exlim/blb
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
blb/study/isbe/6800.html

114 lines
431 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[6801]='Pentecost`pen\'-te-kost:<P>1. In the Old Testament:<P>As the name indicates (pentekoste), this second of the great Jewish national festivals was observed on the 50th day, or 7 weeks, from the Paschal Feast, and therefore in the Old Testament it was called "the feast of weeks." It is but once mentioned in the historical books of the Old Testament (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',8,12,13);">2Ch 8:12,13</a>), from which reference it is plain, however, that the people of Israel, in Solomon\'s day, were perfectly familiar with it: "offering according to the commandment of Moses, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the set feasts, three times in the year, even in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles." The requirements of the three great festivals were then well understood at this time, and their authority was founded in the Mosaic Law and unquestioned. The festival and its ritual were minutely described in this Law. Every male in Israel was on that day required to appear before the Lord at the sanctuary (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,22,23);">Ex 34:22,23</a>). It was the first of the two agrarian festivals of Israel and signified the completion of the barley-harvest (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,15,16);">Le 23:15,16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',16,9,10);">De 16:9,10</a>), which had begun at the time of the waving of the first ripe sheaf of the first-fruits (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,11);">Le 23:11</a>). Pentecost, or the Feast of Weeks, therefore fell on the 50th day after this occurrence. The wheat was then also nearly everywhere harvested (<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(\'Num\',28,26);">Nu 28:26</a>), and the general character of the festival was that of a harvest-home celebration. The day was observed as a Sabbath day, all labor was suspended, and the people appeared before Yahweh to express their gratitude (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,21);">Le 23:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',28,26);">Nu 28:26</a>). The central feature of the day was the presentation of two loaves of leavened, salted bread unto the Lord (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,17,20);">Le 23:17,20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,22);">Ex 34:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',28,26);">Nu 28:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',16,10);">De 16:10</a>). The size of each loaf was fixed by law. It must contain the tenth of an ephah, about three quarts and a half, of the finest wheat flour of the new harvest (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,17);">Le 23:17</a>). Later Jewish writers are very minute in their description of the preparation of these two loaves (Josephus, Ant, III, x, 6). According to the Mishna (Menachoth, xi.4), the length of the loaf was 7 handbreadths, its width 4, its depth 7 fingers. <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,18);">Le 23:18</a> describes the additional sacrifices required on this occasion. It was a festival of good cheer, a day of joy. Free-will offerings were to be made to the Lord (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',16,10);">De 16:10</a>), and it was to be marked by a liberal spirit toward the Levite, the stranger, and orphans and widows (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',16,11,14);">De 16:11,14</a>). Perhaps the command against gleaning harvest-fields has a bearing on this custom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,22);">Le 23:22</a>).<P>The Old Testament does not give it the historical significance which later Jewish writers have ascribed to it. The Israelites were admonished to remember their bondage on that day and to reconsecrate themselves to the Lord (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',16,12);">De 16:12</a>), but it does not yet commemorate the giving of the Law at Sinai or the birth of the national existence, in the Old Testament conception (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,\'1-\');">Ex 19</a>). Philo, Josephus, and the earlier Talmud are all ignorant of this new meaning which was given to the day in later Jewish history. It originated with the great Jewish rabbi Maimonides and has been copied by Christian writers. And thus a view of the Jewish Pentecost has been originated, which is wholly foreign to the scope of the ancient institution.<P>2. In the New Testament:<P>The old Jewish festival obtained a new significance, for the Christian church, by the promised outpouring of the Holy Spirit (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,7,13);">Joh 16:7,13</a>). The incidents of that memorable day, in the history of Christianity, are told in a marvelously vivid and dramatic way in the Acts of the Apostles. The old rendering of sumplerousthai (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,1);">Ac 2:1</a>) by "was fully come" was taken by Lightfoot (Her. Heb.) to signify that the Christian Pentecost did not coincide with the Jewish, just as Christ\'s last meal with His disciples was considered not to have coincided with the Jewish Passover, on Nisan 14. The bearing of the one on the other is obvious; they stand and fall together. the Revised Version (British and American) translates the obnoxious word simply "was now come." Meyer, in his commentary on the Acts, treats this question at length. The tradition of the ancient church placed the first Christian Pentecost on a Sunday. According to John, the Passover that year occurred on Friday, Nisan 14 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,28);">18:28</A>). But according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Passover that year occurred on Thursday, Nisan 14, and hence, Pentecost fell on Saturday. The Karaites explained the shabbath of <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,15);">Le 23:15</a> as pointing to the Sabbath of the paschal week and therefore always celebrated Pentecost on Sunday. But it is very uncertain whether the custom existed in Christ\'s day, and moreover it would be impossible to prove that the disciples followed this custom, if it could be proved to have existed. Meyer follows the Johannic reckoning and openly states that the other evangelists made a mistake in their reckoning. No off-hand decision is possible, and it is but candid to admit that here we are confronted with one of the knottiest problems in the harmonizing of the Gospels.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHRONOLOGY+OF+THE+NEW+TESTAMENT">CHRONOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT</a>.<P>The occurrences of the first pentecostal day after the resurrection of Christ set it apart as a Christian festival and invested it, together with the commemoration of the resurrection, with a new meaning. We will not enter here upon a discussion of the significance of the events of the pentecostal day described in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,\'1-\');">Ac 2</a>. That is discussed in the article under <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TONGUES">TONGUES</a> (which see). The Lutherans, in their endeavor to prove the inherent power of the Word, claim that "the effects then exhibited were due to the divine power inherent in the words of Christ; and that they had resisted that power up to the day of Pentecost and then yielded to its influence." This is well described as "an incredible hypothesis" (Hodge, Systematic Theology, III, 484). The Holy Spirit descended in answer to the explicit promise of the glorified Lord, and the disciples had been prayerfully waiting for its fulfillment (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,4,14);">Ac 1:4,14</a>). The Spirit came upon them as "a power from on high." God the Holy Spirit proved on Pentecost His personal existence, and the intellects, the hearts, the lives of the apostles were on that day miraculously changed. By that day they were fitted for the arduous work that lay before them. There is some difference of opinion as to what is the significance of Pentecost for the church as an institution. The almost universal opinion among theologians and exegetes is this: that Pentecost marks the rounding of the Christian church as an institution. This day is said to mark the dividing line between the ministry of the Lord and the ministry of the Spirit. The later Dutch theologians have advanced the idea that the origin of the church, as an institution, is to be found in the establishment of the apostolate, in the selection of the Twelve. Dr. A. Kuyper holds that the church as an institution was founded when the Master selected the Twelve, and that these men were "qualified for their calling by the power of the Holy Spirit." He distinguishes between the institution and the constitution of the church. Dr. H. Bavinck says: "Christ gathers a church about Himself, rules it directly so long as He is on the earth, and appoints twelve apostles who later on will be His witnesses. The institution of the apostolate is an especially strong proof of the institutionary character which Christ gave to His church on the earth" (Geref. Dogm., IV, 64).<P>Whatever we may think of this matter, the fact remains that Pentecost completely changed the apostles, and that the enduement with the Holy Spirit enabled them to become witnesses of the resurrection of Christ as the fundamental fact in historic Christianity, and to extend the church according to Christ\'s commandment. Jerome has an especially elegant passage in which Pentecost is compared with the beginning of the Jewish national life on Mt. Sinai (Ad Tabiol, section 7): "There is Sinai, here Sion; there the trembling mountain, here the trembling house; there the flaming mountain, here the flaming tongues; there the noisy thunderings, here the sounds of many tongues; there the clangor of the ramshorn, here the notes of the gospel-trumpet." This vivid passage shows the close analogy between the Jewish and Christian Pentecost.<P>3. Later Christian Observance:<P>In the post-apostolic Christian church Pentecost belonged to the so-called "Semestre Domini," as distinct from the "Semestre Ecclesiae" the church festivals properly so called. As yet there was no trace of Christmas, which began to appear about 360 AD. Easter, the beginning of the pentecostal period, closed the "Quadragesima," or "Lent," the entire period of which had been marked by self-denial and humiliation. On the contrary, the entire pentecostal period, the so-called "Quinquagesima," was marked by joyfulness, daily communion, absence of fasts, standing in prayer, etc. Ascension Day, the 40th day of the period, ushered in the climax of this joyfulness, which burst forth in its fullest volume on Pentecost. It was highly esteemed by the Fathers. Chrysostom calls it "the metropolis of the festivals" (De Pentec., Hom. ii); Gregory of Nazianzen calls it "the day of the Spirit" (De Pentec., Orat. 44). All the Fathers sound its praises. For they fully understood, with the church of the ages, that on that day the dispensation of the Spirit was begun, a dispensation of greater privileges and of a broader horizon and of greater power than had hitherto been vouchsafed to the church of the living God. The festival "Octaves," which, in accordance with the Jewish custom, devoted a whole week to the celebration of the festival, from the 8th century, gave place to a two days\' festival, a custom still preserved by the Roman church and such Protestant bodies as follow the ecclesiastical year. The habit of dressing in white and of seeking baptism on Pentecost gave it the name "Whitsunday," by which it is popularly known all over the world.``42';
isbe[6802]='Penuel`pe-nu\'-el, pen\'-u-el.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PENIEL">PENIEL</a>`1';
isbe[6803]='Penury`pen\'-u-ri (machcor): In <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',14,23);">Pr 14:23</a>, with sense of "poverty," "want": "The talk of the lips tendeth only to penury." In the New Testament the word in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,4);">Lu 21:4</a> (husterema) is in the Revised Version (British and American) translated "want" (of the widow\'s mites).``1';
isbe[6804]='People`pe\'-p\'-l: In English Versions of the Bible represents something over a dozen Hebrew and Greek words. Of these, in the Old Testament, \'am, is overwhelmingly the most common (about 2,000 times), with le\'om, and goy, next in order; but the various Hebrew words are used with very little or no difference in force (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',14,28);">Pr 14:28</a>; but, on the other hand, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',44,\'1-\');">Ps 44</a> contrast verses <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',44,12);">12</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',44,14);">14</A>). Of the changes introduced by the Revised Version (British and American) the only one of significance (cited explicitly in the Preface to the English Revised Version) is the frequent use of the plural "peoples" (strangely avoided in the King James Version except <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',10,11);">Re 10:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',17,15);">17:15</a>), where other nations than Israel are in question. So, for instance, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',67,4);">Ps 67:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',55,4);">Isa 55:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',60,2);">60:2</a>, with the contrast marked in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',33,10);">Ps 33:10</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',33,12);">12</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',77,14,15);">Ps 77:14 and 15</a>, etc. In the New Testament, laos, is the most common word, with ochlos, used almost as often in the King James Version. But in the Revised Version (British and American) the latter word is almost always rendered "multitude," "people" being retained only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,12);">Lu 7:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,24,26);">Ac 11:24,26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,26);">19:26</a>, and in the fixed phrase "the common people" (ho polus ochlos) in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,37);">Mr 12:37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,9,12);">Joh 12:9,12</a> margin (the retention of "people" would have been better in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,42);">Joh 11:42</a>, also), with "crowd" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',9,23,25);">Mt 9:23,25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,35);">Ac 21:35</a>). The only special use of "people" that calls for attention is the phrase "people of the land." This may mean simply "inhabitants," as <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',12,19);">Eze 12:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',33,2);">33:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',39,13);">39:13</a>; but in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',11,14);">2Ki 11:14</a>, etc., and the parallel in 2 Chronicles, it means the people as contrasted with the king, while in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',1,18);">Jer 1:18</a>, etc., and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',7,27);">Eze 7:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',22,29);">22:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',46,3,9);">46:3,9</a>, it means the common people as distinguished from the priests and the aristocracy. A different usage is that for the heathen (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,7,12,13);">Ge 23:7,12,13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,9);">Nu 14:9</a>) or half-heathen (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',9,1,2);">Ezr 9:1,2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,2,11);">10:2,11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,\'28-31\');">Ne 10:28-31</a>) inhabitants of Palestine. From this last use, the phrase came to be applied by some rabbis to even pure-blooded Jews, if they neglected the observance of the rabbinic traditions (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',7,49);">Joh 7:49</a> the King James Version).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHILDREN+OF+THE+EAST">CHILDREN OF THE EAST</a>`48';
isbe[6805]='Peor`pe\'-or (ha-pe\'or; Phogor):<P>(1) A mountain in the land of Moab, the last of the three heights to which Balaam was guided by Balak in order that he might curse Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',23,28);">Nu 23:28</a>). It is placed by Eusebius, Onomasticon on the way between Livias and Heshbon, 7 Roman miles from the latter. Buhl would identify it with Jebel el-Mashaqqar, on which are the ruins of an old town, between Wady A\'yun Musa and Wady Chesban.<P>(2) A town in the Judean uplands added by Septuagint (Phagor) to the list in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,9);">Jos 15:9</a>. It may be identical with Khirbet Faghur to the south of Bethlehem.<P>(3) Peor, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',25,18);">Nu 25:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',31,16);">31:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',22,17);">Jos 22:17</a>, is a divine name standing for "Baal-peor."<P>(4) In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,39);">Ge 36:39</a>, Septuagint reads Phogor for "Pau" (Massoretic Text), which in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,50);">1Ch 1:50</a> appears as "Pai."``54';
isbe[6806]='Peraea`pe-re\'-a (he Peraia, Peraios, Peraites):<P>1. The Country:<P>This is not a Scriptural name, but the term used by Josephus to denote the district to which the rabbis habitually refer as "the land beyond Jordan." This corresponds to the New Testament phrase peran tou Iordanou (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',4,15);">Mt 4:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,1);">19:1</a>, etc.). The boundaries of the province are given by Josephus (BJ, III, iii, 3). In length it reached from Pella in the north to Macherus in the south, and in breadth from the Jordan on the west to the desert on the east. We may take it that the southern boundary was the Arnon. The natural boundary on the north would be the great gorge of the Yarmuk. Gadara, Josephus tells us (BJ, IV, vii,3,6), was capital of the Peraea. But the famous city on the Yarmuk was a member of the Decapolis, and so could hardly take that position. More probably Josephus referred to a city the ruins of which are found at Jedur<75>a reminiscence of the ancient name<6D>not far from es-SalT. The Northern Gadara then holding the land on the southern bank of the Yarmuk, the northern boundary of the Peraea would run, as Josephus says, from Pella eastward. For the description of the country thus indicated see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GILEAD">GILEAD, 2</a>.<P>In the time of the Maccabees the province was mainly gentile, and Judas found it necessary to remove to Judea the scattered handful of Jews to secure their safety (1Macc 5:45).<P>2. History:<P>Possibly under Hyrcanus Jewish influence began to prevail; and before the death of Janneus the whole country owned his sway (HJP, I, i,297, 306). At the death of Herod the Great it became part of the tetrarchy of Antipas (Ant., XVII, vii, 1). The tetrarch built a city on the site of the ancient Beth-haram (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,27);">Jos 13:27</a>) and called it Julias in honor of the emperor\'s wife (Ant., XVIII, ii, 1; BJ, II, ix 1). Here Simon made his abortive rising (Ant., XVII, x, 6; BJ, II, iv, 2). Claudius placed it under the government of Felix (BJ, II, xii, 8). It was finally added to the Roman dominions by Placidus (BJ, IV, vii, 3-6). Under the Moslems it became part of the province of Damascus.<P>Peraea, "the land beyond Jordan," ranked along with Judea and Galilee as a province of the land of Israel. The people were under the same laws as regarded tithes, marriage and property.<P>Peraea lay between two Gentile provinces on the east, as Samaria between two Jewish provinces on the west of the Jordan. The fords below Beisan and opposite Jericho afforded communication with Galilee and Judea respectively. Peraea thus formed a link connecting the Jewish provinces, so that the pilgrims from any part might go to Jerusalem and return without setting foot on Gentile soil. And, what was at least of equal importance, they could avoid peril of hurt or indignity which the Samaritans loved to inflict on Jews passing through Samaria (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,52);">Lu 9:52</a>f; Ant, XX, vi, 1; Vita, 52).<P>It seems probable that Jesus was baptized within the boundaries of the Peraea; and hither He came from the turmoil of Jerusalem at the Feast of the Dedication (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,40);">Joh 10:40</a>). It was the scene of much quiet and profitable intercourse with His disciples (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,\'1-\');">Mt 19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,\'1-31\');">Mr 10:1-31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,\'15-30\');">Lu 18:15-30</a>). These passages are by many thought to refer to the period after His retirement to Ephraim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,54);">Joh 11:54</a>). It was from Peraea that He was summoned by the sisters at Bethany (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,3);">Joh 11:3</a>).<P>Peraea furnished in Niger one of the bravest men who fought against the Romans (BJ, II, xx, 4; IV, vi, 1). From Bethezob, a village of Peraea, came Mary, whose story is one of the most appalling among the terrible tales of the siege of Jerusalem (BJ, VI, iii, 4). Josephus mentions Peraea for the last time (BJ, VI, v, 1), as echoing back the doleful groans and outcries that accompanied the destruction of Jerusalem.``54';
isbe[6807]='Perazim, Mount`per\'-a-zim, pe-ra\'-zim (har-peratsim): "Yahweh will rise up as in mount Perazim" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',28,21);">Isa 28:21</a>). It is usually considered to be identical with <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BAAL-PERAZIM">BAAL-PERAZIM</a> (which see), where David obtained a victory over the Philistines (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',5,20);">2Sa 5:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',14,11);">1Ch 14:11</a>).``1';
isbe[6808]='Perdition`per-dish\'-un (apoleia, "ruin" or "loss," physical or eternal): The word "perdition" occurs in the English Bible 8 times (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,12);">Joh 17:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,28);">Php 1:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,3);">2Th 2:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,9);">1Ti 6:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,39);">Heb 10:39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,7);">2Pe 3:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',17,11,18);">Re 17:11,18</a>). In each of these cases it denotes the final state of ruin and punishment which forms the opposite to salvation. The verb apolluein, from which the word is derived, has two meanings:<P>(1) to lose;<P>(2) to destroy.<P>Both of these pass over to the noun, so that apoleia comes to signify:<P>(1) loss;<P>(2) ruin, destruction.<P>The former occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,8);">Mt 26:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,4);">Mr 14:4</a>, the latter in the passages cited above. Both meanings had been adopted into the religious terminology of the Scriptures as early as the Septuagint. "To be lost" in the religious sense may mean "to be missing" and "to be ruined," The former meaning attaches to it in the teaching of Jesus, who compares the lost sinner to the missing coin, the missing sheep, and makes him the object of a seeking activity (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,6);">Mt 10:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',15,24);">15:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,11);">18:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',15,4,6,8,24,32);">Lu 15:4,6,8,24,32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',19,10);">19:10</a>). "To be lost" here signifies to have become estranged from God, to miss realizing the relations which man normally sustains toward Him. It is equivalent to what is theologically called "spiritual death." This conception of "loss" enters also into the description of the eschatological fate of the sinner as assigned in the judgment (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,24);">Lu 9:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',17,33);">17:33</a>), which is a loss of life. The other meaning of "ruin" and "destruction" describes the same thing from a different point of view. Apoleia being the opposite of soteria, and soteria in its technical usage denoting the reclaiming from death unto life, apoleia also acquires the specific sense of such ruin and destruction as involves an eternal loss of life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,28);">Php 1:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,39);">Heb 10:39</a>). Perdition in this latter sense is equivalent to what theology calls "eternal death." When in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',17,8,11);">Re 17:8,11</a> it is predicated of "the beast," one of the forms of the world-power, this must be understood on the basis of the Old Testament prophetic representation according to which the coming judgment deals with powers rather than persons.<P>The Son of Perdition is a name given to Judas (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,12);">Joh 17:12</a>) and to the Antichrist (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,3);">2Th 2:3</a>). This is the well-known Hebrew idiom by which a person typically embodying a certain trait or character or destiny is called the son of that thing. The name therefore represents Judas and the Antichrist (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MAN+OF+SIN">MAN OF SIN</a>) as most irrecoverably and completely devoted to the final apoleia.``182';
