ia ee PUN IR PRT!

5:

rer

τς

=

i >. Bsbyit NA 2

or 7 er : λ :

Ἡ ἢ πα ον Ere ΠΡΟΜ ὶ ore ἣ

4 Ψ \ 3 ai 2 : | FOL ROMER aT ES CTL ae cots TAWA RY ᾿ a

Ne aA raat fe

2 Bees id } ΠῚ a

THIS BOOK

IS FROM

THE LIBRARY OF

Rev. James Leach

Digitized | the Internet Archive — ᾿ in 2007 with funding from Microsoft Corporation

- ζ zp can ᾿- “ὦ AT i » Se ΤΣ . ἢ bi |

| g ᾿ | https iJarchive.org/details/biblicotheologic00cremuott

ey Pec ‘

. erry

BIBLICO-THEOLOGICAL

LEXICON

or

NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

BY

HERMANN CREMER, D.D.,

PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GREIFSWALD,

cpt: 4th FOURTH ENGLISH EDITION.

WITH SUPPLEMENT.

Translated from the latest German Edition,

BY

WILLIAM URWICK, M.A.

oO

‘EDINBURGH >) 1 ἃ T. CLARK“88 GEORGE STREET. NEW YORK:

CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS. 3) 1895.

TRANSLATORS PREFACE.

—_~_>——__

ROFESSOR CREMER’S Lexicon of New Testament Greek is in Germany considered one of the most important contributions to the study of New Testament Exegesis that has appeared for many years. As is clear from the author’s preface, the student must not expect to find in it every word which the New Testament contains. For words whose ordinary meaning in the classics is retained unmodified and unchanged in Scripture, he must resort still to the classical lexicons. But for words whose meaning is thus modified, words which have become the bases and watchwords of Christian theology, he will find this lexicon most valuable and suggestive, tracing as it does their history in their transference from the classics into the Septuagint, and from the Septuagint into the New Testament, and the gradual deepening and elevation of their meaning till they reach the fulness of New ‘Testament thought. The esteem in which the work is held in Germany is evident from the facts that it has procured for the author his appointment as Professor of Theology in the University of Greifswald, that a second edition has been so soon called for, and that a translation of it has appeared in Holland. The present translation contains several alterations and additions made by Professor Cremer in the sheets of his second edition ; about four hundred errata, moreover, occurring in that edition have been corrected.

WILLIAM URWICK.

49 Betsize Park Garpens, Lonpon, N.VW., August 1878.

AUTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION:

—_\_>—_

EXICAL works upon New Testament Greek have hitherto lacked a thorough appreciation of what Schleiermacher calls “the language-moulding power of Christianity.” A language so highly elaborated and widely used as was Greek having been chosen as the organ of the Spirit of Christ, it necessarily followed that as Christianity fulfilled the aspirations of truth, the expressions of that language received a new meaning, and terms hackneyed and worn out by the current misuse of daily talk received a new impress and a fresh power. But as Christianity stands in express and obvious antithesis to the natural man (using this phrase in a spiritual sense), Greek, as the embodiment and reflection of man’s natural life in its richness and fulness, presents this contrast in the service of the sanctuary. This is a phenomenon which repeats itself in every sphere of life upon which Christianity enters, not, of course, always in the same way, but always with the same result—namely, that the spirit of the language expands, and makes itself adequate to the new views which the Spirit of Christ reveals. The speaker's or writer's range of view must change as the starting-point and goal of all his judgments change ; and this change will not only modify the import and range of conceptions already existing, but will lead to the formation of new conceptions and relationships. In fact, “we may,” as Rothe says (Dogmatik, p. 238, Gotha 1863), “ appropriately speak of a language of the Holy Ghost. For in the Bible it is evident that the Holy Spirit has been at work, moulding for itself a distinctively religious mode of expression out of the language of the country which it has chosen as its sphere, and transforming the linguistic elements which it found ready to hand, and even conceptions already existing, into a shape and form appropriate to itself and all its own.” We have a very clear and striking proof of this in New Testament Greek.

A lexical handling of N. T. Greek must, if it is to be really a help to the under- standing of the documents of Revelation, be directed mainly to that department of the linguistic store which is necessarily affected by the influence we have described, ze. to the expressions of spiritual life, moral and religious. For other portions of the linguistic treasury the Lexicons of classical Greek suffice. A lexicon of N. T. Greek such as I mean will be mainly biblico-theological, examining those expressions chiefly which are of a biblico-theological import. In order to this, it will not be enough to prove by classical quotations that the word in question is used in classical Greek. The range of the con- ception expressed in its extra-biblical use must be shown, and the affinity or difference of the biblical meaning must be pointed out. Here the ever recurring antithesis between

PREFACE. v

nature and spirit most strikingly appears; and who will venture to deny that the observation and investigation of this will exert an influence, hitherto too often over- looked, upon our understanding of the truths of Revelation? Thus we shall find, for example, as Niigelsbach (Wachhomerische Theologie, p. 239) observes, that “it is with this “expression (ὁ πέλας, πλησίον) as with many others in which heathen and Christian ideas meet; the old word has the ring of a Christian thought, and is (so to speak) a vessel already prepared to receive it, though it did not before come up to it.” Hence, as Ger. v. Zezschwitz in his lucid little treatise (Profangrdcitat und biblischer Sprachgeist) says, “ such a lexicon must be a key, thorougly elaborated, to the essential and funda: - mental ideas of Christendom.” It will likewise show how the’ common complaint, that many notions with which theology deals are inadmissible, is directed mainly against con- ceptions that have been alienated from their scriptural basis, that have lost their clear- ness, and have (if I may use the term) again become naturalized. I regret that through lack of necessary helps I have been unable to trace the historical strengthening or weakening which such conceptions have undergone in patristic Greek. A further valuable addition to such a lexicon Schleiermacher names (Hermeneutik und Kritik, p. 69), when he says: “ A collection of all the various elements in which the language- moulding power of Christianity manifests itself would be an adumbration (a Sciagraphy) of N. T. doctrine and ethics.” ἢ

The Seventy prepared the way in Greek for the N. T. proclamation of saving truth. Fine as is the tact with which in many cases they endeavoured to fulfil their task (cf. ὅσιος), it must be allowed that their language differs from that of the N. T. as the well- meant and painstaking effort of the pupils differs from the unerring and creative hand of the master (see eg. ἐλπίς). The words by which they rendered Hebrew ideas (for which, indeed, they sometimes simply substituted Greek ideas) had already undergone much modi- fication in ordinary or in scholastic usage (see e.g. βέβηλος and κοινός). In many cases the Hebrew word answering to the N. T. conception will be something different in the Septuagint. It is a matter of regret that the materials and helps accessible for a thorough review of the Septuagint are so meagre, and that one has to depend for examples almost solely upon a troublesome and laborious search.

The works of Philo and Josephus afford very little help. In them, even more than in the Septuagint, the endeavour is apparent to import Greek ideas and Greek philosophy into Judaistic thought, so that we find no trace of that missionary character of divine revelation, breaking up and sowing anew the profane soil, which so strikingly charac- terizes N. T. Greek.

Nevertheless we must on no account overlook the manifold and important affinities of N. T. Greek with the language of Jewish religious schools, with post-biblical synagogal Hebrew. See αἰών, Bac. τοῦ @., εἰκών, etc. “Christianity, as the universal religion, has moulded the form of its announcements alike from Hellenistic, Old Testament, and synagogal materials” (Delitzsch, Hebrderbrief, p. 589). Here, as is well known, we

νὶ PREFACE,

have the most valuable helps, I regret that the lexicon of Dr. T. Levi upon To is not yet complete.

The work which, after the diate of nine years, I have now brought to completion is certainly an attempt only, an effort to do, not a result accomplished; it simply prepares the way for a cleverer hand than mine. The lack of such a preparation I have felt step by step throughout. Hardly any even of the commonest N. T. conceptions has received any adequate investigation, biblical or theological, at the hands of the commentators. The commentaries of Tholuck, my dear tutor, form, with a few others, a notable yet solitary exception. I am therefore obliged to pursue my own course, to make my own way, and peradventure often to go wrong. But thus I have learned more and more to admire the unerring tact of the Evangelical Church, who, by the more immediate discern- ment of faith, learned long before us what we can only confirm as truth by our after labours. It was of no small use to me to be obliged and to be allowed to test these my studies in the practical work of my ministry.

I have but rarely, as in the case of δόξα, had to correct the lexicons of classical Greek. As to the arrangement of words, they are placed according to the simplest laws of derivation, so that the review of the linguistic usage and of the scope of the thought denoted might be as little cumbersome as possible. The alphabetical index at the end will facilitate reference. And now: “quibus parwm vel quibus nimiwm est, mihi ignoscant, Quibus autem satis est, non mihi sed Domino mecum congratulantes agant!” (Aug. De Civ, D, xxii. 30.)

AUTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.

asa extraordinarily favourable reception awarded to this first attempt to reform πᾶ

scientifically to reconstruct N. T. lexicography must of necessity put me to shame, all the more because no one can see so plainly as myself that it is due more to the want which the lexicon was intended to meet, than to the satisfaction which it rendered to that want. I have endeavoured in this new edition, by emendation, enlargement, revisions, and additions of new words, to satisfy in some degree the claims which may and must fairly be setup. Comparatively few articles have been transferred unaltered from the first edition. While in some cases the changes are but small, eg. the revising and multiplication of examples from profane Greek and Holy Scripture, and affecting precision of expression, a considerable number of articles have been either extended or re-written, such as ἀγαθός, ἀγαπᾶν, ἄγγελος (ayy. κυρίου), ἅγιος, δίκαιος, ἐπιούσιος, περιούσιος, κύριος, and many others; and I trust that the commended purity of the work philologically has not been prejudiced by the attempt more thoroughly to investigate the import and worth of the biblical conceptions always with renewed linguistic thoroughness. Special attention has been given to the comparison of synonyms. Concerning ἅγιος and its derivatives, I have instituted investigations fundamentally new, and have, I trust, contributed in some degree to the fuller and clearer apprehension of this fundamental and κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν scriptural conception. More than one hundred and twenty new words have been added, among others: ἄγειν, αἰτεῖν, ἀκολουθεῖν, ἀλληγορεῖν, ἀρνεῖσθαι, ἁπλοῦς, βούλεσθαι, Bidfew, γενεά, δόγμα, εἶδος, ἑκών, καραδοκία, πατήρ, πειράζω, πρόσωπον, ῥύεσθαι, τάπεινος, etc. etc. Though I have not thus as yet attained the standard of the desirable, I think that I have somewhat lessened the feeling of being left in the dark, on the part of those using the book. One and another missing word will be found in the list of synonyms compared. The biblico-theological index of subjects can lay no claim to completeness, but may not be unwelcome to some.

I pray God that the work in this its new form may contribute abundantly to increase the knowledge of His glory and joy in His word, and in a small measure to counteract the misuse of the language of Scripture when employed as the fig-leaf of modern unbelief. “ Det nobis et restituat divina gratia Theologiam tam puram, tam eficacem, tam divinam, qualem aliquando vellemus habuwisse et coluisse in aeternitatem dédati!” (Weismann, Inst. theol. exeg. doym. p. 31.)

LIST OF AUTHORS, WITH THE EDITIONS REFERRED ΤΟ.

WINER: Grammatik des neut. Sprachidioms. 6th ed. 1855.

BUTTMANN: Grammatik des neut. Sprachgebrauchs, by Alex. Buttmann. 1859. KRUEGER: Griechische Sprachlehre fiir Schulen, by K. W. Kriiger. 3d ed. 1852. MATTHIAE: Ausfiihrliche griechische Grammatik, by Aug. Matthiae. 3d ed. 1835.

CURTIUS, Gramm.: Griechische Schulgrammatik, by Dr. Georg Curtius. 9th ed., Prag 1870.

CURTIUS: Grundziige der griechischen Etymologie, by Dr. Georg Curtius. 2d ed. 1866 (3d ed. 1870).

SCHENKL: Griechisch-dentsches Schulwérterbuch, by Dr. K. Schenkl. 3d issue, Wien 1867. (By far the best of our smaller Greek lexicons, and specially good in the department of etymology.)

TRENCH: Synonyms of the New Testament, by RC. Trench, D.D., Archbishop of Dublin. Parts 1 and 2, 1855 and 18638.

LEXICON

OF

NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

A, as the first letter of the Greek Alphabet, is coupled with 2, the last, in Rev. i. 8 (Rec. Text, 1. 11), xxi. 6, xxii. 18, ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ A καὶ τὸ M (Bengel, Lachm., Tisch., always τὸ ἄλφα) ; ini. 8, as the words of κύριος ὁ θεός, with the amplification, ὁ dy καὶ ὁ ἣν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ὁ παντοκράτωρ; in xxi. 6, as the words of ὁ καθήμενος ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ (cf. iv. 2, 3, v. 1, 7), amplified as ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ τέλος ; in xxii. 13, the words of Jesus (ver..16), ἐγώ ---- 22, πρῶτος καὶ ἔσχατος, ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ τέλος. It is difficult to decide whether this designation is meant to be more than a figurative and exhaustive description of ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ τέλος. Jalkut Rub. f. 174: Adamus totam legem transgressus est ab δὰ usque ad n. Ibid. f. 128. 3: Deus Israelitis dicitur benedicere ab νὰ usque N, 1.6. perfecte. (Quoted in Wolf, Curae phil., on Rev. i. 8.) According to this view, the designation would corre- spond to Paul's words, applied in Eph. i. 23 to Christ, ὁ τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν πληρούμενος . (cf. 1 Cor. xv. 28, where the reference is to God), or to the words ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν τὰ πάντα, used in Rom. xi. 36 of God; cf. the partition of these words between God and Christ in 1 Cor. viii. 6, Col. 1, 16, ἐν αὐτῷ (sc. Χριστῷ) ἐκτίσθη τὰ mdvta... τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ eis αὐτὸν ἔκτισται, inasmuch as the All-including, All- embracing is thus expressed. Hengstenberg justly objects to explaining the expression of mere existence: “ The great question which then agitated men’s minds was the question of superiority,—whether the world was to retain the predominance it then claimed and apparently possessed, or the God of the Christians, This question is answered by the words, ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega.’ Let him who is troubled about the end only ponder the beginning; let him only muse on what the Psalmist says, ‘ Before the moun- tains were brought forth, or ever Thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God’ (Ps. xe. 2), and his anxiety will vanish.” Bengel says, “ Sic, magnifico sensu, finis ab origine pendet ;” and in this self-designation of God and Christ he recognises a triumphant protest against all His foes. He also calls atten-

tion to the fact that Hebrew and Greek modes of expression often occur side by side in A

ἤΑβυσσος 2 Αβυσσος

the Revelation (cf. i. 7: ναὶ, ἀμήν), “since it concerns both Jewish and Gentile readers.” He points out that thus it is with this expression; that we never find the words ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ τέλος without the éyd— (as may be the case with the other amplifications, πρῶτος καὶ ἔσχ., ὁ dy x.7..); whence it appears that this is the Greek rendering of the Hebraistically conceived ἐγώ --- 42 (x—n).—If, however, we seek a more particular refer- ence of the ἐγώ --- 2, we might urge its connection with prophecy, such as in i. 7, xxi. 5, xxii. 9, 10, is in every case more or less presented to us; and thus we discover in the expression a comprehensive reference to the prophecy promulgated up to this time, to God's word, Holy Scripture, whose accomplishment is evidently intended to be guaranteed by this self-designation of God and Christ. A similar view was taken by Lampe, De Joed. grat. ii. 8.5. Cf. also M. Baumgarten, Protestant. Warnung, iii. 1.189; Offerhaus (in Wolf, 1..), Christum esse vitam electorum et spiritum Scripturae. Many monographs on this subject may be seen in Wolf’s Curae.

"Αβυσσὸς, ον, from βυσσός Ion. = βυθός, depth, béttém. Hence, 1. bottomless, properly an adjective; eg. ἄβυσσον πέλαγος, βάθος, even πλοῦτος; πρᾶγμα. As a sub- stantive, ἡ ἄβυσσος, signifying, 2. abyss, bottomless depth, it is only used in biblical and eccles. Greek. Once in Diog. Laert. Epigr. iv. 27: otro κατῆλθες εἰς μέλαιναν Πλουτέως ἄβυσσον. “ Sed a tempore Platonis . . . hic usus alienus est :” Fix in Steph. thes. In LXX. =2inA, Gen. i. 2, vii. 11, viii. 2, Deut. viii. 7 (Job xxxviii. 16, xxviii. 14), Ps, xxxvi. 7, xlii. 8, civ. 6, Isa. li. 10, Ezek. xxvi. 19, xxxi. 4, 15, Amos vii. 4, Ps. evii. 26 (Suid.: ὑδάτων πλῆθος “πολῦ) = watery deep ; Job xli. 23 = nDWID, In Deut. xxxiii. 13 it is not an adj., but is to be construed ἄβυδσοι πηγῶν. In the N. T., Rom. x. 7, τίς κατα- ιβήσεται εἰς τὴν ἄβυσσον; τουτέστιν Χριστὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναγαγεῖν, the word denotes the bottomless abyss, as the place of the dead. That the two ideas are very closely allied, may be seen from Job xi. 8, 9, xxxviii. 16, 17, xxviii. 13, 14; and from this easily arose this Pauline application of the Hebrew expression ὉΠ Ἔν ΟΝ (LXX.: εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης), Deut. xxx. 13, especially since ἄβυσσος is so frequently employed as an antithesis to ovpavos; cf. Gen. vii. 11, Job xi. 8, Ps. evii. 6, and elsewhere. In like manner the expression ὑποκάτω τῆς γῆς, Rev. v. 3,18; see Phil. ii 10. It is just this antithesis to heaven that makes ἄβυσσος a synonym for 48s, wherein that remoteness from heaven which is distinctive of Hades finds full expression—In Rev. ix. 1, 2, Τὸ φρέαρ τῆς ἀβύσσου, xx. 1, the depth or abyss appears as the receptacle and prison of destructive powers, over which reigns 6 ἄγγελος τῆς ἀβύσσου, ix. 11. Compare the petition of the demons in Luke viii. 31: ἵνα μὴ ἐπιτάξῃ αὐτοῖς εἰς τὴν ἄβυσσον ἀπελθεῖν.----Τὰ Rev. xvii. 8, xi. 7, ἀναβαίνειν ἐκ τῆς ἀβύσσου is said of the beast; xiii. 18.— In eccles. Greek we find eg. ἄβυσσος ζητημάτων ἡ γραφή, Chrys. hom. 23 in Act.; ὃ θεός, ἄβυσσος dv ἀγαθότητος, Theodoret, quaest. 4 in Gen.; ἡ ἀπόγνωσις εἰς αὐτὴν κατάγει τῆς κακίας τὴν ἄβυσσον, ‘Chrys. ; just as βάθος is used in the New Test. and by ecclesiastical writers (see a. xi. 33, 1 Cor, 11, 10, Rev. 11, 24), | ;

*Ayabos 8 ᾿Αγαθύς

᾿Αγαθός, 4, 6v, good. Derivation uncertain; perhaps connected with γηθέω, ἄγαμαι, ἄγαν. The application of this epithet expresses a recognition alike simple and full, that the thing spoken of is perfect in its kind, so as to produce pleasure and satisfaction. This feeling of pleasure and wellbeing could hardly be left out of consideration even if the word were not akin to yn@éw. Linguistic usage too fully proves this; thus posses- sions are in various languages called “goods,” to express the satisfaction and pleasure which they give, and to designate them as the condition and furtherance of wellbeing. Plato, moreover, not only enumerates health, beauty, riches, power, as chief goods ; but, on the one hand, designates whatever gives pleasure as good; and, on the other hand, sets aside the definition “the good is a ἡδονή" merely by saying that there are also ἡδοναὶ κακαί, and yet good and evil must not be identified (Rep. vi. 505 C, D); the terms good and useful, moreover, are everywhere continually interchanged. Considering universal usage, the same in both ancient and modern languages, we may venture to affirm that the fundamental conception of the good is wellbeing, pleasure. It is the well- being and pleasure of an existence perfect according to its kind, which so sympathetically affects him who has to do with it (let it be remembered that the Greeks even brought καλός into the closest possible connection with ἀγαθός, made the two, so to speak, into one word), that what is in itself good is also at once for the good and advantage of him who comes in contact with it. What in itself is good is good also for some person, to some purpose, heightens and promotes wellbeing beyond itself. Good, accordingly, is existence which is perfect and promotes perfection. Cf. the expression in Rom. vii 13: τὸ οὖν ἀγαθὸν ἐμοὶ γέγονεν Odvatos;...% ἁμαρτία διὰ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ μοι κατερ- γαζομένη θάνατον. (This double aspect of the conception appears also in the Hebrew 2iv, which, except in Genesis, where it is always translated by καλός, is quite as often by the LXX. rendered ἀγαθός as καλός. In 31 there is first brought into prominence the beneficial impression which a thing makes, and by which it attains a marked importance ; and then the element of completeness.)

The transference of this conception to the sphere of morals was easy, Since that is good which, after its kind, is perfect, the sphere of good at once fundamentally limits itself to that which is as in general a thing should be, and thus the word becomes synonymous with δίκαιος, from which it differs as κακός (which see) does from ἄδικος, as the state differs from the conduct. Hence it necessarily follows that the good is the measure of the δίκη, and not the δίκη of the good; and further, we must take into account that ἀγαθός always includes a corresponding beneficent relation of the subject of it to another subject, while δίκαιος only expresses a relation to the purely objective δίκη. (Cf. eg. Rom. v. 7: μόλις yap ὑπὲρ δικαίου τις ἀποθανεῖται' ὑπὲρ γὰρ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ τάχα τις καὶ τολμᾷ ἀποθανεῖν. The δίκαιος does what he ought, keeps within the limits assigned him, limits which he neither selfishly nor unselfishly transgresses, and gives to every one his © due; the ἀγαθός does as much as ever he can, and proves his moral quality by pro- moting the wellbeing of him with whom he has to do: accordingly here also the article

᾿Ξ γαθός 4 ᾿Αγαθὸς

is added (τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ), to indicate a special relation between the persons spoken of. With the thought here expressed, compare Rom. xi. 35: τίς προέδωκεν αὐτῷ καὶ ἀντα- ποδοθήσεται αὐτῷ. We may remark, further, that in Matt. xix. 16-22, Luke xviii. 18-23, Mark x. 17 sqq., the point of our Lord’s question, as He intended it, lies, according to all the narratives, in the ἀγαθός, ἀγαθόν, because the questioner evidently found no satis- faction in the δικαίωμα of the law, to which the Lord refers him. He needed something more than a δίκαιον.) This transference of the word to the sphere of morals, which first took place among the Greeks in the Attic writers (see below), but was undoubtedly more primary in Hebrew, can hardly be called, in the strict sense, a transference; because the good in a moral sense has again such an influence upon wellbeing, that by this use of the word rather the necessary, though not actual, unity of moral and material good is authenti- cated, It is now easy to see how that use of the word which applies it to things which cannot morally be approved, eg. when it denotes, as Passow shows, adroit for good or evil,—when applied to thieves = cunning,—can only be regarded as an inexact mode of speaking, arising from the one-sided prominence given to the element of ea or perfection contained in the word.

In keeping with this view, the usus loguendi may be most simply arranged and sur- veyed as follows:

I. (a) Good, worthy of admiration, excellent, omnibus numeris absolutus, or—of course with the modifications suggested by what has been above stated—as Irmisch says (on Herdn. i. 4, p. 134), “perfectus ... qui habet in se ac facit omnia, quae habere et facere debet pro notione nominis, officio ac lege;” Sturz says in his Lex. Xen., “ accipit notionem Sere a nomine ad quod pertinet :” excellent in its kind. Eustath. in Il. xvii. p. 1121 (in Sturz, 1.) : δοκεῖ δὲ ἐντεῦθεν εἰλῆφθαι καὶ τὸ ἀγαθὸς σκυτεύς, ὁ εὔτεχνος καὶ ὅσα τοιαῦτα. Xen. Cyrop. i. 6.19 : ἀγαθὸς γεωργός, ἱππεύς, ἰατρός, αὐλητής. Aeschin. Socr. dial.i.10. 12: ἵπποι καὶ κύνες ἀγαθοί. So in the New Test.: Matt. vii. 17, 18, πᾶν δένδρον ἀγαθὸν καρποὺς καλοὺς ποιεῖ, τὸ δὲ σαπρὸν δένδρον καρποὺς πονηροὺς ποιεῖ. οὐ δύναται δένδρον ἀγαθὸν καρποὺς πονηροὺς ποιεῖν x.7.r.; Matt. xix. 16 (T. L. omit dy.) ; Luke xviii. 18; Mark x. 17, διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ; Luke xviii. 19; Mark x. 18, τί pe λέγεις ἀγαθόν ; Luke viii. 8, ἡ γῆ ἡ ἀγαθή (ver. 15 parall. ἡ καλὴ γῆ); Matt. xxv. 21, 23, δοῦλε ἀγαθὲ καὶ πιστέ; Luke xix. 17, δοῦλε ἀγαθέ; Tit. ii. 10, πίστιν πᾶσαν ἐνδεικνυμένους ἀγαθήν. When the meaning is not more precisely expressed in the substantive, it is indicated by the accusative, as in Homer, βοὴν ἀγαθός, βίην ay., and Xen. Cyrop. i. 5. 9, τὰ πολε- μικὰ ἀγαθοί: or by the inf, as in Xen. Mem. ii. 6. 14, ἀγαθοὺς λέγειν καὶ πράττειν ; Hat. i. 136, ἀγαθὸς μάχεσθαι: or by ἃ preposition, Xen. Mem. iv. 6. 11, ἀγαθοὺς δὲ πρὸς τὰ τοιαῦτα νομίξεις ἄλλους τινὰς ἢ τοὺς δυναμένους αὐτοῖς καλῶς χρῆσθαι; Plut, Public. 17, ἣν ἀνὴρ εἰς πᾶσαν ἀρετὴν ἀγαθός ; οἵ, Gregor. Nyss. de opific. hom. c. 20, t. 1, Ρ. 98, τὸ ὄντως ἀγαθὸν ἁπλοῦν καὶ μονοειδές ἐστι τῇ φύσει, πάσης διπλόης καὶ τῆς πρὸς τὸ ἐναντίον συζυγίας ἀλλότριον.

(Ὁ) Good, in relation to something else = what is of advantage. It is thus used of

Ayabos 5 *Ayabos

persons in Matt. xx. 15, εἰ ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου πονηρός ἐστιν ὅτι ἐγὼ ἀγαθός εἶμι; Luke xxiii. 50, ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς καὶ δίκαιος (see above); Tit. ii. 5; 1 Pet. ii, 18, τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς καὶ ἐπιεικέσιν (ὑποτασσόμενοι) ; Rom. v. 7, ὑπὲρ yap τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ τάχα τις Kal τολμᾷ ἀποθανεῖν (opp. to δίκ.). Compare with this passage, Xen. Cyrop. iii. 3. 4, Κῦρον ἀνακα- λοῦντες τὸν εὐεργέτην, τὸν ἄνδρα τὸν ἀγαθόν; Xen. Hell. vii. 3. 12, of πλεῖστοι ὁρίζονται τοῦς εὐεργέτας ἑαυτῶν ἄνδρας ἀγαθοὺς εἶναι; John vii. 12, οἱ μὲν ἔλεγον, ὅτε ἀγαθός ἐστιν" ἄλλοι ἔλεγον οὔ, ἀλλὰ πλανᾷ τὸν ὄχλον. It denotes that which is to advantage in Eph. iv. 29, λόγος ἀγαθὸς πρὸς οἰκοδομήν (cf. Gal. vi. 10, ἐργαζώμεθα τὸ ἀγαθὸν πρὸς πάντας) ; Matt. vii. 11, δόματα ἀγαθά; Luke xi. 13; x. 42, ἀγαθὴ μερίς ; Jas. i. 17, δόσις ἀγαθή ; Rom. vii. 12, ἡ ἐντολὴ... ἀγαθή; 1 Thess. iii. 6, μνεία ἡμῶν ἀγαθή; 2 Thess. ii. 16, ἐλπὶς ἀγαθή ; 1 Tim. ii. 10, v. 10, ἔργον ἀγαθόν; Acts ix. 36, πλήρης ἔργων ἀγαθῶν καὶ ἐλεημοσυνῶν; Phil. i. 6, ὁ ἐναρξάμενος ἐν ὑμῖν ἔργον ἀγαθόν ; Jas. iii. 17, μεστὴ ἐλέους καὶ καρπῶν ἀγαθῶν ; 1 Pet. iii. 10, ἡμέρα ἀγαθή. The neuter τὸ ἀγαθόν denotes good things, things that are to advantage: Luke xvi. 25, ἀπέλαβες τὰ ἀγαθά σου; Rom. vii. 13, τὸ οὖν ἀγαθὸν ἐμοὶ γέγονεν Odvatos...% ἁμαρτία διὰ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ μοι κατεργαζομένη θάνατον ; viii. 28, τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν τὸν θεὸν πάντα συνεργεῖ εἰς ἀγαθόν; x. 15, οἱ πόδες τῶν εὐαγγελιζομένων εἰρήνην, τῶν εὐαγγ. τὰ ἀγαθά; xiii. 4, σοὶ εἰς τὸ ἀγαθόν ; xv. 2, ἕκαστος ἡμῶν τῷ πλησίον ἀρεσκέτω εἰς τὸ ἀγαθὸν πρὸς οἰκοδομήν (Bengel : bonwm, genus; aedifi- catio, species) ; Gal. vi. 6, 10; 1 Thess, ν. 15, τὸ ἀγαθὸν διώκετε καὶ εἰς ἀλλήλους καὶ εἰς πάντας ; Philem. 14; John i. 47, ἐκ Ναξαρὲτ δύναταί τε ἀγαθὸν εἶναι. With this is con nected the designation of possessions as goods (in German Gut, Giiter) in Luke xii. 18, 19, Gal. vi. 6. It denotes also that which we possess in Christ: Rom. xiv. 16, ὑμῶν τὸ ἀγαθόν ; Philem. 6, ἀγαθὸν τὸ ἐν ὑμῖν ; cf. Luke i. 53, πεινῶντας ἐνέπλησεν ἀγαθῶν ; Heb. ix. 11, x. 1, τὰ μέλλοντα ἀγαθά; cf. Xen. Cyrop. vii. 1. 11, πολλά τε καὶ ἀγαθὰ κτήσασθαι. — By ecclesiastical writers the Lord’s Supper is also called ἀγαθόν : see Suic. thes. s.v. ; Basilius M. epist. Can. IIT. ad Amphiloch.: of τοῖς λησταῖς ἀντεπεξιόντες, ἔξω μὲν ὄντες τῆς ἐκκλησίας, εἴργονται τῆς κοινωνίας τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ" κληρικοὶ δὲ ὄντες, τοῦ βαθμοῦ καθαιροῦνται.

