Synonyms of the New Testament
Yüklə 3,52 Mb.
|
| § iii. i[ero WE have in our Version only the one word ‘temple’ for both of these; nor is it easy to perceive in what manner we could have marked the distinction between them; which is yet a very real one, and one the marking of which would often add much to the clearness and precision of the sacred narrative. (See Fuller, A Pisgah Sight of Palestine, p. 427.) [Iero § III. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 11 pass of the sacred enclosure, the te outer courts, the porches, porticoes, and other buildings subordinated to the temple itself; ai[ oi]kodomai> tou? i[erou? (Matt. xxiv.1.) But nao as the proper habitation of God (Acts vii. 48; xvii. 24; Cor. vi. 19); the oi#koj tou? qeou? (Matt. xii. 4; cf. Exod. xxiii. 19), the German ‘duom’ or ‘domus,’ is the temple itself, that by especial right so called, being the heart and centre of the whole; the Holy, and the Holy of Holies, called often a[gi tinction, one that existed and was acknowledged in profane Greek and with reference to heathen temples, quite as much as in sacred Greek and with relation to the temple of the true God (see Herodotus, i, 183; Thucydides, iv. 90 [ta v. 18; Acts xxix. 24, 27), is, I believe, always assumed in all passages relating to the temple at Jerusalem, alike by Josephus, by Philo, by the Septuagint translators, and in the N. T. Often indeed it is explicitly recognized, as by Josephus (Antt. viii. 3. 9), who, having described the build- ing of the nao i[ero>n &]kodo sage (Antt. xi. 4. 3), he describes the Samaritans as seek- ing permission of the Jews to be allowed to share in the rebuilding of God's house (sugkataskeua This is refused them (cf. Ezra iv. 2); but, according to his account, it was permitted to them a]fiknoume i[ero>n se who might not, under penalty of death, pass beyond their own exterior court (Acts xxi. 29, 30; Philo, Ley. ad Cai. 31). The distinction may be brought to bear with advantage on several passages in the N. T. When Zacharias entered into "the temple of the Lord" to burn incense, the people who waited his return, and who are described as standing without" (Luke i. 10), were in one sense in the temple too, that is, in the i[ero 12 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § III. nao (Matt. xxvi. 55; Luke xxi. 37; John viii. 20); and we some- times fail to understand how long conversations could there have been maintained, without interrupting the service of God. But this ‘temple’ is ever the i[ero and porticoes of which were excellently adapted to such purposes, as they were intended for them. Into the nao the Lord never entered during his ministry on earth; nor indeed, being ‘made under the law,’ could He have so done, the right of such entry being reserved for the priests alone. It need hardly be said that the money-changers, the buyers and sellers, with the sheep and oxen, whom the Lord drives out, He repels from the i[ero fane as was their intrusion, they yet had not dared to establish themselves in the temple more strictly so called (Matt. xxi. 12; John ii. 14). On the other hand, when we read of another Zacharias slain "between the temple and the altar" (Matt. xxiii. 35), we have only to remember that ‘temple’ is nao which may perhaps have presented itself to many—this namely, Was not the altar in the temple? how then could any locality be described as between these two? In the
here made, but not in the nao of the Lord” (cf. Josephus, Antt. viii. 4. i ), where the sacred historian (2 Chron. xxiv. 21) lays the scene of this murder, but not in the nao does it set forth to us the despair and defiance of Judas, that he presses even into the nao into the ‘adytum’ which was set apart for the priests alone, and there casts down before them the accursed price
of blood! Those expositors who affirm that here nao stands for i[ero which the one is put for the other. to a conviction of any fault on his part; and this, either because there was no fault, and the rebuke was therefore
unneeded or unjust; or else because, though there was such fault, the rebuke was ineffectual to bring the offender
to own it; and in this possibility of ‘rebuking' for sin, without ‘convincing’ of sin, lies the distinction between
these two words. In e]pitima?n lies simply the notion of rebuking; which word can therefore be used of one un-
justly checking or blaming another; in this sense Peter ‘began to rebuke’ his Lord (h@rcato e]pitima?n, Matt. xvi.
