THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARY

REFERENCE
INTERNATIONAL
STANDARD BIBLE
ENCYCLOPEDIA
VOL. 9
R-SYZYGUS
Books For The Ages
AGES Software Albany, OR USA
Version 1.0 1997
2
R
RAAMA
<ra-a-ma> ([a m; [ ] r , ra`ma]): Thus spelled only in
<130109>
1 Chronicles
1:9; elsewhere Raamah ([h m; [ ] r , ra`mah]). A son of Cush and father
of Sheba and Dedan (
<011007>
Genesis 10:7 =
<130109>
1 Chronicles 1:9). In Ezekiels
lament over Tyre (
<262722>
Ezekiel 27:22) the tribe of Raamah is mentioned
along with Sheba as a mercantile people who provided the inhabitants of
Tyre with spices, precious stones and gold. It has generally been identified
with Regina, mentioned by Ptolemy and Steph. Byzantr. as a city in
Southeastern Arabia on the shores of the Persian Gulf. The Septuagint ([
Pryo, Rhegma]) itself supposes this site. But the Arabic name of the city
here indicated is spelled with a g and so gives rise to a phonological
difficulty. A more probable identification has been found in the Sabean
ra`mah in Southwestern Arabia near Me`in in the north of Marib. Me`in
was the capital of the old Minaean kingdom.
A. S. Fulton
RAAMIAH
<ra-a-mi-a> ([h y; m] [ r , ra`amyah]; Codex Vaticanus [Nooo,
Naamia]; Codex Alexandrinus, [ Prro, Rheelma): One of the leading
men who returned with Zerubbabel from captivity (
<160707>
Nehemiah 7:7). In
the corresponding passage in
<150202>
Ezra 2:2, where the same list is named, a
slight variation in form is given. Reelaiah is the name found in this
passage. Doubtless, one is a corruption of the other. Both have the same
root meaning.
RAAMSES; RAMESES
<ra-am-sez>, <ram-e-sez> (
<020111>
Exodus 1:11), (
<014711>
Genesis 47:11;
<021237>
Exodus 12:37;
<043303>
Numbers 33:3,5) ([s s e m] [ ] r , ra`mecec],
[s s e m] [ r , ra`amcec]; [ Porooq, Rhamesse]; Egyptian Ra-messu, Ra
created him (or it)):
3
1. THE MEANING OF STORE-CITIES:
One of the two settlements (mickenoth) built, or built up, by the
Hebrews for the Pharaoh, the other being Pithom, to which the Septuagint
adds a third, namely, On which is Heliopolis, a town near Cairo
(
<020111>
Exodus 1:11). The Hebrew term mickenoth comes from a root
meaning to settle down (Arabic sakan, settlement, Assyrian sakanu or
shakanu, to set), but it is rendered strong cities in Septuagint, treasure
cities in the King James Version, and (incorrectly) store-cities in the
Revised Version: The land of Rameses, where Jacob and his sons settled,
was apparently the field of Zoan (see ZOAN), thus lying in the Delta
East of the Bubastic branch of the Nile.
2. THE MEANING OF THE NAME:
It is often assumed that no city called Rameses would have existed before
the time of Rameses II, or the 14th century BC, though even before
Rameses I the name occurs as that of a brother of Horemhib under the
XVIIIth Dynasty. The usual translation Child of Ra is grammatically
incorrect in Egyptian and as Ra was an ancient name for the sun it seems
possible that a town may have borne the title Ra created it very early.
The mention of Rameses in Genesis (47:11) is often regarded as an
anachronism, since no scholar has supposed that Jacob lived as late as the
time of Rameses II. This would equally apply to the other notices, and at
most would serve to mark the age of the passages in the Pentateuch where
Rameses is mentioned, but even this cannot be thought to be proved (see
EXODUS). According to Deuteronomy Rouge (see Pierret, Vocab.
Hieroglyph., 1875, 143) there were at least three towns in Lower Egypt
that bore the name Pa Rames-ses (city of Rameses); but Brugsch
supposes that the place mentioned in the Old Testament was Zoan, to
which Rameses II gave this name when making it his capital in the Delta.
Dr. Budge takes the same view, while Dr. Naville and others suppose that
the site of Raamses has still to be found.
3. SITUATION:
There appears to have been no certain tradition preserving the site, for
though Silvia (about 385 AD) was told that it lay 4 miles from the town of
Arabia (see GOSHEN), she found no traces of such a place. Brugsch (A
New City of Rameses, 1876, Aegyptische Zeitschrift, 69) places one such
4
city in the southern part of Memphis itself. Goodwin (Rec. of Past, Old
Series, VI, 11) gives an Egyptian letter describing the city of Rameses-
Miamun, which appears to be Zoan, since it was on the seacoast. It was a
very prosperous city when this letter was written, and a pa-khennu or
palace city. It had canals full of fish, lakes swarming with birds, fields of
lentils, melons, wheat, onions and sesame, gardens of vines, almonds and
figs. Ships entered its harbor; the lotus and papyrus grew in its waters. The
inhabitants greeted Rameses II with garlands of flowers. Besides wine and
mead, of the conquerors city, beer was brought to the harbor from the
Kati (in Cilicia), and oil from the Lake Sagabi. There is no reason to
suppose that Zoan was less prosperous in the early Hyksos age, when the
Hebrews dwelt in its plain, whatever be the conclusion as to the date when
the city Rameses received that name. The description above given agrees
with the Old Testament account of the possession given by Joseph to his
family in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses (
<014711>
Genesis 47:11).
C. R. Conder
RABBAH
<rab-a>:
(1) ([h B ; r , rabbah]; [ Poppo, Rhabba], [Poppo0, Rhabbath], [
Poppov, Rhabban]. The full name is [yneB ]t B r wOM[ , rabbath
bene `ammon]; [q oxpo tv uv Av, he akra ton huion
Ammon], [ Poppo0 uv Av, Rhabbath huion Ammon], Rabbah
of the children of Ammon): This alone of the cities of the Ammonites
is mentioned in Scripture, so we may take it as the most important. It is
first named in connection with the bed or sarcophagus of Og, king of
Bashan, which was said to be found here (
<050311>
Deuteronomy 3:11). It
lay East of the territory assigned to Gad (
<061325>
Joshua 13:25). Whatever
may have been its history in the interval, it does not appear again in
Scripture till the time of David. This monarch sent an embassy of
sympathy to King Hanun when his father Nahash died. The kindness
was met by wanton insult, which led to the outbreak of war. The
Ammonites, strengthened by Aramean allies, were defeated by the
Israelites under Joab, and took refuge in Rabbah. After Davids defeat
of the Arameans at Helam a year later, the Ammonites were exposed
alone to the full-force of Israel, the ark of the covenant being carried
with the troops. The country was ravaged and siege was laid to
5
Rabbah. It was during this siege that Uriah the Hittite by Davids
orders was exposed in the forefront of the hottest battle (
<101115>
2
Samuel 11:15), where, treacherously deserted by his comrades, he was
slain. How long the siege lasted we do not know; probably some years;
but the end was in sight when Joab captured the city of waters (
<101227>
2
Samuel 12:27). This may mean that he had secured control of the water
supply. In the preceding verse he calls it the royal city. By the
chivalry of his general, David was enabled in person to enjoy the honor
of taking the city. Among the booty secured was the crown of Melcom,
the god of the Ammonites. Such of the inhabitants as survived he
treated with great severity (
<101226>
2 Samuel 12:26-31;
<132001>
1 Chronicles
20:1 ff).
In the utterances of the prophets against Ammon, Rabbah stands for the
people, as their most important, or perhaps their only important, city
(
<244902>
Jeremiah 49:2,3;
<262120>
Ezekiel 21:20; 25:5;
<300101>
Amos 1:14).
<244904>
Jeremiah
49:4 speaks of the flowing valley a reference perhaps to the
abundance of water and fruitfulness and the treasures in which she
gloried.
<262121>
Ezekiel 21:21 represents the king of Babylon at the head of
the two ways deciding by means of the divining arrows whether he should
march against Jerusalem or against Rabbah. Amos seems to have been
impressed with the palaces of Rabbah.
The city retained its importance in later times. It was captured by Ptolemy
Philadelphus (285-247 BC), who called it Philadelphia. It was a member of
the league of ten cities. Antiochus the Great captured it by means of
treachery (Polyb. v.71). Josephus (BJ, III, iii, 3) names it as lying East of
Peraea. In the 4th century AD, it ranked with Bostra and Gerasa as one of
the great fortified cities of Coele-Syria (Ritter, Erdkunde, XV, ii, 1154 f).
It became the seat of a bishop. Abulfeda (1321 AD) says that Rabbah was
in ruins at the time of the Moslem conquest.
Rabbah is represented by the modern `Amman, a ruined site with extensive
remains, chiefly from Roman times, some 14 miles Northeast of Heshbon,
and about 22 miles East of the Jordan. It lies on the northern bank of Wady
`Amman, a tributary of the upper Jabbok, in a well-watered and fruitful
valley. Possibly the stream which rises here may be the waters referred to
in
<101227>
2 Samuel 12:27. Ancient Rabbah may have stood on the hill now
occupied by the citadel, a position easy of defense because of its
precipitous sides. The outer walls of the citadel appear to be very old; but
6
it is quite impossible to say that anything Ammonite is now above ground.
The citadel is connected by means of an underground passage with a large
cistern or tank to the North, whence probably it drew its watersupply. This
may be the passage mentioned in the account of the capture of the city by
Antiochus. It is, says Conder (Heth and Moab, 158), one of the finest
Roman towns in Syria, with baths, a theater, and an odeum, as well as
several large private masonry tombs built in the valley probably in the 2nd
century. The fortress on the hill, now surrounding a considerable temple, is
also probably of this same date. The church with two chapels farther
North, and perhaps some of the tombs, must belong to a later age, perhaps
the 4th century. The fine mosque and the fine Moslem building on the
citadel hill cannot be earlier than the 7th, and are perhaps as late as the
11th century; and we have thus relics of every building epoch except the
Crusading, of which there appears to be no indication.
The place is now occupied by Arabs and Circassians who profit by the
riches of the soil. It is brought into contact with the outside world by
means of the Damascus-Hejaz Railway, which has a station here.
(2) ([h B ; r h ; , ha-rabbah]; Codex Vaticanus [20qpo, Sotheba];
Codex Alexandrinus [ Aprppo, Arebba]): An unidentified city of
Judah named along with Kiriath-jearim (
<061560>
Joshua 15:60).
W. Ewing
RABBI
<rab-i>, <rab-i> ([yB i r , rabbi]; [popp, rhabbi], or [poppr,
rhabbei]): A term used by the Jews of their religious teachers as a title of
respect, from [b r , rabh], great, so my great one (compare Latin
magister), once of masters of slaves, but later of teachers (
<402307>
Matthew
23:7); therefore translated by [ooxoo, didaskalos], teacher
(
<402308>
Matthew 23:8;
<430138>
John 1:38; compare 1:49). In the King James
Version frequently rendered Master (
<402625>
Matthew 26:25,49;
<410905>
Mark
9:5; 11:21; 14:45;
<430431>
John 4:31; 9:2; 11:8). John the Baptist (
<430326>
John
3:26), as well as Christ, is addressed with the title (
<430149>
John 1:49; 6:25),
both by disciples and others. Jesus forbade its use among His followers
(
<402308>
Matthew 23:8). Later (Galilean) form of same, RABBONI (which
see).
See TALMUD for Rabbinical literature.
7
Edward Bagby Pollard
RABBITH
<rab-ith> ([t yB i r h ; , ha-rabbith]; Codex Vaticanus [Aoprpv,
Dabeiron]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Popp0, Rhabboth]): A town in the
territory of Issachar (
<061920>
Joshua 19:20) which is probably represented today
by Raba, a village in the southern part of the Gilboa range and North of
Ibzaq. The ha is, of course, the definite article.
RABBLE
<rab-l>: This word is not found in the King James Version. the Revised
Version (British and American) has it once as the translation of
[oyopoo, agoraios] (literally, lounger in the market place), in
<441705>
Acts
17:5, where it replaces baser sort of the King James Version. It has the
common meaning of an unruly, lawless set who are ready to join a mob.
RABBONI
<rab-o-ni>, <rab-o-ni> ([poppov, rhabboni], my great master
(
<411051>
Mark 10:51); [poppouv, rhabbouni] (Westcott-Hort rhabbounei,
(
<432016>
John 20:16)).
See RABBI.
RAB-MAG
<rab-mag> ([gm; Ab r , rabh-magh];. Septuagint has it as a proper noun,
[ Popoo0, Rhabamath]): The name of one of the Babylonian princes
who were present at the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar,
during the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah (
<243903>
Jeremiah 39:3,13). The
word is a compound, the two parts seemingly being in apposition and
signifying tautologically the same thing. The last syllable or section of the
word, magh, was the designation among the Medes, Persians and
Babylonians for priests and wise men. Its original significance was great
or powerful; Greek [r yo, megas], Latin magis, magnus. The first
syllable, rabh, expresses practically the same idea, that of greatness, or
abundance in size, quantity, or power. Thus it might be interpreted the
allwise or all-powerful prince, the chief magician or physician. It is,
therefore, a title and not a name, and is accordingly put in appositive
8
relations to the proper name just preceding, as Nergal-sharezer, the Rab-
mag, translated fully, Nergal-sharezer the chief prince or magician.
See NERGAL-SHAREZER.
In harmony with the commonly accepted view, the proper rendering of the
text should be, All the princes of the king of Babylon came in, and sat in
the middle gate, to wit, Nergal-sharezer, Samgarnebo, Sarsechim, (the)
Rab-saris, Nergal-sharezer, (the) Rab-mag (
<243903>
Jeremiah 39:3); and so
Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard sent, and Nebushazban, (the) Rab-
saris, and Nergal-sharezer, (the) Rab-mag, and all the chief officers of the
king of Babylon (
<243913>
Jeremiah 39:13).
Walter G. Clippinger
RAB-SARIS
<rab-sa-ris> ([s yr i s ; Ab r , rabh-caric]): As with Rab-mag, which is not
regarded as a name, but a title, so this is to be regarded as a descriptive
title for the person whose name precedes it (see RAB-MAG). The first part,
rabh, signifies great or chief, the second, caric, is the title for eunuch
or chamberlain. The translation then would be chief eunuch or the chief of
the eunuchs (or chamberlains).
The oriental custom was for the king to surround himself with a number of
eunuchs, who performed varied kinds of services, both menial and
dignified. They usually had charge of his harem; sometimes they occupied
court positions. Frequently they superintended the education of the youth.
The term itself was sometimes used to designate persons in places of trust
who were not emasculated. The above title describes the highest or chief in
rank of these eunuchs.
See EUNUCH.
The full title is used 3 times, once in connection with the titles of other
important officers who were sent by the king of Assyria with a large army
to demand the surrender of Jerusalem. The passage would be translated
properly, `And the king of Assyria sent the Tartan and the Rab-saris (the
chief eunuch) and the Rabshakeh from Lachish to king Hezekiah (
<121817>
2
Kings 18:17). Again, it refers to a Babylonian whose real name was
Sarsechim, who with the other Babylonian princes sat in the middle gate
during the capture of Jerusalem. This event is described as having occurred
9
in the 11th year of Zedekiah, king of Judah (
<243903>
Jeremiah 39:3). The third
use is in connection with the name Nebushazban, who, with the other chief
officers of the king of Babylon, sent and took Jeremiah out of the court of
the guard and committed him to Gedaliah, who was to take him home to
dwell with his own people (
<243913>
Jeremiah 39:13).
Thus, it is seen that based upon this accepted theory the three titles would
be in their connections as follows:
(1) simply the chief eunuch,
(2) Sarsechim, the Rab-saris (or chief eunuch), and
(3) Nebushazban, the Rab-saris (or chief eunuch).
See also ASSYRIA, X.
Walter G. Clippinger
RABSHAKEH
<rab-sha-ke>, <rab-sha-ke> ([h q e v ; b ] r , rabhshaqeh]): A compound
word, the first part, [rabh], indicating head or chief (see RAB-MAG;
RAB-SARIS). The second part, which in the Aramaic, probably meant
cupbearer, had in this connection and elsewhere, according to later
discoveries, an extended significance, and meant chief officer, i.e. chief of
the heads or captains.
Rabshakeh was one of the officers sent by Sennacherib, the king of
Assyria, with the Tartan and the Rabsaris to demand the surrender of
Jerusalem, which was under siege by the Assyrian army (
<121817>
2 Kings
18:17,19,26,27,28,37; 19:4,8;
<233602>
Isaiah 36:2,4,11,12,13,22; 37:4,8). The
three officers named went from Lachish to Jerusalem and appeared by the
conduit of the upper pool. Having called upon King Hezekiah, his
representatives Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, Shebnah, the scribe, and Joah,
the recorder, appeared. Rabshakeh sent through them a message to the
king in which he represented himself as the spokesman for the king of
Assyria. He derided King Hezekiah in an insolent fashion in representing
his trust in Egypt as a bruised reed which would pierce the hand. Likewise
his confidence in Yahweh was vain, for He also would be unable to deliver
them. Then the officers of the king replied, requesting him to speak in the
Syrian language-which they understood, and not in the Jews language
which the people on the wall understood. This he refused to do, speaking
10
still more loudly in order that they might hear and be persuaded. By bribery
and appeal, by promise and by deception he exhorted them to turn traitor
to Hezekiah and surrender to him. The people, however, true to the
command of Hezekiah (
<121836>
2 Kings 18:36), held their peace, and answered
him not a word. Afterward Rabshakeh returned and found the king of
Assyria warring against Libnah. (
<121908>
2 Kings 19:8). From this description
it is inferred that Rabshakeh was a man of considerable literary attainment,
being able, in all probability, to speak in three languages. He had, in
addition to his official power, dauntless courage, an insolent spirit and a
characteristic oriental disregard for veracity.
Walter G. Clippinger
RACA
<ra-ka, <ra-ka> ([poxo, rhaka], Westcott and Hort, The New
Testament in Greek with Codices Sinaiticus (corrected), Vaticanus, Codex
E, etc.; [poo, rhacha], Tischendorf with Codices Sinaiticus (original
hand) and Bezae; Aramaic [a q ;yr e, reqa], from [q yr e, req], empty):
Vain or worthless fellow; a term of contempt used by the Jews in the time
of Christ. In the Bible, it occurs in
<400522>
Matthew 5:22 only, but John
Lightfoot gives a number of instances of the use of the word by Jewish
writers (Hot. Hebrew., edition by Gandell, Oxford, 1859, II, 108).
Chrysostom (who was acquainted with Syriac as spoken in the
neighborhood of Antioch) says it was equivalent to the Greek [ou, su],
thou, used contemptuously instead of a mans name. Jerome rendered it
inanis aut vacuus absque cerebro. It is generally explained as expressing
contempt for a mans intellectual capacity (= you simpleton!), while
[pr, more] (translated thou fool), in the same verse is taken to refer
to a mans moral and religious character (= you rascal! you impious
fellow!). Thus we have three stages of anger, with three corresponding
grades of punishment:
(1) the inner feeling of anger ([opyorvo, orgizomenos]), to be
punished by the local or provincial court ([tq xp or, te krisei], the
judgment);
(2) anger breaking forth into an expression of scorn (Raca), to be
punished by the Sanhedrin ([t ouvrp, to sunedrio], the
council);
11
(3) anger culminating in abusive and defamatory language (More), to
be punished by the fire of Gehenna. This view, of a double climax,
which has been held by foremost English and Gor. commentators,
seems to give the passage symmetry and gradation. But it is rejected
among others by T. K. Cheyne, who, following J. P. Peters, rearranges
the text by transferring the clause and whosoever shall say to his
brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council to the end of the
preceding verse (Encyclopaedia Biblica, IV, cols. 4001 f). There
certainly does not seem to be trustworthy external evidence to prove
that the terms the judgment, the council, the Gehenna of fire
stand to each other in a relation of gradation, as lower and higher legal
courts, or would be so understood by Christs hearers. What is beyond
dispute is that Christ condemns the use of disparaging and insulting
epithets as a supreme offense against the law of humanity, which
belongs to the same category as murder itself. It should be added,
however, that it is the underlying feeling and not the verbal expression
as such that constitutes the sin. Hence, our Lord can, without any real
inconsistency, address two of His followers as foolish men (
<422425>
Luke
24:25, [ovoqto, anoetoi], practically equivalent to Raca, as is also
Jamess expression, O vain man,
<590220>
James 2:20).
D. Miall Edwards
RACAL
<ra-kal> ([l k ;r ;, rakhal], trader): A place in Judah, enumerated among
the places where David himself and his men were wont to haunt, to the
elders of which he sent a share of his spoils (
<093029>
1 Samuel 30:29). The
Septuagint reading Carmel has been adopted, by many, because of the
similarity of the words in Hebrew ([l k r , rakal] and [l mr k , karmel]) and
because there was a Carmel in the neighborhood of Hebron (
<061555>
Joshua
15:55;
<091512>
1 Samuel 15:12), which figures in the story of Davids
adventures when pursued by Saul (1 Samuel 25) in a manner that makes it
improbable that he would overlook the place in his good fortune (the King
James Version Rachal).
Nathan I saacs
RACE
<ras> ([6 wO r me , merox]; [oyv, agon], [poo, dromos]).
12
See GAMES, I, 2; II, 3.
RACES
<ras-iz>.
See TABLE OF NATIONS.
RACHAB
<ra-kab> ([ Poop, Rhachab]): the King James Version; Greek form of
Rahab (thus
<400105>
Matthew 1:5 the Revised Version (British and
American)).
RACHAL
<ra-kal>.
See RACAL.
RACHEL
<ra-chel> ([l j er ;, rachel], ewe; [ Poq, Rhachel] (
<012906>
Genesis 29:6;
<243115>
Jeremiah 31:15, the King James Version Rahel)):
1. BIOGRAPHY:
An ancestress of Israel, wife of Jacob, mother of Joseph and Benjamin.
Rachel was the younger daughter of Laban, the Aramean, the brother of
Jacobs mother; so Rachel and Jacob were cousins. They met for the first
time upon the arrival of Jacob at Haran, when attracted by her beauty he
immediately fell in love with her, winning her love by his chivalrous act
related in
<012910>
Genesis 29:10 ff. According to the custom of the times Jacob
contracted with Laban for her possession, agreeing to serve him 7 years as
the stipulated price (29:17-20). But when the time had passed, Laban
deceived Jacob by giving him Leah instead of Rachel. When Jacob
protested, Laban gave him Rachel also, on condition that Jacob serve 7
years more (29:21-29). To her great dismay Rachel was barren
(
<012930>
Genesis 29:30,31), while Leah had children. Rachel, envious of her
sister, complained to Jacob, who reminded her that children are the gift of
God. Then Rachel resorted to the expedient once employed by Sarah under
similar circumstances (16:2 ff); she bade Jacob take her handmaid Bilhah,
13
as a concubine, to obtain children by her (30:3). Daniel and Naphtali
were the offspring of this union. The evil of polygamy is apparent from the
dismal rivalry arising between the two sisters, each seeking by means of
children to win the heart of Jacob. In her eagerness to become a mother of
children, Rachel bargained with Leah for the mandrakes, or love-apples of
her son Reuben, but all to no avail (
<013014>
Genesis 30:14). Finally God heard
her prayer and granted her her hearts desire, and she gave birth to her
firstborn whom she named Joseph (
<013022>
Genesis 30:22-24).
Some years after this, when Jacob fled from Laban with his wives, the
episode of theft of the teraphim of Laban by Rachel, related in
<013119>
Genesis
31:19,34,35, occurred. She hoped by securing the household gods of her
father to bring prosperity to her own new household. Though she
succeeded by her cunning in concealing them from Laban, Jacob later,
upon discovering them, had them put away (35:2-4). In spite of all, she
continued to be the favorite of Jacob, as is clearly evidenced by 33:2,
where we are told that he assigned to her the place of greatest safety, and
by his preference for Joseph, her son. After the arrival in Canaan, while
they were on the way from Beth-el to Ephrath, i.e. Bethlehem, Rachel gave
birth to her second son, Benjamin, and died (35:16 ff).
2. CHARACTER:
In a marked manner Rachels character shows the traits of her family,
cunning and covetousness, so evident in Laban, Rebekah and Jacob.
Though a believer in the true God (
<013006>
Genesis 30:6,8,22), she was yet
given to the superstitions of her country, the worshipping of the teraphim,
etc. (
<013119>
Genesis 31:19). The futility of her efforts in resorting to self-help
and superstitious expedients, the love and stronger faith of her husband
(
<013502>
Genesis 35:2-4), were the providential means of purifying her
character. Her memory lived on in Israel long after she died. In
<080411>
Ruth
4:11, the names of Rachel and Leah occur in the nuptial benediction as the
foundresses of the house of Israel.
RACHELS TOMB
([l j er ; t r b u q ]t b , X , m , matstsebheth qebhurath rachel): In
<013520>
Genesis
35:20 we read: Jacob set up a pillar upon her grave: the same is the Pillar
of Rachels grave unto this day, i.e. the time of the writer. Though the
pillar, i.e sepulchral monument, has long disappeared, the spot is marked
14
until this day, and Christians, Jews and Mohammedans unite in honoring it.
The present tomb, which, apparently, is not older than the 15th century, is
built in the style of the small-domed buildings raised by Moslems in honor
of their saints. It is a rough structure of four square walls, each about 23 ft.
long and 20 ft. high; the dome rising 10 ft. higher is used by
Mohammedans for prayer, while on Fridays the Jews make supplication
before the empty tomb within. It is doubtful, but probable, that it marks the
exact spot where Rachel was buried. There are, apparently, two traditions
as to the location of the place. The oldest tradition, based upon
<013516>
Genesis
35:16-20; 48:7, points to a place one mile North of Bethlehem and 4 miles
from Jerusalem.
<400218>
Matthew 2:18 speaks for this place, since the
evangelist, reporting the slaughter of the innocents of Bethlehem,
represents Rachel as weeping for her children from her neighboring grave.
But according to
<091002>
1 Samuel 10:2 ff, which apparently represents another
tradition, the place of Rachels grave was on the border of Benjamin,
near Beth-el, about 10 miles North of Jerusalem, at another unknown
Ephrath. This location, some believe, is corroborated by
<243115>
Jeremiah
31:15, where the prophet, in relating the leading away of the people of
Ramah, which was in Benjamin, into captivity, introduces Rachel the
mother of that tribe as bewailing the fate of her descendants. Those that
believe this northern location to be the place of Rachels grave take the
words, the same is Beth-lehem, in
<013519>
Genesis 35:19; 48:7, to be an
incorrect gloss; but that is a mere assumption lacking sufficient proof.
Mr. Nathan Strauss, of New York City, has purchased the land
surrounding Rachels grave for the purpose of erecting a Jewish university
in the Holy Land.
S. D. Press
RADDAI
<rad-a-i>, <ra-da-i> ([yD r , radday], beating down(?)): The 5th
of the 7 sons of Jesse, father of David, according to
<130214>
1 Chronicles 2:14
Septuagint, Codex Alexdrinus, Rhaddai; Lucian, Rhedai; others,
Zaddai).
RADIANT
<ra-di-ant> ([r h n; , nahar], to sparkle i.e. (figurative) be cheerful;
hence (from the sheen of a running stream), to flow, i.e. (figurative)
15
assemble; flow (together), be lightened): the American Standard Revised
Version substitutes the active radiant for the passive were lightened in
<193405>
Psalm 34:5;
<236005>
Isaiah 60:5 (English Revised Version, the King James
Version flow together). As the earth and moon, both being dark, face a
common sun and lighten each other, they are not only lightened, but
radiant. So with the believers, They looked unto him (Yahweh), and were
radiant. Thus nahar combines the two ideas of being lightened and
flowing together. This appears, also, in a different connection, in
<236005>
Isaiah
60:5, Then thou shalt see and be radiant. It is liquid light light that
ripples and sparkles and runs across the face; .... the light which a face
catches from sparkling water (G.A. Smith, Isaiah, II, 430).
M. O. Evans
RAFT
<raft>.
See SNIPS AND BOATS, II, 1, (2).
RAFTER
<raf-ter> (Song 1:17).
See GALLERY; HOUSE.
RAG
Plural in
<202321>
Proverbs 23:21, Drowsiness will clothe a man with rags
([ y[ ir ;q ], qeraim] torn garment; compare
<111130>
1 Kings 11:30), and
figuratively in
<236406>
Isaiah 64:6 the King James Version, All our
righteousnesses are as filthy rags, in the sense of tattered clothing
([d g,B ,, beghedh], the Revised Version (British and American) garment).
In
<243811>
Jeremiah 38:11,12 the American Standard Revised Version translates
[h b ;j ;s ] , cechabhah], as rag (the King James Version, the English
Revised Version old cast clout), while the King James Version, the
English Revised Version use rotten rag for [j l m, , melach] (the
American Standard Revised Version worn-out garment). Both
cechabhah and melach mean worn out.
16
RAGAU
<ra-go> ([ Poyou, Rhagau] (Westcott-Hort): the King James Version;
Greek form of Reu (thus, the Revised Version (British and American))
(
<420335>
Luke 3:35).
RAGES; RAGAU
<ra-jez>, <ra-go>
1. LOCATION:
(Rages, Tobit 1:14; 4:1,20; 5:5; 6:9,12; 9:2; Ragau, Judith 1:5,15; [
Poyo, Rhagai], [ Poyo, Rhaga], [ Poyq, Rhage], [ Poyou, Rhagau]; in
Darius Behistun Inscriptions, II, 71, 72, Raga, a province; in Avesta,
Vend. I, 15, Ragha, city and province; perhaps, the excellent): In Eastern
Media, one forced march from Caspian Gates, 11 days journey from
Ecbatana, 5 1/2 miles South of present Tehran; the capital of the province
of the same name, though by Ptolemy called Rhagiana.
2. HISTORY:
(1) Ancient.
A very ancient city, the traditional birthplace of Zoroaster (Zarathustra;
Pahlavi Vendidad, Zad sparad XVI, 12, and Dabistan i Mazahib). In Yasna
XIX, 18, of the Avesta, it is thus mentioned: The Zoroastrian, four-chief-
possessing Ragha, hers are the royal chiefs, both the house-chief, the
village-chief, and the town-chief: Zoroaster is the fourth. In Vend. I, 15:
As the tenth, the best of both districts and cities, I, who am Ahura Mazda,
did create Ragha, which possesses the three classes, i.e. fire-priests,
charioteers, husbandmen. Later it was the religious center of magism. A
large colony of captive Israelites settled there. Destroyed in Alexanders
time, it was rebuilt by Seleucus Nicator (circa 300 BC), who named it
Europos. Later, Arsaces restored it and named it Arsacia.
(2) Medieval.
In the early Middle Ages Ragha, then called Rai, was a great literary and
often political center with a large population. It was the birthplace of
Harunal Rashid (763 AD). It was seized and plundered (1029 AD) by
Sultan Machmud, but became Tughrils capital. In the Vis o Roman (circa
17
1048 AD) it is an important place, 10 days journey across the Kavir desert
from Merv. It was a small provincial town in about 1220 AD. It was
sacked by Mongols in 1220 AD and entirely destroyed under Ghazan Khan
circa 1295. A Zoroastrian community lived there in 1278 AD, one of
whom composed the Zardtusht-Namah.
(3) Present Condition.
Near the ruins there now stands the village of Shah Abdul Acim,
connected with Tehran by the only railway in Persia (opened in 1888).
LITERATURE
Ptolemy, Diodorus Siculus, Pliny, Strabo; Ibnul Athir, Jamiu t Tawarikh,
Tarikh i Jahan-gusha Yaqut; Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch; E.G. Browne,
Literary Hist of Persia; modern travelers.
W. St. Clair Tisdall
RAGUEL (1)
<ra-gu-el>, <rag-u-el> ([ Poyouq, Rhagouel): The friend of God, of
Ecbatana, the husband of Edna, father of Sarah, and father-in-law of
Tobias (Tobit 3:7,17; 6:10; 7:2 f; 14:12). In Tobit 7:2 he is called cousin of
Tobit, and in Tobit 6:10 the King James Version he is erroneously
represented as cousin of Tobias = kinsman in the Revised Version
(British and American). In Enoch 20:4 Raguel appears as one of the
archangels, perhaps by confusion for Raphael (Tobit 3:17). Another form
of the name is REUEL (which see).
RAGUEL (2)
<ra-gu-el>, <rag-u-el> ([l a eW[ r ], re`u-el]; Septuagint: Rhagouel): The
Midianite chothen, i.e. either father-in-law or brother-in-law of Moses
(
<041029>
Numbers 10:29 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British
and American) Reuel), the father of Hobab, called a Kenite, who is
likewise described as a chothen of Moses (
<070411>
Judges 4:11). See
RELATIONSHIPS, FAMILY. Moses wifes father is called re`uel in
<020218>
Exodus 2:18 where Lucian reads Iothor and English Versions of the
Bible Reuel, which transliteration is adopted in the Revised Version
(British and American) in
<041029>
Numbers 10:29 also. In other passages the
18
chothen of Moses is called Jether or Jethro. Among the
harmonizations suggested the following are worthy of consideration:
(a) that all are names or perhaps titles of one man (Rashi);
(b) that Reuel was the father of Hobab and Jethro, that Jethro was the
father-in-law of Moses, and that the word father is used for
grandfather in
<020218>
Exodus 2:18;
(c) that Reuel was the father-in-law and Jethro and Hobab brothers-in-
law;
(d) that either Reuel or Hobab is to be identified with Jethro. None of
these views is free from difficulty, nor is the view of those who would
give Jethro as the name in the Elohist (E) and Reuel as that in the
Jahwist (Jahwist) and (J-E).
See also REUEL.
Nathan I saacs
RAHAB
<ra-hab>:
(1) ([b j ;r ; , rachabh], broad; in Josephus, Ant, V, i, 2, 7, [ Poop,
Rhachab];
<581131>
Hebrews 11:31 and
<590225>
James 2:25, [ Poop, Rhaab]): A
zonah, that is either a harlot, or, according to some, an innkeeper
in Jericho; the Septuagint [opvq, porne], harlot). The two spies
sent by Joshua from Shittim came into her house and lodged there
(
<060201>
Joshua 2:1). She refused to betray them to the king of Jericho, and
when he demanded them, she hid them on the roof of her house with
stalks of flax that she had laid in order to dry. She pretended that they
had escaped before the shutting of the gate, and threw their pursuers
off their track. She then told the spies of the fear that the coming of the
Israelites had caused in the minds of the Canaanites Our hearts did
melt .... for Yahweh your God, he is God in heaven above, and on
earth beneath and asked that the men promise to spare her father,
mother, brothers and sisters, and all that they had. They promised her
to spare them provided they would remain in her house and provided
she would keep their business secret. Thereupon she let them down by
a cord through the window, her house being built upon the town wall,
19
and gave them directions to make good their escape (
<060201>
Joshua 2:1-
24). True to their promise, the Israelites under Joshua spared Rahab
and her family (
<060616>
Joshua 6:16 ff the King James Version); And, says
the author of Josh, she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day. Her
story appealed strongly to the imagination of the people of later times.
<581131>
Hebrews 11:31 speaks of her as having been saved by faith; James,
on the other hand, in demonstrating that a man is justified by works and
not by faith only, curiously chooses the same example (
<590225>
James 2:25).
Jewish tradition has been kindly disposed toward Rahab; one
hypothesis goes so far as to make her the wife of Joshua himself (Jew
Encyclopedia, under the word). Naturally then the other translation of
zonah, deriving it from zun, to feed, instead of zanah, to be a
harlot, has been preferred by some of the commentators.
(2) ( Poop, Rhachab): Josephus, Ant, V, 1, 2, 7, so spells the name
of (1) Septuagint and New Testament contra). The wife of Salmon and
mother of Booz (Boaz) according to the genealogy in
<400105>
Matthew 1:5.
Query, whether there was a tradition identifying (1) and (2); see
Lightfoot, Horae Hob on
<400105>
Matthew 1:5.
(3) ([b h r , rahabh], literally, storm, arrogance): A mythical
sea-monster, probably referred to in several passages where the word is
translated as a common noun pride (
<180913>
Job 9:13), the proud
(
<182612>
Job 26:12; compare
<198910>
Psalm 89:10). It is used in parallelism with
tannin, the dragon (
<235109>
Isaiah 51:9). It is most familiar as an emblem
of Egypt, `the boaster that sitteth still (
<233007>
Isaiah 30:7;
<198704>
Psalm 87:4;
compare 89:10). The Talmud in Babha Bathra speaks of rahabh as
sar ha-yam, master of the sea.
See also ASTRONOMY.
Nathan I saacs
RAHAM
<ra-ham> ([ j r , racham], pity, love): Son of Shema, and father
of Jorkeam (
<130244>
1 Chronicles 2:44).
RAHEL
<ra-hel> (
<243115>
Jeremiah 31:15 the King James Version).
20
See RACHEL.
RAID
<rad> (
<092710>
1 Samuel 27:10).
See WAR, 3.
RAIL; RAILING; RAILER,
<ral>, <ral-ing>, <ral-er>: To rail on (in modern usage against)
anyone is to use insolent or reproachful language toward one. It occurs in
the Old Testament as the translation of [t r j ; , charaph] (
<143217>
2
Chronicles 32:17, letters to rail on Yahweh), and of [f y[ i, `it] (
<092514>
1
Samuel 25:14, of Nabal, he railed at them, the English Revised Version
flew upon them, margin railed on). In the New Testament to rail is
the translation of [pooqr, blasphemeo] (
<411529>
Mark 15:29;
<422339>
Luke
23:39; railing,
<540604>
1 Timothy 6:4;
<610211>
2 Peter 2:11;
<650109>
Jude 1:9). The
word loidoria, rendered railing in
<600309>
1 Peter 3:9 the King James Version,
is in the Revised Version (British and American) reviling, and loidoros,
railor, in
<460511>
1 Corinthians 5:11 is in the Revised Version (British and
American) reviler.
See also RACA.
W. L. Walker
RAIMENT
<ra-ment>.
See DRESS.
RAIMENT, SOFT
([ooxo, malakos]): In
<401108>
Matthew 11:8 English Versions of the Bible,
where Jesus, speaking of John the Baptist, asks What went ye out to see?
a man clothed in soft raiment? where raiment, though implied, is not
expressed in the best text, but was probably added from
<420725>
Luke 7:25
parallel. It is equivalent to elegant clothing, such as courtiers wore, as
shown by the words following, Behold, they that wear soft raiment are in
kings houses. John had bravely refused to play courtier and had gone to
21
prison for it. In the early days of Herod the Great some scribes who
attached themselves to him laid aside their usual plain clothing and wore
the gorgeous raiment of courtiers (Jost, in Plumptre).
George B. Eager
RAIN
<ran> ([r f ;m; , maTar], Arabic maTar, rain [ v o,G,, geshem], heavy rain
[h r ,wOm, moreh], early rain, [h r ,wOy, yoreh], former rain, [v wO q l ] m ,
malqosh], latter rain; [ppr, brecho], [urto, huetos]):
1. WATER-SUPPLY IN EGYPT AND PALESTINE:
In Egypt there is little or no rainfall, the water for vegetation being
supplied in great abundance by the river Nile; but in Syria and Palestine
there are no large rivers, and the people have to depend entirely on the fall
of rain for water for themselves, their animals and their fields. The children
of Israel when in Egypt were promised by Yahweh a land which drinketh
water of the rain of heaven (
<051111>
Deuteronomy 11:11). Springs and
fountains are found in most of the valleys, but the flow of the springs
depends directly on the fall of rain or snow in the mountains.
2. IMPORTANCE OF RAIN IN SEASON:
The cultivation of the land in Palestine is practically dry farming in most of
the districts, but even then some water is necessary, so that there may be
moisture in the soil. In the summer months there is no rain, so that the rains
of the spring and fall seasons are absolutely essential for starting and
maturing the crops. The lack of this rain in the proper time has often been
the cause of complete failure of the harvest. A small difference in the
amount of these seasonal rains makes a large difference in the possibility of
growing various crops without irrigation. Ellsworth Huntington has
insisted on this point with great care in his very important work, Palestine
and Its Transformation. The promise of prosperity is given in the assurance
of rain in due season (
<032604>
Leviticus 26:4 the King James Version). The
withholding of rain according to the prophecy of Elijah (
<111701>
1 Kings 17:1)
caused the mountain streams to dry up (
<111707>
1 Kings 17:7), and certain
famine ensued. A glimpse of the terrible suffering for lack of water at that
time is given us. The people were uncertain of another meal (
<111712>
1 Kings
17:12), and the animals were perishing (
<111805>
1 Kings 18:5).
22
3. AMOUNT OF RAINFALL:
Palestine and Syria are on the borderland between the sea and the desert,
and besides are so mountainous, that they not only have a great range of
rainfall in different years, but a great variation in different parts of the
country.
The amount of rain on the western slopes is comparable with that in
England and America, varying from 25 to 40 inches per annum, but it falls
mostly in the four winter months, when the downpour is often very heavy,
giving oftentimes from 12 to 16 inches in a month. On the eastern slopes it
is much less, varying from 8 to 20 inches per annum. The highest amount
falls in the mountains of Lebanon where it averages about 50 inches. In
Beirut the yearly average is 35,87 inches. As we go South from Syria, the
amount decreases (Haifa 27,75, Jaffa 22,39, Gaze 17,61), while in the
Sinaitic Peninsula there is little or none. Going from West to East the
change is much more sudden, owing to the mountains which stop the
clouds. In Damascus the average is less than 10 inches. In Jerusalem the
average for 50 years is 26,16 in., and the range is from 13,19 in 1870 to
41,62 in 1897. The yearly records as given by J. Glaisher and A. Datzi in
Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly from 1861 to 1910, 50 years, are
given in the accompanying table.
RAINFALL IN JERUSALEM IN INCHES
YEAR AMOUNT
1861 27.30
1862 21.86
1863 26.54
1864 15.51
1865 18.19
1866 18.55
1867 29.42
1868 29.10
1869 18.61
23
1870 13.19
1871 23.17
1872 22.26
1873 22.72
1874 29.75
1875 27.01
1876 14.41
1877 26.00
1878 32.21
1879 18.04
1880 32.11
1881 16.50
1882 26.72
1883 31.92
1884 23.16
1885 29.47
1886 31.69
1887 29.81
1888 37.79
1889 13.16
1890 35.51
1891 34.72
1892 31.23
1893 30.54
1894 35.38
24
1895 23.15
1896 32.90
1897 41.62
1898 28.66
1899 22.43
1900 21.20
1901 17.42
1902 25.51
1903 18.04
1904 34.48
1905 34.22
1906 28.14
1907 27.22
1908 31.87
1909 21.13
1910 24.64
The amount of rainfall in ancient times was probably about the same as in
present times, though it may have been distributed somewhat differently
through the year, as suggested by Huntington. Conder maintains that the
present amount would have been sufficient to support the ancient cities
(Tent-Work in Palestine). Trees are without doubt fewer now, but
meteorologists agree that trees do not produce rain.
4. DRY AND RAINY SEASONS;
The rainfall is largely on the western slopes of the mountains facing the
sea, while on the eastern slopes there is very little. The moisture-laden air
comes up from the sea with the west and southwest wind. When these
currents strike the hills they are thrown higher up into the cooler strata,
and the moisture condenses to form clouds and rain which increases on the
25
higher levels. Having passed the ridge of the hills, the currents descend on
the other side to warmer levels, where the moisture is easily held in the
form of vapor so that no rain falls and few clouds are seen, except in the
cold mid-winter months.
The summer months are practically rainless, with very few clouds
appearing in the sky. From May 1 to the middle of October one can be sure
of no rain; The winter is past; the rain is over (Song 2:11), so many sleep
on the roofs of the houses or in tents of leaves and branches in the fields
and vineyards throughout the summer. The continuous hot droughts make
the people appreciate the springs and fountains of fresh running water and
the cool shade of rock and tree.
The rainy season from October to May may be divided into three parts, the
former, the winter, and the latter rains, and they are often referred to under
these names in the Old Testament.
The former rains are the showers of October and the first part of
November. They soften the parched ground so that the winter grain may be
sown before the heavy continuous rains set in. The main bulk of the rain
falls in the months of December, January and February. Although in these
months the rains are frequent and heavy, a dark, foggy day is seldom seen.
The latter rains of April are the most highly appreciated, because they
ripen the fruit and stay the drought of summer. They were considered a
special blessing: Yahweh will come .... as the latter rain that watereth the
earth (
<280603>
Hosea 6:3); They opened their mouth wide as for the latter
rain (
<182923>
Job 29:23); and as a reason for worshipping Yahweh who sent
them, Let us now fear Yahweh our God, that giveth rain, both the former
and the latter, in its season (
<240524>
Jeremiah 5:24).
The rain storms always come from the sea with a west or southwest wind.
The east wind is a hot wind and the north wind driveth away rain
(
<202523>
Proverbs 25:23, the King James Version). Fair weather cometh out of
the north (
<183722>
Job 37:22, the King James Version).
5. BIBLICAL USES:
The Psalmist recognizes that the showers that water the earth (
<197206>
Psalm
72:6) are among the choicest blessings from the hand of Yahweh: The
early rain covereth it with blessings (
<198406>
Psalm 84:6). The severest
punishment of Yahweh was to withhold the rain, as in the time of Ahab and
26
Elijah, when the usual rain did not fall for three years (1 Kings 17); the
anger of Yahweh be kindled against you, and he shut up the heavens, so
that there shall be no rain, and the land shall not yield its fruit; and ye
perish quickly (
<051117>
Deuteronomy 11:17). Too much rain is also a
punishment, as witness the flood (
<010704>
Genesis 7:4) and the plague of rain
and hail (
<151009>
Ezra 10:9). Sending of rain was a reward for worship and
obedience: Yahweh will open unto thee his good treasure, the heavens, to
give the rain of thy land in its season, and to bless all the work of thy hand
(
<052812>
Deuteronomy 28:12). Yahweh controls the elements and commands
the rain: He made a decree for the rain (
<182826>
Job 28:26); For he saith to
the snow, Fall thou on the earth; likewise to the shower of rain (
<183706>
Job
37:6).
LITERATURE
Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly; meteorological observations from
the Dead Sea, Jerusalem, Jaffa and Tiberias; various observers; Zeitschrift
des deutschen Paldstina-Vereins; H. Hilderscheid, Die
Niederschlagsverhdltnisse Paldstinas in alter and neuer Zeit; C. R. Conder,
Tent-Work in Palestine; Edward Hull, Mount Seir, Sinai and Western
Palestine; Ellsworth Huntington, Palestine and Its Transformation; bulletin
of the Syrian Protestant College Observatory, Meteorological Observations
in Beirut and Syria.
Alfred H. J oy
RAINBOW
<ran-bo> ([t c ,q , , qesheth], translated a bow; [p, iris], rainbow):
As most of the rainfall in Palestine is in the form of short heavy showers it
is often accompanied by the rainbow. Most beautiful double bows are often
seen, and occasionally the moon is bright enough to produce the bow. It is
rather remarkable that there are so few references to the rainbow in the
Bible. The Hebrew qesheth is the ordinary word for a bow, there being no
special word for rainbow.
The interpretation of the significance of the bow in the sky is given at the
close of the story of the flood, where it is called the token of the
covenant of Yahweh with Noah that there should be no more flood: I do
set my bow in the cloud, .... and the waters shall no more become a flood
to destroy all flesh (
<010913>
Genesis 9:13,15). This addition to the story of the
27
flood is not found in other mythical accounts. The foundation for the
interpretation of the bow in this way seems to be that while His bow is
hung in the sky God must be at peace with His people. The glory of God is
likened to the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of
rain (
<260128>
Ezekiel 1:28). The rainbow forms a striking part of the vision in
<660403>
Revelation 4:3: And there was a rainbow round about the throne.
Alfred H. J oy
RAISE
<raz>: To raise in the Old Testament is most frequently the translation of
the Hiphil form of [ Wq , qum], to cause to arise, e.g. raising up seed
(
<013808>
Genesis 38:8), a prophet (
<051818>
Deuteronomy 18:18), judges (
<070216>
Judges
2:16,18), etc.; also of [r W[ , `ur], to awake, stir up (
<150105>
Ezra 1:5 the
King James Version;
<234102>
Isaiah 41:2, etc.), with other words. In the New
Testament the chief words are [r yr p, egeiro], to awaken, arouse
(
<400309>
Matthew 3:9;
<420169>
Luke 1:69; 3:8, etc.), frequently of raising the dead;
and [ovotq, anistemi] (
<402224>
Matthew 22:24;
<430639>
John 6:39, etc.;
<440224>
Acts
2:24 (30 the King James Version), etc.), with compounds of the former.
Among the Revised Version (British and American) changes may be noted,
to stir the fire for from raising (
<280704>
Hosea 7:4); raiseth high his gate
for exalteth his gate (
<201719>
Proverbs 17:19); the American Standard
Revised Version, can it be raised from the roots thereof for pluck it up
by the roots thereof (
<261709>
Ezekiel 17:9 the King James Version and the
English Revised Version); raised up for rise again (
<402019>
Matthew 20:19;
compare
<402632>
Matthew 26:32;
<450834>
Romans 8:34;
<510301>
Colossians 3:1).
W. L. Walker
RAISIN-CAKES
<ra-z-n-kaks>: the Revised Version (British and American) gives this
rendering for the King James Version foundations in
<231607>
Isaiah 16:7
(Hebrew ashishah from ashash, to found, make firm, press). The
trade in these would cease through the desolation of the vineyards. For the
King James Version flagons of wine in
<280301>
Hosea 3:1, the Revised
Version (British and American) gives cakes of raisins, such as were
offered to the gods of the land, the givers of the grape (compare Song 2:5).
See next article.
28
RAISINS
<ra-z-nz>:
(1) [ yq iWMx i, cimmuqim]; [otor, staphides], translated dried
grapes,
<040603>
Numbers 6:3; mentioned in all other references as a
portable food for a march or journey. Abigail supplied David with a
hundred clusters of raisins, among other things, in the wilderness of
Paran (
<092518>
1 Samuel 25:18); David gave two clusters of raisins to a
starving Egyptian slave of the Amalekites at Besor (
<093012>
1 Samuel
30:12); raisins formed part of the provision brought to David at Hebron
for his army (
<131240>
1 Chronicles 12:40); Ziba supplied David, when flying
from Absalom, with a hundred clusters of raisins (
<101601>
2 Samuel 16:1).
(2) [h v ;yv ia }, ashishah], something pressed together, hence, a
cake. In
<280301>
Hosea 3:1, mention is made of [ yb in;[ }yv eyv ia }, ashishe
anabhim] ([roto rto otoo, pemmata meta staphidos]),
cakes of raisins: Yahweh loveth the children of Israel, though they
turn unto other gods, and love (margin or them that love) cakes of
raisins. These are supposed to have been cakes of dried, compressed
grapes offered to false gods. Gratz considers that the Hebrew words
are a corruption of asherim and chammanim (sun images). Compare
<231708>
Isaiah 17:8; 27:9. In other passages cakes stands alone without
raisins, but the translation cakes of raisins is given in
<100619>
2 Samuel
6:19;
<131603>
1 Chronicles 16:3; Song 2:5 (the King James Version
flagons);
<231607>
Isaiah 16:7 margin foundations.
Raisins are today, as of old, prepared in considerable quantities in
Palestine, especially at es-Salt, East of the Jordan. The bunches of grapes
are dipped in a strong solution of potash before being dried.
E. W. G. Masterman
RAKEM
<ra-kem> ([ q ,r ;, raqem], the pausal form of [ q ,r ; , reqem]): The
eponym of a clan of Machir (
<130716>
1 Chronicles 7:16).
See REKEM.
29
RAKKATH
<rak-ath> ([t Q r , raqqath]; Codex Vaticanus [ Do0ooxr0,
Omathadaketh]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Prxxo0, Rhekkath]): The Greek is
obviously the result of confusing the two names Rakkath and Hammath,
taking r in the former for d. Rakkath was one of the fortified cities in
Naphtali (
<061935>
Joshua 19:35). It is named between Hammath and
Chinnereth. Hammath is identified with the hot baths to the South of
Tiberias. There are traces of ancient fortifications here. The rabbis think
that Tiberias was built on the site of Rakkath. Certain it is that Herods
town was built upon an ancient site, the graves of the old inhabitants being
disturbed in digging the new foundations (Neubauer, Geog. du Talmud,
208).
W. Ewing
RAKKON
<rak-on> ([wOQ r h ;, ha-raqqon]; [ Irpoxv, Hierakon]).
See ME-JARKON.
RAM (1)
<ram> ([ r ;, ram], high, exalted):
(1) An ancestor of David (
<080419>
Ruth 4:19 ([ Appov, Arran]);
<400103>
Matthew 1:3,4 ([ Apo, Aram]); in
<130209>
1 Chronicles 2:9 he is called
the brother, but in 2:25, the son of Jerahmeel (compare 2:27). Ram
as the son of Hezron appears more likely than Ram the son of
Jerahmeel, since, according to the narratives of 1 and 2 Samuel, David
cannot have been a Jerahmeelite.
(2) Name of Elihus family (
<183202>
Job 32:2). It is an open question as to
whether Ram should be taken as a purely fictitious name, invented by
the author of the Elihu speeches, or whether it is that of some obscure
Arab tribe. In
<012221>
Genesis 22:21 Aram is a nephew of Buz (compare
Elihu the Buzite), and the conjecture was at one time advanced that
Ram was a contraction of Aram; but this theory is no longer held to be
tenable. The suggestion that the initial a (the Hebrew letter, aleph)
has been changed by a scribal error into h (the Hebrew letter, he) is
30
more acceptable. Rashi, the rabbinical commentator, takes the quaint
position that Ram is identical with Abraham.
Horace J . Wolf
RAM (2)
<ram>:
(1) The ordinary word is [l yi a , ayil], which is remarkably near to
[l Y; a , ayyal], deer (compare Latin caper, capra, goat, and
capreolus, wild goat or roe-buck; also Greek [opxo, dorkas],
roe-buck or gazelle).
(2) [r k ;D ], dekhar], literally, male (
<150609>
Ezra 6:9,17; 7:17).
(3) [r K , kar], battering ram (
<260402>
Ezekiel 4:2; 21:22); elsewhere
lamb (
<053214>
Deuteronomy 32:14, etc.).
(4) [d WT [ , `attudh], properly he-goat (ram,
<013110>
Genesis 31:10,12
the King James Version).
See SHEEP.
RAM, BATTERING
See SIEGE.
RAMA
<ra-ma> ([ Poo, Rhama]): the King James Version; Greek form of
RAMAH (which see) (
<400218>
Matthew 2:18).
RAMAH
<ra-ma> ([h m;r ;h ;, ha-ramah], without the definite article only in
<161133>
Nehemiah 11:33;
<243115>
Jeremiah 31:15): The name denotes height, from
root [ Wr , rum], to be high, and the towns to which it applied seem all
to have stood on elevated sites.
(1) Codex Vaticanus [ Apoq, Arael]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Poo,
Rhama]: A fenced city in the lot assigned to Naphtali (
<061936>
Joshua
19:36). Only in this passage is the place referred to. It is probably
31
identical with the modern er-Rameh, a large Christian village on the
highway from Cafed to the coast, about 8 miles West-Southwest of
that city. To the North rises the mountain range which forms the
southern boundary of Upper Galilee. In the valley to the South there is
much rich land cultivated by the villagers. The olives grown here are
very fine, and fruitful vineyards cover many of the surrounding slopes.
No remains of antiquity are to be seen above ground; but the site is one
likely to have been occupied in ancient times.
(2) [ Poo, Rhama]: A city that is mentioned only once, on the
boundary of Asher (
<061929>
Joshua 19:29). The line of the boundary cannot
be followed with certainty; but perhaps we may identify Ramah with
the modern Ramiyeh, a village situated on a hill which rises in the midst
of a hollow, some 13 miles Southeast of Tyre, and 12 miles East of the
Ladder of Tyre. To the Southwest is a marshy lake which dries up in
summer. Traces of antiquity are found in the cisterns, a large reservoir
and many sarcophagi. To the West is the high hill Belat, with ancient
ruins, and remains of a temple of which several columns are still in situ.
(3) Codex Vaticanus [ Poo, Rhama]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Ioo,
Iama], and other forms: A city in the territory of Benjamin named
between Gibeon and Beeroth (
<061825>
Joshua 18:25). The Levite thought of
it as a possible resting-place for himself and his concubine on their
northward journey (
<071913>
Judges 19:13). The palm tree of Deborah was
between this and Bethel (
<070405>
Judges 4:5). Baasha, king of Samaria,
sought to fortify Ramah against Asa, king of Judah. The latter
frustrated the attempt, and carried off the materials which Bassha had
collected, and with them fortified against him Geba of Benjamin and
Mizpah (
<111517>
1 Kings 15:17;
<141605>
2 Chronicles 16:5). Here the captain of
Nebuchadnezzars guard released Jeremiah after he had been carried in
bonds from Jerusalem (
<244001>
Jeremiah 40:1). It figures in Isaiahs picture
of the Assyrians approach (
<231029>
Isaiah 10:29). It is named by Hosea in
connection with Gibeah (5:8), and is mentioned as being reoccupied
after the exile (
<150226>
Ezra 2:26;
<160730>
Nehemiah 7:30). It was near the
traditional tomb of Rachel (
<243115>
Jeremiah 31:15; compare
<091002>
1 Samuel
10:2;
<400218>
Matthew 2:18, the King James Version Rama).
From the passages cited we gather that Ramah lay some distance to the
North of Gibeah, and not far from Gibeon and Beeroth. The first is
identified with Tell el-Ful, about 3 miles North of Jerusalem. Two miles
32
farther North is er-Ram. Gibeon (el-Jib) is about 3 miles West of er-Ram,
and Beeroth (el-Bireh) is about 4 miles to the North Eusebius,
Onomasticon places Ramah 6 Roman miles North of Jerusalem; while
Josephus (Ant., VIII, xii, 3) says it lay 40 furlongs from the city. All this
points definitely to identification with er-Ram. The modern village crowns
a high limestone hill to the South of the road, a position of great strength.
West of the village is an ancient reservoir. In the hill are cisterns, and a
good well to the South.
(4) [ Apoo0o, Aramathaim]: The home of Elkanah and Hannah,
and the birthplace of Samuel (
<090119>
1 Samuel 1:19; 2:11, etc.). In
<090101>
1
Samuel 1:1 it is called Ramathaim-zophim ([ yp iwOx yi t m; r ; h ; , ha-
ramathayim-tsophim]). The phrase as it stands is grammatically
incorrect, and suggests tampering with the text. It might possibly be
translated Ramathaim of the Zuphites. It was in Mt. Ephraim, within
accessible distance of Shiloh, whither Samuels parents went up from
year to year to worship and to sacrifice (1:3). From Ramah as a center
Samuel went on circuit annually, to judge Israel, to Bethel, Gilgal and
Mizpah (7:16 f). It is very probable that this is the city in which, guided
by his servant, Saul first made the acquaintance of Samuel (9:6,10),
where there was a high place (9:12). Hither at all events came the
elders of Israel with their demand that a king should be set over them
(8:4 f). After his final break with Saul, Samuel retired in sorrow to
Ramah (15:34 f). Here, in Naioth, David found asylum with Samuel
from the mad king (19:18, etc.), and hence, he fled on his ill-starred
visit to Nob (20:1). In his native city the dust of the dead Samuel was
laid (25:1; 28:3). In 1 Macc 11:34 it is named as one of the three
toparchies along with Aphaerema and Lydda, which were added to
Judea from the country of Samaria in 145 BC. Eusebius, Onomasticon
places it near Diospolis (Euseb.) in the district of Timnah (Jerome).
There are two serious rivals for the honor of representing the ancient
Ramah.
(a) Beit Rima, a village occupying a height 13 miles East-Northeast of
Lydda (Diospolis), 12 miles West of Shiloh, and about the same
distance Northwest of Bethel. This identification has the support of G.
A. Smith (Historical Geography of the Holy Land, 254), and Buhl
(Geographic des Alten Palestina, 170).
33
(b) Ramallah, a large and prosperous village occupying a lofty position
with ancient remains. It commands a wide prospect, especially to the
West. It lies about 8 miles North of Jerusalem, 3 West of Bethel, and
12 Southwest of Shiloh. The name meaning the height or high place
of God may be reminiscent of the high place in the city where Saul
found Samuel. In other respects it agrees very well with the Biblical
data.
Claims have also been advanced on behalf of Ramleh, a village 2 miles
Southwest of Lydda, in the plain of Sharon. This, however, is out of the
question, as the place did not exist before Arab times. Others support
identification with Neby Samwil, which more probably represents the
ancient MIZPAH (which see).
(5) Ramah of the South, the King James Version Ramath of the
South: Ramath is the construct form of Ramah (
<061908>
Joshua 19:8) ([b g,n,
t m a r ; , ramath neghebh]; [Bor0 xoto po, Bameth kata liba]).
A city in that part of the territory of Judah which was allotted to
Simeon. It stands here in apposition to Baalath-beer, and is probably a
second name for the same place. It seems to correspond also with
Ramoth (plural) of the South (
<093027>
1 Samuel 30:27), a place to which
David sent a share of the spoil taken from the Amalekites. In this
passage Septuagint retains the singular form, Rhama notou.
Identification has been suggested with Qubbet el-Baul, about 37 miles
South of Hebron; and with Kurnub a little farther South. There is no
substantial ground for either identification.
(6) Codex Vaticanus [ Pr0, Rhemmoth]; Codex Alexandrinus [
Po0, Rhamoth]: Ramah in
<120829>
2 Kings 8:29;
<142206>
2 Chronicles 22:6, is
a contraction of Ramoth-gilead.
W. Ewing
RAMATH OF THE SOUTH
<ra-math>, (
<061908>
Joshua 19:8 the King James Version).
See RAMAU, (5).
34
RAMATH-LEHI
<ra-math-le-hi> ([yj il , t m r ; , ramath lechi], the hill or height of
Lehi; [ Avopro ooyovo, Anairesis siagonos]): So the place is said
to have been called where Samson threw away the jaw-bone of an ass, with
which he had slain 1,000 Philistines (
<071517>
Judges 15:17). The Septuagint
seems to have supposed that the name referred to the heaving or
throwing up of the jaw-bone. The Hebrew, however, corresponds to the
form used in other placenames, such as Ramath-mizpeh, and must be read
as Ramah of Lehi. The name Lehi may have been given because of some
real or imagined likeness in the place to the shape of a jaw-bone (
<071509>
Judges
15:9,14,19). It may have been in Wady es-Sarar, not far from Zorah and
Timnath; but the available data do not permit of certain identification.
See JAW-BONE; LEHI.
W. Ewing
RAMATH-MIZPEH
<ra-math-miz-pe> ([t m r ; h P ,x ]Mi h , ramath ha-mitspeh]; Codex
Vaticanus [ Apop0 xoto tqv Moooqo, Araboth kata ten Massepha],
Codex Alexandrinus [Po0 ... Mooo, Ramoth ... Maspha]: A place
mentioned in
<061326>
Joshua 13:26 in a statement of the boundary of Gad,
between Heshbon and Betonim. It may possibly be identical with
MIZPAH, (1).
RAMATHAIM; RAMATHEM
<ra-ma-tha-im>, <ram-a-them> (1 Macc 11:34; the King James
Version).
See RAMAH, (4).
RAMATHAIM-ZOPHIM
<ra-ma-tha-im-zo-fim>.
See RAMAH, (4).
35
RAMATHITE
<ra-math-it> ([yt im;r ;h ;, ha-ramathi]; Codex Vaticanus [o r x poq, ho
ek Rhael]; Codex Alexandrinus [o Poo0oo, ho Rhamathaios]): So
Shimei is called who was set by David over the vineyards (
<132727>
1 Chronicles
27:27). There is nothing to show to which Ramah he belonged.
RAMESES
<ram-e-sez>, <ra-me-sez>.
See RAAMSES.
RAMIAH
<ra-mi-a> ([h y; m] r , ramyah], Yah has loosened or Yah is high):
One of the Israelites, of the sons of Parosh, mentioned in the register of
those who had offended in the matter of foreign marriages (
<151025>
Ezra
10:25). The form of the name in 1 Esdras (9:26), Hiermas, presupposes a
Hebrew form yeremyah or possibly yirmeyah = Jeremiah.
RAMOTH (1)
<ra-moth>:
(1) [t wOma r ;, ramoth]; [q Po0, he Rhamoth]: A city in the territory
of Issachar assigned to the Gershonite Levitea (
<130673>
1 Chronicles 6:73),
mentioned between Daberath and Anem. It seems to correspond to
Remeth in
<061921>
Joshua 19:21, and to Jarmuth in 21:29, and is
possibly identical with er-Rameh about 11 miles Southwest of Jenin.
(2) Ramoth of the South.
See RAMAH, (5).
(3) Ramoth in Gilead.
See RAMOTH-GILEAD.
36
RAMOTH (2)
<ra-moth> ([t wOmr ;, ramoth], Qere for yeremoth (
<151029>
Ezra 10:29 the King
James Version); the Revised Version margin Kethibh makes the name
similar to those in
<151026>
Ezra 10:26,27): One of the offenders in the matter of
foreign marriages. The English Revised Version and the American
Standard Revised Version, adopting Kethibh, read JEREMOTH (which
see).
RAMOTH (3)
(
<182818>
Job 28:18 King James Version margin).
See STONES, PRECIOUS.
RAMOTH-GILEAD
<ra-moth-gil-e-ad> ([t mor ; d [ ;l ]Gi, ramoth giladh]; Codex Vaticanus [
Pro0 Iooo, Rhemmath Galaad]; Codex Alexandrinus Po0,
Rhammoth], and other forms): A great and strong city East of the Jordan
in the territory of Gad, which played an important part in the wars of
Israel. It is first mentioned in connection with the appointment of the Cities
of Refuge (
<050443>
Deuteronomy 4:43;
<062008>
Joshua 20:8). It was assigned to the
Merarite Levites (
<062138>
Joshua 21:38;
<130680>
1 Chronicles 6:80). In these four
passages it is called Ramoth in Gilead ([d [ ;l ]GiB , ramoth ba-giladh]).
This form is given wrongly by the King James Version in
<112203>
1 Kings 22:3.
In all other places the form Ramoth-gilead is used.
1. HISTORY:
Here Ben-geber was placed in charge of one of Solomons administrative
districts (
<110413>
1 Kings 4:13), which included Havvoth-jair and the region of
Argob, which is in Bashan. The city was taken from Omri by the Syrians
under Ben-hadad I (Ant., VIII, xv, 3 ff), and even after the defeat of Ben-
hadad at Aphek they remained masters of this fortress. In order to recover
it for Israel Ahab invited Jehoshaphat of Judah to accompany him in a
campaign. Despite the discouragement of Micalab, the royal pair set out on
the disastrous enterprise. In their attack on the city Ahab fought in
disguise, but was mortally wounded by an arrow from a bow drawn at a
venture (
<112201>
1 Kings 22:1-40; 2 Chronicles 18). The attempt was renewed
37
by Ahabs son Joram; but his fathers ill fortune followed him, and, heavily
wounded, he retired for healing to Jezreel (
<120828>
2 Kings 8:28 ff;
<142205>
2
Chronicles 22:5 f). During the kings absence from the camp at Ramoth-
gilead Jehu was there anointed king of Israel by Elisha (
<120901>
2 Kings 9:1 ff;
<142207>
2 Chronicles 22:7). He proved a swift instrument of vengeance against
the doomed house of Ahab. According to Josephus (Ant., IX, vi, 1) the
city was taken before Jorams departure. This is confirmed by
<120914>
2 Kings
9:14 ff. The place is not mentioned again, unless, indeed, it be identical
with Mizpeh in 1 Macc 5:35.
2. IDENTIFICATION:
It is just possible that Ramoth-gilead corresponds to MIZPAH, (1), and to
RAMATH-MIZPEH. The spot where Laban and Jacob parted is called both
Galeed and Mizpah. Ramath may become Ramoth, as we see in the case of
Ramah of the South.
Merrill identifies the city with Jerash, the splendid ruins of which lie in
Wady ed-Deir, North of the Jabbok. He quotes the Bah Talmud (Makkoth
9b) as placing the Cities of Refuge in pairs, so that those on the East of the
Jordan are opposite those on the West Shechem, being the middle one of
the three West of the Jordan, should have Ramorb-gilead nearly opposite
to it on the East, and this would place its site at Gerasa, the modern Jerash
(Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, under the word). But the words of the
Talmud must not be interpreted too strictly. It seems very probable that
Golan lay far South of a line drawn due East from Qedes (Kedesh-
naphtali). No remains have been discovered at Jerash older than Greek-
Roman times, although the presence of a fine perennial spring makes
occupation in antiquity probable. The place could be approached by
chariots along Wady `Ajlun, and the country adjoining was not unsuitable
for chariot evolutions.
Conder and others have suggested Reimun, an ancient site to the West of
Jerash. The absence of any source of good water-supply is practically fatal
to this identification. Buhl (Geographic des Alten Palestina, 261 ff) favors
el-Jil`ad, a ruined site on a hill South of the Jabbok; see GILEAD, (1).
Eusebius and Jerome (Onomasticon, under the word) contradict each
other, the former placing Ramoth-gilead 15 miles West, and the latter 15
miles East of Philadelphia. It is clear, however, that this is a mere slip on
Jeromes part, as both say it is near the Jabbok. Many have identified it
38
with es-Salt, which is indeed 15 miles West of `Amman (Philadelphia), but
it is 10 miles South of the Jabbok, and so can hardly be described as near
that river. It is also no place for chariot warfare. The case against
identification with Ramoth-gilead is conclusively stated by G.A. Cooke in
Drivers Deuteronomy, xx.
In suggesting these sites sufficient attention has not been given to what is
said in 1 Kings 4. The authority of the kings officer in Ramoth-gilead
extended over the land of Argob in Bashan, as well as over the towns of
Jair in Gilead. A situation therefore to the North of Mahanaim must be
sought. Guthe would find it at er-Remtheh, on the pilgrim road, about 10
miles South of Mezerib (compare Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy
Land, 586 ff). Cheynes suggestion of Salkhad, away on the crest of the
mountain of Bashan, is out of the question. Caleb Hauser (Palestine
Exploration Fund Statement, 1906, 304 f) argues in favor of Beit Ras, over
11 miles Southeast of Gadara, a position commanding all Northern Gilead
and as favorably situated as Jerash for chariot warfare and communication
with the West of Jordan. Here we have the heights of Northern Gilead.
Ramoth, Capitolias, and Beit Ras are in their respective languages
idiomatic equivalents. It is improbable that a large city like Capitolins
should have superseded anything but a very important city of earlier
times. We must be content to leave the question open meantime.
W. Ewing
RAMPART
<ram-part> (
<250208>
Lamentations 2:8; Nah 3:8).
See FORTIFICATION.
RAMS HORN
See MUSIC.
RAMS SKINS
The skin of the sheep, roughly tanned with all the wool on, is the common
winter jacket of the shepherd or peasant, the rams being considered
especially desirable (compare
<581137>
Hebrews 11:37). Hence, the
appropriateness of these skins in the covering of the tabernacle (
<022505>
Exodus
25:5, etc.).
39
See TABERNACLE; DYE, DYEING.
RANGE
<ranj>: Range and rank have the same derivation, and in the sense of a
row (of men, etc.) they were formerly interchangeable. Range with this
meaning is found in
<121108>
2 Kings 11:8,15 the King James Version parallel
<142314>
2 Chronicles 23:14 (the Revised Version (British and American) rank;
[h r ;d ec ] , sedherah], row). Hence, to range is to set in a line (Judith
2:16; 2 Macc 12:20, diatasso) or to move in a line or, simply, to roam,
whence a ranging bear (
<202815>
Proverbs 28:15; [q q v ; , shaqaq], run to
and fro). A cooking range is a stove on which pots, etc., can be set in a
row, but the [ yir yK i, kirayim] of
<031135>
Leviticus 11:35 is a much more
primitive affair, composed, probably, of two plates (kirayim is a dual). In
<183908>
Job 39:8 range of the mountains is good modern use, but [r t y, ythr],
should be pointed yathur (not yethur as in Massoretic Text) and connected
with tur, search. So translate. He searcheth out the mountains as his
pasture.
Burton Scott Easton
RANK
<rank>:
(1) [j r a o , orach], used in
<290207>
Joel 2:7 of the advance of the locust
army which marched in perfect order and in straight lines, none
crossing the others track.
(2) [h k ; r ; [ } m , ma`arakhah], battle array (
<131238>
1 Chronicles 12:38
the King James Version; compare
<090416>
1 Samuel 4:16; 17:22,48).
See ARMY.
RANKS
<ranks> ([pooo, prasia], a square plot of ground, a garden-bed):
They sat down in ranks (
<410640>
Mark 6:40); the several reclining ranks
formed, as it were, separate plots or garden-beds.
40
RANSOM
<ran-sum> (the noun occurs in the English Bible 12 times (
<022130>
Exodus
21:30 the King James Version [wOyd ]P i, pidhyon];
<023012>
Exodus 30:12;
<183324>
Job
33:24; 36:18;
<200635>
Proverbs 6:35; 13:8; 21:18;
<234303>
Isaiah 43:3, [r p ,K o ,
kopher];
<402028>
Matthew 20:28;
<411045>
Mark 10:45, [utpov, lutron];
<540206>
1
Timothy 2:6, [ovtutpov, antilutron]); the verbal form occurs 4 times
(
<233510>
Isaiah 35:10;
<281314>
Hosea 13:14, [h d ;P ;, padhah];
<235110>
Isaiah 51:10 the
King James Version;
<243111>
Jeremiah 31:11, [l a G; , gaal]; these two
Hebrew verbs are generally rendered in other passages by the English
redeem)):
1. USAGE BY CHRIST:
The supremely important instance is the utterance of the Lord Jesus Christ
as reported by Matthew and Mark (
<402028>
Matthew 20:28;
<411045>
Mark 10:45),
and in looking at it we shall be able, by way of illustration, to glance at the
Old Testament passages. The context refers to the dispute among the
disciples concerning position in the Kingdom, with their misconception of
the true nature of Christs Kingdom. Christ makes use of the occasion to
set forth the great law of service as determining the place of honor in that
Kingdom, and illustrates and enforces it by showing that its greatest
exemplification is to be found in His own mission: For the Son of man
also came not to be ministered unto, but to minister (
<411045>
Mark 10:45). His
ministry, however, was to pass into the great act of sacrifice, of which all
other acts of self-sacrifice on the part of His people would be but a faint
reflection and to give his life (soul) a ransom for many (same place).
He thus gives a very clear intimation of the purpose and meaning of His
death; the clearest of all the intimations reported by the synoptists. The
word He uses bears a well-established meaning, and is accurately rendered
by our word ransom, a price paid to secure the freedom of a slave or to
set free from liabilities and charges, and generally the deliverance from
calamity by paying the forfeit. The familiar verb luo, to loose, to set
free, is the root, then lutron, that which secures the freedom, the payment
or forfeit; thence come the cognate verb lutroo, to set free upon payment
of a ransom, to redeem; lutrosis, the actual setting free, the
redemption, and lutrotes, the redeemer. The favorite New Testament
word for redemption is the compound form, apolutrosis.
41
2. OLD TESTAMENT USAGE THE LAW:
The word lutron was common in Greek classical literature, constantly
bearing the sense of ransom price, and was frequently connected with
ritual usage, with sacrifice and expiation. But for the full explanation of our
Lords great thought we have to look to the Old Testament usage. The
two leading Hebrew verbs translated in our version by redeem, are
generally rendered in the Septuagint by lutroo, and derivatives of these
words conveying the idea of the actual price paid are translated by this very
word lutron.
(1) General Cases.
In
<022130>
Exodus 21:30 we have the law concerning the case of the person
killed by an ox; the ox was to be killed and the owner of it was also liable
to death but the proviso was made, If there be laid on him a sum of
money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon
him (the King James Version). The Hebrew for sum of money is
kopher, literally, atonement (the Revised Version (British and American)
ransom); the word for ransom (the Revised Version (British and
American) redemption) is pidhyon (from padhah); the Septuagint
renders both by lutron (rather by the plural form lutra). In Leviticus 25,
among the directions in relation to the Jubilee, we have the provision
(25:23) that the land was not to be sold in perpetuity, but where any
portion has been sold, opportunity is to be given for re-purchase: Ye shall
grant a redemption for the land (25:24). The Hebrew is geullah, a
derivative of gaal, the Septuagint lutra. In 25:25,26, the case is mentioned
of a man who through poverty has sold part of his land; if a near kinsman is
able to redeem it he shall do so; if there is no one to act this brotherly part,
and the man himself is able to redeem it, then a certain scale of price is
arranged. In the Hebrew it is again gaal that is used with the cognate
goel for kinsman. The last clause rendered in the King James Version,
and himself be able to redeem it (in the Revised Version (British and
American) and he be waxed rich and find sufficient to redeem it), is
literally, and his hand shall acquire and he find sufficient for its
redemption; the Septuagint has the verb lutroo in the first part, and
renders the clause pretty literally, and there be furnished to his hand and
there be found with him the sufficient price (lutra) of it. In
<032551>
Leviticus
25:51,52, in reference to the redemption of the Jew sold into slavery, we
have twice in the Hebrew the word geullah, rendered in English
42
accurately the pricen of his redemption; and by Septuagint with equal
accuracy, in both cases, lutra, the ransom-price. In
<032731>
Leviticus 27:31
the King James Version, the phrase if a man will at all redeem aught of his
tithes is intended to represent the emphatic Hebrew idiom, if a man
redeeming will redeem, which is rendered by Septuagint ean de lutrotai
lutro anthropos.
(2) Redemption Money the Firstborn.
But perhaps the most important passage is the law concerning the half-
shekel to be paid by every Israelite from 20 years old and upward when a
census was taken. It was to be the same for rich and poor, and it was called
atonement money, to make atonement for their souls. In the opening
words of the law, as given in
<023012>
Exodus 30:12 (the King James Version),
we read Then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the
Lord the Hebrew kopher; the Septuagint rendering is lutra tes psuches
autou, a ransom price for his soul. All the people were thus considered
as doomed and needing atonement, and it is significant that this atonement
money paid at the first census furnished the silver for the sockets of the
tabernacle boards, intimating that the typical tabernacle was built upon
atonement. The same thought, that the peoples lives were forfeited, comes
out in the provision for the consecration of the Levites, recorded in full in
<040340>
Numbers 3:40-51. The firstborn represented the people. God claimed
all the firstborn as forfeited to Himself, teaching that Israel deserved the
same punishment as the Egyptians, and was only spared by the grace of
Yahweh, and in virtue of the sprinkled blood. Now He takes to Himself for
His services the Levites as the equivalent of the firstborn, and when it was
found that the number of the firstborn exceeded the number of the Levites,
equivalence was maintained by ransoming at a certain price the surplus of
the firstborn males. In the Septuagint account, lutra occurs 4 times, twice
for the phrase those to be redeemed, and twice for redemption money.
Thus the idea of ransom for the forfeited life became familiar to the people
as educated by the typical system, and redemption expressed the sum total
of their hopes for the future, however faulty might be their conception of
the nature of that redemption.
(3) Connection with Sacrifice.
It is also clear in the typical teaching that sacrifice and ransom were closely
related. Even in classical Greek, as we have noted, the two conceptions
43
were connected, and it is not surprising to find it so in the Old Testament.
Kopher, we have seen, is literally, atonement and comes from kaphar,
literally, to cover, and thence by covering to make atonement, or to
cover by making atonement; and so it is in the Piel form, the most common
and technical Hebrew word for making atonement, or expiation, or
propitiation, and is frequently rendered in the Greek by hilaskomai, often
too by the compound exilaskomai. In
<022130>
Exodus 21:30, kopher, we noted,
is used interchangeably with pidhyon, both being represented in the
Septuagint by lutra, and so in
<023012>
Exodus 30:12;
<043531>
Numbers 35:31,32; the
Hebrew kopher is lutra in the Greek In the latter place, where it is twice
stated that no satisfaction shall be taken for the life of a murderer, the
Hebrew is kopher, the Septuagint has lutra; the Revised Version (British
and American) has ransom; the King James Version has satisfaction.
(4) Typical Reference to the Messiah.
Sacrifice was thus linked with ransom. Sacrifice was the divinely-appointed
covering for sin. The ransom for the deliverance of the sinner was to be by
sacrifice. Both the typical testimony of the Law and the prophetic
testimony gave prominence to the thought of redemption. The Coming
One was to be a Redeemer. Redemption was to be the great work of the
Messiah. The people seem to have looked for the redemption of the soul to
God alone through the observance of their appointed ritual, while
redemption, in the more general sense of deliverance from all enemies and
troubles, they linked with the advent of the Messiah. It required a spiritual
vision to see that the two things would coincide, that the Messiah would
effect redemption in all its phases and fullness by means of ransom, of
sacrifice, of expiation.
Jesus appeared as the Messiah in whom all the old economy was to be
fulfilled. He knew perfectly the meaning of the typical and prophetic
testimony; and with that fully in view, knowing that His death was to fulfill
the Old Testament types and accomplish its brightest prophetic
anticipations, He deliberately uses this term lutron to describe it
(
<402028>
Matthew 20:28); in speaking of His death as a ransom, He also
regarded it as a sacrifice, an expiatory offering. The strong preposition
used intensifies the idea of ransom and expiation, even to the point of
substitution. It is anti, instead of, and the idea of exchange, equivalence,
substitution cannot be removed from it. In
<040345>
Numbers 3:45, Take the
Levites instead of all the first-born, the Septuagint uses anti, which, like
44
the English instead of, exactly represents the Hebrew tachath; and all
three convey most unmistakably the idea of substitution. And as the
Levites were to be substituted for the firstborn, so for the surplus of the
firstborn the ransom money was to be substituted, that idea, however,
being clearly enough indicated by the use of the genitive. Indeed the
simpler way of describing a ransom would be with the genitive, the ransom
of many; or as our version renders, a ransom for many; but just because
the ransom here is not simply a money payment, but is the actual sacrifice
of the life, the substitution of His soul for many, He is appropriately said
to give his soul a ransom instead of many. The Kingdom of God which
Christ proclaimed was so diverse in character from that which Salome and
her sons anticipated that, so far from appearing in dazzling splendor, with
distinguished places of power for eager aspirants, it was to be a spiritual
home for redeemed sinners. Men held captive by sin needed to be
ransomed that they might be free to become subjects of the Kingdom, and
so the ransom work, the sufferings and death of Christ, must lie at the very
foundation of that Kingdom. The need of ransom supposes life forfeited;
the ransom paid secures life and liberty; the life which Christ gives comes
through His ransoming death.
3. THE PSALMS AND JOB:
Besides the passages in the Pentateuch which we have noted, special
mention should be made of the two great passages which bear so closely
upon the need of spiritual redemption, and come into line with this great
utterance of Christ.
<194907>
Psalm 49:7,8, None of them can by any means
redeem (padhah; lutroo) his brother, nor give to God a ransom (kopher;
exilasma) for him (for the redemption of their life is costly, and it faileth
forever). (The Hebrew gives pidhyon for redemption; the Greek has
the price of the redemption of his soul.) No human power or skill, no
forfeit in money or service or life can avail to ransom any soul from the
doom entailed by sin. But in
<194915>
Psalm 49:15 the triumphant hope is
expressed, But God will redeem (padhah; lutroo) my soul from the power
of Sheol. In
<183324>
Job 33:24, Deliver him from going down to the pit, I
have found a ransom: God is the speaker, and whatever may be the
particular exegesis of the passage in its original application, it surely
contains an anticipation of the gospel redemption. This divine eureka is
explained in the light of Christs utterance; it finds its realization through
45
the cross: I have found a ransom, for the Son of Man has given his
soul a ransom for many.
4. APOSTOLIC TEACHING:
This great utterance of the Saviour may well be considered as the germ of
all the apostolic teaching concerning redemption, but it is not for us to
show its unfolding beyond noting that in apostolic thought the redemption
was always connected with the death, the sacrifice of Christ.
Thus, Paul (
<490107>
Ephesians 1:7), In whom we have our redemption through
his blood. Thus Peter (1 Pet 1:18,19), Ye were redeemed, not with
corruptible things .... but with precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish
and without spot, even the blood of Christ. So in
<580912>
Hebrews 9:12 it is
shown that Christ through his own blood, entered in once for all into the
holy place, having obtained eternal redemption; and in the Apocalypse
(
<660509>
Revelation 5:9) the song is, Thou wast slain, and didst purchase unto
God with thy blood men of every tribe, etc. In all but the last of these
passages there is an echo of the very word used by Christ, apolutrosis and
lutrosis, both being connected with lutron. In
<540205>
1 Timothy 2:5,6 Paul has
a still closer verbal coincidence when he says, Christ Jesus, who gave
himself a ransom for all (antilutron). The word used in the Apocalypse is
agorazo, to buy in the open market, and is frequently used of the
redeeming work of Christ (
<661403>
Revelation 14:3,4;
<610201>
2 Peter 2:1;
<460620>
1
Corinthians 6:20; 7:23). In the two places where Paul uses it he adds the
means of purchase: Ye were bought with a price, which from his point of
view would be equivalent to ransom. In the passage in
<480313>
Galatians 3:13;
4:5, Paul uses the compound exagorazo, which is equivalent to redeem,
buy off, deliver by paying the price.
5. TO WHOM WAS THE RANSOM PAID?:
The question Who receives the ransom? is not directly raised in
Scripture, but it is one that not unnaturally occurs to the mind, and
theologians have answered it in varying ways.
(1) Not to Satan.
The idea entertained by some of the Fathers (Irenaeus, Origen) that the
ransom was given to Satan, who is conceived of as having through the sin
46
of man a righteous claim upon him, which Christ recognizes and meets, is
grotesque, and not in any way countenanced by Scripture.
(2) To Divine Justice.
But in repudiating it, there is no need to go so far as to deny that there is
anything answering to a real ransoming transaction. All that we have said
goes to show that, in no mere figure of speech, but in tremendous reality,
Christ gave his life a ransom, and if our mind demands an answer to the
question to whom the ransom was paid, it does not seem at all
unreasonable to think of the justice of God, or God in His character of
Moral Governor, as requiring and receiving it. In all that Scripture asserts
about propitiation, sacrifice, reconciliation in relation to the work of Christ,
it is implied that there is wrath to be averted, someone to be appeased or
satisfied, and while it may be enough simply to think of the effects of
Christs redeeming work in setting us free from the penal claims of the Law
the just doom of sin it does not seem going beyond the spirit of
Scripture to draw the logical inference that the ransom price was paid to
the Guardian of that holy law, the Administrator of eternal justice. Christ
redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us
(
<480313>
Galatians 3:13). This essential, fundamental phase of redemption is
what theologians, with good Scripture warrant, have called redemption by
blood, or by price, as distinguished from the practical outcome of the work
of Christ in the life which is redemption by power.
(a) Redemption by Price:
As to Satans claims, Christ by paying the ransom price, having secured the
right to redeem, exercises His power on behalf of the believing sinner. He
does not recognize the right of Satan. He is the strong man holding his
captives lawfully, and Christ the stronger than he overcomes him and
spoils him, and sets his captives free (
<421121>
Luke 11:21,22). In one sense men
may be said to have sold themselves to Satan, but they had no right to sell,
nor he to buy, and Christ ignores that transaction and brings to nought
him that had the power of death, that is, the devil (
<580214>
Hebrews 2:14), and
so is able to deliver all them who through fear of death were all their
lifetime subject to bondage (
<580215>
Hebrews 2:15).
47
(b) Redemption by Power:
Many of the Old Testament passages about the redemption wrought on
behalf of Gods people illustrate this redemption by power, and the
redemption by power is always founded on the redemption by price; the
release follows the ransom. In the case of Israel, there was first the
redemption by blood the sprinkled blood of the Paschal Lamb which
sheltered from the destroying angel (Exodus 12) and then followed the
redemption by power, when by strength of hand Yahweh brought His
people out from Egypt (
<021314>
Exodus 13:14), and in His mercy led forth the
people which He had redeemed (
<021513>
Exodus 15:13).
So under the Gospel when he hath visited and wrought redemption for his
people (
<420168>
Luke 1:68), He can grant unto us that we being delivered out
of the hand of our enemies should serve him without fear (
<420174>
Luke 1:74).
It is because we have in Him our redemption through His blood that we
can be delivered out of the power of darkness (
<510113>
Colossians 1:13,14).
See further, REDEEMER, REDEMPTION.
LITERATURE.
See works on New Testament Theology (Weiss, Schmid, Stevens, etc.);
articles in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes); Hastings,
Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels.
Archibald MCaig
RAPE
<rap>.
See CRIMES; PUNISHMENTS.
RAPHA, RAPHAH
<ra-fa> ([a p ;r ;, rapha]):
(1) In the Revised Version margin these names are substituted for the
giant in
<132004>
1 Chronicles 20:4,6,8 and in
<102116>
2 Samuel 21:16,18,20,22.
The latter passage states that certain champions of the Philistines who
were slain by Davids warriors had been born to the raphah in Gath.
The text is corrupt; Raphah is probably an eponym. Originally the name
48
of one of the Philistines who was of the body Rephaites stood in the
text. The plural of this word, or at least a plural of this stem, is
REPHAIM (which see).
(2) Raphah (the King James Version Rapha), a descendant of Saul
(
<130837>
1 Chronicles 8:37).
See REPHAIAH.
Horace J . Wolf
RAPHAEL
<ra-a-el>, <ra-fa-el> ([l a ep ;r ], rephael], from rapha el, God has
healed; [ Pooq, Rhaphael]): The name of the angel who, as Azarias,
guides Tobias to ECBATANA and RAGES (which see). The purpose of his
mission is, in accordance with his name, to cure Tobit of blindness, and to
deliver Sarah, the daughter of Raguel, from the power of the evil spirit
Asmodaeus (Tobit 3:8; 12:14). Later, in addition, when he reveals himself
(Tobit 12:15), he declares that he is one of the seven holy angels, which
present the prayers of the saints, and go in before the glory of the Holy
One. These seven angels are derived, according to Dr. Kohut, from the
seven Am-shaspands (Amesha-spentas) of Zoroastrianism (compare
<660405>
Revelation 4:5). At the head of the elaborate angelology of the Enoch
books there are four presences, and Raphael is one of them (En 40:9;
54:6). In the first of these passages Raphael is the healer; in the second, he
with Michael, Gabriel and Phanuel lead the wicked away to punishment.
These four presences seem related to the four living creatures of Ezekiel
(1:5) and of the Apocalypse (
<660406>
Revelation 4:6). While this is the general
representation of Raphaels position in Enoch, in 20:3 he is named among
the angels who watch, whose number according to the Greek text is
seven. Raphael shared in the function assigned to the archangels, in the
Oracula Sibyllina, of leading souls to the judgment seat of God (II, 215,
Alexandres text). He occupies a prominent place in Jewish medieval
writings; he with Michael and Gabriel cured Abraham (Yoma 37a);
according to the book Zohar, Raphael conveyed to Adam a book
containing 72 kinds of wisdom in 670 writings. The painters of the
Renaissance frequently depicted Raphael.
J . E. H. Thomson
49
RAPHAIM
<raf-a-im>, <ra-fa-im> (Codex Vaticanus omits; Codex Sinaiticus and
Codex Alexandrinus have [ Poo(r)v, Rhapha(e)in]): An ancestor of
Judith (Judith 8:1).
RAPHON
<ra-fon> ( Porv, Rhapheion]): The place where in his campaign East
of Jordan Judas inflicted disastrous defeat on the host of Timotheus, the
fugitives fleeing for refuge to the temple at Carnaim (1 Macc 5:37 ff; Ant,
XII, viii, 4). The same place is doubtless referred to by Pliny as Raphana
(NH, v.16). It may possibly be represented by the modern Rafeh, on the
East of the pilgrimage road, about 17 miles North of Der`ah, and 11 miles
Northeast of Tell el-`Ash`ary. It is a mile and a half North of Wady
Kanawat, which would thus be the brook mentioned in the narrative. It is
perhaps far enough away from Carnaim, if this is rightly placed at Tell el-
`Ash`ary.
W. Ewing
RAPHU
<ra-fu> ([a Wp r ;, raphu], one healed): The father of Palti, the spy
selected from the tribe of Benjamin (
<041309>
Numbers 13:9).
RASSES
<ras-ez> ([ Poooor, Rhaasseis], Codex Alexandrinus and Codex
Vaticanus, [ Pooor, Rhasseis]; Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405
A.D.) Tharsis; Old Latin Thiras et Rasis): The children of Rasses are
mentioned with Put, Lud and the children of Ishmael as having been
subdued by Holofernes (Judith 2:23).
Their identity is a matter of conjecture only. Some think Vulgate (Jeromes
Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) Tharsis (= Tarsus) is meant, others Rosh
(
<263802>
Ezekiel 38:2,3; 39:1), others Rhosos, a mountain range and city South
from Anunus, on the Gulf of Issus. Most probably a district, not a town, is
named, situated in the eastern part of Asia Minor.
S. F. Hunter
50
RATHUMUS
<ra-thu-mus> ([ Po0uo, Rhathumos]): One of those who joined in
writing a letter to protest to Artaxerxes against the Jews (1 Esdras 2:16 ff).
In 1 Esdras 2:17 he is styled story-writer, the Revised Version margin
recorder ([o to pootovto, ho ta prospiptonta] sc. ([ypo v,
graphon]) = Rehum the chancellor of
<150408>
Ezra 4:8, Rathumus being a
Greek form of Rehum. In 1 Esdras 2:16 his title appears as an independent
proper name, BEELTETHMUS (which see) (here the King James Version
margin gives Bahumus, a misprint), and in 1 Esdras 2:25 R. and
Beeltethmus are given as distinct persons.
RAVEN
<ra-vn> ([b r e[ o , `orebh]; [xopo, korax]; Latin Corvus corax): A large
family of the smaller birds of prey belonging to the genus Corvus corax. A
bird of such universal distribution that it is known from Iceland to Japan,
all over Asia, Europe and Africa, but almost extinct and not of general
distribution in our own country. In no land is it more numerous than in
Palestine In general appearance it resembles the crow, but is much larger,
being almost two feet long, of a glossy black, with whiskers around the
beak, and rather stiff-pointed neck feathers. A bird exhibiting as much
intelligence as any, and of a saucy, impudent disposition, it has been an
object of interest from the beginning. It has been able to speak sentences of
a few words when carefully taught, and by its uncanny acts has made itself
a bird surrounded by superstition, myth, fable, and is connected with the
religious rites of many nations. It is partially a carrion feeder, if offal or
bodies are fresh; it also eats the young of other birds and very small
animals and seeds, berries and fruit, having as varied a diet as any bird. It is
noisy, with a loud, rough, emphatic cry, and its young are clamorous
feeding time.
Aristotle wrote that ravens drove their young from their location and
forced them to care for themselves from the time they left the nest. This is
doubtful. Bird habits and characteristics change only with slow ages of
evolution. Our ravens of today are, to all intents, the same birds as those of
Palestine in the time of Moses, and ours follow the young afield for several
days and feed them until the cawing, flapping youngsters appear larger than
the parents. In Plinys day, ravens had been taught to speak, and as an
instance of their cunning he records that in time of drought a raven found a
51
bucket containing a little water beside a grave and raised it to drinking
level by dropping in stones.
Palestine has at least 8 different species of ravens. This bird was the first
sent out by Noah in an effort to discover if the flood were abating
(
<010806>
Genesis 8:6-8). Because it partially fed on carrion it was included
among the abominations (see
<031115>
Leviticus 11:15;
<051414>
Deuteronomy 14:14).
On
<111704>
1 Kings 17:4-6, see ELIJAH and the present writers Birds of the
Bible, 401-3. Among the marvels of creation and providence in
<183841>
Job
38:41, we have this mention of the raven,
Who provideth for the raven his prey,
When his young ones cry unto God,
And wander for lack of food?
The answer to this question is in
<19E709>
Psalm 147:9:
He giveth to the beast his food,
And to the young ravens which cry.
Both these quotations point out the fact that the young are peculiarly
noisy. In
<203017>
Proverbs 30:17 it is indicated that the ravens, as well as
eagles, vultures and hawks, found the eye of prey the vulnerable point, and
so attacked it first. The Hebrew `orebh means black, and for this reason
was applied to the raven, so the reference to the locks of the bridegroom in
the Song of Solomon becomes clear (Song 5:11). The raven is one of the
birds indicated to prey upon the ruins of Edom (
<233411>
Isaiah 34:11). The last
reference is found in
<421224>
Luke 12:24: Consider the ravens, that they sow
not, neither reap; which have no store-chamber nor barn; and God feedeth
them. This could have been said of any wild bird with equal truth.
Gene Stratton-Porter
RAVEN; RAVIN
<rav-n>, <rav-in>: Raven (verb) is from rapine, violent plundering,
used for [t r f ; , Taraph], in
<014927>
Genesis 49:27;
<192213>
Psalm 22:13;
<262225>
Ezekiel
22:25,27, while ravin (noun) is the object ravened, in Nah 2:12 the torn
carcasses ([h p ;r ef ], Terephah]). So ravenous bird (
<234611>
Isaiah 46:11;
<263904>
Ezekiel 39:4) is a bird of prey (not a hungry bird), [f yi[ , `ayiT],
literally, a screecher. Ravenous beast in
<233509>
Isaiah 35:9 is for [6 yr i P ; ,
parits], violent one. In the New Testament [opo, harpax],
52
rapacious, is translated ravening in
<400715>
Matthew 7:15, while for the
cognate [opoyq, harpage] (
<421139>
Luke 11:39), the King James Version
gives ravening, the Revised Version (British and American) extortion.
RAZIS
<ra-zis> ([ Por, Rhazeis]): An elder of Jerusalem, lover of his
countrymen, and for his good will toward them called father of the
Jews, accused before the Syrian general Nicanor as an opponent of
Hellenism. In order to escape falling into the hands of Nicanors soldiers he
committed suicide with the greatest determination in a rather revolting
manner (2 Macc 14:37 ff), in his death calling upon the Lord of life in the
hope of a resurrection. His suicide contrary to Jewish sentiment was
regarded with approbation by the author of 2 Macc (14:42,43).
RAZOR
<ra-zer> ([r [ T , ta`ar], knife (
<040605>
Numbers 6:5;
<195202>
Psalm 52:2;
<230720>
Isaiah 7:20;
<260501>
Ezekiel 5:1), [h r ;wOm, morah], razor (
<071305>
Judges 13:5;
16:17;
<090111>
1 Samuel 1:11)).
See BARBER; HAIR.
READING
<red-ing> ([a r ;q ]mi, miqra]; [ovoyvo, anagnosis]): As a noun
occurs once in the Old Testament (
<160308>
Nehemiah 3:8) and 3 times in the
New Testament (
<441315>
Acts 13:15;
<470314>
2 Corinthians 3:14;
<540413>
1 Timothy
4:13), each time with reference to the public reading of the Divine Law.
The verb to read ([a r ;q ;, qara]; [ovoyvox, anaginosko]) occurs
frequently both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament:
(1) often in the sense of reading aloud to others, especially of the public
reading of Gods Law or of prophecy, as by Moses (
<022407>
Exodus 24:7),
Ezra (
<160803>
Nehemiah 8:3,18), Jesus in the synagogue at Nazareth
(
<420416>
Luke 4:16), of the regular reading of the Law and the Prophets in
the synagogues (
<441327>
Acts 13:27; 15:21), and of the reading of apostolic
epistles in the Christian church (
<510416>
Colossians 4:16;
<520527>
1
Thessalonians 5:27);
53
(2) also in the sense of reading to ones self, whether the divine word in
Law or prophecy (
<051719>
Deuteronomy 17:19;
<440828>
Acts 8:28-30, etc.), or
such things as private letters (
<120507>
2 Kings 5:7; 19:14;
<442334>
Acts 23:34,
etc.).
D. Miall Edwards
READY
<red-i> ([r yh im;, mahir]): Occurs twice in the sense of apt, skillful
(
<150706>
Ezra 7:6;
<194501>
Psalm 45:1). the Revised Version (British and American)
gives ready for fit (
<202427>
Proverbs 24:27), for asketh (
<330703>
Micah 7:3),
for prepared (
<411415>
Mark 14:15), for not be negligent (2 Pet 1:12).
REAIAH
<re-a-ya>, <re-i-a> ([h y;a ;r ], reayah], Yah has seen; Septuagint:
Codex Vaticanus, [ Poo, Rhada], A, [ Pro, Rheia]):
(1) The eponym of a Calebite family (
<130402>
1 Chronicles 4:2). The word
Reaiah should probably be substituted for Haroeh in
<130252>
1
Chronicles 2:52, but both forms may be corruptions.
(2) A Reubenite (
<130505>
1 Chronicles 5:5, the King James Version
Reaia).
See JOEL.
(3) The family name of a company of Nethinim (
<150247>
Ezra 2:47;
<160750>
Nehemiah 7:50 = 1 Esdras 5:31).
REAPING
<rep-ing> ([r x q ;, qatsar]; [0rp, therizo]): Reaping in ancient times,
as at present, consisted in either pulling up the grain by the roots or cutting
it with a sickle (see SICKLE), and then binding the stalks into bundles to be
carried to the threshing-floor. If the Egyptian sculptures are true to life,
reaping was sometimes divided into two operations, the heads of grain and
the stalks being reaped separately. In Palestine and Syria both pulling and
cutting are still practiced, the former when the ground is stony and the
spears scarce. Even where the sickle is used, much of the grain comes up
by the roots, owing to the toughness of the dried stalks or the dullness of
54
the sickle. The reaper sometimes wears pieces of cane on the fingers of the
hand which gathers the grain in order to protect them from injury by the
sharp grasses or the sickle. There were definite laws established by the
Hebrews in regard to reaping (
<031909>
Leviticus 19:9; 23:10; 25:5,11;
<051609>
Deuteronomy 16:9). Samuel mentions the task of reaping the harvest as
one of the requirements which would be made by the king for whom the
people were clamoring (
<090812>
1 Samuel 8:12).
FIGURATIVE:
The certainty of the consequences of good and evil doing were often
typified by the sowing and the reaping of harvests (
<180408>
Job 4:8;
<202208>
Proverbs
22:8;
<280807>
Hosea 8:7; 10:12,13;
<470906>
2 Corinthians 9:6;
<480607>
Galatians 6:7,8).
They that sow in tears shall reap in joy is found in the liberated captives
song (
<19C605>
Psalm 126:5). He that regardeth the clouds shall not reap, i.e. a
lack of faith in Gods care will be punished (
<211104>
Ecclesiastes 11:4);
compare also the lesson of trust drawn from the birds (
<400626>
Matthew 6:26;
<421224>
Luke 12:24). Sowing and not reaping the harvest is mentioned as a
punishment for disobedience (
<183108>
Job 31:8;
<241213>
Jeremiah 12:13;
<330615>
Micah
6:15). Reaping where he sowed not, showed the injustice of the landlord
(
<402526>
Matthew 25:26), as did also the withholding of the reapers wages
(
<590504>
James 5:4). In Gods Kingdom there is a division of labor: He that
soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together (
<430436>
John 4:36-38). In
Johns vision he saw an angel reap the earth (
<661415>
Revelation 14:15,16).
See AGRICULTURE; GLEANING.
J ames A. Patch
REARWARD
<rer-word> ([t s a ; , acaph], to gather,
<041025>
Numbers 10:25;
<060609>
Joshua 6:9 (the King James Version margin gathering host);
<235212>
Isaiah
52:12).
See ARMY; DAN, TRIBE OF; WAR, 3.
REASON; REASONABLE; REASONING
<re-zn>, <re-zn-a-bl>, <re-zn-ing> ([j k y; , yakhach], etc.; [oyo,
logos], [ooyoo, -oo, dialogizomai, -ismos], etc.): Reason
with related terms, has a diversity of meanings, representing a large number
55
of Hebrew and Greek words and phrases. In the sense of cause or
occasion it stands in
<110915>
1 Kings 9:15 for dabhar, a word (the Revised
Version margin account), but in most cases renders prepositional forms
as from, with, because of, for the sake, etc. As the ground or
argument for anything, it is the translation of ta`am (
<202616>
Proverbs 26:16,
the Revised Version margin answers discreetly), of yakhach, as in
<230118>
Isaiah 1:18, Come now, and let us reason together (compare
<181303>
Job
13:3; 15:3); in
<091207>
1 Samuel 12:7, the word is shaphaT, the Revised
Version (British and American) that I may plead, etc. The principal
Greek words for reason, reasoning, are those given above. The
Christian believer is to be ready to give a reason (logos) for the hope that is
in him (1 Pet 3:15 the King James Version). Reason as a human faculty
or in the abstract sense appears in Apocrypha in The Wisdom of Solomon
17:12 (logismos); Ecclesiasticus 37:16, Let reason (logos) go before
every enterprise, the Revised Version (British and American) be the
beginning of every work. In
<441814>
Acts 18:14, reason would is literally,
kata logon, according to reason; in
<451201>
Romans 12:1, for reasonable
(logikos) service, the Revised Version (British and American) has
spiritual, and in the margin Greek `belonging to the reason. In the
Revised Version (British and American) reason, etc., occurs much
oftener than in the King James Version (compare
<031711>
Leviticus 17:11;
<052847>
Deuteronomy 28:47;
<070522>
Judges 5:22;
<182002>
Job 20:2; 23:7, etc.;
<420315>
Luke
3:15; 12:17;
<441717>
Acts 17:17, etc.).
W. L. Walker
REBA
<re-bek-a> ([[ b r , , rebha`], fourth part; Septuagint: Codex
Vaticanus [ Popr, Rhobe]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Prprx, Rhebek]): One of
the five chieftains of Midian who were slain by the Israelites, under Moses
(
<043108>
Numbers 31:8;
<061321>
Joshua 13:21). Like his comrades, he is termed a
king in Numbers, but a chief or prince in Joshua.
REBEKAH
<re-bek-a> ([h q ;b ]r i, ribhqah]; Septuagint and New Testament [
Prprxxo, Rhebekka], whence the usual English spelling Rebecca):
Daughter of Bethuel and an unknown mother, grand-daughter of Nahor
and Milcah, sister of Laban, wife of Isaac, mother of Esau and Jacob.
56
Her name is usually explained from the Arabic, rabqat, a tie-rope for
animals, or, rather, a noose in such a rope; its application would then by
figure suggest the beauty (?) of her that bears it, by means of which men
are snared or bound; The root is found in Hebrew only in the noun
meaning hitching-place or stall, in the familiar phrase fatted calf or
calf of the stall, and in view of the meaning of such names as Rachel and
Eglah the name Rebekah might well mean (concrete for abstract, like
[h m;q ] r i, riqmah], [h D ;m]j ,, chemdah], etc.) a tied-up calf (or lamb?),
one therefore peculiarly choice and fat.
Rebekah is first mentioned in the genealogy of the descendants of Nahor,
brother of Abraham (
<012220>
Genesis 22:20-24). In fact, the family is there
carried down just so far as is necessary in order to introduce this woman,
for whose subsequent appearance and role the genealogy is obviously
intended as a preparation. All this branch of the family of Terah had
remained in Aram when Abraham and Lot had migrated to Canaan, and it
is at Haran, the city of Nahor, that we first meet Rebekah, when in
Genesis 24 she is made known to Abrahams servant at the well before the
gate.
That idyllic narrative of the finding of a bride for Isaac is too familiar to
need rehearsal and too simple to require comment. Besides, the substance
both of that story and of the whole of Rebekahs career is treated in
connection with the sketches of the other actors in the same scenes. Yet
we note from the beginning the maidens decision of character, which
appears in every line of the narrative, and prepares the reader to find in
subsequent chapters the positive, ambitious and energetic woman that she
there shows herself.
Though the object of her husbands love (
<012467>
Genesis 24:67), Rebekah bore
him no children for 20 years (
<012520>
Genesis 25:20,26). Like Sarah, she too
was barren, and it was only after that score of years and after the special
intercession of Isaac that God at length granted her twin sons. The
purpose of God according to election, as Paul expresses the matter in
<450911>
Romans 9:11, was the cause of that strange oracle to the wondering,
inquiring parents, The elder shall serve the younger (
<012523>
Genesis 25:23).
Whether because of this oracle or for some other reason, it was that
younger son, Jacob, who became the object of his mothers special love
(
<012528>
Genesis 25:28). She it was who led him into the deception practiced
57
upon Isaac (
<012705>
Genesis 27:5-17), and she it was who devised the plan for
extricating Jacob from the dangerous situation into which that deception
had brought him (
<012742>
Genesis 27:42-46). When the absence of Jacob from
home became essential to his personal safety, Rebekah proposed her own
relations in Aram as the goal of his journey, and gave as motive the
desirability of Jacobs marrying from among her kindred. Probably she did
not realize that in sending her favorite son away on this journey she was
sending him away from her forever. Yet such seems to have been the case.
Though younger than Isaac, who was still living at an advanced age when
Jacob returned to Canaan a quarter of a century later, Rebekah seems to
have died during that term. We learn definitely only this, that she was
buried in the cave of Machpelah near Hebron (
<014931>
Genesis 49:31).
Outside of Genesis, Rebekah is alluded to in Scripture only in the passage
from Romans (9:10-12) already cited. Her significance there is simply that
of the wife of Isaac and the mother of two sons of such different character
and destiny as Esau and Jacob. And her significance in Gen, apart from
this, lies in her contribution to the family of Abraham of a pure strain from
the same eastern stock, thus transmitting to the founders of Israel both an
unmixed lineage and that tradition of separateness from Canaanite and
other non-Hebrew elements which has proved the greatest factor in the
ethnological marvel of the ages, the persistence of the Hebrew people.
J . Oscar Boyd
REBUKE
<re-buk>: As a verb rebuke is in the Old Testament the translation of
[r [ G;, ga`ar] and [j k y; , yakhach]; another word, ribh, in
<160507>
Nehemiah
5:7, is in the Revised Version (British and American) translated contended
with. Rebuke (noun) is most frequently the translation of ge`arah; also
in the King James Version of cherpah (
<232508>
Isaiah 25:8;
<241515>
Jeremiah 15:15,
the Revised Version (British and American) reproach), and of a few
other words signifying reproach, etc. Rebuker (mucar, literally,
correction, chastisement) in
<280502>
Hosea 5:2 has the Revised Version
margin Hebrew `rebuke. In the New Testament to rebuke is most
often the translation of [rto, epitimao] (
<400826>
Matthew 8:26; 16:22;
17:18, etc.); also in the King James Version of [rry, elegcho], always
in the Revised Version (British and American) rendered reprove (1 Tim
5:20;
<560113>
Titus 1:13; 2:15;
<581205>
Hebrews 12:5;
<660319>
Revelation 3:19). Another
58
word is epipletto (once,
<540501>
1 Timothy 5:1); without rebuke in
<504415>
Philippians 2:15 is in the Revised Version (British and American)
without blemish. On the other hand, the Revised Version (British and
American) has rebuke for several words in the King James Version, as
for reprove (
<121904>
2 Kings 19:4;
<233704>
Isaiah 37:4), reproof (
<182611>
Job 26:11;
<201710>
Proverbs 17:10), charged (
<411048>
Mark 10:48). In
<230204>
Isaiah 2:4;
<330403>
Micah 4:3, the English Revised Version has reprove for rebuke,
and in the margin decide concerning, which is text in the American
Standard Revised Version. In Ecclesiasticus 11:7 we have the wise
counsel: Understand first, and then rebuke (epitimao).
W. L. Walker
RECAH
<re-ka> ([h k ;r e , rekhah]; Codex Vaticanus [ Pqop, Rhechab]; Codex
Alexandrinus [ Pqo, Rhepha]; the King James Version Rechah): In
<130412>
1
Chronicles 4:12 certain persons are described as the men of Recah, but
there is absolutely no information either about the place or its position.
RECEIPT OF CUSTOM
<re-set>.
See CUSTOM.
RECEIVER
<re-sev-er>: Found in the King James Version (
<233318>
Isaiah 33:18); but the
Revised Version (British and American) substitutes he that weighed the
tribute. The Hebrew is shoqel, which means one who weighs, a
weigher.
RECHAB; RECHABITES
<re-kab>, <rek-a-bits> ([b k ;r e, rekhabh], [ yb ik ;r e, rekhabhim]): Rechab
is the name of two men of some prominence in the Old Testament records:
(1) A Benjamite of the town of Beeroth, son of Rimmon (
<100402>
2 Samuel
4:2); he and his brother Baanah were captains of the military host of
Ish-bosheth. On the death of Abner (
<100330>
2 Samuel 3:30) the two
brothers treacherously entered Ish-bosheths house, when at noon he
59
was resting and helpless, beheaded him, and escaped with the head to
David at Hebron (
<100406>
2 Samuel 4:6-8). They expected to receive
reward and honor from David for the foul deed, which left him without
a rival for the throne of all Israel. But the just and noble-minded king
ordered their immediate execution (
<100409>
2 Samuel 4:9-12), as in the case
of the Amalekite, who asserted that he had killed Saul (2 Samuel 1).
For some reason the Beerothites left their own town and fled to
Gittaim, another town in Benjamin, where they were still living when
the Books of Samuel were written (
<100403>
2 Samuel 4:3).
(2) The more prominent of the men bearing this name was a KENITE
(which see), a descendant of Hammath (
<130255>
1 Chronicles 2:55). A part
of the Kenite tribe joined the Israelites during the wilderness
wanderings (
<041029>
Numbers 10:29-32;
<070116>
Judges 1:16; 4:17), becoming
identified with the tribe of Judah, although Heber and Jael his wife
were settled in Northern Palestine (
<070417>
Judges 4:17). Rechab was the
ancestor or founder of a family, or order, in Israel known as the
Rechabites, who at various times were conspicuous in the religious life
of the nation. The most notable member of this family was Jehonadab
(
<121015>
2 Kings 10:15 ff,23), or Jonadab, as he is called in Jeremiah 35.
Jehonadab was a zealous Yahweh-worshipper and took part with Jehu
in the extirpation of Baal-worship and the house of Ahab. He set for his
descendants a vow of asceticism: that they should drink no wine, nor
plant fields or vineyards, nor build nor live in houses throughout their
generations (
<243506>
Jeremiah 35:6,7). That must have been a singular
feature in Palestinian life: the simple, nomadic life of this family from
generation to generation in the midst of settled agricultural and
industrial conditions! They followed this simple life in order to guard
against the enervating tendencies of sensualism, and as a covenant of
fidelity to Yahweh, to whom they wholly devoted themselves when
they joined themselves to Israel. Jeremiah used the Rechabites, who
had been driven into Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzars investment of the
land, as an object-lesson to covenant-breaking Judah. The Rechabites,
hungry and thirsty, refused wine when it was set before them, because
of the command of their ancestor Jonadab (
<243508>
Jeremiah 35:8-10); but
Judah refused to heed Yahwehs commands or to keep His covenant
(
<243514>
Jeremiah 35:14,15).
If the Rechab of
<160314>
Nehemiah 3:14 is the same as this Kenite, then his
descendant Malchijah, who assisted Nehemiah in rebuilding the wall of
60
Jerusalem, may have abandoned the vow of his ancestors, for he was ruler
of the district of Beth-haccherem (i.e. house of the vineyard).
Edward Mack
RECHAH
<re-ka> ([h k ;r e , rekhah]).
See RECAH.
RECLINING
<re-klin-ing> (
<431323>
John 13:23).
See MEALS, III; TRICLINIUM.
RECONCILE; RECONCILIATION
<rek-on-sil>, <rek-on-sil-i-a-shun> (xotoooo, katallasso],
[Kotooyq, katallage], also the compound form [ooxotoooo,
apokatallasso]; once the cognate [oooooo, diallassomai] is used
in
<400524>
Matthew 5:24):
1. THE TERMS:
(1) New Testament Usage.
In the last case,
<400524>
Matthew 5:24, the word is not used in a doctrinal
sense, though its use is very helpful in considering the force of the other
terms. All the other instances are in Pauls Epistles (
<450510>
Romans 5:10;
<460711>
1
Corinthians 7:11;
<470518>
2 Corinthians 5:18-20, the verb;
<450511>
Romans 5:11;
11:15;
<470518>
2 Corinthians 5:18,19, the noun;
<490216>
Ephesians 2:16;
<510122>
Colossians 1:22, the compound). The word reconcile has a double
meaning and usage, and the context must in each case determine how it is
to be taken. The great doctrine is the reconciliation of God and men, but
the question to be decided is whether it is God who is reconciled to men,
or men who are reconciled to God, and different schools of theology
emphasize one side or the other. The true view embraces both aspects. The
word to reconcile means literally to exchange, to bring into a changed
relationship. Some maintain that it is only a change in the sinner that is
intended, a laying aside of his enmity, and coming into peaceful relations
61
with God. But that manifestly does not exhaust the meaning, nor is it in the
great Pauline passages the primary and dominant meaning.
(2) Old Testament Usage.
The Old Testament usage does not materially help in the elucidation of the
New Testament terms, for though the word occurs in a number of passages
in the King James Version, it is in the Revised Version (British and
American) generally changed to atonement, which more accurately
represents the Hebrew kaphar, which is generally rendered by
atonement, and by hilaskomai or exilaskomai in the Greek (In one
passage of the New Testament (
<580217>
Hebrews 2:17), the phrase to make
reconciliation represents the Greek hilaskomai, and is better rendered in
the Revised Version (British and American) by to make propitiation.)
The making atonement or propitiation is the basis of the reconciliation, the
means of its accomplishment, and the fact that the translators of the King
James Version sometimes rendered kaphar by reconcile shows that they
understood reconciliation to have the Godward aspect. Whatever may be
said of the nature of the atonement or propitiation in the old dispensation,
it was something contemplated as appeasing or satisfying, or at least in
some way affecting God so as to make Him willing, or render it possible
for Him, to enter into, or abide in, gracious relations with men. In one
passage in the Old Testament where reconciliation occurs (
<142924>
2
Chronicles 29:24) it represents a different Hebrew word, but here the
Revised Version (British and American) has changed it into sin-offering,
which is in harmony with the general meaning and usage of the Hebrew.
(3) Special Passage in
<092904>
1 Samuel 29:4.
There is yet another Hebrew word rendered reconcile in
<092904>
1 Samuel
29:4, and inasmuch as this passage in the Septuagint has as the equivalent
of the Hebrew the Greek word diallasso, it is of some importance in
guiding to the New Testament meaning. On one occasion when the
Philistines gathered together to battle against Israel, David and his band of
men accompanied Achish king of Gath to the muster-place. The princes of
the Philistines did not at all appreciate the presence of these Hebrews,
and although Achish testified in favor of Davids fidelity, they were very
indignant, and demanded that David and his men be sent back, lest in the
battle he become an adversary to us: for wherewith should this fellow
reconcile himself unto his lord? should it not be with the heads of these
62
men? The Hebrew is ratsah, which means to be pleased with or to
accept favorably, and the Hithpael form here used is to make himself
pleasing or acceptable, to reconcile himself. But assuredly the
Philistines idea of David reconciling himself to Saul was not that he should
lay aside his enmity against Saul, and so become friends with him. The
enmity was on Sauls side, and the thought of the princes was that David
by turning against them in the battle would gratify Saul, and lead him to lay
aside his enmity against David.
(4) Usage in the Apocrypha.
It may be noted that in 2 Macc 5:20, katallage is used evidently of the
Godward side: And the place which was forsaken in the wrath of the
Almighty was, at the reconciliation of the great Sovereign, restored again
with all glory. The verb occurs in 2 Macc 1:5 when again the Godward
side seems intended, though not perhaps so certainly: May God ....
hearken to your supplications, and be reconciled with you, and in 7:33: If
for rebuke and chastening our living Lord has been angered a little while,
yet shall he again be reconciled with his own servants, and 8:29: They
besought the merciful Lord to be wholly reconciled with his servants. In
these two, especially the last, it is unquestionably the laying aside of the
divine displeasure that is meant.
2. NON-DOCTRINAL PASSAGE
<400524>
MATTHEW 5:24:
Before passing on to look at the great utterances in the Epistles, we may
now look at the non-doctrinal passage referred to at the beginning. There
is, indeed, another non-doctrinal instance in
<460711>
1 Corinthians 7:11, where
the wife who has departed from her husband is enjoined either to remain
unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband. But as it is indeterminate
whether the wife or the husband is the offending party, and so which is the
one to be influenced, the passage does not help us much. But
<400524>
Matthew
5:24 is a very illuminating passage. Here as in the passage from 1 Samuel,
the word used is diallasso, but it is practically identified in meaning with
katallasso. The injunction is given by Christ to the one who is at variance
with his brother, not to complete his offering until first he has been
reconciled to his brother. But the whole statement shows that it is not a
question of the one who is offering the gift laying aside his enmity against
his brother, but the reverse. Christ says, If therefore thou art offering thy
gift at the altar, and there rememberest (not that thou hast a grudge against
63
thy brother but) that thy brother hath aught against thee the brother
was the offended one, he is the one to be brought round leave there thy
gift before the altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, and
then come and offer thy gift. Plainly it means that he should do something
to remove his brothers displeasure and so bring about a reconciliation.
3. DOCTRINAL PASSAGES:
(1) Romans 5.
Turning now to Romans 5, how stands the matter? Paul has been speaking
of the blessed results of justification; one of these results is the shedding
abroad of the love of God in the heart. Then he dwells upon the
manifestation of that love in the death of Christ, a love that was displayed
to the loveless, and he argues that if in our sinful and unloving state we
were embraced by the love of God, a fortiori that love will not be less now
that it has already begun to take effect. If He loved us when we were under
His condemnation sufficiently to give His Son to die for our salvation,
much more shall His love bestow upon us the blessings secured by that
death. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be
saved from the wrath of God through him (
<450509>
Romans 5:9).
(a) The Fact of Divine Wrath:
It is well to note, then, that there is wrath on the part of God against sin
and sinners. One of the key-thoughts of the apostle in this epistle is that
the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men (
<450118>
Romans 1:18), and the coming day of
judgment is the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of
God (
<450205>
Romans 2:5). And because of this stern fact, the gospel is a
revelation not only of love, but specifically a righteousness of God
(
<450117>
Romans 1:17). And he shows that the essence of the gospel is found in
the propitiatory death of the Lord Jesus Christ (
<450324>
Romans 3:24,25,26),
through whom alone can men who have been brought under the judgment
of God (
<450319>
Romans 3:19) find justification, salvation, deliverance from
the wrath of God (
<450425>
Romans 4:25; 5:1-6). Of course it is not necessary to
add that the wrath of God is not to be thought of as having any unworthy
or capricious element in it it is the settled opposition of His holy nature
against sin.
64
(b) Reconciliation, Godward, as Well as Manward:
The apostle proceeds (
<450510>
Romans 5:10): For if, while we were enemies,
we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more,
being reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. Now if, as many maintain,
it is only the reconciliation on the manward side that is meant, that the
manifested love led to the sinner laying aside his enmity, it would entirely
reverse the apostles argument. He is not arguing that if we have begun to
love God we may reckon upon His doing so and so for us, but because He
has done so much, we may expect Him to do more. The verse is parallel to
the preceding, and the being reconciled is on the same plane as being
justified; the being justified was Gods action, and so is the reconciling.
Justification delivers from the wrath of God; reconciliation takes effect
upon enemies.
(c) The Meaning of the Word Enemies:
The word enemies is important. By those who take the manward aspect
of reconciliation as the only one, it is held that the word must be taken
actively those who hate God. But the passive meaning, hatred of
God, seems far the preferable, and is indeed demanded by the context.
Paul uses the verb echthroi, enemies, in
<451128>
Romans 11:28, in antithesis
to beloved of God, and that is the consistent sense here. The enemies are
those who are the objects of the wrath of the previous verse. And when we
were thus hated of God, the objects of His just displeasure on account of
our sin, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son. God laid
aside His enmity, and in the propitiatory death of Christ showed Himself
willing to receive us into His favor.
(d) The Manward Side:
By this propitiation, therefore, the barrier was removed, and, God having
assumed a gracious attitude toward the sinner, it is possible for the sinner
now, influenced by His love, to come into a friendly relationship with God.
And so in the second phrase, the two meanings, the Godward and the
manward, may coalesce: being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
The reconciliation becomes mutual, for there is no kind of doubt that
sinners are enemies to God in the active sense, and require to lay aside
their hostility, and so be reconciled to Him. But the first step is with God,
and the reconciliation which took place in the death of His Son could only
be the Godward reconciliation, since at that time men were still
65
uninfluenced by His love. But, perhaps, just because that first reconciliation
is brought about through the divine love which provides the propitiation,
the apostle avoids saying God is reconciled, but uses the more indirect
form of speech. The manward aspect is emphasized in the next verse,
although the Godward is not lost sight of: We also rejoice in God through
our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the
reconciliation (
<450511>
Romans 5:11). It is therefore something that comes
from God and does not proceed from man. God is the first mover; He
makes the reconciliation as already indicated, and then the fruit of it is
imputed to the believing sinner, and the very fact that our receiving the
reconciliation, or being brought into a state of reconciliation; follows the
being reconciled of
<450510>
Romans 5:10, shows that the other is divine
reconciliation as the basis of the human.
(2)
<470518>
2 Corinthians 5:18-20.
(a) The Godward Aspect Primary:
In the same way the great passage in
<470518>
2 Corinthians 5:18-20 cannot be
understood apart from the conception that there is a reconciliation on the
divine side. There is unquestionably reference to the human side of the
matter as well, but, as in Romans, the Godward aspect is primary and
dominating: All things are of God, who reconciled us to himself through
Christ, and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation. It might be
possible to argue from the King James Version that this describes the
process going on under gospel influences, men being brought into gracious
relations with God, but the aorist of the Greek rightly rendered by the
Revised Version (British and American), who reconciled us to himself,
points back to the historic time when the transaction took place. It cannot
be simply the surrender of the sinner to God that is meant, though that
comes as a consequence; it is a work that proceeds from God, is
accomplished by God, and because of the accomplishment of that work it
is possible for a ministry of reconciliation to be entrusted to men. To make
this mean the human aspect of the reconciliation, it would be necessary
unduly to confine it to the reconciliation of Paul and his fellow-workers,
though even then it would be a straining of language, for there is the other
historic act described, and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation.
The plain meaning is that through Jesus Christ, God established the basis of
agreement, removed the barrier to the sinners approach to Himself,
accomplished the work of propitiation, and, having done so, He entrusts
66
His servants with the ministry of reconciliation, a ministry which, basing
itself upon the great propitiatory, reconciling work of Christ, is directed
toward men, seeking to remove their enmity, to influence them in their turn
to be reconciled with God. This is more clearly set forth in the verse which
follows, which in explaining the ministry of reconciliation says: To wit,
that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning
unto them their trespasses. Here there can be no question that the historic
Incarnation is meant, and the reconciling of the world can be nothing other
than the objective work of atonement culminating in the cross. And in that
transaction there can be no thought of the sinner laying aside his hostility to
God; it is God in Christ so dealing with sin that the doom lying upon the
guilty is canceled, the wrath is averted, propitiation is made.
(b) The Manward Side also Prominent:
God, in a word, enters into gracious relations with a world of sinners,
becomes reconciled to man. This being done, gracious influences can be
brought to bear upon man, the chief of which is the consideration of this
stupendous fact of grace, that God has in Christ dealt with the question of
sin. This is the substance of the word of reconciliation which is preached
by the apostle. So he continues, We are ambassadors therefore on behalf
of Christ, as though God were entreating by us: we beseech you on behalf
of Christ, be ye reconciled to God. Here is the human side. The great
matter now is to get the sinner to lay aside his enmity, to respond to the
gracious overtures of the gospel, to come into harmony with God. But that
is only possible because the reconciliation in the Godward aspect has
already been accomplished. If the first reconciliation, the reconciliation of
the world unto himself, had been the laying aside of human enmity, there
could now be no point in the exhortation, Be ye reconciled to God.
(3)
<490216>
Ephesians 2:16.
The two passages where the compound word occurs are in complete
harmony with this interpretation.
<490216>
Ephesians 2:16: And might reconcile
them both (Jew and Gentile) in one body unto God through the cross,
having slain the enmity thereby, is the outcome of Christ making peace
(2:15), and the reconciling work is effected through the cross,
reconciliation both Godward and manward, and, having made peace, it is
possible for Christ to come and preach peace to them that are far off far
off even though the reconciling work of the cross has been accomplished.
67
(4)
<510120>
Colossians 1:20-22.
So in
<510120>
Colossians 1:20, And through him to reconcile all things unto
himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross; through him, I
say, whether things upon the earth, or things in the heavens. Here the
thought of the apostle trembles away into infinity, and there seems a
parallel to the thought of
<580923>
Hebrews 9:23, that according to the typical
teaching even the things in the heavens in some way stood in need of
cleansing. May it be that the work of Christ in some sense affected the
angelic intelligence, making it possible for harmony to be restored between
redeemed sinners and the perfect creation of God? In any case, the
reconciling all things unto Himself is not the laying aside of the creaturely
hostility, but the determining of the divine attitude. Then comes the specific
reference to the human side, And you, being in time past alienated and
enemies in your mind in your evil works, yet now hath he reconciled in the
body of his flesh through death; there, as in Romans, the two phases
coalescing, God appearing gracious through the work of Christ, sinners
coming into gracious relation with Him. Having made peace through the
blood of his cross, the ground of peace has been established. Christ has
done something by His death which makes it possible to offer peace to
men. God has laid aside His holy opposition to the sinner, and shows
Himself willing to bring men into peace with Himself. He has found
satisfaction in that great work of His Son, has been reconciled, and now
calls upon men to be reconciled to Him to receive the reconciliation.
See ATONEMENT; PROPITIATION; WRATH.
LITERATURE.
See the works on New Testament Theology of Weiss, Schmid, Stevens,
etc.; Denney, Death of Christ; articles on Reconciliation in
Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes), Hastings, Dictionary
of Christ and the Gospels, etc.
Archibald MCaig
RECORD
<rek-ord>, <rek-ord>:
(1) The English word, where it occurs in the Old Testament and the
New Testament in the sense of testimony, is translated in the Revised
68
Version (British and American) witness (
<053019>
Deuteronomy 30:19;
31:28;
<430119>
John 1:19,32; 8:13,14;
<451002>
Romans 10:2, etc.). See
WITNESS. But in
<181619>
Job 16:19 for the King James Version my
record, the Revised Version (British and American) has he that
voucheth for me.
(2) In
<150415>
Ezra 4:15; 6:2 (dokhran, dikhron), and Est 6:1 (zikkaron),
the word denotes Persian state chronicles; compare 1 Macc 14:23; 2
Macc 2:1.
RECORDER
<re-kor-der> ([r yK iz]m , mazkir]; the Revised Version margin
chronicler): A high functionary in the court of the Jewish kings, part of
whose duty seems to have been to chronicle the events of the reign, but
who also occupied a position corresponding with that of the modern vizier
(
<100816>
2 Samuel 8:16; 20:24;
<131815>
1 Chronicles 18:15, etc.). His high rank is
shown by the facts that, with other officers, he represented Hezekiah in
speaking with Rabshakeh (
<121818>
2 Kings 18:18), and, in the reign of Josiah,
superintended the repairs of the temple (
<143408>
2 Chronicles 34:8).
RECOVER
<re-kuv-er>: Recover has
(1) the transitive meaning of to retake or regain (anything); and
(2) the intransitive sense of to regain health or become well. In
Judith 14:7 it means restore to consciousness. In the former sense it
is in the Old Testament the translation of [l x n; , natsal], to snatch
away (
<071126>
Judges 11:26;
<093008>
1 Samuel 30:8,22; in
<280209>
Hosea 2:9, the
Revised Version (British and American) pluck away); also of [b Wv ,
shubh] (Qal and Hiphil
<093019>
1 Samuel 30:19 the King James Version;
<100803>
2 Samuel 8:3, etc.), and of various other words in single instances.
In
<120503>
2 Kings 5:3,6,7,11, to restore to health is [t s a ; , acaph]. In
its intransitive sense recover is chiefly the translation of [h y;j ;,
chayah], to live, revive (
<120102>
2 Kings 1:2, etc.;
<233809>
Isaiah 38:9,21).
Recover appears only twice in the King James Version of the New
Testament;
<411618>
Mark 16:18 (for kalos hexousin) and
<550226>
2 Timothy 2:26
(from ananepho, the Revised Version margin Greek: `return to
69
soberness ); but the Revised Version (British and American) has
recover for do well in
<431112>
John 11:12 (sothesetai; margin Greek:
`be saved). Recovering (of sight) (anablepsis) occurs in
<420418>
Luke
4:18.
W. L. Walker
RED
See COLORS, (10).
RED DRAGON
See REVELATION OF JOHN.
RED HEIFER
See HEIFER, RED.
RED HORSE
See HORSE, RED; REVELATION OF JOHN.
RED SEA
([t Ws A y , yam-cuph] (
<021019>
Exodus 10:19 and often), but in many
passages it is simply [ Y; h , hayam], the sea Septuagint with 2 or 3
exceptions renders it by [q rpu0po 0ooooo, he eruthra thalassa], the
Red Sea; Latin geographers Mare Rubrum):
1. NAME:
The Hebrew name yam-cuph has given rise to much controversy. Yam is
the general word for sea, and when standing alone may refer to the
Mediterranean, the Dead Sea, the Red Sea, or the Sea of Galilee. In several
places it designates the river Nile or Euphrates. Cuph means a rush or
seaweed such as abounds in the lower portions of the Nile and the upper
portions of the Red Sea. It was in the cuph on the brink of the river that
the ark of Moses was hidden (
<020203>
Exodus 2:3,5). But as this word does not
in itself mean red, and as that is not the color of the bulrush, authorities are
much divided as to the reason for this designation. Some have supposed
that it was called red from the appearance of the mountains on the western
70
coast, others from the red color given to the water by the presence of
zoophytes, or red coral, or some species of seaweed. Others still, with
considerable probability, suppose that the name originated in the red or
copper color of the inhabitants of the bordering Arabian peninsula. But the
name yam-cuph, though applied to the whole sea, was especially used with
reference to the northern part, which is alone mentioned in the Bible, and
to the two gulfs (Suez and Aqabah) which border the Sinaitic Peninsula,
especially the Gulf of Suez.
2. PECULARITIES:
The Red Sea has a length of 1,350 miles and an extreme breadth of 205
miles. It is remarkable that while it has no rivers flowing into it and the
evaporation from its surface is enormous, it is not much salter than the
ocean, from which it is inferred that there must be a constant influx of
water from the Indian Ocean through the Straits of Bab-el-Mandeb,
together with an outflow of the more saline water beneath the surface. The
deepest portion measures 1,200 fathoms. Owing to the lower land levels
which prevailed in recent geological times, the Gulf of Suez formerly
extended across the lowland which separates it from the Bitter Lakes, a
distance of 15 or 20 miles now traversed by the Suez Canal, which
encountered no elevation more than 30 ft. above tide. In early historic
times the Gulf ended at Ismailia at the head of Lake Timsah. North of this
the land rises to a height of more than 50 ft. and for a long time furnished a
road leading from Africa into Asia. At a somewhat earlier geological
(middle and late Tertiary) period the depression of the land was such that
this bridge was also submerged, so that the Red Sea and the Mediterranean
were connected by a broad expanse of water which overflowed the whole
surface of Lower Egypt.
The evidence of the more recent depression of the land surface in all Lower
Egypt is unmistakable. Raised beaches containing shells and corals still
living in the Red Sea are found at various levels up to more than 200 ft.
above tide. One of the most interesting of these is to be seen near the
summit of the Crows Nest, a half-mile South of the great pyramids,
where, near the summit of the eminence, and approximately 200 ft. above
tide, on a level with the base of the pyramids, there is a clearly defined
recent sea beach composed of water-worn pebbles from 1 inches to 1 or 2
ft. in diameter, the interstices of which are filled with small shells loosely
cemented together. These are identified as belonging to a variable form,
71
Alectryonia cucullata Born, which lives at the present time in the Red Sea.
On the opposite side of the river, on the Mokattam Hills South of Cairo, at
an elevation of 220 ft. above tide, similar deposits are found containing
numerous shells of recent date, while the rock face is penetrated by
numerous borings of lithodomus mollusks (Pholades rugosa Broc.). Other
evidences of the recent general depression of the land in this region come
from various places on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean. According
to Lartet at Ramleh, near Jaffa, a recent beach occurs more than 200 ft.
above sea-level containing many shells of Pectunculus violascens Lamk,
which is at the present time the most abundant mollusk on the shore of the
adjoining Mediterranean. A similar beach has been described by Dr. Post at
Lattakia, about 30 miles North of Beirut; while others, according to Hull,
occur upon the island of Cyprus. Further evidence of this depression is also
seen in the fact that the isthmus between Suez and the Bitter Lakes is
covered with recent deposits of Nile mud, holding modern Red Sea shells,
showing that, at no very distant date, there was an overflow of the Nile
through an eastern branch into this slightly depressed level. The line of this
branch of the Nile overflow was in early times used for a canal, which has
recently been opened to furnish fresh water to Suez, and the depression is
followed by the railroad. According to Dawson, large surfaces of the desert
North of Suez, which are now above sea-level, contain buried in the sand
recent marine shells in such a state of preservation that not many centuries
may have elapsed since they were in the bottom of the sea (Egypt and
Syria, 67).
3. OLD TESTAMENT REFERENCES:
The Red Sea is connected with the children of Israel chiefly through the
crossing of it recorded in Exodus (see 4, below); but there are a few
references to it in later times. Solomon is said (
<110926>
1 Kings 9:26) to have
built a navy at Ezion-geber, which is beside Eloth, on the shore of the Red
Sea, in the land of Edom. This is at the head of the Gulf of Aqabah, the
eastern branch of the Red Sea. Here his ships were manned by Hiram king
of Tyre with shipmen that had knowledge of the sea (
<110927>
1 Kings 9:27).
And (
<110928>
1 Kings 9:28) they came to Ophir, and fetched from thence
gold. But Eloth was evidently lost to Israel when Edom successfully
revolted in the time of Joram (
<120820>
2 Kings 8:20). For a short time, however,
it was restored to Judah by Amaziah (
<121422>
2 Kings 14:22); but finally, during
the reign of Ahaz, the Syrians, or more probably, according to another
72
reading, the Edomites, recovered the place and permanently drove the Jews
away. But in
<112248>
1 Kings 22:48 Jehoshaphat is said to have made ships of
Tarshish to go to Ophir for gold: but they went not; for the ships were
broken at Ezion-geber; while in
<142036>
2 Chronicles 20:36 Jehoshaphat is said
to have joined with Ahaziah to make ships to go to Tarshish; and they
made the ships in Ezion-geber.
Unless there is some textual confusion here, ships of Tarshish: is simply
the name of the style of the ship, like East Indiaman, and Tarshish in
Chronicles may refer to some place in the East Indies. This is the more
likely, since Solomons navy that went to Tarshish once every 3 years
came bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks, which
could hardly have come from any other place than India.
See SHIPS AND BOATS, II, 1, (2).
4. PASSAGE THROUGH THE RED SEA BY THE ISRAELITES:
Until in recent times it was discovered that the Gulf of Suez formerly
extended 30 miles northward to the site of the present Ismailia and the
ancient Pithom, the scene of the Biblical miracle was placed at Suez, the
present head of the Gulf. But there is at Suez no extent of shoal water
sufficient for the east wind mentioned in Scripture (
<021421>
Exodus 14:21) to
have opened a passage-way sufficiently wide to have permitted the host to
have crossed over in a single night. The bar leading from Suez across,
which is now sometimes forded, is too insignificant to have furnished a
passage-way as Robinson supposed (BR(3), I, 56-59). Besides, if the
children of Israel were South of the Bitter Lakes when there was no
extension of the Gulf North of its present limits, there would have been no
need of a miracle to open the water, since there was abundant room for
both them and Pharaohs army to have gone around the northern end of the
Gulf to reach the eastern shore, while South of Suez the water is too deep
for the wind anywhere to have opened a passage-way. But with an
extension of the waters of the Gulf to the Bitter Lakes and Lake Timsah,
rendered probable by the facts cited in the previous paragraph, the
narrative at once so perfectly accords with the physical conditions involved
as to become not only easily credible, but self-evidencing.
The children of Israel were at Rameses (
<021237>
Exodus 12:37) in the land of
Goshen, a place which has not been certainly identified, but could not have
been far from the modern Zagazig at the head of the Fresh Water Canal
73
leading from the Nile to the Bitter Lakes. One days journey eastward
along Wady Tumilat, watered by this canal brought them to Succoth, a
station probably identical with Thuket, close upon the border line
separating Egypt from Asia. Through the discoveries of Naville in 1883
this has been identified as Pithom, one of the store-cities built by Pharaoh
during the period of Hebrew oppression (
<020111>
Exodus 1:11). Here Naville
uncovered vast store pits for holding grain built during the reign of
Rameses II and constructed according to the description given in Exodus
1: the lower portions of brick made with straw, the middle with stubble,
and the top of simple clay without even stubble to hold the brick together
(see Naville, The Store-City Pithom and the Route of the Exodus,
Egyptian Exploration Fund, 1885; M. G. Kyle, A Re-examination of
Navilles Works, Records of the Past, VIII, 1901, 304-7). The next days
journey brought them to Etham on the edge of the wilderness
(
<021320>
Exodus 13:20;
<043306>
Numbers 33:6), probably in the vicinity of the
modern Ismailia at the head of Lake Timsah. From this point the natural
road to Palestine would have been along the caravan route on the neck of
land referred to above as now about 50 ft. above sea-level. Etham was
about 30 miles Southeast of Zoan or Tanis, the headquarters at that time of
Pharaoh, from which he was watching the movements of the host. If they
should go on the direct road to Palestine, his army could easily execute a
flank movement and intercept them in the desert of Etham. But by divine
command (
<021402>
Exodus 14:2) Moses turned southward on the west side of
the extension of the Red Sea and camped before Pihahiroth, between
Migdol and the sea, before Baal-zephon (
<021422>
Exodus 14:22
<043305>
Numbers
33:5-7). At this change of course Pharaoh was delighted, seeing that the
children of Israel were entangled in the land and the wilderness had
shut them in. Instead of issuing a flank movement upon them, Pharaohs
army now followed them in the rear and overtook them encamping by the
sea, beside Pi-hahiroth, the location of which is essential to a proper
understanding of the narrative which follows.
In
<021402>
Exodus 14:2, Pi-hahiroth is said to be between Migdol and the sea,
before Baal-zephon. Now though Migdol originally meant watch-tower,
it is hardly supposable that this can be its meaning here, otherwise the
children of Israel would have been moving directly toward a fortified place.
Most probably, therefore, Migdol was the tower-like mountain peak
marking the northeast corner of Jebel Geneffeh, which runs parallel with
the Bitter Lakes, only a short distance from their western border. Baal-
74
zephon may equally well be some of the mountain peaks on the border of
the Wilderness of Paran opposite Cheloof, midway between the Bitter
Lakes and Suez. In the clear atmosphere of the region this line of
mountains is distinctly visible throughout the whole distance from Ismailia
to Suez. There would seem to be no objection to this supposition, since all
authorities are in disagreement concerning its location. From the
significance of the name it would seem to be the seat of some form of Baal
worship, naturally a mountain. Brugsch would identify it with Mr. Cassius
on the northern shore of Egypt. Naville (see Murrays Illustrated Bible
Dictionary, Red Sea, Passage of) would connect it with the hill called
Tussum East of Lake Timsah, where there is a shrine at the present day
visited every year about July 14 by thousands of pilgrims to celebrate a
religious festival; but, as this is a Mohammedan festival, there seems no
reason to connect it with any sanctuary of the Canaanites. Dawson favors
the general location which we have assigned to Pi-hahiroth, but would
place it beside the narrow southern portion of the Bitter Lakes.
Somewhere in this vicinity would be a most natural place for the children
of Israel to halt, and there is no difficulty, such as Naville supposes, to their
passing between Jebel Geneffeh and the Bitter Lakes; for the mountain
does not come abruptly to the lake, but leaves ample space for the passage
of a caravan, while the mountain on one side and the lake on the other
would protect them from a flank movement by Pharaoh and limit his army
to harassing the rear of the Israelite host. Protected thus, the Israelites
found a wide plain over which they could spread their camp, and if we
suppose them to be as far South as Cheloof, every condition would be
found to suit the narrative which follows. Moses was told by the Lord that
if he would order the children of Israel to go forward, the sea would be
divided and the children of Israel could cross over on dry ground. And
when, in compliance with the divine command, Moses stretched out his
hand over the sea, Yahweh caused the sea to go back by a strong east
wind all the night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.
And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry
ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on
their left. And the Egyptians pursued, and went in after them into the midst
of the sea, all Pharaohs horses, his chariots, and his horsemen
(
<021421>
Exodus 14:21-30). But when the children of Israel were safely on the
other side the waters returned and overwhelmed the entire host of Pharaoh.
In the Song of Moses which follows, describing the event, it is said that the
75
waters were piled up by the blast of thy (Gods) nostrils (
<021508>
Exodus
15:8), and again, verse 10, Thou didst blow with thy wind, the sea
covered them. Thus 3 times the wind is mentioned as the means employed
by God in opening the water. The competency of the wind temporarily to
remove the water from the passage connecting the Gulf of Suez with the
Bitter Lakes, provided it was only a few feet deep, is amply proved by facts
of recent observation. Major General Tullock of the British army (Proc.
Victoria Inst., XXVIII, 267-80) reports having witnessed the driving off of
the water from Lake Menzaleh by the wind to such an extent as to lower
the level 6 ft., thus leaving small vessels over the shallow water stranded
for a while in the muddy bottom. According to the report of the Suez
Canal Company, the difference between the highest and the lowest water at
Suez is 10 ft. 7 inches, all of which must be due to the effect of the wind,
since the tides do not affect the Red Sea. The power of the wind to affect
water levels is strikingly witnessed upon Lake Erie in the United States,
where according to the report of the Deep Waterways Commission for
1896 (165, 168) it appears that strong wind from the Southwest sometimes
lowers the water at Toledo, Ohio, on the western end of the lake to the
extent of more than 7 ft., at the same time causing it to rise at Buffalo at
the eastern end a similar amount; while a change in the wind during the
passage of a single storm reverses the effect, thus sometimes producing a
change of level at either end of the lake of 14 ft. in the course of a single
day. It would require far less than a tornado to lower the water at Cheloof
sufficiently to lay bare the shallow channel which we have supposed at that
time to separate Egypt from the Sinaitic Peninsula.
See EXODUS, THE.
Objections:
Several objections to this theory, however, have been urged which should
not pass without notice.
(1) Steep Banks of the Channel:
Some have said that the children of Israel would have found an insuperable
obstacle to their advance in the steep banks on either side of the supposed
channel. But there were no steep banks to be encountered. A gentle sag
leads down on one side to the center of the depression and a
correspondingly gentle rise leads up on the other.
76
(2) Walls Formed by the Water:
Much has also been made of the statement (
<021422>
Exodus 14:22) that the
waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left; but
when we consider the rhetorical use of this word wall it presents no
difficulty. In
<201811>
Proverbs 18:11 we are told that The rich mans wealth is
his strong city, And as a high wall in his own imagination. In
<232601>
Isaiah
26:1 we are told that God will appoint salvation for walls and bulwarks.
Again Nahum (3:8) says of Egypt that her rampart was the sea (margin
the Nile), and her wall was of the sea. The water upon either side of the
opening served the purpose of a wall for protection. There was no chance
for Pharaoh to intercept them by a flank movement. Nor is there need of
paying further attention to the poetical expressions in the Song of Moses,
where among other things it is said that the deeps were congealed in the
heart of the sea, and that the earth (instead of the water) swallowed
them.
(3) The East Winds:
Again it is objected that an east wind does not come from the right
direction to produce the desired result. On the other hand it is an east wind
only which could have freed the channel from water. A north wind would
have blown the water from the Bitter Lakes southward, and owing to the
quantity of water impounded would have increased the depth of the water
in the narrow passage from the southern end of Suez. An east wind,
however, would have pressed the water out from the channel both ways,
and from the contour of the shore lines would be the only wind that could
have done so.
(4) The Miraculous Set Aside:
Again, it is objected that this explanation destroys the miraculous character
of the event. But it should be noted that little is said in the narrative about
the miraculous. On the other hand, it is a straightforward statement of
events, leaving their miraculous character to be inferred from their nature.
On the explanation we have given the transaction it is what Robinson
felicitously calls a mediate miracle, that is, a miracle in which the hand of
God is seen in the use of natural forces which it would be impossible for
man to command. If anyone should say that this was a mere coincidence,
that the east wind blew at the precise time that Moses reached the place of
crossing, the answer is that such a coincidence could have been brought
77
about only by supernatural agency. There was at that time no weather
bureau to foretell the approach of a storm. There are no tides on the Red
Sea with regular ebb and flow. It was by a miracle of prophecy that Moses
was emboldened to get his host into position to avail themselves of the
temporary opportunity at exactly the right time. As to the relation of the
divine agency to the event, speculation is useless. The opening of the sea
may have been a foreordained event in the course of Nature which God
only foreknew, in which case the direct divine agency was limited to those
influences upon the human actors that led them to place themselves where
they could take advantage of the natural opportunity. Or, there is no a
priori difficulty in supposing that the east wind was directly aroused for
this occasion; for man himself produces disturbances among the forces of
Nature that are as far-reaching in their extent as would be a storm
produced by direct divine agency. But in this case the disturbance is at
once seen to be beyond the powers of human agency to produce.
It remains to add an important word concerning the evidential value of this
perfect adjustment of the narrative to the physical conditions involved. So
perfect is this conformity of the narrative to the obscure physical conditions
involved, which only recent investigations have made clear, that the
account becomes self-evidencing. It is not within the power of man to
invent a story so perfectly in accordance with the vast and complicated
conditions involved. The argument is as strong as that for human design
when a key is found to fit a Yale lock. This is not a general account which
would fit into a variety of circumstances. There is only one place in all the
world, and one set of conditions in all history, which would meet the
requirements; and here they are all met. This is scientific demonstration.
No higher proof can be found in the inductive sciences. The story is true. It
has not been remodeled by the imagination, either of the original writers or
of the transcribers. It is not the product of mythological fancy or of
legendary accretion.
LITERATURE.
Dawson, Egypt and Syria; Hull, Mt. Seir, Sinai and Western Palestine;
Naville, The Store-City Pithom and the Route of the Exodus, Egyptian
Exploration Fund, 1885; Kyle, Bricks without Straw at Pithom: A Re-
examination of Navilles Works, Records of the Past, VIII, 1901, 304-7;
Wright, Scientific Confirmations of Old Testament History, 83-117.
78
George Frederick Wright
REDEEMER; REDEMPTION
<re-dem-er>, <re-demp-shun> ([q r P ; , paraq], to tear loose, to
rescue, [h D ;P ;, padhah], [l a G; , gaal]; [oyopo, agorazo], referring
to purchase, [utpouo, lutroumai], from [utpov, lutron], a
ransom):
The idea of redemption in the Old Testament takes its start from the
thought of property (
<032526>
Leviticus 25:26;
<080404>
Ruth 4:4 ff). Money is paid
according to law to buy back something which must be delivered or
rescued (
<040351>
Numbers 3:51;
<160508>
Nehemiah 5:8). From this start the word
redemption throughout the Old Testament is used in the general sense of
deliverance. God is the Redeemer of Israel in the sense that He is the
Deliverer of Israel (
<050926>
Deuteronomy 9:26;
<100723>
2 Samuel 7:23;
<131721>
1
Chronicles 17:21;
<235203>
Isaiah 52:3). The idea of deliverance includes
deliverance from all forms of evil lot, from national misfortune (
<235209>
Isaiah
52:9; 63:9; compare
<420238>
Luke 2:38), or from plague (
<197835>
Psalm 78:35,52),
or from calamity of any sort (
<014816>
Genesis 48:16;
<042504>
Numbers 25:4,9). Of
course, the general thought of the relation of Israel to God was that God
had both a claim upon Israel (
<051515>
Deuteronomy 15:15) and an obligation
toward Israel (
<131721>
1 Chronicles 17:21;
<192522>
Psalm 25:22). Israel belonged to
Him, and it was by His own right that He could move into the life of Israel
so as to redeem Israel. On the other hand, obligation was upon Him to
redeem Israel.
In the New Testament the idea of redemption has more a suggestion of
ransom. Men are held under the curse of the law (
<480313>
Galatians 3:13), or of
sin itself (
<450723>
Romans 7:23 f). The Redeemer purchases their deliverance by
offering Himself as payment for their redemption (
<490107>
Ephesians 1:7;
<600118>
1
Peter 1:18).
1. GRADUAL MORALIZING OF IDEA OF REDEMPTION:
observed a gradual moralizing of the meaning of redemption. The same
process of moralizing has continued throughout all the Christian ages.
Starting with the idea of redemption price, conceived almost in material
terms, religious thought has advanced to conceptions entirely moral and
spiritual. Through the Scriptures, too, the idea of redemption becomes
79
more specffic with the progress of Christian revelation. In the beginning
God is the Redeemer from distresses of all kinds. He redeems from
calamity and from sorrows. This general idea, of course, persists
throughout the revelation and enters largely into our thinking of today, but
the growing moral discernment of the Biblical writers comes to attach
more and more importance to sin as the chief disturber of mans welfare.
We would not minimize the force of the Scriptural idea that God is the
Deliverer from all misfortune to which man falls heir, but the Scriptural
emphasis moves more and more to deliverance from sin. Paul states this
deliverance as a deliverance from the law which brings sin out into
expression, but we must not conceive his idea in any artificial fashion. He
would have men delivered not only from the law, but also from the
consequences of evil doing and from the spirit of evil itself (
<450802>
Romans
8:2).
2. REDEMPTION AS LIFE IN THE INDIVIDUAL:
In trying to discern the meaning of redemption from sin, toward which the
entire progress of Biblical and Christian thought points, we may well keep
in mind the Masters words that He came that men might have life and
might have it more abundantly (
<431010>
John 10:10). The word life seems to
be the final New Testament word as a statement of the purpose of Christ.
God sent His Son to bring men to life. The word life, however, is
indefinite. Life means more at one period of the worlds history than at
another. It has the advantage, nevertheless, of always being entirely
intelligible in its essential significance. Our aim must be to keep this
essential significance in mind and at the same time to provide for an
increasing fullness and enlargement of human capacity and endeavor. The
aim of redemption can only be to bring men to the fullest use and
enjoyment of their powers. This is really the conception implicit even in the
earliest statements of redemption. The man redeemed by money payment
comes out of the prison to the light of day, or he comes out of slavery into
freedom, or he is restored to his home and friends. The man under the law
is redeemed from the burden and curse of the law. Paul speaks of his
experience under the law as the experience of one chained to a dead body
(
<450724>
Romans 7:24). Of course, relief from such bondage would mean life.
In the more spiritual passages of the New Testament, the evil in mens
hearts is like a blight which paralyzes their higher activities (
<430833>
John 8:33-
51).
80
In all redemption, as conceived of in Christian terms, there is a double
element. There is first the deliverance as from a curse. Something binds a
man or weights him down: redemption relieves him from this load. On the
other hand, there is the positive movement of the soul thus relieved toward
larger and fuller life. We have said that the Biblical emphasis is always
upon deliverance from sin as the essential in redemption, but this
deliverance is so essential that the life cannot progress in any of its normal
activities until it is redeemed from evil. Accordingly in the Scriptural
thought all manner of blessings follow deliverance. The man who seeks
first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness finds all other things added
unto him (
<400633>
Matthew 6:33). Material, intellectual and social blessings
follow as matters of course from the redemption of the inner spirit from
evil. The aim of redemption, to beget in mens hearts the will to do right,
once fulfilled, leads men to seek successfully along all possible avenues for
life. This, of course, does not mean that the redeemed life gives itself up to
the cultivation of itself toward higher excellencies. It means that the
redeemed life is delivered from every form of selfishness. In the unselfish
seeking of life for others the redeemed life finds its own greatest
achievement and happiness (
<401625>
Matthew 16:25).
3. REDEMPTION AS SOCIAL:
Just as the idea of redemption concerned itself chiefly with the inner spirit;
so also it concerns itself with the individual as the object of redemption.
But as the redemption of the inner spirit leads to freedom in all realms of
life, so also the redemption of the individual leads to large social
transformations. It is impossible to strike out of the Scriptures the idea of a
redeemed humanity. But humanity is not conceived of in general or class
terms. The object of redemption is not humanity, or mankind, or the
masses. The object of redemption is rather men set in relation to each other
as members of a family. But it would do violence to the Scriptural
conception to conceive of the individuals relations in any narrow or
restricted fashion (1 Cor 12:12-27).
An important enlargement of the idea of redemption in our own time has
come as men have conceived of the redemption of individuals in their social
relationships. Very often men have thought of redemption as a snatching of
individuals from the perils of a world in itself absolutely wicked. Even the
material environment of men has at times been regarded as containing
something inherently evil. The thought of redemption which seems most in
81
line with Scriptural interpretation would seem to be that which brings the
material and social forces within reach of individual wills. Paul speaks of
the whole creation groaning and travailing in pain waiting for the revelation
of the sons of God (
<450822>
Romans 8:22). This graphic figure sets before us
the essentially Christian conception of the redemption of the forces in the
midst of which men are placed. Those redeemed for the largest life, by the
very force of their life, will seize all powers of this world to make them the
servants of divine purposes. The seer saw a great multitude which no man
could number, of every kindred and nation and tongue, shouting the joys of
salvation (
<660709>
Revelation 7:9), yet the implication nowhere appears that
these were redeemed in any other fashion than by surrendering themselves
to the forces of righteousness.
4. REDEMPTION AS PROCESS:
We have said that the aim of redemption is to bring men to the largest and
fullest life. We have also said that life is a general term. To keep close to
the Scriptural conceptions we would best say that the aim of redemption is
to make men like Christ (
<450809>
Romans 8:9). Otherwise, it might be possible
to use the word life so as to imply that the riotous exercise of the
faculties is what we mean by redemption. The idea of redemption, as a
matter of fact, has been thus interpreted in various times in the history of
Christian thinking. Life has been looked upon as sheer quantitative
exuberance the lower pleasures of sense being reckoned as about on the
same plane with the higher. We can see the moral and spiritual anarchy
which would thus be brought about. In Christs words to His disciples He
once used the expression, Ye are clean because of the word which I have
spoken unto you (
<431503>
John 15:3). In this particular context the idea does
not seem to be that of an external washing. Christ seems rather to mean
that His disciples are cleansed as a vineyard is cleansed by pruning away
some of the branches that others may bear fruit. In other words, the
redemption of life is to be interpreted so that stress is laid upon the
qualitative rather than the quantitative. Christ indeed found place in His
instructions and in His own life for the normal and healthy activities of
human existence. He was not an ascetic; He went to feasts and to
weddings, but His emphasis was always upon life conceived of in the
highest terms. We can say then that the aim of redemption is to beget in
men life like that in Christ.
82
5. MORAL IMPLICATIONS IN THE
SCRIPTURAL IDEA OF REDEEMER:
Moreover, redemption must not be conceived of in such fashion as to do
away with the need of response upon the part of the individual will. The
literal suggestion of ransom has to do with paying a price for a mans
deliverance, whether the man is willing to be delivered or not. Of course,
the assumption in the mind of the Biblical writers was that any man in
prison or in slavery or in sickness would be overjoyed at being redeemed;
but in dealing with men whose lives are set toward sin we cannot always
make this assumption. The dreadfulness of sin is largely in the love of
sinning which sinning begets. Some thinkers have interpreted redemption
to mean almost a seizing of men without regard to their own will. It is very
easy to see how this conception arises. A man who himself hates sin may
not stop to realize that some other men love sin. Redemption, to mean
anything, must touch this inner attitude of will. We cannot then hold to any
idea of redemption which brings men under a cleansing process without the
assent of their own wills. If we keep ourselves alive to the growing moral
discernment which moves through the Scriptures, we must lay stress
always upon redemption as a moral process. Not only must we say that the
aim of redemption is to make men like Christ, but we must say also that the
method of redemption must be the method of Christ, the method of
appealing to the moral will. There is no Scriptural warrant for the idea that
men are redeemed by fiat. The most we can get from the words of Christ is
a statement of the persistence of God in His search for the lost: `(He
goeth) after that which is lost, until he finds it (
<421504>
Luke 15:4). Some
would interpret these words to mean that the process of redemption
continues until every man is brought into the kingdom. We cannot, in the
light of the New Testament, limit the redeeming love of God; but we
cannot, on the other hand, take passages from figurative expressions in
such sense as to limit the freedom of men. The redemption must be
conceived of as respecting the moral choices of men. In our thought of the
divine search for the control of inner human motive we must not stop short
of the idea of men redeemed to the love of righteousness on its own
account. This would do away with the plan of redeeming men by merely
relieving them of the consequences of their sins. Out of a changed life, of
course, there must come changed consequences. But the Scriptural
teaching is that the emphasis in redemption is always moral, the turning to
life because of what life is.
83
Having thus attempted to determine, at least in outline, the content of the
Christian idea of redemption, it remains for us to point out some
implications as to the work of the Redeemer. Throughout the entire
teaching on redemption in the Scriptures, redemption is set before us
primarily as Gods own affair (
<430316>
John 3:16). God redeems His people; He
redeems them out of love for them. But the love of God is not to be
conceived of as mere indulgence, partiality, or good-humored affection.
The love of God rests down upon moral foundations. Throughout the
Scriptures, therefore, we find implied often, if not always clearly stated, the
idea that God is under obligations to redeem His people. The progress of
later thinking has expanded this implication with sureness of moral
discernment. We have come to see the obligations of power. The more
powerful the man the heavier his obligations in the discharge of this power.
This is a genuinely Christian conception, and this Christian conception we
apply to the character of God, feeling confident that we are in line with
Scriptural teaching. Hence, we may put the obligations of God somewhat
as follows: God is the most obligated being in the universe. If a man is
under heavy obligations to use aright the power of controlling the forces
already at work in the world, how much heavier must be the obligations on
the Creator who started these forces! The obligation becomes appalling to
our human thought when we think that creation includes the calling of
human beings into existence and endowing them with the unsolicited boon
of freedom. Men are not in the world of their own choice. Vast masses of
them seem to be here as the outworking of impulses almost blind. The
surroundings of men make it very easy for them to sin. The tendencies
which at least seem to be innate are too often tragically inclined toward
evil. Men seem, of themselves, utterly inadequate for their own
redemption. If there is to be redemption it must come from God, and the
Christian thought of a moral God would seem to include the obligation on
the part of God to redeem those whom He has sent into the world. Christ
has made clear forever the absolutely binding nature of moral
considerations. If the obligation to redeem men meant everything to Christ,
it must also mean everything to the God of Christ. So we feel in line with
true Christian thinking in the doctrine that redemption comes first as a
discharge of the obligations on the part of God Himself.
If we look for the common thought in all the Christian statements of Gods
part in redemption we find it in this: that in all these statements God is
conceived of as doing all that He can do for the redemption of man. If in
84
earlier times men conceived of the human race as under the dominion of
Satan, and of Satan as robbed of his due by the deliverance of man and
therefore entitled to some compensation, they also conceived of God
Himself as paying the ransom to Satan. If they thought of God as a feudal
lord whose dignity had been offended by sin, they thought of God as
Himself paying the cost due to offended dignity. If their idea was that a
substitute for sinners must be furnished, the idea included the thought of
God as Himself providing a substitute. If they conceived of the universe as
a vast system of moral laws broken by sin whose dignity must be
upheld, they thought of God Himself as providing the means for
maintaining the dignity of the laws. If they conceived of men as saved by a
vast moral influence set at work, they thought of this influence as
proceeding, not from man, but from God. The common thought in theories
of redemption then, so far as concerns Gods part, is that God Himself
takes the initiative and does all He can in the discharge of the obligation
upon Himself. Each phrasing of the doctrine of redemption is the attempt
of an age of Christian thinking to say in its own way that God has done all
that He can do for men.
6. UNIQUENESS OF THE SON OF GOD AS REDEEMER:
It is from this standpoint that we must approach the part played by Christ
in redemption. This is not the place for an attempt at formal statement, but
some elements of Christian teaching are, at least in outline, at once clear.
The question is, first, to provide some relation between God and Christ
which will make the redemptive work of Christ really effective. Some have
thought to find such a statement in the conception that Christ is a prophet.
They would empty the expression, Son of God, of any unique meaning;
they would make Christ the Son of God in the same sense that any great
prophet could be conceived of as a son of God. Of course, we would not
minimize the teaching of the Scripture as to the full humanity of Christ, and
yet we may be permitted to voice our belief that the representation of
Christ as the Redeemer merely in the same sense in which a prophet is a
redeemer does not do justice to the Scripture teaching; and we feel, too,
that such a solution of the problem of Christ would be inadequate for the
practical task of redemption. If Christ is just a prophet giving us His
teaching we rejoice in the teaching, but we are confronted with the
problem as to how to make the teaching effective. If it be urged that Christ
is a prophet who in Himself realized the moral ideal, we feel constrained to
85
reply that this really puts Christ at a vast distance from us. Such a doctrine
of Christs person would make Him the supreme religious genius, but the
human genius stands apart from the ordinary mass of men. He may gather
up into Himself and realize the ideals of men; He may voice the aspirations
of men and realize those aspirations; but He may not be able to make men
like unto Himself. Shakespeare is a consummate literary genius. He has
said once and for all many things which the common man thinks or half
thinks. When the common man comes upon a phrase of Shakespeare he
feels that Shakespeare has said for all time the things which he would
himself have said if he had been able. But the appreciation of Shakespeare
does not make the ordinary man like Shakespeare; the appreciation of
Christ has not proved successful in itself in making men like unto Christ.
If, on the contrary, without attempting formal theological construction, we
put some real meaning into the idea of Christ as the Son of God and hold
fast to a unique relationship between Christ and God which makes Christ
the greatest gift that God can give us, we find indeed that Christ is lifted up
to essentially divine existence; but we find also that this divinity does not
estrange Him from us. Redemption becomes feasible, not merely when we
have a revelation of how far up man can go, but when we have also a
revelation of how far down God can come. If we can think of God as
having in some real way come into the world through His Son Jesus Christ,
that revelation makes Christ the Lord who can lead us to redemption.
Such a conception furnishes the dynamic which we must have in any real
process of redemption. We need not only the ideal, but we need power by
which to reach the ideal. If we can feel that the universe is under the sway
of a moral God, a God who is under obligations to bear the burdens of
men, and who willingly assumes these obligations, we really feel that moral
life at its fullest and best is the greatest fact in the universe. Moreover, we
must be true to the Scriptures and lift the entire conception of redemption
beyond the realm of conscience to the realm of the heart. What the
conscience of God calls for, the love of God willingly discharges. The
Cross of Christ becomes at once the revelation of the righteousness of God
and the love of God. Power is thus put back of human conscience and
human love to move forward toward redemption (
<450835>
Romans 8:35-39).
The aim of the redemption in Christ then is to lift men out of death toward
life. The mind is to be quickened by the revelation of the true ideals of
human life. The conscience is to be reenforced by the revelation of the
86
moral God who carries on all things in the interests of righteousness. The
heart is to be stirred and won by the revelation of the love which sends an
only begotten Son to the cross for our redemption. And we must take the
work of Christ, not as a solitary incident or a mere historic event, but as a
manifestation of the spirit which has been at work from the beginning and
works forever. The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world
(
<661308>
Revelation 13:8); the spirit of God revealed in the cross of Christ is the
same yesterday, today and forever. We have in the cross a revelation of
holy love which, in a sense, overpowers and at the same time encourages.
The cross is the revelation of the length to which God is willing to go in
redemption rather than set aside one jot or tittle of His moral law. He will
not redeem men except on terms which leave them men. He will not
overwhelm them in any such manner as to do away with their power of free
choice. He will show men His own feeling of holiness and love. In the
name of a holy love which they can forever aspire after, but which they can
never fully reach, men call to Him for forgiveness and that forgiveness men
find forever available.
It remains to add one further item of Scriptural teaching, namely that
redemption is a continuous process. If we may again use the word life,
which has been the key to this discussion, we may say that the aim of
redemption is to make men progressively alive. There are not limits to the
development of human powers touched by the redemptive processes of
God. The cross is a revelation of divine willingness to bear with men who
are forever being redeemed. Of course, we speak of the redeemed man as
redeemed once and for all. By this we mean that he is redeemed once and
for all in being faced about and started in a right direction, but the progress
toward full life may be faster or slower according to the man and the
circumstances in the midst of which he is placed. Still the chief fact is the
direction in which the man is moving. The revelation of God who aids in
redemption is of the God who takes the direction as the chief fact rather
than the length of the stride or the rate of the movement. Every man is
expected to do his best. If he stumbles he is supposed to find his way to his
feet; if he is moving slowly, he must attempt to move faster; if he is moving
at a slower rate than he can attain, he must strive after the higher rate, but
always the dynamic force is the revelation of the holy love of God.
The Scriptures honor the prophets in whatever land or time they appear.
The Scriptures welcome goodness under any and all circumstances. They
have a place for a light that lighteneth every man that cometh into the
87
world, but they still make it clear that the chief force in the redemption of
men is the revelation of holy love in Jesus Christ. The redemption, we
repeat, is never conceived of in artificial or mechanical terms. If any man
hath not the spirit of Christ he does not belong to Christ (
<450809>
Romans 8:9).
The aim of redemption is to beget this spirit, and this spirit is life.
LITERATURE.
H. C. Sheldon, Systematic Theology; Clarke, Outline of Christian
Theology; Brown, Christian Theology in Outline; Mackintosh, Doctrine of
Person of Christ; Bowne, Studies in Christianity; Tymms, The Christian
Atonement.
Francis J . McConnell
REDNESS OF EYES
<red-nes>.
See DRUNKENNESS, II.
REDOUND
<re-dound> (from re-, back, and undare, to surge as a wave): To be
sent back as a reaction, to overflow; occurs only as the translation of
[rpooru, perisseuo], to be over and above, to superabound
(frequent in the New Testament); in
<470415>
2 Corinthians 4:15, might through
the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God, the Revised
Version (British and American) may cause the thanksgiving to abound.
REED
<red>:
(1) [Wj a ;, achu], translated reed-grass (
<014102>
Genesis 41:2,18;
<180811>
Job
8:11 margin). See FLAG.
(2) [h b ,a e , ebheh], translated swift, margin reed (
<180926>
Job 9:26).
The ships of reed are the light skiffs made of plaited reeds used on
the Nile; compare vessels of papyrus (
<231802>
Isaiah 18:2).
88
(3) [ yMig a }, aghammim], translated reeds, margin marshes,
Hebrew pools (
<245132>
Jeremiah 51:32); elsewhere pools (
<020719>
Exodus
7:19; 8:5;
<231423>
Isaiah 14:23, etc.). See POOLS.
(4) [t wOr [ ;, `aroth]; [o, achi], translated meadows, the King James
Version paper reeds (
<231907>
Isaiah 19:7). See MEADOWS.
(5) [h n,q ;, qaneh]; [xooo, kalamos] (the English cane comes
from Hebrew via Latin and Greek canna), stalk (
<014105>
Genesis
41:5,22); shaft (
<023717>
Exodus 37:17, etc.); reed, or reeds (
<111415>
1
Kings 14:15;
<121821>
2 Kings 18:21;
<233606>
Isaiah 36:6; 42:3;
<196830>
Psalm 68:30,
the King James Version spearman); calamus (
<023023>
Exodus 30:23;
Song 4:14;
<262719>
Ezekiel 27:19); sweet cane, margin calamus
(
<234324>
Isaiah 43:24;
<240620>
Jeremiah 6:20); bone (
<183122>
Job 31:22); used of
the cross-beam of a balance (
<234606>
Isaiah 46:6); a measuring reed
(
<264003>
Ezekiel 40:3); a staff of reed, i.e. a walking-stick (
<233606>
Isaiah 36:6;
<262906>
Ezekiel 29:6); the branches of a candlestick (
<023718>
Exodus 37:18).
(6) [xooo, kalamos], a reed shaken with the wind (
<401107>
Matthew
11:7;
<420724>
Luke 7:24); a bruised reed (
<401220>
Matthew 12:20); they put a
reed in his right hand (
<402729>
Matthew 27:29,30); They smote his head
with a reed (
<411519>
Mark 15:19); put it on a reed (
<402748>
Matthew 27:48;
<411536>
Mark 15:36); a measuring reed (
<661101>
Revelation 11:1; 21:15,16);
a pen (
<640113>
3 John 1:13).
It is clear that qaneh and its Greek equivalent kalamos mean many things.
Some refer to different uses to which a reed is put, e.g. a cross-beam of a
balance, a walking-stick, a measuring rod, and a pen (see above), but apart
from this qaneh is a word used for at least two essentially different things:
(1) an ordinary reed, and
(2) some sweet-smelling substance.
(1) The most common reed in Palestine is the Arundo donax (Natural
Order Gramineae), known in Arabic as qacabfarasi, Persian reed. It
grows in immense quantities in the Jordan valley along the river and its
tributaries and at the oases near the Dead Sea, notably around `Ain
Feshkhah at the northwest corner. It is a lofty reed, often 20 ft. high, of
a beautiful fresh green in summer when all else is dead and dry, and of
a fine appearance from a distance in the spring months when it is in full
89
bloom and the beautiful silky panicles crown the top of every reed. The
covert of the reed (
<184021>
Job 40:21) shelters a large amount of animal
and bird life. This reed will answer to almost all the requirements of the
above references.
(2) Qaneh is in
<240620>
Jeremiah 6:20 qualified [b wOF h h n,q ;, qaneh ha-
Tobh], sweet or pleasant cane, and in
<023023>
Exodus 30:23, [ v o,b
h neq ], qeneh bhosem], sweet calamus, or, better, a cane of
fragrance. Song 4:14;
<234324>
Isaiah 43:24;
<262719>
Ezekiel 27:19 all apparently
refer to the same thing, though in these passages the qaneh is
unqualified. It was an ingredient of the holy oil (
<023023>
Exodus 30:23); it
was imported from a distance (
<240620>
Jeremiah 6:20;
<262719>
Ezekiel 27:19),
and it was rare and costly (
<234324>
Isaiah 43:24). It may have been the
scented calamus (Axorus calamus) of Pliny (NH, xii.48), or some
other aromatic scented reed or flag, or, as some think, some kind of
aromatic bark. The sweetness refers to the scent, not the taste.
See also BULRUSH; PAPYRUS.
E. W. G. Masterman
REED-GRASS
(
<014102>
Genesis 41:2,18;
<180811>
Job 8:11 margin).
See FLAG, (2); REED, (1).
REED, MEASURING
<mezh-ur-ing> ([h D ;ih ih h ne q ] , qeneh ha-middah]): In Ezekiels vision of
the temple a man (an angel) appears with a measuring reed to measure
the dimensions of the temple (
<264003>
Ezekiel 40:3 ff; 42:16 ff). The reed is
described as 6 cubits long, of a cubit and a handbreadth each, i.e. the
cubit used was a handbreadth longer than the common cubit (see CUBIT;
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES; TEMPLE). In the Apocalypse this idea of a
measuring reed reappears for measuring the temple (
<661101>
Revelation 11:1)
and the holy city (
<662115>
Revelation 21:15,16, a golden reed). The thought
conveyed is exactitude in the dimensions of these edifices, symbolic of the
symmetry and perfection of Gods church.
J ames Orr
90
REELAIAH
<re-el-a-ya>, <re-el-i-a> ([h y;l ][ er ], re`elyah]): One of the 12 chiefs who
returned with Zerubbabel (
<150202>
Ezra 2:2 parallel
<160707>
Nehemiah 7:7). In the
passage in Nehemiah the name is Raamiah ([h y; m] [ r , ra`amyah]), and
in 1 Esdras 5:8 Resaias. Which is the original, it is almost impossible to
decide; Reelaiah seems preferable.
REELIAS
<re-el-i-as> (Codex Alexandrinus [ Prro, Rheelias] (Fritzschel);
Codex Vaticanus followed by Swete, [Boporo, Boroleias]; the King
James Version Reelius): One of the leaders with Zerubbabel in the return
from exile (1 Esdras 5:8, margin Reelaiah). It occupies the place of
Bigvai in
<150202>
Ezra 2:2;
<160707>
Nehemiah 7:7, but in form it must be the
equivalent of Reelaiah of Ezra and Raamiah of Nehemiah. It is perhaps
a duplicate of Resaias.
REESAIAS
<re-e-sa-yas>, <re-e-si-as>: the King James Version; the Revised
Version (British and American) RESAIAS (which see).
REFINER; REFINING
<re-fin-er>, <re-fin-ing>: Two Hebrew words have been translated
refine:
(1) [t r x ; , tsaraph], literally, to fuse (
<381309>
Zechariah 13:9;
<234810>
Isaiah
48:10;
<390302>
Malachi 3:2,3, etc.). The same word is rendered also tried
(
<196610>
Psalm 66:10); melt (
<240629>
Jeremiah 6:29 the King James Version);
purge (
<230125>
Isaiah 1:25).
(2) [q q z; , zaqaq], literally, to strain or sift. In the case of silver
and gold the term probably referred to some washing process in
connection with refining, as in
<390303>
Malachi 3:3 both tsaraph and zaqaq
are used (
<132818>
1 Chronicles 28:18; 29:4;
<182801>
Job 28:1). The same word in
<232506>
Isaiah 25:6 referred to the straining of wine. Greek [upo,
puroo], in the passive, literally, to be ignited, is translated refined,
in
<660115>
Revelation 1:15; 3:18.
91
The ancient process of refining gold has already been described under
METALLURGY (which see). Most of the Bible references are to the
refining of silver (
<202504>
Proverbs 25:4;
<381309>
Zechariah 13:9;
<234810>
Isaiah 48:10).
The silver used by the ancients was probably obtained by smelting lead
sulfide ore, rich in silver (argentiferous galena). After the ore had been
reduced to a metallic condition, the lead was separated from the silver by
blowing hot air over the surface of the melted metal. The lead was thus
changed to lead oxide which, in a powdered condition, was driven away by
the air blast. The resulting lead oxide, called in the Bible silver dross, was
used for glazing pottery (
<202623>
Proverbs 26:23), a use to which it is still put
by Syrian potters. The description of refining in
<262218>
Ezekiel 22:18-22 may
indicate that a flux (compare as with lye,
<230125>
Isaiah 1:25 the American
Revised Version margin) was sometimes added to the melted metal to
dissolve the oxides of copper, lead, tin and iron as they formed, thus
leaving the silver pure. Crude processes similar to those described above
are used in the Taurus Mountains today.
FIGURATIVE:
In the various Bible references the refining of precious metals is used
figuratively to illustrate the kind of trial Gods children are called upon to
go through. If they are of the right metal the dross will finally be blown
away, leaving pure, clear, shining silver. If of base metal they will be like
the dross described in
<240629>
Jeremiah 6:29,30. The refiner may blow fiercely,
but in vain, for nothing but lead dross appears.
J ames A. Patch
REFORM
<re-form> ([r s y; , yacar]): The word in the Revised Version (British
and American) is found only in
<032623>
Leviticus 26:23, in the phrase ye will
not be reformed. The meaning is, to be instructed, or, more fully, to let
ones self be chastened, i.e. by Gods discipline to learn the lessons of this
chastening.
The Hebrew word is the same in a similar connection in
<240608>
Jeremiah 6:8,
where it is rendered, Be thou instructed, and in
<243118>
Jeremiah 31:18, I
was chastised.
<190210>
Psalm 2:10 (instructed);
<202919>
Proverbs 29:19
(corrected) use the Hebrew term of admonition by the words of man.
92
The King James Version also has reform in 2 Esdras 8:12; The Wisdom
of Solomon 9:18.
REFORMATION
<ref-or-ma-shun>: The word is found only in
<580910>
Hebrews 9:10, being the
translation of [op0o, diorthosis], in its only occurrence. This Greek
word means etymologically making straight, and was used of restoring to
the normally straight condition that which is crooked or bent. In this
passage it means the rectification of conditions, setting things to rights, and
is a description of the Messianic time.
REFRESH; REFRESHING
<re-fresh>, <re-fresh-ing>: Refresh occurs a few times in the Old
Testament as the translation of [v p n; , naphash], to take breath,
figurative to be refreshed (
<022312>
Exodus 23:12; 31:17;
<101614>
2 Samuel 16:14);
of [j w r ; , rawach], to have room (
<091623>
1 Samuel 16:23;
<183220>
Job 32:20,
margin find relief, the King James Version margin may breathe); of
[d [ s ; , ca`adh], to support (
<111307>
1 Kings 13:7); and in the New Testament
as the translation of [ovoou, anapauo], to give rest (1 Cor 16:18;
<470713>
2 Corinthians 7:13; Philem 1:7,20; in compound middle,
<451532>
Romans
15:32 the King James Version); also of [ovogu, anapsucho], to
invigorate, revive (2 Tim 1:16), and other words. Refreshing is in
<232812>
Isaiah 28:12 marge`ah, rest or quiet; and in
<440319>
Acts 3:19,
[ovogu, anapsuxis], seasons of refreshing, through the coming of
Jesus, the Christ; compare 2 Esdras 11:46 and the King James Version,
Sirach 43:22 [opo, hilaroo]).
W. L. Walker
REFUGE
<ref-uj>: A place of resort and safety. The principal words in the Old
Testament are [h s , j ] m , machceh] (
<191406>
Psalm 14:6; 46:1; 62:7,8;
<230406>
Isaiah 4:6, etc.), and [s wOnm;, manoc] (
<102203>
2 Samuel 22:3;
<195916>
Psalm
59:16, etc.), both applied chiefly to God as a refuge for His people. For
the King James Version refuge in
<053327>
Deuteronomy 33:27, the Revised
Version (British and American) has dwelling-place, and in
<190909>
Psalm 9:9,
high tower. Conversely, the Revised Version (British and American) has
93
refuge for the King James Version shelter in
<196103>
Psalm 61:3, and
hope in
<241717>
Jeremiah 17:17.
REFUGE, CITIES OF
[f l ; q ] Mi h yr e [ ; , `are ha-miqlaT]; [or tv uyorutqpv, poleis
ton phugadeuterion] (compare 1 Macc 10:28), and other forms):
1. LOCATION:
Six cities, three on each side of the Jordan, were set apart and placed in the
hands of the Levites, to serve as places of asylum for such as might shed
blood unwittingly. On the East of the Jordan they were Bezer in the lot of
Reuben, Ramoth-gilead in the tribe of Gad, and Golan in the territory of
Manasseh. On the West of the Jordan they were Hebron in Judah, Shechem
in Mt. Ephraim, and Kedesh in Naphtali (
<043506>
Numbers 35:6,14;
<062002>
Joshua
20:2,7 ff; 21:13,21,27,32,38; Bezer is named in 21:36, but not described as
a City of Refuge). An account of these cities is given in separate articles
under their names.
<051902>
Deuteronomy 19:2 speaks of three cities thus to be
set apart, referring apparently to the land West of the Jordan.
2. PURPOSE:
From time immemorial in the East, if a man were slain the duty of avenging
him has lain as a sacred obligation upon his nearest relative. In districts
where more primitive conditions prevail, even to this day, the distinction
between intentional and unintentional killing is not too strictly observed,
and men are often done to death in revenge for what was the purest
accident. To prevent such a thing where possible, and to provide for a right
administration of justice, these cities were instituted. Open highways were
to be maintained along, which the manslayer might have an unobstructed
course to the city gate.
3. REGULATIONS:
The regulations concerning the Cities of Refuge are found in Numbers 35;
<051901>
Deuteronomy 19:1-13; Joshua 20. Briefly, everything was to be done to
facilitate the flight of the manslayer, lest the avenger of blood, i.e. the
nearest of kin, should pursue him with hot heart, and, overtaking him,
should smite him mortally. Upon reaching the city he was to be received by
the elders and his case heard. If this was satisfactory, they gave him asylum
94
until a regular trial could be carried out. They took him, apparently, to the
city or district from which he had fled, and there, among those who knew
him, witnesses were examined. If it were proved that he was not a willful
slayer, that he had no grudge against the person killed, and had shown no
sign of purpose to injure him, then he was declared innocent and conducted
back to the city in which he had taken refuge, where he must stay until the
death of the high priest. Then he was free to return home in safety. Until
that event he must on no account go beyond the city boundaries. If he did,
the avenger of blood might slay him without blame. On the other hand, if
he were found guilty of deliberate murder, there was no more protection
for him. He was handed over to the avenger of blood who, with his own
hand, took the murderers life. Blood-money, i.e. money paid in
compensation for the murder, in settlement of the avengers claim, was in
no circumstances permitted; nor could the refugee be ransomed, so that he
might come again to dwell in the land until the death of the high priest
(
<043532>
Numbers 35:32).
A similar right of refuge seems to have been recognized in Israel as
attaching to the altar in the temple at Jerusalem (
<110150>
1 Kings 1:50; 2:28;
compare
<022112>
Exodus 21:12 f). This may be compared with the right of
asylum connected with the temples of the heathen.
W. Ewing
REFUSE
<re-fuz>: Formerly used with the additional meaning reject, and hence,
the change from the King James Version to the Revised Version (British
and American) in
<091607>
1 Samuel 16:7;
<260506>
Ezekiel 5:6;
<540404>
1 Timothy 4:4;
<600207>
1 Peter 2:7, etc.
REFUTE
<re-fut>: Only in
<650122>
Jude 1:22, the American Revised Version margin
And some refute while they dispute with you, where the Revised Version
(British and American) in the text reads And on some have mercy, who
are in doubt.
The Greek text of
<650122>
Jude 1:22,23 is very uncertain, being given very
differently in the various manuscripts. the Revised Version (British and
American) text follows the two oldest manuscripts, Codex Sinaiticus and
95
Codex Vaticanus. Instead of [rrotr, eleate], have mercy, the reading
[rryrtr, elegchete], refute, convict, has the powerful support of
Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Ephraemi, the best cursives, Vulgate,
Memphitic, Armenian and Ethiopian versions, and is placed in the text by
Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles (Westcott-Hort in list of Suspected
Readings says: Some primitive error probable: perhaps the first eleate an
interpolation). Compare
<650115>
Jude 1:15, where the same Greek word
occurs in the same sense (the King James Version convince, the Revised
Version (British and American) convict); compare also
<540520>
1 Timothy
5:20;
<560109>
Titus 1:9, where the same idea of refuting the sinful occurs.
D. Miall Edwards
REGEM
<re-gem> ([ g,r ,, reghem], friend (?)): A Calebite, the son of Jahdai
(
<130247>
1 Chronicles 2:47), mentioned as the eponym of a Calebite family or
clan.
REGEM-MELECH
<re-gem-me-lek>, <re-gem-mel-ek> ([ g,r , l ,m,, reghem melekh]):
One of a deputation sent to inquire concerning the propriety of continuing
the commemoration of the destruction of the temple by holding a fast
(
<380702>
Zechariah 7:2). The text of the passage is in disorder. The name may
mean friend of the king; hence, some have sought to remove the
difficulty by interpreting reghem melekh as a title, not a personal name,
reading the clause, They of Beth-el had sent SHAREZER (q.v. (2)), the
friend of the king.
REGENERATION
<re-jen-er-a-shun>, re-:
I. THE TERM EXPLAINED.
The theological term regeneration is the Latin translation of the Greek
expression [ovyrvroo, palingenesia], occurring twice in the New
Testament (
<401928>
Matthew 19:28;
<560305>
Titus 3:5). The word is usually written
[oyyrvroo, paliggenesia], in classical Greek. Its meaning is different
in the two passages, though an easy transition of thought is evident.
96
1. First Biblical Sense (Eschatological):
In
<401928>
Matthew 19:28 the word refers to the restoration of the world, in
which sense it is synonymical to the expressions [ooxotootoo
ovtv, apokatastasis panton], restoration of all things (
<440321>
Acts 3:21;
the verb is found in
<401711>
Matthew 17:11, [ooxotootqor ovto,
apokatastsei panta], shall restore all things), and [ovogr,
anapsuxis], refreshing (
<440319>
Acts 3:19), which signifies a gradual
transition of meaning to the second sense of the word under consideration.
It is supposed that regeneration in this sense denotes the final stage of
development of all creation, by which Gods purposes regarding the same
are fully realized, when all things (are put) in subjection under his feet (1
Cor 15:27). This is a regeneration in the proper meaning of the word, for
it signifies a renovation of all visible things when the old is passed away,
and heaven and earth are become new (compare
<662101>
Revelation 21:1). To
the Jew the regeneration thus prophesied was inseparably connected with
the reign of the Messiah.
We find this word in the same or very similar senses in profane literature. It
is used of the renewal of the world in Stoical philosophy. Josephus (Ant.,
XI, iii, 9) speaks of the anaktesis kai paliggenesia tes patridos, a new
foundation and regeneration of the fatherland, after the return from the
Babylonian captivity. Philo (ed. Mangey, ii.144) uses the word, speaking of
the post-diluvial epoch of the earth, as of a new world, and Marcus
Aurelius Antoninus (xi.1), of a periodical restoration of all things, laying
stress upon the constant recurrence and uniformity of all happenings, which
thought the Preacher expressed by There is no new thing under the sun
(
<210109>
Ecclesiastes 1:9). In most places, however, where the word occurs in
philosophical writings, it is used of the reincarnation or subsequent
birth of the individual, as in the Buddhistic and Pythagorean doctrine of
the transmigration of souls (Plut., edition Xylander, ii.998c; Clement of
Alexandria, edition Potter, 539) or else of a revival of life (Philo i.159).
Cicero uses the word in his letters to Atticus (vi.6) metaphorically of his
return from exile, as a new lease of life granted to him.
See ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, IX.
2. Second Biblical Sense (Spiritual):
This sense is undoubtedly included in the full Biblical conception of the
former meaning, for it is unthinkable that a regeneration in the
97
eschatological sense can exist without a spiritual regeneration of humanity
or the individual. It is, however, quite evident that this latter conception
has arisen rather late, from an analysis of the former meaning. It is found in
<560305>
Titus 3:5 which, without absolute certainty as to its meaning, is
generally interpreted in agreement with the numerous nouns and verbs
which have given the dogmatical setting to the doctrine of regeneration in
Christian theology. Clement of Alexandria is the first to differentiate this
meaning from the former by the addition of the adjective pneumatike,
spiritual (compare anapsuxis,
<440320>
Acts 3:20; see REFRESHING). In this
latter sense the word is typically Christian, though the Old Testament
contains many adumbrations of the spiritual process expressed thereby.
II. THE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF REGENERATION.
1. In the Old Testament:
It is well known that in the earlier portions of the Old Testament, and to a
certain degree all through the Old Testament, religion is looked at and
spoken of more as a national possession, the benefits of which are largely
visible and tangible blessings. The idea of regeneration here occurs
therefore though no technical expression has as yet been coined for the
process in the first meaning of the word elucidated above. Whether the
divine promises refer to the Messianic end of times, or are to be realized at
an earlier date, they all refer to the nation of Israel as such, and to
individuals only as far as they are partakers in the benefits bestowed upon
the commonwealth. This is even true where the blessings prophesied are
only spiritual, as in
<236021>
Isaiah 60:21,22. The mass of the people of Israel are
therefore as yet scarcely aware of the fact that the conditions on which
these divine promises are to be attained are more than ceremonial and ritual
ones. Soon, however, great disasters, threatening to overthrow the national
entity, and finally the captivity and dispersion which caused national
functions to be almost, if not altogether, discontinued, assisted in the
growth of a sense of individual or personal responsibility before God. The
sin of Israel is recognized as the sin of the individual, which can be
removed only by individual repentance and cleansing. This is best seen
from the stirring appeals of the prophets of the exile, where frequently the
necessity of a change of attitude toward Yahweh is preached as a means to
such regeneration. This cannot be understood otherwise than as a turning
of the individual to the Lord. Here, too, no ceremony or sacrifice is
sufficient, but an interposition of divine grace, which is represented under
98
the figure of a washing and sprinkling from all iniquity and sin (
<230118>
Isaiah
1:18;
<241323>
Jeremiah 13:23). It is not possible now to follow in full the
development of this idea of cleansing, but already in
<235215>
Isaiah 52:15 the
sprinkling of many nations is mentioned and is soon understood in the
sense of the baptism which proselytes had to undergo before their
reception into the covenant of Israel. It was the symbol of a radical
cleansing like that of a new-born babe, which was one of the
designations of the proselyte (compare
<198705>
Psalm 87:5; see also the tractate
Yebhamoth 62a). Would it be surprising that Israel, which had been guilty
of many sins of the Gentiles, needed a similar baptism and sprinkling? This
is what
<263625>
Ezekiel 36:25 suggests: I will sprinkle clean water upon you,
and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I
cleanse you. In other passages the cleansing and refining power of fire is
alluded to (e.g.
<390302>
Malachi 3:2), and there is no doubt that John the
Baptist found in such passages the ground for his practice of baptizing the
Jews who came to him (
<430125>
John 1:25-28 and parallels).
The turning of Israel to God was necessarily meant to be an inward change
of attitude toward Him, in other words, the sprinkling with clean water, as
an outward sign, was the emblem of a pure heart. It was Isaiah and
Jeremiah who drew attention to this (
<235715>
Isaiah 57:15;
<242407>
Jeremiah 24:7;
31:33-35; 32:38-40, et passim). Here again reference is made to
individuals, not only to the people in general (
<243134>
Jeremiah 31:34). This
promised regeneration, so lovingly offered by Yahweh, is to be the token
of a new covenant between God and His people (
<243131>
Jeremiah 31:31;
<261119>
Ezekiel 11:19-21; 18:31,32; 37:23,24).
The renewing and cleansing here spoken of is in reality nothing else than
what
<053006>
Deuteronomy 30:6 had promised, a circumcision of the heart in
contradistinction to the flesh, the token of the former (Abrahamic)
covenant (of circumcision,
<240404>
Jeremiah 4:4). As God takes the initiative in
making the covenant, the conviction takes root that human sin and
depravity can be effectually eliminated only by the act of God Himself
renewing and transforming the heart of man (
<281404>
Hosea 14:4). This we see
from the testimony of some of Israels best sons and daughters, who also
knew that this grace was found in the way of repentance and humiliation
before God. The classical expression of this conviction is found in the
prayer of David: Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right
(margin stedfast) spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence;
and take not thy holy Spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of thy
99
salvation; and uphold me with a willing spirit (
<195110>
Psalm 51:10-12).
Jeremiah puts the following words into the mouth of Ephraim: Turn thou
me, and I shall be turned (
<243118>
Jeremiah 31:18). Clearer than any passages
of the Old Testament, John the Baptist, forerunner of Christ and last
flaming torch of the time of the earlier covenant, spoke of the baptism, not
of water, but of the Holy Spirit and of fire (
<400311>
Matthew 3:11;
<420316>
Luke
3:16;
<430133>
John 1:33), leading thus to the realization of Old Testament
foreshadowings which became possible by faith in Christ.
2. In the Teaching of Jesus:
In the teaching of Jesus the need of regeneration has a prominent place,
though nowhere are the reasons given. The Old Testament had succeeded
and even the Gentile conscience agreed with it in convincing the
people of this need. The clearest assertion of it and the explanation of the
doctrine of regeneration is found in the conversation of Jesus with
Nicodemus (John 3). It is based upon
(1) the observation that man, even the most punctilious in the
observance of the Law, is dead and therefore unable to live up to the
demands of God. Only He who gave life at the beginning can give the
(spiritual) life necessary to do Gods will.
(2) Man has fallen from his virginal and divinely-appointed sphere, the
realm of the spirit, the Kingdom of God, living now the perishing
earthly life. Only by having a new spiritual nature imparted to him, by
being born anew (
<430303>
John 3:3, the Revised Version margin from
above, Greek anothen), by being born of the Spirit (
<430306>
John 3:6,8),
can he live the spiritual life which God requires of man.
These words are a New Testament exegesis of Ezekiels vision of the dead
bones (
<263701>
Ezekiel 37:1-10). It is the breath from Yahweh, the Spirit of
God, who alone can give life to the spiritually dead.
But regeneration, according to Jesus, is more than life, it is also purity. As
God is pure and sinless, none but the pure in heart can see God
(
<400508>
Matthew 5:8). This was always recognized as impossible to mere
human endeavor. Bildad the Shuhite declared, and his friends, each in his
turn, expressed very similar thoughts (
<180417>
Job 4:17; 14:4): How then can
man be just with God? Or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?
Behold, even the moon hath no brightness, and the stars are not pure in his
100
sight: how much less man, that is a worm! and the son of man, that is a
worm! (
<182504>
Job 25:4-6).
To change this lost condition, to impart this new life, Jesus claims as His
God-appointed task: The Son of man came to seek and to save that which
was lost (
<421910>
Luke 19:10); I came that they may have life, and may have
it abundantly (
<431010>
John 10:10). This life is eternal, imperishable: I give
unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch
them out of my hand (
<431028>
John 10:28). This life is imparted by Jesus
Himself: It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the
words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, and are life (
<430663>
John 6:63).
This life can be received on the condition of faith in Christ or by coming to
Him (
<431406>
John 14:6). By faith power is received which enables the sinner to
overcome sin, to sin no more (
<430811>
John 8:11).
The parables of Jesus further illustrate this doctrine. The prodigal is
declared to have been dead and to be alive again (
<421524>
Luke 15:24). The
new life from God is compared to a wedding garment in the parable of the
Marriage of the Kings Son (
<402211>
Matthew 22:11). The garment, the gift of
the inviting king, had been refused by the unhappy guest, who, in
consequence, was `cast out into the outer darkness (
<402213>
Matthew 22:13).
Finally, this regeneration, this new life, is explained as the knowledge of
God and His Christ: And this is life eternal, that they should know thee
the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ
(
<431703>
John 17:3). This seems to be an allusion to the passage in Hosea (4:6):
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast
rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to
me.
3. In Apostolic Teaching:
It may be said in general that the teaching of the apostles on the subject of
regeneration is a development of the teaching of Jesus on the lines of the
adumbrations of the Old Testament. Considering the differences in the
personal character of these writers, it is remarkable that such concord of
views should exist among them. Paul, indeed, lays more stress on the
specific facts of justification and sanctification by faith than on the more
comprehensive head of regeneration. Still the need of it is plainly stated by
Paul. It is necessary to salvation for all men. The body is dead because of
sin (
<450803>
Romans 8:3-11;
<490201>
Ephesians 2:1). The flesh is at enmity with
101
God (
<490215>
Ephesians 2:15); all mankind is darkened in their understanding,
alienated from the life of God (
<490418>
Ephesians 4:18). Similar passages
might be multiplied. Paul then distinctly teaches that thus is a new life in
store for those who have been spiritually dead. To the Ephesians he writes:
And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses
and sins (2:1), and later on: God, being rich in mercy, .... made us alive
together with Christ (2:4,5). A spiritual resurrection has taken place. This
regeneration causes a complete revolution in man. He has thereby passed
from under the law of sin and death and has come under the law of the
Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (
<450802>
Romans 8:2). The change is so radical
that it is possible now to speak of a new creature (2 Cor 5:17;
<480615>
Galatians 6:15, margin new creation), of a new man, that after God
hath been created in righteousness and holiness of truth (
<490424>
Ephesians
4:24), and of the new man, that is being renewed unto knowledge after
the image of him that created him (
<510310>
Colossians 3:10). All old things
are passed away; behold, they are become new (2 Cor 5:17).
Paul is equally explicit regarding the author of this change. The Spirit of
God, the Spirit of Christ has been given from above to be the source of
all new life (Romans 8); by Him we are proved to be the sons of God
(
<480406>
Galatians 4:6); we have been adopted into the family of God
(huiothesia,
<450815>
Romans 8:15;
<480405>
Galatians 4:5). Thus Paul speaks of the
second Adam, by whom the life of righteousness is initiated in us; just as
the first Adam became the leader in transgression, He is a life-giving
spirit (1 Cor 15:45). Paul himself experienced this change, and henceforth
exhibited the powers of the unseen world in his life of service. It is no
longer I that live, he exclaims, but Christ liveth in me: and that life which
I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God,
who loved me, and gave himself up for me (
<480220>
Galatians 2:20).
Regeneration is to Paul, no less than to Jesus, connected with the
conception of purity and knowledge. We have already noted the second
New Testament passage in which the word regeneration occurs
(
<560305>
Titus 3:5): According to his mercy he saved us, through the washing
(margin laver) of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, which he
poured out upon us richly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour. In
<461213>
1
Corinthians 12:13 such cleansing is called the baptism of the Spirit in
agreement with the oft-repeated promise (
<290228>
Joel 2:28 (in the Hebrew text
3:1);
<400311>
Matthew 3:11;
<410108>
Mark 1:8;
<420316>
Luke 3:16;
<440105>
Acts 1:5; 11:16).
There is, of course, in these passages no reference to mere water baptism,
102
any more than in
<263625>
Ezekiel 36:25. Water is but the tertium comparationis.
As water cleanseth the outer body, so the spirit purifies the inner man
(compare
<460611>
1 Corinthians 6:11;
<600321>
1 Peter 3:21).
The doctrine that regeneration redounds in true knowledge of Christ is
seen from
<490315>
Ephesians 3:15-19 and 4:17-24, where the darkened
understanding and ignorance of natural man are placed in contradistinction
to the enlightenment of the new life (see also
<510310>
Colossians 3:10). The
church redeemed and regenerated is to be a special possession, an
heritage of the Lord (
<490111>
Ephesians 1:11,14), and the whole creation is to
participate in the final redemption and adoption (
<450821>
Romans 8:21-23).
James finds less occasion to touch this subject than the other writers of the
New Testament. His Epistle is rather ethical than dogmatical in tone, still
his ethics are based on the dogmatical presuppositions which fully agree
with the teaching of other apostles. Faith to him is the human response to
Gods desire to impart His nature to mankind, and therefore the
indispensable means to be employed in securing the full benefits of the new
life, i.e. the sin-conquering power (1:2-4), the spiritual enlightenment (1:5)
and purity (1:27). There seems, however, to be little doubt that James
directly refers to regeneration in the words: Of his own will he brought us
forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his
creatures (1:18). It is supposed by some that these words, being
addressed to the twelve tribes which are of the Dispersion (1:1), do not
refer to individual regeneration, but to an election of Israel as a nation and
so to a Christian Israel. In this case the aftermath would be the redemption
of the Gentiles. I understand the expression first-fruits in the sense in
which we have noticed Pauls final hope in
<450821>
Romans 8:21-32, where the
regeneration of the believing people of God (regardless of nationality) is
the first stage in the regeneration or restoration of all creation. The
implanted (the Revised Version margin inborn) word (
<590121>
James 1:21;
compare
<600123>
1 Peter 1:23) stands parallel to the Pauline expression, law of
the Spirit (
<450802>
Romans 8:2).
Peter uses, in his sermon on the day of Pentecost, the words refreshing
(
<440319>
Acts 3:19) and restoration of all things (
<440321>
Acts 3:21) of the final
completion of Gods plans concerning the whole creation, and accordingly
looks here at Gods people as a whole. In a similar sense he says in his
Second Epistle, after mentioning the day of God: We look for new
heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness (2 Pet 3:13).
103
Still he alludes very plainly to the regeneration of individuals (1 Pet
1:3,13). The idea of a second birth of the believers is clearly suggested in
the expression, newborn babes (1 Pet 2:2), and in the explicit statement
of
<600123>
1 Peter 1:23: having been begotten again, not of corruptible seed,
but of incorruptible, through the word of God, which liveth and abideth.
It is in this sense that the apostle calls God Father (1 Pet 1:17) and the
believers children of obedience (1 Pet 1:14), i.e. obedient children, or
children who ought to obey. We have seen above that the agent by which
regeneration is wrought, the incorruptible seed of the word of God, finds a
parallel in Pauls and Jamess theology. All these expressions go back
probably to a word of the Master in
<431503>
John 15:3. We are made partakers
of the word by having received the spirit. This spirit (compare the Pauline
lifegiving spirit,
<461545>
1 Corinthians 15:45), the mind of Christ (1 Pet
4:1), is the power of the resurrected Christ active in the life of the believer.
Peter refers to the same thought in
<600315>
1 Peter 3:15,21. By regeneration we
become an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for
Gods own possession in whom divine virtues, the excellencies of him
who called you (1 Pet 2:9), are manifested. Here the apostle uses well-
known Old Testament expressions foreshadowing New Testament graces
(
<236106>
Isaiah 61:6; 66:21;
<021906>
Exodus 19:6;
<050706>
Deuteronomy 7:6), but he
individualizes the process of regeneration in full agreement with the
increased light which the teaching of Jesus has brought. The theology of
Peter also points out the contact of regeneration with purity and holiness (1
Pet 1:15,16) and true knowledge (1 Pet 1:14) or obedience (1 Pet 1:14;
3:16). It is not surprising that the idea of purity should invite the Old
Testament parallel of cleansing by water. The flood washed away the
iniquity of the world in the days of Noah, when eight souls were saved
through water: which also after a true likeness (the Revised Version margin
in the antitype) doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away
of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation (the Revised Version margin
inquiry, appeal) of a good conscience toward God, through the
resurrection (-life) of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 3:20,21).
The teaching of John is very closely allied with that of Jesus, as we have
already seen from the multitude of quotations we had to select from Johns
Gospel to illustrate the teaching of the Master. It is especially interesting to
note the cases where the apostle didactically elucidates certain of these
pronouncements of Jesus. The most remarkable apostolic gloss or
commentary on the subject is found in
<430739>
John 7:39. Jesus had spoken of
104
the change which faith in Him (coming to him) would cause in the lives
of His disciples; how divine energies like rivers of water should issue
forth from them; and the evangelist continues in explanation: But this
spake he of the Spirit, which they that believed on him were to receive: for
the Spirit was not yet given; because Jesus was not yet glorified. This
recognition of a special manifestation of divine power, transcending the
experience of Old Testament believers, was based on the declaration of
Christ, that He would send another Comforter (the Revised Version
(British and American) advocate, helper, Greek Parakletos), that he
may be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth (
<431416>
John 14:16,17).
In his Epistles, John shows that this Spirit bestows the elements of a
Godlike character which makes us to be sons of God, who before were
children of the devil (
<620310>
1 John 3:10,24; 4:13, etc.). This regeneration is
eternal life (
<620513>
1 John 5:13) and moral similarity with God, the very
character of God in man. As God is love, the children of God will love
(
<620502>
1 John 5:2). At the same time it is the life of God in man, also called
fellowship with Christ, victorious life which overcomes the world (
<620504>
1
John 5:4); it is purity (
<620303>
1 John 3:3-6) and knowledge (
<620220>
1 John 2:20).
The subject of regeneration lies outside of the scope of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, so that we look in vain for a clear dogmatical statement of it.
Still the epistle does in no place contradict the dogma, which, on the other
hand, underlies many of the statements made. Christ, the mediator of a
better covenant, which hath been enacted upon better promises (8:6), has
made purification of sins (1:3). In contradistinction to the first covenant,
in which the people approached God by means of outward forms and
ordinances, the new covenant (8:13) brought an eternal redemption
(9:12) by means of a divine cleansing (9:14). Christ brings many sons unto
glory and is author of their salvation (2:10). Immature Christians are
spoken of (as were the proselytes of the Old Testament) as babies, who
were to grow to the stature, character and knowledge of full-grown men
(5:13,14).
III. LATER DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE.
Very soon the high spiritual meaning of regeneration was obscured by the
development of priestcraft within the Christian church. When the initiation
into the church was thought of as accomplished by the mediation of
ministers thereto appointed, the ceremonies hereby employed became
105
means to which magic powers were of necessity ascribed. This we see
plainly in the view of baptismal regeneration, which, based upon half-
understood passages of Scripture quoted above, was taught at an early
date. While in the post-apostolic days we frequently find traces of a proper
appreciation of an underlying spiritual value in baptism (compare Didache
vii) many of the expressions used are highly misleading. Thus Gregory
Nazianzen (Orations, xi.2) calls baptism the second of the three births a
child of God must experience (the first is the natural birth, the third the
resurrection). This birth is of the day, free, delivering from passions,
taking away every veil of our nature or birth, i.e. everything hiding the
divine image in which we are created, and leading up to the life above
(Ullmann, Gregor v. Nazienz, 323). Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat., xvii, c. 37)
ascribes to baptism the power of absolution from sin and the power of
endowment with heavenly virtues. According to Augustine baptism is
essential to salvation, though the baptism of blood (martyrdom) may take
the place of water baptism, as in the case of the thief at the cross
(Augustine, Deuteronomy Anima et Eius Origine, i.11, c. 9; ii.14, c. 10;
ii.16, c. 12). Leo the Great compares the spirit-filled water of baptism with
the spirit-filled womb of the virgin Mary, in which the Holy Spirit
engenders a sinless child of God (Serm. xxiv.3; xxv.5; see Hagenbach,
Dogmengeschichte, section 137).
In general this is still the opinion of pronounced sacrmentarians, while
evangelical Christianity has gone back to the teaching of the New
Testament.
IV. PRESENT SIGNIFICANCE.
Although a clear distinction is not always maintained between regeneration
and other experiences of the spiritual life, we may summarize our belief in
the following theses:
(1) Regeneration implies not merely an addition of certain gifts or
graces, a strengthening of certain innate good qualities, but a radical
change, which revolutionizes our whole being, contradicts and
overcomes our old fallen nature, and places our spiritual center of
gravity wholly outside of our own powers in the realm of Gods
causation.
(2) It is the will of God that all men be made partakers of this new life
(1 Tim 2:4) and, as it is clearly stated that some fall short of it (
<430540>
John
106
5:40), it is plain that the fault thereof lies with man. God requires all
men to repent and turn unto Him (
<441730>
Acts 17:30) before He will or can
effect regeneration. Conversion, consisting in repentance and faith in
Christ, is therefore the human response to the offer of salvation which
God makes. This response gives occasion to and is synchronous with
the divine act of renewal (regeneration). The Spirit of God enters into
union with the believing, accepting spirit of man. This is fellowship
with Christ (
<450810>
Romans 8:10;
<460617>
1 Corinthians 6:17;
<470517>
2 Corinthians
5:17;
<510303>
Colossians 3:3).
(3) The process of regeneration is outside of our observation and
beyond the scope of psychological analysis. It takes place in the sphere
of subconsciousness. Recent psychological investigations have thrown
a flood of light on the psychic states which precede, accompany and
follow the work of the Holy Spirit. He handles psychical powers; He
works upon psychical energies and states; and this work of
regeneration lies somewhere within the psychical field. The study of
religious psychology is of highest value and greatest importance. The
facts of Christian experience cannot be changed, nor do they lose in
value by the most searching psychological scrutiny.
Psychological analysis does not eliminate the direct workings of the Holy
Spirit. Nor can it disclose its process; the underlying laboratory where are
wrought radical remedial processes and structural changes in the psychical
being as portrayed in explicit scriptural utterances: `Create in me a clean
heart (
<195110>
Psalm 51:10); `Ye must be born again (
<430307>
John 3:7 the King
James Version); `If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things
are passed away; behold all things are become new (2 Cor 5:17 the King
James Version), is in the region of subconsciousness. To look in the region
of consciousness for this Person or for His work is fruitless and an effort
fraught with endless confusion. Christian psychology thus traces to its
deep-lying retreat the divine elaboration of the regenerated life. Here God
works in the depths of the soul as silently and securely as if on the remotest
world of the stellar universe (H. E. Warner, Psychology of the Christian
Life, 117).
(4) Regeneration manifests itself in the conscious soul by its effects on
the will, the intelligence and the affections. At the same time
regeneration supplies a new life-power of divine origin, which enables
the component parts of human nature to fulfill the law of God, to strive
107
for the coming of Gods kingdom, and to accept the teachings of Gods
spirit. Thus regenerate man is made conscious of the facts of
justification and adoption. The former is a judicial act of God, which
frees man from the law of sin and absolves him from the state of enmity
against God; the latter an enduement with the Spirit, which is an
earnest of his inheritance (
<490114>
Ephesians 1:14). The Spirit of God,
dwelling in man, witnesses to the state of sonship (
<450802>
Romans
8:2,15,16;
<480406>
Galatians 4:6).
(5) Regeneration, being a new birth, is the starting-point of spiritual
growth. The regenerated man needs nurture and training. He receives it
not merely from outside experiences, but from an immanent power in
himself, which is recognized as the power of the life of the indwelling
Christ (
<510126>
Colossians 1:26,27). Apart from the mediate dealings of
God with man through word and sacraments, there is therefore an
immediate communication of life from God to the regenerate.
(6) The truth which is mentioned as the agent by whom regeneration is
made possible (
<430832>
John 8:32;
<590118>
James 1:18;
<600123>
1 Peter 1:23), is
nothing else than the Divine Spirit, not only the spoken or written word
of God, which may convince people of right or wrong, but which
cannot enable the will of man to forsake the wrong and to do the right,
but He who calls Himself the Truth (
<431406>
John 14:6) and who has
become the motive power of regenerated life (
<480220>
Galatians 2:20).
(7) Recent philosophy expressive of the reaction from the mechanical
view of bare materialism, and also from the depreciation of personality
as seen in socialism, has again brought into prominence the reality and
need of personal life. Johannes Muller and Rudolf Eucken among
others emphasize that a new life of the spirit, independent of outward
conditions, is not only possible, but necessary for the attainment of the
highest development. This new life is not a fruit of the free play of the
tendencies and powers of natural life, but is in sharp conflict with them.
Man as he is by nature stands in direct contrast to the demands of the
spiritual life. Spiritual life, as Professor Eucken says, can be implanted
in man by some superior power only and must constantly be sustained
by superior life. It breaks through the order of causes and effects; it
severs the continuity of the outer world; it makes impossible a rational
joining together of realities; it prohibits a monastic view of the
immediate condition of the world. This new life derives its power not
108
from mere Nature; it is a manifestation of divine life within us
(Hauptprobleme der Religionsphilosophie, Leipzig, 1912, 17 ff; Der
Kampf um einen geistigen Lebensinhalt, Leipzig, 1907; Grundlinien
einer neuen Lebensanschauung, Leipzig, 1907; Johannes Muller,
Bausteine fur personliche Kultur, 3 volumes, Munchen, 1908). Thus
the latest development of idealistic philosophy corroborates in a
remarkable way the Christian truth of regeneration.
See also CONVERSION.
LITERATURE
New Testament Theologies by Weiss, Beyschlag, Holtzmann, Schlatter,
Feine, Stevens, Sheldon, Weinel. Textbooks on Systematic Theology:
articles Bekehrung by R. Seeberg; Wiedergeburt by O. Kirn in Hauck-
Herzog RE3; Regeneration by J. V. Bartlett in HDB; Conversion by J.
Strachan in ERE; George Jackson, The Fact of Conversion, London, 1908;
Newton H. Marshall, Conversion; or, the New Birth, London, 1909; J.
Herzog, Der Begriff der Bekehrung, Giessen, 1903; P. Feine, Bekehrung
im New Testament und in der Gegenwart, Leipzig, 1908; P. Gennrich, Die
Lehre yon der Wiedergeburt, Leipzig, 1907. Psychological: W. James,
Varieties of Religious Experience, 189-258; G. Stanley Hall, Adolescence,
II, 281-362; G. A. Coe, The Spiritual Life, New York, 1900; E. D.
Starbuck, Psychology of Religion, New York, 1911; G. B. Cutten,
Psychological Phenomena of Christianity, London, 1909; H. E. Warner,
The Psychology of the Christian Life, New York, 1910; H. W. Clark, The
Philosophy of Christian Experience, London, 1906; Harold Begbie, Broken
Earthenware, or Twice-Born Men, London, 1909; M. Scott Fletcher, The
Psychology of the New Testament, London, 1912.
J ohn L. Nuelsen
REGENERATION, BAPTISMAL
See BAPTISMAL REGENERATION.
REGION
<re-jun>: A district, as in modern English. The word region is used
by English Versions of the Bible interchangeably with country, coasts,
etc., for various Hebrew and Greek terms, but region round about is
usually in the King James Version and invariably in the Revised Version
109
(British and American) the translation of [rppo, perichoros],
surrounding country. For a possible technical use of region in
<441606>
Acts
16:6 and the Revised Version (British and American) 18:23.
See GALATIA.
REGISTER
<rej-is-ter>.
See GENEALOGY; QUIRINIUS.
REHABIAH
<re-ha-bi-a> ([h y; b ] j r ] , rechabhyah], [Wh y;b ]j r ], rechabhyahu], Yah
is wide): Son of Eliezer, and grandson of Moses. Eponym of a Levitical
family (
<132317>
1 Chronicles 23:17; 24, 21; 26:25).
REHEARSE
<re-hurs> ([ Wc , sum], [r b D ; , dabhar], [d g n;, naghadh], [h n;T ;,
tanah]; [ovoyyr, anaggello]): Usually means simply to relate, to
tell, to declare (
<021714>
Exodus 17:14;
<070511>
Judges 5:11;
<090821>
1 Samuel 8:21;
17:31;
<441427>
Acts 14:27); with rehearse from the beginning in
<441104>
Acts 11:4
for [opoo, archomai], begin (so the Revised Version (British and
American)). the Revised Version (British and American) has preserved
uniformity by translating anaggello by rehearse also in
<441504>
Acts 15:4, and
has introduced rehearse as the translation of [rqyroo, exegeomai],
throughout (
<422435>
Luke 24:35;
<441008>
Acts 10:8; 15:12,14; 21:19), except in
<430118>
John 1:18 (declare). Sirach 19:7, the King James Version has
rehearse for [rutrpo, deuteroo], repeat (so the Revised Version
(British and American)).
REHOB
<re-hob> ([b j or ] , rechobh]; [ Pop, Rhoob], [ Poop, Rhaab]):
(1) Etymologically the word means broad and might be applied either
to a road or a plain. Rehob is given (
<041321>
Numbers 13:21) as the
northern limit of Israel as reached by the spies. This agrees with the
position assigned to Beth-rehob in the narrative of the settlement of the
110
Danites (
<071828>
Judges 18:28). It is mentioned again along with the
kingdom of Zobah in connection with the wars of Saul (
<091447>
1 Samuel
14:47 Septuagint Lag.), and as having been associated with, Zobah and
Maacah against David in the Ammonite war and as having been
defeated by him (
<101006>
2 Samuel 10:6). Robinson sought to identify it
with Hunin, but it hardly suits the references. Buhl (GAP, 240)
following Thomson (LB, II, 547) seeks it at Paneas (modern Banias).
This would suit all the requirements of the capital, Beth-rehob, which
might then be the second Rehob, assigned as part of the territory of
Sidon to the tribe Asher (
<061928>
Joshua 19:28,30;
<071828>
Judges 18:28). We
must, however, assign to the kingdom of Rehob a territory extending
from the settlements of the Danites to the entering in of Hamath or to
Libo (modern Leboue), i.e. the Great Plain of Coele-Syria bounded by
Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon and within the limits indicated.
(2) Two separate towns belonging to Asher (
<061928>
Joshua 19:28; 19:30).
One of them was given to the Gershonite Levites (
<062131>
Joshua 21:31),
and one is mentioned as remaining in the hands of the Canaanites
(
<070131>
Judges 1:31).
(3) Father of Hadadezer, king of Aram Zobah, who was overwhelmed
by David at the Euphrates (
<100803>
2 Samuel 8:3,12).
(4) One of the Levites who sealed Nehemiahs covenant on the 24th
Tishri, 444 BC (
<161011>
Nehemiah 10:11).
W. M. Christie
REHOBOAM
<re-ho-bo-am> ([ [ ; O b ] j r ] , rechabh`am], the people is enlarged, or
perhaps Amos is wide [ Popoo, Rhoboam]; Roboam,
<400107>
Matthew
1:7 the King James Version):
The son and successor of Solomon, the last king to claim the throne of old
Israel and the first king of Judah after the division of the kingdom. He was
born circa 978 BC. His mother was Naamah, an Ammonitess. The account
of his reign is contained in
<111421>
1 Kings 14:21-31; 2 Chronicles 10 through
12. The incidents leading to the disruption of the kingdom are told in
<111143>
1
Kings 11:43 through 12:24;
<140931>
2 Chronicles 9:31 through 11:4.
111
1. THE DISRUPTION OF THE KINGDOM:
Rehoboam was 41 years old (
<141213>
2 Chronicles 12:13) when he began to
reign Septuagint
<111224>
1 Kings 12:24a says 16 years). He ascended the throne
at Jerusalem immediately upon his fathers death with apparently no
opposition. North Israel, however, was dissatisfied, and the people
demanded that the king meet them in popular assembly at Shechem, the
leading city of Northern Israel. True, Israel was no longer, if ever, an
elective monarchy. Nevertheless, the people claimed a constitutional
privilege, based perhaps on the transaction of Samuel in the election of
Saul (
<091025>
1 Samuel 10:25), to be a party to the conditions under which they
would serve a new king and he become their ruler: David, in making
Solomon his successor, had ignored this wise provision, and the people,
having lost such a privilege by default, naturally deemed their negligence
the cause of Solomons burdensome taxes and forced labor. Consequently,
they would be more jealous of their rights for the future, and Rehoboam
accordingly would have to accede to their demand. Having come together
at Shechem, the people agreed to accept Rehoboam as their king on
condition that he would lighten the grievous service and burdensome taxes
of his father. Rehoboam asked for three days time in which to consider the
request. Against the advice of men of riper judgment, who assured him that
he might win the people by becoming their servant, he chose the counsel of
the younger men, who were of his own age, to rule by sternness rather than
by kindness, and returned the people a rough answer, saying: My father
made your yoke heavy, but I will add to your yoke: my father chastised
you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions (
<111214>
1 Kings 12:14).
Rehoboam, however, misjudged the temper of the people, as well as his
own ability. The people, led by Jeroboam, a leader more able than himself,
were ready for rebellion, and so force lost the day where kindness might
have won. The threat of the king was met by the Marseillaise of the people:
What portion have we in David? neither have we inheritance in the son of
Jesse: to your tents, O Israel: now see to thine own house, David (
<111216>
1
Kings 12:16). Thus the ten tribes dethroned Rehoboam, and elected
Jeroboam, their champion and spokesman, their king (see JEROBOAM).
Rehoboam, believing in his ability to carry out his threat (
<111214>
1 Kings
12:14), sent Adoram, his taskmaster, who no doubt had quelled other
disturbances, to subdue the populace, which, insulted by indignities and
enraged by Rehoboams renewed insolence, stoned his messenger to death.
Realizing, for the first time, the seriousness of the revolt, Rehoboam fled
112
ignominiously back to Jerusalem, king only of Judah and of the adjacent
territory of the tribe of Benjamin. The mistake of Rehoboam, was the
common mistake of despots. He presumed too much on privilege not
earned by service, and on power for which he was not willing to render
adequate compensation.
2. UNDERLYING CAUSES OF DISRUPTION:
It is a mistake, however, to see in the disruption the shattering of a
kingdom that had long been a harmonious whole. From the earliest times
the confederation of tribes was imperfectly cemented. They seldom united
against their common foe. No mention is made of Judah in the list of tribes
who fought with Deborah against Sisera. A chain of cities held by the
Canaanites, stretching across the country from East to West, kept the
North and the South apart. Different physical characteristics produced
different types of life in the two sections. Old jealousies repeatedly fanned
into new flame intensified the divisions due to natural and artificial causes.
David labored hard to break down the old antagonisms, but even in his
reign Israel rebelled twice. Northern Israel had produced many of the
strongest leaders of the nation, and it was not easy for them to submit to a
ruler from the Judean dynasty. Solomon, following Davids policy of
unification, drew the tribes closely together through the centralization of
worship at Jerusalem and through the general splendor of his reign, but he,
more than any other, finally widened the gulf between the North and the
South, through his unjust discriminations, his heavy taxes, his forced labor
and the general extravagances of his reign. The religion of Yahweh was the
only bond capable of holding the nation together. The apostasy of Solomon
severed this bond. The prophets, with their profound knowledge of
religious and political values, saw less danger to the true worship of
Yahweh in a divided kingdom than in a united nation ruled over by
Rehoboam, who had neither political sagacity nor an adequate conception
of the greatness of the religion of Yahweh. Accordingly, Ahijah openly
encouraged the revolution, while Shemaiah gave it passive support.
3. SHEMAIAH FORBIDS CIVIL WAR:
Immediately upon his return to Jerusalem, Rehoboam collected a large
army of 180,000 men (reduced to 120,000 in the Septuagints Codex
Vaticanus), for the purpose of making war against Israel. The expedition,
however, was forbidden by Shemaiah the prophet on the ground that they
113
should not fight against their brethren, and that the division of the kingdom
was from God. Notwithstanding the prohibition, we are informed that
there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually (
<111430>
1 Kings
14:30;
<141215>
2 Chronicles 12:15).
4. REHOBOAMS PROSPERITY:
Rehoboam next occupied himself in strengthening the territory which still
remained to him by fortifying a number of cities (
<141105>
2 Chronicles 11:5-12).
These cities were on the roads to Egypt, or on the western hills of the
Judean Shephelah, and were doubtless fortifled as a protection against
Egypt. According to
<141113>
2 Chronicles 11:13-17, Rehoboams prosperity
was augmented by an immigration of priests and Levites from Israel, who
came to Jerusalem because of their opposition to the idolatrous worship
instituted by Jeroboam. All who were loyal to Yahweh in the Northern
Kingdom are represented as following the example of the priests and
Levites in going to Jerusalem, not simply to sacrifice, but to reside there
permanently, thus strengthening Rehoboams kingdom. In view of the fact
that Rehoboam added to the innovations of his father, erected pillars of
Baal in Jerusalem long before they were common in Northern Israel, and
that he permitted other heathen abominations and immoralities, it seems
that the true worship of Yahweh received little encouragement from the
king himself. As a further evidence of his prosperity, Chronicles gives an
account of Rehoboams family. Evidently he was of luxurious habit and
followed his father in the possession of a considerable harem (
<141118>
2
Chronicles 11:18-23). He is said to have had 18 wives and 60 concubines,
(
<141121>
2 Chronicles 11:21; the Septuagints Codex Vaticanus and Josephus,
Ant, VIII, x, 1 give 30 concubines).
5. SHISHAKS INVASION:
One of the direct results of the disruption of the kingdom was the invasion
of Palestine by Shishak, king of Egypt, in the 5th year of Rehoboam.
Shishak is Sheshonk. I, the first king of the XXIId or Bubastite Dynasty.
He is the same ruler who granted hospitality to Jeroboam when he was
obliged to flee from Solomon (
<111140>
1 Kings 11:40). The Septuagint (
<111224>
1
Kings 12:24e) informs us that Jeroboam married Ano, the sister of
Shishaks wife, thus becoming brother-in-law to the king of Egypt. It is
therefore easy to suppose that Jeroboam, finding himself in straits in
holding his own against his rival, Rehoboam, called in the aid of his former
114
protector. The results of this invasion, however, are inscribed on the
temple at Karnak in Upper Egypt, where a list of some 180 (Curtis,
Chronicles, ICC) towns captured by Shishak is given. These belong to
Northern Israel as well as Judah, showing that Shishak exacted tribute
there as well as in Judah, which seems scarcely reconcilable with the view
that he invaded Palestine as Jeroboams ally. However, the king of Israel,
imploring the aid of Shishak against his rival, thereby made himself vassal
to Egypt. This would suffice to make his towns figure at Karnak among the
cities subjected in the course of the campaign. The Chronicler saw in
Shishak an instrument in the hand of God for the punishment of R. and the
people for the national apostasy. According to
<141203>
2 Chronicles 12:3,
Shishak had a force of 1,200 chariots and 60,000 horsemen to which
Josephus adds 400,000 foot-soldiers, composed of Lubim, Sukkum and
Ethiopians. No resistance appears to have been offered to the advance of
the invading army. Not even Jerusalem seems to have stood a siege. The
palace and the temple were robbed of all their treasures, including the
shields of gold which Solomon had made. For these Rehoboam later
substituted shields of brass (
<141209>
2 Chronicles 12:9,10).
6. HIS DEATH:
Rehoboam died at the age of fifty-eight, after having reigned in Jerusalem
for 17 years. His son Abijah became his successor. He was buried in
Jerusalem. Josephus says that in disposition he was a proud and foolish
man, and that he despised the worship of God, till the people themselves
imitated his wicked actions (Ant., VIII, x, 2).
S. K. Mosiman
REHOBOTH
<re-ho-both>, <re-ho-both> ([t wOb j or ], rehobhoth], broad places;
[Eupupo, Euruchoria]): One of the wells dug by Isaac (
<012622>
Genesis
26:22). It is probably the Rubuta of the Tell el-Amarna Letters (Petrie,
numbers 256, 260; see also The Expository Times, XI, 239 (Konig), 377
(Sayce)), and it is almost certainly identical with the ruin Ruchaibeh, 8
hours Southwest of Beersheba. Robinson (BR, I, 196-97) describes the
ruins of the ancient city as thickly covering a level tract of 10 to 12 acres
in extent; many of the dwellings had each its cistern, cut in the solid
rock; once this must have been a city of not less than 12,000 or 15,000
inhabitants. Now it is a perfect field of ruins, a scene of unutterable
115
desolation, across which the passing stranger can with difficulty find his
way. Huntington (Palestine and Its Transformation, 124) describes
considerable remains of a suburban population extending both to the North
and to the South of this once important place.
E. W. G. Masterman
REHOBOTH BY THE RIVER
([r h ;N;h t wOb j or ], rehobhoth ha-nahar]; Codex Vaticanus [ Pop0
Rhooboth] ([ Pp0 Rhoboth] in Chronicles) [q opo otoov, he para
potamon]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Pp0, Rhoboth]): This city is
mentioned only as the residence of Shaul, one of the rulers of Edom
(
<013637>
Genesis 36:37;
<130148>
1 Chronicles 1:48). There is nothing to guide us
with certainty as to the situation of the city. Eusebius (Onomasticon)
places it in Idumaea (Gebalene), but no trace of a name resembling this has
been found in the district. The river usually means the Euphrates. If the
city could have been so far from Edom, it might be identified with Rahaba
on the West of the river, 8 miles South of its confluence with the Khabur.
Winckler thinks it might possibly be on the boundary between Palestine and
Egypt, the river being Wady el-`Arish, the brook of Egypt (Numbers
5;
<061504>
Joshua 15:4, etc.).
W. Ewing
REHOBOTH-IR
<r.-ur>, <r.-ir> ([r y[ i t noj or ], rehobhoth `ir], Rehoboth City; Septuagint
[q Pop, he Rhohbos] ([ Pop0, Rhooboth]) [o, polis], the
city Rhoobos, [Rhooboth]):
1. PROBABLY REBIT NINUA:
The second of the cities built by Asshur (the Revised Version (British and
American) by Nimrod) in Assyria (
<011011>
Genesis 10:11,12). Unlike the other
three, the exact equivalent of this name is not found in Assyrian literature
Fried. Delitzsch points out (Wo lag das Paradies? 260 f) that rechobhoth is
the equivalent of the Assyrian rebite, streets, and suggests that the site
referred to may be the Rebit Ninua, streets of Nineveh, mentioned by
Sargon of Assyria in connection with the peopling of Maganubba
(Khorsabad or Dur-Sarru-kin; see NINEVEH); and it was through this tract
that Esar-haddon, his grandson, caused the heads of the kings of Kundi and
116
Sidon to be carried in procession when he returned from his expedition to
the Mediterranean.
2. OR, POSSIBLY, THE OLD CAPITAL, ASSUR:
Though the probabilities in favor of Rebit Ninua are great, it is doubtful
whether a suburb could have been regarded as a foundation worthy of a
primitive ruler, and that a very important city, Assur, the old capital of
Assyria, would rather be expected. One of the groups expressing its name
is composed of the characters Sag-uru, or, dialectically, Sab-eri, the second
element being the original of the Hebrew `ir. As the center-city, Assur
may have been regarded as the city of broad spaces (rechobhoth) its
ruins are of considerable extent. The German explorers there have made
many important discoveries of temples, temple- towers, palaces and streets,
the most picturesque in ancient times being the twin tower-temples of Anu
(the sky) and Adad (Hadad). The ruins lie on the Tigris, about 50 miles
South of Nineveh. It practically ceased to be the capital about the middle
of the 8th century BC.
See NINEVEH.
T. G. Pinches
REHUM
<re-hum> ([ Wj r ], rechum], or [ j ur ], rechum]):
(1) One of the twelve heads of the Jewish community returning from
captivity with Zerubbabel (
<150202>
Ezra 2:2;
<160707>
Nehemiah 7:7 (by a
copyists error Nehum); 12:3; 1 Esdras 5:8, Roimus).
(2) A Persian officer of high rank (literally, master of judgment, taste,
reason) who with others wrote a letter against Jerusalem to King
Artaxerxes (
<150408>
Ezra 4:8,9,17,23).
(3) Son of Bani, a Levite, one of the wall-builders under Nehemiah
(
<160317>
Nehemiah 3:17).
(4) One of the signers of the covenant in
<161025>
Nehemiah 10:25.
(5) In
<161203>
Nehemiah 12:3 (omitted in the Septuagint) one Rehum is
mentioned with those who went up with Zerubbabel. It is probable that
117
we should read here Harim ([ r ij ;, charim] for [ Wj r ], rechum] of
<161215>
Nehemiah 12:15).
W. N. Stearns
REI
<re-i> ([y[ ir e, re`i], friendly; [ Pqor, Rhesei]): Rei, Shimei and the
Gibborim who belonged to David are listed among those who did not join
Adonijah in his attempt on the throne (
<110108>
1 Kings 1:8). The name is very
uncertain. Winckler (Geschichte, II, 247) identifies him with Ira, the Jairite,
who was a priest to David (
<102026>
2 Samuel 20:26 the Revised Version
margin); he tries to prove that this Ira (or Jair) was a priest of Bethlehem.
Stade (GVI, I, 293, note 1) holds that Shimei and Rei were two officers of
Davids bodyguard. Josephus (Ant., VII, xiv, 4) has [o Aoouou o,
ho Daouidou philos], thus making Shimei a friend, the courtier of
<101537>
2
Samuel 15:37; 16:16, and omitting Rei entirely. This would call for an
original reading [ l , M, h [ r e , re`h ha-melekh], or [ l , M, h h [ e r e , re`eh
ha-melekh], and is too wide a variant from the Massoretic Text. Assuming
that Rei belongs in the text, it is safe to conjecture that he was an officer of
the royal guard.
Horace J . Wolf
REIGN
<ran>: The Hebrew word [t Wk l ] m , malekhuth], may be rendered
kinghood, royal dignity, kingdom, government (reign). The verb
is [ l m; , malakh], to be king (to reign as king), to become king,
to accede to the throne, to assume royal power publicly and, generally
speaking, to become powerful. In the New Testament [qyrovo,
hegemonia], [pooro, basileia], [poorurv, basileuein]. The word
is used, either as a noun or as a verb, of Yahweh (God), the Messiah
(Christ) and men (kings, etc.); then of such terms as sin, death, grace; of
the woman in Revelation and, conditionally, of the Christians; once,
ironically, of the Corinthians. Reign as a noun referring to the time of
reigning occurs in
<110601>
1 Kings 6:1 (Solomon);
<122412>
2 Kings 24:12
(Nebuchadnezzar);
<130431>
1 Chronicles 4:31 (David; compare
<132930>
1 Chronicles
29:30);
<143620>
2 Chronicles 36:20 (until the reign of the kingdom of Persia);
<161222>
Nehemiah 12:22 (Darius); Est 2:16 (Ahasuerus);
<420301>
Luke 3:1 (Tiberius
118
Caesar). More often occurs the verb to reign, malakh, basileuein. It is
applied to:
(1) Yahweh at the close of the song of Moses (
<021518>
Exodus 15:18);
Yahweh reigneth (
<131631>
1 Chronicles 16:31; compare
<199301>
Psalm 93:1;
96:10; 99:1;
<661906>
Revelation 19:6); God reigneth over the nations
(
<194708>
Psalm 47:8); Yahweh of hosts will reign in mount Zion
(
<232423>
Isaiah 24:23; compare
<330407>
Micah 4:7); Thy God reigneth
(
<235207>
Isaiah 52:7); Thou hast taken thy great power and didst reign
(
<661117>
Revelation 11:17, meaning probably thou didst assume thy
might);
(2) the Messiah (Christ) as a just and righteous king (
<242305>
Jeremiah
23:5); an eternal king (
<420133>
Luke 1:33; compare
<661115>
Revelation 11:15);
punishing and subduing His enemies (
<421914>
Luke 19:14,27;
<461525>
1
Corinthians 15:25).
(3) Men (kings, etc.), in regard to the source of their power (By me
(i.e. the wisdom of God), kings reign (
<200815>
Proverbs 8:15)); respecting
legitimate succession (
<142303>
2 Chronicles 23:3); meaning to have power
or dominion (
<013708>
Genesis 37:8 and
<183430>
Job 34:30); in regard to an
essential characteristic (
<233201>
Isaiah 32:1); in connection with the
covenant of Yahweh with David (
<243321>
Jeremiah 33:21); then the word is
used in
<091212>
1 Samuel 12:12, where Samuel reminds the children of
Israel of their demanding a king of him (compare verse 14); of Saul
(
<091301>
1 Samuel 13:1; compare 11:12); of Sauls son Ish-bosheth (
<100210>
2
Samuel 2:10); of David (
<100504>
2 Samuel 5:4 f; compare 3:21); of
Adonijah (
<110111>
1 Kings 1:11,24; compare 2:15); of Solomon (
<110113>
1 Kings
1:13); quite frequently of the kings of Judah and Israel (in the Books of
Kings and Chronicles); of the kings of Edom (
<013631>
Genesis 36:31); of
Jabin, king of Canaan, in Razor (
<070402>
Judges 4:2); of Abimelech,
Jerubbaals son, in Jothams fable (
<070908>
Judges 9:8-15); of Hanun, king
of the Ammonites (
<101001>
2 Samuel 10:1); of Rezon and his men in
Damascus (
<111124>
1 Kings 11:24); of Hazael and Ben-hadad, kings of Syria
(
<120815>
2 Kings 8:15 and 13:24); of Esar-haddon, king of Assyria (
<121937>
2
Kings 19:37); of Ahasuerus, king of Persia (Est 1:1); of Archelaus
(
<400222>
Matthew 2:22).
(4) In the New Testament the term basileuein, to reign, is used to
illustrate and emphasize the power of sin, death and grace (
<450514>
Romans
119
5:14,17,21 and 6:12). Sin, the vitiating mental factor, is to be looked
upon as being constantly and resolutely bent on maintaining or
regaining its hold upon man, its power being exercised and reinforced
by the lusts of the body. Death, the logical outcome of sin, at once
testifies to the power of sin and its inherent corruption, while grace is
the restoring spiritual factor following up and combating everywhere
and always the pernicious influence of sin. It strives to dethrone sin,
and to establish itself in man as the only dominating force.
(5) In describing the future glorious state of the believers, the New
Testament uses the expression of those who endure (in faith; compare
<550212>
2 Timothy 2:12); of those `purchased unto God with the blood of
the Lamb (
<660510>
Revelation 5:10); of those partaking in the first
resurrection (
<662006>
Revelation 20:6); of the servants of God, they shall
reign for ever and ever (
<662205>
Revelation 22:5); on the other hand, it
teaches us not to anticipate the privileges of heaven, while our
Christian life is anything but satisfactory (1 Cor 4:8), and
<661718>
Revelation
17:18 shows us the terrible fate of the woman, the great city (the
corrupt church), which reigneth over the kings of the earth.
See further KING, KINGDOM.
William Baur
REINS
<ranz> ([h y;l ]K i, kilyah]; [vrpo, nephros], words promiscuously
translated heart, inward parts, kidneys or reins. The latter word,
which is derived from Latin renes through Old French reins, has given
place in modern English to the word kidneys (see Skeat, Concise
Etymological Dictionary of the English Language, 398). the Revised
Version (British and American) has, however, retained the older word, at
least in the margin, in all passages in which it is found in the King James
Version): According to Hebrew psychology the reins are the seat of the
deepest emotions and affections of man, which God alone can fully know.
Thus the Revised Version (British and American) has substituted heart
for reins in the text of
<181927>
Job 19:27;
<190709>
Psalm 7:9; 16:7; 26:2; 73:21;
<202316>
Proverbs 23:16;
<241120>
Jeremiah 11:20; 12:2; 17:10; 20:12; the translation
inward parts is found but once (
<19D913>
Psalm 139:13). In one passage the
King James Version has translated the Hebrew halac (loins) with reins
(
<231105>
Isaiah 11:5), where the Revised Version (British and American) has
120
rightly substituted waist (which see). The Greek word nephros (which is
etymologically allied to the Middle English nere, Get. Niere; see Skeat,
ibid, 231, under the word Kidney) is found in 1 Macc 2:24;
<660223>
Revelation 2:23.
See KIDNEYS.
H. L. E. Luering
REKEM
<re-kem> ([ q ,r ,, rekem], friendship):
(1) One of the five kings of Midian slain by the Israelites under Moses
(
<043108>
Numbers 31:8;
<061321>
Joshua 13:21 (Codex Vaticanus [ Popox,
Rhobok]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Poxo, Rhokom)). Like his
companions, he is called a king in Numbers, but a prince or
chieftain in the passage in Josh. The two references are hardly
related; both are based on an earlier tradition.
(2) Eponym of a Calebite family (
<130243>
1 Chronicles 2:43 ([ Prxo,
Rhekom]). Probably a town in Southern Judah. A town of this name is
given as belonging to Benjamin (
<061827>
Joshua 18:27).
(3) A city of Benjamin, mentioned with Irpeel and Taralah (
<061827>
Joshua
18:27); the site is unknown.
See also RAKEM.
Horace J . Wolf
RELATIONSHIPS, FAMILY
<re-la-shun-ships>:
The family or domestic relations of the Bible include
(1) those of consanguinity or blood relationship,
(2) affinity or marriage relationship, and
(3) legal convention. Those of consanguinity may be divided into lineal
and collateral groups; the former are those of parents and children,
grandparents and grandchildren, and ancestors and descendants in
general; the latter are those of brothers and sisters, uncles and aunts in
121
relation to nephews and nieces, cousins of various degrees, including
mere tribesmen and even remoter kinsfolk. The relations of affinity
include besides that of husband and wife or concubine, the relations
among rival wives, and their children, those of father-in-law and
mother-in-law in relation to son-in-law and daughter-in-law, and those
of brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law. The domestic relations based on
legal convention are either legal fictions or the results of agreement:
among the former we must include those of foster-father or mother and
foster-children; among the latter the relations between master and the
various classes of servants and slaves held by the ancient Hebrews,
those between host and guest, especially where they became covenant
brothers, and between the citizen and the stranger who had attached
himself to him for his protection.
I. CONSANGUINITY.
1. In General:
Genealogies were carefully kept by the ancient Hebrews (compare those of
Genesis, Numbers, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Matthew, Luke), not only
because they formed the basis of a mans title to his property (
<042708>
Numbers
27:8-11; exceptional case, 36:1-12), but also because on ones pedigree
depended the right of his family to intermarry with the priestly caste.
Descent was traced through the father; a mans closest association was
therefore with his fathers family, and he was ordinarily referred to as the
son of his father, thus Isaac the son of Abraham (
<012519>
Genesis 25:19),
Joshua the son of Nun, Caleb the son of Jephunneh (
<041406>
Numbers 14:6).
Still there are instances of men named for their mothers (Joab the son of
Zeruiah), and a mans relation with his mothers family was fully
recognized in the laws forbidding incest. No lineal relatives were permitted
to intermarry (
<031807>
Leviticus 18:7,10). The relations of ancestors and
descendants were considered so close that the ordinary terms of
relationship between children and parents are used constantly in relation to
grandparents and remoter ancestors. The wishes of a great-grandfather are
respected long after his death as the wishes of a father (
<243516>
Jeremiah
35:16).
122
2. Parents and Children:
The father ([b a ;, abh]; [otqp, pater]) was the head of the family
(mishpachah) or household (bayith), which was a religious (
<092006>
1 Samuel
20:6,29;
<021203>
Exodus 12:3;
<180105>
Job 1:5) as well as a social and political unit,
consisting usually of a combination of families in the modern sense. As
long as polygamy prevailed a family would include at least the several
groups of children of the wives and concubines. The Bible represents the
Hebrew father as commanding (
<015016>
Genesis 50:16;
<243506>
Jeremiah 35:6 ff;
<200620>
Proverbs 6:20), instructing (
<200108>
Proverbs 1:8; 4:1), and rebuking
(
<013710>
Genesis 37:10;
<041214>
Numbers 12:14); at the same time, as loving
(
<012528>
Genesis 25:28; 37:4; 44:20), pitying (
<19A313>
Psalm 103:13), and blessing
his household (
<012741>
Genesis 27:41), rejoicing over its triumphs (
<201001>
Proverbs
10:1; 15:20), or grieving over its misfortunes (
<013735>
Genesis 37:35). The
mother, too ([ a e, em]; [qtqp, meter]), naturally displays love and care
(
<012528>
Genesis 25:28;
<200403>
Proverbs 4:3;
<234915>
Isaiah 49:15; 66:13). To the
Hebrew woman childlessness was considered the greatest of misfortunes
(
<090110>
1 Samuel 1:10 ff, of Hannah;
<013023>
Genesis 30:23, of Rachel). Children
were looked upon as a blessing from God (
<19C703>
Psalm 127:3) and the
defenders of the home (
<19C704>
Psalm 127:4,5). In early life a child was more
directly under the control of the mother than the father; the mother was its
first teacher (
<200108>
Proverbs 1:8). Thereafter the father was expected to direct
the training of the son ([B e, ben]; [uo, huios], [trxvov, teknon])
(
<011819>
Genesis 18:19;
<021226>
Exodus 12:26; 13:8,14,15;
<050607>
Deuteronomy 6:7),
while the daughter ([t B , bath]; [0uyotqp, thugater]) probably remained
with the mother until her marriage (
<330706>
Micah 7:6). Both parents are looked
upon in the Law as objects of honor (
<022012>
Exodus 20:12 parallel
<050516>
Deuteronomy 5:16 (the Fifth Commandment);
<022115>
Exodus 21:15;
<032009>
Leviticus 20:9;
<052716>
Deuteronomy 27:16;
<202020>
Proverbs 20:20;
<262207>
Ezekiel
22:7;
<330706>
Micah 7:6), obedience (
<012807>
Genesis 28:7;
<031903>
Leviticus 19:3;
<052118>
Deuteronomy 21:18 ff;
<200108>
Proverbs 1:8; 30:17) and love (
<111920>
1 Kings
19:20;
<202824>
Proverbs 28:24; 30:11). The control of parents was so great as
to include the right to sell daughters in marriage, but not, without
restrictions, into slavery (
<022107>
Exodus 21:7-11; compare 22:16 ff;
<160505>
Nehemiah 5:5), and never into a life of shame (
<031929>
Leviticus 19:29);
they could chastise children (
<050805>
Deuteronomy 8:5; 21:18;
<201324>
Proverbs
13:24; compare Ecclesiasticus 30:1-13), and in the early days even exerted
the power of life and death over them (Genesis 22;
<071139>
Judges 11:39;
123
<031821>
Leviticus 18:21; 20:2-5;
<122310>
2 Kings 23:10; compare
<401504>
Matthew 15:4).
This power, at least for sacrificial purposes, was entirely removed by the
Law, and changed, even for punishment, in the case of a stubborn,
rebellious, gluttonous and disobedient son to a mere right of complaint to
the proper authorities (
<052118>
Deuteronomy 21:18-21), who were to put him
to death. Infanticide by exposure, such as was common among other
ancient peoples, seems never to have been practiced by the Hebrews. That
the children were nevertheless the chattels of the parents seems to be
attested from the fact that they could be seized for the debts of the father
(
<120401>
2 Kings 4:1). The father could annul the vows of his daughter
(
<043003>
Numbers 30:3-5), and damages for wrongs done to her were paid to
him, as in English law for loss of services (
<052229>
Deuteronomy 22:29). A
widowed or divorced daughter could return to her father (
<013811>
Genesis
38:11;
<032213>
Leviticus 22:13;
<080115>
Ruth 1:15). At his death the mother would
become the actual, if not the legal, head of the household (
<120801>
2 Kings 8:1-
6, the Shunammite woman; Tobit 1:8, Tobits grandmother; compare the
position of the mother of Jesus). This was especially true of the queen
mother (gebhirah), whose name is usually given in the accounts of the
kings of Judah (
<110111>
1 Kings 1:11; 2:19, where a throne at the kings right
hand was set for the kings mother; 11:26; 14:21,31; 15:2,10,13; 22:42;
<120826>
2 Kings 8:26; 10:13; 14:2; 15:2,33; 18:2; 21:1,19; 22:1; 23:31,36;
24:8,12,15,18;
<142202>
2 Chronicles 22:2;
<241318>
Jeremiah 13:18; 22:26; see
QUEEN MOTHER). While it is true that the position of the widowed
mother depended to some extent on the will of her son (
<110218>
1 Kings 2:18
ff), it must be remembered that the sense of filial duty was highly
developed among all classes in Palestine (
<060213>
Joshua 2:13,18; 6:23;
<092203>
1
Samuel 22:3;
<101937>
2 Samuel 19:37;
<111920>
1 Kings 19:20). The rebellion of
children marked the acme of social degeneration (
<330706>
Micah 7:6;
<203011>
Proverbs 30:11); on the other hand the great day according to
Malachi (4:5 (Hebrew 3:23)) is one of conciliation of parents and children.
3. Brothers and Sisters:
The terms brother ([j a ;, ach]; [oro, adelphos]) and sister
([t wOj a ;, ahoth]; [orq, adelphe]) apply to children of the same father
and mother (
<010402>
Genesis 4:2), and also to children of one father
(
<012012>
Genesis 20:12) or of one mother (
<014307>
Genesis 43:7;
<031809>
Leviticus 18:9;
20:17). The brother as well as the father was the natural protector of the
honor of his sister; thus, the sons of Jacob speak of Dinah as our
124
daughter (
<013417>
Genesis 34:17). Absalom feels more deeply aggrieved over
the crime against Tamar than does David himself (
<101321>
2 Samuel 13:21). The
brothers other duties toward a sister were very much like those of a father
(Song 8:8). The Law strictly forbids the intermarriage of brother and sister,
whether of the same father and mother or not, whether born at home or
born abroad, as a disgraceful thing (chesedh, a different word from
checedh, kindness (
<031809>
Leviticus 18:9,11; 20:17). In earlier times
marriage between half-brother and sister was allowable (
<012012>
Genesis 20:12;
compare
<101313>
2 Samuel 13:13). In fact, we are expressly told that the laws
against incest were not obeyed by the Egyptians or the Canaanites
(
<031803>
Leviticus 18:3 ff; 20:23). Brotherly sentiment was highly developed
(
<012460>
Genesis 24:60;
<060213>
Joshua 2:13;
<201717>
Proverbs 17:17; compare
<032535>
Leviticus 25:35;
<051511>
Deuteronomy 15:11 f; 25:3); the dwelling of
brothers together in unity is considered good and pleasant (
<19D301>
Psalm
133:1). Brothers were ever ready to protect or avenge each other (
<100327>
2
Samuel 3:27). Indeed, it is part of the unwritten, common law, recognized
though not necessarily approved in the Bible, that the brother or next of
kin, the goel, is expected to avenge a death (
<043519>
Numbers 35:19 ff;
<051906>
Deuteronomy 19:6;
<062003>
Joshua 20:3;
<101411>
2 Samuel 14:11), and no
punishment is meted out to prevent such self-help, unless it occurs in a
refuge-city. A brother was also expected to ransom a captive or slave
(
<032548>
Leviticus 25:48;
<194907>
Psalm 49:7). Half-brothers were of course not so
near as brothers of the full blood (compare Joseph and his brothers), and it
is not surprising to find the sons of a wife despising and driving out the son
of a harlot (
<071101>
Judges 11:1, Jephthah). The words brother and sister
are used frequently of more distant relationships (see below) and
figuratively of a friend.
4. Uncles, Aunts, Cousins, Kinsmen:
The Hebrew [d wOD , dodh] (
<031004>
Leviticus 10:4, uncles;
<043611>
Numbers 36:11,
cousins;
<091450>
1 Samuel 14:50), coming from a primitive caressing word,
possibly indicating dandle fondle love means both uncle and
beloved. It is used of the fathers and also of the mothers brother, and
the corresponding feminine form ([h d ;wOD , dodhah) is used of the fathers
sister (
<020620>
Exodus 6:20; compare
<042659>
Numbers 26:59) and even of the
fathers brothers wife (
<031814>
Leviticus 18:14; 20:20). Intermarriage between
nephew and aunt (i.e. fathers sister, mothers sister, or fathers brothers
wife, or, in general, uncles wife) was prohibited (
<031812>
Leviticus
125
18:12,13,14; 20:19,20), though nothing is said of intermarriage between
uncle and niece nor between cousins (compare
<043611>
Numbers 36:11). On the
relations between uncle and nephew compare the Bible accounts of Jacob
and Laban, Abraham and Lot, David and Joab, etc. In a more general sense
the word dodh is used of kinsmen,
<300610>
Amos 6:10 (where the dodh, even
he that burneth him (mecarepho, perhaps maternal uncle; the Jewish
Encyclopedia, under the word Cremation), takes charge of a dead body);
ben dodh is used of cousin (compare ben ahi immo, brother of his
mother, etc.) and bath dodh of a female cousin. For other relations of this
and remoter degrees the word for brother is loosely used (e.g. of nephews,
<011308>
Genesis 13:8; 14:14, etc.; of tribesmen,
<032110>
Leviticus 21:10; and of
more distant relatives,
<050204>
Deuteronomy 2:4,8; 23:7).
II. AFFINITY.
1. Husband and Wife:
The husband ([v ya i, ish]; compare [l [ B , ba`al],
<280216>
Hosea 2:16;
[ovqp, aner]), though in a sense leaving father and mother for his wife
([h C ;a i , ishshah]; [yuvq, gune) (
<010224>
Genesis 2:24), under normal
conditions remained a member of his fathers family. If such passages as
<010224>
Genesis 2:24; 21:10; 24:5,67; 30:3; 31:31;
<070417>
Judges 4:17 ff; 5:24 ff;
8:19; 9:3, indicate the existence in pre-Biblical times of a matriarchate, the
allusions are at least too vague to justify the predication of its persistence
in Biblical times. The wife was taken by her husband, or given by her
father or, in the case of a servant, by her master or mistress (
<010222>
Genesis
2:22; 16:3; 34:9,21), and although the contract was between the men
(Genesis 29; 34:16;
<022216>
Exodus 22:16;
<052229>
Deuteronomy 22:29;
<080410>
Ruth
4:10) or the parents (
<012121>
Genesis 21:21; 24), it is probable that the consent
of the girl was usually asked (
<012458>
Genesis 24:58). Love between the young
people was given due consideration (as in the case of Samson, Shechem,
Jacob and Rachel (
<012918>
Genesis 29:18), David and Michal (
<091820>
1 Samuel
18:20)); at least it developed among married people, so that Hosea could
compare the attitude of husband toward wife to that of Yahweh toward
Israel. As a matter of legal right, it is probable that throughout the Orient
long before the events narrated in the Book of Esther, every man did bear
rule in his own house (Est 1:22). In fact a precedent for the Persian
decree has been traced as far back as the first human pair (
<010316>
Genesis
3:16). Nevertheless, we find many instances in which the wife seems to
126
take the lead in the affairs of the household, as in the case of Samsons
parents (
<071323>
Judges 13:23), of the Shunammite woman (2 Kings 4), of Jael
(
<070418>
Judges 4:18 ff; 5:24 ff), of Achsah (
<061518>
Joshua 15:18 f;
<070112>
Judges 1:12
f), and in less pleasant matters of Jezebel (
<111804>
1 Kings 18:4; 21), Sapphira
(
<440502>
Acts 5:2), and Zeresh (Est 5:14), who were at least consulted in the
affairs of their several households. Abraham is even commanded by the
voice of God, In all that Sarah saith unto thee, hearken unto her voice
(
<012112>
Genesis 21:12). That most women were not so fortunate is probably
best attested by the fact that at least in the earlier times the best of them
had to resort to stratagem to accomplish their purposes (as in the cases of
Rebekah (
<012706>
Genesis 27:6 ff), Rachel (
<013134>
Genesis 31:34), Leah
(
<013016>
Genesis 30:16) and Abigail (
<092518>
1 Samuel 25:18 ff), and even to get
information as to their husbands affairs (Sarah,
<011810>
Genesis 18:10;
Rebekah,
<012705>
Genesis 27:5)). Perhaps their humbler sisters in later days
accomplished their ends by being so contentious as to attract the notice of
two proverb-collectors (
<202109>
Proverbs 21:9; 25:24). Though we have no
instance of the exercise of the right of life and death over the wife by the
husband, and though it is clear that the Hebrew husband had no power of
sale (compare
<022108>
Exodus 21:8), it is frequently asserted on the basis of the
one-sided divorce doctrine of the Old Testament (
<052401>
Deuteronomy 24:1),
and on the basis of analogy with other ancient laws, as well as because the
wife is spoken of in conjunction with property (
<022017>
Exodus 20:17) and
because the husband exercised the right to annul the wifes vows
(
<043006>
Numbers 30:6), that the wife occupied in the ordinary Hebrew home a
very subordinate position. It must not be forgotten, however, that the
husband owed duties to the wife (
<022110>
Exodus 21:10). It must also be borne
in mind that great divergence existed at different times and places, and in
different stations of society. Most of our Old Testament evidence pertains
to the wealthier classes. The two extremes of the women that are at ease
in Zion (
<233209>
Isaiah 32:9-20; compare
<300401>
Amos 4:1 ff; 6:1 ff) and the busy
good wife described in
<203110>
Proverbs 31:10 ff are hardly exceeded in the
most complex society today. The latter probably gives the fairer as well as
the more wholesome picture of the functions of the wife in the home, and it
is significant that her husband as well as her sons are expected to call her
blessed (
<203128>
Proverbs 31:28).
It is difficult to estimate the extent to which polygamy and concubinage
were practiced in ancient Palestine, but it is clear that the former practice
was discouraged even among kings (
<051717>
Deuteronomy 17:17), and the
127
latter, an outgrowth of slavery, was not held in high repute (compare
<052110>
Deuteronomy 21:10-14). The position of a less-favored wife
(
<052115>
Deuteronomy 21:15, hated) was naturally unpleasant, and her
relations with other wives of her husband decidedly bitter they were
called each others [tsaroth], literally, vexers (the Revised Version
(British and American) rivals,
<031818>
Leviticus 18:18;
<090106>
1 Samuel 1:6, the
King James Version adversary; compare Ecclesiasticus 37:11) even
when they were sisters (as in the case of Rachel and Leah,
<013001>
Genesis
30:1). Hence, the Law forbade the marrying of two sisters (
<031818>
Leviticus
18:18). On the other hand so strong was the desire of a Hebrew mother for
children that the childless wife welcomed the children of a maidservant
born to her husband as her own (
<013001>
Genesis 30:1-12, etc.).
2. Father-in-Law, etc.:
In normal Hebrew society, for reasons already explained, the relations of a
family with the husbands parents ([ j ;, cham], from [t wOmj ;, chamoth])
were closer than those with the wifes parents ([t ej o, chothen], feminine
[t n,t ,j o, chotheneth]; [rv0rpo, pentheros], [rv0rpo, penthera]. Where
under special conditions a man remained with his wifes tribe after
marriage, as in the case of Jacob, serving out his mohar, or Moses fleeing
from the wrath of the Egyptians, or the sons of Elimelech sojourning in the
land of Moab because of the famine in Palestine, his identity with his own
tribe was not destroyed, and at the first opportunity the natural impulse
was to return to his own country. The bride, on the other hand, leaving her
people, would become a member of her husbands family, with all the
rights and duties of a daughter (
<330706>
Micah 7:6). Thus Judah can order
Tamar burned for violation of the obligations of a widow (
<013824>
Genesis
38:24). No doubt the position of the daughter-in-law varied in the Hebrew
home between the extremes of those who vexed their parents-in-law unto-
the death (
<012635>
Genesis 26:35; 27:46; 28:8) and the one who said to her
mother-in-law, Yahweh do so to me .... if aught but death part thee and
me (
<080117>
Ruth 1:17). Parents-in-law and children-in-law were considered
too closely related to intermarry (
<031815>
Leviticus 18:15; 20:12,14).
3. Brother-in-Law, etc.:
A womans brother acting in loco parentis might perform all the offices of
a father-in-law and possibly be called chothen (
<012450>
Genesis 24:50,55; 34:11
ff). Naturally, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law would be considered too
128
closely related to intermarry (
<031816>
Leviticus 18:16,18; 20:21). Nevertheless
the husbands brother ([ b ;y;, yabham]) was expected to marry the
childless widow to establish the name of the deceased on his inheritance
(
<052505>
Deuteronomy 25:5-10). This custom dated back to Canaanitic practice
(
<013808>
Genesis 38:8), and from the connection between marrying the childless
widow and the redemption of land may be called a part of the land law of
Palestine (
<080401>
Ruth 4:1-12; compare
<243206>
Jeremiah 32:6 ff). In practice the
Levirate was probably considered more in the nature of a moral duty than a
privilege (
<052507>
Deuteronomy 25:7;
<080406>
Ruth 4:6), and devolved not only on
the brother, but on other members of a deceased husbands family in the
order of the nearness of their relationship to him (
<080312>
Ruth 3:12). In the
Hebrew family brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law would form part of the
same household. In this relation as in others we find both ideal friendship
(David and Jonathan,
<091803>
1 Samuel 18:3;
<100126>
2 Samuel 1:26) and petty
jealousies (in the matter of Moses wife,
<041201>
Numbers 12:1).
III. OTHER DOMESTIC RELATIONS.
1. Foster-father:
The Hebrew [mea o, omen], feminine [t n,m,a o, omeneth] (participle of
aman), literally, nourishing, is translated nursing father (
<041112>
Numbers
11:12;
<234923>
Isaiah 49:23), nursing mother (
<234923>
Isaiah 49:23), nurse
(
<080416>
Ruth 4:16;
<100404>
2 Samuel 4:4), or simply as the equivalent of bringing
up (
<121001>
2 Kings 10:1,5; Est 2:7). In the case of Esther and of Ahabs
children, and possibly in the other instances referred to, the relation of
foster-parents is suggested. The foster-children under such conditions
obeyed the words of the foster-father as the words of a father (Est 2:20).
Michal is spoken of as the mother of Merabs two children (
<102108>
2 Samuel
21:8) because she reared them (Sanhedhrin 19b). Adoption in the Roman
sense was, however, hardly to be expected in a polygamous society where
the childless father could remarry. Nevertheless, Jacob adopts Manasseh
and Ephraim (
<014805>
Genesis 48:5), and thereby makes them the fathers of
tribes. According to Josephus, while Abraham was childless he adopted
Lot (Ant., I, vii, 1), and the daughter of Pharaoh adopted Moses (Ant., II,
ix, 7; compare
<020210>
Exodus 2:10). In New Testament times the notion of
adoption was so familiar that Paul uses the word figuratively of conversion
([uo0roo, huiothesia],
<450815>
Romans 8:15; 9:4;
<480405>
Galatians 4:5;
<490105>
Ephesians 1:5).
129
2. Master and Servants:
The family as the word is used of ancient peoples included dependents.
The Hebrew mishpachah is connected with the word shiphchah,
maidservant, as the Latin familia is connected with famulus, servant.
For a discussion of the various classes of servants and slaves, Hebrew and
foreign, male and female, see SLAVERY.
3. Host and Guest:
When Lot protested against betraying his visitors to the men of Sodom,
forasmuch as they had come under the shadow of his roof, and he even
preferred to give his daughters to the mob rather than fail in his duties as a
host (
<011908>
Genesis 19:8), he was acting on the ancient principle of guest-
friendship (compare Greek xenia), which bound host and guest by sacred
ties. In the light of this principle the act of Jael, who receives Sisera as a
guest, and then betrays him, becomes startling and capable of explanation
only on the basis of the intense hatred existing at the time, and justifiable, if
at all, only on theory that all is fair in war (
<070418>
Judges 4:18-21; 5:24-27).
The nomads of ancient times and even the post-exilic Hebrews, like the
Arabs of today, were bound by a temporary covenant whenever there was
salt between them, that is, in the relation of host and guest (
<150414>
Ezra
4:14; compare the expression covenant of salt,
<141305>
2 Chronicles 13:5;
<041819>
Numbers 18:19). In the early Christian church breaking bread together
served as a sort of a berith ahim, or covenant of brothers. In large
households such as those of a king, those that ate at the table were
members of the household (
<100911>
2 Samuel 9:11, compared to sons; compare
also
<100907>
2 Samuel 9:7,10,13; 19:28;
<110207>
1 Kings 2:7; 4:27; 18:19).
See HOSPITALITY.
4. The Dependent Stranger:
The ger or stranger (as indicated by the expression thy stranger
(
<022010>
Exodus 20:10;
<032506>
Leviticus 25:6;
<050514>
Deuteronomy 5:14; 29:11; 31:12;
compare
<050116>
Deuteronomy 1:16), Hebrew gero, literally, his stranger)
attached himself to an influential Hebrew for protection. Thus we read of a
sojourner of the priests (
<032210>
Leviticus 22:10, toschabh; compare 25:6)
who was in many respects a dependent, but still to be distinguished from a
servant (
<032211>
Leviticus 22:11). The Mosaic Law commands that such
strangers be treated with consideration (
<021249>
Exodus 12:49; 20:10; 22:21 ff;
130
23:9;
<031933>
Leviticus 19:33;
<050116>
Deuteronomy 1:16; 10:18; 14:21, etc.;
<19E609>
Psalm 146:9) and even with love (
<051614>
Deuteronomy 16:14;
<031934>
Leviticus
19:34).
See STRANGER.
Nathan I saacs and Ella Davis I saacs
RELEASE
<re-les>:
(1) The forgiveness of a debt ([h F ;miv ], shemiTTah] (
<051501>
Deuteronomy
15:1,2,9; 31:10; see JUBILEE YEAR)), with verb shamaT, to
release,
<053102>
Deuteronomy 31:2,3.
(2) To exempt from taxation or military service ([h j ;n;h }, hanachah],
release, rest (Est 2:18)). Some would render granted a holiday.
(3) To set a prisoner or slave at liberty ([oou, apoluo], to let go
free (
<402715>
Matthew 27:15 parallel
<431910>
John 19:10), etc.).
RELIGION
<re-lij-un>: Religion and religious in Elizabethan English were used
frequently to denote the outward expression of worship. This is the force
of [0pqoxro, threskeia], translated religion in
<442605>
Acts 26:5;
<590126>
James
1:26,27 (with adjective threskos, religious), while the same noun in
<510218>
Colossians 2:18 is rendered worshipping (cult would give the exact
meaning). And in the same external sense religion is used by the King
James Version for [otpro, latreia], worship (so the Revised Version
(British and American)), in I Macc 1:43; 2:19,22. Otherwise Jews
religion (or religion of the Jews) appears in 2 Macc 8:1; 14:38 (the
Revised Version (British and American) bis);
<480113>
Galatians 1:13,14 ([
Iouooo, Ioudaismos], Judaism); and an alien religion in 2 Macc
6:24 ([oouoo, allophulismos], that belonging to another tribe).
The neglect of the external force of religion has led to much reckless
misquoting of
<590126>
James 1:26,27. Compare
<441722>
Acts 17:22.
See SUPERSTITION.
Burton Scott Easton
131
RELIGION, COMPARATIVE
See COMPARATIVE RELIGION.
RELIGION, SCIENCE OF
See COMPARATIVE RELIGION.
REMAINDER
<re-man-der> ([r t y; , yathar], to be left, [t yr ia ev ], sheerith],
remnant): In
<101407>
2 Samuel 14:7 residue would have been clearer
(compare
<197610>
Psalm 76:10), but the changes of the Revised Version (British
and American) in
<030616>
Leviticus 6:16; 7:16,17 are pointless (contrast
<022934>
Exodus 29:34).
REMALIAH
<rem-a-li-a> ([Wh y;l ]m r ], remalyahu], whom Yahweh has adorned):
The father of Pekah (
<121525>
2 Kings 15:25 ff;
<230704>
Isaiah 7:4 ff; 8:6). The
contemptuous allusion to Pekah as the son of Remaliah in
<230704>
Isaiah 7:4
(similarly the son of Kish,
<091011>
1 Samuel 10:11) may be a slur on
Remaliahs humble origin.
REMEMBER; REMEMBRANCE
<re-mem-ber>, <re-mem-brans>: Remember is mostly the translation,
in the Old Testament, of [r k z; , zakhar], and in the New Testament of
[vooo, mnaomai (
<400523>
Matthew 5:23; 26:75;
<430217>
John 2:17, etc.), and of
[vqovru, mnemoneuo] (
<401609>
Matthew 16:9;
<410818>
Mark 8:18;
<421732>
Luke
17:32, etc.), and remembrance the translation of derivatives of these
(zekher, anamnesis, etc.). There are a few other words. To remember is
used of God in remembering persons (
<010801>
Genesis 8:1; 19:29, etc.), His
covenant (
<010915>
Genesis 9:15;
<020224>
Exodus 2:24;
<261660>
Ezekiel 16:60, etc.), in
answering prayer (
<071628>
Judges 16:28;
<161314>
Nehemiah 13:14,22;
<192003>
Psalm
20:3, etc.), and in other ways. Men are exhorted to remember Gods
dealings with them, His commandments (
<050802>
Deuteronomy 8:2,18;
<070834>
Judges 8:34;
<131612>
1 Chronicles 16:12, etc.), the Sabbath (
<022008>
Exodus
20:8), etc. A specially solemn command is that relating to the Lords
Supper in
<422219>
Luke 22:19;
<461124>
1 Corinthians 11:24,25, This do in
132
remembrance of me. Remembrancer (writer of chronicles) occurs in the
King James Version margin of
<100816>
2 Samuel 8:16; 20:24;
<110403>
1 Kings 4:3;
<131815>
1 Chronicles 18:15 (text recorder, the Revised Version margin
chronicler). In
<236206>
Isaiah 62:6, the Revised Version (British and
American) reads, ye that are Yahwehs remembrancers. the Revised
Version (British and American) has frequent changes on the King James
Version text, as have marked (
<091502>
1 Samuel 15:2); make mention of
(
<192007>
Psalm 20:7; 77:11; Song 1:4); remember for be ye mindful of
(
<131615>
1 Chronicles 16:15); memorial for remembrance (
<235708>
Isaiah 57:8);
in the American Standard Revised Version, to his holy memorial name
(
<193004>
Psalm 30:4; 97:12, the English Revised Version to his holy name,
margin Hebrew `memorial ); in
<550105>
2 Timothy 1:5, having been
reminded of for the King James Version call to remembrance, etc.
W. L. Walker
REMETH
<re-meth>, <rem-eth> ([t m,r ,, remeth]; Codex Vaticanus [ Pro,
Rhemmas]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Poo0, Rhamath]): A place in the
territory of Issachar named with En-gannim (
<061921>
Joshua 19:21). It is
probably identical with Ramoth of
<130673>
1 Chronicles 6:73, and Jarmuth of
<062129>
Joshua 21:29. It is represented today by the village er-Rameh, situated
on a hill which rises abruptly from the green plain about 11 miles
Southwest of Jenin (Engannim). While the southern boundary of Issachar
was, roughly, the southern edge of the plain of Esdraelon, the possessions
of the tribes seem sometimes to have overlapped.
See JARMUTH; RAMOTH.
REMISSION OF SINS
<re-mish-un> ([oro, aphesis], [opro, paresis]): The two Greek
words, of which the latter occurs only in
<450325>
Romans 3:25, were translated
by the same English word in the King James Version. In the Revised
Version (British and American), paresis is translation passing over. It is
contrasted with the other term as pretermission with remission. Remission
is exemption from the consequences of an offense, forgiveness;
pretermission is the suspension of the penalty (Philippi, Ellicott, Trench
(Synonyms, XXXIII), Weiss; compare
<441730>
Acts 17:30). Cremer (Lexicon of
N T Gr) regards the meaning of the two words as identical, except that the
133
one refers to the Old Testament and the other to the New Testament. Sins
are remitted when the offender is treated as though the offense had never
been committed. Remission is restricted to the penalty, while forgiveness
refers more particularly to the person, although it may be used also of the
sin itself. Remission also is used of offenses against Gods law; forgiveness,
against either divine or human law.
See ABSOLUTION; FORGIVENESS.
H. E. J acobs
REMMON
<rem-on> ([wOMr i, rimmon],
<061907>
Joshua 19:7).
See RIMMON.
REMMON-METHOAR
<rem-on-meth-o-ar>, <rem-on-me-tho-ar> ([r a ;t oM]h wOMr i, rimmon
ha-metho-ar] (
<061913>
Joshua 19:13)).
See RIMMON, (3).
REMNANT
<rem-nant>: Remnant is the translation of [r t ,y,, yether], what is left
over (
<050311>
Deuteronomy 3:11; 28:54;
<061204>
Joshua 12:4, etc.); of [r a ;v ] , she-
ar], the rest (
<150308>
Ezra 3:8 the King James Version;
<231020>
Isaiah
10:20,21,22; 11:16, etc.; Zeph 1:4); more frequently of [t yr ia ev ], she-
erith], residue, etc. (
<121904>
2 Kings 19:4,31;
<143409>
2 Chronicles 34:9;
<150914>
Ezra
9:14;
<231430>
Isaiah 14:30, etc.). As the translation of the last-mentioned two
words, remnant has a special significance in the prophecies of Isaiah, as
denoting a holy seed, or spiritual kernel, of the nation which should
survive impending judgment and become the germ of the people of God,
being blessed of God and made a blessing (compare
<330212>
Micah 2:12; 4:7;
5:7,8; 7:18; also Zeph 2:7; 3:13;
<370112>
Haggai 1:12,14;
<380806>
Zechariah 8:6;
<290232>
Joel 2:32). Paul, in
<450927>
Romans 9:27, quotes from
<231022>
Isaiah 10:22 f,
the remnant (kataleimma, what is left over] shall be saved; compare
also
<451105>
Romans 11:5 (where the word is leimma) with
<121904>
2 Kings 19:4.
Several other Hebrew words are less frequently translated remnant:
134
ahar, after; yathar, to be left over, etc.; in the New Testament (the
King James Version) we have also loipos, left, remaining (
<402206>
Matthew
22:6;
<661113>
Revelation 11:13, etc.).
For remnant the Revised Version (British and American) has
overhanging part (
<022612>
Exodus 26:12), rest (
<031418>
Leviticus 14:18, etc.);
on the other hand gives remnant for posterity (
<014507>
Genesis 45:7), for
rest (
<061020>
Joshua 10:20;
<130443>
1 Chronicles 4:43;
<231019>
Isaiah 10:19), for
residue (
<370202>
Haggai 2:2;
<380811>
Zechariah 8:11), etc.
W. L. Walker
REMPHAN
<rem-fan>.
See REPHAN.
RENDING OF GARMENTS
<ren-ding>.
See BURIAL, IV; DRESS.
RENEW
<re-nu>: The word is used in various senses:
(1) of material things, e.g.
<19A430>
Psalm 104:30; here it means to give a
new appearance, to refresh, to restore the face of the earth;
(2) in
<091114>
1 Samuel 11:14, to establish more firmly the kingdom by
reinstalling King Saul;
(3) in
<141508>
2 Chronicles 15:8, to rebuild or repair the broken altar;
(4) in
<250521>
Lamentations 5:21, renew our days, restore the favors of
former days;
(5) in
<234101>
Isaiah 41:1, `let them gather together, or marshal their
strongest arguments for answer;
(6) in
<19A305>
Psalm 103:5;
<234031>
Isaiah 40:31, it refers to the restoring of
spiritual strength;
135
(7) in the New Testament it invariably refers to spiritual renewal, e.g.
<451202>
Romans 12:2;
<470416>
2 Corinthians 4:16;
<490423>
Ephesians 4:23;
<510310>
Colossians 3:10;
<560305>
Titus 3:5;
<580606>
Hebrews 6:6; all derivatives of
[xovo, kainos], new.
G. H. Gerberding
REPAIR
<re-par> ([h s , j ] m , machceh], refuge): In
<290316>
Joel 3:16, for the King
James Version The Lord will be the hope of his people the King James
Version margin renders place of repair, or, harbour = haven of repair.
the Revised Version (British and American) gives refuge. Other words
are [q z j ; , chazaq], to strengthen, harden, fix (
<121205>
2 Kings 12:5 and
often; Nehemiah 3); [a p ;r ;, rapha] to heal (
<111830>
1 Kings 18:30); [d m [ ; ,
`amadh], to cause to stand still (
<150909>
Ezra 9:9); [h y;j ;, chayah], to
revive (
<131108>
1 Chronicles 11:8); [r g s ; , caghar], to close up (
<111127>
1
Kings 11:27).
In the Revised Version (British and American) Apocrypha for
[uoppot, huporrapto], to patch up (Sirach 50:1); [roxruo,
episkeuazo], to get ready (1 Macc 12:37). In 1 Macc 14:34 occurs
reparation (modern English repairs) for [rovop0o,
epanorthosis], straightening up.
M. O. Evans
REPENTANCE
<re-pen-tans>:
To get an accurate idea of the precise New Testament meaning of this
highly important word it is necessary to consider its approximate synonyms
in the original Hebrew and Greek The psychological elements of
repentance should be considered in the light of the general teaching of
Scripture.
136
I. OLD TESTAMENT TERMS.
1. To Repent to Pant, to Sigh:
The Hebrew word [ j n; , naham], is an onomatopoetic term which
implies difficulty in breathing, hence, to pant, to sigh, to groan.
Naturally it came to signify to lament or to grieve, and when the
emotion was produced by the desire of good for others, it merged into
compassion and sympathy, and when incited by a consideration of ones
own character and deeds it means to rue, to repent. To adapt language
to our understanding, God is represented as repenting when delayed
penalties are at last to be inflicted, or when threatened evils have been
averted by genuine reformation (
<010606>
Genesis 6:6; Jon 3:10). This word is
translated repent about 40 times in the Old Testament, and in nearly all
cases it refers to God. The principal idea is not personal relation to sin,
either in its experience of grief or in turning from an evil course. Yet the
results of sin are manifest in its use. Gods heart is grieved at mans
iniquity, and in love He bestows His grace, or in justice He terminates His
mercy. It indicates the aroused emotions of God which prompt Him to a
different course of dealing with the people. Similarly when used with
reference to man, only in this case the consciousness of personal
transgression is evident. This distinction in the application of the word is
intended by such declarations as God is not a man, that he should repent
(
<091529>
1 Samuel 15:29;
<184206>
Job 42:6;
<240806>
Jeremiah 8:6).
2. To Repent to Turn or Return:
The term [b Wv , shubh], is most generally employed to express the
Scriptural idea of genuine repentance. It is used extensively by the
prophets, and makes prominent the idea of a radical change in ones
attitude toward sin and God. It implies a conscious, moral separation, and
a personal decision to forsake sin and to enter into fellowship with God. It
is employed extensively with reference to mans turning away from sin to
righteousness (
<050430>
Deuteronomy 4:30;
<160109>
Nehemiah 1:9;
<190712>
Psalm 7:12;
<240314>
Jeremiah 3:14). It quite often refers to God in His relation to man
(
<023212>
Exodus 32:12;
<060726>
Joshua 7:26). It is employed to indicate the
thorough spiritual change which God alone can effect (
<198504>
Psalm 85:4).
When the term is translated by return it has reference either to man, to
God, or to God and man (
<090703>
1 Samuel 7:3;
<199013>
Psalm 90:13 (both terms,
nacham and shubh;
<232112>
Isaiah 21:12; 55:7). Both terms are also sometimes
137
employed when the twofold idea of grief and altered relation is expressed,
and are translated by repent and return (
<261406>
Ezekiel 14:6;
<281206>
Hosea
12:6; Jon 3:8).
II. NEW TESTAMENT TERMS.
1. Repent to Care, Be Concerned:
The term [rtoroo, metamelomai], literally signifies to have a
feeling or care, concern or regret; like nacham, it expresses the emotional
aspect of repentance. The feeling indicated by the word may issue in
genuine repentance, or it may degenerate into mere remorse (
<402129>
Matthew
21:29,32; 27:3). Judas repented only in the sense of regret, remorse, and
not in the sense of the abandonment of sin. The word is used with
reference to Pauls feeling concerning a certain course of conduct, and with
reference to God in His attitude toward His purposes of grace (2 Cor 7:8
the King James Version;
<580721>
Hebrews 7:21).
2. Repent to Change the Mind:
The word [rtovor, metanoeo], expresses the true New Testament idea
of the spiritual change implied in a sinners return to God. The term
signifies to have another mind, to change the opinion or purpose with
regard to sin. It is equivalent to the Old Testament word turn. Thus, it is
employed by John the Baptist, Jesus, and the apostles (
<400302>
Matthew 3:2;
<410115>
Mark 1:15;
<440238>
Acts 2:38). The idea expressed by the word is intimately
associated with different aspects of spiritual transformation and of
Christian life, with the process in which the agency of man is prominent, as
faith (
<442021>
Acts 20:21), and as conversion (
<440319>
Acts 3:19); also with those
experiences and blessings of which God alone is the author, as remission
and forgiveness of sin (
<422447>
Luke 24:47;
<440531>
Acts 5:31). It is sometimes
conjoined with baptism, which as an overt public act proclaims a changed
relation to sin and God (
<410104>
Mark 1:4;
<420303>
Luke 3:3;
<441324>
Acts 13:24; 19:4).
As a vital experience, repentance is to manifest its reality by producing
good fruits appropriate to the new spiritual life (
<400308>
Matthew 3:8).
3. Repent to Turn Over, to Turn Upon, to Turn Unto:
The word [rotpr, epistrepho], is used to bring out more clearly the
distinct change wrought in repentance. It is employed quite frequently in
Acts to express the positive side of a change involved in New Testament
138
repentance, or to indicate the return to God of which the turning from sin
is the negative aspect. The two conceptions are inseparable and
complementary. The word is used to express the spiritual transition from
sin to God (
<440935>
Acts 9:35;
<520109>
1 Thessalonians 1:9); to strengthen the idea
of faith (
<441121>
Acts 11:21); and to complete and emphasize the change
required by New Testament repentance (
<442620>
Acts 26:20).
There is great difficulty in expressing the true idea of a change of thought
with reference to sin when we translate the New Testament repentance
into other languages. The Latin version renders it exercise penitence
(poenitentiam agere). But penitence etymologically signifies pain, grief,
distress, rather than a change of thought and purpose. Thus Latin
Christianity has been corrupted by the pernicious error of presenting grief
over sin rather than abandonment of sin as the primary idea of New
Testament repentance. It was easy to make the transition from penitence to
penance, consequently the Romanists represent Jesus and the apostles as
urging people to do penance (poenitentiam agite). The English word
repent is derived from the Latin repoenitere, and inherits the fault of the
Latin, making grief the principal idea and keeping it in the background, if
not altogether out of sight, the fundamental New Testament conception of
a change of mind with reference to sin. But the exhortations of the ancient
prophets, of Jesus, and of the apostles show that the change of mind is the
dominant idea of the words employed, while the accompanying grief and
consequent reformation enter into ones experience from the very nature of
the case.
III. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ELEMENTS.
1. The Intellectual Element:
Repentance is that change of a sinners mind which leads him to turn from
his evil ways and live. The change wrought in repentance is so deep and
radical as to affect the whole spiritual nature and to involve the entire
personality. The intellect must function, the emotions must be aroused, and
the will must act. Psychology shows repentance to be profound, personal
and all-pervasive. The intellectual element is manifest from the nature of
man as an intelligent being, and from the demands of God who desires only
rational service. Man must apprehend sin as unutterably heinous, the divine
law as perfect and inexorable, and himself as coming short or falling below
139
the requirements of a holy God (
<184205>
Job 42:5,6;
<195103>
Psalm 51:3;
<450320>
Romans
3:20).
2. The Emotional Element:
There may be a knowledge of sin without turning from it as an awful thing
which dishonors God and ruins man. The change of view may lead only to
a dread of punishment and not to the hatred and abandonment of sin
(
<020927>
Exodus 9:27;
<042234>
Numbers 22:34;
<060720>
Joshua 7:20;
<091524>
1 Samuel 15:24;
<402704>
Matthew 27:4). An emotional element is necessarily involved in
repentance. While feeling is not the equivalent of repentance, it
nevertheless may be a powerful impulse to a genuine turning from sin. A
penitent cannot from the nature of the case be stolid and indifferent. The
emotional attitude must be altered if New Testament repentance be
experienced. There is a type of grief that issues in repentance and another
which plunges into remorse. There is a godly sorrow and also a sorrow of
the world. The former brings life; the latter, death (
<402703>
Matthew 27:3;
<421823>
Luke 18:23;
<470709>
2 Corinthians 7:9,10). There must be a consciousness
of sin in its effect on man and in its relation to God before there can be a
hearty turning away from unrighteousness. The feeling naturally
accompanying repentance implies a conviction of personal sin and
sinfulness and an earnest appeal to God to forgive according to His mercy
(
<195101>
Psalm 51:1,2,10-14).
3. The Volitional Element:
The most prominent element in the psychology of repentance is the
voluntary, or volitional. This aspect of the penitents experience is
expressed in the Old Testament by turn, or return, and in the New
Testament by repent or turn. The words employed in the Hebrew and
Greek place chief emphasis on the will, the change of mind, or of purpose,
because a complete and sincere turning to God involves both the
apprehension of the nature of sin and the consciousness of personal guilt
(
<242505>
Jeremiah 25:5;
<410115>
Mark 1:15;
<440238>
Acts 2:38;
<470709>
2 Corinthians 7:9,10).
The demand for repentance implies free will and individual responsibility.
That men are called upon to repent there can be no doubt, and that God is
represented as taking the initiative in repentance is equally clear. The
solution of the problem belongs to the spiritual sphere. The psychical
phenomena have their origin in the mysterious relations of the human and
the divine personalities. There can be no external substitute for the internal
140
change. Sackcloth for the body and remorse for the soul are not to be
confused with a determined abandonment of sin and return to God. Not
material sacrifice, but a spiritual change, is the inexorable demand of God
in both dispensations (
<195117>
Psalm 51:17;
<230111>
Isaiah 1:11;
<240620>
Jeremiah 6:20;
<280606>
Hosea 6:6).
Repentance is only a condition of salvation and not its meritorious ground.
The motives for repentance are chiefly found in the goodness of God, in
divine love, in the pleading desire to have sinners saved, in the inevitable
consequences of sin, in the universal demands of the gospel, and in the
hope of spiritual life and membership in the kingdom of heaven (
<263311>
Ezekiel
33:11;
<410115>
Mark 1:15;
<421301>
Luke 13:1-5;
<430316>
John 3:16;
<441730>
Acts 17:30;
<450204>
Romans 2:4;
<540204>
1 Timothy 2:4). The first four beatitudes (
<400503>
Matthew
5:3-6) form a heavenly ladder by which penitent souls pass from the
dominion of Satan into the Kingdom of God. A consciousness of spiritual
poverty dethroning pride, a sense of personal unworthiness producing
grief, a willingness to surrender to God in genuine humility, and a strong
spiritual desire developing into hunger and thirst, enter into the experience
of one who wholly abandons sin and heartily turns to Him who grants
repentance unto life.
LITERATURE.
Various theological works and commentaries Note especially Strong,
Systematic Theology, III, 832-36; Broadus on
<400302>
Matthew 3:2, American
Comm.; article Busse (Penance). Hauck-Herzog, Realencyklopadie fur
protestantische Theologie und Kirche.
Byron H. Dement
REPETITIONS
<rep-e-tish-unz>: In
<400607>
Matthew 6:7 only, Use not vain repetitions, for
[pottooyr, battalogeo] (so Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus), a
word found nowhere else and spelled variously in the manuscripts,
battologeo in Codices K, L, M; etc., batologeo in Codices F G, blattologeo
in Codex Bezae (probably influenced by the Latin blatero, talk idly);
presumably connected with [pottop, battarizo], stammer, and
perhaps formed under the influence of the Aramaic beta, speak
carelessly, or baTel, useless. Whether, however battalogeo means the
constant repetition of the same phrase or the mechanical recitation of a
141
long series of obscure or meaningless formulas (if, indeed, a distinction
between the acts was thought of) cannot be determined. Either practice is
abundantly evidenced as a heathen custom of the day, and either can be
classed as much speaking.
See PRAYER.
Burton Scott Easton
REPHAEL
<re-fa-el>, <ref-a-el> ([l a ep ;r ], rephael], God has healed; [ Pooq,
Rhaphael]): The eponym of a family of gatekeepers (
<132607>
1 Chronicles
26:7). The name occurs in Tobit and Enoch (Raphael); it probably
belongs to a group of late formations. See Gray, HPN, 225, 311.
REPHAH
<re-fa> ([j p r , , rephach] (the form is corrupt); [ Poq, Rhaphe]): The
eponym of an Ephraimite family (
<130725>
1 Chronicles 7:25).
REPHAIAH
<re-fa-ya>, <re-fi-a> ([h y;p ;r ], rephayah], probably Yah is healing;
Septuagint [ Pooo()Rhaphaia(s))] :
(1) In Davids family, Septuagint also Rhaphal (
<130321>
1 Chronicles 3:21).
(2) A captain of Simeon (
<130442>
1 Chronicles 4:42).
(3) A grandson of Issachar, Septuagint also Rhaphara (
<130702>
1 Chronicles
7:2).
(4) A descendant of Saul (
<130943>
1 Chronicles 9:43; in 8:37 called
Raphah ([h p ;r ; , raphah]); Septuagint also Raphai).
(5) One of the repairers of the wall under Nehemiah (
<160309>
Nehemiah
3:9).
REPHAIM
<ref-a-im>, <re-fa-im> ([ ya ip ;r ], repha-im], from [a p ;r ; , rapha], a
terrible one hence giant, in
<132004>
1 Chronicles 20:4, [a p ;r ;h ; yd eyl iy],
142
yelidhe ha-rapha], sons of the giant; the King James Version,
Rephaims): A race of aboriginal or early inhabitants East of the Jordan in
Ashterothkarnaim (
<011405>
Genesis 14:5) and in the valley of Rephaim
Southwest of Jerusalem (
<061508>
Joshua 15:8). They associated with other giant
races, as the Emim and Anakim (
<050210>
Deuteronomy 2:10,11) and the
Zamzummim (
<050220>
Deuteronomy 2:20). It is probable that they were all of
the same stock, being given different names by the different tribes who
came in contact with them. The same Hebrew word is rendered the dead,
or the shades in various passages (
<182605>
Job 26:5 margin;
<198810>
Psalm 88:10
margin;
<200218>
Proverbs 2:18 margin; 9:18 margin; 21:16 margin;
<231409>
Isaiah
14:9 margin; 26:14,19 margin). In these instances the word is derived from
[h p ,r ; , rapheh], weak, powerless, a shadow or shade.
H. Porter
REPHAIM, VALE OF
([ ya ip ;r ]q m,[ e, `emeq repha-im]; [xoo Poor, koilas
Rhaphaeim], [xoo tv Ttovv, koilas ton Titanon]): This was a
fertile vale (
<231705>
Isaiah 17:5), to the Southwest of Jerusalem (
<061508>
Joshua
15:8; 18:16; the King James Version Valley of the Giants), on the border
between Judah and Benjamin. Here David repeatedly defeated the invading
Philistines (
<100518>
2 Samuel 5:18,22; 23:13;
<131115>
1 Chronicles 11:15; 14:9). It is
located by Josephus between Jerusalem and Bethlehem (Ant., VII, iv, i; xii,
4). It corresponds to the modern el-Biqa`, which falls away to the
Southwest from the lip of the valley of Hinnom. The name in ancient times
may perhaps have covered a larger area, including practically all the land
between Jerusalem and Bethlehem, where the head-waters of Nahr Ruben
are collected.
W. Ewing
REPHAN
<re-fan>: A name for Chiun, the planet Saturn.
See ASTROLOGY, 7; CHIUN.
REPHIDIM
<ref-i-dim> ([ yd iyp ir ], rephidhim], rests; [ Pov, Rhaphidin]): A
station in the Wanderings, between the wilderness of Sin and the
143
wilderness of Sinai (
<021701>
Exodus 17:1,8; 19:2;
<043314>
Numbers 33:14). The host
expected to find water here; to their distress the streams were dry, and
water was miraculously provided. Palmer (Desert of the Exodus, 158 ff)
states cogent reasons for identifying Rephidim with Wady Feiran. It is the
most fertile part of the peninsula, well watered, with a palm grove
stretching for miles along the valley. Palmer speaks of passing through the
palm grove as a most delightful walk; the tall, graceful trees afforded a
delicious shade, fresh water ran at our feet, and, above all, bulbuls flitted
from branch to branch uttering their sweet notes. His camp was pitched at
the mouth of Wady `Aleyat, a large open space completely surrounded by
steep, shelving mountains of gneiss, the fantastic cleavage of which added
greatly to the beauty of the scene. Palms and tamarisks were dotted all
around, and on every knoll and mountain slope were ruined houses,
churches, and walls, the relics of the ancient monastic city of Paran. Behind
our tents rose the majestic mass of Serbal, and beneath the rocky wall
opposite ran a purling brook, only a few inches in depth, but still
sufficiently cool, clear, and refreshing.
Such a place as this the Amalekites would naturally wish to preserve for
themselves against an invading people. For these desert dwellers, indeed,
the possession of this watered vale may well have been a matter of life and
death.
If this identification is correct, then Jebel Tachuneh, Mount of the mill, a
height that rises on the North of the valley, may have been the hill from
which Moses, with Aaron and Hur, viewed the battle.
W. Ewing
REPROBATE
<rep-ro-bat>: This word occurs in the English Bible in the following
passages:
<240630>
Jeremiah 6:30 (the Revised Version (British and American)
refuse);
<450128>
Romans 1:28;
<471305>
2 Corinthians 13:5,6,7;
<550308>
2 Timothy 3:8;
<560116>
Titus 1:16. In all these cases the Greek has [ooxo, adokimos]. The
same Greek word, however, is found with other renderings in
<230122>
Isaiah
1:22 (dross);
<202504>
Proverbs 25:4 (dross);
<460927>
1 Corinthians 9:27
(castaway, the Revised Version (British and American) rejected). The
primary meaning of adokimos is not-received, not-acknowledged. This
is applied to precious metals or money, in the sense of not-current, to
which, however, the connotation not-genuine easily attaches itself. It is
144
also applied to persons who do not or ought not to receive honor or
recognition. This purely negative conception frequently passes over into
the positive one of that which is or ought to be rejected, either by God or
men. Of the above passages
<460927>
1 Corinthians 9:27 uses the word in this
meaning. Probably
<450128>
Romans 1:28, God gave them up unto a reprobate
mind must be explained on the same principle: the nous of the idolatrous
heathen is permitted by God to fall into such extreme forms of evil as to
meet with the universal rejection and reprobation of men. Wettsteins
interpretation, an unfit mind, i.e. incapable of properly performing its
function of moral discrimination, has no linguistic warrant, and obliterates
the wordplay between they refused to have God in their knowledge (ouk
edokimasan), and God gave them up to a reprobate (= unacknowledged,
adokimos) mind. Even
<560116>
Titus 1:16, unto every good work reprobate,
affords no instance of the meaning unfit, but belongs to the following
rubric.
The close phonetic resemblance and etymological affinity of dokimos to the
verb dokimazo, to try, test, has caused the notion of being tested,
tried, and its opposite of being found wanting in the test to associate
itself more or less distinctly with the adjectives dokimos and adokimos.
Thus the more complex meaning results of that which is acknowledged or
rejected, because it has approved or not approved itself in testing. This
connotation is present in
<471305>
2 Corinthians 13:5,6,7;
<550308>
2 Timothy 3:8;
<560116>
Titus 1:16;
<580608>
Hebrews 6:8. In the first two of these passages the word
is used of Christians who ostensibly were in the true faith, but either
hypothetically or actually are represented as having failed to meet the test.
Reprobate unto every good work (
<560116>
Titus 1:16) are they who by their
life have disappointed the expectation of good works. The reprobate
(rejected) land of
<580608>
Hebrews 6:8 is land that by bearing thorns and
thistles has failed to meet the test of the husband man. It should be noticed,
however, that adokimos, even in these cases, always retains the meaning of
rejection because of failure in trial; compare in the last-named passage:
rejected and nigh unto cursing.
LITERATURE.
Cremer, Biblisch-theologisches Worterbuch der neutestamentlichen
Gracitat(10), 356-57.
Geerhardus Vos
145
REPROOF; REPROVE
<re-proof>, <re-proov>: Reprove in Elizabethan English had a variety
of meanings (reject disprove convince, rebuke), with put to the
proof (see
<550402>
2 Timothy 4:2 the Revised Version margin) as the force
common to all, although in modern English the word means only rebuke
(with a connotation of deliberateness). the King James Version uses the
word chiefly (and the Revised Version (British and American) exclusively,
except in 2 Esdras 12:32; 14:13; 2 Macc 4:33) for [j k y; , yakhach], and
[rry, elegcho], words that have very much the same ambiguities of
meaning. Hence, a fairly easy rendition into English was possible, but the
result included all the ambiguities of the original, and to modern readers
such a passage as But your reproof, what doth it reprove? Do ye think to
reprove words (
<180625>
Job 6:25,26 the American Standard Revised Version)
is virtually incomprehensible. The meaning is, approximately: What do
your rebukes prove? Are you quibbling about words? In
<431608>
John 16:8 no
single word in modern English will translate elegcho, and reprove (the
King James Version), convince (King James Version margin), and
convict (Revised Version) are all unsatisfactory. The sense is: The Spirit
will teach men the true meaning of these three words: sin, righteousness,
judgment.
Burton Scott Easton
REPTILE
<rep-til>, <-til>: Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) in
<330717>
Micah 7:17 has reptilis for zohale, crawling things, the American
Standard Revised Version worms of the earth, the King James Version
margin creeping things.
See LEVIATHAN; LIZARD; SERPENT; TORTOISE.
REPUTATION
<rep-u-ta-shun>: the King James Version uses reputation where
modern English would use repute, as connoting prominence rather than
moral character. Hence, the Revised Versions change to repute in
<480202>
Galatians 2:2 (for [oxr, dokeo], seem, perhaps with a slightly
sarcastic touch). The Revised Versions alteration of reputation into
have in honor (
<440534>
Acts 5:34;
<508629>
Philippians 2:29) is to secure uniformity
146
of translation for the derivatives of [tq, time], honor, but the Revised
Version (British and American) retains reputation in Susanna, verse 64.
The King James Versions made himself of no reputation in
<502007>
Philippians 2:7 is a gloss. See KENOSIS. On
<211001>
Ecclesiastes 10:1 see
the commentaries.
REQUIRE
<re-kwir>: Require meant originally seek after, whence ask, and so
(as in modern English) demand. All meanings are common in the King
James Version (e.g.
<092108>
1 Samuel 21:8;
<210315>
Ecclesiastes 3:15;
<150822>
Ezra 8:22;
<460402>
1 Corinthians 4:2), and the Revised Version (British and American) has
made little change.
REREWARD
<rer-word>.
See REARWARD.
RESAIAS
<re-sa-yas>, <re-si-as> ([ Pqooo, Rhesaias]; the King James Version
Reesaias): One of the leaders with Zerubbabel in the return (1 Esdras
5:8) = Reelaiah in
<150202>
Ezra 2:2, Raamiah in
<160707>
Nehemiah 7:7. The
name is apparently duplicated in 1 Esdras 5:8 in the form Reelias.
RESEN
<re-sen> ([s ,r ,, recen]; Septuagint [Aoorv, Dasen], [Aoor, Dasem]):
1. THE NAME AND ITS NATIVE EQUIVALENT:
The Greek forms show that the Septuagint translators had d for r but the
reading of the Massoretic Text is to be preferred. Resen the last of the
four cities mentioned in
<011011>
Genesis 10:11,12 as having been founded by
Nimrod (the King James Version by Asshur) probably represents the
Assyrian pronunciation of the place-name Res-eni, fountainhead. The
only town so named in the inscriptions is one of 18 mentioned by
Sennacherib in the Bavian inscription as places from which he dug canals
connecting with the river Khosr in fact, it was one of the sources of
147
Ninevehs water supply. It probably lay too far North, however, to be the
city here intended. Naturally the name Resen could exist in any place
where there was a spring.
2. POSSIBLY THE MODERN SELAMIYEH:
As the Biblical text requires a site lying between Nineveh and Calah
(Kouyunjik and Nimroud), it is generally thought to be represented by the
ruins at Selamiyeh, about 3 miles North of the latter city. It is noteworthy
that Xenophon (Anab. iii.4) mentions a great city called Larissa as
occupying this position, and Bochart has suggested that it is the same
place. He supposes that when the inhabitants were asked to what city the
ruins belonged, they answered la Resen, to Resen, which was reproduced
by the Greeks as Larissa. Xenophon describes its walls as being 25 ft.
wide, 100 ft. high, and 2 parasangs in circuit. Except for the stone plinth 20
ft. high, they were of brick. He speaks of a stone-built pyramid near the
city possibly the temple-tower at Nimroud.
See CALAH; NINEVEH, 10.
T. G. Pinches
RESERVOIR
<rez-er-vwor>, <-vwar> ([h w;q ]mi, miqwah]; the King James Version ditch
(
<232211>
Isaiah 22:11)).
See DITCH; CISTERN; POOL.
RESH
<resh>, <rash> (r ): The 20th letter of the Hebrew alphabet; transliterated
in this Encyclopedia as r. It came also to be used for the number 200.
For name, etc., see ALPHABET.
RESHEPH
<re-shef> ([t v ,r ,, resheph], flame or fire-bolt): Personal name found
in Phoenician as a divine name. In the Old Testament the name of a
descendant of Ephraim, the eponym of an Ephraimite family or clan (
<130725>
1
Chronicles 7:25).
148
RESIDUE
<rez-i-du>.
See REMNANT.
RESPECT OF PERSONS
<re-spekt>: The phrase [ ynip ; a c ;n;, nasa phanim], means literally, lift
up the face, and, among other translations, is rendered indifferently
accept or respect the person in the King James Version (contrast
<201805>
Proverbs 18:5 and 24:23). As applied to a (prostrate) suppliant, the
phrase means receive him with favor, and is so used in
<092535>
1 Samuel
25:35;
<390108>
Malachi 1:8,9 (compare
<011921>
Genesis 19:21, etc.). By a shift in
force the phrase came to mean accept the person instead of the cause or
show partiality (
<181308>
Job 13:8,10 the American Standard Revised
Version), and is so used commonly. A literal translation into Greek gave
[opov pooov, lambano prosopon] (Sirach 35:13 (32:16);
<422021>
Luke 20:21;
<480206>
Galatians 2:6), with the noun [poooqgo,
prosopolempsia], face-taking (
<450211>
Romans 2:11;
<490609>
Ephesians 6:9;
<510325>
Colossians 3:25;
<590201>
James 2:1), rendered uniformly respect of
persons in English Versions of the Bible. A noun [poooqtq,
prosopolemptes], respecter of persons, and a verb [poooqtr,
prosopolempteo], are found
<441034>
Acts 10:34;
<590209>
James 2:9. Gods judgment
rests solely on the character of the man and will be influenced by no
worldly (
<490609>
Ephesians 6:9) or national (
<450211>
Romans 2:11) considerations.
See also ACCEPT.
Burton Scott Easton
REST
([j Wn, nuach], [h j ;Wnm], menuchah], cessation from motion, peace,
quiet, etc.; [ovoouo, anapausis, [xotoouo, katapausis]):
Rest in the above sense is of frequent occurrence, and is the translation
of several words with various applications and shades of meaning, chiefly
of the words given above. It is applied to God as ceasing from the work of
creating on the 7th day (
<010202>
Genesis 2:2 f) ; as having His place of rest in
the midst of His people in the temple (
<132802>
1 Chronicles 28:2;
<19D208>
Psalm
132:8,14); as resting in His love among His people (Zeph 3:17, the Revised
149
Version margin Hebrew, `be silent ). The 7th day was to be one of rest
(
<021623>
Exodus 16:23; 31:15; see SABBATH); the land also was to have its
rest in the 7th year (
<032504>
Leviticus 25:4 f). Yahweh promised His people rest
in the land He should give them; this they looked forward to and enjoyed
(
<051209>
Deuteronomy 12:9;
<061123>
Joshua 11:23). To rest on often means to
come upon to abide, as of the Spirit of Yahweh (
<041125>
Numbers 11:25 f;
<231102>
Isaiah 11:2), of wisdom (
<201433>
Proverbs 14:33), of anger (
<210709>
Ecclesiastes
7:9). There is again the rest of the grave (
<180313>
Job 3:13,17,18;
<235702>
Isaiah
57:2;
<271213>
Daniel 12:13). Rest is sometimes equivalent to trust, reliance
(
<141411>
2 Chronicles 14:11, the Revised Version (British and American)
rely). Hence, rest in Yahweh (
<193707>
Psalm 37:7, etc.); rest in the spiritual
sense is not, however, prominent in the Old Testament. In the New
Testament Christs great offer is rest to the soul (
<401128>
Matthew 11:28). In
<580401>
Hebrews 4:1 ff, it is argued from Gods having promised His people a
rest a promise not realized in Canaan (4:8) that there remains for
the people of God a Sabbath rest (sabbatismos, 4:9). For rest the
Revised Version (British and American) has solemn rest (
<021623>
Exodus
16:23; 31:15, etc.), resting-place (
<19D208>
Psalm 132:8,14;
<231110>
Isaiah 11:10),
peace (
<440931>
Acts 9:31), relief (2 Cor 2:13; 7:5), etc.
See also REMNANT.
W. L. Walker
RESTITUTION; RESTORATION
<res-ti-tu-shun>.
See PUNISHMENTS.
RESTORATION
<res-to-ra-shun>: The idea of a restoration of the world had its origin in
the preaching of the Old Testament prophets. Their faith in the unique
position and mission of Israel as the chosen people of God inspired in them
the conviction that the destruction of the nation would eventually be
followed by a restoration under conditions that would insure the realization
of the original divine purpose. When the restoration came and passed
without fulfillment of this hope, the Messianic era was projected into the
future. By the time of Jesus the conception became more or less
spiritualized, and the anticipation of a new order in which the
150
consequences of sin would no longer appear was a prominent feature of
the Messianic conception. In the teaching of Jesus and the apostles such a
restoration is taken for granted as a matter of course.
In
<401711>
Matthew 17:11 (compare
<410912>
Mark 9:12), the moral and spiritual
regeneration preached by John the Baptist is described as a restoration and
viewed as a fulfillment of
<390406>
Malachi 4:6. It is to be observed, however,
that the work of John could be characterized as restoration only in the
sense of an inception of the regeneration that was to be completed by
Jesus. In
<401928>
Matthew 19:28 Jesus speaks of a regeneration
([ovyrvroo, palingenesia]) of the world in terms that ascribe to the
saints a state of special felicity. Perhaps the most pointed expression of the
idea of restoration as a special event or crisis is found in the address of
Peter (
<440321>
Acts 3:21), where the restoration is described as an
[ooxotootoo ovtv, apokatastasis panton], and is viewed as a
fulfillment of prophecy.
In all the passages cited the restoration is assumed as a matter with which
the hearers are familiar, and consequently its nature is not unfolded. The
evidence is, therefore, too limited to justify any attempt to outline its
special features. Under such circumstances there is grave danger of reading
into the language of the Scriptures ones own conception of what the
restoration is to embody. We are probably expressing the full warrant of
the Scripture when we say that the reconstruction mentioned in these
passages contemplates the restoration of man, under the reign of Christ, to
a life in which the consequences of sin are no longer present, and that this
reconstruction is to include in some measure a regeneration of both the
physical and the spiritual world.
Whether the benefits of the restoration are to accrue to all men is also left
undefined in the Scriptures. In the passages already cited only the disciples
of Christ appear in the field of vision. Certain sayings of Jesus are
sometimes regarded as favorable to the more inclusive view. In
<431232>
John
12:32 Jesus speaks of drawing all men to Himself, but here, as in
<430314>
John
3:14,15, it is to be observed that while Christs sacrifice includes all men in
its scope, its benefits will doubtless accrue to those only who respond
willingly to His drawing power. The saying of Caiaphas (
<431152>
John 11:52) is
irrelevant, for the phrase, the children of God that are scattered abroad,
probably refers only to the worthy Jews of the dispersion. Neither can the
statements of Paul (
<451132>
Romans 11:32;
<461522>
1 Corinthians 15:22;
151
<490109>
Ephesians 1:9,10;
<510120>
Colossians 1:20;
<540204>
1 Timothy 2:4; 4:10;
<560211>
Titus
2:11) be pressed in favor of the restorationist view. They affirm only that
Gods plan makes provision for the redemption of all, and that His saving
will is universal. But men have wills of their own, and whether they share
in the benefits of the salvation provided depends on their availing
themselves of its privileges. The doctrine of the restoration of all can hardly
be deduced from the New Testament.
See also PUNISHMENT, EVERLASTING.
Russell Benjamin Miller
RESURRECTION
<rez-u-rek-shun> (in the New Testament [ovootoo, anastasis], with
verbs [ovotq, anistemi], stand up, and [ryrp, egeiro], raise.
There is no technical term in the Old Testament, but in
<232619>
Isaiah 26:19 are
found the verbs [h y;j ;, chayah], live, [ Wq , kum] rise, [6 yq i , kic]
awake).
I. ISRAEL AND IMMORTALITY.
1. Nationalism:
It is very remarkable that a doctrine of life after death as an essential part
of religion was of very late development in Israel, although this doctrine,
often highly elaborated, was commonly held among the surrounding
nations. The chief cause of this lateness was that Israels religion centered
predominantly in the ideal of a holy nation. Consequently the individual
was a secondary object of consideration, and the future of the man who
died before the national promises were fulfilled either was merged in the
future of his descendants or else was disregarded altogether.
2. Speculation:
Much speculation about life after death evidently existed, but it was not in
direct connection with the nations religion. Therefore, the Old Testament
data are scanty and point, as might be expected, to non-homogeneous
concepts. Still, certain ideas are clear. The living individual was composed
of flesh and nephesh, or ruach (a trichotomy appears to be post-Biblical,
despite
<520523>
1 Thessalonians 5:23; see PSYCHOLOGY). In the individual
nephesh and ruach seem to be fairly synonymous words, meaning primarily
152
breath, as the animating principle of the flesh (so for the lower animals in
<19A429>
Psalm 104:29,30). But nephesh came to be used to denote the inner
man or self (
<051220>
Deuteronomy 12:20, etc.; see HEART), and so in
English Versions of the Bible is usually rendered soul. But there are only
a very few cases where nephesh is used for the seat of the personality after
death (
<193003>
Psalm 30:3; compare 16:10; 38:17;
<183318>
Job 33:18, etc.), and
nearly all of such passages seem quite late. Indeed, in some 13 cases the
nephesh of a dead man is unmistakably his corpse (
<031928>
Leviticus 19:28;
<040502>
Numbers 5:2;
<370213>
Haggai 2:13, etc.). It seems the question of what
survives death was hardly raised; whatever existed then was thought of as
something quite new. On the one hand the dead man could be called a
god (
<092813>
1 Samuel 28:13), a term perhaps related to ancestor-worship.
But more commonly the dead are thought of as shades, rephaim
(
<182605>
Job 26:5 margin, etc.), weak copies of the original man in all regards
(
<263225>
Ezekiel 32:25). But, whatever existence such shades might have,
they had passed out of relation to Yahweh, whom the dead praise not
(
<19B517>
Psalm 115:17,18;
<233818>
Isaiah 38:18,19), and there was no religious
interest in them.
3. Religious Danger:
Indeed, any interest taken in them was likely to be anti-religious, as
connected with necromancy, etc. (
<051401>
Deuteronomy 14:1; 26:14;
<230819>
Isaiah
8:19;
<19A628>
Psalm 106:28, etc.; see SORCERY), or as connected with foreign
religions. Here, probably, the very fact that the surrounding nations taught
immortality was a strong reason for Israels refusing to consider it. That
Egypt held an elaborate doctrine of individual judgment at death, or that
Persia taught the resurrection of the body, would actually tend to render
these doctrines suspicious, and it was not until the danger of syncretism
seemed past that such beliefs could be considered on their own merits.
Hence, it is not surprising that the prophets virtually disregard the idea or
that Ecclesiastes denies any immortality doctrine categorically.
4. Belief in Immortality:
Nonetheless, with a fuller knowledge of God, wider experience, and deeper
reflection, the doctrine was bound to come. But it came slowly.
Individualism reaches explicit statement in Ezekiel 14; 18; 33 (compare
<052416>
Deuteronomy 24:16;
<243129>
Jeremiah 31:29,30), but the national point of
view still made the rewards and punishments of the individual matters of
153
this world only (
<261414>
Ezekiel 14:14; Psalm 37, etc.), a doctrine that had
surprising vitality and that is found as late as Sirach (1:13; 11:26). But as
this does not square with the facts of life (Job), a doctrine of immortality,
already hinted at (II, 1, below), was inevitable. It appears in full force in
the post-Maccabean period, but why just then is hard to say; perhaps
because it was then that there had been witnessed the spectacle of
martyrdoms on a large scale (1 Macc 1:60-64).
5. Resurrection:
Resurrection of the body was the form immortality took, in accord with the
religious premises. As the saint was to find his happiness in the nation, he
must be restored to the nation; and the older views did not point toward
pure soul-immortality. The shades led a wretched existence at the best;
and Paul himself shudders at the thought of nakedness (2 Cor 5:3). The
nephesh and ruach were uncertain quantities, and even the New Testament
has no consistent terminology for the immortal part of man (soul,
<660609>
Revelation 6:9; 20:4; spirit,
<581223>
Hebrews 12:23;
<600319>
1 Peter 3:19; Paul
avoids any term in 1 Corinthians 15, and in 2 Corinthians 5 says: I). In
the Talmud a common view is that the old bodies will receive new souls
(Ber. R. 2 7; 6 7; Vayy. R. 12 2; 15 1, etc.; compare Sib Or 4:187).
6. Greek Concepts:
Where direct Greek influence, however, can be predicated, pure soul-
immortality is found (compare The Wisdom of Solomon 8:19,20; 9:15 (but
Wisds true teaching is very uncertain); Enoch 102:4 through 105; 108;
Slavonic Enoch; 4 Macc; Josephus, and especially Philo). According to
Josephus (BJ, II, viii, 11) the Essenes held this doctrine, but as Josephus
graecizes the Pharisaic resurrection into Pythagorean soul-migration (II,
viii, 14; contrast Ant, XVIII, i, 3), his evidence is doubtful. Note,
moreover, how
<420609>
Luke 6:9; 9:25; 12:4,5 has re-worded
<410304>
Mark 3:4;
8:36;
<401028>
Matthew 10:28 for Greek readers. In a vague way even
Palestinian Judaism had something of the same concepts (2 Esdras 7:88;
<470416>
2 Corinthians 4:16; 12:2), while it is commonly held that the souls in
the intermediate state can enjoy happiness, a statement first appearing in
Enoch 22 (Jubilees 23:31 is hardly serious).
154
II. RESURRECTION IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND
INTERMEDIATE LITERATURE.
1. The Old Testament:
For the reasons given above, references in the Old Testament to the
resurrection doctrine are few. Probably it is to be found in
<191715>
Psalm 17:15;
16:11; 49:15; 73:24, and in each case with increased probability, but for
exact discussions the student must consult the commentaries. Of course no
exact dating of these Psalm passages is possible. With still higher
probability the doctrine is expressed in
<181413>
Job 14:13-15; 19:25-29, but
again alternative explanations are just possible, and, again, Job is a
notoriously hard book to date (see JOB, BOOK OF). The two certain
passages are
<232619>
Isaiah 26:19 margin and
<271202>
Daniel 12:2. In the former (to
be dated about 332 (?)) it is promised that the dew of light shall fall on
the earth and so the (righteous) dead shall revive. But this resurrection is
confined to Palestine and does not include the unrighteous. For
<271202>
Daniel
12:2 see below.
2. The Righteous:
Indeed, resurrection for the righteous only was thought of much more
naturally than a general resurrection. And still more naturally a resurrection
of martyrs was thought of, such simply receiving back what they had given
up for God. So in Enoch 90:33 (prior to 107 BC) and 2 Macc 7:9,11,23;
14:46 (only martyrs are mentioned in 2 Macc); compare
<662004>
Revelation
20:4. But of course the idea once given could not be restricted to martyrs
only, and the intermediate literature contains so many references to the
resurrection of the righteous as to debar citation. Early passages are Enoch
91:10 (perhaps pre-Maccabean); Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Test.
Judah 25:4 (before 107). A very curious passage is Enoch 25:6, where the
risen saints merely live longer than did their fathers, i.e. resurrection does
not imply immortality. This passage seems to be unique.
3. The Unrighteous:
For a resurrection of unrighteous men (
<271202>
Daniel 12:2; Enoch 22:11;
Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Test. Benj. 10:7,8, Armenian text
in none of these cases a general resurrection), a motive is given in Enoch
22:13: for such men the mere condition of Sheol is not punishment enough.
For a general resurrection the motive is always the final judgment, so that
155
all human history may be summed up in one supreme act. The idea is not
very common, and Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Test. Benj. 10:7,8
(Greek text); Baruch 50:2; Enoch 51:1; Sib Or 4:178-90; Life of Adam
(Greek) 10, and 2 Esdras 5:45; 7:32; 14:35 about account for all the
unequivocal passages. It is not found in the earliest part of the Talmud,
Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Test. Benj. 10:7,8 (Greek) has two
resurrections.
4. Complete Denial:
Finally, much of the literature knows no immortality at all. Eccl, Sirach and
1 Maccabees are the most familiar examples, but there are many others. It
is especially interesting that the very spiritual author of 2 Esdras did not
think it worth while to modify the categorical denial in the source used in
13:20. Of course, the Jewish party that persisted most in a denial of any
resurrection was the Sadducees (
<402223>
Matthew 22:23 and parallels;
<442308>
Acts
23:8), with an extreme conservatism often found among aristocrats.
III. TEACHING OF CHRIST.
1.
<411218>
Mark 12:18-27:
The question is discussed explicitly in the familiar passage
<411218>
Mark 12:18-
27 parallel
<402223>
Matthew 22:23-33 parallel
<422027>
Luke 20:27-38. The
Sadducees assumed that resurrection implies simply a resuscitation to a
resumption of human functions, including the physical side of marriage.
Their error lay in the low idea of God. For the Scriptures teach a God
whose ability and willingness to care for His creatures are so unlimited that
the destiny He has prepared for them is caricatured if conceived in any
terms but the absolutely highest. Hence, there follows not only the truth of
the resurrection, but a resurrection to a state as far above the sexual sphere
as that of the angels. (The possibility of mutual recognition by husband and
wife is irrelevant, nor is it even said that the resurrection bodies are
asexual) Luke (20:36) adds the explanation that, as there are to be no
deaths, marriage (in its relation to births) will not exist. It may be thought
that Christs argument would support equally well the immortality of the
soul only, and, as a matter of fact, the same argument is used for the latter
doctrine in 4 Macc 7:18,19; 16:25. But in Jerusalem and under the given
circumstances this is quite impossible. And, moreover, it would seem that
any such dualism would be a violation of Christs teaching as to Gods
care.
156
2. In General:
However, the argument seems to touch only the resurrection of the
righteous, especially in the form given in Luke (compare
<421414>
Luke 14:14).
(But that Luke thought of so limiting the resurrection is disproved by
<442415>
Acts 24:15.) Similarly in
<400811>
Matthew 8:11 parallel
<421328>
Luke 13:28;
<411327>
Mark 13:27 parallel
<402431>
Matthew 24:31. But, as a feature in the
Judgment, the resurrection of all men is taught. Then the men of sodom,
Tyre, Nineveh appear (
<401122>
Matthew 11:22,24; 12:41,42 parallel
<421014>
Luke
10:14; 11:32), and those cast into Gehenna are represented as having a
body (
<410943>
Mark 9:43-47;
<400529>
Matthew 5:29,30; 10:28; 18:8,9). And at the
great final assize (
<402531>
Matthew 25:31-46) all men appear. In the Fourth
Gospel a similar distinction is made (
<430639>
John 6:39,40,44,54; 11:25), the
resurrection of the righteous, based on their union with God through Christ
and heir present possession of this union, and (in
<430528>
John 5:28,29) the
general resurrection to judgment. Whether these passages imply two
resurrections or emphasize only the extreme difference in conditions at the
one cannot be determined.
The passages in 4 Maccabees referred to above read: They who care for
piety with their whole heart, they alone are able to conquer the impulses of
the flesh, believing that like our patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, they do
not die to God but live to God (7:18,19); and They knew that dying for
God they would live to God, even as Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all
the patriarchs (16:25). It is distinctly possible that our Lords words rnay
have been known to the author of 4 Maccabees, although the possibility
that Christ approved and broadened the tenets of some spiritually-minded
few is not to be disregarded. More possible is it that 4 Maccabees
influenced Lukes Greek phraseology.
See MACCABEES, BOOK OF, IV.
IV. THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE.
1. References:
For the apostles, Christs victory over death took the resurrection doctrine
out of the realm of speculative eschatology. Henceforth, it is a fact of
experience, basic for Christianity. Direct references in the New Testament
are found in
<440402>
Acts 4:2; 17:18,32; 23:6; 24:15,21;
<450417>
Romans 4:17; 5:17;
6:5,8; 8:11; 11:15;
<460614>
1 Corinthians 6:14; 15;
<470109>
2 Corinthians 1:9; 4:14;
157
5:1-10;
<500310>
Philippians 3:10,11,21;
<510118>
Colossians 1:18;
<520413>
1 Thessalonians
4:13-18;
<550218>
2 Timothy 2:18;
<580602>
Hebrews 6:2; 11:19,35;
<662004>
Revelation
20:4,5 (martyrs only); 20:12,13. Of these only
<442415>
Acts 24:15;
<662012>
Revelation 20:12,13, refer to a general resurrection with absolute
unambiguity, but the doctrine is certainly contained in others and in
<550401>
2
Timothy 4:1 besides.
2. Pauline Doctrine:
A theology of the resurrection is given fully by Paul. Basic is the
conception of the union of the believer with Christ, so that our resurrection
follows from His (especially
<450605>
Romans 6:5-11;
<500310>
Philippians 3:10,11).
Every deliverance from danger is a foretaste of the resurrection (2 Cor
4:10,11). Indeed so certain is it, that it may be spoken of as accomplished
(
<490206>
Ephesians 2:6). From another standpoint, the resurrection is simply
part of Gods general redemption of Nature at the consummation
(
<450811>
Romans 8:11,18-25). As the believer then passes into a condition of
glory, his body must be altered for the new conditions (1 Cor 15:50;
<500321>
Philippians 3:21); it becomes a spiritual body, belonging to the realm
of the spirit (not spiritual in opposition to material). Nature shows us
how different bodies can be from the body of the sun to the bodies
of the lowest animals the kind depends merely on the creative will of God
(1 Cor 15:38-41). Nor is the idea of a change in the body of the same thing
unfamiliar: look at the difference in the body of a grain of wheat at its
sowing and after it is grown! (1 Cor 15:37). Just so, I am sown or sent
into the world (probably not buried) with one kind of body, but my
resurrection will see me with a body adapted to my life with Christ and
God (1 Cor 15:42-44). If I am still alive at the Parousia, this new body
shall be clothed upon my present body (1 Cor 15:53,54;
<470502>
2 Corinthians
5:2-4) otherwise I shall be raised in it (1 Cor 15:52). This body exists
already in the heavens (2 Cor 5:1,2), and when it is clothed upon me the
natural functions of the present body will be abolished (1 Cor 6:13). Yet a
motive for refraining from impurity is to keep undefiled the body that is to
rise (1 Cor 6:13,14).
3. Continuity:
The relation of the matter in the present body to that in the resurrection
body was a question Paul never raised. In
<460613>
1 Corinthians 6:13,14 it
appears that he thought of the body as something more than the sum of its
158
organs, for the organs perish, but the body is raised. Nor does he discuss
the eventual fate of the dead body. The imagery of
<520416>
1 Thessalonians
4:16,17;
<461552>
1 Corinthians 15:52 is that of leaving the graves, and in the
case of Christs resurrection, the type of ours, that which was buried was
that which was raised (1 Cor 15:4). Perhaps the thought is that the touch
of the resurrection body destroys all things in the old body that are
unadapted to the new state; perhaps there is an idea that the essence of the
old body is what we might call non-material, so that decay simply
anticipates the work the resurrection will do. At all events, such reflections
are beyond what is written.
4. 2 Corinthians 5:
A partial parallel to the idea of the resurrection body being already in
heaven is found in Slavonic Enoch 22:8,9, where the soul receives clothing
laid up for it (compare Ascension of
<230722>
Isaiah 7:22,23 and possibly
<660611>
Revelation 6:11). But Christ also speaks of a reward being already in
heaven (
<400512>
Matthew 5:12). A more important question is the time of the
clothing in
<470501>
2 Corinthians 5:1-5. A group of scholars (Heinrici,
Schmiedel, Holtzmann, Clemen, Charles, etc.) consider that Paul has here
changed his views from those of 1 Corinthians; that he now considers the
resurrection body to be assumed immediately at death, and they translate
<470502>
2 Corinthians 5:2,3 `we groan (at the burdens of life), longing to be
clothed upon with our habitation which is from heaven: because, when we
shall be clothed with it, we shall have no more nakedness to experience
(Weizsackers translation of the New Testament). But 2 Corinthians would
have been a most awkward place to announce a change of views, for it was
written in part as a defense against inconsistency (1:17, etc.). The
willingness to be absent from the body (5:8) loses all its point if another
and better body is to be given at once. The grammatical reasons for the
interpretation above (best stated by Heinrici) are very weak. And the
translation given reads into the verse something that simply is not there.
