exlim/blb
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
blb/study/isbe/3300.html

114 lines
357 KiB
HTML
Raw Permalink Blame History

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<script src="../../js/basepath.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./js/nav.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./js/MainHeader.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
isbe = [];
isbe[3301]='Exorcism; Exorcist`ek\'-sor-siz\'-m, ek\'-sor-sist (Exorkistes, from exorkizo, "to adjure" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,63);">Mt 26:63</a>)):<P>1. Definition:<P>One who expels demons by the use of magical formulas. In the strict etymological sense there is no exorcism in the Bible. The term "exorcists" is used once (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,13);">Ac 19:13</a>) in a way to discredit the professional exorcists familiarly known both among Jews and Gentiles.<P>2. Method of Expelling Demons in the New Testament:<P>The method of Jesus in dealing with demoniacs was not that of the exorcists. While it is said (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',8,16);">Mt 8:16</a>) that He "cast out the spirits with a word," it is abundantly clear that the word in question was not ritualistic but authoritative. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,35);">Lu 4:35</a> we have a typical sentence uttered by our Lord in the performance of His cures: "Hold thy peace, and come out of him." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,29);">Mr 9:29</a> we have Christ\'s own emphasis upon the ethical element in dealing with these mysterious maladies: "This kind can come out by nothing, save by prayer." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,28);">Mt 12:28</a> Jesus gives His own explanation of the method and power used in His cures: "But if I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then is the kingdom of God come upon you."<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,1);">Lu 9:1</a> the terms "authority" and "power" are used in such a way as to show the belief of the evangelists that to cure demon-possession an actual power from God, together with the right to use it, was necessary. This group of passages gives the New Testament philosophy of this dread mystery and its cure. The demons are personal evil powers afflicting human life in their opposition to God. It is beyond man unaided to obtain deliverance from them. It is the function of Christ as the redeemer of mankind to deliver men from this as well as other ills due to sin. Miraculous cures of the same kind as those performed by Christ Himself were accomplished by His disciples in His name (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',16,17);">Mr 16:17</a>). The power attributed to "His name" supplies us with the opportunity for a most enlightening comparison and contrast.<P>3. Exorcism in Ethnic and Jewish Writings:<P>Exorcism among ancient and primitive peoples rests largely upon faith in the power of magical formulas, ordinarily compounded of the names of deities and pronounced in connection with exorcistic rites, upon the bodies of the afflicted. The words themselves are supposed to have power over the demons, and the mere recital of the correct list of names is supposed to be efficacious.<P>Attention should be called again to the incantation texts of the Babylonians and Assyrians (see, for translations and full exposition of texts, Rogers, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, 146ff). In this direction the absurdities and cruelties of superstition have carried men to extreme lengths. In the case of Josephus we are amazed to see how even in the case of an educated man the most abject superstition controls his views of such subjects. In Ant, VIII, v, in speaking of the wisdom of Solomon, he says that "God enabled him to learn that skill which expels demons, which is a science useful and sanitative to him." He also describes, in the same connection, a cure which he alleges to have seen, "in the presence of Vespasian and his sons," performed in accordance with methods of incantation ascribed to Solomon. A ring to which was attached a kind of root mentioned by Solomon was placed at the nostrils of the demoniac and the demon was drawn out through the nostrils. The proof that exorcism had actually taken place was given in the overturning of a basin placed nearby.<P>The absurdities of this narrative are more than equaled by the story of exorcism told in the Book of Tobit (see Lunge, Apocrypha, 151-53) where the liver and heart of a fish, miraculously caught, are burned upon the ashes of incense, and the resulting smoke drives away a demon. This whole story is well worthy of careful reading for the light it throws upon the unrestrained working of the imagination upon such matters.<P>In the rabbinical writers the very limit of diseased morbidness is reached in the long and repulsive details, which they give of methods used in exorcism (see Whitehouse, HDB, article "Demon," I, 592b; compare 593b; Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, II, 775-76).<P>4. Contrasts of New Testament and Popular Methods with Demons:<P>In most striking contrast with this stand the Biblical narratives. The very point of connection which we have noted is also the point of contrast. The mighty and efficacious word with which Jesus rebuked and controlled demons was no exorcistic formula spoken by rote, but His own living word of holy power. "In the name of Jesus" did not mean that the sacred name formally uttered possessed magical power to effectuate a cure. The ancient Semitic formula, "in the name of," given a deep ethical meaning in the Old Testament, had a still deeper meaning in the New Testament. The proper and helpful use of it meant a reliance upon the presence and living power of Christ from whom alone power to do any mighty work comes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',15,5);">Joh 15:5</a>).<P>This fundamental difference between the ideas and methods of Jesus and His disciples and current conceptions and usages becomes the more striking when we remember that the lower range of ideas and practices actually prevailed among the people with whom the Lord and His followers were associated. The famous passage (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,24);">Mt 12:24</a> and parallel) in which the Pharisees attribute to demoniacal influence the cures wrought by Jesus upon the demonized, usually studied with reference to our Lord\'s word about the unforgivable sin, is also remarkable for the idea concerning demons which it expresses. The idea which evidently underlies the accusation against Jesus was that the natural way to obtain control over demons is by obtaining, through magic, power over the ruler of demons. In reply to this Jesus maintains that since the demons are evil they can be controlled only by opposition to them in the power of God.<P>It is most suggestive that we have in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,13);">Ac 19:13</a>ff a clear exposition, in connection with exorcism, of just the point here insisted upon. According to this narrative a group of wandering professional Jewish exorcists, witnessing the cures accomplished by Paul, attempted to do the same by the ritualistic use of the name of Jesus. They failed ignominiously because, according to the narrative, they lacked faith in the living Christ by whose power such miracles of healing were wrought, although they were letter-perfect in the use of the formula. This narrative shows clearly what the New Testament understanding of the expression "in my name" implied in the way of faith and obedience.<P>Here as elsewhere, the chastened mental restraint under which the New Testament was composed, the high spiritual and ethical results of the intimacy of the disciples with Jesus, are clearly manifest.<P>Our Lord and His disciples dealt with the demoniacs as they dealt with all other sufferers from the malign, enslaving and wasting power of sin, with the tenderness of an illimitable sympathy, and the firmness and effectiveness of those to whom were granted in abundant measure the presence and power of God.``169';
isbe[3302]='Expect; Expectation`eks-pekt\', eks-pek-ta\'-shun:<P>Of the three Greek words, translated in the New Testament by "expect," prosdokao, meaning to look forward toward what will probably occur, whether in hope or dread (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',3,5);">Ac 3:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,15);">Lu 3:15</a>), is not as intense as ekdechomai (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,13);">Heb 10:13</a>), meaning to wait for that of the realization of which one is assured ("as the husbandman waits for the processes of Nature (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',5,7);">Jas 5:7</a>), and the patriarchs for the Divine promise," Westcott), or as vivid as the noun apokaradokia (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,19);">Ro 8:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,20);">Php 1:20</a>, "earnest expectation"), which describes the stretching forth of the head toward an object that is anticipated (see Ellicott on <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,20);">Php 1:20</a>). In the Old Testament "expectation" always means that which is expected, as <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',10,28);">Pr 10:28</a>, "The expectation of the wicked shall perish."``84';
isbe[3303]='Expectation, Messianic`mes-i-an\'-ik.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHRISTS,+FALSE">CHRISTS, FALSE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ESCHATOLOGY+OF+THE+OLD+TESTAMENT">ESCHATOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JESUS+CHRIST">JESUS CHRIST</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MESSIAH">MESSIAH</a>`1';
isbe[3304]='Expedient`eks-pe\'-di-ent (sumphero):<P>The Greek word translated "expedient" (sumphero) means literally, "to bear or bring together"; with a personal reference, "to be well or profitable." In the New Testament it never means "profitable" or "convenient" as opposed to what is strictly right. It is translated "expedient" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,50);">Joh 11:50</a>, "it is expedient for us," the Revised Version (British and American) "for you"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,7);">Joh 16:7</a>, "It is expedient for you that I go away," i.e. "profitable," "for your good," <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,14);">18:14; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',6,12);">1Co 6:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,23);">10:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,10);">2Co 8:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',12,1);">12:1</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,10);">Mt 19:10</a>, instead of "not good to marry," the Revised Version (British and American) has "not expedient." The modern sense of "expediency" as "hastening" or "acceleration," is not found in the New Testament, any more than its bad sense of "mere convenience." "Nothing but the right can ever be expedient" (Whately).``185';
isbe[3305]='Experience`eks-pe\'-ri-ens:<P>This word is employed 3 times. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,27);">Ge 30:27</a> the King James Version, Laban says, to Jacob, "I have learned by experience (the Revised Version (British and American) "divined") that Yahweh hath blessed me for thy sake." Here it translates the Hebrew nachash, "to observe diligently," as when one examines the entrails of a bird or animal for the purpose of divination. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',1,16);">Ec 1:16</a>, the writer says, "I have gotten me great wisdom...; my heart hath had great experience of wisdom and knowledge." Here the Hebrew (ra\'ah) means "hath seen abundantly," and the idea seems to be that of a wide outlook combined with actual trial of the things discovered or known.<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,4);">Ro 5:4</a> the King James Version, the Greek word dokime (the American Standard Revised Version more correctly "approvedness"), means the proof or testing of a thing. We rejoice in tribulation because it works out or produces patience, while the latter develops an experience of God, i.e. it brings out as a proved fact His power and love toward us in our preservation in and deliverance from trial.<P>Thus it is seen the Bible use of the word is not different from the ordinary, which means "the sum of practical wisdom taught by the events and observations of life," or, to go a little farther, the personal and practical acquaintance with what is so taught. <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',5,13);">Heb 5:13</a> gives a good practical example. the King James Version says, "Every one that useth milk is unskillful (apeiros) in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe," while the Revised Version (British and American) renders "unskilful" by "without experience of." The thought is that he who fails to search out the deep things of the word of God is so lacking in the exercise of his spiritual senses as to be unable really to know truth from error.``69';
isbe[3306]='Experiment`eks-per\'-i-ment (dokime, "approvedness," "tried character"):<P>"The experiment of this ministration" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',9,13);">2Co 9:13</a> the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "the proving of you by his ministration"), i.e. the sincerity of their Christian profession was evidenced by their liberal contribution.``1';
isbe[3307]='Expiation`eks-pi-a\'-shun:<P>This word represents no Hebrew or Greek word not rendered also by "atonement." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',8,7);">Nu 8:7</a> it is employed in the Revised Version (British and American) to translate chatath and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,43);">De 32:43</a>, kipper. This version also employs "expiate" in the margin of several passages, eg. <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',65,3);">Ps 65:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',79,9);">79:9</a>. Always its use in English Versions of the Bible is somewhat more narrow and specific than "atonement" and has especial reference to specific uncleanness or sin.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ATONEMENT">ATONEMENT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SACRIFICE">SACRIFICE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PROPITIATION">PROPITIATION</a>`1';
isbe[3308]='Exposure, to Wild Beasts`eks-po\'-zhur.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PUNISHMENTS">PUNISHMENTS</a>`1';
isbe[3309]='Express`eks-pres\':<P>In the King James Version of <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,3);">Heb 1:3</a> "express" has the meaning "exactly resembling the original," as the impress of a seal resembles the figure engraved upon the seal. Thus "express image" in the verse referred to is a good translation (Greek charakter, literally, "engraving" and hence, "impression"); the Revised Version (British and American) "the very image."``1';
isbe[3310]='Exquisite`eks\'-kwi-sit (akribes):<P>The Greek word means "accurate" "searched out," equivalent to exquisitus from which "exquisite" is derived. It also means in argument "close," "subtle." In Ecclesiasticus 18:29, we have, "They poured forth exquisite parables," the Revised Version (British and American) "apt proverbs," and 19:25, the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)<P>"There is an exquisite subtleity, and the same is unjust."``1';
isbe[3311]='Extinct`eks-tinkt\':<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',17,1);">Job 17:1</a>, "My days are extinct" (za\'akh (in Niphal)) and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',43,17);">Isa 43:17</a>, "They are extinct" (da\'akh), the word "extinct" should be recognized as a form of the participle, equivalent to "extinguished," so that in both passages an action, not merely a state, is indicated.``1';
isbe[3312]='Extortion`eks-tor\'-shun:<P>This particular word occurs twice in King James Version: <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',22,12);">Eze 22:12</a> (\'osheq), and <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,25);">Mt 23:25</a> (harpage), and indicates that one who is an extortioner is guilty of snatching away from another by strife, greed and oppression that which does not lawfully belong to him. The element of covetousness and usury is involved in the meaning of this word; for it is greedily gotten gain. The publicans were considered as being specially guilty of this sin; this is clear from the Pharisee\'s deprecatory remark: "I am not...an extortioner.... as this publican" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,11);">Lu 18:11</a>). Paul classes extortion (pleonexia, literally, "over-reaching") among a category of the grossest crimes known to humanity (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,10,11);">1Co 5:10,11</a>); indeed, so grievous is it that it closes the door of heaven in the face of the one guilty of it (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',6,10);">1Co 6:10</a>).``53';
isbe[3313]='Extreme; Extremity`eks-trem\', eks-trem\'-i-ti We have the adjective "extreme" in 2Esdras 5:14, "extreme fear," the Revised Version (British and American) "trembling"; in Wisdom 12:27, "extreme (terma) damnation," the Revised Version (British and American) "the last end of condemnation"; in 2Macc 7:42, "extreme (huperballousas) tortures," the Revised Version (British and American) "exceeding barbarities"; in Ecclesiasticus 42:8 it is used as an adverb, "the extreme aged" (eschatogeros), the Revised Version (British and American) "of extreme old age." Extremity: pash; Septuagint paraptoma, occurs only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',35,15);">Job 35:15</a> the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "arrogance," and akme in 2Macc 1:7.``1';
isbe[3314]='Eye`i (\'ayin; ophthalmos):<P>(1) The physical organ of sight, "the lamp of the body" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,22);">Mt 6:22</a>), one of the chief channels of information for man. A cruel custom therefore sanctioned among heathen nations the putting out of the eyes of an enemy or a rival, because thus his power was most effectually shattered (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',16,21);">Jud 16:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',25,7);">2Ki 25:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',39,7);">Jer 39:7</a>). Such blinding or putting out of the "right eye" was also considered a deep humiliation, as it robbed the victim of his beauty, and made him unfit to take his part in war (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',11,2);">1Sa 11:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',11,17);">Zec 11:17</a>).<P>The eye, to be useful, was to be "single," i.e. not giving a double or uncertain vision (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,22);">Mt 6:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',11,34);">Lu 11:34</a>). Eyes may grow dim with sorrow and tears (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',17,7);">Job 17:7</a>), they may "waste away with griefs" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',6,7);">Ps 6:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',31,9);">31:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',88,9);">88:9</a>). They may "pour down" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',3,49);">La 3:49</a>), "run down with water" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',1,16);">La 1:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',3,48);">3:48</a>). Eyes may "wink" in derision (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',35,19);">Ps 35:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',6,13);">Pr 6:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',10,10);">10:10</a>; compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',16,30);">Pr 16:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',30,17);">30:17</a>), and the harlot takes the lustling "with her eyelids" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',6,25);">Pr 6:25</a>). To \'lift up the eyes\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,10);">Ge 13:10</a> et passim) means to look up or around for information and often for help; to \'turn away the eye\' or \'hide the eyes\' indicates carelessness and lack of sympathy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',28,27);">Pr 28:27</a>); to \'cast about the eyes,\' so that they "are in the ends of the earth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',17,24);">Pr 17:24</a>) is synonymous with the silly curiosity of a fool, and with the lack of attention of him who is everywhere but at his work. In the execution of justice the "eye shall not pity," i.e. not be deflected from the dictates of the law by favorable or unfavorable impressions (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',19,13);">De 19:13</a> et passim), nor spare (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',5,11);">Eze 5:11</a> et passim), and the lexicon talionis demanded "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,24);">Ex 21:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',19,21);">De 19:21</a>).<P>(2) Figurative: The eye of the heart or mind, the organ of spiritual perception, which may be enlightened or opened (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,18);">Ps 119:18</a>). This is done by the law of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',19,8);">19:8</a>) or by the spirit of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,18);">Eph 1:18</a>), or it may be "darkened" and "holden" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,16);">Lu 24:16</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,13);">Mt 13:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',4,4);">2Co 4:4</a>).<P>(3) The eye as an index of the mind and disposition of man. The Bible speaks of the "good" margin, or "bountiful" eye, i.e. the kindly, disposition (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',22,9);">Pr 22:9</a>); of "proud", "haughty", "lofty eyes" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',18,27);">Ps 18:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',131,1);">131:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',6,17);">Pr 6:17</a>); of the "lowly eyes" of the humble (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',22,29);">Job 22:29</a> margin; compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,13);">Lu 18:13</a>); of "adulterous eyes", "eyes which play the harlot" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',6,9);">Eze 6:9</a>, in the sense of idolatrous inclinations; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,14);">2Pe 2:14</a>). Rage or anger is shown by the "sharpening" of the eyes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',16,9);">Job 16:9</a>).<P>(4) The eyes of God, as well as the "seven eyes" of the Lamb (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',5,6);">Re 5:6</a>) and the \'many eyes\' of the four living creatures of the Apocalypse (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',4,6);">Re 4:6</a>; also <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,18);">Eze 1:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',10,12);">10:12</a>) are figurative expressions for the omniscience of God (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',4,13);">Heb 4:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',139,16);">Ps 139:16</a>) and of His watchfulness and loving care (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',32,19);">Jer 32:19</a>). As the human eye may, with the slightest glance or motion, give an indication, a command, so God is able to "guide" or "counsel" His obedient child "with his eye" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',32,8);">Ps 32:8</a>).<P>(5) Three Hebrew expressions are translated by "apple of the eye":<P>(a) \'ishon, literally, "the little man," which probably means the "pupil of the eye," it being the part of the eye in which the close onlooker may see his image reflected en miniature. Several oriental languages have very similar expressions (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,10);">De 32:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',17,8);">Ps 17:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',7,2);">Pr 7:2</a>).<P>(b) babhah, literally, "the gate of the eye" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',2,8);">Zec 2:8</a>).<P>(c) bath-\'ayin, literally, "the daughter of the eye" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',17,8);">Ps 17:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',2,18);">La 2:18</a>).<P>All these three phrases seem to indicate the pupil rather than the "apple of the eye," and designate the most sensitive part of the eye, which we protect with the greatest care. Thus the Scriptures declare, for our great comfort, that God will protect and care for those that are His own.<P>To eye (\'awan, "to watch closely," "to look maliciously at"): "Saul eyed David from that day and forward" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,9);">1Sa 18:9</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ENVY">ENVY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EVIL+EYE">EVIL EYE</a>`106';
isbe[3315]='Eyelid`i\'-lid: Eyes and eyelids in Hebrew are sometimes used synonymously, as in the parallelism of <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',4,25);">Pr 4:25</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',6,4);">6:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',30,13);">30:13</a>):<P>"Let thine eyes look right on, <p>And let thine eyelids look straight before thee."<P>(Compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',41,18);">Job 41:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',11,4);">Ps 11:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',9,18);">Jer 9:18</a>.) The alluring power of the wanton woman is conceived of as centered in her eyes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',6,25);">Pr 6:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',3,16);">Isa 3:16</a>): "Neither let her take thee with her eyelids." Painting the eyelids was resorted to to intensify the beauty, <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ANTIMONY">antimony</a> (which see) being used for darkening the lashes (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',9,30);">2Ki 9:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',4,30);">Jer 4:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',23,40);">Eze 23:40</a>).``47';
isbe[3316]='Eyepaint`i\'-pant.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ANTIMONY">ANTIMONY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EYELID">EYELID</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KEREN+HAPPUCH">KEREN-HAPPUCH</a>`1';
isbe[3317]='Eyes, Blinding of the`blind\'-ing.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EYE">EYE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PUNISHMENTS">PUNISHMENTS</a>`1';
isbe[3318]='Eyes, Covering, of the`kuv\'-er-ing:<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,16);">Ge 20:16</a>, means forgetfulness of the past, a willingness to overlook the wrong to which Sarah had been exposed.``1';
isbe[3319]='Eyes, Diseases of the`di-zez\'-is:<P>Blindness, defects of sight and diseases of the eye are frequently mentioned in the Scriptures, but usually in general terms. It is probable that in the period covered by the Bible, ophthalmia was as common in Palestine and Egypt as it is now. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BLINDNESS">BLINDNESS</A>. The commonest of the diseases at present is the purulent conjunctivitis which is a highly infectious malady affecting people of all ages, but especially children, and whose germs are carried from eye to eye by the flies, which are allowed to walk freely over the diseased eyes. This is one of the most disgusting sights in a Palestine village, but I have been told by mothers that it is esteemed unlucky to drive off the flies. In this manner the disease is propagated. The number of persons in any Palestine village whose eyes are more or less blemished by disease is on this account phenomenally large.<P>Blindness incapacitated a man from serving in the priesthood (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,16,18);">Le 21:16,18</a>); even a blemish of the eye was regarded as a disqualification (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,20);">Le 21:20</a>).<P>The cases in the New Testament of persons blind from their birth (as <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',9,1);">Joh 9:1</a>) were probably the results of this ophthalmia, but may have been due to congenital malformation. The interesting psychological record of the difficulty of interpreting the new visual sensations by the blind man healed by our Lord (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,22);">Mr 8:22</a>) indicates that it was probably not a case of congenital blindness, as the evangelist uses the word apokatestathe ("restored"), but he had been so long blind that he had lost the power of appreciating the sense-impressions. This condition has been often discussed as a psycho-physical problem since the days of Molyneux and Locke (Essay on the Human Understanding, II,9,8).<P>The blindness of Paul was probably a temporary paralysis of the retina from the shock of a dazzling light accentuated by the intense emotion which accompanied his vision on the road to Damascus. The "scales" mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,18);">Ac 9:18</a> were not material, but his sight was restored as if (hosei) scales had fallen from his eyes. How far this left his eyes weak we do not know, but from his inability to recognize the high priest (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',23,5);">Ac 23:5</a>) and from his employing an amanuensis for transcribing his epistles (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,22);">Ro 16:22</a>), as well as from his writing in characters of large size (pelikos; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',6,11);">Ga 6:11</a>), it is probable that his vision was defective, and this it has been conjectured was the "thorn in the flesh" of <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',12,7);">2Co 12:7</a>.<P>Senile blindness, the result either of cataract or retinal degeneration, is mentioned in the cases of Isaac (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,1);">Ge 27:1</a>), Jacob (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',48,10);">Ge 48:10</a>) and Eli (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',4,15);">1Sa 4:15</a>). The frequency of such senile dimness of sight made the case of Moses the more remarkable that at the age of 120 his eye was not dim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',34,7);">De 34:7</a>).<P>Tobit\'s blindness, caused by the irritation of the sparrow\'s dung (Tobit 2:10), was a traumatic conjunctivitis which left an opacity. It is not said that the whiteness was itself sufficiently large to destroy vision. There was with it probably a considerable amount of conjunctival thickening, and it is possible that the remedy might have removed this. It certainly could not remove a cicatricial white spot of the nature of an albugo. The conjecture of a recent commentator that the gall, by coloring the spot, made the eye look as if sight was restored when it really was not, seems ludicrously inept. In any case the historical accuracy of the narrative is so problematical that explanation is unnecessary.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BLINDNESS">BLINDNESS</a>`107';
isbe[3320]='Eyes, Tender``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BLINDNESS">BLINDNESS</a>`1';
isbe[3321]='Eyesalve`i\'-sav (kollourion; collyrium; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',3,18);">Re 3:18</a>):<P>A Phrygian powder mentioned by Galen, for which the medical school of Laodicea seems to have been famous (see Ramsay, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia), but the figurative reference is to the restoring of spiritual vision.``1';
isbe[3322]='Eyeservice`i\'-sur-vis (ophthalmodouleia):<P>A term coined by Paul to express the conduct of slaves, who work only when they are watched, and whose motive, therefore, is not fidelity to duty, but either to avoid punishment or to gain reward from their masters (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,6);">Eph 6:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,22);">Col 3:22</a>). "A vice which slavery everywhere creates and exhibits. Hence, the need for drivers and overseers" (Eadie).``1';
isbe[3323]='Ezar`e\'-zar.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EZER">EZER</a>`1';
isbe[3324]='Ezbai`ez\'-ba-i, ez\'-bi (\'ezbay, "shining," "blooming"; Azobai):<P>One of David\'s "mighty men" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,37);">1Ch 11:37</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,35);">2Sa 23:35</a> margin).``1';
isbe[3325]='Ezbon`ez\'-bon:<P>(1) (\'etsbon; Peshitta, \'etsba\'on; Septuagint Thasoban): A son of Gad (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,16);">Ge 46:16</a>) = Ozni of <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,16);">Nu 26:16</a> (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=OZNI">OZNI</A>).<P>(2) (\'etsbon; Septuagint Asebon): In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,7);">1Ch 7:7</a> is said to be a grandson of Benjamin. Curtis (Ch., 148) holds that the genealogical table there is that of Zebulun and not Benjamin, and says that Ezbon suggests Ibzan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',12,\'8-10\');">Jud 12:8-10</a>), a minor judge of Bethlehem of Zebulun (Moore, Judges, 310).``1';
isbe[3326]='Ezechias; Ezecias`ez-e-ki\'-as, ez-e-si\'-as.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EZEKIAS">EZEKIAS</a>`1';
isbe[3327]='Ezekias`ez-e-ki\'-as (Ezekias):<P>(1) the King James Version Greek form of Hezekiah (thus, the Revised Version (British and American); <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,9,10);">Mt 1:9,10</a>). A king of Judah.<P>(2) the King James Version Ezechiad (1Esdras 9:14), called Jahzeiah in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,15);">Ezr 10:15</a>.<P>(3) the King James Version Ezecias (1Esdras 9:43), called Hilkiah in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,4);">Ne 8:4</a>.``1';
isbe[3328]='Ezekiel, 1`e-ze\'-ki-el:<P>Contents <p><b>I. THE PROPHET AND HIS BOOK</b><P>1. The Person of Ezekiel Name, Captivity and Trials<P>2. The Book<p class="in15">(1) Its Genuineness<p class="in15">(2) Its Structure<p class="in15">(3) Relation to Jeremiah<p class="in15">(4) Fate of the Book and Its Place in the Canon<P><b>II. SIGNIFICANCE OF EZEKIEL IN ISRAEL\'S RELIGIOUS HISTORY</b><P>1. Formal Characteristics of Ezekiel<p class="in15">(1) Visions<p class="in15">(2) Symbolical Acts<p class="in15">(3) Allegories<p class="in15">(4) Lamentations<P>2. Ezekiel and the Levitical System<p class="in15">(1) <span class="noTag">Ezekiel 44:4</span>ff: Theory That the Distinction of Priests and Levites Was Introduced by Ezekiel<p class="in30">(a) The Biblical Facts<p class="in30">(b) Modern Interpretation of This Passage<p class="in30">(c) Examination of Theory<p class="in60">(i) Not Tenable for Pre-exilic Period<p class="in60">(ii) Not Sustained by Ezekiel<p class="in60">(iii) Not Supported by Development after Ezekiel<p class="in30">(d) The True Solution<p class="in15">(2) <span clas="noTag">Ezekiel 40-48</span>: Priority Claimed for Ezekiel as against the Priestly Codex<p class="in30">(a) Sketch of the Modern View<p class="in30">(b) One-Sidedness of This View<p class="in30">(c) Impossibility That Ezekiel Preceded P<p class="in30">(d) Correct Interpretation of Passage<p class="in15">(3) Ezekiel\'s Leviticism<p>3. Ezekiel and the Messianic Idea<p>4. Ezekiel and Apocalyptic Literature<p>5. Ezekiel\'s Conception of God<hr /><P>I. The Prophet and His Book.<P>1. The Person of Ezekiel:<P>The name yehezqe\'l, signifies "God strengthens." The Septuagint employed the form Iezekiel, from which the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 AD.) took its "Ezechiel" and Luther "Hesekiel." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,3);">Eze 1:3</a> the prophet is said to be the son of a certain Buzi, and that he was a priest. This combination of the priestly and prophetic offices is not accidental at a time when the priests began to come more and more into the foreground. Thus, too, Jeremiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',1,1);">1:1</a>) and Zechariah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',1,1);">1:1</a>); compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',5,1);">Ezr 5:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',6,14);">6:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,4,16);">Ne 12:4,16</a>, and my article "Zechariah" in Murray\'s Illustrated Bible Dictionary) were priests and prophets; and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',7,3);">Zec 7:3</a> a question in reference to fasting is put to both priests and prophets at the same time. And still more than in the case of Zechariah and Jeremiah, the priestly descent makes itself felt in the case of Ezekiel. We here already draw attention to his Levitical tendencies, which appear particularly prominent in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,\'1-\');">Eze 40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',46,\'1-\');">Eze 46</a> (see under II, 2 below), and to the high-priestly character of his picture of the Messiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',21,25);">21:25</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',45,22);">45:22</a>; see II, 3 below).<P>We find Ezekiel in Tel-abib (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',3,15);">3:15</a>) at the river Chebar (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,1,3);">1:1,3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',3,15);">3:15</a>) on a Euphrates canal near Nippur, where the American expedition found the archives of a great business house, "Murashu and Sons." The prophet had been taken into exile in 597 BC. This event so deeply affected the fate of the people and his personal relations that Ezekiel dates his prophecies from this event. They begin with the 5th year of this date, in which year through the appearance of the Divine glory (compare II, 1 below) he had been consecrated to the prophetic office (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,2);">1:2</a>) and continued to the 27th year (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',29,17);">29:17</a>), i.e. from 593 to 571 BC. The book gives us an idea of the external conditions of the exiles. The expressions "prison," "bound," which are applied to the exiles, easily create a false impression, or at any rate a one-sided idea. These terms surely to a great extent are used figuratively. Because the Jews had lost their country, their capital city, their temple, their service and their independence as a nation, their condition was under all circumstances lamentable, and could be compared with the fate of prisoners and those in fetters.<P>The external conditions in themselves, however, seem rather to have been generally tolerable. The people live in their own houses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',29,5);">Jer 29:5</a>). Ezekiel himself is probably the owner of a house (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',3,24);">Eze 3:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',8,1);">8:1</a>). They have also retained their organization, for their elders visit the prophet repeatedly (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',8,1);">Eze 8:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',14,1);">14:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',20,1);">20:1</a>). This makes it clear why later comparatively few made use of the permission to return to their country. The inscriptions found in the business house at Nippur contain also a goodly number of Jewish names, which shows how the Jews are becoming settled and taking part in the business life of the country.<P>Ezekiel was living in most happy wedlock. Now God reveals to him on a certain night that his wife, "the desire of his eye," is to die through a sudden sickness. On the evening of the following day she is already dead. But he is not permitted to weep or lament over her, for he is to serve as a sign that Jerusalem is to be destroyed without wailing or lamentation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',24,15);">24:15</a>ff). Thus in his case too, as it was with Hosea, the personal fate of the prophet is most impressively interwoven with his official activity.<P>The question at what age Ezekiel had left Jerusalem has been answered in different ways. From his intimate acquaintance with the priestly institutions and with the temple service, as this appears particularly in chapters 40 to 48, the conclusion is drawn that he himself must have officiated in the temple. Yet, the knowledge on his part can be amply explained if he only in a general way had been personally acquainted with the temple, with the law and the study of the Torah. We accept that he was already taken into exile at the age of 25 years, and in his 30th year was called to his prophetic office; and in doing this we come close to the statement of Josephus, according to which Ezekiel had come to Babylon in his youth. At any rate the remarkable statement in the beginning of his book, "in the 30th year," by the side of which we find the customary dating, "in the 5th year" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,1,2);">1:1,2</a>), can still find its best explanation when referred to the age of the prophet. We must also remember that the 30th year had a special significance for the tribe of Levi (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',4:3,23,30,39);">Nu 4:3,23,30,39</a>), and that later on, and surely not accidentally, both Jesus and John the Baptist began their public activity at this age (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,23);">Lu 3:23</a>).<P>It is indeed true that the attempt has been made to interpret this statement of Ezekiel on the basis of an era of Nabopolassar, but there is practically nothing further known of this era; and in addition there would be a disagreement here, since Nabopolassar ruled from 625 on, and his 30th year would not harmonize with the year 593 as determined by <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,2);">Eze 1:2</a>. Just as little can be said for explaining these 30 years as so many years after the discovery of the book of the law in 623, in the reign of Josiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',22,1);">2Ki 22</a>f). For this case too there is not the slightest hint that this event had been made the beginning of a new era, and, in addition, the statement in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,1);">Eze 1:1</a>, without further reference to this event, would be unthinkable.<P>As in the case of the majority of the prophets, legends have also grown around the person of Ezekiel. He is reported to have been the teacher of Pythagoras, or a servant of Jeremiah, or a martyr, and is said to have been buried in the tomb of Shem and Arphaxad. He indeed did stand in close relationship to Jeremiah (see 2, 3 below). Since the publication of Klostermann\'s essay in the Studien und Kritiken,1877,it has been customary, on the basis of <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',3,14);">Eze 3:14</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',3,26);">26</A>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',4,4);">4:4</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',24,27);">24:27</a>, to regard Ezekiel as subject to catalepsy (compare the belief often entertained that Paul was an epileptic). Even if his condition, in which he lay speechless or motionless, has some similarity with certain forms of catalepsy or kindred diseases, i.e. a temporary suspension of the power of locomotion or of speech; yet in the case of Ezekiel we never find that he is describing a disease, but his unique condition occurs only at the express command of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',3,24);">3:24</A>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',24,25);">24:25</a>ff); and this on account of the stubbornness of the house of Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',3,26);">3:26</a>). This latter expression which occurs with such frequency (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',2,5);">2:5</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',3,9,27);">3:9,27</a>, etc.) induces to the consideration of the reception which the prophet met at the hand of his contemporaries.<P>He lives in the midst of briars and thorns and dwells among scorpions (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',2,6);">2:6</A>). Israel has a mind harder than a rock, firmer than adamant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',3,8);">3:8</a>f). "Is he not a speaker of parables?" is cast up to him by his contemporaries, and he complains to God on this account (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',20,49);">20:49</a>); and God in turn sums up the impression which Ezekiel has made on them in the words (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',33,32);">33:32</a>): "Thou art unto them as a very lovely song of one that hath a pleasant voice, and can play well on an instrument; for they hear thy words, but they do them not." They consequently estimate him according to his aesthetic side (compare II,1,below), but that is all.<P>2. The Book:<P>(1) Its Genuineness.<P>When compared with almost every other prophetic book, we are particularly favorably situated in dealing with the genuineness of the Book of Ezekiel (compare my work, Die messianische Erwartung der vorexilischen Propheten, zugleich ein Protest gegen moderne Textzersplitterung), as this is practically not at all called into question, and efforts to prove a complicated composition of the book are scarcely made.<P>Both the efforts of Zunz, made long ago (compare Zeitschrift der deutsch-morgenlandishchen Gesellschaft,1873,and Die gottesdienstlichen Vortrage der Juden), and of Seinecke (Geschichte des Volkes Israel, II, 1ff) to prove a Persian or even a Greek period as the time of the composition of the book; as also the later attempt of Kroetzmann, in his Commentary on Ezekiel, to show that there are two recensions of the book, have found no favor. The claim that <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,\'1-\');">Eze 40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',48,\'1-\');">Eze 48</a> were written by a pupil of Ezekiel was made as a timid suggestion by Volz, but, judging from the tendency of criticism, the origin of these chapters will probably yet become the subject of serious debate. But in general the conviction obtains that the book is characterized by such unity that we can only accept or reject it as a whole, but that for its rejection there is not the least substantial ground. This leads us to the contents.<P>(2) Its Structure.<P>The parts of the book are in general very transparent. First of all the book is divided into halves by the announcement of the fall of Jerusalem in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',33,\'1-\');">Eze 33</a>; of which parts the first predominantly deals with punishments and threats; the other with comfort and encouragement. Possibly it is these two parts of the book that Josephus has in mind when he says (Ant., X) that Ezekiel had written two books. That the introduction of prophecies of redemption after those of threats in other prophetical books also is often a matter of importance, and that the right appreciation of this fact is a significant factor in the struggle against the attacks made on the genuineness of these books has been demonstrated by me in my book, Die messianische Erwartung der vorexilischen Prophelen (compare 39-40 for the case of Amos; 62ff, 136f; for the case of Hosea; 197ff for <span class="noTag");>Isa 7-12</span>ff for Micah; see also my article in Murray\'s Illustrated Bible Dictionary). Down to the time when Jerusalem fell, Ezekiel was compelled to antagonize the hopes, which were supported by false prophets, that God would not suffer this calamity. Over against this, Ezekiel persistently and emphatically points to this fact, that the apostasy had been too great for God not to bring about this catastrophe. There is scarcely a violation of a single command<6E>religious, moral or cultural<61>which the prophet is not compelled to charge against the people in the three sections, <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',3,16);">3:16</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',8,1);">8:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',20,1);">20:1</a>ff, until in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',24,1);">24:1</a>ff, on the 10th day of the 10th month of the 9th year (589 BC) the destruction of Jerusalem was symbolized by the vision of the boiling pot with the piece of meat in it, and the unlamented destruction of the city was prefigured by the unmourned and sudden death of his wife (see 1 above). After the five sections of this subdivision I, referring to Israel<65>each one of which subdivisions is introduced by a new dating, and thereby separated from the others and chronologically arranged (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,1);">1:1</a>ff, with the consecration of the prophet immediately following it; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',3,16);">3:16</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',8,1);">8:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',20,1);">20:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',24,1);">24:1</a>ff)<29>there follow as a second subdivision the seven oracles against the Ammonites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',25,1);">25:1</a>ff); the Moabites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',25,8);">25:8</a>ff); the Edomites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',25,12);">25:12</a>ff); the Philistines (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',25,15);">25:15</a>ff); Tyre (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',26,1);">26:1</a>ff); Sidon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',28,20);">28:20</a>ff); Egypt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',29,1);">29:1</a>ff), evidently arranged from a geographical point of view.