« PreviousContinue »
trary, in his German version, has uniformly confounded them, rendering both by the word holle. The English translators have taken the same method, and rendered both the Greek names by the word hell, except in one single place, (1 Cor. 15: 55), where ädns is translated grave. Most foreign versions observe the difference. So do some of the late English translators, but not all. The common method of distinguishing hitherto observed has been to retain the word gchenna, and translate hades either hell or grave, as appeared most to suit the context. I have chosen in this version to reverse that method, to render yćevva always hell, and to retain the word hades. My reasons are, first, though English ears are not entirely familiarized to either term, they are much more so to the latter than to the former, in consequence of the greater use made of the latter in theological writings. Secondly, the import of the English word hell, when we speak as Christians, answers exactly to yćevva, not to mons; whereas, to this last word we have no term in the language corresponding. Accordingly, though in my judgment it is not one of those terms which adinit different meanings, there has been very little uniformity preserved by translators in rendering it.
Μετανοεω AND Mεταμέλομαι. . I shall now offer a few remarks on two words, that are uniformly rendered by the same English word in the common version, between which there appears, notwithstanding, to be a real difference in signification. The words are ustavoé'w and ustajeãoual, I repent. It has been observed by some, and I think with reason, that the former denotes properly a change to the better ; the latter barely a change, whether it be to the better or to the worse; that the former marks a change of mind that is durable and productive of consequences; the latter expresses only a present uneasy feeling of regret or sorrow for what is done, without regard either to duration or to effects ; in fine, that the first may properly be translated into English I reform; the second, I repent, in the familiar acceptation of the word.
2. The learned Grotius, (whose judgment in critical questions is highly respectable), is not convinced that this distinction is well founded. And I acknowledge, that he advances some plausible things in support of his opinion. But as I bave not found them satisfactory, I shall assign my reasons for thinking differently. Let it in the first place be observed, that the import of uerauědouai, in the explanation given, being more extensive or generical than that of usravotw, it may in many cases be used without impropriety for Metavoéw; though the latter, being more limited and special in its acceptation, cannot so properly be employed for the foriner. The genus includes the species, not the species the genus.
3. Admitting, therefore, that in the expression in the parable quoted by Grotius in support of his opinion, ύστερον δε μεταμεληDzis annos," afterwards he repented and went,” Matt. 21: 29, the word netavoroas would have been apposite, because the change spoken of is to the better, and had an effect on his conduct ; still the word petquédouai is not improper, no more than the English word repented, though the change, as far as it went, was a real reformation. Every one who reforms, repents;
every one who repents, does not reform. I use the words entirely according to the popular idiom, and not according to the definitions of theologians ; nay, I say further, that in this instance the Greek word ustauélouai is more proper than ustavoiw, and the English repent than reform. The reason is, because the latter expression in each language is not so well adapted to a single action as to a habit of acting, whereas the former may be equally applied to either. Now it is only one action that is mentioned in the parable.
4. In regard to the other passage quoted by Grotius, to show that uerdvora also is used where, according to the doctrine above explained, it ought to be uscapéksia, I think he has not been more fortunate than in the former. The passage is Hebrews 12: 17, where it is said of Esau, “ Ye know that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected. For he found no place of repentance," ustavoias tónov ovx xúde, “ though he sought it carefully with tears.” Grotius in his comment on the place, acknowledges that the word perovoca is not used here literally, but by a metonymy of the effect for the cause.