IL The word was first transferred to the moral sphere by the Attic writers, and amongst these by the philosophers, who used the expression καλὸς κἀγαθός to denote “ the sum total of the qualities of an Athenian man of honour” (Passow). (Luke xviii. 15, καρδία καλὴ καὶ ἀγαθή; v. sub καλός.) Td ἀγαθόν was equivalent to swmmum bonum ; ἀγαθόν denoted, in general, what is morally good. Compare Matt. xix. 17 (cf. v. 16), where L. T. read τί pe ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; εἷς ἐστὶν ὁ ἀγαθός : Ree. as in Mark x. 17, 18, Luke xviii. 18, 19, τί pe λέγεις ἀγαθόν ; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς, ὁ θεός. We see here the distinctive New Testament character of this idea, and its affinity here again with δίκαιος (Matt. v. 45, ἐπὶ πονηροὺς καὶ ἀγαθούς... ἐπὶ δικαίους καὶ ἀδίκους), only that in δίκαιος the relation to the δέκη, or to God's revelation, forms the standard ; whereas ἀγαθός denotes that inner harmonious perfection which is its own standard and measure, and which primarily (archetypally) belongs to God. Cf. Athan. I. dial. de trin. ii. 169: Πῶς οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς 6 θεός; “Ore ὁ θεὸς οὐ κατὰ μετοχὴν ἀγαθότητός ἐστιν

᾿Αγαθός 6 Κρείσσων

ἀγαθός, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτός ἐστιν ἀγαθότης. ὁ δὲ ἄνθρωπος μετοχῇ ἀγαθότητός ἐστιν ἀγαθύς. With a substantive: Matt. xii. 35, ὁ ἀγαθὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ θησαυροῦ (Luke vi. 45 adds τῆς καρδίας) ἐκβάλλει τὰ ἀγαθά (Luke vi. 45, προφέρει τὸ ἀγαθόν). (Acts xi. 24, ἣν ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς καὶ πλήρης πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ πίστεως, belongs perhaps to I. ὁ.) Rom. ii. 7, καθ᾽ ὑπομονὴν ἔργον ἀγαθοῦ ζητεῖν ξωὴν αἰών. ; Rom. xiii. 8, φόβος τῷ ἀγαθῷ ἔργῳ (Rec. τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἔργων); 2 Cor. ix. 8, ἵνα περισσεύητε εἰς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθόν ; Eph. ii. 10, κτισθέντες ... ἐπὶ ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς, οἷς. προητοίμασεν ὁ θεὸς, ἵνα ἐν αὐτοῖς περιπατήσωμεν;; Col. i. 10, ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ ἀγαθῷ καρποφορεῖν ; 2 Thess. ii. 17, στηρίξαι τὰς καρδίας ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ καὶ λόγῳ ἀγαθῷ; 2 Tim. ii. 21, σκεῦος... εἰς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἧτοι- μασμένον; iii, 17, ἵνα ἄρτιος ἦ ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος, πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἐξηρτισμένος (cf. Matt. xix. 17); Tit. i. 16, πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἀδόκιμοι; iii. 1, πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἑτοίμους εἶναι; Heb. xiii, 21, ὁ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης καταρτίσαι ὑμᾶς ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ ἀγαθῷ εἰς τὸ ποιῆσαι τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ; 1 Pet. iii. 160, ἡ ἀγαθὴ ἐν Χριστῷ ἀναστροφή. ‘Lhe expression συνείδησις ἀγαθή in Acts xxiii 1, 1 Tim. i. 5, 19, and 1 Pet. iii. 16, 21, does indeed denote the conscience as a self-witness filled with moral good, inasmuch as it attests to the man with the absence of guilt the possession of righteousness. But as the absence of guilt is, at all events in actual experience, the first and chief element of the συνείδησις ἀγαθή, so that the expression—synonymous with συνείδησις καθαρά, ef. Acts xxiii. 1 with 2 Tim. 1, 3—is also parallel with the οὐδὲν ἐμαυτῷ σύνοιδα of 1 Cor. iv. 4, and opposed to the συνείδησις πονηρά, ἁμαρτιῶν, the absence or removal of which is the only means of attaining a good conscience, I prefer to take ἀγαθή here in its simple and primary meaning, as denoting the wellbeing, the unimpaired and uninjured condition of the conscience, while its depraved state is to be expressed by πονηρά, a bad conscience. We thus obviate the great difficulty involved in attributing moral qualities to conscience itself, whereas it is only affected by these; and thus it is evident why we may with propriety speak of a good, an evil, a bad, a pure, a reconciled conscience; but not of a holy, an unholy, a righteous, an unrighteous conscience. Cf. ὁ ὀφθαλμὸς ποιηρός, Matt. xx.15. We find the neuter τὸ ἀγαθόν in Matt. xix. 17, L. T.; Luke vi. 45 ; Rom. ii 10; vii. 19; xii, 2; xii. 9, κολλώμενοι TE ἀγαθῷ; xii. 21, νίκα ἐν τῷ ἀγαθῷ τὸ κακόν ; xiii. 3; xvi. 19, θέλω ὑμᾶς σοφοὺς εἶναι εἰς τὸ ἀγαθόν; Eph. iv. 28; 1 Pet. iii, 13, τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ μιμηταί; 3 John 11, μιμοῦ τὸ dy. The plural τὰ ἀγαθά in Matt. xii. 35; John v. 29; Rom. iii. 8, "Aya@ov in Matt. xix. 16, τέ ἀγαθὸν ποιήσω; Rom. vii. 18; ix. 11; 2 Cor. v. 10; Eph. vi. 8; 1 Pet. iii. 11.—’AyaOa λαλεῖν, Matt. xii. 34, Opposed to κακός ; πονηρός, Matt. v. 45, vii. 11, xii, 34, 35, xxii. 10; to φαῦλος in John ν. 29; 2 Cor. v.10. Synonyms, καλός, δίκαιος.

Κρείσσων, ον, dvos, compar. of ἀγαθός. According to Etym. M. from κρατύς, on which H. Steph. : “recte, nam pro κρατίων dicitur κράσσων (cf. Matth. Gr, Gr. sec. 131, Al). Inde primum κρέσσων, ex quo κρείσσων." Att. κρείττων. The Mss. of the New Testament vacillate between og and rr. In Heb. vi. 9 all the Uncials read σσ where the

1 Retained from ed. 1, not in ed. 2

Κρεῖσσον ᾿ 7 ᾿Αγαθωσύνη

Received Text has rT ; in all the other passages of Hebrews where the word occurs the Uncials have tr. In 1 Cor. vii. 9, xi. 17, Phil. i 23, Tisch. reads oo. It denotes superiority in power, worth, and importance; more excellent, more advantageous (cf. κράτιστος, Pa, xvi. 6=D'y2). Hence Philo i. 33. 44, ed. Mang.: ἐφ᾽ dcop κρείττων ὁ ποιῶν, ἐπὶ τοσοῦτῃ καὶ τὸ γενόμενον ἄμεινον. Cf. the oxymoron in Plat. legg. i. 627 B: τὸ χεῖρον κρεῖτταν τοῦ ἀμείνονος, deterius meliare superius. The word is used in a sense most nearly akin to the fundamental meaning in Heb. xii. 24: κρείττονα λαλοῦντι παρὰ τὸν “ABer, where Lachm. and Tisch. read κρεῖττον adverbially = more emphatically.— (a) More excellent ; Heb. vii. 7, τὸ ἔλαττον ὑπὸ τοῦ κρείττονος εὐλογεῖται ; i. 4, κρείττων γενόμενος τῶν ἀγγέλων ; vii. 19, κρείττων ἐλπίς, opp. to τὸ τῆς ἐντολῆς ἀσθενὲς καὶ ἀνωφελές (ver. 18), οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐτελειώσεν ὁ νόμος (ver. 19); Vii. 22, κρείττων διαθήκη ; viii. 6, κρείττονες ἐπαγγελίαι ; ix. 23, κρείττονες θυσίαι; x. 84, τὴν ἁρπαγὴν τῶν ὑπαρχόντων ὑμῶν μετὰ χαρᾶς προσε- δέξασθε, γινώσκοντες ἔχειν ἑαυτοῖς κρείττονα ὕπαρξιν καὶ μένουσαν ; xi. 16, κρείττονος (sc. πατρίδος) ὀρέγονται, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν ἐπουρανίου; xi. 35, οὐ προσδεξάμενοι τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν (deliverance in this life) ἵνα κρείττονος ἀγαστάσεῳς τύχωσιν. On the κρεῖττόν τι (τοῦ θεοῦ περὶ ἡμῶν προβλεψαμένου) in xi. 40, see Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebr. Br. 583: “ Our living in the time of fulfilment is the great advantage we have above them; and we enjoy this advantage by virtue of the divine decree-—a decree so peculiarly in our favour, —that the Messiah should appear in our days.” Heb. xii. 24, Rec., κρείττονα λαλεῖν, where it would be more correct to read κρεῖττον, adv. Phil. i. 23: πολλῷ yap μᾶλλον κρεῖσσον. ---- (Ὁ) Preferable, or more advantageous ; 1 Cor. xii. 31, Rec., {dobre τὰ χαρίσματα τὰ κρείττονα, where 1, T. τὰ μείζονᾳ; 1 Pet. iii. 17, κρεῖττον ἀγαθοποιοῦντας πάσχειν ἢ κακοποιοῦντας, οἵ, ver. 16; 2 Pet. ii. 21, ο. dat. κρεῖττον γὰρ ἣν αὐτοῖς μὴ ἐγνωκέναι τὴν ὁδὸν τῆς δικαιοσύνης ἢ ἐπιγνοῦσιν ἐπιστρέψαι ἐκ τῆς παραδοθείσης αὐτοῖς ἁγίας ἐντολῆς (cf. ver. 20, ἡττῶνται, and χείρονα) ; 1 Cor. vii. 9, κρεῖσφόν ἐστιν γαμῆσαι ἢ πυροῦσθαμ, where κρεῖσσον, more advantageous, is parallel to καλὸν αὐτοῖς in ver. 8, it is proper for them, it is good for them; cf. ix. 15 and 1 Cor. yii. 1 with ver. 28. Cf. with this pass- age, Aesch. Prom. 752: κρεῖσφον yap εἰσάπαξ θανεῖν ἢ τὰς ἁπάσας ἡμέρας πάσχειν κακῶς. Κρείσσων does not appear to have been used in a maral sense as equivalent to better (better is expressed by ὠμείνων). In 1 Cor. xi. 17 also, οὐκ εἰς τὸ κρεῖσσον adr’ els τὸ ἧσσον συνέρχεσθε, the antithesis appears to be between advantageous and dise advantageous: in favour of this is the combination εἰς 7d... συνέρχεσθε,

Κρεῖσσων, the neuter of κρείσσων (which see), occurs as an adverb Heb, xii, 24. κρεῖττον λαλεῖν (sq. wapd) = more emphatically. 1 Cor. vii. 38: καὶ ὁ ἐργαμίζων καλῶς ποιεῖ, καὶ ὁ μὴ ἐκγαμίζων κρεῖσσον ποιεῖ = more advantageously, more appropriately, cf. ν. 35,

*Aya0wavyn, %, only in biblical and eccles. Greek = goodness and kindness, bonitas as well as benignitas; chiefly, however, in the former signification, which appears to be the exclusive one in the New Test.; Phavorin. ἡ ἀπηρτισμένη ἀρετή. It is the quality of the

᾿Αγαθοεργέω 8 ᾿Αγαθοποιΐα

man who is ruled by and aims at what is good,—moral worth. Eph. v. 9: ὁ καρπὸς τοῦ φωτὸς ἐν πάσῃ ἀγαθωσύνῃ καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ. 2 Thess. 1. 11 : εὐδοκία ἀγαθωσύνης, what is pleasing to ἀγαθωσύνη (vid. εὐδοκία). Rom. xv. 14: μεστοί ἐστε ἀγαθωσύνης, πεπληρωμένοι πάσης γνώσεως, δυνάμενοι καὶ ἀλλήλους νουθετεῖν. The only doubtful passage is Gal. v, 22, where Theophyl. explains it by benignitas; others, on the contrary, in consideration of the word πίστις that immediately succeeds, explain it by bonitas, integritas, LXX. = 73d, 2 Chron. xxiv. 16 ; Eccles, iv. 8, v. 10, vii. 14, ix. 18.

᾿Αγαθοεργέω, 1 Tim. vi. 18: τοῖς πλουσίοις... mapdyyedre .. . ἀγαθοεργεῖν, πλου- rely ἐν ἔργοις καλοῖς, εὐμεταδότους εἶναι, κοινωνικούς. Otherwise it only occurs in eccles. Greek, where it is equivalent to ἀγαθουργεῖν, the Attic form, which Tisch. and Lachi. have adopted in Acts xiv. 17. Cf. Herod. i. 67, Adyns τῶν ἀγαθοεργῶν.... Σπαρτιητέων, Lichas, of the number of Spartans “approved by valour,” according to Tim. lex. κατ᾽ ἀνδραγαθίαν aiperol; iii, 154, ai ἀγαθοεργίαι, res praecclare gestae; iii. 160, ἀγαθοεργία Περσέων, what a man has done for the advantage of the Persians, by which he has deserved well of them. Hence dya@oepyeiv = to work good, as also to act for some one’s advantage. Since in the above passage (1 Tim. vi. 18), in which there is a climax, the word relates to the use made of riches, it would seem best to render it to do good, so that others shall be benefited, to deserve well. To do good, to act kindly, as in Acts xiv. 17: οὐκ ἀμάρτυρον ἑαυτὸν ἀφῆκεν ἀγαθουργῶν, where Rec. reads ἀγαθοποιῶν.

᾿Αγαθοποιέξω, peculiar to eccles. Greek. In Att. ἀγαθὸν ποιεῖν on the one hand, εὐεργετεῖν on the other. 1. To do good, to do the good, opp. to ἁμαρτάνειν, 1 Pet. ii, 20; so also ii, 15 (cf. 16), iii, 6,17; 3 John 11, μὴ μιμοῦ τὸ κακὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀγαθόν" ὁ ἀγαθο- ποιῶν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστίν. --- 2. In the sense of ἀγαθός, I. b., according to the connection, to do good, so that some one derives advantage from it. With acc. in Luke vi. 33, ἀγαθοποιεῖτε τοὺς ἀγαθοποιοῦντας ὑμᾶς ; cf. Num. x. 32 = 20; Tob. xii. 14. With dat. in 2 Macc. i. 2; 1 Mace. xi. 33. Absolutely in Luke vi. 35; Mark iii) 4 and Luke vi. 9, parall. ψυχὴν σῶσαι. In Matt. xii. 12, καλῶς ποιεῖν. ---- On Acts xiv. 17, Rec., see ἀγαθοεργεῖν. — Opp. to κακοποιεῖν in Mark iii. 4, Luke vi. 9, 3 John 11, 1 Pet. iii, 17 ; cf. ἀγαθοποιεῖν, opp. to κακοῦν in Zeph. i. 13. As used by astrologers, it is = bonwm omen afferre. Cf. also καλοποιεῖν = to act becomingly, and in some connections to act kindly,

᾿Αγαθοποιός, ov, practising good, acting rightly: 1 Pet. ii. 14, εἰς ἐκδίκησιν κακο- ποιῶν, ἔπαινον δὲ ἀγαθοποιῶν. ---- Clem. Al. Strom. ed. Sylb. 294: φύσις τοῦ ἀγαθοποιοῦ τὸ ἀγαθοποιεῖν, ὡς τοῦ πυρὸς τὸ θερμαίνειν καὶ τοῦ φωτὸς τὸ φωτίζειν. ῬΙαῦ. 75. et Osir. c. 42: ὁ γὰρ "Οσιρις ἀγαθοποιός. It is further used also in the sense of beneficus, and is applied by astrologers to favourable constellations. —In Ecclus. xlii, 14, ἀγαθοποιὸς γυνή, it refers to a woman who puts on a kind or friendly manner in order to corrupt. — Ouly in later writers.

᾿Αγαθοποιΐία, ἡ. except in astrological writers, where it is = beneficentia siderum,

Φιλάγαθος 9 Ayatrdw

only in 1 Pet. iv. 19, ot πάσχοντες κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ ὡς πιστῷ κτίστῃ παρατιθέσ- θωσαν τὰς ψυχὰς αὐτῶν ἐν ἀγαθοποιΐᾳ (1,. - ποιΐαις) ; cf. ii, 15, 20, iii. 6, 17 : = well- doing, the practice of good. Clem. Al. Strom. ed. Sylb. p. 274, ὅτῳ δὴ ἡ ἐπίτασις τῆς δικαιοσύνης εἰς ἀγαθοποιΐαν ἐπιδέδωκεν, τούτῳ ἡ τελείωσις ἐν ἀμεταβόλῳ ἕξει εὐποιΐας καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν τοῦ θεοῦ διαμένει.

Φιλάγαθος, ov, loving good, the friend of good. Aristotle, Magn. Mor. ii. 14, describes the σπουδαῖος, who devotes himself in earnest to right doing, as φιλάγαθος, in contrast with φίλαυτος which is predicated of the φαῦλος, and, in accordance with the context there, that man is φιλάγαθος who loves and practises with self-denial what is good. The word sometimes occurs in Plutarch also, Mor. 140 c, ἀνὴρ φιλάγαθος καὶ φιλόκαλος σώφρονα καὶ κοσμίαν γυναῖκα ποιεῖ. In the same connection, comp. 7768. et Ποηνιῖ, 2. Τὴ this general signification, Wisd. vii. 22, of σοφία : ἔστι ἐν αὐτῇ πνεῦμα... φιλάγαθον.---Τῇ ecclesiastical Greek, on the contrary, we find the word mostly used in the particular sense of one who likes to be kind, who likes to do good, joined eg. with φιλοικτίρμων. Φιλαγάθως and φιλαγαθωσύνη occur there with a like meaning, while φιλαγαθία in Philo and Clemens Alex. answers to φιλάγαθος in its general sense. Thus, also, Chrysostom explains the word in the only place where it occurs in the N. T. (Tit. i. 8), τὰ αὐτοῦ πάντα τοῖς δεομένοις προϊέμενος ; and likewise Theophylact: τὸν ἐπιεικῆ, τὸν μέτριον, τὸν μὴ φθονοῦντα,---ἰῃ same expositor who explains the dm. Ney. ἀφιλά- γαθος in 2 Tim. iii. 3 by ἐχθρὸς παντὸς ἀγαθοῦ. Considering that ἀφιλάγαθοι in 2 Tim. iii, 3 occupies a middle place between ἀνήμεροι and προδόται, and that φιλάγαθον in Tit. i 8 appears side by side with φιλόξενον among the requirements in a presbyter, the more general moral qualities σώφρονα, δίκαιον, ὅσιον, not being enumerated till after- wards, the meaning given by the above-named Greek interpreters must apparently be preferred, and the word may perhaps be explained: one who willingly and with self- denial does good, or is kind.

᾿Αφιλάγαθος, ov, only in the N. T., and there only in 2 Tim. iii. 3, among the characteristics of the wickedness and apostasy of the last days, In accordance with what has been said under φιλάγαθος, the explanation of Theophylact, ἐχθροὶ παντὸς ἀγαθοῦ, must probably be rejected, and the word must be regarded as a negative, and therefore strong expression to denote hard-heartedness, = some such rendering as unsuscep- tible of any self-denial in order to kindness.

‘Ayan da, f. -ἤσω, to love, is connected with ἄγαμαι, though scarcely as stated by Coray (ἃ yap φιλοῦμεν, ἐκεῖνα καὶ θαυμάζειν εἰώθαμεν, Coray, ad Isocr. ii. 157. 9). Rather might we, however, on the ground of this connection—which likewise probably includes the Latin gaudere, see Curtius, 158—explain ἀγαπᾶν as=to have one’s joy tn anything. Mistaken, at any rate, are the explanations given by Hemsterhuis (from ἄγαν and the unused theme πάω =) swmmo opere curam alicujus gerere; and by Damm

᾿Αγαπάω 10 ᾿Αγαπαὼ

(lex. Hom.), est pro ἀγαφάω, ab ἄγαν, valde et ἀφάω, contingo, compositum, applico quast me valde ad aliquid, suscipio quid amplexu meo. The connection with ἄγαν is their only true suggestion—Homer has for ἀγαπάω the form ἀγαπάξω.

The Greek language has three words for to love: φιλεῖν, ἐρᾶν, ἀγαπᾶν. ἐρᾶν is used in only a few passages of the O. T.: Esth. ii. 17 and Proy. iv. 6278; Wisd. viii. 2; ἐραστής, Ezek. xvi. 33; Hos, ii. 5; not at allin the N. T. On the relation between φιλεῖν and ἐρᾶν, cf. Xen. Hier, xi. 11: οὐ μόνον φιλοῖα ἄν, ἀλλ᾽ καὶ ἐρῷο ὑπ᾽ ἀνθρώπων, on which Sturz (/ex, Xen.) remarks: scil. φιλοῦσεμ amici; sed qui vehementius amant, tanquam amasium, ti ἐρῶσι. ᾿Ερᾶν denotes the love of passion, of vehement, sensual desire ; but so unsuitable was this word, by usage so saturated with lustful ideas, to express the moral and holy character of that love with which Scripture in particular has to do, that it does not occur in a good sense even in the O, T., save in Prov. iv. 6, Wisd. viii. 2; and, as already remarked, not at all in the N. T. Concerning this latter fact, Trench (Synonyms of the N. 7.) well says; “In part, no doubt, the explanation of this absence is, that these words (ἔρως, ἐρᾶν, ἐραστής), by the corrupt use of the world, had become so steeped in earthly sensual passion, carried such an atmosphere of unholiness about them (see Origen, Prol. in Cant. op. 3, pp. 28-30), that the truth of God abstained from the defiling contact with them.”

᾿Αγαπᾶν and φιλεῖν are used, indeed, in many cases synonymously; they even seem sometimes to be used the one in place of the other; cf. eg. Xen. Mem. it. 7. 9, ἐὰν δὲ προστάτης ἧς, ὅπως ἐνεργοὶ dict, οὗ μὲν ἐκείνας φιλήσεις, ὁρῶν ὠφελίμους σεαυτῷ οὔσας, ἐκεῖναι δὲ σὲ ἀγαπήσουσιν, αἰσθόμεναι χαίροντά σε αὐταῖς, with ii, 7. 12: αἱ μὲν ὡς κηδεμόνα ἐφίλουν, ὁ δὲ ὡς ὠφελίμους ἠγάπα. Yet it follows from these very passages that a distinction not too subtle exists between the two words. Cf. Plat. Zys. 215 B, ὁ δὲ μή του δεόμενος οὐδέ te ἀγαπῴη dv; Οὐ yap οὖν. Ὃ δὲ μὴ ἀγαπῶν, οὐδ᾽ ἂν φιλοῖ; οὐ δῆτα. Hom. Od. 7. 82, 33, οὐ γὰρ ξείνους οἵδε μάλ᾽ ἀνθρώπους ἀνέχονται, οὐδ᾽ ἀγαπαζό- μενον φιλέουσ᾽, ὅς κ' ἄλλοθεν ἔλθῃ. Dio Cassius 24, ἐφιλήσατε αὐτὸν ὡς πατέρα, Kad ἠγαπήσατε ὡς εὐεργέτην, However often ἀγαπᾶν and φιλεῖν are used in the same com- binations and relations, it must not be overlooked ¢hat in all cases wherein the simple designation of kindred, a friendly or in any way intimate relation between friends, etc., was required, the words φίλος, φιλεῖν were naturally used, and hence we meet these more frequently by far, ἀγαπᾶν less frequently. °’Ayamdy, moreover, possesses a meaning of its own, which, in spite of other points of agreement, never belongs to φιλεῖν, viz. to be contented, to be satisfied with (τινί, and τί, or with the participle, or followed by εἰ, ἐάν; so we find from Homer onwards to the later Greek in Thuce., Plat., Xen., Demosth., Lucian) ; according to the old lexicographers,=dpxetq@as τινί καὶ μηδὲν πλέον émifnteiv. On the other hand, ἀγαπᾶν never means “ to kiss,” or “to do anything willingly,” “to be wont to do,”—significations which are peculiar to φιλεῖν, If, after all this, it be asked, in conclusion, How do you account for the surprising fact that everywhere in biblical Greek in both the O, T. and specially in the N. T., where the love which belongs to the sphere

a ὦ

᾿Αγαπάω Δ *Ayaraw

of divine revelation is spoken of, ἀγαπᾶν is systematically used, while φιλεῖν has received no distinctive colouring at all ?—the answer must be, That the love designated by ἀγαπᾶν must certainly possess a distinctive element of its own. We shall not go wrong if we define the distinction thus: φιλεῖν denotes the love of natural inclination, affection,— love, so to say, originally spontaneous, involuntary (amare); ἀγαπᾶν, on the other hand, love as a direction of the will, diligere. This must be regarded as the true and adequate explanation, at least as regards Scripture usage, and it is surely confirmed by the tes- timony of classical usage above given. God's love to man in revelation is but once expressed by φιλεῖν, not in the text cited by Tittmann (de synon. N. T. p. 53), John xvi. 27, where the special relation of the Father to the disciples of Jesus is spoken of, but in the expression φιλανθρωπία, Tit. iii. 4, and there the word has a meaning quite different from its signification in classical Greek. Φιλεῖν is never used of the love of men towards God. [But see 1 Cor. xvi. 22: ef tis οὐ φιλεῖ τὸν κύριον. Love to God or to our neighbour, as a command, is unheard of in the profane writers ; this love, again, is always expressed by ἀγαπᾶν. ’Ayardy, and never φιλεῖν, is used of love towards our enemies. See, on the other hand, John xv. 19; εἰ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου ἦτε, ὁ κόσμος ἂν τὸ ἴδιον ἐφίλε. For the love of Jesus to Lazarus, both φιλεῖν and ἀγαπᾶν are used, John xi. 3, 5, 36; and in like manner of His love to St. John, John xx. 2; cf. xiii. 23, xix. 26, xxi. 7. But one feels at once how inappropriate φιλεῖν would be, eg. in Mark x. 21: ὁ δὲ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἠγάπησεν αὐτόν. (We can hardly attach importance to the use of ἀγαπᾶν instead of φιλεῖν in John xi. 5: ἠγάπα δὲ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς τὴν Μάρθαν καὶ τὴν ἀδελφὴν αὐτῆς καὶ τὸν Adtapoy, for one cannot see why ἐφίλει, as Cod. D reads, should be regarded as offensive.) The moral and holy love, which is and must be brought to light by divine revelation, may even possibly stand in opposition to natural inclination, whereas the love of inclination, φιλεῖν, includes also the ἀγαπᾶν. The range of φιλεῖν is wider than that of ἀγαπᾶν, but ἀγαπᾶν stands all the higher above φιλεῖν on account of its moral import. It does not in itself exclude affection, but it is always the moral affection of conscious deliberate will which is contained in it, not the natural impulse of immediate feeling. Though the word did not as yet contain this element of moral reflection in the classics, still it was the proper vessel to receive the fulness of biblical import; and as in the N. T. the right word for that love of which the N. T. treats—love which is to be estimated morally, and which is designed for eternity— could no longer be dispensed with, ὠγάπη---α word formed, perhaps, by the LXX. as a companion to ἀγαπᾶν, and wholly unknown in the classics—became, in N. T. language, the distinctive designation of holy and divine love, while the Greeks knew only ἔρως, φιλία, and στοργή; and this is itself a significant fact for the understanding of ἀγαπᾶν. This state of things is already recognised in the Vulgate. ’Ayarrdv is once rendered by amare (2 Pet. ii. 15), the word usually employed in translating φιλεῖν; but in all other cases diligere is commonly used, and ἀγάπη is=caritas, dilectio. “In order to distinguish the subordinate relation of natural inclination, both sexual inclination and that of per-

᾿Αγαπάω 12 *Ayardw

sonal friendship, from the conception of Christian love, the Vulgate avoids the words amor and amare, and uses instead caritas and dilectio.” R. v. Raumer, Die Hinwirkwng des Christenthums auf die althochdeutsche Sprache, 1845, p. 398. These are obviously weighty considerations in determining the biblical and Christian conception of love. How greatly Scripture usage has enriched the word ἀγαπᾶν, becomes apparent when we compare the following detailed exposition with the notices of the word given in classical lexicons, Classical Greek knows nothing, for instance, of the use of ἀγαπᾶν to designate compas- sionating love, or the love that freely chooses its object. With reference to the words ἀγαπᾶν, ἀγάπη, ἀγαπητός, N. T. usage is peculiarly coherent and self-contained.

