a-fekt', a-fek'-shun: The literal meaning of "affect" is to act upon (Latin ad, "to," "upon," facio, "to do"). It has various shades of meaning, and occurs in the following senses in the English Bible: (1) In its literal sense: Lam 3:51, "Mine eye affecteth my soul" (2) In the sense of "to endeavor after" desire," "court": Gal 4:17, "They zealously affect (the Revised Version (British and American) "seek") you .... that ye may affect (the Revised Version (British and American) "seek") them," i.e. they earnestly court your favor, that you may court theirs. Paul means that the proselytizing zeal of the Judaizers was rooted in personal ambition. The past part. "affected" (the Revised Version (British and American) "sought") has the same meaning in Gal 4:18. The same Greek word (zeloo) is translated "desire earnestly" in the Revised Version (British and American) (1 Cor 12:31; 14:1,39). "Affect" has a similar meaning in Ecclesiasticus 13:11. (3) In the passive, it occurs in the sense of "to be disposed," in a neutral sense, with an adverb to characterize the nature of the disposition: Acts 14:2, "evil affected against the brethren" So also 2 Macc 4:21; 13:26.
"Affection" occurs in the following senses: (1) In the literal sense: the state of having one's feelings acted upon or affected in some way; bent or disposition of mind, in a neutral sense (the nature of the affection, whether good or bad, needing further description in the context). So Col 3:2, "Set your affection (the Revised Version (British and American) "mind") on things above"; Col 3:5, "inordinate affection" (here "affection" by itself is neutral; the addition of the adjective makes it equivalent to "passion' in an evil sense, as in the Revised Version (British and American)). (2) In a good sense: tender feeling, warm attachment, good will; the word in itself carrying a good meaning apart from the context. 1 Ch 29:3, "because I have set my affection on the house of my God"; Rom 1:31; 2 Tim 3:3, "without natural affection", 2 Cor 6:12 "Ye are straitened in your own affections" (lit. "bowels," regarded as the seat of kindly feelings, compare Eng "heart' ) So 2 Cor 7:15. (3) In an evil sense in the plural = passions. Gal 5:24, the flesh, with the affections (the Revised Version (British and American) "passions") and lusts"; Rom 1:26, "God gave them unto vile affections" (the Revised Version (British and American) "passions").
"Affectioned" occurs once, in a neutral sense: Rom 12:10, "affectioned (i.e. "disposed") one to another" In 1 Thess 2:8, we have "affectionately," in a good sense.
D. Miall Edwards
a-fin'-i-ti (chathan "to join one-self"): This term is used three times in the Old Testament: (1) in 1 Ki 3:1, where we read that "Solomon made affinity with Pharaoh King of Egypt", (2) in 2 Ch 18:1, where it is stated that Jehoshaphat "joined affinity with Ahab," and (3). in Ezr 9:14, where it is asked "Shall we .... join in affinity with the peoples that do these abominations?" The Hebrew word thus rendered in the above three passages refers in each case to marriage alliances rather than to family or political relationships.
W. W. Davies
a-fur'-ma-tivs (diischurizomai). The verb "affirm" occurs in several passages of the New Testament in the sense of "assert" (Lk 22:59; Acts 12:15; 25:19 pha-sko; Rom 3:8 phemi; 1 Tim 17; Titus 3:8 diabebaioomai. The Hebrew does not employ affirmative particles, but gives a positive reply by either repeating the word in question or by substituting the first person in the reply for the second person in the question, or by employing the formula: "Thou hast said" or "Thou hast rightly said." The Saviour used this idiom (su eipas) when answering Judas and Caiaphas (Mt 26:25,64). A peculiar elegance occasionally attaches to the interpretation of the Scriptures because of their use of an affirmative and a negative together, rendering the sense more emphatic; sometimes the negative occurs first, as in Ps 118:17: "I shall not die, but live"; sometimes the affirmative precedes, as in Isa 88:1: "Thou shalt die, and not bye" Jn 1:20 is made peculiarly emphatic because of the negative placed between two affirmatives: "And he confessed, and denied not; and he confessed, I am not the Christ."