isbe[6809]='Peres`pe\'-rez.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MENE">MENE</a>`1';
isbe[6810]='Peresh`pe\'-resh (peresh, "dung"): Son of Machir, grandson of Manasseh through his Aramitish concubine (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,14,16);">1Ch 7:14,16</a>).``1';
isbe[6811]='Perez-Uzza`pe-rez-uz\'-za.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=UZZA">UZZA</a>`1';
isbe[6812]='Perez; Pharez`pe\'-rez, fa\'-rez (perets, "breach"): One of the twins born to Judah by Tamar, Zerah\'s brother (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',38,29,30);">Ge 38:29,30</a>). In the King James Version <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,3);">Mt 1:3</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,33);">Lu 3:33</a>, he is called "Phares," the name in 1Esdras 5:5. He is "Pharez" in the King James Version <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,12);">Ge 46:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,20,21);">Nu 26:20,21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rth\',4,12,18);">Ru 4:12,18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,4,5);">1Ch 2:4,5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,1);">4:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,4);">9:4</a>. In the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',27,3);">1Ch 27:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,4,6);">Neh 11:4,6</a>, he is "Perez." He is important through the fact that by way of Ruth and Boaz and so through Jesse and David his genealogy comes upward to the Saviour. The patronymic "Pharzite" occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,20);">Nu 26:20</a> the King James Version.<P>Perezites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',16,20);">Nu 16:20</a>, the King James Version "Pharzites"). The patronymic of the name Perez.``186';
isbe[6813]='Perfect; Perfection`pur\'-fekt, per-fek\'-shun (shalem, tamim; teleios, teleiotes):<P>1. In the Old Testament:<P>"Perfect" in the Old Testament is the translation of shalem, "finished," "whole," "complete," used (except in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',25,15);">De 25:15</a>, "perfect weight") of persons, e.g. a "perfect heart," i.e. wholly or completely devoted to Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',8,61);">1Ki 8:61</a>, etc.; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',12,38);">1Ch 12:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',38,3);">Isa 38:3</a>, etc.); tamim, "complete," "perfect," "sound or unblemished," is also used of persons and of God, His way, and law ("Noah was a just man and perfect," the Revised Version margin "blameless" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,9);">Ge 6:9</a>); "As for God, his way is perfect" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',18,30);">Ps 18:30</a>); "The law of Yahweh is perfect" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',19,7);">Ps 19:7</a>), etc.); tam, with the same, meaning, occurs only in Job, except twice in Psalms (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',1,1,8);">Job 1:1,8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',2,3);">2:3</a>, etc.; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',37,37);">Ps 37:37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',64,4);">64:4</a>); kalil, "complete," and various other words are translated "perfect."<P>Perfection is the translation of various words so translated once only: kalil (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',2,15);">La 2:15</a>); mikhlal, "completeness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',50,2);">Ps 50:2</a>); minleh, "possession" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',15,29);">Job 15:29</a>, the King James Version "neither shall the prolong the perfection thereof upon the earth," the American Standard Revised Version "neither shall their possessions be extended on the earth," margin "their produce bend to the earth"; the English Revised Version reverses this text and margin); tikhlah, "completeness," or "perfection (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,96);">Ps 119:96</a>); takhlith (twice), "end," "completeness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',11,7);">Job 11:7</a>, "Canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?" <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',28,3);">28:3</A>, "searcheth out all" the Revised Version (British and American) the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "to the furthest bound"; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',26,10);">Job 26:10</a>, "unto the confines of light and darkness"); tom, "perfect," "completeness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',47,9);">Isa 47:9</a>, the King James Version "They shall come upon thee in their perfection," the Revised Version (British and American) "in their full measure"). the Revised Version margin gives the meaning of "the Urim and the Thummim" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',28,30);">Ex 28:30</a> etc.) as "the Lights and the Perfections."<P>2. In the New Testament:<P>In the New Testament "perfect" is usually the tr of teleios, primarily, "having reached the end," "term," "limit," hence, "complete," "full," "perfect" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,48);">Mt 5:48</a>, "Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,21);">Mt 19:21</a>, "if thou wouldst be perfect; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,13);">Eph 4:13</a>, the King James Version "till we all come...unto a perfect man," the Revised Version (British and American) "full-grown"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,15);">Php 3:15</a>, "as many as are perfect," the American Revised Version margin "full-grown"; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',2,6);">1Co 2:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,28);">Col 1:28</a>, "perfect in Christ"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,12);">4:12</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',3,2);">Jas 3:2</a> margin, etc.).<P>Other words are teleioo. "to perfect," "to end," "complete" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',13,32);">Lu 13:32</a>, "The third day I am perfected," the Revised Version margin "end my course"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,23);">Joh 17:23</a>, "perfected into one"; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',12,9);">2Co 12:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,12);">Php 3:12</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "made perfect"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,10);">Heb 2:10</a>, etc.); also epiteleo, "to bring through to an end" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',7,1);">2Co 7:1</a>, "perfecting holiness in the fear of God"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,3);">Ga 3:3</a>, "Are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "perfected in the flesh," margin "Do ye now make an end in the flesh?"); katartizo "to make quite ready," "to make complete," is translated "perfect," "to perfect" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',21,16);">Mt 21:16</a>, "perfected praise"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,40);">Lu 6:40</a>, "Every one when he is perfected shall be as his teacher"; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,10);">1Co 1:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',13,11);">2Co 13:11</a>, "be perfected"; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',3,10);">1Th 3:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,10);">1Pe 5:10</a>, the Revised Version margin "restore"); akribos, "accurately," "diligently," is translated "perfect" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,3);">Lu 1:3</a>, "having had perfect understanding," the Revised Version (British and American) "having traced...accurately"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,26);">Ac 18:26</a> the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "more accurately"). We have also artios, "fitted," "perfected" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',3,7);">2Ti 3:7</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "complete"); pleroo, "to fill," "to make full" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',3,2);">Re 3:2</a>, the American Standard Revised Version "perfected," the English Revised Version "fulfilled"); katartismos, "complete adjustment," "perfecting" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,12);">Eph 4:12</a>, "for the perfecting of the saints").<P>Perfection is the translation of katartisis "thorough adjustment," "fitness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',13,9);">2Co 13:9</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "perfecting"); of teleiosis (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',7,11);">Heb 7:11</a>); of teleiotess (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',6,1);">Heb 6:1</a>, the Revised Version margin "full growth"); it is translated "perfectness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,14);">Col 3:14</a>); "perfection" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',8,14);">Lu 8:14</a> is the translation of telesphoreo, "to bear on to completion or perfection." In Apocrypha "perfect," "perfection," etc., are for the most part the translation of words from telos, "the end," e.g. The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 4:13</span>; Ecclesiasticus 34:8; 44:17; 45:8, suntelia "full end"; 24:28; 50:11.<P>The Revised Version (British and American) has "perfect" for "upright" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',22,24,26);">2Sa 22:24,26</a> twice); for "sound" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,80);">Ps 119:80</a>); for "perform" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,16);">Php 1:16</a>); for "undefiled" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,1);">Ps 119:1</a>, margin "upright in way"); for "perfect peace, and at such a time" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',7,12);">Ezr 7:12</a>), "perfect and so forth"; for "He maketh my way perfect" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',22,33);">2Sa 22:33</a>), "He guideth the perfect in his way," margin "or, \'setteth free.\' According to another reading, \'guideth my way in perfectness\'";" shall himself perfect," margin "restore," for, "make you perfect" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,10);">1Pe 5:10</a>); "perfecter" for "finisher" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,2);">Heb 12:2</a>); "perfectly" is omitted in the Revised Version (British and American) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',14,36);">Mt 14:36</a>); "set your hope perfectly on" for the King James Version "hope to the end for" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,13);">1Pe 1:13</a>).<P>3. The Christian Ideal:<P>Perfection is the Christian ideal and aim, but inasmuch as that which God has set before us is infinite<74>"Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,48);">Mt 5:48</a>)<29>absolute perfection must be forever beyond, not only any human, but any finite, being; it is a divine ideal forever shining before us, calling us upward, and making endless progression possible. As noted above, the perfect man, in the Old Testament phrase, was the man whose heart was truly or wholly devoted to God. Christian perfection must also have its seat in such a heart, but it implies the whole conduct and the whole man, conformed thereto as knowledge grows and opportunity arises, or might be found. There may be, of course, a relative perfection, e.g. of the child as a child compared with that of the man. The Christian ought to be continually moving onward toward perfection, looking to Him who is able to "make you perfect in every good thing (or work) to do his will, working in us that which is well-pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',13,21);">Heb 13:21</a>).``185';
isbe[6814]='Perform`per-form\' (Fr. parfournir, "to furnish completely," "to complete" "finish entirely"): In modern English, through a mistaken connection with "form," "perform" usually suggests an act in its continuity, while the word properly should emphasize only the completion of the act. the King James Version seems to have used the word in order to convey the proper sense (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,28);">Ro 15:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,11);">2Co 8:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,6);">Php 1:6</a>, where the Revised Version (British and American) has respectively "accomplish," "complete," "perfect"), but usually with so little justification in the Hebrew or Greek that "do" would have represented the original even better. the Revised Version (British and American) has rarely changed the word in the Old Testament, and such changes as have been made (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',23,23);">De 23:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',1,15);">Es 1:15</a>, etc.) seem based on no particular principle. In the New Testament the word has been kept only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,33);">Mt 5:33</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',4,21);">Ro 4:21</a>, but in neither verse does the Greek accent the completion of the act, in the former case apodidomi, literally, "to give back," in the latter poieo, "to make," "to do," being used.<P>Performance is found in the King James Version Sirach 19:20 (the Revised Version (British and American) "doing"); 2Macc 11:17 (inserted needlessly and omitted by the Revised Version (British and American)); <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,45);">Lu 1:45</a> (the Revised Version (British and American) "fulfilment"); <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,11);">2Co 8:11</a> (the Revised Version (British and American) "completion").``48';
isbe[6815]='Perfume-Making``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CRAFTS">CRAFTS</a>`1';
isbe[6816]='Perfume; Perfumer`pur\'-ium, per-fum\' (qetoreth qatar literally, "incense"): The ancients were fond of sweet perfumes of all kinds (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',27,9);">Pr 27:9</a>), and that characteristic is still especially true of the people of Bible lands. Perfumed oils were rubbed on the body and feet. At a feast in ancient Egypt a guest was anointed with scented oils, and a sweet-smelling water lily was placed in his hand or suspended on his forehead. In their religious worship the Egyptians were lavish with their incense. Small pellets of dried mixed spices and resins or resinous woods were burned in special censers. In the preparation of bodies for burial, perfumed oils and spices were used. Many Biblical references indicate the widespread use of perfumes. <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',7,8);">So 7:8</a> suggests that the breath was purposely scented; clothing as well as the body was perfumed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',45,8);">Ps 45:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',3,6);">So 3:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',4,11);">4:11</a>); couches and beds were sprinkled with savory scents (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',7,17);">Pr 7:17</a>); ointments were used in the last rites in honor of the dead (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',16,14);">2Ch 16:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,1);">Lu 24:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,39);">Joh 19:39</a>). The writer has in his collection a lump of prepared spices and resins taken from a tomb dating from the lst or 2nd century AD, which was apparently fused and run into the thoracic cavity, since an impression of the ribs has been made on the perfume. Its odor is similar to that of the incense used today, and it perfumes the whole case where it is kept. The above collection also contains a small glass vial in which is a bronze spoon firmly held in some solidified ointment, probably formerly perfumed oil. Perfumes were commonly kept in sealed alabaster jars or cruses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,38);">Lu 7:38</a>). Thousands of these cruses have been unearthed in Palestine and Syria.<P>Perfumes were mixed by persons skilled in the article In the King James Version these are called "apothecaries" (raqqach). The Revised Version (British and American) "perfumer" is probably a more correct rendering, as the one who did the compounding was not an apothecary in the same sense as is the person now so designated (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',30,25,35);">Ex 30:25,35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',37,29);">37:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',10,1);">Ec 10:1</a>).<P>Today incense is used in connection with all religious services of the oriental Christian churches. Although there is no direct mention of the uses of incense in the New Testament, such allusions as Paul\'s "a sacrifice to God for an odor of a sweet smell" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,2);">Eph 5:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,18);">Php 4:18</a>) would seem to indicate that it was used by the early Christians.<P>The delight of the people of Syria in pleasant odors is recorded in their literature. The attar of roses (from Arabic \'itr, "a sweet odor") was a wellknown product of Damascus. The guest in a modern Syrian home is not literally anointed with oil, but he is often given, soon after he enters, a bunch of aromatic herbs or a sweet-smelling flower to hold and smell. During a considerable portion of the year the country air is laden with the odor of aromatic herbs, such as mint and sage. The Arabic phrase for taking a walk is shemm el-hawa\', literally, "smell the air."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=INCENSE">INCENSE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=OIL">OIL</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=OINTMENT">OINTMENT</a>`133';
isbe[6817]='Perga`pur\'-ga (Perge):<P>1. Location and History:<P>An important city of the ancient province of Pamphylia, situated on the river Cestris, 12 miles northeast of Attalia. According to <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,13);">Ac 13:13</a>, Paul, Barnabas and John Mark visited the place on their first missionary journey, and 2 years later, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,24,25);">Ac 14:24,25</a>, they may have preached there. Though the water of the river Cestris has now been diverted to the fields for irrigating purposes, in ancient times the stream was navigable, and small boats from the sea might reach the city. It is uncertain how ancient Perga is; its walls, still standing, seem to come from the Seleucidan period or from the 3rd century BC. It remained in the possession of the Seleucid kings until 189 BC, when Roman influence became strong in Asia Minor. A long series of coins, beginning in the 2nd century BC, continued until 286 AD, and upon them Perga is mentioned as a metropolis. Though the city was never a stronghold of Christianity, it was the bishopric of Western Pamphylia, and several of the early Christians were martyred there. During the 8th century under Byzantine rule the city declined; in 1084 Attalia became the metropolis, and Perga rapidly fell to decay. While Attalia was the chief Greek and Christian city of Pamphylia, Perga was the seat of the local Asiatic goddess, who corresponded to Artemis or Diana of the Ephesians, and was locally known as Leto, or the queen of Perga. She is frequently represented on the coins as a huntress, with a bow in her hand, and with sphinxes or stags at her side.<P>2. The Ruins:<P>The ruins of Perga are now called Murtana. The walls, which are flanked with towers, show the city to have been quadrangular in shape. Very broad streets, running through the town, and intersecting each other, divided the city into quarters. The sides of the streets were covered with porticos, and along their centers were water channels in which a stream was always flowing. They were covered at short intervals by bridges. Upon the higher ground was the acropolis, where the earliest city was built, but in later times the city extended to the south of the hill, where one may see the greater part of the ruins. On the acropolis is the platform of a large structure with fragments of several granite columns, probably representing the temple of the goddess Leto; others regard it as the ruin of an early church. At the base of the acropolis are the ruins of an immense theater which seated 13,000 people, the agora, the baths and the stadium. Without the walls many tombs are to be seen.``7';
isbe[6818]='Pergamos; Pergamum`pur\'-ga-mos, or pur\'-ga-mum (he Pergamos, or to Pergamon):<P>1. History:<P>Pergamos, to which the ancient writers also gave the neuter form of the name, was a city of Mysia of the ancient Roman province of Asia, in the Caicus valley, 3 miles from the river, and about 15 miles from the sea. The Caicus was navigable for small native craft. Two of the tributaries of the Caicus were the Selinus and the Kteios. The former of these rivers flowed through the city; the latter ran along its walls. On the hill between these two streams the first city stood, and there also stood the acropolis, the chief temples, and theaters of the later city. The early people of the town were descendants of Greek colonists, and as early as 420 BC they struck coins of their own. Lysimachus, who possessed the town, deposited there 9,000 talents of gold. Upon his death, Philetaerus (283-263 BC) used this wealth to found the independent Greek dynasty of the Attalid kings. The first of this dynasty to bear the title of king was Attalus I (241-197 BC), a nephew of Philetaerus, and not only did he adorn the city with beautiful buildings until it became the most wonderful city of the East, but he added to his kingdom the countries of Mysia, Lydia, Caria, Pamphylia and Phrygia. Eumenes II (197-159 BC) was the most illustrious king of the dynasty, and during his reign the city reached its greatest height. Art and literature were encouraged, and in the city was a library of 200,000 volumes which later Antony gave to Cleopatra. The books were of parchment which was here first used; hence, the word "parchment," which is derived from the name of the town Pergamos. Of the structures which adorned the city, the most renowned was the altar of Zeus, which was 40 ft. in height, and also one of the wonders of the ancient world. When in 133 BC Attalus III, the last king of the dynasty, died, he gave his kingdom to the Roman government. His son, Aristonicus, however, attempted to seize it for himself, but in 129 he was defeated, and the Roman province of Asia was formed, and Pergamos was made its capital. The term Asia, as here employed, should not be confused with the continent of Asia, nor with Asia Minor. It applied simply to that part of Asia Minor which was then in the possession of the Romans, and formed into the province of which Pergamos was the capital. Upon the establishment of the province of Asia there began a new series of coins struck at Pergamos, which continued into the 3rd century AD. The magnificence of the city continued.<P>2. Religions:<P>There were beautiful temples to the four great gods Zeus, Dionysus, Athena and Asklepios. To the temple of the latter, invalids from all parts of Asia flocked, and there, while they were sleeping in the court, the god revealed to the priests and physicians by means of dreams the remedies which were necessary to heal their maladies. Thus opportunities of deception were numerous. There was a school of medicine in connection with the temple. Pergamos was chiefly a religious center of the province. A title which it bore was "Thrice Neokoros," meaning that in the city 3 temples had been built to the Roman emperors, in which the emperors were worshipped as gods. Smyrna, a rival city, was a commercial center, and as it increased in wealth, it gradually became the political center. Later, when it became the capital, Pergamos remained the religious center. As in many of the towns of Asia Minor, there were at Pergamos many Jews, and in 130 BC the people of the city passed a decree in their favor. Many of the Jews were more or less assimilated with the Greeks, even to the extent of bearing Greek names.<P>3. Christianity:<P>Christianity reached Pergamos early, for there one of the Seven Churches of the Book of Revelation stood, and there, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,13);">Re 2:13</a>, Antipas was marryred; he was the first Christian to be put to death by the Roman state. The same passage speaks of Pergamos as the place "where Satan\'s throne is," probably referring to the temples in which the Roman emperors were worshipped. During the Byzantine times Pergamos still continued as a religious center, for there a bishop lived. However, the town fell into the hands of the Seljuks in 1304, and in 1336 it was taken by Suleiman, the son of Orkhan, and became Turkish.<P>The modern name of the town, which is of considerable size, possessing 15 mosques, is Bergama, the Turkish corruption of the ancient name. One of its mosques is the early Byzantine church of Sophia. The modern town is built among the ruins of the ancient city, but is far less in extent. From 1879 to 1886 excavations among the ruins were conducted by Herr Humann at the expense of the German government. Among them are still to be seen the base of the altar of Zeus, the friezes of which are now in the Pergamon Museum, Berlin; theater, the agora, the gymnasium and several temples. In ancient times the city was noted for its ointments, pottery and parchment; at present the chief articles of trade are cotton, wool, opium, valonia, and leather.``7';
isbe[6819]='Perida`pe-ri\'-da (peridha\' "recluse"): A family of "Solomon\'s servants" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,57);">Ne 7:57</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,55);">Ezr 2:55</a>, a difference in the Hebrew spelling gives "Peruda" for the same person, who is also the "Pharida" of 1Esdras 5:33.``1';
isbe[6820]='Perizzite`per\'-i-zit, pe-riz\'-it (perizzi; Pherezaios): Signifies "a villager," and so corresponds with the Egyptian fellah. Hence, the Perizzite is not included among the sons of Canaan in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'1-\');">Ge 10</a>, and is also coupled with the Canaanite (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,7);">Ge 13:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',34,30);">34:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,4);">Jud 1:4</a>). We hear, accordingly, of Canaanites and Perizzites at Shechem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',34,30);">Ge 34:30</a>), at Bezek in Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,4);">Jud 1:4</a>) and, according to the reading of the Septuagint, at Gezer (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',16,10);">Jos 16:10</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',3,5);">De 3:5</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',6,18);">1Sa 6:18</a>, where the King James Version has "unwalled towns" and "country villages," the Septuagint has "Perizzite," the literal translation of the Hebrew being "cities of the Perizzite" or "villager" and "village of the Perizzite." The same expression occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',9,19);">Es 9:19</a>, where it is used of the Jews in Elam. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',17,15,18);">Jos 17:15,18</a>, where the Manassites are instructed to take possession of the forest land of Carmel, "Perizzites and Rephaim" are given as the equivalent of "Canaanite."``157';
isbe[6821]='Perjury`pur\'-ju-ri.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CRIMES">CRIMES</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=OATH">OATH</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PUNISHMENTS">PUNISHMENTS</a>`1';
isbe[6822]='Perpetual; Perpetually; Perpetuity`per-pet\'-u-al, per-pet\'-u-al-i, pur-pe-tu\'-i-ti (\'olam, netsach, tamidh):<P>Perpetual is usually the translation of \'olam, properly, "a wrapping up" or "hiding," used often of time indefinitely long, and of eternity when applied to God; hence, we have, "for perpetual generations" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',9,12);">Ge 9:12</a>); "the priesthood by a perpetual statute" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,9);">Ex 29:9</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',31,16);">Ex 31:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',3,17);">Le 3:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,9);">24:9</a>, etc.); "placed the sand for the bound of the sea, by a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass it" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',5,22);">Jer 5:22</a>, the Revised Version margin "an everlasting ordinance which it cannot pass"); "sleep a perpetual sleep" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,39,57);">Jer 51:39,57</a>); "Moab shall be...a perpetual desolation" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',2,9);">Ze 2:9</a>), etc.; netsach, "preeminence," "perpetuity," "eternity" (often translated "for ever," <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',9,6);">Ps 9:6</a>), is translated "perpetual" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',74,3);">Ps 74:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',15,18);">Jer 15:18</a>); natsach (participle) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',8,5);">Jer 8:5</a>); tamidh, "continuance," generally rendered "continually," but sometimes "perpetual" or "perpetually" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',30,8);">Ex 30:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,20);">Le 6:20</a>).<P>"Perpetually" is the rendering of \'adh, properly "progress," "duration," hence, long or indefinite time, eternity (usually in the King James Version rendered "for ever "), in <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',1,11);">Am 1:11</a>, "His anger did tear perpetually"; and of kol ha-yamim, "all the days" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',9,3);">1Ki 9:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',7,16);">2Ch 7:16</a>, "my heart shall be there perpetually"; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,20);">Mt 28:20</a>, pasas tas hemeras, literally, "all the days").<P>Perpetuity occurs in the Revised Version (British and American) of <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,23,30);">Le 25:23,30</a>, "The land shall not be sold in perpetuity," "The house...shall be made sure in perpetuity."<P>Perpetual is frequent in the Apocrypha, most often as the translation of aionios and kindred words, e.g. Judith 13:20, "a perpetual praise"; <span class="noTag">The Wisdom of Solomon 10:14</span>, "perpetual glory," the Revised Version (British and American) "eternal"; Ecclesiasticus 11:33, "a perpetual blot," the Revised Version (British and American) "blame for ever"; 1Macc 6:44, "a perpetual name," the Revised Version (British and American) "everlasting"; aenaos, "ever-flowing," occurs in <span class="noTag">The Wisdom of Solomon 11:6</span> (so the Revised Version); endeleches, "constant" (Ecclesiasticus 41:6, "perpetual reproach").<P>For "perpetual" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',50,5);">Jer 50:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',3,6);">Hab 3:6</a>) the Revised Version has "everlasting"; for "the old hatred" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',25,15);">Eze 25:15</a>), "perpetual enmity"; for "perpetual desolation" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',25,12);">Jer 25:12</a>) "desolate forever," margin "Hebrew \'everlasting desolations.\'"``185';
isbe[6823]='Persecution`pur-se-ku\'-shun [diogmos] (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,21);">Mt 13:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',4,17);">Mr 4:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,30);">10:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',8,1);">Ac 8:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,50);">13:50</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,35);">Ro 8:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',12,10);">2Co 12:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',1,4);">2Th 1:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',3,11);">2Ti 3:11</a>)):<P>1. Persecution in Old Testament Times<P>2. Between the Testaments<P>3. Foretold by Christ<P>4. A Test of Discipleship<P>5. A Means of Blessing<P>6. Various Forms<P>7. In the Case of Jesus<P>8. Instigated by the Jews<P>9. Stephen<P>10. The Apostles James and Peter<P>11. Gentile Persecution<P class="in15">Christianity at First Not a Forbidden Religion<P>12. The Neronic Persecution<P class="in15">(1) Testimony of Tacitus<P class="in15">(2) Reference in 1 Peter<P class="in15">(3) Tacitus Narrative<P class="in15">(4) New Testament References<P>13. Persecution in Asia<P>14. Rome as Persecutor<P>15. Testimony of Pliny, 112 AD<P>16. 2nd and 3rd Centuries<P>17. Best Emperors the Most Cruel Persecutors<P>18. Causes of Persecution<P>19. 200 Years of Persecution<P>20. Persecution in the Army<P>21. Tertullian\'s Apology<P>22. "The Third Race"<P>23. Hatred against Christians<P>24. The Decian Persecution<P>25. Libelli<P>26. The Edict of Milan<P>27. Results of Persecution<hr /><P>The importance of this subject may be indicated by the fact of the frequency of its occurrence, both in the Old Testament and New Testament, where in the King James Version the words "persecute," "persecuted," "persecuting" are found no fewer than 53 times, "persecution" 14 times, and "persecutor" 9 times.<P>1. Persecution in Old Testament Times:<P>It must not be thought that persecution existed only in New Testament times. In the days of the Old Testament it existed too. In what Jesus said to the Pharisees, He specially referred to the innocent blood which had been shed in those times, and told them that they were showing themselves heirs<72>to use a legal phrase<73>to their fathers who had persecuted the righteous, "from the blood of Abel the righteous unto the blood of Zachariah" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,35);">Mt 23:35</a>).<P>2. Between the Testaments:<P>In the period between the close of the Old Testament and the coming of Christ, there was much and protracted suffering endured by the Jews, because of their refusal to embrace idolatry, and of their fidelity to the Mosaic Law and the worship of God. During that time there were many patriots who were true martyrs, and those heroes of faith, the Maccabees, were among those who "know their God...and do exploits" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',11,32);">Da 11:32</a>). \'We have no need of human help,\' said Jonathan the Jewish high priest, \'having for our comfort the sacred Scriptures which are in our hands\' (1Macc 12:9).<P>In the Epistle to the Hebrews, persecution in the days of the Old Testament is summed up in these words: "Others had trial of mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were tempted, they were slain with the sword: they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, illtreated (of whom the world was not worthy)" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,\'36-38\');">Heb 11:36-38</a>).<P>3. Foretold by Christ:<P>Coming now to New Testament times, persecution was frequently foretold by Christ, as certain to come to those who were His true disciples and followers. He forewarned them again and again that it was inevitable. He said that He Himself must suffer it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,21);">Mt 16:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',17,22,23);">17:22,23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,31);">Mr 8:31</a>).<P>4. A Test of Discipleship:<P>It would be a test of true discipleship. In the parable of the Sower, He mentions this as one of the causes of defection among those who are Christians in outward appearance only. When affliction or persecution ariseth for the word\'s sake, immediately the stony-ground hearers are offended (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',4,17);">Mr 4:17</a>).<P>5. A Means of Blessing:<P>It would be a sure means of gaining a blessing, whenever it came to His loyal followers when they were in the way of well-doing; and He thus speaks of it in two of the Beatitudes, "Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness\' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven"; "Blessed are ye when men shall reproach you, and persecute you...for my sake" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,10,11);">Mt 5:10,11</a>; see also <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,12);">Mt 5:12</a>).<P>6. Various Forms:<P>It would take different forms, ranging through every possible variety, from false accusation to the infliction of death, beyond which, He pointed out (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,28);">Mt 10:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,4);">Lu 12:4</a>), persecutors are unable to go. The methods of persecution which were employed by the Jews, and also by the heathen against the followers of Christ, were such as these:<P>(1) Men would revile them and would say all manner of evil against them falsely, for Christ\'s sake (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,11);">Mt 5:11</a>).<P>(2) Contempt and disparagement: "Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a demon?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,48);">Joh 8:48</a>); "If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more them of his household!" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,25);">Mt 10:25</a>).<P>(3) Being, solely on account of their loyalty to Christ, forcibly separated from the company and the society of others, and expelled from the synagogues or other assemblies for the worship of God: "Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man\'s sake" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,22);">Lu 6:22</a>); "They shall put you out of the synagogues" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,2);">Joh 16:2</a>).<P>(4) Illegal arrest and spoliation of goods, and death itself.<P>All these various methods, used by the persecutor, were foretold, and all came to pass. It was the fear of apprehension and death that led the eleven disciples to forsake Jesus in Gethsemane and to flee for their lives. Jesus often forewarned them of the severity of the persecution which they would need to encounter if they were loyal to Him: "The hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you shall think that he offereth service unto God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,2);">Joh 16:2</a>); "I send unto you prophets...some of them shall ye kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,34);">Mt 23:34</a>).<P>7. In the Case of Jesus:<P>In the case of Christ Himself, persecution took the form of attempts to entrap Him in His speech (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,15);">Mt 22:15</a>); the questioning of His authority (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',11,28);">Mr 11:28</a>); illegal arrest; the heaping of every insult upon Him as a prisoner; false accusation; and a violent and most cruel death.<P>8. Instigated by the Jews:<P>After our Lord\'s resurrection the first attacks against His disciples came from the high priest and his party. The high-priesthood was then in the hands of the Sadducees, and one reason which moved them to take action of this kind was their \'sore trouble,\' because the apostles "proclaimed in Jesus the resurrection from the dead" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',4,2);">Ac 4:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,17);">5:17</a>). The gospel based upon the resurrection of Christ was evidence of the untruth of the chief doctrines held by the Sadducees, for they held that there is no resurrection. But instead of yielding to the evidence of the fact that the resurrection had taken place, they opposed and denied it, and persecuted His disciples. For a time the Pharisees were more moderate in their attitude toward the Christian faith, as is shown in the case of Gamaliel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,34);">Ac 5:34</a>); and on one occasion they were willing even to defend the apostle Paul (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',23,9);">Ac 23:9</a>) on the doctrine of the resurrection. But gradually the whole of the Jewish people became bitter persecutors of the Christians. Thus, in the earliest of the Pauline Epistles, it is said, "Ye also suffered the same things of your own countrymen, even as they (in Judea) did of the Jews; who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove out us, and please not God, and are contrary to all men" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',2,14,15);">1Th 2:14,15</a>).<P>9. Stephen:<P>Serious persecution of the Christian church began with the case of Stephen (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,\'1-60\');">Ac 7:1-60</a>); and his lawless execution was followed by "a great persecution" directed against the Christians in Jerusalem. This "great persecution" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',8,1);">Ac 8:1</a>) scattered the members of the church, who fled in order to avoid bonds and imprisonment and death. At this time Saul signalized himself by his great activity, persecuting "this Way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,4);">Ac 22:4</a>).<P>10. The Apostles, James and Peter:<P>By and by one of the apostles was put to death<74>the first to suffer of "the glorious company of the apostles"<22>James the brother of John, who was slain with the sword by Herod Agrippa (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',12,2);">Ac 12:2</a>). Peter also was imprisoned, and was delivered only by an angel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',12,\'7-11\');">Ac 12:7-11</a>).<P>11. Gentile Persecution:<P>During the period covered by the Acts there was not much purely Gentile persecution: at that time the persecution suffered by the Christian church was chiefly Jewish. There were, however, great dangers and risks encountered by the apostles and by all who proclaimed the gospel then. Thus, at Philippi, Paul and Silas were most cruelly persecuted (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,\'19-40\');">Ac 16:19-40</a>); and, even before that time, Paul and Barnabas had suffered much at Iconium and at Lystra (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,5,19);">Ac 14:5,19</a>). On the whole the Roman authorities were not actively hostile during the greater part of Paul\'s lifetime. Gallio, for instance, the deputy of Achaia, declined to go into the charge brought by the Jews at Corinth against Paul (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,14,15,16);">Ac 18:14,15,16</a>). And when Paul had pleaded in his own defense before King Herod Agrippa and the Roman governor Festus, these two judges were agreed in the opinion, "This man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bonds" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',26,31);">Ac 26:31</a>). Indeed it is evident (see Ramsay, Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen, 308) that the purpose of Paul\'s trial being recorded at length in the Acts is to establish the fact that the preaching of the gospel was not forbidden by the laws of the Roman empire, but that Christianity was a religio licita, a lawful religion.<P>Christianity at First Not a Forbidden Religion.<P>This legality of the Christian faith was illustrated and enforced by the fact that when Paul\'s case was heard and decided by the supreme court of appeal at Rome, he was set free and resumed his missionary labors, as these are recorded or referred to in the Pastoral Epistles "One thing, however, is clear from a comparison of Philippians with 2 Timothy. There had been in the interval a complete change in the policy toward Christianity of the Roman government. This change was due to the great fire of Rome (July, 64). As part of the persecution which then broke out, orders were given for the imprisonment of the Christian leaders. Poppea, Tigellinus and their Jewish friends were not likely to forget the prisoner of two years before. At the time Paul was away from Rome, but steps were instantly taken for his arrest. The apostle was brought back to the city in the autumn or winter of 64....That he had a trial at all, instead of the summary punishment of his brethren. witnesses to the importance attached by the government to a show of legality in the persecution of the leader" (Workman, Persecution in the Early Church, 38).<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PASTORAL+EPISTLES">PASTORAL EPISTLES</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PAUL,+THE+APOSTLE">PAUL, THE APOSTLE</a>.<P>12. The Neronic Persecution:<P>The legal decisions which were favorable to the Christian faith were soon overturned on the occasion of the great fire in Rome, which occurred in July, 64. The public feeling of resentment broke out against the emperor to such a degree that, to avoid the stigma, just or unjust, of being himself guilty of setting the city on fire, he made the Christians the scapegoats which he thought he needed. Tacitus (Annals xv. 44) relates all that occurred at that time, and what he says is most interesting, as being one of the very earliest notices found in any profane author, both of the Christian faith, and of Christ Himself.<P>(1) Testimony of Tacitus.<P>What Tacitus says is that nothing that Nero could do, either in the way of gifts to the populace or in that of sacrifice the Roman deities, could make the people believe that he was innocent of causing the great fire which had consumed their dwellings. Hence, to relieve himself of this infamy he falsely accused the Christians of being guilty of the crime of setting the city on fire. Tacitus uses the strange expression "the persons commonly called Christians who were hated for their enormities." This is an instance of the saying of all manner of evil against them falsely, for Christ\'s sake. The Christians, whose lives were pure and virtuous and beneficent, were spoken of as being the offscouring of the earth.<P>(2) Reference in 1 Peter.<P>The First Epistle of Peter is one of the parts of the New Testament which seem to make direct reference to the Neronic persecution, and he uses words (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,12);">1Pe 4:12</a>) which may be compared with the narrative of Tacitus: "Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial among you, which cometh upon you to prove you, as though a strange thing happened unto you: but insomuch as ye are partakers of Christ\'s sufferings, rejoice....If ye are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are ye; because the Spirit of glory and the Spirit of God resteth upon you. For let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or an evil-doer, or as a meddler in other men\'s matters: but if a man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God in this name. For the time is come for judgment to begin at the house of God....Wherefore let them also that suffer according to the will of God commit their souls in well-doing unto a faithful Creator."<P>(3) Tacitus\' Narrative.<P>How altogether apposite and suitable was this comforting exhortation to the case of those who suffered in the Neronic persecution. The description which Tacitus gives is as follows: "Christus, the founder of that name, was put to death as a criminal by Pontius Pilate, procurator in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, whither all things horrible and disgraceful flow from all quarters as to a common sink, and where they are encouraged. Accordingly, first, those were seized who confessed they were Christians; next, on their information, a vast multitude were convicted, not so much on the charge of setting the city on fire, as of hating the human race. And in their deaths they were made the subject of sport, for they were covered with the skins of wild beasts and were worried to death by dogs, or nailed to crosses, or set fire to, and when day declined were burned to serve for nocturnal lights. Nero offered his own gardens for that spectacle, and exhibited circus games, indiscriminately mingling with the common people dressed as a charioteer, or else standing in his chariot. Whence a feeling of compassion arose toward the sufferers, though guilty and deserving to be made examples of by capital punishment, because they seemed not to be cut off for the public good, but to be victims to the ferocity of one man."<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NERO">NERO</a>.<P>(4) New Testament References.<P>Three of the books of the New Testament bear the marks of that most cruel persecution under Nero, the Second Epistle to Timothy, the First Epistle of Peter<65>already referred to<74>and the Revelation of John. In 2 Timothy, Paul speaks of his impending condemnation to death, and the terror inspired by the persecution causes "all" to forsake him when he is brought to public trial (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,16);">2Ti 4:16</a>).<P>The "fiery trial" is spoken of in 1 Peter, and Christians are exhorted to maintain their faith with patience; they are pleaded with to have their "conversation honest" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,12);">1Pe 2:12</a> the King James Version), so that all accusations directed against them may be seen to be untrue, and their sufferings shall then be, not for ill-doing, but only for the name of Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,14,16);">1Pe 3:14,16</a>). "This important epistle proves a general persecution (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,6);">1Pe 1:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,12,16);">4:12,16</a>) in Asia Minor north of the Taurus (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,1);">1Pe 1:1</a>; note especially Bithynia) and elsewhere (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,9);">1Pe 5:9</a>). The Christians suffer \'for the name,\' but not the name alone (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,14);">1Pe 4:14</a>). They are the objects of vile slanders (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,12,15);">1Pe 2:12,15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,\'14-16\');">3:14-16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,4,15);">4:4,15</a>), as well as of considerable zeal on the part of officials (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,8);">1Pe 5:8 (Greek 3:15)</a>). As regards the slanders, the Christians should be crcumspect (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,15,16);">1Pe 2:15,16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,16,17);">3:16,17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,15);">4:15</a>). The persecution will be short, for the end of all things is at hand (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,7,13);">1Pe 4:7,13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,4);">5:4</a>)" (Workman, Persecution in the Early Church, 354).