form, and agreeableness of person, Prov. i, 9; iii, 22. For favour,
friendship, kindness, Gen. vi, 8; xviii, 3; Rom. xi, 6; 2 Tim. i, 9. For
pardon, mercy, undeserved remission of offences, Eph. ii, 5; Col. i, 6.
For certain gifts of God, which he bestows freely, when, where, and on
whom, he pleases; such are the gifts of miracles, prophecy, languages,
&c, Rom. xv, 15; 1 Cor. xv, 10; Eph. iii, 8, &c. For the Gospel
dispensation, in contradistinction to that of the law, Rom. vi, 14; 1
Peter v, 12. For a liberal and charitable disposition, 2 Cor. viii, 7.
For eternal life, or final salvation, 1 Peter i, 13. In theological
language grace also signifies divine influence upon the soul; and it
derives the name from this being the effect of the great grace or favour
of God to mankind. Austin defines inward actual grace to be the
inspiration of love, which prompts us to practise according to what we
know, out of a religious affection and compliance. He says, likewise,
that the grace of God is the blessing of God’s sweet influence, whereby
we are induced to take pleasure in that which he commands, to desire and
to love it; and that if God does not prevent us with this blessing, what
he commands, not only is not perfected, but is not so much as begun in
us. Without the inward grace of Jesus Christ, man is not able to do the
least thing that is good. He stands in need of this grace to begin,
continue, and finish all the good he does, or rather, which God does in
him and with him, by his grace. This grace is free; it is not due to us:
if it were due to us, it would be no more grace; it would be a debt,
Rom. xi, 6; it is in its nature an assistance so powerful and
efficacious, that it surmounts the obstinacy of the most rebellious
human heart, without destroying human liberty. There is no subject on
which Christian doctors have written so largely, as on the several
particulars relating to the grace of God. The difficulty consists in
reconciling human liberty with the operation of divine grace; the
concurrence of man with the influence and assistance of the Almighty.
And who is able to set up an accurate boundary between these two things?
Who can pretend to know how far the privileges of grace extend over the
heart of man, and what that man’s liberty exactly is, who is prevented,
enlightened, moved, and attracted by grace?
GRAPE, ענב, the fruit of the vine. There were fine vineyards and
excellent grapes in the promised land. The bunch of grapes which was cut
in the valley of Eshcol, and was brought upon a staff between two men to
the camp of Israel at Kadeshbarnea, Num. xiii, 23, may give us some
idea, of the largeness of the fruit in that country. It would be easy to
produce a great number of witnesses to prove that the grapes in those
regions grow to a prodigious size. By Calmet, Scheuchzer, and Harmer,
this subject has been exhausted. Doubdan assures us, that in the valley
of Eshcol were clusters of grapes to be found of ten or twelve pounds.
Moses, in the law, commanded that when the Israelites gathered their
grapes, they should not be careful to pick up those that fell, nor be so
exact as to leave none upon the vines: what fell, and what were left
behind, the poor had liberty to glean, Lev. xix, 10; Deut. xxiv, 21, 22.
For the same beneficent purpose the second vintage was reserved: this,
in those warm countries, was considerable, though never so good nor so
plentiful as the former. The wise son of Sirach says, “I waked up last
of all, as one that gleaneth after grape gatherers. By the blessing of
the Lord, I profited, and filled my wine-press like a gatherer of
grapes,” Ecclus. xxxiii, 16. It is frequent in Scripture to describe a
total destruction by the similitude of a vine, stripped in such a
manner, that there was not a bunch of grapes left for those who came to
glean. The prophecy, “He shall wash his clothes in wine, and his
garments in the blood of the grape,” Gen. xlix, 11, means that he shall
reside in a country where grapes were in abundance. The vineyards of
Engedi and of Sorek, so famous in Scripture, were in the tribe of Judah;
and so was the valley of Eshcol, whence the spies brought those
extraordinary clusters. “It appears,” says Manti, “that the cultivation
of the vine was never abandoned in this country. The grapes, which are
white, and pretty large, are, however, not much superior in size to
those of Europe. This peculiarity seems to be confined to those in this
neighbourhood; for at the distance of only six miles to the south, is
the rivulet and valley called Escohol, celebrated in Scripture for its
fertility, and for producing very large grapes. In other parts of Syria,
also, I have seen grapes of such an extraordinary size, that a bunch of
them would be a sufficient burden for one man. It is not at all
surprising, therefore, that when the spies, sent by Moses to reconnoitre
the promised land, returned to give him an account of its fertility, it
required two of them to carry a bunch of grapes, which they brought with
them suspended from a pole placed upon their shoulders.” Many eye
witnesses assure us, that in Palestine the vines, and bunches of grapes,
are almost of an incredible size. “At Beidtdjin,” says Schultz, a
“village near Ptolemais, we took our supper under a large vine, the stem
of which was nearly a foot and a half in diameter, the height about
thirty feet, and covered with its branches and shoots (for the shoots
must be supported) a hut of more than fifty feet long and broad. The
bunches of these grapes are so large that they weigh from ten to twelve
pounds, and the grapes may be compared to our plumbs. Such a bunch is
cut off and laid on a board, round which they seat themselves, and each
helps himself to as many as he pleases.” Forster, in his Hebrew
Dictionary, (under the word Eshcol,) says, that he knew at Nurnburg, a
monk of the name of Acacius, who had resided eight years in Palestine,
and had also preached at Hebron, where he had seen bunches of grapes
which were as much as two men could conveniently carry.
