2 (comp. ix. 22 ; xii. 42), as referring to a lighter censure than is intended by one or more of the three terms used in Luke vi. 22, where perhaps different grades are intimated. The phrase wapa3L S6pac TLE.: o-araq (I Cor. v. 5; I Tim. i. zo) has been by many commentators understood to refer to the most severe kind of excommunication. Even admitting the allusion, however, there is a very important difference between the Jewish censure and the formula employed by the apostle. In the Jewish sense it would signify the delivering over of the transgressor to final perdition, whilst the apostle expressly limits his sentence to the destruc tion of the flesh' (i.e., the depraved nature), and resorts to it in order ' that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.' But whatever diversity of opinion there may be as to the degrees of excommunication, it is on all hands admitted that the term inn, with which we are more particularly concerned as the equivalent of the Greek dinikua, properly denotes, in its Rab binical use, an excommunication accompanied with the most severe curses and denunciations of evil. We are therefore prepared to find that the ana thema of the N. T. always implies execration ; but it yet remains to be ascertained whether it is ever used to designate a judicial act of excommunica tion. That there is frequently no such reference is very clear : in some instances the individual de nounces the anathema on himself, unless certain conditions are fulfilled. The noun and its corre sponding verb are thus used in Acts xxiii. 12, 14, 21, and the verb occurs with a similar meaning in Matt. xxvi. 74; Mark xiv. 71. The phrase ' to call Jesus anathema' (i Cor. xii. 3) refers not to a judicial sentence pronounced by the Jewish autho rities, but to the act of any private individual who execrated him and pronounced him accursed. That this was a common practice among the Jews ap pears from the Rabbinical writings. The term, as it is used in reference to any who should preach another gospel ' Let him be anathema' (Gal. i. 8, 9), has the same meaning as, let him be accounted execrable and accursed. In none of these instances do we find any reason to think that the word was employed to designate specifically and technically excommunication either from the Jewish or the Christian church. There remain only two passages in which the word occurs in the N. T., both pre senting considerable difficulty to the interpreter. With regard to the first of these (Rom. ix. 3) Grotius and others understand the phrase dmiOekta rival cbrd To0 Xptcrrofi to signify excommunication from the Christian church, whilst most of the fathers, together with Tholuck, Riickert, and a great number of modern interpreters, explain the term as referring to the Jewish practice of excommu nication. On the other hand, Deyling, Olshausen, De Wette, and many more, adopt the more general meaning of accursed. The great difficulty is to ascertain the extent of the evil which Paul expresses his willingness to undergo ; Chrysostom, Calvin, and many others understand it to include final separation, not indeed from the love, but from the presence of Christ ; others limit it to a violent death ; and others, again, explain it as meaning the same kind of curse as that under which the Jews then were, from which they might be deli vered by repentance and the reception of the Gospel (Deyling, Observatt. Sacra', P. II. p. 495
and syy.) It would occupy too much space to refer to other interpretations of the passage, or to pursue the investigation of it further. There seems, however, little reason to suppose that a judicial act of the Christian church is intended, and we may remark that much of the difficulty which com mentators have felt seems to have arisen from their not keeping in mind that the Apostle does not speak of his wish as a possible thing, and their consequently pursuing to all its results what should be regarded simply as an expression of the most intense desire.* The phrase &Mena aapap fit% (I Cor. xvi. 22) has been considered by many to be equivalent to the NTI/DV of the Rabbins, the most severe form of excommunication. This opinion is derived from the supposed etymological identity of the Syriac phrase WIN inn, ' the Lord cometh,' with the Hebrew word which is considered by these com mentators to be derived from NI1N nV, 'the Name (i. e., Jehovah) cometh.' This explanation, how ever, can rank no higher than a plausible conjec ture, since it is supported by no historical evidence. The Hebrew term is never found thus divided, nor is it ever thus explained by Jewish writers, who, on the contrary, give etymologies different from this (Buxtorf, Lex. col. 2466). It is moreover very uncertain whether this third kind of excom munication was in use in the time of Paul ; and the phrase which he employs is not found in any Rabbinical writer (Lightfoot, Hartz Heir. et Talm., on a Cor. xvi. 221.). The literal meshing of the words is clear, but it is not easy to understand why the Syriac phrase is here employed, or what is its meaning in connection with anathema. Light foot supposes that the Apostle uses it to signify that he pronounced this anathema against the Jews. However this may be, the supposition that the anathema, whatever be its precise object, is intended to designate excommunication from the Christian church, as Grotius and Augustine under stand it, appears to rest on very slight grounds : it seems preferable to regard it, with Lightfoot, Olshausen, and most other commentators, as simply an expression of detestation. Though, however, we find little or no evidence of the use of the word anathema in the N. T. as the technical term for excommunication, it is certain that it obtained this meaning in the early ages of the church ; for it is thus employed in the apostolic canons, in the canons of various councils, by Chrysostom, Theo doret, and other Greek fathers (Suicer, Thesaurus Reel. sub vocc. dvciOqsa ItOoptcri.c6s).—F. W. G.