Page images



THE WORD Togvela.

THE various, the confused, and the unsatisfactory expositions of the word togveld, as it occurs Matt. v. 32. xix. 9. Acts xv. 20, 29. seem to demand and to justify a more exact investigation of its meaning and import. It is not probable, that any discovery will be made which has escaped the penetration and research of former commentators; but it is possible, that by comparing the several texts in which the word and some similar expressions are found, and by bringing into one point of view the versions and the commentaries by which those texts have at different times been illustrated and explained, a clear and strong light may be thrown upon the sense in which the Jews understood the term, a sense which it is of the highest importance to ascertain, because, in the texts in question, the word was used with reference to controversies which were agitated at the time among the Jews.

The principal design of the following dissertation is to shew, 1. that there is a word, or class of words, appropriated to describe adultery ordinarily and properly so called : 2. that the words so appropriated are distinguished from those which denote simple whoredom: 3. that if either of the words be a generic term, including the other, Fogveic is not that generic term: 4. that it is not necessary to admit, that nogveice is in any text confounded or synonymous with Moixena: 5. that the Hellenistic writers do not adhere to the classical sense or etymology of the words, but use togveuw, EXTOgVEUW, rogm, and togvela, to denote generally the apostacy of idolatry, and specifically acts of consecration to the service of idols, and also the incestuous and forbidden marriages of the Jew with the Gentile, of the faithful with the unbelieving. In the establishment of these propositions more or less attention will be paid to every text in which the words in question occur, and, without pretending to deny that noguerce bears the sense of simple fornication, it is meant to shew, that there is no authority for interpreting the word in the sense of adultery, and that, whenever it is restricted by the context to a state of marriage, it is necessary to resort to some more authorized, although less ordinary and familiar, meaning of the word. It will confirm the argument to collect such evidence of the primitive import of the word as is scattered in the relics of the Hellenistic and Christian writers, who flourished before the expiration of the third century,

1. There is a copious class of words appropriated to describe adultery in all its circumstances. The word Mortense denotes the state or act of adultery". The word Moixos denotes the person of the adulterer', and morxados the person of the adulteresse. The adjective poszanos denotes the character of a generation practised in adultery, whether real or figurative, actual or spiritual". The verbs Morx colecu, Moixeuw, and Mortevouco, signify the commission of adultery. There are not less than fifty texts in which the word porxos and its derivatives are used to denoto adultery properly so called, in all of which the sense is undisputed, and a clear notion is conveyed to the mind of the reader, and many of which are defined and explained

a Matt, xv. 19. Mark vii. 21. John viii. 3. Gal. v. 19. Jer, xiii. 27. Hos. ii. 2. iv, 2. b Job xxiv. 15. Psalm xlix. 18. Prov. vi. 32. Isa. lvii. 3. Luke xviii. 11. I Cor. vi. 9. Heb. xiii. 4. James iv. 4. c Ezek. xvi. 38. xxiii. 45. Hos. iii. i. Mal. iii. 5. Rom. vii. 3. James iv. 4. (2 Pet. ii. 14, the concrete is used for the abstracı.) d Matt. xii. 39. xvi. 4. Mark viii. 38. e Ex. xx. 13. Deut. v. 18. Matt. v. 27. xix. 18. Mark x. 19. Luke xviii. 20. Rom. ii. 22. xii. 9. Levit. xx. 10. Matt. v, 28, 32. xix. 9. Mark x. 11, 12. Luke xvi. 13. John viii. 4. Jer, li. 8, 9. v. 7. 1X. 2. xxiii. 12. Ezek. xxiii. 43. llos. vii. 4. Apoc. u. 22.

by some circumstance more or less distinct in the context. In some of the figurative applications of the prophets, the meaning may be thought equivocal, and it may be difficult to trace the analogy of the metaphor; but in the ordinary use of the word there is no ambiguity; and it is no gratuitous hypothesis, that, if adultery had been intended in our Lord's clause of exception concerning the justifying cause of divorce, Matt. v. 32. xix. 9. the common word μοιχεια would have been used in preference to πορνεια, especially as the verb moixaouce is actually used to designate the effect and consequence of an unjust divorce.

2. The ordinary meaning of voixeice is unequivocal and undisputed: it is also in various texts distinguished from Togveld in such manner, that if the two words be indeed equivalent and synonymous, and do not relate to distinct and separate offences, either term would have been sufficient to express the author's meaning, and the other would have been altogether and most unnecessarily redundant. The evidence of the restriction of nogveia to simple whoredom, and of its distinction from other offences, is very clear and explicit. Thus Tagbevov jen Xatapiavbave .. den Eros Trograns the puxou gou .. LETO Únavågou yuvaixos un xalov. Syr. ix. 5, 6, 9. Cf. xli. 20, 21. ano ogaoews yuvaixos étaigas, año XATÄVONO EWS guvdixos únavdgou. Again: Evo E18n Tandurovo αμαρτιας και το τριτον επάξει οργην ψυχη θερμη .. άνθρωπος Togvos . . avágunos hagabarw año tms xaims autou. xxiii. 16, 18. τιμη γαρ πόρνης, όση και ενος αρτου, γυνη δε ανδρων τιμιας bozcas ayçevei. Prov. vi. 26. The same distinction is made in the New Testament, in which the apostle declares that God will judge fornicators and adulterers, πορνους δε και peõigous. Heb. xiii. 4. and that fornicators, idolaters, and adulterers shall be excluded from the kingdom of heaven, 1 Cor. vi. 10. on which Schleusner remarks, that " mogvoi a Moixos .. diserte distinguuntur.” The same apostle enumerates adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, among the works of the flesh, Gal. v. 19. and it is admitted by Parkhurst, that in this passage fogveld, or simple fornia text as is remet illud de scorihus, adulteri

cation, is a distinguished both from Moixeia, adultery, and are yeld, lasciviousness of other kinds, and also from axzlagria, uncleanness.” Our Lord makes the same distinction, affirming, that murders, adulteries, fornications, proceed from the heart, Matt. xv. 19. Mark vii. 21. and in this text as is remarked by Schleusner, “ πορνειαι 4 μοιχειαι ita distinguitur, ut illud de scortatione et fornicatione tantum, et aliis impudicitiæ generibus, adulterio tantum excepto, accipiendum sit.” In the texts in question our Lord, in describing the consequences of an unlawful di. vorce, speaks of adultery, uOrxaTai, but in the clause of exception he uses the word fogvera. Is it probable that there should be this variation of the expression, without a corresponding distinction of the sense ?

3. If it is admitted that there is a distinction between the words forrela and rogveice, the nature of the distinction seems to be obvious, that the former denotes the offence of married persons, and the latter that of unmarried persons. But with allusion more or less distinct to the texts in question, commentators ancient and modern, from Origen to Grotius, have contended for a large and almost indefinite signification of the word fogvers, and suggested that it stands for a class of crimes including Moixeld as a distinct offence. Thus the author of the Clementina asserts that there are many kinds of pogveld, Tay ngwrn HOXEIX ETTSY, but the earlier and better authority of Clemens Alexandrinus allows πορνειας τρεις τας διαφορας, φιληδονιαν, φιλαργυριαν, ειδώdodat gelav, Strom. I. vii. s. 12. without any specific mention of adultery. The large sense has nevertheless been admitted into the Lexicons; and Parkhurst, who admits the distinction between πορνεια, and μοιχεια, and ακαθαρσια, says, that the former “may include all kinds of lewdness : Rom. i. 29. according to Theophylact on the place : TWO OY απλως την ακαθαρσιαν τω της πορνειας ονοματι περιελαβεν. The apostle comprehends absolutely all kind of uncleanness under the name of togvera. Compare 1 Cor. vi. 13, 18. (where see Kypke,) vii. 2. 1 Thess. iv. 3, and following

« PreviousContinue »