The wild grapes, אבשים, are the fruit of the wild or bastard vine; sour
and unpalatable, and good for nothing but to make verjuice. In Isaiah v,
2–4, the Lord complains that he had planted his people as a choice vine,
excellent as that of Sorek; but that its degeneracy had defeated his
purpose, and disappointed his hopes: when he expected that it should
bring forth choice fruit, it yielded only such as was bad; not merely
useless and unprofitable grapes, but clusters offensive and noxious. By
the force and intent of the allegory, says Bishop Lowth, “good grapes”
ought to be opposed “to fruit of a dangerous and pernicious quality,”
as, in the application of it, to judgment is opposed tyranny, and to
righteousness oppression. Hasselquist is inclined to believe that the
prophet here means the _solanum incanum_, “hoary nightshade,” because it
is common in Egypt and Palestine, and the Arabian name agrees well with
it. The Arabs call it _aneb el dib_, “wolf’s grapes.” The prophet could
not have found a plant more opposite to the vine than this; for it grows
much in the vineyards, and is very pernicious to them. It is likewise a
vine. Jeremiah uses the same image, and applies it to the same purpose,
in an elegant paraphrase of this part of Isaiah’s parable, in his
flowing and plaintive manner: “I planted thee a Sorek, a scion perfectly
genuine. How then art thou changed, and become to me the degenerate
shoot of a strange vine!” Jer. ii, 21. From some sort of poisonous
fruits of the grape kind, Moses, Deut. xxxii, 32, 33, has taken those
strong and highly poetical images with which he has set forth the future
corruption and extreme degeneracy of the Israelites, in an allegory
which has a near relation, both in its subject and imagery, to this of
Isaiah:--
“Their vine is from the vine of Sodom,
And from the fields of Gomorrah.
Their grapes are grapes of gall;
And their clusters are bitter.
Their wine is the poison of dragons,
And the deadly venom of aspics.”
GRASS, דשא, Gen. i, 11, the well known vegetable upon which flocks and
herds feed, and which decks our fields, and refreshes our sight with its
grateful verdure. Its feeble frame and transitory duration are mentioned
in Scripture as emblematic of the frail condition and fleeting existence
of man. The inspired poets draw this picture with such inimitable beauty
as the laboured elegies on mortality of ancient and modern times have
never surpassed. See Psalm xc, 6, and particularly Isaiah xl, 6–8: “The
voice said, Cry! And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and
all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field. The grass
withereth, the flower fadeth, because the Spirit of the Lord bloweth
upon it. Verily this people is grass. The grass withereth, the flower
fadeth; but the word of our God shall stand for ever.” As, in their
decay, the herbs of the fields strikingly illustrate the shortness of
human life, so, in the order of their growth, from seeds dead and
buried, they give a natural testimony to the doctrine of a resurrection.
The Prophet Isaiah, and the Apostle Peter, both speak of bodies rising
from the dead, as of so many seeds springing from the ground to
renovated existence and beauty, although they do not, as some have
absurdly supposed, consider the resurrection as in any sense analogous
to the process of vegetation, Isaiah xxvi, 19; 1 Peter i, 24, 25.