<P>The most extensive are those against Tyre and the group of oracles against Egypt, both provided with separate dates (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',26,\'1-\');">26:1-29:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',30,20);">30:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',31,1);">31:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',32,1,17);">32:1,17</a>). The supplement in reference to Tyre (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',29,17);">29:17</a>ff) is the latest dated oracle of Ezekiel (from the year 571 BC), and is found here, at a suitable place, because it is connected with a threat against Egypt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,\'1-\');">Eze 40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',48,\'1-\');">Eze 48</a> date from the year 573 according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,1);">Eze 40:1</a>). The number seven evidently does not occur accidentally, since in other threats of this kind a typical number appears to have been purposely chosen, thus: <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',13,\'1-\');">Isa 13-22</a>, i.e. ten; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',46,\'1-\');">Jer 46</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,\'1-\');">Jer 51</a>, also ten; which fact again under the circumstances is an important argument in repelling attacks on the genuineness of the book.<P>Probably the five parts of the first subdivision, and the seven of the second, supplement each other, making a total of twelve (compare the analogous structure of <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,1);">Ex 25:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',30,10);">30:10</a> under <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS">EXODUS</a>, and probably the chiastic structure of <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',34,\'1-\');">Eze 34</a>, with 7 and 5 pieces; see below). The oracles against the foreign countries are not only in point of time to be placed between <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',24,\'1-\');">Eze 24</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',33,21);">33:21</a>, but also, as concerns contents, help splendidly to solve the difficulty suggested by chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',24,\'1-\');">24</a>, and in this way satisfactorily fill the gap thus made. The arrival of the news of the fall of Jerusalem, in 586 BC (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',33,21);">33:21</a>ff), which had already been foretold in chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',24,\'1-\');">24</a>, introduced by the mighty watchman\'s cry to repentance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',33,1);">33:1</a>ff), and followed by a reproof of the superficial reception of the prophetic word (see 1 above), concludes the first chief part of the book.<P>The second part also naturally fails into two subdivisions, of which the first contains the development of the nearer and more remote future, as to its inner character and its historical course (<span class="noTag">Eze 34-39</span>):<P>(1) the true shepherd of Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',34,\'1-\');">Eze 34</a>);<P>(2) the future fate of Edom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',35,\'1-\');">Eze 35</a>);<P>(3) Israel\'s deliverance from the disgrace of the shameful treatment by the heathen, which falls back upon the latter again (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',36,\'1-15\');">Eze 36:1-15</a>);<P>(4) the desecration of the name of Yahweh by Israel and the sanctification by Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',36,\'15-38\');">Eze 36:15-38</a>);<P>(5) the revival of the Israelite nation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',37,\'1-14\');">Eze 37:1-14</a>);<P>(6) the reunion of the separated kingdoms, Judah and Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',37,\'15-28\');">Eze 37:15-28</a>);<P>(7) the overthrow of the terrible Gentile power of the north (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',38,\'1-\');">Eze 38</a>f).<P>The second subdivision (<span class="noTag">Eze 40-48</span>) contains the reconstruction of the external affairs of the people in a vision, on the birthday of 573, "in the beginning of the year" (beginning of a jubilee year? (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,10);">Le 25:10</a>); compare also <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ATONEMENT,+DAY+OF">DAY OF ATONEMENT</a>). After the explanatory introduction (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,\'1-4\');">Eze 40:1-4</a>), there follow five pericopes:<P>(1) directions with reference to the temple (compare the subscription <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',43,12);">Eze 43:12</a>) (<span class="noTag">Eze 40:5-43:12</span>);<P>(2) the altar (<span class="noTag">Eze 43:13-46:24</span>);<P>(3) the wonderful fountain of the temple, on the banks of which the trees bear fruit every month (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',47,\'1-12\');">Eze 47:1-12</a>);<P>(4) the boundaries of the land and its division among the twelve tribes of Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',47,\'13-\');">Eze 47:13</a> - <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',48,\'1-29\');">48:29</a>);<P>(5) the size of the holy city and the names of its twelve gates (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',48,\'30-35\');">Eze 48:30-35</a>).<P>In (3) to (5) the prominence of the number twelve is clear. Perhaps we can also divide (1) and (2) each into twelve pieces:<P>(1) would be <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,5);">Eze 40:5</a>ff, <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,17);">17</A>ff, <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,28);">28</a>ff, <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,39);">39</a>ff, <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',48,5);">48</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',41,1);">41:1</a>ff, <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',41,5);">5</a>ff, <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',41,12);">12</a>ff, <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',41,15);">15</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',42,1);">42:1</a>ff, <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',42,15);">15</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',43,1);">43:1</a>ff; <P>for (2) it would be <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',43,13);">43:13</a>ff, <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',43,18);">18</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,1);">44:1</>ff, <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,4);">4</a>ff, <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,15);">15</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',45,1);">45:1</a>ff, <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',45,9);">9</a>ff, <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',45,13);">13</a>ff, <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',45,18);">18</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',46,1);">46:1</a>ff, <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',46,16);">16</a>ff, <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',46,19);">19</a>ff.<P>At any rate the entire second chief part, <span class="noTag">Eze 34-48</span>, contains predictions of deliverance. The people down to 586 were confident, so that Ezekiel was compelled to rebuke them. After the taking of Jerusalem a change took place in both respects. Now the people are despairing, and this is just the right time for the prophet to preach deliverance. The most important separate prophecies will be mentioned and examined in another connection (II below).<P>The transparent structure of the whole book suggests the idea that the author did not extend the composition over a long period, but wrote it, so to say, at one stretch, which of course does not make it impossible that the separate prophecies were put into written form immediately after their reception, but rather presupposes this. When the prophet wrote they were only woven together into a single uniform book (compare also <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS">EXODUS, IV,1,2</a>).<P>(3) Relation to Jeremiah.<P>As Elijah and Elisha, or Amos and Hosea, or Isaiah and Micah, or Haggai and Zechariah, so too Jeremiah and Ezekiel constitute a prophetic couple (compare 1 above); compare e.g. in later time the sending out of the disciples of Jesus, two by two (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,1);">Lu 10:1</a>), the relation of Peter and John in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',3,\'1-\');">Ac 3</a>ff; of Paul and Barnabas in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,\'1-\');">Ac 13</a>ff; of Luther and Melanchthon, Calvin and Zwingli. Both prophets prophesy about the same time; both are of priestly descent (compare 1 above), both witness the overthrow of the Jewish nation, and with their prophecies accompany the fate of the Jewish state down to the catastrophe and beyond that, rebuking, threatening, warning, admonishing, and also comforting and encouraging. <p>In matters of detail, too, these two prophets often show the greatest similarity, as in the threat against the unfaithful shepherds (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',34,2);">Eze 34:2</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',23,1);">Jer 23:1</a>ff); in putting into one class the Northern and the Southern Kingdom and condemning both, although the prediction is also made that they shall eventually be united and pardoned (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',23,\'1-\');">Eze 23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',16,\'1-\');">16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',3,6);">Jer 3:6</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',37,15);">Eze 37:15</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',3,\'14-18\');">Jer 3:14-18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',23,5);">23:5</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',30,\'1-\');">30</a>f); in the individualizing of religion (compare the fact that both reject the common saying: "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children\'s teeth are set on edge," <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',18,2);">Eze 18:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,29);">Jer 31:29</a>); in their inwardness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',36,25);">Eze 36:25</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',24,7);">Jer 24:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,\'27-34\');">31:27-34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',32,39);">32:39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',33,8);">33:8</a>); in their comparisons of the coming judgment with a boiling pot (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',24,1);">Eze 24:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',1,13);">Jer 1:13</a>ff); and finally, in their representation of the Messiah as the priest-king (see 1 above; namely, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',21,25);">Eze 21:25</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',45,22);">45:22</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',30,21);">Jer 30:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',33,17);">33:17</a>ff; see II,3,and my work Messianische Erwartung, 320ff, 354ff). Neither is to be considered independently of the other, since the prophetical writings, apparently, received canonical authority soon after and perhaps immediately after they were written (compare the expression "the former prophets" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',1,4);">Zec 1:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',7,7,12);">7:7, 12</a>, also the constantly increasing number of citations from earlier prophets in the later prophets, and the understanding of the "exact succession of the prophets" down to Artaxerxes in Josephus, CAp, I, 8), it is possible that Ezekiel, with his waw consecutivum, with which the book begins, is to be understood as desiring to connect with the somewhat older Jeremiah (compare a similar relation of Jonah to Obadiah; see my articles "Canon of the OT" and "Jonah" in Murray\'s Illustrated Bible Dictionary).<P>(4) Fate of the Book and Its Place in the Canon.<P>With Jeremiah and Ezekiel, many Hebrew manuscripts, especially those of the German and French Jews, begin the series of "later prophets," and thus these books are found before Isaiah; while the Massorah and the manuscripts of the Spanish Jews, according to the age and the size of the books, have the order, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel. The text of the book is, in part, quite corrupt, and in this way the interpretation of the book, not easy in itself, is made considerably more difficult. Jerome, Ad Paul., writes that the beginning and the end of the book contained many dark passages; that these parts, like the beginning of Genesis, were not permitted to be read by the Jews before these had reached their 30th year. During the time when the schools of Hillel and Shammai flourished, Ezekiel belonged to those books which some wanted "to hide," the others being Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Esther and Canticles. In these discussions the question at issue was not the reception of the book into the Canon, which was rather presupposed, nor again any effort to exclude them from the Canon again, which thought could not be reconciled with the high estimate in which it is known that Esther was held, but it was the exclusion of these books from public reading in the Divine service, which project failed. The reasons for this proposal are not to be sought in any doubt as to their authenticity, but in reference to their contents (compare my article "Canon of the Old Testament," in Murray\'s Illustrated Bible Dictionary). Possibly, too, one reason was to be found in the desire to avoid the profanation of the most sacred vision in the beginning of the book, as Zunz suggests. There is no doubt, however, that the difference of this book from the Torah was a reason that made it inadvisable to read it in public. It was hoped that these contradictions would be solved by Elijah when he should return. But finally, rabbinical research, after having used up three hundred cans of oil, succeeded in finding the solution. These contradictions, as a matter of fact, have not yet been removed, and have in modern times contributed to the production of a very radical theory in criticism, as will be shown immediately under II, 2.<p><a href="file:./study/isbe/3300.html?toc=3329">Continues next article...[<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EZEKIEL, 2">Ezekiel, 2</a>]``122';
isbe[3329]='Ezekiel, 2`II. Significance of Ezekiel in Israel\'s Religious History.<P>Under the first head we will consider the formal characteristics and significance of the book; and the examination of its contents will form the subject under the next four divisions.<P>1. Formal Characteristics of Ezekiel:<P>It is not correct to regard Ezekiel merely as a writer, as it is becoming more and more customary to do. Passages like <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',3,10);">3:10</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',14,4);">14:4</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',20,1);">20:1</a>ff, <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',20,27);">27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',24,18);">24:18</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',43,10);">43:10</a>f show that just as the other prophets did, he too proclaimed by word of mouth the revelations of God he had received. However, he had access only to a portion of the people. It was indeed for him even more important than it had been for the earlier prophets to provide for the wider circulation and permanent influence of his message by putting it into written form. We will, at this point, examine his book first of all from its formal and its aesthetic side. To do this it is very difficult, in a short sketch, to give even a general impression of the practically inexhaustible riches of the means at his command for the expression of his thoughts.<P>(1) Visions.<P>Thus, a number of visions at once attract our attention. In the beginning of his work there appears to him the Divine throne-chariot, which comes from the north as a storm, as a great cloud and a fire rolled together. This chariot is borne by the four living creatures in the form of men, with the countenances of a man, of a lion, of an ox and of an eagle, representing the whole living creation. It will be remembered that these figures have passed over into the Revelation of John (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',4,7);">Re 4:7</a>), and later were regarded as the symbols of the four evangelists. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',10,\'1-\');">Eze 10</a>f this throne-chariot in the vision leaves the portal of the temple going toward the east, returning again in the prediction of deliverance in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',43,\'1-\');">Eze 43</a>. Moreover, the entire last nine chapters are to be interpreted as a vision (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,2);">40:2</a>). We must not forget, finally, the revivification of the Israelite nation in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',37,\'1-\');">Eze 37</a>, represented in the picture of a field full of dead bones, which are again united, covered with skin, and receive new life through the ruach (word of two meanings, "wind" and "spirit").<P>As a rule the visions of Ezekiel, like those of Zechariah (compare my article "Zechariah" in Murray\'s Illustrated Bible Dictionary), are not regarded as actual experiences, but only as literary forms. When it is given as a reason for this that the number of visions are too great and too complicated, and therefore too difficult of presentation, to be real experiences, we must declare this to be an altogether too unsafe, subjective and irrelevant rule to apply in the matter. However, correct the facts mentioned are in themselves they do not compel us to draw this conclusion. Not only is it uncertain how many visions may be experiences (compare eg. the five visions in <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',7,\'1-\');">Am 7</a>ff, which are generally regarded as actual experiences), but it is also absolutely impossible to prove such an a priori claim with reference to the impossibility and the unreality of processes which are not accessible to us by our own experience. As these visions, one and all, are, from the religious and ethical sides, up to the standards of Old Testament prophecy, and as, further, they are entirely unique in character, and as, finally, there is nothing to show that they are only literary forms, we must hold to the conviction that the visions are actual experiences.<P>(2) Symbolical Acts.<P>Then we find in Ezekiel, also, a large number of symbolical acts. According to Divine command Ezekiel sketches the city of Jerusalem and its siege on a tile (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',4,1);">4:1</a>ff); or he lies bound on his left side, as an atonement, 390 days, and 40 days on his right side, according to the number of years of the guilt of Israel and Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',4,4);">4:4</a>ff). During the 390 days the condition of the people in exile is symbolized by a small quantity of food daily of the weight of only 20 shekels, and unclean, being baked on human or cattle dung, and a small quantity of water, which serves as food and drink of the prophet (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',4,9);">4:9</a>ff).<P>By means of his beard and the hair of his head, which he shaves off and in part burns, in part strikes with the sword, and in part scatters to the wind, and only the very smallest portion of which he ties together in the hem of his garment, he pictures how the people shall be decimated so that only a small remnant shall remain (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',5,1);">Eze 5:1</a>ff). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',12,\'1-\');">Eze 12</a>, he prepares articles necessary for marching and departs in the darkness. Just so Israel will go into captivity and its king will not see the country into which he goes (compare the blinding of Zedekiah, <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',25,7);">2Ki 25:7</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',37,15);">Eze 37:15</a>ff, he unites two different sticks into one, with inscriptions referring to the two kingdoms, and these picture the future union of Israel and Judah. It is perhaps an open question whether or not some of these symbolical actions, which would be difficult to carry out in actuality, are not perhaps to be interpreted as visions; thus, eg. the distributing the wine of wrath to all the nations, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',25,15);">Jer 25:15</a>, can in all probability not be understood in any other way. But, at any rate, it appears to us that here, too, the acceptance of a mere literary form is both unnecessary and unsatisfactory, and considering the religio-ethical character of Ezekiel, not permissible.<P>(3) Allegories.<P>In regard to the numerous allegories, attention need be drawn only to the picture of the two unfaithful sisters, Oholah and Oholibah (i.e. Samaria and Jerusalem), whose relation to Yahweh as well as their infidelity is portrayed in a manner that is actually offensive to over-sensitive minds (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',23,\'1-\');">Eze 23</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',16,\'1-\');">Eze 16</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',17,\'1-\');">Eze 17</a>, Zedekiah is represented under the image of a grapevine, which the great eagle (i.e. the king of Babylon) has appointed, which, however, turns to another great eagle (king of Egypt), and because of this infidelity shall be rooted out, until God, eventually, causes a new tree to grow out of a tender branch.<P>(4) Lamentations.<P>Of the lamentations, we mention the following: according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',19,\'1-\');">Eze 19</a>, a lioness rears young lions, one after the other, but one after the other is caught in a trap and led away by nose-rings. The ones meant are Jehoahaz and certainly Jehoiachin. The lion mother, who before was like a grapevine, is banished (Zedekiah). Another lamentation is spoken over Tyre, which is compared to a proud ship (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,1);">Eze 27:1</a>ff); also over the king of Tyre, who is hurled down from the mountain of the gods (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',28,\'11-19\');">Eze 28:11-19</a>); and over Pharaoh of Egypt, who is pictured as a crocodile in the sea (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',32,1);">Eze 32:1</a>ff).<P>That his contemporaries knew how to appreciate the prophet at least from the aesthetic side, we saw above (I, 1). What impression does Ezekiel make upon us today, from this point of view? He is declared to be "too intellectual for a poet"; "fantastic"; "vividness in him finds a substitute in strengthening and repetition"; "he has no poetical talent"; "he is the most monotonous prose writer among the prophets." These and similar opinions are heard. In matters of taste there is no disputing; but there is food for reflection in the story handed down that Frederick yon Schiller was accustomed to read Ezekiel, chiefly on account of his magnificent descriptions, and that he himself wanted to learn Hebrew in order to be able to enjoy the book in the original. And Herder, with his undeniable and undenied fine appreciation of the poetry of many nations, calls Ezekiel "the Aeschylus and the Shakespeare of the Hebrews" (compare Lange\'s Commentary on Ezekiel, 519).<P>2. Ezekiel and the Levitical System:<P>(1) <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,4);">Ezekiel 44:4</a>ff: Theory That the Distinction of Priests and Levites Was Introduced by Ezekiel.<P>(a) The Biblical Facts:<P>In the vision of the reconstruction of the external relations of the people in the future (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,\'1-\');">Eze 40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',48,\'1-\');">48</a>), in the second pericope, which treats of the cult (43:13-46:24; compare I,2,2), it is claimed that Ezekiel, at the command of Yahweh, reproaches the Israelites that they engage in their room strangers, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to take charge of the service of Yahweh in the sanctuary, instead of doing this service themselves, and thus desecrate the temple (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,\'4-8\');">44:4-8</a>). From now on the Levites, who hitherto have been participating in the service of the idols on the high places and had become for Israel an occasion for guilt, are to attend to this work. They are degraded from the priesthood as a punishment of their guilt, and are to render the above-mentioned service in the temple (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,9);">Eze 44:9</a>ff), while only those Levitical priests, the sons of Zadok, who had been rendering their services in the sanctuary in the proper way, while Israel was going astray, are to be permitted to perform priestly functions (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,15);">Eze 44:15</a>ff).<P>(b) Modern Interpretation of This Passage:<P>The modern interpretation of this passage (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,4);">Eze 44:4</a>ff) is regarded as one of the most important proofs for the Wellhausen hypothesis. Down to the 7th century BC it is claimed that there are no signs that a distinction was made between the persons who had charge of the cults in Israel, and this is held to be proved by the history of the preceding period and by the Book of Deuteronomy, placed by the critics in this time. It is said that Ezekiel is the first to change this, and in this passage introduces the distinction between priests and the lower order of Levites, which difference is then presupposed by the Priestly Code. According to this view, the high priest of the Priestly Code, too, would not yet be known to Ezekiel, and would not yet exist in his time. More fully expressed, the development would have to be thought as follows: the Book of Deuteronomy, which abolished the service on the high places, and had introduced the concentration of the cults, had in a humane way provided for the deposed priests who had been serving on the high places, and, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',18,6);">18:6</a>ff, had expressly permitted them to perform their work in Jerusalem, as did all of their brethren of their tribe, and to enjoy the same income as these. While all the other Deuteronomic commands had in principle been recognized, this ordinance alone had met with opposition: for in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,9);">2Ki 23:9</a> we are expressly told that the priests of the high places were not permitted to go up to Jerusalem. Ezekiel now, according to Wellhausen\'s statement, "hangs over the logic of the facts a moral mantle," by representing the deposition of the priests of the high places as a punishment for the fact that they were priests of the high places, although they had held this position in the past by virtue of legal right.<P>It is indeed true, it is said, that these priests did not submit to such a representation of the case and such treatment. The violent contentions which are said to have arisen in consequence are thought to have their outcome expressed in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',16,\'1-\');">Nu 16</a>f (the rebellion of Korah, the budding staff of Aaron). The Priestly Code, however, continued to adhere to the distinction once it had been introduced, and had become a fact already at the return in 538 BC (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,36);">Ezr 2:36</a>ff), even if it was found impossible to limit the priesthood to the Zadokites, and if it was decided to make an honorable office out of the degraded position of the Levites as given by Ezekiel. The fact that, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,\'36-39\');">Ezr 2:36-39</a>, in the year 538 BC, already 4,289 priests, but according to verse <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,40);">40</a>, only 74 Levites, returned, is also regarded as proving how dissatisfied the degraded priests of the high places had been with the new position, created by Ezekiel, to which they had been assigned. With the introduction of the P Codex in 444 BC, which made a distinction between high priest, priests and Levites within the tribe of Levi, this development reached an end for the time being. While Deuteronomy speaks of the "Levitical priests," which expression is regarded as confirming the original identity of the priests and the Levites, it is claimed that since the days of Ezekiel, priests and Levites constitute two sharply distinguished classes.<P>(c) Examination of Theory:<P>Both the exegesis of <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,4);">Eze 44:4</a>ff and the whole superstructure are in every direction indefensible and cannot be maintained (compare also my work, Are the Critics Right? 30ff, 124ff, 196ff).<P>(i) Not Tenable for Preexilic Period:<P>Proof that the hypothesis cannot be maintained for the preexilic period. The claim that down to the 7th century BC there did not exist in Israel any distinction among the persons engaged in the public cults is in itself an absurdity, but has in addition against it the express testimony of history. In preexilic times the high priest is expressly mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',12,9);">2Ki 12:9</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',22,4,8);">22:4,8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,4);">23:4</a>. Accordingly he cannot have been a product of the post-exilic period. The rank of an Eli (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',1,\'1-\');">1Sa 1</a>ff), Ahimelech (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',21,\'1-\');">1Sa 21</a>f), Abiathar (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',2,26);">1Ki 2:26</a>f), Zadok (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',2,35);">1Ki 2:35</a>), is vastly above that of an ordinary priest. The fact that the expression "high priest" does not happen to occur here is all the less to be pressed, as the term is found even in the Priestly Code only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,10);">Le 21:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',35,\'25-28\');">Nu 35:25-28</a>. From <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',10,6);">De 10:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',24,33);">Jos 24:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',20,28);">Jud 20:28</a>, we learn that the office of high priest was transmitted from Aaron to his son, Eleazar, and then to his son, Phinehas (compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',25,11);">Nu 25:11</a>). Before the time of Eli, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',24,3);">1Ch 24:3</a>, it had passed over to the line of the other surviving son of Aaron, that of Ithamar, but, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',2,26);">1Ki 2:26</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',2,35);">35</a>, at the deposition of Abiathar and the appointment of Zadok, it returned again to the line of Eleazar (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',2,27,28,35);">1Sa 2:27,28,35</a>f with <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',24,3);">1Ch 24:3</a>). Distinctions within the tribe are also expressly presupposed by <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',20,1);">Jer 20:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',29,25);">29:25</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',29,29);">29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',52,24);">52:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',25,18);">2Ki 25:18</a>. In the same way Levites are expressly mentioned in history (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',17,\'1-\');">Jud 17</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',19,\'1-\');">19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',20,\'1-\');">20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',21,\'1-\');">21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',6,15);">1Sa 6:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',15,24);">2Sa 15:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',8,3);">1Ki 8:3</a>ff). This very division of the priestly tribe into three parts possibly suggested the three parts of the temple of Solomon (the holy of holies, the holy place, the forecourt). According to all this, it is not possible that this distinction is not found in Deuteronomy, especially if this book was not written until the 7th century BC and throughout took into consideration the actual condition of affairs at that time, as is generally claimed. But this difference is found in Deuteronomy, the false dating of which we can here ignore, and is probably suggested by it; for, if this were not the case, then the addition of the words "the whole tribe of Levi" to the words "Levitical priests" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,1);">De 18:1</a> would be tautology. But as it is, both expressions already refer to what follows: namely, <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,\'3-5\');">18:3-5</a> to the priests and <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,6);">18:6</a>ff to the rest of the Levites. In the same way, the Levites are in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,12,12,18);">12:12,18</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,27,29);">14:27,29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',16,11,14);">16:11,14</a> the objects of charity, while <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,3);">18:3</a>ff prescribes a fixed and not insignificant income for the priests. Then, finally, such general statements as are found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',10,8);">10:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,2);">18:2</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,8);">33:8</a>ff, not only demand such specific directions as are found only in the Priestly Code (P), but in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',10,9);">10:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,2);">18:2</a> there is a direct reference to <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',18,20,24);">Nu 18:20,24</a> (from P). On the other hand, Deuteronomy, in harmony with its general tendency of impressing upon Israel in the spirit of pastoral exhortation the chief demands of the law, does not find it necessary, in every instance, to mention the distinctions that existed in the tribe of Levi.<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',18,7);">Nu 18:7</a> we have in P even an analogon to <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',10,8);">De 10:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,8);">33:8</a>ff; since here, too, no distinction is made between priests and high priests separately, but the whole priestly service is mentioned in a summary manner (compare further <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,22);">Le 6:22</a> in comparison with <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,25);">6:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',35,\'1-\');">Nu 35</a> in comparison with <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,\'1-\');">Jos 21</a>). That Deuteronomy cannot say "Aaron and his sons," as P does, is certainly self-evident, because Aaron was no longer living at the time when the addresses of Deuteronomy were delivered. And how the expression "Levitical priests," which Deuteronomy uses for the expression found in the Priestly Code (P), and which was entirely suitable, because under all circumstances the priests were of the tribe of Levi, is to be understood as excluding the subordinate members of the cults-officers belonging to the same tribe, is altogether incomprehensible (compare the emphasis put on the Levitical priesthood in P itself, as found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',17,\'1-\');">Nu 17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,4,10);">Jos 21:4,10</a>ff). So are other passages which originated at a time after the introduction by Ezekiel, or, according to the critics, are claimed to have been introduced then (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',2,1);">Mal 2:1</a>ff, <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',2,4,8);">4,8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',3,3);">3:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',33,18);">Jer 33:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',66,21);">Isa 66:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',5,5);">2Ch 5:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',23,18);">23:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',29,4);">29:4</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',30,27);">30:27</a>), and even in Ezekiel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,15);">44:15</a>). The claims that Deuteronomy is more humane in its treatment of the priests who had engaged in the worship in high places (compare eg. <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',22,\'1-\');">2Ki 22</a>f) cannot at all be reconciled with <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',13,\'1-\');">De 13</a>, which directs that death is to be the punishment for such idolatry. If, notwithstanding this, it is still claimed that <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,6);">De 18:6</a>ff allows the priests of the high places to serve in Jerusalem, then it is incomprehensible how in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,9);">2Ki 23:9</a> these men did not appeal directly to Deuteronomy in vindication of their rights over against all hindrances, since Deuteronomy was regarded as the absolute norm in carrying out the cult tradition.<P>(ii) Not Sustained by Ezekiel:<P>Examination of the hypothesis on the basis of Ezekiel: No less unfavorable to the view of the critics must the judgment be when we examine it in the light of the contents of Ezekiel itself. The prophet presupposes a double service in the sanctuary, a lower service which, in the future, the degraded priests of the high places are to perform and which, in the past, had been performed in an unlawful manner by strangers (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,\'6-9\');">44:6-9</a>), and a higher service, which had been performed by the Zadokites, the priests at the central sanctuary, in the proper way at the time when the other priests had gone astray, which service was for this reason to be entrusted to them alone in the future (compare, also, <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,45,46);">40:45,46</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',43,19);">43:19</a>). Since in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,6);">44:6</a>ff the sharpest rebukes are cast up to Israel (according to the reading of the Septuagint, which here uses the second person, even the charge of having broken the covenant), because they had permitted the lower service to be performed by uncircumcised aliens, it is absolutely impossible that Ezekiel should have been the first to introduce the distinction between higher and lower service, but he presupposes this distinction as something well known, and, also, that the lower service has been regulated by Divine ordinances. As we have such ordinances clearly given only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',18,2);">Nu 18:2</a>ff (from P) it is in itself natural and almost necessary that Ezekiel has reference to these very ordinances, but these very ordinances direct that the Levites are to have charge of this lower service. This is confirmed by <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',48,12);">Eze 48:12</a>f; where the designation "Levites" in contradistinction from the priests is a fixed and recognized term for the lower cult officials. For Ezekiel has not at all said that he would from now on call these temple-servants simply by the name "Levites," but, rather, he simply presupposes the terminology of P as known and makes use of it. He would, too, scarcely have selected this expression to designate a condition of punishment, since the term "Levites" is recognized on all hands to be an honorable title in the sacred Scriptures. And when he, in addition, designates the Zadokites as "Levitical priests" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,15);">Eze 44:15</a>), this only shows anew that Ezekiel in his designation of the lower temple-servants only made use of the terminology introduced by P.<P>But, on the representation of the critics, the whole attitude ascribed to Ezekiel cannot be upheld. It is maintained that a prophet filled with the highest religious and ethical thoughts has been guilty of an action that, from an ethical point of view, is to be most sharply condemned. The prophet is made to write reproaches against the people of Israel for something they could not help (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,6);">Eze 44:6</a>), and he is made to degrade and punish the priests of the high places, who also had acted in good faith and were doing what they had a right to do (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,9);">Eze 44:9</a>ff; compare "the moral mantle" which, according to Wellhausen, "he threw over the logic of facts"). Ezekiel is accordingly regarded here as a bad man; but at the same time he would also be a stupid man. How could he expect to succeed in such an uncouth and transparent trick? If success had attended the effort to exclude from the service in Jerusalem the priests of the high places according to <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,9);">2Ki 23:9</a>, and notwithstanding <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,6);">De 18:6</a>ff, which according to what has been said under (a) is most improbable, then this would through the action of Ezekiel again have been made a matter of uncertainty. Or, was it expected that they would suffer themselves to be upraided and punished without protesting if they had done no wrong? Finally, too, the prophet would have belonged to that class whose good fortune is greater than their common sense. This leads us to the following:<P>(iii) Not Supported by Development after Ezekiel:<P>Examination of the development after the time of Ezekiel: Ezekiel\'s success is altogether incomprehensible, if now the distinction between priests and Levites has, at once, been introduced and at the return from captivity, in the year 538 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,36);">Ezr 2:36</a>), certainly was a fact. It is true that we at once meet with a host of difficulties. Why do only 74 Levites return according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,40);">Ezr 2:40</a> if their degradation from the ranks of the priesthood through Ezekiel had not preceded? asks the Wellhausen school. Why did any Levites, at all, return, if they had been so disgraced? is our question. But, how is it at all possible that so many priests could return (4,289 among 42,360 exiles, or more than one-tenth of the whole number; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,\'36-38\');">Ezr 2:36-38</a> with verse <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,64;">64</a>; but many more than one-tenth if women are included in the 42,360), if, since the times of Ezekiel, there were none other than Zadokite priests? In examining the writers claimed as the authors of the Priestly Code (P), all those difficulties recur again which are found in the case of Ezekiel himself. That <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',16,\'1-\');">Nu 16</a>f indicates and reflects the opposition of the degraded is nothing but an unproved assertion; but if they had revolted, which was probable enough, then there would have been no worse and more foolish means than to change the degraded position of the Levites according to Ezekiel into the honorable position assigned them in the Priestly Code (P). This would only have made the matter worse. The Levites would again have been able to claim their old rights and they would have acquired the strongest weapons for their opposition. The fact that Ezekiel\'s restoration of the priesthood to the Zadokites would have been ignored by the Priestly Code (P), as also the descent of Aaron through Eleazar and Ithamar, according to the account of the Priestly Code (P), that is, that in reality also others were admitted to the priesthood, would only have the effect of making those who still were excluded all the more rebellious, who could appeal to each case of such an admission as a precedent and accordingly as a violation of the principle. What possible purpose the authors of P could have had in the creation of those products of imagination, Nadab and Abihu, and the portrayal of the terrible fate of these sons of Aaron (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,\'1-\');">Le 10</a>) remains incomprehensible (compare the purposeless and constructive imagination in the description of the details of the Ark of the Covenant, which stands in no connection with the tendency of P; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS">EXODUS, III, 5</a>). Nor can it be understood why the creators of the Priestly Code would have had assigned other duties to the Levites than Ezekiel had done; the slaying of the burnt offerings and the sacrifices (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,11);">44:11</a>) and the cooking of the latter (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',46,24);">46:24</a>) is lacking in the Priestly Code (P), in which document the transportation of the imaginary tabernacle would have exhausted the duties of the priests (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',4,\'1-\');">Nu 4</a>), while in other respects, their services would be described only in such general notices as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',8,23);">Nu 8:23</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',18,2);">18:2</a>ff (compare for this reason the very credible account in Chronicles, which through <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,11);">Eze 44:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',46,24);">46:24</a> only becomes all the more trustworthy, where we are told of the enlargement of the duties of the Levites already by David in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',23,25);">1Ch 23:25</a>ff). In short, the critical views offer one monstrosity after another, and each greater than its predecessor. We will only mention further that, if the critics are right in this matter, then of the directions found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,\'1-\');">Eze 40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',48,\'1-\');">48</a> nothing else has ever been carried out in reality, even when these chapters are correctly understood (see 2 (d) below), and at first nothing was intended to be carried out, so that it would be all the more surprising if this one feature of the program of Ezekiel had alone been picked out and had been carried out with an inexplicable haste, and that too at a time when the whole cult was not at all observed (573, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,1);">40:1</a>).