Frank E. Hirsch
a-flik'-shun: Represents no fewer than 11 Hebrew words in the Old Testament, and 3 Greek words in the New Testament, of which the most common are (oni), (thlipsis). It is used (1) actively = that which causes or tends to cause bodily pain or mental distress, as "the bread of affliction" (Dt 16:3; 2 Ch 18:26); often in plural, as "Many are the afflictions of the righteous" (Ps 34:19); (2) passively = the state of being in pain or trouble, as "to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction (Jas 1:27). The following are the chief forms of affliction referred to: (1) Individual affliction, especially sickness, poverty, the oppression of the weak by the strong and rich, perverted justice. (2) National. A great place is given in the Old Testament to affliction as a national experience, due to calamities, such as war, invasion, conquest by foreign peoples, exile. These form the background of much of the prophetic writings, and largely determine their tone and character. (3) In the New Testament the chief form of affliction is that due to the fierce antagonism manifested to the religion of Jesus, resulting in persecution.
The Hebrew mind did not dwell on secondary causes, but attributed everything, even afflictions, directly to the great First Cause and Author of all things: "Shall evil befall a city, and Yahweh hath not done it?" (Am 3:6); "I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil (i.e. calamity); I am Yahweh, that doeth all these things" (Isa 45:7) Thus, all things, including calamity, were referred to the Divine operation. The Hebrew when afflicted did not doubt the universal sovereignty of God; yet, while assuming this sovereignty, he was sometimes tempted to accuse Him of indifference, neglect or forgetfulness. Compare Job passim; Isa 40:27; 49:14; Ezek 8:12; 9:9.
Yet there are traces of a dualism which assigns a certain vague limit to God's absolute sovereignty, by referring affliction to an evil agency acting in quasi-independence of God. There could, however, never be more than a tendency in this direction, for a strict dualism was incompatible with the standpoint of Jewish monotheism. Thus Saul's mental affliction is attributed to an "evil spirit," which is yet said to be "from Yahweh" (1 Sam 16:14; 18:10; 19:9); and the fall of Ahab is said by Micaiah to be due to the "lying spirit" which enticed him to his doom, in obedience to God's command (1 Ki 22:20-22). In the prologue of Job, Job's calamities are ascribed to the Satan, but even he receives his word of command from God, and is responsible to Him, like the other "sons of God" who surround the heavenly throne. He is thus "included in the Divine will and in the circle of Divine providence" (Schultz). After the prologue, the Satan is left out of account, and Job's misfortunes are attributed directly to the Divine causality. In later Judaism, the tendency to trace the origin of evil, physical and moral, to wicked spirits became more marked, probably because of the influence of Persian dualism. In New Testament times, physical and mental maladies were thought to be due to the agency of evil spirits called demons, whose prince was Beelzebub or Satan (Mk 1:23 ff; 3:22 f; 5:2 ff; Mt 9:32 f, etc.). Christ gave His assent to this belief (compare the woman under infirmity, "whom Satan hath bound," Lk 13:16). Paul attributed his bodily affliction to an evil angel sent by Satan (2 Cor 12:7), though he recognized that the evil agent was subordinate to God's purpose of grace, and was the means of moral discipline (1 Cor 12:7,9). Thus, while the evil spirits were regarded as malicious authors of physical maladies, they were not, in a strictly dualistic fashion, thought to act in complete independence; rather, they had a certain place assigned to them in the Divine Providence.
II. Meaning and Purpose of Affliction.
Why did God afflict men? How is suffering to be explained consistently with the goodness and justice of God? This was an acute problem which weighed heavily upon the Hebrew mind, especially in the later, more reflective, period. We can only briefly indicate the chief factors which the Scriptures contribute to the solution of the problem. We begin with the Old Testament.
The traditional view in early Hebrew theology was that afflictions were the result of the Divine law of retribution, by which sin was invariably followed by adequate punishment. Every misfortune was a proof of sin on the part of the sufferer. Thus Job's "friends" sought to convince him that his great sufferings were due to his sinfulness. This is generally the standpoint of the historians of Israel, who regarded national calamities as a mark of the Divine displeasure on account of the people's sins. But this naive belief, though it contains an important element of truth, could not pass uncontested. The logic of facts would suffice to prove that it was inadequate to cover all cases; e.g. Jeremiah's sufferings were due, not to sin, but to his faithfulness to his prophetic vocation. So the "suffering servant" in Isa. Job, too, in spite of his many woes, was firm in the conviction of his own integrity. To prove the inadequacy of the penal view is a main purpose of the Book of Job. A common modification of the traditional view was, that the sorrows of the pious and the prosperity of the wicked were only of brief duration; in the course of time, things would adjust themselves aright (e.g. Job 20:5 ff, Ps 73:3-20). But even granting time for the law of retribution to work itself out, experience contradicts the view that a man's fortune or misfortune is an infallible proof of his moral quality.
