Copyright
James Hastings.

Dictionary of the apostolic church (Volume 1) online

. (page 134 of 234)
Online LibraryJames HastingsDictionary of the apostolic church (Volume 1) → online text (page 134 of 234)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


being at once surrender to, reliance on, and
identification with its object. Here, St. Paul
brings us to the circle of the thought of St. John,
which only once refers to forgiveness (see above),
but moves round the act of believing which joins
man to God.

As kindred expressions we may notice the words
xaptfcffOat- properly, ' do a favour to a person,' or,
with the accusative of the thing, ' make a present
of ' sometimes in the sense of making a present
of an act of wrong-doing, i.e., not insisting on the
penalty for it (2 Co 12 1S , Col 2 1S ) ; irapevis (Ro S 25 ),
' a temporary suspension of punishment which may
be one day inflicted,' and therefore entirely distinct
from forgiveness (see R. C. Trench, NT Synonyms 8 ,
1876, p. HOtt'.) ; KaXfarTeiv, 'to conceal, cover over'
(cf. the Hebrew kipper) (Ro 4 7 [quoting from Ps
32 1 ], 1 P 4 8 ) ; and Xvetv, 'to loose' (Rev I 5 ).

LITERATURE. Forgiveness has very little modern literature
devoted to it ; but it is discussed in all literature dealing with
Atonement and Reconciliation, and, at least indirectly, in that
referring to Sin and Conversion. See the artt. ATONEMENT, CON-
VERSION, JUSTIFICATION, REPENTANCE, SIN, with the Literature
there cited. Reference may also be made to G. B. Stevens,
Theology of the NT, 1899 ; A. Ritschl, The Christian Doctrine
of Justification and Reconciliation, Eng. tr., 1900; W. E.
Orchard, Modem Theories of Sin, 1909 ; W. L. Walker, The
Gospel of Reconciliation, 1909 ; P. T. Forsyth, The Work of
Christ, 1910; R. Mackintosh, Christianity and Sin, 1913.
W. F. LOFTHOUSE.

FORM. The first occurrence of this word in the
Epistles is in Ro 2 20 , where St. Paul speaks of the
Jew as ' having in the law the form of knowledge
and of the truth.' The word he uses is /*<5pc/>a><ris,
which is found again only in 2 Ti 3 5 ( ' having the
form of godliness '), where it clearly has a dispar-
aging sense and may be taken to mean an affecta-
tion of or an aiming at the /xo/><i} of godliness.
fj.op<j>T] itself is that which manifests the essence or
inward nature of a thing, ' outward form as deter-
mined by inward substance,' in contrast with <r%w*
which means ' outward form as opposed to inward
substance.' fj.6p<pu<ris occupies an intermediate
position between these words ; the Apostle hesi-
tates to use crxwta, yet he will not use /xop^ij. The
term happily expresses his meaning in Ro 2 20 the
Law, so far as it went, was an expression, one
might even say an embodiment, of Divine truth.
It did not go far enough to be called fj.op<jrfi, yet it
was more than mere outward fashion (<TXT?/I).
There is not the same note of disparagement about
the word here as in 2 Ti 3* ; it is rather one of in-
completeness.

We may turn now to the well-known use of the
word nopfp-q itself in Ph 2 61 -, where Christ is said to
have been in the form of God and to have taken
the form of a slave. The first thing to bear in
mind is that St. Paul used the common speech of
his day, and this word, like many others, had
wandered far from the accurate metaphysical sense
in which it was used by Plato and Aristotle. The
lengthy and thorough discussions of the word and
its relation to otio-la., <ptio~is, eI5os, and similar terms
by Lightfoot (Philippians*, 1878, p. 127 tf.) and E.
H. Gifford (The Incarnation, 1897, p. 22 ff.) remain
as examples of fine scholarship, but it is now
generally recognized that St. Paul uses ftop<pri here