<P>(d) The True Solution:<P>The text as it reads in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,9);">Eze 44:9</a>ff actually does speak of a degradation. If the matter involved only a mere putting back into the status quo ante, of the Levites, who on the high places, contrary to the law, had usurped the prerogatives of the higher priestly offices, as this could easily be understood, then the expression in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,10,12);">Eze 44:10, 12</a>, "They shall bear their iniquity," would lose much of its significance. On the other hand, the whole matter finds its explanation if, in the first place, the lower order of Levites did not put a high estimate on their office, so that they transferred their service to aliens (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,6);">44:6</a>ff), and if, in the second place, by those Levites who departed from Yahweh, when Israel was going astray, not all the Levites are to be understood, but only a certain group of priests, who by these words were for themselves and their contemporaries clearly enough designated: namely, the descendants of Aaron through Ithamar and Eleazar in so far as they were not Zadokites, that is, had not officiated at the central sanctuary. The non-Zadokite priests had permitted themselves to be misled to officiate in the idolatry in the services of the high places, and for this reason were for the future to be degraded to the already existing lower order of the Levites.<P>The fact that in the ranks of lower participants in the cults, already in the days of David, according to Chronicles, a still further division had taken place (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',23,\'1-\');">1Ch 23-26</a>), so that by the side of the Levites in the most narrow sense of the word, also the singers and the gate watchmen were Levites of a lower rank (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,\'44-47\');">Ne 12:44-47</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',13,10);">13:10</a>), is again in itself entirely credible, and, in addition, is made very probable by <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,40);">Ezr 2:40</a>ff. This too at once increases the small number of Levites who returned from the exile from 74 to 341. In comparison to the number of priests (4,289) the number yet remains a small one, but from <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,6);">Eze 44:6</a>ff we learn further that the Levites also before the days of Ezekiel had not appreciated their office, for then they would not have given it over to aliens. In this way not only does everything become clear and intelligible, but the weapon which was to serve for the defense of the Wellhausen school has in every respect been turned against these critics. The historical order can only be: first, the Priestly Code, and after that Ezekiel; never vice versa.<P>(2) <span class="noTag">Ezekiel 40-48</span>: Priority claimed for Ezekiel as against the Priest Codex<P>(a) Sketch of the modern view:<P>The entire vision of what the external condition of affairs would be in the future in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,\'1-\');">Eze 40-48</a>, and not only what is particularly stated in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,4);">44:4</a>ff, is made a part of Israel\'s religious development in accordance with the scheme of the Wellhausen school. For this hypothesis, this section is one of the chief arguments, besides the opposition which it claims exists on the part of the prophets against the sacrifices, in addition to the proof taken from the history of the people and from the comparison of the different collections of laws with each other. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,\'1-\');">Eze 40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',48,\'1-\');">48</a> many things are different from what they are in the Priestly Code, and in Ezekiel much is lacking that is found in P. How now would a prophet dare to change the legislation in P? Hence, P is regarded as later than Eze. This is, briefly, the logic of the Wellhausen school.<P>(b) One-Sidedness of This View:<P>If we first state the facts in the case and complete the observations of the modern school, the picture will at once assume quite a different form and the conclusions drawn will in their consequences prove very embarrassing. It is a fact that in Ezekiel the high priest so prominent in P is lacking. No mention is made of the equipment of the holy of holies, and in the holy place the table of the shewbread and the candlesticks, old utensils that are mentioned in the tabernacle of the Priestly Code (P), and in part play an important role there. But the differences in Ezekiel are not found only in comparison with the Priestly Code (P), but just as much, too, in features which belong to the legislation of Deuteronomy, as also of the Book of the Covenant, accepted at all hands as preexilic (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,\'1-\');">Ex 21-23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,\'1-\');">34</a>). Thus there is lacking in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,\'1-\');">Eze 40-48</a> not only the tithes of P (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,\'30-33\');">Le 27:30-33</a>), also the laws with reference to the firstborn from P (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,26);">Le 27:26</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',18,15);">Nu 18:15</a>f), the ordinances with reference to the portions of the redemption sacrifice to be given to the priests from P (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,31);">Le 7:31</a>), but equally the ordinance with reference to the tithes, firstborn and sacrificial gifts from Deuteronomy (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,22);">14:22</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',26,12);">26:12</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,\'23-26\');">14:23-26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',15,\'19-23\');">15:19-23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,3);">18:3</a>). The feast of weeks is wanting, which is demanded not only by P in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,15);">Le 23:15</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',28,26);">Nu 28:26</a>ff, but also by the older legislation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,16);">Ex 23:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,22);">34:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',16,9);">De 16:9</a>); and in the place of the three parallel feasts demanded everywhere, only the Passover and the Feast of the Tabernacles are prescribed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',45,21);">Eze 45:21</a>). Thus too the direction with regard, e.g. to the Day of Atonement in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',45,18);">Eze 45:18</a>ff is different in regard to number, time and ritual from P in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,\'1-\');">Le 16</a>, etc. (compare <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ATONEMENT,+DAY+OF">DAY OF ATONEMENT, sec. I, 1</a>), but also the command found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,26);">Ex 20:26</a> (from E) that it was not permitted to ascend on steps to the altar of Yahweh is overthrown by <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',43,17);">Eze 43:17</a>. And, according to what has been described under (1), criticism itself accepts (although without reason) that Ezekiel had changed the commandment of <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,6);">De 18:6</a>ff, according to which all the Levites in Jerusalem could perform priestly service, so that he not only forbade this, as did <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,9);">2Ki 23:9</a>, but that he also degraded these priests of the high places as a punishment and reduced them to a lower service.<P>As is the case in reference to the law, Ezekiel also disagrees with the facts of history. He changes the dimensions of the Solomonic temple entirely (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,\'5-\');">40:5-42:20</a>); he gives an entirely different distribution of the Holy Land (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',47,\'13-\');">47:13</a> - <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',48,\'1-29\');">48:29</a>) from that which was carried out in actual history. What sheer arbitrariness and short-sightedness it would be, to pick out of this condition of affairs only those features in which he differs from the Priestly Code (P), in order, for this reason, to force the composition of the Priestly Code into the postexilic period, and at the same time to close one\'s eyes to the necessary conclusion that if this principle of interpretation is correct, then the Book of the Covenant and Deuteronomy, the temple and the migration into Canaan must also be post-exilic. "The prophet is not allowed to change the Priestly Code (P)," we are told; but as a matter of fact he has changed P no more than he changed the older laws and history. Hence, the claim is false. And then, too, P is not to be regarded as unchangeable. Even the writer of Chronicles, who writes from the standpoint of the Priestly Code (P), has changed P; for he narrates in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',23,24,27);">1Ch 23:24, 27</a> that the age of the Levites since the time of David had been reduced from 30 or 25 years (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',4,3,23,30,35);">Nu 4:3,23,30,35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',8,23);">8:23</a>) to 20 years (compare also the participation of the Levites in the burnt sacrifices and the Passover under Hezekiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',29,34);">2Ch 29:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',30,17,19);">30:17,19</a>)), and in P itself, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',9,\'6-12\');">Nu 9:6-12</a>, the observation of the Passover after the regular time was permitted, and in general if such changes and adaptations of the law on the part of Ezekiel could not be demonstrated elsewhere, the difficulties for the advocates of the Wellhausen hypothesis would be exactly as great as they are for the adherents of the Biblical views, only that the problem would be inverted to explain how the author of P could have ventured to deviate so far from the will of God as this had been revealed to Ezekiel.<P>(c) Impossibility That Ezekiel Preceded P:<P>While the description of the temple in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,5);">40:5</a>ff and of the future dwelling-places of the people (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',47,\'13-\');">47:13</a>ff) is comparatively complete, it is the very legislation of the ritual in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',43,\'13-\');">43:13-46:24</a>, in which it is maintained that the authors of P followed the precedent of the prophet, that is in itself so full of omissions in Ezekiel, that it could not possibly have been a first sketch, but must presuppose the Priestly Code (P), if it is not to be regarded as suspended in the air. Ezekiel presupposes not only burnt offerings, peace offerings and food offerings, but also sin offerings (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,39);">40:39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',42,13);">42:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',43,19,21,22,25);">43:19,21,22,25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,27,29);">44:27,29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',46,20);">46:20</a>). Ezekiel is indeed the first and the only prophet who mentioned sin offerings, just as the guilt offerings are found outside of Ezekiel only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,10);">Isa 53:10</a>. But this reference is of such a kind that he presupposes on the part of his readers an acquaintance also with these two kinds of sacrifices; hence, it is, in itself, a natural conclusion, that the sacrificial legislation of the Priestly Code (P), that is, chiefly <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">Le 1 to 7</a>, is older, and as the guilt offerings and the sin offerings are prescribed only by the Priestly Code (P), and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',4,\'1-\');">Le 4</a>f appear to be emphasized anew, this conclusion becomes a necessity.<P>If this is not the case then Ezekiel is without any foundation. In the same way the injunctions with reference to what is clean and unclean are presupposed as known in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,23,25);">44:23,25</a>f (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',22,26);">22:26</a>). How long the uncleanness described in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',22,26);">22:26</a> continued can be seen only from <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',19,11);">Nu 19:11</a>ff. Since in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',22,26);">Eze 22:26</a> there is presupposed a definitely fixed Torah or Law, which it is possible to violate, then it is only natural to conclude that such commands existed before the days of Ezekiel, especially such as are found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,\'1-\');">Le 11-15</a>. In the same way the general character of the ordinances (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,30);">Eze 44:30 a</a>), concerning the tithes due to the cult officials, demand such further developments as are found especially in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',18,\'1-\');">Nu 18</a> in P. The high priests, too, although Ezekiel makes no mention of them, belong to the period earlier than Ezekiel, as was proved under (1). If there had been no high priest before the days of Ezekiel, it would have been a perfect mystery, in addition, how he would be found after 520 BC (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hag\',1,1);">Hag 1:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',3,8);">Zec 3:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',6,10);">6:10</a>), without a word having been mentioned of the establishment of such an important institution. In addition, if the office had been created just at this time, this would make it very uncomfortable for the contentions of the Wellhausen school, since the other ordinances of P were introduced only in 444 BC, and should here be regarded as innovating.<P>That Ezekiel presupposed the ordinances of P in reference to the cult officials has been demonstrated under (1). Accordingly, there yet remains to be discussed the universally recognized relationship that exists between Ezekiel and the so-called Law of Holiness (H) in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-\');">Le 17-26</a> (compare <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LEVITICUS">LEVITICUS</a>), which is so great, that for a time Ezekiel was regarded as the author or the editor of this law, a view which, however, has been dropped, because a number of the peculiarities of Ezekiel do not admit of its acceptance. The more advanced critics then went farther, and claimed that the Law of Holiness (H), <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-\);">Le 17-26</a> is later than Ezekiel, which is the only possible and defensible position. For practical reasons we here examine, in addition to <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,\'1-\');">Eze 40-48</a>, also the older parts of the book. Especially do we take into consideration, in addition to chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,\'1-\');">44</a>, also chapters <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',18,\'1-\');">18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',20,\'1-\');">20</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',22,\'1-\');">22</a>; but in the end the contents of H are suggested by the entire Book of Ezekiel. Especially <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,\'1-\');">Le 26</a> has been very fully used by Ezekiel; compare for the details, Driver\'s Introduction to the Old Testament; or, Hoffmann, Die wichtigsten Instanzen gegen die Graf-Wellhausensche Hypothese. That Ezekiel could not be the earlier of the two can be concluded as far as P in general is concerned, and for H in particular, especially from this, that Ezkekiel is just as closely connected with Deuteronomy and Jeremiah, as with P; while, on the other hand, in the passage in question, P is connected only with Ezekiel, while the expressions which Ezekiel has in common with Deuteronomy and those Ezekiel has in common with Jeremiah are not found in P (compare the exceedingly interesting and instructive proof in Hoffmann, op. cit.). Equally striking is the proof of Kohler, Biblische Geschichte, III, 154ff, who shows that the contents of the Torah (Law) presupposed and recognized by Jeremiah and Ezekiel as dating from the Mosaic period, take into consideration not only the Books of the Covenant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,\'1-\');">Ex 21</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,\'1-\');">34</a>) and Deuteronomy, but especially P in general and H in particular. Further, if we place P in a later period, it would be incomprehensible that this body of laws, in which the systematic feature is so important, can differ from the still more systematic ordinances of Ezekiel, and thus become more unsystematic. Thus the sacrifices on the Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles are in number of the same kind in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',45,21);">Eze 45:21</a>ff; but not so in P in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',28,16);">Nu 28:16</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',29,12);">29:12</a>ff. In the same way in the food offerings on the feasts as far as oxen, rams, lambs, and the amount of oil to be given are concerned, there is everywhere the proper proportion in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',45,\'18-\');">Eze 45:18</a> - <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',46,\'1-15\');">46:15</a>, while in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',28,\'1-\');">Nu 28</a> this is regulated according to a different principle. Then in Ezekiel are found in the description of the sanctuary (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',42,\'15-20\');">42:15-20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',45,2);">45:2</a>), of the inner and outer courts (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,23,27,47);">40:23,27,47</a>; compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,19);">40:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',48,16);">48:16</a>f), square figures in places where they are not found in the tabernacle according to P. To this must be added that no other ordinances of Ezekiel would be carried out in actual practice. Even the ordinances in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,4);">44:4</a>ff, according to the views of the critics, would be changed in the Priestly Code (P), in so far as the establishment and work of the lower cult officials and the enlargement of the powers of the higher cult officials are concerned (compare (1)). The Day of Atonement, whose roots are said to be found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',45,18);">Eze 45:18</a>ff, would be materially changed in number, length and ritual (compare <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ATONEMENT,+DAY+OF">ATONEMENT, DAY OF, sec. I, 1 and III, 1</a>). When the Israelites returned from captivity, they did not think at all of building the temple or the tabernacle in accordance with Ezekiel\'s scheme, or dividing the land according to the directions of his book (both of these subjects have great prominence in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,\'1-\');">Eze 40-48</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,\'5-\');">40:5-43:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',47,\'13-\');">47:13</a> - <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',48,\'1-29\');">48:29</a>), or of harmonizing Ezekiel with the Priestly Code (P), or of carrying out the latter practically. The Wellhausen hypothesis is then in conflict with all ritual legislation, whether real or constructed by Wellhausen himself.<P>(d) Correct Interpretation of Passage<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,\'1-\');">Eze 40-48</a>: These chapters dare not be made a part of the development of the law in the Old Testament. Ezekiel\'s was not a program that was under all circumstances to be carried out or even could be carried out, for it presupposes conditions that were beyond the control of Israel. For in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,2);">40:2</a>ff, a new geographical or geological situation is presupposed, which the country up to this time did not possess (compare the "very high mountain," <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,2);">40:2</a>), and the same is true in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',47,1);">47:1</a>ff in reference to the miraculous temple fountain with its equally miraculous powers, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',47,13);">47:13</a>ff in the division of the land. Only after these changes had been effected in the character of the localities by Yahweh, and Yahweh should again have entered the holy city according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',43,1);">43:1</a> if, would it be possible to carry out also the other injunctions. It is impossible, either, to interpret these chapters as an allegory. This interpretation is out of the question on account of a large number of directions and measurements. It is, however, true that the whole is an ideal scheme, which portrays to the eye the continuation of the kingdom of God, and represents symbolically the presence of Yahweh, which sanctifies all around about it and creates for itself a suitable outward form. This is particularly apparent in the new name which is assigned to Jerusalem, namely, "Yahweh at that place," or the conclusion of this section and at the same time of the entire book. This, finally, leads us to a brief account of the views presented.<P>(3) Ezekiel\'s Leviticism.<P>In (1) and (2) above, it has been shown that Ezekiel was not the starting-point of Leviticism in Israel: it rather represents the extreme development of this tendency. It was in harmony with the elementary stage of the Old Testament to give the thoughts and demands of God, not in a purely abstract form, but to clothe them in objective and external materials, in order to prepare and educate Israel to understand Christianity. (The negative side of Leviticism, which is not to be overlooked by the side of the positive, is discussed in the article <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LEVITICUS">LEVITICUS</a>) It is a matter of utmost importance for the correct understanding of the Old Testament, that we recognize that the prophets too throughout think Levitically; in their discourses, too, sacred trees, sacrifices, times, persons, tithes, play a most important role, notwithstanding all the spiritualization of religion on their part; and where it is thought possible to show an absolute opposition on the part of the prophets to the Levitical system, namely, in the matter of sacrifices, a close consideration, but especially, too, the analogy of the other external institutions, shows that we have in these cases only a relative antithesis (compare Are the Critics Right? 99ff; Messianische Erwartung der vorexilischen Propheten, 333ff). Thus e.g. Jeremiah who, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',6,20);">6:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',7,21);">7:21</a>ff, engages as sharply as possible in polemics against the sacrificial system, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,31);">31:31</a>ff, in the passage treating of the new covenant, spiritualizes religion as much as possible, has assigned to sacrifices a place in his predictions of the future (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',17,19);">17:19</a>ff, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',26,\'1-\');">26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,14);">31:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',33,18);">33:18</a>), just as the abiding-place and the revelation of God for this prophet too, are always found connected with the Holy Land, Jerusalem or Zion (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',3,17);">3:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',12,15);">12:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',30,18);">30:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,16,11,12);">31:6,11,12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',32,36);">32:36</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',33,9);">33:9</a>). That in this the ultimate development of the kingdom of God has not yet been reached, but that the entire Old Testament contains only a preliminary stage, cannot be too sharply emphasized. In so far Ezekiel, in whose book Leviticism appears in its most developed state, more than others, shares in the limitations of the Old Testament. But just as little can it be denied that the Levitical system was really one stage, and that, too, an important and indispensable stage in the development of the kingdom of God; and that in this system, the question at issue is not only that of a change of a religion into a stereotyped formalism or externalism, which is the case if this system loses its contents, but the fact that it contained a valuable kernel which ripened in this shell, but would not have ripened if this shell had been prematurely discarded. The external conditions, their harmonious arrangement, the ceremonial ordinances, keeping clean from external pollution, are indeed only forms; but in them valuable contents succeed in finding their expression; through these Israel learned to understand these contents. The kernel could not be given without the shell nor the contents without the form, until in Christianity the time came when the form was to be broken and the shell discarded. This significance of the Levitical system becomes more evident in Ezekiel than is the case, e.g. in the Priestly Code (P), where indeed a few passages like <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,8);">Ex 25:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,45);">29:45</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',40,34);">40:34</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,\'1-\');">Le 16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,18);">19:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,31,41);">26:31, 41</a> clearly show in what sense the entire legislation is to be understood; but the mere fact that there are so few of these passages makes it easy to overlook them; while in Ezekiel, in addition to the purely Levitical utterances, and in part more closely connected with these, the entire work is saturated with the emphasis put on the highest religious and ethical thoughts, so that both must be in the closest harmony with each other (compare on this subject also Ezekiel\'s conception of God under 5 below). That Ezekiel and the Law of Holiness stand in such close relations to each other is not to be explained from this, that Ezekiel is in any way to be connected with the composition of the law in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-\');">Le 17-26</a>, but on the ground of the tendency common to both. The fact that Ezekiel shows a special liking for these chapters in P does not, accordingly, justify the conclusion that <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-\');">Le 17</a>ff ever existed as a separate legal codex. We must in this connection not forget the close connection of the prophets with the rest of P mentioned under (2) above (compare <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LEVITICUS">LEVITICUS</a>). We close this part of the discussion with the statement that Ezekiel constructed his system on the basis of the Levitical ordinance, but as priest-prophet (compare under I, 1) utilized this material independently and freely.<P>3. Ezekiel and the Messianic Idea:<P>Chs 40-48 treat of the future, and furnish us the transition to another matter, in which Ezekiel by modern theology has been forced into a wrong light, namely, in regard to the Messianic idea. After the critics had, as a matter of fact, eliminated from the entire preexilic prophetical writings nearly all of the passages speaking of the Messiah on the ground that they were not genuine (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',9,8);">Am 9:8</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',1,10,11);">Ho 1:10,11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',3,5);">3:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',2,12);">Mic 2:12</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',4,\'1-\');">4</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',4,\'2-6\');">Isa 4:2-6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',7,14);">7:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',9,\'1-7\');">9:1-7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',11,\'1-10\');">11:1-10</a>, etc.), Marti and Volz have now completed this task. While the former declared as not genuine all the Messianic predictions down to Deutero-Isaiah, the latter has, in his work, Die vorexilische Jahwe-Prophetic und der Messias, halted at Ezekiel, but for this works up the entire material into a uniform fundamental conception with pronounced characteristics. He declares that prophecy and the Messianic idea are two mutually exclusive phenomena, by regarding the Messiah as a purely political and national fact, but the prophetic expectation of the future as something purely religious. Ezekiel he regards as the first prophet with whose views on other matters the Messianic idea indeed did not harmonize, but who, nevertheless, yielded to the tendencies of his times and to the general national feelings, and submitted to the influence of the false prophets, who had created the carnal national expectation of a Messiah and constantly fed this, and accordingly received into his book the Messiah passages in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',22,\'22-24\');">17:22-24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',21,25);">21:25</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',34,23);">34:23</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',37,22,24,25);">37:22,24,25</A>. But this too is, all in all, simply a monstrous assumption. It is exegetically incorrect to regard the Messiah merely as a political, national and particularistic person, whenever the religious and ethical and universalistic characteristics of the Messiah are portrayed by prophecy; and it is also incorrect to regard prophecy as abstractly religious, when the national and external side of the kingdom of God is ignored. It is impossible to eliminate the different Messianic passages preceding the time of Ezekiel, as these are proved to be genuine by their contents and form, their close connection with the context, the structure of the prophetic writings, and by the mutual relation of these passages to each other. But we must here refer to our book, Die messianische Erwartung der vorexilischen Propheten. We draw attention to this only because since the publication of Gressmann\'s book, Der Ursprung der israelitisch-judischen Eschatologie, the critics have begun to be a little less skeptical in reference to the genuine character of the Messianic passages in the older prophetical writings. We here point to the fact, that the positive contentions of Volz, which ascribe to Ezekiel the introduction of the Messianic idea out of the popular faith, are exceedingly inconsiderate. The different passages mentioned above, which in Ezekiel speak of the Messiah, can scarcely be said to add any new features to the picture of the Messiah as it is found in earlier literature (of one exception to this we will speak later). If the Messiah was not yet portrayed in the earlier prophetic literature, then Ezekiel had the less occasion to introduce this new feature, if this feature did not harmonize with his other views, as Volz claims. And, if this is only a mistake, it is yet a fact that in Ezekiel the Messianic idea is not relatively a prominent feature; he, as it were, only recalls the pictures known from the predictions of the earlier prophets; he accepts these pictures as revealed truth, because they, in his conviction, evidently originated in the development of prophecy. Compare for the idea that the Messiah is to come forth from small origins and from a lowly station <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',17,\'22-24\');">Eze 17:22-24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,33,34);">Isa 10:33,34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',11,1);">11:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',5,1);">Mic 5:1</a>ff. <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',21,32);">Eze 21:32</a> only hints at the general expectation of a Messiah; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',34,23);">Eze 34:23</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',37,22,24,25);">37:22,24,25</a> connect especially with the promises given to David in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',7,\'1-\');">2Sa 7</a>. Then the reunion of the two kingdoms into one scepter is found also in <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',9,11);">Am 9:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',2,2);">Ho 2:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',3,5);">3:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',8,\'23-\');">Isa 8:23</a>- <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',9,1);">9:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',5,2);">Mic 5:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',3,18);">Jer 3:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',23,5);">23:5</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,39);">1Ki 11:39</a>; the blessing of Nature, <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',11,\'6-8\');">Isa 11:6-8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',9,13);">Am 9:13</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',2,20);">Ho 2:20</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',14,6);">14:6</a>ff. At all events the Messianic expectations of Ezekiel exhibit too few peculiar features and are too little prominent in the body of his prophecies to justify the belief that he was the first prophet to have introduced this so important Messianic figure. On the other hand, let us remember too that Ezekiel opposes the national feelings as sharply as possible by representing the entire past history of Israel as an unbroken chain of heathenish abominations (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,\'1-\');">Eze 1-24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',33,\'1-\');">33</a>, especially <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',16,\'1-\');">16</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',23,\'1-\');">23</a>), and remember it was just he who like Jeremiah saw his most bitter opponents in the false prophets (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',13,1);">Eze 13:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',14,9);">14:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',22,28);">22:28</a>), and that in the most pronounced antithesis to these he proclaimed before the fall of Jerusalem that this fall would and must come. And now it is claimed that he borrowed his Messianic idea from these very people, although this Messianic conception is everywhere represented as being a Divine revelation and not a natural product of the popular consciousness. A greater blunder in theological thought could scarcely be imagined.<P>In one point, however, we do find in Ezekiel a further development of the Messianic idea, namely, that in His work, in addition to His characteristics as a king, the Messiah has also those of a high priest, as this is shown at the same period by Jeremiah (see under I,1,and 2, 3; compare later <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',3,\'1-\');">Zec 3</a>f; and possibly <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',6,9);">6:9</a>ff). The mitsnepheth, which the Messiah bears according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',21,26);">Eze 21:26</a>, is in other connections always the mitre of the high priest (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,6);">Ex 29:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',39,28,31);">39:28,31</a>; see above II,2,1a and 2c). At the Passover feast, at least, the prince conducts a purification through a bullock for a sin offering, which, through the fact that this is done for himself and for the entire people of the land, reminds us of the ceremony of the high priest on the day of atonement (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',45,22);">Eze 45:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,17,24,33);">Le 16:17,24,33</a>; compare <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ATONEMENT,+DAY+OF">DAY OF ATONEMENT, I,1</a>,and Messianische Erwartung der vorexilischen Propheten, 356ff). Over against the current view, we finally emphasize the fact that Ezekiel\'s expectations of a Messianic feature are not confined to Israel, but like those of Isaiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',2,2);">2:2</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',11,10);">11:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',5,3,6);">Mic 5:3,6</a>) and of other prophets are universal in their scope (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',17,23);">Eze 17:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',16,53,61);">16:53,61</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',34,26);">34:26</a>).<P>4. Ezekiel and Apocalyptic Literature:<P>Ezekiel is also, finally, regarded as the creator of apocalyptic literature, which in prophetic garment sought to satisfy the curiosity of the people and picture the details of the last times. In this connection the critics have in mind especially <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',38,\'1-\');">Eze 38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',39,\'1-\');">39</a>, that magnificent picture of the final onslaught of the nations under Gog and Magog, which will end with the certain victory of the Divine cause and the terrible overthrow of the enemies of Yahweh. On the mountains of Israel the hosts will fall (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',39,4);">39:4</a>); seven years it will be possible to kindle fires with the weapons of the enemies (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',39,9);">39:9</a>); it takes seven months to bury the dead (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',39,12);">39:12</a>); a great feast is prepared for the birds (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',39,17);">39:17</a>ff).<P>In reply to this there are two things to be said. First of all Ezekiel is not the creator of these thoughts. There is a whole list of passages in the Prophets that already before his time picture how matters will be after and beyond the Messianic age (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',2,12);">Mic 2:12 b</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',4,11);">4:11</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',5,4);">5:4</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',5,7,20);">7,20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',3,2,12);">Joe 3:2,12</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',11,4);">Isa 11:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',28,6);">28:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',2,2);">Ho 2:2</a>). These are, however, all regarded by the critics as not genuine, or as the product of a later period, but they forget in this to observe that Ezekiel in these passages refers to older prophets (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',38,17);">38:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',39,8);">39:8</a>), and thus they saw off the branch upon which he sits. In regard, however, to painting the fullest details of the picture, Ezekiel is equaled by none of his predecessors. In this matter, too, he represents the highest point of development, in which he is followed by <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',12,\'1-\');">Zec 12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',13,7);">13:7</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',14,1);">14:1</a>ff, and Daniel, and with direct dependence on <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',38,\'1-\');">Eze 38</a>f by the Apocalypse of John (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,17);">Re 19:17</a>). On the other hand, Ezekiel is entirely different from the later Jewish apocalyptic literature. The latter borrowed the prophetic form but possesses neither the Divine contents nor the Divine inspiration of the prophet. For this reason the apocalyptic literature appears anonymously or under a pseudonym. Ezekiel, however, openly places his name over his prophecies. In Ezekiel the eschatology is a part of his prophetic mission, and as he in his thoughts throughout remains within the bounds of the religious and ethical ideals of prophecy, this feature, too, of his work is to be regarded as a Divine revelation in a form in harmony with the Old Testament stage of the development of the kingdom of God. We are here indeed considering a matter in connection with which it is especially difficult to determine how much in reality belongs to the eternally valid contents, and how much to the temporary forms. Here too, as is the case in the exegesis of <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,\'1-\');">Eze 40-48</a>, Christian theology will vacillate between the extremes of spiritualism and realism, one extreme constantly correcting the other, and in this way constantly approaching the correct middle course, until at some time in the future we will reach the full truth in the matter.<P>5. Ezekiel\'s Conception of God:<P>A prophet who, from the aesthetic side, enjoyed the highest appreciation of a Schiller and a Herder (see 1 above), who has brought the Leviticism of the Old Testament to the highest stage of development (compare 2 above), who in his portrait of the Messiah has introduced the high-priestly characteristics (compare 3 above), who in eschatology developed new features and laid the foundation for the development that followed in later times (compare 4 above), can scarcely with any right or reason be termed a "secondary character among the prophets." This fact becomes all the more sure when we now finally examine the conception of God as taught in Ezekiel. In grandeur and variety of thought, in this respect only, Isaiah and Moses can be compared with Ezekiel. Already in the visions, we are struck by the sublimity of God as there pictured, especially in the opening vision, where He appears as the absolute ruler of all creation, over which He sits enthroned (compare II,1,above). He is constantly called "the Lord Yahweh," over against whom the prophet is at all times only "the son of man." More than fifty times it is said that the purpose of the prophecy was that the heathen nations, as well as the Israelites, shall by His judgments and His promises recognize that He is Yahweh.<P>On this side Ezekiel stands in an especially close relation to the description of the exodus from Egypt (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,5,17);">Ex 7:5,17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,10,22);">8:10,22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',9,14,29,30);">9:14,29,30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',10,2);">10:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',11,7);">11:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,4);">14:4,18</a>, and see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS">EXODUS, II,2,</a> on <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,\'8-\');">7:8-13:16</a>). Above everything Yahweh\'s honor must be defended (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',36,23,32);">Eze 36:23,32</a>). Here again there is a place where the evolutionist hypothesis of the development of the idea of God is thoroughly put to shame. For in the preprophetic times it is claimed that God is, in the Old Testament, merely placed by the side of other gods and was regarded only as the God of Israel, with which He was indissolubly connected, because His existence had depended on the existence of the nation. As a proof, reference is made to the defense of His honor; and now we find the same thought in Ezekiel, in whose case it is impossible that any doubt as to his absolute monotheism can any longer arise (compare my Entwicklung der Gottesidee in vorexilischer Zeit, 138ff 152ff). The sublimity of this conception of God also appears in its universality. He is declared to be punishing the nations (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',25,\'1-\');">Eze 25</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',35,\'1-\');">35</a>f); He uses them for His purposes (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',38,\'1-\');">Eze 38</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',17,\'1-\');">17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',19,\'1-\');">19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',24,\'1-\');">24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',33,\'1-\');">33</a>); He intends to give them salvation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',17,\'1-\');">Eze 17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',23,\'1-\');">23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',16,53,61);">16:53,61</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',34,26);">34:26</a>; compare 3 above).<P>Most of all, Ezekiel\'s conception of God, according to the preceding sketch, reminds us of that of Calvin. By the exalted character of God we find also a second feature. On the one side we find the holy God; on the other, sinful man. The entire development of the people is from the beginning a wrong one. Ezekiel\'s thoughts are to be regarded as those for days of penance when he, on the one hand, emphasizes the great guilt of the people as such (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',16,\'1-\');">Eze 16</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',23,\'1-\');">23</a>), and by the side of this maintains the principle that each one must be punished on account of his own sins (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',18,2);">Eze 18:2</a>), so that the individual cannot excuse himself, and the individual cannot be freed through the guilt of the people as a totality. But now comes the highest conception. The exalted and holy God comes to be a God of love. What is it but love, that He does not reject His people forever, but promises them a future (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',34,\'1-\');">Eze 34-48</a>, in which also the divided kingdoms are to be reunited, <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',37,15);">37:15</a>ff)? As Exodus finds its culmination point in the indwelling of God among His people, which He promised in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,\'1-\');">Ex 25</a>ff (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,8);">25:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,45);">29:45</a>f), but seems to have become a matter of doubt again in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,\'1-\');">Ex 32</a>ff through the apostasy of the people, and nevertheless is finally realized in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,\'1-\');">Ex 35</a>ff (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',40,34);">40:34</a>ff), thus too in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',10,\'1-\');">Eze 10</a>f; Yahweh leaves the city, but in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',43,1);">43:1</a>ff He again returns, and now the name of the city is "Yahweh is there" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',48,35);">48:35</a>). But as every single member participates in the sin and the punishment of the people, so too he takes part in the deliverance. Ezekiel is indeed, as little as is Jeremiah, the creator of individualism, which he has often been declared to be. Against this claim, e.g. the character of the patriarchs can be appealed to. But a deeper conception of individualism has actually been brought about by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The national organization as such was for the present dissolved. Accordingly, these prophets have now to deal more with the individual (compare 1,2,3, above). Ezekiel is actually the pastor of those in exile. He has been appointed the watchman of the house of Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,16);">3:16</a>ff and <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,1);">33:1</a>ff). He can bear the responsibility for the individual souls (compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',18,\'1-\');">Eze 18</a>). The wicked man who dies without having been warned is demanded from his hand by God. Yahweh does not wish the death of the sinner, but that he should repent and live. Here such a clear mirror is given, that before it conscientious Christian preachers must all feel ashamed. Yahweh is the gracious God, who does not treat men simply according to the principle of retaliation, else what would become of man? God rather desires to bestow all things out of free grace; he that repents shall live. This is the highest ideal of the prophet, and with it we close.<P>The Feast of Weeks, the Pentecost of the Israelites, Ezekiel does not mention (compare II,2,2b, above). This festival has come to be one of higher importance since on Pentecost the Holy Spirit was poured out, and this Spirit Ezekiel knows. Besides, such passages as <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',32,15);">Jer 32:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',44,\'1-6\');">44:1-6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',51,12);">Ps 51:12</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',2,28);">Joe 2:28</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,31);">Jer 31:31</a>ff, it is Ezekiel which contains the clearest predictions of Pentecost. It is the Spirit who in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',37,\'1-\');">Eze 37</a> awakens to new life the dead bones of Israel.<P>And in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',36,\'25-28\');">Eze 36:25-28</a> we read: "And 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. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep mine ordinances, and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God."<P>LITERATURE.<P>Comm. of Keil, Havernick, Hengstenberg, von Orelli, Smend, Bertholet, Kraetzschmar. For the Messianic Prophecies, the works of von Orelli, Riehm, Delitzsch, Hengstenberg. Compare also Volz, Die vorexilische Jahwe-Prophetie und der Messias; Moller, Die messianische Erwartung der vorexilischen Propheten, zugleich ein Protest gegen moderne Textzersplitterung; Cornill, The Prophet Ezekiel; Klostermann, Studien und Kritken, 1877. Introductions of Kuenen, Strack, Baudissin, Konig, Cornill, Driver. Histories of Israel, by Kohler, Konig, Kittel, Klostermann, Oettli, Stade, Wellhausen. Bible Lexicons, see under "Ezekiel."<P>Against the Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis, Moller, Are the Critics Right? In this Encyclopedia, for further literature compare also the article <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LEVITICUS">LEVITICUS</a>: Orr, Orr, The Problem of the Old Testament; Wiener, Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism, and The Origin of the Pentateuch; Hoffmann, Die wichtigsten Instanzen gegen die Graf-Wellhausensche Hypothese; Kegel, Wilhelm Vatke u. die Graf-Wellhausensche Hypothese; Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vortrage der Juden; Seinecke, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, II.``122';
