« ÎnapoiContinuați »
of the Jews, in the days of our Lord and his apostles. The exhortations to holiness in the New Testament are evidently to be understood of moral purity, and of that only. On other occasions, the words holy, and saints, ayiot, even in the New Testament, ought to be explained, in conformity to the fourth meaning above assigned, devoted or consecrated to the service of God.
16. Having illustrated these different senses, I shall consider an objection that may be offered against the interpretation here given of the word holy, when applied to God, as denoting awful, venerable. Is not, it may be said, the imitation of God in holiness enjoined as a duty? And does not this imply, that the thing itself must be the same in nature, how different soever in degree, when ascribed to God, and when enjoined on us? As I did not entirely exclude this sense, to wit, moral purity, from the term when applied to the Deity, I readily admit, that in this injunction in the New Testament there may be a particular reference to it. But it is not necessary that, in such sentences, there be so perfect a coincidence of signification, as seems, in the objection, to be contended for. The words are, "Be ye holy, for" (not as) "I am holy." In the passage where this precept first occurs it is manifest, from the context, that the scope of the charge given to the people is to avoid ceremonial impurities; those particularly that may be contracted by eating unclean meats, and, above all, by eating insects and reptiles, which are called an abomination. Now, certainly, in this inferior acceptation, the term is utterly inapplicable to God. But what entirely removes the difficulty is, that the people are said, by a participation in such unclean food, to make themselves abominable. To this the precept, "Sanctify yourselves, and be ye holy," stands in direct opposition. There is here, therefore, a coincidence of the second and fifth meanings of the word holy, which are connected, in their application to men, as the means and the end, and therefore ought both to be understood as comprehended, though the latter alone is applicable to God. Now, as the opposite of abominable is estimable, venerable, the import of the precept, "Sanctify yourselves," manifestly is, "Be careful, by a strict attention to the statutes ye have received concerning purity, especially in what regards your food, to avoid the pollution of your body; maintain thus a proper respect for your persons, that your religious services may be esteemed by men, and accepted of God; for remember that the God whom ye serve, as being pure and perfect, is entitled to the highest esteem and veneration. Whatever, therefore, may be called slovenly, or what his law has pronounced impure in his servants, is an indignity offered by them to their master, which he will certainly resent.'
But as an artful gloss or paraphrase will sometimes mislead, I shall subjoin the plain words of Scripture, Lev. xi. 42, &c. which come in the conclusion of a long chapter, wherein the laws relat
ing to cleanness in animal food, in beasts, birds, fishes, and reptiles, are laid down. "Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all-four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat, for they are an abomination. Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby: For I am the Lord your God; ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy, for I am holy. Neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth: For I am the Lord that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God; ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy." It is plain that any other interpretation of the word holy than that now given, would render the whole passage incoherent.
17. Now, to come to the word Ton chasid, oooç, this is a term which properly and originally expresses a mental quality, and that only in the same manner as PT tsaddik, dikaios just, amon, TiσTos, faithful, and several others. Nor is there any material variation of meaning that the word seems to have undergone at different periods. The most common acceptation is, humane, merciful, beneficent, benign. When there appears to be a particular reference to the way wherein the person stands affected to God and religion, it means pious, devout. In conformity to this sense, our translators have, in several places in the Old Testament, rendered it godly. The phrase of oσil tov Oεov, is therefore not improperly rendered the saints of God, that is, his pious servants. It most probably, as was hinted before, means pious, in what is said of our Lord, that he was dolog, akаκος, αμιαντος, as it seems to have been the intention of the sacred writer to comprehend, in few words, his whole moral character respecting God, the rest of mankind, and himself. In the enumeration which Paul gives to Titus (i. 8.) of the virtues whereof a bishop ought to be possessed, it is surely improper to explain any of them by a general term equally adapted to them all; since nothing can be plainer than that his intention is to denote, by every epithet, some equality not expressed before. His words are, φιλοξενον, φιλαγαθον, σώφρονα, δικαιον, όσιον, εγκρατη. To render botov, holy, (though that were in other places a proper version,) would be here in effect the same as to omit it altogether. If the sense had been pious, it had properly been either the first or the last in the catalogue: as it stands, I think it ought to be rendered humane.
