Honour
Honour
In the NT two Gr. words, in various forms, are thus translated: (1) , , as in the phrases by honour and dishonour (2Co 6:8), and one member be honoured (Revised Version margin glorified, 1Co 12:26); the words are derived from , to think, hold an opinion, or hold in repute or honour; hence the noun has the significance of good-repute, honour, glory; (2) , , (from the root , to pay a price and then to pay honour). is the most frequent word for honour in the NT. Primarily it means the price which is paid or received for something, as in the phrase the price of blood (Mat 27:6, also Act 4:34; Act 5:2; Act 19:19). The metaphorical sense, indicating something of price, worth, or value, naturally follows, like dignity, veneration, honour, and ornament, as in the expression a vessel for honour (Rom 9:21), in honour preferring one another (Rom 12:10), honour to whom honour (Rom 13:7). The verb is used in the sense of valuing, as the price of him that was priced, whom certain of the children of Israel did price (Mat 27:9); but elsewhere it has the meaning to venerate, hold in honour, as Honour thy father and mother (Eph 6:2), honoured us with many honours (Act 28:10).
The words and and their verbal forms are employed in the Septuagint to translate , and . The two words glory and honour appear together in descriptions of the Exaltation of Christ-crowned with glory and honour (Heb 2:7; Heb 2:9, 2Pe 1:17); of the bliss of the future world-glory, honour, and immortality (Rom 2:7; Rom 2:10); of what the kings are to bring into the heavenly Jerusalem-They shall bring the glory and honour of the Gentiles () into it (Rev 21:26). The two words are also used together in the description of the triumph of faiths trial that it might be found unto glory and honour at the revelation of Jesus Christ (1Pe 1:7), and in doxologies ascribing praise, honour, and glory to Christ (Rev 5:12-13), and to God (1Ti 1:17, Rev 4:9; Revelation 11; Rev 7:12).
Three passages where occurs require separate treatment. In 1Ti 5:17, Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially those who labour in the word and teaching (Revised Version ), the context plainly indicates that the honour is to be taken as honorarium or stipend. The reason given for such treatment is expressed in the words which follow: For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his hire (1Ti 5:18; cf. J. R. Dummelow, The One Volume Bible Commentary, p. 999; H. R. Reynolds, in Expositor, 1st ser. vol. iv. p. 47; see also Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) v. 441).
In 1Pe 2:7 the phrase is variously translated: Unto you therefore which believe he is precious (Authorized Version ); For you therefore which believe is the preciousness (Revised Version ); in your sight is the honour (Revised Version margin). In the preceding context reference is made to Christ as a precious stone (1Pe 2:4; 1Pe 2:6), and if that connexion is maintained in v. 7, the sense would be unto you who believe Christ is all that God had declared; you have seen Him as precious, the preciousness. But it is possible to connect the words with the phrase immediately before them, and read them by way of amplification-He that believeth on Him shall not be put to shame; unto you therefore who believe he is the honour, or ornament, i.e. instead of shame you find the honour or ornament of your life in Christ. Our opinion favours the latter rendering.
The other passage is in Col 2:23, , which is translated, not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh (Authorized Version ), not of any value (honour, Revised Version margin) against the indulgence of the flesh (Revised Version ). Both translations are unsatisfactory: the Authorized Version because it does not give any clear or practical meaning, and the Revised Version because, though it gives a good sense, it gives a somewhat strained force to . Eadies translation and interpretation seem to us the best: Which things, having indeed a show of wisdom in superstition, humility, and corporeal austerity, not in anything of value, are for, or minister to, the gratification of the flesh. The apostle means to condemn these precepts and teachings; his censure is that they produce an effect directly the opposite to their professed design (Com. in loco). Other commentaries on the passage may be consulted for the various interpretations which are attached to it. Westcott-Horts Greek Testament bracket the words along with the three which precede them, as indicating a doubtful text. It is possible that some word or particle has dropped out of the passage.
The man of the worlds conception of honour does not appear in the NT.
Literature.-Wilke-Grimm, Clavis Novi Testamenti, 1868, s.vv. , ; Dict. of Christ and the Gospels i., article Honour; Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) ii., article Glory; J. R. Dummelow, The One Volume Bible Commentary, 1909, p. 999; H. R. Reynolds in Expositor, 1st ser. vol. iv. p. 47; A. S. Peake, Expositors Greek Testament , Colossians, 1903, p. 535; G. Jackson in Expositor, 6th ser. vol. xii. pp. 180-193.