416



FOEMALISM



FOEMALISM



in an easy, popular sense, much as we use the word
' nature." Several passages in the LXX (e.g. Job
4 16 , Dn 5 8 , Wis 18 1 ' 4 , 4 Mac 15 4 ) witness to the
same tendency v-opfyi) is the appearance or look of
some one, that by which onlookers judge. But,
while St. Paul avoids metaphysical speculations
on the relation of the Son to the Father, he implies
here, as elsewhere, that Christ has, as it were, the
same kind of existence as God. The closest
parallels are elicwv TOU 6eov (Col l ls ) and irXot/o-ios &v
(2 Co 8 9 ), the latter passage reminding us of the
great antithesis in Ph 2 6> 7 between the p-opcp^ Geou
and the c-optyri do\ov. SovXos stands for man in
opposition to God and must not be pressed literally.
It is worth noting that St. Paul insists on Christ's
direct exchange of the one form for the other, in
contrast to Gnostic views which represented Him
as passing through a series of transformations.
To return to /j.op<f>%, which here denotes, as it usu-
ally does, an adequate and accurate expression of
the underlying being, and so points to the Divinity
of the pre-existing Christ, one may, without any
detraction from this honour, point out that St.
Paul always regards the Death and Resurrection of
Christ as adding something to it. It is after the
return to glory that Christ is declared the Son of
God 'with power' (Ro I 3 - 4 ), and becomes Lord (Ph
2 9 " 11 ). It only remains to point out that Christ's
assumption or the ' form ' or ' nature ' of a servant
does not imply that His ' Ego,' the basis of His per-
sonality, was changed. (See further art. CHRIST,
CHRISTOLOGY, p. 193 f.)

Before leaving this word, we may notice the use
of the verb nopfybw in a beautifully expressive pas-
sage, Gal 4 19 , where the Apostle adopts the figure
of a child-bearing mother ; he is in travail for the
spiritual birth of Christ within his Galatian friends,
straining every power to shape their inner man
afresh into the image of Christ. The use of the
word ' form ' in Ro 9 20 and 1 Ti 2 1S (in each case
translating ir\d<ro-u) calls for no remark.

Two other passages in the Epistles demand con-
sideration. In Ro 6 17 St. Paul is glad that the
Romans have become sincerely obedient ' to that
form of teaching ' to which they were delivered ;
and in 2 Ti I 13 there is an exhortation to ' hold the
form (RV 'pattern') of sound words which thou
hast heard from me.' The word used in Rom.
is TI/TTOS, which must be taken in its usual Pauline
sense of ' pattern,' ' standard.' No special type of
doctrine is meant (see F. J. A. Hort, Prolegomena,
to Romans and Ephesians, 1895, p. 32) ; the refer-
ence is to a course of simple instruction, like that
in the first part of the Didache ('The Two Ways '),
which preceded baptism. In 2 Tim. we have the
compound virortTruffis, lit. an ' outline sketch,' and
so a 'pattern' or 'example.' It is the emphatic
word in the sentence, and the meaning is best
brought out by the translation, ' Hold as a pattern
of healthy teaching, in faith and love, what you
heard from me.' A. J. GRIEVE.

FORMALISM. As thought needs language and
soul needs body, so the spirit of religion can main-
tain, manifest and propagate itself, can relate
itself to its environment, only as it is embodied in
external form. It takes intellectual form in
doctrines and creeds ; its emotional necessities
create forms of worship ; its social instincts express
themselves in ecclesiastical organization and sacra-
mental rites, in all its instruments and symbols
of corporate action. Hence arises inevitably the
danger of formalism : the ' form of godliness '
(2 Ti 3 5 ) may persist after the power which origin-
ally created it has evaporated, and it may be in-
herited or adopted by those who have never had
experience of the inward reality. Formalism in
this proper sense of the word is to be distinguished



from hypocrisy (the consciously fraudulent assump-
tion of the externals of religion), and other varieties
of unreality in religion. The typical formalist is
the angel of the church in Sardis, of whom it is
written : ' Thou hast a name that thou livest, and
thou art dead' (Rev 3 1 ). Unlike his Laodicean
neighbour, who is ' neither cold nor hot,' he sets a
high value upon the Christian name, and firmly
believes that to do so is to be earnestly Christian.
He mistakes zealous performance of acts of worship
for real devotion, and punctilious orthodoxy for
living conviction. He sincerely respects the badges
and expressions of spiritual life, believes them to
be necessary and effectual unto salvation, while he
is ignorant of, and without desire for, the reality
which they express. He is a ' well without water'
(2 P 2").

