« PreviousContinue »
The word nap is used for the slaying of animals, especially in
preparation for a feast. It corresponds more nearly with
the word butcher. Thus, when Joseph's brethren came, bringing Benjamin with them, Joseph commanded the ruler of his house to bring the men to the house, and kill a killing (nap náp, Gen. xliii, 16). Compare 1 Sam. xxv, 11; Prov. ix, 2. When the word is applied to the slaughter of men it is always with the idea that they are slaughtered or butchered like so many animals (Psa. xxxvii, 14; Jer. li, 40; Lam. ii, 21; Ezek. xxi, 10, (15). A kindred word is naj, used of the sacrificing of animals for offer
ings. It is thus ever associated with the idea of im
molation, and the derivative noun na! means a sacrificial offering to God. “This verb,” says Gesenius, “is not used of the priests as slaughtering victims in sacrifice, but of private persons offering sacrifices at their own cost." Compare Gen. xxxi, 54; Exod. viii, 29, (25); 1 Sam. xi, 15; 2 Chron. vii, 4; xxxiii, 17; Ezek. xx, 28; Hos. xii, 2; Jon, i, 16. Another word, constantly used in connection with the killing of
animals for sacrifice, is one; but it differs from na
especially in this, that the latter emphasizes rather the idea of sacrifice, while one points more directly to the slaughter of the victim. Hence nar is often used intransitively, in the sense of offering sacrifice, without specifying the object sacrificed; but Ann is always transitive, and connected with the object slain. This latter word is often applied to the slaying of persons (Gen. xxii, 10; 1 Kings xviii, 40; 2 Kings x, 7, 14; Isa. lvii, 5; Ezek. xvi, 21), but in a sacrificial sense, as the immediate context shows. Judg. xii, 6, would seem to be an exception, but the probable thought there is that the Ephraimites who could not pronounce the “Shibboleth " were slain as so many human sacrifices.
Thus each of these seven Hebrew words, all of which involve the idea of killing or slaughter, has its own distinct shade of meaning and manner of usage.
The Hebrew language has twelve different words to express the Hebrew words idea of sin. First, there is the verb xon, which, like
the Greek duaptávw, means, primarily, to miss a mark, and is so used (in Hiphil) in Judg. xx, 16, where mention is made of seven hundred left handed Benjamites who could sling stones
“ to the hair, and not miss.” In Prov. viii, 36, it is con
trasted with xx?, to find (verse 35): “They that find me, find life; . . . and he that misses me wrongs his soul.” Compare also Prov. xix, 2: “He that hastens with his feet misses ;-" that is, makes a misstep; gets off the track. The exact meaning
in Job v, 24, is more doubtful: “Thou shalt visit thy pasture (or habitation), and shalt not miss.” The sense, according to most interpreters, is: Thou shalt miss nothing; in visiting thy pasture and thy flocks thou shalt find nothing gone; no sheep or cattle missing. It is easy to see how the idea of making a misstep, or missing a mark, passed over into the moral idea of missing some divinely appointed mark; hence failure, error, shortcoming, an action that has miscarried. Accordingly, the noun xon means fault, error, sin. It is interesting to note how the Piel, or intensive form of the verb xon, conveys the idea of making an offering for sin (compare Lev. vi, 26, (19); ix, 15), or cleansing by some ceremonial of atonement (Exod. xxix, 36; Lev. xiv, 52); as if the thought of bearing the penalty of sin, and making it appear loathsome and damnable, were to be made conspicuous by an intense effort to purge away its guilt and shame. Hence arose the common usage of the noun naon in the sense of sin offering.
We should next compare the words riy, by, and 11”. The first is from the root my, to twist, to make crooked, to distort, and signifies moral perversity. In the English version 11p, bp, and it is commonly translated iniquity. It indicates the in- ?? herent badness of a perverted soul, and in Psa. xxxii, 5, we have the expression: Thou hast taken away the iniquity (fiy) of my sin' (nann). Closely cognate with rip is , from the root Swy, to turn away, to distort, and would seem to differ from it in usage by being applied rather to outward action than to inner character; ry indicates specially what a sinner is, bp, what he does. The primary sense of 11x, on the other hand, is emptiness, or nothingness. It is used of idolatry (1 Sam. xv, 23; Isa. xli, 29; lxvi, 3; Hos. x, 5, 8;
; Zech. x, 2), and in the English version is occasionally translated vanity (Job xv, 35; Psa. x, 7; Prov. xxii, 8). It denotes wickedness, or sin, as something that has no enduring reality or value. It is a false, vain appearance; a deceitful shadow, destitute of stability. So, then, in these three words we have suggested to us bad character, bad action, and the emptiness of sinful pursuits.