6. He found no scope for effecting a change in what had been done, a revocation of the blessing given to Jacob, with a new grant of it to himself, or at least of such a blessing as might in a great measure supersede or cancel the former.” This change was what he found no possibility of efsecting, however earnestly and movingly be sought it. It is plain, that neitlier μετάνοια nor μεταμέλεια, in their ordinary acceptation, expresses this change. For that it was not any repentance or reformation on himself which he found no place for, is manifest both from the passage itself and from the story to which refers From the construction of the words we learn, that what Esau did not find, was what he sought carefully with tears. Now, what he sought carefully with tears was, as is evident from the history, (Gen. 27: 30, etc.), such a change in his father as I have mentioned. This was what he urged so affectingly, and this was what he, notwithstanding, found it impossible to obtain. Now I acknowledge, that it is only by a trope that this can be called either uerévola or ueramiasta. That it was not literally the regret or grief implied in Merauědeca that he sought, is as clear as day, since the manner in which he applied to his father, showed him to be already possessed of the most pungent grief for what had happened. Nay, it appears from the history, that the good old patriarch, when he discovered the deceit that had been practised on him, was very strongly affected also; for it is said that Isaac “trembled very exceedingly,” Gen. 27: 33. Now, as metávora implies a change of conduct, as well as sorrow for what is past, it comes nearer the scope of the sacred writer than metapěhela. If, therefore, there is some deviation from strict propriety in the word metávoia here used, it is unquestionable, that to substitute in its place ustupełeca, and represent Esau as seeking, in the bitterness of grief
, that he, or even his father, might be grieved, would include, not barely an impropriety, or deviation from the literal import, but an evident absurdity.
5. Passing these examples, which are all that have been produced on that side, are the words in general so promiscuously used by sacred writers, (for it is only about words which seldom occur in Scripture that we need recur to the usage of profane authors), as that we cannot with certainty, or at least with probability, mark the difference? Though I do not believe this to be the case, yet, as I do not think the matter so clear as in the supposed synonymas already discussed, I shall impartially and briefly state what appears to me of weight on both sides.
6. First, in regard to the usage of the Seventy, it cannot be denied that they employ the two words indiscriminately; and, if the present inquiry were about the use observed in their version, we could not with justice say, that they intended to mark any distinction between them. They are, besides, used indifferently in translating the same Hebrew words, so that there is every appearance that with them they were synonymous. But, though the use of the Seventy adds considerable strength to any argument drawn from the use of the New Testament writers, when the usages
of both are the same, or even doubtful; yet, when they differ, the former, however clear, cannot, in a question which solely concerns the use that prevails in the New Testament, invalidate the evidence of the latter. We know, that in a much shorter period than that which intervened between the translation of the Old Testament and the composition of the New, some words may become obsolete, and others may considerably alter in signification. It is comparatively but a short time (being less than two centuries) that has intervened between the making of our own version and the present hour; and yet, in regard to the language of that version, both have already happened, as shall be shown afterward.* Several of its words are antiquated, and others bear a different meaning now from what they did then.
7. Let us therefore recur to the use of the New Testament. And here I observe, first, that where this change of mind is inculcated as a duty, or the necessity of it mentioned as a doctrine of Christianity, the terms are invariably metavoéw and uetávola. Thus, John the Baptist and our Lord both began their preaching with this injunction, ustavocîte, Matt. 3: 2. 4: 17. The disciples that were sent out to warn and prepare men for the manifestation of the Messiah, are said to have gone and preached iva ustavonowot, Mark 6: 12. The call which the apostles gave to all hearers was, metavorσατε, και επιστρέψατε, και βαπτισθήτω έκαστος υμών, reform your lives, return to God, and be baptized ; Acts 2:38. 3:19. Peter's command to Simon Magus, on discovering the corruption of his heart, is uetuvoňoov ono rns xarias raúrns, chap. 8: 22. When it is mentioned as an order from God, παραγγέλλει τους ανθρώποις πάσι navta yov ustavosiv, chap. 17:30. The duty to which Paul everywhere exliorted was, μετανοείν και επιστρέφειν επί τον Θεόν, chap. 26: 20. The charge to reformation given to the Asiatic churches in the Apocalypse, is always expressed by the word ueravonoov, and their failure in this particular by oú uerevonoe, Rev. ii and iii, passim. The necessity of this change for preventing final ruin, is thus repeatedly expressed by our Lord, 'Εαν μη μετανοήτε, πάντες απολείσθε, Luke 13: 3, 5. And, in regard to the noun, wherever mention is made of this change as a duty, it is μετάνοια, not μεταμέλεια. It was ris uerdvolav that our Lord came to call sinners, Matt. 9: 13; the baptism which John preached was Bantiqua meravolas, Mark 1: 4. The fruits of a good life, which he enjoined them to produce, were utious metavolas, Matt. 3: 8. What the apostles preached to all nations, in their Master's name, as inseparably connected, were metávocav nui ägeow duaptıôv, Luke 24:47. Again, it is given as the sum of their teaching, την εις τον Θεόν μετάνοιαν, και πίστιν εις τον Κυρίου ημών Ιησούν Χριστόν, Acts 20: 21. The same word is employed when the offer of such terms is exhibited as the result of divine grace ; chap. 11: 18. Now, in a question of criticism, it is hardly possible to find stronger evidence of the distinction than that which has now been produced.