In the apostolic writings formalism of various
kinds is detected and rebuked.

1. The substitution of religious observances for
religious reality. (a) Such observances may be
sacramental, belonging to the prescribed ritual ;
and to these the danger of formalism always
attaches in a high degree, the performance of the
ritual act being always regarded by the unspiritual
man as setting him in a right relation to God.
Thus St. Paul accuses the Jews of formalism with
regard to circumcision (Ro 2 25 ' 29 ), admonishing
them that ' he is not a Jew who is one outwardly
. . . circumcision is that of the heart, in the
spirit, not in the letter.' Otherwise it is become
'uncircumcision,' a falsehood against which the
virtue of the unprivileged Gentile will rise up in
judgment. In St. Paul's controversy with the
Judaizers, the issue was between a legal and a
spiritual conception of religion rather than between
formalism ana reality. Yet the latter element
also was involved, and is emphasized by his re-
peatedly contrasting both circumcision and un-
circumcision with the inward essence and ethical
manifestation of Christianity 'a new creature'
(Gal 6 15 ), ' faith that worketh by love ' (5 6 ), ' keep-
ing the commandments of God (1 Co 7 19 ). Here
with deep insight St. Paul places ' uncircumcision '
on the same footing with 'circumcision.' If the
advocates of freedom supposed that there was any
virtue in uncircumcision per se, they were only sub-
stituting one fetish for another. As there are
persons who make a convention of unconventional-
ity, so in religion repudiation of form may become
only a different species of formalism.

(b) Not only ritual or sacramental acts, but all
observances which are labelled 'religious,' even
those which are most directly designed for instruc-
tion and edification, are exposed to the same
danger. Having exhorted his readers to 'receive
with meekness the implanted word,' St. James
(I 21 - 25 ) hastens to preclude the notion that such
' hearing,' as a mere opus operatum, has any re-
ligious value. Without ' doing ' it is no less barren
of good result than a cursory glance at one's own
image in a mirror (cf. Ro 2 18 ). Closely akin to
this formalism of ' hearing ' is that which substi-
tutes fluent religious talk for religious conduct
( Ja I 26 - yi ). The pure undefiled flpijcncet'a, the true
Christian cultus, is to ' visit the widows and the
fatherless in their affliction, and to keep oneself
unspotted from the world. '

2. The formalism of intellectual orthodoxy.
The classical passage is Ja 2 14 ' 26 . Signifying by
' faith ' not the vital spiritual act, but the orthodox
confession which is its proper ' form,' the writer
vigorously declares that such faith, ' if it have not
works,' is dead in itself (v. 16 ), a body uninhabited
by the quickening spirit (v. 26 ). St. Paul advances
even beyond this position when (1 Co 13 s ) he asserts
that one may have 'all faith, so as to remove
mountains,' yet if it be 'without charity, he is



FORNICATION



FORNICATION



417



nothing.' The First Epistle of St. John is occupied
with the exposure of intellectual formalism (for
though the Gnostic tenets, against which it is
directed, are regarded as the rankest heterodoxy,
the principle is the same). To imagine that we
' know God,' while not keeping His commandments
(2*-*), or that we are ' in the light,' while hating
our brother (2 9 ) ; to credit ourselves with ' knowing
Christ ' in whom is no sin, while continuing in the
practice of sin (3 6 ), is to stand convicted of being a
' liar.' Only he who loves can know God, who is
Love (4 8 ).

