As with other prepositions, the Bible employs DIA in many ways. Therefore, I have chosen focus on the context of agency but we know that DIA functions other ways. This is also just a sampling of cases where the writer is communicating the idea of agency.
Matthew 1:22 (WH)-Τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ Κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος
Hebrews 1:1-2 (WH)-ἐπ' ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ, ὃν ἔθηκεν κληρονόμον πάντων, δι' οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας·
Hebrews 2:2 (WH)-εἰ γὰρ ὁ δι' ἀγγέλων λαληθεὶς λόγος ἐγένετο βέβαιος, καὶ πᾶσα παράβασις καὶ παρακοὴ ἔλαβεν ἔνδικον μισθαποδοσίαν,
Hebrews 2:10-Ἔπρεπεν γὰρ αὐτῷ, δι' ὃν τὰ πάντα καὶ δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα, πολλοὺς υἱοὺς εἰς δόξαν ἀγαγόντα τὸν ἀρχηγὸν τῆς σωτηρίας αὐτῶν διὰ παθημάτων τελειῶσαι.
1 Peter 1:12 (WH)-οἷς ἀπεκαλύφθη ὅτι οὐχ ἑαυτοῖς ὑμῖν δὲ διηκόνουν αὐτά, ἃ νῦν ἀνηγγέλη ὑμῖν διὰ τῶν εὐαγγελισαμένων ὑμᾶς πνεύματι ἁγίῳ ἀποσταλέντι ἀπ' οὐρανοῦ, εἰς ἃ ἐπιθυμοῦσιν ἄγγελοι παρακύψαι.
1 Peter 1:21 (WH)- τοὺς δι' αὐτοῦ πιστοὺς εἰς θεὸν τὸν ἐγείραντα αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ δόξαν αὐτῷ δόντα, ὥστε τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν καὶ ἐλπίδα εἶναι εἰς θεόν.
1 Peter 2:5 (WH)-καὶ αὐτοὶ ὡς λίθοι ζῶντες οἰκοδομεῖσθε οἶκος πνευματικὸς εἰς ἱεράτευμα ἅγιον, ἀνενέγκαι πνευματικὰς θυσίας εὐπροσδέκτους θεῷ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ·
1 Peter 5:12 (WH)-Διὰ Σιλουανοῦ ὑμῖν τοῦ πιστοῦ ἀδελφοῦ, ὡς λογίζομαι, δι' ὀλίγων ἔγραψα, παρακαλῶν καὶ ἐπιμαρτυρῶν ταύτην εἶναι ἀληθῆ χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ· εἰς ἣν στῆτε.
Matt 1:22 is a good parallel to God and Christ - as it shows hupo and dia at work in the same sentence
ReplyDeleteGood point.
ReplyDeletewould it be appropriate to say: IF dia doesn't have 2 "subjects" its not agency, rather "source"
ReplyDeleteHebrews 2:10 - obviously means source, however we could say: through the current president we have [law]
Sort of a hybrid of agency and source if you get what I mean
I'm not a Big Greek by any means, so I'm thinking out loud, not preaching, here.
ReplyDeleteI'm of the opinion that dia in Matt 1:22 is not referring to agency. "Agency" suggests to me that Person 1 charges Person 2 to see to X.
But as I read it, Matthew 1:22, really suggests an "instrument." IE: It is the LORD that is speaking, but he is speaking "through" his audio equipment.
In summary, Matthew 1:22 reads to me:
* the LORD told the message thru his instruments, the prophets
rather than...
* the LORD charged his prophets to see to speaking to the People
Mostly thinking out loud, but I do think that kind of distinction is truer to nature of dia with the genitive than the idea or "employing an agent to speak for you" kind of thing. I hope that's helpful.
This is from the book "Greek for Everyone" by A. Chadwick Thornhill:
ReplyDeleteOften when a passive-voice verb occurs, an “agent” who performs the
action of the verb is specified. Three different kinds of agency are commonly found with Greek passive verbs: direct, intermediate, and impersonal. Direct agency, which indicates the ultimate agent of an action (e.g., “by God”), usually occurs with the preposition ὑπό + a genitive-case noun (more on that in chap. 7). We find intermediate agency, when a secondary agent performs an action (e.g., “through the church”), present when we have the preposition διά + a genitive-case noun. Finally, Greek also expresses impersonal agency, which usually occurs when an object acts as the agent (e.g., “by fire”), through a dative-case noun with or without the preposition ἐν.
Matthew 2:5; Romans 11:36. Compare Galatians 3:19.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, in Hebrews 2:10, you still have agency, but what might be undetermined is the source itself. But given the prior context it seems clear here that the source is God. Of course there is a possibility in which dia could be agency but yet the agent is also the source, one very interesting possible usage of that is Romans 11:36 in which God is both the source, agent and purpose of all things, yet in that formulation dia is still agential, differentiation it from ex.
ReplyDeleteWith your presidential example it is undetermined in that sentance whether or not the law actually has its full source/ground in the president or if the president is an agent of some prior source/ground, (often even absolute dictator claim to have recieved their authority from some higher, trascendant source: the gods, God, the people, or whatever).
Considering the role of DIA without consideration of whether we are dealing with DIA+Genitive or DIA+Accusative is an exercise in confusion.
ReplyDeleteWoundedEgo,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. See the quote above from Thornhill.
Romans 11.26 is dia+genitive ...
ReplyDelete