isbe[3330]='Ezel`e\'-zel (ha-\'azel; Septuagint para to ergab ekeino):<P>As it stands, the narrative in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',20,19);">1Sa 20:19</a> records the tryst of Jonathan with David at the stone Ezel. The name occurs only here. There is general agreement that the text is corrupt, but there is no agreement as to how it should be restored. The Septuagint reads "this mound" (the Revised Version (British and American), margin), or "yonder cairn"; and in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',20,41);">1Sa 20:41</a> instead of "out of a place toward the south" it reads "from beside the mound" or "cairn." Dr. Cheyne suggests "yonder juniper tree" (Encyclopaedia Biblica, under the word).``1';
isbe[3331]='Ezem`e\'-zem (\'etsem, "bone"; Boosal, Boasom):<P>A city in the extreme south of Judah, assigned to Simeon.<P>Some identify it with Azmon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,29);">Jos 15:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,3);">19:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,29);">1Ch 4:29</a>).``1';
isbe[3332]='Ezer`e\'-zer (\'ezer, "help"):<P>(1) A Horite chief (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,21);">Ge 36:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,38);">1Ch 1:38</a>).<P>(2) A Judahite (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,4);">1Ch 4:4</a>).<P>(3) An Ephraimite, slain by men of Gath (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,21);">1Ch 7:21</a>).<P>(4) A Gadite who followed David while in exile on account of the wrath of Saul (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',12,9);">1Ch 12:9</a>).<P>(5) One of those who under direction of Nehemiah repaired the wall of Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',3,19);">Ne 3:19</a>).<P>(6) A musician in one of the great companies appointed by Nehemiah to give thanks at the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,42);">Ne 12:42</a>).``1';
isbe[3333]='Ezerias`ez-e-ri\'-as (Ezerias):<p>1Esdras 8:1 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "Zechrias," the Azariah of <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',7,1);">Ezr 7:1</a>.``1';
isbe[3334]='Ezias`e-zi\'-as:<P>the Revised Version (British and American)<P><a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=OZIAS">OZIAS</a> (which see).``1';
isbe[3335]='Ezion-Geber`e-zi-on-ge\'-ber (\'etsyon gebher; Gasion Gaber):<P>Always mentioned along with Elath ("Eziongaber," <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,35);">Nu 33:35</a>f the King James Version). When the children of Israel left "the way of the Arabah," having come from the Northwest, they seem to have turned to the Northeast from the neighborhood of \'Aqaba, passing up by Wady el-Ithm toward the eastern desert (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',2,8);">De 2:8</a>). Elath and Ezion-geber were evidently not far apart. They are named together again in connection with the maritime enterprises of Solomon and Jehoshaphat (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',9,26);">1Ki 9:26</a>, etc.). They therefore both lay on the shore of the sea. No trace of Ezion-geber is to be found on the present coast line. It is probable, however, that in ancient times the sea covered a considerable stretch of the mud flats at the south end of Wady el-\'Arabah, and the site of Ezion-geber may be sought near the spring \'Ain el-Ghudyan, about 15 miles north of the present head of the Gulf of \'Aqaba.``54';
isbe[3336]='Eznite`ez-\'nit (\'etsni or \'etsno).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ADINO">ADINO</a>`1';
isbe[3337]='Ezora`e-zo\'-ra (Ezora, the King James Version Ozora):<P>He and his six sons "gave their hands to put away their strange wives" (1Esdras 9:20,34 = "Machnadebai" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,40);">Ezr 10:40</a>).``1';
isbe[3338]='Ezra`ez\'-ra (Aramaic or Chaldee, \'ezra\', "help"; a hypocoristicon, or shortened form of Azariah, "Yahweh has helped." The Hebrew spells the name \'ezrah, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,17);">1Ch 4:17</a>, or uses the Aramaic spelling of the name, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',7,1);">Ezr 7:1</a>. The Greek form is Esdras):<P>(1) A priest who returned with Zerubbabel from Babylon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,1);">Ne 12:1</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,2);">Ne 10:2</a>, Azariah, the full form of the name, is found.<P>(2) A descendant of Judah and father of Jethro and other sons (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,17);">1Ch 4:17</a>).<P>(3) The distinguished priest who is the hero of the Book of Ezra and co-worker with Nehemiah.<P>1. Family:<P>The genealogy of Ezra is given in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',7,\'1-6\');">Ezr 7:1-6</a>, where it appears that he was the son of Seraiah, the son of Azariah, the son of Hilkiah, the son of Shallum, the son of Ahitub, the son of Amariah, the son of Azariah, the son of Meraioth, the son of Zerahiah, the son of Uzzi, the son of Bukki, the son of Abishua, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the high priest. Since Seraiah, according to the Book of Kings, was killed by Nebuchadrezzar at Riblah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',25,\'18-21\');">2Ki 25:18-21</a>), and since he was the father of Jehozadak, the high priest who was carried into captivity by Nebuchadrezzar (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,14,15);">1Ch 6:14,15; (Hebrew 5:14)</a>, etc. in 588 BC, and since the return under Ezra took place in 458 BC, the word "son" must be used in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',7,2);">Ezr 7:2</a> in the sense of descendant. Since, moreover, Joshua, or Jeshua, the high priest, who returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel, was the son of Jehozadak and the grandson of Seraiah, Ezra was probably the great-grandson or great-great-grandson of Seraiah. Inasmuch as Jehozadak is never mentioned as one of his forefathers, Ezra was probably not descended from Jehozadak, but from a younger brother. He would thus not be a high priest, though he was of high-priestly descent as far as Seraiah. For the sake of shortening the list of names, six names are omitted in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',7,\'2-7\');">Ezr 7:2-7</a> between Azariah and Meraioth, and one between Shallum and Ahitub from the corresponding list found in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,\'4-14\');">1Ch 6:4-14 (Hebrew 5:30-40)</a>.<P>Being a priest by birth, it is to be supposed that Ezra would have performed the ordinary functions of a member of his order, if he had been born and had lived in Palestine.<P>2. Occupation:<P>Jos, indeed, says that he was high priest of his brethren in Babylon, a statement that in view of the revelation of the Elephantine papyri may not be without a foundation in fact. According to the Scriptures and Jewish tradition, however, Ezra was pre-eminently a scribe, and especially a scribe of the law of Moses. He is called "a ready scribe in the law of Moses," a "scribe of the words of the commandments of Yahweh, and of his statutes to Israel," "the scribe of the law of the God of heaven." As early as the time of Jeremiah (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',8,8);">Jer 8:8</a>), "scribe" had already attained the meaning of one learned in the Scriptures, one who had made the written law a subject of investigation. Ezra is the first who is called by the title of "the scribe," the title by which Artaxerxes designates him in his letter of instructions in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',7,6,11);">Ezr 7:6,11</a>.<P>3. His Commission:<P>In the 7th year of Artaxerxes I (459-458 BC) Ezra requested permission of the king to go up to Jerusalem; for "Ezra had set his heart to seek the law of Yahweh, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and ordinances." Artaxerxes granted his request, and gave him a letter permitting as many of the people of Israel and of the priests and Levites as so desired to accompany him to Jerusalem, and commissioning him to inquire concerning Judah and Jerusalem, and to carry a gift of money from the king and his counselors, and all the money to be found in the province of Babylon, and the freewill offerings of the people and priests, with which to buy offerings to offer upon the altar of the house of God which was in Jerusalem. He was commissioned also to carry vessels for the service of the house of God, and to do at the expense of the royal treasury whatever was needful for the house of God. The king decreed, moreover, that the treasurers of the king should assist Ezra with a tribute of wheat, wine, oil and salt, and that they should impose no tribute, custom or toll upon any of those employed in the service of the house of God. Moreover, Ezra was authorized to appoint judges to judge the people according to the law of God and the law of the king, and to inflict punishments upon all who would not obey these laws. Ascribing this marvelous letter of the king to the lovingkindness of his God, and strengthened by this evidence of God\'s power, Ezra proceeded to gather together out of Israel the chief men and teachers and ministers of the house to go up with him to Jerusalem. He gathered these men in camp at Casiphia, on the river Ahava. Here he proclaimed a time of fasting and prayer, that God might prosper their journey (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,\'15-23\');">Ezr 8:15-23</a>). Then, having delivered the treasures into the hands of the priests, the assembled company departed for Jerusalem, where by the help of God they arrived in safety, delivered over the money and gifts by number and weight, offered burnt offerings and sin offerings, delivered the king\'s commissions and furthered the people and the house of God.<P>Shortly after Ezra\'s arrival at Jerusalem, the princes accused the people, the priests, and the Levites of having intermarried with the peoples of the land, even asserting that the princes and rulers had been leaders in the trespass. Upon hearing this, Ezra was confounded, rent his garments, plucked off his hair, fell upon his knees and prayed a prayer of confession, weeping and casting himself down before the house of God. While he prayed the people assembled and wept, acknowledged their sin and promised to do according to the law. The whole people were then assembled in counsel, and in spite of some opposition the strange wives were put away.<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,\'1-\');">Ne 8</a>, Ezra appears again upon the scene at the Feast of Tabernacles as the chief scribe of the law of Moses, the leader of the priests and Levites who read and explained the law to the people. On his advice the people ceased from their mourning and celebrated the festival according to the law of Moses with joy and thanksgiving and giving of gifts, dwelling also in booths in commemoration of the manner of their fathers\' sojourning while in the wilderness.<P>4. Traditions:<P>The traditions with regard to Ezra found in Josephus and in the Talmud are so discrepant that it is impossible to place reliance upon any of their statements which are not found also in the canonical Scriptures.``196';
isbe[3339]='Ezra-Nehemiah`Contents<P>1. Name.<P>2. Object<P>3. Plan<P>4. Unity<P>5. Sources<P>6. Literary Character<P>7. Languages<P>8. Historicity<P>9. Text<P>LITERATURE<hr /><P>1. Name:<P>The books of Ezra and Nehemiah, by whomsoever written, are properly so named according to analogy from the principal persons mentioned in them. In the Hebrew Bibles, the former is headed simply, Ezra, and the latter, Nehemiah. The two books are counted in the Talmud, in Josephus, and in the Canon of Melito, 171 AD, as one, and are so treated also in the subscription of the Massoretic Text, which reads: "The totality of the verses of Ezra and Nehemiah is 688, and its sign is \'Remember, Yahweh, the reproach of thy servants,\' and its two parts (are at the sentence) \'unto the ascent of the corner\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',3,31);">Ne 3:31</a>) and its chapters (sedharayw) are ten, and its sign is \'Upon a high mountain get thee up, O thou that announcest good tidings to Zion.\'" In the Septuagint, Ezra-Nehemiah is called Esdras B, while an apocryphal Book of Ezra is called Esdras A (see below). In the catalogues of the Old Testament writings handed down to us by the Fathers (Origen, Cyril, Melito, Jerome and the Council of Laodicea) our Ezra is called 1 Ezra; Nehemiah, 2 Ezra; the apocryphal Greek Ezra, 3 Ezra; and an apocalyptic book, falsely called a book of Ezra, is denominated 4 Ezra.<P>2. Object:<P>The object of the books is to show that God fulfilled His promise, or prophecy, to restore His exiled people to their inheritance, through the instrumentality on the one hand of the great heathen monarchs, Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes, and on the other hand by stirring up the spirit of such great men among the chosen people as Joshua and Zerubbabel, Haggai and Zechariah, and Ezra and Nehemiah, through whom the altar, the temple, the houses and walls of Jerusalem, and finally the worship and ceremony of the Jewish people were reestablished, the people being separated from foreign admixtures, customs and idolatry, and their religious observances purified and fixed for all time.<P>3. Plan:<P>The object of the work justifies the selection and arrangement of the material and the plan pursued by the composer, or composers; all matter being stringently excluded which does not bear directly upon the purpose in view. However much we may wish that other historical records had been included, it is not proper to criticize the work because of these omissions, nor is it fair to argue that the writer was ignorant of what he has not seen fit to record.<P>4. Unity:<P>The unity of the combined work is shown by the fact that they have the same common object, the same plan, and a similarity of language and style; that they treat, for the most part, of the same period of time; and that Ezra is one of the most prominent persons in both. It is not fair to deny the essential unity on the ground that the list of priests and others found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,\'1-\');">Ezr 2</a> is repeated in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,\'1-\');">Ne 7</a>; for there is no doubt that Ezra was the compiler of parts at least of the book called after him, and that Nehemiah also was the original writer of parts of the book that bears his name. Whoever was the final editor of the whole work, he has simply retained the two almost identical lists in their appropriate places in the documents which lay before him.<P>5. Sources:<P>The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah are a compilation of genealogical lists, letters and edicts, memoirs and chronicles. We cannot be certain as to who was the composer of either or both books. Many think that Ezra compiled both the books out of preexisting materials, adding parts of his own composition. Others, suppose that Ezra wrote the book named after him, while Nehemiah composed the Book of Nehemiah. Others, again, are of the opinion that neither Ezra nor Nehemiah, but some other unknown editor, most probably the compiler of the Books of Chronicles, put together the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, using largely the memoirs of the two great men who are the principal persons in the records. While there is still much difference of opinion as to who was the final redactor, there is a general agreement as to the composite character of the whole, and that the person who wrote the parts that bind together the original sources was the same as he who wrote the canonical Books of Chronicles.<P>6. Literary Character:<P>The diversified character of the style, languages and other literary peculiarities of the books is accounted for by the large number and the variety of sources. From the style and contents of the first chapter it has been argued with great plausibility that it was written by Daniel; for similar reasons it has been argued that the portion of Ezra from 3:2 to 4:22 inclusive was written by Haggai the prophet. All admit that the parts of Ezra and Nehemiah in which the 1st person is employed were written by Ezra and Nehemiah respectively. As to who it was who added the other connecting portions there is and must always be great doubt arising from the fact that the author is not mentioned. The style points to the same hand as that which composed the Book of Chronicles. Those who believe that Ezra compiled the Book of Chronicles will believe that he most probably composed also the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. The principal objection to his authorship arises from the inexplicable change from the 1st to the 3rd person occurring in both Ezra and Nehemiah. Inasmuch as the 3rd person is the proper form to use in the best style of Biblical historical composition; inasmuch as Herodotus, Thucydides and Xenophon often employ it in their histories; inasmuch as some of the Bah monuments mingle the 1st and 3rd persons in the same document; and finally, inasmuch as the prophets and psalmists of Israel likewise interchange the persons in what is for us often an unaccountable manner: this characteristic of the style of Ezra-Nehemiah seems an insufficient reason upon which to base the denial of the claim that Ezra may have been the author.<P>The facts that there is unevenness in the treatment of the history, and that there are long periods on which the narrator is silent, do not militate against the authorship of Ezra nor do they imply a date long after his age; for the author is perfectly consistent in his purpose to stick to the object and plan which he had in view for himself, that is, to give an account of the reestablishment of the Israelite people and of their Divinely given institutions. That he has omitted other matters-does not imply that he was ignorant of them.<P>7. Languages:<P>The language of the books is Hebrew, except <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,\'7-\');">Ezr 4:7-6:18</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',7,\'12-26\');">7:12-26</a>, which is written in Aramaic. The Hebrew closely resembles that of Daniel, Haggai and Chronicles, much more so than it does that of Ecclesiasticus, which was written probably about 180 BC. The Aramaic (formerly called Chaldee) is very much like that of the Egyptian papyri which are dated in the 5th century BC. It closely resembles also the Aramaic in Daniel.<P>8. Historicity:<P>Neither language nor style can be assigned as a ground for asserting a date later than the 5th century BC as the time of the composition of the book. A much stronger reason against placing the final redaction of the books at so early a time is the mention of a Jaddua among the high priests in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,11,22);">Ne 12:11,22</a>, it being assumed that this is the same Jaddua whom Josephus mentions (Ant., XI, viii, 4) as having filled the high-priestly office in the time of Alexander the Great. In view of the fact that Josephus is the only source of information as to the period between 400 and 300 BC, it seems unfair to accept what he says as to the existence of this Jaddua, while rejecting substantially all the rest of the same chapter in Josephus which tells about Sanballat, Manasseh and Alexander\'s meeting with Jaddua. Inasmuch as the Sachau papyri, written in the 17th year of Darius Nothus, that is, in 410-408 BC, mention the sons of Sanballat the governor of Samaria, the Sanballat who was their father must have lived about 450 BC. The same papyrus mentions Jehohanan (Johnnan of <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,22);">Ne 12:22</a>) as the high priest of the temple at Jerusalem, and Bagohi (Bagoas) was the Persian governor of Jerusalem in 410-408 BC. Since, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',13,6);">Ne 13:6</a>, Nehemiah was governor in 434-433 BC, the 32nd year of Artaxerxes, Bagoas would be perhaps his immediate successor. If we are to put any confidence in the story of Josephus, then there must have been at least two Sanballats, and probably two Jadduas, and at two different times a son of a high priest must have married a daughter of a Sanballat. While this is not impossible, it seems better to suppose that Josephus has confused matters beyond any possibility of disentanglement, and we might be justified in throwing over entirely his account of a Sanballat, a Manasseh, and a Jaddua as living in the year 330 BC, when Alexander conquered Syria. As far, of course, as the Jaddua of <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,11,22);">Ne 12:11,22</a> is concerned, he may well have been high priest as early as 406 BC, and have continued to serve till 330 BC. On the other hand, another of the same name, probably a grandson, may, for all we know to the contrary, have been high priest in 330 BC. In view of the numerous Oniases, Simons, and Johns who served in that position between 600 and 150 BC, and in view, further, of our almost absolute lack of information as to the history of this period, it will be a bold man who will dare to deny, on the ground of the Jaddua of Josephus, that Ezra-Nehemiah might have been written as early as 4OO BC.<P>The objection against the books having been composed in the Persian period, based upon the use of the titles of the kings of Persia, is fully answered by the fact that the same titles as those used in these books are found to have been used by the Persian kings themselves. (See the articles of the present writer in the Presbyterian Reformed Review for 1905-6.) The "Darius the Persian" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,22);">Ne 12:22</a> is shown by the Sachau papyri to have been Darius Notbus, as Keil long ago suggested. The author may have called him "the Persian" to distinguish him from Darius the Mede. At any rate, it is best for us to remember that our inability to explain why the author called him by this title does not prove that he did not do so. Of all the Dariuses known to history, any one might have been called "the Persian," except Darius the Mede, because all but he were Persians. The assertion that a king of Persia could only have been called a Persian "after the Persian period was past" involves, on the one hand, the assumption of such thorough knowledge of the possibilities of the usus loquendi of that time, and, on the other hand, such real ignorance of the usage of all times in such matters, as well as of the usage of the Persian and Babylonian monuments of the Persian era, as almost to cause one to believe that it can scarcely have been seriously made. (See the writer\'s articles cited above.) Josephus, it is true, apparently confuses in his account Darius II and Darius III.<P>The phrase "the days of Nehemiah" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,26);">Ne 12:26</a>) certainly implied that the final redactor "looked back upon them as past." But there is no intimation as to how long they were past. According to <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',5,14);">Ne 5:14</a>, Nehemiah returned to Babylon in the 32nd year of Artaxerxes, that is, in 434 BC. As Bagoas was already governor of Jerusalem, and Johnnan high priest in 408 BC, a writer living about 400 BC can very well have referred to what happened "in the days of Joiakim...and in the days of Nehemiah the governor, and of Ezra the priest and the scribe" as having occurred "in the days of Zerubbabel, and in the days of Nehemiah" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,47);">Ne 12:47</a>). From all we know it appears that these were the only Jews who were ever governors of Jerusalem under the Persian domination. Certainly Bagoas is not a Hebrew name any more than Sanballat, and it looks as if on the death of Nehemiah his place as governor of Jerusalem had been filled by a native Persian just as the governorship of Samaria was held by Sanballat, a Cuthean. If we can trust Josephus, Bagoas treated the Jews with harshness and even desecrated the temple itself (Ant., XI, vii, 1). Already, then, in 405 BC, any patriotic and pious Israelite may have justly looked back upon the days of their native governors with longing and pride, and have written with appropriate eulogy of the days of Zerubbabel, Nehemiah and Ezra<72>the time of his people\'s semi-independence and of the glorious and unforgetable restoration of the temple and city, just as we today refer to the time of Bismarck, Victoria, or Lincoln (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',13,3);">1Ch 13:3</a>). Waiving the discussion of the probability of Ezra\'s having called himself "a ready scribe in the law of Moses," and one who had prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord, etc., it certainly cannot be denied that someone writing in 405 BC may have employed the language here used. There is not the slightest proof that any of Ezra-Nehemiah is unhistorical, nor the least indication that all of it may not have been written as early as 405 BC. The section <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,\'1-6\');">Ezr 4:1-6</a> presents difficulties of date and composition. The section may have been misplaced. It may be episodical. It may be explained, as suggested by Klostermann, as having been inserted here as a sort of resume which is later expanded. But however explained, it is a literary rather than a historical or linguistic problem which it presents, and may safely be left for solution to those who think that everything in literature whose purpose or meaning they cannot perceive is therefore inexplicable.<P>In conclusion, we Would say in the words of Professor Cornill, that since Ed. Meyer\'s demonstration of the authenticity of the documents in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,\'1-\');">Ezr 4-7</a>, the hypercritical reconstruction of the books "has lost all claim to serious consideration, and we may rest assured that in Ezra-Nehemiah we have every reason to recognize an essentially trustworthy recital of the events narrated therein."<P>9. Text:<P>The most thorough investigation of the text of Ezra-Nehemiah has been made by Professor A. Klostermann, his results being published in the 3rd German edition of RE. After an examination of the Arabic, Syriac, Greek and Latin versions and a comparison of them with the Hebrew Massoretic Text, he comes to the conclusion that our Hebrew text as a whole is of more value than that represented by the versions. The writer of this article has noted a wonderful accuracy in the transmission of the Aramaic part of Ezra, the spelling or writing of the words resembling in many of the smallest particulars that of the Aramaic papyri of Elephantine, which date from the 5th century BC.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Commentaries and Introductions: A, Introductions: Sayce, Introduction to Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther; Angus-Suen, The Cyclopedic Hand-Book to the Bible; Rarnu, Introduction to the Old Testament; Keil, Old Testament Intro. B, Commentaries: Keil, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther; Rawlinson, in the Speaker\'s Comm., and in the Pulpit Commentary; and in Ezra and Nehemiah ("Men of the Bible" series); Lange\'s Comm.; Meyer, Entstehung des Judenthums; OTJC2; RE2.``196';
isbe[3340]='Ezrahite`ez\'-ra-hit (\'ezrachi; Asebon):<P>Found in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,31);">1Ki 4:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',88,1);">Psalm 88</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',89,1);">Psalm 89, titles</a>; from which it appears that the word is a patronymic for Ethan and Heman. It may be derived from Zerah, instead of Ezrah, seeing that there were an Ethan and a Heman who were descendants of Zerah, head of a Judahite family (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,6);">1Ch 2:6</a>).<P>There were also an Ethan and a Heman who were Levites (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',15,17);">1Ch 15:17</a>).``1';
isbe[3341]='Ezri`ez\'-ri (\'ezri, "my help"; Ezrai, or Ezdri):<P>"Ezri, the son of Chelub," appointed by David to be superintendent of agriculture (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',27,26);">1Ch 27:26</a>).``1';
isbe[3342]='Ezril`ez\'-ril (Ezril, the King James Version Esril):<P>One who had married a foreign wife (1Esdras 9:34); called Azarel in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,41);">Ezr 10:41</a>.``1';
isbe[3343]='Fable`fa\'-b\'-l (muthos):<P>(1) Primitive man conceives of the objects around him as possessing his own characteristics. Consequently in his stories, beasts, trees, rocks, etc., think, talk and act exactly as if they were human beings. Of course, but little advance in knowledge was needed to put an end to this mode of thought, but the form of story-telling developed by it persisted and is found in the folk-tales of all nations. More particularly, the archaic form of story was used for the purpose of moral instruction, and when so used is termed the fable. Modern definitions distinguish it from the parable<P>(a) by its use of characters of lower intelligence than man (although reasoning and speaking like men), and<P>(b) by its lesson for this life only. But, while these distinctions serve some practical purpose in distinguishing (say) the fables of Aesop from the parables of Christ, they are of little value to the student of folk-lore. For fable, parable, allegory, etc., are all evolutions from a common stock, and they tend to blend with each other.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ALLEGORY">ALLEGORY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PARABLE">PARABLE</a>.<P>(2) The Semitic mind is peculiarly prone to allegorical expression, and a modern Arabian storyteller will invent a fable or a parable as readily as he will talk. And we may be entirely certain that the very scanty appearance of fables in the Old Testament is due only to the character of its material and not at all to an absence of fables from the mouths of the Jews of old. Only two examples have reached us. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',9,\'7-15\');">Jud 9:7-15</a> Jotham mocks the choice of AbimeItch as king with the fable of the trees that could find no tree that would accept the trouble of the kingship except the worthless bramble. And in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',14,9);">2Ki 14:9</a> Jehoash ridicules the pretensions of Amaziah with the story of the thistle that wished to make a royal alliance with the cedar. Yet that the distinction between fable and allegory, etc., is artificial is seen in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',5,1,2);">Isa 5:1-2</a>, where the vineyard is assumed to possess a deliberate will to be perverse.<P>(3) In the New Testament, "fable" is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,4);">1Ti 1:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',4,7);">4:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,4);">2Ti 4:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,14);">Tit 1:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,16);">2Pe 1:16</a>, as the translation of muthos ("myth"). The sense here differs entirely from that discussed above, and "fable" means a (religious) story that has no connection with reality<74>contrasted with the knowledge of an eyewitness in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,16);">2Pe 1:16</a>. The exact nature of these "fables" is of course something out of our knowledge, but the mention in connection with them of "endless genealogies" in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,4);">1Ti 1:4</a> points with high probability to some form of Gnostic speculation that interposed a chain of eons between God and the world. In some of the Gnostic systems that we know, these chains are described with a prolixity so interminable (the Pistis Sophia is the best example) as to justify well the phrase "old wives\' fables" in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',4,7);">1Ti 4:7</a>. But that these passages have Gnostic reference need not tell against the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals, as a fairly well developed "Gnosticism" is recognizable in a passage as early as <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,\'1-\');">Col 2</a>, and as the description of the fables as Jewish in <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,14);">Tit 1:14</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',3,9);">Tit 3:9</a>) is against 2nd-century references. But for details the commentaries on the Pastoral Epistles must be consulted. It is worth noting that in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,4);">2Ti 4:4</a> the adoption of these fables is said to be the result of dabbling in the dubious. This manner of losing one\'s hold on reality is, unfortunately, something not confined to the apostolic age.``48';
isbe[3344]='Face`fas: In Hebrew the translation of three expressions:<P>(1) panim<P>(2) \'ayin, literally, "eye" and<P>(3) \'aph, literally, "nose," "nostril," already noted under the word <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=COUNTENANCE">COUNTENANCE</a>, which see.<P>The first and second of these words are used synonymously, even in metaphorical expressions, as, for example in the phrase "the face of the earth," where panim is used (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',6,15);">De 6:15</a> et passim) and \'ayin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',22,5);">Nu 22:5</a> et passim). The third expression preserves more clearly its original meaning. It is generally used in the phrases "to bow one\'s self to the earth," "to fall on one\'s face," where the nose actually touched the ground. Often "my face," "thy face" is mere oriental circumlocution for the personal pronoun "I," "me," "thou," "thee." "In thy face" means "in thy presence;" and is often so translated. A very large number of idiomatic Hebrew expressions have been introduced into our language through the medium of the Bible translation. We notice the most important of these phrases.<P>"To seek the face" is to seek an audience with a prince or with God, to seek favor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',24,6);">Ps 24:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',27,8);">27:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',105,4);">105:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',7,15);">Pr 7:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',5,15);">Ho 5:15</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',29,26);">Pr 29:26</a>, where the Revised Version (British and American) translates "Many seek the ruler\'s favor," literally, many seek the face (Hebrew pene) of a ruler).<P>If God "hides his face" He withdraws His presence, His favor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,20);">De 32:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',34,29);">Job 34:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',13,1);">Ps 13:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',30,7);">30:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',143,7);">143:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',54,8);">Isa 54:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',33,5);">Jer 33:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',39,23,24);">Eze 39:23-24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',3,4);">Mic 3:4</a>). Such withdrawal of the presence of God is to be understood as a consequence of man\'s personal disobedience, not as a wrathful denial of God\'s favor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',59,2);">Isa 59:2</a>). God is asked to "hide his face," i.e. to disregard or overlook (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',51,9);">Ps 51:9</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',10,11);">Ps 10:11</a>). This is also the idea of the prayer: "Cast me not away from thy presence" (literally, "face," <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',51,11);">Ps 51:11</a>), and of the promise: "The upright shall dwell in thy presence" (literally, "face," <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',140,13);">Ps 140:13</a>). If used of men, "to hide the face" expresses humility and reverence before an exalted presence (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,6);">Ex 3:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',6,2);">Isa 6:2</a>); similarly Elijah "wrapped his face in his mantle" when God passed by (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',19,13);">1Ki 19:13</a>). The "covering of the face" is a sign of mourning (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',19,4);">2Sa 19:4</a> = <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',12,6,12);">Eze 12:6,12</a>); a "face covered with fatness" is synonymous with prosperity and arrogance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',15,27);">Job 15:27</a>); to have one\'s face covered by another person is a sign of hopeless doom, as if one were already dead. This was done to Human, when judgment had been pronounced over him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',7,8);">Es 7:8</a>).<P>"To turn away one\'s face" is a sign of insulting indifference or contempt (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',29,6);">2Ch 29:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',14,6);">Eze 14:6</a>; Sirach 4:4; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',2,27);">Jer 2:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',18,17);">18:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',32,33);">32:33</a>); on the part of God an averted face is synonymous with rejection (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',13,1);">Ps 13:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',27,9);">27:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',88,14);">88:14</a>).<P>"To harden the face" means to harden one\'s self against any sort of appeal (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',21,29);">Pr 21:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',50,7);">Isa 50:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',5,3);">Jer 5:3</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',3,9);">Eze 3:9</a>).<P>See also <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SPIT;+SPITTLE">SPIT</a>.<P>In this connection we also mention the phrase "to respect persons," literally, to "recognize the face" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,15);">Le 19:15</a>, or, slightly different in expression, <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',1,17);">De 1:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',16,19);">16:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',24,\'1-\');">Pr 24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',23,\'1-\');">23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',28,21);">28:21</a>), in the sense of unjustly favoring a person, or requiting him with undue evil. Compare also the Hebrew hadhar (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,3);">Ex 23:3</a> the King James Version), "to countenance" (see under the word).<P>The "showbread" meant literally, "bread of the face," "of the presence," Hebrew lechem panim; Greek artoi enopioi, artoi tes protheseos.``106';
isbe[3345]='Fact`Lit. "a deed."<P>The word occurs only in the heading of the chapter, <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',10,\'1-\');">2Ki 10</a> the King James Version, "Jehu excuseth the fact by the prophecy of Elijah," and in 2Macc 4:36, with reference to the murder of Onias, "certain of the Greeks that abhorred the fact (the deed) also" (summisoponerounton, literally, "hating wickedness together with (others))," the Revised Version (British and American) "the Greeks also joining with them in hatred of the wickedness."``1';
isbe[3346]='Fade`fad (nabhel; maraino): "To fade" is in the Old Testament the translation of nabhel, "to droop or wither," figuratively, "to fade," or "pass way" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',18,45);">Ps 18:45</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,30);">Isa 1:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',24,4);">24:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',28,1,4);">28:1,4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,7,8);">40:7-8</a>); once it is the translation of balal "to well up," "to overflow"; perhaps from nabhal (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',64,6);">Isa 64:6</a>, "We all do fade as a leaf"); in the New Testament of maraino, "to come to wither or to fade away" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,11);">Jas 1:11</a>, "So also shall the rich man fade away in his ways," the Revised Version (British and American) "in his goings"); compare The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 2:8</span>, "Let us crown ourselves with rosebuds, before they be withered" (maraino); amardntinos (amaranth), "unfading," occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,4);">1Pe 5:4</a>, "the crown of glory that fadeth not away," and amarantos (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,4);">1Pe 1:4</a>), "an inheritance...that fadeth not away"; compare The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 6:12</span>, "Wisdom is glorious (the Revised Version (British and American) "radiant"), and fadeth not away."<P>For "fade" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',47,12);">Eze 47:12</a>), the Revised Version (British and American) has "wither"; for "fall" "falleth" "falling" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,4);">Isa 34:4</a>), "fade," "fadeth," "fading".``185';
isbe[3347]='Fail`fal (kalah, karath; ekleipo): "Fail" is both intransitive, "to fall short," "be wanting," and trans, "to be wanting to."<P>Of the many words translated "fail" in the Old Testament, kalah is the most frequent, meaning "to be consumed," "ended" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',11,20);">Job 11:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',17,5);">17:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',69,3);">Ps 69:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',71,9);">71:9</a>, etc.; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',22,8);">Pr 22:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',15,6);">Isa 15:6</a>, etc.; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',14,6);">Jer 14:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',2,11);">La 2:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',3,22);">3:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',4,17);">4:17</a>); it is the translation of karath, "to be cut off" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',3,29);">2Sa 3:29</a>, of failure in succession; so <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',2,4);">1Ki 2:4</a>, etc.); \'adhar, "to marshal," "to be missed" or "lacking" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,16);">Isa 34:16</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,26);">Isa 40:26</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',59,15);">Isa 59:15</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',3,5);">Ze 3:5</a>); of raphah, "to become faint" or "to make feeble" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',31,6,8);">De 31:6,8</a>; "I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee," <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',1,5);">Jos 1:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',28,20);">1Ch 28:20</a>); of\'-abhadh, "to perish," "be lost" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',142,4);">Ps 142:4</a>, "Refuge hath failed me"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',12,22);">Eze 12:22</a>, "Every vision faileth"). Many other Hebrew words are translated "fail," "faileth," for the most part in single instances.<P>In the New Testament, ekleipo, "to leave out" or "off," is thrice rendered "fail" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,9);">Lu 16:9</a> "when it shall fail"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,32);">Lu 22:32</a>, "that thy faith fail not"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,12);">Heb 1:12</a>, "Thy years shall not fail"); ekpipto, "to fall off or away" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',13,8);">1Co 13:8</a>, "Charity (the Revised Version (British and American) "love") never faileth"); katargeo, "to make useless" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',13,8);">1Co 13:8</a> the King James Version, "Whether prophecies, they shall fail"); hustereo, "to be behind," "to lack" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,15);">Heb 12:15</a> the King James Version); apopsucho, "to swoon away," "failing" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,26);">Lu 21:26</a> the King James Version).<P>The Revised Version (British and American) has "fail," in a new translation of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',18,14);">Jer 18:14</a>, for "fall" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',1,14);">La 1:14</a>, margin "stumble"); "his hand fail" for "fallen in decay" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,35);">Le 25:35</a>); "I will in no wise fail thee" for "I will never leave thee" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',13,5);">Heb 13:5</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',31,6);">De 31:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',1,5);">Jos 1:5</a>); "failed to enter" for "entered not" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',4,6);">Heb 4:6</a>); "faileth" (American Standard Revised Version) for "ceaseth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',49,8);">Ps 49:8</a>), the English Revised Version "must be let alone for ever"; "failing" for "was darkened" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,45);">Lu 23:45</a>); for "fail" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,22);">Ezr 4:22</a>), "be slack," "be missing" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,16);">Isa 34:16</a>); "falleth short of" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,15);">Heb 12:15</a>, maqrgin, "falleth bacf from"); for "failed," "was all spent" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',47,15);">Ge 47:15</a>); "wholly" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',3,16);">Jos 3:16</a>); "fail (in looking)" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',4,17);">La 4:17</a>); for "faileth," "is lacking" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,26);">Isa 40:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',59,15);">59:15</a>); for "men\'s hearts failing them" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,26);">Lu 21:26</a>), "men fainting," margin "expiring."``185';