3. Formalism within the ethical domain.
While religious observances and credal orthodoxy
are always to be submitted to the test of ethics, the
last hiding-place of formalism is within the ethical
domain itself. There is the formalism to which
the possession of a high moral ideal stands for high
morality. This is scathingly rebuked by St. Paul
in Ro 2"- M . The typical Jew gloried in the lofty
moral standards of his race, ' resting upon the law,'
'approving the things that are excellent' ; but ac-
cording to the Apostle's indictment he too often
regarded an enlightened sense of duty as the goal
rather than as the starting-point of moral life. It
is a still subtler formalism when the ethical impulse
exhausts itself in lofty and generous sentiment, or
in clothing such emotion with appropriate verbiage
(Ja 2 18 - 1 '). This possibility is suggested, with a
touch of delicate irony, in 1 Jn 3 16 " 18 , where the law
of self-sacrificing brotherhood is first stated in its
highest terms ' We ought to lay down our lives
for the brethren,' and then, lest any one should
mistake the emotion awakened by such magnificent
expressions of duty for the discharge of duty itself,
the issue is brought down to the pedestrian level
of the everyday use of ' the world's goods ' for the
relief of the need that is before one's eyes. Here,
again, St. Paul is still bolder (1 Co 13 3 ), pointing
out that conduct may fill out to the utmost the
' form ' of self-sacrifice (' If I give all my goods to
feed the poor, and if I give my body to be burned '),
and yet lack the inward reality. Ethical reality
is attested not by the sensational exploit, but by
that 'walking in love' which is so inimitably
described in the following verses.

LITERATURE. A. Whyte, Bunyan Characters, 1. [1895] 132,
271, Bible Characters : ' Our Lord's Characters,' 1902, pp. 150,
284 ; Stopford A. Brooke, The Fight of Faith, 1877, p. 51 ;
John Foster, Lectured, 1853, i. 131 ff. ; J. H. Newman,
Parochial and Plain Sermons, new ed., 1868, i. 21, 124, iv. 66 ;
A Maclaren, Christ in the Heart, 1886, p. 226 ; J. B. Mayor,
The Epistle of St. Jametf, 1910 ; Robert Law, Tests of Life,
1909, pp. 208 ff., 231 ff., 279 ff. ROBERT LAW.

FORNICATION (iropvela, and cognates). 1.
Meaning of term. (1) iropvela. is used sometimes in
the strict sense of ' prostitution ' or ' fornication ' (1
Co 6 13 ). It is thus different from fiotxeta, or ' adul-
tery ' (He 13 4 [cf. Mk 7 21 ] Didache, 2 f . ). This strict
sense, however, can be retained with certainty
only when the two words occur side by side. In
the pagan world, while /tot%ea was regarded as
sinful on a woman's part mainly on the ground
that it infringed the husband's rights, fornication
or sexual intercourse outside the marriage bond or
even by husbands was allowable. St. Paul (1 Th
4 3ff -) demands chastity from married men. The
wife (interpreting ovceOos as 'wife' [see Milligan's
Thess., London, 1908, for opposite view]) is to be
had in holiness and honour. Christian morality
is contrasted with pagan in this respect. Illicit
sexual intercourse with a married woman is not
only an infringement of the husband's rights, but
violence done to the Holy Ghost. Christianity
regards fornication and adultery alike as sinful.
Cato looked on fornication as a preventive against
libidinous intrigues with married women (Horace,
Sat. i. 2). Cicero says it was always practised
VOL. i. 27



and allowed (pro Ccelio, xx). It was defended not
only as customary but as a necessity of nature.
Alexander Severus furnished governors with con-
cubines. The Cynic and early Stoic philosophers
excused it on the ground that ' naturalia non sunt
turpia.' This St. Paul combats (1 Co 6 13 " 20 ). It
is not a natural thing like food ; for, while the
nutritive system of man belongs to the perishing
schema of this world, the body is the organ of the
spirit and the temple of the Holy Ghost, bought by
Christ for His own service. To unite it to a
harlot is an act of sacrilege, of self - violation,
and it breaks the union between Christ and the
believer.

How different this is from the lame censure of
Epictetus (Enchir. 33) and the practice of Marcus
Aurelius, who had his concubine (see Lecky, History
of European Morals 8 , London, 1888, ii. 314 ff.).

