The Berean Expositor
Volume 22 - Page 142 of 214
Index | Zoom
Oida is less personal. It is allied to the verb "to see", whereas ginosko is allied to
nous, "the mind". The word "perceive" can be well substituted for the five occurrences
given under oida.
Place two passages together for comparison:--
"I had not acknowledge (ginosko) sin, but by the law" (7: 7).
"I had not perceived (oida) lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet' (7: 7).
Now as these two different words come together in the same verse, and deal also with
the same thing, their distinctive meanings ought to reveal themselves. Most of the
standard translations and commentaries recognize the difference intended by these two
words, and give expression to it in different ways. All, however, point to the conclusion
at which we have ourselves arrived.
Conybeare and Howson indicate the difference thus:--
"I should not have known what sin was."
"I should not have known the sin of coveting."
Alford gives:--
"I had not recognized such a thing as sin."
"For neither had I known anything of concupiscence."
Weymouth translates the passage:--
"What follows? Is the law itself a sinful thing? No, indeed; on the contrary, unless I
had been taught by the law, I should have known nothing of sin as sin. For instance,
I should not have known what covetousness is, if the law had not repeatedly said, Thou
shalt not covet."
We trust sufficient evidence has been brought forward to justify "acknowledge" and
"perceive" as the translation of these two words in this section of Romans. Their further
and fuller bearing will be manifest when the whole passage containing them is under