« ÎnapoiContinuați »
The use of Kapola in the New Testament corresponds almost perfectly to that of 3 in the Old Testament. It stands for the mind, the inner man, Lat. animus :-thus, “Think evil in your hearts," Matt. ix. 4; "should understand with their heart,” xiii. 15; "out of the heart proceed evil thoughts,” xv. 19; “reasoning in their hearts," Mark ii. 6; “not doubt in his heart," xi. 23 ; "imagination of their hearts," Luke i. 51 ; “pondered them in her heart," ii. 19; "mused in their hearts," iii. 15; “slow of heart to believe,” xxiv. 25; "they considered not for their heart was hardened,” Mark vi. 52; “have ye your hearts hardened ? . do ye not yet understand?" Mark viii. 17, because they did not apprehend about the leaven of the Pharisees ; so in Acts xix. 9, “divers were hardened and believed not;" "therefore,” says St. John, “they could not believe because that Esaias said again, he hath blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they should . understand with their heart"; and so for other cases of hardening the heart;—to “blind the mind” and “harden the heart," seem to be parallel expressions for the same thing ;-again, “why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart?” Acts v. 4 ; “show the work of the law in their hearts, .. their thoughts accusing or excusing,” Rom. ii. 15; “shalt believe in thine heart,” x. 9; “neither have entered into the heart of man the things," i Cor. ii. 9; "written in our hearts,”' iii. 2 ; “I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them,” Heb. x. 16; "till the day-star arise in your hearts,” 2
Pet. ii. 19.
With καρδία are connected διαλογισμου, “out of the heart proceed thoughts,” Matt. xv. 19; Mark vii. 21; "thoughts of many hearts,” Luke ii. 35; “Jesus perceived the thoughts of their hearts,” ix. 47; "why do thoughts arise in your hearts,” xxiv. 38;-also evOUPLE's, “discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart," Heb. iv. 12; dvoupéopa!, “wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?” Matt. ix. 4;also êrivola, “if perhaps the thought of thine heart,” Acts viii. 22, and “hast thought,” yopigw, viii. 20;-also drávoda, “imagination of their hearts," Luke i. 51. Jeuvola is also used in the moral sense like kapóía, “ desires of the flesh and the mind," Eph. ii. 3; "enemies in your mind by wicked works,” Col. i. 21; "I will put my laws into their mind," Heb. viii. 10; “I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them,” Heb. x. 16; "gird up the loins of your mind, be sober,” 1 Pet. i. 13; “Stir up your pure
Phil. ii. 5;
minds,” 2 Pet. iii. 1;-also čvora, "arm yourselves likewise with the same mind," 1 Pet. iv, 1;—also yonga, “their minds were blinded
for the veil is upon their heart," 2 Cor. iii. 14; “hath blinded the mind of them that believe not," 2 Cor. iv. 4; “so your minds should be corrupted,” xi. 3; “shall keep your hearts and minds,” Phil. iv. 7;—also yoos, “God gave them over to a reprobate mind,” Rom. i. 28; “warring against the law of my mind,” vii. 23; “ with the mind I myself serve the law of God,” vii. 25; "transformed by the renewing of your mind,” xii. 2; “renewed in the spirit of your mind," Eph. iv. 23; "disputings of men of corrupt minds," 1 Tim. vi. 5; 2 Tim. iii. 8;-also opóvoa and 4povéw, as cpówna σαρκός, Rom. viii. 7; and φρόνημα πνεύματος, viii. 27; φρονέω τούτο,
“savourest not the things that be of God,” Matt. xvi. 23 and Mark viii. 33; “ do mind the things of the flesh,” Rom. viii. 5; -also yuyó, “minds evil-affected,” Acts xiv. 2;—also, finally, and most striking of all, justavośw, and peTÁVOLC are the words used precisely for what we should call “a change of heart,”—not letaxapoia but μετάνοια. .
Thus a and rapòía are the subject or seat, not only of the affections, but of thought, imagination, meditation, memory, perception, reflection, knowledge, skill, belief, judgment, reasoning, consciousness; and, on the other hand, other words which are admitted properly to refer to intellectual operations are familiarly used also for the affections and all the moral activities.
The word opov, pl. cpévez, standing for the reins or kidney's, or the diaphragm or caul, came to denote, after its physical sense, what we express by heart, as properly as did zapôía; but, like zapota, it came also to stand for the whole mind. It is used but twice in the New Testament, and then in the same verse (1 Cor. xiv. 20), and is there translated “understanding." It is very curious that, while the ancients treated several of the internal physical organs as the seat of the mind, e. g., not only the heart and kidneys or liver, but the breast, and even the stomach and bowels, they never hit upon the brains for that purpose ;-except, perhaps, in Dan. iv. 13, “visions of my head";—although opéves comes so provokingly near the English word in sound that we are almost tempted to seek for some mysterious etymological connection.
The Latin “cor" of the same root as the Greek zapoia, was sometimes, though unfrequently, used for the cogitative or cognitive faculty. Through the French it has passed out into the special sense of courage. The English heart, of the same root as the Greek and 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,