The thought is often expressed that afflictions are meant to test the character or faith of the sufferer. This idea is especially prominent in Job. God allowed the Satan to test the reality of Job's piety by over-whelming him with disease and misfortunes (2). Throughout the poem Job maintains that he has stood the test (e.g. 23:10-12). Compare Dt 8:2,16; Ps 66:10 f; 17:3; Isa 48:10; Jer 9:7; Prov 17:3.
3. Disciplinary and Purificatory:
For those who are able to stand the test, suffering has a purificatory or disciplinary value. (1) The thought of affliction as a discipline or form of Divine teaching is found in Job, especially in the speeches of Elihu, who insists that tribulation is intended as a method of instruction to save man from the pride and presumption that issue in destruction (Job 33:14-30; 36:8-10,15 the Revised Version (British and American)). The same conception is found in Ps 94:12; 119:67,71. (2) The purificatory function of trials is taught in such passages as Isa 1:25; Zec 13:9; Mal 3:2,3, where the process of refining metals in fire and smelting out the dross is the metaphor used.
The above are not fully adequate to explain the mystery of the afflictions of the godly. The profoundest contribution in the Old Testament to a solution of the problem is the idea of the vicarious and redemptive significance of pain and sorrow. The author of Job did not touch this rich vein of thought in dealing with the afflictions of his hero. This was done by the author of the Second Isaiah. The classical passage is Isa 52:13-53, which deals with the woes of the oppressed and afflicted Servant of God with profound spiritual insight. It makes no difference to the meaning of the afflictions whether we understand by the Servant the whole Hebrew nation, or the pious section of it, or an individual member of it, and whether the speakers in Isa 53 are the Jewish nation or the heathen. The significant point here is the value and meaning ascribed to the Servant's sufferings. The speakers had once believed (in accordance with the traditional view) that the Servant suffered because God was angry with him and had stricken him. Now they confess that his sorrows were due, not to his own sin but to theirs (53:4-6,8). His sufferings were not only vicarious (the punishment of their sin falling upon him), but redemptive in their effect (peace and health coming to them as a result of his chastisement). Moreover, it was not only redemptive, but expiatory ("his soul guilt-offering," 53:10)--a remarkable adumbration of the Christian doctrine of atonement.
So far we have dealt only with Old Testament teaching on the meaning and purpose of affliction. The New Testament makes no new contribution to the solution of the problem, but repeats and greatly deepens the points of view already found in the Old Testament. (1) There is a recognition throughout the New Testament of the law of retribution (Gal 6:7). Yet Jesus repudiates the popular view of the invariable connection between misfortune and moral evil (Jn 9:2 f). It is clear that He had risen above the conception of God's relation to man as merely retributive (Mt 5:45, sunshine and ram for evil men as well as for the good). His followers would suffer tribulation even more than unbelievers, owing to the hostile reaction of the evil world, similar to that which afflicted Christ Himself (Mt 5:10 f; 10:16-25; Jn 15:18-20; 16:33). Similarly the Acts and the epistles frequently refer to the sufferings of Christians (e.g. Acts 14:22; 2 Cor 4:8-11; Col 1:24; Heb 10:32; 1 Pet 4:13; Rev 7:14). Hence afflictions must have some other than a purely punitive purpose. (2) They are probational, affording a test by which the spurious may be separated from the genuine members of the Christian church (Jas 1:3,12; 1 Pet 1:7; 4:17), and (3) a means of discipline, calculated to purify and train the character (Rom 5:3; 2 Cor 12:7,9; Jas 1:3). (4) The idea of vicarious and redemptive suffering gets a far deeper significance in the New Testament than in the Old Testament, and finds concrete realization in a historical person, Jesus Christ. That which is foreshadowed in Second-Isa becomes in the New Testament a central, pervasive and creative thought. A unique place in the Divine purpose is given to the passion of Christ. Yet in a sense, His followers partake of His vicarious sufferings, and "fill up.... that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ" (Col 1:24; compare Phil 3:10; 1 Pet 4:13). Here, surely is a profound thought which may throw a flood of light on the deep mystery of human affliction. The cross of Christ furnishes the key to the meaning of sorrow as the greatest redemptive force in the universe.