isbe[3348]='Fain`fan (advb.): Occurs twice in English Versions of the Bible, in the sense of "gladly":<P>(1) in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',27,22);">Job 27:22</a> as the rendering of barach, "to flee with haste" (from anything), "He would fain flee out of his hand," literally, as in in of the King James Version, "in fleeing he would flee";<P>(2) in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',15,16);">Lu 15:16</a>, as the translation of epithumeo, "to fix the mind or desire on," "He would fain have filled his belly with the husks which the swine did eat." the Revised Version (British and American) adds two instances:<P>(1) <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',13,31);">Lu 13:31</a>, "Herod would fain kill thee";<P>(2) <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',26,28);">Ac 26:28</a>, "Thou wouldest fain make me a Christian."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ALMOST">ALMOST</a>`1';
isbe[3349]='Faint`fant (\'ayeph, \'uph, ya\'aph, \'alaph, ataph, dawway, yaghea\', macac, rakhakh, paghar, kahah; ekluo, ekkakeo, kamno): The Hebrew vocabulary for the depressing physical conditions and mental emotions which are rendered in the King James Version by the English words "faint," "fainthess," and other compounds of that stem, is, as will be seen above, wide and varied in derivation. The 11 Hebrew and 3 Greek words and their derivatives are used in 62 passages in the King James Version to express these conditions.<P>\'Ayeph is used to express the exhaustion from fatigue and hunger in the case of Esau (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,29,30);">Ge 25:29-30</a>). This and its variants come from a root which primarily means "to cover or conceal," therefore "to be dark or obscure," and so, figuratively, "to be faint or depressed." Israel\'s helpless state when harassed by Amalek (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',25,18);">De 25:18</a>) and the plight of Gideon\'s weary force when they sought in vain for help at Succoth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,4);">Jud 8:4</a>) are described by the same word. Isaiah also uses it to picture the disappointed and unsatisfied appetite of the thirsty man awakening from his dream of refreshment (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',29,8);">Isa 29:8</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',16,14);">2Sa 16:14</a>, \'ayephim is probably a proper name of a place (Revised Version, margin).<P>\'Uph in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,\'28-31\');">1Sa 14:28-31</a> describes the exhaustion of Saul\'s host in pursuit of the Philistines after the battle of Michmash. The same word expresses the failure of David\'s strength when in conflict with the same foes, which led to his imminent peril and to the consequent refusal of the commander of his army to allow him to take part personally in the combat (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,15);">2Sa 21:15</a>).<P>Ya\'-aph is used by Ziba when he brought refreshments to David\'s men on the flight from Absalom (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',16,2);">2Sa 16:2</a>); see also its use in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,28);">Isa 40:28</a>. Cognate verbal forms occur in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,30,31);">Isa 40:30-31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',2,24);">Jer 2:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,58,64);">51:58,64</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',2,13);">Hab 2:13</a>, as also in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,15);">Jud 8:15</a>, meaning in all cases the faintness or exhaustion of fatigue or weariness.<P>\'Alpah expresses the faintness from thirst in <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',8,13);">Am 8:13</a>, or from the heat of the sun (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jon\',4,8);">Jon 4:8</a>), and figuratively, the despondency which was the result of the captivity (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',51,20);">Isa 51:20</a>). Ezekiel uses it allegorically as describing the withering of the trees for grief at the death of the Assyrian kings (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',31,15);">Eze 31:15</a>).<P>\'ATaph is the weariness of the wanderers in the desert (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',107,5);">Ps 107:5</a>), the faintness from hunger (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',2,19);">La 2:19</a>), or the despondency of Jonah dispelled by his remembrance of God\'s mercies (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jon\',2,7);">Jon 2:7</a>).<P>Dawway, from a root which signifies the sickness produced by exhaustion from loss of blood, is used in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,5);">Isa 1:5</a> for the faintness of heart, the result of remorse for sin, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',8,18);">Jer 8:18</a> for the prophet\'s sorrow for the sins of Israel. A cognate form expresses his sorrow on account of the judgments of God which were incurred as punishments for the national backsliding (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',1,13);">La 1:13-12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',5,17);">5:17</a>).<P>Macac, literally, "dissolving or melting," is applied to the contagious fear which the example of a cowardly soldier produces among his comrades (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',20,8);">De 20:8</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "melt"). In the remarkable passage in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,18);">Isa 10:18</a>, in which God pronounces the doom of Assyria when his purposes of chastisement on Israel have been fulfilled, the collapse of Assyria is said to be "as when a standard-bearer fainteth." For this the Revised Version, margin substitutes "as when a sick man pineth away," which is probably the correct rendering. The word macac may mean either a sick man, or else something glittering and seen from afar, such as a standard, but the former sense is more intelligible and suggestive in the context. The rarely used verbal form cognate to macac is used on account of its assonance. Yaghea\' (yagha\'), which is usually translated "grieved" or "tormented" or "fatigued," is rendered as "fainted" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',45,3);">Jer 45:3</a>. This passage, "I fainted in my sighing" the King James Version, is in Hebrew the same as that which reads, "I am weary with my groaning" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',6,6);">Ps 6:6</a>, and is similarly rendered in the Revised Version (British and American).<P>Rakhakh, like macac, primarily signifies "to melt" or "to become soft," and is used in prophetic exhortations in which the people are encouraged not to be panic-stricken in the presence of enemies (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',20,3);">De 20:3</a>, and also <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,46);">Jer 51:46</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',7,4);">Isa 7:4</a>). Another related word, morekh, in the sense of despair and utter loss of courage, is used in expressing the consequences of God\'s wrath against Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,36);">Le 26:36</a>). In its literal sense it signifies "blandness," as of the words of a hypocritical enemy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',55,21);">Ps 55:21</a>).<P>Paghar is the prostration of utter fatigue whereby one is unable to raise himself or to proceed on a journey, as were some of David\'s little band (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',30,\'10-21\');">1Sa 30:10-21</a>). A cognate word describes the prostration of amazement and incredulity with which Jacob heard of Joseph\'s condition in Egypt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',45,26);">Ge 45:26</a>).<P>Kahah, the pining of earnest, longing desire, is translated "fainteth" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',84,2);">Ps 84:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,81);">119:81</a>; elsewhere it is rendered by words expressing wasting or languishing. The panic in Canaan due to famine is expressed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',47,13);">Ge 47:13</a>) by the word lahah, which implies a state of frenzy.<P>The only records of actual fainting are<P>(1) Daniel, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',8,27);">Da 8:27</a>, where the word used is the Niphal of the verb hayah, literally, "became," meaning that he became weak;<P>(2) swooning is mentioned in Additions to <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',5,\'7-14\');">Esther 5:7-14</a>.<P>In the New Testament "faint" is used in the sense of physical exhaustion (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',9,36);">Mt 9:36</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',15,32);">Mt 15:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,3);">Mr 8:3</a>), where it is part of the verb ekluo, "to relax." Otherwise it is used figuratively of discouragement of spirit. The same verb is used in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',6,9);">Ga 6:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,3,5);">Heb 12:3,5</a>; but in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,1);">Lu 18:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',4,\'1-16\');">2Co 4:1-16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,13);">Eph 3:13</a> it is part of the verb ekkakeo (according to some authorities egkakeo, pronounced enkakeo, meaning "to be faint-hearted" or "to be culpably negligent"). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,3);">Re 2:3</a> it is kopiao, literally, "to be tired."``107';
isbe[3350]='Fair`far: The word translated in the King James Version from 9 Hebrew and 4 Greek expressions has nowhere in the Bible the modern sense of "blond," "fair-skinned." The translation of <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',54,11);">Isa 54:11</a>, "fair colors," refers to the cosmetic use of pukh, stibium, antimony powder, with which black margins were painted around the eyelids, so as to make the eyes appear large and dark. The stones of rebuilt Jerusalem, beautifully laid in their black mortar, are compared with such eyes. We can distinguish the following varieties of meaning:<P>(1) Beautiful, attractive, Tobh, yaphah, yapheh; Aramaic shappir; Septuagint kalos; in the New Testament asteios. This latter word is in both places where it is found used of Moses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,20);">Ac 7:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,23);">Heb 11:23</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "goodly"), and means literally, town bred (as opposed to boorish), polite, polished in manners, urbane, then nice, pretty.<P>(2) Pure, free of defilement, the Revised Version (British and American) "clean," Tahor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',3,5);">Zec 3:5</a>).<P>(3) "Fair speech," plausible, persuasive (leqah, <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',7,21);">Pr 7:21</a>; eulalos, Sirach 6:5; compare eulogia, <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,18);">Ro 16:18</a>).<P>(4) Making a fine display (euprosopein, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',6,12);">Ga 6:12</a>, "to make a fair show").<P>(5) Good (of weather) (zahabh, "golden," "clear," <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',37,22);">Job 37:22</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "golden splendor"); eudia (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,2);">Mt 16:2</a>).``106';
isbe[3351]='Fair Havens`far ha\'-v\'-nz (Kaloi Limenes): A roadstead on the south coast of Crete, about 5 miles east of Cape Matala, the most southerly point of the island. The harbor is formed by a bay, open to the east, and sheltered on the southwest by two small islands. Here Paul waited for a considerable time (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',27,9);">Ac 27:9</a>); but while it afforded good anchorage and a shelter from north and northwest winds, "the haven was not commodious to winter in" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',27,8,12);">Ac 27:8,12</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CRETE">CRETE</a>`1';
isbe[3352]='Fairs`farz: Found only 5 times in the King James Version (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,12,14,16,19,27);">Eze 27:12,14,16,19,27</a>), apparently incorrect translation of \'izzabhon, according to modern Hebraists (though Gesenius gives "fair" as one of its meanings). The Septuagint translates the Hebrew of the above five passages by two different words, agora, "market-place" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,12,14,16,19);">Eze 27:12,14,16,19</a>), and misthos, "hire," "pay" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,27,33);">Eze 27:27,33</a>). The King James Version follows the Wyclif version in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,12);">Eze 27:12</a> and the Geneva version throughout, although it properly translates "wares" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,33);">Eze 27:33</a>. the Revised Version (British and American) gives "<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WARES">wares</a>" (which see) throughout.``1';
isbe[3353]='Faith`fath:<P>1. Etymology<P>2. Meaning: a Divergency<P>3. Faith in the Sense of Creed<P>4. A Leading Passage Explained<P>5. Remarks<P>6. Conclusion<hr /><P>In the Old Testament (the King James Version) the word occurs only twice: <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,20);">De 32:20</a> (\'emun); <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',2,4);">Hab 2:4</a> (\'emunah). In the latter the Revised Version (British and American) places in the margin the alternative rendering, "faithfulness." In the New Testament it is of very frequent occurrence, always representing pistis, with one exception in the King James Version (not the Revised Version (British and American)), <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,23);">Heb 10:23</a>, where it represents elpis, "hope."<P>1. Etymology:<P>The history of the English word is rather interesting than important; use and contexts, alike for it and its Hebrew and Greek parallels, are the surest guides to meaning. But we may note that it occurs in the form "feyth," in Havelok the Dane (13th century); that it is akin to fides and this again to the Sanskrit root bhidh, "to unite," "to bind." It is worth while to recall this primeval suggestion of the spiritual work of faith, as that which, on man\'s side, unites him to God for salvation.<P>2. Meaning: a Divergency:<P>Studying the word "faith" in the light of use and contexts, we find a bifurcation of significance in the Bible. We may word distinguish the two senses as the passive and the active; on the one side, "fidelity," "trustworthiness"; and "faith," "trust," on the other. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,22);">Ga 5:22</a>, for example, context makes it clear that "fidelity" is in view, as a quality congruous with the associated graces. (the Revised Version (British and American) accordingly renders pistis there by "faithfulness.") Again, <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,3);">Ro 3:3</a> the King James Version, "the faith of God," by the nature of the case, means His fidelity to promise. But in the overwhelming majority of cases, "faith," as rendering pistis, means "reliance," "trust." To illustrate would be to quote many scores of passages. It may be enough here to call attention to the recorded use of the by our Lord. Of about twenty passages in the Gospels where pistis occurs as coming from His lips, only one (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,23);">Mt 23:23</a>) presents it in the apparent sense of "fidelity." All the others conspicuously demand the sense of "reliance," "trust." The same is true of the apostolic writings. In them, with rarest exceptions, the words "reliance," "trust," precisely fit the context as alternatives to "faith."<p>3. Faith in the Sense of Creed:<P>Another line of meaning is traceable in a very few passages, where pistis, "faith," appears in the sense of "creed," the truth, or body of truth, which is trusted, or which justifies trust. The most important of such places is the paragraph <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',2,\'14-26\');">Jas 2:14-26</a>, where an apparent contradiction to some great Pauline dicta perplexes many readers. The riddle is solved by observing that the writer uses "faith" in the sense of creed, orthodox "belief." This is clear from <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',2,19);">Jas 2:19</a>, where the "faith." in question is illustrated: "Thou believest that God is one." This is the credal confession of the orthodox Jew (the shema\'; see <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',6,4);">De 6:4</a>), taken as a passport to salvation. Briefly, James presses the futility of creed without life, Paul the necessity of reliance in order to receive "life and peace."<P>4. A Leading Passage Explained:<P>It is important to notice that <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,1);">Heb 11:1</a> is no exception to the rule that "faith" normally means "reliance," "trust." There "Faith is the substance (or possibly, in the light of recent inquiries into the type of Greek used by New Testament writers, "the guaranty") of things hoped for, the evidence (or "convincing proof") of things not seen." This is sometimes interpreted as if faith, in the writer\'s view, were, so to speak, a faculty of second sight, a mysterious intuition into the spiritual world. But the chapter amply shows that the faith illustrated, e. g. by Abraham, Moses, Rahab, was simply reliance upon a God known to be trustworthy. Such reliance enabled the believer to treat the future as present and the invisible as seen. In short, the phrase here, "faith is the evidence," etc., is parallel in form to our familiar saying, "Knowledge is power."<P>5. Remarks:<P>A few detached remarks may be added: (a) The history of the use of the Greek pistis is instructive. In the Septuagint it normally, if not always, bears the "passive" sense "fidelity," "good faith," while in classical Greek it not rarely bears the active sense, "trust." In the koine, the type of Greek universally common at the Christian era, it seems to have adopted the active meaning as the ruling one only just in time, so to speak, to provide it for the utterance of Him whose supreme message was "reliance," and who passed that message on to His apostles. Through their lips and pens "faith," in that sense, became the supreme watchword of Christianity.<P>6. Conclusion:<P>In conclusion, without trespassing on the ground of other articles, we call the reader\'s attention, for his Scriptural studies, to the central place of faith in Christianity, and its significance. As being, in its true idea, a reliance as simple as possible upon the word, power, love, of Another, it is precisely that which, on man\'s side, adjusts him to the living and merciful presence and action of a trusted God. In its nature, not by any mere arbitrary arrangement, it is his one possible receptive attitude, that in which he brings nothing, so that he may receive all. Thus "faith" is our side of union with Christ. And thus it is our means of possessing all His benefits, pardon, justification, purification, life, peace, glory.<P>As a comment on our exposition of the ruling meaning of "faith" in Scripture, we may note that this precisely corresponds to its meaning in common life, where, for once that the word means anything else, it means "reliance" a hundred times. Such correspondence between religious terms (in Scripture) and the meaning of the same words in common life, will be found to be invariable.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUSTIFICATION">JUSTIFICATION</a>`46';
isbe[3354]='Faithful Sayings`sa\'-inz (pistos ho logos): "This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation" (the King James Version). These words form a striking formula which is found<6E>with slight variations<6E>only in the Pastoral Epistles, in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,15);">1Ti 1:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',3,1);">3:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',4,9);">4:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',2,11);">2Ti 2:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',3,8);">Tit 3:8</a>. A similar expression occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',21,5);">Re 21:5</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,6);">Re 22:6</a> (the King James Version), "These sayings are faithful and true."<P>The Five "Sayings."<P>Paul\'s faithful sayings are thus five in number, and "were no doubt rehearsed constantly in the assemblies, till they became well-known watchwords in the various churches scattered over the Mediterranean-washed provinces of the Roman empire" (Ellicott, New Testament Commentary on <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,15);">1Ti 1:15</a>).<P>1. The First "Saying":<P>The first of the faithful sayings speaks of the pre-existence of Christ, of His coming into the world, and the purpose why He came is distinctly stated<65>to save the lost, irrespective of race or nationality, sinners who, apart from Christ, are without God and without hope.<P>2. The Second "Saying":<P>The second of the faithful sayings refers to the work of being a minister of the gospel, a work then so full of danger and always full of difficulty. The office in question is honorable and Christlike, and, in those early days, it meant stern and ceaseless work, grave and constant danger. This faithful saying would act as a call to young men to offer themselves for the work of proclaiming the gospel to the world, and of witnessing for Christ.<P>3. The Third "Saying":<P>The third saying is that godliness has an influence that is world-wide; it consists, not merely in holiness and in that fellowship and communion with God which is the very life of the soul; it is also an active force which springs from "the love of Christ constraining us," and manifests itself in love toward all our fellow-men, for they are God\'s creatures. Godliness transfigures every rank and condition of life. It has the promise of the life that now is: to those who seek the kingdom of God first, all other things will be added. And it has the promise of the life that is to come, the rich prospect of eternal blessedness with Christ. Compare with this saying the remarkable words in <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,2);">Tit 1:2</a>, "in hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised before times eternal." Godliness gives all gladness here, and future glory too. This is a faithful saying.<P>4. The Fourth "Saying":<P>The fourth of the faithful sayings speaks of the Christian believer\'s union with Christ, and of the blessedness of that union. The Christian is "dead with Christ," he "suffers with Christ." But the union with Christ is eternal, "We shall also live with him;...we shall also reign with him" in life that is fadeless, endless and full of glory. Surely then, no one will draw back, for "if we deny him," "if we believe not," "he also will deny us," for "he abideth faithful, he cannot deny himself."<P>5. The Fifth "Saying":<P>The fifth and last of the faithful sayings speaks of our former unconverted state, "for we also once were foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures. But...the kindness and love of God...toward man appeared, not by works which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us." Blessedness is now the Christian\'s lot, and this is the result not of our works: we owe it all to the tender love of God, to His Divine pity, to His redeeming grace. Yes, this is a faithful saying.``155';
isbe[3355]='Faithful; Faithfulness`fath\'-fool, fath\'-fool-nes:<p>1. Faithfulness of God in the Old Testament<P>2. Faithfulness of God in the New Testament<P>LITERATURE<P>Faithfulness is a quality or attribute applied in the Scripture to both God and man. This article is limited to the consideration of the Scripture teaching concerning the meaning of faithfulness in its application to God.<P>Faithfulness is one of the characteristics of God\'s ethical nature. It denotes the firmness or constancy of God in His relations with men, especially with His people. It is, accordingly, one aspect of God\'s truth and of His unchangeableness. God is true not only because He is really God in contrast to all that is not God, and because He realizes the idea of Godhead, but also because He is constant or faithful in keeping His promises, and therefore is worthy of trust (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TRUTH">TRUTH</a>). God, likewise, is unchangeable in His ethical nature. This unchangeableness the Scripture often connects with God\'s goodness and mercy, and also with His constancy in reference to His covenant promises, and this is what the Old Testament means by the Faithfulness of God (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=UNCHANGEABLENESS">UNCHANGEABLENESS</a>).<P>1. Faithfulfulness of God in the Old Testament:<P>In the Old Testament this attribute is ascribed to God in passages where the Hebrew words denoting faithfulness do not occur. It is implied in the covenant name Yahweh as unfolded in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,\'13-15\');">Ex 3:13-15</a>, which not only expresses God\'s self-existence and unchangeableness, but, as the context indicates, puts God\'s immutability in special relation to His gracious promises, thus denoting God\'s unchangeable faithfulness which is emphasized in the Old Testament to awaken trust in God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',7,9);">De 7:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',36,5);">Ps 36:5 (Hebrew 6)</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',11,5);">Isa 11:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',12,6,9);">Ho 12:6,9</a>). (For fuller remarks on the name Yahweh in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,\'13-15\');">Ex 3:13-15</a>, see article <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=UNCHANGEABLENESS">UNCHANGEABLENESS</a>.) It is, moreover, God\'s faithfulness as well as His immutability which is implied in those passages where God is called a rock, as being the secure object of religious trust (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,4,15);">De 32:4, 15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',18,2);">Ps 18:2 (Hebrew 3)</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',42,9);">42:9 (Hebrew 10)</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',17,10);">Isa 17:10</a>, etc.). This same attribute is also implied where God reveals Himself to Moses and to Israel as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and their fathers\' God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,6,15,16);">Ex 3:6,15,16</a>). The truth concerning God here taught is not simply that He stood in a gracious relation to the Patriarchs, but that He is faithful to His gracious promise to their fathers, and that what He was to them He will continue to be to Moses and to Israel. This is the fundamental idea in the Old Testament concerning the faithfulness of God.<P>This can be seen also from the Hebrew words which are used to express this quality of God\'s nature and activity. These words are ne\'eman, the Niphal participle of the verb \'aman used as an adjective<76>"faithful"<22>and the nouns \'emeth and \'emunah<61>"faithfulness." The verbal stem \'aman means "to be secure or firm." In the Qal it denotes the firmness of that which supports something, being used in the participle of a nurse who carries a child (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,12);">Nu 11:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',4,4);">2Sa 4:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',49,23);">Isa 49:23</a>). In the Niphal it denotes the firmness of that which is supported, for example, a child which is carried (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',60,4);">Isa 60:4</a>); a well-founded house (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',2,35);">1Sa 2:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',25,28);">25:28</a>); a wall which firmly holds a nail (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',22,23,25);">Isa 22:23,25</a>); a kingdom firmly established (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',7,16);">2Sa 7:16</a>); persons secure in political station (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',7,9);">Isa 7:9</a>); a heart which is faithful (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',9,8);">Ne 9:8</a>). Hence, in the Niphal the verb comes to have the meaning of being true in the sense of the agreement of words and assertions with reality; for example, of words and revelations (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',42,20);">Ge 42:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',5,9);">Ho 5:9</a>); and of persons (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',8,2);">Isa 8:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',42,5);">Jer 42:5</a>). It has also the meaning of being faithful, being applied to men in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',12,7);">Nu 12:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',101,6);">Ps 101:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',13,13);">Ne 13:13</a>, etc. In this sense the term is applied to the covenant-keeping Yahweh to express the truth that He is firm or constant, that is, faithful in regard to His covenant promises, and will surely fulfill them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',7,9);">De 7:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',49,7);">Isa 49:7</a>; and possibly <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',11,12);">Ho 11:12 (Hebrew 12:1)</a>).<P>A similar use is made of the nouns \'emeth and \'emunah. Apart from the instances where \'emeth denotes the idea of truth or the correspondence of words and ideas with reality, and the instances where it denotes the agreement of acts and words with the inner disposition, that is, sincerity, it is also used to denote the idea of faithfulness as above defined. As regards the noun \'emunah, apart from a few passages where it is doubtful whether it means truth or faithfulness, it usually denotes the latter idea. Both these nouns, then, are used to signify the idea of faithfulness, that is, constancy or firmness, especially in the fulfillment of all obligations. In this sense these words are not only applied to men, but also to God to express the idea that He is always faithful to His covenant promises. It is this attribute of God which the Psalmist declares (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',40,10);">Ps 40:10 (Hebrew 11)</a>), and the greatness of which he affirms by saying that God\'s faithfulness reacheth to the clouds (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',36,5);">Ps 36:5 (Hebrew 6)</a>). It is this which he makes the object of praise (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',89,1,2);">Ps 89:1-2 (Hebrew 2,3)</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',92,2);">Ps 92:2 (Hebrew 3)</a>); and which he says should be praised and reverenced by all men (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',89,5,8);">Ps 89:5,8 (Hebrew 6,9)</a>). And even this faithfulness is itself characterized by constancy, if we may so speak, for the Psalmist says that it endures to all generations (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',100,5);">Ps 100:5</a>). Being thus a characteristic of God, it also characterizes His salvation, and becomes the basis of confidence that God will hear prayer (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',143,1);">Ps 143:1</a>). It thus becomes the security of the religious man (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',91,4);">Ps 91:4</a>); and the source of God\'s help to His people (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',31,5);">Ps 31:5 (Hebrew 6)</a>). Accordingly in the teaching of prophecy, the salvation of the covenant people rests upon no claim or merit of their own, but solely upon Yahweh\'s mercy, grace and faithfulness. When Israel incurred God\'s judgments, it might have appeared as if His promise was to fail, but, so far from this being true, as Yahweh, He is faithful to His word of promise which stands forever (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,8);">Isa 40:8</a>). Even from eternity His counsels are characterized by faithfulness and truth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',25,1);">Isa 25:1</a>); and this is not because of Israel\'s faithfulness, but it is for His own sake that Yahweh blotteth out their transgressions (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',43,\'22-25\');">Isa 43:22-25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',7,\'18-20\');">Mic 7:18-20</a>). It is, moreover, this same characteristic of Yahweh which is asserted in many cases where the Hebrew words \'emeth and \'emunah are translated by the word "truth" in the King James Version. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,6);">Ex 34:6</a> it is God\'s faithfulness (\'emeth) which is referred to, since it evidently signifies His constancy from generation to generation; and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,4);">De 32:4</a> it is also God\'s faithfulness (\'emunah) which is mentioned, since it is contrasted with the faithlessness of Israel. The same is true of \'emeth in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',7,20);">Mic 7:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',31,5);">Ps 31:5 (Hebrew 6)</a>); <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',91,4);">91:4</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',146,6);">146:6</a>. This is also true of the numerous instances where God\'s mercy and truth (\'emeth) are combined, His mercy being the source of His gracious promises, and His truth the faithfulness with which He certainly fulfills them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',25,10);">Ps 25:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',57,3);">57:3 (Hebrew 4)</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',61,7);">61:7 (Hebrew 8)</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',85,10);">85:10 (Hebrew 11)</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',86,15);">86:15</a>). And since the covenant-keeping Yahweh is faithful, faithfulness comes also to be a characteristic of the New Covenant which is everlasting (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',89,28);">Ps 89:28 (Hebrew 29)</a>; compare also for a similar thought, <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',54,8);">Isa 54:8</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,35);">Jer 31:35</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',2,19);">Ho 2:19</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',16,60);">Eze 16:60</a>ff.<P>It is in this connection, moreover, that God\'s faithfulness is closely related to His righteousness in the Old Testament. In the second half of the prophecy of Isaiah and in many of the psalms, righteousness is ascribed to God because He comes to help and save His people. Thus righteousness as a quality parallel with grace, mercy and faithfulness is ascribed to God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',41,10);">Isa 41:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',42,6);">42:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',45,13,19,21);">45:13,19,21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',63,1);">63:1</a>). It appears in these places to widen out from its exclusively judicial or forensic association and to become a quality of God as Saviour of His people. Accordingly this attribute of God is appealed to in the Psalms as the basis of hope for salvation and deliverance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',31,1);">Ps 31:1 (Hebrew 2)</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',35,24);">35:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',71,2);">71:2</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',143,11);">143:11</A>). Hence, this attribute is associated with God\'s mercy and grace (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',36,5);">Ps 36:5 (Hebrew 6)</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',36,9);">36:9 (Hebrew 10)</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',89,14);">89:14 (Hebrew 15)</a>); also with His faithfulness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',8,8);">Zec 8:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',36,6);">Ps 36:6 (Hebrew 7)</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',40,10);">Ps 40:10 (Hebrew 11)</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',88,11,12);">88:11,12 (Hebrew 12,13)</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',89,14);">89:14 (Hebrew 15)</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',96,13);">96:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,137,142);">119:137,142</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',143,1);">143:1</a>). Accordingly the Old Testament conception of the righteousness of God has been practically identified with His covenant faithfulness, by such writers as Kautzsch, Riehm and Smend, Ritschl\'s definition of it being very much the same. Moreover, Ritschl, following Diestel, denied that the idea of distributive and retributive justice is ascribed to God in the Old Testament. In regard to this latter point, it should be remarked in passing that this denial that the judicial or forensic idea of righteousness is ascribed to God in the Old Testament breaks down, not only in view of the fact that the Old Testament does ascribe this attribute to God in many ways, but also in view of the fact that in a number of passages the idea of retribution is specifically referred to the righteousness of God (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RIGHTEOUSNESS">RIGHTEOUSNESS</a>; compare against Diestel and Ritschl, Dalman, Die richterliche Gerechtigkeit im Alten Testament).<P>That which concerns us, however, in regard to this close relation between righteousness and faithfulness is to observe that this should not be pressed to the extent of the identification of righteousness with covenant faithfulness in these passages in the Psalms and the second half of Isaiah. The idea seems to be that Israel has sinned and has no claim upon Yahweh, finding her only hope of deliverance in His mercy and faithfulness. But this very fact that Yahweh is merciful and faithful becomes, as it were, Israel\'s claim, or rather the ground of Israel\'s hope of deliverance from her enemies. Hence, in the recognition of this claim of His people, God is said to be righteous in manifesting His mercy and faithfulness, so that His righteousness, no less than His mercy and faithfulness, becomes the ground of His people\'s hope. Righteousness is thus closely related in these cases to faithfulness, but it is not identified with it, nor has it in all cases lost entirely its forensic tone. This seems to be, in general, the meaning of righteousness in the Psalms and the second half of Isaiah, with which may also be compared <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',6,9);">Mic 6:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',8,8);">Zec 8:8</a>.<P>The emphasis which this attribute of God has in the Old Testament is determined by the fact that throughout the whole of the Old Testament the covenant relation of Yahweh to His people is founded solely in God\'s grace, and not on any merit of theirs. If this covenant relation had been based on any claim of Israel, faithfulness on God\'s part might have been taken for granted. But since Yahweh\'s covenant relation with Israel and His promises of salvation spring solely from, and depend wholly upon, the grace of God, that which gave firm assurance that the past experience of God\'s grace would continue in the future was this immutable faithfulness of Yahweh. By it the experience of the fathers was given a religious value for Israel from generation to generation. And even as the faithfulness of God bridged over the past and the present, so also it constituted the connecting link between the present and the future, becoming thus the firm basis of Israel\'s hope; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',89,\'1-\');">Ps 89</a> which sets forth the faithfulness of God in its greatness, its firmness as the basis of the covenant and the ground it affords of hope for future help from Yahweh, and for hope that His covenant shall endure forever. When God\'s people departed from Him all the more emphasis was put upon His faithfulness, so that the only hope of His wayward people lay not only in His grace and mercy but also in His faithfulness, which stands in marked contrast with the faithlessness and inconstancy of His people. This is probably the meaning of the difficult verse <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',11,12);">Ho 11:12 (Hebrew 12:1)</a>.<P>2. Faithfulness of God in the New Testament:<P>In the New Testament teaching concerning the faithfulness of God the same idea of faithfulness to His gracious promises is emphasized and held up as the object of a confident trust in God. This idea is usually expressed by the adjective pistos, and once by the noun pistis, which more frequently has the active sense of faith or trust.<P>An attempt has been made by Wendt (SK, 1883, 511f; Teaching of Jesus, English translation, I, 259f) to interpret the words aletheia and alethes in many instances, especially in the Johannine writings, as denoting faithfulness and rectitude, after the analogy of the Septuagint rendering eleos kai aletheia for the Hebrew phrase "mercy and truth," in which truth is equivalent to faithfulness. But the most that could be inferred from the fact that the Septuagint uses the word aletheia to translate the Hebrew word \'emeth, and in about one-half the cases where \'emunah occurs, would be that those Greek words might have been prepared for such a use in the New Testament. But while it is true that there is one usage of these words in John\'s writings in an ethical sense apparently based on the Old Testament use of \'emeth and \'emunah, the Greek words do not have this meaning when employed to denote a characteristic of God. Neither is the adjective alethinos so used.<P>In the Epistles of Paul the word aletheia occurs quite frequently to denote the truth revealed by God to man through reason and conscience, and to denote the doctrinal content of the gospel. In two passages, however, the words alethes and aletheia seem to signify the faithfulness of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,4,7);">Ro 3:4,7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,8);">15:8</a>). In the former passage Paul is contrasting the faithfulness of God with the faithlessness of men, the word alethes, <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,4);">3:4</a>, and aletheia, <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,7);">3:7</a>, apparently denoting the same Divine characteristic as the word pistis, <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,3);">3:3</a>. In the latter passage (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,8);">Ro 15:8</a>), the vindication of God\'s covenant faithfulness, through the realization of His promises to the fathers, is declared to have been the purpose of the ministry of Jesus Christ to the Jews.<P>This faithfulness of God to His covenant promises is frequently emphasized by Paul, the words he employs being the noun pistis (once) and the adjective: pistos. The noun pistis is used once by Paul in this sense (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,3);">Ro 3:3</a>). In this place Paul is arguing that the unbelief of the Jews cannot make void God\'s faithfulness. Both Jew and Gentile, the apostle had said, are on the same footing as regards justification. Nevertheless the Jews had one great advantage in that they were the people to whom the revelation of God\'s gracious promises had been committed. These promises will certainly be fulfilled, notwithstanding the fact that some of the Jews were unfaithful, because the fulfillment of these promises depends not on human conduct but on the faithfulness of God, which cannot be made void by human faithlessness and unbelief. And to the supposition that man\'s faithlessness could make of none effect God\'s faithfulness, Paul replies \'let God be faithful (alethes) and every man a liar\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,4);">Ro 3:4</a>), by which Paul means to say that in the fulfillment of God\'s promises, in spite of the fact that men are faithless, the faithfulness of God will be abundantly vindicated, even though thereby every man should be proven untrue and faithless. And not only so, but human faithlessness will give an opportunity for a manifestation of the faithfulness (aletheia) of God, abounding to His glory (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,7);">Ro 3:7</a>). God\'s faithfulness here is His unchangeable constancy and fidelity to His covenant promises; and it is this fidelity to His promises, or the fact that God\'s gracious gifts and election are without any change of mind on His part, which gave to Paul the assurance that all Israel should finally be saved (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',11,\'25-29\');">Ro 11:25-29</a>). Moreover this covenant faithfulness of God is grounded in His very nature, so that Paul\'s hope of eternal life rests on the fact that God who cannot lie promised it before the world began (<a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,2);">Tit 1:2</a>); and the certainty that God will abide faithful notwithstanding human faithlessness rests on the fact that God cannot deny Himself (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',2,13);">2Ti 2:13</a>). It is because God is faithful that His promises in Christ are yea and amen (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',1,18,20);">2Co 1:18,20</a>). This attribute of God, moreover, is the basis of Paul\'s confident assurance that God will preserve the Christian in temptation (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,13);">1Co 10:13</a>); and establish him and preserve him from evil (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',3,3);">2Th 3:3</a>). And since God is faithful and His gracious promises trustworthy, this characteristic attaches to the "faithful sayings" in the Pastoral Epistles which sum up the gospel, making them worthy of trust and acceptance (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,15);">1Ti 1:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',4,9);">4:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',3,8);">Tit 3:8</a>).<P>This faithfulness of God in the sense of fidelity to His promises is set forth as the object of sure trust and hope by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews. It was the basis of Sarah\'s faith that she would bear a child when she was past age (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,11);">Heb 11:11</a>); and it is because God is faithful to His promise in Christ that we can draw nigh to Him with full assurance of faith, holding fast without wavering the profession of hope (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,23);">Heb 10:23</a>).<P>John also ascribes this attribute to God. Since one of the most precious of God\'s promises through Christ is the pardon of sin through the "blood of Jesus Christ," John says that God\'s faithfulness, as well as His righteousness, is manifested in the forgiveness of sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,9);">1Joh 1:9</a>).<P>The faithfulness of God is viewed from a slightly different point by Peter when he tells his readers that those who suffer as Christians and in accordance with God\'s will should "commit their soul\'s in well-doing unto a faithful Creator" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,19);">1Pe 4:19</a>). The quality of faithfulness, which in the Scripture is more frequently ascribed to God in His relation to man as gracious Saviour, and as the ground of hope in His gracious promises, is here applied by Peter to God in His relation to man as his Creator, and is made the ground of comfort under persecution and suffering. The omission of the article before the words "faithful Creator" makes emphatic that this is a characteristic of God as Creator, and the position of the words in the sentence throws great emphasis on this attribute of God as the basis of comfort under suffering. It is as if Peter would say to suffering Christians, "You suffer not by chance but in accordance with God\'s will; He, the almighty Creator, made you, and since your suffering is in accordance with His will, you ought to trust yourselves to Him who as your Creator is faithful." It is, of course, Christians who are to derive this comfort, but the faithfulness of God is extended here to cover all His relations to His people, and to pledge all His attributes in their behalf.<P>This attribute is also ascribed to Christ in the New Testament. Where Jesus is called a faithful high priest, the idea expressed is His fidelity to His obligations to God and to His saving work (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,17);">Heb 2:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',3,2,6);">3:2,6</a>). But when in the Book of Revelation Jesus Christ is called the "faithful witness" or absolutely the "Faithful and True," it is clear that the quality of faithfulness, in the most absolute sense in which it is characteristic of God in contrast with human changeableness, is ascribed to Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,5);">Re 1:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',3,14);">3:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,11);">19:11</a>). This is especially clear in the last-named passage. The heavens themselves open to disclose the glorified Christ, and He appears not only as a victorious warrior whose name is faithful and true, but also as the one in whom these attributes have their highest realization, and of whom they are so characteristic as to become the name of the exalted Lord. This clearly implies the Deity of Jesus.<P>In summing up the Scripture teaching concerning God\'s faithfulness, three things are noteworthy. In the first place, this characteristic of God is usually connected with His gracious promises of salvation, and is one of those attributes which make God the firm and secure object of religious trust. As is the case with all the Scripture teaching concerning God, it is the religious value of His faithfulness which is made prominent. In the second place, the so-called moral attributes, of which this is one, are essential in order to constitute God the object of religion, along with the so-called incommunicable attributes such as Omnipotence, Omnipresence and Unchangeableness. Take away either class of attributes from God, and He ceases to be God, the object of religious veneration and trust. And in the third place, while these moral attributes, to which faithfulness belongs, have been called "communicable," to distinguish them from the "incommunicable" attributes which distinguish God from all that is finite, it should never be forgotten that, according to the Scripture, God is faithful in such an absolute sense as to contrast Him with men who are faithful only in a relative sense, and who appear as changeable and faithless in comparison with the faithfulness of God.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Besides the Commentaries on the appropriate passages, see Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament, English translation, 95,112f 505: Dillmann, Handbuch der alttest. Theol., 268-76, 269-70; Schlatter, Der Glaube im New Testament, 21-22, 259-60. In the works on New Testament theology this subject is treated under the sections on the truthfulness of God.<P>On the relation of God\'s truth and faithfulness, see Wendt, Der Gebrauch der Worter, und im New Testament, SK,1883,511f; Stanton, article "Truth," in HDB, IV, 816f; and the above-mentioned work of Schlatter. On the relation of the faithfulness to the righteousness of God, see Diestel, "Die Idee der Gerechtigkeit vorzuglich im Altes Testament," Jahrbucher fur deutsche Theologie, 1860, 173f; Kautzsch, Ueber die Derivate des Stammes im Altes Testament Sprachgebrauch; Riehm, Altes Testament Theol., 271f; Smend, Alttest. Religionsgeschichte, 363f; Ritschl, Justification and Reconciliation; Dalman, Die richterliche Gerechtigkeit im Altes Testament; and the above-mentioned Old Testament Theologies of Dillmann and Oehler.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RIGHTEOUSNESS">RIGHTEOUSNESS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TRUTH">TRUTH</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=UNCHANGEABLENESS">UNCHANGEABLENESS</a>`72';