I. ᾿4γαπᾶν is used in all places where the direction of the will is the point to be con- sidered; Matt. v. 43, ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον cov; ver. 44, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθρούς, xix. 19, xxii. 37, 39; Mark xii. 30, 31, 33; Luke vi. 27, 35, x. 27; Rom. xiii, 9; Gal. v. 14; Eph. v. 25, 28, 33; Col. iii 19; Jas. ii, 8; 1 Pet. 1. 22, ii 17. So also where the inclination rests on the decision of the will, on a selection of the object. So in Heb. i. 9, ἠγάπησας δικαιοσύνην ; 2 Cor. ix. 7, ἱλαρὸν δότην ἀγαπᾷ ὁ θεός ; 2 Pet. ii, 15, μισθὸν ἀδικίας ἠγάπησεν; 2 Tim. iv. 10, ἀγαπήσας τὸν viv αἰῶνα ; 1 Pet. iii, 10, ὁ θέλων ξἕωὴν ἀγαπᾶν ; cf. John iii. 19, ἠγάπησαν of ἄνθρωποι μᾶλλον τὸ σκότος ἢ τὸ φῶς; John xii. 43, ἠγάπησαν τὴν δόξαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων μᾶλλον ἤπερ τὴν δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ. Cf. Demosth. pro cor. p. 263. 6, ed. Reisk.: οὔτ᾽ ἐν τοῖς Ελληνικοῖς τὰ Φιλίππου δῶρα καὶ τὴν ξενίαν ἠγάπησα ἀντὶ τῶν κοινῇ πᾶσι τοῖς “Ελλησι cupde- ρόντων. Plut. Camill. 10: ἀγαπῆσαι τὴν ἧσσαν πρὸ τῆς ἐλευθερίας. Under this head must also be classed the cases in which ἀγαπᾶν is used to express the love which decides the direction of the will, as in the relation between the Father and the Son. John iii. 35, ὁ πατὴρ ἀγαπᾷ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πάντα δέδωκεν ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ; John x. 17, διὰ τοῦτό pe ὁ πατὴ: ἀγαπᾷ κτλ. ; xv. 9, xvii. 23, 24, 26; xiv. 31, ἀγαπῶ τὸν πατέρα. So also when the relation of love between man and God, between the Father and the Son, is expressed by ἀγαπᾶν, John viii. 42, xiv. 15, 21, 23, 24, 28; 1 John iv. 10 (and 19 Rec), 20, 21, v. 1, 2; Rom. viii. 28 ; 1 Cor. ii. 9, viii. 3; Eph. vi. 24; Jas. i 12, 1, 5; 1 Pet. i 8; 2 Tim. iv. 8, τοῖς ἠγαπηκόσι τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν αὐτοῦ. When Peter, in John xxi. 15, 16, answers our Lord’s question, ἀγαπᾷς we; with φιλῶ ce, he certainly uses the term which Christ Himself once employed to designate the close and special love of the disciples to Himself, John xvi. 27; and Christ evidently points to Peter’s word when He repeats the question the third time, saying, ver. 17, φιλεῖς we ; But we can hardly suppose that Peter meant by this answer to go beyond our Lord’s question, by naming the love of inclina- tion instead of the decided love of the will which was claimed from him. We must rather suppose that he felt humbled by our Lord’s question, and does not therefore venture to affirm the love which Christ seeks. Jesus then still more deeply humbles him by His third question—answering to Peter’s thrice-repeated denial of Him,—which takes up and adopts the φιλεῖν of the disciple’s reply, and brings home to his heart its meaning.

II, ’Ayardy is therefore employed when an eligere or a negligere takes place. Matt

*Ayarn 13 *Ayarn

vi. 24, τὸν ἕνα μισήσει καὶ τὸν ἕτερον ἀγαπήσει, ἢ ἑνὸς ἀνθέξεται καὶ τοῦ ἑτέρου κατα- φρονήσει; Luke xvi. 13; Rom. ix. 18, τὸν ᾿Ιακὼβ ἠγάπησα, τὸν δὲ ᾿Ησαῦ ἐμίσησα (Mal. i. 2; Hos. xiv. 5; Jer. xxxi. 2; Deut. vii. 8, 13 =2nx); Rom. ix. 25, καλέσω τὸν οὐ λαόν μου λαόν μου καὶ τὴν οὐκ ἠγαπημένην ἠγαπημένην (Hos. ii. 28 = 0M); whence may be easily explained why 6 υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, in Luke iii, 22 and elsewhere, is parallel with ix. 35, ὁ vi. μ. ὁ ἐκλελεγμένος. Cf. Matt. xii. 18, 6 ἀγαπητός μου, after Isa. ΧΙ, 1, "93, LXX. ὁ ἐκλεκτός μου. For Rom. xi. 28, κατὰ τὴν ἐκλογὴν ἀγαπητοί, as also the addition, ἐν ᾧ eddox., Matt. iii. 17, see s.v. ἀγαπητός. To this head belong Rev. xx. 9, ἡ πόλις ἡ ἠγαπημένη, as also John xiii. 23, xix. 26, xxi. 7, 20, μαθητὴς ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ; whereas in xx. 2, dv ἐφίλει is used with unusual tenderness, Cf. John xii. 25 with Rey. xii. 11. Closely connected herewith is, finally, —

III. The use of ἀγαπᾶν, where love, as free love, becomes compassion. Cf. Isa. lx. 10, διὰ ἔλεον ἠγάπησά σε; cf. Luke vii. 5, ἀγαπᾷ γὰρ τὸ ἔθνος ; 1 Thess. i. 4, εἰδότες ἀδελφοὶ ἠγαπημένοι ὑπὸ θεοῦ τὴν ἐκλογὴν ὑμῶν ; Eph. ii. 4, ὁ δὲ θεὸς πλούσιος ὧν ἐν ἐλέει, διὰ τὴν πολλὴν ἀγάπην αὐτοῦ, ἣν ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς κιτιλ.; Eph. i. 6, ἐχαρίτωσεν ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ---θποθ both the redeeming love of God and the love of Christ as Saviour are designated by ἀγαπᾶν. The former, in John iii. 16; 1 John iv. 10, 11, 19; John xiv. 21, 23, xvii. 23; Rom. viii. 37; Eph. ii. 4; 2 Thess. ii, 16; the latter, in John xiii 1, 34, xiv. 21, xv. 9,12; Gal. ii, 20 ; Eph. v. 2, 25; Rev. i. 5, iii. 9 (Mark x. 21 2), The part. perf. pass. is then used to denote those in whom this love is realized, and in whom the result abides; as in 1 Thess. i. 4; 2 Thess. ii. 13; Col. iii. 12, ὡς ἐκλεκτοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ ἅγιοι καὶ ἠγαπημένοι. In Jude 1, τοῖς ἐν θεῷ πατρὶ ἠγαπημένοις (Rec. ἡγιασ- μένοις), ἦγ. denotes a thought complete in itself (like ἡγιασμένοι in Heb. x. 10); and the added words ἐν θεῷ πατρί are to be explained like ἐν in Heb. x. 10 ;—that they are ἠγαπημένοι and ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ τετηρημένοι, has its ground in God as the Father.

The meaning of ἀγαπᾶν having been fixed by such usage, it is used finally to denote the love of Christians towards each other. John xiii. 34, xv. 12, 17; 1 John ix. 10, iii. 10, 11, 14, 23, iv. 7, 11, 12, 20, 21, v.1, 2; 2 John 5. In all these passages, as in Rom. xiii. 8, 1 Thess. iv. 9, 1 Pet. i. 22, ii, 17, the object is specified: τὸν ἕτερον, ἀδελφόν, ἀδελφούς, ἀλλήλους, ἀδελφότητα, ete. Without specification of an object, it is used to denote Christian brotherly and social love in 1 John iii. 18, iv. 7, 8.

"Ayan, ἡ, love, not found in the profane writers. The LXX. uses it in 2 Sam. xiii. 15; Song ii 4, 5, 7, 111, 5, 10, v. 8, vii. 6, viii. 4, 6, '7; Jer. ii. 2; Eccles. ix. 1, 6, as an equivalent for 725%, which is elsewhere translated ἀγάπησις and φιλία. It is also found in Wisd. iii. 9, vi. 19. In the N. T. it does not occur in Acts, Mark, and James, The peculiar N. T. use of ἀγαπᾶν would seem to have rendered necessary, so to speak, the introduction of ἀγάπη, a word apparently coined by the LXX., and unknown both to Philo and Josephus. *Aydn in the LXX. does not, it is true, possess any special force, analogous to that which it has in the N. T., unless we choose to lay stress

᾿Αγάπη 14 ᾿Αγάπη

on its use in Solomon’s Song; but from 2 Sam. xiii. 15, Eccles. ix. 1, 6, it is clear that the LXX. aimed at a more decided term than the language then afforded them,—a term as strong in its way as μῖσος, for which ἔρως, φιλία, στοργή were too weak ; indeed, it is worthy of remark in general, that while hatred in all its energy was, love in its divine greatness was not, known and named in profane Greek. It denotes the love which chooses its object with decision of will (dilectio, see s.v. ἀγαπᾶν), so that tt becomes self-denying or compassionate devotion to and for the same. Cf. Jer. ii. 2, where it occurs by the side of ἔλεος. In the form of such energetic good-will or self-sacrifice, love appears, indeed, as an isolated trait in profane writers; but it was unknown to them as a ruling principle of life. The Greek φιλανθρωπία, which was a special characteristic of the Athenians, was a different thing from this ἀγάπη, and is surpassed by the φιλαδελφία of the N. T. See 2 Pet. i. 7: ἐπιχορηγήσατε.... ἐν τῇ εὐσεβείᾳ τὴν φιλαδελφίαν, ἐν δὲ τῇ φιλαδελφίᾳ τὴν ἀγάπην. In classical Greek, φιλαδελφία is used simply of the relation between brothers and sisters ; and as to φιλανθρωπία, Nigelsbach says: “ We shall not form a correct idea of the spirit and essence of neighbourly love among the Greeks, unless we remember that the word for it, namely φιλανθρωπία, should not mislead us into the belief that it was practised from love to man as such. It was rather an exhibition of that justice which gives to a man that to which he is entitled, whether he is a friend and benefactor who has a personal claim, or a fellow-citizen who has a political claim, or a helpless and needy fellow-man having a divine claim to help.— Nothing more was necessary to the full display of neighbourly love than to give a man the full rights to which he was entitled. It was taken for granted that the heart of him who thus discharged his obligations was rightly disposed towards the other, τὸν πέλας ; and, in order to indicate its nature, this disposition of heart was called aides, or pious respect for usage and pre- scription. It was accordingly not the free manifestation of a man’s own disposition existing even independently of the law, but respect for the law. In a word, it was with this form of δικαιοσύνη just as with edeéB8eva,—so long as both were practised

in outward deeds, the question was never raised, What is the source of the deeds?-

—no distinction was drawn between a free and a legally compulsory fulfilment of duty.” — Nachhomer. Theologie, p. 261. Synon. with φιλανθρωπία is πραότης, χαρίξεσ- θαι. Cf. Aesch. Zpist. xii. 14: καὶ yap ὀργίξεσθαι ῥαδίως ὑμῖν ἔθος ἐστὶ καὶ χαρίζεσθαι. Opp. to ὠμότης. Herewith compare 1 Cor. xiii., ἡ ἀγάπη μακροθυμεῖ, οὐ ξηλοῖ, οὐ περπε- ρεύεται, etc.; as also πλήρωμα οὖν νόμου ἡ ἀγάπη, Rom. xiii. 10. For φιλανθρωπία, see Acts xxviii. 2; in one instance Paul uses it also of God’s χάρις, Tit. iii. 4; οὗ a ii, 7. — Plut. anlage ἀγάπησις to denote sensual love.

Now, we find ἀγάπη used to designate a love unknown to writers outside of the New Testament (cf. καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύματος, Gal. v. 22),—love in its fullest conceivable form ; love as it is the distinguishing attribute, not of humanity, but, in the strictest sense, of Divinity. (One may think, for instance, of the saying of Aristotle, “ The Deity exists not to love, but to be loved.”). John xv. 13, μείζονα ταύτης ἀγάπην οὐδεὶς ἔχει, ἵνα τις τὴν

᾿Αγάπη 15 ᾿Αγάπη

Ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ θῇ ὑπὲρ τῶν φίλων αὐτοῦ ; cf. Rom. v. 8, συνίστησιν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἀγάπην εἰς ἡμᾶς ὁ θεός, ὅτι ἔτι ἁμαρτωλῶν ὄντων ἡμῶν Χριστὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀπέθανεν, cf. v. 10, ἐχθροὶ ὄντες κατηλλάγημεν τῷ θεῷ διὰ τοῦ θανάτου τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ. We are accordingly told that this form of love was first exhibited in Christ’s work of redemption, 1 John ἯΙ, 16, ἐν τούτῳ ἐγνώκαμεν Τὴν ἀγάπην ὅτι ἐκεῖνος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν τὴν Ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἔθηκεν, where the object is not to characterize the spirit manifested in this fact, but to set forth what the love is that is required from us; cf. what follows, καὶ ἡμεῖς ὀφείλομεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν τὰς ψυχὰς θεῖναι, In correspondence with this, the action of God towards us has now been shown by the giving up of His Son to be one of ἀγάπη, 1 John iv. 9, ἐν τούτῳ ἐφανερώθη ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν, ὅτι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἀπέσταλκεν ὁ θεὸς «.7., cf. Rom. v. 7; and as this love is, as it were, absorbed in its οὈ]θοί, ἰῃ view of this revelation of God’s disposition towards us in Christ, He is said to be Love: ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν, 1 John iv. 8,—whatever He is, He is not for Himself, btit for us. (Love and self-surrender ate inseparable; cf. Gal. ii. 20, τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντός με Καὶ παραδόντος ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ) Τὴ ver. 10, ἐν τοῦτῳ ἐστὶν ἡ ἀγάπη, οὐχ ὅτι ἡμεῖς ἠγαπήσαμεν τὸν θεόν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι αὐτὸς ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς, “ Not in our display of love, but in God’s, is ἡ ἀγάπη, love in itself, love in its essence, set forth” (Diisterdieck). Hence, 1 John iv. 7, ἡ ἀγάπη ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστίν; cf. Gal. v. 22, where love is spoken of as a fruit of the Spirit. 1 John iv. 12, ἐὰν ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους ὁ θεὸς ἐν ἡμῖν μένει καὶ ἡ ἀγάπη αὐτοῦ τετελειωμένη ἐστὶν ἐν ἡμῖν. In this general sense, without specification of an object, it occurs further in 1 John iv. 17, ἐν τούτῳ τετελείωται ἡ ἀγάπη μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν; ver. 18, φόβος οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ, GAN ἡ τελεία ἀγάπη ἔξω βάλλει τὸν φόβον, ὅτι ὁ φόβος κόλασιν ἔχει, ὁ δὲ φοβούμενος οὐ Τετελείωται ἐν τῇ ἀγάπη, with which cf. Rom. viii. 14 sq., πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας, opp. to #vedpa δουλείας (εἰς φόβον). We do not find, it is true, in the Pauline writings, any stich penetration into the essence of ἀγάπη; but, nevertheless, the estimate of it is not less high; the expression 0 θεὸς τῆς ἀγάπης καὶ εἰρήνης corresponds pretty nearly to John’s words, ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν, and Rom. v. 7 contains even a profounder description of love than any passage in John’s writings. Both Paul and John, however, assign to love the same central position as the distinctive peculiarity of the Christian life, cf. κατὰ ἀγάπην περιπατεῖν, Rom. xiv. 15; Eph. v. 2; Gal. v. 6, πίστις δ ἀγάπης ἐνεργου- μένη; Eph. iv. 16, εἰς οἰκοδομὴν ἑάυτοῦ ἐν ἀγάπῃ. See particularly 1 Tim. i. 5, τὸ τέλος τῆς παραγγελίας ἐστὶν ἀγάπη ἐκ καθαρᾶς Kapdias καὶ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς Kal πίσ- Tews ἀνυποκρίτου, on which Huther remarks: “As the gospel proclaims to the believer one divine deed alone, the atonement by Christ which has its root in the love of God; so does it demand one human deed alone, to wit, love, for πλήρωμα νόμου ἡ ἀγάπη, Rom, xiii. 10.” There is this difference, however, between Paul and John, that the latter uses ἀγάπη to designate not only our action towards our fellow-men, but also our action towards God and His revelation in Christ; cf. 1 John ii, 6, 15, iii. 17, iv. 17, 18, v. 3; Johnv. 42; Rev. ii. 4; cf. Jer. ii 2. Compare also the description of the Church as the Bride of Christ in the Apocalypse. In the Pauline writings, on the other hand, the relation of

᾿Αγάπη 16 ᾿Αγάπη

men to God is only once expressed by the substantive ἀγώπη, viz. 2 Thess, iii. 5, ὁ δὲ κύριος κατευθύναι ὑμῶν τὰς καρδίας εἰς τὴν ἀγάπην τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ εἰς τὴν ὑπομονὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Tie other texts in his Epistles where ἀγάπη with the genitive of the olject is said to occur —Rom. v. 5; 2 Cor. v.14; 1 Thess. ii 3—cannot, upon closer examination, be brought forward to support this view. As to Rom. v. 5, it is contrary alike to Christian experience and to St. Paul’s chain of thought, here and elsewhere, to make the certainty of Christian hope rest upon love to God existing in the heart; cf. ver. 8, viii. 35, 39. As to 2 Cor. v. 14, that must be a marvellously forced and distorted exegesis which regards love to Christ as more suitable to the connection as a determining motive for the conduct of the apostle described in vv. 11-13, than Christ’s love to us, which leads the apostle to the conclusion or judgment expressed in ver. 15. Lastly, as to 1 Thess. 1. 3, to refer the objective genitive τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, which belongs to τῆς ὑπομονῆς τῆς ἐλπίδος, to the preceding τοῦ κόπου τῆς ἀγάπης, is hardly necessary, especially in this juxtaposition, not unusual, as is well known, elsewhere in St. Paul’s writings, of faith and love and hope. The Pauline substitute for the Johannine ἀγάπη in this sense, is per- haps πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας, Rom. viii. 15; ef. Gal. iv. 6, Eph. i. 5; or that other περισσεύειν ἐν εὐχαριστίᾳ, Col. ii. 7. Further, John represents love to the brethren as a fruit of love to God, whilst Paul represents it as a fruit of πίστις. John, on the other hand, uses πίστις only once (1 John v. 4), πιστεύειν, indeed, frequently, though rarely without an object. As in St. John love of the brethren is connected with love to God, so in St. Paul love is connected with faith; for in faith man appropriates to himself what applies to all, but in love he extends to all, especially to the household of faith, what applies to himself, so that faith without love cannot exist—is utterly worthless, 1 Cor. xiii.

᾿Αγάπη is used accordingly to mark (1) the relation between the Father and the Son, John xv. 10, xvii. 26; Col. 1. 13, ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ. (2) The redeeming love of God and Christ (see ἀγαπᾶν), 1 John iv. 9 (iii. 17), iii. 1,iv. 16 ; John xv. 9, 10, etc. ; see above. Rom. v. 8, viii. 39, χωρίσαι ἀπὸ τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ "Inood; v. 5, ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκκέχυται ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος ἁγίου ; 2 Cor. xiii. 18 ; ἘΡΗ. 1. 4, 5, ἐν ἀγάπῃ προορίσας ἡμᾶς εἰς υἱοθεσίαν ; ii. 4, ὁ θεὸς πλούσιος dv ἐν ἐλέει διὰ τὴν πολλὴν ἀγάπην ἣν ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς, wr. Jude 2, ἔλεος ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη καὶ ἀγάπη πληθυνθείη, ef. 2 Cor. xiii, 11; Jude 21, ἑαυτοὺς ἐν ἀγάπῃ θεοῦ τηρήσατε, cf. John xv. 9, 10; 2 Cor. xiii. 13.—2 John 3; Rom. viii. 35; 2 Cor. v. 14; Eph. iii. 19. (3) The distinctive peculiarity of the Christian life in relation’ to others, with specification of the object: εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους, Eph. i 15; Col. i. 4; eis ἀλλήλους καὶ eis πάντας, 1 Thess. iii. 12; 2 Thess. i. 3; οἵ, 2 Cor. ii. 4, 8, viii, 7; ἡ ἀγάπη τῆς ἀληθείας, 2 Thess ii, 10 (cf. 1 Cor. xiii. 6); εἰς ἑαυτούς, 1 Pet. iv. 8; the immediate object are the ade) φοί, so in 1 John; the more remote πάντες, πλησίον, Rom. xiii. 10.—In 2 Pet. i. 7, φιλαδελφία (which see) is distinguished from the ἀγάπη, which extends to all. — It occurs without specification of object in the combinations περιπατεῖν κατά, ἐν, Rom. xiv. 15; Eph. v. 2 ; διώκειν τὴν ἀγάπην, 1 Cor. xiv. 1; ἔχειν, 1 Cor. xiii. 1, 2,3; Phil. ii 2; ἐν

᾿Αγαπητός 17 ᾿Αγαπητός

ἀγάπῃ ἔρχεσθαι, 1 Cor. iv. 21; opp. to ἐν ῥάβδῳ. --- Gal. ν. 18, διὰ τῆς ἀγάπης δουλεύετε ἀλλήλοις ; Philem. 9; Phil. 1. 16; 1 Cor. xvi. 14, πάντα ὑμῶν ἐν ἀγάπῃ γινέσθω ; Eph. iv. 2; Col. ii. 2, iii, 14, ἐνδύσασθαι τὴν ἀγάπην ὅ ἐστιν σύνδεσμος τῆς τελειότητος ; Eph. iii. 18, iv. 15. Further: ὁ κόπος τῆς ἀγάπης, 2 Thess. i. 8 ; ἔνδειξις τῆς ἀγάπης, 2 Cor. viii. 24: 1 Thess. ν. 8; Heb. x. 24. For manifestations of love, see Phil. ii. 1, παραμύ- θιον ἀγάπης ; 1 Pet. v. 14, φίλημα ἀγάπης. 1 Cor. viii. 1, ἡ ἀγάπη οἰκοδομεῖ ; cf. Eph. iv. 16; 1 Cor. xiii. 4-8; Rom. xiii. 10; 1 Pet. iv. 8.— Rom. xii. 9; 2 Cor. vi. 6, ἀγάπη ἀνυπόκριτος. ---- Conjoined with πίστις, etc., 1 Cor. xiii. 13; 1 Thess. v. 8; Eph. vi. 23; 1 Thess. iii, 6; 1 Tim. i 14, iv. 12, vi 11; 2 Tim, i 18, ἢ, 22; Gal. v. 6; 1 Tim. ii. 15; 2 Tim. iii 10; Tit. 11. 2; Philem. 5; Rev. ii 19. It is designated καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύματος in Gal. v.22; cf. Rom. xv. 30; Col. 1. 8.—See, besides, Rom. xiii. 10; 2 Cor. viii 8; Phil. i 9; 1 Thess. v.13; 2 Tim.i 7; Philem. 7; 3 John 6; Matt. xxiv. 12. (4) To denote the believer's relation to God and Christ ; by Paul, only in 2 Thess. iii. 5; by John, in 1 John ii. 5, 15, iii. 17, iv. 12, v. 3 (in every case here with the genitive of the object). See above.—In 2 Pet. ii. 13, Lachm. reads, instead of ἀπάταις, ἀγάπαις, which is the correct reading in Jude 12, where A C have ἀπάταις. The plural denotes the love-feasts, or agapae, at which the supper of the Lord was cele- brated ; ef. 1 Cor. xi. 17-34; Matt. xxvi. 20 sq.; οὗ 1 Cor. x. 17, ὅτε els ἄρτος, ἕν σῶμα oi πολλοί ἐσμεν, compared with Eph. iv. 16, εἰς οἰκοδομὴν τοῦ σώματος ἐν ἀγάπῃ. Vid Herzog’s Real-Encyclopddie, i. 174 sq. ; Suicer, 7168. i. 28-- 28.

᾿Αγαπητός, %, ov, verbal adj. from ἀγαπάω, in the N. T. with the force of the part. perf. pass. = ἠγαπημένος, beloved, dear; see Buttmann, sec. 134. 8-10. With the meaning of possibility, as = amabilis, which is rare even in profane Greek, it is not used in the N. T.; for the two passages adduced as illustrations, viz. 1 Tim. vi. 2, ὅτε πιστοί εἰσιν καὶ ἀγαπητοὶ of τῆς εὐεργεσίας ἀντιλαμβανόμενοι, and Philem. 16, ἵνα αὐτὸν ἀπέχῃς οὐκ ἔτι ὡς δοῦλον, GAN ὑπὲρ δοῦλον, ἀδελφὸν ἀγαπητόν, must be rejected, on a comparison of the usage elsewhere. (For 1 Tim. vi. 2, οἵ, the like union of πιστὸς καὶ ἀγαπητός in Col. iv. 9; 1 Cor. iv. 17. For Philem. 16, cf. both the constant association with ἀδελφός, and ver. 16), μάλιστα ἐμοὶ κιτ.λ)} The LXX. uses it in both senses ; in that of the part. perf. pass, for 1, Gen. xxii. 2, 12; Jer. vi. 26 ; Amos viii. 10 ; Zech. xii. 10; TT, Ps. exxvii. 2, lx. 7, eviii. 7; VP, Jer. xxxi. [xxxviii.] 20; in the sense of possibility, in Ps. lxxxiv. 2: ὡς ἀγαπητὰ τὰ σκηνώματά cov. We find it used in the N. T., (1) as an adj. ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, Matt. iii, 17, xvii. 5; Mark i. 11, ix. 7; Luke iii. 22 (Rec. Luke ix. 35, where Tisch. has ἐκλελεγμένος ; see s.v. ἀγαπάω); 2 Pet. i. 17; Mark xii. 6, ἔτε ἕνα εἶχεν υἱὸν ἀγαπητόν; cf. Od. 2. 365, μοῦνος ἐὼν ἀγαπητός ; and Od. 4. 817, Il. 6. 401, without μοῦνος, as a designation of the only son. We must not, however, connect this use with the designation of Christ in Matt. iii. 17, etc., as the latter is traceable to the Hebrew 173 (Luke ix. 35), TT (see above), and expresses the relation of the Son to the Father in the history of redemption; cf. Rom. xi. 28, and also

Cc

᾿Αγγέλλω 18 "Αγγέλος

the addition ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα in Matt. iii, 17, xvii. 5, and see sv. εὐδοκεῖν (Mark i. 11; Luke iii, 22; 2 Pet. 1. 17). Cf. further, Rom. xi. 28, κατὰ τὴν ἐκλογὴν ἀγαπητοί, as also the remarks under dyad. To the Hebrew ὙΠ) corresponds rather μονογενής, which see. (Luke xx. 13.)—Conjoined with τέκνον, 1 Cor. iv. 14; Eph. v. 1; 2 Tim.i 2; with ἀδελφός, 1 Cor. xv. 58; Eph. vi. 21; Col. iv. 7, 9; Philem. 16; Jas. i 16, 19, ii, 5; 2 Pet. iii, 15 ;--ἀδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοὶ καὶ ἐπιπόθητοι, Phil. iv. 1; ἀγαπητὸς σύν- δουλος, Col. i. 7; with proper names, Col. iv. 14; fem, Rom. xvi. 12; Philem. 2; 3 John 1. (2) Asa subst. in Rom. xi. 28, κατὰ μὲν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἐχθροί. . ., κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἐκλογὴν ἀγαπητοί. In address, 3 John 2, 5, 11; plur, Rom. xii. 19; 2 Cor. vii. 1, xii, 19; Eph. v. 1; Heb. vi. 9; 1 Pet. ii. 11, iv. 12; 2 Pet. iii. 1,8,14,17; 1 John ii. 7, iii. 2, 21, iv. 1, 7,11; Jude 3,17, 20. With a genitive following, Rom. i. 7, ἀγαπητὸς θεοῦ (cf. WT, Ps. exxvii. 2, lx. 7, eviii. 7); 1 Cor. x. 14; Phil. ii. 12. The dative in 1 Thess. ii. 8, ἀγαπητοὶ ἡμῖν γεγένησθε, is no more to be connected with ἀγαπητός than in Ecclus. xv. 13, οὐκ ἔστιν ἀγαπητὸν τοῖς φοβουμένοις αὐτόν, but with the verb; cf. Winer, sec. 31. 2, b—The import of the expression is determined in agree- ment with what was remarked on ὠγαπᾶν, 11. and III.

᾿Αγγέλλω, to bring a message, announce, proclaim; followed by ὅτι, John xx. 18, ἀγγέλλουσα τοῖς μαθηταῖς (where Rec. ἀπαγγέλλουσα), which, interchangeably with the acc, and inf., is the usual construction. Derivatives in the N. T. ἀγγελία, ἄγγελος, and the compounds ἀναγγέλλω, ἀπαγγέλλω, etc., all variously employed to designate the pro- clamation of salvation.

᾿Αγγελέα, ἡ, message, proclamation, news, 1 John i. 5, ἔστιν αὕτη ἡ ἀγγελία (Ree. ἐπαγγελία) ἣν ἀκηκόαμεν----καὶ ἀνωγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν ; cf. Isa. xxviii. 9, ἀναγγέλλειν ἀγγελίαν, 1 John iii, 11, αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἀγγελία (var. lect. ἐπαγγ.) ἣν ἠκούσατε... ἵνα ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους, where ἀγγελία is more precisely defined by being connected with ἵνα, as an order, as the annowncement of a will, of an intention.—LXX. =7Y9oY, 1 Sam. iv. 19; Isa. xxviii. 9; Ezek. vii. 26 ; 125, Prov. xii. 25.