Consequently it is far better to follow the older interpretation of Meyer (B.
Weiss, Bousset, Lietzmann, Bachmann, Menzies, etc.; Bachmann is
especially good) and the obvious sense of the passage: Paul dreads being
left naked by death, but finds immediate consolation at the thought of being
with Christ, and eventual consolation at the thought of the body to be
received at the Parousia. (In
<500121>
Philippians 1:21-24 this dread is
overcome.)
159
Of a resurrection of the wicked, Paul has little to say. The doctrine seems
clearly stated in
<470510>
2 Corinthians 5:10 (and in
<550401>
2 Timothy 4:1, unless the
Pauline authorship of 2 Timothy is denied). But Paul is willing to treat the
fate of the unrighteous with silence.
V. SUMMARY.
1. New Testament Data:
The points in the New Testament doctrine of the resurrection of the
righteous, then, seem to be these: The personality of the believer survives
after death and is with Christ. But it is lacking in something that will be
supplied at the consummation, when a body will be given in which there is
nothing to hinder perfect intercourse with God. The connection of this
body with the present body is not discussed, except for saying that some
connection exists, with the necessity of a transformation for those alive at
the end. In this state nothing remains that is inconsistent with the height to
which man is raised, and in particular sexual relations (
<411225>
Mark 12:25) and
the processes of nutrition (1 Cor 6:13) cease. For this end the whole power
of God is available. And it is insured by the perfect trust the believer may
put in God and by the resurrection of Christ, with whom the believer has
become intimately united. The unrighteous are raised for the final
vindication of Gods dealings in history. Two resurrections are found in
<662005>
Revelation 20:5,13 and quite possibly in
<520416>
1 Thessalonians 4:16;
<461523>
1
Corinthians 15:23,24. Hence, the phrase first resurrection.
See LAST JUDGMENT.
2. Interpretation:
Into the blanks of this scheme the believer is naturally entitled to insert
such matter as may seem to him best compatible with his other concepts of
Christianity and of philosophy. As is so often the case with passages in the
Bible, the student marvels at the way the sacred writers were restrained
from committing Christianity to metaphysical schemes that growth in
human knowledge might afterward show to be false. But theologian must
take care to distinguish between the revealed facts and the interpretation
given them in any system that he constructs to make the doctrine conform
to the ideas of his own time or circle a distinction too often forgotten in
the past and sometimes with lamentable results. Especially is it well to
remember that such a phrase as a purely spiritual immortality rests on a
160
metaphysical dualism that is today obsolete, and that such a phrase is
hardly less naive than the expectation that the resurrection body will
contain identically the material of the present body. We are still quite in the
dark as to the relations of what we call soul and body, and so,
naturally, it is quite impossible to dogmatize. A. Meyer in his RGG article
(Auferstehung, dogmatisch) has some interesting suggestions. For an
idealistic metaphysic, where soul and body are only two forms of Gods
thought, the resurrection offers no difficulties. If the body be regarded as
the web of forces that proceed from the soul, the resurrection would take
the form of the return of those forces to their center at the consummation.
If body be considered to embrace the totality of effects that proceed
from the individual, at the end the individual will find in these effects the
exact expression of himself (Fechners theory). Or resurrection may be
considered as the end of evolution the reunion in God of all that has
been differentiated and so evolved and enriched. Such lines must be
followed cautiously, but may be found to lead to results of great value.
In recent years the attention of scholars has been directed to the problem of
how far the teachings of other religions assisted the Jews in attaining a
resurrection doctrine. Practically only the Persian system comes into
question, and here the facts seem to be these: A belief among the Persians
in the resurrection of the body is attested for the pre-Christian period by
the fragments of Theopompus (4th century BC), preserved by Diogenes
Laertius and Aeneas of Gaza. That this doctrine was taught by Zoroaster
himself is not capable of exact proof, but is probable. But on the precise
details we are in great uncertainty. In the Avesta the doctrine is not found
in the oldest part (the Gathas), but is mentioned in the 19th Yasht, a
document that has certainly undergone post-Christian redaction of an
extent that is not determinable. The fullest Persian source is the Bundahesh
(30), written in the 9th Christian century. It certainly contains much very
ancient matter, but the age of any given passage in it is always a problem.
Consequently the sources must be used with great caution. It may be noted
that late Judaism certainly was affected to some degree by the Persian
religion (see Tob, especially), but there are so many native Jewish elements
that were leading to a resurrection doctrine that familiarity with the Persian
belief could have been an assistance only. Especially is it to be noted that
the great acceptance of the doctrine lies in the post-Maccabean period,
when direct Persian influence is hardly to be thought of.
See ZOROASTRIANISM.
161
LITERATURE.
The older works suffer from a defective understanding of the
presuppositions, but Salmond, Christian Doctrine of Immortality, is always
useful. Brown, The Christian Hope, 1912, is excellent and contains a full
bibliography. Charles, Eschatology, and article Eschatology in
Encyclopedia Biblica are invaluable, but must be used critically by the
thorough student, for the opinions are often individualistic. Wotherspoons
article Resurrection in DCG is good; Bernards in HDB is not so good.
On 1 Corinthians, Findlay or (better) Edwards; on 2 Corinthians, Menzies.
In German the New Testament Theologies of Weiss, Holtzmann, Feine;
Schaeders Auferstehung in PRE3. On 1 Cor, Heinrici and J. Weiss in
Meyer (editions 8 and 9); on 2 Corinthians, Bachmann in the Zahn series.
On both Corinthian epistles Bousset in the Schriften des New Testament of
J. Weiss (the work of an expert in eschatology), and Lietzmann in his
Handbuch.
See BODY; ESCHATOLOGY (OLD TESTAMENT AND NEW
TESTAMENT); FLESH; SOUL; SPIRIT.
Burton Scott Easton
RESURRECTION, GOSPEL OF THE
See APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS.
RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST, THE
The Resurrection has always been felt to be vital in connection with
Christianity. As a consequence, opponents have almost always
concentrated their attacks, and Christians have centered their defense, upon
it. It is therefore of the utmost importance to give attention to the subject,
as it appears in the New Testament. There are several converging lines of
evidence, and none can be overlooked. Each must have its place and
weight. The issues at stake are so serious that nothing must be omitted.
1. FIRST PROOF: THE LIFE OF JESUS:
The first proof is the life of Jesus Christ Himself. It is always a
disappointment when a life which commenced well finishes badly. We have
this feeling even in fiction; instinct demands that a story should end well.
Much more is this true of Jesus Christ. A perfect life characterized by
162
divine claims ends in its prime in a cruel and shameful death. Is that a
fitting close? Surely death could not end everything after such a noble
career. The Gospels give the resurrection as the completion of the picture
of Jesus Christ. There is no real doubt that Christ anticipated His own
resurrection. At first He used only vague terms, such as, Destroy this
Temple, and in three days I will raise it up. But later on He spoke plainly,
and whenever He mentioned His death, He added, The Son of man ....
must be raised the third day. These references are too numerous to be
overlooked, and, in spite of difficulties of detail, they are, in any proper
treatment of the Gospels, an integral part of the claim made for Himself by
Jesus Christ (
<401238>
Matthew 12:38-40; 16:21; 17:9,23; 20:19; 27:63;
<410831>
Mark 8:31; 9:9,31; 10:34; 14:58;
<420922>
Luke 9:22; 18:33;
<430219>
John 2:19-
21). His veracity is at stake if He did not rise. Surely the word of such a
One must be given due credence. We are therefore compelled to face the
fact that the resurrection of which the Gospels speak is the resurrection of
no ordinary man, but of Jesus that is of One whose life and character
had been unique, and for whose shameful death no proper explanation was
conceivable (Denhey, Jesus and the Gospel, 122 f). Is it possible that, in
view of His perfect truthfulness of word and deed, there should be such an
anti-climax as is involved in a denial of His assurance that He would rise
again (C.H. Robinson, Studies in the Resurrection, 30)? Consider, too, the
death of Christ in the light of His perfect life. If that death was the close of
a life so beautiful, so remarkable, so Godlike, we are faced with an
insoluble mystery the permanent triumph of wrong over right, and the
impossibility of believing in truth or justice in the world (C.H. Robinson,
op. cit., 36). So the resurrection is not to be regarded as an isolated event,
a fact in the history of Christ separated from all else. It must be taken in
close connection with what precedes. The true solution of the problem is to
be found in that estimate of Christ which most entirely fits in with the
totality of the facts (Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 14).
2. SECOND PROOF: THE EMPTY GRAVE:
Another line of proof is the fact of the empty grave and the disappearance
of the body. That Jesus died and was buried, and that on the third morning
the tomb was empty, is not now seriously challenged. The theory of a
swoon and a recovery in the tomb is impossible, and to it Strauss
practically gives its deathblow (Orr, op. cit., 43). At Christs burial a
stone was rolled before the tomb, the tomb was sealed, and a guard was
163
placed before it. Yet on the third morning the body had disappeared, and
the tomb was empty. There are only two alternatives. His body must have
been taken out of the grave by human hands or else by superhuman power.
If the hands were human, they must have been those of His friends or of
His foes. If His friends had wished to take out His body, the question at
once arises whether they could have done so in the face of the stone, the
seal and the guard. If His foes had contemplated this action, the question
arises whether they would seriously have considered it. It is extremely
improbable that any effort should have been made to remove the body out
of the reach of the disciples. Why should His enemies do the very thing that
would be most likely to spread the report of His resurrection? As
Chrysostom said, If the body had been stolen, they could not have stolen
it naked, because of the delay in stripping it of the burial clothes and the
trouble caused by the drugs adhering to it (quoted in Day, Evidence for
the Resurrection, 35). Besides, the position of the grave-clothes proves the
impossibility of the theft of the body (see Greek of
<432006>
John 20:6,7; 11:44;
Grimley, Temple of Humanity, 69, 70; Latham, The Risen Master; The
Expository Times, XIII, 293 f; XIV, 510). How, too, is it possible to
account for the failure of the Jews to disprove the resurrection? Not more
than seven weeks afterward Peter preached in that city the fact that Jesus
had been raised. What would have been easier or more conclusive than for
the Jews to have produced the dead body and silenced Peter forever? The
silence of the Jews is as significant as the speech of the Christians
(Fairbairn, Studies in the Life of Christ, 357).
The fact of the empty tomb with the disappearance of the body remains a
problem to be faced. It is now admitted that the evidence for the empty
tomb is adequate, and that it was part of the primitive belief (Foundations,
134, 154). It is important to realize the force of this admission, because it
is a testimony to Pauls use of the term third day (see below) and to the
Christian observance of the first day of the week. And yet in spite of this
we are told that a belief in the empty tomb is impossible. By some writers
the idea of resurrection is interpreted to mean the revival of Christs
spiritual influence on the disciples, which had been brought to a close by
His death. It is thought that the essential idea and value of Christs
resurrection can be conserved, even while the belief in His bodily rising
from the grave is surrendered (Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 23). But
how can we believe in the resurrection while we regard the basis of the
primitive belief in it as a mistake, not to say a fraud? The disciples found
164
the tomb empty, and on the strength of this they believed He had risen.
How can the belief be true if the foundation be false? Besides, the various
forms of the vision-theory are now gradually but surely being regarded as
inadequate and impossible. They involve the change of almost every fact in
the Gospel history, and the invention of new scenes and conditions of
which the Gospels know nothing (Orr, op. cit., 222). It has never been
satisfactorily shown why the disciples should have had this abundant
experience of visions; nor why they should have had it so soon after the
death of Christ and within a strictly limited period; nor why it suddenly
ceased. The disciples were familiar with the apparition of a spirit, like
Samuels, and with the resuscitation of a body, like Lazarus, but what they
had not experienced or imagined was the fact of a spiritual body, the
combination of body and spirit in an entirely novel way. So the old theory
of a vision is now virtually set aside, and for it is substituted theory of a
real spiritual manifestation of the risen Christ. The question at once arises
whether this is not prompted by an unconscious but real desire to get rid of
anything like a physical resurrection. Whatever may be true of unbelievers,
this is an impossible position for those who believe Christ is alive.
Even though we may be ready to admit the reality of telepathic
communication, it is impossible to argue that this is equivalent to the idea
of resurrection. Psychical research has not proceeded far enough as yet to
warrant arguments being built on it, though in any case it is difficult, if not
impossible, to obtain material from this quarter which will answer to the
conditions of the physical resurrection recorded in the New Testament.
The survival of the soul is not resurrection. Whoever heard of a spirit
being buried? (Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 229).
In view of the records of the Gospels and the general testimony of the New
Testament, it is impossible to be agnostic as to what happened at the
grave of Jesus, even though we are quite sure that He who died now lives
and reigns. It is sometimes said that faith is not bound up with, holding a
particular view of the relations of Christs present glory with the body that
was once in Josephs tomb, that faithis to be exercised in the exalted Lord,
and that belief in a resuscitation of the human body is no vital part of it. It
is no doubt true that faith today is to be exercised solely in the exalted and
glorified Lord, but faith must ultimately rest on fact, and it is difficult to
understand how Christian faith can really be agnostic with regard to the
facts about the empty tomb and the risen body, which are so prominent in
the New Testament, and which form an essential part of the apostolic
165
witness. The attempt to set faith and historical evidence in opposition to
each other, which is so marked a characteristic of much modern thought
will never satisfy general Christian intelligence, and if there is to be any real
belief in the historical character of the New Testament, it is impossible to
be agnostic about facts that are writ so large on the face of the records.
When once the evidence for the empty tomb is allowed to be adequate, the
impossibility of any other explanation than that indicated in the New
Testament is at once seen. The evidence must be accounted for and
adequately explained. And so we come again to the insuperable barrier of
the empty tomb, which, together with the apostolic witness, stands
impregnable against all the attacks of visional and apparitional theories. It
is becoming more evident that these theories are entirely inadequate to
account for the records in the Gospels, as well as for the place and power
of those Gospels in the early church and in all subsequent ages. The force
of the evidence for the empty grave and the disappearance of the body is
clearly seen by the explanations suggested by various modern writers
(those of Oscar Holtzmann, K. Lake, and A. Meyer can be seen in Orr, The
Resurrection of Jesus, chapter viii, and that of Reville in C. H. Robinson,
Studies in the Resurrection of Christ, 69; see also the article by Streeter in
Foundations). Not one of them is tenable without doing violence to the
Gospel story, and also without putting forth new theories which are not
only improbable in themselves, but are without a shred of real historical or
literary evidence. The one outstanding fact which baffles all these writers is
the empty grave.
Others suggest that resurrection means a real objective appearance of the
risen Christ without implying any physical reanimation, that the
resurrection of Christ was an objective reality, but was not a physical
resuscitation (C. H. Robinson, Studies in the Resurrection of Christ, 12).
But the difficulty here is as to the meaning of the term resurrection. If it
means a return from the dead, a rising again (re-), must there not have been
some identity between that which was put in the tomb and the objective
reality which appeared to the disciples? Wherein lies the essential
difference between an objective vision and an objective appearance? If we
believe the apostolic testimony to the empty tomb, why may we not accept
their evidence to the actual resurrection? They evidently recognized their
Master, and this recognition must have been due to some familiarity with
His bodily appearance. No difficulty of conceiving of the resurrection of
mankind hereafter must be allowed to set aside the plain facts of the record
166
about Christ. It is, of course, quite clear that the resurrection body of Jesus
was not exactly the same as when it was put in the tomb, but it is equally
clear that there was definite identity as well as definite dissimilarity, and
both elements must be faced and accounted for. There need be no
insuperable difficulty if we believe that in the very nature of things Christs
resurrection must be unique, and, since the life and work of Jesus Christ
transcend our experience (as they certainly should do), we must not expect
to bring them within the limitations of natural law and human history. How
the resurrection body was sustained is a problem quite outside our ken,
though the reference to flesh and bones, compared with Pauls words
about flesh and blood not being able to enter the kingdom of God, may
suggest that while the resurrection body was not constituted upon a natural
basis through blood, yet that it possessed all things appertaining to the
perfection of mans nature (Church of England Article IV). We may not
be able to solve the problem, but we must hold fast to all the facts, and
these may be summed up by saying that the body was the same though
different, different though the same. The true description of the
resurrection seems to be that it was an objective reality, but, that it was
not merely a physical resuscitation. We are therefore brought back to a
consideration of the facts recorded in the Gospels as to the empty tomb
and the disappearance of the body, and we only ask for an explanation
which will take into consideration all the facts recorded, and will do no
violence to any part of the evidence. To predicate a new resurrection body
in which Christ appeared to His disciples does not explain how in three
days time the body which had been placed in the tomb was disposed of.
Does not this theory demand a new miracle of its own (Kennett,
Interpreter, V, 271)?
3. THIRD PROOF: TRANSFORMATION OF THE DISCIPLES:
The next line of proof to be considered is the transformation of the
disciples caused by the resurrection. They had seen their Master die, and
through that death they lost all hope. Yet hope returned three days after.
On the day of the crucifixion they were filled with sadness; on the first day
of the week with gladness. At the crucifixion they were hopeless; on the
first day of the week their hearts glowed with certainty. When the message
of the resurrection first came they were incredulous and hard to be
convinced, but when once they became assured they never doubted again.
What could account for the astonishing change in these men in so short a
167
time? The mere removal of the body from the grave could never have
transformed their spirits and characters. Three days are not enough for a
legend to spring up which should so affect them. Time is needed for a
process of legendary growth. There is nothing more striking in the history
of primitive Christianity than this marvelous change wrought in the
disciples by a belief in the resurrection of their Master. It is a psychological
fact that demands a full explanation. The disciples were prepared to believe
in the appearance of a spirit, but they never contemplated the possibility of
a resurrection (see
<411611>
Mark 16:11). Men do not imagine what they do not
believe, and the womens intention to embalm a corpse shows they did not
expect His resurrection. Besides, a hallucination involving five hundred
people at once, and repeated several times during forty days, is
unthinkable.
4. FOURTH PROOF: EXISTENCE OF THE PRIMITIVE
CHURCH:
From this fact of the transformation of personal life in so incredibly short a
space of time, we proceed to the next line of proof, the existence of the
primitive church. There is no doubt that the church of the apostles
believed in the resurrection of their Lord (Burkitt, The Gospel History
and Its Transmission, 74).
It is now admitted on all hands that the church of Christ came into
existence as the result of a belief in the resurrection of Christ. When we
consider its commencement, as recorded in the Book of the Acts of the
Apostles, we see two simple and incontrovertible facts:
(1) the Christian society was gathered together by preaching;
(2) the substance of the preaching was the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ was put to death on a cross, and would therefore be
rejected by Jews as accursed of God (
<052123>
Deuteronomy 21:23). Yet
multitudes of Jews were led to worship Him (
<440241>
Acts 2:41), and a
great company of priests to obey Him (
<440607>
Acts 6:7). The only
explanation of these facts is Gods act of resurrection (
<440236>
Acts 2:36),
for nothing short of it could have led to the Jewish acceptance of Jesus
Christ as their Messiah. The apostolic church is thus a result of a belief
in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The early chapters of Acts bear the
marks of primitive documents, and their evidence is unmistakable. It is
impossible to allege that the early church did not know its own history,
168
that myths and legends quickly grew up and were eagerly received, and
that the writers of the Gospels had no conscience for principle, but
manipulated their material at will, for any modern church could easily
give an account of its history for the past fifty years or more (Orr, The
Resurrection of Jesus, 144). And it is simply absurd to think that the
earliest church had no such capability. In reality there was nothing
vague or intangible about the testimony borne by the apostles and other
members of the church. As the church is too holy for a foundation of
rottenness, so she is too real for a foundation of mist (Archbishop
Alexander, The Great Question, 10).
5. FIFTH PROOF: THE WITNESS OF PAUL:
One man in the apostolic church must, however, be singled out as a special
witness to the resurrection. The conversion and work of Saul of Tarsus is
our next line of proof. Attention is first called to the evidence of his life and
writings to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Some years ago an article
appeared (E. Medley, The Expositor, V, iv, 359). inquiring as to the
conception of Christ which would be suggested to a heathen inquirer by a
perusal of Pauls earliest extant writing, 1 Thessalonians. One point at least
would stand out clearly that Jesus Christ was killed (2:15; 4:14) and
was raised from the dead (4:14). As this Epistle is usually dated about 51
AD that is, only about 22 years after the resurrection and as the
same Epistle plainly attributes to Jesus Christ the functions of God in
relation to men (1:1,6; 2:14; 3:11), we can readily see the force of this
testimony to the resurrection. Then a few years later, in an epistle which is
universally accepted as one of Pauls, we have a much fuller reference to
the event. In the well-known chapter (1 Cor 15) where he is concerned to
prove (not Christs resurrection, but) the resurrection of Christians, he
naturally adduces Christs resurrection as his greatest evidence, and so
gives a list of the various appearances of Christ, ending with one to
himself, which he puts on an exact level with the others: Last of all he was
seen of me also. Now it is essential to give special attention to the nature
and particularity of this testimony. I delivered unto you first of all that
which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the
scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third
day according to the scriptures (1 Cor 15:3 f). This, as it has often been
pointed out, is our earliest authority for the appearances of Christ after the
resurrection, and dates from within 30 years of the event itself. But there is
169
much more than this: He affirms that within 5 years of the crucifixion of
Jesus he was taught that `Christ died for our sins according to the
Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day
according to the Scriptures (Kennett, Interpreter, V, 267). And if we
seek to appreciate the full bearing of this act and testimony we have a right
to draw the same conclusion: That within a very few years of the time of
the crucifixion of Jesus, the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus was, in
the mind of at least one man of education, absolutely irrefutable (Kennett,
op. cit., V, 267).
Besides, we find this narrative includes one small but significant statement
which at once recalls a very definite feature of the Gospel tradition the
mention of the third day. A reference to the passage in the Gospels
where Jesus Christ spoke of His resurrection will show how prominent and
persistent was this note of time. Why, then, should Paul have introduced it
in his statement? Was it part of the teaching which he had received?
What is the significance of this plain emphasis on the date of the
resurrection? Is it not that it bears absolute testimony to the empty tomb?
From all this it may be argued that Paul believed the story of the empty
tomb at a date when the recollection was fresh, when he could examine it
for himself, when he could make the fullest possible inquiry of others, and
when the fears and opposition of enemies would have made it impossible
for the adherents of Jesus Christ to make any statement that was not
absolutely true. Surely common sense requires us to believe that that for
which he so suffered was in his eyes established beyond the possibility of
doubt (Kennett, op. cit., V, 271).
In view, therefore, of Pauls personal testimony to his own conversion, his
interviews with those who had seen Jesus Christ on earth before and after
His resurrection, and the prominence given to the resurrection in the
apostles own teaching, we may challenge attention afresh to this evidence
for the resurrection. It is well known that Lord Lyttelton and his friend
Gilbert West left Oxford University at the close of one academic year, each
determining to give attention respectively during the long vacation to the
conversion of Paul and the resurrection of Christ, in order to prove the
baselessness of both. They met again in the autumn and compared
experiences. Lord Lyttelton had become convinced of the truth of Pauls
conversion, and Gilbert West was convinced of the resurrection of Jesus
Christ. If, therefore, Pauls 25 years of suffering and service for Christ
were a reality, his conversion was true, for everything he did began with
170
that sudden change. And if his conversion was true, Jesus Christ rose from
the dead, for everything Paul was and did he attributed to the sight of the
risen Christ.
6. SIXTH PROOF: THE GOSPEL RECORD:
The next line of proof of the resurrection is the record in the Gospels of the
appearances of the risen Christ, and it is the last in order to be considered.
By some writers it is put first, but this is in forgetfulness of the dates when
the Gospels were written. The resurrection was believed in by the Christian
church for a number of years before our Gospels were written, and it is
therefore impossible for these records to be our primary and most
important evidence. We must get behind them if we are to appreciate fully
the force and variety of the evidence. It is for this reason that, following
the proper logical order, we have reserved to the last our consideration of
the appearances of the risen Christ as given in the Gospels. The point is
one of great importance (Denney, Jesus and the Gospel, 111).
Now, with this made clear, we proceed to consider the evidence afforded
by the records of the post-resurrection appearances of Christ. Modern
criticism of the Gospels during recent years has tended to adopt the view
that Mark is the earliest, and that Matthew and Luke are dependent on it.
This is said to be the one solid result (W. C. Allen, St. Matthew,
International Critical Commentary, Preface, vii; Burkitt, The Gospel
History, 37) of the literary criticism of the Gospels. If this is so, the
question of the records of the resurrection becomes involved in the difficult
problem about the supposed lost ending of Mark, which, according to
modern criticism, would thus close without any record of an appearance of
the risen Christ. On this point, however, two things may be said at the
present juncture:
(1) There are some indications that the entire question of the criticism
of the Gospels is to be reopened (Ramsay, Luke the Physician, chapter
ii; see also Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 63 ff).
(2) Even if the current theory be accepted, it would not seriously
weaken the intrinsic force of the evidence for the resurrection, because,
after all, Mark does not invent or doctor his material, but embodies
the common apostolic tradition of his time (Orr, The Resurrection of
Jesus, 62).
171
We may, therefore, meanwhile examine the record of the appearances
without finding them essentially affected by any particular theory of the
origin and relations of the Gospels. There are two sets of appearances, one
in Jerusalem and the other in Galilee, and their number, and the amplitude
and weight of their testimony should be carefully estimated. While we are
precluded by our space from examining each appearance minutely, and
indeed it is unnecessary for our purpose to do so, it is impossible to avoid
calling attention to two of them. No one can read the story of the walk to
Emmaus (Luke 24), or of the visit of Peter and John to the tomb (John 20),
without observing the striking marks of reality and personal testimony in
the accounts. As to the former incident: It carries with it, as great literary
critics have pointed out, the deepest inward evidences of its own literal
truthfulness. For it so narrates the intercourse of `a risen God with
commonplace men as to set natural and supernatural side by side in perfect
harmony. And to do this has always been the difficulty, the despair of
imagination. The alternative has been put reasonably thus: Luke was either
a greater poet, a more creative genius, than Shakespeare, or he did not
create the record. He had an advantage over Shakespeare. The ghost in
Hamlet was an effort of laborious imagination. The risen Christ on the road
was a fact supreme, and the Evangelist did but tell it as it was (Bishop
Moule, Meditations for the Churchs Year, 108). Other writers whose
attitude to the Gospel records is very different bear the same testimony to
the impression of truth and reality made upon them by the Emmaus
narrative (A. Meyer and K. Lake, quoted in Orr, The Resurrection of
Jesus, 176 f).
It is well known that there are difficulties connected with the number and
order of these appearances, but they are probably due largely to the
summary character of the story, and certainly are not sufficient to
invalidate the uniform testimony to the two facts:
(1) the empty grave,
(2) the appearances of Christ on the third day. These are the main facts
of the combined witness (Orr, op. cit., 212).
The very difficulties which have been observed in the Gospels for nearly
nineteen centuries are a testimony to a conviction of the truth of the
narratives on the part of the whole Christian church. The church has not
been afraid to leave these records as they are because of the facts that they
172
embody and express. If there had been no difficulties men might have said
that everything had been artificially arranged, whereas the differences bear
testimony to the reality of the event recorded. The fact that we possess
these two sets of appearances one in Jerusalem and one in Galilee is
really an argument in favor of their credibility, for if it had been recorded
that Christ appeared in Galilee only, or Jerusalem only, it is not unlikely
that the account might have been rejected for lack of support. It is well
known that records of eyewitnesses often vary in details, while there is no
question as to the events themselves. The various books recording the
story of the Indian mutiny, or the surrender of Napoleon III at Sedan are
cases in point, and Sir William Ramsay has shown the entire compatibility
of certainty as to the main fact with great uncertainty as to precise details
(Ramsay, Paul the Traveler, 29). We believe, therefore, that a careful
examination of these appearances will afford evidence of a chain of
circumstances extending from the empty grave to the day of the ascension.
7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION:
When we examine carefully all these converging lines of evidence and
endeavor to give weight to all the facts of the case, it seems impossible to
escape from the problem of a physical miracle. That the prima facie view of
the evidence afforded by the New Testament suggests a miracle and that
the apostles really believed in a true physical resurrection are surely beyond
all question. And yet very much of present-day thought refuses to accept
the miraculous. The scientific doctrine of the uniformity and continuity of
Nature bars the way, so that from the outset it is concluded that miracles
are impossible. We are either not allowed to believe (see Orr, The
Resurrection of Jesus, 44), or else we are told that we are not required to
believe (C. H. Robinson, Studies in the Resurrection of Christ, chapter ii),
margin, the reanimation of a dead body. If we take this view, there is no
need, really, for investigation of evidence: the question is decided before
the evidence is looked at (Orr, op. cit., 46).
We challenge the tenableness of this position. It proves too much. We are
not at all concerned by the charge of believing in the abnormal or unusual.
New things have happened from the beginning of the present natural order,
and the Christian faith teaches that Christ Himself was a new thing, and
that His coming as God manifest in the flesh was something absolutely
unique. If we are not allowed to believe in any divine intervention which
we may call supernatural or miraculous, it is impossible to account for the
173
Person of Christ at all. A Sinless Personality would be a miracle in time.
Arising out of this, Christianity itself was unique, inaugurating a new era in
human affairs. No Christian, therefore, can have any difficulty in accepting
the abnormal, the unusual, the miraculous. If it be said that no amount of
evidence can establish a fact which is miraculous, we have still to account
for the moral miracles which are really involved and associated with the
resurrection, especially the deception of the disciples, who could have
found out the truth of the case; a deception, too, that has proved so great a
blessing to the world. Surely to those who hold a true theistic view of the
world this a priori view is impossible. Are we to refuse to allow to God at
least as much liberty as we possess ourselves? Is it really thinkable that
God has less spontaneity of action than we have? We may like or dislike,
give or withhold, will or not will, but the course of Nature must flow on
unbrokenly. Surely God cannot be conceived of as having given such a
constitution to the universe as limits His power to intervene if necessary
and for sufficient purpose with the work of His own hands. Not only are all
things of Him, but all things are through Him, and to Him. The resurrection
means the presence of miracle, and there is no evading the issue with
which this confronts us (Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 53). Unless,
therefore, we are prepared to accept the possibility of the miraculous, all
explanation of the New Testament evidence is a pure waste of time.
Of recent years attempts have been made to account for the resurrection by
means of ideas derived from Babylonian and other Eastern sources. It is
argued that mythology provides the key to the problem, that not only
analogy but derivation is to be found. But apart from the remarkable
variety of conclusions of Babylonian archaeologists there is nothing in the
way of historical proof worthy of the name. The whole idea is arbitrary and
baseless, and prejudiced by the attitude to the supernatural. There is
literally no link of connection between these oriental cults and the Jewish
and Christian beliefs in the resurrection.
And so we return to a consideration of the various lines of proof. Taking
them singly, they must be admitted to be strong, but taking them
altogether, the argument is cumulative and sufficient. Every effect must
have its adequate cause, and the only proper explanation of Christianity
today is the resurrection of Christ. Thomas Arnold of Rugby, no ordinary
judge of historical evidence, said that the resurrection was the best-
attested fact in human history. Christianity welcomes all possible sifting,
testing, and use by those who honestly desire to arrive at the truth, and if
174
they will give proper attention to all the facts and factors involved, we
believe they will come to the conclusion expressed years ago by the
Archbishop of Armagh, that the resurrection is the rock from which all the
hammers of criticism have never chipped a single fragment (The Great
Question, 24).
8. THEOLOGY OF THE RESURRECTION:
The theology of the resurrection is very important and calls for special
attention. Indeed, the prominence given to it in the New Testament affords
a strong confirmation of the fact itself, for it seems incredible that such
varied and important truths should not rest on historic fact. The doctrine
may briefly be summarized:
(1) evidential: the resurrection is the proof of the atoning character of
the death of Christ, and of His Deity and divine exaltation (
<450104>
Romans
1:4);
(2) evangelistic: the primitive gospel included testimony to the
resurrection as one of its characteristic features, thereby proving to the
hearers the assurance of the divine redemption (1 Cor 15:1-4;
<450425>
Romans 4:25);
(3) spiritual: the resurrection is regarded as the source and standard of
the holiness of the believer. Every aspect of the Christian life from the
beginning to the end is somehow associated therewith (Romans 6);
(4) eschatological: the resurrection is the guaranty and model of the
believers resurrection (1 Cor 15). As the bodies of the saints arose
(
<402752>
Matthew 27:52), so ours are to be quickened (
<450811>
Romans 8:11),
and made like Christs glorified body (
<500321>
Philippians 3:21), thereby
becoming spiritual bodies (1 Cor 15:44), that is, bodies ruled by their
spirits and yet bodies. These points offer only the barest outline of the
fullness of New Testament teaching concerning the doctrine of the
resurrection of Christ.
LITERATURE.
Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 1908; W. J. Sparrow Simpson, The
Resurrection and Modern Thought; Westcott, The Historic Faith and The
Gospel of the Resurrection. Very full literary references in Bowen, The
Resurrection in the New Testament, 1911, which, although negative in its
175
own conclusions, contains a valuable refutation of many negative
arguments.
W. H. Griffith Thomas
RETAIN
<re-tan>: Several Hebrew words are thus translated: [q z j ; , chazaq],
to hold fast (
<070708>
Judges 7:8; 19:4;
<180209>
Job 2:9 the King James Version
(the Revised Version (British and American) hold fast);
<330718>
Micah 7:18);
[r x [ ; , `atsar], to shut up (only in
<271008>
Daniel 10:8,16; 11:6); [ m T ; ,
tamakh], to hold (
<200318>
Proverbs 3:18; 4:4; 11:16 the King James Version
(the Revised Version (British and American) obtain)); in one case kala
(
<210808>
Ecclesiastes 8:8). In the New Testament [xpotr, krateo], is used in
<432023>
John 20:23 of the retaining of sins by the apostles (see RETENTION
OF SINS); in
<450128>
Romans 1:28, the Revised Version (British and
American) has refused to have, margin Greek, `did not approve, for
the King James Version did not like to retain (echo); and in Philem 1:13,
substitutes fain have kept for retained (katecho). Sirach 41:16 has
retain for diaphulasso, keep.
RETALIATION
<re-tal-i-a-shun>, <re->.
See LAW THE NEW TESTAMENT; PUNISHMENTS;
RETRIBUTION.
RETENTION OF SINS
<re-ten-shun>, ([xpotr, krateo], to lay fast hold of (
<432023>
John 20:23)):
The opposite of the remission of sins. Where there was no evidence of
repentance and faith, the community of believers were unauthorized to give
assurance of forgiveness, and, therefore, could only warn that the guilt of
sin was retained, and that the sinner remained beneath Gods judgment.
While such retention has its place in connection with all preaching of the
gospel, since the offers of grace are conditional, it is especially exercised,
like the absolution, in the personal dealing of a pastor with a communicant,
preparatory to the reception of the Lords Supper. As the absolution is
properly an assurance of individual forgiveness, so the retention is an
176
assurance of individual non-forgiveness. That the retention is exercised by
the ministry, not as an order, but as the representatives of the congregation
of believers to which Christ gave the power of the keys, is shown by
Alford, Greek Testament, on above passage. See also Melanchthon,
Appendix to the Schmalkald Articles.
H. E. J acobs
RETRIBUTION
<ret-ri-bu-shun>:
1. NEW TESTAMENT TERMS:
The word as applied to the divine administration is not used in Scripture,
but undoubtedly the idea is commonly enough expressed. The words which
come nearest to it are [opyq, orge], and [0uo, thumos] wrath attributed
to God; [rxxr, ekdikeo], [rxxqo, ekdikesis], [rxxo, ekdikos],
and [xq, dike], all giving the idea of vengeance; [xooo, kolasis], and
[tpo, timoria], punishment; besides [xpv, krino], and its
derivatives, words expressive of judgment.
2. A REVELATION OF WRATH AS WELL AS GRACE:
Romans 2 is full of the thought of retribution. The apostle, in 2:5,6, comes
very near to using the word itself, and gives indeed a good description of
the thing: the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of
God, who will render to every man according to his works. It is well in
approaching the subject to remind ourselves that there is undoubtedly, as
the apostle says, a Revelation of wrath. We are so accustomed to think of
the gracious revelation which the gospel brings us, and to approach the
subject of the doom of the impenitent under the influence of the kindly
sentiments engendered thereby, and with a view of Gods gracious
character as revealed in salvation, that we are apt to overlook somewhat
the sterner facts of sin, and to misconceive the divine attitude toward the
impenitent sinner. It is certainly well that we should let the grace of the
gospel have full influence upon all our thinking, but we must beware of
being too fully engrossed with one phase of the divine character. It is an
infirmity of human nature that we find it difficult to let two seemingly
conflicting conceptions find a place in our thought. We are apt to surrender
177
ourselves to the sway of one or the other of them according to the pressure
of the moment.
3. WITNESS OF NATURAL THEOLOGY:
Putting ourselves back into the position of those who have only the light of
natural theology, we find that all deductions from the perfections of God,
as revealed in His works, combined with a consideration of mans sin and
want of harmony with the Holy One, lead to the conclusion announced by
the apostle: The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men (
<450118>
Romans 1:18). Wrath
implies punishment, punishment is decreed, punishment is denounced. The
word of God but confirms the verdict which conscience forecasts. Nature
teaches that punishment, retribution, must follow sin. Within the sphere of
physical law this is clearly exemplified. No breach of the so-called laws of
Nature is tolerated. Strictly speaking, the laws of Nature cannot be broken,
but let a man fail to keep in harmony with them, and the natural
consequences will be trouble, punishment, retribution. Harmony with law is
blessing; collision with law is loss. Thus law in Nature worketh wrath to
the neglecters of it. Punishment necessarily results. So we may well expect
that in the higher sphere, Gods moral laws cannot be neglected or violated
with impunity, and Scripture fully justifies the expectation and shows that
sin must be punished. All things considered, the fact of punishment for
sinners need not surprise; the fact of pardon is the surprising thing. The
surprise of pardon has ceased to surprise us because we are so familiar
with the thought. We know the how of it because of the revelation of
grace. Grace, however, saves on certain conditions, and there is no such
thing known in Scripture as indiscriminate, necessary, universal grace. It is
only from the Bible that we know of the salvation by grace. That same
revelation shows that the grace does not come to all, in the sense of saving
all; though, of course, it may be considered as presented to all. Those who
are not touched and saved by grace remain shut up in their sins. They are,
and must be, in the nature of the case, left to the consequences of their
sins, with the added guilt of rejecting the offered grace. Except ye believe
that I am he, said Incarnate Grace, ye shall die in your sins (
<430824>
John
8:24).
178
4. RETRIBUTION THE NATURAL CONSEQUENCE OF SIN:
Another conclusion we may draw from the general Scriptural
representation is that the future retribution is one aspect of the natural
consequence of sin, yet it is also in another aspect the positive infliction of
divine wrath. It is shown to be the natural outcome of sin in such passages
as Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap (
<480607>
Galatians 6:7);
He that soweth unto his own flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption
(
<480608>
Galatians 6:8). It is not without suggestiveness that the Hebrew word
`awon means both iniquity and punishment, and when Cain said My
punishment is greater than I can bear (
<010413>
Genesis 4:13), he really said
My iniquity is greater than I can bear; his iniquity became his
punishment. A due consideration of this thought goes a long way toward
meeting many of the objections brought against the doctrine of future
punishment.
5. ALSO THE POSITIVE INFLICTION OF DIVINE WRATH:
The other statement, however, remains true and must be emphasized, that
there is an actual infliction of divine wrath. All the great statements about
the divine judgment imply this, and while it is wrong not to take account of
the natural working out of sin in its terrible consequences, it is equally
wrong, perhaps more so, to refuse to recognize this positive divine
infliction of punishment. This, indeed, is the outstanding feature of
retribution as it assumes form in Scripture. Even the natural consequences
of sin, rightly viewed, are part of the divine infliction, since God, in the
nature of things, has conjoined sin and its consequences, and part of the
positive infliction is the judicial shutting up of the sinner to the
consequences of his sin. So in the case of Cain, his iniquity became his
punishment, inasmuch as God sentenced him to bear the consequences of
that iniquity. On the other hand, we might say that even the terribly
positive outpourings of Gods wrath upon the sinner are the natural
consequences of sin, since sin in its very nature calls down the divine
displeasure. Indeed, these two phases of future punishment are so very
closely connected that a right view of the matter compels us to keep both
before us, and no full explanation of the punishment is possible when either
phase is ignored.
179
6. INSTANCES OF THE USE OF ORGE AND THUMOS:
The terms in Scripture applied to the doom of sinners all imply divine
displeasure, punitive action, retribution. The two outstanding Greek words
for wrath, orge and thumos, are both freely applied to God. Orge
indicates settled displeasure, whereas thumos is rather the blazing out of
the anger. The former is, as we should expect, more frequently applied to
God, and, of course, all that is capricious and reprehensible in human wrath
must be eliminated from the word as used of God. It indicates the settled
opposition of His holy nature against sin. It was an affection found in the
sinless Saviour Himself, for he looked round about on them with anger
(
<410305>
Mark 3:5). In the Baptists warning to flee from the wrath to come
(
<400307>
Matthew 3:7;
<420307>
Luke 3:7), it is unquestionably the wrath of God that
is meant, the manifestation of that being further described as the burning of
the chaff with unquenchable fire (
<400312>
Matthew 3:12). In
<430336>
John 3:36 it is
said of the unbeliever that the wrath of God abideth on him. In Romans it
is used at least 9 times in reference to God, first in
<450118>
Romans 1:18, the
great passage we have already quoted about the wrath of God revealed
from heaven. The connection is a suggestive one and is often overlooked.
In the passage Paul has quite a chain of reasons; he is ready to preach the
gospel at Rome for he is not ashamed of the gospel; he is not ashamed of
the gospel for it is the power of God unto salvation; it is the power of
God for therein is revealed the righteousness of God by faith; and this
salvation by faith is a necessity for the wrath of God is revealed, etc.
Thus the divine wrath on account of sin is the dark background of the
gospel message. Had there been no such just wrath upon men, there had
been no need for the divine salvation. The despising of Gods goodness by
the impenitent means a treasuring up of wrath in the day of wrath and
revelation of the righteous judgment of God (
<450203>
Romans 2:3-5). God
visiteth with wrath (
<450305>
Romans 3:5).
In
<450415>
Romans 4:15 the apostle shows that the law worketh wrath (i.e.
brings down the divine displeasure), while in 5:9 he shows that believers
are saved from wrath undoubted wrath of God. The other two instances
are in 9:22. Men are by nature children of wrath (
<490203>
Ephesians 2:3);
surely not wrathful children, but liable to the wrath of God, and because
of evil deeds cometh the wrath of God upon the sons of disobedience
(
<490506>
Ephesians 5:6;
<510306>
Colossians 3:6). Christ delivereth us from the wrath
to come (1 Thess 1:10); wrath has come upon the opposing Jews (1 Thess
2:16); but believers are not appointed unto wrath (1 Thess 5:9). With all
180
these specific passages in view, to say nothing of the general teaching of
the apostle on the question of coming judgment and punishment, it is
utterly impossible to eliminate the idea of the divine displeasure against
sinners, and His consequent retributive action toward them. Even Ritschl,
who absolutely denies the great principle of retribution, of positive
displeasure, admits that Paul teaches it; hence, the only way for him out of
the difficulty is to reject Pauls teaching as unauthoritative. Other
references to the wrath of God are in
<580311>
Hebrews 3:11; 4:3; and 6
passages in the Apocalypse
<660616>
Revelation 6:16 f; 11:18; 14:10; 16:19;
19:15. Two of these refer to the wrath of the Lamb, one of the most
terrible phrases in the whole of the New Testament. Thumos is only used in
the Apocalypse concerning God (
<661410>
Revelation 14:10-19; 15:1-7; 16:1-19;
19:15). In each case it refers to the manifestation, the blazing forth of the
wrath; in the last two passages it is used in combination with orge, and is
rendered fierceness, the fierceness of His wrath.
7. INSTANCES OF USE OF GREEK WORDS FOR
VENGEANCE:
Ekdikeo, which means to avenge, is twice used of God (
<660610>
Revelation
6:10; 19:2); and ekdikesis, vengeance, 6 times
<421807>
Luke 18:7 ff;
<451219>
Romans 12:19;
<530108>
2 Thessalonians 1:8;
<581030>
Hebrews 10:30). In the first
two instances it is used by Jesus concerning the divine action; ekdikos,
avenger, occurs once in application to God (1 Thess 4:6); dike,
judgment or vengeance is twice used of God (2 Thess 1:9;
<650107>
Jude
1:7). The use of these terms shows that the punishment inflicted on sinful
men is strictly punishment of the vindicatory sort, the vindication of
outraged justice, the infliction of deserved penalty. Very significant is the
passage in
<530106>
2 Thessalonians 1:6, It is a righteous thing with God to
recompense affliction to them that afflict you. There is no question of
bettering the offender.
8. WORDS MEANING CHASTISEMENT NOT USED OF THE
IMPENITENT:
It is very remarkable that the terms in Greek which would carry the
meaning of punishment for the good of the offender are never used in the
New Testament of the infliction which comes upon the impenitent; these
are paideia and paideuo, and they are frequently used of the
chastisement of believers, but not of the impenitent. It is often claimed
181
that the word kolasis used in
<402546>
Matthew 25:46 carries the meaning of
chastisement for the improvement of the offender, but although Aristotle,
in comparing it with timoria, may seem to suggest that it is meant for the
improvement of the offender (what he really says is that it is tou
paschontos heneka, on account of the one suffering it, has the punished
one in view, whereas timoria is tou poiountos, on account of the one
inflicting that he may be satisfied), the usage even in classical Greek is
predominantly against making the supposed distinction. Both words are
used interchangeably by the leading classical authors, including Aristotle
himself, and kolasis is continually employed where no thought of
betterment can be in question, while all admit that in Hellenistic Greek the
distinction is not maintained, and in any case timoria is also used of the
punishment of the sinner (
<581029>
Hebrews 10:29).
9. JUDGMENT IMPLIES RETRIBUTION:
All the representations of the coming day of judgment tell of the fact of
retribution, and Christ Himself distinctly asserts it. Apart from His great
eschatological discourses, concerning which criticism still hesitates and
stammers, we have the solemn close of the Sermon on the Mount, and the
pregnant statement of
<401627>
Matthew 16:27, The Son of man shall come in
the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he render unto every
man according to his deeds, and all the apostolic teaching upon the
solemn theme is but the unfolding of the same great thought.
10. MORAL SENSE DEMANDS VINDICATION OF GODS
RIGHTEOUSNESS:
The conception of God as a perfect moral governor demands that His
righteousness shall be fully vindicated. Looking at the course of history as
it unfolds itself before us, we cannot fail to be struck with the anomalies
which are presented. Righteousness does not always triumph, goodness is
often put to shame, wickedness appears to be profitable, and wicked men
often prosper while good men are under a cloud. Sometimes signal divine
interpositions proclaim that God is indeed on the side of righteousness, but
too often it seems as if He were unmindful, and men are tempted to ask the
old question, How doth God know? And is there knowledge in the Most
High? (
<197311>
Psalm 73:11), while the righteous say in their distress,
Yahweh, how long shall the wicked, how long shall the wicked triumph?
(
<199403>
Psalm 94:3). The moral sense cries out for some divine vindication,
182
and the Scriptures, in harmony with this feeling, indicate that the final
judgment will bring such vindication.
11. SCRIPTURE INDICATES CERTAINTY OF VINDICATION:
In the Old Testament it is frequently presented as the solution of the
baffling problems which beset the ethical sphere, as for instance in that fine
utterance of religious philosophy in Psalm 73; the Psalmist has before him
all the puzzling elements of the problem; the prosperity, the insolent and
aggressive prosperity of the wicked, the non-success, the oppression, the
misery of the righteous; he is well-nigh overwhelmed by the contemplation,
and nearly loses his footing on the eternal verities, until he carries the
whole problem into the light of Gods presence and revelation, and then he
understands that the end will bring the true solution.
So too the somber ruminations of the Preacher upon the contradictions arid
anomalies and mysteries of human life, under the sun, close in the
reflection which throws its searchlight upon all the blackness: This is the
end of the matter: .... Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is
the whole duty of man. For God will bring every work into judgment, with
every hidden thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil
(
<211213>
Ecclesiastes 12:13 f). In the light of the same truth, the apostles
labored, believing that when the Lord comes He will both bring to light
the hidden things of darkness, and make manifest the counsels of the
hearts (1 Cor 4:5). The more fully the subject is considered, the more we
must feel that for the vindication of righteousness, the justification of the
divine procedure, the rectification of wrongs, the explanation of mysteries,
the reward and triumph of the righteous and the confession and punishment
of the wicked, a great final, retributive judgment is Scriptural, reasonable,
necessary.
LITERATURE.
See the articles on PUNISHMENT, EVERLASTING; JUDGMENT;
SHEOL, etc., and the works cited there.
Archibald MCaig
183
REU
<re-u>, <roo> ([W[ r ], re`u], [ Poyou, Rhagau]): A son of Peleg, a
descendant of Shem (
<011118>
Genesis 11:18 ff;
<130125>
1 Chronicles 1:25;
<420335>
Luke
3:35).
REUBEN
<roo-ben>, <ru-ben> ([b eWa r ], reubhen]; [ Poupqv, Rhouben]): The
eldest son of Jacob, born to him by Leah in Paddan-aram (
<012932>
Genesis
29:32).
1. JACOBS OLDEST SON:
This verse seems to suggest two derivations of the name. As it stands in
Massoretic Text it means behold a son; but the reason given for so
calling him is The Lord hath looked upon my affliction, which in Hebrew
is [raah be`onyi], literally, He hath seen my affliction. Of his boyhood
we have only the story of the mandrakes (
<013014>
Genesis 30:14). As the
firstborn he should really have been leader among his fathers sons. His
birthright was forfeited by a deed of peculiar infamy (
<013522>
Genesis 35:22),
and as far as we know his tribe never took the lead in Israel. It is named
first, indeed, in
<040105>
Numbers 1:5,20, but thereafter it falls to the fourth
place, Judah taking the first (
<040210>
Numbers 2:10, etc.). To Reubens
intervention Joseph owed his escape from the fate proposed by his other
brethren (
<013729>
Genesis 37:29). Some have thought Reuben designed to set
him free, from a desire to rehabilitate himself with his father. But there is
no need to deny to Reuben certain noble and chivalrous qualities. Jacob
seems to have appreciated these, and, perhaps, therefore all the more
deeply lamented the lapse that spoiled his life (
<014903>
Genesis 49:3 f). It was
Reuben who felt that their perils and anxieties in Egypt were a fit
recompense for the unbrotherly conduct (
<014222>
Genesis 42:22). To assure his
father of Benjamins safe return from Egypt, whither Joseph required him
to be taken, Reuben was ready to pledge his own two sons (
<014237>
Genesis
42:37). Four sons born to him in Canaan went down with Reuben at the
descent of Israel into Egypt (
<014608>
Genesis 46:8 f).
The incidents recorded are regarded by a certain school of Old Testament
scholars as the vague and fragmentary traditions of the tribe, wrought into
the form of a biography of the supposed ancestor of the tribe. This
184
interpretation raises more difficulties than it solves, and depends for
coherence upon too many assumptions and conjectures. The narrative as it
stands is quite intelligible and self-consistent. There is no good reason to
doubt that, as far as it goes, it is an authentic record of the life of Jacobs
son.
2. TRIBAL HISTORY:
At the first census in the wilderness Reuben numbered 46,500 men of war
(
<040121>
Numbers 1:21); at the second they had fallen to 43,730; see
NUMBERS. The standard of the camp of Reuben was on the south side of
the tabernacle; and with him were Simeon and Gad; the total number of
fighting men in this division being 151,450. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan says
that the standard was a deer, with the legend Hear O Israel, the Lord thy
God is one Lord. On the march this division took the second place
(
<040210>
Numbers 2:10 ff). The prince of the tribe was Elizur ben Shedeur,
whose oblation is described in
<040730>
Numbers 7:30 ff. The Reubenite among
the spies was Shammua ben Zaccur (13:4). It is possible that the
conspiracy against Moses, organized by the Reubenites Dathan and
Abiram, with the assistance of Korah the Levite (Numbers 16), was an
attempt on the part of the tribe to assert its rights as representing the
firstborn. It is significant that the children of Korah did not perish (26:11).
May not the influence of this incident on Moses mind be traced in his
blessing, wishing for the continuance of the tribe, indeed, but not in great
strength (
<053306>
Deuteronomy 33:6)? This was a true forecast of the tribal
history.
When the high plateau East of the Dead Sea and the Jordan fell into the
hands of the Israelite invaders, these spacious pastoral uplands irresistibly
attracted the great flock-masters of Reuben and Gad, two tribes destined to
be neighbors during succeeding centuries. At their earnest request Moses
allowed them their tribal possessions here subject to one condition, which
they loyally accepted. They should not sit here, and so discourage their
brethren who went to war beyond the Jordan. They should provide for the
security of their cattle, fortify cities to protect their little ones and their
wives from the inhabitants of the land, and their men of war should go
before the host in the campaign of conquest until the children of Israel
should have inherited every man his inheritance (
<043201>
Numbers 32:1-27). Of
the actual part they took in that warfare there is no record, but perhaps
the stone of Bohan the son of Reuben (
<061506>
Joshua 15:6; 18:17) marked
185
some memorable deed of valor by a member of the tribe. At the end of the
campaign the men of Reuben, having earned the gratitude of the western
tribes, enriched by their share of the spoils of the enemy, returned with
honor to their new home. Along with their brethren of Gad they felt the
dangers attaching to their position of isolation, cut off from the rest of their
people by the great cleft of the Jordan valley. They reared therefore the
massive altar of Ed in the valley, so that in the very throat of that
instrument of severance there might be a perpetual witness to themselves
and to their children of the essential unity of Israel. The western tribes
misunderstood the action and, dreading religious schism, gathered in force
to stamp it out. Explanations followed which were entirely satisfactory,
and a threatening danger was averted (Joshua 22). But the instincts of the
eastern tribes were right, as subsequent history was to prove. The Jordan
valley was but one of many causes of sundering. The whole circumstances
and conditions of life on the East differed widely from those on the West of
the river, pastoral pursuits and life in the open being contrasted with
agricultural and city life.
The land given by Moses to the tribe of Reuben reached from the Arnon,
Wady el-Mojib, in the South, to the border of Gad in the North. In
<043234>
Numbers 32:34 cities of Gad are named which lay far South, Aroer
being on the very lip of the Arnon; but these are probably to be taken as an
enclave in the territory of Reuben. From
<061315>
Joshua 13:15 ff it is clear that
the northern border ran from some point North of the Dead Sea in a
direction East-Northeast, passing to the North of Heshbon. The Dead Sea
formed the western boundary, and it marched with the desert on the East.
No doubt many districts changed hands in the course of the history. At the
invasion of Tiglath-pileser, e.g., we read that Aroer was in the hands of the
Reubenites, and eastward .... even unto the entrance of the wilderness
from the river Euphrates (
<130508>
1 Chronicles 5:8 f). Bezer the city of refuge
lay in Reubens territory (
<062008>
Joshua 20:8, etc.). A general description of
the country will be found under MOAB; while the cities of Reuben are
dealt with in separate articles.
Reuben and Gad, occupying contiguous districts, and even, as we have
seen, to some extent overlapping, are closely associated in the history.
Neither took part in the glorious struggle against Sisera (
<070515>
Judges 5:15
ff). Already apparently the sundering influences were taking effect. They
are not excepted, however, from all the tribes of Israel who sent
contingents for the war against Benjamin (
<072010>
Judges 20:10; 21:5), and the
186
reference in
<070515>
Judges 5:15 seems to show that Reuben might have done
great things had he been disposed. The tribe therefore was still powerful,
but perhaps absorbed by anxieties as to its relations with neighboring
peoples. In guarding their numerous flocks against attack from the South,
and sudden incursions from the desert, a warlike spirit and martial prowess
were developed. They were valiant men, men able to bear buckler and
sword, and to shoot with bow, and skillful in war (
<130518>
1 Chronicles 5:18).
They overwhelmed the Hagrites with Jetur and Naphish and Nodab, and
greatly enriched themselves with the spoil. In recording the raid the
Chronicler pays a compliment to their religious loyalty: They cried to God
in the battle, and he was entreated of them, because they put their trust in
him (
<130519>
1 Chronicles 5:19 ff). Along with Gad and Manasseh they sent a
contingent of 120,000 men with all manner of instruments of war for the
battle, .... men of war, that could order the battle array, men who came
with a perfect heart to Hebron, to make David king (
<131237>
1 Chronicles
12:37 f). Among Davids mighty men was Adina, a chief of the
Reubenites, and thirty with him (
<131142>
1 Chronicles 11:42). In the 40th year
of Davids reign overseers were set over the Reubenites for every matter
pertaining to God, and for the affairs of the king (
<132632>
1 Chronicles 26:32).
Perhaps in spite of the help given to David the Reubenites had never quite
got over their old loyalty to the house of Saul. At any rate, when disruption
came they joined the Northern Kingdom (
<111131>
1 Kings 11:31).
The subsequent history of the tribe is left in much obscurity. Exposed as
they were to hostile influences of Moab and the East, and cut off from
fellowship with their brethren in worship, in their isolation they probably
found the descent into idolatry all too easy, and the once powerful tribe
sank into comparative insignificance. Of the immediate causes of this
decline we have no knowledge. Moab established its authority over the
land that had belonged to Reuben; and Mesha, in his inscription (M S),
while he speaks of Gad, does not think Reuben worthy of mention. They
had probably become largely absorbed in the northern tribe. They are
named as suffering in the invasion of Hazael during the reign of Jehu (
<121032>
2
Kings 10:32 f). That they trespassed against the God of their fathers, and
played the harlot after the gods of the peoples of the land is given as the
reason for the fate that befell them at the hands of Pul, king of Assyria,
who carried them away, and brought them unto Halah, and Habor, and
Hara, and to the river of Gozan (
<130525>
1 Chronicles 5:25 f).
187
The resemblance of Reubens case to that of Simeon is striking, for Simeon
also appears to have been practically absorbed in the tribe of Judah. The
prestige that should have been Reubens in virtue of his birthright is said to
have passed to Joseph (
<130501>
1 Chronicles 5:1). And the place of Reuben and
Simeon in Israel is taken by the sons of Joseph, a fact referred to in the
blessing of Jacob (
<014805>
Genesis 48:5).
Ezekiel finds a place for Reuben in his picture of restored Israel (48:6). He
appears also in this case preceded by Judah only in
<660705>
Revelation
7:5.
W. Ewing
REUBENITES
<roo-ben-its> ([ynib eWa r ]h ;, ha-reubheni]; [qo Poupqv, demoi
Rhouben]): Members of the tribe of Reuben (
<042607>
Numbers 26:7, etc.).
Adina, one of Davids mighty men, was a Reubenite (
<131142>
1 Chronicles
11:42).
REUEL
<roo-el> ([l a eW[ r ], re`uel], God is his friend; the Septuagint [
Poyouq, Rhagouel]):
(1) In the genealogical system Reuel is both a son of Esau by Basemath
(
<013604>
Genesis 36:4,10,13,17;
<130135>
1 Chronicles 1:35,37) and the father of
the father-in-law of Moses, Hobab (
<041029>
Numbers 10:29). In the account
of the marriage of Zipporah to Moses (
<020216>
Exodus 2:16-21) Jethro
seems to be called Reuel (compare HOBAB). The various names of
Jethro perplexed the Talmudists, too; some held that his real name was
Hobab, and that Reuel was his father. Reuel is probably a clan name
(Gray, Nu, ICC), and Hobab is a member of the clan (son) of
Reuel (
<041029>
Numbers 10:29, the King James Version reads Raguel).
(2) The father of Eliasaph, the prince of Gad (
<040214>
Numbers 2:14), called
(by some copyists mistake) Deuel in
<040114>
Numbers 1:14; 7:42,47;
10:20. The Septuagint has uniformly Rhagouel.
(3) A Benjamite (
<130908>
1 Chronicles 9:8).
Horace J . Wolf
188
REUMAH
<roo-ma> ([h m;Wa r ], reumah]): The concubine of Nahor (
<012224>
Genesis
22:24).
REVELATION
<rev-e-la-shun>:
I. THE NATURE OF REVELATION.
1. The Religion of the Bible the Only Supernatural Religion:
The religion of the Bible is a frankly supernatural religion. By this is not
meant merely that, according to it, all men, as creatures, live, move and
have their being in God. It is meant that, according to it, God has
intervened extraordinarily, in the course of the sinful worlds development,
for the salvation of men otherwise lost. In Eden the Lord God had been
present with sinless man in such a sense as to form a distinct element in his
social environment (
<010308>
Genesis 3:8). This intimate association was broken
up by the Fall. But God did not therefore withdraw Himself from
concernment with men. Rather, He began at once a series of interventions
in human history by means of which man might be rescued from his sin
and, despite it, brought to the end destined for him. These interventions
involved the segregation of a people for Himself, by whom God should be
known, and whose distinction should be that God should be nigh unto
them as He was not to other nations (
<050407>
Deuteronomy 4:7;
<19E518>
Psalm
145:18). But this people was not permitted to imagine that it owed its
segregation to anything in itself fitted to attract or determine the Divine
preference; no consciousness was more poignant in Israel than that
Yahweh had chosen it, not it Him, and that Yahwehs choice of it rested
solely on His gracious will. Nor was this people permitted to imagine that
it was for its own sake alone that it had been singled out to be the sole
recipient of the knowledge of Yahweh; it was made clear from the
beginning that Gods mysteriously gracious dealing with it had as its
ultimate end the blessing of the whole world (
<011202>
Genesis 12:2,3;
17:4,5,6,16; 18:18; 22:18; compare
<450413>
Romans 4:13), the bringing
together again of the divided families of the earth under the glorious reign
of Yahweh, and the reversal of the curse under which the whole world lay
for its sin (
<011203>
Genesis 12:3). Meanwhile, however, Yahweh was known
189
only in Israel. To Israel God showed His word and made known His
statutes and judgments, and after this fashion He dealt with no other
nation; and therefore none other knew His judgments (
<19E719>
Psalm 147:19 f).
Accordingly, when the hope of Israel (who was also the desire of all
nations) came, His own lips unhesitatingly declared that the salvation He
brought, though of universal application, was from the Jews (
<430422>
John
4:22). And the nations to which this salvation had not been made known
are declared by the chief agent in its proclamation to them to be,
meanwhile, far off, having no hope and without God in the world
(
<490212>
Ephesians 2:12), because they were aliens from the commonwealth of
Israel and strangers from the covenant of the promise.
The religion of the Bible, thus announces itself, not as the product of mens
search after God, if haply they may feel after Him and find Him, but as the
creation in men of the gracious God, forming a people for Himself, that
they may show forth His praise. In other words, the religion of the Bible
presents itself as distinctively a revealed religion. Or rather, to speak more
exactly, it announces itself as the revealed religion, as the only revealed
religion; and sets itself as such over against all other religions, which are
represented as all products, in a sense in which it is not, of the art and
device of man.
It is not, however, implied in this exclusive claim to revelation which is
made by the religion of the Bible in all the stages of its history that the
living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that in
them is, has left Himself without witness among the peoples of the world
(
<441417>
Acts 14:17). It is asserted indeed, that in the process of His redemptive
work, God suffered for a season all the nations to walk in their own ways;
but it is added that to none of them has He failed to do good, and to give
from heaven rains and fruitful seasons, filling their hearts with food and
gladness. And not only is He represented as thus constantly showing
Himself in His providence not far from any one of them, thus wooing them
to seek Him if haply they might feel after Him and find Him (
<441727>
Acts
17:27), but as from the foundation of the world openly manifesting Himself
to them in the works of His hands, in which His everlasting power and
divinity are clearly seen (
<450120>
Romans 1:20). That men at large have not
retained Him in their knowledge, or served Him as they ought, is not due
therefore to failure on His part to keep open the way to knowledge of Him,
but to the darkening of their senseless hearts by sin and to the vanity of
their sin-deflected reasonings (
<450121>
Romans 1:21 ff), by means of which they
190
have supplanted the truth of God by a lie and have come to worship and
serve the creature rather than the ever-blessed Creator. It is, indeed,
precisely because in their sin they have thus held down the truth in
unrighteousness and have refused to have God in their knowledge (so it is
intimated); and because, moreover, in their sin, the revelation God gives of
Himself in His works of creation and providence no longer suffices for
mens needs, that God has intervened supernaturally in the course of
history to form a people for Himself, through whom at length all the world
should be blessed.
2. General and Special Revelation:
It is quite obvious that there are brought before us in these several
representations two species or stages of revelation, which should be
discriminated to avoid confusion. There is the revelation which God
continuously makes to all men: by it His power and divinity are made
known. And there is the revelation which He makes exclusively to His
chosen people: through it His saving grace is made known. Both species or
stages of revelation are insisted upon throughout the Scriptures. They are,
for example, brought significantly together in such a declaration as we find
in Psalm 19: The heavens declare the glory of God .... their line is gone
out through all the earth (19:1,4); The law of Yahweh is perfect,
restoring the soul (19:7). The Psalmist takes his beginning here from the
praise of the glory of God, the Creator of all that is, which has been written
upon the very heavens, that none may fail to see it. From this he rises,
however, quickly to the more full-throated praise of the mercy of Yahweh,
the covenant God, who has visited His people with saving instruction.
Upon this higher revelation there is finally based a prayer for salvation from
sin, which ends in a great threefold acclamation, instinct with adoring
gratitude: O Yahweh, my rock, and my redeemer (19:14). The
heavens, comments Lord Bacon, indeed tell of the glory of God, but not
of His will according to which the poet prays to be pardoned and
sanctified. In so commenting, Lord Bacon touches the exact point of
distinction between the two species or stages of revelation. The one is
adapted to man as man; the other to man as sinner; and since man, on
becoming sinner, has not ceased to be man, but has only acquired new
needs requiring additional provisions to bring him to the end of his
existence, so the revelation directed to man as sinner does not supersede
that given to man as man, but supplements it with these new provisions for
191
his attainment, in his new condition of blindness, helplessness and guilt
induced by sin, of the end of his being.
These two species or stages of revelation have been commonly
distinguished from one another by the distinctive names of natural and
supernatural revelation, or general and special revelation, or natural and
soteriological revelation. Each of these modes of discriminating them has
its particular fitness and describes a real difference between the two in
nature, reach or purpose. The one is communicated through the media of
natural phenomena, occurring in the course of nature or of history; the
other implies an intervention in the natural course of things and is not
merely in source but in mode supernatural. The one is addressed generally
to all intelligent creatures, and is therefore accessible to all men; the other
is addressed to a special class of sinners, to whom God would make known
His salvation. The one has in view to meet and supply the natural need of
creatures for knowledge of their God; the other to rescue broken and
deformed sinners from their sin and its consequences. But, though thus
distinguished from one another, it is important that the two species or
stages of revelation should not be set in opposition to one another, or the
closeness of their mutual relations or the constancy of their interaction be
obscured. They constitute together a unitary whole, and each is incomplete
without the other. In its most general idea, revelation is rooted in creation
and the relations with His intelligent creatures into which God has brought
Himself by giving them being. Its object is to realize the end of mans
creation, to be attained only through knowledge of God and perfect and
unbroken communion with Him. On the entrance of sin into the world,
destroying this communion with God and obscuring the knowledge of Him
derived from nature, another mode of revelation was necessitated, having
also another content, adapted to the new relation to God and the new
conditions of intellect, heart and will brought about by sin. It must not be
supposed, however, that this new mode of revelation was an ex post facto
expedient, introduced to meet an unforeseen contingency. The actual
course of human development was in the nature of the case the expected
and the intended course of human development, for which man was
created; and revelation, therefore, in its double form was the divine
purpose for man from the beginning, and constitutes a unitary provision for
the realization of the end of his creation in the actual circumstances in
which he exists. We may distinguish in this unitary revelation the two
elements by the cooperation of which the effect is produced; but we should
192
bear in mind that only by their cooperation is the effect produced. Without
special revelation, general revelation would be for sinful men incomplete
and ineffective, and could issue, as in point of fact it has issued wherever it
alone has been accessible, only in leaving them without excuse (
<450120>
Romans
1:20). Without general revelation, special revelation would lack that basis
in the fundamental knowledge of God as the mighty and wise, righteous
and good maker and ruler of all things, apart from which the further
revelation of this great Gods interventions in the world for the salvation of
sinners could not be either intelligible, credible or operative.
(1) Revelation in Eden.
Only in Eden has general revelation been adequate to the needs of man.
Not being a sinner, man in Eden had no need of that grace of God itself by
which sinners are restored to communion with Him, or of the special
revelation of this grace of God to sinners to enable them to live with God.
And not being a sinner, man in Eden, as he contemplated the works of
God, saw God in the unclouded mirror of his mind with a clarity of vision,
and lived with Him in the untroubled depths of his heart with a trustful
intimacy of association, inconceivable to sinners. Nevertheless, the
revelation of God in Eden was not merely natural. Not only does the
prohibition of the forbidden fruit involve a positive commandment
(
<010216>
Genesis 2:16), but the whole history implies an immediacy of
intercourse with God which cannot easily be set to the credit of the
picturesque art of the narrative, or be fully accounted for by the vividness
of the perception of God in His works proper to sinless creatures. The
impression is strong that what is meant to be conveyed to us is that man
dwelt with God in Eden, and enjoyed with Him immediate and not merely
mediate communion. In that case, we may understand that if man had not
fallen, he would have continued to enjoy immediate intercourse with God,
and that the cessation of this immediate intercourse is due to sin. It is not
then the supernaturalness of special revelation which is rooted in sin, but, if
we may be allowed the expression, the specialness of supernatural
revelation. Had man not fallen, heaven would have continued to lie about
him through all his history, as it lay about his infancy; every man would
have enjoyed direct vision of God and immediate speech with Him. Man
having fallen, the cherubim and the flame of a sword, turning every way,
keep the path; and God breaks His way in a round-about fashion into
mans darkened heart to reveal there His redemptive love. By slow steps
and gradual stages He at once works out His saving purpose and molds the
193
world for its reception, choosing a people for Himself and training it
through long and weary ages, until at last when the fullness of time has
come, He bares His arm and sends out the proclamation of His great
salvation to all the earth.
(2) Revelation among the Heathen.
Certainly, from the gate of Eden onward, Gods general revelation ceased
to be, in the strict sense, supernatural. It is, of course, not meant that God
deserted His world and left it to fester in its iniquity. His providence still
ruled over all, leading steadily onward to the goal for which man had been
created, and of the attainment of which in Gods own good time and way
the very continuance of mens existence, under Gods providential
government, was a pledge. And His Spirit still everywhere wrought upon
the hearts of men, stirring up all their powers (though created in the image
of God, marred and impaired by sin) to their best activities, and to such
splendid effect in every department of human achievement as to command
the admiration of all ages, and in the highest region of all, that of conduct,
to call out from an apostle the encomium that though they had no law they
did by nature (observe the word nature) the things of the law. All this,
however, remains within the limits of Nature, that is to say, within the
sphere of operation of divinely-directed and assisted second causes. It
illustrates merely the heights to which the powers of man may attain under
the guidance of providence and the influences of what we have learned to
call Gods common grace. Nowhere, throughout the whole ethnic
domain, are the conceptions of God and His ways put within the reach of
man, through Gods revelation of Himself in the works of creation and
providence, transcended; nowhere is the slightest knowledge betrayed of
anything concerning God and His purposes, which could be known only by
its being supernaturally told to men. Of the entire body of saving truth,
for example, which is the burden of what we call special revelation, the
whole heathen world remained in total ignorance. And even its hold on the
general truths of religion, not being vitalized by supernatural enforcements,
grew weak, and its knowledge of the very nature of God decayed, until it
ran out to the dreadful issue which Paul sketches for us in that inspired
philosophy of religion which he incorporates in the latter part of the first
chapter of the Epistle to the Romans.
Behind even the ethnic development, there lay, of course, the supernatural
intercourse of man with God which had obtained before the entrance of sin
194
into the world, and the supernatural revelations at the gate of Eden
(
<010308>
Genesis 3:8), and at the second origin of the human race, the Flood
(
<010821>
Genesis 8:21,22; 9:1-17). How long the tradition of this primitive
revelation lingered in nooks and corners of the heathen world, conditioning
and vitalizing the natural revelation of God always accessible, we have no
means of estimating. Neither is it easy to measure the effect of Gods
special revelation of Himself to His people upon men outside the bounds
of, indeed, but coming into contact with, this chosen people, or sharing
with them a common natural inheritance. Lot and Ishmael and Esau can
scarcely have been wholly ignorant of the word of God which came to
Abraham and Isaac and Jacob; nor could the Egyptians from whose hands
God wrested His people with a mighty arm fail to learn something of
Yahweh, any more than the mixed multitudes who witnessed the ministry
of Christ could fail to infer something from His gracious walk and mighty
works. It is natural to infer that no nation which was intimately associated
with Israels life could remain entirely unaffected by Israels revelation. But
whatever impressions were thus conveyed reached apparently individuals
only: the heathen which surrounded Israel, even those most closely
affiliated with Israel, remained heathen; they had no revelation. In the
sporadic instances when God visited an alien with a supernatural
communication such as the dreams sent to Abimelech (Genesis 20) and
to Pharaoh (Genesis 40; 41) and to Nebuchadnezzar (
<270201>
Daniel 2:1 ff) and
to the soldier in the camp of Midian (
<070713>
Judges 7:13) it was in the
interests, not of the heathen world, but of the chosen people that they were
sent; and these instances derive their significance wholly from this fact.
There remain, no doubt, the mysterious figure of Melchizedek, perhaps
also of Jethro, and the strange apparition of Balaam, who also, however,
appear in the sacred narrative only in connection with the history of Gods
dealings with His people and in their interest. Their unexplained
appearance cannot in any event avail to modify the general fact that the life
of the heathen peoples lay outside the supernatural revelation of God. The
heathen were suffered to walk in their own ways (
<441416>
Acts 14:16).
II. THE PROCESS OF REVELATION.
Meanwhile, however, God had not forgotten them, but was preparing
salvation for them also through the supernatural revelation of His grace
that He was making to His people. According to the Biblical
representation, in the midst of and working confluently with the revelation
195
which He has always been giving of Himself on the plane of Nature, God
was making also from the very fall of man a further revelation of Himself
on the plane of grace. In contrast with His general, natural revelation, in
which all men by virtue of their very nature as men share, this special,
supernatural revelation was granted at first only to individuals, then
progressively to a family, a tribe, a nation, a race, until, when the fullness
of time was come, it was made the possession of the whole world. It may
be difficult to obtain from Scripture a clear account of why God chose thus
to give this revelation of His grace only progressively; or, to be more
explicit, through the process of a historical development. Such is, however,
the ordinary mode of the Divine working: it is so that God made the
worlds, it is so that He creates the human race itself, the recipient of this
revelation, it is so that He builds up His kingdom in the world and in the
individual soul, which only gradually comes whether to the knowledge of
God or to the fruition of His salvation. As to the fact, the Scriptures are
explicit, tracing for us, or rather embodying in their own growth, the
record of the steady advance of this gracious revelation through definite
stages from its first faint beginnings to its glorious completion in Jesus
Christ.
1. Place of Revelation among the Redemptive Acts of God:
So express is its relation to the development of the kingdom of God itself,
or rather to that great series of divine operations which are directed to the
building up of the kingdom of God in the world, that it is sometimes
confounded with them or thought of as simply their reflection in the
contemplating mind of man. Thus it is not infrequently said that revelation,
meaning this special redemptive revelation, has been communicated in
deeds, not in words; and it is occasionally elaborately argued that the sole
manner in which God has revealed Himself as the Saviour of sinners is just
by performing those mighty acts by which sinners are saved. This is not,
however, the Biblical representation. Revelation is, of course, often made
through the instrumentality of deeds; and the series of His great redemptive
acts by which He saves the world constitutes the pre-eminent revelation of
the grace of God so far as these redemptive acts are open to
observation and are perceived in their significance. But revelation, after all,
is the correlate of understanding and has as its proximate end just the
production of knowledge, though not, of course, knowledge for its own
sake, but for the sake of salvation. The series of the redemptive acts of
God, accordingly, can properly be designated revelation only when and
196
so far as they are contemplated as adapted and designed to produce
knowledge of God and His purpose and methods of grace. No bare series
of unexplained acts can be thought, however, adapted to produce
knowledge, especially if these acts be, as in this case, of a highly
transcendental character. Nor can this particular series of acts be thought
to have as its main design the production of knowledge; its main design is
rather to save man. No doubt the production of knowledge of the divine
grace is one of the means by which this main design of the redemptive acts
of God is attained. But this only renders it the more necessary that the
proximate result of producing knowledge should not fail; and it is
doubtless for this reason that the series of redemptive acts of God has not
been left to explain itself, but the explanatory word has been added to it.
Revelation thus appears, however, not as the mere reflection of the
redeeming acts of God in the minds of men, but as a factor in the
redeeming work of God, a component part of the series of His redeeming
acts, without which that series would be incomplete and so far inoperative
for its main end. Thus, the Scriptures represent it, not confounding
revelation with the series of the redemptive acts of God, but placing it
among the redemptive acts of God and giving it a function as a substantive
element in the operations by which the merciful God saves sinful men. It is
therefore not made even a mere constant accompaniment of the redemptive
acts of God, giving their explanation that they may be understood. It
occupies a far more independent place among them than this, and as
frequently precedes them to prepare their way as it accompanies or follows
them to interpret their meaning. It is, in one word, itself a redemptive act
of God and by no means the least important in the series of His redemptive
acts.
This might, indeed, have been inferred from its very nature, and from the
nature of the salvation which was being worked out by these redemptive
acts of God. One of the most grievous of the effects of sin is the
deformation of the image of God reflected in the human mind, and there
can be no recovery from sin which does not bring with it the correction of
this deformation and the reflection in the soul of man of the whole glory of
the Lord God Almighty. Man is an intelligent being; his superiority over
the brute is found, among other things, precisely in the direction of all his
life by his intelligence; and his blessedness is rooted in the true knowledge
of his God for this is life eternal, that we should know the only true God
and Him whom He has sent. Dealing with man as an intelligent being, God
197
the Lord has saved him by means of a revelation, by which he has been
brought into an evermore and more adequate knowledge of God, and been
led ever more and more to do his part in working out his own salvation
with fear and trembling as he perceived with ever more and more clearness
how God is working it out for him through mighty deeds of grace.
2. Stages of Material Development:
This is not the place to trace, even in outline, from the material point of
view, the development of Gods redemptive revelation from its first
beginnings, in the promise given to Abraham or rather in what has been
called the Protevangelium at the gate of Eden to its completion in the
advent and work of Christ and the teaching of His apostles; a steadily
advancing development, which, as it lies spread out to view in the pages of
Scripture, takes to those who look at it from the consummation backward,
the appearance of the shadow cast athwart preceding ages by the great
figure of Christ. Even from the formal point of view, however, there has
been pointed out a progressive advance in the method of revelation,
consonant with its advance in content, or rather with the advancing stages
of the building up of the kingdom of God, to subserve which is the whole
object of revelation. Three distinct steps in revelation have been
discriminated from this point of view. They are distinguished precisely by
the increasing independence of revelation of the deeds constituting the
series of the redemptive acts of God, in which, nevertheless, all revelation
is a substantial element. Discriminations like this must not be taken too
absolutely; and in the present instance the chronological sequence cannot
be pressed. But, with much interlacing, three generally successive stages of
revelation may be recognized, producing periods at least characteristically
of what we may somewhat conventionally call theophany, prophecy and
inspiration. What may be somewhat indefinitely marked off as the
Patriarchal age is characteristically the period of Outward Manifestations,
and Symbols, and Theophanies: during it God spoke to men through
their senses, in physical phenomena, as the burning bush, the cloudy pillar,
or in sensuous forms, as men, angels, etc. ..... In the Prophetic age, on the
contrary, the prevailing mode of revelation was by means of inward
prophetic inspiration: God spoke to men characteristically by the
movements of the Holy Spirit in their hearts. Prevailingly, at any rate from
Samuel downwards, the supernatural revelation was a revelation in the
hearts of the foremost thinkers of the people, or, as we call it, prophetic
inspiration, without the aid of external sensuous symbols of God (A.B.
198
Davidson, Old Testament Prophecy, 1903, p. 148; compare pp. 12-14, 145
ff). This internal method of revelation reaches its culmination in the New
Testament period, which is preeminently the age of the Spirit. What is
especially characteristic of this age is revelation through the medium of the
written word, what may be called apostolic as distinguished from prophetic
inspiration. The revealing Spirit speaks through chosen men as His organs,
but through these organs in such a fashion that the most intimate processes
of their souls become the instruments by means of which He speaks His
mind. Thus, at all events there are brought clearly before us three well-
marked modes of revelation, which we may perhaps designate respectively,
not with perfect discrimination, it is true, but not misleadingly,
(1) external manifestation,
(2) internal suggestion, and
(3) concursive operation.
III. THE MODES OF REVELATION.
1. Modes of Revelation:
Theophany may be taken as the typical form of external manifestation;
but by its side may be ranged all of those mighty works by which God
makes Himself known, including express miracles, no doubt, but along
with them every supernatural intervention in the affairs of men, by means
of which a better understanding is communicated of what God is or what
are His purposes of grace to a sinful race. Under internal suggestion may
be subsumed all the characteristic phenomena of what is most properly
spoken of as prophecy: visions and dreams, which, according to a
fundamental passage (
<041206>
Numbers 12:6), constitute the typical forms of
prophecy, and with them the whole prophetic word, which shares its
essential characteristic with visions and dreams, since it comes not by the
will of man but from God. By concursive operation may be meant that
form of revelation illustrated in an inspired psalm or epistle or history, in
which no human activity not even the control of the will is
superseded, but the Holy Spirit works in, with and through them all in such
a manner as to communicate to the product qualities distinctly superhuman.
There is no age in the history of the religion of the Bible, from that of
Moses to that of Christ and His apostles, in which all these modes of
revelation do not find place. One or another may seem particularly
199
characteristic of this age or of that; but they all occur in every age. And
they occur side by side, broadly speaking, on the same level. No
discrimination is drawn between them in point of worthiness as modes of
revelation, and much less in point of purity in the revelations
communicated through them. The circumstance that God spoke to Moses,
not by dream or vision but mouth to mouth, is, indeed, adverted to
(
<041208>
Numbers 12:8) as a proof of the peculiar favor shown to Moses and
even of the superior dignity of Moses above other organs of revelation:
God admitted him to an intimacy of intercourse which He did not accord to
others. But though Moses was thus distinguished above all others in the
dealings of God with him, no distinction is drawn between the revelations
given through him and those given through other organs of revelation in
point either of Divinity or of authority. And beyond this we have no
Scriptural warrant to go on in contrasting one mode of revelation with
another. Dreams may seem to us little fitted to serve as vehicles of divine
communications. But there is no suggestion in Scripture that revelations
through dreams stand on a lower plane than any others; and we should not
fail to remember that the essential characteristics of revelations through
dreams are shared by all forms of revelation in which (whether we should
call them visions or not) the images or ideas which fill, or pass in
procession through, the consciousness are determined by some other
power than the recipients own will. It may seem natural to suppose that
revelations rise in rank in proportion to the fullness of the engagement of
the mental activity of the recipient in their reception. But we should bear in
mind that the intellectual or spiritual quality of a revelation is not derived
from the recipient but from its Divine Giver. The fundamental fact in all
revelation is that it is from God. This is what gives unity to the whole
process of revelation, given though it may be in divers portions and in
divers manners and distributed though it may be through the ages in
accordance with the mere will of God, or as it may have suited His
developing purpose this and its unitary end, which is ever the building
up of the kingdom of God. In whatever diversity of forms, by means of
whatever variety of modes, in whatever distinguishable stages it is given, it
is ever the revelation of the One God, and it is ever the one consistently
developing redemptive revelation of God.
2. Equal Supernaturalness of the Several Modes:
On a prima facie view it may indeed seem likely that a difference in the
quality of their supernaturalness would inevitably obtain between
200
revelations given through such divergent modes. The completely
supernatural character of revelations given in theophanies is obvious. He
who will not allow that God speaks to man, to make known His gracious
purposes toward him, has no other recourse here than to pronounce the
stories legendary. The objectivity of the mode of communication which is
adopted is intense, and it is thrown up to observation with the greatest
emphasis. Into the natural life of man God intrudes in a purely supernatural
manner, bearing a purely supernatural communication. In these
communications we are given accordingly just a series of naked messages
of God. But not even in the Patriarchal age were all revelations given in
theophanies or objective appearances. There were dreams, and visions, and
revelations without explicit intimation in the narrative of how they were
communicated. And when we pass on in the history, we do not, indeed,
leave behind us theophanies and objective appearances. It is not only made
the very characteristic of Moses, the greatest figure in the whole history of
revelation except only that of Christ, that he knew God face to face
(
<053410>
Deuteronomy 34:10), and God spoke to him mouth to mouth, even
manifestly, and not in dark speeches (
<041208>
Numbers 12:8); but throughout
the whole history of revelation down to the appearance of Jesus to Paul on
the road to Damascus, God has shown Himself visibly to His servants
whenever it has seemed good to Him to do so and has spoken with them in
objective speech. Nevertheless, it is expressly made the characteristic of the
Prophetic age that God makes Himself known to His servants in a vision,
in a dream (
<041206>
Numbers 12:6). And although, throughout its entire
duration, God, in fulfillment of His promise (
<051818>
Deuteronomy 18:18), put
His words in the mouths of His prophets and gave them His
commandments to speak, yet it would seem inherent in the very
employment of men as instruments of revelation that the words of God
given through them are spoken by human mouths; and the purity of their
supernaturalness may seem so far obscured. And when it is not merely the
mouths of men with which God thus serves Himself in the delivery of His
messages, but their minds and hearts as well the play of their religious
feelings, or the processes of their logical reasoning, or the tenacity of their
memories, as, say, in a psalm or in an epistle, or a history the
supernatural element in the communication may easily seem to retire still
farther into the background. It can scarcely be a matter of surprise,
therefore, that question has been raised as to the relation of the natural and
the supernatural in such revelations, and, in many current manners of
thinking and speaking of them, the completeness of their supernaturalness
201
has been limited and curtailed in the interests of the natural
instrumentalities employed. The plausibility of such reasoning renders it the
more necessary that we should observe the unvarying emphasis which the
Scriptures place upon the absolute supernaturalness of revelation in all its
modes alike. In the view of the Scriptures, the completely supernatural
character of revelation is in no way lessened by the circumstance that it has
been given through the instrumentality of men. They affirm, indeed, with
the greatest possible emphasis that the Divine word delivered through men
is the pure word of God, diluted with no human admixture whatever.
3. The Prophet Gods Mouthpiece:
We have already been led to note that even on the occasion when Moses is
exalted above all other organs of revelation (
<041206>
Numbers 12:6 ff), in point
of dignity and favor, no suggestion whatever is made of any inferiority, in
either the directness or the purity of their supernaturalness, attaching to
other organs of revelation. There might never afterward arise a prophet in
Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face
(
<053410>
Deuteronomy 34:10). But each of the whole series of prophets raised
up by Yahweh that the people might always know His will was to be like
Moses in speaking to the people only what Yahweh commanded them
(
<051815>
Deuteronomy 18:15,18,20). In this great promise, securing to Israel
the succession of prophets, there is also included a declaration of precisely
how Yahweh would communicate His messages not so much to them as
through them. I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren,
like unto thee, we read (
<051818>
Deuteronomy 18:18), and I will put my
words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command
him. The process of revelation through the prophets was a process by
which Yahweh put His words in the mouths of the prophets, and the
prophets spoke precisely these words and no others. So the prophets
themselves ever asserted. Then Yahweh put forth his hand, and touched
my mouth, explains Jeremiah in his account of how he received his
prophecies, and Yahweh said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in
thy mouth (
<240109>
Jeremiah 1:9; compare 5:14;
<235116>
Isaiah 51:16; 59:21;
<042235>
Numbers 22:35; 23:5,12,16). Accordingly, the words with which they
spoke were not their own but the Lords: And he said unto me, records
Ezekiel, Son of man, go, get thee unto the house of Israel, and speak with
my words unto them (
<260304>
Ezekiel 3:4). It is a process of nothing other
than dictation which is thus described (
<101403>
2 Samuel 14:3,19), though, of
course, the question may remain open of the exact processes by which this
202
dictation is accomplished. The fundamental passage which brings the
central fact before us in the most vivid manner is, no doubt, the account of
the commissioning of Moses and Aaron given in
<020410>
Exodus 4:10-17; 7:1-
7. Here, in the most express words, Yahweh declares that He who made
the mouth can be with it to teach it what to speak, and announces the
precise function of a prophet to be that he is a mouth of God, who
speaks not his own but Gods words. Accordingly, the Hebrew name for
prophet (nabhi), whatever may be its etymology, means throughout the
Scriptures just spokesman, though not spokesman in general, but
Spokesman by way of eminence, that is, Gods spokesman; and the
characteristic formula by which a prophetic declaration is announced is:
The word of Yahweh came to me, or the brief saith Yahweh ([h wh y
a un], neum Yahweh]). In no case does a prophet put his words forward as
his own words. That he is a prophet at all is due not to choice on his own
part, but to a call of God, obeyed often with reluctance; and he prophesies
or forbears to prophesy, not according to his own will but as the Lord
opens and shuts his mouth (
<260326>
Ezekiel 3:26 f) and creates for him the fruit
of the lips (
<235719>
Isaiah 57:19; compare 6:7; 50:4). In contrast with the false
prophets, he strenuously asserts that he does not speak out of his own
heart (heart in Biblical language includes the whole inner man), but all
that he proclaims is the pure word of Yahweh.
4. Visionary Form of Prophecy:
The fundamental passage does not quite leave the matter, however, with
this general declaration. It describes the characteristic manner in which
Yahweh communicates His messages to His prophets as through the
medium of visions and dreams. Neither visions in the technical sense of that
word, nor dreams, appear, however, to have been the customary mode of
revelation to the prophets, the record of whose revelations has come down
to us. But, on the other hand, there are numerous indications in the record
that the universal mode of revelation to them was one which was in some
sense a vision, and can be classed only in the category distinctively so
called.
The whole nomenclature of prophecy presupposes, indeed, its vision-form.
Prophecy is distinctively a word, and what is delivered by the prophets is
proclaimed as the word of Yahweh. That it should be announced by the
formula, Thus saith the Lord, is, therefore, only what we expect; and we
are prepared for such a description of its process as: The Lord Yahweh
203
.... wakeneth mine ear to hear, He hath opened mine ear (
<235004>
Isaiah
50:4,5). But this is not the way of speaking of their messages which is most
usual in the prophets. Rather is the whole body of prophecy cursorily
presented as a thing seen. Isaiah places at the head of his book: The vision
of Isaiah .... which he saw (compare
<232910>
Isaiah 29:10,11; Obidiah 1:1); and
then proceeds to set at the head of subordinate sections the remarkable
words, The word that Isaiah .... saw (2:1); the burden (margin oracle)
.... which Isaiah .... did see (13:1). Similarly there stand at the head of
other prophecies: the words of Amos .... which he saw (
<300101>
Amos 1:1);
the word of Yahweh that came to Micah .... which he saw (
<330101>
Micah
1:1); the oracle which Habakkuk the prophet did see (
<350101>
Habakkuk 1:1
margin); and elsewhere such language occurs as this: the word that
Yahweh hath showed me (
<243821>
Jeremiah 38:21); the prophets have seen
.... oracles (
<250214>
Lamentations 2:14); the word of Yahweh came .... and I
looked, and, behold (
<260103>
Ezekiel 1:3,4); Woe unto the foolish prophets,
that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing (
<261303>
Ezekiel 13:3); I
.... will look forth to see what he will speak with me,.... Yahweh .... said,
Write the vision (
<350201>
Habakkuk 2:1 f). It is an inadequate explanation of
such language to suppose it merely a relic of a time when vision was more
predominantly the form of revelation. There is no proof that vision in the
technical sense ever was more predominantly the form of revelation than in
the days of the great writing prophets; and such language as we have
quoted too obviously represents the living point of view of the prophets to
admit of the supposition that it was merely conventional on their lips. The
prophets, in a word, represent the divine communications which they
received as given to them in some sense in visions.
It is possible, no doubt, to exaggerate the significance of this. It is an
exaggeration, for example, to insist that therefore all the divine
communications made to the prophets must have come to them in external
appearances and objective speech, addressed to and received by means of
the bodily eye and ear. This would be to break down the distinction
between manifestation and revelation, and to assimilate the mode of
prophetic revelation to that granted to Moses, though these are expressly
distinguished (
<041206>
Numbers 12:6-8). It is also an exaggeration to insist that
therefore the prophetic state must be conceived as that of strict ecstasy,
involving the complete abeyance of all mental life on the part of the
prophet (amentia), and possibly also accompanying physical effects. It is
quite clear from the records which the prophets themselves give us of their
204
revelations that their intelligence was alert in all stages of their reception of
them. The purpose of both these extreme views is the good one of doing
full justice to the objectivity of the revelations vouchsafed to the prophets.
If these revelations took place entirely externally to the prophet, who
merely stood off and contemplated them, or if they were implanted in the
prophets by a process so violent as not only to supersede their mental
activity but, for the time being, to annihilate it, it would be quite clear that
they came from a source other than the prophets own minds. It is
undoubtedly the fundamental contention of the prophets that the
revelations given through them are not their own but wholly Gods. The
significant language we have just quoted from
<261303>
Ezekiel 13:3: Woe unto
the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing, is
a typical utterance of their sense of the complete objectivity of their
messages. What distinguishes the false prophets is precisely that they
prophesy out of their own heart (
<261302>
Ezekiel 13:2-17), or, to draw the
antithesis sharply, that they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out
of the mouth of Yahweh (
<242316>
Jeremiah 23:16,26; 14:14). But these
extreme views fail to do justice, the one to the equally important fact that
the word of God, given through the prophets, comes as the pure and
unmixed word of God not merely to, but from, the prophets; and the other
to the equally obvious fact that the intelligence of the prophets is alert
throughout the whole process of the reception and delivery of the
revelation made through them.
See INSPIRATION; PROPHECY.
That which gives to prophecy as a mode of revelation its place in the
category of visions, strictly so called, and dreams is that it shares with them
the distinguishing characteristic which determines the class. In them all
alike the movements of the mind are determined by something extraneous
to the subjects will, or rather, since we are speaking of supernaturally
given dreams and visions, extraneous to the totality of the subjects own
psychoses. A power not himself takes possession of his consciousness and
determines it according to its will. That power, in the case of the prophets,
was fully recognized and energetically asserted to be Yahweh Himself or,
to be more specific, the Spirit of Yahweh (
<091006>
1 Samuel 10:6,10;
<160930>
Nehemiah 9:30;
<380712>
Zechariah 7:12;
<290228>
Joel 2:28,29). The prophets
were therefore `men of the Spirit (
<280907>
Hosea 9:7). What constituted them
prophets was that the Spirit was put upon them (
<234201>
Isaiah 42:1) or poured
out on them (
<290228>
Joel 2:28,29), and they were consequently filled with the
205
Spirit (
<330308>
Micah 3:8), or, in another but equivalent locution, that the
hand of the Lord, or the power of the hand of the Lord, was upon them
(
<120301>
2 Kings 3:15;
<260103>
Ezekiel 1:3; 3:14,22; 33:22; 37:1; 40:1), that is to
say, they were under the divine control. This control is represented as
complete and compelling, so that, under it, the prophet becomes not the
mover, but the moved in the formation of his message. The apostle
Peter very purely reflects the prophetic consciousness in his well-known
declaration: `No prophecy of scripture comes of private interpretation; for
prophecy was never brought by the will of man; but it was as borne by the
Holy Spirit that men spoke from God (2 Pet 1:20,21).
5. Passivity of Prophets:
What this language of Peter emphasizes and what is emphasized in the
whole account which the prophets give of their own consciousness is,
to speak plainly, the passivity of the prophets with respect to the revelation
given through them. This is the significance of the phrase: `it was as borne
by the Holy Spirit that men spoke from God. To be borne ([rprv,
pherein]) is not the same as to be led ([oyrv, agein]), much less to be
guided or directed ([oqyrv, hodegein]): he that is borne contributes
nothing to the movement induced, but is the object to be moved. The term
passivity is, perhaps, however, liable to some misapprehension, and
should not be overstrained. It is not intended to deny that the intelligence
of the prophets was active in the reception of their message; it was by
means of their active intelligence that their message was received: their
intelligence was the instrument of revelation. It is intended to deny only
that their intelligence was active in the production of their message: that it
was creatively as distinguished from receptively active. For reception itself
is a kind of activity. What the prophets are solicitous that their readers shall
understand is that they are in no sense coauthors with God of their
messages. Their messages are given them, given them entire, and given
them precisely as they are given out by them. God speaks through them:
they are not merely His messengers, but His mouth. But at the same time
their intelligence is active in the reception, retention and announcing of
their messages, contributing nothing to them but presenting fit instruments
for the communication of them instruments capable of understanding,
responding profoundly to and zealously proclaiming them.
There is, no doubt, a not unnatural hesitancy abroad in thinking of the
prophets as exhibiting only such merely receptive activities. In the interests
206
of their personalities, we are asked not to represent God as dealing
mechanically with them, pouring His revelations into their souls to be
simply received as in so many buckets, or violently wresting their minds
from their own proper action that He may do His own thinking with them.
Must we not rather suppose, we are asked, that all revelations must be
psychologically mediated, must be given after the mode of moral
mediation, and must be made first of all their recipients own spiritual
possession? And is not, in point of fact, the personality of each prophet
clearly traceable in his message, and that to such an extent as to compel us
to recognize him as in a true sense its real author? The plausibility of such
questionings should not be permitted to obscure the fact that the mode of
the communication of the prophetic messages which is suggested by them
is directly contradicted by the prophets own representations of their
relations to the revealing Spirit. In the prophets own view they were just
instruments through whom God gave revelations which came from them,
not as their own product, but as the pure word of Yahweh. Neither should
the plausibility of such questionings blind us to their speciousness. They
exploit subordinate considerations, which are not without their validity in
their own place and under their own limiting conditions, as if they were the
determining or even the sole considerations in the case, and in neglect of
the really determining considerations. God is Himself the author of the
instruments He employs for the communication of His messages to men
and has framed them into precisely the instruments He desired for the exact
communication of His message. There is just ground for the expectation
that He will use all the instruments He employs according to their natures;
intelligent beings therefore as intelligent beings, moral agents as moral
agents. But there is no just ground for asserting that God is incapable of
employing the intelligent beings He has Himself created and formed to His
will, to proclaim His messages purely as He gives them to them; or of
making truly the possession of rational minds conceptions which they have
themselves had no part in creating. And there is no ground for imagining
that God is unable to frame His own message in the language of the organs
of His revelation without its thereby ceasing to be, because expressed in a
fashion natural to these organs, therefore purely His message. One would
suppose it to lie in the very nature of the case that if the Lord makes any
revelation to men, He would do it in the language of men; or, to
individualize more explicitly, in the language of the man He employs as the
organ of His revelation; and that naturally means, not the language of his
nation or circle merely, but his own particular language, inclusive of all that
207
gives individuality to his self-expression. We may speak of this, if we will,
as the accommodation of the revealing God to the several prophetic
individualities. But we should avoid thinking of it externally and therefore
mechanically, as if the revealing Spirit artificially phrased the message
which He gives through each prophet in the particular forms of speech
proper to the individuality of each, so as to create the illusion that the
message comes out of the heart of the prophet himself. Precisely what the
prophets affirm is that their messages do not come out of their own hearts
and do not represent the workings of their own spirits. Nor is there any
illusion in the phenomenon we are contemplating; and it is a much more
intimate, and, we may add, a much more interesting phenomenon than an
external accommodation of speech to individual habitudes. It includes,
on the one hand, the accommodation of the prophet, through his total
preparation, to the speech in which the revelation to be given through him
is to be clothed; and on the other involves little more than the consistent
carrying into detail of the broad principle that God uses the instruments He
employs in accordance with their natures.
No doubt, on adequate occasion, the very stones might cry out by the
power of God, and dumb beasts speak, and mysterious voices sound forth
from the void; and there have not been lacking instances in which men have
been compelled by the same power to speak what they would not, and in
languages whose very sounds were strange to their ears. But ordinarily
when God the Lord would speak to men He avails Himself of the services
of a human tongue with which to speak, and He employs this tongue
according to its nature as a tongue and according to the particular nature
of the tongue which He employs. It is vain to say that the message
delivered through the instrumentality of this tongue is conditioned at least
in its form by the tongue by which it is spoken, if not, indeed, limited,
curtailed, in some degree determined even in its matter, by it. Not only was
it God the Lord who made the tongue, and who made this particular
tongue with all its peculiarities, not without regard to the message He
would deliver through it; but His control of it is perfect and complete, and
it is as absurd to say that He cannot speak His message by it purely without
that message suffering change from the peculiarities of its tone and modes
of enunciation, as it would be to say that no new truth can be announced in
any language because the elements of speech by the combination of which
the truth in question is announced are already in existence with their fixed
range of connotation. The marks of the several individualities imprinted on
208
the messages of the prophets, in other words, are only a part of the general
fact that these messages are couched in human language, and in no way
beyond that general fact affect their purity as direct communications from
God.
6. Revelation by Inspiration:
A new set of problems is raised by the mode of revelation which we have
called concursive operation. This mode of revelation differs from
prophecy, properly so called, precisely by the employment in it, as is not
done in prophecy, of the total personality of the organ of revelation, as a
factor. It has been common to speak of the mode of the Spirits action in
this form of revelation, therefore, as an assistance, a superintendence, a
direction, a control, the meaning being that the effect aimed at the
discovery and enunciation of divine truth is attained through the action
of the human powers historical research, logical reasoning, ethical
thought, religious aspiration acting not by themselves, however, but
under the prevailing assistance, superintendence, direction, control of the
Divine Spirit. This manner of speaking has the advantage of setting this
mode of revelation sharply in contrast with prophetic revelation, as
involving merely a determining, and not, as in prophetic revelation, a
supercessive action of the revealing Spirit. We are warned, however,
against pressing this discrimination too far by the inclusion of the whole
body of Scripture in such passages as
<610120>
2 Peter 1:20 f in the category of
prophecy, and the assignment of their origin not to a mere leading but to
the bearing of the Holy Spirit. In any event such terms as assistance,
superintendence, direction, control, inadequately express the nature of the
Spirits action in revelation by concursive operation. The Spirit is not to
be conceived as standing outside of the human powers employed for the
effect in view, ready to supplement any inadequacies they may show and to
supply any defects they may manifest, but as working confluently in, with
and by them, elevating them, directing them, controlling them, energizing
them, so that, as His instruments, they rise above themselves and under His
inspiration do His work and reach His aim. The product, therefore, which
is attained by their means is His product through them. It is this fact which
gives to the process the right to be called actively, and to the product the
right to be called passively, a revelation. Although the circumstance that
what is done is done by and through the action of human powers keeps the
product in form and quality in a true sense human, yet the confluent
operation of the Holy Spirit throughout the whole process raises the result
209
above what could by any possibility be achieved by mere human powers
and constitutes it expressly a supernatural product. The human traits are
traceable throughout its whole extent, but at bottom it is a divine gift, and
the language of Paul is the most proper mode of speech that could be
applied to it: Which things also we speak, not in words which mans
wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth (1 Cor 2:13); The things
which I write unto you .... are the commandment of the Lord (1 Cor
14:37).
See INSPIRATION.
7. Complete Revelation of God in Christ:
It is supposed that all the forms of special or redemptive revelation which
underlie and give its content to the religion of the Bible may without
violence be subsumed under one or another of these three modes
external manifestation, internal suggestion, and concursive operation. All,
that is, except the culminating revelation, not through, but in, Jesus Christ.
As in His person, in which dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, He
rises above all classification and is sui generis; so the revelation
accumulated in Him stands outside all the divers portions and divers
manners in which otherwise revelation has been given and sums up in itself
all that has been or can be made known of God and of His redemption. He
does not so much make a revelation of God as Himself is the revelation of
God; He does not merely disclose Gods purpose of redemption, He is
unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and
redemption. The theophanies are but faint shadows in comparison with His
manifestation of God in the flesh. The prophets could prophesy only as the
Spirit of Christ which was in them testified, revealing to them as to
servants one or another of the secrets of the Lord Yahweh; from Him as
His Son, Yahweh has no secrets, but whatsoever the Father knows that the
Son knows also. Whatever truth men have been made partakers of by the
Spirit of truth is His (for all things whatsoever the Father hath are His) and
is taken by the Spirit of truth and declared to men that He may be glorified.
Nevertheless, though all revelation is thus summed up in Him, we should
not fail to note very carefully that it would also be all sealed up in Him
so little is revelation conveyed by fact alone, without the word had it
not been thus taken by the Spirit of truth and declared unto men. The
entirety of the New Testament is but the explanatory word accompanying
and giving its effect to the fact of Christ. And when this fact was in all its
210
meaning made the possession of men, revelation was completed and in that
sense ceased. Jesus Christ is no less the end of revelation than He is the
end of the law.
IV. BIBLICAL TERMINOLOGY.
1. The Ordinary Forms:
There is not much additional to be learned concerning the nature and
processes of revelation, from the terms currently employed in Scripture to
express the idea. These terms are ordinarily the common words for
disclosing, making known, making manifest, applied with more or less
heightened significance to supernatural acts or effects in kind. In the
English Bible (the King James Version) the verb reveal occurs about 51
times, of which 22 are in the Old Testament and 29 in the New Testament.
In the Old Testament the word is always the rendering of a Hebrew term
[h l ;G;, galah], or its Aramaic equivalent [h l ;G], gelah], the root meaning of
which appears to be nakedness. When applied to revelation, it seems to
hint at the removal of obstacles to perception or the uncovering of objects
to perception. In the New Testament the word reveal is always (with the
single exception of
<420235>
Luke 2:35) the rendering of a Greek term
[ooxout, apokalupto] (but in
<530107>
2 Thessalonians 1:7;
<600413>
1 Peter
4:13 the corresponding noun [ooxoug, apokalupsis]), which has a
very similar basal significance with its Hebrew parallel. As this Hebrew
word formed no substantive in this sense, the noun revelation does not
occur in the English Old Testament, the idea being expressed, however, by
other Hebrew terms variously rendered. It occurs in the English New
Testament, on the other hand, about a dozen times, and always as the
rendering of the substantive corresponding to the verb rendered reveal
(apokalupsis). On the face of the English Bible, the terms reveal,
revelation bear therefore uniformly the general sense of disclose,
disclosure. The idea is found in the Bible, however, much more
frequently than the terms reveal revelation in English Versions of the
Bible. Indeed, the Hebrew and Greek terms exclusively so rendered occur
more frequently in this sense than in this rendering in the English Bible.
And by their side there stand various other terms which express in one way
or another the general conception.
In the New Testament the verb [ovrpo, phaneroo], with the general
sense of making manifest, manifesting, is the most common of these. It
211
differs from apokalupto as the more general and external term from the
more special and inward. Other terms also are occasionally used:
[rovro, epiphaneia], manifestation (2 Thess 2:8;
<540614>
1 Timothy
6:14;
<550110>
2 Timothy 1:10; 4:1;
<560213>
Titus 2:13; compare [rov,
epiphaino],
<560211>
Titus 2:11; 3:4); [rxvu, deiknuo] (
<660101>
Revelation 1:1;
17:1; 22:1,6,8; compare
<440916>
Acts 9:16;
<540415>
1 Timothy 4:15); [rqyroo,
exegomai] (
<430118>
John 1:18), of which, however, only one perhaps
[pqot, chrematizo] (
<400212>
Matthew 2:12,22;
<420220>
Luke 2:20;
<441022>
Acts
10:22;
<580805>
Hebrews 8:5; 11:7; 12:25); [pqotoo, chrematismos]
(
<451104>
Romans 11:4) calls for particular notice as in a special way,
according to its usage, expressing the idea of a divine communication.
In the Old Testament, the common Hebrew verb for seeing ([h a ;r ; ,
raah]) is used in its appropriate stems, with God as the subject, for
appearing, showing: the Lord appeared unto .... ; the word which
the Lord showed me. And from this verb not only is an active substantive
formed which supplied the more ancient designation of the official organ of
revelation: [h a ,r o , roeh], seer; but also objective substantives,
[h a ; r ] m , marah], and [h a , r ] m , mareh], which were used to designate
the thing seen in a revelation the vision. By the side of these terms
there were others in use, derived from a root which supplies to the
Aramaic its common word for seeing, but in Hebrew has a somewhat
more pregnant meaning, [h z;j ;, chazah]. Its active derivative, [h z,j o,
chozeh], was a designation of a prophet which remained in occasional use,
alternating with the more customary [a yb in;, nabhi], long after [h a ,Or ,
roeh], had become practically obsolete; and its passive derivatives chazon,
chizzayon, chazuth, machazeh provided the ordinary terms for the
substance of the revelation or vision. The distinction between the two
sets of terms, derived respectively from raah and chazah, while not to be
unduly pressed, seems to lie in the direction that the former suggests
external manifestations and the latter internal revelations. The roeh is he
to whom divine manifestations, the chozeh he to whom divine
communications, have been vouchsafed; the mareh is an appearance, the
chazon and its companions a vision. It may be of interest to observe that
marah is the term employed in
<041206>
Numbers 12:6, while it is chazon which
commonly occurs in the headings of the written prophecies to indicate their
revelatory character. From this it may possibly be inferred that in the
former passage it is the mode, in the latter the contents of the revelation
212
that is emphasized. Perhaps a like distinction may be traced between the
chazon of
<270815>
Daniel 8:15 and the mareh of the next verse. The ordinary
verb for knowing, [[ d y; , yadha`], expressing in its causative stems the
idea of making known, informing, is also very naturally employed, with
God as its subject, in the sense of revealing, and that, in accordance with
the natural sense of the word, with a tendency to pregnancy of implication,
of revealing effectively, of not merely uncovering to observation, but
making to know. Accordingly, it is paralleled riot merely with [h l ;G;, galah]
(
<199802>
Psalm 98:2: `The Lord hath made known his salvation; his
righteousness hath he displayed in the sight of the nation), but also with
such terms as [d m l ; , lamadh] (
<192504>
Psalm 25:4: `Make known to me thy
ways, O Lord: teach me thy paths). This verb yadha` forms no substantive
in the sense of revelation (compare [t [ D , da`ath],
<042416>
Numbers 24:16;
<191903>
Psalm 19:3).
2. Word of Yahweh and Torah:
The most common vehicles of the idea of revelation in the Old
Testament are, however, two expressions which are yet to be mentioned.
These are the phrase, word of Yahweh, and the term commonly but
inadequately rendered in the English Versions of the Bible by law. The
former (debhar Yahweh, varied to debhar Elohim or debhar ha-Elohim;
compare neum Yahweh, massa Yahweh) occurs scores of times and is at
once the simplest and the most colorless designation of a divine
communication. By the latter (torah), the proper meaning of which is
instruction, a strong implication of authoritativeness is conveyed; and, in
this sense, it becomes what may be called the technical designation of a
specifically divine communication. The two are not infrequently brought
together, as in
<230110>
Isaiah 1:10: Hear the word of Yahweh, ye rulers of
Sodom; give ear unto the law (margin teaching) of our God, ye people of
Gomorrah; or
<230203>
Isaiah 2:3 margin;
<330402>
Micah 4:2: For out of Zion shall
go forth the law (margin instruction), and the word of Yahweh from
Jerusalem. Both terms are used for any divine communication of whatever
extent; and both came to be employed to express the entire body of divine
revelation, conceived as a unitary whole. In this comprehensive usage, the
emphasis of the one came to fall more on the graciousness, and of the other
more on the authoritativeness of this body of divine revelation; and both
passed into the New Testament with these implications. The word of
God, or simply the word, comes thus to mean in the New Testament
213
just the gospel, the word of the proclamation of redemption, that is, all
that which God has to say to man, and causes to be said looking to his
salvation. It expresses, in a word, precisely what we technically speak of as
Gods redemptive revelation. The law, on the other hand, means in this
New Testament use, just the whole body of the authoritative instruction
which God has given men. It expresses, in other words, what we
commonly speak of as Gods supernatural revelation. The two things, of
course, are the same: Gods authoritative revelation is His gracious
revelation; Gods redemptive revelation is His supernatural revelation. The
two terms merely look at the one aggregate of revelation from two aspects,
and each emphasizes its own aspect of this one aggregated revelation.
Now, this aggregated revelation lay before the men of the New Testament
in a written form, and it was impossible to speak freely of it without
consciousness of and at least occasional reference to its written form.
Accordingly we hear of a Word of God that is written, (
<431525>
John 15:25;
<461554>
1 Corinthians 15:54), and the Divine Word is naturally contrasted with
mere tradition, as if its written form were of its very idea (
<410710>
Mark 7:10);
indeed, the written body of revelation with an emphasis on its written
form is designated expressly `the prophetic word (2 Pet 1:19).
3. The Scriptures:
More distinctly still, the Law comes to be thought of as a written, not
exactly, code, but body of Divinely authoritative instructions. The phrase,
It is written in your law (
<431034>
John 10:34; 15:25;
<450319>
Romans 3:19;
<461421>
1
Corinthians 14:21), acquires the precise sense of, It is set forth in your
authoritative Scriptures, all the content of which is `law, that is, divine
instruction. Thus, the Word of God, the Law, came to mean just the
written body of revelation, what we call, and what the New Testament
writers called, in the same high sense which we give the term, the
Scriptures. These Scriptures are thus identified with the revelation of
God, conceived as a well-defined corpus, and two conceptions rise before
us which have had a determining part to play in the history of Christianity
the conception of an authoritative Canon of Scripture, and the
conception of this Canon of Scripture as just the Word of God written. The
former conception was thrown into prominence in opposition to the
Gnostic heresies in the earliest age of the church, and gave rise to a richly
varied mode of speech concerning the Scriptures, emphasizing their
authority in legal language, which goes back to and rests on the Biblical.
214
usage of Law. The latter it was left to the Reformation to do justice to in
its struggle against, on the one side, the Romish depression of the
Scriptures in favor of the traditions of the church, and on the other side the
Enthusiasts supercession of them in the interests of the inner Word.
When Tertullian, on the one hand, speaks of the Scriptures as an
Instrument, a legal document, his terminology has an express warrant in
the Scriptures own usage of torah, law, to designate their entire content.
And when John Gerhard argues that between the Word of God and
Sacred Scripture, taken in a material sense, there is no real difference, he
is only declaring plainly what is definitely implied in the New Testament
use of the Word of God with the written revelation in mind. What is
important to recognize is that the Scriptures themselves represent the
Scriptures as not merely containing here and there the record of revelations
words of God, toroth given by God, but as themselves, in all their
extent, a revelation, an authoritative body of gracious instructions from
God; or, since they alone, of all the revelations which God may have given,
are extant rather as the Revelation, the only Word of God accessible
to men, in all their parts law, that is, authoritative instruction from God.
LITERATURE.
Herman Witsius, Deuteronomy Prophetis et Prophetia in Miscell. Sacr.,
I, Leiden, 1736, 1-318; G. F. Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament,
English translation, Edinburgh, 1874, I, part I (and the appropriate sections
in other Biblical Theologies); H. Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek(2), I,
Kampen, 1906, 290-406 (and the appropriate sections in other dogmatic
treatises); H. Voigt, Fundamentaldogmatik, Gotha, 1874, 173 ff; A.
Kuyper, Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology, English translation, New York,
1898, Division III, Chapter ii; A. E. Krauss, Die Lehre von der
Offenbarung, Gotha, 1868; C. F. Fritzsche, Deuteronomy revelationis
notione biblica, Leipzig, 1828; E. W. Hengstenberg, The Christology of the
O T, ET2, Edinburgh, 1868, IV, Appendix 6, pp. 396-444; E. Konig, Per
Offenbarungsbegriff des Altes Testament, Leipzig, 1882; A. B. Davidson,
Old Testament Prophecy, 1903; W. J. Beecher, The Prophets and the
Promise, New York, 1905; James Orr, The Christian View of God and the
World, 1893, as per Index, Revelation, and Revelation and Inspiration,
London and New York, 1910. Also: T. Christlieb, Modern Doubt and
Christian Belief, English translation, New York, 1874; G. P. Fisher, The
Nature and Method of Revelation, New York, 1890; C. M. Mead,
215
Supernatural Revelation, 1889; J. Quirmbach, Die Lehre des h. Paulus von
der naturlichen Gotteserkenntnis, etc., Freiburg, 1906.
Benjamin B. Warfield
REVELATION OF JOHN:
The last book of the New Testament. It professes to be the record of
prophetic visions given by Jesus Christ to John, while the latter was a
prisoner, for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus (
<660109>
Revelation
1:9), in PATMOS (which see), a small rocky island in the Aegean, about 15
miles West of Ephesus. Its precursor in the Old Testament is the Book of
Dnl, with the symbolic visions and mystical numbers of which it stands in
close affinity. The peculiar form of the book, its relation to other
apocalyptic writings, and to the Fourth Gospel, likewise attributed to
John, the interpretation of its symbols, with disputed questions of its date,
of worship, unity, relations to contemporary history, etc., have made it one
of the most difficult books in the New Testament to explain satisfactorily.
I. TITLE AND GENERAL CHARACTER OF BOOK.
1. Title:
Revelation answers to [ooxoug, apokalupsis], in
<660101>
Revelation
1:1. The oldest form of the title would seem to be simply, Apocalypse of
John, the appended words the divine ([0rooyo, theologos], i.e.
theologian) not being older than the 4th century (compare the title given
to Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory theologian). The book belongs to the
class of works commonly named apocalyptic, as containing visions and
revelations of the future, frequently in symbolical form (e.g. the Book of
Enoch, the Apocalypse of Bar, the Apocalypse of Ezr; see APOCALYPTIC
LITERATURE), but it is doubtful if the word here bears this technical
sense. The tendency at present is to group the New Testament Apocalypse
with these others, and attribute to it the same kind of origin as theirs,
namely, in the unbridled play of religious fantasy, clothing itself in unreal
visional form.
2. Uniqueness and Reality of Visions:
But there is a wide distinction. These other works are pseudonymous
fictitious; on the face of them products of imagination; betraying that this is
their origin in their crude, confused, unedifying character. The Apocalypse
216
bears on it the name of its author an apostle of Jesus Christ (see below);
claims to rest on real visions; rings with the accent of sincerity; is orderly,
serious, sublime, purposeful, in its conceptions; deals with the most solemn
and momentous of themes. On the modern Nerotheory, to which most
recent expositors give adherence, it is a farrago of baseless fantasies, no
one of which came true. On its own claim it is a product of true prophecy
(
<660103>
Revelation 1:3; 22:18 f), and has or will have sure fulfillment. Parallels
here and there are sought between it and the Book of Enoch or the
Apocalypse of Ezra. As a rule the resemblances arise from the fact that
these works draw from the same store of the ideas and imagery of the Old
Testament. It is there the key is chiefly to be sought to the symbolism of
John. The Apocalypse is steeped in the thoughts, the images, even the
language of the Old Testament (compare the illustrations in Lightfoot,
Galatians, 361, where it is remarked: The whole book is saturated with
illustrations from the Old Testament. It speaks not the language of Paul,
but of Isaiah and Ezekiel and Daniel). These remarks will receive
elucidation in what follows.
II. CANONICITY AND AUTHORITY.
1. Patristic Testimony:
The two questions of canonicity and authorship are closely connected.
Eusebius states that opinion in his day was divided on the book, and he
himself wavers between placing it among the disputed books or ranking it
with the acknowledged (homologoumena). Among these, he says, if
such a view seem correct, we must place the Apocalypse of John (Historia
Ecclesiastica, III, 25). That it was rightly so placed appears from a survey
of the evidence. The first to refer to the book expressly is Justin Martyr
(circa 140 AD), who speaks of it as the work of a certain man, whose
name was John, one of the apostles of Christ (Dial, 81). Irenaeus (circa
180 AD) repeatedly and decisively declares that the Apocalypse was
written by John, a disciple of the Lord (Adv. Haer., iv.20, 11; 30, 4; v.26,
1; 35, 2, etc.), and comments on the number 666 (v.30, 1). In his case there
can be no doubt that the apostle John is meant. Andreas of Cappadocia
(5th century) in a Commentary on the Apocalypse states that Papias (circa
130 AD) bore witness to its credibility, and cites a comment by him on
<661207>
Revelation 12:7-9. The book is quoted in the Epistle on the martyrs of
Vienne and Lyons (177 AD); had a commentary written on it by Melito of
Sardis (circa 170 AD), one of the churches of the Apocalypse (Euseb., HE,
217
IV, 26); was used by Theophilus of Antioch (circa 168 AD) and by
Apollonius (circa 210 AD; HE, V, 25) in these cases being cited as the
Apocalypse of John. It is included as Johns in the Canon of Muratori
(circa 200 AD). The Johannine authorship (apostolic) is abundantly
attested by Tertullian (circa 200 AD; Adv. Mar., iii.14, 24, etc.); by
Hippolytus (circa 240 AD), who wrote a work upon it; by Clement of
Alexandria (circa 200 AD); by Origen (circa 230 AD), and other writers.
Doubt about the authorship of the book is first heard of in the obscure sect
of the Alogi (end of the 2nd century), who, with Caius, a Roman presbyter
(circa 205 AD), attributed it to Cerinthus. More serious was the criticism
of Dionysius of Alexandria (circa 250 AD), who, on internal grounds, held
that the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse could not have come from the
same pen (Euseb., HE, VII, 25). He granted, however, that it was the work
of a holy and inspired man another John. The result was that, while in
the Western church, as Bousset grants, the Apocalypse was accepted
unanimously from the first (EB, I, 193), a certain doubt attached to it for
a time in sections of the Greek and Syrian churches. It is not found in the
Peshitta, and a citation from it in Ephraim the Syrian (circa 373) seems not
to be genuine. Cyril of Jerusalem (circa 386 AD) omits it from his list, and
it is unmentioned by the Antiochian writers (Chrysostom, Theodore of
Mopsuestia, Theodoret). The Canon attributed to the Council of Laodicea
(circa 360 AD) does not name it, but it is doubtful whether this document
is not of later date (compare Westcott; also Bousset, Die Offenb. Joh., 28).
On the other hand, the book is acknowledged by Methodius, Pamphilus,
Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril Alex., Epiphanius, etc.
2. Testimony of Book Itself:
The testimony to the canonicity, and also to the Johannine authorship, of
the Apocalypse is thus exceptionally strong. In full accordance with it is the
claim of the book itself. It proclaims itself to be the work of John
(
<660101>
Revelation 1:1,4,9; 22:8), who does not, indeed, name himself an
apostle, yet, in his inspired character, position of authority in the Asian
churches, and selection as the medium of these revelations, can hardly be
thought of as other than the well-known John of the Gospels and of
consentient church tradition. The alternative view, first suggested as a
possibility by Eusebius, now largely favored by modern writers, is that the
John intended is the presbyter John of a well-known passage cited by
Eusebius from Papias (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 39). Without entering
into the intricate questions connected with this presbyter John
218
whether he was really a distinct person from the apostle (Zahn and others
dispute it), or whether, if he was, he resided at Ephesus (see JOHN,
GOSPEL OF) it is enough here to say that the reason already given, viz:
the importance and place of authority of the author of the Apocalypse in
the Asian churches, and the emphatic testimony above cited connecting
him with the apostle, forbid the attribution of the book to a writer wholly
unknown to church tradition, save for this casual reference to him in
Papias. Had the assumed presbyter really been the author, he could not
have dropped so completely out of the knowledge of the church, and had
his place taken all but immediately by the apostle.
3. Objections to Johannine Authorship Relation to Fourth Gospel:
One cause of the hesitancy regarding the Apocalypse in early circles was
dislike of its millenarianism; but the chief reason, set forth with much
critical skill by Dionysius of Alexandria (Euseb., HE, VII, 25), was the
undoubted contrast in character and style between this work and the
Fourth Gospel, likewise claiming to be from the pen of John. Two works
so diverse in character the Gospel calm, spiritual, mystical, abounding in
characteristic expressions as life, light, love, etc., written in idiomatic
Greek; the Apocalypse abrupt, mysterious, material in its imagery, inexact
and barbarous in its idioms, sometimes employing solecisms could not,
it was argued, proceed from the same author. Not much, beyond
amplification of detail, has been added to the force of the arguments of
Dionysius. There were three possibilities either first, admitting the
Johannine authorship of the Apocalypse, to assail the genuineness of the
Gospel this was the method of the school of Baur; or, second, accepting
the Gospel, to seek a different author for the Apocalypse John the
presbyter, or another: thus not a few reverent scholars (Bleek, Neander,
etc.); or, third, with most moderns, to deny the Johannine authorship of
both Gospel and Apocalypse, with a leaning to the presbyter as the
author of the latter (Harnack, Bousset, Moffatt, etc.). Singularly there has
been of late in the advanced school itself a movement in the direction of
recognizing that this difficulty of style is less formidable than it looks
that, in fact, beneath the surface difference, there is a strong body of
resemblances pointing to a close relationship of Gospel and Apocalypse.
This had long been argued by the older writers (Godet, Luthardt, Alford,
Salmon, etc.), but it is now more freely acknowledged. As instances among
many may be noted the use of the term Logos (
<661913>
Revelation 19:13), the
image of the Lamb, figures like water of life words and phrases as
219
true, he that overcometh, keep the commandments, etc. A striking
coincidence is the form of quotation of
<381210>
Zechariah 12:10 in
<431937>
John
19:37 and
<660107>
Revelation 1:7. If the Greek in parts shows a certain
abruptness and roughness, it is plainly evidenced by the use of the correct
constructions in other passages that this is not due to want of knowledge
of the language. The very rules which he breaks in one place he observes
in others (Salmon). There are, besides, subtle affinities in the Greek usage
of the two books, and some of the very irregularities complained of are
found in the Gospel (for ample details consult Bousset, op. cit.; Godet,
Commentary on John, I, 267-70, English translation; Alford, Greek Test.,
IV, 224-28; Salmon, Introduction to the New Testament, 233-43, 2nd
edition; the last-named writer says: I have produced instances enough to
establish decisively that there is the closest possible affinity between the
Revelation and the other Johannine books). Great differences in character
and style no doubt still remain. Some, to leave room for these, favor an
early date for the Apocalypse (68-69 BC; on this below); the trend of
opinion, however, now seems, as will be shown, to be moving back to the
traditional date in the reign of Domitian, in which case the Gospel will be
the earlier, and the Apocalypse the later work. This, likewise, seems to
yield the better explanation. The tremendous experiences of Patmos,
bursting through all ordinary and calmer states of consciousness, must have
produced startling changes in thought and style of composition. The rapt
seer will not speak and write like the selfcollected, calmly brooding
evangelist.
III. DATE AND UNITY OF THE BOOK.
1. Traditional Date under Domitian:
Eusebius, in summing up the tradition of the Church on this subject,
assigns Johns exile to Patmos, and consequently the composition of the
Apocalypse, to the latter part of the reign of Domitian (81-96 AD).
Irenaeus (circa 180 AD) says of the book, For it was seen, not a long time
ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian
(Adv. Haer., v.30, 3). This testimony is confirmed by Clement of
Alexandria (who speaks of the tyrant), Origen, and later writers.
Epiphanius (4th century), indeed, puts (Haer., li.12, 233) the exile to
Patmos in the reign of Claudius (41-54 AD); but as, in the same sentence,
he speaks of the apostle as 90 years of age, it is plain there is a strange
blunder in the name of the emperor. The former date answers to the
220
conditions of the book (decadence of the churches; widespread and severe
persecution), and to the predilection of Domitian for this mode of
banishment (compare Tacitus, History i.2; Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica,
III, 18).
2. The Nero-Theory:
This, accordingly, may be regarded as the traditional date of composition
of the Apocalypse, though good writers, influenced partly by the desire to
give time for the later composition of the Gospel, have signified a
preference for an earlier date (e.g. Westcott, Salmon). It is by no means to
be assumed, however, that the Apocalypse is the earlier production. The
tendency of recent criticism, it will be seen immediately, is to revert to the
traditional date (Bousset, etc.); but for a decade or two, through the
prevalence of what may be called the Nero-theory of the book, the
pendulum swung strongly in favor of its composition shortly after the death
of Nero, and before the destruction of Jerusalem (held to be shown to be
still standing by Revelation 11), i.e. about 68-69 AD. This date was even
held to be demonstrated beyond all question. Reuss may be taken as an
example. According to him (Christian Theology of the Apostolic Age, I,
369 ff, English translation), apart from the ridiculous preconceptions of
theologians, the Apocalypse is the most simple, most transparent book
that prophet ever penned. There is no other apostolical writing the
chronology of which can be more exactly fixed. It was written before the
destruction of Jerusalem, under the emperor Galba that is to say, in the
second half of the year 68 of our era. He proceeds to discuss the
irrefutable proofs of this. The proof, in brief, is found in the beast (not
introduced till Revelation 13) with seven heads, one of which has been
mortally wounded, but is for the present healed (
<661303>
Revelation 13:3). This
is the Roman empire, with its first 7 emperors, one of whom is killed, but is
to live again as Antichrist (compare
<661710>
Revelation 17:10 f). The key to
the whole book is said to be given in
<661318>
Revelation 13:18, where the
number of the beast is declared to be 666. Applying the method of
numerical values (the Jewish Gematria), this number is found to
correspond with the name Nero Caesar in Hebrew letters (omitting the
yodh, the Hebrew letter y). Nero then is the 5th head that is to live again;
an interpretation confirmed by rumors prevalent at that time that Nero was
not really dead, but only hidden, and was soon to return to claim his
throne. As if to make assurance doubly sure, it is found that by dropping
the final n in Neron, the number becomes 616 a number which
221
Irenaeus in his comments on the subject (v.30,1) tells us was actually found
in some ancient copies. The meaning therefore is thought to be clear.
Writing under the emperor Galba, the 6th emperor (reckoning from
Augustus), the author anticipates, after a short reign of a 7th emperor
(
<661710>
Revelation 17:10), the return of the Antichrist Nero an 8th, but of
the 7, with whom is to come the end. Jerusalem is to be miraculously
preserved (Revelation 11), but Rome is to perish. This is to happen within
the space of 3 1/2 years. The final catastrophe, which was to destroy the
city and empire, was to take place in three years and a half. .... The writer
knows .... that Rome will in three years and a half perish finally, never to
rise again. It does not matter for this theory that not one of the things
predicted happened that every anticipation was falsified. Nero did not
return; Jerusalem was not saved; Rome did not perish; 3 1/2 years did not
see the end of all things. Yet the Christian-church, though the failure of
every one of these predictions had been decisively demonstrated, received
the book as of divine inspiration, apparently without the least idea that
such things had been intended (see the form of theory in Renan, with a
keen criticism in Salmons Introduction to the New Testament, lecture
xiv).
3. Composite Hypotheses Babylonian Theory:
What is to be said with reference to this Nero-theory belongs to
subsequent sections: meanwhile it is to be observed that, while portions of
theory are retained, significant changes have since taken place in the view
entertained of the book as a whole, and with this of the date to be assigned
to it. First, after 1882, came a flood of disintegrating hypotheses, based on
the idea that the Apocalypse was not a unity, but was either a working up
of one or more Jewish apocalypses by Christian hands, or at least
incorporated fragments of such apocalypses (Uslter, Vischer, Weizsacker,
Weyland, Pfieiderer, Spitta, etc.). Harnack lent his influential support to
the form of this theory advocated by Vischer, and for a time the idea had
vogue. Very soon, however, it fell into discredit through its own excesses
(for details on the different views, see Bousset, or Moffatts Introduction
to the New Testament, 489 ff), and through increasing appreciation of the
internal evidence for the unity of the book. Gunkel, in his Schopfung und
Chaos (1895), started another line of criticism in his derivation of the
conceptions of the book, not from Jewish apocalypse, but from Babylonian
mythology. He assailed with sharp criticism the contemporary history
school of interpretation (the Nero-theory above), and declared its
222
bankruptcy. The number of the beast, with him, found its solution, not in
Nero, but in the Hebrew name for the primeval chaos. This theory, too, has
failed in general acceptance, though elements in it are adopted by most
recent interpreters. The modified view most in favor now is that the
Apocalypse is, indeed, the work of a Christian writer of the end of the 1st
century, but embodies certain sections borrowed from Jewish apocalypse
(as
<660701>
Revelation 7:1-8, the 144,000; Revelation 11, measuring of the
temple and the two witnesses; especially Revelation 12, the woman and red
dragon this, in turn, reminiscent of Babylonian mythology). These
supposed Jewish sections are, however, without real support in anything
that is known, and the symbolism admits as easily of a Christian
interpretation as any other part of the book. We are left, therefore, as
before, with the book as a unity, and the tide of opinion flows back to the
age of Domitian as the time of its origin. Moffatt (connecting it mistakenly,
as it seems to us, with Domitians emphasis on the imperial cult, but giving
also other reasons) goes so far as to say that any earlier date for the book
is hardly possible (Expository Greek Testament, V, 317). The list of
authorities for the Domitianie date may be seen in Moffatt, Introduction,
508.
IV. PLAN AND ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK.
1. General Scope:
The method of the book may thus be indicated. After an introduction, and
letters to the seven churches (Revelation 1 through 3), the properly
prophetic part of the book commences with a vision of heaven (Revelation
4; 5), following upon which are two series of visions of the future, parallel,
it would appear, to each other the first, the 7 seals, and under the 7th
seal, the 7 trumpets (Revelation 6 through 11, with interludes in Revelation
7 and again in 10; 11:1-12); the second, the woman and her child
(Revelation 12), the 2 beasts (Revelation 13), and, after new interludes
(Revelation 14), the bowls and 7 last plagues (Revelation 15; 16). The
expansion of the last judgments is given in separate pictures (the scarlet
woman, doom of Babylon, Har-Magedon, Revelation 17 through 19); then
come the closing scenes of the millennium, the last apostasy, resurrection
and judgment (Revelation 20), followed by the new heavens and new earth,
with the descending new Jerusalem (Revelation 21; 22). The theme of the
book is the conflict of Christ and His church with anti-Christian powers
(the devil, the beast, the false prophet,
<661613>
Revelation 16:13), and the
223
ultimate and decisive defeat of the latter; its keynote is in the words,
Come, Lord Jesus (
<662220>
Revelation 22:20; compare 1:7); but it is to be
noticed, as characteristic of the book, that while this coming is
represented as, in manner, ever near, the end, as the crisis approaches, is
again always postponed by a fresh development of events. Thus, under the
6th seal, the end seems reached (
<660612>
Revelation 6:12-17), but a pause
ensues (Revelation 7), and on the opening of the seventh seal, a new series
begins with the trumpets (
<660802>
Revelation 8:2 ff). Similarly, at the sounding
of the 6th trumpet, the end seems at hand (
<660912>
Revelation 9:12-21), but a
new pause is introduced before the last sounding takes place
(
<661115>
Revelation 11:15 ff). Then is announced the final victory, but as yet
only in summary. A new series of visions begins, opening into large
perspectives, till, after fresh interludes, and the pouring out of 6 of the
bowls of judgment, Har-Magedon itself is reached; but though, at the
outpouring of the 7th bowl, it is proclaimed, It is done (
<661617>
Revelation
16:17), the end is again held over till these final judgments are shown in
detail. At length, surely, in Revelation 19, with the appearance of the white
horseman The Word of God (19:13) and the decisive overthrow of
all his adversaries (19:18-21), the climax is touched; but just then, to our
surprise, intervenes the announcement of the binding of Satan for 1,000
years, and the reign of Jesus and His saints upon the earth (the
interpretation is not here discussed), followed by a fresh apostasy, and the
general resurrection and judgment (Revelation 20). Precise time-measures
evidently fail in dealing with a book so constructed: the 3 1/2 years of the
Nero-interpreters sink into insignificance in its crowded panorama of
events. The symbolic numbers that chiefly rule in the book are seven, the
number of completeness (7 spirits, seals, trumpets, bowls, heads of beasts);
ten, the number of worldly power (10 horns); four, the earthly number
(4 living creatures, corners of earth, winds, etc.); 3 1/2 years 42 months
time, and times, and half a time (
<661214>
Revelation 12:14) = 1,260 days,
the period, borrowed from Daniel (7:25; 12:7), of anti-Christian
ascendancy.
2. Detailed Analysis:
The following is a more detailed analysis:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Title and Address (
<660101>
Revelation 1:1-8)
224
2. Vision of Jesus and Message to the Seven Churches of the Province of
Asia (
<660109>
Revelation 1:9-20)
3. The Letters to the Seven Churches (Revelation 2; 3)
(1) Ephesus (
<660201>
Revelation 2:1-7)
(2) Smyrna (
<660208>
Revelation 2:8-11)
(3) Pergamos (
<660212>
Revelation 2:12-17)
(4) Thyatira (
<660218>
Revelation 2:18-29)
(5) Sardis (
<660301>
Revelation 3:1-6)
(6) Philadelphia (
<660307>
Revelation 3:7-13)
(7) Laodicea (
<660314>
Revelation 3:14-22)
II. THE THINGS TO COME. FIRST SERIES OF VISIONS: THE SEALS AND
TRUMPETS
1. The Vision of Heaven
(1) Adoration of the Creator (Revelation 4)
(2) The 7-Sealed Book; Adoration of God and the Lamb (Revelation 5)
2. Opening of Six Seals (Revelation 6)
(1) The White Horse (
<660601>
Revelation 6:1,2)
(2) The Red Horse (
<660603>
Revelation 6:3,4)
(3) The Black Horse (
<660605>
Revelation 6:5,6)
(4) The Pale Horse (
<660607>
Revelation 6:7,8)
(5) Souls under the Altar (
<660609>
Revelation 6:9-11)
(6) The Wrath of the Lamb (
<660612>
Revelation 6:12-17)
3. Interludes (Revelation 7)
(1) Sealing of 144,000 on Earth (
<660701>
Revelation 7:1-8)
(2) Triumphant Multitude in Heaven (
<660709>
Revelation 7:9-17)
225
4. Opening of Seventh Seal: under This Seven Trumpets, of Which Six
Now Sounded (Revelation 8; 9)
(1) Hail and Fire on Earth (
<660807>
Revelation 8:7)
(2) Burning Mountain in Sea (
<660808>
Revelation 8:8,9)
(3) Burning Star on Rivers and Fountains (
<660810>
Revelation 8:10,11)
(4) One-third Sun, Moon, and Stars Darkened (
<660812>
Revelation 8:12).
Woe Trumpets (
<660813>
Revelation 8:13)
(5) The Fallen Star-Locusts (
<660901>
Revelation 9:1-11)
(6) Angels Loosed from Euphrates the Horseman (
<660912>
Revelation
9:12-21)
5. Interludes
(1) Angel with Little Book (Revelation 10)
(2) Measuring of Temple and Altar the Two Witnesses
(
<661101>
Revelation 11:1-13)
6. Seventh Trumpet Sounded Final Victory (
<661114>
Revelation 11:14-19)
III. SECOND SERIES OF VISIONS: THE WOMAN AND THE RED DRAGON;
THE TWO BEASTS; THE BOWLS AND LAST PLAGUES
1. The Woman and Child; the Red Dragon and His Persecutions
(Revelation 12)
2. The Beast from the Sea, Seven-headed, Ten-horned (
<661301>
Revelation
13:1-10); the Two-horned Beast (
<661311>
Revelation 13:11-18)
3. Interludes (Revelation 14)
(1) The Lamb on Mt. Zion; the 144,000 (
<661401>
Revelation 14:1-5)
(2) The Angel with an Eternal Gospel (
<661406>
Revelation 14:6,7)
(3) Second Angel (Anticipatory) Proclamation of Fall of Babylon
(
<661408>
Revelation 14:8)
(4) Third Angel Doom of Worshippers of the Beast (
<661409>
Revelation
14:9-12)
226
(5) Blessedness of the Dead in the Lord (
<661413>
Revelation 14:13)
(6) The Son of Man and the Great Vintage (
<661414>
Revelation 14:14-20)
4. The Seven Last Plagues the Angels and Their Bowls: the Preparation
in heaven (Revelation 15) the Outpouring (Revelation 16)
(1) On Earth (
<661602>
Revelation 16:2)
(2) On Sea (
<661603>
Revelation 16:3)
(3) On Rivers and Fountains (
<661604>
Revelation 16:4-7)
(4) On Sun (
<661608>
Revelation 16:8,9)
(5) On Seat of Beast (
<661610>
Revelation 16:10,11)
(6) On Euphrates Har-Magedon (
<661612>
Revelation 16:12-16)
(7) In the Air Victory and Fall of Babylon (
<661617>
Revelation 16:17-21)
IV. EXPANSION OF LAST JUDGMENTS (Revelation 17 through 19)
1. The Scarlet Woman on Beast Her Judgment (Revelation 17)
2. Doom of Babylon and Lament over Her (Revelation 18)
3. Interlude Announcement of Marriage of the Lamb (
<661901>
Revelation
19:1-10)
4. Rider on White Horse (The Word of God) and His Armies Last
Battle and Doom of Beast, False Prophet, and Their Followers
(
<661911>
Revelation 19:11-21)
V. THE MILLENNIUM NEW HEAVENS AND NEW EARTH (Revelation 20
through 22)
1. Satan Bound; First Resurrection and Reign of Saints for 1,000 Years
(
<662001>
Revelation 20:1-6)
2. Loosing of Satan and Final Conflict Doom of Adversaries and of the
Devil (
<662007>
Revelation 20:7-10)
3. General Resurrection and Last Judgment (
<662011>
Revelation 20:11-15)
4. New Heavens and New Earth
227
(1) The New Jerusalem from Heaven (
<662101>
Revelation 21:1-9)
(2) Description of the City (
<662110>
Revelation 21:10-27)
(3) Blessedness of Its Citizens (
<662201>
Revelation 22:1-7)
(4) Epilogue (
<662208>
Revelation 22:8-21)
V. PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION.
1. General Scheme of Interpretation:
As a book intended for the consolation of the church under present and
future afflictions, the Apocalypse is meant by its author to be understood
(
<660103>
Revelation 1:3; 22:7). He must have been aware, however, that, while
its general scope might be apprehended, mystery must rest upon many of
its symbols, till the time of their actual fulfillment. The book relates to
things which must shortly come to pass (
<660101>
Revelation 1:1) in their
beginnings at least and the divers interpretations since put upon its
prophecies are the best evidence of the difficulties attaching to them.
Schemes of interpretation have generally been grouped into praeterist (the
prophecies being regarded as already fulfilled), futurist (the fulfillment
being thrown wholly into the future), and the historical (the fulfillment
being looked for in the continuous history of the church from Johns day
till the end).
(1) The older praeterist view may be taken as represented by Moses
Stuart, who finds the fulfillment of Revelation 6-11 in the destruction
of Jerusalem (Commentary, 520 ff), and of Revelation 13-19 in the
reign of Nero (690 ff). Even he, however, has to interpret the chapter
on the last things of the future.
(2) The futurist view connects the whole with the times of the second
advent and the millennium. The beast is an individual who shall then
appear as Antichrist. This rejects the plain intimations of the book that
the events predicted lay, in their beginnings at least, immediately in the
future of the writer.
(3) The historical view connects the various symbols with definite
occurrences as the invasions which overthrew the Roman Empire
(the first 4 trumpets), the Saracens (first woe-trumpet), the Turks
(second woe-trumpet), the papacy (the beast, Revelation 13; the scarlet
228
woman, Revelation 17), etc. A day-year principle is applied to the
periods (1,260 days 1,260 years). As representatives of this view
may be mentioned Mode, Vitringa, Sir Isaac Newton, Elliott in Horae
Apocalypticae, A. Barnes.
2. The Newer Theories:
These older schemes are largely put out of date by the newer theories,
already alluded to, in which the Apocalypse is explained out of
contemporary conditions, the legend of the returning Nero, Jewish
apocalypse, and Babylonian mythology. These are praeterist theories also,
but differ from the older in that in them all real prophecy is denied. A
mainstay of such theories is the declaration of the book that the events
announced are close at hand (
<660101>
Revelation 1:1,3; 22:20). When, however,
it is remembered that, on any view, this nearness includes a period of 1,000
years before the judgment and descent of the new Jerusalem, it will be felt
that it will not do to give these expressions too restricted a temporal
significance. The horizon is wider. The coming of Christ is ever near
ever approaching yet it is not to be tied down to times and seasons; it
is more of the nature of a process and has anticipatory exemplifications in
many crises and providential events forecasting the end (see above). The
coming, e.g. to the church at Ephesus (
<660205>
Revelation 2:5), or to the
church at Pergamos (
<660916>
Revelation 9:16) contingent events can
hardly exhaust the full meaning of the Parousia. The Nero-theory demands
a date at latest under Galba, but that date we have seen to be generally
abandoned. Those who place it under Vespasian (omitting three short
reigns) sacrifice the advantage of dating the book before the destruction of
Jerusalem, and have to fall back on a supposititious Jewish fragment in
Revelation 11, which those who incorporated it must have known had
never been fulfilled. The attempt to give a contemporary historical
interpretation to the symbols of the successive churches, as Gunkel has
acutely shown, completely breaks down in practice, while Gunkels own
attempt at a Babylonian explanation will be judged by most to be
overstrained. Dragon in the Old Testament and elsewhere may be
associated with widespread oriental ideas, but the definite symbolism of the
Apocalypse in Revelation 12 has no provable connection with Babylonian
myths. There is the widest disagreement in theories of composite origin
(from Jewish apocalypse). What seems simple and demonstrable to one has
no plausibility to others. A form of Nero Caesar, indeed, yields the
mystic 666, but so do 1,000 other names almost any name, with proper
229
manipulation (compare Salmon, lecture xiv). Lastly, the returning-Nero
legend yields no satisfactory explanation of the language in
<661303>
Revelation
13:3,12,14; 17:11. The theory is that these words allude to the belief that
Nero would return from the dead and become Antichrist (see above).
Tacitus attests that there were vague rumors that Nero had not really died
(Hist. ii.8), and later a pretender arose in Parthia taking advantage of this
feeling (Suet. Nero. 57). The idea of Nero returning from the dead is
categorically stated in Sib Or 5:363-70 (circa 120 AD); compare Sib Or
4:119-22 (circa 80 AD). Augustine mentions the idea (City of God, xx.19,
3), but without connection with the Apocalypse. By Domitians time,
however, it was perfectly certain that Nero had not returned, and there was
no longer, on this interpretation, any appositeness in speaking of a head
the deathstroke of which was healed (
<661303>
Revelation 13:3), which became
the eighth head of
<661711>
Revelation 17:11 if, indeed, the apostle could
be conceived capable of being influenced by such vagaries. The events
predicted lay, evidently, still in the future. It may be added that neither
Irenaeus, nor any early interpreter, seems to have heard of the connection
of 666 with Nero. Ireneus himself suggests the solution Lateinos
(compare Salmon, ut supra).
3. The Book a True Prophecy:
It is not proposed here to attempt the lines of a positive interpretation. If it
is once recognized that the Apocalypse is a book of true prophecy, that its
symbols stand for something real, and that its perspective is not to be
limited to a brief period like 3 1/2 years, the way is opened, not, indeed, for
a reading into it of a series of precise historical occurrences, but still for
doing justice to the truth which lies at the basis of the historical
interpretation, namely, that there are here prefigured the great crises in the
age-long conflict of Christ and His church with pagan and anti-Christian
adversaries. Events and tendencies may be grouped, or under different
forms may relate to the same subject (e.g. the 144,000 sealed on earth a
spiritual Israel in
<660701>
Revelation 7:1-8, and the triumphant multitude in
heaven, 7:9-17); successions of events may be foreshortened; different
pictures may overlap; but, shining through the symbols, great truths and
facts which have historical realization appear. There is no need for
supposing that, in a drama of this range, the heads of the beast of
Revelation 13 and 17 (behind whom is the Dragon-enemy, Satan, of
Revelation 12) stand, in contrariety to the analogy of Daniel, for seven
individual emperors, and that the image of the beast, which has life given
230
to it and speaks (
<661314>
Revelation 13:14,15), is the statue of the emperor;
or that such tremendous events as the fall of the Roman Empire, or the rise
of the papacy with which, however, must be combined all ecclesiastical
anti-Christianism or the false prophecy of later intellectual anti-
Christianism have no place in the symbolism of the book. Sane, reverent
thought will suggest many lines of correspondence with the course of
Gods providence, which may serve to illuminate its dark places. More
than this need not be said here.
VI. THEOLOGY OF THE BOOK.
On this it is hardly necessary to dwell, for expositors are now well agreed
that in its great doctrines of God, Christ, man, sin, redemption, the
teaching of the Apocalypse does not vary essentially from the great types in
the Epistles. The assonances with Johns mode of thinking have already
been alluded to. It is granted by all writers that the Christology is as high as
anywhere in the New Testament. It ought unhesitatingly to be
acknowledged, says Reuss, that Christ is placed in the Apocalypse on a
paragraph with God (op. cit., I, 397-98; compare
<660104>
Revelation 1:4,17;
2:8; 15:12-14; 22:13, etc.). Not less striking are the correspondences with
the teaching of Paul and of Peter on redemption through the blood of
Christ (
<660105>
Revelation 1:5; 5:9; 7:14; 14:4, etc.). The perverted conception
of the school of Baur that we have in the book an anti-Pauline manifesto
(thus also Pfieiderer; compare Hibbert Lectures, 178), is now practically
dead (see the criticism of it by Reuss, op. cit., I, 308-12). The point in
which its eschatology differs from that of the rest of the New Testament is
in its introduction of the millennium before the final resurrection and
judgment. This enlarges, but does not necessarily contradict, the earlier
stage of thought.
LITERATURE.
Moses Stuart, Commentary on Apocalypse; Alford, Greek Testament, IV,
The Revelation; S. Davidson, Introduction to the New Testament (3rd
edition), 176 ff; G. Salmon, Introduction to the New Testament (2nd
edition), lects xiii, xiv; Elliott, Horae Apocalypticae, with literature there
mentioned; Farrar, Early Days of Christianity, chapter xxviii; Milligan,
Discussions on the Apocalypse; H. Gunkel, Schopfung und Chaos; W.
Bousset, Die Offenbarung Johannis, and article Apocalypse in EB, I; C.
Anderson Scott, Revelation in Century Bible; J. Moffatt, Introduction to
231
Literature of the New Testament (with notices of literature); also
Revelation in Expositors Bible; Trench, Epistles to the Seven Churches;
W. M. Rarnsay, Letters to the Seven Churches; H. B. Swete, The
Apocalypse of John.
J ames Orr
REVELLINGS
<rev-el-ingz> ([xo, komos]): The word is found both in the King
James Version and in the Revised Version (British and American) in The
Wisdom of Solomon 14:23 (the Revised Version (British and American)
revels, orgiastic heathen worship is in point); 2 Macc 6:4;
<480521>
Galatians
5:21;
<600403>
1 Peter 4:3. In
<480521>
Galatians 5:21 it is classed with fornication,
uncleanness, lasciviousness, etc., as one of the works of the flesh. In
<600403>
1
Peter 4:3 it is spoken of the Gentiles and is classcd with drunkenness and
carousings and such like. In
<451313>
Romans 13:13 the Revised Version has
revelling instead of the King James Version rioting, and in
<610213>
2 Peter
2:13, revel replaces riot. Similarly in
<300607>
Amos 6:7, revelry replaces
banquet. The obvious meaning of the word is excessive and boisterous
intemperance and lustful indulgence.
G. H. Gerberding
REVENGE; REVENGER
<re-venj>, <re-venj-er>: The same Hebrew and Greek words are used to
express the idea of to avenge and to revenge ([ q n; , naqam], or
derivative; [rxxr, ekdikeo], or derivative). In English these words are
synonymous in that they are both used to express the infliction of
punishment upon the wrongdoer, but to take revenge may also imply a
spiteful, wrong or malignant spirit. In the latter case, the Revised Version
(British and American) preserves revenge (compare
<242010>
Jeremiah 20:10;
<262515>
Ezekiel 25:15; 25:17 is an anthropomorphism), but, wherever it is
synonymous with avenge, this word is used (compare
<043102>
Numbers
31:2,3;
<197910>
Psalm 79:10; Nah 1:2; Judith 13:20;
<451304>
Romans 13:4;
<470711>
2
Corinthians 7:11; 10:6 the Revised Version (British and American); the
King James Version has revenge in all these cases). In
<053242>
Deuteronomy
32:42, the King James Version revenge is a wrong translation. Read with
the Revised Version (British and American) from the head of the leaders
232
of the enemy or the Revised Version margin the hairy head of the
enemy.
Compare AVENGE, AVENGER; BLOOD; GOEL.
A. L. Breslich
REVENUE
<rev-e-nu>:
(1) [ t o P a , appethom], revenue or income (
<150413>
Ezra 4:13 the King
James Version);
(2) [h a ;Wb T ], tebhuah], increase, revenue (
<200819>
Proverbs 8:19; 15:6;
<232303>
Isaiah 23:3;
<241213>
Jeremiah 12:13); [poooo, prosodos], income
(2 Macc 3:3; 4:8 (the Revised Version (British and American) fund);
9:16).
REVERENCE
<rev-er-ens>: In the Old Testament, reverence occurs as the translation
of two Hebrew words, yare and shachah. The root idea of the former is
fear. It is used to express the attitude toward God Himself, as in
<198907>
Psalm 89:7 the King James Version; or toward His sanctuary, as in
<031930>
Leviticus 19:30; 26:2. So the group of ideas there would be fear,
awe, reverence. The root idea of the second is falling down, as
prostration of the body. It is used to express the bearing toward another
who is considered superior, as in
<100906>
2 Samuel 9:6 the King James Version;
<110131>
1 Kings 1:31 the King James Version; Est 3:2,5. The group of ideas
here, therefore, is honor, obeisance, reverence.
In the New Testament reverence occurs as the translation of three Greek
words, aidos, phobeomai, and entrepomai. In the first, the idea is
modesty (
<581228>
Hebrews 12:28; compare
<540209>
1 Timothy 2:9). In the second,
fear (
<490533>
Ephesians 5:33 the King James Version), though here it is used
to set forth the attitude of proper subjection on the part of a wife toward
her husband (compare
<600302>
1 Peter 3:2,5). In the third, the idea is that of the
self-valuation of inferiority, and so sets forth an attitude toward another
of doing him honor (
<402137>
Matthew 21:37;
<411206>
Mark 12:6;
<422013>
Luke 20:13;
<581209>
Hebrews 12:9).
233
In the Apocrypha entrepomai occurs in The Wisdom of Solomon 2:10;
Sirach 4:22. In addition, proskuneo, make obeisance, occurs in Judith
10:23; 14:7; thaumazo, wonder, Sirach 7:29, and aischunomai, be
ashamed, Baruch 4:15.
Reverend occurs in the Old Testament in
<19B109>
Psalm 111:9, of the name of
God (yare), and in the Apocrypha in 2 Macc 15:12, a man reverend
(aidemon, modest) in bearing, and in the New Testament the Revised
Version (British and American) has reverent in demeanor (hieroprepes)
in
<560203>
Titus 2:3 and reverend in
<500408>
Philippians 4:8 margin (semnos).
E. J . Forrester
REVILE
<re-vil>.
See CRIMES; PUNISHMENTS.
REVIVE; REVIVING
<re-viv>, <reviv-ing>: revive is the translation of [h y;j ;, chayah], to
live, cause to live, used of restoration to life (
<014527>
Genesis 45:27;
<071519>
Judges 15:19, etc.); of rebuilding (
<160402>
Nehemiah 4:2); of restoration to
well-being (
<198506>
Psalm 85:6 (the Revised Version (British and American)
quicken);
<19D807>
Psalm 138:7;
<235715>
Isaiah 57:15;
<280602>
Hosea 6:2; 14:7); of
Yahwehs gracious work for His people (
<350302>
Habakkuk 3:2, revive thy
work in the midst of the years, etc.); reviving is the translation of
[h y;j ]mi, michydh] preservation or means of life (
<150908>
Ezra 9:8,9).
Revive occurs in the New Testament as the translation of [ovoo,
anazao], to live again (
<450709>
Romans 7:9, and 14:9, the King James
Version Christ both died, and rose, and revived, the Revised Version
(British and American) (omitting and rose) Christ died and lived again
zao).
In 1 Macc 13:7 the Revised Version (British and American) we have And
the spirit of the people revived, [ovoupr, anazopureo], to stir or
kindle up as a fire, the same word as in
<550106>
2 Timothy 1:6, the Revised
Version (British and American) stir up the gift of God, which is in thee,
margin Greek: `stir into flame.
234
In view of the frequent modern use of revive and revival, it is worthy
of notice that it is to Timothy himself the exhortation is addressed. We too
often merely pray for revivals, forgetting that it is for us to stir into
flame the gift of the Spirit which we have already received of God. It is
ours from Him, but we let it lie dormant, as a slumbering ember merely.
W. L. Walker
REWARD
<re-word>: In modern English (except when influenced by the Biblical
forms) a reward is something given in recognition of a good act. In
English Versions of the Bible, however, reward is used quite generally
for anything given, and the term covers the recompense of evil (
<199108>
Psalm
91:8), wages (1 Tim 5:18 the King James Version), bribes (
<330703>
Micah 7:3),
and gifts (
<244005>
Jeremiah 40:5 the King James Version). The Revised Version
(British and American) has specialized the meaning in a number of cases
(
<199402>
Psalm 94:2;
<261634>
Ezekiel 16:34;
<244005>
Jeremiah 40:5, etc.), but not
systematically.
REZEPH
<re-zef> ([t x ,r , , retseph];
1. FORMS OF THE NAME:
Codex Vaticanus [ Por, Rhapheis]; [ Por, Rhaphes]; Codex
Alexandrinus [tqv Por0, ten Rhapheth] (
<121912>
2 Kings 19:12), B Q margin
[ Por0, Rhapheth] Codex Sinaiticus Q [ Por, Rhafes]; Codex
Alexandrinus [ Por, Rhapheis] (
<233712>
Isaiah 37:12); Vulgate (Jeromes
Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) Roseph (
<121912>
2 Kings 19:12), Reseph (
<233712>
Isaiah
37:12)): One of the places referred to by Sennacheribs Rabshakeh when
delivering that kings message to Hezekigh demanding the surrender of
Jerusalem. The names which precede are Gozan and Haran; and the
children of Eden that were Telassar follows.
2. NOW CALLED RUCAFA:
It is now represented by Rucafa, East of Tipsah and Northeast of Hamath,
and is regarded as the ([ Pqooo, Rhesapha]) of Ptolemy (v.15). It was
for some time under Assyrian dominion, and appears in a geographical list
235
(2 R 53, 37a) preceded by Arrapba (Arrapachitis) and Halabbu (Halah),
and followed by Tamnunu, uder the form of Rasappa (elsewhere Racapi).
3. ITS ASSYRIAN GOVERNORS:
From the Eponym Canons, Ninip-kibsi-ucur was, it appears, prefect in 839
BC, Uras-eres from 804 to 775 BC, Sin-sallimanni in 747, and Bel-
emuranni in 737 BC. Judging from their names, all these were Assyrians,
but a seemingly native governor, Abdau (or Abdai), possibly later than
the foregoina, is mentioned in a list of officials (K. 9921). Yabutu was sanu
(deputy-governor?) of Rezeph in 673 BC. Its mention in the Assyrian
geographical lists implies that Rezeph was an important trade-center in Old
Testament times.
T. G. Pinches
REZIA
<re-zi-a>.
See RIZIA.
REZIN
<re-zin> ([yx ir ], retsin]; [ Poooov, Rhaasson]): The last of the kings
of Syria who reigned in Damascus (
<121537>
2 Kings 15:37; 16:5-10;
<230701>
Isaiah
7:1; 8:4-7). Alona with Pekah, the son of Remaliah, who reigned 20 years
over Israel in Samaria, he joined in the Syro-Ephraimitic war aaainst Ahaz,
the king of Judah. Together they laid siege to Jerusalem, but were
unsuccessful in the effort to take it (
<121605>
2 Kings 16:5;
<230701>
Isaiah 7:1). It was
to calm the fears, and to restore the fainting spirits of the men of Judah,
that Isaiah was commissioned by the Lord to assure them that the schemes
of these two tails of smoking firebrands (
<230704>
Isaiah 7:4) were destined to
miscarry. It was then, too, that the sign was aiven of the vigin who should
conceive, and bear a son, and should call his name Immanuel. Rezin had to
content himself on this campaign to the South with the capture of Elath
from the men of Judah and its restoration to the men of Edom, from whom
it had been taken and made a seaport by Solomon (
<121606>
2 Kings 16:6, where
it is agareed that Syria and Syrians should be read Edom and
Edomites, which in the Hebrew script are easy to be mistaken for one
another, and are in fact often mistaken). Rezin, however, had a more
236
formidable enemy to encounter on his return to Damascus. Ahaz, like kings
of Judah before and after him, placed his reliance more on the arm of flesh
than on the true King of his people, and appealed to Tiglath-pileser III, of
Assyria, for help. Ahaz deliberately sacrificed the independence of his
country in the terms of his offer of submission to the Assyrian: I am thy
servant and thy son (
<121607>
2 Kings 16:7). Tiglath-pileser had already carried
his arms to the West and ravaged the northern border of Israel; and now he
crossed the Euphrates and hastened to Damascus, slaying Rezin and
carrying his people captive to Kir (
<121609>
2 Kings 16:9). In the copious Annals
of Tialath-pileser, Rezin figures with the designation Racunu(ni), but the
tablet recording his death, found and read by Sir Henry Rawlinson, has
been irrecoverably lost, and only the fact of its existence and loss remains
(Schrader, COT, I, 252, 257). With the death of Rezin the kingdom of
Damascus and Syria came to an end.
Rezin, Sons of: Mentioned among the Nethinim (
<150248>
Ezra 2:48), who
returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel from captivity (compare
<160750>
Nehemiah 7:50).
LITERATURE.
Schrader, COT, as above; Driver, Authority, 99 ff,
T. Nicol.
REZON
<re-zon> ([wOzr ], rezon]; [ Pov, Rhazon]): Son of Eliadah, and a
subject of Hadadezer, king of Zobah (
<111123>
1 Kings 11:23). The name
appears to be given as [wOyz]j ,, chezyon]; [ Arv, Hazein] (
<111518>
1 Kings
15:18; see HEZION), where he is the father of Tabrimmon, whose son
Ben-hadad I is known through his leaaue with Asa, king of Judah. When
David conquered Zobah, Rezon renounced his allegiance to Hadadezer and
became powerful as an independent chief, capturing Damascus and setting
up as king. Along with Hadad, the noted Edomite patriot, he became a
thorn in the side of Solomon, the one making himself obnoxious in the
South, the other in the North, of the kingdom of Israel, both being
animated with a bitter hatred of the common foe. It is said of Rezon that he
reigned over Syria (
<111125>
1 Kings 11:25), and if the surmise adopted by
many scholars is correct that he is the same as Hezion (
<111518>
1 Kings 15:18),
then he was really the founder of the dynasty of Syrian kings so well
237
known in the history of this period of Israel; and the line would run: Rezon,
Tabrimmon, Ben-hadad I, and Ben-hadad II.
LITERATURE.
Burney on
<111123>
1 Kings 11:23 and 15:18 in Notes on Hebrew Text of Books
of Kings; Winckler, Alttest. Untersuchunaen, 60 ff.
T. Nicol.
RHEGIUM
<re-ji-um>: This city ( Pqyov, Rhegion] (
<442813>
Acts 28:13), the modern
Reggio di Calabria) was a town situated on the east side of the Sicilian
Straits, about 6 miles South of a point opposite Messana (Messina).
Originally a colony of Chalcidian Greeks, the place enjoyed great
prosperity in the 5th century BC, but was captured and destroyed by
Dionysius, tyrant of Syracuse, in 387 BC, when all the surviving
inhabitants were sold into slavery (Diodorus xiv. 106-8, 111, 112). The
city never entirely recovered from this blow, althouah it was partially
restored by the younaer Dionysius. On the occasion of the invasion of Italy
by Pyrrhus, the people of Rhegium had recourse to an alliance with Rome
(280 BC) and received 4,000 Campanian troops within their walls, who
turned out to be very unruly guests. For, in imitation of a similar band of
mercenaries across the strait in Messana, they massacred the male
inhabitants and reduced the women to slavery (Polybius i.7; Orosius iv.3).
They were not punished by the Romans until 270 BC, when the town was
restored to those of its former inhabitants who still survived. The people of
Rhegium were faithful to their alliance with Rome during the Second Punic
War (Livy xxiii.30; xxiv. 1; xxvi.12; xxix.6). At the time of the Social War
they were incorporated with the Roman state, Rhegium becoming a
municipality (Cicero Verr. v.60; Pro Archia, 3).
The ship in which Paul sailed from Melita to Puteoli encountered
unfavorable winds after leaving Syracuse, and reached Rhegium by means
of tacking. It waited at Rhegium a day for a south wind which bore it to
Puteoli (
<442813>
Acts 28:13), about 180 miles distant, where it probably arrived
in about 26 hours.
George H. Allen
238
RHESA
<re-sa> ([ Pqoo, Rhesa]): A son of Zerubbabel in the genealogy of Jesus
according to Luke (
<420327>
Luke 3:27).
RHINOCEROS
<ri-nos-er-os:> This word is found in the King James Version margin to
<233407>
Isaiah 34:7 (rhinocerots) for [ ymia er ], reemim], the King James
Version unicorns, the Revised Version (British and American) wild-
oxen. The word is quite inappropriate to the passage, which refers to the
land of Edom. The one-horned rhinoceros, Rhinoceros unicornis, is
confined to India. Other rhinoceroses are found in India and in equatorial
Africa, but it is hardly to be presumed that these animals were meant by the
Hebrew writers.
See UNICORN.
RHODA
<ro-da> ([ Poq, Rhode], rose): A maid in the house of Mary the
mother of John Mark. She came to answer when Peter knocked at Marys
door after his miraculous release from prison. On recognizing his voice, she
so forgot herself with joy that she neglected to open the door, but ran in to
tell the others the glad news. They would not believe her, thinking she was
mad; and when she persisted in her statement they said it must be his angel.
The Jewish belief was that each man had a guardian angel assigned to him.
Peter continued knocking, and was ultimately admitted (
<441212>
Acts 12:12 ff).
S. F. Hunter
RHODES
<rodz> ([ Poo, Rhodos]): An island (and city) in the Aegean Sea, West
of Caria, rough and rocky in parts, but well watered and productive,
though at present not extensively cultivated. Almost one-third of the island
is now covered with trees in spite of earlier deforestation. The highest
mountains attain an altitude of nearly 4,000 ft. The older names were
Ophiusa, Asteria, Trinacria, Corymbia. The capital in antiquity was
Rhodes, at the northeastern extremity, a strongly fortitled city provided
with a double harbor. Near the entrance of the harbor stood one of the
239
seven wonders of the ancient world a colossal bronze statue dedicated
to Helios. Tiffs colossus, made by Chares about 290 BC, at a cost of 300
talents ($300,000 in 1915), towered to the height of 104 ft.
In the popular mind both before and after Shakespeare represented
Caesar as bestriding the world like a colossus this gigantic figure is
conceived as an image of a human being of monstrous size with leas spread
wide apart, at the entrance of the inner harbor, so huge that the largest ship
with sails spread could move in under it; but the account on which this
conception is based seems to have no foundation.
The statue was destroyed in 223 BC by an earthquake. It was restored by
the Romans. In 672 AD the Saracens sold the ruins to a Jew. The quantity
of metal was so areat that it would fill the cars of a modern freight train
(900 camel loads).
The most ancient cities of Rhodes were Ialysus, Ochyroma, and Lindus.
The oldest inhabitants were immigrants from Crete. Later came the
Carians. But no real advance in civilization was made before the
immigration of the Dorians under Tlepolemus, one of the Heraclidae, and
(after the Trojan war) Aethaemanes. Lindus, Ialysus and Camirus formed
with Cos, Cnidus and Halicarnassus the so-called Dorian Hexapolis (Six
Cities), the center of which was the temple of the Triopian Apollo on the
coast of Caria. Rhodes now founded many colonies in Spain (Rhode), in
Italy (Parthenope, Salapia, Sirus, Sybaris), in Sicily (Gela), in Asia Minor
(Soli), in Cilicia (Gaaae), and in Lycia (Corydalla). The island attained no
political greatness until the three chief cities formed a confederation and
rounded the new capital (Rhodes) in 408 BC. In the beginning of the
Peloponnesian war, Rhodes sided with the Athenians, but, after 19 years of
loyalty to Athens, went over to the Spartans (412 BC). In 394, when
Conon appeared with his fleet before the city, the island fell into the hands
of the Athenians again. A garrison was stationed at Rhodes by Alexander
the Great. After his death this garrison was driven out by the Rhodians. It
is at this time that the really great period of the islands history begins. The
inhabitants bravely defended their capital against Demetrius Poliorcetes in
304 BC the same Demetrius who two years before had won a naval
victory and had coins stamped with a Victory that is the counterpart of
the Winaed Victory which commands the unbounded admiration of the
modern world and extended their dominion over a strip of the Carian
coast, as well as over several of the neiahboring islands, and for the first
240
time in the history of the world established an international maritime and
commercial law. The arts and sciences now began to flourish in the fair
island in the southeastern Aegean. Aeschines, the famous orator of Athens,
fled to Rhodes after his defeat by Demosthenes, and rounded a school of
oratory, which was attended by many Romans. Rhodes became the faithful
ally of Rome after the defeat of Antiochus in 189 BC. As a reward for her
loyalty she received Caria. In 168, however, only a small portion of this
territory remained under Rhodian sway (Peraea, or the Chersonesus). In 42
BC the island was devastated by Cassius. Later it was made a part of the
Roman province of Asia (44 AD). Strabo says that he knows no city so
splendid in harbor, walls and streets. When the Roman power declined,
Rhodes fell into the hands of Caliph Moawijah, but later was taken by the
Greeks, from whom at a later date the Genoese wrested the island. In 1249
John Cantacuzenus attempted to recover Rhodes, but in vain. Finally,
however, success crowned the efforts of the Greeks under Theodoros
Protosebastos. In 1310 the Knights of John, who had been driven from
Palestine, made Rhodes their home. After the subjuaation of the island by
Sultan Soliman in 1522 the Knights of John removed to Malta, and Rhodes
has remained uninterruptedly a possession of the Sublime Porte down to
the recent war between Turkey and the Balkan allies, forming, with the
other islands, the province of the Islands of the White Sea (Archipelago).
It has a Christian governor whose seat, though mostly at Rhodes, is
sometimes at Chios. The population of the island has greatly diminished by
emigration. In 1890 the total number of inhabitants was 30,000 (20,000
Greeks, 7,000 Mohammedans, 1,500 Jews). The chief products of Rhodes
are wheat, oil, wine, figs and tropical fruits. A very important industry is
the exportation of sponges. The purity of the air and the mildness of the
climate make Rhodes a most delightful place to live in during the fall,
winter and early spring. The city, built in the shape of an amphitheater, has
a magnificent view toward the sea. It contains several churches made out
of old mosques. The once famous harbor is now almost filled with sand.
The inhabitants number nearly 12,000 (all Turks and Jews). Rhodes is
mentioned in the New Testament only as a point where Paul touched on his
voyage southward from the Hellespont to Caesarea (
<442101>
Acts 21:1); but in
1 Macc 15:23 we are informed that it was one of the states to which the
Romans sent letters in behalf of the Jews.
241
LITERATURE.
Berg, Die Insel Rhodes (Braunschweig, 1860-62): Schneiderwirth,
Geschichte der Insel Rhodes (Heiligenstadt, 1868); Guerin, Lile de
Rhodes, 2nd edition, Paris, 1880; Biliotti and Cottrel, Lile de Rhodes
(Paris, 1881); Torr, Rhodes in Ancient Times (Cambridge, 1885) and
Rhodes in Modern Times (1887).
J . E. Harry
RHODOCUS
<rod-o-kus> ([ Pooxo, Rhodokos]): A Jewish traitor who disclosed the
plans of Judas to Antiochus (Eupator) (2 Macc 13:21) 162 BC. Of his fate
nothing more is known.
RIB
([[ l ;x e , tsela`], [h [ ; l ] x , tsal`ah]; Aramaic [[ l [ } , `ala`]): The Hebrew
words designate the side, flank, thence the ribs. They are found thus
translated only in connection with the creation of Eve: He (Yahweh) took
one of his (Adams) ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof: and the
rib, which Yahweh God had taken from the man, made he (margin builded
he into) a woman (
<010221>
Genesis 2:21,22). The Aramaic word is only found
in
<270705>
Daniel 7:5.
Twice the Revised Version (British and American) uses the word rib in a
figurative sense of two beams or rafters built in to the ark of the covenant
and the altar of incense, on which the golden rings were fastened, which
served to carry ark and altar by means of staves (
<023004>
Exodus 30:4; 37:27).
A curious mistranslation has crept into the King James Version, which here
follows Jewish commentators or etymologists, in four passages in 2 Samuel
(2:23; 3:27; 4:6; 20:10), where the fifth rib is mentioned as the place of
the body under which spears or swords are thrust, so as to cause lethal
wounds. The Hebrew word chomesh, which indeed means fifth, is here a
noun, derived from a root meaning to be staunch, stalwart, stout
fleshy, obese (compare [v muj ;, chamush], armed, equipped soldier;
Arabic el khamis (el chamis), the army, which, however, Arabic
lexicographers explain as meaning fivefold, namely, vanguard, right and
left wing, center and rear guard). The word is to be translated abdomen,
242
belly. the Revised Version (British and American) renders correctly into
the body.
H. L. E. Luering
RIBAI
<ri-ba-i>, <ri-bi> ([yb yr i, ribhay]; Septuagint [ Prpo, Rheiba], with
variants): A Benjamite, the father of ITTAI (which see), one of Davids
mighty men (
<102329>
2 Samuel 23:29 parallel
<131131>
1 Chronicles 11:31).
RIBBAND
<rib-and>, <rib-an> ([l yt iP ;, pathil] (
<041538>
Numbers 15:38 the King James
Version)).
See COLOR, (2); CORD, (4).
RIBLAH
<rib-la> ([h l ;b ]r i, ribhlah]; [ Prpo0o, Rheblatha], with variants):
(1) Riblah in the land of Hamath first appears in history in 608 BC.
Here Pharaoh-necoh, after defeating Josiah at Megiddo and destroying
Kadytis or Kadesh on the Orontes, fixed his headquarters, and while in
camp he deposed Jehoahaz and cast him into chains, fixed the tribute of
Judah, and appointed Jehoiakim king (
<122331>
2 Kings 23:31-35). In 588
BC Nebuchadnezzar, at war with Egypt and the Syrian states, also
established his headquarters at Riblah, and from it he directed the
subjugation of Jerusalem. When it fell, Zedekiah was carried prisoner
to Riblah, and there, after his sons and his nobles had been slain in his
presence, his eyes were put out, and he was taken as a prisoner to
Babylon (
<122506>
2 Kings 25:6,20;
<243905>
Jeremiah 39:5-7; 52:8-11). Riblah
then disappears from history, but the site exists today in the village of
Ribleh, 35 miles Northeast of Baalbek, and the situation is the finest
that could have been chosen by the Egyptian or Babylonian kings for
their headquarters in Syria. An army camped there had abundance of
water in the control of the copious springs that go to form the Orontes.
The Egyptians coming from the South had behind them the command
of the rich corn and forage lands of Coele-Syria, while the Babylonian
army from the North was equally fortunate in the rich plains extending
243
to Hamath and the Euphrates. Lebanon, close by, with its forests, its
hunting grounds and its snows, ministered to the needs and luxuries of
the leaders. Riblah commanded the great trade and war route between
Egypt and Mesopotamia, and, besides, it was at the dividing-point of
many minor routes. It was in a position to attack with facility
Phoenicia, Damascus or Palestine, or to defend itself against attack
from those places, while a few miles to the South the mountains on
each side close in forming a pass where a mighty host might easily be
resisted by a few. In every way Riblah was the strategical point
between North and South Syria. Riblah should probably be read for
Diblah in
<260614>
Ezekiel 6:14, while in
<043411>
Numbers 34:11 it does not really
appear. See (2).
(2) A place named as on the ideal eastern boundary of Israel in
<043411>
Numbers 34:11, but omitted in
<264715>
Ezekiel 47:15-18. The
Massoretic Text reads Hariblah; but the Septuagint probably
preserves the true vocalization, according to which we should translate
to Harbel. It is said to be to the east of `Ain, and that, as the
designation of a district, can only mean Merj `Ayun, so that we should
seek it in the neighborhood of Hermon, one of whose spurs Furrer
found to be named Jebel `Arbel.
W. M. Christie
RICHES
<rich-ez>, <rich-iz>: Used to render the following Hebrew and Greek
words:
(1) `Osher, which should, perhaps, be considered the most general
word, as it is the most often used (
<013116>
Genesis 31:16;
<210408>
Ecclesiastes
4:8;
<240923>
Jeremiah 9:23). It looks at riches simply as riches, without
regard to any particular feature. Alongside this would go the Greek
[outo, ploutos] (
<401322>
Matthew 13:22;
<490207>
Ephesians 2:7).
(2) Chocen (
<202724>
Proverbs 27:24;
<242005>
Jeremiah 20:5), nekhacim and
rekhush (
<013607>
Genesis 36:7;
<271113>
Daniel 11:13,14 the King James Version)
look at riches as things accumulated, collected, amassed.
(3) Hon looks upon riches as earnings, the fruit of toil (
<19B914>
Psalm
119:14;
<200818>
Proverbs 8:18;
<262727>
Ezekiel 27:27).
244
(4) Hamon regards riches in the aspect of being much, this coming
from the original idea of noise, through the idea of a multitude as
making the noise, the idea of many, or much, being in multitude
(
<193716>
Psalm 37:16 the King James Version).
(5) Chayil regards riches as power (
<196201>
Psalm 62:19;
<230804>
Isaiah 8:4;
10:14).
(6) Yithrah means running over, and so presents riches as abundance
(
<244836>
Jeremiah 48:36 the King James Version). Along with this may be
placed shua`, which has the idea of breadth, and so of abundance
(
<183619>
Job 36:19 the King James Version).
(7) Qinyan regards riches as a creation, something made (
<19A424>
Psalm
104:24; compare margin);
(8) ([pqo, chrema]) looks at riches as useful (
<411023>
Mark 10:23 f
parallel). Like the New Testament, the Apoe uses only ploutos and
chrema.
Material riches are regarded by the Scriptures as neither good nor bad in
themselves, but only according as they are properly or improperly used.
They are transitory (
<202724>
Proverbs 27:24); they are not to be trusted in
(
<411023>
Mark 10:23;
<421824>
Luke 18:24;
<540617>
1 Timothy 6:17); they are not to be
gloried in (
<240923>
Jeremiah 9:23); the heart is not to be set on them (
<196210>
Psalm
62:10); but they are made by God (
<19A424>
Psalm 104:24), and come from God
(
<132912>
1 Chronicles 29:12); and they are the crown of the wise (
<201424>
Proverbs
14:24). Material riches are used to body forth for us the most precious and
glorious realities of the spiritual realm. See, e.g.,
<450923>
Romans 9:23; 11:33;
<490207>
Ephesians 2:7;
<500419>
Philippians 4:19;
<510127>
Colossians 1:27.
Compare MAMMON; TREASURE; WEALTH.
E. J . Forrester
RID; RIDDANCE
<rid>, <rid-ans>: Rid originally meant rescue (the King James
Version
<013722>
Genesis 37:22;
<020606>
Exodus 6:6;
<198204>
Psalm 82:4; 144:7,11),
whence the meaning remove or clean out (
<032606>
Leviticus 26:6 the King
James Version, with riddance in
<032322>
Leviticus 23:22; Zeph 1:18). The
word occurs in the American Standard Revised Version and in the English
Revised Version in
<020606>
Exodus 6:6.
245
RIDDLE
<rid--l> ([h d ;yj i, chidhah]; [ovyo, ainigma]).
See GAMES.
RIE
<ri> Rye (King James Version,
<020932>
Exodus 9:32;
<232825>
Isaiah 28:25).
See SPELT.
RIGHT
<rit> ([r v ;y;, yashar], [f P ;v ]mi, mishpaT]; [xoo, dikaios], [ru0u,
euthus]): Many Hebrew words are translated right, with different shades
of meaning. Of these the two noted are the most important: yashar, with
the sense of being straight, direct, as right in the sight of Yahweh
(
<021526>
Exodus 15:26;
<051225>
Deuteronomy 12:25, etc.), in ones own eyes
(
<071706>
Judges 17:6), right words (
<180625>
Job 6:25 the King James Version,
yosher), right paths (
<200411>
Proverbs 4:11 the King James Version); and
mishpaT judgment cause etc., a forensic term, as Shall not the Judge
of all the earth do right? (
<011825>
Genesis 18:25). In
<183417>
Job 34:17, the Revised
Version (British and American) has justice (34:6, right), etc. The word
tsedheq, tsedhaqah, ordinarily translated righteousness, are in a few
cases rendered right (
<101928>
2 Samuel 19:28;
<160220>
Nehemiah 2:20;
<190904>
Psalm
9:4; 17:1; 119:75;
<261805>
Ezekiel 18:5, etc.). In the New Testament the chief
word is dikaios, primarily even, equal (
<402004>
Matthew 20:4;
<421257>
Luke
12:57, etc.); more generally the word is rendered just and righteous.
Euthus, used by Septuagint for yashar (
<091223>
1 Samuel 12:23;
<281409>
Hosea
14:9), occurs a few times (
<440821>
Acts 8:21; 13:10;
<610215>
2 Peter 2:15); so
orthos, straight, upright (
<421028>
Luke 10:28).
Right-hand or side represents Hebrew yamin and kindred forms
(
<014813>
Genesis 48:13,14,17;
<021506>
Exodus 15:6, etc.); the Greek, in this sense, is
dexios (
<400603>
Matthew 6:3; 20:21, etc.).
Revised Version, among other changes, has right for the King James
Version judgment in
<182702>
Job 27:2; 34:5, and for right in the King James
Version substitutes straight in
<150821>
Ezra 8:21, skillful in
<210404>
Ecclesiastes
4:4, margin successful, etc. In
<430112>
John 1:12 the Revised Version (British
246
and American) reads, the right to become children of God for the King
James Version the power (exousia); in
<402007>
Matthew 20:7,15 right is
omitted, with the larger part of the verse. In
<550215>
2 Timothy 2:15 rightly
dividing (orthotomeo) is changed to handling aright with margin
holding a straight course in the word of truth. Or, rightly dividing the
word of truth.
W. L. Walker
RIGHTEOUSNESS
<ri-chus-nes> ([q yD i x , tsaddiq], adjective, righteous, or occasionally
just [q d ,x , , tsedheq], noun, occasionally = righteousness, occasionally
= justice; [xoo, dikaios], adjective, [xooouvq, dikaiosune],
noun, from [xq, dike], whose first meaning seems to have been
custom; the general use suggested conformity to a standard:
righteousness, the state of him who is such as he ought to be (Thayer)):
1. DOUBLE ASPECT OF RIGHTEOUSNESS: CHANGING AND
PERMANENT:
In Christian thought the idea of righteousness contains both a permanent
and a changing element. The fixed element is the will to do right; the
changing factor is the conception of what may be right at different times
and under different circumstances. Throughout the entire course of
Christian revelation we discern the emphasis on the first factor. To be sure,
in the days of later Pharisaism righteousness came to be so much a matter
of externals that the inner intent was often lost sight of altogether
(
<402323>
Matthew 23:23); but, on the whole and in the main, Christian thought
in all ages has recognized as the central element in righteousness the
intention to be and do right. This common spirit binds together the first
worshippers of God and the latest. Present-day conceptions of what is right
differ by vast distances from the conceptions of the earlier Hebrews, but
the intentions of the first worshippers are as discernible as are those of the
doers of righteousness in the present day.
2. SOCIAL CUSTOMS AND RIGHTEOUSNESS:
There seems but little reason to doubt that the content of the idea of
righteousness was determined in the first instance by the customs of social
groups. There are some, of course, who would have us believe that what
247
we experience as inner moral sanction is nothing but the fear of
consequences which come through disobeying the will of the social group,
or the feeling of pleasure which results as we know we have acted in
accordance with the social demands. At least some thinkers would have us
believe that this is all there was in moral feeling in the beginning. If a social
group was to survive it must lay upon its individual members the heaviest
exactions. Back of the performance of religious rites was the fear of the
group that the god of the group would be displeased if certain honors were
not rendered to him. Merely to escape the penalties of an angry deity the
group demanded ceremonial religious observances. From the basis of fear
thus wrought into the individuals of the group have come all our loftier
movements toward righteousness.
It is not necessary to deny the measure of truth there may be in this
account. To point out its inadequacy, however, a better statement would
be that from the beginning the social group utilized the native moral feeling
of the individual for the defense of the group. The moral feeling, by which
we mean a sense of the difference between right and wrong, would seem to
be a part of the native furnishing of the mind. It is very likely that in the
beginning this moral feeling was directed toward the performance of the
rites which the group looked upon as important.
See ALMS.
As we read the earlier parts of the Old Testament we are struck by the fact
that much of the early Hebrew morality was of this group kind. The
righteous man was the man who performed the rites which had been
handed down from the beginning (
<050625>
Deuteronomy 6:25). The meaning of
some of these rites is lost in obscurity, but from a very early period the
characteristic of Hebrew righteousness is that it moves in the direction of
what we should call today the enlargement of humanity. There seemed to
be at work, not merely the forces which make for the preservation of the
group, not merely the desire to please the God of the Hebrews for the sake
of the material favors which He might render the Hebrews, but the factors
which make for the betterment of humanity as such. As we examine the
laws of the Hebrews, even at so late a time as the completion of the formal
Codes, we are indeed struck by traces of primitive survivals (
<040511>
Numbers
5:11-31). There are some injunctions whose purpose we cannot well
understand. But, on the other hand, the vast mass of the legislation had to
do with really human considerations. There are rules concerning Sanitation
248
(Leviticus 13), both as it touches the life of the group and of the individual;
laws whose mastery begets emphasis, not merely upon external
consequences, but upon the inner result in the life of the individual
(
<195103>
Psalm 51:3); and prohibitions which would indicate that morality, at
least in its plainer decencies, had come to be valued on its own account. If
we were to seek for some clue to the development of the moral life of the
Hebrews we might well find it in this emphasis upon the growing demands
of human life as such. A suggestive writer has pointed out that the
apparently meaningless commandment, Thou shalt not boil a kid in its
mothers milk (
<022319>
Exodus 23:19), has back of it a real human purpose,
that there are some things which in themselves are revolting apart from any
external consequences (see also Leviticus 18).
3. CHANGING CONCEPTION OF CHARACTER OF GOD:
OBLIGATIONS OF POWER:
An index of the growth of the moral life of the people is to be found in the
changing conception of the character of God. We need not enter into the
question as to just where on the moral plane the idea of the God of the
Hebrews started, but from the very beginning we see clearly that the
Hebrews believed in their God as one passionately devoted to the right
(
<011825>
Genesis 18:25). It may well be that at the start the God of the Hebrews
was largely a God of War, but it is to be noticed that His enmity was
against the peoples who had little regard for the larger human
considerations. It has often been pointed out that one proof of the
inspiration of the Scriptures is to be found in their moral superiority to the
Scriptures of the peoples around about the Hebrews. If the Hebrew writers
used material which was common property of Chaldeans, Babylonians, and
other peoples, they nevertheless used these materials with a moral
difference. They breathed into them a moral life which forever separates
them from the Scriptures of other peoples. The marvel also of Hebrew
history is that in the midst of revoltingly immoral surroundings the
Hebrews grew to such ideals of human worth. The source of these ideals is
to be found in their thougth of God. Of course, in moral progress there is a
reciprocal effect; the thought of God affects the thought of human life and
the thought of human life affects the thought of God; but the Hebrews no
sooner came to a fresh moral insight than they made their moral discovery
a part of the character of God. From the beginning, we repeat, the God of
the Hebrews was a God directed in His moral wrath against all manner of
249
abominations, aberrations and abnormalities. The purpose of God,
according to the Hebrews, was to make a people separated in the sense
that they were to be free from anything which would detract from a full
moral life (
<032022>
Leviticus 20:22).
We can trace the more important steps in the growth of the Hebrew ideal.
First, there was an increasingly clear discernment that certain things are to
be ruled out at once as immoral. The primitive decencies upon which
individual and social life depended were discerned at an early period
(compare passages in Leviticus cited above). Along with this it must be
admitted there was a slower approach to some ideals which we today
consider important, the ideals of the marriage relations for example
(
<052401>
Deuteronomy 24:1,2). Then there was a growing sense of what
constitutes moral obligation in the discharge of responsibilities upon the
part of men toward their fellows (
<230508>
Isaiah 5:8,23). There was increasing
realization also of what God, as a moral Being, is obligated to do. The
hope of salvation of nations and individuals rests at once upon the
righteousness of God.
By the time of Isaiah the righteousness of God has come to include the
obligations of power (
<236301>
Isaiah 63:1). God will save His people, not
merely because He has promised to save them, but because He must save
them (
<234206>
Isaiah 42:6). The must is moral. If the people of Israel show
themselves unworthy, God must punish them; but if a remnant, even a
small remnant, show themselves faithful, God must show His favor toward
them. Moral worth is not conceived of as something that is to be paid for
by external rewards, but if God is moral He must not treat the righteous
and the unrighteous alike. This conception of what God must do as an
obligated Being influences profoundly the Hebrew interpretation of the
entire course of history (
<231020>
Isaiah 10:20,21).
Upon this ideal of moral obligation there grows later the thought of the
virtue of vicarious suffering (Isaiah 53). The sufferings of the good man
and of God for those who do not in themselves deserve such sufferings (for
them) are a mark of a still higher righteousness (see HOSEA, BOOK OF).
The movement of the Scriptures is all the way from the thought of a God
who gives battle for the right to the thought of a God who receives in
Himself the heaviest shocks of that battle that others may have opportunity
for moral life.
250
These various lines of moral development come, of course, to their crown
in the New Testament in the life and death of Christ as set before us in the
Gospels and interpreted by the apostles. Jesus stated certain moral axioms
so clearly that the world never will escape their power. He said some
things once and for all, and He did some things once and for all; that is to
say, in His life and death He set on high the righteousness of God as at
once moral obligation and self-sacrificing love (
<430316>
John 3:16) and with
such effectiveness that the world has not escaped and cannot escape this
righteous influence (
<431232>
John 12:32). Moreover, the course of apostolic and
subsequent history has shown that Christ put a winning and compelling
power into the idea of righteousness that it would otherwise have lacked
(
<450831>
Romans 8:31,32).
4. RIGHTEOUSNESS AS INNER:
The ideas at work throughout the course of Hebrew and Christian history
are, of course, at work today. Christianity deepens the sense of obligation
to do right. It makes the moral spirit essential. Then it utilizes every force
working for the increase of human happiness to set on high the meaning of
righteousness. Jesus spoke of Himself as life, and declared that He came
that men might have life and have it more abundantly (
<431010>
John 10:10). The
keeping of the commandments plays, of course, a large part in the
unfolding of the life of the righteous Christian, but the keeping of the
commandments is not to be conceived of in artificial or mechanical fashion
(
<421025>
Luke 10:25-37). With the passage of the centuries some
commandments once conceived of as essential drop into the secondary
place, and other commandments take the controlling position. In Christian
development increasing place is given for certain swift insights of the moral
spirit. We believe that some things are righteous because they at once
appeal to us as righteous. Again, some other things seem righteous because
their consequences are beneficial, both for society and for the individual.
Whatever makes for the largest life is in the direction of righteousness. In
interpreting life, however, we must remember the essentially Christian
conception that man does not live through outer consequences alone. In all
thought of consequences the chief place has to be given to inner
consequences. By the surrender of outward happiness and outward success
a man may attain inner success. The spirit of the cross is still the path to the
highest righteousness.
251
5. RIGHTEOUSNESS AS SOCIAL:
The distinctive note in emphasis upon righteousness in our own day is the
stress laid upon social service. This does not mean that Christianity is to
lose sight of the worth of the individual in himself. We have come pretty
clearly to see that the individual is the only moral end in himself.
Righteousness is to have as its aim the upbuilding of individual lives. The
commandments of the righteous life are not for the sake of society as a
thing in itself. Society is nothing apart from the individuals that compose it;
but we are coming to see that individuals have larger relationships than we
had once imagined and greater responsibilities than we had dreamed of.
The influence of the individual touches others at more points than we had
formerly realized. We have at times condemned the system of things as
being responsible for much human misery which we now see can be traced
to the agency of individuals. The employer, the day-laborer, the
professional man, the public servant, all these have large responsibilities for
the life of those around. The unrighteous individual has a power of
contaminating other individuals, and his deadliness we have just begun to
understand. All this is receiving new emphasis in our present-day preaching
of righteousness. While our social relations are not ends in themselves, they
are mighty means for reaching individuals in large numbers. The Christian
conception of redeemed humanity is not that of society as an organism
existing on its own account, but that of individuals knit very closely
together in their social relationships and touching one another for good in
these relationships (1 Cor 1:2;
<660709>
Revelation 7:9,10). If we were to try to
point out the line in which the Christian doctrine of righteousness is to
move more and more through the years, we should have to emphasize this
element of obligation to society. This does not mean that a new gospel is to
supersede the old or even place itself alongside the old. It does mean that
the righteousness of God and the teaching of Christ and the cross, which
are as ever the center of Christianity, are to find fresh force in the thought
of the righteousness of the Christian as binding itself, not merely by
commandments to do the will of God in society, but by the inner spirit to
live the life of God out into society.
6. RIGHTEOUSNESS AS EXPANDING IN CONTENT WITH
GROWTH IN IDEALS OF HUMAN WORTH:
In all our thought of righteousness it must be borne in mind that there is
nothing in Christian revelation which will tell us what righteousness calls
252
for in every particular circumstance. The differences between earlier and
later practical standards of conduct and the differences between differing
standards in different circumstances have led to much confusion in the
realm of Christian thinking. We can keep our bearing, however, by
remembering the double element in righteousness which we mentioned in
the beginning; on the one hand, the will to do right, and, on the other, the
difficulty of determining in a particular circumstance just what the right is.
The larger Christian conceptions always have an element of fluidity, or,
rather, an element of expansiveness. For example, it is clearly a Christian
obligation to treat all men with a spirit of good will or with a spirit of
Christian love. But what does love call for in a particular case? We can
only answer the question by saying that love seeks for whatever is best,
both for him who receives and for him who gives. This may lead to one
course of conduct in one situation and to quite a different course in
another. We must, however, keep before us always the aim of the largest
life for all persons whom we can reach. Christian righteousness today is
even more insistent upon material things, such as sanitary arrangements,
than was the Code of Moses. The obligation to use the latest knowledge
for the hygienic welfare is just as binding now as then, but the latest
knowledge is a changing term. Material progress, education, spiritual
instruction, are all influences which really make for full life.
Not only is present-day righteousness social and growing; it is also
concerned, to a large degree, with the thought of the world which now is.
Righteousness has too often been conceived of merely as the means of
preparing for the life of some future Kingdom of Heaven. Present-day
emphasis has not ceased to think of the life beyond this, but the life beyond
this can best be met and faced by those who have been in the full sense
righteous in the life that now is. There is here no break in true Christian
continuity. The seers who have understood Christianity best always have
insisted that to the fullest degree the present world must be redeemed by
the life-giving forces of Christianity. We still insist that all idea of earthly
righteousness takes its start from heavenly righteousness, or, rather, that
the righteousness of man is to be based upon his conception of the
righteousness of God. Present-day thinking concerns itself largely with the
idea of the Immanence of God. God is in this present world. This does not
mean that there may not be other worlds, or are not other worlds, and that
God is not also in those worlds; but the immediate revelation of God to us
is in our present world. Our present world then must be the sphere in
253
which the righteousness of God and of man is to be set forth. God is
conscience, and God is love. The present sphere is to be used for the
manifestation of His holy love. The chief channel through which that holy
love is to manifest itself is the conscience and love of the Christian believer.
But even these terms are not to be used in the abstract. There is an abstract
conscientiousness which leads to barren living: the life gets out of touch
with things that are real. There is an experience of love which exhausts
itself in well-wishing. Both conscience and love are to be kept close to the
earth by emphasis upon the actual realities of the world in which we live.
LITERATURE.
G. B. Stevens, The Christian Doctrine of Salvation; A. E. Garvie,
Handbook of Christian Apologetics; Borden P. Bowne, Principles of
Ethics; Newman Smyth, Christian Ethics; A. B. Bruce, The Kingdom of
God; W. N. Clarke, The Ideal of Jesus; H. C. King, The Ethics of Jesus.
Francis J . McConnell
RIMMON (1)
<rim-on>:
(1) The rock Rimmon ([wOMr i [ l s ,, cela` rimmon]; [q rtpo
Prv, he petra Rhemmon]): The place of refuge of the 600
surviving Benjamites of Gibeah (Jeba`) who turned and fled toward
the wilderness unto the rock of Rimmon, and abode in the rock of
Rimmon four months (
<072045>
Judges 20:45,47; 21:13). Robinsons
identification (RB, I, 440) has been very generally accepted. He found
a conical and very prominent hill some 6 miles North-Northeast of
Jeba` upon which stands a village called Rummon. This site was known
to Eusebius and Jerome (OS 146 6; 287 98), who describe it as 15
Roman miles from Jerusalem. Another view, which would locate the
place of refuge of the Benjamites in the Mugharet el jai, a large cavern
on the south of the Wady Suweinit, near Jeba`, is strongly advocated by
Rawnsley and Birch (see PEF, III, 137-48). The latter connects this
again with
<091402>
1 Samuel 14:2, where Saul, accompanied by his 600,
abode in the uttermost part of Gibeah under the pomegranate tree
(Rimmon).
254
(2) ([wOMr i, rimmon]; [ Eprv, Eremmon], or [ Pr0,
Rhemmoth]): A city in the Negeb, near the border of Edom, ascribed to
Judah (
<061532>
Joshua 15:32) and to Simeon (
<061907>
Joshua 19:7;
<130432>
1
Chronicles 4:32, the King James Version Remmon). In
<381410>
Zechariah
14:10 it is mentioned as the extreme South of Judah from Geba to
Rimmon, South of Jerusalem. In the earlier references Rimmon occurs
in close association with `Ain (a spring), and in
<161129>
Nehemiah 11:29,
what is apparently the same place, `Ain Rimmon, is called En-rimmon
(which see).
(3) ([wOMr i, rimmon] (
<061913>
Joshua 19:13), [h n;wOMr i, rimmonah], in some
Hebrew manuscripts [h n;m]D i, dimah] (see DIMNAH) (
<062135>
Joshua
21:35), and [wOnwOMr i, rimmono] (
<130677>
1 Chronicles 6:77)): In the King
James Version we have Remmon-methoar in
<061913>
Joshua 19:13, but
the Revised Version (British and American) translates the latter as
which stretcheth. This was a city on the border of Zebulun
(
<061913>
Joshua 19:13) allotted to the Levites (
<062135>
Joshua 21:35, Dimnah;
<130677>
1 Chronicles 6:77). The site is now the little village of Rummaneh
on a low ridge South of the western end of the marshy plain el Battauf
in Galilee; there are many rock-cut tombs and cisterns. It is about 4
miles North of el Mesh-hed, usually considered to be the site of Gath-
hepher. See PEF, I, 363, Sh VI.
E. W. G. Masterman
RIMMON (2)
([wOMr i, rimmon], pomegranate; see RIMMON-PEREZ):
(1) A Syrian god. Naaman the Syrian leper after being cured is troubled
over the fact that he will still have to bow down in the house of the
Syrian god, Rimmon, when his master goes into the house to worship
leaning on his hand (
<120518>
2 Kings 5:18). Elisha answers him
ambiguously: Go in peace. Judging from Naamans position and this
incident, Rimmon must have been one of the leading gods of the
Syrians worshipped in Damascus. He has been identified with
Rammanu, the Assyrian god of wind, rain and storm. The name appears
in the Syrian personal names HADADRIMMON and TABRIMMON
(which see) and its meaning is dubious (ramamu, to thunder (?))
255
(2) A Benjamite of Beeroth, whose sons Baanah and Rechab
assassinated Ish-bosheth (
<100402>
2 Samuel 4:2,5,9).
Nathan I saacs
RIMMON-PEREZ
<rim-mon-pe-rez> ([6 r , P , Mo r i , rimmon perets]; the King James Version
Rimmon-parez): A desert camp of the Israelites (
<043319>
Numbers 33:19 f),
unidentified. Gesenius translates rimmon as pomegranate, the place
deriving its name from the abundance of pomegranates. But Conder
derives it from ramam, to be high, and translates it cloven height.
See WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL.
RIMMON, ROCK OF
See RIMMON, (1).
RIMMONAH; RIMMONO
<rim-mo-na>, <rimmo-no>.
See RIMMON, (3).
RING
(Anglo-Saxon, Hring, ring): The word renders (the American Standard
Revised Version) two Hebrew words (in the King James Version and the
English Revised Version three) and two Greek words. [t [ B f ,
Tabba`ath], the principal Hebrew word, is from [[ b f ; , Tabha`], sink,
either because the ring is something cast or molded, or, more probably,
since the principal use of the ring was as a seal, because it sank into the
wax or clay that received the impression. In Exodus, Tabba`ath, ring, is
a detail of furniture or equipment, as the rings of the ark through which the
staves were thrust (
<022512>
Exodus 25:12, etc.), rings for curtains, in the high
priests ephod (
<022828>
Exodus 28:28; 39:21), etc. Its other use was perhaps
the original, to describe the article of personal adornment worn on the
finger, apparently in the Old Testament always a signet-ring, and as such an
indispensable article of masculine attire. Such a ring Pharaoh gave Joseph
as a symbol of authority (
<014142>
Genesis 41:42); and Ahasuerus gave Haman
(Est 3:10); with it the royal missive was sealed (Est 3:12; 8:8 twice,10). It
256
was also a feminine ornament in Isaiahs list of the fashionable feminine
paraphernalia, the rings and the nose-jewels (quite likely rings also)
(
<230321>
Isaiah 3:21). Either as ornaments or for their intrinsic value, or both,
rings were used as gifts for sacred purposes from both men and women:
brooches, and ear-rings, and signet-rings (margin nose-rings)
(
<023522>
Exodus 35:22); bracelets, rings (the American Standard Revised
Version signet-rings), ear-rings (
<043150>
Numbers 31:50 the King James
Version). [ t ;wOj , chotham], signet, mentioned in
<013818>
Genesis 38:18,25;
<022811>
Exodus 28:11,21,36;
<023906>
Exodus 39:6,14,30;
<242224>
Jeremiah 22:24;
<370223>
Haggai 2:23, etc., was probably usually a seal ring, but in Genesis 38
and elsewhere the seal may have been swung on wire, and suspended by a
cord from the neck. It was not only an identification, but served as a stamp
for signature. [l yl iG;, galil], circle (compare Galilee, Circle of the
Gentiles), rendered ring in Est 1:6; Song 5:14, may rather mean
cylinder or rod of metal. Earring (which see) in the King James
Version is from totally different words: [ z,n,, nezem], whose etymology is
unknown, [l ygi[ ;, aghil], round, or [v j l , lachash], amulet; so
the Revised Version (British and American). The rings of the wheels in
<260118>
Ezekiel 1:18 (the King James Version) are [b G , gabh], curved, and
mean rims (American Standard Revised Version), felloes. Egyptians
especially wore a great profusion of rings, principally of silver or gold,
engraved with scarabaei, or other devices. In the New Testament the ring,
[oxtuo, daktulios], finger-ring, is a token of means, position,
standing: put a ring on his hand (
<421522>
Luke 15:22). Perhaps also it
included the right to give orders in his fathers name. To be
[puoooxuo, chrusodaktulios], golden-ringed, perhaps with more
than one, indicated wealth and social rank: a man with a gold ring
(
<590202>
James 2:2).
See also EARRING; SIGNET; SEAL.
Philip Wendell Crannell
RINGLEADER
<ring-led-er>: In
<442405>
Acts 24:5 the translation of [ptoototq,
protostates], one who stands first. Not an opprobrious word in the
Greek.
257
RINGSTREAKED
<ring-strekt> (the King James Version and the English Revised Version
ringstraked):
<013035>
Genesis 30:35,39,40; 31:8 (twice),10,12 for [d q o[ ;,
`aqodh]. In the context of
<013035>
Genesis 30:35, etc., `aqodh certainly denotes
defective coloring of some sort, but the exact meaning of the word is
uncertain. The translation ringstreaked (marked with circular bands)
comes from connecting the word with the Hebrew root `-q-d, to bind
(
<012209>
Genesis 22:9), but this connection is dubious.
RINNAH
<rin-a> ([h N;r i, rinnah], praise to God; Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus [
Avo, Ana]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Povvv, Rhannon]): A Judahite,
according to Massoretic Text a son of Shimon (
<130420>
1 Chronicles 4:20). But
the Septuagint makes him a son of Hanan (Codex Vaticanus Phana; Codex
Alexandrinus Anan) by reading ben in the next name (Ben-hanan) as
son of.
RIOT
<ri-ut>: Properly, unrestrained behavior of any sort, but in modern
English usually connoting mob action, although such phrases as a riotous
banquet are still in common use. the King James Version uses the word in
the first sense, and it is retained by the Revised Version (British and
American) in
<421513>
Luke 15:13;
<560106>
Titus 1:6;
<600404>
1 Peter 4:4 for [oot,
asotos], [ooto, asotia], having no hope of safety, profligate]. In
<202320>
Proverbs 23:20; 28:7 the Revised Version (British and American) has
preferred gluttonous, glutton, in
<451313>
Romans 13:13, revelling, and in
<610213>
2 Peter 2:13, revel.
Burton Scott Easton
RIPHATH
<ri-fath> ([t p yr i , riphath]): A son of Gomer, the eldest son of Japhet
(
<011003>
Genesis 10:3;
<130106>
1 Chronicles 1:6, where Massoretic Text and the
Revised Version (British and American) read DIPHATH (which see)).
Josephus (Ant., I, vi, 1) identifies the Ripheans with the Paphlagonians,
through whose country on the Black Sea ran the river Rhebas (Pliny,
NH, vi.4).
258
RISING
<riz-ing> ([t a ec ], seeth], a tumor, swelling (
<031302>
Leviticus 13:2,10,
etc.)).
See LEPROSY.
RISSAH
<ris-a> ([h S ;r i, riccah], dew): A camp of the Israelites in the wilderness
wanderings between Libnah and Kehelathah (
<043321>
Numbers 33:21 f).
See WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL.
RITHMAH
<rith-ma> ([h m;t ]r i , rithmah], broom): A desert camp of the Israelites
(
<043318>
Numbers 33:18,19). The name refers to the white desert broom.
See WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL.
RIVER
<riv-er>:
(1) The usual word is [r h ;n;, nahar] (Aramaic [r h n] , nehar] (
<150410>
Ezra
4:10, etc.)), used of the rivers of Eden (
<010210>
Genesis 2:10-14), often of
the Euphrates (
<011518>
Genesis 15:18, etc.), of Abana and Pharpar (
<120512>
2
Kings 5:12), the river of Gozan (
<121706>
2 Kings 17:6), the river Chebar
(
<260101>
Ezekiel 1:1), the rivers (canals?) of Babylon (
<19D701>
Psalm 137:1), the
rivers of Ethiopia (
<231801>
Isaiah 18:1; Zeph 3:10). Compare nahr, the
common Arabic word for river.
(2) [r wOa y], yeor], according to BDB from Egyptian iotr, ior,
watercourse, often of the Nile (
<020122>
Exodus 1:22, etc.). In
<231906>
Isaiah
19:6, for [r wOx m; yr ea oy], yeore matsor], the King James Version
brooks of defense, the Revised Version (British and American) has
streams of Egypt. In
<231907>
Isaiah 19:7,8, for yeor, the King James
Version brooks, and
<381011>
Zechariah 10:11, the King James Version
river, the Revised Version (British and American) has Nile. In
<182810>
Job 28:10, the King James Version He cutteth out rivers among
259
the rocks, the Revised Version (British and American) has channels,
the Revised Version margin passages.
(3) There are nearly 100 references to [l j n , nachal]. In about half
of these the King James Version has brook and in about half river.
the Revised Version (British and American) has more often brook or
valley. But the Revised Version (British and American) has river in
whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the
rivers (
<031109>
Leviticus 11:9); the river Jabbok (
<050237>
Deuteronomy 2:37;
<061202>
Joshua 12:2); the stream issuing from the temple (
<264705>
Ezekiel 47:5-
12). the Revised Version (British and American) has brook of Egypt,
i.e. el-`Arish (
<043405>
Numbers 34:5;
<061547>
Joshua 15:47;
<110865>
1 Kings 8:65;
<122407>
2 Kings 24:7;
<140708>
2 Chronicles 7:8;
<300614>
Amos 6:14, of the Arabah);
brook (the King James Version river) of Kanah (
<061608>
Joshua 16:8);
valley (the King James Version river) of the Arnon
(
<050224>
Deuteronomy 2:24). English Versions of the Bible has valley: of
Gerar (
<012617>
Genesis 26:17), of Zered (
<042112>
Numbers 21:12), but brook
Zered (
<050213>
Deuteronomy 2:13), of Eschol (
<043209>
Numbers 32:9), of
Sorek (
<071604>
Judges 16:4), of Shittim (
<290318>
Joel 3:18). English Versions of
the Bible has brook: Besor (
<093010>
1 Samuel 30:10), Kidron (
<101523>
2
Samuel 15:23), Gaash, (
<102330>
2 Samuel 23:30), Cherith (
<111703>
1 Kings
17:3); also the feminine [h l ; j } n , nachalah], brook (the King James
Version river) of Egypt (
<264719>
Ezekiel 47:19; 48:28). The torrent-
valley (wady) is often meant.
(4) [gl ,P ,, pelegh], with feminine [h G; l P ] , pelaggah], the King James
Version river, is in the Revised Version (British and American)
translated stream, except English Versions of the Bible river of
God (
<196509>
Psalm 65:9); streams of water (
<190103>
Psalm 1:3;
<200516>
Proverbs
5:16;
<233202>
Isaiah 32:2;
<250348>
Lamentations 3:48); streams of honey
(
<182017>
Job 20:17); streams of oil (
<182906>
Job 29:6).
(5) [q yp ia ;, aphiq], the King James Version river, except English
Versions of the Bible water brooks (
<194201>
Psalm 42:1), is in the Revised
Version (British and American) watercourses (
<260603>
Ezekiel 6:3; 31:12;
32:6; 34:13; 35:8; 36:4,6), water-brooks (Song 5:12;
<290120>
Joel 1:20).
260
(6) [l b Wy, yubhal], English Versions of the Bible river
(
<241708>
Jeremiah 17:8). [l b ;a u, ubhal], and [l b ;Wa , ubhal], English
Versions of the Bible river (
<270802>
Daniel 8:2,3,6).
(7) [otoo, potamos]: of the Jordan (
<410105>
Mark 1:5); Euphrates
(
<660914>
Revelation 9:14); rivers of living water (
<430738>
John 7:38); river of
water of life (
<662201>
Revelation 22:1). So always in Greek for river in
the Revised Version (British and American) Apocrypha (1 Esdras 4:23,
etc.).
See BROOK; STREAM; VALLEY.
Alfred Ely Day
RIVER OF EGYPT
See BROOK OF EGYPT.
RIVER, THE (GREAT)
See EUPHRATES.
RIVERS OF EDEN
See EDEN (1).
RIZIA
<riz-i-a> ([a y;x ]r i, ritsya]): An Asherite (
<130739>
1 Chronicles 7:39).
RIZPAH
<riz-pa> ([h P ;x ]r i , ritspah], hot stone; Josephus, [ Pooo,
Rhaispha]): In
<100307>
2 Samuel 3:7 the subject of a coarse slander. 2 Samuel
21 contains the pathetic story of Rizpahs faithful watch over the bodies of
her dead sons Mephibosheth and Armoni (21:10,11). Did this story suggest
Tennysons Rizpah? A three years famine had made David anxious, and
in seeking a reason for the affliction he concluded that it lay in Sauls
unavenged conduct to the Gibeonites (21:2). To appease Yahweh he gave
up to the Gibeonites the two sons of Saul, Mephibosheth and Armoni, as
well as Sauls 5 grandsons (whether by Michal or Merab; see MERAB).
These seven were hanged at Gibeah. Rizpah watched 5 months over their
261
exposed bodies, but meanwhile the famine did not abate. Word was
brought to David of Rizpahs act (21:10,11), and it is possible that her
action suggested to David his next step in expiation. At any rate, he
remembered the uncared-for bones of Jonathan and Saul lying in ignominy
at Jabesh-gilead, whither they had been carried by stealth after the
Philistines had kept them hung in the streets of Beth-shan for some time.
The bones were recovered and apparently mingled with the bones Rizpah
had guarded, and they were together buried in the family grave at Zelah.
We are told that then God was entreated for the land (21:14).
Henry Wallace
ROAD (INROAD)
<rod> the King James Version (
<092710>
1 Samuel 27:10; compare 23:27).
See RAID.
ROAD (WAY)
See ROMAN EMPIRE AND CHRISTIANITY, II, 6; WAY.
ROAST
See FOOD.
ROBBER; ROBBERY
<rob-er>, <rob-er-i>: Robber represents no particular Hebrew word in
the Old Testament, but in the Apocrypha and the New Testament is always
a translation of [qotq, lestes] (see THIEF). In the King James Version
<180505>
Job 5:5; 18:9, robber stands for the doubtful word [ yMx ,
tsammim], the Revised Version (British and American) hungry in
JObidiah 5:5 and snare in 18:9. The meaning is uncertain, and perhaps
tsemeim, thirsty, should be read in both places.
<196210>
Psalm 62:10,
Become not vain in robbery, means put not your trust in riches
dishonestly gained. RVs changes of the King James Version in
<202107>
Proverbs 21:7;
<271114>
Daniel 11:14; Nab 3:1 are obvious. In
<501706>
Philippians
2:6 the King James Version reads thought it not robbery to be equal with
God. the English Revised Version has a prize, while the English
Revised Version margin and the American Standard Revised Version read
a thing to be grasped, the American Standard Revised Version rewording
262
counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped. The
Greek here is [opoyo, harpagmos], a word derived from harpazo, to
ravish away, carry off, plunder (compare harpy). Properly speaking,
the termination -mos should give the derived noun an active sense, the act
of plundering, whence the King James Versions robbery. The verse
would then mean who thought that being on an equality with God did not
consist in grasping, and this translation gives good sense in the context
and has some excellent scholarly support. But a passive significance is
frequently found despite a -mos termination, giving to harpagmos the
sense of thing grasped, as in the Revised Version (British and American).
Usually English commentators take grasped as meaning clung to
did not think equality with God should be clung to tenaciously but to
cling to seems unknown as a translation of harpazo. Hence, render a
thing to be grasped at did not seek equality with God by selfish
methods but by humbling himself. It is to be noticed, naturally, that Paul is
thinking of equality with God simply in the sense of receiving explicit
adoration from men (
<502910>
Philippians 2:10,11), and that the metaphysical
relation of the Son to the Father is not at all in point.
See also GRASP.
Burton Scott Easton
ROBBERS OF TEMPLES
([rpoouo, hierosuloi], guilty of sacrilege): A term used by the town
clerk of Ephesus (
<441937>
Acts 19:37, the King James Version robbers of
churches). As the temple of Diana (Artemas) had a great treasure-
chamber, the offense might not be unknown among them; compare
<450222>
Romans 2:22.
In 2 Macc 4:42 the King James Version the epithet church-robber (the
Revised Version (British and American) author of the sacrilege) is
applied to LYSIMACHUS (which see).
ROBE
<rob>.
See DRESS, 1, (3).
263
ROBOAM
<ro-bo-am> ([Popoo, Rhoboam]). the King James Version; Greek form
of Rehoboam (thus the Revised Version (British and American))
(
<400107>
Matthew 1:7); successor of Solomon.
ROCK
<rok> ((1) [[ l s , , cela`];
(2) [r Wx , tsur]
(3) [v ymi L ; j , challamish], flint; compare Arabic khalanbus, flint;
(4) [ yp iK e, kephim] (
<183006>
Job 30:6;
<240429>
Jeremiah 4:29); compare
[Kqo, Kephas], Cephas = [Hrtpo, Petros], Peter (
<430142>
John
1:42 the King James Version and the Revised Version margin);
(5) [rtpo, petra]):
1. NAMES:
Tsur and cela` are the words most often found, and there is no well-
defined distinction between them. They are frequently coupled together in
the parallelism which is characteristic of the Hebrew writers: e.g.
Be thou to me a strong rock (tsur),
A house of defense to save me.
For thou art my rock (tsela) and my fortress
(
<193102>
Psalm 31:2,3).
He clave rocks (tsur) in the wilderness,
And gave them drink abundantly as out of the depths.
He brought streams also out of the rock (sela),
And caused waters to run down like rivers
(
<197815>
Psalm 78:15,16).
It is plain here that the two words are used for the sake of variety, without
any clear difference of meaning. Even challamish (translated flint) is
used in the same way with tsur in
<19B408>
Psalm 114:8:
Who turned the rock (tsur) into a pool of water;
The flint (callamish) into a fountain of waters.
264
2. FIGURATIVE:
(1) Some of the most striking and beautiful imagery of the Bible is
based upon the rocks. They are a symbol of God: Yahweh is my rock,
and my fortress (
<102202>
2 Samuel 22:2;
<191802>
Psalm 18:2; 71:3); God, the
rock of my salvation (
<102247>
2 Samuel 22:47; compare
<196202>
Psalm 62:2,7;
89:26); my God the rock of my refuge (
<199422>
Psalm 94:22); the rock
of thy strength (
<231710>
Isaiah 17:10); Lead me to the rock that is higher
than I (
<196102>
Psalm 61:2); repeatedly in the song of Moses
(
<053203>
Deuteronomy 32:3,4,18,30,31; compare
<102232>
2 Samuel 22:32). Paul
applies the rock smitten in the wilderness (
<021706>
Exodus 17:6;
<042011>
Numbers 20:11) to Christ as the source of living water for spiritual
refreshment (1 Cor 10:4).
(2) The rocks are a refuge, both figuratively and literally (
<244828>
Jeremiah
48:28; Song 2:14); The rocks are a refuge for the conies (
<19A418>
Psalm
104:18). Many a traveler in Palestine has felt the refreshment of the
shade of a great rock in a weary land (
<233202>
Isaiah 32:2). A very
different idea is expressed in
<230814>
Isaiah 8:14, And he shall be for a
sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offense
(compare
<450933>
Romans 9:33;
<600208>
1 Peter 2:8).
(3) The rock is a symbol of hardness (
<240503>
Jeremiah 5:3; compare
<235007>
Isaiah 50:7). Therefore, the breaking of the rock exemplifies the
power of God (
<242329>
Jeremiah 23:29; compare
<111911>
1 Kings 19:11). The
rock is also a symbol of that which endures, Oh that they .... were
graven in the rock for ever! (
<181923>
Job 19:23,24). A rock was an
appropriate place for offering a sacrifice (
<070620>
Judges 6:20; 13:19). The
central feature of the Mosque of `Umar in Jerusalem is Qubbat-uc-
Cakhrat, the dome of the rock. The rock or cakhrat under the dome
is thought to be the site of Solomons altar of burnt offering, and
further is thought to be the site of the threshing-floor of Araunah the
Jebusite which David purchased to build an altar to Yahweh.
3. KINDS OF ROCK:
(1) The principal rock of Palestine and Syria is limestone of which there
are many varieties, differing in color, texture, hardness and degrees of
impurity, some of the limestone having considerable admixtures of clay
or sand. Some of the harder kinds are very dense and break with a
conchoidal fracture similar to the fracture of flint. In rocks which have
265
for ages been exposed to atmospheric agencies, erosion has produced
striking and highly picturesque forms. Nodules and layers of flint are of
frequent occurrence in the limestone.
(2) Limestone is the only rock of Western Palestine, with the exception
of some local outpourings of basaltic rock and with the further
exception of a light-brown, porous, partly calcareous sandstone, which
is found at intervals along the coast. This last is a superficial deposit of
Quaternary or recent age, and is of aeolian origin. That is, it consists of
dune sands which have solidified under the influence of atmospheric
agencies. This is very exceptional, nearly all stratified rocks having
originated as beds of sand or mud in the bottom of the sea.
(3) In Sinai, Edom, Moab, Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon is found the
Nubian sandstone, a silicious sandstone which, at least in the North, is
of middle or lower Cretaceous age. In the South, the lower strata of
this formation seem to be paleozoic. Most of it is not sufficiently
coherent to make good building stone, though some of its strata are
very firm and are even used for millstones. In some places it is so
incoherent or friable that it is easily dug with the pick, the grains falling
apart and forming sand that can be used in mortar. In color the Nubian
sandstone is on the whole dark reddish brown, but locally it shows
great variation, from white through yellow and red to black. In places it
also has tints of blue. The celebrated rock tombs and temples of Petra
are carved in this stone.
(4) Extensive areas of the northern part of Eastern Palestine are
covered with igneous rock. In the Jaulan Southeast of Mt. Hermon,
this has been for ages exposed to the atmosphere and has formed
superficially a rich dark soil. Further Southeast is the Leja (Arabic
refuge), a wild tract covered with a deposit of lava which is
geologically recent, and which, while probably earlier than man, is still
but little affected by the atmosphere. It is with difficulty traversed and
frequently furnishes an asylum to outlaws.
See CRAG; FLINT; GEOLOGY; LIME.
Alfred Ely Day
ROCK OF AGES
See AGES, ROCK OF; ISAIAH, VII.
266
ROCK-BADGER
<r.-baj-er>: This term is found in the Revised Version margin for
coney, [p ;v ;, shaphan] (
<031105>
Leviticus 11:5; compare
<051407>
Deuteronomy
14:7;
<19A418>
Psalm 104:18;
<203026>
Proverbs 30:26). It is a translation of klip das,
the name given. by the Boers to the Cape hyrax or coney.
See CONEY.
ROD
([l Q e m , maqqel], [h F , m , maTTeh], [f b ,v e, shebheT]; [popo,
rhabdos]): Little distinction can be drawn between the Hebrew words used
for rod and staff. Maqqel is the word used in
<013037>
Genesis 30:37 ff for
the twigs of poplar put by Jacob before his sheep, and in
<240111>
Jeremiah 1:11
of the rod of an almond-tree. MaTTeh is used of a rod in the hand, as the
rods of Moses and of Aaron (
<020402>
Exodus 4:2 ff; 7:9 ff, etc.). ShebheT is
used, but sometimes also maTTeh, of the rod used for correction
(
<022120>
Exodus 21:20;
<100714>
2 Samuel 7:14;
<201013>
Proverbs 10:13; 13:24;
<231005>
Isaiah
10:5, etc.). In
<192304>
Psalm 23:4 (Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me),
however, shebheT is the shepherds rod, figurative of divine guidance and
care. In
<262110>
Ezekiel 21:10,13, the word stands for the royal scepter. In the
New Testament rod is used of a rod of correction (1 Cor 4:21), Aarons
rod (
<580904>
Hebrews 9:4), a rulers rod of iron (severity, as in
<660227>
Revelation
2:27; 12:5; 19:15), a measuring rod (
<661101>
Revelation 11:1).
See also ARMOR, ARMS.
J ames Orr
RODANIM
<rod-a-nim>: The reading of Massoretic Text in
<130107>
1 Chronicles 1:7 for
the DODANIM (which see) of
<011004>
Genesis 10:4, corresponding to the [
Poo, Rhodioi] of the Septuagint in both passages. The Rodanim are
generally identified as inhabitants of the island of RHODES (which see),
well known to the ancient Phoenicians (Homers Iliad).
ROE; ROEBUCK
<ro>, <ro-buk>: the King James Version has roe and roebuck for
[yb ix ], tsehi], [h Y;b ix ], tsebhiyah]. the Revised Version (British and
267
American) usually substitutes gazelle in the text (
<051215>
Deuteronomy 12:15,
etc.) or margin (
<200605>
Proverbs 6:5, etc.), but retains roe in
<100218>
2 Samuel
2:18;
<131208>
1 Chronicles 12:8; Song 3:5; 7:3. So the Revised Version (British
and American) has gazelle for the King James Version roe in Sirach
27:20 (dorkas). the Revised Version (British and American) has roe-
buck for [r Wmj ]y , yachmur] (
<051405>
Deuteronomy 14:5;
<110423>
1 Kings 4:23),
where the King James Version has fallow deer. In the opinion of the
writer, [l W; a , ayyal] English Versions of the Bible hart, should be
translated roe-buck, yachmur fallow deer, and tsebhi gazelle.
See DEER; GAZELLE.
Alfred Ely Day
ROGELIM
<ro-ge-lim>, <ro-ge-lim> ([ yl ig]r o, roghelim]; [ Pyrr,
Rhogelleim]): The place whence came Barzillai the Gileadite to succor
David in his flight from Absalom (
<101727>
2 Samuel 17:27; 19:31). It probably
lay near the path followed by David, but it is not identical.
ROHGAH
<ro-ga> (Kethibh [h g;h }wOr , rohaghah], Qere [h G;h ]r ;, rohgah]): A name in
the genealogy of Asher (
<130734>
1 Chronicles 7:34).
ROIMUS
<ro-i-mus> ([ Poro, Rhoeimos]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Poro,
Rhomelios]): One of the leaders with Zerubbabel in the return (1 Esdras
5:8) = Rehum in
<150202>
Ezra 2:2, of which it is the Greek form = Nehum
in
<160707>
Nehemiah 7:7.
ROLL (SCROLL)
<rol>: The usual form of book in Biblical times. It had been in use in Egypt
for perhaps 2,000 years at the time when, according to the Pentateuch, the
earliest Biblical books were written in this form. The Babylonian tablet
seems to have been the prevailing form in Palestine up to about 1350 BC,
but by 1100 BC, at least, the roll had been in established use for some time
as far North as Byblos. Two Hebrew words, gillayon, meghillah, one
268
Aramaic, cephar, and one Greek word, biblion, are so translated in the
King James Version. Cephar (
<150601>
Ezra 6:1, the Revised Version (British
and American) archives, margin books), with the corresponding
Hebrew form cepher, is the generic word for any whole work large or
small, but as a book form (
<233404>
Isaiah 34:4) it may mean roll, and,
according to Blau (pp. 37, 45, etc.), it never does mean anything else. Both
the other words seem to be connected with galal, roll, which is the
technical term for opening or closing a book. The meghillath cepher
(
<243602>
Jeremiah 36:2) means the unwritten roll, or the roll considered in its
material form as contrasted with the work. Meghillah, which is found in
<150602>
Ezra 6:2 (English Versions of the Bible, roll), Jeremiah (often),
Ezekiel (often) and Zechariah, is a somewhat late word, and came to mean
a small roll (but with a complete work) as distinguished from a book,
corresponding thus to the modern distinction of pamphlet and book or
document and book. The word gillayon is translated in the Revised
Version (British and American) as tablet, and is universally regarded as
meaning (
<230801>
Isaiah 8:1) some smooth surface, corresponding to the same
word in
<230323>
Isaiah 3:23 which is rendered hand-mirror. But cylinder-
seal would possibly fit the sense in both cases; this being hung round the
neck as an ornament in one case and inscribed with a personal name in the
other.
Biblion is regarded by the Bible translators as equivalent to meghillah in
the sense of small roll. It is in fact 4 times in the Septuagint of Jeremiah 36
used as the translation for meghillah, but very much oftener it is the
translation for cepher, for which in fact it is the correct technical equivalent
(Birt, Buchrolle, 21). Indeed the small book (Thayer, Lexicon, 101) is
hardly consistent with the ideas of the heavens as a scroll, of the Lambs
Book of Life, or of the vast quantity of books of
<432125>
John 21:25, although
in
<420417>
Luke 4:17 it may perhaps correspond closely with meghillah in the
sense of a complete roll and work, which is at the same time a whole part
of a larger work. Its use in
<660614>
Revelation 6:14 is reminiscent of
<233404>
Isaiah
34:4 (scroll), and is conclusive for the roll form. It is indeed always
technically a roll and never codex or tablet.
It is not likely that Isaiah and John (here and in his Gospel, 21:25) refer
directly to the Babylonian idea that the heavens are a series of written
tablets or to the rabbinic saying that if all the oceans were ink, all reeds
pens, the heavens and earth sheets to write upon, and all men writers, still
it would not suffice for writing out the teachings of my Masters (Blau, op.
269
cit., 34). Nevertheless, the whole Cosmos does suggest the heavens and
earth as sheets to write on, and under all there does perhaps lurk a
conception of the broad expanse of heaven as a roll for writing upon.
LITERATURE.
Birt, Die Buchrolle in der Kunst, Leipzig, 1907; Jew Encyclopedia, XI,
126-34, Scroll of the Law; Blau, Studien z. althebr. Buchwesen,
Strassburg, 1902, 37-66, etc., and the literature under the article Writing,
especially Gardthausen, 134-54.
E. C. Richardson
ROLLER
<rol-er>: the King James Version and the English Revised Version in
<263021>
Ezekiel 30:21 for [l WT j i, chittul], bandage (so the American
Standard Revised Version). Roller was formerly a technical term in
surgery for a wide bandage.
ROLLING THING
<rol-ing>:
<231713>
Isaiah 17:13, the King James Version like a rolling thing
before the whirlwind, a noncommittal translation of [j G l ] G , galgal],
revolving thing, wheel (
<211206>
Ecclesiastes 12:6). the Revised Version
(British and American) like the whirling dust before the storm is probably
right.
See CHAFF; DUST; STUBBLE.
ROMAMTI-EZER
<ro-mam-ti-e-zer>, <ro-mam-ti-e-zer> ([r z,[ , yT im]m r o, romamti `ezer],
highest help): Son of Heman, appointed chief of the 24th division of
singers in Davids time (
<132504>
1 Chronicles 25:4,31).
See JOSHBEKASHAH.
ROMAN; ROMANS
<ro-man>, <ro-manz>.
See ROME, III, 2; CITIZENSHIP.
270
ROMAN ARMY
See ARMY, ROMAN.
ROMAN EMPIRE AND CHRISTIANITY
<em-pir>:
I. OUTLINE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.
1. Roman Empire a Result of Social Conflict:
The founding of the Roman empire was the grandest political achievement
ever accomplished. The conquests of Alexander the Great, Charlemagne
and Napoleon seem small compared with the durable structure reared by
Julius and his successor, Augustus. In one sense Julius Caesar the most
wonderful man that Rome or any other country produced was the
founder of the empire, and Augustus the founder of the principate. But the
Roman empire was the culmination of a long process of political,
constitutional, and social growth which gives a lasting interest to Roman
history. The Roman empire was the only possible solution of a 700 years
struggle, and Roman history is the story of the conflict of class with class,
patrician against plebeian, populus against plebs, the antagonism of
oligarchy and democracy, plutocracy against neglected masses. It is the
account of the triumphant march of democracy and popular government
against an exclusive governing caste. Against heavy odds the plebeians
asserted their rights till they secured at least a measure of social, political
and legal equality with their superiors (see ROME, I, 2-4). But in the long
conflict both parties degenerated until neither militant democracy nor
despotic oligarchy could hold the balance with justice. Democracy had won
in the uphill fight, but lost itself and was obliged to accept a common
master with aristocracy. It was of no small importance for Christianity that
the Roman empire practically synonymous with the orbis terrarum
had been converging both from internal and external causes toward a one-
man government, the political counterpart of a universal religion with one
God and Saviour.
(1) Julius Caesar.
For a couple of generations political leaders had foreseen the coming of
supreme power and had tried to grasp it. But it was Julius Caesar who best
271
succeeded in exploiting democracy for his own aggrandizement. He proved
the potent factor of the first triumvirate (60 BC); his consulship (59) was
truly kingly. In 49 BC he crossed the Rubicon and declared war upon his
country, but in the same year was appointed Dictator and thus made his
enemies the enemies of his country. He vanquished the Pompeians
senatorial and republican at Pharsalia in 48 BC, Thapsus in 46 BC, and
Munda in 45 BC. Between 46 and the Ides of March 44 no emperor before
Diocletian was more imperial. He was recognized officially as demigod;
temples were dedicated to his clemency. He encouraged the people to
abdicate to him their privileges of self-government and right of election,
became chief (princeps) of the senate and high priest (pontifex maximus),
so that he could manipulate even the will of the gods to his own purposes.
His plans were equally great and beneficent. He saw the necessity of
blending the heterogeneous populations into one people and extending
Roman citizenship. His outlook was larger and more favorable to the
coming of Christianity than that of his successor, Augustus. The latter
learned from the fate of Caesar that he had advanced too rapidly along the
imperial path. It taught Augustus caution.
(2) Augustus.
Octavian (Augustus) proved the potent factor of the second triumvirate.
The field of Actiuim on September 2, 31 BC, decided the fate of the old
Roman republic. The commonwealth sank in exhaustion after the
protracted civil and internecine strife. It was a case of the survival of the
fittest. It was a great crisis in human history, and a great man was at hand
for the occasion. Octavian realized that supreme power was the only
possible solution. On his return to Rome he began to do over again what
Caesar had done gather into his own hands the reins of government. He
succeeded with more caution and shrewdness, and became the founder of
the Roman empire, which formally began on January 16, 27 BC, and was
signalized by the bestowal of the title AUGUSTUS (which see). Under
republican forms he ruled as emperor, controlling legislation,
administration and the armies. His policy was on the whole adhered to by
the Julio-Claudian line, the last of which was Nero (died 68 AD).
(3) Flavian Dynasty.
In 68 AD a new secret of empire was discovered, namely, that the
principate was not hereditary in one line and that emperors could be
272
nominated by the armies. After the bloody civil wars of 68, the year of the
four emperors, Vespasian founded the IInd Dynasty, and dynastic
succession was for the present again adopted. With the Flavians begins a
new epoch in Roman history of pronounced importance for Christianity.
The exclusive Roman ideas are on the wane. Vespasian was of plebeian
and Sabine rank and thus non-Roman, the first of many non-Roman
emperors. His ideas were provincial rather than Roman, and favorable to
the amalgamation of classes, and the leveling process now steadily setting
in. Though he accepted the Augustan diarchy, he began to curtail the
powers of the senate. His son Titus died young (79-81). Domitians reign
marks a new epoch in imperialism: his autocratic spirit stands half-way
between the Augustan principate and the absolute monarchy of Diocletian.
Domitian, the last of the twelve Caesars (Suetonius), was assassinated
September 18, 96 AD. The soldiers amid civil war had elected the last
dynasty. This time the senate asserted itself and nominated a brief series of
emperors on the whole the best that wore the purple.
(4) Adoptive or Antonine Emperors.
The Antonine is another distinct era marked by humane government,
recognition of the rights of the provinces and an enlargement of the ideas
of universalism. Under Trajan the empire was extended; a series of frontier
blockades was established a confession that Rome could advance no
farther. Under Hadrian a policy of retreat began; henceforth Rome is never
again on the aggressive but always on the defensive against restless
barbarians. Unmistakable signs of weakness and decay set in under
Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. This, the best and happiest period of
Roman imperial government, was the beginning of the end. In this era we
detect a growing centralization of authority; the senate practically becomes
a tool of the emperor. A distinct civil service was established which
culminated in bureaucracy under Hadrian.
(5) Changing Dynasties, 193-284 AD.
On the death of Commodus, whose reign 180-93 AD stands by itself, the
empire was put up for sale by the soldiery and knocked down to the
highest bidder. The military basis of the empire was emphasized which
was indeed essential in this period of barbaric aggressiveness to postpone
the fall of the empire until its providential mission was accomplished. A
rapid succession of rulers follows, almost each new ruler bringing a new
273
dynasty. Those disintegrating forces set in which developed so rapidly from
the reign of Diocletian. The pax Romana had passed; civil commotion
accentuated the dangers from invading barbarians. Plague and famine
depopulated rich provinces. Rome itself drops into the background and the
provincial spirit asserts itself proportionally. The year 212 AD is
memorable for the edict of Caracalla converting all the free population into
Roman citizens.
(6) From Diocletian until Partition.
In the next period absolute monarchy of pure oriental type was established
by Diocletian, one of the ablest of Roman rulers. He inaugurated the
principle of division and subdivision of imperial power. The inevitable
separation of East and West, with the growing prominence of the East,
becomes apparent. Rome and Italy are reduced to the rank of provinces,
and new courts are opened by the two Augusti and two Caesars.
Diocletians division of power led to civil strife, until Constantine once
more united the whole empire under his sway. The center of gravity now
shifted from West to East by the foundation of Constantinople. The empire
was again parceled out to the sons of Constantine, one of whom,
Constantius, succeeded in again reuniting it (350 AD). In 364 it was again
divided, Valentinian receiving the West and Valens the East.
(7) Final Partition.
On the death of Theodosius I (395), West and East fell to his sons
Honorius and Arcadius, never again to be united. The western half rapidly
degenerated before barbaric hordes and weakling rulers. The western
provinces and Africa were overrun by conquering barbarians who set up
independent kingdoms on Roman soil. Burgundians and Visigoths settled
in Gaul; the latter established a kingdom in Spain. The Vandals under
Genseric settled first in Southern Spain, then crossed to Africa and reduced
it. Goths burst over Roman frontiers, settled in Illyria and invaded Italy.
Alaric and his Goths spared Rome in 408 for a ransom; in 409 he appeared
again and set up Attalus as king of the Romans, and finally in 410 he
captured and sacked the city. It was again sacked by the Vandals under
Genseric in 462, and, lastly, fell before Odoacer and his Germans in 476; he
announced to the world that the empire of the West had ceased. The
empire of the East continued at Constantinople the greatest political power
through a chequred history down to the capture of the city in 1214 and its
274
final capture by the Turks in 1453, when its spiritual and intellectual
treasures were opened to western lands and proved of untold blessing in
preparing the way for the Reformation of the 16th century. The East
conquered the West intellectually and spiritually. In the East was born the
religion of humanity.
2. Coming of the Monarchy:
(1) Exhaustion of Parties.
The Roman world had for two generations been steadily drifting toward
monarchy, and at least one generation before the empire was set up clear
minds saw the inevitable necessity of one-man government or supreme
power, and each political leader made it his ambition to grasp it. The civil
wars ceased for a century with the death of Antony. But the struggles of
Tiberius Gracchus and Scipio Aemilianus, Caius Gracchus and Opimius,
Drusus and Philippus, Marius and Sulla, Pompey and Caesar, and lastly
Octavian and Antony had exhausted the state, and this exhaustion of
political parties opened the way for monarchy. In fact it was a necessity for
the welfare of the commonwealth that one should be elevated who could
fairly hold the balance between oligarchy and the commons and duly
recognize the claims of all parties. Even Cato Uticensis the incarnation
of republican ideas admitted it would be better to choose a master than
wait for a tyrant. The bloody wars could find no solution except the
survival of the fittest. Moreover, the free political institutions of Rome had
become useless and could no longer work under the armed oppression of
factions. If any form of government, only supreme power would prove
effectual amid an enfeebled, unpopular senate, corrupt and idle commons,
and ambitious individuals.
(2) Inability of Either Aristocracy or Democracy to Hold
Equilibrium.
Events had proved that a narrow exclusive aristocracy was incapable of
good government because of its utterly selfish policy and disregard for the
rights of all lower orders. It had learned to burke liberty by political
murders. Neither was the heterogeneous population of later Rome
disciplined to obey or to initiate just government when it had seized power.
This anarchy within the body politic opened an easy way to usurpation by
individuals. No republic and no form of free popular government could live
under such conditions. Caesar said of the republic that it was a name
275
without any substance, and Curio declared it to be a vain chimera. The
law courts shared in the general corruption. The judicia became the bone of
contention between the senate and the knights as the best instrument for
party interests, and enabled the holders
(a) to receive large bribes,
(b) to protect their own order when guilty of the most flagrant
injustice, and
(c) to oppress other orders. Justice for all, and especially for
conquered peoples, was impossible. Elective assemblies refused to
perform their proper functions because of extravagant bribery or the
presence of candidates in arms. In fact, the people were willing to
forego the prerogative of election and accept candidates at the
nomination of a despotic authority. The whole people had become
incapable of self-government and were willing almost glad to be
relieved of the necessity.
(3) Precedents.
Besides, precedents for one-man government, or the concentration of
supreme power in one hand, were not wanting, and had been rapidly
multiplying in Roman history as it drew nearer to the end of the republic.
Numerous protracted commands and special commissions had accustomed
the state to the novelty of obedience without participation in
administration. The 7 consulships of Marius, the 4 of Cinna, the 3
extraordinary commissions of Pompey and his sole consulship, the
dictatorship of Sulla without time limit, the two 5-year-period military
commands of Caesar, his repeated dictatorships the last of which was to
extend for 10 years all these were pointing directly toward Caesarism.
(4) Withdrawal from Public Life: Individualism.
On another side the way was opened to supreme power by the increasing
tendency for some of the noblest and best minds to withdraw from public
life to the seclusion of the heart life and thus leave the field open for
demagogic ambition. After the conquests of Alexander the Great,
philosophy abandoned the civic, political or city-state point of view and
became moral and individual. Stoicism adopted the lofty spiritual teachings
of Plato and combined them with the idea of the brotherhood of humanity.
276
It also preached that man must work out his salvation, not in public
political life, but in the secret agonies of his own soul. This religion took
hold of the noblest Roman souls who were conscious of the weariness of
life and felt the desire for spiritual fellowship and comfort. The pendulum
in human systems of thought generally swings to the opposite extreme, and
these serious souls abandoned public life for private speculation and
meditation. Those who did remain at the helm of affairs like the younger
Cato were often too much idealists, living in the past or in an ideal
Platonic republic, and proved very unequal to the practical demagogues
who lived much in the present with a keen eye to the future. Also a
considerable number of the moderate party, who in better days would have
furnished leaders to the state, disgusted with the universal corruption,
saddened by the hopeless state of social strife and disquieted by uncertainty
as to the issue of victory for either contending party, held aloof and must
have wished for and welcomed a paramount authority to give stability to
social life. Monarchy was in the air, as proved by the sentiments of the two
pseudo-Sallustian letters, the author of which calls upon Caesar to restore
government and reorganize the state, for if Rome perish the whole world
must perish with her.
(5) Industrial.
To another considerable class monarchy must have been welcome the
industrial and middle class who were striving for competence and were
engaged in trade and commerce. Civil wars and the strife of parties must
have greatly hindered their activity. They cast their lot neither with the
optimates nor with the idle commonalty. They desired only a stable
condition of government under which they could uninterruptedly carry on
their trades.
(6) Military.
Military conditions favored supreme power. Not only had the lengthened
commands familiarized the general with his legions and given him time to
seduce the soldiery to his own cause, but the soldiery too had been petted
and spoiled like the spoon-fed populace. The old republican safeguards
against ambition had been removed. The ranks of the armies had also been
swollen with large numbers of provincials and non-Romans who had no
special sentiment about republican forms. We have seen the military power
growing more and more prominent. The only way of averting a military
277
despotism supported and prompted by the soldiers was to set up a
monarchy, holding all the military, legislative and administrative functions
of the state in due proportion. This was superior to a merely nominal
republic always cringing under fear of military leaders.
(7) Imperial Interests.
Lastly, the aggression and conquests of the republic had brought about a
state of affairs demanding an empire. The East and the West had been
subdued; many provinces and heterogeneous populations were living under
the Roman eagle. These provinces could not permanently be plundered and
oppressed as under the republican senate. The jus civile of Rome must
learn also the jus naturale and jus gentium. An exclusive selfish senatorial
clique was incapable of doing justice to the conquered peoples. One
supreme ruler over all classes raised above personal ambition could best
meet their grievances. The senate had ruled with a rod of iron; the
provinces could not possibly be worse under any form of government.
Besides, monarchy was more congenial to the provincials than a republic
which they could not comprehend.
(8) Influence of Orient.
The Orientals had long been used to living under imperial and absolute
forms of government and would welcome such a form among their new
conquerors. Besides, residence in the Orient had affected Roman military
leaders with the thirst after absolute power. And no other form was
possible when the old city-state system broke down, and as yet federal
government had not been dreamed of. Another consideration: the vast and
dissimilar masses of population living within the Roman dominions could
more easily be held together under a king or emperor than by a series of
ever-changing administrations, just as the Austro-Hungarian and the British
empires are probably held together better under the present monarchies
than would be possible under a republican system. This survey may make
clear the permanent interest in Roman history for all students of human
history. The Roman empire was established indeed in the fullness of the
times for its citizens and for Christianity.
278
II. PREPARATION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE FOR
CHRISTIANITY.
About the middle of the reign of Augustus a Jewish child was born who
was destined to rule an empire more extensive and lasting than that of the
Caesars. It is a striking fact that almost synchronous with the planting of
the Roman empire Christianity appeared in the world. Although on a
superficial glance the Roman empire may seem the greatest enemy of early
Christianity, and at times a bitter persecutor, yet it was in many ways the
grandest preparation and in some ways the best ally of Christianity. It
ushered in politically the fullness of the times. The Caesars whatever
they may have been or done prepared the way of the Lord. A brief
account must here be given of some of the services which the Roman
empire rendered to humanity and especially to the kingdom of God.
1. Pax Romana and the Unification of the World:
The first universal blessing conferred by the empire was the famous pax
Romana (Roman peace). The world had not been at peace since the days
of Alexander the Great. The quarrels of the Diadochi, and the aggression
of the Roman republic had kept the nations in a state of constant turmoil. A
universal peace was first established with the beginning of the reign of
Augustus and the closing of the temple of Janus. In all the countries round
the Mediterranean and from distant Britain to the Euphrates the world was
at rest. Rome had made an end of her own civil wars and had put a stop to
wars among the nations. Though her wars were often iniquitous and
unjustifiable, and she conquered like a barbarian, she ruled her conquests
like a humane statesman. The quarrels of the Diadochi which caused so
much turmoil in the East were ended, the territory of the Lagids; Attalids,
Seleucids and Antigonids having passed under the sway of Rome. The
empire united Greeks, Romans and Jews all under one government. Rome
thus blended the nations and prepared them for Christianity. Now for the
first time we may speak of the world as universal humanity, the orbis
terrarum, [q oxourvq, he oikoumene] (
<420201>
Luke 2:1), the genus
humanum. These terms represented humanity as living under a uniform
system of government. All were members of one earthly state; the Roman
empire was their communis omnium patria.
279
2. Cosmopolitanism:
This state of affairs contributed largely to the spread of cosmopolitanism
which had set in with the Macedonia conqueror. Under the Roman empire
all national barriers were removed; the great cities Rome, Alexandria,
Antioch, etc. became meeting-places of all races and languages. The
Romans were everywhere carrying their laws and civilization; Greeks
settled in thousands at all important centers as professors, merchants,
physicians, or acrobats; Orientals were to be found in large numbers with
their gods and mysteries in Rome, the epitome of the world. In the
Roman armies soldiers from all quarters of the empire became companions.
And many thousands of slaves of fine education and high culture
contributed much to cosmopolitanism. Being in many cases far superior in
culture to their masters, they became their teachers. And in every city of
importance, East or West, large bodies of the Jewish Diaspora were
settled.
3. Eclecticism:
This cosmopolitanism gave great impetus to a corresponding eclecticism of
thought. Nothing could have been more favorable to Christianity than this
intermixture of all races and mutual exchange of thought. Each people
discovered how much it had in common with its neighbors. From the days
of the Diadochi, Stoicism had been preaching the gospel of a civic and
ethical brotherhood of humanity. In the fusion of different philosophic
systems the emphasis had shifted from the city-state or political or national
to the moral and human point of view. All men were thus reduced to
equality before the One; only virtue and vice were the differentiating
factors. Men were akin with the divine at least the wise and good so
that one poet could say, We are His offspring.
Stoicism did a noble service in preparation for Christianity by preaching
universalism along the path of individualism. It also furnished comfort and
strength to countless thousands of weary human lives and ministered
spiritual support and calm resignation at many a heathen deathbed. It may
be declared to be the first system of religious thought for it was a
religion more than a philosophy which made a serious study of the
diseases of the human soul. We know of course its weakness and
imperfections, that it was an aristocratic creed appealing only to the elect
of mortals, that it had little message for the fallen and lower classes, that it
280
was cold and stern, that it lacked as Seneca felt the inspiration of an
ideal life. But with all its failures it proved a worthy pedagogue to a
religion which brought a larger message than that of Greece. It afforded
the spiritual and moral counterpart to the larger human society of which
the Roman empire was the political and visible symbol. Hitherto a good
citizen had been a good man. Now a good man is a good citizen, and that
not of a narrow city-state, but of the world. Stoicism also proved tile
interpreter and mouthpiece to the Roman empire of the higher moral and
spiritual qualities of Greek civilization; it diffused the best convictions of
Greece about God and man, selecting those elements that were universal
and of lasting human value.
See STOICS.
The mind of the Roman empire was further prepared for Christianity by the
Jewish Diaspora. Greeks learned from Jews and Jews from Greeks and the
Romans from both. The unification effected by Roman Law and
administration greatly aided the Diaspora. Jewish settlements became still
more numerous and powerful both in the East and West. Those Jews
bringing from the homeland the spiritual monotheism of their race
combined it with Greek philosophy which had been setting steadily for
monotheism. With the Jews the exclusively national element was
subordinated to the more human and universal, the ceremonial to the
religious. They even adopted the world-language of that day Greek
and had their sacred Scriptures translated into this language in which they
carried on an active proselytism. The Roman spirit was at first essentially
narrow and exclusive. But even the Romans soon fell beneath the spell of
this cosmopolitanism and eclecticism. As their conquests increased, their
mind was correspondingly widened. They adopted the policy of Alexander
sparing the gods of the conquered and admitting them into the
responsibility of guarding Rome; they assimilated them with their own
Pantheon or identified them with Roman gods. In this way naturally the
religious ideas of conquered races more highly civilized than the
conquerors laid hold on Roman minds.
See DISPERSION.
4. Protection for Greek Culture:
Another inestimable service rendered to humanity and Christianity was the
protection which the Roman power afforded the Greek civilization. We
281
must remember that the Romans were at first only conquering barbarians
who had little respect for culture, but idealized power. Already they had
wiped out two ancient and superior civilizations that of Carthage
without leaving a trace, and that of Etruria, traces of which have been
discovered in modern times. It is hard to conceive what a scourge Rome
would have proved to the world had she not fallen under the influence of
the superior culture and philosophy of Greece. Had the Roman Mars not
been educated by Pallas Athene the Romans would have proved Vandals
and Tartars in blotting out civilization and arresting human progress. The
Greeks, on the other hand, could conquer more by their preeminence in
everything that pertains to the intellectual life of man than they could hold
by the sword. A practical and political power was needed to protect Greek
speculation. But the Romans after causing much devastation were
gradually educated and civilized and have contributed to the uplifting and
enlightenment of subsequent civilizations by both preserving and opening
to the world the spiritual qualities of Greece. The kinship of man with the
divine, learned from Socrates and Plato, went forth on its wide evangel.
This Greek civilization, philosophy and theology trained many of the great
theologians and leaders of the Christian church, so that Clement of
Alexandria said that Greek philosophy and Jewish law had proved
schoolmasters to bring the world to Christ. Paul, who prevented
Christianity from remaining a Jewish sect and proclaimed its universalism,
learned much from Greek especially from Stoic thought. It is also
significant that the early Christian missionaries apparently went only where
the Greek language was known, which was the case in all centers of
Roman administration.
5. Linguistically:
The state of the Roman empire linguistically was in the highest degree
favorable to the spread of Christianity. The Greek republics by their
enterprise, superior genius and commercial abilities extended their dialects
over the Aegean Islands, the coasts of Asia Minor, Sicily and Magna
Graecia. The preeminence of Attic culture and literature favored by the
short-lived Athenian empire raised this dialect to a standard among the
Greek peoples. But the other dialects long persisted. Out of this babel of
Greek dialects there finally arose a normal koine or common language.
By the conquests of Alexander and the Hellenistic sympathies of the
Diadochi this common Greek language became the lingua franca of
antiquity. Greek was known in Northern India, at the Parthian court, and
282
on the distant shores of the Euxine (Black Sea). The native land of the
gospel was surrounded on all sides by Greek civilization. Greek culture and
language penetrated into the midst of the obstinate home-keeping
Palestinian Jews. Though Greek was not the mother-tongue of our Lord,
He understood Greek and apparently could speak it when occasion
required Aramaic being the language of His heart and of His public
teachings. The history of the Maccabean struggle affords ample evidence
of the extent to Which Greek culture, and with it the Greek language, were
familiar to the Jews. There were in later days Hellenistic bodies of devout
Jews in Jerusalem itself. Greek was recognized by the Jews as the universal
language: the inscription on the wall of the outer temple court forbidding
Gentiles under pain of death to enter was in Greek. The koine became the
language even of religion where a foreign tongue is least likely to be
used of the large Jewish Diaspora. They perceived the advantages of
Greek as the language of commerce the Jews occupation of culture
and of proselytizing. They threw open their sacred Scriptures in the
Septuagint and other versions to the Greek-Roman world, adapting the
translation in many respects to the requirements of Greek readers. The
Bible whose God was Yahweh was the Bible of one people: the Bible
whose God was ([xupo, kurios], Lord) was the Bible of humanity.
When the Romans came upon the scene, they found this language so
widely known and so deeply rooted they could not hope to supplant it.
Indeed they did not try except in Sicily and Magna Graecia to
suppress Greek, but rather gladly accepted it as the one common means of
intercourse among the peoples of their eastern dominions.
See LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Though Latin was of course the official language of the conquerors, the
decrees of governors generally appeared with a Greek translation, so that
they might be understanded of the people, and Greek overcame Latin, as
English drove out the French of the Norman invaders. Latin poets and
historians more than once complained that Graecia capta ferum victorem
cepit (conquered Greece vanquished its stern conqueror). With the
spread of Latin there were two world-languages side by side for the whole
Roman empire, but Greek was prevailingly the language of the eastern half
of the Roman empire which was the first soil for Christian churches and the
first half of the empire to be Christianized. Later when Christianity was
able to extend her activity to the West, she found Latin ready as the
common means of intercourse. That Rome respected Greek is greatly to
283
her credit and much to the advantage of Christianity. For Christianity,
when it began to aim at universalism, dropped its native Aramaic. The
gospel in order to become a world-evangel was translated into Greek. The
early Christian missionaries did not learn the languages or patois of the
Roman empire, but confined themselves to centers of Greek culture. Paul
wrote in Greek to the church in Rome itself, of which Greek was the
language. And while Christianity was spreading through the Greek East
under the unification of Roman administration, the Romans were
Romanizing and leveling the West for Latin Christianity (see LATIN). In
the West it may be noted that the first foothold of the Christian religion
was in Greek witness the church in Gaul.
6. Materially:
In material ways too Rome opened the way for Christianity by building the
great highways for the gospel. The great system of roads that knit then
civilized world together served not only the legions and the imperial
escorts, but were of equal service to the early missionaries, and when
churches began to spring up over the empire, these roads greatly facilitated
that church organization and brotherhood which strengthened the church
to overcome the empire. With the dawn of the pax Romana all these roads
became alive once more with a galaxy of caravans and traders. Commerce
revived and was carried on under circumstances more favorable than any
that obtained till the past century. Men exchanged not only material things,
but also spiritual things. Many of these early traders and artisans were
Christians, and while they bought and sold the things that perish, they did
not lose an opportunity of spreading the gospel. For an empire which
embraced the Mediterranean shores, the sea was an important means of
intercommunication; and the Mediterranean routes were safer for
commerce and travel at that period than during any previous one. Pompey
the Great had driven the pirates off the sea, and with the fall of Sextus
Pompey no hostile maritime forces remained. The ships which plied in
countless numbers from point to point of this great inland sea offered
splendid advantages and opportunity for early Christian missionary
enthusiasm.
7. Tolerance:
The large measure of freedom permitted by Roman authorities to the
religions of all nations greatly favored the growth of infant Christianity.
284
The Roman empire was never in principle a persecutor with a permanent
court of inquisition. Strange cults from the East and Egypt flourished in the
capital, and except when they became a danger to public morality or to the
peace of society they were allowed to spread unchecked under the eyes of
the police. See below on non-Roman religions.
8. Pattern for a Universal Church:
Further, the Roman empire afforded Christianity a material and outward
symbol for its spiritual ambition. It enlarged the vision of the church. Only
a citizen (Paul) of such a world-empire could dream of a religion for all
humanity. If the Roman sword could so conquer and unify the orbis
terrarum, the militant church should be provoked to attempt nothing less in
the religious sphere. It also furnished many a suggestion to the early
organizers of the new community, until the Christian church became the
spiritual counterpart of the Roman empire. The Christians appropriated
many a weapon from the arsenal of the enemy and learned from them
aggressiveness, the value of thorough organization and of military
methods.
9. Roman Jurisprudence:
Roman law in its origins was characterized by the narrowest exclusiveness,
and the first formal Roman code was on Greek patterns, yet the Romans
here as in so many other respects improved upon what they had borrowed
and became masters of jurisprudence in the antique world. As their empire
and conceptions expanded, they remodeled their laws to embrace all their
subjects. One of the greatest boons conferred by Rome upon the antique
world was a uniform system of good laws the source of much of our
European jurisprudence. The Roman law played an equally important role
with the Jewish in molding and disciplining for Christianity. It taught men
to obey and to respect authority, and proved an effective leveling and
civilizing power in the empire. The universal law of Rome was the
pedagogue for the universal law of the gospel.
See ROMAN LAW.
10. Negative Preparation:
The Romans could offer their subjects good laws, uniform government and
military protection, but not a satisfactory religion. A universal empire
called for a universal religion, which Christianity alone could offer. Finally,
285
not only by what Rome had accomplished but by what she proved
incapable of accomplishing, the way of the Lord was made ready and a
people prepared for His coming. It was a terrible crisis in the civilization
and religion of antiquity. The old national religions and systems of belief
had proved unable to soothe increasing imperious moral and spiritual
demands of mans nature. A moral bankruptcy was immanent. The old
Roman religion of abstract virtues had gone down in formalism; it was too
cold for human hearts. Man could no longer find the field of his moral
activity in the religion of the state; he was no longer merely an atom in
society performing religious rites, not for his own soul, but for the good of
the commonwealth. Personality had been slowly emerging, and the new
schools of philosophy called man away from the state to seek peace with
God in the solitude of his own soul first of all. But even the best of these
schools found the crying need of a positive, not a negative religion, the
need for a perfect ideal life as a dynamic over ordinary human lives. Thus
was felt an imperious demand for a new revelation, for a fresh vision or
knowledge of God. In earlier days men had believed that God had revealed
Himself to primitive wise men or heroes of their race, and that subsequent
generations must accept with faith what these earlier seers, who stood
nearer God, as Cicero said, had been pleased to teach of the divine. But
soon this stock of knowledge became exhausted. Plato, after soaring to the
highest point of poetic and philosophic thought about the divine, admitted
the need of a demon or superman to tell us the secrets of eternity. With the
early Roman empire began a period of tremendous religious unrest. Men
tried philosophy, magic, astrology, foreign rites, to find a sure place of rest.
This accounts for the rapid and extensive diffusion of oriental mysteries
which promised to the initiated communion with God here, a better hope
in death, and satisfied the craving for immortality beyond time. These were
the more serious souls who would gladly accept the consolations of Jesus.
Others, losing all faith in any form of religion, gave themselves up to blank
despair and accepted Epicureanism with its gospel of annihilation and its
carpe diem morals. This system had a terrible fascination for those who had
lost themselves; it is presented in its most attractive form in the verses of
Lucretius the Omar Khayyam of Latin literature. Others again, unable to
find God, surrendered themselves to cheerless skepticism. The sore need of
the new gospel of life and immortality will be borne in upon the mind of
those who read the Greek and Roman sepulchral inscriptions. And even
Seneca, who was almost a Christian in some respects, speaks of
immortality as a beautiful dream (bellum somnium), though tribulation
286
later gave a clearer vision of the city of God. Servius Sulpicius, writing
to Cicero a letter of consolation on the death of his much-missed Tullia,
had only a sad if to offer about the future (Cic. Fam. iv.5). Nowhere
does the unbelief and pessimism of pre-Christian days among the higher
classes strike one more forcibly than in the famous discussion recorded by
Sallust (Bel. Cat. li f) as to the punishment of the Catilinarian conspirators.
Caesar, who held the Roman high-priesthood and the highest authority on
the religion of the state, proposes life imprisonment, as death would only
bring annihilation and rest to these villains no hereafter, no reward or
punishment (eam cuncta mortalium mala dissolvere; ultra neque curae
neque gaudio locum esse). Cato next speaks the most religious man of
his generation in terms which cast no rebuke upon Caesars
Epicureanism and materialism (ibid., 52). Cicero (In Cat. iv.4) is content to
leave immortality an open question. The philosophers of Athens mocked
Paul on Mars Hill when he spoke of a resurrection. Such was the attitude
of the educated classes of the Greek-Roman world at the dawn of
Christianity, though it cannot be denied that there was also a strong desire
for continued existence. The other classes were either perfunctorily
performing the rites of a dead national religion or wereseeking, some,
excitement or aesthetic worship or even scope for their baser passions,
some, peace and promise for the future, in the eastern mysteries. The
distinction between moral and physical evil was coming to the surface, and
hence, a consciousness of sin. Religion and ethics had not yet been united.
The throne of the human mind was declared vacant, and Christianity was
at hand as the best claimant. In fact, the Greek-Roman mind had been
expanding to receive the pure teachings of Jesus.
III. ATTITUDE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE TO RELIGIONS.
1. Roman or State Religion:
The history of Roman religion reveals a continuous penetration of Italian,
Etruscan, Greek, Egyptian and oriental worship and rites, until the old
Roman religion became almost unrecognizable, and even the antiquarian
learning of a Varro could scarcely discover the original meaning or use of
many Roman deities. The Roman elements or modes of worship
progressively retreated until they and the foreign rites with which they
were overlaid gave way before the might of Christianity. As Rome
expanded, her religious demands increased. During the regal period Roman
287
religion was that of a simple agricultural community. In the period between
the Regifugium and the Second Punic War Roman religion became more
complicated and the Roman Pantheon was largely increased by
importations from Etruria, Latium and Magna Graecia. The mysterious
religion of Etruria first impressed the Roman mind, and from this quarter
probably came the Trinity of the Capitol (Jupiter, Juno, Minerva)
previously introduced into Etruria from Greek sources, thus showing that
the Romans were not the first in Italy to be influenced by the religion of
Greece. New modes of worship, non-Roman in spirit, also came in from
the Etruscans and foreign elements of Greek mythology. Latium also made
its contribution, the worship of Diana coming from Aricia and also a Latin
Jupiter. Two Latin cults penetrated even within the Roman pomoerium
that of Hercules and Castor, with deities of Greek origin. The Greek
settlements in Southern Italy (Magna Graecia) were generous in their
contributions and opened the way for the later invasion of Greek deities.
The Sibylline Books were early imported from Cumae as sacred scriptures
for the Romans. In 493 BC during a famine a temple was built to the Greek
trinity Demeter, Dionysus, and Persephone, under the Latin names of
Ceres, Liber, and Libera the beginning of distrust in the primitive
Roman numina and of that practice, so oft repeated in Roman history, of
introducing new and foreign gods at periods of great distress. In 433
Apollo came from the same region. Mercury and Asclepius followed in 293
BC, and in 249 BC Dis and Proserpina were brought from Tarentum.
Other non-Roman modes of approach to deity were introduced. Rome had
been in this period very broad-minded in her policy of meeting the growing
religious needs of her community, but she had not so far gone beyond Italy.
A taste had also developed for dramatic and more aesthetic forms of
worship. The period of the Second Punic War was a crisis in Roman
religious life, and the faith of the Romans waned before growing unbelief.
Both the educated classes and the populace abandoned the old Roman
religion, the former sank into skepticism, the latter into superstition; the
former put philosophy in the place of religion, the latter the more sensuous
cults of the Orient. The Romans went abroad again to borrow deities
this time to Greece, Asia and Egypt. Greek deities were introduced
wholesale, and readily assimilated to or identified with Roman deities (see
ROME, III, 1). In 191 BC Hebe entered as Juventas, in 179 Artemis as
Diana, in 138 Ares as Mars. But the home of religion the Orient
proved more helpful. In 204 BC Cybele was introduced from Pessinus to
Rome, known also as the Great Mother (magna mater) a fatal and final
288
blow to old Roman religion and an impetus to the wilder and more
orgiastic cults and mysterious glamor which captivated the common mind.
Bacchus with his gross immorality soon followed. Sulla introduced Ma
from Phrygia as the counterpart of the Roman Bellona, and Egypt gave
Isis. In the wars of Pompey against the pirates Mithra was brought to
Rome the greatest rival of Christianity. Religion now began to pass into
the hands of politicians and at the close of the republic was almost entirely
in their hands. Worship degenerated into formalism, and formalism
culminated in disuse. Under the empire philosophic systems continued still
more to replace religion, and oriental rites spread apace. The religious
revival of Augustus was an effort to breathe life into the dry bones. His
plan was only partly religious, and partly political to establish an
imperial and popular religion of which he was the head and centering round
his person. He discovered the necessity of an imperial religion. In the East
kings had long before been regarded as divine by their subjects. Alexander
the Great, like a wise politician, intended to use this as one bond of union
for his wide dominions. The same habit extended among the Diadochian
kings, especially in Egypt and Syria. When Augustus had brought peace to
the world, the Orient was ready to hail him as a god. Out of this was
evolved the cult of the reigning emperor and of Roma personified. This
worship gave religious unity to the empire, while at the same time
magnifying the emperor. But the effort was in vain: the old Roman religion
was dead, and the spiritual needs of the empire continued to be met more
and more by philosophy and the mysteries which promised immortality.
The cult of the Genius of the emperor soon lost all reality. Vespasian
himself on his deathbed jested at the idea of his becoming a god. The
emperor-worship declined steadily, and in the 3rd and 4th centuries oriental
worships were supreme. The religion of the Roman empire soon became of
that cosmopolitan and eclectic type so characteristic of the new era.
2. Non-Roman Religions: religiones licitae and religiones illicitae:
The non-Roman religions were divided into religiones licitae (licensed
worships) and religiones illicitae (unlicensed). The Romans at different
times, on account of earthquakes, pestilences, famine or military disasters,
introduced non-Roman cults as means of appeasing the numina. This
generally meant that the cults in question could be performed with
impunity by their foreign adherents. It legalized the collegia necessary for
these worships from which Roman citizens were by law excluded. But,
generally speaking, any people settling at Rome was permitted the liberty
289
of its own native worship in so far as the exercise of it did not interfere
with the peace of the state or corrupt the morals of society. On one
occasion (186 BC), by a decree of the senate, a severe inquisition was
instituted against the Bacchanalian rites which had caused flagrant
immorality among the adherents. But Rome was never a systematic
persecutor. These foreign rites and superstitions, though often forbidden
and their professed adherents driven from the city, always returned
stronger than ever. Roman citizens soon discovered the fascination of
oriental and Greek mysteries, and devoted themselves to foreign gods
while maintaining the necessary formalism toward the religion of the state.
Very often too Roman citizens would be presidents of these religious
brotherhoods. It should not be forgotten that the original moral elements
had fallen out of Roman religion, and that it had become simply a political
and military religion for the welfare of the state, not for the salvation of the
individual. The individual must conform to certain prescribed rites in order
to avert calamity from the state. This done, the state demanded no more,
and left him a large measure of freedom in seeking excitement or aesthetic
pleasure in the warm and more social foreign mysteries. Thus, while the
Romans retained the distinction of religiones licitae and illicitae, they
seldom used severity against the latter. Many unlicensed cults were never
disturbed. In fact, the very idea of empire rendered toleration of non-
Roman religions a necessity. Practically, though not theoretically, the
empire abandoned the idea of religiones illicitae, while it retained it upon
the statute-book to use in case of such an emergency as the Christian
religion involved. Not only the government was tolerant, but the different
varieties of religions were tolerant and on good terms with each other. The
same man might be initiated into the mysteries of half a dozen divinities.
The same man might even be priest of two or more gods. Some had not the
slightest objection to worshipping Christ along with Mithra, Isis and
Adonis. Men were growing conscious of the oneness of the divine, and
credited their neighbors with worshipping the One Unknown under
different names and forms. Hadrian is said to have meditated the erection
of temples throughout the empire to the Unknown God.
(1) Judaism a religio licita.
An interesting and, for the history of Christianity, important example of a
religio licita is Judaism. No more exclusive and obstinate people could have
been found upon whom to bestow the favor. Yet from the days of Julius
Caesar the imperial policy toward the Jew and his religion was uniformly
290
favorable, with the brief exception of the mad attempt of Gaius. The
government often protected them against the hatred of the populace. Up to
70 AD they were allowed freely to send their yearly contribution to the
temple; they were even allowed self-governing privileges and legislative
powers among themselves, and thus formed an exclusive community in the
midst of Roman society. Even the disastrous war of 68-70 AD and the fall
of Jerusalem did not bring persecution upon the Jew, though most of these
self-governing and self-legislating powers were withdrawn and the Jews
were compelled to pay a poll-tax to the temple of the Capitoline Jupiter.
Still their religion remained licensed, tolerated, protected. They were
excused from duties impossible for their religion, such as military service.
This tolerance of the Jewish religion was of incalculable importance to
infant Christianity which at first professed to be no more than a reformed
and expanded Judaism.
(2) Why Christianity Was Alone Proscribed.
The question next arises: If such was the universally mild and tolerant
policy of the empire to find room for all gods and cults, and to respect the
beliefs of all the subject peoples, how comes the anomaly that Christianity
alone was proscribed and persecuted? Christianity was indeed a religio
illicita, not having been accepted by the government as a religio licita, like
Judaism. But this is no answer. There were other unlicensed religions
which grew apace in the empire. Neither was it simply because Christianity
was aggressive and given to proselytism and dared to appear even in the
imperial household: Mithraism and Isism were militant and aggressive, and
yet were tolerated. Nor was it simply because of popular hatred, for the
Christian was not hated above the Jew. Other reasons must explain the
anomaly.
(3) Two Empires: Causes of Conflict.
The fact was that two empires were born about the same time so like and
yet so unlike as to render a conflict and struggle to the death inevitable.
The Christians were unequivocal in asserting that the society for which
they were waiting and laboring was a kingdom.
(a) Confusion of Spiritual and Temporal:
They thought not merely in national or racial but in ecumenical terms. The
Romans could not understand a kingdom of God upon earth, but confused
291
Christian ambition with political. It was soon discovered that Christianity
came not to save but to destroy and disintegrate the empire. Early Christian
enthusiasm made the term kingdom very provoking to pagan patriotism,
for many, looking for the Parousia of their Lord, were themselves misled
into thinking of the new society as a kingdom soon to be set up upon the
earth with Christ as king. Gradually, of course, Christians became
enlightened upon this point, but the harm had been done. Both the Rein
empire and Christianity were aiming at a social organization to embrace the
genus humanum. But though these two empires were so alike in several
points and the one had done so much to prepare the way for the other, yet
the contrast was too great to allow conciliation. Christianity would not lose
the atom in the mass; it aimed at universalism along the path of
individualism giving new value to human personality.
(b) Unique Claims of Christianity:
It seemed also to provoke Roman pride by its absurd claims. It preached
that the world was to be destroyed by fire to make way for new heavens
and a new earth, that the Eternal City (Rome) was doomed to fall, that a
king would come from heaven whom Christians were to obey, that amid
the coming desolations the Christians should remain tranquil.
(c) Novelty of Christianity:
Again after Christianity came from underneath the aegis of Judaism, it must
have taken the government somewhat by surprise as a new and unlicensed
religion which had grown strong under a misnomer. It was the newest and
latest religion of the empire; it came suddenly, as it were, upon the stage
with no past. It was not apparent to the Roman mind that Christianity had
been spreading for a generation under the tolerance granted to Judaism
(sub umbraculo licitae Judeorum religionis: Tert.), the latter of which was
protected by its antiquity, as Tacitus said. The Romans were of a
conservative nature and disliked innovations. The greatest statesman of the
Augustan era, Maecenas, advised the emperor to extend no tolerance to
new religions as subversive of monarchy (Dio Cassius lii.36). A new faith
appearing suddenly with a large clientele might be dangerous to the public
peace (multitude ingens: Tac. Ann. xv.44; [ou q0o, polu plethos]
Clem. Rom.; Cor 1 6).
292
(d) Intolerance and Exclusiveness of the Christian Religion and
Christian Society:
In one marked way Christians contravcned the tolerant eclective spirit of
the empire the intolerance and absoluteness of their religion and the
exclusiveness of their society. All other religions of the empire admitted
compromise and eclecticism, were willing to dwell rather on the points of
contact with their neighbors than on the contrast. But Christianity admitted
no compromise, was intolerant to all other systems. It must be admitted
that in this way it was rather unfair to other cults which offered comfort
and spiritual support to thousands of the human race before the dawn of
Christianity. But we shall not blame, when we recognize that for its own
life and mission it was necessary to show itself at first intolerant. Many
heathen would gladly accept Christ along with Mithra and Isis and Serapis.
But Christianity demanded complete separation. The Jesus cult could
tolerate no rival: it claimed to be absolute, and worshippers of Jesus must
be separate from the world. The Christian church was absolute in its
demands; would not rank with, but above, all worships. This spirit was of
course at enmity with that of the day which enabled rival cults to co-exist
with the greatest indifference. Add to this the exclusive state of Christian
society. No pious heathen who had purified his soul by asceticism and the
sacraments of antiquity could be admitted into membership unless he
renounced things dear to him and of some spiritual value. In every detail of
public life this exclusive spirit made itself felt. Christians met at night and
held secret assemblies in which they were reputed to perpetrate the most
scandalous crimes. Thyestean banquets, Oedipean incest, child murder,
were among the charges provoked by their exclusiveness.
(e) Obstinatio:
Add to this also the sullen obstinacy with which Christians met the
demands of imperial power a feature very offensive to Rein governors.
Their religion would be left them undisturbed if they would only render
formal obedience to the religion of the state. Roman clemency and respect
for law were baffled before Christian obstinacy. The martyrs courage
appeared as sheer fanaticism. The pious Aurelius refers but once to
Christianity, and in the words [gq opoto, psile parataxis], sheer
obstinacy, and Aristides apparently refers to Christianity as [ou0oro,
authadeia], stubbornness.
293
See PERSECUTIONS, 18.
(f) Aggressiveness against Pagan Faith:
But the Christians were not content with an uncompromising withdrawal
from the practices of heathen worship: they also actively assailed the pagan
cult. To the Christians they became doctrines of demons. The imperial cult
and worship of the Genius of the emperor were very unholy in their sight.
Hence, they fell under the charges of disloyalty to the emperor and might
be proved guilty of majestas. They held in contempt the doctrine that the
greatness of Rome was due to her reverence for the gods; the Christians
were atheists from the pagan point of view. And as religion was a political
concern for the welfare of the state, atheism was likely to call down the
wrath of divinity to the subversion of the state.
(g) Christianos ad leones: Public Calamities:
Very soon when disasters began to fall thickly upon the Roman empire, the
blame was laid upon the Christians. In early days Rome had often sought to
appease the gods by introducing external cults; at other times oriental cults
were expelled in the interests of public morality. Now in times of disaster
Christians became the scapegoats. If famine, drought, pestilence,
earthquake or any other public calamity threatened, the cry was raised the
Christians to the lions (see NERO; PERSECUTIONS, 12). This view of
Christianity as subversive of the empire survived the fall of Rome before
Alaric. The heathen forgot as the apologists showed that Rome had
been visited by the greatest calamities before the Christian era and that the
Christians were the most self-sacrificing in periods of public distress,
lending succor to pagan and Christian alike.
(h) Odium generis humani:
All prejudices against Christianity were summed up in odium generis
humani, hatred for the human race or society, which was reciprocated by
hatred of the human race toward them. The Christians were bitterly
hated, not only by the populace, but by the upper educated classes. Most of
the early adherents belonged to the slave, freedman and artisan classes,
not many wise, not many noble. Few were Roman citizens. We have
mentioned the crimes which popular prejudice attributed to this hated sect.
They were in mockery styled Christiani by the Antiochians (a name which
they at first resented), and Nazarenes by the Jews. No nicknames were too
294
vile to attach to them Asinarii (the sect that worshipped the asss head),
Sarmenticii or Semaxii. Roman writers cannot find epithets strong enough.
Tacitus reckons the Christian faith among the atrocious and abominable
things (atrocia aut pudenda) which flooded Rome, and further designates
it superstitio exitiabilis (baneful superstition, Ann. xv.44), Suetonius
(Ner. 16) as novel and maletic (novae ac maleficae), and the gentle Pliny
(Ep. 97) as vile and indecent (prava immodica). Well might Justus say the
Christians were hated and reviled by the whole human race. This
opprobrium was accentuated by the attacks of philosophy upon
Christianity. When the attention of philosophers was drawn to the new
religion, it was only to scorn it. This attitude of heathen philosophy is best
understood in reading Celsus and the Christian apologists.
(4) The Roman Empire Not the Only Disturbing Factor.
Philosophy long maintained its aloofness from the religion of a crucified
Galilean: the wise were the last to enter the kingdom of God. When later
Christianity had established itself as a permanent force in human thought,
philosophy deigned to consider its claims. But it was too late; the new faith
was already on the offensive. Philosophy discovered its own weakness and
began to reform itself by aiming at being both a philosophy and a religion.
This is particularly the case in neo-Platonism (in Plotinus) in which reason
breaks down before revelation and mysticism. Another force disturbing the
peace of the Christian church was the enemy within the fold. Large
numbers of heathen had entered the ecclesia bringing with them their
oriental or Greek ideas, just as Jewish Christians brought their Judaism
with them. This led to grave heresies, each system of thought distorting in
its own way the orthodox faith. Later another ally joined the forces against
Christianity reformed paganism led by an injured priesthood. At first the
cause of Christianity was greatly aided by the fact that there was no
exclusive and jealous priesthood at the head of the Greek-Roman religion,
as in the Jewish and oriental religions. There was thus no dogma and no
class interested in maintaining a dogma. Religious persecution is invariably
instituted by the priesthood, but in the Roman world it was not till late in
the day when the temples and sacrifices were falling into desuetude that we
find a priesthood as a body in opposition. Thus the Roman imperial power
stood not alone in antagonism to Christianity, but was abetted and often
provoked to action by
(a) popular hate,
295
(b) philosophy,
(c) pagan priesthood,
(d) heresies within the church.
IV. RELATIONS BETWEEN THE ROMAN EMPIRE AND
CHRISTIANITY.
We have here to explain how the attitude of the Roman empire, at first
friendly or indifferent, developed into one of fierce conflict, the different
stages in the policy if we can speak of any uniform policy of the
Roman government toward Christianity, the charges or mode of procedure
on which Christians were condemned, and when and how the profession of
Christianity (nomen ipsum) became a crime. We shall see the Roman
empire progressively weakening and Christianity gaining ground. For the
sake of clearness we shall divide the Roman empire into six periods, the
first from the commencement of the Christian era till the last of the Julio-
Claudian dynasty.
1. Beginning of Christianity until Death of Nero, 68 AD:
At first the presence of the Christian faith was unknown to Roman
authorities. It appeared first merely as a reformed and more spiritual
Judaism; its earliest preachers and adherents alike never dreamed of
severing from the synagogue. Christians were only another of the Jewish
sects to which a Jew might belong while adhering to Mosaism and Judaism.
But soon this friendly relation became strained on account of the expanding
views of some of the Christian preachers, and from the introduction of
Gentile proselytes. The first persecutions for the infant church came
entirely from exclusive Judaism, and it was the Jews who first accused
Christians before the Roman courts. Even so, the Roman government not
only refused to turn persecutor, but even protected the new faith both
against Jewish accusations and against the violence of the populace
(
<442131>
Acts 21:31 f). And the Christian missionaries especially Paul
soon recognized in the Roman empire an ally and a power for good.
Writing to the Romans Paul counsels them to submit in obedience to the
powers that be, as ordained of God. His favorable impression must have
been greatly enhanced by his mild captivity at Rome and his acquittal by
Nero on the first trial. The Roman soldiers had come to his rescue in
Jerusalem to save his life from the fanaticism of his own coreligionists.
296
Toward the accusations of the Jews against their rivals the Romans were
either indifferent, as Gallio the proconsul of Achaia, who cared for none
of those things (
<441812>
Acts 18:12 ff), or recognized the innocence of the
accused, as did both Felix (
<442401>
Acts 24:1 ff) and Porcius Festus (
<442514>
Acts
25:14 ff). Thus the Romans persisted in looking upon Christians as a sect
of the Jews. But the Jews took another step in formulating a charge of
disloyalty (begun before Pilate) against the new sect as acting contrary to
the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus
(
<441707>
Acts 17:7; compare 25:8). Christianity was disowned thus early by
Judaism and cast upon its own resources. The increasing numbers of
Christians would confirm to the Roman government the independence of
Christianity. And the trial of a Roman citizen, Paul, at Rome would further
enlighten the authorities.
The first heathen persecution of Christianity resulted from no definite
policy, no apprehension of danger to the body politic, and no definite
charges, but from an accidental spark which kindled the conflagration of
Rome (July, 64 AD). Up to this time no emperor had taken much notice of
Christianity. It was only in the middle of the reign of Augustus that Jesus
was born. In the reign of Tiberius belong Jesus public ministry, crucifixion
and resurrection; but his reign closed too early (37 AD) to allow any
prominence to the new faith, though this emperor was credited with
proposing to the senate a decree to receive Christ into the Roman pantheon
legend of course. Under the brief principate of the mad Gaius (37-41
AD) the new way was not yet divorced from the parent faith. Gaius
caused a diversion in favor of the Christians by his persecution of the Jews
and the command to set up his own statue in the temple. In the next reign
(Claudius, 41-54 AD) the Jews were again harshly treated, and thousands
were banished from Rome (Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue
tumultuantes Roma expulit: Suet. Claud. 25). Some would see in this an
action against the Christians by interpreting the words as meaning riots
between Jews and Christians, in consequence of which some Christians
were banished as Jews, but Dio Cassius (lx.6) implies that it was a police
regulation to restrain the spread of Jewish worship. It was in the reign of
Nero, after the fire of 64 AD, that the first hostile step was taken by the
government against the Christians, earliest account of which is given by
Tacitus (Ann. xv.44). Neros reckless career had given rise to the rumor
that he was the incendiary, that he wished to see the old city burned in
order to rebuild it on more magnificent plans. See NERO. Though he did
297
everything possible to arrest the flames, even exposing his own life, took
every means of alleviating the destitution of the sufferers, and ordered such
religious rites as might appease the wrath of the gods, the suspicion still
clung to him.
Accordingly in order to dissipate the rumor, he put forward as guilty
(subdidit reos) and inflicted the most cruel punishments on those who were
hated for their abominations (flagitia) and called Christians by the
populace. The originator of that name, Christus, had been executed by the
procurator Pontius Pilatus in the reign of Tiberius, and the baneful
superstition (exitiabilis superstitio) put down for the time being broke out
again, not only throughout Judea, the home of this evil, but also in the City
(Rome) where all atrocious and shameful (atrocia aut pudenda) things
converge and are welcomed. Those therefore who confessed (i.e. to being
Christians) were first arrested, and then by the information gained from
them a large number (multitudo ingens) were implicated (coniuncti is the
manuscript reading, not conuicti), not so much on the charge of
incendiarism as for hatred of mankind (odio humani generis). The victims
perished amid mockery (text here uncertain); some clothed in the skins of
wild beasts were torn to pieces by dogs; others impaled on crosses in order
to be set on fire to afford light by night after daylight had died. .... Whence
(after these cruelties) commiseration began to be felt for them, though
guilty and deserving the severest penalties (quamquam adversus sontes et
novissima exempla meritos), for men felt their destruction was not from
considerations of public welfare but to gratify the cruelty of one person
(Nero).
This passage the earliest classical account of the crucifixion and the only
mention of Pilate in a heathen author offers some difficulties which
require to be glanced at. It is held by some that Tacitus contradicts himself
by writing subdidit reos at the beginning and sontes at the end, but sontes
does not mean guilty of incendiarism, but guilty from the point of view of
the populace and deserving severe punishment for other supposed flagitia,
not for arson. It is thus quite clear that Tacitus regards the Christians as
innocent, though he had not the slightest kindly feeling toward them. Qui
fatebantur means most naturally, those who confessed to being
Christians, though Arnold argues that confiteri or profiteri would be the
correct word for professing a religion. But this would contradict both the
sense and the other evidences of the context; for if fatebantur could mean
confessed to arson, then the whole body of Christians should have been
298
arrested, and, further, this would have diverted suspicion from Nero, which
was not the case according to Tacitus. Some Christians boldly asserted
their religion, others no doubt, as in Bithynia, recanted before tribulation.
By indicio eorum Ramsay (Christianity in the Roman Empire, 233)
understands on the information elicited at their trial, i.e. from information
gathered by the inquisitors in the course of the proceedings. This incidental
information implicated a large number of others, hence Ramsay prefers the
manuscript reading coniuncti to the correction conuicti. This is in order to
explain the difficulty seemingly raised, namely, that the noblest Christians
who boldly confessed their Christianity would seek to implicate brethren.
But it is not impossible that some of these bold spirits did condescend to
give the names of their coreligionists to the Roman courts. Hence, Hardy
(Christianity and the Roman Government, 67) prefers the more usual
rendering of indicio eorum as on information received from them. This
may have occurred either
(1) through torture, or
(2) for promised immunity, or
(3) on account of local jealousies. The early Christian communities
were not perfect; party strife often ran high as at Corinth. And in a
church like that of Rome composed of Jewish and pagan elements and
undoubtedly more cosmopolitan than Corinth, a bitter sectarian spirit is
easy to understand. This as a probable explanation is much
strengthened and rendered almost certain by the words of Clement of
Rome, who, writing to the church at Corinth (chapter vi) from Rome
only a generation after the persecution, and thus familiar with the
internal history of the Roman ecclesia, twice asserts that a ([ou
q0o, polu plethos] = Tac. multitudo ingens) of the Roman
Christians suffered ([o qo, dia zelos]), through jealousy or
strife. The most natural and obvious meaning is mutual or sectarian
jealousy. But those who do not like this fact explain it as by the
jealousy of the Jews. Nothing is more easily refuted, for had it been
the jealousy of the Jews Clement would not have hesitated one moment
to say so. Those who are familiar with the Christian literature of that
age know that the Christians were none too sensitive toward Jewish
feelings. But the very fact that it was not the Jews made Clement rather
modestly omit details the memory of which was probably still bearing
fruit, even in his day. Once more correpti, usually rendered arrested,
299
is taken by Hardy as put upon their trial. He argues that this is more
in accord with Tacitean usage. A huge multitude need not cause us
to distrust Tacitus. It is a relative term; it was a considerable number to
be so inhumanly butchered. There is some hesitation as to whether odio
humani generis is objective or subjective genitive: hatred of the
Christians toward the human race or hatred of the human race
toward the Christians. Grammatically of course it may be either, but
that it is the former there can be no doubt: it was of the nature of a
charge against Christians (Ramsay).
See PERSECUTION.
Some have impugned the veracity of Tacitus in this very important
passage, asserting that he had read back the feelings and state of affairs of
his own day (half a century later) into this early Neronian period. This early
appearance of Christianity as a distinct religion and its huge multitude
seem impossible to some. Schiller has accordingly suggested that it was the
Jews who as a body at Rome were persecuted, that the Christians being not
yet distinct from Jews shared in the persecutions and suffered, not as
Christians, but as Jews. But Tacitus is too trustworthy a historian to be
guilty of such a confusion; besides, as proconsul in Asia he must have been
more or less familiar with the origin of the Christian party. Also Poppea
was at this time mistress of Neros affections and sufficiently influential
with him to stay such a cruel persecution against those to whom she had a
leaning and who claimed her as proselyte. Again, the Jewish faith was certe
licita and a recognized worship of the empire.
The next question is, Why were the Christians alone selected for
persecution? That they were so singled out we know, but exactly for what
reason is hard to say with certainty. A number of reasons no doubt
contributed.
(1) Farrar (Early Days chapter iv) sees in the proselytism of Poppea,
guided by Jewish malice, the only adequate explanation of the first
Christian persecution, and Lightfoot is of the same opinion, but this by
itself is inadequate, though the Jews would be glad of an opportunity of
taking revenge on their aggressive opponents.
(2) Christians had already become in the eyes of the Roman authorities
a distinct sect, either from the reports of the eastern provincial
governors, where Christianity was making most headway, or from the
300
attention attracted by Pauls first trial. They were thus the newest
religious sect, and as such would serve as victims to appease deity and
the populace.
(3) Even if ingens multitudo be rhetorical, the Christians were no doubt
considerably numerous in Rome. Their aggressiveness and active
proselytism made their numbers even more formidable.
(4) They were uncompromising in their expression of their beliefs; they
looked for a consummation of the earth by fire and were also eagerly
expecting the Parousia of their king to reconstitute society. These
tenets together with their calm faith amid the despair of others would
easily cast suspicion upon them.
(5) For whatever reason, they had earned the opprobrium of the
populace. The hatred for the Jews passed over to hatred for the
Christians (Mommsen). A people whom the populace so detested
must have fallen under the surveillance of the city police administration.
(6) A large proportion of the Christian community at Rome would be
non-Roman and so deserve no recognition of Roman privileges. These
reasons together may or may not explain the singling-out of the
Christians. At any rate they were chosen as scapegoats to serve Nero
and his minion Tigellinus. The origin of the first persecution was thus
purely accidental in order to remove suspicion from Nero. It was
not owing to any already formulated policy, neither through
apprehension of any danger to the state, nor because the Christians
were guilty of any crimes, though it gave an opportunity of
investigation and accumulation of evidence. But accidental as this
persecution was in origin, its consequences were of far reaching
importance. There are three principal views as to the date of the policy
of proscription of the new faith by the Roman government:
(1) the old view that persecution for the name, i.e. for the mere
profession of Christianity, began under Trajan in 112 AD a view
now almost universally abandoned;
(2) that of Ramsay (Christianity in the Roman Empire, 242 ff, and three
articles in The Expositor, 1893), who holds that this development from
punishment for definite crimes (flagitia) to proscription for the name
took place between 68 and 96 AD, and
301
(3) that of Hardy (Christianity and the Roman Government, 77),
Mommsen (Expos, 1893, 1-7) and Sanday (ibid., 1894, 406 ff) and
adopted by the writer of this article that the trial of the Christians
under Nero resulted in the declaration of the mere profession of
Christianity as a crime punishable by death. Tacitus apparently
represents the persecution of the Christians as accidental and isolated
and of brief duration (in the place cited), while Suetonius (Ner. 16)
mentions the punishment of Christians in a list of permanent police
regulations for the maintenance of good order, into which it would be
inconsistent to introduce an isolated case of procedure against the
baneful superstition (Ramsay, op. cit., p. 230). But these two
accounts are not contradictory, Tacitus giving the initial stage and
Suetonius a brief statement of the permanent administrative principle
into which Neros action ultimately resolved itself (ibid., 232). Neros
police administration, then, pursued as a permanent policy what was
begun merely to avert suspicion from Nero. But as yet, according to
Ramsay, Christians were not condemned as Christians, but on account
of certain flagitia attaching to the profession and because the Roman
police authorities had learned enough about the Christians to regard
them as hostile to society. A trial still must be held and condemnation
pronounced in respect not of the name but of serious offenses
naturally connected with the name, namely, first incendiarism, which
broke down, and secondly hostility to civilized society and charges of
magic. The others agree so far with Ramsay as describing the first
stages, but assert that odium humani generis was not of the nature of a
definite charge, but disaffection to the social and political arrangements
of the empire. At the outset a trial was needed, but soon as a
consequence the trial could be dispensed with, the Christians being
recognized as a society whose principle might be summarized as
odium generis humani. A trial became unnecessary; the religion itself
involved the crimes, and as a religion it was henceforth proscribed. The
surveillance over them and their punishment was left to the police
administration which could step in at any time with severe measures or
remain remiss, according as exigencies demanded. Christianity was
henceforth a religio illicita. The Roman government was never a
systematic persecutor. The persecution or non-persecution of
Christianity depended henceforth on the mood of the reigning emperor,
the character of his administration, the activity of provincial governors,
the state of popular feeling against the new faith, and other local
302
circumstances. There is no early evidence that the Neronian
persecution extended beyond Rome, though of course the example set
by the emperor necessarily guided the action of all Roman officials.
The stormy close of Neros reign and the tumultuous days till the
accession of Vespasian created a diversion in favor of Christianity.
Orosius (Hist. vii.7) is too late an authority for a general persecution
(per omnes provincias pari persecutione excruciari imperavit; ipsum
nomen exstirpare conatus ....). Besides, Paul after his acquittal seems to
have prosecuted his missionary activity without any extraordinary
hindrances, till he came to Rome the second time. This Neronian
persecution is important for the history of Christianity: Nero
commenced the principle of punishing Christians, and thus made a
precedent for future rulers. Trouble first began in the world-capital; the
next stage will be found in the East; and another in Africa and the
West. But as yet persecution was only local. Nero was the first of the
Roman persecutors who, like Herod Agrippa, came to a miserable end
a fact much dwelt upon by Lactantius and other Christian writers.
2. Flavian Period, 68-96 AD:
In the Flavian period no uniform imperial policy against Christianity can be
discovered. According to Ramsay the Flavians developed the practice set
by Nero from punishment of Christians for definite crimes to proscription
of the name. But, as we have seen, the Neronian persecution settled the
future attitude of the Roman state toward the new faith. The Flavians could
not avoid following the precedent set by Nero. Christianity was spreading
especially in the East and at Rome. We have no account of any
persecution under Vespasian (though Hilary erroneously speaks of him as a
persecutor along with Nero and Decius) and Titus, but it does not follow
that none such took place. As the whole matter was left to the police
administration, severity would be spasmodic and called forth by local
circumstances. The fall of Jerusalem must have had profound influence
both on Judaism and on Christianity. For the former it did what the fall of
Rome under Goths, Vandals, and Germans did for the old Roman religion
it weakened the idea of a national God bound up with a political
religion. The cleft between Judaism and its rival would now become
greater. Christianity was relieved from the overpowering influence of a
national center, and those Jews who now recognized the futility of political
dreams would more readily join the Christian faith. Not only the distinction
but the opposition and hostility would now be more apparent to outsiders,
303
though Vespasian imposed the poll-tax on Jewish Christians and Jews
alike. No memory of harshness against Christianity under Vespasian has
survived. Ramsay (op. cit., 257) would interpret a mutilated passage of
Suetonius (Vesp. 15) as implying Vespasians reluctance to carry out justa
supplicia against Christians.
Titus, the darling of the human race, is not recorded as a persecutor, but
his opinion of Judaism and Christianity as stated in the council of war
before Jerusalem in 70 AD and recorded by Sulpicius Severus (Chron.
ii.30, 6) is interesting as an approval of the policy adopted by Nero.
Severus authority is undoubtedly Tacitus (Bernays and Mommsen). The
authenticity of the speech as contradicting the account of Josephus has
been impugned; at any rate it represents the point of view of Tacitus. Titus
then advocates the destruction of the temple in order that the religion of
the Jews and the Christians may be more thoroughly extirpated (quo
plenius Judeorum et Christianorum religio tolleretur), since these religions
though opposed to each other were of the same origin, the Christians
having sprung from the Jews. If the root was removed the stem would
readily perish (radice sublata, stirpem facile perituram). We know,
however, of no active measures of Titus against either party, his short reign
perhaps allowing no time for such.
It is Domitian who stands out prominently as the persecutor of this period,
as Nero of the first period. His procedure against Christians was not an
isolated act, but part of a general policy under which others suffered. His
reign was a return to ancient principles. He attempted to reform morals,
suppress luxury and vice, banish immoral oriental rites, actors, astrologers
and philosophers. It was in his attempt to revive the national religion that
he came in conflict with the universal religion. His own cousin, Flavius
Clemens, was condemned apparently for Christianity (atheism), and his
wife, Domitilla, was banished. The profession of Christianity was not
sufficient for the condemnation of Roman citizens of high standing; hence
the charges of atheism or majestas were put forward. Refusal to comply
with the religion of the national gods could be brought under the latter. But
for ordinary Roman citizens and for provincials the profession of
Christianity merited death. No definite edict or general proscription was
enacted; only the principle instituted by Nero was allowed to be carried
out. There was, as Mommsen remarks, a standing proscription of
Christians as of brigands, but harsh procedure against both was spasmodic
and depended on the caprice or character of provincial governors.
304
Domitian took one definite step against Christianity in establishing an easy
test by which to detect those who were Christians and so facilitate
inquiries. This test was the demand to worship the Genius of the emperor.
This too was only part of Domitians general policy of asserting his own
dominus et deus title and emphasizing the imperial cult as a bond of
political union. The Apocalypse reflects the sufferings of the church in this
reign.
3. The Antonine Period, 96-192 AD:
(1) Nerva and Trajan.
On the death of Domitian peace was restored to the Christian church which
lasted throughout the brief reign of Nerva (96-98) and the first 13 years of
Trajan. It is a curious fact that some of the best of the Roman emperors
(Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, Decius and Diocletian) were harsh to the
Christians, while some of the worst (as Commodus, Caracalla,
Heliogabalus) left them in peace (see PERSECUTION, 17). Christianity
had been rapidly spreading in the interval of tranquillity. Pliny became
governor of Bithynia in 111 AD and found, especially in the eastern part of
his province, the temples almost deserted. Some Christians were brought
before him and on established precedents were ordered to be executed for
their religion. But Pliny soon discovered that many of both sexes and all
ages, provincials and Roman citizens, were involved. The Roman citizens
he sent to Rome for trial; but being of a humane disposition he shrank from
carrying out the wholesale execution required by a consistent policy.
He wrote to Trajan telling him what he had already done, rather covertly
suggesting tolerant measures. Should no distinction be made between old
and young? Should pardon not be extended to those who recanted and
worshipped the emperors image and cursed Christ? Should mere
profession (nomen ipsum) be a capital offense if no crimes could be
proven, or should the crimes rather be punished that were associated with
the faith (an flagitia cohaerentia nomini)? He then explains his procedure:
he gave those who were accused an abundant opportunity of recanting;
those who persisted in this faith were executed. He considered their
stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy (pertinaciam certe et inflexibilem
obstinationem) as in itself deserving punishment. But the administration
having once interfered found plenty to do. An anonymous list of many
names was handed in, most of whom, however, denied being Christians.
305
Informers then put forward others who likewise denied belonging to the
faith. Pliny was convinced their meetings were harmless, and on
examination of two deaconesses under torture discovered nothing but a
perverse extravagant superstition (sup. pravam immodicam). Trajan replied
that no universal and definite rule could be laid down, apparently
confirming the correctness of Plinys action and perhaps disappointing
Pliny in not yielding to his humane suggestions. Nevertheless, the emperor
made three important concessions:
(1) the Christians were not to be sought out by the police authorities,
but if they were accused and convicted they must be punished;
(2) anonymous information against them was not to be accepted;
(3) even those suspected of flagitia in the past were to be pardoned on
proving they were not Christians or on renouncing Christianity. Some
regard this rescript of Trajan as the first official and legal authorization
to proscribe Christianity; but we have already seen that Christianity as
such was proscribed as a result of the Neronian investigations. Besides,
there is not the slightest trace of any new principle of severity, either in
the letters of Pliny or in the rescript of Trajan. The persecution of
Christianity had been permanent like that of highwaymen, but not
systematic or general. Neither was Trajans rescript an edict of
toleration, though on the whole it was favorable to the Christians in
minimizing the dangers to which they were exposed. The question was
as yet purely one of administration.
Trajan initiated no procedure against Christians in fact rather
discouraged any, asking his lieutenant to close his eyes to offenders and
Pliny consulted him in the hope of obtaining milder treatment for the
Christians by putting in question form what he really wished to be
approved. Trajans rescript marks the end of the old system of
uncompromising hostility.
See PERSECUTION, 15.
(2) Hadrian.
The reign of Hadrian (117-38) was a period of toleration for the Christians.
He was no bigot, but tolerant and eclective, inquiring into all religions and
initiated into several mysteries and willing to leave religion an open
question. In Asia, where Christianity was making most progress, a state of
306
terrorism was imminent if delatores were encouraged against Christians
making a profession of delatio (giving information). As we saw in the letter
of Pliny, even non-Christians were accused, and any professing Christian
could be threatened by these informers in order to secure a bribe for
proceeding no farther. Licinius Silvanus Granianus, like Pliny, found
himself involved in difficulties and wrote to Hadrian for advice. Hadrians
rescript in reply is addressed to Granianus successor, Minucius Fundanus,
the proconsul of Asia, about 124 AD. The genuineness of this important
document, though impugned by Overbeck, Keim and Lipsius, is vouched
for by Mommsen, Hardy, Lightfoot and Ramsay. Indeed, it is much easier
accounted for as authentic than as a forgery, for who but the broad-minded
Hadrian could have written such a rescript? Apparently the questions put
by the proconsul must have been of a similar nature to those extant of
Pliny. The answer of Hadrian is a decided step in favor of Christianity and
goes beyond that of Trajan:
(1) information is not to be passed over
(a) lest the innocent suffer (as was the case under Pliny), and
(b) lest informers should make a trade of lodging accusations;
(2) provincials accusing Christians must give proof that the accused
have committed something illegal;
(3) mere petitions and acclamations against the Christians are not to be
admitted;
(4) a prosecutor on failing to make good his case is to be punished.
These terms would greatly increase the risk for informers and lessen the
dangers for Christians. That the name is a crime is not admitted, neither
is this established principle rescinded. It is quite possible that Hadrians
rescript gave a certain stimulus toward the employment of the more
definite and regular legal procedure.
(3) Antoninus Pius (138-161).
The liberal policy of Trajan and Hadrian was continued by Antoninus,
though persecution occurred in his reign in which Ptolemeus and Lucius
were executed at Rome and Polycarp at Smyrna. But he decidedly
confirmed Hadrians policy of protecting the Christians uncondemned
against mob violence in his letters to Larissae, Athens, Thessalonica and to
307
all the Hellenes. As at Smyrna, his rescript was in advance of public
feeling, and so was disregarded. Anonymous delation was also repressed.
(4) Marcus Aurelius (161-80).
Under Aurelius a strong reaction set in affecting the Christians, caused
partly by the frontier disasters and devastating pestilence and partly by
Aurelius policy of returning to ancient principles and reviving the Roman
national religion. In this reign we find persecution extending to the West
(Gaul) and to Africa a step toward the general persecutions of the next
century. Though no actual change was made by Aurelius, the leniency of
the last three reigns is absent. No general edict or definite rescript of
persecution was issued; the numerous martyrdoms recorded in this reign
are partly due to the fuller accounts and the rise of a Christian literature.
Christianity in itself still constituted a crime, and the obstinacy
([opoto, parataxis]) of Christians in itself deserved punishment.
Aurelius seems to have actually rebuked the severity of the Roman
governor at Lugdunum, and to have further discouraged the trade of
informers against Christians. Tertullian actually styles him as debellator
Christianorum (protector of Christians). We find as yet therefore no
systematic or serious attempt to extirpate the new faith. The central
government was all this time without a permanent or steady policy toward
the Christians. It had not yet made up its mind (Hardy).
Under the rule of Commodus (180-192) Christians gain enjoyed a respite.
The net result of the collisions between the new faith and the government
in this period is somewhat differently estimated by Ramsay and by Hardy.
The latter thinks (Christianity and Roman Government, 156 f) that Ramsay
has to some extent antedated the existence of anything like a policy of
proscription, due to antedating the time when Christianity was regarded
as a serious political danger. Hardy thinks that the Christian organization
was never suspected as more than an abstract danger during the first two
centuries. Had Rome taken the view that Christianity in its organization
was a real danger and an imperium in imperio, she must have started a
systematic exterminating policy during a period when Christianity could
have least withstood it. When the empire did as in the 3rd century
apprehend the practical danger and took the severest general measures,
Christianity was already too strong to be harmed, and we shall find the
empire henceforth each time worsted and finally offering terms.
308
4. Changing Dynasties, 192-284 AD:
In the next period the insecurity of the throne, when in less than 100 years
about a score of candidates wore the purple and almost each new emperor
began a new dynasty, enabled Christianity to spread practically untroubled.
Further diversions in its favor were created by those fierce barbarian wars
and by the necessity of renewed vigilance at the frontier posts. The
Christians aloofness from political strife and their acquiescence in each
new dynasty brought them generally into no collision with new rulers.
Further, the fact that many of these emperors were non-Roman provincials,
or foreigners who had no special attachment to the old Roman faith, and
were eclectic in their religious views, was of much importance to the new
eastern faith. Moreover, some of the emperors proved not only not hostile
to Christianity, but positively friendly. In this period we find no severe
(except perhaps that of Decius) and certainly no protracted persecution.
The Christian church herself was organized on the principle of the imperial
government, and made herself thus strong and united, so that when the
storm did come she remained unshaken. In 202 Severus started a cruel
persecution in Africa and Egypt, but peace was restored by the savage
Caracalla (lacte Christiano educatus: Tert.). Heliogabalus assisted
Christianity indirectly
(1) by the degradation of Roman religion, and
(2) by tolerance. According to one writer he proposed to fuse
Christianity, Judaism and Samaritanism into one religion. Alexander
Severus was equally tolerant and syncretic, setting up in his private
chapel images of Orpheus, Apollonius, Abraham, and Christ, and
engraving the golden rule on his palace walls and public buildings. He
was even credited with the intention of erecting a temple to Christ.
Local persecution broke out under Maximin the Thracian. The first
general persecution was that of Decius, in which two features deserve
notice:
(1) that death was not the immediate result of Christian profession, but
every means was employed to induce Christians to recant;
(2) Roman authorities already cognizant of the dangers of Christian
organization directed their efforts especially against the officers of the
church. Gallus continued this policy, and Valerian, after first stopping
persecution, tried to check the spread of the worship by banishing
309
bishops and closing churches, and later enacted the death penalty.
Gallienus promulgated what was virtually the first edict of toleration,
forbade persecution and restored the Christian endowments.
Christianity now entered upon a period of 40 years tranquillity: as
outward dangers decreased, less desirable converts came within her
gates and her adherents were overtaken in a flood of worldliness,
stayed only by the persecution of Diocletian.
5. Diocletian until First General Edict of Toleration, 284-311 AD:
Like some other persecutors, Diocletian was one of the ablest Roman
rulers. He was not disposed to proceed against the Christians, but was
finally driven to harsh measures by his son-in-law Galerius. The first edict,
February 24, 303, was not intended to exterminate Christianity, but to
check its growth and weaken its political influence, and was directed
principally against Bibles, Christian assemblies and churches. The second
was against church organization. A third granted freedom to those who
recanted, but sought to compel the submission of recalcitrants by tortures
a partial confession of failure on the part of the imperial government.
Bloodshed was avoided and the death penalty omitted. But a fourth edict
issued by Maximin prescribed the death penalty and required the act of
sacrifice to the gods. In the same year (304) Diocletian, convinced of the
uselessness of these measures, stayed the death penalty. The change of
policy on the part of the emperor and his abdication next year were
virtually a confession that the Galilean had conquered. After the
persecution had raged 8 years (or 10, if we include local persecutions after
311), Galerius, overtaken by a loathsome disease, issued from Nicomedia
with Constantine and Licinius the first general edict of toleration, April 30,
311. Christianity had thus in this period proved a state within a state; it was
finally acknowledged as a religio licita, though not yet on equality with
paganism.
6. First Edict of Toleration until Fall of Western Empire, 311-476 AD:
In the next period the first religious wars began, and Christianity was first
placed on an equal footing with its rival, then above it, and finally it
became the state religion of both West and East. As soon as Christianity
had gained tolerance it immediately became an intolerant, bitter persecutor,
both of its old rival and of heresy. Constantine, having defeated Maxentius
at the Milvian Bridge (October 27, 312), became sole ruler of the West,
310
and, in conjunction with his eastern colleague Licinius, issued the famous
edict of toleration from Milan, March 30, 313, by which all religions were
granted equal tolerance, and Christianity was thus placed on an equal
footing with heathenism. Constantines favors toward the Christian faith
were largely political; he wished simply to be on the winning side. With
each fresh success he inclined more toward Christianity, though his whole
life was a compromise. His dream was to weld pagan and Christian into
one society under the same laws; he in no way prohibited paganism. With
the rounding of Constantinople Christianity became practically the state
religion an alliance with baneful consequences for Christianity. It now
began to stifle the liberty of conscience for which it had suffered so much,
and orthodoxy began its long reign of intolerance. The sons of Constantine
inherited their fathers cruel nature with his nominal Christianity.
Constantine had left the old and the new religions on equal footing: his
sons began the work of exterminating paganism by violence. Constantius
when sole emperor, inheriting none of his fathers compromise or caution,
and prompted by women and bishops, published edicts demanding the
closing of the temples and prohibiting sacrifices. Wise provincial
administrators hesitated to carry out these premature measures.
Christianity was now in the ascendancy and on the aggressive. It not only
persecuted paganism, but the dominant Christian party proscribed its rival
this time heterodoxy banishing orthodoxy. The violence and intolerance
of the sons of Constantine justified the mild reaction under Julian the
Apostate the most humane member of the Constantine family. He made
a romantic effort to reestablish the old religion, and while proclaiming
tolerance for Christianity, he endeavored to weaken it by heaping ridicule
upon its doctrines, rescinding the privileges of the clergy, prohibiting the
church from receiving many bequests, removing Christians from public
positions and forbidding the teaching of classics in Christian schools lest
Christian tongues should become better fitted to meet heathen arguments,
and lastly by adding renewed splendor to pagan service as a counter-
attraction. But the moral power of Christianity triumphed. Dying on a
battle-field, where he fought the Persians, he is said (but not on good
authority) to have exclaimed, Thou hast conquered, O Galilean
([vrvxqxo Ioor, nenikekas Galilaie]). For a brief period after his
death there was religious neutrality. Gratian at the instigation of
Ambrose departed from this neutrality, removed the statue of Victory
from the senate-house, refused the title and robes of pontifex maximus,
prohibited bloody sacrifices, and dealt a severe blow to the old faith by
311
withdrawing some of the treasury grants, thereby making it dependent on
the voluntary system. Theodosius I, or the Great, adopted a strenuous
religious policy against both heresy and paganism. His intolerance must be
attributed to Ambrose a bigot in whose eyes Jews, heretics and pagans
alike had no rights. Systematic proscription of paganism began. In 381
Theodosius denied the right of making a will to apostates from
Christianity, in 383 the right of inheritance, in 391 heathen public worship
was interdicted, in 392 several acts of both private and public heathen
worship were forbidden, and greater penalties were attached to the
performance of sacrifice. Christian vandalism became rampant; all kinds of
violence and confiscation were resorted to, monks or priests often leading
the populace. For the present the West did not suffer so severely from
fanatic iconoclasm. Under the sons of Theodosius the suppression of
paganism was steadily pursued. Honorius in the West excluded (408 AD)
pagans from civil and military offices; in a later edict (423) the very
existence of paganism is doubted (paganos .... quamquam iam nullos esse
credamus). That heathenism was still an attraction is proved by the
repeated laws against apostasy. Under Valentinian III (423-55) and
Theodosius II, laws were enacted for the destruction of temples or their
conversion into Christian churches. In the western empire heathenism was
persecuted till the end, and its final overthrow was hastened by the
extinction of the western empire (476). In the East Justinian closed the
heathen schools of philosophy at Athens (529 AD), and in a despotic spirit
prohibited even heathen worship in private under pain of death.
V. VICTORY OF CHRISTIANITY AND CONVERSION OF THE
ROMAN EMPIRE.
Christianity was now acknowledged as the religion of both East and West.
It had also grown strong enough to convert the barbarians who overran the
West. It restrained and educated them under the lead of the papacy, so that
its conquests now extended beyond the Roman empire.
Merivale (preface to Conversion of Roman Empire) attributes the
conversion of the Roman empire to four causes:
(1) the external evidence of apparent fulfillment of prophecy and the
evidence of miracles,
(2) internal evidence as satisfying the spiritual wants of the empire and
offering a Redeemer,
312
(3) the example of the pure lives and heroic deaths of the early
Christians, and
(4) the success which attended the Christian cause under Constantine.
Gibbon (chapter xv of Decline and Fall) seeks to account for the
phenomenal success of Christianity in the empire by
(1) the zeal and enthusiasm of the early Christians,
(2) the belief of Christianity in immortality with both future rewards
and future retributions,
(3) miracles,
(4) the high ethical code and pure morals of professing Christians, and
(5) strong ecclesiastical organization on imperial patterns. But neither
of these lists of causes seems to account satisfactorily for the progress
and success of the religion of Jesus.
1. Negative Causes:
This was due in the first place to negative causes the moral and spiritual
bankruptcy of the antique world, the internal rottenness and decay of
heathen systems. All ancient national religions had failed and were
abandoned alike by philosophers and the masses, and no universal religion
for humanity was offered except by Christianity. Worship had degenerated
into pure formalism which brought no comfort to the heart. An imperious
demand for revelation was felt which no philosophy or natural religion
could satisfy.
2. Positive Causes:
But it was to positive causes chiefly that the success of the new religion
was due, among which were the zeal, enthusiasm, and moral earnestness of
the Christian faith. Its sterling qualities were best shown in persecution and
the heroic deaths of its adherents. Paganism, even with the alliance of the
civil power and the prestige of its romantic past, could not withstand
persecution. And when heathenism was thrown back on the voluntary
system, it could not prosper as Christianity did with its ideals of self-
sacrifice. The earnestness of early Christianity was raised to its highest
power by its belief in a near second coming of the Lord and the end of the
aeon. The means of propagation greatly helped the spread of Christianity,
313
the principal means being the exemplary lives of its professors. It opposed
moral and spiritual power to political. Besides, Christianity when once
studied by the thinkers of the ancient world was found to be in accord with
the highest principles of reason and Nature. But the chief cause of its
success was the congruity of its teaching with the spiritual nature of
mankind (Lecky). There was a deepseated earnestness in a large section
of the ancient world to Whom Christianity offered the peace, comfort and
strength desired. It was possessed also of an immense advantage over all
competing religions of the Roman empire in being adapted to all classes
and conditions and to all changes. There was nothing local or national
about it; it gave the grandest expression to the contemporary ideal of
brotherhood. Its respect for woman and its attraction for this sex gained it
many converts who brought honor to it; in this respect it was far superior
to its greatest rival, Mithraism. In an age of vast social change and much
social distress it appealed to the suffering by its active self-denial for the
happiness of others. As an ethical code it was equal and superior to the
noblest contemporary systems. One incalculable advantage it could show
above all religions and philosophies the charm and power of an ideal
perfect life, in which the highest manhood was held forth as an incentive to
nobler living. The person of Jesus was an ideal and moral dynamic for both
philosopher and the common man, far above any abstract virtue. It was
because it was true to the moral sentiments of the age, because it
represented faithfully the supreme type of excellence to which men were
then tending, because it corresponded with their religious wants, aims and
emotions, because the whole spiritual being could then expand and
expatiate under its influence that it planted its roots so deeply in the hearts
of men (Lecky, Hist of European Morals, chapter iii). Add to all this the
favorable circumstances mentioned under Preparation for Christianity,
above (II), and we can understand how the Roman empire became the
kingdom of Christ.
LITERATURE.
Ancient sources include Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, Plinys Letters,
x.97-98 (in Hardys edition), Dio Cassius (in Xiphilin), the apologists,
Church Fathers, Inscriptions, etc.
Modern sources are too numerous to mention in full, but those most
helpful to the student are: Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire;
Merivale, Hist of the Romans under the Empire; The Fall of the Roman
314
Republic, 1856; Conversion of the Roman Empire, 1865; Milman, Hist of
Christianity; Hist of Latin Christianity; Ramsay, The Church in the Roman
Empire; The Expositor, IV, viii, pp. 8 ff, 110 ff, 282 ff; E. G. Hardy,
Christianity and the Roman Government, 1894; D. Duff, The Early
Church: a Hist of Christianity in the First Six Centuries, Edinburgh, 1891;
J. J. Blunt, A Hist of the Christian Church during the First Three Centuries,
1861; Harnack, Mission and Expansion of Christianity, 1907; Mommsen,
Der Religionsfrevel nach rom. Recht, in Hist. Zeit, 1890, LXIV
(important); Provinces of the Roman Empire; The Expositor, 1893, pp. 6
ff; G. Boissier, Lamentations religion romaine dAuguste aux Antonins;
Lamentations fin du paganisme; Wissowa, Religion u. Kultus der Romer;
Gerb. Uhlhorn, Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism, English
translation by Smyth and Ropes, 1879; B. Aube, Histoire des persecutions
de leglise jusqua la fin des Antonins, 1875; Schaff, Hist of the Christian
Church (with useful bibliographies of both ancient and modern authorities);
Orr, Neglected Factors in Early Church Hist; Keim, Romans u.
Christentum; Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, English translation,
London, 1910; Wendland, Die hellenistischromische Kultur2, 1912; F.
Overbeck, Gesetze der rom. Kaiser gegen die Christen, in his Studien,
1875; C. F. Arnold, Die Neronische Christenverfolgung; Stud. zur Gesch.
der Plinianischen Christenverfolgung; Westcott, The Two Empires, in
commentary to Epistles. of John, 250-82; Friedlander, Sittengeschichte
Roms; Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers; Lecky, Hist of European Morals,
chapter iii. The Conversion of Rome.
S. Angus
ROMAN LAW:
In the present article we shall treat
(I) Roman Private Law and
(II) Criminal Law only, reserving a consideration of the development
of the principles of constitutional law for the article on ROME, since it
is so closely interwoven with the political history of the state.
It will be necessary to confine the discussion of private law to its external
history, without attempting to deal with the substance of the law itself. In
the treatment of criminal law attention will be directed chiefly to the
constitutional guaranties which were intended to protect Roman citizens
315
against arbitrary and unjust punishments, these being one of the most
important privileges of Roman citizenship.
See CITIZENSHIP.
Roman law found its original source in the family as a corporation. The
proprietary rights of the pater familias as representative of this primitive
unit of organization are a fundamental element in private law, and the
scope of the criminal jurisdiction of the state was limited by the power of
life and death which was exercised by the head of the family over those
who were under his authority, by virtue of which their transgressions were
tried before the domestic tribunal.
It is likewise of fundamental importance to recall the fact that before the
earliest period in the history of Roman law of which we have positive
information, there must have been a time when a large number of different
classes of crime were punished by the priests as sacrilege, in accordance
with divine law (fas), by putting the offender to death as a sacrifice to the
offended deity, while restitution for private violence or injustice was left to
private initiative to seek. For a law of the Twelve Tables that the person
guilty of cutting anothers grain by night should be hanged, as an offering
to Ceres, is a survival of the older religious character of condemnation to
death, and the right to kill the nocturnal thief and the adulterer caught in
the act may be cited as survivals of primitive private vengeance The secular
conception of crime as an offense against the welfare of the state gradually
superseded the older conception, while private law arose when the
community did away with the disorder incident to the exercise of self-help
in attempting to secure justice, by insisting that the parties to a
disagreement should submit their claims to an arbitrator.
I. ROMAN PRIVATE LAW.
1. The Twelve Tables:
Roman private law was at first a body of unwritten usages handed down by
tradition in the patrician families. The demand of the plebeians for the
publication of the law resulted in the adoption of the famous Twelve
Tables (449 BC), which was looked upon by later authorities as the source
of all public and private law (quae nunc quoque in hoc immenso aliarum
super alias acervatarum legum cumulo fons omnis publici privdtique est
iuris: Livy iii.34, 6), although it was not a scientific or comprehensive code
316
of all the legal institutions of the time. This primitive system of law was
made to expand to meet the growing requirements of the republican
community chiefly by means of interpretation and the jus honorarium,
which corresponds to equity.
2. Civil Procedure:
The function of interpretation may be defined by mentioning the principal
elements in civil procedure. The praetor, or magistrate, listened to the
claims of the litigants and prepared an outline of the disputed issues, called
a formula, which was submitted to the judex, or arbitrator, a jury, as it
were, consisting of one man, who decided the questions of fact involved in
the case. Neither praetor nor judex had special legal training. The court had
recourse, therefore, for legal enlightenment to those who had gained
distinction as authorities on the law, and the opinions, or responsa, of these
scholars (jurisprudentes) formed a valuable commentary on the legal
institutions of the time. In this way a body of rules was amassed by
interpretative adaptation which the authors of the Twelve Tables would
never have recognized.
3. Jus honorarium:
Jus honorarium derived its name from the circumstance that it rested upon
the authority of magistrates (honor = magistracy). In this respect and
because it was composed of orders issued for the purpose of affording
relief in cases for which the existing law did not make adequate provision,
this second agency for legal expansion may be compared with English
equity. These orders issued by the praetors had legal force during the
tenure of their office only; but those the expediency of which had been
established by this period of trial were generally reissued by succeeding
magistrates from year to year, so that in time a large, but uniform body of
rules, subject to annual renewal, formed the greater part of the edict which
was issued by the praetors before entering upon their term of office. By
these means Roman law maintained a proper balance between elasticity and
rigidity.
4. The praetor peregrinus:
After the institution of the praetor peregrinus (241 BC) who heard cases in
which one or both of the parties were foreigners, a series of similar edicts
proceeded from those who were chosen to this tribunal. The annual edicts
317
of the praetor peregrinus became an important means for broadening
Roman law, for the strangers who appeared in the court of this magistrate
were mostly Greeks from Southern Italy, so that the principles of law
which were gradually formulated as a basis for proceedings were largely an
embodiment of the spirit of Greek law.
5. Imperial Ordinances:
Direct legislation superseded the other sources of law under the empire,
taking the form, occasionally, of bills ratified by the people (leges), but
usually of enactments of the senate (senatus consulta), or imperial
ordinances. The latter, which eventually prevailed to the exclusion of all
other types, may be classified as edicta, which were issued by the emperor
on the analogy of the similar orders of the republican magistrates, decreta,
or decisions of the imperial tribunal, which had force as precedents, and
rescripta, which were replies by the emperor to requests for the
interpretation of the law. All these acts of imperial legislation were known
as constitutiones.
6. Golden Age of Juristic Literature:
In the 2nd century Salvius Julianus was commissioned to invest the
praetorian edict with definite form. The Institutes of Gaius appearing about
the same time became a model for subsequent textbooks on jurisprudence
(Gaii institutionum commentarii quattuor, discovered by Niebuhr in 1816
at Verona in a palimpsest). This was the Golden Age of juristic literature.
A succession of able thinkers, among whom Papinian, Paulus, Ulpian,
Modestinus, and Gaius hold foremost rank (compare Codex Theodosianus
1, 4, 3), applied to the incoherent mass of legal material the methods of
scientific investigation, developing a system of Roman law and establishing
a science of jurisprudence.
7. Codification in the Later Empire:
The period of the later empire was characterized by various attempts at
codification which culminated in the final treatment of the body of Roman
law under Justinian. The work of the board of eminent jurists to whom this
vast undertaking was entrusted was published in three parts:
(1) the Code, which contains a selection of the imperial enactments
since Hadrian in twelve books,
318
(2) the Digest or Pandects, which is composed of extracts from the
juristic literature in fifty books, and
(3) the Institutes, which is a textbook in four books. In this form mainly
Roman private law has come down to modern times, and has become,
in the words of an eminent authority Bryce, Studies in History and
Jurisprudence, Oxford, 1901), next to the Christian religion, the most
plentiful source of the rules governing actual conduct throughout
Western Europe.
II. ROMAN CRIMINAL LAW.
1. Jurisdiction in the Royal Period:
In the royal period criminal jurisdiction, in so far as it was a function of
secular administration, belonged by right to the king. The titles quaestores
parricidii and duumviri perduellionis, belonging to officials to whom the
royal authority in these matters was occasionally delegated, indicate the
nature of the earliest crimes brought under secular jurisdiction. The royal
prerogative passed to the republican magistrates, and embraced, besides
the right to punish crimes, the power to compel obedience to their own
decrees (coercitio) by means of various penalties.
2. The Right of Appeal:
But the right of the people to final jurisdiction in cases involving the life or
civil status of citizens was established by an enactment (lex Valeria) which
is said to have been proposed by one of the first consuls (509 BC), and
which granted the right of appeal to the assembly (provocatio) against the
execution of a capital or other serious penalty pronounced by a magistrate
(Cicero Deuteronomy Revelation Publica ii.31, 54; Livy ii.8, 2; Dionysius
v.19). This right of appeal was reinforced or extended by subsequent
enactments (leges Valeriae) in 449 and 299 BC. It was valid against
penalties imposed by virtue of the coercive power of the magistrates as
well as those based upon a regular criminal charge. Generally the
magistrates made no provisional sentence of their own, but brought their
charges directly before the people.
(1) Penalties.
The death penalty was practically abrogated in republican times by
allowing the accused the alternative of voluntary exile. The Romans rarely
319
employed imprisonment as a punishment. The imposition of fines above a
certain amount was made subject to the right of appeal. At first the dictator
possessed absolute power of life and death over the citizens, but this
authority was limited, probably about 300 BC (Livy xxvii.6, 5), by being
made subject to the right of appeal
(2) The Porcian Law.
The right of appeal to the people was valid within the city and as far as the
first milestone; and although it was never extended beyond this limit, yet its
protection was virtually secured for all Roman citizens, wherever they
might be, by the provision of the Porcian law (of unknown date), which
established their right to trial at Rome. In consequence of this a distinction
of great importance was created in criminal procedure in the provinces,
since Roman citizens were sent to Rome for trial in all serious cases, while
other persons were subject to the criminal jurisdiction of the municipalities,
except when the governor summoned them before his own tribunal.
3. Popular Jurisdiction Curtailed:
The exercise of popular jurisdiction in criminal matters was gradually
curtailed by the establishment of permanent courts (quaestiones perpetuae)
by virtue of laws by which the people delegated their authority to judge
certain classes of cases. The first of these courts was authorized in 149 BC
for the trial of charges of extortion brought against provincial governors.
Compensation was the main purpose of accusers in bringing charges before
this and later permanent courts, and for this reason, perhaps, the procedure
was similar to that which was employed in civil cases. A praetor presided
over the tribunal; a number of judices took the place of the single juror.
The laws by which Sulla reorganized the systems of criminal jurisdiction
provided for seven courts dealing individually with extortion, treason,
peculation, corrupt electioneering practices, murder, fraud, and assault.
4. Jurors:
The judices, or jurors, were originally chosen from the senate. A law
proposed by C. Gracchus transferred membership in all the juries to the
equestrian class. Sulla replenished the senate by admitting about 300
members of the equestrian class, and then restored to it the exclusive
control of the juries. But a judicial law of 70 BC provided for the equal
representation of all three classes of the people in the courts. There were
320
then about 1,080 names on the list of available jurors, of whom 75 seem to
have been chosen for each trial (Cicero In Pisonem 40). Caesar abolished
the plebeian jurors (Suetonius Caesar 41). Augustus restored the
representatives of the third class (Suetonius Aug. 32), but confined their
action to civil cases of minor importance. He likewise excused the
members of the senate from service as jurors.
5. Disappearance of Criminal Courts:
The system of criminal courts (quaestiones perpetuae) diminished in
importance under the empire and finally disappeared toward the close of
the 2nd century. Their place was taken by the senate under the presidency
of a consul, the emperor, and eventually by imperial officials by delegated
authority from the emperor. In the first case the senate stood in somewhat
the same relation to the presiding consul as the jurors in the permanent
courts to the praetor. But the emperor and imperial officials decided
without the help of a jury, so that after the 3rd century, when the judicial
competence of the senate was gradually lost, trial by jury ceased to exist.
An important innovation in the judicial system of the empire was the
principle of appeal from the decision of lower courts to higher tribunals.
For the emperors and eventually their delegates, chiefly the praefectus urbi
and praefectus praetorio, heard appeals from Roman and Italian
magistrates and provincial governors.
6. Right of Trial at Rome:
Under the early empire, provincial governors were generally under
obligation to grant the demand of Roman citizens for the privilege of trial
at Rome (Digest xlviii. 6, 7), although there appear to have been some
exceptions to this rule (Pliny, Epist. ii.1l; Digest xlviii.8, 16). Lysias,
tribune of the cohort at Jerusalem, sent Paul as prisoner to Caesarea, the
capital of the province, so that Felix the procurator might determine what
was to be done in his case, inasmuch as he was a Roman citizen (
<442327>
Acts
23:27), and two years later Paul asserted his privilege of being tried at
Rome by the emperor for the same reason (
<442511>
Acts 25:11,21).
Roman citizens who were sent to Rome might be brought either before the
senate or emperor, but cognizance of these cases by the imperial tribunal
was more usual, and finally supplanted entirely that of the senate, the
formula of appeal becoming proverbial: cives Romanus sum, provoco ad
Caesarem (Kaisara epikaloumai:
<442511>
Acts 25:11).
321
As Roman citizenship became more and more widely extended throughout
the empire its relative value diminished, and it is obvious that many of the
special privileges, such as the right of trial at Rome, which were attached
to it in the earlier period must have been gradually lost. It became
customary for the emperors to delegate their power of final jurisdiction
over the lives of citizens (ius gladii) to the provincial governors, and finally,
after Roman citizenship had been conferred upon the inhabitants of the
empire generally by Caracalla, the right of appeal to Rome remained the
privilege of certain classes only, such as senators, municipal decurions
(Digest xlviii.19, 27), officers of equestrian rank in the army, and
centurions (Dio Cassius lii.22, 33).
LITERATURE.
Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Ciceros Time, Oxford, 1901; Kruger,
Geschichte der Quellen u. Litteratur des romischen Rechts, Leipzig, 1888;
Mommsen, Romisches Strafrecht, Leipzig, 1899; Roby, Roman Private
Law in the Times of Cicero and of the Antonines, Cambridge, 1902; Sohm,
The Institutes of Roman Law, translated by J.C. Ledlie, Oxford, 1892.
George H. Allen
ROMAN RELIGION
See ROMAN EMPIRE AND CHRISTIANITY III; ROME, IV.
ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE
This is the greatest, in every sense, of the apostolic letters of Paul; in scale,
in scope, and in its wonderful combination of doctrinal, ethical and
administrative wisdom and power. In some respects the later Epistles,
Ephesians and Colossians, lead us to even higher and deeper arcana of
revelation, and they, like Romans, combine with the exposition of truth a
luminous doctrine of duty. But the range of Roman is larger in both
directions, and presents us also with noble and far-reaching discussions of
Christian polity, instructions in spiritual utterance and the like, to which
those Epistles present no parallel, and which only the Corinthian Epistles
rival.
322
1. ITS GENUINENESS:
No suspicion on the head of the genuineness of the Epistle exists which
needs serious consideration. Signs of the influence of the Epistle can be
traced, at least very probably, in the New Testament itself; in 1 Peter, and,
as some think, in James. But in our opinion James was the earlier writing,
and Lightfoot has given strong grounds for the belief that the paragraph on
faith and justification (James 2) has no reference to perversions of Pauline
teaching, but deals with rabbinism. Clement of Rome repeatedly quotes
Romans, and so do Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin. Marcion includes it in his list
of Pauline Epistles, and it is safe to say in general Romans has been
recognized in the Christian church as long as any collection of Pauls
Epistles has been extant (A. Robertson, in HDB, under the word). But
above all other evidences it testifies to itself. The fabrication of such a
writing, with its close and complex thought, its power and marked
originality of treatment, its noble morale, and its spiritual elevation and
ardor, is nothing short of a moral impossibility. A mighty mind and equally
great heart live in every page, and a soul exquisitely sensitive and always
intent upon truth and holiness. Literary personation is an art which has
come to anything like maturity only in modern times, certainly not before
the Renaissance. In a fully developed form it is hardly earlier than the 19th
century. And even now who can point to a consciously personated
authorship going along with high moral principle and purpose?
2. ITS INTEGRITY:
The question remains, however, whether, accepting the Epistle in block as
Pauline, we have it, as to details, just as it left the authors hands.
Particularly, some phenomena of the text of the last two chapter invite the
inquiry. We may in our opinion we must grant those chapters to be
Pauline. They breathe Paul in every sentence. But do they read precisely
like part of a letter to Rome? For example, we have a series of names
(
<451601>
Romans 16:1-15), representing a large circle of personally known and
loved friends of the writer, a much longer list than any other in the Epistles,
and all presumably on theory that the passage is integral to the Epistle
residents at Rome. May not such a paragraph have somehow crept in,
after date, from another writing? Might not a message to Philippian,
Thessalonian or Ephesian friends, dwellers in places where Paul had
already established many intimacies, have fallen out of its place and found
lodgment by mistake at the close of this letter to Rome? It seems enough
323
to reply by one brief statement of fact. We possess some 300 manuscripts
of Romans, and not one of these, so far as it is uninjured, fails to give the
Epistle complete, all the chapters as we have them, and in the present order
(with one exception, that of the final doxology). It is observable meanwhile
that the difficulty of supposing Paul to have had a large group of friends
living at Rome, before his own arrival there, is not serious. To and from
Rome, through the whole empire, there was a perpetual circulation of
population. Suppose Aquila and Priscilla (e.g.) to have recently returned
(
<441802>
Acts 18:2) to Rome from Ephesus, and suppose similar migrations
from Greece or from Asia Minor to have taken place within recent years;
we can then readily account for the greetings of Romans 16.
Lightfoot has brought it out in an interesting way (see his Philippians, on
4:22) that many of the names (e.g. Amplias, Urbanus, Tryphena) in
Romans 16 are found at Rome, in inscriptions of the early imperial age, in
cemeteries where members of the widely scattered household of Caesar
were interred. This at least suggests the abundant possibility that the
converts and friends belonging to the household who, a very few years
later, perhaps not more than three, were around him at Rome when he
wrote to Philippi (
<500422>
Philippians 4:22), and sent their special greeting
(chiefly they) to the Philipplans, were formerly residents at Philippi, or
elsewhere in Macedonia, and had moved thence to the capital not long
before the apostle wrote to the Romans. A. Robertson (ut supra) comes to
the conclusion, after a careful review of recent theories, that the case for
transferring this section .... from its actual connection to a lost Epistle to
Ephesus is not made out.
Two points of detail in the criticism of the text of Romans may be noted.
One is that the words at Rome (1:7,15) are omitted in a very few
manuscripts, in a way to remind us of the interesting phenomenon of the
omission of at Ephesus (
<490101>
Ephesians 1:1 margin). But the evidence for
this omission being original is entirely inadequate. The fact may perhaps be
accounted for by a possible circulation of Romans among other mission
churches as an Epistle of universal interest. This would be much more
likely if the manuscripts and other authorities in which the last two chapters
are missing were identical with those which omit at Rome, but this is not
the case.
The other and larger detail is that the great final doxology (
<451625>
Romans
16:25-27) is placed by many cursives at the end of Romans 14, and is
324
omitted entirely by three manuscripts and by Marcion. The leading uncials
and a large preponderance of ancient evidence place it where we have it. It
is quite possible that Paul may have reissued Romans after a time, and may
only then have added the doxology, which has a certain resemblance in
manner to his later (captivity) style. But it is at least likely that dogmatic
objections led Marcion to delete it, and that his action accounts for the
other phenomena which seem to witness against its place at the finale.
It is worth noting that Hort, a singularly fearless, while sober student,
defends without reserve the entirety of the Epistle as we have it, or
practically so. See his essay printed in Lightfoots Biblical Studies.
3. THE APPROXIMATE DATE:
We can fix the approximate date with fair certainty within reasonable
limits. We gather from
<451519>
Romans 15:19 that Paul, when he wrote, was in
the act of closing his work in the East and was looking definitely
westward. But he was first about (15:25,26) to revisit Jerusalem with his
collection, mainly made in Macedonia and Achaia, for the poor saints.
Placing these allusions side by side with the references in 1 and 2
Corinthians to the collection and its conveyance, and again with the
narrative of Acts, we may date Romans very nearly at the same time as 2
Corinthians, just before the visit to Jerusalem narrated in Acts 20, etc. The
year may be fixed with great probability as 58 AD. This estimate follows
the lines of Lightfoots chronology, which Robertson (ut supra) supports.
More recent schemes would move the date back to 56 AD.
The readers attention is invited to this date. Broadly speaking, it was
about 30 years at the most after the Crucifixion. Let anyone in middle life
reflect on the freshness in memory of events, whether public or private,
which 30 years ago made any marked impression on his mind. Let him
consider how concrete and vivid still are the prominent personages of 30
years ago, many of whom of course are still with us. And let him transfer
this thought to the 1st century, and to the time of our Epistle. Let him
remember that we have at least this one great Christian writing composed,
for certain, within such easy reach of the very lifetime of Jesus Christ when
His contemporary friends were still, in numbers, alive and active. Then let
him open the Epistle afresh, and read, as if for the first time, its estimate of
Jesus Christ a Figure then of no legendary past, with its halo, but of the
all but present day. Let him note that this transcendent estimate comes to
325
us conveyed in the vehicle not of poetry and rhetoric, but of a treatise
pregnant with masterly argument and admirable practical wisdom, tolerant
and comprehensive. And we think that the reader will feel that the result of
his meditations on date and circumstances is reassuring as to the solidity of
the historic basis of the Christian faith (from the present writers
introduction to the Epistle in the Temple Bible; see also his Light from the
First Days: Short Studies in 1 Thessalonians).
4. THE PLACE OF WRITING:
With confidence we may name Corinth as the place of writing. Paul was at
the time in some city (
<451623>
Romans 16:23). He was staying with one
Gaius, or Caius (same place) , and we find in
<460114>
1 Corinthians 1:14 a
Gaius, closely connected with Paul, and a Corinthian. He commends to the
Romans the deaconess Phoebe, attached to the church at Cenchrea
(16:1), presumably a place near that from which he was writing; and
Cenchrea was the southern part of Corinth.
5. THE DESTINATION:
The first advent of Christianity to Rome is unrecorded, and we know very
little of its early progress. Visiting Romans ([rqouvtr,
epidemountes]), both Jews and proselytes, appear at Pentecost (
<440210>
Acts
2:10), and no doubt some of these returned home believers. In
<441802>
Acts
18:2 we have Aquila and Priscilla, Jews, evidently Christians, lately come
from Italy, and probably from Rome. But we know practically nothing
else of the story previous to this Epistle, which is addressed to a mission
church obviously important and already spiritually advanced. On the other
hand (a curious paradox in view of the historical development of Roman
Christianity), there is no allusion in the Epistle to church organization. The
Christian ministry (apart from Pauls own apostleship) is not even
mentioned. It may fairly be said to be incredible that if the legend of Peters
long episcopate were historical, no allusion whatever to his work, influence
and authority should be made. It is at least extremely difficult to prove that
he was even present in Rome till shortly before his martyrdom, and the
very ancient belief that Peter and Paul founded the Roman church is more
likely to have had its origin in their martyrdoms there than in Peters having
in any sense shared in the early evangelization of the city.
326
As to Rome itself, we may picture it at the date of the Epistle as
containing, with its suburbs, a closely massed population of perhaps
800,000 people; a motley host of many races, with a strong oriental
element, among which the Jews were present as a marked influence,
despised and sometimes dreaded, but always attracting curiosity.
6. THE LANGUAGE:
The Epistle was written in Greek, the common dialect, the Greek of
universal intercourse of that age. One naturally asks, why not in Latin,
when the message was addressed to the supreme Latin city? The large
majority of Christian converts beyond doubt came from the lower middle
and lowest classes, not least from the slave class. These strata of society
were supplied greatly from immigrants, much as in parts of East London
now aliens make the main population. Not Latin but Greek, then lingua
franca of the Mediterranean, would be the daily speech of these people. It
is remarkable that all the early Roman bishops bear Greek names. And
some 40 years after the date of this Epistle we find Clement of Rome
writing in Greek to the Corinthians, and later again, early in the 2nd
century, Ignatius writing in Greek to the Romans.
7. THE OCCASION:
We cannot specify the occasion of writing for certain. No hint appears of
any acute crisis in the mission (as when 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians,
Galatians, or Colossians were written). Nor would personal reminiscences
influence the writer, for he had not yet seen Rome. We can only suggest
some possibilities as follows:
(1) A good opportunity for safe communication was offered by the
deaconess Phoebes proposed visit to the metropolis. She doubtless
asked Paul for a commendatory letter, and this may have suggested an
extended message to the church.
(2) Pauls thoughts had long gone toward Rome. See
<441921>
Acts 19:21: I
must see Rome, words which seem perhaps to imply some divine
intimation (compare 23:11). And his own life-course would fall in with
such a supernatural call. He had always aimed at large centers; and now
his great work in the central places of the Levant was closing; he had
worked at Ephesus, Thessalonica, Corinth; he was at last to think of
the supreme center of all. Rome must always have had a dominant
327
interest for the Apostle of the Nations, and any suggestion that his
Lords will tended that way would intensify it to the highest degree.
(3) The form of the Epistle may throw further light on the occasion.
The document falls, on the whole, into three parts. First we have
Romans 1 through 8 inclusive, a prolonged exposition of the contrasted
and related phenomena of sin and salvation, with special initial
references to the cases of Jew and non-Jew respectively. Then come
Romans 9 through 11, which deal with the Jewish rejection of the
Jewish Messiah, developing into a prophetic revelation of the future of
Israel in the grace of God. Lastly we have Romans 12 through 16.
Some account of the writers plans, and his salutations to friends,
requests for prayer, etc., form the close of this section. But it is mainly
a statement of Christian duty in common life, personal, civil, religious.
Under the latter head we have a noble treatment of problems raised by
varying opinions, particularly on religious observances, among the
converts, Jew and Gentile.
Such phenomena cast a possible light on the occasion of writing. The
Roman mission was on one side, by its locality and surroundings, eminently
gentile. On the other, there was, as we have seen, a strong Judaic element
in Roman life, particularly in its lower strata, and no doubt around the
Jewish community proper there had grown up a large community of
worshippers ([orporvo, sebomenoi]) or, as we commonly call them,
proselytes (adherents, in the language of modern missionary
enterprise), people who, without receiving circumcision, attended Jewish
worship and shared largely in Jewish beliefs and ideals. Among these
proselytes, we may believe, the earliest evangelists at Rome found a
favorable field, and the mission church as Paul knew of it contained
accordingly not only two definite classes, converts from paganism,
converts from native Judaism, but very many in whose minds both
traditions were working at once. To such converts the problems raised by
Judaism, both without and within the church, would come home with a
constant intimacy and force, and their case may well have been present in a
special degree in the apostles mind alike in the early passages (Romans 1
through 3) of the Epistle and in such later parts as Romans 2 through 11;
14; 15. On the one hand they would greatly need guidance on the
significance of the past of Israel and on the destiny of the chosen race in
the future. Moreover, discussions in such circles over the way of salvation
would suggest to the great missionary his exposition of mans
328
reconciliation with a holy God and of His secrets for purity and obedience
in an unholy world. And meanwhile the ever-recurring problems raised by
ceremonial rules in common daily life problems of days and seasons,
and of forbidden food would, for such disciples, need wise and
equitable treatment.
(4) Was it not with this position before him, known to him through the
many means of communication between Rome and Corinth, that Paul
cast his letter into this form? And did not the realization of the central
greatness of Rome suggest its ample scale? The result was a writing
which shows everywhere his sense of the presence of the Judaic
problem. Here he meets it by a statement, massive and tender, of
heavens easy, artless, unencumbered plan of redemption, grace, and
glory, a plan which on its other side is the very mystery of the love of
God, which statement is now and forever a primary treasure of the
Christian faith. And then again he lays down for the too eager
champions of the new liberty a law of loving tolerance toward slower
and narrower views which is equally our permanent spiritual
possession, bearing a significance far-reaching and benign.
(5) It has been held by some great students, notably Lightfoot and
Hort, that the main purpose of Romans was to reconcile the opposing
schools in the church, and that its exposition of the salvation of the
individual is secondary only. The present writer cannot take this view.
Read the Epistle from its spiritual center, so to speak, and is not the
perspective very different? The apostle is always conscious of the
collective aspect of the Christian life, an aspect vital to its full health.
But is he not giving his deepest thought, animated by his own
experience of conviction and conversion, to the sinful mans relation to
eternal law, to redeeming grace, and to a coming glory? It is the
question of personal salvation which with Paul seems to us to live and
move always in the depth of his argument, even when Christian polity
and policy is the immediate theme.
8. SOME CHARACTERISTICS:
Excepting only Ephesians (the problem of the authorship of which is
insoluble, and we put that great document here aside), Romans is, of all
Paul has written, least a letter and most a treatise. He is seen, as we read,
to approach religious problems of the highest order in a free but reasoned
329
succession; problems of the darkness and of the light, of sin and grace, fall
and restoration, doom and remission, faith and obedience, suffering and
glory, transcendent hope and humblest duty, now in their relation to the
soul, now so as to develop the holy collectivity of the common life. The
Roman converts are always first in view, but such is the writer, such his
handling, that the results are for the universal church and for every believer
of all time. Yet all the while (and it is in this a splendid example of that
epistolary method of revelation which is one of the glories of the New
Testament) it is never for a moment the mere treatise, however great. The
writer is always vividly personal, and conscious of persons. The Epistle is
indeed a masterpiece of doctrine, but also always the unforced, unartificial
utterance of a friend to friends.
9. MAIN TEACHINGS OF THE EPISTLE:
Approaching the Epistle as a treatise rather than a letter (with the
considerable reserves just stated), we indicate briefly some of its main
doctrinal deliverances. Obviously, in limine, it is not set before us as a
complete system either of theology or of morals; to obtain a full view of a
Pauline dogma and ethics we must certainly place Ephesians and
Colossians, not to speak of passages from Thessalonians, beside Romans.
But it makes by far the nearest approach to doctrinal completeness among
the Epistles.
(1) Doctrine of Man.
In great measure this resolves itself into the doctrine of man as a sinner, as
being guilty in face of an absolutely holy and absolutely imperative law,
whether announced by abnormal revelation, as to the Jew, or through
nature and conscience only, as to the Gentile. At the back of this
presentation lies the full recognition that man is cognizant, as a spiritual
being, of the eternal difference of right and wrong, and of the witness of
creation to personal eternal power and Godhead as its cause, and that he
is responsible in an awe-inspiring way for his unfaithfulness to such
cognitions. He is a being great enough to be in personal moral relation with
God, and able to realize his ideal only in true relation with Him; therefore a
being whose sin and guilt have an unfathomable evil in them. So is he
bound by his own failure that he cannot restore himself; God alone, in
sovereign mercy, provides for his pardon by the propitiation of Christ, and
for his restoration by union with Christ in the life given by the Holy Spirit.
330
Such is man, once restored, once become a saint (a being hallowed), a
son of God by adoption and grace, that his final glorification will be the
signal (in some sense the cause?) of a transfiguration of the whole finite
universe. Meanwhile, man is a being actually in the midst of a life of duty
and trial, a member of civil society, with obligations to its order. He lives
not in a God-forsaken world, belonging only to another and evil power.
His new life, the mind of the Spirit in him, is to show itself in a conduct
and character good for the state and for society at large, as well as for the
brotherhood.
(2) Doctrine of God.
True to the revelation of the Old Testament, Paul presents God as absolute
in will and power, so that He is not only the sole author of nature but the
eternal and ultimately sole cause of goodness in man. To Him in the last
resort all is due, not only the provision of atonement but the power and
will to embrace it. The great passages which set before us a fore-defining
([poopo, proorisis], predestination) and election of the saints are all
evidently inspired by this motive, the jealous resolve to trace to the one
true Cause all motions and actions of good. The apostle seems e.g. almost
to risk affirming a sovereign causation of the opposite, of unbelief and its
sequel. But patient study will find that it is not so. God is not said to fit
for ruin the vessels of wrath. Their woeful end is overruled to His glory,
but nowhere is it taken to be caused by Him. All along the writers intense
purpose is to constrain the actual believer to see the whole causation of his
salvation in the will and power of Him whose inmost character is revealed
in the supreme fact that, for us all, he spared not his Son.
(3) Doctrine of Son of God Redemption; Justification.
The Epistle affords materials for a magnificently large Christology. The
relation of the Son to creation is indeed not expounded in terms (as in
Col), but it is implied in the language of Romans 8, where the interrelation
of our redemption and the transfiguration of Nature is dealt with. We have
the Lords manhood fully recognized, while His Godhead (as we read in
9:5; so too Robertson, ut supra) is stated in terms, and it is most certainly
implied in the language and tone of e.g. the close of Romans 8. Who but a
bearer of the Supreme Nature could satisfy the conception indicated in
such words as those of 8:32,35-39, coming as they do from a Hebrew
monotheist of intense convictions? Meantime this transcendent Person has
331
so put Himself in relation with us, as the willing worker of the Fathers
purpose of love, that He is the sacrifice of peace for us (Romans 3), our
propitiatory One ([ootqpov, hilasterion], is now known to be an
adjective), such that (whatever the mystery, which leaves the fact no less
certain) the man who believes on Him, i.e. (as Romans 4 fully
demonstrates) relies on Him, gives himself over to His mercy, is not only
forgiven but justified, justified by faith. And justification is more than
forgiveness; it is not merely the remission of a penalty but a welcome to the
offender, pronounced to be lawfully at peace with the eternal holiness and
love.
See JUSTIFICATION; PROPITIATION.
In closest connection with this message of justification is the teaching
regarding union with the Christ who has procured the justification. This is
rather assumed than expounded in Romans (we have the exposition more
explicitly in Eph, Col, and Gal), but the assumption is present wherever the
pregnant phrase in Christ is used. Union is, for Paul, the central doctrine
of all, giving life and relation to the whole range. As Lightfoot has well
said (Sermons in Pauls, number 16), he is the apostle not primarily of
justification, or of liberty, great as these truths are with him, but of union
with Christ. It is through union that justification is ours; the merits of the
Head are for the member. It is through union that spiritual liberty and
power are ours; the Spirit of life is from the Head to the member. Held by
grace in this profound and multiplex connection, where life, love and law
are interlaced, the Christian is entitled to an assurance full of joy that
nothing shall separate him, soul and (ultimately) body, from his once
sacrificed and now risen and triumphant Lord.
(4) Doctrine of the Spirit of God.
No writing of the New Testament but Johns Gospel is so full upon this
great theme as Romans 8 may be said to be the locus classicus in the
Epistles for the work of the Holy Ghost in the believer. By implication it
reveals personality as well as power (see especially 8:26). Note particularly
the place of this great passage, in which revelation and profoundest
conditions run continually into each other. It follows Romans 7, in which
the apostle depicts, in terms of his own profound and typical experience,
the struggles of conscience and will over the awful problem of the
bondage of indwelling sin. If we interpret the passage aright, the case
332
supposed is that of a regenerate man, who, however, attempts the struggle
against inward evil armed, as to consciousness, with his own faculties
merely, and finds the struggle insupportable. Then comes in the divine
solution, the promised Spirit of life and liberty, welcomed and put into use
by the man who has found his own resources yam. In Christ Jesus, in
union with Him, he by the Spirit does to death the practices of the body,
and rises through conscious liberty into an exulting hope of the liberty of
the glory of the sons of God not so, however as to know nothing of
groaning within himself, while yet in the body; but it is a groan which
leaves intact the sense of sonship and divine love, and the expectation of a
final completeness of redemption.
(5) Doctrine of Duty.
While the Epistle is eminently a message of salvation, it is also, in vital
connection with this, a treasury of principle and precept for the life of duty.
It does indeed lay down the sovereign freedom of our acceptance for
Christs sake alone, and so absolutely that (
<450601>
Romans 6:1,2,15) the writer
anticipates the inference (by foes, or by mistaken friends), Let us continue
in sin. But the answer comes instantly, and mainly through the doctrine of
union. Our pardon is not an isolated fact. Secured only by Christs
sacrifice, received only by the faith which receives Him as our all, it is ipso
facto never received alone but with all His other gifts, for it becomes ours
as we receive, not merely one truth about Him, but Him. Therefore, we
receive His Life as our true life; and it is morally unthinkable that we can
receive this and express it in sin. This assumed, the Epistle (Romans 12 and
onward) lays down with much detail and in admirable application large
ranges of the law of duty, civil, social, personal, embracing duties to the
state, loyalty to its laws, payment of its taxes, recognition of the sacredness
of political order, even ministered by pagans; and also duties to society and
the church, including a large and loving tolerance even in religious matters,
and a response to every call of the law of unselfish love. However we can
or cannot adjust mentally the two sides, that of a supremely free salvation
and that of an inexorable responsibility, there the two sides are, in the
Pauline message. And reason and faith combine to assure us that both sides
are eternally true, antinomies whose harmony will be explained hereafter
in a higher life, but which are to be lived out here concurrently by the true
disciple, assured of their ultimate oneness of source in the eternal love.
333
(6) Doctrine of Israel.
Very briefly we touch on this department of the message of Romans,
mainly to point out that the problem of Israels unbelief nowhere else in
Paul appears as so heavy a load on his heart, and that on the other hand we
nowhere else have anything like the light he claims to throw (Romans 11)
on Israels future. Here, if anywhere, he appears as the predictive prophet,
charged with the statement of a mystery, and with the announcement of
its issues. The promises to Israel have never failed, nor are they canceled.
At the worst, they have always been inherited by a chosen remnant, Israel
within Israel. And a time is coming when, in a profound connection with
Messianic blessing on the Gentiles, all Israel shall be saved, with a
salvation which shall in turn be new life to the world outside Israel.
Throughout the passage Paul speaks, not as one who will not give up a
hope, but as having had revealed to him a vast and definite prospect, in
the divine purpose.
It is not possible in our present space to work out other lines of the
message of Romans. Perhaps enough has been done to stimulate the
readers own inquiries.
LITERATURE.
Of the Fathers, Chrysostom and Augustine are pre-eminent as interpreters
of Romans: Chrysostom in his expository Homilies, models of eloquent
and illuminating discourse, full of sanctified common sense, while not
perfectly appreciative of the inmost doctrinal characteristics; Augustine,
not in any continuous comm., but in his anti-Pelagian writings, which show
the sympathetic intensity of his study of the doctrine of the Epistle, not so
much on justification as on grace and the will. Of the Reformers, Calvin is
eminently the great commentator, almost modern in his constant aim to
ascertain the sacred writers meaning by open-eyed inference direct from
the words. On Romans he is at his best; and it is remarkable that on certain
leading passages where grace is theme he is much less rigidly Calvinistic
than some of his followers. In modern times, the not learned but masterly
exposition of Robert Haldane (circa 1830) claims mention, and the
eloquent and highly suggestive expository lectures (about the same date) of
Thomas Chalmers. H. A. W. Meyer (5th edition, 1872, English translation
1873-1874) among the Germans is excellent for carefulness and insight;
Godet (1879, English translation 1881) equally so among French-writing
334
divines; of late English interpreters I. A. Beet (1877, many revisions),
Sanday and Headlam (1895, in the International series) and E. H. Gifford
(admirable for scholarship and exposition; his work was printed first in the
Speakers (Bible) Comm., 1881, now separately) claim particular mention.
J. Denney writes on Romans in The Expositors Greek Test. (1900).
Luthers lectures on Romans, delivered in 1516-1517 and long supposed
lost, have been recovered and were published by J. Ficker in 1908. Among
modern German commentators, the most important is B. Weiss in the later
revisions of the Meyer series (9th edition, 1899), while a very elaborate
commentary has been produced by Zahn in his own series (1910). Briefer
are the works of Lipsius (Hand-Kommentar, 2nd edition, 1892, very
scholarly and suggestive); Lietzmann (Handbuch zum N T, interest chiefly
linguistic), and Julicher (in J. Weiss, Schriften des NTs, 2nd edition, 1908,
an intensely able piece of popular exposition).
A. E. Garvie has written a brilliant little commentary in the (New)
Century series (no date); that of R. John Parry in the Cambridge Greek
Testament, 1913, is more popular, despite its use of the Greek text. F. B.
Westcotts Paul and Justification, 1913, contains a close grammatical study
with an excellent paraphrase.
The writer may be allowed to name his short commentary (1879) in the
Cambridge Bible for Schools and a fuller one, in a more homiletic style, in
the Expositors Bible, 1894.
Handley Dunelm
ROME
<rom>:
Rome (Latin and Italian, Roma; [ Pq, Rhome]): The capital of the
Roman republic and empire, later the center of Lot Christendom, and since
1871 capital of the kingdom of Italy, is situated mainly on the left bank of
the Tiber about 15 miles from the Mediterranean Sea in 41 degrees 53 54
inches North latitude and 12 degrees 0 12 inches longitude East of
Greenwich.
It would be impossible in the limited space assigned to this article to give
even a comprehensive outline of the ancient history of the Eternal City. It
will suit the general purpose of the work to consider the relations of the
335
Roman government and society with the Jews and Christians, and, in
addition, to present a rapid survey of the earlier development of Roman
institutions and power, so as to provide the necessary historical setting for
the appreciation of the more essential subjects.
I. DEVELOPMENT OF THE REPUBLICAN CONSTITUTION.
1. Original Roman State:
The traditional chronology for the earliest period of Roman history is
altogether unreliable, partly because the Gauls, in ravaging the city in 390
BC, destroyed the monuments which might have offered faithful testimony
of the earlier period (Livy vi.1). It is known that there was a settlement on
the site of Rome before the traditional date of the founding (753 BC). The
original Roman state was the product of the coalition of a number of
adjacent clan-communities, whose names were perpetuated in the Roman
genres, or groups of imaginary kindred, a historical survival which had lost
all significance in the period of authentic history. The chieftains of the
associated clans composed the primitive senate or council of elders, which
exercised sovereign authority. But as is customary in the development of
human society a military or monarchical regime succeeded the looser
patriarchal or sacerdotal organs of authority. This second stage may be
identified with the legendary rule of the Tarquins, which was probably a
period of Etruscan domination. The confederacy of clans was welded into a
homogeneous political entity, and society was organized for civic ends,
upon a timocratic basis. The forum was drained and became a social,
industrial and political center, and the Capitoline temple of Jupiter, Juno,
and Minerva (Etruscan pseudo-Hellenic deities) was erected as a common
shrine for all the people. But above all the Romans are indebted to these
foreign kings for a training in discipline and obedience which was
exemplified in the later conception of magisterial authority signified by the
term imperium.
The prerogatives of the kings passed over to the consuls. The reduction of
the tenure of power to a single year and the institution of the principle of
colleagueship were the earliest checks to the abuse of unlimited authority.
But the true cornerstone of Roman liberty was thought to be the lexicon
Valeria, which provided that no citizen should be put to death by a
magistrate without being allowed the right of appeal to the decision of the
assembly of the people.
336
2. The Struggle between Patricians and Plebeians:
A period of more than 150 years after the establishment of the republic was
consumed chiefly by the struggle between the two classes or orders, the
patricians and plebeians. The former were the descendants of the original
clans and constituted the populus, or body-politic, in a more particular
sense. The plebeians were descendants of former slaves and dependents, or
of strangers who had been attracted to Rome by the obvious advantages
for industry and trade. They enjoyed the franchise as members of the
military assembly (comitia centuriata), but had no share in the magistracies
or other civic honors and emoluments, and were excluded from the
knowledge of the civil law which was handed down in the patrician families
as an oral tradition.
The first step in the progress of the plebeians toward political equality was
taken when they wrested from the patricians the privilege of choosing
representatives from among themselves, the tribunes, whose function of
bearing aid to oppressed plebeians was rendered effective by the right of
veto (intercessio), by virtue of which any act of a magistrate could be
arrested. The codification of the law in the Twelve Tables was a distinct
advantage to the lower classes, because the evils which they had suffered
were largely due to a harsh and abusive interpretation of legal institutions,
the nature of which had been obscure (see ROMAN LAW). The abrogation,
directly thereafter, of the prohibition of intermarriage between the classes
resulted in their gradual intermingling.
3. The Senate and Magistrates:
The kings had reduced the senate to the position of a mere advising body.
But under the republican regime it recovered in fact the authority of which
it was deprived in theory. The controlling power of the senate is the most
significant feature of the republican government, although it was
recognized by no statute or other constitutional document. It was due in
part to the diminution of the power of the magistrates, and in part to the
manner in which the senators were chosen. The lessening of the authority
of the magistrates was the result of the increase in their number, which led
not only to the curtailment of the actual prerogative of each, but also to the
contraction of their aggregate independent influence. The augmentation of
the number of magistrates was made necessary by the territorial expansion
of the state and the elaboration of administration. But it was partly the
337
result of plebeian agitation. The events of 367 BC may serve as a suitable
example to illustrate the action of these influences. For when the plebeians
carried by storm the citadel of patrician exclusiveness in gaining admission
to the consulship, the highest regular magistracy, the necessity for another
magistrate with general competency afforded an opportunity for making a
compensating concession to the patricians, and the praetorship was
created, to which at first members of the old aristocracy were alone
eligible. Under the fully developed constitution the regular magistracies
were five in number, consulship, praetorship, aedileship, tribunate, and
quaestorship, all of which were filled by annual elections.
Mention has been made of the manner of choosing the members of the
senate as a factor in the development of the authority of the supreme
council. At first the highest executive officers of the state exercised the
right of selecting new members to maintain the senators at the normal
number of three hundred. Later this function was transferred to the censors
who were elected at intervals of five years. But custom and later statute
ordained that the most distinguished citizens should be chosen, and in the
Roman community the highest standard of distinction was service to the
state, in other words, the holding of public magistracies. It followed,
therefore, that the senate was in reality an assembly of all living ex-
magistrates. The senate included, moreover, all the political wisdom and
experience of the community, and so great was its prestige for these
reasons, that, although the expression of its opinion (senatus consultum)
was endowed by law with no compelling force, it inevitably guided the
conduct of the consulting magistrate, who was practically its minister,
rather than its president.
When the plebeians gained admission to the magistracies, the patriciate lost
its political significance. But only the wealthier plebeian families were able
to profit by this extension of privilege, inasmuch as a political career
required freedom from gainful pursuits and also personal influence. These
plebeian families readily coalesced with the patricians and formed a new
aristocracy, which is called the nobilitas for the sake of distinction. It rested
ultimately upon the foundation of wealth. The dignity conferred by the
holding of public magistracies was its title to distinction. The senate was its
organ. Rome was never a true democracy except in theory. During the
whole period embraced between the final levelling of the old distinctions
based upon blood (287 BC) and the beginning of the period of revolution
(133 BC), the magistracies were occupied almost exclusively by the
338
representatives of the comparatively limited number of families which
constituted the aristocracy. These alone entered the senate through the
doorway of the magistracies, and the data would almost justify us in
asserting that the republican and senatorial government were substantially
and chronologically identical.
The seeds of the political and social revolution were sown during the
Second Punic War and the period which followed it. The prorogation of
military authority established a dangerous precedent in violation of the
spirit of the republic, so that Pub. Cornelius Scipio was really the
forerunner of Marius, Julius Caesar, and Augustus. The stream of gold
which found its way from the provinces to Rome was a bait to attract the
cupidity of the less scrupulous senators, and led to the growth of the worst
kind of professionalism in politics. The middle class of small farmers
decayed for various reasons; the allurement of service in the rich but effete
countries of the Orient attracted many. The cheapness of slaves made
independent farming unprofitable and led to the increase in large estates;
the cultivation of grain was partly displaced by that of the vine and olive,
which were less suited to the habits and ability of the older class of farmers.
The more immediate cause of the revolution was the inability of the senate
as a whole to control the conduct of its more radical or violent members.
For as political ambition became more ardent with the increase in the
material prizes to be gained, aspiring leaders turned their attention to the
people, and sought to attain the fulfillment o.f their purposes by popular
legislation setting at nought the concurrence of the senate, which custom
had consecrated as a requisite preliminary for popular action. The loss of
initiative by the senate meant the subversion of senatorial government. The
senate possessed in the veto power of the tribunes a weapon for coercing
unruly magistrates, for one of the ten tribunes could always be induced to
interpose his veto to prohibit the passage of popular legislation. But this
weapon was broken when Tib. Gracchus declared in 133 BC that a tribune
who opposed the wishes of the people was no longer their representative,
and sustained this assertion.
4. Underlying Principles:
It would be foreign to the purpose of the present article to trace the
vicissitudes of the civil strife of the last century of the republic. A few
words will suffice to suggest the general principles which lay beneath the
339
surface of political and social phenomena. Attention has been called to the
ominous development of the influence of military commanders and the
increasing emphasis of popular favor. These were the most important
tendencies throughout this period, and the coalition of the two was fatal to
the supremacy of the senatorial government. Marius after winning
unparalleled military glory formed a political alliance with Glaucia and
Saturninus, the leaders of the popular faction in the city in 100 BC. This
was a turning-point in the course of the revolution. But the importance of
the sword soon outweighed that of the populace in the combination which
was thus constituted. In the civil wars of Marius and Sulla constitutional
questions were decided for the first time by superiority of military strength
exclusively. Repeated appeals to brute force dulled the perception for
constitutional restraints and the rights of minorities. The senate had already
displayed signs of partial paralysis at the time of the Gracchi. How rapidly
its debility must have increased as the sword cut off its most stalwart
members! Its power expired in the proscriptions, or organized murder of
political opponents. The popular party was nominally triumphant, but in
theory the Roman state was still an urban commonwealth with a single
po1itical center. The franchise could be exercised only at Rome. It
followed from this that the actual political assemblies were made up largely
of the worthless element which was so numerous in the city, whose
irrational instincts were guided and controlled by shrewd political leaders,
particularly those who united in themselves military ability and the wiles of
the demagogue. Sulla, Crassus, Julius Caesar, Antony, and lastly Octavian
were in effect the ancient counterpart of the modern political boss. When
such men realized their ultimate power and inevitable rivalry, the ensuing
struggle for supremacy and for the survival of the fittest formed the
necessary process of elimination leading naturally to the establishment of
the monarchy, which was in this case the rule of the last survivor. When
Octavian received the title Augustus and the proconsular power (27 BC),
the transformation was accomplished.
LITERATURE.
The standard work on Roman political institutions is Mommsen and
Marquardt, Handbuch der klassischen Altertumer. Abbott, Roman Political
Institutions, Boston and London, 1901, offers a useful summary treatment
of the subject.
340
II. EXTENSION OF ROMAN SOVEREIGNTY.
See ROMAN EMPIRE AND CHRISTIANITY I.
LITERATURE.
Only the most important general works on Roman history can be
mentioned: Ihne, Romische Geschichte (2nd edition), Leipzig, 1893-96,
English translation, Longmans, London, 1871-82; Mommsen, History of
Rome, English translation by Dickson, New York, 1874; Niebuhr, History
of Rome, English translation by Hare and Thirlwall, Cambridge, 1831-32;
Pais, Storia di Roma, Turin, 1898-99; Ferrero, Greatness and Decline of
Rome, English translation by Zimmern, New York, 1909.
III. THE IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT.
1. Imperial Authority:
Augustus displayed considerable tact in blending his own mastery in the
state with the old institutions of the republican constitution. His authority,
legally, rested mainly upon the tribunician power, which he had probably
received as early as 36 BC, but which was established on a better basis in
23 BC, and the proconsular prerogative (imperiurn proconsulare),
conferred in 27 BC. By virtue of the first he was empowered to summon
the senate or assemblies and could veto the action of almost any
magistrate. The second title of authority conferred upon him the command
of the military forces of the state and consequently the administration of
the provinces where troops were stationed, besides a general supervision
over the government of the other provinces. It follows that a distinction
was made (27 BC) between the imperial provinces which were
administered by the emperors representatives (legati Augusti pro praetore)
and the senatorial provinces where the republican machinery of
administration was retained. The governors of the latter were called
generally proconsuls (see PROVINCE). Mention is made of two
proconsuls in the New Testament, Gallio in Achaia (
<441812>
Acts 18:12) and
Sergius Paulus in Cyprus (
<441307>
Acts 13:7). It is instructive to compare the
lenient and common-sense attitude of these trained Roman aristocrats with
that of the turbulent local mobs who dealt with Paul in Asia Minor, Judea,
or Greece (Tucker, Life in the Roman World of Nero and Paul, New York,
1910, 95).
341
2. Three Classes of Citizens:
Roman citizens were still divided into three classes socially, senatorial,
equestrian, and plebeian, and the whole system of government harmonized
with this triple division. The senatorial class was composed of descendants
of senators and those upon whom the emperors conferred the latus clavus,
or privilege of wearing the tunic with broad purple border, the sign of
membership in this order. The quaestorship was still the door of admission
to the senate. The qualifications for membership in the senate were the
possession of senatorial rank and property of the value of not less than
1,000,000 sesterces ($45,000; 9,000). Tiberius transferred the election of
magistrates from the people to the senate, which was already practically a
closed body. Under the empire senatus consulta received the force of law.
Likewise the senate acquired judicial functions, sitting as a court of justice
for trying important criminal cases and hearing appeals in civil cases from
the senatorial provinces. The equestrian class was made up of those who
possessed property of the value of 400,000 sesterces or more, and the
privilege of wearing the narrow purple band on the tunic. With the knights
the emperors filled many important financial and administrative positions in
Italy and the provinces which were under their control.
IV. ROMAN RELIGION.
1. Deities:
(1) The Roman religion was originally more consistent than the Greek,
because the deities as conceived by the unimaginative Latin genius
were entirely without human character. They were the influences or
forces which directed the visible phenomena of the physical world,
whose favor was necessary to the material prosperity of mankind. It
would be incongruous to assume the existence of a system of
theological doctrines in the primitive period. Ethical considerations
entered to only a limited extent into the attitude of the Romans toward
their gods. Religion partook of the nature of a contract by which men
pledged themselves to the scrupulous observance of certain sacrifices
and other ceremonies, and in return deemed themselves entitled to
expect the active support of the gods in bringing their projects to a
fortunate conclusion. The Romans were naturally polytheists as a result
of their conception of divinity. Since before the dawn of science there
was no semblance of unity in the natural world, there could be no unity
342
in heaven. There must be a controlling spirit over every important
object or class of objects, every person, and every process of nature.
The gods, therefore, were more numerous than mankind itself.
(2) At an early period the government became distinctly secular. The
priests were the servants of the community for preserving the venerable
aggregation of formulas and ceremonies, many of which lost at an early
period such spirit as they once possessed. The magistrates were the
true representatives of the community in its relationship with the deities
both in seeking the divine will in the auspices and in performing the
more important sacrifices.
(3) The Romans at first did not make statues of their gods. This was
partly due to lack of skill, but mainly to the vagueness of their
conceptions of the higher beings. Symbols sufficed to signify their
existence, a spear, for instance, standing for Mars. The process of
reducing the gods to human form was inaugurated when they came into
contact with the Etruscans and Greeks. The Tarquins summoned
Etruscan artisans and artists to Rome, who made from terra cotta cult
statues and a pediment group for the Capitoline temple.
The types of the Greek deities had already been definitely established when
the Hellenic influence in molding Roman culture became predominant.
When the form of the Greek gods became familiar to the Romans in works
of sculpture, they gradually supplanted those Roman deities with which
they were nominally identified as a result of a real or fancied resemblance.
See GREECE, RELIGION IN.
(4) The importation of new gods was a comparatively easy matter.
Polytheism is by its nature tolerant because of its indefiniteness. The
Romans could no more presume to have exhaustive knowledge of the
gods than they could pretend to possess a comprehensive acquaintance
with the universe. The number of their gods increased of necessity as
human consciousness of natural phenomena expanded. Besides, it was
customary to invite the gods of conquered cities to transfer their abode
to Rome and favor the Romans in their undertakings. But the most
productive source for religious expansion was the Sibylline Books. See
APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE, V. This oracular work was brought to
Rome from Cumae, a center of the cult of Apollo. It was consulted at
times of crisis with a view to discover what special ceremonies would
343
secure adequate divine aid. The forms of worship recommended by the
Sibylline Books were exclusively Greek As early as the 5th century BC
the cult of Apollo was introduced at Rome. Heracles and the Dioscuri
found their way thither about the same time. Later Italian Diana was
merged with Artemis, and the group of Ceres, Liber, and Libera were
identified with foreign Demeter, Dionysus, and Persephone. Thus
Roman religion became progressively Hellenized. By the close of the
Second Punic War the greater gods of Greece had all found a home by
the Tiber, and the myriad of petty local deities who found no
counterpart in the celestial beings of Mt. Olympus fell into oblivion.
Their memory was retained by the antiquarian lore of the priests alone.
See ROMAN EMPIRE AND CHRISTIANITY, III, 1.
2. Religious Decay:
Roman religion received with the engrafted branches of Greek religion the
germs of rapid decay, for its Hellenization made Roman religion peculiarly
susceptible to the attack of philosophy. The cultivated class in Greek
society was already permeated with skepticism. The philosophers made the
gods appear ridiculous. Greek philosophy gained a firm foothold in Rome
in the 2nd century BC, and it became customary a little later to look upon
Athens as a sort of university town where the sons of the aristocracy
should be sent for the completion of their education in the schools of the
philosophers. Thus at the termination of the republican era religious faith
had departed from the upper classes largely, and during the turmoil of the
civil wars even the external ceremonies were often abandoned and many
temples fell into ruins. There had never been any intimate connection
between formal religion and conduct, except when the faith of the gods
was invoked to insure the fulfillment of sworn promises.
Augustus tried in every way to restore the old religion, rebuilding no fewer
than 82 temples which lay in ruins at Rome. A revival of religious faith did
occur under the empire, although its spirit was largely alien to that which
had been displayed in the performance of the official cult. The people
remained superstitious, even when the cultivated classes adopted a
skeptical philosophy. The formal religion of the state no longer appealed to
them, since it offered nothing to the emotions or hopes. On the other hand
the sacramental, mysterious character of oriental religions inevitably
attracted them. This is the reason why the religions of Egypt and Syria
344
spread over the empire and exercised an immeasurable influence in the
moral life of the people. The partial success of Judaism and the ultimate
triumph of Christianity may be ascribed in part to the same causes.
In concluding we should bear in mind that the state dictated no system of
theology, that the empire in the beginning presented the spectacle of a sort
of religious chaos where all national cults were guaranteed protection, that
Roman polytheism was naturally tolerant, and that the only form of religion
which the state could not endure was one which was equivalent to an
attack upon the system of polytheism as a whole, since this would imperil
the welfare of the community by depriving the deities of the offerings and
other services in return for which their favor could be expected.
LITERATURE.
Marquardt, Romische Staatsverwaltung, III, 3, Das Sacralwesen;
Wissowa, Religion u. Kultus der Romer, Munich, 1902; Boissier,
Lamentations religion romaine, Paris, 1884.
V. ROME AND THE JEWS.
1. Judea under Roman Procurators and Governors:
Judaea became a part of the province of Syria in 63 BC (Josephus, BJ, vii,
7), and Hyrcanus, brother of the last king, remained as high priest
(archiereus kai ethnarches; Josephus, Ant, XIV, iv, 4) invested with judicial
as well as sacerdotal functions. But Antony and Octavius gave Palestine
(40 BC) as a kingdom to Herod, surnamed the Great, although his rule did
not become effective until 3 years later. His sovereignty was upheld by a
Roman legion stationed at Jerusalem (Josephus, Ant, XV, iii, 7), and he
was obliged to pay tribute to the Roman government and provide
auxiliaries for the Roman army (Appian, Bell. Civ., v.75). Herod built
Caesarea in honor of Augustus (Josephus, Ant, XV, ix, 6), and the Roman
procurators later made it the seat of government. At his death in 4 BC the
kingdom was divided between his three surviving sons, the largest portion
falling to Archelaus, who ruled Judea, Samaria and Idumaea with the title
ethnarches (Josephus, Ant, XVII, xi, 4) until 6 AD, when he was deposed
and his realm reduced to the position of a province. The administration by
Roman procurators (see PROCURATOR), which was now established, was
interrupted during the period 41-44 AD, when royal authority was
exercised by Herod Agrippa, grandson of Herod the Great, over the lands
345
which had been embraced in the kingdom of his grandfather (Josephus,
Ant, XIX, viii, 2), and, after 53 AD, Agrippa II ruled a considerable part of
Palestine (Josephus, Ant, XX, vii, 1; viii, 4).
After the fall of Jerusalem and the termination of the great revolt in 70 AD,
Palestine remained a separate province. Henceforth a legion (legio X
Fretensis) was added to the military forces stationed in the land, which was
encamped at the ruins of Jerusalem. Consequently, imperial governors of
praetorian rank (legati Augusti pro praetore) took the place of the former
procurators (Josephus, BJ, VII, i, 2, 3; Dio Cassius lv.23).
Several treaties are recorded between the Romans and Jews as early as the
time of the Maccabees (Josephus, Ant, XII, x, 6; XIII, ix, 2; viii, 5), and
Jews are known to have been at Rome as early as 138 BC. They became
very numerous in the capital after the return of Pompey who brought back
many captives (see LIBERTINES). Cicero speaks of multitudes of Jews at
Rome in 58 BC (Pro Flacco 28), and Caesar was very friendly toward them
(Suetonius Caesar 84). Held in favor by Augustus, they recovered the
privilege of collecting sums to send to the temple (Philo Legatio ad Caium
40). Agrippa offered 100 oxen in the temple when visiting Herod
(Josephus, Ant, XVI, ii, 1), and Augustus established a daily offering of a
bull and two lambs. Upon the whole the Roman government displayed
noticeable consideration for the religious scruples of the Jews. They were
exempted from military service and the duty of appearing in court on the
Sabbath. Yet Tiberius repressed Jewish rites in Rome in 19 AD (Suetonius
Tiberius 36) and Claudius expelled the Jews from the city in 49 AD
(Suetonius Claudius 25); but in both instances repression was not of long
duration.
2. Jewish Proselytism:
The Jews made themselves notorious in Rome in propagating their religion
by means of proselytizing (Horace Satires i.4, 142; i.9, 69; Juvenal xiv.96;
Tacitus Hist. v. 5), and the literature of the Augustan age contains several
references to the observation of the Sabbath (Tibullus i.3; Ovid Ars
amatoria i.67, 415; Remedium amoris 219). Proselytes from among the
Gentiles were not always required to observe all the prescriptions of the
Law. The proselytes of the Gate (sebomenoi), as they were called,
renounced idolatry and serious moral abuses and abstained from the blood
and meat of suffocated animals. Among such proselytes may be included
346
the centurion of Capernaum (
<420705>
Luke 7:5), the centurion Cornelius
(
<441001>
Acts 10:1), and the empress Poppea (Josephus, Ant, XX, viii, 11;
Tacitus Ann. xvi.6).
On proselytes of the Gate, GJV4, III, 177, very properly corrects the
error in HJP. These Gate people were not proselytes at all; they refused
to take the final step that carried them into Judaism namely,
circumcision (Ramsay, The Expositor, 1896, p. 200; Harnack, Expansion
of Christianity, I, 11).
See DEVOUT; PROSELYTES.
Notwithstanding the diffusion of Judaism by means of proselytism, the
Jews themselves lived for the most part in isolation in the poorest parts of
the city or suburbs, across the Tiber, near the Circus Maximus, or outside
the Porta Capena. Inscriptions show that there were seven communities,
each with its synagogue and council of elders presided over by a
gerusiarch. Five cemeteries have been discovered with many Greek, a few
Latin, but no Hebrew inscriptions.
LITERATURE.
Ewald, The Hist of Israel, English translation by Smith, London, 1885;
Renan, Hist of the People of Israel, English translation, Boston, 1896;
Schurer, The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, English translation
by MacPherson, New York.
VI. ROME AND THE CHRISTIANS.
1. Introduction of Christianity:
The date of the introduction of Christianity into Rome cannot be
determined. A Christian community existed at the time of the arrival of
Paul (
<442815>
Acts 28:15), to which he had addressed his Epistle a few years
before (58 AD). It is commonly thought that the statement regarding the
expulsion of the Jews from Rome under Claudius on account of the
commotion excited among them by the agitation of Chrestus (Suetonius
Claudius 25: Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma
expulit), probably in 49 AD, is proof of the diffusion of Christian teaching
in Rome, on the ground that Chrestus is a colloquial, or mistaken, form of
Christus. It has been suggested that the Christian faith was brought to the
capital of the empire by some of the Romans who were converted at the
347
time of Pentecost (
<440210>
Acts 2:10,41). It would be out of place to discuss
here the grounds for the traditional belief that Peter was twice in Rome,
once before 50 AD and again subsequent to the arrival of Paul, and that
together the two apostles established the church there. Our present concern
is with the attitude of the government and society toward Christianity,
when once established. It may suffice, therefore, to remind the reader that
Paul was permitted to preach freely while nominally in custody
(
<500113>
Philippians 1:13), and that as early as 64 AD the Christians were very
numerous (Tacitus Ann. xv.44: multitudo ingens).
2. Tolerance and Proscription:
At first the Christians were not distinguished from the Jews, but shared in
the toleration, or even protection, which was usually conceded to Judaism
as the national religion of one of the peoples embraced within the empire.
Christianity was not legally proscribed until after its distinction from
Judaism was clearly perceived. Two questions demand our attention:
(1) When was Christianity recognized as distinct from Judaism?
(2) When was the profession of Christianity declared a crime? These
problems are of fundamental importance in the history of the church
under the Roman empire.
(1) If we may accept the passage in Suetonius cited above (Claudius
25) as testimony on the vicissitudes of Christianity, we infer that at that
time the Christians were confused with the Jews. The account of
Pomponia Graecina, who was committed to the jurisdiction of her
husband (Tacitus Ann. xiii.32) for adherence to a foreign belief
(superstitionis externae rea), is frequently cited as proof that as early as
57 AD Christianity had secured a convert in the aristocracy. The
characterization of the evidence in this case by the contemporary
authority from whom Tacitus has gleaned this incident would apply
appropriately to the adherence to Judaism or several oriental religions
from the point of view of Romans of that time; for Pomponia had lived
in a very austere manner since 44 AD. Since there is some other
evidence that Pomponia was a Christian, the indefinite account of the
accusation against her as mentioned by Tacitus is partial proof that
Christianity had not as yet been commonly recognized as a distinct
religion (Marucchi, Elements darcheologie chretienne I, 13). At the
time of the great conflagration in 64 AD the populace knew of the
348
Christians, and Nero charged them collectively with a plot to destroy
the city (Tacitus Ann. xv.44). The recognition of the distinctive
character of Christianity had already taken place at this time. This was
probably due in large measure to the circumstances of Pauls sojourn
and trial in Rome and to the unprecedented number of converts made
at that time. The empress Poppea, who was probably an adherent of
Judaism (Josephus, Ant, XX, viii), may have enlightened the imperial
court regarding the heresy of the Christians and their separation from
the parent stock.
(2) In attempting to determine approximately the time at which
Christianity was placed under the official ban of the imperial
government, it will be convenient to adopt as starting-points certain
incontestable dates between which the act of prosecution must have
been issued. It is clear that at the time of the great conflagration (64
AD), the profession of Christianity was not a ground for criminal
action. Paul had just been set at liberty by decree of the imperial court
(compare
<550417>
2 Timothy 4:17). Moreover, the charge against the
Christians was a plot to burn the city, not adherence to a proscribed
religion, and they were condemned, as it appears, for an attitude of
hostility toward the human race (Tacitus Ann. xv. 44). While governor
of Bithynia (circa 112 AD), Pliny the younger addressed Trajan in a
celebrated letter (x.96) asking advice to guide his conduct in the trial of
many persons who were accused as Christians, and inquiring
particularly whether Christianity in itself was culpable, or only the
faults which usually accompanied adherence to the new faith. The reply
of the emperor makes quite plain the fundamental guilt at that time of
adherence to Christianity, and it supposes a law already existing against
it (x.97). It follows, therefore, that the law against Christianity which
was the legal basis for persecution must have been issued between the
conflagration in 64 AD and Plinys administration of Bithynia.
We cannot define the time of this important act of legislation more closely
with absolute certainty, although evidence is not wanting for the support of
theories of more or less apparent probability. Tradition ascribes a general
persecution to the reign of Domitian, which would imply that Christianity
was already a forbidden religion at that time. Allusions in Revelation (as
6:9), the references to recent calamities in Rome by Clement in his letter to
the Corinthians (1 Ad Cor.), the condemnation of Acilius Glabrio (Dio
Cassius lxvii.13), a man of consular rank, together with the emperors
349
cousin Flavius Clemens (Dio Cassius, xiii) and Flavia Domitilla and many
others on the charge of atheism and Jewish customs (95 AD), are cited as
evidence for this persecution. The fact that a number of persons in Bithynia
abandoned Christianity 20 years before the judicial investigation of Pliny
(Pliny x. 96) is of some importance as corroborative evidence.
But there are grounds worthy of consideration for carrying the point of
departure back of Domitian. The letter of Peter from Babylon (Rome ?) to
the Christians in Asia Minor implies an impending persecution (1 Pet 4:12-
16). This was probably in the closing years of the reign of Nero. Allard
cleverly observes (Histoire des persecutions, 61) that the mention of the
Neronian persecution of the Christians apart from the description of the
great fire in the work of Suetonius (Ner. 16), amid a number of acts of
legislation, is evidence of a general enactment, which must have been
adopted at the time of, or soon after, the proceedings which were instituted
on the basis of the charge of arson. Upon the whole theory that the policy
of the imperial government was definitely established under Nero carries
with it considerable probability (compare Sulpitius Severus, Chron., ii.41).
3. Persecution:
Although the original enactment has been lost the correspondence of Pliny
and Trajan enables us to formulate the imperial policy in dealing with the
Christians during the 2nd century. Adherence to Christianity was in itself
culpable. But proceedings were not to be undertaken by magistrates on
their own initiative; they were to proceed only from charges brought by
voluntary accusers legally responsible for establishing the proof of their
assertions. Informal and anonymous information must be rejected.
Penitence shown in abjuring Christianity absolved the accused from the
legal penalty of former guilt. The act of adoring the gods and the living
emperor before their statues was sufficient proof of non-adherence to
Christianity or of repentance.
The attitude of the imperial authorities in the 3rd century was less
coherent. The problem became more complicated as Christianity grew.
Persecution was directed more especially against the church as an
organization, since it was believed to exert a dangerous power. About 202
AD, Septimius Severus issued a decree forbidding specifically conversion
to Judaism or Christianity (Spartianus, Severus, 17), in which he departed
from the method of procedure prescribed by Trajan (conquirendi non sunt),
350
and commissioned the magistrates to proceed directly against suspected
converts. At this time the Christians organized funerary associations for the
possession of their cemeteries, substituting corporative for individual
ownership, and it would appear that under Alexander Severus they openly
held places of worship in Rome (Lampridius, Alexander Severus, 22, 49).
The emperor Philip (244-49) is thought to have been a Christian at heart
(Eusebius, HE, VI, 34). A period of comparative calm was interrupted by
the persecution under Decius (250-51 AD), when the act of sacrifice was
required as proof of non-adherence to Christianity. Several certificates
testifying to the due performance of this rite have been preserved.
Under Valerian (257 AD) the Christian organizations were declared illegal
and the cemeteries were sequestrated. But an edict in 260 AD restored this
property (Eusebius, VII, 13). A short persecution under Aurelian (274 AD)
broke the long period of calm which extended to the first edict of
persecution of Diocletian (February 24, 303). The Christians seem to have
gained a sort of prescriptive claim to exist, for Diocletian did not at first
consider them guilty of a capital crime. He sought to crush their
organization by ordering the cessation of assemblies, the destruction of
churches and sacred books, and abjuration under pain of political and
social degradation. (Lactantius, Deuteronomy Morte Persecutorum, x.11,
12, 13; Eusebius, VIII, 2; IX, 10). Later he ordered the arrest of all the
clergy, who were to be put to death unless they renounced the faith
(Eusebius, VIII, 6). Finally the requirement of an act of conformity in
sacrificing to the gods was made general. This final persecution, continuing
in an irregular way with varying degrees of severity, terminated with the
defeat of Maxentius by Constantine (October 29, 312). The Edict of Milan
issued by Constantine and Licinius the following year established
toleration, the restoration of ecclesiastical property and the peace of the
church.
See ROMAN EMPIRE AND CHRISTIANITY, III, IV, V.
LITERATURE.
Allard, Histoire des persecutions, Paris, 1903; Leviticus christianisme et
lempire romain, Paris, 1903; Duchesne, Histoire ancienne de l`eglise,
Paris, 1907 (English translation); Marucchi, Elements darcheologie
chretienne, Paris, 1899-1902; Hardy, Christianity and the Roman
351
Government, London, 1894; Renan, Leglise chretienne, Paris, 1879;
Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, London, 1893.
George H. Allen
ROOF
<roof>.
See HOUSE.
ROOF-CHAMBER
See HOUSE.
ROOM
<room>.
See HOUSE.
ROOT
<root> ([v r ,v o, shoresh]; [p o, rhiza]): Frequently mentioned in the Old
Testament and New Testament, but almost always in a figurative sense,
e.g. root of the righteous (
<201203>
Proverbs 12:3,12); root that beareth gall
(
<052918>
Deuteronomy 29:18); Their root shall be as rottenness (
<230524>
Isaiah
5:24); root of bitterness (
<581215>
Hebrews 12:15). Also of peoples: they
whose root is in Amalek (
<070514>
Judges 5:14); of Assyria (
<263107>
Ezekiel 31:7);
Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up (
<280916>
Hosea 9:16); Judah shall
again take root downward (
<121930>
2 Kings 19:30; compare
<232706>
Isaiah 27:6;
37:31); the root of Jesse (
<231110>
Isaiah 11:10;
<451512>
Romans 15:12); root of
David (
<660505>
Revelation 5:5; 22:16).
ROOT OF DAVID
See DAVID, ROOT OF.
ROOT OF JESSE
([yv yi v r o,v o, shoresh yishay] (
<231110>
Isaiah 11:10); [po tou Irooo, rhiza
tou Iessai] (
<451512>
Romans 15:12)): The Hebrew and Greek words are
practically the same in meaning. Root means descendant, branch of the
352
family or stock. The Messianic king was to be of the family of Jesse the
father of David. In
<451512>
Romans 15:12 Paul quotes the Septuagint of
<231110>
Isaiah 11:10. Jesus is a branch or descendant of the family of Jesse, as
well as of David.
See also DAVID, ROOT OF.
ROPE
<rop>: Used in the Old Testament for [l b ,j ,, chebhel], that which binds
(
<101713>
2 Samuel 17:13, etc.), and for [t b o[ }, `abhoth], that which is woven
(
<071513>
Judges 15:13, etc.). In neither word is any specified thickness or
strength connoted, and chebhel is translated equally well by line (
<100802>
2
Samuel 8:2, etc.) or cord (
<060215>
Joshua 2:15, etc.), and `abhoth by cord
(
<19B827>
Psalm 118:27, etc.), as best suits the context. Similarly in the New
Testament the word [oovov, schoinion], literally, made of rushes can
mean the rope by which a boat is fastened (
<442732>
Acts 27:32) or small cords
suitable for a whip (
<430215>
John 2:15). The usual material for ropes was
certainly flax (hemp), but the Egyptians, and so possibly the Hebrews, at
times made ropes of leathern thongs.
See CORD; LINE; SHIPS AND BOATS, III, 2.
Burton Scott Easton
ROSE
<roz>:
(1) ([t l , X , b j } , chabhatstseleth]; [ov0o, anthos], a flower (Song
2:1) [xpvov, krinon], a lily (
<233501>
Isaiah 35:1)): By general consent
English Versions of the Bible is wrong: in Song 2:1 margin reads
Hebrew habazzeleth, the autumn crocus and in
<233501>
Isaiah 35:1,
margin reads or autumn crocus. This is the Colchicum autumnale
(Natural Order, Liliaceae). A Targum on Song 2:1 explains the Hebrew
word as narcissus , a very common plant in the plains and mountains
of Palestine and a great favorite with the natives. Two species, N.
tazetta and N. serolinus (Natural Order, Amaryllideae), occur, the latter
being the finer; they are autumn plants. All authorities agree that the
so-called rose was some kind of bulbed plant.
353
(2) ([poov, rhodon], the rose, mentioned in Ecclesiasticus 24:14;
39:13; 50:8; The Wisdom of Solomon 2:8; 2 Esdras 2:19): There is no
reason why the rose, of which several varieties are common in
Palestine, should not be meant. Tristram favors the rhododendron. The
expression, rose plants in Jericho, in Ecclesiasticus 24:14 has nothing
whatever to do with what is now sold there as a rose of Jericho, a
dwarf annual plant, Anastatica hierochuntina (Natural Order,
Cruciferae), which dries up and can be made to reexpand by placing the
root in water.
E. W. G. Masterman
ROSH (1)
<rosh>, <rosh> ([v a or , rosh]): A son or grandson of Benjamin
(
<014621>
Genesis 46:21).
ROSH (2)
([v a or , rosh]; [ P, Rhos], variant (Q margin) [xroq, kephales];
Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) capiris):
1. ROSH AND ITS RENDERINGS:
This name occurs in the prophecies against Gog in
<263802>
Ezekiel 38:2,3 and
39:1, where the King James Version has Gog, the land of Magog, the
chief prince of Meshech and Tubal. This translation is due to rosh being
the common Hebrew word for head or chief (compare the Greek
variant and the Vulgate), and is regarded as incorrect, that of the Revised
Version (British and American), Gog, of the land of Magog, the prince of
Rosh, Meshech and Tubal, being preferred.
2. IDENTIFICATION WITH RUSSIA:
The identification of Rosh is not without its difficulties. Gesenius regarded
it as indicating the Russians, who are mentioned in Byzantine writers of the
10th century under the name of [ P, Rhos]. He adds that they are also
noticed by Ibn Fosslan (same period), under the name of Rus, as a people
dwelling on the river Rha (Volga). Apart from the improbability that the
dominion of Gog extended to this district, it would be needful to know at
what date the Rus of the Volga arrived there.
354
3. PROBABLY THE ASSYRIAN RASU:
Notwithstanding objections on account of its eastern position, in all
probability Fried. Delitzschs identification of Rosh with the mat Rasi,
land of Rash of the Assyrian inscriptions, is the best. Sargon of Assyria
(circa 710 BC) conquered the countries from the land of Rasu on the
border of Elam as far as the river of Egypt, and this country is further
described in his Khorsabad Inscription, 18, as the land of Rasu, of the
boundary of Elam, which is beside the Tigris. Assyria having disappeared
from among the nations when Ezekiel wrote his prophecies, Babylonia was
probably the only power with which Gog of the land of Magog would
have had to reckon, but it may well be doubted whether the Babylonian
king would have allowed him to exercise power in the district of Rasu,
except as a very faithful vassal. It may here be noted that the Hebrew
spelling of Rosh presupposes an earlier pronunciation as Rash, a form
agreeing closely with that used by the Assyrians. See Fried. Delitzsch, Wo
lag das Paradies? 325.
T. G. Pinches
ROT; ROTTENNESS
<rot>, <rot--n-nes> (verb [b q er ;, raqebh], noun raqabh (riqqabhon,
<184127>
Job 41:27), with [q m , maq], decay (
<230524>
Isaiah 5:24), and [v b [ ; ,
`abhash], shrivel (so
<290117>
Joel 1:17 the Revised Version margin)):
Rottenness of the bones (
<201204>
Proverbs 12:4; 14:30;
<350316>
Habakkuk 3:16) is
ulceration (caries) of the bones, used as an example of an intensely painful
disease. the King James Version, in addition, has rot in
<040521>
Numbers
5:21,22,27, where the Revised Version (British and American) has fall
away ([l p n; , naphal]), but a euphemistic paraphrase is in point (see the
comms.). In
<243811>
Jeremiah 38:11,12 the King James Version has old rotten
rags for [j l m, , melach], rag (the Revised Version (British and
American) wornout garments, a translation that specializes too far).
ROTE
<rot>: the Revised Version margin gives learned by rote in
<232913>
Isaiah
29:13 for the King James Version taught, which indicates that the service
of Yahweh was merely formal.
355
ROWER; ROWING
<ro-er>, <ro-ing>.
See SHIPS AND BOATS, III, 1.
ROYAL
<roi-al>: Either belonging to a king (kingdom) or having kingly power,
dignity, authority, etc. In Hebrew, the word is expressed by using different
nouns in the gen. case (the construct state). They are:
(1) melekh, king: Asher .... shall yield royal dainties, literally,
choice morsels of the king, meaning fit for a king (
<014920>
Genesis 49:20);
besides that which Solomon gave her of his royal bounty, literally,
which he gave her according to the hand (the wealth) of King Solomon
(
<111013>
1 Kings 10:13; compare the Revised Version margin); a royal
statute, literally, statute of a malka, which is the emphatic Aramaic
term for melekh, king (
<270607>
Daniel 6:7);
(2) mamlakhah, the power and dignity of a king, Gibeon .... one of
the royal cities, i.e. a capital city with a king of her own (
<061002>
Joshua
10:2; compare
<092705>
1 Samuel 27:5); all the seed royal, literally, the
seed of the kingdom (
<121101>
2 Kings 11:1; compare
<142210>
2 Chronicles
22:10);
(3) malkhuth, kinghood, kingdom: royal majesty, literally,
majesty of kinghood (
<132925>
1 Chronicles 29:25); quite frequently in the
Book of Esther; royal wine (1:7); crown (1:11; compare 2:17; 6:8);
commandment (1:19); her royal estate, literally, her kinghood (1:19);
house royal (2:16; compare 5:1); royal apparel (5:1; compare 6:8,15);
throne (5:1);
(4) melukhah, kingdom, kingly power and dignity: royal city,
literally, the city of the kingdom, meaning here that part of the city
(Rabbah) in which the royal palace was situated (
<101226>
2 Samuel 12:26);
royal diadem, literally, turban of kinghood (
<236203>
Isaiah 62:3);
(5) in
<244310>
Jeremiah 43:10 we find the word shaphrir; its meaning is
uncertain: royal pavilion (the Revised Version (British and American)
and the King James Version), glittering (Revised Version, margin),
scepter, a carpet covering a throne.
356
The New Testament uses the word for basilikos, belonging to king:
royal apparel (
<441221>
Acts 12:21); the royal law, something like the
golden rule, being foremost because including all others (
<590208>
James 2:8),
and for basileios (being vested with kingly power and honor), royal
priesthood, the Hebrew rendering would be mamlekheth kohanim, a
kingdom of priests, i.e. a kingdom whose citizens are priests, emphasizing
the two facts that the true Christians have free access to the grace of God
and that they enjoy the liberties and privileges of His kingdom (1 Pet 2:9).
William Baur
ROYAL CITY
See ROYAL, (2), (4).
RUBY
<roo-bi>.
See STONES, PRECIOUS.
RUDDER; RUDDER-BANDS
<rud-er>.
See SHIPS AND BOATS, III, 2, (3).
RUDDY
<rud-i> ([yniwOmd ]a , adhmoni] (
<091612>
1 Samuel 16:12; 17:42;
<012525>
Genesis
25:25 the Revised Version margin), [ d oa ;, adhom] (Song 5:10); verbs
[ d a ; , adham] (
<250407>
Lamentations 4:7), and [rpu0po, eruthriao], to
blush (Ad Est 15:5)): Ruddy is the form taken by the adjective red
when used as a term of praise of the human skin, and this is its use in the
Bible (the Hebrew and Greek words are all usual words for red or to be
red). The dark-skinned Hebrews found great beauty in a clear
complexion.
RUDE
<rood>: Not impolite in English Versions of the Bible (except perhaps 2
Macc 12:14), but untrained, ignorant; compare the modern phrase, a
357
rude drawing. So Sirach 8:4 ([ooruto, apaideutos]) and
<471106>
2
Corinthians 11:6 ([tq, idiotes], `though I lack technical training in
rhetoric); compare the King James Version and the Revised Version
margin Sirach 21:24.
RUDIMENTS
<roo-di-ments> ([otoro, stoicheia], plural of [otorov, stoicheion]
(
<480403>
Galatians 4:3,9;
<510208>
Colossians 2:8,20;
<580512>
Hebrews 5:12;
<610310>
2 Peter
3:10,12)): This word occurs 7 t in the New Testament, and the King James
Version translates it in three different ways. In the two passages in
Galatians, and in the two in 2 Peter, it is rendered elements. In the two
passages in Colossians, it is translated rudiments. In He it is rendered
first principles.
1. ETYMOLOGICAL MEANING:
The etymological meaning of the word is, that which belongs to a row or
rank, hence any first thing, an element, first principle. It denotes, specially
(1) the letters of the alphabet, the spoken sounds, as the elements of
speech;
(2) the material elements of the universe, the physical atoms of which
the world is composed;
(3) the heavenly bodies;
(4) the elements, rudiments, fundamental principles of any art, science
or discipline; compare the phrase, the a, b, c.
2. USE OF TERM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT:
(1) The New Testament use of the word, where it always occurs in the
plural, is as follows: In
<610310>
2 Peter 3:10,12, The elements shall be
dissolved with fervent heat, that is, the physical elements of the world
and of the heavens are to be consumed, or subjected to change, by
means of fire. In
<580512>
Hebrews 5:12, the King James Version Ye have
need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the
oracles of God. This means that the Hebrew Christians had not made
the advance expected, in grace and in the knowledge of God, but were
in need of instruction in the elementary truths of the Christian faith.
358
(2) The Pauline use of the term is in Galatians and Colossians; see
references as above. In
<480403>
Galatians 4:3,9 the King James Version Paul
writes, When we were children, (we) were in bondage under the
elements of the world; How turn ye again to the weak and beggarly
elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? The apostle
here means the ceremonial precepts of the worship of the Jews. These
requirements involved much and protracted difficulty in their
observance; they were a yoke .... which neither our fathers nor we
were able to bear (
<441510>
Acts 15:10). Yet the Galatian converts were
tuning back again to these legal ordinances, and desired to be in
bondage to them. These elements were of the world, they had
reference to material and not to spiritual things, they were formal and
sensuous. They were weak, for they had no power to rescue man
from condemnation, and they could not save him from sin. They were
beggarly, for they brought no endowment of the heavenly riches. By
these epithets Paul signifies that rites, ordinances, sacrifices,
observance of days and seasons belonged to the elementary stages of
the Jewish religion, which had now attained its end and purpose in the
coming of Christ and His work. These things were necessary at the
time they were divinely instituted, but the time had come when they
were no longer required. They contained and conveyed an elementary
knowledge, and were intended, from the first, to lead to an advance in
the moral and spiritual life, which is now revealed in Christ.
It has been thought by some that what is meant by elements or
rudiments in Galatians and Colossians is the physical elements, presided
over by angels, and that this is in some way connected with the worship of
angels, to which Paul refers in
<510218>
Colossians 2:18. The Jews believed that
there were, angels of fire and of the wind, and of the other physical
elements. The apostle therefore wished to show the foolishness of the
worship of angels and of the heavenly bodies which they were supposed to
control.
This latter meaning of the term is a possible, but not a probable one. The
interpretation, already first given, which understands elements to mean
the ordinances of Jewish legalism, is most in harmony with the gospel and
with the teaching of Paul. This is probably the correct interpretation, both
as simpler in itself and as suiting the context better. Paul seems to be
dwelling still on the rudimentary character of the law, as fitted for an
359
earlier stage in the worlds history (Lightfoot, Commentary on Galatians,
167).
In
<510208>
Colossians 2:8 the King James Version Paul writes, Beware lest any
man spoil you .... after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ;
and in
<510220>
Colossians 2:20, the King James Version Wherefore if ye be
dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why .... are ye subject to
ordinances? The meaning of the term here is the elements of religious
training, the ceremonial precepts of the Jewish Law. In Colossians and
Galatians the meaning is that the systems of the false teachers, both in
Colosse and in Galatia, laid stress on Jewish ritual, ceremonial law and
ascetic observances things of this world, belonging to the visible sphere,
things elementary, and intended, so far as the Jewish Law is concerned,
simply as a preparation for the coming of Christ. Such were the rudiments
of the world, so far as their source was Jewish. On their heathen side they
were still more decidedly anti-Christian. Both of these tendencies, Jewish
and heathen, were not according to Christ. For Christ Himself who
atoned for sin, and who now lives and reigns, delivers believers from all
such methods, as well as from the need of them.
J ohn Rutherfurd
RUE
<roo> ([qyovov, peganon]): One of the plants mentioned in
<421142>
Luke
11:42 as subject to tithe: in the parallel passage,
<402323>
Matthew 23:23, anise
and cummin are mentioned. Ruta graveolens (Natural Order, Rutaceae) is
the official rue, and a very similar species, R. chalepensis, is indigenous.
Rue is a small shrub growing 2 to 4 ft. high with a heavy odor,
disagreeable to Westerners, but a favorite with Orientals. A sprig of rue is
often fixed on a childs cap or clothes as a kind of charm.
RUFUS
<roo-fus> ([ Pouo, Rhouphos]): The name is mentioned twice:
(1) Simon of Cyrene, who was compelled to bear the cross of Jesus, is
the father of Alexander and Rufus (
<411521>
Mark 15:21);
(2) Paul sends greetings to Roman Christians, Rufus the chosen in the
Lord, and his mother and mine (
<451613>
Romans 16:13). Rufus was well
known among those for whom Mark primarily wrote his Gospel, and
360
according to tradition this was the Christian community at Rome.
There seems no reason to doubt, therefore, that the Rufus of Mark and
the Rufus of Paul are the same person. The name, meaning red,
reddish, was, however, one of the commonest of slave names; the
identification of these two is therefore merely a conjecture. The Rufus
whom Paul greets is the chosen in the Lord, i.e. that choice
Christian (Denhey). Since all Christians are chosen, this title must
express some distinction. The mother of Rufus had played the mothers
part to Paul on some occasion of which we are ignorant, hence the
phrase his mother and mine (compare
<411030>
Mark 10:30).
S. F. Hunter
RUG
<rug>: Alternative rendering of a word ([h k ;ymic ], semikhah]) in
<070418>
Judges
4:18 the Revised Version (British and American), mantle the King James
Version. The translation is doubtful; Oxford Hebrew Lexicon; see Brown,
Driver, and Briggs gives rug or thick coverlet (?).
RUHAMAH
<roo-ha-ma>, <roo-ha-ma>: See LO-RUHAMAH, the symbolical name
of Hoseas daughter (
<280106>
Hosea 1:6,8).
RUIN
<roo-in> ([h s ;yr ih }, haricah], etc.; [pqyo, rhegma]): Ruin, the
translation of haricah (
<300911>
Amos 9:11; compare
<441516>
Acts 15:16, where the
Revised Version (British and American) Greek text, ta katestrammena),
and of a number of other Hebrew words: in
<420649>
Luke 6:49 rhegma,
breakage, is used both in a literal sense (
<232313>
Isaiah 23:13; 25:2, of fallen
buildings;
<262727>
Ezekiel 27:27; 31:13, of a state or people;
<420649>
Luke 6:49, of a
house, etc.) and with a moral significance (
<202628>
Proverbs 26:28). the Revised
Version margin correctly renders mikhshol in
<261830>
Ezekiel 18:30
stumblingblock (the King James Version ruin), and the Revised
Version (British and American) in
<262115>
Ezekiel 21:15 stumblings (the King
James Version ruins). The Revised Version (British and American) has
ruins for the King James Version desolations in
<150909>
Ezra 9:9, margin
waste places;
<197403>
Psalm 74:3; in their ruins for with their mattocks
(
<143406>
2 Chronicles 34:6, margin `with their axes. The Hebrew is
361
obscure); midst of the ruin for desolation (
<183014>
Job 30:14); their ruin
for their wickedness (
<202112>
Proverbs 21:12). Ruinous is the translation of
mappalah (
<231701>
Isaiah 17:1) and of natsah (
<121925>
2 Kings 19:25;
<233726>
Isaiah
37:26).
W. L. Walker
RULER
<rool-er>:
1. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT:
(1) [l v em, moshel], ruler, prince, master (tyrant), applied to
Joseph in Egypt (
<014508>
Genesis 45:8; compare
<19A521>
Psalm 105:21); to the
Philistines (
<071511>
Judges 15:11); to Davids descendants, the future kings
of Israel (
<140718>
2 Chronicles 7:18; compare
<243326>
Jeremiah 33:26); to
Pharaoh (
<19A520>
Psalm 105:20); to a wicked prince, a tyrant (
<202815>
Proverbs
28:15; compare
<231405>
Isaiah 14:5; 49:7); to theocratic king, the Messiah
(
<330502>
Micah 5:2); it is often used in general (
<200607>
Proverbs 6:7; 23:1;
29:12;
<211004>
Ecclesiastes 10:4;
<231601>
Isaiah 16:1, etc.).
(2) [d ygin;, naghidh], leader, noble (nobles), prince. In a number
of instances the Revised Version (British and American) renders it
prince, where the King James Version has ruler (
<092530>
1 Samuel 25:30;
<100621>
2 Samuel 6:21;
<110135>
1 Kings 1:35, etc.). It is used of Azrikam having
charge of the palace of King Ahaz (
<142807>
2 Chronicles 28:7, governor
of the house, the King James Version); of Azariah (Seraiah,
<161111>
Nehemiah 11:11), who is called the ruler of the house of God
(
<130911>
1 Chronicles 9:11; compare
<143113>
2 Chronicles 31:13); he was the
leader of a division or group of priests. In
<143508>
2 Chronicles 35:8 the
names of three others are given (Hilkiah, Zechariah and Jehiel).
(3) [a yc in;, nasi], prince (so
<041302>
Numbers 13:2, the King James
Version ruler); generally speaking, the nasi is one of the public
authorities (
<022228>
Exodus 22:28); the rulers of the congregation
(
<021622>
Exodus 16:22; compare 34:31); The rulers brought the onyx
stones (
<023527>
Exodus 35:27), as it was to be expected from men of their
social standing and financial ability: when a ruler (the head of a tribe
or tribal division) sinneth (
<030422>
Leviticus 4:22).
362
(4) [g;s ;, caghan], the representative of a king or a prince; a vice-
regent; a governor; then, in the times of Ezra and Nehemiah, a leader
or principal of the people of Jerusalem under the general supervision of
these two men. The English Versions of the Bible renders it ruler
(
<262312>
Ezekiel 23:12,23), deputy (
<245123>
Jeremiah 51:23,28,57), and, in
most cases, ruler with deputy in margin (
<150902>
Ezra 9:2;
<160216>
Nehemiah
2:16; 4:14,19; 5:7,17; 7:5; 12:40; 13:11;
<234125>
Isaiah 41:25;
<262306>
Ezekiel
23:6) always used in plural
(5) [yx iq ;, qatsin], a judge or magistrate (
<230110>
Isaiah 1:10; 3:6,7;
22:3;
<330301>
Micah 3:1,9); a military chief (
<061024>
Joshua 10:24).
(6) [h d ,r o, rodheh], one having dominion: There is little Benjamin
their ruler (
<196827>
Psalm 68:27); the meaning is obscure; still we may
point to the facts that Saul, the first one to conquer the heathen (
<091447>
1
Samuel 14:47 f), came of this the smallest of all the tribes, and that
within its boundaries the temple of Yahweh was erected.
(7) [zewOr , rozen], a dignitary, a prince. The kings of the earth set
themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against Yahweh
(
<190202>
Psalm 2:2); in the New Testament the word is rendered archontes
(
<440426>
Acts 4:26).
(8) [r c , sar], chief, head; prince, king; a nobleman having
judicial or other power; a royal officer. The Revised Version (British
and American) renders it frequently prince: rulers over my cattle
(head-shepherds,
<014706>
Genesis 47:6); rulers of thousands, rulers of
hundreds, etc. (
<021821>
Exodus 18:21); they had to be men of good
character because they were endowed with judicial power (
<021822>
Exodus
18:22); in
<050115>
Deuteronomy 1:15 the rendering of English Versions of
the Bible is captains, etc.; they were military leaders. Zebul the ruler
of the city (of Shechem,
<070930>
Judges 9:30), meaning governor
(compare
<112226>
1 Kings 22:26;
<122308>
2 Kings 23:8); rulers (or captains;
compare
<111609>
1 Kings 16:9) of his (Solomons) chariots (
<110922>
1 Kings
9:22); the rulers of Jezreel (
<121001>
2 Kings 10:1) were, presumably, the
ruler of the palace of the king and the ruler of the city of Samaria
(compare
<121005>
2 Kings 10:5). It is difficult to explain why they should be
called the rulers of Jezreel; both Septuagint and Vulgate (Jeromes
Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) omit the word; the rulers of the substance
which was king Davids (
<132731>
1 Chronicles 27:31) overseers of the
363
royal domain; The rulers were behind all the house of Judah
(
<160416>
Nehemiah 4:16), the officers were ready to assume active
command in case of an attack.
(9), (10) [wOf l ]v i, shilTon], a commander, an officer: the rulers of
the provinces (
<270302>
Daniel 3:2 f); [f yL i v , shalliT], a person in
power, a potentate (
<270210>
Daniel 2:10); there seems to be little doubt
that the Aramaic term is used as an adjective (compare the Revised
Version margin); in
<270507>
Daniel 5:7 occurs the verb shelaT, to have
dominion, he shall rule as the third in rank (compare 5:16,29).
(11) [gem;, maghen], shield: Her rulers (shields) dearly love shame
(
<280418>
Hosea 4:18). Perhaps we ought to read (with Septuagint)
miggeonam, their glory, and to translate it they love shame more than
their glory; they would rather have a good (!) time than a good name.
2. IN THE APOCRYPHA:
(1) [opv, archon], used of the rulers of the Spartans (1 Macc
14:20) and, in a general sense, of the priest Mattathias (1 Macc 2:17).
the King James Version has the word also in a general sense in Sirach
41:18 (the Revised Version (British and American) mighty man).
(2) [qyourvo, hegoumenos], one leading the way. A quite general
term, Sirach 10:2 (ruler of a city); 17:17 (of Gentile nations); 46:18 (of
the Tyrians). Also 2:17 the King James Version (the Revised Version
(British and American) he that ruleth), and Sirach 32:1 the Revised
Version (British and American) (ruler of a feast, the King James
Version master).
(3) [o ryotovr, hoi megistanes], a rare word found only in the
plural, for rulers of the congregation (Sirach 33:18). The same word
in
<410621>
Mark 6:21 is translated lords.
(4) 2 Macc 4:27 the King James Version for [ropo, eparchos] (the
Revised Version (British and American) governor).
(5) The King James Version inserts the word without Greek equivalent
in 1 Macc 6:14; 11:57; 2 Macc 13:2.
364
3. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT:
(1) [opv, archon], a person in authority, a magistrate a judge,
a prince; a councilor, a member of the supreme council of the Jews; a
man of influence. There came a ruler (
<400918>
Matthew 9:18), meaning a
ruler of the synagogue (compare
<410522>
Mark 5:22;
<420841>
Luke 8:41); see
(2) below; one of the rulers of the Pharisees (
<421401>
Luke 14:1), perhaps
a member of the Jewish council belonging, at the same time, to the
Pharisees, or, more probably, one of the leading Pharisees; the chief
priests and the rulers (
<422313>
Luke 23:13,15; 24:20; compare
<430301>
John 3:1;
7:26,48; 12:42;
<440317>
Acts 3:17; 4:5,8; 13:27; 14:5); the rulers were, with
the chief priests and the scribes, members of the Sanhedrin, either of
two councils of the Jews (the Great and the Lesser); they were lay-
members (elders); before the rulers (
<441619>
Acts 16:19), the police
magistrates (praetores, praetors) of the city of Philippi; Thou shalt
not speak evil of a ruler of thy people (
<442305>
Acts 23:5; compare
<022228>
Exodus 22:28, nasi; see 1,
(3) above), a magistrate, a person in authority (compare
<440727>
Acts
7:27,35;
<451303>
Romans 13:3, the public authorities); the rulers of this
world (1 Cor 2:6,8), persons being mentally superior to their fellow-
men, and so having great influence in shaping their opinions and
directing their actions.
(2) [opouvoyyo, archisundgogos], ruler of the synagogue. He
was the presiding officer of a board of elders, who had charge of the
synagogue. Sometimes they, also, were given the same name (compare
one of the rulers of the synagogue,
<410522>
Mark 5:22,35;
<420841>
Luke
8:41,49; in
<400918>
Matthew 9:18 Jairus is simply called archon); the ruler
mentioned in
<421314>
Luke 13:14 was, of course, the president of the board
(compare
<441817>
Acts 18:17, Sosthenes), while in
<441315>
Acts 13:15 the phrase
rulers of the synagogue simply signifies the board. It was a
deliberative body, but at the same time responsible for the maintenance
of good order in the synagogue and the orthodoxy of its members;
having, therefore, disciplinary power, they were authorized to
reprimand, and even to excommunicate, the guilty ones (compare
<430922>
John 9:22; 12:42; 16:2).
(3) [optpxvo, architriklinos], the ruler (steward, the Revised
Version margin) of the feast (
<430208>
John 2:8,9). See separate article.
365
(4) [xoooxpotp, kosmokrator], a world-ruler (
<490612>
Ephesians
6:12). The angels of the devil (
<402541>
Matthew 25:41; 12:45) or Satan, the
prince of this world (
<431231>
John 12:31), participate in his power; they are
his tools, their sphere of action being this darkness, i.e. the morally
corrupt state of our present existence.
(5) [otopq, politarches]; the prefect of a city (
<441706>
Acts 17:6,8).
Luke being the only one of the Biblical authors to hand down to us this
word, it is a noteworthy fact that, in relatively modern times, a Greek
inscription Was discovered containing this very word and, moreover,
having reference to the city of Thessalonica (AJT, 1898, II, 598-643).
Here it was where Paul and Silas preached the gospel so successfully
that the Jews, being moved with jealousy, caused Jason and certain
brethren to be dragged before the rulers of the city (epi tous
politarchas). These magistrates suffered themselves to be made the
tools of the unscrupulous Jews by demanding and getting security from
Jason and the rest.
William Baur
RULER OF THE FEAST
([optpxvo, architriklinos]; the King James Version governor): The
word occurs in the New Testament in the account of the wedding feast in
Cana of Galilee (
<430208>
John 2:8,9). According to Ecclesiasticus (32:1) it was
customary to appoint a master of the ceremonies from among the invited
guests. It was his duty to determine the places of the guests, to see that the
ordinary rules of etiquette were observed, etc., and generally to supervise
the arrangements. The Revised Version margin steward is possible if the
governor of the feast meant the head waiter (Merx renders head
servant of the feast), and not one of the guests appointed for the purpose.
But the context is in favor of the view that the person in question was one
of the prominent guests an intimate friend or relative of the host.
See RULER, 2, (2).
T. Lewis
RULER OF THE SYNAGOGUE
See RULER, 3, (1), (2).
366
RULERS OF THE CITY
See RULER, 1, (8), 2, (2), 3, (5).
RUMAH
<roo-ma> ([h m;Wr , rumah]; Codex Vaticanus [ Pouo, Rhouma]; Codex
Alexandrinus [ Puo, Rhuma]): To this place belonged Pedaiah whose
daughter Zebudah (the Revised Version (British and American) Zebidah)
entered the harem of Josiah, king of Judah, and became the mother of
Jehoiakim (
<122336>
2 Kings 23:36). Josephus (Ant., X, v, 2) calls the place
Abouma, but this is an obvious clerical error for Arouma. This suggests a
possible identification with Arumah (
<070941>
Judges 9:41), which lay not far
from Shechem. Another possible identification is with the Rumah
mentioned by Josephus (BJ, III, vii, 21) in Galilee (compare Neubauer,
Geog. du Talmud, 203), which may be identical with the modern Khirbet
Rumeh, about 3 miles North of Seffuriyeh. Some, however, would identify
Rumah with Dumah of
<061552>
Joshua 15:52, where the substitution of r for
d is supported by the Septuagint (Rheuma), possibly represented by the
modern Domeh, about 13 miles Southeast of Beit Jibrin. This of course
was in the territory of Judah, and no question of jus connubium is involved,
such as might arise in the case of a Galilean site.
W. Ewing
RUMP
<rump>: the King James Version uses this word as translation of [h y; l ] a ,
alyah] (
<022922>
Exodus 29:22;
<030309>
Leviticus 3:9; 7:3; 8:25; 9:19), where the
Revised Version (British and American) correctly renders fat tail.
Reference is here had to the broad tail of the Syrian sheep, which
occasionally weighs as much as 20 lbs., and is considered one of the
daintiest portions of mutton. It was one of those portions of the peace and
trespass offering which were not eaten by the priest or the sacrificer, but
which with other choice portions were waved before the Lord and wholly
burnt on the altar as a sweet savor unto Yahweh.
367
RUNAGATE
<run-a-gat>: A runaway: The runagates continue in scarceness
(
<196806>
Psalm 68:6, Prayer Book Version, the Revised Version (British and
American) The rebellious dwell in a parched land).
RUNNER
<run-er>.
See GAMES.
RUSH
(1) ([a m,GO, gome]; [oupo, papuros], bulrushes, margin
papyrus (
<020203>
Exodus 2:3); rush, margin papyrus (
<180811>
Job 8:11);
papyrus, the King James Version rush (
<231802>
Isaiah 18:2); rushes
(
<233507>
Isaiah 35:7)): This is almost certainly the famous papyrus, Cyperus
papyrus (Natural Order, Cyperaceae), known in Arabic as babir
(whence comes our word paper). This plant, the finest of the sedges,
flourishes plentifully in Upper Egypt; in Palestine there is a great mass
of it growing in the marsh to the North of Lake Huleh, and it also
occurs on the Lake of Galilee and the Jordan. Light boats of plaited
papyrus have been used on the Nile from ancient times and are
mentioned by many writers (compare
<020203>
Exodus 2:3;
<231802>
Isaiah 18:2).
(2) ([wOmg]a O , aghmon], rope, margin Hebrew `a rope of rushes,
the King James Version hook (
<184102>
Job 41:2): (burning) rushes, the
King James Version caldron (
<184120>
Job 41:20); rush, the King James
Version bulrush (
<235805>
Isaiah 58:5); rush in
<230914>
Isaiah 9:14; 19:15,
used of the humble and lowly folk as contrasted with the palm
branch, the highest class): The word aghmon comes from [ g a } ,
agham], meaning a marsh (see POOLS), being transferred from the
place of the things growing there. The word doubtless includes not
only the rushes of which there are several kinds in Palestine but
also members of the sedge family, the Cyperaceae.
See also REED.
E. W. G. Masterman
368
RUST
<rust> ([h a ;l ]j ,, chelah]; [ppo, brosis]): Strictly speaking rust is the
red oxide of iron formed by the corrosion of that metal, but by extension it
has come to mean corrosion produced on any metal. Chelah is translated
rust in
<262411>
Ezekiel 24:11,12. This rendering is probably based on 24:11.
Copper caldrons are still used in Bible lands. Such vessels must be
constantly watched when on the fire to guard against the possibility of their
becoming dry. If this should happen the contents, whatever they may be,
and the vessel itself will be injured. The copper of the caldron oxidizes and
scales off in black or brownish scales, or rust. [o, ios], was used in Greek
to denote the corroding of metals. In
<590503>
James 5:3 occurs, Your gold and
your silver are rusted; and their rust .... shall eat your flesh as fire. The
writers must have had in mind the actions of chemicals upon these metals
which formed some such compound as the caustic silver nitrate.
Brosis, literally, eating, which occurs in
<400619>
Matthew 6:19,20, may refer
to the diseases which attack such vegetation as wheat, grapes, cucumbers,
etc. In no country is the saying where moth and rust consume
(
<400619>
Matthew 6:19) more true than in Syria. Any metal subject to corrosion
seems to rust faster in that country than anywhere else. There are also
many rusting fungi which the people have not learned to destroy and which
do much damage to the crops.
See also SCUM.
J ames A. Patch
RUTH
<rooth> ([t Wr , ruth]; [ Pou0, Rhouth]): The name Ruth is found in the
Old Testament only in the book which is so entitled. It is a contraction for
[t W[ r ], reuth] perhaps signifying comrade, companion (feminine;
compare
<021102>
Exodus 11:2, every woman of her neighbor). OHL, 946,
explains the word as an abstract noun = friendship. The Book of Ruth
details the history of the one decisive episode owing to which Ruth became
an ancestress of David and of the royal house of Judah. From this point of
view its peculiar interest lies in the close friendship or alliance between
Israel and Moab, which rendered such a connection possible. Not
improbably also there is an allusion to this in the name itself.
369
1. HISTORY:
The history lies in the period of the Judges (
<080101>
Ruth 1:1), at the close of a
great famine in the land of Israel. Elimelech, a native of Bethlehem, had,
with his wife Naomi and two sons, taken refuge in Moab from the famine.
There, after an interval of time which is not more precisely defined, he died
(
<080103>
Ruth 1:3), and his two sons, having married women of Moab, in the
course of a further ten years also died, and left Orpah and Ruth widows
(
<080105>
Ruth 1:5). Naomi then decided to return to Palestine, and her two
daughters-in-law accompanied her on her way (
<080107>
Ruth 1:7). Orpah,
however, turned back and only Ruth remained with Naomi, journeying
with her to Bethlehem, where they arrived in the beginning of barley
harvest (
<080122>
Ruth 1:22). The piety and fidelity of Ruth are thus early
exhibited in the course of the narrative, in that she refused to abandon her
mother-in-law, although thrice exhorted to do so by Naomi herself, on
account of her own great age and the better prospects for Ruth in her own
country. Orpah yielded to persuasion, and returned to Moab; but Ruth
remained with Naomi.
At Bethlehem Ruth employed herself in gleaning in the field during the
harvest and was noticed by Boaz, the owner of the field, a near kinsman of
her father-in-law Elimelech. Boaz gave her permission to glean as long as
the harvest continued; and told her that he had heard of her filial conduct
toward her mother-in-law. Moreover, he directed the reapers to make
intentional provision for her by dropping in her way grain from their
bundles (
<080215>
Ruth 2:15 f). She was thus able to return to Naomi in the
evening with a whole ephah of barley (
<080217>
Ruth 2:17). In answer to
questioning she explained that her success in gleaning was due to the good-
will of Boaz, and the orders that he had given. She remained accordingly
and gleaned with his maidens throughout the barley and wheat harvest,
making her home with her mother-in-law (
<080223>
Ruth 2:23). Naomi was
anxious for the remarriage of Ruth, both for her sake and to secure
compliance with the usage and law of Israel; and sent her to Boaz to recall
to him his duty as near kinsman of her late husband Elimelech (
<080301>
Ruth 3:1
f). Boaz acknowledged the claim and promised to take Ruth in marriage,
failing fulfillment of the legal duty of another whose relationship was
nearer than that of Boaz himself (
<080308>
Ruth 3:8-13). Naomi was confident
that Boaz would fulfill his promise, and advised Ruth to wait in patience.
370
Boaz then adopted the customary and legal measures to obtain a decision.
He summoned the near kinsman before ten elders at the gate of the city,
related to him the circumstances of Naomis return, with her desire that
Ruth should be married and settled with her father-in-laws land as her
marriage-portion, and called upon him to declare his intentions. The near
kinsman, whose name and degree of relationship are not stated, declared
his inability to undertake the charge, which he renounced in legal form in
favor of Boaz according to ancient custom in Israel (
<080406>
Ruth 4:6 ff). Boaz
accepted the charge thus transferred to him, the elders and bystanders
bearing witness and pronouncing a formal blessing upon the union of Boaz
and Ruth (4:9-12). Upon the birth of a son in due course the women of the
city congratulated Naomi, in that the continuance of her family and house
was now assured, and the latter became the childs nurse. The name of
Obed was given to the boy; and Obed through his son Jesse became the
grandfather of David (compare
<400105>
Matthew 1:5,6;
<420331>
Luke 3:31,32).
2. INTEREST AND IMPORTANCE OF THE NARRATIVE:
Thus, the life and history of Ruth are important in the eyes of the narrator
because she forms a link in the ancestry of the greatest king of Israel. From
a more modern point of view the narrative is a simple idyllic history,
showing how the faithful loving service of Ruth to her mother-in-law met
with its due reward in the restored happiness of a peaceful and prosperous
home-life for herself. Incidentally are illustrated also ancient marriage
customs of Israel, which in the time of the writer had long since become
obsolete. The narrative is brief and told without affectation of style, and on
that account will never lose its interest. It has preserved moreover the
memory of an incident, the national significance of which may have passed
away, but to which value will always be attached for its simplicity and
natural grace.
For the literature, see RUTH, BOOK OF.
A. S. Geden
RUTH, THE BOOK OF
1. ORDER IN THE CANON:
The place which the Book of Ruth occupies in the order of the books of
the English Bible is not that of the Hebrew Canon. There it is one of the
371
five meghilloth or Rolls, which were ordered to be read in the synagogue
on 5 special occasions or festivals during the year.
In printed editions of the Old Testament the megilloth are usually arranged
in the order: Cant, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiates, Esther. Ruth occupied
the second position because the book was appointed to be read at the Feast
of Weeks which was the second of the 5 special days. In Hebrew
manuscripts, however, the order varies considerably. In Spanish
manuscripts generally, and in one at least of the German school cited by
Dr. Ginsburg (Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, London, 1897, 4), Ruth
precedes Cant; and in the former Ecclesiastes is placed before
Lamentations. The meghilloth constitute the second portion of the
kethubhim or Haigographa, the third great division of the books of the
Hebrew Scriptures. The Talmud, however, dissociates Ruth altogether
from the remaining meghilloth, and places it first among the Hagiographa,
before the Book of Psalms. By the Greek translators the book was
removed from the position which it held in the Hebrew Canon, and because
it described events contemporaneous with the Judges, was attached as a
kind of appendix to the latter work. This sequence was adopted in the
Vulgate, and so has passed into all modern Bibles.
2. AUTHORSHIP AND PURPOSE:
The book is written without name of author, and there is no direct
indication of its date. Its aim is to record an event of interest and
importance in the family history of David, and incidentally to illustrate
ancient custom and marriage law. There is no ground for supposing, as has
been suggested, that the writer had a polemical purpose in view, and
desired to show that the strict and stern action taken by Ezra and
Nehemiah after the return in forbidding mixed marriages was not justifled
by precedent. The narrative is simple and direct, and the preservation of the
tradition which it records of the descent of Israels royal house from a
Moabite ancestress was probably due in the first instance to oral
communication for some considerable time before it was committed to
writing. The Book of 1 Samuel also indicates a close relation between
David and Moab, when during the period of his outlawry the future king
confided his father and mother to the care of the king of Moab (
<092203>
1
Samuel 22:3 f), and so far supports the truth of the tradition which is
embodied in the Book of Ruth.
372
3. DATE OF COMPOSITION:
With regard to the date at which the narrative was committed to writing, it
is evident from the position of the Book of Ruth in the Hebrew Canon that
the date of its composition is subsequent to the close of the great period of
the earlier prophets. Otherwise it would have found a natural place, as
was assigned to it in the Greek Bible, together with the Book of Judges
and other historical writings, in the second division of the Hebrew
Scriptures. In the opening words of the book also, It came to pass in the
days when the judges judged (
<080101>
Ruth 1:1), the writer appears to look
back to the period of the Judges as to a comparatively distant epoch. The
character of the diction is pure and chaste; but has been supposed in certain
details, as in the presence of so-called Aramaisms, to betray a late origin.
The reference to the observance of marriage customs and their sanctions
in former time in Israel (
<080407>
Ruth 4:7) does not necessarily imply that the
composition of Ruth was later than that of Deuteronomy, in which the laws
arid rights of the succession are enjoined, or that the writer of the former
work was acquainted with the latter in its existing form. Slight differences
of detail in the procedure would seem to suggest the contrary. On the other
hand, the motive of the book in the exhibition of the ancestry of Davids
house would have lost its significance and raison detre with the death or
disappearance of the last ruler of Davids line in the early period of the
return from Babylon (compare
<380409>
Zechariah 4:9). The most probable date
therefore for the composition of the book would be in the later days of the
exile, or immediately after the return. There is no clue to the authorship.
The last four verses, giving the genealogy from Perez to David (compare
<130204>
1 Chronicles 2:4-15;
<400103>
Matthew 1:3-6;
<420331>
Luke 3:31-33), are
generally recognized as a later addition.
4. ETHICAL TEACHING:
The ethical value of the Book of Ruth is considerable, as setting forth an
example of stedfast filial piety. The action of Ruth in refusing to desert her
mother-in-law and persevering in accompanying her to her own land meets
with its due reward in the prosperity and happiness which become hers,
and in the honor which she receives as ancestress of the royal house of
David. The writer desires to show in the person and example of Ruth that a
sincere and generous regard for the claims of duty and affection leads to
prosperity and honor; and at the same time that the principles and
recompense of righteous dealing are not dependent upon race, but are as
373
valid for a Moabitess as for a Jew. There is no distinctive doctrine taught in
the book. It is primarily historical, recording a decisive incident in the
origin of Davids house; and in the second place ethical, indicating and
enforcing in a well-known example the advantage and importance of right
dealing and the observance of the dictates of filial duty. For detailed
contents see preceding article.
LITERATURE.
English commentaries upon the Book of Ruth are naturally not numerous.
Compare G. W. Thatcher, Judges and Ruth, in (New) Century Bible;
R.A. Watson, in Expositors Bible; the most recent critical commentary. is
by L. B. Wolfenson in AJSL, XXVII (July, 1911), 285 ff, who defends the
early date of the book. See also the relevant articles in Jew Encyclopedia,
HDB, EB, and Driver, LOT, 6, 454 ff.
A. S. Geden
RYE
<ri>.
See SPELT.
374
S
SABACHTHANI
<sat-bak-tha-ne>.
See ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI.
SABACO; SABAKON
<sab-a-ko>, <sab-a-kon>.
See SO.
SABAEANS
<sa-be-anz> ([ ya ib ;v ], shebhaim] (
<290308>
Joel 3:8 the King James Version),
[ ya ib ;s ], cebha-im]; [2opor, Sabaeim], [2rpor, Sebaeim]
(
<234514>
Isaiah 45:14); read [ ya ib ;ws ;, cabhaim], but rendered as though from
cabha, to imbibe, hence, drunkards; [ovrvo, oinomenoi], wine-
drunken (
<262342>
Ezekiel 23:42 the King James Version)):
1. FORMS OF THE WORD:
Sabaeans is also the translation of the name of the country itself ([a b ;v ] ,
shebha]) in
<180115>
Job 1:15; 6:19. This last, which is the root of shebhaim, is
regarded by Arabists as coming from that root with the meaning of to take
captive, though sebaa, he raided (compare
<180115>
Job 1:15), has also been
suggested.
2. TWO DIFFERENT RACES:
As Sheba is said in
<011007>
Genesis 10:7; 10:28; and 25:3 respectively to have
been
(1) a son of Raamah, the 4th son of Cush;
(2) the 10th son of Joktan, son of Eber;
375
(3) the 1st son of Jokshan, 2nd son of Abraham and Keturah, at least
two nationalities of this name are implied. The former were identified
by Josephus (Ant., II, x, 2) with the tall people of Saba in Upper Egypt,
described by him as a city of Ethiopia, which Moses, when in the
service of the Egyptians, besieged and captured.
3. SEMITIC SABEANS AND THEIR COMMERCE:
It is the Semitic Sabeans, however, who are the best known, and the two
genealogies attributed to them (Joktan-Eber and Jokshan-Abraham) seem
to imply two settlements in the land regarded as that of their origin. As
Ezekiel (27:23) mentions Haran (Hirran), Canneh (Kannah), and Eden
(Aden) as being connected with Sheba, and these three places are known
to have been in Southern Arabia, their Semitic parentage is undoubted. The
Sabeans are described as being exporters of gold (
<236006>
Isaiah 60:6;
<197215>
Psalm
72:15), precious stones (
<262723>
Ezekiel 27:23), perfumes (
<240620>
Jeremiah 6:20;
Isaiah and Ezekiel), and if the rendering Sabaeans for Joel 3 (4):8 be
correct, the Sebaim, a nation far off, dealt in slaves.
See SEBA; SHEBA; TABLE OF NATIONS.
T. G. Pinches
SABANNEUS
<sab-a-ne-us> (Codex Vaticanus [2opovvoou, Sabannaious]; Codex
Alexandrinus [Bovvoou, Bannaious]; the King James Version Bannaia,
following the Aldine): One of the sons of Asom who had married strange
wives (1 Esdras 9:33) = Zabad in
<151033>
Ezra 10:33.
SABANNUS
<sa-ban-nus> ([2opovvo, Sabannos]; the King James Version Sabban):
The father of Moeth, one of the Levites to whom the silver and gold were
delivered (1 Esdras 8:63). Moeth the son of Sabannus stands in the
position of Noadiah the son of Binnui, in
<150833>
Ezra 8:33.
SABAOTH
<sab-a-oth>, <sa-ba-oth>.
See GOD, NAMES OF, III, 8; LORD OF HOSTS.
376
SABAT
<sa-bat>: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and
American) SAPHAT,
(2) (which see).
SABATEUS
<sab-a-te-us> (Codex Alexandrinus [2oppotoo, Sabbataias]; Codex
Vaticanus [ Aptoo, Abtaios]; the King James Version Sabateas): One of
the Levites who taught the law of the Lord to the multitude (1 Esdras
9:48) = Shabbethai in
<160807>
Nehemiah 8:7.
SABATHUS
<sab-a-thus> ([2opo0o, Sabathos]; the King James Version Sabatus):
An Israelite who put away his strange wife (1 Esdras 9:28) = Zabad in
<151027>
Ezra 10:27.
SABATUS
<sab-a-tus>: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and
American) SABATHUS (which see).
SABBAN
<sab-an>: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and
American) SABANNUS (which see).
SABBATEUS
<sab-a-te-us> ([2oppotoo, Sabbataios]; the King James Version
Sabbatheus): One of the three (or rather two, for Levis = Levite)
assessors in the investigation held concerning foreign wives (1 Esdras
9:14) = Shabbethai the Levite in
<151015>
Ezra 10:15. He is probably the
Sabateus, one of the Levites who expounded the Law (1 Esdras 9:48),
and so = the Shabbethai in
<160807>
Nehemiah 8:7.
377
SABBATH
<sab-ath> ([t B ; v , shabbath], [wOt B ;v , shabbathon]; [ooppotov,
sabbaton], [to ooppoto, ta sabbata]; the root shabhath in Hebrew means
to desist, cease, rest):
The Sabbath was the day on which man was to leave off his secular labors
and keep a day holy to Yahweh.
I. ORIGIN OF THE SABBATH.
1. The Biblical Account:
The sketch of creation in
<010101>
Genesis 1:1 through 2:3 closes with an
impressive account of the hallowing of the 7th day, because on it God
rested from all the work which He had made creatively. The word
Sabbath does not occur in the story; but it is recognized by critics of
every school that the author (P) means to describe the Sabbath as primeval.
In
<022008>
Exodus 20:8-11 (ascribed to JE) the reason assigned for keeping the
7th day as a holy Sabbath is the fact that Yahweh rested after the six days
of creative activity.
<023117>
Exodus 31:17 employs a bold figure, and describes
Yahweh as refreshing Himself (catching His breath) after six days of
work. The statement that God set apart the 7th day for holy purposes in
honor of His own rest after six days of creative activity is boldly challenged
by many modern scholars as merely the pious figment of a priestly
imagination of the exile. There are so few hints of a weekly Sabbath before
Moses, who is comparatively a modern character, that argumentation is
almost excluded, and each student will approach the question with the bias
of his whole intellectual and spiritual history. There is no distinct mention
of the Sabbath in Gen, though a 7-day period is referred to several times
(
<010704>
Genesis 7:4,10; 8:10,12; 29:27 f). The first express mention of the
Sabbath is found in
<021621>
Exodus 16:21-30, in connection with the giving of
the manna. Yahweh taught the people in the wilderness to observe the 7th
day as a Sabbath of rest by sending no manna on that day, a double supply
being given on the 6th day of the week. Here we have to do with a weekly
Sabbath as a day of rest from ordinary secular labor. A little later the Ten
Words (Commands) were spoken by Yahweh from Sinai in the hearing of
all the people, and were afterward written on the two tables of stone
(
<022001>
Exodus 20:1-17; 34:1-5,27 f). The Fourth Commandment enjoins upon
Israel the observance of the 7th day of the week as a holy day on which no
378
work shall be done by man or beast. Children and servants are to desist
from all work, and even the stranger within the gates is required to keep
the day holy. The reason assigned is that Yahweh rested on the 7th day and
blessed it and hallowed it. There is no hint that the restrictions were meant
to guard against the wrath of a jealous and angry deity. The Sabbath was
meant to be a blessing to man and not a burden. After the sin in connection
with the golden call Yahweh rehearses the chief duties required of Israel,
and again announces the law of the Sabbath (
<023421>
Exodus 34:21, ascribed to
J). In the Levitical legislation there is frequent mention of the Sabbath
(
<023113>
Exodus 31:13-16; 35:2 f;
<031903>
Leviticus 19:3,10; 23:3,18). A willful
Sabbath-breaker was put to death (
<041532>
Numbers 15:32-36). In the
Deuteronomic legislation there is equal recognition of the importance and
value of the Sabbath (
<050512>
Deuteronomy 5:12-15). Here the reason assigned
for the observance of the Sabbath philanthropic and humanitarian: that thy
man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou. It is thus
manifest that all the Pentateuchal codes, whether proceeding from Moses
alone or from many hands in widely different centuries, equally recognize
the Sabbath as one of the characteristic institutions of Israels religious and
social life. If we cannot point to any observance of the weekly Sabbath
prior to Moses, we can at least be sure that this was one of the institutions
which he gave to Israel. From the days of Moses until now the holy
Sabbath has been kept by devout Israelites.
2. Critical Theories:
The older theories of the origin of the Jewish Sabbath (connecting it with
Egypt, with the day of Saturn, or in general with the seven planets) have
now been almost entirely abandoned (see ASTRONOMY, I, 5). The
disposition at present is to regard the day as originally a lunar festival,
similar to a Bablonian custom (Schrader, Stud. u. Krit., 1874), the rather
as the cuneiform documents appear to contain a term sabattu or sabattum,
identical in form and meaning with the Hebrew word sabbathon. Thus
wrote Professor C. H. Toy in 1899 (JBL, XVIII, 190). In a syllabary (II R,
32, 16a, b) sabattum is said to be equivalent to um nuh libbi, the natural
translation of which seemed to be day of rest of the heart. Schrader,
Sayce and others so understood the phrase, and naturally looked upon
sabattum as equivalent to the Hebrew Sabbath. But Jensen and others have
shown that the phrase should be rendered day of the appeasement of the
mind (of an offended deity). The reference is to a day of atonement or
pacification rather than a day of rest, a day in which one must be careful
379
not to arouse the anger of the god who was supposed to preside over that
particular day. Now the term sabattum has been found only 5 or 6 times in
the Babylonian inscriptions and in none of them is it connected with the 7th
day of a week. There was, however, a sort of institution among the
superstitious Babylonians that has been compared with the Hebrew
Sabbath. In certain months of the year (Elul, Marcheshvan) the 7th, 14th,
19th, 21st and 28th days were set down as favorable days, or unfavorable
days, that is, as days in which the king, the priest and the physician must be
careful not to stir up the anger of the deity. On these days the king was not
to eat food prepared by fire, not to put on royal dress, not to ride in his
chariot, etc. As to the 19th day, it is thought that it was included among
the unlucky days because it was the 49th (7 times 7) from the 1st of the
preceding month. As there were 30 days in the month, it is evident that we
are not dealing with a recurring 7th day in the week, as is the case with the
Hebrew Sabbath. Moreover, no proof has been adduced that the term
sabattum was ever applied to these dies nefasti or unlucky days. Hence, the
assertions of some Assyriologists with regard to the Babylonian origin of
the Sabbath must be taken with several grams of salt. Notice must be taken
of an ingenious and able paper by Professor M. Jastrow, which was read
before the Eleventh International Congress of Orientalists in Paris in 1897,
in which the learned author attempts to show that the Hebrew Sabbath was
originally a day of propitiation like the Babylonian sabattum (AJT, II, 312-
52). He argues that the restrictive measures in the Hebrew laws for the
observance of the Sabbath arose from the original conception of the
Sabbath as an unfavorable day, a day in which the anger of Yahweh might
flash forth against men. Although Jastrow has supported his thesis with
many arguments that are cogent, yet the reverent student of the Scriptures
will find it difficult to resist the impression that the Old Testament writers
without exception thought of the Sabbath not as an unfavorable or unlucky
day but rather as a day set apart for the benefit of man. Whatever may have
been the attitude of the early Hebrews toward the day which was to
become a characteristic institution of Judaism in all ages and in all lands,
the organs of revelation throughout the Old Testament enforce the
observance of the Sabbath by arguments which lay emphasis upon its
beneficent and humanitarian aspects.
We must call attention to Meinholds ingenious hypothesis as to the origin
of the Sabbath. In 1894 Theophilus G. Pinches discovered a tablet in which
the term shapattu is applied to the 15th day of the month. Meinhold argues
380
that shabattu in Babylonian denotes the day of the full moon. Dr. Skinner
thus describes Meinholds theory: He points to the close association of
new-moon and Sabbath in nearly all the pre-exilic references (
<300805>
Amos
8:5;
<280211>
Hosea 2:11;
<230113>
Isaiah 1:13;
<120423>
2 Kings 4:23 f); and concludes that
in early Israel, as in Babylonia, the Sabbath was the full-moon festival and
nothing else. The institution of the weekly Sabbath he traces to a desire to
compensate for the loss of the old lunar festivals, when these were
abrogated by the Deuteronomic reformation. This innovation he attributes
to Ezekiel; but steps toward it are found in the introduction of a weekly
day of rest during harvest only (on the ground of
<051608>
Deuteronomy 16:8 f;
compare
<023421>
Exodus 34:21), and in the establishment of the sabbatical year
(Leviticus 25), which he considers to be older than the weekly Sabbath
(ICC on Gen, p. 39). Dr. Skinner well says that Meinholds theory involves
great improbabilities. It is not certain that the Babylonians applied the term
sabattu to the 15th day of the month because it was the day of the full
moon; and it is by no means certain that the early prophets in Israel
identified Sabbath with the festival of the full moon.
The wealth of learning and ingenuity expended in the search for the origin
of the Sabbath has up to the present yielded small returns.
II. HISTORY OF THE SABBATH AFTER MOSES.
1. In the Old Testament:
The early prophets and historians occasionally make mention of the
Sabbath. It is sometimes named in connection with the festival of the new
moon (
<120423>
2 Kings 4:23;
<300805>
Amos 8:5;
<280211>
Hosea 2:11;
<230113>
Isaiah 1:13;
<264603>
Ezekiel 46:3). The prophets found fault with the worship on the
Sabbath, because it was not spiritual nor prompted by love and gratitude.
The Sabbath is exalted by the great prophets who faced the crisis of the
Babylonian exile as one of the most valuable institutions in Israels life.
Great promises are attached to faithful observance of the holy day, and
confession is made of Israels unfaithfulness in profaning the Sabbath
(
<241721>
Jeremiah 17:21-27;
<235602>
Isaiah 56:2,4; 58:13;
<262012>
Ezekiel 20:12-24). In
the Persian period Nehemiah struggled earnestly to make the people of
Jerusalem observe the law of the Sabbath (
<161031>
Nehemiah 10:31; 13:15-22).
381
2. In the Inter-Testamental Period:
With the development of the synagogue the Sabbath became a day of
worship and of study of the Law, as well as a day of cessation from all
secular employment. That the pious in Israel carefully observed the
Sabbath is clear from the conduct of the Maccabees and their followers,
who at first declined to resist the onslaught made by their enemies on the
Sabbath (1 Macc 2:29-38); but necessity drove the faithful to defend
themselves against hostile attack on the Sabbath (1 Macc 2:39-41). It was
during the period between Ezra and the Christian era that the spirit of
Jewish legalism flourished. Innumerable restrictions and rules were
formulated for the conduct of life under the Law. Great principles were
lost to sight in the mass of petty details. Two entire treatises of the Mishna,
Shabbath and `Erubhin, are devoted to the details of Sabbath observance.
The subject is touched upon in other parts of the Mishna; and in the
Gemara there are extended discussions, with citations of the often
divergent opinions of the rabbis. In the Mishna (Shahbath, vii.2) there are
39 classes of prohibited actions with regard to the Sabbath, and there is
much hair-splitting in working out the details. The beginnings of this
elaborate definition of actions permitted and actions forbidden are to be
found in the centuries immediately preceding the Christian era. The
movement was at flood tide during our Lords earthly ministry and
continued for centuries afterward, in spite of His frequent and vigorous
protests.
3. Jesus and the Sabbath:
Apart from His claim to be the Messiah, there is no subject on which our
Lord came into such sharp conflict with the religious leaders of the Jews as
in the matter of Sabbath observance. He set Himself squarely against the
current rabbinic restrictions as contrary to the spirit of the original law of
the Sabbath. The rabbis seemed to think that the Sabbath was an end in
itself, an institution to which the pious Israelite must subject all his personal
interests; in other words, that man was made for the Sabbath: man might
suffer hardship, but the institution must be preserved inviolate. Jesus, on
the contrary, taught that the Sabbath was made for mans benefit. If there
should arise a conflict between mans needs and the letter of the Law,
mans higher interests and needs must take precedence over the law of the
Sabbath (
<401201>
Matthew 12:1-14;
<410223>
Mark 2:23 through 3:6;
<420601>
Luke 6:1-
11; also
<430501>
John 5:1-18;
<421310>
Luke 13:10-17; 14:1-6). There is no reason to
382
think that Jesus meant to discredit the Sabbath as an institution. It was His
custom to attend worship in the synagogue on the Sabbath (
<420416>
Luke 4:16).
The humane element in the rest day at the end of every week must have
appealed to His sympathetic nature. It was the one precept of the
Decalogue that was predominantly ceremonial, though it had distinct
sociological and moral value. As an institution for the benefit of toiling men
and animals, Jesus held the Sabbath in high regard. As the Messiah, He was
not subject to its restrictions; He could at any moment assert His lordship
over the Sabbath (
<410228>
Mark 2:28). The institution was not on a par with the
great moral precepts, which are unchangeable. It is worthy of note that,
while Jesus pushed the moral precepts of the Decalogue into the inner
realm of thought and desire, thus making the requirement more difficult
and the law more exacting, He fought for a more liberal and lenient
interpretation of the law of the Sabbath. Rigorous sabbatarians must look
elsewhere for a champion of their views.
4. Paul and the Sabbath:
The early Christians kept the 7th day as a Sabbath, much after the fashion
of other Jews. Gradually the 1st day of the week came to be recognized as
the day on which the followers of Jesus would meet for worship. The
resurrection of our Lord on that day made it for Christians the most joyous
day of all the week. When Gentiles were admitted into the church, the
question at once arose whether they should be required to keep the Law of
Moses. It is the glory of Paul that he fought for and won freedom for his
Gentile fellow-Christians. It is significant of the attitude of the apostles that
the decrees of the Council at Jerusalem made no mention of Sabbath
observance in the requirements laid upon Gentile Christians (
<441528>
Acts 15:28
f). Paul boldly contended that believers in Jesus, whether Jew or Gentile,
were set free from the burdens of the Mosaic Law. Even circumcision
counted for nothing, now that men were saved by believing in Jesus
(
<480506>
Galatians 5:6). Christian liberty as proclaimed by Paul included all days
and seasons. A man could observe special days or not, just as his own
judgment and conscience might dictate (
<451405>
Romans 14:5 f); but in all such
matters one ought to be careful not to put a stumblingblock in a brothers
way (
<451413>
Romans 14:13 ff). That Paul contended for personal freedom in
respect of the Sabbath is made quite clear in
<510216>
Colossians 2:16 f, where
he groups together dietary laws, feast days, new moons and sabbaths. The
early Christians brought over into their mode of observing the Lords Day
the best elements of the Jewish Sabbath, without its onerous restrictions.)
383
See further LORDS DAY; ETHICS OF JESUS, I, 3, (1).
LITERATURE.
J. A. Hessey, Sunday, Its Origin, History, and Present Obligation
(Bampton Lectures for 1860); Zahn, Geschichte des Sonntags, 1878;
Davis, Genesis and Semitic Tradition, 1894, 23-35; Jastrow, The Original
Character of the Hebrews Sabbath, AJT, II, 1898, 312-52; Toy, The
Earliest Form of the Sabbath, JBL, XVIII. 1899, 190-94; W. Lotz,
Questionum de historia Sabbati libri duo, 1883; Nowack, Hebr. Arch., II,
1894, 140 ff; Driver, HDB, IV, 1902, 317-23; ICC, on Gen, 1911, 35-
39; Dillmann, Exodus u. Lev3, 1897, 212-16; Edersheim, Life and Times
of Jesus the Messiah, II, 1883, 51-62, 777-87; Broadus, Commentary on
Mt, 256-61; EB, IV, 1903, 4173-80; Gunkel, Gen3, 1910, 114-16;
Meinhold, Sabbat u. Woche im Altes Testament, 1905; Beer, Schabbath,
1908.
J ohn Richard Samphey
III. SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST POSITION
The views entertained by Seventh-Day Adventists concerning the nature
and obligation of the Sabbath may conveniently be presented under three
general divisions:
(1) what the Bible says concerning the Sabbath;
(2) what history says concerning the Sabbath;
(3) the significance of the Sabbath.
1. What the Bible Says concerning the Sabbath:
(1) Old Testament Teaching.
In their views concerning the institution and primal obligation of the
Sabbath, Seventh-Day Adventists are in harmony with the views held by
the early representatives of nearly all the evangelical denominations. The
Sabbath is coeval with the finishing of creation, and the main facts
connected with establishing it are recorded in
<010202>
Genesis 2:2,3. The
blessing here placed upon the seventh day distinguishes it from the other
days of the week, and the day thus blessed was sanctified (King James
Version, Revised Version hallowed) and set apart for man.
384
That the Sabbath thus instituted was well known throughout the
Patriarchal age is clearly established both by direct evidence and by
necessary inference.
If we had no other passage than this of
<010203>
Genesis 2:3, there would be no
difficulty in deducing from it a precept for the universal observance of a
Sabbath, or seventh day, to be devoted to God as holy time by all of that
race for whom the earth and all things therein were specially prepared. The
first men must have known it. The words, `He hallowed it, can have no
meaning otherwise. They would be a blank unless in reference to some
who were required to keep it holy (Langes Commentary on
<010203>
Genesis
2:3, I, 197).
And the day arrived when Moses went to Goshen to see his brethren, that
he saw the children of Israel in their burdens and hard labor, and Moses
was grieved on their account. And Moses returned to Egypt and came to
the house of Pharaoh, and came before the king, and Moses bowed down
before the king. And Moses said unto Pharaoh, I pray thee, my lord, I have
come to seek a small request from thee, turn not away my face empty; and
Pharaoh said unto him, Speak. And Moses said unto Pharaoh, Let there be
given unto thy servants the children of Israel who are in Goshen, one day
to rest therein from their labor. And the king answered Moses and said,
Behold I have lifted up thy face in this thing to grant thy request. And
Pharaoh ordered a proclamation to be issued throughout Egypt and
Goshen, saying, To you, all the children of Israel, thus says the king, for six
days you shall do your work and labor, but on the seventh day you shall
rest, and shall not perform any work; thus shall you do in all the days, as
the king and Moses the son of Bathia have commanded. And Moses
rejoiced at this thing which the king had granted to him, and all the children
of Israel did as Moses ordered them. For this thing was from the Lord to
the children of Israel, for the Lord had begun to remember the children of
Israel to save them for the sake of their fathers. And the Lord was with
Moses, and his fame went throughout Egypt. And Moses became great in
the eyes of all the Egyptians, and in the eyes of all the children of Israel,
seeking good for his people Israel, and speaking words of peace regarding
them to the king (Book of Jashar 70 41-51, published by Noah and
Gould, New York, 1840).
Hence, you can see that the Sabbath was before the Law of Moses came,
and has existed from the beginning of the world. Especially have the
385
devout, who have preserved the true faith, met together and called upon
God on this day (Luthers Works, XXXV, p. 330).
Why should God begin two thousand years after (the creation of the
world) to give men a Sabbath upon the reason of His rest from the creation
of it, if He had never called man to that commemoration before? And it is
certain that the Sabbath was observed at the falling of the manna before the
giving of the Law; and let any considering Christian judge ....
(1) whether the not falling of manna, or the rest of God after the
creation, was like to be the original reason of the Sabbath;
(2) and whether, if it had been the first, it would not have been said,
Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day; for on six days the manna fell,
and not on the seventh; rather than for in six days God created heaven
and earth, etc., and rested the seventh day. And it is casually added,
`Wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it. Nay,
consider whether this annexed reason intimates not that the day on this
ground being hallowed before, therefore it was that God sent not down
the manna on that day, and that He prhibited the people from seeking
it (Richard Baxter, Practical Works, III, 774, edition 1707).
That the Sabbath was known to those who came out of Egypt, even before
the giving of the Law at Sinai, is shown from the experience with the
manna, as recorded in
<021622>
Exodus 16:22-30. The double portion on the
sixth day, and its preservation, was the constantly recurring miracle which
reminded the people of their obligation to observe the Sabbath, and that
the Sabbath was a definite day, the seventh day. To the people, first
wondering at this remarkable occurrence, Moses said, This is that which
the Lord hath said, To morrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the
Lord (
<021623>
Exodus 16:23, King James Version). And to some who went
out to gather manna on the seventh day, the Lord administered this rebuke:
How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?
(
<021628>
Exodus 16:28). All this shows that the Sabbath law was well
understood, and that the failure to observe it rendered the people justly
subject to Divine reproof.
At Sinai, the Sabbath which was instituted at creation, and had been
observed during the intervening centuries, was embodied in that formal
statement of mans duties usually designated as the Ten Commandments.
It is treated as an institution already well known and the command is,
386
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy (
<022008>
Exodus 20:8). In the 4th
commandment the basis of the Sabbath is revealed. It is a memorial of the
Creators rest at the close of those six days in which He made heaven and
earth, the sea, and all that in them is. For this reason Yahweh blessed the
sabbath day, and hallowed it. This blessing was not placed upon the day at
Sinai, but in the beginning, when God blessed the seventh day, and
hallowed it (
<010203>
Genesis 2:3).
From the very nature of the basis of the Sabbath, as set forth in this
commandment, both the institution itself and the definite day of the
Sabbath are of a permanent nature. So long as it is true that God created
heaven and earth, and all things therein, so long will the Sabbath remain as
a memorial of that work; and so long as it is true that this creative work
was completed in six days, and that God Himself rested on the seventh day,
and was refreshed in the enjoyment of His completed work, so long will it
be true that the memorial of that work can properly be celebrated only
upon the seventh day of the week.
During all the period from the deliverance out of Egypt to the captivity in
Babylon, the people of God were distinguished from the nations about
them by the worship of the only true God, and the observance of His holy
day. The proper observance of the true Sabbath would preserve them from
idolatry, being a constant reminder of the one God, the Creator of all
things. Even when Jerusalem was suffering from the attacks of the
Babylonians, God assured His people, through the prophet Jeremiah, that if
they would hallow the Sabbath day, great should be their prosperity, and
the city should remain forever (
<241718>
Jeremiah 17:18). This shows that the
spiritual observance of the Sabbath was the supreme test of their right
relation to God. In those prophecies of Isaiah, which deal primarily with
the restoration from Babylon, remarkable promises were made to those
who would observe the Sabbath, as recorded in
<235601>
Isaiah 56:1-7.
(2) New Testament Teaching.
From the record found in the four Gospels, it is plain that the Jews during
all the previous centuries had preserved a knowledge both of the Sabbath
institution and of the definite day.
It is equally plain that they had made the Sabbath burdensome by their own
rigorous exactions concerning it. And Christ, the Lord of the Sabbath, both
by example and by precept, brushed aside these traditions of men that He
387
might reveal the Sabbath of the commandment as God gave it a blessing
and not a burden. A careful reading of the testimony of the evangelists will
show that Christ taught the observance of the commandments of God,
rather than the traditions of men, and that the charge of Sabbath-breaking
was brought against Him for no other reason than that He refused to allow
the requirements of man to change the Sabbath, blessed of God, into a
merely human institution, grievous in its nature, and enforced upon the
people with many and troublesome restrictions.
All are agreed that Christ and His disciples observed the seventh-day
Sabbath previous to the crucifixion. That His followers had received no
intimation of any proposed change at His death, is evident from the
recorded fact that on the day when He was in the tomb they rested, on the
sabbath .... according to the commandment (
<422356>
Luke 23:56); and that
they treated the following day, the first day of the week, the same as of old,
is further evident, as upon that day they came unto the sepulcher for the
purpose of anointing the body of Jesus. In the Book of Acts, which gives a
brief history of the work of the disciples in proclaiming the gospel of a
risen Saviour, no other Sabbath is recognized than the seventh day, and
this is mentioned in the most natural way as the proper designation of a
well-known institution (
<441314>
Acts 13:14,27,42; 16:13; 18:4).
In our Lords great prophecy, in which He foretold the experience of the
church between the first and the second advent, He recognized the
seventh-day Sabbath as an existing institution at the time of the destruction
of Jerusalem (70 AD), when He instructed His disciples, Pray ye that your
flight be not in the winter, neither on a sabbath (
<402420>
Matthew 24:20). Such
instruction given in these words, and at that time, would have been
confusing in the extreme, had there been any such thing contemplated as
the overthrow of the Sabbath law at the crucifixion, and the substitution of
another day upon an entirely different basis.
That the original Sabbath is to be observed, not only during the present
order of things, but also after the restoration when, according to the vision
of the revelator, a new heaven and a new earth will take the place of the
heaven and the earth that now are, is clearly intimated in the words of the
Lord through the prophet Isaiah: For as the new heavens and the new
earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith Yahweh, so shall
your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one
388
new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come
to worship before me, saith Yahweh (
<236622>
Isaiah 66:22,23).
Seventh-Day Adventists regard the effort to establish the observance of
another day than the seventh by using such texts as
<432019>
John 20:19,26;
<442007>
Acts 20:7;
<461601>
1 Corinthians 16:1,2;
<660110>
Revelation 1:10 as being merely
an afterthought, an effort to find warrant for an observance established
upon other than Biblical authority. During the last two or three centuries
there has been a movement for the restoration of the original seventh-day
Sabbath, not as a Jewish, but as a Christian, institution. This work,
commenced and carried forward by the Seventh-Day Baptists, has been
taken up and pushed with renewed vigor by the Seventh-Day Adventists
during the present generation, and the Bible teaching concerning the true
Sabbath is now being presented in nearly every country, both civilized and
uncivilized, on the face of the earth.
2. What History Says about the Sabbath:
(1) Josephus.
This summary of history must necessarily be brief, and it will be impossible,
for lack of space, to quote authorities. From the testimony of Josephus it is
clear that the Jews, as a nation, continued to observe the seventh-day
Sabbath until their overthrow, when Jerusalem was captured by Titus, 70
AD. As colonies, and individuals, scattered over the face of the earth, the
Jews have preserved a knowledge of the original Sabbath, and the definite
day, until the present time. They constitute a living testimony for the
benefit of all who desire to know the truth of this matter.
(2) Church History.
According to church history, the seventh-day Sabbath was observed by the
early church, and no other day was observed as a Sabbath during the first
two or three centuries (see HDB, IV, 322 b).
In the oft-repeated letter of Pliny, the Roman governor of Bithynia, to the
emperor Trajan, written about 112 AD, there occurs the expression, a
certain stated day, which is usually assumed to mean Sunday. With
reference to this matter W.B. Taylor, in Historical Commentaries, chapter
i, section 47, makes the following statement: As the Sabbath day appears
to have been quite as commonly observed at this date as the suns day (if
not even more so), it is just as probable that this `stated day referred to by
389
Pliny was the 7th day as that it was the 1st day; though the latter is
generally taken for granted. Sunday was distinguished as a day of joy by
the circumstances that men did not fast upon it, and that they prayed
standing up and not kneeling, as Christ had now been raised from the dead.
The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human
ordinance, and it was far from the intentions of the apostles to establish a
divine command in this respect, far from them, and from the early apostolic
church, to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday. Perhaps at the end
of the 2nd century, a false application of this kind had begun to take place;
for men appear by that time to have considered laboring on Sunday as a
sin (Tertullian Deuteronomy Orat., c. 23). This quotation is taken from
Roses Neander, London, 1831, I, 33 f, and is the correct translation from
Neanders first German edition, Hamburg, 1826, I, pt. 2, p. 339. Neander
has in his 2nd edition, 1842, omitted the second sentence, in which he
expressly stated that Sunday was only a human ordinance, but he has added
nothing to the contrary. The Christians in the ancient church very soon
distinguished the first day of the week, Sunday; however, not as a Sabbath,
but as an assembly day of the church, to study the Word of God together
and to celebrate the ordinances one with another: without a shadow of
doubt this took place as early as the first part of the 2nd century
(Geschichte des Sonntags, 60).
Gradually, however, the first day of the week came into prominence as an
added day, but finally by civil and ecclesiastical authority as a required
observance. The first legislation on this subject was the famous law of
Constantine, enacted 321 AD. The acts of various councils during the 4th
and 5th centuries established the observance of the first day of the week by
ecclesiastical authority, and in the great apostasy which followed, the rival
day obtained the ascendancy. During the centuries which followed,
however, there were always witnesses for the true Sabbath, although under
great persecution. And thus in various lands, the knowledge of the true
Sabbath has been preserved.
3. The Significance of the Sabbath:
In the creation of the heavens and the earth the foundation of the gospel
was laid. At the close of His created work, God saw everything that he
had made, and, behold, it was very good (
<010131>
Genesis 1:31). The Sabbath
was both the sign and the memorial of that creative power which is able to
make all things good. But man, made in the image of God, lost that image
390
through sin. In the gospel, provision is made for the restoration of the
image of God in the soul of man. The Creator is the Redeemer and
redemption is the new creation. Since the Sabbath was the sign of that
creative power which worked in Christ, the Word, in the making of the
heaven and the earth and all things therein, so it is the sign of that same
creative power working through the same eternal Word for the restoration
of all things. Wherefore if any man is in Christ, there is a new creation: the
old things are passed away; behold, they are become new (2 Cor 5:17
margin). For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a
new creation (
<480615>
Galatians 6:15 margin). For we are his workmanship,
created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we
should walk in them (
<490210>
Ephesians 2:10).
A concrete illustration of this gospel meaning of the Sabbath is found in the
deliverance of Israel from Egypt. The same creative power which wrought
in the beginning was exercised in the signs and miracles which preceded
their deliverance, and in those miracles, such as the opening of the Red
Sea, the giving of the manna, and the water from the rock, which attended
the journeyings of the Israelites. In consequence of these manifestations of
creative power in their behalf, the children of Israel were instructed to
remember in their observance of the Sabbath that they were bondsmen in
the land of Egypt. Israels deliverance from Egypt is the type of every
mans deliverance from sin; and the instruction to Israel concerning the
Sabbath shows its true significance in the gospel of salvation from sin, and
the new creation in the image of God.
Furthermore, the seventh-day Sabbath is the sign of both the divinity and
the deity of Christ. God only can create. He through whom this work is
wrought must be one with God. To this the Scriptures testify: In the
beginning was the Word, .... and the Word was God. .... All things were
made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been
made. But this same Word which was with God, and was God, became
flesh, and dwelt among us (
<430101>
John 1:1,3,14). This is the eternal Son, in
whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our
trespasses, according to the riches of his grace (
<490107>
Ephesians 1:7). To the
Christian the Sabbath, which was the sign and memorial of that divine
power which wrought through the eternal Word in the creation of the
heaven and the earth, becomes the sign of the same power working
through the same eternal Son to accomplish the new creation, and is thus
the sign of both the divinity and the deity of Christ.
391
Inasmuch as the redemptive work finds its chiefest expression in the cross
of Christ, the Sabbath, which is the sign of that redemptive work, becomes
the sign of the cross.
Seventh-Day Adventists teach and practice the observance of the Sabbath,
not because they believe in salvation through mans effort to keep the law
of God, but because they believe in that salvation which alone can be
accomplished by the creative power of God working through the eternal
Son to create believers anew in Christ Jesus.
Seventh-Day Adventists believe, and teach, that the observance of any
other day than the seventh as the Sabbath is the sign of that predicted
apostasy in which the man of sin would be revealed who would exalt
himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped.
Seventh-Day Adventists believe, and teach, that the observance of the true
Sabbath in this generation is a part of that gospel work which is to make
ready a people prepared for the Lord.
W. W. Prescott
SABBATH-BREAKING
<sab-bath-brak-ing>.
See CRIMES; PUNISHMENTS.
SABBATH, COURT OF THE
See COVERED WAY.
SABBATH, DAY BEFORE THE
See DAY BEFORE THE SABBATH.
SABBATH DAYS JOURNEY
<jur-ni> ([ooppotou oo, sabbatou hodos]): Used only in
<440112>
Acts
1:12, where it designates the distance from Jerusalem to the Mount of
Olives, to which Jesus led His disciples on the day of His ascension. The
expression comes from rabbinical usage to indicate the distance a Jew
might travel on the Sabbath without transgressing the Law, the command
against working on that day being interpreted as including travel (see
392
<021627>
Exodus 16:27-30). The limit set by the rabbis to the Sabbath days
journey was 2,000 cubits from ones house or domicile, which was derived
from the statement found in
<060304>
Joshua 3:4 that this was the distance
between the ark and the people on their march, this being assumed to be
the distance between the tents of the people and the tabernacle during the
sojourn in the wilderness. Hence, it must have been allowable to travel thus
far to attend the worship of the tabernacle. We do not know when this
assumption in regard to the Sabbath days journey was made, but it seems
to have been in force in the time of Christ. The distance of the Mount of
Olives from Jerusalem is stated in Josephus (Ant., XX, viii, 6) to have been
five stadia or furlongs and in BJ, V, ii, 3, six stadia, the discrepancy being
explained by supposing a different point of departure. This would make the
distance of the Sabbath days journey from 1,000 to 1,200 yards, the first
agreeing very closely with the 2,000 cubits. The rabbis, however, invented
a way of increasing this distance without technically infringing the Law, by
depositing some food at the 2,000-cubit limit, before the Sabbath, and
declaring that spot a temporary domicile. They might then proceed 2,000
cubits from this point without transgressing the Law.
And in some cases even this intricacy of preparation was unnecessary. If,
for instance, the approach of the Sabbath found one on his journey, the
traveler might select some tree or some stone wall at a distance of 2,000
paces and mentally declare this to be his residence for the Sabbath, in
which case he was permitted to go the 2,000 paces to the selected tree or
wall and also 2,000 paces beyond, but in such a case he must do the work
thoroughly and must say: Let my Sabbath residence be at the trunk of that
tree, for if he merely said: Let my Sabbath residence be under that tree,
this would not be sufficient, because the, expression would be too general
and indefinite (Tractate `Erubhin 4:7).
Other schemes for extending the distance have been devised, such as
regarding the quarter of the town in which one dwells, or the whole town
itself, as the domicile, thus allowing one to proceed from any part of the
town to a point 2,000 cubits beyond its utmost limits. This was most
probably the case with walled towns, at least, and boundary stones have
been found in the vicinity of Gaza with inscriptions supposed to mark these
limits. The 2,000-cubit limits around the Levitical cities (
<043505>
Numbers 35:5)
may have suggested the limit of the Sabbath days journey also. The term
came to be used as a designation of distance which must have been more or
less definite.
393
H. Porter
SABBATH, MORROW AFTER THE
See MORROW AFTER THE SABBATH.
SABBATH, SECOND AFTER THE FIRST
([ooppotov rutrpoptov, sabbaton deuteroproton] (
<420601>
Luke 6:1),
literally, the second-first sabbath, of the Revised Version margin): We
will mention only a few of the explanations elicited by this expression.
(1) It was the first Sabbath in the second year of a 7-year cycle
comprising the period from one Sabbatic year to the other;
(2) the first Sabbath after the second day of Passover, i.e. the first of
the seven Sabbaths the Hebrews were to count unto themselves from
the morrow after the sabbath (the day after Easter) until Pentecost
(
<032315>
Leviticus 23:15);
(3) the first Sabbath in the Jewish ecclesiastical year (about the middle
of March), the first Sabbath in the civil year (about the middle of
September) being counted as the first-first Sabbath;
(4) the term deuteroprotos, is a monstrous combination of the words
deuteros, second, and protos, first, attributable to unskillful
attempts at textual emendation on the part of copyists. This supposition
would, of course, render unnecessary all other efforts to unravel the
knotty problem, and, as a matter of fact, deuteroprotos is omitted by
many manuscripts (including Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus).
To those not feeling inclined to accept this solution we would suggest
the first of the above-named explanations as the most natural and
probable one.
William Baur
SABBATHEUS
<sab-a-the-us>: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British
and American) SABBATEUS (which see).
394
SABBATHS, OF YEARS
<sab-aths>, ([ yniv ; t t oB ]v , shabbethoth shanim]; [ovoouor rtv,
anapauseis eton] (
<032508>
Leviticus 25:8)): The seven sabbatic years preceding
the Year of Jubilee.
See SABBATICAL YEAR; JUBILEE YEAR; ASTRONOMY, I, 5.
SABBATICAL, YEAR
<sa-bat-ik-al>, [wO t B ; v t n v ] , shenath shabbathon]; [rvouto
ovoouor, eniautos anapauseos], a year of solemn rest; or
[wO t B ; v t B v , shabbath shabbathon]; [ooppoto ovoouo,
sabbata anapausis], a sabbath of solemn rest (
<032504>
Leviticus 25:4); or
[h F ; mi V ] h t n v ] , shehath ha-shemittah]; [rto tq oror, etos tes
apheseos], the year of release (
<051509>
Deuteronomy 15:9; 31:10)):
1. PRIMARY INTENTION:
We find the first rudiments of this institution in the so-called Covenant
Book (Exodus 21-23). Its connection with the day of rest (Sabbath) is
obvious, although it strikes us as somewhat remarkable that in
<022310>
Exodus
23:10-12 the regulation regarding the 7th year should precede the statute
respecting the 7th day. Still it seems natural that after the allusion in verse
9, Ye were sojourners in the land of Egypt, the Covenant Book should
put in a good word for the poor in Israel (verse 11: Let it rest and lie
fallow, that the poor of thy people may eat). Even the beasts of the field
are remembered (compare Jon 4:11).
We must, therefore, conclude that in this early period of the history of
Israel the regulation regarding the 7th year was primarily intended for the
relief of the poor and for the awakening of a sense of responsibility in the
hearts of those better provided with the means of subsistence. It would be
wrong, however, to deny its Sabbatic character, for the text says expressly,
But in the 7th year thou shalt let it rest (literally, thou shalt release it),
implying that the land was entitled to a rest because it needed it; it must be
released for a time in order to gain fresh strength and insure its future
fertility. Two motives, then, present themselves most clearly, one of a
social, the other of an economic character, and both are rooted in Gods
dealings with Israel (compare
<022101>
Exodus 21:1).
395
2. MOSAIC LEGISLATION HUMANE:
Another evidence of the humane spirit pervading the Mosaic Law may be
found in
<022102>
Exodus 21:2-6 where, in the case of a Hebrew slave, the
length of his servitude is limited to six years. The connection with the idea
of the Sabbath is evident, but we fail to detect here any reference to the
Sabbatical year. It is clear that the 7th year in which a slave might be set
free need not necessarily coincide with the Sabbatical year, though it might,
of course, The same is true of
<051512>
Deuteronomy 15:12-18; it has nothing to
do with the Sabbatical year. On the other hand it is reasonable to assume
that the release mentioned in
<051501>
Deuteronomy 15:1-3 took place in the
Sabbatical year; in other words, its scope had been enlarged in later years
so as to include the release from pecuniary obligation, i.e. the remission of
debts or, at least, their temporary suspension. This means that the children
of Israel were now developing from a purely agricultural people to a
commercial nation. Still the same spirit of compassion for the poor and
those struggling for a living asserts itself as in the earlier period, and it goes
without saying that the old regulation concerning the release of the land in
the 7th year was still in force (compare 15:2: because Yahwehs release
hath been proclaimed).
According to
<051501>
Deuteronomy 15:1, this proclamation occurred at the end
of every 7 years, or, rather, during the 7th year; for we must be careful not
to strain the expression at the end (compare 15:9, where the 7th year is
called the year of release; it is quite natural to identify this 7th year with
the Sabbatical year).
Moreover, we are now almost compelled to assert the Sabbatical year by
this time had become an institution observed simultaneously all over the
country. From the wording of the regulation regarding the 7th year in the
Covenant Book we are not certain about this in those early times. But now
it is different. Yahwehs release hath been proclaimed.
3. GENERAL OBSERVANCE:
It was a solemn and general proclamation, the date of which was very
likely the day of atonement in the 7th month (the Sabbatical month). The
celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles (booths) began five days later and it
lasted from the 15th day to the 21st of the 7th month (Tisri). In the
Sabbatical year, at that time, the Law was read before all Israel in their
hearing, a fact which tends to prove that the Sabbatical year had become a
396
matter of general and simultaneous observance (compare
<053110>
Deuteronomy
31:10-13). Another lesson may be deduced from this passage: it gives us a
hint respecting the use to which the people may have put their leisure time
during the 12 months of Sabbatical rest; it may have been a period of
religious and probably other instruction.
In
<032501>
Leviticus 25:1-7 the central idea of the Sabbatical year is unfolded.
Although it has been said we should be careful not to look for too much of
the ideal and dogmatic in the institutions of the children of Israel, yet we
must never lose sight of the religious and educational character even of
their ancient legislation.
4. CENTRAL IDEA:
One central thought is brought home to them, namely, God is the owner of
the soil, and through His grace only the chosen people have come into its
possession. Their time, i.e. they themselves, belong to Him: this is the
deepest meaning of the day of rest; their land, i.e. their means of
subsistence, belong to Him: this reveals to us the innermost significance of
the year of rest. It was Yahwehs pleasure to call the children of Israel into
life, and if they live and work and prosper, they are indebted to His
unmerited loving-kindness. They should, therefore, put their absolute trust
in Him, never doubt His word or His power, always obey Him and so
always receive His unbounded blessings.
If we thus put all the emphasis on the religious character of the Sabbatical
year, we are in keeping with the idea permeating the Old Testament,
namely that the children of Israel are the chosen people of Yahweh. All
their agricultural, social, commercial and political relations were to be built
upon their divine calling and shaped according to Gods sovereign will.
But did they live up to it? Or, to limit the question to our subject: Did they
really observe the Sabbatical year? There are those who hold that the law
regarding the Sabbatical year was not observed before the captivity. In
order to prove this assertion they point to
<032634>
Leviticus 26:34 f,43; also to
<143621>
2 Chronicles 36:21. But all we can gather from these passages is the
palpable conclusion that the law regarding the Sabbatical year had not been
strictly obeyed, a deficiency which may mar the effect of any law.
The possibility of observing the precept respecting the Sabbatical year is
demonstrated by the post-exilic history of the Jewish people. Nehemiah
397
registers the solemn fact that the reestablished nation entered into a
covenant to keep the law and to maintain the temple worship
(
<160938>
Nehemiah 9:38; 10:32 ff). In 10:31 of the last-named chapter he
alludes to the 7th year, that we would forego the 7th year, and the
exaction of every debt. We are not sure of the exact meaning of this short
allusion; it may refer to the Sabbatical rest of the land and the suspension
of debts.
For a certainty we know that the Sabbatical year was observed by the Jews
at the time of Alexander the Great. When he was petitioned by the
Samaritans that he would remit the tribute of the 7th year to them,
because they did not sow therein, he asked who they were that made such
a petition; he was told they were Hebrews, etc. (Josephus, Ant, XI, viii,
6).
During Maccabean and Asmonean times the law regarding the Sabbatical
year was strictly observed, although it frequently weakened the cause of
the Jews (1 Macc 6:49,53; Josephus, Ant, XIII, viii, 1; compare Josephus,
Jewish Wars, I, ii, 4; Ant, XIV, x, 6; XV, i, 2). Again we may find
references to the Sabbatical year in Josephus, Ant, XIV, xvi, 2, etc.; Tac.
Hist. v.4, etc., all of which testifies to the observance of the Sabbatical year
in the Herodian era. The words of Tacitus show the proud Romans
estimate of the Jewish character and customs: For the 7th day they are
said to have prescribed rest because this day ended their labors; then, in
addition, being allured by their lack of energy, they also spend the 7th year
in laziness.
See also ASTRONOMY, I, 5, (3), (4); JUBILEE YEAR.
William Baur
SABBEUS
<sa-be-us> ([2oppoo, Sabbaias]): In 1 Esdras 9:32, the same as
Shemaiah in
<151031>
Ezra 10:31.
SABI
<sa-bi>:
(1) Codex Alexandrinus [2opr, Sabei]; Codex Vaticanus [Tpr,
Tobeis], Fritzache; the King James Version, Sami): Eponym of a family
398
of porters who returned with Zerubbabel (1 Esdras 5:28) = Shobai in
<150242>
Ezra 2:42;
<160745>
Nehemiah 7:45.
(2) The King James Version = the Revised Version (British and
American) SABIE (which see).
SABIAS
<sa-bi-as> ([2opo, Sabias], Fritzsche, [ Aoopo, Asabias]; the King
James Version Assabias): One of the six captains over thousands who
supplied the Levites with much cattle for Josiahs Passover (1 Esdras 1:9)
= Hashabiah in
<143509>
2 Chronicles 35:9.
SABIE
<sa-bi-e> ([2oprq, Sabeie], or [2opq, Sabie]; the King James Version
Sabi): In 1 Esdras 5:34 both the King James Version and the Revised
Version (British and American), following Codex Alexandrinus, read the
sons of Phacareth, the sons of Sabie (the King James Version Sabi) for
the Pochereth-hazzebaim of
<150257>
Ezra 2:57;
<160759>
Nehemiah 7:59. Codex
Vaticanus reads correctly as one proper name: Phacareth Sabie.
SABTA OR SABTAH
<sab-ta> ([a T ; b ] s , cabhta], [h T ; b ] s , cabhtah]): Third son of Cush
(
<011007>
Genesis 10:7 =
<130109>
1 Chronicles 1:9). A place Sabta is probably to be
looked for in South Arabia. Arab geographers give no exact equivalent of
the name. Al Bekri (i.65) quotes a line of early poetry in which Dhu l
Sabta is mentioned, and the context might indicate a situation in Yemamah;
but the word is possibly not a proper name. It is usually identified with
Saubatha (Ptol., vi.7, 38) or with the Sabota of Pliny (vi.32; xii.32), an old
mercantile city in South Arabia celebrated for its trade in frankincense and,
according to Ptolemy, possessing 60 temples. It is said also to have been
the territory of a king Elisarus, whose name presents a striking resemblance
to Dhu l-Adhar, one of the Tubbas or Himyarite kings of Yemen.
Another conjecture is the Saphtha of Ptolemy (vi.7, 30) near the Arabian
shore of the Persian Gulf.
A. S. Fulton
399
SABTECA
<sabte-ka> ([a k ; T ] b ] s , cabhtekha]; [2opoxo0o, Sabakatha],
[2rpr0oo, Sebethacha]; the King James Version Sabtechah): The 5th
named of the sons of Cush in the genealogy of
<011005>
Genesis 10:5-7. In
<130108>
1
Chronicles 1:8,9 the King James Version reads Sabtecha, the Revised
Version (British and American) Sabteca. Many conjectures have been
made as to the place here indicated. Recently Glazer (Skizze, II, 252) has
revived the suggestion of Bochart that it is to be identified with Samydake
in Carmania on the East of the Persian Gulf. This seems to rest on nothing
more than superficial resemblance of the names; but the phonetic changes
involved are difficult. Others have thought of various places in Arabia,
toward the Persian Gulf; but the data necessary for any satisfactory
decision are not now available.
W. Ewing
SACAR
<sa-kar> ([r k ;c ;, sakhar]):
(1) Father of Ahiam, a follower of David (
<131135>
1 Chronicles 11:35,
Codex Vaticanus [ Aop, Achar]; Codex Alexandrinus [2oop,
Sachar] = Sharar of
<102333>
2 Samuel 23:33; Sharar is favored as the
original reading).
(2) Eponym of a family of gatekeepers (
<132604>
1 Chronicles 26:4).
SACKBUT
<sak-but>.
See MUSIC, III, 1, (f).
SACKCLOTH
<sak-kloth>.
See BURIAL.
SACRAMENTS
<sak-ra-ments>:
400
1. THE TERM:
The word sacrament comes from the Latin sacramentum, which in the
classical period of the language was used in two chief senses:
(1) as a legal term to denote the sum of money deposited by two
parties to a suit which was forfeited by the loser and appropriated to
sacred uses;
(2) as a military term to designate the oath of obedience taken by newly
enlisted soldiers. Whether referring to an oath of obedience or to
something set apart for a sacred purpose, it is evident that
sacramentum would readily lend itself to describe such ordinances as
Baptism and the Lords Supper. In the Greek New Testament,
however, there is no word nor even any general idea corresponding to
sacrament, nor does the earliest history of Christianity afford any
trace of the application of the term to certain rites of the church. Pliny
(circa 112 AD) describes the Christians of Bithynia as binding
themselves by a sacramentum to commit no kind of crime (Epistles
x.97), but scholars are now pretty generally agreed that Pliny here uses
the word in its old Roman sense of an oath or solemn obligation, so
that its occurrence in this passage is nothing more than an interesting
coincidence.
It is in the writings of Tertullian (end of 2nd and beginning of 3rd century)
that we find the first evidence of the adoption of the word as a technical
term to designate Baptism, the Lords Supper, and other rites of the
Christian church. This Christian adoption of sacramentum may have been
partly occasioned by the evident analogies which the word suggests with
Baptism and the Lords Supper; but what appears to have chiefly
determined its history in this direction was the fact that in the Old Latin
versions (as afterward in the Vulgate) it had been employed to translate the
Greek [uotqpov, musterion], a mystery (e.g.
<490532>
Ephesians 5:32;
<540316>
1
Timothy 3:16;
<660120>
Revelation 1:20; 17:7) an association of ideas which
was greatly fostered in the early church by the rapidly growing tendency to
an assimilation of Christian worship with the mystery-practices of the
Greek-Roman world.
401
2. NATURE AND NUMBER:
Though especially employed to denote Baptism and the Lords Supper, the
name sacraments was for long used so loosely and vaguely that it was
applied to facts and doctrines of Christianity as well as to its symbolic rites.
Augustines definition of a sacrament as the visible form of an invisible
grace so far limited its application. But we see how widely even a
definition like this might be stretched when we find Hugo of Victor (12th
century) enumerating as many as 30 sacraments that had been recognized
in the church. The Council of Trent was more exact when it declared that
visible forms are sacraments only when they represent an invisible grace
and become its channels, and when it sought further to delimit the
sacramental area by reenacting (1547) a decision of the Council of
Florence (1439), in which for the first time the authority of the church was
given to a suggestion of Peter Lombard (12th century) and other
schoolmen that the number of the sacraments should be fixed at seven,
namely, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction,
Orders, and Matrimony a suggestion which was supported by certain
fanciful analogies designed to show that seven was a sacred number.
The divergence of the Protestant churches from this definition and scheme
was based on the fact that these proceeded on no settled principles. The
notion that there are seven sacraments has no New Testament authority,
and must be described as purely arbitrary; while the definition of a
sacrament is still so vague that anything but an arbitrary selection of
particulars is impossible. It is perfectly arbitrary, for example, to place
Baptism and the Lords Supper, which were instituted by Christ as
ordinances of the church, in the same category with marriage, which rests
not on His appointment but on a natural relationship between the sexes that
is as old as the human race. While, therefore, the Reformers retained the
term sacrament as a convenient one to express the general idea that has
to be drawn from the characteristics of the rites classed together under this
name, they found the distinguishing marks of sacraments
(1) in their institution by Christ,
(2) in their being enjoined by Him upon His followers,
(3) in their being bound up with His word and revelation in such a way
that they become the expressions of divine thoughts, the visible
symbols of divine acts. And, since Baptism and the Lords Supper are
402
the only two rites for which such marks can be claimed, it follows that
there are only two New Testament sacraments. Their unique place in
the original revelation justifies us in separating them from all other rites
and ceremonies that may have arisen in the history of the church, since
it raises them to the dignity of forming an integral part of the historical
gospel. A justification for their being classed together under a common
name may be found, again, in the way in which they are associated in
the New Testament (
<440241>
Acts 2:41,42;
<461001>
1 Corinthians 10:1-4) and
also in the analogy which Paul traces between Baptism and the Lords
Supper on the one hand, and Circumcision and the Passover the two
most distinctive rites of the Old Covenant on the other
(
<510211>
Colossians 2:11;
<460507>
1 Corinthians 5:7; 11:26).
3. INSTITUTION BY CHRIST:
The assumption made above, that both Baptism and the Lords Supper
owe their origin as sacraments of the church to their definite appointment
by Christ Himself, has been strongly challenged by some modern critics.
(1) In regard to Baptism it has been argued that as
<411615>
Mark 16:15 f
occurs in a passage (16:9-20) which textual criticism has shown to
have formed no part of the original Gospel,
<402819>
Matthew 28:19,
standing by itself, is too slender a foundation to support the belief that
the ordinance rests upon an injunction of Jesus, more especially as its
statements are inconsistent with the results of historical criticism. These
results, it is affirmed, prove that all the narratives of the Forty Days are
legendary, that
<402819>
Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later
ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of
early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula foreign to the
mouth of Jesus (see Harnack, History of Dogma, I, 79, and the
references there given). It is evident, however, that some of these
objections rest upon anti-supernatural pre-suppositions that really beg
the question at issue, and others on conclusions for which real premises
are wanting. Over against them all we have to set the positive and
weighty fact that from the earliest days of Christianity Baptism appears
as the rite of initiation into the fellowship of the church (
<440238>
Acts
2:38,41, et passim), and that even Paul, with all his freedom of thought
and spiritual interpretation of the gospel, never questioned its necessity
(compare
<450603>
Romans 6:3 ff;
<461213>
1 Corinthians 12:13;
<490405>
Ephesians
4:5). On any other supposition than that of its appointment by our Lord
403
Himself it is difficult to conceive how within the brief space of years
between the death of Jesus and the apostles earliest references to the
subject, the ordinance should not only have originated but have
established itself in so absolute a manner for Jewish and Gentile
Christians alike.
(2) In the case of the Lords Supper the challenge of its institution by
Christ rests mainly upon the fact that the saying, This do in
remembrance of me, is absent from the Mark-Matthew text, and is
found only in the Supper-narratives of Paul (1 Cor 11:24,25) and his
disciple Luke (
<422219>
Luke 22:19). Upon this circumstance large structures
of critical hypothesis have been reared. It has been affirmed that in the
upper room Jesus was only holding a farewell supper with His
disciples, and that it never occurred to Him to institute a feast of
commemoration. It has further been maintained that the views of Jesus
regarding the speedy consummation of His kingdom make it impossible
that He should have dreamed of instituting a sacrament to
commemorate His death. The significance of the feast was
eschatological merely; it was a pledge of a glorious future hour in the
perfected kingdom of God (see
<402629>
Matthew 26:29 and parallels). And
theory has even been advanced that the institution of this sacrament as
an ordinance of the church designed to commemorate Christs death
was due to the initiative of Paul, who is supposed to have been
influenced in this direction by what he had seen in Corinth and
elsewhere of the mystery-practices of the Greek world.
All these hypothetical fabrics fall, of course, to the ground if the underlying
assumption that Jesus never said, This do in remembrance of me, is
shown to be unwarrantable. And it is unwarrantable to assume that a
saying of Jesus which is vouched for by Paul and Luke cannot be authentic
because it does not occur in the corresponding narratives of Matthew and
Mark. In these narratives, which are highly compressed in any case, the
first two evangelists would seem to have confined themselves to setting
down those sayings which formed the essential moments of the Supper and
gave its symbolic contents. The command of its repetition they may have
regarded as sufficiently embodied and expressed in the universal practice of
the church from the earliest days. For as to that practice there is no
question (
<440242>
Acts 2:42,46; 20:7;
<461016>
1 Corinthians 10:16; 11:26), and just
as little that it rested upon the belief that Christ had enjoined it. Every
assumption of its having originated in the church from the recollection of
404
intercourse with Jesus at table, and the necessity felt for recalling His
death, is precluded (Weizsacker, Apostolic Age, II, 279). That the simple
historical supper of Jesus with His disciples in the upper room was
converted by Paul into an institution for the Gentile and Jewish churches
alike is altogether inconceivable. The primitive church had its bitter
controversies, but there is no trace of any controversy as to the origin and
institutional character of the Lords Supper.
4. EFFICACY:
In the New Testament the sacraments are presented as means of grace.
Forgiveness (
<440238>
Acts 2:38), cleansing (
<490525>
Ephesians 5:25 f), spiritual
quickening (
<510212>
Colossians 2:12) are associated with Baptism; the Lords
Supper is declared to be a participation in the body and blood of Christ (1
Cor 10:16). So far all Christians are agreed; but wide divergence shows
itself thereafter. According to the doctrine of the Roman church,
sacraments are efficacious ex opere operato, i.e. in virtue of a power
inherent in themselves as outward acts whereby they communicate saving
benefits to those who receive them without opposing any obstacle. The
Reformed doctrine, on the other hand, teaches that their efficacy lies not in
themselves as outward acts, but in the blessing of Christ and the operation
of His Spirit, and that it is conditioned by faith in the recipient. The
traditional Lutheran doctrine agrees with the Reformed in affirming that
faith is necessary as the condition of saving benefits in the use of the
sacraments, but resembles the Roman teaching in ascribing the efficacy of
Baptism and the Lords Supper, not to the attendant working of the Holy
Spirit, but to a real inherent and objective virtue resident in them a
virtue, however, which does not lie (as the Roman church says) in the mere
elements and actions of the sacraments, but in the power of the divine
word which they embody.
See BAPTISM; LORDS SUPPER.
LITERATURE.
Candlish, The Christian Sacraments; Lambert, The Sacraments in the New
Testament; Bartlet, Apostolic Age, 495 ff; Hodge, Systematic Theology,
III, chapter xx.
J . C. Lambert
405
SACRIFICE
<sak-ri-fis>, <sak-ri-fiz>:
IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
I. Terms and Definitions.
[j b z, , zebhach], sacrifice; [h l ;wO[ , `olah], burnt offering; [h a ;f ;j } ,
chataah], [t a F ; j , chattath], sin offering; [ v ;a ; , asham], guilt or
trespass offering: [ l ,v ,, shelem], [ ymil ;v ], shelamim], peace
offerings; [h j ;n]mi, minchah], offering, present; [ ymil ;v ]j b z,,
zebhach shelamim], sacrifice of peace offerings; [h d ; wO T h j b z, ,
zebhach ha-todhah], thank offerings; [h b ;d ;n]j b z,, zebhach
nedhabhah], free-will offerings; [r d ,n, j b z,, zebhach nedher], votive
offerings; [h b ;WnT ], tenuphah], wave offering; [h m;R wT ], terumah],
heave offering; [B ;r ]q ;, qorban], oblation, gift; [h V ,a , ishsheh],
fire offering; [ s ,n,, necekh], drink offering; [l yl iK ;, kalil], whole
burnt offering; [gj , chagh], feast; [h n;wOb l i, lebhonah],
frankincense; [h r ;wOf q ], qetorah], [t r ,wOf q ], qetoreth], odor, incense;
[j l m, , melach], salt; [m,v ,, shemen], oil:
Zebhach: a slaughtered animal, a sacrifice, general term for animals
used in sacrifice, including burnt offerings, peace offerings, thank offerings,
and all sacrifices offered to the Deity and eaten at the festivals. More
particularly it refers to the flesh eaten by the worshippers after the fat parts
had been burned on the altar and the priest had received his portion.
`Olah: a burnt offering, sometimes whole burnt offering. Derived from
the verb `alah, to go up. It may mean that which goes up to the altar
(Knobel, Wellhausen, Nowack, etc.), or that which goes up in smoke to
the sky (Bahr, Delitzsch, Dillmann, etc.); sometimes used synonymously
with kalil (which see). The term applies to beast or fowl when entirely
consumed upon the altar, the hide of the beast being taken by the priest.
This was perhaps the most solemn of the sacrifices, and symbolized
worship in the full sense, i.e. adoration, devotion, dedication, supplication,
and at times expiation.
406
Chotaah, chattath: a sin offering, a special kind, first mentioned in the
Mosaic legislation. It is essentially expiatory, intended to restore covenant
relations with the Deity. The special features were:
(1) the blood must be sprinkled before the sanctuary, put upon the
horns of the altar of incense and poured out at the base of the altar of
burnt offering;
(2) the flesh was holy, not to be touched by worshipper, but eaten by
the priest only. The special ritual of the Day of Atonement centers
around the sin offering.
Asham: guilt offering, trespass offering (King James Version; in
<235310>
Isaiah 53:10, the King James Version and the Revised Version (British
and American) an offering for sin, the American Revised Version margin
trespass offering). A special kind of sin offering introduced in the Mosaic
Law and concerned with offenses against God and man that could be
estimated by a money value and thus covered by compensation or
restitution accompanying the offering. A ram of different degrees of value,
and worth at least two shekels, was the usual victim, and it must be
accompanied by full restitution with an additional fifth of the value of the
damage. The leper and Nazirite could offer he-lambs. The guilt toward
God was expiated by the blood poured out, and the guilt toward men by
the restitution and fine. The calling of the Servant an asham (
<235310>
Isaiah
53:10) shows the value attached to this offering.
Shelem, shelamim: peace offering, generally used the plural, shelamim,
only once shelem (
<300522>
Amos 5:22). These were sacrifices of friendship
expressing or promoting peaceful relations with the Deity, and almost
invariably accompanied by a meal or feast, an occasion of great joy. They
are sometimes called zebhachim, sometimes zebhach shelamim, and were
of different kinds, such as zebhach ha-todhah, thank offerings, which
expressed the gratitude of the giver because of some blessings, zebhach
nedhabhah, free-will offerings, bestowed on the Deity out of a full heart,
and zebhach nedher, votive offerings, which were offered in fulfillment
of a vow.
Minchah: meal offering (the Revised Version), meat offering (the King
James Version), a gift or presentation, at first applied to both bloody and
unbloody offerings (
<010405>
Genesis 4:5), but in Moses time confined to
cereals, whether raw or roast, ground to flour or baked and mixed with oil
407
and frankincense. These cereals were the produce of mans labor with the
soil, not fruits, etc., and thus represented the necessities and results of life,
if not life itself. They were the invariable accompaniment of animal
sacrifices, and in one instance could be substituted for them (see SIN
OFFERING). The term minchah describes a gift or token of friendship
(
<233901>
Isaiah 39:1), an act of homage (
<091027>
1 Samuel 10:27;
<111025>
1 Kings 10:25),
tribute (
<070315>
Judges 3:15,17 f), propitiation to a friend wronged (
<013213>
Genesis
32:13,18 (Hebrew 14:19)), to procure favor or assistance (
<014311>
Genesis
43:11 ff;
<281006>
Hosea 10:6).
Tenuphah: wave offering, usually the breast, the priests share of the
peace offerings, which was waved before the altar by both offerer and
priest together (the exact motion is not certain), symbolic of its
presentation to Deity and given back by Him to the offerer to be used in
the priests service.
Terumah: heave offering, something lifted up, or, properly, separated
from the rest and given to the service of the Deity. Usually the right
shoulder or thigh was thus separated for the priest. The term is applied to
products of the soil, or portion of land separated unto the divine service,
etc.
Qorban: an oblation, or offering; another generic term for all kinds of
offerings, animal, vegetable, or even gold and silver. Derived from the verb
qarabh, to draw near, it signifies what is drawn or brought near and
given to God.
Ishsheh: fire offering, applied to offerings made by fire and usually
bloody offerings, but at times to the minchah, the sacred bread and
frankincense placed on the tables as a memorial, part of which was burned
with the frankincense, the bulk, however, going to the priest. The gift was
thus presented through fire to the Deity as a sort of etherealized food.
Necekh: drink offering, or libation, a liquid offering of wine, rarely
water, sometimes of oil, and usually accompanying the `olah, but often
with the peace offerings.
Kalil: whole burnt offering, the entire animal being burned upon the
altar. Sometimes used synonymously with `olah. A technical term among
the Carthaginians.
408
Chagh: a feast, used metaphorically for a sacrificial feast because the
meat of the sacrifices constituted the material of the feast.
Lebhonah: frankincense, incense, used in combination with the meal
offerings and burnt offerings and burned also upon the altar in the holy
place.
See INCENSE.
Qetorah, qetoreth: smoke, odor of sacrifice, or incense ascending as a
sweet savor and supposed to be pleasing and acceptable to God.
Melach: salt, used in all sacrifices because of its purifying and preserving
qualities.
Shemen: oil, generally olive oil, used with the meal offerings of cakes
and wafers, etc.
Sacrifice is thus a complex and comprehensive term. In its simplest form it
may be defined as a gift to God. It is a presentation to Deity of some
material object, the possession of the offerer, as an act of worship. It may
be to attain, restore, maintain or to celebrate friendly relations with the
Deity. It is religion in action in early times, almost the whole of religion
an inseparable accompaniment to all religious exercises. Few or many
motives may actuate it. It may be wholly piacular and expiatory, or an
Offering of food as a gift to God; it may be practically a bribe, or a prayer,
an expression of dependence, obligation and thanksgiving. It may express
repentance, faith, adoration, or all of these combined. It was the one and
only way of approach to God. Theophrastus defines it as expressing
homage, gratitude and need. Hubert and Mauss define it as a religious act
which by the consecration of the victim modifies the moral state of the
sacrificer, or of certain material objects which he has in view, i.e., either
confers sanctity or removes it and its analogue, impiety.
II. Origin and Nature of Sacrifices.
The beginnings of sacrifice are hidden in the mysteries of prehistoric life.
The earliest narrative in Genesis records the fact, but gives no account of
the origin and primary idea. The custom is sanctioned by the sacred
writings, and later on the long-established custom was adopted and
systematized in the Mosaic Law. The practice was almost universal. The
Vedas have their elaborate rituals. Some Semitic peoples, Greeks, Romans,
409
Africans, and Indians of Mexico offered human sacrifices. It is unknown in
Australia, but even there something akin to it exists, for some natives offer
a portion of a kind of honey, others offer a pebble or a spear to their god.
For this practically universal habit of the race, several solutions are offered.
1. Theory of a Divine Revelation:
One view maintains that God Himself initiated the rite by divine order at
the beginnings of human history. Such a theory implies a monotheistic faith
on the part of primitive man. This theory was strongly held by many of the
Reformed theologians, and was based mainly on the narrative in
<010404>
Genesis 4:4 f. Abel offered an acceptable sacrifice, and, according to
<581104>
Hebrews 11:4, this was because of his faith. Faber makes a strong plea
as follows: Since faith was what made the sacrifice acceptable to God, this
faith must have been based upon a positive enactment of God in the past.
Without this divine positive enactment to guarantee its truthfulness, faith,
in Abel, would have been superstition. In other words, faith, in order to be
truly based and properly directed, must have a revelation from God, a
positive expression of the divine will. Fairbairn, in his Typology, goes
further and holds that the skins wherewith Adam and Eve were clothed
were from animals which had been slain in sacrifices. This is entirely
without support in the narrative. The theory of a divine order cannot be
maintained on the basis of the Biblical narrative. Moreover, it involves
certain assumptions regarding the nature of faith and revelation which are
not generally held in this age. A revelation is not necessarily a positive
divine command, an external thing, and faith may be just as real and true
without such a revelation as with it. That there may have been such a
revelation cannot be denied, but it is not a necessary or probable
explanation.
2. Theories of a Human Origin:
(1) The Gift-Theory.
By this it is held that sacrifices were originally presents to the deity which
the offerer took for granted would be received with pleasure and even
gratitude. Good relations would thus be established with the god and
favors would be secured. Such motives, while certainly true among many
heathen people, were obviously based upon low conceptions of the deity.
They were either. Nature-spirits, ancestral ghosts or fetishes which needed
what was given, and of course the god was placed under obligations and
410
his favor obtained. Or, the god may have been conceived of as a ruler, a
king or chief, as was the custom in the East.
Cicero vouches for such a view when he says: Let not the impious dare to
appease the gods with gifts. Let them hearken to Plato, who warns them
that there can be no doubt what Gods disposition to them will be, since
even a good man will refuse to accept presents from the wicked (HDB,
IV, 331a). This view of sacrifice prevails in classical literature. Spencer
therefore thinks it is self-evident that this was the idea of primitive man.
Tylor and Herbert Spencer also find the origin of sacrifices in the idea of a
gift, whether to the deity or to dead ancestors, food being placed for them,
and this afterward comes to be regarded as a sacrifice. Such a view gives
no account of the peculiar value attached to the blood, or to the burnt
offerings. It may account for some heathen systems of sacrifice, but can
help in no degree in understanding the Biblical sacrifices.
(2) The Magic Theory.
There are two slightly variant forms of this:
(a) that of R.C. Thompson (Semitic Magic, Its Origins and
Developments, 175-218), who holds that a sacrificial animal serves as a
substitute victim offered to a demon whose activity has brought the
offerer into trouble; the aim of the priest is to entice or drive the
malignant spirit out of the sick or sinful man into the sacrificial victim
where it can be isolated or destroyed;
(b) that of L. Marillier, who holds that sacrifice in its origin is
essentially a magical rite. The liberation of a magical force by the
effusion of the victims blood will bend the god to the will of the man.
From this arose under the cult of the dead the gift-theory of sacrifice.
Men sought to ally themselves with the god in particular by purifying a
victim and effecting communion with the god by the application of the
blood to the altar, or by the sacrifice of the animal and the contact of
the sacrificer with its blood. Such theories give no account of the burnt
offerings, meal offerings and sin offerings, disconnect them entirely
from any sense of sin or estrangement from God, and divest them of all
piacular value. They may account for certain depraved and heathen
systems, but not for the Biblical.
(3) The Table-Bond Theory.
411
Ably advocated by Wellhausen and W.R. Smith, this view holds that
sacrifices were meals which the worshippers and the god shared, partaking
of the same food and thus establishing a firmer bond of fellowship between
them. Sykes (Nature of Sacrifices, 75) first advocated this, holding that the
efficacy of sacrifices is the fact that eating and drinking were the known
and ordinary symbols of friendship and were the usual rites in engaging in
covenants and leagues. Thus sacrifices are more than gifts; they are deeds
of hospitality which knit god and worshipper together. W.R. Smith has
expounded the idea into the notion that the common meal unites physically
those who partake of it. Though this view may contain an element of truth
in regard to certain Arabian customs, it does not help much to account for
Bible sacrifices. As A.B. Davidson says, It fails utterly to account for the
burnt offering, which was one of the earliest, most solemn and at times the
most important of all the sacrifices.
(4) The Sacramental Communion Theory.
This is a modification of the table-bond theory. The basis of it is the
totemistic idea of reverencing an animal which is believed to share with
man the divine nature. On certain solemn occasions this animal would be
sacrificed to furnish a feast. At this meal, according to mens savage
notions, they literally ate the god, and thus incorporated into themselves
the physical, the intellectual and the moral qualities which characterized the
animal. If the divine life dwelt in certain animals, then a part of that
precious life would be distributed among all the people (RS2, 313). In
some cases the blood is drunk by the worshippers, thus imbibing the life.
Sometimes, as in the case of the sacred camel, they devoured the quivering
flesh before the animal was really dead, and the entire carcass was eaten up
before morning.
The brilliant work of W. R. Smith has not been universally accepted. L.
Marillier has criticized it along several lines. It is by no means certain that
totemism prevailed so largely among Semites and there is no evidence of
its existence in Israel. Also, if an original bond of friendship existed
between the god and the kin, there is no need to maintain it by such
sacrificial rites. There is no clear instance of this having been done. If on
the other hand there was no common bond between the god and the people
but that of a common meal, it does not appear that the god is a totem god.
There is no reason why the animal should have been a totem. In any case,
this idea of sacrifice could hardly have been anything but a slow growth,
412
and consequently not the origin of sacrifice. Hubert and Mauss also point
out that W. R. Smith is far from having established the historical or the
logical connection between the common meal and the other kinds of
sacrifices. Under piacula he confuses purification, propitiation and
expiations. His attempts to show that purifications of magical character are
late and not sacrificial do not succeed. Smiths theory is mainly the
sacramental, though he does recognize the honorific and piacular element.
The theory may be applicable to some of the heathen or savage feasts of
the Arabs, but not to the practices of the Hebrews (see Encyclopedia Brit,
XXIII, 981).
(5) The Homage Theory.
This has been advocated by Warburton and F. D. Maurice. The idea is that
sacrifices were originally an expression of homage and dependence. Man
naturally felt impelled to seek closer communion with God, not so much
from a sense of guilt as from a sense of dependence and a desire to show
homage and obedience. In giving expression to this, primitive man had
recourse to acts rather than words and thoughts. Thus sacrifice was an
acted prayer, rather than a prayer in words. It was an expression of his
longings and aspirations, his reverence and submission. There is much truth
in this view; the elements of prayer dependence and submission enter
into some sacrifices, the burnt offerings in particular; but it does not
account for all kinds of offerings.
(6) The Piacular Theory.
This holds that sacrifices are fundamentally expiatory or atoning, and the
death of the beast is a vicarious expiation of the sins of the offerer. Hubert
and Mauss admit that in all sacrifices there are some ideas of purchase or
substitution, though these may not have issued from some primitive form.
The unifying principle in all sacrifices is that the divine is put in
communication with the profane by the intermediary the victim
which may be piacular or honorific. It is thus a messenger, a means of
divination, a means of alimenting the eternal life of the species, a source of
magical energy which the rite diffuses over objects in its neighborhood.
Westermarck (Origin of Moral Ideas) makes the original idea in sacrifice a
piaculum, a substitute for the offerer.
This view is the most simple, the most natural, and the only one that can
explain certain sacrifices. Man felt himself under liability to punishment or
413
death. The animal was his, it had life, it was of value, and perchance the
god would accept that life in place of his. He felt that it would be accepted,
and thus the animal was sacrificed. The offerer in a sense gives up part of
himself. The beast must be his own; no sacrifice can be made of another
persons property (
<102424>
2 Samuel 24:24a). The true spirit of sacrifice
appears in a willingness to acknowledge Gods right to what is best and
dearest (Genesis 12).
Objection is raised to this by A. B. Davidson (Old Testament Theology),
Paterson (HDB, IV, 331) and others, on the ground that such an origin
represents too advanced a stage of ethical thought and reflection for
primitive man. We question seriously whether this be an advanced stage of
moral reflection. On the contrary, it represents a very simple and primitive
stage. The feeling that sin of some kind is never absent from human life,
and that its true penalty is death, has been inseparable from the human
hearts sense of sin. What could be more simple and natural than to take an
innocent animal and offer it in place of himself, hoping that the Deity
would accept it instead? Nor is there much force in Professor Patersons
objection that sacrifices were preponderantly joyous in character and
therefore could not be offered as an expiation. This joyous character
belongs to such sacrifices as peace offerings and thank offerings, but does
not belong to the [`olah] and others. In most cases the joyous feast
followed the killing of the animal by which the expiation was accomplished,
and the feast was joyous because atonement had been made. In fact, many
sacrifices were of the most solemn character and represented the deepest
and most serious emotions of the heart.
(7) Originating in Religious Instincts.
Neither theory of an objective divine revelation, nor of a human origin will
account for the universality and variety of sacrifices. The truth lies in a
proper combination of the two. The notion of offering a gift to the Deity
arose out of the religious instincts of the human heart, which in an early
period had a consciousness of something wrong between itself and God,
and that this something would mean death sooner or later. Added to these
true instincts was the Omnipresent Spirit to guide men in giving
expression. What could be more simple and primitive than to offer
something possessing life? Of course the notion originated in simple and
childlike ideas of God, and its real motive was not to gratify God by
sharing a meal with Him, or to gain His favor by a bribe, but to present
414
Him with something that represented a part of the offerer which might be
accepted in his stead. Thus sacrifices became the leading features of the
religious life of primitive man. Naturally other ideas would be added, such
as a gift of food by fire to the Deity, the peace offerings, etc., to celebrate
the friendly relations with God, the thank offerings, the sin offerings, etc.,
all of which naturally and logically developed from the primitive idea. It
might be expected that there would be many corruptions and abuses, that
the sense of sin would be obscured or lost among some peoples, and the
idea of sacrifice correspondingly degraded. Such has been the case, and as
well might we try to understand man at his best by studying the aboriginal
tribes of Africa and Australia, or the inmates of asylums and penitentiaries,
as to attempt to understand the Bible ideas in sacrifices by studying the
cults of those heathen and savage tribes of Semites, etc.
III. Classification of Sacrifices.
1. Maimonides:
Maimonides was among the first to classify them, and he divided them into
two kinds:
(1) Those on behalf of the whole congregation, fixed by statute, time,
number and ritual being specified. This would include burnt, meal and
peace offerings with their accompaniments.
(2) Those on behalf of the individual, whether by virtue of his
connection with the community or as a private person. These would be
burnt offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings with their
accompaniments.
2. W. R. Smith and Others:
Others, such as W. R. Smith, classify them as:
(1) honorific, or designed to render homage, devotion, or adoration,
such as burnt, meal and peace offerings;
(2) piacular, designed to expiate or make atonement for the errors of
the people, i.e. burnt offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings;
(3) communistic, intended to establish the bond between the god and
the worshipper, such as peace offerings.
415
3. Oehler:
Oehler divides them into two classes, namely:
(1) those which assume that the covenant relation is undisturbed, such
as peace offerings;
(2) those intended to do away with any disturbance in the relation and
to set it right, such as burnt, sin and guilt offerings.
4. Paterson and Others:
Professor Paterson and others divide them into three:
(1) animal sacrifices, burnt offerings, peace offerings, sin offerings, and
guilt offerings;
(2) vegetable sacrifices, meal offerings, shewbread, etc.;
(3) liquid and incense offerings; wine, oil, water, etc.
5. H. M. Wiener:
H. M. Wiener offers a more suggestive and scientific division (Essays on
Pentateuchal Criticism, 200 f):
(1) customary lay offerings, such as had from time immemorial been
offered on rude altars of earth or stone, without priest, used and
regulated by Moses and in more or less general use until the exile,
namely, burnt offerings, meal offerings, and peace offerings;
(2) statutory individual offerings, introduced by Moses, offered by
laymen with priestly assistance and at the religious capital, i.e. burnt
offerings, peace offerings, meal offerings, sin offerings, and guilt
offerings;
(3) statutory national offerings introduced by Moses and offered by the
priest at the religious capital, namely, burnt, meal, peace and sin
offerings.
IV. Sacrifices in the Pre-Mosaic Age.
Out of the obscure period of origins emerged the dimly lighted period of
ancient history. Everywhere sacrifices existed and sometimes abounded as
416
an essential part of religion. The spade of the archaeologist, and the
researches of scholars help us understand the pre-Mosaic period.
1. In Egypt:
In Egypt probably from the beginning of the 4th millennium BC
there were sacrifices and sacrificial systems. Temples at Abydos, Thebes,
On, etc., were great priestly centers with high priests, lower priests, rituals
and sacrifices in abundance. Burnt, meal and peace offerings predominated.
Oxen, wild goats, pigs, geese were the chief animals offered. Besides these,
wine, oil, beer, milk, cakes, grain, ointment, flowers, fruit, vegetables were
offered, but not human beings. In these offerings there were many
resemblances to the Hebrew gifts, and many significant exceptions. Moses
would be somewhat familiar with these practices though not with the
details of the ritual. He would appreciate the unifying power of a national
religious center. It is inconceivable that in such an age a national leader and
organizer like Moses would not take special care to institute such a system.
2. In Babylonia:
In Babylonia, from the year 3000 BC or thereabouts, according to E.
Meyer (Geschichte des Alterthums), there were many centers of worship
such as Eridu, Nippur, Agade, Erech, Ur, Nisin, Larsa, Sippar, etc. These
and others continued for centuries with elaborate systems of worship,
sacrifices, temples, priesthoods, etc. Considerably over 100 temples and
sanctuaries are mentioned on inscriptions, and several hundreds in the
literature and tablets, so that Babylonia was studded with temples and
edifices for the gods. At all these, sacrifices were constantly offered
animal and vegetable. A long list of the offerings of King Gudea includes
oxen, sheep, goats, lambs, fish, birds (i.e. eagles and doves), dates, milk,
greens (Jastrow, in HDB, V, 580 f, under the word). The sacrifices
provided an income for the priests, as did the Mosaic system at a later
time. It had long passed the stage when it was supposed to furnish a meal
for the god. A sacrifice always accompanied a consultation with a priest,
and was really an assessment for the services rendered. It was not a
voluntary offering or ritualistic observance. The priests on their own behalf
offered a daily sacrifice, as in the Mosaic Law, and likewise on special
occasions, to insure the good will of the gods they served. It seems certain
that in some of the larger centers of worship animals were offered up twice
a day, morning and evening. At these sacrifices certain portions were
417
consumed on the altar, the rest belonging to the priest. The similarity of
much of this to the Mosaic institutions is obvious. That the culture and
civilization of Babylon was known to Egypt and Israel with other nations is
shown clearly by the Tell el-Amarna Letters. Special sacrifices on special
occasions were offered in Babylonia as in Israel. As Jastrow says, In the
Hebrew codes, both as regards the purely legal portions and those sections
dealing with religious ritual, Babylonian methods of legal procedure and of
ritual developed in Babylonian temples must be taken into consideration as
determining factors. We do not doubt that Moses made use of many
elements found in the Egyptian and Babylonian systems, and added to or
subtracted from or purified as occasion required. As sacrificial systems and
ritual had been in use more than a millennium before Moses, there is
absolutely no need to suppose that Israels ritual was a thousand years in
developing, and was completed after the exile. To do so is to turn history
upside down.
3. Nomads and Tribes of Arabia and Syria:
Among the nomads and tribes of Arabia and Syria, sacrifices had been
common for millenniums before Moses. The researches of Wellhausen and
W. R. Smith are valuable here, whatever one may think of their theories.
The offerings were usually from the flocks and herds, sometimes from the
spoils taken in war which had been appropriated as their own. The
occasions were many and various, and the ritual was very simple. A rude
altar of earth or stone, or one stone, a sacred spot, the offerer killing the
victim and burning all, or perhaps certain parts and eating the remainder
with the clan or family, constituted the customary details. Sometimes wild
animals were offered. Babylonians, Phoenicians and Arabs offered gazelles,
but the Hebrews did not. Arabs would sometimes sacrifice a captive youth,
while the Carthaginians chose some of the fairest of the captives for
offerings by night. Assyrian kings sometimes sacrificed captive kings. The
Canaanites and others constantly sacrificed children, especially the
firstborn.
4. The Offerings of Cain and Abel:
The account of the offerings of Cain and Abel (
<010404>
Genesis 4:4 f) shows
that the ceremony dates from almost the beginnings of the human race. The
custom of offering the firstlings and first-fruits had already begun. Arabian
tribes later had a similar custom. Cains offering was cereal and is called
418
minchah, a gift or presentation. The same term is applied to Abels.
There is no hint that the bloody sacrifice was in itself better than the
unbloody one, but it is shown that sacrifice without a right attitude of heart
is not acceptable to God. This same truth is emphasized by the prophets
and others, and is needed in this day as much as then. In this case the altars
would be of the common kind, and no priest was needed. The sacrifices
were an act of worship, adoration, dependence, prayer, and possibly
propitiation.
5. Of Noah:
The sacrifices of Noah followed and celebrated the epochal and awe-
inspiring event of leaving the ark and beginning life anew. He offered burnt
offerings of all the clean animals (
<010820>
Genesis 8:20 ff). On such a solemn
occasion only an `olah would suffice. The custom of using domestic
animals had arisen at this time. The sacrifices expressed adoration,
recognition of Gods power and sovereignty, and a gift to please Him, for
it is said He smelled a sweet savor and was pleased. It was an odor of
satisfaction or restfulness. Whether or not the idea of expiation was
included is difficult to prove.
6. Of Abraham:
Abraham lived at a time when sacrifices and religion were virtually
identical. No mention is made of his offering at Ur or Charan, but on his
arrival at Shechem he erected an altar (
<011207>
Genesis 12:7). At Beth-el also
(12:8), and on his return from Egypt he worshipped there (
<011304>
Genesis
13:4). Such sacrifices expressed adoration and prayer and probably
propitiation. They constituted worship, which is a complex exercise. At
Hebron he built an altar (
<011318>
Genesis 13:18), officiating always as his own
priest. In
<011504>
Genesis 15:4 ff he offers a covenant sacrifice, when the
animals were slain, divided, the parts set opposite each other, and prepared
for the appearance of the other party to the covenant. The exact idea in the
killing of these animals may be difficult to find, but the effect is to give the
occasion great solemnity and the highest religious sanction. What was done
with the carcasses afterward is not told. That animals were slain for food
with no thought of sacrifice is shown by the narrative in chapter 18, where
Abraham had a calf slain for the meal. This is opposed to one of the chief
tenets of the Wellhausen school, which maintains that all slaughtering of
animals was sacrificial until the 7th century BC. In Genesis 22 Abraham
419
attempts to offer up Isaac as a burnt offering, as was probably the custom
of his neighbors. That he attempted it shows that the practice was not
shocking to his ethical nature. It tested the strength of his devotion to God,
shows the right spirit in sacrifices, and teaches for all time that God does
not desire human sacrifice a beast will do. What God does want is the
obedient heart. Abraham continued his worship at Beer-sheba (
<012133>
Genesis
21:33).
7. Of Job:
Whatever may be the date of the writing of the Book of Job, the saint
himself is represented as living in the Patriarchal age. He constantly offered
sacrifices on behalf of his children (1:5), sanctifying them. His purpose
no doubt was to atone for possible sin. The sacrifices were mainly
expiatory. This is true also of the sacrifices of his friends (42:7-9).
8. Of Isaac:
Isaac seems to have had a permanent altar at Beer-sheba and to have
regularly offered sacrifices. Adoration, expiation and supplication would
constitute his chief motives (
<012625>
Genesis 26:25).
9. Of Jacob:
Jacobs first recorded sacrifice was the pouring of the oil upon the stone at
Beth-el (
<012818>
Genesis 28:18). This was consecration or dedication in
recognition of the awe-inspiring presence of the Deity. After his covenant
with Laban he offered sacrifices (zebhachim) and they ate bread
(
<013154>
Genesis 31:54). At Shechem, Jacob erected an altar (
<013320>
Genesis
33:20). At Beth-el (
<013507>
Genesis 35:7) and at Beer-sheba he offered
sacrifices to Isaacs God (
<014601>
Genesis 46:1).
10. Of Israel in Egypt:
While the Israelites were in Egypt they would be accustomed to spring
sacrifices and spring feasts, for these had been common among the Arabs
and Syrians, etc., for centuries. Nabatean inscriptions testify to this.
Egyptian sacrifices have been mentioned (see above). At these spring
festivals it was probably customary to offer the firstlings of the flocks
(compare
<021315>
Exodus 13:15). At the harvest festivals sacrificial feasts were
celebrated. It was to some such feast Moses said Israel as a people wished
to go in the wilderness (
<020318>
Exodus 3:18; 5:3 ff; 7:16). Pharaoh understood
420
and asked who was to go (
<021008>
Exodus 10:8). Moses demanded flocks and
herds for the feast (
<021009>
Exodus 10:9). Pharaoh would keep the flocks, etc.
(
<021024>
Exodus 10:24), but Moses said they must offer sacrifices and burnt
offerings (
<021025>
Exodus 10:25 f).
The sacrifice of the Passover soon occurs (
<021203>
Exodus 12:3-11). That the
Hebrews had been accustomed to sacrifice their own firstborn at this
season has no support and is altogether improbable (Frazer, Golden
Bough(3), pt. III, 175 f). The whole ceremony is very primitive and has
retained its primitiveness to the end. The choosing of the lamb or kid, the
killing at a certain time, the family gathered in the home, the carcass
roasted whole, eaten that night, and the remainder, if any, burned, while
the feasters had staff in hand, etc., all this was continued. The blood in this
case protected from the Deity, and the whole ceremony was holy and
only for the circumcised. Frazer in his Golden Bough gives a very different
interpretation.
11. Of Jethro:
As a priest of Midian, Jethro was an expert in sacrificing. On meeting
Moses and the people he offered both `olah and zebhachim and made a
feast (
<021812>
Exodus 18:12).
12. Summary and Conclusions:
From the above it is evident that sacrifices were almost the substance of
religion in that ancient world. From hilltops and temples innumerable, the
smoke of sacrifices was constantly rising heavenward. Burnt offerings and
peace offerings were well known. Moses, in establishing a religion, must
have a sacrificial system. He had abundance of materials to choose from,
and under divine guidance would adopt such rules and regulations as the
pedagogic plans and purposes of God would require in preparing for better
things.
V. The Mosaic Sacrificial System.
1. The Covenant Sacrifice:
The fundamental function of Moses work was to establish the covenant
between Israel and God. This important transaction took place at Sinai and
was accompanied by solemn sacrifices. The foundation principle was
obedience, not sacrifices (
<021904>
Exodus 19:4-8). No mention is made of these
421
at the time, as they were incidental mere by-laws to the constitution.
The center of gravity in Israels religion is now shifted from sacrifices to
obedience and loyalty to Yahweh. Sacrifices were helps to that end and
without obedience were worthless. This is in exact accordance with
<240721>
Jeremiah 7:21 ff. God did not speak unto the fathers at this time about
sacrifices; He did speak about obedience.
The covenant having been made, the terms and conditions are laid down by
Moses and accepted by the people (
<022403>
Exodus 24:3). The Decalogue and
Covenant Code are given, an altar is built, burnt offerings and peace
offerings of oxen are slain by young men servants of Moses, not by priests,
and blood is sprinkled on the altar (
<022404>
Exodus 24:4 ff). The blood would
symbolize the community of life between Yahweh and Israel, and
consecrated the altar. The Law was read, the pledge again given, and
Moses sprinkled the representatives of the people, consecrating them also
(
<022407>
Exodus 24:7 f). Ascending the mount, they had a vision of God, held a
feast before Him, showing the joys and privileges of the new relationship.
The striking feature of these ceremonies is the use of the blood. It is
expiatory and consecrating, it is life offered to God, it consecrates the altar
and the people: they are now acceptable to God and dare approach Him
and feast with Him. There is no idea of Gods drinking the blood. The
entire ritual is far removed from the crass features of common Semitic
worship.
2. The Common Altars:
In the Covenant Code, which the people accepted, the customary altars are
not abolished, but regulated (
<022024>
Exodus 20:24 ff). This law expressly
applies to the time when they shall be settled in Canaan. `In the whole
place where I cause my name to be remembered, etc. (
<022024>
Exodus 20:24
margin). No need to change the reading to in every place where I cause,
etc., as the Wellhausen school does for obvious reasons. All the land was
eligible. On such rude altars sacrifices were allowed. This same law is
implied in
<051621>
Deuteronomy 16:21, a passage either ignored or explained
away by the Wellhausen school (see Wiener, Essays in Pentateuchal
Criticism, 200 f). Moses commanded Joshua in accordance with it
(
<052705>
Deuteronomy 27:5 ff). Joshua, Gideon, Jephthah, Samuel, Saul, David,
Elijah and many others used such altars. There were altars at Shechem
(
<062401>
Joshua 24:1,26), Mizpah in Gilead (
<071111>
Judges 11:11), Gilgal (
<091309>
1
Samuel 13:9). High places were chiefly used until the times of Hezekiah
422
and Josiah, when they were abolished because of their corruptions, etc. All
such altars were perfectly legitimate and in fact necessary, until there was a
central capital and sanctuary in Jerusalem. The customary burnt offerings
and peace offerings with the worshipper officiating were the chief factors.
Heathen sacrifices and the use of heathen altars were strictly forbidden
(
<022220>
Exodus 22:20 (Hebrew 19); 34:15)
3. The Consecration of Aaron and His Sons:
The altar used at the consecration of Aaron and his sons was a horned or
official altar, the central one. The offerings were a bullock, two rams,
unleavened bread, etc. (
<022901>
Exodus 29:1-4), and were brought to the door
of the sanctuary. The ritual consisted of Aaron laying his hand on the
bullocks head, designating it as his substitute (
<022910>
Exodus 29:10), killing it
before the tent of meeting (
<022911>
Exodus 29:11), smearing some blood on the
horns of the altar, and pouring the rest at its base (
<022912>
Exodus 29:12). The
blood consecrated the altar, the life was given as atonement for sins, the fat
parts were burned upon the altar as food for God, and the flesh and
remainder were burned without the camp (
<022913>
Exodus 29:13,14). This is a
sin offering chaTTath the first time the term is used. Probably
introduced by Moses, it was intended to be piacular and to cover
possible sin. One ram was next slain, blood was sprinkled round about the
altar, flesh was cut in pieces, washed and piled on the altar, then burned as
an offering by fire (ishsheh) unto God as a burnt offering, an odor of a
sweet savor (
<022915>
Exodus 29:15-18). The naive and primitive nature of this
idea is apparent. The other ram, the ram of consecration, is slain, blood is
smeared on Aarons right ear, thumb and great toe; in the case of his sons
likewise. The blood is sprinkled on the altar round about; some upon the
garments of Aaron and his sons (
<022919>
Exodus 29:19-21). Certain parts are
waved before Yahweh along with the bread, and are then burned upon the
altar (
<022922>
Exodus 29:22-25). The breast is offered as a wave offering
(tenuphah), and the right thigh or shoulder as a heave offering (terumah).
These portions here first mentioned were the priests portion for all time to
come, although this particular one went to Moses, since he officiated
(
<022926>
Exodus 29:26-30). The flesh must be boiled in a holy place, and must
be eaten by Aaron and his sons only, and at the sanctuary. What was left
till morning must be burned (
<022931>
Exodus 29:31-34). Consecrated to a holy
service it was dangerous for anyone else to touch it, or the divine wrath
would flame forth. The same ceremony on each of the seven days atoned
for, cleansed and consecrated the altar to the service of Yahweh, and it was
423
most holy (
<022935>
Exodus 29:35-37). The altar of incense is ordered
(
<023001>
Exodus 30:1), and Aaron is to put the blood of the sin offering once a
year upon its horns to consecrate it.
4. Sacrifices before the Golden Calf:
When the golden calf was made an altar was erected, burnt offerings and
peace offerings were presented. From the latter a feast was made, the
people followed the usual habits at such festivals, went to excess and
joined in revelry. Moses ear quickly detected the nature of the sounds.
The covenant was now broken and no sacrifice was available for this sin.
Vengeance was executed on 3,000 Israelites. Moses mightily interceded
with God. A moral reaction was begun; new tables of the Law were made
with more stringent laws against idols and idol worship (
<023201>
Exodus 32:1-
35).
5. The Law of the Burnt Offering (`Olah):
At the setting-up of the tabernacle burnt and meal offerings were sacrificed
(
<024029>
Exodus 40:29). The law of the burnt offering is found in Leviticus 1.
Common altars and customary burnt offerings needed no minute
regulations, but this ritual was intended primarily for the priest, and was
taught to the people as needed. They were for the statutory individual and
national offering upon the horned altar before the sanctuary. Already the
daily burnt offerings of the priests had been provided for (
<022938>
Exodus
29:38-42). The burnt offering is here called qorban, oblation.
(1) Ritual for the Offerer (
<030103>
Leviticus 1:3-17).
This may have been from the herd or flock or fowls, brought to the tent of
meeting; hands were laid (heavily) upon its head designating it as the
offerers substitute, it was killed, flayed and cut in pieces. If of the flock, it
was to be killed on the north side of the altar; if a fowl, the priest must kill
it.
(2) Ritual for the Priest (
<030103>
Leviticus 1:3-17).
If a bullock or of the flock, the priest was to sprinkle the blood round
about the altar, put on the fire, lay the wood and pieces of the carcass,
wash the inwards, legs, etc., and burn it all as a sweet savor to God. If a
fowl, he must wring the neck, drain out the blood on the side of the altar,
424
cast the crop, filth, etc., among the ashes, rend the wings without dividing
the bird and burn the carcass on the altar.
(3) General Laws for the Priest.
The burnt offering must be continued every morning and every evening
(
<022938>
Exodus 29:38 f;
<042803>
Numbers 28:3-8). At the fulfillment of his vow the
Nazirite must present it before God and offer it upon the altar through the
priest (
<040614>
Numbers 6:14,16): on the Sabbath, two lambs (
<042809>
Numbers
28:9); on the first of the month, two bullocks, one ram and seven lambs
(
<042811>
Numbers 28:11); on the day of first-fruits, the same (
<042827>
Numbers
28:27); on the 1st day of the 7th month, one bullock, one ram, seven lambs
(
<042908>
Numbers 29:8); on the 15th day, 13 bullocks, two rams, 14 lambs, the
number of bullocks diminishing daily until the 7th day, when seven
bullocks, two rams, 14 lambs were offered (
<042912>
Numbers 29:12-34); on the
22nd day of this month one bullock, one ram and seven lambs were offered
(
<042935>
Numbers 29:35,36). Non-Israelites were permitted to offer the `olah,
but no other sacrifices (
<031708>
Leviticus 17:8; 22:18,25).
(4) Laws in
<051206>
Deuteronomy 12:6,13,14,27; 27:6.
Anticipating a central sanctuary in the future, the lawgiver counsels the
people to bring their offerings there (
<051206>
Deuteronomy 12:6,11); they must
be careful not to offer them in any place (
<051213>
Deuteronomy 12:13), but
must patronize the central sanctuary (
<051214>
Deuteronomy 12:14). In the
meantime common altars and customary sacrifices were allowable and
generally necessary (
<051621>
Deuteronomy 16:21; 27:6).
6. The Law of the Meal Offering (Minchah):
The term meal offering is here confined to offerings of flour or meal, etc.
(the King James Version meat-offering), and was first used at the
consecration of Aaron and his sons (
<022941>
Exodus 29:41). These must not be
offered on the altar of incense (
<023009>
Exodus 30:9); were used at the
completion of the tabernacle (
<024029>
Exodus 40:29); and always with the
morning and evening burnt offerings.
(1) Ritual for the Offerer (
<030201>
Leviticus 2:1-16).
It must be of fine flour, with oil and frankincense added, and brought to the
priest; if baked in the oven, unleavened cakes mingled with oil, or wafers
and oil; if of the baking pan, fine flour mingled with oil parted into pieces
425
and oil thereon; if of the frying pan, the same ingredients. Leaven and
honey must never be used as they quickly become corrupt. Every offering
must be seasoned with salt. If of the first-fruits (bikkurim), it should consist
of grain in the ear, parched with oil and frankincense upon it.
(2) Ritual for the Priest (
<030201>
Leviticus 2:1-16).
This required him to take out a handful with the oil and frankincense
thereon and burn it as a memorial upon the altar. The remainder was holy
and belonged to the priest. Of the cakes, after bringing them to the altar, he
was to take a portion, burn it and appropriate the remainder; the same with
the first-fruits.
(3) General Laws for the Priest (
<030614>
Leviticus 6:14-18 (Hebrew 7-11),
etc.).
He might eat his portion without leaven in the holy place. At his anointing
Aaron offered his own oblation of fine flour 1/10 of an ephah, one-half
in the morning and one-half in the evening. If baked, it must be with oil.
This meal offering must all be burnt; none could be eaten. With the sin
offerings and guilt offerings every meal offering baked in any way belongs
to the priest (
<030709>
Leviticus 7:9,10; 10:12;
<041809>
Numbers 18:9). The meal
offerings accompanied the other offerings on all important occasions, such
as the consecration of Aaron (
<030904>
Leviticus 9:4,17); cleansing of a leper
(
<031410>
Leviticus 14:10,20,21,31); feast of first-fruits (
<032313>
Leviticus 23:13);
Pentecost (
<032316>
Leviticus 23:16); set feasts (
<032337>
Leviticus 23:37). Special
charge was given to Eleazar to care for the continual meal offerings
(
<040416>
Numbers 4:16). The Nazirite must offer it (
<040615>
Numbers 6:15,17).
When the tribes presented their offerings, meal offerings were always
included (
<040713>
Numbers 7:13,19, etc.); when the Levites were set apart
(
<040808>
Numbers 8:8); with vows of freewill offerings (
<041504>
Numbers 15:4,6);
with the sin offerings (
<041524>
Numbers 15:24); at all the several seasons
(
<042805>
Numbers 28:5 through 29:39). A special form was the showbread
(bread of memorial). Twelve loaves were to be placed in two rows or
heaps of six each on a pure table in the holy place, with frankincense on
each pile or row. These were to remain for one week and then to be eaten
by the priests. They were an offering of food by fire, though probably only
the frankincense was actually burned (
<032405>
Leviticus 24:5 f).
426
7. The Law of the Peace Offering:
The peace offerings indicated right relations with God, expressing good-
fellowship, gratitude and obligation. The common altars were fitted for
their use (
<022024>
Exodus 20:24), as feasts had been thus celebrated from time
immemorial. At the feast before God on the Mount, peace offerings
provided the food (
<022405>
Exodus 24:5); also before the golden bull
(
<023206>
Exodus 32:6). The wave offerings and heave offerings were portions
of these.
(1) Ritual for the Offerer (
<030301>
Leviticus 3:1-17).
The offering might be a bullock, a lamb, or a goat, either male or female,
latitude being allowed in this case. The ritual was the same as in the case of
the burnt offering (see above).
(2) Ritual for the Priest (
<030301>
Leviticus 3:1-17).
Blood must be sprinkled on the altar round about, the caul, the liver and
the kidneys must be taken away and the fat parts burned on the altar; the
fat tail of the lamb must also be burned. These portions were offerings of
food by fire to the Deity. The ritual for a goat was the same as for a
bullock.
(3) General Laws for the Priest (
<030612>
Leviticus 6:12 (Hebrew 5); 7:1 ff).
The fat was to be burned on the altar of burnt offering. If it was a thank
offering (zebhach ha-todhah), it must have unleavened cakes with oil,
cakes mingled with oil and fine flour soaked. Cakes of leavened bread
might be offered, and one cake was to be a heave offering to the priest.
The flesh was to be eaten that day, none was to be left till morning
(
<032230>
Leviticus 22:30). If it was a votive offering (zebhach nedher) or a
freewill offering (zebhach nedhabhah), it might be eaten on the first and
second days, but not on the third day; it should then be an abomination
(
<030718>
Leviticus 7:18 f). If eaten then by anyone, that person was to be cut off
from the community. Of all peace offerings the wave-breast and heave-
thigh belong to the priest (
<030729>
Leviticus 7:29-34), the remainder was to be
eaten by the worshippers. At Aarons consecration an ox and a ram were
the peace offerings (
<030904>
Leviticus 9:4,18,22). The priests portion was to be
eaten in a clean place by the priests family (
<031014>
Leviticus 10:14). When
Israel should have a central sanctuary, all were to be brought there
(
<031704>
Leviticus 17:4,5). When they had no central place, the common altars
427
would suffice. All peace offerings must be made in an acceptable manner
(
<031905>
Leviticus 19:5). Votive offerings must be perfect (
<032218>
Leviticus 22:18-
22), but certain imperfections are allowable in freewill offerings
(
<032223>
Leviticus 22:23). At Pentecost two he-lambs of the first year could be
offered as peace offerings (
<032319>
Leviticus 23:19). The Nazirite at the end of
his separation must offer one ram for a peace offering with unleavened
bread (
<040614>
Numbers 6:14,17), and the hair shaved from his head must be
burned under the peace offerings (
<040618>
Numbers 6:18). This hair was
regarded as a thing having life and offered as a sacrifice by other nations.
The various tribes brought peace offerings (Numbers 7, passim), and at the
feast of trumpets the people were to rejoice and blow trumpets over the
peace offerings (
<041010>
Numbers 10:10). Some further regulations are given
(
<041509>
Numbers 15:9 f).
8. The Law of the Sin Offering:
The sin offering was a sacrifice of a special kind, doubtless peculiar to
Israel and first mentioned at the consecration of Aaron and his sons. It is
not then spoken of as an innovation. It was of special value as an expiatory
sacrifice.
(1) At the Consecration of Aaron and His Sons (
<022910>
Exodus 29:10 ff).
A bullock was killed before the altar, some blood was put upon the horns
of the altar by Moses, the rest was poured out at the base. The fat of the
inwards was burned upon the altar, the flesh and skin were burned without
the camp. Every day during the consecration this was done (
<022936>
Exodus
29:36).
(2) The Law of the Sin Offering (
<030401>
Leviticus 4:1-35; 24-30, etc.).
(a) The Occasion and Meaning:
Specifically to atone for unwitting sins, sins of error (sheghaghah),
mistakes or rash acts, unknown at the time, but afterward made known.
There were gradations of these for several classes of offenders: the
anointed priest (
<030403>
Leviticus 4:3-12), the whole congregation
(
<030413>
Leviticus 4:13-21), a ruler (
<030422>
Leviticus 4:22-26), one of the common
people (
<030427>
Leviticus 4:27-35), forswearing (5:1), touching an unclean
thing (
<030502>
Leviticus 5:2) or the uncleanness of man (
<030503>
Leviticus 5:3), or
rashly sweating in ignorance (
<030504>
Leviticus 5:4). For conscious and willful
428
violations of the Law, no atonement was possible, with some exceptions,
for which provision was made in the guilt offerings (see below).
(b) Ritual for the Offerer (
<030401>
Leviticus 4:1-5,13, etc.):
The anointed priest must offer a bullock at the tent of meeting, lay his
hands upon it and slay it before Yahweh. The congregation was also
required to bring a young bullock before the tent of meeting, the elders
were to lay hands upon it and slay it before Yahweh. The ruler must bring
a he-goat and do the same. One of the common people might bring a she-
goat or lamb and present it in the same manner. If too poor for these, two
turtledoves or young pigeons, one for a sin offering and one for burnt
offering, would suffice. If too poor for these, the tenth part of an ephah of
fine flour without oil or flankincense would suffice.
(c) Ritual for the Priest (
<030401>
Leviticus 4:1-5,13, etc.):
He must bring the bullocks blood to the tent of meeting, dip his finger into
it and sprinkle blood 7 times before the veil of the sanctuary, and put some
on the horns of the altar of incense, but most of the blood must be poured
out at the base of the altar. The fat must be burned upon the altar, all the
rest of the carcass must be carried to a clean place without the camp and
burned. In the case of the whole congregation, the ritual is the same. In the
case of a ruler, the blood is to be put upon the horns of the altar of burnt
offering, not the altar of incense. In the case of one of the common people,
the ritual is similar to that of the ruler. In both the latter cases the carcass
belonged to the priest. If a bird, the priest must wring off its head, sprinkle
some blood on the side of the altar and pour the rest at the base. Nothing is
said of the disposal of the carcass. If of fine flour, the priest must take out
a handful and burn it upon the altar, keeping the remainder for himself. The
use of fine flour for an expiatory sacrifice is evidently exceptional and
intended to be so. Though life was not given, yet necessity of life that
which represented life was offered.
(d) General Laws for the Priest (
<030624>
Leviticus 6:24-30):
The sin offering was to be slain in the same place as the burnt offering. It
was most holy, and the priest alone might eat what was left of the ram,
pigeon or flour, in the holy place. Whatever touched it was to be holy, any
garment sprinkled with the blood must be washed in a holy place, earthen
429
vessels used must be broken, and brazen vessels thoroughly scoured and
rinsed.
(e) Special Uses of the Sin Offering:
(i) Consecration of Aaron and His Sons:
The consecration of Aaron and his sons (
<030802>
Leviticus 8:2,14,15) was
similar to that of
<030411>
Leviticus 4:11,12, only Moses was to kill the offering
and put the blood on the horns of the altar. On the 8th day a bull-calf was
offered (
<030902>
Leviticus 9:2), and the congregation offered a he-goat
(
<030903>
Leviticus 9:3). In this case Aaron performed the ceremony, as in
<030411>
Leviticus 4:11,12. Moses complained that they had not eaten the flesh
of the calf and goat in the sanctuary, since that was requisite when the
blood was not brought into the sanctuary (
<031016>
Leviticus 10:16-20).
(ii) Purifications from Uncleannesses:
Purifications from uncleannesses required after childbirth a young pigeon
or turtledove (
<031206>
Leviticus 12:6-8). The leper must bring a guilt offering (a
special kind of sin offering), a he-lamb (
<031412>
Leviticus 14:12-14,19); if too
poor for a lamb, a turtledove or young pigeon (
<031422>
Leviticus 14:22,31).
Special use of the blood is required (
<031425>
Leviticus 14:25). In uncleanness
from issues a sin offering of a turtledove or young pigeon must be offered
by the priest (
<031515>
Leviticus 15:15,30).
(iii) On the Day of Atonement:
On the Day of Atonement (
<031601>
Leviticus 16:1-28) Aaron must take a
bullock for himself and house, two he-goats for the people, present the
goats at the sanctuary, cast losts, one for Yahweh, as a sin offering, the
other for Azazel, to be sent into the wilderness. The bullock was killed,
sweet incense was burned within the rail, blood was sprinkled on the
mercy-seat and before it 7 times. The one he-goat was killed and a similar
ceremony was performed. Blood must be put on the horns of the altar and
sprinkled 7 times about it. The other goat was presented, hands were laid
on it, the sins of all confessed and put upon the goat, and it was sent into
the wilderness. The carcass of the bullock and he-goat were burned
without the camp. At the feast of first-fruits a he-goat was offered
(
<032319>
Leviticus 23:19).
(iv) Other Special Instances:
430
Other special instances were: in the case of defilement, the Nazirite must
offer a turtledove or young pigeon on the 8th day after contraction
(
<040610>
Numbers 6:10 ff); when the days of the separation were fulfilled a ewe-
lamb with the other offerings (
<040614>
Numbers 6:14) was to be offered; the
twelve tribes included in each case a he-goat for sin offering (
<040716>
Numbers
7:16 ff); at the consecration of the Levites a young bullock (
<040808>
Numbers
8:8,12). For unwitting sins of the congregation a he-goat was to be offered
(
<041524>
Numbers 15:24,25). If one person erred, a she-goat was permitted
(
<041527>
Numbers 15:27). A sin offering was required at the feast of the new
moon (28:15), at the Passover (
<042822>
Numbers 28:22), at Pentecost
(
<042830>
Numbers 28:30), on the 1st day of the 7th month (
<042905>
Numbers 29:5),
and on the 10th, 15th-22nd days (
<042910>
Numbers 29:10-38). The ceremony of
the red heifer (
<041901>
Numbers 19:1-10,17) was a special sin offering for
purification purposes only. It was of ancient and primitive origin. The
young cow was brought without the camp and was slain before the priests
face, blood was sprinkled 7 times before the sanctuary, the entire carcass
with cedar wood, hyssop and scarlet was burned, the ashes gathered and
laid without the camp in a clean place to be kept for the water of impurity.
It was to purify after contact with the dead. In the case of the unknown
homicide (
<052101>
Deuteronomy 21:1-9) a young unbroken heifer was brought
to a running stream, its neck was broken, the elders washed their hands
over the heifer in the presence of the priests, declaring their innocence.
Thus the bloodshed was expiated. The action was a judicial one, but
essentially vicarious and expiatory and had doubtless a primitive origin.
9. The Guilt Offering:
The guilt offering (the King James Version trespass offering)
(
<030514>
Leviticus 5:14 through 6:7) was a special kind of sin offering, always
of a private character and accompanied by a fine. It expressed expiation
and restitution. The classes of sin requiring a guilt offering with reparation
in money are:
(1) a trespass in the holy things done unwittingly;
(2) anything which the Law forbade depriving God or the priest of their
due;
(3) dealing falsely, with a neighbor in a deposit, or pledge, or robbery,
or oppression;
431
(4) swearing falsely regarding anything lost;
(5) seduction of a betrothed bondmaid (
<031920>
Leviticus 19:20-22). The
first two of these are unwitting sins, the others cannot be. The clear
statement is made in another place that sins done with a high hand,
i.e. in rebellion against the covenant and its provisions, can have no
sacrifice (
<041530>
Numbers 15:30). Is this a contradiction, or a later
development when it was found that the more stringent law would not
work? (See J. M. P. Smith, et al., Atonement, 47 f.) Neither conclusion
is probable. These conscious sins are of a kind that will admit of full
reparation because against rights of property or in money matters. The
sin offering makes atonement toward God, the restitution with the
additional one-fifth makes full reparation to man. No such reparation
can be made with such sins described as committed with a high hand.
In the case of seduction, rights of property are violated (compare
<040505>
Numbers 5:5-8;
<052229>
Deuteronomy 22:29).
(1) The Ritual (
<030514>
Leviticus 5:14 through 6:7).
A ram proportionate in value to the offense and worth at least two shekels
is required. The ritual is probably the same as that of the sin offering,
though no mention is made of the laying on of hands, and the blood is not
brought into the sanctuary, but sprinkled about the base of the altar, the fat
and inside parts being burned, and the flesh eaten by the priests in a holy
place.
(2) Special Laws: Leper, Nazirite, etc.
The leper, when cleansed, on the 8th day must bring a guilt offering of two
he-lambs and one ewe-lamb; the priest must wave one he-lamb before
Yahweh, kill it, and smear blood on the right ear, thumb and toe of the
leper. The guilt offering belongs to the priest (
<031412>
Leviticus 14:12-20). If
the leper were too poor for two lambs, one sufficed, with a corresponding
meal offering, or one turtle-dove and a young pigeon (
<031421>
Leviticus
14:21,22). The Nazirite, if defiled during his period of separation, must
bring a he-lamb for a guilt offering (
<040612>
Numbers 6:12). All guilt offerings
were the priests and most holy (
<041809>
Numbers 18:9).
10. The Wave Offering:
The wave offerings were parts of the peace offerings, and the custom was
seemingly initiated at the consecration of Aaron and his sons (
<022924>
Exodus
432
29:24-27), when the breast and bread were waved before Yahweh.
<030730>
Leviticus 7:30,34 fixes the law. It must be brought from the peace
offerings of the offerer himself. At Aarons consecration Moses put the
breast, etc., on Aarons hands and waved them before Yahweh
(
<030827>
Leviticus 8:27). On the 8th day Aaron did the waving (
<030921>
Leviticus
9:21). The priests were to eat it in a clean place (
<031014>
Leviticus 10:14 f) .
The lepers he-lamb was to be waved by the priest, before being offered
(
<031412>
Leviticus 14:12); the lamb of the guilt offering also (
<031424>
Leviticus
14:24). At the feast of first-fruits the sheaf must be waved before Yahweh
(
<032310>
Leviticus 23:10,11,15); two loaves also (
<032317>
Leviticus 23:17,20). Of
the Nazirite the priest took the boiled shoulder, a cake and a wafer, put
them on the Nazirites hand and waved them before Yahweh (
<040619>
Numbers
6:19 f).
11. The Heave Offering:
Heave offerings also are parts of the peace offerings, and refer particularly
to what is lifted up, or separated unto the service of Yahweh. They are first
mentioned at the consecration of Aaron (
<022927>
Exodus 29:27,28). The
offering consisted of the right shoulder or thigh and was the fixed due of
the priest (
<030732>
Leviticus 7:32,34) One cake of the peace offering must be
heaved (
<030714>
Leviticus 7:14). The offering must be eaten in a clean place
(
<030714>
Leviticus 7:14) by the priests family only (
<031014>
Leviticus 10:14,15). Of
the Nazirites offering the heave thigh also went to the priest (
<040620>
Numbers
6:20). When the Israelites should come into the promised land to eat bread,
they must offer a heave offering of the dough, a cake (
<041519>
Numbers
15:19,20,21). The law is repeated in
<041808>
Numbers 18:8,11,19, and the
Levites are to receive a tithe of the heave offerings of the people
(
<041824>
Numbers 18:24). They were in turn to offer up a tithe of this to the
priests (
<041826>
Numbers 18:26-32). A portion of the spoil of Midian was a
heave offering (
<043129>
Numbers 31:29,41). Deuteronomy commands that all
heave offerings be brought to the central sanctuary and eaten there
(12:6,11).
12. Drink Offerings:
Jacob poured oil on the stone he had set up (
<012818>
Genesis 28:18) in honor of
the Deity and consecrated the spot. Jacob later (
<013514>
Genesis 35:14) set up a
pillar where God had revealed Himself and poured drink offerings and oil
upon it. Probably wine was used. Drink offerings accompanied many of the
433
sacrifices (
<022940>
Exodus 29:40,41). None could be poured upon the altar of
incense (
<023009>
Exodus 30:9). At all set feasts the Drink offerings must be
presented (
<032313>
Leviticus 23:13,18,37). The Nazirite was not exempt
(
<040615>
Numbers 6:15,17). Wine and oil must accompany all votive and
freewill offerings (
<041504>
Numbers 15:4,5,7,10,24); the continual burnt
offering (
<042807>
Numbers 28:7,8); sabbaths (
<042809>
Numbers 28:9,10) and all the
other set feasts (
<042814>
Numbers 28:14-31; 29:6-39, passim). That drink
offerings were common among the heathen is shown by
<053238>
Deuteronomy
32:38.
13. Primitive Nature of the Cultus:
The cult is thoroughly in keeping with and adapted to the age, and yet an
ideal system in many respects. The ethical side is in the background, the
external has the emphasis. No sacrifices will avail for a breach of the
covenant between God and the people. The people thoroughly believed in
the efficacy of the blood. It secured atonement and forgiveness. Their
religious life found expression in the sacrifices. God was fed and pleased by
the offerings by fire. Many of the customs are ancient and crude, so that it
is difficult to imagine how such a primitive system could have been
arranged and accepted afterward by the people who had the lofty ethical
teachings of the prophets in their hands.
VI. Sacrifices in the History of Israel.
1. The Situation at Moses Death:
The tribes were outwardly consolidated, and a religious system was
provided. Some of it was for the rulers, much for the people and much for
the priests alone. The various laws were given in portions and afterward
compiled. No one expected them to be observed until the nation had a
capital and central sanctuary. Even then not every detail was always
possible. They were not observed to any extent in the wilderness (
<300525>
Amos
5:25), as it was impracticable. Even circumcision was neglected until the
wanderers crossed the Jordan (
<060502>
Joshua 5:2). The body of the system was
not in full practice for 300 or 400 years. The ritual, as far as it could be
observed, served as an educational agency, producing in the minds of the
worshippers proper conceptions of the holiness of God, the sinfulness of
man, and the proper spirit in approaching God.
434
2. In the Time of Joshua:
Lay or common altars were in accordance With
<022024>
Exodus 20:24;
<051621>
Deuteronomy 16:21; 27:7. In the days of Joshua, the Passover was
celebrated (
<060510>
Joshua 5:10 f). At Ebal an altar was erected, burnt and
peace offerings were presented (
<060830>
Joshua 8:30-32). The tabernacle was
set up at Shiloh with a horned altar doubtless (
<061801>
Joshua 18:1), and the
cult was observed to some extent. Concerning the altar on the east side of
the Jordan, see ALTAR.
3. The Period of the Judges:
Canaanitish altars were abundant with their corrupt and licentious cults of
the Nature-gods. Israelites with their common altars would naturally use
the high places, when possible. The stationary altars of the Canaanites were
of course unlawful. The inevitable tendency would be to imitate the
worship of the Canaanites. They were rebuked and threatened for this, and,
weeping, offered sacrifices at Bochim (
<070201>
Judges 2:1-5). Gideon rebuilt an
altar of Yahweh and offered a bullock as a burnt offering (
<070625>
Judges
6:25,26). The kid prepared for the angel was not first a sacrifice, but its
acceptance as a gift was indicated by its being burned (
<070619>
Judges 6:19 f).
Jephthah offered up his daughter as a burnt offering, believing such a
sacrifice well-pleasing to Yahweh (
<071131>
Judges 11:31,39). Manoah and his
wife prepared a kid for a burnt offering, a meal offering accompanying it
(
<071316>
Judges 13:16 f). At the time of the civil war with Benjamin the ark and
statutory altar seemed to be at Beth-el, where they offered burnt and peace
offerings (
<072026>
Judges 20:26). The feasts at Shiloh imply at least peace
offerings (
<072119>
Judges 21:19).
4. Times of Samuel and Saul:
Common lay altars and customary sacrifices were still much in use. The
official altar with the statutory individual and national offerings appears to
be at Shiloh. El-kanah sacrifices and feasts there yearly (
<090103>
1 Samuel 1:3
f). Such feasts were joyous and tended to excesses, as drunkenness seemed
common (
<090113>
1 Samuel 1:13 f). All Israel came thither (
<090214>
1 Samuel 2:14);
the priests claimed their portion, seizing it in an unlawful manner before the
fat had been burned, or the flesh had been boiled (
<090213>
1 Samuel 2:13-17).
This shows that such ritual as was prescribed in Leviticus was practiced
and considered by the people the only lawful custom. Was it in writing?
Why not? Guilt offerings were made by the Philistines when smitten by
435
tumors (
<090603>
1 Samuel 6:3,1,8,17). There were five golden mice and five
golden tumors. Crude as were their ideas of a guilt offering, their actions
show familiarity with the concept. Burnt offerings were used on special
occasions and in great crises, such as receiving the ark (
<090614>
1 Samuel 6:14
f), going to war (
<090709>
1 Samuel 7:9 f; 13:9-12), victory (
<091115>
1 Samuel
11:15), etc. Saul met Samuel at a sacrificial feast in a small city (
<090912>
1
Samuel 9:12,13) on a high place. At Gilgal there were burnt and peace
offerings (
<091008>
1 Samuel 10:8; 15:15,21). Saul offered burnt offerings
himself (
<091309>
1 Samuel 13:9-12), but his fault was not in offering them
himself, but in his haste and disobedience toward Samuel. To obey is
better than sacrifice, etc., says Samuel (
<091522>
1 Samuel 15:22), recognizing
the fundamental principle of the covenant and realizing that ceremonies are
in themselves worthless without the right spirit. The same truth is
reiterated by the prophets later. To prevent the eating of flesh with the
blood Saul built a special altar (
<091432>
1 Samuel 14:32-35). Family and clan
sacrifices and feasts were evidently common (
<091602>
1 Samuel 16:2-5).
5. Days of David and Solomon:
The common altars and those on the high places were still in use. The
central sanctuary at Shiloh had been removed, first apparently to Gilgal,
then to Nob, and later to Gibeon. Davids and Sauls families kept the feast
of the new moon, when peace offerings would be sacrificed (
<092005>
1 Samuel
20:5,24-29). The sanctuary at Nob had the shewbread upon the table (
<092104>
1
Samuel 21:4 ff) according to
<022530>
Exodus 25:30. When the ark was brought
up to Jerusalem, burnt offerings and peace offerings were offered
according to the Law (
<100617>
2 Samuel 6:17,18;
<131602>
1 Chronicles 16:2,40).
Ahithophel offered private, sacrifices at Shiloh (
<101512>
2 Samuel 15:12). David
offered up burnt offerings, meal offerings, and peace offerings when
purchasing the threshing-floor of Araunah (
<132123>
1 Chronicles 21:23-26). The
statutory horned altar at this time was at Gibeon (
<140106>
2 Chronicles 1:6;
<132129>
1
Chronicles 21:29), but was soon removed to Jerusalem (
<132201>
1 Chronicles
22:1). In the organized sanctuary and ritual, Levites were appointed for
attendance on the shewbread, meal offerings, burnt offerings, morning and
evening sacrifices, sabbaths, new moons and set feasts (
<132328>
1 Chronicles
23:28-31), attempting to carry out the Levitical laws as far as possible. At
the dedication of the temple, Solomon offered burnt offerings, meal
offerings, and peace offerings in enormous quantities (
<110863>
1 Kings 8:63;
<140704>
2 Chronicles 7:4-7); also burnt offerings and peace offerings with
incense triennially (
<110925>
1 Kings 9:25). The ritual at the regular seasons,
436
daily, sabbaths, new moons, set feasts, etc., was observed according to the
Levitical Law (
<140204>
2 Chronicles 2:4; 8:13). Was it written?
6. In the Northern Kingdom:
The golden calf worship was carried on at Daniel and Beth-el, with priests,
altars and ritual (
<111227>
1 Kings 12:27 f). The high places were in use, but very
corrupt (
<111302>
1 Kings 13:2 ff). A common altar was in use on Mt. Carmel
(
<111830>
1 Kings 18:30,32). Many others were known as Yahwehs altars (
<111910>
1
Kings 19:10). The system was in full swing in Amos time (
<300404>
Amos 4:4,5)
at Beth-el and Gilgal and probably at Beer-sheba (
<300505>
Amos 5:5). Amos
bitterly satirizes the hollow, insincere worship, but does not condemn the
common altars and sacrifices, as these were legitimate. With Hosea the
situation is worse, the cult has been canonized, priests have been fed on
the sin or sin offerings of the people, and the kingdom soon perished
because of its corruption.
The high places were still in use and not denounced yet by the prophets
(
<110302>
1 Kings 3:2;
<121404>
2 Kings 14:4; 15:4,35). Worship was not fully
centralized, though tending in that direction. In the days of Abijah the
temple cult was in full operation according to Moses Law (
<141310>
2
Chronicles 13:10 f). Asa removed many strange altars and high places
because of their corruption (
<141403>
2 Chronicles 14:3), but not all (
<141517>
2
Chronicles 15:17; 20:33).
7. In the Southern Kingdom to the Exile:
In the days of Jehoiada priests and Levites were on duty according to
Moses (
<142318>
2 Chronicles 23:18; 24:14b;
<121204>
2 Kings 12:4-16). Sin and guilt
offerings were in sufficient numbers to be mentioned, but the money went
to the priests. Kautzsch (HDB, V) and Paterson (HDB, IV), with others,
think these offerings were only fines and altogether different from those of
Leviticus 4; 5. Such a statement is wholly gratuitous. The guilt offerings
must be accompanied by fines, but not necessarily the sin offerings. The
passage speaks of both as perfectly familiar and of long standing, but
details are lacking and there can be no certainty in the matter, except that it
proves nothing regarding a ritual of sin and guilt offerings existent or non-
existent at that time. Kautzschs and Patersons motives are obvious.
Having reversed the history and put the ritual law late, they must needs
make adjustments in the records to have them agree. In the days of Ahaz,
the regular offerings were observed for priests, kings and people (
<121613>
2
437
Kings 16:13-15). Hezekiah destroyed many high places (
<121804>
2 Kings 18:4).
When repairing the temple, many sin offerings were presented to expiate
the terrible sins of the previous reigns and the desecration of the temple
(
<142921>
2 Chronicles 29:21-24); and so, also, burnt offerings (
<142927>
2 Chronicles
29:27 f), peace offerings and thank offerings, etc., in large number (
<142931>
2
Chronicles 29:31-35; compare
<230110>
Isaiah 1:10-17). The Passover was
celebrated with peace offerings (
<143001>
2 Chronicles 30:1,2,15,22), oblations
and tithes (
<143112>
2 Chronicles 31:12); courses of Levites were established
(
<143102>
2 Chronicles 31:2), and the kings portion (
<143103>
2 Chronicles 31:3). All
the common altars were abolished as far as possible, and worship
centralized in Jerusalem (
<143212>
2 Chronicles 32:12). Reversed by Manasseh
(
<143303>
2 Chronicles 33:3 f), the high places were again used (
<143317>
2 Chronicles
33:17). Josiah purged Jerusalem (
<143403>
2 Chronicles 34:3), and on the
discovery of the Book of the Law, with its rule regarding a central
sanctuary, that law was rigidly enforced (
<143506>
2 Chronicles 35:6-14). The
reformation under Josiah did not change the hearts of the people, and the
rule followed in spite of all the efforts of Jeremiah and other prophets.
8. In the Exilic and Post-exilic Periods:
That the cult was entirely suspended in Jerusalem from 586 to 536 BC
seems certain. There is no support for G. F. Moores statement (EB, IV)
that an altar was soon rebuilt and sacrificing was carried on with scarcely a
break. On the return of the exiles an altar was soon built and the continual
burnt offerings began (
<150302>
Ezra 3:2 f), and likewise at the Feast of
Tabernacles, new moons and set feasts (
<150304>
Ezra 3:4-7). Darius decreed
that the Israelites should be given what was needed for the sacrifices
(
<150609>
Ezra 6:9 f). The band under Ezra offered many sin offerings on their
return (8:35). At the dedication of the temple many burnt and sin offerings
were made for all the tribes (6:17). Those who had married foreign wives
offered guilt offerings (10:19). The firman of Artaxerxes provided money
for bullocks, rams, lambs, with meal offerings and drink offerings (7:17).
Under Nehemiah and after the formal acceptance of the Law, a more
complete effort was made to observe it. The shewbread, continual burnt
and meal offerings, sabbaths, new moons, set feasts, sin offerings, first-
fruits, firstlings, first-fruits of dough, heave offerings of all trees, wine and
oil, etc., were carefully attended to (
<161033>
Nehemiah 10:33-37) and were in
full force later (
<161305>
Nehemiah 13:5,9). There is no hint of innovation, only a
thoroughgoing attempt to observe laws that had been somewhat neglected.
438
9. A Temple and Sacrifices at Elephantine:
At the time of Nehemiah and probably two or three centuries previous,
there existed a temple on the island of Elephantine in the Nile. It was built
by a Jewish military colony, and a system of sacrifices was observed. Just
how far they copied the laws of Moses, and what were their ideas of a
central sanctuary are uncertain.
Several Semitic tribes or nations practiced human sacrifices. It was
common among the Canaanites, as is shown by the excavations at Gezer,
Taanach, etc. They seemed to offer children in sacrifice at the laying of
cornerstones of houses and other such occasions.
10. Human Sacrifices in Israels History:
Among the Carthaginians, Phoenicians, Greeks, and Romans human
sacrifices were all too common. The custom was not unknown to the
Israelites. Abraham felt called upon to offer up Isaac, but was stopped in
the act, and a lesson was given for all time. The abominable practice is
forbidden by Moses (
<031821>
Leviticus 18:21), where it is spoken of as a
passing through the fire to Moloch, referring to Moabite and Ammonitish
practices. Anyone practicing it was to be stoned (
<032002>
Leviticus 20:2-5;
<051231>
Deuteronomy 12:31; 18:10). The rash vow of Jephthah resulted in the
immolation of his daughter, but the incident is recorded as something
extraordinary (
<071131>
Judges 11:31 f). The execution of Zebah and Zalmunna
is a case of blood revenge, not sacrifice (
<070818>
Judges 8:18 ff). Nor is the
slaughter of Agag in any sense a sacrifice (
<091532>
1 Samuel 15:32 f). The death
of Sauls sons because of his breach of covenant with the Gibeonites was
an expiatory sacrifice, to atone for the fathers perfidy (
<102109>
2 Samuel 21:9).
The Moabite king in desperation offered up his firstborn and heir to
appease the anger of Chemosh, and the effect was startling to the Israelites
(
<120301>
2 Kings 3:27). Ahaz practiced the abomination in times of trouble
(
<121603>
2 Kings 16:3). Such sacrifices were intended to secure favor with the
Deity or appease His wrath. Hiels firstborn and youngest sons were
probably sacrificed at the rebuilding or fortifying of Jericho (
<111634>
1 Kings
16:34; compare
<060626>
Joshua 6:26). Manasseh practiced the custom (
<122106>
2
Kings 21:6), but it was stopped by Josiah (
<122310>
2 Kings 23:10). Micahs
words were probably applicable to those times of Ahaz or Manasseh, when
they thought to obtain Gods favor by costly gifts apart from ethical
conditions (
<330606>
Micah 6:6-8). Isaiah refers to a heathen custom practiced by
439
Israel of slaying the children in secret places (
<235705>
Isaiah 57:5), and Jeremiah
represents it as practiced in his time (
<240731>
Jeremiah 7:31; 19:5). Ezekiel
denounces the same practice (
<261620>
Ezekiel 16:20,21; 23:37).
11. Certain Heathen Sacrifices:
Heathen sacrifices are hinted at in the later books, such as swine, a mouse,
a horse, a dog (
<236504>
Isaiah 65:4; 66:3,17;
<260810>
Ezekiel 8:10;
<122311>
2 Kings
23:11). All such animals were unclean to the Hebrews, and the practice had
its roots in some form of primitive totemism which survived in those
heathen cults. They were little practiced among the Israelites.
See TOTEMISM.
VII. The Prophets and Sacrifices.
The prophets were reformers, not innovators. Their emphasis was on the
ethical, rather than the ritual. They based their teachings on the
fundamentals of the covenant, not the incidentals. They accepted sacrifices
as part of the religious life, but would give them their right place. They
accepted the law regarding common altars, and Samuel, David and Elijah
used these altars. They also endorsed the movement toward a central
sanctuary, but it is the abuse of the cult that they condemned, rather than
its use. They combated the heathenish idea that all God needed was gifts,
lavish gifts, and would condone any sin if only they bestowed abundance of
gifts. They demanded an inward religion, morality, justice, righteousness,
in short, an ethical religion. They preached an ethical God, rather than the
profane, debasing and almost blasphemous idea of God which prevailed in
their times. They reminded the people of the covenant at Sinai, the
foundation principle of which was obedience and loyalty to Yahweh. If Joel
is early, the cult is in full practice, as he deplores the cutting-off of the meal
offering, or minchah, and the netsekh or drink offering, through the
devastation of the locusts. He does not mention the burnt offerings, etc., as
these would not be cut off by the locusts (
<290107>
Joel 1:7,13; 2:14). Joel
emphasized the need for a genuine repentance, telling them to rend their
hearts and not their garments (2:13).
Amos condemns the cult at Beth-el and Gilgal, and sarcastically bids them
go on transgressing (4:4,5), mentions burnt offerings, peace offerings,
thank offerings, and freewill offerings (4:4 f; 5:22), reminds them of the
fact that they did not offer sacrifices in the wilderness (5:25), but demands
440
rather righteousness and justice. There is nothing here against the Mosaic
origin of the laws.
In Hoseas time the hollow externalism of the cult had become worse,
while vice, falsehood, murder, oppression, etc., were rampant. He utters an
epoch-making sentence when he says, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,
etc. (
<280606>
Hosea 6:6). This is no sweeping renunciation of sacrifices, as such;
it is only putting the emphasis in the right place. Such sacrifices as Hosea
speaks of were worse than worthless. It is somewhat extravagant for
Kautzsch to say, It is perfectly futile to read out of
<280606>
Hosea 6:6 anything
else than a categorical rejection of sacrifices. Hosea recognizes their place
in religion, and deplores the loss during exile (3:4). The corrupt cults he
condemns (4:13 f), for they are as bad as the Canaanitish cults (4:9).
Yahweh will spurn them (8:13; 9:4). The defection of the nation began
early (11:2), and they have multiplied altars (12:11; 13:2). He predicts the
time when they shall render as bullocks the calves of their lips (14:2 the
King James Version).
Micah is as emphatic. The sacrifices were more costly in his day, in order
the more surely to purchase the favor of the Deity. Human sacrifices were
in vogue, but Micah says God requires them to do justly, and to love
kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God (6:8). This does not in the
least affect sacrifices of the right kind and with the right spirit.
Isaiah faces the same situation. There are multitudes of sacrifices, burnt
offerings, blood of bullocks and goats, oblations, sweet incense, beasts,
etc., but no justice, morality, love, truth or goodness. Thus their sacrifices,
etc., are an abomination, though right in themselves (1:11-17; 61:8). The
same is true of all pious performances today. It is probable that Isaiah
worshipped in the temple (6:1,6). In his eschatological vision there is
freedom to offer sacrifices in Egypt (19:19,21). The people are to worship
in the holy mountain (27:13). Ariel must let the feasts come around (29:1).
Jeremiah maintains the same attitude. Your frankincense from Sheba, and
the sweet cane, burnt offerings and sacrifices are not pleasing to God
(6:20; 14:12). They made the temple a den of robbers, in the streets they
baked cakes to the Queen of heaven, etc. He speaks sarcastically, saying,
Add your burnt-offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat ye flesh. For I
spake not unto your fathers .... concerning .... sacrifices: but ....
commanded .... saying, Hearken unto my voice, etc. (7:21-23). This was
441
literally true, as we have seen above; the covenant was not based on
sacrifices but on obedience. Such a statement does not deny the institution
of sacrifices for those within the covenant who are obedient. It is no
subterfuge, as Kautzsch calls it, to say that the prophets never polemize
against sacrifice per se, but only against offerings presented hypocritically,
without repentance and a right disposition, with blood-stained hands;
against the opera operata of the carnally-minded, half-heathen mass of the
people. This is exactly what they do, and they are in perfect harmony with
the covenant constitution and with their own ethical and spiritual functions.
Kautzsch can make such an extravagant assertion only by ignoring the fact
that Jeremiah himself in predicting the future age of righteousness and
blessedness makes sacrifice an important factor (33:11,18). Picturing
possible prosperity and glory, Jeremiah speaks of burnt offerings and meal
offerings, frankincense, thank offerings, etc., being brought into the house
of Yahweh (17:26). (We are aware of the harsh and arbitrary transference
of this passage to a later time.)
Ezekiel is called by Kautzsch the founder of the Levitical system. He is
said to have preserved the fragment of the ritual that was broken up in the
exile. But his references to the burnt offerings, sin offerings, and trespass
offerings presuppose familiarity with them (40:38-42).
He assigns the north and south chambers for the meal, sin and trespass
offerings (
<264213>
Ezekiel 42:13). The cleansing of the altar requires a bullock
and he-goat for a sin offering, with burnt and peace offerings with a ritual
similar to
<030801>
Leviticus 8:1 f (
<264318>
Ezekiel 43:18-27). The Levites are to be
ministers and slay burnt offerings and sacrifice for the people (
<264411>
Ezekiel
44:11). The priest must offer his sin offering before he ministers in the
sanctuary (
<264427>
Ezekiel 44:27). They are to eat the meal, sin, and trespass
offerings as in
<264429>
Ezekiel 44:29. In Ezekiel 45, the people are to give the
wheat, barley, oil and lambs for meal, burnt and peace offerings, while the
prince shall give the meal, burnt and drink offerings for the feasts, the new
moons, sabbaths and appointed feasts. He is to prepare them to make
atonement (45:13-17). In cleansing the sanctuary the Levitical ritual is
followed with added details (45:18-20). The Passover requires the burnt
offerings, sin offerings, and meal offerings with an extra amount of cereal.
The priests prepare the princes burnt offerings and peace offerings (46:2-
4,6,9-12) for the sabbaths, new moons, etc. The daily burnt offerings
(46:13-15) must have a sixth instead of a tenth part of an ephah, as in
Leviticus 1. The sin and guilt offerings are to be boiled in a certain place,
442
and the meal offering baked (1:20,26). Ezekiel varies from the Levitical
Law in the quantity of the meal offering, picturing the ritual in a more ideal
situation than Moses. The people are all righteous, with new hearts, the
Spirit in them enabling them to keep the Law (36:26 f), and yet he
institutes an elaborate ritual of purification for them. Does this seem to
indicate that the prophets would abolish sacrifices entirely? It is strange
reasoning which makes the prophets denounce the whole sacrificial system,
when one of the greatest among them seeks to conserve an elaborate cult
for the blessed age in the future.
In the second part of Isaiah, God declares that He has not been honored by
the people with burnt offerings and meal offerings, etc., and that He has
not burdened them with such offerings, but that He is wearied with their
sins (43:23 f). Those foreigners who respect the covenant shall offer
acceptable sacrifices (56:7) in the blessed age to come. The Servant of
Yahweh is to be a guilt offering (53:10) to expiate the sins of Israel.
Sacrifice is here for the first time lifted out of the animal to the human
sphere, thus forging the link between the Old Testament and the New
Testament. In the glorious age to come there are to be priests and Levites,
new moons, sabbaths and worship in Jerusalem (66:21,23).
Daniel speaks of the meal offering being caused to cease in the midst of the
week (9:27).
Zechariah pictures the golden age to come when all nations shall go up to
Jerusalem to keep the Feast of Tabernacles, which implies sacrifices. Pots
are used, and all the worshippers shall use them in the ritual (14:16-21).
In Malachis age the ritual was in practice, but grossly abused. They
offered polluted bread (1:7), blind, lame and sick animals (1:13 f). Yahweh
has the same attitude toward these as toward those in the times of Amos,
Hosea, and Isaiah (
<390110>
Malachi 1:10 f). The Gentiles offer better ones
(
<390111>
Malachi 1:11). The Israelites covered the altar of Yahweh with tears
by their hypocritical, non-ethical actions (
<390213>
Malachi 2:13). They robbed
God in withholding tithes and heave offerings (
<390308>
Malachi 3:8). It is the
abuse of the cult that is denounced here, as in all the other Prophets.
A special use of the term sacrifice is made by Zephaniah (1:7 f), applying
it to the destruction of Israel by Yahweh. Bozrah and Edom are to be
victims (
<233406>
Isaiah 34:6); also Gog and Magog (
<263917>
Ezekiel 39:17,19).
443
In summing up the general attitude of the prophets toward sacrifices, even
G. F. Moore in Encyclopedia Biblica admits: It is not probable that the
prophets distinctly entertained the idea of a religion without a cult, a purely
spiritual worship. Sacrifice may well have seemed to them the natural
expression of homage and gratitude. He might have added, and of
atonement for sin, and full fellowship with God.
VIII. Sacrifice in the Writings.
1. Proverbs:
Dates are very uncertain here. The Psalms and Proverbs extend from David
and Solomon into the Persian period. The sages take the same attitude as
the prophets. They enjoin the sacrifice of first-fruits (
<200309>
Proverbs 3:9). A
feast usually follows a sacrifice of peace offerings (7:14). The trespass
offering (?) has no meaning to fools (14:9), and the sacrifices of the wicked
are an abomination to God (15:8; 21:27). Righteousness and justice are
more acceptable to Yahweh than sacrifices (21:3), yet to them sacrifices
are a regular part of worship. Qoheleth speaks of sacrifices as quite the
custom, and deprecates the offerings of fools (
<210501>
Ecclesiastes 5:1; 9:2).
2. The Psalms:
The Psalmist admonishes the faithful to offer the sacrifices of
righteousness, i.e. sacrifices offered in the right spirit (
<190405>
Psalm 4:5). The
drink offerings of idolaters are well known (
<191604>
Psalm 16:4). Prayer is made
for the acceptance of sacrifices (
<192003>
Psalm 20:3). It is a coveted privilege to
offer them (
<192706>
Psalm 27:6; 84:1-4). The true relation between sacrifice and
obedience is expressed in
<194006>
Psalm 40:6-8. As in
<240721>
Jeremiah 7:21 f, the
emphasis is laid on obedience, without which sacrifices are worthless and
repugnant to God. They are not the important thing in Israels religion, for
that religion could exist without them as in the wilderness and exile. The
teaching corresponds exactly with that of the prophets and is probably late.
Psalm 50 is even more emphatic. The Psalmist knows that sacrifices are in
the covenant regulations (50:5), but repudiates the idea of giving anything
to God or of feeding Him (50:12,13). Everything belongs to Him, He is not
hungry, He would scorn the idea of drinking the blood of goats, etc. The
idea of the cult being of any real value to God is scouted. Yet in the next
verse the reader is admonished to offer sacrifices of thanksgiving and pay
vows (50:14). The sacrifices that express worship, penitence, prayer,
thanksgiving and faith are acceptable. The penitent Psalmist speaks in
444
similar terms. Sacrifices as such are no delight to God, the real sacrifice is a
broken heart (51:16 f). When the heart is right, then, as an expression of
true-heartedness, devotion, repentance and faith, burnt offerings are highly
acceptable (51:19). Another Psalmist promises a freewill offering to God
(54:6; 66:13,15). Sacrifices of thanksgiving are advised (96:8; 107:22;
118:27) and promised (116:17). Prayer is likened to the evening sacrifice
(141:2).
IX. The Idea and Efficacy of Sacrifices.
That the Hebrews thoroughly believed in the efficacy of sacrifices is
without doubt. What ideas they entertained regarding them is not so clear.
No single theory can account for all the facts. The unbloody sacrifices were
regarded as food for the Deity, or a pleasant odor, in one instance, taking
the place of a bloody offering (see above). The bloody offerings present
some difficulties, and hence, many different views.
1. A Gift of Food to the Deity:
Included under the head of gifts of food to the Deity would be the meal
and peace offerings, in so far as they were consumed by fire, the burnt
offerings and the shewbread, etc. They were fire-food, the fire-distilled
essence or etherealized food for God which gave Him pleasure and
disposed Him favorably toward the offerer. They were intended either to
appease wrath, to win favor, or to express thanks and gratitude for favors
experienced. The earlier and more naive idea was probably to win the favor
of the Deity by a gift. Later, other ideas were expressed in the offerings.
2. Expression of Adoration and Devotion, etc.:
The burnt offering best gave expression to the sentiments of adoration and
devotion, though they may not be excluded from the meal and peace
offerings. In other words, sacrifice meant worship, which is a complex
exercise of the soul. Such was Abrahams attempted sacrifice of Isaac. The
daily burnt offerings were intended to represent an unbroken course of
adoration and devotion, to keep the right relations with the Deity. On
particular occasions, special offerings were made to insure this relation
which was specially needed at that time.
445
3. Means of Purification from Uncleanness:
The burnt and sin offerings were the principal kinds used for the purpose of
purification; water being used in case of uncleanness from contact with the
dead. There were three classes of uncleanness:
(1) those inseparable from the sex functions of men and women;
(2) those resulting from contact with a corpse;
(3) the case of recovery from leprosy. Purification ceremonies were the
condition of such persons enjoying the social and religious life of the
community. Why they should require a sin offering when most of them
occurred in the regular course of nature and could not be guarded
against, can be understood only as we consider that these offenses were
the effects of sin, or the weaknesses of the fleshly nature, due to sin.
Such uncleannesses made the subject unfit for society, and that
unfitness was an offense to God and required a piacular offering.
4. Means of Consecration to Divine Service:
Consecration was of men and things. The ceremonies at the sealing of the
covenant and the consecration of the Levites and of Aaron and his sons
have been mentioned. The altar and furniture of the tabernacle were
consecrated by the blood of the sin offering. This blood being the means of
expiation, it cleansed from all defilement caused by human hands, etc. The
sprinkling and smearing of the blood consecrated them to the service of
God. The blood being holy, it sanctified all it touched (compare
<264519>
Ezekiel
45:19 f).
5. Means of Establishing a Community of Life between
Worshipper and God:
In other words, it is a kind of sacral communion. The blood is the sacred
cement between man and God. This is possible only because it contains the
life and is appropriated by God as a symbol of the communion into which
He enters with the offerer. This blood covers all sin and defilement in
man, permits him to enter Gods presence and attests the communion with
Him. This is the view of Schultz, and partly that of Kautzsch, in regard to
earlier ideas of sacrifice. Such a view may have been held by certain
peoples in primitive times, but it does not do justice to the Levitical system.
446
6. View of Ritschl:
The view of Ritschl is that sacrifices served as a form of self-protection
from God whose presence meant destruction to a weak creature. Thus,
sacrifices have no moral value and no relation to sin and defilement. They
have relation only to mans creaturely weakness which is in danger of
destruction as it approaches the presence of God. Gods presence
necessarily meant death to the creature without reference to his holiness,
etc. Such a view banishes all real sense of sin, all ethical values, and
furnishes no proper motives. It gives a false idea of the character of God,
and is entirely out of accord with the sacred record.
7. The Sacramental View:
That sacrifices were really a sacrament has been advocated by many.
According to some theologians, the sacrifices were signs of spiritual
realities, not only representing but sealing and applying spiritual blessings,
and their efficacy was proportionate to the faith of the offerer. By some
Roman Catholic theologians it is held that the Passover was especially of a
sacramental character, corresponding to the Lords Supper. The
purificatory rites corresponded to penance and the consecrating sacrifices
to the sacrament of ordination. Bahr says that the acceptance of the
sacrifice by Yahweh and His gift of sanctification to the worshippers give
to the sacrifice the character of a sacramental act. Cave also speaks of
them as having a sacramental significance, while refuting the position of
Bahr. Though there may be a slight element of truth in some of these ideas,
it is not the idea expressed in the cult, and seems to read into the ritual
theology of theologians themselves. This view is closely allied to a phase of
the following view (see Paterson, HDB, IV).
8. Symbol or Expression of Prayer:
That it is a symbol or expression of prayer is held by Maurice and to some
extent by Schultz. Thus, the sacrifices are supposed to be symbols of the
religious sentiment, which are the conditions of acceptance with God. The
victim serves as an index of what is in the worshippers heart, and its virtue
is exhausted when it is presented to God. Thus, it may express spiritual
aspiration or supplication, hatred of sin and surrender to God with
confession and supplication. Bahr holds that a valuable and unblemished
victim is selected as symbolical of the excellence and purity to which the
offerer aspires, the death is necessary to procure life which may be offered
447
to God, and the sprinkling of the blood is the presentation to God of the
life still resident in the blood. Schultz thinks that the sin offering was
distinctively purifying. Hence, the real ground of purification is that God
accepts the sacrifice and thereby enters into communion with the sinner,
granting him actual pardon, and that man in this offering enjoined by God
as the embodied prayer of a penitent expresses his confession, his regrets
and his petition for forgiveness. While there is an element of truth in this,
and it is particularly applicable to the burnt offering, it does not embrace all
the facts. It represents the views of the prophets and psalmists more than
that of the Levitical code.
9. View of Kautzsch:
Kautzsch holds that the efficacy of sacrifices consists in this: God has
connected the accomplishment of atonement with the obedient discharge of
the sacrificial prescriptions; whoever fulfils these and gets the priest to
perform the atoning usages, is forgiven. The ritual, especially the
presenting of the blood, is the indispensable condition of atonement, but it
is not synonymous. Forgiveness of sin flows from the grace of God as
taught by the prophets, only with them it is unnecessary, but with the
Priestly Code it is necessary. Thus Kautzsch teaches a fundamental
contradiction between the prophets and the Law, which is utterly wrong
and is made necessary by first turning the history upside down and making
the Priestly Code a hideous anachronism. He says, That the process of
atonement is connected with the presenting of blood, explains itself
naturally as a powerful after-influence of primitive sacrificial usages, in
which the presenting of blood had a different meaning. It is a symbolic (not
real) satisfaction, as through the animals life symbolic expression is given
to the fact that the sinners life is forfeited to God. But the main idea is that
God has commanded it (HDB, V, 721a). The half-truths in these
statements will be obvious to most readers.
10. Vicarious Expiation Theory; Objections:
The theory that sacrifices were a vicarious expiation of sin and defilement,
by a victim whose life is forfeited instead of the sinners, is the only one
that will complete the Levitical idea of sacrifices. This of course applies
especially to the sin offering. While there is an element of truth in the gift-
theory, the prayer and sacramental theories and others, including that of
Kautzsch, the idea of a vicarious suffering is necessary to complete the
448
conception. Oehler recognizes the force of the prayer-theory, but advances
to the idea that in sacrifices man places the life of a pure, innocent,
sacrificial animal between himself and God, because he is unable to
approach God on account of his sinfulness and impurity. Thus it becomes a
kopher for him, to cover his sin. This is not a punishment inflicted on the
animal, although in the case of uncertain homicide it is (
<052101>
Deuteronomy
21:1-9). The law does not lay the emphasis upon the slaughter, but on the
shedding of the blood and the sprinkling of it on certain articles. The
slaughter is of course presupposed. The altar is not regarded as a place of
execution, it is the means for covering the sins of the covenant people, a
gracious ordinance of God and well-pleasing to Him. But the gift can
please God only as the gift of one who has given himself up to Him;
therefore the ritual must represent this self-surrender, the life of the clean
and guiltless animal in place of the impure and sinful soul of the offerer,
and this pure soul, coming in between the offerer and the Holy God, lets
Him see at the altar a pure life by which the impure life is covered. In the
same way the pure element serves to cover the pollutions of the sanctuary
and the altar, etc. Its meaning is specific, it is the self-sacrifice of the
offerer vicariously accomplished. This self-sacrifice necessarily involves
suffering and punishment, which is inflicted on the beast to which the guilt
and sin are imputed, not imparted (see Oehler, Old Testament Theology,
278 f).
Objections have been raised by Dillmann, Kautzsch, and others on the
ground that it could not have been vicarious because sacrifices were not
allowed for sins which merited death, but only for venial transgressions
(
<041530>
Numbers 15:30). Certainly, but the entire sacrificial system was for
those who were in the covenant, who did not commit sins that merited
death, and was never intended as a penal substitute, because the sins of
those in the covenant were not of a penal nature. The sacrifices were to
cover the sin and defilement of the offerer, not the deserved death-penalty
of one who broke the covenant. Again, they object, a cereal offering may
atone, and this excludes a penal substitute. But sacrifices were not strictly
penal, and the cereal was distinctly an exception in case of the very poor,
and the exception proves the rule. In any case it represented the self-
sacrifice of the offerer, and that was the important thing. Further, the
victim was slain by the offerer and not by the priest, whereas it should have
been put to death by Gods representative. This carries no weight
whatever, as the essential thing was a sacrifice, and priests were not
449
necessary for that. A more serious objection is that in the case of penal
substitution, by which the sin and guilt are transferred to the animal, the
flesh of that animal is regarded as most holy and to be eaten by the priests
only, whereas it would necessarily be regarded as laden with guilt and
curse, and hence, polluted and unfit for use. This is a pure assumption. In
the first place, the substitution was not strictly penal, and, secondly, there
is no hint that actual pollution is conveyed to the flesh of the animal or to
the blood. Even if it were so, the shedding of the blood would expiate the
sin and guilt, wipe out the pollution, and the flesh would be in no way
affected. On the contrary, the flesh, having been the vehicle for the blood
which has accomplished such a sacred and meritorious service, would
necessarily be regarded as most holy. All the animal would be holy, rather
than polluted, since it had performed such a holy service. Kautzschs
objection thus appears puerile. The ritual of the Day of Atonement presents
all these features. It is distinctly stated that the high priest confesses the
iniquities of the children of Israel over the scapegoat, and that the goat
carries this guilt away to the desert. Its blood is not shed, it is wholly
unclean, and the man leading it away is unclean. This is undeniably a
vicarious act. In the case of the other goat, a sin offering, the sin and guilt
are imputed to it, but the life is taken and thus the expiation is made and
the flesh of the victim used in such a holy service is most holy.
That this view of a vicarious expiation was generally accepted is evident on
every hand. There was no need of a theoretical explanation in the cult; it
was self-evident; as Holtzmann says, the most external indeed, but also
the simplest and most generally intelligible and the readiest answer to the
nature of expiation (New Testament Theology, I, 68). This view is amply
corroborated by the researches of S. I. Curtiss in his Primitive Semitic
Religion of Today. By searching questions he found that the fundamental
idea of bloody sacrifices was that the victim took the place of the man,
redeemed him, or atoned for him as a substitute. The bursting forth of the
blood was the essential thing (see pp. 218 f).
11. Typology of Sacrifice:
The typology of sacrifice has been much discussed. There can be no
question that, from the standpoint of the New Testament, many of the
sacrifices were typical. They pre-figured, and designedly so, the great
sacrifice of Christ. Thus they could not really take away sin; they were in
that sense unreal. But the question is, were they typical to the people of
450
Israel? Did Moses and the priests and prophets and people understand that
they were merely figures, adumbrations of the true Sacrifice to come,
which alone could take away sin? Did they understand that their Messiah
was to be sacrificed, His blood shed, to make an atonement for them, and
render their divinely-given means of atonement all unreal? The answer
must be an emphatic No. There is no hint that their minds were directed
to think of the Coming One as their sacrifice, foreshadowed by their
offerings. That was the one thing the nation could not and would not
understand, and to this day the cross is their chief stumblingblock. The
statement that the Servant is to be a guilt offering (
<235310>
Isaiah 53:10) is the
nearest approach to it, but this is far from saying that the whole sacrificial
system was understood as foreshadowing that event. The great prophets all
speak of a sacrificial system in full vogue in the Messianic age.
We prefer to regard the sacrificial system as great religious educational
system, adapted to the capacity of the people at that age, intended to
develop right conceptions of sin, proper appreciation of the holiness of
God, correct ideas of how to approach God, a familiarity with the idea of
sacrifice as the fundamental thing in redemption, life, and service to God
and man.
LITERATURE.
Only a Selection Is Attempted:
Articles in Encyclopedia Brit, 11th edition; Encyclopedia Biblica (G. F.
Moore); HDB (Paterson); RE and Sch-Herz (Orelli); Jewish Encyclopedia;
McClintock and Strong, etc.; Murrays Bible Dict.; Standard BD, etc.
Kautzsch, Jastrow and Wiedermann in HDB; article on Comparative
Religion in Sch-Herz; Old Testament Theologies of Oehler, Dillmann,
Smend, Schultz, Davidson, Koenig, etc.
On Sacrifices in General:
Wellhausen, Reste des arabischen Heidenthums; W. R. Smith, Religion of
the Semites; J. G. Frazer, Golden Bough, II, III; E. B. Tylor, Primitive
Culture; E. Westermarck, Origin of Moral Ideas; H. Hubert et Mauss,
Annee sociologique, II; L. Marillier, Revue de lhistoire des religions,
XXXVI, 208; S. I. Curtiss, Primitive Semitic Religion of Today.
451
Biblical Sacrifices:
F. Bahr, Symbolik des Mosdischen Kultus; J. H. Kurtz, Der
alttestamentliche Opfercultus; A. Stewart, The Mosaic Sacrifices; J. G.
Murphy, Sacrifice as Set Forth in Scripture; A. Cave, Scriptural Doctrine
of Sacrifice; F. Maurice, The Doctrine of Sacrifice; J. M. P. Smith, Biblical
Doctrine of Atonement. See also: Schultz, AJT, 1900, 257 ff; Smoller,
Studien und Kritiken, 1891; Wiener, Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism;
Pentateuchal Studies; Driver, ERE, VI.
J . J . Reeve
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
I. Terms of Sacrifice Epitomized.
The word offering ([pooopo, prosphora]) describes the death of
Christ, once in Paul (
<490502>
Ephesians 5:2); 5 times in Hebrews (
<581005>
Hebrews
10:5,8,10,14,18). The verb [poorp, prosphero], to offer, is also
used, 15 times in Hebrews (
<580501>
Hebrews 5:1,3; 8:3,4; 9:7,14,25,28;
10:1,8,11,12; 11:4). The noun prosphora occurs 15 times in the
Septuagint, usually as the translation of [h j ;n]mi, minchah], sacrifice. This
noun in the New Testament refers to Old Testament sacrifices in
<440742>
Acts
7:42; 21:26; to the offering of money in
<442417>
Acts 24:17;
<451516>
Romans 15:16.
The verb [ovorp, anaphero], also occurs 3 times in Hebrews (7:27;
9:28; 13:15); also in
<600205>
1 Peter 2:5.
The word sacrifice ([0uoo, thusia] in the Septuagint translates 8
different Hebrew words for various kinds of sacrifice, occurring about 350
times) refers to Christs death, once in Paul (
<490502>
Ephesians 5:2) 5 times in
Hebrews (5:1; 9:23,26; 10:12,26). It refers several times to Old Testament
sacrifice and 5 times to Christian living or giving (
<505017>
Philippians 2:17;
4:18;
<581315>
Hebrews 13:15,16;
<600205>
1 Peter 2:5). The verb to sacrifice
([0u, thuo]) is used once by Paul to describe Christs death (1 Cor 5:7).
The blood ([oo, haima]) of Christ is said to secure redemption or
salvation, 6 times in Paul (
<450325>
Romans 3:25; 5:9;
<461016>
1 Corinthians 10:16;
<490107>
Ephesians 1:7; 2:13;
<510120>
Colossians 1:20); 3 times in Hebrews (9:12,14;
10:19; compare also 10:29); 2 times in 1 Peter (1:2,19) and 5 times in the
Johannine writings (
<620107>
1 John 1:7; 5:62,8;
<660105>
Revelation 1:5).
Unmistakably this figure of the blood refers to Christs sacrificial death. In
any case the phrase ([rv t outou oot, en to autou haimati], `in his
452
blood,
<450325>
Romans 3:25) carries with it the idea of sacrificial blood-
shedding (Sanday, Commentary on Epistle to Romans, 91).
([Autpov, lutron], ransom, the price paid for redeeming, occurring in
Septuagint 19 times, meaning the price paid for redeeming the servant
(
<032551>
Leviticus 25:51,52); ransom for first-born (
<040346>
Numbers 3:46); ransom
for the life of the owner of the goring ox (
<022130>
Exodus 21:30, etc.)) occurs
in the New Testament only twice (
<402028>
Matthew 20:28;
<411045>
Mark 10:45).
This word is used by Jesus to signify the culmination of His sacrificial life
in His sacrificial death.
([ Avtutpov, antilutron], ransom, a word not found in Septuagint,
stronger in meaning than the preceding word) occurs only once in the New
Testament (1 Tim 2:6).
([ Aoutpo, apolutrosis], redemption, in
<022108>
Exodus 21:8, meaning
the ransom paid by a father to redeem his daughter from a cruel master)
signifies
(1) deliverance from sin by Christs death, 5 times in Paul (
<450324>
Romans
3:24;
<460130>
1 Corinthians 1:30;
<490107>
Ephesians 1:7,14;
<510114>
Colossians 1:14);
once in Hebrews (9:15);
(2) general deliverance, twice (
<422128>
Luke 21:28;
<581135>
Hebrews 11:35);
(3) the Christians final deliverance, physical and spiritual (
<450823>
Romans
8:23;
<490430>
Ephesians 4:30). The simple word [utpo, lutrosis],
redemption, 10 times in Septuagint as the translation of 5 Hebrew
words) occurs once for spiritual deliverance (
<580912>
Hebrews 9:12).
([ Eoyopo, exagorazo], redeem, only once in Septuagint,
<270208>
Daniel
2:8) in the New Testament means
(1) to deliver from the curse of the law, twice by Paul (
<480313>
Galatians
3:13; 4:5);
(2) to use time wisely, twice by Paul (
<490516>
Ephesians 5:16;
<510405>
Colossians
4:5). The simple verb ([oyopo, agorazo], meaning in
<032719>
Leviticus
27:19 to redeem land) occurs twice in Paul (1 Cor 6:20; 7:23) and
means to redeem (in a spiritual sense).
453
[otooyq, katallage], reconciliation, only twice in the Septuagint)
means the relation to God into which men are brought by Christs death, 4
times by Paul (
<450511>
Romans 5:11; 11:15;
<470518>
2 Corinthians 5:18,19).
([Kotoooorv, katallassein], to reconcile, 4 times in Septuagint (3
times in 2 Maccabees)) means to bring men into the state of reconciliation
with God, 5 times in Paul (
<450510>
Romans 5:10 twice;
<470518>
2 Corinthians
5:18,19,20).
The words with the propitiatory idea occur as follows: ([ooxoo,
hilaskomai], to propitiate, 12 times in the Septuagint, translated to
forgive) occurs twice (
<421813>
Luke 18:13;
<580217>
Hebrews 2:17); ([ooo,
hilasmos], 9 times in Septuagint,
<040508>
Numbers 5:8; Psalm 129 (130):4, etc.;
atonement, forgiveness) occurs twice in 1 John (2:2; 4:10);
([ootqpov, hilasterion], 24 times in the Septuagint, translates mercy-
seat, where God was gracious and spake to man) translates in the New
Testament propitiation (
<450325>
Romans 3:25), mercy-seat (
<580905>
Hebrews
9:5).
Christ is called the Lamb, [ovo, amnos], twice by the Baptist (
<430129>
John
1:29,36); once by Philip applied to Christ from
<235307>
Isaiah 53:7 (
<440832>
Acts
8:32); and once by Peter (1 Pet 1:19); [opvov, arnion], 28 times in
Revelation (5:6,8,12,13; 6:1,16; 7:9,10,14; 19:7,9; 21:9,14,22,23,27;
22:1,3).
The cross ([otoupo, stauros]) is used by Paul 10 times to describe the
sacrificial death of Christ (1 Cor 1:17,18;
<480511>
Galatians 5:11; 6:12,14;
<490216>
Ephesians 2:16;
<502308>
Philippians 2:8; 3:18;
<460120>
1 Corinthians 1:20; 2:14)
and once by the author of Hebrews (12:2). Jesus also 5 times used the
figure of the cross to define the life of sacrifice demanded of His disciples
and to make His own cross the symbol of sacrifice (
<401038>
Matthew 10:38;
16:24;
<410834>
Mark 8:34;
<420923>
Luke 9:23; 14:27, with contexts; compare
<430314>
John 3:14; 12:32, etc.).
Though it is not our province in this article to discuss the origin and history
of sacrifice in the ethnic religions, it must be noted that sacrifice has been a
chief element in almost every religion (Jainism and Buddhism being the
principal exceptions). The bloody sacrifice, where the idea of propitiation is
prominent, is well-nigh universal in the ethnic religions, being found among
even the most enlightened peoples like the Greeks and Romans (see article
Expiation and Atonement in ERE). Whether or not the system of animal
454
sacrifices would have ceased not only in Judaism but also in all the ethnic
religions, had not Jesus lived and taught and died, is a question of pure
speculation. It must be conceded that the sect of the Jews (Essenes)
attaining to the highest ethical standard and living the most unselfish lives
of brotherhood and benevolence did not believe in animal sacrifices. But
they exerted small influence over the Jewish nation as compared with the
Pharisees. It is also to be noted that the prophets Amos, Hosea, Micah and
Isaiah exalted the ethical far above the ceremonial; even denounced the
sacrifice of animals if not accompanied by personal devotion to
righteousness (
<300521>
Amos 5:21 ff;
<280606>
Hosea 6:6;
<330606>
Micah 6:6 ff;
<230111>
Isaiah
1:11 ff). The Stoic and Platonic philosophers also attacked the system of
animal sacrifices. But these exceptions only accentuate the historical fact
that mans sense of the necessity of sacrifice to Deity is well-nigh universal.
Only the sacrifice of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem caused a
cessation of the daily, weekly, monthly and annual sacrifices among the
Jews, and only the knowledge of Christs sacrifice of Himself will finally
destroy the last vestige of animal sacrifice.
II. Attitude of Jesus and New Testament Writers to the Old Testament
Sacrificial System.
1. Jesus Attitude:
Jesus never attacks the sacrificial system. He even takes for granted that
the Jews should offer sacrifices (
<400524>
Matthew 5:24). More than that, He
accepted the whole sacrificial system, a part of the Old Testament scheme,
as of divine origin, and so He commanded the cleansed leper to offer the
sacrifice prescribed in the Mosaic code (
<400804>
Matthew 8:4). There is no
record that Jesus Himself ever worshipped by offering the regular
sacrifices. But He worshipped in the temple, never attacking the sacrificial
system as He did the oral law (
<410706>
Mark 7:6 ff). On the other hand, Jesus
undermined the sacrificial system by teaching that the ethical transcends the
ceremonial, not only as a general principle, but also in the act of worship
(
<400523>
Matthew 5:23,24). He endorses Hoseas fine ethical epigram, `God
will have mercy and not sacrifice (
<400913>
Matthew 9:13; 12:7). He also
commends as near the kingdom the scribe who put love to God and man
above sacrifice (
<411233>
Mark 12:33). But Jesus teaches not merely the
inferiority of sacrifice to the moral law, but also the discontinuance of
sacrifice as a system, when He said, This is my blood of the covenant,
which is poured out for many (
<411424>
Mark 14:24;
<402628>
Matthew 26:28;
455
<422220>
Luke 22:20). Not only is the ethical superior to the ceremonial, but His
sacrifice of Himself is as superior to the sacrifices of the old system as the
new covenant is superior to the old.
2. Pauls Attitude:
Pauls estimate of the Jewish sacrifices is easily seen, although he does not
often refer to them. Once only (
<442126>
Acts 21:26) after his conversion does he
offer the Jewish sacrifice, and then as a matter of expediency for winning
the Judaistic wing of Christianity to his universal gospel of grace. He
regarded the sacrifices of the Old Testament as types of the true sacrifice
which Christ made (1 Cor 5:7).
3. Attitude of the Author of Hebrews:
The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews discusses the Old Testament
sacrifices more fully than other New Testament writers. He regards the
bloody sacrifices as superior to the unbloody and the yearly sacririce on the
Day of Atonement by the high priest as the climax of the Old Testament
system. The high priest under the old covenant was the type of Christ
under the new. The sacrifices of the old covenant could not take away sin,
or produce moral transformation, because of the frailties of men (10:1-11),
shown by the necessity of repeating the offerings (5:2), and because God
had appointed another high priest, His Son, to supplant those of the old
covenant (5:5; 7:1-28). The heart of this authors teaching is that animal
sacrifices cannot possibly atone for sin or produce moral transformation,
since they are divinely-appointed only as a type or shadow of the one great
sacrifice by Christ (8:7; 10:1).
To sum up, the New Testament writers, as well as Jesus, regarded the Old
Testament sacrificial system as of divine origin and so obligatory in its day,
but imperfect and only a type of Christs sacrifice, and so to be supplanted
by His perfect sacrifice.
III. The Sacrificial Idea in the New Testament.
The one central idea of New Testament writers is that the sacrifice made by
Christ on the cross is the final perfect sacrifice for the atonement of sin and
the salvation of men, a sacrifice typified in the various sacrifices of the Old
Testament, which are in turn abrogated by the operation of the final
sacrifice. Only James and Jude among New Testament writers are silent as
to the sacrifice of Christ, and they write for practical purposes only.
456
1. Teaching of John the Baptist:
The Baptist, it is true, presents Jesus as the coming Judge in the Synoptic
Gospels, but in
<430129>
John 1:29,36 he refers to Him as the Lamb of God, in
the former passage adding that taketh away the sin of the world.
Westcott (Commentary on John, 20) says: The title as applied to Christ
.... conveys the ideas of vicarious suffering, of patient submission, of
sacrifice, of redemption, etc. There is scarcely any doubt that the Baptist
looked upon the Christ as the one who came to make the great sacrifice for
mans sins. Professor Burton (Biblical Ideas of Atonement, Burton, Smith
and Smith, 107) says that John sees Christ suffering under the load of
human sin.
2. Teaching of Jesus:
There are recorded in the Synoptic Gospels two unmistakable references
by Jesus to His death as a sacrifice (
<411045>
Mark 10:45 parallel
<402028>
Matthew
20:28;
<411424>
Mark 14:24 parallel
<402628>
Matthew 26:28 parallel
<422220>
Luke 22:20;
compare
<461125>
1 Corinthians 11:25). In the former He declares He came to
give His life a ransom. Thayer (Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament) says this word means the price paid for redeeming. Hence,
the idea in ransom must be of sacrificial significance. But if there could be
any doubt as to the sacrificial import of this passage, there is a clear case of
the sacrificial idea in
<411424>
Mark 14:24. Practically all writers of the New
Testament theology, Wendt, Weiss, Stevens, Sheldon and others, hold that
Jesus considered the death as the ratification sacrifice of the new covenant,
just as the sacrifice offered at Sinai ratified the old covenant (
<022403>
Exodus
24:3-8). Ritschl and Beyschlag deny that this passage is sacrificial. But
according to most exegetes, Jesus in this reference regarded His death as a
sacrifice. The nature of the sacrifice, as Jesus estimated it, is in doubt and is
to be discussed later. What we are pressing here is the fact that Jesus
regarded His death as a sacrifice. We have to concede the meagerness of
material on the sacrificial idea of His death as taught by Jesus. Yet these
two references are unquestioned by literary and historical critics. They both
occur in Mark, the primitive Gospel (the oldest Gospel record of Jesus
teachings). The first occurs in two of the Synoptists, the second in all three
of them. Luke omits the first for reasons peculiar to his purpose.
According to
<422425>
Luke 24:25, Jesus regarded His sufferings and death as
the fulfillment of the Old Testament Scriptures.
457
3. Teaching of Peter:
Though the head apostle does not in the early chapters of Acts refer to
Christ as the sacrifice for sin, he does imply as much in 2:36 (He is Lord
and Christ in spite of His crucifixion); 3:18,19 (He fulfilled the prophecies
by suffering, and by means of repentance sins are to be blotted out); 4:10-
12 (only in His name is salvation) and in 5:30,31 (through whose death
Israel received remission of sins). In his First Epistle (1 Pet 1:18,19) he
expressly declares that we are redeemed by the blood of the spotless
Christ, thus giving the sacrificial significance to His death. The same is
implied in
<600102>
1 Peter 1:2; 3:18.
4. Pauls Teaching:
Paul ascribes saving efficacy to the blood of Christ in
<450325>
Romans 3:25; 5:9;
<461016>
1 Corinthians 10:16;
<490107>
Ephesians 1:7; 2:13;
<510120>
Colossians 1:20. He
identifies Christ with a sin offering in
<450803>
Romans 8:3, and perhaps also in
<470521>
2 Corinthians 5:21, and with the paschal lamb in
<460507>
1 Corinthians 5:7.
In other passages he implies that the death of Christ secured redemption,
forgiveness of sins, justification and adoption (
<450324>
Romans 3:24-26;
5:10,11; 8:15,17, etc.).
5. Teaching of Hebrews:
The argument of the author of Hebrews to prove the finality of Christianity
is that Christ is superior to the Aaronic high priest, being a royal, eternal
high priest, after the order of Melchizedek, and offering Himself as the final
sacrifice for sin, and for the moral transformation of men (4:14; 10:18).
6. Johannine Teaching:
In the First Epistle of John (
<620107>
1 John 1:7; 2:2; 5:6,8) propitiation for sin
and cleansing from sin are ascribed to the blood of Christ. In
<660105>
Revelation
1:5 John ascribes deliverance (not washing or cleansing, according to best
manuscripts) from sin, to the blood of Christ. Several times he calls Christ
the Lamb, making the sacrificial idea prominent. Once he speaks of Him as
the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (13:8).
To sum up, all the New Testament writers, except James and Jude, refer to
Christs death as the great sacrifice for sin. Jesus Himself regarded His
death as such. In the various types of New Testament teaching Christs
death is presented
458
(1) as the covenant sacrifice (
<411424>
Mark 14:24 parallel
<402628>
Matthew
26:28 parallel
<422220>
Luke 22:20;
<580915>
Hebrews 9:15-22);
(2) as the sin offering (
<450803>
Romans 8:3;
<470521>
2 Corinthians 5:21;
<581311>
Hebrews 13:11;
<600318>
1 Peter 3:18);
(3) as the offering of the paschal lamb (1 Cor 5:7);
(4) as the sacrifice of the Day of Atonement (
<580217>
Hebrews 2:17; 9:12
ff).
IV. Relation of Christs Sacrifice to Mans Salvation.
The saving benefits specified in the New Testament as resulting from the
sacrificial death of Christ are as follows:
1. Redemption or Deliverance from Curse of Sin:
Redemption or deliverance from the curse of sin: This must be the
implication in Jesus words, The Son of man also came .... to give his life
a ransom for many (
<411045>
Mark 10:45 parallel
<402028>
Matthew 20:28). Man is a
captive in sin, the Father sends His Son to pay the ransom price for the
deliverance of the captive, and the Sons death is the price paid. Paul also
uses the words redeemed and redemption in the same sense. In the
great letters he asserts that we are justified freely by his grace through the
redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God set forth to be a propitiation
.... in his blood (
<450324>
Romans 3:24,25). Here the apostle traces justification
back to redemption as the means for securing it, and redemption back to
the blood (Christs death) as the cause of its procurement. That is,
Christs death secures redemption and redemption procures justification. In
Galatians (3:13), he speaks of being redeemed from the curse of the law.
The law involved man in a curse because he could not keep it. This curse is
the penalty of the broken law which the transgressor must bear, unless
deliverance from said penalty is somehow secured. Paul represents Christ
by His death as securing for sinners deliverance from this curse of the
broken law (compare
<480405>
Galatians 4:5 for the same thought, though the
word curse is not used). Paul also emphasizes the same teaching in the
Captivity Epistles: In whom we have our redemption through his blood,
the forgiveness of our trespasses (
<490107>
Ephesians 1:7; compare
<510114>
Colossians 1:14). In the pastoral letters (1 Tim 2:6) he teaches that
Christ gave himself a ransom for all. This is the only New Testament
passage in which occurs the strong word antilutron for ransom. In his old
459
age the apostle feels more positively than ever before that Christs death is
the ransom price of mans deliverance from sin.
The author of Hebrews asserts that Christ by the sacrifice of Himself
obtained eternal redemption for man (9:12). John says that Christ
loosed (luo) us from our sins by his blood (
<660105>
Revelation 1:5). This idea
in John is akin to that of redemption or deliverance by ransom. Peter
teaches the same truth in
<600119>
1 Peter 1:19. So, we see, Jesus and all the
New Testament writers regard Christs sacrifice as the procuring cause of
human redemption.
2. Reconciliation:
The idea of reconciliation involves a personal difference between two
parties. There is estrangement between God and man. Reconciliation is the
restoration of favor between the two parties. Jesus does not utter any
direct message on reconciliation, but implies Gods repugnance at mans
sin and strained relations between God and the unrepentant sinner (see
<421813>
Luke 18:13). He puts into the mouth of the praying tax-gatherer the
words, `God be propitious to me (see Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon,
hilaskomai), but Jesus nowhere asserts that His death secures the
reconciliation of God to the sinner. Paul, however, does. For if, while we
were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son,
etc. (
<450510>
Romans 5:10). There can be no doubt from this passage that Paul
thought of the death of Christ as the procuring cause of reconciliation. In
<490213>
Ephesians 2:13,14,18 Paul makes the cross of Christ the means of
reconciliation between the hostile races of men. Paul reaches the climax in
his conception of the reconciliation wrought by the cross of Christ when he
asserts the unifying results of Christs death to be cosmic in extent
(
<490110>
Ephesians 1:10).
The author of Hebrews also implies that Christs death secures
reconciliation when he regards this death as the ratification of the better
covenant (8:6 ff), and when he plays on the double meaning of the word
([o0qxq, diatheke], 9:15 ff), now covenant and now will,
testament. The death of Christ is necessary to secure the ratification of
the new covenant which brings God and man into new relations (8:12). In
2:17 the author uses a word implying propitiation as wrought by the death
of Christ. So the doctrine of reconciliation is also in the Epistle to the
Hebrews. John teaches reconciliation with God through Christ our
460
Advocate, but does not expressly connect it with His death as the
procuring cause (
<620201>
1 John 2:1,2). Peter is likewise silent on this point.
3. Remission of Sins:
Reconciliation implies that God can forgive; yea, has forgiven. Jesus and
the New Testament writers declare the death of Christ to be the basis of
Gods forgiveness. Jesus in instituting the memorial supper said, This is
my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of
sins (
<402628>
Matthew 26:28). It is true Mark and Luke do not record this last
phrase, unto remission of sins. But there is no intimation that this phrase
is the result of Matthews theologizing on the purpose of Christs death
(see Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, II, 239 ff, who claims this phrase is not
from Jesus; also Allen in Mt, ICC, in the place cited.). But Paul leaves no
doubt as to the connection between mans forgiveness by God and Christs
sacrifice for him. This idea is rooted in the great passage on justification
(
<450321>
Romans 3:21 through 5:21; see especially 4:7); is positively declared in
<490107>
Ephesians 1:7;
<510114>
Colossians 1:14. The author of Hebrews teaches that
the shedding of Christs blood under the new covenant is as necessary to
secure forgiveness as the shedding of animals blood under the old. John
also implies that forgiveness is based on the blood (
<620107>
1 John 1:7-9).
4. The Cancellation of Guilt:
True reconciliation and forgiveness include the canceling of the offenders
guilt. Jesus has no direct word on the cancellation of guilt. Paul closes his
argument for the universality of human sin by asserting that all the world
may be brought under the judgment of God (the King James Version
guilty before God,
<450319>
Romans 3:19). Thayer (Greek-English Lexicon, in
the place cited.) says this word guilty means owing satisfaction to God
(liable to punishment by God). But in
<450801>
Romans 8:1,3 Paul exclaims,
There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus
.... God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin (the
English Revised Version and the American Revised Version margin as an
offering for sin). The guilt, or exposure of the sinner to Gods wrath and
so to punishment, is removed by the sin offering which Christ made. This
idea is implied by the author of Hebrews (2:15), but is not expressed in
Peter and John.
461
5. Justification or Right Standing with God:
Right standing with God is also implied in the preceding idea. Forgiving sin
and canceling guilt are the negative, bringing into right standing with God
the positive, aspects of the same transaction. Him who knew no sin he
made to be sin (i.e. the sin offering; so Augustine and other Fathers,
Ewald, Ritschl; see Meyer, Commentary, in loc., who denies this meaning)
on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him (2
Cor 5:21). In this passage Paul makes justification the divine purpose of
the sacrificial death of Christ. This thought is elaborated by the apostle in
Galatians and Romans, but is not expressed by Jesus, or in Hebrews, in
Peter or in John.
6. Cleansing or Sanctification:
Jesus does not connect our cleansing or sanctification with His death, but
with His word (
<431717>
John 17:17). The substantive cleansing
([xo0opoo, katharismos]) is not used by Paul, and the verb to
cleanse ([xo0op, katharizo]) occurs only twice in his later letters
(
<490526>
Ephesians 5:26;
<560214>
Titus 2:14). He does use the idea of sanctification,
and in Romans 6 through 8 teaches that sanctification is a logical
consequence of justification which is secured by Christs sacrificial death.
In
<500310>
Philippians 3:10,11, he views Christs death and resurrection as the
dynamic of transformation in the new life. The author of Hebrews (1:3;
9:14,22,23; 10:2), following his Old Testament figures, uses the idea of
cleansing for the whole process of putting away sin, from atonement to
sanctification (see Westcott, Commentary, in the place cited.). He makes
Christs death the procuring cause of the cleansing. John does the same
(
<620107>
1 John 1:7;
<660714>
Revelation 7:14).
7. Sonship:
Divine sonship of the believer is also traced by Paul to the sacrificial death
of Christ (
<450817>
Romans 8:17), though this thought is not found in other New
Testament writers.
So, we sum up, the whole process of salvation, from reconciliation with
God to the adoption of the saved sinner into heavens household, is
ascribed, to some extent by Jesus, largely by Paul theologian of the New
Testament, and, in varying degrees, by other New Testament writers, to
the sacrificial death of Christ. Even Holtzmann (Neutest. Theol., II, 111)
462
admits It is upon the moment of death that the grounding of salvation is
exclusively concentrated.
V. How Christs Sacrifice Procures Salvation.
It must be conceded that the New Testament writers, much less Jesus, did
not discuss this subject from the philosophical point of view. Jesus never
philosophizes except incidentally. Paul, the author of He, and John had a
philosophy underlying their theology, the first and second dealing most
with the sacrificial work of Christ, the last with His person. But Paul and
the author of Hebrews did not write their letters to produce a philosophical
system explaining how Christs sacrificial death can and does procure
mans salvation.
1. Jesus Teaching:
By some it is claimed that the word ransom (
<411045>
Mark 10:45) gives us the
key to the philosophy of the atonement as presented by Jesus Himself. But
the rules of exegesis are against this supposition. Jesus in the context is
teaching His disciples that sacrificial service is greatness. To illustrate the
truth He refers to His own example of coming to minister, and to give his
life a ransom for many. That is, Jesus is enforcing a practical principle and
not elaborating a theoretical truth. Moreover, the word ransom is used
metaphorically, and the laws of exegesis forbid us to press the literal
meaning of a figure. The figure suggests captivity in sin and deliverance by
payment of a price (the death of Christ). But Jesus does not tell us how His
sacrificial death can and does pay the price for mans redemption from sin.
The word ransom does give the clue to the development of the vicarious
sacrifice elaborated later by Paul. Ritschl (Rechtfertigung und Versohnung,
II, 85) does not do the word ransom justice when he claims that it merely
reproduces the meaning of the Hebrew [r p ,K o, kopher], covering as a
protection, and that Christs death, like a covering, delivers us by
stimulating us to lead the life of sacrificial service as Christ did. Wendt
(Lehre Jesu, II, 237; Teaching of Jesus, II, 226 f) admits the ransom-idea
in the word, but says Christ delivers us from bondage to suffering and
death, not by His death, but by His teaching which is illustrated by His
sacrificial death. Beyschlag (Neutest. Theol., I, 153) thinks Christs death
delivers us from worldly ambitions and such sins by showing us the
example of Jesus in sacrifice. Weiss (Biblical Theology of the New
Testament, I, 101-3) thinks Christs surrender of His life .... avails as a
463
ransom which He gives instead of the many who were not able to pay the
price themselves. He also adds, The saying regarding the ransom lays
emphasis upon the God-pleasing performance of Jesus which secures the
salvation, etc.
Nor does Jesus saying at the Last Supper, This is my blood of the
covenant (
<411424>
Mark 14:24) give us unmistakable evidence of how His
death saves men. It does teach that sinners on entering the kingdom come
into a new covenant relation with God which implies forgiveness of sin and
fellowship with God, and that, as the covenant sacrifices at Mt. Sinai
(
<022403>
Exodus 24:3-8) ratified the legal covenant between God and His
people, so the death of Christ as a covenant sacrifice ratifies the covenant
of grace between God and lost sinners, by virtue of which covenant God
on His part forgives the penitent sinner, and the surrendering sinner on his
part presents himself to God for the life of sacrifice. But this statement fails
to tell us how God can forgive sin on the basis of a covenant thus ratified
by Christs death. Does it mean substitution, that as the animal whose
blood ratified the covenant was slain instead of the people, so Christ was
slain in the place of sinners? Or does it suggest the immutability of the
covenant on the basis of the animals (and so Christs) representing both
God and man, and killing signifying loss of life or will to change the
covenant (so Westcott, Commentary on Hebrews, 301)? It could scarcely
mean that Christs sacrifice was the offering of a perfect, acceptable life to
God (Wendt, op. cit., II, 237), or that Christs death is viewed merely as
the common meal sacrifice, that God and His people thus enter into a kind
of union and communion (so some evolutionists in the study of
comparative religion; see Menzies. Hist of Religion, 416 ff).
2. Pauls Teaching:
Ritschl and many modern scholars are disposed to reject all philosophy in
religion. They say, Back to Christ. Paul was only a human interpreter of
Jesus. But he was a divinely-guided interpreter, and we need his first-hand
interpretations of Jesus. What has he to say as to how Christs death saves
men?
(1) The Words Expressing the Idea of Redemption.
See above on the terms of sacrifice. The classical passage containing
the idea of redemption is
<450324>
Romans 3:24-26: Being justified freely by
his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God set
464
forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his
righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in
the forbearance of God; for the showing, I say, of his righteousness at
this present season: that he might himself be just, and the justifier of
him that hath faith in Jesus. A fair interpretation of this passage gives
us the following propositions:
(a) The believer obtains right standing with God by means of, through
the channel of (see Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon, [Ao, dia], A, III,
2), redemption which is in Christ.
(b) This redemption in Christ involves, or is based upon, the divinely-
purposed propitiation which Christ made in His death.
(c) The design of God in making such a propitiation was the exhibition
of His righteousness; i.e., the vindication of that side of His character
which demands the punishment of sin, which had not been shown in
former generations when His forbearance passed over mens sins. See
Sanday, Commentary on Romans, in the place cited. The classical
passage containing the other word to redeem ([royopo,
exagorazo]) is
<480313>
Galatians 3:13: Christ redeemed us from the curse
of the law, having become a curse for us, etc. Professor E. D. Burton
(AJT, October, 1907) thinks:
(a) Law here means law legalistically understood.
(b) The curse was the verdict of the law of pure legalism, a
disclosure to man of his actual status before God on a basis of merit.
(c) The redemption meant is that Christ brought to an end the regime
of law .... rather than deliverance of individuals through release from
penalty. He bases this argument largely on the use of [qo, hemas],
us, meaning Jews in antithesis with [to r0vq, ta ethne], the Gentiles
(
<480314>
Galatians 3:14). Everett (The Gospel of Paul) thinks that Christ
was cursed in that He was crucified (the manner not the fact of His
death being the curse); that is, as Everett sees it, Christ became
ceremonially unclean, and so free from the law. So does His follower
by being crucified with Christ become ceremonially unclean and so free
from the law. The passage seems to give us the following propositions:
465
(a) Man under law (whether the revealed law of the Old Testament or
the moral law) is under a curse, that is, liable to the penalty which the
broken law demands.
(b) Christ by His death on the cross became a curse for us.
(c) By means of Christ thus becoming a curse for us He delivered us,
not the Jews as a nation, but all of us, Jews and Gentiles, who
believed, from the curse incurred by the breaking of the law. Professor
Burton admits that the participle [yrvorvo, genomenos],
becoming, may be a participle of means (the article cited above,
643), and so we have Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by
becoming a curse for us. The passage at least suggests, if it does not
declare, that Christ saves us by vicariously enduring the penalty to
which we were exposed.
(2) The Idea of Reconciliation.
Paul uses the phrase wrath of God (
<450118>
Romans 1:18, etc.) to express the
attitude of God toward sin, an attitude of displeasure and of grief, of
revulsion of holy character which demands the punishment of sin. On the
other hand, God loves the sinner; love is the prompting cause of
redemption through Christ (
<450508>
Romans 5:8; 8:32). That is, wrath is love
grieving and righteousness revolting because of sin, and both phases may
act simultaneously (Simon, Redemption of Man, 216, to the contrary). So
Paul says, God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not
reckoning unto them their trespasses (2 Cor 5:19). Now this word
reconcile (katallassein) means in the active, to receive into favor, in
the passive, to be restored to favor (Thayer). See also Revelation and
The Expositor, October, 1909, 600 ff, where Professor Estes shows, from
Sophocles, Xenophon, Josephus, Septuagint and passages in the New
Testament like
<400524>
Matthew 5:24, that the word must mean a change in the
attitude of God toward men and not merely a change of men toward God.
Practically the same is taught by Meyer (Commentary on 2 Corinthians);
Lipsius (Handcomm. zum New Testament); Sanday (Commentary on
Romans); Denney (Exegetical Greek Testament on Romans); Lietzmann
(Handbuch zum New Testament); Holtzmann (Neutest. Theol.); Weiss
(Religion of the New Testament); Pfleiderer (Paulinism); Stevens
(Christian Doctrine of Salvation), and in nearly all the great commentaries
466
on Romans and 2 Corinthians, and by all the writers on New Testament
theology except Beyschlag.
See also RECONCILIATION; RETRIBUTION.
(3) The Idea of Propitiation.
Only once (
<450325>
Romans 3:25) does Paul use the word propitiation. As
saw in
(1) above, the redemption in Christ is based upon the propitiation
which Christ made in His death. Thayer (Greek-English Lexicon, in the
place cited.) says the noun signifies a means of appeasing, expiating, a
propitiation, an expiatory sacrifice. He thinks it has this meaning in
<450325>
Romans 3:25, but refers it to the mercy-seat in
<580905>
Hebrews 9:5.
Sanday (Comm. on Rom, 88) regards hilasterion as an adjective
meaning propitiatory. Deuteronomy Wette, Fritzsche, Meyer, Lipsius
and many others take it in this sense; Gifford, Vaughan, Liddon, Ritschl
think it means mercy-seat here as in Hebrews. But with either
meaning the blood of Christ is viewed as securing the mercy of God.
Propitiation of God is made by the blood of Christ, and because of that
men have access to the mercy-seat where shines the glory of God in
His forgiveness of mans sins.
See ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE, 9, (3).
(4) The Prepositions [urp, huper], and [ovt, anti].
Paul never uses anti (for, instead of, in place of, so Thayer) to
express what Christs sacrifice does for the sinner, but huper (for ones
safety or advantage, primarily, but also in the place of, instead of, so
Thayer). See
<450508>
Romans 5:8; 8:32; 14:15;
<461124>
1 Corinthians 11:24;
<470515>
2
Corinthians 5:15;
<480313>
Galatians 3:13;
<490502>
Ephesians 5:2,25;
<520510>
1
Thessalonians 5:10;
<540206>
1 Timothy 2:6;
<560214>
Titus 2:14. It is to be noted that
in
<540206>
1 Timothy 2:6 Paul uses antilutron, ransom, compounded with the
preposition anti, but follows it with huper, which may suggest that huper is
here used in the sense of anti, in the place of.
Summing up Pauls teaching as to how Christs sacrifice saves:
(a) The propitiatory sacrifice does not soften God, or assuage the
anger of God (as Bushnell claims the advocates of the satisfaction
467
theories assert, Vicarious Sacrifice, 486). God is already willing to save
men, His love makes the propitiatory sacrifice (
<450508>
Romans 5:8). Gods
love makes the sacrifice, not the sacrifice His willingness to save.
(b) But man by breaking Gods law had come under the curse, the
penalty of the broken law (
<480313>
Galatians 3:13), and so was under Gods
wrath (
<450118>
Romans 1:18), i.e. mans sin exposed him to punishment,
while at the same time Gods love for the sinner was grieved.
(c) Christ by His sacrificial death made it possible for God to show His
righteousness and love at the same time; i.e. that He did punish sin, but
did love the sinner and wish to save him (
<450325>
Romans 3:25,26; 5:8).
(d) Christ, who was sinless, suffered vicariously for sinful men. His
death was not due to His sins but those of men (2 Cor 5:21).
(e) His death, followed by His resurrection which marked Him off as
the sinless Son of God, and so appointed the Saviour of men
(
<450104>
Romans 1:4), was designed by God to bring men into right relation
with God (
<450326>
Romans 3:26b;
<470521>
2 Corinthians 5:21b). So, we may say,
Paul explained the relation of Christs death to the sinners spiritual life
by thinking of a transfer of the sinners curse to Christ, which He
bore on the cross, and of Gods righteousness through Christ
(
<500309>
Philippians 3:9) to the sinner by faith in Christ. But we must not
press this vicarious idea too far into a system of philosophy of the
atonement and claim that the system is the teaching of Paul. The
quantitative, commercial idea of transfer is not in Pauls mind. The
language of redemption, propitiation, ransom, is largely figurative. We
must feel the spiritual truth of a qualitative transfer of sin from man to
Christ and of righteousness from Christ to man, and rest the matter
there, so far as Pauls teaching goes. Beyond this our conclusions as to
substitution as the method of atonement are results of philosophizing
on Pauls teaching.
3. Teaching of Hebrews:
The author of Hebrews adds nothing to Pauls teaching respecting the
method whereby Christs sacrifice operates in saving men. His purpose to
produce an apology showing forth the superior efficacy of Christs high-
priestly sacrifice over that of the Aaronic priesthood fixes his first thought
on the efficacy of the sacrifice rather than on its mode of operation. He
468
does use the words redemption (9:12; compare 9:15), propitiate
(2:17), and emphasizes the opening up of the heavenly holy of holies by the
high-priestly sacrifice of Christ (the way of access to the very presence of
God by Christs death, 10:19,20), which gives us data for forming a system
based on a real propitiation for sin and reconciliation of God similar to the
Pauline teaching formulated above.
4. Petrine and Johannine Teaching:
Peter asserts that Christ suffered vicariously (1 Pet 2:22-24), who,
although He did no sin, his own self bare our sins in his body upon the
tree; who suffered for sins once, the righteous for (huper, not anti) the
unrighteous (1 Pet 3:18). But Peter goes no farther than Paul (perhaps not
so far) in elaborating how Jesus vicarious suffering saves the sinner. The
Johannine writings contain the propitiatory idea (
<620202>
1 John 2:2; 4:10),
although John writes to emphasize the incarnation and not the work of the
Incarnate One (
<430101>
John 1:1-18;
<620402>
1 John 4:2,3).
To sum up the New Testament teachings on the mode or operation: Jesus
asserts His vicarious suffering (
<411045>
Mark 10:45; compare
<431011>
John 10:11)
and hints at the mode of its operation by using the ransom figure. Paul,
Peter and John teach that Christs sacrifice was vicarious, and all but Peter
suggest the idea of propitiation as to the mode of its operation. There is no
direct discussion of what propitiation means.
VI. Rationale of the Efficacy of Christs Sacrifice.
1. Jesus Teaching:
Jesus emphasizes His voluntary spirit in making the sacrifice. The Son of
man also came .... to give his life a ransom. The sacrifice was voluntary,
not compulsory. God did not force Him to lay down His life; He chose to
do so (compare
<431011>
John 10:11). But Jesus gives us no philosophy on this
or any other element in His sacrifice as being the ground of its efficacy.
2. Pauls Teaching:
Paul also emphasizes the voluntary gift of Christ (
<480220>
Galatians 2:20), but
he urges rather the dignity of Him who makes the sacrifice as a ground of
its efficacy. It is the sacrifice of Gods Son, shown to be such in His
resurrection (
<450104>
Romans 1:4; 4:25b). It was no ordinary man but the
sinless Son who gave himself (
<480220>
Galatians 2:20). It was not merely a
469
dying Christ but the Son who rose again in power (
<450104>
Romans 1:4), who
secures our justification (
<450425>
Romans 4:25b;
<461503>
1 Corinthians
15:3,4,17b). Paul also emphasizes the sinless life and character of Jesus as
a ground of efficacy in Christs sacrifice, who knew no sin in His life
experience (2 Cor 5:21a).
3. The Teaching in Hebrews:
The author of Hebrews, most of all New Testament writers, elaborates the
grounds of efficacy in Christs sacrifice.
(1) It was a personal not an animal sacrifice (9:12-14; 9:26, sacrifice
of himself; 10:4).
(2) It was the sacrifice of the Son of God (3:5).
(3) It was a royal person who made the sacrifice (6:20b; 7:1, after the
order of Melchizedek .... king of Salem).
(4) It was a sinless person (7:26,27; 9:14; 10:10,12). Westcott,
Commentary on Hebrews, 298, well says, It becomes necessary,
therefore, in order to gain a complete view of the Sacrifice of Christ, to
combine with the crowning act upon the Cross His fulfillment of the
will of God from first to last, the Sacrifice of Life with the Sacrifice of
Death.
(5) It was an eternal person (6:20, for ever; 7:16, after the power of
an endless (margin indissoluble) life). The author of Hebrews
reaches the climax of his argument for the superior efficacy of Christs
sacrifice when he represents Him as entering the holy of holies in the
very presence of God to complete the offering for mans sin (8:1,2;
9:11,12,24).
Peter and John do not discuss the ground of efficacy, and so add nothing to
our conclusions above. The efficacy of the sacrifice is suggested by
describing the glory of the person (1 Pet 1:19; 2:22,23;
<620107>
1 John 1:7b;
2:2).
To sum up our conclusion as to the efficacy of Christs sacrifice: Jesus and
the leading New Testament writers intimate that the efficacy of His
sacrifice centers in His personality. Jesus, Peter and John do not discuss the
subject directly. Paul, though discussing it more extensively, does not do
so fully, but the author of Hebrews centers and culminates his argument for
470
the finality of Christianity, in the superior efficacy of Christs sacrifice,
which is grounded in His personality, divine, royal, sinless, eternal (see
Menegoz, Theol. de lEp. aux Hebreux). It is easy to see, from the position
taken by the author of He, how Anselm in Cur Deus Homo developed his
theory of satisfaction, according to which the Divinity in Christ gave His
atoning sacrifice its priceless worth in Gods eyes.
VII. The Human Conditions of Application.
1. Universal in Objective Potentiality:
The sacrificial death of Christ is universal in its objective potentiality,
according to Jesus (
<422447>
Luke 24:47, unto all the nations); according to
Paul (
<450105>
Romans 1:5; 5:18; 11:32;
<470514>
2 Corinthians 5:14,15;
<480314>
Galatians
3:14); according to the author of Hebrews (2:9, taste of death for every
man); according to John (
<620202>
1 John 2:2, propitiation .... for the whole
world).
2. Efficacious When Subjectively Applied:
But the objective redemption to be efficacious must be subjectively applied.
The blood of Christ is the universally efficacious remedy for the sin-sick
souls of men, but each man must make the subjective application. How is
the application made? And the threefold answer is, by repentance, by faith,
and by obedience.
(1) By Repentance.
The Baptist and Jesus emphasized repentance (change of mind first of all,
then change of relation and of life) as the condition of entrance into the
kingdom and of enjoyment of the Messianic salvation (
<400302>
Matthew 3:2;
<410115>
Mark 1:15). Peter preached repentance at Pentecost and immediately
after as a means of obtaining forgiveness (
<440238>
Acts 2:38; 3:19, etc.). Paul,
although emphasizing faith, also stressed repentance as an element in the
human condition of salvation (
<442021>
Acts 20:21;
<450204>
Romans 2:4, etc.). John
(Revelation 2; 3, passim) emphasizes repentance, though not stressing it as
a means of receiving the benefits of redemption.
(2) By Faith.
Jesus connected faith with repentance (
<410115>
Mark 1:15) as the condition of
receiving the Messianic salvation. Paul makes faith the all-inclusive means
of applying the work of Christ. The gospel is the power of God unto
471
salvation to every one that believeth (
<450116>
Romans 1:16); whom God set
forth to be a propitiation, through faith (
<450325>
Romans 3:25); faith (not
works) is reckoned for righteousness (
<450405>
Romans 4:5); justified by faith
(
<450501>
Romans 5:1). In Galatians, the letters to the Corinthians, in the
Captivity and the Pastoral Epistles he emphasizes faith as the sole condition
of receiving salvation. But what kind of faith is it that appropriates the
saving benefit of Christs death? Not historical or intellectual but heart
faith (
<451010>
Romans 10:10). To Paul heart meant the seat or essence of the
whole personality, and so faith which applies the redemption Christ is the
personal commitment of ones self to Christ as Saviour and Lord (2 Cor
5:15). See Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon, [otru, pisteuo], 1, b,
gamma, for a particular discussion of the meaning of faith in this sense. The
author of Hebrews discusses especially faith as a conquering power, but
also implies that it is the condition of entrance upon the life of spiritual rest
and fellowship (chapters 3 and 4, passim). Peter (1 Pet 1:9) and John (
<620323>
1
John 3:23; 4:16; 5:1,5, etc.) also regard faith as a means of applying the
saving benefits of Christs death.
(3) By Obedience in Sacrificial Service.
Jesus said, If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and
take up his cross, and follow me (
<410834>
Mark 8:34). Here He lays down two
elements in the conditions of discipleship, denying ones self and taking up
his cross. The former means the renunciation of self as the center of
thought, faith, hope and life. The latter means the life of sacrifice. Jesus
was stressing this truth when He uttered that incomparable saying, The
Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his
life a ransom for many (
<411045>
Mark 10:45 parallel
<402028>
Matthew 20:28). Paul
also emphasizes this phase of the human condition of salvation when he
shows how sanctification grows spontaneously out of justification
(
<450608>
Romans 6:8) and when he says that what avails is faith working
through love (
<480506>
Galatians 5:6). The author of Hebrews says, He
became unto all them that obey him the author (Greek [oto, aitios],
cause) of eternal salvation (5:9). Peter and John, the latter especially,
emphasize the keeping of His commandments, the life of service, as the
means of appropriating to the fullest the saving benefits of Christs death.
The theologians in classrooms and preachers in the pulpits have failed to
emphasize this aspect of saving faith as did Jesus, Paul, the author of He,
and John. in the New Testament salvation is a process as well as an
instantaneous act on the part of God, and the process is carried on by
472
means of obedience, the life of service, which appropriates by faith the
dynamic of Christs sacrifice.
VIII. The Christians Life the Life of Sacrifice.
This discussion of the faith that obeys leads to the consideration of that
climactic thought of New Testament writers, namely, that the Christians
life is sacrificial living based on Christs sacrifice for him. We note in
outline the following:
The Christians life of sacrifice is the logical consequence of Christs
sacrificial death. The Christ who sacrificed Himself for the believer is now
continuing the sacrifice in the believers life (
<480120>
Galatians 1:20;
<500121>
Philippians 1:21).
1. Consequence of Christs Sacrifice:
Paul was crucified when Christ was crucified (in a bold mystic figure), and
the life of Christ which sacrificed itself on the cross and perpetuates itself
in resurrection power now operates as a mighty dynamic for the apostles
moral and spiritual transformation (
<500310>
Philippians 3:10,11). It is to be
noted, Jesus also emphasized this kind of living, though not so expressly
connecting the believers sacrificial life with His sacrificial death (see
<410834>
Mark 8:34 f).
2. Christs Death the Appeal for a Christians Sacrifice:
Christs sacrificial death becomes the persuasive appeal for the Christians
sacrificial life, Because we thus judge, that one died for all, therefore all
died; and he died for all, that they that live should no longer live unto
themselves, but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again (2 Cor
5:14,15). Because He died for us we should live for Him. But what is the
appeal which Christs sacrificial death makes to the saved sinner? The
love of Christ constraineth us (2 Cor 5:14). Christs death on the cross
exhibits His love, unspeakable, unthinkable love, for it was love for His
enemies (
<450510>
Romans 5:10), and that matchless love kindles love in the
forgiven sinners heart. He is willing to do anything, even to die, for his
Saviour who died for him (
<442113>
Acts 21:13;
<500129>
Philippians 1:29,30). It is a
greater privilege for the saved sinner to suffer for Christ than it is to believe
on Him. Peter (1 Pet 3:17,18), the author of Hebrews (12; 13:13) and John
(
<620316>
1 John 3:16; 4:16-19) emphasize this truth.
473
3. Necessary to Fill Out Christs Sacrifice:
The Christians sacrifice is necessary to fill out Christs sacrifice. Now I
rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and fill up on my part that which is
lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his bodys sake, which is
the church (
<510124>
Colossians 1:24). Roman Catholic exegetes have made the
apostle teach that the sufferings of the saints, along with Christs
sufferings, have atoning efficacy. But Paul nowhere intimates that his
sufferings avail for putting away sins. We may hold with Weiss (Comm. on
the New Testament) that Paul longed to experience in his life the perfect
sacrificial spirit as Christ did; or with Alford (in loc.) that he wished to
suffer his part of Christs sufferings to be endured by him through His
church; or, as it seems to us, he longed to make effective by his ministry of
sacrificial service to as many others as possible the sacrificial death of
Christ. Christs sacrifice avails in saving men only when Christians sacrifice
their lives in making known this sacrifice of Christ.
4. Content of the Christians Sacrifice:
(1) The Christian is to present his personality (
<451516>
Romans 15:16). Paul
commends the Macedonians for first giving their own selves to the
Lord (2 Cor 8:5).
(2) Christians must present their bodies a living sacrifice, holy,
acceptable to God (
<451201>
Romans 12:1). In the old system of sacrifices
the animals were offered as dead; Christians are to offer their bodies,
all their members with their powers, to God a living sacrifice, i.e. a
sacrifice which operates in lives of holiness and service (see also
<450613>
Romans 6:13,19).
(3) Christians must offer their money or earthly possessions to God.
Paul speaks of the gift from the church at Philippi as a sacrifice
acceptable, well-pleasing to God (
<500418>
Philippians 4:18). This gift was
to the apostle a beautiful expression of the sacrificial spirit imparted to
them because they had the mind of Christ who emptied himself, ....
becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross
(
<501405>
Philippians 2:5-8). The author of Hebrews (13:16) exhorts his
readers, But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such
sacrifices God is well pleased.
474
(4) The general exercise of all our gifts and graces is viewed by Peter
as sacrificial living (1 Pet 2:5): Ye also, as living stones, are built up a
spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices
etc. All Christians are priests and daily offer up their burnt offerings
acceptable to God, if they `suffer as Christians (1 Pet 2:20; 3:18) in
the exercise of their graces and powers.
But how do these sacrifices of the Christian affect him and God? The New
Testament writers never hint that our sacrifices propitiate God, or so win
His favor that He will or can on account of our sacrifices forgive our sins.
They are well-pleasing to Him a sweet odor; that is, they win His
approval of our lives thus lived according to the standard which Christ
gives us. Their influence on us is the increase of our spiritual efficiency and
power and finally a greater capacity for enjoying spiritual blessings in
heaven (1 Cor 3:14).
5. The Supper as a Sacrifice:
Some scholars (Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, etc.) regard the memorial
supper as a kind of sacrifice which the Christian offers in worship. Neither
Jesus, Paul, the author of Hebrews, Peter, or John, ever hints that in eating
the bread and drinking the wine the Christian offers a sacrifice to God in
Christ. Paul teaches that in partaking of the Supper we proclaim the
Lords death till he come (1 Cor 11:26). That is, instead of offering a
sacrifice ourselves to God, in partaking of the Supper we proclaim the
offering of Christs sacrifice for us. Milligan argues that as Christ in heaven
perpetually offers Himself for us, so we on earth, in the Supper, offer
ourselves to Him (Heavenly Priesthood, 266). Even Cave (Spiritual
Doctrine of Sacrifice, 439) maintains, In a certain loose sense the Lords
Supper may be called a sacrifice. See the above books for the argument
supporting this position.
To sum up our conclusions on sacrifice in the New Testament:
(1) Jesus and New Testament writers regard the Old Testament
sacrificial system as from God, but imperfect, the various sacrifices
serving only as types of the one great sacrifice which Christ made.
(2) All the writers, except James and Jude, with Jesus, emphasize the
sacrificial idea, Jesus less, giving only two hints of His sacrificial death
475
(in the Synoptic Gospels), the author of Hebrews putting the climactic
emphasis on Christs sacrifice as the sacrifice of atonement.
(3) As to the relation of Christs sacrifice to mans salvation, the latter
is the achievement of the former, so expressed only twice by Jesus, but
emphatically so declared by Paul, the author of Heb, Peter, and John
(Paul and Hebrews laying most emphasis on this point).
(4) As to how Christs sacrifice saves men, Jesus, the author of He,
Peter and John suggest the idea of propitiation, while Paul emphatically
teaches that man is under a curse, exposed to the displeasure of God,
and that Christs sacrifice secured the reconciliation of God by
vindicating His righteousness in punishing sin and His love in saving
sinners. Jesus and the leading New Testament writers agree that Christ
saves men through His vicarious suffering.
(5) As to the rational basis of efficacy in Christs sacrifice, there is no
direct discussion in the New Testament except by the author of
Hebrews who grounds its final, eternal efficacy in Christs personality,
divine, royal, sinless and eternal.
(6) As to the conditions of applying Christs sacrifice, repentance and
faith, which lives and fruits in obedience and sacrificial living, are
recognized by Jesus and all the leading New Testament writers as the
means of appropriating the benefits of Christs sacrifice.
(7) By Jesus, Paul, the author of He, Peter and John the Christian life is
viewed as the life of sacrifice. Christs death is at once the cause,
motive, measure, and the dynamic of the Christians sacrificial life.
LITERATURE.
In addition to the great comms. ICC, Allen on Mt, Gould on Mk,
Sanday-Headlam on Rom; Westcott on the Gospel and Epistles of John,
and on the Hebrews; Davidson, Delitzsch and Meyer on Hebrews; Meyer
on 2 Corinthians; Lightfoot and Abbott on Colossians; and the standard
authors of the Biblical Theology of the New Testament, Weiss, Beyschlag,
Bovon, Stevens, Sheldon see the following special works: Cave,
Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice, Edinburgh, 1890; Simon, Redemption of
Man, 1886; G. Milligan, The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
Edinburgh, 1899; Milligan, The Ascension and Heavenly Priesthood of our
Lord, London, 1908; W.P. Du Bose, High-Priesthood and Sacrifice;
476
Everett, The Gospel of Paul, Boston, 1893; Burton, Smith, and Smith,
Biblical Ideas of Atonement, Chicago, 1909; Denney, The Death of Christ:
Its Place and Interpretation in the New Testament, London, 1902; Denney,
The Atonement and the Modern Mind, London, 1903; Ritschl,
Rechtfertigung und Versohnung (Justification and Reconciliation), Bonn,
1895-1902, English translations of the Bible, 1900; Menegoz, Theol.
delEp. aux Hebreux; article Blood, Hastings, Encyclopedia of Religion
and Ethics, by H. Wheeler Robinson; article Communion with Deity,
ibid., by Nathan Soderblom; article Communion with Deity (Christian),
ibid., by Darwell Stone and D. C. Simpson; article Expiation and
Atonement, ibid., by W. A. Brown (Christian viewpoint), S. R. Driver
(Hebrew), H. Loewe (Jewish); article Redemption from the Curse of the
Law, in AJT, October, 1907, by Professor E. D. Burton; article Some
Thoughts as to the Effects of the Death of Christ, in Revelation and The
Expositor, October, 1909.
C. B. Williams
SACRIFICE, HUMAN
<hu-man>: As an expression of religious devotion, human sacrifice has
been widespread at certain stages of the races development. The tribes of
Western Asia were deeply affected by the practice, probably prior to the
settlement of the Hebrews in Palestine, and it continued at least down to
the 5th century BC. At times of great calamity, anxiety and danger, parents
sacrificed their children as the greatest and most costly offering which they
could make to propitiate the anger of the gods and thus secure their favor
and help. There is no intimation in the Bible that enemies or captives were
sacrificed; only the offering of children by their parents is mentioned. The
belief that this offering possessed supreme value is seen in
<330606>
Micah 6:6 f,
where the sacrifice of the firstborn is the climax of a series of offerings
which, in a rising scale of values, are suggested as a means of propitiating
the angry Yahweh. A striking example of the rite as actually practiced is
seen in
<120301>
2 Kings 3:27, where Mesha the king of Moab (made famous by
the Moabite Stone), under the stress of a terrible siege, offered his eldest
son, the heir-apparent to the throne, as a burnt offering upon the wall of
Kir-hareseth. As a matter of fact this horrid act seems to have had the
effect of driving off the allies.
Human sacrifice was ordinarily resorted to, no doubt, only in times of great
distress, but it seems to have been practiced among the old Canaanitish
477
tribes with some frequency (
<051231>
Deuteronomy 12:31). The Israelites are
said to have borrowed it from their Canaanite neighbors (
<121603>
2 Kings 16:3;
<142803>
2 Chronicles 28:3), and as a matter of fact human sacrifices were never
offered to Yahweh, but only to various gods of the land. The god who was
most frequently worshipped in this way was Moloch or Molech, the god of
the Ammonites (
<122310>
2 Kings 23:10;
<031821>
Leviticus 18:21; 20:2), but from
Jeremiah we learn that the Phoenician god Baal was, at least in the later
period of the history, also associated with Molech in receiving this worship
(
<241905>
Jeremiah 19:5; 31:35).
As in the case of the Canaanites, the only specific cases of human sacrifice
mentioned among the Israelites are those of the royal princes, sons of Ahaz
and Manasseh, the two kings of Judah who were most deeply affected by
the surrounding heathen practices and who, at the same time, fell into great
national distress (
<121603>
2 Kings 16:3;
<142803>
2 Chronicles 28:3;
<122106>
2 Kings 21:6;
<143306>
2 Chronicles 33:6). But it is clear from many general statements that the
custom was widespread among the masses of the people as well. It is
forbidden in the Mosaic legislation (
<031821>
Leviticus 18:21; 20:2-5;
<051810>
Deuteronomy 18:10); it is said in
<121717>
2 Kings 17:17 that the sacrifice of
sons and daughters was one of the causes of the captivity of the ten tribes.
Jeremiah charges the people of the Southern Kingdom with doing the same
thing (
<240731>
Jeremiah 7:31; 19:5; 31:35); with these general statements agree
<235705>
Isaiah 57:5;
<261602>
Ezekiel 16:2 f; 20:31; 23:37;
<19A637>
Psalm 106:37 f. A
study of these passages makes it certain that in the period immediately
before the captivity of Judah, human sacrifice was by no means confined to
the royal family, but was rather common among the people. Daughters as
well as sons were sacrificed. It is mentioned only once in connection with
the Northern Kingdom, and then only in the summary of the causes of their
captivity (
<121717>
2 Kings 17:17), but the Southern Kingdom in its later years
was evidently deeply affected. There were various places where the bloody
rite was celebrated (
<241905>
Jeremiah 19:5), but the special high place,
apparently built for the purpose, was in the Valley of Tophet or Hinnom
(ge-hinnom, Gehenna) near Jerusalem (
<142803>
2 Chronicles 28:3; 33:6). This
great high place, built for the special purpose of human sacrifice
(
<240731>
Jeremiah 7:31; 32:35), was defiled by the good king Josiah in the hope
of eradicating the cruel practice (
<122310>
2 Kings 23:10).
The Biblical writers without exception look upon the practice with horror
as the supreme point of national and religious apostasy, and a chief cause
of national disaster. They usually term the rite passing through fire,
478
probably being unwilling to use the sacred term sacrifice in reference to
such a revolting custom. There is no evidence of a continuance of the
practice in captivity nor after the return. It is said, however, that the
heathen Sepharvites, settled by the Assyrian kings in the depopulated
territory of the Northern Kingdom, burnt their children in the fire to
Adrammelech and Anammelech, the gods of Sepharvaim (
<121731>
2 Kings
17:31). The practice is not heard of again, and probably rapidly died out.
The restored Israelites were not affected by it.
Compare SACRIFICE (Old Testament), VI, 10.
William J oseph McGlothlin
SACRILEGE
<sak-ri-lej>: For commit sacrilege in
<450222>
Romans 2:22 (the King James
Version and the English Revised Version margin), the Revised Version
(British and American) has rob temples, which more exactly expresses
the meaning of the verb (hierosuleo; compare
<441937>
Acts 19:37, robbers of
temples (which see)). The noun occurs in 2 Macc 4:39 (the King James
Version and the Revised Version (British and American)) for the
corresponding form hierosulema.
SADAMIAS
<sad-a-mi-as>: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British
and American) SALEMAS (which see).
SADAS
<sa-das>: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and
American) ASTAD (which see).
SADDEUS
<sa-de-us>: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and
American) LODDEUS (which see).
SADDLE
<sad--l>: As noun ([b K ;r ]m,, merkabh], a riding seat) the word occurs
in
<031509>
Leviticus 15:9 (margin carriage); ordinarily it is used as a verb
479
([v b j ; , chabhash], literally, to bind up or gird about), to saddle an
ass (
<012203>
Genesis 22:3;
<042221>
Numbers 22:21;
<071910>
Judges 19:10, etc.).
SADDUCEES
<sad-u-sez> ([ yq iWD x , tsadduqim]; [2oouxoo, Saddoukaioi]):
This prominent Jewish sect, though not so numerous as their opponents,
the Pharisees, by their wealth and the priestly descent of many of them had
an influence which fully balanced that of their more popular rivals. They
were a political party, of priestly and aristocratic tendency, as against the
more religious and democratic Pharisees.
I. INTRODUCTORY.
1. Name: Rival Etymologies. Probably from Zadok the High Priest:
The Talmud form suggests derivation from the name of their founder, but
the form in New Testament and Josephus would imply connection with the
verb to be righteous. The probability is, that the name is derived from
some person named Zadok. The most prominent Zadok in history was
the Davidic high priest (
<100817>
2 Samuel 8:17; 15:24;
<110135>
1 Kings 1:35), from
whom all succeeding high priests claimed to descend. It is in harmony with
this, that in the New Testament the Sadducees are the party to whom the
high priests belonged. On the authority of Abhoth de-Rabbi Nathan (circa
1000 AD) another Zadok is asserted to be he from whom the Sadducees
received their name. He was a disciple of Antigonus of Socho (circa 250
BC) who taught that love to God should be absolutely disinterested (Pirqe
Abhoth, i.3). Abhoth de-Rabbi Nathans account of the derivation of the
Sadduceanism from this teaching is purely an imaginary deduction (Charles
Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers(2), 112). The majority of
authoritative writers prefer to derive the name from Zadok, the colleague
of Abiathar, the contemporary of David.
2. Authorities: New Testament, Josephus, Talmud (primary), Church
Fathers (secondary):
Our main authorities for the teaching of the Sadducees are the New
Testament and Josephus. According to the former, the Sadducees denied
the resurrection of the body, and did not believe in angels or spirits
(
<402223>
Matthew 22:23;
<442308>
Acts 23:8). More can be learned from Josephus,
480
but his evidence is to be received with caution, as he was a Pharisee and,
moreover, had the idea that the Sadducees were to be paralleled with the
Epicureans. The Talmud is late. Before even the Mishna was committed to
writing (circa 200 AD) the Sadducees had ceased to exist; before the
Gemara was completed (circa 700 AD) every valid tradition of their
opinions must have vanished. Further, the Talmud is Pharisaic. The
Fathers, Origen, Hippolytus, Epiphanius and Jerome, have derived their
information from late Pharisaic sources.
II. ORIGIN AND HISTORY.
1. Early Notices in Josephus: Alleged Relation to Differences between
Prophets and Priests:
Josephus describes the Sadducees along with the contemporary sects, the
Pharisees and the Essenes (Josephus, Ant, XIII, v, 9; X, vi 2; XVIII, i, 4,
5; BJ, II, viii, 14). His earliest notice of them is after his account of the
treaties of Jonathan with the Romans and the Lacedemonians. He indicates
his belief that the parties were ancient; but if so, they must have formerly
had other names. It has been suggested that the earlier form of the conflict
between the Sadducees and Pharisees was opposition between the priests
and the prophets. This, however, is not tenable; in the Southern Kingdom
there was no such opposition; whatever the state of matters in the
Northern Kingdom, it could have had no influence on opinion in Judea and
Galilee in the time of our Lord. By others the rivalry is supposed to be
inherited from that between the scribes and the priests, but Ezra, the
earliest scribe, in the later sense of the term, was a priest with strong
sacerdotal sympathies.
2. Tendencies of Sadducees toward Hellenism
as Causing Rise of Chacidhim:
Probably the priestly party only gradually crystallized into the sect of the
Sadducees. After the return from the exile, the high priest drew to himself
all powers, civil and religious. To the Persian authorities he was as the king
of the Jews. The high priest and those about him were the persons who had
to do with the heathen supreme government and the heathen nationalities
around; this association would tend to lessen their religious fervor, and, by
reaction, this roused the zeal of a section of the people for the law. With
the Greek domination the power of the high priests at home was increased,
but they became still more subservient to their heathen masters, and were
481
the leaders in the Hellenizing movement. They took no part in the
Maccabean struggle, which was mainly supported by their opponents the
chacidhim, as they were called (the Hasideans of 1 Macc 2:42, etc.). When
the chacidhim, having lost sympathy with the Maccabeans, sought to
reconcile themselves to the priestly party, Alcimus, the legitimate high
priest, by his treachery and cruelty soon renewed the breach. The
Hasmoneans then were confirmed in the high-priesthood, but were only
lukewarmly supported by the chacidhim.
3. Favored by Janneus: Put in the Background by Alexandra Salome:
The division between the Hasmoneans and the chacidhim, or, as they were
now called, Pharisees, culminated in the insult offered by Eleazar to John
Hyrcanus, the Hasmonean high priest (Josephus, Ant, XIII, x, 5).
Alexander Janneus, the son of Hyrcanus, became a violent partisan of the
Sadducees, and crucified large numbers of the Pharisees. Toward the end
of his life he fell out of sympathy with the Sadducees, and on his deathbed
recommended his wife Alexandra Salome, who as guardian to his sons
succeeded him, to favor the Pharisees, which she did. In the conflict
between her two sons, John Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, the Sadducees
took the side of Aristobulus, the younger and abler brother. So long as the
contest was between Jews, the Sadducean candidate prevailed. When the
Romans were called in, they gave the advantage to Hyrcanus.
4. From a Political, Become Also a Religious Party:
Thrown into the background by the overthrow of their candidate for the
high-priesthood, they soon regained their influence. They allied themselves
with the Herodiana who had supported Hyrcanus, but were subservient to
Rome. Though they were not theological at first, they became so, to
defend their policy against the attacks of the Pharisees. A historic parallel
may be found in the Cavaliers of the reign of Charles I, as over against the
Puritans.
5. Fear Roman Interference if Jesus Messianic Claims Are Recognized:
The Sadducees at first regarded the struggle between our Lord and the
Pharisees as a matter with which they had no concern. It was not until our
Lord claimed to be the Messiah, and the excitement of the people
consequent on this proved likely to draw the attention of the Roman
authorities, that they intervened. Should Tiberius learn that there was
482
widespread among the Jews the belief in the coming of a Jewish king who
was to rule the world, and that one had appeared who claimed to be this
Messiah, very soon would the quasi-independence enjoyed by the Jews be
taken from them, and with this the influence of the Sadducees would
depart. An oligarchy is proverbially sensitive to anything that threatens its
stability; a priesthood is unmeasured in its vindictiveness; and the
Sadducees were a priestly oligarchy. Hence, it is not wonderful that only
the death of Jesus would satisfy them.
6. Sadducees Antagonistic to the Apostles: Pharisees More Favorable:
After the resurrection, the Pharisees became less hostile to the followers of
Christ; but the Sadducees maintained their attitude of suspicion and hatred
(
<440401>
Acts 4:1). Although a Pharisee, it was as agent of the Sadducean high
priest that Paul persecuted the believers. The Sadducees gained complete
ascendancy in the Sanhedrin, and later, under the leadership of Annas, or as
he is sometimes called by Josephus, Ananus, the high priest, they put James
the brother of our Lord to death (Josephus, Ant, XX, ix, 1) with many
others, presumably Christians. The Pharisees were against these
proceedings; and even sent messengers to meet Albinus who was coming
to succeed Festus as governor to entreat him to remove Annas from the
highpriesthood.
7. The Fall of Sadducean Party at Outbreak of Jewish War:
With the outbreak of the Jewish war, the Sadducees with their allies the
Herodians were driven into the background by the Zealots, John of
Gischala and Simon ben Gioras. Annas and Joshua, also called high priest
by Josephus, were both put to death by the Zealots and their Idumean allies
(Josephus, BJ, IV, v, 2). With the destruction of the temple and the fall of
the Jewish state the Sadducean party disappeared.
III. DOCTRINES OF THE SADDUCEES.
1. Laid Stress on Ceremonial Exactness:
As the sacerdotal party, the Sadducees laid great stress on the ceremonial
of sacrifice, and rejected the changes introduced by their opponents unless
these found support in the words of the Law.
483
2. Disbelief in the Spiritual World, in a Resurrection, and in Providence:
Their Materialism:
The most prominent doctrine of the Sadducees was the denial of the
immortality of the soul and of the resurrection of the body. The Pharisees
believed that Moses had delivered these doctrines to the elders, and that
they had in turn handed them on to their successors. The Sadducees
rejected all these traditions. From Acts (23:8) we learn that they believed in
neither angel or spirit. As appearances of angels are mentioned in the
Law, it is difficult to harmonize their reverence for the Law with this
denial. They may have regarded these angelophanies as theophanies.
Josephus distinctly asserts (Ant., XVIII, i, 4) that the Sadducees believe
that the soul dies with the body. They deny, he says, divine providence (BJ,
II, viii, 14). Their theology might be called religion within the limits of
mere sensation.
3. Alleged Belief in Canonicity of the Pentateuch Alone:
The Fathers, Hippolytus, Origen and Jerome, credit the Sadducees with
regarding the Pentateuch as alone canonical (Hipp., Haer., ix.24; Orig.,
Contra Celsum, i.49; on
<402224>
Matthew 22:24-31; Jerome on
<402231>
Matthew
22:31,32). This idea may be due to a false identification of the views of the
Sadducees with those of the Samaritans. Had they rejected all the rest of
Scripture, it is hardly possible that Josephus would have failed to notice
this. The Talmud does not mention this among their errors. It is certain that
they gave more importance to the Pentateuch than to any other of the
books of Scripture. Hence, our Lord, in the passage commented on by
Origen and Jerome, appeals to the Law rather than to the Prophets or the
Psalms. It follows from the little value they put upon the Prophets that they
had no sympathy with the Messianic hopes of the Pharisees.
4. Relation to Epicureanism:
It need hardly be said that there was no real connection between
Sadduceanism and the doctrines of Epicurus. There was a superficial
resemblance which was purely accidental. Their favor for Hellenism would
give a color to this identification.
484
IV. CHARACTER OF SADDUCEES.
1. Characterized as Rough and Boorish:
Josephus says that while the Pharisees have amiable manners and cultivate
concord among all, the Sadducees are very boorish (BJ, II, viii, 14). This
want of manners is not a characteristic usually associated with an
aristocracy, or with supple diplomats, yet it suits what we find in the New
Testament. The cruel horseplay indulged in when our Lord was tried
before the irregular meeting of the Sanhedrin (
<402667>
Matthew 26:67,68), the
shout of Ananias at the trial of Paul before the same tribunal to smite him
on the mouth, show them to be rough and overbearing. What Josephus
relates of the conduct of Annas (or Ananus) in regard to James, above
referred to, agrees with this. Josephus, however, does not always speak in
such condemnatory terms of Ananus in Josephus, Jewish Wars (IV, v,
2) he calls him a man venerable and most just. Only the violence which,
as Josephus relates in the chapter immediately preceding that from which
we have quoted, Ananus resorted to against the Zealots better suits the
earlier verdict of Josephus than the later. As to their general character
Josephus mentions that when the Sadducees became magistrates they
conformed their judgments to Pharisaic opinion, otherwise they would not
have been tolerated (Ant., XVIII, i, 4).
2. Talmudic Account of the Sadducees:
As noted above, the Talmud account is untrustworthy, late and Pharisaic.
The Gemara from which most of the references are taken was not
committed to writing till 7 centuries after Christ when the traditions
concerning the Sadducees, such as had survived, had filtered through 20
generations of Pharisaism. Despite this lengthened time and suspicious
medium, there may be some truth in the representations of the Talmudic
rabbin. In Pesachim 57a it is said, Woes me on account of the house of
Boothus, woes me on account of their spears; woes me on account of the
house of Hanun (Annas), woes me on account of their serpent brood;
woes me on account of the house of Kathros, woes me on account of
their pen; woes me on account of the house of Ishmael ben Phabi; woes
me on account of their fists. They are high priests and their sons are
treasurers of the temple, and their sons-in-law, assistant treasurers; and
their servants beat the people with sticks. As these are Sadducean names,
this passage exhibits Pharisaic tradition as to the habits of the Sadducees.
485
3. Relation to Temple and Worship a Heathenish One:
The Sadducean high priests made Hophni and Phinehas too much their
models. Annas and his sons had booths in the courts of the temple for the
sale of sacrificial requisites, tables for money-changers, as ordinary coins
had to be changed into the shekels of the sanctuary. From all these the
priests of the high-priestly caste derived profit at the expense of
desecrating the temple (Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus, I, 371 ff).
They did not, as did the Pharisees, pay spiritual religion the homage of
hypocrisy; they were frankly irreligious. While officials of religion, they
were devoid of its spirit. This, however, represents their last stage.
4. Sadducean Literature:
The favor for the memory of John Hyrcanus shown by the writer of 1
Maccabees (16:23,14) renders probable Geigers opinion that the author
was a Sadducee. He shows the party in its best form: his outlook on life is
eminently sane, and his history is trustworthy. He has sympathy with the
patriotism of the Hasideans, but none with the religious scruples which led
them to desert Judas Maccabeus. That the writer of Ecclesiasticus from his
silence as to the national expectation of a Messiah and the hope of a future
life was also a Sadducee, is almost certain.
V. RELATION OF SADDUCEES TO JESUS.
1. Less Denounced by Jesus than the Pharisees:
As the doctrines and practices of the Sadducees were quite alien from the
teaching of our Lord and the conduct He enjoined, it is a problem why He
did not denounce them more frequently than He did. Indeed He never
denounces the Sadducees except along with their opponents the Pharisees;
whereas He frequently denounces the Pharisees alone. As His position,
both doctrinal and practical, was much nearer that of the Pharisees, it was
necessary that He should clearly mark Himself off from them. There was
not the same danger of His position being confused with that of the
Sadducees. Josephus informs us that the Sadducees had influence with the
rich; Jesus drew His adherents chiefly from the poor, from whom also the
Pharisees drew. The latter opposed Him all the more that He was sapping
their source of strength; hence, He had to defend Himself against them.
Further, the Gospels mainly recount our Lords ministry in Galilee,
whereas the Sadducees were chiefly to be found in Jerusalem and its
486
neighborhood; hence, there may have been severe denunciations of the
Sadducees that have not come down to us.
2. Attitude of Sadducees to Jesus:
The Sadducees probably regarded Jesus as harmless fanatic who by His
denunciations was weakening the influence of the Pharisees. Only when
His claim to be the Messiah brought Him within the sphere of practical
politics did they desire to intervene. When they did determine to come into
conflict with Jesus, they promptly decreed His arrest and death; only the
arrest was to be secret, lest a tumult arise among the people
(
<402605>
Matthew 26:5). In their direct encounter with our Lord in regard to the
resurrection (
<402225>
Matthew 22:25 ff;
<411220>
Mark 12:20 ff;
<422029>
Luke 20:29 ff),
there is an element of contempt implied in the illustration which they bring,
as if till almost the end they failed to take Him seriously. For Literature see
PHARISEES.
J . E. H. Thomson
SADDUK
<sad-uk> (Codex Alexandrinus (Fritzsche), [2oouxo, Saddoukos];
Codex Vaticanus [2oououxo, Saddouloukos]; the King James
Version Sadduc): The high priest, an ancestor of Ezra (1 Esdras 8:2) =
Zadok in
<150702>
Ezra 7:2 = Sadoc in 2 Esdras 1:1.
SADOC
<sa-dok>:
(1) (Latin Sadoch): An ancestor of Ezra (2 Esdras 1:1) = Zadok in
<150702>
Ezra 7:2 = Sadduk in 1 Esdras 8:2.
(2) ([2ox, Sadok]): A descendant of Zerubbabel and ancestor of
Jesus (
<400114>
Matthew 1:14).
SAFFRON
<saf-run> ([ K o r ] K , karkom]; [xpoxo, krokos]): Identical with the
Arabic kurqum, the same as za`faran, saffron. The source of the true
saffron is Crocus sativus (Natural Order, Indaceae), a plant cultivated in
Palestine; there are 8 wild varieties in all of which, as in the cultivated
487
species, the orange-colored styles and stigmas yield the yellow dye,
saffron. Song 4:14 probably refers to the C. sativus. There is a kind of
bastard saffron plant, the Carthamus tinctorius (Natural Order,
Compositae), of which the orange-colored flowers yield a dye like saffron.
E. W. G. Masterman
SAIL; SAILOR
<sal>, <sal-er>.
See SHIPS AND BOATS, II, 2, (3); III, 2.
SAINTS
<sants>: In the King James Version 3 words are thus rendered:
(1) [v wOd q ;, qadhosh] (in Daniel the same root occurs several times in
its Aramaic form, [v yD i q , qaddish]);
(2) [d ys ij ;, chacidh], and
(3) [oyo, hagioi]. Of these words (2) has in general the meaning of
righteousness or goodness, while (1) and (3) have the meaning of
consecration and divine claim and ownership. They are not primarily
words of character, like chacidh, but express a relation to God as being
set apart for His own. Wherever qadhosh refers to angels, the
rendering holy one or holy ones has been substituted in the Revised
Version (British and American) for the King James Version saint or
saints, which is the case also in
<19A616>
Psalm 106:16 margin (compare
34:9), and in
<090209>
1 Samuel 2:9, as the translation of chacidh.
While hagioi occurs more frequently in the New Testament than does
qadhosh in the Old Testament, yet both are applied with practical
uniformity to the company of Gods people rather than to any individual.
Perhaps the rendering saints cannot be improved, but it is necessary for
the ordinary reader constantly to guard against the idea that New
Testament saintship was in any way a result of personal character, and
consequently that it implied approval of moral attainment already made.
Such a rendering as consecrate ones, for example, would bring out more
clearly the relation to God which is involved, but, besides the fact that it is
not a happy translation, it might lead to other errors, for it is not easy to
488
remember that consecration the setting apart of the individual as one of
the company whom God has in a peculiar way as His own springs not
from man, but from God Himself, and that consequently it is in no way
something optional, and admits of no degrees of progress, but, on the
contrary, is from the beginning absolute duty. It should also be noted that
while, as has been said, to be a saint is not directly and primarily to be
good but to be set apart by God as His own, yet the godly and holy
character ought inevitably and immediately to result. When God
consecrates and claims moral beings for Himself and His service, He
demands that they should go on to be fit for and worthy of the relation in
which He has placed them, and so we read of certain actions as performed
worthily of the saints (
<451602>
Romans 16:2) and as such as becometh
saints (
<490503>
Ephesians 5:3). The thought of the holy character of the
saints, which is now so common as almost completely to obscure the real
thought of the New Testament writers, already lay in their thinking very
close to their conception of saintship as consecration by God to be His
own.
David Foster Estes
SALA, SALAH
<sa-la> ([j l v , , shelach], a missile, petition; [2oo, Sala]): A son
of Arpachshad (the King James Version
<011024>
Genesis 10:24; 11:13 ff;
<130118>
1
Chronicles 1:18,24).
<420335>
Luke 3:35,36 follows the Septuagint of
<011024>
Genesis 10:24; 11:12 = SHELAH (which see).
SALAMIEL
<sa-la-mi-el> (Codex Vaticanus [2ooq, Salamiel]; Codex
Alexandrinus [2ooq, Samamiel]): An ancestor of Judith (Judith 8:1)
= the King James Version Samuel = Shelumiel.
SALAMIS
<sal-a-mis> ([2oo, Salamis]):
1. SITE:
A town on the east coast of Cyprus, situated some 3 miles to the North of
the medieval and modern Famagusta. It lay near the river Pediaeus, at the
489
eastern extremity of the great plain of the Mesorea, which runs far into the
interior of the island toward Nicosia (Lefkosia), the present capital. It
possessed a good harbor and was the most populous and flourishing town
of Cyprus in the Hellenic and Roman periods, carrying on a vigorous trade
with the ports of Cilicia and Syria. Its population was mixed, consisting of
Greek and Phoenician elements. The former, however, gave its tone and
color to the city, and the chief cult and temple were those of Salaminian
Zeus.
2. EARLY HISTORY:
Tradition represented Salamis as rounded soon after the fall of Troy by
Teucer, the prince of Greek archers according to the narrative of the Iliad,
who named it after his home, the island of Salamis off the Attic coast. In
the 6th century BC it figures as an important Hellenic city, ruled by a line
of kings reputed to be descended from Teucer and strengthened by an
alliance with Cyrene (Herodotus iv.162). Gorgus, who was on the throne
in 498 BC, refused to join the Ionic revolt against Persia, but the
townsmen, led by his brother Onesilus, took up arms in the struggle for
freedom. A crushing defeat, however, inflicted udder the walls of Salamis,
restored the island to its Persian overlords, who reinstated Gorgus as a
vassal prince (Herodotus v.103 ff). In 449 a Greek fleet under Athenian
leadership defeated the Phoenician navy, which was in the service of
Persia, off Salamis; but the Athenian withdrawal which followed the battle
led to a decided anti-Hellenic reaction, until the able and vigorous rule of
the Salaminian prince Euagoras, who was a warm friend of the Athenians
(Isocrates, Euag.) and a successful champion of Hellenism. In 306 a second
great naval battle was fought off Salamis, in which Demetrius Poliorcetes
defeated the forces of Ptolemy I (Soter), king of Egypt. But 11 years later
the town came into Ptolemys hands and, with the rest of the island,
remained an appanage of the Egyptian kingdom until the incorporation of
Cyprus in the Roman Empire (58 BC).
3. VISIT OF THE APOSTLES:
When Barnabas and Paul, accompanied by John Mark, set out on their 1st
missionary journey, they sailed from Seleucia, the seaport of Antioch, and
landed at Salamis, about 130 miles distant, as the harbor nearest to the
Syrian coast. There they preached the gospel in the synagogues of the
Jews (
<441305>
Acts 13:5); the phrase is worth noting as pointing to the
490
existence of several synagogues and thus of a large Jewish community in
Salamis. Of work among the Gentiles we hear nothing, nor is any
indication given either of the duration of the apostles visit or of the
success of their mission; but it would seem that after a short stay they
proceeded through the whole island (
<441306>
Acts 13:6 the Revised Version
(British and American)) to Paphos. The words seem to imply that they
visited all, or at least most, of the towns in which there were Jewish
communities. Paul did not return to Salamis, but Barnabas doubtless went
there on his 2nd missionary journey (
<441539>
Acts 15:39), and tradition states
that he was martyred there in Neros reign, on the site marked by the
monastery named after him.
4. LATER HISTORY:
In 116 AD the Jews in Cyprus rose in revolt and massacred 240,000
Greeks and Romans. The rising was crushed with the utmost severity by
Hadrian. Salamis was almost depopulated, and its destruction was
afterward consummated by earthquakes in 332 and 342 AD. It was rebuilt,
though on a much smaller scale, by the emperor Constantius II (337-61
AD) under the name Constantia, and became the metropolitan see of the
island. The most famous of its bishops was Epiphanius, the staunch
opponent of heresy, who held the see from 367 to 403. In 647 the city was
finally destroyed by the Saracens. Considerable remains of ancient
buildings still remain on the site; an account of the excavations carried on
there in 1890 by Messrs. J. A.R. Munro and H.A. Tubbs under the
auspices of the Cyprus Exploration Fund will be found in the Journal of
Hellenic Studies, XII, 59-198.
M. N. Tod
SALASADAI
<sal-a-sad-a-i> (Codex Alexandrinus [2ooooo, Salasadai]; Codex
Vaticanus [2opoooo, Sarasadai], [2opooo, Sarisadai]): An
ancestor of Judith (Judith 8:1).
SALATHIEL
<sa-la-thi-el>:
(1) ([2oo0q, Salathiel]): the King James Version; Greek form of
Shealtiel (thus the Revised Version (British and American)). The
491
father of Zerubbabel (1 Esdras 5:5,48,56; 6:2;
<400112>
Matthew 1:12;
<420327>
Luke 3:27).
(2) Revised Version: Another name of Esdras (2 Esdras 3:1,
Salathiel).
SALE
<sal> ([r K ;m]mi , mimkar]): The word is used:
(1) in the sense of the transaction (
<032550>
Leviticus 25:50);
(2) in the sense of the limit of time involved in the transaction
(
<032527>
Leviticus 25:27);
(3) in the sense of the price paid in the transaction (
<051808>
Deuteronomy
18:8), though it may be the same as
(1) above.
SALECAH; SALCAH, SALCHAH
<sal-e-ka>, <sal-ka> ([h k ; l ] s , calekhah]; Codex Vaticanus [2rxo,
Sekchai], [ Ao, Acha], [2ro, Sela] Codex Alexandrinus [ Eo,
Elcha], [ Aoro, Aselcha], [2ro, Selcha]): This place first appears in
<050310>
Deuteronomy 3:10 as marking the eastern boundary of Bashan. It is
named as one of the cities in which Og, king of Bashan, ruled (
<061205>
Joshua
12:5). It must certainly have been included in the portion given to the half-
tribe of Manasseh, all the kingdom of Og king of Bashan, although it is
not named among the cities that fell to him (
<061329>
Joshua 13:29 ff). At a later
time we are told that Gad dwelt over against the Reubenites in the land of
Bashan unto Salecah (
<130511>
1 Chronicles 5:11). The boundaries of the tribes
probably changed from time to time.
The ancient city is represented by the modern Qalkhad, a city in a high and
strong position at the southern end of Jebel ed-Druze (the Mountain of
Bashan). On a volcanic hill rising some 300 ft. above the town, in what
must have been the crater, stands the castle. The view from the
battlements, as the present writer can testify, is one of the finest East of the
Jordan, including the rich hollow of the Chauran, Mt. Hermon, and all the
intervening country to the mountains of Samaria, with vast reaches of the
desert to the South and to the East. The old Roman roads are still clearly
492
seen running without curve or deviation across the country to Bozrah and
Derah, away to the Southeast over the desert to Kal`at el-`Azraq, and
eastward to the Persian Gulf. The castle was probably built by the Romans.
Restored by the Arabs, it was a place of strength in Crusading times. It has
now fallen on evil days. The modern town, containing many ancient
houses, lies mainly on the slopes Southeast of the castle. The inhabitants
are Druzes, somewhat noted for turbulence.
In the recent rising of the Druzes (1911) the place suffered heavily from
bombardment by the Turks. For water-supply it is entirely dependent on
cisterns filled during the rainy season.
W. Ewing
SALEM (1)
<sa-lem> ([ l ev ;, shalem]; [2oq, Salem]): The name of the city of
which Melchizedek was king (
<011418>
Genesis 14:18;
<580701>
Hebrews 7:1,2;
compare
<197602>
Psalm 76:2).
1. IDENTIFICATION AND MEANING:
To all appearance it lay near the Vale of Shaveh, described as the
Kings Vale. The general opinion among the Jews was that Salem was the
same as Jerusalem, as stated by Josephus (Ant., I, x, 2), who adds (VII, iii,
2) that it was known as Solyma ([2ouo, Saluma], variants, according to
Whiston, Salem and Hierosolyma) in the time of Abraham. It was also
reported that the city and its temple were called Solyma by Homer, and he
adds that the name in Hebrew means security. This identification with
Jerusalem was accepted by Onkelos and all the Targums, as well as by the
early Christians. The Samaritans have always identified Salem with Salim,
East of Nablus, but Jewish and Christian tradition is more likely to be
correct, supported, as it is, by
<197602>
Psalm 76:2.
2. TESTIMONY OF TELL EL-AMARNA TABLETS:
The testimony of the Tell el-Amarna Letters is apparently negative.
Knudtzons number 287 mentions the land and the lands of Urusalim,
twice with the prefix for city; number 289 likewise has this prefix twice;
and number 290 refers to the city or a city of the land Urusalim called
Bit-Ninip Tablets (Beth-Anusat (?)). As there is no prefix of any kind
before the element salim, it is not probable that this is the name of either a
493
man (the citys founder) or a god (like the Assyrian Sulmanu). The form in
Sennacheribs inscriptions (compare Taylor Cylinder, III, 50), Ursalimmu,
gives the whole as a single word in the nominative, the double m
implying that the i was long. As the Assyrians pronounced s as sh, it
is likely that the Urusalimites did the same, hence, the Hebrew
yerushalaim, with sh.
See JERUSALEM.
T. G. Pinches
SALEM (2)
([2oqo, Salamos]; the King James Version Salum): An ancestor of
Ezra (1 Esdras 8:1) = Shallum in
<150702>
Ezra 7:2 = Salemas in 2 Esdras
1:1.
SALEMAS
<sal-e-mas>, <sa-le-mas> (Latin Salame; the King James Version
Sadamias): An ancestor of Ezra (2 Esdras 1:1) = Shallum in
<150702>
Ezra 7:2;
called also Salem in 1 Esdras 8:1.
SALIM
<sa-lim> ([2or, Saleim]): A place evidently well known, since the
position of Aenon, the springs where John was baptizing, was defined by
reference to it: they were near to Salim (
<430323>
John 3:23). It must be
sought on the West of the Jordan, as will be seen from comparison of
<430128>
John 1:28; 3:26; 10:40. Many identifications have been proposed: e.g.
that of Alford with Shilhim and Ain in the South of Judah; that of Busching
with `Ain Karim, and that of Barclay, who would place Salim in Wady
Suleim near `Anata, making Aenon the springs in Wady Far`ah. These are
all ruled out by their distance from the district where John is known to
have been at work. If there were no other objection to that suggested by
Conder (Tent Work, 49 f) following Robinson (BR, III, 333) with Salim in
the plain East of Nablus, Aenon being `Ainun in Wady Far`ah, it would be
sufficient to say that this is in the very heart of Samaria, and therefore
impossible. In any case the position of Aenon, 6 miles distant, with a high
ridge intervening, would hardly be defined by the village of Salim, with the
important city of Shechem quite as near, and more easily accessible.
494
Onomasticon places Aenon 8 Roman miles South of Scythopolis (Beisan),
near Salumias (Salim) and the Jordan. This points to Tell Ridhghah, on the
northern side of which is a shrine known locally as Sheikh Selim. Not far
off, by the ruins of Umm el-`Amdan, there are seven copious fountains
which might well be called Aenon, place of springs.
There is reason to believe that this district did not belong to Samaria, but
was included in the lands of Scythopolis, which was an important member
of the league of ten cities.
W. Ewing
SALIMOTH
<sal-i-moth> (Codex Vaticanus [2or0, Saleimoth]; Codex
Alexandrinus [ Aooo0, Assalimoth]; the latter is due to a wrong
division of syllables; the King James Version Assailmoth): The same as
Shelomith (
<150810>
Ezra 8:10). Salimoth, the son of Josaphias, of the family
of Banias, and with him 130 men went up to Jerusalem with Ezra (1 Esdras
8:36).
SALLAI
<sal-a-i>, <sal-i> ([yL s , callay]; [2o, Salom]; Codex
Alexandrinus [2o, Salo], with variants):
(1) Eponym of a Benjamite family which settled at Jerusalem after the
return, descendants of Sallu (
<130907>
1 Chronicles 9:7;
<161107>
Nehemiah
11:7,8); the pedigrees of Sallu differ decidedly in the two passages.
Curtis (ICC) suggests that son of Hodaviah, the son of Hassenuah
(Chronicles) is a corruption or derivation of Judah the son of
Hassenuah (Nehemiah).
(2) Name of a priestly family (
<161220>
Nehemiah 12:20), called Sallu in
<161207>
Nehemiah 12:7.
SALLU
<sal-u>.
See SALLAI.
495
SALLUMUS
<sa-lu-mus>, <sal-u-mus> [2oouo, Salloumos]): One of the
porters who had taken strange wives (1 Esdras 9:25) = Shallum in
<151024>
Ezra 10:24; called also Salum in 1 Esdras 5:28.
SALMA
<sal-ma>.
See SALMON.
SALMAI
<sal-mi>, <sal-ma-i> ([ym l ] c , salmay]; the King James Version,
Shalmai (the King James Version in
<160748>
Nehemiah 7:48 is Shalmai =
<150246>
Ezra 2:46); the Revised Version (British and American) Salmai): The
eponym of a family of Nethinim, called Shamlai in
<150246>
Ezra 2:46 (Qere,
[yl m] v , shamlay], Kethibh, [ym l ] v , shalmay], followed by the
King James Version text, Shalmai; Codex Vaticanus [2ooov,
Samaan]; Codex Alexandrinus [2ro, Selami];
<160748>
Nehemiah 7:48,
Codex Vaticanus [2orr, Salemei]; Codex Alexandrinus [2rr,
Selmei]; Codex Sinaiticus [2oor, Samaei]). The name suggests a
foreign reign. In 1 Esdras 5:30 the corresponding name is Subai.
SALMANASAR
<sal-ma-na-sar> (2 Esdras 13:40) = SHALMANESER (which see).
SALMON; SALMA
<sal-mon>, ([wOml ]c , salmon], investiture (
<080421>
Ruth 4:21), [h m; l ] c ,
salmah], clothing (
<080420>
Ruth 4:20), [a m; l ] c , salma] (
<130211>
1 Chronicles
2:11,51,54); [2ov, Salmon]):
(1) The father of Boaz, the husband of Ruth, and thus the grandfather
of Jesse, Davids father (
<080420>
Ruth 4:20,21). He is mentioned in both the
genealogies of Jesus (
<400104>
Matthew 1:4,5;
<420332>
Luke 3:32). From
<400105>
Matthew 1:5 we learn that he married Rahab, by whom he begat
Boaz.
496
(2) In
<130251>
1 Chronicles 2:51 ff, we read of a Salma, the father of Beth-
lehem, a son of Caleb, the son of Hur. He is also said to be the father
of the Netophathites, Atroth-beth-joab, and half of the Manahathites,
the Zorites, and several families of scribes.
See also ZALMON.
S. F. Hunter
SALMONE
<sal-mo-ne> ([2ovq, Salmone]):
<442707>
Acts 27:7.
See PHOENIX.
SALOAS
<sal-o-as> ([2ooo, Saloas]; the King James Version, Talsus after Lot
Thalsas): In 1 Esdras 9:22, for Elasah of
<151022>
Ezra 10:22.
SALOM
<sa-lom> ([2o, Salom]):
(1) The father of Helkias (Baruch 1:7). Greek form of Shallum.
(2) the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and
American) Salu (1 Macc 2:26).
SALOME
<sa-lo-me> ([2oq, Salome]):
(1) One of the holy women who companied with Jesus in Galilee, and
ministered to Him (
<411540>
Mark 15:40,41). She was present at the
crucifixion (
<411540>
Mark 15:40), and was among those who came to the
tomb of Jesus on the resurrection morning (
<411601>
Mark 16:1,2).
Comparison with
<402756>
Matthew 27:56 clearly identifies her with the wife
of Zebedee. It is she, therefore, whose ambitious request for her sons
James and John is recorded in
<402020>
Matthew 20:20-24;
<411035>
Mark 10:35-
40. From
<431925>
John 19:25 many infer that she was a sister of Mary, the
mother of Jesus (thus Meyer, Luthardt, Alford); others (as Godet)
dispute the inference.
497
(2) Salome was the name of the daughter of Herodias who danced
before Herod, and obtained as reward the head of John the Baptist
(
<401403>
Matthew 14:3-11;
<410617>
Mark 6:17-28; compare Josephus, Ant,
XVIII, v, 4). She is not named in the Gospels.
J ames Orr
SALT
<solt> ([j l m, , melach]; [oo, halas], [o, hals]): Common salt is
considered by most authorities as an essential ingredient of our food. Most
people intentionally season their cooking with more or less salt for the sake
of palatability. Others depend upon the small quantities which naturally
exist in water and many foods to furnish the necessary amount of salt for
the body. Either too much salt or the lack of it creates undesirable
disturbance in the animal system. Men and animals alike instinctively seek
for this substance to supplement or improve their regular diet. The ancients
appreciated the value of salt for seasoning food (
<180606>
Job 6:6). So necessary
was it that they dignified it by making it a requisite part of sacrifices
(
<030213>
Leviticus 2:13;
<150609>
Ezra 6:9; 7:22;
<264324>
Ezekiel 43:24;
<410949>
Mark 9:49). In
<041819>
Numbers 18:19;
<141305>
2 Chronicles 13:5, a covenant of salt is
mentioned (compare
<410949>
Mark 9:49). This custom of pledging friendship or
confirming a compact by eating food containing salt is still retained among
Arabic-speaking people. The Arabic word for salt and for a compact
or treaty is the same. Doughty in his travels in Arabia appealed more
than once to the superstitious belief of the Arabs in the salt covenant, to
save his life. Once an Arab has received in his tent even his worst enemy
and has eaten salt (food) with him, he is bound to protect his guest as long
as he remains.
See COVENANT OF SALT.
The chief source of salt in Palestine is from the extensive deposits near the
sea of salt (see DEAD SEA), where there are literally mountains and
valleys of salt (
<100813>
2 Samuel 8:13;
<121407>
2 Kings 14:7;
<131812>
1 Chronicles 18:12;
<142511>
2 Chronicles 25:11). On the seacoast the inhabitants frequently gather
the sea salt. They fill the rock crevices with sea water and leave it for the
hot summer sun to evaporate. After evaporation the salt crystals can be
collected. As salt-gathering is a government monopoly in Turkey, the
government sends men to pollute the salt which is being surreptitiously
crystallized, so as to make it unfit for eating. Another extensive supply
498
comes from the salt lakes in the Syrian desert East of Damascus and
toward Palmyra. All native salt is more or less bitter, due to the presence of
other salts such as magnesium sulphate.
Salt was used not only as a food, but as an antiseptic in medicine. Newborn
babes were bathed and salted (
<261604>
Ezekiel 16:4), a custom still prevailing.
The Arabs of the desert consider it so necessary, that in the absence of salt
they batheir infants in camels urine. Elisha is said to have healed the
waters of Jericho by casting a cruse of salt into the spring (
<120220>
2 Kings 2:20
f). Abimelech sowed the ruins of Shechem with salt to prevent a new city
from arising in its place (
<070945>
Judges 9:45). Lots wife turned to a pillar of
salt (
<011926>
Genesis 19:26).
FIGURATIVE:
Salt is emblematic of loyalty and friendship (see above). A person who has
once joined in a salt covenant with God and then breaks it is fit only to
be cast out (compare
<400513>
Matthew 5:13;
<410950>
Mark 9:50). Saltness typified
barrenness (
<052923>
Deuteronomy 29:23;
<241706>
Jeremiah 17:6). James compares
the absurdity of the same mouth giving forth blessings and cursings to the
impossibility of a fountain yielding both sweet and salt water (
<590311>
James
3:11 f).
J ames A. Patch
SALT, CITY OF
([j l M, h r y[ i , `ir ha-melach]; Codex Alexandrinus [o o(r)
ov, hai pol(e)is halon]): One of the six cities in the wilderness of Judah
mentioned between Nibshan and Engedi (
<061562>
Joshua 15:62). The site is very
uncertain. The large and important Tell el-Milch (i.e. the salt hill), on the
route from Hebron to Akaba, is possible.
SALT, COVENANT OF
See COVENANT OF SALT.
SALT, PILLAR OF
See LOT; SALT; SIDDIM; SLIME.
499
SALT SEA
See DEAD SEA.
SALT, VALLEY OF
([j l M, h a yGe , ge ha-melach]): The scene of battles, firstly, between
David or his lieutenant Abishai and the Edomites (
<100813>
2 Samuel 8:13;
<131812>
1
Chronicles 18:12; Psalm 60, title), and later between Amaziah and these
same foes (
<121407>
2 Kings 14:7;
<142511>
2 Chronicles 25:11). It is tempting to
connect this Valley of Salt with es Sebkhah, the marshy, salt-
impregnated plain which extends from the southern end of the Dead Sea to
the foot of the cliffs, but in its present condition it is an almost impossible
place for a battle of any sort. The ground is so soft and spongy that a wide
detour around the edges has to be made by those wishing to get from one
side to the other. It is, too, highly probable that in earlier times the whole
of this low-lying area was covered by the waters of the Dead Sea. It is far
more natural to identify ge ha-melach with the Wady el-Milch (Valley of
Salt), one of the three valleys which unite at Beersheba to form the Wady
ec-Ceba`. These valleys, el-Milch and ec-Ceba, together make a natural
frontier to Canaan.
E. W. G. Masterman
SALT-WORT
<solt-wurt> ([j WL m , malluach], a word connected with melach,
salt, translated [oo, halimos]; the King James Version, mallows):
The halimos of the Greeks is the sea orache, Atriplex halimus, a silvery
whitish shrub which flourishes upon the shores of the Dead Sea alongside
the rutm (see JUNIPER). Its leaves are oval and somewhat like those of an
olive. They have a sour flavor and would never be eaten when better food
was obtainable (
<183004>
Job 30:4). The translation mallows is due to the
apparent similarity of the Hebrew malluach to the Greek [ooq,
malache], which is the Latin malva and English mallow. Certain species
of malva known in Arabic, as khubbazeh, are very commonly eaten by the
poor of Palestine.
E. W. G. Masterman
500
SALU
<sa-lu> ([a Wl s ;, calu]; Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus [2ov,
Salmon]; Codex Alexandrinus [2o, Salo]; the King James Version has
Salom in 1 Macc 2:26): A prince and the head of a house of the tribe of
Simeon and the father of Zimri who was slain by Phinehas along with the
Midianite woman whom he had brought to the camp of Israel (
<042514>
Numbers
25:14; 1 Macc 2:26).
SALUM
<sa-lum> ([2oou, Saloum]):
(1) The head of one of the families of porters (1 Esdras 5:28; omitted
in Codex Vaticanus) = Shallum in
<150242>
Ezra 2:42; 10:24;
<160745>
Nehemiah
7:45 = Sallumus in 1 Esdras 9:25.
(2) 1 Esdras 8:1 King James Version = the Revised Version (British
and American) Salem.
SALUTATION
<sal-u-ta-shun> ([ooooo, aspasmos]): A greeting which might be
given in person, orally (
<420129>
Luke 1:29,41,44), or in writing, usually at the
close of a letter (1 Cor 16:21;
<510418>
Colossians 4:18;
<530317>
2 Thessalonians
3:17; compare use of [oprv, chairein], greeting, joy in
<590101>
James
1:1). The Pharisaic Jews loved salutations in public places (
<402307>
Matthew
23:7;
<411238>
Mark 12:38, the King James Version greeting, the Revised
Version (British and American) salutation;
<421143>
Luke 11:43; 20:46). Often
these salutations were very elaborate, involving much time in prostrations,
embracings, etc. When Jesus therefore sent out the Seventy, He forbade
salutation by the way (
<421004>
Luke 10:4), though He ordinarily encouraged
proper civilities of this sort (
<400547>
Matthew 5:47; 10:12).
Edward Bagby Pollard
SALVATION
<sal-va-shun:>
In English Versions of the Bible the words salvation save, are not
technical theological terms, but denote simply deliverance, in almost any
501
sense the latter word can have. In systematic theology, however,
salvation denotes the whole process by which man is delivered from all
that would prevent his attaining to the highest good that God has prepared
for him. Or, by a transferred sense, salvation denotes the actual
enjoyment of that good. So, while these technical senses are often
associated with the Greek or Hebrew words translated save, etc., yet
they are still more often used in connection with other words or
represented only by the general sense of a passage. And so a collection of
the original terms for save, etc., is of value only for the student doing
minute detailed work, while it is the purpose of the present article to
present a general view of the Biblical doctrine of salvation.
I. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
1. General:
(1) As long as revelation had not raised the veil that separates this life
from the next, the Israelite thought of his highest good as long life in a
prosperous Palestine, as described most typically in
<052801>
Deuteronomy
28:1-14. But a definite religious idea was present also, for the land of
milk and honey, even under angelic protection, was worthless without
access to God (
<023301>
Exodus 33:1-4), to know whom gives happiness
(
<231109>
Isaiah 11:9;
<350214>
Habakkuk 2:14;
<243134>
Jeremiah 31:34). Such a
concept is normal for most of the Old Testament, but there are several
significant enlargements of it. That Israel should receive Gods
characteristic of righteousness is a part of the ideal (
<230126>
Isaiah 1:26;
4:3,4; 32:1-8; 33:24;
<243133>
Jeremiah 31:33,34;
<263625>
Ezekiel 36:25,26;
Zechariah 8;
<270924>
Daniel 9:24;
<195110>
Psalm 51:10-12). Good was found in
the extension of Israels good to the surrounding nations (
<330401>
Micah
4:1-4;
<230202>
Isaiah 2:2-4; 45:5,6;
<380211>
Zechariah 2:11; 8:22,23; Isaiah 60;
66:19-21;
<381416>
Zechariah 14:16,17, etc.), even to the extension of the
legitimate sacrificial worship to the soil of Egypt (
<231919>
Isaiah 19:19-22).
Palestine was insufficient for the enjoyment of Gods gifts, and a new
heaven and a new earth were to be received (
<236517>
Isaiah 65:17; 66:22),
and a share in the glories was not to be denied even to the dead
(
<232619>
Isaiah 26:19;
<271202>
Daniel 12:2). And, among the people so glorified,
God would dwell in person (
<236019>
Isaiah 60:19,20;
<380210>
Zechariah 2:10-
12).
502
(2) Salvation, then, means deliverance from all that interferes with the
enjoyment of these blessings. So it takes countless forms
deliverance from natural plagues, from internal dissensions, from
external enemies, or from the subjugation of conquerors (the exile,
particularly). As far as enemies constitute the threatening danger, the
prayer for deliverance is often based on their evil character (Psalm 101,
etc.). But for the individual all these evils are summed up in the word
death, which was thought to terminate all relation to God and all
possibility of enjoying His blessings (
<19B517>
Psalm 115:17;
<233818>
Isaiah 38:18,
etc.). And so death became established as the antinomy to
salvation, and in this sense the word has persisted, although the
equation loss of salvation = physical death has long been
transcended. But death and its attendant evils are worked by Gods
wrath, and so it is from this wrath that salvation is sought (
<060726>
Joshua
7:26, etc.). And thus, naturally, salvation is from everything that raises
that wrath, above all from sin (
<263625>
Ezekiel 36:25,26, etc.).
2. Individualism:
(1) At first the unit of salvation was the nation (less prominently the
family), i.e. a man though righteous could lose salvation through the
faults of others. A father could bring a curse on his children (
<102101>
2
Samuel 21:1-14), a king on his subjects (2 Samuel 24), or an unknown
sinner could bring guilt on an entire community (
<052101>
Deuteronomy
21:1-9). (On the other hand, ten righteous would have saved Sodom
(
<011832>
Genesis 18:32).) And the principle of personal responsibility was
grasped but slowly. It is enunciated partly in
<052416>
Deuteronomy 24:16
(compare
<243129>
Jeremiah 31:29,30), definitely in
<261412>
Ezekiel 14:12-20; 18;
33:1-20, and fairly consistently in the Psalms. But even Ezekiel still
held that five-and-twenty could defile the whole nation (8:16), and he
had not the premises for resolving the problem that temporal
disasters need not mean the loss of salvation.
(2) But even when it was realized that a man lost salvation through his
own fault, the converse did not follow. Salvation came, not by the
mans mere merit, but because the man belonged to a nation peculiarly
chosen by God. God had made a covenant with Israel and His fidelity
insured salvation: the salvation comes from God because of His
promise or (in other words) because of His name. Indeed, the great
failing of the people was to trust too blindly to this promise, an attitude
503
denounced continually by the prophets throughout (from, say,
<300302>
Amos 3:2 to
<400309>
Matthew 3:9). And yet even the prophets admit a
real truth in the attitude, for, despite Israels sins, eventual salvation is
certain. Ezekiel 20 states this baldly: there has been nothing good in
Israel and there is nothing good in her at the prophets own day, but,
notwithstanding, God will give her restoration (compare
<230817>
Isaiah
8:17,18;
<243206>
Jeremiah 32:6-15, etc.).
3. Faith:
Hence, of the human conditions, whole-hearted trust in God is the most
important. (Belief in God is, of course, never argued in the Bible.)
Inconsistent with such trust are, for instance, seeking aid from other
nations (
<233001>
Isaiah 30:1-5), putting reliance in human skill (
<141612>
2 Chronicles
16:12), or forsaking Palestine through fear (Jeremiah 42). In
<232620>
Isaiah
26:20 entire passivity is demanded, and in
<121319>
2 Kings 13:19 lukewarmness
in executing an apparently meaningless command is rebuked.
4. Moral Law:
(1) Next in importance is the attainment of a moral standard, expressed
normally in the various codes of the Law. But fulfillment of the letter of
the commandment was by no means all that was required. For instance,
the Law permitted the selling of a debtor into slavery (
<051512>
Deuteronomy
15:12), but the reckless use of the creditors right is sharply condemned
(
<160501>
Nehemiah 5:1-13). The prophets are never weary of giving short
formulas that will exclude such supralegalism and reduce conduct to a
pure motive: Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish justice in
the gate (
<300515>
Amos 5:15); To do justly, and to love kindness, and to
walk humbly with thy God (
<330608>
Micah 6:8). And the chief emphasis on
the Law as written is found in the later books, especially Psalm 119
(compare
<19E720>
Psalm 147:20).
(2) Certain breaches of the Law had no pardon, but were visited with
death at once, even despite repentance and confession (Joshua 7). But
for the most part it is promised that repentance will remove the guilt of
the sin if the sin be forsaken (Ezekiel 18) or, in the case of a sin that
would not be repeated, if contrition be felt (2 Samuel 12). Suffering
played a part in salvation by bringing knowledge of sin to the
conscience, the exile being the most important example (
<263631>
Ezekiel
36:31). But almost always it is assumed that the possibility of keeping
504
the Law is in mans own power,
<053011>
Deuteronomy 30:11-14 stating this
explicitly, while the Wisdom Books equate virtue with learning.
Consequently, an immense advance was made when man felt the need
of Gods help to keep the Law, the need of the inscription of the Laws
on the heart (
<243131>
Jeremiah 31:31-34). So an outlook was opened to a
future in which God would make the nation righteous (see references in
1, above).
5. Sacrifices:
(1) The acceptance of repentance as expiating past sins was an act of
Gods mercy. And so His mercy instituted other and additional means
of expiation, most notably that of the sacrifices. But a theology of
sacrifice is conspicuously absent from the whole Old Testament, for
<031711>
Leviticus 17:11 is too incidental and too obscure to be any
exception. The Christian (or very late Jewish) interpretations of the
ritual laws lack all solidity of exegetical foundation, despite their one-
time prevalence. Nor is the study of origins of much help for the
meaning attached to the rites by the Jews in historic times. General
ideas of offering, of self-denial, of propitiation of wrath, and of entering
into communion with God assuredly existed. But in the advanced
stages of the religion there is no evidence that sacrifices were thought
to produce their effect because of any of these things, but solely
because God had commanded the sacrifices.
(2) Most sins required a sacrifice as part of the act of repentance,
although in case of injury done the neighbor, only after reparation had
been made. It is not quite true that for conscious sins no sacrifices were
appointed, for in
<030501>
Leviticus 5:1; 6:1-3, sins are included that could
not be committed through mere negligence. And so such rules as
<041530>
Numbers 15:30,31 must not be construed too rigorously.
(3) Sacrifices as means of salvation are taught chiefly by Ezekiel, while
at the rebuilding of the temple (Haggai, Zechariah) and the depression
that followed (Malachi), they were much in the foreground, but the
pre-exilic prophets have little to say about their positive value
(
<240722>
Jeremiah 7:22 is the nadir). Indeed, in preexilic times the danger
was the exaltation of sacrifice at the expense of morality, especially
with the peace offering, which could be turned into a drunken revel
(
<300521>
Amos 5:21-24;
<232213>
Isaiah 22:13; compare
<200714>
Proverbs 7:14).
505
Attempts were made to strengthen the sacrifices to Yahweh by the
use of ethnic rites (
<280414>
Hosea 4:14;
<236501>
Isaiah 65:1-5), even with the
extreme of human sacrifice (
<240731>
Jeremiah 7:31;
<262026>
Ezekiel 20:26). But
insistence on the strict centralization of worship and increasing
emphasis laid on the sin and trespass offerings did away with the worst
of the abuses. And many of the Psalms, especially Psalm 66 and Psalm
118, give beautiful evidence of the devotion that could be nourished by
the sacrificial rites.
6. Ritual Law:
Of the other means of salvation the ritual law (not always sharply
distinguishable from the moral law) bulks rather large in the legislation, but
is not prominent in the prophets. Requisite to salvation was the abstention
from certain acts, articles of food, etc., such abstinence seeming to lie at
the background of the term holiness. But a ritual breach was often a
matter of moral duty (burying the dead, etc.), and, for such breaches, ritual
means of purification are provided and the matter dropped. Evidently such
things lay rather on the circumference of the religion, even to Ezekiel, with
his anxious zeal against the least defilement. The highest ritual point is
touched by
<381420>
Zechariah 14:20,21, where all of Jerusalem is so holy that
not a pot would be unfit to use in the temple (compare
<243138>
Jeremiah 31:38-
40). Yet, even with this perfect holiness, sacrifices would still have a place
as a means by which the holiness could be increased. Indeed, this more
positive view of sacrifices was doubtless present from the first.
II. INTERMEDIATE LITERATURE.
1. General:
(1) The great change, compared with the earlier period, is that the idea
of God had become more transcendent. But this did not necessarily
mean an increase in religious value, for there was a corresponding
tendency to take God out of relation to the world by an
intellectualizing process. This, when combined with the persistence of
the older concept of salvation in this life only, resulted in an emptying
of the religious instinct and in indifferentism. This tendency is well
represented in Ecclesiastes, more acutely in Sirach, and in New
Testament times it dominated the thought of the Sadducees. On the
other hand the expansion of the idea of salvation to correspond with
the higher conception of God broke through the limitations of this life
506
and created the new literary form of apocalyptics, represented in the
Old Testament especially by Zechariah 9 through 14; Isaiah 24 through
27, and above all by Daniel. And in the intermediate literature all
shades of thought between the two extremes are represented. But too
much emphasis can hardly be laid on the fact that this intermediate
teaching is in many regards simply faithful to the Old Testament.
Almost anything that can be found in the Old Testament with the
important exception of the note of joyousness of Deuteronomy, etc.
can be found again here.
(2) Of the conceptions of the highest good the lowest is the
Epicureanism of Sirach. The highest is probably that of 2 Esdras 7:91-
98 Revised Version: To behold the face of him whom in their lifetime
they served the last touch of materialism being eliminated. Indeed, real
materialism is notably absent in the period, even Enoch 10:17-19 being
less exuberant than the fancies of such early Christian writers as Papias.
Individualism is generally taken for granted, but that the opposite
opinion was by no means dormant, even at a late period, is shown by
<400309>
Matthew 3:9. The idea of a special privilege of Israel, however, of
course pervades all the literature, Sibylline Oracles 5 and Jubilees being
the most exclusive books and the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs,
the most broad-hearted. In place of national privilege, though, is
sometimes found the still less edifying feature of party privilege (Psalm
Sol; Enoch 94-105), the most offensive case being the assertion of
Enoch 90:6-9 that the (inactive) Israel will be saved by the exertions of
the little lamb Pharisees, before whom every knee shall bow in the
Messianic kingdom.
2. The Law:
(1) The conceptions of the moral demands for salvation at times reach
a very high level, especially in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs
(making every allowance for Christian interpolations). The spirit of
love worketh together with the law of God in long-suffering unto the
salvation of men (Test. Gad 4:7) is hardly unworthy of Paul, and even
Jubilees can say, Let each love his brother in mercy and justice, and let
none wish the other evil (Jub 36:8). But the great tendency is to view
Gods law merely as a series of written statutes, making no demands
except those gained from a rigid construing of the letter. In
<421029>
Luke
10:29, Who is my neighbor? is a real question if he is not my
507
neighbor I need not love him! So duties not literally commanded were
settled by utilitarian motives, as outside the domain of religion, and the
unhealthy phenomenon of works of supererogation made its
appearance (
<421710>
Luke 17:10). The writer of Wisdom can feel smugly
assured of salvation, because idolatry had been abstained from (Wisd
15:4; contrast Pauls polemic in Romans 2). And discussions about
greatest commandments caused character in its relation to religion to
be forgotten.
(2) As Gods commands were viewed as statutes the distinction
between the moral and the ritual was lost, and the ritual law attained
enormous and familiar proportions. The beautiful story of Judith is
designed chiefly to teach abstinence from ritually unclean food. And the
most extreme case is in Jubilees 6:34-38 all of Israers woes come
from keeping the feasts by the actual moon instead of by a correct
(theoretical) moon (!).
(3) Where self-complacency ceased and a strong moral sense was
present, despair makes its appearance with extraordinary frequency.
The period is the period of penitential prayers, with an undercurrent of
doubt as to how far mercy can be expected (Song of Three Children
verses 3-22; Proverbs Man; Baruch 3:1-8, etc.). What profit is it unto
us, if there be promised us an immortal time, whereas we have done the
works that bring death? (2 Esdras 7:119 the Revised Version (British
and American)). The vast majority of men are lost (2 Esdras 9:16) and
must be forgotten (2 Esdras 8:55), and Ezra can trust for his own
salvation only by a special revelation (7:77 the Revised Version (British
and American)). So, evidently, Pauls pre-Christian experience was no
unique occurrence.
(4) Important for the New Testament background is the extreme lack
of prominence of the sacrifices. They are never given a theological
interpretation (except in Philo, where they cease to be sacrifices).
Indeed, in Sirach 35 they are explicitly said to be devotions for the
righteous only, apparently prized only as an inheritance from the past
and because of the commandment (Sirach 35:5; yet compare 38:11).
When the temple was destroyed and the sacrifices ceased, Judaism
went on its way almost unaffected, showing that the sacrifices meant
nothing essential to the people. And, even in earlier times, the Essenes
508
rejected sacrifices altogether, without losing thereby their recognition
as Jews.
III. THE TEACHING OF CHRIST.
1. The Baptist:
The Baptist proclaimed authoritatively the near advent of the kingdom of
God, preceded by a Messianic judgment that would bring fire for the
wicked and the Holy Spirit for the righteous. Simple but incisive moral
teaching and warning against trusting in national privileges, with baptism as
an outward token of repentance, were to prepare men to face this judgment
securely. But we have no data to determine how much farther (if any) the
Baptist conceived his teaching to lead.
2. Kingdom of God:
It was in the full heat of this eschatological revival that the Baptist had
fanned, that Christ began to teach, and He also began with the
eschatological phrase, The kingdom of God is at hand. Consequently,
His teaching must have been taken at once in an eschatological sense, and
it is rather futile to attempt to limit such implications to passages where
modern eschatological phrases are used unambiguously. The kingdom of
God is at hand had the inseparable connotation Judgment is at hand,
and in this context, Repent ye (
<410115>
Mark 1:15) must mean lest ye be
judged. Hence, our Lords teaching about salvation had primarily a future
content: positively, admission into the kingdom of God, and negatively,
deliverance from the preceding judgment. So the kingdom of God is the
highest good of Christs teaching but, with His usual reserve, He has
little to say about its externals. Mans nature is to be perfectly adapted to
his spiritual environment (see RESURRECTION), and man is to be with
Christ (
<422230>
Luke 22:30) and the patriarchs (
<400811>
Matthew 8:11). But
otherwise and again as usual the current descriptions are used
without comment, even when they rest on rather materialistic imagery
(
<422216>
Luke 22:16,30). Whatever the kingdom is, however, its meaning is
most certainly not exhausted by a mere reformation of the present order of
material things.
3. Present and Future:
But the fate of man at judgment depends on what man is before judgment,
so that the practical problem is salvation from the conditions that will bring
509
judgment; i.e. present and future salvation are inseparably connected, and
any attempt to make rigid distinctions between the two results in
logomachies. Occasionally even Christ speaks of the kingdom of God as
present, in the sense that citizens of the future kingdom are living already
on this earth (
<401111>
Matthew 11:11;
<421721>
Luke 17:21(?); the meaning of the
latter verse is very dubious). Such men are saved already (
<421909>
Luke 19:9;
7:50(?)), i.e. such men were delivered from the bad moral condition that
was so extended that Satan could be said to hold sway over the world
(
<421018>
Luke 10:18; 11:21).
4. Individualism:
That the individual was the unit in this deliverance needs no emphasis: Still,
the divine privilege of the Jews was a reality and Christs normal work was
limited to them (
<401005>
Matthew 10:5; 15:26, etc.). He admitted even that the
position of the Jewish religious leaders rested on a real basis (
<402303>
Matthew
23:3). But the good tidings were so framed that their extension to all
men would have been inevitable, even had there not been an explicit
command of Christ in this regard. On the other hand, while the message
involved in every case strict individual choice, yet the individual who
accepted it entered into social relations with the others who had so chosen.
So salvation involved admission to a community of service (
<410935>
Mark 9:35,
etc.). And in the latter part of Christs ministry, He withdrew from the bulk
of His disciples to devote Himself to the training of an inner circle of
Twelve, an act explicable only on the assumption that these were to be the
leaders of the others after He was taken away. Such passages as
<401618>
Matthew 16:18; 18:17 merely corroborate this.
5. Moral Progress:
Of the conditions for the individual, the primary (belief in God being taken
for granted) was a correct moral ideal. Exclusion from salvation came from
the Pharisaic casuistry which had invented limits to righteousness.
<022013>
Exodus 20:13 had never contemplated permitting angry thoughts if
actual murder was avoided, and so on. In contrast is set the idea of
character, of the single eye (
<400622>
Matthew 6:22), of the pure heart
(
<400508>
Matthew 5:8). Only so can the spiritual house be built on a rock
foundation. But the mere ideal is not enough; persistent effort toward it
and a certain amount of progress are demanded imperatively. Only those
who have learned to forgive can ask for forgiveness (
<400612>
Matthew 6:12;
510
18:35). They who omit natural works of mercy have no share in the
kingdom (
<402531>
Matthew 25:31-46), for even idle words will be taken into
account (
<401236>
Matthew 12:36), and the most precious possession that
interferes with moral progress is to be sacrificed ruthlessly (
<401808>
Matthew
18:8,9, etc.). Men are known by their fruits (
<400720>
Matthew 7:20); it is he that
doeth the will of the Father that shall enter into the kingdom (
<400721>
Matthew
7:21), and the final ideal which is likewise the goal is becoming a son
of the Father in moral likeness (
<400545>
Matthew 5:45). That this progress is
due to Gods aid is so intimately a part of Christs teaching on the entire
dependence of the soul on God that it receives little explicit mention, but
Christ refers even His own miracles to the Fathers power (
<421120>
Luke
11:20).
6. Forgiveness:
Moral effort, through Gods aid, is an indispensable condition for salvation.
But complete success in the moral struggle is not at all a condition, in the
sense that moral perfection is required. For Christs disciples, to whom the
kingdom is promised (
<421232>
Luke 12:32), the palsied man who receives
remission of sins (
<410205>
Mark 2:5), Zaccheus who is said to have received
salvation (
<421909>
Luke 19:9), were far from being models of sinlessness. The
element in the character that Christ teaches as making up for the lack of
moral perfection is becoming as a little child (compare
<411015>
Mark 10:15).
Now the point here is not credulousness (for belief is not under
discussion), nor is it meekness (for children are notoriously not meek). And
it most certainly is not the pure passivity of the newly born infant, for it is
gratuitous to assume that only such infants were meant even in
<421815>
Luke
18:15, while in
<401802>
Matthew 18:2 (where the child comes in answer to a
call) this interpretation is excluded. Now, in the wider teaching of Christ
the meaning is made clear enough. Salvation is for the poor in spirit, for
those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, for the prodigal knowing
his wretchedness. It is for the penitent publican, while the self-satisfied
Pharisee is rejected. A sense of need and a desire that God will give are the
characteristics. A child does not argue that it has earned its fathers
benefits but looks to him in a feeling of dependence, with a readiness to do
his bidding. So it is the soul that desires all of righteousness, strives toward
it, knows that it falls short, and trusts in its Father for the rest, that is the
savable soul.
511
7. Person of Christ:
Christ speaks of the pardon of the publican (
<421809>
Luke 18:9 ff) and of the
prodigal welcomed by the Father (
<421520>
Luke 15:20), both without
intermediary. And it is perhaps not necessary to assume that all of those
finding the strait gate (
<400714>
Matthew 7:14) were explicitly among Christs
disciples. But would Christ have admitted that anyone who had come to
know Him and refused to obey Him would have been saved? To ask this
question is to answer it in the negative (
<410940>
Mark 9:40 is irrelevant). Real
knowledge of the Father is possible only through the unique knowledge of
the Son (
<421021>
Luke 10:21,22), and lack of faith in the Son forfeits all
blessings (
<410605>
Mark 6:5,6; 9:23). Faith in Him brings instant forgiveness of
sins (
<410205>
Mark 2:5), and love directed to Him is an indisputable sign that
forgiveness has taken place (
<420747>
Luke 7:47). But Christ thought of Himself
as Messiah and, if the term Messiah is not to be emptied of its meaning,
this made Him judge of the world (such verses as
<410838>
Mark 8:38 are hardly
needed for direct evidence). And, since for Christs consciousness an
earthly judgeship is unthinkable, a transcendental judgeship is the sole
alternative, corroborated by the use of the title Son of Man. But passage
from simple humanity to the transcendental glory of the Son-of-Man
Messiah involved a change hardly expressible except by death and
resurrection. And the expectation of death was in Christs mind from the
first, as is seen by
<410218>
Mark 2:18,19 (even without 2:20). That He could
have viewed His death as void of significance for human salvation is simply
inconceivable, and the ascription of
<411045>
Mark 10:45 to Pauline influence is
in defiance of the facts. Nor is it credible that Christ conceived that in the
interval between His death and His Parousia He would be out of relation to
His own. To Him the unseen world was in the closest relation to the visible
world, and His passage into glory would strengthen, not weaken, His
power. So there is a complete justification of
<411422>
Mark 14:22-25: to Christ
His death had a significance that could be paralleled only by the death of
the Covenant victim in
<022406>
Exodus 24:6-8, for by it an entirely new relation
was established between God and man.
8. Notes:
(1) Salvation from physical evil was a very real part, however
subordinate, of Christs teaching (
<410134>
Mark 1:34, etc.).
512
(2) Ascetic practices as a necessary element in salvation can hardly
claim Christs authority. It is too often forgotten that the Twelve were
not Christs only disciples. Certainly not all of the hundred and twenty
of
<440115>
Acts 1:15 (compare 1:21), nor of the five hundred of
<461506>
1
Corinthians 15:6, were converted after the Passion. And they all
certainly could not have left their homes to travel with Christ. So the
demands made in the special case of the Twelve (still less in such an
extremely special case as
<411021>
Mark 10:21) in no way represent Christs
normal practice, whatever readiness for self-sacrifice may have been
asked of all. So the representations of Christ as ruthlessly exacting all
from everyone are quite unwarranted by the facts. And it is well to
remember that it is
<401119>
Matthew 11:19 that contains the term of
reproach that His adversaries gave Him.
IV. PAUL.
Instead of laying primal stress on Pauls peculiar contributions to
soteriology, it will be preferable to start from such Pauline passages as
simply continue the explicit teaching of Christ. For it is largely due to the
common reversal of this method that the present acute Jesus-Paulus
controversy exists.
1. General:
That Paul expected the near advent of the kingdom of God with a
judgment preceding, and that salvation meant to him primarily deliverance
from this judgment, need not be argued. And, accordingly, emphasis is
thrown sometimes on the future deliverance and sometimes on the present
conditions for the deliverance (contrast
<450509>
Romans 5:9 and 8:24), but the
practical problem is the latter. More explicitly than in Christs recorded
teaching the nature and the blessings of the kingdom are described (see
KINGDOM OF GOD), but the additional matter is without particular
religious import. A certain privilege of the Jews appears (
<450301>
Romans 3:1-
8; 9-11), but the practical content of the privilege seems to be
eschatological only (
<451126>
Romans 11:26). Individual conversion is of course
taken for granted, but the life after that becomes highly corporate.
See CHURCH.
513
2. Moral Progress:
(1) The moral ideal is distinctly that of character. Paul, indeed, is
frequently obliged to give directions as to details, but the detailed
directions are referred constantly to the underlying principle, Romans
14 or 1 Corinthians 8 being excellent examples of this, while love is
the fulfillment of the law (
<451310>
Romans 13:10) is the summary.
(2) Persistent moral effort is indispensable, and the new life absolutely
must bring forth fruit to God (
<450604>
Romans 6:4; 13:12;
<480524>
Galatians
5:24;
<510305>
Colossians 3:5;
<490203>
Ephesians 2:3; 4:17,22-32;
<560211>
Titus 2:11-
14). Only by good conduct can one please God (1 Thess 4:1), and the
works of even Christians are to be subjected to a searching test (1 Cor
3:13; 4:5;
<470510>
2 Corinthians 5:10) in a judgment not to be faced without
the most earnest striving (1 Cor 10:12;
<503512>
Philippians 2:12), not even
by Paul himself (1 Cor 9:27;
<500312>
Philippians 3:12-14). And the
possibility of condemnation because of a lack of moral attainment must
not be permitted to leave the mind (1 Cor 3:17;
<480521>
Galatians 5:21;
compare
<450812>
Romans 8:12,13; 11:20;
<461012>
1 Corinthians 10:12;
<480607>
Galatians 6:7-9). Consequently, growth in actual righteousness is as
vital in Pauls soteriology as it is in that teaching of Christ: Christians
have put off the old man with his doings (
<510309>
Colossians 3:9).
3. The Spirit:
That this growth is Gods work is, however, a point where Paul has
expanded Christs quiet assumption rather elaborately. In particular, what
Christ had made the source of His own supernatural power the Holy
Spirit is specified as the source of the power of the Christians ordinary
life, as well as of the more special endowments (see SPIRITUAL GIFTS).
In the Spirit the Christian has received the blessing promised to Abraham
(
<480314>
Galatians 3:14); by it the deeds of the body can be put to death and all
virtues flow into the soul (
<480516>
Galatians 5:16-26), if a man walks according
to it (1 Cor 6:19,20;
<520408>
1 Thessalonians 4:8). The palmary passage is
Romans 7 through 8. In Romans 7 Paul looks back with a shudder on his
pre-Christian helplessness (it is naturally the extreme of exegetical
perversity to argue that he dreaded not the sin itself but only Gods penalty
on sin). But the Spirit gives strength to put to death the deeds of the body
(8:13), to disregard the things of the flesh (8:5), and to fulfill the ordinance
514
of the Law (8:4). Such moral power is the test of Christianity: as many as
are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God (8:14).
4. Mystical Union:
This doctrine of the Spirit is simply that what Christ did on earth would be
carried on with increased intensity after the Passion. That this work could
be thought of out of relation to Christ, or that Christ Himself could have so
thought of it (see above, III, 7) is incredible. So the exalted Christ appears
as the source of moral and spiritual power (Paul speaks even more of
Christs resurrection than of the Passion), the two sources (Christ and the
Spirit) being very closely combined in
<470317>
2 Corinthians 3:17;
<450809>
Romans
8:9;
<480406>
Galatians 4:6. Our old man has been crucified, so putting an end to
the bondage of sin, and we can prevent sin from reigning in our mortal
bodies, for our burial into Christs death was to enable us to walk in
newness of life (
<450602>
Romans 6:2-14). The resurrection is a source of power,
and through Christs strength all things can be done (
<500413>
Philippians
4:13,10). Christ is the real center of the believers personality (
<480220>
Galatians
2:20); the man has become a new creature (2 Cor 5:17; compare
<510220>
Colossians 2:20; 3:3); we were joined to another that we might bring
forth fruit to God (
<450704>
Romans 7:4). And by contact with the glory of the
Lord we are transformed into the same image (2 Cor 3:18), the end being
conformation to the image of the Son (
<450830>
Romans 8:30).
5. Forgiveness:
(1) This growth in actual holiness, then, is fundamental with Paul: If
any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his (
<450809>
Romans
8:9). And the acquisition of strength through union with Christ is
vitally connected with the remission of sins. In
<450701>
Romans 7:1-6
(compare
<510211>
Colossians 2:11,12), the mystical union with Christ makes
His death ours (compare
<510303>
Colossians 3:3) and so removes us from
the Law (compare
<451004>
Romans 10:4;
<461556>
1 Corinthians 15:56), which
has no relation to the dead. And by the life-giving power of this union
the strength of sin is broken (
<450606>
Romans 6:6).
(2) The condition in man that makes forgiveness possible Paul calls
faith a very complicated term. Its chief use, however, is in
opposition to works (most clearly in
<450930>
Romans 9:30 through
10:13). The Jews pursuit after righteousness the attempt to wring
salvation from God as wages earned was vain (
<451013>
Romans 10:13),
515
and in contrast is the appeal to God, the conscious relinquishment of all
claim (
<450405>
Romans 4:5). The soul looks trustingly for salvation to its
Father, precisely the attitude of the children in the teaching of Christ.
But no more than in the teaching of Christ is faith a purely passive
virtue, for man must be obedient to it (
<450105>
Romans 1:5; 10:16;
<520213>
1
Thessalonians 2:13). And for the necessary presence of love in faith
compare
<461302>
1 Corinthians 13:2;
<480506>
Galatians 5:6;
<490317>
Ephesians 3:17.
6. Atonement:
Because of faith specifically, faith in Christ (except Romans 4;
<480306>
Galatians 3:6) God does not visit the penalties of sins on believers,
but treats them as if they were righteous (
<450501>
Romans 5:1, etc.). But this is
not because of a quality in the believer or in the faith, but because of an act
that preceded any act of Christian faith, the death of Christ (not the cross,
specifically, for Paul does not argue from the cross in all of Roman).
Through this death Gods mercy could be extended safely, while before
this the exercise of that mercy had proved disastrous (
<450325>
Romans 3:25,26).
And this death was a sacrifice (
<450325>
Romans 3:25, etc.). And it is certain that
Paul conceived of this sacrifice as existing quite independently of its effect
on any human being. But he has given us no data for a really complete
sacrificial doctrine, a statement sufficiently proved by the hopeless variance
of the interpretations that have been propounded. And that Paul ever
constructed a theory of the operation of sacrifices must be doubted. There
is none in the contemporary Jewish literature, there is none in the Old
Testament, and there is none in the rest of the New Testament, not even in
Hebrews. Apparently the rites were so familiar that sacrificial terminology
was ready to hand and was used without particular reflection and without
attempting to give it precise theological content. This is borne out by the
ease with which in
<450324>
Romans 3:24,25 Paul passes from a ransom
(redemption) illustration to a (quite discordant) propitation illustration. For
further discussion see ATONEMENT; JUSTIFICATION. Here it is enough
make a juridical theory constructed from Pauline implications and
illustrations central in Christianity is to do exactly what Paul did not do.
7. Summary:
Summing up, there is a double line of thought in Paul: the remission of
penalties through the atoning death of Christ and the destruction of the
power of sin through strength flowing from Christ, the human element in
516
both cases being faith. The question of the order of the steps is futile, for
to have faith, to be in Christ, and to have the Spirit are convertible
terms, i.e. in doctrinal phraseology, the beginnings of sanctification are
simultaneous with justification. Attempts to unify the two lines of thought
into a single theory cannot claim purely Biblical support. The ethical
theory, which in its best form makes Gods pardon depend on the fact that
the sinner will be made holy (at least in the next world), introduces the
fewest extraneous elements, but it says something that Paul does not say.
On the other hand one may feel that considering Paul as a whole to say
nothing of the rest of the New Testament the pure justification doctrine
has bulked a little too large in our dogmatics. Gods pardon for sin is an
immensely important matter, but still more important is the new power of
holiness.
8. Notes:
(1) Baptism presents another obstacle to a strict unifying of Pauline
theology. A very much stronger sacramentarianism is admitted in Paul
today than would have been accepted a generation ago, and such
passages as
<450601>
Romans 6:1-7;
<480327>
Galatians 3:27;
<510212>
Colossians 2:12
make it certain that he regarded baptism as conferring very real
spiritual powers. But that he made a mechanical distinction between the
blessings given then and those given at some other time must be
doubted.
(2) Salvation from the flesh (
<450724>
Romans 7:24) involves no
metaphysical dualism, as flesh is the whole of the lower nature from
which the power to holiness saves a man (
<450813>
Romans 8:13). Indeed,
the body itself is an object of salvation (
<450811>
Romans 8:11; and see
RESURRECTION).
(3) Quite in the background lies the idea of salvation from physical evil
(2 Cor 1:10, etc.). Such evils are real evils (1 Cor 11:30), but in Gods
hands they may become pure blessings (
<450503>
Romans 5:3;
<471207>
2
Corinthians 12:7).
(4) Salvation from sin after conversion is due to Gods judging the man
in terms of the acquired supernatural nature (
<450814>
Romans 8:14, etc.).
Yet certain sins may destroy the union with Christ altogether (1 Cor
3:17, etc.), while others bring Gods chastening judgment (1 Cor
11:30-32). Or proper chastisement may be inflicted by Paul himself (1
517
Cor 5:1-5;
<540120>
1 Timothy 1:20) or by the congregation (
<480601>
Galatians
6:1;
<530310>
2 Thessalonians 3:10-15;
<470206>
2 Corinthians 2:6).
V. REST OF NEW TESTAMENT: SUMMARY.
1. John:
(1) John had the task of presenting Christ to Gentiles, who were as
unfamiliar with the technical meaning of such phrases as kingdom of
God or Son of Man as is the world today, and to Gentiles who had
instead a series of concepts unknown in Palestine. So a translation of
spiritual values became necessary if the gospel were to make an
immediate appeal, a translation accomplished so successfully that the
Fourth Gospel has always been the most popular. The Synoptists,
especially the extremely literal Mark, imperatively demand a historical
commentary, while John has successfully avoided this necessity.
(2) The kingdom of God, as a phrase (3:3,5; compare 18:36), is
replaced by eternal life. This life is given in this world to the one who
accepts Christs teaching (5:24; 6:47), but its full realization will be in
the many mansions of the Fathers house (14:2), where the believer
will be with Christ (17:24). A judgment of all men will precede the
establishment of this glorified state (5:28,29), but the believer may face
the judgment with equanimity (5:24). So the believer is delivered from
a state of things so bad as expressible as a world under Satans rule
(12:31; 14:30; 16:11), a world in darkness (3:19), in ignorance of God
(17:25), and in sin (8:21), all expressible in the one word death
(5:24).
(3) The Jews had real privilege in the reception of Christs message
(1:11; 4:22, etc.), but the extension of the good tidings to all men was
inevitable (12:23,12, etc.). Belief in Christ is wholly a personal matter,
but the believers enter a community of service (13:14), with the unity
of the Father and Son as their ideal (17:21).
(4) The nature of the moral ideal, reduced to the single word love
(13:34; 15:12), is assumed as known and identified with Christs
words (5:24; 6:63, etc.), and the necessity of progress toward it as
sharply pointed as in the Synoptists. The sinner is the servant of sin
(8:34), a total change of character is needed (3:6), and the blessing is
only on him who does Christs commandments (13:17). This doing is
518
the proof of love toward Christ (14:15,21); only by bearing fruit and
more fruit can discipleship be maintained (15:1-6; compare 14:24), and,
indeed, by bearing fruit men actually become Christs disciples (15:8,
Gr). The knowledge of Christ and of God that is eternal life (17:3)
comes only through moral effort (7:17). In John the contrasts are
colored so vividly that it would almost appear as if perfection were
demanded. But he does not present even the apostles as models of
sanctity (13:38; 16:32), and self-righteousness is condemned without
compromise; the crowning sin is to say, We see (9:41). It is the Son
who frees from sin (8:36), delivers from darkness (8:12; 12:46), and
gives eternal life (11:25,26; compare 3:16; 5:24; 6:47). This emphasis
on the divine side of the process is probably the reason for the omission
of the terms repent, repentance, from the Gospel in favor of faith
(6:29, especially), but this faith involves in turn human effort, for,
without abiding, faith is useless (8:30,31).
(5) An advance on the Synoptists is found in the number of times
Christ speaks of His death (3:14,15; 10:11,15; 12:24,32; 17:19) and in
the greater emphasis laid on it, but no more than in the Synoptists is
there any explanation of how the Atonement became effectual. A real
advance consists in the prospect of Christs work after His death,
when, through the Paraclete (7:38,39; 14:16 ff), a hitherto unknown
spiritual power would become available for the world. And spiritual
power is due not only to a union of will with Christ but to mystical
union with Him (15:1-9). See above, III, 7, for the relation of these
thoughts to the synoptic teaching.
2. Hebrews:
(1) The emphasis of He is of course on the sacrificial work of Christ,
but the Epistle makes practically no contribution to theology of
sacrifice. The argument is this: The Old Testament sacrifices certainly
had an efficacy; Christs sacrifice fulfilled their types perfectly,
therefore it had a perfect efficacy (
<580913>
Hebrews 9:13,14). This must
have been a tremendously potent argument for Hes own purpose, but
it is of very little help to the modern theologian.
(2) More than in Paul is emphasized the human training of Christ for
His high-priestly work. Since He laid hold of the seed of Abraham
(
<580216>
Hebrews 2:16), He learned by experience all that man had to suffer
519
(
<580217>
Hebrews 2:17; 4:15; 5:8, etc.). In He the essence of the sacrifice
lies not in the death but in what we call the ascension the
presentation of the blood in the heavenly tabernacle (
<580911>
Hebrews 9:11-
14; see the commentaries). That the death was specifically on the cross
(
<581202>
Hebrews 12:2 only) belonged to the stage of training and had no
special significance in the sacrificial scheme. Christs intercession for us
in heaven receives more emphasis than in the rest of the New
Testament (
<580725>
Hebrews 7:25).
3. Peter:
The one other distinct contribution to New Testament soteriology is made
in 1 Peters evaluation of the vicarious suffering of the Servant of Isaiah
53. What Christ did through His sufferings we may do in some degree
through our sufferings; as His pains helped not only living mankind, but
even departed sinners, so we may face persecution more happily with the
thought that our pains are benefiting other men (1 Pet 3:16-20). It is hardly
possible that Peter thought of this comparison as conveying an exhaustive
description of the Atonement (compare
<600119>
1 Peter 1:19), but that the
comparison should be made at all is significant.
4. Summary:
(1) Salvation is both a present and a future matter for us. The full
realization of all that God has in store will not be ours until the end of
human history (if, indeed, there will not be opened infinite possibilities
of eternal growth), but the enjoyment of these blessings depends on
conditions fulfilled in us and by us now. But a foretaste of the blessings
of forgiveness of sins and growth in holiness is given on this earth. The
pardon depends on the fact of Gods mercy through the death of Christ
a fact for religious experience but probably incapable of expression
as a complete philosophical dogma. But strength comes from God
through the glorified Christ (or through the Spirit), this vital union with
God being a Christian fundamental. These two lines are in large degree
independent, and the selection of the proportions profitable to a given
soul is the task of the pastor.
(2) That human effort is an essential in salvation is not to be denied in
the face of all the New Testament evidence, especially Paul taken as a
whole. And yet no one with the faintest conception of what religion
means would think of coming before God to claim merit. Here the
520
purely intellectual discussions of the subiect and its psychological
course in the soul run in different channels, and anti-synergistic
arguments are really based on attempts to petrify psychology
experience into terms of pure dogma.
(3) Still more true is this of attempts to describe mathematically the
steps in salvation the ordo salutis of the older dogmatics for this
differs with different souls. In particular, New Testament data are
lacking for the development of the individual born of Christian parents
in a Christian country.
(4) Further, the social side of salvation is an essentially Christian
doctrine and cannot be detached from the corporate life of the Christian
church. Salvation from temporal evils is equally, if secondarily,
Christian. Nationalism in salvation is at present much in the
background. But it is as true today as it was in ancient Israel that the
sins of a nation tend to harm the souls of even those who have not
participated actively in those sins.
LITERATURE.
The literature of salvation is virtually the literature of theology (see under
separate articles, ATONEMENT; JUSTIFICATION; SANCTIFICATION;
PERSON OF CHRIST; JOHANNINE THEOLOGY; PAULINE
THEOLOGY, etc.), but a few recent works may be mentioned.
Indispensable are the works of Stevens, The Christian Doctrine of
Salvation and The Pauline Theology. Garvies Romans in the New
Century series should be used as a supplement to any other commentary
on Romans. The juridical theory has as its best defense in English Denneys
The Death of Christ. The ethical theory is best presented in the works of
DuBose, The Gospel in the Gospels, The Gospel according to Paul, and
High-Priesthood and Sacrifice (Sandays The Expositor reviews of the two
former, reprinted in The Life of Christ in Recent Research, should be read
in any case).
Burton Scott Easton
SAMAEL
<sam-a-el>: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and
American) SALAMIEL (which see).
521
SAMAIAS
<sa-ma-yas> ([2ooo, Samaias]):
(1) One of the captains over thousands prominent at the Passover of
Josiah (1 Esdras 1:9) = Shemaiah in
<143509>
2 Chronicles 35:9.
(2) One of the heads of families of the sons of Adonikam who returned
with Ezra (1 Esdras 8:39) = Shemaiah in
<150813>
Ezra 8:13.
(3) One of the men of understanding whom Ezra commissioned to
obtain from Loddeus, the captain, men to execute the priests office (1
Esdras 8:44) = Shemaiah in
<150816>
Ezra 8:16 (the King James Version
Mamaias).
(4) the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and
American) Shemaiah the great, a kinsman of Tobit and father of
Ananias and Jonathan (Tobit 5:13).
S. Angus
SAMARIA, CITY OF
<sa-ma-ri-a>, ([wOr m]v o, shomeron]; [2oopro, Samareia], [2rrpv,
Semeron], and other forms):
(1) Shechem was the first capital of the Northern Kingdom (
<111225>
1 Kings
12:25). Jeroboam seems later to have removed the royal residence to
Tirzah (
<111417>
1 Kings 14:17). After the brief reigns of Elah and Zimri
came that of Omri, who reigned 6 years in Tirzah, then he purchased
the hill of Samaria and built a city there, which was thenceforward the
metropolis of the kingdom of Israel (
<111624>
1 Kings 16:24). Here the hill
and the city are said to have been named after Shemer, the original
owner of the land. There is nothing intrinsically improbable in this. It
might naturally be derived from shamar, and the name in the sense of
outlook would fitly apply to a city in such a commanding position.
The residence, it was also the burying-place, of the kings of Israel
(
<111628>
1 Kings 16:28; 22:37;
<121035>
2 Kings 10:35; 13:9,13; 14:16).
Toward the western edge of the Ephraimite uplands there is a broad fertile
hollow called Wady esh-Sha`ir, valley of barley. From the midst of it
rises an oblong hill to a height of over 300 ft., with a level top. The sides
are steep, especially to the Samaria. The greatest length is from East to
522
West. The surrounding mountains on three sides are much higher, and are
well clad with olives and vineyards. To the West the hills are lower, and
from the crest a wide view is obtained over the Plain of Sharon, with the
yellow ribbon of sand that marks the coast line, and the white foam on the
tumbling billows; while away beyond stretch the blue waters of the
Mediterranean. On the eastern end of the hill, surrounded by olive and
cactus, is the modern village of Sebastiyeh, under which a low neck of land
connects the hill with the eastern slopes. The position is one of great charm
and beauty; and in days of ancient warfare it was one of remarkable
strength. While it was overlooked from three sides, the battlements
crowning the steep slopes were too far off to be reached by missiles from
the only artillery known in those times the sling and the catapult. For
besiegers to attempt an assault at arms was only to court disaster. The
methods adopted by her enemies show that they relied on famine to do
their work for them (
<120624>
2 Kings 6:24 f, etc.). Omri displayed excellent
taste and good judgment in the choice he made.
The city wall can be traced in almost its entire length. Recent excavations
conducted by American archaeologists have uncovered the foundations of
Omris palace, with remains of the work of Ahab and of Herod (probably
here was Ahabs ivory palace), on the western end of the hill, while on the
western slope the gigantic gateway, flanked by massive towers, has been
exposed to view.
Under the influence of Jezebel, Samaria naturally became a center of
idolatrous worship. Ahab reared up an altar for Baal in the house of Baal,
which he had built in Samaria. And Ahab made the Asherah (
<111632>
1 Kings
16:32 f). Jehoram his son put away the pillar of Baal (
<120301>
2 Kings 3:2), and
within the temple Jehu made an end at once of the instruments of idolatry
and of the priests (
<121019>
2 Kings 10:19 f). There are many prophetic
references to the enormities practiced here, and to their inevitable
consequences (
<230804>
Isaiah 8:4; 9:9; 10:9; 28:1 ff; 36:19;
<242313>
Jeremiah 23:13;
<262304>
Ezekiel 23:4;
<280701>
Hosea 7:1; 13:16;
<300312>
Amos 3:12;
<330101>
Micah 1:6, etc.).
Under pressure of Damascus Omri conceded to the Syrians the right to
make streets in Samaria (
<112034>
1 Kings 20:34).
Ben-hadad II besieged the city, but suffered ignominious defeat (
<112001>
1
Kings 20:1-21; Josephus, Ant, VIII, xiv, 1 f). Persistent attempts by the
Syrians to reach the city in the time of Jehoram were frustrated by Elisha
523
(
<120608>
2 Kings 6:8 ff; Josephus, Ant, IX, iv, 3). At length, however, Ben-
hadad again invested the city, and the besieged were reduced to dire straits,
in which, urged by famine, scenes of awful horror were enacted (
<120624>
2
Kings 6:24 ff). A mysterious panic seized the Syrians. Their deserted camp
was discovered by despairing lepers who carried the good news to the
famished citizens of the plenty to be found there. Probably in the throat of
the great western gateway occurred the crush in which the incredulous
captain was trampled to death (1 Kings 7; Josephus, Ant, IX, iv, 5).
Here the 70 sons of Ahab were slain by Jehu in the general destruction of
the house of Ahab (
<121001>
2 Kings 10:1 ff). In Samaria, the Chronicler tells us,
Ahaziah in vain hid from Jehu (
<142209>
2 Chronicles 22:9; compare
<120927>
2 Kings
9:27). Pekah brought hither much spoil from Jerusalem and many captives,
whom, at the instance of the prophet Oded, he released (2 Chronicles 28
ff). The siege of Samaria was begun by Shalmaneser in the 7th year of
Hoshea, and the city was finally taken by Sargon II at the end of 3 years,
722 BC (
<121705>
2 Kings 17:5 f; 18:9 f; Ant, IX, xiv, 1). This marked the
downfall of the Northern Kingdom, the people being transported by the
conqueror. That this was not done in a thoroughgoing way is evident from
the fact recorded in the inscriptions that two years later the country had to
be subdued again. Colonists were brought from other parts to take the
places of the exiles (
<121724>
2 Kings 17:24;
<150410>
Ezra 4:10). Alexander the Great
took the city in 331 BC, killed many of the inhabitants, and settled others
in Shechem, replacing them with a colony of Syro-Macedonians. He gave
the adjoining country to the Jews (Apion, II, 4). The city suffered at the
hands of Ptolemy Lagi and Demetrius Poliorcetes, but it was still a place of
strength (Josephus, Ant, XIII, x, 2) when John Hyrcanus came against it in
120 BC. It was taken after a years siege, and the victor tried to destroy
the city utterly. His turning of the water into trenches to undermine the
foundations could only refer to the suburbs under the hill. From the only
two sources, `Ain Harun and Ain Kefr Rima, to the East of the town, the
water could not rise to the hill. The many fountains of water which
Benjamin of Tudela says he saw on the top, from which water enough
could be got to fill the trenches, are certainly not to be seen today; and they
have left no trace behind them. The city was rebuilt by Pompey and, having
again fallen under misfortune, was restored by Gabinius (Josephus, Ant,
XIV, iv, 4; v, 3; BJ, I, vii, 7; viii, 4). To Herod it owed the chief splendor
of its later days. He extended, strengthened and adorned it on a scale of
great magnificence, calling it Sebaste (= Augusta) in honor of the emperor,
524
a name which survives in the modern Sebastiyeh. A temple also was
dedicated to Caesar. Its site is probably marked by the impressive flight of
steps, with the pedestal on which stood the gigantic statue of Augustus,
which recent excavations have revealed. The statue, somewhat mutilated,
is also to be seen. Another of Herods temples West of the present village
was cleared out by the same explorers. The remains of the great double-
columned street, which ran round the upper terrace of the hill, bear further
testimony to the splendor of this great builders work (Josephus, Ant, XV,
vii, 3; viii, 5; BJ, I, xxi, 2). It was here that Herod killed perhaps the only
human being whom he ever really loved, his wife Mariamne. Here also his
sons perished by his hand (Josephus, Ant, XV, vii, 5-7; XVI, iii, 1-3; xi, 7).
It is commonly thought that this city was the scene of Philips preaching
and the events that followed recorded in Acts 8, but the absence of the
definite article in 8:5 makes this doubtful. A Roman colony was settled
here by Septimius Severus. From that time little is known of the history of
the city; nor do we know to what the final castastrophe was due. It became
the seat of a bishopric and was represented in the councils of Nicea,
Constantinople and Chalcedon. Its bishop attended the Synod of Jerusalem
in 536 AD.
The Church of John, a Crusading structure beside the modern village, is
now a Moslem mosque. It is the traditional burying-place of John the
Baptists body.
(2) [q 2oopro, he Samareia]: A town mentioned in 1 Macc 5:66 as
on the route followed by Judas from the district of Hebron to the land
of the Philistines. The name is probably a clerical error. The margin
reads Marisa, and probably the place intended is Mareshah, the site of
which is at Tell Sandachannah, about a mile South of Belt Jibrin.
W. Ewing
SAMARIA, COUNTRY OF
([wOr m]v o, shomeron]; [q 2ooprt po, he Samareitis chora]): The
name of the city was transferred to the country of which it was the capital,
so that Samaria became synonymous with the Northern Kingdom (
<111332>
1
Kings 13:32;
<243105>
Jeremiah 31:5, etc.). The extent of territory covered by
this appellation varied greatly at different periods. At first it included the
land held by Israel East of the Jordan, Galilee and Mt. Ephraim, with the
525
northern part of Benjamin. It was shorn of the eastern portion by the
conquest of Tiglath-pileser (
<130526>
1 Chronicles 5:26). Judah probably soon
absorbed the territory of Daniel in the Samaria. In New Testament times
Samaria had shrunk to still smaller dimensions. Then the country West of
the Jordan was divided into three portions: Judea in the South, Galilee in
the North, and Samaria in the middle. The boundaries are given in general
terms by Josephus (BJ, III, iii, 1, 4, 5). The southern edge of the Plain of
Esdraelon and the lands of Scythopolis, the city of the Decapolis West of
the Jordan, formed the northern boundary. It reached South as far as the
toparchy of Acrabatta (modern `Aqrabeh), while on the border between
Samaria and Judea lay the villages of Annath and Borceos, the modern
Khirbet `Aina and Berqit, about 15 miles South of Nablus. The Jordan of
course formed the eastern boundary. On the West the coast plain as far as
Acre belonged to Judea. The country thus indicated was much more open
to approach than the high plateau of Judah with its steep rocky edges and
difficult passes. The road from the North indeed was comparatively easy of
defense, following pretty closely the line of the watershed. But the gradual
descent of the land to the West with long, wide valleys, offered inviting
avenues from the plain. The great trade routes, that to the fords of Jordan
and the East, passing through the cleft in the mountains at Shechem, and
those connecting Egypt with the North and the Northeast, traversed
Samarian territory, and brought her into constant intercourse with
surrounding peoples. The influence of the heathen religions to which she
was thus exposed made a swift impression upon her, leading to the
corruptions of faith and life that heralded her doom (
<242313>
Jeremiah 23:13;
<280701>
Hosea 7:1 ff, etc.). The Assyrians came as the scourge of God (
<121705>
2
Kings 17:5-23). Their attack centered on the capital. Shalmaneser began
the siege, and after three years the city fell to Sargon II, his successor.
With the fall of Samaria the kingdom came to an end. Following the usual
Assyrian policy, great numbers of the inhabitants were deported from the
conquered country, and their places taken by men brought from Babylon,
and from Cuthah, and from Avva, and from Hamath and Sepharvaim,
cities which had already bowed to the Assyrian power (
<121724>
2 Kings 17:24).
It appears from the Assyrian inscriptions that the number carried away was
27,290. The number afterward deported from Judah was 200,000, and then
the poorest of the land were left to be vinedressers and husbandmen (
<122512>
2
Kings 25:12). It is evident that a similar policy must have been followed in
Samaria, as 27,290 could certainly not include the whole population of the
526
cities and the country. But it would include the higher classes, and
especially the priests from whom the victors would have most to fear. The
population therefore after the conquest contained a large proportion of
Israelites. It was no doubt among these that Josiah exercised his reforming
energy (
<122319>
2 Kings 23:19 f;
<143406>
2 Chronicles 34:6 f). Here also must have
been that remnant of Israel, Manasseh and Ephraim, who contributed for
the repair of the house of God (
<143409>
2 Chronicles 34:9). These people, left
without their religious guides, mingling with the heathen who had brought
their gods and, presumably, their priests with them, were apt to be turned
from the purity of their faith. A further importation of pagan settlers took
place under Esar-haddon and Osnappar (
<150409>
Ezra 4:9,10). The latter is to
be identified with Assur-bani-pal. What the proportions of the different
elements in the population were, there is now no means of knowing. That
there was some intermarriage is probable; but having regard to racial
exclusiveness, we may suppose that it was not common. When the Jews
deny to them any relation to Israel, and call them Cuthaeans, as if they
were the descendants purely of the heathen settlers, the facts just
mentioned should be borne in mind.
After the Assyrian conquest we are told that the people suffered from lions
(
<121725>
2 Kings 17:25). Josephus (Ant., IX, xiv, 3) says a plague seized upon
them. In accordance with the ideas of the time, the strangers thought this
due to the anger of the tutelary deity of the land, because they worshipped
other gods in his territory, while neglecting him. Ignorant of his special
ritual (manner), they petitioned the Assyrian king, who sent one
(Josephus says some) of the priests who had been carried away to teach
them how they should fear the Lord. How much is implied in this
fearing of the Lord is not clear. They continued at the same time to serve
their own gods. There is nothing to show that the Israelites among them
fell into their idolatries. The interest of these in the temple at Jerusalem, the
use of which they may now have shared with the Jews, is proved by
<143409>
2
Chronicles 34:9. In another place we are told that four score men from
Shechem, from Shiloh, and from Samaria, evidently Israelites, were going
up with their offerings to the house of the Lord (
<244105>
Jeremiah 41:5). Once
the people of the country are called Samaritans (
<121729>
2 Kings 17:29).
Elsewhere this name has a purely religious significance.
See SAMARITANS.
527
Of the history of Samaria under Assyrian and Babylonian rulers we know
nothing. It reappears at the return of the Jews under Persian auspices. The
Jews refused the proffered assistance of the Samaritans in rebuilding the
temple and the walls of Jerusalem (
<150401>
Ezra 4:1,3). Highly offended, the
latter sought to frustrate the purpose of the Jews (
<150404>
Ezra 4:4 ff;
<160407>
Nehemiah 4:7 ff; 1 Esdras 2:16 ff). That the Samaritans were
accustomed to worship in Jerusalem is perhaps implied by one phrase in the
letter sent to the Persian king: The Jews that came up from thee are come
to us unto Jerus (
<150412>
Ezra 4:12). Perhaps also they may be referred to in
<150621>
Ezra 6:21. Idolatry is not alleged against the adversaries. We can
hardly err if we ascribe the refusal in some degree to the old antagonism
between the North and the South, between Ephraim and Judah. Whatever
the cause, it led to a wider estrangement and a deeper bitterness. For the
history of the people and their temple on Gerizim, see SAMARITANS.
Samaria, with Palestine, fell to Alexander after the battle of Issus.
Antiochus the Great gave it to Ptolemy Epiphanes, as the dowry of his
daughter Cleopatra (Josephus, Ant, XII, iv, 1). John Hyrcanus reduced and
desolated the country (Josephus, BJ, I, ii, 6 f). After varying fortunes
Samaria became part of the kingdom of Herod, at whose death it was given
to Archelaus (Josephus, Ant, XVII, xi, 4; BJ, II, vi, 3). When Archelaus
was banished it was joined to the Roman province of Syria (Josephus, Ant,
XVII, xiii, 5; BJ, II, viii, 1).
Samaria is a country beautifully diversified with mountain and hill, valley
and plain. The olive grows plentifully, and other fruit trees abound. There
is much excellent soil, and fine crops of barley and wheat are reaped
annually. The vine also is largely cultivated on the hill slopes. Remains of
ancient forests are found in parts. As Josephus said, it is not naturally
watered by many rivers, but derives its chief moisture from rain water, of
which there is no lack (BJ, III, iii, 4). He speaks also of the excellent grass,
by reason of which the cows yield more milk than those in any other place.
There is a good road connecting Nablus with Jaffa; and by a road not quite
so good, it is now possible to drive a carriage from Jerusalem to Nazareth,
passing through Samaria.
W. Ewing
528
SAMARITAN, PENTATEUCH THE
<sa-mar-i-tan>.
See PENTATEUCH, THE SAMARITAN.
SAMARITANS
<sa-mar-i-tanz> ([ ynir om]v o, shomeronim]; [2ooprto, Samareitai],
New Testament; (singular), [2ooptq, Samarites]): The name
Samaritans in
<121729>
2 Kings 17:29 clearly applies to the Israelite inhabitants
of the Northern Kingdom. In subsequent history it denotes a people of
mixed origin, composed of the peoples brought by the conqueror from
Babylon and elsewhere to take the places of the expatriated Israelites and
those who were left in the land (722 BC). Sargon claims to have carried
away only 27,290 of the inhabitants (KIB, II, 55). Doubtless these were, as
in the case of Judah, the chief men, men of wealth and influence, including
all the priests, the humbler classes being left to till the land, tend the
vineyards, etc. Hezekiah, who came to the throne of Judah probably in 715
BC, could still appeal to the tribes Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, Asher and
Zebulun (
<143005>
2 Chronicles 30:5,10,11,18 ff); and the presence of these
tribesmen is implied in the narrative of Josiahs reformation (
<143406>
2
Chronicles 34:6 f). Although the number of the colonists was increased by
Esar-haddon and Osnappar (Assur-bani-pal,
<150402>
Ezra 4:2,9 f), the
population, it is reasonable to suppose, continued prevailingly Israelite;
otherwise their religion would not so easily have won the leading place.
The colonists thought it necessary for their own safety to acknowledge
Yahweh, in whose land they dwelt, as one among the gods to be feared
(
<121724>
2 Kings 17:24 ff). In the intermixture that followed their own gods
seem to have fallen on evil days; and when the Samaritans asked
permission to share in building the temple under Zerubbabel, they claimed,
apparently with a good conscience, to serve God and to sacrifice to Him as
the Jews did (
<150401>
Ezra 4:1 f). Whatever justification there was for this
claim, their proffered friendship was turned to deadly hostility by the blunt
refusal of their request. The old enmity between north and south no doubt
intensified the quarrel, and the antagonism of Jew and Samaritan, in its
bitterness, was destined to pass into a proverb. The Samaritans set
themselves, with great temporary success, to frustrate the work in which
they were not permitted to share (
<150404>
Ezra 4:4 ff:
<160407>
Nehemiah 4:7 ff. etc.).
529
From the strict administration of the Law in Jerusalem malcontents found
their way to the freer atmosphere of Samaria. Among these renegades was
Manasseh, brother of the high priest, who had married a daughter of
Sanballat, the Persian governor of Samaria. According to Josephus,
Sanballat, with the sanction of Alexander the Great, built a temple for the
Samaritans on Mt. Gerizim, of which Manasseh became high priest (Ant.,
XI, vii, 2; viii, 2 ff). Josephus, however, places Manasseh a century too
late. He was a contemporary of Ezra and Nehemiah (
<161328>
Nehemiah 13:28).
When it suited their purpose the Samaritans claimed relationship with the
Jews, asserting that their roll of the Pentateuch was the only authentic copy
(see PENTATEUCH, THE SAMARITAN); they were equally ready to deny
all connection in times of stress, and even to dedicate their temple to a
heathen deity (Josephus, Ant, XII, v, 5). In 128 BC, John Hyrcanus
destroyed the temple (XIII, ix, 1). In the time of Christ the Samaritans
were ruled by procurators under the Roman governor of Syria. Lapse of
years brought no lessening of the hatred between Jews and Samaritans
(Ant., XX, vi, 1). To avoid insult and injury at the hands of the latter, Jews
from Galilee were accustomed to reach the feasts at Jerusalem by way of
Peraea. Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a demon was an expression of
opprobrium (
<430848>
John 8:48). Although Jesus forbade the Twelve to go into
any city of the Samaritans (
<401005>
Matthew 10:5), the parable of the Good
Samaritan shows that His love overleaped the boundaries of national hatred
(
<421030>
Luke 10:30 ff; compare 17:16;
<430409>
John 4:9).
During the Jewish war Cerealis treated the Samaritans with great severity.
On one occasion (67 AD) he slaughtered 11,600 on Mt. Gerizim. For some
centuries they were found in considerable numbers throughout the empire,
east and west, with their synagogues. They were noted as bankers
money-changers, For their anti-Christian attitude and conduct Justinian
inflicted terrible vengeance on them. From this the race seems never to
have recovered. Gradually-dwindling, they now form a small community in
Nablus of not more than 200 souls. Their great treasure is their ancient
copy of the Law.
See SAMARIA.
LITERATURE.
The best account of the Samaritans is Mills, Nablus and the Modern
Samaritans (Murray, London); compare Montgomery, The Samaritans
530
(1907). A good recent description by J. E. H. Thomson, D. D., of the
Passover celebrated annually on Mt. Gerizim will be found in PEFS, 1902,
82 ff.
W. Ewing
SAMATUS
<sam-a-tus> ([2ooto, Samatos]): One of the sons of Ezora who put
away their strange wives (1 Esdras 9:34). It is difficult to say which, if
any, name it represents in parallel
<151034>
Ezra 10:34 ff, where no sons of
Ezora are inserted between sons of Bani and sons of Nebo: probably
Shallurn (10:42), but possibly Shemariah (10:41).
SAMECH
<sam-ek> ([s , camekh]): The 15th letter of the Hebrew alphabet;
transliterated in this Encyclopedia as c. It came to be used for the
number 60. For name, etc., see ALPHABET.
SAMEIUS
<sa-me-yus>: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and
American) SAMEUS (which see).
SAMELLIUS
<sa-mel-i-us> (Codex Vaticanus [2oro, Samellios]; Codex
Alexandrinus [2rpro, Sebellios], al [2rro, Semellios]; the King
James Version Semellius): Samellius the scribe, one of those who wrote
a letter of protest to Artaxerxes against the building of Jerusalem by the
returned exiles (1 Esdras 2:16,17,25,30) = Shimshai in
<150408>
Ezra 4:8.
SAMEUS
<sa-me-us> (Codex Alexandrinus and Fritzsche, [2ooo, Samaios];
Codex Vaticanus [Oooo, Thamaios]; the King James Version
Sameius): One of the sons of Emmer who put away their strange wives
(1 Esdras 9:21) = Shemaiah (the Revised Version margin Maaseiah) of
the sons of Harim in
<151021>
Ezra 10:21.
531
SAMGAR-NEBO
<sam-gar-ne-bo> ([wO b n; r g m] s , camgar nebho], a Babylonian name):
An officer of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, who, according to the
Massoretic Text of
<243903>
Jeremiah 39:3, took his seat with other nobles in the
middle gate of Jerusalem after the Chaldean army had taken the city.
Schrader (COT, ii, 109) holds that the name is a Hebraized form of the
Assyrian Sumgirnabu (be gracious, Nebo), but Giesebrecht (Comm.,
211) conjectures for Samgar a corruption of Sar-mag (Sar-magh),
equivalent to Rab-mag (rab-magh), which implies virtual dittography. The
number of variant readings exhibited by the Septuagint seems to confirm
the belief that the text is corrupt. Nebo (nabu) is there joined with the
following Sarsechim to agree with Nebushazban of
<243913>
Jeremiah 39:13. If
the name Samgar-nebo is correct, the first Nergal-sharezer should perhaps
be dropped; we would then read: Samgar-nebo the Sarsechim,
Nebushazban the Rab-saris (compare 39:13) and Nergal-sharezer the Rab-
mag (Sayce).
See RAB-MAG; RAB-SARIS.
Horace J . Wolf
SAMI
<sa-mi>: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and
American) SABI (which see).
SAMIS
<sa-mis>: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and
American) SOMEIS (which see).
SAMLAH
<sam-la> ([h l ; m] c , samlah]; [2ooo, Salama]): One of the kings of
Edom, of the city of Masrekah. He reigned before the Israelites had kings
(
<013636>
Genesis 36:36,37;
<130147>
1 Chronicles 1:47,48). The fact that the city is
mentioned in connection with the name of the king suggests that Edom
was a confederacy at this time and the chief city was the metropolis of the
whole country.
532
SAMMUS
<sam-us> (Codex Alexandrinus [2oou, Sammous]; Codex Vaticanus
[2oou, Sammou]): One of those who stood on Ezras right hand as he
expounded the Law (1 Esdras 9:43) = Shema in
<160804>
Nehemiah 8:4.
SAMOS
<sa-mos> ([2oo, Samos], height, mountain (see Strabo 346, 457)):
One of the most famous of the Ionian islands, third in size among the group
which includes Lesbos, CHIOS (which see) and Cos (which see). It is
situated at the mouth of the bay of Ephesus, between the cities of
EPHESUS and MILETUS (which see), and separated from the mainland of
Ionia by the narrow strait where the Greeks met and conquered the Persian
fleet in the battle of Mycale, 479 BC (Herodotus ix.100 ff). The surface of
the island is very rugged and mountainous, Mt. Kerki (modern name) rising
to a height of 4,700 ft., and it was due to this that the island received its
name (see above).
See also SAMOTHRACE.
Samos was renowned in antiquity as one of the noted centers of Ionjan
luxury, and reached its zenith of prosperity under the rule of the famous
tyrant Polycrates (533-522 BC), who made himself master of the Aegean
Sea. He carried on trade with Egypt, and his intercourse with that country,
his friendship with Amasis, the famous ring story and the revolting
manner of the death of Polycrates arere all told in one of the most
interesting stories of Herodotus (Herod. iii.39 ff).
In 84 BC, the island was joined to the province of Asia, and in 17 BC it
became a civitas libera, through the favor of Augustus (Dio Cass. liv.9;
Pliny, NH, v.37). Both Marcus Agrippa and Herod visited the island; and
according to Josephus (Ant., XVI, ii, 2; BJ, I, xxi, 11) bestowed a great
many benefits on it. In the Apocrypha, Samos is mentioned among the
places to which Lucius, consul of the Romans, wrote, asking their good
will toward the Jews (1 Macc 15:23).
In the New Testament, Paul touched here, after passing CHIOS (which
see), on his return from his third missionary journey (
<442015>
Acts 20:15). In
Textus Receptus of the New Testament, we find in this passage [xo
rvovtr rv Tpyu, kai meinantes en Trogullio] (and having
533
remained in Trogyllium). This reading is wanting in the oldest
manuscripts, and may be a sort of gloss, or explanation; due to the
technical use of paraballein, to touch land (compare Josephus, Ant,
XVIII, vi, 4), and not necessarily to make a landing. Trogyllium lay on
the mainland opposite Samos, at the end of the ridge of Mycale. Still there
is no particular reason why this reading should be supported, especially as
it is not found in the earliest of authorities. Sodens 1913 text, however,
retains the reading in brackets.
LITERATURE.
Tozer, Islands of the Aegean (1890). Herodotus and Pausanias have rather
full accounts of Samos, and Encyclopedia Brit (11th edition) gives a good
bibliography of works both ancient and modern.
Arthur J . Kinsella
SAMOTHRACE
<sam-o-thras> ([2oo0poxq, Samothrake], the Thracian Samos; the
King James Version Samothracia, sam-o-thrasha; the island was formerly
Dardania; for change of name see Pausanias vii.4,3; Strabo x.457, and for a
full discussion Conze, Hauser and Benndorf, Neue Untersuchungen auf
South, 1880): An island in the Aegean Sea, South of Thrace opposite the
mouth of the Hebrus River, and Northwest of Troas. The island is
mountainous, as the name indicates (see SAMOS), and towers above
Imbros when viewed from the Trojan coast. The summit is about a mile
high. It is mentioned in the Iliad (xiii.12) as the seat of Poseidon and
referred to by Virgil Aeneid vii.208.
The island was always famous for sanctity, and the seat of a cult of the
Cabeiri, which Herodotus (ii.51) says was derived from the Pelasgian
inhabitants (see also Aristophanes, Pax 277). The mysteries connected with
the worship of these gods later rivaled the famous mysteries of Eleusis, and
both Philip of Macedon and Olympias his wife were initiated here (Plut.
Alex. 3).
Probably because of its sacred character the island did not figure to any
extent in history, but in the expedition of Xerxes in 480 BC, one ship at
least of the Samothracian contingent is mentioned as conspicuous in the
battle of Salamis.
534
The famous Victory of Samothrace (now in the Louvre) was set up here
by Demetrius Poliorcetes circa 300 BC, and was discovered in 1863. Since
that time (1873-75), the Austrian government carried on extensive
excavations (see Conze, Hauser and Benndorf, op. cit.).
In the New Testament the island is mentioned in
<441611>
Acts 16:11. From
Troas, Paul made a straight run to Samothrace, and the next day sailed to
NEAPOLIS (which see) on the Thracian coast, the port of PHILIPPI
(which see). At the northern end of Samothrace was a town where the ship
could anchor for the night, and on the return journey (
<442006>
Acts 20:6) a
landing may have been made, but no details are given. Pliny characterizes
the island as being most difficult for anchorage, but because of the hazards
of sailing by night, the ancient navigators always anchored somewhere if
possible.
LITERATURE.
See under SAMOS.
Arthur J . Kinsella
SAMPSAMES
<samp-sa-mez> ([2ogoq, Sampsames]): A place mentioned in 1
Macc 15:23, usually identified with Samsun, on the coast of the Black Sea.
The Vulgate, with the Revised Version margin, has Lampsacus.
SAMSON
<sam-sun> ([wOv m]v i, shimshon].
1. NAME:
Derived probably from [v m,v ,, shemesh], sun with the diminutive ending
[wO, -on], meaning little sun or sunny, or perhaps sun-man;
[2ogv, Sampson]; Latin and English, Samson): His home was near
Bethshemesh, which means house of the sun. Compare the similar
formation [yv m] v i , shimshay] (
<150408>
Ezra 4:8,9,17,23).
535
2. CHARACTER:
Samson was a judge, perhaps the last before Samuel. He was a Nazirite of
the tribe of Daniel (
<071305>
Judges 13:5); a man of prodigious strength, a giant
and a gymnast the Hebrew Hercules, a strange champion for Yahweh!
He intensely hated the Philistines who had oppressed Israel some 40 years
(
<071301>
Judges 13:1), and was willing to fight them alone. He seems to have
been actuated by little less than personal vengeance, yet in the New
Testament he is named among the heroes of faith (
<581132>
Hebrews 11:32), and
was in no ordinary sense an Old Testament worthy. He was good-natured,
sarcastic, full of humor, and fought with his wits as well as with his fists.
Milton has graphically portrayed his character in his dramatic poem
Samson Agonistes (1671), on which Handel built his oratorio, Samson
(1743).
3. STORY OF HIS LIFE:
The story of Samsons life is unique among the biographies of the Old
Testament. It is related in Judges 13 through 16. Like Isaac, Samuel and
John the Baptist, he was a child of prayer (13:8,12). To Manoahs wife the
angel of Yahweh appeared twice (13:3,9), directing that the child which
should be born to them should be a Nazirite from the womb, and that he
would begin to save Israel out of the hand of the Philistines (13:5,7,14).
The spirit of Yahweh first began to move him in Mahaneh-dan, between
Zorah and Eshtaol (13:25). On his arriving at manhood, five remarkable
circumstances are recorded of him.
(1) His marriage with a Philistine woman of Timnah (Judges 14). His
parents objected to the alliance (
<071403>
Judges 14:3), but Samsons motive
in marrying her was that he sought an occasion against the Philistines
At the wedding feast Samson propounded to his guests a riddle,
wagering that if they guessed its answer he would give them 30
changes of raiment. Dr. Moore felicitously renders the text of the riddle
thus:
`Out of the eater came something to eat,
And out of the strong came something sweet (
<071414>
J udges 14:14).
The Philistines threatened the life of his bride, and she in turn wrung from
Samson the answer; whereupon he retorted (in Dr. Moores version):
536
`I f with my heifer ye did not plow,
Ye had not found out my riddle, I trow (
<071418>
J udges 14:18).
Accordingly, in revenge, Samson went down to Ashkelon, slew some 30
men, and paid his debt; he even went home without his wife, and her father
to save her from shame gave her to Samsons best man (
<071420>
Judges
14:20). It has been suggested by W. R. Smith (Kinship and Marriage in
Early Arabia, 70-76) that Samson did not from the first intend to take his
bride to his home, his marriage being what is known among the Arabs as a
tsadiqat, or gift marriage, by which is meant that the husband becomes a
part of the wifes tribe. This assumes that the social relations of the
Hebrews at that time were matriarchate, the wife remaining with her
family, of which custom there are other traces in the Old Testament, the
husband merely visiting the wife from time to time. But this is not so
obvious in Samsons case in view of his pique (
<071419>
Judges 14:19), and
especially in view of his parents objection to his marrying outside of Israel
(
<071403>
Judges 14:3). Not knowing that his bride had been given by her father
to his friend, Samson went down to Timnah to visit her, with a kid; when
he discovered, however, that he had been taken advantage of, he went out
and caught 300 jackals, and putting firebrands between every two tails, he
burned up the grain fields and olive yards of the Philistines. The Philistines,
however, showed they could play with fire, too, and burned his wife and
her father. Thereupon, Samson smote the Philistines in revenge, hip and
thigh (
<071501>
Judges 15:1-8).
(2) When he escaped to Etam, an almost vertical rock cliff in Judah (by
some identified with `Araq Ismain) not far from Zorah, Samsons
home, the Philistines invaded Judah, encamped at Lehi above Etam,
and demanded the surrender of their arch-enemy. The men of Judah
were willing to hand Samson over to the Philistines, and accordingly
went down to the cliff Etam, bound Samson and brought him up where
the Philistines were encamped (
<071509>
Judges 15:9-13). When Samson
came to Lehi the Philistines shouted as they met him, whereupon the
spirit of Yahweh came mightily upon him, so that he broke loose from
the two new ropes with which the 3,000 men of Judah had bound him,
and seizing a fresh jawbone of an ass he smote with it 1,000 men of the
Philistines, boasting as he did so in pun-like poetry, `With the jawbone
of an ass, m-ass upon m-ass; or, as Dr. Moore translates the passage,
`With the bone of an ass, I ass-ailed my ass-ailants (
<071516>
Judges 15:16).
At the same time, Samson reverently gave Yahweh the glory of his
537
victory (
<071518>
Judges 15:18). Samson being thirsty, Yahweh provided
water for him at a place called En-hakkore, or Partridge Spring, or
the Spring of the Caller another name for partridge (
<071517>
Judges
15:17-19).
(3) Samson next went down to Gaza, to the very stronghold of the
Philistines, their chief city. There he saw a harlot, and, his passions not
being under control, he went in unto her. It was soon noised about that
Samson, the Hebrew giant, was in the city. Accordingly, the Philistines
laid wait for him. But Samson arose at midnight and laid hold of the
doors of the gate and their two posts, and carried them a full quarter of
a mile up to the top of the mountain that looketh toward Hebron
(
<071601>
Judges 16:1-3).
(4) From Gaza Samson betook himself to the valley of Sorek where he
fell in love with another Philistine woman, named Delilah, through
whose machinations he lost his spiritual power. The Philistine lords
bribed her with a very large sum to deliver him into their hands. Three
times Samson deceived her as to the secret of his strength, but at last
he explains that he is a Nazirite, and that his hair, which has never been
shorn, is the secret of his wonderful power. J. G. Frazer (Golden
Bough, III, 390 ff) has shown that the belief that some mysterious
power resides in the hair is still widespread among savage peoples, e.g.
the Fiji Islanders. Thus, Samson fell. By disclosing to Delilah this
secret, he broke his covenant vow, and the Spirit of God departed from
him (
<071604>
Judges 16:4-20). The Philistines laid hold on him, put out his
eyes, brought him down to Gaza, bound him with fetters, and forced
him to grind in the prison house. Grinding was womens work! It is at
this point that Milton catches the picture and writes,
Eyeless in Gaza, at the mill with slaves.
Howbeit, the hair of his head began to grow again; but his eyes did not!
(
<071621>
Judges 16:21,22).
(5) The final incident recorded of Samson is in connection with a great
sacrificial feast which the Philistine lords gave in honor of Dagon, their
god. In their joyous celebration they sang in rustic rhythm:
538
`Our god has given us into our hand
The foe of our land,
Whom even our most powerful band
Was never able to withstand (
<071624>
J udges 16:24).
This song was accompanied probably, as Mr. Macalister suggests, by hand-
clapping (Gezer, 129). When they became still more merry, they called for
Samson to play the buffoon, and by his pranks to entertain the assembled
multitude. The house of Dagon was full of people; about 3,000 were upon
the roof beholding as Samson made sport. With the new growth of his hair
his strength had returned to him. The dismantled giant longed to be
avenged on his adversaries for at least one of his two eyes (
<071628>
Judges
16:28). He prayed, and Yahweh heard his prayer. Guided by his attendant,
he took hold of the wooden posts of the two middle pillars upon which the
portico of the house rested, and slipping them off their pedestals, the house
fell upon the lords and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead
that he slew at his death were more than they that he slew in his life
(
<071629>
Judges 16:29,30). His kinsmen came and carried him up and buried
him near his boyhood home, between Zorah and Eshtaol, in the family
burying-ground of his father. And he judged Israel twenty years
(
<071631>
Judges 16:31).
4. HISTORICAL VALUE:
The story of Samson is a faithful mirror of his times: Every man did that
which was right in his own eyes (
<071706>
Judges 17:6; 21:25). There was no
king in those days, i.e. no central government. Each tribe was separately
occupied driving out their individual enemies. For 40 years the Philistines
had oppressed Samsons tribal compatriots. Their suzerainty was also
recognized by Judah (
<071404>
Judges 14:4; 15:11). Samson was the hero of his
tribe. The general historicity of his story cannot be impeached on the mere
ground of improbability. His deeds were those which would most naturally
be expected from a giant, filled with a sense of justice. He received the
local popularity which a man of extraordinary prowess would naturally be
given. All peoples glory in their heroes. The theory that the record in
Judges 13 through 16 is based upon some solar myth is now generally
abandoned. That there are incidents in his career which are difficult to
explain, is freely granted. For example, that he killed a lion (14:6) is not
without a parallel; David and Benaiah did the same (
<091734>
1 Samuel 17:34-36;
<102320>
2 Samuel 23:20). God always inspires a man in the line of his natural
539
endowments. That God miraculously supplied his thirst (
<071519>
Judges 15:19)
is no more marvelous than what God did for Hagar in the wilderness
(
<012119>
Genesis 21:19). That Samson carried off the doors of the gate of Gaza
and their two posts, bar and all, must not confound us till we know more
definitely their size and the distance from Gaza of the hill to which he
carried them. The fact that he pulled down the roof on which there were
3,000 men and women is not at all impossible, as Mr. Macalister has
shown. If we suppose that there was an immense portico to the temple of
Dagon, as is quite possible, which was supported by two main pillars of
wood resting on bases of stone, like the cedar pillars of Solomons house
(
<110702>
1 Kings 7:2), all that Samson, therefore, necessarily did, was to push
the wooden beams so that their feet would slide over the stone base on
which they rested, and the whole portico would collapse. Moreover, it is
not said that the whole of the 3,000 on the roof were destroyed (
<071630>
Judges
16:30). Many of those in the temple proper probably perished in the
number (R. A. S. Macalister, Bible Side-Lights from the Mound of Gezer,
1906, 127-38).
5. RELIGIOUS VALUE:
Not a few important and suggestive lessons are deducible from the heros
life:
(1) Samson was the object of parental solicitude from even before his
birth. One of the most suggestive and beautiful prayers in the Old
Testament is that of Manoah for guidance in the training of his yet
unborn child (
<071308>
Judges 13:8). Whatever our estimate of his
personality is, Samson was closely linked to the covenant.
(2) He was endowed with the Spirit of Yahweh the spirit of
personal patriotism, the spirit of vengeance upon a foe of 40 years
standing (
<071301>
Judges 13:1,25; 14:6:19; 15:14).
(3) He also prayed, and Yahweh answered him, though in judgment
(
<071630>
Judges 16:30). But he was prodigal of his strength. Samson had
spiritual power and performed feats which an ordinary man would
hardly perform. But he was unconscious of his high vocation. In a
moment of weakness he yielded to Delilah and divulged the secret of
his strength. He was careless of his personal endowment. He did not
realize that physical endowments no less than spiritual are gifts from
God, and that to retain them we must be obedient.
540
(4) He was passionate and therefore weak. The animal of his nature
was never curbed, but rather ran unchained and free. He was given to
sudden fury. Samson was a wild, self-willed man. Passion ruled. He
could not resist the blandishments of women. In short, he was an
overgrown schoolboy, without self-mastery.
(5) He accordingly wrought no permanent deliverance for Israel; he
lacked the spirit of cooperation. He undertook a task far too great for
even a giant single-handed. Yet, it must be allowed that Samson paved
the way for Saul and David. He began the deliverance of Israel from
the Philistines. He must, therefore, be judged according to his times. In
his days there was unrestrained individual independence on every side,
each one doing as he pleased. Samson differed from his contemporaries
in that he was a hero of faith (
<581132>
Hebrews 11:32). He was a Nazirite,
and therefore dedicated to God. He was given to revenge, yet he was
ready to sacrifice himself in order that his own and his peoples enemies
might be overthrown. He was willing to lay down his own life for the
sake of his fellow-tribesmen not to save his enemies, however, but
to kill them. (Compare
<400543>
Matthew 5:43 f;
<450510>
Romans 5:10.)
LITERATURE.
(1) Comma. on Jgs, notably those by G. F. Moore, ICC, 1895; Budde,
Kurzer Handkommentar, 1897; Nowack, Handkommentar, 1900; E. L.
Curtis, The Bible for Home and School, 1913; Bachmann, 1868; Keil,
1862; Farrar in Ellicotts Commentaries; Watson, Expositors Bible.
(2) Articles on Samson in the various Bible Dictionaries and
Encyclopedias; in particular those by Budde, HDB; C. W. Emmet, in 1-
vol HDB; S. A. Cook, New Encyclopedia Brit; Davis, Dict. of the
Bible.
George L. Robinson
SAMUEL
<sam-u-el> ([l a eWmv ], shemuel]; [2oouq, Samouel]): The word
Samuel signifies name of God, or his name is El (God). Other
interpretations of the name that have been offered are almost certainly
mistaken. The play upon the name in
<090120>
1 Samuel 1:20 is not intended of
course to be an explanation of its meaning, but is similar to the play upon
541
the name Moses in
<020210>
Exodus 2:10 and frequently elsewhere in similar
instances. Thus, by the addition of a few letters [l a wmv , shemuel]
becomes [l a emel Wa v ;, shaul meel], asked of God, and recalls to the
mother of Samuel the circumstances of the divine gift to her of a son.
Outside of 1st Samuel the name of the great judge and prophet is found in
<241501>
Jeremiah 15:1;
<199906>
Psalm 99:6 and in 1 and 2 Chronicles. The reference
in Jeremiah seems intended to convey the same impression that is given by
the narrative of 1 Samuel, that in some sense Samuel had come to be
regarded as a second Moses, upon whom the mantle of the latter had
fallen, and who had been once again the deliverer and guide of the people
at a great national crisis.
1. SOURCES AND CHARACTER OF THE HISTORY:
The narrative of the events of the life of Samuel appears to be derived from
more than one source (see SAMUEL, BOOKS OF). The narrator had
before him and made use of biographies and traditions, which he combined
into a single consecutive history. The completed picture of the prophets
position and character which is thus presented is on the whole harmonious
and consistent, and gives a very high impression of his piety and loyalty to
Yahweh, and of the wide influence for good which he exerted. There are
divergences apparent in detail and standpoint between the sources or
traditions, some of which may probably be due merely to misunderstanding
of the true nature of the events recorded, or to the failure of the modern
reader rightly to appreciate the exact circumstances and time. The greater
part of the narrative of the life of Samuel, however, appears to have a
single origin.
2. LIFE:
In the portion of the general history of Israel contained in 1 Samuel are
narrated the circumstances of the future prophets birth (chapter 1); of his
childhood and of the custom of his parents to make annual visits to the
sanctuary at Shiloh (2:11,18-21,26); of his vision, and the universal
recognition of him as a prophet enjoying the special favor of Yahweh (3
through 4:1). The narrative is then interrupted to describe the conflicts
with the Philistines, the fate of Eli and his sons, and the capture of the ark
of God. It is only after the return of the ark, and apparently at the close of
the 20 years during which it was retained at Kiriath-jearim, that Samuel
again comes forward publicly, exhorting the people to repentance and
542
promising them deliverance from the Philistines. A summary narrative is
then given of the summoning of a national council at Mizpah, at which
Samuel judged the children of Israel, and offered sacrifice to the Lord,
and of Yahwehs response in a great thunderstorm, which led to the defeat
and panic-stricken flight of the Philistines. Then follows the narrative of the
erection of a commemorative stone or pillar, Eben-ezer, the stone of
help, and the recovery of the Israelite cities which the Philistines had
captured (7:5-14). The narrator adds that the Philistines came no more
within the border of Israel all the days of Samuel (7:13); perhaps with an
intentional reference to the troubles and disasters of which this people was
the cause in the time of Saul. A brief general statement is appended of
Samuels practice as a judge of going on annual circuit through the land,
and of his home at Ramah (7:15-17).
No indication is given of the length of time occupied by these events. At
their close, however, Samuel was an old man, and his sons who had been
appointed judges in his place or to help him in his office proved themselves
unworthy (
<090801>
1 Samuel 8:1-3). The elders of the people therefore came to
Samuel demanding the appointment of a king who should be his successor,
and should judge in his stead. The request was regarded by the prophet as
an act of disloyalty to Yahweh, but his protest was overruled by divine
direction, and at Samuels bidding the people dispersed (
<090804>
1 Samuel 8:4-
22).
At this point the course of the narrative is again interrupted to describe the
family and origin of Saul, his personal appearance, and the search for the
lost asses of his father (
<090901>
1 Samuel 9:1-5); his meeting with Samuel in a
city in the land of Zuph, in or on the border of the territory of Benjamin
(Zuph is the name of an ancestor of Elkanah, the father of Samuel, in
<090101>
1
Samuel 1:1), a meeting of which Samuel had received divine pre-intimation
(
<090915>
1 Samuel 9:15 f) ; the honorable place given to Saul at the feast; his
anointing by Samuel as ruler of Israel, together with the announcement of
three signs, which should be to Saul assurances of the reality of his
appointment and destiny; the spirit of prophecy which took possession of
the future king, whereby is explained a proverbial saying which classed
Saul among the prophets; and his silence with regard to what had passed
between himself and Samuel on the subject of the kingdom (
<090906>
1 Samuel
9:6 through 10:16).
543
It is usually, and probably rightly, believed that the narrative of these last
incidents is derived from a different source from that of the preceding
chapters. Slight differences of inconsistency or disagreement lie on the
surface. Samuels home is not at Ramah, but a nameless city in the land of
Zuph, where he is priest of the high place, with a local but, as far as the
narrative goes, not a national influence or reputation; and it is anticipated
that he will require the customary present at the hands of his visitors (
<090906>
1
Samuel 9:6-8). He is described, moreover, not as a judge, nor does he
discharge judicial functions, but expressly as a seer, a name said to be an
earlier title equivalent to the later prophet (
<090909>
1 Samuel 9:9,11,19).
Apart, however, from the apparently different position which Samuel
occupies, the tone and style of the narrative is altogether distinct from that
of the preceding chapters. It suggests, both in its form and in the religious
conceptions which are assumed or implied, an older and less elaborated
tradition than that which has found expression in the greater part of the
book; and it seems to regard events as it were from a more primitive
standpoint than the highly religious and monotheistic view of the later
accounts. Its value as a witness to history is not impaired, but perhaps
rather enhanced by its separate and independent position. The writer or
compiler of 1 Samuel has inserted it as a whole in his completed narrative
at the point which he judged most suitable. To the same source should
possibly be assigned the announcement of Sauls rejection in 13:8-15a.
The course of the narrative is resumed at
<091017>
1 Samuel 10:17 ff, where, in a
second national assembly at Mizpah, Saul is selected by lot and accepted
by the people as king (10:17-24); after which the people dispersed, and
Saul returned to his home at Gibeah (10:25-27). At a solemn assembly at
Gilgal, at which the kingship is again formally conferred upon Saul, Samuel
delivered a farewell address to his fellow-countrymen. A thunderstorm
terrified the people; they were reassured, however, by Samuel with
promises of the protection and favor of Yahweh, if they continued to fear
and serve Him (11:14 through 12:25). Later the rejection of Saul for
disobedience and presumption is announced by Samuel (13:8-15a). The
commission to destroy Amalek is delivered to Saul by Samuel; and the
rejection of the king is again pronounced because of his failure to carry out
the command. Agag is then slain by Samuel with his own hand; and, the
latter having returned to his home at Ramah, the narrator adds that he
remained there in seclusion until the day of his death, mourning for Saul,
but refusing to meet him again (1 Samuel 15). Finally the death and burial
544
of Samuel at Ramah, together with the lamentation of the people for him,
are briefly recorded in
<092501>
1 Samuel 25:1, and referred to again in 28:3.
Two incidents of Samuels life remain, in which he is brought into relation
with the future king David. No indication of date or circumstance is given
except that the first incident apparently follows immediately upon the
second and final rejection of Saul as recorded in 1 Samuel 15. In 16:1-13 is
narrated the commission of Samuel to anoint a successor to Saul, and his
fulfillment of the commission by the choice of David the son of Jesse, the
Bethlehemite. And, in a later chapter (19:18-24), a second occasion is
named on which the compelling spirit of prophecy came upon Saul, and
again the proverbial saying, Is Saul also among the prophets? is quoted
(19:24; compare 10:11,12), and is apparently regarded as taking its origin
from this event.
The anointing of David by Samuel is a natural sequel to his anointing of
Saul, when the latter has been rejected and his authority and rights as king
have ceased. There is nothing to determine absolutely whether the narrative
is derived from the same source as the greater part of the preceding
history. Slight differences of style and the apparent presuppositions of the
writer have led most scholars to the conclusion that it has a distinct and
separate origin. If so, the compiler of the Books of Samuel drew upon a
third source for his narrative of the life of the seer, a source which there is
no reason to regard as other than equally authentic and reliable. With the
second incident related in
<091918>
1 Samuel 19:18-24, the case is different. It is
hardly probable that so striking a proverb was suggested and passed into
currency independently on two distinct occasions. It seems evident that
here two independent sources or authorities were used, which gave hardly
reconcilable accounts of the origin of a well-known saying, in one of which
it has been mistakenly attributed to a similar but not identical occurrence in
the life of Saul. In the final composition of the book both accounts were
then inserted, without notice being taken of the inconsistency which was
apparent between them.
Yet later in the history Samuel is represented as appearing to Saul in a
vision at Endor on the eve of his death (
<092811>
1 Samuel 28:11-20). The witch
also sees the prophet and is stricken with fear. He is described as in
appearance an old man covered with a robe (
<092814>
1 Samuel 28:14). In
characteristically grave and measured tones he repeats the sentence of
death against the king for his disobedience to Yahweh, and announces its
545
execution on the morrow; Sauls sons also will die with him (
<092819>
1 Samuel
28:19), and the whole nation will be involved in the penalty and suffering,
as they all had a part in the sin.
The high place which Samuel occupies in the thought of the writers and in
the tradition and esteem of the people is manifest throughout the history.
The different sources from which the narrative is derived are at one in this,
although perhaps not to an equal degree. He is the last and greatest of the
judges, the first of the prophets, and inaugurates under divine direction the
Israelite kingdom and the Davidic line.
3. CHARACTER AND INFLUENCE OF SAMUEL:
It is not without reason, therefore, that he has been regarded as in dignity
and importance occupying the position of a second Moses in relation to the
people. In his exhortations and warnings the Deuteronomic discourses of
Moses are reflected and repeated. He delivers the nation from the hand of
the Philistines, as Moses from Pharaoh and the Egyptians, and opens up for
them a new national era of progress and order under the rule of the kings
whom they have desired. Thus, like Moses, he closes the old order, and
establishes the people with brighter prospects upon more assured
foundations of national prosperity and greatness. In nobility of character
and utterance also, and in fidelity to Yahweh, Samuel is not unworthy to be
placed by the side of the older lawgiver. The record of his life is not marred
by any act or word which would appear unworthy of his office or
prerogative. And the few references to him in the later literature (
<199906>
Psalm
99:6;
<241501>
Jeremiah 15:1;
<130628>
1 Chronicles 6:28; 9:22; 11:3; 26:28; 29:29;
<143518>
2 Chronicles 35:18) show how high was the estimation in which his
name and memory were held by his fellow-countrymen in subsequent ages.
LITERATURE.
The literature is given in the article, SAMUEL, BOOKS OF (which see).
A. S. Geden
546
SAMUEL, BOOKS OF
I. PLACE OF THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL
IN THE HEBREW CANON.
In the Hebrew Canon and enumeration of the sacred books of the Old
Testament, the two Books of Samuel were reckoned as one, and formed
the third division of the Earlier Prophets ([ ya iyb in] yniv oa r i, nebhiim
rishonim]). The one book bore the title Samuel ([l a eWmv ], shemuel]),
not because Samuel was believed to be the author, but because his life and
acts formed the main theme of the book, or at least of its earlier part. Nor
was the Book of Samuel separated by any real division in subject-matter or
continuity of style from the Book of Kings, which in the original formed a
single book, not two as in the English and other modern versions. The
history was carried forward without interruption; and the record of the life
of David, begun in Samuel, was completed in Kings. This continuity in the
narrative of Israelite history was made more prominent in the Septuagint,
where the four books were comprised under one title and were known as
the four Books of the Kingdoms ([ppo poorv, bibloi
basileion]). This name was probably due to the translators or scholars of
Alexandria. The division into four books, but not the Greek title, was then
adopted in the Latin translation, where, however, the influence of Jerome
secured the restoration of the Hebrew names, 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2
Kings (Regum). Jeromes example was universally followed, and the
fourfold division with the Hebrew titles found a place in all subsequent
versions of the Old Testament Scriptures. Ultimately, the distinction of
Samuel and Kings each into two books was received also into printed
editions of the Hebrew Bible. This was done for the first time in the editio
princeps of the Rabbinic Bible, printed at Venice in 1516-17 AD.
II. CONTENTS OF THE BOOKS AND PERIOD OF TIME
COVERED BY THE HISTORY.
The narrative of the two Books of Samuel covers a period of about a
hundred years, from the close of the unsettled era of the Judges to the
establishment and consolidation of the kingdom under David. It is therefore
a record of the changes, national and constitutional, which accompanied
this growth and development of the national life, at the close of which the
Israelites found themselves a united people under the rule of a king to
547
whom all owed allegiance, controlled and guided by more or less definitely
established institutions and laws. This may be described as the general
purpose and main theme of the books, to trace the advance of the people
under divine guidance to a state of settled prosperity and union in the
promised land, and to give prominence to theocratic rule which was the
essential condition of Israels life as the people of God under all the
changing forms of early government. The narrative therefore centers itself
around the lives of the three men, Samuel, Saul and David, who were
chiefly instrumental in the establishment of the monarchy, and to whom it
was due more than to any others that Israel emerged from the depressed
and disunited state in which the tribes had remained during the period of
the rule of the Judges, and came into possession of a combined and
effective national life. If the formal separation therefore into two books be
disregarded, the history of Israel as it is narrated in Samuel is most
naturally divided into three parts, which are followed by an appendix
recording words and incidents which for some reason had not found a
place in the general narrative:
A. The life and rule of Samuel (1 Samuel 1 through 15) (death
<092501>
1
Samuel 25:1).
B. The life, reign and death of Saul (1 Samuel 16 through 2 Samuel 1).
C. The reign and acts of David to the suppression of the two rebellions
of Absalom and Sheba (2 Samuel 2 through 20).
D. Appendix; other incidents in the reign of David, the names of his
chief warriors and his Song or Psalm of Praise (2 Samuel 21-24).
III. SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS.
To present a brief and clear analysis of these Books of Samuel is not
altogether easy. For as in the Pentateuch and the earlier historical Books of
Joshua and Judges, repetitions and apparently duplicate accounts of the
same event are found, which interfere with the chronological development
of the narrative. Even the main divisions, as stated above, to a certain
extent overlap.
548
1. Life of Samuel (1 Samuel 1 through 15):
(1) Visit of Hannah to Shiloh, and promise of the birth of a son (
<090101>
1
Samuel 1:1-19); birth and weaning of Samuel, and presentation to Eli
at Shiloh (
<090119>
1 Samuel 1:19-28).
(2) Hannahs song or prayer (
<090201>
1 Samuel 2:1-10); ministry of Samuel
to Eli the priest (
<090211>
1 Samuel 2:11,18-21,26); the evil practices of the
sons of Eli and warning to Eli of the consequences to his house (
<090212>
1
Samuel 2:12-17,22-25,27-36).
(3) Samuels vision at the sanctuary and his induction to the prophetic
office (
<090301>
1 Samuel 3:1 through 4:1).
(4) Defeat of the Israelites by the Philistines, capture of the ark of God,
death of the two sons of Eli and of Eli himself (1 Samuel 4).
(5) Discomfiture of Dagon before the ark of God at Ashdod; return of
the ark to Beth-shemesh, with expiatory offerings of golden tumors and
golden mice; its twenty years sojourn at Kiriath-jearim (
<090501>
1 Samuel
5:1 through 7:4).
(6) Assembly of Israel under Samuel at Mizpah, and victory over the
Philistines (
<090705>
1 Samuel 7:5-14); Samuel established as judge over all
Israel (
<090715>
1 Samuel 7:15-17).
(7) Samuels sons appointed to be judges and the consequent demand
of the people for a king; Samuels warning concerning the character of
the king for whom they asked (1 Samuel 8).
(8) Sauls search for, the lost asses of his father and meeting with
Samuel (1 Samuel 9).
(9) Saul is anointed by Samuel to be ruler over the people of Israel, and
receives the gift of prophecy (
<091001>
1 Samuel 10:1-16); second assembly
of the people under Samuel at Mizpah, and election of Saul to be king
(
<091017>
1 Samuel 10:17-27).
(10) Victory of Saul over the Ammonites and deliverance of Jabesh-
gilead (
<091101>
1 Samuel 11:1-13); Saul made king in Gilgal (
<091114>
1 Samuel
11:14,15).
549
(11) Samuels address to the people in Gilgal, defending his own life
and action, and exhorting them to fear and serve the Lord (1 Samuel
12).
(12) Saul at Gilgal offers the burnt offering in Samuels absence;
gathering of the Philistines to battie at Michmash; the Israelites lack of
weapons of iron (1 Samuel 13).
(13) Jonathans surprise of the Philistine army, and their sudden panic
(
<091401>
1 Samuel 14:1-23); Sauls vow, unwittingly broken by Jonathan,
whom the people deliver from the fatal consequences (
<091424>
1 Samuel
14:24-45); victories of Saul over his enemies on every side (
<091446>
1
Samuel 14:46-52).
(14) War against Amalek, and Sauls disobedience to the divine
command to exterminate the Amaleldtes (1 Samuel 15).
2. Reign and Death of Saul (1 Samuel 16 through 2 Samuel 1):
(1) Anointing of David as Sauls successor (
<091601>
1 Samuel 16:1-13); his
summons to the court of Saul to act as minstrel before the king (
<091614>
1
Samuel 16:14-23).
(2) David and Goliath (1 Samuel 17).
(3) The love of David and Jonathan (
<091801>
1 Samuel 18:1-4); the formers
advancement and fame, the jealousy of Saul, and his attempt to kill
David (
<091805>
1 Samuel 18:5-16,29,30); Davids marriage to the daughter
of Saul (
<091817>
1 Samuel 18:17-28).
(4) Sauls renewed jealousy of David and second attempt to kill him
(
<091901>
1 Samuel 19:1-17); Davids escape to Ramah, whither the king
followed (
<091918>
1 Samuel 19:18-24).
(5) Jonathans warning to David of his fathers resolve and their parting
(1 Samuel 20).
(6) David at Nob (
<092101>
1 Samuel 21:1-9); and with Achish of Gath (
<092110>
1
Samuel 21:10-15).
(7) Davids band of outlaws at Adullam (
<092201>
1 Samuel 22:1,2); his
provision for the safety of his father and mother in Moab (
<092203>
1 Samuel
550
22:3-5); vengeance of Saul on those who had helped David (
<092206>
1
Samuel 22:6-23).
(8) Repeated attempts of Saul to take David (1 Samuel 23; 24).
(9) Death of Samuel (
<092501>
1 Samuel 25:1); Abigail becomes Davids
wife, after the death of her husband Nabal (
<092502>
1 Samuel 25:2-44).
(10) Sauls further pursuit of David (1 Samuel 26).
(11) Davids sojourn with Achish of Gath (
<092701>
1 Samuel 27:1 through
28:2,29); Saul and the witch of Endor (
<092803>
1 Samuel 28:3-25).
(12) Davids pursuit of the Amalekites who had raided Ziklag, and
victory (1 Samuel 30).
(13) Battle between the Philistines and Israel in Mt. Gilboa and death
of Saul (1 Samuel 31).
(14) News of Sauls death brought to David at Ziklag (
<100101>
2 Samuel
1:1-16); Davids lamentation over Saul and Jonathan (
<100117>
2 Samuel
1:17-27).
3. Reign of David (2 Samuel 2 through 20):
(1) Davids Seven and a Half Years Reign over Judah in Hebron (
<100201>
2
Samuel 2:1 through 5:3).
(a) Consecration of David as king in Hebron (
<100201>
2 Samuel 2:1-4a);
message to the men of Jabesh-gilead (
<100204>
2 Samuel 2:4b-7); Ish-bosheth
made king over Northern Israel (
<100208>
2 Samuel 2:8-11); defeat of Abner
and death of Asahel (
<100212>
2 Samuel 2:12-32).
(b) Increase of the fame and prosperity of David, and the names of his
sons (
<100301>
2 Samuel 3:1-5); Abners submission to David, and
treacherous murder of the former by Joab (
<100306>
2 Samuel 3:6-39).
(c) Murder of Ish-bosheth and Davids vengeance upon his murderers
(
<100401>
2 Samuel 4:1-3,5-12); notice of the escape of Mephibosheth, when
Saul and Jonathan were slain at Jezreel (
<100404>
2 Samuel 4:4).
(d) David accepted as king over all Israel (
<100501>
2 Samuel 5:1-3).
551
(2) Reign of David in Jerusalem over United Israel (
<100504>
2 Samuel 5:4
through 20:26).
(a) Taking of Jerusalem and victories over the Philistines (
<100504>
2 Samuel
5:4-25).
(b) Return of the ark to the city of David (2 Samuel 6).
(c) Davids purpose to build a temple for the Lord (
<100701>
2 Samuel 7:1-
3); the divine answer by the prophet Nathan, and the kings prayer
(
<100704>
2 Samuel 7:4-29).
(d) Victories over the Philistines, Syrians, and other peoples (2 Samuel
8).
(e) Davids reception of Mephibosheth (2 Samuel 9).
(f) Defeat of the Ammonites and Syrians by the men of Israel under the
command of Joab (
<101001>
2 Samuel 10:1 through 11:1).
(g) David and Uriah, the latters death in battle, and Davids marriage
with Bath-sheba (
<101102>
2 Samuel 11:2-27).
(h) Nathans parable and Davids conviction of sin (
<101201>
2 Samuel 12:1-
15a); the kings grief and intercession for his sick son (
<101215>
2 Samuel
12:15b-25); siege and capture of Rabbah, the Ammonite capital (
<101226>
2
Samuel 12:26-31).
(i) Amnon and Tamar (
<101301>
2 Samuel 13:1-22); Absaloms revenge and
murder of Amnon (
<101323>
2 Samuel 13:23-36); flight of Absalom (
<101337>
2
Samuel 13:37-39).
(j) Return of Absalom to Jerusalem (
<101401>
2 Samuel 14:1-24); his beauty,
and reconciliation with the king (
<101425>
2 Samuel 14:25-33).
(k) Absaloms method of ingratiating himself with the people (
<101501>
2
Samuel 15:1-6); his revolt and the flight of the king from Jerusalem
(
<101507>
2 Samuel 15:7-31); meeting with Hushai (
<101532>
2 Samuel 15:32-37a);
Absalom in Jerusalem (
<101537>
2 Samuel 15:37b).
(l) Davids meeting with Ziba (
<101601>
2 Samuel 16:1-4), and Shimei (
<101605>
2
Samuel 16:5-14); counsel of Ahitophel and Hushai (
<101615>
2 Samuel 16:15
552
through 17:14); the news carried to David (
<101715>
2 Samuel 17:15-22);
death of Ahitophel (
<101723>
2 Samuel 17:23).
(m) David at Mahanaim (
<101724>
2 Samuel 17:24-29).
(n) The revolt subdued, death of Absalom, and reception by David of
the tidings (
<101801>
2 Samuel 18:1 through 19:8a).
(o) Return of the king to Jerusalem, and meetings with Shimei,
Mephibosheth, and Barzillai the Gileadite (
<101908>
2 Samuel 19:8b-43).
(p) Revolt of Sheba the Benjamite, and its suppression by Joab with
the death of Amasa (
<102001>
2 Samuel 20:1,2,4-22); the kings treatment of
the concubines left at Jerusalem (
<102003>
2 Samuel 20:3); the names of his
officers (
<102023>
2 Samuel 20:23-26).
4. Appendix (2 Samuel 21 through 24):
(1) Seven male descendants of Saul put to death at the instance of the
Gibeonites (
<102101>
2 Samuel 21:1-14); incidents of wars with the
Philistines (
<102115>
2 Samuel 21:15-22).
(2) Davids song of thanksgiving and praise (2 Samuel 22).
(3) The last words of David (
<102301>
2 Samuel 23:1-7); names and
exploits of Davids mighty men (
<102308>
2 Samuel 23:8-39).
(4) The kings numbering of the people, the resulting plague, and the
dedication of the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite (2 Samuel
24).
IV. SOURCES OF THE HISTORY.
The natural inference from the character and contents of the Books of
Samuel, as thus reviewed, is that the writer has made use of authorities,
sources or documents, from which he has compiled a narrative of the
events which it was his desire to place on record. The same characteristics
are noticeable here which are found in parts of the Pentateuch and of the
Books of Joshua and Judges, that in some instances duplicate or parallel
accounts are given of one and the same event, which seems to be regarded
from different points of view and is narrated in a style which is more or less
divergent from that of the companion record. Examples of this so-called
duplication are more frequent in the earlier parts of the books than in the
553
later. There are presented, for instance, two accounts of Sauls election as
king, and an act of disobedience is twice followed, apparently quite
independently, by the sentence of rejection. Independent also and hardly
consistent narratives are given of Davids introduction to Saul (
<091614>
1
Samuel 16:14-23; 17:31 ff,55 ff); and the two accounts of the manner of
the kings death can be imperfectly reconciled only on the hypothesis that
the young Amalekite told a false tale to David in order to magnify his own
part in the matter. In these and other instances little or no attempt seems to
be made to harmonize conflicting accounts, or to reconcile apparent
discrepancies. In good faith the writer set down the records as he found
them, making extracts or quotations from his authorities on the several
events as they occurred, and thus building up his own history on the basis
of the freest possible use of the materials and language of those who had
preceded him.
However alien such a method of composition may appear to modern
thought and usage in the West, it is characteristic of all early oriental
writing. It would be almost impossible to find in any eastern literature a
work of any length or importance which was not thus silently indebted to
its predecessors, had incorporated their utterances, and had itself in turn
suffered interpolation at the hands of later editors and transcribers.
Accordingly, early Hebrew historical literature also, while unique in its
spirit, conformed in its methods to the practice of the age and country in
which it was composed. It would have been strange if it had been
otherwise.
Two Main and Independent Sources:
Apart from the appendix and minor additions, of which Hannahs song or
psalm in 1 Samuel 2 is one, the main portion of the book is derived from
two independent sources, which themselves in all probability formed part
of a larger whole, a more or less consecutive history or histories of Israel.
These sources may, however, have been, as others think, rather of a
biographical nature, presenting and enforcing the teaching of the acts and
experience of the great leaders and rulers of the nation. The parallelism and
duplication of the narrative is perhaps most evident in the history of Saul.
The broad lines of distinction between the two may be defined without
much difficulty or uncertainty. The greater part of the first eight chapters
of 1 Samuel is in all probability derived from the later of these two sources,
to which is to be assigned more or less completely 1 Samuel 10 through
554
12:15; 17 through 19; 21 through 25; 28 and 2 Samuel 1 through 7. The
earlier source has contributed 1 Samuel 9 with parts of 1 Samuel 10; 11;
13; 14; 16; 20 and considerable portions of 1 Samuel 22; 23; 26 through
27; 29 through 31; 2 Samuel 1 (in part); 2 through 6; 9 through 20. Some
details have probably been derived from other sources, and additions made
by the editor or editors. This general determination of sources rests upon a
difference of standpoint and religious conception, and upon slighter
varieties of style which are neither so pronounced nor so readily
distinguished as in the books of the Pentateuch. It is reasonable also to
bear in mind that a close and exact division or line of demarcation in every
detail is not to be expected.
V. CHARACTER AND DATE OF THE SOURCES.
Attempts which have been made to determine the date of these two
sources, or to identify them with one or other of the principal authorities
from which the historical narratives of the Pentateuch are derived, have not
been convincing. In the judgment of some, however, the later of the two
sources should be regarded as a continuation of the narrative or document
known as E, and the earlier be assigned to J. The style of the latter has
much in common with the style of J, and is clear, vigorous and poetical; the
religious conceptions also that are embodied and taught are of a simple and
early type. The later writing has been supposed to give indications of the
influence of the prophetic teaching of the 8th century. The indications,
however, are not sufficiently decisive to enable a final judgment to be
formed. If it is borne in mind that J and E represent rather schools of
teaching and thought than individual writers, the characteristics of the two
sources of the Books of Sam would not be out of harmony with the view
that from these two schools respectively were derived the materials out of
which the history was compiled. The sources would then, according to
the usual view, belong to the 9th and 8th centuries before the Christian era;
and to a period not more than a century or a century and a half later should
be assigned the final compilation and completion of the book as it is
contained in the Hebrew Canon of Scripture.
VI. GREEK VERSIONS OF THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL.
For an exact estimate and understanding of the history and text of the
Books of Samuel count must further be taken of the Greek version or
versions. In the Septuagint there is great divergence from the Hebrew
555
Massoretic text, and it is probable that in the course of transmission the
Greek has been exposed to corruption to a very considerable extent. At
least two recensions of the Greek text are in existence, represented by the
Vatican and Alexandrian manuscripts respectively, of which the latter is
nearer to the Hebrew original, and has apparently been conformed to it at a
later period with a view to removing discrepancies; and this process has
naturally impaired its value as a witness to the primary shape of the Greek
text itself. There are therefore three existing types of the text of Samuel;
the Massoretic Hebrew and Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus in
the Greek. The original form of the Septuagint, if it could be recovered,
would represent a text anterior to the Massoretic recension, differing from,
but not necessarily superior to, the latter. For the restoration of the Greek
text, the Old Latin, where it is available, affords valuable help. It is evident
then that in any given instance the agreement of these three types or
recensions of the text is the strongest possible witness to the originality and
authenticity of a reading; but that the weight attaching to the testimony of
A will not in general, on account of the history of its text, be equivalent to
that of either of the other two.
VII. ETHICAL AND RELIGIOUS TEACHING.
The religious teaching and thought of the two Books of Samuel it is not
difficult to summarize. The books are in form a historical record of events;
but they are at the same time and more particularly a history conceived
with a definite purpose, and made to subserve a definite moral and
religious aim. It is not a narrative of events solely, or the preservation of
historical detail, that the writer has in view, but rather to elucidate and
enforce from Israels experience the significance of the divine and moral
government of the nation. The duty of king and people alike is to obey
Yahweh, to render strict and willing deference to His commands, and on
this path of obedience alone will national independence and prosperity be
secured. With the strongest emphasis, and with uncompromising severity,
sin even in the highest places is condemned; and an ideal of righteousness
is set forth in language and with an earnestness which recalls the
exhortations of Deuteronomy. Thus the same is true of the Books of
Samuel as is manifest in the preceding books of the canonical Old
Testament: they are composed with a didactic aim. The experience of the
past is made to afford lessons of warning and encouragement for the
present. To the writer or writers the history of the development and
556
upbuilding of the Israelite kingdom is pregnant with a deeper meaning than
lies on the surface, and this meaning he endeavors to make plain to his
readers through the record. The issues of the events and the events
themselves are under the guidance and control of Yahweh, who always
condemns and punishes wrong, but approves and rewards righteousness.
Thus the narrative is history utilized to convey moral truth. And its value is
to be estimated, not primarily as recording the great deeds of the past, but
as conveying ethical teaching; that by means of the history with all its
glamor and interest the people may be recalled to a sense of their high duty
toward God, and be warned of the inevitable consequences of disobedience
to Him.
LITERATURE.
Upon all points of introduction, criticism and interpretation, the
commentaries afford abundant and satisfactory guidance. The principal
English commentaries. are by H. P. Smith in ICC, Edinburgh, 1899, and S.
R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel, 2nd edition,
Oxford, 1913; A. R. S. Kennedy, Samuel, New Century Bible, New
York, Frowde, 1905; in German by R. Budde, 1902, W. Nowack, 1902, A.
Klostermann, 1887. See also the articles Samuel in HDB, Encyclopedia
Biblica and Jewish Encyclopedia.
A. S. Geden
SANAAS
<san-a-as> (Codex Alexandrinus and Fritzsche, [2ovoo, Sanaas];
Codex Vaticanus [2oo, Sama]; the King James Version, Annaas): The
sons of Sanaas returned in large numbers with Zerubbabel (1 Esdras 5:23)
= Senaah in
<150235>
Ezra 2:35;
<160738>
Nehemiah 7:38. The numbers vary in each
case (Esdras, 3,330 or 3,301; Ezra, 3,630; Nehemiah, 3,930).
SANABASSAR; SANABASSARUS
<san-a-bas-ar>, <san-a-bas-a-rus> (in 1 Esdras 2:12,15), (in 1 Esdras
6:18,10; a name appearing in many variations, Codex Alexandrinus always
reading [2ovopoooopo, Sanabassaros]; Codex Vaticanus
[2ovooooop, Sanamassaro], in 1 Esdras 2:12(11) (the Revised
Version margin, Samanassar), [2oovoooopou, Samanassarou], in 1
Esdras 2:15(14), but [2opovoooop, Sabanassaro], in 1 Esdras 6:18
557
(17) (Revised Version margin) and [2ovopoooopo, Sanabassaros], in 1
Esdras 6:20 (19)): He was governor of Judea under Cyrus, conveyed the
holy vessels of the temple from Babylon to Jerusalem and laid the
foundations of the house of the Lord for the first time since its destruction
(1 Esdras 2:12,15; 6:18-20) = SHESHBAZZAR (which see) the prince of
Judah (
<150108>
Ezra 1:8).
Some identify him with Zerubbabel as the King James Version margin in 1
Esdras 6:18: Z., which is also Sanabassar the ruler. This view appears to
be favored by the order of the words here, where, in case of two persons,
one might expect Sanabassar the ruler to come first. Zerubbabel appears
as governor of Judea also in 1 Esdras 6:27-29.
<150310>
Ezra 3:10 speaks of
the foundation of the temple under Zerubbabel and 5:16 as under
Sheshbazzar. There is further the analogy of 1 Esdras 5:40, where
Nehemias and Attharias refer to the same person. Against this
identification: Zerubbabel is not styled ruler or governor either in
Nehemiah or Ezra, but in
<370114>
Haggai 1:14; 2:2,21 he is pechah or governor
of Judah; no explanation is given of the double name, as in the case of e.g.
Daniel, Belteshazzar; the language of
<150514>
Ezra 5:14 f seems to refer to
work commenced under a different person than Zerubbabel. Nor is there
any reason against supposing a first return under Sheshbazzar (Sanabassar)
and a foundation of the temple previous to the time of Zerubbabel an
undertaking into which the Jews did not enter heartily, perhaps because
Sanabassar may have been a foreigner (though it is uncertain whether he
was a Babylonian, a Persian, or a Jew). A later proposal is to identify
Sanabassar with Shenazzar, the uncle of Zerubbabel in
<130318>
1 Chronicles
3:18. But either of these identifications must remain doubtful.
See SHENAZZAR; ZERUBBABEL.
S. Angus
SANASIB
<san-a-sib> (Fritzsche, [2ovoop, Sanasib], but Codex Vaticanus and
Swete, [2ovopr, Sanabeis]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Avoorp,
Anaseib]): Found only in 1 Esdras 5:24, where the sons of Jeddu, the son
of Jesus, are a priestly family returning among the sons of Sanasib. The
name is not found in the parallel
<150236>
Ezra 2:36;
<160739>
Nehemiah 7:39, and is
perhaps preserved in the Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.)
Eliasib.
558
SANBALLAT
<san-bal-at> ([f L b n] s , canebhallaT]; Greek and Vulgate
(Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) Sanaballat; Peshitta, Samballat):
Sanballat the Horonite was, if the appellation which follows his name
indicates his origin, a Moabite of Horonaim, a city of Moab mentioned in
<231505>
Isaiah 15:5;
<244802>
Jeremiah 48:2,5,34; Josephus, Ant, XIII, xxiii; XIV, ii.
He is named along with Tobiah, the Ammonite slave (
<160401>
Nehemiah 4:1),
and Geshem the Arabian (
<160601>
Nehemiah 6:1) as the leading opponent of the
Jews at the time when Nehemiah undertook to rebuild the walls of
Jerusalem (
<160210>
Nehemiah 2:10; 4:1; 6:1). He was related by marriage to the
son of Eliashib, the high priest at the time of the annulment of the mixed
marriages forbidden by the Law (
<161328>
Nehemiah 13:28).
Renewed interest has been awakened in Sanballat from the fact that he is
mentioned in the papyri I and II of Sachau (Die aramaischen
Papyrusurkunden aus Elephantine, Berlin, 1908, and in his later work,
Aramaische Papyrus und Ostraka, Leipzig, 1911; compare Staerks
convenient edition in Lietzmanns Kleine Texte, Number 32, 1908) as
having been the governor (pachath) of Samaria some time before the 17th
year of Darius (Nothus), i.e. 408-407 BC, when Bagohi was governor of
Judah. His two sons, Delaiah and Shelemiah, received a letter from
Jedoniah and his companions the priests who were in Yeb (Elephantine) in
Upper Egypt. This letter contained information concerning the state of
affairs in the Jewish colony of Yeb, especially concerning the destruction of
the temple or synagogue (agora) which had been erected at that place.
The address of this letter reads as follows: To our lord Bagohi, the
governor of Judea, his servants Jedoniah and his companions, the priests in
the fortress of Yeb (Elephantine). May the God of Heaven inquire much at
every time after the peace of our lord and put thee in favor before Darius
the king, etc. The conclusion of the letter reads thus: Now, thy servants,
Jedoniah and his companions and the Jews, all citizens of Yeb, say thus: If
it seems good to our lord, mayest thou think on the rebuilding of that
temple (the agora which had been destroyed by the Egyptians). Since it has
not been permitted us to rebuild it, do thou look on the receivers of thy
benefactions and favors here in Egypt. Let a letter with regard to the
rebuilding of the temple of the God Jaho in the fortress of Yeb, as it was
formerly built, be sent from thee. In thy name will they offer the meal
offerings, the incense, and the burnt offerings upon the altar of the God
559
Jaho; and we shall always pray for thee, we and our wives and our children
and all the Jews found here, until the temple has been rebuilt. And it will be
to thee a meritorious work (tsedhaqah) in the sight of Jaho, the God of
Heaven, greater than the meritorious work of a man who offers to him a
burnt offering and a sacrifice of a value equal to the value of 1,000 talents
of silver. And as to the gold (probably that which was sent by the Jews to
Bagohi as a baksheesh) we have sent word and given knowledge. Also, we
have in our name communicated in a letter all (these) matters unto Delaiah
and Shelemiah, the sons of Sanballat, governor of Samaria. Also, from all
that has been done to us, Arsham (the satrap of Egypt) has learned
nothing.
The 20th of Marcheshvan in the 17th year of Darius the king.
Sanballat is the Babylonian Sin-uballit, may Sin give him life, a name
occurring a number of times in the contract tablets from the time of
Nebuchadnezzar, Nabonidus, and Darius Hystaspis. (See Tallquist,
Neubabylonisches Namenbuch, 183.)
R. Dick Wilson
SANCTIFICATION
<sank-ti-fi-ka-shun>:
ETYMOLOGY:
The root is found in the Old Testament in the Hebrew verb [v d q ; ,
qadhash], in the New Testament in the Greek verb [oyo, hagoazo].
The noun sanctification ([oyooo, hagiasmos]) does not occur in the
Old Testament and is found but 10 times in the New Testament, but the
roots noted above appear in a group of important words which are of very
frequent occurrence. These words are holy, hallow, hallowed,
holiness, consecrate, saint, sanctify, sanctification. It must be
borne in mind that these words are all translations of the same root, and
that therefore no one of them can be treated adequately without reference
to the others. All have undergone a certain development. Broadly stated,
this has been from the formal, or ritual, to the ethical, and these different
meanings must be carefully distinguished.
560
I. THE FORMAL SENSE.
By sanctification is ordinarily meant that hallowing of the Christian believer
by which he is freed from sin and enabled to realize the will of God in his
life. This is not, however, the first or common meaning in the Scriptures.
To sanctify means commonly to make holy, that is, to separate from the
world and consecrate to God.
1. In the Old Testament:
To understand this primary meaning we must go back to the word holy
in the Old Testament. That is holy which belongs to Yahweh. There is
nothing implied here as to moral character. It may refer to days and
seasons, to places, to objects used for worship, or to persons. Exactly the
same usage is shown with the word sanctify. To sanctify anything is to
declare it as belonging to God. Sanctify unto me all the first-born .... it is
mine (
<021302>
Exodus 13:2; compare
<040313>
Numbers 3:13; 8:17). It applies thus
to all that is connected with worship, to the Levites (
<040312>
Numbers 3:12),
the priests and the tent of meeting (
<022944>
Exodus 29:44), the altar and all that
touches it (
<022936>
Exodus 29:36 f), and the offering (
<022927>
Exodus 29:27;
compare 2 Macc 2:18; Ecclesiasticus 7:31). The feast and holy days are to
be sanctified, that is, set apart from ordinary business as belonging to
Yahweh (the Sabbath,
<161319>
Nehemiah 13:19-22; a fast,
<290114>
Joel 1:14). So the
nation as a whole is sanctified when Yahweh acknowledges it and receives
it as His own, a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation (
<021905>
Exodus
19:5,6). A man may thus sanctify his house or his field (
<032714>
Leviticus
27:14,16), but not the firstling of the flock, for this is already Yahwehs
(
<032726>
Leviticus 27:26).
It is this formal usage without moral implication that explains such a
passage as
<013821>
Genesis 38:21. The word translated prostitute here is from
the same root qadhash, meaning literally, as elsewhere, the sanctified or
consecrated one (qedheshah; see margin and compare
<052318>
Deuteronomy
23:18;
<111424>
1 Kings 14:24;
<280414>
Hosea 4:14). It is the hierodule, the familiar
figure of the old pagan temple, the sacred slave consecrated to the temple
and the deity for immoral purposes. The practice is protested against in
Israel (
<052317>
Deuteronomy 23:17 f), but the use of the term illustrates clearly
the absence of anything essentially ethical in its primary meaning (compare
also
<121020>
2 Kings 10:20, And Jehu said, Sanctify a solemn assembly for
Baal. And they proclaimed it; compare
<290114>
Joel 1:14).
561
Very suggestive is the transitive use of the word in the phrase, to sanctify
Yahweh. To understand this we must note the use of the word holy as
applied to Yahweh in the Old Testament. Its meaning is not primarily
ethical. Yahwehs holiness is His supremacy, His sovereignty, His glory,
His essential being as God. To say the Holy One is simply to say God.
Yahwehs holiness is seen in His might, His manifested glory; it is that
before which peoples tremble, which makes the nations dread (
<021511>
Exodus
15:11-18; compare
<090620>
1 Samuel 6:20;
<196835>
Psalm 68:35; 89:7; 99:2,3).
Significant is the way in which jealous and holy are almost identified
(
<062419>
Joshua 24:19;
<263823>
Ezekiel 38:23). It is God asserting His supremacy,
His unique claim. To sanctify Yahweh, therefore, to make Him holy, is to
assert or acknowledge or bring forth His being as God, His supreme power
and glory, His sovereign claim. Ezekiel brings this out most clearly.
Yahweh has been profaned in the eyes of the nations through Israels
defeat and captivity. True, it was because of Israels sins, but the nations
thought it was because of Yahwehs weakness. The ethical is not wanting
in these passages. The people are to be separated from their sins and given
a new heart (
<263625>
Ezekiel 36:25,26,33). But the word sanctify is not used
for this. It is applied to Yahweh, and it means the assertion of Yahwehs
power in Israels triumph and the conquest of her foes (
<262041>
Ezekiel 20:41;
28:25; 36:23; 38:16; 39:27). The sanctification of Yahweh is thus the
assertion of His being and power as God, just as the sanctification of a
person or object is the assertion of Yahwehs right and claim in the same.
The story of the waters of Meribah illustrates the same meaning. Moses
failure to sanctify Yahweh is his failure to declare Yahwehs glory and
power in the miracle of the waters (
<042012>
Numbers 20:12,13; 27:14;
<053251>
Deuteronomy 32:51). The story of Nadab and Abihu points the same
way. Here I will be sanctified is the same as I will be glorified
(
<031001>
Leviticus 10:1-3). Not essentially different is the usage in
<230516>
Isaiah
5:16: Yahweh of hosts is exalted in justice, and God the Holy One is
sanctified in righteousness. Holiness again is the exaltedhess of God, His
supremacy, which is seen here in the judgment (justice, righteousness)
meted out to the disobedient people (compare the recurrent refrain of
<230525>
Isaiah 5:25; 9:12,17,21; 10:4; see JUSTICE; JUSTICE OF GOD).
<230813>
Isaiah 8:13; 29:23 suggest the same idea by the way in which they relate
sanctify to fear and awe. One New Testament passage brings us the same
meaning (1 Pet 3:15): Sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord, that is,
exalt Him as supreme.
562
2. In the New Testament:
In a few New Testament passages the Old Testament ritual sense
reappears, as when Jesus speaks of the temple sanctifying the gold, and the
altar the gift (
<402317>
Matthew 23:17,19; compare also
<580913>
Hebrews 9:13;
<540405>
1
Timothy 4:5). The prevailing meaning is that which we found in the Old
Testament. To sanctify is to consecrate or set apart. We may first take the
few passages in the Fourth Gospel. As applied to Jesus in
<431036>
John 10:36;
17:19, sanctify cannot mean to make holy in the ethical sense. As the
whole context shows, it means to consecrate for His mission in the world.
The reference to the disciples, that they themselves also may be sanctified
in truth, has both meanings: that they may be set apart, (for Jesus sends
them, as the Father sends Him), and that they may be made holy in truth.
This same meaning of consecration, or separation, appears when we study
the word saint, which is the same as sanctified one. Aside from its use in
the Psalms, the word is found mainly in the New Testament. Outside the
Gospels, where the term disciples is used, it is the common word to
designate the followers of Jesus, occurring some 56 times. By saint is not
meant the morally perfect, but the one who belongs to Christ, just as the
sanctified priest or offering belonged to Yahweh. Thus Paul can salute the
disciples at Corinth as saints and a little later rebuke them as carnal and
babes, as those among whom are jealousy and strife, who walk after the
manner of men (1 Cor 1:2; 3:1-3). In the same way the phrase the
sanctified or those that are sanctified is used to designate the believers.
By the inheritance among all them that are sanctified is meant the
heritage of the Christian believer (
<442032>
Acts 20:32; 26:18; compare
<460102>
1
Corinthians 1:2; 6:11;
<490118>
Ephesians 1:18;
<510112>
Colossians 1:12). This is the
meaning in Hebrews, which speaks of the believer as being sanctified by
the blood of Christ. In 10:29 the writer speaks of one who has fallen away,
who hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified
an unholy thing. Evidently it is not the inner and personal holiness of this
apostate that is referred to, especially in view of the tense, but that he had
been separated unto God by this sacrificial blood and had then counted the
holy offering a common thing. The contrast is between sacred and
common, not between moral perfection and sin (compare 10:10; 13:12).
The formal meaning appears again in
<460712>
1 Corinthians 7:12-14, where the
unbelieving husband is said to be sanctified by the wife, and vice versa. It is
not moral character that is meant here, but a certain separation from the
profane and unclean and a certain relation to God. This is made plain by
563
the reference to the children: Else were your children unclean; but now
are they holy. The formal sense is less certain in other instances where we
have the thought of sanctification in or by the Holy Spirit or in Christ; as in
<451516>
Romans 15:16, being sanctified by the Holy Spirit;
<460102>
1 Corinthians
1:2, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus;
<600102>
1 Peter 1:2, in
sanctification of the Spirit. Pauls doctrine of the Spirit as the new life in
us seems to enter in here, and yet the reference to 1 Corinthians suggests
that the primary meaning is still that of setting apart, the relating to God.
II. THE ETHICAL SENSE.
We have been considering so far what has been called the formal meaning
of the word; but the chief interest of Christian thought lies in the ethical
idea, sanctification considered as the active deed or process by which the
life is made holy.
1. Transformation of Formal to Ethical Idea:
Our first question is, How does the idea of belonging to God become the
idea of transformation of life and character? The change is, indeed, nothing
less than a part of the whole movement for which the entire Scriptures
stand as a monument. The ethical is not wanting at the beginning, but the
supremacy of the moral and spiritual over against the formal, the ritual, the
ceremonial, the national, is the clear direction in which the movement as a
whole tends. Now the pivot of this movement is the conception of God. As
the thought of God grows more ethical, more spiritual, it molds and
changes all other conceptions. Thus what it means to belong to God
(holiness, sanctification) depends upon the nature of the God to whom man
belongs. The hierodules of Corinth are women of shame because of the
nature of the goddess to whose temple they belong. The prophets caught a
vision of Yahweh, not jealous for His prerogative, not craving the honor of
punctilious and proper ceremonial, but with a gracious love for His people
and a passion for righteousness. Their great message is: This now is
Yahweh; hear what it means to belong to such a God and to serve Him.
What unto me is the multitude of your sacrifices? .... Wash you, make you
clean; .... seek justice, relieve the oppressed (
<230111>
Isaiah 1:11,16,17).
When Israel was a child, then I loved him. .... I desire goodness, and not
sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than bunt-offerings (
<281101>
Hosea
11:1; 6:6).
564
In this way the formal idea that we have been considering becomes charged
with moral meaning. To belong to God, to be His servant, His son, is no
mere external matter. Jesus teaching as to sonship is in point here. The
word sanctification does not occur in the Synoptic Gospels at all, but
sonship with the Jews expressed this same relation of belonging. For
them it meant a certain obedience on the one hand, a privilege on the other.
Jesus declares that belonging to God means likeness to Him, sonship is
sharing His spirit of loving good will (
<400543>
Matthew 5:43-48). Brother and
sister for Jesus are those who do Gods will (
<410335>
Mark 3:35). Paul takes up
the same thought, but joins it definitely to the words saint and sanctify.
The religious means the ethical, those that are sanctified are called to be
saints (1 Cor 1:2). The significant latter phrase is the same as in
<450101>
Romans 1:1, Paul .... called to be an apostle. In this light we read
<490401>
Ephesians 4:1, Walk worthily of the calling wherewith ye were called.
Compare
<520212>
1 Thessalonians 2:12;
<500127>
Philippians 1:27. And the end of this
calling is that we are foreordained to be conformed to the image of his
Son (
<450829>
Romans 8:29). We must not limit ourselves to the words saint
or sanctify to get this teaching with Paul. It is his constant and
compelling moral appeal: You belong to Christ; live with Him, live unto
Him (
<510301>
Colossians 3:1-4;
<520510>
1 Thessalonians 5:10). It is no formal
belonging, no external surrender. It is the yielding of the life in its passions
and purposes, in its deepest affections and highest powers, to be ruled by a
new spirit (
<490413>
Ephesians 4:13,10,23,24,32; compare
<451201>
Romans 12:1).
2. Our Relation to God as Personal: New Testament Idea:
But we do not get the full meaning of this thought of sanctification as
consecration, or belonging, until we grasp the New Testament thought of
our relation to God as personal. The danger has always been that this
consecration should be thought of in a negative or passive way. Now the
Christians surrender is not to an outer authority but to an inner, living
fellowship. The sanctified life is thus a life of personal fellowship lived out
with the Father in the spirit of Christ in loving trust and obedient service.
This positive and vital meaning of sanctification dominates Pauls thought.
He speaks of living unto God, of living to the Lord, and most expressively
of all, of being alive unto Golf (
<451408>
Romans 14:8; compare 6:13;
<480219>
Galatians 2:19). So completely is his life filled by this fellowship that he
can say, It is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me (
<480220>
Galatians
2:20). But there is no quietism here. It is a very rich and active life, this life
of fellowship to which we are surrendered. It is a life of sonship in trust
565
and love, with the spirit that enables us to say Abba, Father (
<450815>
Romans
8:15;
<480406>
Galatians 4:6). It is a life of unconquerable kindness and good will
(
<400543>
Matthew 5:43-48). It is a life of faith working through love
(
<480506>
Galatians 5:6), it is having the mind of Christ (
<501405>
Philippians 2:5). The
sanctified life, then, is the life so fully surrendered to fellowship with Christ
day by day that inner spirit and outward expression are ruled by His spirit.
3. Sanctification as Gods Gift:
We come now to that aspect which is central for Christian interest,
sanctification as the making holy of life, not by our act, but by Gods deed
and by Gods gift. If holiness represents the state of heart and life in
conformity with Gods will, then sanctification is the deed or process by
which that state is wrought. And this deed we are to consider now as the
work of God. Jesus prays that the Father may sanctify His disciples in truth
(
<431717>
John 17:17). So Paul prays for the Thessalonians (1 Thess 5:23), and
declares that Christ is to sanctify His church (compare
<450622>
Romans 6:22;
<530213>
2 Thessalonians 2:13;
<550221>
2 Timothy 2:21;
<600102>
1 Peter 1:2). Here
sanctification means to make clean or holy in the ethical sense, though the
idea of consecration is not necessarily lacking. But aside from special
passages, we must take into account the whole New Testament teaching,
according to which every part of the Christian life is the gift of God and
wrought by His Spirit. It is God that worketh in you both to will and to
work (
<503813>
Philippians 2:13; compare
<450802>
Romans 8:2-4,9,14,16-26;
<480522>
Galatians 5:22 f). Significant is the use of the words creature
(creation, see margin) and workmanship with Paul (2 Cor 5:17;
<480615>
Galatians 6:15;
<490210>
Ephesians 2:10; 4:24). The new life is Gods second
work of creation.
4. Questions of Time and Method:
When we ask, however, when and how this work is wrought, there is no
such clear answer. What we have is on the one hand uncompromising ideal
and demand, and on the other absolute confidence in God. By adding to
these two the evident fact that the Christian believers seen in the New
Testament are far from the attainment of such Christian perfection, some
writers have assumed to have the foundation here for the doctrine that the
state of complete holiness of life is a special experience in the Christian life
wrought in a definite moment of time. It is well to realize that no New
Testament passages give a specific answer to these questions of time and
566
method, and that our conclusions must be drawn from the general teaching
of the New Testament as to the Christian life.
5. An Element in All Christian Life:
First, it must be noted that in the New Testament view sanctification in the
ethical sense is an essential element and inevitable result of all Christian life
and experience. Looked at from the religious point of view, it follows from
the doctrine of regeneration. Regeneration is the implanting of a new life in
man. So far as that is a new life from God it is ipso facto holy. The
doctrine of the Holy Spirit teaches the same (see HOLY SPIRIT). There is
no Christian life from the very beginning that is not the work of the Spirit.
No man can (even) say, Jesus is Lord, but in the .... Spirit (1 Cor 12:3).
But this Spirit is the Holy Spirit, whether with Paul we say Spirit of Christ
or Spirit of God (
<450809>
Romans 8:9). His presence, therefore, in so far forth
means holiness of life. From the ethical standpoint the same thing is
constantly declared. Jesus builds here upon the prophets: no religion
without righteousness; clean hands, pure hearts, deeds of mercy are not
mere conditions of worship, but joined to humble hearts are themselves the
worship that God desires (
<300521>
Amos 5:21-25;
<330606>
Micah 6:6-8). Jesus
deepened the conception, but did not, change it, and Paul was true to this
succession. If any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And
if Christ is in you, .... the spirit is life because of righteousness
(
<450809>
Romans 8:9,10). There is nothing in Pauls teaching to suggest that
sanctification is the special event of a unique experience, or that there are
two kinds or qualities of sanctification. All Christian living meant for him
clean, pure, right living, and that was sanctification. The simple, practical
way in which he attacks the bane of sexual impurity in his pagan
congregations shows this. This is the will of God, even your
sanctification, that ye abstain from fornication; that each one of you know
how to possess himself of his own vessel in sanctification and honor. For
God called us not for uncleanness, but in sanctification (1 Thess 4:3,4,7).
The strength of Pauls teaching, indeed, lies here in this combination of
moral earnestness with absolute dependence upon God.
6. Follows from Fellowship with God:
The second general conclusion that we draw from the New Testament
teaching as to the Christian life is this: the sanctification which is a part of
all Christian living follows from the very nature of that life as fellowship
567
with God. Fundamental here is the fact that the Christian life is personal,
that nothing belongs in it which cannot be stated in personal terms. It is a
life with God in which He graciously gives Himself to us, and which we
live out with Him and with our brothers in the spirit of Christ, which is His
Spirit. The two great facts as to this fellowship are, that it is Gods gift,
and that its fruit is holiness. First, it is Gods gift. What God gives us is
nothing less than Himself. The gift is not primarily forgiveness, nor victory
over sin, nor peace of soul, nor hope of heaven. It is fellowship with Him,
which includes all of these and without which none of these can be.
Secondly, the fruit of this fellowship is holiness. The real hallowing of our
life can come in no other way. For Christian holiness is personal, not
something formal or ritual, and its source and power can be nothing lower
than the personal. Such is the fellowship into which God graciously lifts the
believer. Whatever its mystical aspects, that fellowship is not magical or
sacramental. It is ethical through and through. Its condition on our side is
ethical. For Christian faith is the moral surrender of our life to Him in
whom truth and right come to us with authority to command. The meaning
of that surrender is ethical; it is opening the life to definite moral realities
and powers, to love, meekness, gentleness, humility, reverence, purity, the
passion for righteousness, to that which words cannot analyze but which
we know as the Spirit of Christ. Such a fellowship is the supreme moral
force for the molding of life. An intimate human fellowship is an analogue
of this, and we know with what power it works on life and character. It
cannot, however, set forth either the intimacy or the power of this supreme
and final relation where our Friend is not another but is our real self. So
much we know: this fellowship means a new spirit in us, a renewed and
daily renewing life.
It is noteworthy that Paul has no hard-and-fast forms for this life. The
reality was too rich and great, and his example should teach us caution in
the insistence upon theological forms which may serve to compress the
truth instead of expressing it. Here are some of his expressions for this life
in us: to have the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2:16;
<501405>
Philippians 2:5), the
Spirit of Christ (
<450809>
Romans 8:9), Christ is in you (
<450810>
Romans 8:10),
the spirit which is from God (1 Cor 2:12), the Spirit of God (1 Cor
3:16), the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19), the Spirit of the Lord (2 Cor
3:17), the Lord the Spirit (2 Cor 3:18). But in all this one fact stands out,
this life is personal, a new spirit in us, and that spirit is one that we have in
personal fellowship with God; it is His Spirit. Especially significant is the
568
way in which Paul relates this new life to Christ. We have already noted
that Paul uses indifferently Spirit of God and Spirit of Christ, and that
in the same passage (
<450809>
Romans 8:9). Pauls great contribution to the
doctrine of the Holy Spirit lies here. As he states it in
<470317>
2 Corinthians
3:17: Now the Lord is the Spirit. With that the whole conception of the
Spirit gains moral content and personal character. The Spirit is personal,
not some thing, nor some strange and magical power. The Spirit is ethical;
there is a definite moral quality which is expressed when we say Christ. He
has the Spirit who has the qualities of Christ. Thus the presence of the
Spirit is not evidenced in the unusual, the miraculous, the ecstatic utterance
of the enthusiast, or some strange deed of power, but in the workaday
qualities of kindness, goodness, love, loyalty, patience, self-restraint
(
<480522>
Galatians 5:22 f). With this identification of the Spirit and the Christ in
mind, we can better understand the passages in which Paul brings out the
relation of Christ to the sanctification of the believer. He is the goal
(
<450829>
Romans 8:29). We are to grow up in Him (
<490415>
Ephesians 4:15). He is
to be formed in us (
<480419>
Galatians 4:19). We are to behold Him and be
changed into His image (2 Cor 3:17 f). This deepens into Pauls thought of
the mystical relation with Christ. The Christian dies to sin with Him that he
may live with Him a new life. Christ is now his real life. He dwells in
Christ, Christ dwells in him. He has Christs thoughts, His mind. See
<450603>
Romans 6:3-11; 8:9,10;
<460216>
1 Corinthians 2:16; 15:22;
<480220>
Galatians
2:20.
This vital and positive conception of the sanctification of the believer must
be asserted against some popular interpretations. The symbols of fire and
water, as suggesting cleansing, have sometimes been made the basis for a
whole superstructure of doctrine. (For the former, note
<230606>
Isaiah 6:6 f;
<420316>
Luke 3:16;
<440203>
Acts 2:3; for the latter,
<440238>
Acts 2:38; 22:16;
<460611>
1
Corinthians 6:11;
<490526>
Ephesians 5:26;
<560305>
Titus 3:5;
<581022>
Hebrews 10:22;
<660105>
Revelation 1:5; 7:14.) There is a two-fold danger here, from which
these writers have not escaped. The symbols suggest cleansing, and their
over-emphasis has meant first a negative and narrow idea of sanctification
as primarily separation from sin or defilement. This is a falling back to
certain Old Testament levels. Secondly, these material symbols have been
literalized, and the result has been a sort of mechanical or magical
conception of the work of the Spirit. But the soul is not a substance for
mechanical action, however sublimated. It is personal life that is to be
569
hallowed, thought, affections, motives, desires, will, and only a personal
agent through personal fellowship can work this end.
7. Is It Instantaneous and Entire?:
The clear recognition of the personal and vital character of sanctification
will help us with another problem. If the holy life be Gods requirement and
at the same time His deed, why should not this sanctification be
instantaneous and entire? And does not Paul imply this, not merely in his
demands but in his prayer for the Thessalonians, that God may establish
their hearts in holiness, that He may sanctify them wholly and preserve
spirit and soul and body entire, without blame at the coming of our Lord
Jesus Christ (1 Thess 3:13; 5:23)?
In answer to this we must first discriminate between the ideal and the
empirical with Paul. Like John (
<620106>
1 John 1:6; 3:9), Paul insists that the life
of Christ and the life of sin cannot go on together, and he knows no
qualified obedience, no graduated standard. He brings the highest Christian
demand to the poorest of his pagan converts. Nor have we any finer proof
of his faith than this uncompromising idealism. On the other hand, how
could he ask less than this? God cannot require less than the highest, but it
is another question how the ideal is to be achieved. In the realm of the ideal
it is always either .... or. In the realm of life there is another category. The
question is not simply, Is this man sinner or saint? It is rather, What is he
becoming? This matter of becoming is the really vital issue. Is this man
turned the right way with all his power? Is his life wholly open to the divine
fellowship? Not the degree of achievement, but the right attitude toward
the ideal, is decisive. Paul does not stop to resolve paradoxes, but
practically he reckons with this idea. Side by side with his prayer for the
Thessalonians are his admonitions to growth and progress (1 Thess 3:12;
5:14). Neither the absolute demand or the promise of grace gives us the
right to conclude how the consummation shall take place.
8. Sanctification as Mans Task:
That conclusion we can reach only as we go back again to the fundamental
principle of the personal character of the Christian life and the relation thus
given between the ethical and the religious. All Christian life is gift and task
alike. Work out your own salvation .... for it is God who worketh in you
(
<503512>
Philippians 2:12 f). All is from God; we can only live what God gives.
But there is a converse to this: only as we live it out can God give to us the
570
life. This appears in Pauls teaching as to sanctification. It is not only Gods
gift, but our task. This is the will of God, even your sanctification (1
Thess 4:3). Having therefore these promises .... let us cleanse ourselves
from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness (hagiosune) in
the fear of God (2 Cor 7:1). Significant is Pauls use of the word walk.
We are to walk in newness of life, by (or in) the Spirit, in love, and
in Christ Jesus the Lord (
<450604>
Romans 6:4;
<480516>
Galatians 5:16;
<490502>
Ephesians 5:2;
<510206>
Colossians 2:6). The gift in each case becomes the
task, and indeed becomes real and effective only in this activity. It is only
as we walk by the Spirit that this becomes powerful in overcoming the
lusts of the flesh (
<480516>
Galatians 5:16; compare 5:25). But the ethical is the
task that ends only with life. If God gives only as we live, then He cannot
give all at once. Sanctification is then the matter of a life and not of a
moment. The life may be consecrated in a moment, the right relation to
God assumed and the man stand in saving fellowship with Him. The life is
thus made holy in principle. But the real making holy is co-extensive with
the whole life of man. It is nothing less than the constant in-forming of the
life of the inner spirit and outer deed with the Spirit of Christ until we,
speaking truth in love, may grow up in all things into him, who is the
head (
<490415>
Ephesians 4:15). (Read also Romans 6; that the Christian is dead
to sin is not some fixed static fact, but is true only as he refuses the lower
and yields his members to a higher obedience. Note that in
<460507>
1
Corinthians 5:7 Paul in the same verse declares ye are unleavened, and
then exhorts Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump;
compare also
<520505>
1 Thessalonians 5:5-10.)
We may sum up as follows: The word sanctify is used with two broad
meanings:
(1) The first is to devote, to consecrate to God, to recognize as holy,
that is, as belonging to God. This is the regular Old Testament usage
and is most common in the New Testament. The prophets showed that
this belonging to Yahweh demanded righteousness. The New
Testament deepens this into a whole-hearted surrender to the
fellowship of God and to the rule of His Spirit.
(2) Though the word itself appears in but few passages with this sense,
the New Testament is full of the thought of the making holy of the
Christians life by the Spirit of God in that fellowship into which God
lifts us by His grace and in which He gives Himself to us. This
571
sanctifying, or hallowing, is not mechanical or magical. It is wrought
out by Gods Spirit in a daily fellowship to which man gives himself in
aspiration and trust and obedience, receiving with open heart, living out
in obedient life. It is not negative, the mere separation from sin, but the
progressive hallowing of a life that grows constantly in capacity, as in
character, into the stature of full manhood as it is in Christ. And from
this its very nature it is not momentary, but the deed and the privilege
of a whole life.
See also HOLY SPIRIT and the following article.
LITERATURE.
The popular and special works are usually too undiscriminating and
unhistorical to be of value for the Biblical study. An exception is Beet,
Holiness Symbolic and Real. Full Biblical material in Cremer, Biblical
Theol. Lexicon, but treated from special points of view. See Systematic
Theologies, Old Testament Theologies (compare especially Smend), and
New Testament Theologies (compare especially Holtzmann).
Harris Franklin Rall
WESLEYAN DOCTRINE
1. DOCTRINE STATED:
Christian perfection, through entire sanctification, by faith, here and now,
was one of the doctrines by which John Wesley gave great offense to his
clerical brethren in the Anglican church. From the beginning of his work in
1739, till 1760, he was formulating this doctrine. At the last date there
suddenly arose a large number of witnesses among his followers. Many of
these he questioned with Baconian skill, the result being a confirmation of
his theories on various points.
In public address he used the terms Christian Perfection, Perfect Love,
and Holiness, as synonymous, though there are differences between them
when examined critically. With Paul he taught that all regenerate persons
are saints, i.e. holy ones, as the word saint, from Latin sanctus, through
the Norman-Fr, signifies (1 Cor 1:2;
<470101>
2 Corinthians 1:1). His theory is
that in the normal Christian the principle of holiness, beginning with the
new birth, gradually expands and strengthens as the believer grows in grace
and in the knowledge of the truth, till, by a final, all-surrendering act of
572
faith in Christ, it reaches an instantaneous completion through the act of
the Holy Spirit, the sanctifier:
<470701>
2 Corinthians 7:1 perfecting holiness,
etc.;
<490413>
Ephesians 4:13, the King James Version Till we all come .... unto
a perfect man, etc. Thus sanctification is gradual, but entire sanctification
is instantaneous (
<450606>
Romans 6:6, our old man was crucified, etc., a
sudden death;
<480220>
Galatians 2:20, I have been crucified with Christ; and it
is no longer I that live). In
<520523>
1 Thessalonians 5:23, the word sanctify is
a Greek aorist tense, signifying an act and not a process, as also in
<431719>
John
17:19, that they .... may be sanctified in truth, or truly. (See Meyers
note.) Many Christians experience this change on their deathbeds. If death
suddenly ends the life of a growing Christian before he is wholly sanctified,
the Holy Spirit perfects the work. Wesleys advice to the preachers of this
evangelical perfection was to draw and not to drive, and never to quote
any threatenings of Gods word against Gods children. The declaration,
Without sanctification no man shall see the Lord (
<581214>
Hebrews 12:14),
does not apply to the saints, the holy ones.
Wesleys perfection of love is not perfection of degree, but of kind. Pure
love is perfect love. The gradual growth toward perfect purity of love is
beautifully expressed in Monods hymn,
O the bitter shame and sorrow!
The first response to the Saviours call is,
All of self, and none of Thee.
But after a view of Christ on the cross. the answer is faintly,
Some of self, and some of Thee.
Then, after a period of growing love, the cry is,
Less of self, and more of Thee.
After another period, the final cry is,
None of self, and all of Thee!
an aspiration for pure love, without any selfishness.
The attainment of this grace is certified by the total cessation of all Servile
fear (
<620418>
1 John 4:18). Wesley added to this the witness of the Spirit, for
which his only proof-text is
<460212>
1 Corinthians 2:12.
573
2. OBJECTIONS ANSWERED:
(1) Paul, in
<500312>
Philippians 3:12, declares that he is not made perfect:
(a) in 3:15, he declares that he is perfect;
(b) made perfect is a term, borrowed from the ancient games,
signifying a finished course. This is one of the meanings of teleioo, as
seen also in
<421332>
Luke 13:32 margin, The third day I end my course.
Paul no more disclaims spiritual perfection in these words than does
Christ before the third day. Paul claims in
<500315>
Philippians 3:15, by the
use of an adjective, that he is perfect. In 3:12 Paul claims that he is not
perfect as a victor, because the race is not ended. In 3:15 he claims that
he is perfect as a racer.
(2) Paul says (1 Cor 15:31), I die daily. This does not refer to death
to sin, as some say that it does, but to his daily danger of being killed
for preaching Christ, as in
<450836>
Romans 8:36, we are killed all the day
long.
(3)
<620108>
1 John 1:8: If we say that we have no sin, etc.
(a) If this includes Christians, it contradicts John himself in the very
next verse, and in 3:9, sin, Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no
and
<430836>
John 8:36, If .... the Son shall make you free, etc., and in all
those texts in the New Testament declaring sins forgiven.
(b) Bishop Westcott says that the expression, to have sin, is
distinguished from to sin, as the sinful principle is distinguished from
the sinful act in itself. It includes the idea of personal guilt. Westcott
asserts that John refers to the Gnostics, who taught that moral evil
exists only in matter, and never touches spirit, which is always holy;
and, therefore, though guilty of all manner of vice, their spirits had no
need of atonement, because they were untouched by sin, which existed
only in their bodies, as it does in all matter. When told that this made
the body of Christ sinful, they denied the reality of His body, saying
that it was only a phantom. Hence, in the very first verse of this Epistle,
John writes evidently against the Gnostic error, quoting three of the
five senses to prove the reality of Chrtsts humanity. (By all means, see
The Epistles of John, Cambridge Bible for Schools, etc., 17-21.)
574
3. REQUIRED FOR THE HIGHEST SUCCESS OF THE
PREACHER:
The relation of this doctrine to the Methodist Episcopal church in the
United States is seen in the following questions, which have been
affirmatively answered in public by all its preachers on their admission to
the Conferences: Are you going on to perfection?; Do you expect to be
made perfect in love in this life?; Are you earnestly striving after it? The
hymns of the Wesleys, still universally sung, are filled with this doctrine, in
which occur such expressions as:
4. HYMNOLOGY:
Take away our bent to sinning, ....
Let us find that second rest, ....
Make and keep me pure within, ....
Tis done! Thou dost this moment save,
With full salvation bless. ....
5. ITS GLORIOUS RESULTS:
To the preaching of Christian perfection Wesley ascribed the success of his
work in the conversion, religious training and intellectual education of the
masses of Great Britain. It furnished him a multitude of consecrated
workers, many of them lay preachers, who labored in nearly every hamlet,
and who carried the gospel into all the British colonies, including America.
It is declared by secular historians that this great evangelical movement, in
which the doctrine of entire sanctification was so prominent, saved
England from a disastrous revolution, like that which drenched France with
the blood of its royal family and its nobility, in the last decade of the 18th
century. It is certain that the great Christian and humanitarian work of
William Booth, originally a Methodist, was inspired by this doctrine which
he constantly preached. This enabled his followers in the early years of the
Salvation Army to endure the persecutions which befell them at that time.
6. WESLEYS PERSONAL TESTIMONY:
On March 6, 1760, Wesley enters in his Journal the following testimony of
one Elizabeth Longmore: `I felt my soul was all love. I was so stayed on
God as I never felt before, and knew that I loved Him with all my heart. ....
And the witness that God had saved me from all my sins grew clearer every
575
hour. .... I have never since found my heart wander from God. Now this is
what I always did, and do now, mean by perfection. And this I believe
many have attained, on the same evidence that I believe many are
justified.
We have Wesleys only recorded testimony to his own justification in these
words (May 24, 1738): I felt my heart strangely warmed .... and an
assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins, etc.
Daniel Steele
SANCTITY, LEGISLATION OF
<sank-ti-ti>, <lej-is-la-shun>.
See ASTRONOMY, I, 5, (6).
SANCTUARY
<sank-tu-a-ri>, <sank-tu-a-ri> ([v D ;q ]mi, miqdash], [v d ;Q ]mi ,
miqqedhash], [v d ,q o, qodhesh], holy place; [oyov, hagion]):
1. NATURE OF ARTICLE:
The present article is designed to supplement the articles on ALTARS;
HIGH PLACE; PENTATEUCH; TABERNACLE; TEMPLE, by giving an
outline of certain rival views of the course of law and history as regards the
place of worship. The subject has a special importance because it was made
the turning-point of Wellhausens discussion of the development of Israels
literature, history and religion. He himself writes: I differ from Graf
chiefly in this, that I always go back to the centralization of the cult, and
deduce from it the particular divergences. My whole position is contained
in my first chapter (Prolegomena, 368). For the purposes of this
discussion it is necessary to use the symbols J, E, D, H, and the Priestly
Code (P), which are explained in the article PENTATEUCH.
It is said that there are three distinct stages of law and history.
576
2. THE GRAF-WELLHAUSEN HYPOTHESIS:
The Three Stages:
(1) In the first stage all slaughter of domestic animals for food purposes
was sacrificial, and every layman could sacrifice locally at an altar of
earth or unhewn stones. The law of JE is contained in
<022024>
Exodus
20:24-26, providing for the making of an altar of earth or stones, and
emphasis is laid on the words in every place (in all the place is
grammatically an equally possible rendering) where I record my name I
will come unto thee and I will bless thee. This, it is claimed, permits a
plurality of sanctuaries. Illustrations are provided by the history. The
patriarchs move about the country freely and build altars at various
places. Later sacrifices or altars are mentioned in connection with
Jethro (
<021812>
Exodus 18:12), Moses (
<021715>
Exodus 17:15, etc.), Joshua
(
<060830>
Joshua 8:30), Gideon (
<070626>
Judges 6:26 etc.), Manoah (
<071319>
Judges
13:19), Samuel (
<090717>
1 Samuel 7:17, etc.), Elijah (
<111832>
1 Kings 18:32), to
take but a few instances. Perhaps the most instructive case is that of
Saul after the battle of Michmash. Observing that the people were
eating meat with blood, he caused a large stone to be rolled to him, and
we are expressly told that this was the first altar that he built to the
Lord (
<091435>
1 Samuel 14:35). While some of these examples might be
accounted for by theophanies or other special circumstances, they are
too numerous when taken together for such an explanation to suffice.
In many instances they represent the conduct of the most authoritative
and religious leaders of the age, e.g. Samuel, and it must be presumed
that such men knew and acted upon the Law of their own day. Hence,
the history and the Law of Exodus 20 are in unison in permitting a
multiplicity of sanctuaries. Wellhausen adds: Altars as a rule are not
built by the patriarchs according to their own private judgment
wheresoever they please; on the contrary, a theophany calls attention
to, or, at least afterward, confirms, the holiness of the place (op. cit.,
31).
(2) The second stage is presented by Deuteronomy in the Law and
Josiahs reformation in the history. Undoubtedly, Deuteronomy 12
permits local non-sacrificial slaughter for the purposes of food, and
enjoins the destruction of heathen places of worship, insisting with
great vehemence on the central sanctuary. The narrative of Josiahs
reformation in 2 Kings 23 tallies with these principles.
577
(3) The third great body of law (the Priestly Code, P) does not deal
with the question (save in one passage, Leviticus 17). In Deuteronomy
the unity of the cult is commanded; in the Priestly Code it is
presupposed. .... What follows from this forms the question before us.
To my thinking, this: that the Priestly Code rests upon the result which
is only the aim of Deuteronomy (Prolegomena, 35). Accordingly, it is
later than the latter book and dates from about the time of Ezra. As to
<031701>
Leviticus 17:1-9, this belongs to H (the Law of Holiness, Leviticus
17 through 26), an older collection of laws than the Priestly Code (P),
and is taken up in the latter. Its intention was to secure the exclusive
legitimation of the one lawful place of sacrifice. .... Plainly the common
man did not quite understand the newly drawn and previously quite
unknown distinction between the religious and the profane act
(Prolegomena, 50). Accordingly, this legislator strove to meet the
difficulty by the new enactment.
See CRITICISM (The Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis).
3. DIFFICULTIES OF THE THEORY:
(1) Slaughter Not Necessarily Sacrificial
The general substratum afforded by the documentary theory falls within the
scope of the article PENTATEUCH. The present discussion is limited to
the legal and historical outline traced above. The view that all slaughter of
domestic animals was sacrificial till the time of Josiah is rebutted by the
evidence of the early books. The following examples should be noted: in
<011807>
Genesis 18:7 a calf is slain without any trace of a sacrifice, and in 27:9-
14 (Jacobs substitute for venison) no altar or religious rite can fairly be
postulated. In
<092824>
1 Samuel 28:24 the slaughter is performed by a woman,
so that here again sacrifice is out of the question. If Gideon performed a
sacrifice when he made ready a kid (
<070619>
Judges 6:19) or when he killed
an animal for the broth of which the narrative speaks, the animals in
question must have been sacrificed twice over, once when they were killed
and again when the food was consumed by flames. Special importance
attaches to
<022201>
Exodus 22:1 (Hebrew 21:37), for there the JE legislation
itself speaks of slaughter by cattle thieves as a natural and probable
occurrence, and it can surely not have regarded this as a sacrificial act.
Other instances are to be found in
<014316>
Genesis 43:16;
<092511>
1 Samuel 25:11;
<111921>
1 Kings 19:21. In
<090813>
1 Samuel 8:13 the word translated cooks means
578
literally, women slaughterers. All these instances are prior to the date
assigned to Deuteronomy. With respect to
<031701>
Leviticus 17:1-7 also, theory
is unworkable. At any time in King Josiahs reign or after, it would have
been utterly impossible to limit all slaughter of animals for the whole race
wherever resident to one single spot. This part of theory therefore breaks
down.
(2) Sacrifice and Theophany
The view that the altars were erected at places that were peculiarly holy, or
at any rate were subsequently sanctified by a theophany, is also untenable.
In the Patriarchal age we may refer to
<010426>
Genesis 4:26, where the calling
on God implies sacrifice but not theophanies, Abram at Beth-el (12:8) and
Mamre (13:18), and Jacobs sacrifices (31:54; 33:20). Compare later
Samuels altar at Ramah, Adonijahs sacrifice at En-rogel (1 Kings 1),
Naamans earth (2 Kings 5), Davids clans sacrifice (
<092006>
1 Samuel
20:6,29). It is impossible to postulate theophanies for the sacrifices of
every clan in the country, and it becomes necessary to translate
<022024>
Exodus
20:24 in all the place (see supra 2, (1)) and to understand the place as
the territory of Israel.
(3) Alleged Plurality of Sanctuaries
The hypothesis of a multiplicity of sanctuaries in JE and the history also
leaves out of view many most important facts. The truth is that the word
sanctuary is ambiguous and misleading. A plurality of altars of earth or
stone is not a plurality of sanctuaries. The early legislation knows a house
of Yahweh in addition to the primitive altars (
<022319>
Exodus 23:19; 34:26;
compare the parts of
<060923>
Joshua 9:23,27 assigned to J). No eyewitness
could mistake a house for an altar, or vice versa.
(4) The Altar of Gods House
Moreover a curious little bit of evidence shows that the house had quite
a different kind of altar. In
<110150>
1 Kings 1:50 f; 2:28 ff, we hear of the horns
of the altar (compare
<300314>
Amos 3:14). Neither earth nor unhewn stones (as
required by the Law of Exodus 20) could provide such horns, and the
historical instances of the altars of the patriarchs, religious leaders, etc., to
which reference has been made, show that they had no horns. Accordingly,
we are thrown back on the description of the great altar of burnt offering in
Exodus 27 and must assume that an altar of this type was to be found
579
before the ark before Solomon built his Temple. Thus the altar of the
House of God was quite different from the customary lay altar, and when
we read of mine altar as a refuge in
<022114>
Exodus 21:14, we must refer it to
the former, as is shown by the passages just cited. In addition to the early
legislation and the historical passages cited as recognizing a House of God
with a horned altar, we see such a house in Shiloh where Eli and his sons
of the house of Aaron (
<090227>
1 Samuel 2:27) ministered. Thus the data of
both JE and the history show us a House of God with a horned altar side
by side with the multiplicity of stone or earthen altars, but give us no hint
of a plurality of legitimate houses or shrines or sanctuaries.
(5) Local Altars in Deuteronomy
Deuteronomy also recognizes a number of local altars in 16:21 (see ICC, at
the place) and so does Later Deuteronomistic editors in
<060830>
Joshua 8:30 ff.
There is no place for any of these passages ia the Wellhausen theory; but
again we find one house side by side with many lay altars.
4. THE ALTERNATIVE VIEW:
(1) Lay Sacrifice
The alternative view seeks to account for the whole of the facts noted
above. In bald outline it is as follows: In pre-Mosaic times customary
sacrifices had been freely offered by laymen at altars of earth or stone
which were not sanctuaries, but places that could be used for the nonce
and then abandoned. Slaughter, as shown by the instances cited, was not
necessarily sacrificial. Moses did not forbid or discourage the custom he
found. On the contrary, he regulated it in
<022024>
Exodus 20:24-26;
<051621>
Deuteronomy 16:21 f to prevent possible abuses. But he also
superimposed two other kinds of sacrifice certain new offerings to be
brought by individuals to the religious capital and the national offerings of
Numbers 28; 29 and other passages. If the Priestly Code (P) assumes the
religious capital as axiomatic, the reason is that this portion of the Law
consists of teaching entrusted to the priests, embracing the procedure to be
followed in these two classes of offerings, and does not refer at all to the
procedure at customary lay sacrifices, which was regulated by immemorial
custom. Deuteronomy thunders not against the lay altars which are
never even mentioned in this connection but against the Canaanite high
places. Deuteronomy 12 contemplates only the new individual offerings.
The permission of lay slaughter for food was due to the fact that the
580
infidelity of the Israelites in the wilderness (
<031705>
Leviticus 17:5-7) had led to
the universal prohibition of lay slaughter for the period of the wanderings
only, though it appears to be continued by Deuteronomy for those who
lived near the House of God (see
<031202>
Leviticus 12:21, limited to the case if
the place .... be too far from thee).
(2) Three Pilgrimage Festivals.
The JE legislation itself recognizes the three pilgrimage festivals of the
House of God (
<023422>
Exodus 34:22 f). One of these festivals is called the
feast of weeks, even of the bikkurim (a kind of first-fruits) of wheat
harvest, and as
<022319>
Exodus 23:19 and 34:26 require these bikkurim to be
brought to the House of God and not to a lay altar, it follows that the
pilgrimages are as firmly established here as in Deuteronomy. Thus we find
a House (with a horned altar) served by priests and lay altars of earth or
stone side by side in law and history till the exile swept them all away, and
by breaking the continuity of tradition and practice paved the way for a
new and artificial interpretation of the Law that was far removed from the
intent of the lawgiver.
5. THE ELEPHANTINE PAPYRI:
The Elephantine Temple.
Papyri have recently been found at Elephantine which show us a Jewish
community in Egypt which in 405 BC possessed a local temple. On the
Wellhausen hypothesis it is usual to assume that the Priestly Code (P) and
Deuteronomy were still unknown and not recognized as authoritative in
this community at that date, although the Deuteronomic law of the central
sanctuary goes back at least to 621. It is difficult to understand how a law
that had been recognized as divine by Jeremiah and others could still have
been unknown or destitute of authority. On the alternative view this
phenomenon will have been the result of an interpretation of the Law to
suit the needs of an age some 800 years subsequent to the death of Moses
in circumstances he never contemplated. The Pentateuch apparently
permits sacrifice only in the land of Israel: in the altered circumstances the
choice lay between interpreting the Law in this way or abandoning public
worship altogether; for the synagogue with its non-sacrificial form of
public worship had not yet been invented. All old legislations have to be
construed in this way to meet changing circumstances, and this example
contains nothing exceptional or surprising.
581
LITERATURE
J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel, chapter i, for the
critical hypothesis; H. M. Wiener, EPC, chapter vi, PS passim for the
alternative view; POT, 173 ff.
Harold M. Wiener
SAND
([l wOj , chol]; [oo, ammos]; a variant of the more usual [goo,
psammos]; compare [oo0o, amathos], [goo0oo, psamathos]):
Sand is principally produced by the grinding action of waves. This is
accompanied by chemical solution, with the result that the more soluble
constituents of the rock diminish in amount or disappear and the sands tend
to become more or less purely silicious, silica or quartz being a common
constituent of rocks and very Insoluble. The rocks of Palestine are so
largely composed of limestone that the shore and dune sands are unusually
calcareous, containing from 10 to 20 per cent of calcium carbonate. This is
subject to solution and redeposition as a cement between the sand grains,
binding them together to form the porous sandstone of the seashore, which
is easily worked and is much used in building.
See Rock, III, (2).
FIGURATIVE:
(1) Used most often as a symbol of countless multitude; especially of
the children of Israel (
<012217>
Genesis 22:17; 32:12;
<101711>
2 Samuel 17:11;
<110420>
1 Kings 4:20;
<231022>
Isaiah 10:22; 48:19;
<243303>
Jeremiah 33:32;
<280110>
Hosea
1:10;
<450927>
Romans 9:27;
<581112>
Hebrews 11:12); also of the enemies of
Israel (
<061104>
Joshua 11:4;
<070712>
Judges 7:12;
<091305>
1 Samuel 13:5; compare
<662008>
Revelation 20:8). Joseph laid up gram as the sand of the sea
(
<014149>
Genesis 41:49); God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding and
largeness of heart as the sand that is on the seashore (
<110429>
1 Kings 4:29);
Job says I shall multiply my days as the sand (
<182918>
Job 29:18); the
multitude of quails provided for the Israelites in the desert is compared
to the sand (
<197827>
Psalm 78:27); the Psalmist says of the thoughts of God,
They are more in number than the sand (
<19D918>
Psalm 139:18); Jeremiah,
speaking of the desolation of Jerusalem, says that the number of
widows is as the sand (
<241508>
Jeremiah 15:8).
582
(2) Sand is also a symbol of weight (
<180603>
Job 6:3;
<202703>
Proverbs 27:3),
and
(3) of instability (
<400726>
Matthew 7:26).
It is a question what is meant by the hidden treasures of the sand in
<053319>
Deuteronomy 33:19.
Alfred Ely Day
SAND FLIES
<sand-fliz> ([ NiK i, kinnim] (
<020816>
Exodus 8:16 margin; The Wisdom of
Solomon 19:10 margin)): English Versions of the Bible lice.
See FLEA; GNAT; INSECTS; LICE.
SAND, GLOWING
<glo-ing>.
See MIRAGE.
SAND-LIZARD
<sand-liz-ard>. ([f m,j o, chomeT]; Septuagint [ooupo, saura], lizard;
the King James Version snail): ChomeT is 7th in the list of unclean
creeping things in
<031129>
Leviticus 11:29,30, and occurs nowhere else. It is
probably a skink or some species of Lacerta.
See LIZARD
SANDAL
<san-dal>.
See DRESS, 6; SHOE; SHOE-LATCHET.
SANHEDRIN
<san-he-drin> ([yr id ]h ,n]s , canhedhrin], the Talmudic transcription of
the Greek [ouvrpov, sunedrion]):
583
1. NAME:
The Sanhedrin was, at and before the time of Christ, the name for the
highest Jewish tribunal, of 71 members, in Jerusalem, and also for the
lower tribunals, of 23 members, of which Jerusalem had two (Tosephta
Chaghighah] 11 9; Sanhedrin 1 6; 11 2). It is derived from sun, together,
and hedra, seat. In Greek and Roman literature the senates of Sparta,
Carthage, and even Rome, are so called (compare Pausan. iii.11, 2; Polyb.
iii.22; Dion Cassius xl.49). In Josephus we meet with the word for the first
time in connection with the governor Gabinius (57-55 BC), who divided
the whole of Palestine into 5 sunedria (Ant., XIV, v, 4), or sunodoi (B J, I,
viii, 5); and with the term sunedrion for the high council in Jerusalem first
in Ant, XIV, ix, 3-5, in connection with Herod, who, when a youth, had to
appear before the sunedrion at Jerusalem to answer for his doings in
Galilee. But before that date the word appears in the Septuagint version of
Proverbs (circa 130 BC), especially in 22:10; 31:23, as an equivalent for
the Mishnaic beth-din = judgment chamber.
In the New Testament the word sometimes, especially when used in the
plural (
<401017>
Matthew 10:17;
<411309>
Mark 13:9; compare Sanhedrin 1 5), means
simply court of justice, i.e. any judicatory (
<400522>
Matthew 5:22). But in
most cases it is used to designate the supreme Jewish Court of Justice in
Jerusalem, in which the process against our Lord was carried on, and
before which the apostles (especially Peter and John, Stephen, and Paul)
had to justify themselves (
<402659>
Matthew 26:59;
<411455>
Mark 14:55; 15:1;
<422266>
Luke 22:66;
<431147>
John 11:47;
<440415>
Acts 4:15; 5:21 ff; 6:12 ff; 22:30; 23:1
ff; 24:20). Sometimes presbuterion (
<422266>
Luke 22:66;
<442205>
Acts 22:5) and
gerousia (
<440521>
Acts 5:21) are substituted for sunedrion.
See SENATE.
In the Jewish tradition-literature the term Sanhedrin alternates with
kenishta, meeting-place (Meghillath Ta-anith 10, compiled in the 1st
century AD), and beth-din, court of justice (Sanhedrin 11 2,4). As,
according to Jewish tradition, there were two kinds of sunedria, namely,
the supreme sunedrion in Jerusalem of 71 members, and lesser sunedria of
23 members, which were appointed by the supreme one, we find often the
term canhedhrin gedholah, the great Sanhedrin, or beth-din ha-gadhol,
the great court of justice (Middoth 5 4; Sanhedrin 1 6), or canhedhrin
584
gedholah ha-yoshebheth be-lishekhath hagazith, the great Sanhedrin
which sits in the hall of hewn stone.
2. ORIGIN AND HISTORY:
There is lack of positive historical information as to the origin of the
Sanhedrin. According to Jewish tradition (compare Sanhedrin 16) it was
constituted by Moses (
<041116>
Numbers 11:16-24) and was reorganized by Ezra
immediately after the return from exile (compare the Targum to Song 6:1).
But there is no historical evidence to show that previous to the Greek
period there existed an organized aristocratic governing tribunal among the
Jews. Its beginning is to be placed at the period in which Asia was
convulsed by Alexander the Great and his successors.
The Hellenistic kings conceded a great amount of internal freedom to
municipal communities, and Palestine was then practically under home rule,
and was governed by an aristocratic council of Elders (1 Macc 12:6; 2
Macc 1:10; 4:44; 11:27; 3 Macc 1:8; compare Josephus, Ant, XII, iii, 4;
XIII, v, 8; Meghillath Ta`anith 10), the head of which was the hereditary
high priest. The court was called Gerousia, which in Greek always signifies
an aristocratic body (see Westermann in Paulys RE, III, 49). Subsequently
this developed into the Sanhedrin.
During the Roman period (except for about 10 years at the time of
Gabinius, who applied to Judea the Roman system of government;
compare Marquardt, Romische Staatsverwaltung, I, 501), the Sanhedrins
influence was most powerful, the internal government of the country being
practically in its hands (Ant., XX, x), and it was religiously recognized
even among the Diaspora (compare
<440902>
Acts 9:2; 22:5; 26:12). According
to Schurer (HJP, div II, volume 1, 171; GJV4, 236) the civil authority of
the Sanhedrin, from the time of Archelaus, Herod the Greats son, was
probably restricted to Judea proper, and for that reason, he thinks, it had
no judicial authority over our Lord so long as He remained in Galilee (but
see G.A. Smith, Jerusalem, I, 416).
The Sanhedrin was abolished after the destruction of Jerusalem (70 AD).
The beth-din (court of judgment) in Jabneh (68-80), in Usah (80-116), in
Shafran (140-63), in Sepphoris (163-93), in Tiberias (193-220), though
regarded in the Talmud (compare Rosh ha-shanah 31a) as having been the
direct continuation of the Sanhedrin, had an essentially different character;
585
it was merely an assembly of scribes, whose decisions had only a
theoretical importance (compare Sotah 9 11).
3. CONSTITUTION:
The Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem was formed (
<402603>
Matthew 26:3,17,59;
<411453>
Mark 14:53; 15:1;
<422266>
Luke 22:66;
<440405>
Acts 4:5 f; 5:21; 22:30) of high
priests (i.e. the acting high priest, those who had been high priests, and
members of the privileged families from which the high priests were taken),
elders (tribal and family heads of the people and priesthood), and scribes
(i.e. legal assessors), Pharisees and Sadducees alike (compare
<440401>
Acts 4:1
ff; 5:17,34; 23:6). In
<411543>
Mark 15:43;
<422350>
Luke 23:50, Joseph of Arimathea
is called bouleutes, councillor, i.e. member of the Sanhedrin.
According to Josephus and the New Testament, the acting high priest was
as such always head and president (
<402603>
Matthew 26:3,17;
<440517>
Acts 5:17 ff;
7:1; 9:1 f; 22:5; 23:2; 24:1; Ant, IV, viii, 17; XX, x). Caiaphas is president
at the trial of our Lord, and at Pauls trial Ananias is president. On the
other hand, according to the Talmud (especially Haghighah 2 2), the
Sanhedrin is represented as a juridical tribunal of scribes, in which one
scribe acted as nasi, prince, i.e. president, and another as abh-beth-din,
father of the judgment-chamber, i.e. vice-president. So far, it has not been
found possible to reconcile these conflicting descriptions (see Literature,
below).
Sanhedrin 4 3 mentions the cophere-ha-dayanim, notaries, one of whom
registered the reasons for acquittal, and the other the reasons for
condemnation. In the New Testament we read of huperetai, constables
(
<400525>
Matthew 5:25) and of the servants of the high priest (
<402651>
Matthew
26:51;
<411447>
Mark 14:47;
<431810>
John 18:10), whom Josephus describes as
enlisted from the rudest and most restless characters (Ant., XX, viii, 8;
ix, 2). Josephus speaks of the public whip, Matthew mentions
tormentors (18:34), Luke speaks of spies (20:20).
The whole history of post-exilic Judaism circles round the high priests, and
the priestly aristocracy always played the leading part in the Sanhedrin
(compare Sanhedrin 4 2). But the more the Pharisees grew in importance,
the more were they represented in the Sanhedrin. In the time of Salome
they were so powerful that the queen ruled only in name, but the
Pharisees in reality (Ant., XIII, xvi, 2). So in the time of Christ, the
586
Sanhedrin was formally led by the Sadducean high priests, but practically
ruled by the Pharisees (Ant., XVIII, i, 4).
4. JURISDICTION:
In the time of Christ the Great Sanhedrin at Jerusalem enjoyed a very high
measure of independence. It exercised not only civil jurisdiction, according
to Jewish law, but also, in some degree, criminal. It had administrative
authority and could order arrests by its own officers of justice (
<402647>
Matthew
26:47;
<411443>
Mark 14:43;
<440403>
Acts 4:3; 5:17 f; 9:2; compare Sanhedrin 1 5). It
was empowered to judge cases which did not involve capital punishment,
which latter required the confirmation of the Roman procurator (
<431831>
John
18:31; compare the Jerusalem Sanhedrin 1 1; 7 2 (p. 24); Josephus, Ant,
XX, ix, 1). But, as a rule, the procurator arranged his judgment in
accordance with the demands of the Sanhedrin.
For one offense the Sanhedrin could put to death, on their own authority,
even a Roman citizen, namely, in the case of a Gentile passing the fence
which divided the inner court of the Temple from that of the Gentiles (BJ,
VI, ii, 4; Middoth 11 3; compare
<442128>
Acts 21:28). The only case of capital
punishment in connection with the Sanhedrin in the New Testament is that
of our Lord. The stoning of Stephen (
<440754>
Acts 7:54 ff) was probably the
illegal act of an enraged multitude.
5. PLACE AND TIME OF MEETING:
The Talmudic tradition names the hall of hewn stone, which, according
to Middoth 5 4, was on the south side of the great court, as the seat of the
Great Sanhedrin (Pe-ah 2 6; `Edhuyoth 7 4, et al.). But the last sittings of
the Sanhedrin were held in the city outside the Temple area (Sanhedrin
41a; Shabbath 15a; Rosh ha-shanah 31a; Abhodhah zarah 8c). Josephus
also mentions the place where the bouleutai, the councilors, met as the
boule, outside the Temple (BJ, V, iv, 2), and most probably he refers to
these last sittings.
According to the Tosephta Sanhedrin 7 1, the Sanhedrin held its sittings
from the time of the offering of the daily morning sacrifice till that of the
evening sacrifice. There were no sittings on Sabbaths or feast days.
587
6. PROCEDURE:
The members of the Sanhedrin were arranged in a semicircle, so that they
could see each other (Sanhedrin 4 3; Tosephta 8 1). The two notaries
stood before them, whose duty it was to record the votes (see 3, above).
The prisoner had to appear in humble attitude and dressed it, mourning
(Ant., XIV, ix, 4). A sentence of capital punishment could not be passed
on the day of the trial. The decision of the judges had to be examined on
the following day (Sanhedrin 4 1), except in the case of a person who
misled the people, who could be tried and condemned the same day or in
the night (Tosephta Sanhedrin 10). Because of this, cases which involved
capital punishment were not tried on a Friday or on any day before a feast.
A herald preceded the condemned one as he was led to the place of
execution, and cried out: N. the son of N. has been found guilty of death,
etc. If anyone knows anything to clear him, let him come forward and
declare it (Sanhedrin 6 1). Near the place of execution the condemned
man was asked to confess his guilt in order that he might partake in the
world to come (ibid.; compare
<422341>
Luke 23:41-43).
LITERATURE.
Our knowledge about the Sanhedrin is based on three sources: the New
Testament, Josephus, and the Jewish tradition-literature (especially Mishna,
Sanhedrin and Makkoth, best edition, Strack, with German translation,
Schriften des Institutum Judaicum in Berlin, N. 38, Leipzig, 1910).
See the article, TALMUD.
Consult the following histories of the Jewish people: Ewald, Herzfeld,
Gratz, but especially Schurers excellent HJP, much more fully in GJV4;
also G. A. Smith, Jerusalem. Special treatises on Sanhedrin: D. Hoffmann,
Der oberste Gerichtsh of in der Stadt des Heiligtums, Berlin, 1878, where
the author tries to defend the Jewish traditional view as to the antiquity of
the Sanhedrin; J. Reifmann, Sanhedrin (in Hebrews), Berditschew, 1888;
A. Kuenen, On the Composition of the Sanhedrin, in Dutch, translated into
German by Budde, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, etc., 49-81, Freiburg,
1894; Jelski, Die innere Einrichtung des grossen Synedrions zu Jerusalem,
Breslau, 1894, who tries to reconcile the Talmudical statements about the
composition of the Sanhedrin with those of Josephus and the New
Testament (especially in connection with the question of president) by
showing that in the Mishna (except Chaghighah 11 2) nasi always stands
588
for the political president, the high priest, and abh-beth-din for the scribal
head of the Sanhedrin, and not for the vice-president; A. Buchler, Das
Synedrium in Jerusalem und das grosse Beth-din in der Quaderkammer des
jerusalemischen Tempels, Vienna, 1902, a very interesting but not
convincing work, where the author, in order to reconcile the two different
sets of sources, tries to prove that the great Sanhedrin of the Talmud is not
identical with the Sanhedrin of Josephus and the New Testament, but that
there were two Sanhedrins in Jerusalem, the one of the New Testament
and Josephus being a political one, the other a religious one. He also thinks
that Christ was seized, not by the Sanhedrin, but by the temple authorities.
See also W. Bachers article in HDB (excellent for sifting the
Talmudic sources); Dr. Lauterbachs article in the Jewish
Encyclopedia (accepts fully Biichlers view); H. Stracks article in
Sch-Herz (concise and exact).
Paul Levertoff
SANSANNAH
<san-san-a> ([h N; s n] s , cancannah]; [2ovoovvo, Sansanna], or
[2r0rvvox, Sethennak]): One of the uttermost cities in the Negeb of
Judah (
<061531>
Joshua 15:31), identical with Hazar-susah (
<061905>
Joshua 19:5), one
of the cities of Simeon, and almost certainly the same as Hazar-susim (
<130431>
1
Chronicles 4:31). It cannot be said to have been identified with any
certainty, though Simsim, a good-sized village with well and pool,
surrounded by gardens and having a grove of olives to the north, has been
suggested (PEF, III, 260, Sh XX).
SAPH
<saf> ([t s , caph]; Codex Vaticanus [2o, Saph]; Codex Alexandrinus
[2rr, Sephe]): A Philistine, one of the four champions of the race of
Rapha (giant) who was slain by Sibbecai, one of Davids heroes (
<102118>
2
Samuel 21:18;
<132004>
1 Chronicles 20:4). It is supposed by some that he was
the son of the giant Goliath, but this is not proved. In
<132004>
1 Chronicles
20:4, the same person is called Sippai.
SAPHAT
<sa-fat>:
589
(1) A and Fritzsche, [2oot, Saphat]; omitted in Codex Vaticanus
(and Swete); Babylonian margin [ Aoo, Asaph]: The eponym of a
family which returned with Zerubbabel (1 Esdras 5:9) = Shephatiah
in
<150204>
Ezra 2:4;
<160709>
Nehemiah 7:9.
(2) Codex Alexandrinus [2oot, Saphat]; Codex Vaticanus, Swete,
and Fritzsche, [2ooy, Saphag]; the King James Version Sabat: One
of the families of the sons of the servants of Solomon who returned
with Zerubbabel (1 Esdras 5:34); wanting in the parallel
<150257>
Ezra 2:57;
<160759>
Nehemiah 7:59.
SAPHATIAS
<saf-a-ti-as> ([2ooto, Saphatias], Codex Vaticanus [2ooto,
Sophotias]; omitted in Codex Alexandrinus): Name of a family of returning
exiles (1 Esdras 8:34) = Shephatiah in
<150808>
Ezra 8:8. If Saphatias (1
Esdras 8:34) = Saphat (1 Esdras 5:9), as would appear, then part of the
family went up with Zerubbabel and part with Ezra.
SAPHETH
<sa-feth>: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and
American) SAPHUTHI (which see).
SAPHIR
<sa-fer> ([r yp iv ;, shaphir]).
See SHAPHIR.
SAPHUTHI
<saf-u-thi>, <sa-fu-thi> (Codex Alexandrinus and Fritzsche, [2ou0,
Saphuthi], Codex Vaticanus (and Swete), [2our, Saphuei]; the King
James Version Sapheth): Name of one of the families of the sons of the
servants of Solomon (1 Esdras 5:33) = Shephatiah in
<150257>
Ezra 2:57;
<160759>
Nehemiah 7:59.
590
SAPPHIRA
<sa-fi-ra> ([a r ; yP i v , shappira]; Aramaic for either beautiful or
sapphire; [2orpo, Sappheira]): Wife of Ananias (
<440501>
Acts 5:1-10).
See ANANIAS, (1).
SAPPHIRE
<saf-ir>.
See STONES, PRECIOUS.
SARABIAS
<sar-a-bi-as> ([2opopo, Sarabias]) : One of the Levites who taught
and expounded the Law for Ezra (1 Esdras 9:48) = Sherebiah in
<160807>
Nehemiah 8:7, probably identical with the Asebebias in 1 Esdras 8:47
(
<150818>
Ezra 8:18).
SARAH; SARAI
<sa-ra>, <sa-ri>:
(1) In
<011715>
Genesis 17:15 the woman who up to that time has been
known as Sarai ([yr c ; , Saray]; [2opo, Sara]) receives by divine
command the name Sarah ([h r ;v ;, Sarah]; [2oppo, Sarra]). (This last
form in Greek preserves the ancient doubling of the r, lost in the
Hebrew and the English forms.)
The former name appears to be derived from the same root as Israel, if,
indeed,
<013228>
Genesis 32:28 is intended as an etymology of Israel. She that
strives, a contentious person, is a name that might be given to a child at
birth (compare
<281203>
Hosea 12:3,4, of Jacob), or later when the childs
character developed; in
<011606>
Genesis 16:6 and 21:10 a contentious character
appears. Yet comparison with the history of her husbands name (see
ABRAHAM) warns us not to operate solely upon the basis of the Hebrew
language. Sarai was the name this woman brought with her from
Mesopotamia. On the other hand there can be little doubt that the name
Sarah, which she received when her son was promised, means princess,
for it is the feminine form of the extremely common title sar, used by the
591
Semites to designate a ruler of greater or lesser rank. In the verse following
the one where this name is conferred, it is declared of Sarah that kings of
peoples shall be of her (
<011716>
Genesis 17:16).
We are introduced to Sarai in
<011129>
Genesis 11:29. She is here mentioned as
the wife that Abraham took, while still in Ur of the Chaldees, that is,
while among his kindred. It is immediately added that Sarai was barren;
she had no child. By this simple remark in the overture of his narrative,
the writer sounds the motif that is to be developed in all the sequel. When
the migration to Haran occurs, Sarai is named along with Abram and Lot
as accompanying Terah. It has been held that the author (or authors) of
Genesis 11 knew nothing of the relationship announced in 20:12. But there
can be no proof of such ignorance, even on the assumption of diversity of
authorship in the two passages.
Sarais career as described in Genesis 11 was not dependent on her being
the daughter of Terah. Terah had other descendants who did not
accompany him. Her movements were determined by her being Abrams
wife. It appears, however, that she was a daughter of Terah by a different
mother from the mother of Abram. The language of 20:12 would indeed
admit of her being Abrams niece, but the fact that there was but 10 years
difference between his age and hers (
<011717>
Genesis 17:17) renders this
hypothesis less probable. Marriage with half-sisters seems to have been not
uncommon in antiquity (even in the Old Testament compare
<101313>
2 Samuel
13:13).
This double relationship suggested to Abraham the expedient that he twice
used when he lacked faith in God to protect his life and in cowardice
sought his own safety at the price of his wifes honor. The first of these
occasions was in the earlier period of their wanderings (Genesis 12). From
Canaan they went down into Egypt. Sarai, though above 60 years of age
according to the chronology of the sacred historian, made the impression
on the Egyptians by her beauty that Abraham had anticipated, and the
result was her transfer to the royal palace. But this was in direct
contravention of the purpose of God for His own kingdom. The earthly
majesty of Pharaoh had to bow before the divine majesty, which plagued
him and secured the strangers exodus, thus foreshadowing those later
plagues and that later exodus when Abrahams and Sarahs seed spoiled
the Egyptians.
592
We meet Sarah next in the narrative of the birth of Ishmael and of Isaac.
Though 14 years separated the two births, they are closely associated in the
story because of their logical continuity. Sarahs barrenness persisted. She
was now far past middle life, even on a patriarchal scale of longevity, and
there appeared no hope of her ever bearing that child who should inherit
the promise of God. She therefore adopts the expedient of being builded
by her personal slave, Hagar the Egyptian (see
<011602>
Genesis 16:2 margin).
That is, according to contemporary law and custom as witnessed by the
Code of Hammurabi (see ABRAHAM, IV, 2), a son born of this woman
would be the freeborn son and heir of Abraham and Sarah.
Such was in fact the position of Ishmael later. But the insolence of the
maid aroused the vindictive jealousy of the mistress and led to a painful
scene of unjustified expulsion. Hagar, however, returned at Gods behest,
humbled herself before Sarah, and bore Ishmael in his own fathers house.
Here he remained the sole and rightful heir, until the miracle of Isaacs
birth disappointed all human expectations and resulted in the ultimate
expulsion of Hagar and her son.
The change of name from Sarai to Sarah when Isaac was promised has
already been noted. Sarahs laughter of incredulity when she hears the
promise is of course associated with the origin of the name of Isaac, but it
serves also to emphasize the miraculous character of his birth, coming as it
does after his parents are both so well stricken in age as to make
parenthood seem an absurdity.
Before the birth of this child of promise, however, Sarah is again exposed,
through the cowardice of her husband, to dishonor and ruin. Abimelech,
king of Gerar, desiring to be allied by marriage with a man of Abrahams
power, sends for Sarah, whom he knows only as Abrahams sister, and for
the second time she takes her place in the harem of a prince. But the divine
promise is not to be thwarted, even by persistent human weakness and sin.
In a dream God reveals to Abimelech the true state of the case, and Sarah
is restored to her husband with an indemnity. Thereupon the long-delayed
son is born, the jealous mother secures the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael,
and her career comes to a close at the age of 127, at Hebroni long time her
home. The grief and devotion of Abraham are broadly displayed in Genesis
23, in which he seeks and obtains a burying-place for his wife. She is thus
the first to be interred in that cave of the field of Machpelah, which was to
593
be the common resting-place of the fathers and mothers of the future
Israel.
The character of Sarah is of mingled light and shade. On the one hand we
have seen that lapse from faith which resulted in the birth of Ishmael, and
that lack of self-control and charity which resulted in a quarrel with
Abraham, an act of injustice to Hagar, and the disinheriting of Ishmael. Yet
on the other hand we see in Sarah, as the New Testament writers point out
(
<581111>
Hebrews 11:11;
<600306>
1 Peter 3:6), one who through a long life of
companionship with Abraham shared his hope in God, his faith in the
promises, and his power to become Gods agent for achieving what was
humanly impossible. In fact, to Sarah is ascribed a sort of spiritual
maternity, correlative with Abrahams position as father of the faithful;
for all women are declared to be the (spiritual) daughters of Sarah, who
like her are adorned in the hidden man of the heart, and who are doers
of good and fearers of no terror (1 Peter loc. cit., literally rendered).
That in spite of her outbreak about Hagar and Ishmael she was in general
in subjection to her husband and of a meek and quiet spirit, appears
from her husbands genuine grief at her decease, and still more clearly from
her sons prolonged mourning for her (
<012467>
Genesis 24:67; compare 17:17
and 23:1 with 25:20). And He who maketh even the wrath of man to praise
Him used even Sarahs jealous anger to accomplish His purpose that the
son of the freewoman, Isaac, born through promise, should alone inherit
that promise (
<480422>
Galatians 4:22-31).
Apart from the three New Testament passages already cited, Sarah is
alluded to only in
<235102>
Isaiah 51:2 (Sarah that bare you, as the mother of
the nation), in
<450419>
Romans 4:19 (the deadness of Sarahs womb), and in
<450909>
Romans 9:9, where Gods promise in
<011810>
Genesis 18:10 is quoted. Yet
her existence and her history are of course presupposed wherever allusion
is made to the stories of Abraham and of Isaac.
To many modern critics Sarah supplies, by her name, a welcome argument
in support of the mythical view of Abraham. She has been held to be the
local numen to whom the cave near Hebron was sacred; or the deity whose
consort was worshipped in Arabia under the title Dusares, i.e. Husband-of-
Sarah; or, the female associate of Sin the moon-god, worshipped at Haran.
On these views the student will do well to consult Baethgen, Beitrage, 94,
157, and, for the most recent point of view, Gressmanns article, Sage
594
und Geschichte in den Patriarchenerzahlungen, ZATW, 1910, and
Eerdmans, Alttestamentliche Studien, II, 13.
(2) The daughter of Raguel, and wife of Tobias (Tobit 3:7,17, etc.).
See TOBIT, BOOK OF.
J . Oscar Boyd
SARAIAS
<sa-ra-yas>, <sa-ri-as> ([2opoo, Saraias]; Latin, Sareus):
(1) = Seraiah, the high priest in the reign of Zedekiah (1 Esdras 5:5,
compare
<130614>
1 Chronicles 6:14).
(2) Sareus the father of Ezra (2 Esdras 1:1) = Seraiah in
<150701>
Ezra 7:1,
sometimes identified with Saraias under (1). He is probably identical
with the Azaraias of 1 Esdras 8:1.
(3) the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and
American) Azaraias (1 Esdras 8:1).
SARAMEL
<sar-a-mel>: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and
American) ASARAMEL (which see).
SARAPH
<sa-raf>, <sa-raf> ([t r ;c ;, saraph], noble one; compare [t r c ; ,
saraph], burn shine): A descendant of Judah through Shelah (
<130422>
1
Chronicles 4:22).
SARCHEDONUS
<sar-ked-o-nus> (Codex Vaticanus [2orpovo, Sacherdonos]; Codex
Alexandrinus [2orpov, Sacherdan], but [2orpovooo,
Sacherdonosos] in Tobit 1:22): An incorrect spelling, both in the King
James Version and the Revised Version (British and American), for
Sacherdonus in Tobit 1:21 f, another form of Esar-haddon.
595
SARDEUS
<sar-de-us>: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and
American) ZARDEUS (which see).
SARDIN(E); SARDIUS
<sar-din>, <sar-din>.
See STONES, PRECIOUS.
SARDIS
<sar-dis> ([2opr, Sardeis]): Sardis is of special interest to the student
of Herodotus and Xenophon, for there Artaphernes, the brother of Darius,
lived, and from there Xerxes invaded Greece and Cyrus marched against
his brother Artaxerxes; it is also of interest to the student of early Christian
history as the home of one of the Seven Churches of Revelation (1:11; 3:1
ff). It was moreover one of the oldest and most important cities of Asia
Minor, and until 549 BC, the capital of the kingdom of Lydia. It stood on
the northern slope of Mt. Tmolus; its acropolis occupied one of the spurs
of the mountain. At the base flowed the river Pactolus which served as a
moat, rendering the city practically impregnable. Through the failure to
watch, however, the acropolis had been successfully scaled in 549 BC by a
Median soldier, and in 218 by a Cretan (compare
<660302>
Revelation 3:2,3).
Because of its strength during the Persian period, the satraps here made
their homes. However, the city was burned by the Ionians in 501 BC, but it
was quickly rebuilt and regained its importance. In 334 BC it surrendered
to Alexander the Great who gave it independence, but its period of
independence was brief, for 12 years later in 322 BC it was taken by
Antigonus. In 301 BC, it fell into the possession of the Seleucidan kings
who made it the residence of their governor. It became free again in 190
BC, when it formed a part of the empire of Pergamos, and later of the
Roman province of Asia. In 17 AD, when it was destroyed by an
earthquake, the Roman emperor Tiberius remitted the taxes of the people
and rebuilt the city, and in his honor the citizens of that and of neighboring
towns erected a large monument, but Sardis never recovered its former
importance (compare
<660312>
Revelation 3:12). Again in 295 AD, after the
Roman province of Asia was broken up, Sardis became the capital of
Lydia, and during the early Christian age it was the home of a bishop. The
596
city continued to flourish until 1402, when it was so completely destroyed
by Tamerlane that it was never rebuilt. Among the ruins there now stands a
small village called Sert, a corruption of its ancient name. The ruins may be
reached by rail from Smyrna, on the way to Philadelphia.
The ancient city was noted for its fruits and wool, and for its temple of the
goddess Cybele, whose worship resembled that of Diana of Ephesus. Its
wealth was also partly due to the gold which was found in the sand of the
river Pactolus, and it was here that gold and silver coins were first struck.
During the Roman period its coins formed a beautiful series, and are found
in abundance by the peasants who till the surrounding fields. The ruins of
the buildings which stood at the base of the hill have now been nearly
buried by the dirt washed down from above. The hill upon which the
acropolis stood measures 950 ft. high: the triple walls still surround it. The
more imposing of the ruins are on the lower slope of the hill, and among
them the temple of Cybele is the most interesting, yet only two of its many
stone columns are still standing. Equally imposing is the necropolis of the
city, which is at a distance of two hours ride from Sert, South of the
Gygaean lake. The modern name of the necropolis is Bin Tepe or
Thousand Mounds, because of the large group of great mounds in which
the kings and nobles were buried. Many of the mounds were long ago
excavated and plundered.
We quote the following from the Missionary Herald (Boston,
Massachusetts, August, 1911, pp. 361-62):
Dr. C. C. Tracy, of Marsovan, has made a visit to ancient Sardis and
observed the work of his countryman, Professor Butler, of Princeton
University, who is uncovering the ruins of that famous city of the past.
Already rich finds have been made; among them portions of a temple of
Artemis, indicating a building of the same stupendous character as those at
Ephesus and Baalbec, and a necropolis from whose tombs were unearthed
three thousand relics, including utensils, ornaments of gold and precious
stones, mirrors, etc. What chiefly impressed Dr. Tracy was the significance
of those Seven Churches of Asia, of which Sardis held one. When I
think of the myriads of various nationality and advanced civilization for
whose evangelization these churches were responsible, the messages to the
Christian communities occupying the splendid strategic centers fill me with
awe. While established amid the splendors of civilization, they were set as
597
candlesticks in the midst of gross spiritual darkness. Did they fulfill their
mission?
One of Dr. Butlers recoveries is the marble throne of the Bishop of Sardis;
looking upon it the message to Sardis recurs to mind. A fact of current
history quickened the visitors appreciation of the word to the angel of
that church. Yonder among the mountains overhanging Sardis there is a
robber gang led by the notorious Chakirjali. He rules in the mountains; no
government force can take him. Again and again he swoops down like an
eagle out of the sky, in one quarter of the region or another. From time
immemorial these mountains have been the haunts of robbers; very likely it
was so when Revelation was written, `I will come upon thee as a thief. In
each case the message was addressed to `the angel of the church. Over
every church in the world there is a spirit hovering, as it were a spirit
representing that church and by whose name it can be addressed. The
messages are as vital as they were at the first. `He that hath an ear, let him
hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
E. J . Banks
SARDITE
<sar-dit>.
See SERED.
SARDIUS
<sar-di-us>.
See STONES, PRECIOUS.
SARDONYX
<sar-do-niks>.
See STONES, PRECIOUS.
SAREPTA
<sa-rep-ta> ([2oprto, Sarepta]): The name in
<420426>
Luke 4:26 the King
James Version, following the Greek, of the Phoenician town to which
Elijah was sent in the time of the great famine, in order to save the lives of
598
a widow and her son (
<111709>
1 Kings 17:9,10). The Revised Version (British
and American) adopts the form of the name based upon the Hebrew, and
as found in the Old Testament: ZAREPHATH (which see).
SARID
<sa-rid> ([d yr ic ;, saridh]; Codex Vaticanus [ Eorrxyo,
Esedekgola], [2roux, Seddouk]; Codex Alexandrinus [2op0,
Sarthid], [2op, Sarid]): A place on the southern border of Zebulun to
the West of Chisloth-tabor (
<061910>
Joshua 19:10,12). It is mentioned but not
identified in Eusebius, Onomasticon. Probably we should read Sadid, and
in that case may with Conder locate it at Tell Shaddu, an artificial mound
with some modern ruins and good springs,
which stands on the plain, about 5 miles West of Iksal.
SARGON
<sar-gon> (722-705 BC): The name of this ruler is written [wOGr s ,
cargon], in the Old Testament, Shar-ukin in the cuneiform inscriptions, [
Apvo, Arna], in the Septuagint, and [ Apxrovo, Arkeanos], in the
Ptolemaic Canon. Sargon is mentioned but once by name in the Old
Testament (
<232001>
Isaiah 20:1), when he sent his Tartan (turtannu) against
Ashdod, but he is referred to in
<121706>
2 Kings 17:6 as the king of Assyria
who carried Israel into captivity.
Shalmaneser V had laid siege to Samaria and besieged it three years. But
shortly before or very soon after its capitulation, Sargon, perhaps being
responsible for the kings death, overthrew the dynasty, and in his annals
credited himself with the capture of the city and the deportation of its
inhabitants. Whether he assumed the name of the famous ancient founder
of the Accad dynasty is not known.
Sargon at the beginning of his reign was confronted with a serious situation
in Babylon. Merodach-baladan of Kaldu, who paid tribute to previous
rulers, on the change of dynasty had himself proclaimed king, New Years
Day, 721 BC. At Dur-ilu, Sargon fought with the forces of
Merodachbalddan and his ally Khumbanigash of Elam, but although he
claimed a victory the result was apparently indecisive. Rebellions followed
in other parts of the kingdom.
599
In 720 BC Ilu-bidi (or Yau-bidi), king of Hamath, formed a coalition
against Sargon with Hanno of Gaza, Sibu of Egypt, and with the cities
Arpad, Simirra, Damascus and Samaria. He claims that Sibu fled, and that
he captured and flayed Ilu-bidi, burned Qarqar, and carried Hanno captive
to Assyria. After destroying Rapihu, he carried away 9,033 inhabitants to
Assyria.
In the following year Ararat was invaded and the Hittite Carchemish fell
before his armies. The territory of Rusas, king of Ararat, as well as a part
of Melitene became Assyrian provinces.
In 710 BC Sargon directed his attention to Merodachbaladan, who no
longer enjoyed the support of Elam, and whose rule over Babylon had not
been popular with his subjects. He was driven out from Babylon and also
from his former capital Bit-Yakin, and Sargon had himself crowned as the
shakkanak of Babylon.
In 706 BC the new city called Dur-Sharrukin was dedicated as his
residence. A year later he was murdered. It was during his reign that the
height of Assyrian ascendancy had been reached.
A. T. Clay
SARON
<sa-ron>, ([2opv, Saron]): the King James Version; Greek form of
Sharon (
<440935>
Acts 9:35).
SAROTHIE
<sa-ro-thi-e> (Codex Alexandrinus [2op0r, Sarothie]; Codex
Vaticanus and Swete, [2op0r, Sarothei]): Name of a family of the
sons of the servants of Solomon who returned with Zerubbabel (1 Esdras
5:34); it is wanting in the parallel lists in
<150257>
Ezra 2:57;
<160759>
Nehemiah 7:59.
SARSECHIM
<sar-se-kim>, <sar-se-kim> ([ yk i s ] r ] c , sarckhim]): A prince of
Nebuchadnezzar, present at the taking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in
the 11th year of Zedekiah (
<243903>
Jeremiah 39:3). The versions with their
various readings Nabousachar Nabousarach, Sarsacheim point
to a corrupt text. The best emendation is the reading Nebhoshazibhon (=
600
Nabusezib-anni, Nebo delivers me); this is based on the reading in
<243913>
Jeremiah 39:13.
SARUCH
<sa-ruk> ([2opou, Sarouch], [2rpou, Serouch]): the King James
Version; Greek form of Serug (thus,
<420335>
Luke 3:35 the Revised Version
(British and American)).
SATAN
<sa-tan> ([f ;c ;, saTan]), adversary, from the verb [f c ; , saTan], to
lie in wait (as adversary); [2otov, Satan], [2otovo, Satanas],
adversary, [opoo, diabolos], Devil, adversary or accuser,
[xotqyp, kategor] (altogether unclassical and unGreek) (used once in
<661210>
Revelation 12:10), accuser):
I. DEFINITION.
A created but superhuman, personal, evil, world-power, represented in
Scripture as the adversary both of God and men.
II. SCRIPTURAL FACTS CONCERNING SATAN.
1. Names of Satan:
The most important of these are the Hebrew and Greek equivalents noticed
above. These words are used in the general sense justified by their
etymological significance. It is applied even to Yahweh Himself
(
<042222>
Numbers 22:22,32; compare
<092904>
1 Samuel 29:4;
<101922>
2 Samuel 19:22;
<19A906>
Psalm 109:6, etc.). The word Satan is used 24 times in the Old
Testament. In Job (1:6 f) and Zechariah (3:1 f) it has the prefixed definite
article. In all cases but one when the article is omitted it is used in a general
sense. This one exception is
<132101>
1 Chronicles 21:1 (compare
<102401>
2 Samuel
24:1), where the word is generally conceded to be used as a proper name.
This meaning is fixed in New Testament times. We are thus enabled to note
in the term Satan (and Devil) the growth of a word from a general term
to an appellation and later to a proper name. All the other names of Satan
save only these two are descriptive titles. In addition to these two principal
names a number of others deserve specific enumeration. Tempter
(
<400405>
Matthew 4:5;
<520305>
1 Thessalonians 3:5); Beelzebub (
<401224>
Matthew
601
12:24); Enemy (
<401339>
Matthew 13:39); Evil One (
<401319>
Matthew 13:19,38;
<620213>
1
John 2:13,14; 3:12, and particularly 5:18); Belial (2 Cor 6:15); Adversary
([ovtxo, antidikos]), (1 Pet 5:8); Deceiver (literally the one who
deceives) (
<661209>
Revelation 12:9); Dragon (Great) (
<661203>
Revelation 12:3);
Father of Lies (
<430844>
John 8:44); Murderer (
<430844>
John 8:44); Sinner (
<620308>
1 John
3:8) these are isolated references occurring from 1 to 3 times each. In
the vast majority of passages (70 out of 83) either Satan or Devil is used.
2. Character of Satan:
Satan is consistently represented in the New Testament as the enemy both
of God and man. The popular notion is that Satan is the enemy of man and
active in misleading and cursing humanity because of his intense hatred and
opposition to God.
<401339>
Matthew 13:39 would seem to point in this
direction, but if one were to venture an opinion in a region where there are
not enough facts to warrant a conviction, it would be that the general tenor
of Scripture indicates quite the contrary, namely, that Satans jealousy and
hatred of men has led him into antagonism to God and, consequently, to
goodness. The fundamental moral description of Satan is given by our
Lord when He describes Satan as the evil one (
<401319>
Matthew 13:19,38;
compare Isaiahs description of Yahweh as the Holy One,
<230104>
Isaiah 1:4
and often); that is, the one whose nature and will are given to evil. Moral
evil is his controlling attribute. It is evident that this description could not
be applied to Satan as originally created. Ethical evil cannot be concreated.
It is the creation of each free will for itself. We are not told in definite
terms how Satan became the evil one, but certainly it could be by no other
process than a fall, whereby, in the mystery of free personality, an evil will
takes the place of a good one.
3. Works of Satan:
The world-wide and age-long works of Satan are to be traced to one
predominant motive. He hates both God and man and does all that in him
lies to defeat Gods plan of grace and to establish and maintain a kingdom
of evil, in the seduction and ruin of mankind. The balance and sanity of the
Bible is nowhere more strikingly exhibited than in its treatment of the work
of Satan. Not only is the Bible entirely free from the extravagances of
popular Satanology, which is full of absurd stories concerning the
appearances, tricks, and transformations of Satan among men, but it
exhibits a dependable accuracy and consistency, of statement which is most
602
reassuring. Almost nothing is said concerning Satanic agency other than
wicked men who mislead other men. In the controversy with His
opponents concerning exorcism (
<410322>
Mark 3:22 f and parallels) our Lord
rebuts their slanderous assertion that He is in league with Satan by the
simple proposition that Satan does not work against himself. But in so
saying He does far more than refute this slander. He definitely aligns the
Bible against the popular idea that a man may make a definite and
conscious personal alliance with Satan for any purpose whatever. The
agent of Satan is always a victim. Also the hint contained in this discussion
that Satan has a kingdom, together with a few other not very definite
allusions, are all that we have to go upon in this direction. Nor are we
taught anywhere that Satan is able to any extent to introduce disorder into
the physical universe or directly operate in the lives of men. It is true that in
<421316>
Luke 13:16 our Lord speaks of the woman who was bowed over as one
whom Satan has bound, lo, these eighteen years, and that in
<471207>
2
Corinthians 12:7 Paul speaks of his infirmity as a messenger of Satan sent
to buffet him. Paul also speaks (1 Thess 2:18) of Satans hindering him
from visiting the church at Thessalonica. A careful study of these related
passages (together with the prologue of Job) will reveal the fact that
Satans direct agency in the physical world is very limited. Satan may be
said to be implicated in all the disasters and woes of human life, in so far as
they are more or less directly contingent upon sin (see particularly
<580214>
Hebrews 2:14) On the contrary, it is perfectly evident that Satans
power consists principally in his ability to deceive. It is interesting and
characteristic that according to the Bible Satan is fundamentally a liar and
his kingdom is a kingdom founded upon lies and deceit. The doctrine of
Satan therefore corresponds in every important particular to the general
Biblical emphasis upon truth. The truth shall make you free (
<430832>
John
8:32) this is the way of deliverance from the power of Satan.
Now it would seem that to make Satan pre-eminently the deceiver would
make man an innocent victim and thus relax the moral issue. But according
to the Bible man is particeps criminis in the process of his own deception.
He is deceived only because he ceases to love the truth and comes first to
love and then to believe a lie (2 Cor 1:10). This really goes to the very
bottom of the problem of temptation. Men are not tempted by evil, per se,
but by a good which can be obtained only at the cost of doing wrong. The
whole power of sin, at least in its beginnings, consists in the sway of the
fundamental falsehood that any good is really attainable by wrongdoing.
603
Since temptation consists in this attack upon the moral sense, man is
constitutionally guarded against deceit, and is morally culpable in allowing
himself to be deceived. The temptation of our Lord Himself throws the
clearest possible light upon the methods ascribed to Satan and The
temptation was addressed to Christs consciousness of divine sonship; it
was a deceitful attack emphasizing the good, minimizing or covering up the
evil; indeed, twisting evil into good. It was a deliberate, malignant attempt
to obscure the truth and induce to evil through the acceptance of
falsehood. The attack broke against a loyalty to truth which made self-
deceit, and consequently deceit from without, impossible. The lie was
punctured by the truth and the temptation lost its power (see
TEMPTATION OF CHRIST). This incident reveals one of the methods of
Satan by immediate suggestion as in the case of Judas (
<422203>
Luke 22:3;
<431302>
John 13:2,27). Sometimes, however, and, perhaps, most frequently,
Satans devices (2 Cor 2:11) include human agents. Those who are given
over to evil and who persuade others to evil are children and servants of
Satan (See
<401623>
Matthew 16:23;
<410833>
Mark 8:33;
<420408>
Luke 4:8;
<430670>
John 6:70;
8:44;
<441310>
Acts 13:10;
<620308>
1 John 3:8). Satan also works through persons
and institutions supposed to be on the side of right but really evil. Here the
same ever-present and active falseness and deceit are exhibited. When he is
called the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4) it would seem to be intimated
that he has the power to clothe himself in apparently divine attributes. He
also makes himself an angel of light by presenting advocates of falsehood
in the guise of apostles of truth (2 Cor 11:13,15;
<620401>
1 John 4:1;
<530209>
2
Thessalonians 2:9;
<661209>
Revelation 12:9; 19:20). In the combination of
passages here brought together, it is clearly indicated that Satan is the
instigator and fomenter of that spirit of lawlessness which exhibits itself as
hatred both of truth and right, and which has operated so widely and so
disastrously in human life.
4. History of Satan:
The history of Satan, including that phase of it which remains to be
realized, can be set forth only along the most general lines. He belongs to
the angelic order of beings. He is by nature one of the sons of [Elohim]
(
<180106>
Job 1:6). He has fallen, and by virtue of his personal forcefulness has
become the leader of the anarchic forces of wickedness. As a free being he
has merged his life in evil and has become altogether and hopelessly evil.
As a being of high intelligence he has gained great power and has exercised
a wide sway over other beings. As a created being the utmost range of his
604
power lies within the compass of that which is permitted. It is, therefore,
hedged in by the providential government of God and essentially limited.
The Biblical emphasis upon the element of falsehood in the career of Satan
might be taken to imply that his kingdom may be less in extent than
appears. At any rate, it is confined to the cosmic sphere and to a limited
portion of time. It is also doomed. In the closely related passages
<610204>
2
Peter 2:4 and
<650106>
Jude 1:6 it is affirmed that God cast the angels, when they
sinned, down to Tartarus and committed them to pits of darkness, to be
reserved unto judgment. This both refers to the constant divine control of
these insurgent forces and also points to their final and utter destruction.
The putting of Satan in bonds is evidently both constant and progressive.
The essential limitation of the empire of evil and its ultimate overthrow are
foreshadowed in the Book of Job (chapters 38 through 41), where
Yahwehs power extends even to the symbolized spirit of evil.
According to synoptic tradition, our Lord in the crisis of temptation
immediately following the baptism (Matthew 4 and parallel) met and for
the time conquered Satan as His own personal adversary. This preliminary
contest did not close the matter, but was the earnest of a complete victory.
According to Luke (10:18), when the Seventy returned from their mission
flushed with victory over the powers of evil, Jesus said: `I saw Satan fall
(not fallen; see Plummer, Luke, ICC, in the place cited.) as lightning
from heaven. In every triumph over the powers of evil Christ beheld in
vision the downfall of Satan. In connection with the coming of the
Hellenists who wished to see Him, Jesus asserted (
<431231>
John 12:31), Now is
the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
In view of His approaching passion He says again (
<431430>
John 14:30), The
prince of the world cometh: and he hath nothing in me. Once again in
connection with the promised advent of the Spirit, Jesus asserted (
<431611>
John
16:11) that the Spirit would convict the world of judgment, because the
prince of this world hath been judged. In Hebrews (2:14,15) it is said that
Christ took upon Himself human nature in order that through death he
might bring to nought him that had the power of death, that is, the Devil.
In
<620308>
1 John 3:8 it is said, To this end was the Son of God manifested,
that he might destroy the works of the Devil. In
<661209>
Revelation 12:9 it is
asserted, in connection with Christs ascension, that Satan was cast down
to the earth and his angels with him. According to the passage immediately
following (12:10-12), this casting down was not complete or final in the
sense of extinguishing his activities altogether, but it involves the potential
605
and certain triumph of God and His saints and the equally certain defeat of
Satan. In
<620213>
1 John 2:13 the young men are addressed as those who have
overcome the evil one. In Revelation 20 the field of the future is covered
in the assertion that Satan is bound a thousand years; then loosed for a
little time, and then finally cast into the lake of fire.
A comparison of these passages will convince the careful student that while
we cannot construct a definite chronological program for the career of
Satan, we are clear in the chief points. He is limited, judged, condemned,
imprisoned, reserved for judgment from the beginning. The outcome is
certain though the process may be tedious and slow. The victory of Christ
is the defeat of Satan; first, for Himself as Leader and Saviour of men
(
<431430>
John 14:30); then, for believers (
<422231>
Luke 22:31;
<442618>
Acts 26:18;
<451620>
Romans 16:20;
<590407>
James 4:7;
<620213>
1 John 2:13; 5:4,18); and, finally, for
the whole world (
<662010>
Revelation 20:10). The work of Christ has already
destroyed the empire of Satan.
III. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS.
There are, no doubt, serious difficulties in the way of accepting the
doctrine of a personal, superhuman, evil power as Satan is described to be.
It is doubtful, however, whether these diffificulties may not be due, at least
in part, to a misunderstanding of the doctrine and certain of its
implications. In addition, it must be acknowledged, that whatever
difficulties there may be in the teaching, they are exaggerated and, at the
same time, not fairly met by the vague and irrational skepticism which
denies without investigation. There are difficulties involved in any view of
the world. To say the least, some problems are met by the view of a
superhuman, evil world-power. In this section certain general
considerations are urged with a view to lessening difficulties keenly felt by
some minds. Necessarily, certain items gathered in the foregoing section
are here emphasized again.
1. Scripture Doctrine of Satan Not Systematized:
The Scriptural doctrine of Satan is nowhere systematically developed. For
materials in this field we are shut up to scattered and incidental references.
These passages, which even in the aggregate are not numerous, tell us
what we need to know concerning the nature, history, kingdom and works
of Satan, but offer scant satisfaction to the merely speculative temper. The
comparative lack of development in this field is due partly to the fact that
606
the Biblical writers are primarily interested in God, and only secondarily in
the powers of darkness; and partly to the fact that in the Bible doctrine
waits upon fact. Hence, the malign and sinister figure of the Adversary is
gradually outlined against the light of Gods holiness as progressively
revealed in the providential world-process which centers in Christ. It is a
significant fact that the statements concerning Satan become numerous and
definite only in the New Testament. The daylight of the Christian revelation
was necessary in order to uncover the lurking foe, dimly disclosed but by
no means fully known in the earlier revelation. The disclosure of Satan is,
in form at least, historical, not dogmatic.
2. Satan and God:
In the second place, the relationship of Satan to God, already emphasized,
must be kept constantly in mind. The doctrine of Satan merges in the
general doctrine concerning angels (see ANGELS). It has often been
pointed out that the personal characteristics of angels are very little insisted
upon. They are known chiefly by their functions: merged, on the one hand,
in their own offices, and, on the other, in the activities of God Himself.
In the Old Testament Satan is not represented as a fallen and malignant
spirit, but as a servant of Yahweh, performing a divine function and having
his place in the heavenly train. In the parallel accounts of Davids
numbering of Israel (
<092401>
1 Samuel 24:1;
<132101>
1 Chronicles 21:1) the tempting
of David is attributed both to Yahweh and Satan. The reason for this is
either that `the temptation of men is also a part of his providence, or that
in the interval between the documents the personality of the tempter has
more clearly emerged. In this case the account in Chronicles would nearly
approximate the New Testament teaching. In the Book of Job (1:6),
however, Satan is among the Sons of God and his assaults upon Job are
divinely permitted. In Zechariah (3:1,2) Satan is also a servant of Yahweh.
In both these passages there is the hint of opposition between Yahweh and
Satan. In the former instance Satan assails unsuccessfully the character of
one whom Yahweh honors; while in the latter Yahweh explicitly rebukes
Satan for his attitude toward Israel (see G. A. Smith, BTP, II, 316 f). The
unveiling of Satan as a rebellious world-power is reserved for the New
Testament, and with this fuller teaching the symbolic treatment of
temptation in Genesis is to be connected. There is a sound pedagogical
reason, from the viewpoint of revelation, for this earlier withholding of the
whole truth concerning Satan. In the early stages of religious thinking it
607
would seem to be difficult, if not impossible, to hold the sovereignty of
God without attributing to His agency those evils in the world which are
more or less directly connected with judgment and punishment (compare
<234507>
Isaiah 45:7;
<300306>
Amos 3:6). The Old Testament sufficiently emphasizes
mans responsibility for his own evil deeds, but super-human evil is brought
upon him from above. When willful souls have to be misled, the spirit who
does so, as in Ahabs case, comes from above (G. A. Smith, op. cit., 317).
The progressive revelation of Gods character and purpose, which more
and more imperatively demands that the origin of moral evil, and
consequently natural evil, must be traced to the created will in opposition
to the divine will, leads to the ultimate declaration that Satan is a morally
fallen being to whose conquest the Divine Power in history is pledged.
There is, also, the distinct possibility that in the significant transition from
the Satan of the Old Testament to that of the New Testament we have the
outlines of a biography and an indication of the way by which the angels
fell.
3. Satan Essentially Limited:
A third general consideration, based upon data given in the earlier section,
should be urged in the same connection. In the New Testament delineation
of Satan, his limitations are clearly set forth. He is superhuman, but not in
any sense divine. His activities are cosmic, but not universal or
transcendent. He is a created being. His power is definitely circumscribed.
He is doomed to final destruction as a world-power. His entire career is
that of a secondary and dependent being who is permitted a certain limited
scope of power a time-lease of activity (
<420406>
Luke 4:6).
4. Conclusions:
These three general considerations have been grouped in this way because
they dispose of three objections which are current against the doctrine of
Satan.
(1) The first is, that it is mythological in origin. That it is not dogmatic
is a priori evidence against this hypothesis. Mythology is primitive
dogma. There is no evidence of a theodicy or philosophy of evil in the
Biblical treatment of Satan. Moreover, while the Scriptural doctrine is
unsystematic in form, it is rigidly limited in scope and everywhere
essentially consistent. Even in the Apocalypse, where naturally more
scope is allowed to the imagination, the same essential ideas appear.
608
The doctrine of Satan corresponds, item for item, to the intellectual
saneness and ethical earnestness of the Biblical world-view as a whole.
It is, therefore, not mythological. The restraint of chastened
imagination, not the extravagance of mythological fancy, is in evidence
throughout the entire Biblical treatment of the subject. Even the use of
terms current in mythology (as perhaps
<010301>
Genesis 3:1,13,14;
<661207>
Revelation 12:7-9; compare
<600508>
1 Peter 5:8) does not imply more
than a literary clothing of Satan in attributes commonly ascribed to
malignant and disorderly forces.
(2) The second objection is that the doctrine is due to the influence of
Persian dualism (see PERSIAN RELIGION; ZOROASTRIANISM). The
answer to this is plain, on the basis of facts already adduced. The
Biblical doctrine of Satan is not dualistic. Satans empire had a
beginning, it will have a definite and permanent end. Satan is Gods
great enemy in the cosmic sphere, but he is Gods creation, exists by
divine will, and his power is relatively no more commensurate with
Gods than that of men. Satan awaits his doom. Weiss says (concerning
the New Testament representation of conflict between God and the
powers of evil): There lies in this no Manichaean dualism,.... but only
the deepest experience of the work of redemption as the definite
destruction of the power from which all sin in the world of men
proceeds (Biblical Theology New Testament, English tanslations of
the Bible, II, 272; compare G.A. Smith, op. cit., II, 318).
(3) The third objection is practically the same as the second, but
addressed directly to the doctrine itself, apart from the question of its
origin, namely, that it destroys the unity of God. The answer to this
also is a simple negative. To some minds the reality of created wills is
dualistic and therefore untenable. But a true doctrine of unity makes
room for other wills than Gods namely of those beings upon whom
God has bestowed freedom. Herein stands the doctrine of sin and
Satan. The doctrine of Satan no more militates against the unity of God
than the idea, so necessary to morality and religion alike, of other
created wills set in opposition to Gods. Just as the conception of Satan
merges, in one direction, in the general doctrine of angels, so, in the
other, it blends with the broad and difficult subject of evil (compare
Satan, HDB, IV, 412a).
609
LITERATURE.
All standard works on Biblical Theology, as well as Dictionaries, etc., treat
with more or less thoroughness the doctrine of Satan. The German
theologians of the more evangelical type, such as Weiss, Lange, Martensen
(Danish), Dorner, while exhibiting a tendency toward excessive
speculation, discern the deeper aspects of the doctrine. Of monographs
known to the writer none are to be recommended without qualification. It
is a subject on which the Bible is its own best interpreter.
Louis Matthews Sweet
SATAN, DEPTHS OF
([to po0ro tou 2otovo, ta bathea tou Satana]): Found in
<660224>
Revelation
2:24, and has reference to false teaching at Thyatira. It is a question (that
perhaps may not be decided) whether tou Satana, of Satan, represents
the claim of the false teachers, or is thrown in by the Lord. Did those false
teachers claim to know the depths of Satan? Or was it that they claimed
to know the depths of Deity, and the Lord said it was rather the depths
of Satan? In either case the antithesis to depths of Satan is depths of
God, as referred to in
<451133>
Romans 11:33;
<460210>
1 Corinthians 2:10.
E. J . Forrester
SATAN, SYNAGOGUE OF
The expression occurs neither in the Hebrew nor in the Greek of the Old
Testament, nor in Apocrypha. Three passages in the Old Testament and
one in Apocrypha suggest the idea conveyed in the expression. In
<041427>
Numbers 14:27,35, Yahweh expresses His wrath against the evil
congregation Septuagint [ouvoyyq ovqpo, sunagoge ponera]) which
He threatens to consume in the wilderness. In Psalm 21 (22):16, we find,
A company of evil doers (the Septuagint [ouvoyyq ovqpruorvv,
sunagoge ponereuomenon]) have enclosed me. In Sirach 16:6, we read,
In the congregation of sinners (the Septuagint [ouvoyyq ooptv,
sunagoge hamartolon]) shall a fire be kindled.
Only in the New Testament occurs the phrase synagogue of Satan, and
here only twice (
<660209>
Revelation 2:9; 3:9). Three observations are evident as
to who constituted the synagogue of Satan in Smyrna and Philadelphia.
610
(1) They claimed to be Jews, i.e. they were descendants of Abraham,
and so laid claim to the blessings promised by Yahweh to him and his
seed.
(2) But they are not regarded by John as real Jews, i.e. they are not the
genuine Israel of God (the same conclusion as Paul reached in
<450228>
Romans 2:28).
(3) They are persecutors of the Christians in Smyrna. The Lord knows
their blasphemy, their sharp denunciations of Christ and Christians.
They claim to be the true people of God, but really they are the
synagogue of Satan. The gen. [2otovo, Satana], is probably the
possessive gen. These Jewish persecutors, instead of being Gods
people, are the assembly of Satan, i.e. Satans people.
In Polycarp, Mar. xvii.2 (circa 155 AD) the Jews of Smyrna were still
persecutors of Christians and were conspicuous in demanding and planning
the martyrdom of Polycarp the bishop of Smyrna, the same city in which
the revelator calls persecuting Jews the assembly of Satan.
In the 2nd century, in an inscription (CIJ, 3148) describing the classes of
population in Smyrna, we find the expression [o otr Iouoo, hoi pote
Ioudaioi], which Mommsen thinks means Jews who had abandoned their
religion, but which Ramsay says probably means those who formerly
were the nation of the Jews, but have lost the legal standing of a separate
people.
LITERATURE.
Ramsay, The Seven Churches of Asia, chapter xii; Swete, The Apocalypse
of John, 31, 32; Polycarp, Mar. xiii ff.17,2; Mommsen, Historische
Zeitschrift, XXXVII, 417.
Charles B. Williams
SATCHEL
<sach-el>.
See BAG.
611
SATHRABUZANES
<sath-ra-bu-za-nez>, <sath-ra-bu-za-nez> ([2o0popouovq,
Sathrabouzanes]): In 1 Esdras 6:3,7,27 = Shethar-bozenai in
<150503>
Ezra
5:3,6; 6:6,13.
SATISFACTION
<sat-is-fak-shun>: Occurs twice in the King James Version (
<043531>
Numbers
35:31,32) as a rendering of the Hebrew kopher (the Revised Version
(British and American) ransom). It means a price paid as compensation
for a life, and the passage cited is a prohibition against accepting such, in
case of murder, or for the return of the manslayer. Such compensation was
permitted in ancient justice among many peoples. Compare [ovq,
poine], which Liddell and Scott define as properly quit-money for blood
spilt, the fine paid by the slayer to the kinsman of the slain, as a ransom
from all consequences. The same custom prevailed among Teutonic
peoples, as seen in the German Wergeld and Old English wergild. The
Hebrew lairs of the Old Testament permit it only in the case of a man or
woman gored to death by an ox (
<022130>
Exodus 21:30-32).
Benjamin Reno Downer
SATRAPS
<sa-traps>, <sat-raps> ([ yni P ] r ] D v ] j a } , achashdarpenim],
<150836>
Ezra
8:36; Est 3:12; 8:9; 9:3, the King James Version lieutenants;
<270302>
Daniel
3:2,3,27; 6:1 ff, the King James Version princes): The viceroys or vassal
rulers to whom was entrusted the government of the provinces in the
Persian empire. The word answers to the Old Persian khshathrapavan,
protectors of the realm.
SATYR
<sat-er>, <sa-ter> ([r y[ ic ;, sa`ir], literally he-goat; [r [ ic ; , sa`ir],
hairy (
<012711>
Genesis 27:11, of Esau), and Arabic shar, hair; plural
[ yr iyic ], se`irim]): For se`irim in
<031707>
Leviticus 17:7 and
<141115>
2 Chronicles
11:15, the King James Version has devils, the Revised Version (British
and American) he-goats, the English Revised Version margin satyrs,
the Septuagint has [to otoo, tois mataiois], vain things. For
se`irim in
<231321>
Isaiah 13:21, the King James Version and the English Revised
612
Version have satyrs, the English Revised Version margin he-goats, the
American Standard Revised Version wild goats, Septuagint [oovo,
daimonia], demons. For sa`ir in
<233414>
Isaiah 34:14, the King James
Version and the English Revised Version have satyr, the English Revised
Version margin he-goat, the American Standard Revised Version wild
goat. Septuagint has [rtrpo po tov rtrpov, heteros pros ton
heteron], one to another, referring to daimonia, which here stands for
ciyim, wild beasts of the desert.
The text of the American Standard Revised Version in these passages is as
follows:
<031707>
Leviticus 17:7, And they shall no more sacrifice their
sacrifices unto the he-goats, after which they play the harlot;
<141115>
2
Chronicles 11:15, And he (Jeroboam) appointed him priests for the high
places, and for the he-goats, and for the calves which he had made;
<231321>
Isaiah 13:21 f (of Babylon), But wild beasts of the desert (tsiyim) shall
lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures (ochim); and
ostriches (benoth ya`anah) shall dwell there, and wild goats (se`irim) shall
dance there And wolves (iyim) shall cry in their castles, and jackals
(tannim) in the pleasant palaces;
<233411>
Isaiah 34:11,13,14,15 (of Edom),
But the pelican (qaath) and the porcupine (kippodh) shall possess it; and
the owl (yanshoph) and the raven (`orebh) shall dwell therein: .... and it
shall be a habitation of jackals (tannim), a court for ostriches (benoth
ya`anah). And the wild beasts of the desert (tsiyim) shall meet with the
wolves (iyim), and the wild goat (sa`ir) shall cry to his fellow; yea, the
night monster (lilith) shall settle there ..... There shall the dart-snake
(qippoz) make her nest .... there shall the kites (dayyoth) be gathered,
every one with her mate.
The question is whether sa`ir and se`irim in these passages stand for real
or for fabulous animals. In
<031707>
Leviticus 17:7 and
<141115>
2 Chronicles 11:15, it
is clear that they are objects of worship, but that still leaves open the
question of their nature, though it may to many minds make devils or
demons or satyrs seem preferable to he-goats. In
<231320>
Isaiah 13:20 we
read, neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall shepherds
make their flocks to lie down there. This may very likely have influenced
the American Committee of Revisers to use wild goat in
<231321>
Isaiah 13:21
and 34:14 instead of the he-goat of the other passages. In the American
Standard Revised Version, no fabulous creatures (except perhaps night-
monster) are mentioned here, but the Septuagint employs daimonia,
demons in
<231321>
Isaiah 13:21 for se`irim and in 34:14 for tsiyim;
613
[ovoxrvtoupo, onokentauroi], from [ovo, onos], ass, and
[xrvtoupo, kentauros], centaur, in
<231322>
Isaiah 13:22 and 34:14 for
iyim, and again in 34:14 for lilith; [orpqvr, seirenes], sirens, in
<231321>
Isaiah 13:21 for benoth ya`anah, and in 34:13 for tannim. We must
bear in mind the uncertainty regarding the identity of tsiyim, iyim, ochim
and tannim, as well as of some of the other names, and we must recall the
tales that are hung about the name lilith (the King James Version screech
owl, the King James Version margin and the Revised Version (British and
American) night-monster, the Revised Version margin Lilith). While
sa`ir is almost alone among these words in having ordinarily a well-
understood meaning, i.e. he-goat, there is good reason for considering
that here it is used in an exceptional sense. The translation satyr has
certainly much to be said for it.
See GOAT; JACKAL.
Alfred Ely Day
SAUL
<sol> ([l Wa v ;, shaul]; [2oou, Saoul]):
(1) The first king of Israel.
I. EARLY HISTORY.
1. Name and Meaning:
The name Saul is usually regarded as simply the passive participle of the
verb to ask, and so meaning asked (compare
<090804>
1 Samuel 8:4 ff), but
the gentilic adjective shauli (
<042613>
Numbers 26:13) would point to its having
also an intensive connotation, the one asked importunately, or perhaps,
the one asking insistently, the beggar.
2. Genealogy:
Saul was the son of Kish, a Benjamite. His genealogical tree is given in
<090901>
1 Samuel 9:1 (compare Septuagint 10:21). In
<090901>
1 Samuel 9:1 his
grandfather is Abiel, but in
<130833>
1 Chronicles 8:33; 9:39, Ner, who appears
as his paternal uncle in
<091450>
1 Samuel 14:50,51.
The last verse contains a very curious scribal error, a yodh having slipped
out of one word in it into another. It states that both Abner and Ner were
614
sons of Abiel. These apparent inconsistencies are to be explained by the
fact that in Hebrew, as in Arabic, son is often used in the sense of
grandson. Also, with the facility of divorce then prevalent, by brother
and sister we must in most cases understand half-brother and half-sister.
Moreover, Sauls mother might have been the wife at different times of
Kish and of his brother Ner (compare
<092030>
1 Samuel 20:30). This was quite
common, and in some cases compulsory (
<052505>
Deuteronomy 25:5-9).
3. Home and Station:
Sauls home was at GIBEAH (which see), which is also called Gibeah of
Saul, i.e. Sauls Hill (
<091104>
1 Samuel 11:4; compare also 10:5, Gods Hill, or
simply The Hill, 10:10;
<280508>
Hosea 5:8, etc.), or the Hill of Benjamin or of
the Benjamites (
<091315>
1 Samuel 13:15;
<102329>
2 Samuel 23:29). It is usually
identified with Tell el-Ful, but perhaps its site is marked rather by some
ruins near but beneath that eminence. The tribe of Benjamin was the
fighting tribe of Israel, and Kish seems to have been one of its most
important members. Sauls remarks in depreciation (
<090921>
1 Samuel 9:21) are
not to be taken literally.
4. Sources for Life:
The circumstances of Sauls career are too well known to require
recapitulation. It will be sufficient to refer to some of the recognized
difficulties of the narrative. These difficulties arise from the fact that we
appear to have two distinct biographies of Saul in the present Books of
Samuel. This may well be the case as it is the practice of the Semitic
historian to set down more than one tradition of each event, without
attempting to work these up into one consistent account. We shall call the
duplicated narratives A and B, without postulating that either is a
continuous whole.
See SAMUEL, BOOKS OF.
5. Election as King:
According to A, Saul was anointed king of Israel at Ramah by the prophet
Samuel acting upon an inspiration from Yahweh, not only without
consulting anyone, but in the strictest secrecy (
<090901>
1 Samuel 9:1 through
10:16). According to B, the sheiks of the tribes demanded a king. Samuel
in vain tried to dissuade them. They would not listen, and a king was
chosen by lot at Mizpah. The lot fell upon Saul, and Samuel immediately
615
demitted office (1 Samuel 8; 10:17-27, omitting the last clause; and chapter
12).
6. Reasons for It:
There are three distinct reasons given in the text for the abolition of
theocracy and institution of an elective or hereditary monarchy: first, the
incapacity of Samuels sons (
<090801>
1 Samuel 8:1 ff); second, an invasion of
the Ammonites (
<091212>
1 Samuel 12:12); and third, the Philistines (
<090916>
1
Samuel 9:16). These three motives are not mutually exclusive. The
Philistines formed the standing menace to the national existence, which
would have necessitated the creation of a monarchy sooner or later. The
other two were temporary circumstances, one of which aggravated the
situation, while the other showed the hopelessness of expecting any
improvement in it in the near future.
II. REIGN AND FALL.
1. His First Action:
The election of Saul at Mizpah was conducted in the presence of the
chieftains of the clans; it is not to be supposed that the whole nation was
present. As soon as it was over, the electors went home, and Saul also
returned to his fathers farm and, like Cincinnatus, once more followed the
plow. Within about a month, however (
<091027>
1 Samuel 10:27 the
Septuagint, for Massoretic Text But he held his peace), the summons
came. A message from the citizens of JABESH-GILEAD (which see) was
sent round the tribes appealing for help against the Ammonites under
Nahash. They, of course, knew nothing about what had taken place at
Mizpah, and it was only by chance that their messengers arrived at Gibeah
when they did. Saul rose to the occasion, and immediately after he was
acclaimed king by the whole body of the people (1 Samuel 11). This
double election, first by the chiefs and then by the people, is quite a regular
proceeding.
2. Army Reorganized:
This first success encouraged Saul to enter upon what was to be the
mission of his life, namely, the throwing off of the Philistine suzerainty.
From the first he had had the boldest spirits upon his side (
<091026>
1 Samuel
10:26, the Septuagint, the Revised Version margin); he was now able to
form a standing army of 3,000 men, under the command of himself and his
616
son JONATHAN (which see). The Philistines, the last remnant of the
Minoan race, had the advantage of the possession of iron weapons. It was,
in fact, they who introduced iron into Palestine from Crete the Israelites
knowing only bronze, and having even been deprived of weapons of the
softer metals. They seem to have armed themselves with the exception
of the king and his son with mattocks and plowshares (
<091319>
1 Samuel
13:19 ff).
3. Battle of Michmash:
The first encounter was the attack upon the Philistine post at Michmash (1
Samuel 13; 14). The text of the narrative is uncertain, but the following
outline is clear. On hearing that the Hebrews had revolted (
<091303>
1 Samuel
13:3, the Septuagint), the Philistines gathered in great force, including
3,000 chariots (
<091305>
1 Samuel 13:5, the Septuagint; the Massoretic Text has
30,000) at Michmash. In dismay, Sauls troops deserted (
<091306>
1 Samuel 13:6
f), until he was left with only 600 (
<091402>
1 Samuel 14:2). In spite of this,
Jonathan precipitated hostilities by a reckless attack upon one of the
outposts. This was so successful that the whole Philistine army was seized
with panic, and the onset of Saul and the desertion of their Hebrew slaves
completed their discomfiture. Saul followed up his victory by making
predatory excursions on every side (
<091447>
1 Samuel 14:47).
4. Defeats the Amalekites:
Sauls next expedition was against the Amalekites under Agag, who were
likewise completely defeated. The fight was carried out with all the
remorselessness common to tribal warfare. Warning was sent to the
friendly Kenites to withdraw out of danger; then the hostile tribe was
slaughtered to a man, their chief alone being spared for the time being.
Even the women and children were not taken as slaves, but were all killed
(1 Samuel 15).
5. Deposition Pronounced:
It is not clear what was the precise attitude of Samuel toward Saul. As the
undoubted head of theocracy he naturally objected to his powers being
curtailed by the loss of the civil power (
<090806>
1 Samuel 8:6). Even after the
elections of Saul, Samuel claimed to be the ecclesiastical head of the state.
He seems to have objected to Sauls offering the sacrifice before battle
(
<091310>
1 Samuel 13:10 ff), and to have considered him merely as his lieutenant
617
(
<091503>
1 Samuel 15:3) who could be dismissed for disobedience (
<091514>
1 Samuel
15:14 ff). Here again there seem to be two distinct accounts in the
traditional text, which we may again call A and B. In A, Saul is rejected
because he does not wait long enough for Samuel at Gilgal (
<091308>
1 Samuel
13:8; compare 10:8). Seven days, of course, means eight, or even more,
in short, until Samuel should come, whenever that might be. The
expression might almost be omitted in translating. In B Saul is rejected
because he did not carry out Samuels orders (
<091503>
1 Samuel 15:3) to the
letter. The two narratives are not mutually exclusive. The second offense
was an aggravation of the first, and after it Samuel did not see Saul again
(
<091535>
1 Samuel 15:35).
6. David Introduced to Saul:
He had good reason for not doing so. He had anointed a rival head of the
state in opposition to Saul, an act of treason which, if discovered, would
have cost him his head (compare
<120906>
2 Kings 9:6,10). Saul did not at once
accept his deposition, but he lost heart. One cannot but admire him,
deserted by Samuel, and convinced that he was playing a losing game, and
yet continuing in office. To drive away his melancholy, his servants
introduced to him a musician who played until his spirits revived (
<091614>
1
Samuel 16:14 ff; compare
<120301>
2 Kings 3:15).
7. Two Accounts:
By a strange coincidence (compare I, 5, above) the minstrel was the very
person whom Samuel had secretly anointed to supplant Saul. According to
what looks like another account, however, it was his encounter with
Goliath which led to the introduction of David to Saul (
<091701>
1 Samuel 17:1
ff; see DAVID). In spite of all that has been said to the contrary, the two
narratives are not incompatible, since we are not told the order of the
events nor over how many years these events were spread. The theory of
duplicate narratives rests upon the assumption that all statements made by
the dramatis personae in the Bible are to be taken at their face value. If 1
Samuel 16 and 17 had formed part of a play of Shakespeare, they would
have been considered a fine example of his genius. Treatises would have
been written to explain why Saul did not recognize David, and why Abner
denied all knowledge of him. Septuagint, however, omits
<091712>
1 Samuel
17:12-31,41,50,55 through 18:5.
618
8. Sauls Envy of David:
Whether Saul actually discovered that David had been anointed by Samuel
or not, he soon saw in him his rival and inevitable successor, and he would
hardly have been human if he had not felt envious of him. His dislike of
David had two motives. The first was jealousy, because the women
preferred the military genius of David to his own (
<091807>
1 Samuel 18:7 f). His
consequent attempt upon the life of David (
<091808>
1 Samuel 18:8-11) is
omitted in the Septuagint. Not least was the love of his own daughter for
David (
<091820>
1 Samuel 18:20; in 18:28 read with Septuagint all Israel). The
second cause was his natural objection to see his son Jonathan supplanted
in his rights to the throne, an objection which was aggravated by the
devotion of that son to his own rival (
<092030>
1 Samuel 20:30).
See also DAVID; JONATHAN.
9. Attempts to Get Rid of David:
Saul could not believe that David could remain loyal to him (
<092409>
1 Samuel
24:9); at the first favorable opportunity he would turn upon him, hurl him
from the throne, and exterminate his whole house. In these circumstances,
it was his first interest to get rid of him. His first attempt to do so (omitting
with Septuagint
<091808>
1 Samuel 18:8b-11) was to encourage him to make
raids on the Philistines in the hope that these might kill him (
<091821>
1 Samuel
18:21 ff); his next, assassination by one of his servants (
<091901>
1 Samuel 19:1),
and then by his own hand (
<091909>
1 Samuel 19:9 f). When David was
compelled to fly, the quarrel turned to civil war. The superstitious fear of
hurting the chosen of Yahweh had given place to blind rage. Those who
sheltered the fugitive, even priests, were slaughtered (
<092217>
1 Samuel 22:17
ff). From one spot to another David was hunted, as he says, like a partridge
(
<092620>
1 Samuel 26:20).
10. David Spares Saul:
It is generally maintained that here also we have duplicate accounts; for
example, that there are two accounts of David taking refuge with Achish,
king of Gath, and two of his sparing Sauls life. The latter are contained in
1 Samuel 24 and 26, but the points of resemblance are slight. Three
thousand (24:2; 26:2) was the number of Sauls picked men (compare
13:2). David uses the simile of a flea in 24:14, but in 26:20 for a flea
619
Septuagint has my soul, which is no doubt original. The few other
expressions would occur naturally in any narrative with the same contents.
11. Sauls Divided Energies:
Obviously Sauls divided energies could not hold out long; he could not
put down the imaginary rebellion within, and at the same time keep at bay
the foreign foe. No sooner had he got the fugitive within his grasp than he
was called away by an inroad of the Philistines (
<092327>
1 Samuel 23:27 f); but
after his life had been twice spared, he seemed to realize at last that the
latter were the real enemy, and he threw his whole strength into one
desperate effort for existence.
12. Consults a Necromancer:
Saul himself saw that his case was desperate, and that in fact the game was
up. As a forlorn hope he determined to seek occult advice. He could no
longer use the official means of divination (
<092806>
1 Samuel 28:6), and was
obliged to have recourse to a necromancer, one of a class whom he himself
had taken means to suppress (
<092803>
1 Samuel 28:3). The result of the seance
confirmed his worst fears and filled his soul with despair (
<092807>
1 Samuel 28:7
ff).
13. Battle of Gilboa:
It says much for Saul that, hopeless as he was, he engaged in one last
forlorn struggle with the enemy. The Philistines had gathered in great force
at Shunem. Saul drew up his army on the opposing hill of Gilboa. Between
the two forces lay a valley (compare
<091404>
1 Samuel 14:4). The result was
what had been foreseen. The Israelites, no doubt greatly reduced in
numbers (contrast
<091108>
1 Samuel 11:8), were completely defeated, and Saul
and his sons slain. Their armor was placed in the temple of Ashtaroth, and
their bodies hung on the wall of Bethshan, but Sauls head was set in the
temple of Dagon (
<131010>
1 Chronicles 10:10). The citizens of Jabesh-gilead,
out of ancient gratitude, rescued the bodies and, in un-Semitic wise, burned
them and buried the bones.
14. Double Accounts:
Once more we have, according to most present-day critics, duplicate
accounts of the death of Saul. According to one, which we may name A,
he fell, like Ajax whom he much resembles, upon his own sword, after
620
being desperately wounded by the archers (
<093104>
1 Samuel 31:4). According
to the second (
<100102>
2 Samuel 1:2 ff), an Amalekite, who had been by
accident a witness of the battle, dispatched Saul at his own request to save
him from the enemy. But B is simply the continuation of A, and tells us
how David received the news of the battle. The Amalekites story is, of
course, a fabrication with a view to a reward. Similar claims for the reward
of assassination are common (
<100409>
2 Samuel 4:9 ff).
15. Sauls Posterity:
With Saul the first Israelite dynasty began and ended. The names of his
sons are given in
<091449>
1 Samuel 14:49 as Jonathan, Ishvi and Malchishua.
Ishvi or Ishyo (Septuagint) is Eshbaal, called in
<100208>
2 Samuel 2:8 ISH-
BOSHETH (which see).
<130833>
1 Chronicles 8:33 adds Abinadab. Jonathan
left a long line of descendants famous, like himself, as archers (
<130834>
1
Chronicles 8:34 ff). The rest of Sauls posterity apparently died out.
Malchishua and Abinadab were slain at Gilboa (
<093106>
1 Samuel 31:6;
<131002>
1
Chronicles 10:2), and Ish-bosheth was assassinated shortly after (
<100402>
2
Samuel 4:2 ff). Saul had also two natural sons by Rizpah who were put to
death by David in accordance with a superstitious custom, as also were the
five sons of Sauls daughter Merab (
<102108>
2 Samuel 21:8, not Michal;
compare
<091819>
1 Samuel 18:19). Saurs other daughter Michal apparently had
no children. Saul had, it seems, other wives, who were taken into the
harem of David in accordance with the practice of the times (
<101208>
2 Samuel
12:8), but of them and their descendants we know nothing.
III. CHARACTER.
1. Book of Chronicles:
Sauls life and character are disposed of in a somewhat summary fashion by
the Chronicler (1 Chronicles 10, especially 10:13,14). Saul was rejected
because he was disloyal to Yahweh, especially in consulting a
necromancer. The major premise of this conclusion, however, is the ancient
dictum, Misfortune presupposes sin. From a wider point of view, Saul
cannot be dismissed in so cavalier a manner.
2. Sauls Failings:
Like everyone else, Saul had his virtues and his failings. His chief weakness
seems to have been want of decision of character. He was easily swayed by
events and by people. The praises of David (
<091807>
1 Samuel 18:7 f) at once
621
set his jealousy on fire. His persecution of David was largely due to the
instigation of mischievous courtiers (
<092409>
1 Samuel 24:9). Upon
remonstrance his repentance was as deep as it was short-lived (
<092416>
1
Samuel 24:16; 26:21). His impulsiveness was such that he did not know
where to stop. His interdict (
<091424>
1 Samuel 14:24 ff) was quite as uncalled
for as his religious zeal (
<091509>
1 Samuel 15:9) was out of place. He was
always at one extreme. His hatred of David was only equal to his affection
for him at first (
<091802>
1 Samuel 18:2). His pusillanimity led him to commit
crimes which his own judgment would have forbidden (
<092217>
1 Samuel
22:17). Like most beaten persons, he became suspicious of everyone (
<092207>
1
Samuel 22:7 f), and, like those who are easily led, he soon found his evil
genius (
<092209>
1 Samuel 22:9,18,22). Sauls inability to act alone appears from
the fact that he never engaged in single combat, so far as we know. Before
he could act at all his fury or his pity had to be roused to boiling-point
(
<091106>
1 Samuel 11:6). His mind was peculiarly subject to external influences,
so that he was now respectable man of the world, now a prophet (
<091011>
1
Samuel 10:11; 19:24).
3. His Virtues:
On the other hand, Saul possessed many high qualities. His dread of office
(
<091022>
1 Samuel 10:22) was only equaled by the coolness with which he
accepted it (
<091105>
1 Samuel 11:5). To the first call to action he responded
with promptitude (
<091106>
1 Samuel 11:6 ff). His timely aid excited the lasting
gratitude of the citizens of Jabesh-gilead (
<093111>
1 Samuel 31:11 ff) If we
remember that Saul was openly disowned by Samuel (
<091530>
1 Samuel 15:30),
and believed himself cast off by Yahweh, we cannot but admire the way in
which he fought on to the last. Moreover, the fact that he retained not only
his own sons, but a sufficient body of fighting men to engage a large army
of Philistines, shows that there must have been something in him to excite
confidence and loyalty.
4. Davids Elegy:
There is, however, no question as to the honorable and noble qualities of
Saul. The chief were his prowess in war and his generosity in peace. They
have been set down by the man who knew him best in what are among the
most authentic verses in the Bible (
<100119>
2 Samuel 1:19 ff).
(2) Saul of Tarsus.
622
See PAUL.
Thomas Hunter Weir
SAVARAN
<sav-a-ran>: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and
American) AVARAN (which see).
SAVE
<sav>: In the sense except, the word came into English through the
French (sauf) and is fairly common (38 times, in addition to saving, the
King James Version
<210511>
Ecclesiastes 5:11;
<300908>
Amos 9:8;
<400532>
Matthew 5:32;
<420427>
Luke 4:27;
<660217>
Revelation 2:17). It represents no particular Hebrew or
Greek terms but is employed wherever it seems useful. It is still in good
(slightly archaic) use, and the Revised Version (British and American) has
few modifications (
<051504>
Deuteronomy 15:4 the King James Version;
<191831>
Psalm 18:31b, etc.), but the English Revised Version has dropped
saving in
<420427>
Luke 4:27 and
<660217>
Revelation 2:17 and the American
Standard Revised Version also in
<210511>
Ecclesiastes 5:11;
<300908>
Amos 9:8,
retaining it only in
<400532>
Matthew 5:32.
SAVIAS
<sa-vi-as> ([2oouo, Saouia]): In 1 Esdras 8:2, for Uzzi, an ancestor of
Ezra, in
<150704>
Ezra 7:4.
SAVIOUR
<sav-yer>:
(1) While that God is the deliverer of his people is the concept on
which, virtually, the whole Old Testament is based (see SALVATION),
yet the Hebrews seem never to have felt the need of a title for God that
would sum up this aspect of His relation to man. Nearest to our word
Saviour is a participial form ([[ yv iwOm, moshia`]) from the verb
[[ v y; , yasha`] (Qal not used; save in Hiphil), but even this
participle is not frequently applied to God (some 13 times of which 7
are in Isaiah 43 through 63).
623
(2) In the New Testament, however, the case is different, and [2tqp,
Soter], is used in as technical a way as is our Saviour. But the
distribution of the 24 occurrences of the word is significant, for two-
thirds of them are found in the later books of the New Testament 10
in the Pastorals, 5 in 2 Peter, and one each in John, 1 John, and Jude
while the other instances are
<420147>
Luke 1:47; 2:11;
<440531>
Acts 5:31; 13:23;
<490523>
Ephesians 5:23;
<500320>
Philippians 3:20. And there are no occurrences
in Matthew, Mark, or the earlier Pauline Epistles. The data are clear
enough. As might be expected, the fact that the Old Testament used no
technical word for Saviour meant that neither did the earliest
Christianity use any such word. Doubtless for our Lord Messiah was
felt to convey the meaning. But in Greek-speaking Christianity,
Christ, the translation of Messiah, soon became treated as a proper
name, and a new word was needed.
(3) Soter expressed the exact meaning and had already been set apart in
the language of the day as a religious term, having become one of the
most popular divine titles in use. Indeed, it was felt to be a most
inappropriate word to apply to a human being. Cicero, for instance,
arraigns Verres for using it: Soter .... How much does this imply? So
much that it cannot be expressed in one word in Latin (Verr. ii.2, 63,
154). So the adoption of Soter by Christianity was most natural, the
word seemed ready-made.
(4) That the New Testament writers derived the word from its
contemporary use is shown, besides, by its occurrence in combination
with such terms as manifestation (epiphaneia,
<550110>
2 Timothy 1:10;
<560213>
Titus 2:13), love toward man (philanthropia,
<560304>
Titus 3:4),
captain (archegos,
<440531>
Acts 5:31; compare
<580210>
Hebrews 2:10), etc.
These terms are found in the Greek sources many times in exactly the
same combinations with Sorer.
(5) In the New Testament Soter is uniformly reserved for Christ, except
in
<420147>
Luke 1:47;
<650125>
Jude 1:25, and the Pastorals. In 1 Timothy (1:1;
2:3; 4:10) it is applied only to the Father, in 2 Timothy (1:10, only) it is
applied to Christ, while in Titus there seems to be a deliberate
alternation: of the Father in 1:3; 2:10; 3:4; of Christ in 1:4; 2:13; 3:6.
624
LITERATURE.
P. Wendland, [2tqp, Soter] Zeitschrift fur neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft, V, 335-353, 1904; J. Weiss, Heiland, in RGG, II, 1910; H.
Lietzmann, Der Weltheiland, 1909. Much detailed information is available
in various parts of Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 1910.
Burton Scott Easton
SAVOR
<sa-ver> ([j yr e , reach]; [ooq, osme];
(1) The primary meaning of the word is taste, flavor (from Latin
sapor, taste). So in
<400513>
Matthew 5:13;
<421434>
Luke 14:34, if the salt
have lost its savor ([pov0q, moranthe], become tasteless,
insipid, so as to lose its characteristic preserving virtue).
(2) But generally it has the meaning of smell, odor:
(a) once of evil odor: Its stench shall come up, and its ill savor shall
come up (
<290220>
Joel 2:20);
(b) elsewhere in the sense of pleasant smell. In the Old Testament,
with the exception of
<020521>
Exodus 5:21 and the King James Version
Song 1:3 (the Revised Version (British and American) fragrance), it
is always accompanied by the adjective sweet. It stands for the smell
of sacrifices and oblations, in agreement with the ancient
anthropomorphic idea that God smells and is pleased with the fragrance
of sacrifices (e.g. Yahweh smelled the sweet savor,
<010821>
Genesis 8:21;
to make a sweet savor unto Yahweh,
<041503>
Numbers 15:3; and
frequently). In the New Testament, savor in the sense of smell is used
metaphorically:
(a) once the metaphor is borrowed from the incense which attends the
victors triumphal procession; God is said to make manifest through
His apostles the savor of his knowledge in every place as He
leadeth them in triumph in Christ (2 Cor 2:14; see TRIUMPH.
(b) Elsewhere the metaphor is borrowed from the fragrant smell of the
sacrifices. The apostles are a sweet savor of Christ unto God (2 Cor
2:15), i.e. they are, as it were, a sweet odor for God to smell, an odor
625
which is pleasing to God, even though its effect upon men varies (to
some it is a savor from death unto death, i.e. such as is emitted by
death and itself causes death; to others it is a savor from life unto life,
<470216>
2 Corinthians 2:16). By the same sacrificial metaphor, Christs
offering of Himself to God is said to be for a sweet smelling savor
(
<490502>
Ephesians 5:2 the King James Version, the Revised Version
(British and American) for an odor of a sweet smell; the same phrase
is used in
<500418>
Philippians 4:18 of acts of kindness to Paul, which were
a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God).
(3) Once it is used in the figurative sense of reputation: Ye have made
our savor to be abhorred (literally, our smell to stink) in the eyes of
Pharaoh (
<020521>
Exodus 5:21). Compare the English phrase, to be in bad
odor.
The verb to savor means:
(1) intransitively, to taste or smell of, to partake of the quality of
something, as in the Preface of the King James Version, to savour
more of curiosity than wisdome, or
(2) transitively, to perceive by the taste or smell, to discern: thou
savourest not the things that be of God (the King James Version
<401623>
Matthew 16:23;
<410833>
Mark 8:33, the Revised Version (British and
American) mindest; [povr, phroneis]; Vulgate (Jeromes Latin
Bible, 390-405 A.D.) sapis). The adjective savory occurs only in
<012704>
Genesis 27:4,7,9,14,17,31 (savory food) and the Revised Version
(British and American)
<233024>
Isaiah 30:24 (margin salted).
D. Miall Edwards
SAW
<so>.
See TOOLS.
SAWING ASUNDER
<so-ing> <a-sun-der>.
See PUNISHMENTS.
626
SAYEST
<sa-est>: Thou sayest (
<402711>
Matthew 27:11;
<411502>
Mark 15:2;
<422270>
Luke
22:70, Ye say;
<431837>
John 18:37), i.e. rightly; Thou hast said
(
<402625>
Matthew 26:25,64), = Yes; a rabbinical idiom never found in the Old
Testament. Mark (14:62) renders by I am. All these passages WHm
punctuate interrogatively (compare Kethubhoth, f. 103 b).
SAYINGS, DARK
<sa-ingz>.
See DARK SAYINGS.
SAYINGS, FAITHFUL
See FAITHFUL SAYINGS.
SAYINGS OF JESUS
See LOGIA.
SAYINGS, UNWRITTEN
<un-rit--n>.
See AGRAPHA.
SCAB, SCABBED
<skab>, <skab-ed>, <skabd> ([t p , L , y , yallepheth], [t j P s ] mi ,
micpachath], [t j P s , cappachath], verb [j P c , sippach];
[oqooo, semasia], [rqv, leichen]): These are generic terms for any
skin disease in which there are patches of hard crusts on the surface. The
commonest of these are the forms now named eczema, herpes and,
perhaps, psoriasis, all of which are common in Bible lands. Milder cases in
which the disease was localized and in small patches (the semasia of the
Septuagint) did not render the bearer unclean, and they were to be
distinguished by the priest (
<031302>
Leviticus 13:2,6) from the more virulent and
spreading eruptions which (
<031307>
Leviticus 13:7) were regarded as causes of
ceremonial uncleanness. These severer forms are the leichen of Septuagint
mentioned in
<032120>
Leviticus 21:20, which disqualified any son of Aaron from
627
serving as a priest, and when affecting an animal rendered it unfit to be
offered as a burnt offering (
<032222>
Leviticus 22:22). Hippocrates speaks of
these cases as obstinate and persistent, and Galen believed that they might
degenerate into leprosy; hence, the terms in which Aeschylus speaks of it
(Choephori 281). Celsus, however, recognized that leichen was a papular
eruption, not a true scab. The name yallepheth seems to have been given to
it on account of the firmness of attachment of the scabs, while the term
micpachath refers to its tendency to spread and cover the surface. A
cognate word in
<261318>
Ezekiel 13:18 is the name of a large Tallith or prayer
veil used by the false prophetesses in Israel (translated kerchief). Scabs
were especially disfiguring on the head, and this infliction was threatened
as a punishment on the daughters of Zion for their wanton haughtiness
(
<230317>
Isaiah 3:17). In Middle English, scab is used for itch or mange, and
as a term of opprobrium, as in Greene, Bacon and Bungay, 35, 1591.
Alexander Macalister
SCABBARD, SHEATH
<skab-ard>, <sheth>.
See ARMOR, III, 5; WAR, 9.
SCAFFOLD
<skaf-old> ([r wOYK i, kiyyor]): The English word is used once of Solomons
brazen scaffold on which he knelt at the dedication of the temple (
<140613>
2
Chronicles 6:13).
SCALE
<skal>.
See SIEGE 4, (e); WEIGHTS ANY MEASURES.
SCALES
<skalz>
(1) [t c , q , c ] q , qasqeseth] fish-scales;
(2) [h N;gim], meghinnah], [gem;, maghen], scales of the crocodile;
628
(3) [r, lepis], with verb [r, lepizo] scale away (Tobit
3:17; 11:13)):
(1) The first Hebrew word [qasqeseth] means the imbricated scales of
fish, which together with the dorsal fin were a distinguishing mark of
all fish allowed as food to the Israelite (
<031109>
Leviticus 11:9 ff;
<051409>
Deuteronomy 14:9 f). In the figurative sense the word is used of a
coat of mail (
<091705>
1 Samuel 17:5,38).
(2) Meghinnah from maghen, literally, a buckler or small shield
(
<142309>
2 Chronicles 23:9;
<244603>
Jeremiah 46:3), is used in the description of
the crocodile (see LEVIATHAN) for the horny scales or scutes
imbedded in the skin, not imbricated upon it (
<184115>
Job 41:15 (Hebrew
verse 7)).
(3) The Greek lepis, which in classical language has a much wider
range of meaning than the above Hebrew words (rind, husk,
shell, fish-scale, scale of snake, flake of metal and of snow,
etc.), is found in the New Testament description of Pauls recovery
from temporary blindness, And straightway there fell from his eyes as
it were scales, and he received his sight (
<440918>
Acts 9:18). There is
nothing in the words of the sacred text which compels us to think of
literal scales. (In Tobit, however, a literal flaking-off of foreign
substance is meant.) We have here rather a description of the sensation
which terminated the three days period of blindness which the apostle
suffered after his meeting with the risen Lord on the road to Damascus.
The apostle himself does not use this expression in his own graphic
description of the same experience: In that very hour I looked upon
him (
<442213>
Acts 22:13). The phrase has, however, come into English, for
we speak of scales falling from ones eyes when we mean a sudden
illumination or remembrance or a dissipation of harassing doubt.
In
<234012>
Isaiah 40:12; the Revised Version (British and American)
<201611>
Proverbs 16:11 for [s l ,P ,, peles], in the sense of instrument for
weighing.
See BALANCE.
H. L. E. Luering
629
SCALL
<skol> ([q t ,n,, netheq]; [0pouoo, thrausma]): This only occurs in
Leviticus 13 and 14 where it is used 14 times to describe bald or scaly
patches of eruption on the skin. Such patches are generally the result of the
action of parasitic organisms. The common form known now as scalled
head is produced by a microscopic plant, Achorion schoenleinii. In Old
and Middle English, scall was used for scabbiness of the head (Chaucer and
Spenser). See also Skeat, Concise Etymol. Dict. of English Language.
SCAPE-GOAT
<skap-got>.
See AZAZEL.
SCARLET
<skar-let>.
See COLORS; DYEING.
SCARLET (WORM)
([yniv ; t [ l wOT , tola`ath shani] (
<022504>
Exodus 25:4, etc.)): Cermes vermilio,
a scale insect from which a red dye is obtained.
See COLOR; DYEING; WORM.
SCATTERED ABROAD
<skat-erd> <a-brod>.
See DISPERSION.
SCENT
<sent>:
(1) In
<281407>
Hosea 14:7, The scent (margin his memorial) thereof shall
be as the wine of Lebanon. Scent is used for [r k ,z,, zekher] (so
Massoretic Text, but the pointing is uncertain), properly memorial,
whence the Revised Version margin. The English translation comes
630
through the Septuagint which took zkr as offering of sweet savor,
and so sweet savor. For the wine of Lebanon see WINE. If this
translation is not right, the alternative is memorial in the sense of
renown.
(2)
<181409>
Job 14:9;
<244811>
Jeremiah 48:11 for [j yr e , reach], odor.
Scent of the water in
<181409>
Job 14:9 is poetic for contact with.
(3) The Wisdom of Solomon 11:18 the King James Version has filthy
scents of scattered smoke, where scent is used in the obsolete sense
of disagreeable odor. The translation is, however, very loose, and
scents is a gloss; the Revised Version (British and American)
noisome smoke.
Burton Scott Easton
SCEPTRE, SCEPTER
<sep-ter> ([f b ,v e, shebheT], [f yb i r ] v , sharbhiT], expanded form in Est
4:11; 5:2; 8:4; [popo, rhabdos] (Additions to Esther 15:11;
<580108>
Hebrews
1:8), [oxqto, skeptros]): A rod or mace used by a sovereign as a symbol
of royal authority. The Hebrew shebheT is the ordinary word for rod or
club, and is used of an ordinary rod (compare
<100714>
2 Samuel 7:14), of the
shepherds crook (
<192304>
Psalm 23:4), scribes baton or marshals staff
(
<070514>
Judges 5:14), as well as of the symbol of royalty. Its symbolism may be
connected with the use of the shebheT for protection (
<102321>
2 Samuel 23:21;
<192304>
Psalm 23:4) or for punishment (
<231024>
Isaiah 10:24; 30:31). It is used with
reference to the royal line descended from Judah (
<014910>
Genesis 49:10), and
figuratively of sovereignty in general and possibly of conquest
(
<042417>
Numbers 24:17, in Israel;
<231405>
Isaiah 14:5, in Babylonia; Amos 1:5,8, in
Syria, among Philistines;
<381011>
Zechariah 10:11, in Egypt), the disappearance
or cutting off of him that holdeth the scepter being tantamount to loss of
national independence. The kingship of Yahweh is spoken of as a scepter
(
<194506>
Psalm 45:6 (Hebrew verse 7) quoted in
<580108>
Hebrews 1:8). The manner
of using the scepter by an oriental monarch is suggested in the act of
Ahasuerus, who holds it out to Esther as a mark of favor. The subject
touches the top of it, perhaps simply as an act of homage or possibly to
indicate a desire to be heard. The scepter of Ahasuerus is spoken of as
golden (Est 5:2), but it is probable that scepters were ordinarily made of
straight branches (maTeh) of certain kinds of vines (
<261911>
Ezekiel 19:11,14).
631
It is sometimes difficult to determine whether the word shebheT is used in
figurative passages in the sense of scepter or merely in the ordinary sense
of staff (e.g.
<19C503>
Psalm 125:3, the King James Version rod, the Revised
Version (British and American) and the American Standard Revised
Version sceptre (of the wicked);
<190209>
Psalm 2:9, rod of iron;
<202208>
Proverbs 22:8, rod of his wrath). Another word, mechoqeq, literally,
prescribing (person or thing), formerly translated uniformly lawgiver,
is now generally taken, on the basis of parallelism, to mean sceptre in
four poetic passages (
<014910>
Genesis 49:10, rulers staff to avoid repetition;
<042118>
Numbers 21:18;
<196007>
Psalm 60:7; 108:8).
Nathan I saacs
SCEVA
<se-va> ([2xruo, Skeua]): A Jew, a chief priest, resident in Ephesus,
whose seven sons were exorcists (
<441914>
Acts 19:14 ff). Ewald regards the
name as being Hebrew shekhabhyah. He was not an officiating priest, as
there were only synagogues in Asia Minor. He may have belonged to a
high-priestly family, or perhaps at one time he had been at the head of one
of the 24 courses in the temple.
In the narrative the construction is loose. There were seven sons (
<441914>
Acts
19:14), and it would appear (
<441916>
Acts 19:16) that in this particular case all
were present. But (
<441916>
Acts 19:16) the demon-possessed man over-
powered both of them. Textus Receptus of the New Testament gets over
the difficulty by omitting both, but Codices Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus,
Vaticanus, Bezae, so Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, von Soden, and the
best critics, retain the difficult reading. The explanation is that
<441914>
Acts
19:14 states the custom: who did this being hoi touto poiountes, who
used to do this.
<441915>
Acts 19:15 and 16 state a particular case in which two
took part, but the incident is introduced in a careless manner.
Ewald would translate amphoteron as in both sides, but this is
impossible. Baur understood disciples for sons. Codex Bezae and
Syriac have an interesting expansion which Blass considers original
(
<441914>
Acts 19:14): Among whom also the sons (Syriac `seven) of a certain
Sceva, a priest, wished to do the same, (who) were in the custom of
exorcising such. And entering into the demon-possessed man they began to
call upon the Name, saying, `We charge you by Jesus whom Paul preaches
to come out.
632
S. F. Hunter
SCHISM
<siz-m> ([ooo, schisma]): Only in
<461225>
1 Corinthians 12:25. The same
Greek word, literally, a split, is translated rent in
<400916>
Matthew 9:16;
<410221>
Mark 2:21; and division in
<430743>
John 7:43; 9:16; 10:19. It designates a
separation, not from, but within, the church, interfering with the
harmonious coordination and cooperation of the members described in the
preceding verses (1 Cor 12:18 ff). The ecclesiastical meaning is that of a
break from a church organization, that may or may not be connected with a
doctrinal dissent.
SCHOOL
<skool> ([ooq, schole]).
See TYRANNUS.
SCHOOLMASTER
<skool-mas-ter>:
<480324>
Galatians 3:24 f the King James Version reads: The
law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be
justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a
schoolmaster. Schoolmaster is a translation of [ooyyo,
paidagogos], literally, child-leader. This paidagagos was not a teacher
but a slave, to whom in wealthy families the general oversight of a boy was
committed. It was his duty to accompany his charge to and from school,
never to lose sight of him in public, to prevent association with
objectionable companions, to inculcate moral lessons at every opportunity,
etc. He was a familiar figure in the streets, and the (sour) face of
paidagogos and to follow one like a paidagogos were proverbial
expressions. Naturally, to the average boy the paidagogos must have
represented the incorporation of everything objectionable. Hence, Pauls
figure may be paraphrased: The law was a paidagogos, necessary but
irksome, to direct us until the time of Christ. Then was the time of our
spiritual coming-of-age, so that the control of the paidagogos ceased. The
word paidagogos was taken over into Aramaic at an early date, and Pauls
language; which is hardly that of a mere adult observer, suggests that he
had had personal experience with the institution. Wealthy and intensely
633
orthodox Jewish parents living in a Gentile city may well have adopted
such a precaution for the protection of their children.
No English word renders paidagogos adequately. Schoolmaster is quite
wrong, but Revised Versions tutor (compare
<460415>
1 Corinthians 4:15) is
little better in modern English.
Burton Scott Easton
SCHOOLS OF THE PROPHETS
See EDUCATION; PROPHETS.
SCIENCE
<si-ens>: This word as found in the King James Version means simply
knowledge. Science occurs in the King James Version only in two
places,
<270104>
Daniel 1:4, children .... understanding science ([t [ d y[ ed ]wO,
yodhe`edha`ath], those who understand science). The meaning of the
term here is knowledge, wisdom. The only other occurrence of
science is in the New Testament (1 Tim 6:20, avoiding .... oppositions
of science falsely so called, [tq gruvuou yvor, tes
pseudonumou gnoseos], the falsely called gnosis). Science is the
translation of the Greek gnosis, which in the New Testament is usually
rendered knowledge. The science here referred to was a higher
knowledge of Christian and divine things, which false teachers alleged that
they possessed, and of which they boasted. It was an incipient form of
Gnosticism, and it prevailed to a considerable extent in the churches of
proconsular Asia, e.g. in Colosse and Ephesus. Timothy is put on his guard
against the teaching of this gnosis falsely so called, for it set itself in
opposition to the gospel.
See GNOSTICISM.
Science in the modern sense of the word, as the discovery and orderly
classification and exposition of the phenomena and of the laws of Nature,
is not found either in the Old Testament or the New Testament unless the
passage in Daniel be interpreted as meaning the scientific knowledge which
the learned men of Babylon possessed of mathematics and astronomy, etc.
See also
<440722>
Acts 7:22. To the Hebrew mind all natural phenomena meant
the working of the hand of God in the world, directly and immediately,
without the intervention of any secondary laws.
634
J ohn Rutherfurd
SCIMITAR
<sim-i-tar>, <-ter> ([oxvoxq, akindke]): Formerly given as fauchion
in the King James Version Judith 13:6; 16:9, the weapon which Judith took
down from the rail of the bed at Holofernes head, and with which she
severed his head from his body.
SCOFF; SCOFFER
<skof>, <skof-er>: The verb indicates the manifestation of contempt by
insulting words or actions; it combines bitterness with ridicule. It is much
more frequent in the Revised Version (British and American) than in the
King James Version, replacing scorn of the latter in
<190101>
Psalm 1:1;
<200122>
Proverbs 1:22, etc. Scorn refers rather to an inner emotion based on a
sense of superiority; scoff, to the outward expression of this emotion.
SCORN
<skorn>: Fox Talbot connects this English word with the Danish skarn,
dirt, ordure mud, mire. As distinguished from such words as
mock, deride, scoff, all of which refer specifically to the various
ways in which scorn finds outward expression, scorn itself denotes a
subjective state or reaction.
Further, this state or reaction is not simple but complex. It includes a sense
of superiority, resentment, and aversion. This reaction occurs when one is
confronted with a person or a proposition that by challenging certain things
for itself evokes a vivid sense of ones own superiority and awakens
mingled resentment, repulsion and contempt by the hollowness of its claims
and its intrinsic inferiority or worse. Scorn is a hotter, fiercer emotion than
disdain or contempt. It is obvious that scorn may indeed, it not
uncommonly does arise in connection with an not grounded, arrogant
sense of self-esteem.
The word, outside of the phrase laugh to scorn, is found only in the Old
Testament, and then only 4 times (Est 3:6; King James Version,
<194413>
Psalm
44:13; 79:4;
<350110>
Habakkuk 1:10), and it represents three different Hebrew
words for none of which it is a suitable rendering. The two words thought
scorn in Est 3:6 represent but one in Hebrew, namely, bazah, for which
635
disdain would be a nearer equivalent. In
<350110>
Habakkuk 1:10 (the King
James Version) the word translated scorn is micchaq, an object of
laughter, laughing-stock. In
<194413>
Psalm 44:13; 79:4 the Hebrew word is
la`agh from a root, probably meaning to stutter, stammer, for which
mocking is a better English equivalent. In the King James Version
<183407>
Job
34:7;
<19C304>
Psalm 123:4, la`agh is rendered scorning. (the rendering given
in
<200122>
Proverbs 1:22 to latson, a word from a totally different root and one
much more nearly approximating the fundamental idea of the English word
Scorn. In
<202908>
Proverbs 29:8 and
<232814>
Isaiah 28:14 latson is rendered
scornful).
As a verb the word is the translation given to la`agh, to mock (
<121921>
2
Kings 19:21 parallel
<233722>
Isaiah 37:22
<182219>
Job 22:19;
<160219>
Nehemiah 2:19;
<192207>
Psalm 22:7, all laugh to scorn); qalas = to scoff (
<261631>
Ezekiel 16:31,
margin Greek: scoffeth, but text still scorneth); for the noun tsechoq,
laughter (
<262332>
Ezekiel 23:32); sachaq = to laugh, laugh at (
<183907>
Job
39:7,18;
<143010>
2 Chronicles 30:10), with the noun sechoq, laugh to scorn
(the Revised Version (British and American) laughing-stock,
<181204>
Job
12:4); luts = to scoff (as used in ethical and religious connections)
(
<181620>
Job 16:20;
<200334>
Proverbs 3:34; 9:12, all scoff in the Revised Version
(British and American)); in
<201928>
Proverbs 19:28 the Revised Version (British
and American), not happily, mock at. the Revised Version (British and
American) is warranted in substituting scoff for scorn because the
context indicates some form of outward expression of the scorn.
The Revised Version (British and American) always (except
<181204>
Job 12:4;
Sirach 6:4; 1 Macc 10:70) retains laugh to scorn (
<121921>
2 Kings 19:21;
<143010>
2
Chronicles 30:10;
<160219>
Nehemiah 2:19;
<182219>
Job 22:19;
<192207>
Psalm 22:7;
<233722>
Isaiah 37:22;
<261631>
Ezekiel 16:31; 23:32; 2 Esdras 2:21; Judith 12:12; The
Wisdom of Solomon 4:18; Sirach 7:11; 13:7; 20:17;
<400924>
Matthew 9:24;
<410540>
Mark 5:40;
<420853>
Luke 8:53). The verb in Apocrypha and the New
Testament is usually [xotoyro, katagelao], but in The Wisdom of
Solomon 4:1 [rxyro, ekgelao]; in Sirach 13:7 [xotoxooo,
katamokomai]; and in 2 Esdras 2:21 inrideo. In addition scorn is retained
in Est 3:6;
<183907>
Job 39:7,18; 2 Esdras 8:56 (contemno). In
<201928>
Proverbs
19:28 scorn is changed to mock at but elsewhere invariably to scoff.
Scorner is the translation of the participle of luts and once of the participle
of latsats. For scorner the Revised Version (British and American)
everywhere substitutes properly scoffer. Outside of Proverbs (and
636
<280705>
Hosea 7:5) the word is to be found only in
<190102>
Psalm 1:2. The force of
the word has been well indicated by Cheyne, who says that the scorner
(scoffer) is one who despises that which is holy and avoids the company of
the noble `wise men, but yet in his own vain way seeks for truth; his
character is marked by arrogance as that of the wise is characterized by
devout caution.
W. M. McPheeters
SCORPION
<skor-pi-un> ([b r ;q ][ , aqrabh]; compare Arabic aqrab, scorpion;
[ yB i r q ] [ h l e [ } m , ma`aleh `aqrabbim], the ascent of Akrabbim;
[oxopo, skorpios]. Note that the Greek and Hebrew may be akin;
compare, omitting the vowels, `krb and skrp): In
<050815>
Deuteronomy 8:15,
we have, who led thee through the great and terrible wilderness, wherein
were fiery serpents (nachash saraph) and scorpions (`aqrabh). Rehoboam
(
<111211>
1 Kings 12:11,14;
<141011>
2 Chronicles 10:11,14) says, My father
chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions. Ezekiel is
told to prophesy to the children of Israel (2:6), and Be not afraid of them,
neither be afraid of their words, though briers and thorns are with thee, and
thou dost dwell among scorpions. The ascent of Akrabbim, the north
end of Wadi-ul-`Arabah, South of the Dead Sea, is mentioned as a
boundary 3 times (
<043404>
Numbers 34:4;
<061503>
Joshua 15:3;
<070136>
Judges 1:36).
Jesus says to the Seventy (
<421019>
Luke 10:19), Behold, I have given you
authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and again in
<421112>
Luke
11:12 He says, Or if he shall ask an egg, will he give him a scorpion?
Note that we have here three doublets, the loaf and the stone, the fish and
the serpent, and the egg and the scorpion, whereas in the passage in
Matthew (7:9 f) we have only the loaf and stone and the fish and serpent.
Encyclopedia Biblica (s.v. Scorpion) ingeniously seeks to bring Luke
into nearer agreement with Matthew by omitting from Luke the second
doublet, i.e. the fish and the serpent, instancing several texts as authority
for the omission, and reading [ogov, opson], fish, for [ov, oon],
egg.
In
<660902>
Revelation 9:2-10 there come out of the smoke of the abyss winged
creatures (locusts, [oxpr, akrides) like war-horses with crowns of
gold, with the faces of men, hair of women, teeth of lions, breastplates of
iron, and with stinging tails like scorpions. In Ecclesiasticus 26:7 it is said
637
of an evil wife, He that taketh hold of her is as one that graspeth a
scorpion. In 1 Macc 6:51 we find mention of pieces [oxopo,
skorpidia], diminutive of skorpios to cast darts. In Plutarch skorpios is
used in the same sense (Liddell and Scott, under the word [oxopo,
skorpios].
In the passage cited from Deuteronomy, and probably also in the name
ascent of Akrabbim, we find references to the abundance of scorpions,
especially in the warmer parts of the country. Though there is a Greek
proverb, Look for a scorpion under every stone, few would agree with
the categorical statement of Tristram (NHB) that every third stone is sure
to conceal one. Nevertheless, campers and people sleeping on the ground
need to exercise care in order to avoid their stings, which, though often
exceedingly painful for several hours, are seldom fatal.
Scorpions are not properly insects, but belong with spiders, mites and ticks
to the Arachnidae. The scorpions of Palestine are usually 2 or 3 inches
long. The short cephalothorax bears a powerful pair of jaws, two long
limbs terminating with pincers, which make the creature look like a small
crayfish or lobster, and four pairs of legs. The rest of the body consists of
the abdomen, a broad part continuous with the cephalothorax, and a
slender part forming the long tail which terminates with the sting. The tail
is usually carried curved over the back and is used for stinging; the prey
into insensibility. Scorpions feed mostly on insects for which they lie in
wait. The scorpion family is remarkable for having existed with very little
change from the Silurian age to the present time.
It does not seem necessary to consider that the words of Rehoboam (
<111211>
1
Kings 12:11, etc.) refer to a whip that was called a scorpion, but rather that
as the sting of a scorpion is worse than the lash of a whip, so his treatment
would be harsher than his fathers.
Alfred Ely Day
SCORPIONS, CHASTISING WITH
<skor-pi-unz>.
See PUNISHMENTS 3, (17); SCORPION.
638
SCOURGE; SCOURGING
<skurj>, <skur-jing> (oot, mastix], [ootyo, mastigoo]; in
<442225>
Acts 22:25 [oot, mastizo], in
<411515>
Mark 15:15 parallel
<402726>
Matthew
27:26 [poyro, phragelloo]): A Roman implement for severe bodily
punishment. Horace calls it horribile flagellum. It consisted of a handle, to
which several cords or leather thongs were affixed, which were weighted
with jagged pieces of bone or metal, to make the blow more painful and
effective. It is comparable, in its horrid effects, only with the Russian
knout. The victim was tied to a post (
<442225>
Acts 22:25) and the blows were
applied to the back and loins, sometimes even, in the wanton cruelty of the
executioner, to the face and the bowels. In the tense position of the body,
the effect can easily be imagined. So hideous was the punishment that the
victim usually fainted and not rarely died under it. Eusebius draws a
horribly realistic picture of the torture of scourging (Historia Ecclesiastica,
IV, 15). By its application secrets and confessions were wrung from the
victim (
<442224>
Acts 22:24). It usually preceded capital punishment (Livy
xxxiii.36). It was illegal to apply the flagallum to a Roman citizen (
<442225>
Acts
22:25), since the Porcian and Sempronian laws, 248 and 123 BC, although
these laws were not rarely broken in the provinces (Tac. Hist. iv.27; Cic.
Verr. v.6, 62; Josephus, BJ, II, xiv, 9). As among the Russians today, the
number of blows was not usually fixed, the severity of the punishment
depending entirely on the commanding officer. In the punishment of Jesus,
we are reminded of the words of
<19C903>
Psalm 129:3. Among the Jews the
punishment of flagellation was well known since the Egyptian days, as the
monuments abundantly testify. The word scourge is used in
<031920>
Leviticus
19:20, but the American Standard Revised Version translates punished,
the original word biqqoreth expressing the idea of investigation.
<052503>
Deuteronomy 25:3 fixed the mode of a Jewish flogging and limits the
number of blows to 40. Apparently the flogging was administered by a rod.
The Syrians reintroduced true scourging into Jewish life, when Antiochus
Epiphanes forced them by means of it to eat swines flesh (2 Macc 6:30;
7:1). Later it was legalized by Jewish law and became customary
(
<401017>
Matthew 10:17; 23:34;
<442219>
Acts 22:19; 26:11), but the traditional
limitation of the number of blows was still preserved. Says Paul in his
foolish boasting: in stripes above measure, of the Jews five times
received I forty stripes save one, distinguishing it from the beatings with
rods, thrice repeated (2 Cor 11:23-25).
639
The other Old Testament references (
<180521>
Job 5:21; 9:23;
<231026>
Isaiah 10:26;
28:15,18 [f wOv , shot];
<062313>
Joshua 23:13 [f f v o, shotet]) are figurative for
affliction. Notice the curious mixture of metaphors in the phrase over-
flowing scourge (
<232815>
Isaiah 28:15-18).
Henry E. Dosker
SCRABBLE
<skrab-l>: Occurs only in
<092113>
1 Samuel 21:13, as the translation of [h w;T ;,
tawah]: David .... feigned himself mad and scrabbled on the doors of the
gate. To scrabble (modern English scrawl) is here to make unmeaning
marks; tawah means to make a mark from taw, a mark, especially as a
cross (
<260904>
Ezekiel 9:4), a signature (
<183135>
Job 31:35, see the Revised Version
(British and American)), the name of the Hebrew letter t originally made
in the form of a cross; the Revised Version margin has made marks; but
Septuagint has tumpanizo, to beat as a drum, which the Vulgate, Ewald,
Driver and others follow (beat upon or drummed on the doors of the
city, which seems more probable).
SCREECH OWL
<skrech>.
See NIGHT-MONSTER.
SCRIBES
<skribz>: The existence of law leads necessarily to a profession whose
business is the study and knowledge of the law; at any rate, if the law is
extensive and complicated. At the time of Ezra and probably for some time
after, this was chiefly the business of the priests. Ezra was both priest and
scholar ([r p es o, copher]). It was chiefly in the interest of the priestly cult
that the most important part of the Pentateuch was written. The priests
were therefore also in the first instance the scholars and the guardians of
the Law; but in the course of time this was changed. The more highly
esteemed the Law became in the eyes of the people, the more its study and
interpretation became a lifework by itself, and thus there developed a class
of scholars who, though not priests, devoted themselves assiduously to the
Law. These became known as the scribes, that is, the professional students
of the Law. During the Hellenistic period, the priests, especially those of
640
the upper class, became tainted with the Hellenism of the age and
frequently turned their attention to paganistic culture, thus neglecting the
Law of their fathers more or less and arousing the scribes to opposition.
Thus, the scribes and not the priests were now the zealous defenders of the
Law, and hence, were the true teachers of the people. At the time of
Christ, this distinction was complete. The scribes formed a solid profession
which held undisputed sway over the thought of the people. In the New
Testament they are usually called ([ypootr, grammateis]), i.e.
students of the Scriptures, scholars, corresponding to the Hebrew
([ yr ip ]s o, copherim]) = homines literati, those who make a profession of
literary studies, which, in this case, of course, meant chiefly the Law.
Besides this general designation, we also find the specific word ([voxo,
nomikoi]), i.e. students of the Law, lawyers (
<402235>
Matthew 22:35;
<420730>
Luke 7:30; 10:25; 11:45,52; 14:3); and in so far as they not only know
the Law but also teach it they are called ([vooooxoo,
nomodidaskaloi]), doctors of the Law (
<420517>
Luke 5:17;
<440534>
Acts 5:34).
The extraordinary honors bestowed on these scholars on the part of the
people are expressed in their honorary titles. Most common was the
appellative rabbi = my lord (
<402307>
Matthew 23:7 and otherwise). This
word of polite address gradually became a title. The word rabboni
(
<411051>
Mark 10:51;
<432016>
John 20:16) is an extensive form, and was employed
by the disciples to give expression to their veneration of Christ. In the
Greek New Testament rabbi is translated as ([xupr, kurie])
(
<400802>
Matthew 8:2,6,8,21,25 and otherwise), or ([ooxor, didaskale])
(
<400819>
Matthew 8:19 and otherwise), in Luke by ([rototo, epistata])
(
<420505>
Luke 5:5; 8:24,45; 9:33,19; 17:13). Besides these, we find ([otqp,
pater]), father, and ([xo0qyqtq, kathegetes]), teacher (
<402309>
Matthew
23:9 f).
From their students the rabbis demanded honors even surpassing those
bestowed on parents. Let the honor of thy friend border on the honor of
thy teacher, and the honor of thy teacher on the fear of God (Abhoth 4
12). The honor of thy teacher must surpass the honor bestowed on thy
father; for son and father are both in duty bound to honor the teacher
(Kerithoth 6 9). Everywhere the rabbis demanded the position of first rank
(
<402306>
Matthew 23:6 f;
<411238>
Mark 12:38 f;
<421143>
Luke 11:43; 20:46). Their dress
equaled that of the nobility. They wore ([otoo, stolai]), tunics, and
these were the mark of the upper class.
641
Since the scribes were lawyers (see LAWYER), much of their time was
occupied in teaching and in judicial functions, and both these activities
must be pursued gratuitously. Rabbi Zadok said: Make the knowledge of
the Law neither a crown in which to glory nor a spade with which to dig.
Hillel used to say: He who employs the crown (of the Law) for external
purposes shall dwindle. That the judge should not receive presents or
bribes was written in the Law (
<022308>
Exodus 23:8;
<051619>
Deuteronomy 16:19);
hence, the Mishna said: If anyone accept pay for rendering judgment, his
judgment is null and void. The rabbis were therefore obliged to make their
living by other means. Some undoubtedly had inherited wealth; others
pursued a handicraft besides their study of the Law. Rabbi Gamaliel II
emphatically advised the pursuit of a business in addition to the pursuit of
the Law. It is well known that the apostle Paul kept up his handicraft even
after he had become a preacher of the gospel (
<441803>
Acts 18:3; 20:34;
<460412>
1
Corinthians 4:12; 9:6;
<471107>
2 Corinthians 11:7;
<520209>
1 Thessalonians 2:9;
<530308>
2
Thessalonians 3:8), and the same is reported of many rabbis. But in every
instance the pursuit of the Law is represented as the worthier, and warning
is given not to overestimate the value of the ordinary avocation. It was a
saying of Hillel: He that devotes himself to trade will not become wise.
The principle of gratuity was probably carried out in practice only in
connection with the judicial activity of the scribes; hardly in connection
with their work as teachers. Even the Gospels, in spite of the admonition
that the disciples should give without pay because they had received
without pay (
<401008>
Matthew 10:8), nevertheless also state that the workman
is worthy of his hire (
<401010>
Matthew 10:10;
<421007>
Luke 10:7); and Paul (1 Cor
9:14) states it as his just due that he receive his livelihood from those to
whom he preaches the gospel, even though he makes use of this right only
in exceptional cases (1 Cor 9:3-18;
<471108>
2 Corinthians 11:8,9;
<480606>
Galatians
6:6;
<500410>
Philippians 4:10,18). Since this appears to have been the thought of
the times, we are undoubtedly justified in assuming that the Jewish teachers
of the Law also demanded pay for their services. Indeed, the admonitions
above referred to, not to make instruction in the Law the object of self-
interest, lead to the conclusion that gratuity was not the rule; and in
Christs philippics against the scribes and Pharisees He makes special
mention of their greed (
<411240>
Mark 12:40;
<421614>
Luke 16:14; 20:47). Hence,
even though they ostensibly gave instruction in the Law gratuitously, they
must have practiced methods by which they indirectly secured their fees.
642
Naturally the place of chief influence for the scribes up to the year 70 AD
was Judea. But not only there were they to be found. Wherever the zeal for
the law of the fathers was a perceptible force, they were indispensable;
hence, we find them also in Galilee (
<420517>
Luke 5:17) and in the Diaspora. In
the Jewish epitaphs in Rome, dating from the latter days of the empire,
grammateis are frequently mentioned; and the Babylonian scribes of the
5th and 6th centuries were the authors of the most monumental work of
rabbinical Judaism the Talmud.
Since the separation of the Pharisaic and the Sadducean tendencies in
Judaism, the scribes generally belonged to the Pharisaic class; for this latter
is none other than the party which recognized the interpretations or
traditions which the scribes in the course of time had developed out of
the body of the written Law and enforced upon the people as the binding
rule of life. Since, however, scribes are merely students of the Law,
there must also have been scribes of the Sadducee type; for it is not to be
imagined that this party, which recognized only the written Law as binding,
should not have had some opposing students in the other class. Indeed,
various passages of the New Testament which speak of the scribes of the
Pharisees (
<410216>
Mark 2:16;
<420530>
Luke 5:30;
<442309>
Acts 23:9) indicate that there
were also scribes of the Sadducees.
Under the reign and leadership of the scribes, it became the ambition of
every Israelite to know more or less of the Law. The aim of education in
family, school and synagogue was to make the entire people a people of
the Law. Even the common laborer should know what was written in the
Law; and not only know it, but also do it. His entire life should be
governed according to the norm of the Law, and, on the whole, this
purpose was realized in a high degree. Josephus avers: Even though we be
robbed of our riches and our cities and our other goods, the Law remains
our possession forever. And no Jew can be so far removed from the and of
his fathers nor will he fear a hostile commander to such a degree that he
would not fear his Law more than his commander. So loyal were the
majority of the Jews toward their Law that they would gladly endure the
tortures of the rack and even death for it. This frame of mind was due
almost wholly to the systematic and persistent instruction of the scribes.
The motive underlying this enthusiasm for the Law was the belief in divine
retribution in the strictest judicial sense. The prophetic idea of a covenant
which God had made with His select people was interpreted purely in the
643
judicial sense. The covenant was a contract through which both parties
were mutually bound. The people are bound to observe the divine Law
literally and conscientiously; and, in return for this, God is in duty bound to
render the promised reward in proportion to the services rendered. This
applies to the people as a whole as well as to the individual. Services and
reward must always stand in mutual relation to each other. He who renders
great services may expect from the justice of God that he will receive great
returns as his portion, while, on the other hand, every transgression also
must be followed by its corresponding punishment.
The results corresponded to the motives. Just as the motives in the main
were superficial, so the results were an exceedingly shallow view of
religious and moral life. Religion was reduced to legal formalism. All
religious and moral life was dragged down to the level of law, and this
must necessarily lead to the following results:
(1) The individual is governed by a norm, the application of which
could have only evil results when applied in this realm. Law has the
purpose of regulating the relations of men to each other according to
certain standards. Its object is not the individual, but only the body of
society. In the law, the individual must find the proper rule for his
conduct toward society as an organism. This is a matter of obligation
and of government on the part of society. But religion is not a matter
of government; where it is found, it is a matter of freedom, of choice,
and of conduct.
(2) By reducing the practice of religion to the form of law, all acts are
placed on a paragraph with each other. The motives are no longer
taken into consideration, but only the deed itself.
(3) From this it follows that the highest ethical attainment was the
formal satisfaction of the Law, which naturally led to finical literalism.
(4) Finally, moral life must, under such circumstances, lose its unity and
be split up into manifold precepts and duties. Law always affords
opportunity for casuistry, and it was the development of this in the
guidance of the Jewish religious life through the precepts of the
elders which called forth Christs repeated denunciation of the work
of the scribes.
Frank E. Hirsch
644
SCRIP
<skrip>: A word connected with scrap, and meaning a bag, either as
made from a scrap (of skin) or as holding scraps (of food, etc.). the
King James Version has scrip in
<091740>
1 Samuel 17:40 and 6 times in New
Testament; the English Revised Version has wallet in the New
Testament, but retains script in
<091740>
1 Samuel 17:40; the American
Standard Revised Version has wallet throughout.
See BAG.
SCRIPTURE
<skrip-tur> ([q ypoq, he graphe], plural [o ypoo, hai graphai]):
The word means writing. In the Old Testament it occurs in the King
James Version only once, the scripture of truth, in
<271021>
Daniel 10:21,
where it is more correctly rendered in the Revised Version (British and
American), the writing of truth. The reference is not to Holy Scripture,
but to the book in which are inscribed Gods purposes. In the New
Testament, scripture and scriptures stand regularly for the Old
Testament sacred books regarded as inspired (2 Tim 3:16), the oracles
of God (
<450302>
Romans 3:2). Compare on this usage
<402142>
Matthew 21:42;
22:29;
<411210>
Mark 12:10;
<420421>
Luke 4:21; 24:27,32,45;
<430539>
John 5:39; 10:35;
<440832>
Acts 8:32; 17:2,11;
<451504>
Romans 15:4; 16:26, etc.; in
<450102>
Romans 1:2,
holy scriptures. See BIBLE. The expression holy scriptures in
<550315>
2
Timothy 3:15 the King James Version represents different words (hiera
grammata) and is properly rendered in the Revised Version (British and
American) sacred writings. In
<610316>
2 Peter 3:16, the term scriptures is
extended to the Eppistle of Paul. In
<590405>
James 4:5, the words occur: Think
ye that the scripture speaketh in vain? Doth the spirit which he made to
dwell in us long unto envying? The passage is probably rather a summary
of Scripture teaching than intended as a direct quotation. Others (e.g.
Westcott) think the word is used in a wide sense of a Christian hymn.
J ames Orr
SCRIPTURES, SEARCH THE
<skrip-turz>.
See SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES.
645
SCROLL
<skrol>.
See ROLL.
SCUM
<skum> ([h a ;l ]j ,, chelah]; Septuagint [o, ios], poison or verdigris;
compare Plato Rep. 609a): The word is only found in
<262406>
Ezekiel
24:6,11,12, where the Revised Version (British and American) translates it
rust. The fact, however, that the caldron is of brass and therefore not
liable to rust, and the astonishment expressed that the fire did not remove it
(24:12), would seem to point to the preferability of the translation scum,
the residue of dirt adhering to the caldron from previous use.
SCURVY
<skur-vi> ([b r ;G;, garabh]); [gpo oypo, psora agria] (
<032120>
Leviticus
21:20; 22:22)): This word is used to denote an itchy, scaly disease of the
scalp, probably any of the parasitic diseases which are known as tinea,
porrigo or impetigo. These cases have no relation whatever to the disease
now known as scorbutus or scurvy. The name was probably derived from
its scaliness, and the old Greek physicians believed these diseases to be
peculiarly intractable.
The name Gareb is used in
<243139>
Jeremiah 31:39 as the placename of a hill
at or near the southeastern corner of Jerusalem, probably from the bare
roughness of the surface of its slope at the southern end of the Wady er-
Rababi. Another hill of this name is mentioned near Shiloh in the Talmud,
and the name is given to one of Davids warriors (
<102338>
2 Samuel 23:38).
Scurvy etymologically means any condition of scaliness of skin which can
be scraped off, such as dandruff.
Alexander Macalister
SCYTHIANS
<sith-i-anz> ([o 2xu0o, hoi Skuthai]): The word does not occur in the
Hebrew of the Old Testament, but Septuagint of
<070127>
Judges 1:27 inserts
([2xu0v o, Skuthon polis] (Scythopolis), in explanation, as being
646
the same as Beth-shean. The same occurs in Apocrypha (Judith 3:10; 1
Macc 12:29), and the Scythians as a people in 2 Macc 4:47, and the
adjective in 3 Macc 7:5. The people are also mentioned in the New
Testament (
<510311>
Colossians 3:11), where, as in Maccabees, the fact that they
were barbarians is implied. This is clearly set forth in classical writers, and
the description of them given by Herodotus in book iv of his history
represents a race of savages, inhabiting a region of rather indefinite
boundaries, north of the Black and Caspian seas and the Caucasus
Mountains. They were nomads who neither plowed nor sowed (iv.19),
moving about in wagons and carrying their dwellings with them (ibid. 46);
they had the most filthy habits and never washed in water (ibid. 75); they
drank the blood of the first enemy killed in battle, and made napkins of the
scalps and drinking bowls of the skulls of the slain (ibid. 64-65). Their
deities were many of them identified with those of the Greeks, but the most
characteristic rite was the worship of the naked sword (ibid. 62), and they
sacrificed every hundredth man taken in war to this deity. War was their
chief business, and they were a terrible scourge to the nations of Western
Asia. They broke through the barrier of the Caucasus in 632 BC and swept
down like a swarm of locusts upon Media and Assyria, turning the fruitful
fields into a desert; pushing across Mesopotamia, they ravaged Syria and
were about to invade Egypt when Psammitichus I, who was besieging
Ashdod, bought them off by rich gifts, but they remained in Western Asia
for 28 years, according to Herodotus. It is supposed that a company of
them settled in Beth-shean, and from this circumstance it received the name
Scythopolis. Various branches of the race appeared at different times,
among the most noted of which were the PARTHIANS (which see).
H. Porter
SCYTHOPOLIS
<si-thop-o-lis>, <si-thop-o-lis>.
See BETH-SHEAN.
SEA
<se> ([ y;, yam]; [0ooooo, thalassa]; in
<442705>
Acts 27:5 [royo,
pelagos]): The Mediterranean is called ha-yam ha-gadhol, the great sea
(
<043406>
Numbers 34:6;
<060104>
Joshua 1:4;
<264710>
Ezekiel 47:10, etc.); ha-yam ha-
acharon, the hinder, or western sea (
<051124>
Deuteronomy 11:24; 34:2;
647
<290220>
Joel 2:20;
<381408>
Zechariah 14:8); yam pelishtim, the sea of the Philis
(
<022331>
Exodus 23:31); the King James Version translates yam yapho in
<150307>
Ezra 3:7 by sea of Joppa, perhaps rightly.
The Dead Sea is called yam ha-melach, the Salt Sea (
<043403>
Numbers 34:3;
<050317>
Deuteronomy 3:17;
<060316>
Joshua 3:16, etc.); ha-yam ha-qadhmoni, the
east sea (
<264718>
Ezekiel 47:18;
<290220>
Joel 2:20;
<381408>
Zechariah 14:8); yam ha-
`arabhah,the sea of the Arabah (
<050317>
Deuteronomy 3:17;
<060316>
Joshua 3:16;
12:3;
<121425>
2 Kings 14:25).
The Red Sea is called yam cuph, literally, sea of weeds (
<021019>
Exodus
10:19;
<041425>
Numbers 14:25;
<050101>
Deuteronomy 1:1;
<060210>
Joshua 2:10;
<071116>
Judges 11:16;
<110926>
1 Kings 9:26;
<160909>
Nehemiah 9:9;
<19A607>
Psalm 106:7;
<244921>
Jeremiah 49:21, etc.); ([rpu0po 0ooooo, eruthra thalassa]),
literally, red sea (The Wisdom of Solomon 19:7;
<440736>
Acts 7:36;
<581129>
Hebrews 11:29); yam mitsrayim, the Egyptian sea (
<231115>
Isaiah 11:15).
Yam is used of the Nile in Nah 3:8 and probably also in
<231905>
Isaiah 19:5, as
in modern Arabic bachr, sea, is used of the Nile and its affluents. Yam is
often used for west or westward, as look from the place where thou
art, .... westward (
<011314>
Genesis 13:14); western border (
<043406>
Numbers
34:6). Yam is used for sea in general (
<022011>
Exodus 20:11); also for
molten sea of the temple (
<110723>
1 Kings 7:23).
The Sea of Galilee is called kinnereth, Chinnereth (
<043411>
Numbers 34:11);
kinaroth, Chinneroth (
<061102>
Joshua 11:2); kinneroth, Chinneroth (
<111520>
1
Kings 15:20); yam kinnereth, the sea of Chinnereth (
<043411>
Numbers 34:11;
<061327>
Joshua 13:27); yam kinneroth, the sea of Chinneroth (
<061203>
Joshua 12:3);
([q vq Irvvqooprt, he limne Gennesaret]), the lake of Gennesaret
(
<420501>
Luke 5:1); and ([to up Irvvqoop, to hudor Gennesar]), the
water of Gennesar (1 Macc 11:67), from late Hebrew [r s neGi, ginecar],
or ([r s yneG], genecar]; [q 0ooooo tq Iooo, he thalassa tes
Galilaias]), the sea of Galilee (
<400418>
Matthew 4:18; 15:29;
<410116>
Mark 1:16;
7:31;
<430601>
John 6:1); ([q 0ooooo tq Tprpoo, he thalassa tes
Tiberiados]), the sea of Tiberias (
<432101>
John 21:1; compare
<430601>
John 6:1).
In
<244832>
Jeremiah 48:32 we have yam ya`zer, the sea of Jazer. Jazer is a site
East of the Jordan, not satisfactorily identified (
<042132>
Numbers 21:32;
32:1,3,15;
<061325>
Joshua 13:25; 21:39;
<102405>
2 Samuel 24:5;
<130681>
1 Chronicles
6:81; 26:31;
<231608>
Isaiah 16:8,9).
648
See SEA OF JAZER.
In midhbar yam, the wilderness of the sea (
<232101>
Isaiah 21:1), there may
perhaps be a reference to the Persian Gulf.
Alfred Ely Day
SEA, ADRIATIC
<a-dri-at-ic>, <ad-ri-at-ik>.
See ADRIA.
SEA, BRAZEN
<bra-zn>.
See SEA, THE MOLTEN.
SEA, DEAD; EASTERN
<es-tern>.
See DEAD SEA.
SEA, FORMER
<for-mer>.
See DEAD SEA; FORMER.
SEA, HINDER; UTMOST; UTTERMOST; WESTERN
<hin-der>; <ut-most>; <ut-er-most>; <wes-tern>.
See MEDITERRANEAN SEA.
SEA, MEDITERRANEAN
See MEDITERRANEAN SEA.
SEA-MEW
<se-mu> ([t j v , shachaph]; [opo, laros]; Latin, Larus canus):
The sea-gull. Used by modern translators in the list of abominations in the
649
place of the cuckoo (
<031116>
Leviticus 11:16;
<051415>
Deuteronomy 14:15). It is
very probable that the sea-gull comes closer to the bird intended than the
CUCKOO (which see). The sea-gull is a slender bird, but not lean as
the root shachaph implies. However, with its stretch of wing and restless
flight it gives this impression. Gulls are common all along the
Mediterranean coast and around the Sea of Galilee. They are thought to
have more intelligence than the average bird, and to share with some
eagles, hawks, vultures and the raven the knowledge that if they find
mollusk they cannot break they can carry it aloft and drop it on the rocks.
Only a wise bird learns this. Most feathered creatures pick at an unyielding
surface a few times and then seek food elsewhere. There are two reasons
why these birds went on the abomination lists. To a steady diet of fish they
add carrion. Then they are birds of such nervous energy, so exhaustless in
flight, so daring in flying directly into the face of fierce winds, that the
Moslems believed them to be tenanted with the souls of the damned.
Moses was reared and educated among the Egyptians, and the laws he
formulated often are tinged by traces of his early life. History fails to
record any instance of a man reared in Egypt who permitted the killing of a
gull, ibis, or hoopoe.
Gene Stratton-Porter
SEA-MONSTER
<se-mon-ster>:
<010121>
Genesis 1:21 ([ niyNiT , tanninim]), sea monsters,
the King James Version whales, Septuagint ([to xqtq, ta kete]), sea-
monsters, huge fish, or whales.
<180712>
Job 7:12 ([yNiT , tannin]), sea-
monster the King James Version whale, the Septuagint [poxv,
drakon], dragon.
<197413>
Psalm 74:13 ([ yniyNiT , tanninim]), the American
Standard Revised Version and the English Revised Version margin. sea-
monsters, the King James Version and the English Revised Version
dragons, the King James Version margin whales Septuagint
[poxovtr, drakontes], dragons
<19E807>
Psalm 148:7 ([ yniyNiT ,
tanninim]), sea-monsters the King James Version and the English
Revised Version dragons, the English Revised Version margin sea-
monsters or water-spouts, Septuagint drakontes, dragons.
<250403>
Lamentations 4:3 ([yNiT , tannin]) jackals, the King James Version
sea monsters the King James Version margin sea calves, Septuagint
drakontes.
<401240>
Matthew 12:40 (referring to Jonah) ([xqto, ketos]),
650
English Versions of the Bible whale, the Revised Version margin sea-
monster. In the Apocrypha, the Revised Version (British and American)
changes the King James Version whale (ketos) into sea-monster in
Sirach 43:25 but not in Song of Three Children verse 57.
See DRAGON; JACKAL; WHALE.
Alfred Ely Day
SEA OF CHINNERETH
<kin-e-reth>.
See GALILEE, SEA OF.
SEA OF GALILEE
See GALILEE, SEA OF.
SEA OF GLASS
See GLASS, SEA OF.
SEA OF JAZER
([r ze[ ]y y;, yam ya`zer]): This is a scribal error (
<244832>
Jeremiah 48:32),
yam (sea) being accidentally imported from the preceding clause.
See JAZER; SEA.
SEA OF JOPPA
See MEDITERRANEAN SEA.
SEA OF LOT
See DEAD SEA; LAKE.
SEA OF SODOM (SODOMITISH
<sod-om-it-ish>).
See DEAD SEA.
651
SEA OF THE ARABAH
See DEAD SEA.
SEA OF THE PHILISTINES
See MEDITERRANEAN SEA.
SEA OF THE PLAIN (ARABAH)
<ar-a-ba>).
See DEAD SEA.
SEA OF TIBERIAS
<ti-be-ri-as>.
See GALILEE, SEA OF.
SEA, RED
See RED SEA.
SEA, SALT
See DEAD SEA.
SEA, THE
See MEDITERRANEAN SEA; SEA, THE GREAT.
SEA, THE GREAT
([l wO d G; h Y; h , ha-yam ha-gadhol]):
1. NAMES OF THE SEA:
This is the name given to the Mediterranean, which formed the western
boundary of Palestine (
<043406>
Numbers 34:6 f;
<061512>
Joshua 15:12,47;
<264719>
Ezekiel
47:19 f; 48:28). It is also called the hinder sea (Hebrew ha-yam ha-
aharon), i.e. the western sea (
<051124>
Deuteronomy 11:24; 34:2;,
<290220>
Joel 2:20;
<381408>
Zechariah 14:8), and the sea of the Philis (
<022331>
Exodus 23:31), which,
652
of course, applies especially to the part washing the shore of Philistia, from
Jaffa southward. Generally, when the word sea is used, and no other is
definitely indicated, the Mediterranean is intended (
<014913>
Genesis 49:13;
<041329>
Numbers 13:29, etc.). It was the largest sheet of water with which the
Hebrews had any acquaintance. Its gleaming mirror, stretching away to the
sunset, could be seen from many an inland height.
2. ISRAEL AND THE SEA:
It bulked large in the minds of the landsmen for Israel produced few
mariners impressing itself upon their speech, so that seaward was the
common term for westward (
<022622>
Exodus 26:22;
<060501>
Joshua 5:1, etc.). Its
mystery and wonder, the raging of the storm, and the sound of sorrow on
the sea, borne to their upland ears, infected them with a strange dread of
its wide waters, to which the seer of Patmos gave the last Scriptural
expression in his vision of the new earth, where the sea is no more
(
<662101>
Revelation 21:1).
3. THE COAST LINE:
Along the coast lay the tribal territories assigned to Asher, Zebulun,
Manasseh, Daniel and Judah. Many of the cities along the shore they failed
to possess, however, and much of the land. The coast line offered little
facility for the making of harbors. The one seaport of which in ancient
times the Hebrews seem to have made much use was Joppa the modern
Jaffa (
<140216>
2 Chronicles 2:16, etc.). From this place, probably, argosies of
Solomon turned their prows westward. Here, at least, ships of Tarshish
were wont to set out upon their adventurous voyages (Jon 1:3). The ships
on this sea figure in the beautiful vision of Isaiah (60:8 f).
See ACCO; JOPPA.
4. THE SEA IN THE NEW TESTAMENT:
The boy Jesus, from the heights above Nazareth, must often have looked
on the waters of the great sea, as they broke in foam on the curving shore,
from the roots of Carmel to the point at Acre. Once only in His
journeyings, so far as we know, did He approach the sea, namely on His
ever-memorable visit to the borders of Tyre and Sidon (
<401521>
Matthew
15:21;
<410724>
Mark 7:24). The sea, in all its moods, was well known to the
great apostle of the Gentiles. The three shipwrecks, which he suffered (2
653
Cor 11:25), were doubtless due to the power of its angry billows over the
frail craft of those old days.
See PAUL.
5. DEBT OF PALESTINE TO THE SEA:
The land owes much to the great sea. During the hot months of summer, a
soft breeze from the water springs up at dawn, fanning all the seaward face
of the Central Range. At sunset the chilled air slips down the slopes and the
higher strata drift toward the uplands, charged with priceless moisture,
giving rise to the refreshing dews which make the Palestinian morning so
sweet.
See, further, MEDITERRANEAN SEA.
W. Ewing
SEA, THE MOLTEN OR BRAZEN
<mol-tn>, or ([q x ;Wm y;, yam mutsaq], [t v , j K ] h y; , yam
hanechosheth]): This was a large brazen (bronze) reservoir for water
which stood in the court of Solomons Temple between the altar and the
temple porch, toward the South (
<110723>
1 Kings 7:23-26;
<140402>
2 Chronicles 4:2-
5,10). The bronze from which it was made is stated in
<131808>
1 Chronicles
18:8 to have been taken by David from the cities Tibhath and Cun. It
replaced the laver of the tabernacle, and, like that, was used for storing the
water in which the priests washed their hands and their feet (compare
<023018>
Exodus 30:18; 38:8). It rested on 12 brazen (bronze) oxen, facing in
four groups the four quarters of heaven. For particulars of shape, size and
ornamentation, see TEMPLE. The sea served its purpose till the time of
Ahaz, who took away the brazen oxen, and placed, the sea upon a
pavement (
<121617>
2 Kings 16:17). It is recorded that the oxen were afterward
taken to Babylon (
<245220>
Jeremiah 52:20). The sea itself shared the same fate,
being first broken to pieces (
<122513>
2 Kings 25:13,16).
W. Shaw Caldecott
SEA, WESTERN
<wes-tern>.
See MEDITERRANEAN SEA.
654
SEAH
<se-a> ([h a ;s ] , ceah]): A dry measure equal to about one and one-half
pecks.
See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
SEAL
<sel> (substantive [ t ;wOj , chotham], seal, signet, [t [ B f ,
Tabba`ath], signet-ring; Aramaic [a q ;z][ i, `izqa]; [opoy , sphragis];
verb [ t j ; , chatham], (Aramaic [ t j } , chatham]); ([opoy,
sphragizo]), ([xotoopoyoo, katasphragizomai], to seal):
I. LITERAL SENSE.
A seal is an instrument of stone, metal or other hard substance (sometimes
set in a ring), on which is engraved some device or figure, and is used for
making an impression on some soft substance, as clay or wax, affixed to a
document or other object, in token of authenticity.
1. Prevalence in Antiquity:
The use of seals goes back to a very remote antiquity, especially in Egypt,
Babylonia and Assyria. Herodotus (i.195) records the Babylonian custom
of wearing signets. In Babylonia the seal generally took the form of a
cylinder cut in crystal or some hard stone, which was bored through from
end to end and a cord passed through it. The design, often accompanied by
the owners name, was engraved on the curved part. The signet was then
suspended by the cord round the neck or waist (compare the Revised
Version (British and American) cord in
<013818>
Genesis 38:18; upon thy
heart .... upon thine arm, i.e. one seal hanging down from the neck and
another round the waist; Song 8:6). In Egypt, too, as in Babylonia, the
cylinder was the earliest form used for the purpose of a seal; but this form
was in Egypt gradually superseded by the scarab (= beetle-shaped) as the
prevailing type. Other forms, such as the cone-shaped, were also in use.
From the earliest period of civilization the finger-ring on which some
distinguishing badge was engraved was in use as a convenient way of
carrying the signet, the earliest extant rings being those found in Egyptian
tombs. Other ancient peoples, such as the Phoenicians, also used seals.
From the East the custom passed into Greece and other western countries.
655
Devices of a variety of sorts were in use at Rome, both by the emperors
and by private individuals. In ancient times, almost every variety of
precious stones was used for seals, as well as cheaper material, such as
limestone or terra-cotta. In the West wax came early into use as the
material for receiving the impression of the seal, but in the ancient East
clay was the medium used (compare
<183814>
Job 38:14). Pigment and ink also
came into use.
2. Seals among the Hebrews:
That the Israelites were acquainted with the use in Egypt of signets set in
rings is seen in the statement that Pharaoh delivered to Joseph his royal
signet as a token of deputed authority (
<014141>
Genesis 41:41 f). They were
also acquainted with the use of seals among the Persians and Medes (Est
3:12; 8:8-10;
<270617>
Daniel 6:17). The Hebrews themselves used them at an
early period, the first recorded instance being
<013818>
Genesis 38:18,25, where
the patriarch Judah is said to have pledged his word to Tamar by leaving
her his signet, cord and staff. We have evidence of engraved signets being
in important use among them in early times in the description of the two
stones on the high priests ephod (
<022811>
Exodus 28:11; 39:6), of his golden
plate (
<022836>
Exodus 28:36; 39:30), and breastplate (
<023914>
Exodus 39:14). Ben-
Sirach mentions as a distinct occupation the work of engraving on signets
(Sirach 38:27). From the case of Judah and the common usage in other
countries, we may infer that every Hebrew of any standing wore a seal. In
the case of the signet ring, it was usual to wear it on one of the fingers of
the right hand (
<242224>
Jeremiah 22:24). The Hebrews do not seem to have
developed an original type of signets. The seals so far discovered in
Palestine go to prove that the predominating type was the Egyptian, and to
a less degree the Babylonian.
3. Uses of Sealing:
(1) One of the most important uses of sealing in antiquity was to give a
proof of authenticity and authority to letters, royal commands, etc. It
served the purposes of a modern signature at a time when the art of
writing was known to only a few. Thus Jezebel wrote letters in Ahabs
name, and sealed them with his seal (
<112108>
1 Kings 21:8); the written
commands of Ahasuerus were sealed with the kings ring, for the
writing which is written in the kings name, and sealed with the kings
ring, may no man reverse (Est 8:8,10; 3:12).
656
(2) Allied to this is the formal ratification of a transaction or covenant.
Jeremiah sealed the deeds of the field which he bought from Hanamel
(
<243210>
Jeremiah 32:10-14; compare 32:44); Nehemiah and many others
affixed their seal to the written covenant between God and His people
(
<160938>
Nehemiah 9:38; 10:1 ff).
(3) An additional use was the preservation of books in security. A roll
or other document intended for preservation was sealed up before it
was deposited in a place of safety (
<243214>
Jeremiah 32:14; compare the
book .... close sealed with seven seals,
<660501>
Revelation 5:1). In sealing
the roll, it was wrapped round with flaxen thread or string, then a lump
of clay was attached to it impressed with a seal. The seal would have to
be broken by an authorized person before the book could be read
(
<660502>
Revelation 5:2,5,9; 6:1,3, etc.).
(4) Sealing was a badge of deputed authority and power, as when a
king handed over his signet ring to one of his officers (
<014142>
Genesis
41:42; Est 3:10; 8:2; 1 Macc 6:15).
(5) Closed doors were often sealed to prevent the entrance of any
unauthorized person. So the door of the lions den (
<270617>
Daniel 6:17;
compare Bel and the Dragon verse 14). Herodotus mentions the
custom of sealing tombs (ii.121). So we read of the chief priests and
Pharisees sealing the stone at the mouth of our Lords tomb in order to
make the sepulcher sure against the intrusion of the disciples
(
<402766>
Matthew 27:66). Compare the sealing of the abyss to prevent
Satans escape
<662003>
Revelation 20:3). A door was sealed by stretching a
cord over the stone which blocked the entrance, spreading clay or wax
on the cord, and then impressing it with a seal.
(6) To any other object might a seal be affixed, as an official mark of
ownership; e.g. a large number of clay stoppers of wine jars are still
preserved, on which seal impressions of the cylinder type were
stamped, by rolling the cylinder along the surface of the clay when it
was still soft (compare
<183814>
Job 38:14).
II. METAPHORICAL USE OF THE TERM.
The word seal, both substantive and verb, is often used figuratively for
the act or token of authentication, confirmation, proof, security or
possession. Sin is said not to be forgotten by God, but treasured and stored
657
up with Him against the sinner, under a seal (
<053234>
Deuteronomy 32:34;
<181417>
Job 14:17). A lovers signet is the emblem of love as an inalienable
possession (Song 8:6); an unresponsive maiden is a spring shut up, a
fountain sealed (Song 4:12). The seal is sometimes a metaphor for
secrecy. That which is beyond the comprehension of the uninitiated is said
to be as a book that is sealed (
<232911>
Isaiah 29:11 f; compare the book with
seven seals,
<660501>
Revelation 5:1 ff). Daniel is bidden to shut up the words
of his prophecy and seal the book, even to the time of the end, i.e. to
keep his prophecy a secret till it shall be revealed (
<271204>
Daniel 12:4,9;
compare
<661004>
Revelation 10:4). Elsewhere it stands for the ratification of
prophecy (
<270924>
Daniel 9:24). The exact meaning of the figure is sometimes
ambiguous (as in
<183316>
Job 33:16;
<262812>
Ezekiel 28:12). In the New Testament
the main ideas in the figure are those of authentication, ratification, and
security. The believer in Christ is said to set his seal to this, that God is
true (
<430333>
John 3:33), i.e. to attest the veracity of God, to stamp it with the
believers own endorsement and confirmation. The Father has sealed the
Son, i.e. authenticated Him as the bestower of life-giving bread (
<430627>
John
6:27). The circumcision of Abraham was a sign and seal, an outward
ratification, of the righteousness of faith which he had already received
while uncircumcised (
<450411>
Romans 4:11; compare the prayer offered at the
circumcision of a child, Blessed be He who sanctified His beloved from
the womb, and put His ordinance upon his flesh, and sealed His offering
with the sign of a holy covenant; also Targum Song 38: The seal of
circumcision is in your flesh as it was sealed in the flesh of Abraham).
Paul describes his act in making over to the saints at Jerusalem the
contribution of the Gentiles as having sealed to them this fruit
(
<451528>
Romans 15:28); the meaning of the phrase is doubtful, but the figure
seems to be based on sealing as ratifying a commercial transaction,
expressing Pauls intention formally to hand over to them the fruit (of his
own labors, or of spiritual blessings which through him the Gentiles had
enjoyed), and to mark it as their own property. Pauls converts are the
seal, the authentic confirmation, of his apostleship (1 Cor 9:2). God by
His Spirit indicates who are His, as the owner sets his seal on his property;
and just as documents are sealed up until the proper time for opening them,
so Christians are sealed up by the Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption
(
<490113>
Ephesians 1:13; 4:30;
<470122>
2 Corinthians 1:22). Ownership, security and
authentication are implied in the words, The firm foundation of God
standeth, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his (2 Tim
2:19). The seal of God on the foreheads of His servants (
<660702>
Revelation
658
7:2-4) marks them off as His own, and guarantees their eternal security,
whereas those that have not the seal of God on their foreheads
(
<660904>
Revelation 9:4) have no such guaranty.
On the analogy of the rite of circumcision (see above), the term seal
(sphragis) was at a very early period applied to Christian baptism. But
there is no sufficient ground for referring such passages as
<490113>
Ephesians
1:13; 4:30;
<470122>
2 Corinthians 1:22 to the rite of baptism (as some do). The
use of the metaphor in connection with baptism came after New Testament
times (early instances are given in Gebhardt and Lightfoot on 2 Clem 7:6).
Harnack and Hatch maintain that the name seal for baptism was taken
from the Greek mysteries, but Anrich and Sanday-Headlam hold that it was
borrowed from the Jewish view of circumcision as a seal.
See MYSTERY.
D. Miall Edwards
SEALED, FOUNTAIN
<seld>, These words, applied to the bride (Song 4:12), find their
explanation under SEAL (which see). Anything that was to be
authoritatively protected was sealed. Where water was one of the most
precious things, as in the East, fountains and wells were often sealed
(
<012903>
Genesis 29:3;
<200515>
Proverbs 5:15-18).
SEALSKIN
<sel-skin>: The rendering of the Revised Version (British and American)
(
<022505>
Exodus 25:5;
<261610>
Ezekiel 16:10) for [v j T r wO [ , `or tachash], the
Revised Version margin porpoise-skin, the King James Version
badgers skin. A seal, Monachus albiventer, is found in the
Mediterranean, though not in the Red Sea, but it is likely that tachash
means the dugong, which is found in the Red Sea.
See BADGER; PORPOISE.
SEAM; SEAMLESS
<sem>, <sem-les>: The coat or inner garment ([tv, chiton]) of Jesus
is described in
<431923>
John 19:23 as without seam ([oppoo, arrhaphos]),
i.e. woven in one piece.
659
SEAR
<ser>: In
<540402>
1 Timothy 4:2 for ([xouotqpo, kausteriazo]), burn with
a hot iron (compare cauterize), the King James Version having their
conscience seared with a hot iron, and the Revised Version margin.
Seared in this connection means made insensible, like the surface of a
deep burn after healing. The verb, however, probably means brand (so
the Revised Version (British and American)). Criminals are branded on
their forehead, so that all men may know their infamy. The consciences of
certain men are branded just as truly, so that there is an inward
consciousness of hypocrisy. See the commentaries
SEARCH
<surch>: Some peculiar senses are:
(1) In the books of Moses, especially in Nu, searching out the land
means to spy out ([l Ge r , raggel]), to investigate carefully, to
examine with a view to giving a full and accurate report on.
(2) When applied to the Scriptures, as in
<150415>
Ezra 4:15,19 ([r q e B ,
baqqer]);
<430539>
John 5:39;
<600111>
1 Peter 1:11 ([rpouvo, eraunao]), it
means to examine, to study out the meaning. In
<441711>
Acts 17:11, the
Revised Version (British and American) substitutes examining for the
searched of the King James Version. See SEARCHINGS.
(3) Search out often means to study critically, to investigate
carefully, e.g.
<180808>
Job 8:8; 29:16;
<210113>
Ecclesiastes 1:13;
<250340>
Lamentations 3:40;
<400208>
Matthew 2:8;
<460210>
1 Corinthians 2:10;
<600110>
1
Peter 1:10.
(4) When the word is applied to Gods searching the heart or spirit, it
means His opening up, laying bare, disclosing what was hidden, e.g.
<132809>
1 Chronicles 28:9;
<194421>
Psalm 44:21; 139:1;
<202027>
Proverbs 20:27;
<241710>
Jeremiah 17:10;
<450827>
Romans 8:27.
G. H. Gerberding
SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES
The sentence beginning with ([rpouvotr, eraunate]), in
<430539>
John 5:39 the
King James Version has been almost universally regarded as meaning
660
Search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life. But one
cannot read as far as [oxrtr, dokeite], ye think, without feeling that
there is something wrong with the ordinary version. This verb is at least a
disturbing element in the current of thought (if not superfluous), and only
when the first verb is taken as an indicative does the meaning of the writer
become clear. The utterance is not a command, but a declaration: Ye
search the scriptures, because ye think that in them, etc. Robert Barclay as
early as 1675, in his Apology for the True Christian Divinity (91 ff), refers
to two scholars before him who had handed down the correct tradition:
Moreover, that place may be taken in the indicative mood, Ye search the
Scriptures; which interpretation the Greek word will bear, and so Pasor
translated it: which by the reproof following seemeth also to be the more
genuine interpretation, as Cyrillus long ago hath observed. So Dr. Edwin
A. Abbott, in his Johannine Grammar (London, 1906, section 2439 (i)).
See also Transactions American Philological Association, 1901, 64 f.
J . E. Harry
SEARCHINGS
<sur-chingz> ([(b l e) yr eq ]j , chiqre (lebh)], from chaqar, to search,
explore, examine thoroughly): In the song of Deborah the Reubenites
are taunted because their great resolves of heart, chiqeqe lebh, led to
nothing but great searchings of heart, chiqre lebh, and no activity other
than to remain among their flocks (
<070515>
Judges 5:15 f). The first of the two
Hebrew expressions so emphatically contrasted (though questioned by
commentators on the authority of 5 manuscripts as a corruption of the
second) can with reasonable certainty be interpreted acts prescribed by
ones understanding (compare the expressions chakham lebh, nebhon
lebh, in which the heart is looked upon as the seat of the understanding).
The second expression may mean either irresolution or hesitation based on
selfish motives, as the heart was also considered the seat of the feelings, or
answerability to God (compare
<241710>
Jeremiah 17:10;
<202503>
Proverbs 25:3); this
rendering would explain the form liphelaghoth in
<070516>
Judges 5:16, literally,
`for the water courses of Reuben, great the searchings of heart!
Nathan I saacs
661
SEASONS
<se-znz> (summer: [6 yi q , qayits], Chaldaic [f yi q , qayiT] (
<270235>
Daniel
2:35); ([0rpo, theros]; winter: [wt ;s ], cethaw]) (Song 2:11), ([t r ,j ,
choreph]; [rv, cheimon]): The four seasons in Palestine are not so
marked as in more northern countries, summer gradually fading into winter
and winter into summer. The range of temperature is not great. In the Bible
we have no reference to spring or autumn; the only seasons mentioned are
summer and winter (
<010822>
Genesis 8:22;
<197417>
Psalm 74:17;
<381408>
Zechariah
14:8).
Winter is the season of rain lasting from November to May. The winter is
past; the rain is over (Song 2:11). See RAIN. The temperature at sealevel
in Palestine reaches freezing-point occasionally, but seldom is less than 40
F. On the hills and mountains it is colder, depending on the height. The
people have no means of heating their houses, and suffer much with the
cold. They wrap up their necks and heads and keep inside the houses out of
the wind as much as possible. The sluggard will not plow by reason of the
winter (
<202004>
Proverbs 20:4). Jesus in speaking of the destruction of
Jerusalem says, Pray ye that your flight be not in the winter (
<402420>
Matthew
24:20). Paul asks Timothy to come before winter (2 Tim 4:21) as
navigation closed then and travel was virtually impossible.
Summer is very hot and rainless. (When) the fig tree .... putteth forth its
leaves, ye know that the summer is nigh (
<411328>
Mark 13:28); The harvest is
past, the summer is ended (
<240820>
Jeremiah 8:20). It is the season of
harvesting and threshing (
<270235>
Daniel 2:35). He that gathereth in summer is
a wise son (
<201005>
Proverbs 10:5).
See COLD; HEAT; ASTRONOMY, I, 5.
Alfred H. J oy
SEAT
<set>: This word is used to translate the Hebrew words ([b v ;wOm,
moshabh], [t b ,v ,, shebheth], [a S eK i, kicce], and [h n;Wk T ], tekhunah]), once
(
<182303>
Job 23:3). It translates the Greek word ([xo0rpo, kathedra])
(
<402112>
Matthew 21:12; 23:2;
<411115>
Mark 11:15), and chief seat translates the
compound word ([ptoxo0rpo, protokathedria]) (
<402306>
Matthew 23:6;
<411239>
Mark 12:39;
<422046>
Luke 20:46). In the King James Version it translates
662
([0povo, thronos]) (
<420152>
Luke 1:52;
<660213>
Revelation 2:13; 4:4; 11:16; 13:2;
16:10), which the Revised Version (British and American) renders
throne. It denotes a place or thing upon which one sits, as a chair, or
stool (
<092018>
1 Samuel 20:18;
<070320>
Judges 3:20). It is used also of the exalted
position occupied by men of marked rank or influence, either in good or
evil (
<402302>
Matthew 23:2;
<190101>
Psalm 1:1).
J esse L. Cotton
SEATS, CHIEF
<sets>.
See CHIEF SEATS.
SEBA
<se-ba> ([a b ;s ] , cebha]; [2opo, Saba] (
<011007>
Genesis 10:7;
<130109>
1
Chronicles 1:9); Greek ibid., but Codex Vaticanus has ([2opov, Saban]):
1. FORMS OF NAME, AND PARENTAGE OF SEBA:
The first son of Cush, his brothers being Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, and
Sabtecha. In
<197210>
Psalm 72:10 and
<234303>
Isaiah 43:3 (where the Greek has
[2oqvq, Soene]), Seba is mentioned with Egypt and Ethiopia, and must
therefore have been a southern people. In
<234514>
Isaiah 45:14 we meet with
the gentilic form, ([ ya ib ;s ], csebhaim]) ([2opor, Sabaeim]), rendered
Sabaeans, who are described as men of stature (i.e. tall), and were to
come over to Cyrus in chains, and acknowledge that God was in him
their merchandise, and that of the Ethiopians, and the labor of Egypt, were
to be his.
2. POSITION OF THE NATION:
Their country is regarded as being, most likely, the district of Saba, North
of Adulis, on the west coast of the Red Sea. There is just a possibility that
the Sabi River, stretching from the coast to the Zambesi and the Limpopo,
which was utilized as a waterway by the states in that region, though,
through silting, not suitable now, may contain a trace of the name, and
perhaps testifies to still more southern extensions of the power and
influence of the Sebaim. (See Th. Bent, The Ruined Cities of Mashonaland,
1892.) The ruins of this tract are regarded as being the work of others than
663
the black natives of the country. Dillmann, however, suggests (on
<011007>
Genesis 10:7) that the people of Seba were another branch of the
Cushites East of Napatha by the Arabian Sea, of which Strabo (xvi. 4, 8,
10) and Ptolemy (iv.7, 7 f) give information.
See SHEBA and HDB, under the word
T. G. Pinches
SEBAM
<se-bam> ([ b ;c ], sebham]; [2rpoo, Sebama]; the King James Version
Shebam): A town in the upland pasture land given to the tribes of Reuben
and Gad. It is named along with Heshbon, Elealeh and Nebo (
<043203>
Numbers
32:3). It is probably the same place as Sibmah (the King James Version
Shibmah) in
<043238>
Numbers 32:38 (so also
<061319>
Joshua 13:19). In the time of
Isaiah and Jeremiah it was a Moabite town, but there is no record of how
or when it was taken from Israel. It appears to have been famous for the
luxuriance of its vines and for its summer fruits (
<231608>
Isaiah 16:8 f;
<244832>
Jeremiah 48:32). Eusebius (in Onomasticon) calls it a city of Moab in
the land of Gilead which fell to the tribe of Reuben. Jerome (Comm. in
Isaiah 5) says it was about 500 paces from Heshbon, and he describes it as
one of the strong places of that region. It may be represented by the
modern Simia, which stands on the south side of Wady Chesban, about 2
miles from Chesban. The ancient ruins are considerable, with large
sarcophagi; and in the neighboring rock wine presses are cut (PEFM,
Eastern Palestine, 221 f).
W. Ewing
SEBAT
<se-bat>, <se-bat> (
<380107>
Zechariah 1:7).
See SHEBAT.
SECACAH
<se-ka-ka>, <sek-a-ka> ([h k ;k ;s ], cekhakhah]; Codex Vaticanus
[Aoo, Aichioza]; Codex Alexandrinus [2ooo, Sochocha]): One of
the six cities in the wilderness of Judah (
<061561>
Joshua 15:61), that is in the
uncultivated lands to the West of the Dead Sea, where a scanty pasturage
664
is still obtained by wandering Bedouin tribes. There are many signs in this
district of more settled habitation in ancient times, but the name Secacah is
lost. Conder proposed Khirbet edition Diqqeh] (also called Khirbet es
Siqqeh), the ruin of the path, some 2 miles South of Bethany. Though an
ancient site, it is too near the inhabited area; the name, too, is uncertain
(PEF, III, 111, Sh XVII).
E. W. G. Masterman
SECHENIAS
<sek-e-ni-as>:
(1) (Codex Alexandrinus [2rrvo, Sechenias]; omitted in Codex
Vaticanus and Swete): 1 Esdras 8:29 = Shecaniah in
<150803>
Ezra 8:3; the
arrangement in Ezra is different.
(2) (Codex Alexandrinus Sechenias, but Codex Vaticanus and Swete,
[Erovo, Eiechonias]): Name of a person who went up at the head
of a family in the return with Ezra (1 Esdras 8:32) = Shecaniah in
<150805>
Ezra 8:5.
SECHU
<se-ku> ([Wk c e, sekhu]).
See SECU.
SECOND COMING
<sek-und kum-ing>.
See PAROUSIA; ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, V.
SECOND DEATH
See DEATH; ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, X, (6).
SECOND SABBATH
See SABBATH, SECOND.
665
SECONDARILY
<sek-un-da-ri-li>: the King James Version for ([rutrpov, deuteron]) (1
Cor 12:28). Probably without distinction from secondly (so the Revised
Version (British and American), and so the King James Version also for
deuteron in Sirach 23:23). Still the King James Version may have wished
to emphasize that the prophets have a lower rank than the apostles.
SECRET
<se-kret>: In
<260722>
Ezekiel 7:22, English Versions of the Bible has secret
place for ([p x ; , tsaphan]), hide, treasure. A correct translation is,
They shall profane my cherished place (Jerusalem), and there is no
reference to the Holy of Holies. The other uses of secret in the Revised
Version (British and American) are obvious, but Revised Versions
corrections of the King James Version in
<071318>
Judges 13:18;
<090509>
1 Samuel
5:9;
<181511>
Job 15:11 should be noted.
SECT
<sekt> ([opro, hairesis]): Sect (Latin, secta, from sequi, to follow)
is in the New Testament the translation of hairesis, from haireo, to take,
to choose; also translated heresy, not heresy in the later ecclesiastical
sense, but a school or party, a sect, without any bad meaning attached to it.
The word is applied to schools of philosophy; to the Pharisees and
Sadducees among the Jews who adhered to a common religious faith and
worship; and to the Christians. It is translated sect (
<440517>
Acts 5:17, of the
Sadducees; 15:5, of the Pharisees; 24:5, of the Nazarenes; 26:5, of the
Pharisees; 28:22, of the Christians); also the Revised Version (British and
American)
<442414>
Acts 24:14 (the King James Version and the English Revised
Version margin heresy), After the Way which they call a sect, so serve I
the God of our fathers (just as the Pharisees were a sect); it is translated
heresies (1 Cor 11:19, margin sects, the American Standard Revised
Version factions, margin Greek: `heresies ; the English Revised
Version reverses the American Standard Revised Version text and margin;
<480520>
Galatians 5:20, the American Standard Revised Version parties,
margin heresies; the English Revised Version reverses text and margin;
<610201>
2 Peter 2:1, damnable heresies, the Revised Version (British and
American) destructive heresies, margin sects of perdition); the sect
in itself might be harmless; it was the teaching or principles which should
666
be followed by those sects that would make them destructive. Hairesis
occurs in 1 Macc 8:30 (They shall do it at their pleasure, i.e. choice);
compare Septuagint
<032218>
Leviticus 22:18,21.
See HERESY.
W. L. Walker
SECU
<se-ku> ([Wk C e, sekhu]; Codex Vaticanus [rv t 2rr, en to Sephei];
Codex Alexandrinus [rv 2ox, en Sokcho]; the King James Version
Sechu): This name occurs only in the account of Davids visit to Samuel
(
<091922>
1 Samuel 19:22). Saul, we are told, went to Ramah, and came to the
great well that is in Secu, where he inquired after Samuel and David. It
evidently lay between the residence of Saul at Gibeah and Ramah. It is
impossible to come to any sure conclusion regarding it. Conder suggested
its identification with Khirbet Suweikeh, which lies to the South of Bireh.
This is possible, but perhaps we should read with the Septuagints Codex
Vaticanus, He came to the cistern of the threshing-floor that is on the bare
hill (en to Sephei). The threshing-floors in the East are naturally on high
exposed ground where this is possible, and often form part of the area
whence water in the rainy season is conducted to cisterns. This might have
been a place actually within the city of Ramah.
W. Ewing
SECUNDUS
<se-kun-dus> (Westcott-Hort Greek text [2rxouvo, Sekoundos],
Textus Receptus of the New Testament, [2rxouvo, Sekoundos]): A
Thessalonian who was among those who accompanied Paul from Greece
to Asia (
<442004>
Acts 20:4). They had preceded Paul and waited for him at
Troas. If he were one of the representatives of the churches in Macedonia
and Greece, entrusted with their contributions to Jerusalem (
<442417>
Acts
24:17;
<470823>
2 Corinthians 8:23), he probably accompanied Paul as far as
Jerusalem. The name is found in a list of politarchs on a Thessalonian
inscription.
667
SECURE; SECURITY
<se-kur>, <se-ku-ri-ti>: The word baTach and its derivatives in Hebrew
point to security, either real or imaginary. Thus we read of a host that was
secure (
<070811>
Judges 8:11) and of those that provoke God (and) are
secure (
<181206>
Job 12:6); but also of a security that rests in hope and is safe
(
<181118>
Job 11:18). The New Testament words ([or orpvou, poieo
amerimnous]), used in
<402814>
Matthew 28:14 (the King James Version secure
you), guarantee the safety of the soldiers, who witnessed against
themselves, in the telling of the story of the disappearance of the body of
Christ.
Securely is used in the sense of trustful, not anticipating danger
(
<200329>
Proverbs 3:29;
<330208>
Micah 2:8; Ecclesiasticus 4:15).
The word ([xovov, hikanon], translated security (
<441709>
Acts 17:9), may
stand either for a guaranty of good behavior exacted from, or for some
form of punishment inflicted on, Jason and his followers by the rulers of
Thessalonica.
Henry E. Dosker
SEDECIAS
<sed-e-si-as>:
The King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American)
SEDEKIAS (which see).
SEDEKIAS
<sed-e-ki-as>:
(1) (Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Vaticanus [2rrxo, Sedekias];
the King James Version Zedechias): 1 Esdras 1:46 (44) = Zedekiah
king of Judah; also in Baruch 1:8 where the King James Version reads
Sedecias.
(2) In Baruch 1:1 (the King James Version Sedecias), an ancestor of
Baruch, the son of Asadias, sometimes (but incorrectly) identified
with the false prophet Zedekiah the son of Maaseiah (
<242921>
Jeremiah
29:21).
668
SEDITION
<se-dish-un>: The translation in
<150415>
Ezra 4:15,19 for [r WD T v ] a , ,
eshtaddur], struggling, revolt; in 2 Esdras 15:16 for inconstabilitio,
instability with be seditious for [otooo, stasiazo], rise in
rebellion in 2 Macc 14:6. In addition, the King James Version has
sedition for [otoo, stasis], standing up, revolt (the Revised
Version (British and American) insurrection) in
<422319>
Luke 23:19,25;
<442405>
Acts 24:5, with ([ootooo, dichostasia]), a standing asunder (the
Revised Version (British and American) division) in
<480520>
Galatians 5:20.
As sedition does not include open violence against a government, the
word should not have been used in any of the above cases.
SEDUCE; SEDUCER
<se-dus>, <se-dus-er> (Hiphil of ([h [ ;f ;, Ta`ah], or [h [ ;T ; , ta`ah], to
err; of [h t ;P ; , pathah], to be simple; [ovo, planao], [ooovo,
apoplanao], to lead astray):
(1) The word seduce is only used in the Bible in its general meaning
of to lead astray, to cause to err, as from the paths of truth, duty or
religion. It occurs in the King James Version and the Revised Version
(British and American)
<261310>
Ezekiel 13:10;
<122109>
2 Kings 21:9;
<540401>
1
Timothy 4:1;
<660220>
Revelation 2:20; in the King James Version only,
<201226>
Proverbs 12:26 (the Revised Version (British and American)
causeth to err);
<231913>
Isaiah 19:13 (the Revised Version (British and
American) caused to go astray);
<411322>
Mark 13:22;
<620226>
1 John 2:26 (the
Revised Version (British and American) lead astray). The noun
seducer (2 Tim 3:13 the King James Version, [yoq, goes]) is
correctly changed in the Revised Version (British and American) into
impostor.
(2) It is not found in its specific sense of to entice a female to
surrender her chastity. Yet the crime itself is referred to and
condemned.
Three cases are to be distinguished:
(a) The seduction of an unbetrothed virgin: In this case the seducer
cording to J-E (
<022216>
Exodus 22:16 f) is to be compelled to take the
669
virgin as his wife, if the father consents, and to pay the latter the usual
purchase price, the amount of which is not defined. In the
Deuteronomic Code (
<052228>
Deuteronomy 22:28) the amount is fixed at 50
shekels, and the seducer forfeits the right of divorce.
(b) The seduction of a betrothed virgin: This case (
<052223>
Deuteronomy
22:23-27; not referred to in the other codes) is treated as virtually one
of adultery, the virgin being regarded as pledged to her future husband
as fully as if she were formally married to him; the penalty therefore is
the same as for adultery, namely, death for both parties (except in the
case where the girl can reasonably be acquitted of blame, in which case
the man only is put to death).
(c) The seduction of a betrothed bondmaid (mentioned only in
<031920>
Leviticus 19:20-22): Here there is no infliction of death, because the
girl was not free; but the seducer shall make a trespass offering, besides
paying the fine.
See CRIMES; PUNISHMENTS.
D. Miall Edwards
SEE
In addition to the ordinary sense of perceiving by the eye, we have
(1) [h z;j ;, chazah], to see (in vision): Words of Amos .... which he saw
concerning Israel (
<300101>
Amos 1:1). The revelation was made to his inward
eye. The word of Yahweh .... which he (Micah) saw concerning Samaria
(
<330101>
Micah 1:1), describing what he saw in prophetic vision (compare
<350101>
Habakkuk 1:1); see REVELATION, III, 4;
(2) [opo, horao], to take heed: See thou say nothing (
<410144>
Mark
1:44);
(3) [rov, eidon], to know, to note with the mind: Jesus saw that he
answered discreetly (
<411234>
Mark 12:34);
(4) [0rpr, theoreo], to view, to have knowledge or experience of:
He shall never see death (
<430851>
John 8:51).
M. O. Evans
670
SEED
<sed> (Old Testament always for [[ r z, , zera`], Aramaic (
<270243>
Daniel
2:43) [[ r z] , zera`], except in
<290117>
Joel 1:17 for [t wOd r uP ], perudhoth]
(plural, the Revised Version (British and American) seeds, the King
James Version seed), and
<031919>
Leviticus 19:19 (the King James Version
mingled seed) and
<052209>
Deuteronomy 22:9 (the King James Version
divers seeds) for [ yi a l ] K i , kilayim], literally, two kinds, the
Revised Version (British and American) two kinds of seed. Invariably in
Greek Apocrypha and usually in the New Testament for [orpo,
sperma], but
<410426>
Mark 4:26,27;
<420805>
Luke 8:5,11;
<470910>
2 Corinthians 9:10 for
[oopo, sporos], and
<600123>
1 Peter 1:23 for [oopo, spora]):
(1) For seed in its literal sense see AGRICULTURE. Of interest is the
method of measuring land by means of the amount of seed that could
be sown on it (
<032716>
Leviticus 27:16). The prohibition against using two
kinds of seed in the same field (
<031919>
Leviticus 19:19;
<052209>
Deuteronomy
22:9) undoubtedly rests on the fact that the practice had some
connection with Canaanitish worship, making the whole crop
consecrated (taboo).
<243127>
Jeremiah 31:27 uses seed of man and
seed of beast as a figure for the means by which God will increase
the prosperity of Israel (i.e. seed yielding men).
(2) For the transferred physiological application of the word to human
beings (
<031516>
Leviticus 15:16, etc.) see CLEAN; UNCLEAN. The
conception of Christians as born or begotten of God (see
REGENERATION) gave rise to the figure in
<600123>
1 Peter 1:23;
<620309>
1
John 3:9. If the imagery is to be stressed, the Holy Spirit is meant. In I
<430309>
John 3:9 a doctrine of certain Gnostics is opposed. They taught that
by learning certain formulas and by submitting to certain rites, union
with God and salvation could be attained without holiness of life.
Johns reply is that union with a righteous God is meaningless without
righteousness as an ideal, even though shortcomings exist in practice
(
<620108>
1 John 1:8).
(3) From the physiological use of seed the transition to the sense of
offspring was easy, and the word may mean children (
<031821>
Leviticus
18:21, etc.) or even a single child (
<010425>
Genesis 4:25;
<090111>
1 Samuel 1:11
the Revised Version margin). Usually, however, it means the whole
posterity (
<010315>
Genesis 3:15, etc.); compare seed royal (
<121101>
2 Kings
671
11:1, etc.), and Abrahams seed (
<142007>
2 Chronicles 20:7, etc.) or the
holy seed (
<150902>
Ezra 9:2;
<230613>
Isaiah 6:13; 1 Esdras 8:70; compare
<240221>
Jeremiah 2:21) as designations of Israel. So to show ones seed
(
<150259>
Ezra 2:59;,
<160761>
Nehemiah 7:61) is to display ones genealogy, and
ones seed may be simply ones nation, conceived of as a single
family (Est 10:3). From this general sense there developed a still looser
use of seed as meaning simply men (
<390215>
Malachi 2:15;
<230104>
Isaiah
1:4; 57:4; The Wisdom of Solomon 10:15; 12:11, etc.).
In
<480316>
Galatians 3:16 Paul draws a distinction between seeds and seed
that has for its purpose a proof that the promises to Abraham were realized
in Christ and not in Israel. The distinction, however, overstresses the
language of the Old Testament, which never pluralizes zera` when meaning
descendants (plural only in
<090815>
1 Samuel 8:15; compare
<450418>
Romans 4:18;
9:7). But in an argument against rabbinical adversaries Paul was obliged to
use rabbinical methods (compare
<480425>
Galatians 4:25). For modern purposes
it is probably best to treat such an exegetical method as belonging simply
to the (now superseded) science of the times.
Burton Scott Easton
SEER
<se-er>, <ser>: The word in English Versions of the Bible represents two
Hebrew words, [h a ,r o, roeh] (
<090909>
1 Samuel 9:9,11,18,19;
<101527>
2 Samuel
15:27;
<130922>
1 Chronicles 9:22, etc.), And [h z,j o, chozeh] (
<102411>
2 Samuel
24:11;
<121713>
2 Kings 17:13;
<132109>
1 Chronicles 21:9; 25:5; 29:29, etc.). The
former designation is from the ordinary verb to see; the latter is
connected with the verb used of prophetic vision. It appears from
<090909>
1
Samuel 9:9 that seer (ro-eh) was the older name for those who, after the
rise of the more regular orders, were called prophets. It is not just,
however, to speak of the seers or prophets of Samuels time as on the
level of mere fortune-tellers. What insight or vision they possessed is
traced to Gods Spirit. Samuel was the ro-eh by pr-eeminence, and the
name is little used after his time. Individuals who bear the title seer
(chozeh) are mentioned in connection with the kings and as
historiographers (
<102411>
2 Samuel 24:11;
<132109>
1 Chronicles 21:9; 25:5; 29:29;
<140929>
2 Chronicles 9:29; 12:15; 19:2, etc.), and distinction is sometimes made
between prophets and seers (
<121713>
2 Kings 17:13;
<132929>
1 Chronicles 29:29,
etc.). Havernick thinks that seer denotes one who does not belong to the
672
regular prophetic order (Introductions to Old Testament, 50 ff, English
translation), but it is not easy to fix a precise distinction.
See PROPHET, PROPHECY.
J ames Orr
SEETHE
<seth>: Old English for boil; past tense, sod (
<012529>
Genesis 25:29), past
participle, sodden (
<250410>
Lamentations 4:10). See
<022319>
Exodus 23:19 the
King James Version.
SEGUB
<se-gub> ([b Wgc ], seghubh] (Qere), [b ygic ], seghibh (Kethibh); Codex
Vaticanus [Zryoup, Zegoub]; Codex Alexandrinus [2ryoup, Segoub]):
(1) The youngest son of Hiel, the rebuilder of Jericho (
<111634>
1 Kings
16:34). The death of Segub is probably connected with the primitive
custom of laying foundations with blood, as, indeed, skulls were found
built in with the brickwork when the tower of Bel at Nippur was
excavated. See GEZER. If the death of the two sons was based on the
custom just mentioned, the circumstance was deliberately obscured in
the present account. The death of Segub may have been due to an
accident in the setting up of the gates. In any event, tradition finally
yoked the death of Hiels oldest and youngest sons with a curse said to
have been pronounced by Joshua on the man that should venture to
rebuild Jericho (
<060626>
Joshua 6:26).
(2) Son of Hezron and father of Jair (
<130221>
1 Chronicles 2:21).
Horace J . Wolf
SEIR
<se-ir>:
(1) ([r y[ i c er h , har se-ir], Mt. Seir (
<011406>
Genesis 14:6, etc.),
[r y[ c e6 r , a , , erets se`-ir] (
<013203>
Genesis 32:3, etc.); [to opo 2qrp, to
oros Seeir], [yq 2qrp, ge Seeir]): In
<013203>
Genesis 32:3 the land of
Seir is equated with the field of Edom. The Mount and the Land of
Seir are alternative appellations of the mountainous tract which runs
673
along the eastern side of the Arabah, occupied by the descendants of
Esau, who succeeded the ancient Horites (
<011406>
Genesis 14:6; 36:20),
cave-dwellers, in possession. For a description of the land see
EDOM.
(2) ([r y[ c er h , har se`ir]; Codex Vaticanus [ Aooop, Assar];
Codex Alexandrinus [2qrp, Seeir]): A landmark on the boundary of
Judah (
<061510>
Joshua 15:10), not far from Kiriath-jearim and Chesalon.
The name means shaggy, and probably here denoted a wooded
height. It may be that part of the range which runs Northeast from
Saris by Karyat el-`Anab and Biddu to the plateau of el-Jib. Traces of
an ancient forest are still to be seen here.
W. Ewing
SEIRAH
<se-i-ra>, <se-i-ra> ([h r ; y[ i c ] h , ha-se`irah]; Codex Vaticanus
[2rtrp0o, Seteirotha]; Codex Alexandrinus [2rrp0o, Seeirotha];
the King James Version, Seirath): The place to which Ehud escaped after
his assassination of Eglon, king of Moab (
<070326>
Judges 3:26). The name is
from the same root as the foregoing, and probably applied to some shaggy
forest. The quarries by which he passed are said to have been by Gilgal
(
<070319>
Judges 3:19), but there is nothing to guide us to an identification.
Eusebius, in Onomasticon, gives the name, but no indication of the site.
SEIRATH
<se-i-rath>, <se-i-rath>.
See SEIRAH.
SELA
<se-la> ([[ l s , , sela`], [[ l S , h , ha-cela`] (with the article);
[rtpo, petra], [q rtpo, he petra]; the King James Version Selah (
<121407>
2
Kings 14:7)): English Versions of the Bible renders this as the name of a
city in
<121407>
2 Kings 14:7;
<231601>
Isaiah 16:1. In
<070136>
Judges 1:36;
<142512>
2 Chronicles
25:12; and Obidiah 1:3, it translates literally, rock; but the Revised
Version margin in each case Sela. It is impossible to assume with Hull
(HD B, under the word) that this name, when it appears in Scripture,
674
always refers to the capital of Edom, the great city in Wady Musa. In
<070136>
Judges 1:36 its association with the Ascent of Akrabbim shuts us up to
a position toward the southwestern end of the Dead Sea. Probably in that
case it does not denote a city, but some prominent crag. Moore (Judges,
ICC, 56), following Buhl, would identify it with es-Safieh, a bare and
dazzlingly white sandstone promontory 1,000 ft. high, East of the mud fiats
of es-Sebkah, and 2 miles South of the Dead Sea. A more probable
identification is a high cliff which commands the road leading from Wady
el-Milh, valley of Salt, to Edom, over the pass of Akrabbim. This was a
position of strategic importance, and if fortified would be of great strength.
(In this passage Edomites must be read for Amorites.) The victory of
Amaziah was won in the Valley of Salt. He would naturally turn his arms at
once against this stronghold (
<121407>
2 Kings 14:7); and it may well be the rock
from the top of which he hurled his prisoners (
<142512>
2 Chronicles 25:12). He
called it Jokteel, a name the meaning of which is obscure. Possibly it is the
same as Jekuthiel (
<130418>
1 Chronicles 4:18), and may mean preservation of
God (OHL, under the word). No trace of this name has been found. The
narratives in which the place is mentioned put identification with Petra out
of the question.
The rock (the Revised Version margin Sela) in Obidiah 1:3, in the
phrase thou that dwellest in the clefts of the rock. is only a vivid and
picturesque description of Mt. Edom. The purple mountains into which
the wild sons of Esau clambered run out from Syria upon the desert, some
hundred miles by twenty, of porphyry and red sandstone. They are said to
be the finest rock scenery in the world. `Salvator Rosa never conceived so
savage and so suitable a haunt for banditti. .... The interior is reached by
defiles so narrow that two horsemen may scarcely ride abreast, and the sun
is shut out by the overhanging rocks. .... Little else than wild fowls nests
are, the villages: human eyries perched on high shelves or hidden away in
caves at the ends of the deep gorges (G. A. Smith. The Book of the
Twelve Prophets. II. 178 f).
In
<231601>
Isaiah 16:1; 42:11 the Revised Version (British and American),
perhaps we have a reference to the great city of Petra. Josephus (Ant., IV,
vii, 1) tells us that among the kings of the Midianites who fell before Moses
was one Rekem, king of Rekem (akre, or rekeme), the city deriving its
name from its founder. This he says was the Arabic name; the Greeks
called it Petra. Eusebius, Onomasticon says Petra is a city of Arabia in the
land of Edom. It is called Jechthoel; but the Syrians call it Rekem. Jokteel,
675
as we have seen, must be sought elsewhere. There can be no doubt that
Josephus intended the city in Wady Musa. Its Old Testament name was
Bozrah (
<300101>
Amos 1:12, etc.). Wetzstein (Excursus in Delitzschs Isa, 696
ff) hazards the conjecture that the complete ancient nine was Bozrat has-
Sela, Bozrah of the Rock.
This rose-red city half as old as Time
Sela was for long difficult of access, and the attempt to visit it was fraught
with danger. In recent years, however, it has been seen by many tourists
and exploring parties. Of the descriptions written the best is undoubtedly
that of Professor Dalman of Jerusalem (Petra und seine Felsheiligtumer,
Leipzig, 1908). An excellent account of this wonderful city, brightly and
interestingly written, will be found in Libbey and Hoskins book (The
Jordan Valley and Petra, New York and London, 1905; see also National
Geographic Magazine, May, 1907, Washington, D.C.). The ruins lie along
the sides of a spacious hollow surrounded by the many-hued cliffs of
Edom, just before they sink into the Arabah on the West. It is near the base
of Jebel Harun, about 50 miles from the Dead Sea, and just North of the
watershed between that sea and the Gulf of Akaba. The valley owes its
modern name, Wady Musa, Valley of Moses, to its connection with
Moses in Mohammedan legends. While not wholly inaccessible from other
directions, the two usual approaches are that from the Southwest by a
rough path, partly artificial, and that from the East. The latter is by far the
more important. The valley closes to the East, the only opening being
through a deep and narrow defile, called the Sik, shaft, about a mile in
length. In the bottom of the Sik flows westward the stream that rises at
`Ain Musa, East of the cleft is the village of Elji, an ancient site,
corresponding to Gaia of Eusebius (Onomasticon). Passing this village, the
road threads its way along the shadowy winding gorge, overhung by lofty
cliffs. When the valley is reached, a sight of extraordinary beauty and
impressiveness opens to the beholder. The temples, the tombs, theater,
etc., hewn with great skill and infinite pains from the living rock, have
defied to an astonishing degree the tooth of time, many of the carvings
being as fresh as if they had been cut yesterday. An idea of the scale on
which the work was done may be gathered from the size of theater, which
furnished accommodation for no fewer than 3,000 spectators.
Such a position could not have been overlooked in ancient times; and we
are safe to assume that a city of importance must always have existed here.
676
It is under the Nabateans, however, that Petra begins to play a prominent
part in history. This people took possession about the end of the 4th
century BC, and continued their sway until overcome by Hadrian, who
gave his own name to the city Hadriana. This name, however, soon
disappeared. Under the Romans Petra saw the days of her greatest
splendor.
According to old tradition Paul visited Petra when he went into Arabia
(
<480117>
Galatians 1:17). Of this there is no certainty; but Christianity was early
introduced, and the city became the seat of a bishopric. Under the
Nabateans she was the center of the great caravan trade of that time. The
merchandise of the East was brought hither; and hence, set out the
caravans for the South, the West, and the North. The great highway across
the desert to the Persian Gulf was practically in her hands. The fall of the
Nabatean power gave Palmyra her chance; and her supremacy in the
commerce of Northern Arabia dates from that time. Petra shared in the
declining fortunes of Rome; and her death blow was dealt by the
conquering Moslems, who desolated Arabia Petrea in 629-32 AD. The
place now furnishes a retreat for a few poor Bedawy families.
W. Ewing
SELA-HAMMAHLEKOTH
<se-la-ha-ma-le-koth>, <-koth> ([t wO q l ] j ] M h [ l s , , cela`ha-
machleqoth]; [rtpo q rpo0roo, petra he meristheisa]): The rock of
divisions (or, escape) (
<092328>
1 Samuel 23:28 margin). Saul .... pursued after
David in the wilderness of Maon. And Saul went on this side of the
mountain, and David and his men on that side of the mountain: and David
made haste to get away for fear of Saul (
<092325>
1 Samuel 23:25,26). The
name seems to survive in Wady Malaki, the great gorge which breaks
down between Carmel and Maon eastward, with vertical cliffs (PEF, III,
314, Sh. XXI).
SELAH
<se-la>.
See MUSIC, II, 1.
677
SELED
<se-led> ([d l ,s ,, tseledh]): A Jerahmeelite (
<130230>
1 Chronicles 2:30 twice).
SELEMIA
<sel-e-mi-a>: One of the swift scribes whose services Ezra was
commanded to secure (2 Esdras 14:24). The name is probably identical
with SELEMIAS of 1 Esdras 9:34 (which see).
SELEMIAS
<sel-e-mi-as> ([2rro, Selemias]): One of those who put away their
strange wives (1 Esdras 9:34) = Shelemiah. in
<151039>
Ezra 10:39, and
probably identical with Selemia in 2 Esdras 14:24.
SELEUCIA
<se-lu-shi-a> ([2rruxo, Seleukia]): The seaport of Antioch from
which it is 16 miles distant. It is situated 5 miles North of the mouth of the
Orontes, in the northwestern corner of a fruitful plain at the base of Mt.
Rhosus or Pieria, the modern Jebel Musa, a spur of the Amanus Range.
Built by Seleucus Nicator (died 280 BC) it was one of the Syrian
Tetrapolis, the others being Apameia, Laodicea and Antioch. The city was
protected by nature on the mountain side, and, being strongly fortified on
the South and West, was considered invulnerable and the key to Syria
(Strabo 751; Polyb. v.58). It was taken, however, by Ptolemy Euergetes (1
Macc 11:8) and remained in his family till 219 BC, when it was recovered
for the Seleucids by Antiochus the Great, who then richly adorned it.
Captured again by Ptolemy Philometor in 146 BC, it remained for a short
time in the hands of the Egyptians. Pompey made it a free city in 64 BC in
return for its energy in resisting Tigranes (Pliny, NH, v.18), and it was then
greatly improved by the Romans, so that in the 1st century AD it was in a
most flourishing condition.
On their first missionary journey Paul and Barnabas passed through it
(
<441304>
Acts 13:4; 14:26), and though it is not named in
<441530>
Acts 15:30,39, this
route is again implied; while it is excluded in
<441503>
Acts 15:3.
The ruins are very extensive and cover the whole space within the line of
the old walls, which shows a circuit of four miles. The position of the Old
678
Town, the Upper City and the suburbs may still be identified, as also that
of the Antioch Gate, the Market Gate and the Kings Gate, which last leads
to the Upper City. There are rock-cut tombs, broken statuary and
sarcophagi at the base of the Upper City, a position which probably
represents the burial place of the Seleucids. The outline of a circus or
amphitheater can also be traced, while the inner harbor is in perfect
condition and full of water. It is 2,000 ft. long by 1,200 ft. broad, and
covers 47 acres, being oval or pear-shaped. The passage seaward, now
silted up, was protected by two strong piers or moles, which are locally
named after Barnabas and Paul. The most remarkable of the remains,
however, is the great water canal behind the city, which the emperor
Constantius cut through the solid rock in 338 AD. It is 3,074 ft. long, has
an average breadth of 20 ft., and is in some places 120 ft. deep. Two
portions of 102 and 293 ft. in length are tunneled. The object of the work
was clearly to carry the mountain torrent direct to the sea, and so protect
the city from the risk of flood during the wet season.
Church synods occasionally met in Seleucia in the early centuries, but it
gradually sank into decay, and long before the advent of Islam it had lost
all its significance.
W. M. Christie
SELEUCIDAE
<se-lu-si-de>.
See SELEUCUS.
SELEUCUS
<se-lu-kus> ([2rruxo, Seleukos]):
(1) Seleucus I (Nicator, The Conqueror), the founder of the
Seleucids or House of Seleucus, was an officer in the grand and
thoroughly equipped army, which was perhaps the most important part
of the inheritance that came to Alexander the Great from his father,
Philip of Macedon. He took part in Alexanders Asiatic conquests, and
on the division of these on Alexanders death he obtained the satrapy of
Babylonia. By later conquests and under the name of king, which he
assumed in the year 306, he became ruler of Syria and the greater part
of Asia Minor. His rule extended from 312 to 280 BC, the year of his
679
death; at least the Seleucid era which seems to be referred to in 1 Macc
1:16 is reckoned from Seleucus I, 312 BC to 65 BC, when Pompey
reduced the kingdom of Syria to a Roman province. He followed
generally the policy of Alexander in spreading Greek civilization. He
founded Antioch and its port Seleucia, and is said by Josephus (Ant.,
XII, iii, 1) to have conferred civic privileges upon the Jews. The
reference in
<271105>
Daniel 11:5 is usually understood to be to this ruler.
(2) Seleucus II (Callinicus, The Gloriously Triumphant), who reigned
from 246 to 226 BC, was the son of Antiochus Soter and is the king
of the north in
<271107>
Daniel 11:7-9, who was expelled from his kingdom
by Ptolemy Euergetes.
(3) Seleucus III (Ceraunus, Thunderbolt), son of Seleucus II, was
assassinated in a campaign which he undertook into Asia Minor. He
had a short reign of rather more than 2 years (226-223 BC) and is
referred to in
<271110>
Daniel 11:10.
(4) Seleucus IV (Philopator, Fond of his Father) was the son and
successor of Antiochus the Great and reigned from 187 to 175 BC. He
is called King of Asia (2 Macc 3:3), a title claimed by the Seleucids
even after their serious losses in Asia Minor (see 1 Macc 8:6; 11:13;
12:39; 13:32). He was present at the decisive battle of Magnesia (190
BC). He was murdered by HELIODORUS (which see), one of his own
courtiers whom he had sent to plunder the Temple (2 Macc 3:1-40;
<271120>
Daniel 11:20).
For the connection of the above-named Seleucids with the ten horns of
<270724>
Daniel 7:24, the commentators must be consulted.
Seleucus V (125-124 BC) and Seleucus VI (95-93 BC) have no connection
with the sacred narrative.
J . Hutchison
SELF-CONTROL
<self-kon-trol> ([r yxpo tro, egkrateia]): Rendered in the King James
Version temperance (compare Latin temperario and continentia), but
more accurately self-control, as in the Revised Version (British and
American) (
<442425>
Acts 24:25;
<480523>
Galatians 5:23;
<610106>
2 Peter 1:6); adjective of
same, [r yxpotq , egkrates], self-controlled (
<560108>
Titus 1:8 the Revised
680
Version (British and American)); compare verb forms in
<460709>
1 Corinthians
7:9, have .... continency; 9:25, the athlete exerciseth self-control. Self-
control is therefore repeatedly set forth in the New Testament as among
the important Christian virtues.
SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS
<self-ri-chus-nes>: A term that has come to designate moral living as a
way of salvation; or as a ground for neglecting the redemptive work of
Jesus Christ. The thought is present in the teaching of Jesus, who spoke
one parable particularly to such as reckoned themselves to be righteous
(
<421809>
Luke 18:9 ff). The Pharisees quite generally resented the idea of Jesus
that all men needed repentance and they most of all. They regarded
themselves as righteous and looked with contempt on sinners. Paul in all
his writings, especially Romans 3; Galatians 3; Ephesians 2; Philippians 3,
contrasts the righteousness that is Gods gift to men of faith in Jesus
Christ, with righteousness that is of the law and in the flesh. By this
latter he means formal conformity to legal requirements in the strength of
unregenerate human nature. He is careful to maintain (compare Romans 7)
that the Law is never really kept by ones own power. On the other hand,
in full agreement with Jesus, Paul looks to genuine righteousness in living
as the demand and achievement of salvation based on faith. Gods gift here
consists in the capacity progressively to realize righteousness in life
(compare
<450801>
Romans 8:1 ff).
See also SANCTIFICATION.
William Owen Carver
SELF-SURRENDER
<self-su-ren-der>: The struggle between the natural human impulses of
selfseeking, self-defence and the like, on the one hand, and the more
altruistic impulse toward self-denial, self-surrender, on the other, is as old
as the race. All religions imply some conception of surrender of self to
deity, ranging in ethical quality from a heathen fanaticism which impels to
complete physical exhaustion or rapture, superinduced by more or less
mechanical means, to the high spiritual quality of self-sacrifice to the
divinest aims and achievements. The Scriptures represent self-surrender as
among the noblest of human virtues.
681
I. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.
1. Illustrious Examples:
In the Old Testament self-surrender is taught in the early account of the
first pair. Each was to be given to the other (
<010224>
Genesis 2:24; 3:16b) and
both were to be surrendered to God in perfect obedience (
<010301>
Genesis 3:1-
15). The faithful ones, throughout the Bible narratives, were characterized
by self-surrender. Abraham abandons friends and native country to go to a
land unknown to him, because God called him to do so (
<011201>
Genesis 12:1).
He would give up all his cherished hopes in his only son Isaac, at the voice
of God (
<012201>
Genesis 22:1-18). Moses, at the call of Yahweh, surrenders
self, and undertakes the deliverance of his fellow-Hebrews (
<020301>
Exodus 3:1
through 4:13; compare
<581125>
Hebrews 11:25). He would be blotted out of
Gods book, if only the people might be spared destruction (
<023232>
Exodus
32:32).
2. The Levitical System:
The whole Levitical system of sacrifice may be said to imply the doctrine of
self-surrender. The nation itself was a people set apart to Yahweh, a holy
people, a surrendered nation (
<021905>
Exodus 19:5,6; 22:31;
<032007>
Leviticus 20:7;
<050706>
Deuteronomy 7:6; 14:2). The whole burnt offering implied the complete
surrender of the worshipper to God (Leviticus 1). The ceremony for the
consecration of priests emphasized the same fundamental doctrine
(Leviticus 8); so also the law as to the surrender of the firstborn child
(
<021313>
Exodus 13:13 ff; 22:29).
3. The Prophets:
In the divine call to the prophets and in their life-work self-surrender is
prominent. The seer, as such, must be receptive to the divine impress, and
as mouthpiece of God, he must speak not his own words, but Gods:
Thus saith the Lord. He was to be a man of God, a man of the spirit.
`The hand of the Lord was upon me (
<260103>
Ezekiel 1:3; 3:14) implies
complete divine mastery. Isaiah must submit to the divine purification of
his lips, and hearken to the inquiry, who will go for us? with the
surrendered response, Here am I; send me (
<230608>
Isaiah 6:8). Jeremiah must
yield his protestations of weakness and inability to the divine wisdom and
the promise of endowment from above (
<240101>
Jeremiah 1:1-10). Ezekiel
surrenders to the dangerous and difficult task of becoming messenger to a
682
rebellious house (
<260201>
Ezekiel 2:1 through 3:3). Jonah, after flight from
duty, at last surrenders to the divine will and goes to the Ninevites (Jon
3:3).
4. Post-exilic Examples:
On the return of the faithful remnant from captivity, self-giving for the sake
of Israels faith was dominant, the people enduring great hardships for the
future of the nation and the accomplishment of Yahwehs purposes. This is
the spirit of the great Messianic passage,
<235307>
Isaiah 53:7: He was
oppressed, yet when he was afflicted he opened not his mouth; as a lamb
that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before its shearers is dumb,
so he opened not his mouth. Nehemiah surrendered position in Shushan to
help reestablish the returned exiles in Jerusalem (
<160205>
Nehemiah 2:5). Esther
was ready to surrender her life in pleading for the safety of her people (Est
4:16).
II. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
1. Christs Teaching and Example:
In the New Testament self-surrender is still more clearly set forth. Christs
teachings and example as presented in the Gospels, give to it special
emphasis. It is a prime requisite for becoming His disciple (
<401038>
Matthew
10:38 f; 16:24;
<420923>
Luke 9:23,24,59 f; 14:27,33; compare
<401927>
Matthew
19:27;
<410834>
Mark 8:34). When certain of the disciples were called they left
all and followed (
<400420>
Matthew 4:20; 9:9;
<410214>
Mark 2:14;
<420527>
Luke 5:27 f).
His followers must so completely surrender self, as that father, mother,
kindred, and ones own life must be, as it were, hated for His sake
(
<421426>
Luke 14:26). The rich young ruler must renounce self as an end and
give his own life to the service of men (
<401921>
Matthew 19:21;
<411021>
Mark 10:21;
compare
<421233>
Luke 12:33). But this surrender of self was never a loss of
personality; it was the finding of the true selfhood (
<410835>
Mark 8:35;
<401039>
Matthew 10:39). our Lord not only taught self-surrender, but practiced
it. As a child, He subjected Himself to His parents (
<420251>
Luke 2:51). Self-
surrender marked His baptism and temptation (
<400315>
Matthew 3:15; 4:1 ff). It
is shown in His life of physical privation (
<400820>
Matthew 8:20). He had come
not to do His own will, but the Fathers (
<430434>
John 4:34; 5:30; 6:38). He
refuses to use force for His own deliverance (
<402653>
Matthew 26:53;
<431811>
John
18:11). In His person Gods will, not His own, must be done (
<402629>
Matthew
26:29;
<422242>
Luke 22:42); and to the Father He at last surrendered His spirit
683
(
<422346>
Luke 23:46). So that while He was no ascetic, and did not demand
asceticism of His followers, He emptied himself .... becoming obedient
even unto death, yea, the death of the cross (
<502007>
Philippians 2:7 f).
See KENOSIS.
2. Acts of Apostles:
The early disciples practiced the virtue of self-surrender. Counting none of
their possessions their own, they gave to the good of all (
<440244>
Acts 2:44,45;
4:34,35,37). Stephen and others threw themselves into their witnessing
with the perfect abandon of the martyr; and Stephens successor, Paul,
counted not his life dear unto himself that he might finish the divinely-
appointed course (
<442022>
Acts 20:22-24).
3. Epistles of Paul:
The Epistles are permeated with the doctrine of self-surrender. The Pauline
Epistles are particularly full of it. The Christian life is conceived of as a
dying to self and to the world a dying with Christ, a crucifixion of the
old man, that a new man may live (
<480220>
Galatians 2:20; 6:14;
<510220>
Colossians
2:20; 3:3;
<450606>
Romans 6:6), so that no longer the man lives but Christ lives
in him (
<480220>
Galatians 2:20;
<500121>
Philippians 1:21). The Christian is no longer
his own but Christs (1 Cor 6:19,20). He is to be a living sacrifice
(
<451201>
Romans 12:1); to die daily (1 Cor 15:31). As a corollary to surrender
to God, the Christian must surrender himself to the welfare of his neighbor,
just as Christ pleased not Himself (
<451503>
Romans 15:3); also to leaders (1 Cor
16:16), and to earthly rulers (
<451301>
Romans 13:1).
4. Epistles of Peter:
In the Epistles of Peter self-surrender is taught more than once. Those who
were once like sheep astray now submit to the guidance of the Shepherd of
souls (1 Pet 2:25). The Christian is to humble himself under the mighty
hand of God (1 Pet 5:6); the younger to be subject to the elder (1 Pet 5:5);
and all to civil ordinances for the Lords sake (1 Pet 2:13).
So also in other Epistles, the Christian is to subject himself to God
(
<590407>
James 4:7;
<581209>
Hebrews 12:9).
Edward Bagby Pollard
684
SELF-WILL
<self-wil> ([wOx r ;, ratson]; [ou0oq, authades]): Found once in the Old
Testament (
<014906>
Genesis 49:6, In their self-will they hocked an ox) in the
death song of Jacob (see HOCK). The idea is found twice in the New
Testament in the sense of pleasing oneself: not self-willed, not soon
angry (
<560107>
Titus 1:7); and daring, self-willed, they tremble not to rail at
dignities (2 Pet 2:10). In all these texts it stands for a false pride, for
obstinacy, for a pertinacious adherence to ones will or wish, especially in
opposition to the dictates of wisdom or propriety or the wishes of others.
Henry E. Dosker
SELL, SELLER
<sel-er>.
See TRADE; LYDIA.
SELVEDGE
<sel-vej> ([h x ;q ; , qatsah]): The word occurs only in the description of the
tabernacle (
<022604>
Exodus 26:4; 36:11). It has reference to the ten curtains
which overhung the boards of the sanctuary. Five of these formed one set
and five another. These were coupled at the center by 50 loops of blue
connected by clasps (which see) with 50 others on the opposite side. The
selvedge (self-edge) is the extremity of the curtain in which the loops
were.
SEM
<sem> ([2q, Sem]): the King James Version from the Greek form of
Shem; thus the Revised Version (British and American) (
<420336>
Luke 3:36).
SEMACHIAH
<sem-a-ki-a> ([Wh y;k ]m s ], cemakhyahu], Yah has sustained): A
Korahite family of gatekeepers (
<132607>
1 Chronicles 26:7). Perhaps the same
name should be substituted for Ismachiah in
<143113>
2 Chronicles 31:13 (see
HPN, 291, 295).
685
SEMEI
<sem-e-i>:
(1) (Codex Alexandrinus [2rr, Semei]; Codex Vaticanus [2rrr,
Semeei]): One of those who put away their strange wives (1 Esdras
9:33) = Shimei of the sons of Hashum in
<151033>
Ezra 10:33.
(2) the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and
American) Semeias (Additions to Esther 11:2).
(3) the King James Version form of the Revised Version (British and
American) Semein (
<420326>
Luke 3:26).
SEMEIAS
<se-me-i-as> (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus [2rro,
Semeias]; Codex Vaticanus [2rrro, Semeeias]; the King James
Version Semei): An ancestor of Mordecai (Additions to Esther 11:2) =
Shimei (Est 2:5).
SEMEIN
<se-me-in> (Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus [2rrrv, Semeein];
Codex Alexandrinus [2rrr, Semeei], Textus Receptus of the New
Testament, [2rr, Semei]; the King James Version, Semei): An ancestor
of Jesus in Lukes genealogy (
<420326>
Luke 3:26).
SEMEIS
<sem-e-is> (Codex Alexandrinus and Fritzsche, [2rr, Semeis]; Codex
Vaticanus [2rvor, Senseis]; the King James Version, Semis): One of the
Levites who put away their strange wives (1 Esdras 9:23) = Shimei in
<151023>
Ezra 10:23.
SEMELLIUS
<se-mel-i-us>: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and
American) SAMELLIUS (which see).
686
SEMIS
<se-mis>: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and
American) SEMEIS (which see).
SEMITES, SEMITIC RELIGION
<sem-its>, <sem-it-ik>,
1. BIBLICAL REFERENCES:
The words Semites, Semitic, do not occur in the Bible, but are derived
from the name of Noahs oldest son, Shem (
<010532>
Genesis 5:32; 6:10; 9:18,23
ff; 10:1,21 f; 11:10 f; 1 Chronicles 1). Formerly the designation was limited
to those who are mentioned in Genesis 10; 11 as Shems descendants, most
of whom can be traced historically and geographically; but more recently
the title has been expanded to apply to others who are not specified in the
Bible as Semites, and indeed are plainly called Hamitic, e.g. the
Babylonians (
<011010>
Genesis 10:10) and the Phoenicians and Canaanites
(
<011015>
Genesis 10:15-19). The grounds for the inclusion of these Biblical
Hamites among the Semites are chiefly linguistic, although political,
commercial and religious affinities are also considered. History and the
study of comparative philology, however, suggest the inadequacy of a
linguistic argument.
2. THE FIVE SONS OF SHEM:
The sons of Shem are given as Elam, Assbur, Arpachshad, Lud and Aram
(
<011022>
Genesis 10:22). All except the third have been readily identified, Elam
as the historic nation in the highlands East of the Tigris, between Media
and Persia; Asshur as the Assyrians; Lud as the Lydians of Asia Minor; and
Aram as the Syrians both East and West of the Euphrates. The greatest
uncertainty is in the identification of Arpachshad, the most prolific ancestor
of the Semites, especially of those of Biblical and more recent importance.
From him descended the Hebrews and the Arab tribes, probably also some
East African colonies (
<011024>
Genesis 10:24-30; 11:12-26). The form of his
name [d v k ] P r ] a , arpakhshadh]) has given endless trouble to
ethnographers. McCurdy divides into two words, Arpach or Arpath,
unidentified, and kesedh, the singular of kasdim, i.e. the Chaldeans;
Schrader also holds to the Chaldean interpretation, and the Chaldeans
687
themselves traced their descent from Arpachshad (Josephus, Ant, I, vi, 4);
it has been suggested also to interpret as the border of the Chaldeans
(BDB; Dillmann, in the place cited.). But the historic, ordinary and most
satisfactory identification is with Arrapachitis, Northeast of Assyria at the
headwaters of the Upper Zab in the Armenian highlands (so Ptolemy,
classical geographers, Gesenius, Delitzsch). Delitzsch calls attention to the
Armenian termination shadh (Commentary on Genesis, in the place cited.).
3. ORIGINAL HOME OF THE SEMITES:
If we accept, then, this identification of Arpachshad as the most
northeasterly of the five Semitic families (
<011022>
Genesis 10:22), we are still
faced by the problem of the primitive home and racial origin of the Semites.
Various theories of course have been proposed; fancy and surmise have
ranged from Africa to Central Asia.
(1) The most common, almost generally accepted, theory places their
beginnings in Arabia because of the conservative and primitive Semitic
of the Arabic language, the desert characteristics of the various
branches of the race, and the historic movements of Semitic tribes
northward and westward from Arabia. But this theory does not account
for some of the most significant facts: e.g. that the Semitic
developments of Arabia are the last, not the first, in time, as must have
been the case if Arabia was the cradle of the race. This theory does not
explain the Semitic origin of the Elamites, except by denial; much less
does it account for the location of Arpachshad still farther north. It is
not difficult to understand a racial movement from the mountains of the
Northeast into the lowlands of the South and West. But how primitive
Arabs could have migrated uphill, as it were, to settle in the Median
and Armenian hills is a much more difficult proposition.
(2) We must return to the historic and the more natural location of the
ancient Semitic home on the hillsides and in the fertile valleys of
Armenia. Thence the eldest branch migrated in prehistoric times
southward to become historic Elam; Lud moved westward into Asia
Minor; Asshur found his way down the Tigris to become the sturdy
pastoral people of the middle Mesopotamian plateau until the invasion
of the Babylonian colonists and civilization; Aram found a home in
Upper Mesopotamia; while Arpachshad, remaining longer in the
original home, gave his name to at least a part of it. There in the fertile
688
valleys among the high hills the ancient Semites developed their
distinctively tribal life, emphasizing the beauty and close relationship of
Nature, the sacredness of the family, the moral obligation, and faith in a
personal God of whom they thought as a member of the tribe or friend
of the family. The confinement of the mountain valleys is just as
adequate an explanation of the Semitic traits as the isolation of the
oasis. So from the purer life of their highland home, where had been
developed the distinctive and virile elements which were to impress the
Semitic faith on the history of mankind, increasing multitudes of
Semites poured over the mountain barriers into the broader levels of
the plains. As their own-mountain springs and torrents sought a way to
the sea down the Tigris and Euphrates beds, so the Semitic tribes
followed the same natural ways into their future homes: Elam,
Babylonia, Assyria, Mesopotamia, Arabia, Palestine. Those who settled
Arabia sent further migrations into Africa, as well as rebounding into
the desert west of the Euphrates, Syria and Palestine. Thus Western
Asia became the arena of Semitic life, whose influences also reached
Egypt and, through Phoenicia, the far-away West-Mediterranean.
4. CONFUSION WITH OTHER RACES:
While we may properly call Western and Southwestern Asia the home of
the Semitic peoples, there still remains the difficulty of separating them
definitely from the other races among whom they lived. The historic
Babylonians, e.g., were Semites; yet they dispossessed an earlier non-
Semitic people, and were themselves frequently invaded by other races,
such as the Hittites, and even the Egyptians. It is not certain therefore
which gods, customs, laws, etc., of the Babylonians were Semites, and not
adopted from those whom they superseded.
Assyria was racially purely Semitic, but her laws, customs, literature, and
many of her gods were acquired from Babylonia; to such an extent was this
true that we are indebted to the library of the Assyrian Ashurbanipal for
much that we know of Babylonian religion, literature and history. In Syria
also the same mixed conditions prevailed, for through Syria by the fords of
the Euphrates lay the highway of the nations, and Hittite and Mitannian at
times shared the land with her, and left their influence. Possibly in Arabia
Semitic blood ran purest, but even in Arabia there were tribes from other
races; and the table of the nations in Genesis divides that land among the
descendants of both Ham and Shem (see TABLE OF NATIONS). Last of
689
all, in Palestine, from the very beginning of its historic period, we find an
intermingling and confusion of races and religions such as no other Semitic
center presents. A Hamitic people gave one of its common names to the
country Canaan, while the pagan and late-coming Philistine gave the
most used name Palestine. The archaic remains of Horite, Avite and
Hivite are being uncovered by exploration; these races survived in places,
no doubt, long after the Semitic invasion, contributing their quota to the
customs and religious practices of the land. The Hittite also was in the
land, holdling outposts from his northern empire, even in the extreme south
of Palestine. If the blue eyes and fair complexions of the Amorites pictured
on Egyptian monuments are true representations, we may believe that the
gigantic Aryans of the North had their portion also in Palestine
5. RELIABILITY OF GENESIS 10:
It is customary now in Biblical ethnology to disregard the classification of
Genesis 10, and to group all the nations of Palestine as Semitic, especially
the Canaanite and the Phoenician along with the Hebrew. McCurdy in the
Standard BD treats the various gods and religious customs of Palestine as
though they were all Semitic, although uniformly these are represented in
the Old Testament as perversions and enormities of alien races which the
Hebrews were commanded to extirpate. The adoption of them would be,
and was, inimical to their own ancestral faith. Because the Hebrews took
over eventually the language of the Phoenician, appropriated his art and
conveniences, did traffic in his ships, and in Ahabs reign adopted his Baal
and Astarte, we are not warranted at all in rushing to the conclusion that
the Phoenicians represented a primitive Semitic type. Racial identification
by linguistic argument is always precarious, as history clearly shows. One
might as well say that Latin and the gospel were Saxon. There are
indications that the customs and even the early language of the Hebrews
were different from those of the people whom they subdued and
dispossessed. Such is the consistent tradition of their race, the Bible always
emphasizing the irreconcilable difference between their ancestral faith and
the practices of the people of Canaan. We may conclude that the reasons
for disregarding the classification of Genesis with reference to the Semites
and neighboring races are not final. Out from that fruitful womb of nations,
the Caucasus, the Semites, one branch of the C Caucasian peoples, went
southwestward as their cousins the Hamites went earlier toward the
South and as their younger relatives, the Aryans, were to go northward and
690
westward with marked racial traits and a pronounced religious
development, to play a leading part in the life of man.
6. SEMITIC LANGUAGES:
The phrase Semitic Languages is used of a group of languages which have
marked features in common, which also set them off from other languages.
But we must avoid the unnecessary inference that nations using the same
or kindred languages are of the same ancestry. There are other
explanations of linguistic affinity than racial, as the Indians of Mexico may
speak Spanish, and the Germans of Milwaukee may speak English. So also
neighboring or intermingled nations may just as naturally have used
branches of the Semitic language stock. However, it is true that the nations
which were truly Semitic used languages which are strikingly akin. These
have been grouped as
(1) Eastern Sere, including Babylonian and Assyrian;
(2) Northern, including Syriac and Aramaic;
(3) Western, including Canaanite, or Phoenician, and Hebrew, and
(4) Southern, including Arabic, Sabean and Ethiopic (compare Geden,
Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, 14-28). The distinctive features of
this family of languages are
(1) the tri-literal root,
(2) the consonantal writing, vowel indications being unnecessary so
long as the language was spoken,
(3) the meager use of moods and tenses in verbal inflection, every
action being graphically viewed as belonging to one of two stages in
time: completed or incomplete,
(4) the paucity of parts of speech, verb and noun covering nearly all the
relations of words,
(5) the frequent use of internal change in the inflection of words, e.g.
the doubling of a consonant or the change of a vowel, and
(6) the use of certain letters, called serviles, as prefixes or suffixes in
inflection; these are parts of pronouns or the worn-down residua of
nouns and particles. The manner of writing was not uniform in these
691
languages, Babylonian and Assyrian being ideographic and syllabic, and
written from left to right, while Aramaic, Hebrew and Arabic were
alphabetic and written from right to left. The primitive forms and
inflections of the group are best preserved in the Arabic by reason of
the conservatism of the desert peoples, and in the Assyrian by the
sudden destruction of that empire and the burial of the records of that
language in a comparatively pure state, to be brought back to light by
19th-century exploration. All the characteristics given above are clearly
manifest in the Hebrew of the Old Testament.
7. SEMITIC RELIGION:
In the study of Semitic Religion there are two tendencies toward error:
(1) the Western pragmatical and unsympathetic overtaxing of oriental
Nature-symbols and vividly imaginative speech. Because the Semite
used the figure of the rock (
<053204>
Deuteronomy 32:4,18,30) in describing
God, or poetically conceived of the storm-cloud as Yahwehs chariot
(
<19A403>
Psalm 104:3), we must not be led into believing that his religion
was a savage animism, or that Yahweh of Israel was only the Zeus of
the Greeks. How should an imaginative child of Nature speak of the
unseen Spiritual Power, except in the richest analogies of Nature?
(2) The second error is the tendency to treat the accretions acquired by
contact with other nations as of the essence of Semitic religion, e.g. the
golden calf following the Egyptian bondage, and the sexual
abominations of the Canaanite Baal and Astarte.
The primitive and distinctive beliefs of the Semitic peoples lie still in great
uncertainty because of the long association with other peoples, whose
practices they readily took over, and because of the lack of records of the
primitive periods of Semitic development, their origin and dispersion
among the nations being prehistoric. Our sources of information are the
Babylonian and Assyrian tablets and monuments, the Egyptian inscriptions,
Phoenician history, Arabian traditions and inscriptions, and principally the
Old Testament Scriptures. We can never know perhaps how much the pure
Semitism ofBabylonians and Assyrians was diverted and corrupted by the
developed civilization which they invaded and appropriated; Egypt was
only indirectly affected by Semitic life; Semitic development in Arabia was
the latest in all the group, besides which the monuments and reste of
Arabian antiquity which have come down to us are comparatively few; and
692
the Phoenician development was corrupted by the sensuality of the ancient
Canaanitish cults, while the Bible of the Hebrews emphatically
differentiated from the unwholesome religions of Palestine their own faith,
which was ancestral, revealed and pure. Was that Bible faith the primitive
Semitic cult? At least we must take the Hebrew tradition at its face value,
finding in it the prominent features of an ancestral faith, preserved through
one branch of the Semitic group. We are met frequently in these Hebrew
records by the claim that the religion they present is not a new
development, nor a thing apart from the origin of their race, but rather the
preservation of an ancient worship, Abraham, Moses and the prophets
appearing not as originators, but reformers, or revivers, who sought to
keep their people true to an inherited religion. Its elemental features are the
following:
(1) Its Peculiar Theism:
It was pronouncedly theistic; not that other religions do not affirm a god;
but theism of the Semites was such as to give their religion a unique place
among all others. To say the least, it had the germ of monotheism or the
tendency toward monotheism, if we have not sufficient evidence to affirm
its monotheism, and to rate the later polytheistic representations of
Babylonia and Assyria as local perversions. If the old view that Semitic
religion was essentially monotheistic be incapable of proof, it is true that
the necessary development of their concept of God must ultimately arrive
at monotheism. This came to verification in Abram the Hebrew, Jesus the
Messiah (
<430421>
John 4:21-24) and Mohammed the false prophet. A city-state
exclusively, a nation predominantly, worshipped one god, often through
some Nature-symbol, as sun or star or element. With the coming of world-
conquest, intercourse and vision, the one god of the city or the chief god of
the nation became universalized. The ignorant and materialistic Hebrew
might localize the God of Israel in a city or on a hilltop; but to the spiritual
mind of Amos or in the universal vision of Isaiah He was Yahweh, Lord of
all the earth.
(2) Personality of God:
Closely related to this high conception of Deity was the apparently
contradictory but really potent idea of the Deity as a personality. The
Semite did not grossly materialize his God as did the savage, nor vainly
abstract and etherealize Him and so eliminate Him from the experience of
693
man as did the Greek; but to him God universal was also God personal and
intimate. The Hebrew ran the risk of conditioning the spirituality of God in
order to maintain His real personality. Possibly this has been the most
potent element in Semitic religion; God was not far from every one of
them. He came into the closest relations as father or friend. He was the
companion of king and priest. The affairs of the nation were under His
immediate care; He went to war with armies, was a partner in harvest
rejoicings; the home was His abode. This conception of Deity carried with
it the necessary implication of revelation (
<300308>
Amos 3:8). The office,
message and power of the Hebrew prophet were also the logical
consequence of knowing God as a Person.
(3) Its View of Nature:
Its peculiar view of Nature was another feature of Semitic religion. God
was everywhere and always present in Nature; consequently its symbolism
was the natural and ready expression of His nature and presence. Simile,
parable and Nature-marvels cover the pages and tablets of their records.
Unfortunately this poetic conception of Nature quickly enough afforded a
ready path in which wayward feet and carnal minds might travel toward
Nature-worship with all of its formalism and its degrading excesses. This
feature of Semitic religion offers an interesting commentary on their
philosophy. With them the doctrine of Second Causes received no
emphasis; God worked directly in Nature, which became to them therefore
the continuous arena of signs and marvels. The thunder was His voice, the
sunshine reflected the light of His countenance, the winds were His
messengers. And so through this imaginative view of the world the Semite
dwelt in an enchanted realm of the miraculous.
(4) The Moral Being of God:
The Semite believed in a God who is a moral being. Such a faith in the
nature of it was certain to influence profoundly their own moral
development, making for them a racial character which has been distinctive
and persistent through the changes of millenniums. By it also they have
impressed other nations and religions, with which they have had contact.
The Code of Hammurabi is an expression of the moral issues of theism.
The Law and the Prophets of Israel arose out of the conviction of Gods
righteousness and of the moral order of His universe (
<021905>
Exodus 19:5,6;
<230116>
Isaiah 1:16-20). The Decalogue is a confession of faith in the unseen
694
God; the Law of Holiness (Leviticus 17 through 26) is equally a moral
code.
While these elements are not absent altogether from other ancient religions,
they are pronouncedly characteristic of the Semitic to the extent that they
have given to it its permanent form, its large development, and its primacy
among the religions of the human race. To know God, to hear His eternal
tread in Nature, to clothe Him with light as with a garment, to establish His
throne in righteousness, to perceive that holiness is the all-pervading
atmosphere of His presence such convictions were bound to affect the
life and progress of a rate, and to consecrate them as a nation of priests for
all mankind.
LITERATURE.
For discussion of the details of Semitic peoples and religions reference
must be made to the particular articles, such as ARPACHSHAD; EBER;
ABRAHAM; HAMMURABI; ASSYRIA; BABYLONIA; BAAL;
ASHTORETH; ASHERIM; MOLOCH; CHEMOSH; CHIUN; ISRAEL,
RELIGION OF etc. The literature on the subject is vast, interesting and far
from conclusive. Few of the Bible Dictionaries have articles on this
particular subject; reference should be made to those in the Standard and in
the HDB, volume both by McCurdy; Semites in Catholic Encyclopedia
skims the surface; articles in International Eric are good. In Old Testament
Theologies, Davidson, pp. 249-52; Schultz, chapter iii of volume I; Riehm,
Alttestamentliche Theologie; Delitzsch, Psychology of the Old Testament.
For language see Wrights Comparative Grammar of Semitic Languages.
For history and religion: Masperos three volumes; McCurdy, HPM;
Hommel. Ancient Hebrew Tradition, and Semitic Volker u. Sprache;
Jastrow, Comparative Semitic Religion; Friedr. Delitzsch, Babel u. Bibel;
W. R. Smith, Religion of the Semites.
Edward Mack
SENAAH
<se-na-a>, <sen-a-a> ([h a ;n;s ], cenaah]; Codex Vaticanus [2oovo,
Saana]; [2ovovot, Sananat]; Codex Alexandrinus [2ovovo, Sanana],
[2rvvoo, Sennaa], [ Aoov, Hasan]): The children of Senaah are
mentioned as having formed part of the company returning from the
captivity with Zerubbabel (
<150235>
Ezra 2:35;
<160738>
Nehemiah 7:38). The numbers
695
vary as given by Ezra (3,630) and Nehemiah (3,930), while 1 Esdras 5:23
puts them at 3,330. In the last place the name is Sanaas, the King James
Version Annaas (Codex Vaticanus [2oo, Sama]; Codex Alexandrinus
[2ovoo, Sanaas]). In
<160303>
Nehemiah 3:3 the name occurs with the definite
article, ha-senaah. The people may be identical with the Benjamite clan
Hassenuah (
<130907>
1 Chronicles 9:7). Eusebius, in Onomasticon, speaks of
Magdalsenna a village about 7 miles North of Jericho, which may be the
place intended; but the site is not known.
W. Ewing
SENATE; SENATOR
<sen-at>, <sen-a-ter>: In
<19A522>
Psalm 105:22, teach his senators (the
Revised Version (British and American) elders) wisdom. The Hebrew is
[q ez;, zaqen], elder Septuagint [proputrpo, presbuteroi]). In
<440521>
Acts
5:21, called the council together and all the senate of the children of
Israel. The Greek [yrpouoo, gerousia], is here evidently used as a more
precise equivalent of the foregoing council ([ouvrpov, sunedrion]), to
which it is added by [xo, kai], explicative. Reference is had to the
Sanhedrin. See SANHEDRIN. This term gerousia occurs in Septuagint
<020316>
Exodus 3:16, etc., and in 1 Macc 12:6; 2 Macc 1:10; 4:44 of the
supreme council of the Jews (see GOVERNMENT). In 1 Macc 8:15; 12:3,
[pourutqpov, bouleuterion], is used of the Roman senate, which is said
to consist of 320 members meeting daily, consulting always for the people,
to the end that they may be well governed. These statements are not quite
accurate, since the senate consisted normally of 300 members, and met not
daily, but on call of the magistrates. Originally, like the gerousia of the
Jews, the representatives of families and clans (gentes), the senators were
subsequently the ex-magistrates, supplemented, to complete the tale of
members, by representatives of patrician (in time also of plebeian) families
selected by the censor. The tenure was ordinarily for life, though it might
be terminated for cause by the censor. Although constitutionally the senate
was only an advisory body, its advice (senatus consultum, auctoritas) in
fact became in time a mandate which few dared to disregard. During the
republican period the senate practically ruled Rome; under the empire it
tended more and more to become the creature and subservient tool of the
emperors.
William Arthur Heidel
696
SENEH
<se-ne> ([h n,s ,, ceneh]; [2rvvo, Senna]): This was the name attaching to
the southern of the two great cliffs between which ran the gorge of
Michmash (
<091404>
1 Samuel 14:4). The name means acacia, and may have
been given to it from the thorn bushes growing upon it. Josephus (BJ, V, ii,
1) mentions the plain of thorns near Gabathsaul. We may hear an echo of
the old name in that of Wady Suweinit, valley of the little thorn tree, the
name by which the gorge is known today. The cliff must have stood on the
right side of the wady; see BOZEZ. Conder gives an excellent description
of the place in Tent Work in Palestine, II, 112-14.
W. Ewing
SENIR
<se-nir> ([yr nic ], senir]; [2orp, Saneir]): This was the Amorite name of
Mt. Hermon, according to
<050309>
Deuteronomy 3:9 (the King James Version
Shenir). But in
<130523>
1 Chronicles 5:23; Song 4:8, we have Senir and
Hermon named as distinct mountains. It seems probable, however, that
Senir applied to a definite part of the Anti-Lebanon or Hermon range. An
inscription of Shalmaneser tells us that Hazael, king of Damascus, fortified
Mt. Senir over against Mt. Lebanon. So in
<262705>
Ezekiel 27:5, Senir, whence
the Tyrians got planks of fir trees, is set over against Lebanon, where
cedars were obtained. The Arab geographers give the name Jebel Sanir to
the part of the Anti-Lebanon range which lies between Damascus and
Homs (Yakut, circa 1225 AD, quoted by Guy le Strange in Palestine under
the Moslems, 79. He also quotes Mas`udi, 943 AD, to the effect that
Baalbek is in the district of Senir, 295).
W. Ewing
SENNACHERIB
<se-nak-er-ib> ([b yr ij en]s , cancheribh]; [2rvvoqpr,
Sennachereim], Assyrian Sin-akhierba, the moon-god Sin has increased
the brothers): Sennacherib (704-682 BC) ascended the throne of Assyria
after the death of his father Sargon. Appreciating the fact that Babylon
would be difficult to control, instead of endeavoring to conciliate the
people he ignored them. The Babylonians, being indignant, crowned a man
of humble origin, Marduk-zakir-shum by name. He ruled only a month,
697
having been driven out by the irrepressible Merodach-baladan, who again
appeared on the scene.
In order to fortify himself against Assyria the latter sent an embassy to
Hezekiah, apparently for the purpose of inspiring the West to rebel against
Assyria (
<122012>
2 Kings 20:12-19).
Sennacherib in his first campaign marched into Babylonia. He found
Merodach-baladan entrenched at Kish, about 9 miles from Babylon, and
defeated him; after which he entered the gates of Babylon, which had been
thrown open to him. He placed a Babylonian, named Bel-ibni, on the
throne.
This campaign was followed by an invasion of the country of the Cassites
and Iasubigalleans. In his third campaign he directed his attention to the
West, where the people had become restless under the Assyrian yoke.
Hezekiah had been victorious over the Philistines (
<121808>
2 Kings 18:8). In
preparation to withstand a siege, Hezekiah had built a conduit to bring
water within the city walls (
<122020>
2 Kings 20:20). Although strongly opposed
by the prophet Isaiah, gifts were sent to Egypt, whence assistance was
promised (
<233001>
Isaiah 30:1-4). Apparently also the Phoenicians and
Philistines, who had been sore pressed by Assyria, had made provision to
resist Assyria. The first move was at Ekron, where the Assyrian governor
Padi was put into chains and sent to Hezekiah at Jerusalem.
Sennacherib, in 701 BC, moved against the cities in the West. He ravaged
the environs of Tyre, but made no attempt to take the city, as he was
without a naval force. After Elulaeus the king of Sidon fled, the city
surrendered without a battle, and Ethbaal was appointed king. Numerous
cities at once sent presents to the king of Assyria. Ashkelon and other
cities were taken. The forces of Egypt were routed at Eltekeh, and Ekron
was destroyed. He claims to have conquered 46 strongholds of Hezekiahs
territory, but he did not capture Jerusalem, for concerning the king he said,
in his annals, himself like a bird in a cage in Jerusalem, his royal city, I
penned him. He states, also, how he reduced his territory, and how
Hezekiah sent to him 30 talents of gold and 800 talents of silver, besides
hostages.
The Biblical account of this invasion is found in
<121813>
2 Kings 18:13 through
19:37; Isaiah 36; 37. The Assyrian account differs considerably from it; but
at the same time it corroborates it in many details. One of the striking
698
parallels is the exact amount of gold which Hezekiah sent to the Assyrian
king (see The Expository Times, XII, 225,405; XIII, 326).
In the following year Sennacherib returned to Babylonia to put down a
rebellion by Bal-ibni and Merodach-baladan. The former was sent to
Assyria, and the latter soon afterward died. Ashurnadin-shum, the son of
Sennacherib, was then crowned king of Babylon. A campaign into Cilicia
and Cappadocia followed.
In 694 BC Sennacherib attacked the Elamites, who were in league with the
Babylonians. In revenge, the Elamites invaded Babylonia and carried off
Ashur-nadin-shum to Elam, and made Nergalushezib king of Babylon. He
was later captured and in turn carried off to Assyria. In 691 BC
Sennacherib again directed his attention to the South, and at Khalute
fought with the combined forces. Two years later he took Babylon, and
razed it to the ground.
In 681 BC Sennacherib was murdered by his two sons (
<121937>
2 Kings 19:37;
see SHAREZER). Esar-haddon their younger brother, who was at the time
conducting a campaign against Ararat, was declared king in his stead.
A. T. Clay
SENSES
<sen-siz>: The translation of [oo0qtqpov, aistheterion] (
<580514>
Hebrews
5:14, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern
good and evil). The word means, primarily, the seat of the senses, the
region of feeling; in the Septuagint of
<240419>
Jeremiah 4:19, it represents the
Hebrew qir, the walls of the heart (see the Revised Version (British and
American)), and is used to denote the internal sense or faculty of
perceiving and judging, which in
<580514>
Hebrews 5:14 is regarded as becoming
perfected by use or exercise (compare
<490412>
Ephesians 4:12 f;
<540407>
1 Timothy
4:7;
<610318>
2 Peter 3:18).
In 2 Esdras 10:36 we have Or is my sense deceived, or my soul in a
dream? Latin sensus, here mind rather than sense.
W. L. Walker
699
SENSUAL
<sen-shoo-al> ([guxo, psuchikos], animal, natural): Biblical
psychology has no English equivalent for this Greek original. Man subject
to the lower appetites is [oopxxo, sarkikos], fleshly; in the
communion of his spirit with God he is [vruotxo, pneumatikos],
spiritual. Between the two is the [guq, psuche], soul, the center of
his personal being. This ego or Iin each man is bound to the spirit, the
higher nature; and to the body or lower nature.
The soul (psuche) as the seat of the senses, desires, affections, appetites,
passions, i.e. the lower animal nature common to man with the beasts, was
distinguished in the Pythagorean and Platonic philosophy from the higher
rational nature (nous, pneuma).
The subjection of the soul to the animal nature is mans debasement, to the
spirit indwelt of God is his exaltation. The English equivalent for
psuchikos, psychic does not express this debasement. In the New
Testament sensual indicates mans subjection to self and self-interest,
whether animal or intellectual the selfish man in whom the spirit is
degraded into subordination to the debased psuche, soul. This
debasement may be
(1) intellectual, not wisdom .... from above, but .... earthly, sensual
(
<590315>
James 3:15);
(2) carnal (and of course moral), sensual, having not the Spirit
(
<650119>
Jude 1:19). It ranges all the way from sensuous self-indulgence to
gross immorality. In the utter subjection of the spirit to sense it is the
utter exclusion of God from the life. Hence, the natural (psuchikos)
man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God (1 Cor 2:14). The
term is equivalent to the mind of the flesh (
<450807>
Romans 8:7) which is
not subject to the law of God.
See PSYCHOLOGY.
Dwight M. Pratt
SENT
([j l v ; , shalach]; [oootr, apostello]): Sent in the Old
Testament is the translation of shalach, to send (of presents, messengers,
700
etc.,
<013218>
Genesis 32:18; 44:3;
<070614>
Judges 6:14;
<111406>
1 Kings 14:6; Est 3:13;
<201711>
Proverbs 17:11;
<244914>
Jeremiah 49:14;
<260305>
Ezekiel 3:5; 23:40;
<271011>
Daniel
10:11; Obidiah 1:1); of shelach, Aramaic (
<150714>
Ezra 7:14;
<270524>
Daniel 5:24);
of shilluchim, sending (
<021802>
Exodus 18:2); in the New Testament of
apostello, to send off or away, to send forth (
<430907>
John 9:7, the pool
of Siloam (which is by interpretation, Sent)); compare
<421304>
Luke 13:4;
<160315>
Nehemiah 3:15, the pool of Siloah, the Revised Version (British and
American) Shelah;
<230806>
Isaiah 8:6, the waters of Shiloah that go softly,
where Septuagint has Siloam for Hebrew shiloach, a sending, which,
rather than Sent, is the original meaning a sending forth of waters.
See SILOAM. Sent is also the translation of apostolos, one sent forth
(the original of the familiar word apostle); in
<431316>
John 13:16, one that is
sent (margin, Greek `an apostle); compare
<580114>
Hebrews 1:14.
W. L. Walker
SENTENCE
<sen-tens>: Eight Hebrew and three Greek words are thus translated in
the King James Version. Sometimes it points to a mystery (
<270512>
Daniel 5:12;
8:23); then again to the contents of the Law (
<051711>
Deuteronomy 17:11); then
again to the idea of judgment (
<191702>
Psalm 17:2) or of a judicial sentence (2
Cor 1:9;
<422324>
Luke 23:24), or of judicial advice (
<441519>
Acts 15:19, the
American Standard Revised Version judgment).
SENUAH
<se-nu-a>, <sen-u-a> ([h a ;Wns ], cenuah]): In the King James Version
A Benjamite (
<161109>
Nehemiah 11:9); the Revised Version (British and
American) has Hassenuah, transliterating the definite article the King
James Version is to be preferred (compare
<130907>
1 Chronicles 9:7).
SEORIM
<se-o-rim>, <se-or-im> ([ yr i[ oc ], se`orim]): The name borne by one of
the (post-exilic) priestly courses (
<132408>
1 Chronicles 24:8).
SEPARATE
<sep-a-rat>: The translation of a number of Hebrew and Greek words,
[l d B ; , badhal] (
<032024>
Leviticus 20:24, etc.), and [oop, aphorizo]
701
(
<402532>
Matthew 25:32, etc.), being the most common. To separate and to
consecrate were originally not distinguished (e.g.
<040602>
Numbers 6:2
margin), and probably the majority of the uses of separate in English
Versions of the Bible connote to set apart for God. But precisely the
same term that is used in this sense may also denote the exact opposite
(e.g. the use of nazar in
<261407>
Ezekiel 14:7 and
<380703>
Zechariah 7:3).
See HOLY; NAZIRITE; SAINT.
SEPARATION
<sep-a-ra-shun>: In the Pentateuch the word niddah specially points to a
state of ceremonial uncleanness (
<031202>
Leviticus 12:2,5; 15:20 ff;
<040604>
Numbers
6:4 ff; 12:13; 19:21). For a description of the water of purification, used
for cleansing what was ceremonially unclean (Numbers 19), see HEIFER,
RED; UNCLEANNESS. For separation in the sense of nezer, see
NAZIRITE.
SEPHAR
<se-far>: Only in
<011030>
Genesis 10:30 [h r ;p ;s ], cepharah], toward
Sephar), as the eastern limit of the territory of the sons of Yoktan
(Joktan). From the similarity between the names of most of Yoktans sons
and the names of South Arabian towns or districts, it can hardly be
doubted that Sephar is represented by the Arabic Qafar. The
appropriateness of the site seems to outweigh the discrepancy between
Arabic z and Hebrew s. But two important towns in South Arabia bear
this name. The one lies a little to the South of San`a. According to
tradition it was founded by Shammir, one of the Sabean kings, and for a
long time served as the royal seat of the Tubbas. The other Zafar stands on
the coast in the district of Shichr, East of Chadramaut. The latter is
probably to be accepted as the Biblical site.
A. S. Fulton
SEPHARAD
<se-fa-rad>, <sef-a-rad> ([d r ;p ;s ], cepharadh]): Mentioned in Obidiah
1:20 as the place of captivity of certain captives of Jerusalem, but no
clear indication is given of locality. Many conjectures have been made. The
Targum of Jonathan identifies with Spain; hence, the Spanish Jews are
702
called Sephardim. Others (Pusey, etc.) have connected it with the
(Tsparda of the Behistun Inscription, and some have even identified it
with Sardis. The now generally accepted view is that which connects it
with the Saparda of the Assyrian inscriptions, though whether this is to
be located to the East of Assyria or in Northern Asia Minor is not clear.
See Schrader, Cuneiform Inscriptions, II, 145-46; Sayce, HCM, 482-84;
articles in DB, HDB, EB, etc.
J ames Orr
SEPHARVAIM
<sef-ar-va-im>, <se-far-va-im> ([ yi w r ] p s ] , cepharwayim]:
[2ropouo, Sephpharouaim], [2ropouo, Seppharouaim],
[2ropouv, Seppharoun], [2ropouov, Seppharoumain], [
Eopouo, Eppharouaim], [2ropr, Sepphareim], the first two
being the forms in manuscripts Alexandrinus and Vaticanus respectively, of
the passages in Kings, and the last two in Isaiah):
1. FORMERLY IDENTIFIED WITH THE
TWO BABYLONIAN SIPPARS:
This city, mentioned in
<121724>
2 Kings 17:24; 18:34; 19:13;
<233619>
Isaiah 36:19;
37:13, is generally identified with the Sip(p)ar of the Assyrians-Babylonian
inscriptions (Zimbir in Sumerian), on the Euphrates, about 16 miles
Southwest of Bagdad. It was one of the two great seats of the worship of
the Babylonian sun-god Samas, and also of the goddesses Ishtar and
Anunit, and seems to have had two principal districts, Sippar of Samas, and
Sippar of Anunit, which, if the identification were correct, would account
for the dual termination -ayim, in Hebrew. This site is the modern Abu-
Habbah, which was first excavated by the late Hormuzd Rassam in 1881,
and has furnished an enormous number of inscriptions, some of them of the
highest importance.
2. DIFFICULTIES OF THAT IDENTIFICATION:
Besides the fact that the deities of the two cities, Sippar and Sepharvaim,
are not the same, it is to be noted that in
<121913>
2 Kings 19:13 the king of
Sepharvaim is referred to, and, as far as is known, the Babylonian Sippar
never had a king of its own, nor had Akkad, with which it is in part
identified, for at least 1,200 years before Sennacherib. The fact that
703
Babylon and Cuthah head the list of cities mentioned is no indication that
Sepharvaim was a Babylonian town the composition of the list, indeed,
points the other way, for the name comes after Ava and Hamath, implying
that it lay in Syria.
3. ANOTHER SUGGESTION:
Joseph Halevy therefore suggests (ZA, II, 401 ff) that it should be
identified with the Sibraim of
<264716>
Ezekiel 47:16, between Damascus and
Hamath (the dual implying a frontier town), and the same as the Sabarain
of the Babylonian Chronicle, there referred to as having been captured by
Shalmaneser. As, however, Sabarain may be read Samarain, it is more
likely to have been the Hebrew [Shomeron] (Samaria), as pointed out by
Fried. Delitzsch.
LITERATURE.
See Schrader, The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament, I,
71 f; Kittel on K; Dillmann-Kittel on Isa, at the place; HDB, under the
word
T. G. Pinches
SEPHARVITES
<se-far-vits>, se-far-vits> ([ ywir ]p s ], cepharwim]): In
<121731>
2 Kings
17:31, the inhabitants of SEPHARVAIM (which see), planted by the king of
Assyria in Samaria. They continued there to burn their children to their
native gods.
SEPPHORIS
<sef-o-ris>: A city of Galilee, taken by Josephus (Vita, IX, lxvii, 71) and
later destroyed by the son of Varus (Ant., XVII, x, 9).
SEPTUAGINT
<sep-tu-a-jint>:
I. IMPORTANCE.
The Greek version of the Old Testament commonly known as the
Septuagint holds a unique place among translations. Its importance is
704
manysided. Its chief value lies in the fact that it is a version of a Hebrew
text earlier by about a millennium than the earliest dated Hebrew
manuscript extant (916 AD), a version, in particular, prior to the formal
rabbinical revision of the Hebrew which took place early in the 2nd century
AD. It supplies the materials for the reconstruction of an older form of the
Hebrew than the Massoretic Text reproduced in our modern Bibles. It is,
moreover, a pioneering work; there was probably no precedent in the
worlds history for a series of translations from one language into another
on so extensive a scale. It was the first attempt to reproduce the Hebrew
Scriptures in another tongue. It is one of the outstanding results of the
breaking-down of international barriers by the conquests of Alexander the
Great and the dissemination of the Greek language, which were fraught
with such vital consequences for the history of religion. The cosmopolitan
city which he founded in the Delta witnessed the first attempt to bridge the
gulf between Jewish and Greek thought. The Jewish commercial settlers at
Alexandria, forced by circumstances to abandon their language, clung
tenaciously to their faith; and the translation of the Scriptures into their
adopted language, produced to meet their own needs, had the further result
of introducing the outside world to a knowledge of their history and
religion. Then came the most momentous event in its history, the starting-
point of a new life; the translation was taken over from the Jews by the
Christian church. It was the Bible of most writers of the New Testament.
Not only are the majority of their express citations from Scripture
borrowed from it, but their writings contain numerous reminiscences of its
language. Its words are household words to them. It laid for them the
foundations of a new religious terminology. It was a potent weapon for
missionary work, and, when versions of the Scriptures into other languages
became necessary, it was in most cases the Septuagint and not the Hebrew
from which they were made. Preeminent among these daughter versions
was the Old Latin which preceded the Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-
405 A.D.), for the most part a direct translation from the Hebrew, was in
portions a mere revision of the Old Latin; our Prayer-book version of the
Psalter preserves peculiarities of the Septuagint, transmitted through the
medium of the Old Latin. The Septuagint was also the Bible of the early
Greek Fathers, and helped to mold dogma; it furnished proof-texts to both
parties in the Arian controversy. Its language gives it another strong claim
to recognition. Uncouth and unclassical as much of it appears, we now
know that this is not wholly due to the hampering effects of translation.
Biblical Greek, once considered a distinct species, is now a rather
705
discredited term. The hundreds of contemporary papyrus records (letters,
business and legal documents, etc.) recently discovered in Egypt illustrate
much of the vocabulary and grammar and go to show that many so-called
Hebraisms were in truth integral parts of the koine, or common
language, i.e. the international form of Greek which, since the time of
Alexander, replaced the old dialects, and of which the spoken Greek of
today is the lineal descendant. The version was made for the populace and
written in large measure in the language of their everyday life.
II. NAME.
The name Septuagint is an abbreviation of Interpretatio secundum (or
juxta) Septuaginta seniores (or viros), i.e. the Greek translation of the Old
Testament of which the first installment was, according to the Alexandrian
legend (see III, below), contributed by 70 (or 72) elders sent from
Jerusalem to Alexandria for the purpose at the request of Ptolemy II. The
legend in its oldest form restricts their labors to the Pentateuch but they
were afterward credited with the translation of the whole Bible, and before
the 4th century it
had become customary to apply the title to the whole collection: Aug.,
Deuteronomy Civ. Dei, xviii.42, quorum interpretatio ut Septuaginta
vocetur iam obtinuit consuetudo (whose translation is now by custom
called the Septuagint). The manuscripts refer to them under the
abbreviation [o o, hoi o] (the seventy), or [o op , hoi ob], (the
seventy-two). The Septuagint and the abbreviated form LXX have
been the usual designations hitherto, but, as these are based on a now
discredited legend, they are coming to be replaced by the Old Testament
in Greek, or the Alexandrian version with the abbreviation G.
III. TRADITIONAL ORIGIN.
The traditional account of the translation of the Pentateuch is contained in
the so-called letter of Aristeas (editions of Greek text, P. Wendland,
Teubner series, 1900, and Thackeray in the App. to Swetes Introduction
to the Old Testament in Greek, 1900, etc.; Wendlands sections cited
below appear in Swetes Introduction, edition 2; English translation by
Thackeray, Macmillan, 1904, reprinted from JQR, XV, 337, and by H. T.
Andrews in Charles Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament,
II, 83-122, Oxford, 1913).
706
1. Letter of Aristeas:
The writer professes to be a high official at the court of Ptolemy
Philadelphus (285-247 BC), a Greek interested in Jewish antiquities.
Addressing his brother Philocrates he describes an embassy to Jerusalem
on which he has recently been sent with another courtier Andreas.
According to his narrative, Demetrius of Phalerum, a prominent figure in
later Athenian history, who here appears as the royal librarian at
Alexandria, convinced the king of the importance of securing for his library
a translation of the Jewish Law. The king at the same time, to propitiate
the nation from whom he was asking a favor, consented, on the suggestion
of Aristeas, to liberate all Jewish slaves in Egypt. Copies follow of the
letters which passed between Ptolemy and Eleazar, the high priest at
Jerusalem. Ptolemy requests Eleazar to select and dispatch to Alexandria
72 elders, proficient in the Law, 6 from each tribe, to undertake the
translation the importance of the task requiring the services of a large
number to secure an accurate version Eleazar complies with the request
and the names of the selected translators are appended to his letter.
There follow:
(1) a detailed description of votive offerings sent by Ptolemy for the
temple;
(2) a sketch of Jerusalem, the temple and its services, and the
geography of Palestine, doubtless reflecting in part the impressions of
an eyewitness and giving a unique picture of the Jewish capital in the
Ptolemaic era;
(3) an exposition by Eleazar of portions of the Law.
The translators arrive at Alexandria, bringing a copy of the Law written in
letters of gold on rolls of skins, and are honorably received by Ptolemy. A
seven days banquet follows, at which the king tests the proficiency of each
in turn with hard questions. Three days later Demetrius conducts them
across the mole known as the Heptastadion to the island of Pharos, where,
with all necessaries provided for their convenience, they complete their
task, as by a miracle, in 72 days; we are expressly told that their work was
the result of collaboration and comparison. The completed version was
read by Demetrius to the Jewish community, who received it with
enthusiasm and begged that a copy might be entrusted to their leaders; a
707
solemn curse was pronounced on any who should venture to add to or
subtract from or make any alteration in the translation. The whole version
was then read aloud to the king who expressed his admiration and his
surprise that Greek writers had remained in ignorance of its contents; he
directed that the books should be preserved with scrupulous care.
2. Evidence of Aristobulus and Philo:
To set beside this account we have two pre-Christian allusions in Jewish
writings. Aristobulus, addressing a Ptolemy who has been identified as
Philometor (182-146 BC), repeats the statement that the Pentateuch was
translated under Philadelphus at the instance of Demetrius Phalereus
(Eusebius, Praep. Ev., XIII, 12,664b); but the genuineness of the passage
is doubtful. If it is accepted, it appears that some of the main features of
the story were believed at Alexandria within a century of the date assigned
by Aristeas to the translation Philo (Vit. Moys, ii.5 ff) repeats the story
of the sending of the translators by Eleazar at the request of Philadelphus,
adding that in his day the completion of the undertaking was celebrated by
an annual festival on the isle of Pharos. It is improbable that an artificial
production like the Aristeas letter should have occasioned such an
anniversary; Philos evidence seems therefore to rest in part on an
independent tradition. His account in one particular paves the way for later
accretions; he hints at the inspiration of the translators and the miraculous
agreement of their separate VSS: They prophesied like men possessed,
not one in one way and one in another, but all producing the same words
and phrases as though some unseen prompter were at the ears of each. At
the end of the 1st century AD Josephus includes in his Antiquities (XII, ii,
1 ff) large portions of the letter, which he paraphrases, but does not
embellish.
3. Later Accretions:
Christian writers accepted the story without suspicion and amplified it. A
catena of their evidence is given in an Appendix to Wendlands edition.
The following are their principal additions to the narrative, all clearly
baseless fabrications.
(1) The translators worked independently, in separate cells, and
produced identical versions, Ptolemy proposing this test of their
trustworthiness. So Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, the
Chronicon Paschale and the Cohortatio ad Graecos (wrongly attributed
708
to Justin); the author of the last work asserts that he had seen the cells
and heard the tradition on the spot.
(2) A modification of this legend says that the translators worked in
pairs in 36 cells. So Epiphanius (died 403 AD), and later G. Syncellus,
Julius Pollux and Zonaras. Epiphanius account is the most detailed.
The translators were locked up in sky-lighted cells in pairs with
attendants and shorthand writers; each pair was entrusted with one
book, the books were then circulated, and 36 identical versions of the
whole Bible, canonical and apocryphal books, were produced; Ptolemy
wrote two letters, one asking for the original Scriptures, the second for
translators.
(3) This story of the two embassies appears already in the 2nd century
AD, in Justins Apology, and
(4) the extension of the translators work to the Prophets or the whole
Bible recurs in the two Cyrils and in Chrysostom.
(5) The miraculous agreement of the translators proved them to be no
less inspired than the authors (Irenaeus, etc.; compare Philo).
(6) As regards date, Clement of Alexandria quotes an alternative
tradition referring the version back to the time of the first Ptolemy
(322-285 BC); while Chrysostom brings it down to a hundred or more
years (elsewhere not many years) before the coming of Christ.
Justin absurdly states that Ptolemys embassy was sent to King Herod;
the Chronicon Paschale calls the high priest of the time Onias Simon,
brother of Eleazar.
Jerome was the first to hold these later inventions up to ridicule,
contrasting them with the older and more sober narrative. They indicate a
growing oral tradition in Jewish circles at Alexandria. The origin of the
legend of the miraculous consensus of the 70 translators has been
reasonably sought in a passage in Exodus 24 Septuagint to which
Epiphanius expressly refers. We there read of 70 elders of Israel, not heard
of again, who with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu form a link between Moses
and the people. After reciting the Book of the Covenant Moses ascends to
the top of the mount; the 70, however, ascend but a little way and are
bidden to worship from afar: according to the Septuagint text They saw
the place where the God of Israel stood .... and of the elect of Israel not
709
one perished (
<022411>
Exodus 24:11), i.e. they were privileged to escape the
usual effect of a vision of the Deity (
<023320>
Exodus 33:20). But the verb used
for perish (diaphonein) was uncommon in this sense; not one
disagreed would be the obvious meaning; hence, apparently the legend of
the agreement of the translators, the later intermediaries between Moses
and Israel of the Dispersion. When the translations were recited, no
difference was discoverable, says Epiphanius, using the same verb, cave-
dwellings in the island of Pharos probably account for the legend of the
cells. A curious phenomenon has recently suggested that there is an
element of truth in one item of Epiphanius obviously incredible narrative,
namely, the working of the translators in pairs. The Greek books of
Jeremiah and Ezekiel fall into two nearly equal parts, apparently the work
of separate translators (see VIII, 1, (2), below); while in Exodus, Leviticus
and Psalms orthographical details indicate a similar division of the books
for clerical purposes. There was, it seems, a primitive custom of
transcribing each book on 2 separate rolls, and in the case of Jeremiah and
Ezekiel the practice goes back to the time of translation (JTS, IV, 245 ff,
398 ff; IX, 88 ff).
4. Criticism of the Aristeas Story:
Beside the later extravagances, the story of Aristeas appears comparatively
rational. Yet it has long been recognized that much of it is unhistorical, in
particular the professed date and nationality of the writer. Its claims to
authenticity were demolished by Dr. Hody two centuries ago
(Deuteronomy bibliorum textibus originalibus, Oxon., 1705). Clearly the
writer is not a Greek, but a Jew, whose aim is to glorify his race and to
disseminate information about their sacred books. Yet the story is not
wholly to be rejected, though it is difficult to disentangle truth from fiction.
On one side his veracity has since Hodys time been established; his court
titles, technical terms, epistolary formulas, etc., reappear in Egyptian papyri
and inscriptions, and all his references to Alexandrian life and customs are
probably equally trustworthy (sections 28, 109 ff, measures to counteract
the ill effects upon agriculture of migration from country to town; section
167, treatment of informers (compare section 25); section 175 reception of
foreign embassies (compare section 182)). The import of this discovery
has, however, since its announcement by Lombroso (Recherches sur
leconomie politique de lEgypte, Turin, 1870), been somewhat modified
by the new-found papyri which show that Aristeas titles and formulas are
those of the later, not the earlier, Ptolemaic age.
710
5. Date:
The letter was used by Josephus and probably known to Philo. How much
earlier is it? Schurer (HJP, II, iii, 309 f (GJV4,III, 608-16)), relying on
(1) the questionable Aristobulus passage,
(2) the picture drawn of Palestine as if still under Ptolemaic rule, from
which it passed to the Seleucids circa 200 BC, argued that the work
could not be later than that date. But it is hard to believe that a
fictitious story (as he regards it to be) could have gained credence
within little more than half a century of the period to which it relates,
and Wendland rightly rejects so ancient an origin. The following
indications suggest a date about 100-80 BC.
(1) Many of Aristeas formulas, etc. (see above), only came into use in
the 2nd century BC (Strack, Rhein. Mus., LV, 168 ff; Thackeray,
Aristeas, English translation, pp. 3, 12).
(2) The later Maccabean age or the end of the 2nd century BC is
suggested by some of the translators names (Wendland, xxvi), and
(3) by the independent position of the high priest.
(4) Some of Ptolemys questions indicate a tottering dynasty (section
187, etc.).
(5) The writer occasionally forgets his role and distinguishes between
his own time and that of Philadelphus (sections 28, 182).
(6) He appears to borrow his name from a Jewish historian of the 2nd
century BC and to wish to pass off the latters history as his own
(section 6).
(7) He is guilty of historical inaccuracies concerning Demetrius, etc.
(8) The prologue to the Greek Ecclesiasticus (after 132 BC) ignores
and contradicts the Aristeas story, whereas Aristeas possibly used this
prologue (Wendland, xxvii; compare Hart, Ecclesiasticus in Greek,
1909).
(9) The imprecation upon any who should alter the translation (section
311) points to divergences of text which the writer desired to check;
compare section 57, where he seems to insist on the correctness of the
711
Septuagint text of
<022522>
Exodus 25:22, gold of pure gold, as against the
Hebrew. (10) Allusions to current criticisms of the Pentateuch (sections
128, 144) presuppose a familiarity with it on the part of non-Jewish
readers only explicable if the Septuagint had long been current. (11)
Yet details in the Greek orthography preclude a date much later than
100 BC.
6. Credibility:
The probable amount of truth in the story is ably discussed by Swete
(Intro, 16-22). The following statements in the letter may be accepted:
(1) The translation was produced at Alexandria, as is conclusively
proved by Egyptian influence on its language.
(2) The Pentateuch was translated first and, in view of the homogeneity
of style, as a whole.
(3) The Greek Pentateuch goes back to the first half of the 3rd century
BC; the style is akin to that of the 3rd-century papyri, and the Greek
Genesis was used by the Hellenist Demetrius toward the end of the
century.
(4) The Hebrew rolls were brought from Jerusalem.
(5) Possibly Philadelphus, the patron of literature, with his religious
impartiality, may have countenanced the work. But the assertion that it
owed its inception wholly to him and his librarian is incredible; it is
known from other sources that Demetrius Phalereus did not fill the
office of librarian under that monarch. The language is that of the
people, not a literary style suitable to a work produced under royal
patronage. The importation of Palestinian translators is likewise
fictitious. Dr. Swete acutely observes that Aristeas, in stating that the
translation was read to and welcomed by the Jewish community before
being presented to the king, unconsciously reveals its true origin. It was
no doubt produced to meet their own needs by the large Jewish colony
at Alexandria. A demand that the Law should be read in the
synagogues in a tongue understanded of the people was the
originating impulse.
712
IV. EVIDENCE OF PROLOGUE TO SIRACH.
The interesting, though in places tantalizingly obscure, prologue to
Ecclesiasticus throws light on the progress made with the translation of the
remaining Scriptures before the end of the 2nd century BC.
The translator dates his settlement in Egypt, during which he produced his
version of his grandfathers work, as the 38th year under Euergetes the
king. The words have been the subject of controversy, but, with the
majority of critics, we may interpret this to mean the 38th year of
Euergetes II, reckoning from the beginning (170 BC) of his joint reign with
Philometor, i.e. 132 BC. Euergetes I reigned for 25 years only. Others, in
view of the superfluous preposition, suppose that the age of the translator
is intended, but the cumbrous form of expression is not unparalleled. A
recent explanation of the date (Hart, Ecclesiasticus in Greek) as the 38th
year of Philadelphus which was also the 1st year of Euergetes I (i.e. 247
BC) is more ingenious than convincing.
The prologue implies the existence of a Greek version of the Law; the
Prophets and the rest of the books. The translator, craving his readers
indulgence for the imperfections of his own work, due to the difficulty of
reproducing Hebrew in Greek, adds that others have experienced the same
difficulties: The Law itself and the prophecies and the rest of the books
have no small difference when spoken in their original language. From
these words we may understand that at the time of writing (132-100 BC)
Alexandrian Jews possessed Greek versions of a large part (probably not
the whole) of the Prophets, and of some of the Writings or
Hagiographa. For some internal evidence as to the order in which the
several books were translated see VIII, below.
V. TRANSMISSION OF THE SEPTUAGINT TEXT.
The main value of the Septuagint is its witness to an older Hebrew text
than our own. But before we can reconstruct this Hebrew text we need to
have a pure Greek text before us, and this we are at present far from
possessing. The Greek text has had a long and complex history of its own.
Used for centuries by both Jews and Christians it underwent corruption
and interpolation, and, notwithstanding the multitude of materials for its
restoration, the original text has yet to be recovered. We are much more
certain of the ipsissima verba of the New Testament writers than of the
original Alexandrian version of the Old Testament. This does not apply to
713
all portions alike. The Greek Pentateuch, e.g., has survived in a relatively
pure form. But everywhere we have to be on our guard against
interpolations, sometimes extending to whole paragraphs. Not a verse is
without its array of variant readings. An indication of the amount of
mixture which has taken place is afforded by the numerous doublets or
alternative renderings of a single Hebrew word or phrase which appear side
by side in the transmitted text.
1. Early Corruption of the Text:
Textual corruption began early, before the Christian era. We have seen
indications of this in the letter of Aristeas (III, 5, (9) above). Traces of
corruption appear in Philo (e.g. his comment, in Quis Rer. Div. Her. 56, on
<011515>
Genesis 15:15, shows that already in his day tapheis, buried, had
become trapheis, nurtured, as in all our manuscripts); doublets already
exist. Similarly in the New Testament the author of Hebrews quotes
(12:15) a corrupt form of the Greek of
<052918>
Deuteronomy 29:18.
2. Official Revision of Hebrew Text circa 100 AD:
But it was not until the beginning of the 2nd century AD that the
divergence between the Greek and the Palestinian Hebrew text reached an
acute stage. One cause of this was the revision of the Hebrew text which
took place about this time. No actual record of this revision exists, but it is
beyond doubt that it originated in the rabbinical school, of which Rabbi
Akiba was the chief representative, and which had its center at Jamnia in
the years following the destruction of Jerusalem. The Jewish doctors, their
temple in ruins, concentrated their attention on the settlement of the text of
the Scriptures which remained to them. This school of eminent critics,
precursors of the Massoretes, besides settling outstanding questions
concerning the Canon, laid down strict rules for Biblical interpretation, and
in all probability established an official text.
3. Adoption of Septuagint by Christians:
But another cause widened still farther the distance between the texts of
Jerusalem and Alexandria. This was the adoption of the Septuagint by the
Christian church. When Christians began to cite the Alexandrian version in
proof of their doctrines, the Jews began to question its accuracy. Hence,
mutual recriminations which are reflected in the pages of Justins Dialogue
with Trypho. They dare to assert, says Justin (Dial., 68), that the
714
interpretation produced by your seventy elders under Ptolemy of Egypt is
in some points inaccurate. A crucial instance cited by the Jews was the
rendering virgin in
<230714>
Isaiah 7:14, where they claimed with justice that
young woman would be more accurate. Justin retaliates by charging the
Jews with deliberate excision of passages favorable to Christianity.
4. Alternative 2nd Century Greek Versions:
That such accusations should be made in those critical years was inevitable,
yet there is no evidence of any material interpolations having been
introduced by either party. But the Alexandrian version, in view of the
revised text and the new and stricter canons of interpretation, was felt by
the Jews to be inadequate, and a group of new translations of Scripture in
the 2nd century AD supplied the demand. We possess considerable
fragments of the work of three of these translators, namely, Aquila,
Symmachus and Theodotion, besides scanty remnants of further
anonymous versions
5. Aquila:
The earliest of the three was Aquila, a proselyte to Judaism, and, like his
New Testament namesake, a native of Pontus. He flourished, according to
Epiphanius (whose account of these later translators in his Deuteronomy
mens. et pond. is not wholly trustworthy), under Hadrian (117-38 AD) and
was related to that emperor; there is no, probability in Epiphanius further
statement that Hadrian entrusted to Aquila the superintendence of the
building of Aelia Capitolina on the site of Jerusalem, that there he was
converted to Christianity by Christian exiles returning from Pella, but that
refusing to abandon astrology he was excommunicated, and in revenge
turned Jew and was actuated by a bias against Christianity in his version of
the Old Testament. What is certain is that he was a pupil of the new
rabbinical school, in particular of Rabbi Akiba (95-135 AD), and that his
version was an attempt to reproduce exactly the revised official text. The
result was an extraordinary production, unparalleled in Greek literature, if
it can be classed under that category at all. No jot or tittle of the Hebrew
might be neglected; uniformity in the translation of each Hebrew word
must be preserved and the etymological kinship of different Hebrew words
represented. Such were some of his leading principles. The opening words
of his translation (
<010101>
Genesis 1:1) may be rendered: In heading rounded
God with the heavens and with the earth. Heading or summary was
715
selected because the Hebrew word for beginning was a derivative of
head. With represents an untranslatable word (eth) prefixed to the
accusative case, but indistinguishable from the preposition with. The
Divine Name (the tetragrammaton, YHWH) was not translated, but written
in archaic Hebrew characters. A slave to the letter, as Origen calls him,
his work has aptly been described by a modern writer as a colossal crib
(Burkitt, JQR, October, 1896, 207 ff). Yet it was a success. In Origens
time it was used by all Jews ignorant of Hebrew, and continued in use for
several centuries; Justinian expressly sanctioned its use in the synagogues
(Nov., 146). Its lack of style and violation of the laws of grammar were not
due to ignorance of Greek, of which the writer shows, in vocabulary at
least, a considerable command. Its importance lay and lies (so far as it is
preserved) in its exact reproduction of the rabbinical text of the 2nd
century AD; it may be regarded as the beginning of the scientific study of
the Hebrew Scriptures. Though a bold attempt to displace the
Septuagint, it cannot be charged with being intentionally antagonistic to
Christianity. Of the original work, previously known only from extracts in
manuscripts, some palimpsest fragments were recovered from the Cairo
Genizah in 1897 and edited by F. C. Burkitt (Fragments of the Books of
Kings, 1897) and by C. Taylor (Sayings of the Jewish Fathers2, 1897;
Hebrew-Greek Cairo Genizah Palimpsests, 1900). The student of Swetes
Old Testament will trace Aquilas unmistakable style in the footnotes to the
Books of Samuel and Kings; the older and shorter B text in those books
has constantly been supplemented in the A text from Aquila. A longer
specimen of his work occurs in the Greek Ecclesiastes, which has no claim
to be regarded as Septuagint; Jerome refers to a second edition of
Aquilas version, and the Greek Ecclesiastes is perhaps his first edition of
that book, made on the basis of an unrevised Hebrew text (McNeile,
Introduction to Ecclesiastes, Cambridge, 1904, App. I). The suggested
identification of Aquila with Onkelos, author of the Targum of that name,
has not been generally accepted.
6. Theodotion:
Epiphanius account of the dates and history of Theodotion and
Symmachus is untrustworthy. He seems to have reversed their order,
probably misled by the order of the translations, in the columns of the
Hexapla (see below). He also apparently confused Aquila and Theodotion
in calling the latter a native of Pontus. As regards date, Theodotion, critics
are agreed, preceded Symmachus and probably flourished under M.
716
Aurelius (161-80), whereas Symmachus lived under Commodus (180-92);
Irenaeus mentions only the versions of Aquila and Theodotion, and that of
Symmachus had in his day either not been produced or at least not widely
circulated. According to the more credible account of Irenaeus,
Theodotion was an Ephesian and a convert to Judaism. His version
constantly agrees with the Septuagint and was rather a revision of it, to
bring it into accord with the current Hebrew text, than an independent
work. The supplementing of lacunae in the Septuagint (due partly to the
fact that the older version of some books did not aim at completeness)
gave scope for greater originality. These lacunae were greatest in Job and
his version of that book was much longer than the Septuagint. The text of
Job printed in Swetes edition is a patchwork of old and new; the careful
reader may detect the Theodotion portions by transliterations and other
peculiarities. Long extracts from Theodotion are preserved in codex Q in
Jeremiah. As regards the additional matter contained in Septuagint,
Theodotion was inconsistent; he admitted, e.g., the additions to Daniel
(Sus, Bel and the Dragon, and the Song of Three Children), but did not
apparently admit the non-canonical books as a whole. The church adopted
his Daniel in place of the inadequate Septuagint version, which has
survived in only one Greek manuscript; but the date when the change took
place is unknown and the early history of the two Greek texts is obscure.
Theodotions renderings have been found in writings before his time
(including the New Testament), and it is reasonably conjectured that even
before the 2nd century AD the Septuagint text had been discarded and that
Theodotions version is but a working over of an older alternative version
Theodotion is free from the barbarisms of Aquila, but is addicted to
transliteration, i.e. the reproduction of Hebrew words in Greek letters: His
reasons for this habit are not always clear; ignorance of Hebrew will not
account for all (compare VIII, 1, (5), below).
7. Symmachus and Others:
Beside the two versions produced by, and primarily intended for, Jews was
a third, presumably to meet the needs of a Jewish Christian sect who were
dissatisfied with the Septuagint. Symmachus, its author, was, according to
the more trustworthy account, an Ebionite, who also wrote a commentary
on Matthew, a copy of which was given to Origen by Juliana, a lady who
received it from its author (Euseb., HE, VI, 17). Epiphanius description of
him as a Samaritan convert to Judaism may be rejected. The date of his
work, as above stated, was probably the reign of Commodus (180-192
717
AD). In one respect the version resembled Aquilas, in its faithful
adherence to the sense of the current Hebrew text; its style, however,
which was flowing and literary, was a revolt against Aquilas monstrosities.
It seems to have been a recasting of Aquilas version, with free use of both
Septuagint and Theodotion. It carried farther a tendency apparent in the
Septuagint to refine away the anthropomorphisms of the Old Testament.
Of three other manuscripts discovered by Origen (one at Nicopolis in
Greece, one at Jericho) and known from their position in the Hexapla as
Quinta, Sexta, and Septima, little is known. There is no reason to suppose
that they embraced the whole Old Testament. Quinta is characterized by
Field as the most elegant of the Greek versions F.C. Burkitt has discussed
the so-called Quinta of 4 Kings in PSBA, June, 1902. The Christian
origin of Sexta betrays itself in
<350313>
Habakkuk 3:13 (Thou wentest forth to
save thy people for the sake of (or by) Jesus thy anointed One).
8. Origen and the Hexapla:
These later versions play a large part in the history of the text of the
Septuagint. This is due to the labors of the greatest Septuagint scholar of
antiquity, the celebrated Origen of Alexandria, whose active life covers the
first half of the 3rd century. Origen frankly recognized, and wished
Christians to recognize, the merits of the later VSS, and the divergences
between the Septuagint and the current Hebrew. He determined to provide
the church with the materials for ascertaining the true text and meaning of
the Old Testament. With this object he set himself to learn Hebrew a
feat probably unprecedented among non-Jewish Christians of that time
and to collect the later versions The idea of using these versions to amend
the Septuagint seemed to him an inspiration: By the gift of God we found
a remedy for the divergence in the copies of the Old Testament, namely to
use the other editions as a criterion (Commentary on
<401514>
Matthew 15:14).
The magnum opus in which he embodied the results of his labors was
known as the Hexapla or six-column edition. This stupendous work has
not survived; a fragment was discovered toward the end of the 19th
century in the Ambrosian Library at Milan (Swete, Introduction, 61 ff) and
another among the Cairo Genizah palimpsests (ed C. Taylor, Cambridge,
1900). The material was arranged in six parallel columns containing
(1) the current Hebrew text,
(2) the same in Greek letters,
718
(3) the version of Aquila,
(4) that of Symmachus,
(5) that of the Septuagint,
(6) that of Theodotion. The text was broken up into short clauses; not
more than two words, usually one only, stood in the first column. The
order of the columns doubtless represents the degree of conformity to
the Hebrew; Aquilas, as the most faithful, heads the VSS, and
Symmachus is on the whole a revision of Aquila as Theodotions is of
the Septuagint. But Origen was not content with merely collating the
VSS; his aim was to revise the Septuagint and the 5th column exhibited
his revised text. The basis of it was the current Alexandrian text of the
3rd century AD; this was supplemented or corrected where necessary
by the other versions Origen, however, deprecated alteration of a text
which had received ecclesiastical sanction, without some indication of
its extent, and the construction of the 5th column presented difficulties.
There were
(1) numerous cases of words or paragraphs contained in the Septuagint
but not in the Hebrew, which could not be wholly rejected,
(2) cases of omission from the Septuagint of words in the Hebrew,
(3) cases of paraphrase and minor divergences,
(4) variations in the order of words or chapters. Origen here had
recourse to a system of critical signs, invented and employed by the
grammarian Aristarchus (3rd century BC) in his edition of Homer.
Passages of the first class were left in the text, but had prefixed to them
an obelus, a sign of which the original form was a spit or spear, but
figuring in Septuagint manuscripts as a horizontal line usually with a
dot above and a dot below; there are other varieties also. The sign in
Aristarchus indicated censure, in the Hexapla the doubtful authority of
the words which followed. The close of the obelized passage was
marked by the metobelus, a colon (:), or, in the Syriac VSS, shaped
like a mallet. Passages missing in the Septuagint were supplied from
one of the other versions (Aquila or Theodotion), the beginning of the
extract being marked by an asterisk a sign used by Aristarchus to
express special approval the close, by the metobelus. Where
Septuagint and Hebrew widely diverged, Origen occasionally gave two
719
VSS, that of a later translator under an asterisk, that of Septuagint
obelized. Divergence in order was met by transposition, the Hebrew
order being followed; in Proverbs, however, the two texts kept their
respective order, the discrepancy being indicated by a combination of
signs. Minor supposed or real corruptions in the Greek were tacitly
corrected. Origen produced a minor edition, the Tetrapla, without the
first two columns of the larger work. The Heptapla and Octapla,
occasionally mentioned, appear to be alternative names given to the
Hexapla at points where the number of columns was increased to
receive other fragmentary versions. This gigantic work, which
according to a reasonable estimate must have filled 5,000 leaves, was
probably never copied in extenso. The original was preserved for some
centuries in the library of Pamphilus at Caesarea; there it was studied
by Jerome, and thither came owners of Biblical manuscripts to collate
their copies with it, as we learn from some interesting notes in our
uncial manuscripts (e.g. a 7th-century note appended to Esther in
codex S). The Library probably perished circa 638 AD, when Caesarea
fell into the hands of the Saracens.
9. Hexaplaric Manuscripts:
But, though the whole work was too vast to be copied, it was a simple task
to copy the 5th column. This task was performed, partly in prison, by
Pamphilus, a martyr in the Diocletian persecution, and his friend Eusebius,
the great bishop of Caesarea. Copies of the Hexaplaric Septuagint, i.e.
Origens doctored text with the critical signs and perhaps occasional notes,
were, through the initiative of these two, widely circulated in Palestine in
the 4th century. Naturally, however, the signs became unintelligible in a
text detached from the parallel columns which explained them; scribes
neglected them, and copies of the doctored text, lacking the precautionary
symbols, were multiplied. This carelessness has wrought great confusion;
Origen is, through others fault, indirectly responsible for the production of
manuscripts in which the current Septuagint text and the later versions are
hopelessly mixed. No manuscripts give the Hexaplaric text as a whole, and
it is preserved in a relatively pure form in very few: the uncials G and M
(Pentatruch and some historical books), the cursives 86 and 88 (Prophets).
Other so-called Hexaplaric manuscripts, notably codex Q (Marchalianus:
Proph.) preserve fragments of the 5th and of the other columns of the
Hexapla. (For the Syro-Hexaplar see below, VI, 1.) Yet, even did we
possess the 5th column entire, with the complete apparatus of signs, we
720
should not have the original Septuagint, but merely, after removing the
asterisked passages, a text current in the 3rd century. The fact has to be
emphasized that Origens gigantic work was framed on erroneous
principles. He assumed
(1) the purity of the current Hebrew text,
(2) the corruption of the current Septuagint text where it deviated from
the Hebrew. The modern critic recognizes that the Septuagint on the
whole presents the older text, the divergences of which from the
Hebrew are largely attributable to an official revision of the latter early
in the Christian era. He recognizes also that in some books (e.g. Job)
the old Greek version was only a partial one. To reconstruct the
original text he must therefore have recourse to other auxiliaries beside
Origen.
10. Recensions Known to Jerome:
Such assistance is partly furnished by two other recensions made in the
century after Origen. Jerome (Praef. in Paralipp.; compare Adv. Ruf., ii.27)
states that in the 4th century three recensions circulated in different parts of
the Christian world: Alexandria and Egypt in their Septuagint acclaim
Hesychius as their authority, the region from Constantinople to Antioch
approves the copies of Lucian the martyr, the intermediate Palestinian
provinces read the manuscripts which were promulgated by Eusebius and
Pamphilus on the basis of Origens labors, and the whole world is divided
between these three varieties of text.
11. Hesychian Recension:
Hesychius is probably to be identified with the martyr bishop mentioned by
Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, VIII, 13) along with another scholar
martyr, Phileas bishop of Thmuis, and it is thought that these two were
engaged in prison in revising the Egyptian text at the time when Pamphilus
and Eusebius were employed on a similar task under similar conditions.
How far existing manuscripts preserve the Hesychian recension is
uncertain; agreement of their text with that of Egyptian versions and
Fathers (Cyril in particular) is the criterion. For the Prophets Ceriani has
identified codex Q and its kin as Hesychian. For the Octateuch N. McLean
(JTS, II, 306) finds the Hesychian text in a group of cursives, 44, 74, 76,
84, 106, 134, etc. But the first installments of the larger Cambridge
721
Septuagint raise the question whether Codex B (Vaticanus) may not itself
be Hesychian; its text is more closely allied to that of Cyril Alex. than to
any other patristic text, and the consensus of these two witnesses against
the rest is sometimes (
<023214>
Exodus 32:14) curiously striking. In the Psalter
also Rahlfs (Septuaginta-Studien, 2. Heft, 1907, 235) traces the Hesychian
text in B and partially in Codex Sinaiticus. Compare von Sodens theory
for the New Testament.
See TEXT AND MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
12. Lucianic Recension:
The Lucianic recension was the work of another martyr, Lucian of Antioch
(died 311-12), probably with the collaboration of the Hebraist Dorotheus.
There are, as Hort has shown, reasons for associating Lucian with a
Syrian revision of the New Testament in the 4th century, which became
the dominant type of text. That he produced a Syrian recension of the
Greek Old Testament is expressly stated by Jerome, and we are moreover
able with considerable certainty to identify the extant manuscripts which
exhibit it. The identification, due to Field and Lagarde, rests on these
grounds:
(1) certain verses in 2 Kings are in the Arabic Syro-Hexaplar marked
with the letter L, and a note explains that the letter indicates Lucianic
readings;
(2) the readings so marked occur in the cursives 19, 82, 93, 108, 118;
(3) these manuscripts in the historical books agree with the Septuagint
citations of the Antiochene Fathers Chrysostom and Theodoret. This
clue enabled Lagarde to construct a Lucianic text of the historical
books (Librorum Vet. Test. canonic. pars prior, Gottingen, 1883); his
death prevented the completion of the work. Lagardes edition is
vitiated by the fact that he does not quote the readings of the individual
manuscripts composing the group, and it can be regarded only as an
approximate reconstruction of Lucian. It is evident, however, that
the Lucianic Septuagint possessed much the same qualities as the
Syrian revision of the New Testament; lucidity and completeness were
the main objects. It is a full text, the outcome of a desire to include,
so far as possible, all recorded matter; doublets are consequently
numerous. While this conflation of texts detracts from its value, the
722
Lucianic revision gains importance from the fact that the sources from
which it gleaned include an element of great antiquity which needs to
be disengaged; where it unites with the Old Latin version against all
other authorities its evidence is invaluable.
VI. RECONSTRUCTION OF SEPTUAGINT TEXT; VERSIONS,
MANUSCRIPTS AND PRINTED EDITIONS.
The task of restoring the original text is beset with difficulties. The
materials (MSS, VSS, patristic citations) are abundant, but none has
escaped mixture, and the principles for reconstruction are not yet
securely established (Swete, Introduction, I, iv-vi; III, vi).
1. Ancient Versions Made from Septuagint:
Among the chief aids to restoration are the daughter versions made from
the Septuagint, and above all the Old Latin (pre-Hieronymian) version, for
the earliest (African) Old Latin version dates from the 2nd century AD, i.e.
before Origen, and contains a text from which the asterisked passages in
Hexaplaric manuscripts are absent; it thus brings us the best independent
proof we have that the Hexaplar signs introduced by Origen can be relied
on for the reconstruction of the LXX (Burkitt). The Old Latin also
enables us to recognize the ancient element in the Lucianic recension. But
the Latin evidence itself is by no means unanimous. Augustine
(Deuteronomy Doctr. Christ., ii.16) speaks of the infinite variety of Latin
VSS; though they may ultimately prove all to fall into two main families,
African and European. Peter Sabatiers collection of patristic quotations
from the Old Latin is still useful, though needing verification by recent
editions of the Fathers. Of Old Latin manuscripts one of the most
important is the codex Lugdunensis, edited by U. Robert (Pentateuchi e
codex Lugd. versio Latin antiquissima, Paris, 1881; Heptateuchi partis
post. versio Latin antiq. e codex Lugd., Lyons, 1900). The student should
consult also Burkitts edition of The Rules of Tyconius (Texts and
Studies, III, 1, Cambridge, 1894) and The Old Latin and the Itala (ibid.,
IV, 3, 1896).
Jeromes Vulgate is mainly a direct translation from the Hebrew, but the
Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) Psalter, the so-called
Gallican, is one of Jeromes two revisions of the Old Latin, not his later
version from the Hebrew, and some details in our Prayer-book Psalter are
ultimately derived through the Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405
723
A.D.) Psalter from the Septuagint. Parts of the Apocrypha (Wisdom,
Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees) are also pure Old Latin,
untouched by Jerome.
The early date (2nd century AD) once claimed for the Egyptian or Coptic
versions (Bohairic, i.e. in the dialect of Lower Egypt, Sahidic or Upper
Egyptian and Middle Egyptian) has not been confirmed by later researches,
at least as regards the first-named, which is probably not earlier than the
3rd or 4th century AD. Rahlfs (Sept-Studien, II, 1907) identifies the
Bohairic Psalter as the Hesychian recension. The Sahidic version of Job has
fortunately preserved the shorter text lacking the later insertions from
Theodotion (Lagarde, Mittheilungen, 1884, 204); this does not
conclusively prove that it is pre-Origenic; it may be merely a Hexaplaric
text with the asterisked passages omitted (Burkitt, EB, IV, 5027). The
influence bf the Hexapla is traceable elsewhere in this version
The Ethiopic version was made in the main from the Greek and in part at
least from an early text; Rahlfs (Sept. Stud., I, 1904) considers its text of
S-K, with that of codex B, to be pre-Origenic.
The Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) or Peshitta Syriac
version was made from the Hebrew, though partly influenced by the
Septuagint. But another Syriac version is of primary importance for the
Septuagint text, namely, that of Paul, bishop of Tella (Constantine in
Mesopotamia), executed at Alexandria in 616-17 and known as the Syro-
Hexaplar. This is a bald Syriac version of the Septuagint column of the
Hexapla, containing the Hexaplar signs. A manuscript of the poetical and
prophetical books is in the Ambrosian Library at Milan and has been edited
by Ceriani (Monumenta sacra et profana, 1874); fragments of the historical
books are also extant (Lagarde and Rahlfs, Bibliothecae Syriacae,
Gottingen, 1892). This version supplements the Greek Hexaplaric
manuscripts and is the principal authority for Origens text. For the original
version of Daniel, which has survived in only one late MS, the Syro-
Hexaplar supplies a second and older authority of great value.
The Armenian version (ascribed to the 5th century) also owes its value to
its extreme literalness; its text of the Octateuch is largely Hexaplaric.
A bare mention must suffice of the Arabic version (of which the
prophetical and poetical books, Job excluded, were rendered from the
Septuagint); the fragments of the Gothic version (made from the Lucianic
724
recension), and the Slavonic (partly from Septuagint, also Lucianic) and
the Georgian versions.
2. Manuscripts:
For a full description of the Greek manuscripts see Swete, Introduction, I,
chapter V. They are divided according to their script (capitals or
minuscules) into uncials and cursives, the former ranging from the 4th
century (four papyrus scraps go back to the 3rd century; Nestle in Hauck-
Herzog, Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche,
XXIII, 208) to the 10th century AD, the latter from the 9th to the 16th
century AD. Complete Bibles are few; the majority contain groups of
books only, such as the Pentateuch, Octateuch (Gen-Ruth), the later
historical books, the Psalter, the 3 or 5 Solomonic books, the Prophets
(major, minor or both). Uncials are commonly denoted by capital letters (in
the edition of Holmes and Parsons by Roman figures); cursives, of which
over 300 are known, by Arabic figures; in the larger Cambridge Septuagint
the selected cursives are denoted by small Roman letters.
The following are the chief uncials containing, or which once contained,
the whole Bible: B (Vaticanus, at Rome, 4th century AD), adopted as the
standard text in all recent editions; Codex Sinaiticus, at Petersburg and
Leipzig, 4th century AD), discovered by Tischendorf in 1844 and
subsequent years in Catherines Convent, Mt. Sinai; A (Alexandrinus,
British Museum, probably 5th century AD); C (Ephraemi rescriptus, Paris,
probably 5th century), a palimpsest, the older Biblical matter underlying a
medieval Greek text of works of Ephrem the Syrian. For the Octateuch and
historical books: D (Cottonianus, British Museum, probably 5th or 6th
century), fragments of an illuminated Gen, the bulk of which perished in a
fire at Ashburnham House in 1731, but earlier collations of Grabe and
others are extant, which for the lost portions are cited in the Cambridge
texts as D (Dsil, i.e. silet Grabius, denotes an inference from Grabes
silence that the manuscript did not contain a variant); F (Ambro-sianus,
Milan, 4th to 5th century), fragments of the Octateuch; G (Sarravianus,
fragments at Leyden, Paris and Petersburg, 4th to 5th century), important
as containing an Origenic text with the Hexaplar signs; L (Purpureus
Vindobonensis, Vienna, 5th to 6th century), fragments of an illuminated
manuscript Genesis on purple vellum; M (Coislinianus, Paris, 7th century),
important on account of its marginal Hexaplaric matter. For the Prophets,
Q (Marchalianus, Rome, 6th century) is valuable, both for its text, which is
725
Hesychian (see above), and for its abundant marginal Hexaplaric matter.
A curious mixture of uncial and cursive writing occurs in E (Bodleianus,
probably 10th century), fragments of the historical books (to 3 R 16 28)
preserved at Oxford, Cambridge (1 leaf), Petersburg and London;
Tischendorf, who brought the manuscript from the East, retained the tell-
tale Cambridge leaf, on which the transition from uncial to cursive script
occurs, until his death. The long-concealed fact that the scattered
fragments were part of a single manuscript came to light through Swetes
identification of the Cambridge leaf as a continuation of the Bodleian
fragment. Many of the cursives still await investigation, as do also the
lectionaries. The latter, though the manuscripts are mainly late, should
repay study. The use of the Septuagint for lectionary purposes was
inherited by the church from the synagogue, and the course of lessons may
partly represent an old system; light may also be expected from them on
the local distribution of various types of text.
3. Printed Texts:
Of the printed text the first four editions were
(1) the Complutensian Polyglot of Cardinal Ximenes, 1514-17,
comprising the Greek, Hebrew and Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible,
390-405 A.D.) texts, the last in the middle place of honor being
compared to Jesus in the midst between the two thieves (!). The Greek
was based on manuscripts from the Vatican and one from Venice; it
exhibits on the whole the Lucianic recension, as the Hesychian is by a
curious coincidence represented in
(2) the Aldine edition of 1518, based on Venetian manuscripts.
(3) The monumental Sixtine edition, published at Rome in 1586 under
the auspices of Pope Sixtus V and frequently reprinted, was mainly
based on the codex Vaticanus, the superiority of which text is justly
recognized in the interesting preface (printed in Swetes Intro).
(4) The English edition (Oxford, 1707-20) begun by Grabe (died 1712)
was based on the codex Alexandrinus, with aid from other manuscripts,
and had the peculiarity that he employed Origens critical signs and
different sizes of type to show the divergence between the Greek and
the Hebrew. Of more recent editions three are preeminent.
726
(5) The great Oxford edition of Holmes and Parsons (Oxford, 1798-
1827, 5 volumes, folio) was the first attempt to bring together in a
gigantic apparatus criticus all the evidence of uncial and cursire
manuscripts (upward of 300), versions and early Citations from Philo
and Josephus onward. As a monumental storehouse of materials H.
and P. will not be wholly superseded by the latest edition now (1913)
in preparation.
(6) The serviceable Cambridge manual, edition of Swete (lst edition
1887-94, edition 3, 1901-7, 3 volumes, 8vo), is in the hands of all
serious Septuagint students. The text is that of B, or (where B fails) of
A, and the apparatus contains the readings of the principal uncial
manuscripts. New materials discovered since the edition of H. and P.,
especially codex S, are employed, and greater accuracy in the
presentation of the other evidence has been made possible by
photography. The fact that the text here printed is but a provisional one
is sometimes overlooked. Swetes edition was designed as a precursor
to
(7) the larger Cambridge Septuagint, of which three installments
embracing the Pentateuch have (1913) appeared (The Old Testament in
Greek, edition A.E. Brooke and N. McLean, Cambridge, 1911 pt. III.
Numbers and Deuteronomy). The text is a reprint of Swetes except
that from Exodus onward a few alterations of errors in the primary
manuscript have been corrected, a delicate task in which the editors
have rejected a few old readings without sufficient regard to the
peculiarities of Hellenistic Greek. The importance of the work lies in its
apparatus, which presents the readings of all the uncials, versions and
early citations, and those of a careful representative selection of the
cursives. The materials of H (Law of Holiness, Lev. 17 through 26)
and P (the Priestly Code) are brought up to date and presented in a
more reliable and convenient form. Besides these there is
(8) Lagardes reconstruction of the Lucianic recension of the historical
books, which, as stated, must be used with caution (see above)
4. Reconstruction of Original Text:
The task of reconstructing the Oldest text is still unaccomplished. Materials
have accumulated, and much preliminary spade-work has been done, by
Lagarde in particular (see his axioms in Swete, Introduction, 484, ff) and
727
more recently by Nestle and Rahlfs; but the principles which the editor
must follow are not yet finally determined. The extent to which mixture
has affected the documents is the stumbling-block. Clearly no single
Moabite Stone presents the oldest text. That of codex B, as in the New
Testament, is on the whole the purest. In the 4 books of Reigns (1
Samuel through 2 Kings), e.g., it has escaped the grosser interpolations
found in most manuscripts, and Rahlfs (Sept.-Studien, I, 1904) regards its
text as pre-Origenic. It is, however, of unequal value and by no means an
infallible guide; in Judges, e.g., its text is undoubtedly late, no earlier than
the 4th century AD, according to one authority (Moore, Jgs, ICC). In
relation to two of the 4th-century recensions its text is neutral, neither
predominantly Lucianic nor Hexaplaric; but it has been regarded by some
authorities as Hesychian. Possibly the recension made in the country which
produced the Septuagint adhered more closely than others to the primitive
text; some Hesychian features in the B text may prove to be original. Still
even its purest portions contain marks of editorial revision and patent
corruptions. Codex Alexandrinus presents a quite different type of text,
approximating to that of the Massoretic Text. In the books of Reigns it is
practically a Hexaplaric text without the critical signs, the additional matter
being mainly derived from Aquila. Yet that it contains an ancient element is
shown by the large support given to its readings by the New Testament and
early Christian writers. Individual manuscripts must give place to groups.
In order to reconstruct the texts current before Origens time, it is
necessary to isolate the groups containing the three 4th-century recensions,
and to eliminate from the recensions thus recovered all Hexaplaric matter
and such changes as appear to have been introduced by the authors of
those recensions. Other groups brought to light by the larger Cambridge
text have also to be taken into account. The attempt to Renetrate into the
earlier stages of the history is the hardest task. The Old Latin version is
here the surest guide; it has preserved readings which have disappeared
from all Greek manuscripts, and affords a criterion as to the relative
antiquity of the Greek variants. The evidence of early Christian and Jewish
citations is also valuable. Ultimately, after elimination of all readings
proved to be recensional or late, the decision between outstanding
variants must depend on internal evidence. These variants will fall into two
classes:
(1) those merely affecting the Greek text, by far the larger number and
presenting less difficulty;
728
(2) those which imply a different Hebrew text. In adjudicating on the
latter Lagardes main axioms have to be borne in mind, that a free
translation is to be preferred to a slavishly literal one, and a translation
presupposing another Hebrew original to one based on the Massoretic
Text.
VII. NUMBER, TITLES AND ORDER OF BOOKS.
1. Contents:
In addition to the Hebrew canonical books, the Septuagint includes all the
books in the English Apocrypha except 2 Esdras (The Prayer of Manasseh
only finds a place among the canticles appended in some manuscripts to the
Psalms) besides a 3rd and 4th book of Maccabees. Swete further includes
in his text as an appendix of Greek books on the borderland of canonicity
the Psalm of Sol (found in some cursives and mentioned in the list in codex
A), the Greek fragments of the Book of Enoch and the ecclesiastical
canticles above mentioned. Early Christian writers in quoting freely from
these additional books as Scripture doubtless perpetuate a tradition
inherited from the Jews of Alexandria. Most of the books being original
Greek compositions were ipso facto excluded from a place in the Hebrew
Canon. Greater latitude as regards canonicity prevailed at Alexandria; the
Pentateuch occupied a place apart, but as regards later books no very sharp
line of demarcation between canonical and uncanonical appears to
have been drawn.
2. Titles:
Palestinian Jews employed the first word or words of each book of the
Pentateuch to serve as its title; Genesis e.g. was denoted in the
beginning, Exodus (and these are the) names; a few of the later books
have similar titles. It is to the Septuagint, through the medium of the Latin
VSS, that we owe the familiar descriptive titles, mostly suggested by
phrases in the Greek version. In some books there are traces of rival titles
in the Ptolemaic age. Exodus (outgoing) is also called Exagoge (leading
out) by Philo and by the Hellenist Ezekiel who gave that name to his
drama on the deliverance from Egypt. Philo has also alternative names for
Deuteronomy Epinomis (after-law) borrowed from the title of a
pseudo-Platonic treatise, and for Judgess the Book of Judgments. The
last title resembles the Alexandrian name for the books of Samuel and
Kings, namely, the four Books of Kingdoms or rather Reigns; the name
729
may have been given in the first place to a partial version including only the
reigns of the first few monarchs. Jeromes influence in this case restored
the old Hebrew names as also in Chronicles (= Hebrew Words of Days,
Diaries), which in the Septuagint is entitled Paraleipomena, omissions,
as being a supplement to the Books of Reigns.
3. Bipartition of Books:
Another innovation, due apparently to the Greek translators or later
editors, was the breaking up of some of the long historical narratives into
volumes of more manageable compass. In the Hebrew manuscripts,
Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah form respectively one book
apiece. In the Septuagint the first three of these collections are subdivided
into two volumes as in modern Bibles; an acquaintance with the other
arrangement is, however, indicated in Codex B by the insertion at the end
of 1 R, 3 R, 1 Chronicles of the first sentence of the succeeding book, a
reminder to the reader that a continuation is to follow. Ezra-Nehemiah, the
Greek version (2 Esdras) being made under the influence of Palestinian
tradition, remains undivided. Originally Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah formed
a unit, as was apparently still the case when the oldest Greek version (1
Esdras) was made.
4. Grouping and Order of Books:
In the arrangement of books there is a radical departure from Palestinian
practice. There were three main unalterable divisions in the Hebrew Bible,
representing three stages in the formation of the Canon: Law, Prohets
Former i.e. Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Latter) and
Writings. This arrangement was known at Alexandria at the end of the
2nd century BC (Sir, prol.) but was not followed. The Writings were a
miscellaneous collection of history and poetry with one prophetical book
(Daniel). Alexandrian scholars introduced a more literary and symmetrical
system, bringing together the books of each class and arranging them with
some regard to the supposed chronological order of their authors. The
Law, long before the Greek translation, had secured a position of supreme
sanctity; this group was left undisturbed, it kept its precedence and the
individual books their order (Leviticus and Numbers, however, exchange
places in a few lists). The other two groups are broken up. Ruth is
removed from the Writings and attached to Judges. Chronicles and Ezra-
Nehemiah are similarly transferred to the end of the historical group. This
730
group, from chronological considerations, is followed by the poetical and
other Writings, the Prophets coming last (so in Codex Vaticanus, etc.; in
Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus, prophets precede poets). The
internal order of the Greek Hagiographa, which includes quasi-historical
(Esther, Tobit, Judith) and Wisdom books, is variable. Daniel now first
finds a place among the Prophets. The 12 minor prophets usually precede
the major (Codex Sinaiticus and Western authorities give the four
precedence), and the order of the first half of their company is shuffled,
apparently on chronological grounds, Hosea being followed by Amos,
Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Jeremiah has his train of satellites, Baruch,
Lamentation (transferred from the Writings) and Epistle of Jeremiah;
Susanna and Bel and the Dragon consort with and form integral parts of
Daniel. Variation in the order of books is partly attributable to the practice
of writing each book on a separate papyrus roll, kept in a cylindrical case;
rolls containing kindred matter would tend to be placed in the same case,
but there would be no fixed order for these separate items until the copying
of large groups in book-form came into vogue (Swete, Introduction, 225 f,
229 f).
VIII. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VERSION AND ITS
COMPONENT PARTS.
Notwithstanding the uncertain state of the text, some general
characteristics of the version are patent. It is clear that, like the Hebrew
itself, it is not a single book, but a library. It is a series of versions and
Greek compositions covering well-nigh 400 years, since it includes a few
productions of the 2nd century AD; the bulk of the translations, however,
fall within the first half of the period (Sirach, prolegomena).
1. Grouping of Septuagint Books on Internal Evidence:
The translations may be grouped and their chronological order
approximately determined from certain characteristics of their style.
(1) We may inquire how a Hebrew word or phrase is rendered in
different parts of the work. Diversity of renderings is not an infallible
proof that different hands have been employed, since invariable
uniformity in translation is difficult of attainment and indeed was not
the aim of the Pentateuch translators, who seem rather to have studied
variety of expression. If, however, a Hebrew word is consistently
rendered by one Greek word in one portion and by another elsewhere,
731
and if each of the two portions has other features peculiar to itself, it
becomes highly probable that the two portions are the work of different
schools. Among test-words which yield results of this kind are
servant in Moses the servant of the Lord, Hosts in Lord of
Hosts, Philistines (Swete, Introduction, 317 f; Thackeray, Grammar
of the Old Testament, 7 ff).
(2) We may compare the Greek with that of dated documents of the
Ptolemaic age. The translations were written in the koine or common
Greek, most of them in the vernacular variety of it, during a period
when this new cosmopolitan language was in the making; the abundant
dated papyri enable us to trace some stages in its evolution. The Petrie
and Hibeh papyri of the 3rd century BC afford the closest parallels to
the Greek Pentateuch. The following century witnessed a considerable
development or degeneracy in the language, of which traces may be
found in the Greek of the prophetical books. Beside the vernacular
Greek was the literary language of the Atticistic school which
persistently struggled, with indifferent success, to recover the literary
flavor of the old Greek masterpieces. This style is represented in the
Septuagint by most of the original Greek writings and by the
paraphrases of some of the Writings.
(3) We may compare the Greek books as translations, noting in which
books Iicense is allowed and which adhere strictly to the Hebrew. The
general movement is in the direction of greater literalism; the later
books show an increasing reverence for the letter of Scripture, resulting
in the production of pedantically literal VSS; the tendency culminated
in the 2nd century AD in the barbarisms of Aquila. Some of the
Writings were freely handled, because they had not yet obtained
canonical rank at the time of translation. Investigation on these lines
goes to show that the order of the translation was approximately that
of the Hebrew Canon. The Greek Hexateuch may be placed in the 3rd
century BC, the Prophets mainly in the 2nd century BC, the Writings
mainly in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC.
(1) The Hexateuch.
The Greek Pentateuch should undoubtedly be regarded as a unit: the
Aristeas story may so far be credited. It is distinguished by a uniformly high
level of the common vernacular style, combined with faithfulness to the
732
Hebrew, rarely lapsing into literalism. It set the standard which later
translators tried to imitate. The text was more securely established in this
portion and substantial variant readings are comparatively few. The latter
part of Exodus is an exception; the Hebrew had here not reached its final
form in the 3rd century BC, and there is some reason for thinking that the
version is not the work of the translator of the first half. In Deuteronomy a
few new features in vocabulary appear (e.g. ekklesia; see Hort, Christian
Ecclesia, 4 ff). The Greek version of Josephus forms a link between the
Pentateuch and the later historical books. The text was not yet fixed, and
variants are more abundant than in the Pentateuch. The earliest VS,
probably of selections only, appears from certain common features to have
been nearly coeval with that of the Law.
(2) The Latter Prophets.
There is little doubt that the next books to be translated were the Prophets
in the narrower sense, and that Isaiah came first. The style of the Greek
Isaiah has a close similarity, not wholly attributable to imitation, to that of
the Pentateuch: a certain freedom of treatment connects it with the earlier
translation period: it was known to the author of Wisdom (
<230310>
Isaiah 3:10
with Ottleys note). The translation shows obvious signs of
incompetence (Swete), but the task was an exacting one. The local
Egyptian coloring in the translation is interesting (R. R. Ottley, Book of
Isaiah according to the Septuagint, 2 volumes, Greek text of A, translation
and notes, Cambridge, 1904-6, with review in JTS, X, 299). Jeremiah,
Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets were probably translated en bloc or nearly
so. The Palestinian Canon had now been enlarged by a second group of
Scriptures and this stimulated a desire among Alexandrian Jews to possess
the entire collection of the Prophets in Greek. The undertaking seems to
have been a formal and quasi-official one, not a haphazard growth. For it
has been ascertained that Jeremiah and Ezekiel were divided for translation
purposes into two nearly equal parts; a change in the Greek style occurs at
the junctures. In Jeremiah the break occurs in chapter 29 Septuagint
order); the clearest criterion of the two styles is the twofold rendering of
Thus saith the Lord. The last chapter (Jeremiah 52) is probably a later
addition in the Greek. The translator of the second half of Jeremiah also
translated the first half of Baruch (1:1-3:8); he was incompetent and his
work, if our text may be relied on, affords flagrant examples of Greek
words being selected to render words which he did not understand merely
because of their similar sound. Ezekiel is similarly divided, but here the
733
translator of the first half (chapters 1 through 27) undertook the difficult
last quarter as well (chapters 40 through 48), the remainder being left to a
second worker. An outstanding test is afforded by the renderings of the
refrain, They shall know that I am the Lord. The Greek version of the
twelve shows no trace of a similar division; in its style it is closely akin to
the first half of Ezekiel and is perhaps by the same hand (JTS, IV, 245,
398, 578). But this official version of the Prophets had probably been
preceded by versions of short passages selected to be read on the festivals
in the synagogues. Lectionary requirements occasioned the earliest
versions of the Prophets, possibly of the Pentateuch as well. Two
indications of this have been traced. There exists in four manuscripts a
Greek version of the Psalm of Habakkuk (Habakkuk 3), a chapter which
has been a Jewish lesson for Pentecost from the earliest times, independent
of and apparently older than the Septuagint and made for synagogue use.
Similarly in Ezekiel of the Septuagint there is a section of sixteen verses
(36:24-38) with a style quite distinct from that of its context. This passage
was also an early Christian lesson for Pentecost, and its lectionary use was
inherited from Judaism. Here the Septuagint translators seem to have
incorporated the older version, whereas in Habakkuk 3 they rejected it
(JTS, XII, 191; IV, 407).
(3) Partial Version of the Former Prophets.
The Greek style indicates that the history of the monarchy was not all
translated at once. Ulfilas is said to have omitted these books from the
Gothic version as likely to inflame the military temper of his race; for
another reason the Greek translators were at first content with a partial
version. They omitted as unedifying the more disastrous portions, Davids
sin with the subsequent calamities of his reign and the later history of the
divided monarchy culminating in the captivity. Probably the earliest
versions embraced only
(1) 1 R,
(2) 2 R 1 1 through 11 1 (Davids early reign),
(3) 3 R 2 12 through 21 13 (Solomon and the beginning of the divided
monarchy); the third book of Reigns opened with the accession of
Solomon (as in Lucians text), not at the point where 1 Kings opens.
These earlier portions are written in a freer style than the rest of the
734
Greek Reigns, and the Hebrew original differed widely in places from
that translated in the English Bible (JTS, VIII, 262).
(4) The Writings.
The Hagiographa at the end of the 2nd century BC were regarded as
national literature. (Sirach, prolegomena the other books of our fathers),
but not as canonical. The translators did not scruple to treat these with
great freedom, undeterred by the prohibition against alteration of Scripture
(
<050402>
Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32). Free paraphrases of extracts were produced,
sometimes with legendary additions. A partial version of Job (one-sixth
being omitted) was among the first; Aristeas, the historian of the 2nd
century BC, seems to have been acquainted with it (Freudenthal,
Hellenistische Studien, 1875, 136 ff). The translator was a student of the
Greek poets; his version was probably produced for the general reader, not
for the synagogues. Hatchs theory (Essays in Biblical Greek, 1889, 214)
that his Hebrew text was shorter than ours and was expanded later is
untenable; avoidance of anthropomorphisms explains some omissions, the
reason for others is obscure. The first Greek narrative of the return from
exile (1 Esdras) was probably a similar version of extracts only from
Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, grouped round a fable of non-Jewish origin,
the story of the 3 youths at the court of Darius. The work is a fragment,
the end being lost, and it has been contended by some critics that the
version once embraced the whole of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah (C. C.
Torrey, Ezra Studies, Chicago, 1910). The Greek is obviously earlier than
Esdras B and is of great value for the reconstruction of the Hebrew. The
same translator appears from peculiarities of diction to have produced the
earliest version of Dnl, treating it with similar freedom and incorporating
extraneous matter (the Song of Three Children, Susanna, Bel). The
maximum of interpolation is reached in Esther, where the Greek additions
make up two-thirds of the story. The Greek Proverbs (probably 1st century
BC) includes many maxims not in the Hebrew; some of these appear to be
derived from a lost Hebrew collection, others are of purely Greek origin.
This translator also knew and imitated the Greek classics; the numerous
fragments of iambic and hexameter verse in the translation cannot be
accidental (JTS, XIII, 46). The Psalter is the one translation in this
category in which liberties have not been taken; in Psalm 13 (14):3 the
extracts from other parts of Psalms and from Isaiah included in the B text
must be an interpolation possibly made before Pauls time (
<450313>
Romans
3:13 ff), or else taken from Romans. The little Psalm 151 in Septuagint,
735
described in the title as an autograph work of David and as outside the
number, is clearly a late Greek production, perhaps an appendix added
after the version was complete.
(5) The Latest Septuagint Translations.
The latest versions included in the Septuagint are the productions of the
Jewish translators of the 2nd century AD; some books may be rather
earlier, the work of pioneers in the new school which advocated strict
adherence to the Hebrew. The books of Reigns were now completed, by
Theodotion, perhaps, or by one of his school; the later portions (2 R 11 2
through 3 R 2 11, Davids downfall, and 3 R 22-4 R end, the downfall of
the monarchy) are by one hand, as shown by peculiarities in style, e.g. I
am have with child (2 R 11 5) = I am with child, a use which is due to
desire to distinguish the longer form of the pronoun anokhi (I, also used
for I am) from the shorter ani. A complete version of Judges was now
probably first made. In two cases the old paraphrastic versions were
replaced. Theodotions Daniel, as above stated, superseded in the Christian
church the older version A new and complete version of Chronicles-Ezra-
Nehemiah was made (Esdras B), though the older version retained its place
in the Greek Bible on account of the interesting legend imbedded in it; the
new version is here again possibly the work of Theodotion; the numerous
transliterations are characteristic of him (Torrey, Ezra Studies; theory had
previously been advanced by Sir H. Howorth). In the Greek Ecclesiastes
we have a specimen of Aquilas style (see McNeiles edition, Cambridge,
1904). Canticles is another late version
2. General Characteristics:
A marked feature of the whole translation is the scrupulous avoidance of
anthropomorphisms and phrases derogatory to the divine transcendence.
Thus
<020416>
Exodus 4:16, Thou shalt be to him in things pertaining to God
(Hebrew for or as God); 15:3, The Lord is a breaker of battles
(Hebrew a Man of war); 24:10, They saw the place where the God of
Israel stood (Hebrew they saw the God of Israel); 24:11, Of the elect
of Israel not one perished and they were seen in the place of God
(Hebrew Upon the nobles .... He laid not His hand, and they beheld
God). The comparison of God to a rock was consistently paraphrased as
idolatrous, as was sometimes the comparison to the sun from fear of sun-
worship (Psalm 83 (84):12, The Lord loves mercy and truth for Hebrew
736
The Lord is a sun and shield). The sons of God (
<010602>
Genesis 6:2)
becomes the angels of God. For minor liberties, e.g. slight amplifications,
interpretation of difficult words, substitution of Greek for Hebrew coinage,
translation of place-names, see Swete, Introduction, 323 ff. Blunders in
translation are not uncommon, but the difficulties which these pioneers had
to face must be remembered, especially the paleographical character of the
Hebrew originals. These were written on flimsy papyrus rolls, in a script
probably in a transitional stage between the archaic and the later square
characters; the words were not separated, and there were no vowel-points;
two of the radicals (waw and yodh) were also frequently omitted. Add to
this the absence at Alexandria, for parts at least of the Scriptures, of any
sound tradition as to the meaning. On the other hand the vocalization
adopted by the translators, e.g. in the proper names, is of great value in the
history of early Semitic pronunciation. It must further be remembered that
the Semitic language most familiar to them was not Hebrew but Aramaic,
and some mistakes are due to Aramaic or even Arabic colloquialisms
(Swete, Introduction, 319).
IX. SALIENT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GREEK
AND HEBREW TEXTS.
Differences indicating a Hebrew original other than the Massoretic Text
affect either the sequence or the subject-matter (compare Swete,
Introduction, 231 ff).
1. Sequence:
The most extensive discrepancies in arrangement of materials occur in
(1) Exodus 35 through 39, the construction of the Tabernacle and the
ornaments of its ministers,
(2) 3 R 4 through 11, Solomons reign,
(3) Jeremiah (last half),
(4) Proverbs (end).
(1) In Exodus the Septuagint gives precedence to the priests
ornaments, which in the Hebrew follow the account of the Tabernacle,
and omits altogether the altar of incense. The whole section describing
the execution of the instructions given in the previous chapters in
737
almost identical words is one of the latest portions of the Pentateuch
and the text had clearly not been finally fixed in the 3rd century BC; the
section was perhaps absent from the oldest Greek version In
<022013>
Exodus 20:13-15 Codex B arranges three of the commandments in
the Alexandrian order (7, 8, 6), attested in Philo and in the New
Testament.
(2) Deliberate rearrangement has taken place in the history of Solomon,
and the Septuagint unquestionably preserves the older text. The
narrative of the building of the Temple, like that of the Tabernacle,
contains some of the clearest examples of editorial revision in the
Massoretic Text (Wellhausen, Hist of Israel, 67, 280, etc.). At the end
of 3 R Septuagint places chapters 20 and 21 in their proper order;
Massoretic Text reverses this, interposing the Naboth story in the
connected account of the Syriac wars and justifying the change by a
short preface.
(3) In Jeremiah the chapter numbers differ from the middle of chapter
25 to the end of chapter 51, the historical appendix (chapter 52)
concluding both texts. This is due to the different position assigned to a
group of prophecies against the nations: Septuagint places them in the
center, Massoretic Text at the end. The items in this group are also
rearranged. The diversity in order is earlier than the Greek translation;
see JTS, IV; 245.
(4) The order of some groups of maxims at the end of Proverbs was
not finally fixed at the time of the Greek translation; like Jeremiahs
prophecies against the nations, these little groups seem to have
circulated as late as the 2nd or 1st century BC as separate pamphlets.
The Psalms numbers from 10 to 147 differ by one in Septuagint and
Massoretic Text, owing to discrepancies in the lines of demarcation
between individual psalms.
2. Subject Matter:
Excluding the end of Exodus, striking examples of divergence in the
Pentateuch are few. Septuagint alone preserves Cains words to his
brother, Let us go into the field (
<010408>
Genesis 4:8). The close of Moses
song appears in an expanded form in Septuagint (
<053243>
Deuteronomy 32:43).
Similarly Hannahs song in 1 R 2 (? originally a warriors triumph-song)
has been rendered more appropriate to the occasion by the substitution in
738
verse 8c of words about the answer to prayer, and enlarged by the insertion
of a passage from Jeremiah; the changes in both songs may be connected
with their early use as canticles. In Joshua the larger amount of divergence
suggests that this book did not share the peculiar sanctity of the Law. But
the books of Reigns present the widest differences and the fullest scope
for the textual critic. The Septuagint here proves the existence of two
independent accounts of certain events. Sometimes it incorporates both,
while the Massoretic Text rejects one of them; thus Septuagint gives (3 R 2
35a ff,46a ff) a connected summary of events in Solomons personal
history; most of which appear elsewhere in a detached form, 3 R 12 24a-z
is a second account of the dismemberment of the kingdom; 16:28a-h a
second summary of Jehoshaphats reign (compare 22 41 ff); 4 R 1 18a
another summary of Jorams reign (compare 3 1 ff). Conversely in 1 R 17
through 18, Massoretic Text has apparently preserved two contradictory
accounts of events in Davids early history, while Septuagint presents a
shorter and consistent narrative (Swete, Intro, 245 f). An addition in
Septuagint of the highest interest appears in 3 R 8 53b, where a stanza is
put into the mouth of Solomon at the Temple dedication, taken from the
Song-book (probably the Book of Jashar); the Massoretic Text gives the
stanza in an edited form earlier in the chapter (8 12 f); for the
reconstruction of the original Hebrew see JTS, X, 439; XI, 518. The last
line proves to be a title, For the Sabbath On Alamoth (i.e. for
sopranos), showing that the song was set to music for liturgical purposes.
In Jeremiah, besides transpositions, the two texts differ widely in the way
of excess and defect; the verdict of critics is mainly in favor of the priority
of the Septuagint (Streane, Double Text of Jeremiah, 1896). For
divergences in the Writings see VIII, above; for additional titles to the
Psalms see Swete, Introduction, 250 f.
LITERATURE.
The most important works have been mentioned in the body of the article.
See, further, the very full lists in Swetes Introduction and the
bibliographies by Nestle in PRE3, III, 1-24, and XXIII, 207-10 (1913);
HDB, IV, 453-54.
H. St. J . Thackeray
739
SEPULCHRE
<sep-ul-ker> (
<142120>
2 Chronicles 21:20; 32:33;
<431941>
John 19:41 f;
<440229>
Acts
2:29, etc.).
See BURIAL; JERUSALEM, VIII.
SERAH
<se-ra> ([j r c , , serach], abundance): Daughter of Asher (
<014617>
Genesis
46:17;
<042646>
Numbers 26:46, the King James Version Sarah;
<130730>
1
Chronicles 7:30).
SERAIAH
<se-ra-ya>, <se-ri-a> ([Wh y;r ;c ], serayahu], Yah hath prevailed;
Septuagint [2opoo, Saraias], or [2opoo, Saraia]):
(1) Secretary of David (
<100817>
2 Samuel 8:17); in
<102025>
2 Samuel 20:25 he is
called Sheva; in
<110403>
1 Kings 4:3 the name appears as Shisha. This last or
Shasha would be restored elsewhere by some critics; others prefer the
form Shavsha, which is found in
<131816>
1 Chronicles 18:16.
(2) A high priest in the reign of Zedekiah; executed with other
prominent captives at Riblah by order of Nebuchadnezzar (
<122518>
2 Kings
25:18,21;
<245224>
Jeremiah 52:24,27). Mentioned in the list of high priests
(
<130614>
1 Chronicles 6:14). Ezra claims descent from him (
<150701>
Ezra 7:1
(3)).
See AZARAIAS; SARAIAS.
(3) The son of Tanhumeth the Netophathite, and one of the heroic band
of men who saved themselves from the fury of Nebuchadnezzar when
he stormed Jerusalem. They repaired to Gedaliah, the son of Ahikam,
but killed him on account of his allegiance to the Chaldeans (
<122523>
2
Kings 25:23,25).
(4) Son of Kenaz, and younger brother of Othniel, and father of Joab,
the chief of Ge-harashim (
<130413>
1 Chronicles 4:13,14).
(5) Grandfather of Jehu, of the tribe of Simeon (
<130435>
1 Chronicles 4:35).
740
(6) A priest, the third in the list of those who returned from Babylon to
Jerusalem with Zerubbabel (
<150202>
Ezra 2:2;
<160707>
Nehemiah 7:7, here called
Azariah; 12:1), and third also (if the same person is meant) in the
record of those who sealed the covenant binding all Jews not to take
foreign wives (
<161002>
Nehemiah 10:2). As the son of Hilkiah, and
consequently a direct descendant of the priestly family, he became
governor of the temple when it was rebuilt (
<161111>
Nehemiah 11:11). He is
mentioned (under the name Azariah) also in
<130911>
1 Chronicles 9:11.
<161202>
Nehemiah 12:2 adds that in the days of Joiakim the head of
Seraiahs house was Meraiah.
(7) Son of Azriel, one of those whom Jehoiakim commanded to
imprison Jeremiah and Baruch, the son of Neriah (
<243626>
Jeremiah 36:26).
(8) The son of Neriah, who went into exile with Zedekiah. He was also
called Sar Menuchah (prince of repose). The Targum renders Sar
Menuchah by Rabh Tiqrabhta, prince of battle, and Septuagint by
[opv pv, archon doron], prince of gifts, reading Minchah
for Menuchah. At the request of Jeremiah he carried with him in his
exile the passages containing the prophets warning of the fall of
Babylon, written in a book which he was bidden to bind to a stone and
cast into the Euphrates, to symbolize the fall of Babylon (
<245159>
Jeremiah
51:59-64).
Horace J . Wolf
SERAPHIM
<ser-a-fim> ([ yp ir ;c ], seraphim]): A plural word occurring only in
<230602>
Isaiah 6:2 ff Isaiahs vision of Yahweh. The origin of the term in
Hebrew is uncertain. Saraph in
<042106>
Numbers 21:6;
<231429>
Isaiah 14:29, etc.,
signifies a fiery serpent. A Babylonian name for the fire-god, Nergal, was
Sharrapu. In Egypt there have been found eagle-lion-shaped figures
guarding a grave, to which is applied the name seref. The equivalent
English term is griffin.
It is probable enough that popular mythology connected fire with the
attendants of the deity in various ways among different peoples, and that
burning lies at the base of the idea in all these suggested etymologies. It
remains, however, that in Isaiahs use there is nothing of the popular
legend or superstition. These seraphim are august beings whose forms are
741
not at all fully described. They had faces, feet, hands and wings. The six
wings, in three pairs, covered their faces and feet in humility and reverence,
and were used for sustaining them in their positions about the throne of
Yahweh. One of them is the agent for burning (with a coal off the altar, not
with his own power or person) the sin from the lips of the prophet.
Seraphim are in Jewish theology connected with cherubim and ophanim as
the three highest orders of attendants on Yahweh, and are superior to the
angels who are messengers sent on various errands. As the cherubim in
popular fancy were represented by the storm-clouds, so the seraphim were
by the serpentine flashes of the lightning; but none of this appears in
Isaiahs vision.
In the New Testament the only possible equivalent is in the living ones
(beasts of the King James Version) in Revelation 4; 5, etc. Here, as in
Isaiah, they appear nearest Yahwehs throne, supreme in praise of His
holiness.
William Owen Carver
SERAR
<se-rar> ([2rpop, Serar]; the King James Version Aserer): Name of one
of the families which returned with Zerubbabel (1 Esdras 5:32) = Sisera
of
<150253>
Ezra 2:53;
<160755>
Nehemiah 7:55.
SERED
<se-red> ([d r ,s ,, ceredh]): Son of Zebulun (
<014614>
Genesis 46:14;
<042626>
Numbers 26:26).
SERGIUS PAULUS
<sur-ji-us po-lus>.
See PAULUS, SERGIUS.
SERJEANTS
<sar-jents>, <-jants> ([popouo, rhabdouchoi]): In
<441635>
Acts 16:35,38
the word (literally, holders of rods, corresponding to Roman lictors,
thus the Revised Version margin) is used of the officers in attendance on
the Philippian magistrates, whose duty it was to execute orders in
742
scourging, etc., in this case in setting prisoners free. Paul and Silas,
however, as Romans, refused thus to be privily dismissed.
SERMON, ON THE MOUNT, THE
<sur-num>,
The Sermon on the Mount is the title commonly given to the collection of
sayings recorded in Matthew 5 through 7 and in
<420620>
Luke 6:20-49. The
latter is sometimes called the Sermon on the Plain from the fact that it is
said to have been delivered on a level space somewhere on the descent of
the mountain. The Sermon appears to be an epitome of the teachings of
Jesus concerning the kingdom of heaven, its subjects and their life. For this
reason it has always held the first place of attention and esteem among the
sayings of Jesus.
See SERMON ON THE PLAIN.
I. PARALLEL ACCOUNTS.
As indicated above, the Sermon is reported by both Matthew and Luke. A
comparison of the two accounts reveals certain striking differences. A total
of 47 verses of the account in Matthew have no parallel in Luke, while but
4 1/2 verses of the latter are wanting in the former. On the other hand,
many of the sayings in Matthew that are lacking in the Sermon of Luke,
amounting in all to 34 verses, appear elsewhere distributed throughout the
Lukan narrative and in some instances connected with different incidents
and circumstances.
These facts give rise to some interesting literary and historical questions:
Do the two accounts represent two distinct discourses dealing with the
same general theme but spoken on different occasions, or are they simply
different reports of the same discourse? If it be held that the Sermon was
delivered but once, which of the accounts represents more closely the
original address? Is the discourse in Matthew homogeneous or does it
include sayings originally spoken on other occasions and early incorporated
in the Sermon in the gospel tradition?
II. HISTORICITY OF THE DISCOURSE.
There have been and are today scholars who regard the sermons recorded
in Matthew and Luke as collections of sayings spoken on different
743
occasions, and maintain that they do not represent any connected discourse
ever delivered by Jesus. In their view the Sermon is either a free
compilation by the evangelists or a product of apostolic teaching and oral
tradition.
The prevailing opinion among New Testament scholars is, however, that
the gospel accounts represent a genuine historical discourse. The Sermon
as recorded in Matthew bears such marks of inner unity of theme and
exposition as to give the appearance of genuineness. That Jesus should
deliver a discourse of this kind accords with all the circumstances and with
the purpose of His ministry. Besides, we know that in His teaching He was
accustomed to speak to the multitudes at length, and we should expect
Him to give early in His ministry some formal exposition of the kingdom,
the burden of His first preaching. That such a summary of one of His most
important discourses should have been preserved is altogether probable.
On the other hand, it may be conceded that the accounts need not
necessarily be regarded as full or exact reports of the discourse but
possibly and probably rather summaries of its theme and substance. our
Lord was accustomed to teach at length, but this discourse could easily be
delivered in a few minutes. Again, while His popular teaching was marked
by a unique wealth of illustration the Sermon is largely gnomic in form.
This gnomic style and the paucity of the usual concrete and illustrative
elements suggest the probability of condensation in transmission.
Moreover, it is hardly probable that such an address of Jesus would be
recorded at the time of its delivery or would be remembered in detail.
There is evidence that the account in Matthew 5 through 7 contains some
sayings not included in the original discourse. This view is confirmed by
the fact that a number of the sayings are given in Lukes Gospel in settings
that appear more original. It is easy to believe that related sayings spoken
on other occasions may have become associated with the Sermon in
apostolic teaching and thus handed down with it, but if the discourse were
well known in a specific form, such as that recorded in Matthew, it is
hardly conceivable that Luke or anyone else would break it up and
distribute the fragments or associate them with other incidents, as some of
the sayings recorded in both Gospels are found associated in Luke.
744
III. TIME AND OCCASION.
Both Matthew and Luke agree in assigning the delivery of the Sermon to
the first half of the Galilean ministry. The former apparently places it a little
earlier than the latter, in whose account it follows immediately after the
appointment of the twelve apostles. While the time cannot be accurately
determined, the position assigned by the Gospels is approximately correct
and is supported by the internal evidence. Portions of the Sermon imply
that the opposition of the religious teachers was already in evidence, but it
clearly belongs to the first year of our Lords ministry before that
opposition had become serious. On the other hand, the occasion was
sufficiently late for the popularity of the new Teacher to have reached its
climax. In the early Galilean ministry Jesus confined His teaching to the
synagogues, but later, when the great crowds pressed about Him, He
resorted to open-air preaching after the manner of the Sermon. Along with
the growth in His popularity there is observed a change in the character of
His teaching. His earlier message may be summed up in the formula,
Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (
<400417>
Matthew 4:17).
Later, both in His public discourses and in His more intimate conferences
with His disciples, He was occupied with the principles of the kingdom.
The Sermon on the Mount belongs to this later type of teaching and fits
naturally into the circumstances to which it has been assigned. Luke
probably gives the true historical occasion, i.e. the appointment of the
Twelve.
IV. SCENE.
According to the evangelists, the scene of the delivery of the Sermon was
one of the mountains or foothills surrounding the Galilean plain. Probably
one of the hills lying Northwest of Capernaum is meant, for shortly after
the Sermon we find Jesus and His disciples entering that city. There are no
data justifying a closer identification of the place. There is a tradition
dating from the time of the Crusades that identifies the mount of the
Sermon with Karn Chattin], a two-peaked hill on the road from Tiberias to
Nazareth, but there are no means of confirming this late tradition and the
identification is rather improbable.
745
V. THE HEARERS.
The Sermon was evidently addressed, primarily, to the disciples of Jesus.
This is the apparent meaning of the account of both evangelists. According
to Matthew, Jesus, seeing the multitudes, .... went up into the mountain:
and when he had sat down, his disciples came unto him: and he opened his
mouth and taught them. The separation from the multitudes and the
direction of His words to the disciples seem clear, and the distinction
appears intentional on the part of the writer. However, it must be observed
that in the closing comments on the Sermon the presence of the multitudes
is implied. In Lukes account the distinction is less marked. Here the order
of events is: the night of prayer in the mountain, the choice of the twelve
apostles, the descent with them into the presence of the multitude of His
disciples and a great number of people from Judea, Jerusalem and the coast
country, the healing of great numbers, and, finally, the address. While the
continued presence of the multitudes is implied, the plain meaning of the
words, And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, is that his
address was intended especially for the latter. This view is borne out by the
address itself as recorded in both accounts. Observe the use of the second
person in the reference to suffering, poverty and persecution for the sake of
the Son of Man. Further the sayings concerning the salt of the earth and
the light of the world could hardly have been addressed to any but His
disciples. The term disciple, however, was doubtless employed in the
broader sense by both evangelists. This is clearly the case in Matthews
account, according to which the Twelve had not yet been appointed.
VI. THE MESSAGE: SUMMARY.
It is hardly proper to speak of the Sermon on the Mount as a digest of the
teaching of Jesus, for it does not include any reference to some very
important subjects discussed by our Lord on other occasions in the course
of His ministry. It is, however, the most comprehensive and important
collection or summary of His sayings that is preserved to us in the gospel
record. For this reason the Sermon properly holds in Christian thought the
first place of esteem among all the New Testament messages. As an
exposition of the ideal life and the program of the new society which Jesus
proposed to create, its interpretation is of the deepest interest and the
profoundest concern.
746
1. Analysis:
It may assist the student of the Sermon in arriving at a clear appreciation of
the argument and the salient features of the discourse if the whole is first
viewed in outline. There is some difference of opinion among scholars as to
certain features of the analysis, and consequently various outlines have
been presented by different writers. Those of C. W. Votaw in HDB, Canon
Gore in The Sermon on the Mount, and H. C. King in The Ethics of Jesus
are worthy of special mention. The following analysis of the Sermon as
recorded by Matthew is given as the basis of the present discussion.
It is not implied that there was any such formal plan before the mind of
Jesus as He spoke, but it is believed that the outline presents a faithful
syllabus of the argument of the Sermon as preserved to us.
THEME: THE KINGDOM OF GOD (HEAVEN), ITS SUBJECTS
AND ITS RIGHTEOUSNESS (MATTHEW 5:3 THROUGH 7:27)
I. The subjects of the kingdom (
<400503>
Matthew 5:3-16).
1. The qualities of character essential to happiness and influence
(
<400503>
Matthew 5:3-12).
2. The vocation of the subjects (
<400513>
Matthew 5:13-16).
II. The relation of the new righteousness to the Mosaic Law (
<400517>
Matthew
5:17-48).
1. The relation defined as that of continuance in a higher fulfillment
(
<400517>
Matthew 5:17-20).
2. The higher fulfillment of the new righteousness illustrated by a
comparison of its principles with the Mosaic Law as currently taught and
practiced (Mat 5:21-48)
(1) The higher law of brotherhood judges ill-will as murder
(
<400521>
Matthew 5:21-26).
(2) The higher law of purity condemns lust as adultery (
<400527>
Matthew
5:27-32).
(3) The higher law of truth forbids oaths as unnecessary and evil
(
<400533>
Matthew 5:33-37).
747
(4) The higher law of rights substitutes self-restraint and generosity for
retaliation and resistance (
<400538>
Matthew 5:38-42).
(5) The higher law of love demands universal good will of a
supernatural quality like that of the Father (
<400543>
Matthew 5:43-48).
III. The new righteousness. Its motives as applied to religious, practical
and social duties, or the principles of conduct (
<400601>
Matthew 6:1 through
7:12).
1. Reverence toward the Father essential in all acts of worship
(
<400601>
Matthew 6:1-18).
(1) In all duties (
<400601>
Matthew 6:1).
(2) In almsgiving (
<400602>
Matthew 6:2-4).
(3) In prayer (
<400605>
Matthew 6:5-15).
(4) In fasting (
<400616>
Matthew 6:16-18).
2. Loyalty toward the Father fundamental in all activities (
<400619>
Matthew
6:19-34).
(1) In treasure-seeking (
<400619>
Matthew 6:19-24).
(2) In trustful devotion to the kingdom and the Fathers righteousness
(
<400625>
Matthew 6:25-34).
3. Love toward the Father dynamic in all social relations (
<400701>
Matthew 7:1-
12).
(1) Critical estimate of self instead of censorious judgment of others
(
<400701>
Matthew 7:1-5).
(2) Discrimination in the communication of spiritual values
(
<400706>
Matthew 7:6).
(3) Kindness toward others in all things like the Fathers kindness
toward all His children (
<400707>
Matthew 7:7-12).
IV. Hortatory conclusion (
<400713>
Matthew 7:13-27).
1. The two gates and the two ways (
<400713>
Matthew 7:13-14).
2. The tests of character (
<400715>
Matthew 7:15-27).
748
2. Argument: The Kingdom of God (Heaven):
(1) Characteristics of the Subjects (
<400503>
Matthew 5:3-12).
The Sermon opens with the familiar Beatitudes. Unlike many reformers,
Jesus begins the exposition of His program with a promise of happiness,
with a blessing rather than a curse. He thus connects His program directly
with the hopes of His hearers, for the central features in the current
Messianic conception were deliverance and happiness. But the conditions
of happiness proposed were in strong contrast with those in the popular
thought. Happiness does not consist, says Jesus, in what one possesses, in
lands and houses, in social position, in intellectual attainments, but in the
wealth of the inner life, in moral strength, in self-control, in spiritual
insight, in the character one is able to form within himself and in the service
he is able to render to his fellowmen. Happiness, then, like character, is a
by-product of right living. It is presented as the fruit, not as the object of
endeavor.
It is interesting to note that character is the secret of happiness both for the
individual and for society. There are two groups of Beatitudes. The first
four deal with personal qualities: humility, penitence, self-control, desire
for righteousness. These are the sources of inner peace. The second group
deals with social qualities; mercifulness toward others, purity of heart or
reverence for personality, peacemaking or solicitude for others, self-
sacrificing loyalty to righteousness. These are the sources of social rest.
The blessings of the kingdom are social as well as individual.
(2) Vocation of the Subjects (
<400513>
Matthew 5:13-16).
Men of the qualities described in the Beatitudes are called the salt of the
earth, the light of the world. Their happiness is not, then, in themselves
or for themselves alone. Their mission is the hope of the kingdom. Salt is a
preservative element; light is a life-giving one; but the world is not eager to
be preserved or willing to receive life. Therefore such men must expect
opposition and persecution, but they are not on that account to withdraw
from the world. On the contrary, by the leaven of character and the light of
example they are to help others in the appreciation and the attainment of
the ideal life. By their character and deeds they are to make their influence
a force for good in the lives of men. In this sense the men of the kingdom
are the salt of the earth, the light of the world.
749
See BEATITUDES.
(3) Relation of the New Righteousness to Mosaic Law
(
<400517>
Matthew 5:17-48).
(a) The Relation Defined (
<400517>
Matthew 5:17-20):
The qualities of character thus set before the citizens of the kingdom were
so surprising and revolutionary as to suggest the inquiry: What is the
relation of the new teaching to the Mosaic Law? This Jesus defines as
continuance and fulfillment. His hearers are not to think that He has come
to destroy the law. On the contrary, He has come to conserve and fulfil.
The old law is imperfect, but God does not despair of what is imperfect.
Men and institutions are judged, not by the level of present attainment, but
by character and direction. The law moves in the right direction and is so
valuable that those who violate even its least precepts have a very low
place in the kingdom.
The new righteousness then does not set aside the law or offer an easier
religion, but one that is more exacting. The kingdom is concerned, not so
much with ceremonies and external rules, as with motives and with social
virtues, with self-control, purity, honesty and generosity. So much higher
are the new standards of righteousness that Jesus is constrained to warn
His hearers that to secure even a place in the kingdom, their righteousness
must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees.
(b) The Relation Illustrated (
<400521>
Matthew 5:21-48):
In illustration of the deeper meaning of the new righteousness and its
relation to the Mosaic Law, Jesus proceeds to deal in detail with the
precepts of the old moral law, deepening it as He proceeds into the higher
law of the kingdom. In each instance the standard of judgment is raised and
the individual precepts are deepened into spiritual principles that call for
perfect fulfillment. In considering specific precepts no account is taken of
overt acts, for in the new righteousness they are impossible. All acts are
treated as expressions of the inner life. The law is carried back to the
impulse and the will to sin, and these are judged as in the old law the
completed acts were judged. Therefore, all anger and lust in the heart are
strictly enjoined. Likewise every word is raised to a sacredness equal with
that of the most solemn religious vow or oath. Finally, the instinct to
avenge is entirely forbidden, and universal love like that of the Father is
750
made the fundamental law of the new social life. Thus Jesus does not
abrogate any law but interprets its precepts in terms that call for a deeper
and more perfect fulfillment.
(4) Motives and Principles of Conduct (
<400601>
Matthew 6:1 through
7:12).
The relation of His teaching to the law defined, Jesus proceeds to explain
the motives and principles of conduct as applied to religious and social
duties.
(a) In Worship (
<400601>
Matthew 6:1-18):
In the section
<400601>
Matthew 6:1 through 7:12 there is one central thought.
All righteousness looks toward God. He is at once the source and the aim
of life. Therefore worship aims alone at divine praise. If acts of worship are
performed before men to be seen of them there is no reward for them
before the Father. In this Jesus is passing no slight on public worship. He
Himself instituted the Lords Supper and authorized the continuance of the
rite of baptism. Such acts have their proper value. His censure is aimed at
the love of ostentation so often associated with them. The root of
ostentation is selfishness, and selfishness has no part in the new
righteousness. Any selfish desire for the approval of men thwarts the
purpose of all worship. The object of almsgiving, of prayer or of fasting is
the expression of brotherly love, communion with God or spiritual
enrichment. The possibility of any of these is excluded by the presence of
the desire for the approval of men. It is not merely a divine fiat but one of
the deeper laws of life which decrees that the only possible reward for acts
of worship performed from such false motives is the cheap approval of men
as well as the impoverishment of the inner life.
(b) In Lifes Purpose (
<400619>
Matthew 6:19-34):
The same principle holds, says Jesus, in the matter of lifes purpose. There
is only one treasure worthy of mans search only one object worthy of his
highest endeavor, and that is the kingdom of God and His righteousness.
Besides, there can be no division of aim. God will be first and only.
Material blessings must not be set before duty to Him or to men. With any
lower aim the new righteousness would be no better than that of the
Gentiles. And such a demand is reasonable, for Gods gracious providence
is ample guaranty that He will supply all things needful for the
751
accomplishment of the purposes He has planned for our lives. So in our
vocations as in our worship, God is the supreme and effectual motive.
(c) In Social Relations (
<400701>
Matthew 7:1-12):
Then again because God is our Father and the supreme object of desire for
all men, great reverence is due toward others. Considerate helpfulness must
replace the censorious spirit. For the same reason men will have too great
reverence for spiritual values to cast them carelessly before the unworthy.
Moreover, because God is so gracious and ready to bestow the best gifts
freely upon His children, the men of the kingdom are under profound
obligation to observe the higher law of brotherhood expressed in the
Golden Rule: All things .... whatsoever ye would that men should do unto
you, even so do ye also unto them. Thus in the perfect law of the
Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of men the new righteousness
makes perfect the Law and the Prophets.
(5) Hortatory Conclusion (
<400713>
Matthew 7:13-27).
(a) The Narrow Way (
<400713>
Matthew 7:13-14):
In the hortatory conclusion (
<400713>
Matthew 7:13-27), Jesus first of all warns
His hearers that the way into the kingdom is a narrow one. It might seem
that it ought to be different; that the way to destruction should be narrow
and difficult, and the way to life broad and easy, but it is not so. The way
to all worthy achievement is the narrow way of self-control, self-sacrifice
and infinite pains. Such is the way to the righteousness of the kingdom, the
supreme object of human endeavor. Narrow is the gate, and straitened the
way, that leadeth unto life.
(b) The Tests of Character (
<400715>
Matthew 7:15-27):
The test of the higher fulfillment is fruit. By their fruits alone the subjects
of the kingdom will be known. In the presence of the Father there is no
room for those who bring nothing but the leaves of empty professions. The
kingdom is for those alone who do His will. The test of righteousness is
illustrated in conclusion by the beautiful parable of the Two Builders. The
difference between the two is essentially one of character. It is largely a
question of fundamental honesty. The one is superficial and thinks only of
that which is visible to the eye and builds only for himself and for the
present. The other is honest enough to build well where only God can see,
752
to build for others and for all time. Thus he builds also for himself. The
character of the builder is revealed by the building.
VII. PRINCIPLES.
The Sermon on the Mount is neither an impractical ideal nor a set of fixed
legal regulations. It is, instead, a statement of the principles of life essential
in a normal society. Such a society is possible in so far as men attain the
character and live the life expressed in these principles. Their correct
interpretation is therefore important.
Many of the sayings of the Sermon are metaphorical or proverbial
statements, and are not to be understood in a literal or legal sense. In them
Jesus was illustrating principles in concrete terms. Their interpretation
literally as legal enactments is contrary to the intention and spirit of Jesus.
So interpreted, the Sermon becomes in part a visionary and impractical
ideal. But rather the principles behind the concrete instances are to be
sought and applied anew to the life of the present as Jesus applied them to
the life of His own time.
The following are some of the leading ideas and principles underlying and
expressed in the Sermon:
(1) Character Is the Secret of Happiness and Strength.
Men of the qualities described in the Beatitudes are called blessed.
Happiness consists, not in external blessings, but in the inner poise of a
normal life. The virtues of the Beatitudes are also the elements of strength.
Humility, self-control, purity and loyalty are the genuine qualities of real
strength. Men of such qualities are to inherit the earth because they are the
only ones strong enough to possess and use it.
(2) Righteousness Is Grounded in the Inner Life.
Character is not something imposed from without but a life that unfolds
from within. The hope of a perfect morality and a genuine fulfillment of the
law lies in the creation of a sound inner life. Therefore, the worth of all
religious acts and all personal and social conduct is judged by the quality of
the inner motives.
753
(3) The Inner Life Is a Unity.
The spiritual nature is all of a piece, so that a moral slump at one point
imperils the whole life. Consequently, a rigid and exacting spiritual
asceticism, even to the extent of extreme major surgery, is sometimes
expedient and necessary. If thy right eye causeth thee to stumble, pluck it
out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy
members should perish, and not thy whole body be cast into Gehenna
(
<400529>
Matthew 5:29 margin).
(4) Universal Love Is the Fundamental Social Law.
It is the dynamic principle of true character and right conduct. In this
respect, at least, the perfection of the Father is set as the standard for men.
Kindliness in disposition, in word and in act is an obligation binding on all.
We may not feel alike toward all, but our wills must be set to do good even
to our enemies. In this the supernatural quality of the Christian life may be
known.
(5) The Sermon Sets the Fact of God the Father at the Center of Life.
Character and life exist in and for fellowship with the Father. All worship
and conduct look toward God. His service is the supreme duty, His
perfection the standard of character, His goodness the ground of universal
love. Given this fact, all the essentials of religion and life follow as a matter
of course. God is Father, all men are brothers. God is Father, all duties are
sacred. God is Father, infinite love is at the heart of the world and life is of
infinite worth.
(6) Fulfillment Is the Final Test of Life.
The blossoms of promises must ripen into the fruit of abiding character.
The leaves of empty professions have no value in the eyes of the Father.
Deeds and character are the only things that abide, and endurance is the
final test. The life of perfect fulfillment is the life anchored on the rock of
ages.
See further ETHICS; ETHICS OF JESUS; KINGDOM OF GOD.
LITERATURE.
The standard commentaries and Lives of Christ. Among the most
important encyclopaedic articles are those of C. W. Votaw in HDB, James
754
Moffatt in Encyclopedia Biblica and W. F. Adeney in DCG. The following
are a few of the most helpful separate volumes on the subject: A. Tholuck,
Exposition of Christs Sermon on the Mount; Canon Gore, The Sermon on
the Mount; B. W. Bacon, The Sermon on the Mount; W. B. Carpenter,
The Great Charter of Christ; Hubert Foston, The Beatitudes and the
Contrasts; compare H. C. King, The Ethics of Jesus, and Stalker, The
Ethic of Jesus. The following periodical articles are worthy of notice:
Franklin Johnson, The Plan of the Sermon on the Mount, Homiletic
Review, XXIV, 360; A. H. Hall, The Gospel in the Sermon on the
Mount, Biblical Sac., XLVIII, 322; The Bishop of Peterborough (W. C.
Magee), The State and the Sermon on the Mount, Fortnightly Review,
LIII, 32; J. G. Pyle, The Sermon on the Mount, Putnams Magazine,
VII, 285.
Russell Benjamin Miller
SERMON ON THE PLAIN, THE
This title is sometimes given to the discourse recorded in
<420620>
Luke 6:20-49,
because according to the Gospel (6:17) it was delivered on a plain at the
foot of the mountain. In many respects this address resembles the one
recorded in Matthew 5 through 7, but in general the two are so different as
to make it uncertain whether they are different reports of the same
discourse or reports of different addresses given on different occasions.
See SERMON ON THE MOUNT.
1. THE OCCASION:
In contrast with the Sermon on the Mount which is assigned a place early
in the Galilean ministry, and prior to the appointment of the Twelve, that
event is represented as the occasion of this discourse. If the two accounts
are reports of the same address the setting of Luke is probably the
historical one.
2. CONTENTS:
The Sermon of Luke includes a little less than one-third of the matter
recorded in the Sermon on the Mount. The Lukan discourse includes only
a portion of the Beatitudes, with a set of four woes, a rather brief section
on the social duties, and the concluding parable of the Two Houses.
755
3. MESSAGE:
The Gospel of Luke has been called the social Gospel because of its
sympathy with the poor and its emphasis on the duty of kindliness of spirit.
This social interest is especially prominent in the Sermon. Here the
Beatitudes deal with social differences. In Matthew they refer to spiritual
conditions. Here Jesus speaks of those who hunger now, probably meaning
bodily hunger. In Matthew the reference is to hunger and thirst after
righteousness. In Matthew the invectives are addressed against the self-
satisfied religious teachers and their religious formalism. Here the rich and
their unsocial spirit are the subject of the woes. This social interest is
further emphasized by the fact that in addition to this social bearing of the
Beatitudes, Lukes discourse omits the remainder of the Sermon on the
Mount, except those portions that deal with social relations, such as those
on the Golden Rule, the duty of universal love, the equality of servant and
master, and the obligation of a charitable spirit.
Russell Benjamin Miller
SERON
<se-ron> ([2qpv, Seron]): The commander of the host of Syria of
Antiochus Epiphanes, who was defeated at Beth-horon by Judas in 166 BC
(1 Macc 3:13 ff). Not a Greek name; perhaps it represents the Phoenician
Hiram (Rawlinson, at the place).
SERPENT
<sur-pent>:
1. GENERAL:
Serpents are not particularly abundant in Palestine, but they are often
mentioned in the Bible. In the Hebrew there are 11 names. The New
Testament has four Greek names and the Septuagint employs two of these
and three others as well as several compound expressions, such as [o
rtorvo, ophis petamenos], flying serpent, [o 0ovotv, ophis
thanaton], deadly serpent, and [o oxvv, ophis daknon], biting
or stinging serpent. Notwithstanding this large vocabulary, it is
impossible to identify satisfactorily a single species. Nearly every reference
states or implies poisonous qualities, and in no case is there so much as a
hint that a snake may be harmless, except in several expressions referring
756
to the millennium, where their harmlessness is not natural but miraculous.
In Arabic there is a score or more of names of serpents, but very few of
them are employed at all definitely. It may be too much to say that the
inhabitants of Syria and Palestine consider all snakes to be poisonous, but
they do not clearly distinguish the non-poisonous ones, and there are
several common and well-known species which are universally believed to
be poisonous, though actually harmless. Of nearly 25 species which are
certainly known to be found in Syria and Palestine, four are deadly
poisonous, five are somewhat poisonous, and the rest are absolutely
harmless. With the exception of qippoz, dart-snake (
<233415>
Isaiah 34:15)
which is probably the name of a bird and not of a snake, every one of the
Hebrew and Greek names occurs in passages where poisonous character is
expressed or implied. The deadly poisonous snakes have large perforated
poison fangs situated in the front of the upper jaw, an efficient apparatus
like a hypodermic syringe for conveying the poison into the depths of the
wound. In the somewhat poisonous snakes, the poison fangs are less
favorably situated, being farther back, nearly under the eye. Moreover, they
are smaller and are merely grooved on the anterior aspect instead of being
perforated. All snakes, except a few which are nearly or quite toothless,
have numerous small recurved teeth for holding and helping to swallow the
prey, which is usually taken into the stomach while living, the peculiar
structure of the jaws and the absence of a breast-bone enabling snakes to
swallow animals which exceed the ordinary size of their own bodies.
2. SERPENTS OF PALESTINE AND SYRIA:
The following list includes all the serpents which are certainly known to
exist in Palestine and Syria, omitting the names of several which have been
reported but whose occurrence does not seem to be sufficiently confirmed.
The range of each species is given.
(1) Harmless Serpents.
Typhlops vermicularis Merr., Greece and Southwestern Asia; T. simoni
Bttgr., Palestine; Eryx jaculus L., Greece, North Africa, Central and
Southwestern Asia; Tropidonotus tessellatus Laur., CentraI and
Southeastern Europe, Central and Southwestern Asia; Zamenis gemonensis
Laur., Central and Southeastern Europe, Greek islands, Southwestern
Asia; Z. dahlii Fitz., Southeastern Europe, Southwestern Asia, Lower
Egypt; Z. rhodorhachis Jan., Egypt, Southwestern Asia, India; Z. ravergieri
757
Menatr., Southwestern Asia: Z. nummifer Renss., Egypt, Syria, Palestine,
Cyprus, Asia Minor; Oligodon melanocephalus Jan., Syria, Palestine, Sinai,
Lower Egypt; Contia decemlineata D. and B., Syria, Palestine; C. collaris
Menerr., Greek islands, Cyprus, Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine; C. rothi Jan.,
Syria, Palestine; C. coronella Schleg., Syria, Palestine
(2) Somewhat Poisonous Serpents.
Tarbophis savignyi Blgr., Syria, Palestine, Egypt; T. fallax Fleischm.,
Balkan Peninsula, Greek islands, Cyprus, Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine;
Coelopeltis monspessulana Herre., Mediterranean countries, Caucasus,
Persia; Psammophis schokari Forsk., North Africa, Southwestern Asia;
Micrelaps muelleri Bttgr., Syria, Palestine
(3) Deadly Poisonous Serpents.
Vipera ammodytes L., Southeastern Europe, Asia Minor, Syria; Vipera
lebetina L., North Africa, Greek islands, Southwestern Asia; Cerastes
cornutus Forsk., Egypt, Sinai, Arabia; Echis coloratus Gthr., Southern
Palestine, Arabia, Socotra.
To this list should be added the scheltopusik, a large snake-like, limbless
lizard, Ophiosaurus apus, inhabiting Southeastern Europe, Asia Minor,
Persia, Syria and Palestine, which while perfectly harmless is commonly
classed with vipers.
Of all these the commonest is Zamenis nummifer, Arabic `aqd-ul-jauz,
string of walnuts, a fierce but non-poisonous snake which attains the
length of a meter. Its ground color is pale yellow and it has a dorsal series
of distinct diamond-shaped dark spots. Alternating with spots of the dorsal
row are on each side two lateral rows of less distinct dark spots. It is
everywhere considered to be fatal. Another common snake is Zamenis
gemonensis, Arabic chanash, which attains the length of two meters. It is
usually black and much resembles the American black snake, Zamenis
constrictor. Like all species of Zamenis, these ire harmless. Other common
harmless snakes are Zamenis dahlii, Tropidonotus tessellatus which is often
found in pools and streams, Contia collaris, Oligodon melanocephalus, a
small, nearly toothless snake with the crown of the head coal black.
Among the somewhat poisonous snakes, a very common one is Coelopeltis
monspessulana, Arabic al-chaiyat ul-barshat, which is about two meters
long, as larke as the black snake. It is uniformly reddish brown above, paler
758
below. Another is Psammophis schokari. Arabic an-nashshab, the arrow.
It is about a meter long, slender, and white with dark stripes. Many
marvelous and utterly improbable tales are told of its jumping powers, as
for instance that it can shoot through the air for more than a hundred feet
and penetrate a tree like a rifle bullet.
The commonest of the deadly poisonous snakes is Vipera lebetina, which
attains the length of a meter, has a thick body, a short tail, a broad head
and a narrow neck. It is spotted somewhat as Zamenis nummifer, but the
spots are less regular and distinct and the ground color is gray rather than
yellow. It does not seem to have a distinct name. Cerastes cornutus, having
two small horns, which are modified scales, over the eyes, is a small but
dangerous viper, and is found in the south. Not only are the species of
poisonous serpents fewer than the non-poisonous species, but the
individuals also appear to be less numerous. The vast majority of the
snakes which are encountered are harmless.
3. NAMES:
As stated above, all of the Hebrew and Greek names except qippoz, which
occurs only in
<233415>
Isaiah 34:15, are used of snakes actually or supposedly
poisonous. This absence of discrimination between poisonous and non-
poisonous kinds makes determination of the species difficult. Further, but
few of the Hebrew names are from roots whose meanings are clear, and
there is little evident relation to Arabic names.
(1) The commonest Hebrew word is [v j ;n;, nachash], which occurs 31
times and seems to be a generic word for serpent. While not always
clearly indicating a venomous serpent, it frequently does: e.g.
<195804>
Psalm
58:4; 140:3;
<202332>
Proverbs 23:32;
<211008>
Ecclesiastes 10:8,11;
<231429>
Isaiah
14:29;
<240817>
Jeremiah 8:17;
<300519>
Amos 5:19. According to BDB it is
perhaps from an onomatopoetic [v j n; , nachash], to hiss. It may be
akin to the Arabic chanash, which means snake in general, or
especially the black snake. Compare Ir-nahash (
<130412>
1 Chronicles 4:12);
Nahash
(a) (
<091101>
1 Samuel 11:1;
<101002>
2 Samuel 10:2),
(b) (
<101727>
2 Samuel 17:27),
759
(c) (
<101725>
2 Samuel 17:25); also [t v ,j n], nechosheth], copper or
brass; and [T ;v ]j un], nechushtan], Nehushtan, the brazen serpent
(
<121804>
2 Kings 18:4). But BDB derives the last two words from a
different root.
(2) [t r ;c ;, saraph], apparently from [t r c ; , saraph], to burn, is
used of the fiery serpents of the wilderness. In
<042108>
Numbers 21:8, it
occurs in the singular: Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a
standard. In 21:6 we have [ yp i r ; C ] h yv i j ; N] h , ha-nechashim ha-
seraphim], fiery serpents; in
<050815>
Deuteronomy 8:15 the same in the
singular: [t r ;c ; v j ;n;, nachash saraph], also translated fiery serpents;
in
<231429>
Isaiah 14:29; 30:6 we have [t p ewO[ m]t r ;c ;, saraph me`opheph],
fiery flying serpent. The same word in the plural [ yp ir ;c ], seraphim],
is translated seraphim in
<230602>
Isaiah 6:2,6.
(3) [yNiT , tannin], elsewhere dragon or seamonster (which see),
is used of the serpents into which the rods of Aaron and the magicians
were transformed (
<020709>
Exodus 7:9,10,12), these serpents being
designated by nachash in
<020403>
Exodus 4:3; 7:15. Tannin is rendered
serpent (the King James Version dragon) in
<053233>
Deuteronomy
32:33, Their wine is the poison of serpents, and
<199113>
Psalm 91:13,
The young lion and the serpent shalt thou trample under foot. On the
other hand, nachash seems in three passages to refer to a mythical
creature or dragon: His hand hath pierced the swift serpent (
<182613>
Job
26:13); In that day Yahweh .... will punish leviathan the swift serpent
and leviathan the crooked serpent (
<232701>
Isaiah 27:1); .... though they
be hid from my sight in the bottom of the sea, thence will I command
the serpent, and it shall bite them (
<300903>
Amos 9:3).
(4) [yl ej }zO, zochale] is translated crawling things in
<053224>
Deuteronomy
32:24 (the King James Version serpents) and in
<330717>
Micah 7:17 (the
King James Version worms).
(5) [b Wv k ][ , `akhshubh], occurs only in
<19E003>
Psalm 140:3, where it is
translated adder Septuagint [oo, aspis], Vulgate (Jeromes Latin
Bible, 390-405 A.D.) aspis), adders poison is under their lips. It has
been suggested (BDB) that the reading should be [v yb iK ;[ ,
760
`akkabhish], spider (which see). The parallel word in the previous
line is nachash.
(6) [t ;P ,, pethen], like most of the other names a word of uncertain
etymology, occurs 6 times and it is translated asp, except in
<199113>
Psalm
91:13, Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder. According to
Liddell and Scott, aspis is the name of the Egyptian cobra, Naia haje
L., which is not included in (2) above, because it does not certainly
appear to have been found in Palestine The name adder is applied to
various snakes all of which may perhaps be supposed to be poisonous
but some of which are actually harmless. Aspis occurs in
<450313>
Romans
3:13 in a paraphrase of
<19E003>
Psalm 140:3 (see (5) above); it occurs
frequently, though not uniformly, in Septuagint for (2), (5), (6), (7), (8)
and (10).
(7) [[ p x , , tsepha`], occurs only in
<231429>
Isaiah 14:29 where it is
translated adder (the King James Version cockatrice, the English
Revised Version basilisk, Septuagint [rxyovo oov, ekgona
aspidon], Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) regulus). The
root tsapha`, of (7) and (8) may be an onomatopoetic word meaning
to hiss (BDB).
(8) [yniwO[ p ]x i], or [yni[ op ]x i, tsiph`oni], occurs in
<202332>
Proverbs 23:32, At
the last it biteth like a serpent (nachash), and stingeth like an adder
(tsiph`oni). In
<231108>
Isaiah 11:8; 59:5, and
<240817>
Jeremiah 8:17, the
American Standard Revised Version has adder, while the King James
Version has cockatrice and the English Revised Version has
basilisk.
(9) [p oyp iv ], shephiphon], occurs only in
<014917>
Genesis 49:17:
Daniel shall be a serpent (nachash) in the way,
An adder (shephiphon) in the path,
That biteth the horses heels,
So that his rider falleth backward.
This has been thought to be Cerastes cornulus, on the authority of Tristram
(NHB), who says that lying in the path it will attack the passer-by, while
most snakes will glide away at the approach of a person or large animal.
He adds that his horse was much frightened at seeing one of these serpents
761
coiled up in a camels footprint. The word is perhaps akin to the Arabic
siff, or suff, which denotes a spotted and deadly snake.
(10) [h [ ,p ]a , , epheh], is found in
<182016>
Job 20:16;
<233006>
Isaiah 30:6; 59:5, and
in English Versions of the Bible is uniformly translated viper. It is the
same as the Arabic af`a, which is usually translated viper, though the
writer has never found anyone who could tell to what snake the name
belongs. In Arabic as in Hebrew a poisonous snake is always understood.
(11) [zwOP q i, qippoz], the American Standard Revised Version dart-snake,
the English Revised Version arrowsnake, the King James Version great
owl, only in
<233415>
Isaiah 34:15, There shall the dart-snake make her nest,
and lay, and hatch, and gather under her shade; yea, there shall the kites be
gathered, every one with her mate. This is the concluding verse in a vivid
picture of the desolation of Edom. The renderings dart-snake and
arrowsnake rest on the authority of Bochert, but Septuagint has [rvo,
echinos], hedgehog, and Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.)
ericeus, hedgehog. The rendering of the King James Version great owl
seems preferable to the others, because the words make her nest, and lay,
and hatch, and gather under her shade are as a whole quite inapplicable to
a mammal or to a reptile. The derivation from [zp q ; , qaphaz] (compare
Arabic qafaz), to spring, to dart, suits, it is true, a snake, and not a
hedgehog, but may also suit an owl. Finally, the next word in
<233415>
Isaiah
34:15 is kites, [t wOYd , dayyoth]; compare Arabic chidaat.
See BITTERN; OWL; PORCUPINE.
(12) [o, ophis], a general term for serpent, occurs in numerous
passages of the New Testament and Septuagint, and is fairly equivalent to
nachash.
(13) [oo, aspis], occurs in the New Testament only in
<450313>
Romans 3:13
parallel to
<19E003>
Psalm 140:3. See under
(5) `akhshubh and
(6) pethen. It is found in Septuagint for these words, and also for
eph`eh (
<233006>
Isaiah 30:6).
(14) [rvo, echidna], occurs in
<442803>
Acts 28:3, A viper came out .... and
fastened on his (Pauls) hand, and 4 times in the expression offspring (the
762
King James Version generation) of vipers, [yrvvqoto rvv,
gennemata echidnon] (
<400307>
Matthew 3:7; 12:34; 23:33;
<420307>
Luke 3:7). The
allied (masculine?) form [r, echis], occurs in Sirach 39:30, the Revised
Version (British and American) adder.
(15) [rprtov, herpeton], creeping thing, the King James Version
serpent, is found in
<590307>
James 3:7.
That the different Hebrew and Greek names are used without clear
distinction is seen from several examples of the employment of two
different names in parallel expressions:
Their poison is like the poison of a serpent (nachash);
They are like the deaf adder (pethen) that stoppeth her ear
(
<195804>
Psalm 58:4).
They have sharpened their tongue like a serpent (nachash);
Adders (`akhshubh) poison is under their lips (
<19E003>
Psalm 140:3).
For, behold, I will send serpents (nechashim), adders (tsiph`onim),
among you, which will not be charmed; and they shall bite you,
saith Yahweh (
<240817>
Jeremiah 8:17).
They shall lick the dust like a serpent (nachash): like crawling
things of the earth (zohale erets) they shall come trembling out of
their close places (
<330717>
Micah 7:17).
He shall suck the poison of asps (pethen): The vipers (eph`eh)
tongue shall slay him (
<182016>
Job 20:16).
Their wine is the poison of serpents (tanninim), and the cruel
venom of asps (pethanim) (
<053233>
Deuteronomy 32:33).
And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp (pethen),
and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adders (tsiph`oni)
den (
<231108>
Isaiah 11:8).
See also (8) an (9) above.
4. FIGURATIVE:
Most of the Biblical references to serpents are of a figurative nature, and
they usually imply poisonous qualities. The wicked (
<195804>
Psalm 58:4), the
763
persecutor (
<19E003>
Psalm 140:3), and the enemy (
<240817>
Jeremiah 8:17) are
likened to venomous serpents. The effects of wine are compared to the
bites of serpents (
<202332>
Proverbs 23:32). Satan is a serpent (Genesis 3;
<661209>
Revelation 12:9; 20:2). The term offspring of vipers is applied by
John the Baptist to the Pharisees and Sadducees (
<400307>
Matthew 3:7) or to
the multitudes (
<420307>
Luke 3:7) who came to hear him; and by Jesus to the
scribes and Pharisees (
<401234>
Matthew 12:34; 23:33). Daniel is a serpent in
the way .... that biteth the horses heels (
<014917>
Genesis 49:17). Serpents are
among the terrors of the wilderness (
<050815>
Deuteronomy 8:15;
<233006>
Isaiah
30:6). Among the signs accompanying believers is that they shall take up
serpents (
<411618>
Mark 16:18; compare
<442805>
Acts 28:5). It is said of him that
trusts in Yahweh:
Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: The young lion and the
serpent shalt thou trample under foot (
<199113>
Psalm 91:13).
In the millennium, the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and
the weaned child shall put his hand on the adders den (
<231108>
Isaiah 11:8).
The serpent is subtle (
<010301>
Genesis 3:1;
<471103>
2 Corinthians 11:3); wise
(
<401016>
Matthew 10:16); accursed (
<010314>
Genesis 3:14); eats dust (
<010314>
Genesis
3:14;
<236525>
Isaiah 65:25;
<330717>
Micah 7:17). The adder is deaf (
<195804>
Psalm 58:4).
The serpent lurks in unexpected places (
<014917>
Genesis 49:17;
<211008>
Ecclesiastes
10:8;
<300519>
Amos 5:19). Serpents may be charmed (
<195805>
Psalm 58:5;
<211011>
Ecclesiastes 10:11;
<240817>
Jeremiah 8:17). Among four wonderful things is
the way of a serpent upon a rock (
<203019>
Proverbs 30:19).
Alfred Ely Day
SERPENT, BRAZEN
<bra-z-n>.
See NEHUSHTAN.
SERPENT-CHARMING
<-charm-ing>: Allusion to this art, widely practiced by the ancients (see
references in DB, under the word; especially Bothart, Hieron., III, 161,
164, etc.), as by modern Orientals, is found in
<195805>
Psalm 58:5;
<211011>
Ecclesiastes 10:11;
<240817>
Jeremiah 8:17; Sirach 12:13, perhaps in
<590307>
James 3:7. The skill displayed in taming snakes, often without removing
the poison fangs, is very surprising. Bruce, Davy, and other travelers give
764
striking illustrations. See especially the interesting account of serpent-
charming in Hengstenbergs Egypt and the Books of Moses, English
Translation, 100-104.
SERPENT, CROOKED
<krook-ed>: With reference to the constellation round the North Pole, in
<182613>
Job 26:13, the Revised Version (British and American) the swift
serpent, margin fleeing; and
<232701>
Isaiah 27:1, the Revised Version margin
winding. In the first part of the latter passage, the King James Version
piercing serpent is changed in the Revised Version (British and
American) to swift serpent, margin gliding or fleeing.
See ASTRONOMY, II, 1.
SERPENT, FIERY
See SERPENT, 3, (2).
SERPENT WORSHIP
<wur-ship>: Traces of this superstition are thought by certain critics to be
discoverable in the religion of Israel. Stade mentions that W. R. Smith
supposed the serpent to be the totem of the house of David (Geschichte, I,
465). H. P. Smith says: We know of a Serpents Stone near Jerusalem,
which was the site of a sanctuary (
<110109>
1 Kings 1:9), and this sanctuary was
dedicated to Yahweh (Hist of Old Testament, 239, 240). Special reliance
is placed on the narrative of the brazen serpent, which Hezekiah is
recorded to have destroyed as leading to idolatry, (
<121804>
2 Kings 18:4). In
that case, says H. P. Smith, we must treat the Nehushtan as a veritable
idol of the house of Israel, which had been worshipped in the temple from
the time of its erection. Serpent worship is so widespread that we should
be surprised not to find traces of it in Israel (ut supra). In the same line,
see G. B. Gray, Nu, 275-76. The fancifulness of these deductions is
obvious.
See NEHUSHTAN.
J ames Orr
765
SERUG
<se-rug> ([gWr c ], serugh]; [2rpou, Serouch]): Son of Reu and great-
grandfather of Abraham (
<011120>
Genesis 11:20 ff;
<130126>
1 Chronicles 1:26;
<420335>
Luke 3:35).
SERVANT
<sur-vant> ([d b ,[ ,, ebhedh]; [ouo, doulos]): A very common word
with a variety of meanings, all implying a greater or less degree of
inferiority and want of freedom:
(1) The most frequent usage is as the equivalent of slave (which see),
with its various shades in position (
<010925>
Genesis 9:25; 24:9;
<022105>
Exodus
21:5;
<401024>
Matthew 10:24;
<421707>
Luke 17:7, and often); but also a hired
workman where hired servant translates Hebrew and Greek
expressions which differ from the above.
(2) An attendant in the service of someone, as Joshua was the
servant the Revised Version (British and American) minister of
Moses (
<041128>
Numbers 11:28).
(3) As a term of respectful self-depreciation referring to ones self,
thy servant. or your servant is used in place of the personal
pronoun of the first person:
(a) in the presence of superiors (
<011902>
Genesis 19:2; 32:18, and often);
(b) in addressing the Supreme Being (
<090309>
1 Samuel 3:9;
<191911>
Psalm
19:11; 27:9;
<420229>
Luke 2:29, and often).
(4) Officials of every grade are called the servants of kings, princes,
etc. (
<092903>
1 Samuel 29:3;
<101601>
2 Samuel 16:1;
<111126>
1 Kings 11:26;
<201435>
Proverbs 14:35, and often).
(5) The position of a king in relation to his people (
<111207>
1 Kings 12:7).
(6) One who is distinguished as obedient and faithful to God or Christ
(
<060102>
Joshua 1:2;
<120819>
2 Kings 8:19;
<270620>
Daniel 6:20;
<510412>
Colossians 4:12;
<550224>
2 Timothy 2:24).
(7) One who is enslaved by sin (
<430834>
John 8:34).
766
William J oseph Mcglothlin
SERVANT OF YAHWEH (THE LORD)
1. HISTORICAL SITUATION:
A century and a half had passed since the great days of Isaiah in Jerusalem.
The world had vastly changed during those long decades when politicians
had planned, armies surged back and forth, and tribes and nations had lost
or won in the struggle for existence, place and power. The center of the
world had changed for Assyria had gone to its long home, and the city
claiming preeminence was not Nineveh but Babylon.
Nowhere perhaps had time laid a heavier hand than on the city of
Jerusalem and the country of Judah. For city and land had come to
desolation, and the inhabitants of the country had become familiar with the
strange sights and sounds of Babylonia, whither they had been carried by
their conquerors. Many had found graves in the land of the exile, and new
generations had arisen who had no memory of the hill country of their
fathers. It is the situation of these captive Jews in Babylonia which is
reflected and they who are addressed at the waning of the long night of
captivity by the stirring message recorded in Isaiah 40 through 66 (leaving
out of account here disputed passages in Isaiah 40 through 66).
2. THE AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH, CHAPTERS 40 THROUGH 66:
The more one studies the problem of the authorship of these chapters, the
more unlikely does it seem that their author penned them 150 years before
the time with which they are vitally connected. It is obviously impossible to
treat that problem in a detailed way here, but one may sum up the
arguments by saying that in theological ideas, in style, and use of words
they show such differences from the assured productions of Isaiahs pen as
to point to a different authorship. And the great argument, the argument
which carries the most weight to the author of this article, is that these late
chapters are written from the standpoint of the exile. The exile is assumed
in what is said. These chapters do not prophesy the exile, do not say it is to
come; they all the time speak as though it had come. The message is not
that an exile is to be, but beginning with the fact that the exile already is, it
foretells deliverance. Now of course it is conceivable that God might
inspire a man to put himself forward 150 years, and with a message to
people who were to live then, assuming their circumstances as a
767
background of what he said, but it is improbable to the last degree. To put
it in plain, almost gruff, English, it is not the way God did things. The
prophets message was always primarily a message to his own age. Then
there is no claim in the chapters themselves that Isaiah was their author.
And having once been placed so that it was supposed they were by Isaiah
placed so through causes we do not know the fact that in speaking
of passages from these chapters New Testament authors referred to them
by a name the people would recognize, is not a valid argument that they
meant to teach anything as to their authorship. The problem had not arisen
in New Testament times. Isaiah 40 through 66, as Professor Davidson has
suggested, has a parallel in the Book of Job, each the production of a great
mind, each from an author we do not know.
Compare ISAIAH.
3. THE PROPHET OF THE EXILE:
Out of the deep gloom of the exile when the Jew was a man without a
country, when it seemed as if the nations sins had murdered hope out
of this time comes the voice most full of gladness and abounding hope of
all the voices from the Old Testament life. In the midst of the proud,
confident civilization of Babylonia, with its teeming wealth and exhaustless
splendor, came a man who dared to speak for Yahweh a man of such
power to see reality that to him Babylonia was already doomed, and he
could summon the people to prepare for Gods deliverance.
4. THE UNITY OF ISAIAH 40 THROUGH 66:
In recent criticism, especially in Germany, there has been a strong tendency
to assign the last chapters of this section to a different author from the first.
The background it is claimed is not Babylonian; the sins rebuked are the
sins of the people when at home in Judea, and in at least one passage the
temple at Jerusalem seems to be standing. That these chapters present
difficulties need not be disputed, but it seems to me that again and again in
them one can find the hand of Second Isaiah. Then undoubtedly the author
quotes from previous prophecies which we can recognize, and the
suggestion that some of the difficult passages may be quotations from
other older prophecies which are not preserved to us, I think an
exceedingly good one. The quotation of such passages in view of the
prospect of return, and the prophets feeling of the need of the people,
768
would seem to me not at all unnatural. If a later hand is responsible for
some utterances in the latter part of the section, it seems to me fairly clear
that most of it is from the hand of the great unknown prophet of the exile.
The questions regarding the Servant-passages as affecting the unity of the
book will be treated later.
5. PRINCIPAL IDEAS OF ISAIAH 40 THROUGH 66:
The first part of this section vividly contrasts Yahweh and the idols
worshipped with such splendor and ceremony. All the resources of irony
and satire are used to give point and effect to the contrast. Cyrus the
Median conqueror is already on the horizon, and he is declared to be Gods
instrument in the deliverance. The idols are described in process of
manufacture; they are addressed in scornful apostrophe, they are seen
carried away helpless. On the other side Yahweh, with illimitable foresight
and indomitable strength, knows and reveals the future. They know and
reveal nothing. He brings to pass what He has planned. They do nothing.
Not only the idols but Babylonia itself is made the victim of satire and
the prophet hurls a taunt song at the proud but impotent city.
Israel the people of Yahweh the elect of God is given the
prophets message. The past is called up as a witness to Yahwehs
dealings. His righteousness His faithfulness to His people shall not
fail. They are unworthy, but out of His own bounty salvation is provided.
And with joy of this salvation from exile and from sin the book rings and
rings. The Zion of the restored Israel is pictured with all the play of color
and richness of imagery at the prophets command. And this restored Israel
is to have a world-mission. Its light is to fall upon all lands. It is to minister
salvation to all races of men.
But back of and under these pictures of great hope is the prophets sense
of his peoples sin and their struggle with it. In the latter part of the book,
especially Isaiah 59 and 64 this comes out clearly. And the mood of these
chapters expresses the feeling out of which some of the deep things of the
Servant-passages came. There is no need to insist that the chapters as they
stand are in the order in which they were written. We know from other
prophecies that this was not always true. But even if a man were convinced
that the chapters now occurring after the Servant-passages were all written
after them, he could still hold, and I think would be justified in holding,
that in places in those chapters the reader finds the record of a state of the
769
prophets mind before the writing of those passages. The former view
would be, I think, the preferable one. At any rate the point of view is
logically that out of which some of the deep things in the Servant-passages
came.
In profoundness of meaning the climax of the book is reached in these
passages where the deliverance from exile and the deliverance from sin are
connected with one great figure the Servant of Yahweh.
6. THE SERVANT-PASSAGES:
The word servant, as applied to servants of God, is not an unfamiliar one
to readers of the Old Testament. It is applied to different individuals and by
Jeremiah to the nation (compare
<243010>
Jeremiah 30:10; 46:27); but its
message is on the whole so distinct and complete in Second Isaiah that we
can study it without any further reference to previous usage.
The servant first appears in
<234108>
Isaiah 41:8. Here the reference is
undoubtedly to Israel, chosen and called of God and to be upheld by Him.
Here Israel is promised victory over its enemies. In vivid picture their
destruction and Isracls future trust and glory in God are portrayed.
There are several incidental references to Israel as Yahwehs servant:
created by Yahweh and not to be forgotten (
<234108>
Isaiah 41:8); Cyrus is said
to be called for the sake of His servant Jacob (
<234504>
Isaiah 45:4); Yahweh is
said to have redeemed His servant Jacob (
<234820>
Isaiah 48:20).
In
<234426>
Isaiah 44:26 servant seems to be used with the meaning of
prophet. It is said of Yahweh that He confirmeth the word of his servant,
and performeth the counsel of his messengers.
In
<234219>
Isaiah 42:19 we find the failure and inadequacy of Israel presented in
the words, Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I
send? This passage is an explanation of the exile. Israel proved unworthy
and sinned, hence, its punishment, but even in the exile the lesson had not
been taken to heart.
In
<234308>
Isaiah 43:8 ff Yahweh summons Israel the servant, who in spite of
blindness and deafness yet is His witness. It has at least seen enough to be
able to witness for Him in the presence of the heathen.
770
In
<234401>
Isaiah 44:1-5, leaving the unworthiness of the actual Israel, there
comes what seems to me a summons in the name of the possible, the ideal.
The underlying thought is a call to the high future which God has ready to
give.
This covers the reference to the servant outside the great Servant-passages
to which we now come. There are four of these:
<234201>
Isaiah 42:1-9; 49:1-9a;
50:4-11; 52:13 through 53:12; 61:1-4 perhaps represents words of the
Servant, but may refer to words of the prophet, and, as at any rate it adds
no new features to the picture of the Servant already given in the passages
undoubtedly referring to him, we will not discuss it.
(1) Date of the Servant-Passages.
Ewald long ago suggested that the last of the Servant-passages must have
been borrowed from an earlier composition, which he assigned to the age
of Manasseh. If we find in the study of the passage reason for its
vividness, we shall not need to seek its origin in the description of some
past martyrdom.
Duhm quoted by Cheyne thinks the Servant-passages post-exilic. The
gentleness and quiet activity of the Servant for one thing, according to
Duhm, suggest the age of the scribes, rather than that of the exile. But
might not an age of suffering be a time to learn the lesson of gentleness?
According to Skinner, Duhm thinks the passages were inserted almost
haphazard, but Skinner also refers to Kosters, showing that the passages
cannot be lifted without carrying some of the succeeding verses with them.
This is particularly significant in view of the recent popularity of other
theories which deny the Servant-passages to the hand and time of Second
Isa. The theory that these passages form by themselves a poem or a set of
poems which have been inserted here can boast of distinguished names.
There does not seem much to commend it, however. As to the argument
from difference as to rhythm, there is disagreement, and the data are
probably not of a sort to warrant much significance being applied to it
either way. The fact that the passages are not always a part of connected
movement of thought would play great havoc if made a universal principle
of discrimination as to authorship in the prophecies of the Old Testament.
If we succeed in giving the fundamental ideas of the passages a place in
relation to the thought of Deutero-Isaiah, an argument for which cogency
might be claimed will be dissipated. But even at its best this argument
771
would not be conclusive. To deny certain ideas to an author simply because
he has not expressed them in a certain bit of writing acknowledged to him
is perilous business. A message of hope surely does not preclude an
appreciation of the dark things.
The truth of the matter is that even by great scholars the temptation to a
criticism of knight-errantry is not always resisted. And I think we shall not
make any mistake in believing that this is the case with the attempt to
throw doubt upon the Deutero-Isaianic authorship of the Servant-passages.
(2) Discussion of the Passages.
<234201>
Isaiah 42:1-9: In these verses Yahweh Himself is the speaker,
describing the Servant as His chosen, in whom His soul delights, upon
whom He has put His spirit. He is to bring justice to the Gentiles. His
methods are to be quiet and gentle, and the very forlorn hope of goodness
He will not quench. He is to set justice in the earth, and remote countries
are described as waiting for His law. Then comes a declaration by the
prophet that Yahweh, the Creator of all, is the speaker of words declaring
the Servants call in righteousness to be a covenant for the people, a light
to the Gentiles, a helper to those in need the blind and imprisoned.
Yahwehs glory is not to be given to other, nor His praise to graven
images. Former prophecies have come to pass. New things He now
declares. Ones attention needs to be called to the distinction of the
Servant from Israel in this passage. He is to be a covenant of the people:
according to Delitzsch, he in whom and through whom Yahweh makes a
new covenant with His people in place of the old one that has been
broken.
<234901>
Isaiah 49:1-9a; Here the Servant himself spoaks, telling of his calling
from the beginning of his life, of the might of his word, of his shelter in
God, of a time of discouragement in which he thought his labor in vain,
followed by insistence on his trust in God. Then Yahweh promises him a
larger mission than the restoration of Israel, namely, to be a light to the
Gentiles. Yahweh speaks of the Servant as one despised, yet to be
triumphant so that he will be honored by kings and princes. He is to lead
his people forth at their restoration, to make them inherit the desolate
heritages; saying to them that are bound, Go forth; to them that are in
darkness, Show yourselves.
772
Clearly the Servant is distinct from the people Israel in this passage. Yet in
<234903>
Isaiah 49:3 he is addressed as Israel. The word Israel here may be a
gloss, which would solve the difficulty, or the Servant may be addressed as
Israel because he gathers up in himself the meaning of the ideal Israel. If it
is true that the prophet gradually passed from the conception of Israel as a
nation to a person through whom its true destiny would be realized, this
last suggestion would gain in probability.
One notices here the emphasis on the might of the Servant, and in this
passage we come to understand that he is to pass through a time of
ignominy. The phrase a servant of rulers is a difficult one, which would
be clear if the prophet conceived of him as one of the exiles, and typically
representing them. The Servants mission in this passage seems quite
bound up with the restoration.
<235004>
Isaiah 50:4-11: In the first part of this passage the Servant is not
mentioned directly, but it seems clear that he is speaking. He is taught of
God continually, that he may bring a message to the weary. He has opened
his ear so that he may fully understand Yahwehs message. The Servant
now describes his sufferings as coming to him because of his obedience. He
was not rebellious and did not turn back from his mission. Flint-like he set
his face and with confidence in God met the shame which came upon him.
After language vivid with a sense of ignominy his assured consciousness of
victory and faith in God are expressed, .
In
<235010>
Isaiah 50:10-11, according to Delitzsch, Yahweh speaks, first
encouraging those who listen to the Servant, then addressing those who
despise his word. Cheyne thinks the Servant mentioned in 50:10 may be
the prophet, but I prefer Delitzschs view.
<235213>
Isaiah 52:13 through 53:12: The present division of 52:13 through
53:12 is unfortunate, for obviously it is all of a piece and ought to stand
together in one chapter.
In
<235213>
Isaiah 52:13-15 Yahweh speaks of the humiliation and later of the
exaltation of the Servant. He shall deal wisely the idea here including
the success resulting from wisdom and shall be exalted. Words are piled
upon each other here to express his exaltation. But the appearance of the
Servant is such as to suggest the very opposite of his dignity, which will
astonish nations and kings when they come, to understand it.
773
Entering upon Isaiah 53 we find the people of Israel speaking confessing
their former unbelief, and giving as a reason the repulsive aspect of the
Servant despised, sad, sick with a visage to make men turn from him.
He is described as though he had been a leper. They thought all this had
come upon him as a stroke from God, but they now see how he went even
to death, not for his own transgression but for theirs. Their peace and
healing came through his suffering and death. They have been sinful and
erring; the result of it all God has caused to light upon him.
They look back in wonder at the way he bore his sufferings like a lamb
led to the slaughter; with a false judicial procedure he was led away, no
one considering his death, or its relation to them. His grave even was an
evidence of ignominy.
Beginning at
<235310>
Isaiah 53:10 the people cease speaking, according to
Delitzsch, and the prophecy becomes the organ of God who acknowledges
His Servant. The reference to a trespass offering in 53:10 is remarkable.
Nowhere else is prophecy so connected with the sacrificial system (A. B.
Davidson). It pleased God to bruise the Servant his soul having been
made a trespass offering; the time of humiliation over, the time of
exaltation will come.
By his knowledge we are told here a momentary reversion to the time
of humiliation taking place by his knowledge he shall justify many and
bear their iniquities. Then comes the exaltation dividing of spoils and
greatness the phrases suggesting kingly glory: all this is to be his
because of his suffering. The great fact of Isaiah 53 is vicarious suffering.
(3) Whom Did the Prophet Mean by the Servant?
(a) Obviously not all of Israel always, for the Servant is distinguished
from Israel.
(b) Not the godly remnant, for he is distinguished from them. Then the
godly remnant does not attain to any such proportions as to fit the
description of Isaiah 53.
(c) And one cannot accept theory that the prophetic order is intended.
The whole order is not great enough to exhaust the meaning of one of
a half-dozen of the greatest lines in chapter 53.
774
Professor A. B. Davidsons Old Testament Prophecy contains a brilliant
and exceedingly able discussion of the question which he approaches from
the stand-point of Biblical rather than simply exegetical theology. His
fundamental position is that in the prophets outlook the restoration is the
consummation. In his mind the Servant and his work cannot come after the
restoration. The Servant, if a real person, must be one whose work lies in
the past or the present, as there is not room in the future for him, for the
restoration which is at the door brings felicity, and after that no sufferings
of the Servant are conceivable. But there is no actual person in the past and
none in the present who could be the Servant. Hence, the Servant cannot
be to the prophets mind a real person.
See CONIAH.
Of course Davidson relates the result to his larger conception of prophecy
in such a way as to secure the Messianic significance of the passages in
relation to their fulfillment in our Lord. The ideas they contain are realized
in Him.
But coming back to the prophets mind if the Servant was not a person
to him, what significance did he have? The answer according to Davidson
is, He is a great personification of the ideal Israel. He is Israel according
to its idea. To quote more fully, The prophet has created out of the
divine determinations imposed on Israel, election, creation and forming,
endowment with the word or spirit of Yahweh, and the divine purpose in
these operations, an ideal Being, an inner Israel in the heart of the
phenomenal or actual Israel, an indestructible Being having these divine
attributes or endowments, present in the outward Israel in all ages,
powerful and effectual because really composed, if I can say so, of divine
forces, who cannot fail in Gods purpose, and who as an inner power
within Israel by his operation causes all Israel to become a true servant
(compare Davidson, Old Testament Prophecy, 435-36).
Now it seems to me that Davidson is more effective in his destructive than
in his constructive work. One must confess that he presents real difficulties
in the way of holding to a personal Servant as the prophets conception.
But on the other hand when he tries to replace that by a more adequate
conception, I do not think he conspicuously succeeds.
The greatest of the Servant-passages (it seems to me) presents more than
can be successfully dealt with under the conception of the Servant as the
775
ideal Israel. The very great emphasis on vicarious suffering in Isaiah 53
simply is not answered by theory. Words would not leap with such a flame
of reality in describing the suffering of a personification. The sense of sin
back of the passage is not a thing whose problem could be solved by a
glittering figure of speech. There it surges the movement of an aroused
conscience and the answer to it could never be anything less than a real
deed by a real person. My own feeling is that if language can express
anything it expresses the fact that the prophet had a real personal Servant
in view.
But what of the difficulties Davidson suggests? Even if the answer were
not easy to find, one could rest on the total impression the passages make.
One cannot vaporize a passage for the sake of placing it in an environment
in which one believes it belongs. As Cheyne in other days said, In the
sublimest descriptions of the Servant I am unable to resist the impression
that we have the presentment of an individual, and venture to think that our
general view of the Servant ought to be ruled by those passages in which
the enthusiasm of the author is at its height.
The first thing we need to remember in dealing with the difficulties
Davidson has brought forth is the timelessness of prophecy, and the
resulting fact that every prophet saw the future as if lying just on the
horizon of his own time. As prophets saw the day of Yahweh as if at hand,
so it seems to me Deutero-Isaiah saw the Servant: each really afar off, yet
each really seen in the colors of the present. Then we must remember that
the prophets did not relate all their conceptions. They stated truths whose
meaning and articulation they did not understand. They were not
philosophers with a Hegelian hunger for a total view of life, and when we
try to read them from this standpoint we misjudge them. Then we must
remember that the prophet may here have been lifted to a height of
prophetic receptivehess where he received and uttered what went beyond
the limits of his own understanding. To be sure there was a point of
contact, but I see no objection to the thought that in a place of unique
significance and importance like this, God might use a man to utter words
which reached far beyond the limits of his own understanding. In this
connection some words of Professor Hermann Schultz are worth quoting:
If it is true anywhere in the history of poetry and prophecy, it is true here
that the writer being full of the spirit has said more than he himself meant
to say and more than he himself understood.
776
(4) The Psychology of the Prophecy.
This does not mean that something may. not be said about the connection
of the Servant-passages with the prophets own thought. Using Delitzschs
illustration, we can see how from regarding all Israel as the servant the
prophet could narrow down to the godly part of Israel as experience taught
him the faithlessness of many, and it ought not to be impossible for us to
see how all that Israel really meant at its best could have focused itself in
his thought upon one person. Despite Davidsons objection, I can see
nothing artificial about this movement in the prophets mind. There was
probably more progression in his thought than Professor Davidson is
willing to allow. If it is asked, Where was the person to whom the prophet
could ascribe such greatness, conceiving as he did that he was to come at
once? surely a similar question would be fair in relation to Isaiahs
Messiah. The truth is that even on the threshold of the restoration there
was time for a great one suddenly to arise. As John the Baptist on the
Jordan watched for the coming One whom he knew not, yet who was alive,
so the great prophet of the exile may have watched even day by day for the
coming Servant whose work had been revealed to him.
But deep in the psychology of the prophecy is the sense of sin out of which
these passages came and indications of which I think are found in the latter
part of the book. The great guilt-laden past lay terribly behind the prophet,
and as he mused over the sufferings of the righteous, perhaps especially
drawn to tim heart-rent Jeremiah, the thought of redemptive suffering may
have dawned upon him. And if in its light, and with a personal sense of sin
drawn from what experiences we know not, he grapples with the problem,
can we not understand, can we not see that God might flash upon him the
great conception of a sin-bearer?
7. PLACE OF THE SERVANT-PASSAGES
IN OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECY:
At last the idea of vicarious suffering had been connected with the deep
things of the nations life, and henceforward was a part of its heritage. To
the profoundest souls it would be a part of the nations forward look. The
priestly idea had been deepened and filled with new moral meaning. The
Servant was a prophet too so priest and prophet met in one. And I think
Cheyne was right when he suggested that in the Servants exaltation in
Isaiah 53, the idea of the Servant is brought nearer to that of king than we
777
sometimes think. So in suggestion, at least, prophet, priest and king meet
in the great figure of the suffering Servant.
A new rich stream had entered into prophecy, full of power to fertilize
whatever shores of thought it touched. In the thoughts of these passages
prophecy seemed pressing with impatient eagerness to its goal, and though
centuries were to pass before that goal was reached, its promise is seen
here, full of assurance and of knowledge of the kind of goal it is to be.
8. LARGER MESSIANIC SIGNIFICANCE
OF THE SERVANT-PASSAGES:
But whatever our view of the meaning of the prophet, we must agree
(compare
<400817>
Matthew 8:17; 12:18-21; 26:67;
<431241>
John 12:41, et al.) that
the conception he so boldly and powerfully put upon his canvas had its
realization, its fulfillment in the One who spoke to the world from the cross
on Calvary. And in its darkly glorious shadow the Christian, with all the
sadness and joy and wonder of it, with a sense of its solving all his
problems and meeting the deepest needs and outreaches of his life, can feel
a strange companionship with the exilic prophet whose yearning for a sin-
bearer and belief in His coming call across the long and slowly moving
years. In the light and penetration of that hour he may be trusted to know
what the prophet meant. Professor Delitzsch well said of that passage,
Every word is as it were written under the cross at Golgotha.
Lynn Harold Hough
SERVANTS, SOLOMONS
See SOLOMONS SERVANTS.
SERVICE
<sur-vis>: Six Hebrew, two Aramaic and four Greek words are so
rendered.
1. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT:
In the Old Testament the word most used for service is
(1) `abhodhah, from `abhadh, which is the general word, meaning to
work and so to serve, to till, also to enslave. The noun means
bondage, labor, ministering, service, tillage, work, use.
778
The word is used in describing work in the fields (
<020114>
Exodus 1:14, et
al.), work in the tabernacle (
<022719>
Exodus 27:19, et al.), sanctuary service
(
<040709>
Numbers 7:9), service of Yahweh (
<040811>
Numbers 8:11), Levitical or
priestly service (
<040822>
Numbers 8:22), kingly service (
<132630>
1 Chronicles
26:30), etc. Reference is made to instruments, wood vessels, cattle,
herbs, shekels for the service in the house of Yahweh.
(2) `Abhadh itself is translated service in
<040815>
Numbers 8:15; 18:23;
<242213>
Jeremiah 22:13.
(3) Seradh means stitching, i.e. piercing with a needle; it occurs only
4 times, and in each case in the Revised Version (British and American)
instead of service is translated finely wrought garments (
<023110>
Exodus
31:10; 35:19; 39:1,41).
(4) Sharath means primarily to attend as a servant or worshipper,
and to contribute to or render service, wait on, and thence service;
occurs only 3 times (
<023519>
Exodus 35:19; 39:1,41 the King James
Version) and in the American Standard Revised Version is rendered
for ministering.
(5) Tsabha is found 7 times, used in the same connection each time,
and refers to those numbered for service in the tent of meeting. Its
primary root meaning refers to service for war, campaign, hardship
(
<040430>
Numbers 4:30,35,39,43; 8:24).
(6) Yadh means literally, an open hand, indicating direction, power,
and so ministry as in
<130631>
1 Chronicles 6:31, where David appoints
certain ones to have direction of the music, translated in
<132905>
1
Chronicles 29:5, the Revised Version (British and American) not
service, but himself.
(7) `Abhidhah means business, labor, affairs;
<150618>
Ezra 6:18 is the
only place where it is found.
(8) Polchan, from root meaning to worship, minister to, and so in
<150719>
Ezra 7:19 vessels given for service.
2. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT:
The following are the uses in the New Testament:
779
(1) Diakonia, from root meaning to run on errands, and so
attendance, aid as a servant, ministry, relief, and hence, service;
compare English word deacon; Paul: that I might minister unto you
(2 Cor 11:8); also found in
<451531>
Romans 15:31 (ministration) and
<660219>
Revelation 2:19 (ministry).
(2) Douleuo, literally, to be a slave, in bondage, service (
<480408>
Galatians
4:8, bondage;
<490607>
Ephesians 6:7, service;
<540602>
1 Timothy 6:2,
serve).
(3) Latreia, from root meaning to render religious homage, menial
service to God, and so worship (
<431602>
John 16:2, service;
<450904>
Romans
9:4, service;
<451201>
Romans 12:1, spiritual service;
<580901>
Hebrews 9:1,
service; 9:6, services).
(4) Leitourgia, from root to perform religious or charitable functions,
worship, relieve, obey, minister, and hence, a public function, priestly
or charitable (liturgy) (2 Cor 9:12, service; also in
<505017>
Philippians
2:17,30).
See SERVANT.
William Edward Raffety
SERVITUDE
<sur-vi-tud>.
See SERVANT; SLAVE.
SESIS
<se-sis> (Codex Vaticanus [2ror, Seseis]; Codex Alexandrinus
[2roor, Sesseis]): One who put away his foreign wife (1 Esdras 9:34) =
Shashai in
<151040>
Ezra 10:40.
SESTHEL
<ses-thel> ([2ro0q, Sesthel]): One of the sons of Addi who put away
their foreign wives (1 Esdras 9:31)= Bezalel in
<151030>
Ezra 10:30.
780
SET
Few words in the English language have such a rich variety of meaning and
are used in so rich a variety of idiomatic expression as the word set. A
glance at any of the great dictionaries will convince anyone of the truth of
this statement. The Standard Dictionary devotes three and a half columns
to the word. In its primary meaning it there denotes 22 distinct things, in its
secondary meaning 17 more, while 18 distinct phrases are given in which it
is used, in some cases again in a variety of meanings. It is indeed a word
calculated to drive a foreigner to despair. Some 70 Hebrew and about 30
Greek words in the original tongues of the Holy Scriptures have been
rendered by the word set, in the King James Version and also in the
Revised Version (British and American). A careful comparative study of
the original and of translations in other tongues will at once indicate that a
lack of discrimination is evident on the part of the English translators in the
frequent use of the word set.
Thus in Song 5:14, hands are as rings of gold set with beryl, the Hebrew
word is [a l em; , male], to be filled, full. Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible,
390-405 A.D.) translates plenae, the Dutch gevuld, the German voll;
<200827>
Proverbs 8:27, when he set a circle, Hebrew [q q j ; , chaqaq], to
describe, decree, Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.)
vallabat, Dutch beschreef;
<150410>
Ezra 4:10, set in the city of Samaria,
Aramaic [b t iy], yethibh], to cause to sit down, to cause to dwell,
Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) habitare eas fecit, Dutch
doen wonen;
<190206>
Psalm 2:6, Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill,
Hebrew [ s n; , nacakh], to pour out, to anoint, Dutch gezalfd;
<231902>
Isaiah 19:2, the King James Version I will set the Egyptians against the
Egyptians, Hebrew [ k s ; , cakhakh], to disturb, to confuse,
Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) concurrere faciam,, Dutch
verwarren, German an einander setzen;
<660308>
Revelation 3:8, I have, set
before thee a door, Greek [, didomi], to give, Vulgate
(Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) dedi coram te, Dutch gegeven,
German gegeben;
<441927>
Acts 19:27, the King James Version Our craft is in
danger to be set at nought, Greek [rpoo, erchomai], to come,
Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) periclitabitur, Dutch in
verachting komen;
<420418>
Luke 4:18, to set at liberty them, Greek
[oootr, apostello], to send away, Dutch heen te zenden in
781
vrijheid;
<441309>
Acts 13:9, the King James Version Saul .... set his eyes on
him, Greek [otrv, atenizo], to stare fixedly, Vulgate: intuens in
eum, Dutch de oogen op hem houdende. These are but a few examples
chosen at random where our English translators have rendered Hebrew and
Greek words by set, where a more literal translation, in equally good
idiomatic language, was possible. The word set is the causative of sit,
and indicates primarily a power of self-support, in opposition to the idea of
the word lay.
(1) In its primary meaning the word set is used in our English Bible
in many senses:
(a) Foundation: Song 5:15, His legs are as pillars of marble set
upon.
(b) Direction:
<262116>
Ezekiel 21:16, whithersoever thy face is set.
(c) Appointed time:
<441221>
Acts 12:21, upon a set day.
(d) Fixed place:
<142017>
2 Chronicles 20:17, Set yourselves, stand ye still,
and see;
<100617>
2 Samuel 6:17;
<400405>
Matthew 4:5.
(e) Cause to sit:
<090208>
1 Samuel 2:8, the King James Version to set them
among princes;
<142320>
2 Chronicles 23:20;
<196806>
Psalm 68:6.
(f) Appointment:
<150725>
Ezra 7:25, the King James Version set
magistrates and judges;
<014141>
Genesis 41:41;
<091213>
1 Samuel 12:13;
<190206>
Psalm 2:6;
<270111>
Daniel 1:11.
(g) To lift up:
<013117>
Genesis 31:17, set his sons and his wives upon.
(h) Appointed place:
<010117>
Genesis 1:17, God set them in the
firmament.
(i) Cause to stand:
<014707>
Genesis 47:7, Joseph brought in Jacob .... and
set him before Pharaoh;
<040813>
Numbers 8:13;
<142925>
2 Chronicles 29:25.
(j) Sitting:
<400501>
Matthew 5:1, the King James Version when he was
set;
<580801>
Hebrews 8:1 the King James Version.
782
(k) Location:
<400514>
Matthew 5:14, a city set on a hill. These by no
means exhaust the meaning which the word, in its primary sense, has in
our English Bible.
(2) In a secondary or tropical sense it is used with equal frequency,
usually with various prepositions. Thus,
(a) To attack:
<070933>
Judges 9:33, the King James Version and set upon
the city.
(b) To imprint:
<010415>
Genesis 4:15, the King James Version The Lord
set a mark upon Cain.
(c) To direct to:
<110215>
1 Kings 2:15, And that all Israel set their faces on
me.
(d) To place:
<112012>
1 Kings 20:12, Ben-hadad shouted one word to his
allies: Set, i.e. set the armies in array, the battering-rams and engines
of attack in their place.
(e) To incline toward:
<264004>
Ezekiel 40:4, Set thy heart upon all that I
shall show.
(f) To trust in:
<196210>
Psalm 62:10, If riches increase, set not your heart
thereon.
(g) To place before:
<199008>
Psalm 90:8, Thou hast set our iniquities
before;
<19E103>
Psalm 141:3, Set a watch, O Yahweh, before my mouth.
(h) To go down: of the setting of the sun (
<410132>
Mark 1:32;
<420440>
Luke
4:40).
(i) To be proud:
<390315>
Malachi 3:15, the King James Version They that
work wickedness are set up.
(j) To fill in:
<023509>
Exodus 35:9, stones to be set, for the ephod.
(k) To plant:
<411201>
Mark 12:1, set a hedge about it.
(l) To mock:
<422311>
Luke 23:11, Herod .... set him at nought.
(m) To honor:
<091830>
1 Samuel 18:30, so that his name was much set
by.
783
(n) To start:
<442102>
Acts 21:2, We went aboard, and set sail. As may be
seen the word is used in an endless variety of meanings.
Henry E. Dosker
SETH; SHETH
<seth>, <sheth> ([t v e, sheth]; [2q0, Seth]):
(1) The son born to Adam and Eve after the death of Abel (
<010425>
Genesis
4:25 f; 5:3 ff;
<130101>
1 Chronicles 1:1; Sirach 49:16;
<420338>
Luke 3:38). In
<010425>
Genesis 4:25 the derivation of the name is given. Eve called his
name Seth: For, said she, God hath appointed (shath) me another seed
instead of Abel. In
<130101>
1 Chronicles 1:1 the King James Version, the
form is Sheth; elsewhere in the King James Version and in the
Revised Version (British and American) throughout the form is Seth.
(2) the King James Version the children of Sheth, the Revised
Version (British and American) the sons of tumult. According to the
King James Version rendering, the name of an unknown race
mentioned in Balaams parable (
<042417>
Numbers 24:17).
S. F. Hunter
SETHUR
<se-thur> ([r Wt s ], cethur]; [2o0oup, Sathour]): An Asherite spy
(
<041313>
Numbers 13:13 (14)).
SETTING
<set-ing> ([h a ;L umi, milluah], literally, a filling): The word is used in
the description of the manufacture of the breastplate of judgment
(
<022817>
Exodus 28:17). The instruction runs: Thou shalt set in it settings of
stones, namely, four rows of precious stones. The same word is rendered
inclosings in
<022820>
Exodus 28:20, and in 39:13 the King James Version.
SETTLE (1)
<set--l> ([h r ;z;[ }, `azarah]): For this word in
<264314>
Ezekiel 43:14,17,20;
45:19, the American Standard Revised Version and the English Revised
Version margin substitute more correctly ledge.
784
See TEMPLE.
SETTLE (2)
The Hebrew language has 8 words which are thus translated: yashabh,
nachath, `amadh, shaqat, tabha`, natsabh, maqom, qapha. Now the
meaning is to settle down, to cause to occur (
<263611>
Ezekiel 36:11 the King
James Version;
<131714>
1 Chronicles 17:14); then it denotes fixedness (
<120811>
2
Kings 8:11;
<19B989>
Psalm 119:89;
<200825>
Proverbs 8:25); again it points to a
condition of absolute quiescence, as the settlings on the lees (
<244811>
Jeremiah
48:11); and in still another place it means packing solidly together
(
<196510>
Psalm 65:10). In the New Testament the words [rpoo, hedraios],
[0rro, themelioo], and [t0q, tithemi], have been translated
settle. the Revised Version (British and American) in
<600510>
1 Peter 5:10 has
translated establish, and the context unquestionably points to the idea of
a fixed establishment in the faith. In
<422114>
Luke 21:14 the word translated
settle evidently points to a fixed determination.
Henry E. Dosker
SEVEN
<sev--n> ([[ b v , , shebha`]; [rto, hepta]).
See NUMBER.
SEVEN CHURCHES
See CHURCHES, SEVEN.
SEVEN STARS
See ASTRONOMY.
SEVENEH
<se-ven-e>, <se-ve-ne> ([h newes ], ceweneh]): For the King James Version
the tower of Syene, in
<262910>
Ezekiel 29:10; 30:6, the Revised Version
(British and American) reads, the tower of Seveneh, with a marginal
note, or, from Migdol to Syene. Seveneh is the town at the First Cataract
in Egypt, now known as Assuan. Fresh interest has recently been given to
785
it by the Elephantine discoveries bearing on the ancient Jewish colony and
temple of Yahweh in that place in the 5th century BC.
See ARAMAIC; EGYPT; PAPYRI; SANCTUARY, 4, etc.
SEVENTH, DAY
<sev--nth>.
See SABBATH.
SEVENTY
<sev-n-ti> ([ y[ ib iv i, shibh`im]; [rpoqxovto, hebdomekonta]).
See NUMBER.
SEVENTY DISCIPLES
The account of the designation and mission of these is found only in Luke
10. Some have therefore sought to maintain that we have here only a
confused variant of the appointment of the Twelve; but this is impossible in
the light of Lukes account of the Twelve in chapter 9.
The documents vary as between the numbers seventy and seventy-two, so
that it is impossible to determine which is the correct reading; and internal
evidence does not help at all in this case. There is nothing in the function or
circumstances to indicate any reason for the specific number.
Commentators have sought parallels in the seventy elders chosen to assist
Moses (Numbers 11) and suppose that Jesus was incidentally indicating
Himself as the prophet like unto Moses whom God would raise up.
Again, the Jews popularly reckoned the number of the nations of the
earth at seventy (compare Genesis 10), and some have supposed Jesus to
be thus indicating that His gospel is universal. Attention is called to the fact
that the Seventy are not forbidden to go to Gentiles and that their
commission probably included Peraea, where many Gentiles were to be
found. Some, again, have supposed that Jesus had in mind the Jewish
Sanhedrin, composed of seventy (or seventy-two), and that the
appointment of a like number to extend the work of His kingdom was a
parabolic recognition that as the Jews were officially rejecting Him, so He
786
was rejecting them as agents for the work of the kingdom. It is impossible
to speak with any certainty as to any of these suggestions. It is to be noted
that there is the same confusion between the numbers seventy and seventy-
two in all four instances, as also in the tradition as to the number of
translators of the Septuagint.
Inasmuch as no further mention is made of these workers, it is to be
understood that they were appointed for a temporary ministry. Tradition
names several of them and identifies them with disciples active after
Pentecost. While it is probable that some of these were witnesses later, the
tradition is worthless in details. The mission of these and the reason
assigned for their appointment are essentially the same as in the case of the
Twelve. Jesus is now completing His last popular campaign in preaching
and introducing the kingdom of heaven. The employing of these in this
service is in line with the permanent ideal of Christianity, which makes no
distinction between the laymen and the clergy in responsibility and
service. Jesus was perhaps employing all whose experience and sympathy
made them fit for work in the harvest that was so plenteous while the
laborers were few. He found seventy such now as He would find a hundred
and twenty such after His ascension (
<440115>
Acts 1:15).
William Owen Carver
SEVENTY WEEKS
The seventy weeks of the prophecy in
<270924>
Daniel 9:24-27 have long been
a subject of controversy in the critical schools. The conflicting views may
be seen very fully in Dr. Drivers Daniel, 94 ff, 143 ff, and Dr. Puseys
Daniel the Prophet, lectionaries II, III, IV. On both sides it is agreed that
the weeks in this prophecy are to be interpreted as weeks of years, i.e.
the 70 weeks represent 490 years. This period, commencing with the
going forth of the commandments to restore and build Jerus (
<270925>
Daniel
9:25), is divided into three parts, 7 weeks (49 years), 62 weeks (434
years), and one week (7 years). The 69 weeks extend to the appearance of
an anointed one (Hebrew Messiah), the prince (
<270925>
Daniel 9:25), who,
after the 62 weeks, shall be cut off (
<270926>
Daniel 9:26), apparently in the
midst of the 70th week (
<270927>
Daniel 9:27). On the traditional view (see
Pusey), the 69 weeks (483 years) mark the interval from the decree to
rebuild Jerusalem till the appearance of Christ; and if, with Pusey, the
decree in question be taken to be that of the 7th year of Artaxerxes (457-
56 BC; the mission of Ezra; compare
<150708>
Ezra 7:8 ff), confirmed and
787
extended in the 20th year of the same king (mission of Nehemiah; compare
<160201>
Nehemiah 2:1 ff), the 483 years run out about 27-28 AD, when our
Lords public ministry began. On the other hand, the view which supposes
that the Book of Daniel belongs wholly to the Maccabean age, and does
not here contain genuine prediction, is under the necessity of making the
490 years terminate with the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes (171-164 BC),
and this, it is admitted, cannot be done. To give time the violent expedient
is adopted of dating the commencement of the 70 weeks from the
prophecy of Jeremiah of the 70 years captivity, or of the rebuilding of
Jerusalem (606 or 587 BC), i.e. before the captivity had begun. Even this,
as Dr. Driver admits (p. 146), leaves us in 171 BC, some 67 years short of
the duration of the 62 weeks, and a huge blunder of the writer of Daniel
has to be assumed. The divergent reckonings are legion, and are mutually
contradictory (see table in Pusey, p. 217). To invalidate the older view Dr.
Driver avails himself of the altered renderings of
<270925>
Daniel 9:25 and 27 in
the English Revised Version. It is to be noted, however, that the American
Standard Revised Version does not follow the English Revised Version in
these changes. Thus, whereas the English Revised Version reads in 9:25,
Unto the anointed one; the prince, shall be seven weeks: and threescore
and two weeks, it shall be built again, and accordingly takes the anointed
one of 9:26 to be a distinct person, the American Standard Revised
Version (as also the English Revised Version margin) reads, as in the King
James Version, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks.
Again, where the English Revised Version reads in
<270927>
Daniel 9:27 For the
half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, the
American Standard Revised Version (and the English Revised Version
margin) has as formerly, In the midst of the week he shall cause etc.
(conversely, in 9:25 the American Revised Version margin gives the
English Revised Version rendering). The question cannot be discussed
here, but it is believed that the traditional interpretation may yet claim
acceptance from those who do not accept the postulates of the newer
critical writers.
See DANIEL; JUBILEES, BOOK OF.
J ames Orr
SEVENTY YEARS
The period assigned by Jeremiah for the duration of the Jewish exile in
Babylon (
<242511>
Jeremiah 25:11,12; 29:10; compare
<143621>
2 Chronicles 36:21 f;
788
<150101>
Ezra 1:1;
<270902>
Daniel 9:2). If the period be reckoned from the date of the
first deportation in the 4th year of Jehoiakim (
<122401>
2 Kings 24:1;
<143606>
2
Chronicles 36:6 ff;
<270101>
Daniel 1:1 by another reckoning calls it the 3rd
year), i.e. 606 BC, till the decree of Cyrus, 536 BC, the prediction was
fulfilled to a year.
See CAPTIVITY.
SEVER
<sev-er>: The three Hebrew words badhal, palah and paradh are thus
translated. The idea conveyed is that of setting apart (
<032026>
Leviticus 20:26
the King James Version) or of setting someone or something apart in a
miraculous way (
<020822>
Exodus 8:22; 9:4 the King James Version, the English
Revised Version), or, again, of simple separation on ones own volition
(
<070411>
Judges 4:11 the King James Version, the English Revised Version).
The Greek word [oop, aphorizo] (
<401349>
Matthew 13:49) stands for
final judicial segregation.
SEVERAL; SEVERALLY
<sev-er-al>, <sev-er-al-i>: The Hebrew words chophshuth and
chophshith, translated several in the King James Version, the English
Revised Version,
<121505>
2 Kings 15:5;
<142621>
2 Chronicles 26:21, are in both cases
translated separate in the American Standard Revised Version, and
indicate ceremonial uncleanness and consequent severance on account of
leprosy. In the parable of the Talents (
<402515>
Matthew 25:15) and also in
<461211>
1
Corinthians 12:11 the word [o, idios], is translated several,
severally. In both cases it points to the individuality of the recipients of
the gift bestowed.
SHAALABBIN
<sha-a-lab-in> ([yB i l [ } v , sha`alabbin]; Codex Vaticanus
[2ooprv, Salabein]; Codex Alexandrinus [2oorv, Salamein]): A
town in the territory of Daniel named between Irshemesh and Aijalon
(
<061942>
Joshua 19:42). It seems to be identical with SHAALBIM.
789
SHAALBIM
<sha-al-bim> ([ yB i l ] [ v , sha`albim]; Codex Vaticanus [Bq0oor,
Bethalamei]; Codex Alexandrinus [2oopr, Salabeim], in Joshua,
Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus [Ooopr, Thalabeim]):
When the Amorites had forced the children of Daniel into the mountain
they came and dwelt in Mt. Heres, Aijalon and Shaalbim, where, it appears,
they were made tributary to the house of Joseph (
<070135>
Judges 1:35). In the
time of Solomon it was included in the administrative district presided over
by Ben-deker, along with Makaz, Beth-shemesh and Elon-beth-hanan
(
<110409>
1 Kings 4:9). Beth-shemesh is the same as Ir-shemesh (
<061942>
Joshua
19:42). Shaalbim is probably only another name of Shaalabbin. One of
Davids mighty men is called Eliahba the Shaalbonite. This presumes the
existence of a town called Shaalbon (
<102332>
2 Samuel 23:32;
<131133>
1 Chronicles
11:33), which again is probably identical with Shaalbim. Eusebius (in
Onomasticon) identifies it with Salaba, a large village in the district of
Sebaste (Samaria), which apparently Eusebius and Jerome thought to be in
the territory of Dan. It seems, however, too far to the North. Jerome in his
commentary on Ezekiel 48 speaks of the towers of Aijalon and Selebi and
Emmaus. Conder would identify Selebi with Selbit, 3 miles Northwest of
Aijalon (Yalo), and 8 miles North of Bethshemesh. This would suit for
Shaalbim, as far as position is concerned; but it is difficult to account for
the heavy T (Hebrew letter Tet) in the name, if derived from Shaalbim.
W. Ewing
SHAALBONITE
<sha-al-bo-nit>, <sha-al-bo-nit> ([yni B o l ] [ V h , ha-sha`alboni]; [o
2oopvrtq, ho Salaboneites] (
<102332>
2 Samuel 23:32) Codex Vaticanus
[o Or, ho Homei]; Codex Alexandrinus [o 2oopv, ho Salaboni]):
Eliahba, one of Davids heroes, a native of Shaalbon.
See SHAALBIM.
SHAALIM, LAND OF
<sha-a-lim> ([ yl i [ } v 6 r , a , , erets sha`alim]; Codex Vaticanus [tq
yq Eoooxr, tes ges Easakem]; Codex Alexandrinus [tq yq 2oor,
tes ges Saaleim]; the King James Version Shalim): Saul in search of his
fathers asses passed through Mt. Ephraim and the land of Shalishah, then
790
through the land of Shaalim and the land of yemini. This last name English
Versions of the Bible renders Benjamin (
<090904>
1 Samuel 9:4). The whole
passage is so obscure that no certain conclusions can be reached. The
search party may have proceeded northward from Gibeah, through the
uplands of Ephraim, turning then westward, then southward, and finally
eastward. We should thus look for the land of Shalishah and the land of
Shaalim on the west side of the mountain range: and the latter may have
been on the slopes to the East of Lydda. Possibly we ought here to read
Shaalbim, instead of Shaalim.
W. Ewing
SHAAPH
<shy-af> ([t [ v , sha`aph]):
(1) A son of Jahdai (
<130247>
1 Chronicles 2:47).
(2) The son of Maachah, a concubine of Caleb, the brother of
Jerahmeel. Shaaph is called the father, or founder, of the city
Madmannah (
<130248>
1 Chronicles 2:48 f).
SHAARAIM
<sha-a-ra-im> ([ yi r [ } v , sha`arayim], two gates; [2oxopr,
Sakareim]; the King James Version Sharaim):
(1) A city in the Shephelah or lowland of Judah mentioned
(
<061536>
Joshua 15:36) in close association with Socoh and Azekah; the
vanquished army of the Philistines passed a Shaaraim in their flight
from Socoh toward Gath and Ekron (
<091752>
1 Samuel 17:52). It is possible
that in this latter reference the two gates may refer as Septuagint
implies to the two Philistine strongholds themselves. Shaaraim has
been identified with Tell Zakariya (see however AZEKAH) and with
Kh. Sa`ireh (PEF, III, 124, Sh XVII), an old site West of Beit `Atab.
Both proposals are hazardous.
(2) One of the towns of Simeon (
<130431>
1 Chronicles 4:31), called
(
<061906>
Joshua 19:6) Sharuhen and, as one of the uttermost cities of
Judah, called (
<061532>
Joshua 15:32) Shilhim. This town was in
Southwestern Palestine and is very probably identical with the fortress
Sharhana, a place of some importance on the road from Gaza to Egypt.
791
Aahmes (XVIIIth Dynasty) besieged and captured this city in the 5th
year of his reign in his pursuit of the flying Hyksos (Petrie, Hist, II, 22,
35), and a century later Tahutmes III, in the 23rd year of his reign,
took the city of Sharuhen on his way to the siege and capture of
Megiddo (Petrie, Hist, II, 104). On philological grounds Tell esh-
Sheri`ah, 12 miles Northwest of Beersheba, large ruin, has been
proposed, but it does not suit at all the Egyptian data (PEF, III, 399,
Sh XXIV).
E. W. G. Masterman
SHAASHGAZ
<sha-ash-gaz> ([zG;v ][ v , sha`ashgaz]; Septuagint reads [Io, Gai], the
same name it gives to the official referred to in Est 2:8,15; the name may
go back to the Old Bactrian word Sasakshant, one anxious to learn
(Scheft); most commentators suggest no explanation): A chamberlain of
Ahasuerus, king of Persia; as keeper of the second house of women, he
had Esther under his charge (2:14).
SHABBETHAI
<shab-e-thi> ([yt B ] v , shabbethay], one born on the Sabbath;
Codex Vaticanus [2opo0o, Sabathai]; Codex Alexandrinus [Koppo0o,
Kabbathai] = Sabbateus of 1 Esdras 9:14): A Levite who opposed (?)
Ezras suggestion that the men who had married foreign wives put them
aside (
<151015>
Ezra 10:15). Kuenen, however, renders the phrase [t a Oz l [
Wd m][ ;, `amedhu `al zoth], of which Asahiel and Jahaziah are the subjects,
to mean stand over, have charge of, rather than stand against,
oppose (Gesammelte Abhandlungen, 247 f); this would make
Shabbethai, who was in accord with the two men mentioned above, an ally
rather than an opponent of Ezra. We incline toward Kuenens
interpretation in view of the position attained by Shabbethai under
Nehemiah one he would have been unlikely to attain had he been hostile
to Ezra. He is mentioned among those appointed to explain the Law
(
<160807>
Nehemiah 8:7), and as one of the chiefs of the Levites who had the
oversight of the outward business of the house of God (
<161116>
Nehemiah
11:16).
Horace J . Wolf
792
SHACHIA
<sha-ki-a>, <shak-i-a> ([h y;k ]c ;, sakheyah] (so Baer, Ginsberg); some
editions read [a y;k ]c ;, sakheya], or [a y; k ] c , sakheya]; also [h y;k ]v ;,
shakheyah], and [h y;b ]v ;, shabheyah]. This last reading is favored by the
Syrian and the Septuagint (Codex Vaticanus [2opo, Sabia]; Codex
Alexandrinus [2rpo, Sebia], but Lucian, [2ro, Sechia]); the forms in k
instead of b have the support of the Vulgate, Sechia, Yahweh has
forgotten (?)): A name in genealogy of Benjamin (
<130810>
1 Chronicles 8:10).
SHADDAI
<shad-a-i>, <shad-i>.
See GOD, NAMES OF, II, 8.
SHADE; SHADOW; SHADOWING
<shad>, <shad-o>, <shad-o-ing> ([l x e, tsel]; [oxo, skia]): A shadow is
any obscuration of the light and heat with the form of the intervening
object, obscurely projected, constantly changing and passing away.
Shadow is used literally of a roof (
<011908>
Genesis 19:8), of mountains
(
<070936>
Judges 9:36), of trees (
<070915>
Judges 9:15, etc.), of wings (
<191708>
Psalm 17:8,
etc.), of a cloud (
<232505>
Isaiah 25:5), of a great rock (
<233202>
Isaiah 32:2), of a man
(Peter,
<440515>
Acts 5:15), of the shadow on the dial (
<122009>
2 Kings 20:9, etc.), of
Jonahs gourd (Jon 4:5 f). It is used also figuratively
(1) of shelter and protection (of man,
<011908>
Genesis 19:8; Song 2:3;
<231603>
Isaiah 16:3, etc.; of God,
<193607>
Psalm 36:7; 91:1;
<230406>
Isaiah 4:6, etc.);
(2) of anything fleeting or transient, as of the days of mans life on
earth (
<132915>
1 Chronicles 29:15;
<180809>
Job 8:9;
<19A923>
Psalm 109:23);
(3) with the idea of obscurity or imperfection (in
<580805>
Hebrews 8:5; 10:1,
of the Law; compare
<510217>
Colossians 2:17);
(4) of darkness, gloom; see SHADOW OF DEATH. In
<590117>
James 1:17,
we have in the King James Version, the Father of lights, with whom is
no variableness, neither shadow of turning (aposkiasma); the Revised
Version (British and American) shadow that is cast by turning; the
reference is to the unchangeableness of God as contrasted with the
793
changes of the heavenly bodies. the Revised Version (British and
American) has of the rustling of wings for shadowing with wings in
<231801>
Isaiah 18:1; the American Standard Revised Version has shade for
shadow in various places (
<070915>
Judges 9:15;
<184022>
Job 40:22;
<230406>
Isaiah
4:6, etc.). In
<184021>
Job 40:21,22, for shady trees the Revised Version
(British and American) has lotus-trees.
W. L. Walker
SHADOW OF DEATH
([t w, m; l ] x , tsalmaweth]): The Hebrew word translated shadow of death
is used poetically for thick darkness (
<180305>
Job 3:5), as descriptive of Sheol
(
<181021>
Job 10:21 f; 12:22; 38:17); figuratively of deep distress (
<181222>
Job 12:22;
16:16; 24:17 twice; 28:3; 34:22 (in the last three passages the American
Standard Revised Version has thick darkness and thick gloom);
<192304>
Psalm 23:4, the Revised Version margin deep darkness (and so
elsewhere); 44:19; 107:10,14;
<230902>
Isaiah 9:2;
<240206>
Jeremiah 2:6; 13:16;
<300508>
Amos 5:8;
<400416>
Matthew 4:16;
<420179>
Luke 1:79, skia thanatou). The
Hebrew word is perhaps composed of tsel, shadow, and maweth,
death, and the idea of the valley of the shadow of death was most
probably derived from the deep ravines, darkened by over-hanging briars,
etc., through which the shepherd had sometimes to lead or drive his sheep
to new and better pastures.
W. L. Walker
SHADRACH
<sha-drak>: The Babylonian name of one of the so-called Hebrew
children. Shadrach is probably the Sumerian form of the Bah Kudurru-Aki,
servant of Sin. It has been suggested by Meinhold that we should read
Merodach instead of Shadrach. Since there were no vowels in the original
Hebrew or Aramaic, and since sh and m as well as r and d are
much alike in the old alphabet in which Daniel was written, this change is
quite possible.
Shadrach and his two companions were trained along with Daniel at the
court of Nebuchadnezzar, who had carried all four captive in the
expedition against Jerusalem in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim (
<270101>
Daniel 1:1).
They all refused to eat of the food provided by Ashpenaz, the master who
had been set over them by the king, but preferred to eat pulse (
<270112>
Daniel
794
1:12). The effect was much to their advantage, as they appeared fairer and
fatter in flesh than those who ate of the kings meat. At the end of the
appointed time they passed satisfactory examinations, both as to their
physical appearance and their intellectual acquirements, so that none were
found like them among all with whom the king communed, and they stood
before the king (see Daniel 1).
When Daniel heard that the wise men of Babylon were to be slain because
they could not tell the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, after he had gained a
respite from the king, he made the thing known to his three companions
that they might unite with him in prayer to the God of heaven that they all
might not perish with the rest of the wise men of Babylon. After God had
heard their prayer and the dream was made known to the king by Daniel,
Nebuchadnezzar, at Daniels request, set Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-
nego over the affairs of the province of Babylon (Daniel 2). With Meshach
and Abed-nego, Shadrach was cast into a fiery furnace, but escaped unhurt
(Daniel 3).
See ABED-NEGO; HANANIAH; SONG OF THREE CHILDREN.
R. Dick Wilson
SHADY, TREES
<shad-i> (
<184021>
Job 40:21 f).
See LOTUS TREES.
SHAFT
<shaft>:
<234902>
Isaiah 49:2 for [6 j e , chets], an arrow; also
<022531>
Exodus 25:31;
37:17;
<040804>
Numbers 8:4 the King James Version for a part of the
candlestick of the tabernacle somewhat vaguely designated by the word
[ r ey;, yarekh], thigh. The context in the first 2 verses shows that the
upright stem or shaft is intended, but in
<040804>
Numbers 8:4 a different
context has caused the Revised Version (British and American) to
substitute base.
See also ARCHERY; ARMOR, ARMS.
795
SHAGEE
<sha-ge> ([a gev ;, shaghe]; Codex Vaticanus [2o, Sola]; Codex
Alexandrinus [2oyq, Sage]; the King James Version Shage): The father of
Jonathan, one of Davids heroes (
<131134>
1 Chronicles 11:34).
SHAHARAIM
<sha-ha-ra-im> ([ yi r j } v , shacharayim]; Codex Vaticanus
[2oopq, Saarel]; Codex Alexandrinus [2oopq, Saarem]): A Benjamite
name (
<130808>
1 Chronicles 8:8). The passage is corrupt beyond only the most
tentative emendation. Sharaim has no connection with the foregoing text.
One of the suggested restorations of
<130808>
1 Chronicles 8:8,9 reads: And
Shaharaim begat in the field of Moab, after he had driven them (i.e. the
Moabites) out, from Hodesh his wife, Jobab, etc. (Curtis, International
Critical Commentary).
SHAHAZUMAH
<sha-ha-zoo-ma>, <sha-haz-oo-ma> ([h m; Wx j } v , shachatsumah];
Codex Vaticanus [2or xoto 0ooooov, Saleim kata thalassan];
Codex Alexandrinus [2ooro0, Saseimath]; the King James Version
Shahazimah, sha-hazi-mah): A town in the territory of Issachar on the
boundary which ran from Tabor to the Jordan (
<061922>
Joshua 19:22). The site,
which has not yet been recovered, must be sought, probably, to the
Southeast of the mountain.
SHALEM
<sha-lem> ([ l ev ;, shalem]; [r 2oq, eis Salem]): The word as a
place-name occurs only in
<013318>
Genesis 33:18. With Luther, following
Septuagint, Peshitta and Vulgate, the King James Version reads And
Jacob came to Shalem, a city of Shechem. the Revised Version (British
and American) with the Targums Onqelos and pseudo-Jonathan, the
Samaritan codex and the Arabic, reads came in peace to the city of
Shechem. There is a heavy balance of opinion among scholars in favor of
the latter reading. It is certainly a remarkable fact, supporting the King
James Version, that about 4 miles East of Shechem (Nablus), there is a
village bearing the name Salem. If the King James Version is right, this
796
must represent the city referred to; and East of Salem would transpire the
events recorded in Genesis 44. Against this is the old tradition locating
Jacobs well and Josephs tomb near to Shechem. Eusebius (in
Onomasticon) gets over the difficulty by identifying Shalem with Shechem.
W. Ewing
SHALIM
<sha-lim>.
See SHAALIM.
SHALISHAH, LAND OF
<sha-li-sha>, <shal-i-sha> ([h v ; l i v ; A6 r , a , , erets shalishah]; Codex
Vaticanus [q yq 2ro, he ge Selcha]; Codex Alexandrinus [q yq
2oooo, he ge Salissa]): If the general indication of the route followed
by Saul, given under SHAALIM, is correct, the land of Shalishah (
<090904>
1
Samuel 9:4) will lie to the Northeast of Lydda on the western slope of the
range. Baal-shalishah would most likely be in the district, and may indeed
have given its name to it. If Conder is right in identifying this city with
Khirbet Kefr Thilth, about 19 miles Northeast of Jaffa, it meets well
enough the general indication given above. Eusebius, Onomasticon knows
the name, but gives no guidance as to where the district is. Baal-shalishah it
places in the Thamnite region, 15 miles North of Diospolis (Lydda). No
boundaries can be laid down, but probability points to this neighborhood.
W. Ewing
SHALLECHETH, THE GATE
<shal-e-keth>, <sha-le-keth> ([t k , L , v r [ v , sha`ar shallekheth],
i.e. as in margin, Casting forth): A gate of the temple at the causeway
that goeth up (
<132616>
1 Chronicles 26:16) probably an ascent from the
Tyropoeon Valley to the West of the temple. It has been supposed on
account of the meaning of the name that the ashes and offal of the temple
were cast forth there, but this is very unlikely they were thrown into the
Kidron valley to the East or Southeast. The Septuagint has
[ootoopov, pastophorion], which seems to point to a building with
chambers; in consonance with this Cheyne reads in the Hebrew [t wOK v ]l i,
lishkoth], (of) the chambers.
797
E. W. G. Masterman
SHALLUM (1)
<shal-um> ([ WL v , shallum], [ L u v , shallum]; various forms in the
Septuagint): This is the name of not less than 12 Hebrew persons:
(1) The youngest son of Naphtali (
<130713>
1 Chronicles 7:13). He is also
called Shillem in
<014624>
Genesis 46:24;
<042649>
Numbers 26:49.
(2) A descendant of Simeon, the son of Shaul and the father of Mibsam
(
<130425>
1 Chronicles 4:25). He lived in 1618 BC.
(3) The son of Sismai son of Shesham of the tribe of Judah (
<130240>
1
Chronicles 2:40,41). He lived in 1300 BC.
(4) A son of Kore, a porter of the sanctuary during the reign of David
(
<130917>
1 Chronicles 9:17,19,31;
<150242>
Ezra 2:42;
<160745>
Nehemiah 7:45). The
name is also written Meshullam in
<161225>
Nehemiah 12:25, Salum in 1
Esdras 5:28, Meshelemiah in
<132601>
1 Chronicles 26:1,2,9, and
Shelemiah in
<132614>
1 Chronicles 26:14. He lived about 1050 BC.
(5) A son of Zadok and father of Hilkiah, a high priest and ancestor of
Ezra the scribe (
<130612>
1 Chronicles 6:12,13;
<150702>
Ezra 7:2). In the works of
Josephus he is called Sallumus; in 1 Esdras 8:1, Salem, and in 2
Esdras 1:1, Salemas.
(6) The 15th king of Israel. See following article.
(7) A son of Bani, a priest who had taken a heathen wife and was
compelled by Ezra the scribe to put her away (
<151042>
Ezra 10:42; omitted
in 1 Esdras 9:34).
(8) The father of Jehizkiah, an Ephraimite in the time of Ahaz king of
Israel (
<142812>
2 Chronicles 28:12).
(9) The husband of the prophetess Huldah (
<122214>
2 Kings 22:14;
<143422>
2
Chronicles 34:22). He was the keeper of the sacred wardrobe and was
probably the uncle of Jeremiah the prophet (
<243207>
Jeremiah 32:7; compare
<243504>
Jeremiah 35:4).
(10) King of Judah and son of Josiah (
<242211>
Jeremiah 22:11;
<130315>
1
Chronicles 3:15), better known by the name Jehoahaz II. This name he
798
received when he ascended the throne of the kingdom of Judah (
<143601>
2
Chronicles 36:1).
(11) A Levite who was a porter at the time of Ezra (
<151024>
Ezra 10:24;
Sallumus in 1 Esdras 9:25).
(12) A ruler over a part of Jerusalem and a son of Hallohesh. He with
his daughters aided in building the walls of Jerusalem in the time of
Nehemiah (
<160312>
Nehemiah 3:12).
S. L. Umbach
SHALLUM (2)
([ WL v , shallum], [ L u v , shallum], the requited one (
<121510>
2 Kings
15:10-15)): The 15th king of Israel, and successor of Zechariah, whom he
publicly assassinated in the 7th month of his reign. Nothing more is known
of Shallum than that he was a son of Jabesh, which may indicate that he
was a Gileadite from beyond Jordan. He is said to have made a
conspiracy against Zechariah, so was not alone in his crime. The
conspirators, however, had but a short-lived success, as, when Shallum had
reigned for the space of a month in Samaria, Menahem, then at Tirzah,
one of the minor capitals of the kingdom, went up to Samaria, slew him
and took his place.
It was probably at this time that Syria threw off the yoke of tribute to Israel
(see JEROBOAM II), as when next we meet with that kingdom, it is under
its own king and in alliance with Samaria (
<121605>
2 Kings 16:5).
The 10 years of rule given to Menahem (
<121517>
2 Kings 15:17) may be taken
to include the few months of military violence under Zechariah and
Shallum, and cover the full years 758-750, with portions of years before
and after counted as whole ones. The unsuccessful usurpation of Shallum
may therefore be put in 758 BC (some date lower).
W. Shaw Caldecott
SHALLUN
<shal-un> ([WL v , shallun], not in the Septuagint): Another form of
Shallum, the son of Col-hozeh. He was the ruler of the district of Mizpah.
He assisted Nehemiah in building the wall of Jerusalem and in repairing the
gate by the Pool of Siloah at the Kings Gardens (
<160315>
Nehemiah 3:15).
799
SHALMAI
<shal-mi>, <shal-ma-i>: the King James Version form in
<150246>
Ezra 2:46
for Shamlai;
<160748>
Nehemiah 7:48 Salmai (which see).
SHALMAN
<shal-man> ([m; l ] v , shalman]): A name of uncertain meaning, found
only once in the Old Testament (
<281014>
Hosea 10:14), in connection with a
place-name, equally obscure, as Shalman destroyed Betharbel. Shalman
is most commonly interpreted as a contracted form of Shalmaneser, the
name of several Assyrian kings. If this explanation is correct, the king
referred to cannot be identified. Some have thought of Shalmaneser IV,
who is said to have undertaken expeditions against the West in 775 and in
773-772. Others have proposed Shalmaneser V, who attacked Samaria in
725. This, however, is improbable, because the activity of Hosea ceased
before Shalmaneser V became king. Shalman has also been identified with
Salamanu, a king of Moab in the days of Hosea, who paid tribute to
Tiglath-pileser V of Assyria; and with Shalmah, a North Arabian tribe that
invaded the Negeb. The identification of BETH-ARBEL (which see) is
equally uncertain. From the reference it would seem that the event in
question was well known and, therefore, probably one of recent date and
considerable importance, but our present historical knowledge does not
enable us to connect any of the persons named with the destruction of any
of the localities suggested for Beth-arbel. The ancient translations offer no
solution; they too seem to have been in the dark.
F. C. Eiselen
SHALMANESER
<shal-ma-ne-zer> ([r s , a , n] m l ] v , shalmanecer]; Septuagint
[2orvvooop, Samennasar], [2oovooop, Salmanasar]): The name
of several Assyrian kings. See ASSYRIA; ASSYRIAN CAPTIVITY. It is
Shalmaneser IV who is mentioned in the Biblical history (
<121703>
2 Kings 17:3;
18:9). He succeeded Tiglathpileser on the throne in 727 BC, but whether
he was a son of his predecessor, or a usurper, is not apparent. His reign
was short, and, as no annals of it have come to light, we have only the
accounts contained in 2 Kings for his history. In the passages referred to
above, we learn that Hoshea, king of Israel, who had become his vassal,
800
refused to continue the payment of tribute, relying upon help from So, king
of Egypt. No help, however, came from Egypt, and Hoshea had to face the
chastising forces of his suzerain with his own unaided resources, the result
being that he was taken prisoner outside Samaria and most likely carried
away to Nineveh. The Biblical narrative goes on to say that the king of
Assyria came up throughout all the land, and went up to Samaria and
besieged it 3 years. There is reason to believe that, as the siege of Samaria
was proceeding, Shalmaneser retired to Nineveh and died, for, when the
city was taken in 722 BC, it is Sargon who claims, in his copious annals, to
have captured it and carried its inhabitants into captivity. It is just possible
that Shalman (
<281014>
Hosea 10:14) is a contraction for Shalmaneser, but the
identity of Shalman and of Beth-arbel named in the same passage is not
sufficiently made out.
LITERATURE.
Schrader, COT, I, 258 ff; McCurdy, HPM, I, 387 ff.
T. Nicol
SHAMA
<sha-ma> ([[ m;v ;, shama`]): One of Davids heroes (
<131144>
1 Chronicles
11:44).
SHAMAI
<sham-a-i>.
See SALMAI.
SHAMARIAH
<sham-a-ri-a>, <sha-mar-ya>.
See SHEMARIAH.
SHAMBLES
<sham-b-lz> ([oxrov, makellon]): A slaughter-house; then a
butchers stall, meat-market. The word is once used in the New Testament
in
<461025>
1 Corinthians 10:25.
801
SHAME
<sham> ([v wOB , bosh], to be ashamed, [t v ,B , bosheth], shame, [wOl q ;,
qalon]; [oouvq, aischune], ignominy, [oto, atimia], dishonor,
and other words): An oft-recurring word in Scripture almost uniformly
bound up with a sense of sin and guilt. It is figuratively set forth as a wild
beast (
<240324>
Jeremiah 3:24), a Nessus-garment (
<240325>
Jeremiah 3:25), a blight
(
<242018>
Jeremiah 20:18), a sin against ones own soul (
<350210>
Habakkuk 2:10),
and twice as the condensed symbol of Hebrew abomination Baal
(
<241113>
Jeremiah 11:13 margin;
<280910>
Hosea 9:10 margin; see ISH-BOSHETH).
It is bracketed with defeat (
<233003>
Isaiah 30:3), reproach (
<196907>
Psalm 69:7;
<235404>
Isaiah 54:4;
<330206>
Micah 2:6), confusion (
<230607>
Isaiah 6:7), nakedness
(
<234703>
Isaiah 47:3;
<330101>
Micah 1:11), everlasting contempt (
<271202>
Daniel 12:2),
folly (
<201813>
Proverbs 18:13), cruelty (
<235006>
Isaiah 50:6;
<581202>
Hebrews 12:2),
poverty (
<201318>
Proverbs 13:18), nothingness (
<200907>
Proverbs 9:7 the King James
Version), unseemliness (1 Cor 11:6; 14:35 the King James Version;
<490512>
Ephesians 5:12), and them that go down to the pit (
<263225>
Ezekiel
32:25). In the first Biblical reference to this emotion, shame appears as
the correlative of sin and guilt (Delitzsch, New Commentary on Genesis
and Biblical Psychology). Shamelessness is characteristic of abandoned
wickedness (
<500319>
Philippians 3:19;
<650113>
Jude 1:13, margin Greek: `shames).
Manifestly, then, shame is a concomitant of the divine judgment upon sin;
the very worst that a Hebrew could wish for an enemy was that he might
be clothed with shame (
<19A929>
Psalm 109:29), that the judgment of God might
rest upon him visibly.
Naturally, to the Hebrew, shame was the portion of those who were
idolaters, who were faithless to Yahweh or who were unfriendly to
themselves the elect people of Yahweh. Shame is to come upon Moab
because Moab held Israel in derision (
<244839>
Jeremiah 48:39,27), and upon
Edom for violence against his brother Jacob (Obidiah 1:10). But also,
and impartially, shame is the portion of faithless Israelites who deny
Yahweh and follow after strange gods (
<260718>
Ezekiel 7:18;
<330710>
Micah 7:10;
<281006>
Hosea 10:6, and often). But shame, too, comes upon those who exalt
themselves against God, who trust in earthly power and the show of
material strength (
<143221>
2 Chronicles 32:21;
<233003>
Isaiah 30:3); and upon those
who make a mock of righteousness (
<180822>
Job 8:22;
<193526>
Psalm 35:26;
132:18). With a fine sense of ethical distinctions the Biblical writers
recognize that in confessing to a sense of shame there is hope for better
802
things. Only in the most desperate cases is there no sense of shame
(
<280418>
Hosea 4:18; Zeph 3:5;
<500319>
Philippians 3:19;
<650113>
Jude 1:13); in pardon
God is said to remove shame (
<235404>
Isaiah 54:4 twice; 61:7).
On conditions beyond the grave the Biblical revelation is exceedingly
reticent, but here and there are hints that shame waits upon the wicked
here and hereafter. Such an expression as that in Daniel (12:2) cannot be
ignored, and though the writing itself may belong to a late period and a
somewhat sophisticated theological development, the idea is but a
reflection of the earlier and more elementary period, when the voice of
crime and cruelty went up from earth to be heard in the audience chamber
of God (
<010411>
Genesis 4:11; 6:13). In the New Testament there is similar
reticence but also similar implications. It cannot be much amiss to say that
in the mind of the Biblical writers sin was a shameful thing; that part of the
punishment for sin was a consciousness of guilt in the sense of shame; and
that from this consciousness of guilt there was no deliverance while the sin
was unconfessed and unforgiven. Many of them that sleep in the dust of
the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life and some to shame and
everlasting contempt. From ones own past there is no deliverance, save
through contrition of spirit and the grace and forgiveness of God. While
the sense of shame persists, or, in other words, while the moral constitution
of mans nature remains as it is, there will never be wanting an avenger of
sin.
Charles M. Stuart
SHAMED
<sha-med>.
See SHEMED.
SHAMEFACEDNESS
<sham-fast-nes>, <sham-fas-ed-nes>.
See SHAMEFASTNESS.
SHAMEFASTNESS
<sham-fast-nes>: The original the King James Version translation of
[o, aidos], in Sirach 41:16 and
<540209>
1 Timothy 2:9. Perhaps half a
803
century later the spelling shamefacedness supplanted the better form, and
continues in the ordinary editions of the King James Version. The Revised
Version (British and American), however, rightly restores shamefastness.
SHAMER
<sha-mer>.
See SHEMER.
SHAMGAR
<sham-gar> ([r G m] v , shamgar]):
1. BIBLICAL ACCOUNT:
One of the judges, son of Anath (`anath), in whose days, which preceded
the time of Deborah (
<070506>
Judges 5:6,7) and followed those of Ehud, Israels
subjugation was so complete that the highways were unoccupied, and the
travelers walked through byways. The government had become
thoroughly disorganized, and apparently, as in the days of Deborah, the
people were entirely unprepared for war. Shamgars improvised weapon
with which he helped to save Israel is spoken of as an oxgoad. With this
he smote of the Philistines 600 men. This is the first mention of the
Philistines as troublesome neighbors of the Israelites (
<070331>
Judges 3:31).
According to a tradition represented in Josephus (Ant., V, iv, 3), Shamgar
died in the year he became judge.
2. CRITICAL HYPOTHESES:
Several writers have challenged the Biblical account on the following
grounds: that in Judges 5 no mention is made of any deliverance; that the
name Shamgar resembles the name of a Hittite king and the name
Anath that of a Syrian goddess; that the deed recorded in
<070331>
Judges 3:31
is analogous to that of Samson (
<071515>
Judges 15:15), and that of Shammah,
son of Agee (
<102311>
2 Samuel 23:11 f); and lastly, that in a group of Greek
manuscripts and other versions this verse is inserted after the account of
Samsons exploits. None of these is necessarily inconsistent with the
traditional account. Neverthelesss, they have been used as a basis not only
for overthrowing the tradition, but also for constructive theories such as
that which makes Shamgar a foreign oppressor and not a judge, and even
804
the father of Sisera. There is, of course, no limit to which this kind of
interesting speculation cannot lead.
(For a complete account of these views see Moore, Judges, in ICC,
1895, 104 f, and same author in Journal of the American Oriental Society,
XIX, 2, 159-60.)
Ella Davis I saacs
SHAMHUTH
<sham-huth>.
See SHAMMUAH IV.
SHAMIR (1)
<sha-mer> ([r ymiv ;, shamir]; [2orp, Sameir]):
(1) Mentioned along with Jattir and Socoh (
<061548>
Joshua 15:48) as one of
the cities of Judah in the hill country. Possibly it is Khirbet (or Umm)
Somerah, 2,000 ft. above sea-level, a site with ancient walls, caves,
cisterns and tombs not far West of Debir (edh Dhatheriyeh) and 2 miles
North of Anab (`Anab) (Palestine Exploration Fund, III, 262, 286, Sh
XX).
(2) A place in the hill country of Ephraim (
<071001>
Judges 10:1) from which
came Tola, the son of Pual, a man of Issachar, who judged Israel 23
years; he died and was buried there. It is an attractive theory
(Schwartz) which would identify the place with the semi-fortified and
strongly-placed town of Sanur on the road from Nablus to Jenin. A
local chieftain in the early part of the last century fortified Sanur and
from there dominated the whole district. That Sanur could hardly have
been within the bounds of Issachar is an objection, but not necessarily a
fatal one. It is noticeable that the Septuagints Codex Alexandrinus has
[2oopro, Samareia], for Shamir (Palestine Exploration Fund, II, Sh
XI).
E. W. G. Masterman
805
SHAMIR (2)
([r ymiv ;, shamir]; [2oqp, Samer]): A Kohathite, son of Micah (
<132424>
1
Chronicles 24:24).
SHAMLAI
<sham-la-i>, <sham-li>.
See SALMAI.
SHAMMA
<sham-a> ([a M; v , shamma]; Codex Vaticanus [2ro, Sema]; Codex
Alexandrinus [2oo, Samma]): An Asherite (
<130737>
1 Chronicles 7:37).
SHAMMAH
<sham-a> ([h M; v , shammah]):
(1) The son of Reuel, the son of Esau, a tribal chief of Edom
(
<013613>
Genesis 36:13,17;
<130137>
1 Chronicles 1:37, [2or, Some]).
(2) The third son of Jesse and brother of David. Together with his two
other brothers he fought under Saul in the campaign against the
Philistines and was with the army in the valley of Elah when David slew
Goliath (
<091713>
1 Samuel 17:13 ff). One redactor states that he was a
witness of the anointing of David by Samuel (
<091601>
1 Samuel 16:1-13).
He was the father of Jonadab, the friend of Amnon (
<101303>
2 Samuel 13:3
ff), and that Jonathan whose victory over a Philistine giant is narrated
in
<102120>
2 Samuel 21:20 ff was also his son. His name is rendered as
Shammah (
<091609>
1 Samuel 16:9; 17:13), Shimeah (
<101303>
2 Samuel
13:3,12), Shimei (
<102121>
2 Samuel 21:21), and Shimea (
<130213>
1
Chronicles 2:13; 20:7).
(3) The son of Agee, a Hararite, one of the three mighty men of
David (
<102311>
2 Samuel 23:11, Septuagint [2ooo, Samaia]), who held
the field against the Philistines. The parallel passage (
<131110>
1 Chronicles
11:10 ff) ascribes this deed to Eleazar, the son of Dodo. The
succeeding incident (
<102313>
2 Samuel 23:13 ff), namely, the famous act of
three of Davids heroes who risked their lives to bring their leader
806
water from the well of Bethlehem, has frequently been credited to
Shammah and two other members of the three; but the three warriors
are plainly said (
<102313>
2 Samuel 23:13) to belong to the thirty;
<102333>
2
Samuel 23:33 should read Jonathan, son of Shammah, the Hararite.
Jonathan, one of Davids thirty, was a son of Shammah; the word
son has been accidentally omitted (Driver, Budde, Kittel, etc.). The
parallel passage (
<131134>
1 Chronicles 11:34) has son of Shagee, which is
probably, a misreading for son of Agee. Lucians version, son of
Shammah, is most plausible. Shimei the son of Ela (
<110418>
1 Kings
4:18) should also appear in this passage if Lucians reading of Ela for
Agee (
<102311>
2 Samuel 23:11) be correct.
(4) A Harodite (
<102325>
2 Samuel 23:25,33), i.e. probably a native of `Ain-
charod (`Ain Jalud,
<070701>
Judges 7:1; see HAROD). One of the thirty
and captain of Solomons 5th monthly course. In the parallel lists (
<131127>
1
Chronicles 11:27) he is called the Harorite (this last being a scribal
error for Harodite) and Shamhuth the Izrahate (
<132708>
1 Chronicles
27:8).
Horace J . Wolf
SHAMMAI
<shama-i>, <sham-i> ([yM v , shammay]):
(1) A Jerahmeelite (
<130228>
1 Chronicles 2:28,32).
(2) The son of Rekem and father of Maon (
<130244>
1 Chronicles 2:44 ff).
(3) A Judahite (
<130417>
1 Chronicles 4:17).
SHAMMOTH
<sham-oth>, <sham-oth>.
See SHAMMAH, (4).
SHAMMUA; SHAMMUAH
<sha-mu-a>, <sham-u-a> ([[ WMv , shammua`]):
(1) The Reubenite spy (
<041304>
Numbers 13:4, [2oouq, Samouel], and
other forms).
807
(2) One of Davids sons (
<100514>
2 Samuel 5:14;
<131404>
1 Chronicles 14:4,
[2oou, Sammous]). In
<130305>
1 Chronicles 3:5 he is called Shimea.
(3) A Levite (
<161117>
Nehemiah 11:17); he is called Shemaiah in
<130916>
1
Chronicles 9:16.
(4) The head of a priestly family (
<161218>
Nehemiah 12:18); a contemporary
of Joiakim.
SHAMSHERAI
<sham-she-ri>, <sham-she-ra-i> ([yr v ] M] v , shamsheray]): A
Benjamite (
<130826>
1 Chronicles 8:26).
SHAPE
<shap>: In the King James Version the translation of [ro, eidos],
form, appearance (
<420322>
Luke 3:22;
<430537>
John 5:37), and of [ooo,
homoioma], likeness, resemblance (
<660907>
Revelation 9:7). The meaning
of these words is not so much tangible shape, in which sense we use the
word in modern English, but rather aspect, appearance, the looks of a
thing or a person. This is even the case where the word is joined with the
adjective [ootxo, somatikos], bodily as in the passage
<420322>
Luke
3:22, The Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form (i.e. in a corporeal
appearance, the King James Version in a bodily shape), as a dove, upon
him. The second passage also refers to the appearance of God, and
cannot therefore be regarded as material shape: Ye have neither heard his
voice at any time, nor seen his form (the King James Version shape)
(
<430537>
John 5:37). As has been seen from the above quotations, the Revised
Version (British and American) which retains the translation shape for
homoioma, has translated eidos with form, which also serves to render
several other Greek synonyms, such as [opq, morphe] (
<411612>
Mark 16:12;
<501706>
Philippians 2:6 f), [opo, morphosis] (
<450220>
Romans 2:20;
<550305>
2
Timothy 3:5), [tuo, tupos] (the Revised Version margin pattern
<450617>
Romans 6:17), and [uotuo, hupotuposis] (the Revised Version
(British and American) pattern,
<550113>
2 Timothy 1:13). In the King James
Version The Wisdom of Solomon 18:1 shape translates morphe, the
Revised Version (British and American) form.
H. L. E. Luering
808
SHAPHAM
<sha-fam> ([ p ;v ; , shapham]; [2oo, Sapham], [2opot, Sabat]):
Name of a Gadite chief, who had the second place in command of his tribe
(
<130512>
1 Chronicles 5:12). So far as the fragmentary genealogies are
intelligible, they seem to indicate that Shapham and his chief, Joel, lived in
the time of Saul and shared in the war against the Hagrites (
<130507>
1
Chronicles 5:7-10,18-22), but it is to be noted that these lists were first
recorded between the years 750 and 740 BC, just before the eastern tribes
were carried into captivity.
SHAPHAN
<sha-fan> ([p ;v ;, shaphan], rockbadger, English Versions of the Bible
coney; [2oov, Saphphan]): An old totem clan name (so W.R. Smith;
compare, however, the article TOTEMISM; Gray, Gray, Studies in Hebrew
Proper Names, 103 ff, and Jacobs Studies in Biblical Archaeology, 84 ff).
(1) Son of Azaliah and scribe of King Josiah. He received from Hilkiah
the Book of the Law which had been found in the Temple (
<122203>
2 Kings
22:3 ff;
<143408>
2 Chronicles 34:8-28). It was from Shaphans lips that
Josiah heard the Law read. Shaphan was also one of those sent by the
king to the prophetess Huldah (2 Kings 22; 2 Chronicles 34). He was
undoubtedly one of the staunchest supporters of Josiah in his work of
reform. He was the father of Ahikam (
<122212>
2 Kings 22:12;
<143420>
2
Chronicles 34:20;
<242624>
Jeremiah 26:24), who befriended and protected
the prophet Jeremiah. Another son, Elasah, was one of the two men
entrusted by Jeremiah with his letter to the captives in Babylon
(
<242903>
Jeremiah 29:3). A third son, Gemariah, vainly tried to prevent King
Jehoiakim from burning the roll (
<243610>
Jeremiah 36:10,11,12,25). The
Micaiah of
<243611>
Jeremiah 36:11,12, and Gedaliah, the governor of Judea
after the captivity of 586 BC, were his grandsons (
<243914>
Jeremiah 39:14).
(2) Perhaps the father of Jaazaniah, one of the 70 men whom Ezekiel
saw, in his vision of the Temple, sacrificing to idols (
<260811>
Ezekiel 8:11).
Horace J . Wolf
SHAPHAT
<sha-fat> ([f p ;v i , shaphat):
809
(1) The Simeonite spy (
<041305>
Numbers 13:5, [2oot, Saphat]).
(2) The father of the prophet Elisha (
<111916>
1 Kings 19:16;
<120301>
2 Kings
3:11, Septuagint Saphath).
(3) A name in the royal genealogy of Judah (
<130322>
1 Chronicles 3:22).
(4) A Gadite (
<130512>
1 Chronicles 5:12).
(5) One of Davids herdsmen (
<132729>
1 Chronicles 27:29).
SHAPHER
<sha-fer>.
See SHEPHER.
SHAPHIR
<sha-fer> ([r yp iv ;, shaphir], glittering; [xo, kalos]; the King James
Version Saphir): One of a group of towns mentioned in
<330101>
Micah 1:10-15.
From the association with Gath, Achzib (of Judah) and Mareshah, it would
seem that the places mentioned were in Southwestern Palestine. According
to Eusebius, in Onomasticon, there was a [2orp, Sapheir], in the hill
country (from a confusion with Shamir (
<061548>
Joshua 15:48), where
Septuagint A has Sapheir) between Eleutheropolis and Ascalon. The name
probably survives in that of three villages called es-Suafir, in the plain,
some 3 1/2 miles Southeast of Ashdod (PEF, II, 413, Sh XV). Cheyne
(EB, col. 4282) suggests the white glittering hill Tell ec-Cafi, at the
entrance to the Wady ec-Sunt, which was known to the Crusaders as
Blanchegarde, but this site seems a more probable one for GATH (which
see).
E. W. G. Masterman
SHARAI
<sha-ra-i>, <sha-ri> ([yr v ; , sharay]): One of the sons of Bani who
had married foreign wives (
<151040>
Ezra 10:40).
SHARAIM
<sha-ra-im>.
810
See SHAARAIM.
SHARAR
<sha-rar>.
See SACAR.
SHARE
<shar>.
See PLOW.
SHAREZER
<sha-rezer> ([r x , a , r ] c , saretser]): Corresponds to the Assyrian Shar-
ucur, protect the king; found otherwise, not as a complete name, but as
elements in personal names, e.g. Bel-shar-ucur, may Bel protect the king,
which is the equivalent of Belshazzar (
<270501>
Daniel 5:1). The name is borne
by two persons in the Old Testament:
(1) The son of Sennacherib, king of Assyria, who with
ADRAMMELECH (which see) murdered his father (
<121937>
2 Kings 19:37;
<233738>
Isaiah 37:38). The Babylonian Chronicle says concerning
Sennacheribs death: On the 20th day of Tebet Sennacherib, king of
Assyria, was slain by his son in a revolt. This differs from the Old
Testament account in that it speaks of only one murderer, and does not
give his name. How the two accounts can be harmonized is still
uncertain. Hitzig, (Kritik, 194 ff), following Abydenus, as quoted by
Eusebius, completed the name of Sennacheribs son, so as to read
Nergal-sharezer = Nergal-shar-ucur (
<243903>
Jeremiah 39:3,13), and this is
accepted by many modern scholars. Johns thinks that Sharezer
([sharetser] or [saretser]) may be a corruption from Shar-etir-Ashur,
the name of a son of Sennacherib (1-vol HDB, under the word). The
question cannot be definitely settled.
(2) A contemporary of the prophet Zechariah, mentioned in connection
with the sending of a delegation to the spiritual heads of the community
to inquire concerning the propriety of continuing the fasts: They of
Beth-el had sent Sharezer and Regem-melech (
<380702>
Zechariah 7:2). This
811
translation creates a difficulty in connection with the succeeding words,
literally, and his men. The Revisers place in the margin as an
alternative rendering, They of Beth-el, even Sharezer .... had sent.
Sharezer sounds peculiar in apposition to they of Beth-el; hence,
some have thought, especially since Sharezer seems incomplete, that in
the two words Beth-el and Sharezer we have a corruption of what was
originally a single proper name, perhaps Bel-sharezer = Bel-shar-ucur =
Bel-shazzar. The present text, no matter how translated, presents
difficulties.
See REGEM-MELECH.
F. C. Eiselen
SHARON
<shar-un> ([wOr V ;h , ha-sharon], with the definite article possibly
meaning the plain; [to rov, to pedion], [o puo, ho drumos], [o
2opv, ho Saron]):
(1) This name is attached to the strip of fairly level land which runs
between the mountains and the shore of the Mediterranean, stretching
from Nahr Ruben in the South to Mt. Carmel in the North. There are
considerable rolling hills; but, compared with the mountains to the
East, it is quite properly described as a plain. The soil is a deep rich
loam, which is favorable to the growth of cereals. The orange, the vine
and the olive grow to great perfection. When the many-colored flowers
are in bloom it is a scene of rare beauty.
Of the streams in the plain four carry the bulk of the water from the
western slopes of the mountains to the sea. They are also perennial, being
fed by fountains. Nahr el-`Aujeh enters the sea to the North of Jaffa; Nahr
Iskanderuneh 7 miles, and Nahr el-Mefjir fully 2 miles South of Caesarea;
and Nahr ez-Zerqa, the Crocodile River, 2 1/2 miles North of Caesarea.
Nahr el-Falik runs its short course about 12 miles North of Nahr el-`Aujeh.
Water is plentiful, and at almost any point it may be obtained by digging.
Deep, finely built wells near some of the villages are among the most
precious legacies left by the Crusaders. The breadth of the plain varies
from 8 to 12 miles, being broadest in the Sharon. There are traces of a
great forest in the northern part, which accounts for the use of the term
drumos. Josephus (Ant., XIV, xiii, 3) speaks of the woods (hoi drumoi)
812
and Strabo (xvi) of a great wood. There is still a considerable oak wood
in this district. The excellency of Carmel and Sharon (
<233502>
Isaiah 35:2) is
probably an allusion to the luxuriant oak forests. As in ancient times, great
breadths are given up to the pasturing of cattle. Over Davids herds that
fed in Sharon was Shitrai the Sharonite (
<132729>
1 Chronicles 27:29). In the day
of Israels restoration Sharon shall be a fold of flocks (
<236510>
Isaiah 65:10).
Jerome speaks of the fine cattle fed in the pastures of Sharon, and also
sings the praises of its wine (Comm. on Isaiah 33 and 65). Toward the
Sharon no doubt there was more cultivation then than there is at the
present day. The German colony to the North of Jaffa, preserving in its
name, Sarona, the old Greek name of the plain, and several Jewish colonies
are proving the wonderful productiveness of the soil. The orange groves of
Jaffa are far-famed.
The rose of Sharon (Song 2:1) is a mistranslation: chabhatstseleth is not
a rose, but the white narcissus, which in season abounds in the plain.
Sharon is mentioned in the New Testament only in
<440935>
Acts 9:35.
(2) A district East of the Jordan, occupied by the tribe of Gad (
<130516>
1
Chronicles 5:16; here the name is without the article). Kittel (Ch,
SBOT) suggests that this is a corruption from Sirion, which again is
synonymous with Hermon. He would therefore identify Sharon with
the pasture lands of Hermon. Others think that the mishor or table-land
of Gilead is intended.
(3) In
<061218>
Joshua 12:18 we should perhaps read the king of Aphek in
Sharon. See LASHARON. The order seems to point to some place
Northeast of Tabor. Perhaps this is to be identified with the Sarona of
Eusebius, Onomasticon, in the district between Tabor and Tiberias. If
so, the name may be preserved in that of Sarona on the plateau to the
Southwest of Tiberias.
W. Ewing
SHARONITE
<shar-un-it> ([yniwr V ;h , ha-sharoni]; [o 2opvrtq, ho Saroneites]):
Applied in Scripture only to Shitrai (
<132729>
1 Chronicles 27:29).
See SHARON.
813
SHARUHEN
<sha-roo-hen> ([j ,Wr v ;, sharuchen]; [o oypo outv, hoi agroi
auton]): One of the cities in the territory of Judah assigned to Simeon
(
<061906>
Joshua 19:6). In
<061532>
Joshua 15:32 it is called Shilhim, and in
<130431>
1
Chronicles 4:31, Shaaraim (which see).
SHASHAI
<sha-shi> ([yv v ; , shashay]; [2ror, Sesei]): One of the sons of Bani
who had married foreign wives (
<151040>
Ezra 10:40) = Sesis in 1 Esdras 9:34.
SHASHAK
<sha-shak> ([q v v ; , shashak]): Eponym of a Benjamite family (
<130814>
1
Chronicles 8:14,25).
SHAUL; SHAULITES
<sha-ul>, <sha-ul-its> ([l Wa v ;, shaul]; [2oou, Saoul]):
(1) A king of Edom (
<013637>
Genesis 36:37 ff =
<130148>
1 Chronicles 1:48 ff).
(2) A son of Simeon (
<014610>
Genesis 46:10;
<020615>
Exodus 6:15;
<042613>
Numbers
26:13;
<130424>
1 Chronicles 4:24). The clan was of notoriously impure
stock, and, therefore, Shaul is called the son of a Canaanitish woman
(
<014610>
Genesis 46:10;
<020615>
Exodus 6:15); the clan was of mixed Israelite
and Canaanitish descent. The patronymic Shaulites is found in
<042613>
Numbers 26:13.
(3) An ancestor of Samuel (
<130624>
1 Chronicles 6:24 (Hebrew 9)); in
<130636>
1
Chronicles 6:36 he is called Joel.
SHAVEH, VALE OF
<sha-ve> ([h wev ; q m,[ e, `emeq shaweh]).
See KINGS VALE.
814
SHAVEH-KIRIATHAIM
<sha-ve-kir-ya-tha-im> ([ yit y;r ]q i h w,v ;, shaweh qiryathayim]; [rv
2ouq tq or, en Saue te polei]): Here Chedorlaomer is said to have
defeated the Emim (
<011405>
Genesis 14:5). the Revised Version margin reads
the plain of Kiriathaim. If this rendering is right, we must look for the
place in the neighborhood of Kiriathaim of Moab (
<244801>
Jeremiah 48:1, etc.),
which is probably represented today by el-Qareiyat, about 7 miles to the
North of Dibon.
SHAVING
<shav-ing> (in
<180120>
Job 1:20, [zz G;, gazaz], usually [j l G; , galach]; in
<442124>
Acts 21:24, [upo, xurao]): Customs as to shaving differ in different
countries, and in ancient and modern times. Among the Egyptians it was
customary to shave the whole body (compare
<014114>
Genesis 41:14). With the
Israelites, shaving the head was a sign of mourning (
<052112>
Deuteronomy
21:12;
<180120>
Job 1:20); ordinarily the hair was allowed to grow long, and was
only cut at intervals (compare Absalom,
<101426>
2 Samuel 14:26). Nazirites
were forbidden to use a razor, but when their vow was expired, or if they
were defiled, they were to shave the whole head (
<040605>
Numbers 6:5,9,18 ff;
compare
<442124>
Acts 21:24). The shaving of the beard was not permitted to
the Israelites; they were prohibited from shaving off even the corner of
their beard (
<032105>
Leviticus 21:5). It was an unpardonable insult when
Hanun, king of the Ammonites, cut off the half of the beards of the
Israelites whom David had sent to him (
<101004>
2 Samuel 10:4;
<131904>
1 Chronicles
19:4).
Shaving with a razor that is hired is Isaiahs graphic figure to denote the
complete devastation of Judah by the Assyrian army (
<230720>
Isaiah 7:20).
J ames Orr
SHAVSHA
<shav-sha> ([a v ; w v ] , shawsha]; in
<102025>
2 Samuel 20:25, Kethibh, [a yv ,
sheya], Kere, [a w;v ], shewa], English Versions of the Bible Sheva, are
refuted by the Septuagint; in
<100815>
2 Samuel 8:15-18, in other respects
identical with Chronicles, Seraiah is found; the Septuagint varies greatly
in all passages; it is the general consensus that Shavsha is correct): State
secretary or scribe during the reign of David (
<131816>
1 Chronicles 18:16;
<102025>
2
815
Samuel 20:25). He was the first occupant of this office, which was created
by David. It is significant that his fathers name is omitted in the very exact
list of Davids officers of state (
<131814>
1 Chronicles 18:14-17 parallel
<100815>
2
Samuel 8:15-18); this fact, coupled with the foreign sound of his name,
points to his being an alien; the assumption that the state secretary
handled correspondence with other countries may explain Davids choice
of a foreigner for this post. Shavshas two sons, Elihoreph and Ahijah,
were secretaries of state under Solomon; they are called sons of Shisha
(
<110403>
1 Kings 4:3), Shisha probably being a variant of Shavsha.
Horace J . Wolf
SHAWL
<shol>: the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes shawls
for the King James Version wimples in
<230322>
Isaiah 3:22.
See DRESS.
SHEAF; SHEAVES
<shef>, <shevz> ([h M;l ua }, alummah], [r m,[ o, `omer], [r ymi[ ;, `amir]):
When the grain is reaped, it is laid in handfuls back of the reaper to be
gathered by children or those who cannot stand the harder work of reaping
(
<19C907>
Psalm 129:7). The handfuls are bound into large sheaves, two of which
are laden at a time on a donkey (compare
<161315>
Nehemiah 13:15). In some
districts carts are used (compare
<300213>
Amos 2:13). The sheaves are piled
about the threshing-floors until threshing time, which may be several weeks
after harvest. It is an impressive sight to see the huge stacks of sheaves
piled about the threshing-floors, the piles often covering an area greater
than the nearby villages (see AGRICULTURE). The ancient Egyptians
bound their grain into small sheaves, forming the bundles with care so that
the heads were equally distributed between the two ends (see Wilkinson,
Ancient Egyptians, 1878, II, 424; compare Josephs dream,
<013705>
Genesis
37:5-8). The sheaves mentioned in
<013710>
Genesis 37:10-12,15 must have been
handfuls. It is a custom in parts of Syria for the gatherers of the sheaves to
run toward a passing horseman and wave a handful of grain, shouting
kemshi, kemshi (literally, handful). They want the horseman to feed the
grain to his horse. In Old Testament times forgotten sheaves had to be left
for the sojourner (
<052419>
Deuteronomy 24:19); compare the kindness shown to
Ruth by the reapers of Boaz (
<080207>
Ruth 2:7,15).
816
Figurative: Being hungry they carry the sheaves is a picture of torment
similar to that of the hungry horse urged to go by the bundle of hay tied
before him (
<182410>
Job 24:10). The joyful sight of the sheaves of an abundant
harvest was used by the Psalmist to typify the joy of the returning captives
(
<19C606>
Psalm 126:6).
J ames A. Patch
SHEAL
<she-al> ([l a ;v ], sheal], request): One of the Israelites of the sons of
Bani who had taken foreign wives (
<151029>
Ezra 10:29, Septuagint: Salouia;
Septuagint, Lucian, Assael; 1 Esdras 9:30, Jasaelus).
SHEALTIEL
<she-ol-ti-el> ([l a e yT i l ] a v ] , shealtiel], but in
<370112>
Haggai 1:12,14; 2:2,
[l a e t Yi l ] v , shaltiel]; Septuagint and the New Testament always
[2oo0q, Salathiel], hence, Salathiel of 1 Esdras 5:5,48,56; 6:2; the
King James Version of
<400112>
Matthew 1:12;
<420327>
Luke 3:27): Father of
Zerubbabel (
<150302>
Ezra 3:2,8; 5:2;
<161201>
Nehemiah 12:1;
<370101>
Haggai 1:1,12,14;
2:2,23). But, according to
<130317>
1 Chronicles 3:17, Shealtiel was the oldest
son of King Jeconiah; in 3:19 the Massoretic Text makes Pedaiah, a
brother of Shealtiel, the father of Zerubbabel (compare Curtis, ICC).
SHEAR
<sher>.
See SHEEP; SHEEP TENDING.
SHEARIAH
<she-a-ri-a>, <she-ar-ya> ([h y;r ][ v ], she`aryah]; [2opoo, Saraia]): A
descendant of Saul (
<130838>
1 Chronicles 8:38; 9:44).
SHEARING HOUSE
<sher-ing> ([ y[ r oh ; d q ,[ et yB e, beth `eqedh ha-ro`im], house of
binding of the shepherds; Codex Vaticanus [Bo0oxo0, Baithakath]
(Codex Alexandrinus [Bo0oxo, Baithakad]) [tv orvv, ton
817
poimenon]): Here in the course of his extinction of the house of Ahab,
Jehu met and destroyed 42 men, the brethren of Ahaziah king of Judah
(
<121012>
2 Kings 10:12-14). Eusebius (in Onomasticon) takes the phrase as a
proper name, Bethacath, and locates the village 15 miles from Legio in the
plain. This seems to point to identification with Beit Kad, about 3 miles
East of Jenin.
SHEAR-JASHUB
<she-ar-ja-shub> or <jash-ub> ([b Wv y; r a ;v ], shear yashubh], a
remnant shall return; Septuagint ho kataleiphtheis Iasoub): The son of
Isaiah, who accompanied him when he set out to meet Ahaz (
<230703>
Isaiah
7:3). The name like that of other children of prophets (compare
Immanuel, Mahershalal-hash-baz, Lo-ruhamah, etc.) is symbolic of a
message which the prophet wishes to emphasize. Thus Isaiah uses the very
words shear yashubh to express his oft-repeated statement that a remnant
of Israel will return to Yahweh (
<231021>
Isaiah 10:21).
SHEATH
<sheth>.
See SWORD.
SHEBA (1)
<she-ba> ([a b ;v ] , shebha]; [2opo, Saba]):
(1) Sheba and Dedan are the two sons of Raamah son of Cush
(
<011007>
Genesis 10:7).
(2) Sheba and Dedan are the two sons of Jokshan the son of Abraham
and Keturah (
<012503>
Genesis 25:3).
(3) Sheba is a son of Joktan son of Eber who was a descendant of
Shem (
<011028>
Genesis 10:28).
From the above statements it would appear that Sheba was the name of an
Arab tribe, and consequently of Semitic descent. The fact that Sheba and
Dedan are represented as Cushite (
<011007>
Genesis 10:7) would point to a
migration of part of these tribes to Ethiopia, and similarly their derivation
from Abraham (
<012503>
Genesis 25:3) would indicate that some families were
818
located in Syria. In point of fact Sheba was a South-Arabian or Joktanite
tribe (
<011028>
Genesis 10:28), and his own name and that of some of his
brothers (e.g. Hazarmaveth = Hadhramaut) are place-names in Southern
Arabia.
The Sabeans or people of Saba or Sheba, are referred to as traders in gold
and spices, and as inhabiting a country remote from Palestine (
<111001>
1 Kings
10:1 f;
<236006>
Isaiah 60:6;
<240620>
Jeremiah 6:20;
<262722>
Ezekiel 27:22;
<197215>
Psalm
72:15;
<401242>
Matthew 12:42), also as slave-traders (
<290308>
Joel 3:8), or even
desert-rangers (
<180115>
Job 1:15; 6:19; compare CIS 84 3).
By the Arab genealogists Saba is represented as great-grandson of Qachtan
(= Joktan) and ancestor of all the South-Arabian tribes. He is the father of
Chimyar and Kahlan. He is said to have been named Saba because he was
the first to take prisoners (shabhah) in war. He founded the capital of Saba
and built its citadel Marib (Mariaba), famous for its mighty barrage.
1. HISTORY:
The authentic history of the Sabeans, so far as known, and the topography
of their country are derived from South-Arabian inscriptions, which began
to be discovered about the middle of the last century, and from coins
dating from about 150 BC to 150 AD, the first collection of which was
published in 1880, and from the South-Arabian geographer Hamdani, who
was later made known to European scholars. One of the Sabean kings is
mentioned on Assyrian inscriptions of the year 715 BC; and he is
apparently not the earliest. The native monuments are scattered over the
period extending from before that time until the 6th century AD, when the
Sabean state came to an end, being most numerous about the
commencement of our era. Saba was the name of the nation of which
Marib was the usual capital. The Sabeans at first shared the sovereignty of
South Arabia with Himyar and one or two other nations, but gradually
absorbed the territories of these some time after the Christian era. The
form of government seems to have been that of a republic or oligarchy, the
chief magistracy going by a kind of rotation, and more than one king
holding office simultaneously (similarly
<050447>
Deuteronomy 4:47 and often in
the Old Testament). The people seem to have been divided into patricians
and plebeians, the former of whom had the right to build castles and to
share in the government.
819
2. RELIGION:
A number of deities are mentioned on the inscriptions, two chief being Il-
Maqqih and Ta`lab. Others are Athtar (masculine form of the Biblical
`ashtaroth), Rammon (the Biblical Rimmon), the Sun, and others. The Sun
and Athtar were further defined by the addition of the name of a place or
tribe, just as Baal in the Old Testament. Worship took the form of gifts to
the temples, of sacrifices, especially incense, of pilgrimages and prayers.
Ceremonial ablution, and abstinence from certain things, as well as formal
dedication of the worshipper and his household and goods to the deity,
were also religious acts. In return the deity took charge of his worshippers
castle, wells, and belongings, and supplied him with cereals, vegetables and
fruits, as well as granted him male issue.
3. CIVILIZATION:
(1) The chief occupations of the Sabeans were raiding and trade. The
chief products of their country are enumerated in
<236006>
Isaiah 60:6, which
agrees with the Assyrian inscriptions. The most important of all
commodities was incense, and it is significant that the same word which
in the other Semitic languages means gold, in Sabean means
perfume (and also gold). To judge, however, from the number of
times they are mentioned upon the inscriptions, agriculture bulked
much more largely in the thoughts of the Sabean than commerce, and
was of equal importance with religion.
(2) The high position occupied by women among the Sabeans is
reflected in the story of the Queen of Sheba and Solomon. In almost all
respects women appear to have been considered the equal of men, and
to have discharged the same civil, religious and even military functions.
Polygamy does not seem to have been practiced. The Sabean
inscriptions do not go back far enough to throw any light upon the
queen who was contemporary with Solomon, and the Arabic
identification of her with Bilqis is merely due to the latter being the
only Sabean queen known to them. Bilqis must have lived several
centuries later than the Hebrew monarch.
(3) The alphabet used in the Sabean inscriptions is considered by
Professor Margoliouth to be the original Semitic alphabet, from which
the others are derived. In other respects Sabean art seems to be
820
dependent on that of Assyria, Persia and Greece. The coins are Greek
and Roman in style, while the system of weights employed is Persian.
See further SABAEANS.
LITERATURE.
Rodiger and Osidander in ZDMG, volumes XX and XXI; Halevy in
Journal Asiatique, Serie 6, volume IX; Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum,
pt. IV, edition by J. and H. Derenbourg; Hamdani, edition by D. H. Muller,
1891; Mordtmann, Himyarische Inschriften, 1893; Hommel, Sudarabische
Chresthomathie, 1893; Glaser, Abyssinien in Arabien, 1895; D. H. Muller,
Sudarabische Alterthumer, 1899; Derenbourg, Les monuments sabeens,
1899. On the coins, Schlumberger, Leviticus tresor de Sana, 1880;
Mordtmann in Wiener numismatische Zeitschrift, 1880.
Thomas Hunter Weir
SHEBA (2)
<she-ba> ([[ b v , , shebha`]; [2oprr, Sabee], or [2ooo, Samaa]): The
name of one of the towns allotted to Simeon (
<061902>
Joshua 19:2). the King
James Version mentions it as an independent town, but as it is not
mentioned at all in the parallel list (
<130428>
1 Chronicles 4:28), and is omitted in
<061902>
Joshua 19:2 in some manuscripts, it is probable that the Revised
Version (British and American) is correct in its translation Beer-sheba or
Sheba. Only in this way can the total of towns in this group be made 13
(
<061906>
Joshua 19:6). If it is a separate name, it is probably the same as
SHEMA (which see).
E. W. G. Masterman
SHEBA, QUEEN OF
See QUEEN OF SHEBA.
SHEBAH
<she-ba>.
See SHIBAH.
821
SHEBAM
<she-bam>.
See SEBAM.
SHEBANIAH
<sheb-a-ni-a>, <she-ban-ya> ([h y;n]b v ], shebhanyah], in
<131524>
1
Chronicles 15:24, shebhanyahu):
(1) Name of a Levite or a Levitical family that participated in the
religious rites that followed the reading of the Law (
<160904>
Nehemiah 9:4).
The name is given in
<161010>
Nehemiah 10:10 among those that sealed the
covenant.
(2) A priest or Levite who took part in the sealing of the covenant
(
<161004>
Nehemiah 10:4; 12:14).
See SHECANIAH.
(3) Another Levite who sealed the covenant (
<161012>
Nehemiah 10:12).
(4) A priest in the time of David (
<131524>
1 Chronicles 15:24).
SHEBARIM
<sheb-a-rim>, <she-ba-rim> ([ yr i b ; V ] h , ha-shebharim];
[ouvrtpgov, sunetripsan]): After the repulse of the first attack on their
city the men of Ai chased the Israelites even unto Shebarim (
<060705>
Joshua
7:5). the Revised Version margin reads the quarries; so Keil,
Steuernagel, etc. Septuagint reads until they were broken, i.e. until the
rout was complete. The direction of the flight was of course from Ai
toward Gilgal in the Jordan valley. No trace of such name has yet been
found.
SHEBAT
<she-bat> ([f b ;v ], shebhat]): The 11th month of the Jewish year
(
<380107>
Zechariah 1:7), corresponding to February.
See CALENDAR.
822
SHEBER
<she-ber> ([r b ,v ,, shebher]; Codex Vaticanus [2oprp, Saber], Codex
Alexandrinus [2rprp, Seber]): A son of Caleb by his concubine Maacah
(
<130248>
1 Chronicles 2:48).
SHEBNA
<sheb-na> ([a n;b ]v ,, shebhna]; [2ovo, Somnas]; but [h n;b ]v ,,
shebhnah], in
<121818>
2 Kings 18:18,26; meaning uncertain (
<121818>
2 Kings
18:18,26,37 and 19:2 =
<233603>
Isaiah 36:3,11,22 and 37:2; lsa 22:15)):
1. POSITION IN ISAIAH 22:
In
<232215>
Isaiah 22:15 Shebna is referred to as he who is over the house, or
household, apparently that of the king. The phrase is translated steward of
the house in the Revised Version (British and American) of
<014316>
Genesis
43:16,19; 44:1, and occurs also in 39:4, overseer; 44:4. It is used of an
officer of the Northern Kingdom in
<111609>
1 Kings 16:9; 18:3;
<121005>
2 Kings
10:5. This officer is distinguished from him that was over the city in
<121005>
2
Kings 10:5, and it is said in
<121505>
2 Kings 15:5 that after his father Azariah
was stricken with leprosy, Jotham, the kings son, was over the
household, judging all the people of the land. Again
<232215>
Isaiah 22:15
speaks of this cokhen, a phrase that must apply to Shebna if the prophecy
refers to him. This word is the participle of a verb meaning to be of use or
service, so to benefit in
<181503>
Job 15:3; 22:2; 34:9. The feminine participle
is employed of Abishag in
<110102>
1 Kings 1:2,4, where King James Version,
margin translates cherisher; BDB renders it servitor or steward in
<232215>
Isaiah 22:15. It occurs also as a Canaanite gloss in the Tell el-Amarna
Letters (Winckler, number 237,9). The [cokhen] was evidently a high
officer: Shebna had splendid chariots (22:18), but what the office exactly
was is not certain. The other reference to Shebna in the title of the
prophecy would lead one to conclude that it denoted him who was over
the household, i.e. governor of the palace, probably, or major-domo. The
word cokhen is thus a general title; others deny this, maintaining that it
would then occur more frequently.
823
2. SHEBNA IN 2 KINGS 18 F:
In 2 Kings 18 f = Isaiah 36 f we find too a Shebna mentioned among the
officers of Hezekiah. There he is called the copher, scribe or secretary,
i.e. a minister of state of some kind, whereas Eliakim is he who is over the
household. Is then the Shebna of Isaiah 22 the same as this officer? It is of
course possible that two men of the same name should hold high office
about the same time. We find a Joshua (ben Asaph) recorder under
Hezekiah (
<121818>
2 Kings 18:18) and a Joshua (ben Joahaz) having the very
same position under Josiah a century later (
<143408>
2 Chronicles 34:8). But such
a coincidence is rare. Had there been two high officers of state bearing this
name, it is most probable that they would somehow have been
distinguished one from the other. Shebnas name is thought to be Aramaic,
thus pointing to a foreign descent, but G. B. Gray, Isa, ICC, 373 ff,
denies this. We can perhaps safely infer that he was a parvenu from the fact
that he was hewing himself a sepulcher in Jerusalem, apparently among
those of the nobility, whereas a native would have an ancestral burial-place
in the land.
However, in 2 Kings, Shebna is the scribe and not the governor of the
palace. How is this to be explained? The answer is in Isaiahs prophecy.
3.
<232215>
ISAIAH 22:15 FF:
The prophecy of Isaiah 22 divides itself into 3 sections. The words against
(not as the Revised Version (British and American) unto) Shebna who is
over the house, or palace, are properly the title of the prophecy, and
should come therefore at the very beginning of verse 15.
(1)
<232215>
Isaiah 22:15-18 form one whole. In 22:16 the words hewing
him out a sepulcher, etc., should be placed immediately before the rest
of the verse as 22:16a with the rest of the section is in the second
person. We thus read (22:15-17): `Against Shebna who was over the
house. Thus saith the Lord, Yahweh of hosts, Go unto this steward
(Revised Version margin) that is hewing him out a sepulcher on high,
graying a habitation for himself in the rock, (and say) What doest thou
here and whom hast thou here that thou hast hewed thee out here a
sepulcher? Behold, Yahweh of hosts, .... etc. G.H. Box (Isaiah) would
further transpose some parts of 22:17 f. Shebna is to be tossed like a
ball into a land wide of sides, i.e. a broad extensive land. He is
addressed as a disgrace to the house of his royal master. The prophets
824
language is that of personal invective, and one asks what had made him
so indignant. Some (e.g. Dillmann, Delitzsch) suggest that Shebna was
the leader of a pro-Egyptian party, while others (e.g. Cheyne) believe
that the party was pro-Assyrian (compare
<230805>
Isaiah 8:5-8a). The actual
date of the prophecy can only be inferred.
(2)
<232219>
Isaiah 22:19-23 contains a prophecy which states that Eliakim is
to be given someones post, apparently that of Shebna, if this section
be by Isaiah; 22:23, however, is held by many to be a gloss. These
verses are not so vehement in tone as the previous ones. Some maintain
that the section is not by Isaiah (Duhm, Marti). It can, however, be
Isaianic, only later in date than 22:15 ff, being possibly meant to modify
the former utterance. The palace governor is to lose his office and to be
succeeded by Eliakim, who is seen to hold that post in 2 Kings 18 f.
See ELIAKIM.
(3)
<232224>
Isaiah 22:24 f are additions to the two utterances by a later
hand; they predict the ruin of some such official as Eliakim owing to his
own family.
4. DATE OF THE PROPHECY:
There is nothing a priori against believing that these three sections are
entirely independent one of another, but there seems to be some connection
between
(1) and (2), and again between
(2) and (3). Now the question that has to be solved is that of the
relation of
<232215>
Isaiah 22:15 ff with 2 Kings 18 f = Isaiah 36 f, where are
given the events of 701 BC. We have the following facts:
(a) Shebna is scribe in 701, and Eliakim is governor of the palace;
(b) Shebna is governor of the palace in
<232215>
Isaiah 22:15, and is to be
deposed;
(c) if
<232218>
Isaiah 22:18-22 be by Isaiah, Eliakim was to succeed Shebna
in that post. Omitting for the moment everything but (a) and (b), the
only solution that is to any extent satisfactory is that
<232215>
Isaiah 22:15-
18 is to be dated previous to 701 BC. This is the view preferred by
825
G.B. Gray, in the work quoted And this is the most satisfactory theory
if we take (2) above into consideration. The prophecy then contained in
(1) had not been as yet fulfilled in 701, but (2) had come to pass;
Shebna was no longer governor of the palace, but held the position of
scribe. Exile might still be in store for him.
Another explanation is put forward by K. Fullerton in AJT, IX, 621-42
(1905) and criticized by E. Konig in X, 675-86 (1906). Fullerton rejects
verses 24 f as not due to Isaiah, and maintains that
<232215>
Isaiah 22:15-18 was
spoken by the prophet early in the reign of Manasseh, i.e. later than 2
Kings 18 f, not so much as a prophecy, a simple prediction, as an attempt
to drive Shebna from office. .... It must be admitted that Isaiah probably
did not succeed. The reactionary party seems to have remained in control
during the reign of Manasseh. .... Fortunately, the moral significance of
Isaiah does not depend on the fulfillment of this or that specific prediction.
We are dealing not with a walking oracle, but with a great character and a
noble life (p. 639). He then infers from the massacres of Manasseh (
<122116>
2
Kings 21:16) that a conspiracy had been formed against him by the
prophetic party which proposed to place Eliakim on the throne (p. 640).
Isaiah he thinks would not resort to such violent measures, and so the
character of Isaiah makes it questionable whether he was the author of
22:20-23. This part would then be due to the prophetic party who went a
step farther than their great leader would approve. This view assumes too
much,
(a) that the terms in 22:20-23 refer to kingly power;
(b) that Eliakim was of Davidic descent, unless we have a man of non-
Davidic origin aiming at the throne, which is again a thing unheard of in
Judah; and
(c) that there was such a plot in the reign of Manasseh, of which we
have no proof.
David Francis Roberts
SHEBUEL
<she-bu-el>, <sheb-u-el> ([l a eWb v ], shebhuel]; [2oupoq, Soubael]):
(1) A son of Gershom and grandson of Moses (
<132316>
1 Chronicles 23:16).
He was ruler over the treasures (
<132624>
1 Chronicles 26:24). In
<132420>
1
826
Chronicles 24:20 he is called Shubael, which is probably the original
form of the name (see Gray, HPN, 310).
(2) A son of Heman (
<132504>
1 Chronicles 25:4), called in
<132520>
1 Chronicles
25:20 Shubael (Septuagint as in 25:4).
SHECANIAH; SHECHANIAH
<shek-a-ni-a>, <shekan-ya> ([h y;n]k v ], shekhanyah] (in
<132411>
1
Chronicles 24:11;
<143115>
2 Chronicles 31:15, shekhanyahu); Codex Vaticanus
[ Ioovo, Ischania], [2rxrvo, Sekenia]):
(1) A descendant of Zerubbabel (
<130321>
1 Chronicles 3:21,22). This is the
same Shecaniah mentioned in
<150803>
Ezra 8:3.
(2) The sons of Shecaniah, so the Massoretic Text of
<150805>
Ezra 8:5
reads, were among those who returned with Ezra, but a name appears
to have been lost from the text, and we should probably read of the
sons of Zattu, Shecaniah the son of Jahaziel (compare 1 Esdras 8:32,
of the sons of Zathoes, Sechenias the son of Jezelus).
(3) Chief of the tenth course of priests (
<132411>
1 Chronicles 24:11).
(4) A priest in the reign of Hezekiah (
<143115>
2 Chronicles 31:15).
(5) A contemporary of Ezra who supported him in his opposition to
foreign marriages (
<151002>
Ezra 10:2).
(6) The father of Shemaiah, the keeper of the east gate (
<160329>
Nehemiah
3:29).
(7) The father-in-law of Tobiah the Ammonite (
<160618>
Nehemiah 6:18).
(8) The eponym of a family which returned with Zerubbabel
(
<161203>
Nehemiah 12:3). It is the same name which, by an interchange of
bh and kh, appears as Shebaniah (see SHEBANIAH, (2)) in
<161004>
Nehemiah 10:4,12,14.
Horace J . Wolf
827
SHECHEM
<she-kem> ([ k ,v ], shekhem], shoulder; [2ur, Suchem], [q 2xo,
he Sikima], [to 2xo, ta Sikima], etc.; the King James Version gives
Sichem in
<011206>
Genesis 12:6; and Sychem in
<440716>
Acts 7:16):
1. HISTORICAL:
This place is first mentioned in connection with Abrahams journey from
Haran. At the oak of Moreh in the vicinity he reared his first altar to the
Lord in Palestine (
<011206>
Genesis 12:6 f). It was doubtless by this oak that
Jacob, on his return from Paddan-aram, buried the strange (the American
Standard Revised Version foreign) gods (
<013504>
Genesis 35:4). Hither he
had come after his meeting with Esau (
<013318>
Genesis 33:18). Eusebius, in
Onomasticon, here identifies Shechem with Shalem; but see SHALEM. To
the East of the city Jacob pitched his tent in a parcel of ground which he
had bought from Hamor, Shechems father (
<013319>
Genesis 33:19). Here also
he raised an altar and called it El-Elohe-Israel, God, the God of Israel
(
<013320>
Genesis 33:20). Then follows the story of Dinahs defilement by
Shechem, son of the citys chief; and of the treacherous and terrible
vengeance exacted by Simeon and Levi (Genesis 34). To the rich pasture
land near Shechem Joseph came to seek his brethren (
<013712>
Genesis 37:12 ff).
It is mentioned as lying to the West of Michmethath (el-Makhneh) on the
boundary of Manasseh (
<061707>
Joshua 17:7). It was in the territory of Ephraim;
it was made a city of refuge, and assigned to the Kohathite Levites
(
<062007>
Joshua 20:7; 21:21). Near the city the Law was promulgated
(
<052711>
Deuteronomy 27:11;
<060833>
Joshua 8:33). When his end was approaching
Joshua gathered the tribes of Israel here and addressed to them his final
words of counsel and exhortation (chapter 24). Under the oak in the
neighboring sanctuary he set up the stone of witness (24:26). The war of
conquest being done, Josephs bones were buried in the parcel of ground
which Jacob had bought, and which fell to the lot of Josephs descendants
(24:33). Abimelech, whose mother was a native of the city, persuaded the
men of Shechem to make him king (
<070901>
Judges 9:1-6), evidently seeking a
certain consecration from association with the oak of the pillar that was in
Shechem. Jothams parable was spoken from the cliff of Gerizim
overhanging the town (
<070907>
Judges 9:7 ff). After a reign of three years
Abimelech was rejected by the people. He captured the city, razed it to the
foundations, and sowed it with salt. It was then the seat of Canaanite
828
idolatry, the temple of Baal-berith being here (
<070904>
Judges 9:4,46). In the
time of the kings we find that the city was once more a gathering-place of
the nation. It was evidently the center, especially for the northern tribes;
and hither Rehoboam came in the hope of getting his succession to the
throne confirmed (
<111201>
1 Kings 12:1;
<141001>
2 Chronicles 10:1). At the
disruption Jeroboam fortified the city and made it his residence (
<141002>
2
Chronicles 10:25; Ant, VIII, viii, 4). The capital of the Northern Kingdom
was moved, however, first to Tirzah and then to Samaria, and Shechem
declined in political importance. Indeed it is not named again in the history
of the monarchy. Apparently there were Israelites in it after the captivity,
some of whom on their way to the house of the Lord at Jerusalem met a
tragic fate at the hands of Ishmael ben Nethaniah (
<244105>
Jeremiah 41:5 ff). It
became the central city of the Samaritans, whose shrine was built on Mt.
Gerizim (Sirach 50:26; Ant, XI, viii, 6; XII, i, 1; XIII, iii, 4). Shechem was
captured by John Hyrcanus in 132 BC (Ant., XIII, ix, 1; BJ, I, ii, 6). It
appears in the New Testament only in the speech of Stephen (
<440716>
Acts
7:16, King James Version Sychem). Some (e.g. Smith, DB, under the
word) would identify it with Sychar of
<430405>
John 4:5; but see SYCHAR.
Under the Romans it became Flavia Neapolis. In later times it was the seat
of a bishopric; the names of five occupants of the see are known.
2. LOCATION AND PHYSICAL FEATURES:
There is no doubt as to the situation of ancient Shechem. It lay in the pass
which cuts through Mts. Ephraim, Ebal and Gerizim, guarding it on the
North and South respectively. Along this line runs the great road which
from time immemorial has formed the easiest and the quickest means of
communication between the East of the Jordan and the sea. It must have
been a place of strength from antiquity. The name seems to occur in
Travels of a Mohar (Max Muller, Asien u. Europa, 394), Mountain of
Sahama probably referring to Ebal or Gerizim. The ancient city may have
lain somewhat farther East than the modern Nablus, in which the Roman
name Neapolis survives. The situation is one of great beauty. The city lies
close to the foot of Gerizim. The terraced slopes of the mountain rise
steeply on the South. Across the valley, musical with the sound of running
water, the great bulk of Ebal rises on the North, its sides, shaggy with
prickly pear, sliding down into grain fields and orchards. The copious
springs which supply abundance of water rise at the base of Gerizim. The
fruitful and well-wooded valley winds westward among the hills. It is
829
traversed by the carriage road leading to Jaffa and the sea. Eastward the
valley opens upon the plain of Makhneh. To the East of the city, in a recess
at the base of Gerizim, is the sanctuary known as Rijal el-`Amud, literally,
men of the column or pillar, where some would locate the ancient oak
of Moreh or of the pillar. Others would find it in a little village farther
East with a fine spring, called BalaTa, a name which may be connected
with balluT, oak. Still farther to the East and near the base of Ebal is the
traditional tomb of Joseph, a little white-domed building beside a luxuriant
orchard. On the slope of the mountain beyond is the village of `Askar; see
SYCHAR. To the South of the vale is the traditional Well of Jacob; see
JACOBS WELL. To the Southwest of the city is a small mosque on the
spot where Jacob is said to have mourned over the blood-stained coat of
Joseph. In the neighboring minaret is a stone whereon the Ten
Commandments are engraved in Samaritan characters. The main center of
interest in the town is the synagogue of the Samaritans, with their ancient
manuscript of the Pentateuch.
3. MODERN SHECHEM:
The modern town contains about 20,000 inhabitants, the great body of
them being Moslems. There are some 700 or 800 Christians, chiefly
belonging to the Greek Orthodox church. The Samaritans do not total
more than 200. The place is still the market for a wide district, both East
and West of Jordan. A considerable trade is done in cotton and wool. Soap
is manufactured in large quantities, oil for this purpose being plentifully
supplied by the olive groves. Tanning and the manufacture of leather goods
are also carried on. In old times the slopes of Ebal were covered with
vineyards; but these formed a source of temptation to the faithful. They
were therefore removed by authority, and their place taken by the prickly
pears mentioned above.
W. Ewing
SHECHEMITES
<she-kem-its> ([ymi k ] V i h , hashikhmi]; [2urr, Suchemei]): The
descendants of Shechem the son of Gilead, a clan of Eastern Manasseh
(
<042631>
Numbers 26:31;
<061702>
Joshua 17:2).
830
SHED, SHEDDING
The three Hebrew words, naghar, sim or sum and shaphakh, translated
shed in many Old Testament passages, always mean a pouring out, and
in nearly every case point to the effusion of blood (
<010906>
Genesis 9:6;
<043533>
Numbers 35:33;
<052107>
Deuteronomy 21:7;
<102010>
2 Samuel 20:10;
<132208>
1
Chronicles 22:8;
<200116>
Proverbs 1:16, etc.). The Greek words [rxr,
ekcheo], and [rxuv, ekchuno], have precisely the same specific meaning
(
<402335>
Matthew 23:35; 26:28;
<411424>
Mark 14:24;
<421150>
Luke 11:50;
<580922>
Hebrews
9:22;
<661606>
Revelation 16:6). Sometimes they are tropically used in reference
to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (
<440233>
Acts 2:33 the King James Version;
<560306>
Titus 3:6), and to the outpouring of the love of God in the believers
heart (
<450505>
Romans 5:5).
Henry E. Dosker
SHEDEUR
<shed-e-ur>, <she-de-ur> ([r Wa yd ev ], shedheur], daybreak; Codex
Vaticanus [2roup, Sediour], [ Erop, Ediour]): The father of Elizur,
the chief of Reuben (
<040105>
Numbers 1:5; 2:10; 7:30). French Delitzsch
correctly conceives the name as an Assyrian compound, sad uri,
daybreak. Cf, however, Gray, HPN, 169, 197, who emends the text to
read Shaddai Ur, Shaddai is flame.
SHEEP
<shep>:
1. NAMES:
The usual Hebrew word is [a x o, tson], which is often translated flock,
e.g. Abel .... brought of the firstlings of his flock (
<010404>
Genesis 4:4);
butter of the herd, and milk of the flock (
<053214>
Deuteronomy 32:14). The
King James Version and the English Revised Version have milk of sheep.
Compare Arabic dan. The Greek word is [popotov, probaton]. For
other names, see notes under CATTLE; EWE; LAMB; RAM.
2. ZOOLOGY:
The origin of domestic sheep is unknown. There are 11 wild species, the
majority of which are found in Asia, and it is conceivable that they may
831
have spread from the highlands of Central Asia to the other portions of
their habitat. In North America is found the bighorn, which is very
closely related to a Kamschatkan species. One species, the urial or sha, is
found in India. The Barbary sheep, Ovis tragelaphus, also known as the
aoudad or arui, inhabits the Atlas Mountains of Northwest Africa. It is
thought by Tristram to be zemer, English Versions of the Bible chamois
of
<051405>
Deuteronomy 14:5, but there is no good evidence that this animal
ranges eastward into Bible lands. Geographically nearest is the Armenian
wild sheep, Ovis gmelini, of Asia Minor and Persia. The Cyprian wild
sheep may be only a variety of the last, and the mouflon of Corsica and
Sardinia is an allied species. It is not easy to draw the line between wild
sheep and wild goats. Among the more obvious distinctions are the chin
beard and strong odor of male goats. The pelage of all wild sheep consists
of hair, not wool, and this indeed is true of some domestic sheep as the fat-
rumped short-tailed sheep of Abyssinia and Central Asia. The young lambs
of this breed have short curly wool which is the astrachan of commerce.
Sheep are geologically recent, their bones and teeth not being found in
earlier deposits than the pleiocene or pleistocene. They were, however,
among the first of domesticated animals.
3. SHEEP OF PALESTINE:
The sheep of Syria and Palestine are characterized by the possession of an
enormous fat tail which weighs many pounds and is known in Arabic as
alyat, or commonly, liyat. This is the [h y; l ] a , alyah], fat tail (the
King James Version rump) (
<022922>
Exodus 29:22;
<030309>
Leviticus 3:9; 7:3;
8:25; 9:19), which was burned in sacrifice. This is at the present day
esteemed a great delicacy. Sheep are kept in large numbers by the Bedouin,
but a large portion of the supply of mutton for the cities is from the sheep
of Armenia and Kurdistan, of which great droves are brought down to the
coast in easy stages. Among the Moslems every well-to-do family sacrifices
a sheep at the feast of al-adcha, the 10th day of the month dhu-l-chijjat,
40 days after the end of ramadan, the month of fasting. In Lebanon every
peasant family during the summer fattens a young ram, which is literally
crammed by one of the women of the household, who keeps the creatures
jaw moving with one hand while with the other she stuffs its mouth with
vine or mulberry leaves. Every afternoon she washes it at the village
fountain. When slaughtered in the fall it is called ma`luf, fed, and is very
fat and the flesh very tender. Some of the meat and fat are eaten at once,
832
but the greater part, fat and lean, is cut up fine, cooked together in a large
vessel with pepper and salt, and stored in an earthen jar. This, the so-called
qauramat, is used as needed through the winter.
In the mountains the sheep are gathered at night into folds, which may be
caves or enclosures of rough stones. Fierce dogs assist the shepherd in
warding off the attacks of wolves, and remain at the fold through the day
to guard the slight bedding and simple utensils. In going to pasture the
sheep are not driven but are led, following the shepherd as he walks before
them and calls to them. When he hath put forth all his own, he goeth
before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice (
<431004>
John
10:4).
4. OLD TESTAMENT REFERENCES:
The sheepfolds of Reuben on the plain of Gilead are referred to in
<043216>
Numbers 32:16 and
<070516>
Judges 5:16. A cave is mentioned in
<092403>
1
Samuel 24:3 in connection with the pursuit of David by Saul. The shepherd
origin of David is referred to in
<197870>
Psalm 78:70:
He chose David also his servant,
And took him from the sheepfolds.
Compare also
<100708>
2 Samuel 7:8 and
<131707>
1 Chronicles 17:7.
The shearing of the sheep was a large operation and evidently became a
sort of festival. Absalom invited the kings sons to his sheep-shearing in
Baal-hazor in order that he might find an opportunity to put Amnon to
death while his heart was merry with wine (
<101323>
2 Samuel 13:23-29). The
character of the occasion is evident also from the indignation of David at
Nabal when the latter refused to provide entertainment at his sheep-
shearing for Davids young men who had previously protected the flocks
of Nabal (
<092502>
1 Samuel 25:2-13). There is also mention of the sheep-
shearing of Judah (
<013812>
Genesis 38:12) and of Laban (
<013119>
Genesis 31:19), on
which occasion Jacob stole away with his wives and children and his
flocks.
Sheep were the most important sacrificial animals, a ram or a young male
being often specified. Ewes are mentioned in
<030306>
Leviticus 3:6; 4:32; 5:6;
14:10; 22:28;
<040614>
Numbers 6:14.
833
In the Books of Chronicles we find statements of enormous numbers of
animals consumed in sacrifice: And king Solomon offered a sacrifice of
twenty and two thousand oxen, and a hundred and twenty thousand sheep
(
<140705>
2 Chronicles 7:5); And they sacrificed unto Yahweh in that day (in the
reign of Asa) .... seven hundred oxen and seven thousand sheep (
<141511>
2
Chronicles 15:11); at the cleansing of the temple by Hezekiah the
consecrated things were six hundred oxen and three thousand sheep. But
the priests were too few, so that they could not flay all the burnt-offerings:
wherefore their brethren the Levites did help them (
<142933>
2 Chronicles 29:33
f); and Hezekiah king of Judah did give to the assembly for offerings a
thousand bullocks and seven thousand sheep; and the princes gave to the
assembly a thousand bullocks and ten thousand sheep (
<143024>
2 Chronicles
30:24). In the account of the war of the sons of Reuben and their allies
with the Hagrites, we read: And they took away their cattle; of their
camels fifty thousand, and of sheep two hundred and fifty thousand, and of
asses two thousand, and of men a hundred thousand (
<130521>
1 Chronicles
5:21). Mesha king of Moab is called a sheep-master, and we read that
he rendered unto the king of Israel the wool of a hundred thousand lambs,
and of a hundred thousand rams (
<120301>
2 Kings 3:4).
5. FIGURATIVE:
Christ is represented as the Lamb of God (
<235307>
Isaiah 53:7;
<430129>
John 1:29;
<660506>
Revelation 5:6). Some of the most beautiful passages in the Bible
represent God as a shepherd: From thence is the shepherd, the stone of
Israel (
<014924>
Genesis 49:24); Yahweh is my shepherd; I shall not want
(
<192301>
Psalm 23:1; compare
<234011>
Isaiah 40:11;
<263412>
Ezekiel 34:12-16). Jesus said
I am the good shepherd; and I know mine own, and mine own know me
.... and I lay down my life for the sheep (
<431014>
John 10:14 f). The people
without leaders are likened to sheep without a shepherd (
<042717>
Numbers
27:17;
<112217>
1 Kings 22:17;
<141816>
2 Chronicles 18:16;
<263405>
Ezekiel 34:5). Jesus at
the Last Supper applies to Himself the words of
<381307>
Zechariah 13:7; I will
smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad
(
<402631>
Matthew 26:31;
<411427>
Mark 14:27). The enemies of Yahweh are
compared to the fat of the sacrifice that is consumed away in smoke
(
<193720>
Psalm 37:20). Gods people are the sheep of his pasture (
<197913>
Psalm
79:13; 95:7; 100:3). In sinning they become like lost sheep (
<235306>
Isaiah 53:6;
<245006>
Jeremiah 50:6;
<263406>
Ezekiel 34:6;
<421503>
Luke 15:3 ff). In the mouth of
Nathan the poor mans one little ewe lamb is a vivid image of the treasure
834
of which the king David has robbed Uriah the Hittite (
<101203>
2 Samuel 12:3).
In Song 6:6, the teeth of the bride are likened to a flock of ewes. It is
prophesied that the wolf shall dwell with the lamb (
<231106>
Isaiah 11:6) and
that the wolf and the lamb shall feed together (
<236525>
Isaiah 65:25). Jesus
says to His disciples, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves
(
<401016>
Matthew 10:16; compare
<421003>
Luke 10:3). In the parable of the Good
Shepherd we read: He that is a hireling, and not a shepherd, whose own
the sheep are not, beholdeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and
fleeth (
<431012>
John 10:12).
Alfred Ely Day
SHEEPCOTE; SHEEPFOLD
<shep-kot>, <shep-kot>, <shep-fold> ([h r ;d eG], gedherah], [h l ;k ]mi,
mikhlah], [ yi t P ] v ] mi , mishpethayim], [h w,n;, naweh]; [ouq, aule]): At
night the sheep are driven into a sheepfold if they are in a district where
there is danger from robbers or wild beasts. These folds are simple walled
enclosures (
<043216>
Numbers 32:16;
<070516>
Judges 5:16;
<143228>
2 Chronicles 32:28;
<197870>
Psalm 78:70; Zeph 2:6;
<431001>
John 10:1). On the top of the wall is heaped
thorny brushwood as a further safeguard. Sometimes there is a covered hut
in the corner for the shepherd. Where there is no danger the sheep huddle
together in the open until daylight, while the shepherd watches over them
(
<013139>
Genesis 31:39;
<420208>
Luke 2:8). In the winter time caves are sought after
(
<092403>
1 Samuel 24:3; Zeph 2:6). The antiquity of the use of some of the
caves for this purpose is indicated by the thick deposit of potassium nitrate
formed from the decomposition of the sheep dung.
J ames A. Patch
SHEEP GATE
([a O X h r [ v , sha`ar ha-tso-n] (
<160301>
Nehemiah 3:1,32; 12:39)): One
of the gates of Jerusalem, probably near the northeast corner. See
JERUSALEM. For the sheep gate of
<430502>
John 5:2, see BETHESDA;
SHEEP MARKET.
835
SHEEP MARKET
(
<430502>
John 5:2, the Revised Version (British and American) sheep gate):
The Greek ([q popotxq, he probatike]) means simply something that
pertains to sheep.
See BETHESDA; SHEEP GATE.
SHEEP-MASTER
([d q enO, noqedh], herdsman,
<120301>
2 Kings 3:4).
See SHEEP-SHEARING.
SHEEP-SHEARING
<shep-sher-ing>: The sheep-shearing is done in the springtime, either by
the owners (
<013119>
Genesis 31:19; 38:13;
<051519>
Deuteronomy 15:19;
<092502>
1
Samuel 25:2,4) or by regular shearers ([zz G;, gazaz]) (
<092507>
1 Samuel
25:7,11;
<235307>
Isaiah 53:7). There were special houses for this work in Old
Testament times (
<121012>
2 Kings 10:12,14). The shearing was carefully done
so as to keep the fleece whole (
<070637>
Judges 6:37). The sheep of a flock are
not branded but spotted. Lime or some dyestuff is painted in one or more
spots on the wool of the back as a distinguishing mark. In
<120301>
2 Kings 3:4,
Mesha, the chief or sheikh of Moab, was a sheep-master, literally, a sheep
spotter.
J ames A. Patch
SHEEPSKIN
<shep-skin>.
See BOTTLE; DRESS; RAMS SKINS, etc.
SHEEP TENDING
<ten-ding>: The Scriptural allusions to pastoral life and the similes drawn
from that life are the most familiar and revered in the Bible. Among the
first verses that a child learns is The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not
wants (
<192301>
Psalm 23:1 the King James Version, the English Revised
Version). What follower of the Master does not love to dwell on the words
of the Good Shepherd chapter in the Gospel of John (John 10)? Jesus
836
must have drawn a sympathetic response when He referred to the
relationship of sheep to shepherd, a relationship familiar to all His hearers
and doubtless shared by some of them with their flocks. As a rule the
modern traveler in the Holy Land meets with disappointment if he comes
expecting to see things as they were depicted in the Bible. An exception to
this is the pastoral life, which has not changed one what since Abraham and
his descendants fed their flocks on the rich plateaus East of the Jordan or
on the mountains of Palestine and Syria. One may count among his most
prized experiences the days and nights spent under the spell of Syrian
shepherd life.
J ames A. Patch
SHEERAH
<she-e-ra> ([h r ;a ,]v , , sheerah]; Codex Alexandrinus [2oopo, Saara],
Codex Vaticanus omits): A daughter of Ephraim, who, according to the
Massoretic Text of
<130724>
1 Chronicles 7:24 (the King James Version
Sherah), built the two Beth-horons and Uzzen-sheerah. The verse has
been suspected because elsewhere in the Old Testament the founders of
cities are men. Uzzen-sheerah as a place is unidentified; Conder suggests as
the site Bet Sira, a village 2 miles Southwest of the Lower Beth-horon
(Mem 3 16).
SHEET
<shet>. See DRESS; compare
<441011>
Acts 10:11, as it were a great sheet
([o0ovq, othone]).
SHEHARIAH
<she-ha-ri-a> ([h y; r ] h v ] , sheharyah]): A Benjamite (
<130826>
1 Chronicles
8:26).
SHEKEL
<shek--l>, <shek-el>, <she-kel>, <she-kul> ([l q ,v , , sheqel]): A weight
and a coin. The Hebrew shekel was the 50th part of a mina, and as a
weight about 224 grains, and as money (silver) was worth about 2 shillings
9d., or 66 cents (in 1915). No gold shekel has been found, and hence, it is
inferred that such a coin was not used; but as a certain amount of gold, by
837
weight, it is mentioned in
<140309>
2 Chronicles 3:9 and is probably intended to
be supplied in
<120505>
2 Kings 5:5. The gold shekel was 1/60 of the heavy
Babylonian mina and weighed about 252 grains. In value it was about equal
to 2 British pounds and 1 shilling, or about $10.00 (in 1915). See MONEY;
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. In the Revised Version (British and
American) of
<401727>
Matthew 17:27 shekel replaces piece of money of the
King James Version, the translation of [ototqp, stater].
See STATER.
H. Porter
SHEKEL OF THE KINGS WEIGHT, ROYAL
SHEKEL
([ l , M, h b , a , , ebhen ha-melekh], stone (i.e. weight) of the king): The
shekel by which Absaloms hair was weighed (
<101426>
2 Samuel 14:26),
probably the light shekel of 130 grains.
See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
SHEKEL OF THE SANCTUARY; SACRED SHEKEL
([v d , Q o h l q , v , , sheqel ha-qodhesh] (Numbers 7 passim)): The same as
the silver shekel mentioned under SHEKEL (which see), except in
<023824>
Exodus 38:24, where it is used in measuring gold. The term is used for
offerings made for sacred purposes.
SHEKINAH
<she-ki-na> ([h n;yk iv ], shekhinah], that which dwells, from the verb
[k ev ;, shakhen], or [k v ; , shakhan], to dwell, reside): This word is
not found in the Bible, but there are allusions to it in
<236002>
Isaiah 60:2;
<401705>
Matthew 17:5;
<420209>
Luke 2:9;
<450904>
Romans 9:4. It is first found in the
Targums.
See GLORY.
SHELAH
<she-la> ([h l ;v e, shelah]; [2oo, Sala]):
838
(1) The youngest son of Judah and the daughter of Shua the Canaanite
(
<013805>
Genesis 38:5,11,14,26; 46:12;
<042620>
Numbers 26:20 (16);
<130203>
1
Chronicles 2:3; 4:21). He gave his name to the family of the Shelanites
(
<042620>
Numbers 26:20 (16)). Probably the Shelanite should be
substituted for the Shilonite of
<161105>
Nehemiah 11:5;
<130905>
1 Chronicles
9:5.
(2) ([j l ;v , , shelach]): The son or (Septuagint) grandson of Arpachshad
and father of Eber (
<011024>
Genesis 10:24; 11:13 (12),14,15;
<130118>
1
Chronicles 1:18,24;
<420335>
Luke 3:35).
(3)
<160315>
Nehemiah 3:15 = Shiloah of
<230806>
Isaiah 8:6.
See SILOAM.
SHELANITES
<she-lan-its>, <she-la-nits>.
See SHELAH.
SHELEMIAH
<shel-e-mi-a>, <she-lem-ya> ([h y;m]l ,v ,, shelemyah]; Codex Vaticanus
[2rro, Selemia], Codex Alexandrinus ([2rro, Selemias]):
(1) One of the sons of Bani who married foreign wives in the time of
Ezra (
<151039>
Ezra 10:39), called Selemias in 1 Esdras 9:34.
(2) Father of Hananiah who restored part of the wall of Jerusalem
(
<160330>
Nehemiah 3:30) (Codex Vaticanus [Trro, Telemia], a
[Trro, Telemias]).
(3) A priest who was appointed one of the treasurers to distribute the
Levitical tithes by Nehemiah (
<161313>
Nehemiah 13:13).
(4) The father of Jehucal (or Jucal) in the reign of Zedekiah
(
<243703>
Jeremiah 37:3; 38:1; in the second passage the name is
Shelemyahu).
(5) The father of Irijah, the captain of the ward, who arrested Jeremiah
as a deserter to the Chaldeans (
<243713>
Jeremiah 37:13).
839
(6)
<132614>
1 Chronicles 26:14.
See MESHELEMIAH.
(7) Another of the sons of Bani who married foreign wives in the time
of Ezra (
<151041>
Ezra 10:41). It is of interest to note that the order of names
in this passage Sharai, Azarel, and Shelemiah is almost identical
with the names in
<243626>
Jeremiah 36:26, namely, Seraiah, Azriel,
Shelemiah.
(8) Ancestor of Jehudi (
<243614>
Jeremiah 36:14).
(9) Septuagint omits.) Son of Abdeel, one of the men sent by Jehoiakim
to seize Baruch and Jeremiah after Baruch had read the roll in the
kings presence (
<243626>
Jeremiah 36:26).
Horace J . Wolf
SHELEPH
<she-lef> ([t l ,v ; , shaleph], in pause; Septuagint [2or, Saleph]): Son
of Joktan (
<011026>
Genesis 10:26;
<130120>
1 Chronicles 1:20). Sheleph is the name of
a Yemenite tribe or district, named on Sabean inscriptions and also by
Arabian geographers, located in Southern Arabia.
SHELESH
<she-lesh> ([v l ,v e, shelesh]; Codex Vaticanus [2rq, Seme]; Codex
Alexandrinus [2rq, Selles], Lucian, [2rr, Selem]): An Asherite, son
of Helem (
<130735>
1 Chronicles 7:35).
SHELOMI
<she-lo-mi>, <shel-o-mi> ([ymil v ], shelomi]): An Asherite (
<043427>
Numbers
34:27).
SHELOMITH
<she-lo-mith>, <shel-o-mith> ([t ymil v ], shelomith]; in
<150810>
Ezra 8:10,
[t ymiwOl v ], shelomith]):
840
(1) The mother of the man who was stoned for blasphemy
(
<032411>
Leviticus 24:11) (BAF, [2or0, Salomeith], Lucian, [2o0,
Salmith]).
(2) Daughter of Zerubbabel (
<130319>
1 Chronicles 3:19) (Codex Vaticanus
[2or0r, Salomethei]; Codex Alexandrinus [2or0,
Salomethi], Lucian, [2o0, Salomith]).
(3) One of the sons of Izhar (
<132318>
1 Chronicles 23:18) (Codex
Vaticanus [2o0, Salomoth]; Codex Alexandrinus [2oou0,
Saloumoth], Lucian, [2o0, Salomith]), called Shelomoth in
24:22.
(4) The name of a family whose representatives returned with Ezra
(
<150810>
Ezra 8:10) (Codex Vaticanus [2orou0, Saleimouth]; Lucian,
[2o0, Salimoth]). The Massoretic Text here should read, and
the sons of Bani; Shelomith, son of Josiphiah; and in 1 Esdras 8:36,
of the sons of Banias, Salimoth, son of Josaphias.
Horace J . Wolf
SHELOMOTH
<she-lo-moth>, <shel-o-moth>, -moth ([t wOml v ], shelomoth]):
(1) An Izharite (
<132422>
1 Chronicles 24:22, Codex Vaticanus and Codex
Alexandrinus [2o0, Salomoth]; Lucian, [2o0, Salomith] =
Shelomith of
<132318>
1 Chronicles 23:18).
(2) A Levite descended from Eliezer ben Moses (
<132625>
1 Chronicles
26:25, Qere [t ymil v ], shelomith];
<132628>
1 Chronicles 26:28).
(3) A Gershonite (
<132309>
1 Chronicles 23:9, Qere [t ymil ov ], Shelomith];
Codex Vaticanus [ A0r, Alotheim], Codex Alexandrinus
[2or0, Salomeith]).
SHELUMIEL
<she-lu-mi-el> ([l a eymil uv ], shelumiel]; both the punctuation and
interpretation are in doubt. Massoretic Text punctuates the first element as
a passive participle; the use of the participle in compounds is common in
Assyrian but rare in Hebrews (compare Gray, HPN, 200). The meaning of
841
the present form, if it be correct, is at peace with God (Hommel, Ancient
Hebrew Tradition, 200, my friend is God). Septuagint reads [2ooq,
Salamiel]: Prince of the tribe of Simeon (
<040106>
Numbers 1:6; 2:12; 7:36,41;
10:19). The genealogy of Judith (8:1) is carried back to this Shelumiel or
Shelamiel, called there Salamiel.
Horace J . Wolf
SHEM
<shem> ([ v e, shem]; [2q, Sem]):
1. POSITION IN NOAHS FAMILY: HIS NAME:
The eldest son of Noah, from whom the Jews, as well as the Semitic
(Shemitic) nations in general have descended. When giving the names of
Noahs three sons, Shem is always mentioned first (
<010918>
Genesis 9:18; 10:1,
etc.); and though the elder in Shem the brother of Japheth the elder
(
<011021>
Genesis 10:21 margin) is explained as referring to Shem, this is not the
rendering of Onkelos. His five sons peopled the greater part of West Asias
finest tracts, from Elam on the East to the Mediterranean on the West.
Though generally regarded as meaning dusky (compare the Assyr-
Babylonian samu also Ham possibly = black, Japheth, fair), it is
considered possible that Shem may be the usual Hebrew word for name
(shem), given him because he was the firstborn a parallel to the Assyr-
Babylonian usage, in which son, name (sumu) are synonyms (W. A.
Inscriptions, V, plural 23, 11,29-32abc).
2. HISTORY, AND THE NATIONS DESCENDED FROM HIM:
Shem, who is called the father of all the children of Eber, was born when
Noah had attained the age of 500 years (
<010532>
Genesis 5:32). Though married
at the time of the Flood, Shem was then childless. Aided by Japheth, he
covered the nakedness of their father, which Ham, the youngest brother,
had revealed to them; but unlike the last, Shem and Japheth, in their filial
piety, approached their father walking backward, in order not to look upon
him. Two years after the Flood, Shem being then 100 years old, his son
Arpachshad was born (
<011110>
Genesis 11:10), and was followed by further
sons and daughters during the remaining 500 years which preceded Shems
death. Noahs prophetic blessing, on awakening from his wine, may be
regarded as having been fulfilled in his descendants, who occupied Syria
842
(Aramaic), Palestine (Canaan), Chaldea (Arpachshad), Assyria (Asshur),
part of Persia (Elam), and Arabia (Joktan). In the first three of these, as
well as in Elam, Canaanites had settled (if not in the other districts
mentioned), but Shemites ruled, at some time or other, over the
Canaanites, and Canaan thus became his servant (
<010925>
Genesis 9:25,26).
The tablets found in Cappadocia seem to show that Shemites (Assyrians)
had settled in that district also, but this was apparently an unimportant
colony. Though designated sons of Shem, some of his descendants (e.g.
the Elamites) did not speak a Semitic language, while other nationalities,
not his descendants (e.g. the Canaanites), did.
See HAM; JAPHETH; TABLE OF NATIONS.
T. G. Pinches
SHEMA (1)
<she-ma> ([[ m;v ], shema`]; [2ooo, Samaa]): A city of Judah in the
Negeb (
<061526>
Joshua 15:26). If, as some think, identical with SHEBA (which
see) of
<061902>
Joshua 19:2, then the latter must have been inserted here from
<061526>
Joshua 15:26. It is noticeable that the root letters ([[ mv , sh-m-`]) were
those from which Simeon is derived. Shema is probably identical with
Jeshua (
<161126>
Nehemiah 11:26). The place was clearly far South, and it may
be Kh. Sa`wah, a ruin upon a prominent hilltop between Kh. `Attir and
Khirbet el-Milch. There is a wall around the ruins, of large blocks of
conglomerate flint (PEF, III, 409, Sh XXV).
E. W. G. Masterman
SHEMA (2)
([[ m v , , shema`]):
(1) A Reubenite (
<130508>
1 Chronicles 5:8, Codex Vaticanus and Codex
Alexandrinus [2oo, Sama], Lucian, [2rrr, Semeei]).
See SHIMEI.
(2) One of the heads of fathers houses in Aijalon, who put to flight
the inhabitants of Gath (
<130813>
1 Chronicles 8:13, Codex Vaticanus and
Codex Alexandrinus [2oo, Sama], Lucian, [2ooo, Samaa]); in
<130821>
1 Chronicles 8:21 he is called Shimei. The statement is very
obscure and the whole incident is probably due to some marginal note.
843
(3) One of those who stood at Ezras right during the reading of the
Law (
<160804>
Nehemiah 8:4, [2ooo, Samaias]). He is called Sammus
in 1 Esdras 9:43.
Horace J . Wolf
SHEMAAH
<she-ma-a>, <shem-a-a> ([h [ ; m; v ] h , ha-shema`-ah]; Codex Vaticanus
[ Ao, Ama], Codex Alexandrinus [2ooo, Samaa], Lucian, [ Aoo,
Asma]): A Benjamite, who was the father, according to the Massoretic
Text, of Ahiezer and Joash; but according to the Septuagint [uo, huios]
= [B ,, (ben)] instead of [yneB ], (bene)] of Joash alone (
<131203>
1 Chronicles
12:3). The original text may have read [[ m;v ;h oy]B ,, ben yeho-shama`]
(compare [[ m;v ;wOh , hoshama`], of
<130318>
1 Chronicles 3:18); then a
dittography of the following [h , (h)] caused the error (Curtis, ICC).
SHEMAIAH
<she-ma-ya>, <she-mi-a> ([h y; [ ] m v ] , shema`yah] (in
<141102>
2 Chronicles
11:2; 17:8; 31:15; 35:9;
<242620>
Jeremiah 26:20; 29:24; 36:12, shema`yahu),
Jahveh hears): The name is most frequently borne by priests, Levites and
prophets.
(1) Codex Vaticanus [2ooo, Sammaias]; Codex Alexandrinus
[2ooo, Samaias] (
<141205>
2 Chronicles 12:5,7). A prophet who, together
with Ahijah, protested against Rehoboams contemplated war against the
ten revolted tribes (
<111222>
1 Kings 12:22-24 =
<141102>
2 Chronicles 11:2-4). He
declared that the rebellion had divine sanction. The second Greek account
knows nothing of Ahijah in this connection and introduces Shemaiah at the
gathering at Shechem where both Jeroboam and Rehoboam were present;
it narrates that on this occasion Shemaiah (not Ahijah) rent his garment and
gave ten parts to Jeroboam to signify the ten tribes over which he was to
become king. (This version, however, is not taken very seriously, because
of its numerous inconsistencies.) Shemaiah also prophesied at the invasion
of Judah by Shishak (
<141205>
2 Chronicles 12:5-7). His message was to the
effect that as the princes of Israel had humbled themselves, Gods wrath
against their idolatrous practices would not be poured out upon Jerusalem
by the hand of Shishak (
<141307>
2 Chronicles 13:7). He is mentioned as the
author of a history of Rehoboam (
<141215>
2 Chronicles 12:15).
844
(2) Son of Shecaniah (
<130322>
1 Chronicles 3:22, [2ooo, Samaia]), a
descendant of Zerubbabel. This is also the name of one of the men who
helped to repair the wall (
<160329>
Nehemiah 3:29, [2rro, Semeia] ([a ])
(compare Curtis, ICC, in
<130317>
1 Chronicles 3:17-24)).
(3) A Simeonite (
<130437>
1 Chronicles 4:37, Codex Vaticanus [2urv,
Sumeon]; Codex Alexandrinus [2ooo, Samaias]), identical, perhaps,
with the Shimei of
<130426>
1 Chronicles 4:26,27.
(4) A Reubenite (
<130504>
1 Chronicles 5:4, Codex Vaticanus [2rrr, Semeei];
Codex Alexandrinus [2rrv, Semein]), called Shema in
<130508>
1 Chronicles
5:8.
(5) A Merarite Levite (
<130914>
1 Chronicles 9:14;
<161115>
Nehemiah 11:15,
[2ooo, Samaia]), one of those who dwelt in Jerusalem.
(6) A Levite of the family of Jeduthun, father of Obadiah or Abda (
<130916>
1
Chronicles 9:16, [2oro, Sameia], Codex Alexandrinus [2oo,
Samias], called Shammua in
<161117>
Nehemiah 11:17).
(7) Head of the Levitical Kohathite clan of Elizaphan in the time of David
(
<131508>
1 Chronicles 15:8, Codex Vaticanus [2ooo, Samaias]; Codex
Alexandrinus [2roo, Samaia]; Codex Sinaiticus [2oro, Sameas];
<131511>
1 Chronicles 15:11, Codex Vaticanus [2oo, Samias]; Codex
Alexandrinus [2rro, Semeias]; Codex Sinaiticus [2oo, Samai]). He
may be the same person as (8).
(8) The scribe (
<132406>
1 Chronicles 24:6), the son of Nethanel, who registered
the names of the priestly courses.
(9) A Korahite Levite, eldest son of Obed-edom (
<132604>
1 Chronicles 26:4,6,
Codex Vaticanus [2ooo, Samaias]; Codex Alexandrinus [2oro,
Sameias];
<132607>
1 Chronicles 26:7, Codex Vaticanus [2oo, Samai]; Codex
Alexandrinus [2rro, Semeia]).
(10) A Levite (
<141708>
2 Chronicles 17:8, Codex Vaticanus [2oouo,
Samouas]; Codex Alexandrinus [2oouo, Samouias]). One of the
commission appointed by Jehoshaphat to teach the book of the Law in
Judah. The names of the commissioners as a whole belong to a period later
than the 9th century. (Gray, HPN, 231).
845
(11) One of the men over the free-will offerings of God (
<143115>
2 Chronicles
31:15, [2rrr, Semeei]).
(12) A Levite of the family of Jeduthun in the reign of Hezekiah (
<142914>
2
Chronicles 29:14), one of those who assisted in the purification of the
Temple.
(13) A chief of the Levites (
<143509>
2 Chronicles 35:9), called Samaias in
Septuagint and 1 Esdras 1:9.
(14) A chief man under Ezra (
<150816>
Ezra 8:16), called Maasmas and
Samaias in 1 Esdras 8:43,44.
(15) A member of the family of Adonikam (
<150813>
Ezra 8:13, Codex Vaticanus
[2ooo, Samaia]; Codex Alexandrinus [2ooro, Samaeia]; Samaias
in 1 Esdras 8:39).
(16) A priest of the family of Harim who married a foreign wife (
<151021>
Ezra
10:21), called Sameus in 1 Esdras 9:21.
(17) A layman of the family of Harim who married a foreign wife (
<151031>
Ezra
10:31), called Sabbeus in 1 Esdras 9:32.
(18) A prophet (
<160610>
Nehemiah 6:10-14, Codex Vaticanus [2rrr,
Semeei]; Codex Alexandrinus [2rr, Semei]), employed by Sanballat and
Tobiah to frighten Nehemiah and hinder the rebuilding of the wall.
(19) One of the 24 courses of priests, 16th under Zerubbabel
(
<161206>
Nehemiah 12:6, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus [2rro,
Semeias]), 15th under Joiakim (
<161218>
Nehemiah 12:18; Codex Sinaiticus and
Codex Alexandrinus [2rro, Semeia]), and 21st under Nehemiah
(
<161008>
Nehemiah 10:8, [2ooo, Samaia]), mentioned in connection with the
dedication of the wall.
(20) A priest, descendant of Asaph (
<161235>
Nehemiah 12:35).
(21) A singer (or clan) participating in the dedication of the wall
(
<161236>
Nehemiah 12:36).
(22) Father of the prophet Urijah (
<242620>
Jeremiah 26:20, Codex Vaticanus
and Codex Alexandrinus [2ooo, Samaias]; Codex Sinaiticus
[Mooro, Maseas]).
846
(23) A false prophet who was upbraided by Jeremiah (29:24-32) for
attempting to hinder his work. He is styled the Nehelamite and was
among those carried into captivity with Jehoiachin. In opposition to
Jeremiah, he predicted a speedy ending to the captivity. Jeremiah foretold
the complete destruction of Shemaiahs family.
(24) Father of Delaiah, who was a prince in the reign of Zedekiah
(
<243612>
Jeremiah 36:12).
(25) The great, kinsman of Tobias (Tobit 5:13).
Horace J . Wolf
SHEMARIAH
<shem-a-ri-a>, <she-mar-ya> ([h y; r ] m v ] , shemaryah] and [Wh y;r ]m v ],
shemaryahu], whom Jahveh guards):
(1) A Benjamite warrior who joined David at Ziklag (
<131205>
1 Chronicles
12:5, Codex Vaticanus [2oopoo, Sammaraia]; Codex Sinaiticus
and Codex Alexandrinus [2oopo, Samaria]; Lucian, [2oopo,
Samarias]).
(2) A son of Rehoboam (
<141119>
2 Chronicles 11:19).
(3) One of the sons of Harim who had married foreign wives (
<151032>
Ezra
10:32, Codex Vaticanus [2oopro, Samareia], Lucian, [2oopo,
Samarias]; Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus [2ropo,
Semaria]).
(4) One of the sons of Bani who had married foreign wives (
<151041>
Ezra
10:41, Codex Alexandrinus [2oopro, Samareias]; Codex
Vaticanus [2oopro, Samareia]; Lucian, [2oopo, Samarias]).
Horace J . Wolf
SHEMEBER
<shem-e-ber>, <shem-e-ber> ([r b ,a em]v ,, shem-ebher]): The king of
Zeboiim (
<011402>
Genesis 14:2).
See SHINAB.
847
SHEMED
<she-med>.
See SHEMER, (4).
SHEMER
<she-mer> ([r m,v , , shemer]; [2rqp, Semer], Lucian, [2rqp,
Semmer]):
(1) The owner of the hill which Omri bought and which became the site
of Samaria (
<111624>
1 Kings 16:24, [wOr m]v o, shomeron]). Shemer may be an
ancient clan name. The fact, however, that the mountain was called
Shomeron when Omri bought it makes one doubt that the city of
Samaria was named after Shemer; the passage is questionable. The real
etymology of Samaria roots it in watch mountain (see Stade,
Zeitschrift, 165 f).
(2) A Merarite (
<130646>
1 Chronicles 6:46 (31), [2rqp, Semmer]).
(3) An Asherite (
<130734>
1 Chronicles 7:34, A and Lucian, [2qp,
Somer]), called Shomer in
<130732>
1 Chronicles 7:32.
(4) A Benjamite (
<130812>
1 Chronicles 8:12, Codex Vaticanus [2qqp,
Semer]; Codex Alexandrinus [2rqp, Semmer]; Lucian, [2ooq,
Samaiel]); the Revised Version (British and American) Shemed, the
King James Version Shamed.
The Hebrew manuscripts differ; some read Shemer, others Shemedh.
Horace J . Wolf
SHEMIDA; SHEMIDAH; SHEMIDAITES
<she-mi-da>, <she-mi-da-its> ([[ d ;ymiv ], shemidha]): A Gileadite clan
belonging to Manasseh (
<042632>
Numbers 26:32;
<061702>
Joshua 17:2, Codex
Vaticanus [2uopr, Sumareim]; Codex Alexandrinus [2rpor,
Semirae]; Lucian, [2oor, Samidae];
<130719>
1 Chronicles 7:19, the King
James Version Shemidah, after whom the Shemidaites (
<042632>
Numbers
26:32) were called).
848
SHEMINITH
<shem-i-nith>.
See MUSIC; PSALMS.
SHEMIRAMOTH
<she-mir-a-moth>, <she-mi-ra-moth>, <shem-i-ra-moth> ([t wOmr ;ymiv ],
shemiramoth]; in
<141708>
2 Chronicles 17:8, Kethibh [t wmyr mv ,
shemiramoth]; [2rrpo0, Semeiramoth]): The name of a Levitical
family. In
<131518>
1 Chronicles 15:18,20; 16:5 Shemiramoth is listed among the
names of Davids choirs; in
<141708>
2 Chronicles 17:8 the same name is given
among the Levites delegated by Jehoshaphat to teach the Law in the cities
of Judah. According to Schrader (KAT (2), 366) the name is to be
identified with the Assyrian Sammuramat; the latter occurs as a womans
name on the monuments, more especially on the statues of Nebo from
Nimrod. Another suggestion is that Shemiramoth was originally a place-
name meaning image of Shemiram (= name of Ram or the Exalted
One).
Horace J . Wolf
SHEMITES
<shem-its>.
See SEMITES.
SHEMUEL
<she-mu-el>, <shem-u-el> ([l a eWmv ], shemuel], name of God (?)
(
<130633>
1 Chronicles 6:33 (18)); the Revised Version (British and American)
Samuel, the prophet (see SAMUEL); compare Gray, HPN, 200, note 3):
(1) The Simeonite appointed to assist in the division of the land
(
<043420>
Numbers 34:20). The Massoretic Text should be emended to
[l a eymil uv ], shelumiel], to correspond with the form found in
<040106>
Numbers 1:6; 2:12; 7:36,41; 10:19. Septuagint has uniformly
[2ooq, Salamiel].
849
(2) Grandson of Issachar (
<130702>
1 Chronicles 7:2) (Codex Vaticanus [
Iooouq, Isamouel]; Codex Alexandrinus and Lucian, [2oouq,
Samouel]).
SHEN
<shen> ([v e h , ha-shen], the tooth or peak; [tq ooo, tes
palaias]): A place named only in
<090712>
1 Samuel 7:12 to indicate the position
of the stone set up by Samuel in connection with the victory over the
Philistines, between Mizpah and Shen. The Septuagint evidently reads
yashan, old. Probably we should here read yeshanah, as in
<141319>
2
Chronicles 13:19 (OHL, under the word). Then it may be represented by
`Ain Sinia, to the North of Beitin.
SHENAZAR
<she-na-zar>: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and
American) SHENAZZAR (which see).
SHENAZZAR
<she-naz-ar> ([r X a n] v , , shenatstsar]): A son of Jeconiah
(Jehoiachin) and uncle of Zerubbabel (
<130318>
1 Chronicles 3:18, Codex
Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus [2ovroop, Sanesar]; Lucian,
[2ovooop, Sanasar]; Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.)
Sennaser, Senneser). It is highly probable that Sheshbazzar (
<150108>
Ezra
1:8,11), the prince of Judah, and Shenazzar are identical (so Meyer,
Rothstein, etc.). The name is difficult; some suggest a corruption of
[r x a l b v wv , shushbalatstsar], and as equivalent to Sin-usur, Sin (the
moon-god) protect.
SHENIR
<she-ner> ([r ynic ], senir], [r ynic ], shenir]): Only found in Song 4:8
(Massoretic Text).
See SENIR.
850
SHEOL
<she-ol> ([l wOa v ], sheol]):
1. THE NAME:
This word is often translated in the King James Version grave (e.g.
<013735>
Genesis 37:35;
<090206>
1 Samuel 2:6;
<180709>
Job 7:9; 14:13;
<190605>
Psalm 6:5;
49:14;
<231411>
Isaiah 14:11, etc.) or hell (e.g.
<053222>
Deuteronomy 32:22;
<190917>
Psalm 9:17; 18:5;
<231409>
Isaiah 14:9;
<300902>
Amos 9:2, etc.); in 3 places by
pit (
<041630>
Numbers 16:30,33;
<181716>
Job 17:16). It means really the unseen
world, the state or abode of the dead, and is the equivalent of the Greek
Haides, by which word it is translated in Septuagint. The English Revisers
have acted somewhat inconsistently in leaving grave or pit in the
historical books and putting Sheol in the margin, while substituting
Sheol in the poetical writings, and putting grave in the margin (hell is
retained in Isaiah 14). Compare their Preface. The American Revisers
more properly use Sheol throughout. The etymology of the word is
uncertain. A favorite derivation is from shaal, to ask (compare
<200112>
Proverbs 1:12; 27:20; 30:15,16;
<230514>
Isaiah 5:14;
<350205>
Habakkuk 2:5);
others prefer the shaal, to be hollow. The Babylonians are said to have
a similar word Sualu, though this is questioned by some.
2. THE ABODE OF THE DEAD:
Into Sheol, when life is ended, the dead are gathered in their tribes and
families. Hence, the expression frequently occurring in the Pentateuch, to
be gathered to ones people, to go to ones fathers, etc. (
<011515>
Genesis
15:15; 25:8,17; 49:33;
<042024>
Numbers 20:24,28; 31:2;
<053250>
Deuteronomy
32:50; 34:5). It is figured as an under-world (
<234423>
Isaiah 44:23;
<262620>
Ezekiel
26:20, etc.), and is described by other terms, as the pit (
<183324>
Job 33:24;
<192801>
Psalm 28:1; 30:3;
<200112>
Proverbs 1:12;
<233818>
Isaiah 38:18, etc.), ABADDON
(which see) or Destruction (
<182606>
Job 26:6; 28:22;
<201511>
Proverbs 15:11), the
place of silence (
<199417>
Psalm 94:17; 115:17), the land of darkness and the
shadow of death (
<181021>
Job 10:21 f). It is, as the antithesis of the living
condition, the synonym for everything that is gloomy, inert, insubstantial
(the abode of Rephaim, shades,
<182605>
Job 26:5;,
<200218>
Proverbs 2:18; 21:16;
<231409>
Isaiah 14:9; 26:14). It is a land of forgetfulness, where Gods
wonders are unknown (
<198810>
Psalm 88:10-12). There is no remembrance or
praise of God (
<190605>
Psalm 6:5; 88:12; 115:17, etc.). In its darkness, stillness,
851
powerlessness, lack of knowledge and inactivity, it is a true abode of death
(see DEATH); hence, is regarded by the living with shrinking, horror and
dismay (
<193913>
Psalm 39:13;
<233817>
Isaiah 38:17-19), though to the weary and
troubled it may present the aspect of a welcome rest or sleep (
<180317>
Job 3:17-
22; 14:12 f). The Greek idea of Hades was not dissimilar.
(1) Not a State of Unconsciousness.
Yet it would be a mistake to infer, because of these strong and sometimes
poetically heightened contrasts to the world of the living, that Sheol was
conceived of as absolutely a place without consciousness, or some dim
remembrance of the world above. This is not the case. Necromancy rested
on the idea that there was some communication between the world above
and the world below (
<051811>
Deuteronomy 18:11); a Samuel could be
summoned from the dead (
<092811>
1 Samuel 28:11-15); Sheol from beneath was
stirred at the descent of the king of Babylon (
<231409>
Isaiah 14:9 ff). The state
is rather that of slumbrous semi-consciousness and enfeebled existence
from which in a partial way the spirit might temporarily be aroused. Such
conceptions, it need hardly be said, did not rest on revelation, but were
rather the natural ideas formed of the future state, in contrast with life in
the body, in the absence of revelation.
(2) Not Removed from Gods Jurisdiction.
It would be yet more erroneous to speak with Dr. Charles (Eschatology,
35 ff) of Sheol as a region quite independent of Yahwe, and outside the
sphere of His rule. Sheol is naked before God, says Job, and Abaddon
hath no covering (
<182606>
Job 26:6). If I make my bed in Sheol, says the
Psalmist, behold thou art there (
<19D908>
Psalm 139:8). The wrath of Yahweh
burns unto the lowest Sheol (
<053222>
Deuteronomy 32:22). As a rule there is
little sense of moral distinctions in the Old Testament representations of
Sheol, yet possibly these are not altogether wanting (on the above and
others points in theology of Sheol).
See ESCHATOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
(3) Relation to Immortality.
To apprehend fully the Old Testament conception of Sheol one must view
it in its relation to the idea of death as something unnatural and abnormal
for man; a result of sin. The believers hope for the future, so far as this
had place, was not prolonged existence in Sheol, but deliverance from it
852
and restoration to new life in Gods presence (
<181413>
Job 14:13-15; 19:25-27;
<191610>
Psalm 16:10,11; 17:15; 49:15; 73:24-26; see IMMORTALITY;
ESCHATOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT; RESURRECTION). Dr.
Charles probably goes too far in thinking of Sheol in Psalms 49 and 73 as
the future abode of the wicked only; heaven as that of the righteous (op.
cit., 74); but different destinies are clearly indicated.
3. POST-CANONICAL PERIOD:
There is no doubt, at all events, that in the postcanonical Jewish literature
(the Apocrypha and apocalyptic writings) a very considerable development
is manifest in the idea of Sheol. Distinction between good and bad in Israel
is emphasized; Sheol becomes for certain classes an intermediate state
between death and resurrection; for the wicked and for Gentiles it is nearly
a synonym for Gehenna (hell). For the various views, with relevant
literature on the whole subject, see ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT; also DEATH; HADES; HELL, etc.
J ames Orr
SHEPHAM
<she-fam> ([ p ;v ] , shepham]; [2roop, Sepphamar]): A place,
probably a hill town, on the ideal eastern boundary of Israel, named in
<043410>
Numbers 34:10, but omitted in
<264715>
Ezekiel 47:15-18. It lay between
Hazar-enan and Harbel (Massoretic Text: Hariblah), which must have
been in the neighborhood of Hermon. The word means a naked place,
and doubtless indicates one of the barer midway ridges of Anti-Lebanon. It
was probably the native place of Zabdi the Shiphmite, who was Davids
chief vine-gardener (
<132727>
1 Chronicles 27:27).
SHEPHATIAH
<shef-a-ti-a>, <she-fat-ya> ([h y; f ] p v ] , shephaTyah], Yah has
judged):
(1) A son of David, by Abital (
<100304>
2 Samuel 3:4;
<130303>
1 Chronicles 3:3).
(2) A Benjamite, father of Meshullam, of Jerusalem (
<130908>
1 Chronicles
9:8).
(3) A Benjamite, who joined David at Ziklag (
<131205>
1 Chronicles 12:5).
853
(4) A prince of the Simeonites in the time of David (
<132716>
1 Chronicles
27:16).
(5) A son of King Jehoshaphat (
<142102>
2 Chronicles 21:2).
(6) A family, 372 of whom returned with Zerubbabel (
<150204>
Ezra 2:4;
<160709>
Nehemiah 7:9); 80 more males of this family, with their head,
returned with Ezra (
<150808>
Ezra 8:8).
(7) A servant of Solomon, 392 of whose descendants returned with
Zerubbabel (
<150257>
Ezra 2:57 f;
<160759>
Nehemiah 7:59 f); Saphat in 1 Esdras
5:9 and Saphatias in 1 Esdras 8:34.
(8) A Perezzite (Judahite), some of whose descendants dwelt at
Jerusalem in the time of Nehemiah (
<161104>
Nehemiah 11:4).
(9) A son of Mattan, a contemporary of Jeremiah (
<243801>
Jeremiah 38:1).
J ames Orr
SHEPHELAH
<shef-e-la> ([h l ; p e V ] h , ha-shephelah]; [orqo, sephela], [ooqo,
saphela]):
1. NAME AND REFERENCES:
The word denotes lowland, and is variously rendered in the King James
Version. It is vale in
<050107>
Deuteronomy 1:7;
<061040>
Joshua 10:40;
<111027>
1 Kings
10:27;
<140115>
2 Chronicles 1:15;
<243313>
Jeremiah 33:13; valley in
<060901>
Joshua 9:1;
11:2,16; 12:8; 15:33;
<070109>
Judges 1:9;
<243244>
Jeremiah 32:44; low plain in
<132728>
1 Chronicles 27:28;
<140927>
2 Chronicles 9:27; plain in
<241726>
Jeremiah 17:26;
Obidiah 1:19;
<380707>
Zechariah 7:7; and low country in
<142818>
2 Chronicles
28:18. the Revised Version (British and American) renders uniformly
lowland. As the word always occurs with the definite article, indicating a
distinct district, it might have been well to retain it without translation. The
boundaries of the district are clearly marked and include much broken
country; the hills being low compared with the mountains to the East, but
much higher than the plain that runs to the shore. If a translation was to be
made, perhaps lowlands would have been the best, as applied to the
Lowlands of Scotland, which likewise are not entirely plain, but have
their groups and ranges of hills (HGHL, 203). In the wide sense the
Shephelah included the territory originally given to the tribe of Dan, and
854
also a considerable part of Western and Southwestern Judea. At an early
day the tribes of Daniel and Simeon were practically absorbed by Judah,
and hence, we find in Joshua 15 many cities in the Shephelah which
belonged to that tribe (LB, I, 211).
2. DISTRICTS AND FEATURES:
(1) The sites of many ancient cities named in the Shephelah have been
identified. They all lie within the strip of hill country that runs along the
western base of the mountains of Judah, terminating in the North at the
Valley of Aijalon. Once indeed the name appears to apply to the low
hills North of this (
<061116>
Joshua 11:16, `the mount of Israel and its
Shephelah). Every other reference applies only to the South.
Principal G. A. Smith has pointed out the difference between the district to
the N. and that to the S. of Aijalon (HGHL, 203 ff). North of Ajalon the
low hills which run out on Sharon are connected with the high mountains
behind them. You ascend to the latter from Sharon either by long sloping
ridges, such as that which today carries the telegraph wire and the high
road from Jaffa to Nablus; or else you climb up terraces, such as the
succession of ranges closely built upon one another by which the country
rises from Lydda to Bethel. That is, the low hills west of Samaria are (to
use the Hebrew phrase) [ashedhoth], or slopes of the central range, and
not a separate group. But South of Ajalon the low hills do not so hang
upon the Central Range, but are separated from the mountains of Judah by
a series of valleys, both wide and narrow, which run all the way from
Ajalon to near Beersheba; and it is only when the low hills are thus flung
off the Central Range into an independent group, separating Judea from
Philistia, that the name Shephelah seems to be applied to them.
(2) On the East of the Shephelah, then, taking the name in this more
limited sense, rises the steep wall of the mountain, into which access is
gained only by narrow and difficult defiles. The hills of the Shephelah
are from 500 to 800 ft. high, with nothing over 1,500. The formation is
soft limestone. In the valleys and upland plains there is much excellent
land which supports a fairly good population still. Wheat, barley and
olives are the chief products. But ancient wine presses cut in the rocks
testify to the culture of the vine in old times. The district is almost
entirely dependent on the rain for its water-supply. This is collected in
855
great cisterns, partly natural. The rocks are in many places
honeycombed with caves.
The western boundary is not so definite as that on the East. Some have
held that it included the Philistine plain. This contention draws support
from the mention of the Philistine cities immediately after those of Judah,
which are said to be in the Shephelah (
<061545>
Joshua 15:45 ff; these verses can
hardly be ruled out as of a later date). On the other hand the Philistines are
said to have invaded the cities of the Shephelah (
<142818>
2 Chronicles 28:18),
which implies that it was outside their country. In later times the Talmud
(Jerusalem, Shebhi`ith 9 2) distinguishes the Mountain, the Shephelah, and
the Plain. See, however, discussion in Buhl (GAP, 104, n.; and G. A.
Smith, The Expositor, 1896, 404 ff).
3. THE FIVE VALLEYS:
The Shephelah is crossed by five wide valleys which furnish easy access
from the plain. These are of importance chiefly because from each of them
a way, crossing the foss, enters one of the defiles by which alone armies
could approach the uplands of Judea. The hills of Judea are much steeper
on the east than on the west, where they fall toward Philistia in long-rolling
hills, forming the Shephelah.
(1) Vale of Aijalon:
The most noteworthy of these is the Vale of Aijalon. It winds its way first
in a northeasterly direction, past the Beth-horons, then, turning to the
Southeast, it reaches the plateau at el-Jib, the ancient Gibeon, fully 5 miles
Northwest of Jerusalem. This is the easiest of all the avenues leading from
the plain to the heights, and it is the one along which the tides of battle
most frequently rolled from the days of Joshua (
<061012>
Joshua 10:12) to those
of the Maccabees (1 Macc 3:16 ff, etc.). It occupies also a prominent place
in the records of the Crusades.
(2) Wady ec-Surar:
Wady ec-Surar, the Valley of Sorek, crosses the Shephelah South of
Gezer, and pursues a tortuous course past Beth-shemesh and Kiriath-
jearim to the plateau Southwest of Jerusalem. This is the line followed by
the Jaffa-Jerus Railway.
856
(3) Wady ec-Sunt:
Wady ec-Sunt runs eastward from the North of Tell ec-Safieh (Gath) up
the Vale of Elah to its confluence with Wady ec-Sur which comes in from
the South near Khirbet Shuweikeh (Socoh); and from that point, as Wady
el-Jindy, pursues its way South of Timnah to the uplands West of
Bethlehem.
(4) Wady el-`Afranj:
Wady el-`Afranj crosses the plain from Ashdod (Esdud), passes Beit Jibrin
(Eleutheropolis), and winds up through the mountains toward Hebron.
(5) Wady el-Chesy:
Wady el-Chesy, from the sea about 7 miles North of Gaza, runs eastward
with many windings, passes to the North of Lachish, and finds its way to
the plateau some 6 miles Southwest of Hebron.
From the Shephelah thus opened the gateways by which Judea and
Jerusalem might be assailed: and the course of these avenues determined
the course of much of the history. It is evident that the shephelah lay open
to attack from both sides, and for centuries it was the debatable land
between Israel and the Philistines. The ark for a time sojourned in this
region (
<090506>
1 Samuel 5:6 f). In this district is laid the scene of Samsons
exploits (Judges 14 through 16). The scene of Davids memorable victory
over the giant was in the Wady ec-Sunt, between Socoh and Azekah (
<091701>
1
Samuel 17:1). David found refuge here in the cave of Adullam (
<092201>
1
Samuel 22:1). For picturesque and vivid accounts of the Shephelah and of
the part it played in history see Smith, HGHL, 201 ff; A. Henderson,
Palestine, Its Historical Geography, 1894.
W. Ewing
SHEPHER
<she-fer> ([r p ,v ,, shepher], beauty): A mount near which the Israelites
encamped (
<043323>
Numbers 33:23 f).
See WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL.
857
SHEPHERD
<shep-erd> ([h [ ,r o , ro`eh], [y[ ir , ro`i]; [oqv, poimen], a feeder):
The sheep owner frequently tends the flocks himself (
<010404>
Genesis 4:4;
30:40; compare
<263412>
Ezekiel 34:12), but more often he delegates the work
to his children (
<012909>
Genesis 29:9;
<091619>
1 Samuel 16:19; 17:15) or relatives
(
<013106>
Genesis 31:6). In such cases the sheep have good care because the
keepers have a personal interest in the well-being of the animals, but when
they are attended by a hireling (
<091720>
1 Samuel 17:20) the flocks may be
neglected or abused (
<235610>
Isaiah 56:10,11;
<263408>
Ezekiel 34:8,10;
<381115>
Zechariah
11:15,17;
<431012>
John 10:12). The chief care of the shepherd is to see that the
sheep find plenty to eat and drink. The flocks are not fed in pens or folds,
but, summer and winter, must depend upon foraging for their sustenance
(
<192302>
Psalm 23:2). In the winter of 1910-11 an unprecedented storm ravaged
Northern Syria. It was accompanied by a snowfall of more than 3 ft., which
covered the ground for weeks. During that time, hundreds of thousands of
sheep and goats perished, not so much from the cold as from the fact that
they could get no food. Goats hunt out the best feeding-grounds, but sheep
are more helpless and have to be led to their food (compare
<042716>
Numbers
27:16,17); nor do they possess the instinct of many other animals for
finding their way home (compare
<263406>
Ezekiel 34:6-8). Flocks should be
watered at least once a day. Where there are springs or streams this is an
easy matter. Frequently the nearest water is hours away. One needs to
travel in the dry places in Syria or Palestine, and then enter the watered
valleys like those in Edom where the flocks are constantly being led for
water, to appreciate the Psalmists words, He leadcth me beside still
waters. Sometimes water can be obtained by digging shallow wells
(
<012618>
Genesis 26:18-22,25,32). The shepherd frequently carries with him a
pail from which the sheep can drink when the water is not accessible to
them. On the mountain tops the melting snows supply the needed water. In
other districts it is drawn from deep wells (
<012902>
Genesis 29:2;
<430406>
John 4:6).
The usual time for watering is at noon, at which time the flocks are led to
the watering-places (
<012902>
Genesis 29:2,3). After drinking, the animals lie
down or huddle together in the shade of a rock while the shepherd sleeps.
At the first sound of his call, which is usually a peculiar guttural sound,
hard to imitate, the flock follow off to new feeding-grounds. Even should
two shepherds call their flocks at the same time and the sheep be
intermingled, they never mistake their own masters voice (
<431003>
John 10:3-
5).
858
The shepherds equipment is a simple one. His chief garment is a cloak
woven from wool or made from sheepskins. This is sleeveless, and so made
that it hangs like a cloak on his shoulders. When he sleeps he curls up
under it, head and all. During the summer a lighter, short-sleeved `aba or
coat is worn. He carries a staff or club (see STAFF), and a characteristic
attitude is to make a rest for his arms by placing his staff on his shoulders
against the back of his neck. When an especially productive spot is found,
the shepherd may pass the time, while the animals are grazing, by playing
on his pipe (
<070516>
Judges 5:16). He sometimes carries a sling ([[ l q , ,
qela`]) of goats hair (
<091740>
1 Samuel 17:40). His chief belongings are kept in
a skin pouch or bag ([yl iK ], keli]) (
<091740>
1 Samuel 17:40). This bag is usually
a whole tawed skin turned wrong side out, with the legs tied up and the
neck forming the opening. He is usually aided in the keeping and the
defending of the sheep by a dog (
<183001>
Job 30:1). In Syria the Kurdish dogs
make the best protectors of the sheep, as, unlike the cowardly city dogs,
they are fearless and will drive away the wild beasts. The shepherd is often
called upon to aid the dogs in defending the sheep (
<013139>
Genesis 31:39;
<091734>
1
Samuel 17:34,35;
<233104>
Isaiah 31:4;
<240506>
Jeremiah 5:6;
<300312>
Amos 3:12).
FIGURATIVE:
The frequent use of the word shepherd to indicate a spiritual overseer is
familiar to Bible readers (
<192301>
Psalm 23:1; 80:1;
<211211>
Ecclesiastes 12:11;
<234004>
Isaiah 40:4; 63:14;
<243110>
Jeremiah 31:10;
<263423>
Ezekiel 34:23; 37:24;
<432115>
John 21:15-17;
<490411>
Ephesians 4:11;
<600501>
1 Peter 5:1-4). We still use the
term pastor, literally, a shepherd. Leaders in temporal affairs were also
called shepherds (
<014717>
Genesis 47:17 margin;
<234428>
Isaiah 44:28; 63:11).
Sheep without a shepherd typified individuals or nations who had
forgotten Yahweh (
<042717>
Numbers 27:17;
<112217>
1 Kings 22:17;
<141816>
2 Chronicles
18:16;
<263405>
Ezekiel 34:5,8;
<381002>
Zechariah 10:2;
<400936>
Matthew 9:36;
<410634>
Mark
6:34).
Jesus is spoken of as the good shepherd (
<431014>
John 10:14); chief shepherd (1
Pet 5:4); great shepherd (
<581320>
Hebrews 13:20); the one shepherd (
<431016>
John
10:16). He will feed his flock like a shepherd, he will gather the lambs in
his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and will gently lead those that have
their young (
<234011>
Isaiah 40:11) is a picture drawn from pastoral life of
Yahwehs care over His children. A strong sympathy for helpless animals,
though sometimes misdirected, is a marked characteristic of the people of
859
Bible lands. The birth of offspring in a flock often occurs far off on the
mountain side. The shepherd solicitously guards the mother during her
helpless moments and picks up the lamb and carries it to the fold. For the
few days, until it is able to walk, he may carry it in his arms or in the loose
folds of his coat above his girdle.
See also SHEEP.
J ames A. Patch
SHEPHI, SHEPHO
<she-fi>, <she-fo> ([yp iv ], shephi]; Codex Vaticanus [2p, Sob], Codex
Alexandrinus [2op, Sophar]; Lucian, [2or, Sapphei] (
<130140>
1
Chronicles 1:40); or Shepho, [wOp v ], shepho]; Codex Alexandrinus [2,
Soph]; Lucian, [2ov, Sophan] (
<013623>
Genesis 36:23)): A Horite chief.
SHEPHUPHAM, SHEPHUPHAN
<she-fu-fam> or <she-fu-fan> ([ p ;Wp v ], shephupham]; Codex Vaticanus
and Codex Alexandrinus [2ov, Sophan]; Lucian, [2oov, Sophan]
(
<042639>
Numbers 26:39 (43)); or Shephuphan, [p ;Wp v ], shephuphan]; Codex
Vaticanus [2opox, Sopharphak], Codex Alexandrinus [2ov,
Sophan], Lucian, [2ro, Seppham] (
<130805>
1 Chronicles 8:5), a kind of
serpent, Gray, HPN, 95): Eponym of a Benjamite family. The name
occurs in
<014621>
Genesis 46:21 as Muppim and in
<130712>
1 Chronicles 7:12,15;
26:16 as Shuppim. It is almost impossible to arrive at the original form;
the gentilic Shuphamites appears in
<042639>
Numbers 26:39 (43).
SHERAH
<she-ra>.
See SHEERAH.
SHERD
<shurd>.
See POTSHERD.
860
SHEREBIAH
<sher-e-bi-a>, <she-reb-ya> ([h y;b ]r ev e, sherebhyah], God has sent
burning heat(?); the form is doubtful): A post-exilic priest and family.
Sherebiah, who joined Ezra at the river Ahava (
<150818>
Ezra 8:18; the
Septuagint omits), and had charge, along with eleven others, of the silver
and gold and vessels for the Temple (
<150824>
Ezra 8:24, Codex Vaticanus and
Codex Alexandrinus [2opoo, Saraia], Lucian, [2opopo, Sarabias]).
He aided in the exposition of the Law (
<160807>
Nehemiah 8:7), was among
those who made public confession (
<160904>
Nehemiah 9:4) and sealed the
covenant (
<161012>
Nehemiah 10:12 (13)). His name also appears in
<161208>
Nehemiah 12:8,24. In every passage listed above except 10:12 (13),
Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus read [2opopo, Sarabia],
Lucian, [2opopo, Sarabias]. In 1 Esdras 8:47 the name appears as
Asebebia, the Revised Version (British and American) Asebebias; in 1
Esdras 8:54, Esebrias, the Revised Version (British and American)
Eserebias, and 1 Esdras 9:48, Sarabias. Many of the companion-names
on the lists are plainly ethnic (Cheyne).
Horace J . Wolf
SHERESH
<she-resh>, [v r ,v ; , sharesh]; Codex Vaticanus [2oupo, Souros]; Codex
Alexandrinus [2opo, Soros], Lucian, [4opr, Phares], [4opo,
Phoros]): A Machirite name in a genealogy of Manasseh (
<130716>
1 Chronicles
7:16).
SHEREZER
<she-re-zer> (
<380702>
Zechariah 7:2 the King James Version).
See SHAREZER.
SHERGHAT, ASSHUR, ASSUR
<shur-gat>, <sher-gat>: The name of the first capital city of Assyria is
known by the Arabs as Qala at Sherghat, or the Fortress of Sherghat. Its
ancient name was Asshur or Assur (
<011011>
Genesis 10:11 margin). From it was
derived the name of the country, Assyria, and of the people, Assyrians. The
date of the founding of the city is not known. Apparently about 2000 BC a
861
colony of Babylonians migrated northward along the Tigris River and
settled upon the right shore about halfway between the Upper and Lower
Zab, or halfway between the modern cities of Mosul and Bagdad. Assur,
the local deity of the place, became the national god of Assyria. It is
uncertain whether the deity gave the name to the city, or the city to the
deity, but probably an early shrine of Assur stood there, and the people,
building their city about it, became known as the Assyrians. At first the city
was a Bah dependency, governed by priests from Babylonia. In time, as the
city acquired a political significance, the power of the priesthood declined;
allegiance to Babylonia ceased, and the Assyrian empire came into
existence. About 1200 BC the political power had so increased that a new
capital, Nimrud (Calah) was built to the North near the junction of the
Upper Zab with the Tigris. In 722 BC the capital was transferred by
Sargon to his new city, Dur-Sharrukin, and in 705 BC Sennacherib
enlarged Nineveh, and it remained the capital city till the fall of the empire
in 606 BC. Assur, however, as the seat of the national deity, never ceased
to be the chief religious center.
The mounds of Assur are among the largest in Mesopotamia. They rise
abruptly from the Tigris, which they follow for about half a mile, and
extend a quarter of a mile inland. In the surrounding plain are other
mounds, marking the sites of temples, and indicating that a part of the city
was without the walls. At the northern end the mounds are surmounted by
a high conical peak, which represents the tower or ziggurat of the temple
of Assur.
Of the early excavators Layard and Rassam examined the ruins, but the
fanaticism of the surrounding Arabs prevented extensive excavations. In
1904 Dr. W. Andrae, for the Deutsche Orientgesellschaft, began the
systematic excavations which have been continued by Dr. P. Maresch for
ten years. Discoveries of the greatest importance have been made. The city
was found to have been surrounded on the land side by a double wall. The
space between the walls, several rods in width, was occupied by houses,
possibly the homes of the soldiers. The base of the outer wall was of stone;
above it were mud bricks strengthened at intervals with courses of burned
bricks. Along the outer upper edge was a parapet, protected by
battlements. From the floor of the parapet small holes were bored vertically
downward, so that the soldiers, without exposing themselves, might
discharge their arrows at the enemy close to the base of the wall. Many of
the holes are still visible. The wall was pierced with several gateways; the
862
names Gate of Assur, Gate of the Tigris, Gate of the Sun God have
survived. At the sides of the gateways were small chambers for the guards,
and from them passageways led to the parapet above. The gates were
reached by bridges which spanned the moat. Along the river side the city
was protected by a high steep embankment, which was built partly of
limestone, but chiefly of square bricks laid in bitumen.
The temple of Assur at the northern end of the city has been thoroughly
excavated. With its outer and inner court and tower it conformed in its
general plan to the older Babylonian temples. Several of the palaces of the
early kings were discovered, but the best-preserved of the palaces was one
which the excavators have called the residence of the mayor. It stood near
the western edge of the city on the main street which ran from the western
gate to the Tigris. It consisted of two courts surrounded by chambers.
Grooves in the paved floor conducted fresh water to the kitchen, the baths
and the chambers, and round tiles beneath the floor carried away the waste
water to the arched city sewer and to the Tigris. To the rear of the mayors
house was a crowded residential quarter. The streets were very narrow and
winding. The houses were exceedingly small; in some of them one could
not lie at full length upon the floor. Among their ruins appeared little but
stone mortars and broken pottery and other essential household
implements.
Near the southern end of the city a most remarkable discovery was made.
About a hundred monoliths, from 4 to 8 ft. high, were found still standing
erect. On the side of each one, near the top, was an inscription of several
lines, dedicating the stone to some individual who had been of great service
to the state. They were not tombstones; apparently they had been erected
during the lifetime of the people whom they honored. Of the greatest
interest was one which bore the name of Sammuramat or Semiramis, the
once supposed mythical queen of Nineveh. Its translation reads: The
column of Sa-am-mu-ra-mat, the palace wife of Samsi-Adad, king of the
world, king of Assyria, the mother of Adad-Nirari, king of the world, king
of Assyria, the .... of Shalmaneser, king of the four regions. The
inscription not only makes Semiramis a historical character, but places her
among the foremost rulers of Assyria.
The tombs of the kings and nobles were found deep in the ruins in the very
center of the city. They were rectangular structures of cut stone, covered
above with a rounded arch of burned bricks. In some cases the massive
863
stone doors still turned in their sockets. The roofs of many of them had
fallen in; others, which were intact, were filled with dust. From the tombs a
vast amount of silver, gold and copper jewelry and stone beads and
ornaments were recovered.
One of the chief temples of the city stood at short distance without the
eastern wall. Nothing but its foundations remain. However, the temple was
surrounded by a park, traces of which still exist. The soil of the
surrounding plain is a hard clay, incapable of supporting vegetable life. Into
the clay large holes, several feet in diameter, were dug and filled with loam.
Long lines of the holes may still be traced, each marking the spot where a
tree, probably the date palm, stood in the temple park.
A modern cemetery on the summit of the main mound is still used by the
neighboring Arabs, and therefore it will likely prevent the complete
excavation of this oldest of the capital cities of Assyria.
See further ASSYRIA.
E. J . Banks
SHERIFF
<sher-if> (Aramaic [a yeT ;p ]T i, tiphtaye] judicial, a lawyer, a sheriff
(
<270302>
Daniel 3:2 f]): Probably a lawyer or jurist whose business it was to
decide points of law. At best, however, the translation sheriff is but a
conjecture.
SHESHACH
<she-shak> ([ v v e , sheshakh], as if humiliation; compare [ k v ; ,
shakhakh], to crouch): The general explanation is that this is a
cypherform of `Babel (Babylon) which is the word given as equivalent to
Sheshach by the Targum (
<242526>
Jeremiah 25:26; 51:41; the Septuagint
omits in both passages). By the device known as Atbas [c b t a , atbas],
i.e. disguising a name by substituting the last letter of the alphabet for the
first, the letter next to the last for the second, etc., [d v v ] is substituted for
[l b ,B ; , babhel]. This theory has not failed of opposition. Delitzsch holds
that Sheshach represents Sis-ku-KI of an old Babylonian regal register,
which may have stood for a part of the city of Babylon. (For a refutation of
this interpretation see Schrader, KAT2, 415; COT, II, 108 f.) Lauth, too,
864
takes Sheshach to be a Hebraization of Siska, a Babylonian district.
Winckler and Sayce read Uru-azagga. Finally, Cheyne and a number of
critics hold that the word has crept into the text, being a conceit of later
editors.
See further JEREMIAH, 6.
Horace J . Wolf
SHESHBAZZAR
<shesh-baz-ar> ([r X B v ] v , , shesh-batstsar]): Sheshbazzar is the
Hebrew or Aramaic form of the Babylonian Shamash-aba-ucur, or
Shamash-bana-ucur: Oh Shamash, protect the father. It is possible that
the full name was Shamash-ban-zeri-Babili-ucur, Oh Shamash, protect the
father (builder) of the seed of Babylon. (See Zerubbabel, and Compare the
Babylonian names Ashur-banaucur, Ban-ziri, Nabu-ban-ziri, Shamash-ban-
apli, Shamash-apil-ucur, Shamash-ban-achi, and others in Tallquists
Neubabylonisches Namenbuch, and the Aramaic names on numbers 35, 44,
36, and 45 of Clays Aramaic Dockets.) If this latter was the full name,
there would be little doubt that Sheshbazzar may have been the same
person as Zerubbabel, since the former is called in
<150514>
Ezra 5:14 the
governor of Judah, and the latter is called by the same title in
<370101>
Haggai
1:1,14; 2:2,21. It is more probable, however, that Sheshbazzar and
Zerubbabel were different persons, and that Sheshbazzar was governor of
Judah in the time of Cyrus and Zerubbabel in that of Darius. It is possible
that Sheshbazzar came to Jerusalem in the time of Cyrus and laid the
foundations, and that Zerubbabel came later in the time of Darius Hystaspis
and completed the building of the temple (compare
<150268>
Ezra 2:68; 4:2;
<370114>
Haggai 1:14).
According to
<150108>
Ezra 1:8 Sheshbazzar was the prince (Hannasi) of Judah
into whose hands Cyrus put the vessels of the house of the Lord which
Nebuchadnezzar had brought forth out of Jerusalem and had put in the
house of his gods. It is further said in 1:11 that Sheshbazzar brought these
vessels with them of the captivity which he brought up from Babylon to
Jerusalem. In
<150514>
Ezra 5:14 f it is said that these vessels had been delivered
by Cyrus unto one whose name was Sheshbazzar, whom he had made
governor (pechah), and that Sheshbazzar came and laid the foundations of
the house of God which was in Jerusalem.
865
See SANABASSAR.
R. Dick Wilson
SHESHAI
<she-shi> ([yv v e , sheshay]): One of the sons of Anak, perhaps an old
Hebronite clan name. (Sayce combines the name with Sasu, the root
[h s v ], the Egyptian name for the Syrian Bedouins.) The clan lived in
Hebron at the time of the conquest and was expelled by Caleb
(
<041322>
Numbers 13:22, Codex Vaticanus [2roor, Sessei]; Codex
Alexandrinus [2rr, Semei];
<061514>
Joshua 15:14, Codex Vaticanus
[2ouor, Sousei]; Codex Alexandrinus [2ouoo, Sousai];
<070110>
Judges 1:10,
Codex Vaticanus [2roor, Sessei]; Codex Alexandrinus [Ir00,
Geththi]).
SHESHAN
<she-shan> ([v ;v e, sheshan]; [2oov, Sosan]): A Jerahmeelite whose
daughter married his servant Jarha (
<130231>
1 Chronicles 2:31,34,35). The
genealogical list which follows embraces some very early names (compare
Curtis, ICC, at the place).
SHETH
See SETH.
SHETHAR
<she-thar> [r t v e , shethar]; Codex Vaticanus and Lucian,
[2opoo0oo, Sarsathaios]; Codex Alexandrinus [2opro0ro,
Sarestheos]): One of the seven princes at the court of Ahasuerus (Est
1:14); these princes sat first in the kingdom and had the right of entrance
to the kings presence at any time, except when he was in the company of
one of his wives. (According to Marquart, Fund., 69, Shethar comes from
[yt v r v ] with which the Persian siyatis, joy, is to be compared.) The
word has never really been satisfactorily explained; it is presumably
Persian.
866
SHETHAR-BOZENAI, SHETHAR-BOZNAI
<she-thar-boz-e-ni>, <she-thar-boz-ni>, -<boz-na-i>, ([yn z]B o
r t v ] , shethar boznay], meaning uncertain): The name of a Persian (?)
official mentioned with Tattenai in connection with the correspondence
with Darius relative to the rebuilding of the Temple (
<150503>
Ezra 5:3,6; 6:6,12;
Codex Vaticanus [2o0oppouov, Satharbouzan]; Codex Alexandrinus
[2o0oppouovo, Satharbouzanai], in
<150503>
Ezra 5:3; 6:13;
[2o0oppouovq, Satharbouzanes], in 5:6; [2o0oppouovr,
Satharbouzane], in 6:6; Lucian, throughout, [Ooppouovoo,
Tharbouzanaios]), called in 1 Esdras 6:3,7,27; 7:1 Shathrabuzanes.
Among the conjectures as to the meaning and derivation of the name, the
following may be mentioned:
(1) Shethar-boznai may be a corruption of [yn z]wB r ]t m],
metharboznay] = [M0popouovq, Mithrobouzanes], Old Persian
Mithrobauzana i.e. Mithra is deliverer.
(2) [r t v , shathar] is identical with the Old Persian Tsithra
(seed, brilliance); names have been found that are confounded with
this word.
(3) [yn z]wOB r t v ], shethar bowzenay] may be a title, but [r t c ,
sethar], must then be read for [r t v , shethar].
(4) [ynzB r t v , shethar boznay] is equivalent to the Old Persian
Sethrabuzana, empire-delivering; compare Encyclopedia Biblica,
article Shethar-boznai, and Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Hebrew and
English Lexicon of the Old Testament.
Horace J . Wolf
SHEVA
<she-va> ([a w;v ], shewa]; Codex Vaticanus [2oou, Saou]; Codex
Alexandrinus [2oou, Saoul], Lucian, [2our, Soue]):
(1) A son of Caleb by his concubine Maacah (
<130249>
1 Chronicles 2:49).
(2) See SHAVSHAH.
867
SHEW, SHOW
<sho>: Show (so always the American Standard Revised Version) is
simply a modernized spelling of shew (so always in the King James
Version and generally in the English Revised Version), and it should be
carefully noted that shew is never pronounced shoo, not even in the
combination shewbread; Compare sew.
In the King James Version shew as a verb is the translation of a very
large number of terms in the original. This number is reduced considerably
by the Revised Version (British and American) (especially in the New
Testament), but most of these changes are to secure uniformity of
rendition, rather than to correct obscurities. The proper sense of the verb,
of course, is to cause a person to see (
<011201>
Genesis 12:1, etc.) or to cause
a thing (or person) to be seen (
<050435>
Deuteronomy 4:35;
<070422>
Judges 4:22,
etc.). Seeing, naturally, can be taken as intellectual or moral
(
<243821>
Jeremiah 38:21;
<191611>
Psalm 16:11, etc.), and can even be used for
hearing (
<234309>
Isaiah 43:9, etc.; contrast the Revised Version (British and
American)
<090927>
1 Samuel 9:27). Hence, shew can be used as a general
translation for the most various phrases, as be shewed for [yvoo,
ginomai], come to pass (
<440422>
Acts 4:22, the Revised Version (British and
American) be wrought); shew forth themselves for [rvrpyr,
energeo], be active (
<401402>
Matthew 14:2, the Revised Version (British and
American) work); shew for [or, poieo] do (
<440736>
Acts 7:36, the
Revised Version (British and American) having wrought); for
[qyroo, diegeomai], relate (
<420839>
Luke 8:39 the Revised Version
(British and American) declare); for [qo, deloo], make clear (2
Pet 1:14, the Revised Version (British and American) signify), etc. In
Song 2:9 the King James Version (English Revised Version) shewing
himself and the American Standard Revised Version (English Revised
Version margin) glanceth both miss the poetry of the original: His eyes
shine in through the lattice (tsuts, blossom sparkle).
The King James Versions uses of the noun shew usually connote
appearance in contrast to reality. So
<422047>
Luke 20:47, for a shew
([pooo, prophasis], apparent cause, the Revised Version (British
and American) pretence);
<510223>
Colossians 2:23, shew of wisdom (so the
Revised Version (British and American), [oyo, logos], word,
repute);
<480612>
Galatians 6:12, make a fair shew (so the Revised Version
(British and American), [rupoor, euprosopeo], have a fair face);
868
<193906>
Psalm 39:6, vain shew (so the American Standard Revised Version
[ l ,x , , tselem], image the Revised Version margin shadow). However,
in Sirach 43:1 ([opoo, horama], spectacle (so the Revised Version
(British and American))) and in
<510215>
Colossians 2:15 [ryot,
deigmatizo], to display) shew = spectacle. In
<230309>
Isaiah 3:9 the shew
of their countenance is a bad translation for their respect of persons (so
the Revised Version margin for hakkarath penehem). The shewing of the
Baptist unto Israel (
<420180>
Luke 1:80 the King James Version, the English
Revised Version) is of course his appearing to begin his ministry.
Burton Scott Easton
SHEWBREAD, THE
<sho-bred> [ yniP ;h j ,l ,, lechem ha-panim], bread of the presence;
[q po0ro tv optv, he prothesis ton arton] (
<580902>
Hebrews 9:2); the
American Standard Revised Version showbread).
See SHEW:
1. THE TERM:
The marginal reading of
<022530>
Exodus 25:30; 35:13, the Revised Version
(British and American) Presence-bread, exactly gives the meaning of the
Hebrew. In
<140204>
2 Chronicles 2:4 it is spoken of as the continual
showbread, because it was to be before Yahweh alway (
<022530>
Exodus
25:30).
2. MOSAIC REGULATIONS:
Later Judaism has much to say as to the number and size of the loaves,
more properly thin cakes, which bore this name, together with many
minute regulations as to the placing of the loaves, the covering of them
with frankincense, and other ritualistic vapidities. All that the Mosaic
legislation required was that, once in every week, there should be twelve
cakes of unleavened bread, each containing about four-fifths of a peck of
fine flour, placed in two piles upon a pure table with frankincense beside
each pile and changed every Sabbath day (
<032405>
Leviticus 24:5-9). From the
description of the table upon which the fiat cakes were to lie (
<022523>
Exodus
25:23-30; 37:10-16), it held a series of golden vessels comprising dishes,
spoons, flagons and bowls. As it is unlikely that empty cups were set
869
before Yahweh they being described as the vessels which were upon
the table we may conclude that the table held presentation offerings of
grain and wine and oil, the three chief products of the land
(
<050713>
Deuteronomy 7:13). The dishes were probably the salvers on which
the thin cakes were piled, six on each. The flagons would contain wine,
and the bowls (made with spouts, to pour withal), the oil; while the
spoons held the frankincense, which was burned as a memorial, even an
offering made by fire unto Yahweh. The cakes themselves were eaten by
the priests on every Sabbath day, as being among the most holy
sacrifices. Each of the synoptists refers to the incident of David and his
companions having eaten of the shewbread (hoi artoi tes protheseos), as
told in
<092104>
1 Samuel 21:4-6 (
<401204>
Matthew 12:4;
<410226>
Mark 2:26;
<420604>
Luke
6:4).
3. ON JOURNEYINGS:
At such times as the removal of the tabernacle took place, the separate
appointments of the table of incense were not parted from it, but were
carried with it dishes, spoons, bowls, and cups (
<040407>
Numbers 4:7).
These, like the other furniture, were borne by the Kohathite Levites, but a
few articles of lighter weight were in the personal care of the high priest.
These comprised the oil for the candlestick, the sweet incense, the holy oil
of consecration, and the meal for the continual bread offering (
<040407>
Numbers
4:7,8,16). Small quantities of these alone would be borne from place to
place, such as would be needed with the least delay to refurbish the vessels
of the sanctuary on every reerection of the tent of meeting.
4. SIGNIFICANCE:
With this view of the nature, we have a natural and adequate sense of the
meanings and importance of the shewbread, in the economy of the temple
ritual and service. It was a continual reminder to the worshippers of the
truth that man does not live by bread alone, emphasized by the fact that
these most holy offerings were afterward eaten. It was the Old Testament
version of the prayer, Give us this day our daily bread; and in the fact
that the holy table was never for a moment left without some loaves lying
on it, we have the symbol of mans continued and unbroken dependence
upon God. Even during the travels of the table of shewbread with the
tabernacle, the continual bread was required to be in its place thereon
(
<040407>
Numbers 4:7).
870
It has been usual to say that frankincense in golden urns stood beside the
twelve loaves (EB, IV, col. 4212). But this is a mere repetition of a
Jewish legend, as spoons were the recognized holders of the frankincense
to be burned (compare
<040714>
Numbers 7:14 ff). Such spoons formed a part of
the equipment of the shewbread table, and on the removal of the week-old
cakes the spoons were carried forth and the frankincense in them burned
on the great altar on the Sabbath day. If this were done while the grain and
wine and oil were being consumed, it would derive additional significance,
as betokening the gratitude and adoration of the representative recipients
of the bounties of Nature, just as the daily burning of incense in the holy
place betokened the worship and adoration of the praying multitudes
without the temple (
<420110>
Luke 1:10).
See SHEWBREAD, TABLE OF.
W. Shaw Caldecott
SHEWBREAD, TABLE OF
([j ;l ]v u, shulchan] (
<022525>
Exodus 25:25-30, etc.); [q tporo xo
po0ro tv optv, he trapeza kai he prothesis ton arton]
(
<580902>
Hebrews 9:2)): For construction, see TABERNACLE; TEMPLE. A
rude representation of the table is given on the Arch of Titus in Rome. The
bas-relief was measured by Professor Boni in 1905, and the height and
width of the represented tables were found to be 48 centimeters, or nearly
19 inches. The table represented is, of course, that of Herods temple,
taken at the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. See the authors article on The
Temple Spoils in PEFS, 1906, 306 ff.
The table of shewbread is to be distinguished from the altar of incense. It
has become the fashion of the newer criticism to deny the existence of the
altar of incense in preexilic times, and to explain the allusion to it in
<110620>
1
Kings 6:20 as the table of shewbread (so in
<264122>
Ezekiel 41:22). The other
references (
<110622>
1 Kings 6:22; 7:48; 9:25) are dismissed as interpolations.
The procedure is radically vicious. The table of shewbread is not an altar,
though the altar is once spoken of as a table (
<264122>
Ezekiel 41:22). There
was only one altar of incense (
<110620>
1 Kings 6:20), but (in
<140408>
2 Chronicles
4:8) ten tables of shewbread.
See SHEWBREAD.
W. Shaw Caldecott
871
SHIBAH
<shi-ba> ([h [ ;b ]v i , shibh`ah], seven; [opxo, horkos]; Swete reads
[4prop opxou, Phrear horkou], literally, well of oath; the King James
Version Shebah): The name of the original well of Beer-sheba according to
<012633>
Genesis 26:33.
See BEER-SHEBA.
SHIBBOLETH
<shib-o-leth> ([t l ,B ov i, shibboleth]): A test of speech applied by the men
of Gilead to the Ephraimites, who wished to cross the Jordan, after defeat.
If they pronounced the word cibboleth, their dialectic variety of speech
betrayed them. (
<071206>
Judges 12:6). The word probably has the sense of
stream or flood (compare
<196902>
Psalm 69:2).
SHIBMAH
<shib-ma> ([h m;b c i, sibhmah]).
See SIBMAH.
SHICRON
<shik-ron> ([wOr B ]v i, shikkeron]).
See SHIKKERON.
SHIELD
<sheld>.
See ARMOR, IV, 1.
SHIGGAION
<shi-ga-yon>, <shi-gi-on> ([wOyG;c i, shiggayon]): Occurs in the title of
Psalm 7, and, in the plural, in the verse introducing Habakkuks prayer
(
<350301>
Habakkuk 3:1). Derived from a verb meaning to wander, it is
generally taken to mean a dithyramb, or rhapsody. This is not supported by
the Greek VSS, but they are evidently quite at a loss.
872
See PSALMS, BOOK OF.
SHIHON
<shi-hon> ([r wOa yv i, shion]).
See SHION.
SHIHOR
<shi-hor> ([r wOj yv i, shichor], also written without a y and win Hebrew
and incorrectly Sihor in English): A stream of water mentioned in
connection with Egypt. Joshua (13:3) speaks of the Shihor, which is
before Egypt, a stream which commentators have thought to be the
brook of Egypt, the stream which separated Egypt from Palestine, now
called Wady el-`Arish. Jeremiah (2:18 the King James Version) says,
What hast thou to do in the way to Egypt, to drink the waters of Sihor?
Commentators have thought Shihor in this case to be a name for the Nile.
Both interpretations cannot be correct. Whatever the name South means,
at least it did not denote a movable river. It must be the same stream in
both these passages, and no identification of the stream can be correct that
does not satisfy both of them. Professor Naville has recently shown
conclusively (Proc. Soc. Biblical Arch., January, 1913) that neither of these
interpretations is strictly correct, and has made clear the Biblical references
to South. In the northeasternmost province of ancient Egypt, Khentabt
(Fronting on the East), was a canal, a fresh-water stream drawn off from
the Nile, called in the Egyptian language Shi-t-Hor, i.e. the Horus Canal
(the -t- is an Egyptian feminine ending). There have been many changes in
the branches and canals from the Nile in the Delta, and this one with many
others has been lost altogether; but there is a tradition among the Bedouin
of Wady el-`Arish to this day that once a branch of the Nile came over to
that point. This Shi-t-Hor, Stream of Horus, makes perfectly clear and
harmonious the different references of Scripture to South. It was before
Egypt, as Joshua describes it, and it was the first sweet water of Egypt
which the traveler from Palestine in those days was able to obtain, as the
words of Jeremiah indicate. To drink the waters of South meant to reach
the supply of the fresh water of the Nile at the border of the desert. The
two other references to South (
<131305>
1 Chronicles 13:5;
<232303>
Isaiah 23:3) are
perfectly satisfied by this identification. The seed of South (
<232303>
Isaiah
873
23:3 the King James Version) would be grain from Egypt by way of the
Shihor.
M. G. Kyle
SHIHOR-LIBNATH
<shi-hor-lib-nath> [r wOj yv i t n;b ]l i, shichor libhnath]; Codex Vaticanus
[t 2rv xo Aopovo0, to Seion kai Labanath]; Codex Alexandrinus
[2rp, Seior], etc.): A place named on the boundary of Asher (
<061926>
Joshua
19:26). It seems to mark with Carmel the western limit, and may have been
on the South of that mountain. Peshitta, Syriac, and Eusebius
(Onomasticon) take this as two distinct names attaching to cities in this
region. So far, however, no trace of either name has been found in the
course of very careful exploration. More probably Shihor was the name of
a river, Libnath distinguishing it from the Nile, which was called Shihor
of Egypt. It may have been called Shihor because, like the Nile, it
contained crocodiles. The boundary of Asher included Dor (TanTurah), so
the river may be sought South of that town. Crocodiles are said still to be
found in the Kishon; but this river runs North of Carmel. The Crocodeilon
of Ptolemy (V. xv.5; xvi.2) and Pliny (v.19), which the latter makes the
southern boundary of Phoenicia, may possibly be Nahr ez-Zerqa, which
enters the sea about 5 miles South of TanTurah. Here also it is said the
crocodile is sometimes seen. Perhaps therefore we may identify this stream
with Shihor-libnath.
W. Ewing
SHIKKERON
<shik-er-on> ([wOr K ]v i, shikkeron]; the King James Version Shicron): A
place mentioned in
<061511>
Joshua 15:11 as being on the northern border of
Judah, between Ekron and Baalah, Jabneel being beyond, toward the sea.
The site is unknown, but Rev. C. Hauser (PEFS, 1907, 289) suggests Tell
es-Sellakeh, Northwest of `Akir, remarking that if this were the site the
boundary would follow a natural course over the mountain to Jabneel.
SHILHI
<shil-hi> ([yj il ]v i, shilchi]): Father of Jehoshaphats mother (
<112242>
1 Kings
22:42 =
<142031>
2 Chronicles 20:31; Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus
874
in 2 Chronicles, [2or, Salei], Codex Vaticanus in 1 Kings, [2rrr,
Semeei]; Codex Alexandrinus in 1 Kings, [2ooo, Salala]; Lucian in
both, [2rrr, Seleei]). Cheyne (Encyclopaedia Biblica, article Shilhi)
ventures the supposition that Shilhi is a misreading for Shilhim
(
<061532>
Joshua 15:32), and is therefore the name of place rather than that of a
person; he holds it to be the name of the birthplace of Azubah, the kings
mother.
SHILHIM
<shil-him> [ yj il ]v i, shilchim] (
<061532>
Joshua 15:32)): See SHAARAIM, (2).
Possibly Azubah the mother of Jehoshaphat, who is called the daughter of
Shilhi (
<112242>
1 Kings 22:42;
<142031>
2 Chronicles 20:31), was a native of Shilhim.
SHILLEM, SHILLEMITES
<shil-em>, <shil-em-its> ([ L ev i, shillem], [ymi L e V i h , ha-shillemi]):
Shillem is found in
<014624>
Genesis 46:24, a son of Naphtali; Shillemites, his
descendants, are mentioned in
<042649>
Numbers 26:49; SHALLUM (which see)
is found in
<130713>
1 Chronicles 7:13.
SHILOAH
<shi-lo-a>, <shi-lo-a> (
<230806>
Isaiah 8:6).
See SILOAM.
SHILOH (1)
<shi-lo> ([h l yv i, shiloh]): The prophecy in
<014910>
Genesis 49:10, The
scepter shall not depart from Judah, .... until Shiloh come, etc., has been
the subject of very diverse interpretations. the Revised Version margin
gives as alternative renderings, `Till he come to Shiloh having the
obedience of the peoples Or, according to the Syriac, `Till he come whose
it is, etc.
(1) From the earliest times the passage has been regarded as Messianic,
but the rendering in the text, which takes Shiloh as a proper name,
bearing a meaning such as peaceful (compare
<230906>
Isaiah 9:6, Prince
of Peace), labors under the difficulty that Shiloh is not found
elsewhere as a personal name in the Old Testament, nor is it easy to
875
extract from it the meaning desired. Further, the word was not
personally applied to the Messiah in any of the ancient VSS, which
rather assume a different reading (see below). Apart from a purely
fanciful passage in the Talmud (compare Driver, Gen, 413), this
application does not appear earlier than the version of Seb. Munster in
the 16th century (1534).
(2) The rendering, till he come to Shiloh, where Shiloh is taken as the
name of a place, not a person, is plausible, but is felt to yield no
suitable sense in the context. It is, therefore, now also set aside by most
recent scholars.
(3) The 3rd rendering, which regards Shiloh as representing the
Hebrew [h L v , , shelloh] = [h l v i, shiloh] for [wOl r v ,a }, asher low],
whose (it is), has in its favor the fact that this is evidently the reading
presupposed in the Septuagint, the Peshitta, and the this is evidently the
reading presupposed in the Septuagint, the Peshitta, and the Jewish
Targums, and seems to be alluded to in
<262127>
Ezekiel 21:27, until he
come whose right it is. In this view the passage has still a Messianic
reference, though critics argue that it must then be regarded as late in
origin. Other interpretations need not detain us. See for details the full
discussions in Hengstenbergs Christology, I, 54 ff, English translation,
the commentaries of Delitzsch, Driver, and Skinner, on Genesis
(especially Excursus II in Driver), and the articles in the various Bible
dictionaries.
See also PROPHECY.
J ames Orr
SHILOH (2)
(The most usual form is [h l v i, shiloh], but it appears 8 times as [wOl v i,
shilo], and 3 times as [wOl yv i, Shilow]; [2q, Selo], [2q, Selom]): A
town in the lot of Ephraim where Israel assembled under Joshua at the
close of the war of conquest (
<061801>
Joshua 18:1). Here territory was allotted
to the seven tribes who had not yet received their portions. A commission
was sent out to describe the land into seven portions; this having been
done, the inheritances were assigned by lot. Here also were assigned to the
Levites their cities in the territories of the various tribes (Joshua 18 through
21). From Shiloh Reuben and Gad departed for their homes East of the
876
Jordan; and here the tribes gathered for war against these two, having
misunderstood their building of the great altar in the Jordan valley (Joshua
22). From
<071831>
Judges 18:31 we learn that in the period of the Judges the
house of God was in Shiloh; but when the sanctuary was moved thither
from Gilgal there is no indication. The maids of Shiloh were captured by
the Benjamites on the occasion of a feast, while dancing in the vineyards;
this having been planned by the other tribes to provide the Benjamites with
wives without involving themselves in responsibility (21:21 ff). While the
house of the Lord remained here it was a place of pilgrimage (
<090103>
1 Samuel
1:3). To Shiloh Samuel was brought and consecrated to Gods service
(
<090124>
1 Samuel 1:24). The sanctuary was presided over by Eli and his
wicked sons; and through Samuel the doom of their house was announced.
The capture of the ark by the Philistines, the fall of Hophni and Phinehas,
and the death of the aged priest and his daughter-in-law followed with
startling rapidity (1 Samuel 3; 4). The sanctuary in Shiloh is called a
temple (
<090109>
1 Samuel 1:9; 3:3) with doorpost and doors (
<090109>
1 Samuel
1:9; 3:15). It was therefore a more durable structure than the old tent. See
TABERNACLE; TEMPLE. It would appear to have been destroyed,
probably by the Philistines; and we find the priests of Elis house at Nob,
where they were massacred at Sauls order (
<092211>
1 Samuel 22:11 ff). The
disaster that befell Shiloh, while we have no record of its actual
occurrence, made a deep impression on the popular mind, so that the
prophets could use it as an effective illustration (
<197860>
Psalm 78:60;
<240712>
Jeremiah 7:12:14; 26:6). Here the blind old prophet Ahijah was
appealed to in vain by Jeroboams wife on behalf of her son (
<111402>
1 Kings
14:2,4), and it was still occupied in Jeremiahs time (
<244105>
Jeremiah 41:5).
The position of Shiloh is indicated in
<072119>
Judges 21:19, as on the north of
Beth-el, on the east side of the highway that goeth up from Beth-el to
Shechem, and on the south of Lebonah. This is very explicit, and points
definitely to Seilun, a ruined site on a hill at the Northeast of a little plain,
about 9 miles North of Beitin (Bethel), and 3 miles Southeast of Khan el-
Lubban (Lebonah), to the East of the highway to Shechem (Nablus). The
path to Seilun leaves the main road at Sinjil, going eastward to Turmus
`Aya, then northward across the plain. A deep valley runs to the North of
the site, cutting it off from the adjoining hills, in the sides of which are
rock-hewn tombs. A good spring rises higher up the valley. There are now
no vineyards in the district; but indications of their ancient culture are
found in the terraced slopes around.
877
The ruins on the hill are of comparatively modern buildings. At the foot of
the hill is a mosque which is going quickly to ruin. A little distance to the
Southeast is a building which seems to have been a synagogue. It is called
by the natives Jami` el-`Arba`in, mosque of the Forty. There are many
cisterns.
Just over the crest of the hill to the North, on a terrace, there is cut in the
rock a rough quadrangle 400 ft. by 80 ft. in dimensions. This may have
been the site of the house of the Lord which was in Shiloh.
W. Ewing
SHILONITE
<shi-lo-nit> ([ynil yv i, shiloni] (
<140929>
2 Chronicles 9:29), [yniwOl yv i, shiloni]
(
<141015>
2 Chronicles 10:15;
<161105>
Nehemiah 11:5), [yniwOl v i, Shilowniy];
[2qvr, Selonei], [2qvrtq, Seloneites]): This denotes an
inhabitant of Shiloh, and applies
(1) to Ahijah the prophet (
<111129>
1 Kings 11:29, etc.); and
(2) to a family of the children of Judah, who, after the exile, made their
home in Jerusalem (
<130905>
1 Chronicles 9:5;
<161105>
Nehemiah 11:5, the King
James Version Shiloni).
SHILSHAH
<shil-sha> [h v ;l ]v i, shilshah]; Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus
[2oroo, Saleisa]; Lucian, [2rroov, Selemsan]): An Asherite (
<130737>
1
Chronicles 7:37).
SHIMEA
<shim-e-a> ([a [ ;l ]v i , shim`a]):
See SHAMMUA and SHAMMAH.
(1) Brother of David.
See SHAMMAH.
(2) Son of David (
<130305>
1 Chronicles 3:5, Codex Vaticanus [2oov,
Saman]; but in
<100514>
2 Samuel 5:14;
<131404>
1 Chronicles 14:4, Shammua).
878
(3) A Merarite Levite (
<130630>
1 Chronicles 6:30, Codex Vaticanus [2oro,
Somea]; Codex Alexandrinus [2oo, Sama], Lucian, [2ooo,
Samaa]).
(4) A Gershonite Levite (
<130639>
1 Chronicles 6:39 (24), [2roo, Semaa]).
SHIMEAH
<shim-e-a> ([h a ;m]v i , shimah]; Codex Vaticanus [2roo, Semaa],
Codex Alexandrinus [2oro, Samea], Lucian, [2ooo, Samaa]): A
descendant of Jehiel, the father of Gibeon (
<130832>
1 Chronicles 8:32); in
<130938>
1
Chronicles 9:38 he is called Shimeam (Codex Vaticanus, Codex
Sinaiticus, Lucian; [2ooo, Samaa] Codex Alexandrinus [2oo, Sama];
see Jewish Quarterly Review, XI, 110-13, section symbol section symbol
10-12).
SHIMEAM
<shim-e-am>.
See SHIMEAH.
SHIMEATH
<shim-e-ath> ([t [ ;m]v i, shim`ath], or [t [ m]v i, shim`ath]; the Septuagint in
2 Kings, [ Irouo0, Iemouath], Codex Vaticanus in 2 Chronicles, [2oo,
Sama], Codex Alexandrinus [2oo0, Samath], Lucian, [2ooo0,
Samaath]): Father of Jozacar (
<121221>
2 Kings 12:21 (22)), one of the
murderers of Joash, king of Judah. According to
<142426>
2 Chronicles 24:26
Shimeath is an Ammonitess and the mother, not the father, of Jozacar.
Many textual emendations have been suggested (compare HDB, article
Shimeath), but they are unnecessary, as the Chroniclers revised version
of the incident in Kings was a deliberate one. The Chronicler was a sturdy
opponent of intermarriage, and in the story of the assassination of King
Joash he saw an opportunity to strike a blow against the hated practice. In
the older account in Kings the names of the conspirators are given as
Jozakar the son of [t [ ;m]v i, shim`ath], and Jehozabad the son of [r m,v , ,
shemer]. The two names are both masculine; but the final t of the former
looked to the Chronicler like the feminine ending and offered him his
opportunity. In his account, the one of the two murderers (dastardly
879
villains, even though the king had merited death) was the son of ([t [ m]v i ,
shim`ath]), the Ammonitess and the other was the son of ([t yr im]v i,
shimrith]), the Moabitess (compare Torrey, Ezra Studies, 212 ff).
Horace J . Wolf.
SHIMEATHITES
<shim-e-ath-its> [ yt i[ ;m]v i, shim`athim]; Codex Vaticanus and Codex
Alexandrinus [2oo0r, Samathieim]; Lucian, [2oo0rv,
Samathein]): A subdivision of the tribe of Caleb (
<130255>
1 Chronicles 2:55). In
the three families mentioned in this passage Jerome saw three distinct
classes of religious functionaries: Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405
A.D.) canentes atque resonantes et in tabernaculis commorantes. The
Targum has a similar explanation, except that the Sucathites are those
covered with a spirit of prophecy. Bertheau (Handbuch zum Altes
Testament) accepts Jeromes explanation, except that he regards the first
class as gate-keepers (Aramaic [[ r T ] , tera`] = Hebrew [r [ v ,
sha`ar]). Wellhausen (DGJ, 30 f) finds underlying the three names [t [ ;r ]T i ,
tir`ah], a technical term for sacred music-making, [h [ ;m]v i , shim`ah], the
Halacha or sacred tradition. Buhl (HWB13) derives Shimeathites and
Sucathites from unknown places. Keil interprets as descendants from the
unknown Shemei (compare Curtis, ICC). The passage is hopelessly
obscure.
Horace J . Wolf
SHIMEI
<shim-e-i> ([y[ im]v i, shim`i], possibly hear me (El) or (Jah); [2rrr,
Semeei], [2rr, Semei]): A name of frequent occurrence throughout the
Old Testament records, sometimes varying slightly in form in English
Versions of the Bible. The King James Version has Shimi in
<020617>
Exodus
6:17; Shimhi in
<130821>
1 Chronicles 8:21; Shimeah in
<102121>
2 Samuel 21:21.
the Revised Version (British and American) has Shimeites in
<381213>
Zechariah 12:13, where the King James Version has Shimei, and
<040321>
Numbers 3:21 for the King James Version Shimites. English Versions
of the Bible has Shema in
<130813>
1 Chronicles 8:13,21 margin for the
Shimei of 8:21. In all others of the many occurrences in the King James
880
Version and the Revised Version (British and American) the form is
Shimei.
(1) A family name among the Levites before and after the exile, at least
five of whom bore it:
(a) Son of Gershon and grandson of Levi (
<020617>
Exodus 6:17;
<040318>
Numbers 3:18;
<130617>
1 Chronicles 6:17; 23:7,10). The text of 1
Chronicles 6 and 23 is corrupt, making difficult the tracing of the
various genealogies and the identification of the several Shimeis.
Evidently that of 23:9 is a scribes error for one of the four sons of
Ladan or Libni, whose names are given in the preceding verse.
(b) An ancestor of Asaph the musician (
<130642>
1 Chronicles 6:42),
possibly the same as
(a) above, Jahath the son of South (compare
<132310>
1 Chronicles 23:10)
being by a copyists error transposed so as to read as if he were the
father of South
(c) A descendant of the Merarite branch of the Levites (
<130629>
1
Chronicles 6:29).
(d) One of the 288 trained singers in the service of the sanctuary under
Asaph (
<132517>
1 Chronicles 25:17).
(e) One of the Levites who helped to cleanse the Temple in Hezekiahs
reformation (
<142914>
2 Chronicles 29:14). He was a descendant of Heman
the musician. Hezekiah afterward appointed him with Conaniah to have
chief oversight of the oblations and the tithes and the dedicated
things which were brought into the chambers of Yahwehs house
prepared for them (
<143111>
2 Chronicles 31:11,12).
(f) A Levite who under Ezra put away his foreign wife (
<151023>
Ezra
10:23), Semeis in 1 Esdras 9:23.
(2) The best-known Bible character of this name is the Benjamite, of
the family of Saul (
<101605>
2 Samuel 16:5-12; 19:16-20;
<110208>
1 Kings
2:8,9,36-46), who met David at Bahurim as he was fleeing from
Absalom, and in bitter and cowardly fashion cursed and attacked the
hard-pressed king. Apparently Davids flight to the Jordan led through
881
a narrow ravine, on one side of which, or on the ridge above, stood
Shimei in safety as he cast stones at David and his men, cursing as he
threw (
<101605>
2 Samuel 16:5,6). His hatred of David who had displaced his
royal kinsman Saul had smouldered long in his mean heart; and now the
flame bursts out, as the aged and apparently helpless king flees before
his own son. Shimei seizes the long-coveted opportunity to pour out
the acid hate of his heart. But when Davids faithful companions would
cross the ravine to make quick work of Shimei, the noble king forbade
them with these remarkable words: Behold, my son, who came forth
from my bowels, seeketh my life: how much more may this Benjamite
now do it? let him alone, and let him curse; for Yahweh hath bidden
him. It may be that Yahweh .... will requite me good for his cursing
(
<101611>
2 Samuel 16:11,12). After Absaloms overthrow, as the king was
returning victorious and vindicated, Shimei met him at the Jordan with
most abject confession and with vows of allegiance (
<101916>
2 Samuel
19:16-23).
The king spared his life; but shortly before his death charged his son
Solomon to see that due punishment should come to Shimei for his sins:
Thou shalt bring his hoar head down to Sheol with blood (
<110209>
1 Kings
2:9). When he came to the throne Solomon summoned Shimei and bade
him build a house in Jerusalem, to which he should come and from which
he must not go out on pain of death (
<110236>
1 Kings 2:36-38). Feeling secure
after some years, Shimei left his home in Jerusalem to recapture some
escaped slaves (
<110239>
1 Kings 2:39-41), and in consequence he was promptly
dispatched by that gruesome avenger of blood, the royal executioner,
Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, who fell upon him, as he had upon
Adonijah and Joab, so that he died (
<110246>
1 Kings 2:46).
(3) Another Benjamite, mentioned with Rei as an officer in the kings
bodyguard, who was faithful to David in the rebellion of Adonijah
(
<110108>
1 Kings 1:8). Josephus reads Rei as a common noun, describing
Shimei as the friend of David. He is to be identified with the son of
Elah (
<110418>
1 Kings 4:18), whom Solomon, probably because of his
fidelity, named as one of the 12 chief commissary officers appointed
over all Israel, who provided victuals for the king and his household.
(4) A man of some prominence in the tribe of Benjamin (
<130821>
1
Chronicles 8:21), whose home was in Aijalon, where he was a head of
fathers houses (
<130813>
1 Chronicles 8:13); but his descendants lived in
882
Jerusalem (
<130828>
1 Chronicles 8:28). In the King James Version he is
called Shimhi; in
<130813>
1 Chronicles 8:13 he is called Shema.
(5) Another Benjamite, an ancestor of Mordecai (Est 2:5), Semeias
in Additions to Esther 11:2.
(6) A brother of David (
<102121>
2 Samuel 21:21, the King James Version
Shimeah); in
<091609>
1 Samuel 16:9 he is called Shammah; compare
Shimeah, Shimea.
(7) A man of Judah, called the Ramathite, who was over the
vineyards in Davids reign (
<132727>
1 Chronicles 27:27).
(8) A Simeonite living in the time of David (
<130426>
1 Chronicles 4:26,27),
whose chief claim to distinction was that he was father of 16 sons and 6
daughters. The descendants of such a numerous progeny, not being
able to maintain themselves in their ancestral home in Beer-sheba, in
the days of Hezekiah fell upon Gerar, and dispossessed the sons of
Ham (
<130439>
1 Chronicles 4:39, the Septuagint), and upon Mt. Seir,
driving out the Amalekites (
<130443>
1 Chronicles 4:43).
(9) A man of Reuben, son of Gog (
<130504>
1 Chronicles 5:4).
(10), (11) Two men of Israel, i.e. not priests or Levites, one of the
sons of Hashum (
<151033>
Ezra 10:33), the other of the sons of Bani
(
<151038>
Ezra 10:38), who put away their foreign wives at Ezras command,
in 1 Esdras called respectively Semei (9:33) and Someis (9:34).
(12) A brother of Zerubbabel (
<130319>
1 Chronicles 3:19).
The Shimeites were descendants of Shimei, grandson of Levi; compare (1)
(a) above (
<040321>
Numbers 3:21;
<381213>
Zechariah 12:13).
Edward Mack
SHIMEON
<shim-e-on> ([wOmyv i, shim`on]; elsewhere Simeon): One of the sons of
Harim who had married foreign wives (
<151031>
Ezra 10:31; Codex Vaticanus
and Codex Alexandrinus [2rrv, Semeon]; Lucian, [2urv, Sumeon]
= 1 Esdras 9:32, Simon Chosameus).
883
SHIMHI
<shim-hi>.
See SHIMEI
SHIMI, SHIMITES
<shim-i>, <shi-mi>, <shim-its>.
See SHIMEI.
SHIMMA
<shim-a>.
See SHAMMAH.
SHIMON
<shi-mon> ([wOmyv i, shimon]; Codex Vaticanus [2rv, Semion],
Codex Alexandrinus [2rrv, Semeion]; Lucian, [2o, Sami]): A name
in the Judahite genealogy (
<130420>
1 Chronicles 4:20).
SHIMRATH
<shim-rath> ([t r ;m]v i, shimrath]; [2oopo0, Samarath]): The last of
nine sons of Shimei of the tribe of Benjamin (
<130821>
1 Chronicles 8:21).
SHIMRI
<shim-ri> ([yr im]v i, shimri]; various forms in the Septuagint): There are
four Hebrews mentioned in the Bible who bear this name:
(1) A Simeonite, a son of Shemaiah and father of Jedaiah, a chief of his
tribe (
<130437>
1 Chronicles 4:37).
(2) The father of Jediael, a bodyguard of King David (
<131145>
1 Chronicles
11:45).
(3) A son of Hosah, a Levite. He was appointed by David to be
doorkeeper in the house of the Lord. He was made chief of the tribe,
although not the firstborn of his family (
<132610>
1 Chronicles 26:10).
884
(4) One of the sons of Elizaphan, a Levite. He assisted in purifying the
temple in the time of Hezekiah (
<142913>
2 Chronicles 29:13).
S. L. Umbach
SHIMRITH
<shim-rith> ([t yr im]v i, shimrith], guard, feminine): A Moabitess, the
mother of Jehozabad, one of those that conspired against King Joash (
<142426>
2
Chronicles 24:26). Elsewhere (
<121221>
2 Kings 12:21) Jehozabad is described as
the son of SHOMER (which see), the same name without the feminine
ending.
SHIMRON (1)
<shim-ron> ([wOr m]v i, shimron], watch): The 4th son of Issachar
(
<014613>
Genesis 46:13;
<042624>
Numbers 26:24;
<130701>
1 Chronicles 7:1), and ancestor
of the Shimronites (
<042624>
Numbers 26:24).
SHIMRON (2)
([wOr m;v i, shimron]; Codex Vaticanus [2uov, Sumoon]; Codex
Alexandrinus [2orpv, Someron] and other forms): A town whose king
was tributary to Jabin king of Hazor, and who joined in the attempt to
resist the invasion under Joshua (
<061101>
Joshua 11:1). It was in the territory
allotted to Zebulun (
<061915>
Joshua 19:15). No sure identification is yet
possible. The Septuagint and the Talmud both omit the r from the name;
and Neubauer would identify it with Simonias (Vita, 24), the Simonia of
the Talmud, which is now represented by Semuniyeh, a village about 5
miles West of Nazareth, on the edge of the plain (Geog. du Talm). Beit
Lachm, named by Josephus along with it, is a short distance to the
Northwest Es-Semeiriyeh, about 3 miles North of Acre, has also been
suggested; but it is perhaps too far to the West.
W. Ewing
SHIMRON-MERON
<shim-ron-me-ron> ([wOr m]v i wOa r m], shimron meron]; [2uov,
Sumoon] .... [Mop0, Mamroth], Codex Alexandrinus [2opv,
Samron] .... [4ooyo, Phasga] .... [Mopv, Maron]): A royal city of the
Canaanites, the king of which was slain by Joshua (12:20). Here the name
885
is followed by that of Achshaph, which also follows the name of Shimron
in 11:1. This suggests that the two are in reality one, and that Shimron-
meron may only be the full name. A royal Canaanite city, Sam-simuruna, is
mentioned in the inscriptions of Sen-nacherib, Esar-haddon and Assur-
bani-pal, which Schrader (KAT2, 163) would identify with this, and thinks
it may now be represented by es-Semeiri-yeh.
See SHIMRON.
W. Ewing
SHIMSHAI
<shim-shi>, <shim-sha-i> ([yv m] v i , shimshay]; Codex Vaticanus
[2oooo, Samasa], [2oor, Samae], [2oro, Sameais] [2oroo,
Samesa]; Codex Alexandrinus [2ooo, Samsai]; Lucian, [2ooo,
Samaias], throughout; in 1 Esdras 2:17 he is called Semellius, the
Revised Version (British and American) Samellius; a number of
explanations of this name have been offered, but no one has been generally
favored. One conjecture traces it to an Old Iranian caritative [ymv v ]
conformed to [v mv , shamash]; another prefers the Old Bactrian simezhi =
simaezhi; compare BDB, under the word The name looks as though it were
derived from [v m,v ,, shemesh], the sun): A state secretary who, with
REHUM (which see) and others, wrote to Artaxerxes to persuade him to
prohibit the rebuilding of the temple (
<150408>
Ezra 4:8,9,17,23).
Horace J . Wolf
SHIN, SIN
<shen>, <sen> v , c : The 21st letter of the Hebrew alphabet; transliterated
in this Encyclopedia as sh and s. It came also to be used for the
number 300. For name, etc., see ALPHABET.
SHINAB
<shi-nab> [b a ;n]v i, shinabh]; Samaritan: [r a ;n]v i, shinar]; [2rvvoop,
Sennaar]): King of ADMAH (which see). He is mentioned with Shemeber,
king of Zeboiim; he was attacked by Chedorlaomer and his allies
(
<011402>
Genesis 14:2). The reading is very uncertain. If the incident narrated is
founded on fact, Shinab may be identical with Sanibu, an Ammonite king in
886
the time of Tiglath-pileser III (so French Delitzsch, Wo lag das Paradies?
294); or the name may be equated by the Assyrian Sin-sar-ucur (compare
Shenazzar), and Shem-eber with the Assyrian Sumu-abi (Sayce, The
Expository Times, VIII, 463). Jewish exegesis gives a sinister explanation
of all four names (
<011402>
Genesis 14:2). The Midrash (Ber. Rab. 42) explains
Shinab as [wOMm; b a ewOv , sho-ebh mammon], one who draws money
(wherever he can). It is of interest to note that the names fall into two
alliterative pairs and that each kings name contains exactly as many letters
as that of his city. On the whole, however, the list leaves an impression of
artificiality; as the names are not repeated in
<011408>
Genesis 14:8, it is highly
probable that they are later additions to the text.
Horace J . Wolf
SHINAR
<shi-nar> ([r [ n]v i, shin`ar]; [2rvoop, Senaar] [2rv(v)oop, Sen(n)aar]):
1. IDENTIFICATION:
The name given, in the earliest Hebrew records, to Babylonia, later called
Babel, or the land of Babel (babhel, erets babhel). In
<011010>
Genesis 10:10 it
is the district wherein lay Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, cities which
were the beginning of Nimrods kingdom. In 11:2 Shinar is described as
the land of the plain where migrants from the East settled, and founded
Babel, the city, and its great tower.
2. POSSIBLE BABYLONIAN FORM OF THE NAME:
Though sometimes identified with the Babylonian Sumer, the connection of
Shinar with that name is doubtful. The principal difficulty lies in the fact
that what might be regarded as the non-dialectical form singar (which
would alone furnish a satisfactory basis of comparison) is not found, and
would, if existent, only apply to the southern portion of Babylonia. The
northern tract was called Akkad, after the name of its capital city (see
ACCAD). The Greek form Sen(n)aar shows that, at the time the
Septuagint translation was made, there was no tradition that the `ayin was
guttural, as the supposed Babylonian forms would lead us to expect. As the
Biblical form Shinar indicates the whole of Babylonia, it corresponds with
the native (Sumerian) Kingi-Ura, rendered Sumer and Akkad, from
887
which, by changing K into Sh (found in Sumerian), Shinar may have
been derived, but this explanation is not free from difficulties.
3. SUMERIAN AND OTHER EQUIVALENTS:
This two-fold designation, Kingi-Ura, is that which is commonly used in
the inscriptions of the earlier kings, though it cannot then have indicated
always the whole country, but only such parts of it as acknowledged their
overlordship. Later on the corresponding term seems to have been Kar-
Dunias (the territory of the god Dunias, to all appearance a term
introduced by the Kassite rulers). Nabonassar and his successors seem to
have contented themselves with the title king of Babylon, rule in the city
implying also the dominion over the whole country. Often, however, the
equivalent term for Babylonia is Ehi, probably an abbreviation of Eridu,
and here standing for the land belonging to that sacred city the good
city, a type of Paradise, Babylonia being, in fact, situated upon the edinu,
or plain.
See EDEN.
4. THE SYRIAC SENAR:
All these comparisons tend to show that the Babylonian equivalent of
Shinar is not any of the above, and as yet has not, in fact, been found. This
is also implied by the fact, that Senar was used in Syriac for the country
around Bagdad, and in ancient times included (it may be supposed) the
plain upon which the ruins of Babylon stand. Senar was therefore in all
probability an ancient Babylonian designation of the tract, now lost, but
regarded by the Hebrews as synonymous with Babylonia.
5. THE PRIMITIVE TONGUE OF SHINAR:
From the inscriptions it would seem that the primitive language of Shinar
was not Semitic, but the agglutinative idiom now named Sumerian a
tongue long regarded as Turanian, and having, it is thought, Turko-Chinese
affinities gal, to be, Turkish ol-mak; ama (ana), mother, Turkish
ana; abba, old man, Turkish baba, father; (h)e, house, Turkish ev,
etc. The Chinese affinities seem less close, but the following may be
quoted: a(y)a father, Chinese ye (Amoy ia); ge, night, Chinese ye; gu,
to speak, Chinese yu; shu, hand, Chinese sheu; kin, business,
Chinese kung, work; etc. Chinese and Turkish, however, have had time
888
to pass through many changes since Sumerian was current in Shinar. Many
words of the Sumerian language were borrowed by the Semitic
Babylonians, and a few (like hekal, temple, Semitic (h)egal, great
house) entered the other Semitic languages.
6. COMPARISON WITH THE SEMITIC IDIOM:
Halevys contention, that Sumerian is simply an allography for the
expression of Sera Babylonian, seems to be untenable, as they differ not
only in words, but also in grammar; moreover, Sumerian had a dialect,
called by the natives womans tongue. For the rest, the principal
differences between Sumerian and Semitic Babylonian are:
(1) post-positional suffixes instead of prepositions;
(2) verbs with long strings of prefixes and infixes to express the
persons and regimens, instead of a prefix and a suffix;
(3) compound words, both nouns and verbs, are common instead of
being exceedingly rare. Sumerian seems to have borrowed several
words from Semitic Babylonian.
7. THE TESTIMONY OF THE SCULPTURES,
ETC. TO THE RACE:
Not only the language, but also the sculptures which they have left, point
to the probability that the earlier inhabitants of Shinar belonged to a
different race from the later. The Semites of Babylonia were to all
appearance thick-set and muscular, but the Sumerians, notwithstanding the
stumpy figures which their statues and bas-reliefs show, seem to have been
slim in any case, their warriors, in the better basreliefs, as well as the
figures of the god Nin-Girsu (formerly known as the god with the
firestick), and the engraved cylinders, have this type. Moreover, the
sculptures and cylinder-seals show that certain classes priests or the like
were clean shaven, in marked contrast to Semitic usage elsewhere.
Their deities, however, always had hair and beard, implying that they came
from a different, though possibly related, stock. These deities were very
numerous, and it is noteworthy that, though those with Sumerian names
may be counted by hundreds, those with Semitic names are only to be
reckoned by tens.
889
8. THE SUMERIANS PROBABLY IN SHINAR
BEFORE THE SEMITES:
Though there is no certain indication which race entered Shinar first, it is
to be noted that Nimrod, presumably Shinars first king and the founder of
its great cities, was a son of Cush (
<011008>
Genesis 10:8), and the name of
Shinar seems to have existed before the foundation of Babel (Babylon) and
its tower (
<011102>
Genesis 11:2). In the native sculptures, moreover, the non-
Semitic type precedes the Semitic; and in the inscriptions the non-Semitic
idiom precedes that of the Semitic tranlation. Everything points, therefore,
to the Sumerians having been in Babylonia before the Semitic inhabitants.
9. THE STATES OF SHINAR:
At the earliest period to which our records refer the Sumerians of Shinar
were divided into a number of small states, of which the following may be
regarded as the principal:
(1) Sippar:
Sippar or Sippar-Aruru (-Yaruru), possibly including Accad (
<011010>
Genesis
10:10), some distance Southwest of Bagdad. It is the modern Abu-
habbah, father of grain. Though it seems to have fallen early under the
dominion of the Semites, it was at first Sumerian, as its native name,
Zimbir, and the ideographic writing thereof show. According to Berosus,
who calls it Pantabiblion, one of its earliest kings was Amelon or
Amillarus, who reigned 13 sari, or 46,800 years. Later on came
Evedoreschus, the native Enwe-duran-ki, renowned as a priest favored by
the gods. His descendants, if of pure race, inherited the divine grace which
he enjoyed. It is said to have been in Sippara (Sippar) that Ut-napistim, the
Babylonian Noah, buried the records before entering the ark.
(2) Kes:
About 18 miles North of Babylon lay Kes, now Oheimer a foundation
which seems to have preceded Babylon as the capital of Shinar. Its early
queen, Azag-Bau, is said to have been the wife of a wine-merchant and to
have reigned 100 years.
890
(3) Babylon:
Babylon, for which see BABEL; BABYLON. As one of its early kings,
Berosus mentions Alorus, the shepherd of the people, as having reigned
for 10 sari, or 36,000 years. The state of Babylon probably included
Cuthah. (Tel Ibrahim), which once had kings of its own, and possessed a
special legend of the Creation. Belonging to Babylon, also, was the
renowned city Borsippa, now Birs, or the Birs Nimroud, the traditional site
of the Tower of Babel.
See BABEL, TOWER OF.
(4) Nippur:
Some distance Southeast of Babylon lay Nippur or Niffur, now Niffer
(Noufar), identified by the rabbis with the Calneh of
<011010>
Genesis 10:10. It
was a place of considerable importance, and the seat of the worship of Enlil
and Ninlil, later, also, of their son Ninip and his spouse (see CALNEH).
The American excavations on this site have thrown a flood of light upon
almost every branch of Assyriological research.
(5) Adab:
Adab, now called Bismaya, the city of Mah, the goddess of reproduction.
One of the earliest rulers of Adab was seemingly called Lugal-dalu, of
whom a fine statue, discovered by the American explorers, exists. It was
apparently renowned as a necropolis.
(6) Surippak:
South and a little West of Adab was Surippak, now Fara. This was the
birthplace of the Babylonian Noah, Ut-napistim, son of Opartes (Umbara-
Tutu), a Chaldean of Larancha. The coming of the Flood was revealed to
Ut-napistim here.
(7) Umma:
Practically East of Fara lay Umma or Gisuh (or Giuh), now Jokha. This
city was apparently of considerable importance, and the traditional rival of
Lagas.
891
(8) Erech:
South of Fara lay Unuga, Semitic Uruk, the Biblical ERECH (which see),
now Warka. Its most celebrated king, after Gilgames, was Lugal-zaggi-si,
one of the opponents of the rulers of Lagas.
(9) Lagas:
Some distance East of Warka was the territory of Lagas, now Tel-loh a
little state, rather in accessible, but of considerable importance to the
antiquarian, which is a testimonial to the advance in civilization which it
had made. Its kings and viceroys were among the most renowned, though
apparently unknown outside their own domains. The most celebrated were
the reformer Uru-ka-gina and viceroy Gudea, to whom many erections in
the city were due. (See Gudeas remarkable statue in the Louvre.)
(10) Larsa:
Somewhat to the Southeast of Warka lay Larsa, the Ellasar of
<011401>
Genesis 14:1 (which see). This center of learning maintained its
independence even after the other states had been absorbed by Hammurabi
and his dynasty into the Babylonian empire.
(11) Ur:
To the Southeast of Warka and Senqara lies the site of the ancient UR OF
THE CHALDEES (which see) now Mugheir. It was renowned for its
temple to the moon, and for the kings known as the dynasty of Ur: Sur-
Engur, Dungi, Bur-Sin, Gimil-Sin, and Ibi-Sin.
(12) Eridu:
South of the Ur lay Eridu, or, in full, Guruduga, the good city, wherein,
apparently, lay the earthly Paradise. This is identified with the present
`Abu-shahrein, and was the seat of Ea or Enki, god of the sea and of
fertilizing streams. According to the tradition, it was there that the dark
vine grew a type, seemingly, of the tree of life. The later kings of
Babylon sometimes bear the title king of Eridu, as though rulers of the
domain of Paradise.
(13) The Land of the Sea:
The Land of the Sea (that bordering on the Persian Gulf), in which,
seemingly, the Chaldeans afterward settled, seems to have played an
892
important part in the early history of Shinar. Berosus speaks of its king
Ammenon, who reigned 12 sari, or 43,200 years, and in whose time the
Musarus Oannes, or Annedotus, arose out of the Persian Gulf. Like others
referred to in the legends which Berosus refers to, he was half-man and
half-fish. It is thought that these incidents, though evidently mythical, point
to the introduction of civilization into Babylonia, from this point.
See also JONAH; JONAH, THE BOOK OF.
(14) Nisin, Isin, or Karrak:
Nisin, Isin, or Karrak, seat of the worship of Nin-Karraga, was also an
important state governed by its own kings.
(15) Upe or Upia (Opis):
Upe or Upia, the Greek Opis, apparently obtained renown at a very early
date, its kings being given in the great chronological list before those of
Kis.
(16) Other Well-known Cities:
Other well-known cities, possibly state-capitals, were Larak, Greek
Laranche; Amarda, one of the centers of the worship of Nergal; Asnunna,
a province East of the present Bagdad; Dilmu, now Dailem; Nuru, Ennigi,
and Kakra, seemingly centers of the worship of Hadad; Tilmun, at the head
of the Persian Gulf, and including the island of Bahrein; the province of
Sabu; Seseb or Bagdadu, possibly the modern Bagdad; and several others.
10. SHINAR AND ITS CLIMATE:
Whether the country was in the same seemingly uncared-for state in
ancient times as at present is unknown; but one cannot help admiring the
courage of the original immigrants into such a district, for example, as that
of Lagas. This, which belongs to the southern region, is very inaccessible
on account of the watercourses and marshes. Like the whole of Shinar in
general, it is more or less dried up in summer, and unhealthy for
Europeans. The alterations in the waterways, owing to changes in the
irrigation-channels, must then, as now, have hindered communication.
Sharp cold, with frost, succeeds the heat of summer, and from time to time
sand-storms sweep across the plain. Notwithstanding the destruction
sometimes wrought, the floods were always welcomed in consequence of
893
the fruitfulness which followed, and which was such as to make Babylonia
one of the most fertile tracts known.
11. SCULPTURE IN SHINAR:
The reference to the Sumerian sculptures in
(7) above will have shown that the inhabitants of the Plain of Shinar
possessed an art of no mean order and of some antiquity, even at the
time when it first presents itself to our notice. It is true that many
specimens are crude and uncouth, but this is probably due to the
sculptors having been, often enough, the slaves of their material. Their
stones were frequently more or less pebble-shaped, and they had
neither the skill nor the tools to reduce them to better proportions
moreover, reduction of bulk would have meant a diminution of their
importance. The broad, squat figures which they produced, however,
gave them bad models for their bas-reliefs, and it was long ere this
defect was removed, notwithstanding the superior work produced by
their seal-engravers during and after the 4th millennium BC.
12. THE FIRST NATION TO USE WRITING IN WESTERN ASIA:
But in all probability special renown will always be attached to the non-
Semitic inhabitants of Shinar as the inventors, or at least the earliest users
known to us, of the cuneiform script. It may be objected that the system
which they introduced was cumbersome and imperfect, but they knew of
nothing simpler, and modern Chinese, with which their script has been
compared, is far less practical. Briefly, the system may be described as
syllabic for the prefixes and suffixes, and ideographic for the roots. To
show this the following transcribed example will probably suffice:
13. THE SYSTEM EMPLOYED, WITH AN EXAMPLE:
E nu-DU URU nu-DIM, A house was not built, a city was not constructed;
URU nu-DIM ADAM nu-mun-GAR, A city was not constructed, a
community he had not founded;
ABZU nu-DU GURUDUGA nu-DIM, The abyss was not built, Eridu was
not constructed;
894
E AZAGA DINGIRene KI-DURA-bi nu-DIM, The holy house of the
gods, its seat was not constructed;
Su-NIGIN KURKURAgi AABBAama, The whole of the lands was sea.
The nominal and verbal roots of the above extract from the bilingual
account of the Creation are in capitals, and the pronominal prefixes and
suffixes, with a couple of lengthenings which determine the pronunciations
of the nouns, in small letters. This will not only give an idea of the poetical
form of the Sumerian legend of the Creation by Merodach and Aruru, but
also show how short and concise, as a language, was the speech of Shinar,
before Semitic supremacy.
T. G. Pinches
SHINE
<shin>: The Hebrew words ahal, or, halal, zahar, zarach, yapha`,
naghah, `ashath and qaran are all translated shine. All indicate either the
direct or indirect diffusion of beams of light. In a direct and literal sense the
word shine is used of the heavenly bodies, or of candles, and fire (
<181805>
Job
18:5; 25:5 the King James Version;
<182903>
Job 29:3; 31:26;
<120301>
2 Kings 3:22).
In a figurative sense it is used of reflected light or brightness, in any sense
(
<023429>
Exodus 34:29 f,35;
<236001>
Isaiah 60:1;
<264302>
Ezekiel 43:2;
<271203>
Daniel 12:3).
God as the sun of righteousness is thus depicted in
<195002>
Psalm 50:2. The
New Testament words astrapto, augazo, lampo and phaino are translated
shine. Thus literally it is said of the lightning that it shines (
<402427>
Matthew
24:27 the King James Version;
<421724>
Luke 17:24); the word is tropically
applied to the life of faith or to men prominent in the kingdom of God
(
<400516>
Matthew 5:16;
<430535>
John 5:35;
<470406>
2 Corinthians 4:6;
<504415>
Philippians
2:15;
<610119>
2 Peter 1:19); to the glory of God (
<420209>
Luke 2:9); to angelic
appearances (
<422404>
Luke 24:4;
<441207>
Acts 12:7), or to Christ as He appeared to
John on Patmos (
<660116>
Revelation 1:16).
Henry E. Dosker
SHION
<shi-on> ([wOa yv i, shion]; Codex Vaticanus [2vo, Siona], Codex
Alexandrinus [2rov, Seian]): A town in the territory of Issachar, named
with Shunem, Hapharaim and Anaharath (
<061919>
Joshua 19:19). It is possibly
895
identical with Khirbet Shain, near `Ain esh-Shain, circa 4 miles Northwest
of Mt. Tabor.
SHIPHI
<shifi> ([y[ ip ]v i, shiph`i]; Codex Vaticanus [2oo, Saphal], Codex
Alexandrinus [2rrv, Sephein], Lucian, [2r, Sophei]): A Simeonite
prince (
<130437>
1 Chronicles 4:37 (36)).
SHIPHMITE
<shif-mit>.
See SHEPHAM; SIPHMOTH.
SHIPHRAH
<shif-ra> ([h r ;p ]v i , shiphrah], fairness, beauty;. Septuagint
[2rpo, Sepphora], the rendering also of [h r ;P x i, tsipporah], in
<020221>
Exodus 2:21): The name of one of the Hebrew midwives (
<020115>
Exodus
1:15).
See also ZIPPORAH.
SHIPHTAN
<shif-tan> ([f ;p ]v i, shiphTan]; Codex Vaticanus [2opo0o, Sabatha];
Codex Alexandrinus [2opo0ov, Sabathan], F, [2ootov, Saphatan],
Lucian, ([(2)ro0o, (S)ephatha]): An Ephraimite prince (
<043424>
Numbers
34:24).
SHIPMASTER
<ship-mas-ter>.
See SHIPS AND BOATS; PHOENIX.
SHIPMEN
<ship-men>.
See SHIPS AND BOATS, II, 2, (3); III, 2.
896
SHIPS AND BOATS
In the Old Testament the following words are found:
(1) The word most commonly used in Hebrew for a ship is [h Y;nia ;],
oniyah] (
<203019>
Proverbs 30:19; Jon 1:3,4), of which the plural oniyoth is
found most frequently (
<070517>
Judges 5:17;
<112248>
1 Kings 22:48 f, and many
other places).
The collective term for a navy of ships is [ynia ;], oni] (
<110926>
1 Kings 9:26 f;
10:22, oni Tharshish, a navy (of ships) of Tarshish; but
<233321>
Isaiah 33:21,
oni shayit, a galley with oars).
(2) [yx i, tsi] (
<042424>
Numbers 24:24;
<263009>
Ezekiel 30:9;
<233321>
Isaiah 33:21), tsi
addir, gallant ship;
<271130>
Daniel 11:30, tsiyim Kittim, ships of Kittim.
(3) [h n;yp is ], cephinah], innermost parts of the ship the Revised
Version (British and American), sides of the ship the King James
Version (Jon 1:5, the only place where the word is found).
In Apocrypha [oov, ploion], is the usual word (The Wisdom of
Solomon 14:1; Ecclesiasticus 33:2, etc.), translated vessel in The
Wisdom of Solomon 14:1, but ship elsewhere. For ship The Wisdom
of Solomon 5:10 has [vou, naus]. Boat in 2 Macc 12:3,6 is for
[oxoo, skaphos], and navy in 1 Macc 1:17; 2 Macc 12:9; 14:1 for
[otoo, stolos]. In The Wisdom of Solomon 14:6 Noahs ark is called a
[oro, schedia], a clumsy ship (the literal translation raft in the
Revised Version (British and American) is impossible).
In the New Testament there are four words in use:
(1) [vou, naus] (
<442741>
Acts 27:41, the only place where it occurs,
designating the large sea-going vessel in which Paul suffered
shipwreck).
(2) [oopov, ploiarion], a little boat (
<410309>
Mark 3:9 and two other
places,
<430622>
John 6:22 ff; 21:8).
(3) [oov, ploion], boat (
<400421>
Matthew 4:21,22 and many other
places in the Gospels the ordinary fishingboat of the Sea of Galilee
rendered boat uniformly in the Revised Version (British and
American) instead of ship the King James Version), ship (
<442013>
Acts
897
20:13, and all other places where the ship carrying Paul is mentioned,
except 27:41, as above). In
<590304>
James 3:4;
<660809>
Revelation 8:9; 18:17 ff,
it is rendered ship.
(4) [oxoq, skaphe], boat (
<442716>
Acts 27:16,30,32, where it means the
small boat of the ship in which Paul was being conveyed as a prisoner
to Rome).
Cognate expressions are: shipmen, [t wOYnia ;]yv en]a , anshe oniyoth]
(
<110927>
1 Kings 9:27); [vouto, nautai] (
<442727>
Acts 27:27,30 the King James
Version, sailors the Revised Version (British and American));
mariners, [ yj i L ; m , mallachim] (Jon 1:15;
<262709>
Ezekiel 27:9,27,29),
[ yf iv ;, shaTim] (
<262708>
Ezekiel 27:8 the King James Version, rowers the
Revised Version (British and American);
<262726>
Ezekiel 27:26, the King James
Version and the Revised Version (British and American)); pilot, [l b ej o,
chobhel] (Jon 1:6;
<262708>
Ezekiel 27:8,27,28,29); sailing, voyage, [ou,
plous] (
<442107>
Acts 21:7; 27:9,10, the Revised Version (British and American)
voyage in all verses).
I. THE HEBREWS AND THE SEA.
The Hebrews were a pastoral and agricultural people, and had no
inducements to follow a seafaring life. They were possessed of a
considerable seaboard along the Mediterranean, but the character of their
coast gave little encouragement to navigation. The coast line of the land of
Israel from Carmel southward had no bays and no estuaries or river-
mouths to offer shelter from storm or to be havens of ships. Solomon
landed his timber and other materials for the Temple at Joppa, and tradition
has handed down what is called Solomons Harbor there. The builders of
the second temple also got timber from Lebanon and conveyed it to Joppa.
It was Simon Maccabeus, however, who built its harbor, and the harbor at
Joppa was the first and only harbor of the Jews (G. A. Smith, HGHL,
136). Caesarea in New Testament times was a place of shipping and
possessed a harbor which Josephus declared to be greater than the Piraeus,
but it was Herodian and more Greek and Roman than Jewish. It was
mostly inhabited by Greeks (Josephus, BJ, III, ix, 1). Now Caesarea has
disappeared; and Joppa has only an open roadstead where vessels lie
without shelter, and receive and discharge cargo and passengers by means
of boats plying between them and the shore. It was in other directions that
898
Israel made acquaintance with the activities of the sea. Of internal
navigation, beyond the fishing-boats on the Sea of Galilee which belong
exclusively to the New Testament, the ferry boat on the Jordan (
<101918>
2
Samuel 19:18, [h r ;b ;[ }, `abharah]) alone receives notice, and even that is
not perfectly clear (the Revised Version margin convoy, but a ford is
doubtless meant). It is from Tyre and Egypt and even Assyria and
Babylonia, rather than from their own waters, that the Hebrew prophets
and psalmists drew their pictures of seafaring life.
II. SHIPS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND APOCRYPHA.
1. Among the Hebrews:
(1) In Early Times.
In the early books of the Old Testament there are references connecting
certain of the tribes, and these northern tribes, with the activities of the sea.
In the Blessing of Jacob and in the Blessing of Moses Zebulun and
Issachar are so connected (
<014913>
Genesis 49:13;
<053319>
Deuteronomy 33:19); and
in Deborahs Song, which is acknowledged to be a very early fragment of
Hebrew literature, Daniel and Asher are also spoken of as connected with
the life and work of the sea (
<070517>
Judges 5:17). The Oracle of Balaam
(
<042424>
Numbers 24:24) looks forward to a day when a fleet from Kittim
should take the sea for the destruction of Assyria. Ships of Kittim are
mentioned in Daniel (11:30). Kittim is referred to in the three greater
Prophets (
<232301>
Isaiah 23:1,12;
<240210>
Jeremiah 2:10;
<262706>
Ezekiel 27:6). The land
of Kittim is Cyprus, and in the references in Isaiah it is associated with
Tyre and the ships of Tarshish.
(2) During the Monarchy.
It is not till the time of the monarchy that the Hebrews begin to figure as a
commercial people. Already in the time of David commercial relations had
been established between Israel and Tyre (
<100511>
2 Samuel 5:11 f). The
friendly cooperation was continued by Solomon, who availed himself not
only of the cedar and the fir at Hirams command on Lebanon, but also of
the skilled service of Hirams men to bring the timber from the mountains
to the sea. Hiram also undertook to make the cedar and the fir into rafts
(
<110509>
1 Kings 5:9, [t wOr b ]D o, dobheroth], the King James Version floats;
<140216>
2 Chronicles 2:16, [t wO d s o p ] r , raphcodhoth], flotes the King James
899
Version, floats the Revised Version (British and American)) to go by sea
and to deliver them to Solomons men at the place appointed, which the
Chronicler tells us was Joppa. From this cooperation in the building of the
Temple there grew up a larger connection in the pursuit of sea-borne
commerce. It was at Ezion-geber near to Eloth on the Red Sea, in the land
of Edom which David had conquered, that Solomon built his fleet, a navy
of ships (
<110926>
1 Kings 9:26-28). Hiram joined Solomon in these enterprises
which had their center on the Red Sea, and thus the Phoenicians had water
communication with the coasts of Arabia and Africa, and even of India.
The same partnership existed for the commerce of the West. For the king
(Solomon) had at sea a navy of Tarshish with the navy of Hiram: once
every three years came the navy of Tarshish, bringing gold, and silver,
ivory, and apes, and peacocks (
<111022>
1 Kings 10:22).
Tarshish is the name of the Phoenician colony on the river Tartessus, called
also Baetis, the modern Guadalquivir. It was the farthest limit of the
western world as known to the Hebrews. Attempts have been made to
identify it with Tarsus of Cilicia, but they are not convincing. It is
conceived of in Hebrew literature as remote (
<236619>
Isaiah 66:19; Jon 1:3;
4:2), as rich (
<197210>
Psalm 72:10;
<241009>
Jeremiah 10:9), as powerful in commerce
(
<263813>
Ezekiel 38:13). Ships of Tarshish were no doubt ships actually built for
the Tarshish trade (
<142036>
2 Chronicles 20:36 f; Jon 1:3), but the expression
became a general designation for large sea-going vessels to any quarter.
Ships of Tarshish made a deep impression upon the imagination of the
Hebrew people. The Psalmist takes it as a proof of the power of Yahweh
that He breaks the ships of Tarshish with an east wind (
<194807>
Psalm 48:7).
Isaiah includes them among the great and lofty objects of power and glory
which the terror of the Lord would certainly overtake (
<230216>
Isaiah 2:16).
Ezekiel regards them as the caravans that bore the merchandise of the
mistress of the sea (
<262725>
Ezekiel 27:25). It is in ships of Tarshish that the
prophet of the Return sees the exiles borne in crowds to Jerusalem as their
natural home (
<236009>
Isaiah 60:9).
From Solomons time onward the kings of Judah retained their hold upon
Eloth (
<112248>
1 Kings 22:48 f;
<142035>
2 Chronicles 20:35-37) till it was seized by
the Syrians in the days of Ahaz (
<121606>
2 Kings 16:6).
900
(3) In Later Times.
As Solomon had the cooperation of Hiram in securing material and
craftsmen for the building of the first Temple, so Joshua and Zerubbabel by
the favor of Cyrus obtained timber from Lebanon, and masons and
carpenters from Sidon and Tyre for the building of the second. Again,
cedar trees were brought from Lebanon by sea to Joppa, and thence
conveyed to Jerusalem (
<150307>
Ezra 3:7).
From Joppa Jonah fled to avoid compliance with Gods command to go to
Nineveh and preach repentance there (Jon 1:1 ff). He found a ship bound
for Tarshish as far toward the West as Nineveh to the East. The fare
(cakhar) paid by him as a passenger, the hold of the ship in which he
stowed himself away (cephinah), the crew (mallachim) the captain or
shipmaster (rabh ha-chobhel), the storm, the angry sea, the terrified
mariners and their cry to their gods, and the casting of Jonah overboard to
appease the raging waters all make a lifelike picture.
It was in the time of Simon, the last survivor of the Maccabean brothers,
that Joppa became a seaport with a harbor for shipping Amid all his
glory he took Joppa for a haven, and made it an entrance for the isles of
the sea (1 Macc 14:5). When Simon reared his monument over the
sepulcher of his father and brothers at Modin, he set up seven pyramids
with pillars, upon which were carved figures of ships to be seen of all that
sail on the sea (1 Macc 13:29). About this period we hear of ships in naval
warfare. When Antiochus IV Epiphanes planned his expedition against
Egypt, he had with other armaments a great navy, presumably ships of
war (1 Macc 1:17); and at a later time Antiochus VII speaks expressly of
ships of war (1 Macc 15:3).
2. Among Neighboring Nations:
(1) Egypt.
The Egyptians, like other nations of antiquity, had a great horror of the
open sea, although they were expert enough in managing their craft upon
the Nile. Pharaoh-necoh built up a powerful navy to serve him both in
commerce and in war.
See PHARAOH-NECOH.
901
Of explicit references to Egyptian ships in the Old Testament there are but
few. Isaiah speaks of vessels of papyrus upon the waters of the Upper
Nile, on board of which are the messengers of Cush or Ethiopia returning
to tell the tidings of the overthrow of Assyria to the inhabitants of those
remote lands (18:2 the King James Version has bulrushes instead of
papyrus). Ezekiel also, foretelling the overthrow of Egypt, speaks of
messengers traveling with the news on swift Nile boats to strike terror into
the hearts of the careless Ethiopians (30:9). When Job compares his days
to the swift ships (the ships of reed the Revised Version margin), the
allusion is most likely to Egypts, these being skiffs with a wooden keel and
the rest of bulrushes, sufficient to carry one person, or at most two, and
light, to travel swiftly (9:26).
(2) Assyria and Babylonia.
The Assyrians and Babylonians were mainly an inland people, but their
rivers gave them considerable scope for navigation. The Assyrian
monuments contain representations of naval engagements and of
operations on the seacoast. When Isaiah pictures Yahweh as a better
defense of Judah than the rivers and streams of Assyria and Egypt are to
their people he says, There Yahweh will be with us in majesty, a place of
broad rivers and streams, wherein shall go no galley with oars (oni
shayiT), neither shall gallant ship (tsi addir) pass thereby. .... Thy
tacklings (ropes, cables) are loosed; they could not strengthen the foot of
their mast, they could not spread the sail (
<233321>
Isaiah 33:21,23). Speaking
of Yahwehs wonders to be performed toward His people after Babylon
had been overthrown, the prophet declares: Thus saith Yahweh, your
Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: For your sake I have sent to Babylon,
and I will bring down all of them as fugitives, even the Chaldeans, in the
ships of their rejoicing (
<234314>
Isaiah 43:14). In this case, however, the ships
are not war ships, but more probably merchant ships, or ships for pleasure,
sailing in the Euphrates.
(3) Phoenicia.
It was from the Phoenicians that the Mediterranean peoples learned
seamanship and skill in navigation. It is fitting, therefore, that in his dirge
over the downfall of the mistress of the sea, Ezekiel should represent Tyre
as a gallant ship, well built, well furnished, and well manned, broken by the
seas in the depths of the waters, fallen into the heart of the seas in the day
902
of her ruin. Ezekiels description (chapter 27, with Davidsons notes)
brings together more of the features of the ship of antiquity than any other
that has come down to us. Her builders have made her perfect in beauty
with planks of fir or cypress, mast of cedar, oars of the oak of Bashan,
benches or deck of ivory inlaid with boxwood, sail of fine linen with
broidered work from Egypt, and an awning of blue and purple from the
coastlands of Elisha (possibly Sicily). She is manned with oarsmen of Sidon
and Arvad, pilots of the wise men of Tyre, calkers from Gebal to stop up
the cracks and seams in her timbers, mariners and men of war from other
lands who enhanced her beauty by hanging up the shield and helmet within
her. She is freighted with the most varied cargo, the produce of the lands
around, her customers, or as they are called, her traffickers, being Tarshish
in the far West, Sheba and Arabia in the South, Haran and Asshur in the
East, Javan, which is Greece, and Togarmah, which is Armenia, in the
North.
One or two of the particulars of this description may be commented upon.
(a) As regards rigging, the Phoenician ships of the time of Ezekiel, as
seen in Assyrian representations, had one mast with one yard and
carried a square sail. Egyptian ships on the Red Sea about the time of
the Exodus, from reliefs of the XIXth Dynasty, had one mast and two
yards, and carried also one large square sail. The masts and yards were
made of fir, or of pine, and the sails of linen, but the fiber of papyrus
was employed as well as flax in the manufacture of sail-cloth. The sail
had also to serve for an ensign (lenes,
<262707>
Ezekiel 27:7). The flag
proper, says Davidson (ad loc.), seems not to have been used in
ancient navigation; its purpose was served by the sail, as for example at
the battle of Actium the ship of Antony was distinguished by its purple
sail.
(b) As regards the crew, in the two-banked Phoenician ship the rowers
of the first bank work their oars over the gunwale, and those of the
second through portholes lower down, so that each may have free play
for his oar. The calkers were those who filled up seams or cracks in the
timbers with tow and covered them over with tar or wax, after the
manner of the instruction given to Noah regarding the Ark: Thou ....
shalt pitch it within and without with pitch (
<010614>
Genesis 6:14).
903
(c) As regards cargo, it is to be noted that the persons of men, that
is, slaves, formed an article of merchandise in which Javan, Tubal, and
Meshech, countries to the North, traded with Tyre.
3. General References:
Of general references to shipping and seafaring life there are comparatively
few in the Old Testament. In his great series of Nature-pictures in Psalm
104, the Psalmist finds a place for the sea and ships (104:25 ff), and in
Psalm 107 there is a picture of the storm overtaking them that go down to
the sea in ships, and of the deliverance that comes to them when God
bringeth them into their desired haven (107:23 ff). In the Book of
Proverbs the ideal woman who brings her food from far is like the
merchant ships (31:14). In the same book the drunkard, because of his
unnatural insensibility to danger, is likened to a man that lieth down in the
midst of the sea, or as he that lieth upon the top of a mast (23:34); and
among the inscrutable things of the world the writer includes the way of a
ship in the midst of the sea (30:19). In Wisdom, human life is described
as a ship passing through the billowy water, whereof, when it is gone by,
there is no trace to be found, neither pathway of its keel in the billows
(Wisd 5:10). The same book notes it as a striking example of the case of a
divine and beneficent Providence that men entrust their lives to a little
piece of wood, and passing through the surge on a raft are brought safe to
land (Wisd 14:1-5). The Jews like the Egyptians and the Assyrians had a
natural shrinking from the sea, and Ecclesiasticus interprets their feeling
when he says: They that sail on the sea tell of the danger thereof; and
when we hear it with our ears, we marvel (43:24).
III. SHIPS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
1. In the Gospels:
It is the fishing-boats of the Sea of Galilee which exclusively occupy
attention in the Gospels. In the time of our Lords ministry in Galilee the
shores of the Sea were densely peopled, and there must have been many
boats engaged in the fishing industry. Bethsaida at the northern end of the
Lake and Tarichea at the southern end were great centers of the trade. The
boats were probably of a size and build similar to the few employed on the
Lake today, which are between 20 and 30 ft. in length and 7 ft. in breadth.
The word launch, of putting a boat or a ship into the sea, has
904
disappeared from the Revised Version (British and American), except in
<420822>
Luke 8:22, where it is more appropriate to an inland lake. They were
propelled by oars, but no doubt also made use of the sail when the wind
was favorable (
<420823>
Luke 8:23), though the pictures which we have in the
Gospels are mostly of the boatmen toiling in rowing in the teeth of a gale
(
<410648>
Mark 6:48), and struggling with the threatening waves (
<401424>
Matthew
14:24). In the boat on which Jesus and the disciples were crossing the Lake
after the feeding of the 5,000, Jesus was in the stern asleep on the
cushion (
<410438>
Mark 4:38, the King James Version a pillow; Greek
proskephalaion, headrest). More than once Jesus made special use of a
boat. As He was by the seashore a great concourse of people from all parts
made it desirable that a small boat (ploiarion) should be in attendance off
the shore to receive Him in case of need, though He does not seem to have
required it (
<410309>
Mark 3:9). On another occasion, when the crowds were still
greater, He went into a boat and sat in the sea with the multitude on the
sloping beach before Him (
<410401>
Mark 4:1;
<420503>
Luke 5:3). This boat is said in
Lukes narrative to have been Simons, and it seems from references to it
as the boat on other occasions to have been generally at the disposal of
Jesus.
2. In the Acts of the Apostles:
It is Pauls voyages which yield us the knowledge that we possess from
Biblical sources of ships in New Testament times. They are recorded for us
in the Acts by Luke, who, as Sir William Ramsay puts it, had the true
Greek feeling for the sea (St. Paul the Traveler, 21). In Lukes writings
there are many nautical terms, peculiar to him, used with great exactitude
and precision.
When Paul had appealed to Caesar and was proceeding to Rome in charge
of Julius, the centurion, along with other prisoners, a ship of Adramyttium,
a coasting vessel, carried the party from Caesarea along the Syrian coast,
northward of Cyprus, past Cilicia and Pamphylia, to Myra of Lycia. There
the centurion found a ship of Alexandria sailing for Italy, one of the great
corn fleet carrying grain from Egypt for the multitudes of Rome. (After the
capture of Jerusalem the emperor Titus returned to Italy in such a vessel,
touching at Rhegium and landing at Puteoil.) The size of the vessel is
indicated by the fact that there were 276 persons on board, crew and
passengers all told (
<442737>
Acts 27:37). Luke has made no note of the name of
this or of the previous vessels in which Paul had voyaged. Of the
905
presumably larger vessel, also an Alexandrian corn ship bound for Rome,
which had wintered in Melita, and which afterward took on board the
shipwrecked party (
<442811>
Acts 28:11), the sign ([opooqov,
parasemon]) is given, and she is called The Twin Brothers. The
expression shows that it was in painting or relief; a figurehead, with the
Twin Brothers represented, would be given by [roqov, episemon]. The
cargo ([optov, phortion],
<442710>
Acts 27:10, the King James Version and
the Revised Version (British and American) lading) in this case was
wheat (
<442738>
Acts 27:38), but another word is used, [yoo, gomos], by
Luke of a ships load of varied wares (
<442103>
Acts 21:3; compare
<661811>
Revelation 18:11 ff).
Of those engaged in handling the ship we find (
<442711>
Acts 27:11) the master
([xuprpvqtq, kubernetes]), the owner ([ouxqpo, naukleros],
although this expression seems not quite consistent with the ownership of a
grain ship of the imperial service, and Ramsays distinction between the
words, making the former sailing-master and the latter captain, may be
better), the sailors (
<442730>
Acts 27:30, who treacherously sought to lower the
ships boat on the pretense of laying out anchors from the foreship or
prow, and to get away from the doomed vessel).
Of operations belonging to the navigation of the vessel in the storm there
were
(1) the taking on board of the ships boat and securing it with ropes
(
<442716>
Acts 27:16, in which operation Luke seems to have taken part;
compare 27:32),
(2) the undergirding of the ship (
<442717>
Acts 27:17, using helps, that is
taking measures of relief and adopting the expedient, only resorted to
in extremities, of passing cables under the keel of the ship to keep the
hull together and to preserve the timbers from starting),
(3) the lowering of the gear (
<442717>
Acts 27:17, reducing sail, taking down
the mainsail and the main yard),
(4) throwing freight overboard and later casting out the tackling of the
ship (
<442719>
Acts 27:19),
(5) taking soundings (
<442728>
Acts 27:28),
906
(6) letting go four anchors from the stern (
<442729>
Acts 27:29, stern-
anchoring being very unusual, but a necessity in the circumstances),
(7) further lightening the ship by throwing the wheat into the sea
(
<442738>
Acts 27:38),
(8) cutting the anchor cables, unlashing the rudders, hoisting up the
foresail to the wind, and holding straight for the beach (
<442740>
Acts 27:40).
Of the parts of the ships equipment there are mentioned the sounding
lead ([po, bolis], though it is the verb which is here used), the
anchors ([o yxupo, agkurai], of which every ship carried several, and
which at successive periods have been made of stone, iron, lead and
perhaps other metals, each having two flukes and being held by a cable or a
chain), the rudders ([qoo, pedalia], of which every ship had two
for steering, which in this case had been lifted out of the water and secured
by bands to the side of the ship and unlashed when the critical moment
came), the foresail [optrv, artemon], not the mainsail, but the small
sail at the bow of the vessel which at the right moment was hoisted to the
wind to run her ashore), and the boat ([oxoq, skaphe], which had been
in tow in the wake of the vessel, according to custom still prevalent in
those seas coasting-vessels being sometimes becalmed, when the crew
get into the small boat and take the ship in tow, using the oars to get her
round a promontory or into a position more favorable for the wind). The
season for navigation in those seas in ancient times was from April to
October. During the winter the vessels were laid up, or remained in the
shelter of some suitable haven. The reason for this was not simply the
tempestuous character of the weather, but the obscuration of the heavens
which prevented observations being taken for the steering of the ship
(
<442720>
Acts 27:20).
3. In Other Books:
In
<471125>
2 Corinthians 11:25 Paul mentions among sufferings he had endured
for Christs sake that thrice he had suffered shipwreck, and that he had
been a night and a day in the deep, implying that he had been in danger
of his life clinging to a spar, or borne upon a hurriedly constructed raft. It
may be a reminiscence of the sea when Paul in the very earliest of his
Epistles (1 Thess 4:16), speaking of the coming of the Lord, says The
Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout [rv xrruoot,
en keleusmati]), where the picture is that of the [xrruotq, keleustes],
907
giving the time to the rowers on board a ship. Although [uqproo,
huperetes], was an underrower and [uqproo, huperesia], the crew
of a ship as contrasted with [xuprpvqtq, kubernetes], the sailing-
master, the derived meaning of servant or officer has lost in the New
Testament all trace of its origin (
<400525>
Matthew 5:25;
<420102>
Luke 1:2 and many
passages; compare [otrrv, stellein], and [ouotrrv, sustellein],
where the idea of furling or shifting a sail is entirely lost:
<460729>
1
Corinthians 7:29;
<470820>
2 Corinthians 8:20).
Figurative:
In Hebrews the hope of the gospel is figured as an anchor .... sure and
stedfast, and entering into that which is within the veil (6:19, especially
with Ebrards note in Alford, at the place). James, showing the power of
little things, adduces the ships, large though they be, and driven by fierce
winds, turned about by a very small rudder ([qoov, pedalion]), as
the impulse of the steersman willeth (
<590304>
James 3:4). In Revelation there
is a representation of the fall of Babylon in language reminiscent of the fall
of Tyre (Ezekiel 27), in which lamentations arise from the merchants of the
earth who can no more buy her varied merchandise ([tov yoov, ton
gomon], cargo the Revised Version margin), and shipmasters and
passengers and seafaring people look in terror and grief upon the smoke of
her burning (
<661812>
Revelation 18:12-18).
LITERATURE.
The usual books on Greek and Roman antiquities furnish descriptions and
illustrations. Works on the monuments like Layard, Nineveh, II, 379 ff;
Maspero, Ancient Egypt and Assyria; Ball, Light from the East, and
Reissner, Cairo Museum Catalogue, Models of Ships and Boats, 1913,
contain descriptions and figured representations which are instructive. On
shipping and navigation in classical antiquity Smith of Jordanhill, Voyage
and Shipwreck of Paul, is still the standard authority.
T. Nicol
SHISHA
<shi-sha> ([a v ;yv i, shisha]): One of Solomons officers of state (
<110403>
1
Kings 4:3).
908
SHISHAK
<shi-shak> ([q v yv i , shishaq] (
<111425>
1 Kings 14:25); [2ouooxr,
Sousakeim]):
1. SHISHAK, 952-930 BC:
Sheshonk or Sheshenq I, as he is called on the monuments, the founder of
the XXIInd Dynasty, was in all probability of Libyan origin. It is possible
that his claim to the throne was that of the sword, but it is more likely that
he acquired it by marriage with a princess of the dynasty preceding. On the
death of Pasebkhanu II, the last of the kings of the XXIst Dynasty, 952
BC, Shishak ascended the throne, with an efficient army and a well-filled
treasury at his command. He was a warlike prince and cherished dreams of
Asiatic dominion.
2. PATRON OF JEROBOAM:
He had not long been seated on the throne when Jeroboam the son of
Nebat, of the tribe of Ephraim, whom Solomon had promoted but
afterward had cause to suspect, fled from the displeasure of his sovereign
to the court of Shishak (
<111126>
1 Kings 11:26 ff). There Jeroboam remained till
the death of Solomon, when he returned to Canaan, and, on Rehoboams
returning an unsatisfactory answer to the peoples demands for relief from
their burdens, headed the revolt of the Ten Tribes, over whom he was
chosen king with his capital at Shechem (
<111225>
1 Kings 12:25 ff). Whether
there was not in the XXIst Dynasty some kind of suzerainty of Egypt over
Palestine, when Solomon married Pharaohs daughter and received with
her Gezer as a dowry, seems not to be clearly established. It is, however,
natural that Jeroboams patron in the day of adversity should take sides
with him against Rehoboam, now that the kingdom was divided. Active
support of Jeroboam would be in the line of his dreams of an eastern
empire.
3. SYRIAN CAMPAIGN:
So it came to pass that in the 5th year of Rehoboam, Shishak came up
against Jerusalem with 1,200 chariots, and 60,000 horsemen, and people
without number out of Egypt, the Libyans, Sukkiim, and Ethiopians, and
took the fenced cities of Judah, and came to Jerusalem. At the preaching of
the prophet Shemaiah, Rehoboam and his people repented, and Jerusalem
909
was saved from destruction, though not from plunder nor from servitude,
for he became Shishaks servant (
<141208>
2 Chronicles 12:8). Shishak took
away the treasures of the house of the Lord and the treasures of the kings
house, carrying off among the most precious of the spoils all the shields of
gold which Solomon had made (
<111425>
1 Kings 14:25 ff;
<141201>
2 Chronicles 12:1-
9). From the Scripture narrative it does not appear that there was any
occupation of Palestine by the Egyptian forces on this occasion.
4. SHISHAKS RECORD AT KARNAK:
There is, however, a remarkable contemporary record of the campaign
engraved on the south wall of the Temple of Amon at Karnak by Shishak
himself. Not only is the expedition recorded, but there is a list of districts
and towns of Palestine granted to his victories by Amon-Ra and the
goddess of Thebes engraved there. A number of towns mentioned in the
Book of Joshua have been identified; and among the names of the list are
Rabbath, Taanach, Gibeon, Mahanaim, Beth-horon and other towns both
of Israel and Judah. That names of places in the Northem Kingdom are
mentioned in the list does not imply that Shishak had directed his armies
against Jeroboam and plundered his territories. It was the custom in
antiquity for a victorious monarch to include among conquered cities any
place that paid tribute or was under subjection, whether captured in war or
not; and it was sufficient reason for Shishak to include these Israelite places
that Jeroboam, as seems probable, had invited him to come to his aid.
Among the names in the list was Jud-hamalek Yudhmalk on the
monuments which was at first believed to represent the king of Judah,
with a figure which passed for Rehoboam. Being, however, a place-name,
it is now recognized to be the town Yehudah, belonging to the king. On
the death of Shishak his successor assumed a nominal suzerainty over the
land of Canaan.
LITERATURE.
Flinders Petrie, History of Egypt, III, 227 ff; Maspero, Struggle of the
Nations, 772 ff; Nicol, Recent Archaeology and the Bible, 222-25.
T. Nicol
910
SHITRAI
<shit-ri>, <shit-ra-i>, <shit-ra-i> ([yr f ] v i , shiTray]): A Sharonite,
Davids chief shepherd (
<132729>
1 Chronicles 27:29).
SHITTAH; TREE; SHITTIM WOOD
<shita>, ([h F ;v i, shiTTah]; Septuagint [uov ooqtov, xulon asepton];
the Revised Version (British and American) ACACIA TREE (
<234119>
Isaiah
41:19)); ([ yF iv i yx e[ }, `ace shiTTim]; the Revised Version (British and
American) ACACIA WOOD (
<022505>
Exodus 25:5,10,13; 26:15,26; 27:1,6;
<051003>
Deuteronomy 10:3)): The word was originally shinTah, derived from
the Arabic sanT, now a name confined to one species of acacia, Acacia
nilotica (Natural Order, Leguminosae), but possibly was once a more
inclusive term. The Acacia nilotica is at present confined to the Sinaitic
peninsula and to Egypt. Closely allied species, the Acacia tortilis and
Acacia seyal, both classed together under the Arabic name sayyal, are
plentiful in the valleys about the Dead Sea from Engedi southward. Those
who have ridden from `Ain Jidy to Jebel Usdum will never forget these
most striking features of the landscape. They are most picturesque trees
with their gnarled trunks, sometimes 2 ft. thick, their twisted, thorny
branches, which often give the whole tree an umbrella-like form, and their
fine bipinnate leaves with minute leaflets. The curiously twisted pods and
the masses of gum arabic which exude in many parts are also peculiar
features. The trees yield a valuable, hard, close-grained timber, not readily
attacked by insects.
E. W. G. Masterman
SHITTIM
<shit-im> ([ yF i V i h , ha-shiTTim], the acacias; [2ottrv, Sattein]):
(1) This marked the last camping-ground of Israel before they crossed
the Jordan to begin the conquest of Western Palestine. Here it was that
the people fell into the snare set for them by the satanic counsel of
Balaam, who thus brought upon them greater evil than all his
prohibited curses could have done (
<042501>
Numbers 25:1 ff; 31:16). In
<043349>
Numbers 33:49 it is called Abel-shittim. It was from Shittim that
Joshua sent the spies to view out the land and Jericho (
<060201>
Joshua 2:1);
and from this point the host moved forward to the river (
<060301>
Joshua
911
3:1). The place is mentioned by Micah in a passage of some difficulty
(
<060605>
Joshua 6:5): after what Balaam the son of Beor answered,
perhaps some such phrase as remember what I did has fallen out.
This would then be a reference to the display of divine power in
arresting the flow of Jordan until the host had safely crossed. Josephus
places the camp near Jordan where the city Abila now stands, a place
full of palm trees (Ant., IV, viii, 1). Eusebius, Onomasticon says
Shittim was near to Mt. Peor (Fogor). It may possibly be identical with
Khirbet el-Kefrain, about 6 miles South of the Jordan, on the lip of
Wady Seiseban, where there are many acacias.
(2) In
<290318>
Joel 3:18 we read of the valley of Shittim which is to be
watered by a fountain coming forth of the house of the Lord. It must
therefore be sought on the West of the Jordan. The waters from the
Jerusalem district are carried to the Dead Sea down the Wady which
continues the Brook Kidron: Wady en-Nar. The acacia is found
plentifully in the lower reaches of this valley, which may possibly be
intended by the prophet.
W. Ewing
SHIZA
<shi-za> ([a z;yv i, shiza]; [2oo, Saiza]): A Reubenite, one of Davids
leading warriors (
<131142>
1 Chronicles 11:42).
SHOA
<sho-a> ([[ v o, shoa`]; [2our, Soue]): A people named in
<262323>
Ezekiel
23:23 in association with Babylonians, Chaldeans and Assyrians. Schrader
identifies with the Sutu of the inscriptions (East of the Tigris).
SHOBAB
<sho-bab> (b b ;wOv , shobhabh]; [2pop, Sobab]):
(1) One of the sons of David (
<100514>
2 Samuel 5:14;
<130305>
1 Chronicles 3:5;
14:4).
(2) A son of Caleb (
<130218>
1 Chronicles 2:18).
912
SHOBACH
<sho-bak> ([ b wO v , shobhakh]; [2pox, Sobak]): Captain of the
Syrian host (
<101016>
2 Samuel 10:16,18); but Shophach ([shophakh]) in
<131916>
1
Chronicles 19:16,18.
SHOBAI
<sho-bi>, <sho-ba-i>, <sho-ba-i> ([yb ;v , shobhay]; Codex Vaticanus [
Apoou, Abaou]; Codex Alexandrinus Lucian, [2po, Sobai]): The head
of one of the families which returned from the Babylonian captivity
(
<150242>
Ezra 2:42;
<160745>
Nehemiah 7:45).
SHOBAL
<sho-bal> ([l b ;wOv , shobhal], overflowing; [2po, Sobal], with
variants):
(1) An Edomite name mentioned in connection with Lotan, Zibeon and
Anah, as that of a son of Seir (
<013620>
Genesis 36:20), the father of a clan
(
<013623>
Genesis 36:23), and a Horite duke (alluph) (
<013629>
Genesis 36:29;
<130138>
1 Chronicles 1:38,40).
(2) A Calebite, the father (possibly of the inhabitants) of Kiriath-jearim
(
<130250>
1 Chronicles 2:50,52).
(3) A Judahite, perhaps to be identified with (2) above (
<130401>
1 Chronicles
4:1 f).
SHOBEK
<sho-bek> ([q b ewOv , shobheq]; [2pqx, Sobek]): One of those who sealed
the covenant under Nehemiah after the Babylonian captivity (
<161024>
Nehemiah
10:24).
SHOBI
<sho-bi> ([yb iv o, shobhi]; [Ouropr, Ouesbei]): One of those who
remained faithful to David during the rebellion of Absalom (
<101727>
2 Samuel
17:27).
913
SHOCHOH
<sho-ko> ([h k owOc , sokhoh], Codex Vaticanus [2ox0, Sokchoth];
Codex Alexandrinus [ Ox, Okcho]): This in
<091701>
1 Samuel 17:1 the King
James Version is a variant of SOCOH (which see).
SHOE; SHOE-LATCHET
<shoo>, <shoo-lach-et> ([l [ n , na`al], literally, that which is
fastened, with denominative verb [l [ n;, na`al], to provide with shoes
(
<142815>
2 Chronicles 28:15;
<261610>
Ezekiel 16:10); [uoqo, hupodema] (Sirach
46:19;
<400311>
Matthew 3:11, etc.), from the verb [uor, hupodeo]
(
<410609>
Mark 6:9;
<490615>
Ephesians 6:15), to bind under, [2ovoov,
sandalion], sandal (Judith 10:4; 16:9;
<410609>
Mark 6:9;
<441208>
Acts 12:8); the
King James Version, the Revised Version margin also have shoe for
[l [ ;n]mi, min`al], bar (so the Revised Version (British and American)
text) in
<053325>
Deuteronomy 33:25; the latchet is either [ wOr c ], serokh],
twisted thing (
<011423>
Genesis 14:23;
<230527>
Isaiah 5:27), or [o, himas],
leather thong (
<410107>
Mark 1:7;
<420316>
Luke 3:16;
<430127>
John 1:27)): The na`al
was a simple piece of leather tied on the foot with the [serokh], so easy of
construction that its low cost was proverbial (
<300206>
Amos 2:6; 8:6; Sirach
46:19; compare
<011423>
Genesis 14:23), and to be without it was a sign of
extreme poverty (
<142815>
2 Chronicles 28:15;
<232002>
Isaiah 20:2). Women,
however, might have ornamental sandals (Song 7:1; Judith 16:9), and
Ezekiel names sealskin (16:10) as a particularly luxurious material, but
the omission of sandals from the list of
<230318>
Isaiah 3:18-23 shows that they
were not commonly made articles of great expense. The hupodema was
likewise properly a sandal, but the word was also used to denote a shoe
that covered the foot. The contrast between hupodema in
<401010>
Matthew
10:10 and sandalion in
<410609>
Mark 6:9 seems to show that this meaning is
not unknown in the New Testament, the shoe being regarded as an
article of luxury (compare
<421522>
Luke 15:22). But in
<400311>
Matthew 3:11 and
parallels, only the sandal can be meant.
Sandals were not worn indoors, so that putting them on was a sign of
readiness for activity (
<021211>
Exodus 12:11;
<441208>
Acts 12:8;
<490615>
Ephesians 6:15),
the more wealthy having them brought (
<400311>
Matthew 3:11) and fastened
(
<410107>
Mark 1:7 and parallels) by slaves. When one entered a house they
were removed; all the more, naturally, on entering a sanctuary (
<020305>
Exodus
914
3:5;
<060515>
Joshua 5:15;
<440733>
Acts 7:33). Mourners, however, did not wear
them even out of doors, as a sign of grief (
<262417>
Ezekiel 24:17,23), perhaps
for the same reason that other duties of the toilet were neglected (
<101220>
2
Samuel 12:20, etc.). A single long journey wore out a pair of sandals
(
<060905>
Joshua 9:5,13), and the preservation of the latchet of their shoes
from being broken (
<230527>
Isaiah 5:27) would require almost miraculous help.
<080407>
Ruth 4:7 f states as a custom in former times in Israel, that when any
bargain was closed a man drew off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbor.
This was of course simply a special form of earnest-money, used in all
transactions. In
<052509>
Deuteronomy 25:9 f the custom appears in a different
light. If a man refused to perform his duty to his deceased brothers wife,
the elders of the city were to remove his shoe and disgrace him publicly,
And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe
loosed. The removal of the shoe is apparently connected with the rite in
<080407>
Ruth 4:7 as a renunciation of the mans privilege. But the general
custom seems to have become obsolete, for the removal of the shoe is now
a reproach.
The meaning of
<196008>
Psalm 60:8 parallel 108:9, Upon (margin unto)
Edom will I cast my shoe, is uncertain. [l [ , `al], may mean either upon
or unto. If the former, some (otherwise unsubstantiated) custom of
asserting ownership of land may be meant. If the latter, the meaning is
Edom I will treat as a slave, to whom the shoes are cast on entering a
house.
Burton Scott Easton
SHOHAM
<sho-ham> ([ h v o , shoham], onyx; Codex Vaticanus [ Iooo,
Isoam]; Codex Alexandrinus [ Ioooo, Issoam]): One of the sons of
Merari (
<132427>
1 Chronicles 24:27).
SHOMER
<sho-mer> ([r mewOv , shomer]):
(1) The father of one of the conspirators who killed Joash (
<121221>
2 Kings
12:21).
See SHIMEATH.
915
(2) One of the sons of Heber of the tribe of Asher (
<130732>
1 Chronicles
7:32).
See SHEMER.
SHOPHACH
<sho-fak>.
See SHOBACH.
SHOPHAN
<sho-fan> ([p ;wOv , shophan]).
See ATROTH-SHOPHAN.
SHORE
<shor>:
(1) [t wOj , choph], always of the Mediterranean, variously translated
haven, beach, shore, sea-shore, coast, sea coast (
<014913>
Genesis
49:13;
<050107>
Deuteronomy 1:7;
<060901>
Joshua 9:1;
<070517>
Judges 5:17;
<244707>
Jeremiah
47:7;
<262516>
Ezekiel 25:16).
(2) [h p ;c ;, saphah], literally, lip; compare Arabic shafat, lip; of the
sand upon the seashore, a figure of multitude (
<012217>
Genesis 22:17;
<021430>
Exodus 14:30;
<061104>
Joshua 11:4;
<070712>
Judges 7:12;
<091305>
1 Samuel 13:5;
<110429>
1
Kings 4:29); the shore of the Red Sea or Gulf of `Aqabah by Ezion-geber
(
<110926>
1 Kings 9:26;
<140817>
2 Chronicles 8:17); the brink of the River Nile
(
<014103>
Genesis 41:3,17); the edge (the King James Version brink) of the
valley of Arnon (
<050236>
Deuteronomy 2:36).
(3) [h x ,q ;, qatseh], literally, end, extremity, the uttermost part (the
King James Version shore) of the Salt Sea (
<061502>
Joshua 15:2); [6 r , a ; h ;
h x eq ] , qetsh ha-arets], the end of the earth (
<194609>
Psalm 46:9); compare
Arabic aqaci-l-ard, the uttermost parts of the earth.
(4) [ro, cheilos], literally, lip, as the sand which is by the seashore
(
<581112>
Hebrews 11:12).
916
(5) [oyoo, aigialos], the beach (the King James Version shore) of
the Sea of Galilee (
<401302>
Matthew 13:2,48;
<432104>
John 21:4); of the
Mediterranean (
<442105>
Acts 21:5; 27:39,40).
(6) [oooov oprryovto tqv Kpqtqv, asson parelegonto ten Kreten],
doubtful reading, sailed along Crete, close in shore (the King James
Version sailed along by Crete) (
<442713>
Acts 27:13).
See COAST; HAVEN; SAND.
Alfred Ely Day
SHORTEN
<shor-t-n>: The Hebrew word qatsar and the Greek koloboo literally
indicate abbreviation of time or space (
<198945>
Psalm 89:45;
<201027>
Proverbs 10:27;
<264205>
Ezekiel 42:5); figuratively they point to limitation of power or of
suffering (
<041123>
Numbers 11:23;
<235002>
Isaiah 50:2; 59:1;
<402422>
Matthew 24:22;
<411320>
Mark 13:20).
SHOSHANNIM EDUTH
<sho-shan-im e-duth>.
See SONG; PSALMS.
SHOULDER
<shol-der> ([ k ,v ] , shekhem], [t t eK ;, katheph], [[ r oz], zeroa`] or [[ wOr z],
zerowa`], or [y[ ;wOr z], zero`ah], [q wOv , shoq]; [o, omos], [ppov,
brachion] (Sirach 7:31 only)): The meanings of the Hebrew words are
rather varied. The first (shekhem) has perhaps the widest application. It is
used for the part of the body on which heavy loads are carried (
<012114>
Genesis
21:14; 24:15,45;
<021234>
Exodus 12:34;
<060405>
Joshua 4:5;
<070948>
Judges 9:48). King
Sauls impressive personality is thus described: There was not among the
children of Israel a goodlier person than he: from his shoulders and upward
he was higher than any of the people (
<090902>
1 Samuel 9:2; 10:23). To carry
loads on the shoulder or to have a staff on the shoulder is expressive of
subjection and servitude, yea, of oppression and cruel punishment, and the
removal of such burdens or of the rod of the oppressor connotes delivery
and freedom (
<230904>
Isaiah 9:4; 14:25).
917
FIGURATIVELY:
The shoulders also bear responsibility and power. Thus it is said of King
Messiah, that the government shall be upon his shoulder (
<230906>
Isaiah 9:6)
and the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; and he
shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open
(
<232222>
Isaiah 22:22). Job declares that he will refute all accusations of
unlawful conduct made against him, in the words: Oh .... that I had the
indictment which mine adversary hath written! Surely I would carry it upon
my shoulder (
<183135>
Job 31:35 f).
The Hebrew word katheph comes very close in meaning to the above,
though it is occasionally used in the sense of arm-piece and shoulder-piece
of a garment. Like Hebrew shekhem, it is used to describe the part of the
body accustomed to carry loads. On it the Levites carried the implements
of the sanctuary (
<040709>
Numbers 7:9;
<131515>
1 Chronicles 15:15;
<143503>
2 Chronicles
35:3). Oriental mothers and fathers carried their children on the shoulder
astride (
<234922>
Isaiah 49:22; compare 60:4); thus also the little bundle of the
poor is borne (
<261206>
Ezekiel 12:6,7,12). The loaded shoulder is likely to be
worn or chafed under the burden (
<262918>
Ezekiel 29:18). In the two
passages of the New Testament in which we find the Greek equivalent of
shoulder (omos, fairly common in Apocrypha), it corresponds most closely
with this use (
<402304>
Matthew 23:4;
<421505>
Luke 15:5). Of the shoulders of
animals the word katheph is used in
<263421>
Ezekiel 34:21 (of sheep, where,
however, men are intended) and in
<233006>
Isaiah 30:6 (of asses).
Stubborn opposition and unwillingness is expressed by withdrew the
shoulder (
<160929>
Nehemiah 9:29), or pulled away the shoulder
(
<380711>
Zechariah 7:11), where the marginal rendering is they gave (or
turned) a stubborn shoulder. Contrast bow the shoulder, i.e. submit
(Baruch 2:21). Compare stiffnecked; see NECK. Somewhat difficult for
the understanding of Occidentals is the poetical passage in the blessing of
Moses: Of Benjamin he said, The beloved of Yahweh shall dwell in safety
by him; he covereth him all the day long, and he dwelleth between his
shoulders (
<053312>
Deuteronomy 33:12). The shoulders refer here to the
mountain saddles and proclivities of the territory of Benjamin between
which Jerusalem, the beloved of Yahweh, which belonged to Judah, lay
nestling close upon the confines of the neighboring tribe, or even built in
part on ground belonging to Benjamin.
918
Much less frequently than the above-mentioned words. we find zeroa`,
zero`ah, which is used of the boiled shoulder of the ram which was a
wave offering at the consecration of a Nazirite (
<040619>
Numbers 6:19) and of
one of the priestly portions of the sacrifice (
<051803>
Deuteronomy 18:3). In
Sirach 7:31 this portion is called brachion, properly arm, but both the
King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)
translate shoulder. Regarding the wave and heave offerings see
SACRIFICE. the King James Version frequently translates Hebrew shoq,
literally, leg, thigh (which see) by shoulder, which the Revised
Version (British and American) occasionally retains in the margin (e.g.
<040620>
Numbers 6:20).
H. L. E. Luering
SHOULDER-BLADE
<sholder-blad> ([h m;k ]v i, shikhmah]): Then let my shoulder (kathephi)
fall from the shoulder-blade (shikhmah), and mine arm (zeroa` be broken
from the bone (qaneh) (
<183122>
Job 31:22). The Hebrew word is the feminine
form of shekhem (see SHOULDER). It is found only in this passage.
SHOULDER-PIECE
<shol-der-pes> ([t t eK ;, katheph]): The word designates the two straps or
pieces of cloth which passed from the back of the ephod (see EPHOD) of
the high priest over the shoulder and were fastened at the front. These
shoulder-pieces seem to have been made of a precious texture of linen (or
byssos) with threads of gold, blue, purple and scarlet, to which two onyx
(or beryl) stones were attached bearing the names of six tribes of Israel
each. These are called the stones of memorial (
<023918>
Exodus 39:18). On
these straps there were also fastened the plaited or woven bands
(wreathed chains) from which, by means of two golden rings, the
breastplate was suspended. It is by no means clear from the descriptions
(
<022807>
Exodus 28:7,12,25; 39:4,7,18,20) how we have to imagine the form
and attachment of these shoulder-pieces. It has been thought that the
ephod might be of Egyptian origin, which is not very probable, though V.
Ancessi, Annales de philosophie chretienne, 1872, 45 ff, reproduces some
representations from the great work of Lepsius, Denkmaler, where costly
royal garments have two shoulder straps, like the ephod. Usually Egyptian
garments have no shoulder strap, or at most one.
919
H. L. E. Luering
SHOVEL
<shuv-l>:
(1) [t j r , rachath], is a wooden shovel used on the threshing-
floor for winnowing the grain (
<233024>
Isaiah 30:24).
(2) [[ y;, ya`], is used in various passages to indicate some instrument
employed to carry away ashes from the altar (
<022703>
Exodus 27:3; 38:3;
<040414>
Numbers 4:14;
<110740>
1 Kings 7:40,45;
<122514>
2 Kings 25:14;
<140411>
2
Chronicles 4:11,16;
<245218>
Jeremiah 52:18). It was very likely a small
shovel like those used in connection with modern fireplaces for
cleaning away the ashes (compare Hebrew ya`ah, to sweep away) or
for carrying live coals to start a new fire.
(3) [d t ey;, yathedh] (
<052313>
Deuteronomy 23:13 the Revised Version
margin)
J ames A. Patch
SHOW
<sho>.
See SHEW.
SHOWBREAD
<sho-bred>.
See SHEWBREAD.
SHOWBREAD, TABLE OF
See SHEWBREAD, TABLE OF.
SHOWER
<shou-er>:
920
(1) [ yb iyb ir ], rebhibhim], a plural form apparently denoting gentle
rain, usually used figuratively, as in
<053202>
Deuteronomy 32:2;
<197206>
Psalm
72:6;
<330507>
Micah 5:7.
(2) [ v ,G,, geshem], used of gentle rain in
<183706>
Job 37:6: shower of
rain, the King James Version small rain; used of the flood in
<010712>
Genesis 7:12. Figuratively, of blessing, showers of blessing
(
<263426>
Ezekiel 34:26); of destruction: There shall be an overflowing
shower in mine anger, and great hailstones in wrath to consume it
(
<261313>
Ezekiel 13:13).
(3) [ r ,z,, zerem], usually storm or tempest (compare
<230406>
Isaiah 4:6;
28:2): They are wet with the showers of the mountain (
<182408>
Job 24:8).
(4) [oppo, ombros] (
<421254>
Luke 12:54), Rain is unknown in Palestine
in the long summer of 5 or 6 months. A few showers usually fall in
September, succeeded by fine weather for some weeks before the
beginning of the heavy and long-continued winter rains.
Alfred Ely Day
SHRINE
<shrin> (voo, naos]): In
<441924>
Acts 19:24 small models of temples for
Diana.
SHROUD
<shroud> ([v r ,j o , choresh], bough): Winding-sheet for the dead. See
BURIAL. Used in the King James Version, the English Revised Version
<263103>
Ezekiel 31:3 in the rare old sense of shelter, covering. the American
Standard Revised Version has a forest-like shade [v r ,j o , choresh],
wood, wooded height) (
<231709>
Isaiah 17:9, etc.). Compare Milton,
Comus, 147.
SHRUB
<shrub> ([j yc i , siach] (
<012115>
Genesis 21:15)).
See BUSH, (2).
921
SHUA, SHUAH
<shoo-a>:
(1) ([[ Wv , shua`] prosperity): A Canaanite whose daughter Judah
took to wife (
<013802>
Genesis 38:2,12;
<130203>
1 Chronicles 2:3).
See BATH-SHUA.
(2) ([a [ ;Wv , shu`-a], prosperity): Daughter of Heber, an Asherite
(
<130732>
1 Chronicles 7:32).
(3) ([j Wv , shuach], depression): A son of Keturah by Abraham
(
<012502>
Genesis 25:2;
<130132>
1 Chronicles 1:32), and his posterity.
See BILDAD.
(4) A brother of Caleb (
<130411>
1 Chronicles 4:11).
See SHUHAH.
SHUAL
<shoo-al> ([l [ ;Wv , shu`al]): An Asherite (
<130736>
1 Chronicles 7:36).
SHUAL, LAND OF
([l [ ; Wv 6 r , a , , erets shu`al]; [q 2yo, he Sogal]): From their
encampment at Michmash the Philistines sent out marauding bands, one
going westward toward Beth-horon, another eastward, the way of the
border that looketh down upon the valley of Zeboim. The pass to the
South was held against them by Israel. The third party therefore went
northward, turning unto the way that leadeth to Ophrah, unto the land of
Shual (
<091317>
1 Samuel 13:17 f). Ophrah is probably identical with et-
taiyibeh, a village which lies some 5 miles East of Beitin (Bethel). It is in
this district therefore that the land of Shual must be sought, but no definite
identification is possible.
W. Ewing
SHUBAEL
<shooba-el>, <shoo-ba-el> ([;a eb ;Wv , shubhael]):
922
(1) A Levite, son of Amram (
<132420>
1 Chronicles 24:20); one of the leaders
of song in the temple (
<132520>
1 Chronicles 25:20).
See SHEBUEL; Gray, HPN, 310.
(2) A son of Heman (
<132504>
1 Chronicles 25:4).
See SHEBUEL.
SHUHAH
<shoo-ha> ([h j ;Wv , shuchah], depression): A brother of Caleb (
<130411>
1
Chronicles 4:11).
SHUHAM
<shoo-ham> ([ j ;Wv o, shucham]): Son of Dan, ancestor of the Shuhamites
(
<042642>
Numbers 26:42 f). In
<014623>
Genesis 46:23 called Hushim.
SHUHITE
<shoo-hit> ([yj iWv , shuchi]): Cognomen of Bildad, one of Jobs friends
(
<180211>
Job 2:11; 8:1; 18:1; 25:1; 42:9). The place referred to cannot be
definitely located.
See BILDAD; SHUAH.
SHULAMMITE
<shoo-la-mit> (Song 6:13, the King James Version Shulamite).
See SHUNAMMITE.
SHUMATHITES
<shoo-math-its> (yt im;v u, shumathi]): One of the families of Kiriath-jearim
(
<130253>
1 Chronicles 2:53).
923
SHUNAMMITE
<shoo-na-mit> ([t yMin v i, shunammith], [t yMin Wv , shunammith];
Codex Vaticanus [2ovrt, Somaneitis]; Codex Alexandrinus
[2ouovtq, Soumanites]): Applied to natives of Shunem.
(1) Abishag, who was brought to minister to the aged king David, love
for whom led Adonijah to his doom (
<110103>
1 Kings 1:3,15; 2:17, etc.).
(2) The woman, name unknown, whose son Elisha raised from the dead
(
<120412>
2 Kings 4:12, etc.). Later when apparently she had become a
widow, after seven years absence on account of famine, in the land of
the Philistines, she returned to find her property in the hands of others.
Elishas intervention secured its restoration (
<120801>
2 Kings 8:1-6).
(3) The Shulammite (Song 6:13). In this name there is the exchange of
l for n which is common.
W. Ewing
SHUNEM
<shoo-nem> ([ neWv , shunem]; Codex Vaticanus [2ouvov, Sounan];
Codex Alexandrinus [2ouvo, Sounam]): A town in the territory of
Issachar named with Jezreel and Chesulloth (
<061918>
Joshua 19:18). Before the
battle of Gilboa the Philistines pitched their camp here. They and the army
of Saul, stationed on Gilboa, were in full view of each other (
<092804>
1 Samuel
28:4). It was the scene of the touching story recorded in
<120408>
2 Kings 4:8-
37, in which the prophet Elisha raises to life the son of his Shunammite
benefactress. Eusebius (Onomasticon) describes it as a village called
Sulem, 5 Roman miles South of Mt. Tabor. This points to the modern
Solam, a village surrounded by cactus hedges and orchards on the lower
southwestern slope of Jebel ed-Duchy (Hill of Moreh). It commands an
uninterrupted view across the plain of Esdraelon to Mt. Carmel, which is
about 15 miles distant. It also looks far across the valley of Jezreel to the
slopes of Gilboa on the South. It therefore meets satisfactorily the
conditions of Joshua and 1 Samuel. A question has, however, been raised
as to its identity with the Shunem of 2 Kings 4. Elishas home was in
Samaria. Apparently Carmel was one of his favorite haunts. If he passed
Shunem continually (
<120409>
2 Kings 4:9), going to and coming from the
mountain, it involved a very long detour if this were the village visited. It
924
would seem more natural to identify the Shunem of Elisha with the Sanim
of Eusebius, Onomasticon, which is said to be in the territory of Sebaste
(Samaria), in the region of Akrabatta: or perhaps with Salim, fully a mile
North of Taanach, as nearer the line of travel between Samaria and Carmel.
There is, however, nothing to show that Elishas visits to Shunem were
paid on his journeys between Samaria and Carmel. It may have been his
custom to visit certain cities on circuit, on business calling for his personal
attention, e.g. in connection with the schools of the prophets. Materials
do not exist on which any certain conclusion can rest. Both Solam Salim
are on the edge of the splendid grain fields of Esdraelon (
<120418>
2 Kings 4:18).
W. Ewing
SHUNI; SHUNITES
<shoo-ni>, <shoo-nits>. ([yniWv , shuni]): One of the sons of Gad and his
descendants (
<014616>
Genesis 46:16;
<042615>
Numbers 26:15).
SHUPHAM; SHUPHAMITES
<shoo-fam>, <shoo-fam-its>.
See SHEPHUPHAM.
SHUPPIM
<shup-im> ([ yP iv u, shuppim]):
(1) One of the descendants of Benjamin (
<130712>
1 Chronicles 7:12,15).
(2) One of the porters in the temple (
<132616>
1 Chronicles 26:16).
See MUPPIM; SHEPHUPHAM.
SHUR
<shur>, <shoor> ([r Wv , shur]; [2oup, Sour]): The name of a desert East
of the Gulf of Suez. The word means a wall, and may probably refer to
the mountain wall of the Tih plateau as visible from the shore plains. In
<011607>
Genesis 16:7 Hagar at Kadesh (`Ain Qadis) (see 16:14) is said to have
been in the way to Shur. Abraham also lived between Kadesh and Shur
(
<012001>
Genesis 20:1). The position of Shur is defined (
<012518>
Genesis 25:18) as
925
being opposite Egypt on the way to Assyria. After crossing the Red Sea
(
<021504>
Exodus 15:4) the Hebrews entered the desert of Shur (
<021522>
Exodus
15:22), which extended southward a distance of three days journey. It is
again noticed (
<091507>
1 Samuel 15:7) as being opposite Egypt, and (
<092708>
1
Samuel 27:8) as near Egypt. There is thus no doubt of its situation, on the
East of the Red Sea, and of the Bitter Lakes.
Brugsch, however, proposed to regard Shur (the wall) as equivalent to
the Egyptian anbu (wall), the name of a fortification of some kind
apparently near Kantarah] (see MIGDOL (2)), probably barring the
entrance to Egypt on the road from Pelusium to Zoan. The extent of this
wall is unknown, but Brugsch connects it with the wall mentioned by
Diodorus Siculus (i.4) who wrote about 8 BC, and who attributed it to
Sesostris (probably Rameses II) who defended the east side of Egypt
against the irruptions of the Syrians and Arabians, by a wall drawn from
Pelusium through the deserts as far as to Heliopolis, for a space of 1,500
furlongs. Heliopolis lies 90 miles (not 188) Southwest of Pelusium: this
wall, if it existed at all, would have run on the edge of the desert which
extends North of Wady Tumeilat from Kantarah] to Tell el-Kebir; but this
line, on the borders of Goshen, is evidently much too far West to have any
connection with the desert of Shur East of the Gulf of Suez. See Budge,
Hist. Egypt, 90; Brugsch, Egypt under the Pharaohs, abridged edition, 320.
C. R. Conder
SHUSHAN
<shoo-shan> ([v Wv , shushan]; [2ouoov, Sousan], [2ouoo, Sousa]):
1. POSITION, EYTMOLOGY AND FORMS OF ITS NAME:
This city, the Susu or Susan of the Babylonians, and the native (Elamite)
Susun, is the modern Shush (Sus) in Southwestern Persia, a series of ruin-
mounds on the banks of the river Kerkha. The ancient etymologies (city of
lilies or of horses) are probably worthless, as an etymology in the
language of the place would rather be expected. Sayce therefore connects
the name with sassa, meaning former, and pointing to some such
meaning as the old city. It is frequently mentioned in the Babylonian
inscriptions of the 3rd millennium BC, and is expressed by the characters
for the goddess Ishtar and for cedar, implying that it was regarded as the
place of the divine grove (see 5, below). In later days, the Assyrians
926
substituted for the second character, that having the value of ses, possibly
indicating its pronunciation. Radau (Early Babylonian History, 236)
identifies Shushan (Susa) with the Sasa of the Babylonian king Kuri-galzu
(14th century BC, if the first of the name), who dedicates to the
Babylonian goddess Ninlil an inscription of a certain Siatu, who had, at an
earlier date, dedicated it to Ishtar for the life of the Babylonian king Dungi
(circa 2500 BC).
2. THE RUINS:
The surface still covered with ruins is about 2,000 hectares (4,940 acres),
though this is but a fraction compared with the ancient extent of the city,
which is estimated to have been between 12,000 and 15,000 hectares
(29,640-37,000 acres). Though considerable, the extent of Susa was small
compared with Nineveh and Babylon. The ruins are divided by the French
explorers into four tracts:
(1) The Citadel-mound (West), of the Achemenian period (5th century
BC), circa 1,476 by 820 ft., dominating the plain (height circa 124 ft.).
(2) The Royal City on the East of the Citadel, composed of two parts:
the Apadana (Northeast), and a nearly triangular tract extending to the
East and the South. This contains the remains of the palace of Darius
and his successors, and occupies rather more than 123 acres. The
palace proper and the throne-room were separated from the rest of the
official buildings.
(3) The City, occupied by artisans, merchants, etc.
(4) The district on the right bank, similarly inhabited. This in ancient
times extended into all the lower plain, between the Shaour and the
Kerkha. Besides these, there were many isolated ruins, and the suburbs
contained a number of villages and separate constructions.
3. THE ROYAL CITY, THE CITADEL,
AND THE RUINS THEREIN:
Most of the constructions at Susa are of the Persian period. In the northern
part of the Royal City lie the remains of the Apadana, the only great
monument of which remains were found on the level. The principal portion
consisted of a great hall of columns, known as the throne-room of
Artaxeres Mnemon. It replaced an earlier structure by Darius, which was
927
destroyed by fire in the time of Artaxerxes I. The columns apparently had
capitals of the style common in Persia the foreparts of two bulls
kneeling back to back. In the Citadel a palace built by Xerxes seems to
have existed, the base of one of his columns having been found there.
Bricks bearing the inscriptions of early Elamite kings, and the foundations
of older walls, testify to the antiquity of the occupation of this part.
According to the explorers, this was the portion of the city reserved for the
temples.
4. THE MONUMENTS DISCOVERED:
The number of important antiquities found on the site is considerable.
Among the finds may be mentioned the triumphal stele of Naram-Sin, king
of Agade (3rd-4th millennium BC); the statuettes of the Babylonian king
Dungi (circa 2360 BC); the reliefs and inscriptions of the Elamite king
Ba(?)-sa-Susinak (circa 2340 BC); the obelisk inscribed with the laws of
Hammurabi of Babylon; the bronze bas-relief of the Elamite king Sutruk-
Nahhunte (circa 1120 BC), who carried off from Babylonia the stelae of
Naram-Sin and Hammurabi above mentioned, together with numerous
other Babylonian monuments; the stele of Adda-hamiti-In-Susnak, of a
much later date, together with numerous other objects of art and
inscriptions a most precious archaeological find.
5. ASSUR-BANI-APLIS DESCRIPTION OF THE CITY:
Shushan passed through many serious crises, one of the severest being its
capture and destruction by the armies of the Assyrian king Assur-bani-apli
about 640 BC. According to his account, the ziqqurat or temple-tower of
Susa was built of enameled brick imitating lapis-lazuli, and was adorned
with pinnacles of bright bronze. The god of the city was Susinak, who
dwelt in a secret place, and none ever saw the form of his divinity.
Lagamaru (Laomer) and five other of the citys deities were adored only by
kings, and their images, with those of 12 more (worshipped by the people),
were carried off as spoil to Assyria. Winged bulls and genii adorned Susas
temples, and figures of wild bulls protected the entrances to their shrines.
Other noteworthy things were the sacred groves into which no stranger
was allowed to enter, and the burial-places of the Elamite kings. After
recovering from the blow inflicted by the Assyrians, Shushan ultimately
regained its old importance, and, as the summer residence of the Persian
kings, became
928
the home of Ahasuerus and Queen Esther (
<160101>
Nehemiah 1:1; Est 1:2,5;
2:3; 3:15; 9:11 ff;
<270802>
Daniel 8:2; Additions to Esther 11:3).
LITERATURE.
See Perrot et Chipiez, Histoire de lart dans lantiquite, volume V,
Perse, 1890; de Morgan, Delegation en Perse (Memoires), 1900, etc.;
Histoire et travaux de la delegation en Perse, 1905; article
Elamites in Hastings ERE; article ELAM in this work.
T. G. Pinches
SHUSHAN EDUTH
<shoo-shan e-duth>.
See SONG; PSALMS.
SHUSHANCHITES
<shoo-shan-kits> ([a ye k n] v Wv , shushanekhaye] (Aramaic); Codex
Vaticanus [2ououvooo, Sousunachaioi]; the King James Version
Susanchites): Colonists in Samaria whose original home was in Shushan
(
<150409>
Ezra 4:9).
SHUTHALHITES
<shoo-thal-hits>, <sho-thal-hits>.
See SHUTHELAH.
SHUTHELAH; SHUTHELAHITES
<shoo-the-la>, <shoo-the-la>, <shoo-the-la-hits>, <shoo-the-la-hits>
([yj i l ] t v u , shuthalchi]): A son of Ephraim (
<042635>
Numbers 26:35,36;
compare
<130720>
1 Chronicles 7:20,21), and his descendants.
See GENEALOGY.
SHUTTLE
<shut-l>.
See WEAVING.
929
SIA; SIAHA
<si-a>, <si-a-ha> ([a [ ;ys i, cia): One of the remnant which returned
from captivity (
<160747>
Nehemiah 7:47;
<150244>
Ezra 2:44).
SIBBECAI, SIBBECHAI
<sib-e-ki>, <sib-e-ka-i> ([yk B ] s i , cibbekhay]): One of the valiant men
in Davids army (
<102118>
2 Samuel 21:18;
<131129>
1 Chronicles 11:29; 20:4; 27:11).
SIBBOLETH
<sibo-leth> ([t l ,B os i , cibboleth]).
See SHIBBOLETH.
SIBMAH
<sib-ma>.
See SEBAM.
SIBRAIM
<sib-ra-im>, <sib-ra-im> ([ yi r b ] s i , cibhrayim]; Codex Vaticanus
[2rppo, Sebram]; Codex Alexandrinus [2rpo, Sephram]): A place
named as on the boundary of Palestine in Ezekiels ideal delineation,
between the border of Damascus and the border of Hamath (
<264716>
Ezekiel
47:16). It may possibly be represented by the modern Khirbet Sanbariyeh
on the west bank of Nahr el-Chasbany, about 3 miles Southeast of `Abil.
SIBYLLINE ORACLES
<sib-i-lin>, <-lin or-a-k-lz>.
See APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE, B, V.
SICARII
<si-ka-ri-i>.
See ASSASSINS.
930
SICHEM
<si-kem> ([ k ,v ] , shekhem]). the King James Version in
<011206>
Genesis 12:6.
See SHECHEM.
SICK; SICKNESS
<sik>, <sik-nes> ([h l ;j ;, chalah] (
<014801>
Genesis 48:1, etc.), [yl ij ;], choli]
(
<052861>
Deuteronomy 28:61, etc.), [a l u j } T , tachalu] (
<052921>
Deuteronomy
29:21, etc.), [h l ; j } m , machalah] (
<022325>
Exodus 23:25, etc.), [h w,D ;, daweh]
(
<031533>
Leviticus 15:33, etc.), [v n a ; , anash] (
<101215>
2 Samuel 12:15, etc.);
[oo0rvr, astheneo (
<401008>
Matthew 10:8, etc.;. compare 2 Macc 9:22),
[xox rv, kakos echon] (
<420702>
Luke 7:2), [xox rovto, kakos
echontas] (
<400424>
Matthew 4:24, etc.), [oppoto, arrhostos] (Sirach 7:35;
<401414>
Matthew 14:14, etc.), [oppotqo, arrhostema] (Sirach 10:10, etc.),
with various cognates, [xov, kamno] (
<590515>
James 5:15); Latin morbus (2
Esdras 8:31)): Compared with the number of deaths recorded in the
historical books of the Bible the instances in which diseases are mentioned
are few. Sick and sickness (including disease, etc.) are the
translations of 6 Hebrew and 9 Greek words and occur 56 times in the Old
Testament and 57 times in the New Testament. The number of references
in the latter is significant as showing how much the healing of the sick was
characteristic of the Lords ministry. The diseases specified are varied. Of
infantile sickness there is an instance in Bath-shebas child (
<101215>
2 Samuel
12:15), whose disease is termed anash, not improbably trismus
nascentium, a common disease in Palestine. Among adolescents there are
recorded the unspecified sickness of Abijah (
<111401>
1 Kings 14:1), of the
widows son at Zarephath (
<111717>
1 Kings 17:17), the sunstroke of the
Shunammites son (
<120419>
2 Kings 4:19), the epileptic boy (
<401715>
Matthew
17:15), Jairus daughter (
<400918>
Matthew 9:18), and the noblemans son
(
<430446>
John 4:46). At the other extreme of life Jacobs death was preceded by
sickness (
<014801>
Genesis 48:1). Sickness resulted from accident (Ahaziah,
<120102>
2
Kings 1:2), wounds (Joram,
<120829>
2 Kings 8:29), from the violence of passion
(Amnon,
<101302>
2 Samuel 13:2), or mental emotion (
<270827>
Daniel 8:27); see also
in this connection Song 2:5; 5:8. Sickness the result of drunkenness is
mentioned (
<280705>
Hosea 7:5), and as a consequence of famine (
<241418>
Jeremiah
14:18) or violence (
<330613>
Micah 6:13). Daweh or periodic sickness is referred
931
to (
<031533>
Leviticus 15:33; 20:18), and an extreme case is that of
<420843>
Luke
8:43.
In some examples the nature of the disease is specified, as Asas disease in
his feet (
<111523>
1 Kings 15:23), for which he sought the aid of physicians in
vain (
<141612>
2 Chronicles 16:12). Hezekiah and Job suffered from sore boils,
Jehoram from some severe dysenteric attack (
<142119>
2 Chronicles 21:19), as
did Antiochus Epiphanes (2 Macc 9:5). Probably the sudden and fatal
disease of Herod was similar, as in both cases there is reference to the
presence of worms (compare
<441223>
Acts 12:23 and 2 Macc 9:9). The disease
of Publius father was also dysentery (
<442808>
Acts 28:8). Other diseases
specified are paralysis (
<400806>
Matthew 8:6; 9:2), and fever (
<400814>
Matthew
8:14). Not improbably the sudden illness of the young Egyptian at Ziklag
(
<093011>
1 Samuel 30:11), and the illness of Ben-hadad which weakened him so
that he could not resist the violence of Hazael, were also the common
Palestine fever (
<120815>
2 Kings 8:15) of whose symptoms and effects there is a
graphic description in Psalm 38. Unspecified fatal illnesses were those of
Elisha (
<121314>
2 Kings 13:14), Lazarus (
<431101>
John 11:1), Tabitha (
<440937>
Acts
9:37). In the language of the Bible, leprosy is spoken of as a defilement to
be cleansed, rather than as a disease to be cured.
The proverb concerning the sick quoted by the Lord at Capernaum
(
<410217>
Mark 2:17) has come down to us in several forms in apocryphal and
rabbinical writings (Babha Qamma 26:13; Sanhedhrin 176), but is
nowhere so terse as in the form in which He expresses it. The Lord
performed His healing of the sick by His word or touch, and one of the
most emphatic charges which He gave to His disciples when sending them
out was to heal the sick. One of the methods used by them, the anointing
with oil, is mentioned in
<410613>
Mark 6:13 and enjoined by James (5:15). In
later times the anointing which was at first used as a remedial agent became
a ceremonial in preparation for death, one of the seven sacraments of the
Roman church (Aquinas, Summa Theologia suppl. ad Piii. 29).
The duty of visiting the sick is referred to in
<263404>
Ezekiel 34:4,16, and by the
Lord in the description of the Judgment scene (
<402536>
Matthew 25:36,43). It is
inculcated in several of the rabbinical tracts. He that visits the sick
lengthens his life, he who refrains shortens it, says Rabbi Ischanan in
Nedharim 29. In Shulchan `Arukh, Yoreh De`ah there is a chapter devoted
to this duty, which is regarded as incumbent on the Jew, even though the
sick person be a Gentile (Gittin 61a). The churchs duty to the sick, so long
932
neglected, has, within the last century, been recognized in the mission field,
and has proved, in heathen lands, to be the most important of all pioneer
agressive methods.
While we find that the apostles freely exercised their gifts of healing, it is
noteworthy that we read of the sickness of two of Pauls companions,
Epaphroditus (
<507726>
Philippians 2:26) and Trophimus (2 Tim 4:20), for
whose recovery he seems to have used no other means than prayer.
See also DISEASE.
Alexander Macalister
SICKLE
<sik-l> ([v mer ]j ,, chermesh] (
<051609>
Deuteronomy 16:9; 23:25), [l G; m ,
maggal]; compare Arabic minjal (
<245016>
Jeremiah 50:16;
<290313>
Joel 3:13);
[provov, drepanon] (
<410429>
Mark 4:29;
<661414>
Revelation 14:14-19)):
Although the ancients pulled much of their grain by hand, we know that
they also used sickles. The form of this instrument varied, as is evidenced
by the Egyptian sculptures. The earliest sickle was probably of wood,
shaped like the modern scythe, although much smaller, with the cutting
edge made of sharp flints set into the wood. Sickle flints were found at Tel
el-Chesy. Crescent-shaped iron sickles were found in the same mound. In
Palestine and Syria the sickle varies in size. It is usually made wholly of
iron or steel and shaped much like the instrument used in western lands.
The smaller-sized sickles are used both for pruning and for reaping.
J ames A. Patch
SICYON
<sish-i-on> ([2xuv, Sikuon], [2uxuv, Sukuon], [2uxv, Sukion]):
Mentioned in 1 Macc 15:23 in the list of countries and cities to which
Lucius the Roman consul (probably Lucius Calpurnius Piso, 139 BC)
wrote, asking them to be friendly to the Jews. The Jewish dispersion had
already taken place, and Jews were living in most of the seaports and cities
of Asia Minor, Greece and Egypt (compare Sib Or 3:271, circa 140 BC,
and Philo).
Sicyon was situated 18 miles West of Corinth on the south side of the Gulf
of Corinth. Its antiquity and ancient importance are seen by its coins still
extant, dating from the 5th century. Though not as important as Corinth in
933
its sea trade, the burning of that city in 143 BC, and the favor shown to
Sicyon by the Roman authorities in adding to its territory and assigning to
it the direction of the Isthmian games, increased its wealth and influence
for a time.
S. F. Hunter
SIDDIM, VALE OF
<sid-im>, ([ yD i C i h q m, [ e , `emeq ha-siddim]; Septuagint [q opoy,
he pharangx] (or [xoo, koilas]) [q ouxq, he haluke]): The place
mentioned in
<011403>
Genesis 14:3-8 as being the scene of encounter between
Chedorlaomer and his allies with the kings of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah,
Zeboiim and Zoar. In 14:3 it is identified with the Salt Sea, and in 14:10 it
is said to have been full of slime pits (bitumen).
According to the traditional view, the Vale of Siddim was at the southern
end of the Dead Sea. But in recent years a number of eminent authorities
have maintained that it was at the northern end of the Dead Sea, in the
vicinity of Jericho. Their argument has mainly been drawn from incidental
references in the scene (
<011301>
Genesis 13:1-13) describing the parting of Lot
and Abram, and again in the account of Moses vision from Pisgah
(
<053403>
Deuteronomy 34:3).
In the account of Abram and Lot, it is said that from Bethel they saw all
the Plain of the Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere, before
Yahweh destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. The word here translated
plain means circle, and well describes the view which one has of the
plain about Jericho from Bethel as he looks down the valley past Ai. But it
seems to go beyond the text to assume that the Vale of Siddim was within
that circle of vision, for it is said in
<011312>
Genesis 13:12 simply that Lot dwelt
in the cities of the Plain, and moved his tent as far as Sodom. In the
vision of Moses, likewise, we have a very general and condensed
description, in which it is said that he was shown the Plain of the valley of
Jericho, the city of palm-trees, unto Zoar, which, as we learn from
<011922>
Genesis 19:22, was not far from the Vale of Siddim. It is true that from
the traditional site of Pisgah the south end of the Dead Sea could not be
seen. But we are by no means sure that the traditional site of Pisgah is the
true one, or that the import of this language should be restricted to the
points which are actually within range of vision.
934
The tendency at the present time is to return to the traditional view that the
Vale of Siddim was at the south end of the Dead Sea. This is supported by
the fact that Jebel Usdum, the salt mountain at the southwest corner of the
Dead Sea, still bears the name of Sodom, Usdum being simply another
form of the word. A still stronger argument, however, is drawn from the
general topographical and geological conditions. In the first place, Zoar, to
which Lot is said to have fled, was not far away. The most natural site for
it is near the mouth of the Wady Kerak, which comes down from Moab
into the southern end of the Dead Sea (see ZOAR); and this city was ever
afterward spoken of as a Moabite city, which would not have been the case
if it had been at the north end of the sea. It is notable in
<061315>
Joshua 13:15-
21, where the cities given to Reuben are enumerated, that, though the
slopes of Pisgah are mentioned, Zoar is not mentioned.
In Genesis 14, where the battle between Amraphel and his allies with
Sodom and the other cities of the plain is described, the south end of the
Dead Sea comes in logical order in the progress of their campaign, and
special mention is made of the slime or bitumen pits which occurred in the
valley, and evidently played an important part in the outcome of the battle.
At the south end of the Dead Sea there is an extensive circle or plain which
is better supplied with water for irrigation than is the region about Jericho,
and which, on the supposition of slight geological changes, may have been
extremely fertile in ancient times; while there are many indications of such
fertility in the ruins that have been described by travelers about the mouth
of the Kerak and other localities nearby. The description, therefore, of the
fertility of the region in the Vale of Siddim may well have applied to this
region at the time of Lots entrance into it.
There are very persistent traditions that great topographical changes took
place around the south end of the Dead Sea in connection with the
destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, while the opinion has been
universally prevalent among the earlier historical writers that the site of
Sodom and Gomorrah is beneath the waters of the Dead Sea.
Geological investigations, so far from disproving these traditions, render
them altogether possible and credible. There is a remarkable contrast
between the depths of the north end of the Dead Sea and of the south end.
Near the north end the depth descends to 1,300 ft., whereas for many miles
out from the south end it is very shallow, so that at low water a ford exists,
935
and is occasionally used, from the north end of the salt mountain across to
el-Lisan.
The precipitous salt cliffs of Jebel Usdum which border the southwest
corner of the Dead Sea would indicate that, in comparatively recent times,
there had been abrupt subsidence of a good many feet in the bottom of the
Dead Sea at that end.
Such subsidences of limited areas and in connection with earthquakes are
by no means uncommon. In 1819 an area of 2,000 square miles about the
delta of the Indus sank beneath the level of the sea, so that the tops of the
houses were barely seen above the water. A smaller area in the delta of the
Selenga River sank during the last century beneath the waters of Lake
Baikal. Professor R.S. Tarr of Cornell University has recently described the
effect of an earthquake on the shores of Alaska, in which there was a
change of level of 47 ft.
More probably (see ARABAH; DEAD SEA) there has been a rise in the
waters of the Dead Sea since Abrahams time, caused by the encroachment
upon the original area of evaporation by the deltas which have been pushed
into the main part of the depression by the Jordan, and various smaller
streams descending from the highlands on either side. In consequence of
these encroachments, the equilibrium between precipitation and
evaporation could be maintained only by a rise in the water causing it to
spread over the shallow shelf at the south end, thus covering a large part of
the Vale of Siddim with the shoal water now found between el-Lisan and
Jebel Usdum.
George Frederick Wright
SIDE
<si-de> ([2q, Side]): An ancient town of Pamphylia, occupying a
triangular promontory on the coast. It was one of the towns to which a
letter favorable to the Jews was sent by the Roman consul Lucius (1 Macc
15:23). The town seems to have been of considerable antiquity, for it had
existed long before it fell into the possession of Alexander the Great, and
for a time it was the metropolis of Pamphylia. Off the coast the fleet of
Antiochus was defeated by the Rhodians. During the 1st century, Side was
noted as one of the chief ports of pirates who disposed of much of their
booty there. The ruins of the city, which are now very extensive, bear the
936
name Eski Adalia, but among them there are no occupied houses. The two
harbors protected by a sea wall may still be traced, but they are now filled
with sand. The wall on the land side of the city was provided with a gate
which was protected with round towers; the walls themselves are of
Greek-Roman type. Within the walls the more important of the remains are
three theaters near the harbors, and streets with covered porticoes leading
from the city gate to the harbors. Without the walls, the street leading to
the city gate is lined with sarcophagi, and among the shrubbery of the
neighboring fields are traces of many buildings and of an aqueduct.
E. J . Banks
SIDES
<sidz> ([h k ; r ] y , yarekhah], thigh, flank): the Revised Version
(British and American) substitutes innermost parts for the King James
Version sides in Jon 1:5; compare
<092403>
1 Samuel 24:3.
SIDON (1)
<si-don> ([d oyx i, tsidhon]): The oldest son of Canaan (
<011015>
Genesis 10:15).
SIDON (2)
<si-don> ([wOd yx i, tsidhon]; [2v, Sidon]; the King James Version,
Sidon and Zidon; the Revised Version (British and American) SIDON
only):
1. LOCATION AND DISTINCTION:
One of the oldest Phoenician cities, situated on a narrow plain between the
range of Lebanon and the sea, in latitude 33 degrees 34 minutes nearly.
The plain is well watered and fertile, about 10 miles long, extending from a
little North of Sarepta to the Bostrenus (Nahr el-Auly). The ancient city
was situated near the northern end of the plain, surrounded with a strong
wall. It possessed two harbors, the northern one about 500 yds. long by
200 wide, well protected by little islets and a breakwater, and a southern
about 600 by 400 yards, surrounded on three sides by land, but open to the
West, and thus exposed in bad weather. The date of the founding of the
city is unknown, but we find it mentioned in the Tell el-Amarna Letters in
the 14th century BC, and in
<011019>
Genesis 10:19 it is the chief city of the
937
Canaanites, and Joshua (
<061108>
Joshua 11:8) calls it Great Sidon. It led all the
Phoenician cities in its early development of maritime affairs, its sailors
being the first to launch out into the open sea out of sight of land and to
sail by night, guiding themselves by the stars. They were the first to come
into contact with the Greeks and we find the mention of them several times
in Homer, while other Phoenician towns are not noticed. Sidon became
early distinguished for its manufactures and the skill of its artisans, such as
beautiful metal-work in silver and bronze and textile fabrics embroidered
and dyed with the famous purple dye which became known as Tyrian, but
which was earlier produced at Sidon. Notices of these choice articles are
found in Homer, both in the Iliad and the Odyssey. Sidon had a
monarchical form of government, as did all the Phoenician towns, but it
also held a sort of hegemony over those to the South as far as the limit of
Phoenicia. It likewise made one attempt to establish an inland colony at
Laish or Dan, near the headwaters of the Jordan, but this ended in disaster
(
<071807>
Judges 18:7,27,28). The attempt was not renewed, but many colonies
were established over-sea. Citium, in Cyprus, was one of the earliest.
2. HISTORICAL:
(1) The independence of Sidon was lost when the kings of the XVIIIth
and XIXth Dynasties of Egypt added Palestine and Syria to their
dominions (1580-1205 BC). The kings of Sidon were allowed to
remain on the throne as long as they paid tribute, and perhaps still
exercised authority over the towns that had before been subject to
them. When the power of Egypt declined under Amenhotep IV (1375-
1358), the king of Sidon seems to have thrown off the yoke, as appears
from the Tell el-Amarna Letters. Rib-addi of Gebal writes to the king
of Egypt that Zimrida, king of Sidon, had joined the enemy, but
Zimrida himself claims, in the letters he wrote, to be loyal, declaring
that the town belonging to him had been taken by the Khabiri (Tab.
147). Sidon, with the other towns, eventually became independent of
Egypt, and she retained the hegemony of the southern towns and
perhaps added Dor, claimed by the Philistines, to her dominion. This
may have been the reason for the war that took place about the middle
of the 12th century BC, in which the Philistines took and plundered
Sidon, whose inhabitants fled to Tyre and gave the latter a great
impetus. Sidon, however, recovered from the disaster and became
powerful again. The Book of Judges claims that Israel was oppressed
938
by Sidon (10:12), but it is probable Sidon stands here for Phoenicia in
general, as being the chief town.
(2) Sidon submitted to the Assyrian kings as did the Phoenician cities
generally, but revolted against Sennacherib and again under Esar-
haddon. The latter destroyed a large part of the city and carried off
most of the inhabitants, replacing them by captives from Babylon and
Elam, and renamed it Ir-Esar-had-don (City of Esar-haddon). The
settlers readily mingled with the Phoenicians, and Sidon rose to power
again when Assyria fell, was besieged by Nebuchadnezzar at the time
of his siege of Jerusalem and Tyre, and was taken, having lost about
half of its inhabitants by plague. The fall of Babylon gave another short
period of independence, but the Persians gained control without
difficulty, and Sidon was prominent in the Persian period as the leading
naval power among the Phoenicians who aided their suzerain in his
attacks upon Greece. In 351 BC, Sidon rebelled under Tabnit II
(Tennes), and called in the aid of Greek mercenaries to the number of
10,000; but Ochus, the Persian king, marched against him with a force
of 300,000 infantry and 30,000 horse, which so frightened Tabnit that
he betrayed the city to save his own life. But the citizens, learning of
the treachery, first burned their fleet and then their houses, perishing
with their wives and children rather than fall into the hands of Ochus,
who butchered all whom he seized, Tabnit among them. It is said that
40,000 perished in the flames. A list of the kings of Sidon in the Persian
period has been recovered from the inscriptions and the coins, but the
dates of their reigns are not accurately known. The dynasty of the
known kings begins with Esmunazar I, followed by Tabnit I,
Amastoreth; Esmunazar II, Strato I (Bodastart), Tabnit II (Tennes) and
Strato II. Inscriptions from the temple of Esmun recently discovered
give the name of a Bodastart and a son Yatonmelik, but whether the
first is one of the Stratos above mentioned or a third is uncertain; also
whether the son ever reigned or not. As Bodastart calls himself the
grandson of Esmunazar, he is probably Strato I who reigned about
374-363 BC, and hence, his grandfather, Esmunazar I, must have
reigned in 400 BC or earlier. Strato II was on the throne when
Alexander took possession of Phoenicia and made no resistance to him,
and even aided him in the siege of Tyre, which shows that Sidon had
recovered after the terrible disaster it suffered in the time of Ochus. It
perhaps looked upon the advance of Alexander with content as its
939
avenger. The destruction of Tyre increased the importance of Sidon,
and after the death of Alexander it became attached to the kingdom of
the Ptolemies and remained so until the victory of Antiochus III over
Scopas (198 BC), when it passed to the Seleucids and from them to the
Romans, who granted it a degree of autonomy with native magistrates
and a council, and it was allowed to coin money in bronze.
3. NEW TESTAMENT MENTION:
Sidon comes into view several times in the New Testament; first when
Christ passed into the borders of Tyre and Sidon and healed the daughter
of the Syro-phoenician woman (
<410724>
Mark 7:24-30); also when Herod
Agrippa I received a delegation from Tyre and Sidon at Caesarea (
<441220>
Acts
12:20), where it appears to have been outside his jurisdiction. Paul, on his
way to Rome, was permitted to visit some friends at Sidon (
<442703>
Acts 27:3).
See also
<401121>
Matthew 11:21 f and
<410308>
Mark 3:8.
It was noted for its school of philosophy under Augustus and Tiberius, its
inhabitants being largely Greek; and when Berytus was destroyed by an
earthquake in 551, its great law school was removed to Sidon. It was not
of great importance during the Crusades, being far surpassed by Acre, and
in modern times it is a small town of some 15,000.
LITERATURE.
See PHOENICIA.
H. Porter
SIDONIANS
<si-do-ni-anz>: Natives or inhabitants of Sidon (
<050309>
Deuteronomy 3:9;
<061304>
Joshua 13:4,6;
<070303>
Judges 3:3;
<110506>
1 Kings 5:6).
SIEGE
<sej> ([r wOx m;, matsor] (
<052852>
Deuteronomy 28:52,53;
<111527>
1 Kings 15:27;
<122502>
2 Kings 25:2;
<232903>
Isaiah 29:3;
<260402>
Ezekiel 4:2); to be besieged, to
suffer siege, ba-matsor bo (
<052019>
Deuteronomy 20:19;
<122410>
2 Kings 24:10;
25:2)):
940
1. IN EARLY HEBREW HISTORY:
In early Hebrew history, siege operations are not described and can have
been little known. Although the Israelites had acquired a certain degree of
military discipline in the wilderness, when they entered Canaan they had no
experience of the operations of a siege and were without the engines of
war necessary for the purpose. Jericho, with its strongly fortified wall, was
indeed formally invested it was straitly shut up because of the children
of Israel: none went out, and none came in (
<060601>
Joshua 6:1) but it fell
into their hands without a siege. Other cities seem to have yielded after
pitched battles, or to have been taken by assault. Many of the Canaanite
fortresses, like Gezer (
<100525>
2 Samuel 5:25;
<061610>
Joshua 16:10), Taanach and
Megiddo (
<070127>
Judges 1:27), remained unreduced. Jerusalem was captured
by the men of Judah (
<070108>
Judges 1:8), but the fort of Jebus remained
unconquered till the time of David (
<100506>
2 Samuel 5:6).
2. IN THE MONARCHY:
In the days of the monarchy more is heard of siege operations. At the siege
of Rabbath-Ammon Joab seems to have deprived the city of its water-
supply and rendered it untenable (
<101101>
2 Samuel 11:1; 12:27). At Abel of
Beth-maacah siege operations are described in which Joab distinguished
himself (
<102015>
2 Samuel 20:15). David and Solomon, and, after the disruption
of the kingdom, Rehoboam and Jeroboam built fortresses which ere long
became the scene of siege operations. The war between Judah and Israel in
the days of Nadab, Baasha, and Elah was, for the most part, a war of
sieges. It was while besieging Gibbethon that Nadab, the son of Jeroboam,
was slain by Baasha (
<111527>
1 Kings 15:27), and, 27 years after, while the
army of Israel was still investing the same place, the soldiery chose their
commander Omri to be king over Israel (
<111616>
1 Kings 16:16). From the
Egyptians, the Syrians, the Assyrians, and the Chaldeans, with whom they
came into relations in later times as allies or as enemies, the people of the
Southern and of the Northern Kingdoms learned much regarding the art,
both of attack and of defense of fortified places.
3. PRELIMINARIES TO SIEGE:
It was an instruction of the Deuteronomic Law that before a city was
invested for a long siege, it should be summoned to capitulate
(
<052010>
Deuteronomy 20:10; compare
<102018>
2 Samuel 20:18;
<121817>
2 Kings 18:17
941
ff). If the offer of peace be declined, then the siege is to be proceeded with,
and if the city be captured, all the male population is to be put to death,
and the women and children reserved as a prey for the captors. To this
humane reservation the cities of the Canaanites were to be an exception:
their inhabitants were to be wholly exterminated (
<052016>
Deuteronomy 20:16-
18).
The same law prescribed that there should be no unnecessary destruction
of fruit trees in the prosecution of a long siege. Trees not yielding fruit for
human sustenance might be cut down: And thou shalt build bulwarks
(matsor, siegeworks) against the city that maketh war with thee, until it
fall (
<052019>
Deuteronomy 20:19,20). This instruction to have regard to the
fruit trees around a hostile city seems to have been more honored in the
breach than in the observance, even in Israel. When the allied kings of
Israel, Judah, and Edom were invading Moab and had instruction to smite
every fortified city, the prophet Elisha bade them also fell every good
tree, and stop all fountains of water, and mar every good piece of land with
stones (
<120301>
2 Kings 3:19,25). When the assault of Jerusalem by the
Chaldeans was imminent, Yahweh commanded the cutting down of the
trees (
<240606>
Jeremiah 6:6). In Arabian warfare, we are told, the destruction of
the enemys palm groves was a favorite exploit (Robertson Smith, OTJC2,
369), and the Assyrians when they captured a city had no compunction in
destroying its plantations (Inscription of Shalmaneser II on Black Obelisk).
4. SIEGE OPERATIONS: ATTACK:
From passages in the Prophets, upon which much light has been thrown by
the ancient monuments of Assyria and Chaldea, we gain a very clear idea
of the siege works directed against a city by Assyrian or Chaldean invaders.
The siege of Lachish (
<121813>
2 Kings 18:13,14;
<233601>
Isaiah 36:1,2) by
Sennacherib is the subject of a series of magnificent reliefs from the mound
of Koyunjik (Layard, Monuments of Nineveh, lI, plates 20, 21, 22). The
downfall of Nineveh as predicted in Nahum s prophecy lets us see the siege
operations proceeding with striking realism (see Der Untergang Ninivehs
by A. Jeremias and Colonel Billerbeck). Nowhere, however, are the
incidents of a siege the gathering of hostile forces, the slaughter of
peaceful inhabitants in the country around, the raising of siegeworks, the
setting of engines of war against the walls, the demolition of the towers,
the breach in the principal wall, the rush of men and the clatter of horses
hoofs through the streets, the slaughter, the pillage, the destruction of walls
942
and houses more fully and faithfully recorded than by Ezekiel when
predicting the capture of Tyre by Nebuchadrezzar (
<262607>
Ezekiel 26:7-12).
The siege of Tyre lasted 13 years, and Ezekiel tells how every head was
made bald and every shoulder worn by the hard service of the besiegers
(
<262918>
Ezekiel 29:18). There were various ways in which an invading army
might deal with a fortified city so as to secure its possession. Terms might
be offered to secure a capitulation (
<112001>
1 Kings 20:1 ff;
<121814>
2 Kings 18:14
ff). An attempt might be made to reduce the city by starvation (
<120624>
2 Kings
6:24 ff;
<121705>
2 Kings 17:5 ff). The city might be invested and captured by
assault and storm, as Lachish was by Sennacherib (
<121813>
2 Kings 18:13; 19:8;
see Layard, op cit., II, plates 20-24). The chief operations of the besiegers
were as follows:
(1) Investment of City:
There was the investment of the city by the besieging army. It was
sometimes necessary to establish a fortified camp, like that of Sennacherib
at Lachish to guard against sorties by the defenders. Of the siege of
Jerusalem we read that Nebuchadrezzar came, he and all his army, against
Jerusalem, and encamped against it (
<245204>
Jeremiah 52:4; compare
<122501>
2
Kings 25:1). From the commencement of the siege, slingers and archers
were posted where they could keep the defenders engaged; and it is to this
that reference is made when Jeremiah says: Call together the archers
against Babylon, all them that bend the bow; encamp against her round
about; let none thereof escape (
<245029>
Jeremiah 50:29).
(2) Line of Circumvallation:
There was next the drawing of a line of circumvallation (dayeq) with
detached forts round about the walls. These forts were towers manned by
archers, or they were used as stations from which to discharge missiles
(
<245204>
Jeremiah 52:4;
<261717>
Ezekiel 17:17). In this connection the word
munition in the King James Version and the English Revised Version
(matsor) in Nah 1:1 disappears in the American Standard Revised Version
and is replaced by fortress.
(3) Mound or Earthworks:
Following upon this was the mound (colelah), or earthworks, built up to
the height of the walls, so as to command the streets of the city, and strike
terror into the besieged. From the mound thus erected the besiegers were
943
able to batter the upper and weaker part of the city wall (
<102015>
2 Samuel
20:15;
<233733>
Isaiah 37:33;
<240606>
Jeremiah 6:6;
<260402>
Ezekiel 4:2;
<271115>
Daniel 11:15;
<250418>
Lamentations 4:18). If, however, the town, or fortress, was built upon
an eminence, an inclined plane reaching to the height of the eminence might
be formed of earth or stones, or trees, and the besiegers would be able to
bring their engines to the foot of the walls. This road was even covered
with bricks, forming a kind of paved way, up which the ponderous
machines could be drawn without difficulty. To such roads there are
references in Scripture (
<181912>
Job 19:12;
<232903>
Isaiah 29:3, siege works;
compare Layard, Nineveh and Its Remains, II, 366 f). In the case of Tyre
this mound, or way of approach, was a dam thrown across the narrow
strait to obtain access to the walls (
<262608>
Ezekiel 26:8). Very often, too, there
was a trench, sometimes filled with water, at the foot of the wall, which
had to be dealt with previous to an assault.
(4) Battering-Rams:
The earthworks having been thrown up, and approaches to the walls
secured, it was possible to set and to work the battering-rams (karim)
which were to be employed in breaching the walls (
<260402>
Ezekiel 4:2), or in
bursting open the gates (
<262122>
Ezekiel 21:22). The battering-rams were of
different kinds. On Assyrian monuments they are found joined to movable
towers holding warriors and armed men, or, in other cases, joined to a
stationary tower constructed on the spot. When the men who are detailed
to work the ram get it into play, with its heavy beams of planks fastened
together and the great mass of metal forming its head, they can hardly fail
to make an impression, and gradually, by the constantly repeated shocks, a
breach is opened and the besiegers are able to rush in and bear down the
defenders. It is to the shelter furnished by these towers that the prophet
Nahum refers (2:5) when he says,The mantelet is prepared, and that
Isaiah points when he declares that the king of Assyria shall not come
unto this city, nor shoot an arrow there, neither shall he come before it
with shield (maghen), nor cast up a mound against it (
<233733>
Isaiah 37:33).
Ezekiel has the same figure when, describing the siege of Tyre by
Nebuchadrezzar, he declares that he shall cast up a mound against her,
and raise up the buckler, the buckler (qinnah) being like the Roman
testudo, or roof of shields, under cover of which the besiegers carried on
operations (
<262608>
Ezekiel 26:8; Colonel Billerbeck (op. cit., 178) is doubtful
whether this device was known to the Assyrians). Under the shelter of their
movable towers the besiegers could push forward mines, an operation
944
known as part of siegecraft from a high antiquity (see
<102015>
2 Samuel 20:15,
where the American Revised Version margin and the English Revised
Version margin give undermined as an alternative to battered;
tunneling was well known in antiquity, as the Siloam tunnel shows).
(5) Storming of Walls and Rushing of Breach:
The culminating operation would be the storming of the walls, the rushing
of the breach. Scaling-ladders were employed to cross the encircling trench
or ditch (
<202122>
Proverbs 21:22); and Joel in his powerful description of the
army of locusts which had devastated the land says that they climb the
wall like men of war (
<290207>
Joel 2:7). Attempts were made to set fire to the
gates and to break them open with axes (
<070952>
Judges 9:52; compare
<160103>
Nehemiah 1:3; 2:3;
<262609>
Ezekiel 26:9). Jeremiah tells of the breach that
was made in the city when Jerusalem was captured (
<243902>
Jeremiah 39:2).
The breaches in the wall of Samaria are referred to by Amos (4:3), who
pictures the women rushing forth headlong like a herd of kine with hooks
and fishhooks in their nostrils.
5. SIEGE OPERATIONS: DEFENSE:
While the besiegers employed this variety of means of attack, the besieged
were equally ingenious and active in maintaining the defense. All sorts of
obstructions were placed in the way of the besieging army. Springs and
cisterns likely to afford supplies of water to the invaders were carefully
covered up, or drained off into the city. Where possible, trenches were
filled with water to make them impassable. As the siege-works of the
enemy approached the main wall, it was usual to build inner fortifications,
and for this purpose houses were pulled down to provide the needful space
and also to supply building materials (
<232210>
Isaiah 22:10). Slingers placed
upon the walls hurled stones upon the advancing enemy, and archers from
loopholes and protected battlements discharged arrows against the
warriors in their movable towers. Sorties were made to damage the siege-
works of the enemy and to prevent the battering-rams from being placed in
position. To counteract the assaults of the battering-rams, sacks of chaff
were let down like a ships fender in front of the place where the engine
operated a contrivance countered again by poles with scythes upon
them which cut off the sacks (Josephus, BJ, III, vii, 20). So, too, the
defenders, by dropping a doubled chain or rope from the battlements,
caught the ram and broke the force of its blows. Attempts were made to
945
destroy the ram also by fire. In the great bas-relief of the siege of Lachish
an inhabitant is seen hurling a lighted torch from the wall; and it was a
common device to pour boiling water or oil from the wall upon the
assailants. Missiles, too, were thrown with deadly effect from the
battlements by the defenders, and it was by a piece of a millstone thrown
by a woman that Abimelech met his death at Thebez (
<070953>
Judges 9:53).
While Uzziah of Judah furnished his soldiers with shields and spears and
helmets and coats of mail and bows and slingstones, he also made in
Jerusalem engines, invented by skillful men, to be on the towers and upon
the battlements, wherewith to shoot arrows and great stones (
<142615>
2
Chronicles 26:15). The Jews had, for the defense of Jerusalem against the
army of Titus, engines which they had taken from the Twelfth Legion at
Beth-horon which seem to have had a range of 1,200 ft. Many ingenious
devices are described by Josephus as employed by himself when
conducting the defense of Jotapata in Galilee against Vespasian and the
forces of Rome (BJ, III, vii).
6. RAISING OF SIEGE:
When Nahash king of the Ammonites laid siege to Jabesh-gilead in the
opening days of the reign of Saul, the terms of peace offered to the
inhabitants were so humiliating and cruel that they sought a respite of
seven days and appealed to Saul in their distress. When the newly chosen
king heard of their desperate condition he assembled a great army,
scattered the Ammonites, and raised the siege of Jabesh-gilead, thus
earning the lasting gratitude of the inhabitants (1 Samuel 11; compare
<093112>
1
Samuel 31:12,13). When Zedekiah of Judah found himself besieged in
Jerusalem by the Chaldean army under Nebuzaradan, he sent intelligence to
Pharaoh Hophra who crossed the frontier with his army to attack the
Chaldeans and obliged them to desist from the siege. The Chaldeans
withdrew for the moment from the walls of Jerusalem and offered battle to
Pharaoh Hophra and his host, but the courage of the Egyptian king failed
him and he retired in haste without encountering the Chaldeans in a pitched
battle. The siege was prosecuted to the bitter end, and Jerusalem was
captured and completely overthrown (
<122501>
2 Kings 25:1;
<243703>
Jeremiah 37:3-
10;
<261717>
Ezekiel 17:17).
946
7. HORRORS OF SIEGE AND CAPTURE:
In the ancient law of Israel siege is classed with drought and pestilence
and exile as punishments with which Yahweh would visit His people for
their disobedience (
<052849>
Deuteronomy 28:49-57). Of the horrors there
described they had again and again bitter experience. At the siege of
Samaria by Ben-hadad II, so terrible were the straits to which the besieged
were reduced that they cooked and ate their own children (
<120628>
2 Kings
6:28). In the siege of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, which ended in the
overthrow of the city and the destruction of the Temple, the sufferings of
the inhabitants from hunger and disease were incredible (
<122503>
2 Kings 25:3;
<243224>
Jeremiah 32:24;
<250220>
Lamentations 2:20; 4:8-10). The horrors of siege
have, perhaps, reached their climax in the account given by Josephus of the
tragedy of Masada. To escape capture by the Romans, ten men were
chosen by lot from among the occupants of the fortress, 960 in number,
including combatants and non-combatants, men, women and children, to
slay the rest. From these ten one was similarly chosen to slay the survivors,
and he, having accomplished his awful task, ran his sword into his own
body (Josephus, BJ, VII, ix, 1). While all the inhabitants of a city under
siege suffered the famine of bread and the thirst for water, the combatants
ran the risk of impalement and other forms of torture to which prisoners in
Assyrian and Chaldean and Roman warfare were subjected.
The horrors attending the siege of a city were only surpassed by the
barbarities perpetrated at its capture. The emptying of a city by its capture
is likened to the hurling of a stone from a sling (
<241017>
Jeremiah 10:17,18).
Deportation of the whole of the inhabitants often followed (
<121706>
2 Kings
17:6; 24:14). Not only were the inhabitants of the captured city deported,
but their gods were carried off with them and the idols broken in pieces.
This is predicted or recorded of Babylon (
<232109>
Isaiah 21:9; 46:1;
<245002>
Jeremiah 50:2), of Egypt (
<244312>
Jeremiah 43:12), of Samaria (
<281006>
Hosea
10:6). Indiscriminate slaughter followed the entrance of the assailants, and
the city was usually given over to the flames (
<243908>
Jeremiah 39:8,9;
<250418>
Lamentations 4:18). Cities without number, says Shalmaneser II in
one of his inscriptions, I wrecked, razed, burned with fire. Houses were
destroyed and women dishonored (
<381402>
Zechariah 14:2). When Darius took
Babylon, he impaled three thousand prisoners (Herodotus iii.159). The
Scythians scalped and flayed their enemies and used their skins for horse
trappings (ibid., iv.64). The Assyrian sculptures show prisoners subjected
to horrible tortures, or carried away into slavery. The captured Zedekiah
947
had his eyes put out after he had seen his own sons cruelly put to death
(
<122507>
2 Kings 25:7). It is only employing the imagery familiar to Assyrian
warfare when Isaiah represents Yahweh as saying to Sennacherib:
Therefore will I put my hook in thy nose, and my bridle in thy lips, and I
will turn thee back by the way by which thou camest (
<233729>
Isaiah 37:29).
Anticipating the savage barbarities that would follow the capture of
Samaria by the Assyrians, Hosea foresees the infants being dashed to
pieces and the women with child being ripped up (
<281014>
Hosea 10:14; 13:16;
compare
<300101>
Amos 1:13). The prophet Nahum predicting the overthrow of
Nineveh recalls how at the capture of No-amon (Egyptian Thebes) by the
Assyrian conqueror, Ashurbanipal, her young children also were dashed in
pieces at the head of all the streets; and they cast lots for her honorable
men, and all her great men were bound in chains (Nah 3:10).
8. SIEGE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT:
The only. explicit reference to siege operations in the New Testament is
our Lords prediction of the complete destruction of Jerusalem when He
wept over its coming doom: For the days shall come upon thee, when
thine enemies shall cast up a bank (charax, the King James Version, quite
incorrectly, trench) about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee
in on every side, and shall dash thee to the ground, and thy children within
thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another (
<421943>
Luke
19:43,44). The order and particulars of the siege are in accordance with the
accounts of siege operations in the Old Testament. How completely the
prediction was fulfilled we see from Josephus (BJ, V, vi, 10).
Figurative:
In Pauls Epistles there are figures taken from siege operations. In
<471004>
2
Corinthians 10:4 we have the casting down of strongholds, where the
Greek word [xo0opro, kathairesis], from [xo0oprv, kathairein], is
the regular word used in Septuagint for the reduction of a fortress
(
<202122>
Proverbs 21:22;
<250202>
Lamentations 2:2; 1 Macc 5:65). In
<490616>
Ephesians
6:16 there is allusion to siege-works, for the subtle temptations of Satan
are set forth as the flaming darts hurled by the besiegers of a fortress which
the Christian soldier is to quench with the shield of faith.
948
LITERATURE.
Nowack, Hebraische Archaeologie, 71; Benzinger, Kriegswesen in
Herzog3; Billerbeck and A. Jeremias, Der Untergang Ninivehs; Billerbeck,
Der Festungsbau im alten Orient.
T. Nicol
SIEVE; SIFT
<siv>.
See AGRICULTURE; THRESHING.
SIGLOS
<sig-los> ([oyo, siglos]): A Persian silver coin, twenty of which went
to the gold DARIC (which see).
SIGN
<sin> ([t wOa , oth] a sign mark [t p ewOm, mopheth], wonder
[oqrov, semeion], a sign, signal, mark): A mark by which persons
or things are distinguished and made known. In Scripture used generally of
an address to the senses to attest the existence of supersensible and
therefore divine power. Thus the plagues of Egypt were signs of divine
displeasure against the Egyptians (
<020408>
Exodus 4:8 ff;
<062417>
Joshua 24:17, and
often); and the miracles of Jesus were signs to attest His unique
relationship with God (
<401238>
Matthew 12:38;
<430218>
John 2:18;
<440222>
Acts 2:22).
Naturally, therefore, both in the Old Testament and the New Testament,
signs are assimilated to the miraculous, and prevailingly associated with
immediate divine interference. The popular belief in this manner of
communication between the visible and the invisible worlds has always
been, and is now, widespread. So-called natural explanations, however
ingenious or cogent, fail with the great majority of people to explain
anything. Wesley and Spurgeon were as firm believers in the validity of
such methods of intercourse between man and God as were Moses and
Gideon, Peter and John.
The faith that walks by signs is not by any means to be lightly esteemed. It
has been allied with the highest nobility of character and with the most
signal achievement. Moses accepted the leadership of his people in
949
response to a succession of signs: e.g. the burning bush, the rod which
became a serpent, the leprous hand, etc. (Exodus 3 and 4); so, too, did
Gideon, who was not above making proof of God in the sign of the fleece
of wool (
<070636>
Judges 6:36-40). In the training of the Twelve, Jesus did not
disdain the use of signs (
<420501>
Luke 5:1-11, and often); and the visions by
which Peter and Paul were led to the evangelization of the Gentiles were
interpreted by them as signs of the divine purpose (Acts 10 and 16).
The sacramental use of the sign dates from the earliest period, and the
character of the sign is as diverse as the occasion. The rainbow furnishes
radiant suggestion of Gods overarching love and assurance that the waters
shall no more become a flood to destroy the earth (
<010913>
Genesis 9:13;
compare 4:15); the Feast of Unleavened Bread is a reminder of Gods care
in bringing His people out of bondage (
<021303>
Exodus 13:3); the Sabbath is an
oft-recurring proclamation of Gods gracious thought for the well-being of
man (
<023113>
Exodus 31:13;
<262012>
Ezekiel 20:12); the brazen serpent, an early
foreshadowing of the cross, perpetuates the imperishable promise of
forgiveness and redemption (
<042109>
Numbers 21:9); circumcision is made the
seal of the special covenant under which Israel became a people set apart
(
<011711>
Genesis 17:11); baptism, the Christian equivalent of circumcision,
becomes the sign and seal of the dedicated life and the mark of those
avowedly seeking to share in the blessedness of the Kingdom of God
(
<420312>
Luke 3:12-14;
<440241>
Acts 2:41, and often); bread and wine, a symbol of
the spiritual manna by which soul and body are preserved unto everlasting
life, is the hallowed memorial of the Lords death until His coming again
(
<422214>
Luke 22:14-20;
<461123>
1 Corinthians 11:23-28). Most common of all were
the local altars and mounds consecrated in simple and sincere fashion to a
belief in Gods ruling and overruling providence (
<060401>
Joshua 4:1-10).
Signs were offered in proof of the divine commission of prophet (
<232003>
Isaiah
20:3) and apostle (2 Cor 12:12), and of the Messiah Himself (
<432030>
John
20:30;
<440222>
Acts 2:22); and they were submitted in demonstration of the
divine character of their message (
<122009>
2 Kings 20:9;
<233801>
Isaiah 38:1;
<440301>
Acts
3:1-16). By anticipation the child to be born of a young woman (
<230710>
Isaiah
7:10-16; compare
<420212>
Luke 2:12) is to certify the prophets pledge of a
deliverer for a captive people.
See IMMANUEL.
950
With increase of faith the necessity for signs will gradually decrease. Jesus
hints at this (
<430448>
John 4:48), as does also Paul (1 Cor 1:22). Nevertheless
signs, in the sense of displays of miraculous powers, are to accompany
the faith of believers (
<411617>
Mark 16:17 f), usher in and forthwith characterize
the dispensation of the Holy Spirit, and mark the consummation of the ages
(
<661501>
Revelation 15:1).
See also MIRACLE.
For sign of a ship ([opooqo, parasemos], ensign,
<442811>
Acts 28:11).
See DIOSCURI; SHIPS AND BOATS, III, 2.
Charles M. Stuart
SIGNET
<sig-net>.
See SEAL.
SIGNS, NUMERICAL
<nu-mer-i-kal>.
See NUMBER.
SIGNS OF THE HEAVENS
See ASTRONOMY, I, 4.
SIHON
<si-hon> ([wOj ys i, cichon]): King of the Amorites, who vainly opposed
Israel on their journey from Egypt to Palestine, and who is frequently
mentioned in the historical books and in the Psalms because of his
prominence and as a warning for those who rise against Yahweh and His
people (
<042121>
Numbers 21:21, and often;
<050104>
Deuteronomy 1:4; 31:4;
<060210>
Joshua 2:10;
<071119>
Judges 11:19,20,21;
<110419>
1 Kings 4:19;
<160922>
Nehemiah
9:22;
<19D511>
Psalm 135:11; 136:19;
<244845>
Jeremiah 48:45).
SIHOR
<si-hor>.
951
See SHIHOR.
SIHOR-LIBNATH
<si-hor-lib-nath>.
See SHIHOR-LIBNATH.
SILAS
<si-las> ([2o, Silas], probably contraction for [2ouovo,
Silouanos]; the Hebrew equivalents suggested are [v yl iv ;, shalish],
Tertius, or [j l v , , shelach] (
<011024>
Genesis 10:24) (Knowling), or [l Wa v ;,
shaul] = asked (Zahn)): The Silas of Acts is generally identified with the
Silvaus of the Epistles. His identification with Titus has also been
suggested, based on
<470119>
2 Corinthians 1:19; 8:23, but this is very
improbable (compare Knowling, Expositors Greek Test., II, 326). Silas,
who was probably a Roman citizen (compare
<441637>
Acts 16:37), accompanied
Paul during the greater part of his 2nd missionary journey (Acts 15 through
18). At the meeting of the Christian community under James at Jerusalem,
which decided that circumcision should not be obligatory in the case of
Gentile believers, Silas and Judas Barsabas were appointed along with Paul
and Barnabas to convey to the churches in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia
the epistle informing them of this decision. As leading men among the
brethren at Jerusalem, and therefore more officially representative of the
Jerusalem church than Paul and Barnabas, Silas and Judas were further
commissioned to confirm the contents of the letter by word of mouth.
On arrival at Antioch, the epistle was delivered, and Judas and Silas, being
themselves also prophets, exhorted the brethren with many words, and
confirmed them. Their mission being thus completed, the four were
dismissed in peace from the brethren unto those that had sent them forth
(Revised Version), or unto the apostles (the King James Version)
(
<441522>
Acts 15:22-33).
Different readings now render the immediate movements of Silas
somewhat obscure;
<441533>
Acts 15:33 would imply that he returned to
Jerusalem. But some texts proceed in 15:34, Notwithstanding it pleased
Silas to abide there still, and others add and Judas alone proceeded. Of
this, the first half is accepted by the King James Version. The principal
texts however reject the whole verse and are followed in this by the
952
Revised Version (British and American). It is held by some that he
remained in Antioch till chosen by Paul (
<441540>
Acts 15:40). Others maintain
that he returned to Jerusalem where John Mark then was (compare
<441313>
Acts
13:13); and that either during the interval of some days (
<441536>
Acts 15:36),
when the events described in
<480211>
Galatians 2:11 ff took place (Wendt), he
returned to Antioch along with Peter, or that he and John Mark were
summoned thither by Paul and Barnabas, subsequent to their dispute
regarding Mark. (For fuller discussion, see Knowling, Expositors Greek
Test., II, 330, 332-35.)
Upon Barnabas separation from Paul, Silas was chosen by Paul in his
place, and the two missionaries, after being commended by the brethren
(at Antioch) to the grace of the Lord, proceeded on their journey
(
<441533>
Acts 15:33 margin through 40). Passing through Syria, Cilicia, Galatia,
Phrygia and Mysia, where they delivered the decree of the Jerusalem
council and strengthened the churches, and were joined by Timothy, they
eventually reached Troas (
<441541>
Acts 15:41 through 16:8). Indications are
given that at this city Luke also became one of their party (compare also
the apocryphal Acts of Paul, where this is definitely stated; Budge,
Contendings of the Apostles, II, 544).
Upon the call of the Macedonian, the missionary band set sail for Greece,
and after touching at Samothrace, they landed at Neapolis (
<441609>
Acts 16:9-
11). At Philippi, Lydia, a seller of purple, was converted, and with her they
made their abode; but the exorcism of an evil spirit from a sorceress
brought upon Silas and Paul the enmity of her masters, whose source of
gain was thus destroyed. On being charged before the magistrates with
causing a breach of the peace and preaching false doctrine, their garments
were rent off them and they were scourged and imprisoned. In no way
dismayed, they prayed and sang hymns to God, and an earthquake in the
middle of the night secured them a miraculous release. The magistrates, on
learning that the two prisoners whom they had so maltreated were Roman
citizens, came in person and besought them to depart out of the city
(
<441612>
Acts 16:12-39). After a short visit to the house of Lydia, where they
held an interview with the brethren, they departed for Thessalonica, leaving
Luke behind (compare Knowling, op. cit., 354-55). There they made many
converts, especially among the Greeks, but upon the house of Jason, their
host, being attacked by hostile Jews, they were compelled to escape by
night to Berea (
<441640>
Acts 16:40 through 17:10). There they received a better
hearing from the Jews, but the enmity of the Thessalonian Jews still
953
pursued them, and Paul was conducted for safety to Athens, Silas and
Timothy being left behind. On his arrival, he dispatched an urgent message
back to Bercea for Silas and Timothy to rejoin him at that city (
<441711>
Acts
17:11-15). The narrative of Acts implies, however, that Paul had left
Athens and had reached Corinth before he was overtaken by his two
followers (18:5). Knowling (op. cit., 363-64) suggests that they may have
actually met at Athens, and that Timothy was then sent to Thessalonica
(compare
<520301>
1 Thessalonians 3:1,2), and Silas to Philippi (compare
<500415>
Philippians 4:15), and that the three came together again at Corinth.
The arrival of Silas and Timothy at that city is probably referred to in
<471109>
2
Corinthians 11:9. It is implied in
<441818>
Acts 18:18 that Silas did not leave
Corinth at the same time as Paul, but no further definite reference is made
to him in the narrative of the 2nd missionary journey.
Assuming his identity with Silvanus, he is mentioned along with Paul and
Timothy in
<470119>
2 Corinthians 1:19 as having preached Christ among the
Corinthians (compare
<441805>
Acts 18:5). In
<520101>
1 Thessalonians 1:1, and
<530101>
2
Thessalonians 1:1, the same three send greetings to the church at
Thessalonica (compare
<441701>
Acts 17:1-9). In
<600512>
1 Peter 5:12 he is
mentioned as a faithful brother and the bearer of that letter to the
churches of the Dispersion (compare on this last Knowling, op. cit., 331-
32). The theory which assigns He to the authorship of Silas is untenable.
C. M. Kerr
SILENCE
<si-lens>: Five Hebrew roots, with various derivatives, and two Greek
words are thus translated. The word is used literally for dumbness,
interrupted speech, as in
<250210>
Lamentations 2:10;
<193203>
Psalm 32:3;
<210307>
Ecclesiastes 3:7;
<300513>
Amos 5:13;
<441512>
Acts 15:12;
<461428>
1 Corinthians
14:28;
<540211>
1 Timothy 2:11,12 the King James Version (the American
Standard Revised Version quietness);
<660801>
Revelation 8:1, or figuratively
of the unanswered prayers of the believer (
<198301>
Psalm 83:1; 35:22;
<240814>
Jeremiah 8:14); of awe in the presence of the Divine Majesty (
<234101>
Isaiah
41:1;
<380213>
Zechariah 2:13), or of death (
<090209>
1 Samuel 2:9;
<199417>
Psalm 94:17;
115:17).
954
SILK; SILKWORM
<silk-wurm> ((1) [yv im,, meshi] (
<261610>
Ezekiel 16:10,13), perhaps from
[h v ;m; , mashah], to draw to extract compare Arabic masa of same
meaning; Septuagint [tpotov, trichapton], woven of hair;
(2) [oqpxov, serikon] (
<661812>
Revelation 18:12); (31 [v v e , shesh];
compare Arabic shash, a thin cotton material;
(4) [6 WB , buts]; compare Arabic abyad, white, from bad;
(5) [puooo, bussos], fine linen, later used of cotton and silk): The
only undoubted reference to silk in the Bible is the passage cited from
Revelation, where it is mentioned among the merchandise of Babylon.
Serikon, silk, is from Ser, the Greek name of China, whence silk was
first obtained. The equivalent Latin sericum occurs frequently in
classical authors, and is found in the Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible,
390-405 A.D.) (Est 8:15) for buts, fine linen. For buts, bussos, and
shesh English Versions of the Bible has nearly always fine linen, but
for shesh in
<203122>
Proverbs 31:22, the King James Version has silk, and
in
<014142>
Genesis 41:42 and
<022504>
Exodus 25:4, the King James Version
margin has silk and the Revised Version margin has cotton.
See LINEN; FINE.
There can be little doubt of the correctness of English Versions of the Bible
silk for meshi in
<261610>
Ezekiel 16:10, I girded thee about with fine linen
(shesh), and covered thee with silk (meshi), and in the similar passage,
<261613>
Ezekiel 16:13.
Silk is produced by all Lepidoptera, butterflies and moths, but it is of great
economic importance only in the Chinese silkworm, Bombyx mori, whose
larva, a yellowish-white caterpillar from 2 to 3 in. long, feeds on the leaves
of the mulberry (Morus). A pair of large glands on the two sides of the
stomach secrete a viscous fluid, which is conveyed by ducts to an orifice
under the mouth. On issuing into the air, the fine stream is hardened into
the silk fiber, which the caterpillar spins into a cocoon. Within the cocoon
the caterpillar is presently transformed into the chrysalis or pupa. The
cocoons from which silk is to be spun are subjected to heat which kills the
pupae and prevents them from being transformed into the perfect insects or
955
moths, which would otherwise damage the cocoons as they made their
exit.
The raising of silkworms, and the spinning and weaving of silk are now
important industries in Syria, though the insect was unknown in Bible
times. It was introduced to the Mediterranean region from China a few
centuries after Christ. Coarse silk is produced from the Chinese oak silk-
moth, Saturnia pernyi, and from the Japanese oak silk-moth, Saturnia
yama-mai. The largest moth of Syria and Palestine is Saturnia pyri, from
which silk has also been spun, but not commercially.
See, further, WEAVING.
Alfred Ely Day
SILLA
<sil-a> ([a L ;s i , cilla]; Codex Vaticanus [Ioo, Galla]; Codex
Alexandrinus [Iooo, Gaallad]): Joash was assassinated by his
servants at the house of Millo, on the way that goeth down to Silla (
<121220>
2
Kings 12:20). Wherever Beth-millo stood, Silla was evidently in the valley
below it; but nothing is known of what it was or where it stood.
SILOAM; SILOAH; SHELAH; SHILOAH
<si-lo-am>, <si-lo-am>, <si-lo-a>, <she-la>, <shi-lo-a>:
(1) [j l V i h yme , me ha-shiloach] (shiloach or shilloach is a passive
form and means sent or conducted) the waters of (the) Shiloah
(
<230806>
Isaiah 8:6).
(2) [j l V , h t k r e B ; , berekhath ha-shelach], the pool of (the)
Shelah (the King James Version Siloah) (
<160315>
Nehemiah 3:15).
(3) [tqv xoupq0pov tou, ten kolumbethran tou] (or [tov, ton])
[2o, Siloam], the pool of Siloam (
<430907>
John 9:7).
(4) [o upyo rv t 2o, ho purgos en to Siloam], the tower in
Siloam (
<421304>
Luke 13:4).
956
1. THE MODERN SILWAN:
Although the name is chiefly used in the Old Testament and Josephus as
the name of certain waters, the surviving name today, Silwan, is that of a
fairly prosperous village which extends along the steep east side of the
Kidron valley from a little North of the Virgins Fountain as far as Bir
Eyyub. The greater part of the village, the older and better built section,
belongs to Moslem fellahin who cultivate the well-watered gardens in the
valley and on the hill slopes opposite, but a southern part has recently been
built in an extremely primitive manner by Yemen Jews, immigrants from
South Arabia, and still farther South, in the commencement of the Wady en
Nar, is the wretched settlement of the lepers. How long the site of Silwan
has been occupied it is impossible to say. The village is mentioned in the
10th century by the Arab writer Muqaddasi. The numerous rock cuttings,
steps, houses, caves, etc., some of which have at times served as chapels,
show that the site has been much inhabited in the past, and at one period at
least by hermits. The mention of those eighteen, upon whom the tower in
Siloam fell, and killed them (
<421304>
Luke 13:4) certainly suggests that there
was a settlement there in New Testament times, although some writers
consider that this may have reference to some tower on the city walls near
the Pool of Siloam.
2. THE SILOAM AQUEDUCT:
Opposite to the main part of Silwan is the Virgins Fount, ancient
GIHON (which see), whose waters are practically monopolized by the
villagers. It is the waters of this spring which are referred to in
<230805>
Isaiah
8:5,6: Forasmuch as this people have refused the waters of Shiloah that
go softly, .... now therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth up upon them the
waters of the River.
The contrast between the little stream flowing from the Gihon and the
great Euphrates is used as a figure of the vast difference between the
apparent strength of the little kingdom of Judah and the House of David on
the one hand, and the might of Rezin and Remaliahs son and all his
glory. Although it is quite probable that in those days there was an open
streamlet in the valley, yet the meaning of Shiloah, sent or conducted,
rather implies some kind of artificial channel, and there is also
archaeological evidence that some at least of the waters of Gihon were
even at that time conducted by a rock-cut aqueduct along the side of the
957
Kidron valley (see JERUSALEM, VII, 5). It was not, however, till the days
of Hezekiah that the great tunnel aqueduct, Siloams most famous work,
was made (
<122020>
2 Kings 20:20): Hezekiah also stopped the upper spring of
the waters of Gihon, and brought them, straight down on the west side of
the City of David (
<143230>
2 Chronicles 32:30); They stopped all the
fountains, and the brook (nachal) that flowed through the midst of the
land, saying, Why should the kings of Assyria come, and find much
water? (
<143204>
2 Chronicles 32:4; Ecclesiasticus 48:17). Probably the exit of
the water at Gihon was entirely covered up and the water flowed through
the 1,700 ft. of tunnel and merged in the pool made for it (now known as
the Birket Silwan) near the mouth of the Tyropceon valley. This
extraordinary winding aqueduct along which the waters of the Virgins
Fount still flow is described in JERUSALEM, VII, 4 (which see). The
lower end of this tunnel which now emerges under a modern arch has long
been known as `Ain Silwan, the Fountain of Siloam, and indeed, until the
rediscovery of the tunnel connecting this with the Virgins Fount (a fact
known to some in the 13th century, but by no means generally known until
the last century), it was thought this was simply a spring. So many springs
all over Palestine issue from artificial tunnels it is indeed the rule in
Judea that the mistake is natural. Josephus gives no hint that he knew of
so great a work as this of Hezekiahs, and in the 5th century a church was
erected, probably by the empress Eudoxia, at this spot, with the high altar
over the sacred spring. The only pilgrim who mentions this church is
Antonius Martyr (circa 570), and after its destruction, probably by the
Persians in 614, it was entirely lost sight of until excavated by Messrs. Bliss
and Dickie. It is a church of extraordinary architectural features; the floor
of the center aisle is still visible.
