Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

AND καρδία. . Latin words, is used almost exclusively for the seat of the affections and in direct contradistinction from the understanding. Hence, with its distinct signification and contrasted associations, it fails to correspond as an exact equivalent to the looser Hebrew and Greek words; though we have one phrase left in which it has the sense of mind or memory, viz., “to learn by heart.” May we not well beware, therefore, lest, by basing our expositions and doctrinal teaching upon the special force of the English term, we really pervert the word of God, instead of inculcating high spiritual truth?

The ancients did not make the nice mental and linguistic analyses of modern thought. They used >>, rapòía, 7???, voùs, &c., for the whole inner man, now with special reference to one special faculty, or state, and now to another. But zapord, for example, is never in the New Testament contradistinguished from or contrasted with voðs, or devota, &c.; and, avhen put side by side with them, it is by parallelism rather than distinction. Thus, when it is said thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart (zapota) and with all thy soul (070) and with all thy mind (òrávo!a), it is not meant that heart, soul, mind, are distinct parts of man; each is the whole inner man, and they are all put together to make the expression of totality the stronger; and sometimes, to strengthen it still further, understanding cúveg!s) and strength (20%ús) are added.

Standing as it does for the inner man, zapoia is never contrasted with anything else within, but with what is without.

Thus our Saviour: Nothing from without entering into a man can defile him, but from within, out of the heart, proceed evil thoughts, &c.—and these defile a man. We have no right to connect with zapồia the sharp distinctions with which we use the modern word heart. Shall we say, for example, that believing with the heart is a different thing from believing with the mind ? The apostle says: “if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” Now here heart is not opposed to mind but to mouth, the inward to the outward; and “in the heart” adds no more to the believing than “with the mouth" adds to the confessing. It is merely said that one is an internal act, and the other an external act. It is no extraordinary kind of believing any more than it is an extraordinary kind of confession. It is believing a logical proposition--'that God hath raised him from the dead." No doubt the apostle means a true, honest, lively faith, and a true, honest confession; and this he would

equally mean, if “in the heart” and “with the mouth” were not there. Man believeth to righteousness, and confession is made unto salvation; he believeth with the inner man, and confesseth with the outer man.

Journal, December, 1881.

On the use of yuri and avsūpa, and Connected

Words in the Sacred Writings.

BY PROF. D. R. GOODWIN, D. D., LL. D.

The words up and p in Hebrew, 4uzy and rivehua in Greek, anima and spiritus in Latin, Seele and Geist in German, soul and ghost or spirit in English, are all alike derived from roots meaning air or some movement of air, as breathing, or a waving of the wind. In classical Greek duzý came to stand for the mind, the inner man, the immortal part of man; and, what is remarkable, it came to have a special reserence to the departed spirits or shades; while wes, the corresponding Hebrew word, came to designate the dead body. The classical Greek never carried Aveūra beyond its physical sense, though the later Greek began to use it for life or the living being.

In the following paper it will be understood that, for the sake of greater brevity, whenever the English words soul and spirit are employed in reference to Old Testament passages, they correspond to the Hebrew words up and pin, and in connection with the New Testament passages, to tugand Tvsūpa, respectively; unless some other word is expressly given as the original term.

Spirit and soul are used interchangeably, or as parallel and equivalent expressions; each for the whole inner man, the whole man exclusive of the body; and both having the same predicates.

“With my soul have I desired thee, yea with my

Isa. xxvi. 9,

spirit within me will I seek thee"; lvii. 16, The spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I have made"; Luke i. 46, “My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour"; Phil. i. 27, “Stand fast in one spirit, with one soul striving together”; Luke x. 21, “Rejoiced in spirit”; John xi. 33, “Groaned in spirit"; xiii. 21, “Troubled in spirit"; Mark viii. 12, “Sighed deeply in his spirit"; Acts xvii. 16, “Spirit stirred within him”; xviii. 5, “Pressed in spirit"; -John xii. 27, “My soul is troubled"; 2 Pet. ii. 8, “Vexed his righteous soul"; Matt. xi. 29, “Ye shall find rest unto your souls"; xxvi. 38, and Mark xiv. 34, “My soul is exceeding sorrowful"; Luke ii. 35, “A sword shall pierce through thine own soul"; Gen. xlii. 21, “We saw the anguish of his soul"; Lev. XV. 29, 31, “Shall afflict your souls"; i Sam. i. 10,