It is a just remark of Grotius, that the Hebrews ranked the whole
vegetable system under two classes, עץ, and עשב. The first is rendered
ξύλον, or δένδρον, _tree_: to express the second, the LXX have adopted
χόρτος, as their common way to translate one Hebrew word by one Greek
word, though not quite proper, rather than by a circumlocution. It is
accordingly used in their version of Genesis i, 11, where the
distinction first occurs, and in most other places. Nor is it with
greater propriety rendered _grass_ in English than χόρτος in Greek. The
same division occurs in Matt. vi, 30, and Rev. viii, 7, where our
translators have in like manner had recourse to the term _grass_. Dr.
Campbell prefers and uses the word _herbage_, as coming nearer the
meaning of the sacred writer. Under the name _herb_ is comprehended
every sort of plant which has not, like trees and shrubs, a perennial
stalk. That many, if not all, sorts of shrubs were included by the
Hebrews under the denomination, _tree_, is evident from Jotham’s
apologue of the trees choosing a king, Judges ix, 7, where the bramble
is mentioned as one. See HAY.
GRASSHOPPER, חגב, Lev. xi, 22; Num. xiii, 33; 2 Chron. vii, 13; Eccles.
xii, 5; Isaiah xl, 22; 2 Esdras iv, 24; Wisdom xvi, 9; Eccles. xliii,
17. Bochart supposes that this species of the locust has its name from
the Arabic verb _hajaba_, “to veil,” because, when they fly, as they
often do, in great swarms, they eclipse even the light of the sun. “But
I presume,” says Parkhurst, “this circumstance is not peculiar to any
particular kind of locust: I should rather, therefore, think it denotes
the _cucullated_ species, so denominated by naturalists from the
_cucullus_, “cowl” or “hood,” with which they are furnished, and which
distinguishes them from the other kinds. In Scheuchzer may be seen
several of this sort; and it will appear that this species nearly
resemble our grasshopper.” Our translators render the Hebrew word
_locust_ in the prayer of Solomon at the dedication of the temple, 2
Chron. vii, 13, and with propriety. But it is rendered _grasshopper_, in
Eccles. xii, 5, where Solomon, describing the infelicities of old age,
says, “The grasshopper shall be a burden.” “To this insect,” says Dr.
Smith, “the preacher compares a dry, shrunk, shrivelled, crumpling,
craggy old man; his backbone sticking out, his knees projecting forward,
his arms backward, his head downward, and the apophyses or bunching
parts of the bones in general enlarged. And from this exact likeness,
without all doubt, arose the fable of Tithonus, who, living to extreme
old age, was at last turned into a grasshopper.” Dr. Hodgson, referring
it to the custom of eating locusts, supposes it to imply that luxurious
gratification will become insipid; and Bishop Reynolds, that the
lightest pressure of so small a creature shall be uncomfortable to the
aged, as not being able to bear any weight. Other commentators suppose
the reference to the chirping noise of the grasshopper, which must be
disagreeable to the aged and infirm, who naturally love quiet, and are
commonly unable to bear much noise. It is probable that here, also, a
kind of locust is meant; and these creatures are proverbially
loquacious. They make a loud, screaking, and disagreeable noise with
their wings. If one begins, others join, and the hateful concert becomes
universal. A pause then ensues, and, as it were, on a signal given, it
again commences; and in this manner they continue squalling for two or
three hours without intermission. The Prophet Isaiah contrasts the
grandeur and power of God, and every thing reputed great in this world,
by a very expressive reference to this insect: Jehovah sitteth on the
circle of the earth, and the inhabitants are to him as grasshoppers,
Isaiah xl, 22. What atoms and inanities are they all before him, who
sitteth on the circle of the immense heavens, and views the potentates
of the earth in the light of grasshoppers, those poor insects that
wander over the barren heath for sustenance, spend the day in
insignificant chirpings, and take up their contemptible lodging at night
on a blade of grass! See LOCUST.