isbe[3356]='Faithless`fath\'-les: The translation of apistos, "without faith," having the sense of "unbelieving," "disbelieving." Jesus upbraids the people, "O faithless and perverse generation!" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',17,17);">Mt 17:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,19);">Mr 9:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,41);">Lu 9:41</a>); He says to Thomas, "Be not faithless, but believing" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,27);">Joh 20:27</a>); the Revised Version (British and American) adds, "If we are faithless," instead of "believe not" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',2,13);">2Ti 2:13</a>); compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',7,\'12-15\');">1Co 7:12-15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,27);">10:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',14,22,24);">14:22,24</a>, etc.; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,15);">Tit 1:15</a>. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,46);">Lu 12:46</a> apistos has the sense of "unfaithful," so the Revised Version (British and American); perhaps also <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',21,8);">Re 21:8</a>, "unbelieving."``1';
isbe[3357]='Falcon`fo\'-k\'-n, fol\'-k\'-n, fal\'-kun: The Hebrews did not know the word. Their bird corresponding to our falcon, in all probability, was one of the smaller kestrels covered by the word nets, which seemed to cover all lesser birds of prey that we include in the hawk family. That some of our many divisions of species were known to them is indicated by the phrase "after its kind." The word occurs in the Revised Version (British and American) in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',28,7);">Job 28:7</a>, to translation \'ayyah, Greek gups (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,14);">Le 11:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,13);">De 14:13</a>):<P class="in15">"That path no bird of prey knoweth,<br>Neither hath the falcon\'s eye seen it."<P>This substitutes "falcon" for "vulture" in the King James Version. The change weakens the force of the lines. All ornithologists know that eagles, vultures and the large hawks have such range of vision that they at once descend from heights at which we cannot see them to take prey on earth or food placed to tempt them. The falcons and sparrow hawks are small members of the family, some of which feed on little birds, some on insects. They are not celebrated for greater range of vision than other birds of the same location and feeding habits. The strength of these lines lay in the fact that if the path to the mine were so well concealed that the piercing eye of the vulture failed to find it, then it was perfectly hidden indeed.``167';
isbe[3358]='Fall`fol (vb.): The idea of falling is most frequently expressed in Hebrew by naphal, but also by many other words; in Greek by pipto, and its compounds. The uses of the word in Scripture are very varied. There is the literal falling by descent; the falling of the countenance in sorrow, shame, anger, etc. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,5,6);">Ge 4:5-6</a>); the falling in battle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,10);">Ge 14:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,3);">Nu 14:3</a>, etc.); the falling into trouble, etc. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',24,16,17);">Pr 24:16-17</a>); prostration in supplication and reverence (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,3);">Ge 17:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,5);">Nu 14:5</a>, etc.); falling of the Spirit of Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',11,5);">Eze 11:5</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',3,24);">3:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',8,1);">8:1</a>); of apostasy (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,3);">2Th 2:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',6,6);">Heb 6:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,24);">Jude 1:24</a>), etc. the Revised Version (British and American) frequently changes "fall" of the King James Version into other words or phrases, as "stumble" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,37);">Le 26:37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',64,8);">Ps 64:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,10);">2Pe 1:10</a>, etc.), "fade" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',33,4);">Isa 33:4</a>), etc.; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',27,\'1-\');">Ac 27</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) reads "be cast ashore on rocky ground" for "have fallen upon rocks" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',27,29);">Ac 27:29</a>), "perish" for "fall" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',27,34);">Ac 27:34</a>), "lighting upon" for "falling into" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',27,41);">Ac 27:41</a>).``185';
isbe[3359]='Fall, the`fol:<P>1. Meaning of <span class="noTag">Genesis 3</span><P>2. <span class="noTag">Genesis 3</span> in the Old and New Testaments<P>3. The Fall and the Theory of Evolution<P>4. The Character of the Fall<hr /><P>The question concerning the origin, the age and the written record of the history of the Fall in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,\'1-\');">Ge 3</a> need not be discussed here. For in the first place, science can never reach to the oldest origins and the ultimate destinies of humanity, and historical and critical inquiry will never be able to prove either the veracity or the unveracity of this history. And in the second place, exactly as it now lies before us, this history has already formed for centuries a portion of holy Scripture, an indispensable element in the organism of the revelation of salvation, and as such has been accepted in faith by the Hebrew congregation (Jewish people), by Christ, by the apostles, and by the whole Christian church.<P>1. Meaning of <span class="noTag">Genesis 3</span>:<P>That <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,\'1-\');">Ge 3</a> gives us an account of the fall of man, of the loss of his primitive innocence and of the misery, particularly death, to which he has since been subjected, cannot reasonably be denied. The opinion of the Ophites, Kant, Schiller, Hegel, etc., that <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,\'1-\');">Ge 3</a> relates the awakening of man to self-consciousness and personality (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ADAM+IN+THE+OLD+TESTAMENT">ADAM IN THE OLD TESTAMENT</a>), and therefore does not tell us of a fall, but a marked progression, is disputed by the name which the forbidden tree bears, as indicating to man not merely a tree of knowledge in the ordinary way, but quite specially a tree of knowledge of good and evil.<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,\'1-\');">Ge 3</a> is not in the least meant to relate to us how man obtained the idea of his nakedness and sexual passions, and from a state of childlike innocence changed in this respect to manlike maturity (Eerdman\'s De Beteekenis van het Paradijsverhaal, Theologisch Tijdschrift,1905,485-511). For according to Genesis, man was created full-grown, received a wife immediately as helpmeet, and at the same time saw himself allotted the task of multiplying and replenishing the earth. Moreover, the idea that sexual desire is something sinful and deserves punishment was entirely foreign to ancient Israel.<P>Finally, the interpretation of Wellhausen (Geschichte Israels,1878,344) cannot be accepted, that man in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,\'1-\');">Ge 3</a> should obtain "die intellektuelle Welterkenntniss, die metaphysische Erkenntniss der Dinge in ihrem Zusammenhange, ihrem Werth oder Unwerth, ihrem Nutzen oder Schaden" ("the intellectual knowledge of the world, the metaphysical knowledge of things in their connection, their worth or unworth, their utility or hurtfulness"). For in the first place, according to Genesis, this was man\'s peculiar province from the beginning; he received indeed the vocation to subdue the earth, to keep and till the ground, to give the animals their names. And in the second place, the acquiring of this knowledge among the Israelites, who esteemed practical wisdom so highly, is difficult to represent as a fall, or as a punishment deserved for disobedience.<P>There is no other explanation possible of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,\'1-\');">Ge 3</a> than that it is the narration of a fall, which consists in the transgression of an explicit command of God, thus bearing a moral significance, and therefore followed by repentance, shame, fear and punishment. The context of the chapter places this interpretation beyond all doubt, for before his fall man is represented as a creature made after God\'s image and receiving paradise as a dwelling-place, and after the fall he is sent into a rough world, is condemned to a life of labor and sorrow, and increases more and more in sin until the judgment of the Flood.<P>2. <span class="noTag">Genesis 3</span> in the Old and the New Testaments:<P>It is indeed remarkable how very seldom the Old Testament refers to this history of the Fall. This is not a sufficient reason for pronouncing it of later origin, for the same peculiarity presents itself at the time when, according to all criticism, it was recorded in literature. Prophets, Psalms, Proverbs never quote it; at the most, allusions may be found to it in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',6,7);">Ho 6:7</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',7,29);">Ec 7:29</a>; and even Jesus and His apostles in the New Testament very seldom appeal to <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,\'1-\');">Ge 3</a> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,44);">Joh 8:44</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,12);">Ro 5:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,22);">1Co 15:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',11,3);">2Co 11:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',2,14);">1Ti 2:14</a>). But it may be considered that the Prophets, Psalms and Proverbs only mention special facts of the past by way of exception, that the apostles even hardly ever quote the words and deeds of Jesus, and that all lived at a time when revelation itself was still proceeding and did not lie before them as a complete whole. With us it is quite a different matter; we are in a certain sense outside revelation, make it a subject of our study and meditation, try to discover the unity which holds all its parts together, and devote our special interest to Adam as a figure and counterpart of Christ. The creation and fall of man occupy therefore a much broader place in the province of our thoughts than they did among the writers of the books of the Old and New Testaments.<P>Nevertheless, the Fall is the silent hypothesis of the whole Biblical doctrine of sin and redemption; it does not rest only on a few vague passages, but forms an indispensable element in the revelation of salvation. The whole contemplation of man and humanity, of Nature and history, of ethical and physical evil, of redemption and the way in which to obtain it, is connected in Scripture with a Fall, such as <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,\'1-\');">Ge 3</a> relates to us. Sin, for example, is common to all men (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',8,46);">1Ki 8:46</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',14,3);">Ps 14:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',130,3);">130:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',143,2);">143:2</a>), and to every man from his conception (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,5);">Ge 6:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',8,21);">8:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',14,4);">Job 14:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',51,7);">Ps 51:7</a>). It arouses God\'s anger and deserves all kinds of punishment, not only of an ethical but of a physical nature (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,\'14-19\');">Ge 3:14-19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,14);">4:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,7,13);">6:7,13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,8);">11:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,14);">Le 26:14</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',28,15);">De 28:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',90,7);">Ps 90:7</a>, etc.); the whole of Scripture proceeds from the thought that sin and death are connected in the closest degree, as are also obedience and life. In the new heaven and new earth all suffering ceases with sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',21,4);">Re 21:4</a>). Therefore redemption is possible only in the way of forgiveness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',32,1);">Ps 32:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',43,25);">Isa 43:25</a>, etc.), and circumcision of the heart (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',10,16);">De 10:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',30,16);">30:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',4,4);">Jer 4:4</a>), and this includes, further, life, joy, peace, salvation. When Paul in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,12);">Ro 5:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,22);">1Co 15:22</a> indicates Adam as the origin of sin and death, and Christ as the source of righteousness and life, he develops no ideas which are contrary to the organism of revelation or which might be neglected without loss; he merely combines and formulates the data which are explicitly or silently contained in it.<P>3. The Fall and the Theory of Evolution:<P>Tradition does little toward the confirmation and elucidation of the Biblical narrative of the Fall. The study of mythology is still too little advanced to determine the ideal or historical value which may be contained in the legend of a Golden Age, in many people\'s obsequious honoring of the serpent, in the equally widespread belief in a tree of life. The Babylonian representation also (a seal on which a man and woman, seated, are figured as plucking fruit from a tree, while a serpent curls up behind the woman as if whispering in her ear), which G. Smith, Lenormant and Friedrich Delitzsch compare with the Paradise narrative, shows no similarity on nearer view (A. Jeremias, Das Altes Testament im Lichte des alten Orients2, Leipzig,1906,203). Indirectly, however, a very powerful witness for the fall of man is furnished by the whole empirical condition of the world and humanity. For a world, such as we know it, full of unrighteousness and sorrow, cannot be explained without the acceptance of such a fact. He who holds fast to the witness of Scripture and conscience to sin as sin (as anomia) cannot deduce it from creation, but must accept the conclusion that it began with a transgression of God\'s command and thus with a deed of the will. Pythagoras, Plato, Kant, Schelling, Baader have all understood and acknowledged this with more or less clearness. He who denies the Fall must explain sin as a necessity which has its origin in the Creation, in the nature of things, and therefore in God Himself; he justifies man but accuses God, misrepresents the character of sin and makes it everlasting and indefeasible. For if there has not been a fall into sin, there is no redemption of sin possible; sin then loses its merely ethical significance, becomes a trait of the nature of man, and is inexterminable.<P>This comes out, in later years, in the many endeavors to unite the Fall with the doctrine of evolution (compare Tennant, The Origin and Propagation of Sin2, 1905; A. S. Peake, Christianity: Its Nature and Its Truth, 1908; W. E. Orchard, Modern Theories of Sin, 1909; Francis J. Hall, Evolution and the Fall, 1910). All these endeavors lead to setting on one side the objective standard of sin, which is the law of God, and determining the nature and importance of sin subjectively by the feeling of guilt, which in its turn again depends on the knowledge of and the love for the moral ideal, and itself forms an important factor in moral progress. It is true that the strength of all these endeavors is drawn from theory of the descent of man from the animal. But as to this theory, it is worthy of notice:<P>(1) that it is up to the present day a hypothesis, and is proved by no single observation, whether direct or indirect;<P>(2) that the fossils of prehistoric men, found in Germany, Belgium, France and elsewhere have demonstrated the low degree of culture in which these men have lived, but in no sense their dissimilarity with mankind of today (W. Branca, Der Stand unserer Kenntnisse vom fossilen Menschen, Leipzig, 1910);<P>(3) that the uncivilized and prehistoric man may be as little identified with the first man as the unjustly so-called nature-people and children under age;<P>(4) that the oldest history of the human race, which has become known through the discoveries at Babylon in the last century, was not that of a state of barbarism, but of high and rich culture (D. Gath Whitley, "What was the Primitive Condition of Man?" Princeton Theol. Review, October, 1906; J. Orr, God\'s Image in Man, 1906);<P>(5) that the acceptance of theory of descent as a universal and unlimited rule leads to the denial of the unity of the human race, in a physical and also in an intellectual, moral and religious sense. For it may be possible, even in the school of Darwin, to maintain the unity of the human race so long a time as tradition exercises its influence on the habit of mind; but theory itself undermines its foundation and marks it as an arbitrary opinion. From the standpoint of evolution, there is not only no reason to hold to the "of one blood" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,26);">Ac 17:26</a> the King James Version, but there has never even been a first man; the transition from animal to man was so slow and successive, that the essential distinction fails to be seen. And with the effacing of this boundary, the unity of the moral ideal, of religion, of the laws of thought and of truth, fails also; theory of evolution expels the absolute everywhere and leads necessarily to psychologism, relativism, pragmatism and even to pluralism, which is literally polytheism in a religious sense. The unity of the human race, on the other hand, as it is taught in holy Scripture, is not an indifferent physical question, but an important intellectual, moral and religious one; it is a "postulate" of the whole history of civilization, and expressly or silently accepted by nearly all historians. And conscience bears witness to it, in so far as all men show the work of the moral law written in their hearts, and their thoughts accuse or excuse one another (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,15);">Ro 2:15</a>); it shows back to the Fall as an "Urthatsache der Geschichte."<P>4. The Character of the Fall:<P>What the condition and history of the human race could hardly lead us to imagine, holy Scripture relates to us as a tragic fact in its first pages. The first man was created by God after His own image, not therefore in brutish unconsciousness or childlike naivete, but in a state of bodily and spiritual maturity, with understanding and reason, with knowledge and speech, with knowledge especially of God and His law. Then was given to him moreover a command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This command was not contained in the moral law as such; it was not a natural but a positive commandment; it rested entirely and only on God\'s will and must be obeyed exclusively for this reason. It placed before man the choice, whether he would be faithful and obedient to God\'s word and would leave to Him alone the decision as to what is good or evil, or whether he would reserve to himself the right arbitrarily to decide what is good or evil. Thus the question was: Shall theonomy or autonomy be the way to happiness? On this account also the tree was called the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It did not bear this name in the sense that man might obtain from it the empirical knowledge of good and evil, for by his transgression he in truth lost the empirical knowledge of good. But the tree was so named, because man, by eating of it and so transgressing God\'s commandment, arrogated to himself "die Fahigkeit zur selbstandigen Wahl der Mittel, durch die man sein Gluck schaffen will": "the capacity of independent choice of the means by which he would attain his happiness" (Koberle, Sunde und Gnade im relig. Leben des Volkes Israel bis auf Christenrum,1905,64). Theonomy, as obedience to God from free love, includes as such the idea and the possibility of autonomy, therefore that of antinomy also.<P>But it is the free act and therefore the guilt of man that has changed the possibility into reality. For the mind, there remains here an insoluble problem, as much in the question, why God allowed this Fall to take place, as in the other, how man, created in the likeness of God, could and did fall. There is a great deal of truth in the often-expressed thought, that we can give no account of the origin of sin, because it is not logical, and does not result as a conclusion drawn from two premises. But facts are brutal. What seems logically impossible often exists in reality. The laws of moral life are different from those of thought and from those also of mechanical nature. The narrative in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,\'1-\');">Ge 3</a>, in any case, is psychologically faithful in the highest degree. For the same way as it appears there in the first man, it repeatedly takes place among ourselves (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,14,15);">Jas 1:14-15</a>). Furthermore we ought to allow God to justify Himself. The course of revelation discovers to faith how, through all the ages, He holds sin in its entire development in His own almighty hands, and works through grace for a consummation in which, in the dispensation of the fullness of times, He will gather together in one all things in Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,10);">Eph 1:10</a>). (J. Orr, Sin as a Problem of Today, London, 1910.)``10';
isbe[3360]='Falling Stars``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASTRONOMY">ASTRONOMY</a>`1';
isbe[3361]='Fallow`fal\'-o (damam): Damam is translated only once in the sense of "fallow" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,11);">Ex 23:11</a>). The law required that the Israelites allow their ground to lie fallow one year in, seven. the King James Version is (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,5);">De 14:5</a>) nir, and is translated "fallow" in its more obsolete sense of "tilled ground" in the King James Version (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',4,3);">Jer 4:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',10,12);">Ho 10:12</a>).``1';
isbe[3362]='False Prophets``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PROPHESYINGS+FALSE">PROPHESYINGS, FALSE</a>`1';
isbe[3363]='False Swearing; False Witness``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=OATH">OATH</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CRIME;+CRIMES">CRIMES</a>`1';
isbe[3364]='False, Christs`fols.`<a href="file:./study/isbe/2000.html?toc=2094">CHRISTS, FALSE</a>`1';
isbe[3365]='False hood`fols\'-hood.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LIE;+LYING">LYING</a>`1';
isbe[3366]='Fame`fam (shem, shema\'; akoe, pheme): "Fame" has the twofold meaning, (1) of report or rumor, (2) of renown or reputation (in the Old Testament it is not always easy to distinguish the two senses). "Fame," shema\', "fame," "rumor," "reports" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,15);">Nu 14:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',28,22);">Job 28:22</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "rumor") probably means "report"; but in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,1);">1Ki 10:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',9,1);">2Ch 9:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',66,19);">Isa 66:19</a>, it is most probably "renown," or "reputation"; shemu\'ah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,7);">1Ki 10:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',9,6);">2Ch 9:6</a>) may have either meaning; shoma\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',6,27);">Jos 6:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',9,9);">9:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',9,4);">Es 9:4</a>) seems to mean "fame" in the sense of reputation; but in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',6,24);">Jer 6:24</a> (as the American Standard Revised Version) "report"; shem, "name," has the sense of reputation (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,31);">1Ki 4:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',14,17);">1Ch 14:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',22,5);">22:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',3,19);">Ze 3:19</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "name"); qol, "voice," is report (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',45,16);">Ge 45:16</a>, the American Standard Revised Version "report"). In the New Testament akoe, "hearing," is "report," so the Revised Version (British and American) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',4,24);">Mt 4:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',14,1);">14:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,28);">Mr 1:28</a>); pheme, "word," "rumor," is report, fame in this sense (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',9,26);">Mt 9:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,14);">Lu 4:14</a>); echos, "a sound," "noise" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,37);">Lu 4:37</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "rumor"), and logos, "word" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',5,15);">Lu 5:15</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "report") have the same meaning; diaphemizo, "to say throughout," "to report publicly" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',9,31);">Mt 9:31</a>, "they...spread abroad his fame"), seems to imply fame in the sense of reputation.<P>In 1Macc 3:26, we have "fame" in the sense of reputation, "His fame (onoma, the Revised Version (British and American) "name") came near even to the king"; so <span class="noTag">3:41</a>, "heard the fame of them."<P>ERV has "fame" for "report" (shema\'), <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',50,43);">Jer 50:43</a>.``185';
isbe[3367]='Familiar`fa-mil\'-yar: Is found as an adjective qualifying "friend" and "spirit."<P>(1) Used, in a number of Old Testament passages, of spirits which were supposed to come at the call of one who had power over them. \'obh, literally, something "hollow"; compare \'obh, "bottle" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',32,19);">Job 32:19</a> the King James Version); because the voice of the spirit might have been supposed to come from the one possessed, as from a bottle, or because of the hollow sound which characterized the utterance, as out of the ground (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',29,4);">Isa 29:4</a>); or, as some have conjectured, akin to \'ubh, "return" (nekromantis). Probably called "familiar" because it was regarded as a servant (famulus), belonging to the family (familiaris), who might be summoned to do the commands of the one possessing it. The practice of consulting familiar spirits was forbidden by the Mosaic law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,31);">Le 19:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,6,27);">20:6,27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,11);">De 18:11</a>). King Saul put this away early in his reign, but consulted the witch of Endor, who "had a familiar spirit" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',28,3,7,8,9);">1Sa 28:3,7-9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',10,13);">1Ch 10:13</a>). King Manasseh fell into the same sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',21,6);">2Ki 21:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',33,6);">2Ch 33:6</a>); but Josiah put those who dealt with familiar spirits out of the land (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,24);">2Ki 23:24</a>).<P>It seems probable, however, that the practice prevailed more or less among the people till the exile (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',8,19);">Isa 8:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',19,3);">19:3</a>). See "Divination by the \'Ob" in The Expositor T, IX, 157; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASTROLOGY">ASTROLOGY, 1</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=COMMUNION+WITH+DEMONS">COMMUNION WITH DEMONS</a>.<P>(2) "Familiars," "familiar friend," from yadha\', "to know," hence, "acquaintance," one intimately attached (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',19,14);">Job 19:14</a>); but more frequently of \'enosh shalom, "man of (my or thy) peace," that is, one to whom the salutation of peace is given (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',41,9);">Ps 41:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',20,10);">Jer 20:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',38,22);">38:22</a>; also in <a onClick="return mV(\'Oba\',1,7);">Ob 1:7</a>, rendered "the men that were at peace with thee").``137';
isbe[3368]='Family`fam\'-i-li (mishpachah, bayith; patria):<P>1. The Foundation<P>2. Monogamy, the Ideal Relation<P>3. Equality of the Sexes<P>4. Polygamy<P>5. The Commandments and the Family (5th Commandment)<P>6. The Commandments and the Family (7th Commandment)<P>7. The Commandments and the Family (10th Commandment)<P>8. Primitive Monogamic Ideal<P>9. Reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah<P>10. The New Testament<P>11. The Teaching of Jesus<P>12. The Teaching of Paul<P>13. Modern Dangers<P>LITERATURE<hr /><P>1. The Foundation:<P>The Bible is the world\'s great teacher of monogamy<6D>the union for life of one man and one woman in marriage as the basis of the family. Whatever may be said about the time of the writing of the books of the Bible, or of parts of them, the testimony of the whole is incontrovertibly to the point that marriage springs from the choice of one man and one woman of each other for a permanent family relation. Over and through the whole of the Bible this ideal is dominant. There may be instances shown here and there of violation of this rule. But such cases are to be regarded as contrary to the underlying principle of marriage<67>known even at the time of their occurrence to be antagonistic to the principle.<P>There may be times when moral principle is violated in high places and perhaps over wide reaches in society. The Bible shows that there were such times in the history of man. But it is undeniable that its tone toward such lapses of men and of society is not one of condonation but one of regret and disapproval. The disasters consequent are faithfully set forth. The feeling that finds expression in its whole history is that in such cases there had been violation of the ideal of right in the sex relation. The ideal of monogamic relation is put in the forefront of the history of man.<P>2. Monogamy, the Ideal Relation:<P>The race is introduced synthetically as a species in the incoming of life. "And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,27);">Ge 1:27</a>). But with the first particularization of the relation of the sexes to each other the great charter of monogamy was laid down so clearly that Jesus was content to quote it, when with His limitless ethical scrutiny He explained the marriage relation. "And the man said (when the woman was brought to him), This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,23,24);">Ge 2:23-24</a>). It is well to pause and look at the grammatical number of the nouns: "a man," "his wife." The words of the charter hold the sexes to monogamy. The subsequent words make marriage life-lasting. "They twain shall be one flesh." A dualism becomes an individualism. So said Christ: "Wherefore they are no more twain but one flesh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,6);">Mt 19:6</a> the King James Version). Nothing but death separates a man from his own flesh. Nothing but life-monogamy can find place in the language of this charter.<P>There is much in the setting of this charter in the account given in Gen that is suggestive of the fine sentiment which we know has always gone along with love and marriage. That this account should have held the place in history that it has had adds testimony to the fine perception of sentiment and the strong grasp on principle out of which it came.<P>3. Equality of the Sexes:<P>Eve, "the mother of all living," comes out as distinctly as Adam on the canvas in the portraiture of the first pair. She is the feminine representative<76>\'ishshah<61>of the race, as Adam is the masculine<6E>\'ish (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,23);">Ge 2:23</a>). The personality of Eve is as complete as that of Adam. She is a rational and accountable creature, as Adam is. In primitive intellectual and moral transactions she has share on equality with Adam, and is equally involved in their results. Different physical consequences fall on her for "transgression," because she is "woman," "the mother of all living" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,16);">Ge 3:16</a>). But Adam does not escape retribution for sin, and it may be questioned whether its burden did not fall hardest on him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,18,19);">Ge 3:18-19</a>), for motherhood has its joy as well as its pain, in the companionship of new-born child-life; but the wrestler for subsistence from a reluctant earth must bear his hardship alone. It cannot but be that much of the primitive conjugal love survived the fall.<P>4. Polygamy:<P>According to the record, monogamy seems long to have survived the departure from Eden. It is not till many generations after that event that we find a case of polygamy<6D>that of Lamech (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,\'19-24\');">Ge 4:19-24</a>). Lamech is said to have had "two wives." The special mention of "two" seems to show that man had not yet wandered far away from monogamy. The indications seem to be that as the race multiplied and went out over the face of the earth they forgot the original kinship and exhibited all manner of barbarities in social relations. Lamech was a polygamist, but he was also a quarrelsome homicide: "I have slain a man for wounding me, and a young man for bruising me" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,23);">Ge 4:23</a>). If such acts and dispositions as are disclosed in the case of Lamech become common, it will certainly not be a long while before the only apt description of the condition of society must be that upon which we come in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,5);">Gen. 6:5</a>: "And Yahweh saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Out of such condition will come war and slavery, and polygamy<6D>and come they did. It is a straight road from <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,5);">Ge 6:5</a> to "The Koran, tribute or the sword," and the polygamy of Mohammedans.<P>5. The Commandments and the Family (5th Commandment):<P>The commandments (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,12);">Ex 20:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',5,16);">De 5:16</a>) are a succinct summary of the supreme moral relations and duties of man. The first four pertain to our relationship to God. The six following concern human relations. Of these six, three have considerations of the family involved in them. Commandments do not come to people ignorant of the subjects to which they relate. A commandment to cover an unknown moral relation is an absurdity. The text of the Fifth Commandment is, "Honor thy father and thy mother." This refers to the relation of children to parents. This commandment could scarcely have arisen when polygamy was a common practice, certainly never from promiscuity. The equality of father and mother is stamped on its face. That idea never could have had strength and solemnity enough, except in a prevailing condition of monogamy, to entitle the command in which it appeared to rank with the important subjects covered by the other commands. Before the gaze of the children to whom this commandment came, the family stood in monogamic honor<6F>the mother a head of the family as well as the father. There is no question about the position of the mother in this commandment. She stands out as clear as Sinai itself. There is no cloud on her majesty. Such honor as goes to the father goes to the mother. She is no chattel, no property, no inferior being, but the mother; no subordinate to the father, but his equal in rank and entitled to equal reverence with him. The commandment would not and could not have so pictured the mother had she been one of the inmates of a harem.<P>6. The Commandments and the Family (7th Commandment):<P>The Seventh Commandment (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,14);">Ex 20:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',5,18);">De 5:18</a>) gives the family. It secures the home. It says that whatever children are born to the race shall be born in a home and of the home<6D>shall be family-born. The terms adultery and fornication have now become synonymous. Under the influence of polygamous practices a distinction was made in respect to unlawful sex union as to whether one or both of the parties thereto were married or not, or whether one or both were single. Such distinction will not hold in morals. All or any sex union out of marriage is barred by the family idea. Outside of that all sex union is sin.<P>While it is true that in the laws of Israel sex sin outside the family relation was treated as a subject by itself, yet when we remember how early in life marriage came in those ancient days, and that betrothal in childhood was deemed as sacred as marriage itself, we see that even then the sweep of the commandment was well-nigh universal and over what a broad range it protected the family. The family is the primal eldest institution of man<61>the greatest and the holiest. Over this institution this commandment stands sentry. It prevents men from breaking up in complete individual isolation, from reverting to solitary savagery. Think to what a child is born outside of the family relation! Then think of all children being so born, and you have the picture of a low plane of animalism from which all trace of the moral responsibility of fatherhood has disappeared, and where even motherhood will be reduced to simple care during the short period of helpless infancy, to such care as belongs to animal instinct. Put up now the idea that marriage shall be universal and that the children born in marriage shall belong genuinely to it, and you have a new heaven and a new earth ia the sex relations of the race of man.<P>7. The Commandments and the Family (10th Commandment):<P>The Tenth Commandment seems almost out of place on the list of the commandments. All the others enjoin specific acts. This tenth seems to be a foregleam of the Savior\'s method<6F>going to the thoughts and intents of the heart. It is an attempt at regulation in man. It goes beyond outward acts and deals with the spirit. Its purpose seems not regulation of man in society but in himself. So far as it has outward relation it seems to apply primarily to the rights of property. We have at common law the expression, "rights of persons; and rights of things," i.e. to property. But the list of things enumerated in the commandment comprises the things most common to family life: house, servants, animals. One is forbidden not only to take but even to desire such things. They are necessary to family life. In this list of things belonging to a neighbor that a man is forbidden to desire occurs the term "wife." To first thought it may seem strange that she should be listed with property in house and chattels. But it may not be very singular. One of woman\'s greatest blessings to man is helpfulness. Eve, the mother of all living, came as a helpmeet for Adam. Sarah is mistress of domestic operations. A wife quick of thought, accurate in judgment and deft of hand is usually the key to a man\'s material prosperity. As such help a man\'s desire might stray to his neighbor\'s wife as well as to his cattle. Even on this lower plane she is still a constituent element of the family. Here the thought of sex is scarcely discernible. Covetousness unlimited in the accumulation of property is what comes under ban. To treat of that matter would lead too far astray.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=COVETOUSNESS">COVETOUSNESS</a>.<P>It is well to remember in taking leave of the commandments that half of those pertaining to human relations hold the family plainly in view. This is as it should be. The race is divided equally between male and female, and their relations to each other, we might expect, would call for half of the directions devoted to the whole.<P>8. Primitive Monogamic Ideal:<P>The laws against adultery and incest (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,\'1-\');">Le 20</a> and the like) may seem barbarously severe. Be it so; that fact would show they were carried along by a people tremendously in earnest about the integrity of the family. Beneath pioneer severity is usually a solemn principle. That the children of Israel had a tough grasp on the primitive monogamic ideal is not only apparent in all their history, but it comes out clear in what they held as history before their own began. Mr. Gladstone said the tenth chapter of Genesis is the best document of ancient ethnography known to man. But it is made up on family lines. It is a record of the settlement of heads of families as they went forth on the face of the earth. The common statement for the sons of Noah as they filed out over the lands of which they took possession is, \'these are the sons of...after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, in their nations.\' Mr. Gladstone called attention to the fact that modern philology verifies this classification of the nations which rests on outgrowth from families.<P>9. Reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah:<P>Turning now to a very distant point in history<72>the return of the Jews from captivity in Babylon<6F>we find in Ezra and Nehemiah the most critical regard for genealogy. The effort to establish "pure blood" was fairly a fanaticism and might even be charged with injustice. Yet this effort was ratified by the people<6C>sufferers in degraded name though many of them must have been. This could never have been done had not the monogamic family idea rested in their hearts as just and right. Nehemiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',13,26);">13:26</a>) unsparingly condemned the mighty Solomon for his polygamy, and Israel upproved the censure.<P>10. The New Testament<P>When we come to the times of the New Testament, contemporaneous polygamy in Jewish society was dead. Wherever New Testament influences have gone, contemporaneous polygamy has ceased to be.<P>There has been in the United States by Mormonism a belated attempt to revive that crime against the family. But it has had its bad day, and, if it lives at all, it is under the ban of social sentiment and is a crime by law. Consecutive polygamy still exists in nations that are called Christian by the permission of divorce laws. But the tide of Christian sentiment is setting strongly against it, and it takes no special clearness of vision to see that it must go to extinction along with polygamy contemporaneous.<P>Jesus reaffirmed the original charter of the monogamic family (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,\'1-12\');">Mt 19:1-12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,\'2-12\');">Mr 10:2-12</a>). It is to be noticed that He affirmed the indissolubility of the family not only against the parties thereto but against the power of society.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DIVORCE">DIVORCE</a>.<P>11. The Teaching of Jesus:<P>At first sight it seems a little strange that Jesus said so little about the family. But as we reflect on the nature of His mission we shall catch the explanation of His silence. He said, "Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfill" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,17);">Mt 5:17</a>), that is, to fill out, to expound and expand. He also said, "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,11);">Mt 18:11</a> the King James Version), and, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',9,13);">Mt 9:13</a>), that is, to rectify what was wrong. To what was right He gave the right of way<61>let it go on in its own course. When the law was right, He said, not one jot or tittle of it should fail (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,18);">Mt 5:18</a>). With regard to the family, He held the old charter written in the heart of man, before it was burned in brick or committed to manuscript, was right. It was comprehensive, would and ought to stand. So He stood by that, and that sufficed His purpose. Christ did not try to regulate the family so much as to regulate the persons who entered into family life. This may explain why we have no utterance from Him in regard to the conduct and duties of children toward parents. Still stood the ancient statute, "Honor thy father and thy mother." He came not to destroy but to fulfill that. That still indicated the right relation of children to parents. If a child had asked about his relation to his parents, Christ would doubtless have referred him to that commandment, as He did other inquirers about duties to the commandments that cover so large a part of the ethical realm.<P>12. The Teaching of Paul:<P>Paul, who particularizes so much in explanation of duties in all relations, scarcely gets beyond the old commandment, "Honor thy father and thy mother," when he says, "Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well-pleasing in the Lord." It has always been well-pleasing in the Lord. To be sure there was new inspiration to obedience from the new revelation of duty which came to them in Christ, but the duty was enforced by the Fifth Commandment, and that was copied from the deeper revelation in the heart of man.<P>13. Modern Dangers:<P>In modern society the two great foes of the family are Divorce and Migration. Families no longer live a continuous life together. We have less family life than the old pastoral nomads. They had to keep together for several generations in order to protect their lives and their flocks and herds. So arose the clan, the tribe and the nation. Family influence can be detected through them. Modern Industries are very much localized. We should easily think that families would be under their controlling influence. But they are not; the industries are localized, the workers are becoming rovers. When trouble comes in an industry, a workman\'s first resort is to try somewhere else. Cheapness of transportation gives him the opportunity he desires. So with a satchel he goes hunting, much as a barbarian roams the forest for game, alone. He may take his family or leave it behind. He may be separated from his family for months or years<72>possibly abandon it forever. A very common cause of divorce is abandonment of family by its male head.<P>In fact, those engaged in a great deal of legitimate industry are looking out for a better place quite as much as to develop the capacities of business in their own locations. The signs over places of business are few that carry the same name in town or city for a generation. Moving is perhaps more the order of the day than movement. The families are few that can be found in the same place for a quarter of a century. The wealthy cannot stay in the same house six months at a time. They have a house in the city for the winter and one in the country for the summer, and then forsake both and fly over the sea, perhaps to remain for years<72>traveling. How can family ties survive under such migratory life? Society supersedes the family.<P>Even education is subject to this malign influence. At their most impressive age, when they need family influence most around them, children are sent away to prepare for or to enter upon higher courses of education. This fits them for something else than life in the family from which they sprang and they rarely return to it. We may not be able to check this drift, but we ought to see its tendency to degrade the estimate of the value of the family.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Wolsey, Divorce, Scribners; Publications of the National Divorce Reform League; Reports State and National, ad rem; Peabody, Jesus Christ and the Social Question, chapter iii; Caverno, Divorce, Midland Publishing Co., Madison, Wis.; The Ten Words, Pilgrim Press, Boston.``22';