22; cf. xix. 13; Luke xviii. 39):—or ineffectually, and without any profit to the person rebuked, who is not
thereby brought to see his sin; as when the penitent rob- ber ‘rebuked’ (e]peti 40; cf. Mark ix. 25). But e]le nant word; it is so to rebuke another, with such effectual
wielding of the victorious arms of the truth, as to bring him, if not always to a confession, yet at least to a con-
viction, of his sin (Job v. 17; Prov. xix. 25), just as in juristic Greek, e]le refute, an opponent. When we keep this distinction well in mind, what a
light does it throw on a multitude of passages in the N. T.; and how much deeper a meaning does it give them. Thus
our Lord could demand, "Which of you convinceth (e]le Him; many laid sin to his charge (Matt. ix. 3 ; John ix. 16); but none brought sin home to his conscience. Other
passages also will gain from realizing the fulness of the meaning of e]le 24, 25; Heb. xii. 5; but above all, the great passage, John xvi. 8; "When He [the Comforter] is come, He will re-
ment" for so we have rendered the words, followng in 14 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § IV.
that have in any degree sought to sound the depth of our Lord's words, but will admit that ‘convince,’ which un-
fortunately our Translators have relegated to the margin, or ‘convict,’ would have been the preferable rendering,
giving a depth and fulness of meaning to this work of the Holy Ghost, which ‘reprove’ in some part fails to express.1
"He who shall come in my room, shall so bring home to the world its own ‘sin,’ my perfect ‘righteousness,’ God's
coming ‘judgment,’ shall so ‘convince’ the world of these, that it shall be obliged itself to acknowledge them; and
in this acknowledgment may find, shall be in the right way to find, its own blessedness and salvation." See more
on e]le is found only twice (Heb. xi. i; 2 Tim. iii. 16), a difference of a similar character exists. Ai]ti whether false or true the word does not attempt to an- ticipate; and thus it could be applied, indeed it was ap-
plied, to the accusation made against the Lord of Glory Himself (Matt. xxvii. 37); but e@legxoj implies not merely
the charge, but the truth of the charge, and further the manifestation of the truth of the charge; nay more than
all this, very often also the acknowledgment, if not out- ward, yet inward, of its truth on the part of the accused;
it being the glorious prerogative of the truth in its highest operation not merely to assert itself, and to silence, the
adversary, but to silence him by convincing him of his error. Thus Job can say of God, a]lh toris, qui veritatem quae hactenus non est agnita ita ad conscientiam etiam renitentis demonstrat, ut victas dare manus cogatur.' See an admirable
discussion on the word, especially as here used, in Archdeacon Hare's § v. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 15 13): @Elegxoj e@sti me>n o{ mh> dunato>n a@llwj e@xein, a]ll ] between 'convict' and 'convince' we maintain a difference between the judicial and the moral e@legxoj. Both indeed
will flow together into one in the last day, when every condemned sinner will be at once ‘convicted’ and ‘con-
vinced;’ which all is implied in that "he was speechless" of the guest found by the king without a marriage gar-
ment (Matt. xxii. 12; cf. Rom. iii. 4). different spellings of the same word, and indifferently used. Were the fact so, their fitness for a place in a hook
of synonyms would of course disappear; difference as well as likeness being necessary for this. Thus far indeed
these have right—namely, that a]na regarded as having been once no more than different pro- nunciations, which issued in different spelling's, of one
and the same word. Nothing, however, is more common than for slightly diverse pronunciations of the same word
finally to settle and resolve themselves into different words, with different orthographies, and different domains of
meaning which they have severally appropriated to them- selves; and which henceforth they maintain in perfect in-
dependence one of the other. I have elsewhere given ‘Conviction to the serpent none belongs;’ this was a grace reserved for Adam and Eve, as they only were capable
of it.
10th edit. pp. 157-164); and a very few may here suffice: ‘redlich,’ ‘fray’ and ‘fret’, ‘harnais’ and ‘harnois,’ ‘allay’ and ‘alloy,’ ‘mettle’ and ‘metal.’ That which
may be affirmed of all these, may also be affirmed of secured each a domain of meaning of its own was debated with no little earnestness and heat by some of the great
early Hellenists, and foremost names among these are ranged on either side; Salmasius among those who main-
tained the existence of a distinction, at least in Hellenistic Greek; Beza among those who denied it. Perhaps here,
as in so many cases, the truth did not absolutely lie with the combatants on either part, but lay rather between
them, though much nearer to one part than the other; the most reasonable conclusion, after weighing all the
evidence on either side, being this—that such a distinction of meaning did exist, and was allowed by many, but was
by no means recognized or observed by all. In classical Greek a]na form, the only one which Attic writers allow (Lobeck, the technical word by which all such costly offerings as were presented to the gods, and then suspended or other-
wise exposed to view in their temples, all by the Romans termed ‘donaria,’ as tripods, crowns, vases of silver or
gold, and the like, were called; these being in this way separated for ever from all common and profane uses, and
