An Alphabetical Analysis
Volume 7 - Doctrinal Truth - Page 12 of 297
that used in Nos. 6 and 16 of the list of quotations given above, where the
reference is to God.
As the passage stands in the A.V. it appears that we are told
twice over that all died: 'And all flesh died'; 'of all that was in the dry
land died'.  The word 'of' in the second of these passages is not the same
word as those already alluded to.  It means 'from' and sometimes suggests
some out of a number.  The translation suggested by Dr. E. P. Woodward, whose
researches along this line have been of considerable help, is as follows:
'And all flesh died that moved upon the earth (namely, all flesh), in
fowl, and in cattle, and in beast, and in every creeping thing that
creepeth upon the earth.  And every man (all in whose nostrils was the
breath of the spirit of life, from among all that was in the dry land)
This translation, though perhaps inelegant, does recognize several
features that are blurred in the A.V., and their recognition leads to a
distinction between the animals that were destroyed in the Flood, and man.
In Genesis 7:15, where there is no doubt that only animals are enumerated, we
read: 'And they went in unto Noah into the Ark, two and two of all flesh
wherein is the breath (ruach, not neshamah) of life'.  It would not be true
to say that 'all flesh' was exclusively used of the animals at the time of
the Flood, but the full expression 'all flesh wherein is the ruach of life'
appears to be used of the animals to the exclusion of man, while the other
expression 'neshamah of the ruach of life' does appear to be used of man to
the exclusion of the animals.  This being so, we have the testimony of these
twenty-four passages to prove that while man is physically a member of the
animal kingdom, he is severed from that kingdom by something distinctive, the
image and likeness of God, the personal touch of God at his creation, the
possession of the neshamah, the breath of the spirit of life.  The question
of the immortality of the soul is left untouched.  (See article
Love.  Three words were employed by the Greeks for 'love', but one, eros,
which denotes passion and sensual desire, was absolutely unsuitable to
express the holy and moral character of Scriptural love.  This leaves agapao
and phileo.  While the verb agapao is found in classical Greek the noun agape
is not found.
'There is something peculiarly sacred in this word "love" which we are
considering, inasmuch as it is unknown outside of the Scriptures.  The
word agape never occurs in the profane Greek writings and is entirely
absent from the writings of Philo and Josephus.  Philanthropia was the
highest word used by the Greeks (Dr. Bullinger's Critical Lexicon).
God has given us a new word in agape; for the language of men contained
nothing high enough to denote this "Love in its fullest conceivable
'We shall not go wrong if we define the distinction between phileo and
agapao thus: Phileo denotes the love of natural inclination, affection,
love, so to say, originally spontaneous, involuntary; agapao, on the
other hand, is love as a direction of the will ... God's love to man in
revelation is but once expressed by phileo (John 16:27) and once as
philanthropia (Tit. 3:4).  Phileo is never used of the love of men
towards God (excepting the Lord Jesus Christ) ... .  Agapao, and never
phileo is used of love towards our enemies' (Cremer).