The word n 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 (p, 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 n, used of the sacrificing of animals for offerings. It is thus ever associated with the idea of immolation, and the derivative noun 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. xiii, 2; Jon. i, 16. Another word, constantly used in connection with the killing of animals for sacrifice, is ; but it differs from

especially in this, that the latter emphasizes rather the idea of sacrifice, while on points more directly to the slaughter of the victim. Hence is often used intransitively, in the sense of offering sacrifice, without specifying the object sacrificed; but on 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 &, which, like for Sin. the Greek άuaprávo, 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 contrasted with xy, 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 n means fault, error, sin. It is interesting to note how the Piel, or intensive form of the verb

, 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 л the sense of sin offering.

in

ip, p, and

אָוֶן

We should next compare the words tiy, by, and . The first is from the root, to twist, to make crooked, to distort, and signifies moral perversity. In the English version it is commonly translated iniquity. It indicates the inherent badness of a perverted soul, and in Psa. xxxii, 5, we have the expression: Thou hast taken away the iniquity (ji) of my sin" (s). Closely cognate with jiy is by, from the root by, 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; jiy indicates specially what a sinner is, by, what he does. The primary sense of, 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.

רע

The word which especially denotes evil, or that which is essentially bad, is y, with its cognate and ny, all from the root vy, 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 y, 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 yn and ny, 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

מעל

and

its noun by. 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 adulterous 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.

עמָל

In Num.

By a transposition of the first two letters of by we have the word by, which is used of the exhaustive toils of mortal life and their attendant sorrow and misery. xxiii, 21, and Isa. x, 1, it is coupled in parallelism with , 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, to cross over, like the Greek Tapaẞaívw, 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 y, to transgress.

The two words yp and y may be best considered together. The former conveys the idea of revolt, rebellion; the yep and ye latter disturbance, tumultuous rage. The former word y, 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

rebellions of Moab, Edom, and Libnah; and the noun y, 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 ye may be seen from Isa. lvii, 20, where it is said: "The wicked (y) are like the troubled (, 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 y is put in contrast with the Hiphil of p, 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.

שָׁנָה and אָשָׁם

It remains to notice briefly the word D, the primary idea of which seems to be that of guilt or blame involved in committing a trespass through ignorance or negligence, and 7 (s, 1), with which it is frequently associated. The two words appear together in Lev. iv, 13: "If the whole congregation of Israel err through ignorance (), 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" (D). Compare verses 22, 27, and chapter v, 2, 3, 4, 17, 19. Hence it was natural that the noun D 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 violation 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 , and its derivatives, point to errors committed through ignorance (Job vi, 24; Num. xv, 27), while D denotes rather the guiltiness contracted by such errors, and felt and acknowledged when the sin becomes known.

Divine names.

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.

νέος.

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 new, καινός and νέος. Both 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 Kaivós 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 (kavovç) 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 (Kaivóv, 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 (kavós, 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. new (kavý) 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 command(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 (Evтoλýν kawýv) 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 (8), 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.

The

In like manner the tongues mentioned in Mark xvi, 17 are called Kaivai, 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,