openly dedicated to the honour of that deity, to whom they were presented at the first (Xenophon, Anab. v. 3. 5;
Pausanias, x. 9). But with the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into
Greek, a new thought demanded to find utterance. Those § v. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 17 holy, set apart for God, devoted to Him. The children of Israel were devoted to Him; God was glorified in them:
the wicked Canaanites were devoted to Him; God was glorified on them. This awful fact that in more ways
than one things and persons might be Mr,H, (Lev. xxvii. 28, 29)--that they might be devoted to God for good, and for
evil; that there was such a thing as being "accursed to the Lord" (Josh. vi. 17; cf. Deut. xiii. 16; Num. xxi. 1-3);
that of the spoil of the same city a part might be conse- crated to the Lord in his treasury, and a part utterly
destroyed, and yet this part and that be alike dedicated to Him (Josh. vi. 19, 21), "sacred and devote" (Milton);--
this claimed its expression and utterance now, and found it in the two uses of one word; which, while it remained
the same, just differenced itself enough to indicate in which of the two senses it was employed. And here let it
be observed, that they who find separation from God as the central idea of a]na Rom. ix. 3: to> a]na trace a common bond of meaning between it and a]na which last is plainly separation to God; or to show the
point at which they diverge from one another; while there is no difficulty of the kind when it is seen that separation
to God is in both cases implied.1 Already in the Septuagint and in the Apocryphal
the manner in which the two apparently opposed meanings unfold them- selves from a single root: Anathema igitur est res aut persona Deo obli-
gata aut addicta; sive quia Ei ab hominibus est pietatis catisti, oblata sive quia justitia Dei tales, ob singularia aliqua piacula veluti in suos
carceres poenasque abripuit, comprobante et declara,nte id etiam hominum sententia. . . . Duplici enim de causa Deus vult aliquid habere; vel tan-
quam gratum acceptumque ac sibi oblatum; vel tanquam sibi exosum suaeque irae ac castigationi subjectum ac debitum.'
18 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § v. engage themselves from one another, and from a confused and promiscuous use. How far, indeed, the distinction is
observed there, and whether universally, it is hard to determine, from the variety of readings in various editions;
but in one of the later critical editions (that of Tischen- dorf, 1850), many passages (such for instance as Judith
xvi. 19; Lev. xxvii. 28, 29; 2 Macc. ii. 13); which appear in some earlier editions negligent of the distinction, are
found observant of it. In the N. T. the distinction that allowed, indeed, that the passages there are not numerous enough to convince a gainsayer; he may attribute to
hazard the fact that they fall in with this distinction; how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts" (a]naqh<- mann read a]naqe times (Acts xxiii. 14; Rom. ix. 3; I Cor. xii. 3; xvi. 22;
Gal. i. 8, 9). So far however as these uses reach, they confirm this view of the matter; while if we turn to the
Greek Fathers, we shall find some of them indeed neglect- ing the distinction; but others, and these of the greatest
among them, not merely implicitly allowing it, as does Clement of Alexandria (Coh. ad Gen. 4: a]na the meaning to be, "we have become a costly offering to God"); but explicitly recognizing the distinction, and
tracing it with accuracy and precision; see, for instance, Chrysostoin, Hom. xvi. in Rom., as quoted by Suicer (Thes.
s. v. a]na And thus, putting all which has been urged together,
—the anterior probability, drawn from the existence of similar phenomena in all languages, that the two forms
of a word would gradually have two different meanings § VI. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 19
aspects of dedication to God, for good and for evil, are thus set out by slightly different forms of the same word;
the fact that every passage in the N. T., where the words occur, falls in with this scheme; the usage, though not
perfectly consistent, of later ecclesiastical books,—I cannot but conclude that a]na accidentally by the sacred writers of the New Covenant in different senses; but that St. Luke uses a]na because he intends to express that which is dedicated to God for its own honour as well as for God's glory; St. Paul
uses a]na God, but devoted, as were the Canaanites of old, to his
honour indeed, but its own utter loss; even as in the end every intelligent being, capable of knowing and loving
God, and called to this knowledge, must be either a]na or a]na sqq.; Deyling, Obss. Sac. vol. ii. p. 49.5, sqq.; Fritzsche on Rom. ix. 3; Hengstenberg, Christologie, 2nd ed. vol. iii.
p. 655; Cremer, Biblisch-theologisches Worterbuch, 2nd ed. p. 550).
of the girl possessed with the "spirit of divination," or "spirit of Apollo," it is said that she "brought her masters
much gain by soothsaying" (manteuome from the use of this word on all other occasions, and the
use of it on this one, is very observable, furnishing a notable example of that religious instinct wherewith the
inspired writers abstain from word, whose employment would tend to break down the distinction between hea-
thenism and revealed religion. Thus eu]daimoni from a heathen point of view a religious word, for it ascribes
happiness to the favour of some deity, is yet never em- 20 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § vi.
