« PreviousContinue »
avspwns, 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.
0 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 o
ερχομενος εν ονοματι κυριε, and ο υιος Aaßid. Add to these 'o ayios T8 88, the saint, or the holy one of God, o ExhEXTOS T8 08, 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 THE SIXTH.
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.
Διαβολος, Δαιμων, AND Δαιμονιον. The first of this kind, on which I intend to make Some observations, are διαβολος, δαιμων, and δαιμονtov, all rendered in the common translation almost invariably devil. The word daßoros, in its ordinary acceptation, signifies calumniator, traducer, false. accuser, from the verb daßandelv, 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 you 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. mark extends to all such words, as cherub, seraph, angel, apostle, evangelist, messiah.
$ 2. Alaboros, 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 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. Γυναικας, says he ', ώσαύτως σεμνας, μη διαβολος, Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers. 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 ας οργοι, ασπονδοι, διαBoroc, in the common translation, without natural affection, truce-breakers, false accusers. Once more, Πρεσβυτιδας ώσαύτως εν καταςηματι ιεροπρεπεις, μη daßons. The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers. 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 o diaboaos. 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 “, O full of all subtilty, thou child of the devil, üle diaßone. 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. 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 connection is conceived to be so close as to render the omission of the article more natural than in other cases. This holds especially when, as in the present instance, the address must have been accompanied with some emotion and vehemence in the speaker. I know not whether ο αντιδικος υμων διαBoros", your adversary the devil, ought to be considered as an example. There being here two appellatives, the article prefixed to the first, may be re. garded as common, though I own it is more usual, in such cases, for the greater emphasis, to repeat it. In the word oς εςι διαβολος και σατανας', who 15 the devil and satan; 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
Acts, xiii. 10. 6 1 Pet. v. 8.
5 John, viii. 44.