John Reid.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
HONOUR
A testimony of esteem or submission, expressed by words and an exterior behaviour, by which we make known the veneration and respect we entertain for any one, on account of his dignity or merit. The word is also used in general for the esteem due to virtue, glory, reputation, and probity; as also for an exactness in performing whatever we have promised; and in this last sense we use the term, a man of honour. It is also applied to two different kinds of virtue; bravery in men, and chastity in women. In every situation of life, religion only forms the true honour and happiness of man. “It cannot, ” as one observes, “arise from riches, dignity of rank or office, nor from what are often called splendid actions of heroes, or civil accomplishments; these may be found among men of no real integrity, and may create considerable fame; but a distinction must be made between fame and true honour. The former is a loud and noisy applause; the latter a more silent and internal homage. Fame floats on the breath of the multitude; honour rests on the judgment of the thinking.
In order, then, to discern where true honour lies, we must not look to any adventitious circumstance, not to any single sparkling quality, but to the whole of what forms a man; in a word, we must look to the soul. It will discover itself by a mind superior to fear, to selfish interest, and corruption; by an ardent love to the Supreme Being, and by a principle of uniform rectitude. It will make us neither afraid nor ashamed to discharge our duty, as it relates both to God and man. It will influence us to be magnanimous without being mean; just without being harsh; simple in our manners, but manly in our feelings. This honour, thus formed by religion, or the love of God, is more independent and more complete, than what can be acquired by any other means. It is productive of higher felicity, and will be commensurate with eternity itself; while that honour, so called, which arises from any other principle, will resemble the feeble and twinkling flame of a taper, which is often clouded by the smoke it sends forth, but is always wasting, and soon dies totally away.” Barrow’s Works, vol. 1: ser. 4; Blair’s Sermons, vol. 3: ser. 1.; Watts’s Sermons, ser. 30. vol. 2: Ryland’s cont. vol. 1: p. 343; Jortin’s Sermons, vol. 3: ser. 6.
Fuente: Theological Dictionary
Honour
Honour may be defined as the deferential recognition by word or sign of another’s worth or station. Thus I show honour to another by giving him his title if he have one, and by raising my hat to him, or by yielding to him a place of precedence. I thereby give expression to my sense of his worth, and at the same time I profess my own inferiority to him.
It is right and proper that marks of honour should be paid to worth of any kind, if there be no special reason to the contrary, and we are obliged to honour those who stand in any relation of superiority to ourselves. First and foremost, we must honour God by worshipping Him as our first beginning and last end, the infinite source of all that we have and are. We honour the angels and saints on account of the gifts and graces bestowed on them by God. We honour our parents, from whom we received our earthly being, and to whom we owe our bringing-up and preparation for the battle of life. Our rulers, spiritual and temporal, have a just claim on our honour by reason of the authority over us which they have received from God. We honour the aged for their presumed wisdom, virtue, and experience. We should always honour moral worth wherever we find it, and we may honour the highly talented, those who have been endowed with great beauty, strength, and dexterity, the well-born, and even the rich and powerful for riches and power may, and should, be made the instruments of virtue and well-being.
Among the goods which are external to man honour holds the first place, above wealth and power. It is that which we especially give to God, it is the highest reward which we can bestow on virtue, and it is what men naturally prize the most. The Apostle bids us give honour to whom honour is due, and so, to withhold it or to show dishonour to whom honour is due is a sin against justice, and entails the obligation of making suitable restitution. If we have simply neglected our duty in this respect, we must make amends by more assiduously cultivating the person injured by our neglect. If we have been guilty of offering a public insult to another, we must offer an equally public satisfaction; if the insult was private, we must make the suitable reparation in private, so that the person injured should be reasonably satisfied. Those who are placed in authority in Church or State, and have the bestowal of public honours, are bound by the special virtue of distributive justice to bestow honours according to merit. If they fail in this duty, they are guilty of the special sin of acceptation of persons. The public good of the Church specially requires that those who are more worthy should be promoted to such high dignities as the cardinalate or episcopate, and for the same reason there is a grave obligation to promote the more worthy rather than the less worthy to ecclesiastical benefices that have the cure of souls annexed to them. According to the more probable opinion the same title holds good concerning promotion to benefices to which the cure of souls is not attached, though St. Alphonsus allows that the contrary opinion is probable, provided that the favoured person is at least worthy of the honour although less worthy than his rival. When an examination is held to decide who among many candidates is to be chosen for a post of honour, there is a still stricter obligation to choose the one whom all the tests show to be—other things being equal—the most worthy of the post. On the ground that, where this obligation is neglected, not only distributive justice is violated, as in the preceding cases, but commutative justice as well, the common opinion holds that if one who by examination is proved more worthy is passed over, he has a right to compensation for the injury which he has suffered. Many, however, deny the obligation to make restitution in the matter of benefices even in this case, on the ground that, though an examination to test fitness be held, yet no strict compact is entered into by which those who confer the benefice bind themselves in strict justice to grant it to the more worthy. It is plain that those who are responsible for the appointment of an unfit person to a post superiority are also responsible for the harm which his unfitness causes. The foregoing principles have been formulated by divines for the settling of questions connected with the appointment to ecclesiastical benefices, but they are applicable to other similar appointments, both ecclesiastical and civil.
