Of these three words the first, δειλία, is used always in a bad sense; the second, φόβος, is a middle term, capable of a good interpretation, capable of an evil, and lying indifferently between the two; the third, εὐλάβεια, is quite predominantly used in a good sense, though it too has not altogether escaped being employed in an evil.
Δειλία, equivalent to the Latin ‘timor,’ and having θρασύτης or ‘foolhardiness’ for its contrary extreme (Plato, Tim. 87 a), is our ‘cowardice.’ It occurs only once in the N. T.,
Φόβος, very often united with τρόμος (as at
Εὐλάβεια only occurs twice in the N. T. (
‘Quam manibus osseis tangit,
Crystallinam phialam frangit.
O inepta et rustica Mors,
O caduca juvenculae sors!’
But such a cautious care in the conducting of affairs (the word is joined by Plutarch to πρόνοια, Marc. 9; χρησιμωτάτη Θεῶν it is declared by Euripides, Phoen. 794); springing as in part it will from a fear of miscarriage, easily lies open to the charge of timidity. Thus Demosthenes, who opposes εὐλάβεια to θράσος (517), claims for himself that he was only εὐλαβής, where his enemies charged him. with being δειλός and ἄτολμος: while in Plutarch (Fab. 17) εὐλαβής and δυσέλπιστος are joined together. It is not wonderful then that fear should have come to be regarded as an essential element of εὐλάβεια, sometimes so occupies the word as to leave no room for any other sense (Josephus, Antt. xi. 6. 9), though for the most part no dishonorable fear (see, however, a remarkable exception, Wisd. 17:8) is intended, but one which a wise and good man might fitly entertain. Cicero (Tusc. iv. 6): ‘Declinatio [a malis] si cum ratione fiet, cautio appelletur, eaque intelligatur in solo esse sapiente; quae autem sine ratione et cum exanimatione humili atque fractâ, nominetur metus.’ He has probably the definition of the Stoics in his eyes. These, while they disallowed φόβος as a πάθος, admitted εὐλάβεια, which they defined as ἔκκλισις σὺν λόγῳ (Clement of Alexandria, Strom. ii. 18), into the circle of virtues; thus Diogenes Laertius (vii. 1. 116): τὴν δὲ εὐλάβειαν [ἐνατίαν φασὶν εἶναι] τῷ φόβῳ, οὖσαν εὔλογον ἔκκλισιν· φοβηθήσεσθαι μὲν γὰρ τὸν σοφὸν οὐδαμῶς, εὐλαβηθήσεσθαι δέ: and Plutarch (De Repugn. Stoic. 11) quotes their maxim: τὸ γὰρ εὐλαβεῖσθαι σοφῶν ἴδιον. Yet after all, these distinctions whereby they sought to escape the embarrassments of their ethical position, the admission for instance that the wise man might feel ‘suspiciones quasdam etiam irae affectuum,’ but not the ‘affectus’ themselves (Seneca, De Irâ, i. 16; cf. Plutarch, De Virt. Mor. 9), were nothing worth; they had admitted the thing, and were now only fighting about words, with which to cover and conceal the virtual abandonment of their position, being ὀνοματομάχοι, as a Peripatetic adversary lays to their charge. See on this matter the full discussion in Clement of Alexandria, Strom. ii. 7–9; and compare Augustine, De Civ. Dei, ix. 4. On the more distinctly religious aspect of εὐλάβεια there will be opportunity to speak hereafter (§ 48).
1 ‘And calls that providence, which we call flight.’—Dryden.
[The following Strong's numbers apply to this section:G1167,G2124,G5401.]
The Blue Letter Bible ministry and the BLB Institute hold to the historical, conservative Christian faith, which includes a firm belief in the inerrancy of Scripture. Since the text and audio content provided by BLB represent a range of evangelical traditions, all of the ideas and principles conveyed in the resource materials are not necessarily affirmed, in total, by this ministry.
Loading
Loading
Interlinear |
Bibles |
Cross-Refs |
Commentaries |
Dictionaries |
Miscellaneous |