The Scriptures abound in words of consolation and exhortation adapted to encourage the afflicted. Two main considerations may be mentioned. (1) The thought of the beneficent sovereignty of God "Yahweh reigneth; let the earth rejoice," even though "clouds and darkness are round about him" (Ps 97:1,2); "All things work together for good to them that love God' (Rom 8:28 the King James Version). Since love is on the throne of the universe, we may rest assured that all things are meant for our good. (2) The thought that tribulation is of brief duration, in comparison with the Joy that shall follow (Ps 30:5; Isa 54:7 f; Jn 16:22); a thought which culminates in the hope of immortality. This hope is in the Old Testament only beginning to dawn, and gives but a faint and flickering light, except in moments of rare exaltation and insight, when the thought of a perfect future blessedness seemed to offer a solution of the enigmas of life (Job 19:25-27; Psalms 37; 49; 73). But in the New Testament it is a postulate of faith, and by it the Christian is able to fortify himself in affliction, remembering that his affliction is light and momentary compared with the "far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory" which is to issue out of it (2 Cor 4:17 the King James Version; compare Mt 5:12; Rom 8:18). Akin to this is the comfort derived from the thought of the near approach of Christ's second coming (Jas 5:7,8). In view of such truths as these, the Bible encourages the pious in trouble to show the spirit of patience (Ps 37:7; Lk 21:19; Rom 12:12; Jas 1:3,4; 5:7-11; 1 Pet 2:20), and even the spirit of positive joy in tribulation (Mt 5:11 f; Rom 5:3; 2 Cor 12:10; Jas 1:2,12; 1 Pet 4:13). In the New Testament emphasis is laid on the example of Jesus in patient endurance in suffering (Jn 16:33; Jas 5:7-11; 1 Pet 2:19-23; 3:17 f). Above all, the Scriptures recommend the afflicted to take refuge in the supreme blessedness of fellowship with God, and of trust in His love, by which they may enter into a deep peace that is undisturbed by the trials and problems of life (Ps 73, especially 23 through 28; Isa 26:3,4; Jn 14:1,27; Phil 4:7; et passim).
D. Miall Edwards
a-frit': Designates a state of terror occasioned by some unexpected and startling occurrence; not as strong as "amazed," which refers more to the stupor resulting from fright. In the New Testament most frequently for emphobos (Lk 24:37; Acts 10:4; Rev 11:13). The Revised Version (British and American) uses it also for pturomenoi of Phil 1:28, a word "properly used of scared horses" (Ellicott).
a-foot' (pezeuo, "to go on foot"): By walking from Troas to Assos Paul avoided the tedious voyage round Cape Lectum (Acts 20:13 the King James Version; compare Mk 6:33).
a-for': Archaic for "before" of time, or "formerly"; frequently occurs as compound, as in "aforetime," "aforehand," etc.; in the New Testament most commonly for the Greek prefix, pro, in compound words (Rom 1:2; 15:4); at other times, for Greek adverb pote, "at some time," "once" (Jn 9:13; 1 Pet 3:5; Col 3:7).
a-fresh': Only in Heb 6:6, "seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh," where it stands for the prefix of the Greek anastaurountas. It has been disputed whether in this word ana has the reiterative force ("again," "anew"). In classical Greek anastauroo has always the simple sense of "to crucify," (i.e. "to rinse up on a cross," ana being merely "up"). So some would render it here (e.g. Cremer, Lexicon of New Testament Greek). Against this it is argued (1) that the classical writers had no occasion for the idea of crucifying anew (compare Winer, De verb. Comp., etc., Pt III, 9 ff, Leipzig, 1843); (2) that in many compounds ana signifies both "up" and "again," as in anablepo, which means "to recover sight" as well as "to look up"; (3) that the rendering "crucify afresh" suits the context; (4) that the Greek expositors (e.g. Chrysostom) take it so without questioning. (So also Bleek, Lunemann, Alford, Westcott; compare the Vulgate's rursum crucifigentes.)
D. Miall Edwards
af'-ri-ka: The name of this tract, as a continent, does not occur in the Bible, and it was only in later days known as one of the quarters of the world, under the name of Libya--that portion opposite the coast of Greece and West of Egypt.