A question of great interest in the history of reIigion and morals, and of primary importance in Christian asceticism, must be treated of here. We have seen that honour is not only a good, but that it is the chief of those external goods which man can enjoy. St. Thomas Aquinas and Catholic divines agree in this with Aristotle. We have also seen that, according to Catholic doctrine, all are bound in justice to give honour to whom honour is due. It follows from this that it is not morally wrong to seek honour in due moderation and with the proper motive. And yet Christ severely blamed the Pharisees for loving the first places at feasts, the first chairs in the synagogues, salutations in the marketplace, and titles of honour. He told His disciples not to be called Rabbi, Father, or Master, like the Pharisees; the greatest among His disciples should be the servant of all; and whosoever exalteth himself shall be humbled, and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
Here we touch upon the distinctive characteristic of Christian morality as distinguished from pagan ethics. The ideal type of manhood in the system of Aristotle is drawn for us in that philosopher’s celebrated description of the magnanimous man. The magnanimous man is described as one who, being really worthy of great things, holds himself worthy of them. For he who holds himself thus worthy beyond his real deserts is a fool, and no man possessed of any virtue whatsoever can ever be a fool or show want of understanding. He, on the other hand who holds himself worthy of less than his merits is little-minded, no matter whether the merits which he thus underrates be great, or moderate, or small. The merits, then, of the high-minded man are extreme but in his conduct he observes the proper mean. For he holds himself worthy of his exact deserts, while others either overestimate or else underestimate their own merits. And since he is not only worthy of great things, but also holds himself worthy of them—or rather, indeed, of the very greatest things—it follows that there is some one object which ought most especially to occupy him. Now this object is honour, for it is the very greatest of all external goods. But the high-minded man, since his deserts are the highest possible, must be among the best of men, for the better a man is the higher will be his deserts, and the best man will have the highest deserts. True highmindedness, therefore, cannot but imply virtue; or, rather, the criterion of high-mindedness is the conjoint perfection of all the individual virtues. Highmindedness, then, would seem to be the crown, as it were, of all the virtues; for it not only involves their existence, but it also intensifies their lustre. It is with honour then, and with dishonour that the highminded man is most especially concerned. And where he meets with great honour, and that from upright men, he will take pleasure in it, although his pleasure will not be excessive, inasmuch as he has obtained at the outside only what he merits, if not perhaps less—since adequate honour for perfect virtue cannot be found. He will, however, none the less: receive such honour from upright men, inasmuch as they have no greater reward to offer him. But honour given by the common herd, and upon unimportant occasions, he will hold in utter contempt, for it will be no measure of his deserts. Now the high-minded man justly despises his neighbours for his estimate is always right; but the majority of men despise their fellows upon insufficient grounds. He also loves to confer a favour, but feels shame at receiving one, for the former argues superiority, the latter inferiority. The high-minded would, moreover, seem to bear those in mind to whom they have done kindnesses, but not those from whom they have received them. For he who has received a kindness stands in a position inferior to that of him who has conferred it, whereas the high-minded man desires a position of superiority. And so he hears with pleasure of the favours he has conferred, but with dislike of those which he has received.