<P>13. Persecution in Asia:<P>In Revelation, the apostle John is in "Patmos for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,9);">Re 1:9</a>). Persecution has broken out among the Christians in the province of Asia. At Smyrna, there is suffering, imprisonment and prolonged tribulation; but the sufferers are cheered when they are told that if they are faithful unto death, Christ will give them the crown of life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,10);">Re 2:10</a>). At Pergamum, persecution has already resulted in Antipas, Christ\'s faithful martyr, being slain (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,13);">Re 2:13</a>). At Ephesus and at Thyatira the Christians are commended for their patience, evidently indicating that there had been persecution (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,2,19);">Re 2:2,19</a>). At Philadelphia there has been the attempt made to cause the members of the church to deny Christ\'s name (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',3,8);">Re 3:8</a>); their patience is also commended, and the hour of temptation is spoken of, which comes to try all the world, but from which Christ promised to keep the faithful Christians in Philadelphia. Strangely enough, there is no distinct mention of persecution having taken place in Sardis or in Laodicea.<P>14. Rome as Persecutor:<P>As the book proceeds, evidences of persecution are multiplied. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,9);">Re 6:9</a>, the apostle sees under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held; and those souls are bidden to rest yet for a little season "until their fellow-servants also and their brethren, who should be killed even as they were, should have fulfilled their course" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,11);">Re 6:11</a>). The meaning is that there is not yet to be an end of suffering for Christ\'s sake; persecution may continue to be as severe as ever. Compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,4);">Re 20:4</a> "I saw the souls of them that had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, and for the word of God, and such as worshipped not the beast," for the persecution had raged against all classes indiscriminately, and Roman citizens who were true to Christ had suffered unto death. It is to these that reference is made in the words "had been beheaded," decapitation being reserved as the most honorable form of execution, for Roman citizens only. So terrible does the persecution of Christians by the imperial authorities become, that Rome is "drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',17,6);">Re 17:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',16,6);">16:6</a>; see also <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',18,24);">Re 18:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,2);">19:2</a>).<P>Paul\'s martyrdom is implied in 2 Timothy, throughout the whole epistle, and especially in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,6,7,8);">4:6,7,8</A>. The martyrdom of Peter is also implied in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',21,18,19);">Joh 21:18,19</a>, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,14);">2Pe 1:14</a>. The abiding. impression made by these times of persecution upon the mind of the apostle John is also seen in the defiance of the world found throughout his First Epistle (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,17);">1Joh 2:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,19);">5:19</a>), and in the rejoicing over the fall of Babylon, the great persecuting power, as that fall is described in such passages as <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',14,8);">Re 14:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',15,2,3);">15:2,3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',17,14);">17:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',18,24);">18:24</a>.<P>Following immediately upon the close of the New Testament, there is another remarkable witness to the continuance of the Roman persecution against the Christian church. This is Pliny, proconsul of Bithynia.<P>15. Testimony of Pliny, 112 AD:<P>In 111 or 112 AD, he writes to the emperor Trajan a letter in which he describes the growth of the Christian faith. He goes on to say that "many of all ages and of all ranks and even of both sexes are being called into danger, and will continue to be so. In fact the contagion of this superstition is not confined to the cities only, but has spread to the villages and country districts." He proceeds to narrate how the heathen temples had been deserted and the religious rites had been abandoned for so long a time: even the sacrificial food<6F>that is, the flesh of the sacrificial victims<6D>could scarcely find a purchaser.<P>But Pliny had endeavored to stem the tide of the advancing Christian faith, and he tells the emperor how he had succeeded in bringing back to the heathen worship many professing Christians. That is to say, he had used persecuting measures, and had succeeded in forcing some of the Christians to abandon their faith. He tells the methods he had used. "The method I have observed toward those who have been brought before me as Christians is this. I asked them whether they were Christians. If they admitted it, I repeated the question a second and a third time, and threatened them with punishment. If they persisted I ordered them to be punished. For I did not doubt, whatever the nature of that which they confessed might be, that a contumacious and inflexible obstinacy ought to be punished. There were others also, possessed with the same infatuation, whom, because they were Roman citizens, I ordered to be sent to Rome. But this crime spreading, as is usually the case, while it was actually under legal prosecution, several cases occurred. An anonymous information was laid before me, containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were Christians, or that they had ever been so, repeated after me an invocation of the gods, and offered prayer, with wine and incense, to your statue, which I had ordered to be brought in for this very purpose, along with the statues of the gods, and they even reviled the name of Christ; whereas there is no forcing, it is said, those who are really Christians into any of these compliances: I thought it proper to discharge them. Others who were accused by a witness at first confessed themselves Christians, but afterward denied it. Some owned indeed that they had been Christians formerly, but had now, some for several years, and a few above 20 years ago, renounced it. They all worshipped your statue and the images of the gods....I forbade the meeting of any assemblies, and therefore I judged it to be so much the more necessary to endeavor to extort the real truth by putting to the torture two female slaves, who were called deaconesses, yet I found nothing but an absurd and extravagant superstition."<P>In Trajan\'s reply to Pliny he writes, "They (the Christians) ought not to be searched for. If they are brought before you and convicted, they should be punished, but this should be done in such a way, that he who denies that he is a Christian, and when his statement is proved by his invoking our deities, such a person, although suspected for past conduct, must nevertheless be forgiven, because of his repentance."<P>These letters of Pliny and Trajan treat state-persecution as the standing procedure<72>and this not a generation after the death of the apostle John. The sufferings and tribulation predicted in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,10);">Re 2:10</a>, and in many other passages, had indeed come to pass. Some of the Christians had denied the name of Christ and had worshipped the images of the emperor and of the idols, but multitudes of them had been faithful unto death, and had received the martyr\'s crown of life.<P>16. 2nd and 3rd Centuries:<P>Speaking generally, persecution of greater or less severity was the normal method employed by the Roman empire against the Christian church during the 2nd and the 3rd centuries It may be said to have come to an end only about the end of the 3rd or the beginning of the 4th century, when the empire became nominally Christian. When the apostolic period is left, persecution becomes almost the normal state in which the church is found. And persecution, instead of abolishing the name of Christ, as the persecutors vainly imagined they had succeeded in doing, became the means of the growth of the Christian church and of its purity. Both of these important ends, and others too, were secured by the severity of the means employed by the persecuting power of the Roman empire.<P>Under Trajan\'s successor, the emperor Hadrian, the lot of the Christians was full of uncertainty: persecution might break out at any moment. At the best Hadrian\'s regime was only that of unauthorized toleration.<P>17. Best Emperors the Most Cruel Persecutors:<P>With the exception of such instances as those of Nero and Domitian, there is the surprising fact to notice, that it was not the worst emperors, but the best, who became the most violent persecutors. One reason probably was that the ability of those emperors led them to see that the religion of Christ is really a divisive factor in any kingdom in which civil government and pagan religion are indissolubly bound up together. The more that such a ruler was intent on preserving the unity of the empire, the more would be persecute the Christian faith. Hence, among the rulers who were persecutors, there are the names of Antoninus Pius. Marcus Aurelius the philosopher-emperor, and Septimius Severus (died at York, 211 Ad).<P>18. Causes of Persecution:<P>Persecution was no accident, which chanced to happen, but which might not have occurred at all. It was the necessary consequence of the principles embodied in the heathen Roman government, when these came into contact and into conflict with the essential principles of the Christian faith. The reasons for the persecution of the Christian church by the Roman empire were<P>(1) political;<P>(2) on account of the claim which the Christian faith makes, and which it cannot help making, to the exclusive allegiance of the heart and of the life.<P>That loyalty to Christ which the martyrs displayed was believed by the authorities in the state to be incompatible with the duties of a Roman citizen. Patriotism demanded that every citizen should united in the worship of the emperor, but Christians refused to take pat in the worship on any terms, and so they continually lived under the shadow of a great hatred, which always slumbered, and might break out at any time. The claim which the Christian faith made to the absolute and exclusive loyalty of all who obeyed Christ was such that it admitted of no compromise with heathenism. To receive Christ into the pantheon as another divinity, as one of several<61>this was not the Christian faith. To every loyal follower of Christ compromise with other faiths was an impossibility. An accommodated Christianity would itself have been false to the only true God and Jesus Christ whom He had sent, and would never have conquered the world. To the heathen there were lords many and gods many, but to the Christians there was but one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',8,5,6);">1Co 8:5,6</a>). The essential absoluteness of the Christian faith was its strength, but this was also the cause of its being hated.<P>"By a correct instinct paganisms of all sorts discerned in the infant church their only rival. So, while the new Hercules was yet in the cradle, they sent their snakes to kill him. But Hercules lived to cleanse out the Augean stables" (Workman, op. cit., 88).<P>19. 200 Years of Persecution:<P>"For 200 years, to become a Christian meant the great renunciation, the joining a despised and persecuted sect, the swimming against the tide of popular prejudice, the coming under the ban of the Empire, the possibility at any moment of imprisonment and death under its most fearful forms. For 200 years he that would follow Christ must count the cost, and be prepared to pay the same with his liberty and life. For 200 years the mere profession of Christianity was itself a crime. Christianus sum was almost the one plea for which there was Persecution no forgiveness, in itself all that was necessary as a \'title\' on the back of the condemned. He who made it was allowed neither to present apology, nor call in the aid of a pleader. \'Public hatred,\' writes Tertullian, \'asks but one thing, and that not investigation into the crimes charged, but simply the confession of the Christian name.\' For the name itself in periods of stress, not a few, meant the rack, the blazing shirt of pitch, the lion, the panther, or in the case of maidens an infamy worse than death" (Workman, 103).<P>20. Persecution in the Army:<P>Service in the Roman army involved, for a Christian, increasing danger in the midst of an organized and aggressive heathenism. Hence, arose the persecution of the Christian soldier who refused compliance with the idolatrous ceremonies in which the army engaged, whether those ceremonies were concerned with the worship of the Roman deities or with that of Mithraism. "The invincible saviour," as Mithra was called, had become, at the time when Tertullian and Origen wrote, the special deity of soldiers. Shrines in honor of Mithra were erected through the entire breadth of the Roman empire, from Dacia and Pannonia to the Cheviot Hills in Britain. And woe to the soldier who refused compliance with the religious sacrifices to which the legions gave their adhesion! The Christians in the Roman legions formed no inconsiderable proportion of "the noble army of martyrs," it being easier for the persecuting authorities to detect a Christian in the ranks of the army than elsewhere.<P>21. Tertullian\'s Apology:<P>In the 2nd and 3rd centuries, Christians were to be found everywhere, for Tertullian, in an oftentimes quoted passage in his Apology, writes, "We live beside you in the world, making use of the same forum, market, bath, shop, inn, and all other places of trade. We sail with you, fight shoulder to shoulder, till the soil, and traffic with you"; yet the very existence of Christian faith, and its profession, continued to bring the greatest risks. "With the best will in the world, they remained a peculiar people, who must be prepared at any moment to meet the storm of hatred" (Workman, 189). For them it remained true that in one way or another, hatred on the part of the world inevitably fell to the lot of those who walked in the footsteps of the Master; "All that would live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',3,12);">2Ti 3:12</a>).<P>22. "The Third Race":<P>The strange title, "the third race," probably invented by the heathen, but willingly accepted by the Christians without demur, showed with what a bitter spirit the heathen regarded the faith of Christ. "The first race" was indifferently called the Roman, Greek, or Gentile. "The second race" was the Jews; while "the third race" was the Christian. The cry in the circus of Carthage was Usque quo genus tertium? "How long must we endure this third race?"<P>23. Hatred against Christians:<P>But one of the most powerful causes of the hatred entertained by the heathen against the Christians was, that though there were no citizens so loyal as they, yet in every case in which the laws and customs of the empire came into conflict with the will of God, their supreme rule was loyalty to Christ, they must obey God rather than man. To worship Caesar, to offer even one grain of incense on the shrine of Diana, no Christian would ever consent, not even. when this minimum of compliance would save life itself.<P>The Roman empire claimed to be a kingdom of universal sway, not only over the bodies and the property of all its subjects, but over their consciences and their souls. It demanded absolute obedience to its supreme lord, that is, to Caesar. This obedience the Christian could not render, for unlimited obedience of body, soul and spirit is due to God alone, the only Lord of the conscience. Hence, it was that there arose the antagonism of the government to Christianity, with persecution as the inevitable result.<P>These results, hatred and persecution, were, in such circumstances, inevitable; they were "the outcome of the fundamental tenet of primitive Christianity, that the Christian ceased to be his own master, ceased to have his old environment, ceased to hold his old connections with the state; in everything he became the bond-servant of Jesus Christ, in everything owing supreme allegiance and fealty to the new empire and the Crucified Head. \'We engage in these conflicts,\' said Tertullian, \'as men whose very lives are not our own. We have no master but God\'" (Workman, 195).<P>24. The Decian Persecution:<P>The persecution inaugurated by the emperor Decius in 250 AD was particularly severe. There was hardly a province in the empire where there were no martyrs; but there were also many who abandoned their faith and rushed to the magistrates to obtain their libelli, or certificates that they had offered heathen sacrifice. When the days of persecution were over, these persons usually came with eagerness to seek readmission to the church. It was in the Decian persecution that the great theologian Origen, who was then in his 68th year, suffered the cruel torture of the rack; and from the effects of what he then suffered he died at Tyre in 254.<P>25. Libelli:<P>Many libelli have been discovered in recent excavations in Egypt. In the The Expository Times for January,1909,p. 185, Dr. George Milligan gives an example, and prints the Greek text of one of these recently discovered Egyptian libelli. These libelli are most interesting, illustrating as they do the account which Cyprian gives of the way in which some faint-hearted Christians during the Decian persecution obtained certificates<65>some of these certificates being true to fact, and others false<73>to the effect that they had sacrificed in the heathen manner. The one which Dr. Milligan gives is as follows: "To those chosen to superintend the sacrifices at the village of Alexander Island, from Aurelius Diogenes, the son of Sarabus, of the village of Alexander Island, being about 72 years old, a scar on the right eyebrow. Not only have I always continued sacrificing to the gods, but now also in your presence, in accordance with the decrees, I have sacrificed and poured libations and tasted the offerings, and I request you to countersign my statement. May good fortune attend you. I, Aurelius Diogenes, have made this request."<P>(2nd Hand) "I, Aurelius Syrus, as a participant, have certified Diogenes as sacrificing along with us."<P>(1st Hand) "The first year of the Emperor Caesar Gaius Messius Quintus Trajan Decius Plus Felix Augustus, Epiph. 2" (= June 25, 250 AD).<P>Under Valerian the persecution was again very severe, but his successor, Gallienus, issued an edict of toleration, in which he guaranteed freedom of worship to the Christians. Thus Christianity definitely became a religio licita, a lawful religion. This freedom from persecution continued until the reign of Diocletian.<P>26. The Edict of Milan:<P>The persecution of the Christian church by the empire of Rome came to an end in March, 313 AD, when Constantine issued the document known as the "Edict of Milan," which assured to each individual freedom of religious belief. This document marks an era of the utmost importance in the history of the world. Official Roman persecution had done its worst, and had failed; it was ended now; the Galilean had conquered.<P>27. Results of Persecution:<P>The results of persecution were:<P>(1) It raised up witnesses, true witnesses, for the Christian faith. Men and women and even children were among the martyrs whom no cruelties, however refined and protracted, could terrify into denial of their Lord. It is to a large extent owing to persecution that the Christian church possesses the testimony of men like Quadratus and Tertullian and Origen and Cyprian and many others. While those who had adopted the Christian faith in an external and formal manner only generally went back from their profession, the true Christian, as even the Roman proconsul Pliny testifies, could not be made to do this. The same stroke which crushed the straw<61>such is a saying of Augustine\'s<>separated the pure grain which the Lord had chosen.<P>(2) Persecution showed that the Christian faith is immortal even in this world. Of Christ\'s kingdom there shall be no end. "Hammer away, ye hostile bands, your hammers break, God\'s altar stands." Pagan Rome, Babylon the Great, as it is called by the apostle John in the Apocalypse tried hard to destroy the church of Christ; Babylon was drunk with the blood of the saints. God allowed this tyranny to exist for 300 years, and the blood of His children was shed like water. Why was it necessary that the church should have so terrible and so prolonged an experience of suffering? It was in order to convince the world that though the kings of the earth gather themselves against the Lord and against His Christ, yet all that they can do is vain. God is in the midst of Zion; He shall help her, and that right early. The Christian church, as if suspended between heaven and earth, had no need of other help than that of the unseen but divine hand, which at every moment held it up and kept it from falling. Never was the church more free, never stronger, never more flourishing, never more extensive in its growth, than in the days of persecution.<P>And what became of the great persecuting power, the Roman empire? It fell before the barbarians. Rome is fallen in its ruins, and its idols are utterly abolished, while the barbarians who overwhelmed the empire have become the nominally Christian nations of modern Europe, and their descendants have carried the Christian faith to America and Australia and Africa and all over the world.<P>(3) Persecution became, to a large extent, an important means of preserving the true doctrines of the person and of the work of Christ. It was in the ages of persecution that Gnosticism died, though it died slowly. It was in the ages of persecution that Arianism was overthrown. At the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, among those who were present and took part in the discussion and in the decision of the council, there were those who "bore in their bodies the branding-marks of Jesus," who had suffered pain and loss for Christ\'s sake.<P>Persecution was followed by these important results, for God in His wisdom had seen fit to permit these evils to happen, in order to change them into permanent good; and thus the wrath of man was overruled to praise God, and to effect more ultimate good, than if the persecutions had not taken place at all. What, in a word, could be more divine than to curb and restrain and overrule evil itself and change it into good ? God lets iniquity do what it pleases, according to its own designs; but in permitting it to move on one side, rather than on another, He overrules it and makes it enter into the order of His providence. So He lets this fury against the Christian ith be kindled in the hearts of persecutors, so that they afflict the saints of the Most High. But the church remains safe, for persecution can work nothing but ultimate good in the hand of God. "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church." So said Tertullian, and what he said is true.<P>Persecution has permanently enriched the history of the church. It has given us the noble heritage of the testimony and the suffering of those whose lives would otherwise have been unrecorded. Their very names as well as their careers would have been unknown had not persecution "dragged them into fame and chased them up to heaven."<P>Persecution made Christ very near and very precious to those who suffered. Many of the martyrs bore witness, even when in the midst of the most cruel torments, that they felt no pain, but that Christ was with them. Instances to this effect could be multiplied. Persecution made them feel how true Christ\'s words were, that even as He was not of the world, so they also were not of it. If they had been of the world, the world would love its own, but because Christ had chosen them out of the world, therefore the world hated them. They were not greater than their Lord. If men had persecuted Jesus, they would also persecute His true disciples. But though they were persecuted, they were of good cheer, Christ had overcome the world; He was with them; He enabled them to be faithful unto death. He had promised them the crown of life.<P>Browning\'s beautiful lines describe what was a common experience of the martyrs, how Christ "in them" and "with them," "quenched the power of fire," and made them more than conquerors:<P>"I was some time in being burned,<P>But at the close a Hand came through<P>The fire above my head, and drew<P>My soul to Christ, whom now I see.<P>Sergius, a brother, writes for me<P>This testimony on the wall<6C><P>For me, I have forgot it all."``155';