8. There is a great difference between the mention of any thing as a duty, especially of that consequence that the promises or threats of religion depend on the performance or neglect of it, and the bare recording of an event as fact. In the former, the words ought to be as special as possible, that there may be no mistake in the
application of the promise, no pretence for saying that more is exacted than was expressed in the condition. But, in relating facts, it is
Diss. XI. Part ii. sect. 5, etc,
osten a matter of indifference whether the terms be general or special. Provided nothing false be added, it is not expected that every thing true should be included. This is the less necessary when, in the sequel of a story, circumstances are mentioned which supply any delect arising from the generality of the terms. Under this description may be included both the passage formerly considered, üotepov petuus nois ansa; and that other connected with it, in the reproach pronounced against the Pharisees for their impenitence and incredulity under the Baptist's ininistry, OU MERENEANU nie jotapov, 10Ŭ ALOTEūOOL avio, Matt. 21:32. The last clause in each perfectly ascertains the import of the sentence, and supplies every defect.
9. Let it further be observed, that when such a sorrow is alluded to, as either was not productive of reformation, or, in the nature of the thing, does not imply it, the words pezávoru and usravoco are never used. Thus the repentance of Judas, which drove bim to despair, is expressed by meruushndris, Matt. 27:3. When Paul, writing to the Corinthians, mentions the sorrow his former letter had given them, he says, that, considering the good effects of that sorrow, he does not repent that he had written it, though he had formerly repented. Here no more can be understood by his own repentance spoken of, but that uneasiness which a good man feels, not from the consciousness of having done wrong, but from a tenderness for others, and a fear lest that which, prompted by duty, he had said, should have too strong an effect upon them. This might have been the case without any fault in him, as the consequence of a reproof depends much on the temper with which it is received. His words are, Ει έλύπησα υμάς εν τη επιστολή ου μεταμέλομαι, ει και MET&uchóunv, 2 Cor. 7: 8. As it would have made nonsense of the passage to have rendered the verb in English reformed instead of repented, the verb peravołw instead of uetanedouci would have been improper in Greek.
There is one passage in which this apostle has in effect employed both words, and in such a manner as clearly shows the difference Η κατα Θεον λύπη μετάνοιαν εις σωτηρίαν αμεταμέλητον κατερyášetai, 2 Cor. 7: 10; in the common version, “Godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of.” There is a paronomasia here, or play upon the word repent, which is not in the original. As both words, petavoéw and ueraueżouar, are uniformly translated by the same English word, this figure of speech could hardly have been avoided in the common version. Now, had the two words been also synonymous in Greek, (as that trope when it comes in the way is often adopted by the sacred writers), it had been more natural to say μετάνοιαν αμετανόητον. Whereas the change of the word plainly shows, that, in the apostle's judgment, there would have been something incongruous in that expression. In the first word, ustavolav, is expressed the effect of godly sorrow,