1. Africa as Known to the Ancients:
Naturally the most considerable part of Africa known to the Hebrews was Egypt itself, but Libya is regarded as being referred to under the names of Lehabim and Lubim (Ludim) (Gen 10:13; 2 Ch 12:3)--words indicating, as often with the Semites, not the country itself, but its inhabitants. Other portions of Africa known to the Hebrews were Cush or Ethiopia, and Put, whose inhabitants they regarded as belonging to the Hamitic stock. Canaan, also Cushite and therefore Hamitic, naturally did not belong to the African continent, showing that the divisions of then known world into "quarters" (Europe, Asia, Africa) had not taken place when the Table of the Nations (Gen 10:1 ff) was drawn up--indeed, these division were not apparently thought of until many centuries later. The Casluhim and the Naphtuhim (Gen 10:13,14) were in all probability African peoples, though their position is in general regarded as uncertain. For the Hebrews, to all appearance, the southernmost point of Africa was Cush or Ethiopia, called by the Assyrians and Babylonians Kusu and Meluhha (Meroe), which included the district now known as the Sudan, or Black region. The sons of Cush, and also those of his firstborn, Sheba, were all Arabian tribes, nominally under the domain of Mizraim or Egypt, and on this account classed with the descendants of Ham.
2. The Cushites and the Negroes:
It will thus be seen that the Negro districts were practically unknown to the ancient Hebrews, though men and women of Negro race must have come within their ken. It seems doubtful, therefore, whether there be, in the Bible, any reference to that race, either collectively or individually, the word Cushite standing, not for Negro, but for Ethiopian. This term is applied to Moses' (first) wife (Nu 12:1), and it will probably be generally admitted, that the great Hebrew lawgiver is not likely to have espoused a Negro woman. The Ethiopian eunuch converted by Philip the Evangelist (Acts 8:26 ff) was an official of Meroe, and an educated man, for he could read the Old Testament in the Greek(Septuagint) version. Commerce must have revealed to the Hebrews the whereabouts of the various peoples of Africa with whom they came into contact, and they acquired a personal knowledge of Egypt when the 12 tribes were in bondage there. During this period, it may be supposed, they saw from time to time visitors from the South--people who are not mentioned in the sacred books of the Old Testament because the Hebrews, as a nation, never came into contact with them. Apart from Egypt, the history of the portion of Africa known to the Hebrews was a chequered one, as it came successively under Egypt, Phoenicia, Greek and Roman civilization. That it was not overrun, or even influenced, by the barbarous tribes of the South, is due to the fact that the Mediterranean tract is isolated from the central (and southern) portion of that continent by the Sahara.
In the Talmud it is related that Alexander penetrated Africa on Libyan asses to find a race of women, with whom he had conversation, and from whom, as he afterward confessed, being a fool, he learned wisdom--a legend suggesting some possible tradition of the Amazons of Dahomey. But even in the Talmud it is mainly the nearer (Northeast) portion of Africa which is referred to, the Africans, who had the reputation of being flat-footed, being associated with the Canaanites.
See also CUSH ;ETHIOPIA ;MIZRAIM .
T. G. Pinches
aft'-er, aft'-er-werd: The fundamental thought, in which all shades of meaning unite, is that of succession either in time or place. This succession may be immediate or remote. A very common adaptation of this conception the use of "after" to denote "according to," "after the manner of," or "in the order of," as in Gen 1:26; Eph 4:24; Lk 1:59; Rom 5:14; Heb 4:11 (the Revised Version, margin "unto"), and in many passages where the Greek uses the preposition kata, as Mt 23:3; Rom 8:4; 1 Cor 1:26, etc. "In proportion to": Ps 28:4; compare 90:15. It sometimes correctly translates a peculiar Greek idiom of the preposition dia, with the genitive case, indicating time elapsed, as Mk 2:1, literally, "through some days," "after some days had passed"; compare Acts 24:17. While the Greek is expressed by a variety of words, the Hebrew uses 'achar for both preposition and adverb.
H. E. Jacobs
af-ter-noon' (neToth ha-yom, "the declining of the day"; Jdg 19:8 the King James Version): The expression kechom ha-yom, "in the heat of the day" (Gen 18:1) refers to the early afternoon when the sun is a little past its zenith, its rays still being very strong. The phrase le-ruach ha-yom, "in the cool of the day" (Gen 3:8) is in contrast to the last phrase and points to the late afternoon; in the Orient a cooling breeze arises at this period of the day, and it is then that much of the day's business is transacted.
See DAY .