isbe[3369]='Family Relationships``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RELATIONSHIPS,+FAMILY">RELATIONSHIPS, FAMILY</a>`1';
isbe[3370]='Famine`fam\'-in (ra\'abh; limos):<P>1. Natural Causes<P>2. Famines Mentioned<P>3. Divine Relations<P>4. Figurative Uses<hr /><P>The common Old Testament word for "famine" is ra\'abh; re\'abhon also occurs (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',42,19,33);">Ge 42:19,33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',37,19);">Ps 37:19</a>), and kaphan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',5,22);">Job 5:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',30,3);">30:3</a>), all meaning "hunger" and "famine"; in the New Testament the word is limos, meaning primarily "failure," "want of food."<P>1. Natural Causes:<P>In early times, especially in lands dependent on their own productions, famines were not infrequent. They were generally caused by local irregularities of the rainfall, by destructive hail storms (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',9,23,31,32);">Ex 9:23,31,32</a>), by ravages of insects (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',10,15);">Ex 10:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',1,4);">Joe 1:4</a>) and by enemies (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',28,51);">De 28:51</a>); in a city a famine might be caused by a siege (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',6,25);">2Ki 6:25</a>); pestilence often followed in its wake, and the suffering was great.<P>2. Famines Mentioned:<P>Famines are recorded in the time of Abraham (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,10);">Ge 12:10</a>, etc.), of Isaac (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,1);">Ge 26:1</a>), of Jacob, when Joseph was in Egypt<70>seven years of famine even in Egypt after seven of plenty (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,54);">Ge 41:54</a>), which also affected Canaan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',42,1);">Ge 42:1</a>), and, indeed, "was over all the face of the earth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,56);">Ge 41:56</a>); in the time of the Judges (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rth\',1,1);">Ru 1:1</a>), of David, for three years (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,1);">2Sa 21:1</a>), of Ahab and Elijah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',17,1);">1Ki 17:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',18,2);">18:2</a>; Ecclesiasticus 48:2,3), of Elisha (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',4,38);">2Ki 4:38</a>), during the siege of Samaria (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',6,25);">2Ki 6:25</a>), the seven years foretold by Elisha (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',8,1);">2Ki 8:1</a>), in the reign of Zedekiah in Jerusalem when besieged by Nebuchadnezzar (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',25,3);">2Ki 25:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',52,6);">Jer 52:6</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',14,1);">14:1</a>), its great severity is referred to (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',5,10);">La 5:10</a>; Baruch 2:25); a "dearth" is also mentioned after the return from Captivity (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',5,3);">Ne 5:3</a>); when the city was besieged by Antiochus Eupator (1Macc 6:54), after the death of Judas (1Macc 9:24), when Jerusalem was besieged by Simon (1Macc 13:49), in the time of Claudius (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,28);">Ac 11:28</a>, in his reign there were frequent famines, one of which in 45 AD severely affected Palestine; Josephus, Ant, XX, v); Christ predicted "famines...in divers places" as characterizing the end of the age (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,7);">Mt 24:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,8);">Mr 13:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,11);">Lu 21:11</a>); in the siege of Jerusalem by Titus a terrible famine raged, the consequences of which to the people have never been surpassed.<P>3. Divine Relations:<P>Famines are frequently said to be sent as punishments sometimes threatened as such (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,19);">Le 26:19</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',28,\'49-51\');">De 28:49-51</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',8,1);">2Ki 8:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',105,16);">Ps 105:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',14,30);">Isa 14:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',51,19);">51:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',14,12,15);">Jer 14:12,15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',18,21);">18:21</a>, etc.; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',5,16);">Eze 5:16</a>, etc.; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',8,11);">Am 8:11</a>; 2Esdras 15:5,49; 16:19; Tobit 4:13; Ecclesiasticus 39:29; 40:9).<P>The righteous or godly should be preserved by God in time of famine (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',5,20);">Job 5:20</a>, "In famine he will redeem thee from death"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',33,19);">Ps 33:19</a>, "to keep them alive in famine"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',37,19);">37:19</a>, "In the days of famine they shall be satisfied"); this was a special mark of the Divine favor and power.<P>4. Figurative Uses:<P>A famine is used by Amos to indicate the absence of Divine communications as a punishment that should come on the people, a "famine...of hearing the words of Yahweh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',8,11);">8:11</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',3,1);">1Sa 3:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',28,6);">28:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',15,3);">2Ch 15:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',7,26);">Eze 7:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',3,6);">Mic 3:6</a>); by Zephaniah of the destruction of heathen deities (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',2,11);">2:11</a>).<P>The Revised Version (British and American) has "dearth" for "famine" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',5,22);">Job 5:22</a>); "famine" for "dearth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,54);">Ge 41:54</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',6,28);">2Ch 6:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,11);">Ac 7:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,28);">11:28</a>); for "hunger" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',38,9);">Jer 38:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',34,29);">Eze 34:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,8);">Re 6:8</a>); "famines" for "famines and pestilences" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,7);">Mt 24:7</a>), "famines and troubles" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,8);">Mr 13:8</a>), revised texts.``185';
isbe[3371]='Famish`fam\'-ish ra\'ebh, razah): "To famish" as a transitive verb is the translation of ra\'ebh, "to hunger" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,55);">Ge 41:55</a>): "All the land of Egypt was famished"; of ra\'abh, "hunger" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',5,13);">Isa 5:13</a>), "Their honorable men are famished," margin "Hebrew their glory are men of famine"; of razah, "to make lean," "famish" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',2,11);">Ze 2:11</a>), "For he will famish all the gods of the earth"; it is intransitive as the translation of ra\'ebh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',10,3);">Pr 10:3</a>), "Yahweh will not suffer the soul of the righteous to famish."``1';
isbe[3372]='Fan, Fanner`fan\'-er: The word "fan" occurs 3 times only in the American Standard Revised Version (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',15,7);">Jer 15:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,12);">Mt 3:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,17);">Lu 3:17</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,24);">Isa 30:24</a> mizreh is translated "fork," which is a much better translation if the instrument referred to was shaped like the winnowing fork used by the Syrian farmer today and still so called. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',41,16);">Isa 41:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',4,11);">Jer 4:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',15,7);">15:7</a>, the verb zarah is rendered "winnow" in the American Standard Revised Version. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,2);">Jer 51:2</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes "strangers" for "fanners."``1';
isbe[3373]='Fancy`fan\'-si (phantazo, "to cause to appear," "show"): In Ecclesiasticus 34:5, "And the heart fancieth, as a woman\'s in travail" (compare The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 6:16</span>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,21);">Heb 12:21</a>).``1';
isbe[3374]='Far House`The marginal explanation in the Revised Version (British and American) of Beth-merhak (beth ha-merchaq, "house of distance"), which is given in the text of <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',15,17);">2Sa 15:17</a> instead of "a place that was far off."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BETH+MERHAK">BETH-MERHAK</a>`1';
isbe[3375]='Far; Farther`far, far\'-ther: "Far" (adj.), distant, remote; (advb.) widely removed, is most frequently in the Old Testament the translation of rachoq, and in the New Testament of makran, but also of other Hebrew and Greek words. The word chalilah, an exclamation of abhorrence or aversion Septuagint me genoito; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FORBID">FORBID</a>), is rendered "far from me," "far from thee," etc. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,25);">Ge 18:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',2,30);">1Sa 2:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',20,9);">20:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',22,15);">22:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',20,20);">2Sa 20:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,17);">23:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',34,10);">Job 34:10</a>). Besides its literal sense, distance in a spiritual sense is expressed by "far," as "Salvation is far from the wicked" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,155);">Ps 119:155</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',15,29);">Pr 15:29</a>), "far from righteousness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',46,12);">Isa 46:12</a>), "not far from the kingdom of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,34);">Mr 12:34</a>), etc. For "far" the Revised Version (British and American) has "aloof" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',30,10);">Job 30:10</a>; in several places the word in the King James Version is omitted (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',9,17);">Jud 9:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',27,9);">Ps 27:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',19,6);">Isa 19:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',26,15);">26:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,34);">Mr 13:34</a>); "a far country" is changed to "another" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',21,33);">Mt 21:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,14);">25:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,34);">Mr 13:34</a>), etc. For "God forbid" the Revised Version (British and American) has "far be it," "far be it from me" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',6,14);">Ga 6:14</a>; in the American Standard Revised Version, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',44,7,17);">Ge 44:7,17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',12,23);">1Sa 12:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',27,5);">Job 27:5</a>, etc.).<P>The comparative "farther" occurs only once in the Old Testament (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',8,17);">Ec 8:17</a>), and thrice in the New Testament (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,39);">Mt 26:39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,19);">Mr 1:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,1);">10:1</a>), and in each case is replaced in the Revised Version (British and American) by another word or phrase. The Revised Version (British and American), on the other hand, has "its farthest height" for "the height of his border" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',37,24);">Isa 37:24</a>), and "his farthest lodging-place" for "the lodgings of his borders" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',19,23);">2Ki 19:23</a>).``185';
isbe[3376]='Fare`far: Occurs twice in the Old Testament as the translation of two Hebrew words, shalom, "peace," "prosperity," "completeness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',17,18);">1Sa 17:18</a>), found in the section on David\'s family history omitted by the Septuagint translators, and sakhar, "hire," "reward," Septuagint naulon, "passage-money," "fare" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jon\',1,3);">Jon 1:3</a>). In Hebrew both words are substantives; in English the former is a verb meaning "to go," or "get on as to circumstances" (Century Dict.), the latter, a substantive meaning the price which Jonah paid for a sea-voyage to Tarshish.<P>In Apocrypha the English verb "fare" helps in the translation of three Greek words, kakoo, "fare evil" (the Revised Version (British and American) "fare ill"), Sirach 3:26; elattoo, "fare worse" (the Revised Version (British and American) "suffer loss"), Sirach 32:24; rhonnumi, "be strong," "prosper," in 2 pers. (singular) imperat. (err(h)oso) or plural (err(h)osthe) as a farewell salutation, or at the close of a letter, or to describe the welfare (usually physical or social) of a friend (2Macc 9:20; 11:21,28, etc.). Compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,29);">Ac 15:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',23,30);">23:30</a> margin.<P>In the New Testament the English verb "fare," in addition to its occurrence in the word "<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FAREWELL">farewell</a>" (which see), occurs only once (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,19);">Lu 16:19</a>), where it is said that the rich man "fared sumptuously every day" (the Revised Version, margin "living in mirth and splendor every day").<P>The Greek is euphrainomai, "be merry," and occurs 14 times in the New Testament, 10 in a good sense (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',15,23,24,29,32);">Lu 15:23,24,29,32</a>, all referring to the merry-making over the return of the lost son; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,26);">Ac 2:26</a>, translation of Hebrew samach, "be glad"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,10);">Ro 15:10</a>, translation of Hebrew ranah, "to sing"; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',2,2);">2Co 2:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,27);">Ga 4:27</a>, translation of Hebrew ranah, "to sing"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',12,12);">Re 12:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',18,20);">18:20</a>); 4 in a bad, or less favorable, sense (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,19);">Lu 12:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,19);">16:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,41);">Ac 7:41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',11,10);">Re 11:10</a>). The Greek word is variously translated in the New Testament, "be merry," "make merry," "be glad," "rejoice," "make glad," and only once "fare" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,19);">Lu 16:19</a>). In the last passage it means the general physical and material welfare of the rich man (so the Geneva (1560), the Bishops\' and Rhemish Bibles, the Revised Version (British and American) (1881), and not simply partaking of rich food so Vulgate, Wyclif, Coverdale, Cranmer, Geneva (1557) and the King James Version). Luther translates <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,19);">Lu 16:19</a>, "lebte alle Tage herrlich und in Freuden"; Weizsacker, "genoss sein Leben alle Tage in Glanze"; Ostervald, "se traitoit bien et magnifiquement"; Oltremare, "faisait brillante chere"; Segond, "menait joyeuse et brillante vie"; Weymouth, "enjoyed a splendid banquet every day," all of which virtually agree with the view taken by us as to meaning of "fare." The lampros, "sumptuously," shows that the rich man\'s manner of living was "brilliant," "magnificent." the Revised Version (British and American) has "fare" for "do" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,36);">Ac 15:36</a>), "fared" for "did" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',11,7);">2Sa 11:7</a>), "hath fared" for "was" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,29);">Ge 30:29</a>).``194';
isbe[3377]='Farewell`far-wel\' (chairo), Fare ye, or thou, well: Originally a wish at parting for those faring forth (traveling):<P>(1) As a parting wish at the close of a letter it represents the Greek err(h)oso, "Be strong," imperative of rhonnumi, "to make strong" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,29);">Ac 15:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',23,30);">23:30</a> the King James Version; see the Revised Version, margin; 2Macc 11:21); once chairete (imperative of chairo), "Rejoice!" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',13,11);">2Co 13:11</a>, the Revised Version, margin "Rejoice: be perfected").<P>(2) As equivalent to our saying "good-bye," it represents the Greek apotassomai, "to separate one\'s self," "to take leave," "to bid farewell" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,61);">Lu 9:61</a>, "to bid farewell to them that are at my house"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,21);">Ac 18:21</a>, "bade them farewell," the Revised Version (British and American) "taking his leave of them").`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FARE">FARE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GREETING">GREETING</a>`185';
isbe[3378]='Farm`farm: <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,5);">Mt 22:5</a> is the only passage where agros, has been rendered "farm." In the many other passages where the same word occurs it is rendered "field" or "piece of ground." Farms such as the Occidental is accustomed to see, namely, isolated dwellings with their groups of outbuildings, surrounded by walls or hedges and overlooking the planted fields, were probably unknown in Palestine. For protection against wild beasts and Arab marauders everyone lived in a village and went out to his fields, located perhaps miles away, only as occasion required.``133';
isbe[3379]='Farthing`far\'-thing: The rendering of two words in the Greek of the New Testament, assarion, and kodrantes, Latin quadrans. The assarion was the tenth part of the denarius, and hence in value about one penny or two centuries The quadrans was the fourth part of the Roman as, and worth only about three mills, or less than the English farthing, and is the only term rendered farthing by the American Standard Revised Version. It occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,26);">Mt 5:26</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,42);">Mr 12:42</a>, while assarion, which occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,29);">Mt 10:29</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,6);">Lu 12:6</a>, is rendered "penny" by the American Standard Revised Version.``1';
isbe[3380]='Fashion`fash\'-un (mishpat; schema, the make, pattern, shape, manner or appearance of a thing (from Latin faction-em, "a making," through Old French fatson, fachon)): In the Old Testament the noun "fashion" represents 3 Hebrew words:<P>(1) Mishpat = literally, "judgment," hence, judicial sentence, right, custom, manner; usually translated "judgment" (very frequent), but also a few times "sentence," "cause," "charge," and more frequently "manner" (nearly 40 times in the King James Version). In 3 passages it is translated "fashion," in the sense of style, shape, make, in each case of a building or part of a building (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,30);">Ex 26:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',6,38);">1Ki 6:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',42,11);">Eze 42:11</a>).<P>(2) Tekhunah = literally, "arrangement," "adjustment" (compare takhan, "to set right," "adjust," from kun, hekhin, "to set up," "establish"); <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',43,11);">Eze 43:11</a>, "the form of the house, and the fashion thereof." A cognate word in the preceding verse is translated "pattern" (the Revised Version, margin "sum").<P>(3) Demuth = "resemblance" (from damah, "to be similar"), generally translated "likeness" in English Versions of the Bible, but "fashion" in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',16,10);">2Ki 16:10</a>, where it means pattern or model. The verb "to fashion" stands for<P class="in15">(a) yatsar, "to form," "fashion" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',33,15);">Ps 33:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',139,16);">139:16</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',22,11);">Isa 22:11</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',44,12);">Isa 44:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',45,9);">45:9</a>);<P class="in15">(b) \'asah, "to work," "make," "form" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',10,8);">Job 10:8</a>);<P class="in15">(c) kun, "to set up," "establish," "prepare" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',31,15);">Job 31:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,73);">Ps 119:73</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',16,7);">Eze 16:7</a>);<P>(d) tsur, "to bind up together," "compress" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,4);">Ex 32:4</a>, of Aaron fashioning the golden calf out of the golden rings).<P>In the New Testament, the noun represents 5 Greek words:<P>(1) Of these, the most interesting is schema, "figure," "shape," "fashion" (from schein, aorist of echein, "to have," compare Latin habitus, from habeo, "I have"). Schema denotes a transient, external semblance or fashion, and so it may be distinguished from its synonym morphe, which denotes the essential intrinsic form of a thing, expressing its real nature. (See Lightfoot, Detached Note on <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,\'1-\');">Php 2</a>; Trench, New Testament Syn., 252ff; Gifford, Incarnation, 22ff. The distinction is rejected by Meyer, on <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',12,2);">Ro 12:2</a>, and by others.) In the New Testament, the noun schema occurs but twice: <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',7,31);">1Co 7:31</a>, "The fashion of this world passeth away," where there seems to be an allusion to theatrical scenes, which are in their very nature transitory (compare 2Macc 4:13); and <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,8);">Php 2:8</a>, "being found in fashion as a man," i.e. having the outward figure and bearing of a man, such marks of human nature as strike the senses (contrast morphe Theou, "form of God," <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,6);">Php 2:6</a>, and morphe doulou, "form of servant," <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,7);">2:7</a>, which describe Christ\'s real inner nature). The word schema is found in compound verbs in the following passages: <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',12,2);">Ro 12:2</a>, "Be not fashioned (sunschematizesthe) according to this world: but be ye transformed (metamorphousthe) by the renewing of your mind" (so the Revised Version (British and American)), paraphrased by Sanday and Headlam, "Do not adopt the external and fleeting fashion of this world, but be ye transformed in your inmost nature" (Comm. in the place cited.); <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',11,13);">2Co 11:13</a>f; metaschematizomai, the King James Version "transformed," better the Revised Version (British and American) "fashioned," the reference being to "the fictitious, illusory transformation whereby evil assumes the mask of good" (Lightfoot, Commentary on Phil, 131); <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,14);">1Pe 1:14</a>, "not fashioning yourselves according to your former lusts," paraphrased by Lightfoot, "not falling in with the capricious guidance of the passions" (same place). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,21);">Php 3:21</a>, the adjective summorphos is translated "fashioned" in the King James Version, but better "conformed" as in Revised Version (British and American).<P>(2) Eidos, eidos, literally, "thing seen," "external appearance," "shape," is translated "fashion" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,29);">Lu 9:29</a>, of the glorified appearance of the transfigured Christ.<P>(3) prosopon, literally, "face," hence, look, appearance, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,11);">Jas 1:11</a>, "The grace of the fashion of it perisheth."<P>(4) tupos, type, model, translated "fashion" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,44);">Ac 7:44</a> the King James Version (the Revised Version (British and American) "figure"), the Greek word being taken from the Septuagint of the quoted passage, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,40);">Ex 25:40</a>. The same phrase, kata ton tupon, in the parallel passage, <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',8,5);">Heb 8:5</a>, is translated "according to the pattern."<P>(5) In one instance the phrase "on this fashion," "in this manner," represents the Greek adverb houtos, "thus" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,12);">Mr 2:12</a>).``49';
isbe[3381]='Fast; Fasting`fast, fast\'-ing (tsum; \'innah nephesh, "afflict soul or self," i.e. practice self-denial; nesteia, nesteuein): It is necessary to get rid of some modern notions associated with fasting before we can form a correct idea of its origin and significance in the ancient world. For instance, in the case of many ailments the dieting of the patient is an essential part of the remedy. But we may readily assume that originally fasting was not based on the salutary influence which it exercised on the health of the subject. Considerations of therapeutics played no part in the institution. The theory that fasting, like many other ancient customs, had a religious origin, is in favor with scholars, but we must not assume a religious origin for all practices which in process of time came to be associated with religion.<P>Many customs, purely secular in their origin, have gradually obtained a religious significance, just as purely religious customs have been dissociated from religion. It is also possible and, in the light of some usages, probable, that different motives operated in the association of fasting, as of some other customs, with religion. Scholars have been too ready to assume that the original significance of fasting was the same in all countries and among all nations. Robertson Smith in his Religion of the Semites advanced and defended theory that fasting was merely a mode of preparation for the tribal meal in which sacrifice originated, and came to be considered at a later stage as part of the sacrificial act. This hypothesis apparently accounts for the otherwise strange fact that both fasting and feasting are religious acts, but it does not give a satisfactory explanation of the constant association of fasting with the "wearing of sackcloth," the "putting of ashes on the head," and other similar customs. It is obvious that very different motives operated in the institution of fasting and of feasting religious observances.<P>It is a matter of common observation and experience that great distress causes loss of appetite and therefore occasions abstinence from food. Hannah, who was greatly distressed on account of her childlessness, "wept, and did not eat" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',1,7);">1Sa 1:7</a>). Violent anger produces the same effect (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',20,34);">1Sa 20:34</a>). According to <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',21,4);">1Ki 21:4</a>, Ahab, "heavy and displeased" on account of Naboth\'s refusal to part with his estate, sulked and "would eat no bread." Fasting, originally the natural expression of grief, became the customary mode of proving to others the inner emotion of sorrow. David demonstrated his grief at Abner\'s death (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',3,35);">2Sa 3:35</a>) by fasting, just as the Psalmist indicated his sympathy with his adversaries\' sorry plight in the same way (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',35,13);">Ps 35:13</a>). In such passages as <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,6);">Ezr 10:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',4,3);">Es 4:3</a>, it is not clear whether fasting is used in its religious significance or simply as a natural expression of sorrow (compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',5,33);">Lu 5:33</a> and see below). This view explains the association of fasting with the mourning customs of antiquity (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',31,13);">1Sa 31:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',1,12);">2Sa 1:12</a>). As fasting was a perfectly natural and human expression and evidence of the subject\'s grief, it readily claimed a place among those religious customs whose main object was the pacification of the anger of God, or the excital of His compassion. Any and every act that would manifest the distressful state of the suppliant would appeal to the Deity and move Him to pity. The interesting incident recorded in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',12,\'16-23\');">2Sa 12:16-23</a> suggests the twofold significance of fasting as a religious act or a mode of appealing to the Deity and as a funeral custom. David defends his fasting before and not after the child\'s death on the ground that while the child was alive David\'s prayer might be answered. His fasting was intended to make his petition effectual (compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',21,27);">1Ki 21:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,21);">Ezr 8:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',4,16);">Es 4:16</a>). Occasionally fasting was proclaimed on a national scale, e.g. in case of war (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',20,26);">Jud 20:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',20,3);">2Ch 20:3</a>) or of pestilence (<a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',1,13);">Joe 1:13</a>f). Fasting having thus become a recognized mode of seeking Divine favor and protection, it was natural that it should be associated with confession of sin, as indisputable evidence of penitence or sorrow for sin.<P>Fasting might be partial, i.e. abstinence from certain kinds of food, or total, i.e. abstinence from all food as well as from washing, anointing, sleeping. It might be of shorter or longer duration, e.g. for one day, from sunrise to sunset (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',20,26);">Jud 20:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,24);">1Sa 14:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',1,12);">2Sa 1:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',3,35);">3:35</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',31,13);">1Sa 31:13</a> allusion is made to a seven days\' fast, while Daniel abstained from "pleasant bread," flesh, wine and anointing for three weeks (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',10,3);">Da 10:3</a>). Moses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,28);">Ex 34:28</a>) and Elijah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',19,8);">1Ki 19:8</a>) fasted for 40 days. It is probable that these last three references presuppose a totally different conception of the significance of fasting. It is obvious that dreams made a deep impression on primitive man. They were communications from the departed members of the family. At a later stage they were looked upon as revelations from God. During sleep there is total abstinence from food. It was easy to draw the inference that fasting might fit the person to receive these communications from the world of spirits (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',10,2);">Da 10:2</a>). The close connection between fasting and insight<68>intellectual and spiritual<61>between simple living and high thinking is universally recognized.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Nowack, Hebadische Archaologie; Benzinger, Hebadische Archaologie; Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ABSTINENCE">ABSTINENCE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FEASTS+AND+FASTS">FEASTS AND FASTS</a>`103';
isbe[3382]='Fasts and Feasts``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FEASTS+AND+FASTS">FEASTS AND FASTS</a>`1';
isbe[3383]='Fat`(chelebh, chelebh): The layer of subcutaneous fat and the compact suet surrounding the viscera and imbedded in the entrails, which, like the blood, was forbidden as food in the Mosaic code (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',3,17);">Le 3:17</a>). It was to be sacrificed to God by being burnt upon the altar (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',3,16);">Le 3:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,30);">7: 30</a>). This had to be done on the very day on which a beast had been slaughtered, to remove temptation from the Israelite to use it otherwise (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,18);">Ex 23:18</a>). The law was probably a sanitary restriction, for, at an early date, leprosy, scrofula and disfiguring cutaneous diseases were thought to be caused by the use of fat as food. It was, moreover, an important pedagogical provision teaching the idea of self-denial, and the maxim that the richest and best meat of the edible animal belonged to Yahweh.<P>The expression "fat" is often used in figurative senses, e.g. abundant, exuberant, lusty, fertile, robust, outwardly successful (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,15);">De 32:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',92,14);">Ps 92:14</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,70);">Ps 119:70</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',11,25);">Pr 11:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',13,4);">13:4</a>, etc.).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FATLING">FATLING</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FOWL+FATTED">FOWL, FATTED</a>`106';
isbe[3384]='Fat (Vat)`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WINE;+WINE+PRESS">WINE; WINE PRESS, II.</a>``1';
isbe[3385]='Father`fa\'-ther (Anglo-Saxon, Foeder; German, Vater; Hebrew \'abh, etymology uncertain, found in many cognate languages; Greek pater, from root pa, "nourisher," "protector," "upholder"):<P>1. Immediate Male Ancestor:<P>Immediate male ancestor. The father in the Hebrew family, as in the Roman, had supreme rights over his children, could dispose of his daughter in marriage (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',29,\'1-\');">Ge 29</a>), arrange his son\'s marriage (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,\'1-\');">Ge 24</a>), sell his children (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,7);">Ex 21:7</a>), but not his daughter to a stranger (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',5,5);">Ne 5:5</a>), had power of life and death, as in the case of Isaac (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,\'1-\');">Ge 22</a>), Jephthah\'s daughter (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',11,34);">Jud 11:34</a>), the sacrificing of his children to Molech (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,21);">Le 18:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,\'3-5\');">20:3-5</a>), etc. Respect, reverence and affection for fathers (and equally for mothers) is most tenderly, explicitly and sternly prescribed from the earliest times (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,12);">Ex 20:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,3);">Le 19:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',5,16);">De 5:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',7,6);">Mic 7:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',22,7);">Eze 22:7</a>, etc.). A symmetrical and beautiful picture of the duties and character of the ideal human father may be built up from the Old Testament, with added and enlarged touches from the New Testament. He loves (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,4);">Ge 37:4</a>); commands (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',50,16);">Ge 50:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',6,20);">Pr 6:20</a>); instructs (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',1,8);">Pr 1:8</a>, etc.); guides, encourages, warns (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',3,4);">Jer 3:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',2,11);">1Th 2:11</a>); trains (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',11,3);">Ho 11:3</a>); rebukes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',34,30);">Ge 34:30</a>); restrains (Eli, by contrast, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',3,13);">1Sa 3:13</a>); punishes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',21,18);">De 21:18</a>); chastens (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',3,12);">Pr 3:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',8,5);">De 8:5</a>); nourishes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,2);">Isa 1:2</a>); delights in his son (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',3,12);">Pr 3:12</a>), and in his son\'s wisdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',10,1);">Pr 10:1</a>); is deeply pained by his folly (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',17,25);">Pr 17:25</a>); he is considerate of his children\'s needs and requests (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,10);">Mt 7:10</a>); considerate of their burdens, or sins (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',3,17);">Mal 3:17</a>, "As a man spareth his own son"); tenderly familiar (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',11,7);">Lu 11:7</a>, "with me in bed"); considerately self-restrained (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,4);">Eph 6:4</a>, "Provoke not your children to wrath"); having in view the highest ends (ibid., "Nurture them in the chastening and admonition of the Lord"); pitiful (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',103,13);">Ps 103:13</a>, "as a father pitieth his children"); the last human friend (but one) to desert the child (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',27,10);">Ps 27:10</a>: "When (a thing to the psalmist incredible) my father and my mother forsake me, then Yahweh will take me up").<P>2. Ancestors, Immediate or Remote:<P>(a) Ancestor, immediate or remote: <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,13);">Ge 28:13</a>, "Abraham thy father" (grandfather); <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',22,50);">1Ki 22:50</a>, "Jehoshaphat...David his father"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',35,6);">Jer 35:6</a>, "Jonadab, the son of Rechab, our father"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',5,11);">Da 5:11</a>, "Nebuchadnezzar thy father" (personal or official ancestor); <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,15);">Ge 15:15</a>, "Go to thy fathers in peace" (and so (in the plural) in over 500 passages). The expressions "slept with his fathers," "go down to his fathers," "buried with his fathers," "gathered to his fathers," are self-explanatory euphemisms.<P>(b) The founders of the (Hebrew) race, specifically the patriarchs:\' <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,5);">Ro 9:5</a>, "whose are the fathers," considered here also as in a sense the religious ancestors of all believers.<P>(c) Progenitors of clans, i.e. (Revised Version (British and American)) "fathers\' houses": <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,14);">Ex 6:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',27,1);">1Ch 27:1</a>, etc.<P>(d) Gods as progenitors of men: <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',2,27);">Jer 2:27</a>, "Who say to a stock, thou art my father."<P>3. Figurative and Derived Uses:<P>(a) A spiritual ancestor, one who has infused his own spirit into others, whether good, as Abraham, the father of the faithful, <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',4,11);">Ro 4:11</a>; or bad, as <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,44);">Joh 8:44</a>, "Ye are of your father the devil."<P>(b) Indicating closest resemblance, kinship, affinity: <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',17,14);">Job 17:14</a>, "If I have said to corruption, Thou art my father."<P>(c) A source: <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,17);">Eph 1:17</a>, "Father of glory"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',38,28);">Job 38:28</a>, "Hath the rain a father?"<P>(d) Creator: <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,17);">Jas 1:17</a>, "the Father of lights."<P>(e) The inventor or originator of an art or mode of life: <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,20);">Ge 4:20</a>, "father of such as dwell in tents" (a hint here of hereditary occupations? Probably not).<P>(f) One who exhibits the fatherly characteristics: <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',68,5);">Ps 68:5</a>, "a father of the fatherless."<P>(g) One who occupies a position of counsel, care, or control (frequently applied by sultans to their prime ministers): <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',45,8);">Ge 45:8</a>, "a father to Pharaoh"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',17,10);">Jud 17:10</a>, "Be unto me a father and a priest."<P>(h) A revered or honored superior: <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',5,13);">2Ki 5:13</a>, "My father, if the prophet had bid thee"; but especially applied to prophets: <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',2,12);">2Ki 2:12</a>, "My father, my father!" also to elderly and venerable men: <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,13);">1Joh 2:13</a>, "I write unto you, fathers"; hence also, with perhaps an outlook on (2) (a), deceased early Christians: <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,4);">2Pe 3:4</a>, "from the day that the fathers fell asleep." An ecclesiastical title, condemned (in principle) by our Lord: <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,9);">Mt 23:9</a>, "Call no man your father on the earth"; but applied, under the power of the Spirit, to members of the Sanhedrin (probably) by Stephen: <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,2);">Ac 7:2</a>; and by Paul: <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,2);">22:1</a>, but the latter, perhaps also the former, may simply refer to the elderly among his hearers. Christ\'s condemnation is clearly of the praise-seeking or obsequious spirit, rather than of a particular custom.<P>"Father," used by Mary of Joseph, in relation to Jesus, equals "putative father," a necessary reserve at a time when the virgin birth could not yet be proclaimed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,49);">Lu 2:49</a>). But note Jesus\' answer: "my Father\'s house."``31';