(2) vopvela, is used also in a generic sense, (toi-xeio.
being specific. In Pauline terminology not-xeiia is
found in quotations from the LXX (seventh com-
mandment), while iropvda is used for immorality in
general (cf. Theophylact on Ro I 29 : va.<ja.v djrXws
TTJV dKadapffiav rip TTJS iropveias 6v6fJMTi Trepi4\aftev).
This is probably the meaning in Ac 15 20 , though
some interpret it of marriage within the prohibited
degrees (Lv 18 20 ). The Jews allowed proselytes
to marry even with their nearest relatives, and,
according to John Lightfoot (Hor. Heb., new. ed.,
Oxford, 1859, iv. 132), the case of incest in Corinth
(1 Co 5 1L ), where a Christian had married his
father's wife, while the father was possibly still
alive, arose out of this custom. This is highly
doubtful. In Ac 15 20 - a wopvela. is used in the
general sense of immorality. We are not con-
cerned in this article with the vexed question of
what constituted fornication in the case of re-mar-
riage after divorce. Our Lord's teaching on this
point is doubtful, owing to the absence of the
qualifying expression in Mark, although the exist-
ence of the qualification in Matthew indicates
that in the early Church re-marriage was allowed
to the guiltless party. Whether, again, marriage
within the prohibited degrees constituted vopvela.
is not discussed in the NT.

But from the richness of the phraseology for
sensual sins we can gather how wide-spread and
multiform this evil was. We find uncleanness
(aKaOapffla), licentiousness (d<r\yeia) often side by
side with vopvda (2 Co 12", Gal 5 19 , Eph 4 19 ). So
often is ir\eove^la found alongside vopveta that
many are inclined to regard the former as itself a
form of sensuality. But it is best to regard both
as characteristic sins of heathendom. Others as-
sociate them psychologically, saying that forget-
fulness of God compels the creature to either one
or other (Bengel and Trench). The NT seems to
have a genetic account of this sin (fornication) in
more than one place. Our Lord (Mk 7) deduces it
from evil thoughts ; St. Paul from the desire of
evil things (1 Co 10 8 ), from the lusts of the flesh
(Gal 5 19 ), and from ASucIa (1 Co 6 13t ). The lists of
vices, however, are not arranged in groups follow-
ing a psychological order. They have their coun-
terparts in pagan literature (see Dobschutz, Chris-
tian Life in the Primitive Church, p. 406 if. ; and
Deissmann, Licht vom Osteri*, Tubingen, 1909, p.
238 f . ). They vary in different places. The con-
nexion between drunkenness and vice is also re-
cognized (Eph 5 18 ; cf. Test. Jud. xvi. 1). Group-
ings of vices and virtues early arose, arranged in
connected lists for catechetical and homiletic pur-
poses, but the order is variable (cf. Hernias, Vis.
3). There was no public opinion in paganism to
suppress fornication. Hetairai moved about the
streets freely, and often played a large rdle in
public affairs. One thinks of Phryne and others.
Religious associations sanctioned vice. The temples



418



FORNICATION



FOUNDATION



had their courtesaus (lepooov\oi ; see Ramsay, Cities
and Bishoprics of Phrygia, i. [Oxford, 1895], 94 f.).
The cult of Aphrodite Pandemos at Corinth may
be mentioned, as well as smaller cults like that of
the Cabiri at Thessalonica and the Chaldaean
Sybil at Thyatira. Trade-gilds (tpyaarlai), which
were numerous, afforded means of corruption.
Almost everywhere the air was tainted, so that
to have no intercourse with fornicators was like
going put of the world. Christianity never formed
itself into a ghetto, and so the danger of moral
pollution was always present. The very fact that
the pagan gods were represented as prone to sen-
suality had a degrading influence on ordinary
morality, however much the stories of the gods
may have been ridiculed or allegorized in en-
lightened coteries. ' If a god does so, why should
not I a man ? ' (Terence, Eunuch, in. v. 42).
Ancient custom, the callosity of public feeling, the
contamination of commerce and religion, the sanc-
tions of libertine enlightenment all these had to be
combated and overcome in the interests of purity.
(3) iropveia. is sometimes used also to indicate
apostasy from God so often in Revelation. This
meaning lies very near the surface whenever the
word occurs in conjunction with idol- worship or
meats offered to idols. In the Apostolic Decree
this thought is latent. To buy meat in the open
market was dangerous forbidden in Ac 15 20 , Rev
2 14 - 20 , though by St. Paul it was allowed. He
bases the right on the law of expediency, but he
recommends regard for the weak brother's con-
science (1 Co 8 4 ' 13 10 18 , Ro 14*"-). The Greek
Church still regards this law of meats as binding,
though the Western Church followed St. Paul
from early times. But everywhere fornication is
prohibited. At Thyatira, as at Corinth, some de-
fended fornication on Gnostic grounds, as Jezebel ;
but not only fornication but idol-meats also are
prohibited by the seer. The Christians had to
break away from their trade-gilds to avoid con-
tamination ; and this involved serious sacrifice.
The example of Israel tempted by Moabitish
women to apostasy and lust at Balaam's instiga-
tion was a warning (Rev 2 14 , 1 Co 10). See art.
NlCOLAlTANS. It is probable that we can under-
stand the conjunction of fornication and idol-meats
in Rev 2 14 - 20 and 1 Cor. only on the early Christian
view of demonic influence acting through food and
thus tempting to lust (see B. W. Bacon in Exposi-
tor, 8th ser. vii. [1914] 40 ff.).