isbe[6824]='Persepolis`per-sep\'-o-lis (2Macc 9:2; Persepolis, Persaipolis, in Ptolemy Persopolis; original Persian name unknown; Pahlavi Stakhr, now Ictakhr and Shihil Minar, "Forty Turrets"):<P>1. Location:<P>The ruins of Persepolis lie about 35 miles northeast of Shiraz and some 40 miles south of the ruins of Pasargadae.<P>2. History:<P>The magnificent palace of which such striking remains are still visible (Takht i Jamshid) was built by Darius and Xerxes of white marble and black stone. The city was captured, pillaged and burnt by Alexander in 324 BC, most of the inhabitants being massacred or enslaved. Much of the treasure of the Persian kings was found there. Curtius says the palace was never rebuilt. Antioehus Epiphanes (166 BC) tried but failed to plunder the temple (of Anaitis, Anihita?) there (2Macc 9:2; perhaps this is the incident referred to in 1Macc 6:1ff, and Polyb. xxxi.11). At Persepolis were the sepulchers of the Achemenian kings (except Cyrus). Long and important inscriptions of Darius and Xerxes are found at Persepolis and the neighboring Naqsh i Rustam, in cuneiform characters and in the Aehaemenian Persian, Assyrian and neo-Susian tongues (published by Spiegel, Rawlinson and Weisbaeh). Clitarehus first among Europeans mentions the city. The writer of this article visited it in 1892. Not now inhabited.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Inscriptions (as above), Arrian, Curtius, Polybius, Pliny, Diod. Siculus, medieval and modern travelers.``175';
isbe[6825]='Perseus`pur\'-sus, pur\'-se-us (Perseus): In 1Macc 8:5 the conquest of "Perseus, king of the Citims" (the Revised Version (British and American) "king of Chittim") was part of the "fame of the Romans" which reached the ears of Judas. This Perseus, the son and successor of Philip III of Macedonia, came to the throne in 178 BC and was the last king of Maccedonia. In 171 BC began the war with Rome which ended in his disastrous defeat and capture at Pydna, 168 BC (to which 1Macc 8:5 refers), by L. Aemilius Paulus. Macedonia soon became a Roman province. Perseus was led to Rome to grace the triumph of his conqueror, by whose clemency he was spared, and died in captivity at Rome (Polyb. xxix. 17; Livy xliv. 40ff).<P>Kittim or Chittim, properly of the people of the town of Citium in Cyprus, then signifying Cyprians, and extended by Jewish writers (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,4);">Ge 10:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',24,24);">Nu 24:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',23,1);">Isa 23:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',2,10);">Jer 2:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,6);">Eze 27:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',11,30);">Da 11:30</a>; Josephus, Ant, I, vi) to include the coasts of Greece generally, is here applied to Maccdonia. In 1Macc 1:1 Macedonia (or Greece) is called "the land of Chittim."``5';
isbe[6826]='Perseverance`pur-se-ver\'-ans: The word occurs only once in the King James Version (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,18);">Eph 6:18</a>), where it refers quite simply to persistence in prayer. In theology (especially in the phrase "final perseverance") the word has come to denote a special persistency, the undying continuance of the new life (manifested in faith and holiness) given by the Spirit of God to man. It is questioned whether such imparted life is (by its nature, or by the law of its impartation) necessarily permanent indestructible so that the once regenerate and believing man has the prospect of final glory infallibly assured. This is not the place to trace the history of a great and complex debate. It is more fitting here to point to the problem as connected with that supreme class of truths in which, because of our necessary mental limits, the entire truth can only be apprehended as the unrevealed but certain harmony of seeming contradictions. Scripture on the one hand abounds with assurances of "perseverance" as a fact, and largely intimates that an exulting anticipation of it is the intended experience of the believer (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,28);">Joh 10:28</a> above all, and compare among other passages <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,\'31-37\');">Ro 8:31-37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,8,9);">1Pe 1:8,9</a>). On the other hand, we find frequent and urgent warnings and cautions (see e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',8,11);">1Co 8:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',9,27);">9:27</a>). The teacher dealing with actual cases, as in pastoral work, should be ready to adopt both classes of utterances, each with its proper application; applying the first, e.g., to the true but timid disciple, the latter to the self-confident. Meanwhile Scripture on the whole, by the manner and weight of its positive statements, favors a humble belief of the permanence, in the plan of God, of the once-given new life. It is as if it laid down perseverance" as the divine rule for the Christian, while the negative passages came in to caution the man not to deceive himself with appearances, nor to let any belief whatever palliate the guilt and minimize the danger of sin. In the biographies of Scripture, it is noteworthy that no person appears who, at one time certainly a saint, was later certainly a castaway. The awful words of <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',6,\'4-6\');">Heb 6:4-6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,26,27);">10:26,27</a> appear to deal with cases (such as Balaam\'s) of much light but no loving life, and so are not precisely in point. Upon the whole subject, it is important to make "the Perseverance of the Saviour" our watchword rather than "the Perseverance of the saint."``46';
isbe[6827]='Persia`pur\'-sha, (parats; Persia; in Assyrian Parsu, Parsua; in Achemenian Persian Parsa, modern Fars): In the Bible (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',36,20,22,23);">2Ch 36:20,22,23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',1,1,8);">Ezr 1:1,8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',1,3,14,18);">Es 1:3,14,18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',10,2);">10:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,10);">Eze 27:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',38,5);">38:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',8,20);">Da 8:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',10,1);">10:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',11,2);">11:2</a>) this name denotes properly the modern province of Fars, not the whole Persian empire. The latter was by its people called Airyaria, the present Iran (from the Sanskrit word arya, "noble"); and even now the Persians never call their country anything but Iran, never "Persia." The province of Persis lay to the east of Elam (Susiana), and stretched from the Persian Gulf to the Great Salt Desert, having Carmania on the southeast. Its chief cities were Persepolis and Pasargadae. Along the Persian Gulf the land is low, hot and unhealthy, but it soon begins to rise as one travels inland. Most of the province consists of high and steep mountains and plateaus, with fertile valleys. The table-lands in which lie the modern city of Shiraz and the ruins of Persepolis and Pasargadae are well watered and productive. Nearer the desert, however, cultivation grows scanty for want of water. Persia was doubtless in early times included in Elam, and its population was then either Semitic or allied to the Accadians, who founded more than one state in the Babylonian plain. The Aryan Persians seem to have occupied the country in the 8th or 9th century BC.``175';
isbe[6828]='Persian Language and Literature (Ancient)`pur\'-shan, pur\'-zhan, RATURE (ANCIENT):<P><b>I. LANGUAGE (Introductory)</b><P class="in15">Dialects<P><b>II. OLD PERSIAN INSCRIPTIONS</b><P><b>III. MEDIC DIALECT</b><P class="in15">1. Ordinary Ayestic<P class="in15">2. Gathic<P><b>IV. ZOROASTER</b><P class="in15">1. His Date, etc.<P class="in15">2. Date of Avesta<P class="in15">3. Divisions of the present Avesta<P class="in30">(1) The Yasna<P class="in30">(2) The Vispered<P class="in30">(3) The Vendidad<P class="in30">(4) The Yashts<P class="in30">(5) The Khorda Avesta<P><b>V. PAHLAVI</b><P class="in15">1. Literature<P class="in15">2. Comparison<P><b>LITERATURE</b>.<hr /><P>I. Language: (Introductory).<P>The Persian language, ancient and modern alike, is an Aryan tongue. In its ancient forms it is more closely connected with Vedic Sanskrit than with any other language except Armenian. Most of its roots are to be found also in Slavonic, Greek, Latin and other tongues of the same stock.<P>Dialects:<P>There were two main dialects in the ancient language of Iran (Airyanem),<P>(1) that of the Persians proper, and<P>(2) that of the Medes.<P>The former is known to us from the inscriptions of the Achemenian kings, the latter from the Avesta, and a few Median words preserved for us by Herodotus and other Greek writers.<P>II. Old Persian Inscriptions.<P>These fall between 550 and 330 BC, and contain about 1,000 lines and 400 words. They are carved upon the rocks in a cuneiform character, simplified from that of the neo-Susian, which again comes from the neo-Babylonian syllabary. In Old Persian inscriptions only 44 characters are employed, of which 7 are ideographs or contractions. The remaining 37 phonetic signs are syllabic, each consisting of an open syllable and not merely of a single letter, except in case of separate vowels. The syllabary, though much simpler than any other cuneiform system, does not quite attain therefore to being an alphabet. It was written from left to right, like the other cuneiform syllabaries. Of Cyrus the Great only one Persian sentence has been found: Adam Kurush Khshayathiya Hakhamanishiya, "I am Cyrus the King, the Achemenian." Darius I has left us long inscriptions, at Behistan (Besitun), Mt. Alvand, Persepolis, Naqsh i Rustam, etc., and one at Suez, the latter mentioning his conquest of Egypt and the construction of the first (?) Suez canal:<P>Adam niyashtayam imam yuviyam kantanaiy haca Pirava nama rauta tya Mudrayaiy danauvatiy abiy daraya tya haca Parsa aiti.<P>("I commanded to dig this canal from the river named the Nile, which flows through Egypt, to the sea which comes from Persia.")<P>We have also inscriptions of Xerxes at Persepolis and many short ones of Artaxerxes I, Artaxerxes Mnemon, and Artaxerxes Ochus. From them all taken together we learn much concerning the history and the religion of the Achemenian period. It is from Achemenian or Old Persian, and not from the Medic or Avestic, that modern Persian has sprung through Pahlavi and Dari as intermediate stages. This is probably due to the political supremacy which the Persians under the Achaemenides gained over the Medes. The few words in the inscriptions which might otherwise be doubtful can be understood through comparison with Armenian and even with the modern Pets, e.g. yuviya in the above inscription is the modern vulgar Pets jub.<P>III. Medic Dialect.<P>1. Ordinary Avestic:<P>The Medic dialect is represented in literature by the Avesta or sacred books of the Zoroastrians (Parsis). The word Avesta does not occur in the book itself and is of uncertain meaning and signification. It is probably the Abashta of Beh. Inscr., IV,64,and means either<P>(1) an interview, meeting (Sanskrit avashta, "appearance before a judge"; At. ava-sta, "to stand near"), or (2) a petition (Pahl. apastan, "petition"; Arm. apastan, "refuge," "asylum"),<P>in either case deriving its name from Zoroaster\'s drawing near to Ahura Mazda in worship.<P>This dialect represents a much greater decadence in grammar and vocabulary than does the Old Persian. Many of its consonants and most of its vowels are weakened. Its verbs have almost entirely lost the augment; its declensional system shows extreme confusion. It stands to Old Persian grammatically somewhat as English does to German Its alphabet, consisting of 43 letters, is derived from the Syriac (probably the Estrangela), and is written from right to left. As a specimen of the language of most of the Avesta we give the following extract (Yasna LXIV, 15(61)):<P>Daidi moi, ye gam tasho apasca urvarwsca<P>Ameretata, haurvata, Spenista Mainyu Mazda,<P>Tevishi, utayuiti, Mananha Vohu, senhe.<P>"Give me, O thou who didst make the bull (earth),<P>and the waters and the plants, immortality, health<74><P>O most Bountiful Spirit, Mazda<p><3E>strength, might, through Vohu Mano, I say.")<P>2. Gathic:<P>There is a sub-dialect of Medic (Avestic) known as the Gatha-dialect, from the fact that the Gathas or "Hymns" (Yasna XXVIII-XXXIV, XLII-L, LII), and also the prayers (Yatha Ahu Vairyo, Ashem Vohu, Airyama Ishyo, and originally Yenhe Halam, and a few scattered passages elsewhere) are composed in it. This represents, speaking generally, an older form of the Avestic. It is probably the old language of Bactria or of Margiana Gatha I,2,runs thus:<P>Ye vw, Mazda Ahura, pairijasai Vohu Mananha,<P>Maibyo davoi ahvw (astivatasca hyatca mananho)<P>Ayapta Ashat haca, yais rapento daidit hvathre.<P>"To me, O Ahura Mazda, who approach you two through Vohu Mano,<P>grant the benefits from Asha, (those) of both worlds,<P>both of the material (world)<P>and of that which is of the spirit, through which (benefits)<P>may (Asha) place in glory those who please him.")<P>The meter of the Gathas, like that of the other Avestic poems, is based on the number of syllables in a line, with due regard to the caesura. But the condition of the text is such that there is great difficulty in recovering the original reading with sufficient accuracy to enable us to lay down rules on the subject with any certainty. The first Gatha is composed of strophes of 3 lines each (as above). Each line contains 16 syllables, with a caesura after the 7th foot.<P>IV. Zoroaster.<P>1. His Date, etc.:<P>Many of the Gathas are generally ascribed to Zoroaster himself, the rest to his earliest disciples. They compose the most ancient part of the Avesta. It is now becoming a matter of very great probability that Zoroaster lived at earliest in the middle of the 7th century BC, more probably a century later. The Arta Viraf Namak says that his religion remained pure for 300 years, and connects its corruption with the alleged destruction of much of the Avesta in the palace burned by Alexander at Persepolis, 324.BC. This traditional indication of date is confirmed by other evidence. Zoroaster\'s prince Vishtaspa (in Greek Hustaspes) bears the same name as the father of Darius I, and was probably the same person. Vishtaspa\'s queen Hutaosa, who also protected and favored Zoroaster, bears the same name (in Greek Atossa) as Cambyses\' sister who afterward married Darius, and probably belonged to the same family. Zoroastrianism comes to the fore under Darius, whereas Cyrus in his inscriptions speaks as a decided polytheist. Hence, we conclude that the earliest part of the Avesta belongs to circa 550 BC. Of Zoroaster himself we learn much from the Avesta, which traces his genealogy back for 10 generations. It mentions his wife\'s name (Hvovi), and tells of his 3 sons and 3 daughters. His first disciple was Frashaostra, his wife\'s natural uncle. His own name means "Owner of the yellow camel," and has none of the higher meanings sometimes assigned to it by those who would deny his existence. Tradition says he was born at Ragha (Raga, Rai) about 5 1/2 miles south of the present Tehran, though some think his native place was Western Atropatene (Azarbaijan). Rejected by his own tribe, the Magi, he went to Vishtispa\'s court in Bactria. The faith which he taught spread to the Persian court (very naturally, if Vishtispa was identical with Darius\' father) and thence throughout the country. Tradition (Yasht XIX, 2, etc.) says that the Avesta was revealed to Zoroaster on Mt. Ushi-darena ("intellect-holding") in Sistan. But it is not the composition of one man or of one age.<P>2. Date of Avesta:<P>Herodotus makes no mention of Zoroaster, but speaks of the Magi (whom he calls a Median tribe (i.101)) as already performing priestly functions. His description of their repetition of charms and theological compositions (i.132) would agree very well with recitation of the Gathas and Yasna. Mention of controversies with Gautama, Buddha\'s disciples (Yasht XIII, 16) who probably reached Persia in the 2nd century BC, is another indication of date. The fact that in both the Yasna and the Vendidad heretics (zanda) are mentioned who preferred the commentary (zand) on the Avesta to the Avesta itself, is a sign of late date. Names of certain persons found in the Avesta (e.g. Atare-pata, a Dastur who lived under Hormuzd I, 273 AD, and Rastare-Yaghenti, whom the Dinkarl identifies with the chief Mobed of Sapor II, 309-379 AD, Aderpad Marespand, and who, according to the Patet, section 28, "purified" the revelation made to Zoroaster, i.e. revised the text of the earlier parts of the Avesta) enable us to prove that certain portions of the work as we now have it were composed as late as near the end of the 4th century of our era. It is said that the text was in confusion in the time of Vologases I (51-78 (?) AD). A reccnsion was then begun, and continued with much zeal by Ardashir Papakan, 226-240 AD. According to Geldner (Prolegomena, xlvi) the final recension took place some considerable time after Yezdigird III (overthrown 642 AD). In the times of the Sasanides there were, it is said, 21 Naskas or volumes of the Avesta, and the names of these are given in the Dinkart (Book IX). Of these we now possess only one entire Naska, the Vendidad, and portions of three others.<P>3. Divisions of the Present Avesta:<P>The present Avesta is divided into 5 parts:<P>(1) The Yasna<P>The Yasna root yaz, Sanskrit yaj, "to invoke," "to praise") contains 72 chapters of hymns for use at sacrifices, etc., including the "Older Yasna" or Gathas.<P>(2) The Vispered<P>The Vispered (vispa, "every," "all," and radha, "a lord") is divided into 24 chapters in Geldner\'s edition; it is supplementary to the Yasna.<P>(3) The Vendidad<P>The Vendidad (van plus daea plus data, "law for " vanquishing the demons") contains 22 chapters. The first chapter contains the Iranian myth about the order in which the provinces of the Iranian world were created by Ahura Mazda. It tells how the Evil Spirit, Anro Mainyus, created plagues, sins and death, to destroy the good creatures of the Good Spirit. The greater part of the book contains ceremonial laws and formulas, some of them loathsome and all rather petty and superstitious in character.<P>(4) The Yashts<P>The Yashts, 21 in all, are hymns, telling many mythological tales about Mithra, Tishtriya, etc.<P>(5) The Khorda Avesta<P>The Khorda Avesta ("Little Avesta") consists of a number of short compositions, hymns, etc., compiled by the Aderpad Marespand (Adharpadh Mahraspand, Atarobat Mansarspendan) already mentioned, in Sapor II\'s reign.<P>Much of the Avesta is said to have been destroyed by the Khalffah \'Umar\'s orders when Persia was conquered by the Arabs after the battle of Nahavand (642 AD). Certainly \'Umar ordered the destruction of Persian libraries, as we learn from the Kashfu\'z Zunun (p. 341).<P>V. Pahlavi.<P>1. Literature:<P>Under ancient Persian literature may be classed the Pahlavi<P>(a) inscriptions of Sapor at Hajiabad and elsewhere,<P>(b) legends on Sasanian coins,<P>(c) translations of certain parts of the Avesta, made under the Sasanides for the most part,<P>(d) such books as the Arta Viraf Namak, the Zad Sparam, Dinkart, Ormazd Yasht, Patet, Bundishnih, etc.<P>These are mostly of religious import. The Arta Viraf Namak gives a description of the visit of the young dastur Arta Viraf, to the Zoroastrian heaven. The Bundihishnih ("creation") tells how Ormazd and Ahriman came into being, and treats of the 9,000 years\' struggle between them. Pahlavi, as written (the so-called Huzvaresh), contains an immense number of Aramaic words, but the Persian terminations attached to these show that they were read as Persian: thus yehabunt-ano is written, and dat-ano ("to give") is read. Pahlavi works that are no longer extant are the sources of the Vis o Ramin, Zaratusht Namah, Shahnamah, etc.<P>2. Comparison:<P>In order to understand the relation in which the Persian dialects and stages in the history of the language stand to one another, it may be well to subjoin a list of words in Old Persian, Avestic, Pahlavi and modern Persian. It will be seen that Ayestic is not the source of the Aryan part of the present tongue.<P>MEANING AVESTIC OLD PERSIAN PAHLAVI MODERN PERSIAN<P>Friend.... zusta daushta dost dust<P>Hand...... zasta dasta dast dast<P>Bactreia.. Bakhdhi Bakhtri Bahr Balkh<P>Straight.. drva(sta)@@ duruva(sta) drust durust<P>Greatest.. mazista@@ mathishta mahist mahin Most right razista@@ rasta rast rast<P>Abode..... nmana maniya man man-dan ("to remain")<P>(Gathic<P>demana)<P>@@superlatives<P>LITERATURE.<P>Achaemenian inscriptions, Korsowitz, Spiegel, Rawlinson: Geiger and Kuhn (editors), Grundriss der iranischen Philologie; Darmesteter, Etudes iraniennes; Spiegel, Eranische Altertumskunde; Noldeke, Aufsatze zur persischen Geschichte; W. Geiger, Ostiranische Kultur im Alterium; Geldner\'s edition of Avesta; Professor Browne, Literary History of Persia; De Harlez, Manuel de la langue de l\' Avesta, Manuel de la langue Pehlevie, and Introduction to the Avesta; Haug, Book of Artd Viraf; Cook, Origins of Religion and Language.``175';
isbe[6829]='Persian Religion (Ancient)`<b>I. BEFORE ZOROASTER</b><P class="in15">1. Early Aryan Religion<P class="in15">2. Avesta and Rig-Veda<P class="in15">3. The Creator<P><b>II. ZOROASTRIANISM</b><P class="in15">1. Leading Principle<P class="in15">2. Not Monotheistic<P class="in30">(1) Darius and Xerxes<P class="in30">(2) Ahura Mazda<P class="in15">3. Objects of Worship<P class="in15">4. Anro Mainyus and His Creatures<P class="in15">5. Production versus Destruction Fertility<P class="in15">6. Contest between Ormazd and Ahriman<P class="in15">7. Ethics<P class="in15">8. Sacred Thread<P class="in15">9. Early Traditions<P class="in15">10. The Earth<P class="in15">11. Heaven and Hell<P class="in15">12. Interment<P class="in15">13. Worship<P class="in15">14. The Magi<P class="in15">15. Eschatology<P class="in15">16. Hebrew and Christian Influence<P class="in15">17. No Virgin Birth<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. Before Zoroaster.<P>1. Early Aryan Religion:<P>There are clear indications in the Avesta that the religion of the Medes and Persians before Zoroaster\'s time agreed in most respects with that of the Indian Aryans, and in a less degree with the beliefs of the Aryans in general. All the Aryan tribes in very ancient times showed great respect for the dead, though they carefully distinguished them from the gods (compare Rig-Veda X, 56, 4). The latter were principally the powers of Nature, the wind, fire, water, the sky, the sun, the earth, and a host of personifications. The procreative powers in Nature, animate and inanimate, seeming to be the source of animal and vegetable life, received adoration, which ultimately led to unspeakable corruption. Herodotus tells us that the Persians in his time worshipped the sun, moon, sky, earth, fire, wind and water (i.131). Offerings to the gods were laid on a mass of pomegranate twigs (baresman; Sanskrit, barhis), and the flesh of victims was boiled, not burnt. Libations of haoma-juice were poured out, just as in India the soma was the drink of both gods and their worshippers.<P>2. Avesta and Rig-Veda:<P>A comparison between the spiritual beings mentioned in the Avesta and those spoken of in the Rig-Veda is most instructive in two ways. It shows that the original religion of the Iranians and of the Indian Aryans agreed very closely; and it also enables us to realize the immensity of the reformation wrought by Zoroaster. Many of the names of supernatural beings are practically the same; e.g. Indra (Indra, Andra), Mitra (Mithra), Aryaman (Airyaman), Asura (Ahura), Apam Napat (Apam Napat), Tvashtri (? Tishtrya), Rama (Raman), Vayu (Vayu), Vata (Vata). So are many words of religious import, as Soma (Haoma), Mantra (Mathra), Hotra (Zaotar). The Yama of India is the Yima of Persia, and the father of the one is Vivasvat and that of the other Vivanhat, which is the same word with dialectic change. The Holy River of the Avesta, Aredhvi Sura, the Unstained (Anahita), is represented by the Sarasvati, the Ganga (Ganges) and other sacred streams worshipped in India. In Persia Atar (or Fire) is a son of Ahura Mazda (Yasna LXIV, 46-53), as Agni (equals Ignis) is of Tvashtri in the Rig-Veda. Armaiti is Ahura Mazda\'s daughter, as Saranyu in the Rig-Veda is the daughter of Tvashtri, the "Creator." The use of gomez (bovis urina) for purification is common to both India and Persia. Though the soma-plant is not now the same as the haoma, the words are the same, and no doubt they at one time denoted one and the same plant. Many of the myths of the Avesta have a great resemblance to those of the Rig-Veda. This comparison might be extended almost indefinitely.<P>In another respect also there is an important agreement between the two. Though some 33 deities are adored in the Vedic Hymns, yet, in spite of polytheism and low ideas of the divine, traces of something higher may be found. Varuna, for instance, represents a very-lofty conception. In the closest connection with him stands Asura, who is a being of great eminence, and whose sons are the gods, especially the Adityas.<P>3. The Creator:<P>Tvashtri again is creator of heaven and earth and of all beings, though his worship was ultimately in Vedic times displaced by that of Indra. It is clear then that the Indian Aryans were worshippers of the Creator and that they knew something of Him long before they sank into polytheism. In the Avesta and in the Persian cuneiform inscriptions alike, Ahura Mazda occupies much the same position as Varuna, Asura (the same word as Ahura), or Tvashtri in the Rig-Veda, or rather in the ancient belief of which traces are retained in the latter work. Hence, as the Avesta teaches, Zoroaster was not for the first time preaching the existence of Ahura Mazda, but he was rather endeavoring to recall his people to the belief of their ancestors, the doctrine which Ahura Mazda had taught Yima in primeval time in his first revelation (Vendidad II, 1-16, 42). The great truth of the existence of the Creator, testified to by tradition, reason and conscience, undoubtedly contributed largely to Zoroaster\'s success, just as a similar proclamation of the God Most High (Allah ta\'ala\'), worshipped by their ancestors, helped the thoughtful among the Arabs in later years to accept Muhammad\'s teaching. The consciousness in each case that the doctrine was not new but very ancient, materially helped men to believe it true.<P>II. Zoroastrianism.<P>1. Leading Principle:<P>The reformation wrought by Zoroaster was a great one. He recognized<65>as Euripides in Greece did later<65>that "if the gods do aught shameful, they are not gods." Hence, he perceived that many of the deities worshipped in Iran were unworthy of adoration, being evil in character, hostile to all good and therefore to the "All-Wise" Spirit (Ahura Mazda) and to men. Hence, his system of dualism, dividing all beings, spiritual or material, into two classes, the creatures of Ahura Mazda and those of the "Destroying Mind" (Anro Mainyus). So many of the popular deities were evil that Zoroaster used the word daeva (the same as deva, deus, and Aramaic di) to denote henceforth an evil spirit, just as Christianity turned the Greek daimones and daimonia (words used in a good sense in classical authors) into "demons." Instead of this now degraded word daeva, he employed baga (Old Persian; Av. bagha, Vedic bhaga, "distribution," "natron" "lord") for "God."<P>2. Not Monotheistic:<P>But, it must be remembered that Zoroaster did not teach monotheism. Darius says that "Auramazda and the other gods that there are" brought him aid (Beh. Inscr., IV, 60-63), and both he and Xerxes speak of Auramazda as "the greatest of the gods." So, even in the first Gatha, Zoroaster himself invokes Asha, Vohu-Mano, maiti, Sraosha, and even Geus-urvan ("the Soul of the Bull"), as well as Ahura Mazda.<P>(1) Darius and Xerxes.<P>Darius mentions the "clan-gods," but does not name any of them. He and Xerxes ascribe the creation of heaven and earth to Auramazda, and say that the latter, "Who made this earth, who made yon sky, who made man, who made happiness for man," has appointed each of them king. It is "by the grace of Auramazda" (vashna Auramazdaha) that Darius conquers his enemies. But both Artaxerxes Mnemon and Artaxerxes Ochus couple Mithra and Anahata (Anahita) with Auramazda (Ahura Mazda) in praying for the protection of the empire.<P>(2) Ahura Mazda.<P>In the Avesta, Ahura Mazda is one of the seven Amesha spentas or "Bountiful Immortals." He is the father of one of them, Spentas Armaiti, who is also his spouse. He is primus inter pares among them, their chief, but by no means the only god. Monotheism is distinctly taught in later Zoroastrian works, for instance, in the Zaratusht-Namah, composed 1278 AD, but it is due to Christian and Islamic influence.<P>3. Objects of Worship:<P>The modern Zoroastrian view, clearly stated in the Dasatir i Asmani and elsewhere, that all the good creatures of Ormazd (Ahura Mazda) are entitled to adoration, undoubtedly rests upon the Avesta. There we find, in the first place, the Amesha Spentas, who occupy in regard to Mazda the same position as do the Vedic Adityas toward Varuna, though not one of the Adityas is identical with any of the Amesha Spentas.<P>The names of these are: (1) Ahura Mazda (otherwise called Spento Mainyus or "Bountiful Mind");<P>(2) Vohu Mano ("Good Mind");<P>(3) Asha Vahista ("Best Righteousness");<P>(4) Khshathra Vairya ("Excellent Ruler");<P>(5) Spenta Amaiti ("Bounteous Piety");<P>(6) Haurvatat ("Health");<P>(7) Ameretat ("Immortality").<P>Each has a special province: thus Armaiti is the general spirit of earth and presides over its fruitfulness. She is the troness of virtuos matrons. Khshathra is the guardian of metals. Vohu Mano guards sheep and cattle and introduces to Ahura Mada the spirits of the just. Next in rank come the Yazatas ("Worshipful Ones"), of whom there are a large number. Three of them, Mithra, Rashnu and Sraosha, preside at the judgment of the dead on the 4th day from death. Rashnu holds the scales in which a man\'s deeds are weighed. Sraosha guards the soul during the first three nights after death. Airyaman Ishya ("the longed-for comrade") is the protector of mankind, the bestower of peace and happiness. On one occasion (Vend., Farg. XXII, 23-29) Ahura Mazda sends his messenger Nairyo Sanha ("male instructor") to ask his aid against overwhelming odds. Riman Hvastra, the bosom friend of Mithra, presides over the atmosphere and also gives its taste to food. Mithra is the genius of truth, possessed of 1,000 ears, and riding in a single-wheeled chariot (the sun), while darting golden darts and driving fiery steeds. Tishtrya, identified with the dog-star Sirius, sends rain and is by Ahura Mazda endowed with his own power and dignity (Yasht VIII, 52ff). This is true of Mithra also (Yasht X, 1) Atar ("Fire"), Vayu ("Air"), Vata ("Wind"), Verethraghna ("Mars"), Saoka ("Prosperity"), Aratat (genius of Justice), Vizista ("Lightning"), Fradatfshu (the guardian of cattle), Berejya (genius of grain), Cista and Daena ("Knowledge" and "Religion"), who are others of the Yazatas. All these are entitled to worship at the hands of the true adorer of Mazda (Mazdayasna, opposed to Daevayasna, or worshipper of the demons).<P>4. Anro Mainyus and His Creatures:<P>In opposition to the creatures of Ahura Mazda are those of Anro Mainyus, who is the source of all moral and material evil. The first chapter of the Vendidad tells how he created something bad in opposition to everything good made by Ahura Mazda.<P>A demon is the adversary of each Amesha Spenta: Aka Mano ("Evil Mind") that of Vohu Mano, and so in order: Indra (or Andra, "demon of untruthfulness"), Saurva ("evil government") Nonhaithya ("discontent"), Tauru ("who poisons water") and Zairi ("poison"), being antagonistic to the other Bountiful Immortals. Aeshma-Daeva ("Demon of Wrath")<29>the Asmodeus of Tobit 3:8<>is the special foe of Sraosha, the genius of obedience. Apaosha, demon of drought, is the enemy of Tishtrya. Buiti (or Buidhi) teaches men to worship idols, and also causes death. Bushyasta is the demon of sloth. Vidhatus or Astuvidhstus causes death by destroying the body. Other evil beings, Drujes, Pairikas, Jainis, Yatus, are so numerous in the later parts of the Avesta that a pious Zoroastrian must have lived in continual dread of their assaults. He had even to conceal the parings of his nails, lest they should be used as darts to his injury by these his spiritual foes.<P>5. Production versus Destruction:<P>Holiness does not enter into Zoroaster\'s conception of the divine nature. This is a point to which attention has not yet been properly directed, though its importance can hardly be exaggerated. The epithet Spenta, often applied to Ahura Mazda and mistranslated "Holy," is by the Zoroastrians themselves in Pahlavi rendered afzunik, i.e. "that causes increase." Its (?) span or spen equals (Sanskrit) svi, "to swell," "to grow," "to increase." The opposite to this is the term anro (angro, from (?) angh; compare German eng, "narrow") to the Evil Spirit, and denoting "narrowing," "decreasing," "destroying." Hence, as the Destroyer, he is styled pourumahrka, "full of death."<P>Fertility.<P>Ahura Mazda and his assistants promote life, fertility in man, beast and plant, agriculture, increase; while Ahro Mainyus and his creatures cause destruction and death. Atar ("Fire"), also styled Apam Napat ("Offspring of the Waters"), is the vital flame and the male energy in the world; Aredhvi Sura Anahita is the female. As a river the latter flows from Mt. Hukairya, a peak in the Elburz Range (Yasna LXIV), into the Caspian Sea (Vourukasha) in the midst of which grows the tree Hvapa ("well watered") which bears the seeds of all plants. Anahita means "\'undefiled," but it is applied to purity of water (to defile any of the four "elements" was, for later Zoroastrians, a grievous sin) and not to any moral purity in the goddess. Her association with Mithra was close, even in Herodotus time, for he falls into the mistake of saying (i.131) that the Persians called Aphrodite Mithra, when he should have said Anaitis (Anahita). Though god of truth and righteousness Mithra is not associated with moral purity (chastity). On the contrary, he was said to fertilize the earth with his rays, as sun-god, and Anahita as goddess of fruitfulness represented the female principle in conjunction with him. The vileness which led to the identification of Anahita with the Babylonian Mylitta was doubtless of later date than Zoroaster\'s time, yet there was little or nothing in Zoroastrianism to check it. Something similar asserts itself in Armenia, as well as in Iran, and in fact in all Nature-worship everywhere. Associated with this was the form of incest known as next-of-kin marriage (Av. Hvaetva-datha, Pahl. Khvetukdas), which permitted and encouraged marriages between brothers and sisters.<P>6. Contest between Ormazd and Ahriman:<P>According to later Zoroastrian belief, the contest between Ormazd (Ahura Mazda) and Ahriman (Anro Mainyus), after continuing for 9,000 years, is to be decided in favor of the former only through his possessing foreknowledge and Ahriman\'s lacking it (Bund., I). Both came into existence independently in limitless time (Av. Zrvana Akarana; Vend., Farg. XIX, 13; Pahl. Daman i Akandrakhom-and, Bund., I), which, personified in the Vendidad, is called "Self-created," and is there by Ahura Mazda\'s command invoked by Zoroaster in conjunction with Vayu, the Air, the Winds, "the bountiful, beauteous daughter of Ahura Mazda" (Armaiti), the Earth, and other objects of worship (loc. cit.). No creature of Ahriman is to be worshipped; hence, Indra, though in later Vedic times rising in India to a leading position in the Pantheon, is in the Avesta accounted a fiend, the very impersonation of the Lie which the Avesta so firmly denounces and which Darius mentions as the cause of all the rebellions, which produced so much bloodshed in his time. No virtue was valued so highly as truth in ancient Iran, as Herodotus agrees with the Avesta in testifying.<P>7. Ethics:<P>Avestic morality encourages the destruction of all hurtful things, as being of Anro Mainyus\' creation, and the propagation of everything good. Hence, agriculture is especially commended, together with the rearing of cattle and sheep. Somewhat later the whole duty of man was said to consist in good thoughts, good words, good deeds. Fierce opposition to every other religion was enjoined as a religious duty, and, under the Sasanides especially, this led to fearful and repeated persecutions of Christians throughout the empire.<P>8. Sacred Thread:<P>The Sacred Thread (Av. Aiwyonhana; Skt. Upavitam, etc., now by the Parsis styled the Kushti) plays as important a part in Zoroastrianism as in Hinduism. So do charms, mathras (Sanskrit, mantras), consisting in repetitions of the verses of the Avesta. The latter is even adored.<P>9. Early Traditions:<P>The first thing created by Ahura Mazda was a Bull, which may represent the earth, and reminds us of the Cow Audhumla in the Edda (Gylfaginning VI). This was killed Traditions by Anro Mainyus (in a later version, by Mithra). His spirit (Geus Urvan) went to heaven and became the guardian of cattle. The first man was Gaya-maretan ("Mortal Life"); hence, the phrase Haca Gayat Marethnat a Saosh-yantat, "from Gaya-maretan (Gayomard), Kayomarth) to Saoshyant" (Yasna XXVI, 10; Yasht XIII, 145), means "from the beginning to the end of the world." From the Airyanem Vaejo ("Aryan germ"), the first home of the Iranians, men were compelled to migrate because Anro Mainyus so altered the climate that the winter became ten months long and the summer only two. Yima Khshaeta ("Yima the Brilliant," Persian, Jamshid), son of Vivanhat, though he twice refused Ahura Mazda\'s commission to guard his creatures, and though by three lies he lost the "Royal Light" (Chvareno Kavaem) which he originally possessed, was yet directed to prepare a very extensive enclosure (Vara), in which he preserved "the seeds of sheep and cattle, of men, of dogs, of birds, and of red, glowing fires" from some terribly severe winters which came upon the earth (Vendidad II; Yasht XIX). The Bundihishnih tale of a flood differs from this, preserving an independent narrative. Ahura Mazda\'s law was preached to men within Yima\'s enclosure.<P>10. The Earth:<P>The earth consists of seven divisions, called Karshvares (compare the Sanskrit dvipas). Only one of these, Chvaniratha, is inhabited by men; the others are separated from it by impassable abysses. Sun, moon, and stars revolve round Mt. Taera, a peak in the Elburz Mountains (Demavend?). A later legend says that the Elburz Range surrounds the earth.<P>11. Heaven and Hell:<P>Each god and man possesses a fravashi, which has been compared to a guardian spirit and seems to differ from the soul (urvan). After judgment by Mithra, Rashnu and Sraosha, the souls of the dead must cross the Chinvat-bridge ("Bridge of the Judge"), which is guarded by two dogs and is narrow and difficult for the unjust, but wide and easy for the just. The righteous man then advances through three Paradises, those of Good Thoughts, Good Words and Good Works (Humata, Hukhta, Hvarsta: Yasht XVI; Arta Viraf Namak, VII IX), until, led by Sraosha, Atar, and Vohu Mano, he finally reaches Ahura Mazda\'s abode of light and glory, Garo-nmana (in Gathas, Garo-demana; Pahl. Garotman), where Ahura Mazda himself receives him with the words: "Greeting to thee; well hast thou come; from that mortal world hast thou come to this pure, bright place" (A. V. Namak, XI,8,9). But the soul of the wicked man, passing through regions of Evil Thoughts, Evil Words and Evil Deeds, finally reaches a dark and gloomy Hell (Duzhanh). In later times it was believed that those not yet fit for heaven waited in Misvana Gatus, an intermediate place where the extra merits of the just were stored up for the benefit of the less fortunate (Vend., Farg. XIX). A later name was Hamistakan. But De Harlez is of the opinion that this idea was borrowed from medieval Christianity.<P>12. Interment:<P>In primeval times the Persians buried or burned their dead. Zoroastrianism may have introduced the dakhma (Vendidad, passim) or Tower of Silence, on which bodies are exposed to be eaten by vultures. Those of which the ruins have been discovered at Al Hibbah are very ancient. But in Herodotus\' time it was usual, after permitting the flesh to be devoured by dogs and birds, to cover the bones with wax and bury them (Herodotus i.140). This was done to prevent them from coming in contact with and so polluting the earth. The custom of burial is proved by the tombs of the Achemenian kings near Persepolis, and that of Cyrus, a stone chamber raised high above the ground, at Pasargadae.<P>13. Worship:<P>Zoroastrianism permits no idol-worship and no temples, fire-altars only being used. These were served by Atharvans or fire-priests, who fed the fire with costly wood and poured into it libations of haomajuice, taking care to cover their mouths with a cloth (paiti-dhana) to keep the sacred fire from being polluted by their breath. Sacrifices were often offered on the tops of the highest mountains under the open sky (Herodotus i.132; Xen. Cyrop. viii).<P>14. The Magi:<P>The Magi doubtless owed their monopoly of priestly functions to their being Zoroaster\'s own tribe. They are not mentioned as priests in the Persian cuneiform inscriptions. Only once does the word. "Magus" occur in the Avesta, and then in composition (Moghu-tbish, a Magus-hater, Yasna LXV, 7). It is not necessary to trace to Babylonian influence the decay of Zoroastrianism and its degradation in late Achemenian times. This was at least in large measure due to a revival of the ideas and practices forbidden by Zoroaster, which reassert themselves in some parts of the Avesta, and which afterward gave rise to Mithraism.<P>15. Eschatology:<P>The Avesta states that, 1,000 years after Zoroaster\'s death, a prophet named Ukhshyat-ereta will arise from his seed to restore his religion. After another 1,000 years another, Ukhshyat-nemanh, will appear for the same purpose. The end of the world will come 1,000 years later. Then a third prophet, Saoshyant, will be born, and will usher in the Restoration (frasho-kereti) of the world to its primitive happiness and freedom from the evil creatures of Anro Mainyus. This process will be completed in 57 years, during which 6 other prophets will perform in the other 6 Karshvares the work which will here be accomplished by Saoshyant. But mention of this Restoration occurs only in very late parts of the Avesta (e.g. Vend., Farg. XVIII, 51). It does not mean Resurrection, as De Harlez has shown. Later still, something of the kind was believed, and in the Bundihishnih (chapter v) and the Patet (section 28) we have the word ristakhiz (from Av. irista, "departed," and chvis,"to rise"), which does mean "rising of the dead." But it can hardly be doubted that the doctrine is due to Hebrew and Christian influence, especially when we consider the late and uncertain date of the books in which the idea occurs.<P>16. Hebrew and Christian Influence:<P>Israelites settled in Media in large numbers in or about 730-728 BC under Sargon (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,6);">2Ki 17:6</a>), long before Zoroaster\'s birth. It is possible that his reformation may have owed much therefore to Hebrew influence.<P>See, further, <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ZOROASTRIANISM">ZOROASTRIANISM</a>.<P>The idea of virgin birth has been asserted to occur in Zoroastrianism, both with reference to Zoroaster himself and to the last three great prophets of whom mention has been made. This is an error. The Avesta and all later Zoroastrian books speak of Zoroaster\'s birth as quite natural, his father being Pourushaspa. Nor is virgin birth referred to in the case of Saoshyant and the rest.<P>17. No Virgin Birth:<P>(Mater cuiusque ex iis, sese in lacu quodam lavans, Zoroastris semine illic reposito grayida facta filium pariet: Vend., Farg. XIX, 4-6; Yasht XIII, 128, 142; Bund., XXXII, 8, 9.) Virginity is not highly esteemed in the Avesta, though fornication is condemned.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Geldner\'s edition of text of Avesta; De Harlez, Avesta; Achemenian Inscriptions; Sacred Books of the East, volumes IV, XXIII, XXXI; Grassmann, Worterbuch zum Rig Veda; Haug and West, Arta Viraf Namak; Spiegel, Einleitung in die trad. Schriften der Parsen; Eranische Altertumskunde; Darmesteter, Etudes iraniennes; Haug, Essays on...Religion of Parsis; De Harlez, Manuel du Pehlavi; Cook, Origins of Religion and Language.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ZOROASTRIANISM">ZOROASTRIANISM</a>`175';
isbe[6830]='Persians`pur\'-shanz, -zhanz (parac, also equals <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PERSIA,+PERSIS">PERSIA, PERSIS</a> (which see); adjective parci Hebrew, and parcay, Aramaic.; Persai, adjective only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,22);">Ne 12:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',6,28);">Da 6:28</a>; Achaem. Persian Parsa, name of both country and people; does not occur in Avesta):<P><b>I. AFFINITY</b><P class="in15">1. Three Classes<P class="in15">2. Tribal and Clan Divisions<P class="in15">3. Achemenian Dynasty<P><b>II. CIVILIZATION</b><P class="in15">1. Writing<P class="in15">2. Institutions and Customs<P><b>III. HISTORY</b><P class="in15">1. Cyrus<P class="in15">2. Capture of Babylon<P class="in15">3. Cambyses<P class="in15">4. Pseudo-Smerdis<P class="in15">5. Darius I<P class="in15">6. Darius\' Suez Canal<P class="in15">7. Xerxes I<P class="in15">8. Artaxerxes II<P class="in15">9. Xerxes II<P class="in15">10. Later Persian Kings<P><b>IV. FIRST MENTION IN INSCRIPTIONS</b><P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>The Persians are not mentioned in the Bible until the exilic books (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',36,20,22,23);">2Ch 36:20,22,23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',1,1,2,8);">Ezr 1:1,2,8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',3,7);">3:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',1,19);">Es 1:19</a>, etc.; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',5,28);">Da 5:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',6,8,12,15,28);">6:8,12,15,28</a>), being previously included under the Medes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,2);">Ge 10:2</a>), as they were by Thucydides, and even by Xenophon often.<P>Archaemenes (Hakhamanish)<P>Teispes (Chaishpish, Sispis)<P>Cyrus Ariaramnes (Ariyaramna)<P>Cambyses Arsames (Arshama)<P>Cyrus the Great Hystaspes (Vishtaspa)<P>Cambyses Darius I<P>Xerxes I (Ahasuerus)<P>Artaxerxes I (Longimanus)<P>Xerxes II Sogdianus Darius II<P>(Nothos, Ochos)<P>Artaxerxes III (Ochos) (Sisygambis, a daughter)<P>Arses<P>Darius III (Codomannus)<P>(<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,22);">Neh. 12:22</a>; 1Macc. 1:1)<P>I. Affinity.<P>Being of the same stock as the Medes they shared the name Aryans (Achaem. ariya; Av. airya; Sanskrit, arya, "noble"); compare the Naqsh i Rustam Inscription, where Darius I calls himself "a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, of Aryan descent" (II. 13, 14). Tradition assigns as their earliest known habitat the so-called Airyanem Vaejo ("Aryan germ"), a district between the Jaxartes and the Oxus (Vendidad I), whence they migrated gradually to what was afterward known as Persis (modern Fars), including probably part of Elam.<P>1. Three Classes:<P>The Avesta shows that the Medo-Pers community was divided into 3 classes (zantu): the Athravans or fire-priests, the Rathaestars or charioteers, and the Vastryafshuyans or cattle-rearers (compare the three original Hindu castes, the Brahmans, the Kshattriyas and the Vaisyas). A fourth class, the artisans or Hutis, came later. But these were classes, not castes.<P>2. Tribal and Clan Divisions:<P>They were also divided into tribes, clans (Achaem. vith; Av. vis; compare vicus) and families or households (Achaem. tauma; Av. nmana). Herodotus (i.125) mentions ten Persian tribes, the chief being the Pasargadae, to which belonged the Achemenian clan (phretre) which included the royal family. This dynasty traced its origin to Achaemenes (Chakhamanish) according to Darius and Herodotus.Oxus (Vendidad I), whence they migrated gradually to what was afterward known as Persis (modern Fars), including probably part of Elam.<P>3. Achemenian Dynasty:<P>The following scheme will serve to show the descent of the line of Persian kings mentioned in the Bible and in secular history up to the time of the fall of the dynasty in 331 BC.<P>II. Civilization.<P>1. Writing:<P>The Persians had indulged less in luxury than the Medes, until their conquest of Media and other lands under Cyrus the Great gave them the opportunity, which they were not slow to embrace, being famed for their readiness to adopt foreign customs. Writing was introduced from Babylonia through Elam.<P>2. Institutions and Customs:<P>This cuneiform character was afterward superseded by one derived from Syria, from which came the Avestic writing, which, in its corrupt Pahlavi form, lasted until the Arabian conquest imposed the Arabic character on the people. The Achemenian kings probably borrowed from Babylon and further developed their system of royal posts (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',8,14);">Es 8:14</a>) or messengers (and even the words aggaroi, and astandai, used to denote them, are almost certainly Babylonian). Of these men\'s pace it was said, "No mortal thing is quicker." The custom of showing special honor to the "Benefactors of the King" (Herodotos viii.85: orosaggai equals Av. uru plus sanh, "widely renowned") is referred to in <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',6,1,2,3);">Es 6:1,2,3</a>, and that of covering the (head and) face of a criminal condemned to death (with a large black cap) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',7,8,9);">Es 7:8,9</a>) occurs in the Shahnamah also.<P>(1) The King.<P>The king was an arbitrary ruler with unlimited power, the council of seven princes who stood nearest to the throne (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',1,14);">Es 1:14</a>; compare Herodotos iii. 70-84) having no share in the government.<P>(2) The Army.<P>As soldiers, the Persians were famous as archers and javelin-throwers; they were also skilled in the use of the sling, and above all in riding. Boys were taken from the women\'s into the men\'s part of the house at the age of 5, and were there trained in "riding, archery and speaking the truth" until 20 years old. In Darius\' inscriptions, as well as in the Avesta, lying is regarded as a great crime.<P>(3) Marriage.<P>The Persians practiced polygamy, and marriages between those next of kin were approved of. Pride and garrulity are mentioned as distinctive of the Persian character.<P>III. History.<P>1. Cyrus:<P>Persian history, as known to us, begins with Cyrus the Great. His ancestors, for at least some generations, seem to have been chiefs or "kings" of Anshan, a district in Persia or Elam. Cyrus himself (Western Asiatic Inscriptions, V, plate 35) gives his genealogy up to and including Teispes, entitling all his ancestors whom he mentions, kings of Anshan. Phraortes, king of the Medes, is said to have first subjugated the Persians to that kingdom about 97 years before Cyrus (Herodotus i.102). Cyrus himself headed his countrymen\'s revolt against Astyages, who advanced to attack Pasargadae (549 BC). His army mutinied and surrendered him to Cyrus, whom the Greeks held to be his grandson on the mother\'s side. Cyrus, becoming supreme ruler of both Medes and Persians, advanced to the conquest of Lydia. He defeated and captured Croesus, overran Lydia, and compelled the Greek colonies in Asia Minor to pay tribute (547 BC).<P>2. Capture of Babylon:<P>He overthrew the Sute (Bedouin) across the Tigris the following year, and was then invited by a large party in Babylonia to come to their help against the usurper Nabunahid, whose religious zeal had led him to collect as many as possible of the idols from other parts of Babylonia and remove them to Babylon, thereby increasing the sacredness and magnificence of that city but inflicting injury on neighboring and more ancient sanctuaries. Defeating Nabunahid\'s army and capturing the king, Cyrus sent his own forces under Gobryas (Gubaru, Gaubaruva)to take possession of Babylon. This he did in June,538,"without opposition and without a battle." The citadel, however, where Belshazzar "the king\'s son" was in command, held out for some months, and was then taken in a night attack in which "the king\'s son" was slain. Cyrus made Gobryas viceroy of Chaldea, and he "appointed governors in Babylonia (Cyrus\' "Annalistic Tablet"). When Gobryas died within the year, Cyrus\' son Cambyses was made viceroy of the country, now become a province of the Persian empire. Cyrus restored the gods to their sanctuaries, and this doubtless led to permission being given to the Jews to return to Jerusalem, taking with them their sacred vessels, and to rebuild their temple. Cyrus was killed in battle against some frontier tribe (accounts differ where) in 529 BC. His tomb at Murghab, near the ruins of Pasargadae, is still standing.<P>3. Cambyses:<P>Cyrus\' son and successor, Cambyses, invaded Egypt and conquered it after a great battle near Pelusium (525 BC). During his absence, a Magian, Gaumata, who pretended to be Smerdis (Bardiya), Cambyses\' murdered brother, seized the throne. Marching against him, Cambyses committed suicide.<P>4. Pseudo-Smerdis:<P>After a reign of 7 months, the usurper was overthrown and slain by Darius and his 6 brother-nobles (their names in Herodotus iii.70 are confirmed with one exception in Darius\' Besitun Inscription, column iv, 80-86). Darius became king as the heir of Cambyses (521 BC). But in nearly every part of the empire rebellions broke out, in most cases headed by real or pretended descendants of the ancient kings of each country.<P>5. Darius I:<P>After at least 3 years\' struggle Darius\' authority was firmly established everywhere. He then divided the empire into satrapies, or provinces (dahyava), of which there were at first 23 (Beh. Inscription, column i, 13-17), and ultimately at least 29 (Naqsh i Rustam Inscription, 22-30). Over these he placed satraps of noble Persian or Median descent, instead of representatives of their ancient kings. His empire extended from the Indus to the Black Sea, from the Jaxartes to beyond the Nile.<P>6. Darius\' Suez Canal:<P>Darius united the latter river with the Red Sea by a canal, the partly obliterated inscription commemorating which may perhaps be thus restored and rendered: "I am a Persian; with Persia I seized Egypt. I commanded to dig this canal from the river named the Nile (Pirava), which flows through Egypt, to this sea which comes from Persia. Then this canal was dug, according as I commanded. And I said, \'Come ye from the Nile through this canal to Persia.\' " Darius\' expedition into Scythia, his success in subduing the rebellion among the Asiatic Greeks, his attempts to conquer Greece itself and his overthrow at Marathon (499-490 BC) are part of the history of Greece. A rebellion in Egypt had not been repressed when Darius died in 485 BC.<P>7. Xerxes I:<P>Xerxes I, who succeeded his father, regained Egypt, but his failure in his attempts to conquer Greece largely exhausted his empire. In 464 BC he was murdered. His son Artaxerxes I, surnamed "the longarmed," succeeded him, being himself succeeded in 424 BC by his son Xerxes II, who was murdered the following year. This ended the legitimate Achemenian line, the next king, Darius II (styled Nothos, or "bastard," as well as Ochos), being one of Artaxerxes\' illegitimate sons (we pass over Sogdianus\' brief reign).<P>8. Artaxerxes II:<P>Artaxerxes II, Mnemon, succeeded his father and left the throne to his son Artaxerxes III, Ochos. The latter was murdered with all his sons but the youngest, Arses, by an Egyptian eunuch Bagoas, probably in revenge for Artaxerxes\' conduct in Egypt (338 BC).<P>9. Xerxes II:<P>Arses was murdered by Bagoas 3 years later, when Darius III, Codomannus, the son of Sisygambis, daughter of Artaxerxes II, and her husband, a Persian noble, ascended the throne.<P>10. Later Persian Kings:<P>Darius was completely overthrown by Alexander the Great in the battle of Gaugamela or Arbela, 331 BC, and shortly after fell by an assassin\'s hand. This ended the Persian empire of the Achaemenides, the whole of the lands composing it becoming part of the empire of Macedon.<P>IV. First Mention in Inscriptions.<P>Persia (Parsua) is first mentioned as a country in an inscription of Rammanu Nirari III (WAI, I, plate 35, <span class="noTag">number 1</span>, l. 8), who boasts of having conquered it and other lands (he reigned from 812 to 783 or from 810 to 781 BC).<P>LITERATURE.<P>Besides the main authorities mentioned in the text, we learn much from Spiegel, Die Altper-sischen Keilinschriften, Arrian, Thucydides, Polybius, Strabo, Curtius.``175';
isbe[6831]='Persis`pur\'-sis (Persis): The name of a female member of the Christian community at Rome, to whom Paul sent greetings (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,12);">Ro 16:12</a>). Paul designates her "the beloved, who labored much in the Lord." The name is not found in inscriptions of the imperial household, but it occurs as the name of a freedwoman (CIL, VI, 23, 959).``1';
isbe[6832]='Person of Christ, 1-3`Method of the Article<P><b>I. THE TEACHING OF PAUL</b><P class="in15">1. <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,\'5-9\');">Philippians 2:5-9</a><P class="in30">(1) General Drift of Passage<P class="in30">(2) our Lord\'s Intrinsic Deity<P class="in30">(3) No Examination<P class="in30">(4) our Lord\'s Humanity<P class="in15">2. Other Pauline Passages<P><b>II. THE TEACHING OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS</b><P class="in15"><a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,1);">Hebrews 2:1</a>ff<P class="in30">(1) Background of Express Deity<P class="in30">(2) Completeness of Humanity<P class="in30">(3) Continued Possession of Deity<P><b>III. THE TEACHING OF OTHER EPISTLES</b><P><b>IV. THE TEACHING OF JOHN</b><P class="in15">1. The Epistles<P class="in15">2. Prologue to the Gospel<P class="in30">(1) The Being Who Was Incarnated<P class="in30">(2) The Incarnation<P class="in30">(3) The Incarnated Person<P class="in15">3. The Gospel<P><b>V. THE TEACHING OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS</b><P><b>VI. THE TEACHING OF JESUS</b><P class="in15">1. The Johannine Jesus<P class="in30">(1) His Higher Nature<P class="in30">(2) His Humiliation<P class="in15">2. The Synoptic Jesus<P class="in30">(1) His Deity<P class="in45">(a) <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,32);">Mark 13:32</a><P class="in45">(b) Other Passages: Son of Man and Son of God<P class="in45">(c) <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,27);">Matthew 11:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,19);">28:19</a><P class="in30">(2) His Humanity<P class="in30">(3) Unity of the Person<P><b>VII. THE TWO NATURES EVERYWHERE PRESUPPOSED</b><P><b>VIII. FORMULATION OF THE DOCTRINE</b><P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>Method of the Article:<P>It is the purpose of this article to make as clear as possible the conception of the Person of Christ, in the technical sense of that term, which lies on<6F>or, if we prefer to say so, beneath<74>the pages of the New Testament. Were it its purpose to trace out the process by which this great mystery has been revealed to men, a beginning would need to be taken from the intimations as to the nature of the person of the Messiah in Old Testament prophecy, and an attempt would require to be made to discriminate the exact contribution of each organ of revelation to our knowledge. And were there added to this a desire to ascertain the progress of the apprehension of this mystery by men, there would be demanded a further inquiry into the exact degree of understanding which was brought to the truth revealed at each stage of its revelation. The magnitudes with which such investigations deal, however, are very minute; and the profit to be derived from them is not, in a case like the present, very great. It is, of course, of importance to know how the person of the Messiah was represented in the predictions of the Old Testament; and it is a matter at least of interest to note, for example, the difficulty experienced by our Lord\'s immediate disciples in comprehending all that was involved in His manifestation. But, after all, the constitution of our Lord\'s person is a matter of revelation, not of human thought; and it is preeminently a revelation of the New Testament, not of the Old Testament. And the New Testament is all the product of a single movement, at a single stage of its development, and therefore presents in its fundamental teaching a common character. The whole of the New Testament was written within the limits of about half a century; or, if we except the writings of John, within the narrow bounds of a couple of decades; and the entire body of writings which enter into it are so much of a piece that it may be plausibly represented that they all bear the stamp of a single mind. In its fundamental teaching, the New Testament lends itself, therefore, more readily to what is called dogmatic than to what is called genetic treatment; and we shall penetrate most surely into its essential meaning if we take our start from its clearest and fullest statements, and permit their light to be thrown upon its more incidental allusions. This is peculiarly the case with such a matter as the person of Christ, which is dealt with chiefly incidentally, as a thing already understood by all, and needing only to be alluded to rather than formally expounded. That we may interpret these allusions aright, it is requisite that we should recover from the first the common conception which underlies them all.<P>I. Teaching of Paul.<P>1. <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,\'5-9\');">Philippians 2:5-9</a>:<P>(1) General Drift of the Passage.<P>We begin, then, with the most didactic of the New Testament writers, the apostle Paul, and with one of the passages in which he most fully intimates his conception of the person of his Lord, <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,\'5-9\');">Php 2:5-9</a>. Even here, however, Paul is not formally expounding the doctrine of the Person of Christ; he is only alluding to certain facts concerning His person and action perfectly well known to his readers, in order that he may give point to an adduction of Christ\'s example. He is exhorting his readers to unselfishness, such unselfishness as esteems others better than ourselves, and looks not only on our own things but also on those of others. Precisely this unselfishness, he declares, was exemplified by our Lord. He did not look upon His own things but the things of others; that is to say, He did not stand upon His rights, but was willing to forego all that He might justly have claimed for Himself for the good of others. For, says Paul, though, as we all know, in His intrinsic nature He was nothing other than God, yet He did not, as we all know right well, look greedily on His condition of equality with God, but made no account of Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and, being found in fashion as a man, humbled Himself, becoming obedient up to death itself, and that, the death of the cross. The statement is thrown into historical form; it tells the story of Christ\'s life on earth. But it presents His life on earth as a life in all its elements alien to His intrinsic nature, and assumed only in the performance of an unselfish purpose. On earth He lived as a man, and subjected Himself to the common lot of men. But He was not by nature a man, nor was He in His own nature subject to the fortunes of human life. By nature He was God; and He would have naturally lived as became God<6F>\'on an equality with God.\' He became man by a voluntary act, \'taking no account of Himself,\' and, having become man, He voluntarily lived out His human life under the conditions which the fulfillment of His unselfish purpose imposed on Him.<P>(2) Our Lord\'s Intrinsic Deity.<P>The terms in which these great affirmations are made deserve the most careful attention. The language in which our Lord\'s intrinsic Deity is expressed, for example, is probably as strong as any that could be devised. Paul does not say simply, "He was God." He says, "He was in the form of God," employing a turn of speech which throws emphasis upon our Lord\'s possession of the specific quality of God. "Form" is a term which expresses the sum of those characterizing qualities which make a thing the precise thing that it is. Thus, the "form" of a sword (in this case mostly matters of external configuration) is all that makes a given piece of metal specifically a sword, rather than, say, a spade. And "the form of God" is the sum of the characteristics which make the being we call "God," specifically God, rather than some other being<6E>an angel, say, or a man. When our Lord is said to be in "the form of God," therefore, He is declared, in the most express manner possible, to be all that God is, to possess the whole fullness of attributes which make God God. Paul chooses this manner of expressing himself here instinctively, because, in adducing our Lord as our example of self-abnegation; his mind is naturally resting, not on the bare fact that He is God, but on the richness and fullness of His being as God. He was all this, yet He did not look on His own things but on those of others.<P>It should be carefully observed also that in making this great affirmation concerning our Lord, Paul does not throw it distinctively into the past, as if he were describing a mode of being formerly our Lord\'s, indeed, but no longer His because of the action by which He became our example of unselfishness. our Lord, he says, "being," "existing," "subsisting" "in the form of God"<22>as it is variously rendered. The rendering proposed by the Revised Version margin, "being originally," while right in substance, is somewhat misleading. The verb employed means "strictly \'to be beforehand,\' \'to be already\' so and so" (Blass, Grammar of New Testament Greek, English translation, 244), "to be there and ready," and intimates the existing circumstances, disposition of mind, or, as here, mode of subsistence in which the action to be described takes place. It contains no intimation, however, of the cessation of these circumstances or disposition, or mode of subsistence; and that, the less in a case like the present, where it is cast in a tense (the imperfect) which in no way suggests that the mode of subsistence intimated came to an end in the action described by the succeeding verb (compare the parallels: <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,14,23);">Lu 16:14,23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,50);">23:50</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,30);">Ac 2:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',3,2);">3:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,17);">2Co 8:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',12,16);">12:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,14);">Ga 1:14</a>). Paul is not telling us here, then, what our Lord was once, but rather what He already was, or, better, what in His intrinsic nature He is; he is not describing a past mode of existence of our Lord, before the action he is adducing as an example took place<63>although the mode of existence he describes was our Lord\'s mode of existence before this action<6F>so much as painting in the background upon which the action adduced may be thrown up into prominence. He is telling us who and what He is who did these things for us, that we may appreciate how great the things He did for us are.<P>(3) No Examination.<P>And here it is important to observe that the whole of the action adduced is thrown up thus against this background<6E>not only its negative description to the effect that our Lord (although all that God is) did not look greedily on His (consequent) being on an equality with God; but its positive description as well, introduced by the "but ...." and that in both of its elements, not merely that to the effect (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,7);">Php 2:7</a>) that \'he took no account of himself\' (rendered not badly by the King James Version, He "made himself of no reputation"; but quite misleading by the Revised Version (British and American), He "emptied himself"), but equally that to the effect (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,8);">Php 2:8</a>) that "he humbled himself." It is the whole of what our Lord is described as doing in <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,\'6-8\');">Php 2:6-8</a>, that He is described as doing despite His "subsistence in the form of God." So far is Paul from intimating, therefore, that our Lord laid aside His Deity in entering upon His life on earth, that he rather asserts that He retained His Deity throughout His life on earth, and in the whole course of His humiliation, up to death itself, was consciously ever exercising self-abnegation, living a life which did not by nature belong to Him, which stood in fact in direct contradiction to the life which was naturally His. It is this underlying implication which determines the whole choice of the language in which our Lord\'s earthly life is described. It is because it is kept in mind that He still was "in the form of God," that is, that He still had in possession all that body of characterizing qualities by which God is made God, for example, that He is said to have been made, not man, but "in the likeness of man," to have been found, not man, but "in fashion as a man"; and that the wonder of His servanthood and obedience, the mark of servanthood, is thought of as so great. Though He was truly man, He was much more than man; and Paul would not have his readers imagine that He had become merely man. In other words, Paul does not teach that our Lord was once God but had become instead man; he teaches that though He was God, He had become also man.<P>An impression that Paul means to imply, that in entering upon His earthly life our Lord had laid aside His Deity, may be created by a very prevalent misinterpretation of the central clause of his statement<6E>a misinterpretation unfortunately given currency by the rendering of English Revised Version: "counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God, but emptied himself," varied without improvement in the American Standard Revised Version to: "counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself." The former (negative) member of this clause means just: He did not look greedily upon His being on an equality with God; did not "set supreme store" by it (see Lightfoot on the clause). The latter (positive) member of it, however, cannot mean in tithesis to this, that He therefore "emptied himself," divested Himself of this, His being on an equality with God, much less that He "emptied himself," divested Himself of His Deity ("form of God") itself, of which His being on an equality with God is the manifested consequence. The verb here rendered "emptied" is in constant use in a metaphorical sense (so only in the New Testament: <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',4,14);">Ro 4:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,17);">1Co 1:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',9,15);">9:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',9,3);">2Co 9:3</a>) and cannot here be taken literally. This is already apparent from the definition of the manner in which the "emptying" is said to have been accomplished, supplied by the modal clause which is at once attached: by "taking the form of servant." You cannot "empty" by "taking"<22>adding. It is equally apparent, however, from the strength of the emphasis which, by its position, is thrown upon the "himself." We may speak of our Lord as "emptying Himself" of something else, but scarcely, with this strength of emphasis, of His "emptying Himself" of something else. This emphatic "Himself," interposed between the preceding clause and the verb rendered "emptied," builds a barrier over which we cannot climb backward in search of that of which our Lord emptied Himself. The whole thought is necessarily contained in the two words, "emptied himself," in which the word "emptied" must therefore be taken in a sense analogous to that which it bears in the other passages in the New Testament where it occurs. Paul, in a word, says here nothing more than that our Lord, who did not look with greedy eyes upon His estate of equality with God, emptied Himself, if the language may be pardoned, of Himself; that is to say, in precise accordance with the exhortation for the enhancement of which His example is adduced, that He did not look on His own things. \'He made no account of Himself,\' we may fairly paraphrase the clause; and thus all question of what He emptied Himself of falls away. What our Lord actually did, according to Paul, is expressed in the following clauses; those now before us express more the moral character of His act. He took "the form of a servant," and so was "made in the likeness of men." But His doing this showed that He did not set overweening store by His state of equality with God, and did not account Himself the sufficient object of all the efforts. He was not self-regarding: He had regard for others. Thus, He becomes our supreme example of self-abnegating conduct.<P>See also <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KENOSIS">KENOSIS</a>.<P>(4) Our Lord\'s Humanity.<P>The language in which the act by which our Lord showed that He was self-abnegating is described, requires to be taken in its complete meaning. He took "the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men," says Paul. The term "form" here, of course, bears the same full meaning as in the preceding instance of its occurrence in the phrase "the form of God." It imparts the specific quality, the whole body of characteristics, by which a servant is made what we know as a servant, our Lord assumed, then, according to Paul, not the mere state or condition or outward appearance of a servant, but the reality; He became an actual "servant" in the world. The act by which He did this is described as a "taking," or, as it has become customary from this description of it to phrase it, as an "assumption." What is meant is that our Lord took up into His personality a human nature; and therefore it is immediately explained that He took the form of a servant by "being made in the likeness of men." That the apostle does not say, shortly, that He assumed a human nature, is due to the engagement of his mind with the contrast which he wishes to bring out forcibly for the enhancement of his appeal to our Lord\'s example, between what our Lord is by nature and what He was willing to become, not looking on His own things but also on the things of others. This contrast is, no doubt, embodied in the simple opposition of God and man; it is much more pungently expressed in the qualificative terms, "form of God" and "form of a servant." The Lord of the world became a servant in the world; He whose right it was to rule took obedience as His life-characteristic. Naturally therefore Paul employs here a word of quality rather than a word of mere nature; and then defines his meaning in this word of quality by a further epexegetical clause. This further clause<73>"being made in the likeness of men"<22>does not throw doubt on the reality of the human nature that was assumed, in contradiction to the emphasis on its reality in the phrase "the form of a servant." It, along with the succeeding clause<73>"and being found in fashion as a man"<22>owes its peculiar form, as has already been pointed out, to the vividness of the apostle\'s consciousness, that he is speaking of one who, though really man, possessing all that makes a man a man, is yet, at the same time, infinitely more than a man, no less than God Himself, in possession of all that makes God God. Christ Jesus is in his view, therefore (as in the view of his readers, for he is not instructing his readers here as to the nature of Christ\'s person, but reminding them of certain elements in it for the purposes of his exhortation), both God and man, God who has assumed man into personal union with Himself, and has in this His assumed manhood lived out a human life on earth.