There are certain words, which on some occasions are used with greater, and on others with less latitude. Thus the word Sikatos sometimes comprehends the whole of our duty to God, our neighbour, and ourselves; sometimes it includes only the virtue of justice. When oi dukalot is opposed to oi rovnpo, the former is
the case, and it is better to render it the righteous, and dikaιoovvn, righteousness; but when dialog or dikatoσvvη occur in a list with other virtues, it is better to render them just or justice. Sometimes the word is employed in a sense which has been called forensic, as being derived from judicial proceedings: "He that justifieth the wicked," says Solomon, "and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord." Prov. xvii. 15. The word wicked means no more here than guilty, and the word just, guiltless of the crime charged. In like manner, óotorns, in one or two instances, may be found in the New Testament in an extent of signification greater than usual. In such cases it may be rendered sanctity, a word rather more expressive of what concerns manners than holiness is.
18. But, as a further evidence that the Hebrew word chasid, is not synonymous with wp kadosh, and consequently neither óotos with ȧytos, it must be observed, that the abstract D chesed, is not once rendered by the Seventy doorns, or by our interpreters holiness, though the concrete is almost always rendered dotos in Greek, and often holy in English. This substantive, on the contrary, is translated in the Septuagint ελεος, ελεημοσυνη, οικτειρημα, ελπις, χαρις, or some such term ; once, indeed, and but once, bota. In English it is translated kindness, favour, grace, mercy, loving-kindness, pity, but never holiness. The analogy of language (unless use were clear against it, which is not the case here) would lead us to think, that there must be a nearer relation in meaning than this between the substantive and the adjective formed from it. Yet worthy does not more evidently spring from worth, than Ton chasid springs from 70 chesed. Of the term last mentioned it may be proper just to observe, that there is also an anomalous use, (like that remarked in kadosh,) which assigns it a meaning the reverse of its usual signification, answering to avoua, ovados, flagitium, probrum. But it is only in two or three places that the word occurs in this acceptation.
19. I shall conclude with observing, that chasid or hosios is sometimes applied to God; in which case there can be little doubt of its implying merciful, bountiful, gracious, liberal, or benign. The only case wherein it has an affinity in meaning to the English words saint or holy, is when it expresses pious affections towards God. As these cannot be attributed to God himself, the term, when used of him, ought to be understood according to its most frequent acceptation. The Psalmist's words, which in the common version (cxlv. 17.) are, "The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy," chasid, "in all his works," would have been more truly as well as intelligibly and emphatically rendered, "The Lord is just in all his ways, and bountiful in all his works." There is not equal reason for translating in the same manner the Greek hosios, when applied to God in the New Testament. Though hosios, in the Septuagint, commonly occupies the place
of chasid, it does not always: it is sometimes employed in translating the Hebrew words on tham, perfect, and Tjasher, upright. Once it is used for this last term when applied to God, Deut. xxxii. 4. These words, therefore, or μovos óσios, Rev. xv. 4, in an address to God, ought to be translated for thou alone art perfect, rather than bountiful or gracious. The addition of μovos to the other epithet, is a sufficient ground for this preference. The context also favours it. But in the more common acceptation of the term óotoç, hosios, there is a difference between it and gyios, hagios, as applied to God: the latter appellation represents the Deity as awful, or rather terrible; the former as amiable. The latter checks all advances on our part: we are ready to cry with the men of Bethshemesh, "Who is able to stand before this holy God?" 1 Sam. vi. 20. The former emboldens us to approach. Thus they are so far from being synonymous in this application, that they may rather be contrasted with each other. As to their import, when applied to men, the word ayos, in the best sense, still retains so much of its origin as to appear rather a negative character, denoting a mind without stain; whereas the term oooc is properly positive, and implies in its utmost extent both piety and benevolence.