"She was in bitterness of soul”, (also Job iii. 10); Jud. xvi. 16, “His soul was vexed", also Ps. vi. 3, &c.;-Gen. xli. 8, “Spirit troubled"; Ex. vi. 9, “anguish of spirit”; Job. vii. 11, “I will speak in the anguish of my spirit"; see also “a broken spirit", "a wounded spirit", "vexation of spirit", &c.

Thus the same assections are ascribed indiscriminately to the soul and to the spirit; and one stands for the man himself as much as the other.

The soul and the body are represented as constituting the whole man. Matt. x. 28, “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul, but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna"; see also Luke xii. 5. Here “soul” is more than “the life"'; for that man can destroy; it is the living being;--and Gehenna is more than the grave or the valley of Hinnom; for, according to St. Luke, man cannot cast into it. Here, too, it is plain the soul and the body are all there is of man. Micah vi. 7, “Fruit of my body for the sin of my soul"; Isa. X. 18, “Both soul and body"; Gen. xxxv. 18, “Her soul was in departing”; 1 Kings xix. 21, 22, “Let this child's soul come into him again."

Still more frequently are the spirit and body, in immediate con• trast, thus represented:-Luke viii. 55, “Her spirit came again and she arose"; so, “into thy hands I commend my spirit"; “receive my spirit"; 1 Cor. vi. 20, "Glorify God in your body and in your spirit”; vii. 34. “Holy both in body and in spirit"; Eph. iv. 4, “One body. one spirit"; James ii. 26, “As the body without the spirit is dead," (where the spirit is recognized as the animating principle for the body); so Rev. xi. 11, “The spirit of life from God entered into them.”

Our Lor) himself contrasts spirit with flesh, cáps; never with body, sola. “That which is born of the flesh,” says he, “is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” Here flesh does not mean the body, but the whole natural man, that which is the product or the result of natural generation; while the spirit does not denote what was in the man before as a constituent part of him, but that which is produced in him by the regenerating agency of the Divine Spirit. St. Paul uses flesh and spirit in the same way. “The flesh lusteth against the spirit,” says he, “and the spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other, so that ye cannot do the things that ye would", (Gal. v. 17); and again, “So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh but in the spirit." Whence it is manifest that flesh is not synonymous with body, for they were in the body.

When, on another occasion, our Lord says, “the spirit indeed is willing but the flesh is weak”, the flesh may mean much the same as body; but if so, the spirit means the same as soul or heart or mind; and thus the distinction is equivalent to that between soul and body.

There are a few other passages where spirit and flesh are brought into contrast or juxtaposition,--particularly Heb. xii. 9, 10: “Furthermore, the fathers of our flesh we had as chasteners, and we reverenced them; shall we not much rather submit ourselves unto the Father of the Cour?] spirits and live?" This has been variously interpreted; and it has been cited as proving the doctrine of creationism, i. l., that each human soul is created for each human body by an act of God. But this seems to ignore the fact that God is the maker of our bodies as well as of our spirits or souls; see Ps. cxxxix. 13-16. The allusion may be to the original Divine inbreathing whereby "pian became a living soul"; or to the regenerating energy of the Divine Spirit. The soul is also spoken of much in the same way in Isa

. Ivii. 16: “The spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I have made.”

For other passages similar to that in Hebrews, see Numb. xvi. 22: “O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh"; Ixvii. 1, "The Lord, the God of the spirits of all flesh"; Job. xii. 10, “In whose hand is the soul (w's:) of all life, and the breath (of all human flesh"; xxvii. 3, “The Spirit of God is in my nostrils"; xxxiii. 4, “The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath (rou) of the Almighty hath given me life.' sages the Spirit seems to stand for the breath or the animating principle in man; and God is simply represented as the author and

In these pas

« ÎnapoiContinuați »