3. THE POOL OF SILOAM:
The water from the Siloam aqueduct, emerging at `Ain Silwan, flows today
into a narrow shallow pool, approached by a steep flight of modern steps;
from the southern extremity of this pool the water crosses under the
modern road by means of an aqueduct, and after traversing a deeply cut
rock channel below the scarped cliffs on the north side of el-Wad, it
crosses under the main road up the Kidron and enters a number of channels
of irrigation distributed among the gardens of the people of Silwan. The
water here, as at its origin, is brackish and impregnated with sewage.
958
The modern Birket es-Silwan is but a poor survivor of the fine pool which
once was here. Bliss showed by his excavations at the site that once there
was a great rock-cut pool, 71 ft. North and South, by 75 ft. East and West,
which may, in part at least, have been the work of Hezekiah (
<122020>
2 Kings
20:20), approached by a splendid flight of steps along its west side. The
pool was surrounded by an arcade 12 ft. wide and 22 1/2 ft. high, and was
divided by a central arcade, to make in all probability a pool for men and
another for women. These buildings were probably Herodian, if not earlier,
and therefore this, we may reasonably picture, was the condition of the
pool at the time of the incident in
<430907>
John 9:7, when Jesus sent the blind
man to wash in the pool of Siloam.
This pool is also probably the Pool of Shelah described in
<160315>
Nehemiah
3:15 as lying between the Fountain Gate and the Kings Garden. It may
also be the kings pool of
<160214>
Nehemiah 2:14. If we were in any doubt
regarding the position of the pool of Siloam, the explicit statement of
Josephus (BJ, V, iv, 1) that the fountain of Siloam, which he says was a
plentiful spring of sweet water, was at the mouth of the Tyropoeon would
make us sure.
4. THE BIRKET EL CHAMRA:
A little below this pool, at the very mouth of el-Wad, is a dry pool, now a
vegetable garden, known as Birket el Chamra (the red pool). For many
years the sewage of Jerusalem found its way to this spot, but when in 1904
an ancient city sewer was rediscovered (see PEFS, 1904, 392-94), the
sewage was diverted and the site was sold to the Greek convent which
surrounded it with a wall. Although this is no longer a pool, there is no
doubt but that hereabouts there existed a pool because the great and
massive dam which Bliss excavated here (see JERUSALEM, VI, 5) had
clearly been made originally to support a large body of water. It is
commonly supposed that the original pool here was older than the Birket
Silwan, having been fed by an aqueduct which was constructed from Gihon
along the side of the Kidron valley before Hezekiahs great tunnel. If this is
correct (and excavations are needed here to confirm this theory), then this
may be the lower pool referred to in
<232209>
Isaiah 22:9, the waters of which
Hezekiah stopped, and perhaps, too, that described in the same passage
as the old pool.
959
5. THE SILOAM AQUEDUCT:
The earliest known Hebrew inscription of any length was accidentally
discovered near the lower end of the Siloam aqueduct in 1880, and
reported by Dr. Schick. It was inscribed upon a rock-smoothed surface
about 27 in. square, some 15 ft. from the mouth of the aqueduct; it was
about 3 ft. above the bottom of the channel on the east side. The
inscription consisted of six lines in archaic Hebrew, and has been translated
by Professor Sayce as follows:
(1) Behold the excavation. Now this (is) the history of the tunnel: while
the excavators were still lifting up
(2) The pick toward each other, and while there were yet three cubits
(to be broken through) .... the voice of the one called
(3) To his neighbor, for there was an (?) excess in the rock on the right.
They rose up .... they struck on the west of the
(4) Excavation; the excavators struck, each to meet the other, pick to
pick. And there flowed
(5) The waters from their outlet to the pool for a thousand, two
hundred cubits; and (?)
(6) Of a cubit, was the height of the rock over the head of the
excavators ....
It is only a roughly scratched inscription of the nature of a graffito; the
flowing nature of the writing is fully explained by Dr. Reissners recent
discovery of ostraca at Samaria written with pen and ink. It is not an
official inscription, and consequently there is no kingly name and no date,
but the prevalent view that it was made by the work people who carried
out Hezekiahs great work (
<122020>
2 Kings 20:20) is now further confirmed by
the character of the Hebrew in the ostraca which Reissner dates as of the
time of Ahab.
Unfortunately this priceless monument of antiquity was violently removed
from its place by some miscreants. The fragments have been collected and
are now pieced together in the Constantinople museum. Fortunately
several excellent squeezes as well as transcriptions were made before the
inscription was broken up, so that the damage done is to be regretted
rather on sentimental than on literary grounds.
960
E. W. G. Masterman
SILOAM, TOWERIN
See JERUSALEM; SILOAM.
SILVANUS
<sil-va-nus> ([2ouovo, Silouanos] (2 Cor 1:19)).
See SILAS.
SILVER
<sil-ver> ([t s ,K ,, keceph]; [opyupov, argurion], [o pyupo, arguros]):
Silver was known in the earliest historic times. Specimens of early
Egyptian and Babylonian silver work testify to the skill of the ancient
silversmiths. In Palestine, silver objects have been found antedating the
occupation of the land by the Hebrews. This metal was used for making all
kinds of ornamental objects. In the mound of Gezer were found bowls,
vases, ladles, hairpins, rings and bracelets of silver. The rings and settings
for scarabs or seals were commonly of this metal. The first mention of
silver in the Bible is in
<011302>
Genesis 13:2, where it says that Abraham was
rich in cattle, in silver and gold. At that time it was commonly used in
exchange in the form of bars or other shapes. Coins of that metal were of a
much later date (
<012016>
Genesis 20:16; 23:15; 24:53; 37:28, etc.). Booty was
collected in silver (
<060619>
Joshua 6:19); tribute was paid in the same (
<111519>
1
Kings 15:19). It was also used for jewelry (
<014402>
Genesis 44:2). The Children
of Israel systematically despoiled the Egyptians of their silver before the
exodus (
<020322>
Exodus 3:22; 11:2; 12:35, etc.).
<022023>
Exodus 20:23 implies that
idols were made of it. It was largely used in the fittings of the tabernacle
(Exodus 26 ff) and later of the temple (2 Chronicles 2 ff).
It is likely that the ancient supply of silver came from the mountains of Asia
Minor where it is still found in abundance associated with lead as
argentiferous galena, and with copper sulfide. The Turkish government
mines this silver on shares with the natives. The Sinaitic peninsula probably
also furnished some silver. Later Phoenician ships brought quantities of it
from Greece and Spain. The Arabian sources are doubtful (
<140914>
2 Chronicles
9:14). Although silver does not tarnish readily in the air, it does corrode
badly in the limestone soil of Palestine and Syria. This probably partly
961
accounts for the small number of objects of this metal found. On the site of
the ancient jewelers shops of Tyre the writer found objects of gold,
bronze, lead, iron, but none of silver.
FIGURATIVE:
Silver to be as stones in Jerusalem (
<111027>
1 Kings 10:27) typified great
abundance (compare
<180315>
Job 3:15; 22:25; 27:16; also
<236017>
Isaiah 60:17;
<380903>
Zechariah 9:3). The trying of mens hearts was compared to the refining
of silver (
<196610>
Psalm 66:10;
<234810>
Isaiah 48:10). Yahwehs words were as pure
as silver refined seven times (
<191206>
Psalm 12:6). The gaining of understanding
is better than the gaining of silver (
<200314>
Proverbs 3:14; compare 8:19; 10:20;
16:16; 22:1; 25:11). Silver become dross denoted deterioration (
<230122>
Isaiah
1:22;
<240630>
Jeremiah 6:30). Breast and arms of silver was interpreted by
Daniel to mean the inferior kingdom to follow Nebuchadnezzars
(
<270232>
Daniel 2:32,39).
In the New Testament, reference should be made especially to
<441924>
Acts
19:24;
<590503>
James 5:3;
<661812>
Revelation 18:12.
J ames A. Patch
SILVERLING
<sil-ver-ling> ([t s ,K , t l ,a ,, eleph kecheph] (
<230723>
Isaiah 7:23)): `A
thousand of silver means a thousand shekels.
See PIECE OF SILVER.
SILVERSMITH
<sil-ver-smith> ([opyupoxoo, argurokopos]): Mentioned only once
(
<441924>
Acts 19:24), where reference is made to Demetrius, a leading member
of the silversmiths guild of Ephesus.
SIMALCUE
<si-mal-ku-e>: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British
and American) IMALCUE (which see).
962
SIMEON (1)
<sim-e-on> ([wO[ m]v i, shim`on]; [2urv, Sumeon]; the Hebrew root is
from [[ m v ; , shama`], to hear (
<012933>
Genesis 29:33); some modern
scholars (Hitzig, W. R. Smith, Stade, etc.) derive it from Arabic sima`, the
offspring of the hyena and female wolf): In
<012933>
Genesis 29:33; 30:18-21;
35:23, Simeon is given as full brother to Reuben, Levi, Judah, Issachar and
Zebulun, the son of Leah; and in
<013425>
Genesis 34:25; 49:5 as the brother of
Levi and Dinah. He was left as a hostage in Egypt by orders of Joseph
(
<014224>
Genesis 42:24; 43:23).
1. THE PATRIARCH: BIBLICAL DATA:
In the blessing of the dying Jacob, Simeon and Levi are linked together:
Simeon and Levi are brethren;
Weapons of violence are their swords.
O my soul, come not thou into their council;
Unto their assembly, my glory, be not thou united;
For in their anger they slew a man,
And in their self-will they hocked an ox.
Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce;
And their wrath, for it was cruel:
I will divide them in Jacob,
And scatter them in Israel (
<014905>
Genesis 49:5-7).
Whatever view may be taken of the events of
<013425>
Genesis 34:25 (and some
would see in it a tradition of the settlement of Jacob which belongs to a
cycle quite independent of the descent into Egypt and the Exodus (see S.
A. Cook, Encyclopedia Brit, article Simeon)), it is clear that we have
here a reference to it and the suggestion that the subsequent history of the
tribe, and its eventual absorption in Judah, was the result of violence. In the
same way the priestly Levites became distributed throughout the other
tribes without any tribal inheritance of their own (
<051801>
Deuteronomy 18:1;
<061314>
Joshua 13:14). From the mention (
<014610>
Genesis 46:10;
<020615>
Exodus 6:15)
of Shaul as being the son of a Canaanite woman, it may be supposed that
the tribe was a mixed one.
In the blessing of Moses (Deuteronomy 33) Simeon is not mentioned at
all in the Hebrew text, although in some manuscripts of the Septuagint the
latter half of
<053306>
Deuteronomy 33:6 is made to apply to him: Let Simeon
963
be a small company. The history of the tribe is scanty and raises many
problems. Of the many theories advanced to meet them it cannot be said
that any one answers all difficulties.
2. THE TRIBE IN SCRIPTURE:
In the wilderness of Sinai the Simeonites camped beside the Reubenites
(
<040212>
Numbers 2:12; 10:19); it was Zimri, a member of one of the leading
families of this tribe, who was slain by Phinehas in the affair of Baal-peor
(
<042514>
Numbers 25:14). The statistics in
<040122>
Numbers 1:22 f, where the
Simeonites are given as 59,300, compared with the 2nd census
(
<042614>
Numbers 26:14), where the numbers are 22,200, indicate a diminishing
tribe. Some have connected this with the sin of Zimri.
At the recital of the law at Mt. Gerizim, Simeon is mentioned first among
those that were to respond to the blessings (
<052712>
Deuteronomy 27:12). In
the conquest of Canaan Judah said unto Simeon his brother, Come up
with me into my lot, that we may fight against the Canaanites; and I
likewise will go with thee into thy lot. So Simeon went with him
(
<070103>
Judges 1:3; compare 1:17). (Many scholars find in Genesis 34 a tribal
attempt on the part of the Simeonites to gain possession of Shechem; if this
is so, Judah did not assist, and the utter failure may have been a cause of
Simeons subsequent dependence upon, and final absorption in, Judah.) In
Judges 4 and 5 Simeon is never mentioned. In the settlement of the land
there is no account of how Simeon established himself in his territory
(except the scanty reference in
<070103>
Judges 1:3), but their inheritance was in
the midst of the inheritance of the children of Judah (
<061901>
Joshua 19:1); this
is accounted for (
<061909>
Joshua 19:9), for the portion of the children of Judah
was too much for them. Nevertheless we find there the very cities which
are apportioned to Simeon, allotted to Judah (
<061521>
Joshua 15:21-32;
compare
<161126>
Nehemiah 11:26-29). It is suggested (in
<130431>
1 Chronicles 4:31)
that the independent possession of these cities ceased in the time of David.
David sent spoil to several Simeonite towns (
<093026>
1 Samuel 30:26 f), and in
<131225>
1 Chronicles 12:25 it is recorded that 7,100 Simeonite warriors came to
David in Hebron. In
<132716>
1 Chronicles 27:16 we have mention of a ruler of
the Simeonites, Shephatiah, son of Maacah.
In
<130439>
1 Chronicles 4:39 f mention is made of certain isolated exploits of
Simeonites at GEDOR (which see), against the MEUNIM (which see), and
at MT. SEIR (which see). Later references associate certain Simeonites
964
with the Northern Kingdom (
<141509>
2 Chronicles 15:9; 34:6), and tradition has
come to view them as one of the ten tribes (compare
<264824>
Ezekiel
48:24,25,33;
<660707>
Revelation 7:7), although all the history of them we have
is bound up with Judah and the Southern Kingdom. There is no mention of
the return of any Simeonites after the captivity; their cities fall to Judah
(
<161126>
Nehemiah 11:26 f).
3. REFERENCES IN EGYPTIAN AND ASSYRIAN
INSCRIPTIONS:
It has been supposed by many authorities that the name [Shim`an] occurs
in the list of places plundered by Thothmes III (see Petrie, Hist, II, 104;
also Hommel, Ancient Hebrew Tradition, 268; Sayce, Early Hebrew
Traditions, 392). In the 7th century we have a doubtful reference in an
inscription of Esar-haddon relating his Egyptian campaign when a city Ap-
ku is mentioned as in the country of Sa-me-n(a), which may possibly be a
reference to Simeon. The survival of the name so late, if true, is strange, in
the light of what we gather from the Bible about the tribe. (For discussion
of both of these inscriptions, with references to the lit., see EB, coll. 4528-
30.)
4. THE TERRITORY OF SIMEON:
The cities of Simeon as given in
<061902>
Joshua 19:2-6 and
<130428>
1 Chronicles
4:28,31 are (the names in parentheses are variations in the latter reference):
Beer-sheba, Moladah, Hazar-shual, Balah (Bilhah), Azem (the King James
Version) (Ezem), Eltolad (Tolad), Bethuel, Hormah, Ziklag, Beth-
marcaboth, Hazar-susah (Hazar Susim), Beth-lebaoth (Beth-biri), Sharuhen
(Shaaraim) (Etam), Ain Rimmon, Ether (Tochen), Ashan in all, 16 cities
in Joshua and 17 cities in 1 Chronicles. Ashan (
<130659>
1 Chronicles 6:59) is the
only one assigned to the priests. It is written wrongly as Ain in
<062116>
Joshua
21:16. All the above cities, with certain variations in form, and with the
exception of Etam in
<130432>
1 Chronicles 4:32, which is probably a mistake,
occur in the list of the cities of Judah (
<061526>
Joshua 15:26-32,42). Ziklag is
mentioned (
<092706>
1 Samuel 27:6) as being the private property of the kings of
Judah from the days of David, who received it from Achish, king of Gath.
For the situation of these cities, so far as is known, see separate articles
under their names. It is clear that they were all situated in the southwestern
965
part of Palestine, and that Simeon had no definite territorial boundaries, but
isolated cities, with their villages, among those of the people of Judah.
E. W. G. Masterman
SIMEON (2)
([wO[ m]v i, shim`on]; [2urv, Sumeon]):
(1) The 2nd son of Jacob by Leah (see separate article).
(2) Great-grandfather of Judas Maccabeus (1 Macc 2:1).
(3) A man in Jerusalem described as righteous and devout, looking for
the consolation of Israel. When the infant Jesus was brought into the
Temple, he took Him into his arms and blessed God in words which are
famous as the Nunc dimittis. Simeon bestowed his blessing on the
wondering father and mother (
<420225>
Luke 2:25,34). Legend has made him
the son of Hillel and father of Gamaliel I, but this has no historical
basis.
(4) An ancestor of Jesus (
<420330>
Luke 3:30); the Revised Version (British
and American) Symeon.
(5) The Revised Version (British and American) Symeon: one of the
prophets and teachers in the Christian community at Antioch. He is also
called Niger, which was the Gentile name he had assumed, Symeon
being Hebrew. He was among those who set apart Paul and Barnabas
for their missionary work (
<441301>
Acts 13:1,2). Nothing more is known of
him.
(6) The Revised Version (British and American) Symeon: the
Hebrew name of Simon Peter (
<441514>
Acts 15:14).
S. F. Hunter
SIMEON (NIGER)
<ni-jer>): The King James Version in
<441301>
Acts 13:1, the Revised Version
(British and American) Symeon (which see).
SIMEONITES
<sim-e-on-its>.
966
See SIMEON.
SIMILITUDE
<si-mil-i-tud>: In the King James Version means either an exact
facsimile (
<19A620>
Psalm 106:20 the King James Version, the Revised Version
(British and American) likeness;
<450514>
Romans 5:14, etc.), or else the form
itself (
<041208>
Numbers 12:8;
<050412>
Deuteronomy 4:12,15,16 for temunah,
form (so the Revised Version (British and American))); compare
LIKENESS. the English Revised Version has retained the word in
<140403>
2
Chronicles 4:3;
<271016>
Daniel 10:16 (the American Standard Revised Version
likeness), while the English Revised Version and the American Standard
Revised Version have used similitudes in
<281210>
Hosea 12:10 ([h m;D ; ,
damah], be like). The meaning is I have inspired the prophets to speak
parables.
SIMON (1)
([2v, Simon], Greek form of SIMEON (which see)): The persons of
the name of Simon mentioned in the Apocrypha are:
(1) Simon the Maccabean (Hasmonean), surnamed THASSI (which
see), the 2nd son of Mattathias and elder brother of Judas Maccabeus.
On his deathbed, Mattathias commended Simon as a man of counsel
to be a father to his brethren (1 Macc 2:65), and a man of counsel
he proved himself. But it was not till after the death of Judas and the
capture of Jonathan that he played the chief role. Dispatched by Judas
with a force to the relief of the Jews in Galilee he fought with great
success (1 Macc 5:17 ff; Josephus, Ant, XII, viii, 1 f). We find him next
taking revenge along with Jonathan on the children of Jambri (1
Macc 9:33 ff), and cooperating in the successful campaign around
Bethbasi against Bacchides (circa 156 BC) (1 Macc 9:62 ff), and in the
campaign against Apollonius (1 Macc 10:74 ff). In the conflict between
Tryphon and Demetrius II, Simon was appointed by Antiochus VI
captain from the Ladder of Tyre unto the borders of Egypt (1 Macc
11:59). After the capture of Jonathan at Ptolemais by Tryphon, Simon
became acknowledged leader of his party. He thwarted Tryphon in his
attempts upon Jerusalem, in revenge for which the latter murdered
Jonathan (1 Macc 13:23). Simon then took the side of Demetrius on
condition of immunity for Judea, and so `in the 170th year (143-142
967
BC) `the yoke of the heathen was taken away from Israel (1 Macc
13:41). Simon applied himself to rebuild the strongholds of Judea,
reduced Gazara, captured the Acra (citadel) and made Joppa a seaport.
He showed his wisdom most of all in his internal administration: He
sought the good of his country; commerce and agriculture revived;
lawlessness was suppressed and the land had rest all the days of Simon
(1 Macc 14:4 ff). His power was acknowledged by Sparta and Rome (1
Macc 14:16 ff). In 141 BC he was appointed by the nation leader, high
priest and captain for ever, until there should arise a faithful prophet
(1 Macc 14:41 ff), and thus the Hasmonean dynasty was founded. A
new chronological era began with the first year of his administration,
and he minted his own coins. A few years later Simon again meddled in
Syrian politics (139 BC), this time at the entreaty of Antiochus VII
(Sidetes) in his contest against Tryphon; when, however, Antiochus
was assured of success, he refused the help of Simon and sent
Cendebaeus against Judea. Judas and John, sons of Simon, defeated the
invaders near Modin (137-136 BC). In 135 BC Simon met his death by
treachery. Ptolemy the son of Abubus, Simons own son-in-law,
determined to secure supreme power for himself and, in order to
accomplish this, to assassinate the whole family of Simon. He
accordingly invited Simon and his sons to a banquet in the stronghold
of Dok near Jericho, where he treacherously murdered Simon with his
two sons Mattathias and Judas. The other son, John Hyrcanus,
governor of Gazara, received intimation of the plot and saved himself
to become the head of the Hasmonean dynasty. The significance of
Simons administration consists in this, that he completed the work of
Jonathan and left the Jewish people absolutely independent of Syria
(Schurer).
See MACCABAEUS, II, 4.
(2) Simon I, the high priest, son of Onias I, whom he succeeded circa
300 BC. He was one of the last of the Great Synagogue, and to him is
attributed the saying, On three things the world depends the Law,
Worship and the showing of kindness. According to Josephus (Ant.,
XII, ii, 5) this Simon was called the Just ([o xoo, ho dikaios]),
on account of his piety and his benevolent disposition toward his
countrymen.
968
Many authorities (Herzfeld, Derenbourg, Stanley, Cheyne) assert that
Josephus is wrong in attaching this epithet to Simon I instead of Simon II,
and Schurer is not certain on this question. But the Talmud passage which
Derenbourg cites means the opposite of what he takes it, namely, it is
intended to show how splendid and holy were the days of Simeon (ha-
tsaddiq) compared with the later days. Besides, Josephus is more likely to
have known the truth on this matter than these later authorities. The same
uncertainty obtains as to whether the eulogium in Sirach 50:1 ff of the
great priest refers to Simon I or Simon II. Schurer and others refer it to
Simon II. It is more likely to refer to the Simon who was famous as the
Just, and consequently to Simon I. Besides we know of no achievements
of Simon II to entitle him to such praise. The building operations
mentioned would suit the time of Simon I better, as Ptolemy captured
Jerusalem and probably caused considerable destruction. The Talmud
states that this Simon (and not Jaddua) met Alexander the Great.
(3) Simon II, high priest, son of Onias II and grandson of Simon I and
father of Onias III, flourished about the end of the 3rd century BC, and
was succeeded by his son Onias III circa 198 BC. Josephus says that
this Simon in the conflict of the sons of Joseph sided with the elder
sons against Hyrcanus the younger. Schurer (probably incorrectly)
thinks he is the Simon praised in Sirach 50:1 ff. See (2) above (3 Macc
2:1; Josephus, Ant, XII, iv, 10).
(4) Simon, a Benjamite, guardian of the temple, who, having quarreled
with the high priest Onias III, informed Apollonius of the untold sums
of money in the temple treasury. Apollonius laid the matter before the
king Seleucus IV, who sent Heliodorus to remove the money. An
apparition prevented Heliodorus from accomplishing his task (2 Macc
3:4 ff). It is further recorded, that Simon continued his opposition to
Onias. He is spoken of as brother of the renegade Menelaus (2 Macc
4:23). Of his end we know nothing.
(5) Simon Chosameus (Codex Vaticanus (and Swete) [Xooooo,
Chosamaos]; Codex Alexandrinus [Xooooo, Chosomaios]), one of
the sons of Annas who had married strange wives (1 Esdras 9:32).
Simon apparently = Shimeon (shim`on) of the sons of Harim
(
<151031>
Ezra 10:31); Chosameus is probably a corruption standing in the
place of, but not resembling, any of the three names: Benjamin,
Malluch, Shemaraiah, which Esdras omits from the Ezra list.
969
S. Angus
SIMON (2)
<si-mon> ([2v, Simon]):
(1) Simon Peter.
See PETER (SIMON).
(2) Another of the Twelve, Simon the Cananean (
<401004>
Matthew 10:4;
<410318>
Mark 3:18), the Zealot (
<420615>
Luke 6:15;
<440113>
Acts 1:13).
See CANANAEAN.
(3) One of the brethren of Jesus (
<401355>
Matthew 13:55;
<410603>
Mark 6:3).
See BRETHERN OF THE LORD.
(4) The leper in Bethany, in whose house a woman poured a cruse of
precious ointment over the head of Jesus (
<402606>
Matthew 26:6;
<411403>
Mark
14:3). He had perhaps been healed by Jesus; in that case his ungracious
behavior was not consistent with due gratitude. However he was
healed, the title referred to his condition in the past, as lepers were
ostracized by law.
(5) A Pharisee in whose house a woman, a sinner, wet the feet of
Jesus with her tears, and anointed them with ointment (
<420736>
Luke 7:36
ff). By some he is identified with (4), this being regarded as Lukes
version of the incident recorded in Matthew 26 and Mark 14. Others as
strongly deny this view.
For discussion see MARY, IV.
(6) A man of Cyrene, who was compelled to carry the cross of Jesus
(
<402732>
Matthew 27:32;
<411521>
Mark 15:21;
<422326>
Luke 23:26). Mark calls him
the father of Alexander and Rufus, well-known members of the
church at (probably) Rome (compare
<441933>
Acts 19:33;
<451613>
Romans
16:13).
See CYRENIAN.
The father of Judas Iscariot (
<430671>
John 6:71; 12:4 the King James Version,
the Revised Version (British and American) omits;
<431302>
John 13:2,26).
970
(8) Simon Magus (
<440809>
Acts 8:9 ff). See separate article.
(9) Simon, the tanner, with whom Peter lodged at Joppa. His house
was by the seaside outside the city wall, because of its ceremonial
uncleanness to a Jew, and also for reasons of sanitation (
<440943>
Acts 9:43).
S. F. Hunter
SIMON MAGUS
<ma-gus> ([2v, Simon], Greek form of Hebrew [wO[ m]v i, shim`on];
Gesenius gives the meaning of the Hebrew word as hearing with
acceptance; it is formed from root [[ m v ; , shama`], to hear):
1. SIMON, A MAGICIAN:
The name or term Magus is not given to him in the New Testament, but
is justly used to designate or particularize him on account of the incident
recorded in
<440809>
Acts 8:9-24, for though the word Magus does not occur,
yet in 8:9 the present participle mageuon is used, and is translated, both in
the King James Version and in the Revised Version (British and American),
used sorcery. Simon accordingly was a sorcerer, he bewitched the
people of Samaria (the King James Version). In
<440811>
Acts 8:11 it is also
said that of long time he had amazed them with his sorceries
(magiais). The claim, given out by himself, was that he was some great
one; and this claim was acknowledged by the Samaritans, for previous to
the introduction of the gospel into Samaria, they all gave heed (to him),
from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is that power of God which
is called Great (8:10).
2. SIMON AND THE APOSTLES:
(1) Simon and Philip:
It so happened, however, that Philip the deacon and evangelist went down
from Jerusalem to Samaria, and proclaimed unto them the Christ
(
<440805>
Acts 8:5); and as the result of the proclamation of the gospel, many
were gathered into the Christian church. Many miracles also were
performed by Philip, sick persons cured, and demons cast out; and Simon
fell under the influence of all these things, both of the preaching and of the
signs. So great was the impression now made upon Simon that he
believed (
<440813>
Acts 8:13). This means, at least, that he saw that Philip was
971
able in the name of Jesus Christ to display powers greater than anything he
himself was acquainted with: Philips power was greater by far than
Simons. He therefore came forward as one of the new converts, and was
baptized. After his baptism he continued with Philip. The signs which
accompanied the introduction of the gospel into this city did not cease, and
Simon seeing them was amazed. The word denoting Simons amazement
at the signs wrought by Philip is the same as that used to express how
the people of Samaria had been amazed at Simons sorceries. It is an
indication of the nature of the faith which he possessed in the gospel
wondering amazement at a new phenomenon not yet understood, not
repentance or trust in Christ.
(2) Simon and Peter and John:
News having reached Jerusalem of the events which had occurred in
Samaria, the apostles sent Peter and John to establish the work there.
These two apostles prayed for the converts that they might receive the
Holy Ghost, which they had not yet received. And when they had laid their
hands upon the converts, the Spirit was given to them. At this early period
in the history of the church the Holy Ghost was bestowed in a visible
manner which showed itself in such miraculous gifts as are described in
Acts 2. Simon saw what had taken place, and then, instead of joining the
company of those who had truly repented and trusted Christ, he came
forward with the same amazement as he had previously shown, and offered
money to Peter and John, if they would impart to him the power of giving
the Holy Spirit to others. Peter instantly rebuked this bold and ungodly
request, and did so with such sterness as to cause Simon to ask that the
judgment threatened by the apostle might not fall upon him.
Such is the unenviable history of Simon Magus, as it is recorded in the
New Testament. Later centuries have shown their estimation of the
heinousness of Simons sin by employing his name to indicate the crime of
buying or selling price a spiritual office for a price in money simony.
3. THE MAGICIANS AND THE GOSPEL:
It is not strange to find the gospel brought into direct conflict with
magicians, for in the 1st and 2nd centuries there were a multitude of such
persons who pretended to possess supernatural powers by which they
endeavored to deceive men. They flattered the sinful inclinations of the
human heart, and fell in with mens current ways of thinking, and required
972
no self-renunciation at all. For these reasons the magicians found a ready
belief on the part of many. The emperor Tiberius, in his later years, had a
host of magicians in constant attendance upon him. Elymas, with whom
Paul came in contact in Cyprus was with the deputy of the country,
Sergius Paulus, a prudent man (
<441307>
Acts 13:7 the King James Version).
Elymas was one of those magicians, and he endeavored to turn away the
deputy from the faith. Luke expressly calls this man magus, Elymas the
magus (
<441306>
Acts 13:6,8 margin).
The influence of such persons presented an obstacle to the progress of the
Christian faith, which had to force its way through the delusions with
which these sorcerers had surrounded the hearts of those whom they
deceived. When the gospel came in contact with these magicians and with
their works, it was necessary that there should be striking facts, works of
supernatural power strongly appealing to mens outward senses, in order
to bring them out of the bewilderment and deception in which they were
involved, and to make them able to receive the impression of spiritual
truth. Such miracles were wrought both in Cyprus and in Samaria, the
spheres of influence of the magicians Elymas and Simon. These divine
works first arrested mens attention, and then dispelled the delusive
influence of the sorcerers.
4. TESTIMONY OF EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS:
(1) The history of Simon Magus does not close with what is narrated in
the Acts, for the early Christian writers have much to say in regard to
him.
Justin Martyr, himself a Samaritan, states that Simon Magus was a
Samaritan from the village called Gitton. Justin also relates that, in the
time of Claudius Caesar, Simon was worshipped as a god at Rome on
account of his magical powers, and that a statue had been erected to him,
on the island in the river Tiber, with the inscription Simoni Deo Sancto,
that is, To Simon the sacred god. Curiously enough, in the year 1574, a
stone which appears to have served as a pedestal of a statue, was dug up in
the Tiber at the spot described by Justin; and on it were inscribed the
words Semoni Sanco Deo Fidio Sacrum, that is, the stone then discovered
was dedicated to the god Semo Sancus, the Sabine Hercules. This
antiquarian find makes it probable that Jstin was mistaken in what he said
about a statue having been erected in honor of Simon Magus. It is
973
incredible that the folly should ever be carried to such an extent as that a
statue should be erected, and the senate should pass a decree enrolling
Simon Magus among the deos Romanos (Neander, Church History, II,
123). The inscription found in 1574 shows the source of the error into
which Justin had fallen.
There are many stories told by some of the early Christian writers
regarding Simon Magus, but they are full of legend and fable: some of
them are improbable in the extreme and border on the impossible.
(2) Jerome, who professes to quote from writings of Simon, represents
him as employing these words in reference to himself, I am the Word
of God, I am the Comforter, I am Almighty, I am all there is of God
(Mansel, The Gnostic Heresies, 82). Irenaeus (Mansel, ibid., 82) writes
regarding him: Simon, having purchased a certain woman named
Helena, who had been a prostitute in the city of Tyre, carried her about
with him, and said that she was the first conception of his mind, the
mother of all things, by whom, in the beginning, he conceived the
thought of making the angels and archangels; for that this conception
proceeded forth from him, and knowing her fathers wishes, she
descended to the lower world, and produced the angels and powers; by
whom also he said that this world was made. But after she had
produced them, she was detained by them through envy, since they
were unwilling to be considered the offspring of any other being; for he
himself was entirely unknown by them; but his conception was detained
by those powers and angels which were put forth from her, and
suffered every insult from them that she might not return upward to her
father; and this went so far that she was even confined within a human
body, and for ages passed into other female bodies, as if from one
vessel into another. He said also that she was that Helen, on whose
account the Trojan war was fought .... and that after passing from one
body to another, and constantly meeting with insult, at last she became
a public prostitute, and that this was the lost sheep. On this account he
himself came, that he might first of all reclaim her and free her from her
chains, and then give salvation to men through the knowledge of
himself. For since the angels ruled the world badly, because one of
them desired the chief place, he had come down for the restoration of
all things, and had descended, being changed in figure, and made like to
principalities and powers and angels, so that he appeared among men
as a man, and was thought to have suffered in Judea, though he did not
974
suffer. .... Furthermore he said that the prophets uttered their
prophecies under the inspiration of those angels who framed the world;
for which reason they who rest their hope on him and his Helena no
longer cared for them, but as free men could act as they pleased, for
that men are saved by his (i.e. Simons) grace, and not according to
their own just works, for that no acts were just by nature, but by
accident, according to the rules established by the angels, who made
the world, and who attempt by these precepts to bring men into
bondage. For this reason he promised that the world should be
released, and those who are his set at liberty from the government of
those who made the world.
5. SOURCES OF LEGENDARY HISTORY:
The chief sources of the legendary history of Simon Magus are the
collection of writings known as The Clementines (see LITERATURE,
SUB-APOSTOLIC; PETER, FIRST EPISTLE OF; PETER, SECOND
EPISTLE OF). What is there said of him is, that he studied at Alexandria,
and that he had been, along with the heresiarch Dositheus, a disciple of
John the Baptist. He became also a disciple of Dositheus, and afterward his
successor. The Clementines comprise
(1) The Homilies,
(2) The Recognitions, and
(3) The Epitome. These three are cognate works, and in part are
identical. The date of The Homilies may be placed about 160 AD. The
contents comprise a supposed letter from the apostle Peter to the
apostle James, along with other matter. Then follow the homilies, of
which there are twenty. These record the supposed travels of Clement,
a Roman citizen. Clement meets with Barnabas and with Peter. Then
there is narrated a discussion between Peter and Simon Magus. This
disputation lasts for three days, Simon maintaining that there are two
gods, and that the God of the Old Testament is an imperfect being.
Simon Magus withdraws to Tyre and then to Sidon. Peter follows
Simon from place to place, counteracting his sorceries, and instructing
the people. At Laodicea a second disputation takes place between the
apostle and Simon on the same subjects.
975
The Homilies are not a Christian protest against Gnosticism, but merely
that of one Gnostic school or sect against another, the Ebionite against the
Marcionite. The Deity of Christ is denied, and He is regarded as one of the
Jewish prophets.
In the legends Simon is represented as constantly opposing Peter, who
ultimately discredits and vanquishes him. These legends occur in more
forms than one, the earlier form selecting Antioch as the place where
Simon was discomfited by the apostle and where he also died, while the
later tradition chooses Rome for these events.
6. TRADITIONS OF HIS DEATH:
One tradition tells how the magician ordered his followers to bury him in a
grave, promising that if this were done, he would rise again on the third
day. They did as he wished and buried him; but this was the end of him, for
he did not rise again.
Simon is said to have met his death at Rome, after an encounter with the
apostle Peter. During this his final controversy with the apostle, Simon had
raised himself in the air by the help of evil spirits, and in answer to the
prayer of Peter and Paul he was dashed to the ground and killed.
According to another form of this tradition, Simon proposed to give the
Roman emperor a proof of his power by flying off to God. He succeeded,
it is said, in flying for a certain distance over Rome, but in answer to the
prayer of Peter he fell and broke one of his legs. This tradition accounts for
his end by saying that the people stoned him to death.
7. THE SIMONIANI:
The Simoniani, the Simonians or followers of Simon, were an eclectic sect,
who seem, at one time, to have adopted tenets and opinions derived from
paganism, at another, from Judaism and the beliefs of the Samaritans, and
at another still, from Christianity. Sometimes they seem to have been
ascetics; at others they are wild scoffers at moral law. They regarded
Simon Magus as their Christ, or at least as a form of manifestation of the
redeeming Christ, who had manifested Himself also in Jesus. The
Simonians were one of the minor Gnostic sects and were carried far away
both from the doctrine and from the ethical spirit of the Christian faith.
976
Origen denies that the followers of Simon were Christians in any sense.
The words of Origen are, It escapes the notice of Celsus that the
Simonians do not in any way acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God, but
they call Simon the Power of God. In the time of Origen the followers of
Simon had dwindled in number to such a degree that he writes, I do not
think it possible to find that all the followers of Simon in the whole world
are more than thirty: and perhaps I have said more than there really are
(Contra Celsus, i.57, quoted by Alford, Greek New Testament,
<440809>
Acts
8:9).
8. WAS SIMON THE ORIGINATOR OF GNOSTICISM?:
Irenaeus also has much to say regarding Simon and his followers. He
makes the legendary Simon identical with the magician of Acts 8, makes
him also the first in the list which he gives of heretics, and also says that it
was from him that Gnosticism sprang. The account which he gives of the
Simonians shows that by the time when Irenaeus lived, their system had
developed into Gnosticism; but this fact does not justify Irenaeus in the
assertion that Simon of Acts 8 is the originator of the Gnostic system. The
early Christian writers took this view, and regarded Simon Magus as the
founder of Gnosticism. Perhaps they were right, but from the very little
authentic information we possess, it is impossible to ascertain how far he
was identified with their tenets (Alford, New Testament, II, 86). In the
midst of the various legends regarding Simon, it may be that there is a
substratum of fact, of such a nature that future investigation and discovery
will justify these early Christian writers in their judgment, and will show
that Simon Magus is not to be overlooked as one of the sources from
which Gnosticism sprang. The exact origin of Gnosticism is certainly
difficult to trace, but there is little or no indication that it arose from the
incidents narrated in Acts 8. It cannot be denied that a connection is
possible, and may have existed between the two, that is between Simon
Magus and some of the Gnostic heresies; but the facts of history show
widespread tendencies at work, during and even before the Apostolic age,
which amply account for the rise of Gnosticism. These are found e.g. in the
Alexandrian philosophy, and in the tenets of the false teachers at Colosse
and in other places. These philosophical and theosophical ideas
commingled with the influences of Zoroastrianism from Persia, and of
Buddhism from India, and these tendencies and influences, taken in
977
conjunction, were the sources of the various heresies known by the name
of Gnosticism.
See GNOSTICISM.
J ohn Rutherfurd
SIMON PETER
See PETER, SIMON.
SIMON THE CANAANITE, OR CANANAEAN, OR
ZEALOT
([2v Kovovoo, Simon Kananaios]; [ya iN;q , kannai], the Jealous
(or Zealous) One): One of the Twelve Apostles. This Simon was also
named the Canaanite (
<401004>
Matthew 10:4;
<410318>
Mark 3:18 the King James
Version) or the Cananean (
<401004>
Matthew 10:4;
<410318>
Mark 3:18 the Revised
Version (British and American)) or Zelotes (
<420615>
Luke 6:15;
<440113>
Acts 1:13
the King James Version) or the Zealot (
<420615>
Luke 6:15;
<440113>
Acts 1:13 the
Revised Version (British and American)).
According to the Gospel of the Ebionites or Gospel of the Twelve
Apostles (of the 2nd century and mentioned by Origen) Simon received
his call to the apostleship along with Andrew and Peter, the sons of
Zebedee, Thaddaeus and Judas Iscariot at the Sea of Tiberias (compare
<400418>
Matthew 4:18-22; see also Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen,
24-27).
Although Simon, like the majority of the apostles, was probably a Galilean,
the designation Cananaean is regarded as of political rather than of
geographical significance (compare Lukes rendering). The Zealots were a
faction, headed by Judas of Galilee, who in the days of the enrollment
(compare
<440537>
Acts 5:37;
<420201>
Luke 2:1,2) bitterly opposed the threatened
increase of taxation at the census of Quirinius, and would have hastened by
the sword the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy.
Simon has been identified with Simon the brother of Jesus (
<410603>
Mark 6:3;
<401355>
Matthew 13:55), but there also are reasons in favor of identifying him
with Nathanael.
Thus
978
(1) all the arguments adduced in favor of the Bartholomew-Nathanael
identification (see NATTHANAEL) can equally be applied to that of
Simon-Nathanael, except the second. But the second is of no account,
since the Philip-Bartholomew connection in the Synoptists occurs
merely in the apostolic lists, while in John it is narrative. Further, in the
Synoptists, Philip is connected in the narrative, not with Bartholomew
but with Andrew.
(2) The identity is definitely stated in the Genealogies of the Twelve
Apostles (see NATTHANAEL). Further, the Preaching of Simon, son
of Cleopas (compare Budge, II, 70 ff) has the heading The preaching
of the blessed Simon, the son of Cleopas, who was surnamed Judas,
which is interpreted Nathanael, who became bishop of Jerusalem after
James the brother of our Lord. Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III,
xi, 32; IV, xxii) also refers to a Simon who succeeded James as bishop
of Jerusalem and suffered martyrdom under Trajan; and Hegesippus,
whom Eusebius professes to quote, calls this Simon a son of Cleopas.
(3) The invitation of Philip to Nathanael (compare
<430145>
John 1:45) was
one which would naturally be addressed to a follower of the Zealots,
who based their cause on the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy.
(4) As Alpheus, the father of James, is generally regarded as the same
as Clopas or Cleopas (see JAMES, SON OF ALPHAEUS), this
identification of the above Simon Nathanael, son of Cleopas, with
Simon Zelotes would shed light on the reason of the juxtaposition of
James son of Alpheus and Simon Zelotes in the apostolic lists of Luke
and Acts, i.e. they were brothers.
C. M. Kerr
SIMPLE
<sim-pl>: In the Old Testament the uniform tranlation of the Hebrew
word pethi (root pathah, be open). Like the English word simple
(etymologically of one fold), the Hebrew pethi is used sometimes in a
good sense, i.e. open-minded (
<191907>
Psalm 19:7; 116:6; 119:130, possibly
in all three cases the sense is neutral rather than positively good), and
sometimes in a bad sense (
<200707>
Proverbs 7:7, parallel to destitute of
understanding; 8:5, parallel to fools (blockheads); 14:15, opposed to
prudent). The fundamental idea of pethi seems to be open to influence, i.e.
979
easily influenced. That one open to influence should as a rule be classed
with the irreligious is one of many instances in which language is an
unwilling witness to the miasmatic moral atmosphere in which we live. The
line between moral weakness and moral turpitude, between negative
goodness (if indeed such a thing be conceivable) and positive badness, is
soon passed.
In the New Testament the word simple is found only in
<451618>
Romans
16:18,19 the King James Version. In the first of these passages it is used to
translate akakos (the Revised Version (British and American) innocent).
In
<580726>
Hebrews 7:26 the King James Version the same word is rendered
harmless, the rendering of the Revised Version (British and American) in
this instance being guileless. This would suit
<451618>
Romans 16:18 better
than innocent. Guilelessness is not a synonym for gullibility; but the
guileless are frequently the prey of designing men. In
<451619>
Romans 16:19 the
word translated simple is akeraios, literally, unmixed, sincere
(Trench and Godet; Young, erroneously hornless and so harmless).
Uncontaminated seems to be the idea of the apostle. He would have
those to whom he wrote wise as regards good and not ignorant as
regards evil for that would be impossible, even if desirable but
without that kind of knowledge of evil that comes from engaging in it, as
we say, mixing themselves up with it, unalloyed with evil.
W. M. McPheeters
SIMPLICITY
<sim-plis-i-ti> ([t WYt P ], pethayyuth]; [ootq, haplotes]): The
words in the Old Testament commonly translated simplicity are [pethi],
simple (
<200122>
Proverbs 1:22), pethayyuth, simplicity (9:13 margin), tom,
completeness, integrity (
<101511>
2 Samuel 15:11), They went in their
simplicity. In the New Testament, haplotes, singleness of mind,
simplicity, occurs in
<451208>
Romans 12:8, He that giveth let him do it with
simplicity, the Revised Version (British and American) liberality, margin
Greek: `singleness;
<470112>
2 Corinthians 1:12, in simplicit and godly
sincerity, the Revised Version (British and American) (with corrected
text) in holiness and sincerity of God;
<471103>
2 Corinthians 11:3, the
simplicity that is in Christ, the Revised Version (British and American)
(with corrected text) the simplicity and the purity that is toward Christ;
compare
<490605>
Ephesians 6:5;
<510322>
Colossians 3:22, where the translation is
980
singleness In The Wisdom of Solomon 1:1 we have, Think ye of the
Lord with a good mind (the King James Version heart), and in singleness
(the King James Version simplicity) of heart seek ye him (haplotes). our
Lord also speaks (
<400622>
Matthew 6:22;
<421134>
Luke 11:34) of the single eye
(haplous), and James (1:5) applies haplos, simply, directly, without
after-thought (the King James Version and the Revised Version (British
and American) liberally) to God, who had been described by Plato (Rep.
ii.382 E) as being perfectly simple (haplous) and true, both in word and
deed. In such simplicity openness, sincerity, freedom from double-
mindedness man most resembles God and is most open to His visitation
and blessing.
W. L. Walker
SIMRI
<sim-ri>.
See SHIMRI.
SIN (1)
([t a F ; j , chaTTath], a missing, [wO[ ;, `awon], perversity] [[ v P , ,
pesha`], transgression, [[ r , ra`], evil, etc.; [ooptov,
hamartano], miss the mark, [opopoo, parabasis], transgression
with a suggestion of violence, [oxo, adikia], injustice,
unrighteousness):
1. SIN AS DISOBEDIENCE:
A fairly exact definition of sin based on Biblical data would be that sin is
the transgression of the law of God (
<620304>
1 John 3:4). Ordinarily, sin is
defined simply as the transgression of the law, but the idea of God is so
completely the essential conception of the entire Biblical revelation that we
can best define sin as disobedience to the law of God. It will be seen that
primarily sin is an act, but from the very beginning it has been known that
acts have effects, not only in the outward world of things and persons, but
also upon him who commits the act.
981
2. AFFECTS THE INNER LIFE:
Hence, we find throughout the Scriptures a growing emphasis on the idea
of the sinful act as not only a fact in itself, but also as a revelation of an evil
disposition on the part of him who commits the act (
<010605>
Genesis 6:5).
3. INVOLVES ALL MEN:
Then also there is the further idea that deeds which so profoundly affect
the inner life of an individual in some way have an effect in transmitting evil
tendencies to the descendants of a sinful individual (
<195105>
Psalm 51:5,6;
<490203>
Ephesians 2:3). See HEREDITY; TRADITION. Hence, we reach
shortly the conception, not only that sin is profoundly inner in its
consequences, but that its effects reach outward also to an extent which
practically involves the race. Around these various items of doctrine
differing systems of theology have sprung up.
4. THE STORY OF THE FALL:
Students of all schools are agreed that we have in the Old Testament story
of the fall of Adam an eternally true account of the way sin comes into the
world (
<010301>
Genesis 3:1-6). The question is not so much as to the literal
historic matter-of-factness of the narrative, as to its essentially
psychological truthfulness. The essential thought of the narrative is that
both Adam and Eve disobeyed an express command of God. The
seductiveness of temptation is nowhere more forcefully stated than in this
narrative. The fruit of the tree is pleasant to look upon; it is good to eat; it
is to be desired to make one wise; moreover, the tempter moves upon the
woman by the method of the half truth (see ADAM IN THE OLD
TESTAMENT). God had said that disobedience to the command would
bring death; the tempter urged that disobedience would not bring death,
implying that the command of God had meant that death would
immediately follow the eating of the forbidden fruit. In the story the
various avenues of approach of sin to the human heart are graphically
suggested, but after the seductiveness of evil has thus been set forth, the
fact remains that both transgressors knew they were transgressing
(
<010302>
Genesis 3:2 f). Of course, the story is told in simple, naive fashion, but
its perennial spiritual truth is at once apparent. There has been much
progress in religious thinking concerning sin during the Christian ages, but
982
the progress has not been away from this central conception of willful
disobedience to the law of God.
5. THE FREEDOM OF MAN:
In this early Biblical account there is implicit the thought of the freedom of
man. The idea of transgression has sometimes been interpreted in such wise
as to do away with this freedom. An unbiased reading of the Scriptures
would, with the possible exception of some passages which designedly lay
stress on the power of God (
<450829>
Romans 8:29,30), produce on the mind the
impression that freedom is essential to sin. Certainly there is nothing in the
account of the Old Testament or New Testament narratives to warrant the
conception that men are born into sin by forces over which they have no
control. The argument of the tempter with the woman is an argument
aimed at her will. By easy steps, indeed, she moves toward the
transgression, but the transgression is a transgression and nothing else. Of
course, the evil deed is at once followed by attempts on the part of the
transgressors to explain themselves, but the futility of the explanations is
part of the point of the narrative. In all discussion of the problem of
freedom as relating to sin, we must remember that the Biblical revelation is
from first to last busy with the thought of the righteousness and justice and
love of God (
<010609>
Genesis 6:9 tells us that because of justice or
righteousness, Noah walked with God). Unless we accept the doctrine that
God is Himself not free, a doctrine which is nowhere implied in the
Scripture, we must insist that the condemnation of men as sinful, when
they have not had freedom to be otherwise than sinful, is out of harmony
with the Biblical revelation of the character of God. Of course this does not
mean that a man is free in all things. Freedom is limited in various ways,
but we must retain enough of freedom in our thought of the constitution of
men to make possible our holding fast to the Biblical idea of sin as
transgression. Some who take the Biblical narrative as literal historical fact
maintain that all men sinned in Adam (see IMPUTATION, III, 1). Adam
may have been free to sin or not to sin, but, in his fall we sinned all. We
shall mention the hereditary influences of sin in a later paragraph; here it is
sufficient to say that even if the first man had not sinned, there is nothing in
our thought of the nature of man to make it impossible to believe that the
sinful course of human history could have been initiated by some
descendant of the first man far down the line.
983
6. A TRANSGRESSION AGAINST LIGHT:
The progress of the Biblical teaching concerning sin also would seem to
imply that the transgression of the law must be a transgression committed
against the light (
<441730>
Acts 17:30;
<540113>
1 Timothy 1:13). To be sinful in any
full sense of the word, a man must know that the course which he is
adopting is an evil course. This does not necessarily mean a full realization
of the evil of the course. It is a fact, both of Biblical revelation and of
revelation of all times, that men who commit sin do not realize the full evil
of their deeds until after the sin has been committed (
<101201>
2 Samuel 12:1-
13). This is partly because the consequences of sin do not declare
themselves until after the deed has been committed; partly also because of
the remorse of the conscience; and partly from the humiliation at being
discovered; but in some sense there must be a realization of the evil of a
course to make the adoption of the course sinful. E.g. in estimating the
moral worth of Biblical characters, especially those of earlier times, we
must keep in mind the standards of the times in which they lived. These
standards were partly set by the customs of the social group, but the
customs were, in many cases, made sacred by the claim of divine sanction.
Hence, we find Biblical characters giving themselves readily to polygamy
and warfare. The Scriptures themselves, however, throw light upon this
problem. They refer to early times as times of ignorance, an ignorance
which God Himself was willing to overlook (
<441730>
Acts 17:30). Even so ripe
a moral consciousness as that of Paul felt that there was ground for
forgiveness toward a course which he himself later considered evil, because
in that earlier course he had acted ignorantly (
<442609>
Acts 26:9;
<540113>
1 Timothy
1:13).
7. INWARDNESS OF THE MORAL LAW:
The Biblical narratives, too, show us the passage over from sin conceived
of as the violation of external commands to sin conceived of as an
unwillingness to keep the commandments in the depths of the inner life.
The course of Biblical history is one long protest against conceiving of sin
in an external fashion.
(1) Prophets.
In the sources of light which are to help men discern good from evil,
increasing stress is laid upon inner moral insight (compare
<235805>
Isaiah 58:5 f;
<280601>
Hosea 6:1-7). The power of the prophets was in their direct moral
984
insight and the fervor with which they made these insights real to the mass
of the people. Of course it was necessary that the spirit of the prophets be
given body and form in carefully articulated law. The progress of the
Hebrews from the insight of the seer to the statute of the lawmaker was
not different from such progress in any other nations. It is easy to see,
however, how the hardening of moral precepts into formal codes,
absolutely necessary as that task was, led to an externalizing of the thought
of sin. The man who did not keep the formal law was a sinner. On such
basis there grew up the artificial systems which came to their culmination in
the New Testament times in Pharisaism. On the other hand, a fresh insight
by a new prophet might be in violation of the Law, considered in its literal
aspects. It might be necessary for a prophet to attack outright some
additions to the Law. We regard as a high-water mark of Old Testament
moral utterances the word of Micah that the Lord requires men to do justly
and to love mercy and to walk humbly with Him (6:8). At the time this
word was uttered, the people were giving themselves up to multitudes of
sacrifices. Many of these sacrifices called for the heaviest sufferings on the
part of the worshippers. It would seem that an obligation to sacrifice the
firstborn was beginning to be taught in order that the Hebrews might not
be behind the neighboring heathen nations in observances of religious
codes. The simple direct word of Micah must have seemed heresy to many
of its first hearers. The outcome, however, of this conflict between the
inner and the outer in the thought of transgression was finally to deepen the
springs of the inner life. The extremes of externalism led to a break with
moral realities which tended to become apparent to the most ordinary
observer. The invective of Jesus against New Testament Pharisaism took
its force largely from the fact that Jesus gave clear utterance to what
everyone knew. Those who thought of religion as external gave themselves
to formal keeping of the commandments and allowed the inner life to run
riot as it would (
<402323>
Matthew 23:23, et al.).
(2) Paul.
With the more serious-minded the keeping of the Law became more and
more a matter of the inner spirit. There were some who, like Paul, found it
impossible to keep the Law and find peace of conscience (Romans 7). It
was this very impossibility which forced some, like Paul, to understand that
after all, sin or righteousness must be judged by the inner disposition. It
was this which led to the search for a conception of a God who looks
chiefly at the heart and judges men by the inner motive.
985
(3) Jesus.
In the teaching of Jesus the emphasis upon the inner spirit as the essential
factor in the moral life came to its climax. Jesus honored the Law, but He
pushed the keeping of the Law back from the mere performance of
externals to the inner stirrings of motives. It is not merely the actual
commission of adultery, for example, that is sin: it is the lustful desire
which leads to the evil glance; it is not merely the actual killing of the man
that is murder; it is the spirit of hatred which makes the thought of murder
welcome (
<400521>
Matthew 5:21,27). Paul caught the spirit of Jesus and carried
the thought of Jesus out into more elaborate and formal statements. There
is a law of the inner life with which man should bind himself, and this law is
the law of Christs life itself (
<450801>
Romans 8:1-4). While both Jesus and Paul
recognized the place of the formal codes in the moral life of individuals and
societies, they wrought a great service for righteousness in setting on high
the obligations upon the inner spirit. The follower of Christ is to guard the
inmost thoughts of his heart. The commandments are not always precepts
which can be given articulated statement; they are rather instincts and
intuitions and glimpses which must be followed, even when we cannot give
them full statement.
8. SIN A POSITIVE FORCE:
From this standpoint we are able to discern something of the force of the
Biblical teaching as to whether sin is to be looked upon as negative or
positive. Very often sin is defined as the mere absence of goodness. The
man who sins is one who does not keep the Law. This, however, is hardly
the full Biblical conception. Of course, the man who does not keep the
Law is regarded as a sinner, but the idea transgression is very often that of
a positive refusal to keep the commandment and a breaking of the
commandment. Two courses are set before men, one good, the other evil.
The evil course is, in a sense, something positive in itself. The evil man
does not stand still; he moves as truly as the good man moves; he becomes
a positive force for evil. In all our discussions we must keep clearly in mind
the truth that evil is not something existing in and by itself. The Scriptures
deal with evil men, and the evil men are as positive as their natures permit
them to be. In this sense of the word sin does run a course of positive
destruction. In the thought, e.g., of the writer who describes the conditions
which, in his belief, made necessary the Flood, we have a positive state of
evil contaminating almost the whole world (
<010611>
Genesis 6:11). It would be
986
absurd to characterize the world in the midst of which Noah lived as
merely a negative world. The world was positively set toward evil. And so,
in later writings, Pauls thought of Roman society is of a world of sinful
men moving with increasing velocity toward the destruction of themselves
and of all around them through doing evil. It is impossible to believe that
Romans 1 conceives of sin merely in negative terms. We repeat, we do not
do full justice to the Biblical conception when we speak of sin merely in
negative terms. If we may be permitted to use a present-day illustration, we
may say that in the Biblical thought sinful men are like the destructive
forces in the world of Nature which must be removed before there can be
peace and health for human life. For example, science today has much to
say concerning germs of diseases which prove destructive to human life. A
large part of modern scientific effort has been to rid the world of these
germs, or at least to cleanse human surroundings from their contaminating
touch. The man who sterilizes the human environment so that these forces
cannot touch men does in one sense a merely negative work; in another
sense, however, his work makes possible the positive development of the
forces which make for health.
9. HEREDITY:
It is from this thought of the positiveness of sin that we are to approach the
problem of the hereditary transmission of evil. The Biblical teaching has
often been misinterpreted at this point. Apart from certain passages,
especially those of Paul, which set forth the practically universal
contamination of sin (e.g.
<450518>
Romans 5:18, etc.), there is nothing in the
Scriptures to suggest the idea that men are born into the world under a
weight of guilt. We hold fast to the idea of God as a God of justice and
love. There is no way of reconciling these attributes with the condemnation
of human souls before these souls have themselves transgressed. Of course
much theological teaching moves on the assumption that the tendencies to
evil are so great that the souls will necessarily trangress, but we must keep
clearly in mind the difference between a tendency to evil and the actual
commission of evil. Modern scientific research reinforces the conception
that the children of sinful parents, whose sins have been such as to impress
their lives throughout, will very soon manifest symptoms of evil tendency.
Even in this case, however, we must distinguish between the psychological
and moral. The child may be given a wrong tendency from birth, not only
by hereditary transmission, but by the imitation of sinful parents; yet the
987
question of the childs own personal responsibility is altogether another
matter. Modern society has come to recognize something of the force of
this distinction. In dealing with extreme cases of this kind, the question of
the personal guilt of the child is not raised. The attempt is to throw round
about the child an environment that will correct the abnormal tendency.
But there can be little gainsaying the fact that the presence of sin in the life
of the parent may go as far as to mark the life of the child with the sinful
tendency.
10. ENVIRONMENT:
The positive force of sinful life also appears in the effect of sin upon the
environment of men. It is not necessary for us to believe that all the
physical universe was cursed by the Almighty because of mans sin, in
order to hold that there is a curse upon the world because of the presence
of sinful men. Men have sinfully despoiled the world for their own selfish
purposes. They have wasted its resources. They have turned forces which
ought to have made for good into the channels of evil. In their contacts
with one another also, evil men furnish an evil environment. If the
employer of 100 men be himself evil, he is to a great extent the evil
environment of those 100 men. The curse of his evil is upon them. So with
the relations of men in larger social groups: the forces of state-life which
are intended to work for good can be made to work for evil. So far has this
gone that some earnest minds have thought of the material and social
realms as necessarily and inherently evil. In other days this led to retreats
from the world in monasteries and in solitary cells. In our present time the
same thought is back of much of the pessimist idea that the world itself is
like a sinking ship, absolutely doomed. The most we can hope for is to save
individuals here and there from imminent destruction. Yet a more Biblical
conception keeps clear of all this. The material forces of the world apart
from certain massive physical necessities (e.g. earthquakes, storms, floods,
whirlwinds, fires, etc.), whose presence does more to furnish the conditions
of moral growth than to discourage that growth are what men cause
them to be. Social forces are nothing apart from the men who are
themselves the forces. No one can deny that evil men can use physical
forces for evil purposes, and that evil men can make bad social forces, but
both these forces can be used for good as well as for evil. The whole
creation groaneth and travaileth in pain waiting for the redemption at the
hands of the sons of God (
<450819>
Romans 8:19-23).
988
11. REDEMPTION:
In the thought of Jesus, righteousness is life. Jesus came that men might
have life (
<431010>
John 10:10). It must follow therefore that in His thought sin is
death, or rather it is the positive course of transgression which makes
toward death (
<430524>
John 5:24). But man is to cease to do evil and to learn to
do well. He is to face about and walk in a different direction; he is to be
born from above (
<430303>
John 3:3), and surrender himself to the forces which
beat upon him from above rather than to those which surge upon him from
below (
<451202>
Romans 12:2). From the realization of the positiveness both of
sin and of righteousness, we see the need of a positive force which is to
bring men from sin to righteousness (
<430303>
John 3:3-8).
Of course, in what we have said of the positive nature of sin we would not
deny that there are multitudes of men whose evil consists in their passive
acquiescence in a low moral state. Multitudes of men may not be lost, in
the sense that they are breaking the more obvious of the commandments.
They are lost, in the sense that they are drifting about, or that they are
existing in a condition of inertness with no great interest in high spiritual
ideals. But the problem even here is to find a force strong enough and
positive enough to bring such persons to themselves and to God. In any
case the Scriptures lay stress upon the seriousness of the problem
constituted by sin. The Bible is centered on redemption. Redemption from
sin is thought of as carrying with it redemption from all other calamities. If
the kingdom of God and of His righteousness can be seized, all other
things will follow with the seizure (
<400633>
Matthew 6:33). The work of Christ
is set before us as chiefly a work of redemption from sin. A keen student
once observed that almost all failures to take an adequate view of the
person of Christ can be traced to a failure to realize adequately the
seriousness of sin. The problem of changing the course of something so
positive as a life set toward sin is a problem which may well tax the
resources of the Almighty. Lives cannot be transformed merely by precept.
The only effective force is the force of a divine life which will reach and
save human lives.
See REDEMPTION.
12. LIFE IN CHRIST:
We are thus in a position to see something of the positiveness of the life
that must be in Christ if He is to be a Saviour from sin. That positiveness
989
must be powerful enough to make men feel that in some real sense God
Himself has come to their rescue (
<450832>
Romans 8:32-39). For the problem of
salvation from sin is manifold. Sin long persisted in begets evil habits, and
the habits must be broken. Sin lays the conscience under a load of distress,
for which the only relief is a sense of forgiveness. Sin blights and paralyzes
the faculties to such a degree that only the mightiest of tonic forces can
bring back health and strength. And the problem is often more serious than
this. The presence of evil in the world is so serious in the sight of a Holy
God that He Himself, because of His very holiness, must be under
stupendous obligation to aid us to the utmost for the redemption of men.
Out of the thought of the disturbance which sin makes even in the heart of
God, we see something of the reason for the doctrine that in the cross of
Christ God was discharging a debt to Himself and to the whole world; for
the insistence also that in the cross there is opened up a fountain of life,
which, if accepted by sinful men, will heal and restore them.
13. REPENTANCE:
It is with this seriousness of sin before us that we must think of forgiveness
from sin. We can understand very readily that sin can be forgiven only on
condition that men seek forgiveness in the name of the highest
manifestation of holiness which they have known. For those who have
heard the preaching of the cross and have seen something of the real
meaning of that preaching, the way to forgiveness is in the name of the
cross. In the name of a holiness which men would make their own, if they
could; in the name of an ideal of holy love which men of themselves cannot
reach, but which they forever strive after, they seek forgiveness. But the
forgiveness is to be taken seriously. In both the Old Testament and New
Testament repentance is not merely a changed attitude of mind. It is an
attitude which shows its sincerity by willingness to do everything possible
to undo the evil which the sinner has wrought (
<421908>
Luke 19:8). If there is
any consequence of the sinners own sin which the sinner can himself make
right, the sinner must in himself genuinely repent and make that
consequence right. In one sense repentance is not altogether something
done once for all. The seductiveness of sin is so great that there is need of
humble and continuous watching. While anything like a morbid
introspection is unscriptural, constant alertness to keep to the straight and
narrow path is everywhere enjoined as an obligation (
<480601>
Galatians 6:1).
990
14. FORGIVENESS:
There is nothing in the Scriptures which will warrant the idea that
forgiveness is to be conceived of in such fashion as would teach that the
consequences of sin can be easily and quickly eliminated. Change in the
attitude of a sinner necessarily means change in the attitude of God. The
sinner and God, however, are persons, and the Scriptures always speak of
the problem of sin after a completely personal fashion. The changed
attitude affects the personal standing of the sinner in the sight of God. But
God is the person who creates and carries on a moral universe. In carrying
on that universe He must keep moral considerations in their proper place as
the constitutional principles of the universe. While the father welcomes
back the prodigal to the restored personal relations with himself, he cannot,
in the full sense, blot out the fact that the prodigal has been a prodigal. The
personal forgiveness may be complete, but the elimination of the
consequences of the evil life is possible only through the long lines of
healing set at work. The man who has sinned against his body can find
restoration from the consequences of the sin only in the forces which make
for bodily healing. So also with the mind and will. The mind which has
thought evil must be cured of its tendency to think evil. To be sure the
curative processes may come almost instantly through the upheaval of a
great experience, but on the other hand, the curative processes may have to
work through long years (see SANCTIFICATION). The will which has
been given to sin may feel the stirrings of sin after the life of forgiveness
has begun. All this is a manifestation, not only of the power of sin, but of
the constitutional morality of the universe. Forgiveness must not be
interpreted in such terms as to make the transgression of the Law of God
in any sense a light or trivial offense. But, on the other hand, we must not
set limits to the curative powers of the cross of God. With the removal of
the power which makes for evil the possibility of development in real
human experience is before the life (see FORGIVENESS). The word of
the Master is that He came that they may have life, and may have it
abundantly (
<431010>
John 10:10). Sin is serious, because it thwarts life. Sin is
given so large a place in the thought of the Biblical writers simply because
it blocks the channel of that movement toward the fullest life which the
Scriptures teach is the aim of God in placing men in the world. God is
conceived of as the Father in Heaven. Sin has a deeply disturbing effect in
restraining the relations between the Father and the sons and of preventing
the proper development of the life of the sons.
991
See further ETHICS, I, 3, (2); ETHICS OF JESUS, I, 2; GUILT;
JOHANNINE THEOLOGY, V, 1; PAUL THE APOSTLE; PAULINE
THEOLOGY; REDEMPTION, etc.
LITERATURE.
Tennant, Origin and Propagation of Sin; Hyde, Sin and Its Forgiveness;
chapter on Incarnation and Atonement in Bownes Studies in
Christianity; Stevens, Christian Doctrine of Salvation; Clarke, Christian
Doctrine of God; various treatises on Systematic Theology.
Francis J . McConnell
SIN (2)
<sin> ([ys i, cin], clay or mud; [2uqvq, Suene], Codex Alexandrinus
[Tov, Tanis]): A city of Egypt mentioned only in
<263015>
Ezekiel 30:15,16.
This seems to be a pure Semitic name. The ancient Egyptian name, if the
place ever had one such, is unknown. Pelusium (Greek [Hrouoov,
Pelousion]) also meant the clayey or muddy town. The Pelusiac mouth
of the Nile was the muddy mouth, and the modern Arabic name of this
mouth has the same significance. These facts make it practically certain
that the Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) is correct in
identifying Sin with Pelusium. But although Pelusium appears very
frequently in ancient history, its exact location is still not entirely certain.
The list of cities mentioned in Ezekiel in connection with Sin furnishes no
clue to its location. From other historical notices it seems to have been a
frontier city. Rameses II built a wall from Sin to Heliopolis, probably by
the aid of Hebrew slaves (Diodorus Siculus; compare Budge, History of
Egypt, V, 90), to protect the eastern frontier. Sin was a meeting-place of
Egypt with her enemies who came to attack her, many great battles being
fought at or near this place. Sennacherib and Cambyses both fought Egypt
near Pelusium (Herodotus ii.141; iii.10-13). Antiochus IV defeated the
Egyptians here (Budge, VIII, 25), and the Romans under Gabinius
defeated the Egyptians in the same neighborhood. Pelusium was also
accessible from the sea, or was very near a seaport, for Pompey after the
disaster at Pharsalia fled into Egypt, sailing for Pelusium. These historical
notices of Pelusium make its usual identification with the ruins near el-
Kantara, a station on the Suez Canal 29 miles South of Port Said, most
probable. Sin, the stronghold of Egypt, in the words of Ezekiel (30:15),
would thus refer to its inaccessibility because of swamps which served as
992
impassable moats. The wall on the South and the sea on the North also
protected it on either flank.
M. G. Kyle
SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST (SPIRIT)
See BLASPHEMY.
SIN, MAN OF
See MAN OF SIN.
SIN MONEY
See SACRIFICE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.
SIN OFFERING
See SACRIFICE.
SIN, WILDERNESS OF
See WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL.
SINA
<si-na>: In
<440738>
Acts 7:38 the King James Version, the Revised Version
(British and American) Sinai (which see).
SINAI
<si-ni>, <si-na-i> ([yn ys i, cinay]; Codex Alexandrinus [2vo, Sina],
Codex Vaticanus [2rvo, Seina]):
1. THE NAME:
The name comes probably from a root meaning to shine, which occurs in
Syriac, and which in Babylonian is found in the name sinu for the moon.
The old explanation, clayey, is inappropriate to any place in the Sinaitic
desert, though it might apply to Sin (
<263015>
Ezekiel 30:15,16) or Pelusium;
even there, however, the applicability is doubtful. The desert of Sin
(
<021601>
Exodus 16:1; 17:1;
<043311>
Numbers 33:11 f) lay between Sinai and the
993
Gulf of Suez, and may have been named from the glare of its white
chalk. But at Sinai the glory of Yahweh was like devouring fire on the top
of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel (
<022417>
Exodus 24:17); and,
indeed, the glory of the Lord still dyes the crags of Jebel Musa (the
mountain of Moses) with fiery red, reflected from its red granite and pink
gneiss rocks, long after the shadows have fallen on the plain beneath. Sinai
is mentioned, as a desert and a mountain, in 35 passages of the Old
Testament. In 17 passages the same desert and mountain are called
Horeb, or the waste. This term is chiefly used in Deuteronomy, though
Sinai also occurs (
<053302>
Deuteronomy 33:2). In the other books of the
Pentateuch, Sinai is the usual name, though Horeb also occurs (
<020301>
Exodus
3:1; 17:6; 33:6), applying both to the Mount of God and to the desert of
Rephidim, some 20 miles to the Northwest.
2. TRADITIONAL SITE:
The indications of position, in various passages of the Pentateuch, favor
the identification with the traditional site, which has become generally
accepted by all those explorers who have carefully considered the subject,
though two other theories may need notice. Moses fled to the land of
Midian (or empty land), which lay East of the Sinaitic peninsula
(
<042204>
Numbers 22:4,7; 25; 31), and when he wandered with his flocks to
Horeb (
<020301>
Exodus 3:1) he is said to have reached the west side of the
desert. In another note (
<050102>
Deuteronomy 1:2) we read that the distance
was eleven days journey from Horeb by the way of Mount Seir unto
Kadesh-barnea or Petra (see WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL), the distance
being about 145 miles, or 14 miles of daily march, though Israel with its
flocks, women and children made 16 marches between these points.
Sinai again is described as being distant from Egypt three days journey
into the wilderness (
<020503>
Exodus 5:3), the actual route being 117 miles,
which Israel accomplished in 10 journeys. But, for Arabs not encumbered
with families and herds, this distance could still be covered by an average
march of 39 miles daily, on riding camels, or even, if necessary, on foot.
3. IDENTIFICATION WITH JEBEL MUSA:
These distances will not, however, allow of our placing Sinai farther East
than Jebel Musa. Lofty mountains, in all parts of the world, have always
been sacred and regarded as the mysterious abode of God; and Josephus
says that Sinai is the highest of all the mountains thereabout, and again is
994
the highest of all the mountains that are in that country, and is not only
very difficult to be ascended by men, on account of its vast. altitude but
because of the sharpness of its precipices: nay, indeed, it cannot be looked
at without pain of the eyes, and besides this it was terrible and inaccessible,
on account of the rumor that passed about, that God dwelt there (Ant., II,
xii, 1; III, v, 1). Evidently in his time Sinai was supposed to be one of the
peaks of the great granitic block called et Tur a term applying to any
lofty mountain. This block has its highest peak in Jebel Katarin (so named
from a legend of Catherine of Egypt), rising 8,550 ft. above the sea.
Northeast of this is Jebel Musa (7,370 ft.), which, though less high, is more
conspicuous because of the open plain called er Rachah (the wide) to its
Northwest. This plain is about 4 miles long and has a width of over a mile,
so that it forms, as Dr. E. Robinson (Biblical Researches, 1838, I, 89)
seems to have been the first to note, a natural camp at the foot of the
mountain, large enough for the probable numbers (see EXODUS, 3) of
Israel.
4. DESCRIPTION OF JEBEL MUSU:
Jebel Musa has two main tops, that to the Southeast being crowned by a
chapel. The other, divided by gorges into three precipitous crags, has the
Convent to its North, and is called Ras-es-Cafcafeh, or the willow top.
North of the Convent is the lower top of Jebel edition Deir (mountain of
the monastery). These heights were accurately determined by Royal
Engineer surveyors in 1868 (Sir C. Wilson, Ordnance Survey of Sinai);
and, though it is impossible to say which of the peaks Moses ascended, yet
they are all much higher than any mountains in the Sinaitic desert, or in
Midian. The highest tops in the Tih desert to the North are not much over
4,000 ft. Those in Midian, East of Elath, rise only to 4,200 ft. Even Jebel
Serbal, 20 miles West of Sinai a ridge with many crags, running 3 miles
in length is at its highest only 6,730 ft. above the sea. Horeb is not
recorded to have been visited by any of the Hebrews after Moses, except
by Elijah (
<111908>
1 Kings 19:8) in a time of storm. In favor of the traditional
site it may also be observed that clouds suddenly formed, or lasting for
days (
<022415>
Exodus 24:15 f), are apt to cap very lofty mountains. The
Hebrews reached Sinai about the end of May (
<021901>
Exodus 19:1) and, on the
3rd day, there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the
mount (
<021916>
Exodus 19:16). Such storms occur as a rule in the Sinaitic
995
desert only in December and January, but thunderstorms are not unknown
in Palestine even in May.
5. PATRISTIC EVIDENCE:
A constant tradition fixing the site is traceable back to the 4th century AD.
Eusebius and Jerome (Onomasticon, under the word Choreb) place
Horeb near Paran, which in their time was placed (Onomasticon, under the
word Raphidim) in Wady Feiran. Anchorites lived at Paran, and at Sinai
at least as early as 365 AD, and are noticed in 373 AD, and often later
(Robinson, Biblical Res., 1838, I, 122-28); the monastery was first built for
them by Justinian in 527 AD and his chapel still exists. Cosmas (Topogr.
Christ.), in the same reign, says that Rephidim was then called Pharan, and
(distinguishing Horeb from Sinai, as Eusebius also does) he places it
about 6 miles from Pharan, and near Sinai. These various
considerations may suffice to show that the tradition as to Horeb is at least
as old as the time of Josephus, and that it agrees with all the indications
given in the Old Testament.
6. LEPSIUS THEORY:
Lepsius, it is true (Letters from Egypt, 1842-44), denying the existence of
any unbroken tradition, and relying on his understanding of Cosmas,
supposed Sinai to be the Jebel Serbal above mentioned, which lies
immediately South of Wady Feiran. His main argument was that, visiting
Sinai in March, he considered that the vicinity did not present sufficient
water for Israel (Appendix B, 303-18). But, on this point, it is sufficient to
give the opinion of the late F. W. Holland, based on the experience of four
visits, in 1861, 1865, 1867-68.
He says (Recovery of Jerusalem, 524):
With regard to water-supply there is no other spot in the whole Peninsula
which is nearly so well supplied as the neighborhood of Jebel Musa. Four
streams of running water are found there: one in Wady Leja; a second in
Wady et Tlah which waters a succession of gardens extending more than 3
miles in length, and forms pools in which I have often had a swim; a third
stream rises to the North of the watershed of the plain of er Rachah and
runs West into Wady et Tlah; and a fourth, is formed by the drainage from
the mountains of Umm Alawy, to the East of Wady Sebaiyeh and finds its
way into that valley by a narrow ravine opposite Jebel edition Deir. In
996
addition to these streams there are numerous wells and springs, affording
excellent water throughout the whole of the granitie district. I have seldom
found it necessary to carry water when making a mountain excursion, and
the intermediate neighborhood of Jebel Masa would, I think, bear
comparison with many mountain districts in Scotland with regard to its
supply of water. There is also no other district in the Peninsula which
affords such excellent pasturage.
This is important, as Israel encamped near Sinai from the end of May till
April of the next year. There is also a well on the lower slope of Jebel
Musa itself, where the ascent begins.
7. GREENES THEORY:
Another theory, put forward by Mr. Baker Greene (The Hebrew Migration
from Egypt), though accepted by Dr. Sayce (Higher Cricitism, 1894, 268),
appears likewise to be entirely untenable. Mr. Greene supposed Elim
(
<021527>
Exodus 15:27) to be Elath (
<050208>
Deuteronomy 2:8), now `Ailah at the
head of the Gulf of `Akabah; and that Sinai therefore was some unknown
mountain in Midian. But in this case Israel would in 4 days (see
<021522>
Exodus
15:22,23,27) have traveled a distance of 200 miles to reach Elim, which
cannot but be regarded as quite impossible for the Hebrews when
accompanied by women, children, flocks and herds.
C. R. Conder
SINCERE; SINCERITY
<sin-ser>, <sin-ser-i-ti> ([ ymiT ;, tamim]; [o0opoo, aphtharsia],
[rxpvro, eilikrineia]): Sincerity occurs once in the Old Testament
as the translation of tamim, complete, entire, sincere, etc. (
<062414>
Joshua
24:14); the same word is translated sincerity (
<070916>
Judges 9:16,19, the
Revised Version (British and American) uprightly). Four different words
are rendered sincere, sincerely sincerity, in the New Testament:
adolos, without guile, unadulterated, desire the sincere milk of the
word (1 Pet 2:2 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and
American) the spiritual, the American Revised Version margin Greek,
`belonging to the reason; compare
<451201>
Romans 12:1, the English Revised
Version margin reasonable), milk which is without guile, with no other
purpose but to nourish and benefit the soul (Alford); hagnos, without
blame, pure, preach Christ .... not sincerely (
<500117>
Philippians 1:17);
997
aphtharsia, without corruption (
<490624>
Ephesians 6:24, the King James
Version that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, the American
Standard Revised Version with a love incorruptible, margin `in
incorruption. See
<450207>
Romans 2:7, the English Revised Version
uncorruptness;
<560207>
Titus 2:7, the King James Version shewing
uncorruptness .... sincerity, the Revised Version (British and American)
uncorruptness); gnesios, not spurious (2 Cor 8:8); eilikrines, literally,,
judged of in the sunlight, hence, clear, manifest (
<500110>
Philippians 1:10);
eilikrineia, with same meaning, is translated sincerity (1 Cor 5:8;
<470112>
2
Corinthians 1:12; 2:17).
The Revised Version (British and American) has sincere for pure (2
Pet 3:1), sincerely for clearly (
<183303>
Job 33:3).
In The Wisdom of Solomon 7:25 we have eilikrines in the description of
Wisdom as a pure influence, the Revised Version (British and American)
clear effluence.
W. L. Walker
SINEW
<sin-u> ([d yGi, gidh] (
<181011>
Job 10:11, etc.)): The tendons and sinews of the
body are uniformly (7 times) thus called. Therefore the children of Israel
eat not the sinew of the hip which is upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this
day: because he touched the hollow of Jacobs thigh in the sinew of the
hip (
<013232>
Genesis 32:32). In the poetical description of Behemoth
(hippopotamus) it is said: He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his
thighs are knit together (
<184017>
Job 40:17). The prophet Ezekiel saw in his
vision (37:6,8) that the dry bones were gathered together, that they were
covered with sinews, flesh and skin, and that they were revived by the spirit
of the Lord. In figurative language the neck of the obstinate is compared to
an iron sinew (
<234804>
Isaiah 48:4). the King James Version my sinews take
no rest (we`oreqay lo yishkabhun,
<183017>
Job 30:17) has been corrected by
the Revised Version (British and American) into the pains that gnaw me
take no rest, but the earlier version has been retained in the margin.
H. L. E. Luering
998
SINGERS; SINGING
<sing-erz>, <sing-ing>: Singing seems to have become a regular
profession at quite early date among the Hebrews. David had his troupe of
singing men and singing women at Jerusalem (
<101935>
2 Samuel 19:35), and
no doubt Solomon added to their numbers.
<232316>
Isaiah 23:16 suggests that it
was not uncommon for foreign female minstrels of questionable character
to be heard making sweet melody, singing songs along the streets and
highways of Judea. Nor was the worship of the temple left to the usually
incompetent and inconstant leadership of amateur choristers. The elaborate
regulations drawn up for the constitution of the temple orchestra and
chorus are referred to under MUSIC (which see). It has been inferred from
<150265>
Ezra 2:65 that women were included among the temple singers, but this
is erroneous, as the musicians there mentioned were of the class employed
at banquets, festivals, etc. The temple choir consisted exclusively of
Levites, one essential qualification of an active member of that order being
a good voice.
Of the vocal method of the Hebrews we know nothing. Wellhausen
imagines that he can detect one of the singers, in the portrayal of an
Assyrian band, compressing his throat in order to produce a vibrato; and it
is quite possible that in other respects as well as this, ancient and modern
oriental vocalization resembled each other. But that is about all that can be
said.
On the other hand, we cannot repeat too often that we are quite unable to
identify any intervals, scales, or tunes as having been used in ancient Israel.
Even those who hold that the early church took the Gregorian tones
from the synagogue, confess that it was certainly not without considerable
modifications. And, of course, there was not the slightest affinity between
the Hebrew and the Anglican chant.
See MUSIC; PRAISE; SONG; TEMPLE.
J ames Millar
SINGLE, EYE
<sin-g-l> :
<400622>
Matthew 6:22 f parallel
<421134>
Luke 11:34: If therefore thine
eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil,
thy whole body shall be full of darkness. Single and evil here
represent [oou, haplous], and [ovqpo, poneros]. Poneros elsewhere
999
in the New Testament means wicked; haplous occurs only here in the
New Testament, but is very common in ordinary Greek and always has the
meaning simple. But in view of the context, most commentators take
haplous here as meaning normal, healthy, and poneros as diseased,
so rendering Just as physical enlightenment depends on the condition of
the eye, so does spiritual enlightenment depend on the condition of the
heart. This is natural enough, but it is not satisfactory, as it gives to
haplous a unique sense and to poneros a sense unique in the 73 New
Testament examples of the word. Moreover, the same expression, evil
eye, is found also in
<402015>
Matthew 20:15;
<410722>
Mark 7:22, where it means
jealousy or covetousness. With poneros = covetous haplous would
= generous; and this rendition gives excellent sense in Matthew, where
the further context deals with love of money. Yet in Luke it is meaningless,
where the context is of a different sort, a fact perhaps indicating that Luke
has placed the saying in a bad context. Or the Greek translation of Christs
words used by Matthew and Luke may have taken the moral terms haplous
and poneros to translate physical terms (healthy and diseased?)
employed in the original Aramaic. The Sinaitic Syriac version of
<421136>
Luke
11:36 may perhaps contain a trace of an older rendering. See Julicher, Die
Gleichnisreden Jesu, II, 98-108.
Burton Scott Easton
SINGULAR
<sin-gu-lar>: Pertaining to the single person, individual, and so
sometimes unusual, remarkable. So The Wisdom of Solomon 14:18,
the King James Version the singular diligence of the artificer
([oto, philotimia], love of honor, the Revised Version (British
and American) ambition). In
<032702>
Leviticus 27:2 by when a man shall
make a singular vow the King James Version seems to have understood a
personal or private vow. the Revised Version (British and American)
has accomplish a vow, with margin make a special vow. Compare the
same phrase (yaphli (yephalle) nedher) used of the Nazirite vow in
<040602>
Numbers 6:2.
SINIM, LAND OF
<si-nim>, <sin-im> ([ yniys i 6 r ,a ,, erets cinim]; [yq Hrpov, ge
Person]): The name occurs in Isaiahs prophecy of the return of the people
1000
from distant lands: Lo, these shall come from far; and, lo, these from the
north and from the west; and these from the land of Sinim (
<234912>
Isaiah
49:12). The land is clearly far off, and it must be sought either in the South
or in the East. Septuagint points to an eastern country. Many scholars have
favored identification with China, the classical Sinae. It seems improbable
that Jews had already found their way to China; but from very early times
trade relations were established with the Far East by way of Arabia and the
Persian Gulf; and the name may have been used by the prophet simply as
suggesting extreme remoteness. Against, this view are Dillmann
(Commentary on Isaiah), Duhm, Cheyne and others. Some have suggested
places in the South: e.g. Sin (Pelusium,
<263015>
Ezekiel 30:15) and Syene
(Cheyne, Introduction to Isa, 275). But these seem to be too near. In
harmony with his reconstruction of Biblical history, Cheyne finally
concludes that the reference here is to the return from a captivity in North
Arabia (EB, under the word). While no certain decision is possible,
probability points to the East, and China cannot be quite ruled out. See
article China, Encyclopedia Brittanica (11th edition), 188b.
W. Ewing
SINITES
<si-nits> ([yniys i, cini]): A Canaanite people mentioned in
<011017>
Genesis
10:17;
<130115>
1 Chronicles 1:15. The identification is uncertain. Jerome
mentions a ruined city, Sin, near Arka, at the foot of Lebanon.
SINLESSNESS
<sin-les-nes>: The 15th Anglican article (Of Christ Alone without Sin)
may be quoted as a true summary of Scripture teaching on sinlessness:
Christ in the truth of our nature was made like unto us in all things, sin
only excepted, from which He was clearly (prorsus) void, both in His flesh
and in His spirit ..... Sin, as Saint John saith, was not in Him. But all we the
rest, though baptized, and born again in Christ, yet offend in many things;
and, if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves.
1. CHRIST SINLESS:
Here the sinlessness of the Incarnate Son is affirmed. It needs no elaborate
argument to show that this is the affirmation of Scripture. It is not only, as
we are reminded above, definitely taught there. Yet more is it implied in
1001
the mysterious (and morally miraculous) phenomenon of the Lords
evidently total immunity from the sense of sin, His freedom from inward
discord or imperfection, from the slightest discontent with self. It is not too
much to say that this representation is self-evidential of its truth to fact.
Had it been the invention of worshipping disciples, we may say with
confidence that they (supposed thus capable of flee handling) would have
been certain to betray some moral aberrations in their portraiture of their
Master. They must have failed to put before us the profound ethical
paradox of a person who, on the one hand, enjoins penitence and (with a
tenderness infinitely deep) loves the penitent, and, on the other hand, is
never for a moment penitent Himself, and who all the while has proved,
from the first, a supreme moral and spiritual magnet, drawing all men to
him. Meanwhile the Scripture represents the sinlessness of the Incarnate
Lord as no mere automatic or effortless condition. He is sensitive to
temptation, to a degree which makes it agony. His sinlessness, as to actual
experience (we are not here considering the matter sub specie aeternitatis),
lies in the perfect fidelity to the Father of a will, exercised under human
conditions, filled absolutely with the Holy Spirit, willingly received.
2. SAINTS NOT SINLESS:
On the other hand, we the rest, contemplated as true believers, are
warned by the general teaching of Scripture never to affirm sinlessness as
our condition. There are passages (e.g.
<620309>
1 John 3:9; 5:1 f) which affirm
of the regenerate man that he sinneth not. But it seems obvious to
remark that such words, taken without context and balance, would prove
too much; they would make the smallest sense of sin a tremendous
evidence against the persons regeneration at all. It would seem that such
words practically mean that sin and the regenerate character are diametrical
opposites, so that sinning is out of character, not in the man as such, but in
the Christian as such. And the practical result is an unconquerable aversion
and opposition in the regenerate will toward all known sin, and a readiness
as sensitive as possible for confession of failure. Meanwhile such passages
as 1 John are, to the unbiased reader, an urgent warning of the peril of
affirming our perfect purity of will and character. But then, on the other
hand, Scripture abounds in both precepts and promises bearing on the fact
that in Christ and by the power of His Spirit, received by faith into a
watchful soul, our weakness can be so lifted and transformed that a moral
purification and emancipation is possible for the weakest Christian which,
1002
compared with the best efforts of unregenerate nature, is a more than
conquest over evil (see e.g.
<471209>
2 Corinthians 12:9,10;
<480220>
Galatians 2:20;
<490616>
Ephesians 6:16;
<650124>
Jude 1:24).
See further FLESH; SPIRIT.
Handley Dunelm
SINNER
<sin-er> ([a F ; j , chaTTa]; [oopto, hamartolos], devoted to
sin, erring one): In the New Testament, in addition to its ordinary
significance of one that sins (
<420508>
Luke 5:8; 13:2;
<450508>
Romans 5:8,19;
<540115>
1
Timothy 1:15;
<580726>
Hebrews 7:26), the term is applied to those who lived in
disregard of ceremonial prescription (
<400910>
Matthew 9:10,11;
<410215>
Mark 2:15
ff;
<420530>
Luke 5:30;
<480215>
Galatians 2:15); to those stained with certain definite
vices or crimes, as the publicans (
<421502>
Luke 15:2; 18:13; 19:7); to the
heathen (
<402645>
Matthew 26:45;
<480215>
Galatians 2:15; compare Tobit 13:6; 1
Macc 1:34; 2 Macc 2:48,62); to the preeminently sinful (
<410838>
Mark 8:38;
<430924>
John 9:24,31;
<480217>
Galatians 2:17;
<540109>
1 Timothy 1:9;
<650115>
Jude 1:15). It
was the Jewish term for a woman of ill-fame (
<420737>
Luke 7:37; compare
<402132>
Matthew 21:32, where it is stated that such had come even to Johns
baptism also). For the general Biblical conception of the term, see SIN.
M. O. Evans
SION
<si-un> ([wOa yc i, sion]; [2qv, Seon]):
(1) A name given to Mt. Hermon in
<050448>
Deuteronomy 4:48. The name
may mean protuberance or peak, and may have denoted the lofty
snow-covered horn of the mountain as seen from the South. It may,
however, be a scribal error for Sirion, the name by which the mountain
was known to the Zidonians. Syriac takes it in this sense, which,
however, may be a correction of the Hebrew. It is possible that this
name, like Senir, may have applied to some distinct part of the Hermon
Range.
(2) Mt. Sion.
See ZION.
1003
SIPHMOTH
<sif-moth>, <sif-moth> ([t wOmp ]c i, siphmoth] (Ginsburg), [t wOmp }v i,
shiphamoth] (Baer); [2or, Saphei]): One of the cities to which David
sent presents from Ziklag (
<093028>
1 Samuel 30:28). It occurs between Aroer
and Eshtemoa, so it must have been somewhere in Southern Judah. The
site has not been recovered. Zabdi the Shiphmite (
<132727>
1 Chronicles 27:27)
may quite probably have been a native of this place.
SIPPAI
<sip-i>, <si-pa-i>.
See SAPH.
SIR
<sur>: In the Old Testament this word in
<014320>
Genesis 43:20 the King James
Version (adhon) is changed in the Revised Version (British and American)
into my lord. In the New Testament the word sometimes represents
[ovqp, aner], as in
<440726>
Acts 7:26; 14:15; 19:25, etc.; more frequently
[xupo, kurios], lord, as in
<401327>
Matthew 13:27; 21:30; 27:36;
<430411>
John
4:11,15,19,49 (the Revised Version margin lord);
<432015>
John 20:15. In
<660714>
Revelation 7:14, the Revised Version (British and American) renders
my lord.
SIRACH, BOOK OF
<si-rak>, or The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach:
Sirach is the largest and most comprehensive example of Wisdom
Literature (see WISDOM LITERATURE), and it has also the distinction of
being the oldest book in the Apocrypha, being indeed older than at least
two books (Daniel, Esther) which have found a place in the Canon alike of
the Eastern and Western churches.
I. NAME.
The Hebrew copy of the book which Jerome knew bore, according to his
explicit testimony (see his preface to his version of Libri Sol.), the same
title as the canonical Proverbs, i.e. [ yl iv ;m], meshalim], Proverbs
1004
(Parabolae is Jeromes word). It is quoted in rabbinical literally, by the
sing. of this name, [l v ;m;, mashal] = Aramaic [a l ; t ] m , mathla], but in
the Talmud it is cited by the authors name, Ben Sira ([a r ;ys i B ,, ben
cira]). The Hebrew fragments found in recent years have no title attached
to them. In the Greek manuscripts the heading is [2oo Iqoou oou
2po, Sophia Iesou huiou Sirach] (or [2rpo, Seirach]), The Wisdom
of Jesus, son of Sirach (so A); or simply [2oo 2rpo, Sophia
Seirach] (B), The Wisdom of Sirach. The Fathers called it either (as
Euseb., etc.) [q ovoprto ooo, he panaretos sophia], the all
virtuous wisdom, or simply [q ovoprto, he panaretos], the all
virtuous (one), or (Clement of Alexandria) [ooyyo, paidagogos],
teacher. The first Hebrew and the several Greek titles describe the
subject-matter, one Hebrew title (ben cira) the author. But the Latin name
Ecclesiasticus was given the book because it was one of the books allowed
to be read in the Ecclesia, or church, for edification (libri ecclesiastici),
though not one of the books of the Canon (libra canonici) which could be
quoted in proof or disproof of doctrine. The present book is called
Ecclesiasticus by way of preeminence since the time of Cyprian (Testimon.
2, etc.). The Syriac (Peshitta) title as given in the London Polyglot is The
Book of Jesus the son of Simon [a r ;ys ia ;, Acira], called also the Book of
the Wisdom of Baruch (= Hebrew ben, son of) Acira. There can be no
doubt that Asira (sometimes translated bound) is but a corrupted form of
Sira. For other explanations see Ryssel in Kautzsch, AT Apocrypha, 234.
Lagarde in his corrected text prefixes the title, The Wisdom of Baruch =
Hebrew ben, son of) Sira. How is that the Hebrew [a r ys , cira], has in
the Greek become Sirach (or Seirach)? How are we to explain the final
chapter in the Greek? The present writer thinks it is due to an attempt to
represent in writing the guttural sound of the final letter aleph () in the
Hebrew name as in the Greek [ Axroo, Akeldamach], for the
Aramaic [a m; D ]l q j } , chaqal dema] (
<440119>
Acts 1:19). Dalman, however
(Aramaic Grammar, 161, note 6), followed by Ryssel, holds that the final
chapter is simply a sign that the word is indeclinable; compare [ Ioq,
Iosech] (
<420326>
Luke 3:26), for Hebrew [ys ewOy, yoce].
II. CANONICITY.
Though older than both Daniel and Esther, this book was never admitted
into the Jewish Canon. There are numerous quotations from it, however, in
1005
Talmudic and rabbinic literature, (see a list in Zunz, Die Gottesdiensilichen
Vortrage(2), 101 f; Delitzsch, Zur Geschichte der jud. Poesie, 204 f;
Schechter, JQR, III, 682-706; Cowley and Neubauer, The Original Hebrew
of a Portion of Ecclesiasticus, xix-xxx). It is not referred to explicitly in
Scripture, yet it is always cited by Jewish and Christian writers with respect
and perhaps sometimes as Scripture. It forms a part of the Vulgate
(Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) of the Tridentine Council and
therefore of the Romanist Canon, but the Protestant churches have never
recognized it as canonical, though the bulk of modern Protestant scholars
set a much higher value upon it than they do upon many books in the
Protestant Canon (Chronicles, Esther, etc.). It was accepted as of
canonical rank by Augustine and by the Councils of Hippo (393) and
Carthage (397, 419), yet it is omitted from the lists of accepted books
given by Melito (circa 180 AD), Origen, in the Apostolic Canons and in the
list of the Councils of Laodicea (341 and 381). Jerome writes in Libri Sol.:
Let the church read these two books (Wisdom and Sirach) for the
instruction of the people, not for establishing the authority of the dogmas
of the church. It suffered in the respect of many because it was not usually
connected with a great name; compare the so-called Proverbs of
Solomon. Sirach is cited or referred to frequently in the Epistle of James
(
<590102>
James 1:2-4 compare Sirach 2:1-5;
<590105>
James 1:5 compare
Sirach 1:26; 41:22; 51:13 f;
<590108>
James 1:8 (double minded) compare
Sirach 1:28, etc.). The book is often cited in the works of the Fathers
(Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine, etc.) and also in the
Apostolical Constitutions with the formula that introduces Scripture
passages: The Scripture says, etc. The Reformers valued Sirach highly,
and parts of it have been incorporated into the Anglican Prayer-book.
III. CONTENTS.
It is quite impossible in the book as it stands to trace any one scheme of
thought, for the authors mind moves lightly from topic to topic, recurring
frequently to the same theme and repeating not seldom the same idea. It is,
however, too much to say with Sonntag (Deuteronomy Jesu Siracidae,
etc.) that the book is a farrago of sayings with no connection, or with
Berthold that the work is but a rhapsody, for the whole is informed and
controlled by one master thought, the supreme value to everyone of
Wisdom. By this last the writer means the Jewish religion as conceived by
enlightened Jews toward the beginning of the 2nd century BC, and as
1006
reflected in the Law of Moses (see Sirach 24:23-34), and in a less degree in
the books of the Prophets and in the other writings (see Prologue). The
book follows the lines of the canonical Book of Proverbs, and is made up
of short pithy sayings with occasional longer discussions, largely collected
but in part composed, and all informed and governed by the dominant note
of the book: true Wisdom, the chief end of man. Most of the book is
poetical in form, and even in the prose parts the parallelism of Hebrew
poetry is found. Many unsuccessful attempts have been made to trace a
definite continuous line of reasoning in the book, but the vital differences in
the schemes propounded suggest what an examination of the book itself
confirms, that the compiler and author put his materials together with little
or no regard to logical connection, though he never loses sight of his main
theme Wisdom, the chief thing.
Eichhorn (Einleitung, 50 ff) divides the book into three parts (Sirach 1
through 23; 24 through 42:14; 42:15 through 50:24), and maintains that at
first each of these was a separate work, united subsequently by the author.
Julian divides the work into three, Scholz into twelve, Fritzsche
(Einleitung, xxxii) and Ryssel (op. cit., 240) into seven, Edershelm (op.
cit., 19 f) and R.G. Moulton (Modern Readers Bible: Ecclus, xvi ff) into
five portions, and many other arrangements have been proposed and
defended as by Ewald, Holzmann, Bissell, Zockler, etc. That there are
small independent sections, essayettes, poems, etc., was seen by the early
scribes to whom the Septuagint in its present form was largely due, for
they have prefixed headings to the sections beginning with the following
verses: Sirach 18:30 (Temperance of Soul); 20:27 (Proverbs); 23:7
(Discipline of the Mouth); 24:1 (The Praise of Wisdom); 30:1
(Concerning Children); 30:14 (Concerning Health); 30:16
(Concerning Foods ; this is absent from many manuscripts, though
retained by Swete who, however, omits the preceding heading); 30:24
(English Versions of the Bible 33:24, Concerning Servants); Sirach 35
(English Versions of the Bible 32:1, Concerning Rulers); 44:1 (Praise of
the Fathers); 51:1 (The Prayer of Jesus, Son of Sirach). Probably the
whole book possessed such headings at one time, and it is quite possible
that they originated in the need to guide readers after the book had become
one of the chief church reading-books (so W. J. Deane ii The Expositor, II,
vi, 327). These headings are given in English in the King James Version
proper (in the margin), though in modern reprints, as also in the Revised
Version (British and American), they are unfortunately omitted. The whole
1007
book has been arranged in headed sections by H. J. Holzmann (Bunsens
Bibelwerk, IX, 392 ff) and by R. G. Moulton (op. cit.).
IV. TEACHING.
In general it may be said that the principles enunciated in this book agree
with those of the Wisdom school of Palestinian Judaism about 200 BC,
though there is not a word in the book about a Messianic hope or the
setting up of a Messianic kingdom. None of the views characteristic of
Alexandrian Judaism and absent from the teaching of Palestinian Judaism
are to be found in this book, though some of them at least are represented
in Wisdom (see WISDOM OF SOLOMON, VI; TEACHING). Girorer
(Milo und die jud.-alex. Philo., II, 18 ff) and Dahne (Gesch. der jud.-alex.
rel. Phil., II, 141 ff) hold that the book contains many Alexandrian
expressions and numerous statements peculiar to the Alexandrian
philosophy. But apart from some late interpolations, mostly Christian, what
these German scholars say is untrue, as Drummond (Philo Judaeus, I, 144
ff), Deane (Expos, II, v, 334 ff) and others have shown. The outstanding
features of Alexandrianism are the allegorical interpretation of the
Scriptures, its conception of the ecstatic vision of God, its doctrine of
mediating powers between man and God and its adoption of purely Greek
ideas. None of these can be traced in Sir. The Hebrews never developed a
theoretical or speculative theology or philosophy: all their thinking
gathered about life and conduct; the duties that men owed to God and to
one another; the hopes that they cherished and the fears by which they
were animated. This is the only philosophy which the Bible and the so-
called Apocrypha teach, and it is seen at its highest point in the so-called
WISDOM LITERATURE (which see). The main lines of the teaching of
Sirach may be set out as follows, under the three heads of religion, morals,
and manners.
1. Religion:
(1) God.
The view of God given in this book agrees generally with that put forth by
the later writers of the Old Testament from the exile (Second Isaiah, Job,
etc.) onward, though the God of this book lacks the love and tenderness of
the Yahweh of the Old Testament prophets. God is present everywhere
(Sirach 16:17-23); He created the world as an ordered whole (Sirach
16:26-30) and made man intelligent and supreme over all flesh. The
1008
expressions used are no doubt modeled on Genesis 1, and it may fairly be
inferred that creation out of nothing is meant. Wisdom, on the other hand,
teaches the Alexandrian doctrine that matter ([uq, hule]) is eternal and
that the Creators work consisted of fashioning, adapting and beautifying.
The world is a creature of God, not (as in Philo, etc.) an emanation from
Him. Yet is He compassionate and forgiving (Sirach 17:24 ff). His works
are past finding out (Sirach 18:2 ff); but His compassion is upon all flesh
(Sirach 18:13), i.e. upon all that accept His chastening and seek to do His
will (Sirach 18:14). In Sirach 43:27 God is said to be the all ([to ov, to
pan]), which simply means that He pervades and is the ground of
everything. It is not Alexandrian pantheism that is taught. Gfrorer and
others take a contrary view.
(2) Revelation.
In harmony with other products of the Wise Men, Sirach sets chief value
upon natural religion, that revealed in the instincts, reason and conscience
of man as well as by the sun, moon, stars, etc. Yet Sirach gives far more
prominence than Proverbs to the idea that the Divine Will is specially made
known in the Law of Moses (Sirach 24:23; 45:1-4). We do not meet once
with the word law in Ecclesiastes, nor law in the technical sense (Law of
Moses) in either Job, Wisdom or Proverbs. In the last-named it is simply
one of many synonyms denoting Wisdom. In Sirach the word occurs
over 20 times, not, however, always, even when the expression Law of
Moses is used, in the sense of the five books (Pentateuch). It generally
includes in its connotation also the prophecies and the rest of the books
(Prologue); see Sirach 32 (Septuagint 35):24; 33 (Septuagint 36):1-3.
(3) Sin.
Sin is due to the wrong exercise of mans free will. Men can, if they like,
keep the commandments, and when they break from them they are
themselves alone to be blamed (Sirach 15:14-17). Yet it was through a
woman (Eve) that sin entered the world and death by sin (Sirach 25:24;
compare
<540214>
1 Timothy 2:14). See
<450512>
Romans 5:12 where one man,
strictly human being (5:14, Adam), is made the first cause of sin. But
nowhere in Sirach is the doctrine of original sin taught.
1009
(4) Predestination.
Notwithstanding the prominence given to free will (see (3), above),
Sirach teaches the doctrine of predestination, for God has determined that
some men should be high and some low, some blessed and others cursed
(33:10 ft).
(5) Satan.
The word Satan ([2otovo, Satanas]) in Sirach 21:27 (it occurs
nowhere else in the Apocrypha) denotes ones own wicked heart, as the
parallelism shows.
(6) Salvation.
There is no salvation except by way of good works on mans part (Sirach
14:16 f) and forgiveness on Gods (Sirach 17:24-32). The only atonement
is through ones own good works (Sirach 5:5 f), honoring parents (Sirach
32:14 f), almsgiving, etc. (Sirach 3:30; 17:19 ff). There is no objective
atonement (expiation, literally, propitiation; the Greek verb
[rooxoo, exilaskomai], is the great Septuagint word for the Hebrew
[r P ,K i , kipper], to atone).
(7) Sacrifice.
The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to God (Sirach 34:18 ff),
though He Himself appointed sacrifices and first-fruits (Sirach 45:20 f),
and when the righteous offer sacrifices to God they are accepted and
remembered in the time to come (Sirach 35:1-12).
(8) Feasts.
Festivals as well as seasons are ordained by God to be observed by man
(Sirach 33 (Septuagint 36):8 f; compare
<010114>
Genesis 1:14).
(9) Prayer.
The duty of prayer is often pointed out (Sirach 37:15, etc.), the necessary
preparation defined (Sirach 17:25; 18:20,23), and its successful issue
promised (Sirach 35:17). There must be no vain repetitions (Sirach 7:14;
compare
<400607>
Matthew 6:7), nor should there be any faint-heartedness in the
matter (Sirach 5:10; compare
<590106>
James 1:6). Men are to pray in sickness
1010
(Sirach 38:9), but all the same the physician should be consulted and his
advice followed (Sirach 38:1 f,12 ff).
(10) Angelology.
Sirach nowhere clearly expresses his belief in angels or uses language
which implies such a belief. For an angel ([o oyyro, ho aggelos])
destroyed them the Hebrew of the original passage (
<121935>
2 Kings 19:35)
has [h p ; Ge m , maggephah], plague, and so the Syriac, though the
Septuagint (followed by the Vulgate) has angel.
(11) Eschatology.
Nowhere in this book is the doctrine of a future life taught, and the whole
teaching of the book leaves no place for such a doctrine. Men will be
indeed rewarded or punished according to their conduct, but in this world
(see Sirach 2:10 f; 9:12; 11:26 f). The retribution is, however, not confined
to the individuals in their lifetime; it extends to their children and involves
their own glorious or inglorious name after death (see Sirach 11:28; 40:15;
41:6; 44:11-13). The passage concerning Gehenna (Sirach 7:17) is
undoubtedly spurious and is lacking in the Syriac, Ethiopic, etc. Since the
book is silent as to a future life, it is of necessity silent on the question of a
resurrection. Nothing is hinted as to a life beyond the grave, even in Sirach
41:1-4, where the author deprecates the fear of death. In these matters
Sirach agrees with the Pentateuch and the prophetic and poetical books of
the Old Testament (Psalms, Job, etc.), none of which give any intimation of
a life beyond the grave. Little or nothing is said of the Messianic hope
which must have been entertained largely by Palestinian Jews living in the
authors time, though in Sirach 36 (Septuagint 33):1-17 the writer prays
for the restoration of Israel and Jerusalem, i.e. R.H. Charles thinks
(Eschatology, etc., 65), for the bringing in of the Messianic kingdom.
(12) Sirachs Doctrine of Wisdom.
For a general discussion of the rise and development of the conception of
Wisdom in the Old Testament and in the Apocrypha see WISDOM
LITERATURE. A brief statement as to what the word implies in Sirach is
all that can here be attempted. It is in chapters 1 and 24 that Ben Siras
doctrine is chiefly contained.
Wisdom is from God: He created it and it must therefore have a separate
existence. Yet it is dependent on Him. It is omnipresent, though it dwells in
1011
a peculiar sense with all flesh. The root and beginning of Wisdom, its
fullness and crown, are the fear of God (Sirach 1:14,16,18,21); so that only
the obedient and pious possess it (Sirach 1:10,26); indeed Wisdom is
identified with the fear of the Lord and the observance of the Law (Sirach
19:20); it is even made one with the Law of Moses (Sirach 24:23), i.e. it
consists of practical principles, of precepts regulating the life. In this
doctrine we have a combination of universalism, principles of reason and
Jewish particularism as the teaching of the revealed Law. We have the first
in Sirach 24:3-21; the second in 24:23-34. Have we in this chapter, as in
Proverbs, nothing outside the teaching of Palestinian Judaism? Gfrorer (op.
cit., II, 18 ff) denies this, maintaining that the whole of Sirach 24 was
written by an Alexandrian Jew and adopted unchanged by Ben Sira. But
what is there in this chapter which an orthodox, well-informed Palestinian
Jew of Ben Siras time might not well have written? It is quite another
question whether this whole conception of Wisdom in the so-called
Wisdom books is not due, in some measure, to Greek, though not
Alexandrian, influence, unless indeed the Greek influence came by way of
Alexandria. In the philosophy of Socrates, and in a less exclusive sense in
that of Plato and Aristotle, the good man is the wise one. Cheyne (Job and
Solomon, 190) goes probably too far when he says, By Greek philosophy
Sirach, as far as we can see, was wholly uninfluenced.
2. Morals:
The ethical principle of Sirach is Hedonism or individual utilitarianism, as is
that of Proverbs and the Old Testament generally, though in the Psalms
and in the prophetical writings gratitude to God for the love He has shown
and the kind acts He has performed is the basis of endless appeals and
vows. Moreover, the individual point of view is reached only in the late
parts of the Old Testament. In the older Old Testament books, as in Plato,
etc., it is the state that constitutes the unit, not the individual human being.
The rewards and penalties of conduct, good and bad, belong to this present
world. See what is said in (11) Eschatology, above; see also Sirach 2:7 f;
11:17; 16:6 f; 40:13 f, etc.
The hedonistic principle is carried so far that we are urged to help the good
because they are most likely to prove serviceable to us (Sirach 12:2); to aid
our fellow-man in distress, so that in his days of prosperity he may be our
friend (Sirach 22:23); contrast the teaching of Jesus Christ (
<420630>
Luke 6:30-
36). Friends are to be bemoaned for appearance sake (Sirach 38:17). Yet
1012
many of the precepts are lofty. We are exhorted to show kindness and
forbearance to the poor and to give help to our fellow-man (Sirach
29:8,20); to give alms (Sirach 12:3); speak kindly (Sirach 18:15-18);
masters should treat servants as brethren, nay as they would themselves be
treated (Sirach 7:20-22; 33:30 f); parents should give heed to the proper
training of their children (Sirach 3:2; 7:23; 30:1-13); and children ought to
respect and obey their parents (Sirach 3:1-16). It is mens duty to defend
the truth and to fight for it. So shall the Lord fight for them (Sirach
4:25,28). Pride is denounced (Sirach 10:2 ff), and humility (Sirach 3:18),
as well as forgiveness (Sirach 28:2), commended.
3. Manners:
Sirach is as much a code of etiquette as one of ethics, the motive being
almost invariably the individuals own good. Far more attention is given to
manners in Sirach than in Proverbs, owing to the fact that a more
complex and artificial state of society had arisen in Palestine. When one is
invited to a banquet he is not to show greed or to be too forward in helping
himself to the good things provided. He is to be the first to leave and not to
be insatiable (Sirach 31:12-18). Moderation in eating is necessary for
health as well as for appearance sake (Sirach 31:19-22). Mourning for the
dead is a social propriety, and it should on that account be carefully carried
out, since failure to do this brings bad repute (Sirach 38:16 f). It is quite
wrong to stand in front of peoples doors, peeping and listening: only fools
do this (Sirach 21:23 f). Music and wine are praised: nay even a concert
of music and a banquet of wine are good in their season and in
moderation (Sirach 32 (Septuagint 35):5 f). The author has not a high
opinion of woman (Sirach 25:13). A man is to be on his strict guard against
singing and dancing girls and harlots, and adultery is an evil to be feared
and avoided (Sirach 36:18-26). From a woman sin began, and it is through
her that we all die (Sirach 25:4). Yet no one has used more eulogistic
terms in praising the good wife than Ben Sira (Sirach 26:1 ff), or in
extolling the happiness of the home when the husband and wife walk
together in agreement (Sirach 25:1).
4. Counsels of Prudence:
Never lend money to a man more powerful than thyself or thou wilt
probably lose it (Sirach 8:12). It is unwise to become surety for another
(Sirach 29:18; 8:13), yet for a good man one would become surety (Sirach
1013
29:14) and he would even lend to him (Sirach 29:1 ff). It should be
remembered that in those times lending and becoming financially liable
were acts of kindness, pure and simple: the Jewish Law forbade the taking
of interest in any form (see Century Bible, Ezra, etc., 198). A slip on, a
pavement is better than a slip with the tongue, so guard thy mouth (Sirach
20:18); He that is wise in words shall advance himself; and one that is
prudent will please great men (Sirach 20:27). The writer has the pride of
his class, for he thinks the common untrained mind, that of the plowman,
carpenter and the like, has little capacity for dealing with problems of the
intellect (Sirach 38:24-34).
V. LITERARY FORM.
The bulk of the book is poetical in form, abounding in that parallelism
which characterizes Hebrew poetry, though it is less antithetic and regular
than in Prov. No definite meter has been discovered, though Bickell,
Margoliouth and others maintain the contrary (see POETRY, HEBREW).
Even in the prose parts parallelism is found. The only strophic arrangement
is that suggested by similarity of subject-matter.
Bickell (Zeitschr. far katholische Theol., 1882) translated Sirach 51:1-20
back into Hebrew and tried to prove that it is an alphabetic acrostic psalm,
and Taylor supports this view by an examination of the lately discovered
fragments of the Hebrew text (see The Wisdom of Ben Sira, etc., by S.
Schechter and C. Taylor, lxxix ff). After Sirach 51:12 of the Greek and
other versions the Hebrew has a psalm of 15 verses closely resembling
Psalm 136; but the Hebrew version of Sirach 51:1-20 does not favor
Bickells view, nor does the ps, found only in the Hebrew, lend much
support to what either Bickell or Taylor says. Space precludes detailed
proofs.
VI. AUTHOR.
1. Jesus, Son of Sirach:
The proper name of the author was Jesus (Jeshua, Greek Iesous(?)), the
family name being Ben Sira. The full name would be therefore Jesus
Ben Sirs. In the Talmud and other Jewish writings he is known as Ben
Sira, literally, son (or descendant?) of Sira. Who Sira was is unknown.
No other book in the Apocrypha gives the name of its author as the
Prologue to Sirach does. In the best Greek manuscripts (Vaticanus,
1014
Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus) of Sirach 50:27, the authors name appears as [
Iqoou uo 2rpo Eroop o Irpooourtq, Iesous huios
Seirach Eleazar ho Hierosolumeites], Jesus the son of Sirach (son of)
Eleazar the Jerusalemite. For the last two words Codex Sinaiticus has by
a copyists error, [o rpru o 2ourtq, ho hiereus ho Solumeites],
the Solomon-like priest. The Hebrew text of Sirach 50:27 and 51:30
gives the following genealogy: Simeon son of Jesus, son of Eleazar, son of
Sira, making the author the grandson and not the son of Sira, and so he is
called by Saadia; see HDB (Nestle) and EB, II, 1165 (Toy). We know
nothing of Ben Sira beyond what can be gathered from the book itself. He
was a resident in Palestine (24:10 f), an orthodox Jew, well read in at least
Jewish literature, a shrewd observer of life, with a philosophical bent,
though true to the national faith. He had traveled far and seen much (34:11
f). His interests were too general and his outlook too wide to allow of his
being either a priest or a scribe.
2. Other Views:
Many suppositions have been put forward as to the authors identity.
(1) That the Author Was a Priest:
So in Codex Sinaiticus (Sirach 50:27). In Sirach 7:29-31 he speaks much
of the priesthood, and there are numerous references to sacrifices in the
book. In 45:6-26 he has a long poem in praise of Aaron and his high-
priesthood. Yet on the whole Ben Sira does not write as a priest.
(2) That He Was a High Priest:
So Syncellus (Chronicles, edition Dindf., 1 525) through a
misunderstanding of a passage in Eusebius. But the teaching and temper of
the book make this supposition more improbable than the last.
(3) That He Was a Physician:
An inference drawn from Sirach 38:1 f,12 ff and other references to the
professional healer of the body (10:10). But this is a very small foundation
on which to build so great an edifice.
(4) That He Was One of the 72 Translators (Septuagint):
So Lapide (Comm.), Calmer, Goldhager, a wholly unsupported hypothesis.
1015
(5) No One of Course Believes that Solomon Wrote the Book:
Though many of the early Fathers held that he was the author of the five
Wisdom Books Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Sirach and Wisdom.
VII. UNITY AND INTERGRITY.
There is, on the whole, such a uniformity in the style and teaching of the
book that most scholars agree in ascribing the whole book (except, the
Prologue, which is the work of the translator) to Ben Sira. This does not
mean that he composed every line; he must have adopted current sayings,
written and oral, and this will account for the apparent contradictions, as
about becoming surety (Sirach 29:14), and refusing to become surety
(Sirach 8:13; 29:18); words in praise (Sirach 25:1; 26:1 ff) and
condemnation of women (Sirach 25:4,13; 36:18-26); the varying estimates
of life (Sirach 36:16-35; 40:1-11), etc. But in these seeming opposites we
have probably no more than complementary principles, the whole making
up the complete truth. Nothing is more manifest in the book than the all-
pervading thought of one dominant mind. Some have denied the
genuineness of Sirach 51, but the evidence is at least indecisive. There is
nothing in this chapter inconsistent with the rest of the book.
In the recently discovered fragments of Hebrew text there is a psalm
between Sirach 51:12 and 13 of the Greek and English Versions of the
Bible which seems a copy of Psalm 136. It is absent from the versions and
its genuineness is doubtful. But in both the Hebrew and Greek texts there
are undoubted additions and omissions. There are, in the Greek, frequent
glosses by Christian editors or copyists and other changes (by the
translators?) in the direction of Alexandrian Judaism; see Speakers
Apocrypha and other commentaries for details.
VIII. DATE.
In the book itself there is one mark of definite date (Sirach 50:1), and in
the Prologue there is another. Unfortunately both are ambiguous. In the
Prologue the translator, whose grandfather or ancestor (Greek [oo,
pappos) wrote the book (the younger Siracides, as he is called), says that
he reached Egypt, where he found and translated this book in the reign of
Euergetes, king of Egypt. But there were two Egyptian kings called
Euergetes, namely, Ptolemy Euergetes, or Euergetes I (247-222 BC), and
Ptolemy VII Physcon, or Euergetes II (218-198 BC). Sirach 50:1
1016
mentions, among the great men whom he praises, Simon the high priest,
son of Onias, who is named last in the list and lived probably near the time
of the elder Siracidess. But there were two high priests called Simon and
each of them was a son of Onias, namely, Simon I, son of Onias I (circa
310-290 BC), and Simon II, son of Onias II (circa 218-198 BC). Scholars
differ as to which Euergetes is meant in the Prologue and which Simon in
50:1.
1. Most Probable Views:
The conclusions to which the evidence has brought the present writer are
these:
(1) that Simon I (died 290 BC) is the high priest meant;
(2) that Ptolemy VII Physcon (218-198 BC) is the Euergetes meant.
(1) In Favor of the First Proposition Are the Following:
(a) The book must have been written some time after the death of Simon,
for in the meantime an artificial fame had gathered around the name, and
the very allusion to him as a hero of the past makes it clear that he had
been long dead. Assuming that Simon had died in 290 BC, as seems likely,
it is a reasonable conclusion that the original Hebrew work was composed
somewhat later than 250 BC. If Simon II is the man intended, the book
could hardly have been composed before 150 BC, an impossible date; see
below.
(b) In the list of great men in Sirach 44 through 50 the praises of Simon
(50:1 ff) are sung after those of Nehemiah (Sirach 49:13), suggesting that
the space of time between them was not very great.
(c) The Simon the Just of Josephus was certainly Simon I, he being so
called, this Jewish historian says (Ant., XII, ii, 5), on account of his piety
and kindness.
(d) It is probable that the Simon the Just of the Mishna (Abhoth i.2) is
also Simon I, though this is not certain. It is said of him that he was one of
the last members of the great synagogue and in the Talmud he is the hero
of many glorifying legends. The so-called great synagogue never really
existed, but the date assigned to it in Jewish tradition shows that it is
Simon I that is thought of.
1017
(e) In the Syriac version (Pesh) Sirach 50:23 reads thus: Let it (peace) be
established with Simon the Just, etc. Some manuscripts have Simon the
Kind. This text may of course be wrong, but Graetz and Edersheim
support it. This is the exact title given to Simon I by Josephus (op. cit.),
the Mishna and by Jewish tradition generally.
(f) The only references to Simon II in Jewish history and tradition depict
him in an unfavorable light. In 2 Macc 3 he is the betrayer of the temple to
the Syrians. Even if the incident of the above chapter were unhistorical,
there must have been some basis for the legend. Josephus (Ant., XII, iv, 10
f) makes him side with the sons of Tobias against Hyrcanus, son of Joseph,
the wrong side from the orthodox Jewish point of view.
(g) The high priest Simon is said (Sirach 50:1-13) to have repaired the
temple and fortified the city. Edersheim says that the temple and city stood
in need of what is here described in the time of Simon I, but not in the time
of Simon II, for Ptolemy I (247-222 BC) in his wars with Demetrius
destroyed many fortifications in Palestine to prevent their falling into the
hands of the enemy, among which Acco, Joppa, Gaza are named, and it is
natural to think that the capital and its sanctuary were included. This is,
however, but a priori reasoning, and Derenbourg argues that Simon II
must be meant, since according to Josephus (Ant., XII, iii, 3) Antiochus
the Great (223-187 BC) wrote a letter in which he undertakes that the city
and temple of Jerusalem shall be fully restored. This is not, however, to say
that Simon II or anyone else did, at that time, restore either.
(h) Of the numerous errors in the Greek text some at least seem due to the
fact that the version in that language was made so long after the
composition of the original Hebrew that the sense of several Hebrew
words had become lost among the Alexandrian Jews. If we assume that the
Simon of chapter 50 was Simon I (died 290 BC), so that the Hebrew work
was composed about 250 BC; if we further assume that the Euergetes of
the Prologue was Ptolemy VII (died 198 BC), there is a reasonable space
of time to allow the sense of the Hebrew to be lost in many instances (see
Halevy, Revue semitique, July, 1899). It must be admitted that there is no
decisive evidence on one side or the other, but the balance weighs in favor
of Simon I in the opinion of the present writer.
1018
(2) Euergetes of the Prologue:
That the Euergetes of the Prologue in whose reign the translation was
made must have been Ptolemy VII Physcon, Euergetes II, seems proved by
the translators statement that he came to Egypt in the 38th year, [r tou
Eurpyrtou poor, epi tou Euergetou basileos], i.e. almost certainly
of the reign of Euergetes, for what reason could the younger Siracides
have for giving his own age? Now Euergetes I reigned but 25 years, but
Euergetes II (Physcon) reigned in all 54 years, from 170 to 145 BC as
regent with his father, and from 145 to 116 BC as sole monarch. If we
accept this interpretation of the above words, the question is settled.
Westcott, however (DB, 1863, I, 479, note c), says the words can only
mean that the translator in his 38th year came to Egypt during the reign of
Euergetes. The other rendering adopted by Eichhorn is, he adds,
absolutely set at variance with the grammatical structure of the sentence.
In the second edition of DB (1893) this note has become expunged, and
the article as edited by D.S. Margoliouth (I, 841) teaches the contrary
view, which is now accepted by nearly all scholars (Schurer, etc.). We may
therefore assume that the original Hebrew book was composed about 240-
200 BC, or some 50 or more years after the death of Simon I, and that the
translation was made about 130 BC, for the younger Siracides came to
Egypt in 132 BC, and he gives us to understand in the Prologue that he
translated the Hebrew work of his grandfather almost immediately after
reaching that country. If Simon II (died 198 BC) is meant in Sirach 50, we
are compelled to assume a date for the original work of about 150 BC in
order to allow time for the growth of the halo of legend which had
gathered about Simon. The translation must, in that case, have been
completed some 20 years after the composition of the Hebrew, a
conclusion which the evidence opposes. The teaching of the book belongs
to 200 BC, or slightly earlier. The doctrine of the resurrection taught in
Daniel (165 BC) is ignored in Sirach, as it has not yet become Jewish
doctrine.
2. Brief Statement of Other Views:
(1) That the Euergetes of the Prologue and the Simon of chapter 50 are
in both cases the first so called. So Hug, Scholz, Welt, Keil, Edersheim
(Speakers Apocrypha) and many others. The book was accordingly
written after 290 BC, perhaps in 250 BC, or later, and the translation
was made some time after 220 BC, say 200 BC.
1019
(2) That Euergetes II (died 116 BC) and Simon II (died 198 BC) are
the two persons referred to. So Eichhorn, Deuteronomy Wette, Ewald,
Franz Delitzsch, Hitzig, Schurer.
(3) Hitzig (Psalms, 1836, II, 118) made the original work a product of
the Maccabean period an impossible supposition, for the book says
nothing at all about the Maccabees. Moreover, the priestly house of
Zadok is praised in this book (Sirach 50, etc.); it was held in little
respect during the time of the Maccabean wars, owing to the sympathy
it showed toward the Hellenizing party.
IX. ORIGINAL LANGUAGES.
1. Composed in Hebrew:
Even before the discovery of the substantial fragments of what is probably
the original Hebrew text of this book, nearly all scholars had reached the
conclusion that Sirach was composed in Hebrew.
(1) The fact of a Hebrew original is definitely stated in the Prologue.
(2) Jerome (Praef. in vers. libri Sol.) says that he had seen the Hebrew
original the same text probably that underlies the fragments recently
published, though we cannot be sure of this.
(3) Citations apparently from the same Hebrew text are made not
seldom in Talmudic and rabbinical literature.
(4) There are some word-plays in the book which in the Greek are lost,
but which reappear in the discovered Hebrew text, e.g. (Sirach 43:8) [o
qv xoto to ovoo outq rotv ouovorvq, ho men kata to
onoma autes estin auxanomene] (read [ovovrorvq, ananeomene),
the month is called after her name, [v d j t m a wh wmv k v d j ,
chodhesh kishemo hu mitchadhes], the moon according to its name
renews itself; the Hebrew words for moon and renews itself come
from one root, as if we said in English what of course is not English
the moon moons itself. There are other cases where mistakes and
omissions in the Greek are explained by a reference to the newly found
Hebrew text.
The strongly supported conjecture of former years that the book was
composed in Hebrew was turned into a practical certainty through the
1020
discovery, by Dr. S. Schechter and others in 1896 and after, of the
fragments of a (probably the) Hebrew text called now A B C and D. These
contain much over half the whole book, and that the text in them, nearly
always identical when the same passages are given in more than one, is the
original one, is exceedingly likely, to say the least.
2. Margoliouths View:
D. S. Margoliouth (Origin of the Original Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus, 1899)
has tried to prove that the Hebrew text of the fragments is a translation of
a Persian version which is itself derived from Greek and Syriac. The proofs
he offers have not convinced scholars.
(1) He refers to words in Hebrew which in that language are senseless,
and he endeavors to show that they are disguised Persian words. As a
matter of fact, in such cases the copyist has gone wholly wrong or the
word is undecipherable.
(2) There do appear to be Persian glosses, but they are no part of the
original text, and there can be no reasonable doubt that they are due to
a Persian reader or copyist.
(3) There are many cases in which the Hebrew can be proved to be a
better and older text than the Greek or Syriac (see Konig, The
Expository Times, XI, 170 ff).
(4) As regards the character of the language, it may be said that in
syntax it agrees in the main with the classical Hebrew of the Old
Testament, but its vocabulary links it with the latest Old Testament
books. Thus we have the use of the waw-consecutive with the
imperfect (Sirach 43:23; 44:9,23; 45:2 f, etc.) and with the perfect
(Sirach 42:1,8,11), though the use of the simple waw with both tenses
occurs also. This mixed usage is exactly what meets us in the latest part
of the Old Testament (Ecclesiastes, Esther, etc.). As regards
vocabulary, the word [6 p , j e , chephets], has the sense of thing,
matter, in Sirach 20:9, as in
<210301>
Ecclesiastes 3:1; 5:7; 8:6. In general
it may be said that the Hebrew is that of early post-Biblical times.
Margoliouth holds that the extant Hebrew version is no older than the
11th century, which is impossible. His mistake is due to confounding
the age of the manuscripts with that of the version they contain.
1021
(5) It is nevertheless admitted that in some cases the Syriac or the
Greek or both together preserve an older and correcter text than the
Hebrew, but this because the latter has sometimes been miscopied and
intentionally changed.
(6) The numerous Hebraisms in the Greek version which in the Hebrew
have their original expression point to the same conclusion that this
Hebrew text is the original form of the book.
Margoliouth has been answered by Smend (TLZ, 1889, col. 506), Konig
(Expository Times, X, XI, 1899-1900), Noldeke (ZATW, XX, 81-94), and
by many others. Bickell (Zeitschrift fur katholische Theol., III, 387 ff)
holds also that the Hebrew Sirach extant is a translation from the Greek or
Syriac or both.
X. VERSIONS.
1. Greek:
The Septuagint translation was made from the Hebrew direct; it is fairly
correct, though in all the extant manuscripts the text is very corrupt in
several places.
(1) The book occurs in the uncials Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Ephraemi, and
part of Alexandrinus fairly free from glosses, though abounding in
obvious errors.
(2) The text is found in a much purer form in Codex Venetus and also
in Codex Sinaiticus (ca) and part of Codex Alexandrinus. All extant
Greek manuscripts except the late cursive 248 seem to go back to one
original MS, since in all of them the two sections Sirach 30:25 through
33:15 and 33:16 through 36:11 have changed places, so that 33:16
through 36:11 follows 30:24 and 30:25 through 33:15 comes after
36:11. Most scholars accept the explanation of Fritzsche (Exeg.
Handbuch zu den Apok, V, 21 f) that the two leaves on which these
two parts (of similar size) were written got mixed, the wrong one being
put first. On the other hand, the cursive 248 (14th century) has these
sections in their proper order, and the same is true of the Syriac
(Peshitta), Latin and Armenian versions and of the Greek version of the
Complutensian Polyglot (which follows throughout 248 and not the
uncials) and English Versions of the Bible which is made from this
1022
Polyglot. The superiority of 248 to the older manuscript (B S A C V) is
seen in other parts of the Greek text. In the other Greek manuscripts,
Sirach 3:25 is omitted, as it is by Edersheim and most commentators
before the discovery of the Hebrew text. But this last supports 248 in
retaining the verse, and it is now generally kept. In 43:23 islands is
properly read by 248, Vulgate, Syriac, 23 and the Hebrew, but older
Greek manuscripts read Jesus, making nonsense (And Jesus planted
her [[outqv, auten]] for he planted islands therein). The other
manuscripts have a text which yields no sense in 43:26: English
Versions of the Bible By reason of him his end hath success. The
Greek of 248 and the Hebrew give this sense: The angel is equipped
for his task, etc.
2. Syriac:
The Syriac (Peshitta) version is now almost universally acknowledged to
have been made from the Hebrew, of which, on the whole, it is a faithful
rendering. In some places, however, it agrees with the Septuagint against
the Hebrew, probably under the influence of the inaccurate idea that the
Greek text is the original one. In this version the two sections Sirach 30:25
through 33:5 and 33:16 through 36:11 are in proper order, as in the
Hebrew, a fresh proof that the Syriac is not translated from the Greek
3. Latin:
The Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) agrees with the Old
Latin which follows the Septuagint closely. Lapide, Sabatier and Bengel
tried to prove that the Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) was
based on the lost original Hebrew, but the evidence they supply falls far
short of proof, and recently discovered Hebrew fragments show that they
were wrong. The two sections transposed in the Septuagint (except 248)
are also transposed in the Latin, showing that the latter is based on the
Greek text. The Latin text of both Sirach and Wisdom according to the
codex Amiant is given by Lagarde in his Mittheilungen, I, 243-84. This
closely follows the Greek text.
4. English:
The King James Version follows the cursives and often repeats their errors.
the Revised Version (British and American) is based, for the most part, on
the uncials and thus often departs from the Hebrew. Sirach 3:19 is retained
1023
by the King James Version but omitted by the Revised Version (British and
American). For the latter clause of the verse (mysteries are revealed unto
the meek), the King James Version is supported by codex 248, the Syriac
and the Hebrew. Both English Versions of the Bible should be corrected by
the Hebrew in Sirach 7:26 and 38:1,15.
For fuller details concerning versions see Speakers Apocrypha, II, 23-32
(Edersheim); Kautzsch, Die Apok. des Altes Testament, I, 242 ff (Ryssel),
and the article by Nestle in HDB, IV, 544 ff.
LITERATURE.
In addition to books mentioned under Apocrypha and in the course of the
present article, note the following:
(1) The Text of the Hebrew Fragments:
For accounts of the discovery and decipherments of these see HDB, IV,
546 f (Nestle); Bible Polyglotte (F. Vigoureux), V, 4 ff; Schurer GJ V4,
III, 221 ff. The text of the Hebrew as yet known is conveniently printed in
the following: H. L. Strack, Die Spruche Jesus, etc. (with notes and
glossary), Leipzig, 1903; Isaac Levi, The Hebrew Text of Ecclesiasticus
(with notes and glossary), Leiden, 1906; Rudolf Smend, Die Weisheit des
Jesus Sirach, Hebrew und Deutsch (with notes and glossary), Berlin, 1906.
The Hebrew appears also in the Bible Polyglotte, edition F. Vigoureux,
with the Septuagint, Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) and a
French translation in parallel columns. (No other Polyglot has appeared
since the discovery of the Hebrew.) There are parallel texts in Hebrew,
Syriac, Greek and English, and also useful notes and tables in The Original
Hebrew of Sirach 39:15-49:11, by Cowles and Neubauer, Oxford, 1897.
Still later and fuller is The Wisdom of Ben Sira in Hebrew and English,
with notes on the Hebrew by Schechter and Taylor, Cambridge, 1899.
(2) Commentaries:
The works of Fritzsche (1859), who neglects the evidence of the Syriac
and ignores the Hebrew idioms in the book, and of Bissell (1880) and
Edersheim (1888) appeared before the discovery of the Hebrew fragments.
The last-named shows both learning and ingenuity in tracking the Hebrew
idioms and in explaining difficulties by means of Hebrew. The following
commentaries take full note of the Hebrew text as far as discovered: Israel
Levi, LEcclesiastique ou la sagesse de Jesus fils de Sira: traduit et
1024
commente, Paris, 1898, 1901; Ryssel in Kautzschs Apok. des Altes
Testament, I, 280-475, exceedingly valuable, especially for the text and
introduction, but he takes account of the Hebrew fragments published by
Cowley and Neubauer only in this book. To complete his treatment of the
Hebrew parts published after he wrote, see further articles by him in Stud.
u. Krit., 1900-1-2; Knabenbaur, Commentarius in Ecclesiasticum, Paris,
1902; Peters, Der jungst wieder aufgefundene hebraische Text des Buches
Ecclesiasticus, 1902 (compare the notice by Smend, Theologische
Literaturzeitung, 1903, 72-77); Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach
erklart, 1906 (full discussion of the book in the newest light; compare
notice by Julicher in TLZ, 1908, 323-29). The New Oxford Apocrypha
(Introduction and Notes), edition by R. H. Charles (1913), contains a full
Introduction and Commentary. J. H. A. Hart has published separately a
critical edition of codex 248, in which he collates the principal authorities,
manuscript and printed.
(3) Dictionaries:
Of the Dict. articles those in HDB (Nestle, strong in the critical, but weak
and defective on the historical and exegetical side); Encyclopedia Biblica
(C. H. Toy, sound and well balanced); see also Jewish Encyclopedia (Israel
Levi) and Encyclopedia Britannica (11th edition) (W. Baxendale). For
detailed register of the literature see HDB (Nestle); Jew Encyclopedia,
Sirach (Israel Levi); and especially Schurer, GJ V4, III, 219 ff.
T. Witton Davies
SIRACH, THE ALPHABET OF
Usually called The Alphabet of Ben Sira. The compilation so designated
consists of two lists of proverbs, 22 in Aramaic and 22 in Hebrew,
arranged in each case as alphabet acrostics. Each of these proverbs is
followed by a haggadic comm., with legends and tales, many of them
indecent. Some of the proverbs in the Alphabets are probably genuine
compositions by Ben Sira and are quoted as such in the Talmud, but in
their present form the Alphabets are at least as late as the 11th century AD.
LITERATURE.
The only complete copy of the text known is in the British Museum, the
copy in the Bodleian being defective. Steinschneider has published a reprint
of this last with critical notes (Alphabeticum Syracidis, Berlin, 1854).
1025
Cowley and Neubauer (The Original Hebrew of a Portion of
Ecclesiasticus), besides giving a general account of this work, add a
translation into English of the Aramaic proverbs. In his brief but excellent
articles in the Jewish Encyclopedia (Ben Sira, The Alphabet of), Dr. Louis
Ginzberg (New York) also gives a translation of the 22 Aramaic proverbs
with useful remarks after each. The work has been translated into Latin,
Yiddish (often), Judeo-Spanish, French and German, but never, so far,
completely into English.
T. Witton Davies
SIRAH, WELL OF
<si-ra> ([h r ; S i h r wO B , bor hacirah], the pit, well or cistern of
Sarah): The spot from which Abner was enticed back to Hebron to his
death (
<100326>
2 Samuel 3:26). Josephus (Ant., VII, i, 5) calls it [Bq(p)opo,
Be(r)sira], implying that it was a well. It is possible that this spot is now
`Ain Sarah, a spring which flows into a little tank near the west side of the
road about a mile out of ancient Hebron, on the way to Jerusalem. There
is, however, a curious cistern with steps known as Chamam Sarah
(Sarahs bath) near Ramet el-Khalil, which is also possibly the site (PEF,
314, Sh XXI).
SIRION
<sir-i-on> ([wOyr ]c i, siryon]; [2ovp, Sanior]): The name of Mt.
Hermon among the Phoenicians (
<050309>
Deuteronomy 3:9). It is given as
Shirion in
<192906>
Psalm 29:6 (Hebrew breastplate or body armor). Here
it is named with Lebanon. Sirion therefore probably did not denote a
particular part of the Hermon Range, as did Senir, but may have been
suggested by the conformation of the range itself, as seen from the heights
above the Phoenician coast.
SISAMAI
<sis-a-mi>.
See SISMAI.
1026
SISERA
<sis-er-a> ([a r ;s ]ys i, cicera], of doubtful meaning; [2(r)oopo,
S(e)isara]):
(1) Given in Judges 4 as the captain of the army of Jabin, king of
Hazor. The accounts given of the battle of Sisera with Barak, as found
in Judges 4 and 5, have important points of difference. The first is a
prose, the second a poetic narrative. In the first only Naphtali and
Zebulun are mentioned as being under the command of Barak; in the
second 6 tribes are given as being under his command. In Judges 4
Sisera is known as the captain of Jabins forces, while in Judges 5 he
seems to have been an independent leader. There is also a difference as
to the scene of the battle and as to the manner in which Sisera met his
death at the hand of Jael. Because of these points of difference, added
to the fact that this is the only account, in these early times, where a
king did not lead his own forces, it is thought by many that there is here
the combination of two traditions dealing with different and distinct
events.
Sisera resided in Harosheth of the Gentiles, a place identified with el-
Charithiyeh, on the right bank of the Kishon and commanding the way
from the Central Plain to the sea. Taking the versions in the two chapters
of Judges as being the account of a single campaign, we find Deborah
urging Barak to combine the forces of Israel to wage war with Sisera as
the representative of Jabin, the king of Hazor. The scene of the battle was
on the plain at the foot of the slopes of Mt. Tabor (
<070412>
Judges 4:12-14), or
at the foot of the Carmel heights (
<070519>
Judges 5:19). The attack of Barak
and Deborah was so furious, animated as it was by the hatred of Sisera and
the Canaanites, that the hosts of Sisera were put to rout, and Sisera,
deserting his troops, fled on foot to the Northeast. He took refuge in the
tent of Heber, near Kedesh, and here met death at the hands of Jael, the
wife of Heber (see JAEL). Siseras name had long produced fear in Israel
because of his oppression of the people, his vast army and his 900 chariots
of iron. His overthrow was the cause of much rejoicing and was celebrated
by the song in which Deborah led the people.
See DEBORAH.
1027
It is interesting to note that the great rabbi Aqiba, who fought so valiantly
in the Jewish war for independence as standard bearer to Bar-cocheba, was
descended from the ancient warlike Sisera of Harosheth.
(2) In
<150253>
Ezra 2:53 and
<160755>
Nehemiah 7:55 the name Sisera, after a
long interval, reappears in a family of the Nethinim. There is no
evidence that the latter Sisera is connected by family descent with the
former.
C. E. Schenk
SISINNES
<si-sin-ez> ([2ovvq, Sisinnes]): The eparch (governor) of Syria and
Phoenicia under Darius Hystaspis (1 Esdras 6:3,7,27; 7:1) circa 520 BC =
Tattenai the governor beyond the river in
<150503>
Ezra 5:3,6; 6:6,13. He took
a prominent part in the efforts to prevent the rebuilding of the temple.
SISMAI
<sis-mi> ([ym s ] s , tsitsmay]; the King James Version Sisamai): A
Judahite, of the descendants of the daughter of Sheshan and Jarha, his
Egyptian servant (
<130240>
1 Chronicles 2:40). Commentators have compared
the name to [ s s , tstsm], a Phoenician god (compare Rudolph Kittel,
Commentary at the place; BDB, under the word).
SISTER
<sis-ter> ([t wOj a ;, achoth]): Used repeatedly in the Old Testament of a
female
(1) having the same parents as another; or
(2) having one parent in common, with another, half-sister (
<012012>
Genesis
20:12;
<031809>
Leviticus 18:9), and also
(3) of a female belonging to the same family or clan as another, so a
kinswoman (
<012460>
Genesis 24:60;
<184211>
Job 42:11);
(4) also of a woman of the same country (
<042518>
Numbers 25:18).
(5) Figuratively, the two kingdoms, Israel and Judah, are sisters
(
<262307>
Ezekiel 23:7 ff).
1028
(6) Confederate cities are conceived of as sisters (
<261645>
Ezekiel 16:45 ff).
(7) [Achoth] is used of objects which go in pairs, as curtains, each
`coupled to its sister (
<022603>
Exodus 26:3,6), and of wings in pairs
(
<260109>
Ezekiel 1:9; 3:13);
(8) of virtues or conditions, with which one is closely related: Say
unto wisdom, thou art my sister (
<200704>
Proverbs 7:4; compare
<181714>
Job
17:14);
(9) of a lover concerning his spouse, as a term of endearment (Song
4:9 f; 5:1 f; 8:8).
In the New Testament, [orq, adelphe], used
(1) in sense of physical or blood kinship (
<401250>
Matthew 12:50; 13:56;
19:29;
<421039>
Luke 10:39 f; 14:26;
<431101>
John 11:1 ff; 19:25;
<442316>
Acts 23:16);
(2) of fellow-members in Christ: Phoebe, our sister (
<451601>
Romans
16:1; see also
<460715>
1 Corinthians 7:15;
<540501>
1 Timothy 5:1;
<590215>
James
2:15);
(3) possibly, of a church, thy elect sister (
<630113>
2 John 1:13).
See RELATIONSHIPS, FAMILY.
Edward Bagby Pollard
SISTERS SON
The King James Version translates rightly
(1) [wOt wOj a }AB ,, ben-achotho] (
<012913>
Genesis 29:13); and
(2) [uo tq orq, huios tes adelphes] (
<442316>
Acts 23:16), and
wrongly,
(3) [ovrgo, anepsios] (
<510410>
Colossians 4:10), where, without doubt,
the real meaning is cousin, as in the Revised Version (British and
American).
See RELATIONSHIPS, FAMILY.
1029
SITH
<sith>: An Anglo-Saxon word meaning afterward, since (
<263506>
Ezekiel
35:6 the King James Version and the English Revised Version, the
American Standard Revised Version since).
SITHRI
<sith-ri> ([yr it ]s i, cithri]): A grandson of Kohath (
<020622>
Exodus 6:22).
SITNAH
<sit-na> ([h n;f ]c i, siTnah], hatred, hostility; [r0po, echthria]): The
name of the second of the two wells dug by the herdsmen of Isaac, the
cause of further enmity with the herdsmen of Gerer (
<012621>
Genesis 26:21,
margin That is, Enmity). The site is unknown, but Palmer (PEFS, 1871)
finds an echo of the name in Shutnet er Rucheibeh, the name of a small
valley near Rucheibeh.
See REHOBOTH.
SITTING
<sit-ing> ([nv y;, yashabh], to sit down or still, [r g D ; , daghar], to
brood, hatch; [xo0roo, kathezomai], to sit down, [ovoxro,
anakeimai], to lie back, recline): The favorite position of the Orientals
(
<390303>
Malachi 3:3;
<400909>
Matthew 9:9; 26:55 (compare
<400501>
Matthew 5:1;
<420420>
Luke 4:20; 5:3);
<411418>
Mark 14:18;
<421835>
Luke 18:35;
<430214>
John 2:14, etc.).
In Palestine people sit at all kinds of work; the carpenter saws, planes, and
hews with his hand-adze, sitting upon the ground or upon the plank he is
planing. The washerwoman sits by the tub, and, in a word, no one stands
where it is possible to sit. .... On the low shopcounters the turbaned
salesmen squat in the midst of the gay wares (LB, II, 144, 275; III, 72,
75).
FIGURATIVE:
(1) To sit with denotes intimate fellowship (
<190101>
Psalm 1:1; 26:5;
<421329>
Luke 13:29;
<660321>
Revelation 3:21);
1030
(2) to sit in the dust indicates poverty and contempt (
<234701>
Isaiah 47:1), in
darkness, ignorance (
<400416>
Matthew 4:16) and trouble (
<330708>
Micah 7:8);
(3) to sit on thrones denotes authority, judgment, and glory
(
<401928>
Matthew 19:28).
M. O. Evans
SIVAN
<se-van>, <si-van> ([w;ys i, ciwan]): The third month of the Jewish year,
corresponding to June (Est 8:9).
See CALENDAR.
SIXTY
<siks-ti> ([ yV iv i, shishshim]; [rqxovto, hexekonta]).
See NUMBER.
SKILL; SKILFUL
<skil>, <skil-fool> (forms of [[ d y; , yadha`] (
<140214>
2 Chronicles 2:14,
etc.), [yB i, bin] (
<131522>
1 Chronicles 15:22), [l k c ; , sakhal] (
<270104>
Daniel 1:4,
etc.), [d m l ; , lamadh] (
<130518>
1 Chronicles 5:18), [ k j ; , chakham] (
<132821>
1
Chronicles 28:21), [v r j ; , charash] (
<262131>
Ezekiel 21:31), [b f y; ,
yaTabh] (
<193303>
Psalm 33:3); in Apocrypha [rrpo, empeiria] (The
Wisdom of Solomon 13:13), [otqq, episteme] (Sirach 1:19; 38:3,6);
adverb [ruo0, eumathos] (The Wisdom of Solomon 13:11)): As a
verb to skill, meaning to have understanding or to be dexterous, common
in Elizabethan English and in the King James Version and the English
Revised Version (
<110506>
1 Kings 5:6;
<140207>
2 Chronicles 2:7 f; 34:12), is
obsolete. The American Standard Revised Version substitutes such
expressions as knoweth how (
<110506>
1 Kings 5:6) and were skillful with
(
<143412>
2 Chronicles 34:12). As a noun the word is used in the sense of
knowledge (
<210911>
Ecclesiastes 9:11), insight (
<270117>
Daniel 1:17), and
wisdom (
<132821>
1 Chronicles 28:21). The adjective skillful is used in
corresponding senses, especially in the American Standard Revised
Version, where it takes the place of cunning (
<022631>
Exodus 26:31; 31:4;
35:33,35; 38:23;
<140207>
2 Chronicles 2:7,13,14; Song 7:1;
<234020>
Isaiah 40:20;
1031
<241009>
Jeremiah 10:9) and of curious (
<023532>
Exodus 35:32), where the Hebrew
[chashabh] suggests planning or devising, and thus what we should call
original work. Both the English Revised Version and the American
Standard Revised Version use the word in place of eloquent (
<230303>
Isaiah
3:3), right (
<210404>
Ecclesiastes 4:4) and cunning (
<132507>
1 Chronicles 25:7). In
the first of these instances the Hebrew word means understanding; in the
second, it refers to the manner of doing a thing, and in the third, to the
training that makes one skilled. the Revised Version (British and
American) uses the word skilled of those that took the war upon them
(
<043127>
Numbers 31:27 the King James Version). Skillfulness (
<197872>
Psalm
78:72) is used with reference to the hands, not only in their work, but also
in guiding (as, e.g., a pilot). To play well (Hebrew [heTibhu naggen]), is
rendered play skillfully (
<193303>
Psalm 33:3). Unskillful is used with
reference to the uninitiated in the sense of inexperienced (
<580513>
Hebrews
5:13, [orpo, apeiros]).
Nathan I saacs
SKIN
([r wO[ , `or], [d l ,G,, geledh], human skin (
<181615>
Job 16:15), [r c ;B ; , basar],
flesh, in the sense of nakedness (
<19A205>
Psalm 102:5 the King James
Version); [rpo, derma]):
LITERAL:
The word `or designates the skin of both men and animals, the latter both
raw and in tanned condition: Yahweh God made for Adam and for his
wife coats of skins (`or), and clothed them (
<010321>
Genesis 3:21); She put
the skins (`or) of the kids of the goats upon his hands, and upon the
smooth of his neck (
<012716>
Genesis 27:16); Can the Ethiopian change his
skin, or the leopard his spots? (
<241323>
Jeremiah 13:23). The Hebrew geledh is
found in the sense of human skin: I have sewed sackcloth upon my skin,
and have laid my horn in the dust (
<181615>
Job 16:15).
FIGURATIVE:
`To escape by the skin of the teeth is equivalent to a narrow escape
(
<181920>
Job 19:20). Satan says in his calumny of Job: Skin for skin, yea, all
that a man hath will he give for his life (
<180204>
Job 2:4). The idea here is, that
a man will endure or do the worst, even as it were the flaying of his body,
1032
to save his life. The Revised Version (British and American) has replaced
skin as the translation of Hebrew basar by flesh: My bones cleave to
my flesh (
<19A205>
Psalm 102:5). The bars of his skin is a poetical expression
for the members of his body in
<181813>
Job 18:13 margin, where the text
interprets rather than translates the original.
Skins served for purposes of clothing from an early date (
<010321>
Genesis 3:21).
In later days they were the raiment of prophets and hermits (
<381304>
Zechariah
13:4;
<581137>
Hebrews 11:37). Septuagint translates [t r , D , a , addereth], the
mantle of Elijah (
<111913>
1 Kings 19:13,19;
<120208>
2 Kings 2:8,13 f), with
[qtq, melote], i.e. sheepskin, the word in He being derived from
these passages. It is not unlikely that the raiment of John the Baptist made
of camels hair and the leathern girdle about his loins are identical with
the rough garb of Old Testament prophets. The skins of cattle were largely
employed for technical uses; rams skins and badgers skins are
especially mentioned in the construction of the tabernacle as material for
the waterproof covering of the roof (
<022505>
Exodus 25:5;
<040408>
Numbers 4:8,10
ff).
The Revised Version, rejecting the translation badgers skins, substitutes
sealskins and adds porpoise skins in the margin. There is little doubt
that the rendering of the King James Version is indeed incorrect. The
Hebrew name of the animal (tachash) is the same as the Arabic tuchas,
which means the dolphin and the sea-cow or halicore of the Red Sea, of
which genus there are two species even now extant (H. tabernaculi Russ,
and H. Helprichii Ehr.). It is probable that the Jews included various
marine animals, seals, porpoises, dolphins and halicores, under the same
expression.
See SEALSKIN.
In
<261610>
Ezekiel 16:10 we find these skins mentioned as material for elegant
shoes, and the Arabs of the Red Sea littoral use the same material in the
manufacture of sandals. A quaint use was made of skins in the making of
skin bottles, the qurbeh or qirbeh of modern Arabia. We find a great
variety of Hebrew expressions, which possibly designated special varieties,
all of which were rendered [ooxo, askos], in Septuagint and the New
Testament ([t m,j e , chemeth], [d a On, d wa On, nodh], [h d ;a On, nodhah], [l b ,n,,
nebhel], [l b ,ne, nebhel], [q B u q ] B , baqbuq], [b wOa , obh]). the Revised
Version (British and American) has rendered the Greek askos in the New
1033
Testament by wineskin (
<400917>
Matthew 9:17;
<410222>
Mark 2:22;
<420537>
Luke 5:37)
with the marginal addition that is, skins used as bottles. These skin
bottles were made of the skins of goats, sheep, oxen or buffaloes; the
former had more or less the shape of the animals, the holes of the
extremities being closed by tying or sewing, and the neck of the skin being
closed by a tap or a plug, while the larger ones were sewn together in
various shapes. As a rule only the inside of the skin was tanned, the skin
turned inside out, and the fluid or semi-fluid filled in, e.g. water, milk,
butter, cheese. The hairy inside was not considered as in any way injurious
to the contents. Only in the case of wine-and oil-skins was it thought
advantageous to tan the skins inside and out.
H. L. E. Luering
SKIRT
<skurt>:
(1) [t n;K ;, kanaph], wing extremity (
<080309>
Ruth 3:9, etc.), is the usual
word. But in
<092404>
1 Samuel 24:4 ff perhaps corner is the best
translation.
(2) [l Wv , shul], loose hanging (
<022833>
Exodus 28:33, etc.; in the King
James Version often rendered hem).
(3) [h P ,, peh], mouth, opening (
<19D302>
Psalm 133:2, the precious oil
.... that came down upon the skirt). But the opening is that for is
that for the head, so that the Revised Version margin collar is the
correct translation. Skirt is frequently used in a euphemistic sense,
for which the commentaries must be consulted.
See DRESS; TRAIN.
SKULL
<skul> ([t l ,GOl ]Gui, gulgoleth]; [xpovov, kranion]): The Hebrew word,
which is well known to Bible readers in its Aramaic-Greek form
Golgotha, expresses the more or less globular shape of the human skull,
being derived from a root meaning to roll. It is often translated in English
Versions of the Bible by head, poll, etc. In the meaning skull it is
found twice (
<070953>
Judges 9:53;
<120935>
2 Kings 9:35). In the New Testament the
word is found only in connection with GOLGOTHA (which see), the
1034
place of a skull (
<402733>
Matthew 27:33;
<411522>
Mark 15:22;
<431917>
John 19:17), or
the skull (
<422333>
Luke 23:33).
SKY
<ski> ([q j v , shachaq], fine dust or cloud, apparently from [?]
[q j v ; , shachaq], to rub, to pulverize; Samaritan: shechaqayyah
instead of Hebrew [ yi m v ; , shamayim]; sachq = cloud, small dust):
1. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT:
The Revised Version (British and American) has skies for the King
James Version clouds in
<183505>
Job 35:5; 36:28; 37:21;
<193605>
Psalm 36:5;
57:10; 68:34; 78:23; 108:4;
<200320>
Proverbs 3:20; 8:28, in which passages
BDB supports the rendering of King James Version. In
<198906>
Psalm 89:6,37
Revised Version (British and American) has sky for King James Version
heaven. English Versions has sky in
<053326>
Deuteronomy 33:26;
<102212>
2
Samuel 22:12;
<183718>
Job 37:18;
<191811>
Psalm 18:11; 77:1;
<234508>
Isaiah 45:8;
<245109>
Jeremiah 51:9. The word occurs mainly in poetical passages.
2. IN THE NEW TTESTAMENT:
In the New Testament [oupovo, ouranos], is translated heaven (the
King James Version sky) in connection with the weather in
<401602>
Matthew
16:2,3;
<421256>
Luke 12:56. In
<581112>
Hebrews 11:12 we find the stars of heaven
(the sky) as a figure of multitude. The conception, however, that the
visible sky is but the dome-like floor of a higher world often makes it
hard to tell whether heaven in certain passages may or may not be
identified with the sky.
See HEAVEN; COSMOGONY.
Alfred Ely Day
SLANDER
<slan-der> (substantive, [h B ;D i, dibbah], slander; [opoo,
diabolos], slanderer; verb [l g r ; , raghal], to slink about as a
talebearer, [v l ; , lashan], to use the tongue, to slander;
[opo, diaballo], to calumniate, to slander; and other words):
Slander (etymologically a doublet of scandal, from OFr. esclandre, Latin
1035
scandalum, stumblingblock) is an accusation maliciously uttered, with the
purpose or effect of damaging the reputation of another. As a rule it is a
false charge (compare
<400511>
Matthew 5:11); but it may be a truth circulated
insidiously and with a hostile purpose (e.g.
<270308>
Daniel 3:8, brought
accusation against, where Septuagint has diaballo, slander;
<421601>
Luke
16:1, the same Greek word). Warnings, condemnations and complaints in
reference to this sin are very frequent, both in the Old Testament and New
Testament. Mischievous tale-bearing or whispering is condemned
(
<031916>
Leviticus 19:16;
<262209>
Ezekiel 22:9). There are repeated warnings against
evil-speaking (as in
<193413>
Psalm 34:13;
<201528>
Proverbs 15:28;
<490431>
Ephesians
4:31;
<510308>
Colossians 3:8;
<590411>
James 4:11;
<600310>
1 Peter 3:10), which is the
cause of so much strife between man and man (
<201627>
Proverbs 16:27-30), and
which recoils on the speaker himself to his destruction (
<19A105>
Psalm 101:5;
140:11). Especially is false witness, which is slander carried into a court
of justice, to be condemned and punished (
<022016>
Exodus 20:16;
<051916>
Deuteronomy 19:16-21; compare
<201217>
Proverbs 12:17; 14:5,25; 19:5;
21:28; 24:28). Special cases of slander more than usually mean are when a
wifes chastity is falsely impeached by her husband (
<052213>
Deuteronomy
22:13-19), and when one slanders a servant to his master (
<203010>
Proverbs
30:10). Even a land may be slandered as well as persons (
<041436>
Numbers
14:36). Slanderers and backbiters are mentioned in some of Pauls darkest
catalogues of evildoers (
<450129>
Romans 1:29,30;
<471220>
2 Corinthians 12:20;
<550303>
2
Timothy 3:3). To refrain from slander is an important qualification for
citizenship in theocracy (
<191501>
Psalm 15:1,3; 24:3,4) and for a place in the
Christian church (1 Tim 3:11;
<560203>
Titus 2:3). Jesus Himself was the victim
of slanders (
<401119>
Matthew 11:19) and of false testimony (
<402763>
Matthew
27:63). The apostles, too, came in for a full share of it (e.g.
<442405>
Acts 24:5 f;
28:22;
<470608>
2 Corinthians 6:8). In the case of Paul, even his central doctrine
of justification was slanderously reported as if it encouraged immorality
(
<450308>
Romans 3:8). The devil (= the calumniator) is represented as the
great accuser of Gods people (
<661210>
Revelation 12:10), the slanderer
paragraph excellence (compare
<180109>
Job 1:9-11;
<380301>
Zechariah 3:1).
See also CRIMES; PUNISHMENTS.
D. Miall Edwards
SLAUGHTER, OF THE INNOCENTS
<slo-ter>.
1036
See INNOCENTS, MASSACRE OF.
SLAUGHTER, VALLEY OF
In
<240732>
Jeremiah 7:32; 19:6, a name given to the valley of Hinnom.
See HINNOM, VALLEY OF; JERUSALEM, III, 2.
SLAVE; SLAVERY
<slav>, <slav-er-i>:
The origin of the term slave is traced to the German sklave, meaning a
captive of the Slavonic race who had been forced into servitude (compare
Slav); French esclave, Dutch slaaf, Swedish slaf, Spanish esclavo. The
word slave occurs only in
<240214>
Jeremiah 2:14 and in
<661813>
Revelation 18:13,
where it is suggested by the context and not expressed in the original
languages (Hebrew yelidh bayith, one born in the house; Greek soma,
body). However, the Hebrew word [d b ,[ ,, `ebhedh], in the Old
Testament and the Greek word [ouo, doulos], in the New Testament
more properly might have been translated slave instead of servant or
bondservant, understanding though that the slavery of Judaism was not
the cruel system of Greece, Rome, and later nations. The prime thought is
service; the servant may render free service, the slave, obligatory, restricted
service.
Scripture statement rather than philological study must form the basis of
this article. We shall notice how slaves could be secured, sold and
redeemed; also their rights and their masters rights, confining the study to
Old Testament Scripture, noting in conclusion the New Testament
conception. The word slave in this article refers to the Hebrew slave
unless otherwise designated.
1. ACQUIRING OF SLAVES:
Slaves might be acquired in the following ways, namely:
(1) Bought.
There are many instances of buying slaves (
<032539>
Leviticus 25:39 ff). Hebrew
slavery broke into the ranks of every human relationship: a father could sell
his daughter (
<022107>
Exodus 21:7;
<160505>
Nehemiah 5:5); a widows children
1037
might be sold to pay their fathers debt (
<120401>
2 Kings 4:1); a man could sell
himself (
<032539>
Leviticus 25:39,47); a woman could sell herself
(
<051512>
Deuteronomy 15:12,13,17), etc. Prices paid were somewhat indefinite.
According to
<022132>
Exodus 21:32 thirty shekels was a standard price, but
<032703>
Leviticus 27:3-7 gives a scale of from 3 to 50 shekels according to age
and sex, with a provision for an appeal to the priest in case of uncertainty
(27:8). Twenty shekels is the price set for a young man (27:5), and this
corresponds with the sum paid for Joseph (
<013728>
Genesis 37:28).
But in 2 Macc 8:11 the price on the average is 90 for a talent, i.e. 40
shekels each. The ransom of an entire talent for a single man (
<112039>
1 Kings
20:39) means that unusual value (far more than that of a slave) was set on
this particular captive.
There were certain limitations on the right of sale (
<022107>
Exodus 21:7 ff).
(2) Exchange.
Slaves, i.e. non-Hebrew slaves, might be traded for other slaves, cattle, or
provisions.
(3) Satisfaction of Debt.
It is probable that a debtor, reduced to extremity, could offer himself in
payment of his debt (
<032539>
Leviticus 25:39), though this was forbidden in the
Torath Kohanim; compare Otsar Yisrael, vii.292b. That a creditor could
sell into slavery a debtor or any of his family, or make them his own slaves,
has some foundation in the statement of the poor widow whose pathetic
cry reached the ears of the prophet Elisha: Thy servant my husband is
dead; .... and the creditor is come to take unto him my two children to be
bondsmen (
<120401>
2 Kings 4:1).
(4) Gift.
The non-Hebrew slave, and possibly the Hebrew slave, could be acquired
as a gift (
<012924>
Genesis 29:24).
(5) Inheritance.
Children could inherit non-Hebrew slaves as their own possessions
(
<032546>
Leviticus 25:46).
1038
(6) Voluntary Surrender.
In the case of a slaves release in the seventh year there was allowed a
willing choice of indefinite slavery. The ceremony at such a time is
interesting: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges (margin), and
shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore
his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever (
<022106>
Exodus
21:6). A pierced ear probably meant obedience to the masters voice.
History, however, does not record a single instance in which such a case
occurred.
(7) Arrest.
If the thief be found breaking in, .... he shall make restitution: if he have
nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft (
<022202>
Exodus 22:2,3).
(8) Birth.
The children of slaves, born within the masters house of a wife given to
the slave there, became slaves, and could be held, even if the father went
free (
<022104>
Exodus 21:4; compare
<032554>
Leviticus 25:54).
(9) Capture in War.
Thousands of men, women and children were taken in war as captives and
reduced, sometimes, to most menial slavery. Such slavery, however, was
more humane than wholesale butchery according to the customs of earlier
times (
<043107>
Numbers 31:7-35). Males were usually slain and females kept for
slavery and concubinage (
<052110>
Deuteronomy 21:10,11,14). Captive slaves
and bought slaves, from nations round about, forced moral ruin into
Israels early civilization.
See SIEGE, 3.
The two principal sources of slave supply were poverty in peace and
plunder in war.
2. HEBREWS AS WAR CAPTIVES:
The Hebrews themselves were held as captive slaves at various times by
(1) Phoenicians (the greatest slave traders of ancient times),
(2) Philistines,
1039
(3) Syrians (
<120502>
2 Kings 5:2 ff),
(4) Egyptians, and
(5) Romans. There must have been thousands subjected to severest
slavery.
See also EGYPT; ISRAEL; PHARAOH; SERVANT, etc.
3. FREEDOM OF SLAVES:
The freedom of slaves was possible in the following ways:
(1) By Redemption.
Manumission by redemption was common among the Hebrews. The slaves
freedom might be bought, the price depending on
(a) the nearness to the seventh year or the Jubilee year,
(b) the first purchase price, and
(c) personal considerations as to age and ability of the one in bondage.
A slave could be redeemed as follows:
(a) by himself,
(b) by his uncle,
(c) by his nephew or cousin,
(d) or by any near relative (
<032548>
Leviticus 25:48-55). The price
depended on certain conditions as indicated above.
(2) By the Lapse of Time.
The seventh year of service brought release from bondage. If thou buy a
Hebrew servant (margin bondman), six years he shall serve: and in the
seventh he shall go out free for nothing (
<022102>
Exodus 21:2-4).
(3) By the Law of the Jubilee Year.
The year of Jubilee was the great year when slaves were no longer slaves
but free. He shall serve with thee unto the year of jubilee: then shall he go
1040
out from thee, he and his children .... return unto his own family, and unto
the possession of his fathers (
<032540>
Leviticus 25:40 f).
(4) By Injury.
A servant whose master maimed him (or her), in particular by causing the
loss of an eye or even a tooth, was thereby freed (
<022126>
Exodus 21:26 f).
(5) By Escape.
(
<052315>
Deuteronomy 23:15 f;
<110239>
1 Kings 2:39). See Code of Hammurabi in
HDB (extra vol, p. 600) and compare Philem 1:12 ff.
(6) By Indifference.
In case of a certain kind of female slave, the neglect or displeasure of her
master in itself gave her the right to freedom (
<022107>
Exodus 21:7-11;
<052114>
Deuteronomy 21:14).
(7) By Restitution.
A caught thief, having become a bondsman, after making full restitution by
his service as a slave, was set at liberty (
<022201>
Exodus 22:1-4).
(8) By the Masters Death.
And Abram said, .... I go childless, and he that shall be possessor of my
house is Eliezer of Damascus .... and, lo, one born in my house is mine
heir (
<011502>
Genesis 15:2 f). This passage has been mistakenly supposed to
indicate that a master without children might give freedom to a slave by
constituting the slave an heir to his possessions. But on the contrary,
Abram seems to contemplate with horror the possibility that Eliezer will
take possession of his goods in the absence of an heir. In view of the fact
that adoption, the adrogatio of the Roman law, was unknown both to
Biblical and Talmudic law (see Jewish Encyclopedia, under the word), the
statement in
<011502>
Genesis 15:2 does not seem to indicate any such custom as
the adoption of slaves. If any method of emancipation is here suggested, it
is by the death of the master without heir, a method thoroughly discussed
in the Talmud (mithath ha-adhon).
(9) By Direct Command of Yahweh.
The word that came unto Jeremiah from Yahweh, .... that every man
should let his man-servant, and .... his maid-servant, that is a Hebrew or a
1041
Hebrewess, go free; that none should make bondsmen of them .... they
obeyed, and let them go (
<243408>
Jeremiah 34:8-10).
The nine methods here enumerated may be classified thus:
A. By operation of law:
1. By lapse of time.
(a) After serving six years or other contractual period. See (2) above.
(b) Upon the approach of the Jubilee year. See (3) above.
2. By death of the master without heirs. See (8) above.
B. By act of the parties:
1. By an act of the master.
(a) Voluntary manumission, including (9) above.
(b) Indifference in certain cases. See (6) above.
(c) Maiming servant. See (4) above.
2. By act of the servant.
(a) Redemption. See (1) above.
(b) Restitution. See (7) above.
(c) Escape. See (5) above.
3. By act of a third party.
Redemption (1) above.
4. RIGHTS OF SLAVES:
As noted in the beginning of this article, the Hebrew slaves fared far better
than the Grecian, Roman and other slaves of later years. In general, the
treatment they received and the rights they could claim made their lot
reasonably good. Of course a slave was a slave, and there were masters
who disobeyed God and even abused their brothers in bonds. As usual
the unfortunate female slave got the full measure of inhuman cruelty.
1042
Certain rights were discretionary, it is true, but many Hebrew slaves
enjoyed valuable individual and social privileges. As far as Scripture
statements throw light on this subject, the slaves of Old Testament times
might claim the following rights, namely:
(1) Freedom.
Freedom might be gained in any one of the above-mentioned ways or at the
masters will. The non-Hebrew could be held as a slave in perpetuity
(
<032544>
Leviticus 25:44-46).
(2) Good Treatment.
Thou shalt not rule over him (Hebrew slave) with rigor, but shalt fear thy
God. .... Ye shall not rule, one over another, with rigor (
<032543>
Leviticus
25:43,46). The non-Hebrew seemed to be left unprotected.
(3) Justice.
An ancient writer raises the query of fairness to slaves. If I have despised
the cause of my man-servant or of my maid-servant, when they contended
with me; what then shall I do when God riseth up? (
<183113>
Job 31:13 f). No
doubt the true Hebrew master was considerate of the rights of his slaves.
The very fact, however, that the Hebrew master could punish a Hebrew
slave, to within an inch of his life, gave ready opportunity for sham
justice. And if a man smite his servant, or his maid (bondman or
bondwoman), with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall surely be
punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be
punished; for he is his money (
<022120>
Exodus 21:20 f).
(4) Family.
The slave before his release might have his wife and children (
<022105>
Exodus
21:5).
(5) Voluntary Slavery.
Even when the seventh year came, the slave had a right to pledge himself,
with awl-pierced ear, to perpetual service for his master (
<022105>
Exodus 21:5 f;
<051516>
Deuteronomy 15:16). The traditional interpretation of forever in
these passages is until the next Jubilee year (compare Kiddushin 21).
1043
(6) Money or Property.
Some cases at least indicate that slaves could have money of their own.
Thus, if a poor slave waxed rich he could redeem himself (
<032549>
Leviticus
25:49). Compare
<090905>
1 Samuel 9:5-10, where, however, the Hebrew
throughout calls the servant na`ar, a youth, never `ebhedh.
(7) Children.
If married when free, the slave could take wife and children with him when
freedom came, but if he was married after becoming a slave, his wife and
children must remain in possession of his master. This law led him often
into perpetual slavery (
<022103>
Exodus 21:3 f).
(8) Elevation.
A chance to rise was allowable in some instances, e.g. Eliezer, a foreign
slave in a Hebrew household, and Joseph, a Hebrew slave in a foreign
household. Each rose to a place of honor and usefulness (
<011502>
Genesis 15:2;
39:4).
(9) Religious Worship.
After being circumcised, slaves were allowed to participate in the paschal
sacrifice (
<021244>
Exodus 12:44) and other religious occasions
(
<051212>
Deuteronomy 12:12).
(10) Gifts.
Upon obtaining freedom, slaves, at the discretion of masters, were given
supplies of cattle, grain and wine (
<051513>
Deuteronomy 15:13 f).
5. RIGHTS OF SLAVE MASTERS:
The rights of a slave master may briefly be stated as follows:
(1) to hold as chattel possession his non-Hebrew slaves (
<032545>
Leviticus
25:45);
(2) to leave such slaves as an inheritance for his children (
<032546>
Leviticus
25:46);
(3) to hold as his own property the wife and children of all slaves who
were unmarried at the time they became slaves (
<022104>
Exodus 21:4);
1044
(4) to pursue and recover runaway slaves (
<110239>
1 Kings 2:39-41);
(5) to grant freedom at any time to any slave. This is implied rather
than stated. Emancipation other than at the Sabbatical and Jubilee years
was evidently the right of masters;
(6) to circumcise slaves, both Jew and Gentile, within his own
household (
<011713>
Genesis 17:13,23,27);
(7) to sell, give away, or trade slaves (
<012924>
Genesis 29:24. According to
Torath Kohanim a Hebrew servant could be sold only under certain
restrictions. See 1, (1));
(8) to chastise male and female slaves, though not unto death
(
<022120>
Exodus 21:20);
(9) to marry a slave himself, or give his female slaves in marriage to
others (
<130235>
1 Chronicles 2:35);
(10) to marry a daughter to a slave (
<130234>
1 Chronicles 2:34 f);
(11) to purchase slaves in foreign markets (
<032544>
Leviticus 25:44);
(12) to keep, though not as a slave, the runaway slave from a foreign
master (
<052315>
Deuteronomy 23:15,16. See 3, (5));
(13) to enslave or sell a caught thief (
<014408>
Genesis 44:8-33;
<022203>
Exodus
22:3);
(14) to hold, in perpetuity, non-Hebrew slaves (
<032546>
Leviticus 25:46);
(15) to seek advice of slaves (
<092514>
1 Samuel 25:14 ff; but the reference
here is open to doubt. See 4, (6));
(16) to demand service (
<011414>
Genesis 14:14; 24).
Throughout Old Testament times the rights of both slaves and masters
varied, but in general the above may be called the accepted code. In later
times Zedekiah covenanted with the Hebrews never again to enslave their
own brothers, but they broke the covenant (
<243408>
Jeremiah 34:8).
6. THE NEW TESTAMENT CONCEPTION:
There were slaves during New Testament times. The church issued no
edict sweeping away this custom of the old Judaism, but the gospel of
1045
Christ with its warm, penetrating love-message mitigated the harshness of
ancient times and melted cruelty into kindness. The equality, justice and
love of Christs teachings changed the whole attitude of man to man and
master to servant. This spirit of brotherhood quickened the conscience of
the age, leaped the walls of Judaism, and penetrated the remotest regions.
The great apostle proclaimed this truth: There can be neither Jew nor
Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, .... ye all are one man in Christ
Jesus (
<480328>
Galatians 3:28). The Christian slaves and masters are both
exhorted in Pauls letters to live godly lives and make Christ-like their
relations one to the other obedience to masters and forbearance with
slaves. Bondservants (m), be obedient unto .... your masters, .... as
bondservants (m) of Christ .... And, ye masters .... forbear threatening: ....
their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no respect of persons with
him (
<490605>
Ephesians 6:5-9).
Christ was a reformer, but not an anarchist. His gospel was dynamic but
not dynamitic. It was leaven, electric with power, but permeated with love.
Christs life and teaching were against Judaistic slavery, Roman slavery and
any form of human slavery. The love of His gospel and the light of His life
were destined, in time, to make human emancipation earth-wide and human
brotherhood as universal as His own benign presence.
LITERATURE.
Nowack, Hebrew Arch.; Ewald, Alterthumer, III, 280-88; Grunfeld, Die
Stellung des Sklaven bei den Juden, nach bibl. und talmud. Quellen, 1886;
Mielziner, Die Verhaltnisse der Sklaven bei den alter Hebrdern, 1859;
Mandl, Das Sklavenrecht des Altes Testament, 1886; Kahn,
Lesclavagedans la Bible et le Talmud, 1867; Sayce, Social Life among the
Assyrians and Babylonians; Lane, Manners and Customs of Modern
Egyptians, 205; Arabian Nights, I, 64 ff; Thomson, LB; McCurdy, HPM,
1894; Trumbull, Studies in Oriental Social Life, 1894. There is a wealth of
material in the Talmudic tractate Kiddushin (pp. 17-22).
William Edward Raffety
SLAYING
<sla-ing> (by spear, dart, or sword).
See PUNISHMENTS.
1046
SLEEP
<slep>: Represents many words in Hebrew and Greek. For the noun the
most common are [h n;v , shenah], and [uvo, hupnos]; for the verb, [v y;,
yashen], [b k v ; , shakhabh], and [xo0ru, katheudo]. The figurative
uses for death (
<053116>
Deuteronomy 31:16, etc.) and sluggishness
(
<490514>
Ephesians 5:14, etc.) are very obvious.
See DREAMS.
SLEEP, DEEP
([h m; D e r ] T , tardemah], verb [ d r ; , radham], from a root meaning to
be deaf): The verb radham has no further meaning than to be fast asleep
(
<070421>
Judges 4:21; Jon 1:5), but the King James Version used deep sleep
as a translation only in
<270818>
Daniel 8:18; 10:9, where a sleep supernaturally
caused (a trance) is meant compare dead sleep in
<197606>
Psalm 76:6). The
Revised Versions insertion of deep sleep in place of The King James
Versions fast asleep in
<070421>
Judges 4:21 is consequently unfortunate. The
noun tardemah has the same meaning of trance in
<010221>
Genesis 2:21;
15:12;
<092612>
1 Samuel 26:12;
<180413>
Job 4:13; 33:15, but in
<201915>
Proverbs 19:15;
<232910>
Isaiah 29:10, it is used figuratively of torpor. In
<442009>
Acts 20:9 (huipnos
bathtus), heavy natural sleep is meant.
Burton Scott Easton
SLEEVES
<slevz> (
<013703>
Genesis 37:3 margin).
See DRESS
SLEIGHT
<slit>: No connection with slight, but from the same root as sly and so
= cunning. So in
<490414>
Ephesians 4:14, sleight of men, for [xupro,
kubeia], dice-plalying (compare cube) gamblers tricks trickery.
SLIME; SLIME PITS
<slim>, <slim-pits> ([r m;j e, chemar]; Septuagint [oooto, asphaltos];
Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) bitumen; the Revised
1047
Version margin bitumen; compare Arabic chummar, bitumen; and
compare [r m,j o , chomer], clay, mortar): In the account of the ark in
<010614>
Genesis 6:14, [r p ,K o, kopher] Septuagint [oooto, asphaltos];
Vulgate: bitumen; compare Arabic kufr, pitch) does not necessarily
denote vegetable pitch, but may well mean bitumen. The same may be said
of [t p ,z,, zepheth], pitch (compare Arabic zift, pitch), in
<020203>
Exodus 2:3
and
<233409>
Isaiah 34:9. The word slime occurs in the following passages:
And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar (
<011103>
Genesis
11:3); Now the vale of Siddim was full of slime pits (
<011410>
Genesis 14:10,
margin bitumen pits); She took for him an ark of bulrushes, and daubed
it with slime and with pitch (
<020203>
Exodus 2:3).
Bitumen is a hydrocarbon allied to petroleum and natural gas. It is a
lustrous black solid, breaking with a conchoidal fracture, burning with a
yellow flame, and melting when ignited. It is probably derived from natural
gas and petroleum by a process of oxidation and evaporation, and its
occurrence may be taken as a sign that other hydrocarbons are or have
been present in the strata. It is found in small lumps and larger masses in
the cretaceous limestone on the west side of the Dead Sea, and there is
reason to believe that considerable quantities of it rise to the surface of the
Dead Sea during earthquakes. In ancient times it was exported to Egypt to
be used in embalming mummies. Important mines of it exist at Chasbeiya
near Mt. Hermon and in North Syria. Springs of liquid bituminous matter
exist in Mesopotamia, where according to Herodotus and other classical
writers it was used as mortar with sun-dried bricks. Various conjectures
have been made as to the part played by bitumen in the destruction of
Sodom and Gomorrah. Diodorus Siculus calls the Dead Sea [vq
ooott, limne asphalstitis], lake of asphalt.
See SIDDIM; CITIES OF THE PLAIN.
Alfred Ely Day
SLING
See ARMOR, III, 2.
1048
SLIP
As meaning a cutting from a plant, it is still good English. In this sense in
<231710>
Isaiah 17:10 for [h r ;wOmz], zemorah], branch, twig. For the phrase
slip of the tongue compare Sirach 14:1; 19:16; 20:18; 21:7; 25:8.
SLOPES
<slops>.
See ASHDOTH-PISGAH.
SLOW
<slo>: Chiefly for [ r ,a ,, erekh], literally, long, in the phrase slow to
anger (
<160917>
Nehemiah 9:17, etc.). In
<020410>
Exodus 4:10;
<422425>
Luke 24:25;
<590119>
James 1:19, for [d b eK ;, kabhedh]; [ppou, bradus], both meaning
heavy, sluggish, while Sirach 7:35 uses be slow for [oxvr, okneo],
hesitate. In addition, the King James Version uses. slow for [opyo,
argos], inactive, in The Wisdom of Solomon 15:15, slow to go (the
Revised Version (British and American) helpless for walking), and in
<560112>
Titus 1:12, slow bellies (the Revised Version (British and American)
idle gluttons). In Sirach 51:24, the King James Version has be slow for
[uotrpr, hustereo], be lacking (so the Revised Version (British and
American)).
SLUGGARD
<slug-ard>: Found only in the Old Testament, and there only in Proverbs.
It is the rendering given the word atsel everywhere in the Revised Version
(British and American), but in the King James Version only in
<200606>
Proverbs
6:6,9; 10:26; 13:4; 20:4; 26:16 (elsewhere the King James Version
translates by slothful). The root meaning of atsel is to be sluggish,
stupid. The English word slug is said to be allied to slack (Webster).
SLUICE
<sloos> ([r k ,c ,, sekher], literally, hire): In
<231910>
Isaiah 19:10, the King
James Version reads, all that make sluices and ponds for fish. the
Revised Version (British and American) entirely alters the translation of the
1049
whole verse. It reads, And the pillars of Egypt shall be broken in pieces;
all they that work for hire (margin that make dams) shall be grieved in
soul.
SMELL
<smel> (Hebrew and Aramaic [j yr e , reach], as noun, savor, scent;
[j Wr , ruach], as verb, literally, to breathe, to inhale, thence to
smell; [ooq, osme], the smell, savor, [ruo, euodia], sweet
smell fragrance [oopqo, osphresis] the sense of smell; verb
[oopovoo, osphrainomai]): And he came near, and kissed him: and
he smelled (way-yarach) the smell (reach) of his raiment, and blessed him,
and said, See, the smell (reach) of my son is as the smell (reach) of a field
which Yahweh hath blessed (
<012727>
Genesis 27:27). Idols are described as
gods, the work of mens hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor
hear, nor eat, nor smell (
<050428>
Deuteronomy 4:28). Acceptable sacrifices and
pious conduct are called a sweet smell or savor (
<022918>
Exodus 29:18;
<490502>
Ephesians 5:2;
<500418>
Philippians 4:18) well-pleasing to God. The godless
life, which dishonors God, is hateful to Him: I will not smell the savor of
your sweet odors (
<032631>
Leviticus 26:31). The phrase, being in bad odor
with a person, can be traced to Biblical language: Ye have made our
savor to be abhorred in the eyes of Pharaoh, and in the eyes of his
servants (
<020521>
Exodus 5:21). Thus smell is occasionally equivalent with
quality, character: His (Moabs) taste remaineth in him, and his scent
is not changed (
<244811>
Jeremiah 48:11). Character or quality is the most
infallible test, the most manifest advertisement of a thing or a person; thus
we find the following very instructive passage: (God) maketh manifest
through us the savor (osme) of his knowledge in every place. For we are a
sweet savor (euodia) of Christ unto God, in (better: among) them that
are saved, and in (better: among) them that perish; to the one a savor
(osme) from death unto death; to the other a savor (osme) from life unto
life (2 Cor 2:14-16). See TRIUMPH. In the passage
<230324>
Isaiah 3:24, the
King James Version sweet smell ([ c ,B ,, besem], balsam plant) has
been changed to sweet spices in the Revised Version (British and
American).
H. L. E. Luering
1050
SMITH
<smith>.
See CRAFTS, 10; TUBAL-CAIN.
SMITING BY THE SUN
See SUN SMITING.
SMOKE
<smok>: Used figuratively of the divine jealousy (
<052920>
Deuteronomy 29:20)
and anger (
<197401>
Psalm 74:1); symbolic of the glory of the divine holiness
(
<230405>
Isaiah 4:5; 6:4;
<661508>
Revelation 15:8).
SMYRNA
<smur-na> ([2upvo, Smurna]):
1. ANCIENT:
Smyrna, a large ancient city on the western coast of Asia Minor, at the
head of a gulf which reaches 30 miles inland, was originally peopled by the
Asiatics known as the Lelages. The city seems to have been taken from the
Lelages by the Aeolian Greeks about 1100 BC; there still remain traces of
the cyclopean masonry of that early time. In 688 BC it passed into the
possession of the Ionian Greeks and was made one of the cities of the
Ionian confederacy, but in 627 BC it was taken by the Lydians. During the
years 301 to 281 BC, Lysimachus entirely rebuilt it on a new site to the
Southwest of the earlier cities, and surrounded it by a wall. Standing, as it
did, upon a good harbor, at the head of one of the chief highways to the
interior, it early became a great trading-center and the chief port for the
export trade. In Roman times, Smyrna was considered the most brilliant
city of Asia Minor, successfully rivaling Pergamos and Ephesus. Its streets
were wide and paved. Its system of coinage was old, and now about the
city coins of every period are found. It was celebrated for its schools of
science and medicine, and for its handsome buildings. Among them was the
Homerium, for Smyrna was one of several places which claimed to be the
birthplace of the poet. On the slope of Mt. Pagus was a theater which
seated 20,000 spectators. In the 23 AD year a temple was built in honor of
1051
Tiberius and his mother Julia, and the Golden Street, connecting the
temples of Zeus and Cybele, is said to have been the best in any ancient
city. Smyrna early became a Christian city, for there was one of the Seven
Churches of the Book of Revelation (2:8-11). There Polycarp, the bishop
of Smyrna, was martyred, though without the sanction of the Roman
government. It seems that the Jews of Smyrna were more antagonistic than
were the Romans to the spread of Christianity, for it is said that even on
Saturday, their sacred day, they brought wood for the fire in which
Polycarp was burned. His grave is still shown in a cemetery there. Like
many other cities of Asia Minor, Smyrna suffered frequently, especially
during the years 178-80 AD, from earthquakes, but it always escaped
entire destruction. During the Middle Ages the city was the scene of many
struggles, the most fierce of which was directed by Timur against the
Christians. Tradition relates that there he built a tower, using as stones the
heads of a thousand captives which he put to death, yet Smyrna was the
last of the Christian cities to hold out against the Mohammedans; in 1424 it
fell into the hands of the Turks. It was the discovery of America and the
resulting discovery of a sea route to India which ruined the Smyrna trade.
2. MODERN:
Modern Smyrna is still the largest city in Asia Minor, with a population of
about 250,000, of whom half are Greek and less than one-fourth are
Mohammedans. Its modern name, Ismir, is but a Turkish corruption of the
ancient name. Even under the Turkish government the city is progressive,
and is the capital of the Aidin vilayet, and therefore the home of a
governor. Several railroads follow the courses of the ancient routes into
the distant interior. In its harbor ships from all parts of the world may be
seen. The ancient harbor of Pauls time has been filled in, and there the
modern bazaars stand. The old stadium has been destroyed to make room
for modern buildings, and a large part of the ancient city lies buried beneath
the modern houses and the 40 mosques of which the city boasts. The better
of the modern buildings, belonging to the government and occupied by the
foreign consuls, stand along the modern quay. Traces of the ancient walls
are still to be found. West of Mt. Pagus is the Ephesian gate, and the
Black-gate, as the Turks call it, is near the railroad station. The castle upon
Mt. Pagus, 460 ft. above the sea, dates from Byzantine times. The
prosperity of Smyrna is due, not only to the harbor and the port of entry to
the interior, but partly to the perfect climate of spring and autumn the
1052
winters are cold and the summers are hot; and also to the fertility of the
surrounding country. Figs, grapes, valonia, opium, sponges, cotton and
liquorice root are among the chief articles of trade.
See also CHURCHES, SEVEN.
E. J . Banks
SNAIL
<snal> (
(1) [f m,j o, chomeT], the Revised Version (British and American)
sand-lizard, Septuagint [ooupo, saura], lizard (
<031130>
Leviticus
11:30);
(2) [l Wl B ] v , shabbelul], Septuagint [xqpo, keros], wax
(
<195808>
Psalm 58:8)):
(1) ChomeT is 7th in the list of unclean creeping things in
<031130>
Leviticus 11:30, and occurs nowhere else. Snail is not warranted
by Septuagint or Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) the
Revised Version (British and American) has sand-lizard. It may be
the skink or a species of Lacerta. See LIZARD.
(2) Shabbelul is translated snail in
<195808>
Psalm 58:8: Let them be as a
snail which melteth and passeth away. Mandelkern gives limax,
slug. Gesenius derives shabbelul from balal, to pour; compare
Arabic balla, to wet, instancing [ro, leimax], snail, or slug,
from [rp, leibo], to pour. While Septuagint has keros, wax,
Talmud (Mo`edh QaTan 6b) supports snail. The ordinary explanation
of the passage, which is not very satisfying, is that the snail leaves a
trail of mucus (i.e. it melts) as it moves along. This does not in any way
cause the snail to waste away, because its glands are continually
manufacturing fresh mucous. Two large species of snail, Helix aspersa
and Helix pomatia, are collected and eaten, boiled, by the Christians of
Syria and Palestine, especially in Lent. The Jews and Moslems declare
them to be unclean and do not eat them.
Alfred Ely Day
1053
SNARE
<snar> ([j P , pach]; [oy , pagis], but [ppoo, brochos], in
<460735>
1
Corinthians 7:35): Over half a dozen Hebrew words are used to indicate
different methods of taking birds and animals, of which the snare ([j P ,
pach]) is mentioned oftener than any other. It was a noose of hair for small
birds, of wire for larger birds or smaller animals. The snares were set in a
favorable location and grain scattered to attract the attention of feathered
creatures. They accepted the bribe of good feeding and walked into the
snare, not suspecting danger. For this reason the snare became particularly
applicable in describing a tempting bribe offered by men to lead their
fellows into trouble, and the list of references is a long one, all of the same
nature. See
<021007>
Exodus 10:7;
<091821>
1 Samuel 18:21; 28:9;
<191106>
Psalm 11:6;
18:5, snares of death; used symbolically of anything that may kill: 91:3;
124:7; 140:5; 141:9;
<200723>
Proverbs 7:23; 13:14; 18:7; 20:25; 22:25; 29:25;
<210912>
Ecclesiastes 9:12. But this is a people robbed and plundered; they are
all of them snared in holes, and they are hid in prison-houses: they are for a
prey, and none delivereth; for a spoil, and none saith, Restore (
<234122>
Isaiah
41:22). Here it is specified that the snare was in a hole so covered as to
conceal it.
<241822>
Jeremiah 18:22 clearly indicates that the digging of a pit to
take prey was customary, and also the hiding of the snare for the feet.
North American Indians in setting a snare usually figure on catching the
bird around the neck.
<245024>
Jeremiah 50:24, I have laid a snare for thee;
<280908>
Hosea 9:8, A fowlers snare is in all his ways;
<300305>
Amos 3:5 seems to
indicate that the snare was set for the feet;
<422134>
Luke 21:34, But take heed
to yourselves, lest haply .... that day come on you suddenly as a snare;
<451109>
Romans 11:9, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap;
<460735>
1
Corinthians 7:35, not that I may cast a snare upon you;
<540307>
1 Timothy
3:7, the snare of the devil; also 6:9 But they that are minded to be rich
fall into a temptation and a snare and many foolish and hurtful lusts, such
as drown men in destruction and perdition.
See GIN; NET; TRAP.
Gene Stratton-Porter
SNEEZE
<snez> ([r r ewOz, zorer], Pho`el-form [r r z; , zarar]): The child sneezed
seven times, and the child opened his eyes (
<120435>
2 Kings 4:35). Sneezing,
1054
better snorting, is found in the description of Leviathan (the crocodile):
His sneezings ([h v ;yf i[ }, `atsishah]) flash forth light, and his eyes are like
the eyelids of the morning (
<184118>
Job 41:18 (Hebrew 10)).
See NEESING.
SNOW
<sno> ([gl ,v ,, shelegh], [gl T ] , telagh] (
<270709>
Daniel 7:9); [v, chion]):
(1) Snow is not uncommon in the winter in Jerusalem, but it never
reaches any depth and in many winters it is not seen at all. It usually
disappears, for the most part, as soon as the sun appears, though it may
hide itself for a time in the gorge cut by a stream (
<180616>
Job 6:16). On
lower levels than Jerusalem there is never sufficient to cover the
ground, though often there are some flakes seen in the air. Even at sea-
level there is occasionally a sufficient fall of hail to cover the ground. A
very exceptional snowfall is related in 1 Macc 13:22 at Adora (near
Hebron). It was heavy enough to prevent the movement of troops.
(2) The tops of the mountains of Lebanon are white with snow for
most of the year, and snow may be found in large banks in the valleys
and the northern slopes at any time in the summer. Mt. Hermon, 9,200
ft. high, has long streaks of snow in the valleys all the summer.
(3) The snow of the mountains is the source of the water of the springs
which last throughout the drought of summer. In case the snow fails
there is sure to be a lack of water in the fountains: Shall the snow of
Lebanon fail .... or shall the cold waters that flow down from afar be
dried up? (
<241814>
Jeremiah 18:14).
(4) Large quantities of snow are stored in caves in the mountains in
winter and are brought down to the cities in summer to be used in place
of ice for cooling drinks and refrigerating purposes.
(5) Gods power over the elements of Nature is often brought out in
the Old Testament: For he saith to the snow, Fall thou on the earth
(
<183706>
Job 37:6); but man cannot fathom the works of God: Hast thou
entered the treasuries of the snow? (
<183822>
Job 38:22). The snowy day
(
<131122>
1 Chronicles 11:22;
<102320>
2 Samuel 23:20) and the fear of snow
(
<203121>
Proverbs 31:21) are figurative uses describing winter and cold.
1055
Snow in summer (
<202601>
Proverbs 26:1) would be most out of place, yet
it might be most refreshing to the tired workmen in the time of harvest.
(6) Snow is the symbol of purity and cleanness, giving us some of our
most beautiful passages of Scripture: Wash me and I shall be whiter
than snow (
<195107>
Psalm 51:7); Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall
be as white as snow (
<230118>
Isaiah 1:18). Carrying the figure farther,
snow-water might be expected to have a special value for cleansing: If
I wash myself with snow-water (
<180930>
Job 9:30). The most common use
in Scripture is to denote whiteness in color and implying purity as well:
His raiment was white as snow (
<270709>
Daniel 7:9;
<402803>
Matthew 28:3;
<410903>
Mark 9:3;
<660114>
Revelation 1:14).
(7) The whiteness of leprosy is compared to snow (
<020406>
Exodus 4:6;
<041210>
Numbers 12:10;
<120527>
2 Kings 5:27).
Alfred H. J oy
SNUFFERS; SNUFFDISHES
<snuf-erz>, <snuf-dish-ez> ([ yi j q ; l ] m, , melqachayim], [t wO T j ] m ,
machtoth]): These two utensils are thrice mentioned in connection with the
wilderness tabernacle (
<022538>
Exodus 25:38; 37:23;
<040409>
Numbers 4:9). the
American Standard Revised Version prefers to read snuffers and
snuffdishes in place of tongs and snuffdishes (compare
<140422>
2 Chronicles
4:22), the connection between the two utensils being indicated by the fact
that both are said to belong to the seven lamps, and were to be made out of
the talent of gold which was specified as the weight of the whole
(
<022537>
Exodus 25:37-39).
The seven-branched candlestick which stood in the holy place of both
tabernacle and temple was surmounted, in each of its arms, by a removable
lamp in which olive oil was burnt. From the requirement of keeping these
lights brilliantly burning throughout each night of the year, arose the need
for snuffers and snuffdishes. By the former, the burnt portions of the wick
were removed; in the latter they were deposited previous to removal. The
lamps may have required to be trimmed as often as every half-hour. For
this purpose a priest would enter the outer chamber accomplishing the
services (
<580906>
Hebrews 9:6).
In the time of Solomons Temple another word than melqachayim was
used to describe this utensil. It is [t wOr B ]z m], mezammeroth], from a verb
1056
meaning to prune or trim, and is found in
<110750>
1 Kings 7:50;
<121213>
2 Kings
12:13; 25:14;
<140422>
2 Chronicles 4:22;
<245218>
Jeremiah 52:18. In 4 of these
passages, the English text reads, the snuffers and the basins; the 5th is
merely a summary of things taken to Babylon (
<122514>
2 Kings 25:14). In this
constant later association of basins and snuffers it is seen that the
basins referred to were used for the reception of the cast-off portions of
the wicks of the seven lamps, and took the place of the snuffdishes of an
earlier age.
See TONGS.
W. Shaw Caldecott
SO
<so> ([a wOs , co], although the Hebrew might be pointed [a w,s ,, cewe];
Assyrian Sibu; Septuagint [2qyp, Segor], [2o, Soa]; Manetho,
[2ruro, Seuechos]; Latin Sevechus; Herodotus (ii. 137 ff), [2opoxv,
Sabakon]): In all probability the Sabaeo of Herodotus, the Shabaka, who
founded the Ethiopian dynasty, the XXVth of Egyptian kings. His date is
given as 715-707 BC (Flinders Petrie, History of Egypt, III, 281 ff), but we
may suppose that before his accession to the throne he was entitled to be
designated king, as being actually regent. To this So, Hoshea, king of
Israel, made an appeal for assistance to enable him to throw off the yoke of
the Assyrian Shalmaneser IV (
<121703>
2 Kings 17:3 ff). But Hosheas
submission to So brought him no advantage, for Shalmaneser came up
throughout all the land and laid siege to Samaria. Not long after the fall of
Samaria, So ventured upon an eastern campaign, and was defeated by
Sargon, the successor of Shalmaneser, in the battle of Raphia in 720 BC.
LITERATURE.
Flinders Petrie, History of Egypt, III, 281 ff; McCurdy, HPM, I, 422;
Schrader, COT, I, 261.
T. Nicol.
SOAP
<sop> ([t yr B o, borith]; the King James Version sope): Borith is a
derivative of [r B o, bor], purity, hence, something which cleanses or
makes pure. Soap in the modern sense, as referring to a salt of a fatty acid,
1057
for example, that produced by treating olive oil with caustic soda, was
probably unknown in Old Testament times. Even today there are districts
in the interior of Syria where soap is never used. Cooking utensils, clothes,
even the body are cleansed with ashes. The ashes of the household fires are
carefully saved for this purpose. The cleansing material referred to in
<240222>
Jeremiah 2:22 (compare Septuagint at the place, where borith is
rendered by [oo, poia] = grass) and
<390302>
Malachi 3:2 was probably the
vegetable lye called in Arabic el qali (the origin of English alkali). This
material, which is a mixture of crude sodium and potassium carbonates, is
sold in the market in the form of grayish lumps. It is produced by burning
the desert plants and adding enough water to the ashes to agglomerate
them. Before the discovery of Leblancs process large quantities of qali
were exported from Syria to Europe.
For washing clothes the women sprinkle the powdered qali over the wet
garments and then place them on a flat stone and pound them with a
wooden paddle. For washing the body, oil is first smeared over the skin
and then qali rubbed on and the whole slimy mixture rinsed off with water.
Qali was also used in ancient times as a flux in refining precious metals
(compare
<390302>
Malachi 3:2). At the present time many Syrian soap-makers
prefer the qali to the imported caustic soda for soap-making.
In Susanna (verse 17) is a curious reference to washing balls
(smegmata).
J ames A. Patch
SOBER; SOBRIETY; SOBERNESS
<so-ber>, <sa-bri-e-ti>, <so-ber-nes> (Greek adjective sophron, and its
related nouns, sophrosune, sophronismos; verbs sophroneo and
sophronizo; adverb sophronos, of sound mind, and sophronizo; self-
possessed, without excesses of any kind, moderate and discreet): In
<410515>
Mark 5:15;
<420835>
Luke 8:35, sane, said of one out of whom demons had
just been cast. In the Pastoral Epistles, this virtue is especially commended
to certain classes, because of extravagances characterizing particular
periods of life, that had to be guarded against, namely, to aged men, with
reference to the querulousness of old age (
<560202>
Titus 2:2); to young men,
with reference to their sanguine views of life, and their tendency to
disregard consequences (
<560206>
Titus 2:6); enjoined upon young women, with
reference to extravagance in dress and speech (
<560205>
Titus 2:5;
<540209>
1 Timothy
1058
2:9); and, in a similar manner, commended to ministers, because of the
importance of their judgment and conduct, as teachers and exemplars (1
Tim 3:2). Words of soberness (
<442625>
Acts 26:25) are contrasted with the
mania, madness, that Festus had just declared to be the explanation of
Pauls eloquence (
<442624>
Acts 26:24).
In a few passages, the Greek verb nepho and its derivative adjective
nephalios are used in the same sense. The word originally had a physical
meaning, as opposed to drunkenness, and is thus used in
<520506>
1
Thessalonians 5:6,8, as the foundation of the deeper meaning. Used
metaphorically also in the Pastoral Epistles and 1 Peter, as sometimes in
the classics, for cool, unimpassioned. Ellicott, on
<540302>
1 Timothy 3:2,11,
distinguishes between the two words by regarding sophron as pointing to
the outward exhibition of the inward virtue implied in nephalios.
H. E. J acobs
SOCHO
<so-ko>: Occurs in
<130418>
1 Chronicles 4:18, the Revised Version (British
and American) Soco.
See SOCOH.
SOCKET
<sok-et> ([d ,a , , edhen]): The tabernacle in the wilderness being
constructed as a portable building without permanent foundation, its
stability was attained by the use of sockets into which the pillars and
boards forming its walls were sunk. The word therefore is used solely in
relation to the tabernacle, except in one poetic passage (Song 5:15), where
the legs of the beloved are compared to pillars of marble set upon sockets
of fine gold. In all, the tabernacle with its court rested upon 165 bases or
sockets, apportioned thus:
(1) silver sockets, each a talent (circa 95 lbs.) in weight (Ex 38:27),
namely, 96 to support the 48 boards of the tabernacle (Ex 26:19 ff); 4
for the pillars supporting the veil (Ex 26:32) = 100;
(2) bronze sockets, weight not given, namely, 50 to support the 50
standards on which were hung the curtains of the tabernacle on North,
South and West (Ex 27:10 ff), 10 to support 10 pillars on the E. (Ex
1059
27:13 ff), and 5 to support the 5 pillars upholding the screen at the
tabernacle entrance (Ex 26:27) = 65. The site for the tabernacle being
chosen and leveled, these sockets would be laid upon it (Ex 40:18),
and the tenons of the boards, or projecting base of the pillar, inserted
into holes made for the purpose.
W. Shaw Caldecott
SOCOH; SOCO
<so-ko> ([h k owOc , sokkhoh], branches), ([wOk wOc , sokho] (in Chronicles
only); [2, Socho], most usual, but many forms in Septuagint and in the
King James Version: Socoh, Shochoh, Shoco, Shocho):
(1) A city in the Shephelah of Judah mentioned along with Jarmuth,
Adullam, Azekah, etc. (Josh 15:35); the Philistines gathered together at
Socoh, which belongeth to Judah, and encamped between Socoh and
Azekah (1 Sam 17:1); it is mentioned as one of the districts from which
Solomon drew his supplies (1 Ki 4:10, the King James Version Sochoh);
the association of Socoh in this verse with Hepher is worth noticing in
connection with 1 Ch 4:18 (Heber). Soco (the King James Version
Shoco) was one of the cities fortified by Rehoboam for the defense of
Judah (2 Ch 11:7); it was captured by the Philistines in the time of Ahaz (2
Ch 28:18). The site is, without doubt, Khirbet esh Shuweikeh (Shuweikeh
is a diminutive of Shaukeh, a thorn), a rounded, elongated hilltop,
showing clear traces of ancient city walls. The situation is one of
considerable natural strength on the south side of the Vale of Elah just
where the Wady ec Cur makes a sweep to the West and becomes the Wady
es Sunt. Like so many such ancient sites, the hill has very steep slopes on 3
sides (South, West, and North), and is isolated from the ridge of higher
ground to the East by a narrow neck of lower ground. In the valley to the
Southwest is a plentiful spring. The site was known to Jerome in the 4th
century. He described it as 8 or 9 Roman miles from Eleutheropolis (Beit
Jibrin) (PEF, III, 53, 125, Sh XVII, BR, II, 21). The Sucathites (1 Ch
2:55) were probably inhabitants of Soco.
(2) A city of Judah in the South, associated (Josh 15:48) with Shamir and
Jattir. This is doubtless Khirbet Shuweikeh, a large ruin occupying a low
hill, 10 miles Southwest of Hebron; there are many caves and rock-cut
cisterns as well as drafted stones. Cheyne doubtfully locates the Socoh of 1
Ki 4:10 here. See PEF, 404, 410, Sh XXV; B R, I, 494.
1060
E. W. G. Masterman
SOD, SODDEN
<sod--n>.
See SEETHE.
SODA
<so-da>.
See NITRE.
SODERING
<sod-er-ing> ([q b ,D ,, debheq]): the King James Version in Isa 41:7, the
Revised Version (British and American) soldering, of smith work.
SODI
<so-di> ([yd iwOs , codhi]): One of the spies, representing the tribe of
Zebulun (Nu 13:10).
SODOM
<sod-um> ([ d os ], cedhom]; [2ooo, Sodoma]) One of the 5 CITIES OF
THE PLAIN (which see), destroyed by fire from heaven in the time of
Abraham and Lot (Gen 19:24). The wickedness of the city became
proverbial. The sin of sodomy was an offense against nature frequently
connected with idolatrous practices (see Rawlinson, History of Phoenicia).
See SODOMITE. The fate of Sodom and Gomorrah is used as a warning
to those who reject the gospel (Mt 10:15; 11:24; 2 Pet 2:6;
<650107>
Jude 1:7).
The word is used in a typical sense in Rev 11:8. Sodom was probably
located in plain South of the Dead Sea, now covered with water. The name
is still preserved in Jebel Usdum (Mt. Sodom).
See ARABAH; CITIES OF THE PLAIN; DEAD SEA.
1061
LITERATURE.
Dillmann. Genesis, 111 f; Robinson, BR, II, 187 ff; G. A. Smith, HGHL,
505 ff; Blanckenhorn, ZDPV, XIX, 1896, 53 ff; Baedeker-Socin, Palestine,
143; Buhl, GAP, 117, 271, 274.
George Frederick Wright
SODOM, VINE OF
([ d os ]Ap ,G,, gephen cedhom]):
For their vine is of the vine of Sodom,
And of the fields of Gomorrah:
Their grapes are grapes of gall,
Their clusters are bitter (Dt 32:32).
This must be distinguished from the Apples of Sodom (which see),
described by Josephus (BJ, IV, viii, 4), which appear to have been an
actual species of fruit, probably either the colocynth or the fruit of the
Usher tree, Calotropis procera. It would appear, however, from the above,
the only passage referring to the Vine of Sodom, that this expression is
metaphorical and does not refer to any particular plant.
E. W. G. Masterman
SODOMITE
<sod-om-it> ([v d eq ;, qadhesh], feminine [h v ;d eq ], qedheshah]): Qadhesh
denotes properly a male temple prostitute, one of the class attached to
certain sanctuaries of heathen deities, and consecrated to the impure rites
of their worship. Such gross and degrading practices in Yahwehs land
could only be construed as a flagrant outrage; and any association of these
with His pure worship was abhorrent (Dt 23:17 f): The presence of
Sodomites is noted as a mark of degeneracy in Rehoboams time (1 Ki
14:24). Asa endeavored to get rid of them (1 Ki 15:12), and Jehoshaphat
routed them out (1 Ki 22:46). Subsequent corruptions opened the way for
their return, and Josiah had to break down their houses which were
actually in the house of the Lord (2 Ki 23:7). The feminine qedheshah is
translated prostitute in Gen 38:21,22; Hos 4:14; in Dt 23:17 prostitute
(the King James Version margin sodomitess, the Revised Version margin
1062
transliterates). The English word is, of course, derived from Sodom, the
inhabitants of which were in evil repute for unnatural vice.
W. Ewing
SODOMITISH; SEA
<sod-om-it-ish>.
See DEAD SEA.
SODOMY
<sod-o-mi>.
See SODOM; SODOMITE; CRIMES; PUNISHMENTS.
SOJOURNER
<soj-er-ner>, <so-jur-ner>, <suj-er-ner>.
See STRANGER AND SOJOURNER.
SOLDERING
<sod-er-ing>.
See SODERING.
SOLDIER
<sol-jer>.
See ARMY.
SOLEMN; SOLEMNITY
<sol-em>, <so-lem-ni-ti>: The word solemn had
(1) at first the meaning once in the year, through its derivation from
Latin sollus, whole, annus, year. As, however, a regular annual
occurrence is usually one of particular importance, the word took on
(2) the meaning ceremonious. From this is derived
1063
(3) the usual modern force of grave in opposition to joyous. This
last meaning is not in Biblical English, and the meanings of solemn in
English Versions of the Bible are either
(1) or (2). Nor is there any certain case of (1), for the word is always a
gloss in English Versions of the Bible and, although frequently
introduced in references to annual events (Lev 23:36, etc.), it is even
more often used where annual is foreign to the passage (2 Ki 10:20;
Ps 92:3, etc.). The use of the word in the King James Version is
unsystematic. It is always (except in Jer 9:2) found in conjunction with
assembly when (10 times) the latter word represents atsarah
(atsereth) (Lev 23:36, etc.) (retained by the Revised Version (British
and American) with margin closing festival, Lev 23:36; 2 Ch 7:9;
Neh 8:18). the King James Version uses solemnity or solemn day,
feast, etc., 17 times for the very common word mo`edh (appointed
time, etc.).
See FEAST.
RVs treatment of these passages defies analysis. Solemnity is kept in Isa
33:20; Ezek 46:11, and solemn in Lamentations (4 times); Hosea (3
times); Zeph 3:18. In Ezek 36:38; 45:17; 46:9 it is replaced by
appointed, elsewhere (and for moadhoth, 2 Ch 8:13) by set. The
margins further complicate the renderings. the King James Version also
uses solemn with chagh, feast, 4 times, and with chaghagh, keep a
feast, in Dt 16:15. The word is dropped by the Revised Version (British
and American), except the English Revised Version in Ps 81:3. Finally, the
King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) have
solemn sound for higgayon, in Ps 92:3. The context, however, demands
resounding melody. And 11 times the Revised Version (British and
American) has introduced solemn to represent the intensive in the form
shabbath shabbathon (Ex 16:23, etc.), where the King James Version has
simply sabbath or sabbath of rest. the Revised Version (British and
American) here has imitated the adverbial solemnly in the similar
intensified expressions in Gen 43:3; 1 Sam 8:9.
The Revised Version (British and American) Apocrypha translates en
hemerais kairou, in the days of the season (Baruch 1:14), by on the
days of the solemn assembly (the King James Version solemn days), and
both the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and
1064
American) have solemn feast days for dies festos (2 Esdras 1:31).
Otherwise the King James Versions use of solemn is dropped by the
Revised Version (British and American).
Burton Scott Easton
SOLEMN ASSEMBLY (MEETING)
See CONGREGATION; FASTS AND FEASTS; SOLEMN,
SOLEMNITY.
SOLOMON
<sol-o-mun> ([h mol ov ] , shelomoh]; New Testament [2oov, Solomon]):
I. EARLY LIFE.
Solomon was the son of David and Bath-sheba, and became the 3rd king of
Israel.
1. Name and Meaning:
He was so named by his mother (2 Sam 12:24, Qere; see TEXT), but by the
prophet Nathan, or by his father (Vulgate), he was called Jedidiah
loved of Yahweh. The name Solomon is derived from the root
meaning to be quiet or peaceful, and Solomon was certainly the least
warlike of all the kings of Israel or Judah, and in that respect a remarkable
contrast to his father (so 1 Ch 22:9). His name in Hebrew compares with
Irenaeus in Greek, Friedrich in German, and Selim in Arabic; but it has
been suggested that the name should be pronounced shillumah, from the
word denoting compensation, Bath-shebas second son being given in
compensation for the loss of the first (but see 3, below).
2. Sources:
The oldest sources for the biography of Solomon are doubtless the Annals
of Solomon referred to in 1 Ki 11:41, the history of Nathan the prophet,
the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite and the visions of Iddo the seer,
mentioned in 2 Ch 9:29, all which may be merely the relative sections of
the great book of the Annals of the Kings from which our Books of
Kings and Chronicles are both derived. These ancient works are, of
course, lost to us save in so far as they have been embodied in the Old
Testament narrative. There the life of South is contained in 2 Sam 12:24 f;
1065
1 Ki 1 through 11; 1 Ch 22 through 2 Ch 9. Of these sources 2 Sam 12:24
f and 1 Ki 1; 2 are much the oldest and in fact form part of one document,
2 Sam 9 through 20; 1 Ki 1; 2 dealing with the domestic affairs of David,
which may well be contemporary with the events it describes. The date of
the composition of the Books of Chronicles is about 300 BC 700 years
after the time of Solomon and the date of the Books of Kings, as a
completed work, must, of course, be later than the exile. Nothing of
importance is gained from citations from early historians in Josephus and
later writers. Far and away the best source for, at least, the inner life of
Solomon would be the writings ascribed to him in the Old Testament,
could we be sure that these were genuine (see below).
3. Birth and Upbringing:
The children of David by Bath-sheba are given in 1 Ch 3:5 as Shimea,
Shobab, Nathan and Solomon. Compare also 2 Sam 5:14; 1 Ch 14:4,
where the same persons evidently are named. It would thus appear that
Solomon was the 4th son of Bath-sheba, supposing Shimea to be the child
that died. Otherwise Solomon would be the 5th son. There are therefore
some events omitted in 2 Sam 12:24 f, or else the names Shobab and
Nathan are remains of some clause which has been lost, and not proper
names. Like the heir apparent of a Turkish sultan, Solomon seems to have
spent his best years in the seclusion of the harem. There he was doubtless
more influenced by his mother than by his father, and in close intimacy with
his mother was the prophet Nathan, who had given him his by-name of
fortunate import (2 Sam 12:25).
4. His Accession:
It was not until David lay on his deathbed that Solomon left the womens
quarters and made his appearance in public. That he had been selected by
David, as the son of the favorite wife, to succeed him, is pre-supposed in
the instructions which he received from his father regarding the building of
the Temple. But as soon as it appeared that the life of David was nearing
its end, it became evident that Solomon was not to have a walk over. He
found a rival in Adonijah the son of Haggith, who was apparently the
eldest surviving son of his father, and who had the support of Joab, by far
the strongest man of all, of Abiathar, the leading, if not the favorite, priest
(compare 2 Sam 15:24 ff), and of the princes of the royal house. Solomon,
on the other hand, had the support of his mother Bath-sheba, David s
1066
favorite wife, of Nathan the court prophet, of Zadok who had eclipsed
Abiathar, of Benaiah, the son of a priest, but one of the three bravest of
Davids soldiers, and captain of the bodyguard of Cherethites and
Pelethites, and of the principal soldiers. It is especially noted that Shimei
and Hushai (so Josephus) took no active part at any rate with Adonijah (1
Ki 1:8). The conspiracy came to nothing, for, before it developed,
Solomon was anointed at Gibeon (not Gihon, 1 Ki 1:33,38,45), and
entered Jerusalem as king.
5. Closing Days of David:
The age of Solomon at his accession is unknown. The expression in 1 Ki
3:7 is not, of course, to be taken literally (otherwise Ant, VIII, vii, 8). His
reign opened, like that of many an oriental monarch, with a settlement in
blood of the accounts of the previous reign. Joab, Davids nephew, who
had brought the house within the bounds of blood revenge, was executed.
Adonijah, as soon as his father had breathed his last, was on a nominal
charge put to death. Abiathar was relegated to his home at Anathoth (1 Ki
2:26). Conditions were imposed on Shimei which he failed to keep and so
forfeited his life (1 Ki 2:36 ff). These steps having been taken, Solomon
began his reign, as it were, with a clean slate.
II. REIGN OF SOLOMON.
1. His Vision:
It was apparently at the very beginning of his reign that Solomon made his
famous choice of a hearing heart, i.e. an obedient heart, in preference to
riches or long life. The vision took place at Gibeon (2 Ch 1:7, but in 1 Ki
3:4 f the ancient versions read upon the altar that was in Gibeon. And the
Lord appeared, etc.). The life of Solomon was a curious commentary on
his early resolution. One of the first acts of his reign was apparently, in the
style of the true oriental monarch, to build himself a new palace, that of his
father being inadequate for his requirements. In regard to politics,
however, the events of Solomons reign may be regarded as an
endorsement of his choice. Under him alone was the kingdom of Israel a
great world-power, fit almost to rank beside Assyria and Egypt. Never
again were the bounds of Israel so wide; never again were north and south
united in one great nation. There is no doubt that the credit of this result is
due to the wisdom of Solomon.
1067
2. His Policy:
Solomon was by nature an unwarlike person, and his whole policy was in
the direction of peace. He disbanded the above-mentioned foreign legion,
the Cherethites and Pelethites, who had done such good service as
bodyguard to his father. All his officers seem to have been mediocre
persons who would not be likely to force his hand, as Joab had done that of
David (2 Sam 3:39). Even the fortification of Jerusalem and of the frontier
towns was undertaken with a view to repel attack, not for the purposes of
offense. Solomon did, no doubt, strengthen the army, especially the cavalry
arm (1 Ki 4:26; 10:26), but he never made any use of this, and perhaps it
existed largely on paper. At any rate Solomon seems to have been rather a
breeder of and dealer in horse-flesh than a soldier. He appears also to have
had a fine collection of armor (1 Ki 10:25), but much of it was made of
gold (1 Ki 10:16 f) and was intended for show, not for use. Both in his
reputation for wisdom and in his aversion to war Solomon bears a striking
resemblance to King James VI of Scotland and I of England, as depicted by
the hand of Sir Walter Scott. It was fortunate for him that both the
neighboring great powers were for the time in a decadent state, otherwise
the history of the kingdom of Israel would have ended almost before it had
begun. On the other hand, it has been remarked that if Solomon had had
anything like the military genius of David and his enthusiasm for the
religion of Yahweh, he might have extended the arms of Israel from the
Nile to the Tigris and anticipated the advent of Islam. But his whole idea
was to secure himself in peace, to amass wealth and indulge his love of
grandeur with more than oriental splendor.
3. Its Results:
Solomon, in fact, was living on the achievements and reputation of his
father, who laid the basis of security and peace on which the commercial
genius of Solomon could raise the magnificent structure which he did. But
he took the clay from the foundations in order to build the walls. The
Hebrews were a military people and in that consisted their life. Solomon
withdrew their energies from their natural bent and turned them to
cornmerce, for which they were not yet ripe. Their soul rebelled under the
irksome drudgery of an industry of which they did not reap the fruits.
Solomon had in fact reduced a free people to slavery, and concentrated the
wealth of the whole country in the capital. As soon as he was out of the
way, his country subjects threw off the yoke and laid claim to their ancient
1068
freedom. His son found himself left with the city and a territory as small as
an English county.
4. Alliance with Tyre:
Solomons chief ally was Hiram, the king of Tyre, probably the friend and
ally of David, who is to be distinguished from Hiram the artificer of 1 Ki
7:13 ff. Hiram the king entered into a treaty with Solomon which was to
the advantage of both parties. Hiram supplied Solomon with cedar and pine
wood from Lebanon, as well as with skilled artisans for his building. Tyrian
sailors were also drafted into the ships of Solomon, the Hebrews not being
used to the sea (1 Ki 9:26 f), besides which Phoenician ships sailed along
with those of Solomon. The advantages which Hiram received in return
were that the Red Sea was open to his merchantmen, and he also received
large supplies of corn and oil from the land of Israel (1 Ki 5:11 corrected
by Septuagint and 2 Ch 2:10). At the conclusion of the building of the
palace and Temple, which occupied 20 years, Solomon presented Hiram
with 20 villages (1 Ki 9:11; the converse, 2 Ch 8:2), and Hiram made
Solomon a return present of gold (1 Ki 9:14; omitted in 2 Chronicles).
5. Alliance with Egypt:
Second to Hiram was the Pharaoh of Egypt, whose daughter Solomon
married, receiving as her dower the town of Gezer (1 Ki 9:16). This
Pharaoh is not named in the Old Testament. This alliance with Egypt led to
the introduction of horses into Israel (1 Ki 10:28 f), though David had
already made a beginning on a small scale (2 Sam 8:4). Both these alliances
lasted throughout the reign. There is no mention of an alliance with the
eastern power, which was then in a decadent state.
6. Domestic Troubles:
It was probably nearer the beginning than the end of Solomons reign that
political trouble broke out within the realm. When David had annexed the
territory of the Edomites at the cost of the butchery of the male population
(compare 2 Sam 8:14; Ps 60, title) one of the young princes of the reigning
house effected his escape, and sought and found an asylum in Egypt, where
he rose to occupy a high station. No sooner had he heard of the death of
David and Joab than he returned to his native country and there stirred up
disaffections against Solomon (1 Ki 11:14 ff; see HADAD), without,
however, restoring independence to Edom (1 Ki 9:26). A second occasion
1069
of disaffection arose through a prophet having foretold that the successor
of Solomon would have one of the Israelite tribes only and that the other
ten clans would be under Solomons master of works whom he had set
over them. This officer also took refuge in Egypt and was protected by
Shishak. He remained there until the death of Solomon (1 Ki 11:26 ff). A
third adversary was Rezon who had fled from his master the king of Zobah
(1 Ki 11:23), and who established himself at Damascus and rounded a
dynasty which was long a thorn in the side of Israel. These domestic
troubles are regarded as a consequence of the falling away of Solomon
from the path of rectitude, but this seems to be but a kind of anticipative
consequence, that is, if it was not till the end of his reign that Solomon fell
into idolatry and polytheism (1 Ki 11:4).
III. HIS BUILDINGS.
1. The Temple:
The great undertaking of the reign of Solomon was, of course, THE
TEMPLE (which see), which was at first probably considered as the
Chapel Royal and an adjunct of the palace. The Temple was begun in the
4th year of the reign and finished in the 11th, the work of the building
occupying 7 years (1 Ki 6; 7:13 ff). The delay in beginning is remarkable,
if the material were all ready to hand (1 Ch 22). Worship there was
inaugurated with fitting ceremony and prayers (1 Ki 8).
2. The Palace:
To Solomon, however, his own palace was perhaps a more interesting
undertaking. It at any rate occupied more time, in fact 13 years (1 Ki 7:1-
12; 9:10; 2 Ch 8:1), the time of building both palace and Temple being 20
years. Possibly the building of the palace occupied the first four years of
the reign and was then intermitted and resumed after the completion of the
Temple; but of this there is no indication in the text. It was called the
House of the Forest of Lebanon from the fact that it was lined with cedar
wood (1 Ki 7:2). A description of it is given in 1 Ki 7:1-12.
3. Other Buildings:
Solomon also rebuilt the wall of the city and the citadel (see JERUSALEM;
MILLO). He likewise erected castles at the vulnerable points of the
frontiers Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer (1 Ki 9:15), lower Beth-horon and
BAALATH (which see). According to the Qere of 1 Ki 9:18 and the ancient
1070
versions as well as 2 Ch 8:4, he was the founder of Tadmor (Palmyra); but
the Kethibh of 1 Ki 9:18 reads Tamar (compare Ezek 47:19). Some of the
remains of buildings recently discovered at Megiddo and Gezer may go
back to the time of Solomon.
4. The Corvee:
Solomon could not have built on the scale he did with the resources
ordinarily at the command of a free ruler. Accordingly we find that one of
the institutions fostered by him was the corvee, or forced labor. No doubt
something of the kind always had existed (Josh 9:21) and still exists in all
despotic governments. Thus the people of a village will be called on to
repair the neighboring roads, especially when the Pasha is making a
progress in the neighborhood. But Solomon made the thing permanent and
national (1 Ki 5:13-15; 9:15). The immediate purpose of the levy was to
supply laborers for work in the Lebanon in connection with his building
operations. Thus 30,000 men were raised and drafted, 10,000 at a time, to
the Lebanon, where they remained for a month, thus having two months
out of every three at home. But even when the immediate cause had
ceased, the practice once introduced was kept up and it became one of the
chief grievances which levi to the dismemberment of the kingdom (1 Ki
12:18, Adoram = Adoniram; compare 2 Sam 20:24), for hitherto the
corvee had been confined to foreign slaves taken in war (1 Ki 9:21). It is
said the higher posts were reserved for Israelites, the laborers being
foreigners (1 Ki 9:22), that is, the Israelites acted as foremen. Some of the
foreign slaves seem to have formed a guild in connection with the Temple
which lasted down to the time of the exile (Ezr 2:55-57; Neh 7:57-59).
See NETHINIM.
IV. HIS CHARACTER.
1. Personal Qualities:
In Solomon we have the type of a Turkish sultan, rather than a king of
Israel. The Hebrew kings, whether of Israel or Judah, were, in theory at
least, elective monarchs like the kings of Poland. If one happened to be a
strong ruler, he managed to establish his family it might be, for three or
even four generations. In the case of the Judean dynasty the personality of
the first king made such a deep impression upon the heart of the people
that the question of a change of dynasty there never became pressing. But
1071
Solomon would probably have usurped the crown if he had not inherited it,
and once on the throne he became a thoroughgoing despot. All political
power was taken out of the hands of the sheiks, although outward respect
was still paid to them (1 Ki 8:1), and placed in the hands of officers who
were simply creatures of Solomon. The resources of the nation were
expended, not on works of public utility, but on the personal
aggrandizement of the monarch (1 Ki 10:18 ff). In the means he took to
gratify his passions he showed himself to be little better than a savage and
if he did not commit such great crimes as David, it was perhaps because he
had no occasion, or because he employed greater cunning in working out
his ends.
2. His Wisdom:
The wisdom for which Solomon is so celebrated was not of a very high
order; it was nothing more than practical shrewdness, or knowledge of the
world and of human nature. The common example of it is that given in 1 Ki
3:16 ff, to which there are innumerable parallels in Indian, Greek and other
literatures. The same worldly wisdom lies at the back of the Book of
Proverbs, and there is no reason why a collection of these should not have
been made by Solomon just as it is more likely that he was a composer of
verses than that he was not (1 Ki 4:32). The statement that he had breadth
of heart (1 Ki 4:29) indicates that there was nothing known which did not
come within his ken.
3. His Learning:
The word wisdom, however, is used also in another connection, namely,
in the sense of theoretical knowledge or book leaning, especially in the
department of natural history. It is not to be supposed that Solomon had
any scientific knowledge of botany or zoology, but he may have collected
the facts of observation, a task in which the Oriental, who cannot
generalize, excels. The wisdom and understanding (1 Ki 4:29) for which
Solomon was famous would consist largely in stories about beasts and
trees like the well-known Fables of Pilpai. They included also the
wisdom for which Egypt was famous (1 Ki 4:30), that is, occult science.
It results from this last statement that Solomon appears in post-Biblical and
Arabian literature as a magician.
1072
4. Trade and Commerce:
Solomon was very literally a merchant prince. He not only encouraged and
protected commerce, but engaged in it himself. He was in fact the
predominant, if not sole, partner in a great trading concern, which was
nothing less than the Israelite nation. One of his enterprises was the horse
trade with Egypt. His agents bought up horses which were again sold to
the kings of the Hittites and the Arameans. The prices paid are mentioned
(1 Ki 10:29). The best of these Solomon no doubt retained for his own
cavalry (1 Ki 10:26). Another commodity imported from that country was
linen yarn (1 Ki 10:28 the King James Version). The navy which Solomon
built at the head of the Gulf of Akaba was not at all for military, but purely
commercial ends. They were ships of Tarshish, that is, merchant ships, not
ships to Tarshish, as 2 Ch 9:21. They traded to OPHIR (which see), from
which they brought gold; silver, ivory, apes and peacocks, the round
voyage lasting 3 years (1 Ki 9:26 ff; 10:22). Special mention is made of
almug (1 Ki 10:11) or algum (2 Ch 9:10 f) trees (which see). The visit
of the Queen of Sheba would point to the overland caravan routes from the
Yemen being then open (1 Ki 10:15). What with direct imports and the
result of sales, silver and cedar wood became very plentiful in the capital (1
Ki 10:27).
5. Officers of State:
The list of Solomons officers of state is given in 1 Ki 4:2 ff. These
included a priest, two secretaries, a recorder, a commander-in-chief, a chief
commissariat officer, a chief shepherd (if we may read ro`eh for reeh), a
master of the household, and the head of the corvee. The list should be
compared with those of Davids officers (2 Sam 8:16 ff; 20:23 ff). There is
much resemblance, but we can see that the machine of state was becoming
more complicated. The bodyguard of foreign mercenaries was abolished
and the captain Benaiah promoted to be commander-in-chief. Two scribes
were required instead of one. Twelve commissariat officers were appointed
whose duty it was to forward from their districts the supplies for the royal
household and stables. The list of these officials, a very curious one, is
given in 1 Ki 4:7 ff. It is to be noted that the 12 districts into which the
country was divided did not coincide with the territories of the 12 tribes. It
may be remarked that Solomon seems as far as possible to have retained
the old servants of his father. It will be noticed also that in all the lists there
1073
is mention of more than one priest. These priests retained some of their
original functions, since they acted as prognosticators and diviners.
6. Wives:
Solomons principal wife was naturally the daughter of Pharaoh; it was for
her that his palace was built (1 Ki 3:1; 7:8; 9:16,24). But in addition to her
he established marriage relations with the neighboring peoples. In some
cases the object was no doubt to cement an alliance, as with the Zidonians
and Hittites and the other nationalities (1 Ki 11:1), some of which were
forbidden to Israelites (Dt 7:3). It may be that the daughter of Pharaoh was
childless or died a considerable time before Solomon, but his favorite wife
was latterly a grand-daughter of Nahash, the Ammonite king (1 Ki 14:21
Septuagint), and it was her son who succeeded to the throne. Many of
Solomons wives were no doubt daughters of wealthy or powerful citizens
who wished by an alliance with the king to strengthen their own positions.
Yet we do not read of his marrying an Israelite wife. According to the
Arabian story Bilqis, the Queen of Sheba who visited Solomon (1 Ki 10:1
ff),. was also married to him. He appears to have had only one son; we are
not told of any other than Rehoboam. His daughters were married to his
own officers (1 Ki 4:11,15).
7. Revenues:
Solomon is said to have started his reign with a capital sum of 100,000
talents of gold and a million talents of silver, a sum greater than the
national debt of Great Britain. Even so, this huge sum was ear-marked for
the building of the Temple (1 Ch 22:14). His income was, for one year, at
any rate, 666 talents of gold (1 Ki 10:14), or about twenty million dollars.
This seems an immense sum, but it probably was not so much as it looks.
The great mass of the people were too poor to have any commodities
which they could exchange for gold. Its principal use was for the
decoration of buildings. Its purchasing power was probably small, because
so few could afford to buy it. It was in the same category as the precious
stones which are of great rarity, but which are of no value unless there is a
demand for them. In the time of Solomon there was no useful purpose to
which gold could be put in preference to any other metal.
1074
8. Literary Works:
It is not easy to believe that the age of Solomon, so glorious in other
respects, had not a literature to correspond. Yet the reign of the sultan
Ismail in Morocco, whom Solomon much resembles, might be cited in
favor of such a supposition. Solomon himself is stated to have composed
3,000 animal stories and 1,005 songs (1 Ki 4:32). In the Old Testament the
following are ascribed to him: three collections of Proverbs, 1:1 ff; 10:1 ff;
25:1 ff; The Song of Songs; Psalms 72 and 127; Ecclesiastes (although
Solomon is not named). In Prov 25:1 the men of Hezekiah are said to have
copied out the following proverbs.
LITERATURE.
The relative portions of the histories by Ewald, Stanley (who follows
Ewald), Renan, Wellhausen and Kittel; also H. Winckler, Alttestamentliche
Untersuchungen; and the commentaries on the Books of Kings and
Chronicles.
Thomas Hunter Weir
SOLOMON, ODES OF
See APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE, B, III, 2.
SOLOMON, POOLS OF
See POOLS OF SOLOMON.
SOLOMON, PSALMS (PSALTER) OF
See APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE, B, III, 1.
SOLOMON, SONG OF
See SONG OF SONGS.
SOLOMON, WISDOM OF
See WISDOM OF SOLOMON.
1075
SOLOMONS PORCH
See PORCH, SOLOMONS.
SOLOMONS SERVANTS
([h mol ov ]yd eb ][ , adbhedhe shelomoh]; [ouo 2ov, douloi
Salomon]): The children of Solomons servants constituted a company
or guild of the Jewish exiles who returned with Zerubbabel from Babylonia
to Jerusalem in 537 BC, pursuant to the decree of Cyrus; they are
mentioned 5 times (Ezr 2:55,58 parallel Neh 7:57,60; Neh 11:3). As the
prime purpose of the returning exiles was the rebuilding of the Temple and
the restoration of Yahwehs worship (Ezr 1:2,3), it was important that
those who held the privileges of sanctuary service as a family heritage
should go back to their duties. This included, besides priests and Levites,
the NETHINIM (which see) and Solomons Servants. In every reference to
them, Solomons Servants are connected with the Nethinim, who had been
given or dedicated (nethinim or nethunim is pass. participle of nathan,
to give, to appoint) by David for the service of the Levites (Ezr 8:20);
so Solomons Servants traced their official beginning back to Solomons
appointment, as their name indicates. In the joint references they always fall
into the natural chronological order, i.e. following the Nethinim. It is
possible, therefore, that they are referred to in Ezr 7:24 also, under the title
servants of this house of God, which immediately follows Nethinim in
the list of those exempt from taxation and tolls.
What their duties in the house of God may have been is not stated in the
records. These must have been more or less menial, the more formal and
honorable duties being reserved for the priests and Levites, the singers,
(and) porters (Ezr 7:24). When the ark was brought to Jerusalem by
David and the ceremonial of the sacrificial system was more strictly
observed, the services of priests and Levites were greatly increased, and to
meet the needs of the new order David appointed the Nethinim (Ezr 8:20;
compare 1 Ch 9:2). Likewise the much greater increase in such duties on
the completion of Solomons Temple was the occasion for the dedication
of an additional number of these assistants to the Levites.
The number of those who returned with Zerubbabel was not great,
together with the Nethinim being only 392. This does not appear to have
been sufficient for the needs of the sanctuary, since Ezra, in preparation for
1076
his expedition in 458 BC, made special appeal for Nethinim to go with him,
of whom 220 responded (Ezr 8:15-20). No doubt at the first their service
was considered to be lowly; but by the time of the exile, certainly after it,
their position had developed into one of considerable honor and
constituted them a privileged class in the nation. While many of the people
were required by Nehemiah to live in Jerusalem, they were allowed to
dwell in their possessions in the cities of Judah (Neh 11:3).
A question of some interest and of difference of opinion is whether
Solomons Servants were Levites or non-Israelites. The latter view is the
more generally held, for the following reasons;
(1) After the completion of the Temple and his other great buildings a
large body of workmen, whom Solomon had drafted from the non-
Israelite population, were without occupation, and might well have
been assigned to the menial duties of the Temple (1 Ki 9), their name in
Septuagint (douloi) properly indicating such a class;
(2) Ezekiel excludes non-Israelites from the service of his ideal temple,
as though they had been allowed in the preexilic Temple (44:9);
(3) they are always clearly distinguished from the Levites in the lists of
religious bodies.
But, on the other hand, equally strong arguments favor their Levitical
descent:
(1) Levites also are called douloi in 1 Esdras;
(2) it is more probable that Ezekiel refers to the abuses of Athaliah,
Ahaz and Manasseh than to the institutions of David and Solomon;
(3) Ezra specifically classifies the Nethinim as Levites (8:15-20);
(4) there is not the slightest intimation in the text of 1 Ki 9:15-22 that
the Gentilebondservants were assigned to temple-service after
completion of the great building operations; such an interpretation is
wholly inferential, while, on the contrary, it is more probable that such
an innovation would have been mentioned in the narrative; and
(5) it is not probable that Ezra and Nehemiah, or Zerubbabel, with their
strict views of Israelite privilege (compare Ezr 2:62), would have
admitted non-Israelites to sacred functions, the less so in view of
1077
Ezekiels prohibition. There is more ground, then, for holding that
Solomons Servants, like the porters and singers, were an order of
Levites.
Edward Mack
SOMEIS
<so-me-is> ([2orr, Someeis]; the King James Version Samis): One of
the Israelites, who put away their foreign wives (1 Esdras 9:34) = Shimei
in Ezr 10:38.
SOMETIME
<sum-tim>: In modern English means occasionally, and is so used in
Sirach 37:14 for [rvotr, eniote]. Otherwise the word means at some
past time, and is the translation of [otr, pote]. the Revised Version
(British and American) changes to aforetime in The Wisdom of Solomon
5:3; 1 Pet 3:20; to once in Eph 2:13; 5:8; to in time past in Col 1:21;
while in Col 3:7 the English Revised Version has aforetime, the
American Standard Revised Version once. the King James Version does
not distinguish between sometime and sometimes.
SON; SONS
<sun>, <sunz>:
(1) In Biblical language the word son is used first of all in its strictly
literal sense of male issue or offspring of a man or woman. In a few
cases in the Old Testament, as in Gen 3:16; Josh 17:2; Jer 20:15, the
Hebrew word ben, is translated correctly in the English by the word
child or children as it includes both sexes, as in Gen 3:16, or is
limited to males by the use of the modifying term male. Closely
connected with this meaning of direct male issue or of children is its
use to denote descendants, posterity in the more general sense. This
usage which, as in the case of the sons (children) of Israel, may be
regarded perhaps as originating in the conception of direct descent
from the common ancestor Israel, came in the course of time to be a
mere ethnographic designation, so that the term the children of Israel
and the children of Ammon meant no more than Israelites or
Ammonites, that is, inhabitants of the lands of Israel or Ammon
1078
respectively. An extension of this usage is to be found in the
designation of a people as the sons or children of a land or city; so in
Am 9:7 children of the Ethiopians, or Ezek 16:28, where the literal
rendering would be sons of Asshur, instead of the Assyrians, and the
children of Jerus in
<290306>
Joel 3:6.
See BAR (prefix); BEN-.
(2) More characteristic of Biblical usage is the employment of the word
son to indicate membership in a class or guild, as in the common phrase
sons of the prophets, which implies nothing whatever as to the ancestry,
but states that the individuals concerned are members of the prophetic
guilds or schools. In the New Testament the word sons (huioi) in Lk
11:19, rendered children in Mt 12:27 the King James Version, means,
not physical descendants, but members of the class or sect; according to
Mt the Pharisees, who were attacking Christ.
(3) The word son is used with a following genitive of quality to indicate
some characteristic of the person or persons described. In the English the
word son is usually omitted and the phrase is paraphrased as in 2 Sam
3:34, where the words translated wicked men in the King James Version
mean literally, sons or children of wickedness. Two examples of this usage
may be cited: the familiar phrase sons of Belial in the Old Testament (Dt
15:13 the King James Version, and often), where the meaning is simply
base or worthless fellows (compare Nu 24:17, margin children of Sheth
(Expository Times, XIII, 64b)); and in the New Testament the phrase
sons of thunder, which is given in Mk 3:17 as the explanation of the
epithet Boanerges. This use is common in the New Testament, as the
phrases children of the kingdom, children of light, etc., indicate, the
general meaning being that the noun in the genitive following the word
children indicates some quality of the persons under consideration. The
special phrases Son of man and Son of God are considered in separate
articles.
See also RELATIONSHIPS, FAMILY.
Walter R. Betteridge
SON-IN-LAW
See RELATIONSHIPS, FAMILY.
1079
SON OF GOD, THE
([o uo 0rou, ho huios theou]):
1. USE OF TITLE IN THE SYNOPTISTS:
While the title the Son of man is always, except once, applied by Jesus to
Himself, the Son of God is never applied by Jesus to Himself in the
Synoptists. When, however, it is applied to Him by others, He accepts it in
such a way as to assert His claim to it. Now and then He Himself employs
the abbreviated form, the Son, with the same intention; and He often
speaks of God as the Father or my Father or my Father who is in
heaven in such a manner as to betray the consciousness that He is the Son
of God.
2. MEANINGS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT:
While to the common mind the Son of man is a title designating the
human side of our Lords person, the Son of God seems as obviously to
indicate the divine side. But scholarship cannot take this for granted; and,
indeed, it requires only a hasty glance at the facts to bring this home even
to the general reader, because in Scripture the title is bestowed on a variety
of persons for a variety of reasons. First, it is applied to angels, as when in
<180201>
Job 2:1 it is said that the sons of God came to present themselves
before Yahweh; they may be so called because they are the creatures of
Gods hands or because, as spiritual beings, they resemble God, who is a
spirit. Secondly, in Lk 3:38 it is applied to the first man; and from the
parable of the Prodigal Son it may be argued that it is applicable to all men.
Thirdly, it is applied to the Hebrew nation, as when, in Ex 4:22, Yahweh
says to Pharaoh, Israel is my son, my first-born, the reason being that
Israel was the object of Yahwehs special love and gracious choice.
Fourthly, it is applied to the kings of Israel, as representatives of the
chosen nation. Thus, in 2 Sam 7:14, Yahweh says of Solomon, I will be
his father, and he shall be my son; and, in Ps 2:7, the coronation of a king
is announced in an oracle from heaven, which says, Thou art my son; this
day have I begotten thee. Finally, in the New Testament, the title is
applied to all saints, as in Jn 1:12, But as many as received him, to them
gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on
his name. When the title has such a range of application, it is obvious that
1080
the Divinity of Christ cannot be inferred from the mere fact that it is
applied to Him.
3. SENSE AS APPLIED TO JESUS:
It is natural to assume that its use in application to Jesus is derived from
one or other of its Old Testament uses; and the one almost universally
fixed upon by modern scholarship as that from which it was derived is the
fourth mentioned above that to the Jewish kings. Indeed, it is frequently
asserted that in the Jewish literature between the Old Testament and the
New Testament, it is found already coined as a title for the Messianic king;
but the instances quoted by Dalman and others in proof of this are far from
satisfactory.
4. PHYSICAL REASON:
When we come to examine its use in the New Testament as applied by
others to Jesus, the facts are far from simple, and it is not applied in a
uniform sense. In Lk 1:35, the following reason for its use is given, The
Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall
overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be
called the Son of God. This is a physical reason, akin to that on account
of which the angels or the first man received the title; but it is rather
curious that this point of view does not seem to be adopted elsewhere,
unless it be in the exclamation of the centurion at the foot of the cross,
Truly this was the Son of God (Mt 27:54). As a pagan this soldier might
be thinking of Jesus as one of those heroes, born of human mothers but
divine fathers, of whom the mythology of his country had so much to tell
(compare the margin).
5. ALLEGED EQUIVALENCE TO MESSIAH PERSONAL
SENSE IMPLIED:
(1) Baptism, Temptation.
It has been contended, not without plausibility, that for Jesus Himself the
source of the title may have been the employment of it in the voice from
heaven at His Baptism, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well
pleased (Mt 3:17). By these words, it is usually assumed, He was
designated as the Messiah; but in the adjective beloved, and the words
in whom I am well pleased, there is something personal, beyond the
1081
merely official recognition. The same may be said of the voice from
heaven in the scene of the Transfiguration. Milton, in Paradise Regained,
makes Satan become aware of the voice from heaven at the Baptism; but
this is also implied in the terms with which he approached Him in the
Temptation in the wilderness, If thou art the Son of God (Mt 4:3, etc.);
and, if this was the sense in which the prince of devils made use of the
phrase, we may conclude that in the mouths of the demoniacs who hailed
Jesus by the same title it must have had the same meaning.
(2) At Caesarea Philippi.
When, at Caesarea Philippi, Jesus evoked from the Twelve their great
confession, this is given by two of the synoptists in the simple form, Thou
art the Christ (Mk 8:29; Lk 9:20); but Mt adds, the Son of the living
God (Mt 16:16). It is frequently said that Hebrew parallelism compels us
to regard these words as a mere equivalent for Messiah. But this is not
the nature of parallelism, which generally includes in the second of the
parallel terms something in excess of what is expressed in the first; it would
be quite in accordance with the nature of parallelism if the second term
supplied the reason for the first. That is to say, Jesus was the Messiah
because He was the Son of God.
(3) Trial before Sanhedrin.
There is another passage where it is frequently contended that the Christ
and the Son of God must be exactly parallel, but a close examination
suggests the reverse. In the account of the ecclesiastical trial in the Gospel
of Lk, He is charged, If thou art the Christ, tell us; and, when He replies,
If I tell you, ye will not believe: and if I ask you, ye will not answer. But
from henceforth shall the Son of man be seated at the right hand of the
power of God, they all say, Art thou then the Son of God? and, when
He replies in the affirmative, they require no further witness (Lk 22:67-71),
Matthew informing us that the high priest hereupon rent his garments, and
they all agreed that He had spoken blasphemy and was worthy of death
(Mt 26:65 f). The usual assumption is that the second question, Art thou
.... the Son of God? implies no more than the first, `Art thou the Christ?;
but is not the scene much more intelligible if the boldness of His answer to
the first question suggested that He was making a still higher claim than to
be the Christ, and that their second question applied to this? It was when
Jesus affirmed this also that their angry astonishment knew no bounds, and
1082
their sentence was immediate and capital. It may be questioned whether it
was blasphemy merely to claim to be the Messiah; but it was rank and
undeniable blasphemy to claim to be the Son of God. This recalls the
statement in Jn 5:18, The Jews sought the more to kill him, because he
not only brake the sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making
himself equal with God; to which may be added (Jn 10:33), The Jews
answered him, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and
because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
6. HIGHER USE BY JESUS HIMSELF:
Naturally it is with the words of Jesus Himself on this subject that we are
most concerned. He speaks of God as His Father, and to the disciples He
speaks of God as their Father; but He never speaks to them of God as their
common Father: what He says is, My Father and your Father (Jn 20:17).
H. J. Holtzmann and others have attempted to make light of this, and even
to speak of the opening words of the Lords Prayer, Our Father who art
in heaven, as if Jesus might have uttered them in company with the
disciples; but the distinction is a vital one, and we do not agree with those
who can believe that Jesus could have uttered, for Himself along with
others, the whole of the Lords Prayer, including the petition, Forgive us
our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
7. THE SON IN
<401127>
MATTHEW 11:27:
Of the passages in the Synoptists where Jesus speaks about God as the
Father and Himself as the Son, a peculiar solemnity attaches to Mt
11:27 parallel Lk 10:22, All things have been delivered unto me of my
Father: and no one knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither doth any
know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to
reveal him. There is a Johannine flavor in these words, and they reveal an
intimacy of the Son with the Father, as well as a power over all things,
which could not have been conferred by mere official appointment, unless
there had been in the background a natural position warranting the official
standing. Not infrequently has the word Messianic been allowed by
scholars to blind them to the most obvious facts. The conferring of an
office on a mere man could not enable him to do things beyond the reach
of human powers; yet it is frequently assumed that, if only Jesus was
Messiah, He was able for anything, even when the thing in question is
something for which a mere man is wholly incompetent.
1083
8. THE SON IN
<411332>
MARK 13:32:
There is a saying of Jesus (Mk 13:32) about His own Sonship which may
seem to refute the church doctrine on the subject, as in it He confesses
ignorance of the date of His Second Coming: Of that day or that hour
knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the
Father. Yet, while there is much in this passage fitted to produce sane and
sober views as to the real manhood of Jesus, there are few sayings of His
that betray a stronger consciousness of His being more than man. Four
planes of being and of knowledge are specified that of men, that of
angels, that of Himself, and that of God. Evidently the Son is above not
only men but angels, and, if it is confessed that He is ignorant of anything,
this is mentioned as a matter of surprise.
9. THE SON IN
<402818>
MATTHEW 28:18-20:
The conclusion would seem to be that He is a being intermediate between
the angels and God; but this impression is corrected by the greatest of all
the sayings in which He calls Himself the Son (Mt 28:18-20), All
authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore,
and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all
things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even
unto the end of the world. Here the Son is named along with the Father
and the Holy Spirit in a way suggesting the equality of all three, an act of
worship being directed to them jointly. By those who disbelieve in the
Deity of Christ, the most strenuous attempts have been made to get rid of
this passage, and in certain quarters it is taken for granted that it must have
been an addition to the text of this Gospel. But for this there is no ground
whatever; the passage is the climax of the Gospel in which it occurs, in the
same way as the confession of Thomas is the climax of the Gospel of Jn;
and to remove it would be an intolerable mutilation. Of course to those
who disbelieve in the bodily resurrection of our Lord, this has no more
substance than the other details of the Forty Days; but to those who believe
in His risen glory the words appear to suit the circumstances, their
greatness being congruous with the entire representation of the New
Testament.
1084
10. APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE: DEITY AFFIRMED:
Indeed, it is the Son of God, as He appears in this final scene in the First
Gospel, who dominates the rest of the New Testament. Thus, in
<440920>
Acts
9:20, the beginning of Pauls testimony as a Christian is given in these
words, And straightway in the synagogues he proclaimed Jesus, that he is
the Son of God; and what this meant to Paul may be gathered from his
own statement in the opening of Romans, Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ,
called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, which he
promised afore through his prophets in the holy scriptures, concerning his
Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was
declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of
holiness by the resurrection from the dead; even Jesus Christ our Lord
(Rom 1:1-4). In He the equality of the Son with the Father is theme
throughout the entire book; and in Rev 2:18, the Son of God, who hath
his eyes like a flame of fire, speaks from the right hand of power to the
church.
On this subject there was no division of opinion in the apostolic church. On
many other questions the followers of Jesus were divided; but on this one
they were unanimous. For this the authority of Paul is often assumed to be
responsible; but there was a prior and higher authority. This was the self-
testimony of Jesus in the Gospel of John. Though this may not have been
put in literary form till all the other books of the New Testament had been
completed, it was active and influential in the church all the time, affecting
Paul and the other New Testament writers.
11. THE FOURTH GOSPEL: DEITY, PREEXISTENCE, ETC.:
There is no real disharmony between the expression of our Lords self-
consciousness in the Synoptists and that in John; only in the latter it is far
ampler and more distinct. Here Jesus is not only called the Son of God
by others, but applies the title to Himself in its full shape, as well as in the
abbreviated form of the Son. He further calls Himself the only begotten
Son of God (3:16,18), that is to say, He is Son in a sense in which no
others can claim the title. This seems expressly to contradict the statement,
so often made, that He makes others sons of God in the same sense as
Himself, or that His Sonship is ethical, not metaphysical. No doubt it is
ethical that is to say, He is like the Father in feeling, mind and will
but it does not follow that it is not at the same time metaphysical. In fact,
1085
the perfection of ethical unity depends upon that which is metaphysical.
Between a dog and a man there may be deep sympathy, yet it is limited by
the difference of their natures; whereas between a woman and a man there
is perfect sympathy, because they are identical in nature.
Another feature of Sonship in the Fourth Gospel is preexistence, though,
strange to say, this is more than once connected with the title Son of
man. But the strongest and most frequent suggestions as to what is
implied in Sonship are to be found in the deeds attributed to the Son; for
these are far beyond the competence of any mere man. Thus, He executes
judgment (Jn 5:22); He has life in Himself and quickeneth whom He will
(Jn 5:26,21); He gives eternal life (Jn 10:10), and it is the will of the Father
that all men should honor the Son, even as they do the Father (Jn 5:23).
Nevertheless, the Son does nothing of Himself, but only what He hath seen
the Father do (Jn 5:19); and only that which He hath heard of the Father
does He speak (Jn 14:10). In short, God is not only His Father, but His
God (Jn 20:17). To statements such as these a merely official Sonship is
not adequate; the relation must be ethical and metaphysical as well; and to
a perfect Sonship all three elements are essential.
LITERATURE.
See the books on the Theology of the New Testament by Weiss,
Beyschlag, Holtzmann, Feine, Schlatter, Weinel, Bovon, Stevens,
Sheldon; and on the Teaching of Jesus by Bruce, Wendt, Dalman;
Gore, The Incarnation of the Son of God, Bampton Lectures, 1891,
and Dissertations on Subjects Connected with the Incarnation;
Robertson, Teaching of Jesus concerning God the Father; full
bibliography in Stalker, Christs Teaching concerning Himself.
J ames Stalker
SON OF MAN, THE
([o uo tou ov0pou, ho huios tou anthropou]) :
1. Use in New Testament: Self-Designation of Jesus:
This is the favorite self-designation of Jesus in the Gospels. In Matthew it
occurs over 30 times, in Mark 15 times, in Luke 25 times, and in John a
dozen times. It is always in the mouth of Jesus Himself that it occurs,
except once, when the bystanders ask what He means by the title (Jn
1086
12:34). Outside the Gospels, it occurs only once in Acts, in Stephens
speech (
<440756>
Acts 7:56), and twice in the Book of Revelation (1:13; 14:14).
2. Questions as to Meaning:
At first sight it appears so apt a term for the human element in our Lords
person, the divine element being similarly denoted by the Son of God,
that this was supposed to be its meaning, as it still is by the common man
at the present day. As long as it was assumed that the meaning could be
elicited by merely looking at the words as they stand and guessing what
they must signify, this was substantially the view of all, although this
common conception went in two directions some noting especially the
loftier and more ideal elements in the conception, while others emphasized
what was lowly and painful in the human lot; and both could appeal to
texts in support of their view. Thus, the view that Christ by this phrase
represented Himself as the head, the type, the ideal of the race (Stanton,
The Jewish and the Christian Messiah), could appeal to such a saying as,
The Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath (Mk 2:28); while the
humbler view could quote such a saying as, The foxes have holes, and the
birds of the heaven have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay
his head (Mt 8:20).
The more scientific investigation of the phrase began, however, when it
was inquired, first, what the source was from which Jesus derived this title,
and, secondly, why He made use of it.
I. SOURCE OF THE TITLE.
1. The Phrase in the Old Testament Psalms, Ezekiel, Daniel:
That the phrase was not one of Jesus own invention is manifest, because it
occurs often in the Old Testament.
Thus, in Ps 8:4 it is used as an equivalent for man in the parallel lines,
What is man, that thou art mindful of him?
And the son of man, that thou visitest him ?
This passage has sometimes been regarded as the source whence Jesus
borrowed the title; and for this a good deal might be said, the psalm being
an incomparable exposition both of the lowliness and the loftiness of
human nature. But there is another passage in the Psalms from which it is
1087
far from incredible that it may have been derived: in Ps 80:17 occur the
words,
Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand,
Upon the son of man whom thou maddest strong for thyself.
This is an appeal, in an age of national decline, for the raising up of a hero
to redeem Israel; and it might well have kindled the spark of Messianic
consciousness in the heart of the youthful Jesus.
There is a book of the Old Testament in which the phrase the son of man
occurs no fewer than 90 times. This is the Book of Ezekiel, where it is
always applied to the prophet himself and designates his prophetic mission.
In the words of Nosgen (Christus der Menschenund Gotlessohn): It
expresses the contrast between what Ezekiel is in himself and what God
will make out of him, and to make his mission appear to him not as his
own, but as the work of God, and thus to lift him up, whenever the flesh
threatens to faint and fail. Thus there was one before Jesus of Nazareth
who bore the title, at least in certain moments of his life; and, after Ezekiel,
there arose another Hebrew prophet who has put on record that he was
addressed from the same high quarter in the same terms; for, in Dan 8:17,
it is written, So he came near where I stood; and when he came, I was
affrighted, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son
of man words then following intended to raise the spirit of the
trembling servant of God. By Weizsacker and others the suggestion has
been made that Jesus may have borrowed the term from Ezekiel and Daniel
to express His consciousness of belonging to the same prophetic line.
2. Son of Man in Daniel 7 New Testament Allusions:
There is, however, in the same Book of Daniel another occurrence of the
phrase, in a totally different sense, to which the attention of science is more
and more being drawn. In 7:3 ff, in one of the apocalyptic visions common
to this prophet, four beasts are seen coming out of the sea the first a
lion with eagles wings, the second a bear, the third a fourheaded leopard,
and the fourth a terrible monster with ten heads. These beasts bear rule
over the earth; but at last the kingdom is taken away from them and given
to a fifth ruler, who is thus described, I saw in the night-visions, and,
behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man,
and he came even to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before
him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all
1088
the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an
everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that
which shall not be destroyed (Dan 7:13,14). Compare with these words
from Dan the words of Jesus to the high priest during His trial,
Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power,
and coming on the clouds of heaven (Mt 26:64), and the echo of the Old
Testament words cannot be mistaken. Equally distinct is it in the great
discourse in Mt 24:30, Then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in
heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see
the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great
glory.
3. Expressive of Messianic Idea:
The use of this self-designation by Jesus is especially frequent and striking
in passages referring to His future coming to judgment, in which there is
necessarily a certain resemblance to the apocalyptic scene in Daniel. In
such utterances the Messianic consciousness of Jesus is most emphatically
expressed; and the passage in Daniel is also obviously Messianic. In
another considerable series of passages in which this phrase is used by
Jesus, the references are to His sufferings and death; but the assumption
which explains these also most easily is that they are Messianic too; Jesus
is speaking of the fortunes to which He must submit on account of His
vocation. Even the more dignified passages, expressive of ideality, are best
explained in the same way. In short, every passage where the phrase occurs
is best understood from this point of view, whereas, from any other point
of view, not a few appear awkward and out of place. How little, for
example, does the idea that the phrase is expressive of lowliness or of
brotherhood with suffering humanity accord with the opening of the
judgment-scene in Mt 25:31, But when the Son of man shall come in his
glory, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his
glory!
4. Post-canonical Literature: Book of Enoch:
The son of man, or rather one like unto a son of man mentioned in
Daniel, is primarily the Hebrew people, as is expressly noted in the
prophecy itself; but Jesus must have looked upon Himself as the
representative of the people of God, in the same way as, in the Old
Testament generally, the reigning sovereign was regarded as the
1089
representative of the nation. But the question has been raised whether this
transference of the title from a collective body to an individual may have
been mediated for Him through postcanonical religious literature or the
prevalence among the people of ideas generated through this literature. In
the Book of Enoch there occur numerous references to the son of man,
which bear a remarkable resemblance to some of the sayings of Jesus. The
date usually assigned to this production is some 200 years BC; and, if these
passages in it actually existed as early as this, the book would almost
require to be included in the canonical Scriptures, though for other reasons
it is far from worthy of any such honor. The whole structure of the Book
of Enoch is so loose and confused that it must always have invited
interpolation; and interpolations in it are recognized as numerous. The
probability, therefore, is that the passages referring to the son of man are of
later date and of Christian origin.
II. WHY JESUS MADE USE OF THE TITLE.
The conclusion that this title expresses, not the personal qualities of Jesus
as a man, but His functions as Messiah, may be disappointing; but there is a
way of recovering what seems to have been lost; because we must now
inquire for what reasons He made use of this term.
1. Consciousness of Being the Messiah:
The first reason, of course, is, that in Daniel it expressed Messiahship, and
that Jesus was conscions of being the Messiah. In the Old Testament He
was wont all His days to read His own history. He ranged over all the
sacred books and found in them references to His own person and work.
With divinatory glance He pierced into the secrets of Scripture and brought
forth from the least as well as the best-known portions of the ancient
oracles meanings which are now palpable to all readers of the Bible, but
which He was the first to discover. From the passage in Daniel, or from
some other passage of the Old Testament in which the phrase the son of
man occurs, a hint flashed out upon Him, as He read or heard; and the
suggestion grew in His brooding mind, until it rounded itself into the fit
and satisfying expression for one side of His self-consciousness.
2. Half Concealed, Yet Half Revealed His Secret:
Another reason why He fixed upon this as His favorite self-designation
may have been that it half concealed as well as half revealed His secret. Of
1090
the direct names for the Messiah He was usually shy, no doubt chiefly
because His contemporaries were not prepared for an open declaration of
Himself in this character; but at all stages of His ministry He called Himself
the Son of man without hesitation. The inference seems to be, that, while
the phrase expressed much to Himself, and must have meant more and
more for those immediately associated with Him, it did not convey a
Messianic claim to the public ear. With this accords well the perplexity
once manifested by those listening to Him, when they asked, Who is this
Son of man? (Jn 12:34); as it also explains the question of Jesus to the
Twelve at Caesarea Philippi, Who do men say that the Son of man is? or,
as it is in the margin, that I the Son of man am? (Mt 16:13). That He was
the Son of man did not evidently mean for all that He claimed to be the
Messiah.
3. Expressive of Identification with Men in Sympathy,
Fortunes and Destiny:
But when we try to realize for what reasons Jesus may have picked this
name out from all which presented themselves to Him in His intimate and
loving survey of the Old Testament, it is difficult to resist the belief that a
third and the principal reason was because it gave expression to His sense
of connection with all men in sympathy, fortunes and destiny. He felt
Himself to be identified with all as their brother, their fellow-sufferer, their
representative and champion; and, in some respects, the deepest word He
ever spake was, For the Son of man also came not to be ministered unto,
but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many (Mk 10:45 parallel).
4. Speculations (Lietzmann, Wellhausen, etc.) on Aramaic Meaning:
These Rejected (Dalman, etc.):
In 1896, Hans Lietzmann, a young German scholar, startled the learned
World with a speculation on the Son of man. Making the assumption
that Aramaic was the language spoken by Jesus, he contended that Jesus
could not have applied to Himself the Messianic title, because there is
nothing corresponding with it in Aramaic. The only term approximating to
it is barnash, which means something very vague, like anyone or
everyman (in the sense of the old morality play thus entitled). Many
supposed Lietzmann to be arguing that Jesus had called Himself Anyone or
Everyman; but this was not his intention. He tried to prove that the
Messianic title had been applied to Jesus in Asia Minor in the first half of
1091
the 2nd century and that the Gospels had been revised with the effect of
substituting it for the first personal pronoun. But he failed to show how
the manuscripts could have been so universally altered as to leave no traces
of this operation, or how, if the text of the New Testament was then in so
fluid a state as to admit of such a substitution, the phrase should not have
overflowed into other books besides the Gospels. Although the hypothesis
has secured wide attention through being partially adopted by Wellhausen,
whose view is to be found in Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, VI, and at p. 66 of
his Commentary on Mark, it may be reckoned among the ghosts which
appear for an hour on the stage of learning, attracting attention and
admiration, but have no permanent connection with the world of reality.
Dalman, the leading authority on Aramaic, denies the foundation on which
the views of both Lietzmann and Wellhausen rest, and holds that, had the
Messianic title existed, the Aramaic language would have been quite
capable of expressing it. And in 1911 Wellhausen himself explicitly
admitted this (Einleitung in die drei eraten Evangelien(2), 130).
LITERATURE.
See the books on New Testament Theology by Weiss, Beyschlag,
Holtzmann, Feine, Schlatter, Weinel, Stevens, Sheldon; and on the
Teaching of Jesus by Wentit, Bruce, Dalman; Abbott, The Son of Man,
1910; very full bibliography in Stalker, The Teaching of Jesus
concerning Himself.
J ames Stalker
SONG
([r yv i, shir], [h r ;yv i, shirah]): Besides the great collection of sacred songs
contained in the Psalter, as well as the lyric outbursts, marked by strong
religious feeling, on great national occasions, it is natural to believe, and
we have evidence to show, that the Hebrews possessed a large number of
popular songs of a secular kind. Song of Songs (which see) of itself proves
this. Probably the very oldest song or fragment of song in the Old
Testament is that To the well (Nu 21:17).
W. R. Smith (Religions of the Semites, 167) regards this invocation of the
waters to rise as in its origin hardly a mere poetic figure. He compares
what Cazwini 1, 189, records of the well of Ilabistan: When the water
failed, a feast was held at its source with music and dancing, to induce it to
1092
flow again. If, however, the song had its origin in an early form of
religious belief, it must have been secularized later.
But it is in the headings of the Psalms that we find the most numerous
traces of the popular songs of the Hebrews. Here there are a number of
words and phrases which are now believed to be the names or initial words
of such lyrics. In the King James Version they are prefaced with the prep.
on, in the Revised Version (British and American) with set to, i.e. to
the tune of. We give a list:
(1) Aijeleth Shahar the King James Version, the Revised Version
(British and American) Aijeleth hash-shahar, ayyeleth ha-shachar.
The title means (Revised Version, margin) The hind of the morning,
but whether the original song so named was a hunting song or a
morning serenade it is useless to conjecture. See HIND OF THE
MORNING.
(2) Al-taschith (the King James Version), Al-tashheth (Revised
Version), al-tashcheth, i.e. Destroy not, Psalms 57 through 59; 75,
is apparently quoted in Isa 65:8, and in that case must refer to a vintage
song.
(3) Jonah elem rehokim or Yonathelem rechoqim (Ps 56), the Revised
Version margin The silent dove of them that are afar off, or with a
slightly different reading The dove of the distant terebinths.
(4) Machalath (Ps 53) and Machalath le`annoth (Ps 88). Machalath
may mean sickness, and be the first word of a song. It might mean,
on the other hand, a minor mode or rhythm. It has also been held to
designate a musical instrument.
(5) Muthlabben (Ps 9) has given rise to many conjectures. Literally, it
may mean Die for the son, or Death of the son. An ancient
tradition referred the words to Goliath (death at the hand of the son
[?]), and they have been applied to the fate of Absalom. Such guesses
need only be quoted to show their worthlessness.
(6) Lastly, we have Shoshannim = Lilies (Psalms 45; 69), Shushan
`Edhuth = The lily of testimony (Ps 60); and Shoshannim `Edhuth =
Lilies, a testimony (Ps 80), probably to be explained like the others.
1093
The music to which these songs were sung is irretrievably lost, but it was,
no doubt, very similar in character to that of the Arabs at the present day.
While the music of the temple was probably much more elaborate, and of
wider range, both in notes and expression of feeling, the popular song was
almost certainly limited in compass to a very few notes repeated over and
over in long recitations or ballads. This is characteristic of the
performances of Arab minstrels of today. The melodies are plaintive, in
spite of the majority of them being in major keys, owing to the 7th being
flattened, as in genuine Scottish music. Arabic music, further, is marked by
great variety and emphasis of rhythm, the various kinds of which have
special names.
See SPIRITUAL SONGS.
J ames Millar
SONG OF SONGS
([ yr iyV ih r yv i, shir hashirim]; Septuagint [ Aoo, Asma]; Codices
Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi, [ Aoo oootv, Asma asmaton];
Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) Canticum Canticorum):
The full title in Hebrew is The Song of Songs, which is Solomons. The
book is called by some Canticles, and by others Solomons Song. The
Hebrew title implies that it is the choicest of all songs, in keeping with the
dictum of Rabbi `Aqiba (90-135 AD) that the entire world, from the
beginning until now, does not outweigh the day in which Canticles was
given to Israel.
I. CANONICITY.
Early Jewish and Christian writers are silent as to the Song of Songs. No
use is made of it by Philo. There is no quotation from it in the New
Testament, nor is there any clear allusion to it on the part of our Lord or
the apostles. The earliest distinct references to the Song of Songs are
found in Jewish writings of the 1st and 2nd centuries AD (4 Esdras
5:24,26; 7:26; Ta`anith 4:8). The question of the canonicity of the Song
was debated as late as the Synod of Jamnia (circa 90 AD), when it was
decided that Canticles was rightly reckoned to defile the hands, i.e. was
an inspired book. It should be borne in mind that the Song of Songs was
already esteemed by the Jews as a sacred book, though prior to the Synod
1094
of Jamnia there was probably a goodly number of Jewish teachers who did
not accept it as canonical. Selections from Canticles were sung at certain
festivals in the temple at Jerusalem, prior to its destruction by Titus in 70
AD (Ta`anith 4:8). The Mishna pronounces an anathema on all who treat
Canticles as a secular song (Sanhedhrin, 101a). The latest date for the
composition of the Song of Songs, according to critics of the advanced
school, is toward the close of the 3rd century BC. We may be sure that it
was included in the Kethubhim before the ministry of our Lord, and so was
for Him a part of the Scriptures.
II. TEXT.
Most scholars regard the text of Canticles as comparatively free from
corruption. Gratz, Bickell, Budde and Cheyne have suggested a good
many emendations of the traditional text, a few of which commend
themselves as probable corrections of a faulty text, but most of which are
mere guesses without sufficient confirmation from either external or
internal evidence. For details see Buddes able commentary, and articles by
Cheyne in JQR and Expository Times for 1898-99 and in the The
Expositor, February, 1899.
III. AUTHORSHIP AND DATE.
The title in the Hebrew text ascribes the poem to Solomon. That this
superscription was prefixed by an editor of Canticles and not by the
original writer is evident from the fact that the relative pronoun employed
in the title is different from that employed throughout the poem. The
beauty and power of the book seemed to later students and editors to make
the writing worthy of the gifted king, whose fame as a composer of both
proverbs and songs was handed on to later times (1 Ki 4:32). Moreover,
the name of Solomon is prominent in the Song of Songs itself (1:5;
3:7,9,11; 8:11 f). If the traditional view that Solomon wooed and won the
Shulammite be true, the Solomonic authorship may even yet be defended,
though the linguistic argument for a later date is quite strong.
The question in debate among recent critics is whether the Song was
composed in North Israel in preexilic days, or whether it is post-exilic. The
author is at home in Hebrew. His vocabulary is extensive, and the
movement of the poem is graceful. There is no suggestion of the use of
lexicon and grammar by a writer living in the period of the decadence of
1095
the Hebrew language. The author is familiar with cities and mountains all
over Palestine, especially in the northern section. He speaks of the beauty
of Tirzah, the capital of North Israel in the 10th century BC, along with the
glory of Jerusalem, the capital of Judah (Song 6:4). The recollection of
Solomons glory and pomp seems to be fresh in the mind of the writer and
his contemporaries. W.R. Smith regarded Canticles as a protest against the
luxury and the extensive harem of Solomon. True love could not exist in
such an environment. The fidelity of the Shulammite to her shepherd lover,
notwithstanding the blandishments of the wealthy and gifted king, stands as
a rebuke to the notion that every woman has her price. Driver seems
inclined to accept a preexilic date, though the arguments from vocabulary
and philology cause him to waver in his opinion (LOT, 8th edition, 450).
An increasing number of critics place the composition of Canticles in the
post-exilic period, many bringing it down into the Greek period. Among
scholars who date Canticles in the 3rd century BC we may name Gratz,
Kuenen, Cornill, Budde, Kautzsch, Martineau and Cheyne. The chief
argument for bringing the Song into the time of the early Ptolemies is
drawn from the language of the poem. There are many Hebrew words that
are employed elsewhere only in later books of the Old Testament; the word
pardec (Song 4:13) is a Persian loan-word for park; the word for
palanquin may be Indian, or possibly Greek. Moreover, the form of the
relative pronoun is uniformly that which is found in some of the latest
books of the Old Testament. The influence of Aramaic is apparent, both in
the vocabulary and in a few constructions. This may be accounted for on
theory of the northern origin of the Song, or on the hypothesis of a post-
exilic date. The question of date is still open.
IV. HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION.
1. The Allegorical Interpretation:
All interpreters of all ages agree in saying that Canticles is a poem of love;
but who the lovers are is a subject of keen debate, especially in modern
times.
First in point of time and in the number of adherents it has had is theory
that the Song is a pure allegory of the love of Yahweh and His people. The
Jewish rabbis, from the latter part of the 1st century AD down to our own
day, taught that the poem celebrates a spiritual love, Yahweh being the
bridegroom and Israel the bride. Canticles was supposed to be a vivid
1096
record of the loving intercourse between Israel and her Lord from the
exodus on to the glad Messianic time. The Song is read by the Jews at
Passover, which celebrates Yahwehs choice of Israel to be His spouse.
The Targum interprets Canticles as an allegory of the marital love of
Yahweh and Israel. Origen made the allegorical theory popular in the early
church. As a Christian he represented the bride as the church or the soul of
the believer. In more recent centuries the Christian allegorical interpreters
have favored the idea that the soul of the believer was the bride, though the
other type of the allegorical view has all along had its advocates.
Bernard of Clairvaux wrote 86 sermons on the first two chapters of
Canticles; and a host of writers in the Roman church and among
Protestants have composed similar mystical treatises on the Song. Devout
souls have expressed their fervent love to God in the sensuous imagery of
Canticles. The imagery could not become too fervid or ecstatic for some of
these devout men and women in their highest moments of beatific vision.
Whatever may be the final verdict of sane criticism as to the original
purpose of the author of the Song, it is a fact that must not be overlooked
by the student of Canticles that some of the noblest religious souls, both
Hebrew and Christian, have fed the flame of devotion by interpreting the
Song as an allegory.
What justification is there for theory that Canticles is an allegory of the
love between Yahweh and His people, or of the love of Christ and the
church, or of the love of the soul of the believer and Christ? It must be
frankly confessed that there is not a hint in the Song itself that it is an
allegory. If the modern reader of Canticles had never heard of the
allegorical interpretation, nothing in the beginning, middle or end of the
poem would be likely to suggest to his mind such a conception of the
poets meaning. How, then, did the early Jewish interpreters come to
make this the orthodox interpretation of the Song? The question is not
easy to answer. In the forefront of our answer we must recall the fact that
the great prophets frequently represent the mutual love of Yahweh and
Israel under the symbolism of marriage (Hosea 1 through 3; Jeremiah 3;
Ezekiel 16; 23; Isa 50:1; 54:5,6). The Hebrew interpreter might naturally
expect to find some echo of this bold imagery in the poetry of the
Kethubhim. In the Torah the frequent command to love Yahweh might
suggest the marital relation as well as that of the father and son (Dt 6:5;
7:7-9,13; 10:12,15; 30:16,20), though it must be said that the language of
1097
Dt suggests the high ethical and religious teaching of Jesus in the matter of
love to God, in which the sexual does not appear.
Cheyne suggests (EB, I, 683 f) that the Song was too joyous to be used, in
its natural sense, by the Jews after the destruction of Jerusalem, and hence,
they consecrated it by allegorical interpretation. The suggestion may
contain an element of truth.
It is an interesting fact that the Psalter has so few expressions in which love
to Yahweh is expressed (Ps 31:23; 97:10; 145:20; compare 18:1; 42:1;
63:1). In this manual of devotion one would not be suprised to find the
expansion of the image of wedlock as expressive of the souls relation to
God; but we look in vain for such a poem, unless Ps 45 be capable of
allegorical interpretation. Even that beautiful song of love and marriage
contains no such highly sensuous imagery as is found in Canticles.
Christian scholars found it easy to follow the Jewish allegorical
interpreters; for the figure of wedlock is employed in the New Testament
by both Paul and John to represent the intimate and vital union of Christ
and His church (2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:22-33; Rev 19:7-9; 21:2,9 ff).
The entire body of true believers is conceived of as the bride of Christ.
Naturally the purity of the church is sullied through the impure conduct of
the individuals of whom it is composed. Hence, the appeal to individuals
and to local churches to live pure lives (2 Cor 11:1). To the unmarried
believer the Lord Jesus takes the place of the husband or wife as the person
whom one is most eager to please (1 Cor 7:32 f). It is not difficult to
understand how the fervid, sensuous imagery of Canticles would appeal to
the mind of a man like Origen as a proper vehicle for the expression of his
passionate love for Christ.
Sober inquiry discovers no sufficient justification of the allegorical
interpretation of the Song of Songs. The pages of the mystical
commentators are filled with artificial interpretations and conceits. Many of
them practice a familiarity with Christ that is without example in the
Biblical devotional literature.
2. The Typical Interpretation:
The allegorical interpreters, for the most part, saw in the Song of Songs no
historic basis. Solomon and the Shulammite are introduced merely as
figures through whom God and His people, or Christ and the soul, can
1098
express their mutual love. In modern times interpreters have arisen who
regard the Song as primarily the expression of strong and passionate
human love between Solomon and a beautiful maiden, but by virtue of the
typical relation of the old dispensation, secondarily, the fitting expression
of the love of Christ and the church.
The way for this modern typical interpretation was prepared by Lowth
(Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews, Lectionaries XXX, XXXI) in his modified
allegorical view, which is thus described by Canon Driver: Bishop Lowth,
though not abandoning the allegorical view, sought to free it from its
extravagances; and while refusing to press details, held that the poem,
while describing the actual nuptials of Solomon with the daughter of
Pharaoh, contained also an allegoric reference to Christ espousing a church
chosen from among the Gentiles (LOT, 451). Few interpreters have been
found to follow Theodore of Mopsuestia and Lowth in their view that the
Song celebrates the marriage of Solomon and an Egyptian princess; and
Lowths notion of a reference to the espousal of a church chosen from
among the Gentiles is one of the curiosities of criticism. Of the typical
interpreters Delitzsch is perhaps the ablest (Commentary on Ecclesiastes
and the Song of Songs).
The typical commentators are superior to the allegorical in their
recognition of Canticles as the expression of the mutual love of two human
beings. The further application of the language to Yahweh and His people
(Keil), or to Christ and the church (Delitzsch), or to God and the soul (M.
Stuart) becomes largely a matter of individual taste, interpreters differing
widely in details.
3. The Literal Interpretation:
Jewish interpreters were deterred from the literal interpretation of Canticles
by the anathema in the Mishna upon all who should treat the poem as a
secular song (Sanhedhrin, 101a). Cheyne says of Ibn Ezra, a great medieval
Jewish scholar, he is so thorough in his literal exegesis that it is doubtful
whether he is serious when he proceeds to allegorize. Among Christian
scholars Theodore of Mopsuestia interpreted Canticles as a song in
celebration of the marriage of Solomon and Pharaohs daughter. This
strictly literal interpretation of the Song was condemned at the second
council of Constantinople (553 AD). For the next thousand years the
allegorical theory reigned supreme among Christian interpreters. In 1544
1099
Sebastian Castellio revived the literal theory of the Song, though the
allegorical view remained dominant until the 19th century.
Herder in 1778 published a remarkable little treatise entitled Lieder der
Liebe, die altesten und schonsten aus dem Morgenlande, in which he
advanced theory that Canticles is a collection of independent erotic songs,
about 21 in number, which have been so arranged by a collector as to trace
the gradual growth of true love in its various nuances and stages, till it
finds its consummation in wedlock (Cheyne). But the greatest and most
influential advocate of the literal interpretation of Canticles was Heinrich
Ewald, who published the 1st edition of his commentary in 1826. It was
Ewald who first developed and made popular theory that two suitors
compete for the hand of the Shulammite, the one a shepherd and poor, the
other a wise and wealthy king. In the Song he ascribes to Solomon 1:9-
11,15; 2:2; 4:1-7; 6:4-13 (quoting the dialogue between the Shulammite
and the ladies of the court in 6:10-13); 7:1-9. To the shepherd lover he
assigns few verses, and these are repeated by the Shulammite in her
accounts of imaginary or real interviews with her lover. In the following
passages the lover described is supposed to be the shepherd to whom the
Shulammite had plighted her troth: 1:2-7,9-14; 1:16 through 2:1; 2:3-7,8-
17; 3:1-5; 4:8 through 5:1; 5:2-8; 5:10-16; 6:2 f; 7:10 through 8:4; 8:5-14.
The shepherd lover is thus supposed to be present in the Shulammites
dreams, and in her waking moments she is ever thinking of him and
describing to herself and others his many charms. Not until the closing
scene (Song 8:5-14) does Ewald introduce the shepherd as an actor in the
drama. Ewald had an imperial imagination and a certain strength of mind
and innate dignity of character which prevented him from dragging into the
mud any section of the Biblical literature. While rejecting entirely the
allegorical theory of Canticles, he yet attributed to it an ethical quality
which made the Song worthy of a place in the Old Testament. A drama in
praise of fidelity between human lovers may well hold a place beside
Ecclesiastes and Proverbs in the Canon. Many of the ablest Old Testament
critics have followed Ewald in his general theory that Canticles is a drama
celebrating the loyalty of a lowly maiden to her shepherd lover. Not even
Solomon in all his glory could persuade her to become his queen.
Within the past quarter of a century the unity of Canticles has been again
sharply challenged. An account of the customs of the Syrian peasants in
connection with weddings was given by the Prussian consul at Damascus,
J. G. Wetzstein, in 1873, in an article in Bastians Zeitschrift fur
1100
Ethnologie, 270 ff, on Die syrische Dreschtafel, in which he illustrated
the Old Testament from modern Syrian customs. Driver thus describes the
customs that are supposed to throw light upon Canticles: In modern
Syria, the first seven days after a wedding are called the `kings week; the
young pair play during this time king and queen; the `threshing-board is
turned into a mock-throne, on which they are seated, while songs are sung
before them by the villagers and others, celebrating them on their
happiness, among which the watsf, or poetical `description of the physical
beauty of the bride and bridegroom, holds a prominent place. The first of
these watsfs is sung on the evening of the wedding-day itself: brandishing a
naked sword in her right hand, and with a handkerchief in her left, the bride
dances in her wedding array, lighted by fires, and surrounded by a circle of
guests, half men and half women, accompanying her dance with a watsf in
praise of her charms (LOT, 452). Wetzstein suggested the view that
Canticles was composed of the wedding-songs sung during the kings
week. This theory has been most fully elaborated by Budde in an article
in the New World, March, 1894, and in his commentary (1898).
According to Budde, the bridegroom is called King Solomon, and the bride
Shulammith. The companions of the bridegroom are the 60 valiant men
who form his escort (Song 3:7). As a bride, the maiden is called the most
beautiful of women (Song 1:8; 5:9; 6:1). The pictures of wedded bliss are
sung by the men and women present, the words being attributed to the
bride and the bridegroom. Thus the festivities continue throughout the
week. Buddes theory has some decided advantages over Ewalds view
that the poem is a drama; but the loss in moral quality is considerable; the
book becomes a collection of wedding-songs in praise of the joys of
wedlock.
V. CLOSING HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS.
Having given a good deal of attention to Canticles during the past 15
years, the author of this article wishes to record a few of his views and
impressions.
(1) Canticles is lyric poetry touched with the dramatic spirit. It is not
properly classed as drama, for the Hebrews had no stage, though much of
the Old Testament is dramatic in spirit. The descriptions of the charms of
the lovers were to be sung or chanted.
1101
(2) The amount that has to be read between the lines by the advocates of
the various dramatic theories is so great that, in the absence of any hints in
the body of the book itself, reasonable certitude can never be attained.
(3) The correct translation of the refrain in Song 2:7 and 3:5 (compare 8:4)
is important for an understanding of the purpose of Canticles. It should be
rendered as follows:
`I adjure you, O daughters of J erusalem,
By the gazelles, or by the hinds of the field,
That ye stir not up, nor awaken love,
Until it please.
Love between man and woman should not be excited by unnatural
stimulants, but should be free and spontaneous. In Song 8:4 it seems to be
implied that the women of the capital are guilty of employing artifices to
awaken love:
`I adjure you, O daughters of J erusalem,
Why do ye stir up, or awaken love,
Until it please?
That this refrain is in keeping with the purpose of the writer is clear from
the striking words toward the close of the book:
Set me as a seal upon thy heart,
As a seal upon thine arm:
For love is strong as death;
Jealousy is cruel as Sheol;
The flashes thereof are flashes of fire,
A very flame of Yahweh.
Many waters cannot quench love,
Neither can floods drown it:
If a man would give all the substance of his house for love,
He would utterly be contemned (Song 8:6 f).
(4) Canticles discloses all the secret intimacies of wedded life without
becoming obscene. The imagery is too sensuous for our taste in western
lands, so that words of caution are often timely, lest the sensuous
degenerate into the sensual; but I have been told by several Syrian and
Palestinian students whom I have had the privilege of teaching, that
Canticles is considered quite chaste among their people, the wedding-songs
1102
now in use among them being more minute in their description of the
physical charms of the lovers.
(5) Canticles is by no means excluded from the Canon by the acceptance of
the literal interpretation. Ewalds theory makes it an ethical treatise of
great and permanent value. Even if Canticles is merely a collection of songs
describing the bliss of true lovers in wedlock, it is not thereby rendered
unworthy of a place in the Bible, unless marriage is to be regarded as a fall
from a state of innocency. If Canticles should be rejected because of its
sensuous imagery in describing the joys of passionate lovers, portions of
Proverbs would also have to be excised (Prov 5:15-20). Perhaps most
persons need to enlarge their conception of the Bible as a repository for all
things that minister to the welfare of men. The entire range of mans
legitimate joys finds sympathetic and appreciative description in the Bible.
Two young lovers in Paradise need not fear to rise and meet their Creator,
should He visit them in the cool of the day.
LITERATURE.
C. D. Ginsburg, The Song of Songs, with a Commentary, Historical and
Critical, 1857; H. Ewald, Dichter des Alten Bundes, III, 333-426, 1867; F.
C. Cook, in Biblical Commentary, 1874; Franz Delitzsch, Hoheslied u.
Koheleth, 1875 (also translation); O. Zockler, in Langes Comm., 1875; S.
Oettli, Kurzgefasster Kommentar, 1889; W. E. Griffis, The Lily among
Thorns, 1890; J. W. Rothstein, Das Hohe Lied, 1893; K. Budde, article in
New World, March, 1894. and Kommentar, 1898; C. Siegfried, Prediger u.
Hoheslied, 1898; A. Harper, in Cambridge Bible, 1902; G. C. Martin, in
Century Bible, 1908; article on Canticles by Cheyne in EB, 1899.
J ohn Richard Sampey
SONG OF THE THREE CHILDREN
For general remarks concerning the Additions to Daniel see BEL AND
THE DRAGON.
1. NAME:
This Addition has no separate title in any manuscript or version because in
the Septuagint, Theod, Syriac and Latin (Old Latin and Vulgate) it follows
Dan 3:23 immediately, forming an integral portion of that chapter, namely,
The Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:24-90 in the Septuagint and
1103
Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) It is the only one of the
three Additions which has an organic connection with Daniel; as regards
the others see preliminary remarks to BEL AND THE DRAGON. The
title in English Versions of the Bible is The Song of the Three Holy
Children, a title describing its matter as formerly understood, though a
more rigid analysis shows that in the 68 verses so designated, we have
really two separate sections. See 3, below.
2. CANONICITY:
See introductory remarks to BEL AND THE DRAGON. The order in
which the three Additions to Daniel are found in the (Separate
Protestant) Apocrypha is decided by their sequence in the Vulgate, the
Song of the Three Children forming part of chapter 3, Susanna of
chapter 13, and Bel and the Dragon of chapter 14 of Daniel.
3. CONTENTS:
Though the English and other Protestant versions treat the 68 verses as
one piece under the name given above, there are really two quite distinct
compositions. These appear separately in the collection of Odes appended
to the Psalter in Cod. A under the headings, The Prayer of Azarias
([Hpooruq Aopou, Proseuche Azariou], Azariah, Dan 1:6 f) and
The Hymn of Our Fathers ([ Yvo tv otrpv qv, Humnos ton
pateron hemon]); see Swete, The Old Testament in Greek, 3804 ff, and
Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 253 f. Luther with his usual
independence makes each of these into a separate book under the titles,
The Prayer of Azaria (Das Gebet Asarjas) and The Song of the Three
Men in the Fire (Der Gesang der drei Manner im Feuerofen).
(1) The Prayer of Azarias (The Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:1-
22) (
<270324>
Daniel 3:24-48).
Azariah is the Hebrew name of Abed-nego (= Abednebo, servant of
Nebo), the latter being the Babylonian name (see Dan 1:7; 2:49, etc.).
This prayer joins on to Dan 3:23, where it is said that Shadrach, Meshach
and Abed-nego (Azariah) fell down bound into the midst of the burning
fiery furnace. [?] (the version of Theodotion; see Text and Versions
below) adds, And they walked (Syr adds in their chains) in the midst of
the fire, praising God, and blessing the Lord. This addition forms a
suitable connecting link, and it has been adopted by the Vulgate (Jeromes
1104
Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) and in modern versions which are made from
[?] and not from the Septuagint, which last was lost for many centuries
(see BEL AND THE DRAGON, III). In the Septuagint the words with
which the Prayer was introduced are these: Thus therefore prayed
Hananias, and Azarias and Misael and sang praises (hymns) to the Lord
when the king commanded that they should be cast into the furnace. The
prayer (offered by Azarias) opens with words of adoration followed by an
acknowledgment that the sufferings of the nation in Babylon were wholly
deserved, and an earnest entreaty that God would intervene on behalf of
His exiled and afflicted people. That this prayer was not composed for the
occasion with which it is connected goes without saying. No one in a
burning furnace could pray as Azarias does. There are no groans or sighs,
nor prayer for help or deliverance of a personal nature. The deliverance
sought is national.
(2) The Song of the Three Holy Children (The Song of the Three Children
(Azariah) 1:28-68) (Dan 3:51-90).
This is introduced by a brief connecting narrative (The Song of the Three
Children (Azariah) 1:23-27). The kings servants continued to heat the
furnace, but an angel came down and isolated an inner zone of the furnace
within which no flames could enter; in this the three found safety.
Rothstein (Kautzsch, Die Apok., 175) is inclined to think that this narrative
section (The Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:23-27) stood between
Dan 3:23 and 3:24 in the original Hebrew text. The Song is really a
psalm, probably a translation of a Hebrew original. It has nothing to do
with the incident the three young men in the furnace except in The
Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:66 (EV) where the three martyrs
call upon themselves by name to praise and bless the Lord for delivering
them from the midst of the furnace. This verse is an interpolation, for the
rest of the Song is a long litany recalling Ps 103 and especially Psalms 136;
148, and Sirach 43. The Song, in fact, has nothing to do with the
sufferings of the three young men, but is an ordinary hymn of praise. It is
well known from the fact that it forms a part of the Anglican Prayer-book,
as it had formed part of many early Christian liturgies.
1105
4. AUTHOR AND DATE:
(1) Author.
We know nothing whatever of the author besides what may be gathered
from this Addition. It is quite evident that none of the three Additions
belong to the original text of Daniel, and that they were added because
they contained legends in keeping with the spirit of that book, and a song
in a slight degree (The Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:66 English
Version of the Bible) adapted to the situation of the three Hebrew youths
in the furnace, though itself of an independent liturgical origin.
For a long time the three Additions must have circulated independently.
Polychronius says that The Song of the Three Holy Children was, even
in the 5th century AD, absent from the text of Daniel, both in the Peshitta
and in the Septuagint proper. Rothstein (Kautzsch, Die Apok., 176)
contends that the Additions formed a part of the Septuagint from the
beginning, from which he infers that they were all composed before the
Septuagint was made. What was the date of this version of Daniel? Since
its use seems implied in 1 Macc 1:54 (compare Dan 11:31; 12:11), it would
be safe to conclude that it existed about 100 BC.
(2) Date of the Prayer of Azarias.
In The Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:15 (English Versions of the
Bible) it is said that at the time the prayer was offered, there was no prince,
prophet or leader, nor sacrifice of any kind. This may point to the time
between 168 and 165 BC, when Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) profaned the
temple. If written in that interval, it must have been added to Dan at a
much later time. But on more occasions than one, in later times, the
temple-services were suspended, as e.g. during the invasion of Jerusalem
by the Egyptian king, Ptolemy IV (Philopater).
(3) Date of the Song.
We find references in the Song (The Song of the Three Children (Azariah)
1:62 f English Versions of the Bible) to priests and temple-servants, and in
The Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:31 to the temple itself,
suggesting that when the Song was written the temple-services were
carried on. This, in itself, would suit a time soon after the purification of
the temple, about 164 BC. But the terms of the Song are, except in verse
66 (English Versions of the Bible), so general that it is impossible to fix the
1106
date definitely. On the date of the historical connecting narrative (The
Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:23-27) see 3, (2), above.
5. ORIGINAL LANGUAGE:
(1) Romanist scholars in general and several Protestants (Eichhorn,
Einleit., in das Altes Testament, IV, 24 f; Einleit. in die apok. Schriften,
419; Vatke; Delitzsch, De Habacuci, 50; Zockler, Bissell, Ball, Rothstein,
etc.) hold that the original language was Hebrew. The evidence, which is
weak, is as follows:
(a) The style is Hebraistic throughout (not more so than in writings
known to have been composed in Alexandrian Gr; the idiom
[xotoouvro0o + oo, kataischunesthai apo] = [mi v wOB , bosh
min] (The Song of the Three Children (Azariah) 1:44 English Versions
of the Bible; the Septuagint 1:44), to be ashamed of, occurs in parts
of the Septuagint which are certainly not translations).
(b) The three Hebrew martyrs bear Hebrew names (The Song of the
Three Children (Azariah) 1:66 English Versions). This only shows that
the tale is of Hebrew origin.
(2) Most modern non-Romanist scholars hold that the original language of
the Song (and Prayer) was Greek. So Keil, Fritzsche, De Wette, Schurer,
Konig, Cornill, Strack, etc.
Some grounds:
(1) The Hebraisms are comparatively few, and those which do exist can
be paralleled in other writings composed in Hellenistic Greek
(2) It can be proved that in Daniel and also in Bel and the Dragon (see
Introduction to Bel in the Oxford Apocrypha, edition R.H. Charles),
Theodotion corrects the Septuagint from the Hebrew (lost in the case
of Bel); but in Three, Theodotion corrects according to Greek idiom or
grammar. It must be admitted, however, that the evidence is not very
decisive either way.
6. TEXT AND VERSIONS:
As to the text and the various versions of the Song, see what is said in the
article BEL AND THE DRAGON. It is important to note that the
1107
translations in English Versions of the Bible are made from Theodotions
Greek version, which occurs in ancient versions of the Septuagint (A B V
Q dc) instead of the true Septuagint (Cod. 87).
LITERATURE.
See the article BEL AND THE DRAGON; Marshall (Hastings
Dictionary of the Bible, IV, 754); W. H. Bennett (Oxford Apocrypha,
edition R.H. Charles, 625 ff).
T. Witton Davies
SONGS OF DEGREES
See DEGREES, SONGS OF; DIAL OF AHAZ, 7.
SONS OF
See SON, SONS.
SONS OF GOD
(Old Testament) ([ yh il oa ,]h ; ynEB ], bene ha-elohim], sons of God (Gen
6:2,4;
<180106>
Job 1:6; 2:1); [ yh il oa ,]yneB ], bene elohim], sons of God
(
<183807>
Job 38:7); [ yl ia eyneB ], bene elim], ye mighty, the King James
Version; ye sons of the mighty, King James Version margin, the Revised
Version (British and American); sons of God or sons of the gods, the
Revised Version margin (Ps 29:1); sons of the mighty, the King James
Version and the Revised Version (British and American); sons of God or
sons of the gods, the Revised Version margin (Ps 89:6 (Hebrew 7));
Septuagint [uo tou 0rou, huioi tou theou], [o oyyro tou 0rou, hoi
aggeloi tou theou] (Gen 6:2); [uo tou 0rou, huioi tou theou] (Gen 6:4);
[o oyyro tou 0rou, hoi aggeloi tou theou] (
<180106>
Job 1:6; 2:1);
[oyyro ou, aggeloi mou] (
<183807>
Job 38:7); [uo 0rou, huioi theou] (Ps
29:1; 89:6; compare Dan 3:25)):
1. JOB AND PSALMS:
This article will deal with this phrase as it is used in the above passages. In
the passages from Job and Psalms it is applied to supernatural beings or
angels. In Job the sons of God are represented as appearing before the
throne of Yahweh in heaven, ready to do Him service, and as shouting for
1108
joy at the creation of the earth, In the Psalms they are summoned to
celebrate the glory of Yahweh, for there is none among them to be
compared to Him. The phrase in these passages has no physical or moral
reference. These heavenly beings are called sons of God or sons of the
elohim simply as belonging to the same class or guild as the elohim, just
as sons of the prophets denotes those who belong to the prophetic order
(see A.B. Davidson, Commentary on
<180106>
Job 1:6).
2.
<010602>
GENESIS 6:2,4:
Different views, however, are taken of the passage in Gen 6:2,4: The sons
of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them
wives of all that they chose ..... The Nephilim were in the earth in those
days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters
of men.
See GIANTS; NEPHILIM.
(1) Sons of God is interpreted as referring to men,
(a) to sons of the nobles, who married daughters of the common
people. This is the view of many Jewish authorities, who hold that it is
justified by the use of elohim in the sense of judges (Ex 21:6; 22:8 f,
etc.). But this cannot be the meaning of elohim here, for when
adham, men, is used to denote the lower classes, it is contrasted
with ish, as in Ps 49:2 (Hebrew 3), not with elohim. When
contrasted with elohim it signifies the human race.
(b) Some commentators hold that by sons of God is to be
understood the pious race descended from Seth, and by daughters of
men the daughters of worldly men. These commentators connect the
passage with Gen 4:25 f, where the race of Seth is characterized as the
worshippers of Yahweh and is designated as a whole, a seed (compare
Dt 14:1; 32:5; Hos 1:10 (Hebrew 2:1)). They consider the restricted
meaning they put upon men as warranted by the contrast (compare
Jer 32:20; Isa 43:4), and that as the term daughters expresses actual
descent, it is natural to understand sons in a similar sense. The
phrase took wives, they contend also, supports the ethical view,
being always used to signify real and lasting marriages, and cannot,
therefore, be applied to the higher spirits in their unholy desire after
flesh. On this view Gen 6:1-4 are an introduction to the reason for the
1109
Flood, the great wickedness of man upon the earth (6:5). It is held that
nothing is said in 6:4 of a race of giants springing from the union of
angels with human wives (see paragraph 2, below), and that the
violence which is mentioned along with the corruption of the world
(6:11) refers to the sin of the giants.
(2) Most scholars now reject this view and interpret sons of God as
referring to supernatural beings in accordance with the meaning of the
expression in the other passages. They hold that Dt 14:1, etc., cannot be
regarded as supporting the ethical interpretation of the phrase in a
historical narrative. The reference to Jer 32:20, etc., too, is considered
irrelevant, the contrast in these passages being between Israel and other
nations, not, as here, between men and God. Nor can a narrower
signification (daughters of worldly men) be attached to men in Gen 6:2
than to men in 6:1, where the reference is to the human race in general.
This passage (Gen 6:1-4), therefore, which is the only one of its kind, is
considered to be out of its place and to have been inserted here by the
compiler as an introduction to the story of the Flood (6:5-8). The intention
of the original writer, however, was to account for the rise of the giant race
of antiquity by the union of demigods with human wives. This
interpretation accords with Enoch chapters 6 through 7, etc., and with
<650106>
Jude 1:6 f, where the unnatural sin of the men of Sodom who went after
strange flesh is compared with that of the angels (compare 2 Pet 2:4 ff).
(See Havernick, Introduction to the Pentateuch; Hengstenberg on the
Pentateuch, I, 325; Oehler, Old Testament Theology, I, 196 f; Schultz, Old
Testament Theology, I, 114 ff; Commentary on Genesis by Delitzsch,
Dillmann, and Driver.)
See ANTEDILUVIANS, 3; CHILDREN OF GOD; GIANTS;
NEPHILIM; REPHAIM.
J ames Crichton
SONS OF GOD (NEW TESTAMENT)
1. NEW TESTAMENT TERMS:
Two Greek words are translated son, [trxvov, teknon], [uo, huios],
both words indicating sonship by parentage, the former indicating that the
sonship has taken place by physical descent, while the latter presents
sonship more from the legal side than from the standpoint of relationship.
1110
John, who lays special emphasis on sonship by birth, uses teknon, while
Paul, in emphasizing sonship from the legal side, as referring to adoption,
which was current among the Romans but scarcely if at all known to, or if
known, practiced by, the Jews, uses the word huios (Jn 1:12; Rom
8:14,16,19; Gal 4:6,7; 1 Jn 3:1,2).
2. NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE:
Men are not by nature the sons of God, at least not in the sense in which
believers in Christ are so called. By nature those outside of Jesus Christ are
children of wrath (Eph 2:3), of disobedience (Eph 2:2), controlled not
by the Spirit of God (Rom 8:14), but by the spirit of disobedience (Eph
2:2-4). Men become sons of God in the regenerative and adoptive sense by
the acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour (Jn 1:12 f; Gal 3:26).
The universal brotherhood which the New Testament teaches is that
brotherhood which is based on faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as the divine
and only Saviour of the world. And the same is true of the universal
Fatherhood of God. It is true that all men are his offspring (
<441728>
Acts
17:28 f) in the sense that they are Gods created children; but that the New
Testament makes a very clear and striking distinction between sonship by
virtue of creation and sonship by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, there can
be no reasonable doubt.
Sonship is the present possession of the believer in Christ (1 Jn 3:2). It will
be completed at the second coming of our Lord (Rom 8:23), at which time
the believer will throw off his incognito, by reason of which the world may
not have recognized his sonship (1 Jn 3:1,2), and be fully and gloriously
revealed as the son of God (2 Cor 5:10). It doth not yet appear, it hath not
yet appeared, what we shall be; the revelation of the sons of God is
reserved for a coming day of manifestation.
The blessings of sonship are too numerous to mention, save in the briefest
way. His sons are objects of Gods peculiar love (Jn 17:23), and His
Fatherly care (Lk 12:27-33). They have the family name (Eph 3:14 f; 1 Jn
3:1); the family likeness (Rom 8:29); family love (Jn 13:35; 1 Jn 3:14); a
filial spirit (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6); a family service (Jn 14:23 f; 15:8). They
receive fatherly chastisement (Heb 12:5-11); fatherly comfort (2 Cor 1:4),
and an inheritance (Rom 8:17; 1 Pet 1:3-5).
Among the evidences of sonship are: being led by the Spirit (Rom 8:14;
Gal 5:18); having a childlike confidence in God (Gal 4:5); having liberty of
1111
access (Eph 3:12); having love for the brethren (1 Jn 2:9-11; 5:1), and
obedience (1 Jn 5:1-3).
William Evans
SOOTHSAYERS
<sooth-sa-erz>.
See ASTROLOGY, 1; DIVINATION.
SOP
<sop> ([gov, psomion]): A thin, wafer-like piece of bread dipped into
the common dish as a sort of improvised spoon, is thus designated in Jn
13:26 ff.
See MORSEL.
SOPATER
<so-pa-ter>, <sop-a-ter> ([2otpo, Sopatros]): the Revised Version
(British and American) the son of Pyrrhus; the King James Version omits.
A man of Berea who is mentioned with some Thessalonians and others as
accompanying Paul as far as Asia on his return to Jerusalem after his 3rd
missionary journey (
<442004>
Acts 20:4). He is probably the same as the
Sosipater of Rom 16:21.
SOPE
<sop>.
See SOAP.
SOPHERETH
<so-fe-reth>, <sof-e-reth>, <so-fe-reth> ([t r ,p ,s o , cophereth]): One of the
remnant returning from captivity (Ezr 2:55 the King James Version; Neh
7:57). In the Revised Version (British and American) of Ezr 2:55 it is
Hassophereth, the definite article being transliterated.
1112
SOPHONIAS
<sof-o-ni-as> Septuagint [2oovo, Sophonias]): The form in the King
James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) of 2 Esdras
1:40 for Zephaniah the prophet.
SORCERER; SORCERY
<sor-ser-er>, <sor-ser-i>.
See ASTROLOGY, 1; DIVINATION; MAGIC; WITCHCRAFT.
SORE
<sor> (substantive) ([[ g n,, negha`]; [rxo, helkos], verb [rxooo,
helkoomai]): In the account of the appearance of leprosy (Lev 13:42 f) the
spot on the skin is called by this name, which in the King James Version is
translated sore, but in the Revised Version (British and American)
plague; similarly in the Dedication Prayer (2 Ch 6:28 f) the Revised
Version (British and American) has altered the rendering of negha` for
sore to plague as it has done also in Ps 38:11. The word literally
means a stroke or blow, and so is applied to a disease or infliction
from God. [h Y; r i f ]h K ; m ,makkah Teriyah], in the King James Version is
rendered putrifying sores, the English Revised Version festering sores,
the American Standard Revised Version and the English Revised Version
margin fresh stripes. See STRIPES. In the only other text in the Old
Testament in which sore is used as a substantive in the King James
Version (Ps 77:2), the word used is yadh, which literally means the
outstretched hand, hence, the Revised Version (British and American)
renders the text: My hand was stretched out in the night and slacked not.
In the New Testament the ulcers on the limbs of Lazarus which were the
result of poverty and hardship (Lk 16:20), and were licked by the pariah
dogs (Lk 16:21), are called sores. Sores also which are called noisome
and grievous, were the result of the outpouring of the first of the seven
bowls of the wrath of God (Rev 16:2-11).
Alex. Macalister
1113
SOREK, VALLEY OF
<so-rek> ([q r e wO c l j n ,nachal soreq], the valley of the choice
(soreq) vine (see VINE); [opq, sorech]): (Samson) loved a woman in
the valley of Sorek, whose name was Delilah (Jdg 16:4). Jerome (OS, 153
f, 6) mentions a Capharsorec which was near Saraa (ancient ZORAH
(which see)); this latter is undoubtedly the village of Sura`h, high up upon
the northern slopes of the great Wady es Surar. About 3/4 of a mile West
of this is Khurbet Surik, which is certainly the site referred to by Jerome,
and possibly marks that of a more ancient town which gave its name to the
whole valley. This valley is of importance in the historical geography of
Palestine out of all proportion to its scanty mention in the Old Testament
(HGHL, 218 ff). The Wady es Surar is an expansion of the ravine Wady
Isma`in (which itself is formed by the junction of the great Wady Beit
Chanineh, which rises near Bereh, and the Wady es Sikkeh, which drains
the Plain of Rephaim near Jerusalem). The Jerus-Jaffa Railway traverses
successively the Wady es Surar, the Wady Ismai`n and the Wady es Sikkeh
to reach the Jerusalem plateau. The Valley of Sorek is a name which
probably belonged only to the open, fertile valley, well suited for vineyards,
which traverses the Shephelah. It is now given over almost entirely to the
cultivation of wheat, barley and maize (durra). The valley passes between
the lofty hill of Sara`h (Zorah) to the North and `Ain Shems (Beth-
shemesh) and Tibneh (Timnah) on the South. Standing on the ruins of
Beth-shemesh, one can watch the modern railway train winding for miles
up the valley along almost the very road from Ekron (now `Akiv), upon
which came the strange sight of the milch kine dragging the ark (1 Sam
6:12). Very probably it was in this valley that the Philistines were defeated
(1 Sam 7:5-14) (PEF, III, 53, Sh XVII).
E. W. G. Masterman
SORREL
<sor-el>: the Revised Version (British and American) in Zec 1:8 for
speckled.
See COLORS.
1114
SORROW
<sor-o> ([l b ,j e, chebhel], [wOgy;, yaghon], [b wO a k ] m ,makhobh], etc.;
[uq, lupe]): The Old Testament has very many words translated
sorrow, those named being the most frequent; in the New Testament
sorrow is usually the translation of lupe (Lk 22:45; Jn 16:6; 2 Cor 2:3,7,
etc.). Penthos, translated sorrow in Rev 18:7; 21:4, is in the Revised
Version (British and American) mourning. Odune, of pain-and distress, is
thus rendered in Rom 9:2; 1 Tim 6:10 (compare the verb in Lk 2:48;
<442038>
Acts 20:38). the Revised Version (British and American) frequently
gives a more literal rendering of the words used, as toil (Gen 3:17),
pangs (Ex 15:14), pining (Dt 28:65), distress (Isa 5:30),
lamentation (Isa 29:2), etc.; sometimes also it uses sorrow for other
words, as for grief (2 Ch 6:29; Ps 31:10; 69:26; etc.; 2 Cor 2:5),
heaviness (Rom 9:2; 2 Cor 2:1).Sorrow or grief is necessary for
discipline, for the development of the finer feelings and higher nature of the
soul and spirit (Eccl 7:3, Sorrow is better than laughter; for by the sadness
of the countenance the heart is made glad, margin better). Sorrow
inevitably follows sin, and is its punishment, yet the righteous are not
exempt from it. The Servant of Yahweh was a man of sorrows (Isa
53:3). Christians learn how to be sorrowful, yet always rejoicing (2 Cor
6:10; 7:4; Col 1:24; 1 Thess 1:6; etc.). In the New Jerusalem it is predicted
that there shall be no sorrow, for sorrow shall have done its work, and the
first things have passed away (Rev 21:4).
W. L. Walker
SOSIPATER
<so-sip-a-ter> ([2ootpo, Sosipatros]): Sosipater unites with Lucius
and Jason in sending greetings to the Roman Christians (Rom 16:21). He is
a kinsman of Paul, by which Paul means a Jew (Rom 9:3; 16:11,21). It is
the same name as SOPATER (which see). Sopater of Berea was one of
the companions of Paul on his journey from Philippi after his 3rd
missionary journey (
<442004>
Acts 20:4). These two are probably the same
person, Paul having with him in Corinth, at the time of writing to the
Roman Christians, the two Macedonians, Sopater of Berea and Jason of
Thessalonica. The name Sosipater is found on a list of politarchs of
Thessalonica.^S. F. Hunter
1115
SOSTHENES
<sos-the-nez> ([2o0rvq, Sosthenes]): Chief of the synagogue at
Corinth (
<441817>
Acts 18:17). Possibly identical with the co-worker (afterward)
of Paul mentioned in 1 Cor 1:1.
SOSTRATUS
<sos-tra-tus> ([2otpoto, Sostratos], in Codex Venetus [2oo-, Sos-]):
The governor of the citadel of Jerusalem under Antiochus IV
(Epiphanes). His duty was to gather the revenues of the city and province
for the imperial treasury. He made a new departure in demanding from
Menelaus direct the sum promised to the king in 2 Macc 4:27 ff (for Jason
had the privilege of sending the money by his own messenger to the king (2
Macc 4:23)). This claim the usurper Menelaus disputed; consequently he
and the governor were both summoned to appear before the king. No more
is told, and Sostratus is otherwise unknown.
S. Angus
SOTAI
<so-ti>, <so-ta-i>, <so-ta-i> ([yf s o , coTay]): One of those who
returned from captivity, being descendants of Solomons servants (Ezr
2:55; Neh 7:57).
SOTTISH
<sot-ish> ([l k ;s ;, cakhal] thick-headed): They are sottish (stupid, very
foolish) children (Jer 4:22).
SOUL
<sol> ([v p ,n,, nephesh]; [guq, psuche]; Latin anima):
1. SHADES OF MEANING IN THE OLD TESTAMENT:
(1) Soul, like spirit, has various shades of meaning in the Old Testament,
which may be summarized as follows: Soul, living being, life, self,
person, desire, appetite, emotion and passion (BDB under the
word). In the first instance it meant that which breathes, and as such is
distinguished from basar, flesh (Isa 10:18; Dt 12:23); from sheer, the
1116
inner flesh, next the bones (Prov 11:17, his own flesh); from beTen,
belly (Ps 31:10, My soul and my belly are consumed with grief), etc.
(2) As the life-breath, it departs at death (Gen 35:18; Jer 15:2). Hence, the
desire among Old Testament saints to be delivered from Sheol (Ps 16:10,
Thou wilt not leave my soul to Sheol) and from shachath, the pit
(
<183318>
Job 33:18, He keepeth back his soul from the pit; Isa 38:17, Thou
hast .... delivered it (my soul) from the pit of corruption).
(3) By an easy transition the word comes to stand for the individual,
personal life, the person, with two distinct shades of meaning which might
best be indicated by the Latin anima and animus. As anima, soul, the life
inherent in the body, the animating principle in the blood is denoted
(compare Dt 12:23,24, `Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the
blood is the soul; and thou shalt not eat the soul with the flesh). As
animus, mind, the center of our mental activities and passivities is
indicated. Thus we read of `a hungry soul (Ps 107:9), `a weary soul (Jer
31:25), `a loathing soul (Lev 26:11), `a thirsty soul (Ps 42:2), `a grieved
soul (
<183025>
Job 30:25), `a loving soul (Song 1:7), and many kindred
expressions. Cremer has characterized this use of the word in a sentence:
Nephesh (soul) in man is the subject of personal life, whereof pneuma or
ruach (spirit) is the principle (Lexicon, under the word, 795).
(4) This individuality of man, however, may be denoted by pneuma as well,
but with a distinction. Nephesh or soul can only denote the individual life
with a material organization or body. Pneuma or spirit is not so
restricted. Scripture speaks of spirits of just men made perfect (Heb
12:23), where there can be no thought of a material or physical or
corporeal organization. They are spiritual beings freed from the assaults
and defilements of the flesh (Delitzsch, in the place cited.). For an
exceptional use of psuche in the same sense see Rev 6:9; 20:4, and
(irrespective of the meaning of Ps 16:10)
<440227>
Acts 2:27.
2. NEW TESTAMENT DISTINCTIONS:
(1) In the New Testament psuche appears under more or less similar
conditions as in the Old Testament. The contrast here is as carefully
maintained as there. It is used where pneuma would be out of place; and
yet it seems at times to be employed where pneuma might have been
substituted. Thus in Jn 19:30 we read: Jesus gave up his pneuma to the
Father, and, in the same Gospel (Jn 10:15), Jesus gave up His psuche for
1117
the sheep, and in Mt 20:28 He gave His psuche (not His pneuma) as a
ransom a difference which is characteristic. For the pneuma stands in
quite a different relation to God from the psuche. The spirit (pneuma) is
the outbreathing of God into the creature, the life-principle derived from
God. The sour (psuche) is mans individual possession, that which
distinguishes one man from another and from inanimate nature. The
pneuma of Christ was surrendered to the Father in death; His psuche was
surrendered, His individual life was given a ransom for many. His life
was given for the sheep
(2) This explains those expressions in the New Testament which bear on
the salvation of the soul and its preservation in the regions of the dead.
Thou wilt not leave my soul unto Hades (the world of shades) (
<440227>
Acts
2:27); Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that worketh evil
(Rom 2:9); We are .... of them that have faith unto the saving of the soul
(Heb 10:39); Receive ..... the implanted word, which is able to save your
souls (Jas 1:21).
The same or similar expressions may be met with in the Old Testament in
reference to the soul. Thus in Ps 49:8, the King James Version The
redemption of their soul is precious and again: God will redeem my soul
from the power of Sheol (Ps 49:15). Perhaps this may explain at least
this is Wendts explanation why even a corpse is called nephesh or soul
in the Old Testament, because, in the region of the dead, the individuality is
retained and, in a measure, separated from God (compare Hag 2:13; Lev
21:11).
3. OEHLER ON SOUL AND SPIRIT:
The distinction between psuche and pneuma, or nephesh and ruach, to
which reference has been made, may best be described in the words of
Oehler (Old Testament Theology, I, 217): Man is not spirit, but has it: he
is soul. .... In the soul, which sprang from the spirit, and exists continually
through it, lies the individuality in the case of man, his personality, his
self, his ego. He draws attention to the words of Elihu in Job (33:4):
`Gods spirit made me, the soul called into being; `and the breath of the
Almighty animates me, the soul kept in energy and strength, in continued
existence, by the Almighty, into whose hands the inbreathed spirit is
surrendered, when the soul departs or is taken from us (1 Ki 19:4). Hence,
according to Oehler the phrases naphshi (my soul), naphshekha (thy
1118
soul) may be rendered in Latin egomet, tu ipse; but not ruchi (my
spirit), ruchakha (thy spirit) soul standing for the whole person, as in
Gen 12:5; 17:14; Ezek 18:4, etc.
See PSYCHOLOGY.
J . I . Marais
SOUND
<sound>: In Isa 63:15 the King James Version has the sounding of thy
bowels, a painfully literal translation of hamon meeykha, with the similar
phrase, my bowels shall sound like an harp, in Isa 16:11 (compare Jer
48:36). The intestines were considered a seat of emotion, and at times of
great excitement were thought (in poetry, at least) to become tense and to
give forth a musical sound. The Revised Version (British and American)
(following the King James Version in Jer 48:36) substitutes heart for
bowels in Isa 16:11, thus obscuring the figure but preserving the sense.
In Isa 63:15 the Revised Version (British and American) paraphrases the
yearning of thy heart (the English Revised Version bowels), a needless
change from 16:11.
See also BATH KOL; SOLEMN, SOLEMNITY.
Burton Scott Easton
SOUNDINGS
<sound-ingz>.
See SHIPS AND BOATS, III, 2.
SOUR
<sour>:
(1) [ r s ,B o, bocer], immature, unripe: The fathers have eaten sour
grapes (Jer 31:29 f; Ezek 18:2; compare Isa 18:5 the King James
Version).
(2) [r Ws , cur], to turn aside, degenerate: Their drink is turned
sour (the King James Version margin gone, the Revised Version
margin Their carouse is over).
1119
SOUTH
<south>:
(1) [b g,n,, neghebh], according BDB from [?] [ b g n;, naghabh],
meaning to be dry, the word most often used, in the Revised Version
(British and American) capitalized (South) in those places where it
seems to denote a particular region, i.e. to the South of Judah.
(2) [ymiy;, yamin], right hand, right. The derived meaning, south,
seems to imply an eastern posture in prayer in which the right hand is
toward the South; compare Arabic yamin, right, and yemen,
Yemen, a region in Southwestern Arabia.
(3) [m;yT e, teman], from the same root as
(2) is often used for the south; also for the south wind (Ps 78:26; Song
4:16).
(4) [ y;, yam], literally, sea (Ps 107:3).
(5) [ wOr D ;, darom], etymology doubtful (Dt 33:23; Ezek 40:24).
(6) [r B ;d ]mi, midhbar], literally, desert (Ps 75:6, reading doubtful).
(7) [g, lips], south west wind (
<442712>
Acts 27:12).
(8) [roqppo, mesembria], literally, mid-day; south (
<440826>
Acts
8:26); noon (
<442206>
Acts 22:6).
(9) [voto, notos], south wind (Lk 12:55;
<442713>
Acts 27:13; 28:13);
south (1 Macc 3:57; Mt 12:42; Lk 11:31; 13:29; Rev 21:13).
The south wind is often referred to: see Song 4:16;
<183709>
Job 37:9 (compare
9:9); Zec 9:14 (of Isa 21:1); Lk 12:55.
Of the passages where South (neghebh) clearly refers to a particular region
between Palestine and Sinai see: And Abraham journeyed, going on still
toward the South (neghbah) (Gen 12:9; 13:1; Dt 1:7). We read of the
South of the Jerahmeelites, the South of the Kenites (1 Sam 27:10);
the South of the Cherethites, the South of Caleb (1 Sam 30:14); the
South of Judah (2 Ch 28:18); Ramoth of the South (1 Sam 30:27).
1120
In Ps 126:4, Turn again our captivity, O Yahweh, as the streams in the
South, we have a figurative reference to the fact that, after a long period
of drought, the dry watercourses are finally filled with rushing streams. The
reference in Ezek 20:46 f to the forest of the South is to a condition of
things very different from that which exists today, though the region is not
incapable of supporting trees if they are only planted and protected.
Alfred Ely Day
SOUTH, CHAMBERS OF THE
The twelve constellations of the Zodiac.
See ASTRONOMY, II, 12.
SOUTH, QUEEN OF THE
(Mt 12:42).
See QUEEN OF SHEBA.
SOUTH RAMOTH
See RAMOTH.
SOUTHEAST
See NORTHEAST.
SOW
<sou>.
See SWINE.
SOWER; SOWING
<so-er>, <so-ing>.
See AGRICULTURE.
1121
SPAIN
<span> ([2ovo, Spania]): The country in the Southwest of Europe
which still bears this name. It was Pauls purpose, as stated in Rom
15:24,28, to visit Spain. If, as is probable, he ultimately carried out this
intention, it must have been after a release from his first imprisonment.
Clement of Rome speaks of the apostle as having reached the extreme
limit of the West (Epistle of Clement, v).
See PAUL, THE APOSTLE; TARSHISH.
SPAN
([t r ,z,, zereth]; [o0oq, spithame]): A measure of length equal to half a
cubit or about 9 in. (Ex 28:16; 39:9; 1 Sam 17:4, etc.). Lam 2:20 the King
James Version is a mistranslation; see the Revised Version (British and
American).
See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
SPARK
<spark>.
See LEVIATHAN.
SPARROW
<spar-o> ([r wOP x i, tsippor]; [otpou0ov, strouthion]; Latin passer): A
small bird of the Fringillidae family. The Hebrew tsippor seems to have
been a generic name under which were placed all small birds that
frequented houses and gardens. The word occurs about 40 times in the
Bible, and is indiscriminately translated bird fowl or sparrow. Our
translators have used the word sparrow where they felt that this bird best
filled the requirements of the texts. Sparrows are small brown and gray
birds of friendly habit that swarm over the northern part of Palestine, and
West of the Sea of Galilee, where the hills, plains and fertile fields are
scattered over with villages. They build in the vineyards, orchards and
bushes of the walled gardens surrounding houses, on the ground or in
nooks and crannies of vine-covered walls. They live on seeds, small green
buds and tiny insects and worms. Some members of the family sing
1122
musically; all are great chatterers when about the business of life.
Repeatedly they are mentioned by Bible writers, but most of the references
lose force as applying to the bird family, because they are translated bird
or fowl. In a few instances the word sparrow is used, and in some of
these, painstaking commentators feel that what is said does not apply to the
sparrow. For example see Ps 102:7:
I watch, and am become like a sparrow
That is alone upon the housetop.
The feeling that this is not characteristic of the sparrow arises from the fact
that it is such a friendly bird that if it were on the housetop it would be
surrounded by half a dozen of its kind; so it has been suggested that a
solitary thrush was intended. There is little force in the change. Thrushes of
today are shy, timid birds of thickets and deep undergrowth. Occasionally a
stray one comes around a house at migration, but once settled to the
business of living they are the last and most infrequent bird to appear near
the haunts of man. And bird habits do not change in one or two thousand
years. In an overwhelmed hour the Psalmist poured out his heart before the
Almighty. The reason he said he was like a sparrow that is alone upon the
housetop was because it is the most unusual thing in the world for a
sparrow to sit mourning alone, and therefore it attracted attention and
made a forceful comparison. It only happens when the birds mate has been
killed or its nest and young destroyed, and this most cheerful of birds
sitting solitary and dejected made a deep impression on the Psalmist who,
when his hour of trouble came, said he was like the mourning sparrow
alone on the housetop. Another exquisite song describes the bird in its
secure and happy hour:
Yea, the sparrow hath found her a house,
And the swallow a nest for herself, where she may lay her young,
Even thine altars, O Yahweh of hosts,
My King, and my God (Ps 84:3).
When the mind of man was young and he looked on the commonest acts of
creatures around him as filled with mystery, miracle and sign he held in
superstitious reverence any bird that built on a temple, because he thought
it meant that the bird thus building claimed the protection of God in so
doing. For these reasons all temple builders were so reverenced that
authentic instances are given of people being put to death, if they disturbed
temple nests or builders. Because he noticed the sparrow in joyful
1123
conditions is good reason why the Psalmist should have been attracted by
its mourning. There is a reference to the widespread distribution of these
birds in Prov 26:2:
As the sparrow in her wandering, as the swallow in her flying,
So the curse that is causeless alighteth not.
Once settled in a location, no bird clings more faithfully to its nest and
young, so this wandering could only mean that they scatter widely in
choosing locations. Mt 10:29: Are not two sparrows sold for a penny?
and not one of them shall fall on the ground without your Father. This is a
reference to the common custom in the East of catching small birds, and
selling them to be skinned, roasted and sold as tid-bits a bird to a
mouthful. These lines no doubt are the origin of the oft-quoted phrase, He
marks the fall of the sparrow. Then in verse 31 comes this comforting
assurance: Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows.
Lk 12:6: Are not five sparrows sold for two pence? and not one of them
is forgotten in the sight of God. This affirms the implication of Mark that
these tiny birds were an article of commerce in the days of Jesus, just as
they are now in the Far East.
Gene Stratton-Porter
SPARTA; SPARTANS
<spar-ta>, <spar-tanz> ([2optq, Sparte] (1 Macc 14:16),
[2optoto, Spartiatai]; Lacedaemonians (the King James Version 1
Macc 12:2,5,6,10,21; 14:20-23; 15:23; in 2 Macc 5:9, Greek
Lakedaimonioi)): The passages in 1 Macc relate to a correspondence
initiated by Jonathan, the priest, during the Maccabean revolt, and
continued after his death with his brother Simon, between the Jews and the
Lacedaemonians or Spartans, with a view to a friendly alliance. The
proposals, curiously based on a claim to kindredship, were favorably
received by the Lacedaemonians. See the letters (1 Macc 12:5 ff,19 ff;
14:16 ff). The claim to blood-relationship (compare 1 Macc 12:21; 2 Macc
5:9) is of course absurd, but there is no good reason to doubt the
genuineness of the transaction described.
See ARIUS; ASMONEANS; LACEDAEMONIANS; MACCABEANS,
etc.
J ames Orr
1124
SPEAKING, EVIL
<spe-king>.
See EVIL-SPEAKING; SLANDER.
SPEAR; SPEARMEN
<sper>, <sper-men>.
See ARMOR, III, 4; ARMY, 7.
SPECIALLY
<spesh-al-i> ([d a om], meodh] (Ps 31:11 the King James Version);
[ooto, malista]): Used in an emphatic sense; derived from a
superlative. While usually employed for emphasis, it carries with it slightly
the idea of something additional. Not used in the Old Testament in the
Revised Version (British and American), the sense of the Hebrew
being,,expressed more clearly by exceedingly, very. Its ordinary New
Testament usage is, mostly, particularly, chiefly or, most of all.
Paul in his practical exhortations says: But if any provideth not for his
own, and specially his own household, he hath denied the faith (1 Tim 5:8;
compare Gal 6:10; 1 Tim 4:10).