GRECIA, or GREECE, both names occurring in the English Scriptures. The
boundaries of the country which received this name differed under the
different governments which ruled over it. Thus the Greece of the Old
Testament is not exactly the same as that of the New: the former
including Macedonia, Thessaly, Epirus, Hellas or Greece Proper, and the
Peloponnesus or Morea; while the latter excludes Macedonia, Thessaly,
and Epirus. But the Romans, in the time of the Apostles, had, in fact,
made two divisions of these countries. The first, which was that of
Macedonia, included also Thessaly and Epirus; and the other, that of
Achaia, all the rest of Greece, which is, properly speaking, the Greece
of the New Testament. But the term _Greek_ admits of a larger
interpretation, and applies not only to the inhabitants of Greece
Proper, but to those of Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt, over nearly the
whole of the former of which countries, and great part of the two
latter, Grecian colonies and the Grecian language had extended
themselves. In fact, in the two books of the Maccabees, and in those of
the New Testament, the word _Greek_ commonly implies a Gentile.
2. The Scripture has but little reference to Greece till the time of
Alexander, whose conquests extended into Asia, where Greece had hitherto
been of no importance. Yet that some intercourse was maintained with
these countries from Jerusalem, may be inferred from the desire of
Baasha to shut up all passage between Jerusalem and Joppa, which was its
port, by the building of Ramah; and the anxiety of Asa to counteract his
scheme, 1 Kings xv, 2, 17. Greece was certainly intended by the Prophet
Daniel under the symbol of the single-horned goat; and it is probable
that when he calls Greece Chittim, he spoke the language of the Hebrew
nation, rather than that of the Persian court. After the establishment
of the Grecian dynasties in Asia, Judea could not but be considerably
affected by them; and the books of the Maccabees afford proofs of this.
The Roman power, superseding the Grecian establishments, yet left traces
of Greek language, customs, &c, to the days of the Herods, when the
Gospel history commences. By the activity of the Apostles, and
especially by that of St. Paul, the Gospel was propagated in those
countries which used the Grecian dialects: hence, we are interested in
the study of this language. Moreover as Greece, like all other
countries, had its peculiar manners, we are not able to estimate
properly an epistle written to those who dwell where they prevailed,
without a competent acquaintance with the manners themselves, with the
sentiments and reasonings of those who practised them, and with the
arguments employed in their defence by those who adhered to them.
GREEK LANGUAGE. It was because of the wide diffusion of this language
that the New Testament was written in Greek. Its diction is not,
however, that of the classical Greek, but it was chosen, no doubt, with
a view to greater usefulness. In the age which succeeded Alexander the
Great, the Greek language underwent an internal change of a double
nature. In part, a prosaic language of books was formed, ἡ κοινὴ
διαλεκτὸς, which was built on the Attic dialect, but was intermixed with
not a few provincialisms; but a language of popular intercourse was also
formed, in which the various dialects of the different Grecian tribes,
heretofore separate, were more or less mingled together, while the
Macedonian dialect was peculiarly prominent. The latter language
constitutes the basis of the diction employed by the LXX, the writers of
the Apocrypha, and of the New Testament. The style of the New Testament
has a considerable affinity with that of the Septuagint version which
was executed at Alexandria, although it approaches somewhat nearer to
the idiom of the Greek language; but the peculiarities of the Hebrew
phraseology are discernible throughout: the language of the New
Testament being formed by a mixture of oriental idioms and expressions
with those which are properly Greek. Hence it has, by some philologers,
been termed _Hebraic Greek_, and (from the Jews having acquired the
Greek language, rather by practice than by grammar, among the Greeks, in
whose countries they resided in large communities) _Hellenistic Greek_.
The propriety of this appellation was severely contested toward the
close of the seventeenth, and in the early part of the eighteenth,
century; and numerous publications were written on both sides of the
question, with considerable asperity, which, together with the
controversy, are now almost forgotten. The dispute, however interesting
to the philological antiquarian, is after all a mere “strife of words;”
and as the appellation of Hellenistic or Hebraic Greek is sufficiently
correct for the purpose of characterizing the language of the New
Testament, it is now generally adopted. A large proportion, however, of
the phrases and constructions of the New Testament is pure Greek; that
is to say, of the same degree of purity as the Greek which was spoken in
Macedonia, and that in which Polybius wrote his Roman history. It should
farther be noticed, that there occur in the New Testament, words that
express both doctrines and practices which were utterly unknown to the
Greeks; and also words bearing widely different interpretations from
those which are ordinarily found in Greek writers. It contains examples
of all the dialects occurring in the Greek language, as the Æolic,
Bœtic, Doric, Ionic, and especially of the Attic; which, being most
generally in use on account of its elegance, pervades every book of the
New Testament.