20. In regard to the manner of translating kadosh in the Old Testament, and hagios in the New-when all circumstances are considered, I think it safest to retain very generally the common version holy. The same remark holds nearly also of the conjugates. It is very true that the sense of the original, in many places, does not entirely suit the meaning which we affix to that word: but it is certain, on the other hand, that we have no one word that answers so well in all cases. To change the term with each variation in meaning, would be attended with great inconveniency, and in many cases oblige the translator to express himself either unintelligibly, and to appearance inconsequentially, or too much in the manner of the paraphrast. On the other hand, as the English term holy is somewhat indefinite in respect of meaning, and in a manner appropriated to religious subjects, nothing can serve better to ascertain and illustrate the scriptural use than such uniformity; and the scriptural use of a word hardly current in common discourse, cannot fail to fix the general acceptation. But this would not hold of any words in familiar use on ordinary subjects. With regard to such, any deviation from the received meaning would, to common readers, prove the occasion of perplexity at least, if not of error. But chasid in the Old Testament, and hosios in the New, (except when used substantively, where it may be rendered saint,) ought, when it respects the disposition towards God, to be translated pious; when it respects the disposition towards men, gracious, kind, humane.
Κηρύσσειν, ευαγγελιζειν, καταγγελλειν, AND διδασκειν.
THE only other specimen I shall here give of words supposed to be synonymous, or nearly so, shall be кnpvoσev, evayyedi selv, καταγγελλειν, and διδασκειν, all nearly related; the former three being almost always rendered in English to preach, and the last to teach. My intention is, not only to point out exactly the differences of meaning in these words, but to evince that the words whereby the two former are rendered in some, perhaps most, modern languages, do not entirely reach the meaning of the original terms, and in some measure, by consequence, mislead most readers. It happens in a tract of ages, through the gradual alterations which take place in laws, manners, rites, and customs, that words come, as it were, along with these, by imperceptible degrees, to vary considerably from their primitive signification. Perhaps it is, oftener than we are aware, to be ascribed to this cause, that the terms employed by translators are found so feebly to express the meaning of the original.
2. The first of the words above mentioned, knovoσev, rendered to preach, is derived from кɛpuέ, rendered preacher, whence also кηoνyμа, rendered a preaching. The primitive Knou signifies properly both herald and common crier, and answers exactly to the Latin word caduceator in the first of these senses, and to præco in the second. The verb кnovoot is accordingly to cry, publish, or proclaim authoritatively, or by commission from another, and the noun кηovyμa is the thing published or proclaimed. The word Kηov occurs only twice in the Septuagint, and once in the apocryphal book Ecclesiasticus, and evidently means in them all crier. The other sense of the word, namely, herald, or messenger of important intelligence between princes and states, is nearly related, as the same persons had often the charge of carrying such embassies, and of proclaiming war or peace; but it is not quite the same. In the New Testament the word seems to partake of both senses, but more evidently of that of crier. And to this sense the derivatives κηρύσσω and κηρυγμα more properly accord than to the other; for, to discharge the office of herald is, in Greek, knovKEVELV, and the office itself кnpuKEVOIÇ. But these words, though κευειν, κηρυκευσις. frequent in classical writers, are not found in Scripture. The word Knou occurs but thrice in the New Testament, once in each of the Epistles to Timothy, (1 Ep. ii. 7, 2 Ep. i. 11,) wherein Paul calls himself' κηρυξ και αποστολος ; and once it is used by the apostle Peter, (2 Ep. ii. 5,) who, speaking of Noah, calls him knov δικαιοσύνης. The word κηρυγμα appears but in three places in the Septuagint, and imports in them all proclamation or thing proclaimed. In one of those places (Jonah iii. 2.) it relates to