« PreviousContinue »
in this gospel, (ch. 27: 17,22), as used by Pilate at a time when it was never applied to our Lord but by his followers, and that solely as the denomination of his office. So much for the method whereby we may discover when this word is emphatical, and when it is. merely a surname.
10. It is proper now to inquire, in the last place, which of the three terms, Messiah, Christ or Anointed, is the most proper to be applied in an English version. The word anointed is indeed an English word, and is, besides, in respect of the idea it conveys, expressive of the etymological import of the Hebrew and Greek terms. But, notwithstanding these advantages, it is not so proper in this case for being used in a version. For, first, the original term had early been employed, as we have seen, without any regard to the literal signification; and in the ordinary application of it in our Lord's time, little or no attention seems to have been given to the circumstance of unction, which gave rise to the name. Though the word anointed, therefore, expresses the primitive import of the Hebrew name, it does not convey the meaning in which it was then universally understood. It was considered solely as the well-known title of an extraordinary office, to which there was nothing similar amongst any other people. The original name; therefore, agreeably to what was concluded in a former discourse,* ought to be retained. Secondly, it deserves some notice, that the word, both in Hebrew and in Greek is a substantive, and therefore, in point of form, well adapted for a name of office, being susceptible of the same variety, in number and mode of construction, with other'substantives; the English word anointed is a participle, and indeclinable, and so far from being adapted for the name of an office, that it is grammatically no more than the attributive of some name, either expressed or understood.
11. As to the other two words, Messiah and Christ it may be thought a matter of indifference which of them should be preferred. The following are the reasons which have determined me to give the preference to the former. First, Our Lord's own ministry was only amongst his countrymen the Jews, to whom the title of Messiah was familiar. With them, wheresoever dispersed, it is considered as the title of that dignity to this day, and is accordingly naturalized in every language that they speak. We never hear of the Jewish Christ, it is always the Jewish Messiah. When the English translators found it convenient, in translating Daniel, to adopt a term more appropriated than the general word anointed, they chose the Hebrew term Messiah, in preference to the Greek; and it is surely proper, when the meaning of a word in the New Testament is manifestly the same, to conform, as much as possible, to the language of the Old. That the word Messiah was constant
Diss. II. Part i. sect 5.
ly used in Palestine in our Lord's time is evident from the two passages in the Gospel of John, (chap. 1: 42. 4: 25), where, after mentioning it as the title in current use, both with Jews and with Samaritans, he adds the explanation in Greek. Secondly, Messiah is, even in English use, much more familiar, as the name of the office, than the term Christ, which is now universally understood as a proper name of our Saviour. The word Messiah, on the contrary, is never employed, and consequently never understood as a proper name. It is invariably a name of office; and even this circumstance, however slight it may appear, has a considerable inAuence on perspicuity.
12. I shall only add here, before I conclude this subject, that the word Xororós is frequently used by Paul as a trope, denoting sometimes the Christian spirit and temper; as when he says, “ My little children, of whom I travail in birth again, until Christ be formed in you,” Gal. 4: 19; sometimes the Christian doctrine, " But ye have not so learned Christ,” Eph. 4: 20; and in one place at least, the Christian church, " For as the body is one,and hath many members; and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ,” 1 Cor. 12: 12. In these cases it is better to retain the name Christ, as used hitherto in the version.
13. Some have thought that the expression o vớos tou ávøpainov the Son of Man, which our Lord always uses when he speaks of bimself in the third person, is also a title which was then understood to denote the Messiah. But of this there does not appear sufficient evidence. The only passage of moment that is pleaded in support of it is from the prophet Daniel, who says, that he saw in the night visions 66
one like the son of man come, with the clouds of heaven, to the Ancient of days, and that there was given him a dominion, and glory, and a kingdom,” Dan. 7: 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 he enforced, it would be quite otherwise in that spiritual kingdom to be erected by the Ancient of days, wherein everything 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, 227 iz ben adam, and w8 32 bcn 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 49: 2 rightly rendered in the coinmon version low and high. The first bene adam is, in the Septuagint, translated ynyaveis, in the Vulgate, terrigena, earth-born, or sons of earth, in allusion to the derivation of the word udam, 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 vić á v porov, and frequenıly 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 terrn in the Greek is simply άνθρωπος, 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 tiile by others, whether disciples or strangers. Several honorable compellations were given bim by those who applied for relies, as xvole, diddorahe, rabbi; sometimes he is addressed “Son of David," sometimes “Son of God," and on one occassion he is called “ He who cometh in the name of the Lord.” The two last titles may reasonably be supposed to imply an acknowledgement 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 anVol. I.
swered, if the title he commonly assumed in the hearing of every body was understood to be of the same import? It is urged further, that this phrase is used in the Apocalypse (1: 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 ó viós rou ανθρώπου, the Son of man και John says, όμοιον υιω ανθρώπου, 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 ο ερχόμενος, εν ονόματι Κυρίου, and ο υιος Δαβίδ. Add to these, o agios tou O800, the saint, or the holy of God, o čxhextós TOŨ Okoũ, 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.
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.
d to the
Διάβολος, Δαίμων, AND Δαιμόνιον.
The first of this kind on which I intend to make some observations, are διάβολος, δαίμων, and δαιμόνιον, all rendered in the common translation almost invariably devil. The word diabolos, in its ordinary acceptation, signifies calumniator, traducer, false accuser, from the verb diapóndeiv, to calunniate, etc. 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 join 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 English