2. A variety of solutions has been given to the question, why the New
Testament was written in Greek. The true reason is, that it was the
language most generally understood both by writers and readers; being
spoken and written, read and understood, throughout the Roman empire,
and particularly in the eastern provinces. To the universality of the
Greek language, Cicero, Seneca, and Juvenal bear ample testimony: and
the circumstances of the Jews having long had political, civil, and
commercial relations with the Greeks, and being dispersed through
various parts of the Roman empire, as well as their having cultivated
the philosophy of the Greeks, of which we have evidence in the New
Testament, all sufficiently account for their being acquainted with the
Greek language. And if the eminent Jewish writers, Philo and Josephus,
had motives for preferring to write in Greek, there is no reason, at
least there is no general presumption, why the first publishers of the
Gospel might not use the Greek language. It is indeed probable, that
many of the common people were acquainted with it; though it is also
certain the Christian churches being in many countries composed chiefly
of that class of persons, some did not understand Greek. But in every
church, says Macknight, there were persons endowed with the gift of
tongues, and of the interpretation of tongues, who could readily turn
the Apostles’ Greek epistles into the language of the church to which
they were sent. In particular, the president or the spiritual man, who
read the Apostle’s Greek letter to the Hebrews in their public
assemblies, could without any hesitation render it into the Hebrew
language, for the edification of those who did not understand Greek. And
with respect to the Jews in the provinces, Greek being the native
language of most of them, this epistle was much better calculated for
their use, written in the Greek language, than if it had been written in
the Hebrew, which few of them understood. Farther, it was proper that
all the apostolical epistles should be written in the Greek language,
because the different doctrines of the Gospel being delivered and
explained in them, the explanation of these doctrines could with more
advantage be compared so as to be better understood, being expressed in
one language, than if, in the different epistles, they had been
expressed in the language of the churches and persons to whom they were
sent. Now what should that one language be, in which it was proper to
write the Christian revelation, but the Greek, which was then generally
understood, and in which there were many books extant; that treated of
all kinds of literature, and on that account were likely to be
preserved, and by the reading of which Christians, in after ages, would
be enabled to understand the Greek of the New Testament? This advantage
none of the provincial dialects used in the Apostles’ days could pretend
to. Being limited to particular countries, they were soon to be disused;
and few (if any) books being written in them which merited to be
preserved, the meaning of such of the Apostles’ letters as were composed
in the provincial languages could not easily have been ascertained.
GREEK CHURCH. As the Gospel spread in the first ages both east and west,
the first Christian churches were so denominated. From the languages
respectively used in their devotions, they were also called the Greek
and Latin or Roman churches. For the first seven centuries these
churches preserved a friendly communion with each other, notwithstanding
they disagreed as to the time of keeping Easter, and some other points.
But about the middle of the eighth century, disputes arose, which
terminated in a schism, that continues to this day. It arose out of a
controversy respecting the use of images in the churches. It happened
that at this time both churches were under prelates equally dogmatical
and ambitious. The patriarch of Constantinople insisted on putting down
the use of all images and pictures, not only in his own church, but at
Rome also, which the pope resented with equal violence and asperity.
They mutually excommunicated each other; and the pope of Rome
excommunicated not only the patriarch of Constantinople, but the emperor
also. The controversy respecting images engendered another, no less
bitter, respecting the procession of the Holy Ghost both from the Father
and the Son, which the Greeks flatly denied, and charged the Romans with
interpolating the word _filioque_ into the ancient creeds. These
controversies occupied the eighth and ninth centuries, after which some
intervals of partial peace occurred; but in the eleventh century, the
flame broke out afresh, and a total separation took place. At that time,
the Patriarch Michael Cerularius, who was desirous to free himself from
the papal authority, published an invective against the Latin church,
and accused its members of maintaining various errors. Pope Leo retorted
the charge, and sent legates from Rome to Constantinople. The Greek
patriarch refused to see them; upon which they excommunicated him and
his adherents, publicly, in the church of St. Sophia, A. D. 1054. The
Greek patriarch excommunicated those legates, with all their adherents
and followers, in a public council; and procured an order of the emperor
for burning the act of excommunication which they had pronounced against
the Greeks. Thus the separation was completed, and at this day a very
considerable part of the world profess the religion of the Greek or
eastern church. The Nicene and Athanasian creeds, with the exception of
the words above-mentioned, are the symbols of their faith.