have been thus employed, dai involving polytheistic error. In like manner a]reth<, the
standing word in heathen ethics for ‘virtue,’ is of very rarest occurrence in the N. T.; it is found but once in all
the writings of St. Paul (Phil. iv. 8); and where else (which is only in the Epistles of St. Peter), it is in quite
different uses from those in which Aristotle employs it.1 In the same way h@qh, which gives us ‘ethics,’ occurs only
on a single occasion, and, which indicates that its absence elsewhere is not accidental, this once is in a quotation
from a heathen poet (1 Cor. xv. 33). In conformity with this same law of moral fitness in
the admission and exclusion of words, we meet with profh- prophesying by the Spirit of God: while directly a sacred writer has need to make mention of the lying art of
heathen divination, he employs this word no longer, but xviii. 10). What the essential difference between the two things, ‘prophesying’ and ‘soothsaying,’ ‘weissagen’
(from ‘wizan’=’wissen’) and ‘wahrsagen,’ is, and why it was necessary to keep them distinct and apart by different
terms used to designate the one and the other, we shall best understand when we have, considered the etymology
of one, at least, of the words. But first, it is almost need- less at this day to warn against what was once a very
common error, one in which many of the Fathers shared (see Suicer, s. v. profh more than in pro ing of the word, he who declares things before they come
to pass. This foretelling or foreannouncing may be, and often is, of the office of the prophet, but is not of the
says.’ —'si cum donis Spiritus Sancti comparatur.' § VI. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 21
classical Greek. The profh speaks out the counsel of God with the clearness, energy
and authority which spring from the consciousness of speaking in God's name, and having received a direct
message from Him to deliver. Of course all this appears in weaker and indistincter form in classical Greek, the
word never coming to its full rights until used of the prophets of the true God. But there too the profh the ‘interpres Deorum;’ thus Euripides (Ion, 372, 413; again, o@rganon qeou? e]stin h]xou?n, krouo of the gods, or of God, the word abated a little of the dignity of its meaning, and profh as interpreter in a more general sense; but still of the good and true; thus compare Plato, Phaedr. 262 d; and
the fine answer which Lucian puts into the mouth of Diogenes, when it is demanded of him what trade he
followed (Vit. Auct. 8 d). But it needs not to follow further the history of the word, as it moves outside the
circle of Revelation. Neither indeed does it fare other- wise within this circle. Of the profh Old Testament and of the New we may with the same confidence affirm that he is not primarily, but only acci-
dentally, one who foretells things future; being rather one who, having been taught of God, speaks out his
will (Deut. xviii. 18; Isai. i.; Jer. i; Ezek. ii; I Cor. xiv. 3).
In manteu sphere of things. The word, connected with ma through it connected, as Plato has taught us, with mani and mai temporary madness, under which those were, who were supposed to be possessed by the god, during the time that
they delivered their oracles; this mantic fury of theirs displaying itself in the eyes rolling, the lips foaming,
the hair flying, as in other tokens of a more than natural agitation.1 It is quite possible that these symptoms were
sometimes produced, as no doubt they were often aggra- vated, in the seers, Pythonesses, Sibyls, and the like, by
the inhalation of earth-vapours, or by other artificial excitements (Plutarch, De Def. Orac. 48). Yet no one
who believes that real spiritual forces underlie all forms of idolatry, but will acknowledge that there was often much
more in these manifestations than mere trickeries and frauds; no one with any insight into the awful mystery
of the false religions of the world, but will see in these symptoms the result of an actual relation in which these
persons stood to a spiritual world—a spiritual world, it is true, which was not above them, but beneath.
Revelation, on the other hand, knows nothing of this mantic fury, except to condemn it. "The spirits of the
prophets are subject to the prophets" (I Cor. xiv. 32; cf. Chrysostom, In Ep. i ad Cor. Hom. 29, ad init.). The true
prophet, indeed, speaks not of himself; profh (Philo, Quis Rer. Div. Haer. 52 d; cf. Plutarch, Amat. 16); he is rapt out of himself; he is e]n Pneu (2 Pet. i. 21), which is much more than ‘moved by the Latin language over the Greek, claims, and I think with reason, such a superiority here, in that the Latin had ‘divinatio,’ a word embodying the
where the Greek had only mantikh<, which, seizing not the thing itself at any central point, did no more than set forth one of the external signs
which accompanied its giving (De Divin. i): ‘Ut alia nos metius multa quam Graeci, sic huic proestantissime rei nomen nostri a divis Graeci, ut
Plato interpretatur, a furore duxerunt.' Yüklə 3,52 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|