τι;

ἼΔγγελος, ὁ: I. In a general sense, messenger, synonymous with πρέσβυς, Xen, Hell. 1. 4. 2, ot τε Λακεδαιμονίων πρέσβεις καὶ of ἄλλοι ἄγγελοι, and frequently with κήρυξ, Anab. ii. 3. 1 sqq. and often.—Luke vii. 24, ἄγγελοι "Iwdvvov; ix, 52; Jas, ii. 25. —LXX. = NPD, in the same sense, Gen, xxxii. 4 [3]; Josh. vii. 22, and often.—Then, IL., in particular, of messengers of God ;—(a) of men who have to deliver a divine com- mission, who are commissioned to speak by God, eg. prophets, Hag. i. 13, nim AND “un niny TRINDDS ; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 15; priests, Mal. ii. 7 (Eccles. ν. δ). This use is rare, it is true; but still it does not seem allowable (cf, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 15) to treat it only as ἃ figurative mode of speech, as though the name given to the messengers of God from the unseen world were transferred to men. By this designation we are, in general, reminded rather of the divine commission only ; and it was easy to apply it κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν to the

1 ee

ΟΣ ΧΑ

Αγγέλος 19 "Αγγέλος

messengers who came from the unseen world. Cyrill. Alex., τὸ "ἄγγελος ὄνομα λειτουρ- yias paddov ἐστιν, ἤπερ οὐσίας onuavtixdv. — Accordingly, the forerunner of the Messiah also is called, not His messenger, but the angel of the Lord, Mal. iii. 1; Matt. xi. 10; Mark i. 2; Luke vii. 27.—It is questionable whether in Rev. i. 20, ἄγγελοι τῶν ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησιῶν, ii. 1, 8, 12, 18, iii. 1, 7, 14, men are so designated in the same sense. ‘The genitive is primarily analogous to the genitive in xvi. 5, ἄγγελος τῶν ὑδάτων ; Matt. xviii. 10, of ἄγγελοι αὐτῶν ; Acts xii. 11, 15; and denotes that which is entrusted to the angel ; cf. Matt. iv. 6 ; the contents of the Epistles also indicate that those persons are meant to whom the churches are entrusted. We are prevented by Rev. i. 16, 20 from taking the genitive as the gen. of origin, and from understanding by ἄγγελοι deputies of the churches (Ebrard, after Phil. iv. 18; Col. iv. 12). It would rather yield a sense to connect this designation with the rabbinical mde or W233 πϑυ (the latter in Ewald, Com- mentar. in Apok. 1828, a view which he himself has recently surrendered ; see Ewald, die Joh. Schriften, 2.125). The high priest was called πῦον at the time of the second temple, as—in opposition to the deviations of the Sadducees—one bound under an oath and delegated by the Sanhedrim to offer the sin-offering on the great day of atonement; and the 123 mds, the servant of the church, was first appointed simply to attend to the external affairs of the individual congregation, and then, in particular, as reader of the prayers, re- presented the sacrificing priest (anpon o1po2). Cf. Delitzsch and Kurtz on Heb. iii. 1. But the comparison between these names and the ἄγγελοι τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν is obviously too far-fetched and inappropriate. But to see in ἄγγελοι here a personification of the spirit of the community in its “ideal reality” (as, again, Diisterdieck has recently done), is not merely without any biblical analogy,—for such a view derives no support from Dan. x. 13, 20; Deut. xxxii. 8, LXX.—but must also plainly appear an abstraction decidedly unfavourable to the import and effect of the Epistles. It would have been far more effective in this case to have written τῇ ev... ἐκκλησίᾳ γράψον. Assuming the ἄγγ. τῶν ἐκκλησ. to be those to whom the churches are entrusted, the only question is, to what sphere do they belong, the terrestrial or the superterrestrial? Their belonging to the earthly sphere is supported, above all, by the address of the Epistles; secondly, by the circumstance that the writer of the Apocalypse could not act as messenger between two superterrestrial beings (cf. Rev. i. 1, xxii. 16); and further, by the consideration that as the candlesticks, so also the stars must belong to one and the same sphere. But if by this expression we are to understand men, it is natura] to think of Acts xx. 28; 1 Pet. v. 2; and that too so that these ἐπίσκοποι or πρεσβύτεροι are those whose business it is to execute the will or commission of the Lord, in general as well as in special cases, to the churches, as those whom the Lord has appointed representatives of the churches, and to whom He has entrusted their care; cf. Acts xx. 28; Mal. ii. 7.—Grimm (Lexicon graeco- lat. in lib. N. 7.) understands the expression ὥφθη ἀγγέλοις, 1 Tim. iii. 16, likewise to refer to men, ὠγγέλοις being a poetical name for ὠποστόλοις ; but this view may possibly rest more upon a certain aversion to the angelology of Scripture than upon

"Αγγέλος 20 "Arryedos

any reasons. Besides, he would have to show that ἄγγελος is more “poetical” than ἀπόστολος.

II. (Ὁ) Kar’ ἐξ. ἄγγελοι, angels, denotes the members of the στρατιὰ οὐράνιος, Luke ii, 13; cf. Acts vii. 38; Rev. xix. 14; Matt. xxvii 53, δώδεκα Aeyedvar ὠγγέλων ; Hebrew D'280 N2¥, 1 Kings xxii. 19; 2 Chron. xviii. 18; Ps. cxlviii. 2; Dan. vii. 10; 2 Kings vi. 17; Josh. v. 14,15. Compare the designation of God as ΤΙΝΩΝ ‘75s in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Malachi. In accordance with their nature and their appear- ance they are called spirits, πνεύματα, Heb. i. 14; and according to their essence and life, they belong not to the terrestrial, but to the superterrestrial or heavenly sphere of the creation. Hence they are called of ἄγγελοι τῶν οὐρανῶν, Matt. xxiv. 36 ; ἐν τοῖς ovp., Mark xii. 25, xiii. 32; ἐξ οὐρ., Gal. 1. 8; cf. Luke xxii. 43; in order to indicate the sphere to which they belong; and they bear the name ἄγγελοι, not on account of their nature, but as describing their office and position as the messengers of God to men. These members of the στρατιὰ οὐράνιος are designed, just as men on their part, to praise God’s glory, to glorify God; see Ps, ciii, 20; Eph. i. 14; and, moreover, in such a way that in them especially the omnipotence and resplendent majesty of God are reflected (cf. the very term στρατιὰ οὐράνιος, and God’s title, ΤΙΝΩΝ τὸς; further, Ps. ciii. 20, 95 33; 2 Thess. i. 7, ἄγγελοι δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ; Matt. xxvi. 53; Luke ii. 9, ἄγγελος κυρίου ἐπέστη αὐτοῖς καὶ Sofa κυρίου περιέλαμψεν αὐτούς; Matt. xxv. 31; and thus, perhaps, also the titles ἀρχαί, ἐξουσίαι, θρόνοι, κυριότητες, δυνάμεις, are to be explained); according to their rank in the organism of the coming kingdom of God they are messengers between heaven and earth in the service of God, ἄγγελος θεοῦ, Luke ii. 15 [7]; Matt. xxii. 30; Luke xii. 8, 9, xv. 10; Johni. 52; Acts x. 3, xxvii. 23; Gal.iv. 14; Heb. i. 6; without its being intended always by this title to give prominence to their work as God's servants and messengers, for ἄγγελος is simply the technical term derived from their office. When the angels appear in the execution of their mission, it is singly, as a rule, and the angel spoken of is then called ἄγγελος κυρίου, Matt. i. 20, 24, ii. 13, 19, xxviii. 2; Luke i 11, ii. 9; Acts vii. 30, xii. 7, 23 ; rarely ἄγγελος τοῦ θεοῦ, Acts x. 3, xxvii. 23; which is explained from the fact that the angel appears in the service of the God of the revelation of salva- tion; see sv. κύριος. Cf. Acts xxvii. 23, παρέστη por... τοῦ θεοῦ οὗ εἰμί, ᾧ καὶ λατρεύω, ἄγγελος = pnd who, whereas ἄγγελος κυρίου --- mn qwbo. The definite ὁ ἄγγελος κυρίου is only used after the appearing of an angel has been named; cf. Matt. i. 20, 24; Acts xii. 7, 11, vii. 30, 38 ; Luke ii. 9,10, 13. This observance is of importance in determining the well-known question about the meaning of the O. T. mm qxbp. For it follows from this that there is no support in the N. Τὶ for the opinion that ἄγγελος «, always denotes one and the same person. But now there is also no reason for distinguishing the ἄγγ. κυρ. of the N.T. from the mm 4wbn of the O.T.; just as little as ἄγγ. κυρ., Acts vii. 30-35, 38 (without the article), can have a different meaning from the same term as it occurs elsewhere in St. Luke’s writings, where an @yy. κυρ. appears in exactly the same manner as mn qxdo in the O. T. Cf. with Acts vii. 30-35, 38, the passage, 1 Kings xix. 5, 7, 9, 13, which

"Αγγέλος 21 "Αγγεέλος

is quite similar and very important for this question, where in ver. 5 a 4xbo appears who in ver. 7 is called mn» qxbp. (In ver. 9 the word of the Lord comes to Elijah, and in ver. 13 Jehovah Himself appears, obviously as quite distinct from His angel.) In addi- tion to this, it is to be observed that mm yxbn stands in the same relation to ondyn ἽΝΟΟ in the Ο. T. as ayy. κυρίου does to ayy. τοῦ θεοῦ in the N. T. There, also, mm ywbn is the more frequent and usual term to describe the angelic appearance in question, and in fact the same appearance which is elsewhere called onbsn qxbv. (The former occurs 52 times; the latter—apart from 1 Sam. xxix. 9; 2 Sam. xiv. 17, xix. 28—only 7 times: Gen. xxi. 17, xxxi. 11; Ex. xiv. 19; Judg. vi. 20, xiii. 6, 9; 2 Sam. xiv. 20.) Cf Judg. xiii. 6, and especially ver. 9 with vv. 3,13, 15,16. But if an angel, or an angel of God, is more definitely described by the title angel of Jehovah, because he appears in the service of the God of the revelation of salvation, an important step has been gained towards the answer to the question as to the relation of this mm qxSn to mm. If, after the appear- ance of such an angel, mention is made of Jehovah and not of the angel; if words of the angel are frequently spoken of (though not always) as words of Jehovah ; yea, if the presence of Jehovah is replaced by the presence of an angel, or of His angel (Ex. xxxiii, 2, 3, compared with xxiii. 20), who is therefore the angel of His presence (Isa. lxiii, 9), in whom is His name (Ex. xxiii. 21),—it follows from this, it is true, that there is a repre- sentation of Jehovah by the angel, a certain mediation through the angel,—in the main, the view which we find in Heb. ii. 2, Gal. iii. 19 (see 8.0. weolrns),—but not an identity of any kind whatsoever between Jehovah and His angel. Cf. also Acts vii. 30, 32 with the ori- ginal passage quoted, and with Judg. vi. 11-23. The relation is the same between Jehovah and His angel as between Jesus and His angel, Rev. 1, 1, xxii. 6-9. But if we cannot overlook the distinction between Jehovah and His angel, and in order to do justice to the occasional identifying of the two we infer that the angel of Jehovah, whom we suppose to have been always one and the same, is a manifestation beforehand of the incarnation of God in Christ,—or at least that, in this distinction between Jehovah and His angel, there is an indication of that distinction of subject in the unity of the Godhead which was fully revealed in Christ,—it is of course true that this representation of God by the angel of the Lord (which is so characteristic of the O. T.) recedes in the N. T., where we have the presence of God in Christ. But to infer from this that there subsists a definite relation between the angel of Jehovah and the Son of God,—that the angel of Jehovah is an anticipatory manifestation of Christ,—is not merely logically and exegetically rash in the highest degree; for not a word is said in the N. T. about any such relationship,—a relationship which, if it really existed, would be of the highest import for the Messiahship of Jesus. Such an inference is also quite contrary to the N.T.; for both from Gal. iii. 19, Heb. ii. 2, and especially from the way in which Stephen, Acts vii, introduces the angel of the Lord, where the O. T. contains no mention of it, and from the rare appearance of the mn’ yxn in the N. Τὶ, this only may be inferred, that angel service as a substitute for God's presence,—an effecting of His revelation by means of angels,—is as characteristic

"Αγγελος 22 Ἄγγελος

of the old covenant as the presence of God in Christ specifically characterizes the new. From the fact of Christ's taking the place of the O. T. mn 4xbo,— if we choose thus to call it,—we must, quite on the contrary, conclude, in view of the texts cited, that the mm sxbo is not the O. T. manifestation of Christ, but that the two stand related to one another in the same way as the old and new covenants, ἐν τῷ λέγειν Καινήν, πεπαλαίωκεν τὴν πρώτην τὸ δὲ παλαιούμενον καὶ γηράσκον ἐγγὺς ἀφανισμοῦ, Heb. viii. 13.—See Kurtz, Geschichte des A. B., 2 Aufl. sec. 50. 2; Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, 1. 175, 378.

While thus we see how it is that the dyy. κυρίου still appears in N. T. history, though very seldom and less prominently when compared with the O. T., we must not, on the other hand, overlook the fact, that as in tke Ο, T. angels more and more frequently appear as the revelation progresses, so in the N. T. the history of revelation certainly does not run its course without the participation of angels, as Jesus says of Himself, John i. 52, ἀπάρτι ὄψεσθε τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀνεῳγότα, Kal τοὺς ἀγγέλους τοῦ θεοῦ ἀναβαίνοντας καὶ καταβαίνοντας ἐπὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. It is not, however, so much that active participation which is peculiar to the O. T., but rather a participation of a psychological kind which of course does not exclude occasional activity. In lieu of the communication of divine revelations and prophecies in the O. T. by means of angels, something quite different appears. Only at the outset of N. T. history, and at the resurrection and ascension of Christ, are angels employed to convey divine announcements, Matt. i. 20, 24, 17.13, 19; Luke 1..11 sqq., ii. 9; ef. Matt. xxviii. 2, 5, and parallel passages ; then in the visions of the Apocalyptic writers. Cf. Auberlen, Daniel und Apok. cap. 3. Generally, where history is narrated, or prefigured in visions (in the Revelation), they occupy their appropriate place; and hence they are mentioned but seldom comparatively in the Epistles, only Rom. viii. 38 ; 1 Cor. iv. 9, vi. 3, xi. 10, xiii, 1; 2 Cor. xi 14; Gal. i. 8, iii. 19, iv. 14; Col. ii 18; 2 Thess. i. 7; 1 Tim. iii. 16, v. 21; Heb. i. 4-7, 13, ii. 2, 5, 7, 9,,16, xii. 22, xiii, 2; 1 Pet. i. 12, iii 22; 2 Pet. ii. 4,11; Jude 6. They are λειτουργικὰ πνεύματα eis διακονίαν ὠποστελλόμενα διὰ τοὺς μέλλοντας κληρονομεῖν σωτηρίαν, Heb, i. 14,—this is the view of the position, signi- ficance, and appearing of angels in the sphere of the revelation of salvation, which runs throughout Holy Scripture, so that their service, though not always directly, yet ever in its ultimate purpose, is for the benefit of those for whom God has provided salvation. Cf. Gen. iii. 24, xxiv. 7, 40, xxviii. 12, xxxii. 1, 2; Matt. xiii. 49, xxiv. 31, etc. To them as such is entrusted the care of the guardianship and well-being of each, Matt. iv. 6 (from Ps. xci. 11), τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ ἐντελεῖται περὶ σοῦ «.7.r., and accordingly they are the angels of those who are entrusted to their care; so Matt. xviii. 10, οὗ ἄγγελοι αὐτῶν (ie. τῶν μικρῶν τούτων τῶν πιστευόντων eis ἐμέ, ver. 6); Acts xii. 15, ὁ ἄγγελος αὐτοῦ. Cf. Rev. xxi. 12; Matt. xxiv. 31; Dan. x. 12 sqq.; Zech. iii. 7; Josh. v. 13 sqq.; Luke xvi. 22, xv. 10. Not that there is assigned to the angels a special part in the work of salvation on the part of God, nor that in any way by spiritual influence or the exercise of superhuman power they lead to the laying hold upon and possession of salvation on the part of man ; but they accompany the history of salvation, in its objective growth

*Aryyedos 23 ” Ayyedos

and in its subjective realization, with special interest in those for whom salvation is intended; ef. Luke ii. 13, 14, xv. 10; 1 Pet. i. 12, εἰς ἃ ἐπιθυμοῦσιν ἄγγελοι παρακύψαι. In no other way is even the greatness of God’s glory—Sd@os wAovtov—made known to them than in the revelation of salvation, and by the church; 1 Pet. i 12; Eph. iii 10, ἵνα γνωρισθῇ viv ταῖς ἀρχαῖς καὶ ταῖς ἐξουσίαις ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις διὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἡ πολυποίκιλος σοφία τοῦ θεοῦ. Cf. 1 Cor. iv. 9

Only with this limitation can we rightly undetptand the appearance of angels in the history of salvation, and the above-mentioned enhancement of their prominence in the N.T. For in all the stages of the history of salvation they appear as ministering and participating, and for this very reason serving and participating most actively at the outset of the N. T. revelation, with which heaven again opens. It is not only at the main epochs that their service and participation are regularly mentioned,—at Christ’s birth, the flight into Egypt, the temptation, the agony in Gethsemane, the resurrection, and the ascension (1 Tim. iii 16). Here they are rather in continual movement between heaven and earth, John i. 52; cf. Mark 1. 13; Matt. iv. 11. And they again appear in the future at the end of the history of salvation, and then collectively, 2 Thess. i. 7; Matt. xxiv. 31, xxv. 31, xiii. 49, xvi. 27; Heb. i. 6. In behalf of the history of salvation—more than this we cannot venture to say—they appear also as ministering, and as accomplishing God’s operations in the sphere of nature, Heb. i. 7; John v. 4; Rev. xvi. 5; cf. xiv. 18, ἄγγελος ὁ ἔχων ἐξουσίαν ἐπὶ τοῦ πυρός.

If after all this we not inappropriately designate the angels as intermediate beings, no perversion would be greater than to find in them echoes or even unsubdued remnants of polytheism ; for it is just by the service and escort of angels that God’s highest sovereignty is glorified, as is evident from the total impression of sacred history, as well as from particular declarations (6. Dan. vii. 10; 2 Thess. i. 7; Matt. xxv. 31); God not being in any way limited by angels, nor necessitated to make use of them as if they were “ the necessary medium of His relation to the world.” And so far from placing themselves between man and the God of his salvation (cf. Col. ii. 18), or hindering the direct access of man to God, they rather, on the one hand, invest the intercourse of God with men with a certain attractive and softening beauty (cf. Acts vi 15; Ex. xxxiii. 2, 3), by the side of all the splendour and all the sublimity of their appearance (2 Cor. xi. 14); as, on the other hand, by their appearing, they impart to man a humbling impression of the divine majesty and greatness; cf. Isa. vi.; Luke ii. 9,10; Rev. xxii, 8, 9.—It may further be observed, that the angels of God are called ἅγιοι, Rev. xiv. 10, Mark viii. 38, Luke ix. 26, Acts x. 22, in order to characterize them in contrast with sinful man; ἐκλεκτοί, 1 Tim. ν, 21, to describe them according to their ministering participation in the counsels of divine love (and their being included therein, Eph, i. 20 sqq.; Col. 1, 20 2); see 8.0. ἐκλεκτός.

II. (ὁ) Mention is also made of ἄγγελοι ἁμαρτήσαντες in 2 Pet. ii. 4, and with this express distinction only in the N. T.; cf. Jude 6, τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχὴν

᾿Αρχάγγελος 24 ᾿Αναγγέλλω

ἀλλὰ ἀπολιπόντας τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον εἰς κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας δεσμοῖς ἀϊδίοις ὑπὸ ζόφον τετήρηκεν. See Rev. xii. 7, 9, ix. 11; οἵ, John viii. 44. On account of their fellowship with Satan, not because they stand in the same relation to him as the angels of God to God, they are described as ayy. τοῦ διαβόλου, Matt. xxv. 41; σατᾶν, 2 Cor. xii. 7. See, on this subject, Beck’s profound and copious dissertation, free from all extra-scriptural theosophizing, Zehrw. 1, sec. 21, p. 247 sqq.: “ Der Abfall in der unsichtbaren Welt.”

On the whole subject, see Hahn, Theol. des N. T. sec. 107 sqq., pp. 259-384; Beck, Lehrwissenschaft, 1. 173 sqq.; Kahnis, Luther. Dogm. 1. 553 sqq.; Hofmann, Schrift- beweis, 1. 314 sqq.

᾿Αρχάγγελος, 6, first or highest angel, archangel, leader of the angels. 1 Thess. iv. 16, ὁ κύριος... ἐν φωνῇ apyayyédov .. . καταβήσεται (cf. Matt. xxv. 31, καὶ πάντες οἱ ἄγγελοι μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ); Jude 9, Μιχαὴλ ὁ apydyyedos. Cf. Rev. xii. 7, ὁ Μιχαὴλ καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ... ὁ δράκων καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ. Michael is, in Dan. x. 13, described as DWN OMT INN, εἷς τῶν ἀρχόντων ; in xii. 1, 85 1730 ἼΘΙ, ὁ ἄρχων ὁ μέγας. It is incorrect to say (Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, 1. 343) that this title is intended to imply nothing concerning differences of rank in the angel world, but only to explain the relation of Israel to the great world-powers ; for then Michael would be “ one of the chief princes,” “the great prince,” merely because “ he standeth for the children of Israel,” xii. 1. His greatness would depend solely upon the part he took in the history of Israel, whereas it is his greatness, his power, which is to comfort the prophet, and to give Israel help against the oppression of the nations. If, moreover, we take DYN as merely a strengthening of D187, this latter word clearly denotes a definite rank, by virtue of which he is qualified for the special work and service. Cf. Josh. v.14: Min! S2s7%, Moreover, some such difference of rank as ἀρχάγγελος denotes, must, for linguistic reasons, be recognised. For the prefix dpy:—which occurs only in words which denote office, dignity, or occupation, very frequently in Plutarch and in the Byzantine age—always expresses a gradation in the sphere spoken of. Cf. in N. T. Greek, ἀρχιερεύς, ἀρχιποίμην, ἀρχιτελώνης ; and such words as ἀρχυγραμματεύς, “chief secretary ;” ἀρχικυβερνήτης, “chief helmsman ;” ἀρχιπειρατής, “captain of pirates.”—Philo, on Gen. xviii. 6, 7, designates Moses ἀρχιπροφήτης καὶ ἀρχάγγέλος, as he also styles the Logos dpydyyedos, by which he means to indicate, at all events, a distinction of rank.

Ἰσάγγελος, 6, ἡ, angel-like; Luke xx. 36, οὔτε γαμοῦσιν οὔτε γαμίσκονται, οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀποθανεῖν ἔτι δύνανται, ἰσάγγελοι γάρ εἰσιν, where Mark xii. 25, ὡς ἄγγελοι οἱ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ; cf. Matt. xxii. 80. According to this passage, neither mortality nor sexual com- munion pertains either to the viol τῆς ἀναστάσεως or to the angels; cf. 1 Cor. vi. 13; so much the more horrible, therefore, must the sin of the angels appear, which is mentioned in Jude 6 and 2 Pet. ii. 4.

"AvayyérXa, f. edd, strictly, to report back; used of the reports brought by persons

᾿Απαγγέλλω 25 ᾿Απαγγέλλω

returning from somewhere, Xen. Anabd. i. 3. 21, ἀκούσαντες δὲ ταῦτα οἱ αἱρετοὶ ἀναγγέλ- λουσι τοῖς στρατιώταις. Judith xi. 15; thus in 2 Cor. vii. 7, ἀναγγέλλων ἡμῖν τὴν ὑμῶν ἐπιπόθησιν. In accordance herewith is to be explained the choice of this word in John xvi. 14, ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λήψεται καὶ ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν, and in ver. 15; ver. 13, ὅσα ἂν ἀκούσῃ λαλήσει καὶ τὰ ἐρχόμενα ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν; 1 John i. 5, ἡ ἀγγελία ἣν ἀκηκόαμεν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀναγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν ; cf. Erasm., quod filius annunciavit a patre, hoc apostolus acceptum a filio renunciat nobis; also in John iv. 25, of the Messiah, ἀναγγελεῖ ἡμῖν πάντα ; comp. Deut. xviii. 18. This may possibly have to be taken into consideration in 1 Pet. i. 12, οἷς ἀπεκαλύφθη ὅτι οὐχ ἑαυτοῖς ἡμῖν δὲ διηκόνουν αὐτά, ἃ νῦν ἀνηγγέλη ὑμῖν, κιτιλ., Where the meaning, “to report things that have happened” (Schott), is not to be given to it. It is then used with a weaker sense of the dvd, and signifies to send news of, and generally, to report, to notify, to announce, to proclaim. Very frequently in the LXX.= 733, ete, Rom. xv. 21, ols οὐκ ἀνηγγέλη περὶ αὐτοῦ ; Isa. lii. 15, DN? WBD"ND WS; besides, only with certainty in Acts xiv. 27, ἀνήγγελον (Rec. ἀνήγγειλαν) ὅσα ἐποίησεν... καὶ ὅτι κιτιλ. ; Acts xv. 4, xix. 18, xx. 20, 27. In classical Greek we find more frequently ἀπαγγέλλω, which Lachm. and Tisch. have received into their text, instead of the Rec. ἀναγγέλλω, in Mark ν. 14,19; John v. 15, xvi. 25; Acts xiv. 27. The second Aor. ἠγγέλην, which in the compounds of ὠγγέλλω is not infrequently used by later writers, occurs in 1 Pet. i. 12; Rom. xv. 21 (cf. Rom. ix. 17; Acts xvii. 13). Construed (1) with the ace.: John iv. 25, xvi. 13; Acts xvi. 38, xix. 18, xx. 20,27; 2 Cor. vii. 7; 1 Pet. i. 12; 1 Johni. 5. Instead of the acc., with a relative clause following, in Mark v. 19; Acts xiv. 27; (2) followed by ὅτι, John v. 15; Acts xiv. 27; (3) περί τινος, John xvi. 25; Rom. xv. 21; οἵ, Judith x. 22 (ἀπαγγέλλειν περί twos, often in Polyb.). Except in Mark v. 14, εἴς τινα, it is connected with the dative of the person.

᾿Απαγγέλλω, second Aor. pass. ἀπηγέλην (cf. 8.0. ἀναγγέλλω), Luke viii. 20. Herodian. vii. 9 = ἀγγέλλειν (τινί τι) ἀπό τινος, to announce or report from some place or person; sce Acts iv. 23, v. 22, 25, xxiii. 16, 17,19; then generally, to tell, to announce, to publish, and, indeed, to publish something that has happened, been experienced, heard. It is also used of a commission to be executed viva voce, Acts xv. 27, xxvi. 20. LXX.=3), etc.; more common, however, is the word ἀναγγέλλω (q.v.), which occurs less frequently in the profane writers. “AmayyéAAw occurs especially in Luke’s writings, the Gospel and Acts. (1) τινέ το, Matt. xxviii, 11; Mark vi. 30; Luke ix. 36, xiv. 21, xxiv. 9; Acts xii. 17, xvi. 38, xxiii. 17. Of the ministry of the apostles (cf. on the contrary, ἐπαγγέλλομαι, of the divine action), 1 John 1, 2, (ἑωράκαμεν καὶ μαρτυροῦμεν Kat) ἀπαγ- γέλλομεν ὑμῖν τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον (cf. Acts xxvi. 20). Cf Matt. xii. 18, κρίσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἀπαγγελεῖ, from Isa. xlii. 1, 8S DMR BvD, LXX. ἐξοίσει, where κρίσις denotes, not future things, but quid sit verum, sanctum, Deo dignum (Cocceius), the righteous govern- ment of God; see 8.0. xplows.—Heb. ii. 12, ἀπαγγελῶ τὸ ὄνομά σου τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς pov; Ps, xxii, 23, MEDS, LXX. Supyjcopuas. Instead of τινί, we find πρός τινα, Acts xvi. 36;

D

Διαγγέλλω 26 ᾿Επαγγέλλω

Xen. Anab. vi. 8. 22; εἰς τινά, when the object is impersonal, the place where and to which the proclamation is issued, Acts xxvi. 20, τοῖς ἐν Aaydoxp πρῶτόν τε καὶ “Iepoco- λύμοις εἰς πᾶσάν τε THY χώραν τῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἀπήγγελον μετανοεῖν K.7.h.— ἀπαγγέλλειν τι, Matt. viii. 33; Acts xv. 27; Luke viii. 47 (Lachm., Tisch.).

(2) The object subjoined in the form of a relative or objective clause (Winer, sec. 60. 6; ef. Acts xiv. 27, ἀνήγγελον ὅσα ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς μετ᾽ αὐτῶν καὶ ὅτι ἤνοιξεν κ-τ.λ.), Matt. xi. 4; Luke vii. 22, viii. 47, Rec. ; Acts iv. 23, xxiii. 19; 1 Thess. 1. 9; 1 Johni. 3; followed by πῶς, Luke viii. 36; Acts xi. 13; by ὅτε, Luke xviii. 37; 1 Cor. xiv. 25 (ef. Acts v. 25); by inf. Acts xxvi. 20; ace. and inf. Acts xii. 14 (cf. Winer, sec. 44. 3). (3) ἀπαγγ. τινὶ περί twos. Luke vii. 18, xiii. 1; John xvi. 25 (cf. 1 Thess. i. 9, περὶ ἡμῶν ἀπαγγέλλουσιν, ὁποίαν εἴσοδον ἔσχομεν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, and Acts xxviii. 21, ἀπήγγειλεν ἢ ἐλάλησέν τι περὶ σοῦ πονηρόν). (4) Without object, ἀπωγγέλλείν τινε = to give an account to some one, Matt. ii. 8, xiv. 12, xxviii. 8, 9, 10 (Lachm. and Tisch. omit it in ver. 9).— John iv. 51, ἀπήγγειλαν λέγοντες ; cf. 2 Sam. xv. 31, ἽΝ Dn,

AtayyédXoe (second Aor. pass, διηγγέλην ; cf. 8.0. ἀναγγέλλω), to make known through an intervening space, (1) to convey a message or tidings; cf. Xen. Anab. i. 6. 2, ὥστε μήποτε δύνασθαι αὐτούς, ἰδόντας τὸ Κύρου στρατόπεδον, βασιλεῖ διωγγεῖλαι; ii. 3. 7, μέχρις ἂν βασιλεῖ τὰ παρ᾽ ὑμῶν διαγγελθῇ ; vii. 1. 14, ἐπακούσαντες δέ τινες τῶν στρατιωτῶν ταῦτα ἢ καὶ τῶν λοχαγῶν τις διαγγέλλει εἰς τὸ στρατόπεδον. So in Acts xxi. 26, διαγγέλλων τὴν ἐκπλήρωσιν τῶν ἡμερῶν κιτιλ., on which Chrys. remarks, αὐτὸς ἣν ὁ δῆλον ἑαυτὸν ποιῶν, he caused to be known, that, etc. Then (2) =to report further, to publish far and wide; οἵ, LXX. Lev. xxv. 9, διαγγελεῖτε σάλπιγγος φονῇ ἐν πάσῃ τῇ γῇ tyov=VIY7, Plut. Camill. 24, ἡ φήμη [ταχύ] διαγγέλλουσα τὴν πρᾶξιν eis τὰς πόλεις. Thus in Luke ix. 60, σὺ δὲ ἀπελθὼν διάγγελε τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ. Rom. ix. 17, ὅπως διαγγελῇ τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐν πάσῃ τῇ γῇ, from Ex. ix. 16 -- ἼΒΌ (ef. Ex. xiv.).

Ἐπαγγέλλω, to proclaim; used, like the Lat. edicere and pronuntiare, of public announcements, decrees ; to announce, be it a message, a summons, or a promise. Xen. Cyrop. vii. 4. 2, στρατιᾶς ὁπότε δέοιτο, ἐπήγγελλεν αὐτοῖς ; Thucyd. vii. 17, στρατίαν τα ἐπαγγέλλων ἐς τοὺς ξυμμάχους ; v. 47, ἐπὴν ἔλθῃ ἐς τὴν πόλιν τὴν ἐπαγγείλασαν βοηθεῖν. Most frequently in the sense, to annownce a summons, to issue the command for something. Also in the middle, Herodian. vii. 1, ἐπηγγέλλετο ἐτοιμάξειν στρατιήν, he caused to be announced; cf. on this meaning of the middle, Kriiger, Gram. sec. 52. 11; Matth. Gram, sec. 492. 9. In the N. T. only middle, ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι, to announce oneself, 1.6. 1 offer myself for something which I engage to do—ZI offer my services. Kriiger, sec. 52. 8. 5. Thue. vi, 88, πόλεων ἐπαγγελλομένων καὶ αὐτῶν συμπολεμεῖν. Mark xiv. 11, ἐπηγγείλαντο αὐτῷ ἀργύριον δοῦναι. 2 Pet. ii. 19, ἐλευθερίαν αὐτοῖς ἐπαγγελλόμενοι αὐτοὶ δοῦλοι ὑπάρχοντες τῆς φθορᾶς. In particular, of the offers of the Sophists to teach some- thing. (Cf. Ecclus. iii, 25, γνώσεως δὲ ἀμοιρῶν μὴ erayyedod.) . This is the use in 1 Tim, ii 10, ἐπαγγελλομέναις θεοσεβειαν, professing godliness, pretending to be godly,

πὰ συν SL SS aS

Προεπαγγέλλω 27 ᾿Επαγγελία

hence=to pretend, 1 Tim. vi. 21, (ἐκτρεπόμενος tas... ἀντιθέσεις τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως). ἥν tives ἐπαγγελλόμενοι «.7.r.; οἵ. Wisd. ii, 13, ἐπαγγέλλεται γνῶσιν ἔχειν θεοῦ. With a special meaning the word (as also its derivatives) is used of God, and of the divine promise of salvation, for which it is peculiarly appropriate ; because, “in distinction from ὑπισχνέομαι, it means, to promase spontaneously, to engage oneself to render a service” (Pape, Dict.), quae.verbi graeci proprictas, ubi de divinis promissionibus agitur, exquisite observanda est (Beng. on Acts i. 4). In Acts vii. 5, ἐπηγγείλατο δοῦναι; Tit. i. 2, ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι ξωῆς αἰωνίου ἣν ἐπηγγείλατο 6 ἀψευδὴς θεός ; cf. 1 John ii. 25; Jas. 1. 12, τὸν στέφανον τῆς ζωῆς. ὃν ἐπηγγείλατο τοῖς κιτιλ.; Jas. ii. 5, τῆς βασιλείας ἧς ἐπηγγείλατο «.7.d.; Rom. iv. 21; Heb. xii. 26, ἐπήγγελται λέγων. Absolutely = to give a promise (cf. above, Ecclus. iii. 25: Aristot. Eth. x. 9. 20, τῶν σοφιστῶν of ἐπαγγελλόμενοι) ; ὁ ἐπαγγειλάμενος, Heb. vi. 13, x. 23, xi. 11; Gal. iii. 19, σπέρμα ᾧ ἐπήγγελται, the seed, to which the promise is given; cf. ver. 18. As Paul also uses évayy. only in the middle, and it is a technical term, it falls under the category of those deponent verbs which, in some tenses, especially in the perf., have both an active and a passive meaning ; cf. Matth. sec. 496a—tThe O, Τὶ has no corresponding technical term.—See προευαγγελέζομαι.

Προεπαγγέλλω, to proclaim beforehand, to promise beforehand; it occurs fre- quently in Dio Cass. in both active and middle—In the N. T. it occurs in the passive in 2 Cor. ix. 5, Ma... προκαταρτίσωσι τὴν πρροεπηγγελμένην εὐλογίαν ὑμῶν (Rec. mpo- κατηγγελμένην) ; in the middle in Rom. i. 2, ὃ (sc. εὐαγγέλιον) προεπηγγείλατο διὰ κιτιλ.

Ἐπαγγελία, ἡ, proclamation, both in an active and a passive sense. Except as used as an Attic law term in the combination ἐπαγγελίαν ἐπαγγέλλειν, “to bring an accusation [against an orator]” (see Passow), the word occurs only in later Greek, where it is mostly equivalent to consent, promise, offer (even summons, Polyb. ix. 38. 2), for which, in O. T. Greek, and in Isocr., Dem., Aesch., ἐπάγγελμα is used, g.v.; cf. Polyb. 1. 43. 6, vii. 13. 2, xviii. 11. 1, ἐν ἐπ. καταλείπειν, to rest content with promising; i. 72. 6, ἐπαγγελίας ποιεῖσθαι πρὸς τὴν ἀπόστασιν. On the other hand, Aeschin. p. 24. 14, ἐὰν δ᾽ αὐτὸς ἐν τοῖς πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἔργοις γένηται οἷος νῦν ἐστὶν ἐν τοῖς ἐπαγγέλμασιν. The word seldom occurs in the LXX.; once through a misunderstanding of the Heb. 7728, Amos ix. 6; in Ps. ἵν]. [lv.] 9=™5D. In Ezek. vii. 26, a passage which Schleusner cites in addition, we have not érayy. but ἀγγελία -- Προ, In the only place wherein it occurs in its true sense, Esth. iv. 7, it is added by the LXX. In 1 Esdras i. 7 and 1 Mace. x. 15, it is= promise, promises. In the Prayer of Manasses, ver. 6, it stands as in the N. T. of God’s promise of salvation; τὸ ἔλεος τῆς ἐπωγγέλίας cou=misericordia conspicua in promissione tua (Wahl).

In the N. T. Acts xxiii. 21, προσδεχόμενοι τὴν ἀπὸ σοῦ ἐπαγγελίαν, in the general sense, promise or consent. Elsewhere always in a special sense, to denote the divine pro- mises of salvation, as, in fact, all the derivatives of ἀγγέλλω, as already remarked, are used to designate the proclamation of salvation. As it occurs also in the N. T. (Luke, Acts,

᾿Επαγγέλία 28 ᾿Επαγγελία

Hebrews, St. Paul’s writings, 2 Peter, 1 John) in an active and a passive sense,—though but rarely active, besides Acts xxiii. 21, only in Gal. iii. 18,—we have in N. T. usage of the passive an extension of the meaning, so that it denotes not only the promise given, but also the promised blessing itself. (I.) Actively, it denotes the act of promising, Gal. iii. 18, τῷ ᾿Αβραὰμ 8° ἐπαγγελίας κεχάρισται ὁ θεός ; cf. Bengel on Acts i. 4, sv. ἐπαγγέλλω. (II.) Passively, (a) the promise given. Rom. ix. 9, ἐπαγγελίας ὁ λόγος ; Rom. iv. 20, eis τὴν ἐπ. τοῦ θεοῦ οὐ διεκρίθη τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ (cf. Plat. Zuthyd. 274 A, ὑπὸ yap τοῦ μεγέθους τοῦ ἐπαγγέλματος οὐδὲν θαυμαστὸν ἀπιστεῖν). With specification of the purport of the promise, 2 Tim. i. 1, κατ᾽ ἐπ. ξωῆς τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ; 2 Pet. iii, 4, ἡ ἐπ. τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ; Heb. iv. 1, ἐπ. εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσιν αὐτοῦ; 1 Tim. iv. 8, ἡ εὐσέβεια... ἐπαγγελίαν ἔχουσα ἕωῆς. Cf. 1 John ii. 25, αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐπ. ἣν αὐτὸς ἐπηγγείλατο ἡμῖν, τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον ; Rom. iv. 18, ἡ ἐπ... . τὸ κληρονόμον αὐτὸν εἶναι τοῦ κόσμου. Without a more definite specification of the purport, the promise of salvation, the Messianic promise, Rom. ix. 4, dv αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι; Gal. iii. 21, 6 οὖν νόμος κατὰ τῶν ἐπαγγελιῶν τοῦ θεοῦ; ver. 18; iv. 23. Acts ii. 39, ὑμῖν γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ἐπ. ; xiii. 23, τούτου ὁ θεὸς ἀπὸ τοῦ σπέρματος κατ᾽ ἐπαγγελίαν ἤγαγεν τῷ ᾿Ισραὴλ σωτῆρα ᾿Ιησοῦ. Ver. 32, εὐαγγελιζόμεθα τὴν πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας ἐπ. γενομένην ὅτι ταύτην ὁ θεὸς ἐκπεπλήρωκεν K.T.X. ; xxvi. 6, ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι τῆς εἰς τοὺς πατέρας ἐπαγγ. γενομένης ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ. In this special sense, the conception expressed in ἐπάαγγ., both as to its form (Gal. iii. 18) and purport (Gal. iii. 21), occupies so important a place in the divine economy, that the blessings as well as the members of the economy of salvation are thus characterized. Hence the combinations: γῇ τῆς ἐπαγγ., Heb. xi. 9; τὰ τέκνα τῆς ἐπαγγ., Rom. ix. 8, Gal. iv. 28; πνεῦμα τῆς ἐπαγγ. τὸ ἅγιον, Eph. i. 13; διαθῆκαι τῆς ἐπαγγ., Eph. ii. 12; cf. Rom. ix. 4—Gal. iii. 29, κατ᾽ ἐπαγγ. κληρονόμοι; Eph. iii. 6, cuppéroya τῆς émayy.; Rom. iv. 14 and Gal. iii. 17, καταργεῖν τὴν ἐπαγγ.; Rom. xv. 8, βεβαιῶσαι τὰς ἐπαγγ. ; ef. iv. 16, εἰς τὸ εἶναι βεβαίαν τὴν ἐπ. Gal. iii. 16, ἐῤῥήθησαν ai ἐπαγγ.; 2 Cor. vii. 1; Heb. vii. 6, ἔχειν tas émayy.; Heb. xi. 17, ἀναδέχεσθαι τὰς émayy—aActs vii. 17; Gal. iii, 16, 22; Eph. vi 2; Heb. viii 6. In 2 Pet. iii, 9, οὐ βραδύνει κύριος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, ὥς τινες βραδυτῆτα ἡγοῦνται ἀλλὰ μακροθυμεῖ «.7.r., we must not (as in our first edition) join κύριος τῆς ér.—a connection which cannot be justified either by ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, Mark i. 1, or by γῇ τῆς ἐπ. ἀλλοτρία, Heb. xi. 9, and which is so harsh that most manuscripts read ὁ κυρ. τῆς ἐπ. but we must construe τῆς ἐπ. with βραδύνει, for then only will the antithesis intended between the otherwise synonymous verbs βραδύ- νειν and μακροθυμεῖν appear (cf. Ecclus. xxxii. (or xxxv.) 22, ὁ κύριος οὐ μὴ βραδύνῃ οὐδὲ μὴ μακροθυμήσῃ ἐπ’ αὐτοῖς) when βραδύνειν is more fully defined by a special object. The thought of course is this: What seems a delaying of the promise is really not so, but a delaying of the judgment; and that at which the mockers mock in the pre- sence of those who wait for the second coming of the Lord, is really for them a call of grace to repentance. Cf. 1 Pet. iv. 17,18. The intransitive βραδύνειν does not, indeed, else- where appear with the genitive, but with the dative or accusative, 6.5. βοῇ, “ with help,”

ee — Θ

EE EEE Ψ.0ᾳῇπΚΜΨ.Ψ ΨΥ ΨΘΠΎ Ὸυ

Ἐπαγγελμα 29 ᾿Εξαγγέλλω

in Aeschylus ; τὴν σωτηρίαν, Isa. xlvi. 13 ; ὥραν, Plut. Conv. 707 E. Still this connection, which the context obliges, is justifiable; because, on the one hand, βραδύς is sometimes joined with the genitive, eg. Heliod. ii, 29: βραδὺ τῆς ἡλικίας, --ἰὰ the passage cited by Passow, Thue. vii. 43, it is joined, not with the genitive, but with the dative ;—and, on the other hand, according to the general rule, words signifying “ neglecting,” “ preventing,” “holding back,” “hindering,” are followed by the genitive; cf. Kriiger, sec. 47. 11. 12; Winer, sec. 30.6. (Ὁ) ἐπαγγελία is = the promised blessing, so only in Luke, Acts, Hebrews. Acts ii. 33 (cf. Heb. ix. 15, xi. 13); Acts i, 4; Luke xxiv. 49; Heb. x. 36, and xi. 39, κομίζεσθαι τὴν ἐπ. With of κληρονόμοι τῆς ἐπ., Heb. vi. 17 ; ver. 12, κληρονομεῖν τᾶς ἐπ. ; xi. 9, συγκληρονόμοι τῆς ém., compare the Pauline κατ᾽ ἐπαγγελίαν κληρονόμοι, Gal. iii, 29. It is to be observed, that ἐπ. standing alone never signifies “the blessing promised,” that this is purely a derived meaning, and always results from the connections in which the word stands; and it is thus of course also necessary to explain the same connections in one and the same book, as eg. in the Epistle to the Hebrews, uniformly; so that Heb. xi. 33, ἐπέτυχον ἐπαγγελιῶν must not (because of the absence of the article) be under- stood of the words of promise, while vi. 15, ἐπέτυχεν τῆς ἐπ., denotes the promised blessing ; ef. vi. 12,17. This is clear with reference to the combinations λαμβάνειν τὴν ἐπ., Acts ii, 33; Heb. ix. 15; τὰς éw., Heb. xi. 13; κομίζειν τὴν ἐπ., Heb. xi. 39,x. 36. But with these expressions it seems not to agree, that of the same persons of whom it is said: “ they received not the promises, but only saw them afar off” (Heb. xi. 13, 39, ix. 15), it should be said again: “they have through faith and patience inherited the promises,” and that “ Abraham was made partaker of the ἐπ." (vi. 12, 15,17, cf. xi. 9). But as, according to the context, we cannot take (vi. 12 sqq.) the ἐπαγγελίαι, ἐπαγγελία, to denote anything else than the purport of the promise, we must seek the harmonizing of both statements in ix. 15, τὴν ἐπ. λάβωσιν οἱ κεκλημένοι τῆς αἰωνίου κληρονομίας. As to xi. 33, ἐπέτυχον ἐπαγγελιῶν, compared with ver, 39, οὐκ ἐκομίσαντο τὴν ἐπ., and ver. 18, μὴ λαβόντες τὰς ἐπ΄, the absence of the article shows that by ἐπ. we are to understand some- thing different from αἱ é., viz. not the N, T. salvation, but indefinitely “ that which was promised ;” cf. Delitzsch, in Joc,

ἜἘπαάγγελ μα, τό, promise, assurance; 2 Pet. i. 4, τὰ τίμια καὶ μέγιστα ἡμῖν ἐπαγ- γέλματα δεδώρηται; 2 Pet. iii. 13, κατὰ τὸ ἐπάγγελμα αὐτοῦ προσδοκῶμεν, conjoined with ὑπόσχεσις in Dem. p. 397. Dion. Hal. 19. 178.

Ἐξαγγέλλω, I. to report from somewhere, to publish abroad; Xen. Anab. i. 6. 5, ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἐξῆλθεν, ἐξήγγειλε τοῖς φίλοις τὴν κρίσιν τοῦ ’Opovtov ὡς ἐγένετο' οὐ γὰρ ἠπόῤῥητον ἦν. Hence also, to proclaim publicly; Prov. xii. 16, opposed to κρύπτειν ; Ps. ix. 15, ὅπως ἂν ἐξαγγείλω πάσας τὰς αἰνέσεις σου ἐν ταῖς πύλαις τῆς θυγατρὸς Σιών. II. = to publish completely ; plene et plane (Biel, Lexicon in LXX.; cf. the German auserzdhlen, “ to tell to the end”); as verbs compounded with ἐκ often mean: thus Ecclus. xviii. 3—In the N. Τὶ only in 1 Pet. ii. 9, ὅπως τὰς ἀρετὰς ἐξαγγείλητε Tod... ὑμᾶς καλέσαντος K.T-r.; after

Καταγγέλλω 80 Παραγγέλλω

Isa. xliii. 21, where we find διηγεῖσθαι, and xlii. 12, where ἀνωγγέλλειν is used. Bengel : ἐξ in ἐξαγγεΐλητε, innuit multorum ignorantiam, quibus fideles debent virtutes Dei praedicare.

Karayyé) Xo (Xen., Polyb., Plut., and other later writers), to publish somewhither, to proclaim, τὲ or τινά τινι, Acts xvi. 17, xvii. 3, 23, xxvi. 23; 1 Cor. ii. 1; pass. Acts xiii, 38 ; without specification of the direction, merely with the object in the accusative, Acts iii. 24, iv. 2, xiii. 5, xv. 86, xvi. 21; 1 Cor. ix. 14, xi 26; Phil. 1, 17; Col. i 28; in the passive, Acts xvii. 13; Rom. i. 8; Phil. i 18; ἐν with dative, Acts xvii 13, Rom. i. 8, denotes not the direction, but the locality, in which the καταγγέλλειν takes place. The word may contain both a hint of the unknown purport of the proclamation (cf. καταγγελλεύς), and a strengthening of the simple verb; ef. Rom. i. 8; 1 Cor. ix. 14, xi. 26; Viger, ed. Herm. p. 638.

Καταγγελεύς, ews, ὁ = ὁ καταγγέλλων, κατάγγελος, proclaimer, only in Acts xvii. 18, ξένων δαιμονίων δοκεῖ καταγγελεὺς εἶναι, and in eccl. Greek.

Προκαταγγέλλ ω, to proclaim beforehand; Jos. Anti. i. 12.3; ii 9.4. In the N. T. Acts iii, 18, 6 δὲ θεὸς ἃ προκατήγγειλεν διὰ στόματος πάντων τῶν προφητῶν, παθεῖν τὸν Χριστὸν αὐτοῦ, ἐπλήρωσεν ; vii. 52, ἀπέκτειναν τοὺς προκαταγγείλαντας περὶ τῆς ἐλεύσεως τοῦ δικαίου ; iii, 24, Rec., where Griesb., Lachm., Tisch. read κατήγγειλαν ; 2 Cor. ix. 5, Rec., τὴν προκατηγγελμένην εὐλογίαν, where Beng., Lachm., Tisch. read the more concrete προεπηγγελμένην ; cf. Rom. i, 8 with Acts 111, 18.

Παραγγέλλω, to proclaim, more rarely in the sense of a mere communication, as the LXX. in Jer. xlvi. [xxvi.] 14, ἀναγγείλατε (13) εἰς Μάγδωλον καὶ παραγγείλατε (Ὁ) εἰς Μέμφιν, than to denote a summons, a proclamation, or an enjoining of some- thing which is to be done; οἵ, Xen. Cyrop. ii. 4. 2, καὶ τῷ δευτέρῳ ἐκέλευσε ταὐτὸ τοῦτο παραγγεῖλαι, in which sense also the German expressions, ankiindigen, bekannt machen, to proclaim, to make known, are used to denote what certainly will or must be done. Thus in Greek it is the proper term for military commands, Cf. Acts iv. 18, παρήγγειλαν τὸ καθόλου μὴ φθέγγεσθαι μηδὲ κιτιλ.; ν. 28, παραγγελίᾳ παρηγγείλαμεν ὑμῖν μὴ διδάσκειν; ver. 40, xvi. 23. ΑἸδβο in ἃ milder sense=to charge. Acts xxiii. 22, παραγγείλας μηδενὶ ἐκλαλῆσαι ὅτι ταῦτα ἐνεφάνισας πρὸς wé—Used of apostolic commands,—anot arbitrary enactments, but pressing injunctions ;= to enjoin, 1 Cor. vii. 10, τοῖς γεγαμηκόσιν παραγ- γέλλω.... γυναῖκα μὴ χωρισθῆναι, and in the remaining passages of the Pauline Epistles ; ef. 1 Tim, iv. 11, παράγγελλε ταῦτα καὶ δίδασκε. Used of Christ when sending forth His disciples, Mark vi. 8, παρήγγειλεν αὐτοῖς ἵνα μηδὲν aipwow, — Acts x. 42, παρήγγειλεν ἡμῖν κηρῦξαι... καὶ SiayaptipacGar.—Construed with twi τι, 2 Thess. iii. 4, 10 (ver. 10, τοῦτο παραγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν ὅτι); without. dative, in 1 Cor. xi. 17; 1 Tim. iv. 11, v. 7. Instead of the accusative the infinitive is used; cf. Acts iv. 18, παρηγγεῖίλαν (Tisch. omits αὐτοῖς) τὸ καθόλου μὴ φθέγγεσθαι, and, indeed, the infin. Aor. : Matt. xv. 88 ; Mark viii. 6 ; Luke v. 14, viii, 29, 56; Acts x. 42, xvi. 18, xxiii. 22; 1 Tim. vi. 13, 14

Παραγγελία 31 Εὐαγγέλιον

(acc. and inf.); 1 Cor. vii. 10, Βουμματᾶγυ, Synt. p. 383 sq. The inf. pres. in Luke ix. 21; Actsi. 4, iv. 18, v. 28, 40, xv. 5, xvi. 23, xvii. 30, xxiii. 30; 2 Thess. iii. 6 (acc. and inf.) ; 1 Tim. i. 3, vi. 17, without there being apparently any radical distinction between the two constructions ; ef. Acts xv. 5 with 1 Tim. vi.13. See, however, Matth. Gram. sec. 501, who thinks there is between the Aor. of the imperat., opt., subj., inf, and the pres. of the same moods, this distinction, that the Aorist denotes a transitory action, action con- sidered in and by itself in its completeness; whereas the present denotes an action which is either continued or often repeated, or of which merely the beginning is taken into con- sideration. At the same time, it is to be remarked (p. 1130), that the writer may often please himself which representation he makes use of—Followed by ἵνα in Mark vi. 8 ; 2 Thess. iii. 12 (mot 1 Tim. v. 7). The direct narration of the injunction is connected by λέγων in Matt. x. 5.

Παραγη ελ ία, ἡ, proclamation, command, Acts xvi. 24, v. 28; παραγγελίᾳ παρηγ- γείλαμεν, corresponding to the apostolic παραγγέλλειν, 1 Thess. iv. 2, cf. ver. 3; 1 Tim. i 5, cf. ver. 3; 1 Tim. i. 18.

Ε ὑαγγέλεον, τό, from Hom. to Plut.= the reward for a good message; as τὰ διδασ- κάλια = fees paid for instruction. It also denotes sacrifice for a good message, in Isocr., Xenoph., Aeschin. Later Greek writers use it, at the same time, in the sense of good tidings, 6... Plut., Lucian, Appian. Chrysostom establishes a forced connection between the two meanings in Hom. 19 in Act.: τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦτο ἔστι τάδε σοι ἔσται ἀγαθά. As τὸ διδασκάλιον denoted primarily what was taught, doctrina, and then later (Plut.) in the plur., the merces docendi; so, conversely, εὖ, denoted primarily the reward for a good message, and then, subsequently, the good message itself. The LXX. use it in the latter sense only in 2 Sam. xviii. 25, unless there evayyed/a ought to be read instead of εὐαγγέλια, as 73 is translated in 2 Sam. xviii. 20, 27; 2 Kings vii. 9; on the other hand, we find in 2 Sam. iv. 10, ᾧ ἔδει pe δοῦναι εὐαγγέλια, MI ANd; and in 2 Sam. xviii. 22, where it is also mia= reward for a good message. Its constant use in the N. T. and by eccl. writers in the sense of good tidings, is not inconsistent with the formation of the word from eddyyehos=publishing good news (Eurip., Aeschy].), nor opposed to the usus log.

In the N, T. = good news, and, indeed, always with an altogether special significance ; for as ἐπαγγελία = the promise of salvation, so εὐαγγέλιον (cf. εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, Isa. x1. 9, lii. 7, lxi. 1 ; Luke iv. 18) = the news of the actually fulfilled promise of salvation = the news of sal- vation; cf. Acts xiii. 32, ἡμεῖς ὑμᾶς εὐαγγελιζόμεθα τὴν πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας ἐπαγγελίαν γενομένην, ὅτε ταύτην ὁ θεὸς ἐκπεπλήρωκεν κιτιλ.; Eph. iii. 6, εἶναι τὰ ἔθνη συγκληρονόμα καὶ σύσσωμα καὶ συμμέτοχα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου. Mark i. 14,15 ; ef. Phavor., εὐαγγέλιόν ἐστι κήρυγμα τῆς νέας σωτηρίας ἢ λόγος περιέχων ἀγαθοῦ παρουσίαν. Theodoret on Rom. 1., εὐαγγέλιον τὸ κήρυγμα προσηγόρευσεν ὡς πολλῶν ἀγαθῶν ὑπισχνούμενον χορηγίαν. Hence the expressions ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ εὐαγγ., Gal. ii. ὕ, 14; τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ ev., Eph. vi. 19; ἡ ἐλπὶς τοῦ εὖ., Col. i. 23, cf. ver. 5,

Εὐαγγέλιον 32 Εὐαγγέλιον

just as in most of the combinations given below. As regards the sense, we have not to decide between the news to be, or already, delivered, the news of salvation, and the act of delivery itself, the publishing of salvation, in the transitive sense; for passages like 1 Cor. ix. 14, ὁ κύριος διέταξεν τοῖς τὸ ed. καταγγέλλουσιν ἐκ τοῦ εὐωγγελίου ζῆν, do not admit of such a change of signification (cf. Phil. i. 12, 7,16). Further, the combination κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν pov, ἡμῶν, Rom. ii. 16, xvi. 25, 2 Tim. ii. 8, 2 Cor. iv. 3, 1 Thess. i. 5, 2 Thess. ii, 14, may be quite as suitably explained the news of salvation to be delivered or actually delivered by me or us; and in Gal. ii 7, πεπιστεῦσθαι τὸ εὐαγγ. τῆς ἀκροβυστίας, τῆς περιτομῆς (cf. 1 Tim. i, 11; 1 Thess. ii, 4), the apparently appro- priate explanation, “ evangelization of the preputium,’ “of the circumcision,” is excluded by the context, vv. 2, 5, so that the genitive must be regarded as possessive; cf. Rom. ix. 4, dv... αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι. Besides, the transitive rendering, publishing of salvation, evangelization, does not harmonize with the formation of the word, which points strongly to the passive meaning, news of salvation. Phil. iv. 15, ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ ev., is to be explained as in Mark i. 1; cf. Heb. ii. 3; John ii. 11. Εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ, Rom. i. 1, xv. 16, 2 Cor. xi. 7, 1 Thess. ii. 2, 8, 9, 1 Pet. iv. 17, designates the message of salvation according to its divine origin; cf. Rom. i, 2, 3, ὃ προεπηγγείλατο.. .. περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ ; on the other hand, ev. τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ in Rom. i. 9; Mark i. 1, ed ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ θεοῦ; Rom. xv. 19, τοῦ Χριστοῦ, as in Rom. i. 16, Rec.; 1 Cor. ix. 12; 2 Cor. ii, 12, ix. 13, x. 14; Gal. i 7; Phil. 1. 27 (cf. 1 Thess. iii. 2, συνεργὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν τῷ εὐ. τοῦ Χριστοῦ ; Mark viii. 35, x. 29, ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ καὶ ἕνεκεν τοῦ ed.) ; as also 1 Tim. i. 11, τὸ εὖ. τῆς δόξης τοῦ μακαρίου θεοῦ, compared with 2 Cor. iv. 6; 2 Cor. iv. 4, τὸ εὐ. τῆς δόξης τοῦ Χριστοῦ, —designate the news of salvation according to its purport, like τὸ ed. τῆς βασιλείας in Matt. iv. 23, ix. 35, xxiv. 14; Mark i. 14, Rec., τὸ ed. τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ, Tisch. τοῦ θεοῦ. Acts xx. 24, τὸ εὐ. τῆς χάριτος τοῦ θεοῦ; Eph. i. 13, τὸ ev. τῆς σωτηρίας ὑμῶν ; vi. 15, τῆς εἰρήνης. The explanation of the genitive in 2 Thess. i. 8, τοῖς μὴ ὑπακούουσιν τῷ ev, τοῦ κυρίου ἡμ. ᾿Ιησοῦ may remain doubtful; comp. Heb. ii. 3—We have the ex- pressions κηρύσσειν τὸ ev., Matt. iv. 23, ix. 35, xxiv. 14, xxvi. 13; Mark i 14, xiii. 10, xiv. 9, xvi. 15; Gal. ii, 2; 1 Thess. ii. 9; λαλεῖν τὸ ed., 1 Thess. 11. 2; διαμαρτύρασθαι τὸ ev., Acts xx. 24 (ef. εἰς μαρτύριον, Matt. xxiv. 14); τὸ ed. καταγγέλλειν, 1 Cor. ix. 14; τὸ εὐ. εὐωγγελίζεσθαι, 1 Cor. xv. 1; 2 Cor. xi. 7; Gal. 1. 11; Rev. xiv. 6; ἱερουργεῖν τὸ ev., Rom, xv. 16; δουλεύειν εἰς τὸ ed., Phil. 11, 22; συναθλεῖν ἐν τῷ εὐ., Phil. iv. 3 (ef. i. 27, συναθλεῖν τῇ πίστει τοῦ εὐ., cf. 1 Thess. iii. 2); πεπληρωκέναι τὸ εὐ. τοῦ Χριστοῦ, Rom. xv, 19; μεταστρέφειν τὸ ev. τοῦ Χριστοῦ, Gal. i. 7 (cf. v. 6, μετατίθεσθαι εἰς ἕτερον ev., ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο, to fall away to another gospel [qualitatively], which, however, is not [numerically] another, because there is no second message of salvation, but, at best, τὸ ev. τοῦ Χριστοῦ μετεστραμμένον ; cf. 2 Cor. xi. 4, ev. ἕτερον ὅ οὐκ ἐδέξασθε). Further, ὑπακούειν τῷ εὐ., Rom. x. 16; 2 Thess. i. 8; πιστεύειν ἐν τῷ εὖ., Mark 1, 15; συγκα- κοπαθεῖν τῷ εὐ., 2 Tim. i. 8—Joined with a substantive: 2 Cor. viii. 18, οὗ ὁ ἔπαινος ἐν τῷ εὐ.; 1 Cor. ix. 18, ἐξουσία ἐν τῷ ed. ; Phil. 1, 5, κοινωνία εἰς τὸ ev. ; cf. 1 Cor. ix. 23,

=. αὐ ον ee

Εὐαγγελίζω. 33 : Εὐαγγελίζω

πάντα ποιῷ διὰ τὸ εὐ. ἵνα συγκοινωνὸς αὐτοῦ γένωμαι. It occurs also, besides, in Acts xv. 7; Rom. xi. 28; 1 Cor. iv. 15, ix. 18; 2 Tim.i.10; Philem. 13. Not in Luke, Hebrews, Titus, 2 Peter, Jude, nor in the Gospel or Epistles of John.

Edayyerifo = εὐαγγέλια λέγειν, to bring a joyful message, good news. The active is unknown in the better Greek writers; rare also in the later ones, Dio Cass. lxi, 13.— LXX. 1 Sam. xxxi. 9; 2 Sam. xviii. 19, 20—In the N. Τὶ Rev. x. 7, εὐηγγέλισεν τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ Sovnous τοὺς προφήτας ; xiv. 6, ἔχοντα εὐαγγέλιον... εὐωγγελίσαι ἐπὶ τοὺς (al. τοὺς) κτλ. Elsewhere in the middle, Aristoph. Eg. 642, λόγους ἀγαθοὺς φέρων, εὐαγγελίσασθαι πρῶτον ὑμῖν βούλομαι; Theophr. Char. xvii. 5, πρὸς τὸν εὐωγγελιζόμενον ὅτε υἱός σοι γέγονεν ; Dem., Lucian, Plut.; LXX. 1 Kings i. 42, ἀγαθὰ evayyedicar.—tIn the N. T. 1 Thess, iii. 6, εὐαγγελισαμένου ἡμῖν τὴν πίστιν καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην ὑμῶν καὶ ὅτι K.7.r.; Luke 1, 19, ἀπεστάλην λαλῆσαι πρὸς σὲ καὶ εὐαγγελίσασθαί σοι ταῦτα. Except in these pas- sages, it is only used by the N. T. writers to denote the New Testament proclamation of salvation (vid. εὐαγγέλιον); cf. LXX. = W3, Isa. xl. 9, compared with ver. 10; Isa. lii. 7, ὡς πόδες εὐαγγελιζομένου ἀκοὴν εἰρήνης, ὡς εὐαγγελιζόμενος ἀγαθά; 1xi. 1, εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς ; Ps, xl. 10, εὐηγγελισάμην δικαιοσύνην ; Heb. iv. 2-6. Cf. also the combination with κηρύσσειν, διδάσκειν, παρακαλεῖν, μαθητεύειν, Luke iii. 18, viii. 1, ix. 6, compared with ver. 2, xx. 1; Acts v. 42, xiv. 21—The augment comes after ed... εὐηγγελίζετο, ete. Cf. Lobeck, Phryn. 269; Winer, 66; Kriiger, sec. 28. 4. 6, 15. 2.

L Middle εὐαγγελέζομαι. (1) With an object of the person or the thing: to publish something (to some one) as a divine message of salvation. (a) τί τινι. Luke ii. 10, εὐαγγελίζομαι ὑμῖν χαρὰν μεγάλην (ὅτι ἐτέχθη ὑμῖν σήμερον σωτήρ) ; Luke iv. 43, ταῖς ἑτέραις πόλεσιν εὐωγγελίσασθαί με δεῖ τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ; Acts viii. 35, εὐηγγε- λίσατο αὐτῷ τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν ; Acts xvii. 18, τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν καὶ τὴν ἀνάστασιν (αὐτοῖς, Rec., and Lachm., which Tisch. omits) εὐηγγελίζετο;; 1 Cor. xv. 1, τὸ εὐ. ὃ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν ; 2 Cor. xi. 7, τὸ τοῦ θ. εὐ. εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν ; Gal. i. 8, παρ᾽ ὃ εὐηγγελισάμεθα ὑμῖν ; Eph. ii. 17, εὐηγγελίσατο εἰρήνην ὑμῖν. Instead of the dative of the person, ἐν with the dat., Gal. i 16, ἵνα εὐωγγελίζωμαι αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ; Eph. iii. 8, ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν εὐωγγελίσασθαι τὸ ἀνεξιχνίαστον πλοῦτος τοῦ Χριστοῦ. (Ὁ) tl. Luke viii. 1, τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ; Acts viii. 12, τὰ περὶ τῆς βασιλείας (Tisch. omits τὰ) καὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ; Acts ν. 42, ᾿Ιησοῦν τὸν Χριστόν ; viii. 4, τὸν λόγον (cf. vv. 5,12); xv. 35, τὸν λόγον τοῦ κυρίου ; x. 36; Rom. x. 15, εἰρήνην, τὰ ἀγαθά (Isa. 111. 7); Gal. i. 23, τὴν πίστιν; Acts-xiv. 15 followed by ace. and inf., εὐαγγελιζόμενοι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τούτων τῶν ματαίων ἐπιστρέφειν ἐπὶ θεὸν ζῶντα. (c) τέ τινα. Acts xiii. 32, ἡμεῖς ὑμᾶς εὐωγγελιζόμεθα τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν K.T.r.; ef. Alciphr. Zp. iii. 12, ταῦτά σε οὖν εὐαγγελίζομαι; Heliod. Aeth. ii. 10, Εὐαγγελίζομαί σε τὴν Anpawérns τέλευτήν ; Chrys. Hom. 106, ἔστι δὲ εὐαγγέλιον ἑρμηνεία τοῦ πράγματος ... εὐαγγελίζεται γὰρ ἡμᾶς τὴν πολύμνητον τοῦ σωτῆρος οἰκονομίαν. (2) Without ἃ thing for its object = ἐο proclaim the divine message of salvation. (a) τινί, Luke iv. 18; Rom. i 15; 1 Cor. xv. 2; Gal. i. 8, iv. 13; εἰς, 2 Cor. x. 16 (cf. 1 Pet. 1, 25). (8) τινά.

E

Ε ὐαγγελιστής 94 “Ἅγιος

the most intensive construction = by proclaiming the message of salvation, to bring one into relation to it, to evangelize him. Luke iii. 18; Acts viii. 25, 40, xiv. 21, xvi. 10; Gal. i 9; 1 Pet. 1. 12, ἃ νῦν ἀνηγγέλη ὑμῖν διὰ τῶν εὐαγγελισαμένων ὑμᾶς ; cf. Euseb. Vit. Const. iii. 26: τᾶς γυναῖκας εὐαγγελιζόμενος. Cf. Lobeck, Phryn. 268. (c) Used abso- lutely, Luke ix. 6, xx. 1; Acts xiv. 7; Rom. xv. 20; 1 Cor. i. 17, ix. 16, 18.

II. Passive. (1) With an impersonal subject. Luke xvi. 16, ἡ Bac. τοῦ 0. εὐαγγε- Aiferae; Gal. 1. 11, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν ὑπ᾽ ἐμοῦ; 1 Pet. i. 25, τὸ ῥῆμα τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν εἰς ὑμᾶς ; iv. 6, νεκροῖς εὐηγγελίσθη. (2) With a personal subject. Matt. xi. 5, πτωχοὶ εὐωγγέλίζονται (compare Luke iv. 18); Luke vii. 22; Heb. iv. 2, 6.

Εὐαγγελιστής, od, ὁ, only in N. T. and ecclesiastical Greek, proclaimer of the message of salvation, Acts xxi. 8; Eph. iv. 11; 2 Tim. iv. 5. (“ Heralds of the gospel history ;” Otto, die geschichtl. Verh. der Pastoralbr. p. 80.) Theodoret’s definition does not touch the essence of the word: ἐκεῖνοι περιΐοντες ἐκήρυττον ; cf. 2 Tim. iv. 4, 5, ἐπὶ τοὺς μύθους ἐκτραπήσονται. σὺ δὲ... ἔργον ποίησον εὐαγγελιστοῦ, with Rom. 1. 16; 1 Cor. i, 17; Eph. iv. 11; Jerome, omnis apostolus evangelista, non omnis evangelista apostolus. In distinction from the προφήτης, the evangelist speaks of the facts of re- demption, the revelations of God (cf. the combinations κηρύσσειν, διαμαρτύρεσθαι τὸ ev., etc., sv. εὐαγγέλιον), the διδάσκαλος about them; the pod. has revelations, Cf. Harless on Eph. iv. 11. At a subsequent period (Chrys.) the authors of the four Gospels were so called,

Προευαγγελίξομαει, to proclaim beforehand a joyful message, or something as ἃ joyful message. Philo, de nomm. mut. p. 1069, ed. Paris, τὸν νεοττὸν οὐχ opas,... τὴν ἐλπίδα τοῦ πέτεσθαι δυνήσεσθαι προευαγγελιζόμενος ; id. de mund. op. ἢ, ὧν ἡ μὲν (se, πρωΐα) προευαγγελίζεται μέλλοντα ἥλιον ἀνίσχειν ; Mang., quorum alterum praenunciat lactum adventum solis orituri. Gal. iii. 8, προευηγγελίσατο (touching the augm., vid. 8.0. εὐαγγελίζω) τῷ ᾿Αβραάμ = ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι, g.v.; cf. the correspondence between ἐπαγγελία and εὐαγγέλιον under εὐαγγέλιον, according to which ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι does not materially differ from προευαγγελιζέσθαι. Bengel says on this passage: Verbwm ad catachresin accedens suavissime. Abrahamo ante tempora evangelii evangelizatum est. Evangeliwm lege antiquius. Cf. Gal. iii, 12, 16 sqq.

“Aystos, (a, wv, holy, is the rarest of five synonyms, ἱερός, ὅσιος, σεμνός, ἅγιος, ἁγνός, which the Greeks had to express the idea of holiness, so far at least as they knew such an idea. In biblical Greek, on the other hand, of the Old as well as of the New Testament, it is the only word by which the biblical conception of holiness is expressed,— that conception which pervades the Bible throughout, which moulds the whole of divine revelation, and in which, we may say with perfect truth, are centred the fundamental and leading principles and aims of that revelation. What constitutes the essence of holiness in the biblical sense is not primarily contained in any of the above

“Α4γιος 35 “Ἅγιος

named synonyms; the conception is of purely biblical growth, and whatever the Greeks surmised and thought concerning the holiness of Divinity in any sense remotely similar to that in which Holy Scripture speaks of it, they had not any one distinct word for it, least of all did they express it by any of the terms in question. For the purpose of rendering or receiving the biblical conception and its contents, these terms can only come into consideration or be regarded as designations of God’s holiness in so far as holiness is that element in the divine nature which lies at the basis of, determines and moulds, the reverence which is due from man towards God,—therefore in @ purely formal sense. As Greek of itself did not possess the right word for it, the only term presenting itself as in any degree appropriate—dy.os—had to be filled and coined afresh with a new meaning ; and thus ἅγιος is one of the words wherein the radical influence, the transforming and newly fashioning power of revealed religion, is most clearly shown, Of all the ideas which, within the world subjected to the influence of Christianity or in the modern lan- guages, are bound up in the word holy, none are to be found in the ancient tongues, Greek and Latin, in the terms above named, save those of “the sublime,’ “the consecrated,” “the venerable.” The main element—the moral—is utterly wanting. Hence it is not merely a topic of linguistic interest, it is a significant moral phenomenon which here presents itself to our inquiry.

In order to show, first of all, that the Greeks did not possess the true conception of holiness, as it more or less fully has penetrated the consciousness of mankind through revealed religion, we must anticipate, so far as to assert that holiness in the Scripture sense is a historico-ethical conception. Now, as to the Homeric age, Nigelsbach (Homer. Theol. i. 12) says: “Holiness, as a constituent element of the Divine viewed in itself, or only perceived in the intercourse of the gods among themselves, is never mentioned, Never is there a title given to the Godhead indicating a consciousness similar to that in which the Bible speaks of the holiness of the true God.” Afterwards, indeed (cf. Nigelsbach, Nachhomer. Theol. i. 28 sqq.), all moral and ontological perfections are attributed to the gods (Isocr. xi. 41: ἐγὼ μὲν οὖν ody ὅπως τοὺς θεοὺς ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ τοὺς ἐξ ἐκείνων γεγονότας οὐδεμίας ἡγοῦμαι κακίας μετασχεῖν, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτούς τε πάσας ἔχοντας τὰς ἀρετὰς φῦναι καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις τῶν καλλίστων ἐπιτηδευμάτων ἡγεμόνας καὶ διδασκάλους γεγενῆσθαι. Plato, Rep. ii. 381 C), and the Greek becomes conscious of the holiness of his deity, principally in that not only does he punish evil outwardly,—it might be purely for the sake of order and discipline, but inwardly hates evil and blames the man.” But it does not rest here. Holiness, so far as in these aspects the Greeks became conscious of it, at once takes up an element which converts it into its direct opposite, into unholiness. For the νέμεσις, “the re-establishing of the right relation between God and man,” wherein precisely divine holiness manifests itself, is at once turned into jealousy against mankind (τὸ θεῖον πᾶν ἐὸν φθονερόν, Herod. i. 32), because “the deity sees in every extraordinary happiness, in every extraordinary greatness which falls to the lot of man, even apart from any presumptuousness, an injury to his preroga

“Ἅγιος 36 “Ἅγιος

tive, which he guards with envious jealousy.” And now comes the last step: “a satanic element is attributed to the deity, and the seducing and deluding of man into sin is ascribed to him.” In Theogn. 401 a man is spoken of who strives after ἀρετή, because he hopes for his happiness from it. But—petit dle virtutem ultra quam satis est. The excess of such striving is to the gods a reason for plunging him into sin. It was beyond the power of the Greeks to carry out and maintain their presentiments of the holiness of the Deity even to the remotest approach to the scriptural “Be ye holy, for I am holy,” to say nothing of carrying it on to the “I am holy, I the Lord, who sanctifieth you.” We shall see how the scriptural conception of God’s holiness, notwithstanding the original affinity, is diametrically opposite to all the Greek notions; how, whereas these very views of holiness exclude from the gods all possibility of love (Nigelsbach, Nach- homer. Theol, i. 3'7),—so that Aristotle can say, “ the Deity exists not to love, but to be loved,”—the scriptural conception of holiness unfolds itself only when in closest connec- tion with divine love, and only thus can it be apprehended. It is, however, important for us to know that the Greek language offered no single and adequate term whereby to express that combination of all moral and ontological perfections which Isocrates and Plato demand for the gods.

None of the words to be considered, ἱερός, ὅσιος, σεμνός, ἅγιος, ἁγνός, have anything of this fulness of meaning, either etymologically or by usage. It is only as formal desig- nations of the divine holiness, as we have already said, that they come into consideration, for the purpose of rendering and receiving the biblical conception; and it is significant that the rarest of them, ἅγιος, is the very one which biblical Greek takes into its service, the word which, according to usage, was least affected with the profane spirit, and there- fore offered the purest vessel for the new contents; whereas the most frequently recurring word in classical Greek, ἱερός, is almost completely excluded from Scripture use. “Ἅγιος is so seldom used in classical Greek, “that it never occurs in the Tragedians—that highest court of appeal for Attic usage—save in one doubtful passage (Aeschylus, Suppl. 858) ;” see Zezschwitz ; whereas ἱερός is quite unusual in biblical Greek, in the LXX. especially so rare, that while constantly in the Apocrypha, and, to say the least, often still in the N. T., the Holy Place is designated τὸ ἱερόν, the LXX. always name it τὸ ἅγιον, τὰ ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων, ναὸς ἅγιος (this latter in classical Greek = ἱερὸν ἅγιον). See ἱερός. Σεμνός only is in biblical Greek still rarer than ἱερός. “Ὅσιος, on the contrary, and ὧγνός have a clearly defined sphere far narrower than in classical Greek. In order to apprehend and estimate this fact, it will be convenient to represent the worth and import of these terms in classical usage ; thus we shall find that in fact &yos alone of them all, etymologically and: by usage, was the first to suit the scriptural “holy,” and that the biblical conception in its turn, which identified itself with the word, so far outstretched its literal meaning, that the newly-coined ἅγιος formed the root of a family of words unknown to classical usage, ἁγιότης, ἁγιωσύνη, ἁγιάζω, ἁγιασμός, ἁγίασμα, ἁγιαστήριον, καθωγιάζειν, whereas it was in classical Greek simply a single member of the family of words derived from dyos.

ἜΝ §

“Αγιος 37 “Aros

It is first to be remembered that the strictly ceremonial, and therefore religious, terms for holiness are ἱερός and ἁγνός, and likewise ἅγιος where it occurs; further, that of these ἁγνός only, and of the two remaining synonyms σεμνός only, are predicated of the gods, and this, moreover, in a sense and manner which show that holiness in the biblical mean- ing did not harmonize with the religious conceptions of the Greeks. “Ὅσιος denotes that which, through divine or human law, custom, usage, is consecrated (becharmed, so to speak), but it has by no means any distinctively religious import. While in connection, eg., with δίκαιος it denotes divine right, and δίκαια, human precepts; on the other hand, when used with ἱερός, it signifies what is set apart as holy by man, “ what is consecrated and sanctioned by universal law and consent” (Passow),—ge/reit, as is said in old German,—iepés referring to divine, divinely consecrated things, precepts, etc. In the LXX. it is with happy tact (see 5.0. ὅσιος) employed to represent the Heb. ὙΠ, for which in the N. T. we have ἅγιος καὶ ἠγαπημένος ; a few times also = di (Deut. xxix. 19), ὙΠῸ, 1+, On, OYA, but never for ViI?P.—epvos, from the root σεβ, contains the fundamental idea of reverential dread, awe-struck reverence (see 8.0. σέβω), and denotes what inspires reverence and awe. It is predicated of the gods——among the Attics specially of the Eumenides,—and of all “that belongs to the gods and is sacred to them, of what emanates from them, and other- wise is under their protection and care” (Passow). Yet in use it denotes, almost even less than ὅσιος, any specially religious or even ethico-religious conception, and thus is quite inadequate for the biblical idea of holiness. For it not only stands also “ for what is humanly venerable, all that by usage, power, or other distinguishing feature is raised in moral and intellectual dignity above the ordinary” (Passow), but is used, with a purely external reference, of what is grand, magnificent, tasteful, even fine (eg. dress), that excites attention = impressive, affecting, sanctimonious (in Eurip.). It does not occur in the LXX.; in the N. T. in four places only: Phil. iv. 8; 1 Tim. iii. 8, 11; Tit. ii, 2. “Ὅσιος and σεμνός are both only secondary designations of the religious conception of holiness, and thus are inappropriate to represent the Scripture conception.

The choice thus remained between the purely religious or ceremonial terms ἱερός, ἅγιος, and ἁγνός. Of these ἱερός is not only the most frequent, but the most appropriate word with a Greek to express his notion of holiness, so far as this is expressed in the synonyms now before us; whereas ἅγιος only now and then expresses a special feature of the ἱερόν, and ἁγνός soon by usage obtained so one-sided an application and meaning, that it might have been difficult to recoin it in the requisite way.

‘Iepos is, in its fundamental meaning, a term denoting the outward manifestation of divine greatness. Connected with the Sanscrit ishiras, vigorous, fresh, blooming, it means primarily vigorous, mighty, great——a meaning which Curtius traces still in ἱερὸς ἐχθύς, ἱερὴ is. “During the best period of the Homeric epos, holy must already have been its pre- vailing signification ; but in particular forms of expression it still retained the older, the sensuous meaning” (Curtius, p. 358). It is a predicate of all that stands in connection with the gods or comes from them, or is consecrated to them; but its contents are 90

“Ἅγιος 38 “Αγιος

little defined, that quite generally and in the formal sense it denotes what is divine, θεῖον, eg. in the combinations Hes. Theogn. 57, Ζεῦς ἱερὸν λέχος els ἀναβαίνων ; II. xi. 84, ἱερὸν yap ; xi. 194, κνέφας. Cf. Niigelsbach, Homer, Theol. i. 24: “ ἱερά, in ordinary usage, were not merely things formally consecrated by men to the gods, eg. towns, places; also not merely things with which are connected moral relations placed under the protection of the gods,—as in 71. xviii. 504, the ἱερὸς κύκλος of the judges; 71, xvii. 464, the chariot board, δίφρος, as the place of sacred companionship between the warrior and the charioteer,— but those things also are called ἱερά which one views as directly and originally the property of the gods. With this ἱερός we may compare, not indeed δῖος, which, according to Nitzsch (on Od. i. p. 189), refers to birth and origin, but perhaps θεῖος, which, like divinus, some- times signifies godlike, extraordinary, as it were supernatural excellence, eg. in θεῖος χορός, Od. viii. 264, and sometimes expresses the divine origin of a gift or talent; thus, salt is ealled θεῖον, J7. ix. 214.”

It is particularly to be observed that fepos is never used as an epithet of the gods them- selves, and is as little employed even in a remotely similar sense of men, as the biblical wp and its derivatives. For instance, we seek in vain among the derivatives and compounds of ἑερός for the conception of hallowing, which has attached itself to the biblical term holy. Sometimes, perhaps, it occurs of men in the same sense,—as in Pind. Pyth. v. 97, kings are called ἱεροί, because they are under the protection of the gods, and derive their dignity from the gods (Hom. 7]. ii. 205); Aristoph. Ran. 652, ἱερὸς ἄνθρωπος, of one initiated into the mysteries; Plut. De 506». daem. 589 D, οἱ τῶν δαιμόνων λόγοι διὰ πάντων φερόμενοι - μόνοις ἐνηχοῦσι Tots ἀθόρυβον ἦθος καὶ νήνεμον ἔχουσι τὴν ψυχήν" ods δὲ καὶ ἱεροὺς καὶ δαιμονίους ἀνθρώπους καλοῦμεν ; De def. orac. 2, ἄνδρες ἱεροὶ δύο συνδραμόντες εἰς Δελφούς, —and it might be regarded as analogous when, in 2 Kings iv. 9, Elisha is called by the Shunamite woman 47? O78 v8; but this is also the only and not quite perfect analogy in biblical usage in which Ὁ (only occurring thus again, Ps. evi. 16) is used of individual persons. In 2 Pet. i. 21, the reading of the Rec. Text, of ἅγιοι θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι (instead of ἀπὸ θεοῦ avOp.), would be remotely analogous to this use of fepds. In De Alex. fort. i. 10, Plutarch calls the Indian gymnosophists ἄνδρες ἱεροὶ καὶ αὐτόνομοι ; not because they are τῷ θεῷ σχολάξοντες, as he describes them further on, but, as the connection with αὐτόνομοι suggests, in the same sense in which he elsewhere joins ἀνὴρ ἱερὸς καὶ ἄσυλος = inviolable, Mor. 410 A; Vit. Tib. Graech. 14, 15, 21; ef. Quaest. Rom. 219 B, τὰ ἄσυλα καὶ ἅγια ἱερά; yet this again is something different from that unapproachableness which the biblical holy involves, Isa. Ιχν. 5, where the LXX. renders wp by καθαρὸς εἶναι. The ethical character of the biblical holy is quite foreign to the Greek ἱερός. There is only one known passage wherein ἱερός, as the predicate of a man, is possibly, as Suidas thinks, synon. with εὐσεβής, Soph. Oed. Col. 287, ἥκω yap ἱερὸς εὐσεβής te καὶ φέρων ὄνησιν ἀστοῖς τοῖσδ. Still it seems to me at least doubtful whether even here ἱερός stands in an ethical sense, and does not rather refer to the divine guidance and conduct of Oedipus. Plato, De leg. 319 A, νεμεσᾷ yap ὁ θεὸς ὅταν τις Weyn τὸν ἑαυτῷ ὅμοιον ἢ ἐπαινῇ τὸν

Aris $9 “Ἅγιος

ἑαυτῷ ἐναντίως ἔχοντα ἔστι δ᾽ οὗτος ὁ ἀγαθός" μὴ γὰρ τοι οἴου λίθους μὲν εἶναι ἱεροὺς καὶ ξύλα καὶ ὄρνεα καὶ ὄφεις, ἀνθρώπους δὲ μή" ἀλλὰ πάντων τούτων ἱερώτατόν ἐστιν ἄνθρω- πος ὁ ἀγαθός, καὶ μιαρωτάτον ὁ πονηρός, proves not only that it was not usual to attribute ἱερός as a predicate to men, but also that when it was thus used it possessed no ethical meaning at all. Most widely removed from the ethical meaning is the use of it, to mention one more instance, in Luen. Macrob. 29, ἱερώτατε Κυίντελλε. Tittm. Syn. N. 7", in voce ἱερός proprie nihil aliud cogitatur, quam quod res quaedam aut persona Deo sacra sit, nulla ingenii morumque ratione habita ; imprimis quod sacris inservit.

Of ἅγεος, likewise, it is true that neither is it a predicate of the gods nor is it used of men. It denotes a quality of the ἱερόν (ze. θεῖον), with which, for the most part, in the few places where it occurs, it is joined, and it manifestly has more of an ethical character than ἱερός, because it gives prominence to that side of the ἱερόν which demands from men conduct characterized by moral reverence and reverential fear, awe-inspiring, reverend. It often occurs in Herodotus, eg. ii. 41. 3, ᾿Αφροδίτης ἱερὸν ἅγιον ; ii. 44. 1, ἱερὸν Ηρακλέους ἅγιον ; Xen. Hell. iii. 2. 19, ἔνθα ἣν ᾿Αρτέμιδος ἱερὸν para ἅγιον. Often also in Plutarch, eg. De tranquil. an. 477 C, ἱερὲν μὲν yap ἁγιώτατον ὁ κόσμος ἐστὶν καὶ θεοπρεπέστατον, and elsewhere. In the same connection also in Plato, Crit. 110 Ο, ἐν μέσῳ μὲν ἱερὸν ἅγιον αὐτόθι τῆς te Κλειτοῦς καὶ τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος ἄβατον adeiro. It appears specially to have been a predicate of temples or places for worship (Plat. Legg. x. 904 D, μετέβαλε τόπον ἅγιον ὅλον), and indeed, according to Plat. Legg. x. 884, of those places consecrated to the gods which claimed general reverence; for it occurs in this passage of Plato, not of private, but only of public sanctuaries: μέγιστα δὲ (se. kaxd)—ai τῶν νέων ἀκολασίαι τε καὶ ὕβρεις" εἰς μέγιστα δέ, ὅταν εἰς ἱερὰ γίγνωνται, καὶ διαφερόντως αὖ μεγάλα ὅταν εἰς δημόσια καὶ ἅγια ἢ κατὰ μέρη Kowd—distinguished from ἱερὰ ἴδια, of which dya cannot, according to this, be properly predicated——The connection of the word with σεμνός also confirms the meaning laid down, ὥγιος being used to complete or strengthen σεμνός ; Plato, Sophist. 249 A, σεμνὸν καὶ ἅγιον νοῦν οὐκ ἔχον ; Crit. 51 A, μητρός τε καὶ πατρὸς καὶ τῶν ἄλλων προγόνων ἁπάντων τιμιώτερόν ἐστι ἡ πατρὶς καὶ σεμνότερον καὶ ἁγιώτερον καὶ ἐν μείζονι μοίρᾳ καὶ παρὰ θεοῖς καὶ παρ᾽ ἀνθρώπαις. “Αγιος also occurs in Plut. Quaest. Rom. 290 B, τὰ ἄσυλα καὶ ἅγια ἱερά; Plato, Legg. v. 729 E, πρὸς τοὺς ξένους διανοητέον ὡς ἁγίωτατα συμβόλαια ὄντας. The important distinction between ὥγιος and ἱερός appears in Plut. Conviv. v. 682 C, [ot ἐρωτικοὶ καὶ ἀκόλαστοι] τελευτῶντες οὐδὲ τῶν ἁγιωτάτων ἀπέχεσθαι δύνανται σωμάτων, while the prostituted bodies of the ἱεροδούλοι are called ἱερὰ σώματα.

If, now, we pass on to examine the etymology of the word, it appears with tolerable, indeed we might say with full, certainty that ἅγιος signifies what deserves and claims moral and religious reverence; and this was true originally of ἁγνός also, though in it that meaning was by use obliterated, so that ἅγιος is the only word left appropriate to denote a purely religious conception of holiness. That it is akin to the German “hegen, Haag, Gehege,” is a fanciful rather than a true conjecture, and must decidedly be rejected, accord-

“Ἅγιος 40 “Αγιος

ing to the laws of consonantal change. In Greek it is connected with &yos, ἅξομαι, and their derivatives; and the consideration of these words, to bring into relief the primary meaning, is the more indispensable, because Greek lexicographers have hitherto passed them by rather carelessly. “Afoua:, a rare word, chiefly used in Homer and the Tragg. (in the pres. and imp. middle, once only in Sophocles in the active), denotes pious dread and awe of the gods and of parents, consequently piety, and is by Eustathius explained by σέβομαι (see above, the combination of ἅγιος and σεμνές), Jl. v. 830, μηδ᾽ Geo θοῦρον “Apna; i. 21, ᾿Απόλλωνα ; Od. ix. 478, ξένους. It is used absolutely in Od. ix. 200, οὕνεκά μιν σὺν παιδὶ περισχόμεθ᾽ ἠδὲ γυναικὶ ἁξόμενοι' ᾧκει yap ἐν ἄλσεϊ--- ATrodwvos.— According to latest investigations, ἅγος must not be confounded with ἄγος, a word hitherto regarded as the Ionic form of &yos. Curtius (p, 155 sqq.) compares with ἄγος (=guilt, curse) the Sanscrit Agas, offence, and with ὥγος (= consecration, sacrifice; Hesych.: ἅγνισμα θυσίας) the Sanscrit jag, jagami, sacrificio, colo; jagus, jigam, jagiiam, sacrifice ; the Zend yaz, “to worship,” “to sacrifice ;’ yazu, “ great,” “exalted.” Accordingly, ἅγιος would be what is an object of religious or sacrificial reverence. When we no longer identify dyos with the more frequent ἄγος, we find it occurs very seldom. With the signification “ sacrifice,” “ propitiatory sacrifice,” it is used in Soph. Fr. 703; Ant. 775, φορβῆς τοσοῦτον ὡς ἅγος μόνον προθείς, ὅπως μίασμα πᾶσ᾽ ὑπεκφύγῃ πόλις. In Thue. i. 126. 1, 127. 1, 128. 1, 2,135.1, 2. 18. 1, we must read, not ὥγος, but ἄγος ἐλαύνειν =“ to remove the trespass,” “to expiate.” So also in Plutarch. That the two words must be distinguished, is clear also from the express direction of the Etym. M. that ayios, with the signification μιαρός, has the spiritus lenis, according to which, then, the note of the scholiast on Soph. Qed. R. 656 must be corrected: κατ᾽ εὐφημισμὸν καὶ τὰ μιάσματα ἄγη λέγεται, καὶ οἱ μιαροὶ ἐναγεῖς καλοῦνται. But at all events it is manifest, from the con- founding of the two words, that the ideas of a sacrificial process, of religious reverence, were associated with dyos, and consequently with ἅγιος. If one might even say, without danger of specializing the conception too much, that ἅγιος denotes what is to be reverenced by sacrifice or propitiation (see above, Soph. Ant. 775), we should have herein an excellent starting-point for the choice of this word to express the biblical conception of holiness, These conceptions must on no account be excluded from the meaning of the word because they reappear in all the other words which belong to this stem. The derivatives of ἅγιος are in this connection to be left out of consideration, because (as is above stated and explained) they belong, without an exception, to biblical and patristic Greek. We have here only to do with the derivatives of ἅγος : dyifw, ἁγισμός, ἁγιστεύω, ἁγιστεία, ἁγνός, and the derivatives of this last one. ‘“Ayifw is=to consecrate, eg. altars; to consecrate sacrifices, 1.6. to offer them ; and the often-used καθαγίξω = to sacrifice, to burn as a sacrifice ; évayitw, specially of sacrifices to the dead; ἁγισμοὺς ποιεῖν, to bring offerings (Diod. Sic. iv. 39); ἁγιστεύειν = to perform the holy rites; also ἐφαγιστεύειν. Plat. Legg. vi. 759 D, ὁ μέλλων καθ᾽ ἱεροὺς νόμους περὶ τὰ θεῖα ἱκανῶς ἁγιστεύειν, where Timaeus explains ἁγιστεύειν by ἱεροθύτειν. Cf. Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. i. 40, ἁγιστεύοντες δὲ τὴν ἱερουργίαν

ew ee

OD EE

"Ayus ΄ 41 “Ἅγιος

ἔθεσιν ᾿ Ἑλληνικοῖς. ---- Αγιστεία signifies the cultus, the holy rites accompanying the sacrifices, the temple service; see Lexicons. ‘Aryvos, a form like σεμνός, δεινός, at first equivalent to reverenced, consecrated, is an attribute of the gods, and of what is dedicated or made holy to them—-sacrifices, places of worship, feasts. Concerning the strange transi- tion of the word to the meaning pure, chaste, unmixed, in which it is then adopted in biblical usage, see dyvos. For the connection of this word also with acts of worship, we have not only such combinations as ἁγνῶς καὶ καθαρῶς ἔρδειν τοῖς θεοῖς, Hes. O. 339 ; Soph. Trach. 257, 60 ἁγνὸς jv =atoned for, but also the derivatives, ἁγνεύειν, which means not only to be pure, chaste, but also to purify, to expiate, ayvifew, ἅγνισμα, ἁγνισμός, ἀφαγνίζειν, ἐφαγνίζειν, of sacrificial purification.

From this it is evident that ἅγιος is an exclusively ethico-religious conception, which is not the case with the other synonyms excepting dyvds, and even in the case of ὧγνός is not always kept to. Τῇ it does not also attribute to the subject to which it belongs any moral quality, yet it demands for it not only a religious, but an ethico-religious conduct ; and for this very reason, this, the rarest of all the terms in question, is the most appro- priate to take up into itself and to convey the biblical conception of holiness. Narrow enough, and not yet depreciated, so as not to injure the special religious or historico- ethical character of the biblical conception, and again, by virtue of its rare use, wide enough to embrace the essence of biblical holiness, completely new to the view of profane writers, it has been applied by the LXX. as the almost regular translation of v71?, and has received such a distinct impress in biblical usage as to form (as already frequently remarked) the root word of a newly formed series: ἁγιέτης, ἁγιωσύνη, ἁγιάζειν, ἁγιασμός, ἁγίασμα, ἁγιαστήριον, καθαγιάξειν, representing the Hebrew wp and its derivatives; whereas of the derivatives of dyos, belonging to classical Greek, only those of ἁγνός reappear in biblical Greek, answering to the close affinity between ἅγιος and dyvos, as this appears still more in the derivatives of the latter than in dyv/s itself and its usage. For completeness’ sake it may further be remarked, that dyvds itself never serves as a transla- tion of ΟΡ ; this word is rendered only by καθαρός (Num. v. 17) besides ἅγιος ; wap by καθαρὸν εἶναι, Isa. lxv. 5 ; δοξάζειν, Isa. v. 16 ; Piel, Hiphil, Hithpael = ἁγνίζειν, Josh. iii. 5 ; Ex. xix. 10; 2 Chron. xxx. 17, ete.; καθαρίζειν, Job i. 5, and also by the explanatory rendering of it by διαστέλλειν, Josh. xx. 7; παρατάσσειν, Jer. vi. 4 (mapackevdte 2) ; ἀναβιβάζξειν, Jer. li. 28.

We have now to inquire into the import and range of the biblical conception of holiness which, transferred to ἅγιος by the LXX., established its authority in the hitherto profane sphere by the N. T. announcement of salvation. There is a certain difference between O. and N, T. usage, not affecting the import of the word, but arising out of the historical relations of N. T. revelation to the O. T, The N. T. does not introduce what is actually new, it simply adopts a conception clearly and definitely expressed in the O. T.; but the thing itself which corresponds to the word is realized in the N. T, The difficulty of clearly bringing out, not one side nor a few aspects only of the conception, but

F

“Ἅγιος 42 “Ἅγιος

its complete fulness, and the various opinions entertained on the subject which are least of all settled by the latest attempt (that of Diestel) to define holy as a relative conception, demand yet a fuller investigation.

First, it is to be noted that holiness is predicated (besides God) of those men and things only which either God has appropriated as His own, or have been dedicated to Him by men. Now, as this predicate is applied to other subjects besides God only in a secondary and derived manner, on account of certain relations in which they stand to Him (as is expressly stated in Deut. xxviii. 9, 10: “Jehovah shall establish thee an holy people to Himself, as He hath sworn unto thee,...and all the people of the earth shall see that the , name of Jehovah is named upon thee”), it is self-evident that the predicate of holiness does not in a formal sense express the establishment of such relations, but that the men and things in question themselves and in their degree participate in the divine holiness, and embody and manifest it. The question therefore arises first and foremost, What do we express concerning God when we predicate holiness of Him ?

Etymologically, the signification of ¥17P is not free from doubt. “The most probable view is, that the verbal stem wp, which is akin to won (as 2 ὺρ to 3¥n, ASP to AYN, INP to yn, etc.), comes from the root v4, from which also xv springs, which primarily signifies enituit, to break forth shiningly” (Oehler, in Herzog’s R.-Encyk. xix. 618). Hofmann, on the contrary, finds (Schriftbeweis, i. 82) that ΕὟΡ “means what is out of the common course, beyond the common order of things,” so that the affinity between the roots wan and wp answers to the affinity of their meaning; “both denote that which is different : the former, different from what has been ; the latter, different from the common.” The word, however, thus, in the face of the psychological laws of language, obtains a purely formal abstract meaning, and the rich contents of the conception which it expresses would appear only after a very careful reflection upon the difference between vitp and Sin; indeed, by the explanation God is the Holy One, “as He is the absolutely separate self-contained Being who, in contrast with the world to which He does not belong, is in His supra- mundane essence the self-existent one,” we express in a purely negative way a formal relation between God and the world, and in reality it is only asserted that holiness is the negation of all relation between God and the world. Besides, it will appear that the signification to separate, belongs to wp only in a derived manner.

We must try to discover the essence of holiness, from the connection in which the word occurs, and from its historical usage. It is mentioned for the first time when God’s presence among the people chosen and prepared for Him begins, and when an historical relation of communion takes the place of what had till then been only individual inter- course. wp does not occur in Genesis, nor its derivatives, except in chap. ii. 3. We first meet with it in Ex. iii. 5, in the account of God's appearing to Moses in the burning bush which was not consumed, wherein is presented to us a perfect and unique symbol of the holiness of God in Israel. Next,—apart from Ex. xii. 16, xiii. 2—in Ex. xv. we find, with reference to the deliverance wrought by God for His people, the first. express

ee ΣΝ

“Ἅγιος 48 “Ἅγιος

emphasizing of God’s holiness, ver. 11: “Who is like unto Thee among the gods, Ὁ Jehovah ? who is like unto Thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders ?” Ver. 13: “Thou hast in Thy mercy led forth the people whom Thou hast redeemed: Thou hast led them by Thy power to the dwelling of Thy holiness.” Ver. 17: “Thou shalt bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of Thy inheritance, in the place which Thou hast prepared for Thy dwelling, Jehovah ; in the holy place, O Lord, that Thy hands have prepared. Jehovah shall be king for ever and ever.” God’s first great redemptive act for Israel—their marvellous deliverance out of Egypt—had been accom- plished ; God’s holiness had been displayed in His judgments upon Egypt, while in Israel His grace was experienced, and had unfolded itself in the sovereign rule of Jehovah, the covenant God. This twofold proof of God’s holiness—in judgment and in redemption— continually meets us. Henceforward God in His holiness is present among His people, and the place of His presence is His sanctuary, and there was Israel’s dwelling to be (ef. Isa. xiv. 10). God’s holiness, accordingly, must manifest itself in and upon Israel ; Israel must participate in it. “Ye shall be holy, for I am holy,” is henceforward the keynote and the norm of the union subsisting between God and His people; so that the “T am holy” is explained, “I am holy, Jehovah, who sanctifieth you,” Lev. xxi. 8; Ex. xxxi. 18.

The holiness of God, which at first manifested itself thus in gracious or retributive operations of power, conditions and brings about the holiness of His people ; for it appears as the principle of the covenant made between Him and them, unfolding itself alike in their divinely-given laws and in their heavenly guidance. In the ordainments of national life summed up in the Decalogue and the ceremonial law, and indeed of their entire moral and religious life, we find this principle: “Ye shall be holy, for I am holy,” Lev. xix. 2 sqq., xx. 8 sqq. God’s holiness and the place where He dwells demand, and at the same time render possible, an atonement, Lev. xvi. 16, 33, Num. viii. 19, which can be effected only in the sanctuary, Lev. xvi. 17, 27; and it is of the greatest importance, in order to a right conception of holiness, to observe how this religious and ceremonial life, whose central point is atonement, reflects this principle in the language also—the holiness of God, and the sanctifying both of God and of what belongs to Him, specially of His people. We need only call to mind the continual recurrence of the words “holy place,” “to make holy,” “to sanctify myself,’ in the language of their religious life. It thus appears how fully righteousness—the requirement and goal of the law, both of the Decalogue, and of the ceremonial law for the vindication and carrying out of the Decalogue —is the necessary correlative of holiness. :

But abiding only by the truth, that God’s holiness conditions the sanctification of the moral and religious life of His people, we should arrive at a conception of it which at bottom coincides with righteousness, and the manner God’s holiness elsewhere is spoken of would remain inexplicable. It is of the highest importance to hold fast also by the truth that God’s holiness brings about the holiness of His elect people; how the “I

“Αγιος 44 “Ἅγιος

am holy” becomes at once “I am holy, Jehovah, who sanctifieth you.” God’s holiness leads on to the sanctifying of His people. Hereupon we have the expression of God’s holiness in His guidance of the people and in the historical progress of the revelation, Of great weight here are the statements of Ezek. xx. 41, 44, xxviii. 22, 25, xxxvi. 23, 24 sqq., xxxvii. 26 sqq., xxxix. 7, 25, xxxviii. 16. By judgment, as by redemption and cleansing from sin, God sanctifies Himself and His name, which Israel has profaned by their sins, and taken away its holiness before the nations; and in like manner He sanctifies Himself by acts of judgment upon the enemies of Israel, who have inflicted punishment upon the people and have despised God on account of them; and the result of this self-revelation of God is : “1 will magnify myself, and sanctify myself; I will be known in the eyes of many nations; and they shall know that I am Jehovah,’ Ezek, xxxviii. 23. The self-manifestation of God in the leadings and history of His people in preparing a way for and bringing about their ultimate salvation, is a manifestation of His holiness, asserted alike in the punishment of sin and in the cleansing from guilt and sin inseparably connected with redemption, Ezek. xxxvi. 23, 25-27, 29-33. Of special significance here is the designation of God as Nye vi7P, often in Isaiah, and 2 Kings xix. 22; Ps. Ixxviii. 41, Ixxxix. 19; Jer. 1. 29, li. 5; οὗ Ezek. xxxix. 7: aera wimp. God is the Holy One of Israel in His acts of deliverance wrought for Israel, to which the manifestation of judg- ment is the necessary set-off, while the free revelation of holiness aims at redemption, Ps, lxxviii. 42 sqq. He is holy in His electing love, Isa. xlix. 7, MP fox: We Ain yyod TIN sk", Lev. xx. 21; and as such He appropriates the name 583, which in Isa. xli. 14, xliii. 3, 14, xlvii. 4, xlviii, 17, xlix. 7, liv. 5, lv. 5, is parallel with the ose wp, so that the one logically follows from the other. He is the refuge of the lost, Isa. xvii. 7. Here, again, God’s holiness is the essential element of His self-revelation to Israel, and indeed of the revelation of salvation as the final goal of this self-manifestation ; cf. Isa. liv. 5: “Thy Saviour the Holy One of Israel; the God of the whole earth shall He be called.” “ Great is the Holy One of Israel,” shall it be said in the day of redemption, Isa, xii. 6. (The following are the places in Isaiah where >8} WIP occurs: Isa. i. 4, v. 19, 24, x. 17, 20, xii. 6, xvii. 7, xxix. 19, 23, xxx. 11, 12, 15, xxxi. 1, xxxvii. 23, ΧΙ, 14, 16, 20, xliii. 3, 14, 15, xlv. 11, xlvii. 4, xlviii. 17, xlix. 7, liv. 5, lv. 5, lx. 14) The holiness of God in this its significance meets us in that primary saving act, the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt (Ex. xv.; cf. Num. xx. 12, 13; Josh. iii 5); it appears in the election, deliverance, and gracious guidance of Israel ; and this meaning must be Saith- Sully received, and must not be defiled through unbelief, Num. xxvii. 14; Deut. xxxii. 51. This is very important : faith on man’s part must answer to the holiness of God; an uncon- ditioned reliance not on mere power, but upon the power of love, the grace of God. Mention is made of this just in the same way in the Psalms and elsewhere. Redemption proceeds from the sanctuary, from the holiness of God, Ps. xx. 3, Ixxvii. 14 564. (cf. 188: Ixv. 25), evi. 47, xeviii. 1, cii. 20, ciii. 1, ev. 8, 42, exlv. 21, xxii, 4,5; Jonah ii. 5, 8. Prayer and praise alike mention God’s holiness, 2 Chron. xxx. 27; 1 Chron. xvi. 10; Ps,

“Αγιος 45 “Αγιος

xxx. 5, xevii. 12; and the answer to prayer is based upon this, Ps. xxviii. 2, iii. 5, xx. 7; ef. Ps. xxxiii. 21: “we have trusted in His holy name.” Isa. x. 20. God swears by His holiness when He would assure us of His redeeming love and the final accomplish- ment of His saving promise, Ps. lxxxix. 36, lx. 8, eviii. 8. God’s holiness will not suffer Israel to be destroyed, Hos. xi. 9; ef. Isa. lvii. 15; Ezek. xx. 9, according to which last- named passage God spared and did not destroy Israel, that His name might not be polluted among the heathen; and yet Israel was not suffered to go unpunished, vv. 14 sqq. —1 Kings ix. 3-7 ; 2 Chron. vii. 16, 20: “I have sanctified this house; mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually.” The antithesis to sanctification is rejection, and therefore God’s holiness is revealed in His election; Lev. xx. 26: “Ye shall be holy unto me: for I Jehovah am holy, and have severed you from the nations, that ye should be mine.” Cf. also Isa. xliii, 28, xlix. 7; Jonah ii. 5. We may also compare such passages as 1 Sam. ii. 2; Isa. 111. 10; Zech. ii. 17; Ps. Ixviii. 6; Isa. lxii. 12. In a word, God is holy in His electing love, as the God of grace and of redemption.

Now it would be as unjust and one-sided absolutely to identify God’s holiness with His grace or redeeming love (Menken)—thus neglecting the connection of redemption with election—as it is to make, according to the popular view, the holiness of God dependent upon its connection with the law, and thus, if not wholly to identify it with His righteousness, yet to regard it as nothing else than the principle on which righteous- ness is based. It must be taken for granted that the holiness of God is not only the principle of the Decalogue, but of the ceremonial law, and thus also of the atonement. But it is just here that we have the point of union between these two manifestations of the divine holiness. God’s holiness, which not only gives, but itself constitutes, the law for Israel, at the same time provides redemption ; it extends to both, for it reveals itself as the principle of that atonement, wherein the removal and punishment of sin and saving and bliss-giving love are alike realized. All revelations of mercy are made in the Holy Place, the place of atonement; cf. Ps. xx. 3. By the law, the Decalogue and the ceremonial law (concerning their inner unity, see νόμος), God prepares Israel to be His possession and His sanctuary, that He may show them His grace; cf. Num. viii. 19. God’s holiness, which has been and is still to be revealed so gloriously in the redemption of Israel, conditions and effects the cleansing of the people from sin, Ezek. xxxvi. 23 sqq., for it stands in most decisive antagonism to every sinful thing, which it must either judge or in some other way remove; cf. the significant passage Isa. vi, where not only the prophet’s conviction of sin, but his cleansing likewise, is derived from the holiness of God. It only needs an occasion to convert the saving revelation of God’s holiness into its opposite; Isa. x. 17: “The light of Israel shall be for a fire, and His Holy One for a flame ;” cf. ver. 20: “ The remnant of Israel, and such as are escaped,... shall stay upon the Lord, the Holy One of Israel.” It is the same holy God who punishes Israel for their sin, and who yet spares and delivers them from judgment, and in both ways displays alike the holiness of His name, Ezek. xxxix. 21 sqq. God’s holiness. is manifest, there-

᾿Αγιος 40 “Ἅγιος

fore, as fully in judgment as in redemption ; cf. Jer.xxv. 30; Μίο. 1. 2; Hab. ii. 20; Josb. xxiv. 19; Lev. x. 3; so that in Isa. v. 16 we read, Mp2 071} Dx) Davina Nixay nim ma npwy2, We must, however, take care not to regard judgment as the chief and primary outcome of holiness; because the revelation of holiness belongs properly to the history of redemption, holiness is here displayed in its fulness. According to Ps. xcix. 3, as all that Israel would say of the name of God is summed up in the words “ He is holy,” cf. vv. 5, 9; this holiness itself was known above all things in this, “He is a God who forgave Israel, and an avenger of their deeds,” ver. 8. Corresponding to this is the relation of man to God's holiness. Man trusts His holy name, and thereby hallows it, Ts. xxxiii. 21, Isa. x. 20; he dishonours it by unbelief, Num. xxvii. 14, Deut. xxxii. 51; at the same time he hallows it by fear, Isa. xxix. 23, viii. 13, cf. also Ex. xv. 11, Ps. xcix. 3, exi. 5, 9, Prov. ix.10; and must not defile it by sin. Man’s true relation- ship to God’s holiness accordingly is that blending of fear and trust which we find in Holy Scripture throughout, eg. Ps. exxx. 4; Rom. xi. 22; Phil. ii, 12,13; 1 Pet. i 17, ete.

From all this it is clear that God's holiness is the fundamental and moulding prin- ciple of the whole revelation of redemption in all its elements, and that the history of redemption, as a whole, can be understood only from the standpoint of divine holiness. We must now endeavour, by arranging the several elements, to determine the essence of holiness so as logically to discover its meaning,

As God’s holiness is man’s law, it excludes all communion of sinful man with Him (Isa. vi.; Josh. xxiv. 19; 1 Sam. vi 20 ; Ex. xix, 22; Num. iv. 15, 20; cf. Isa. Ixv. 5). It does not exclude man’s fellowship with God in and by itself, just because this is the law for man. We might almost more correctly say it demands this fellowship. Now the fact that fellowship between God and man is realized only in the form of the election, tending to pardon and redemption, corresponds with this exclusive significance of holiness; election answers to the exclusion, and thus God’s holiness historically appears in the election of His people, in His guidance of them from their deliverance from Egypt, onwards to that redemption which is intended for the whole world, based upon pardon and atonement. Corresponding with that turning-point in history, begun by the deliverance from Egypt, according to its import as explained by St. Paul, Gal. iii. 19 sq. (see μεσέτης), is the fact that God’s holiness there for the first time in its full meaning appears in history, and finds expression in the law, in the regulations of life, and the regulations of worship. It must be borne in mind, however, that knowledge of this holiness to a certain extent—a natural knowledge, if we may so say, and conformable with the infancy of the race—was possessed before, and was always to be found wherever there was any knowledge of God. The first mention of holiness, therefore (Ex. iii. 5), is not as of something unknown and new. But “that great sight, the burning bush unconsumed,” was a perfect symbol of God’s holiness as it was now in a special manner to be revealed to Israel, the nation of a final and historical vocation; οἵ, Isa. x. 17, vi 4 sqq. Opposition to sin is the first

—_—

“Ἅγιος 47 “Ἅγιος

impression which man receives of God’s holiness ; this opposition to sin appears as positive in the progress of the history, whereas in the mere form of rejection it would appear as negative opposition, and as identical with judging righteousness. Exclusion, election, cleansing, redemption,—these are the four forms in which God’s holiness appears in the sphere of humanity ; and we may say that God’s holiness signifies His opposition to sin manifesting utself in atonement and redemption or in judgment. Or as holiness, so far as it is embodied in law, must be the highest moral perfection, we may say, taking enituit as the primary meaning of wp, holiness is the perfect purity of God, which in and for itself excludes all fellowship with the world, and can only establish a relationship of free electing love, whereby it asserts itself in the sanctification of God’s people, their cleansing and redemption; therefore, “the purity of God manifesting itself in atonement and redemption, and correspondingly in judgment.” This primary conception of purity is supported especially by the strongly expressed connection of both conceptions in the N. T., eg. 2 Tim. ii. 21; 2 Cor. vii. 1; Eph. v. 26; Heb. ix. 13,14; 1 Thess. iv. 7. By this view all the above elements are done justice to; holiness asserts itself in judging righteousness, and in electing, purifying, and redeeming love, and thus it appears in reality as the impelling and formative principle of the revelation and history of redemption, with- out a knowledge of which an understanding of the revelation is impossible, and by the per- ception of which it is seen in its full clear light. We thus also see the close connection subsisting between holiness and righteousness, and the parallelism between holiness and glory, Isa. vi. 1; see Sofa. “God is light;” this is a significant and exhaustive N, T. phrase for God’s holiness, 1 John i. 5.

Since, therefore, God’s holiness becomes historically manifest in sanctification, we see how in what sense that is called holy, or sanctified, which God by electing love appro- priates to Himself, viz. so far as, by this elective appropriation, God’s holiness—His love excluding sin, or taking it away—is to be shown therein, or so far as the chosen object is received into saving fellowship with the pure God; see Isa. iv. 3,4. It makes no dif- ference whether it be the children of Israel, the Sabbath, the temple, the priesthood, that are called holy; in every relation of communion based upon election, the object of the election participates according to its degree in the holiness. Even the 077 may be called holy or sanctified, Lev. xxvii. 28; not, indeed, because the excluding element of God's

holiness is manifest therein, but so far as it is separated from all fellowship with man

either by God or for God; see ἀνάθεμα. It is important here to observe, that when God gives over to judgment, or rejects what before He had chosen (see ἐκλέγειν), holiness is withdrawn from it, Isa. xliii. 28; cf. Jonah ii. 5; 2 Chron. vii. 20. Though the attribute of holiness on the part of the creature does not in and for itself indicate any moral quality, still in the issue it becomes so, because it is based upon sanctification, which

cannot be conceived of without purification and cleansing, Ex. xix. 22; Num. xvii. 2;

Isa. iv. 3,4; 2 Chron, xxx. 15,17; Num. vi. 11; 2 Chron. xxix. 5, 6; Lev. viii. 15, xvi, 19, xi. 44,45. Cf. Ps. xv. 1 sqq,

Αγιος 48 “Ayios

In like manner, what men dedicate to God, and thus associate with Him, or set apart for Him, becomes holy, because herein also God’s excluding and re-electing holiness becomes manifest. Thus the first-born is sanctified, Ex. xiii. 2, Num. iii. 13, viii. 16, 17, Deut. xv. 19; the cities of refuge, Josh. xx. 7; and whatever was dedicated to God, Lev. xxvii. 15, 16, 19 (as distinct from 5x3), Ex. xxviii. 38, Ezra viii. 28, 2 Chron. xxix. 19. When men dedicate themselves or others to the Lord, they do it by sacrifice and purifying, by cleansing and atonement, 2 Chron. xxix. 19; Job i. 5; Ex. xix. 10 sqq.

It is further to be observed, that when men sanctify that which is God’s—His name, for instance-—they do not attribute anything special, but they use it and value it in con- formity with God’s holiness by faith and fear, and by sin and unbelief they defile it ; see ἁγιάζω.

Thus it is clear that sanctification, whether it proceeds from God or man, always implies a setting apart as a necessary antecedent or consequent of the act (cf. Lev. xx. 26) ; but to suppose that setting apart and sanctifying are one and the same thing, would involve a weakening of the conception of sanctification and holiness, and the fulness of meaning belonging to the word in the history of redemption would have to be traced back to a primary conception which tells next to nothing, without establishing anything but a very loose logical connection. Cf. 1 Chron. xxiii, 13: iwapn> pas 273. In the few places where to sanctify means simply to set apart, eg. Jer. xii. 3, Lev. xx. 26, the signi- fication is a derived one, and, withal, not merely = ἐο set apart, but = to set apart for God. For this supposed root conception of setting apart we should not appeal to the rare expression none wap, Jer. vi. 4, 11. 27, 28, Joel iv. 9, Mic. iii. 5,—mnot to mention Dw wap, Joel i. 14,—because even in the classics a war undertaken under the protection and leadership of the gods was considered a holy war, and was regarded as a divine judgment ; ef. ἱερὸς δίφρος, Hom. 7]. xvii. 464. Nor does it tell for the meaning “ setting apart” as the root meaning of wp, that the conception of polluting is expressed by $$n = to loosen, to abandon, and that Sh is the antithesis to Wp. ὉΠ certainly denotes what is open to unhindered and universal use, what is free to every one, but it never stands alone with this meaning. In the few places where it occurs, it is always in contrast with WP, and it is by virtue of this contrast that it has its special meaning, Lev. x. 10; 1 Sam. xxi, 5,6; Ezek. xxii. 26, xlii, 20, xliv. 23, xlviii. 15. We cannot say: because ὁπ denotes what is unhindered and common to all, therefore &> means the special, separated, set apart; but we must argue: because what is holy includes the notion of separation and exclusion, its opposite is expressed by ὅπ. This is evident if we ask why 55n denotes the opposite of wp. If it were because the primary meaning of wp were selection or separation, this would also be the primary meaning of M2 (Ps. lxxxix. 35, lv. 21; Mal. ii, 10), 7269 (Lam. ii. 2), DID (Jer. xxxi. 5; Deut. xxii. 6, xx. 6, xxviii. 30), with which on is likewise joined as a technical term ; whereas in all these cases limitation or separa- tion is not the primary conception of the object, but is simply an inference implied in the case itself; cf. Lev. xix. 29: “Thou shalt not abandon (bn) thy daughter to whoredom,”

νΥ

“Ἅγιος 49 “Ἅγιος

bn means primarily “to bore through,” “to make a hole through,” “to open,” “to tear asunder,” “to abandon,” anything that hitherto has enjoyed some protection or estimation, or has been closed up; to dissolve a position which hitherto had been maintained and respected ; eg. PW, Jer. xvi. 18; Isa. xlvii. 6, TNE DIAM ‘No wPeN; Ezek. xxviii. 16, pbs 12 abn ; Num. xxx. 3, 131 bn x, “he shall not break his word.” It stands in antithesis to the esteem with which anything is to be treated, and is parallel with yx, ma, and other words = “to despise ;” cf. Ps. Ixxxix. 32, Mov wd ‘niyios DM ‘DPNTON ; Jer. xvi. 18 ; Ezek. xxii. 8 ; Zeph. iii. 4; Isa. xxiii. 9; Ezek. xx. 16,24. What is holy becomes specially the object of such treatment, because it demands the highest and most earnest respect (cf. Ex. iii. 5; Josh. v. 15; Isa. Ixv. 5), God abandoning and rejecting what before He had specially chosen and sanctified (Isa. xxiii. 9; Ps. Ixxxix. 35; Isa. xliii, 28; Ezek. xxviii. 16, etc.), or men despising or abandoning to disesteem what God has sanctified, or God’s own holiness, His name, or the like; cf. Lev. xxi. 12, 15; Num. xviii. 22. This only is evident from this contrast, as we already otherwise know, that holiness and exclusion therefrom are not identical conceptions, but that exclusion and inaccessibleness, separation and setting apart, pertain to what is holy. Thus 5h, in common usage, signifies the κοινόν, not in and for itself, but so far only as it is not included within the sphere of sanctification ; it everywhere includes the idea of what is unsanctified, and accordingly the LXX. never render it by κοινός, but, in harmony with Greek usage, by βέβηλος, though thus injustice is done to the biblical view. For though the contrast between Sh and I> determined the entire Jewish estimate of things, what was not devoted to the gods among the Greeks was not always called βέβηλον ; so that, in the language of Israelitish life and of the N. T., κοινός gradually took the place of the βέβηλος of the LXX., and received that moral tinge to which those modern languages, influenced by Christianity, owe the moral import of the meaning of the word “ common.” Sh does not signify what is κοινόν in and for itself, but κοινόν theocratically estimated ; ef. Acts xxi. 28, κεκοίνωκεν τὸν ἅγιον τόπον τοῦτον, with the passage from Plato above cited, Leggy. x. 884, εἰς δημόσια ἅγια ἢ κατὰ μέρη κοινά (see κοινός). Accordingly, the antithesis between ὥγιος and κοινός, YIP and 5h, at first only natural, became moral; and the antithesis between ὙΠ and 80 is closely allied thereto, Lev. x. 10; Ezek. xxii. 26, xliv. 23; Heb. ix. 13, τοὺς κεκοινωμένους ἁγιάζει πρὸς καθαρότητα. What is unsancti- fied we may say becomes virtually unholy.

_ These are the main features of the O. T. conception of holiness, which appear also in the N. T., only divested of its limitation to Israel. Cf. Ps. xcix., “the earthly echo of the seraphic 7’rishagion” (Delitzsch) contains the same conception of holiness.

“Ἅγιος, in the N. T., is used (I.) of God and the Spirit of God. It may seem strange that holiness is so seldom predicated of God in the N. T. Besides the quotation in Rev. iv. 8 of the Zrishagion of Isa. vi. 3, which does not appear expressly as a quota- tion, and of Lev. xi. 44, xix. 2, in 1 Pet. i, 15,16, κατὰ τὸν καλέσαντα ὑμᾶς ἅγιον καὶ αὐτοὶ ἅγιοι " πάσῃ ἀναστροφῇ γενήθητε, διότε γέγραπται ὅτι ἅγιοι ἔσεσθε ὅτι ἐγὼ

“Αγιος δ0 “Ἅγιος

ἅγιος, and of Ps. xcix. 8, cxi. 9, ἴῃ the song of the Virgin, Luke i. 49, ἐποίησέν μοι μεγαλεῖα ὁ δυνατὸς, καὶ ἅγιον τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, καὶ τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ εἰς γενεὰς x.7.d. (cf. Ps. Ixxvii. 14, 15, xeviii, 1; Ex. xv. 11; Josh. iii, 5), it occurs im St. John’s writings only, John xvii. 11, πάτερ ἅγιε, τήρησον αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου; Rev. vi. 10, ἕως πότε, ὁ δεσπότης ὁ ἅγιος καὶ ἀλήθινος κιτλ.; 1 John ii. 20, χρίσμα ἔχετε ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου. (Stier [Reden Jesu, v. 420, Eng. trans, vi. 468] sees in the πάτερ ἅγιε of John xvii. 11, “the concentration of the O. and N. T. expressions into one new phrase, uniting as synonymous (7) the deepest word of the past revelation with that now revealed.”) But to conclude from this fact that God’s holiness disappears in the N. T. (Diestel) would be extremely hasty and incorrect, and especially would overlook the difference between the O. and N. T. manifestations of holiness. For, apart from the fact that sanctification proceeding from God occupies so important a place in the N. T. (see under 11.), it is a significant fact, and one that completely corresponds to the fulness of God unfolded for the first time in the N. T., that holiness is in the N. Τὶ κατ᾽ ἐξ. the predicate of the Spirit of God, not only as He is the bearer and mediator of the revelation at every stage, but also as He has appeared amongst mankind as a new divine principle of life; ef. ἀνακαίνωσις Tv. ay., Tit. 111, δ; ἁγιασμός πνεύματος, 2 Thess. ii. 13; 1 Pet. i 2. While in the Ο, T. the Spirit of God is called the Holy Spirit only in Ps. li. 13, Isa. lxiii. 10, 11, the expression τὸ πνεῦμα ἅγιον runs throughout the N.T. as the designation of the Spirit ; and this is perfectly in harmony with the presence of God, whose holiness is the hallowing of His people, being now realized in the Holy Ghost. For the essence of God is concentrated in His Spirit (1 Cor. ii. 11), and hence through Him all revelations also are made. Holiness, therefore, being the characteristic element of God’s essence in His revelation, is specially appropriate to the Spirit of God; Matt. i. 18, 20, iii, 11, xii. 32, xxviii, 19; Mark i, 8, iii, 29, xii. 36, xiii, 11; Luke i 15, 35, 41, 67, etc.; and this may possibly be decisive for the understanding of what Christ says concerning the sin against the Holy Ghost in Matt. xii. 32 and the parallel passages.

(II.) Of men and things occupying the relation to God which is conditioned and brought about by His holiness, whether it be that God has chosen them for His service, as instruments of His work, or that God’s holiness has sanctified them and taken them into the fellowship of the redeeming God, the God of salvation. Hence connected with ἐκλεκτός and ἠγαπημένος, Col. iii. 12; cf. Luke xxiii. 35, ix. 35; Mark i. 24; Eph. i. 4. As an epithet, it stands joined with ἀνήρ, in Mark vi. 20, of John the Baptist, by the side of δίκαιος (cf. 2 Kings iv. 9); of the προφήται, Luke i. 70, Acts iii. 21; ἀπόστολοι, Eph. iii. 5, 2 Pet. i 21, Rec., ἅγιον θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι (in place of ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι, in order to designate the persons in question, partly, generally, according to their fellowship with the holy God (Mark vi. 20), and partly as servants of the saving purpose based on divine holiness and unfolding itself therein, by virtue of which relation they are on their part chosen vessels of the divine holiness. Thus Christ is called κατ᾽ é&,...0 ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ, Mark i. 24, Luke iv. 34, John vi. 69 ; cf. Acts iii. 14, 6 ἅγιος καὶ δίκαιος;

“Ἅγιος 51 “Ἅγιος

iv. 30, ὁ ἅγιος παῖς σου ᾿Ιησοῦς, as in the O. T. the high priest is called in Ps. evi. 10, nim winp. ΟΥ PM, Deut. xxxiii. 8, Ps. xvi. 10; see 8.0. ὅσιος, In the same or an analogous sense, ἅγιος is also an epithet of κλῆσις, 2 Tim. i. 9; διαθήκη, Luke i. 72; γραφαί, Rom. i. 2; νόμος, ἐντολή, Rom. vii. 12, 2. Pet. ii. 21 ; τόπος, Acts xxi. 28, Matt. xxiv. 15, and elsewhere. As God’s holiness becomes sanctification, and believers are received into the fellowship of the redeeming God (not simply, in general, into fellowship with God), the predicate ἅγιος is suitable of them also, seeing that it expresses the special grace which they experience who are in the fellowship and possession of the N. Τὶ salva- tion ; cf. ἁγιάζειν.

Significant, and in keeping with the meaning which we have found to belong to the conception of holiness, is the combination ἅγιον καὶ πιστοί, Eph. i. 1, Col. 1. 2; cf. Rev. xiii. 10, ὧδέ ἐστιν ἡ ὑπομονὴ καὶ ἡ πίστις τῶν ἁγίων ; and also the above-mentioned combination with ἐκλεκτοί and ἠγαπημένοι, Col. iii. 12, Eph. i 4; κλητοὶ ἅγιοι, 1 Cor. 1. 2, Rom.i. 7. That it has to do with what those thus designated have experienced or are experiencing, is clear from Rev. xx. 6, μακάριος καὶ ἅγιος ὁ ἔχων μέρος ἐν TH ἀναστάσει τῇ πρώτῃ. Cf. 1 Pet. ii. 5, ἱεράτευμα ἅγιον; ver. 9, ἔθνος ἅγιον; Eph. 11. 19, συμπολῖται τῶν ἁγίων; 2 Thess. ii. 13, εἵλατο ὑμᾶς ὁ θεὸς... εἰς σωτηρίαν ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος. The naming of believers—of Christians—by &ycot,—in full, of ἅγιοι τοῦ θεοῦ, Acts ix. 13,— which occurs in the Acts, the Pauline Epistles, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, corresponds not so much to the Hebrew ΟΡ, which is used very seldom as a designation of the people of God (only in Deut. xxxiii. 3, Ps. xvi. 3, xxxiv. 10, Dan. viii. 24), but rather to D'NDN, the rendering of which by the word ὅσιος, chosen by the LXX., has not passed into the usage of N. Τὶ Greek. In the O. T., OVP, therefore, was not appropriate to designate God’s people, because 47? in its application to them asserted holiness as a law rather than as a blessing (Lev. xix. 2, etc.), whereas O°" gives prominence to the electing love of which the people were the objects. For the same reason, the trans- lators of the Septuagint did not see any reason to render ODN by ἅγιοι; but in the N. T., in keeping with the holiness which appeared in the world as redemption, ἅγιον could unhesitatingly be used to designate the N. T. people of God, without throwing into the shade the element of electing love. Some have wished to maintain that in certain places oi ἅγιοι is a name of honour, or even a caste designation for the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem ; and it is true that in 1 Cor. xvi. 1, cf. ver. 3, 2 Cor. viii. 4,ix. 1,12, of ἅγιοι signifies the Jerusalem church, the poor members in particular. However, there is no ground to suppose that this designation was specially suitable to the Jerusalem church, either to honour it as the mother church, or to designate it according to its locality, according to “the holiness of its place of residence, which is extolled both in the O. and N. T., Ps. xvi. 3, LXX., Isa. xiv. 2, Zech. ii. 16, Matt. iv. 5, xxvii. 53, Rev. xi. 2, xx. 9, xxi. 2,10” (Kurtz, Hebrderbr. p. 46). For it is only in a very definite connection that the Jerusalem church is called οἱ &y:or,—in a connection which has nothing to do with any special honouring of it, etc., viz. only where a collection for the poor of that church is

“Δγιότης 52 ‘Ayiootvn

spoken of; and in every case, again, it is only the connection, as in Rom. xv. 25, 31, 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 3, or the historical relations, as in 2 Cor. viii. 4, ix. 1, 12, compared with 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 3, that proves that the Jerusalem church is meant; cf. Rom. xv. 25, 31. But that διακονεῖν τοῖς ἁγίοις, Rom. xv. 25, and ἡ διακονία ἡ eis τοὺς ἁγίους, 2 Cor. viii. 4, do not of themselves designate the poor of the church at Jerusalem, but only in the connection in which they are placed, is clear from Rom. xii. 13, ταῖς χρείαις τῶν ἁγίων κοινωνοῦντες ; 1 Cor. xvi. 15, εἰς διακονίαν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἔταξαν ἑαυτούς ; cf. Rom. xvi. 1; so that it is an over-hasty inference to assert that in Heb. vi. 10, διακονήσαντες τοῖς ἁγίοις καὶ διακονοῦντες, we find a designation of the Jerusalem Christians.

“Ἅγιος, however, emphasizes not only the relation to God, but also the correspond- ing moral conduct, eg. 1 Pet. 1, 15, 16, κατὰ tov καλέσαντα ὑμᾶς ἅγιον καὶ αὐτοὶ ἅγιοι ἐν πάσῃ ἀναστροφῇ γενήθητε K.7.r.; iii. 5, οὕτως γάρ ποτε αἱ ἅγιαι γυναῖκες ai ἐλπίζουσαι εἰς θεὸν ἐκόσμουν ἑαυτάς ; Rev. xiv. 12, ὧδε ἡ ὑπομονὴ τῶν ἁγίων ἐστίν, οἱ τηροῦντες τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν πίστιν ᾿Ιησοῦ; xix. 8, τὰ δικαιώματα τῶν ἁγίων ; Eph. v. 3, καθὼς πρέπει ἁγίοις; cf. also φίλημα ἅγιον, Rom. xvi. 16, 1 Cor. xvi. 20, 2 Cor. xiii 12, 1 Thess. v, 26, In no case is the moral quality produced and required by the divine sanctification to be excluded; 1 Cor. vii. 34, ἡ ἄγαμος μεριμνᾷ τὰ τοῦ κυρίου, ἵνα ἢ ἁγία καὶ σώματι καὶ πνεῦματι; Eph, i. 4, εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἁγίους καὶ ἀμώμους κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ, v. 27; Ο0]. 1, 22, παραστῆσαι ἡμᾶς ἁγίους καὶ ἀμώμους καὶ ἀνεγκλήτους κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ, and elsewhere. Cf. ἁγιασμός, ἁγιωσύνη.

“Αγιότης, %, holiness; like all derivatives of ὥγιος, unknown in classical Greek. In the N. T. only in Heb. xii. 10, in the ethical sense, ὁ δὲ (sc. πατὴρ τῶν πνευμάτων παιδεύει) ἐπὶ τὸ συμφέρον, εἰς τὸ μεταλαβεῖν τῆς ἁγιότητος αὐτοῦ ; cf. ver. 11—In 2 Mace. xv. 2 it is used in the historico-redemptive sense, the Sabbath being described as ἡ προτετιμημένη ὑπὸ τοῦ πάντα ἐφορῶντος pel’ ἁγιότητος %pépa.—Lachm. reads the word also in 2 Cor. i, 12; Tisch., too, in his ed. acad. ex trigl.; the latter, however, has restored the old reading, ἐν ἁπλότητι καὶ εἰλικρινείᾳ, in his 7th ed,, with the remark, probabilius est ἁγιότητι, utpote quod esset multo plus quam ἁπλότητι, aliena manu inlatum quam sublatum esse. In patristic Greek also, but seldom.

‘Aytooty, ἡ, holiness, Written sometimes with ὁ and sometimes with —the latter the more correct, as in ἱερωσύνη, ἀγαθωσύνη, μεγαλωσύνη, because a short syllable precedes. It is evidently to be derived not from ἁγιοῦν = ἁγιάξειν (Valck.), but from ἅγιος, and denotes sanctity, not sanctification, which does not need to be proved. Used by LXX. in Ps. xcvi. 12 =P; Ps. xcv.6=1); Ps. cxliv. 5= in. 2 Mace. iii. 12, πιστεύειν τῇ τοῦ τόπου ἁγιωσύνῃ. Clem. Alex. Paed. iii, p. 110, ed. Sylb., ἁγιωσύνην ὑποκρίνεσθαι. It occurs in only three places in the N. T. 1. In Rom. i. 3, of the holiness of God per- vading and moulding the scheme of redemption, and manifested finally in and by Christ: τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, side by side with τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα, where the

“Αγιάξζω 53 “Αγιάξω topic is not the contrast of natural and moral qualities, but of human and divine relatiou- ship or dependence. We have not here the simple κατὰ σάρκα... κατὰ πνεῦμα, as if to indicate a conflicting contrast in Christ’s person (cf. Gal. iv. 23, 29 ; different in 1 Tim, iii, 16, ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκὶ, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεῦματι), but, as the topic is what makes Christ vids θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει, πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, not mv. ἅγιον, because the peculiarity of the antithesis of the πνεῦμα to the σάρξ was to be made prominent. 2. Of the holiness of man, to be made manifest in moral conduct; 1 Thess. iii. 13, εἰς τὸ στηρίξαι ὑμῶν τὰς καρδίας ἀμέμπτους ἐν ἁγιωσύνῃ (cf. Eph. i. 4, v. 27; Col. ii, 22); % Cor. vii 1, ἐπιτελεῖν τὴν ἁγιωσύνην, and expressions like παιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην, τὴν ἀλῃθείαν = per- JSeetly to show forth holiness.

‘Ayuda, to make holy, to sanctify. In classical Greek, ἁγίξω = to consecrate, eg. altars, sacrifices, etc., answers to this word, which, like all derivations of ἅγιος, is peculiar to bibl. Greek, ‘Arif means, “ to set apart for the gods,” “to present,” generally = “ to offer.” It occurs but seldom ; καθαγίξειν is for the most part used. Pind. OU. iii. 19, βωμῶν πατρὶ ἁγισθέντων. Soph. Oecd. c. 1491, Ποσειδαονίῳ θεῷ Βούθυτον ἑστίαν ἁγίζων. Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. i. 57, Αἰνείας δὲ τῆς μὲν ὑὸς τὸν τόκον... τοῖς πατρῷοις ἁγίζει θεοῖς ; iv. 2, τὰς ἀπὸ τῶν δείπνων ἀπαρχὰς ayitovew. The biblical dydfew differs not inconsider- ably from this, for it is seldom used of sacrifices, but mostly to denote what is effected by the sacrifice, and it signifies, “to place in a relation with God answering to His holiness.” Sacrifice is necessary in order to such sanctification; Heb. x. 29, ἐν τῷ αἵματι τῆς δια- θήκης ἡγιάσθη ; xiii. 12, ἵνα ἁγιάσῃ διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος τὸν λαόν; x. 10, ἡγιασμένοι ἐσμὲν οἱ διὰ τῆς προσφορᾶς τοῦ σώματος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐφάπαξ. Hence, too, it is joined with καθαρίζειν, which denotes the application of the atonement to the subject, and occupies a middle place between ἱλάσκεσθαι and ἁγιάξειν ; see καθαρίζειν. Ex, xxix. 36,37; 2 Tim. ii, 21; 2 Cor. vii. 1; Eph. v. 26, and elsewhere. Cf. Heb. ix. 13, τοὺς κεκοινωμένους dyidter τρὸς τὴν τῆς σαρκὸς καθαρότητα. It lies in the essence of holiness that ἁγιάζειν stands in antithesis with κοινοῦν ; as, however, καινόν is first qualified in meaning by this contrast (see &yos), we must not infer the signification of ἅγιος, ὡγιάξω therefrom, for in this case we should have to start from the meaning which κοινός receives only through its relation to ἅγιος. This mistaken way of deciding the meaning of dyatew is adopted whenever it is explained as = ἀφορίζειν, as is done in patristic Greek. Cf. Schleusner, s.v.: “ Propria hujus verbi significatio, unde omnes translatae profectae sunt, hace est, ut notet: Separare aliquid a communi et profano usu, et in peculiarem, maxime sacrum usum secernere, ac sit, ἐν. ἀφορίξειν, quo ipso verbo a Theodoreto ad Joel iii. 9 explicatur.” In like manner Suicer, Bretschneider, and others, More rarely it is explained by δοξάξειν, as Chrysostom on Matt. vi. 9, ἁγιασθήτω = δοξασθήτω. We may say that ἀφορίξειν gives prominence to the negative, and δοξάζειν to the positive, element in the word. But, as was remarked under ἅγιος, while holiness always includes separation, it must never be identified with it; and in the few places. where “to sanctify” means “to set apart,” eg.

“Αγιάξω δ4 “Αγιάξω

Jer. xii. 3, Lev. xx. 26, this is only a derived meaning, and, indeed, is not simply = to set apart, but to set apart for God.

We have seen, under ἅγιος, that we must distinguish who the subject of the ἁγιάζειν is. To sanctify means, to make anything a participator, according to its measure, in God's holiness, in God’s purity as revealed in His electing love. (1.) With God as the subject. When God sanctifies anything, the divine holiness through elective appropriation—~e. God’s love excluding or removing sin—is said to be manifested thereto, as this was symbolized in the O. T. in ritualistic ordinances, the types of the future (Matt. xxiii. 17, ὁ ναὸς ὁ ἁγιάσας τὸν χρυσόν, and ver. 19, τὸ θυσιαστήριον τὸ ἁγιάζον τὸ δῶρον, are expres- sive of O. T. ideas). The word usually means, to adopt into saving fellowship with God. Further, we must distinguish the different ways in which the object participates in God’s holiness, whether, as the organ of divine revelation and minister of divine saving purposes, it becomes the bearer in its measure of divine holiness, or whether it experiences in itself holiness as cleansing from sin and redemption (see ἅγιος, II.). An instance of the former we have in John x. 36, ὃν ὁ πατὴρ ἡγίαζεν καὶ ἀπέστειλεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον. The second part of this sentence represents Christ as the organ and minister οὗ God’s saving purpose, and the dv ὁ πατὴρ ἡγίαξεν clearly denotes the same thought as does the title, “ the holy one of God,” given to Christ, Mark i. 24, Luke iv. 34, John vi. 69; the sense in which the high priest is called, Ps. evi. 16, Tim! YIP; and the mighty ones chosen of God to carry out His judgments against Babylon, Isa, xiii. 3, ΡΟ (cf. WAP, Jer. xxii. 7, li. 27, 28, Zeph. i. 7). Hence the forced explanation of Calvin, Luthardt, and others, approved of in the 1st ed., becomes inadequate: “When Jesus left the Father to enter into the fellowship of the world, the Father took Him, so far as He was to become the Son of man, out of this fellowship, and sent Him into the world as one who did not share the character of the world.” The divine holiness, on the other hand, as it denotes deliver- ance from sin and salvation, and reception into saving fellowship with God, is referred to in John xvii. 17, ἁγιάσον αὐτοὺς ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ cov (cf. ver. 19, ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἐγὼ ἁγιάζω ἐμαυτόν, ἵνα ὦσιν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἡγιασμένοι ἐν ἀληθείᾳ) ; see ἀλήθεια as designating the bless- ings of redemption, 1 Cor. vi. 11, ἀλλὰ ἀπελούσασθε, ἀλλὰ ἡγιάσθητε, ἀλλὰ ἐδικαιώθητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ καὶ ἐν τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν; 1 Thess. v. 28, αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης ἁγιάσαι ὑμᾶς ὁλοτελεῖς κιτιλ., where the connection between sanctification and redemption is unmistakeable. So especially in designating believers the children of God, as ἡγιασμένοι; Acts xx. 32, δοῦναι κληρονομίαν ἐν τοῖς ἡγιασμένοις πᾶσιν; xxvi. 18, τοῦ λαβεῖν αὐτοὺς (sc. τὰ ἔθνη) ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν καὶ κλῆρον ἐν τοῖς ἡγιασμένοις ; they are ἡγιασμένοι ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, 1 Cor. i. 2, because this divine and saving act is accomplished in Christ, and mediated through Him, see above; and hence elsewhere Christ is the subject accomplishing this sanctification, Eph. v. 6, ἕνα αὐτὴν (se. τὴν ἐκκλησίαν) ἁγιάσῃ καθαρίσας x.7.d., where καθαρίσας is named at the same time, without which the dyiafew does not take place; cf. Lev. xvi. 9, oy 2 Nixowy iwapy AnD, Josh, vii, 13, Heb, ix. 13, 14, where to the ἁγιάξει πρὸς καθαρότητα, ver. 13, in ver. 14

᾿Αγιασμός 55 ᾿Αγιασμός

καθαριεῖ answers. Specially in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Christ, or the blood of Christ, appears as the subject accomplishing the sanctification, which must not be confounded with what, in unscriptural language, is distinguished as sanctification from justification, and which,

nevertheless, is not to be identified with justification, seeing that sanctification includes

admission to living fellowship with God. Cf. Heb. x. 29 with ix. 4, ἁγιασμός. Heb. ii. 11, 6 τε γὰρ ἁγιάζων καὶ οἱ ἁγιαζόμενοι ἐξ ἑνὸς πάντες (cf. Ex. xxxi. 13); Heb. x. 10, ἡγιασμένοι ἐσμὲν οἱ διὰ τῆς προσφορᾶς τοῦ σώματος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ; x. 14, μιᾷ γὰρ προσφορᾷ τετελείωκεν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους; x. 29, τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης κοινὸν ἡγησάμενος, ἐν ᾧ ἡγιάσθη; xiii. 12, ᾿Ιησοῦς, ἵνα ἁγιάσῃ διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος τὸν λαόν, For Rom. xv. 16, ἵνα γένηται ἡ προσφορὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν εὐπρόσδεκτος, ἡγιασμένη ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ ; cf. ἅγιος, Τ., what is said concerning πν. ἅγ.--- ΤῊ6 expression, 1 Cor. vii. 14, ἡγίασται ὁ ἀνὴρ ὁ ἄπιστος ἐν τῇ γυναικί, καὶ ἡγίασται ἡ γυνὴ ἡ ἄπιστος ἐν τῷ ἀδελφῷ, clearly cannot signify the sanctification in its fulness which the N. T. divine and saving work produces ; for a personal faith is required in the object of it, which is in this case denied. Still it is unmistakeably intimated that by virtue of the marriage union the unbelieving side in its measure participates in the saving work and fellow- ship with God experienced by the believing side; and therefore Bengel in loc., comparing 1 Tim. iv. 5, says, “ Sanctificatus est, ut pars fidelis sancte uti possit, neque dimittere debeat.” Cf. 2 Tim. ii. 21.

(2.) When men “sanctify” anything, we must distinguish whether the object is already God’s in and for itself, and therefore ἅγιον, or whether it is now for the first time appro- priated to God and brought into association with Him. See ἅγιος. In the first, as in Matt. vi. 9, Luke xi. 2, ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου (cf. Heb. x. 29, κοινὸν ἡγεῖσθαι), 1 Pet. iii. 15, κύριον τὸν θεόν ἁγιάσατε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν, the word denotes that manner of treatment on the part of man which corresponds with the holiness of God, and which springs from faith, trust, and fear; οἵ, 1 Pet. i. 17. If the second, the establishing a con- nection with God, and excluding all connection with sin, as in 1 Tim. iv. 5, πᾶν κτίσμα ἁγιάξεται διὰ λόγου θεοῦ καὶ ἐντεύξεως (where, therefore, divine and human sanctifica- tion are combined), it means the preservation and establishing of fellowship with the God of salvation, Rev. xxii, 11, ὁ ἅγιος ἁγιασθήτω ἔτι; cf. 2 Cor. vii. 1; Heb. xii. 11.— 2 Tim. ii. 21, ἐὰν οὖν τις ἐκκαθάρῃ ἑαυτὸν ἀπὸ τούτων, ἔσται σκεῦος εἰς τιμὴν, ἡγιασ- μένον, εὔχρηστον τῷ Seoréty—This circumstance, peculiar to the N. Τ', 18. worthy of notice—namely, that the reflective, “to sanctify oneself,’ which occupies so important a position, comparatively speaking, in the O. T., does not occur in the N. T. at all (unless we except Rev. xxii. 11); because the thing itself, Heb. x. 10, ἡγιασμένοι ἐσμὲν x72. (cf. 1 Cor. i. 30), has already taken place through the self-sanctification and offering of Christ, John xvii. 19, ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἐγὼ ἁγιάξω ἐμαυτὸν, ἵνα dow καὶ αὐτοὶ ἡγιασμένοι ἐν ἀληθείᾳ. See further, ἁγιασμός.

᾿Αγιασμός, 6, sanctification. Rarely in the LXX. Only the older editions read

“Αγιασμός δ6 “Αγιασμός

it in Isa. viii, 14, Lev. xxiii. 27, Judg. xvii. 3; it is certified only in Ezek. xlv. 4 (= ὕπρ, sanctuary) and Amos ii. 11 (paraphrase for 2; also for sanctuary). In the Apocrypha it occurs 2 Mace. ii. 17, 3 Mace. ii. 18, for sanctuary; 2 Mace. xiv. 36, ἅγις παντὸς ἁγιασμοῦ κύριε, διατήρησον εἰς αἰῶνα ἀμίαντον τόνδε τὸν προσφάτως κεκαθαρισμένον οἶκον, where it obviously is used to strengthen the ὥγιε superlatively, therefore = holiness, though Schleusner takes it actively, and renders, “omni divino cultu prosequende.” Cf. Ecclus. xvii 9: ὄνομα ἁγιασμοῦ αἰνέσουσιν, ἵνα διηγῶνται τὰ μεγαλεῖα τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ. The meaning of Ecclus. vii. 31, θυσία ἁγιασμοῦ, is doubtful, though many take it as signifying sanctuary. This use of the word in the LXX. and the Apocrypha rests upon the fact that, like other words of the same form, a passive as well as an active meaning can be given to it, eg. πλεονασμός, βασανισμός, and others, Both significa- tions occur in patristic Greek, though here the passive prevails, while in the N. T. it is the rarer.

(1) Actively, sanctification, and indeed (1) the accomplishment of the divine saving work designated by ἁγιάζειν, the setting up, advancing, and preserving of the life of fellow- ship with the God of grace and righteousness. 1 Thess. iv. 7, οὐκ ἐκάλεσεν ὑμᾶς ὁ θεὸς ἐπὶ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ, ἀλλὰ ἐν ἁγιασμῷ ; sanctification, as the removal of existing impurity, accom- panies and characterizes the calling; the change of prepositions is observable in this passage. 2 Thess. ii. 13, εἵλατο ὑμᾶς ὁ θεὸς... εἰς σωτηρίαν ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος. 1 Pet. 1.. 2, ἐκλεκτοὶ ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος, because it is the Spirit who accomplishes this saving work. See ἅγιος.---(2) The preservation and nurture of the divine life-fellowship on the part of the man who has become the subject of divine influences. 1 Thess. iv. 3, 4, τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ ἁγιασμὸς ὑμῶν, ἀπέχεσθαι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τῆς πορνείας, εἰδέναι ἕκαστον ὑμῶν τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σκεῦος κτᾶσθαι ἐν ἁγιασμῷ καὶ τιμῇ; ef. ver. 7. Cf. ΟἾγγ5., Theophyl., and Theodoret, who explain it in Heb. xii. 14 by σωφροσύνη, in the narrow sense of chastity, continence. 1 Tim. ii. 15, μένειν ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀγάπῃ Kal ἁγιασμῷ μετὰ σωφροσύνης. Heb. xii. 14, εἰρήνην διώκετε μετὰ πάντων καὶ τὸν ἁγιασμὸν, οὗ χωρὶς οὐδεὶς ὄψεται τὸν κύριον (cf. Matt. ν. 8).» It cannot be denied that the passive meaning claimed for these texts in the first edition, as if they denoted a divine work accomplished in the individual, is in some degree strained. If the reflective meaning, “to sanctify oneself,” is and must be, as remarked under ἁγιάζειν, foreign