Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

saw in the night visions, "one like the son of man come, with the clouds of heaven, to the Ancient of days, and that there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom," Dan. vii, 13, 14. There can be no reasonable doubt, from the description given, that the Messiah is meant: But this is not notified by any of the terms or phrases taken separately; it is the result of the whole. Nothing appears to be pointed out by this single circumstance, "one like the son of man," or "like a son of man," (as it ought to have been rendered, neither term being in statu emphatico, which in Chaldee supplies the article,) but that he would be a human, not an angelical, or any other kind of being; for in the oriental idiom, son of man and man are terms equivalent.

The four monarchies which were to precede that of the Messiah, the prophet had, in the foregoing part of the chapter, described under the figure of certain beasts, as emblems severally of the predominant character of each; the first under the figure of a lion, the second under that of a bear, the third of a leopard, and the fourth of a monster, more terrible than any of these. This kingdom, which God himself was to erect, is contradistinguished to all the rest by the figure of a man, in order to denote, that whereas violence, in some shape or other, would be the principal means by which those merely secular kingdoms would be established, and terror the principal motive by which submission would be enforced, it would be quite otherwise in that spiritual kingdom to be erected by the Ancient of days, wherein every thing would be suited to man's rational and moral nature; affection would be the prevailing motive to obedience, and persuasion the means of producing it; or, to use the Scripture expression, we should be drawn "with cords of a man, with bands of love."

Had the prophet used man instead of son of man, could one have concluded that the word man was intended as a distinguishing title of the Messiah? It will hardly be pretended. Yet the argument would have been the same; for the terms are synonymous.

There are two phrases by which this may be expressed in Hebrew, as a ben adam, and ben ish. When these two are contrasted to each other, the former denotes one of low degree the latter one of superior rank. Thus bene adam ubene.ish are, in Psalm xlix. 2, rightly rendered in the common version low and high. The first bene adam is, in the Septuagint, translated γηγενείς, in the Vulgate, terrigenæ, earth-born, or sons of earth, in allusion to the derivation of the word adam, man, from a word signifying ground or earth. The same ben adam is the common appellation by which God addresses the prophet Ezekiel, which is rendered by the LXX vie aveowπоv, and frequently occurs in that book. "The son of man," therefore, was an humble title, in which nothing was claimed but what was enjoyed

in common with all mankind. In the Syriac version of the New Testament it often occurs where the term in the Greek is simply ανθρωπος, man.

That it was never understood by the people in our Lord's time as a title of the Messiah, or even a title of particular dignity, is manifest from several considerations. In the first place, though Jesus commonly takes it to himself, it is never given him by the evangelists in speaking of him. He is never addressed with this title by others, whether disciples or strangers. Several honourable compellations were given him by those who applied for relief as, Kupiε, didaσkaλɛ, rabbi; sometimes he is addressed "Son of David," sometimes "Son of God," and on one occasion he is called, "He who cometh in the name of the Lord." The two last titles may reasonably be supposed to imply an acknowledgment of him as Messiah. Now, if the title "Son of Man" had been thought even in any degree respectful from others, we should certainly have had some examples of it in his lifetime. Further, our Lord was in the practice of denominating himself in this manner at the very time that he prohibited his disciples from acquainting any man that he was the Messiah. What purpose could this prohibition have answered, if the title he commonly assumed in the hearing of every body, was understood to be of the same import? It is urged farther, that this phrase is used in the Apocalypse (i. 13.) in describing the vision which the apostle John had of his Master. The answer is the same with that given to the argument founded on Daniel's vision. First, the phrase is not entirely the same with that by which Jesus distinguishes himself in the Gospel. Our Lord calls himself ὁ υἱος, του ανθρώπου, the son of man; John says, óμolov viw avZpwrоv, without any article, one like a son of man, that is, in the human form. It is indeed evident that he is speaking of Jesus Christ; but this is what we gather from the whole description and context, and not from this circumstance alone.

14. But whatever be in this, there are several titles which, in the writings of the apostles and evangelists, are peculiarly applied to our Lord, though they do not often occur. I have already mentioned ὁ ερχομενος, εν ονόματι κυριου, and ὁ υἱος Δαβίδ. Add to these, o ayos тOV OɛOV, the saint, or the holy one of God, Ó EKλEKTOG TOV Dɛov, the elect, or the chosen one of God, both expressions borrowed from the Prophets. Now, though these terms are in the plural number susceptible of an application to others, both angels and men, they are in the New Testament, when in the singular number and accompanied with the article, evidently appropriated to the Messiah.

DISSERTATION VI.

INQUIRY INTO THE DIFFERENCES IN THE IMPORT OF SOME WORDS COMMONLY THOUGHT SYNONYMOUS.

SEVERAL words in the New Testament considered by our translators as synonymous, and commonly rendered by the same English word, are not really synonymous, though their significations may have an affinity, and though sometimes they may be used indiscriminately. I shall exemplify this remark in a few instances of words which occur in the Gospels.

PART I.

Διαβολος, Δαιμων, AND Δαιμονιον.

THE first of this kind on which I intend to make some observations, are διαβολος, δαιμων, and δαιμονιον, all rendered in the common translation almost invariably devil. The word daßodos, in its ordinary acceptation, signifies calumniator, traducer, false accuser, from the verb Siaßadλev, to calumniate, &c. Though the word is sometimes, both in the Old Testament and in the New, applied to men and women of this character, it is, by way of eminence, employed to denote that apostate angel who is exhibited to us particularly in the New Testament as the great enemy of God and man. In the two first chapters of Job, it is the word in the Septuagint by which the Hebrew jo Satan, or adversary, is translated. Indeed the Hebrew word in this application, as well as the Greek, has been naturalized in most modern languages. Thus we say indifferently the Devil or Satan, only the latter has more the appearance of a proper name, as it is not attended with the article. There is this difference between the import of such terms, as occurring in their native tongues, and as modernized in translations. In the former they always retain somewhat of their primitive meaning, and, beside indicating a particular being, or class of beings, they are of the nature of appellatives, and mark a special character or note of distinction in such beings. Whereas when thus Latinized or Englished, they answer solely the first of these uses, as they come nearer the nature of proper names. This remark extends to all such words as cherub, seraph, angel, apostle, evangelist, messiah.