Walter G. Clippinger
SPECKLED
<spek-l-d>: Zec 1:8; the Revised Version (British and American)
sorrel.
See COLORS; HYENA.
SPECTACLE
<spek-ta-k-l> ([0rotpov, theatron]): Occurs twice in the New
Testament:
(1) of the place where assemblies or exhibitions Were held (
<441929>
Acts
19:29, theatre);
(2) figuratively of the suffering apostles (1 Cor 4:9).
1125
SPEECH
<spech> ([h r ;m]a i, imrah], [r b ;D ;, dabhar], etc.; [oyo, logos]):
Speech, the articulate utterance of thought, is the tranlation of various
Hebrew terms which convey this idea of saying or word; so, in the
New Testament, the term generally so rendered is logos, word. See
LOGOS; WORD. Eulogia in Rom 16:18 is fair speech; lalia in Mt 26:73;
Mk 14:70 the King James Version; Jn 8:43 is simply talk. the Revised
Version (British and American) has speech for various other words in the
King James Version, as matters (1 Sam 16:18, margin bussiness),
communication (Mt 5:37; Eph 4:29), words (Lk 20:20; 1 Cor 14:9);
persuasiveness of speech for enticing words (Col 2:4), etc.
W. L. Walker
SPELT
<spelt> ([t m,S ,K u, kuccemeth]; [oupo, olura], [ro, zea] (Ex 9:32, the
King James Version rye; Isa 18:25, the King James Version rye,
margin spelt; Ezek 4:9, the King James Version fitches margin spelt;
the Revised Version (British and American) adopts spelt, influenced by
the Septuagint, in all passages)): Spelt is the seed of Triticum spelta, a kind
of wild wheat. Several writers would identify this kuccemeth with the
Arabic kirsenneh (Vicia ervilia), a kind of vetch much used as camels
fodder.
SPICE; SPICES
<spis>, <spi-sis>, <-sez>:
(1) ([ c ,B ,, besem] (Ex 30:23), [ c ,B o, bosem], plural [ ymic ;B ], besamim],
all from root to attract by desire, especially by smell): The list of spices
in Ex 30:23 includes myrrh, cinnamon, sweet calamus cassia. These,
mixed with olive oil, made the holy anointing oil. Officials of the temple
had charge of the spices (1 Ch 9:29). Among the treasures of the temple
shown by Hezekiah to the messengers of Babylon were the spices (2 Ki
20:13). They were used in the obsequies of kings (2 Ch 16:14) and in
preparation of a bride for a royal marriage (Est 2:12, sweet-odors =
balsam). Spices are frequently mentioned in Song (4:10,14,16; 5:1, margin
and the King James Version balsam; Song 5:13; 6:2, bed of spices,
margin balsam; 8:14). These passages in Song may refer in particular to
1126
balsam, the product of the balsam plant, Balsamodendron opobalsamum, a
plant growing in Arabia. According to Josephus it was cultivated at
Jericho, the plant having been brought to Palestine by the Queen of Sheba
(Ant., VIII, vi, 6; see also XIV, iv, 1; XV, iv, 2; BJ, I, vi, 6).
See MYRRH.
(2) [ yMi s ,cammim] (Ex 30:34, sweet spices)): Take unto thee sweet
spices, stacte, and onycha, and galbanum; sweet spices with pure
frankincense. It is a general term for fragrant substances finely powdered.
Compare Arabic shamm, a smell or sense of smell; generally translated
sweet incense (Ex 25:6; 30:7; 31:11; 35:8,15,28; 39:38; 40:27 (the King
James Version only); Lev 4:7; 16:12; Nu 4:16; 2 Ch 2:4 (the King James
Version only); 2 Ch 13:11). In Ex 37:29; 40:27; 2 Ch 2:4, we have
[ yMi s t r , f o q ] ,qsToreth cammim], incense of sweet spices.
(3) ([t a k on], nekhoth]; [0uooto, thumiamata] (Gen 37:25, spicery,
margin gum tragacanth or storax); [0uoo, thumiama] incense
(Gen 43:11, spicery; some Greek versions and the Vulgate (Jeromes
Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) have storax)): Storax is the dried gum of the
beautiful Styrax officinalis (see POPLAR), which was used as incense
different article from that now passing under that name. Tragacanth is the
resinous gum of several species of milk vetch (Natural Order,
Leguminosae), especially of the Astragalus gummifer. Septuagint incense
is probably the best translation.
(4) ([j q r , , reqach], spiced wine (Song 8:2)).
See WINE.
(5) ([opo, aroma], spices (Mk 16:1, the King James Version sweet
spices; Lk 23:56; 24:1; Jn 19:40; in 19:39 defined as a mixture of aloes
and myrrh)).
See PERFUMES; BURIAL.
(6) ([oov, amomon] (Rev 18:13), margin amomum; the King James
Version odours): The Greek means blameless, and it was apparently
applied in classical times to any sweet and fine odor. In modern botany the
name Amomum is given to a genus in the Natural Order. Zingiberaceae.
The well-known cardamon seeds (Amomum cardamomum) and the A.
1127
grana Paradisi which yields the well-known grains of Paradise, used as a
stimulant, both belong to this genus. What was the substance indicated in
Rev 18:13 is quite uncertain.
E. W. G. Masterman
SPIDER
<spi-der> ((1) [v yb iK ;[ , `akkabhish]; compare Arabic `ankabut, English
Versions of the Bible spider; Septuagint [opovq, arachne] (
<180814>
Job
8:14; Isa 59:5);
(2) [t ymim;c ], semamith], lizard, the King James Version spider;
Septuagint [xooptq, kalabotes] (Prov 30:28)): Semamith of Prov
30:28 is probably the gecko, a kind of lizard, as Septuagint and the
Revised Version (British and American) have it. See LIZARD. In
<180814>
Job 8:14 the spiders web is an emblem of frailty: Whose
confidence shall break in sunder, and whose trust is a spiders web.
Frailty or futility seems to be indicated also in Isa 59:5,6: They hatch
adders eggs, and weave the spiders web: .... Their webs shall not
become garments, neither shall they cover themselves with their works
Spiders web is in
<180814>
Job 8:14 both `akkabhish, spiders house,
while in Isa 59:5 it is qure `akkabhish, [r Wq , qur], according to BDB,
being thread or film.
Alfred Ely Day
SPIKENARD
<spik-nard> ([ D ]r ]ne, nerd]; [vopo, nardos] (Song 1:12; 4:14); [ yd ir ;n],
neradhim]; [vopo, nardoi] (Song 4:13), spikenard plants; [vopo
otxq, nardos pistike] (Mk 14:3; Jn 12:3), pure nard, margin liquid
nard; the English word is for spiked nard, which comes from the Nardus
spicatus of the Vulgate): Spikenard is the plant Nardostachys jatamansi
(Natural Order, Valerianaceae); in Arabic the name Sunbul hind, Indian
spike, refers, like the English and Latin name, to the snike-like shape of
the plant from which the perfume comes. The dried plant as sold consists
of the withered stalks and ribs of leaves cohering in a bundle of yellowish-
brown capillary fibres and consisting of a spike about the size of a small
finger (Sir W. Jones, As. Res., II, 409); in appearance the whole
1128
plant is said to look like the tail of an ermine. It grows in the Himalayas.
The extracted perfume is an oil, which was used by the Romans for
anointing the head. Its great costliness is mentioned by Pliny.
With regard to the exact meaning of the [otxq, pistike], in the New
Testament, there is much difference of opinion: pure and liquid are
both given in margin, but it has also been suggested among other things
that this was a local name, that it comes from the Latin spicita or from
pisita, the Sanskrit name of the spikenard plant. The question is an open
one: either genuine or pure is favored by most commentators.
E. W. G. Masterman
SPINDLE
<spin-d-l>.
See SPINNING.
SPINNING
<spin-ing>: Although spinning must have been one of the commonest of
the crafts in Bible times, it is mentioned definitely in three passages only,
namely, Ex 35:25 f, where [h w;f ;, Tawah], is so translated, and in Mt 6:28;
Lk 12:27 [vq0rv, nethein]), where Jesus refers to the lilies of the field as
neither toiling nor spinning.
The materials commonly spun were flax, cotton, wool, goats hair. Goats
hair required little preparation other than washing, before spinning. Wool
was first cleansed and then carded. The present method of carding, which
no doubt is of ancient origin, is to pile the wool on a mat and then detach
the fibers from each other by snapping a bow-string against the pile. The
bow is specially constructed and carefully balanced so that it can be easily
held with one hand while with the other the string is struck with a pestle-
shaped mallet like a carvers mallet. The same instrument is used for
carding cotton.
Flax was treated in ancient times as today, if the Egyptian sculptures have
been rightly interpreted. The stalks after being stripped of their seeds were
first retted. This operation consisted in soaking the stems in water until
fermentation or rotting had so loosened the fibers that they could be
separated from each other by combing. A series of washings and long
1129
exposure to the weather finally produced what was termed snowy-white
linen.
The various fibers, mentioned above, to be made into thread, were
gathered into a loose rope which was wound around a distaff or about the
left hand. From this reel it was unwound as needed, the fibers more
carefully adjusted with the thumbs and two first fingers of both hands, and
then the rope twisted by means of a spindle. The spindle varied in form but
was always a shaft, 8 to 12 in. in length, provided at one end with a hook
or other means of fastening the thread and at the other end with a circular
wharve or whorl of stone or other heavy material to give momentum to the
rotating spindle. When 2 or 3 ft. of the rope was prepared as mentioned
above, the spindle was twirled with the right hand or laid on the thigh and
rotated by passing the hand over the shaft. After the thread was twisted it
was wound on the spindle, fastened, and a new portion of rope prepared
and twisted. The rope was sometimes fastened to a post and the spindle
twisted with both hands, in which case the whorl was not necessary (see
Wilkinson, Anc. Egypt, I, 317; II, 170, 172). Spinning was the work of
both men and women in ancient Egypt. The Bible characterizes it as the
work of women (Ex 35; Prov 31:19). The same method of spinning is still
used by the women of Syria, although imported yarn is largely taking the
place of homespun thread.
See DISTAFF.
J ames A. Patch
SPIRIT
<spir-it> ([j Wr , ruach]; [vruo, pneuma]; Latin, spiritus):
1. PRIMARY AND FIGURATIVE SENSES:
(1) As Wind, Breath:
Used primarily in the Old Testament and New Testament of the wind, as in
Gen 8:1; Nu 11:31; Am 4:13 (createth the wind); Heb 1:7 (angels,
spirits or winds in margin); often used of the breath, as in
<181210>
Job
12:10; 15:30, and in 2 Thess 2:8 (wicked consumed by the breath of his
mouth).
1130
(2) As Anger or Fury:
In a figurative sense it was used as indicating anger or fury, and as such
applied even to God, who destroys by the breath of his nostrils (
<180409>
Job
4:9; Ex 15:8; 2 Sam 22:16; see 2 Thess 2:8).
(3) As Mental and Moral Qualities in Man:
Hence, applied to man as being the seat of emotion in desire or trouble,
and thus gradually of mental and moral qualities in general (Ex 28:3, the
spirit of wisdom; Ezek 11:19, a new spirit etc.). Where man is deeply
stirred by the Divine Spirit, as among the prophets, we have a somewhat
similar use of the word, in such expressions as: The Spirit of the Lord
came .... upon him (1 Sam 10:10).
2. SHADES OF MEANING:
(1) As Life-Principle:
The spirit as life-principle in man has various applications: sometimes to
denote an apparition (Mt 14:26, the King James Version saying, It is a
spirit; Lk 24:37, the King James Version had seen a spirit); sometimes
to denote angels, both fallen and unfallen (Heb 1:14, ministering spirits;
Mt 10:1, unclean spirits; compare also 12:43; Mk 1:23,26,27; and in Rev
1:4, the seven Spirits .... before his throne).
(2) As Surviving Death:
The spirit is thus in man the principle of life but of man as distinguished
from the brute so that in death this spirit is yielded to the Lord (Lk
23:46;
<440759>
Acts 7:59; 1 Cor 5:5, that the spirit may be saved). Hence,
God is called the Father of spirits (Heb 12:9).
(3) Spiritual Manifestations:
Thus generally for all the manifestations of the spiritual part in man, as that
which thinks, feels, wills; and also to denote certain qualities which
characterize the man, e.g. poor in spirit (Mt 5:3); spirit of gentleness
(Gal 6:1); of bondage (Rom 8:15); of jealousy (Nu 5:14); of fear (2
Tim 1:7 the King James Version); of slumber (Rom 11:8 the King James
Version). Hence, we are called upon to rule over our own spirit (Prov
16:32; 25:28), and are warned against being overmastered by a wrong
spirit (Lk 9:55 the King James Version, Ye know not what manner of
1131
spirit ye are of). So man may submit to the spirit of error, and turn
away from the spirit of truth (1 Jn 4:6). Thus we read of the spirit of
counsel (Isa 11:2); of wisdom (Eph 1:17).
3. HUMAN AND DIVINE SPIRIT:
(1) The Human as Related with the Divine:
We go a step higher when we find the human spirit brought into
relationship with the Divine Spirit. For man is but a creature to whom life
has been imparted by Gods spirit life being but a resultant of Gods
breath. Thus life and death are realistically described as an imparting or a
withdrawing of Gods breath, as in
<182703>
Job 27:3; 33:4; 34:14, spirit and
breath going together. The spirit may thus be revived (Gen 45:27), or
overwhelmed (Ps 143:4), or broken (Prov 15:13). And where sin has
been keenly felt, it is a broken spirit which is a sacrifice to God (Ps
51:17); and when man submits to the power of sin, a new direction is given
to his mind: he comes under a spirit of whoredom (Hos 4:12); he
becomes proud in spirit (Eccl 7:8), instead of being patient in spirit; he
is a fool because he is hasty in spirit and gives way to anger (Eccl 7:9).
The faithful in spirit are the men who resist talebearing and backbiting in
the world (Prov 11:13). In such instances as these the difference between
soul and spirit appears.
See SOUL; PSYCHOLOGY.
(2) Operations of the Divine Spirit as Third Person of the Trinity:
On this higher plane, too, we find the Divine Spirit at work. The
terminology is very varied here: In the New Testament we read of the
Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19; Mt 1:18,20; 1 Thess 1:5,6); the Spirit of God
(1 Cor 2:10 ff; 3:16; Rom 8:9,11; Eph 3:16, etc.); the Spirit of Christ
(Rom 8:9; 1 Cor 3:17; Gal 4:6); or simply of Spirit, with distinct
reference to God (1 Cor 2:10; Rom 8:16,23, etc.). God Himself is Spirit
(Jn 4:24). Hence, Gods power is manifested in human life and character
(Lk 4:14; Rom 1:1; 1 Cor 2:4; especially Lk 24:49). The Book of Acts
may be termed the Book of the Holy Spirit, working with power in man.
This Spirit is placed on a level with Father and Son in the Apostolic
Benediction (2 Cor 13:14) and in the parting message of the Saviour to His
disciples (Mt 28:19). As the agent in redemption and sanctification His
work is glorified by lives renewed in the very spirit of the mind a
1132
collocation of terms which has puzzled many interpreters (Eph 4:23,24),
where pneuma and nous appear together, to indicate a renewal which is all-
embracing, `renewed in the spirit of your mind, so that the new man is put
on, created in righteousness and true holiness (see also Jn 14:17,26;
15:26; 16:13; 1 Cor 12:11, etc.).
4. OLD TESTAMENT APPLICATIONS:
In the Old Testament this spirit of God appears in varied functions, as
brooding over chaos (Gen 1:2;
<182613>
Job 26:13); as descending upon men, on
heroes like Othniel, Gideon, etc. (Jdg 3:10; 6:34), on prophets (Ezek
37:1), on cunning workmen, like Bezalel and Aholiab (Ex 31:2,3,4,
filled with the Spirit of God), and specially in such passages as Ps 51:11,
where the very presence of God is indicated by an abiding influence of the
Holy Spirit: The Spirit of Yahweh is Yahweh himself.
5. VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS:
May we not reach a still higher stage? Wendt in his interesting monograph
(Die Begriffe Fleisch und Geist), of which extracts are given in Dicksons
Pauls Use of the Terms Flesh and Spirit, draws attention to the
transcendental influence of the Divine ruach in the Old Testament as
expressed in such phrases as `to put on (Jdg 6:34), `to fall upon
(14:6,19), `to settle (Nu 11:25 f). May we not then rightly assume that
more is meant than a mere influence emanating from a personal God? Are
we not right in maintaining with Davidson that there are indeed a
considerable number of passages in the Old Testament which might very
well express the idea that the Spirit is a distinct hypostasis or person.?
(see SUBSTANCE). Rejecting the well-known passage in Genesis: Let us
make man after our own image, which some have interpreted in a
trinitarian sense, we may point to such texts as Zec 4:6, by my Spirit; Isa
63:10,11, They rebelled, and grieved his holy Spirit; Where is he that
put his holy Spirit in the midst of them? This is borne out by the New
Testament, with its warnings against grieving the Holy Spirit, lying
against the Holy Spirit, and kindred expressions (Eph 4:30;
<440503>
Acts 5:3).
It is this Spirit which beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children
of God (Rom 8:16) the spirit which, as Auberlen has put it (PRE1,
article Geist des Menschen), appears in a double relationship to us, as
the principle of natural life, which is ours by birth, and that of spiritual life,
which we receive through the new birth (Wiedergeburt). Hence, Paul
1133
speaks of God whom he serves with his spirit (Rom 1:9); and in 2 Tim
1:3 he speaks of serving God in a pure conscience.
See CONSCIENCE; FLESH; HOLY SPIRIT; PSYCHOLOGY; SOUL.
J . I . Marais
SPIRIT, EVIL
See SATAN; DEMON, DEMONIAC.
SPIRIT, FAMILIAR
See FAMILIAR SPIRIT; DIVINATION; PYTHON.
SPIRIT, HOLY
See HOLY SPIRIT.
SPIRIT OF DIVINATION
See DIVINATION.
SPIRIT, UNCLEAN (OR EVIL)
See DEMON, DEMONIAC.
SPIRITS, DISCERNINGS OF
See DISCERNINGS OF SPIRITS; SPIRITUAL GIFTS.
SPIRITS IN PRISON
See PRISON; SPIRITS IN.
SPIRITUAL
<spir-it-u-al> ([vruotxo, pneumatikos], spiritual, from [vruo,
pneuma], spirit): Endowed with the attributes of spirit. Any being made
in the image of God who is a Spirit (Jn 4:24.), and thus having the nature
of spirit, is a spiritual being.
(1) Spiritual hosts of wickedness (Eph 6:12), in distinction from beings
clothed in flesh and blood the devil and his angels. This use of the
1134
word has reference to nature, essence, and not to character or moral
quality. God, angels, man, devil, demons are in essence spiritual. The
groundwork and faculties of their rational and moral being are the same.
This limited use of the word in the New Testament has its adverb
equivalent in Rev 11:8, which (the great and wicked city) spiritually is
called Sodom. As the comprehensive term moral includes immoral, so
spiritual includes unspiritual and all that pertains to spirit.
(2) With the above exception, spiritual in the New Testament signifies
moral, not physical antithesis: an essence springing from the Spirit of God
and imparted to the spirit of man. Hence, spiritual in this sense always
presupposes the infusion of the Holy Spirit to quicken, and inform. It is
opposed
(a) to [oopxxo, sarkikos], fleshly (1 Cor 3:1), men of the flesh
and not of the spirit;
(b) to [guxo, psuchikos], natural, man in whom the pneuma,
spirit, is over-ridden, because of the Fall, by psuche, the principle of
the animal life, soul; hence, the unrenewed man, unspiritual, alienated
from the life of God (1 Cor 2:14; 2 Pet 2:12;
<650110>
Jude 1:10). See MAN,
NATURAL;
(c) to natural, meaning physical, .... sown a natural body; .... raised a
spiritual body (1 Cor 15:44).
(3) In the New Testament and general use spiritual thus indicates man
regenerated, indwelt, enlightened, endued, empowered, guided by the Holy
Spirit; conformed to the will of God, having the mind of Christ, living in
and led by the Spirit. The spiritual man is a new creation born from above
(Rom 8:6; 1 Cor 2:15; 3:1; 14:37; Col 1:9; 1 Pet 2:5).
(4) Ecclesiastically used of things sacred or religious, as spiritual authority,
spiritual assembly, spiritual office.
See SPIRIT.
Dwight M. Pratt
SPIRITUAL BLESSING
([ruoyo vruotxq, eulogia pneumatike]): Any blessing administered
in the realm of the spiritual life; specifically the blessing of the Spirit in
1135
introducing the believer into the heavenly places in Christ (Eph 1:3); a
term expressing the fullness of blessing in Gods gift of eternal life in Jesus
Christ.
SPIRITUAL BODY
([oo vruotxov, soma pneumatikon], body spiritual): The
resurrection-body, a body fitted to the capacities and wants of the spirit in
the celestial world; an organism conformed to the spiritual life at the
resurrection (see 1 Cor 15:44).
See BODY, SPIRITUAL.
SPIRITUAL DRINK
([vruotxov oo, pneumatikon poma]): Having a spiritual
significance, as referring to the water that flowed miraculously from the
smitten rock (1 Cor 10:4; Nu 20:11). Symbolic also of nourishment for the
thirsty soul in the sacramental cup and the outpoured blood (life) of Christ.
See ROCK, 2, (1); SPIRITUAL ROCK.
SPIRITUAL GIFTS
([opooto, charismata]):
The word charisma, with a single exception (1 Pet 4:10), occurs in the
New Testament only in the Pauline Epistles, and in the plural form is
employed in a technical sense to denote extraordinary gifts of the Spirit
bestowed upon Christians to equip them for the service of the church.
Various lists of the charismata are given (Rom 12:6-8; 1 Cor 12:4-11,28-
30; compare Eph 4:7-12), none of which, it is evident, are exhaustive.
Some of the gifts enumerated cannot be said to belong in any peculiar
sense to the distinctive category. Faith (1 Cor 12:9), for example, is the
essential condition of all Christian life; though there were, no doubt, those
who were endowed with faith beyond their fellows. Giving and mercy
(Rom 12:8) are among the ordinary graces of the Christian character;
though some would possess them more than others. Ministry (Rom
12:7), again, i.e. service, was the function to which every Christian was
called and the purpose to which every one of the special gifts was to be
devoted (Eph 4:12). The term is applied to any spiritual benefit, as the
1136
confirmation of Christians in the faith by Paul (Rom 1:11). And as the
general function of ministry appears from the first in two great forms as a
ministry of word and deed (
<440601>
Acts 6:1-4; 1 Cor 1:17), so the peculiar
charismatic gifts which Paul mentions fall into two great classes those
which qualify their possessors for a ministry of the word, and those which
prepare them to render services of a practical nature.
1. GIFTS CONNECTED WITH THE MINISTRY OF THE WORD:
(1) Apostleship
(1 Cor 12:28 f; compare Eph 4:11). The name apostle is used in the
New Testament in a narrower and a wider sense. It was the peculiar title
and privilege of the Twelve (Mt 10:2; Lk 6:13;
<440125>
Acts 1:25 f), but was
claimed by Paul on special grounds (Rom 1:1; 1 Cor 9:1, etc.); it was
probably conceded to James the Lords brother (1 Cor 15:7; Gal 1:19), and
in a freer use of the term is applied to Barnabas (
<441404>
Acts 14:4,14; compare
1 Cor 9:5,6), Andronicus and Junias (Rom 16:7). From the Didache (xi.4
ff) we learn that the ministry of apostles was continued in the church into
the sub-apostolic age (see LITERATURE, SUB-APOSTOLIC). The
special gift and function of apostleship, taken in the widest sense, was to
proclaim the word of the gospel (
<440602>
Acts 6:2; 1 Cor 1:17, etc.), and in
particular to proclaim it to the world outside of the church, whether Jewish
or Gentile (Gal 2:7,8).
See APOSTLE.
(2) Prophecy
(Rom 12:6; 1 Cor 12:10,28,29), under which may be included exhortation
(Rom 12:8; compare 1 Cor 14:3). The gift of prophecy was bestowed at
Pentecost upon the church as a whole (
<440216>
Acts 2:16 ff), but in particular
measure upon certain individuals who were distinctively known as
prophets. Only a few of the Christian prophets are directly referred to
Judas and Silas (
<441532>
Acts 15:32), the prophets at Antioch (
<441301>
Acts 13:1),
Agabus and the prophets from Jerusalem (
<441127>
Acts 11:27 f), the four
daughters of Philip the evangelist (
<441109>
Acts 11:9). But 1 Corinthians shows
that there were several of them in the Corinthian church; and probably they
were to be found in every Christian community. Some of them moved
about from church to church (
<441127>
Acts 11:27 f; 21:10); and in the Didache
we find that even at the celebration of the Eucharist the itinerant prophet
1137
still takes precedence of the local ministry of bishops and deacons (Didache
x.7).
It is evident that the functions of the prophet must sometimes have crossed
those of the apostle, and so we find Paul himself described as a prophet
long after he had been called to the apostleship (
<441301>
Acts 13:1). And yet
there was a fundamental distinction. While the apostle, as we have seen,
was one sent forth to the unbelieving world, the prophet was a minister
to the believing church (1 Cor 14:4,22). Ordinarily his message was one of
edification, and exhortation, and consolation (1 Cor 14:3). Occasionally
he was empowered to make an authoritative announcement of the divine
will in a particular case (
<441301>
Acts 13:1 ff). In rare instances we find him
uttering a prediction of a future event (
<441128>
Acts 11:28; 21:10 f).
(3) Discernings of Spirits
With prophecy must be associated the discernings of spirits (1 Cor 12:10;
14:29; 1 Thess 5:20 f; compare 1 Jn 4:1). The one was a gift for the
speaker, the other for those who listened to his words. The prophet
claimed to be the medium of divine revelations (1 Cor 14:30); and by the
spiritual discernment of his hearers the truth of his claim was to be judged
(1 Cor 14:29). There were false prophets as well as genuine prophets,
spirits of error as well as spirits of truth (1 Jn 4:1-6; compare 2 Thess 2:2;
Didache xi). And while prophesyings were never to be despised, the
utterances of the prophets were to be proved (1 Thess 5:20 f), and that
in them which came from the Spirit of God spiritually judged (1 Cor 2:14),
and so discriminated from anything that might be inspired by evil spirits.
See DISCERNINGS OF SPIRITS.
(4) Teaching
(Rom 12:7; 1 Cor 12:28 f). As distinguished from the prophet, who had
the gift of uttering fresh truths that came to him by way of vision and
revelation, the teacher was one who explained and applied established
Christian doctrine the rudiments and first principles of the oracles of
God (Heb 5:12).
(5) The Word of Knowledge
Possibly the word of knowledge (gnosis).
1138
(6) The Word of Wisdom
The word of wisdom (sophia) (1 Cor 12:8) are to be distinguished, the first
as the utterance of a prophetic and ecstatic intuition, the second as the
product of study and reflective thought; and so are to be related
respectively to the functions of the prophet and the teacher.
See TEACHER, TEACHING.
(7) Kinds of Tongues
(1 Cor 12:10,28,30). What Paul means by this he explains fully in 1
Corinthians 14. The gift was not a faculty of speaking in unknown foreign
languages, for the tongues (glossai) are differentiated from the voices or
languages (phonai) by which men of one nation are distinguished from
those of another (14:10,11). And when the apostle says that the speaker in
an unknown tongue addressed himself to God and not to men (14:2,14)
and was not understood by those who heard him (14:2), that he edified
himself (14:4) and yet lost the power of conscious thought while praying
with the spirit (14:14 f), it would appear that the tongues must have been
of the nature of devout ejaculations and broken and disjointed words,
uttered almost unconsciously under the stress of high ecstatic feeling.
(8) Interpretation of Tongues
Parallel to this gift was that of the interpretation of tongues (1 Cor
12:10,30). If the gift of tongues had been a power of speaking unknown
foreign languages, the interpretation of tongues would necessarily have
meant the faculty of interpreting a language unknown to the interpreter; for
translation from a familiar language could hardly be described as a
charisma. But the principle of economy makes it improbable that the
edification of the church was accomplished in this round-about way by
means of a double miracle a miracle of foreign speech followed by a
miracle of interpretation. If, on the other hand, the gift of tongues was
such as has been described, the gift of interpretation would consist in
turning what seemed a meaningless utterance into words easy to be
understood (1 Cor 12:9). The interpretation might be given by the speaker
in tongues himself (1 Cor 12:5,13) after his mood of ecstasy was over, as
he translated his exalted experiences and broken cries into plain intelligible
language. Or, if he lacked the power of self-interpretation, the task might
be undertaken by another possessed of this special gift (1 Cor 12:27,28).
1139
The ability of a critic gifted with sympathy and insight to interpret the
meaning of a picture or a piece of music, as the genius who produced it
might be quite unable to do (e.g. Ruskin and Turner), will help us to
understand how the ecstatic half-conscious utterances of one who had the
gift of tongues might be put into clear and edifying form by another who
had the gift of interpretation.
See TONGUES, GIFT OF.
2. GIFTS CONNECTED WITH THE MINISTRY
OF PRACTICAL SERVICE:
(1) Workings of Miracles
(1 Cor 12:10,28,29). The word used for miracles in this chapter
(dunameis, literally, powers) is employed in Acts (8:7,13; 19:11,12) so
as to cover those cases of exorcism and the cure of disease which in Pauls
list are placed under the separate category of gifts of healing. As
distinguished from the ordinary healing gift, which might be possessed by
persons not otherwise remarkable, the powers point to a higher faculty
more properly to be described as miraculous, and bestowed only upon
certain leading men in the church. In 2 Cor 12:12 Paul speaks of the
powers he wrought in Corinth as among the signs of an apostle. In
Heb 2:4 the writer mentions the manifold powers of the apostolic circle
as part of the divine confirmation of their testimony. In Rom 15:18 ff Paul
refers to his miraculous gifts as an instrument which Christ used for the
furtherance of the gospel and the bringing of the Gentiles to obedience.
The working of powers, accordingly, was a gift which linked itself to the
ministry of the word in respect of its bearing upon the truth of the gospel
and the mission of the apostle to declare it. And yet, like the wider and
lower gift of healing, it must be regarded primarily as a gift of practical
beneficence, and only secondarily as a means of confirming the truth and
authenticating its messenger by way of a sign. The Book of Acts gives
several examples of powers that are different from ordinary healings. The
raising of Dorcas (9:36 ff) and of Eutychus (20:9 ff) clearly belong to this
higher class, and also, perhaps, such remarkable cures as those of the life-
long cripple at the Temple gate (3:1 ff) and Aeneas of Lydda (9:32 ff).
(2) Gifts of Healings
(1 Cor 12:9,28,30).
1140
See HEALING, GIFTS OF.
(3) Ruling, Governments
(Rom 12:8, 1 Cor 12:28). These were gifts of wise counsel and
direction in the practical affairs of the church, such as by and by came to be
formally entrusted to presbyters or bishops. When Paul wrote to the
Corinthians, the ministry of office had not yet supplanted the ministry of
inspiration, and Christian communities were guided and governed by those
of their members whose wisdom in counsel proved that God through His
Spirit had bestowed upon them the gift of ruling.
(4) Helps
(1 Cor 12:28). This has sometimes been understood to denote the
lowliest Christian function of all in Pauls list, the function of those who
have no pronounced gifts of their own and can only employ themselves in
services of a subordinate kind. But the usage of the Greek word
(antilempsis) in the papyri as well as the Septuagint points to succor
rendered to the weak by the strong; and this is confirmed for the New
Testament when the same Greek word in its verbal form (antilambano) is
used in
<442035>
Acts 20:35, when Paul exhorts the elders of the Ephesian
church to follow his example in helping the weak. Thus, as the gift of
government foreshadowed the official powers of the presbyter or bishop,
the gift of helps appears to furnish the germ of the gracious office of the
deacon the minister paragraph excellence, as the name diakonos
denotes which we find in existence at a later date in Philippi and
Ephesus (Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:1-13), and which was probably created, on the
analogy of the diakonia of the Seven in Jerusalem (
<440601>
Acts 6:1 ff), as a
ministry, in the first place, to the poor.
See, further, HELPS.
LITERATURE.
Hort, Christian Ecclesia, Lect X; Neander, Hist of the Planting of the
Christian Church, I, 131 ff; Weizsacker, Apostolic Age, II, 255-75;
Lindsay, Church and Ministry, passim; EB, IV, article Spiritual Gifts;
ERE, III, article Charismata; PRE, VI, article Geistesgaben.
J . C. Lambert
1141
SPIRITUAL HOUSE
([oxo vruotxo, oikos pneumatikos], house spiritual): A body of
Christians (a church), as pervaded by the Spirit and power of God (1 Pet
2:5); a term applicable to Gods house: house of prayer, the temple (Mt
21:13); to heaven: my Fathers house (Jn 14:2); to the tabernacle:
Moses .... faithful in all his house (Heb 3:2); to saints: as the household
of God (Eph 2:19), and the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19);
hence, any habitation of God in the spirit (Eph 2:22) in which His glory
dwells and His power and grace are manifest.
SPIRITUAL MAN
([o vruoto, ho pneumatikos]): In distinction from the natural, the
unrenewed man (1 Cor 2:15); man in whom the Holy Spirit dwells and
rules. This divine indwelling insures mental illumination: He that is
spiritual discerneth (AVm) (or interpreteth) all things; moral renewal: a
new creature (2 Cor 5:17); a new man (Eph 4:24); spiritual enduement:
Ye shall receive power (
<440108>
Acts 1:8).
See SPIRITUAL, 2; SPIRITUALITY; MAN, NEW.
SPIRITUAL MEAT
([ppo vruotxov, broma pneumatikon], food spiritual):
Nourishment for the soul, referring specifically (1 Cor 10:3) to the manna
by which the children of Israel were miraculously fed and which was made
by Paul prophetically equivalent to the broken bread of the Christian
sacrament symbolizing the body of Christ. Hence,
(1) Christ Himself as the food of the soul: I am the bread of life (Jn
6:48-58);
(2) anything that nourishes the spiritual life:
(a) obedience to the will of God: My meat is to do the will of him that
sent me (Jn 4:32-34);
(b) the truths of God in the Scriptures: Word of righteousness =
strong meat (Heb 5:12-14); word of God (Mt 4:4);
(c) the things of the Spirit (1 Cor 3:1-2; compare 1 Cor 2).
1142
Dwight M. Pratt
SPIRITUAL ROCK
([vruotxq rtpo, pneumatike petra]): Having a spiritual significance:
supernatural, manifesting the power of the Divine Spirit; allegorically
applied to Christ as fulfilling the type in the smitten rock in the desert, from
which water miraculously burst forth to nourish the Israelites. A tradition
current among the Jews affirms that this rock followed the people in their
journeyings and gave forth a living stream for their supply. Paul made this
ever-flowing rock a beautiful and accurate symbol of Christ: The rock
was Christ (1 Cor 10:4).
Without the characterizing word spiritual, this figurative term, with the
same significance, is common to the Scriptures; applied
(1) to Yahweh, God: Rock of his salvation, their rock is not as our
Rock (Dt 32:15,31); Yahweh is my rock (Ps 18:2; compare Isa
26:4; 32:2; 1 Sam 2:2; 2 Sam 22:2);
(2) to the foundation-stone of Christian confession and testimony (Mt
16:18; compare Eph 2:20; 1 Cor 3:11; 1 Pet 2:6-8), and thus to Christ
Himself;
(3) in Christian hymnology to Jesus crucified and spear-pierced: Rock
of ages, cleft for me.
Dwight M. Pratt
SPIRITUAL SACRIFICE
[vruotxo 0uoo, pneumatikai thusiai]): A figure taken from the
victim slain and offered on the altar, as e.g. the paschal lamb; thus
signifying the complete and acceptable offering of the self-dedicated spirit.
As the temple, priesthood and God Himself are spiritual, so is the sacrifice
of the consecrated believer (1 Pet 2:5); compare living sacrifice (Rom
12:1); sacrifice of praise (Heb 13:15,16). Any self-dedicating act of the
inner man; the devout, renewed, consecrated spirit, e.g. Christian
benevolence (Phil 4:18); to do good and to communicate (Heb 13:16);
mercy and knowledge of God, instead of material and outward
sacrifice (Hos 6:6). This is defined and beautifully illustrated in the classic
verse on this theme, The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, etc. (Ps
51:17).
1143
Dwight M. Pratt
SPIRITUAL SONGS
([o vruotxo, odai pneumatikai]): [q, ode], English ode, is
the general, and generic word for song, of which psalms and hymns are
specific varieties (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16). It includes all lyric poetry, but is
limited by the word spiritual to songs inspired by the Holy Spirit and
employed in the joyful and devotional expression of the spiritual life. While
songs, like psalms and hymns, were used in public worship and praise, they
were more intended for, and suited to, personal and private and social use;
as, e.g. in family worship, at meals, in the agapai (love-feasts), in
meetings for prayer and religious intercourse from house to house. The
passages above cited give apostolic authority for the use of other than the
Old Testament psalms in public praise, and rebuke the narrowness and
unbelief that would forever limit the operations of the Holy Spirit and the
hymnology of the church to the narrow compass of the Davidic era and the
Davidic school of poetry and song.
The new song of Rev 5:9; 14:3, and the song of Moses and of the
Lamb (15:3), indicate that spiritual songs are to be perpetuated in the
eternal melodies of the redeemed.
Dwight M. Pratt
SPIRITUAL THINGS
([to vruotxo, ta pneumatika]): Things proceeding from the Holy
Spirit and pertaining to mans spiritual life, worship, service. Contrasted in
1 Cor 9:11 and in Rom 15:27 with [to oopxxo, ta sarkika], things
fleshly, physical, which have to do with mans sensuous, corporeal nature,
such as food, raiment, money. By spiritual things Paul signifies the
benefits accompanying salvation, the gifts of the Spirit faith, hope, love,
justification, sanctification, peace all the fruits and blessings and aids of
the regenerate life.
ECCLESIASTICALLY:
Things pertaining to spiritual office, the ministry of the Word, or the
service of the sanctuary.
Dwight M. Pratt
1144
SPIRITUALITY
<spir-it-u-al-i-ti>: The state of being spiritual in the higher use of the
word. It is purely a religious term and signifies the state of a soul vitalized
by the Divine Spirit and made alive unto God. It covers the entire range of
mans faculties: intellect, feeling, will all the attributes of personality.
1. INTELLECT:
The intellectual can be divorced from the spiritual, but the spiritual can
never be divorced from the intellectual. If a man is spiritual, his intellect is
touched with the divine life and comes under the power of the divine
baptism. One word describes this mental quickening and illumination
vision. The pure in heart shall see God. Paul affirms (1 Cor 2:12,13)
that the Spirit of God operates directly on the mental faculties, adjusting
reason and intellect to the divine reason, and enabling man to think Gods
thoughts and discern His purposes, nature and will. The common use of the
word spirituality limits it mistakenly to religious experience, narrowly
interpreted, but as spirituality brings the intellect into harmony with the
divine reason in every realm of mental action, it may be as manifest in
science, art, philosophy, commerce and law as in religion.
2. AFFECTIONS:
The feelings and emotions are fertile soil for the spiritual life. Love is the
beginning and end of true religion. Spirituality in the realm of the affections
is that state of soul in which the heart with its holiest love is centered on
God as revealed in Christ. The specific and supreme work of the Holy
Spirit is to shed abroad Gods love in the heart (Rom 5:5). Spirituality sets
the affections on things above and brings the entire emotional nature under
the regulating and redeeming sway of the Holy Spirit.
3. WILL:
A spiritually-minded man is one whose will is set on God as well as his
intellect and affections. In every fiber of his moral being, and in all the
activities of his soul, he is under the guidance and dominion of the Holy
Spirit. The affections present motives, the intellect estimates their
worthiness, the will decides upon the course of action. When this trinity of
mental operation necessary to normal manhood is under the sway of
the Divine Spirit, man possesses spirituality, a state in which all the
1145
faculties of the soul are voluntarily and joyfully under the dominion and
guidance of Christs indwelling Spirit. When intellect, heart and will focus
their energies reverently and affectionately upon Him, love a passionate,
ever-present, everdominant love is the result. This is the triune sphere of
the Holy Spirits indwelling and activity, and the character of such a God-
centered and Spirit-filled life is described by the exalted word spirituality.
Dwight M. Pratt
SPIRITUALLY
<spir-it-u-al-i> ([vruotx, pneumatikos]): As in 1 Cor 2:14,
spiritually judged, i.e. by means of the spirit renewed and enlightened by
the spirit of God; having the mind of the Spirit is to be spiritually-minded
(compare the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and
American) Rom 8:6).
Allegorically used also (Rev 11:8) to characterize, in a bad sense, the
qualities of the spiritual (i.e. the spirits) life: which spiritually is called
Sodom.
See SPIRITUAL.
SPIT; SPITTLE
<spit>, <spit-l> ([q r y; , yaraq], [q r o, roq]; [(r)tu, (em)ptuo]): Spitting
in a persons face indicated gross contempt (Nu 12:14; Dt 25:9;
<183010>
Job
30:10; Isa 50:6; Mt 26:67; 27:30, etc.); when performed by an unclean
person it produced defilement (Lev 15:8) which necessitated washing the
clothes and a bath. When David allowed his spittle ([r yr i , rir]) to run down
over his beard, it was his purpose to behave like a lunatic (1 Sam 21:13).
Till I swallow down my spittle (
<180719>
Job 7:19) has the same import as the
English in the twinkling of an eye (1 Cor 15:52). Spittle was used by our
Lord in restoring sight and speech (Mk 7:33; Jn 9:6) as signifying His will
to cure. It was a widespread belief that spittle, accompanied with magical
formulas, possessed medicinal qualities. Oil possessed a similar virtue.
(Mk 6:13; Jas 5:14).
T. Lewis
SPOIL
<spoil>.
1146
See BOOTY; WAR, 8.
SPOILER
<spoil-er> ([d d e V o h ,ha-shodhedh], the spoiler): A favorite expression
of the prophet Jeremiah by which he describes generally the enemies that
invade and devastate a country with special reference to enemies that
invade Judah (Jer 12:12; 15:8); to enemies who devastate Moab (48:8,18);
to enemies from the North who are to assail Babylon (51:48), and in one
case (6:26) to Nebuchadrezzar making an irresistible advance upon
Jerusalem. the American Standard Revised Version uniformly renders
destroyer.
SPOKE
<spok> (1 Ki 7:33).
See SEA, MOLTEN.
SPONGE
<spunj> ([ooyyo, spoggos]): The word sponge, the King James
Version spunge, occurs only in the accounts of our Lords crucifixion in
Mt 27:48; Mk 15:36; Jn 19:29. Sponges have been known from the earliest
periods. They are mentioned by Homer, Aeschylus, Aristophanes and other
ancient writers. The sponge fisheries of the Eastern Mediterranean are still
among the most important in the world. Sponges are animals of a very
simple organization, fixed to rocks or other objects in the sea or in fresh
water. The marketable sponge consists of a mass of soft interlacing fibers
which constituted the skeleton of the living animal. The sponge fishers of
the Levant dive from boats, with or without diving apparatus, and tear the
sponges from the rocks with their hands. The sponges are allowed to die
and rot in the air and are then thoroughly washed until nothing but the
skeleton remains. Sponges which have calcareous or silicious skeletons are
unfit for use.
Alfred Ely Day
SPOON
<spoon> ([t K , kaph]; Septuagint [0uoxq, thuiske], except in Jer 52:18,
where it is [xpro ypo, kreagra], literally, fork): A hollow vessel, a
1147
censer; a small vessel in which incense was to be burnt, as is seen from the
account given in Nu 7 of the oblations of the princes of the tribes after the
setting-up of the tabernacle. Beginning with 7:14, we meet at every
succeeding 6th verse the statement, one golden spoon of ten shekels, full
of incense, till at 7:86 the summary statement is made, the twelve golden
spoons, full of incense.
SPORTS
<sports>.
See GAMES.
SPOT; SPOTTED
<spot>, <spot-ed> ([ Wm , mum]; [oo, spilos]): The Hebrew word is
used to denote a blemish which mars the perfection of the face, as in Song
4:7;
<181115>
Job 11:15. It is translated blemish in Lev 24:19 f, where it means
an injury the result of violence, and is rendered blot in Prov 9:7, where it
signifies shame or disgrace. The spotted cattle of Gen 30:32-39 are
animals of variegated color ([a l ;f ; , Tala]; compare Ezek 16:16, decked
with divers colors; Josh 9:5, patched). For chabharburah in Jer 13:23,
see LEOPARD. Spilos is used in the figurative sense of a stain of sin in 2
Pet 3:14, and similarly along with rhutis (a wrinkle) in Eph 5:27. The
garment spotted (verb, spiloomai) by the flesh of
<650123>
Jude 1:23 is, as
Calvin has para-phrased it, anything that in any way savors of sin or
temptation. The spots of
<650112>
Jude 1:12 the King James Version are
spilades, hidden (sunken) rocks which are betrayed by the surf beating
over them (as in Homer Od. iii.298), and are so rendered in the Revised
Version (British and American). Spot in Lev 13 is referred to under
FRECKLED SPOT; LEPROSY; TETTER.
Without spot in Nu 19:2, etc., is tamim, a usual word for perfect (so
the Revised Version margin); aspilos (the negative form of spilos) occurs
in 1 Tim 6:14; 1 Pet 1:19; 2 Pet 3:14, with Jas 1:27 (unspotted). For the
King James Version Heb 9:14 see BLEMISH.
Alex. Macalister
1148
SPOUSE
<spouz> ([h L ;K , kallah], bride, daughter-in-law): the Revised Version
(British and American) gives bride for the King James Version spouse
in Song 4:8 ff, and brides for spouses in Hos 4:13 f (margin
daughters-in-law).
See ESPOUSAL; MARRIAGE; RELATIONSHIPS, FAMILY.
SPREAD; SPREADING
<spred>, <spred-ing>: Alone, or in phrases like spread abroad, spread
forth, etc., spread represents very many Hebrew terms, principally
[c r P ; ,paras]; in the New Testament the act of spreading is
[otpvvu, stronnumi], where in Mt 21:8b the King James Version has
strawed (which see); compound in Lk 19:36. For spread abroad in Mk
1:28; 1 Thess 1:8 (exerchomai), the Revised Version (British and
American) has went out and gone forth; conversely, the Revised
Version (British and American) has spread abroad for the King James
Version break forth (Isa 54:3,), and published (diaphero,
<441349>
Acts
13:49), and for commonly reported (diaphemizo, Mt 28:15).
SPRING
See FOUNTAIN; WELL.
SPRINKLE; SPRINKLING
<sprin-k-l>, <sprin-kling> ([q r z; , zaraq], [h z;n; , nazah]; [povtrv,
rhantizein]): The first word means to toss or scatter abundantly, e.g. in
handfuls, as dust on the head (
<180212>
Job 2:12) or blood from a bowl (Ex 9:8).
The other Hebrew word is used of sprinkling with the finger (Lev 14:7;
16:14, etc.). In the account of Jezebels death the word is used in its literal
meaning of spurt (2 Ki 9:33).
Sprinkling (blood, water, oil) formed an important if not the essential
part of the act of sacrifice. A consideration of the chief passages in the Old
Testament will reveal the prominence and the significance of sprinkling as a
feature of the sacrificial act. The significance of the sprinkling of blood is
seen in the account of the establishment of the covenant between Yahweh
and Israel (Ex 24:6-8). Half the blood was sprinkled on the altar as
1149
representing the Deity, while the remainder was put into a basin and then
sprinkled on the people. This ceremony is a survival in a modified form of
the communal meal in which the tribal god and his worshippers sat
together and participated in the same food, and in this way came to possess
the same life. The two-fold sprinkling of blood resulted in the establishment
of an inviolable bond (Nu 18:17; 2 Ki 16:15). In the account of the
consecration of Aaron and his sons (Ex 29:16,20,21) the blood of the ram
of the burnt offering was sprinkled on the altar, while the blood of the ram
of consecration was put on the altar and sprinkled on Aaron and his sons
and on their garments. Water of purifying was sprinkled on the Levites at
their ordination (Nu 8:7). Lev gives detailed information in regard to
sacrificial sprinkling. In the case of burnt offering the blood was sprinkled
round about upon the altar (Lev 1:5,11). The same practice obtained in the
case of peace offerings, whether ox, lamb or goat (Lev 3:2,8,13). When a
sin offering for sins inadvertently committed was made, the priest dipped
his fingers in the blood and sprinkled it seven times before Yahweh, before
the veil of the Holy Place (Lev 4:6). Elsewhere (Lev 16:11,15) we read
that Aaron took the blood of the sin offering and sprinkled it with his finger
upon the mercy-seat, eastward, 7 times (see also Nu 19:4). Sprinkling
constituted part of the process of purification. But it is obvious that the
sprinkling, even in this case, was a religious act, and not part of the actual
physical cleaning. A simple kind of sprinkler was made by fastening a
bunch of hyssop to a cedar rod by a piece of scarlet thread or wool and
then the patient was besprinkled 7 times (Lev 14:7), while oil was sprinkled
with the finger, also 7 times, before Yahweh (Lev 14:16; see also Ex
12:22; Nu 19:18; Ps 51:7). The house in which the leper lived was
disinfected in the same thorough manner (Lev 16:51).
In the case of persons who had contracted uncleanness through contact
with a corpse, sprinkling with the water of separation was part of the
process of cleansing. The water of separation consisted of the ashes of a
red heifer (slain for the purpose) mixed with running water (Nu 19). A
sprinkler was used as in the case of the leper (Nu 19:18). The final
sprinkling on the 7th day was followed by a bath (Nu 19:19). The
tent in which the corpse lay, together with all the contents, were
thoroughly disinfected.
See HEIFER, RED.
1150
According to Ex (9:8,10) the plague of boils and blains was caused
through the sprinkling of ashes (soot the Revised Version margin) in the
air toward heaven, which settled on man and beast and produced the
eruption. The narrative gives no clue in reference to the connection
between the ashes and the eruption, but the religious character of the act is
obvious. By means of it, the assistance of the Deity was invoked.
According to primitive thought, there was no necessary connection
between the religious act and the consummation devoutly wished for. The
purpose of the religious observance was to influence, or bring pressure to
bear upon, the Deity so that He might exert Himself on behalf of the
worshipper. It is evident that sprinkling as part of the act of worship was
believed to be religiously effectual. It was not symbolical nor morally
significant. It was a religious act. It is not denied that in some passages
sprinkling is symbolical. According to Ezek (36:25) the restored
community will experience moral and spiritual renewal. There will be a
new heart and a new spirit. The sprinkling with clean water is the
outward symbol of the inward lustration. In Isa 63:3 the sacrificial allusion
is obvious. The conqueror who strides triumphantly from Bozrah is
besprinkled with the life-blood (or juice) of his victims. In Isa 52:15
sprinkle is a doubtful rendering. There is no apparent connection
between bodily disfigurement and national purification. the Revised
Version margin renders startle (literally, cause to spring). The exalted
dignity of the martyr will excite the wonder of kings and peoples.
In 1 Pet 1:2, sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ is used figuratively of
its cleansing efficacy (compare Heb 9:13,14; 10:22).
T. Lewis
SPURIOUS, ACTS, EPISTLES, GOSPELS
<spa-ri-us>.
See APOCRYPHAL ACTS; APOCRYPHAL EPISTLES;
APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS.
SPY
<spi>.
See ESPY.
1151
STACHYS
<sta-kis> ([2tou, Stachus]): The name of a Roman Christian to whom
Paul sent greetings. The name is Greek and uncommon; it has been found
in inscriptions connected with the imperial household. Paul designates him
my beloved (Rom 16:9).
STACK
<stak>: Ex 22:6 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and
American) shocks (of grain).
STACTE
<stak-te> ([t f ;n; , nataph], drops (
<183627>
Job 36:27); [otoxtq, stakte],
meaning oozing out in drops): One of the ingredients of the holy
ointment (Ex 30:34; Ecclesiasticus 24:15, margin opobalsamum, the
King James Version storax). The marginal reading is a concession to
Jewish tradition, but see SPICE, (1). Dioscorides describes two kinds of
stacte, one of pure myrrh and one of storax and a fat mixed. See MYRRH.
This nataph must have been either myrrh in drops, as it is collected, or
some other fragrant gum, similarly collected, such, for example, as gum
tragacanth.
STAFF
<staf>: Many Hebrew terms are represented by this word. The staves of
the ark translate the word [d B , badh], literally, a part, hence, branch,
bar, etc. (Ex 25:13,14,15,27,28, etc.). Other words, as matteh, maqqel,
shebhet, used of the staff in the hand, the shepherds staff, figuratively,
staff of bread (matteh, Ezek 4:16; 5:16; 14:13), as indispensable for
support of life, are dealt with under ROD (which see). The New Testament
word is [popo, rhabdos] (Mt 10:10 parallel Lk 9:3; Heb 11:21).
See also SCEPTRE.
STAIR
<star>.
See HOUSE.
1152
STAKE
<stak>: Isa 33:20; 54:2 for [d t ey; , yathedh], tent-pin, or, perhaps, tent-
pole (Ex 27:19; Jdg 4:21, etc.). The King James Version Sirach 43:19,
The hoar frost, .... being congealed, lieth on the top of sharp stakes, is of
course meaningless. the Revised Version (British and American) When it
is congealed, it is as points of thorns renders the Greek very exactly, but
the Hebrew would indicate for the original meaning forms frost-flowers of
sapphire.
STALK
<stok>: In Gen 41:5,22 is for [h neq ;, qaneh], cane; in Josh 2:6 for [6 [ e ,
ets], wood. In Hos 8:7, the Revised Version margin has stalk for
[h m;q ;, qamah], that which stands. The Revised Versions standing
grain is due to this meaning of qamah in Ex 22:6, etc., but this translation
spoils the figure. The meaning is, They sow the wind, a worthless sowing,
for such seed produces no stalk, it yields no grain.
STALL
<stol> ((1) [q B e r ] m , marbeq], literally,, a place for tying up (Am 6:4;
Mal 4:2),
(2) [s b a ; , abhac], to give fodder (Prov 15:17),
(3) [h w;r ]a u, urvah], to pluck and feed (1 Ki 4:26; 2 Ch 9:25; 32:28),
(4) [t p ,r ,, repheth], a resting place (Hab 3:17);
(5) [otvq, phatne], a manger or crib (Lk 13:15; compare [s Wb a e,
ebhuc], translated crib in Isa 1:3; Prov 14:4)): During the season
when cattle are not being used they are allowed to roam in the fields.
Otherwise they are tied in rooms in the winter time, or under shelters
made of green boughs in the summer, and all their food brought to
them. Horses and cattle alike are haltered and the chains fastened
through holes made in stones projecting from the walls. No stanchions
and no separating partitions between animals are used. The horses are
usually hobbled as well.
J ames A. Patch
1153
STAMMERER
<stam-er-er>: Isa 32:4, [gL e[ i, `illegh], inarticulate speaking. In Isa
28:11; 33:19, l`g (pointing uncertain) is rendered strange by the Revised
Version (British and American), with stammering in the King James
Version, the Revised Version margin. Probably the word means both, as
primitive people always think that their own language alone is clearly
pronounced. Or the word may mean mocking.
STANDARD-BEARER
<stand-ard-bar-er>.
See WAR, 5; BANNER.
STANDARDS
<stand-ardz>.
See WAR, 5; BANNER; ASTRONOMY, II, 7.
STANDING
<stand-ing>.
See ATTITUDES.
STAR; STARS
<star>, <starz>.
See ASTRONOMY, I, 6.
STARGAZERS
<star-gaz-erz>.
See ASTROLOGY, 5.
STAR IN THE EAST
See STAR OF THE MAGI; MAGI.
1154
STAR OF BETHLEHEM
See STAR OF THE MAGI.
STAR OF THE MAGI
1. THE MAGI:
The birth of our Lord was announced in a supernatural manner not only to
Jews by the angelic message to the shepherds, but also to Gentiles, for
Wise-men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, Where is he that is
born King of the Jews? for we saw his star in the east, and are come to
worship him (Mt 2:1,2). The word which has been rendered wise men
in the King James Version and the English Revised Version (the American
Standard Revised Version Wise-men) is Magi. These, according to
Herodotus, were originally a tribe of the Medes (Herodotus i.101) and
from their supposed skill in divination the term was applied to the learned
and priestly caste among the followers of Zoroaster; they were thus in
principle worshippers of one only God, and rejecters of polytheism and
idolatry. The simple creed and high morality, which Zoroastrianism in its
purest form professed, were well adapted to prepare its faithful disciples to
receive a further revelation, and we may reasonably believe that the wise
men who had been thus guided to worship the new-born king of the Jews
had been faithful to the light afforded to them, for in every nation he that
feareth him (God), and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him
(
<441035>
Acts 10:35).
See MAGI.
2. HERODS ENQUIRY:
The gospel tells us that the arrival of the Magi at Jerusalem threw Herod
the king and all the city into great excitement, and Herod at once called a
council of all the chief priests and scribes of the people that he might learn
from them where the Messiah should be born. In reply they quoted to him
the prophecy of Micah which had indicated Bethlehem as the destined site.
Then Herod privily called the Wise-men, and learned of them exactly what
time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and
search out exactly concerning the young child; and when ye have found
him, bring me word, that I also may come and worship him. And they,
having heard the king, went their way; and lo, the star, which they saw in
1155
the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young
child was. And when they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great
joy (Mt 2:7-10). So much, and no more, are we told of the star of the
Magi, and the story is as significant in its omissions as in that which it tells
us.
3. TWO FACTS CONCERNING THE STAR:
What sort of a star it Was that led the wise men; how they learned from it
that the King of the Jews was born; how it went before them; how it stood
over where the young Child was, we do not know. We are indeed told but
two facts concerning it: first, that its appearance in some way or other did
inform the wise men, not of the birth of a king of the Jews, but of the King
of the Jews for whose coming, not Israel only, but more or less consciously
the whole civilized world was waiting; next, that, when they had come to
Judea in consequence of this information, the star pointed out to them the
actual spot where the new-born King was to be found. It went before them
till it came and stood over where the young Child was. It may also be
inferred from Mt 2:10 that in some way or other the wise men had for a
time lost sight of the star, so that the two facts mentioned refer to two
separate appearances. The first appearance induced the Magi to leave the
East and set out for Judea; the second pointed out to them the place at
Bethlehem where the object of their search was to be found. Nothing is
told us respecting the star except its work as a guide.
There can be no doubt that the Magi took their journey in obedience to
direct revelation from God, and since we are told that God warned them in
a dream not to return to Herod, so that they departed to their own country
another way, it is but reasonable to suppose that their outward journey had
been directed in a similar manner.
4. THE WISDOM OF THE MAGI NOT ASTROLOGICAL:
It has been conjectured that as the Magians were credited with a great skill
in astrology they may have been able to forecast the birth of our Lord by
the rules of their article But this conjecture must be peremptorily rejected.
It ascribes to the pseudo-science of astrology a reality to which it has no
claim, for it is inconceivable that the planetary configurations can really
foretell the birth of princes. Even if it were admitted that such could be the
case, no such event could be taken as indicating the One Birth for which
1156
the world was waiting, unless some direct and explicit revelation from God
had been received to that effect. For that Birth was necessarily unique, and
science can deal only with repeated events. No astronomical research is
now, or was at any time, competent in itself to supply the indication
needed; it was not in virtue of any natural learning that the wise men
understood the meaning of the star. And if a mere astronomical research
was helpless to supply any such power of prediction, still more
emphatically must the claim of occult knowledge be disallowed. So far as
occult knowledge has had any basis in fact at all, it has been simply a
euphemistic way of describing the frauds, impostures and crimes by which
debased heathen priesthoods and medicine men have imposed upon the
gross superstition of their followers. The very suggestion that, by means
like these, Gods purpose would be made known shows that those who
suggest it have not entirely shaken off the influence of heathenism.
5. THE PROPHECY OF BALAAM:
The suggestion has often been made that the prophecy of Balaam, There
shall come forth a star out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel
(Nu 24:17), may have been preserved in the East and have furnished the
clue upon which the Magi acted. It is a pleasing thought that these devout
Gentiles had thus preserved and meditated upon the prophecy given
through one who may well have been of an allied order to themselves; but
that prophecy can surely not have been sufficient in itself, and some much
more direct intimation must have been vouch-safed to them; though the
prophecy may have aided their faith and have dictated the form in which
they announced their mission to King Herod and the Jews.
6. THE STAR NOT A CONJUNCTION OF PLANETS:
We are not told how the Magi learned the meaning of the star, neither are
we told what kind of a star it was. Some three centuries ago the ingenious
and devout Kepler supposed that he could identify the star with a
conjunction of the planets Jupiter and Saturn in the constellation Pisces, the
two planets being so close as to seem a single star. This conjunction took
place in the month of May, 7 BC, not very long before the birth of our
Lord is supposed to have taken place. But the late Professor Pritchard has
shown (Nature and Revelation, 243-55), first, that a similar and closer
conjunction occurred 59 years earlier, and should therefore have brought a
Magian deputation to Judea then. Next, that the two planets never
1157
approached each other nearer than twice the diameter of the moon, so that
they would have appeared, not as one star, but as two, and thirdly, if the
planets had seemed to stand over Bethlehem as the wise men left
Jerusalem, they would assuredly not have appeared to do so when they
arrived at the little city. Ingenious as the suggestion was, it may be
dismissed as unworthy of serious consideration.
7. THE STAR NOT NOVA CASSIOPEIAE:
Another suggestion has received at times a very wide popularity. In the
year 1572 a wonderful new star appeared in the constellation Cassiopeia.
At its brightest it outshone Venus and was visible in the daylight, and
though it gradually declined in splendor it was not lost to sight until after
16 months. There have been other instances of outbursts of short-lived
bright stars, and in the annals of the years 1265 and 952 some brief notices
have been found which may have referred to objects of this class, but more
probably described comets. The guess was then hazarded that these three
events might all refer to the same object; that the star in Cassiopeia might
be a variable star, bursting into brilliancy about every 350 years or so;
that it was the star that announced the birth of our Lord, and that it would
reappear about the end of the 19th century to announce His second
coming. This rumor was widely spread, and from time to time ignorant
people have noticed the planet Venus which shines with extraordinary
brilliancy when in particular parts of her orbit, and have imagined,
especially when she has been thus seen as a morning star in the east, that
she was none other than the star of Bethlehem at its predicted return.
There is no reason to suppose that the star of 1572 had ever appeared
before that date or will ever appear again; but in any case we are perfectly
sure that it could not have been the star of Bethlehem, for Cassiopeia is a
northern constellation, and the wise men in their journey from Jerusalem to
Bethlehem had Cassiopeia and all her stars behind their back.
The statement that the star went before the Magi gives the impression
that it was some supernatural light like the shekhinah, glory, resting upon
the tabernacle, or the pillar of fire which led the children of Israel through
the wilderness. But this view raises the questions as to the form in which it
first appeared to the wise men, when they were still in the East, and how
they came to call it a star, when they must have recognized how un-starlike
it was. On the other hand, if what they saw when in the East was really a
1158
star, it seems most difficult to understand how it can have appeared to go
before them and to stand over the place where the young Child lay.
8. THE LEGEND OF THE WELL:
Yet there is a legend still current in Palestine which may possibly explain
how an actual star may have fulfilled this part, and there is a well at
Bethlehem that is still shown to pilgrims as the means whereby the wise
men saw the star the second time. It is said that when they had reached
Bethlehem, apparently nearly at mid-day, one of them went to the well of
the inn in order to draw water. Looking down into the well he saw the star
reflected from the surface of the water and knew that it must be directly
overhead. Its re-observation under such unusual circumstances would be a
sufficient assurance to the Magi that they had reached the right place, and
inquiry in the inn would soon inform them of the visit of the shepherds, and
of the angelic message which had told them where to find the babe `born in
the city of David, the Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
If we may accept this legend we may take the star as having been what
astronomers know as a new or temporary star, like that of 1572. When
the Magi first saw it, and in consequence set out upon their journey, it may
have been an evening star and thus, being seen only in the west shortly
after sunset, it would appear, evening after evening, to point them their
way to Judea. As they journeyed thither it probably faded as temporary
stars in general quickly do. At the same time it would have drawn nearer
and nearer to the sun, until it was lost in its rays by the time they reached
Jerusalem, when they would seem to have lost sight of it altogether.
Having thus lost it, they would naturally not expect to see it again until it
had drawn away from the sun on the other side, and been detected as a
morning star in the east before sunrise; they would not expect to discover it
in the daytime.
In the ordinary way, the planet Venus is, after the two great lights, the
brightest object in the heavens, but temporary stars are on record that have
even exceeded Venus in brightness. The difficulty of seeing the planet
Venus in full sunshine does not lie in her want of brightness, but in picking
up and holding steadily so minute a point of light in the broad expanse of
the gleaming sky. This difficulty, which would be even greater in the case
of a star, would be lessened by looking down the well, as the shaft would
narrow the field of view down to a small area, and would direct the
1159
observers gaze straight to the star. There may also have been, at the very
time of observation, a temporary revival of the brightness of the star as has
been recorded in the case of one or two objects of the same class. The
legend, whether well founded or not, seems to have some astronomical
verisimilitude, and at any rate suggests a mode in which an actual star
could have seemed to stand over the place where the young Child lay. It
would also explain what seems to have been implied in the narrative, how it
happened that the Magi alone, and not the Jews in general, perceived the
star at its second appearance.
9. LESSON OF THE NARRATIVE:
Yet it seems safer to conclude that the narrative has been purposely left
astronomically too incomplete for any astronomical conclusion to be
drawn from it. One verse more, and that a short one, could have answered
all our inquiries, could have told us whether the star was a conjunction of
the planets, a comet, or a temporary star; or whether it was a supernatural
light like the pillar of fire in the wilderness. But that verse has not been
given. The score of additional words which could have cleared up the
matter have been withheld, and there can be no doubt as to the reason. The
star, whatever its physical nature, was of no importance except as a guide
to the birthplace of the infant Jesus. The reticence of the gospel narrative
on all points, except those directly relating to our Lord Himself, enforces
the truth that the Scriptures were not written to instruct us in astronomy,
or in any of the physical sciences, but that we might have life eternal (Jn
17:3).
E. W. Maunder
STAR OF WORMWOOD
See WORMWOOD.
STARS, COURSES OF
See ASTRONOMY, I, 1.
STARS, FALLING; MORNING; WANDERING
See ASTRONOMY, I, 8; I, 7; I, 9.
1160
STARS, SEVEN
See ASTRONOMY.
STATELY
<stat-li> ([h D ;Wb K ], kebhuddah], weight, honor, wealth): And sit
upon a stately (magnificent) bed (Ezek 23:41).
STATER
<sta-ter> ([ototqp, stater]): Used only once, Mt 17:27, where it is
rendered by piece of money in the King James Version and shekel in
the Revised Version (British and American). It was originally a standard
Greek weight equal to two drachmas, but later it was used to designate the
tetradrachma, and this is probably the coin referred to in the above
passage.
See MONEY.
STATURE
<stat-ur> ([d m ,madh], [h D ;mi, middah], measure (Nu 13:32, etc.),
[h m;wOq , qomah], standing up (1 Sam 16:7, etc.); [qxo, helikia],
greatness): This last word means height of the body, stature, in Lk
2:52; 19:3; Eph 4:13, but it can mean length of life equally well and has
this force in Jn 9:21,23; Heb 11:11. And this meaning, not stature (as in
the King James Version), is fixed for Mt 6:27 parallel Lk 12:25, for to add
some 18 inches (see CUBIT) to ones stature would be a grotesque feat,
while it is the smallness of the act that is emphasized. Hence, the
translation able to extend his long path of life by a single cubit (the
Revised Version (British and American) measure of life). Compare also
great of stature Baruch 3:26 ([ruryr0q, eumegethes]).
Burton Scott Easton
STAVES
<stavz> ([ yD i B , baddim]): Ten or eleven Hebrew words are used in the
Old Testament to describe various staffs, bars, and wooden rods used by
the Hebrews (compare START; ROD; SCEPTER). One word only is used
1161
to describe the staves or wooden poles used for carrying the holy furniture
of the tabernacle from place to place. That word is badh (plural baddim),
which occurs 28 times in Exodus and Numbers and 5 times in Kings and
Chronicles (compare also
<181716>
Job 17:16; Hos 11:6). The only passage in
which these staves are mentioned by another name is 1 Ch 15:15, where
the staves used for carrying the ark from its captivity into Jerusalem are
called motah. The reason for this probably is that the original baddim had
been lost during the long absence of the sacred chest from its home in the
tabernacle.
In the wilderness wanderings, arrangements were made that four items of
the holy furniture of the portable tabernacle should be carried on the
shoulders of Levites, suspended on these staves. These were the golden
altar of incense, the golden table for shewbread, the brazen altar of
sacrifice, and the ark of the covenant (Ex 35:12-16).
In the case of the large altar of sacrifice, which was in reality a hollow
wooden chest covered with brass (bronze) plates (see ALTER), four rings
were attached to the brass grating which rose midway in the chest, and
through these rings the staves passed. The staves were of acacia wood and
were covered with brass plating. In the case of the three golden utensils of
the sanctuary, the staves were of acacia wood, covered with gold plates.
The last mention of any of these staves is in 1 Ki 8:7-9, where it is stated of
the ark, in the holy of holies in Solomons Temple, that the ends of its
staves were seen by anyone standing in the adjoining holy place, before
(i.e. east of) the oracle. Priests only might view them there, the curtain
being withdrawn. The writer of 1 Ki 8 adds that the staves were thus
visible when he wrote, an item of evidence worthy of note as to the date of
the document.
W. Shaw Caldecott
STAY
<sta>: Is derived from two distinct forms. From one derivation it has the
meaning to stand and so to continue in one place (Gen 8:10; Lev
13:23,28, etc.), to forbear to act (
<080113>
Ruth 1:13), to rest, to be
trustful (King James Version, the English Revised Version Isa 10:20; see
below). Transitively it means to cause to stay, to hinder (Dan 4:35,
etc.), and stay as a noun means cessation of progress (Lev 13:5,37),
1162
sojourn. From the second derivation the verb means to support (Ex
17:12; 1 Ki 22:35; Song 2:5), while the noun means a support (1 Ki
10:19; Isa 3:1, etc.). the American Standard Revised Version has judged
obsolete stay on in the sense trust in, and for stay has substituted
lean in Isa 10:20 and rely in 30:12; 31:1; 50:10, although stay
themselves upon (= support themselves by) has been kept in 48:2.
Otherwise the Revised Version (British and American) has made few
alterations. But such as have been made (tarry ye for stay yourselves in
Isa 29:9 and the American Standard Revised Version restrain for stay
in
<183704>
Job 37:4) could have been carried farther with advantage.
Burton Scott Easton
STEAD; STEADS
<sted>, <stedz> ([t j T , tachath], (same) place; AS stede, place):
Occurs only in 1 Ch 5:22, They dwelt in their stead (place) until the
captivity.
STEALING
<ste-ling>.
See CRIMES; PUNISHMENTS.
STEDFASTNESS
<sted-fast-nes>:
(1) [otrpro, stereoma], firmness: The steadfastness of your faith
in Christ (Col 2:5). Some take this figuratively, in a military sense, of
a solid front (see Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of New Testament,
under the word).
(2) [otrpyo, sterigmos], stability (2 Pet 3:17; compare 1 Cor
15:58).
STEEL
<stel>: the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes brass for
steel in 2 Sam 22:35;
<182024>
Job 20:24; Ps 18:34; Jer 15:12, and steel for
torches in Nah 2:3.
1163
See BRASS.
STEPHANAS
<stef-a-nas> ([2trovo, Stephanas]): The name occurs only in 1 Cor
1:16; 16:15-18. Stephanas was a Christian of Corinth; his household is
mentioned in 1 Cor 16:15 as the first family won to Christ in Achaia, and in
1 Cor 1:16 as among the few personally baptized by Paul at Corinth. The
house of Stephanas, apparently of independent means, had set
themselves to minister unto the saints (1 Cor 16:15), i.e. to do Christian
service. Possibly this service consisted in putting their house at the disposal
of the Christians at Corinth for worshipping, or in rendering special
assistance in establishing intercommunication between the Corinthian
church and the apostle, or the other churches. An instance of such service
was the commission of Stephanas at Ephesus referred to in 1 Cor 16:17,18.
At the occasion of some disorders in the Corinthian church Stephanas, with
Fortunatus and Achaicus in the deputation, brought a letter of the
Corinthians to Paul. Our present 1 Corinthians is the reply to this letter,
and thus, in all probability, the three men mentioned above were the
bearers of this epistle. With fine courtesy Paul expresses his appreciation
for this service in 1 Cor 16:18, referring to it as a cherished opportunity of
fellowship with his beloved Corinthians through these representatives. It is
in consideration of such Christian service that Paul enjoins upon the
Corinthians to show the house of Stephanas that respect and deference due
to Christian leaders by willingly submitting to their direction.
S. D. Press
STEPHEN
<ste-vn> ([2trovo, Stephanos], crown (
<440605>
Acts 6:5 through 8:12)):
Known best as the proto-martyr of the Christian church, introducing the
heroic period of persecutions. He deserves as well to be called the first
great apologist for Christianity, since it was this that brought on his death
as a martyr (circa 36 or 37 AD).
1. HIS PERSONAL ANTECEDENTS:
As his name and his relations in the church at Jerusalem seem to imply
(
<440603>
Acts 6:3 ff), he was a Hellenist, i.e. a Greek-speaking Jew. Thus he
belonged to that class of Jews usually residing outside of Palestine who,
1164
though distinguished from the orthodox Palestinian Jew by a broader
outlook on life due to a more liberal education, were Jews none the less,
the original Jewish element predominating in their character, and who
might be true Israelites indeed, as Stephen was. Of his conversion to
Christianity we know nothing, though there is a tradition that he was
among the Seventy. As Stephen by his life and work marks a period of
transition in the development of the early Christian church, so his name is
connected with an important new departure within the organization of the
church itself, namely, the institution of the office of the Seven (
<440601>
Acts 6:1
ff), who were entrusted with the administration of the work of relief in the
church at Jerusalem the foundation of the diaconate (Iren., Haer., i.26;
Cyprian, Epist., iii.3). Of the seven men, all Hellenists, elected to this office
at the occasion of a grievance of the Hellenistic Christians in the Jerusalem
church against the Hebrew Christians, to the effect that in the distribution
of alms their widows were being discriminated against, Stephen, who heads
the list, is by far the most distinguished.
2. HIS CHARACTER AND ACTIVITY:
Stephen more than met the requirements of the office to which he was
elected (
<440603>
Acts 6:3); the record characterizes him as a man full of faith
and of the Holy Spirit (
<440605>
Acts 6:5), i.e. of an enthusiastic faith and of a
deep spirituality, and his activity was not restricted to the functions of his
office; in fact while nothing is said of the manner in which he fulfilled the
duties of his office, though without doubt he fulfilled them faithfully, the
record makes it very clear that the importance of Stephen lay in his activity
as a preacher, a witness for Christ; it is this activity which has given him
the place he holds in history (
<442220>
Acts 22:20). In itself that is not surprising,
for in the early Christian church every Christian was at once a witness for
Christ, and lay-preaching was common. The Seven from the first were
occupied with essentially spiritual work, as also the later diaconate was
engaged in something far different from mere charity organization. But
Stephen was especially qualified for this high work, having been endued by
the Holy Spirit with apostolical gifts, not only that of preaching, but also
that of working miracles (
<440608>
Acts 6:8). In his freer views of Jewish law
and customs, due to his deeper conception and better understanding of the
essence of Christianity, he even excelled the apostles.
1165
3. HIS TEACHING:
He burst the bonds of Judaism, by which the other apostles were still
bound, by teaching that the temple and the Law of Moses were evanescent
and that Christianity was destined to supersede Judaism (
<440614>
Acts 6:14).
These freer views of Stephen, though possibly attributable to his Hellenic
culture, were certainly not of Hellenistic origin, for just their promulgation
is what brought him into controversy with the Hellenistic synagogues of
Jerusalem. Though the Hellenist dispensed himself from keeping all of the
Pharisaic additions to the Law, he always regarded the Law of Moses and
the temple at Jerusalem as highly as the Palestinian Jew. Even Philo
characterizes the Law of Moses in distinction from the laws of other
nations, as stedfast, immovable and unchangeable, placing it on a level with
the laws of Nature. The true source of Stephens freer views of the Mosaic
Law and the temple was Christs own teachings, Stephen showing a
wonderfully ripened understanding of them, paralleled only by that of Paul
some time later. Christs words regarding the temple (Jn 4:20-24; Mk
13:2) not only led Stephen to see that the true worship of God was not
confined to the temple, but opened his eyes as to the purely formal
character of this worship in that day, which, far from being true worship,
had become a mere ceremonialism (Mk 7:6), and in the words of Christ (Jn
2:19) he saw an intimation of the new temple which was to take the place
of the old. Thus also his conception of the transitory nature of the Mosaic
Law may be traced to Christs teaching as to the Sabbath, the laws of
purifying, the fulfillment of the Law and Jewish customs of the day (Mt
5:20) and of a better righteousness than that of the Pharisees and scribes
(Mt 9:16). As Christ had been drawn into controversy with Pharisees and
scribes on account of these freer views, and as His word about the temple
was used to frame the accusation against Him in His trial, so also in the
case of Stephen. He did not hesitate to preach his views, choosing the
Hellenistic synagogues for this purpose, and soon became engaged in
controversies there. But, as the record says, his opponents were not able
to withstand the wisdom, i.e. better understanding, convincing
knowledge, and the Spirit, i.e. the deep earnestness and spirituality, by
which he spake so convincingly (
<440610>
Acts 6:10; Mt 10:19,20). Seeing
themselves beaten, they took recourse to the ignoble method of declaring
him a blasphemer and a heretic, by using the same foul means that the
enemies of Jesus had resorted to, by suborning false witnesses to the plot,
by stirring up the people against him, by appealing to their Jewish
1166
prejudices and to the scribes and elders, members of the Sanhedrin, and
thus eventually brought about his arraignment.
4. HIS ARRAIGNMENT BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN:
The accusation which they brought against him, through the introduction
of false witnesses, included a twofold charge, one against his person, a
charge of blasphemous words against Moses which would make him also a
blasphemer of God, and one against his teaching, charging him with
revolutionary and radical statements concerning the temple and the Law.
(compare Mk 14:58; 13:2; 15:29). Customs of Moses (
<440614>
Acts 6:14)
were the institutions that distinguished the Jews and that were derived from
Moses. By his reference to this place and these customs Stephen was
understood to imply the destruction of the temple and the change of the
Law, Christianity thus aiming not only at the overthrow of the Jews
religion but the very termination of their national existence.
The charge against Stephens person was a baseless accusation. There was
no blasphemy on the part of Stephen, save by perversion of his words. The
charge against his teaching was both false and true. It was false as an
implied insinuation that he impugned the divine origin and character of the
temple and the Mosaic Law, but it was true as far as he conceived both to
be only of a temporary nature and serving a merely provisional purpose,
which, as we have seen, constituted the peculiarity of his teaching. As in
the trial of Christ, the judge, Pontius Pilate, read his true verdict, I find no
guilt in him, written on His countenance and whole bearing, thus here the
record tells us that the judges of Stephen, All that sat in the council ....
saw his face as it had been the face of an angel (
<440615>
Acts 6:15; 2 Cor
3:18); as if in refutation of the charge made against him, Stephen receives
the same mark of divine favor which had been granted to Moses. It is a
significant fact that Stephen was not arraigned before the Sanhedrin as
being a Nazarene though at bottom it was the real cause of his
arraignment. Thus also his defense before the Sanhedrin, though the name
of Jesus was not mentioned until the very last, was in reality a grand
apology for Christ.
5. HIS DEFENSE BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN:
While the assembly was overawed by the evidence of singular innocence
and holiness written upon the countenance of Stephen (
<440615>
Acts 6:15), the
1167
question of the high priest Are these things so? broke in upon the silence.
It drew forth from Stephen that masterful pleading which, so sublime in
form and content and bare of all artificiality, belongs to the highest type of
oratory, characterized by its deep, earnest, and genuine spirituality, the
kind of oratory of which the great speeches of our own martyred Lincoln
were models. It is not so much a plea in selfdefence as a grand apology for
the cause which Stephen represents.
Beginning by mentioning the God of glory and ending with a vision of
that glory itself, the speech is a wonderful apotheosis of the humble cause
of the Nazarene, the enthusiastic tribute of its first great martyr delivered in
the face of death. The contents of his speech are a recital of the most
marked phases of Jewish history in the past, but as read from the point of
view of its outworkings in the present old facts interpreted by a
spiritfilled disciple of Christ. It is in reality a philosophy of Israels history
and religion, and in so far it was a novum. Thus the new feature that it
furnishes is its philosophy of this history which might be termed the
Christian philosophy of Jewish history. In appealing to their reason he calls
up picture after picture from Abraham to Moses; the speech exhibits
vividly the continuity and the progress of the divine revelation which
culminated in Jesus of Nazareth, the same thought as that expressed by
Christ in Mt 5:17 of the principal agreement between the Old Testament
and the New Testament revelation.
The emotional appeal lies in the reverential and feeling manner in which he
handles the history sacred to them all. The strong appeal to the will is made
by holding up the figure of Moses type of the Law, in its vital significance,
in such a way as passionately to apply it to the fundamental relation of
divine plan and human conduct. Thus the aim of Stephen was to point out
to his hearers the true meaning of Jewish history and Jewish Law in
reference to the present, i.e. in such a way that they might better
understand and judge the present and adjust their conduct to it accordingly.
Their knowledge of Jewish history and Jewish religion as he would convey
it to them would compel them to clear him of the accusation against him as
blasphemer and false teacher.
In accordance with the accusation against him, his defense was a twofold
one: personal defense and defense of his teaching.
1168
(1) Personal Defense
The charge of blasphemy against God and contempt of the Law is
implicitly repudiated by the tenor of the whole speech. The courteous and
at once endearing terms in Stephens address (
<440702>
Acts 7:2) to the council,
and the terms our fathers and our race in
<440702>
Acts 7:2,19 by which he
closely associates himself with his hearers, his declaration of the divine
majesty of Yahweh with which the speech opens (7:2), of the providential
leading of the patriarchs (7:8,10), his recognition of the Old Testament
institutions as divinely decreed (7:8), his reference to the divine sanction of
the Law and its condemnation of those who had not kept it (7:53), at the
close of his speech, show clearly his reverence, not only for the past history
of the Jewish race, but as well for its Sacred Writings and all of its religious
institutions. It makes evident beyond doubt how not grounded the
accusation of blasphemy against him was. Not to impiety or frivolity in
Stephen, but to some other cause, must be due therefore the difference
between him and his opponents. What it is Stephen himself shows
unmistakenly in the second part of his defense.
(2) Defence of His Teaching
The fundamental differences between Stephen and his opponents, as is
evident from the whole tone and drift and purpose of his speech, lay in that
he judged Old Testament history from the prophetical point of view, to
which Jesus had also allied Himself, while his opponents represented the
legalistic point of view, so characteristic of the Jewish thought of that day.
The significance of this difference is borne out by the fact upon which
Stephens refutation hinges, namely, the fact, proved by the history of the
past, that the development of the divine revelation and the development of
the Jewish nation, so far from combining, move in divergent lines, due to a
disposition of obstinate disobedience on the part of their fathers, and that
therefore not he but they were disobedient to the divine revelation. Thus in
a masterful way Stephen converts the charge of Antinomianism and anti-
Mosaism brought against him into a countercharge of disobedience to the
divine revelation, of which his hearers stood guilty in the present as their
fathers had in the past. In this sense the speech of Stephen is a grand
apology for the Christian cause which he represented, inasmuch as it shows
clearly that the new religion was only the divinely-ordered development of
the old, and not in opposition to it.
1169
The main arguments of the speech may be summed up as follows:
(a) Gods self-manifestation to Israel in revealing His covenant and His
will, so far from being bound to one sanctuary and conveyed to one
single person (Moses), began long before Moses and long before there
was a temple. Thus it was gradual, and as it had begun before Moses it
was not completed by him, as is evident from his own words, A
prophet shall God raise up unto you from among your brethren, like
unto me (
<440702>
Acts 7:2-37).
(b) The Jews to whom these revelations were granted, so far from
being thankful at all stages of their history, had been slow to believe
and understand them because they would not be obedient (
<440739>
Acts
7:39,57). They resisted the purpose of God by obstinately and stiff-
neckedly opposing those through whom God worked. Thus their
fathers had turned away from Moses at the very moment when he was
receiving Gods greatest revelation, and, instead of obeying the living
oracles (7:38) he gave them, turned to idol-worship for which God
punished them by the Babylonian captivity (7:39-43). They had killed
the prophets who had protested against the dead ritualism of the
temple-worship and raised their voice in behalf of a true spiritual
worship as that of the tabernacle had been (7:44-50,52). This
disposition of disobedience so characteristic of the race in its whole
history, because, in spite of the divine revelation received, they
remained unregenerate (7:51), reached its culmination in that awful
crime of betrayal and murder committed by the present generation
upon the Righteous One whose coming the prophets had predicted
the rejection of Jesus of Nazareth, by which the Jews doomed not only
their national existence, but also their temple-worship and the reign of
the Law to destruction (7:52 through 6:14).
Though the name of Jesus was not uttered by Stephen in his speech and
does not occur until in his dying prayer, his hearers could not fail to notice
the hidden reference to Him throughout the entire speech and to draw
parallels intended by Stephen: As Joseph and Moses, types of the Messiah,
had been rejected, scorned and illtreated (
<440709>
Acts 7:9,27,39), before being
raised to be ruler and deliverer, so Jesus had also been repulsed by them.
The climax of his speech is reached in
<440751>
Acts 7:51-53, when Stephen,
breaking off the line of argument, suddenly in direct address turns upon his
1170
hearers, and, the accused becoming the accuser, charges them openly with
the sin of resisting the Holy Spirit, with the murder of the prophets and the
Righteous One, and with continual disobedience to the Law. These words
which mark the climax, though probably not the close of the speech,
pointed the moral in terms of the most cutting rebuke, and were at once
prophetical as to the effect the speech would have upon his hearers and for
him.
6. MARTYRDOM OF STEPHEN:
Such arguing and directness as Stephens could have but one result.
Prejudiced and enraged as they were, the unanswerable arguments of
Stephen, based on their own Scriptures, made them mad with fury, and
doubtless through their demonstrations they stopped the speech. But
Stephen, ansported with enthusiasm and inspiration, was vouchsafed a
vision of the glory of God, which he had mentioned in the beginning of
his speech (
<440702>
Acts 7:2), and of Jesus, whose cause he had so gallantly
defended (
<440755>
Acts 7:55). Stephen standing there, his gaze piercing into
heaven, while time and human limitations seemed effaced for him, marks
one of the most historic moments in the history of Israel, as his words
constitute the most memorable testimony ever uttered in behalf of Christ:
Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man the only place
where this title is uttered by any other person than Jesus standing on
the right hand of God (
<440756>
Acts 7:56). Now the audience could restrain
its rage no longer, and the catastrophe followed immediately. Contrary to
Roman law and order they took Stephen, and without awaiting sentence
against him, amid a tumultuous scene, stoned him to death, the punishment
prescribed in Mosaic Law for a blasphemer (Dt 17:7; Lev 24:14-16). This
recourse to lynch law may have been connived at by the Roman authorities,
since the act was without political significance. It is noteworthy, however,
that the Jewish legal forms were observed, as if to give to the violence the
appearance of legality. Accordingly, Stephen was taken outside the city
(Lev 24:14; compare Lk 4:29); the witnesses threw the first stone at him
(compare Dt 17:7) after taking off their upper garments and laying them at
the feet of a young man named Saul (
<440758>
Acts 7:58) afterward Paul,
now about 30 years old who evidently had charge of the whole
proceedings.
Stephen died as he had lived, a faithful witness to his Master whom he
acknowledged as such amid the rain of stones hurled at him, loudly calling
1171
upon His name, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit (
<440759>
Acts 7:59; compare Lk
23:46), and whose spirit he exemplified so nobly when, with a final effort,
bending his knees, he cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to
their charge (
<440760>
Acts 7:60; compare Lk 23:34). And when he had said
this, he fell asleep (
<440760>
Acts 7:60; compare 1 Cor 15).
The impression made by Stephens death was even greater than that made
by his life. Though it marks the beginning of the first great persecution of
Christians, the death of the first Christian martyr resulted in the greatest
acquisition Christianity has probably ever made, the conversion of Saul of
Tarsus. The vision of the risen and exalted Jesus vouchsafed to the dying
Stephen presented Christianity to Saul of Tarsus in a new light, tending to
remove what had been its greatest stumbling-block to him in the Crucified
One. This revelation coupled with the splendid personality of Stephen, the
testimony of his righteous life and the noble bravery of his sublime death,
and above all his dying prayer, fell upon the honest soul of Saul with an
irresistible force and inevitably brought on the Damascus event, as
Augustine clearly recognized: Si Stephanus non orasset, ecclesia Paulum
non habuisset. Judged by his teaching, Stephen may be called the
forerunner of Paul. He was one of the first to conceive of the fact that
Christianity represented a new order of things and as such would inevitably
supersede the old order. Thus his teachings forecast that greatest
controversy of the first Christian century, the controversy between Judaism
and Christianity, which reached its culmination-point in the Council of
Jerusalem, resulting in the independence of the Christian church from the
fetters of Judaistic legalism.
LITERATURE.
R. J. Knowling, Acts in Expositors Greek Testament., II (1900); Feine,
PRE3, XIX (1907); Pahncke in Studien u. Krit. (1912), I.
S. D. Press
STEWARD
<stu-erd> ([t yiB l [ v ya i , ish `al bayith] (Gen 43:16,19; 44:1; 1 Ki 16:9),
[r x l ]M,h , ha-meltsar] (Dan 1:11), [k eS oh , ha-cokhen] (Isa 22:15)):
1172
1. OLD TESTAMENT USAGE:
In the King James Version the word steward is found in Gen 15:2; 1 Ch
28:1, in addition to the above. The American Standard Revised Version
renders Gen 15:2 as possessor, and 1 Ch 28:1 rulers.
The phrase ben-mesheq in Gen 15:2 is best rendered son of acquisition,
hence, heir. But this is disputed. Skinner in the ICC on Gen regards the
text as hopelessly corrupt, and offers no solution of the difficulty. In the
other passages, the phrase ish `al bayith is conveniently translated
steward, though literally it is man over the house. The word ha-
meltsar in Dan 1:11 is translated in the King James Version as a proper
noun. This is certainly a mistake. The margin gives the steward, and this
is followed in the Revised Version (British and American). A better
rendering perhaps would be overseer, as this man seemed to have the
superintendence of the training and feeding of the young men until they
were fitted to enter the kings service. He was thus rather a steward of
persons than of property (see MELZAR). In Isa 22:15 Shebna is described
in the text as treasurer, but in the margin as steward, and seems to
combine the ideas in both the words treasurer and steward. Shebna
was thus one of the highest officials, having charge of the citys funds, and
of administering them for the citys benefit.
Though the word for steward occurs but once in that sense, the idea is
one familiar to the Old Testament. Eliezer of Damascus was Abrahams
slave and trusted steward. Heseems to have had the oversight of all his
affairs and was entrusted with the important duty of getting a wife for
Isaac. He apparently had charge over the family of his master as well as his
property. Whether Isaac had such a steward or not is nowhere stated, but it
is practically certain that he had. Jacob seems to have been Labans
steward for a time, as he apparently had full charge of the flocks and herds
of his master. Joseph was practically Potiphars steward, and when he
became Pharaohs chief minister, he himself had a steward over his own
house (Gen 39:4,5; 44:1,4). The king Elah in his brief reign of two years
had a steward in charge of his household (1 Ki 16:9). The same was
doubtless true of all the kings, and it may be safely inferred that every
household of distinction or of sufficient wealth had a steward in charge.
The functions of this officer seem at times to have included the care of the
children or minors, as well as of the property. Sometimes he was a slave,
sometimes a freedman.
1173
2. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT:
[rtpoo, epitropos], [oxovoo, oikonomos]. These two terms
denote similar positions. The exact difference cannot be clearly defined, as
they are sometimes almost synonymous. The two are found together in Gal
4:2. Some scholars say they are used synonymously, others that the first
word is a more general term including the latter. Lightfoot and Ellicott
think that the former refers rather to the guardianship of persons, the
childs legal representative, while the latter word refers to the head servant
appointed to manage the household or property (compare 2 Macc 11:1;
13:2). There would, however, not be any such hard-and-fast line between
their respective duties; these might vary with every master, or might be
combined in one individual.
(1) In the Gospels.
The idea seems to have been perfectly familiar to the people in Christs
day. Every household of distinction seems to have had a steward in
charge, Herods steward was named Chuzas, and his wife, Joanna,
followed and ministered to Jesus (Lk 8:3). The word epitropos used here
is held by some scholars to imply that he had charge of the education of
Herods children. This is very probable but not certain. In the parable of
the Laborers in the Vineyard, it is the steward who pays the laborers at the
close of the day (Mt 20:8). The parable of the Unjust Steward best
illustrates the practice. This steward was a freeman, had full charge of his
masters affairs and could use them to his own advantage if he chose, was
fully accountable to his master and had to render an account when called
upon. If unfaithful he was usually discharged at once (Lk 16:1-13). The
parables of the Minae or Pounds (Lk 19:12-27), the Talents (Mt 25:14-
30), and the Wicked Husbandmen (Mt 21:33-46) teach similar truths. In
His warning to His disciples Jesus seems to imply that they were to act as
stewards in His absence (Lk 12:42). According to this passage a stewards
task was to manage all the affairs of his master, attend to receipts and
expenditures, and portion out to each one of the household what should
come to him. The disciples were left thus in charge of His gospel and were
to use this gift to the best advantage in behalf of others until His return. In
Jn 2:8 the term ruler is given in the margin as steward. The one
referred to here was really director of the feast rather than steward, though
in a sense charged with the responsibility of conducting it. Many stewards
1174
were no doubt slaves, as is implied in Mt 24:45, while others were
freedmen (Lk 16:1-21).
(2) In the Epistles.
The application of this term is largely confined to the ministry of the
gospel. Paul and his fellow-laborers regarded themselves as stewards of
the mysteries of God (1 Cor 4:1,2). The idea is that he take scrupulous
care of that which was entrusted to him, and give it out to others faithfully
and as directed by his master Jesus Christ. A bishop or overseer is to be as
Gods steward (Tit 1:7). Peter considered himself and all other Christians
as stewards of the manifold grace of God (1 Pet 4:10). The prevalence
of the custom of having guardians and stewards over children in their
minority is shown in Gal 4:2. The difference in meaning of the two words
used here is stated above. In
<451623>
Romans 16:23 Erastus is called the
oikonomos of the city. This is best translated treasurer. Erastus was thus
an influential member of the community of Corinth and evidently a faithful
Christian.
J ames J osiah Reeve
STEWPAN
<stu-pan> (Lev 11:35 margin).
See PAN.
STIFF-NECKED
<stif-nekt> ([t r ,[ oh v eq ], qesheh `oreph], literally, hard of neck): As it is
figuratively used, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, the
word means stubborn, untractable, not to be led. The derivation of
the idea was entirely familiar to the Jews, with whom the ox was the most
useful and common of domestic animals. It was especially used for such
agricultural purposes as harrowing and plowing (Jdg 14:18; 1 Cor 9:9).
The plow was usually drawn by two oxen. As the plowman required but
one hand to guide the plow, he carried in the other an ox-goad. This was
a light pole, shod with an iron spike. With this he would prick the oxen
upon the hind legs to increase their speed, and upon the neck to turn, or to
keep a straight course when deviating. If an ox was hard to control or
stubborn, it was hard of neck, or stiff-necked. Hence, the figure was
1175
used in the Scriptures to express the stubborn, untractable spirit of a
people not responsive to the guiding of their God (Ex 32:9; 33:3; Dt 9:6; 2
Ch 36:13; Jer 17:23, etc.). See also the New Testament where
[oxqpotpoqo, sklerotrachelos], is so translated (
<440751>
Acts 7:51), Ye
stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the
Holy Spirit.. Compare Baruch 2:30,33.
Arthur Walwyn Evans
STILL
<stil>: To be still is to keep silence (Ps 4:4, etc.) and so to be quiet
(Ps 107:29, etc.) or inactive in any way (Jdg 18:9; 1 Ki 22:3; Zec 1:11,
etc.). So be still in Ps 46:10 means desist from your war (compare the
Revised Version margin let be). The still small voice of 1 Ki 19:12 (the
Revised Version margin sound of gentle stillness) is due to taking the
Hebrew demamah in its literal force of silent, but the word here means
whisper a whispering, little voice. This familiar passage, however,
has made still voice good English, and the combination is used in
<180416>
Job
4:16 by the Revised Version margin. In Ps 23:2 the translation still
waters takes waters of rest (so literally for [h j ;Wnm], menuchah];
compare the Revised Version margin) to mean waters with little motion.
But the meaning is either wells by which the flocks rest or wells that
give refreshing water. As an adverb still is perhaps more emphatic than
in modern English; compare power to keep still the kingdom, 2 Ch 22:9
the King James Version (the Revised Version (British and American) to
hold the kingdom).
Burton Scott Easton
STING
<sting> ([v r P , parash], to cut into; [xrvtpov, kentron], a goad,
spur): A sharp, pointed organ or instrument for inflicting wounds by
puncture; sting of an adder, Prov 23:32; of scorpions, Rev 9:10. In the free
quotation of 1 Cor 15:55 from Hos 13:14, death is personified as a deadly
animal, like a scorpion or serpent, which inflicts destruction by means of
sin as its kentron. It should also be remembered that in
<442614>
Acts 26:14 the
same Greek word is used with reference to an instrument for exciting fear,
rather than death. Both figures are pertinent; for death is powerless, except
1176
through sin, and, also, when sin is vanquished, the fear of death (Heb 2:15)
is gone.
H. E. J acobs
STIR, STIR UP
<stur>: Used transitively and intransitively to indicate inner, concentrated
movement; translates a number of Hebrew and Greek verbs, each of which
has its different shade of meaning. Thus, e.g. in Ps 39:2, we have `akhar,
to be troubled, excited; in Song 2:7, `ur, to awake, disturb (by the
festal dances and songs). In 2 Tim 1:6, it stands for Greek anazopureo,
used of the resuscitation of a flame; in 2 Pet 1:13; 3:1, Greek diegeiro, to
awaken from sleep or stupor; in
<442127>
Acts 21:27, Greek sugcheo, to
commingle, vividly portraying the confusion and tumult that resulted; in
<441350>
Acts 13:50, Greek parotruno, to urge on;
<441713>
Acts 17:13, Greek
saleuo, to shake to and fro.
STOCK
<stok>: In English Versions of the Bible is used for:
(1) The stem of a tree, whether alive (
<181408>
Job 14:8; Isa 40:24) or cut down
(Isa 44:19; The Wisdom of Solomon 14:21). In Jer 2:27; 3:9; Hos 4:12,
where the Hebrew has simply [6 [ e , `ets], wood, either meaning is
possible (tree-worship? idolatry?). In Jer 10:8 the text is doubtful.
(2) A family (Lev 25:47; 1 Esdras 5:37; Tobit 5:13; 1 Macc 12:21; 2 Macc
1:10;
<441326>
Acts 13:26; Phil 3:5).
(3) Elsewhere (
<181327>
Job 13:27, etc.) the word refers to an instrument of
punishment.
See PUNISHMENTS.
STOICS
<sto-iks> ([2txo, Stoikoi]):
1. ORIGIN AND PROPAGATION:
The name was derived from the Stoa Poikile, the painted porch at Athens,
where the founders of the school first lectured. This school of Greek
1177
philosophy was founded at Athens circa 294 BC by Zeno (circa 336-264
BC), a native of Citium, a Greek colony in Cyprus. But the Semitic race
predominated in Cyprus, and it has been conjectured that Zeno was of
Semitic rather than Hellenic origin. His Greek critics taunted him with
being a Phoenician. It has therefore been suggested that the distinctive
moral tone of the system was Semitic and not Hellenic. Further color is
given to this view by the fact that Zenos immediate successors at the head
of the school also hailed from Asia Minor, Cleanthes (331-232 BC) being a
native of Assos, and Chrysippus (280-206 BC) of Soli in Cilicia. Several
other adherents of the system hailed from Asia Minor, and it flourished in
several Asiatic cities, such as Tarsus and Sidon. In the 2nd century BC the
doctrine was brought to Rome by Panaetius of Rhodes (circa 189-109
BC), and in the course of the two succeeding centuries it spread widely
among the upper classes of Roman society. It reckoned among its
adherents a Scipio and a Cato, Seneca and Marcus Aurelius, as well as the
freedman Epictetus. The most adequate account of the teaching of the
Greek Stoics has been preserved in the writings of Cicero, who, however,
was a sympathetic critic, rather than an adherent of the school. The system
acquired its most lasting influence by its adoption as the formative factor in
the jurisprudence of imperial Rome, and Roman law in its turn contributed
to the formation of Christian doctrine and ethics.
2. METAPHYSICS AND RELIGION:
The main principles of Stoicism were promulgated by Zeno and Cleanthes,
and Chrysippus formulated them into a systematic doctrine which became a
standard of orthodoxy for the school, and which permitted but little
freedom of speculation for its subsequent teachers. Whatever may have
been the Semitic affinities of mind of Zeno and his followers, they derived
the formal principles of their system from Greek antecedents. The ethical
precept, Follow Nature, they learnt from the Socratic school of
Antisthenes, the Cynics. But they followed the earlier philosopher
Heraclitus in defining the law of Nature as reason (logos), which was at
once the principle of intelligence in man, and the divine reason immanent in
the world. This doctrine they again combined with the prevalent Greek
hylozoism, and therefore their metaphysics inclined to be a materialistic
pantheism. On the one side, Nature is the organization of material atoms by
the operation of its own uniform and necessary laws. On the other side, it
1178
is a living, rational being, subduing all its parts to work out a rational
purpose inherent in the whole. As such it may be called Providence or God.
While the Stoics rejected the forms and rites of popular religion, they
defended belief in God and inculcated piety and reverence toward Him.
Their pantheism provided a basis for Greek polytheism also alongside of
their monism, for where all the world is God, each part of it is divine, and
may be worshipped. Another consequence of their pantheism was their
attitude to evil, which they held to be only apparently or relatively evil, but
really good in the harmony of the whole. Therefore they bore evil with
courage and cheerfulness, because they believed that all things worked
together for good absolutely.
3. SENSATIONALIST EPISTEMOLOGY:
The materialistic trend of their metaphysics also comes out in their
epistemology, which was sensationalist. The human mind at its birth was a
tabula rasa. Its first ideas were derived from sensations, the impressions
made by the external world upon the soul, which they also conceived as a
material body, though made of finer atoms than the external body. Out of
these sense-impressions the mind built up its intuitions or preconceptions,
and its notions, which constituted its store of ideas. It is not clear how far
they attributed originative power to the mind as contributing some factor
to the organization of knowledge, which was not derived from experience.
The Stoic system is never consistently materialistic, nor consistently
idealistic. Most of its terms are used in a dual sense, material and spiritual.
4. ETHICAL TEACHING:
But its ethical teaching shows that the main trend of the system was
spiritualistic. For its crown and climax was the ethics. The Stoics did not
pursue knowledge for its own sake. They speculated about ultimate
problems only for the practical purpose of discovering a rule of life and
conduct. And in their ethics, the great commandment, Follow Nature, is
interpreted in a distinctly idealistic sense. It means, Follow reason, as
reason inheres both in man and in the universe as a whole. It is submission
to Providence or the rational order of the universe, and the fulfillment of
mans own rational nature. The life according to Nature is mans supreme
good. How actual Nature could be the ideal good that man ought to seek,
or how man was free to pursue an ideal, while he was bound in a system of
1179
necessity, were fundamental paradoxes of the system which the Stoics
never solved. They summed up their moral teaching in the ideal of the sage
or the wise man. His chief characteristic is ataraxy, a calm passionless
mastery of all emotions, and independence of all circumstances. He
therefore lives a consistent, harmonious life, in conformity with the perfect
order of the universe. He discovers this order by knowledge or wisdom.
But the Stoics also defined this ideal as a system of particular duties, such
as purity in ones self, love toward all men, and reverence toward God. In
Stoic ethics, Greek philosophy reached the climax of its moral teaching.
Nowhere else outside Christianity do we find so exalted a rule of conduct
for the individual, so humane, hopeful and comprehensive an deal for
society.
5. RELATION TO CHRISTIANITY:
When certain .... of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered
Paul at Athens, and when, after the apostle had spoken on Mars Hill,
some mocked; but others said, We will hear thee concerning this yet
again (
<441718>
Acts 17:18,32), it is no improbable inference that the
Epicureans mocked, while the Stoics desired to hear more. For they would
find much in the apostles teaching that harmonized with their own views.
Pauls quotation from the classics in his Athenian speech was from the
Stoic poet, Aratus of Soli in Cilicia: For we are also his offspring. His
doctrine of creation, of divine immanence, of the spirituality and
fatherhood of God, would be familiar and acceptable to them. His
preaching of Christ would not have been unwelcome to them, who were
seeking for the ideal wise man. Pauls moral teaching as it appears in his
Epistles reveals some resemblance to Stoic ethics. it is possible that Paul
had learnt much from the Stoic school at Tarsus. It is certain that
subsequent Christian thought owed much to Stoicism. Its doctrine of the
immanent Logos was combined with Philos conception of the
transcendent Logos, to form the Logos doctrine through which the Greek
Fathers construed the person of Christ. And Stoic ethics was taken over
almost bodily by the Christian church.
See EPICUREANS; PHILOSOPHY.
1180
LITERATURE.
The chief extant sources are the writings of Cicero, De Finibus, De Natura
Deorum, etc.; Seneca, Plutarch, M. Antoninus Aurelius, Epictetus,
Diogenes Laertius, Sextus Empiricus and Stobaeus. Modern works: H.
von Arnim, Stoicorum veterum fragmenta; Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans and
Sceptics; R. D. Hicks, Stoic and Epicurean; W. L. Davidson, The Stoic
Creed; E. V. Arnold, Roman Stoicism, which contains a full bibliography
and deals with the relation of Stoicism to Christianity; on the latter point
see also Lightfoot, Philippians, Excursus II, St. Paul and Seneca;
histories of philosophy by Rogers, Windelband, Ueberweg, and E. Caird.
T. Rees
STOMACH
<stum-uk> ([otooo, stomachos]): In man and most vertebrates, a
membranous sac-like portion of the alimentary canal, in which the earlier
stages of digestion take place and in which food is prepared to yield its
nourishment (1 Tim 5:23).
Used figuratively of pride, A proud look and high stomach (Ps 101:7,
Prayer-book Version), and courage, Stirring up her womanish thoughts
with a manly stomach (2 Macc 7:21 the King James Version, the Revised
Version (British and American) with manly passion).
STOMACHER
<stum-uk-er>: Used to translate [l ygiyt iP ], pethighil] (Isa 3:24 the King
James Version), where the meaning is uncertain. The English word denotes
that part of a womans dress which covered the breast and the pit of the
stomach. It was usually much ornamented.
STONE, STONES
<ston>, <stonz>:
1. HEBREW AND GREEK WORDS:
(1) Chiefly [b ,a ,, ebhen], and [0o, lithos]; but also, occurring rarely,
[ v ,a ,, eshekh] (Lev 21:20); [r Wx , tsur] (
<182224>
Job 22:24), usually rock;
[r wOr x ], tseror] (2 Sam 17:13); [rtpo, petros] (Jn 1:42); [gqo,
1181
psephos] (Rev 2:17). For [[ l s ,, cela`], usually cliff, crag, rock,
the King James Version, in Ps 137:9; 141:6, has stone, but the Revised
Version (British and American) rock. For the King James Version
stones, [v or ,j ,, cheres] (
<184130>
Job 41:30), the Revised Version (British and
American) has potsherds.
See SELA.
2. LITERAL USAGE:
The word is used of great stones (Gen 29:2); of small stones (1 Sam
17:40); of stones set up as memorials (1 Sam 7:12, Eben-ezer, stone of
help); of precious stones (Ex 35:9, etc.); of hailstones (Josh 10:11).
3. FIGURATIVE USAGE:
Of hardness: I will take the stony heart out of their flesh (Ezek 11:19); of
one smitten: (Nabals) heart died within him, and became as a stone (1
Sam 25:37); of weight: A stone is heavy, and the sand weighty (Prov
27:3); of dumbness: Woe unto him that saith to the wood, Awake; to the
dumb stone, Arise! (Hab 2:19); of Jerusalem: I will make Jerusalem a
burdensome stone for all the peoples (Zec 12:3); of the corner-stone as a
figure of high position:
The stone which the builders rejected
I s become the head of the corner (Ps 118:22).
See FLINT; ROCK.
(2) Used also anatomically of the testicles (Lev 21:20; Dt 23:1;
<184017>
Job
40:17, [d j P , pachadh], the Revised Version (British and American)
thighs).
Alfred Ely Day
STONE-SQUARERS
<ston-skwar-erz>: the King James Version in 1 Ki 5:18; the Revised
Version (British and American) the Gebalites (which see).
1182
STONES, PRECIOUS:
1. ANCIENT AND MODERN NAMES:
Great difficulty is met with in any attempt to translate the Greek and
Hebrew names mentioned in the Bible into names that would be used for
the same minerals in a particular country at the present day. It is only
within the last century, through the development of the sciences of
chemistry and crystallography, that it has become possible to define mineral
species with any considerable approach to precision. In ancient times
various minerals were regarded as belonging to a single kind, and indicated
by a single name, that are now distributed into different kinds and
mentioned under different names.
For example, 2,000 years ago the Greek term anthrax was used to signify
various hard, transparent, red stones that are now known to differ much
from one another in chemical composition, and are therefore assigned to
different species and given different names; among them are oriental ruby
(red corundum), balas ruby (red spinel), almandine and pyrope (red
garnets); a stone designated anthrax by the ancient Greeks might thus
belong to any one of a number of various kinds to the assemblage of which
no name is now given, and the word anthrax has no simple equivalent in a
modern language.
2. CHANGE OF SIGNIFICATION OF NAMES:
Confusion is introduced in another way. The English names of most of the
precious stones mentioned in the Bible are adaptations of Greek names
through the Latin; for instance, the English word topaz is a modification
of the Latin word topazius, itself merely a Latin form of the Greek word
topazion. It would at first sight appear that the Greek word topazion must
be translated into English by the word topaz; but, strangely, although the
words are virtually identical, the stones indicated by the words are quite
different. The topazion of the ancient Greeks was a green stone yielding to
the action of a file and said to be brought from an island in the Red Sea,
whereas the topaz of the present day is not a green stone, does not yield to
the action of a file, and has not been brought from an island in the Red Sea.
The topazion of the ancient Greeks is really the peridot, not the topaz, of
modern mineralogy; topazion and topaz are different kinds of stone. For
the interpretation of the Bible it is thus necessary to ascertain, if possible,
1183
the kind of stone to which a Greek or Hebrew name was applied at the
time when the word was written.
3. THREE IMPORTANT LISTS OF STONES:
Most of the names of the precious stones mentioned in the Bible are
contained in the Hebrew description of the breastplate of the high priest
and the Greek description of the foundations of the New Jerusalem. The
ornaments assigned to the king of Tyre (Ezek 28:13) included only stones
that had been used in the breastplate; indeed, in the Septuagint, they are the
same twelve, mentioned in precisely the same order.
The stones of the breastplate according to our Hebrew text (Ex 28:17-21)
were:
The foundations of the New Jerusalem are (Rev 21:19,20):
1 iaspis
2 sappheiros
3 chalkedon
4 smaragdos
5 sardonux
6 sardion
7 chrusolithos
8 berullos
9 topazion
10 chrusoprasos
11 huakinthos
12 amethustos
Only 4 of the latter stones are mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament,
also in the Book of Revelation, namely: iaspis (4:3; 21:18), smaragdos
(4:3), sardion (4:3) and huakinthos (9:17).
1184
4. INTERPRETATION OF GREEK NAMES USED BY JOHN:
For the interpretation of the Greek names used by John, much help is given
by Plinys great work on Natural History, published 77 AD, for it records
what was known about precious stones at the very time when John himself
was living. The Greek names of stones and their Latin verbal equivalents
had presumably the same signification for both these writers; it is thus
possible, in some cases at least, to ascertain what name is now assigned to
a stone mentioned in the New Testament if the name and description are
recorded in the treatise of Pliny; the results are given in the alphabetical list
below. All twelve stones, except chalkedon, are mentioned by Pliny; the
few important stones described by him, but not mentioned by John as
foundations, are crystallum and adamas, both of them colorless; onyx,
remarkable rather for structure than color; electrum (amber), a soft
material; carbunculus, fiery red; callaina, pale green, probably turquoise;
cyanus, dark blue; and opalus (opal); ranked in Plinys time immediately
after smaragdus in value. Achates (agate) is omitted, but was no longer
precious.
5. INTERPRETATION OF HEBREW NAMES:
In the interpretation of the Hebrew names of the stones of the breastplate
there is much greater difficulty, for no Hebrew literature other than the Old
Testament has been preserved, and little help is afforded by the contexts of
other verses in which some of the Hebrew names of precious stones occur.
If we could assume that the Septuagint and the Vulgate (Jeromes Latin
Bible, 390-405 A.D.) versions of the description of the breastplate were
made from Hebrew texts absolutely identical in respect of the names of the
stones with those used for the preparation of the English Versions of the
Bible, and that the versions were correctly made, the Greek equivalents of
the Hebrew terms for the time of the Septuagint translators (about 280
BC) and their Latin equivalents for the time of Jerome (about 400 AD)
would be directly determinable by collation of the Hebrew original with the
Greek and Latin translations.
It must be remembered, however, that a Hebrew writer, in describing the
arrangement of a row of stones, began with that on his right and mentioned
them in the order right to left, while a western writer begins with the stone
on his left and mentions them in the reverse order. Hence, in translating a
Hebrew statement of arrangement into a western language, one may either
1185
translate literally word by word, thus adopting the Hebrew direction of
reading, or, more completely, may adopt the western direction for the
order in the row. As either method may have been adopted by the
Septuagint translators, it follows that odhem and bareqeth, the first and
last stones of the 1st row according to our Hebrew text, may respectively
be equivalent either to sardion and smaragdos, or, conversely, to
smaragdos and sardion; and similarly for the other rows. The number of the
middle stone of any row is the same whichever direction of reading is
adopted. Odhem being red, and sardion and smaragdos respectively red
and green (see below), odhem must be equivalent to the former, not the
latter, and the Septuagint translators must have adopted the Hebrew
direction of reading the rows.
6. GREEK AND LATIN EQUIVALENTS OF HEBREW NAMES:
Other sets of possible equivalents are derivable by collation of the Biblical
description with each of the two descriptions given by Josephus (Ant., III,
vii, 5; BJ, V, v, 7). The possible Greek and Latin equivalents of Hebrew
names are thus as follows:
It may be remarked, as regards the 1st stone of the 1st row, that in the time
of Josephus the stone sardonux could be signified also by the more general
term sardion; and, as regards the 1st stone of the 2nd row, that anthrax and
carbo being respectively Greek and Latin for glowing coal, anthrax and
carbunculus, diminutive of carbo, were used as synonyms for certain red
stones.
7. INCONSISTENCIES OF TEXT OR TRANSLATIONS
From the inconsistencies of the above table of possible equivalents it may
be inferred that either
(1) essentially different translations were given in several cases for the
same Hebrew word, or
(2) the Hebrew texts used in the preparation of the Septuagint and the
Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) versions were, in respect
of the precious stones, different from each other and from that used in
the preparation of English Versions of the Bible, or
(3) the breastplate differed at different epochs, or
1186
(4) one or other, or both, of the descriptions by Josephus are incorrect.
Conceivably differences may have arisen in all the above-mentioned
ways.
(1) Inconsistency of Septuagint Translators
That the Septuagint translators were uncertain as to the correct translation
of the Hebrew names used for the precious stones into the Greek names
used in their time, and that they translated the Hebrew name of a stone in
more than one way may be shown as follows. In the Hebrew text
corresponding to English Versions of the Bible the word shoham,
designating the 2nd stone of the 4th row of the breastplate, occurs also in
several verses where there is no mention of other stones, and where there
is thus no risk of accidental interchange, such as may easily occur when
technical terms, more especially if unintelligible to the transcriber, are near
to one another in the text. Now, for our versions shoham has been
systematically translated onyx, and for the Vulgate (Jeromes Latin
Bible, 390-405 A.D.) the Hebrew word having the same position in the
text has been systematically translated by a Latin synonym of onyx, namely,
lapis onychinus (except in
<182816>
Job 28:16, where lapis sardonychus is the
rendering). Hence, it is probable that the word in these particular verses
was shoham in the Hebrew original of the Vulgate, and therefore also of
the Hebrew original of the Septuagint. Yet in the Septuagint the Hebrew
word is translated soom (1 Ch 29:2, indicating that the translator, not
knowing the Greek word for shoham, gave merely its Greek
transliteration) as well as smaragdos (Ex 28:9; 35:27; 39:6 or Septuagint
36:13), prasinos (Gen 2:12), sardion (Ex 25:7; 35:9 or Septuagint 35:8),
onux (
<182816>
Job 28:16).
These differences suggest that there were different Septuagint translators,
even for different chapters of the same book, and that little care was taken
by them to be consistent with one another in the translation of technical
terms.
(2) Differences of Hebrew Texts
That the Hebrew texts used for the Septuagint, Vulgate (Jeromes Latin
Bible, 390-405 A.D.) and English Versions of the Bible were not identical
in all the verses in which there is mention of precious stones is especially
clear from an analysis of the respective descriptions of the ornaments of the
king of Tyre (Ezek 28:13). In the Septuagint 12 stones are mentioned; as
1187
already stated, they have precisely the same names and are mentioned in
precisely the same order as the stones of the breastplate described in that
version, the only difference being that gold and silver are inserted in the
middle of the list. On the other hand, in Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible,
390-405 A.D.) and English Versions of the Bible descriptions of the
ornaments, only 9 of the 12 stones of the breastplate are mentioned; they
are not in the same order as the corresponding stones in the breastplate as
described in those VSS, silver is not mentioned at all, while gold is placed,
not in the middle, but at the end of the list. Further, the order of mention of
the stones in English Versions of the Bible differs from that of mention in
Vulgate.
(3) Changes in the Breastplate
That the breastplate in use in the time of the Septuagint translators (about
280 BC) may have been different from the one described in the Book of
Exodus is manifest if we have regard to the history of the Jewish nation;
for Jerusalem was captured by Shishak, king of Egypt, about 973 BC, by
Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, about 586 BC, and by Ptolemy Soter,
king of Egypt, about 320 BC. The original breastplate may have been part
of the spoil on one or other of these occasions, and have then disappeared
forever.
Again, between the times of the Septuagint translators and Josephus,
Jerusalem was more than once in the hands of its enemies; in 198 BC the
city was captured by Antiochus the Great; in 170 BC it was stormed, and
its temple plundered, by Antiochus Epiphanes; in 54 BC the temple was
desecrated by Crassus. The breastplate familiar to Josephus (for he was
long a priest in the temple of Jerusalem) may thus not have been identical
with that in use when the Septuagint version was made.
And if the signification of the Hebrew names of the stones had not been
carefully passed down from one generation to another while the breastplate
was no longer in existence (for instance, during the Babylonian captivity),
or if stones like those of the original breastplate were not available when a
new breastplate was being made, there would inevitably be differences in
the breastplate at different times.
The probability of this hypothesis of one or more replacements of the
breastplate is still further increased if we have regard to the large stones
that were set in gold buttons and fastened to the shoulderpieces of the
1188
ephod, the vestment to which the breastplate itself was attached (Ex 28:9;
39:6 or Septuagint 36:13). According to the Septuagint, the material was
smaragdos (and therefore green); according to Josephus it was sardonux
(and therefore red with a layer of white). Though the Septuagint translators
may never have had opportunities of looking closely at the stones, they
might be expected to know the color of the material; Josephus must have
seen them often. But the complete difference of colors of smaragdos and
sardonux suggests that the difference of the names is due, not to a
Septuagint mistranslation of the Hebrew name shoham, but to an actual
difference of the material; it may have been smaragdos (and green) at the
time when the Septuagint translation was made, and yet sardonux (and red
with a layer of white) in the time of Josephus.
(4) Descriptions Given by Josephus
That in respect of the breastplate it is unsafe to collate the Hebrew texts of
the various versions with that of Josephus may be demonstrated as follows.
The 2nd stone of the 2nd row, termed cappir in our Hebrew text, is termed
sappheiros in the Septuagint and sapphirus in the Vulgate (Jeromes Latin
Bible, 390-405 A.D.) Wherever else cappir occurs in our Hebrew text,
sappheiros occurs in the corresponding place in the Septuagint and
sapphirus in the Vulgate; it may thus be inferred that in respect of the word
cappir our Hebrew text and the Hebrew texts used for the Septuagint and
Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) versions were in complete
accord with one another. Also, it is certain that the Latin word sapphirus
was derived from the Greek word sappheiros, and that either the latter had
its origin in the Hebrew word cappir or that both words had the same
source. There is no reason to think that from the time of the Septuagint
translators to that of Jerome the word sappheiros was ever used to signify
any other than one kind of stone or that the kind was ever called iaspis.
But in both the descriptions given by Josephus the middle stone of the 2nd
row is given as iaspis, not as sappheiros, which he makes the last stone of
the row. Hence, for the middle stone of the 2nd row, the Hebrew texts
were concordant in giving the name cappir, but they fundamentally differed
from that of Josephus whose two descriptions agree in giving the name
iaspis; it is not a difference of mere nomenclature or translation, but of the
kind of stone set in a definite part of the breastplate. This being the case,
collation of the Hebrew, Septuagint and Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible,
390-405 A.D.) descriptions of the breastplate with those given by Josephus
1189
cannot be relied on to give a true Greek or a true Latin equivalent for the
Hebrew name of any of the stones.
It may be added that the two descriptions given by Josephus differ from
each other only as regards the order of the stones in the last two rows; in
the 3rd row, the order is precisely reversed; in the 4th row the order is
chrusolithos, onuchion, berullion for Ant, and onuchion, berullion,
chrusolithos for BJ. Josephus, Antiquities was written at greater leisure
than BJ, and was not completed till 18 years later; Josephus had thus more
time for the consultation of old manuscripts. Speaking generally, it is more
accurate than his earlier treatise as regards the history of those times of
which he had no direct knowledge; its description of the breastplate is
more precise as regards the arrangement of the stones, and is therefore the
one to which the greater weight must be given. It differs from the
Septuagint only through the interchange of the 2nd and 3rd stones in the
2nd, 3rd and 4th rows; and possibly Josephus gave the order from his
memory either of the Septuagint or of the actual breastplate.
The only difference between the descriptions given in the Septuagint and
the Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) is that the last two
stones, namely berullion (beryllus) and onuchion (onychinus), are
interchanged.
8. VULGATE AND SEPTUAGINT:
As already pointed out, the Hebrew texts of the Septuagint and English
Versions of the Bible must have differed completely as regards the
descriptions of the ornaments of the king of Tyre; it is thus not at all
certain that they were in complete accord as regards the descriptions of the
breastplate. In fact, it is generally accepted that the Hebrew word
yashepheh and the Greek word iaspis are virtually identical, and that they
were used to signify the same kind of stone.
9. HEBREW TEXTS OF SEPTUAGINT AND ENGLISH
VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE:
Hence, it follows that the Hebrew text of English Versions of the Bible is
not identical with the Hebrew texts of the Septuagint and the Vulgate
(Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) versions in respect of the stones in
the 2nd and 4th rows; if our Hebrew text is correct as regards yashepheh,
that stone was the last stone in the last row; if the Hebrew texts of the
1190
Septuagint and Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) versions
were correct, yashepheh, which had for its Greek equivalent iaspis, must
have been the last stone in the 2nd row; further, onuchion (Septuagint) and
beryllus (Vulgate) must be equivalent, not to yashepheh, but to some other
stones of the breastplate.
10. EQUIVALENCE OF HEBREW AND GREEK NAMES:
Taking these matters into consideration, the following have considerable
claims to be regarded as equivalents:
The remaining three stones, tarshish, shoham and yahalom, are thus
equivalent to chrusolithos, onuchion and berullion, but it is uncertain which
Greek name corresponds to any of those Hebrew names.
11. INTERPRETATION OF GREEK NAMES USED BY
SEPUAGINT:
For the interpretation of the Greek names of stones mentioned in the
Septuagint (and thus of the Hebrew names in the original text), the work of
Theophrastus, a contemporary of the Septuagint translators, is very useful.
That author mentions, besides krustallos and margarites which occur
elsewhere than in the description of the breastplate, nine of the Septuagint
names of the breastplate stones, namely: achates, amethustos (as
amethuson), anthrax, iaspis, ligurion (as lugkurion), onuchion,
sappheiros, sardion, smaragdos. The three stones mentioned in the
Septuagint but not by Theophrastus are berullion, chrusolithos, and
topazion. Since he mentions only four stones that are not referred to in the
Septuagint, namely chrusokolla, hualoeides, kuanos and omphax, it
follows that the Septuagint translators at Alexandria introduced every
important name that was then in use at Athens for a precious stone.
In the following alphabetical list references are given to all the verses in
which each name of a precious stone occurs, and for each use of a
translated name the corresponding word in the original text.
12. LIST OF NAMES WITH BIBLICAL REFERENCES:
Achates ([ootq, achates]): probably Septuagint translation of shebho
(Ex 28:19; 39:12). It is not mentioned in Apocrypha or the New
Testament.
1191
Adamant (see also special article): in Ezek 3:9; Zec 7:12, English Versions
of the Bible translation of Hebrew shamir.
Agate: in Ex 28:19; 39:12, English Versions of the Bible translation of
Hebrew shebho; in Isa 54:12; Ezek 27:16, the King James Version
translation of Hebrew kadhkodh.
[h m; l ; j ] a ,Achlamah]: in Ex 28:19; 39:12: 3rd stone, 3rd row, of the
breastplate. Septuagint translates amethustos; Vulgate (Jeromes Latin
Bible, 390-405 A.D.) translates amethystus; English Versions of the Bible
amethyst.
The Septuagint rendering amethustos is generally accepted as correct, but
the late Professor N. S. Maskelyne, F.R.S., formerly (1857-80) Keeper of
Minerals in the British Museum, gave reasons for regarding the achlamah
of breastplate times as possibly an onyx in which white bands alternated
with waxy-yellow to reddish-yellow bands.
Amber: in Ezek 1:4,27; 8:2, the King James Version, the English Revised
Version and the American Revised Version margin translation of Hebrew
chashmal; in Ex 28:19, the Revised Version margin translation of Hebrew
leshem.
Amethustos ([or0uoto, amethustos]): in Rev 21:20: the 12th foundation
of the New Jerusalem; Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.)
translates amethystus; English Versions of the Bible amethyst. Four
varieties of amethystus were recognized by Pliny as precious; all of them
were transparent, and of purple tint or of tints derived from purple.
According to the Septuagint, amethustos was the 3rd stone, 3rd row, of
the breastplate, and the stone occupying this position is given in our
Hebrew text as achlamah. Amethustos is mentioned under the name
amethuson by Theophrastus; he describes it as a transparent stone
resembling wine in color and as used by the gem engravers of his day.
Amethystus and amethuson were doubtless identical with the amethyst of
the present day, a purple variety of quartz (silica). Beads and other
ornaments of amethyst found in old Egyptian tombs show that the stone
was regarded as precious in very ancient times.
Amethyst: in Ex 28:19; 39:12, English Versions of the Bible translation of
Hebrew achlamah; in Rev 21:20, English Versions of the Bible translation
of Greek amethustos.
1192
Anthrax ([ov0po, anthrax]): in Tobit 13:17; Ecclesiasticus 32:5, English
Versions of the Bible translates carbuncle. According to the Septuagint,
anthrax was also a stone of the breastplate, 1st stone, 2nd row, but there is
uncertainty as to the Hebrew text of the Septuagint in respect of this word.
The anthrax of Theophrastus included different kinds of hard, red stone
used by the gem engravers. It is the carbunculus of Plinys time, and
probably included the oriental ruby (corundum, alumina), the balas ruby
(spinel, aluminate of magnesium), the almandine (a kind of garnet,
alumino-silicate of iron) and pyrope (another kind of garnet, alumino-
silicate of magnesium) of the present day.
[t q ,r ,B ;, Bareqeth]: in Ex 28:17; 39:10; Ezek 28:13: 3rd stone, 1st row, of
breastplate. Septuagint probably translates smaragdos, but there is
uncertainty as to the Hebrew text of the Septuagint in respect of this word:
English Versions of the Bible translates carbuncle; the Revised Version
margin translates emerald. The rendering smaragdos may be correct, but
no emeralds of very early age have been found in Egypt. From the
similarity of the words bareqeth and baraq (lightning), it has been
suggested that possibly the breastplate stone was not green but of bluish-
red color, in which case it may have been an almandine (garnet). English
Versions of the Bible has interchanged the names given by Septuagint, to
the 3rd stone of the 1st row (smaragdos, emerald) and the 1st stone of
the 2nd row (anthrax, carbuncle).
Bdellium (see also special article): in Gen 2:12; Nu 11:7, English Versions
of the Bible translation of Hebrew bedholach.
[j l d o B ], Bedholach]: The Septuagint translates anthrax in Gen 2:12,
and krustallos in Nu 11:7; Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.)
and English Versions of the Bible translate bdellium. Some commentators,
rejecting both the Septuagint translations, interpret the material to be pearl,
others to be the gum of an Arabian tree.
Berullos ([pqpuo, berullos]): in Tobit 13:17; Rev 21:20: the 8th
foundation of the New Jerusalem. Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405
A.D.) translates beryllus; English Versions of the Bible translates beryl.
According to Septuagint, berullion was a stone of the breastplate, the 2nd
stone, 4th row; owing to uncertainty as to their Hebrew text, there is doubt
as to the Hebrew word translated berullion. Berullos is not mentioned by
1193
Theophrastus, who may have regarded it as included in the smaragdos of
his day.
In the time of Pliny 8 varieties were recognized; he says that beryllus was
already thought by some to be of the same nature as the smaragdus, or at
least closely analogous. India produces them, and they are rarely to be
found elsewhere. The lapidaries cut all beryls of a hexagonal form because
the color which is deadened by a dull uniformity of surface is heightened by
the reflections resulting from the angles. If they are cut in any other way,
these stones have no brilliancy whatever. The most esteemed beryls are
those which in color resemble the pure green of the sea. Some are of
opinion that beryls are naturally angular.
This description suggests the identity of the seagreen beryllus of Plinys
time with the sea-green beryl (alumino-silicate of beryllium) of the present
day.
Beryl: in Ex 28:20; 39:13; Song 5:14; Ezek 1:16; 10:9; 28:13; Dan 10:6,
English Versions of the Bible translation of Hebrew tarshish; in Gen 2:12;
Ex 25:7 margin; 28:9,20; 35:27 margin; 1 Ch 29:2 margin;
<182816>
Job 28:16
margin, the Revised Version margin translation of Hebrew shoham; in
Tobit 13:17; Rev 21:20, English Versions of the Bible translation of Greek
berullos.
Carbuncle: in Ex 28:17; 39:10; Ezek 28:13, English Versions of the Bible
translation of Hebrew bareqeth; in Ex 28:18 margin; 39:11; Ezek 27:16;
28:13, the Revised Version margin translation of Hebrew nophekh; in Isa
54:12, English Versions of the Bible translation of Hebrew eqdach; Tobit
13:17; Ecclesiasticus 32:5, English Versions of the Bible translation of
Greek anthrax.
Chalcedony: in Ex 28:20, the Revised Version margin translation of
Hebrew tarshish; in Rev 21:19, English Versions of the Bible translation of
Greek chalkedon.
Chalkedon ([oxqv, chalkedon]): in Rev 21:19: the 3rd foundation of
the New Jerusalem. Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.)
translates calcedonius; English Versions of the Bible translates
chalcedony. Though the name Chalcedon (Latin form) occurs in Pliny, it
is not as the name of a stone but as that of a free town then standing on the
southern side of the Bosphorus, probably close to the site on which Scutari
1194
now stands. Chalcedon had once been noted for its copper mines; but the
latter, when Pliny wrote, had been so far exhausted that they were no
longer worked.
Pliny refers to a kind of smaragdus (a green stone) as having been found
near Chalcedon, but adds that the stones were of very small size and value.
They were brittle, and of a color far from distinctly pronounced; they
resembled in their tints the feathers that are seen in the tail of the peacock
or on the neck of the pigeon. More or less brilliant, too, according to the
angle at which they were viewed, they presented an appearance like that of
veins and scales. In another place he refers to a stone from Chalcedon or
Calchedon (another reading) as being an iaspis of turbid hue. It is possible
that at Patmos or Ephesus, at one of which John was living when he wrote
the Book of Revelation, the word chalkedon was used to specify the
particular kind of smaragdus or iaspis that had been found near the town of
that name. It is uncertain what name would be given to such a stone in the
present day, but the signification now attached to the name chalcedony
(cryptocrystalline silica) cannot be traced farther back than the 15th
century.
Chrusolithos ([puoo0o, chrusolithos]): in Rev 21:20: the 7th
foundation of the New Jerusalem. Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405
A.D.) translates chrysolithus; the King James Version translates
chrysolyte; the Revised Version (British and American) translates
chrysolite. According to Septuagint chrusolithos was one of the stones
of the breastplate (lst stone, 4th row), but there is uncertainty as to the
Hebrew text of the Septuagint in respect of this word; the name is not
mentioned by Theophrastus. The chrysolithus of Pliny was a transparent
stone with a refulgence like that of gold. Those were most valued which
when placed by the side of gold, impart to it a sort of whitish hue, and so
give it the appearance of silver.
It may perhaps have included the yellow sapphire (alumina), the yellow
quartz (citrine, silica) and the yellow jargoon (zircon; silicate of zirconium)
of the present day. The term chrysolite is now applied to a different
mineral, namely, to a yellow variety of olivine (silicate of magnesium and
iron), a species that includes the green precious stone peridot as another of
its varieties.
1195
Chrusoprasos ([puoopooo, chrusoprasos]): in Rev 21:20: the 10th
foundation of the New Jerusalem. Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405
A.D.) and the King James Version translate chrysoprasus; the Revised
Version (British and American) translates chrysoprase. The chrysoprasus
was regarded by some naturalists of the time of Pliny as a variety of
beryllus. The 1st variety of beryllus and the most esteemed was, as stated
above, of a pure sea-green color; the 2nd was paler, and approached a
golden tint; the 3rd, allied to the 2nd in brilliancy but more pallid, was the
chrysoprasus. The latter was thought by other naturalists to belong to an
independent genus of stone. In another place Pliny describes the color as
like that of the leek, but as varying in tint between the topazion of his day
(our peridot) and gold. The stone may have been a yellowish-green plasma
(chalcedony, crypto-crystalline silica) or, as suggested by King, pale
chrysoberyl (aluminate of beryllium); it is not the chrysoprase of the
present day, which is an apple-green chalcedony (colored by nickel).
Chrysolite, chrysolyte: chrysolite in Ezek 28:13, the King James Version
margin translation of Hebrew tarshish; Rev 21:20, the Revised Version
(British and American) translation of Greek chrusolithos; chrysolyte in
Rev 21:20, the King James Version translation of Greek chrusolithos.
Chrysoprase, chrysoprasus: chrysoprase in Ezek 27:16, the King James
Version margin translation of Hebrew kadhkodh; Rev 21:20, the Revised
Version (British and American) translation of Greek chrusoprasos;
chrysoprasus in Rev 21:20, the King James Version translation of Greek
chrusoprasos.
Coral, red coral (see special article): coral in
<182818>
Job 28:18; Ezek 27:16,
English Versions of the Bible translation of Hebrew ramoth; Lam 4:7, the
Revised Version margin translation of Hebrew peninim; red coral in
<182818>
Job 28:18, the Revised Version margin translation of Hebrew peninim.
Crystal (see special article): in
<182817>
Job 28:17, the King James Version
translation of Hebrew zekhukhith; Ezek 1:22, the King James Version
translation of Hebrew qerach; in
<182818>
Job 28:18, the Revised Version
(British and American) translation of Hebrew gabhish; in Rev 4:6; 22:1,
English Versions of the Bible translation of Greek krustallos; in Rev 21:11,
English Versions of the Bible translation of Greek krustallizo (to shine
like crystal).
1196
Diamond: in Jer 17:1, English Versions of the Bible translation of Hebrew
shamir; in Ex 28:18; 39:11; Ezek 28:13, English Versions of the Bible
translation of Hebrew yahalom.
[j D ;q ]a ,, Eqdach]: in Isa 54:12: Septuagint translates krustallos; Vulgate
(Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) periphrases as lapides sculpti
(engraved stones); English Versions of the Bible translates carbuncles.
From the similarity to [j d q ;, qadhach], to burn, it is interpreted as
meaning fiery or sparkling, whence comes the rendering carbuncles.
Electrum (see special article): Ezek 1:4, the Revised Version margin
translation of Hebrew chashmal, amber.
Emerald: in Ex 28:18; 39:11; Ezek 27:16; 28:13, English Versions of the
Bible translation of Hebrew nophekh; in Ex 28:17; 39:10, the Revised
Version margin translation of Hebrew bareqeth; in Tobit 13:16; Judith
10:21; Ecclesiasticus 32:6; Rev 21:19, English Versions of the Bible
translation of Greek smaragdos; in Rev 21:19, English Versions of the
Bible translation of Greek adjective smaragdinos.
[v yb iG;, Gabhish]: in
<182818>
Job 28:18: The Septuagint transliterates gabis; the
King James Version translates pearls; the Revised Version (British and
American) translates crystal. From the similarity to [v b G;, gabhash],
ice, the rendering crystal is suggested.
[l m v ] j , Chashmal]: in Ezek 1:4,27; 8:2: The Septuagint translates
elektron; Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) and the Revised
Version margin translate electrum; the King James Version, the English
Revised Version and the American Revised Version margin translate
amber; the American Standard Revised Version translates glowing
metal. The elektron of the time of the Septuagint and Theophrastus was
the amber, of the present day; in the time of Pliny amber was an object of
luxury ranked next to crystal, and the term electrum was then applied, not
only to amber, but also to a metallic alloy of gold and silver.
Huakinthos, ([uoxv0o, huakinthos]): in Rev 9:17; 21:20: the 11th
foundation of the New Jerusalem. Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405
A.D.) translates hyacinthus; the King James Version translates jacinth;
the Revised Version (British and American) translates jacinth (Rev
21:20) and hyacinth (Rev 9:17); the Revised Version margin translates
1197
sapphire (Rev 21:20). Pliny describes the hyacinthus as being very
different from amethystus, though partaking of a color that closely
borders upon it and as being of a more diluted violet, It may have been the
pale blue sapphire (alumina) of the present day; the modern hyacinth, or
jacinth, is a quite different stone, a brownish to reddish zircon (silicate of
zirconium).
Hyacinth, jacinth (see also special article on HYACINTH): hyacinth in
Rev 9:17, the Revised Version (British and American) translation of Greek
huakinthos; jacinth in Ex 28:19; 39:12, the Revised Version (British and
American) translation of Hebrew leshem; in Rev 9:17; 21:20, the King
James Version translation of Greek huakinthos.
Iaspis ([Ioo, iaspis]): in Rev 4:3; 21:11,18 f: the 1st foundation of the
New Jerusalem. Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) translates
jaspis; English Versions of the Bible translates jasper. According to
Septuagint iaspis was the 3rd stone, 2nd row, of the breastplate, but there
is uncertainty as to the Hebrew text of the Septuagint in respect of this
word; Septuagint translates also kadhkodh as iaspis (Isa 54:12). Pliny
describes iaspis as being generally green and often transparent; he
recognizes as many as 14 varieties.
He adds that many countries produce this stone: that of India is like
smaragdus in color; that of Cyprus is hard and of a full sea-green; and that
of Persia is skyblue. Similar to the last is the Caspian iaspis. On the banks
of the river Thermodon the iaspis is of an azure color; in Phrygia it is
purple; and in Cappadocia of an azure-purple, somber and not refulgent.
The best kind is that which has a shade of purple, the next best being the
rose-colored, and the next the stone with the green color of the
smaragdus, etc.
The term jasper is now restricted to opaque stones; the green transparent
kind of iaspis may have been identical with the green chalcedony (crypto-
crystalline silica) called plasma at the present day.
Jasper: in Ex 28:20; 39:13; Ezek 28:13, English Versions of the Bible
translation of Hebrew yashepheh; in Rev 4:3; 21:11,18,19, English
Versions of the Bible translation of Greek iaspis.
[d K od ] Kadhkodh]: in Isa 54:12; Ezek 27:16: The Septuagint translates
iaspis (Isa 54:12) and transliterates chorchor (Ezek 27:16); Vulgate
1198
(Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) translates jaspis (Isa 54:12) and
transliterates chodchod (Ezek 27:16); the King James Version translates
agate; the King James Version margin translates chrysoprase (Ezek
27:16); the Revised Version (British and American) translates ruby.
There is little to indicate the probable meaning of the word.
[j r q ,, Qerach]: in Ezek 1:22: Septuagint translates krustallos; Vulgate
(Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) translates crystallum; English
Versions of the Bible translates crystal; the Revised Version margin
translates ice. The translations are suggested by the similarity to the
Hebrew [j r q ,, qerach], ice.
Krustallos ([xpuotoo, krustallos]): in Rev 4:6; 22:1: Vulgate
(Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) translates crystallum; English
Versions of the Bible translates crystal. The crystallum of Pliny was the
rock-crystal (clear quartz) of the present day. Among the localities cited
for crystallum by Pliny are the crags of the Alps, so difficult of access that
it is usually found necessary to be suspended by ropes in order to extract
it.
Lapis lazuli: in Rev 21:19, the Revised Version margin translation of Greek
sappheiros.
[ v ,l , , Leshem]: in Ex 28:19; 39:12: 1st stone, 3rd row, of the
breastplate. Septuagint probably translates ligurion, but there is uncertainty
as to their Hebrew text; Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.)
probably translates ligurius; the King James Version translates ligure; the
Revised Version (British and American) translates jacinth; the Revised
Version margin translates amber.
The ligurion of the Septuagint is probably identical with the lugkurion of
Theophrastus; this was a yellow to yellowishred stone used by seal
engravers, and was transparent and difficult to polish. The yellow ligurion
may be the yellow jargoon of the present day (zircon, silicate of
zirconium), a stone much used by the ancient Greek and Roman engravers;
but as the jargoon has not been found among ancient Egyptian work, it has
been suggested that the ligurion of the breastplate may have been a yellow
quartz (citrine) or agate. The yellowish-red ligurion may have been one of
the stones to which the name jacinth (also a zircon) is now applied.
Professor Maskelyne, rejecting the Septuagint translated, suggests that the
1199
leshem was identical with the neshem of the Egyptians, namely the green
feldspar now called amazon stone; as an alternative rendering to this he
suggests yellow jasper. The translation amber (Revised Version, margin)
is not likely to be correct, for that material would have been too soft for
use as a stone of the breastplate; its properties do not accord with those
assigned by Theophrastus to the lugkurion.
Ligure: in Ex 38:19; 39:12, the King James Version translation of Hebrew
leshem.
Ligurion ([yupov, ligurion]): in Septuagint Ex 28:19; 39:12,
Septuagint translation of Hebrew leshem: 1st stone, 3rd row, of
breastplate.
Margarites ([opyoptq, margarites]): in Mt 7:6; 13:45,46; 1 Tim 2:9;
Rev 18:12,16; 21:21: Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.)
translates margarita; English Versions of the Bible translates pearl. The
margarites is mentioned by Theophrastus as being one of the precious
stones, but not pellucid, as produced in a kind of oyster and in the pinna,
and as brought from the Indies and the shores of certain islands in the Red
Sea. Hence, it was identical with the pearl of the present day.
[ p ,nO, Nophekh], in Ex 28:18; 39:11; Ezek 27:16; 28:13: 1st stone, 2nd
row, of the breastplate. There is uncertainty as to the Hebrew text used by
the Septuagint, but probably nophekh is translated anthrax (except in Ezek
27:16, where the text differs); Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405
A.D.) probably translates carbunculus; English Versions of the Bible
translates emerald the Revised Version margin translates carbuncle.
English Versions of the Bible interchanges the names given by the
Septuagint to the 3rd stone, 1st row (smaragdos, emerald) and the 1st
stone, 2nd row (anthrax, carbuncle). Professor Maskelyne suggests that
the nophekh of the breastplate may have been the mophak or mafka of the
Egyptian hieroglyphics, the turquoise of the present day.
[ d ,a o, Odhem], in Ex 28:17; 39:10; Ezek 28:13: 1st stone, 1st row, of
the breastplate. Septuagint probably translates sardion, Vulgate (Jeromes
Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) probably translates sardius; English Versions of
the Bible translates sardius; EVm translates ruby. The Hebrew word is
related to [ d a ;, adham], to be red, and signifies a reddish stone; it
may have been sard (a name given not only to red, but also to pale reddish-
1200
yellow or brown, translucent chalcedony), but was more probably
carnelian, a red stone closely allied to sard, and much used by the ancient
Egyptians and Assyrians.
Onuchion, ([ovuov, onuchion], [ovu, onux]): onux, Septuagint
translation of Hebrew shoham (
<182816>
Job 28:16); onuchion, perhaps
Septuagint translation of shoham in the descriptions of the ornaments of
the king of Tyre (Ezek 28:13) and the stones of the breastplate (being there
made 3rd stone, 4th row, in Ex 28:20; 39:13), but there is uncertainty as to
the Hebrew text of the Septuagint; Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405
A.D.) translates onyx, lapis onychinus, lapis sardonychus. The onuchion of
Theophrastus was a hard, translucent stone used by the seal engravers; it
consisted of white and dusky layers in alternation. The onyx of Roman
times was an opaque stone of white and black layers, like the onyx of the
present day.
Onyx: in Gen 2:12; Ex 25:7; 28:9,20; 35:9,27; 39:6,13; 1 Ch 29:2;
<181816>
Job
18:16; Ezek 28:13, English Versions of the Bible translation of Hebrew
shoham.
Pearl: in
<182818>
Job 28:18, the King James Version translation of Hebrew
gabhish; in
<182818>
Job 28:18, the Revised Version margin translation of
Hebrew peninim; in Mt 7:6; 13:45 f; 1 Tim 2:9; Rev 18:12,16; 21:20,21,
English Versions of the Bible translation of Greek margarites.
[ yniyniP ], Peninim], in
<182818>
Job 28:18; Prov 3:15; 8:11; 20:15; 31:10; Lam
4:7: Septuagint (from which Prov 20:15 is missing) periphrases the word
or had a different Hebrew text; Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405
A.D.) translates ebur antiquum (old ivory) in Lam 4:7, but elsewhere
periphrases the word or had a different Hebrew text; English Versions of
the Bible translates rubies; the Revised Version margin translates red
coral, or pearls, except for Lam 4:7, where the translation is corals.
The word is similar to an Arabic word meaning branches and may signify
red coral, which has been highly esteemed since very ancient times; a
description of korallion is given by Theophrastus. Pliny says that in his day
the reddest and most branched was most valued.
[h d ;f ]P , PiTedhah], in Ex 28:17; 39:10;
<182819>
Job 28:19; Ezek 28:13: 2nd
stone, 1st row, of the breastplate. Septuagint translates topazion in
<182819>
Job
28:19 and probably also in the other verses; Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible,
390-405 A.D.) translates topazius; English Versions of the Bible translates
1201
topaz. The topazion of ancient times appears to have been scarcely
known before the Ptolemaic period, and Professor Maskelyne suggested
that the Hebrew word may possibly be allied to bijada, which in Persian
and Arabic signifies garnet.
Ramoth: in
<182818>
Job 28:18, the King James Version margin translation of
Hebrew ramoth.
[t wOma r ;, Ramoth], in
<182818>
Job 28:18; Ezek 27:16: Septuagint translates
meteora (
<182818>
Job 28:18) and ramoth (Ezek 27:16); Vulgate (Jeromes Latin
Bible, 390-405 A.D.) periphrases the passages; English Versions of the
Bible translates coral; the King James Version margin translates
ramoth (only in
<182818>
Job 28:18). There is little to indicate the meaning of
the Hebrew word.
Ruby: in
<182818>
Job 28:18; Prov 3:15; 8:11; 20:15; 31:10; Lam 4:7, English
Versions of the Bible translation of Hebrew peninim; in Isa 54:12; Ezek
27:16, the Revised Version (British and American) translation of Hebrew
kadhkodh; in Ex 28:17; 39:10; Ezek 28:13, the King James Version margin
translation of Hebrew odhem.
Sappheiros ([oorpo, sappheiros]): in Tobit 13:16; Rev 21:19: the
2nd foundation of the New Jerusalem. Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-
405 A.D.) translates sapphirus; English Versions of the Bible translates
sapphire; the Revised Version margin translates lapis lazuli (but only in
Rev 21:19). According to the Septuagint, sappheiros was the 2nd stone,
3rd row, of the breastplate, but there is uncertainty as to the Hebrew text.
Pliny describes sapphirus as refulgent with spots like gold. It is also of an
azure color, though sometimes, but rarely, it is purple; the best kind being
that which comes from Media. In no case, however, is this stone
transparent. These characteristics correspond to the lapis lazuli (sulphato-
silicate of sodium and aluminum), not to the sapphire (alumina) of the
present day.
[r yP i s ,Cappir], in Ex 24:10; 28:18; 39:11;
<182806>
Job 28:6,16; Song 5:14;
Isa 54:11; Lam 4:7; Ezek 1:26; 10:1; 28:13: 2nd stone, 2nd row, of the
breastplate. Septuagint translates sappheiros; Vulgate (Jeromes Latin
Bible, 390-405 A.D.) translates sapphirus and (Ex 24:10) lapis sapphirinus;
English Versions of the Bible translates sapphire. The Hebrew word is
universally accepted as equivalent to the Greek sappheiros; that name was
used, not for the stone now known as sapphire, but for that now known as
1202
lapis lazuli, a substance which was regarded by the ancient Egyptians as a
precious stone.
Sardine (stone), sardius: sardine (stone) in Rev 4:3, the King James
Version translation of Greek sardinon, an error of text for sardion;
sardius in Rev 4:3, the Revised Version (British and American)
translation of Greek sardion; in Rev 21:20, English Versions of the Bible
translation of Greek sardion; in Ex 28:17; 39:10; Ezek 28:13, English
Versions of the Bible translation of Hebrew odhem.
Sardion ([oopov, sardion]): in Rev 4:3; 21:20: the 6th foundation of
the New Jerusalem. According to the Septuagint, sardion was the 1st
stone, 1st row, of the breastplate. Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405
A.D.) translates sardius; the King James Version translates sardine
(stone) (Rev 4:3) and sardius (Rev 21:20); the Revised Version (British
and American) translates sardius. The sarda of Plinys time was much
used by the seal engravers. There were three Indian varieties, all of them
transparent, one of them red in color; there was then no precious stone in
more common use; those of honey-color were less valued. It probably
included both the sard and the carnelian of the present day (crypto-
crystalline silica).
Sapphire: in Ex 24:10; 28:18; 39:11;
<182806>
Job 28:6,16; Song 5:14; Isa 54:11;
Lam 4:7; Ezek 1:26; 10:1; 28:13, English Versions of the Bible translation
of Hebrew sappir; in Tobit 13:16; Rev 21:19, English Versions of the
Bible translation of Greek sappheiros; in Rev 21:20, the Revised Version
margin translation of Greek huakinthos.
Sardonux ([oopovu, sardonux]): in Rev 21:20: the 5th foundation of
the New Jerusalem. Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) and
English Versions of the Bible translate sardonyx. According to Pliny, the
name sardonyx was at first given to an Indian (red) sarda with a layer of
white in it, both being transparent.
Pliny says that later three colors were considered essential, but that they
might be repeated indefinitely. The Arabian sardonyx was characterized
by several different colors, black or azure for the base and vermilion
surrounded with a line of rich white for the upper part, not without a
certain glimpse of purple as the white passes into the red.
The sardonux of Johns time is included in the sardonyx of the present day.
1203
Sardonyx: in Rev 21:20, English Versions of the Bible translation of Greek
sardonux; Ex 28:18; 39:11, the Revised Version margin translation of
Hebrew yahalom.
[r ymiv ;, Shamir], in Jer 17:1; Ezek 3:9; Zec 7:12; Septuagint omits Jer
17:1, and in the other two verses either periphrases the word or had a
different text; Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) translates
(unguis) adamantinus in Jer 17:1, and adamas in the other two verses;
English Versions of the Bible translates diamond (Jer 17:1) and
adamant (Ezek 3:9; Zec 7:12). Shamir was a hard material used for
engraving precious stones; in the days of Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Zechariah,
splinters of both diamond and corundum (white sapphire or adamant stone)
were probably available for the purpose. Both diamond and adamant are
English modifications of the Latin adamas; the form diamond has been
restricted for some centuries to the more precious of the above stones.
[wOb v ], Shebho], in Ex 28:19; 39:12: the 2nd stone, 3rd row, of the
breastplate. Both Septuagint and Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405
A.D.) probably translate achates, but their Hebrew texts are uncertain;
English Versions of the Bible translates agate. The name achates was
given in ancient times to certain stones having banded structures, the
agates of the present day. In the time of Theophrastus achates was sold at
a great price, but by the time of Pliny had ceased to be a precious stone.
Professor Maskelyne suggests that the shebho of the breastplate may have
signified the stone of Sheba or Seba, a district in Southern Arabia, and
have been the Arabian onyx.
[ h v o, Shoham], in Gen 2:12; Ex 25:7; 28:9,20; 35:9,27; 39:6,13; 1 Ch
29:2;
<182816>
Job 28:16; Ezek 28:13: the 2nd stone, 4th row, of the breastplate.
Septuagint translates prasinos, i.e. leek-green stone (Gen 2:12), sardion
(Ex 25:7; 35:9), smaragdos (Ex 28:9; 35:27), berullion, probably, through
interchange of words in the Hebrew text (Ex 28:20; 39:13), soom (1 Ch
29:2), onux (
<182816>
Job 28:16) and perhaps onuchion (Ezek 28:13); Vulgate
(Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) translates onyx (Ezek 28:13), lapis
sardonychus (
<182816>
Job 28:16) and lapis onychinus elsewhere; English
Versions of the Bible translates onyx; the Revised Version margin
translates beryl (except in Ezek 28:13). Professor Maskelyne and
Professor Sayce, accepting green as the color of shoham, have expressed
the opinion that the stone known by that name in very early times was the
1204
stone called siamu by the Assyrians, and therefore the green turquoise;
Professor Maskelyne gives amazon stone as an alternative rendering of
the word. Berullion is given by the Septuagint as the 2nd stone, onuchion
as the 3rd stone, of the 4th row; sardion as the 1st stone, smaragdos as the
3rd stone, of the 1st row; but their Hebrew text is uncertain.
Smaragdinos, smaragdos ([oopoyvo, smaragdinos]): in Rev 4:3: the
Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) translates smaragdinus;
English Versions of the Bible translates emerald. Smaragdos
([oopoyo, smaragdos]) in Tobit 13:16; Judith 10:21; Ecclesiasticus
32:5; Rev 21:19: the Vulgate translates it as smaragdus; English Versions
of the Bible translates emerald. According to the Septuagint, smaragdos
was the 3rd stone, 1st row, of the breastplate, but their Hebrew text is
uncertain. The smaragdos of Theophrastus was a small, scarce, presumably
green, stone used by the gem engravers. In Plinys time the genus
smaragdus comprised no fewer than 12 kinds; one of them was the emerald
of the present day, and probably the smaragdos of Theophrastus.
[v yv i r ] T ,Tarshish], in Ex 28:20; 39:13; Song 5:14; Ezek 1:16; 10:9;
28:13; Dan 10:6: the 1st stone, 4th row, of the breastplate. The Septuagint
translates tharsis (Song 5:14; Ezek 1:16; Dan 10:6), anthrax (Ezek 10:9);
in the remaining verses there is uncertainty as to the order of the Hebrew
words in the several texts. The most likely Septuagint equivalent of
tarshish is either chrusolithos or berullion; Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible,
390-405 A.D.) translates hyacinthus (Song 5:14), mare (sea) (Ezek
1:16), chrysolithus (Ezek 10:9; Dan 10:6). The Septuagint gives anthrax as
the 1st stone, 2nd row, chrusolithos as the 1st stone, 4th row, berullion as
the 2nd stone, 4th row, of the breastplate; English Versions of the Bible
translates beryl; the King James Version margin translates chrysolite
(in Ezek 28:13 only); the Revised Version margin translates chalcedony
(Ex 28:20; 39:13), topaz (Song 5:14) and stone of Tarshish (Ezek
10:9). Professor Maskelyne suggests that the stone may have been citrine
(quartz), if yellow as suggested by chrusolithos, and green jasper, if green
as suggested by berullion.
Topaz: in Ex 28:17; 39:10;
<182819>
Job 28:19; Ezek 28:13, English Versions of
the Bible translation of Hebrew piTedhah; in Rev 21:20, English Versions
of the Bible translation of Greek topazion; in Song 5:14, the Revised
Version margin translation of Hebrew tarshish.
1205
Topazion ([tooov, topazion]): in Rev 21:20: the 9th foundation of the
New Jerusalem. According to the Septuagint topazion was the 2nd stone,
1st row, of the breastplate. Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.)
translates topazius; English Versions of the Bible translate it as topaz.
The topazion of Plinys time was held in very high estimation for its green
tints; when it was first discovered it was preferred to every other kind of
precious stone. It was said to be brought from an island in the Red Sea,
off the coast of Arabia. It was the only stone of high value that yielded to
the action of the file. Topazion is not mentioned by Theophrastus. Plinys
account corresponds to the peridot of the present day (silicate of
magnesium and iron), not to our topaz (fluosilicate of aluminium).
[ wOl h }y , Yahalom], in Ex 28:18; 39:11; Ezek 28:13: the 3rd stone, 2nd
row, of the breastplate. Owing to the uncertainty as to the order of the
words in the Hebrew text of the Septuagint, there is uncertainty as to the
Greek equivalent of yahalom; probably it is one of the words chrusolithos,
berullion, onuchion, given by the Septuagint as the names of the stones of
the 4th row. English Versions of the Bible translates diamond; this is
certainly wrong, for the stone had a name engraved on it and the method of
engraving a diamond was not invented till 2,000 or 3,000 years after the
breastplate was made; nor were diamonds, if known at all, then known so
large as to be comparable in respect of size, with the other stones of the
breastplate. The Revised Version margin translates sardonyx (in Exodus
only). Professor Maskelyne suggests that the Hebrew yahalom and the
Greek hualos may be kindred words and that yahalom may have been a
bluish glass (considered valuable in very early times), or blue chalcedony,
or perhaps even beryl.
[h p ev ]y;, Yashepheh], in Ex 28:20; 39:13; Ezek 28:13: the 3rd stone, 4th
row, of the breastplate. Septuagint probably translates iaspis, though iaspis
is placed by the Septuagint as the 3rd stone, 2nd row; Vulgate (Jeromes
Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) probably translates jaspis; English Versions of
the Bible translate it as jasper. The equivalence of the Hebrew yashepheh
and the Greek iaspis is generally accepted.
[t yk iWk z], Zekhukhith], in
<182817>
Job 28:17: Septuagint translates hualos, a
name given at first to any transparent stone, but in later times only to glass;
Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) translates vitrum; the King
James Version translates crystal; the Revised Version (British and
1206
American) translates glass. Zekhukhith is related to a Hebrew word
meaning to be pure, whence the renderings crystal and glass.
Lazarus Fletcher
STONING
<ston-ing>.
See PUNISHMENTS.
STOOL
<stool> ([ yin b ]a ;, obhnayim]): It is not clear what the character and
purpose of this stool were Septuagint has no reference to it). It seems to
have been a chair of a peculiar sort upon which a woman reclined in
parturition (Ex 1:16). The Hebrew word is in the dual number and
primarily means two stones. The only other place where it occurs is Jer
18:3, where it is rendered wheels Septuagint [r tv 0v, epi ton
lithon], on the stones). In 2 Ki 4:10, the word translated in the King
James Version as stool ([a S eK I, kicce]) is in the Revised Version
(British and American) more correctly translated seat.
See also BIRTH-STOOL; SEAT.
J esse L. Cotton
STORAX
<sto-raks>.
See POPLAR; STACTE.
STORE-CITIES
<stor-cit-iz> ([t wOnK ]s ]mi, mickenoth]): the Revised Version (British and
American) Ex 1:11 (of PITHOM and RAAMSES (which see)) for the King
James Version treasure cities (compare 1 Ki 9:19; 2 Ch 8:4,6; 16:4,
etc.). Depots of provisions and magazines of arms.
STOREHOUSES
<stor-houz-iz>, <-ez>: The following chief changes in the use of this word
(representing various Hebrew words) in the Revised Version (British and
1207
American) to be noted are: In Dt 28:8, the Revised Version (British and
American) has barns (acamim); in 1 Ch 27:25, treasures (otsroth); in
Neh 12:25, for thresholds has storehouses (asuppim), so, for
Asuppim in 1 Ch 26:15,17 (house of Asuppim, toward Asuppim)
has store-house; in Lk 12:24, for storehouse has store-chamber
(tameion). In other passages the King James Version storehouse is
retained (Gen 41:56; 2 Ch 32:28, mickenoth; Ps 33:7, otsroth; Jer 50:26,
maabhucim).
STORIES
<sto-riz>: For the King James Version stories (maaloth) in Am 9:6, the
Revised Version (British and American) reads chambers (in heavens); in
Gen 6:16 (ark); Ezek 42:3,6 (temple), the word is supplied. the Revised
Version (British and American) in the latter verse reads in the text the
third story (margin as in the King James Version). In 1 Ki 6:5,10, the
Revised Version (British and American) has stories (yatsia` yatsua`; see
TEMPLE), and in Ezek 41:6 supphes stories.
STORK
<stork> ([h d ;ys ij }, chacidhah]; variously rendered in the Septuagint: Lev
11:19, [rpo, erodios]; Dt 14:18, [rrxov, pelekan];
<183913>
Job 39:13,
[ooo, hasida] (transliteration of Hebrew); Zec 5:9, ([rog, epops];
Latin Ciconia alba): A large wading bird of the family Ardeidae, related to
crane, ibis, heron and bittern. The stork on wing is a bird of exquisite
beauty. The primary, secondary and a few of the tertiary wing feathers are
black, the remainder, also the head, neck, and back and under parts white,
the bill and legs red. When a perching white bird suddenly unfolds these
wonderful wings, having at times a sweep of 7 ft., and sails away, it makes
a very imposing picture. Zechariah in a vision saw a woman having the
wings of a stork; Zec 5:9, Then lifted I up mine eyes, and saw, and,
behold, there came forth two women, and the wind was in their wings; now
they had wings like the wings of a stork; and they lifted up the ephah
between eaxth and heaven. These birds winter in Africa. In their spring
migration many pairs pause in Palestine, others cross the Mediterranean
and spread over the housetops, ruins and suitable building-places of
Europe as far north as Rolland and England. Always and everywhere the
bird has been more or less protected on account of its fidelity to a chosen
1208
location, its fearlessness of man and the tender love between mated pairs
and for its young.
The stork first appears among the birds of abomination, and it is peculiar
that the crane does not, for they are closely related. But the crane eats
moles, mice, lizards and smaller animals it can capture, also frogs and fish.
To this same diet the stork adds carrion and other offensive matter, and the
laws of Moses, as a rule, are formulated with good reason. Yet at one time,
storks must have been eaten, for Pliny quoted Cornelius Nepos, who died
in the days of Augustus Caesar, as saying that in his time storks were
holden for a better dish at board than cranes. Pliny adds: Yet see, how in
our age now, no man will touch a stork if it be set before him on the board,
but everyone is ready to reach into the crane and no dish is more in
request. He also wrote that it was a capital crime in Thessaly to kill
storks, because of their work in slaying serpents. This may have been the
beginning of the present laws protecting the bird, reinforced by the steady
growth of respect and love for its tender, gentle disposition. The Hebrew
word [chaidhah], from which the stork took its name, means kindness.
There is a smaller stork having a black neck and back, that homes in
Palestine, but only in small numbers as compared with the white. These
birds flock and live in forests around the borders of waste and desert
places, and build in trees. The young of both species remain a long time in
the nest and are tenderly cared for, so much so indeed that from their
performances and love of building on housetops arose the popular tradition
that the stork delivers newly born children to homes. The birds first appear
in Lev 11:19 and Dt 14:18. Jeremiah noticed that the stork was migratory;
see 8:7: Yea, the stork in the heavens knoweth her appointed times; and
the turtle-dove and the swallow and the crane observe the time of their
coming; but my people know not the law of Yahweh. The Psalmist
referred to their nesting in the cedars of Lebanon, for in Palestine these
birds could not build on housetops, which were flat, devoid of chimneys
and much used by the people as we use a veranda today; see Ps 104:17:
Where the birds make their nests:
As for the stork, the fir-trees are her house.
Gene Stratton-Porter
STORY
<sto-ri>.
1209
See COMMENTARY.
STORY TELLING
See GAME, I, 4.
STORY WRITER
<sto-ri-rit-er>: In the sense of chronicler or historian occurs in 1 Esdras
2:17 (margin recorder) and 2:25.
STOUT; STOUTNESS
<stout>, <stout-nes>: In modern English the word signifies strength
firmness, corpulence, etc., but in English Versions of the Bible (Ps 76:5;
Isa 10:12; 46:12; Dan 7:20; Mal 3:13 with stoutness in Isa 9:9) it always
means bold or proud and invariably in a bad sense; compare the
German stolz, with which stout is allied.
STRAIGHT; STRAIGHTWAY
<strat>, <strat-wa>: Straiglit and strait are two entirely different
words that have no connection with each other in English, the former being
derived from the Anglo-Saxon, while the latter has come back from the
Latin through the Romance. At some point still farther back, however, the
two words may have had some common original with the general meaning
to stretch. But in straight the stretched object is a cord from which all
curvature is removed, while in strait a solid is thought of, which is drawn
out and made narrow, used figuratively in
<182022>
Job 20:22; 36:16; Mt 7:13 f;
Phil 1:23. Before English spelling had reached a relatively settled stage the
spelling of the two words was interchanged occasionally, but in even
Elizabethan times this could happen only through ignorance. In English
Versions of the Bible the forms are kept distinct with great care.
Straight, then, appears only in the sense not crooked, in the Old
Testament most commonly for some form of [r v y; , yashar], be smooth
(2 Ch 32:30, etc.). In the Apocrypha and New Testament the word is not
very common, being used for [op0o, orthos] (Baruch 6:27; Heb 12:13);
[ru0u, euthus] (Judith 13:20; Mk 1:3 and parallels), with the verbs
[ovop0o, anorthoo] (Lk 13:13), and [ru0uv, euthuno] (Jn 1:23; Heb
12:12 the Revised Version margin), to make straight, and [ru0upor,
1210
euthudromeo], to make a straight course (
<441611>
Acts 16:11; 21:1). For
straightway in English Versions of the Bible overwhelmingly the most
common word is [ru0u, euthus], or [ru0r, eutheos]. the King James
Version varies the translation of this adverb by using either straightway
or immediately without distinction, but the Revised Version (British and
American) (with a very few exceptions, e.g., Mt 24:29) has adhered to
straightway. The other occurrences in the Bible (1 Sam 9:13; 28:20, etc.)
represent no special word.
Burton Scott Easton
STRAIGHT STREET
<strat stret>.
See DAMASCUS.
STRAIN
<stran> ([u, diulizo], to strain off, to filter): Mt 23:24, Ye
blind guides, that strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel The imagery
is that of a drinking-vessel full of liquid, from which tiny impurities are
carefully removed while immense masses of other impure matter (Lev
11:4) are overlooked (compare Mt 7:3 f). The first edition of the King
James Version read the same as the Revised Version (British and
American), but in the later editions a misprint converted strain out into
strain at, an error that has never been corrected.
STRAIT; STRAITEN; STRAITLY
<strat>, <strat--n>, <strat-il>: The word strait and its compounds are
used in English Versions of the Bible in the literal sense of narrow (tsar,
2 Ki 6:1; Isa 49:20; mutsaq,
<183710>
Job 37:10; atsal, Ezek 42:6) and in the
figurative sense of strict (shabha`, Ex 13:19; caghar, Josh 6:1; tsarar,
to be distressed, 2 Sam 24:14 parallel; yatsar,
<182022>
Job 20:22; metsar,
Lam 1:3). In Apocrypha the verb straitened occurs in Susanna verse 22.
In the New Testament we have stenos (Mt 7:13 f parallel, the Revised
Version (British and American) narrow; polus, much; so the Revised
Version (British and American) Mk 3:12; 5:43; sunecho, to urge, hold
together, Lk 12:50; Phil 1:23). It occurs in its superlative form in
<442605>
Acts
26:5, After the straitest (akribestatos, most exact, scrupulous) sect of
1211
our religion, i.e. the most precise and rigorous in interpreting the Mosaic
Law, and in observing the more minute precepts of the Law and of
tradition (Thayer, Lexicon, under the word; compare
<442203>
Acts 22:3).
See also STRAIGHT, STRAIGHTWAY.
M. O. Evans
STRAKES
<straks>: An older form for streaks (so the American Standard Revised
Version) in the King James Version, the English Revised Version Gen
30:37 (pitslah, peeled spot); Lev 14:37 (sheqa`aruroth, hollow
places). For strake, Tobit 11:11; the King James Version
<442717>
Acts
27:17.
See STRIKE.
STRANGE, FIRE
<stranj> ([h r ;z; v a e, esh zarah], alien fire): These words are mentioned
in connection with the fatal sin committed by the two oldest sons of Aaron,
Nadab and Abihu, in offering strange fire before Yahweh, on the
occasion of the formal consecration of the Aaronitic priesthood (Lev
10:1,2). The fact is mentioned again in Nu 3:4; 26:61. The greatest
calamity of all befell them in that they were cut off childless, which for
every true Israelite was the darkest fate imaginable. This fact is mentioned
twice (Nu 3:4 and 1 Ch 24:2). The power which cut off the lives of Nadab
and Abihu (Lev 10:1,2) is the same as that which shortly before had
consumed the consecratory burnt offering (Lev 9:24). What was its true
character, whether, as Rosenmuller and Dachsel surmise, it was a lightning
stroke or some other supernatural agency, is not worth while debating. It is
enough for us to know that there came forth fire from before Yahweh and
devoured them. Yet this latter word is not to be taken literally, since they
were carried out for burial in their own linen garments (Lev 10:5). They
were therefore merely killed, not incinerated. What was their sin? The
words strange fire have been explained either as common fire, which they
placed in their censers, or as unholy incense, which they put thereon (Ex
39:38). But the text plainly points to the former. The sacred fire, once
kindled on the altar, was never to be permitted to go out (Lev 6:12 f).
When later the temple was dedicated Yahweh again lighted the fire on the
1212
altar from heaven, as in the case of the dedication of the tabernacle. As,
however, the injunction to take fire for the censers of the incense offering
only from the coals of the altar is not found before (Lev 16:12),
Rosenmullers observation would seem to be very much to the point:
Quamquam enim in iis quae praecedunt, non extat hoc interdictum, tamen
est verisimile Mosem vetasse Aaroni et filiis eius ne ignem alienum altari
imponerent. (For although his injunction does not hold in regard to the
preceding cases, yet it is very probable that Moses had forbidden Aaron
and his sons to place strange fire upon the altar.) A verbal injunction of
Moses must have preceded the fatal mistake. But the text leads us to
believe there was more than a mistake here. Some find here the sin of
drunkenness, from the enjoined abstinence from any intoxicating drink
before the priests thereafter minister before Yahweh (Lev 10:9). The
likeliest explanation is that, inflated with pride on account of the exaltation
of the Aaronitic family above all Israel, they broke unbidden into the ritual
of the consecration of the tabernacle and priesthood, eager to take part in
the ceremony, and in their haste bringing strange fire into the tabernacle,
and thus met their death (see Oehler, Old Testament Theol., 126, 282).
The fire burning on the altar came from God, it might never go out, since it
represented the unbroken course of adoration of Yahweh, carried on in
sacrifice. And this course was interrupted by Nadab and Abihu. The fire
on the altar was a symbol of holiness, and they sought to overlay it with
unholiness. And thus it became to them a consuming fire, because they
approached the Holy One in a profane spirit (compare Isa 33:14).
Henry E. Dosker
STRANGE GODS
See GODS, STRANGE.
STRANGE WIFE
Strange as contrasted with an Israelite. Such wives are spoken of in
the King James Version Ezr 10:2,11 (the English Revised Version strange
women, the American Standard Revised Version foreign women; see
STRANGER AND SOJOURNER; in the parallel 1 Esdras 8:68 through
9:37, the King James Version uses strange wives and strange women
indifferently, and the Revised Version (British and American) here follows
the King James Version) as wives of the people of the land, in taking
1213
whom the men of Israel are said to have trespassed against their God.
Accordingly such wives were put away.
STRANGE WOMAN
The Hebrew [r z;, zar], translated stranger, meant primarily one who
turns aside, i.e. to visit another country; then a sojourner, stranger.
The strange woman of Prov 2:16 is a technical term for harlot;
compare Jdg 11:1,2, where son of a strange (the Revised Version (British
and American) another) woman (11:2, acher) is parallel to the son of
a harlot (11:1).
See STRANGE WIFE.
STRANGER AND SOJOURNER (IN THE OLD
TESTAMENT)
<stranj-er>:
Four different Hebrew words must be considered separately:
(1) [r Ge, ger], the American Standard Revised Version sojourner or
stranger;
(2) [b v ;wOT , toshabh], the American Standard Revised Version
sojourner;
(3) [yr ik ]n;, nokhri], [r k ;neB ,, ben nekhar], the American Standard
Revised Version foreigner;
(4) [r z;, zar], the American Standard Revised Version stranger.
I. THE GER.
This word with its kindred verb is applied with slightly varying meanings to
anyone who resides in a country or a town of which he is not a full native
land-owning citizen; e.g., the word is used of the patriarchs in Palestine,
the Israelites in Egypt, the Levites dwelling among the Israelites (Dt 18:6;
Jdg 17:7, etc.), the Ephraimite in Gibeah (Jdg 19:16). It is also particularly
used of free aliens residing among the Israelites, and it is with the position
of such that this article deals. This position is absolutely unparalleled in
early legal systems (A. H. Post, Grundriss der ethnologischen
1214
Jurisprudenz, I, 448, note 3), which are usually far from favorable to
strangers.
1. Legal Provisions:
(1) Principles.
The dominant principles of the legislation are most succinctly given in two
passages: He loveth the ger in giving him food and raiment (Dt 10:18);
And if a ger sojourn with thee (variant you) in your land, ye shall not do
him wrong. The ger that sojourneth with you shall be unto you as the
home-born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were
gerim in the land of Egypt (Lev 19:33 f). This treatment of the stranger is
based partly on historic recollection, partly on the duty of the Israelite to
his God. Because the ger would be at a natural disadvantage through his
alienage, he becomes one of the favorites of a legislation that gives special
protection to the weak and helpless.
(2) Rules.
In nationality the freeman followed his father, so that the son of a ger and
an Israelitess was himself a ger (Lev 24:10-22). Special care was to be
taken to do him no judicial wrong (Dt 1:16; 94:17; 27:19). In what may
roughly be called criminal law it was enacted that the same rules should
apply to gerim as to natives (Lev 18:26, which is due to the conception
that certain abominations defile a land; 20:2, where the motive is also
religious; 24:10-22; see SBL, 84 ff; Nu 35:15). A free Israelite who
became his slave was subject to redemption by a relative at any time on
payment of the fair price (Lev 25:47 ff). This passage and Dt 28:43
contemplate the possibility of a strangers becoming wealthy, but by far the
greater number of the legal provisions regard him as probably poor. Thus
provision is made for him to participate in tithes (Dt 14:29; 26:12),
gleanings of various sorts and forgotten sheaves (Lev 19:10; 23:22; Dt
24:19,20,21), and poor hired servants were not to be oppressed (Dt
24:14).
2. Relation to Sacrifice and Ritual:
Nearly all the main holy days apply to the ger. He was to rest on the
Sabbath (Ex 20:10; 23:12, etc.), to rejoice on Weeks and Tabernacles (Dt
16), to observe the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:29), to have no leaven on
the Festival of Unleavened Bread (Ex 12:19). But he could not keep the
1215
Passover unless he underwent circumcision (Ex 12:48). He could not eat
blood at any rate during the wilderness period (Lev 17:10-12), and for that
period, but not thereafter, he was probihited from eating that which died of
itself (Lev 17:15; Dt 14:21) under pain of being unclean until the even. He
could offer sacrifices (Lev 17:8 f; 22:18; Nu 15:14 f), and was subject to
the same rules as a native for unwitting sins (Nu 15:22-31), and for
purification for uncleanness by reason of contact with a dead body (Nu
19:10-13).
3. Historical Circumstances:
The historical circumstances were such as to render the position of the
resident alien important from the first. A mixed multitude went up with
the Israelites from Egypt, and after the conquest we find Israelites and the
races of Palestine living side by side throughout the country. We repeatedly
read of resident aliens in the historical books, e.g. Uriah the Hittite.
According to 2 Ch 2:17 f (Hebrew 16 f) there was a very large number of
such in the days of Solomon, but the figure may be excessive. These seem
to have been the remnant of the conquered tribes (1 Ki 9:20 f). Ezekiel in
his vision assigned to gerim landed inheritance among the Israelites (47:22
f). Hospitality to the ger was of course a religious duty and the host would
go to any lengths to protect his guest (Gen 19; Jdg 19:24).
II. THE TOSHABH.
Of the toshabh we know very little. It is possible that the word is
practically synonymous with ger, but perhaps it is used of less permanent
sojourning. Thus in Lev 22:10 it appears to cover anybody residing with a
priest. A toshabh could not eat the Passover or the holy things of a
priest (Ex 12:45; Lev 22:10). His children could be purchased as perpetual
slaves, and the law of the Jubilee did not apply to them as to Israelites (Lev
25:45). He is expressly mentioned in the law of homicide (Nu 35:15), but
otherwise we have no information as to his legal position. Probably it was
similar to that of the ger.
III. THE NOKHRI BEN NEKHAR.
The nokhri or ben nekhar was a foreigner. The word is far wider than
those considered above. It covers everything of alien or foreign character
regardless of the place of residence. By circumcision a foreign slave could
enter into the covenant with Abraham. Foreigners were of course
1216
excluded from the Passover (Ex 12:43), but could offer sacrifices to
Israels God at the religious capital (Lev 22:25). The Israelite could exact
interest of them (Dt 23:20) and the payment of debts in cases where an
Israelite debtor was protected by the release of Dt 15:3. Moses forbade
the appointment of a foreigner as a ruler (Dt 17:15, in a law which
according to Massoretic Text relates to a king, but in the preferable text
of Septuagint to a ruler generally). Later the worship of God by foreigners
from a distance was contemplated and encouraged (1 Ki 8:41-43; Isa 2:2 f;
56:3,6 f; etc.), while the case of Naaman shows that a foreigner might
worship Him abroad (2 Ki 5:17). A resident foreigner was of course a ger.
The distinction between these three words is perhaps best seen in Ex
12:43,45,48 f. in the first of these verses we have ben nekhar, used to
cover alien generally; in the last the ger is contemplated as likely to
undergo a complete naturalization; while in 12:45 the toshabh is regarded
as certain to be outside the religious society.
1. Marriage:
In the earlier period marriages with foreigners are common, though
disliked (e.g. Gen 24:3; 27:46 ff; Nu 12:1; Jdg 14:3, etc.). The Law
provides for some unions of this kind (Dt 21:10 ff; compare Nu 31:18), but
later Judaism became more stringent. Moses required the high priest to
marry a virgin of his own people (Lev 21:14); Ezekiel limited all
descendants of Zadok to wives of the house of Israel (44:22); Ezra and
Nehemiah carried on a vigorous polemic against the intermarriage of any
Jew with foreign women (Ezr 10; Neh 13:23-31).
2. Exclusion of Some Races from Assembly:
Deuteronomy further takes up a hostile attitude to Ammonites and
Moabites, excluding them from the assembly of the Lord even to the tenth
generation, while the children of the third generation of Edomites and
Egyptians could enter it (23:3-8 (Hebrew 4-9)). From 1 Ki 9:20,21,24; 1
Ch 22:2 we learn of the existence of foreign quarters in Israel.
IV. THE ZAR.
The remaining word zar means stranger and takes its coloring from the
context. It may mean stranger in blood, e.g. non-Aaronite (Nu 16:40
(Hebrew 17:5)), or non-Levite (e.g. Nu 1:51), or a non-member of some
other defined family (Dt 25:5). In opposition to priest it means lay (Lev
1217
22:10-13), and when the contrast is with holy, it denotes profane (Ex
30:9).
See FOREIGNER; GENTILE; PROSELYTE; CHERETHITES;
PELETHITES; MARRIAGE; COMMERCE.
Harold M. Wiener
STRANGER AND SOJOURNER (IN THE
APOCRYPHA AND THE NEW TESTAMENT)
The technical meaning attaching to the Hebrew terms is not present in the
Greek words translated stranger and sojourner, and the distinctions
made by English Versions of the Bible are partly only to give uniformity in
the translation. For stranger the usual Greek word is [rvo, xenos],
meaning primarily guest and so appearing in the combination hatred
toward guests in The Wisdom of Solomon 19:13 ([oorvo,
misoxenia]). Xenos is the most common word for stranger in the New
Testament (Mt 25:35, etc.), but it seems not to be used by itself with this
force in the Apocrypha. Almost equally common in the New Testament is
[ootpo, allotrios], belonging to another (Mt 17:25,26; Jn 10:5
(bis)), and this is the usual word in the Apocrypha (Sirach 8:18; 1 Macc
1:38, etc.), but for some inexplicable reason the Revised Version (British
and American) occasionally translates by alien (contrast, e.g. 1 Macc
1:38; 2:7). Compare the corresponding verb [oootpo, apallotrioo]
(Eph 2:12; 4:18; Col 1:21). With the definite meaning of foreigner are
[ooyrvq, allogenes], of another nation, the Revised Version (British
and American) stranger (1 Esdras 8:83; 1 Macc 3:45 (the King James
Version alien); Lk 17:18 (the Revised Version margin alien)), and
[oouo, allophulos], of another tribe, the Revised Version (British
and American) stranger (Baruch 6:5; 1 Macc 4:12, etc.) or of another
nation (
<441028>
Acts 10:28). For to sojourn the commonest form is
[opoxr, paroikeo], to dwell beside, the Revised Version (British
and American) always to sojourn (Judith 5:7; Sirach 41:19; Lk 24:18
(the King James Version to be a stranger); Heb 11:9). The corresponding
noun for sojourner is [opoxo, paroikos] (Sirach 29:26 f (the King
James Version stranger);
<440706>
Acts 7:6,26; Eph 2:19; 1 Pet 2:11), with
[opoxo, paroikia], sojourning (The Wisdom of Solomon 19:10;
Sirach 16:8;
<441317>
Acts 13:17 (the King James Version dwelling as
strangers); 1 Pet 1:17). In addition, [rqr, epidemeo], to be among
1218
people, is translated to sojourn in
<440210>
Acts 2:10; 17:21, and its
compound [oprqo, parepidemos], as sojourner in 1 Pet 1:1 (in
Heb 11:13; 1 Pet 2:11, pilgrim).
Burton Scott Easton
STRANGLED
<stran-g-ld> ([q n j ; , chanaq]; [vxto, pniktos], from verb [vy,
pnigo], to choke, to smother, to strangle (compare choking of swine
in the lake, Mk 5:13; the seed are choked by the thorns, Mt 13:7; the
servant takes his fellow-servant by the throat, the King James Version Mt
18:28)): As adjective strangled, used of animals deprived of life by
choking, and so without the shedding of the blood. Flesh thus killed was
forbidden as food among the Hebrews, because it contained the blood (Lev
17:12). Even Jewish Christians in the Jerusalem council thought it best to
forbid things strangled to be eaten by Gentile converts, so as not to give
offense to Jewish sentiment, and doubtless also to prevent participation in
heathen sacrificial feasts (
<441520>
Acts 15:20; 21:25).
Edward Bagby Pollard
STRANGLING
<stran-g-ling>.
See PUNISHMENTS.
STRAW; STUBBLE
<stro>, <stub--l>: The cognates of Hebrew [b ,T , , tebhen], straw and
[v q ,qash], stubble, have been retained in the modern Arabic terms
tibn and qashsh. Tibn applies to the straw which has been cut up into short
pieces and more or less split by the threshing operations. It is commonly
used throughout the East as a coarse fodder or roughage for domestic
herbivorous animals (compare Gen 24:25,32; Jdg 19:19; 1 Ki 4:28; Isa
11:7; 65:25). Hay and similar cured crops are practically unknown. Barley,
peas and other grain, when fed to animals, are mixed with the tibn. The
animals will frequently reject the tibn unless there is grain in it. They often
nose about the tibn until the grain settles to the bottom so that they can eat
the latter without the straw. Straw left in the manger is thrown out in the
stall to form part of the bedding (compare Isa 25:10).
1219
Tibn is mixed with clay for plastering walls or for making sun-dried bricks.
It is also mixed with lime and sand for plastering. The children of Israel had
their task of brickmaking made more arduous by being required to gather
stubble and prepare it by chopping it up instead of being given the already
prepared straw of the threshing-floors (Ex 5:7 ff).
Qashsh (literally, dried up) refers to the stalks left standing in the wheat
fields or to any dried-up stalks or stems such as are gathered for burning.
Camels and other flocks sometimes supplement their regular meals by
grazing on the stubble, otherwise it has no use. In the Bible stubble is used
to typify worthless inflammable material (Ex 15:7;
<181325>
Job 13:25; 41:28,29;
Ps 83:13; Isa 5:24, etc.; 1 Cor 3:12, [xooq, kalame]).
[B e t ] m , mathben], is translated straw in Isa 25:10.
J ames A. Patch
STRAWED
<strod>: Past participle of to strew, scatter, or spread about, as
powder (of the golden calf, Ex 32:20, the Revised Version (British and
American) strewed); branches (Mt 21:8, the Revised Version (British
and American) spread); seed (Mt 25:24,26, the Revised Version (British
and American) scatter).
STREAM
<strem>:
(1) [l j n ,nachal], English Versions of the Bible stream, as:
Behold, he smote the rock, so that waters gushed out, and streams
overflowed (Ps 78:20). Often valley, as the valley (the King James
Version river) of the Arnon (Dt 2:24); or brook, as the brook
(the King James Version river) of Egypt (Josh 15:4; see BROOK or
EGYPT); or river, as the river Kishon (Jdg 4:7).
(2) [r h ;n;, nahar] (Aramaic [r h n], nehar] (Dan 7:10); compare
Arabic nahr, river): He bindeth the streams, the King James
Version floods (
<182811>
Job 28:11); the River (Euphrates) (Ex 23:31,
etc.); Abanah and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus (2 Ki 5:12).
1220
(3) [gl ,P ,, pelegh], the root [gl P ;, palagh], to split, to divide,
hence, cleft, channel: a tree planted by the streams (the King
James Version rivers) of water (Ps 1:3); There is a river, the
streams whereof make glad the city of God (Ps 46:4); but: The kings
heart is .... as the watercourses (the King James Version rivers of
water) (Prov 21:1).
(4) [q yp ia ;, aphiq], the root [q p a ;, aphaq], to be strong, hence,
channel, valley, as holding, confining (BDB): the streams in the
South (Ps 126:4); elsewhere brook, as the brooks (the King James
Version rivers) of Judah (
<290318>
Joel 3:18); or channel, as the
channel of brooks (
<180615>
Job 6:15); or watercourses (the Revised
Version margin ravines, the King James Version rivers) (Ezek 6:3,
etc.).
(5) [r wOa y], yeor], from Egyptian iotr, ior, especially of the Nile, as:
Seven other kine came up after them out of the river (Gen 41:3); the
Revised Version (British and American) stream, the King James
Version river (Ex 7:19; 8:5);, the Revised Version (British and
American) stream, the King James Version brook; The streams
(margin canals) of Egypt shall be diminished and dried up (Isa
19:6).
(6) [l b ;y;, yabhal], the root [l b y;, yabhal], to bear along: brooks
and streams of waters (Isa 30:25); compare [l b Wy, yabhal], river,
that spreadeth out its roots by the river (Jer 17:8); [l b Wa ,
ubhal], the river Ulai (Dan 8:2).
(7) [l z n;, nazal], to flow, to trickle: He brought streams also
out of the rock (Ps 78:16).
(8) [d v ,a ,, eshedh], the slope of the valleys, the King James Version
the stream of the brooks (Nu 21:15); compare [t wOd v ea },
ashedhoth], the slopes (Josh 10:40); the slopes (margin springs)
of Pisgah (Dt 3:17).
(9) [otoo, potamos], The stream brake against that house (Lk
6:48,49); elsewhere river, as the river Jordan (Mk 1:5).
1221
(10) [xuv, kludon], stream, the King James Version The
Wisdom of Solomon 19:7 (the Revised Version (British and American)
surge).
See BROOK; CANAL; CHANNEL; RIVER; VALE; WATERCOURSE.
Alfred Ely Day
STREET
<stret>.
See CITY.
STRENGTH, OF ISRAEL
<strength>: For the strength of the children of Israel, applied to Yahweh
in the King James Version
<290316>
Joel 3:16, the Revised Version (British and
American) reads a stronghold to the children of Israel.
STRIKE
<strik>: The verbs to strike and to stroke (latter not in English
Versions) have the same derivation, and originally strike was the intrans,
stroke the transitive form. Strike however, became used in both senses
(always transitive in English Versions of the Bible), while to stroke took
on the meaning to, rub gently. But in the King James Version this last
force still belonged sometimes to strike and is so found in 2 Ki 5:11,
strike his hand over the place (the Revised Version (British and
American) wave), and perhaps Ex 12:7,22; Tobit 11:11 Otherwise AVs
uses of the simple strike are modern, including strike sail (
<442717>
Acts
27:17; here and in Tobit 11:11 with an archaic preterite strake, elsewhere
struck). The Revised Versions They lowered the gear is a more
precise translation, not a modernizing of the King James Versions English.
The combination to strike through, however, is not modern English, and
was used by the King James Version as meaning either to pierce (Jdg
5:26;
<182024>
Job 20:24; Prov 7:23; Lam 4:9), or, as an intensive, to strike
violently, to crush (Ps 110:5). The Revised Version (British and
American) has attempted to distinguish only in Hab 3:14, pierce, margin
smite. Striking hands is a common custom at the conclusion of a
bargain (Additions to Esther 14:8), but in
<181703>
Job 17:3; Prov 6:1; 17:18;
22:26; the Revised Version margin 11:15, the ceremony is used technically
1222
for an agreement to be surety for another. Striking (the Revised Version
margin firing) stones to produce a fire is mentioned (2 Macc 10:3).
The past participle of strike is stricken (modern English struck)
(compare Prov 23:35; Jer 5:3; Lam 4:9). So Isa 1:5, Why will ye be still
stricken? is equivalent to Why should ye receive any more blows?
(compare 16:7; 53:4,8 margin). But in the phrase stricken in age (Gen
18:11, etc.) strike has an older meaning, advance.
Striker is found in 1 Tim 3:3; Tit 1:7 as a literal translation of [qxtq,
plektes]. A hot-tempered man, prone to physical outbursts, is meant. A
stroke is simply ablow, but in Dt 17:8; 21:5, stroke is used technically
for assault.
Burton Scott Easton
STRINGED, INSTRUMENTS
<stringd>.
See MUSIC.
STRIPES
<strips>.
See PUNISHMENTS.
STRIVE
<striv>.
See GAMES, II, 2.
STRONGHOLD
<strong-hold>.
See FORTIFIED CITIES, IV, 1.
STUBBLE
<stub--l> ([v q ,qash] (Ex 5:12, etc.); [xooq, kalame] (The Wisdom
of Solomon 3:7; 1 Cor 3:12)): These Hebrew and Greek forms are used of
1223
the stalks of wheat, etc., left knee-high in the field by the reapers. [b ,T ,,
tebhen] (
<182118>
Job 21:18), is a mixture of chopped straw and chaff produced
in threshing, which is winnowed out by the fan (compare Jer 23:28; Isa
5:24; Mt 3:12). When tebhen was withheld from them the Israelites had to
utilize qash for the manufacture of their bricks (Ex 5:12).
STUDS
<studz> ([t wOD q un], nequddoth], engraving, stud): Ornaments
consisting of small silver points which it was proposed (Song 1:11) to affix
to the new golden plaits (the Revised Version) or borders (the King
James Version), and which were to replace the strung beads of the brides
necklace.
STUFF
<stuf> ([yl iK ], keli]; [oxruo, skeuos]): Material for any purpose (Ezek
12:3,4,7); or supplies in a more general sense (Ex 36:7, Hebrew mela-
khah; compare the King James Version, the English Revised Version 1
Sam 10:22; 25:13; 30:24 (the American Standard Revised Version
substitutes baggage)); frequently, household possessions (Gen 31:37;
45:20; Ex 22:7; Josh 7:11; Neh 13:8; Judith 16:19; the King James Version
Judith 15:11 (skeuasmata, the Revised Version (British and American)
furniture); the King James Version Lk 17:31, where the Revised Version
(British and American) reads goods). Mingled stuff is the translation of
shaaTnez in the Revised Version (British and American) instead of
garment of divers sorts the King James Version (Dt 22:11).
STUMBLING-BLOCK; STUMBLING-STONE
<stum-bling-blok>, ([l wOv k ]mi, mikhshol], [h l ; v e k ] m ,makhshelah];
[pooxoo, proskomma], [oxovoov, skandalon]): These are the
most important of the varied renderings of either of two cognate Hebrew
words, or of two different Greek words. Sometimes the Greek word for
stone ([0o, lithos]) accompanies the principal word. There is no
important difference in the meaning of the words or of their renderings. the
Revised Version (British and American) generally substitutes stumbling
for offence of the King James Version.
1224
The literal meaning of the Hebrew words an object which causes one to
stumble or fall appears in such passages as Lev 19:14: Thou shalt not
.... put a stumblingblock (mikhshol) before the blind (compare Jer 6:21).
But the expression is ordinarily figurative, referring to that which causes
material ruin or spiritual downfall, which were closely connected in Old
Testament thought (Ps 119:165; Ezek 21:15). The things that lead astray
are silver and gold (Ezek 7:19); idols (Ezek 14:3; Zeph 1:3, etc.).
One of the New Testament words, [oxovoov, skandalon], literally
means the stick of a trap to which the bait is attached, and which when
touched springs the trap. Figuratively either word refers to a thing or a
person that leads one to fall into error, into sin or into destruction: the
cross of Christ (Gal 5:11; Rom 11:9); anothers liberty (1 Cor 8:9); Peter
in Mt 16:23; Christ, whose life and character were so different from Jewish
expectation (Rom 9:33).
See also OFFENCE.
George Rice Hovey
SUA
<su-a> ([2ouo, Soua]; the King James Version, Sud): Name of a family
of temple-servants who went up from exile with Zerubbabel (1 Esdras
5:29) = Sia of Neh 7:47; Siaha of Ezr 2:44.
SUAH
<su-a> ([j Ws , cuach]): Son of Zophah, of the tribe of Asher (1 Ch 7:36).
SUBAI
<su-ba-i>, <su-bi> ([2upor, Subaei]): Name of a family of temple-
servants who returned with Zerubbabel (1 Esdras 5:30) = Shamlai of Ezr
2:46; Salmai of Neh 7:48.
SUB-APOSTOLIC LITERATURE
See LITERATURE, SUB-APOSTOLIC.
1225
SUBAS
<su-bas> ([2oupo, Soubas]; the King James Version, Suba): Name of a
family of the sons of the servants of Solomon returning with Zerubbabel
(1 Esdras 5:34), wanting in the parallel lists of Ezr 2:57; Neh 7:59.
SUBORN
<sub-orn> ([uopo, hupoballo] (
<440611>
Acts 6:11; only here in the New
Testament)): The word means to introduce by collusion, to put one person
in the place of another, to employ anyone in a secret manner and instruct
such a one to act for and as though he were another person.
SUBSTANCE
<sub-stans> ([v Wk r ], rekhush]; [uootoo, hupostasis]): Lit. that
which stands under, is in the Bible used chiefly of material goods and
possessions. In the Old Testament it is the translation of numerous Hebrew
words, of which rekhush, that which is gathered together, is one of the
earliest and most significant (Gen 12:5; 13:6; 15:14; 1 Ch 27:31; Ezr 8:21,
etc.). In the New Testament substance appears in a few passages as the
translation of ousia, being, subsistence (Lk 15:13), huparxis, goods,
property (Heb 10:34), huparchonta, things at hand (Lk 8:3). Special
interest attaches to Heb 11:1, the King James Version Now faith is the
substance of things hoped for, etc., where the word is used in its proper
etymological sense as the translation of hupostasis, that which stands
under. the Revised Version (British and American) changes to
assurance, margin the giving substance to, which last seems best to
bring out the idea of faith as that which makes the things hoped for real to
the soul. The same Greek word hupostasis is rendered substance in Heb
1:3 the Revised Version (British and American), instead of the King James
Version person, with reference to Christ, the very image (margin
impress) of his substance, i.e. of Gods invisible essence or being, the
manifestation of God Himself.
W. L. Walker
SUBTIL; SUBTLE; SUBTLETY; SUBTILTY
<sub-til>, <sut--l>, <sut--l-ti> ([ k ;j ;, chakham], [l k n;, nakhal],
[h m;r ]mi, mirmah]; [oo, dolos]): These words are used
1226
(1) in a good sense: 2 Sam 13:3, chakham, wise, Jonadab was a
very subtle (the American Standard Revised Version subtle) man
(discreet); Prov 1:4, `ormah, prudence, to give subtlety to the
simple, the American Standard Revised Version and the English
Revised Version margin prudence; The Wisdom of Solomon 7:22,
leptos, thin, said of the spirit in Wisdom (very fine or refined); 8:8,
strophe, winding, subtilties of speeches; Ecclesiasticus 39:2, subtil
parables, the Revised Version (British and American) the subtleties
of parables;
(2) in a bad sense: Gen 3:1, `arum, crafty, Now the serpent was
more subtle than any beast of the field, the American Standard
Revised Version subtle.
Gen 27:35, mirmah, deceit, fraud, Thy brother came with subtlety,
the Revised Version (British and American) with guile; Ps 105:25,
nakhal, to deceive, the King James Version deal subtlely, the
American Standard Revised Version subtly; Prov 7:10, natsar, to
watch, guard, to be hidden or subtle of heart, the Revised Version
(British and American) wily, margin `close, Hebrew `guarded; 2 Ki
10:19, `oqebhah, deceit or treachery (here only); Judith 5:11,
katasophizo, to use subtlety; Ecclesiasticus 19:25, panourgia, cunning,
unscrupulousness, There is an exquisite subtlety, and the same is
unjust; 2 Cor 11:3, The serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, the
Revised Version (British and American) in his craftiness; Mt 26:4, dolos,
deceit, that they might take Jesus by subtlety, and kill him;
<441310>
Acts
13:10, O full of all subtlety and all mischief, the Revised Version (British
and American) all guile and all villany.
English Revised Version has subtilty for wisdom (Prov 8:5,12), margin
and the American Standard Revised Version, prudence; for with
subtlety (the English Revised Version Mk 14:1, the King James Version
by craft) the American Standard Revised Version has with subtlety.
W. L. Walker
SUBURBS
<sub-urbz>.
See CITY.
1227
SUBVERT
<sub-vurt> ([t w [ ; , `awath]; [ovotpr, anatrepo]): Occurs 5 t:
(1) in the sense of overturning, etc., as the translation of `awath, to
make bent or crooked (Lam 3:36), to subvert a man in his cause; of
anaskeudzo, primarily, to pack up baggage; then, to ravage, etc.
(
<441524>
Acts 15:24, subverting your souls); of anatrepo, to turn upside
down, to overturn (Tit 1:11, who subvert whole houses, the
Revised Version (British and American) overthrow); of katastrophe,
overthrow, destruction (2 Tim 2:14, to the subverting of them
that hear);
(2) in the sense of perverting: ekstrepho, to turn or twist out to turn
about (Tit 3:11, such is subverted, the Revised Version (British and
American) perverted). For overthrown me (
<181906>
Job 19:6) the
Revised Version (British and American) has subverted me (in my
cause), margin overthrown me; for perverteth (Prov 19:3),
subverteth.
W. L. Walker
SUCATHITES
<sukath-its> ([ yt ik ;Wc , sukhathim]; Codex Vaticanus [2o0r,
Sochathieim]; Codex Alexandrinus [2xo0r, Sokathieim]; the King
James Version Suchathites): These are named only once (1 Ch 2:55), a
family of scribes living at Jabez.
SUCCEED; SUCCESS
<suk-sed>, <suk-ses> ([v r y; , yarash], [l k c ; , sakhal]; [ruqrpo,
euemeria]): To succeed means,
(1) and originally, to follow after;
(2) mostly in modern English, to prosper; in the King James Version,
with one exception, the word has a qualifying adjective.
(1) In the first sense it is the translation of yarash, to seize or to
take possession (Dt 2:12; 12:29, the American Standard Revised
Version dispossessest, the English Revised Version possessest); of
1228
qum, to rise up (Dt 25:6, shall succeed in the name of his brother);
of diadechomai (Ecclesiasticus 48:8, prophets to succeed after him).
(2) In the sense of prospering, success is the translation of sakhal, to
be wise, to prosper (Josh 1:8, Thou shalt have good success, the
King James Version margin do wisely, the Revised Version margin
deal wisely; compare the King James Version margin
<182202>
Job 22:2; Ps
111:10; Prov 3:4); good success occurs in Tobit 7:12, euodosei ta
kallista; The Wisdom of Solomon 13:19, epituchia; Ecclesiasticus 20:9,
euodia, the Revised Version (British and American) prosperity,
There is a prosperity that a man findeth in misfortunes; and there is a
gain that turneth to loss; Ecclesiasticus 38:13, euodia (so Codex
Sinaiticus and Codex Ephraemi this word = sweet savior,
fragrance; compare Phil 4:18; Eph 5:2; 2 Cor 2:15). See further
EUODIA. the Revised Version (British and American) the issue for
good 1 Macc 4:55, euodoo; 8:23, kalos, etc. Success, simply (as
prosperity, euemeria), 2 Macc 10:28, a pledge of success and
victory; successor occurs (Ecclesiasticus 46:1, Joshua .... was the
successor diadochos of Moses; 2 Macc 9:23; 14:26).
W. L. Walker
SUCCOR; SUCCORER
<suk-er>, <suk-er-er> ([r z a ;, azar]; [poq0r, boetheo],
[pootot, prostatis]): Is the translation of [r z a ;, azar], to gird (2
Sam 8:5, etc.); of [poq0r, boetheo], to come in aid of (2 Cor 6:2, In a
day of salvation did I succor thee; Heb 2:18, He is able to succor them
that are tempted); of [pootot, prostatis], one standing before (Rom
16:2, the American Standard Revised Version helper of many); of
antilepsis (Ecclesiasticus 51:7, the King James Version I looked for the
succour of men, but there was none); of phugadeuterion (1 Macc 1:53,
flee for succor, the Revised Version (British and American) place of
refuge); of sozo (1 Macc 2:44, for succor, the Revised Version (British
and American) for safety); of skepe (2 Macc 5:9, the Revised Version
(British and American) shelter); succors occurs (The Wisdom of
Solomon 17:12, the King James Version boethema, for fear is nothing
else but a betraying (the Revised Version (British and American)
surrender) of the succours which reason offereth); succoreth (1 Macc
12:15, boetheo, help from heaven that succoureth us, the Revised
1229
Version (British and American) to help us). the Revised Version (British
and American) has succor for help (1 Ch 18:5); O thou my succor,
for O my strength (Ps 22:19).
W. L. Walker
SUCCOTH (1)
<suk-oth>, <suk-oth> ([t wOK s u, cukkoth], booths; [2xqvo, Skenai],
[2ox0, Sokchoth], etc.): After parting with Esau, Jacob journeyed to
Succoth, a name which he gave to the place from the booths which he
erected to shelter his cattle (Gen 33:17). It was in the territory of Gad, and
is mentioned with Beth-nimrah (Josh 13:27). In his pursuit of Zeba and
Zalmunnah, Gideon seems to have retraced the path followed by Jacob,
passing Succoth before Penuel (Jdg 8:5 ff). Their churlishness on that
occasion brought dire punishment upon the men of Succoth. Gideon on his
return taught them with thorns and briers (Jdg 8:16). In the soil of the
valley between Succoth and Zarethan, which was suitable for the purpose,
the brass castings of the furniture for Solomons Temple were made (1 Ki
7:46; 2 Ch 4:17). Jerome (on Gen 33:17) says that in his day it was a city
beyond Jordan in the district of Scythopolis. From the above data it is clear
that Succoth lay on the East of the Jordan and North of the Jabbok. From
Ps 60:6; 108:7, we may infer that it was close to the Jordan valley, part of
which was apparently known by its name. Neubauer (Geog. du Talmud,
248) gives the Talmudic name as Tar`ala. Merrill (East of the Jordan, 386)
and others compare this with Tell Deir `Alla, the name of an artificial
mound about a mile North of the Jabbok, on the edge of the valley, fully 4
miles East of the Jordan. There is a place called Sakut West of the Jordan,
about 10 miles South of Beisan. This has been proposed by some; but it is
evident that Succoth lay East of the river. No trace of the name has been
found here.
W. Ewing
SUCCOTH (2)
([t wOK s u, cukkoth]; [2ox0, Sokchoth] (Ex 12:37; 13:20; Nu 33:5)): The
first station of the Hebrews on leaving Rameses (see EXODUS). The word
means booths. The distance from ETHAM (which see) suggests that the
site may have lain in the lower part of Wady Tumeilat, but the exact
position is unknown. This region seems possibly to have been called T-K-u
1230
by the Egyptians (see PITHOM). Brugsch and other scholars suppose this
term to have been changed to Succoth by the Old Testament writer, but
this is very doubtful, Succoth being a common Hebrew word, while T-K-u
is Egyptian The Hebrew c does not appear ever to be rendered by t in
Egyptian. The capital of the Sethroitic nome was called T-K-t (Pierret,
Vocab. hieroglyph., 697), and this word means bread. If the region of T-
K-u was near this town, it would seem to have lain on the shore road from
Edom to Zoan, in which case it could not be the Succoth of the Exodus.
C. R. Conder
SUCCOTH-BENOTH
<suk-oth, suk-oth-be-noth>, <be-noth> ([t wOnB ]t wOK s u, cukkoth
benoth]; [ Po0povr0r, Rhochchothbaineithei], Codex
Alexandrinus (better) [2ox0prv0r, Sokchothbenithei]):
1. THE MEANING ACCORDING TO THE HEBREW:
The name of an idol made by the Babylonians sent into exile at Samaria by
an Assyrian king (Shalmaneser), and mentioned among the deities of the
various nationalities there assembled (2 Ki 17:30). In Hebrew, Succoth-
benoth means booths of daughters, and has been explained as the
chambers wherein the Babylonians placed women for prostitution; or
booths or tabernacles in which images of certain goddesses were
worshipped.
2. SIR H. RAWLINSONS IDENTIFICATION OF THE NAME:
The parallelism, however, requires a deity, like the Nergal of the Cutheans,
the Ashima of the Hamathites, etc., and not a chamber or shrine. This
consideration caused Sir H. to suggest an identification of Succoth-benoth
with the Babylonian Zer-panitum (= Zer-banitum), whose name was
probably pronounced Zer-panith, the spouse of Merodach (the god of
Babylon), as the seed-creatress. The difference in the first component,
zer, was regarded as due to its possible Hamitic (= Sumerian) equivalent,
or to a Semitic mistranslation, both of which explanations are now known
to be untenable.
1231
3. IS SUCCOTH THE BABYLONIAN SAKUT?:
As the people who made Succoth-benoth were Babylonians, we should
expect here either a name of Merodach, the god of Babylon, or one of the
deities identified with him. At present the only suggestion which can be
made is that Benoth is for [t w; B , ban wath], i.e. ban(i) mati, creator of
the land. Both the Semitic and the bilingual creation-stories speak of
Merodach as the creator of the world, with its products, and the great
cities of Babylonia; and father Enlil, who bore the title lord of the
world, bestowed the same upon Merodach at the creation, thus identifying
Merodach with himself. Now there is a group which may be read either
Dikut, the Judge, or Sakut, the Counselor, and if we can read Succoth-
benoth as Sakut(h)ban wat(h), the Counselor, creator of the land, a
satisfactory explanation of this puzzling name will be furnished. The
terminal -i of the Babylonian has been preserved in the [r, ei], of the
Greek. The adoption of such a descriptive name of Enlil-Merodach would
form a compromise between abandoning their old objects of worship and
accepting the god of the land (2 Ki 17:26).
T. G. Pinches
SUCHATHITES
<su-kath-its>.
See SUCATHITES.
SUD
<sud>: The King James Version = the Revised Version (British and
American) SUA (which see).
SUDIAS
<su-di-as> ([2ouo, Soudias]): In 1 Esdras 5:23, a Levitical family that
returned with Zerubbabel, called in Ezr 2:40 Hodaviah and in Neh 7:43
Hodevah (which see).
SUFFERING
<suf-er-ing>: A great variety of Hebrew and Greek expressions, too large
to be here enumerated, have been translated by suffering and other forms
1232
derived from the same verb. The most obvious meanings of the word are
the following:
(1) The commonest meaning perhaps in the English Versions of the
Bible is to permit, to allow, to give leave to: Moses suffered to
write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away (Mk 10:4).
(2) To experience, to go through, to endure: I have suffered
many things this day in a dream because of him (Mt 27:19). A woman
had suffered many things of many physicians (Mk 5:26). Other
common phrases are to suffer affliction (1 Thess 3:4; Heb 11:25, the
Revised Version (British and American) share ill-treatment), to
suffer hardship (2 Tim 2:9), to suffer adversity (Heb 13:3 the King
James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) to be ill-
treated), to suffer dishonor (the King James Version shame,
<440541>
Acts 5:41), to suffer violence, (Mt 11:12), to suffer wrong
(
<440724>
Acts 7:24), to suffer terror (Ps 88:15), to suffer shipwreck (2
Cor 11:25), to suffer hunger (Ps 34:10; Prov 19:15), to suffer
thirst (
<182411>
Job 24:11).
(3) To put up with, to tolerate: the King James Version, For ye
suffer fools gladly (the Revised Version (British and American) ye
bear with the foolish gladly), seeing ye yourselves are wise (2 Cor
11:1,9).
(4) To undergo punishment: Think ye that these Galileans were
sinners above all the Galileans, because they have suffered these
things? (Lk 13:2).
(5) To sustain loss: If any mans work shall be burned, he shall
suffer loss (1 Cor 3:15; also Phil 3:8).
(6) To suffer death. Here the clearest references are to the suffering
or passion of Christ, which indeed includes the enduring of untold
hardships and affliction, all of which culminate in His vicarious death
for man (Mt 16:21; Mk 8:31; 9:12; Lk 9:22; 17:25; 22:15; 24:26,46;
<440318>
Acts 3:18; 17:3; 26:23; 1 Pet 3:18).
Suffering belongs to the discipline of all Christs followers (Rom 8:17; 2
Cor 1:7; Gal 3:4; Phil 3:10; 1 Thess 2:2; 2 Thess 1:5; 2 Tim 2:12; 3:12; Jas
5:10; 1 Pet 2:20 f; 3:14,17; 4:1,13,16; 5:10). Such suffering is called a
suffering for Gods or Christs sake (Jer 15:15;
<440916>
Acts 9:16; Phil 1:29; 2
1233
Tim 1:12). This fellowship in suffering unites us with the saints of God in
all times (Jas 5:10), and is indeed a fellowship with the Lord Himself (Phil
3:10), who uses this discipline to mold us more and more according to His
character.
H. L. E. Luering
SUFFOCATION
<suf-o-ka-shun>.
See PUNISHMENTS.
SUICIDE
<su-i-sid>.
See CRIMES.
SUKKIIM
<suk-i-im> ([ yYiK is u, cukkiyim]): Named in 2 Ch 12:3 as a tribe that took
part with Libyans and Cretans in the invasion of Judea by Shishak. The
identification is uncertain.
SULPHUR
<sul-fur>.
See BRIMSTONE.
SUMMER
<sum-er> ([6 yi q , qayits]; Aramaic [f yi q , qayiT] (Dan 2:35), from
[6 Yq , quts] [f Wq , quT], to cut off, to pluck or gather fruit, hence, the
time of fruit, summer (2 Sam 16:1,2; Jer 40:10,12); [0rpo, theros] (Mt
24:32; Lk 21:30)): The Hebrew verb, mentioned above, occurs in Isa 18:6,
to summer, used of the ravenous birds feeding upon carcasses of the
slain. The term summer parlor in Jdg 3:20 (compare 3:24) is literally,
upper room, and is so rendered in the Revised Version (British and
American). The summer was the dry season extending from April to
October when usually no rain falls. Hence, the drought of summer (Ps
32:4).
1234
See SEASONS.
H. Porter
SUMMER-HOUSE
([6 yiQ ;h t yB e , beth ha-qayits]): Am 3:15 notes it as part of the judgment on
Israel that Yahweh would smite the winter-house with the summer-
house. It belonged to the luxury of the period that kings and wealthy
persons had separate residences for the cold and hot seasons. This is the
only mention of the summer-house, but Eglons cool upper room (Jdg
3:20, the King James Version and the English Revised Version summer
parlour, not in this case a separate building) may be compared.
See WINTER-HOUSE.
SUN (1)
See ASTRONOMY, I, 2.
SUN (2)
(Figurative): Poetical conceptions for the sun are frequently found in the
Scriptures, though the strictly figurative expressions are not common.
Undoubtedly the Jewish festivals, religious as well as agricultural, were
determined by the suns movements, and this fact, together with the
poetical nature of the Hebrews and their lack of scientific knowledge, had a
tendency. to multiply spiritual and metaphorical expressions concerning the
greater light of the heavens. Some of these poetical conceptions are very
beautiful, such as the sun having a habitation (Hab 3:11), a tabernacle (Ps
19:4 f) set for him by Yahweh, out of which he comes as a bridegroom
from his chamber, rejoicing as a strong man to run a race. The sun is also
given as the emblem of constancy (Ps 72:5,17), of beauty (Song 6:10), of
the law of God (Ps 19:7), of the purity of heavenly beings (Rev 1:16;
12:1), and of the presence and person of God (Ps 84:11). The ancient
world given to personifying the sun did not refrain from sun-worship, and
even the Hebrew in the time of the kings came perilously near this idolatry
(2 Ki 23:11).
See SUN-WORSHIP.
C. E. Schenk
1235
SUN, CHARIOTS OF THE
See HORSES OF THE SUN.
SUN GATE
See EAST GATE.
SUN, HORSES OF THE
See HORSES OF THE SUN.
SUN-IMAGES
See IMAGES.
SUNDAY
<sun-da>.
See LORDS DAY.
SUNRISING
<sun-riz-ing>: A frequent designationin the Old Testament for the East
(Nu 21:11; Dt 4:41,47; Josh 1:15, etc.). In Rev 7:2, the Revised Version
(British and American) has sunrising for the King James Version east.
SUN, SMITING, BY
<smit-ing>: Exposure of the uncovered head to the heat of the sun is
likely to produce either of two conditions; the commoner is heat
exhaustion with faintness, the rarer is heatstroke with fever and paralysis of
the heat-regulating apparatus of the nervous system. This condition is
described as siriasis. The two fatal instances recorded were probably of the
latter kind. One, the case of the Shunammites son (2 Ki 4:19), was
apparently very acute, like some of the cases described by Manson and
Sambon. Of the other case, that of Manasseh, Judiths husband, we have
no particulars (Judith 8:3), except that it was likewise brought on by
exposure in the harvest field, and occurred at the time of barley harvest,
that is, early in May. Jonahs attack was one of heat syncope, as he fainted
from the heat (Jon 4:8). According both to psalmist (Ps 121:6) and to
1236
prophet (Isa 49:10), the people of God are protected from the stroke of the
sun as well as from that of the moon. The latter was supposed to cause
lunacy (hence, the name), and epilepsy, so in Mt 4:24 the word rendered
lunatic (the King James Version) for epileptic (Revised Version) is
seleniazomenous, literally, moon struck.
See MOON.
Alexander Macalister
SUNSTROKE
<sun-strok>.
See SUN, SMITING BY.
SUN-WORSHIP
<sun-wur-ship>: The splendor of the sun makes it a natural object of
adoration, once the purer idea of the one true God (Rom 1:20,21) is parted
with, and in most ancient nations the worship of the sun was an
outstanding feature. It is found in Babylonian and Assyrian (Samas; special
seats of sun-worship were Sippara and Larsa); in Egypt it is a leading
feature of the religion (Ra, and, under special phases, Horus, Tum, Aten; a
special seat of sun-worship was Heliopollis, the Old Testament On, called
in Jer 43:13 Beth-shemesh, house of the sun). Other cities bore the same
name: Beth-shemesh (Josh 15:10 = Ir-shemesh; 19:41, in Judah; Josh
19:22, in Issachar; 19:38, in Naphtali; see BETHSHEMESH). Allusions to,
and warnings against, sun-worship are frequent in the Old Testament, as in
Lev 26:30; 2 Ch 14:5; 34:4,7; Isa 17:8; 27:9; Ezek 6:4,6, in which
passages for the King James Version images, idols, the Revised
Version (British and American) has sun-images (which see);
<183126>
Job
31:26,27 and numerous passages show that this form of idolatry latterly
penetrated deeply into Judah even into its temple-worship (2 Ki
23:5,11, horses .... given to the sun (see under HORSES OF THE SUN,
Chariots of the Sun); and Ezek 8:16). Josiahs reformation took account
of these abuses (2 Ki 23:5,11 ff; 2 Ch 34:4,7), and Ezekiel strenuously
denounced them (8:16 ff).
J ames Orr
1237
SUP; SUPPER
<sup-er>.
See MEALS.
SUPERFLUOUS; SUPERFLUITY
<su-pur-floo-us>, <su-per-floo-i-ti> ([[ r c ;, sara`]; [rpooo,
perissos] (2 Cor 9:1), [rpooro, perisseia]): According to the Levitical
Law, a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a fiat nose, or anything
superfluous could not fulfill priestly functions (Lev 21:18; 22:23).
According to Dillmann (Baentsch, BDB) the word should be rendered a
limb too long, but Ewald (following the Septuagint) suggests having
cropped ears. The only instance of superfluity occurs in Jas 1:21, the King
James Version superfluity of naughtiness; according to Mayor
overflowing ebullition of malice (the Revised Version (British and
American) overflowing of wickedness, margin malice); but the Greek
word is used in other connections, e.g. of grace (Rom 5:17); joy (2
Cor 8:2).
T. Lewis
SUPERSCRIPTION
<su-per-skrip-shun> ([rypoq, epigraphe]):
(1) The legend on a coin designating the person in whose honor or by
whose authority it is issued (Mt 22:20; Mk 12:16; Lk 20:24).
(2) The accusation on the cross of Jesus (Mk 15:26; Lk 23:38).
According to Roman custom an inscription bearing the charge or
ground of a criminals condemnation was fixed to the cross on which
he was crucified. The use of such an inscription at the crucifixion of
Jesus is mentioned by all four evangelists. The fullest description is that
of Mark, the superscription of his accusation ([q rypoq tq
oto outou, he epigraphe tes aitias autou]) (15:26). Matthew calls
it more briefly his accusation ([tqv otov outou, ten aitian
autou]) (27:38), while Luke styles it merely a superscription
(epigraphe) (23:38). In the Fourth Gospel it is called a title ([ttov,
titlon]) (Jn 19:19). The text of the superscription is given by the four
evangelists in varying terms and with various degrees of fullness.
1238
Russell Benjamin Miller
SUPERSTITION; SUPERSTITIOUS
<su-per-stish-un>; <su-per-stish-us> ([rooovo, deisidaimonia],
fearing demons): The Biblical use of these words is limited to that of the
former in
<442519>
Acts 25:19 the King James Version, and of the latter in
<441722>
Acts 17:22. In the former reference, Festus speaks of the Jews
superstition (the Revised Version (British and American) religion),
thus artfully dodging an avowal of his own convictions respecting the
Hebrew faith. In
<441722>
Acts 17:22 the King James Version Paul tactfully
refers to the Athenians as being too superstitious (the Revised Version
(British and American) too religious), thus using the term correctly from
both their and his point of view. They were truly too religious with their
superstitions.
Leonard W. Doolan
SUPH
<soof> ([t Ws , cuph]; [qoov tq rpu0po (0ooooq), plesion tes
eruthras (thalasses)]; the King James Version Red Sea): As the verse
stands, the place where Moses addressed the children of Israel is indicated
as beyond the Jordan in the wilderness, in the Arabah over against Suph
(Dt 1:1). the King James Version, following Septuagint, takes the name as
a contraction of yam cuph (see RED SEA). The abbreviation is not found
elsewhere. The name of the sea was not derived from that of a city; so we
need not look in that direction. Knobel suggested Naqb es-Safa, a pass
about 25 miles West-Southwest of the Dead Sea. But it is unsuitably
situated; nor does the name agree phonetically (for *** [...] agrees with
[x ], not with [s ]) (Driver, Deuteronomy, ICC, 4). No identification is
possible.
W. Ewing
SUPHAH
<soo-fa> ([h p ;Ws , suphah], for [h p ;Ws B ]b h ew;, wahebh becuphah];
Septuagint reads [tqv Zp royor, ten Zoob ephlogise]; the King
James Version Rea Sea): Suphah is the region in which Vaheb is situated
(Nu 21:14). It is probably identical with Suph of Dt 1:1. Tristram (Land of
Moab, 50 f) suggested identification with Ghor es-Safiyeh], a small oasis
1239
East of the mud fiats of Es-Sebkhah], South of the Dead Sea; but the
sibilants do not correspond, and Safiyeh is a specifically Arabic term
(Wetzstein in Delitzsch, Gen4, 586, note 2) which does not seem to be a
likely explanation of Suphah (Gray, Nu, ICC, 285 f). This, and other
questions of identification, must wait for solution until a more thorough
exploration of the whole district has been accomplished.
W. Ewing
SUPPER
<sup-er>.
See MEALS.
SUPPER, LORDS
See LORDS SUPPER.
SUPPLY
<su-pli>: Phil 4:19 for [qpo, pleroo]; 1 Cor 16:17; Phil 2:30 for
[ovoqpo, anapleroo]; 2 Cor 9:12 (the King James Version); 2 Cor
11:9 for [pooovoqpo, prosanapleroo]. All three verbs mean to
fill, the 3rd containing the additional connotation fill up to a certain
point. Eph 4:16; Phil 1:19 for the noun [ropqyo, epichoregia],
literally, an additional supply. But no special force of additional seems
to be contained in the passages. In 2 Cor 9:10a; Gal 3:5; Col 2:9; 2 Pet
1:5,11, we have [ropqyr, epichoregeo], to furnish besides, i.e. fully
supply; in 2 Cor 9:10b; 1 Pet 4:11 the simple choregeo, to furnish,
Burton Scott Easton
SUR
<sur> (Codex Vaticanus [ Aoooup, Assour], Codex Alexandrinus [2oup,
Sour]): Those that dwelt in Sur are mentioned along with the inhabitants of
Sidon, Tyre, Ocina, etc., as dreading the approach of Holofernes and the
Assyrian any (Judith 2:28). The names run from North to South, and Sur
immediately follows Tyre (modern Sur]), with which, therefore, it can
hardly be identified. No probable identification has been suggested.
See also JERUSALEM.
1240
SURE; SURELY
<shoor>, <shoor-li>: In modern English is used chiefly in the phrases to
be sure or to make sure, and as a simple adjective it is usually either
archaic or exceedingly colloquial. The adjectival use, however, is common
(chiefly for [m a ; , aman], to confirm, and its derivatives) in English
Versions of the Bible, where modern English would prefer secure or
certain (1 Sam 2:35; Sirach 40:25;
<441334>
Acts 13:34, etc.). To be sure
that is also fairly common in the King James Version, and occasionally (as
in Dt 12:23, Be sure that thou eat not the blood, for [q z j ;, chazaq],
to be firm) it has rather more emphasis than in modern English. But
usually the phrase is a mere periphrasis for some word meaning to know
(compare the Revised Version (British and American) Ex 3:19; Lk 10:11;
Rom 2:2, etc.). In Prov 6:3, the King James Version has Make sure thy
friend for [b h r ;, rahabh], be boisterous beset the Revised Version
(British and American) importune. The sense is Force him to pay his
debt.
Surely in English Versions of the Bible is used almost always to qualify an
entire phrase, as in Gen 28:16, Surely Yahweh is in this place. In modern
English surely used in this way suggests that the statement is being
argued and is therefore slightly doubtful, but in Elizabethan English the
purpose is to exclude all doubt (beyond question). With this force the
King James Version uses surely to translate almost any emphatic form,
and the Revised Version (British and American) has conformed to AVs
use, and such changes as have been made by the Revised Version (British
and American) (Mt 26:73; Lk 4:23; Rev 22:20, etc.) are merely to preserve
uniformity of rendition. The most common use of surely in this sense is
to translate a verb when emphasized by its own part. (absolute inf. in
Hebrew), as Thou shalt, surely die (Gen 2:17) for dying thou shalt die
(compare Gen 22:17 for the Hebrew construction). In this sense surely is
sometimes varied by of a surety (Gen 15:13, etc.) without the slightest
difference in meaning (compare Gen 9:5 and 26:9). In addition surely is
used occasionally as a simple adverb where modern English would prefer
securely or certainly (compare Prov 10:9 and the King James Version
Lk 1:1, surely believed, the Revised Version (British and American)
fulfilled, the Revised Version margin fully established).
1241
Surety, besides its use in of a surety appears, in the Old Testament to
translate [b r [ ;, `arabh], to be surety, and in Heb 7:22 for [r yyou,
egguos], guarantor, giver of security. Modern English prefers
security, as does even the King James Version in
<441709>
Acts 17:9.
Suretiship (the American Standard Revised Version suretyship) in
<201115>
Proverbs 11:15 for [[ q T ; taqa`], to strike (hands).
See STRIKE; SURETY.
Burton Scott Easton
SURETY
<shoor-ti>: This word is used in three different connections or groups:
(1) As a derivative of the word sure it means of a certainty or surely.
In Gen 15:13 the infinitive absolute of the verb is used to give emphasis
to the idea of the verb and is rendered of a surety. In Gen 18:13 the
Hebrew omnam is translated of a surety. In Gen 26:9 akh is similarly
rendered, and has the force of our indeed. In
<441211>
Acts 12:11 [oq0,
alethos], is translated in the King James Version of a surety, but better in
the Revised Version (British and American) of a truth.
(2) In the sense of security or pledge for a person. This means that one
person may become security for another, that such a one will do a certain
thing at a time in the future. Judah was surety to his father Jacob that
Benjamin would safely return from Egypt (Gen 43:9). He pledged his life
that the younger brother would return safely. He tells Joseph (Gen 44:32)
how he had become surety for Benjamin, and offers to become Josephs
slave for the sake of his brother. Job says (
<181703>
Job 17:3), Give now a
pledge, be surety for me with thyself; who is there that will strike hands
with me? The striking of hands refers to the action or gesture by which
the surety or pledge was publicly manifested and thus ratified. Job here
beseeches God to become surety for him, to pledge him that some time in
the future He will cause Jobs innocence to be made known and be
acknowledged by God Himself. In Isa 38:14 Hezekiah says, O Lord, I am
oppressed, be thou my surety. He wishes God to give him a pledge of
some kind, to go security for him in such a way that he will surely be saved
out of his sickness and distress. Jesus is called the surety ([r yyou,
egguos]) of a better covenant (Heb 7:22). Jesus is the pledge or surety
that through Him we may obtain the assurance and certainty that a more
1242
excellent covenant has been established by God, and are assured also of the
truth of the promises connected with it.
(3) It is used to describe the practice of going security for another by
striking hands with that person and becoming responsible for money or any
object loaned. The Book of Proverbs unhesitatingly condemns the
practice. No mention is made of it in the Mosaic Law, as if the custom
were then practically unknown. The Book of Proverbs makes no
distinction between a stranger and a neighbor; the person who does such a
thing is likened unto an animal caught in a trap. He is exhorted to sleep no
more until he has got out of the trap, or freed himself from this obligation
(Prov 6:1-5). The wisdom of such advice has been abundantly verified by
experience. It does not necessarily preclude certain special cases, where the
practice may be justified. The international relationships of the Jews in the
period of the monarchy, together with the unsettled condition of the
country (Neh 5:3) and people, needed such commercial strictness. Their
trade was mostly in the hands of the Phoenicians and other foreigners, and
the pressure of taxation for the payment of foreign tribute, etc., was heavy
(Neh 5:4 f). Prov 11:15; 17:18 declare one void of understanding who
thus goes security for another. Prov 20:16 seems to contain an exclamation
of contemptuous rebuke for the man who goes security. Prov 22:26; 27:13
contain like admonitions.
See DEBT; PLEDGE; SECURITY; STRIKE.
J ames J osiah Reeve
SURNAME
<sur-nam> ([h n;K ;, kanah]; [rxorv, epikalein]): A word derived
from the French., meaning an additional name; in modern English always
the family name of a person. Indeed, the spelling surname in the King
James Version 1 Macc 1:10; 2:2; 6:43 may be due to a confusion with
sires name. But the custom of family names was entirely unknown
among the Hebrews. The word is used twice in the King James Version of
the Old Testament, namely, Isa 44:5; 45:4. The Hebrew word means to
give flattering or honorary titles. In the former passage foreigners are so
envious of the prosperity of the Jews that they are anxious to be surnamed
by the name of Israel, i.e. to be enrolled as members of the Jewish nation.
In the latter case Yahweh gives Cyrus an honorary title, namely, servant
of Yahweh, and thus appoints him to be His instrument in the restoration
1243
of His people. The same word is rendered in
<183221>
Job 32:21, the King James
Version give flattering titles. Elihu declares his intention to examine the
situation without fear or favor. He will not allow such high-sounding titles
as Your Worship or My Lord to stand in his way. He will not be
overawed by Jobs social position. In the New Testament the word is used
in the case of Peter Simon whose surname is Peter (
<441005>
Acts 10:5,32;
11:13); of Mark John whose surname was Mark (
<441212>
Acts 12:12,25;
15:37); of Judas surnamed Iscariot (Lk 22:3); of Barsabbas who was
surnamed Justus (
<440123>
Acts 1:23); and of Judas surnamed Barsabbas
(
<441522>
Acts 15:22). It was a widespread custom in the ancient world to give
honorary and symbolical titles. our Lord surnamed Simon Peter (Mk 3:16),
and James and John Boanerges (Mk 3:17).
<441537>
Acts 15:37 the King James
Version has surname for the simple call (so the Revised Version
(British and American)).
T. Lewis
SUSA
<su-sa>, <soo-sa> (Additions to Esther 11:3).
See SHUSHAN.
SUSANCHITES
<su-san-kits> ([a yek ;n]v Wv , shushanekhaye]).
See SHUSHANCHITES.
SUSANNA, THE HISTORY OF
<su-zan-a>:
1. NAME:
This novelette has, in the Septuagint, the bare title Susanna
([2ouoovvo, Sousanna], from Hebrew [h N;v wOv , shoshannah], lily).
So also in the Syro-Hexapla. In Codex Alexandrinus (Theodotion) it is
designated [ Opoo o, Horasis a] (Vision I); see BEL AND THE
DRAGON, I. In the Harklensian Syriac (Balls W2) its title is The Book of
Little (or the child?) Daniel.
1244
2. CANONICITY AND POSITION:
Susanna was with the other Additions included in the Bible Canon of the
Greek, Syrian and Latin churches. Julius Africanus (circa 230 AD) was the
first to dispute the right of Susanna to a place in the Canon, owing to its
improbable character. Origen replied to him, strongly maintaining its
historicity (see Schurer, GJV4, III, 455; HJP, II, 3, p. 186, where the
references are given). In the Septuagint, Syro-Hexapla and Vulgate,
Susanna is Daniel 14, but in Theodotion (ABQ) it opens Daniel, preceding
chapter 1, a position implied in the King James Version and the Revised
Version (British and American) which are based on Theodotion, formerly
believed to be the true Septuagint. Yet it is probable that even in
Theodotion the original place agreed with that in the true Septuagint
(Swetes 87); so Roth (Kautzsch, Die Apok., 172) and Driver
(Commentary on Daniel, Cambridge Bible, xviii).
See BEL AND THE DRAGON.
3. CONTENTS:
The story of Susanna is thus told in Theodotions version, and therefore in
English Versions of the Bible which follows it. Susanna was the beautiful
and devout wife of Joakim who resided in Babylon in the early years of the
exile, and owned a fine park which was open to his fellow-exiles (verses 1-
4). Two of these last were elders and judges who, though held in high
esteem, suffered impure thoughts toward Susanna to enter their minds.
One day, meeting in the park, they divulged to each other their lustful
passion toward this beautiful woman, and resolved together to seize the
first opportunity to waylay her in the park and to overpower her (verses 5-
15). A joint attempt was made upon Susanna, who resisted,
notwithstanding threats of false accusation (verses 22-26). The elders make
a false charge, both in private and in public, and she is accordingly
condemned to death (verses 27-41). On the way to execution she is met by
Daniel (= judge of God) who has the case reopened, and by a system of
cross-examination of the two elders succeeds in convincing the people that
Susanna is innocent of the charge brought against her. She is acquitted, but
her accusers are put to death.
The story told in the Septuagint (87) is essentially the same, though
varying somewhat in details. Versions 1-4 seem to have been prefixed for
clearness by Theodotion, for in Susanna verse 7 of the Septuagint Susanna
1245
is introduced for the first time: These seeing a woman of beautiful
appearance called Susanna, the wife of one of the Israelites, etc. The
original text began therefore with verse 5, though in a slightly different
form. Septuagint omits verses 15-18 which tell of the two elders
concealing themselves and watching as Susanna entered the park and took
her bath. There is not a word in Septuagint concerning the threats of the
elders to defame Susanna in the event of her refusing what they desired
(verses 20 ff); this omission makes the Septuagint form of the story
obscure, suggesting that this section has fallen out by error. Nor does the
Septuagint mention the crying out of Susanna and the elders (verse 24).
The trial took place in the house, according to Theodotion (and English
Versions of the Bible) (verse 28), but, according to Septuagint, in the
synagogue (verse 28). In Septuagint (verse 30) it is said that the number of
Susannas relatives, servants and servant-maids present at the trial was
500; Theodotion is silent on this. Septuagint (verse 35) makes Susanna
pray to God before her condemnation, but Theodotion (English Versions
of the Bible, verses 42-44) after. According to Septuagint the young man
whom the elders falsely said they found with Susanna escaped unobserved
because masked; Theodotion says he got away because the elders had not
strength to hold him (verse 39). Septuagint is silent about the two maids
who, according to Theodotion (verse 36), accompanied Susanna to the
bath. Theodotion does not speak of the angel who according to Septuagint
imparted to Daniel the wisdom he displayed (but compare Theodotion,
verse 50); but on the other hand he adds the words ascribed to Daniel
(verse 51, English Versions), though he leaves out the words imputed to
him by Septuagint (= even elders may lie). Septuagint omits the words of
the people addressed to Daniel: What mean these words which thou hast
spoken? (verse 47, Theodotion, English Versions of the Bible). According
to Theodotion (verse 50) the people entreated Daniel to act as judge
among them; Septuagint omits this statement. Two questions were put to
the elders, according to the Septuagint: Under what kind of tree? In
what part of the park? but only one, according to Theodotion (and
English Versions of the Bible): Under what kind of tree? Septuagint has
it that as a punishment the two elders were hurled down the precipice;
according to Theodotion they were slain (verse 62). In the last two verses
(verses 63 f) Septuagint points the moral of the story, but Theodotion
closes by describing the joy of Susannas relatives at the happy issue of the
trial and the increased respect in which Daniel came to be held. For the
dependence of the version see TEXT AND VERSIONS.
1246
4. FACT OR FICTION?:
It is quite evident that the story is a fabrication and that it came to be
attached to Daniel on account of the part played in it by Daniel the judge.
(1) The form of the story differs in Septuagint, Theodotion and the
various Syriac recensions, showing that it was a floating legend, told in
manifold ways.
(2) No confirmation of what is here narrated has been discovered in
written or epigraphic sources.
(3) The grounds on which Susanna was condemned are trivial and
wholly inadequate.
(4) The conduct of the judge, Daniel, is unnatural and arbitrary.
Though, however, the story is fictitious, it rests in part or wholly on older
sources.
(1) Ewald (Geschichte(3), IV, 386) believed that it was suggested by
the Babylonian legend in which two old men are seduced by the
goddess of love (compare Koran 2 96).
(2) Brull (Das apokryphische Sus-Buch, 1877), followed by Ball
(Speakers Apocrypha, II, 323-31), Marshall and R. H. Charles, came
to the following conclusions:
(a) That the first half of the story rests on a tradition regarding two
elders (Ahab and Zedekiah) who seduced certain women by persuading
them that they would thus become the mother of the Messiah. This
tradition has its origin probably in Jer 29:21-23, where it is said that
Yahweh would sorely punish Ahab and Zedekiah because they had
committed villany in Israel, having committed adultery with their
neighbours wives (the King James Version). We can trace the above
story amid many variations in the writings of Origen and Jerome and in
sundry rabbinical works.
(b) The trial scene is believed to have a wholly different origin. It is
said to have arisen about 100-96 BC, when Simon ben Shetach was
president of the Sanhedrin. His son was falsely accused of a capital
offense and was condemned to death. On the way to execution the
accusers admitted that he was innocent of the crime; yet at his own
1247
request the son is executed in order that the fathers hands might be
strengthened in the inauguration of new reforms in the administration
of justice. The Pharisees and Sadducees differed as to the punishment
to be meted out to false witnesses where the death sentence was
involved. The first party advocated a stricter examination of witnesses,
and a severer penalty if their testimony could be proved false. The
Sadducee party took up a more moderate position on both points.
Susanna has been held to be a kind of tract setting forth by example the
views of the Pharisee party. If this opinion of the origin of Susanna be
accepted, this tract was written by a Palestinian Jew, a position
rendered probable by other considerations.
5. DATE:
If, as the Greek, Latin and Syriac churches held and hold, Susanna forms
an integral part of Daniel, the date of this last book (see DANIEL) is the
date of Sus. But there is conclusive evidence that the three Additions
circulated independently, though we have no means of fixing the date with
any certainty. Perhaps this piece arose during the struggles between the
Pharisees and Sadducees about 94-89 BC; see preceding section. In that
case 90 BC would be a suitable date. On the date of Theodotions
translation see DANIEL; BEL AND THE DRAGON; TEXT AND
VERSIONS.
6. ORIGINAL LANGUAGE:
Our materials for judging of the language in which the author wrote are
slender, and no great probability can at present be reached. The following
scholars argue for a Greek original: Fritzsche, De Wette, Keil, Herzfeld,
Graf, Holtzmann. The following are some of the grounds:
(1) There are several paronomasias or word-plays, as in Susanna verses
54 f, [ovov, schinon] (under a mastick tree) .... [oor, schisei]
(will cut); verses 58 f, [pvov, prinon] (under a holm tree) ....
[poo, prisai] (to cut). But this last word (prisai) is absent from
the true Septuagint, though it occurs in Theodotion (Swetes text,
verse 59, has kataprise from the same root). If the word-play in verses
58 f is due to a translation based on Septuagint, the first example
(verses 54 f), found in Septuagint and Theodotion, is as likely to be the
work of the translator of those verses from the Hebrew.
1248
(2) It is said that no trace of a Hebrew original has been discovered;
but up to a few years ago the same statement could have been made of
Sir.
There is a growing opinion that the author wrote in Hebrew (or Aramaic?);
so Ball, J. T. Marshall, R. H. Charles.
(1) The writer was almost certainly a Palestinian Jew, and he would be
far more likely to write in his own language, especially as he seems to
have belonged to the Pharisaic party, who were ardent nationalists (see
preceding section, at end).
(2) There is a goodly number of Hebraisms, rather more than one
would expect had the writer composed in Hellenistic Greek
For versions and literature see BEL AND THE DRAGON; DANIEL; the
Oxford Apocrypha, edition by R. H. Charles, 638 ff.
T. Witton Davies
SUSI
<su-si>, <soo-si> ([ys iWs , cuci]): Father of Gaddi, one of the spies, who
represented the tribe of Manasseh (Nu 13:11 ). See Gray, HPN, 92.
SWADDLE; SWADDLING-BAND
<swod--l>, <swod-ling-band> (verb [l b j ;, chathal], enwrap,
swaddle (Ezek 16:4), noun [h L ;t uj }, chathullah], swaddling-band
(
<183809>
Job 38:9); verb [oopyovo, sparganoo], to wrap in swaddling
clothes (Lk 2:7,12), noun [oopyovo, spargana] (pl.), swaddling
clothes (The Wisdom of Solomon 7:4). the King James Version also has
swaddle (Lam 2:22) for [j p f ;, Taphach], literally, to extend. But
the word means to carry on the outstretched palms of the hands
(compare [ yj iP uf i, Tippuchim], dandled in the hands, Lam 2:20),
whence RVs to dandle): To swaddle and to swathe are really the
same word, both forms going back to an AS form swethel, a bandage,
but swaddle has become the technical term for the wrapping of an infant
in the Orient or elsewhere. The oriental swaddling-clothes consist of a
square of cloth and two or more bandages. The child is laid on the cloth
diagonally and the corners are folded over the feet and body and under the
1249
head, the bandages then being tied so as to hold the cloth in position. This
device forms the clothing of the child until it is about a year old, and its
omission (Ezek 16:4) would be a token that the child had been abandoned.
The mention of darkness as a swaddling-band at the birth of the sea
(
<183809>
Job 38:9) is only a poetic way of saying that the sea, at its creation,
was covered with clouds and darkness, and to find any idea of restraint
involved is fanciful.
Burton Scott Easton
SWALLOW
<swal-o> ([r wOr D ], deror]; [otpou0o, strouthos], in Proverbs and
Psalms, [rv, chelidon], in Isa; Latin Hirundo rustica): A small long-
winged bird of exhaustless flight, belonging to the family Hirundinidae.
Deror means the bird of freedom, and as the swallow is of tireless wing, it
has been settled upon as fitting the requirements of the text. In the
passages where `aghur is translated swallow, there is a mistake, that
word referring to the crane. There is also a word, cuc or cic, that means a
rushing sound, that is incorrectly translated swallow, when it should be
swift (Cypselus apus).
These birds are near relatives and so alike on the wing as to be
indistinguishable to any save a close observer. Yet the Hebrews knew and
made a difference. The swallow is a trifle larger and different in color. It
remains all the year, while in numerous instances the swift migrates and is a
regular sign of returning spring. The swallow is of long and tireless flight.
The swift is so much faster that the sound of its wings can be heard when
passing. The swallow plasters a mud nest under eaves, on towers, belfries,
and close to human habitations. The swifts are less intimate, building in
deserted places, under bridges and on rocky crevices. The swallows utter
constantly a rather sweet low note; the swifts chatter harshly and
incessantly at their nests. These differences are observable to the most
careless people. Scientists separate the birds on account of anatomical
structure also. Despite this, the birds are confused in most of our
translations.
Like a swallow or a crane, so did I chatter;
I did moan as a dove; mine eyes fail with looking upward:
O Lord, I am oppressed, be thou my surety
(I sa 38:14).
1250
Here `aghur is translated swallow and cuc crane, which is clearly
interchanging words, as the Arabic for swift is cuc, the same as the
Hebrew. The line should read, swift and crane. And another reason for
changing swallow to swift, in this passage, lies in the fact that of the two
birds the swift is the incessant and raucous chatterer, and this was the idea
in the mind of Hezekiah when he sang his Trouble Song. Another incorrect
reference is found in Jer 8:7: Yea, the stork in the heavens knoweth her
appointed times; and the turtle-dove and the swallow and the crane observe
the time of their coming; but my people know not the law of Yahweh.
Few swallows migrate. Returning swifts are one of the first signs of spring.
As the sparrow in her wandering, as the swallow in her flying,
So the curse that is causeless alighteth not (Prov 26:2).
This reference might apply to either, remembering always that the swift
took its name from its exceptional flight, it being able to cover over 80
miles an hour. However, the swallow is credited with 800 miles in a night.
Yea, the sparrow hath found her a house,
And the swallow a nest for herself, where she may lay her young,
Even thine altars, O Yahweh of hosts,
My King, and my God (Ps 84:3).
Here is one instance, at least, where the swallow is at home and the
translation correct. The swift might possibly have built in the temple: the
swallow was sure to be there.
Gene Stratton-Porter
SWAN
<swon> ([t m,v ,n]T i, tinshemeth], chameleon, tree-toad, water-hen,
owl; [xuxvo, kuknos]; Latin cygnus; Anglo-Saxon: swan and swon):
Mentioned only in old versions and the Revised Version margin in Lev
11:18: the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, and in Dt 14:16
Septuagint [opupv, porphurion] = water-hen; Vulgate (Jeromes
Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) ibis). In the Revised Version (British and
American) this is rightly changed to the horned owl, and the pelican, and
the vulture. A bird of the duck family wrongly placed among the
abominations in old versions of the Bible, now changed to horned owl.
White and gray swans spend their winter migratory season on the waters of
the Holy Land. They are among the most ancient birds of history; always
1251
have been used for food; when young and tender, of fine flesh and delicious
flavor; so there is no possibility that they were ever rightfully placed among
the birds unsuitable for food. Their feeding habits are aquatic, their food in
no way objectionable.
Gene Stratton-Porter
SWEARING
<swar-ing>.
See OATH; PERJURY; CRIMES; PUNISHMENTS.
SWEAT
<swet> ([h [ ;ze, ze`ah] (Gen 3:19), [[ z y,, yeza`] (Ezek 44:18); [p,
hidros] (2 Macc 2:26; Lk 22:44)): In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat
bread (Gen 3:19). Somewhat difficult is the passage, which the Revised
Version (British and American) renders: But the priests the Levites, the
sons of Zadok .... shall have linen tires upon their heads, and shall have
linen breeches upon their loins; they shall not gird themselves with anything
that causeth sweat, literally, they shall not gird themselves with sweat
(Ezek 44:15,18). The idea is evidently that profuse perspiration would
make their ministrations unpleasant. The rule was of special importance in
the sultry climate of Palestine.
Luke, the physician, describing the agony of the Lord in Gethsemane, says:
His sweat became as it were great drops ([0popo, thromboi]) of blood
falling down upon the ground (Lk 22:44, the Revised Version (British and
American), following Codex Sinaiticus (a), Codex Alexandrinus, Codex
Vaticanus etc., notes in margin: Many ancient authorities omit Lk
22:43,44). There are two difficulties of interpretation in this passage,
apart from the difficulty which the physiological explanation of the
phenomenon presents:
(1) the word ([0popo, thrombos]) translated drop means literally,
a clot of blood, a lump, a curd, and is nowhere else used in the
sense of drop.
(2) It has been generally accepted that the sweat of the brow of Jesus
had become bloody in appearance and in character, a symptom called in
ancient medicine [ootq p, haimatodes hidros], bloody
1252
sweat. It must, however, be observed that this translation would make
the Greek particle [or, hosei], superfluous, by which, not the
identity of the sweat with drops of blood, but a certain similarity or
comparison must be intended. Ch. Th. Kuinoel, in his Latin
commentary on the historical books of the New Testament (Leipzig,
1809, II, 654), has given all known parallel instances in history and
legend, which seem to prove that under certain psychological or
physiological conditions, though rarely, haimatodes hidros has
occurred.
Olshausen in his Commentary, II, 469, thinks that the following points of
comparison might have been in the mind of Luke:
(1) the sweat may have appeared on the forehead of Jesus in heavy
drops;
(2) these may have dropped visibly to the ground, just as drops of
blood fall from a wound;
(3) in addition, possibly a reddish color may have been noticeable,
owing to an exudation of the arteries, though the latter is not directly
expressed in the words of the evangelist. See also Dr. Stroud, On the
Physical Cause of the Death of Christ, 183; Bynaeus, De morte Christi,
II, 33.
The people of Palestine in Greek-Roman times were generally provided
with handkerchiefs, used especially to wipe off the perspiration. The
fashion was derived from Rome, whence the name of these napkins became
[oouopov, soudarion], Latin sudarium. The late legend of Berenice or
Veronica, who presented her handkerchief to the Saviour on His way to be
crucified, and who found, when it had been returned to her by the Lord,
that His features had been imprinted upon the cloth, is a reminiscence of
this use. These handkerchiefs were frequently used to tie up small bundles
of certain possessions, money, etc. (Lk 19:20). As a rule the dead had their
faces covered with one, or had it tied around the head (Jn 11:44; 20:7). In
Ephesus the handkerchiefs of Paul were carried to the sick, and achieved
miraculous cures (
<441912>
Acts 19:12).
The verb [po, hidroo], to sweat, is found in a rather difficult passage
of the Didache (i.6), which is introduced as a quotation, the source of
which, however, we do not know: Let thy alms sweat into (in ?) thy
1253
hands, until thou knowest to whom thou givest. The context seems to
show that we have here a free repetition of the arguments of Sirach 12:1 ff.
so that the meaning would be: In giving charity, do not give
indiscriminately or thoughtlessly, but consider carefully so that no one who
is unworthy receive your benefaction. Still it is not impossible that the text
is corrupt in the passage.
H. L. E. Luering
SWEET CANE
<swet kan>.
See REED.
SWEET INCENSE
See SPICES.
SWELL
<swel> ([h b ;x ; , tsabhah]): In the ordeal of the Water of Jealousy
described in Nu 5:11-31 (P), the effect on the unfaithful wife ot the
drinking of the holy water was to cause the thigh to fall away (Revised
Version) or rot (the King James Version) and the abdomen to swell. This
ceremonial was a direct appeal to the judgment of God, for there was
nothing in the holy water (taken from the laver) or the dust of the temple
which was mixed with it to produce this effect. In the Talmudic tract Cotah
there are given many rabbinical opinions and particulars as to the
procedure in later times. Apparently from the passage in Numbers, the
judgment speedily followed the appeal, but according to Sotah, iii.4, it
might be postponed even for four years, and in v.1, it is said to have
produced the same effect on the adulterer as on the unfaithful wife. We
have no details as to the nature or permanency of the swelling.
Swell as the translation of another word, batseq, is used in the sense of
blistering of the feet from long tramping. Both in Dt 8:4 and Neh 9:21 it is
said that in spite of their long wilderness marches the feet of the Israelites
did not swell. This was a token of divine protection.
See SWOLLEN.
Alexander Macalister
1254
SWELLING
<swel-ing>: The verb [h a ;G;, ga-ah], means rise up (Ezek 47:5, etc.),
so that the noun gaawah (Ps 46:3) means arising. The swelling of the
sea that shakes the mountains is a perfectly good translation, and pride
(so the American Revised Version margin) is beside the mark. In Jer 12:5;
49:19 parallel 50:44; Zec 11:3 is found the phrase geon ha-yarden,
exaltation of the Jordan, which the King James Version translates pride
of Jordan in Zechariah and swelling of Jordan in Jeremiah (the Revised
Version (British and American) has pride throughout, with swelling in
the margin of Jeremiah). What is described is a place, with a mass of
vegetation, easily burned (Zec 11:1-3), a lair of lions (Jer 49:19; Zec 11:3),
and a particularly dangerous place for human beings (Jer 12:5). The
luxuriant thicket of the Jordan bank is evidently meant, which could well be
spoken of as Jordans pride (OHL, majesty of the Jordan), and
swelling is quite impossible.
In the New Testament swelling is used in 2 Cor 12:20 for [uoo,
phusiosis], puffing up, blatant self-conceit, and 2 Pet 2:18 parallel Jude
verse 16 for [urpoyxo, huperogkos], overgrown, solemnly inane.
Burton Scott Easton
SWIFT
See SWALLOW.
SWIFT BEASTS
([t wOr K ;r ]K i, kirkaroth] (Isa 66:20)): the King James Version and the
English Revised Version swift beasts, the English Revised Version
margin and the American Standard Revised Version dromedaries. In Mic
1:13 ([v k ,r ,, rekhesh]) a horse is meant, the Revised Version (British and
American) swift steed.
See CAMEL; HORSE.
SWINE
<swin> ([r yzij }, chazir]; compare Arabic khinzir; [u, hus], Septuagint
and New Testament; compare Greek [ou, sus], and Latin sus; adjective
1255
[uro, hueios], as a substantive, the Septuagint; [opo, choiros],
Septuagint and New Testament): In both ancient and modern times
domestic swine have been little kept in Palestine, but wild swine are well
known as inhabitants of the thickets of the Chuleh, the Jordan valley, the
Dead Sea, and some of the mountains. The species is Susanna scrofa, the
wild pig of Europe, North Africa and Western Asia.
In the Old Testament the swine is mentioned in Lev 11:7 and Dt 14:8 as an
unclean animal: And the swine, because he parteth the hoof, and is
clovenfooted, but cheweth not the cud, he is unclean unto you. In Isa 65:4
and 66:3,17 the eating of swines flesh and the offering of oblations of
swines blood are referred to as abominations. Septuagint also refers to
swine in three passages where these animals are not mentioned in the
Hebrew and EV. In 2 Sam 17:8 where English Versions of the Bible has
as a bear robbed of her whelps in the field, Septuagint adds (translation)
and as a savage boar in the plain. In 1 Ki 21:19 Septuagint 20:19), where
English Versions of the Bible has in the place where dogs licked the blood
of Naboth, Septuagint has where the swine and the dogs licked;
similarly in 1 Ki 22:38. In 1 Macc 1:47 there is reference to a decree of
Antiochus ordering the sacrifice of swine. In 2 Macc 6 and 7 there are
accounts of the torture and death of Eleazar, an aged scribe, and of a
mother and her seven sons for refusing to taste swines flesh. Swine, the
property of Gentiles, are mentioned in the account of the Gadarene
demoniac (Mt 8:30,31,32; Mk 5:11,12,13,14,16; Lk 8:32,33), and in the
parable of the Prodigal Son (Lk 15:15,16).
Figurative: We find the following figurative references to swine:
The boar out of the wood doth ravage it,
And the wild beasts of the field feed on it
(i.e. on the vine out of Egypt) (Ps 80:13);
As a ring of gold in a swines snout,
So is a fair woman that is without discretion
(Prov 11:22);
The Carmonians (the King James Version Carmanians, perhaps of Kirman
or Carmania, in Southwestern Persia) raging in wrath shall go forth as the
wild boars of the wood
(2 Esdras 15:30);
1256
The dog turning to his own vomit again, and the sow that had washed to
wallowing in the mire
(2 Pet 2:22; compare Prov 26:11).
Alfred Ely Day
SWOLLEN
<swol--n> ([poo0o, pimprasthai], only in
<442806>
Acts 28:6): The
Melitans expected to see Paul poisoned by the vipers bite. the Revised
Version (British and American) and the King James Version translate it
swollen, but the word is used by certain medical writers in the sense of
inflammation; see Nicander, Theriaca, 306; Hesiod, Theogonia, 856,
expressing thereby the burning up by a thunderbolt. Swelling accompanies
the local lesion of snake-bite and often large purpuric exudation of blood,
as well as paralysis, especially of the lower limbs.
SWORD
<sord>.
See ARMOR, III, 5.
SYCAMINE, TREE
<sik-a-min>, ([ouxovo, sukaminos] (Lk 17:6)): This is generally
accepted as the black mulberry tree (Morus nigra; Natural Order,
Urlicaceae), known in Arabic as tut shrami, the Damascus mulberry, a
fine tree which grows to the height of 30 ft. It produces the dark blood-red
mulberry juice referred to in 1 Macc 6:34 ([opov, moron]), the blood of
.... mulberries, which was shown to the elephants of the Syrians. The
white mulberry, M. alba, has white and less juicy fruit, and it is cultivated
largely for the sake of its leaves with which the silkworms of the Lebanon
are fed.
E. W. G. Masterman
SYCAMORE
<sik-a-mor>.
See SYCOMORE.
1257
SYCHAR
<si-kar> ([2uop, Suchar]): Mentioned only once, in connection with the
visit of Jesus to Jacobs Well (Jn 4:5). He was passing through Samaria on
His way to Galilee, so he cometh to a city of Samaria, called Sychar, near
to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph: and Jacobs well
was there. Jerome thought the name was a clerical error for Sychem
(Epistle 86). In Eusebius (in Onomasticon) he is content to translate
Eusebius, placing Sychar East of Neapolis. It is now generally admitted
that the text is correct. Some have held, however, that Sychar is only
another name for Shechem (Sychem). It is suggested, e.g., that it is a
nickname applied in contempt by the Jews, being either shikkor, drunken,
or sheqer, falsehood. Others think the form has arisen through change of
m to r in pronunciation; as l to r in Beliar. These theories may
safely be set aside. The evidence that Sychar was a distinct place East of
Shechem may be described as overwhelming. It is carefully and
perspicuously marshaled by G. A. Smith (Historical Geography of the Holy
Land, 367 ff). The manner in which it is mentioned shows that it was not a
specially well-known place: a city of Samaria called Sychar. No one
familiar with Palestine would have written a city of Samaria called
Sychem. It is mentioned only because of its nearness to the well.
As to the position of the well, there is general agreement (see JACOBS
WELL). It is on the right of the road where it bends from the plain of
Makhneh into the pass of Shechem. Fully half a mile off, on the edge of the
plain, is the village of `Askar, on the lower slope of Ebal. A little to the
West is the traditional tomb of Joseph. This is the district East of Shechem
usually identified with Jacobs parcel of ground. Many have sought to
find Sychar in the modern `Askar. There are two difficulties. The first is the
initial letter `ain in the modern name. But G. A. Smith has shown that such
a change as this, although unusual, is not impossible. The second is the
presence of the copious spring, `Ain `Askar, which would make it
unnecessary for the villagers to carry water from Jacobs Well. This cannot
easily be explained away. One could understand a special journey at times,
if any peculiar value attached to the water in the well; but from it,
evidently, the woman drew her ordinary supplies (Jn 4:15). This difficulty
would probably in any case be fatal to the claim of the village at `Ain
`Askar to represent the ancient Sychar. But Professor R. S. A. Macalister
has shown reason to believe that the village is not older than Arab times
1258
(PEFS, 1907, 92 ff). He examined the mound Telul Balata, nearly 1/2 mile
Southwest of `Askar, and just West of Josephs tomb. There he found
evidence of occupation from the days of the Hebrew monarchy down to
the time of Christ. Here there is no spring; and it is only 1/4 mile distant
from Jacobs Well nearer therefore to the well than to `Askar. In other
respects the site is suitable, so that perhaps here we may locate the Sychar
of the Gospel. The name may easily have migrated to `Askar when the
village fell into decay.
W. Ewing
SYCHEM
<si-kem> ([2ur, Suchem]): In this form the name of Shechem appears
in
<440716>
Acts 7:16 the King James Version, in the report of Stephens speech.
the King James Version is a transcription from the Greek; the Revised
Version (British and American) in accordance with its practice, to give
uniformity in the English, follows the Hebrew form of the name given in
the Old Testament.
SYCOMORE, TREE
<sik-o-mor>, ([h m;q ]v i, shiqmah], Aramaic [a m;q ]yv i, shiqema] plural
[ ymiq ]v i, shiqmim]; in Septuagint wrongly translated by [ouxovo,
sukaminos], the mulberry; see SYCAMINE (1 Ki 10:27; 1 Ch 27:28; 2
Ch 1:15; 9:27; Isa 9:10; Am 7:14): [t wOmq ]v i, shiqkmoth] (Ps 78:47);
[ouxopoo, sukomoraia] (Lk 19:4)): The sycomore-fig, Ficus
sycomorus (Natural Order, Urticaceae), known in Arabic as Jummeiz, is
one of the finest of the lowland trees of Palestine, and attains still greater
proportions in Lower Egypt. It is evident from 1 Ki 10:27; 2 Ch 1:15 that
it was once abundant, and at a later period it was so plentiful in the
neighborhood of what is now Haifa as to give the name Sykaminon to the
town which once stood near there. It is a tree which cannot flourish in the
cooler mountain heights; it cannot stand frost (Ps 78:47). It was one of the
distinguishing marks of Lower, as contrasted with Upper, Galilee that the
sycomore could flourish there. It is highly improbable that sycomores could
ever have flourished near Tekoa (compare Am 7:14), but it is quite
possible that the town or individual inhabitants may have held lands in the
Jordan valley or in the Shephelah on which these trees grew. Villages in
Palestine today not infrequently possess estates at considerable distances;
1259
the village of Silwan (Siloam), for example, possesses and cultivates
extensive fertile lands halfway to the Dead Sea. The sycomore produces
small, rounded figs, about an inch long, which grow upon tortuous, leafless
twigs springing from the trunk or the older branches; they are more or less
tasteless. It would appear that in ancient times some treatment was
adopted, such as piercing the apex of the fruit to hasten the ripening. Amos
was a nipper ([s l eB o , bolec]) of sycomore figs (Am 7:14). The tree not
uncommonly attains a height of 50 ft., with an enormous trunk; in many
parts, especially where, as near the coast, the tree grows out of sandy soil,
the branching roots stand out of the ground for some distance. The timber
is of fair quality and was much valued in ancient times (1 Ki 10:27; 2 Ch
1:15; 9:27; Isa 9:10). Mummy cases and many of the best preserved
wooden utensils of ancient Egyptian life are made of it. This tree must be
distinguished from the English sycamore, Acer pseudo-platanus (Natural
Order, Spindaceae), the false plane tree, a kind of maple.
E. W. G. Masterman
SYENE
<si-e-ne>.
See SEVENEH.
SYMEON
<sim-e-on> ([2urv, Sumeon]): the Revised Version (British and
American) in Lk 3:30;
<441301>
Acts 13:1; 15:14 for the King James Version
Simeon (which see). The persons are:
(1) An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:30).
(2) Symeon, called Niger, one of the prophets and teachers in the church at
Antioch (
<441301>
Acts 13:1).
(3) For Simon Peter, see PETER; compare
<441514>
Acts 15:14.
See SIMEON, (4), (5), (6).
SYNAGOGUE
<sin-a-gog>:
1260
1. NAME:
Synagogue, Greek [ouvoyyq, sunagoge], gathering (
<441343>
Acts 13:43),
gathering-place (Lk 7:5), was the name applied to the Jewish place of
worship in later Judaism in and outside of Palestine Proseuche, a place of
prayer (
<441613>
Acts 16:13), was probably more of the nature of an enclosure,
marking off the sacred spot from the profane foot, than of a roofed
building like a synagogue. Sabbateion in Ant, XV, i, 6, 2, most probably
also meant synagogue. In the Mishna we find for synagogue beth ha-
keneceth, in the Targums and Talmud be-khenishta, or simply kenishta.
The oldest Christian meetings and meeting-places were modeled on the
pattern of the synagogues, and, in Christian-Palestinian Aramaic the word
kenishta is used for the Christian church (compare Zahn, Tatians
Diatessaron, 335).
2. ORIGIN:
That the synagogue was, in the time of our Lord, one of the most
important religious institutions of the Jews is clear from the fact that it was
thought to have been instituted by Moses (Apion, ii, 17; Philo, De Vita
Moses, iii.27; compare Targum Jer to Ex 18:20). It must have come into
being during the Babylonian exile. At that time the more devout Jews, far
from their native land, having no sanctuary or altar, no doubt felt drawn
from time to time, especially on Sabbath and feast days, to gather round
those who were specially pious and God-fearing, in order to listen to the
word of God and engage in some kind of worship. That such meetings
were not uncommon is made probable by Ezek 14:1; 20:1. This would
furnish a basis for the institution of the synagogue. After the exile the
synagogue remained and even developed as a counterpoise to the absolute
sacerdotalism of the temple, and must have been felt absolutely necessary
for the Jews of the Dispersion. Though at first it was meant only for the
exposition of the Law, it was natural that in the course of time prayers and
preaching should be added to the service. Thus these meetings, which at
first were only held on Sabbaths and feast days, came also to be held on
other days, and at the same hours with the services in the temple. The
essential aim, however, of the synagogue was not prayer, but instruction in
the Law for all classes of the people. Philo calls the synagogues houses of
instruction, where the philosophy of the fathers and all manner of virtues
were taught (compare Mt 4:23; Mk 1:21; 6:2; Lk 4:15,33; 6:6; 13:10; Jn
6:59; 18:20; CAp, ii, 17).
1261
3. SPREAD OF SYNAGOGUES:
In Palestine the synagogues were scattered all over the country, all the
larger towns having one or more (e.g. Nazareth, Mt 13:54; Capernaum,
Mt 12:9). In Jerusalem, in spite of the fact that the Temple was there,
there were many synagogues, and all parts of the Diaspora were
represented by particular synagogues (
<440609>
Acts 6:9). Also in heathen lands,
wherever there was a certain number of Jews, they had their own
synagogue: e.g. Damascus (
<440902>
Acts 9:2), Salamis (
<441305>
Acts 13:5), Antioch
of Pisidia (
<441314>
Acts 13:14), Thessalonica (
<441701>
Acts 17:1), Corinth (
<441804>
Acts
18:4), Alexandria (Philo, Leg Ad Cai, xx), Rome (ibid., xxiii). The
papyrus finds of recent years contain many references to Jewish
synagogues in Egypt, from the time of Euergetes (247-221 BC) onward.
According to Philo (Quod omnis probus liber sit, xii, et al.) the Essenes
had their own synagogues, and, from Abhoth 3 10, it seems that the
people of the land, i.e. the masses, especially in the country, who were far
removed from the influence of the scribes, and were even opposed to their
narrow interpretation of the Law had their own synagogues.
4. THE BUILDING:
(1) The Site.
There is no evidence that in Palestine the synagogues were always required
to be built upon high ground, or at least that they should overlook all other
houses (compare PEFS, July, 1878, 126), though we read in the Talmud
that this was one of the requirements (Tos Meghillah, edition Zunz, 4:227;
Shabbath 11a). From
<441613>
Acts 16:13 it does not follow that synagogues
were intentionally built outside the city, and near water for the sake of
ceremonial washing (compare Monatsschr. fur Gesch. und Wissensch. des
Judenthums, 1889, 167-70; HJP II, 370).
(2) The Structure.
Of the style of the architecture we have no positive records. From the
description in the Talmud of the synagogue at Alexandria (Toc Cukkah,
edition Zunz, 198 20; Cukkah 51b) one imagines the synagogues to have
been modeled on the pattern of the temple or of the temple court. From
the excavations in Palestine we find that in the building the stone of the
country was used. On the lintels of the doors were different forms of
ornamentation, e.g. seven-branched candlesticks, an open flower between
1262
two paschal lambs, or vine leaves with bunches of grapes, or, as in
Capernaum, a pot of manna between two representations of Aarons rod.
The inside plan is generally that of two double colonnades, which seem to
have formed the body of the synagogue, the aisles East and West being
probably used as passages. The intercolumnar distance is very small, never
greater than 9 1/2 ft. (Edersheim). Because of a certain adaptation of the
corner columns at the northern end, Edersheim supposes that a womans
gallery was once erected there. It does not appear, however, from the Old
Testament or New Testament or the oldest Jewish tradition that there was
any special gallery for women. It should be noted, as against this
conclusion, that in De Vita Contemplativa, attributed by some to Philo, a
certain passage (sec. iii) seems to imply the existence of such a gallery.
(3) The Furniture.
We only know that there was a movable ark in which the rolls of the Law
and the Prophets were kept. It was called aron ha-qodhesh, but chiefly
tebhah (Meghillah 3 1; Nedharim 5 5; Ta`anith 2 1,2), and it stood facing
the entrance. According to Ta`anith 15a it was taken out and carried in a
procession on fast days. In front of the ark, and facing the congregation,
were the chief seats (see CHIEF SEATS) for the rulers of the synagogue
and the learned men (Mt 23:6). From Neh 8:4 and 9:4 it appears that the
bemah (Jerusalem Meghillah 3 1), a platform from which the Law was
read, although it is not mentioned in the New Testament, was of ancient
date, and in use in the time of Christ.
5. THE OFFICIALS:
(1) The Elders.
These officials (Lk 7:3) formed the local tribunal, and in purely Jewish
localities acted as a Committee of Management of the affairs of the
synagogue (compare Berakhoth 4 7; Nedharim 5 5; Meghillah 3 1). To
them belonged, most probably, among other things, the power to
excommunicate (compare Ezr 10:8; Lk 6:22; Jn 9:22; 12:42; 16:2;
`Edhuyoth 5 6; Ta`anith 3 8; Middoth 2 2).
(2) The Ruler.
Greek archisunagogos (Mk 5:35; Lk 8:41,49; 13:14;
<441808>
Acts 18:8,17),
Hebrew rosh ha-keneseth (Sotah 7 7,8). In some synagogues there were
several rulers (Mk 5:22;
<441315>
Acts 13:15). They were most probably chosen
1263
from among the elders. It was the rulers business to control the
synagogue services, as for instance to decide who was to be called upon to
read from the Law and the Prophets (Yoma 7 1) and to preach (
<441315>
Acts
13:15; compare Lk 13:14); he had to look after the discussions, and
generally to keep order.
(3) The Servant (or Servants).
Greek huperetes; Talmud chazzan (Lk 4:20; Yoma 7 1; Sotah 7 7,8). He
had to see to the lighting of the synagogue and to keep the building clean.
He it was who wielded the scourge when punishment had to be meted out
to anyone in the synagogue (Mt 10:17; 23:34; Mk 13:9;
<442219>
Acts 22:19;
compare Makkoth 16). From Shabbath 1 3 it seems that the chazzan was
also an elementary teacher.
See EDUCATION.
(4) Delegate of the Congregation.
Hebrew sheliach tsibbur (Rosh ha-shanah 4 9; Berakhoth 5 5). This
office was not permanent, but one was chosen at each meeting by the ruler
to fill it, and he conducted the prayers. According to Meghillah 4 5, he
who was asked to read the Scriptures was also expected to read the
prayers. He had to be a man of good character.
(5) The Interpreter.
Hebrew methargeman. It was his duty to translate into Aramaic the
passages of the Law and the Prophets which were read in Hebrew
(Meghillah 3 3; compare 1 Cor 14:28). This also was probably not a
permanent office, but was filled at each meeting by one chosen by the ruler.
(6) The Almoners.
(Demai 3 1; Kiddushin 4 5). Alms for the poor were collected in the
synagogue (compare Mt 6:2). According to Peah 8 7, the collecting was
to be done by at least two persons, and the distributing by at least three.
6. THE SERVICE:
(1) Recitation of the Shema`.
At least ten persons bad to be present for regular worship (Meghillah 4 3;
Sanhedhrin 1 6). There were special services on Saturdays and feast days.
1264
In order to keep the synagogue services uniform with those of the temple,
both were held at the same hours. The order of service was as follows: the
recitation of the shema`, i.e. a confession of Gods unity, consisting of the
passages Dt 6:4-9; 11:13-21;. Nu 15:37-41 (Berakhoth 2 2; Tamidh 5 1).
Before and after the recitation of these passages blessings were said in
connection with the passages (Berakhoth 1 4). This formed a very
important part of the liturgy. It was believed to have been ordered by
Moses (compare Ant, IV, viii, 13).
(2) Prayers.
The most important prayers were the Shemoneh `esreh, Eighteen
Eulogies, a cycle of eighteen prayers, also called The Prayer (Berakhoth
4 3; Ta`anith 2 2). Like the shema` they are very old.
The following is the first of the eighteen: Blessed art Thou, the Lord our
God, and the God of our fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac,
and the God of Jacob: the great, the mighty and the terrible God, the most
high God Who showest mercy and kindness, Who createst all things, Who
rememberest the pious deeds of the patriarchs, and wilt in love bring a
redeemer to their childrens children for Thy Names sake; O King, Helper,
Saviour and Shield! Blessed art Thou, O Lord, the Shield of Abraham.
The prayers of the delegate were met with a response of Amen from the
congregation.
(3) Reading of the Law and the Prophets.
After prayers the parashah, i.e. the pericope from the Law for that
Sabbath, was read, and the interpreter translated verse by verse into
Aramaic (Meghillah 3 3). The whole Pentateuch was divided into 154
pericopes, so that in the course of 3 years it was read through in order.
After the reading of the Law came the HaphTarah, the pericope from the
Prophets for that Sabbath, which the interpreter did not necessarily
translate verse by verse, but in paragraphs of 3 verses (Meghillah, loc. cit.).
(4) The Sermon.
After the reading from the Law and the Prophets followed the sermon,
which was originally a caustical exposition of the Law, but which in
process of time assumed a more devotional character. Anyone in the
1265
congregation might be asked by the ruler to preach, or might ask the ruler
for permission to preach.
The following example of an old (lst century AD) rabbinic sermon, based
on the words, He hath clothed me with the garments of salvation (Isa
61:10, a verse in the chapter from which Jesus took His text when
addressing the synagogue of Nazareth), will serve as an illustration of
contemporary Jewish preaching:
Seven garments the Holy One blessed be He! has put on, and will
put on from the time the world was created until the hour when He will
punish the wicked Edom (i.e. Roman empire). When He created the world,
He clothed Himself in honor and majesty, as it is said (Ps 104:1): `Thou art
clothed in honor and majesty. Whenever He forgave the sins of Israel, He
clothed Himself in white, for we read (Dan 7:9): `His raiment was white as
snow. When He punishes the peoples of the world, He puts on the
garments of vengeance, as it is said (Isa 59:17): `He put on garments of
vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloke. The sixth
garment He will put on when the Messiah comes; then He will clothe
Himself in a garment of righteousness, for it is said (same place) : `He put
on righteousness as a breast-plate, and an helmet of salvation upon His
head. The seventh garment He will put on when He punishes Edom; then
He will clothe Himself in adhom, i.e. `red, for it is said (Isa 63:2):
`Wherefore art Thou red in Thine apparel? But the garment which He will
put upon the Messiah, this will shine afar, from one end of the earth to the
other, for it is said (Isa 61:10): `As a bridegroom decketh himself with a
garland. And the Israelites will partake of His light, and will say:
`Blessed is the hour when the Messiah shall come!
Blessed the womb out of which He shall come!
Blessed His contemporaries who are eye-witnesses!
Blessed the eye that is honored with a sight of Him!
For the opening of His lips is blessing and peace;
His speech is a moving of the spirits;
The thoughts of His heart are confidence and cheerful-ness;
The speech of His tongue is pardon and forgiveness;
His prayer is the sweet incense of offerings;
His petitions are holiness and purity.
O how blessed is I srael, for whom such has been prepared!
For it is said (Ps 31:19):
1266
How great is Thy goodness, which thou hast laid up for them that fear thee
(Pesiqta, edition Buber).
(5) The Benediction.
After the sermon the benediction was pronounced (by a priest), and the
congregation answered Amen (Berakhoth 5 4; Sotah 7 2,3).
LITERATURE.
L. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vortrage der Juden, 2nd edition; Herzfeld,
Geschichte des Volkes Israel, III, 129-37, 183-226; Hausrath,
Neutestamentliche Zeitgesch., 2d edition, 73-80; HJP, II, 357-86; GJV4,
II; 497-544; Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 5th edition,
I, 431-50; Oesterly and Box, The Religion and Worship of the
Synagogue, Church and Synagogue, IX, number 2, April, 1907, p. 46; W.
Bacher, article Synagogue in HDB; Strack, article Synagogen, in RE,
3rd edition, XIX.
Paul Levertoff
SYNAGOGUE OF LIBERTINES
See LIBERTINES.
SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN
See SATAN, SYNAGOGUE OF.
SYNAGOGUE, THE GREAT
A college or assembly of learned men, originating with Ezra, to whom
Jewish tradition assigns an important share in the formation of the Old
Testament Canon, and many legal enactments (see CANON OF THE OLD
TESTAMENT). One of its latest members is said to have been Simon the
Just (circa 200 BC). The oldest notice of the Great Synagogue is in the
tract of the Mishna, Pirqe Abhoth (circa 200 AD); this is supplemented by
an often-quoted, passage in another tract of the Mishna, Babha Bathra
(14b), on the Canon, and by later traditions. It tells against the reliabe of
these traditions that they are late, and are mixed up with much that is self-
evidently unhistorical, while no corroboration is found in Ezra or
Nehemiah, in the Apocrypha, or in Josephus. On this account, since the
1267
exhaustive discussion by Kuenen on the subject (Over de Mannen der
Groote Synagoge), most scholars have been disposed to throw over the
tradition altogether, regarding it as a distorted remembrance of the great
convocation described in Neh 8 through 10 (so W. R. Smith, Driver, etc.;
compare article by Selbie in HDB in support of total rejection). This
probably is an excess of skepticism. The convocation in Nehemiah has no
points of resemblance to the kind of assembly recalled in this tradition; and
while fantastic details may be unreal, it is difficult to believe that
declarations so circumstantial and definite have no foundation at all in
actual history. The direct connection with Ezra may be discounted, though
possibly indeed it is likely somebody associated with Ezra in his
undeniable labors on the Canon may have furnished the germ from which
the institution in question was developed (see the careful discussion in C.
H. H. Wright, Eccl 1 through 10, and Excursus III, The Men of the Great
Synagogue).
For the rabbinical quotations and further important details, see C. Taylors
Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, 11 f and 110 f.
J ames Orr
SYNOPTIC; GOSPELS
<si-nop-tik>,
See GOSPELS, SYNOPTIC.
SYNTYCHE
<sin-ti-ke> ([2uvtuq, Suntuche], literally, fortunate (Phil 4:2)): A
Christian woman in the church at Philippi; She and Euodia, who had some
quarrel or cause of difference between them, are mentioned by name by
Paul, and are besought separately: I beseech Euodia, and I beseech
Syntyche (the King James Version) to be reconciled to one another, to be
of the same mind in the Lord. The apostle also entreats an unnamed
Christian at Philippi, whom he terms true yokefellow, to help these
women, for they labored with me in the gospel. What he means is that he
asks the true yokefellow to help Euodia and Syntyche, each of whom had
labored with Paul.
This refers to the visit which he, in company with Silas and Luke and
Timothy, paid to Philippi (
<441612>
Acts 16:12 ff), and which resulted in the
1268
gospel being introduced to that city and the church being formed there.
Euodia and Syntyche had been among the first converts and had proved
helpful in carrying on the work. The word used for labored signifies
they joined with me in my struggle, and probably refers to something
more than ordinary labor, for those were critical times of danger and
suffering, which the apostle and his companions and fellow-workers then
encountered at Philippi.
That workers so enthusiastic and so honored should have quarreled, was
very sad. Paul, therefore, entreats them to be reconciled. Doubtless his
request was given heed to, especially in view of his promised visit to
Philippi.
See EUODIA; YOKE-FELLOW.
J ohn Rutherfurd
SYNZYGUS
<sin-zi-gus> ([ouvuyr, sunzuge]): In Phil 4:3 it is rendered
yokefellow. WHm ([2u vuyr, Sunzuge]), Thayer, Lex. New Testament,
594 ([2u uyr, Suzuge]), and others, take it as a proper name in this
passage.
See YOKEFELLOW.
SYRACUSE
<sir-a-kus>, <sir-a-kus> ([2upoxouoo, Surakousai]; Latin Syracusae,
Ital. Siracusa): Situated on the east coast of Sicily, about midway between
Catania and the southeastern extremity of the island.
The design of the present work scarcely permits more than a passing
allusion to Syracuse, the most brilliant Greek colony on the shores of the
Western Mediterranean, where Paul halted three days, on his way from
Melita to Rome (
<442812>
Acts 28:12). The original Corinthian colony rounded
in 734 BC (Thucydides vi.3) was confined to the islet Ortygia, which
separates the Great Harbor from the sea. Later the city spread over the
promontory lying northward of Ortygia and the harbor.
Syracuse assumed a pre-eminent position in the affairs of Sicily under the
rule of the tyrants Gelon (485-478 BC; compare Herodotus vii.154-55)
and Hieron (478-467 BC). It nourisher greatly after the establishment of
1269
popular government in 466 BC (Diodorus xi.68-72). The Syracusans
successfully withstood the famous siege by the Athenians in 414 BC, the
narrative of which is the most thrilling part of the work of Thucydides (vi,
vii).
Dionysius took advantage of the fear inspired by the Carthaginians to
elevate himself to despotic power in 405 BC, and he was followed, after a
reign of 38 years, by his son of the same name. Although democratic
government was restored by Timoleon after a period of civil dissensions in
344 BC (Plutarch, Timoleon), popular rule was not of long duration.
The most famous of the later rulers was the wise Hieron (275-216 BC),
who was the steady ally of the Romans. His grandson and successor
Hieronymus deserted the alliance of Rome for that of Carthage, which led
to the celebrated siege of the city by the Romans under Marcellus and its
fall in 212 (Livy xxiv.21-33). Henceforth Syracuse was the capital of the
Roman province of Sicily. Cicero calls it the greatest of Greek cities and
the most beautiful of all cities (Cicero Verr. iv.52).
George H. Allen
SYRIA
<sir-i-a> ([2upo, Suria] (Mt 4:24; Lk 2:2)):
1. NAME AND ITS ORIGIN:
The name does not occur in the Massoretic Text nor the Peshitta of the
Old Testament, but is found in the Septuagint, in the Peshitta of the New
Testament and in the Mishna In the Septuagint it represents Aram in all
its combinations, as Aram-zobah, etc. The name itself first appears in
Herodotus vii.63, where he says that Syrians and Assyrians were the
Greek and barbarian designations of the same people. Otherwise he is quite
vague in his use of the term. Xenophon is clearer when he (Anab; vii.8, 25)
distinguishes between Syria and Phoenicia. Syria is undoubtedly an
extension of the name Suri the ancient Babylonian designation of a
district in North Mesopotamia, but later embracing regions beyond the
Euphrates to the North and West, as far as the Taurus. Under the
Seleucids, Syria was regarded as coextensive with their kingdom, and the
name shrank with its dimensions. Strabo, Pliny and Ptolemy give its
boundaries as the Taurus Mountains, the Euphrates, the Syro-Arabian
desert and the Mediterranean, and the territory within these limits is still
1270
politically designated Syria, though popularly Palestine is generally named
separately.
2. OTHER DESIGNATIONS:
Homer (Iliad ii.785) and Hesiod (Theog. 304) call the inhabitants of the
district Arimoi, with which compare the cuneiform Arimu or Aramu
for Arameans. The earliest Assyrian name was Martu, which Hommel
regards as a contraction of Amartu, the land of the Amurru or
Amorites. In Egyptian records the country is named Ruten or Luten,
and divided into Lower and Upper, the former denoting Palestine and
the latter Syria proper.
3. PHYSICAL:
(1) The Maritime Plain.
Syria, within the boundaries given, consists of a series of belts of low and
high land running North and South, parallel to the Mediterranean. The first
of these is the maritime plain. It consists of a broad strip of sand dunes
covered by short grass and low bushes, followed by a series of low
undulating hills and wide valleys which gradually rise to a height of about
500 ft. This belt begins in North Syria with the narrow Plain of Issus,
which extends to a few miles South of Alxandretta, but farther South
almost disappears, being represented only by the broader valleys and the
smaller plains occupied by such towns as Latakia, Tripolis and Beirut.
South of the last named the maritime belt is continuous, being interrupted
only where the Ladder of Tyre and Mt. Carmel descend abruptly into the
sea. In the Plain of Akka it has a breadth of 8 miles, and from Carmel
southward it again broadens out, till beyond Caesarea it has an average of
10 miles. Within the sand dunes the soil is a rich alluvium and readily yields
to cultivation. In ancient times it was covered with palm trees, which,
being thence introduced into Greece, were from their place of origin named
phoinikes.
(2) First Mountain Belt.
From the maritime plain we rise to the first mountain belt. It begins with
the Amanus, a branch of the Taurus in the North. Under that name it
ceases with the Orontes valley, but is continued in the Nuseiriyeh range
(Mt. Cassius, 5,750 ft.), till the Eleutherus valley is reached, and thence
1271
rising again in Lebanon (average 5,000 ft.), Jebel Sunnin (8,780 ft.), it
continues to the Leontes or Quasmiyeh. The range then breaks down into
the rounded hills of Upper Galilee (3,500 ft.), extends through the table-
land of Western Palestine (2,500 ft.), and in the South of Judea broadens
out into the arid Badiet et-Tih or Wilderness of Wandering.
(3) Second Mountain Belt.
Along with this may be considered the parallel mountain range. Beginning
in the neighborhood of Riblah, the chain of anti-Lebanon extends
southward to Hermon (9,200 ft.), and thence stretches out into the plateau
of the Jaulan and Hauran, where we meet with the truncated cones of
extinct volcanoes and great sheets of basaltic lava, especially in el-Leja and
Jebel ed-Druz. The same table-land continues southward, with deep
ravines piercing its sides, over Gilead, Moab and Edom.
(4) Great Central Valley.
Between Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon lies the great valley of Coele-Syria. It
is continued northward along the Orontes and thence stretches away
eastward to the Euphrates, while southward it merges into the valleys of
the Jordan and the Arabah. From the sources of the Orontes and Leontes
at Baalbek (4,000 ft.) it falls away gently to the North; but to the South the
descent is rapid. In Merj `Ayun it has sunk to 1,800 ft., at Lake Huleh it is
over 7 ft., at the Lake of Tiberias 682 ft., and at the Dead Sea 1,292
ft., and thence it rises again to the Gulf of Akabah. This great valley was
caused by a line of fault or fracture of the earths crust, with parallel and
branching faults. In ancient times the whole valley formed an arm of the
sea, and till the Glacial period at the end of the Tertiary (Pleistocene) Age,
a lake extended along the whole Jordan valley as far as the Huleh. We can
thus understand that the great plain and adjoining valleys consist mainly of
alluvial deposits with terraces of gravel and sand on the enclosing slopes.
See LEBANON; NATURAL FEATURES; PALESTINE; PHOENICIA.
(5)The Eastern Belt.
To the East of the Anti-Lebanon belt there is a narrow stretch of cultivated
land which in some places attains a breadth of several miles, but this is
always determined by the distance to which the eastern streams from Anti-
Lebanon flow. Around Damascus the Abana (Barada) and neighboring
streams have made the district an earthly paradise, but they soon lose
1272
themselves in the salt marshes about 10 miles East of the city. Elsewhere
the fruitful strip gradually falls away into the sands and rocks of the Syrian
desert, barren alike of vegetable and animal life.
(6) Rivers.
The mountain ranges determine the course of the rivers and their length.
The streams flowing westward are naturally short and little more than
summer torrents. Those flowing to the desert are of the same character,
the only one of importance being the Abana, to which Damascus owes its
existence. Only the great central valley permits the formation of larger
rivers, and there we find the Orontes and Leontes rising within a few feet
of each other beside Baalbek, and draining Coele-Syria to the North and
South, till breaking through the mountains they reach the sea. The Jordan
is the only other stream of any size. In ancient, as also in modern times,
the direction of these streams determined the direction of the great trade
route from Mesopotamia to Egypt through Coele-Syria and across pal, as
also the position of the larger towns, but, not being themselves navigable,
they did not form a means of internal communication.
(7) Nature of Soil.
The variation in altitude both above and below the sea-level is naturally
conducive to a great variety of climate, while the nature of the
disintegrating rocks and the alluvial soil render great productivity possible.
Both of the mountain belts in their whole length consist chiefly of
cretaceous limestone, mixed with friable limestone with basaltic intrusions
and volcanic products. The limestone is highly porous, and during the
rainy season absorbs the moisture which forms reservoirs and feeds the
numerous springs on both the eastern and western slopes. The rocks too
are soft and penetrable and can easily be turned into orchard land, a fact
that explains how much that now appears as barren wastes was productive
in ancient times as gardens and fruitful fields (Bab Talmud, Megh. 6a).
(8) Flora.
The western valleys and the maritime plain have the flora of the
Mediterranean, but the eastern slopes and the valleys facing the desert are
poorer. On the southern coasts and in the deeper valleys the vegetation is
tropical, and there we meet with the date-palm, the sugar-cane and the
sycomore. Up to 1,600 ft., the products include the carob and the pine,
1273
after which the vine, the fig and the olive are met with amid great
plantations of dwarf oak, till after 3,000 ft. is reached, then cypresses and
cedars till the height of 6,200 ft., after which only Alpine plants are found.
The once renowned cedars of Lebanon now exist only in the Qadisha and
Baruk valleys. The walnut and mulberry are plentiful everywhere, and
wheat, corn, barley, maize and lentils are widely cultivated. Pasture lands
are to be found in the valleys and plains, and even during the dry season
sheep, goats and cattle can glean sufficient pasturage among the low
brushwood.
(9) Fauna.
The animal world is almost as varied. The fox, jackal, hyena, bear, wolf
and hog are met nearly everywhere, and small tigers are sometimes seen
(compare 2 Ki 14:9). The eagle, vulture, partridge and blue pigeon are
plentiful, and gay birds chirp everywhere. The fish in the Jordan and its
lakes are peculiar and interesting. There are in all 22 varieties, the largest
being a kind of perch, the coracinus, which is known elsewhere also in the
Nile (Josephus, Ant, III, x, 8), and a peculiar old-world variety locally
named `Abu-musht.
(10) Minerals.
In both the eastern and the western mountain belts there are abundant
supplies of mineral wealth. They consist chiefly of coal, iron, bitumen,
asphalt and mineral oil, but they are mostly unworked. In the Jordan valley
all the springs below the level of the Mediterranean are brackish, and many
of them are also hot and sulfurous, the best known being those Tiberias.
(11) Central Position.
The country, being in virtue of its geographical configuration separated
into small isolated districts, naturally tended to break up into a series of
petty independent states. Still the central position between the
Mesopotamian empires on the one hand and Egypt and Arabia on the other
made it the highway through which the trade of the ancient world passed,
gave it an importance far in excess of its size or productivity, and made it a
subject of contention whenever East and West were ruled by different
powers.
1274
4. HISTORY:
(1) Canaanitic Semites.
When history begins for us in the 3rd millennium BC, Syria was already
occupied by a Semitic population belonging to the Canaanitic wave of
immigration, i.e. such as spoke dialects akin to Hebrew or Phoenician. The
Semites had been already settled for a considerable time, for a millennium
earlier in Egypt we find Semitic names for Syrian articles of commerce as
well as Semites depicted on the Egyptian monuments.
(2) Sargon of Agade.
Omitting as doubtful references to earlier relations between Babylonia and
Syria, we may consider ourselves on solid ground in accepting the
statements of the Omen Tablets which tell us that Sargon of Agade (2750
BC) four times visited the land of Martu and made the peoples of one
accord. His son Naram-sin, while extending the empire in other directions
maintained his authority here also. Commercial relations were continued,
and Babylonia claimed at least a supremacy over Martu, and at times made
it effective.
(3) Babylonian Supremacy.
Hammurabi and also his great-grandson Ammisatana designate themselves
in inscriptions as kings of Martu, and it is very likely that other kings
maintained the traditional limits of the empire. The long-continued
supremacy of Babylon not only made itself felt in imposing place-names,
but it made Assyrian the language of diplomacy, even between Syria and
Egypt, as we see in the Tell el-Amarna Letters.
(4) Hittite and Aramean.
By the middle of the 2nd millennium BC we find considerable change in the
population. The Mitanni, a Hittite people, the remains of whose language
are to be found in the still undeciphered inscriptions at Carchemish,
Marash, Aleppo and Hamath, are now masters of North Syria. See
HITTITES.
The great discoveries of Dr. H. Winckler at Boghazkeui have furnished a
most important contribution to our knowledge. The preliminary account
may be found in OLZ, December 15, 1906, and the Mitteilungen der
deutschen orient. Gesellschaft, number 35, December, 1907.Elsewhere the
1275
Aramean wave has become the predominant Semitic element of population,
the Canaanitic now occupying the coast towns (Phoenicians) and the
Canaan of the Old Testament.
(5) Hittites and Egyptians.
At this time Babylonia was subject to the Kassites, an alien race of kings,
and when they fell, about 1100 BC, they gave place to a number of
dynasties of short duration. This gave the Egyptians, freed from the
Hyksos rule, the opportunity to lay claim to Syria, and accordingly we find
the struggle to be between the Hittites and the Egyptians. Thothmes I,
about 1600 BCa overran Syria as far as the Euphrates and brought the
country into subjection. Thothmes III did the same, and he has left us on
the walls of Karnak an account of his campaigns and a list of the towns he
conquered.
(6) Amarna Period.
In the reign of Thothmes IV the Hittites began to leave their mountains
more and more and to press forward into Central Syria. The Tell el-
Amarna Letters show them to be the most serious opponents to the
Egyptian authority in Syria and Palestine during the reign of Amenhotep IV
(circa 1380 BC), and before Seti I came to the throne the power of the
Pharaohs had greatly diminished in Syria. Then the Egyptian sphere only
reached to Carmel, while a neutral zone extended thence to Kadesh,
northward of which all belonged to the Hitites.
(7) Rameses II.
Rameses II entered energetically into the war against Hatesar, king of the
Hittites, and fought a battle near Kadesh. He claims a great victory, but
the only result seems to have been that his authority was further extended
into the neutral territory, and the sphere of Egyptian influence extended
across Syria from the Lycus (Dog River) to the South of Damascus. The
arrangement was confirmed by a treaty in which North Syria was formally
recognized as the Hittite sphere of influence, and, on the part of the
Assyrians who were soon to become the heirs of the Hittite pretensions,
this treaty formed the basis of a claim against Egypt. About the year 1200
BC the Hittites, weakened by this war, were further encroached upon by
the movements of northern races, and the empire broke up into a number
of small separate independent states.
1276
(8) Philistines.
Among the moving races that helped to weaken and break up the Hittite
influence in Syria were the Pulusati (or Purusati), a people whose origin is
not yet definitely settled. They entered Syria from the North and overcame
all who met them, after which they encamped within the Egyptian sphere of
influence. Rameses III marched against them, and he claims a great
victory. Later, however, we find them settled in Southeastern Palestine
under the name of Philistines. Their settlement at that time is in harmony
with the Tell el-Amarna Letters in which we find no trace of them, while in
the 11th century BC they are there as the inveterate foes of Israel.
(9) Tiglath-pileser I.
Assyria was now slowly rising into power, but it had to settle with Babylon
before it could do much in the West. Tiglath-pieser I, however, crossed
the Euphrates, defeated the Hittite king of Carchemish, advanced to the
coast of Arvad, hunted wild bulls in Lebanon and received gifts from the
Pharaoh, who thus recognized him as the successor of the Hittites in North
Syria.
(10) Aramean States.
When the Hittite empire broke up, the Arameans in Central Syria, now
liberated, set up a number of separate Aramean states, which engaged in
war with one another, except when they had to combine against a common
enemy. Such states were established in Hamath, Hadrach, Zobah and
Rehob. The exact position of Hadrach is still unknown, but Hamath was
evidently met on its southern border by Rehob and Zobah, the former
extending along the Biqaa to the foot of Hermon, while the latter
stretched 2 , along the eastern slopes of Anti-Lebanon and included
Damascus, till Rezon broke away and there set up an independent
kingdom, which soon rose to be the leading state; Southeast of Hermon
were the two smaller Aramean states of Geshur and Maacah.
(11) Peaceful Development.
For nearly three centuries now, Syria and Palestine were, except on rare
occasions, left in peace by both Mesopotamia and Egypt. In the 12th
century BC Babylonia was wasted by the Elamite invasion, and thereafter a
prolonged war was carried on between Assyria and Babylonia, and
although a lengthened period of peace succeeded, it was wisely used by the
1277
peaceful rulers of Assyria for the strengthening of their kingdom internally.
In Egypt the successors of Rameses III were engaged against the
aggressive Theban hierarchy. During the XXIst Dynasty the throne was
usurped by the high priests of Amen, while the XXIId were Lybian
usurpers, and the three following dynasties Ethiopian conquerors.
(12) Shalmaneser II.
In the 9th century Asshur-nazirpal crossed the Euphrates and overran the
recently established state of Patin in the Plain of Antioch. He besieged its
capital and planted a colony in its territory, but the arrangement was not
final, for his successor, Shalmaneser II, had again to invade the territory
and break up the kingdom into a number of small principalities. Then in
854 BC he advanced into Central Syria, but was met at Karkar by a strong
confederacy consisting of Ben-hadad of Damascus and his Syrian allies
including Ahab of Israel. He claims a victory, but made no advance for 5
years. He then made three unsuccessful expeditions against Damascus, but
in 842 received tribute from Tyre, Sidon and Jehu of Israel, as recorded
and depicted on the Black Obelisk. It was not till the year 797 that
Ramman-nirari, after subduing the coast of Phoenicia, was able to reduce
Maria of Damascus to obedience at which time also he seems to have
carried his conquests through Eastern Palestine as far as Edom. The
Assyrian power now suffered a period of decline, during which risings took
place at Hadrach and Damascus, and Jeroboam II of Israel was able (2 Ki
14:25) to extend his boundaries northward to the old limits.
(13) Tiglath-pileser III.
It thus happened that Tiglath-pileser III (745-728) had to reconquer the
whole of Syria. He captured Arpad after two years warfare (742-740).
Then he divided the territory of Hamath among his generals. At this
juncture Ahaz of Judah implored his aid against Rezin of Damascus and
Remaliah of Israel. Ahaz was relieved, but was made subject to Assyria.
Damascus fell in 732 BC and a Great Court was held there, which the
tributary princes of Syria, including Ahaz (2 Ki 16:10), attended. The
Assyrian empire now possessed the whole of Syria as far as the River of
Egypt. Sibahe, however, encouraged revolt in what had been the Egyptian
sphere of infiuence and insurrections took place in Phoenicia and Samaria.
1278
(14) Shalmaneser IV and Sargon.
After some difficulty Shalmaneser IV compelled Tyre and Sidon to submit
and to pay tribute. Samaria, too, was besieged, but was not taken till
Sargon came to the throne in 722. Hamath and Carchemish again rose, but
were finally reduced in 720 and 717 respectively. Again in 711 Sargon
overran Palestine and broke up a fresh confederacy consisting of Egypt,
Moab, Edom, Judah and the Philistines. In 705 the Egyptians under Sibahe
and their allies the Philistines under Hanun of Gaza were defeated at
Raphia.
The last three rulers of Assyria were in constant difficulties with Babylonia
and a great part of the empire was also overrun by the Scythians (circa 626
BC), and so nothing further was done in the West save the annexation of
the mainland possessions of Phoenicia.
(15) Pharaoh-necoh and Nebuchadnezzar.
In 609 when Assyria was in the death grapple with Babylonia, Pharaoh-
necoh took advantage of the situation, invaded Syria, and, defeating Josiah
en route, marched to Carchemish. In 605, however, he was there
completely defeated by Nebuchadnezzar, and the whole of Syria became
tributary to Babylonia. the former Syrian states now appear as Babylonian
provinces, and revolts in Judah reduced it also to that position in 586 BC.
Under Persian rule these provinces remained as they were for a time, but
ultimately Ebir nari or Syria was formed into a satrapy. The Greek
conquest with the Ptolemies in Egypt and the Seleucids in Babylon brought
back some of the old rivalry between East and West, and the same
unsettled conditions. On the advent of Rome, Syria was separated from
Babylonia and made into a province with Antioch as its capital, and then
the Semitic civilization which had continued practically untouched till the
beginning of the Christian era was brought more and more into contact
with the West. With the advent of Islam, Syria fell into Arab hands and
Damascus became for a short time (661-750 AD) the capital of the new
empire, but the central authority was soon removed to Babylonia.
Thenceforward Syria sank to the level of a province of the caliphate, first
Abbasside (750-1258), then Fatimite (1258-1517), and finally Ottoman.
W. M. Christie
1279
SYRIA-MAACHAH
<sir-i-a-maa-ka>.
See MAACAH; SYRIA.
SYRIA
<sir-i-ak>: In Dan 2:4, for the King James Version Syriack the Revised
Version (British and American) has Syrian, and in the margin Or, `in
Aramaic.
See ARAMAIC LANGUAGE; LANGUAGES OF THE OLD
TESTAMENT.
SYRIAC VERSIONS
As in the account of the Latin versions it was convenient to start from
Jeromes Vulgate, so the Syriac versions may be usefully approached from
the Peshitta, which is the Syriac Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405
A.D.)
1. ANALOGY OF LATIN VULGATE:
Not that we have any such full and clear knowledge of the circumstances
under which the Peshitta was produced and came into circulation. Whereas
the authorship of the Latin Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.)
has never been in dispute, almost every assertion regarding the authorship
of the Peshitta, and the time and place of its origin, is subject to question.
The chief ground of analogy between the Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible,
390-405 A.D.) and the Peshitta is that both came into existence as the
result of a revision. This, indeed, has been strenuously denied, but since Dr.
Hort in his Introduction to Westcott and Horts New Testament in the
Original Greek, following Griesbach and Hug at the beginning of the last
century, maintained this view, it has gained many adherents. So far as the
Gospels and other New Testament books are concerned, there is evidence
in favor of this view which has been added to by recent discoveries; and
fresh investigation in the field of Syriac scholarship has raised it to a high
degree of probability. The very designation. Peshito, has given rise to
dispute. It has been applied to the Syriac as the version in common use,
1280
and regarded as equivalent to the Greek ([xovq, koine]) and the Latin
Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.)
2. THE DESIGNATION PESHITO (PESHITTA):
The word itself is a feminine form (peshiTetha), meaning simple, easy
to be understood. It seems to have been used to distinguish the version
from others which are encumbered, with marks and signs in the nature of
an apparatus criticus. However this may. be, the term as a designation of
the version has not been found in any Syriac author earlier than the 9th or
10th century.
As regards the Old Testament, the antiquity of the Version is admitted on
all hands. The tradition, however, that part of it was translated from
Hebrew into Syriac for the benefit of Hiram in the days of Solomon is a
myth. That a translation was made by a priest named Assa, or Ezra, whom
the king of Assyria sent to Samaria, to instruct the Assyrian colonists
mentioned in 2 Ki 17, is equally legendary. That the tr of the Old
Testament and New Testament was made in connection with the visit of
Thaddaeus to Abgar at Edessa belongs also to unreliable tradition. Mark
has even been credited in ancient Syriac tradition with translating his own
Gospel (written in Latin, according to this account) and the other books of
the New Testament into Syriac
3. SYRIAC OLD TESTAMENT:
But what Theodore of Mopsuestia says of the Old Testament is true of
both: These Scriptures were translated into the tongue of the Syrians by
someone indeed at some time, but who on earth this was has not been
made known down to our day (Nestle in HDB, IV, 645b). Professor
Burkitt has made it probable that the translation of the Old Testament was
the work of Jews, of whom there was a colony in Edessa about the
commencement of the Christian era (Early Eastern Christianity, 71 ff). The
older view was that the translators were Christians, and that the work was
done late in the 1st century or early in the 2nd. The Old Testament known
to the early Syrian church was substantially that of the Palestinian Jews. It
contained the same number of books but it arranged them in a different
order. First there was the Pentateuch, then Job, Joshua, Judgess, 1 and 2
Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes,
Ruth, Canticles, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, Isaiah followed by the Twelve
1281
Minor Prophets, Jeremiah and Lamentations, Ezekiel, and lastly Daniel.
Most of the apocryphal books of the Old Testament are found in the
Syriac, and the Book of Sirach is held to have been translated from the
Hebrew and not from the Septuagint.
4. SYRIAC NEW TESTAMENT:
Of the New Testament, attempts at translation must have been made very
early, and among the ancient versions of New Testament Scripture the
Syriac in all likelihood is the earliest. It was at Antioch, the capital of Syria,
that the disciples of Christ were first called Christians, and it seemed
natural that the first translation of the Christian Scriptures should have
been made there. The tendency of recent research, however, goes to show
that Edessa, the literary capital, was more likely the place.
If we could accept the somewhat obscure statement of Eusebius (Historia
Ecclesiastica, IV, xxii) that Hegesippus made some quotations from the
Gospel according to the Hebrews and from the Syriac Gospel, we should
have a reference to a Syriac New Testament as early as 160-80 AD, the
time of that Hebrew Christian writer. One thing is certain, that the earliest
New Testament of the Syriac church lacked not only the Antilegomena
2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation but the whole of the
Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse. These were at a later date translated
and received into the Syriac Canon of the New Testament, but the
quotations of the early Syrian Fathers take no notice of these New
Testament books.
From the 5th century, however, the Peshitta containing both Old
Testament and New Testament has been used in its present form only as
the national version of the Syriac Scriptures. The translation of the New
Testament is careful, faithful and literal, and the simplicity, directness and
transparency of the style are admired by all Syriac scholars and have earned
for it the title of Queen of the versions.
5. OLD SYRIAC TEXTS:
It is in the Gospels, however, that the analogy between the Latin Vulgate
(Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) and the Syriac Vulgate (Jeromes
Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) can be established by evidence. If the Peshitta
is the result of a revision as the Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405
A.D.) was, then we may expect to find Old Syriac texts answering to the
1282
Old Latin. Such texts have actually been found. Three such texts have been
recovered, all showing divergences from the Peshitta, and believed by
competent scholars to be anterior to it. These are, to take them in the order
of their recovery in modern times,
(1) the Curetonian Syriac,
(2) the Syriac of Tatians Diatessaron, and
(3) the Sinaitic Syriac.
(1) Curetonian.
The Curetonian consists of fragments of the Gospels brought in 1842 from
the Nitrian Desert in Egypt, and now in the British Museum. The
fragments were examined by Canon Cureton of Westminster and edited by
him in 1858. The manuscript from which the fragments have come appears
to belong to the 5th century, but scholars believe the text itself to be as old
as the 2nd century. In this recension the Gospel according to Matthew has
the title Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, which will be explained in the next
section.
(2) Tatians Diatessaron.
The Diatessaron of Tatian is the work which Eusebius ascribes to that
heretic, calling it that combination and collection of the Gospels, I know
not how, to which he gave the title Diatessaron. It is the earliest harmony
of the Four Gospels known to us. Its existence is amply attested in the
church of Syria, but it had disappeared for centuries, and not a single copy
of the Syriac work survives.
A commentary upon it by Ephraem the Syrian, surviving in an Armenian
translation, was issued by the Mechitarist Fathers at Venice in 1836, and
afterward translated into Latin. Since 1876 an Arabic translation of the
Diatessaron itself has been discovered; and it has been ascertained that the
Cod. Fuldensis of the Vulgate (Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.)
represents the order and contents of the Diatessaron. A translation from
the Arab can now be read in English in Dr. J. Hamlyn Hills The Earliest
Life of Christ Ever Compiled from the Four Gospels.
Although no copy of the Diatessaron has survived, the general features of
Tatians Syriac work can be gathered from these materials. It is still a
matter of dispute whether Tatian composed his Harmony out of a Syriac
1283
version already made, or composed it first in Greek and then translated it
into Syriac. But the existence and widespread use of a Harmony,
combining in one all four Gospels, from such an early period (172 AD),
enables us to understand the title Evangelion da-Mepharreshe It means the
Gospel of the Separated, and points to the existence of single Gospels,
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, in a Syriac translation, in contradistinction to
Tatians Harmony. Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus in the 5th century, tells
how he found more than 200 copies of the Diatessaron held in honor in his
diocese and how he collected them, and put them out of the way,
associated as they were with the name of a heretic, and substituted for
them the Gospels of the four evangelists in their separate forms.
(3) Sinaitic Syriac.
In 1892 the discovery of the 3rd text, known, from the place where it was
found, as the Sin Syriac, comprising the four Gospels nearly entire,
heightened the interest in the subject and increased the available material.
It is a palimpsest, and was found in the monastery of Catherine on Mt.
Sinai by Mrs. Agnes S. Lewis and her sister Mrs. Margaret D. Gibson. The
text has been carefully examined and many scholars regard it as
representing the earliest translation into Syriac, and reaching back into the
2nd century. Like the Curetonian, it is an example of the Evangelion da-
Mepharreshe as distinguished from the Harmony of Tatian.
(4) Relation to Peshito.
The discovery of these texts has raised many questions which it may
require further discovery and further investigation to answer satisfactorily.
It is natural to ask what is the relation of these three texts to the Peshitta.
There are still scholars, foremost of whom is G. H. Gwil-liam, the learned
editor of the Oxford Peshito (Tetraevangelium sanctum, Clarendon Press,
1901), who maintain the priority of the Peshitta and insist upon its claim to
be the earliest monument of Syrian Christianity. But the progress of
investigation into Syriac Christian literature points distinctly the other way.
From an exhaustive study of the quotations in the earliest Syriac Fathers,
and, in particular, of the works of Ephraem Syrus, Professor Burkitt
concludes that the Peshitta did not exist in the 4th century. He finds that
Ephraem used the Diatessaron in the main as the source of his quotation,
although his voluminous writings contain some clear indications that he
was aware of the existence of the separate Gospels, and he seems
1284
occasionally to have quoted from them (Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, 186).
Such quotations as are found in other extant remains of Syriac literature
before the 5th century bear a greater resemblance to the readings of the
Curetonian and the Sinaitic than to the readings of the Peshitta. Internal
and external evidence alike point to the later and revised character of the
Peshitta
6. PROBABLE ORIGIN OF PESHITO:
How and where and by whom was the revision carried out? Dr. Hort, as
we have seen, believed that the revised character of the Syriac Vulgate
(Jeromes Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) was a matter of certainty, and Dr.
Westcott and he connected the authoritative revision which resulted in the
Peshitta with their own theory, now widely adopted by textual critics, of a
revision of the Greek text made at Antioch in the latter part of the 3rd
century, or early in the 4th. The recent investigations of Professor Burkitt
and other scholars have made it probable that the Peshitta was the work of
Rabbula, bishop of Edessa, at the beginning of the 5th century. Of this
revision, as of the revision which plays such an important part in the textual
theory of Westcott and Hort, direct evidence is very scanty, in the former
case altogether wanting. Dr. Burkitt, however, is able to quote words of
Rabbulas biographer to the effect that by the wisdom of God that was in
him he translated the New Testament from Greek into Syriac because of its
variations, exactly as it was. This may well be an account of the first
publication of the Syriac Vulg, the Old Syriac texts then available having
been brought by this revision into greater conformity with the Greek text
current at Antioch in the beginning of the 5th century. And Rabbula was
not content with the publication of his revision; he gave orders to the
priests and the deacons to see that in all the churches a copy of the
Evangelion da-Mepharreshe shall be kept and read (ib 161 ff, 177 f). It is
very remarkable that before the time of Rabbula, who ruled over the Syr-
speaking churches from 411 to 435, there is no trace of the Peshitta, and
that after his time there is scarcely a vestige of any other text. He very
likely acted in the manner of Theodoret somewhat later, pushing the newly
made revision, which we have reason to suppose the Peshitta to have been,
into prominence, and making short work of other texts, of which only the
Curetonian and the Sinaitic are known to have survived to modern times.
1285
7. HISTORY OF PESHITO:
The Peshitta had from the 5th century onward a wide circulation in the
East, and was accepted and honored by all the numerous sects of the
greatly divided Syriac Christianity. It had a great missionary influence, and
the Armenian and Georgian VSS, as well as the Arabic and the Persian,
owe not a little to the Syriac. The famous Nestorian tablet of Sing-an-fu
witnesses to the presence of the Syriac Scriptures in the heart of China in
the 7th century. It was first brought to the West by Moses of Mindin, a
noted Syrian ecclesiastic, who sought a patron for the work of printing it in
vain in Rome and Venice, but found one in the Imperial Chancellor at
Vienna in 1555 Albert Widmanstadt. He undertook the printing of the
New Testament, and the emperor bore the cost of the special types which
had to be cast for its issue in Syriac. Immanuel Tremellius, the converted
Jew whose scholarship was so valuable to the English reformers and
divines, made use of it, and in 1569 issued a Syriac New Testament in
Hebrew letters. In 1645 the editio princeps of the Old Testament was
prepared by Gabriel Sionita for the Paris Polyglot, and in 1657 the whole
Peshitta found a place in Walton s London Polyglot. For long the best
edition of the Peshitta was that of John Leusden and Karl Schaaf, and it is
still quoted under the symbol Syriac schaaf, or Syriac Sch. The critical
edition of the Gospels recently issued by Mr. G. H. Gwilliam at the
Clarendon Press is based upon some 50 manuscripts. Considering the
revival of Syriac scholarship, and the large company of workers engaged in
this field, we may expect further contributions of a similar character to a
new and complete critical edition of the Peshitta
8. OTHER TRANSLATIONS:
(1) The Philoxenian.
Besides the Peshitta there are other translations which may briefly be
mentioned. One of these is the Philoxenian, made by Philoxenus, bishop of
Mabug (485-519) on the Euphrates, from the Greek, with the help of his
Chorepiscopus Polycarp. The Psalms and portions of Isa are also found in
this version; and it is interesting as having contained the Antilegomena 2
Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude.
1286
(2) The Harclean.
Another is the Harclean, which is a revision of the Philoxenian, undertaken
by Thomas of Harkel in Mesopotamia, and carried out by him at
Alexandria about 616, with the help of Greek manuscripts exhibiting
western reading. The Old Testament was undertaken at the same time by
Paul of Tella. The New Testament contains the whole of the books, except
Rev. It is very literal in its renderings, and is supplied with an elaborate
system of asterisks and daggers to indicate the variants found in the
manuscripts.
(3) The Jerusalem Syriac.
Mention may also be made of a Syriac version of the New Testament
known as the Jerusalem or Palestinian Syriac, believed to be independent,
and not derived genealogically from those already mentioned. It exists in a
Lectionary of the Gospels in the Vatican, but two fresh manuscripts of the
Lectionary have been found on Mt. Sinai by Dr. Rendel Harris and Mrs.
Lewis, with fragments of Acts and the Pauline Epistles. The dialect
employed deviates considerably from the ordinary Syriac, and the Greek
text underlying it has many peculiarities. It alone of Syriac manuscripts has
the pericope adulterae. In Mt 27:17 the robber is called Jesus Barabbas.
Gregory describes 10 manuscripts (Textkritik, 523 f).
LITERATURE.
Nestle, Syrische Uebersetzungen, PRE3, Syriac VSS, HDB, and
Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament, 95-
106; G. H. Gwilliam, Studia Biblica, II, 1890, III, 1891, V, 1903, and
Tetraevangelium sanctum Syriacum; Scrivener, Intro4, 6-40; Burkitt,
Early Eastern Christianity, Texts and Studies, VII, 2:1-91, Evangelion
da-Mepharreshe, I, II, and Syr VSS, EB; Gregory, Textkritik, 479-528.
T. Nicol
SYRIAN; LANGUAGE
<sir-i-an> (the King James Version SYRIACK).
See SYRIAC.
1287
SYRIANS
<sir-i-anz> ([ r ;a }, aram]; [2upo, Suroi]; Assyrian Aramu, Arumu,
Arimu):
The terms Syria and Syrians are used in two senses in the Bible. In the
Old Testament they are uniformly Aram, Aramaean, while in the New
Testament they are used in a wider and more indefinite sense (Mt 4:24;
<441523>
Acts 15:23; 18:18; Gal 1:21), and include all the dwellers of the land
whether Arameans or not.
1. DIVISION OF ARAM:
Aram was divided into several districts, comprising, in general, the region
to the East of the Jordan, but extending in the North over most of
Northern Syria, or from the Orontes eastward, and Northern Mesopotamia.
This latter division was called Aram-naharaim Aram of the two rivers,
i.e. Tigris and Euphrates and is the Nahrina of the Egyptian inscriptions.
It is also called Paddan-aram in the Old Testament (Gen 25:20) or field of
Aram (Hos 12:12). The most important of the divisions of Aram in Old
Testament times was Aram-dammesek, the Syria of Damascus, which
sometimes dominated all of the other divisions lying to the South, such as
Rehob, Tob, Zobah, and Mancab (2 Sam 10:8). Geshur was in this region
and should be reckoned as an Aramean dis-trict (2 Sam 15:8).
2. A SEMITIC RACE:
The Arameans were of Semitic stock and closely akin to the Hebrews.
Aram is called a son of Shem (Gen 10:22), which means a descendant, for
we find him afterward called a grandson of Nahor, the brother of Abraham
(Gen 22:21). The Israelites were taught to say A Syrian (Ara-maean)
ready to perish was my father (Dt 26:5), and the kinship of the Hebrews
and Arameans was further cemented by the marriage of Isaac with
Rebekah, the sister of Laban the Syrian, and of Jacob with his daughters
(Gen 24; 29). The period when the Arameans first appeared in Syria is
uncertain, but was probably later than 2000 BC. When Abraham came
from Haran, Damascus was already occupied (Gen 15:2), and this may
have been the oldest settlement of the Arameans in Syria proper, although
it is not mentioned on the monuments until long after, in the time of
Thothmes III of Egypt, about 1479 BC. The Syrians were generally hostile
1288
to the Hebrews and had wars with them from the time of David onward.
David subdued them, although they were aided by the tribes from beyond
the Euphrates (2 Sam 10), but after the division of the kingdom they often
proved too strong for the northern Israelites.
3. SYRIA AND ISRAEL:
In the days of Omri the Syrians of Damascus brought them into subjection,
but Ahab recovered all the lost territory and Damascus seems to have been
subordinate for a time (1 Ki 20:34). The king of Damascus afterward
regained the supremacy, as appears from the Assyrian records, for in the
war of Shalmaneser II with the peoples of Syria we find them led by Ben-
hadad of Damascus and, among his subject allies, Ahab, who furnished
2,000 chariots and 10,000 men. Ben-hadad succeeded in uniting most of
the petty kingdoms of Syria together in opposition to Assyria, but could
not hold them, and they fell, one after another, as well as Damascus itself,
into the hands of the great world-power. Jeroboam II recovered the
districts that had been taken from Israel by the Syrians (2 Ki 14:25), but
this was only a temporary success, for Rezin extended his authority over all
the East-Jordanic region as far as Elath on the Red Sea (2 Ki 16:6), and he
and Pekah joined in an attack upon Judah, but failed on account of the
Assyrian advance (2 Ki 16:5-9). Damascus fell into the hands of Tiglath-
pileser in 732 BC, and the power of the Syrians was completely broken.
4. UNDER NABATHEANS AND PALMYRENES:
The Aramaic peoples became prominent again under the Nabateans and
Palmyrenes, both of whom were of this stock, as their language is clearly
Aramaic. The former established a kingdom extending from the Euphrates
to the Red Sea, their capital being Petra, and Damascus was under their
control in the reign of their king Aretas (el-Harith) (2 Cor 11:32). This
kingdom was absorbed by Rome in the reign of Trajan. The Palmyrenes did
not come into prominence until the 3rd century AD, but became, for a
short time, the leading power in Western Asia. In the weakness of Rome,
under Gallienus, Odenathus and his still more distinguished wife, Zenobia,
dominated all Syria, and the latter dared to dispute with Aurelian the
empire of the East. With her fall in 272 AD the power of the Arameans
was extinguished and never revived.
1289
5. A MIXED RACE, SEMITIC TYPE:
The Syrians in the broader sense have always been a mixed people, though
of a prevailing Semitic type. The earliest layer of Semitic population was
the Amorite which was found in Syria when the first Babylonian empire
extended its authority over the land. Later appear the Canaanites,
Phoenicians, Jebusites, Hivites and other tribes, all of which are classed
together as descendants of Canaan in Gen 10, but their Semitic character in
historic times is undoubted. The Hyksos who were driven from Egypt to
Palestine and Syria were of the same race, as would appear from the
Egyptian records. The Arameans formed the next wave of Semitic stock,
but there were others, like the Hittites, who were not Semitic, and the
Philistines, whose race affinity is doubtful. The Egyptians occupied the
country for a long period, but did not contribute much to the population.
Some of the tribes brought in by the Assyrians may have been non-Semitic,
but most of them were evidently of cognate race (2 Ki 17:24), and the
racial characteristics of the Syrians were not changed. When Alexander and
his successors brought in the Greek and Macedoninn elements there was a
decided change in the city population, but little in the country districts, and
although the Greeks had a powerful influence upon the civilization of the
country the Semitic type overcame the admixture of Greek blood and
prevailed in the country as a whole. The Romans ruled the country for
centuries and established a number of military colonies, but they did not
affect the population even as much as the Greeks. When, in the 7th century
AD, the Mohammedan conquest swept over Syria, it brought in another
great wave of pure Semitic stock with the numerous Arab settlers, who
tended to obliterate any non-Semitic elements that might have existed. The
effects of the influx of Europeans in the time of the Crusades were not
sufficient to produce any marked change, and the same may be said of all
later invasions of Turks and Kurds.
The Syrians, while thus a mixed people to a large extent, have maintained
the Semitic type, but they have never, in all their history, been able to unite
politically, and have always been divided, when independent. They have
been, during the greater part of their history, under foreign domination, as
they still are, under Turkish rule.
1290
6. RELIGION:
The religion of the Syrians in ancient times was undoubtedly similar to that
of the Babylonians, as is shown by the names of their gods. The Arameans
worshipped Hadad and Rimmon (2 Ki 5:18), sometimes joined as
Hadadrimmon (Zec 12:11). Baal, or Bel, Ashtoreth, or Ishtar, were almost
universally worshipped, and Nebu, Agli-bol, Melakh-bol, Ati and other
deities are found in the Palmyrene inscriptions, showing the Babylonian
influence in their cult. This was to be expected from the known prevalence
of Babylonian culture throughout Western Asia for centuries.
H. Porter
SYROPHOENICIAN
<si-ro-fe-nish-an>, <sir-o-> ([2upoovooo, Surophoinissa],
[2upoovxooo, Surophoinikissa]; Westcott and Hort, The New
Testament in Greek has variant Sura Phoinikissa; the King James Version
Syrophenician): The woman from the borders of Tyre and Sidon whose
daughter Jesus healed is described as a Greek, a Syrophoenician by race
(Mk 7:26), and again as a Canaanitish woman (Mt 15:22). This seems to
mean that she was of Canaanite descent, a native of the Phoenician
seaboard, Greek in religion, and probably also in speech. The names Syria
and Phoenicia are both applied to the same region in
<442102>
Acts 21:2,3.
Syrophoenician may therefore denote simply an inhabitant of these parts.
According to Strabo (xvii.3), this district was called Syrophoenicia to
distinguish it from the North African Lybophoenicia.
W. Ewing
SYRTIS
<sir-tis> ([oupt, surtis]): the Revised Version (British and American)
form for quicksands in
<442717>
Acts 27:17. These sandbanks, off the northern
coast of Africa, have from early times been regarded as a source of danger
to mariners. Virgil refers to them (Aen. iv.40 f). In Pauls voyage, the ship,
driven by a tempestuous wind, Euraquilo, was in peril of being cast-upon
them.
SYZYGUS
<siz-i-gus>.
1291
See SYNZYGUS.
1292
PUBLISHERS NOTES
CONTACTING AGES SOFTWARE
For more information regarding the AGES Digital Library, whether it be
about pricing structure, trades for labor or books, current listings, policies
or if you wish to offer suggestions please write us at
AGES SOFTWARE PO BOX 1926 ALBANY OR 97321-0509
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE DIGITAL LIBRARY?
The Library consists of books and other literature of enduring value to the
Christian community. Our goal since the beginning has been to make the
words of the wise available to all inexpensively. We have had in mind
the student, teacher, pastor, missionary, evangelist and church worker who
needs a high quality reference library, one that is portable, practical and
low in cost.
ON WHAT BASIS WERE THEY SELECTED?
Volumes in the Library have been added based on several criteria:
usefulness, user request, breadth of content or reputation. This has meant
that the collection is eclectic and may include works that contain positions
with which we at AGES Software do not agree. This paradox is consistent
with our design, however: any useful library consists of books on a wide
variety of subjects and sometimes includes information for reference
purposes only. The AGES Digital Library hopefully will reflect as its
components are released the necessary breadth and depth for a solid
personal library.
HOW WERE THESE VOLUMES PREPARED?
Most of the books and documents have been scanned or typed from works
that have entered the public domain. Some have been reproduced by
special arrangement with the current publisher or holder of the copyright.
They have been put in a format that can be readily used by computer users
everywhere.
ARE THESE EXACT COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL WORKS?
Usually not. In the process of preparing the Library, we at SAGE Software
have taken the liberty to make certain edits to the text. As we discovered
1293
errors in spelling, certain archaic forms, typographical mistakes or
omissions in the original we have done our best to correct them. Our
intention has been to remove anything that might obscure the meaning or
otherwise detract from the usefulness of a book for the modern reader. We
have, however, attempted to retain the essential content and thoughts of
the original even when we found ourselves in disagreement.
WHY IS THE DIGITAL LIBRARY COPYRIGHTED?
While much of the content is in the public domain, the transcription, form
and edits of these works took many people many hours to accomplish. We
ask each purchaser to respect this labor and refrain from giving away
copies of this or any volume of the Library without written permission
from AGES Software. Our policy, however, is to work with each
individual or organization to see that the price of Digital Library volumes
not be a hindrance in their reaching the hands of those who need them. If
price is an obstacle, please contact us at the address above and present
your situation