The word which especially denotes evil, or that which is essentially bad, is y, with its cognate you and my7, all from the root yyy, to break, shatter, crush, crumble. It indicates a character or quality which, for all useful or valuable purposes, is utterly broken and ruined. Thus the noun yi, in Gen. xli, 19, denotes the utter badness of the seven famine-smitten heifers of Pharaoh's dream, and is frequently used of the wickedness of wrong action (Deut. xxviii, 20; Psa. xxviii, 4; Isa. i, 16; Jer. xxiii, 2; xliv, 22; Hos. ix, 15). The words yo and nyt, besides being frequently
employed in the same sense (compare Gen. vi, 5; viii, 21; 1 Kings ii, 44; Jer. vii, 12, 24; Zech. i, 4; Mal. ii, 17), are also used to denote the evil or harm which one may do to another (Psa. xv, 3; xxi, 11; xxxv, 4; lxxi, 13). In all the uses of this word the idea of a ruin or a breach is in some way traceable. The wickedness of one's heart is in the moral wreck or ruin it discloses. The evil of a sinner's wicked action is a breach of moral order. Another aspect of sinfulness is brought out in the word bup and
its noun Sya. It is usually translated trespass, but the
fundamental thought is treachery, some covert and faithless action. Thus it is used of the unfaithfulness of an adul. terous woman toward her husband (Num. v, 12), of the taking strange wives (Ezra x, 2, 10), of the offense of Achan (Josh. vii, 1; xxii, 20; 1 Chron. ii, 7), and generally of unfaithfulness toward God (Deut. xxxii, 51; Josh. xxii, 16; 2 Chron. xxix, 6; Ezek. xx, 27; xxxix, 23). By this word any transgression is depicted as a plotting of treachery, or an exhibition of unfaithfulness to some holy covenant or bond. By a transposition of the first two letters of Syns we have the Spy
word bopy, which is used of the exhaustive toils of mor
tal life and their attendant sorrow and misery. In Num. xxiii, 21, and Isa. x, 1, it is coupled in parallelism with mx, emptiness, vanity, and may be regarded as the accompaniment of the vain pursuits of men. It is that labour, which, in the book of Ecclesiastes, where the word occurs thirty-four times, is shown both to begin and end in “vanity and vexation of spirit;" a striving after the wind (Eccles. i, 14; ii, 11, 17, 19). The word nay, to cross over, like the Greek trapasaivw, is often
used metaphorically of passing over the line of moral
obligation, or going aside from it. Hence it corresponds closely with the word transgress. In Josh. vii, 11, 15; Judg. ii, 20; 2 Kings xviii, 12; Hos. vi, 7; viii, 1, it is used of transgressing a covenant; in Deut. xxvi, 13, of a commandment; in 1 Sam. xv, 24, of the word (lit., mouth) of Jehovah; and in Isa. xxiv, 5, of the law. Thus words of counsel and warning, covenants, commandments, laws, may be crossed over, passed by, walked away from; and this is the peculiar aspect of human perversity which is designated by the word nay, to transgress. The two words yuş and won may be best considered together.
The former conveys the idea of revolt, rebellion; the pop and you, latter disturbance, tumultuous rage. The former word is used, in 1 Kings xii, 19, of Israel's revolt from the house of David; and in 2 Kings i, 1; iii, 7; viii, 20, 22; 2 Chron. xxi, 10, of the
שָׁנָה and אָשָׁם
rebellions of Moab, Edom, and Libnah; and the noun yop, which is usually rendered transgression, should always be understood as a fault or trespass considered as a revolt or an apostasy from some bond of allegiance. Hence it is an aggravated form of sin, and in Job xxxiv, 37, we find the significant expression: “He adds upon his sin rebellion.” The primary thought in you may be seen from Isa. lvii, 20, where it is said: “The wicked (cuypno) are like the troubled (em, tossed, agitated) sea; for rest it cannot, and its waters will cast up (, toss about) mud and mire.” So also in Job xxxiv, 29, the Hiphil of the verb yoo is put in contrast with the Hiphil of pe, to rest, to be quiet: “Let him give rest, and who will give trouble ?” The wicked man is one who is ever troubled and troubling. His counsels (Psa. i, 1), his plots (Psa. xxxvii, 12), his dishonesty and robberies (Psa. xxxvii, 21; cxix, 61), and manifold iniquities (Prov. v, 22), are a source of confusion and disturbance in the moral world, and that continually.
It remains to notice briefly the word DWR, the primary idea of which seems to be that of guilt or blame involved in committing a trespass through ignorance or negligence, and not to create, Jap'), with which it is frequently associated. The two words appear together in Lev. iv, 13: “If the whole congregation of Israel err through ignorance (1397), and the matter be hidden from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done with one from all the commandments of Jehovah what should not have been done, and have become guilty” (188). Compare verses 22, 27, and chapter v, 2, 3, 4, 17, 19. Hence it was natural that the noun Den should become the common word for the trespass offering which was required of those who contracted guilt by negligence or error. For the passages just cited, and their contexts, show that any vio lation or infringement of a divine commandment, whether committed knowingly or not, involved one in fault, and the guilt, contracted unconsciously, required for its expiation a trespass offering as soon as the sin became known. Accordingly, it will be seen that Mon, and its derivatives, point to errors committed through ignorance (Job vi, 24; Num. xv, 27), while bax denotes rather the guiltiness contracted by such errors, and felt and acknowledged when the sin becomes known.
A study of the divine names used in the Hebrew Scriptures is exceedingly interesting and suggestive. They are Adonai, El, Elah, Elim, Eloah, Elion, Elohim, Shaddai, Jah, and Jehovah. All these may be treated as synonymes, and yet each divine name has its peculiar concept and its corresponding usage.
The synonymes of the New Testament furnish an equally interesting and profitable field of study. Many words appear to be used interchangeably, and yet a careful examination will usually show that each conveys its own distinct idea. Take, for instance, Καινός and the two Greek words for men, καινός and νέος. Both νέος. . are applied to the new man (comp. Eph. ii, 15; Col. iii, 10), the new covenant (Heb. ix, 15; xii, 24), and new wine (Matt. ix, 17; xxvi, 29); but a wider comparison shows that kalvós denotes what is new in quality or kind, in opposition to something that has already existed and been known, used, and worn out; while véos denotes what is new in time, what has not long existed, but is young and fresh. Both words occur in Matt. ix, 17: “They put new (véov) wine into new (kaivous) skins." The new wine is here conceived as fresh, or recently made; the skins as never used before. The skin bottles may have been old or new as to age, but in order to preserve wine just made, they must not have been put to that use before. But the wine referred to in Matt. xxvi, 29, is to be thought of rather as a new kind of wine: “I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it with you new (Kalvóv, new in a higher sense and quality), in the kingdom of my Father.” So also Joseph's tomb, in which our Lord's body was laid, was called a new one (Kalvós, Matt. xxvii, 60; John xix, 41), not in the sense that it had recently been hewn from the rock, but because no one had ever been laid in it before. The new (kaivň) commandment of John xiii, 34 is the law of love, which, proceeding from Christ, has a new aspect and scope; a depth and beauty and fulness which it had not before. But when John wrote his epistles of brotherly love it had become “an old commandment” (1 John ii, 7), long familiar, even “ the word which ye
heard from the beginning.” But then he (verse 8) adds: “Again, a new commandment (évtonu Kalvýv) I write to you, which thing is true in him and in you; because the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining.” The passing away of the old darkness and the growing intensity of the true light, according to proper Christian experience, continually develop and bring out new glories in the old commandment. This thing (), namely, the fact that the old commandment is also new, is seen to be true both in Christ and in the believer; because in the latter the darkness keeps passing away, and in the former the true light shines more and more.
In like manner the tongues mentioned in Mark xvi, 17 are called kaival, because they would be new to the world, “other tongues (Acts ii, 4), unlike any thing in the way of speaking which had been known before. So, too, the new name, new Jerusalem, new song,