isbe[3386]='Father\'s House`(beth \'abh, beth \'abhoth): Father\'s house in the Old Testament is<P>(1) a dwelling, the family home (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,1);">Ge 12:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,14,30);">31:14,30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',38,11);">38:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,2);">1Sa 18:2</a>);<P>(2) a family or household (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,51);">Ge 41:51</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,31);">46:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,3);">Ex 12:3</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "fathers\' houses");<P>(3) the group of households, of several of which the "family\' or "clan" was constituted, aggregations of which formed the "tribe," generally "fathers\' houses" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',1,18,20);">Nu 1:18,20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',17,2);">17:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,59);">Ezr 2:59</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,34);">Ne 10:34</a>, etc.);<P>(4) the "family" (clan), mishpachah, "fathers\' houses" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,14);">Ex 6:14</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',3,20);">Nu 3:20</a>);<P>(5) the tribe, "fathers\' house," "houses" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',7,2);">Nu 7:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',17,\'1-3\');">17:1-3</a>, etc.).<P>In the New Testament "father\'s house" (oikos tou patros) occurs in the sense of dwelling, house (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,27);">Lu 16:27</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,4);">16:4</a>). our Lord also uses the phrase<P>(1) of the earthly temple-dwelling of God at Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',2,16);">Joh 2:16</a>, "Make not my Father\'s house a house of merchandise"; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',11,4);">Ps 11:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',63,15);">Isa 63:15</a>);<P>(2) of heaven as the abode of God and His children (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,2);">Joh 14:2</a>, "In my Father\'s house are many mansions," the Revised Version, margin "abiding places," oikia "house," "dwelling," also household, family; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',33,13);">Ps 33:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',63,15);">Isa 63:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,9);">Mt 6:9</a>). The phrase occurs also (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,20);">Ac 7:20</a>) of Moses, "nourished...in his father\'s house" (oikos).<P>Revised Version has "father\'s hquse" for "principal household" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',24,6);">1Ch 24:6</a>), "heads of the fathers\' houses" for "chief fathers" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',31,26);">Nu 31:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',32,28);">32:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',36,1);">36:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,34);">1Ch 9:34</a>, etc.); "one prince of a father\'s house," for "each of" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',22,14);">Jos 22:14</a>); "the heads of the fathers\' (houses)" for "the chief of the fathers," and "the fathers\' houses of the chief," for "the principal fathers" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',24,31);">1Ch 24:31</a>).``185';
isbe[3387]='Father, God the`In the Christian religion God is conceived of as "Father," "Our Father...in heaven" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,9,14,26);">Mt 6:9,14,26</a>, etc.), "the God and Father of the Lord Jesus" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',11,31);">2Co 11:31</a>, etc.). The tenderness of relation and wealth of love and grace embraced in this profound designation are peculiar to Christ\'s gospel. Pagan religions also could speak of God as "Father" (Zeus Pater), and in the general sense of Creator God has a universal fatherly relation to the world (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,\'24-28\');">Ac 17:24-28</a>). In the Old Testament God was revealed as Father to the chosen nation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,22);">Ex 4:22</a>), and to the special representative of the nation, the king (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',7,14);">2Sa 7:14</a>), while fatherly love is declared to be the image of His pity for those who fear Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',103,13);">Ps 103:13</a>). In the gospel of Jesus alone is this Fatherhood revealed to be of the very essence of the Godhead, and to have respect to the individual. Here, however, there is need for great discrimination. To reach the heart of the truth of the Divine Fatherhood it is necessary to begin, not with man, but with the Godhead itself, in whose eternal depths is found the spring of that Fatherly love that reveals itself in time. It is first of all in relation to the eternal Son<6F>before all time<6D>that the meaning of Fatherhood in God is made clear (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,18);">Joh 1:18</a>). In "God the Father" we have a name pointing to that relation which the first Person in the adorable Trinity sustains to "Son" and "Holy Spirit"<22>also Divine (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,19);">Mt 28:19</a>). From this eternal fountain-head flow the relations of God as Father<P class="in15">(1) to the world by creation;<P class="in15">(2) to believers by grace.<P>Man as created was designed by affinity of nature for sonship to God. The realization of this<69>his true creature-destiny<6E>was frustrated by sin, and can now only be restored by redemption. Hence, the place of sonship in the gospel, as an unspeakable privilege (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,1);">1Joh 3:1</a>), obtained by grace, through regeneration (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,12,13);">Joh 1:12-13</a>), and adoption (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,14,19);">Ro 8:14,19</a>). In this relation of nearness and privilege to the Father in the kingdom of His Son (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,13);">Col 1:13</a>), believers are "sons of God" in a sense true of no others. It is a relation, not of nature, but of grace. Fatherhood is now the determinative fact in God\'s relation to them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,14);">Eph 3:14</a>). It is an error, nevertheless, to speak of fatherhood as if the whole character of God was therein sufficiently expressed. God is Father, but equally fundamental is His relation to His world as its Moral Ruler and Judge. From eternity to eternity the holy God must pronounce Himself against sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,18);">Ro 1:18</a>); and His fatherly grace cannot avert judgment where the heart remains hard and impenitent (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,\'1-9\');">Ro 2:1-9</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GOD,+1">GOD</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHILDREN+OF+GOD">CHILDREN OF GOD</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TRINITY,+1">TRINITY</a>`132';
isbe[3388]='Father-In-Law`fa\'-ther-in-lo.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RELATIONSHIPS,+FAMILY">RELATIONSHIPS, FAMILY</a>`1';
isbe[3389]='Fatherless`fa\'-ther-les (yathom; orphanos): The fatherless are frequently mentioned in the Old Testament, generally in association with the widow and the stranger, as typical instances of the unprotected and necessitous, who are, specially subject to oppression, and also to God\'s special protection. Great philanthropic regard is bestowed on this class throughout. In early legislation there is a special clause to guard them against affliction (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,\'22-24\');">Ex 22:22-24</a>). They have a still more prominent place in the Deuteronomic legislation, which gives instructions that a charitable fund be formed out of the tithe, once every three years, for the relief of the destitute (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,28,29);">De 14:28-29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',26,\'12-14\');">26:12-14</a>), and that gleanings be left in the cornfield, the olive garden, and the vineyard for the benefit of this class (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',24,\'19-22\');">De 24:19-22</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,9);">Le 19:9</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,22);">23:22</a>, where, however, the "fatherless" are not specially mentioned). The Deuteronomist declares that God is on their side (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',10,18);">De 10:18</a>), and strongly condemns those who would oppress them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',24,17);">De 24:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',27,19);">27:19</a>). The prophets and psalmists are equally emphatic in pleading for mercy and justice to the fatherless, and in declaring that God is their special guardian (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,17);">Isa 1:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',7,6);">Jer 7:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',22,3);">22:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',14,3);">Ho 14:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',7,10);">Zec 7:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',10,14);">Ps 10:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',68,5);">68:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',82,3);">82:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',146,9);">146:9</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',23,10);">Pr 23:10</a>). Oppressing the fatherless is frequently mentioned as a typical act of cruelty and injustice (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',6,27);">Job 6:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',22,9);">22:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',24,3,9);">24:3,9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',29,12);">29:12</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',31,16,17,21);">31:16,17,21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',94,6);">Ps 94:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,23);">Isa 1:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,2);">10:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',5,28);">Jer 5:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',22,7);">Eze 22:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',3,5);">Mal 3:5</a>). Here we have instances of the prophetic passion for righteousness and compassion for the helpless, inspired by a profound sense of the value of human life. Passages in the Apocrypha reflect the same spirit (2Esdras 2:20; Ecclesiasticus 4:10).<P>In the New Testament the word "fatherless" occurs but once, where James declares, in the spirit of the Old Testament prophets, that true religious ritual consists in visitation of the fatherless and widows and in moral purity (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,27);">Jas 1:27</a>). Here the word for "fatherless" is orphanos ("bereft," "orphaned"), which is the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament yathom. In the New Testament the Greek word is found besides only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,18);">Joh 14:18</a>, where it means destitute of a teacher or guide (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',5,3);">La 5:3</a>).``49';
isbe[3390]='Fathers\' Brother``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RELATIONSHIPS,+FAMILY">RELATIONSHIPS, FAMILY</a>`1';
isbe[3391]='Fathom`fath\'-um (orguia): The literal meaning is the length of the outstretched arms, and it was regarded as equal to 4 cubits, or about 6 feet. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',27,28);">Ac 27:28</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WEIGHTS+AND+MEASURES">WEIGHTS AND MEASURES</a>`1';
isbe[3392]='Fatling; Fatted``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CALF">CALF</a>`1';
isbe[3393]='Fatness`fat\'-nes (deshen; piotes):<P>1. Literal:<P>The translation of deshen (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',9,9);">Jud 9:9</a>, "But the olive-tree said unto them, Should I leave my fatness?"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',36,16);">Job 36:16</a> (of food)), "full of fatness"; of chelebh, "fat," "the best part," "the marrow" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',15,27);">Job 15:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',73,7);">Ps 73:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,6,7);">Isa 34:6-7</a>); of mishman, "fathess," "fertility" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,28);">Ge 27:28</a>, "the fatness of the earth"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',17,4);">Isa 17:4</a>, "the fatness of his flesh"); of shemen, "fatness," "oil" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',109,24);">Ps 109:24</a>); of piotes, "fat," "fatness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',11,17);">Ro 11:17</a>, "partaker...of the root of the fatness of the olive tree").<P>2. Figurative:<P>"Fatness" is used figuratively for the richness of God\'s goodness; as such it is the translation of deshen ("They shall be abundantly satisfied (margin "Hebrew watered") with the fatness of thy house" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',36,8);">Ps 36:8</a>); "Thy paths drop fatness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',65,11);">Ps 65:11</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',55,2);">Isa 55:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,14);">Jer 31:14</a>).<P>"With fatness" is supplied, <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,15);">De 32:15</a> the King James Version, "covered with fatness"; the Revised Version (British and American) has "become sleek"; for "The yoke shall be destroyed because of the anointing" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,27);">Isa 10:27</a>) the American Standard Revised Version has "by reason of fatness," margin "Hebrew oil"; the English Revised Version as the King James Version, with margin as the American Standard Revised Version; the text is believed to be corrupt; Septuagint has "from your shoulders."``185';
isbe[3394]='Fauchion`fo\'-shun.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SCIMITAR">SCIMITAR</a>`1';
isbe[3395]='Fault`folt (chata\'; aitia, memphomai): Implies defect, of less moral weight than crime or sin. It is the translation of chata\', "error," "failure," "sin" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',5,16);">Ex 5:16</a>); of cheT\', same meaning (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,9);">Ge 41:9</a>, "I do remember my faults this day"); of \'awon, "perversity," "iniquity" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',3,8);">2Sa 3:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',59,4);">Ps 59:4</a>); of rish\'ah, "wrongness," "wickedness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',25,2);">De 25:2</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "wickedness"); of shechath (Aramaic) "corruption" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',6,4);">Da 6:4</a> twice); me\'umah, "anything" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',29,3);">1Sa 29:3</a>, "no fault in him," literally, "not anything"); of aitia, "cause," "case," "guilt," (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,38);">Joh 18:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,4,6);">19:4,6</a>; Pilate of Jesus, "I find no fault in him," the Revised Version (British and American) "no crime"; the same word is rendered "accusation," i.e. \'legal cause for prosecution,\' <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,37);">Mt 27:37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,26);">Mr 15:26</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',25,18,27);">Ac 25:18,27</a>); of aition, same meaning (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,4,14);">Lu 23:4,14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,22);">23:22</a>, aition thanatou "cause of death"); of hettema, "a worse condition," "defect" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',6,7);">1Co 6:7</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "a defect," margin "a loss to you"); of paraptoma, "a falling aside" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',6,1);">Ga 6:1</a>, "If a man be overtaken in fault," the Revised Version (British and American) "in any trespass," margin "by"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',5,16);">Jas 5:16</a>, "Confess your faults one to another," the Revised Version (British and American) "Confess therefore your sins one to another"); hamartano, "to miss," "err," "sin," is translated "your faults" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,20);">1Pe 2:20</a> the Revised Version (British and American), "when ye sin"); memphomai, "to blame," is translated "to find fault" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,2);">Mr 7:2</a> omitted the Revised Version (British and American); <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,19);">Ro 9:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',8,8);">Heb 8:8</a>); elegcho, "to convict," "to tell one\'s fault" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,15);">Mt 18:15</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "show him his fault"); amomos, "without blemish," "spotless," is translated "without fault" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',14,5);">Re 14:5</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "without blemish," "faultless"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,24);">Jude 1:24</a>, "able to present you faultless," the Revised Version (British and American) "without blemish"); amemptos, "blameless," "without reproach" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',8,7);">Heb 8:7</a>, "for if that first covenant had been faultless"). "Faulty" is the translation of \'ashem, "guilty" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',14,13);">2Sa 14:13</a>, "as one which is faulty," the Revised Version (British and American) "guilty"); of \'asham, "to be or become guilty" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',10,2);">Ho 10:2</a>, Revised Version "guilty").``185';
isbe[3396]='Favor`fa\'-ver (chen, ratson, with other Hebrew words; charis): Means generally good will, acceptance, and the benefits flowing from these; in older usage it meant also the countenance, hence, appearance. Alternating in English Versions of the Bible with "grace," it is used chiefly of man, but sometimes also of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,3);">Ge 18:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,27);">30:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',39,21);">39:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,21);">Ex 3:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',15,25);">2Sa 15:25</a>, "in the eyes of Yahweh," etc.). It is used perhaps in the sense of "countenance" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',31,30);">Pr 31:30</a>, "Favor is deceitful, and beauty is vain" (the King James Version), where for "favor" the Revised Version (British and American) has "grace"; the reference is to external appearance. "Favored" is used in the sense of "appearance" in the phrase "well-favored" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',29,17);">Ge 29:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',39,6);">39:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,2,4);">41:2,4</a>); conversely, "ill-favored" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,3,4);">Ge 41:3-4</a>). For "favor" the Revised Version (British and American) has "have pity on" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',109,12);">Ps 109:12</a>), "good will" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',14,9);">Pr 14:9</a>), "peace" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',8,10);">So 8:10</a>); the English Revised Version "grace" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rth\',2,13);">Ru 2:13</a>), the American Standard Revised Version "kindness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',2,17);">Es 2:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',1,9);">Da 1:9</a>), etc. In the American Standard Revised Version "the acceptable year of the Lord" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',61,2);">Isa 61:2</a>) is changed Into "the year of Yahweh\'s favor"; "Do I now persuade men" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,10);">Ga 1:10</a>) into, "Am I now seeking the favor of men," and there are other the Revised Version (British and American) changes.``185';
isbe[3397]='Fawn`fon.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DEER">DEER</a>`1';
isbe[3398]='Fear`fer (yir\'ah, yare\'; phobos, phobeo):<P>Terms, etc.:<P>"Fear" is the translation of many words in the Old Testament; the chief are: yir\'ah, "fear," "terror," "reverence," "awe," most often "the fear of God," "fear of Yahweh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,11);">Ge 20:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',19,9);">2Ch 19:9</a>, etc.); also of "fear" generally (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',22,4);">Job 22:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',7,25);">Isa 7:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',30,13);">Eze 30:13</a>, etc.); yare\', "to be afraid," "to fear," "to reverence" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,1);">Ge 15:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,3,14);">Le 19:3,14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',6,2);">De 6:2</a>, etc.); pachadh, "fear," "terror," "dread" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,42,53);">Ge 31:42,53</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',11,25);">De 11:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',11,7);">1Sa 11:7</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',4,14);">Job 4:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',2,10);">Isa 2:10</a> the King James Version, etc.).<P>"Fearful" (timid) is the translation of yare\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',20,8);">De 20:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',7,3);">Jud 7:3</a>); "to be feared," yare\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,11);">Ex 15:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',28,58);">De 28:58</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',130,4);">Ps 130:4</a>); in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',35,4);">Isa 35:4</a>, it is the translation of mahar, "hasty," "them that are of a fearful heart," margin "Hebrew hasty"; perhaps, ready to flee (for fear).<P>"Fearfully" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',139,14);">Ps 139:14</a>): yare\', "I am fearfully (and) wonderfully made," so the Revised Version (British and American); "and" is not in the text, so that "fearfully" may be equivalent to "extremely," to an awesome degree; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',65,5);">Ps 65:5</a>, "by terrible things...in righteousness"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',66,3);">66:3</a>, "How terrible are thy works (yare\' "fearful"); the Septuagint, Peshitta, Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) have "Thou art fearfully wonderful."<P>"Fearfulness" occurs In <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',55,5);">Ps 55:5</a> (yir\'ah); <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',21,4);">Isa 21:4</a> (pallatsuth), the Revised Version (British and American) "horror"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',33,14);">Isa 33:14</a> (re\'adhah, "trembling"), "Fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites," the Revised Version (British and American) "Trembling hath seized the godless ones."<P>In the New Testament the chief words are phobos, "fear," "terror," "affright" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',14,26);">Mt 14:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,4,8);">28:4,8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,26);">Lu 21:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,18);">1Joh 4:18</a>, etc.), and phobeo, "to put in fear" (both used of ordinary fear) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,20);">Mt 1:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,26);">10:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,5);">28:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',12,20);">2Co 12:20</a>, etc.); of the fear of God, the noun (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,18);">Ro 3:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',7,1);">2Co 7:1</a>), the verb (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,4);">Lu 18:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,40);">23:40</a>, etc.); deilia, "timidity," "fear," occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',1,7);">2Ti 1:7</a>, "God hath not given us the spirit of fear," the Revised Version (British and American) "a spirit of fearfulness"; ekphobos, "frightened out (of one\'s senses)," "greatly terrified" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,21);">Heb 12:21</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',9,19);">De 9:19</a>; The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 17:9</span> the King James Version); apo tes eulabeias is translated (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',5,7);">Heb 5:7</a>) "(of Christ) who was heard in that he feared," the Revised Version (British and American) "having been heard for his godly fear"; so all the Greek commentators; eulabeia, properly, "caution," "circumspection," is used in the New Testament for godly fear (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,28);">Heb 12:28</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "reverence and awe," margin as the King James Version); compare eulabes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,25);">Lu 2:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,5);">Ac 2:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',8,2);">8:2</a>); eulabeomai, "to act with caution" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',23,10);">Ac 23:10</a>). Deilos, "fearful," "timid," occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',8,26);">Mt 8:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',4,40);">Mr 4:40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',21,8);">Re 21:8</a>, "Their part shall be...the second death"; phoberos, "fearful," "terrible" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,27,31);">Heb 10:27,31</a>); phobetron, "something fearful," "a terrible sign or portent" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,11);">Lu 21:11</a>, Revised Version (British and American) "terrors").<P>Fear is a natural and, in its purpose, beneficent feeling, arising in the presence or anticipation of danger, and moving to its avoidance; it is also awakened in the presence of superiors and of striking manifestations of power, etc., taking the form of awe or reverence. Fear has been said to be the source of religion, but religion can never have originated from fear alone, since men are impelled to draw nigh with expectation to the object of worship.<P>"Fear" is certainly a prominent element in Old Testament religion; the "fear of God" or of Yahweh, "the fear of the Lord," is indeed synonymous with religion itself (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',34,11);">Ps 34:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',1,7);">Pr 1:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',11,2,3);">Isa 11:2-3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',2,19);">Jer 2:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',12,13);">Ec 12:13</a>, "the whole duty of man," the Revised Version, margin "the duty of all men"). But although the element of dread, or of "fear" in its lower sense, is not always absent and is sometimes prominent in the earlier stages especially, though not exclusively (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,27);">Ex 23:27</a>, \'emah; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',11,7);">1Sa 11:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',20,29);">2Ch 20:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,120);">Ps 119:120</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',2,10,19,21);">Isa 2:10,19,21</a>), it is more the feeling of reverent regard for their God, tempered with awe and fear of the punishment of disobedience. As such it is a sentiment commanded and to be cherished toward Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,20);">Ex 20:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',6,13);">De 6:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',4,24);">Jos 4:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',12,24);">1Sa 12:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',6,14);">Job 6:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',33,8);">Ps 33:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',34,9);">34:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',23,17);">Pr 23:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',5,7);">Ec 5:7</a>, etc.). It is an essential element in the worship and service of Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,\'1-\');">2Ki 17</a> often; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',2,11);">Ps 2:11</a>, etc.); it is a Divine qualification of the Messiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',11,2,3);">Isa 11:2,3</a>). This "fear of Yahweh" is manifested in keeping God\'s commandments, walking in His ways, doing His will, avoiding sin, etc. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,20);">Ex 20:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',6,13,14);">De 6:13-14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,3);">2Sa 23:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',34,4,9);">Ps 34:4,9</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',8,13);">Pr 8:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',16,6);">16:6</a>). It is the true wisdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',28,28);">Job 28:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',25,14);">Ps 25:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',1,7);">Pr 1:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',15,33);">15:33</a>); it gives life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',10,27);">Pr 10:27</a>, etc.), blessedness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',128,1,4);">Ps 128:1,4</a>), sufficiency (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',34,9);">Ps 34:9</a>), Divine friendship (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',25,14);">Ps 25:14</a>), protection (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',34,7);">Ps 34:7</a>), deliverance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',85,9);">Ps 85:9</a>), forgiveness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',130,4);">Ps 130:4</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',90,11);">Ps 90:11</a> the King James Version has "According to thy fear so is thy wrath," the Revised Version (British and American) "and thy wrath according to the fear that is due unto thee"; the meaning probably is "thy wrath is in proportion to thy fear."<P>The "fear of the Lord" is a frequent phrase in Apocrypha, and is highly exalted, e.g. Ecclesiasticus 1:11-30; the idea of it became gradually more and more elevated; in <span class="noTag">2:15,16</span> it is joined with the love of God.<P>"Fear" is the natural consequence of sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,10);">Ge 3:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,13,14);">4:13-14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',28,1);">Pr 28:1</a>); it comes as a punishment (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',28,25,28);">De 28:25,28</a>). The fear of man and of evils are dangers to be avoided, from which the fear of God delivers (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,9);">Nu 14:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,34);">21:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',23,4);">Ps 23:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',31,14);">31:14</a>, etc.).<P>"Fear" sometimes stands for the object of fear (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',10,24);">Pr 10:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',66,4);">Isa 66:4</a>); for the object of worship (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,42,53);">Ge 31:42,53</a>, "the God of Abraham, and the Fear of Isaac," pachadh).<P>In the New Testament dread, or fear of God in the lower sense, is removed; He is revealed as the loving and forgiving Father, who gives to men the spirit of sonship (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,15);">Ro 8:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',1,7);">2Ti 1:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,18);">1Joh 4:18</a>); we are invited even to come "with boldness unto the throne of grace," with confidence, assurance (parrhesia), which, however, may have its literal meaning of free "utterance" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',4,16);">Heb 4:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,19);">10:19</a>); but there remains a filial fear and sense of awe and of the greatness of the issues involved (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',11,20);">Ro 11:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,21);">Eph 5:21</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "of Christ"; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',5,20);">1Ti 5:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',4,1);">Heb 4:1</a>); all other fears should be dismissed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',8,26);">Mt 8:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,\'26-28\',31);">10:26-28,31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,32);">Lu 12:32</a>); in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,28);">Mt 10:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,5);">Lu 12:5</a>, "fear" is used in the sense of "stand in awe of," so perhaps <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,40);">Lu 23:40</a>; to "fear God" is sometimes used in the New Testament as equivalent to religion (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,4);">Lu 18:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,2,35);">Ac 10:2,35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,16,26);">13:16,26</a>, used of proselytes); in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,27);">Heb 10:27</a>, it is said that if Christ be willfully rejected, nothing remains but "a fearful looking for (the Revised Version (British and American) "expectation") of judgment," and <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,31);">10:31</a>, "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God," in which places "fearful" means "terrible," something well to be feared. the Revised Version (British and American) gives frequently a more literal rendering of the words translated "fear."``185';
isbe[3399]='Feasts and Fasts`fests (mo\'edh, "an appointed day" or "an assembling," chagh, from chaghagh, "to dance" or possibly "to make a pilgrimage"; tsom, "fast," ta\'anith, "a day of affliction"):<P><b>I. PRE-EXILIC</b><P class="in15">A) Annual<P class="in30">1. Passover, 15th-22d Nican<P class="in30">2. Pentecost, 6th Ciwan) Pilgrimage<P class="in30">3. Tabernacles, 15th-22d Tishri) Festivals<P class="in30">4. Shemini \'Atsereth, 23d Tishri<P class="in30">5. New Year, Feast of Trumpets, 1st Tishri<P class="in30">6. Atonement, 10th Tishri<P class="in15">B) Periodic<P class="in30">1. Weekly Sabbath<P class="in30">2. New Moon<P class="in30">3. Sabbath Year<P class="in30">4. Jubilee Year<P><b>II. POST-EXILIC</b><P class="in30">1. Feast of Dedication, 25th Kiclew<P class="in30">2. Fast of Esther, 13th \'Adhar<P class="in30">3. Feast of Purim, 14th \'Adhar<P class="in30">4. Fast of the Fourth Month, 17th Tammuz<P class="in30">5. Fast of the Fifth Month, 9th \'Abh<P class="in30">6. Fast of the Seventh Month, 3rd Tishri<P class="in30">7. Fast of the Tenth Month, 10th Tebheth<P class="in30">8. Feast of Acra, 23d Iyar<P class="in30">9. Feast of Nicanor, 18th \'Adhar<P class="in30">10. Feast of Woodcarrying, Midsummer Day, 15th \'Abh<P class="in30">11. New Year for Trees, 15th shebhat<P class="in30">12. Bi-weekly Fasts, Mondays and Thursdays after Festivals<P class="in30">13. Second Days of Festivals Instituted<P class="in30">14. New Modes of Observing Old Festivals Instituted<hr /><P>The Nature of the Hebrew Festivals:<P>The Hebrews had an abundance of holidays, some based, according to their tradition, on agriculture and the natural changes of times and seasons, some on historical events connected with the national or religious life of Israel, and still others simply on immemorial custom. in most instances two or more of these bases coexist, and the emphasis on the natural, the agricultural, the national, or the religious phase will vary with different writers, different context, or different times. Any classification of these feasts and fasts on the basis of original significance must therefore be imperfect.<P>We should rather classify them as preexilic and post-exilic, because the period of the Babylonian captivity marks a complete change, not only in the kinds of festivals instituted from time to time, but also in the manner of celebrating the old.<P>I. Pre-exilic.<P>The pre-exilic list includes the three pilgrimage festivals, the Passover week, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles, together with the Eighth Day of Assembly at the conclusion of the last of these feasts, and New Year and Atonement Days, the weekly Sabbath and the New Moon.<P>1. Observances Common to All:<P>The preexilic festivals were "holy convocations" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,\'1-\');">Le 23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',28,\'1-\');">Nu 28</a>). Special sacrifices were offered on them in addition to the daily offerings. These sacrifices, however, varied according to the character of the festival (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',28,\'1-\');">Nu 28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',29,\'1-\');">29</a>). On all of them trumpets (chatsotseroth) were blown while the burnt offerings and the peace-offerings were being sacrificed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',10,10);">Nu 10:10</a>). They were all likened to the weekly Sabbath as days of rest, on which there must be complete suspension of all ordinary work (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,29);">Le 16:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,7,8,21,24,25,28,35,36);">23:7,8,21,24,25,28,35,36</a>).<P>2. Significance of the Festivals:<P>The three pilgrimage festivals were known by that name because on them the Israelites gathered at Jerusalem to give thanks for their doubly joyful character. They were of agricultural significance as well as commemorative of national events. Thus, the Passover is connected with the barley harvest; at the same time it is the zeman cheruth, recalling the Exodus from Egypt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,6);">Ex 12:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,5,8);">Le 23:5,8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',28,\'16-25\');">Nu 28:16-25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',16,\'1-8\');">De 16:1-8</a>).<P>Pentecost has an agricultural phase as chagh habikkurim, the celebration of the wheat harvest; it has a religious phase as zeman mattan Thorah in the Jewish liturgy, based on the rabbinical calculation which makes it the day of the giving of the Law, and this religious side has so completely overshadowed the agricultural that among modern Jews the Pentecost has become "confirmation day" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,26);">Ex 34:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,\'10-14\');">Le 23:10-14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',28,\'26-31\');">Nu 28:26-31</a>).<P>The Feast of Tabernacles is at once the general harvest festival, chagh he-\'aciph, and the anniversary of the beginnings of the wanderings in the wilderness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,16);">Ex 23:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,33);">Le 23:33</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',16,\'13-15\');">De 16:13-15</a>). The Eighth Day of Assembly immediately following the last day of Tabernacles (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,36);">Le 23:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',29,35);">Nu 29:35</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',7,37);">Joh 7:37</a>) and closing the long cycle of Tishri festivals seems to have been merely a final day of rejoicing before the pilgrims returned to their homes.<P>New Year (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,\'23-25\');">Le 23:23-25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',29,\'1-6\');">Nu 29:1-6</a>) and the Day of Atonement (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,1);">Le 16:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,\'26-32\');">23:26-32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',29,\'7-11\');">Nu 29:7-11</a>) marked the turning of the year; primarily, perhaps, in the natural phenomena of Palestine, but also in the inner life of the nation and the individual. Hence, the religious significance of these days as days of judgment, penitence and forgiveness soon overshadowed any other significance they may have had. The temple ritual for these days, which is minutely described in the Old Testament and in the Talmud, was the most elaborate and impressive of the year. At the same time Atonement Day was socially an important day of rejoicing.<P>In addition to these annual festivals the pre-exilic Hebrews celebrated the Sabbath (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',28,9,10);">Nu 28:9,10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,\'1-3\');">Le 23:1-3</a>) and the New Moon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',10,10);">Nu 10:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',28,\'11-15\');">28:11-15</a>). By analogy to the weekly Sabbath, every seventh year was a Sabbath Year (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,11);">Ex 23:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,\'1-7\');">Le 25:1-7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',15,1);">De 15:1</a>), and every cycle of seven Sabbath years was closed with a Jubilee Year (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,\'8-18\');">Le 25:8-18</a>) somewhat after the analogy of the seven weeks counted before Pentecost.<P>For further details of all of these preexilic festivals see the separate articles.<P>II. Post-exilic.<P>In post-exilic times important historical events were made the basis for the institution of new fasts and feasts. When the first temple was destroyed and the people were carried into captivity, "the sacrifice of the body and one\'s own fat and blood" were substituted for that of animals (see Talmud, Berakhoth 17a). With such a view of their importance, fasts of all sorts were as a matter of course rapidly multiplied. (Note that the Day of Atonement was the only pre-exilic fast.) Of these post-exilic fasts and feasts, the Feast of Dedication (1Macc 4:52-59; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,22);">Joh 10:22</a>; Mishna, Ta\'anith 2 10; Mo\'edh Qaton 3 9; Josephus, Ant, XII, vii; Apion, II, xxxix) and the Feast of Purim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',3,7);">Es 3:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',9,24);">9:24</a>ff; 2Macc 15:36); and the fasts of the fourth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',8,19);">Zec 8:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',39,\'1-\');">Jer 39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',52,\'1-\');">52</a>; Mishna, Ta\'anith 4 6), the fifth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',7,3,4);">Zec 7:3,4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',8,19);">8:19</a>; Ta\'anith 4 6), the seventh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',7,5);">Zec 7:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',8,19);">8:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',41,1);">Jer 41:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',25,25);">2Ki 25:25</a>; Cedher \'Olam Rabba\' 26; Meghillath Ta\'anith c. 12), the tenth months (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',8,19);">Zec 8:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',25,\'1-\');">2Ki 25</a>), and the Fast of Esther (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',4,16);">Es 4:16</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',9,31);">9:31</a>) have been preserved by Jewish tradition to this day. (The Feast of Dedication, the Feast of Purim and the Fast of Esther are described in separate articles.)<P>Significance:<P>The fasts of the fourth, fifth, seventh and tenth months are based on historical incidents connected with one or more national calamities. In several instances the rabbis have by close figuring been able to connect with the dates of the fasts as well as the feasts other important national events than those for which the days were primarily instituted. Not less than four incidents are connected with the fasts of the fourth month (17th of Tammuz):<P>(a) on this day the Israelites made the golden calf;<P>(b) Moses broke the tables of law;<P>(c) the daily sacrifices ceased for want of cattle when the city was closely besieged prior to the destruction of Jerusalem; and<P>(d) on this day Jerusalem was stormed by Nebuchadnezzar.<P>The fast of the fifth month (9th day of \'Abh) receives its significance from the fact that the First Temple was destroyed upon this day by Nebuchadnezzar, and the Second Temple on the same day of the year by Titus. In addition it is said that on this day Yahweh decreed that those who left Egypt should not enter the land of promise; the day is also the anniversary of the capture of the city of Bether by the Emperor Hadrian. The fast of the seventh month (the 3rd day of Tishri) commemorates the murder of Gedaliah at Mizpah. That of the tenth month (10th day of Tebheth) commemorates the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar.<P>Other fasts and feasts no doubt were instituted on similar occasions and received a local or temporary observance, for example, the Feast of Acra (1Macc 13:50-52; compare 1:33), to celebrate the recapture of Acra ("the citadel") on the 23rd of \'Iyar 141 BC, and the Feast of Nicanor, in celebration of the victory over Nicanor on the 13th day of \'Adhar 160 BC (1Macc 7:49).<P>Several other festivals are mentioned in the Talmud and other post-Biblical writings which may have been of even greater antiquity. The Feast of Woodcarrying (Midsummer Day: <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,34);">Ne 10:34</a>; Josephus, BJ, II, vii, 6; Meghillath Ta\'anith c.v, p. 32, Mishna, Ta\'anith 4 8a), for example, is referred to as the greatest day of rejoicing of the Hebrews, ranking with Atonement Day. It was principally a picnic day to which a religious touch was given by making it the woodgatherers\' festival for the Temple. A New Year for trees is mentioned in the Talmud (Ro\'sh ha-Shdnah 1 1). The pious, according both to the Jewish tradition and the New Testament, observed many private or semi-public fasts, such as the Mondays, Thursdays and following Monday after Nisan and Tishri (the festival months: <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,12);">Lu 18:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',9,14);">Mt 9:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,16);">6:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,18);">Mr 2:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',5,33);">Lu 5:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,30);">Ac 10:30</a>; Meghillah 31a; Ta\'anith 12a; Bdbha\' Qama\' 8 2). The day before Passover was a fast day for the firstborn (Copherim 21 3).<P>In post-Biblical times the Jews outside of Palestine doubled each of the following days: the opening and closing day of Passover and Tabernacles and Pentecost, because of the capheq, or doubt as to the proper day to be observed, growing out of the delays in the transmission of the official decree of the Sanhedhrin in each season. Differences in hours of sunrise and sunset between Palestine and other countries may have had something to do at least with the perpetuation of the custom. New Year\'s Day seems to have been doubled from time immemorial, the forty-eight hours counting as one "long day."<P>Many new modes of observance appear in post-exilic times in connection with the old established festivals, especially in the high festival season of Tishri. Thus the cimchath beth ha-sho\'ebhah, "water drawing festival," was celebrated during the week of Tabernacles with popular games and dances in which even the elders took part, and the streets were so brilliantly illuminated with torches that scarcely an eye was closed in Jerusalem during that week (Talmud, Chullin).<P>The last day of Tabernacles was known in Talmudic times as yom chibbut \'arabhoth, from the custom of beating willow branches, a custom clearly antedating the various symbolical explanations offered for it. Its festivities were connected with the dismantling of the booth. In later times the day was known as hosha\'na\' rabba\', from the liturgical passages beginning with the word hosha\'na\', recited throughout the feast and "gathered" on that day. The day after Tabernacles has been made cimchath Torah, the Feast of the Law, from the custom of ending on that day the cycle of fifty-two weekly portions read in the synagogues.<P>In general it may be said that although the actual observance has changed from time to time to meet new conditions, the synagogal calendar of today is made up of the same festivals as those observed in New Testament times.``80';
isbe[3400]='Feasts, Seasons for`Regulated by the sun and moon.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASTRONOMY,+I">ASTRONOMY, I</a>`1';
</script>
<script src="./study/isbe/author.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./study/isbe/isbeDisplay.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./js/MainFooter.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink