xvi. 23, where the obliteration of the distinction between aireîv and epwrâv suggests very often a wrong interpretation of the verse, as though its two clauses were in nearer connexion, and more direct antithesis, than in fact they are,-being indeed in none. The words as they stand in our Version are as follows: "In that day ye shall ask me nothing [ἐμὲ οὐκ ἐρωτήσετε οὐδέν]. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask [ooa av aiτýonte] the Father in my name, He will give it you." Now any attentive student of the original will acknowledge, that “ye shall ask" of the first half of the verse has nothing to do with "ye shall ask" of the second; that in the first Christ is referring back to the ἤθελον αὐτὸν épwrâv of ver. 19; to the questions which the disciples would fain have asked of Him, the perplexities which they would gladly have had resolved by Him, if only they had dared to set them before Him. "In that day," He would say, " in the day of my seeing you again, I will by the Spirit so teach you all things, that ye shall be no longer perplexed, no longer wishing to ask Me questions, if only you might venture to do so." Thus Lampe well: Nova est promissio de plenissimâ cognitionis luce, quâ convenienter œconomia Novi Testamenti collustrandi essent. Nam sicut quæstio supponit inscitiam, ita qui nihil amplius quærit abunde se edoctum existimat, et in doctrinâ plene expositâ ac intellectâ acquiescit.' There is not in this verse a contrast drawn between asking the Son, which shall cease, and asking the Father, which shall begin; but the first half of the verse closes the declaration of one blessing, namely that hereafter they shall be so taught by the Spirit as to have nothing further to inquire; the second half of the verse begins the declaration of altogether a new blessing, that whatever they shall seek from the Father in the Son's name, He will give it them. Yet who will affirm that this is the impression which the English text conveys to his mind? Matt. vii. 7; Jam. i. 5; The distinction between the words is this: airéw, the Latin peto,' is more submissive and suppliant, indeed the constant word by which is expressed the seeking of the inferior from the superior (Acts xii. 20); of the beggar from him that should give alms (Acts iii. 2); of the child from the parent (Matt. vii. 9; Luke xi. 11; Lam. iv. 4); of the subject from the ruler (Ezra viii. 22); of man from God (1 Kin. iii. 11; 1 John iii. 22; cf. Plato, [ἔστιν] αἰτεῖν τοὺς θεούς). hand, is the Latin 'rogo;' or sometimes (as John xvi. 23; cf. Gen. xliv. 19) 'interrogo,' which indeed is the only meaning that in classical Greek it has; never there signifying to ask,' but only 'to interrogate,' or 'to inquire.' Like the Latin 'rogo,'1 it implies on the part of the asker a certain equality, as of king with king (Luke xiv. 32), or, if not equality, familiarity with him from whom the gift or favour is sought, which lends authority to the request. 1 Thus Cicero (Planc. x. 25): 'Neque enim ego sic rogabam, ut petere viderer, quia familiaris esset meus.' Thus it is very noticeable, and witnesses for the remarkable accuracy in the employment of words, and in the record of that employment, which prevails throughout the N. T., that our Lord never uses αἰτεῖν οι αἰτεῖσθαι of Himself, in respect of that which He seeks on behalf of his disciples from God; his is not the petition of the creature to the Creator, but the request of the Son to the Father. The consciousness of his equal dignity, of his potent and prevailing intercession, speaks out in this, that often as He asks, or declares that He will ask, anything of the Father, it is always èpwrw, epwτnow, an asking, that is, as upon equal terms (John xiv. 16; xvi. 26; xvii. 9, 15, 20), never aitâ or airýow. Martha, on the contrary, plainly reveals her poor unworthy conception of his person, and in fact declares that she sees in Him no more than a prophet, when she ascribes the aireîolai to Him, which He never ascribes to Himself: óoa àv αἰτήσῃ τὸν Θεὸν, δώσει σοι ὁ Θεός (John xi. 22) : on which verse Bengel observes: Jesus, de se rogante loquens édenonv dicit (Luc. xxii. 32), et ἐρωτήσω, at nunquam αὐτοῦμαι. Non Græce locuta est Martha, sed tamen Johannes exprimit improprium ejus sermonem, quem Dominus benigne tulit: nam aireîolaι videtur verbum esse minus dignum cf. his note on 1 John v. 16. 6 It will follow from what has been said that the épwrâv, being thus proper for Christ, inasmuch as it has authority in it, is not proper for us; and in no single instance is it used in the N. T. to express the prayer of man to God, of the creature to the Creator. The only passage where it might seem to be so used, which therefore might be adduced as contradicting this assertion, is 1 John v. 16; the verse is difficult, and various ways of overcoming its difficulty have been proposed; but whichever may be accepted, it will be found to constitute no true exception to the rule, but perhaps, in its change from airýoet of the earlier clause of the verse, will rather confirm it. § xli.—ἀνάπαυσις, ἄνεσις. OUR Version renders both these words by 'rest;' áváπavois at Matt. xi. 28; xii. 45; and äveσis at 2 Cor. ii. 13; vii. 5; 2 Thess. i. 7. No one can object to this; while yet when we scrutinize the words we at once perceive that they repose on different images, and contemplate this 'rest' from different points of view. Ανάπαυσις, from ἀναTaú∞, implies the pause or cessation from labour; it is the constant word in the Septuagint for the rest of the Sabbath; thus Exod. xvi. 23; xxxi. 15; xxxv. 2, and often. "Aveous, from ȧvínu, implies the relaxing or letting down of chords or strings which have before been strained or drawn tight, its exact and literal antithesis being èπíraσis (from ἐπιτείνω): thus Plato Pol. i. 349 e): ἐν τῇ ἐπιτάσει καὶ ἀνέσει τῶν χορδῶν: and Plutarch (De Lib. Ed. 13): τὰ τόξα καὶ τὰς λύρας ἀνίεμεν, ἵνα ἐπιτεῖναι δυνηθῶμεν: and again (Lyc. 29) : οὐκ ἄνεσις ἦν, ἀλλ ̓ ἐπίτασις τῆς πολιτείας. Moses in the year of jubilee gave, according to Josephus (Antt. iii. 12. 3), ἄνεσιν τῇ γῇ ἀπό τε ἀρότρου καὶ φυτείας. But there is no passage perhaps which illustrates this word so well as one occurring in Plutarch's treatise, De Lib. Ed. 13: δοτέον οὖν τοῖς παισὶν ἀναπνοὴν τῶν συνεχῶν πόνων, ἐνθυμουμένους, ὅτι πᾶς ὁ βίος ἡμῶν εἰς ἄνεσιν καὶ σπουδὴν διῄρηται· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο οὐ μόνον ἐγρήγορσις, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὕπνος εὑρέθη· οὐδὲ πόλεμος, ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰρήνη· οὐδὲ χειμῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ εὐδία· οὐδὲ ἐνεργοὶ πράξεις, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἑορταί. . . . . καθόλου δὲ σώζεται, σῶμα μὲν, ἐνδείᾳ καὶ πλη. ρώσει· ψυχὴ δὲ, ἀνέσει καὶ πόνῳ. The opposition between ἄνεσις and σπουδή which occurs in this quotation, is found also in Plato (Legg. iv. 724 a); while elsewhere (Plutarch, Symp. v. 6), ἄνεσις is set over against στενοχωρία, as a dwelling at large, instead of in a narrow and strait room. ... When thus we present to ourselves the precise significance of ἄνεσις, we cannot fail to note how excellently chosen the word is at Acts xxiv. 23; where ἔχειν τε ἄνεσιν, we translate, “ and let him have liberty." It would be difficult to find a better word, yet 'liberty' does not exactly express St. Luke's intention: Felix, taking now a more favourable view of Paul's case, commands the centurion who had him in charge, as the context abundantly shows, to relax for the future the strictness of his imprisonment, to keep him rather under honorable arrest than in actual confinement; and it is exactly this partial relaxation of his bonds, which ἔχειν ἄνεσιν implies. |