθάνῃ ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ, that one man should die for the people." In the same manner is "va employed in John 16: 7. 17:3. 1 John 5: 3, et al. saepe. The manner of these passages is indeed different; for in some, iva is preceded by certain events, in others by the cause. Yet in all passages of this nature it is plain, that the notion of purpose or design is not expressed.

The same may be said of a multitude of passages in the writings of Paul; whose copious diction, which is often interrupted and almost overwhelmed by supervening thoughts, frequently seems to have employed some particle merely of a similar nature to that which might be most appropriate; for his fervent mind, it would appear, could not well brook the delay which a particular choice of words would occasion. As examples the following passages may be consulted; Rom. 3: 19. 4: 16. 5: 20, 21. 6: 1, 4, 6. 7: 13. 9: 11. 11, comp. v. 19 and 31. 15: 6. 16: 31, 32.

But more examples are not needed. It remains only, that I say a few things concerning two formulas of speech, which have not yet been discussed.

The first is that, where ivu is put after verbs of asking, admonishing, commanding, and others which indicate some wish or desire. This is very common in the New Testament. The critics before named deny that "va, in these formulas, indicates object, and affirm that it designates purpose, design, etc., viz., of him who exhorts, commands, etc. E. g. eine iva παρεκάλεσαν ἵνα άψωνται they explain as meaning: Command for the purpose that; they exhorted for the end that they might touch, etc.' But besides those things which Winer has already suggested against such a method of interpretation (Gramm. Fasc. II. p. 117 seq.), I may be permitted to adduce examples from the better sort of writers I am aware that they aver the usage in question, viz. that of placing ive with the Subj. mode instead of the Inf. mode after verbs of the kind named above, belongs only to the more recent Greek authors.

This example only they admit from Homer: "H

ἐθέλεις ὄφρ ̓ αὐτὸς ἔχῃς γέρας, ἀλλ' ἐμὲ αὕτως ησθαι δευόμενον, 'Or do you wish that yourself should have the reward, but that I should remain thus bereaved of it.' [Here og oa stands in the like sense with iva]. The later authors, they admit, have imitated this; see Hermann ad Orphica, p. 814. I will allow now, if they please, that among the better classic authors the usage in question is very rare; although in the later writers it is exceedingly common. Thus Nonnus, in his paraphrase of John, often employs goa in order to correspond with iva in the evangelist; see his paraphrase of John 6: 7. 11: 15, 57. 17: 15, 24, etc. Examples in point, however, may be found among the more accurate writers, viz. in Lucian, Dionysius Halicar. (Charit. III. 1, init.), παρεκάλει δὲ Καλιρρόην, ἵνα avi пoooon, 'he besought Calirrhoe that etc.,' [instead of saying aur 1000εADE]; see Schaefer ad Dionys. Hal. de Verb. Compos. p. 121. Hebraism, therefore, should not be sought after, in such constructions as these in the New Testament. With the Seventy, this idiom is exceedingly rare.

In passages of such a nature, now, I do not see with what reason they can deny that the object is designated by the particle iva. Nor can the German dass or damit be well compared with iva. The particle dass we do indeed employ in order to designate a causal connection; and therefore, when we mean to point out the thing which we seek after; but damit answers better to the particle öлws. After verbs of asking, commanding, admonishing, etc., we use dass in order that we may designate the thing which we desire, demand, etc. No one would say: 'Ich bitte dich, damit du mir Brot gebest; ich befehle dir, damit du fortgehest, etc... Damit denotes purpose or design; and this is its proper use; but in common parlance and in the Version of Luther, it has a more extended meaning. Still, it cannot be put after verbs of asking, etc. But the particle dass has so extended a meaning, that it corresponds to the Latin ut, and to the Greek iva, ws, wore, and onшs.

The ground of such a construction seems to me to be this. When the thing we ask for, etc., can be expressed by a noun, that noun is put in the Accusative, for this is the proper office of the Acc., e. g. αὐτῷ ἄρτον· Βούλομαι εἰρήνην. But if we cannot make use of a noun in this way, either because the sense would be imperfect or dubious, or because that which we ask for, etc., is something which consists in action or must be done, we either employ the Inf. mode or use some other equivalent causal construction. If we should say: ἐνετείλατο ἄρτον, οι παρεκάλεσεν