2. Aiabolos, I observed, is sometimes applied to human beings. But nothing is easier than to distinguish this application from the more frequent application to the arch-apostate. One mark of distinction is, that in this last use of the term, it is never found

66

αστορ

in the plural. When the plural is used, the context always shows that it is human beings, and not fallen angels, that are spoken of. It occurs in the plural only thrice, and only in Paul's Epistles. Γυναίκας, says he, ὡσαύτως σεμνας, μη διαβόλους, "Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers," 1 Tim. iii. 11. In scriptural use the word may be either masculine or feminine. Again, speaking of the bad men who would appear in the last times, he says, amongst other things, that they will be aσropγοι, ασπονδοι, διαβολοι, in the common translation, “ without natural affection, truce-breakers, false accusers," 2 Tim. iii. 3. Once more, Πρεσβυτίδας ὡσαύτως εν καταστηματι ἱεροπρεπείς, μη διαBolovs, "The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers," Tit. ii. 3. Another criterion whereby the application of this word to the prince of darkness may be discovered, is its being attended with the article. The term almost invariably is ó diaßolos. I say almost, because there are a few exceptions.

3. It may not be amiss, ere we proceed, to specify the exceptions that we may discover whether there be any thing in the construction that supplies the place of the article, or at least makes that it may be more easily dispensed with. Paul, addressing himself to Elymas the sorcerer, who endeavoured to turn away the proconsul Sergius Paulus from the faith says, Acts xiii. 10, "O full of all subtilty, thou child of the devil," vie diaßodov. There can be no doubt that the apostle here means the evil spirit, agreeably to the idiom of Scripture, where a good man is called a child of God, and a bad man a child of the devil: "Ye are of your father the devil," said our Lord to the Pharisees, John viii. 44. As to the example from the Acts, all I can say is, that in an address of this form, where a vocative is immediately followed by the genitive of the word construed with it, the connexion is conceived to be so close as to render the omission of the article more natural than in other cases. This holds espe

cially when, as in the present instance, the address must have been accompanied with some emotion and vehemence in the speaker. I know not whether ὁ αντιδικος ύμων διαβολος, “ your adversary the devil," 1 Pet. v. 8, ought to be considered as an example. There being here two appellatives, the article prefixed to the first may be regarded as common, though I own it is more usual, in such cases, for the greater emphasis, to repeat it. In the word ὡς εστι διαβολος και σατανας, "who is the devil and satan," Rev. xx. 2; as the sole view is to mention the names whereby the malignant spirit is distinguished, we can hardly call this instance an exception. Now these are all the examples I can find, in which the word, though used indefinitely, or without the article, evidently denotes our spiritual and ancient enemy. The examples in which it occurs in this sense, with the article, it were tedious to enumerate.

4. There is only one place, beside those above-mentioned, where the word is found without the article, and, as it is intended to express a human character, though a very bad one, ought not, I think, to have been rendered devil. The words are, "Jesus answered, have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" ε vμwv εis diaẞodos εOT: John vi. 70. My reasons for not translating it devil in this place are, first, The word is strictly and originally an appellative, denoting a certain bad quality, and though commonly applied to one particular being, yet naturally applicable to any kind of being susceptible of moral character secondly, As the term in its appropriation to the arch-rebel always denotes one individual, the term a devil is not agreeable to Scripture style, insomuch that I am inclined to think, that if our Lord's intention had been to use, by an antonomasia, the distinguishing name of the evil spirit, in order to express more strongly the sameness of character in both, he would have said, ó diaßodos, one of you is the devil, this being the only way whereby that evil spirit is discriminated. The words, avridikos, adversary, TELρalwv, tempter, with the article, are also used by way of eminence, though not so frequently, to express the same malignant being; yet, when either of these occurs without the article, applied to a man as an adversary or a tempter, we do not suppose any allusion to the devil. The case would be different, if one were denominated ó Teiρalwv, ó avτidikos, the tempter, the adversary.

There is not any epithet (for diaẞolos is no more than an epithet) by which the same spirit is oftener distinguished, than by that of o Tovηpos, the evil one. Now, when a man is called simply Tovηpos, without the article, no more is understood to be implied than that he is a bad man. But if the expression were ó Tóvηpos, unless used to distinguish a bad from a good man of the same name, we should consider it as equivalent to the devil, or the evil one. Even in metaphorical appellations, if a man were denominated a dragon or a serpent, we should go no further for the import of the metaphor, than to the nature of the animal so called; but if he were termed the dragon, or the old serpent, this would immediately suggest to us, that it was the intention of the speaker to represent the character as the same with that of the seducer of our first parents. The unlearned English reader will object, Where is the impropriety in speaking of a devil? Is any thing more common in the New Testament? How often is there mention of persons possessed with a devil? We hear too of numbers of them. Out of Mary Magdalene went seven; and out of the furious man who made the sepulchres his residence, a legion. The Greek student needs not be informed, that in none of those places is the term διαβολος, but δαιμων οι δαιμονιον. Nor can any thing be clearer from Scripture than that, though the demons are innumerable, there is but one devil in the universe. Besides, if we suppose that this word, when applied to human crea

« ÎnapoiContinuă »