These are the chief traits in this celebrated portrait as far as they relate to the matter with which we are dealing. Aristotle fills in the details of the picture with minute accuracy, it is obvious that he dwelt upon it with loving care, as the highest ideal of his ethical system: And yet, as we read it now, the description has in it an element of the ridiculous. If the high-minded man of Aristotle appeared to-day in any decent society, he would soon be given to understand that he took himself a great deal too seriously, and he would be quizzed unmercifully until he abated something of his pretensions. It is, indeed, a consummate picture of a noble pride which the pagan philosopher paints for us, and Christianity teaches us that all pride is a lie. Human nature, even at its best and noblest, is, after all, a poor thing, and even vile, as Christian asceticism tells us. Was, then, Aristotle simply wrong in his doctrine concerning magnanimity? By no means. St. Thomas accepts his teaching concerning this virtue, but, to prevent it becoming pride, he tempers it with the doctrine of Christian humility. Christian doctrine joins all that is true and noble ln Aristotle’s descriptlon of magnanimity with what revelation and experience alike teach us concerning human frailty and sinfulness. The result is the sweetness, the truth, and use strength of the highest Christian character. Instead of a self-satisfied Aristides or Pericles, we have a St. Paul, a St. Francis of Assisi, or a St Francis Xavier. The great Christian saint is penetrated with a sense of his own weakness and unworthiness apart from God’s grace. This prevents him thinking himself worthy of anything except punishment on account of his sins and unfaithfulness to grace. He never despises his neighbour, but esteems all men more than he does himself. If left to himself, he prefers, with St. Peter of Alcantara, to be despised of men and to suffer for Christ. But if the glory of God and the good of his fellow-men require it, the Christian saint is prepared to abandon his obscurity. He knows that he can do all things in Him Who strengthens him. With incredible energy, constancy, and utter forgetfulness of self, he works wonders without apparent means. If honours are bestowed on him he knows how to accept them and refer them to God if it be for His service. Otherwise he despises them as he does riches, and prefers to be poor and despised with Him Who was meek and humble of heart.
In opposition to the pagan doctrine of Aristotle and the selfish worldliness of the Pharisees, the Christian attitude towards honours may be stated in a few words. Honour, being the due homage paid to worth is the chief among the external goods which man can enjoy. It may be lawfully sought for, but inasmuch as all worth is from God, and man of himself has nothing but sin, it must be referred to God and sought only for His sake or for the good of one’s fellow-men. Honours, like riches, are dangerous gifts, and it is praiseworthy to renounce them out of love for Him who for our sakes was poor and despised.
———————————–
ARISTOTLE, The Nicomachean Ethics; ST. THOMAS, Summa; ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI, Theologia Moralis (Turin, 1823); ST. IGNATIUS LOYOLA, Spiritual Exercises; LESSIUS, De Justitia et Jure (Venice, 1625).
T. SLATER Transcribed by Joseph P. Thomas
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIICopyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Honour
HONOUR.The codes of technical honour are largely opposed to the teaching of Christ (Matthew 5, Luk 6:29). Therefore such conceptions of honour must be regarded as briers choking the word (Mar 4:19); for whatever justification codes of honour may claim (as from Mat 7:12), they are impatient of the spirit of meekness inculcated by Christ in precept (Mat 5:39) and in example (Matthew 27). So the Sons of Thunder would have vindicated summarily the honour of their Master (Luk 9:54). More generally, in the quest of honour, it is honour from God and not from men that is to be sought by the Christianthe glory of God rather than of men (Joh 12:43). Worldly honour may be a source of severest temptation (Luk 4:7), for the disciple is not greater than his Master whose sinlessness was thus brought to view (Mat 10:24). Honour from God the Christian disciple will have: If any man will serve me, him will my Father honour (Joh 12:26). And to be invited to the marriage-supper of the Kings Son is a greater honour than any this world affords (Matthew 22). But this honour and blessing from God contrasts with the dishonour and scorn that the world is ready to shower upon followers of One who was despised and rejected. The wicked husbandmen did not honour the son of the lord of the vineyard (Mar 12:6); they killed him and put him to shame (Mark 15). The Christian therefore must not be found
Seeking an honour which they gave not Thee.
Nay, even the most sacred honour is not the right goal for the follower of Christ, as James and John were taught (Mar 10:37). Service, not honour, is the true aim for the life of self-sacrifice,not to be honoured of all, but to be servant of all (Mar 10:44). Honour is included in the all-things left to follow Christ (Mat 19:27), and it is worth while to abandon all worldly things in exchange for the true life (Mat 16:26). Still further, the tradition of men must give place to the commandment of God (Mar 7:8). Dishonour now will give place to eternal and Divine honour in due season (Mat 19:28).
W. B. Frankland.