2. Attitude of Christianity towards fornication.
Christianity opposed fornication in every form,
not only overt acts but even lustful thoughts.
There were things that should not even be named
among Christians. It saw in marriage a preven-
tive against fornication ; St. Paul, though desir-
ing the unmarried to remain as they were, yet,
rather than run the risk of incontinence or the
fire of lust, allowed them to marry. So strong
was the reaction against impurity that St. John
regards the chaste unmarried (irapdtvoi) as a select
group (Rev 14 4 ). Fornication is a sin against the
body ; it is a defilement of God's temple ; it is a
violation of the self in a special sense ; for it the
wrath of God comes on men, and God's judgment
awaits it. The very beginning of sanctification is
incompatible with fornication. St. Paul condenses
into one sentence the Christian attitude : ' Flee
from fornication ' (1 Co 6 18 ). It is directly opposed
to God's righteousness, and St. John brands forni-
cators with the opprobrious terms /cifres,* 'dogs,'
'defiled' (Rev 17 4 18 3 , etc.). These cannot enter
the city of God. St. Paul's dealing with the Cor-
inthian case indicates that fornication excludes
from church fellowship.

* Perhaps he has in mind sodomy (irai&o&Oopia. or paederasty
of Ro 127, 1 Ti I", 1 Co &>, Didache, 2 f.).



LITERATURE. See Commentaries on relevant passages; W.
M. Ramsay, Letters to the Seven Churches, London, 1904 ; E.
v. Dobschutz, Christian Life in the Primitive Church, Eng.
tr., do. 1904 ; J. G. W. Uhlhorn, The Conflict of Christianity,
Eng. tr., New York, 1879; O. Zockler, Askeseund ilonchtum?,
Frankfurt am M., 1897 ; and for literature on Apostolic Age
generally see Dobschutz, p. 880.

DONALD MACKENZIE.

FORTUNATUS. Fortunatus was one of three
deputies from the Church in Corinth who visited
St. Paul in Ephesus, perhaps bearing letters, and
to whom he refers in 1 Co 16 17- 18 . Nothing more
is known of him. It seems unlikely that all the
deputies would belong to one household, as Weiz-
sacker (Apostol. Age, Eng. tr., i. 2 [1897] 305) sug-
gests, or that all were slaves (so T. C. Edwards,
ad loc.). Clement refers to a Fortunatus (in Ep. ad
Cor. 65) as accompanying his messengers from
Rome to Corinth, but distinguishes him from them ;
the name, however, is too common for identification
(see ACHAICUS and STEPHANAS).

J. E. ROBERTS.

FOUNDATION. In the NT, 'foundation' re-
presents two different Greek words : (a) /cara/SoXiJ
(active, except in He II 11 , and always in the phrase
Karafio\T) K6fffj.ov) ; (b) fle^Xtos, -ov (pass.), with both
a literal and a figurative meaning (HDB, art.
'Foundation'). Cheyne (EBi, art. 'Foundations,'
1558) says ' " corner-stone" and "foundation-stone"
are synonymous terms in the Hebrew Scriptures.'
The metaphorical sense of the word chieHy has
religious importance for students of the NT, and
will be noted as it occurs in the apostolic writings.



Online LibraryJames HastingsDictionary of the apostolic church (Volume 1) → online text (page 134 of 234)