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).