Textual and Cognitive Links Between Case-Differentiated Meanings of Koine Greek Prepositions

The Problem of Polysemy

Greek prepositions are deceptively small but semantically dense. Unlike in English, where prepositions tend to govern one syntactic pattern, many Greek prepositions (particularly those inherited from Homeric usage) shift meaning depending on whether they govern the genitive, dative, or accusative cases.

ἀπό – with genitive: from, away from
διά – with genitive: through; with accusative: because of
κατά – with genitive: down from, against; with accusative: according to, throughout, against
μετά – with genitive: with; with accusative: after
παρά – with genitive: from beside; with dative: at, beside; with accusative: alongside, beyond
περί – with genitive: concerning, about; with dative: around; with accusative: around
πρό – with genitive: before
πρός – with genitive: from; with dative: at, near; with accusative: toward, to
ὑπέρ – with genitive: on behalf of, for; with accusative: above, beyond
ὑπό – with genitive: by (agent); with accusative: under (control, subjection)

At first glance, these meanings appear inconsistent. How can μετά mean both “with” and “after”? How can διά signify both “through” and “because of”? Grammars tend to describe these as idiomatic shifts, but this often obscures the semantic continuity that underlies the preposition’s function.

Historical and Linguistic Background

The prepositional system of Koine Greek developed from an earlier Indo-European system in which cases alone carried the burden of expressing spatial and relational meaning. As Greek evolved, prepositions originally served to reinforce or clarify case meanings. Over time prepositions took on a more independent semantic role. So prepositional polysemy arose not because prepositions changed meaning arbitrarily, but because their meaning was anchored to the cases they accompanied. The cases themselves encoded spatial information:

• Genitive: separation, source, origin.

• Dative: location, rest, association (later subsumed under instrumental).

• Accusative: direction, goal, extension toward.

The meaning of a preposition, then, can be viewed as a dynamic interaction between the inherent sense of the preposition and the relational schema of the case. In effect, each case filters the preposition’s core image through a different conceptual lens.

Cognitive Semantics and Spatial Imagery

Modern cognitive linguistics (Lakoff & Johnson, Langacker, Tyler & Evans, etc.) has shown that prepositions are fundamentally spatial schemas that extend metaphorically into abstract domains (time, causation, association). For example, μετά originates in the idea of “among” or “in company with.”

• With the genitive, the focus is co-presence within a group: “with.”

• With the accusative, the same schema extends beyond the group in temporal or sequential progression: “after.”

In other words, μετά maintains the same spatial template of adjacency, but shifts its axis from concurrent presence to subsequent succession. Thus, rather than having two unrelated meanings, μετά encodes a continuous spectrum from companionship to succession.

This same logic applies across the system:

• διά (“through”) + genitive = motion within or across a medium → spatial continuity.

• διά + accusative = motion because of or on account of something → causal continuity (a metaphorical extension of spatial passage).

• ὑπό (“under”) + genitive = agency (“by”) → the agent is the underlying cause.

• ὑπό + accusative = position beneath → the patient is the one acted upon.

Such mappings show that Greek prepositions preserve conceptual unity across their case-governed uses.

Textual Analysis: Examples from the New Testament

A brief textual survey reinforces this conceptual continuity.

μετά

• Genitive (association):
  Μὴ μετὰ ὑποκριτῶν ἡ ψυχή μου (Ps 26:4 LXX) — “not with hypocrites.”
  Spatial proximity among companions.

• Accusative (sequence):
  Μετὰ τὰς ἡμέρας ταύτας (Acts 15:36) — “after these days.”
  Temporal succession following a shared time.

Both draw on the imagery of “being in company,” one contemporaneous, the other subsequent.

διά

• Genitive (means/path):
  Δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο πάντα (John 1:3) — “Through him all things came to be.”
  The preposition marks the medium or channel.

• Accusative (cause):
  Διὰ τὴν ἀνομίαν (Matt 24:12) — “Because of lawlessness.”
  The “pathway” becomes metaphorical: causation as passage.

ὑπό

• Genitive (agency):
  Σταυρωθεὶς ὑπὸ Ποντίου Πιλάτου — “crucified by Pontius Pilate.”
  The agent is metaphorically “beneath” the action as its base or cause.

• Accusative (subjection):
  Ὑπὸ νόμον (Gal 4:5) — “under law.”
  The subject is positioned beneath an authority.

The imagery of “under” persists, but its grammatical focus shifts from source of action to sphere of control.

Case as Perspective: A Unifying Model

We may conceptualize the relation as follows:

• When a preposition governs the genitive, the relationship is viewed from the starting point (e.g., source, origin, agent).

• When it governs the dative, the relationship is viewed from a stationary or coexistent position (e.g., location, association).

• When it governs the accusative, the relationship is viewed toward the endpoint (e.g., goal, result, consequence).

Thus, the difference in meaning reflects perspective, not arbitrary semantic drift.

Theological and Hermeneutical Implications

Understanding this continuity guards against over-interpreting minor prepositional variations as theological distinctions when the difference may instead be perspectival. For example, Paul’s phrase διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Gal 2:16) employs the genitive—“through faith in Jesus Christ”—not as an arbitrary idiom, but as a natural extension of the “channel” metaphor encoded in διά + genitive.

Recognizing this embodied logic allows interpreters to read Greek prepositions not as random particles but as cognitive instruments structuring how relationships, causality, and agency are conceptualized in the biblical world.

Conclusion

The polysemous character of Greek prepositions is not a flaw of the language but a reflection of its cognitive depth. The variation in meaning according to case represents a consistent and ancient logic: the same spatial metaphorviewed through the lens of different case functions. Far from arbitrary, these shifts reveal how Greek speakers conceptualized space, time, and causation as interrelated domains.

Understanding this dynamic enables richer exegesis and a more faithful reconstruction of how Greek thought connected spatial experience with theological and moral meaning. In Koine Greek, every preposition tells a story of movement—not only through space but through the evolving landscape of meaning itself.

References (select)

• Balme, M., & Lawall, G. Athenaze: An Introduction to Ancient Greek. Oxford University Press, 2016.

• Blass, F., Debrunner, A., & Funk, R. W. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. University of Chicago Press, 1961.

• Luraghi, S. On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases: The Expression of Semantic Roles in Ancient Greek. John Benjamins, 2003.

• Levinson, S. C., & Wilkins, D. P. (eds.). Grammars of Space: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge University Press, 2006.

• Tyler, A., & Evans, V. The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning, and Cognition. Cambridge University Press, 2003.

• Wallace, D. B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Zondervan, 1996.