<P>2. Other Pauline Passages:<P>The elements of Paul\'s conception of the person of Christ are brought before us in this suggestive passage with unwonted fullness. But they all receive endless illustration from his occasional allusions to them, one or another, throughout his Epistles. The leading motive of this passage, for example, reappears quite perfectly in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,9);">2Co 8:9</a>, where we are exhorted to imitate the graciousness of our Lord Jesus Christ, who became for our sakes (emphatic) poor<6F>He who was (again an imperfect participle, and therefore without suggestion of the cessation of the condition described) rich<63>that we might by His (very emphatic) poverty be made rich. Here the change in our Lord\'s condition at a point of time perfectly understood between the writer and his readers is adverted to and assigned to its motive, but no further definition is given of the nature of either condition referred to. We are brought closer to the precise nature of the act by which the change was wrought by such a passage as <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,4);">Ga 4:4</a>. We read that "When the fullness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, that he might redeem them that were under the law." The whole transaction is referred to the Father in fulfillment of His eternal plan of redemption, and it is described specifically as an incarnation: the Son of God is born of a woman<61>He who is in His own nature the Son of God, abiding with God, is sent forth from God in such a manner as to be born a human being, subject to law. The primary implications are that this was not the beginning of His being; but that before this He was neither a man nor subject to law. But there is no suggestion that on becoming man and subject to law, He ceased to be the Son of God or lost anything intimated by that high designation. The uniqueness of His relation to God as His Son is emphasized in a kindred passage (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,3);">Ro 8:3</a>) by the heightening of the designation to that of God\'s "own Son," and His distinction from other men is intimated in the same passage by the declaration that God sent Him, not in sinful flesh, but only the likeness of sinful flesh." The reality of our Lord\'s flesh is not thrown into doubt by this turn of speech, but His freedom from the sin which is associated with flesh as it exists in lost humanity is asserted (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,21);">2Co 5:21</a>). Though true man, therefore (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,21);">1Co 15:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,21);">Ro 5:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,31);">Ac 17:31</a>), He is not without differences from other men; and these differences do not concern merely the condition (as sinful) in which men presently find themselves; but also their very origin: they are from below, He from above<76>\'the first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,47);">1Co 15:47</a>). This is His peculiarity: He was born of a woman like other men; yet He descended from heaven (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,9);">Eph 4:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,13);">Joh 3:13</a>). It is not meant, of course, that already in heaven He was a man; what is meant is that even though man He derives His origin in an exceptional sense from heaven. Paul describes what He was in heaven (but not alone in heaven)<29>that is to say before He was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh (though not alone before this)<29>in the great terms of "God\'s Son," "God\'s own Son," "the form of God," or yet again in words whose import cannot be mistaken, \'God over all\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,5);">Ro 9:5</a>). In the last cited passage, together with its parallel earlier in the same epistle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,3);">Ro 1:3</a>), the two sides or elements of our Lord\'s person are brought into collocation after a fashion that can leave no doubt of Paul\'s conception of His twofold nature. In the earlier of these passages he tells us that Jesus Christ was born, indeed, of the seed of David according to the flesh, that is, so far as the human side of His being is concerned, but was powerfully marked out as the Son of God according to the Spirit of Holiness, that is, with respect to His higher nature, by the resurrection of the dead, which in a true sense began in His own rising from the dead. In the later of them, he tells us that Christ sprang indeed, as concerns the flesh, that is on the human side of His being, from Israel, but that, despite this earthly origin of His human nature, He yet is and abides (present participle) nothing less than the Supreme God, "God over all (emphatic), blessed forever." Thus Paul teaches us that by His coming forth from God to be born of woman, our Lord, assuming a human nature to Himself, has, while remaining the Supreme God, become also true and perfect man. Accordingly, in a context in which the resources of language are strained to the utmost to make the exaltation of our Lord\'s being clear<61>in which He is described as the image of the invisible God, whose being antedates all that is created, whom, through whom and to whom all things have been created, and in whom they all subsist<73>we are told not only that (naturally) in Him all the fulhess dwells (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,19);">Col 1:19</a>), but, with complete explication, that \'all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in him bodily\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,9);">Col 2:9</a>); that is to say, the very Deity of God, that which makes God God, in all its completeness, has its permanent home in our Lord, and that in a "bodily fashion," that is, it is in Him clothed with a body. He who looks upon Jesus Christ sees, no doubt, a body and a man; but as he sees the man clothed with the body, so he sees God Himself, in all the fullness of His Deity clothed with the humanity. Jesus Christ is therefore God "manifested in the flesh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',3,16);">1Ti 3:16</a>), and His appearance on earth is an "epiphany" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',1,10);">2Ti 1:10</a>), which is the technical term for manifestations on earth of a God. Though truly man, He is nevertheless also our "great God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',2,13);">Tit 2:13</a>).<P>II. Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews.<P>The conception of the person of Christ which underlies and finds expression in the Epistle to the Hebrews is indistinguishable from that which governs all the allusions to our Lord in the Epistles of Paul. To the author of this epistle our Lord is above all else the Son of God in the most eminent sense of that word; and it is the divine dignity and majesty belonging to Him from His very nature which forms the fundamental feature of the image of Christ which stands before his mind. And yet it is this author who, perhaps above all others of the New Testament writers, emphasizes the truth of the humanity of Christ, and dwells with most particularity upon the elements of His human nature and experience.<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,1);">Hebrews 2:1</a>ff:<P>(1) Background of Express Deity.<P>The great Christological passage which fills <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,\'1-\');">Hebrews 2</a> of the Epistle to the Hebrews rivals in its richness and fullness of detail, and its breadth of implication, that of <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,\'1-\');">Philippians 2</a>. It is thrown up against the background of the remarkable exposition of the divine dignity of the Son which occupies <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,\'1-\');">Hebrews 1</a> (notice the "therefore" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,1);">2:1</A>). There the Son had been declared to be "the effulgence of his (God\'s) glory, and the very image of his substance," through whom the universe has been created and by the word of whose power all things are held in being; and His exaltation above the angels, by means of whom the Old Covenant had been inaugurated, is measured by the difference between the designations "ministering spirits" proper to the one, and the Son of God, nay, God itself (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,8,9);">1:8,9</A>), proper to the other. The purpose of the succeeding statement is to enhance in the thought of the Jewish readers of the epistle the value of the salvation wrought by this divine Saviour, by removing from their minds the offense they were in danger of taking at His lowly life and shameful death on earth. This earthly humiliation finds its abundant justification, we are told, in the greatness of the end which it sought and attained. By it our Lord has, with His strong feet, broken out a pathway along which, in Him, sinful man may at length climb up to the high destiny which was promised him when it was declared he should have dominion over all creation. Jesus Christ stooped only to conquer, and He stooped to conquer not for Himself (for He was in His own person no less than God), but for us.<P>(2) Completeness of Humanity.<P>The language in which the humiliation of the Son of God is in the first instance described is derived from the context. The establishment of His divine majesty in chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,\'1-\');">1</A> had taken the form of an exposition of His infinite exaltation above the angels, the highest of all creatures. His humiliation is described here therefore as being "made a little lower than the angels" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,9);">Heb 2:9</a>). What is meant is simply that He became man; the phraseology is derived from <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',8,\'1-\');">Ps 8</a> the King James Version, from which had just been cited the declaration that God had made man (despite his insignificance) "but a little lower than the angels," thus crowning him with glory and honor. The adoption of the language of the psalm to describe our Lord\'s humiliation has the secondary effect, accordingly, of greatly enlarging the reader\'s sense of the immensity of the humiliation of the Son of God in becoming man: He descended an infinite distance to reach man\'s highest conceivable exaltation. As, however, the primary purpose of the adoption of the language is merely to declare that the Son of God became man, so it is shortly afterward explained (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,14);">Heb 2:14</a>) as an entering into participation in the blood and flesh which are common to men: "Since then the children are sharers in flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner partook of the same." The voluntariness, the reality the completeness of the assumption of humanity by the Son of God, are all here emphasized.<P>The proximate end of our Lord\'s assumption of humanity is declared to be that He might die; He was "made a little lower than the angels...because of the suffering of death" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,9);">Heb 2:9</a>); He took part in blood and flesh in order that through death ...."(<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,14);">Heb 2:14</a>). The Son of God as such could not die; to Him belongs by nature an "indissoluble life" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',7,16);">Heb 7:16</a> margin). If He was to die, therefore, He must take to Himself another nature to which the experience of death were not impossible (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,17);">Heb 2:17</a>). Of course it is not meant that death was desired by Him for its own sake. The purpose of our passage is to save its Jewish readers from the offense of the death of Christ. What they are bidden to observe is, therefore, Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels because of the suffering of death, \'crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God the bitterness of death which he tasted might redound to the benefit of every man\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,9);">Heb 2:9</a>), and the argument is immediately pressed home that it was eminently suitable for God Almighty, in bringing many sons into glory, to make the Captain of their salvation perfect (as a Saviour) by means of suffering. The meaning is that it was only through suffering that these men, being sinners could be brought into glory. And therefore in the plainer statement of <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,14);">Heb 2:14</a> we read that our Lord took part in flesh and blood in order "that through death he might bring to nought him that had the power of death, that is, the Devil; and might deliver all them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage"; and in the still plainer statement of <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,17);">2:17</a> that the ultimate object of His assimilation to men was that He might "make propitiation for the sins of the people." It is for the salvation of sinners that our Lord has come into the world; but, as that salvation can be wrought only by suffering and death, the proximate end of His assumption of humanity remains that He might die; whatever is more than this gathers around this.<P>The completeness of our Lord\'s assumption of humanity and of His identification of Himself with it receives strong emphasis in this passage. He took part in the flesh and blood which is the common heritage of men, after the same fashion that other men participate in it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,14);">Heb 2:14</a>); and, having thus become a man among men, He shared with other men the ordinary circumstances and fortunes of life, "in all things" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,17);">Heb 2:17</a>). The stress is laid on trials, sufferings, death; but this is due to the actual course in which His life ran<61>and that it might run in which He became man<61>and is not exclusive of other human experiences. What is intended is that He became truly a man, and lived a truly human life, subject to all the experiences natural to a man in the particular circumstances in which He lived.<P>(3) Continued Possession of Deity.<P>It is not implied, however, that during this human life<66>"the days of his flesh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',5,7);">Heb 5:7</a>)<29>He had ceased to be God, or to have at His disposal the attributes which belonged to Him as God. That is already excluded by the representations of <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,\'1-\');">Hebrews 1</a>. The glory of this dispensation consists precisely in the bringing of its revelations directly by the divine Son rather than by mere prophets (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,1);">1:1</A>), and it was as the effulgence of God\'s glory and the express image of His substance, upholding the universe by the word of His power, that this Son made purification of sins (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,3);">1:3</A>). Indeed, we are expressly told that even in the days of the flesh, He continued still a Son (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',5,8);">5:8</a>), and that it was precisely in this that the wonder lay: that though He was and remained (imperfect participle) a Son, He yet learned the obedience He had set Himself to (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,8);">Php 2:8</a>) by the things which He suffered. Similarly, we are told not only that, though an Israelite of the tribe of Judah, He possessed "the power of an indissoluble life" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',7,16);">Heb 7:16</a> margin), but, describing that higher nature which gave Him this power as an "eternal Spirit" (compare "spirit of holiness," <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,4);">Ro 1:4</a>), that it was through this eternal Spirit that He could offer Himself without blemish unto God, a real and sufficing sacrifice, in contrast with the shadows of the Old Covenant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,14);">Heb 9:14</a>). Though a man, therefore, and truly man, sprung out of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',7,14);">Heb 7:14</a>), touched with the feeling of human infirmities (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',4,15);">Heb 4:15</a>), and tempted like as we are, He was not altogether like other men. For one thing, He was "without sin" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',4,15);">Heb 4:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',7,26);">7:26</a>), and, by this characteristic, He was, in every sense of the words, separated from sinners. Despite the completeness of His identification with men, He remained, therefore, even in the days of His flesh different from them and above them.<P>III. Teaching of Other Epistles.<P>It is only as we carry this conception of the person of our Lord with us<75>the conception of Him as at once our Supreme Lord, to whom our adoration is due, and our fellow in the experiences of a human life<66>that unity is induced in the multiform allusions to Him throughout, whether the Epistles of Paul or the Epistle to the Hebrews, or, indeed, the other epistolary literature of the New Testament. For in this matter there is no difference between those and these. There are no doubt a few passages in these other letters in which a plurality of the elements of the person of Christ are brought together and given detailed mention. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,18);">1Pe 3:18</a>, for instance, the two constitutive elements of His person are spoken of in the contrast, familiar from Paul, of the "flesh" and the "spirit." But ordinarily we meet only with references to this or that element separately. Everywhere our Lord is spoken of as having lived out His life as a man; but everywhere also He is spoken of with the supreme reverence which is due to God alone, and the very name of God is not withheld from Him. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,11);">1Pe 1:11</a> His pre-existence is taken for granted; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',2,1);">Jas 2:1</a> He is identified with the Shekinah, the manifested Yahweh<65>\'our Lord Jesus Christ, the Glory\'; in Jude verse 4 He is "our only Master (Despot) and Lord"; over and over again He is the divine Lord who is Yahweh (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,3,13);">1Pe 2:3,13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,2,18);">2Pe 3:2,18</a>); in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,1);">2Pe 1:1</a>, He is roundly called "our God and Saviour." There is nowhere formal inculcation of the entire doctrine of the person of Christ. But everywhere its elements, now one and now another, are presupposed as the common property of writer and readers. It is only in the Epistles of John that this easy and unstudied presupposition of them gives way to pointed insistence upon them.``187';
isbe[6833]='Person of Christ, 4-5`IV. Teaching of John.<P>1. The Epistles:<P>In the circumstances in which he wrote, John found it necessary to insist upon the elements of the person of our Lord<72>His true Deity, His true humanity and the unity of His person<6F>in a manner which is more didactic in form than anything we find in the other writings in form than anything we find in the other writings of New Testament. The great depository of his teaching on the subject is, of course, the prologue to his Gospel. But it is not merely in this prologue, nor in the Gospel to which it forms a fitting introduction, that these didactic statements are found. The full emphasis of John\'s witness to the twofold nature of the Lord is brought out, indeed, only by combining what he says in the Gospel and in the Epistles. "In the Gospel," remarks Westcott (on <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,31);">Joh 20:31</a>), "the evangelist shows step by step that the historical Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God (opposed to mere \'flesh\'); in the Epistle he reaffirms that the Christ, the Son of God, was true man (opposed to mere \'spirit\'; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,2);">1Joh 4:2</a>)." What John is concerned to show throughout is that it was "the true God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,20);">1Joh 5:20</a>) who was "made flesh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,14);">Joh 1:14</a>); and that this \'only God\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,18);">Joh 1:18</a>, the Revised Version margin "God only begotten") has truly come "in...flesh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,2);">1Joh 4:2</a>). In all the universe there is no other being of whom it can be said that He is God come in flesh (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Jo\',1,7);">2Joh 1:7</a>, He that "cometh in the flesh," whose characteristic this is). And of all the marvels which have ever occurred in the marvelous history of the universe, this is the greatest<73>that \'what was from the beginning\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,13,14);">1Joh 2:13,14</a>) has been heard and gazed upon, seen and handled by men (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,1);">1Joh 1:1</a>).<P>2. Prologue to the Gospel:<P>From the point of view from which we now approach it, the prologue to the Gospel of John may be said to fall into three parts. In the first of these, the nature of the Being who became incarnate in the person we know as Jesus Christ is described; in the second, the general nature of the act we call the incarnation; and in the third, the nature of the incarnated person.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOHANNINE+THEOLOGY">JOHANNINE THEOLOGY, III</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOHN,+GOSPEL+OF">JOHN, GOSPEL OF, IV, 1, (3), 2.</a><P>(1) The Being Who Was Incarnated.<P>John here calls the person who became incarnate by a name peculiar to himself in the New Testament<6E>the Logos or "Word." According to the predicates which he here applies to Him, he can mean by the "Word" nothing else but God Himself, "considered in His creative, operative, self-revealing, and communicating character," the sum total of what is divine (C.F. Schmid). In three crisp sentences he declares at the outset His eternal subsistence, His eternal intercommunion with God, His eternal identity with God: \'In the beginning the Word was; and the Word was with God; and the Word was God\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,1);">Joh 1:1</a>). "In the beginning," at that point of time when things first began to be (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,1);">Ge 1:1</a>), the Word already "was." He antedates the beginning of all things. And He not merely antedates them, but it is immediately added that He is Himself the creator of all that is: \'All things were made by him, and apart from him was not made one thing that hath been made\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,3);">Joh 1:3</a>). Thus He is taken out of the category of creatures altogether. Accordingly, what is said of Him is not that He was the first of existences to come into being<6E>that \'in the beginning He already had come into being\'<27>but that \'in the beginning, when things began to come into being, He already was.\' It is express eternity of being that is asserted: "the imperfect tense of the original suggests in this relation, as far as human language can do so, the notion of absolute, supra-temporal existence" (Westcott). This, His eternal subsistence, was not, however, in isolation: "And the Word was with God." The language is pregnant. It is not merely coexistence with God that is asserted, as of two beings standing side by side, united in a local relation, or even in a common conception. What is suggested is an active relation of intercourse. The distinct personality of the Word is therefore not obscurely intimatead. From all eternity the Word has been with God as fellow: He who in the very beginning already "was," "was" also in communion with God. Though He was thus in some sense a second along with God, He was nevertheless not a separate being from God: "And the Word was"<22>still the eternal "was"<22>"God." In some sense distinguishable from God, He was in an equally true sense identical with God. There is but one eternal God; this eternal God, the Word is; in whatever sense we may distinguish Him from the God whom He is "with," He is yet not another than this God, but Himself is this God. The predicate "God" occupies the position of emphasis in this great declaration, and is so placed in the sentence as to be thrown up in sharp contrast with the phrase "with God," as if to prevent inadequate inferences as to the nature of the Word being drawn even momentarily from that phrase. John would have us realize that what the Word was in eternity was not merely God\'s coeternal fellow, but the eternal God\'s self.<P>(2) The Incarnation.<P>Now, John tells us that it was this Word, eternal in His subsistence, God\'s eternal fellow, the eternal God\'s self, that, as "come in the flesh," was Jesus Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,2);">1Joh 4:2</a>). "And the Word became flesh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,14);">Joh 1:14</a>), he says. The terms he employs here are not terms of substance, but of personality. The meaning is not that the substance of God was transmuted into that substance which we call "flesh." "The Word" is a personal name of the eternal God; "flesh" is an appropriate designation of humanity in its entirety, with the implications of dependence and weakness. The meaning, then, is simply that He who had just been described as the eternal God became, by a voluntary act in time, a man. The exact nature of the act by which He "became" man lies outside the statement; it was matter of common knowledge between the writer and the reader. The language employed intimates merely that it was a definite act, and that it involved a change in the life-history of the eternal God, here designated "the Word." The whole emphasis falls on the nature of this change in His life-history. He became flesh. That is to say, He entered upon a mode of existence in which the experiences that belong to human beings would also be His. The dependence, the weakness, which constitute the very idea of flesh, in contrast with God, would now enter into His personal experience. And it is precisely because these are the connotations of the term "flesh" that John chooses that term here, instead of the more simply denotative term "man." What he means is merely that the eternal God became man. But he elects to say this in the language which throws best up to view what it is to become man. The contrast between the Word as the eternal God and the human nature which He assumed as flesh, is the hinge of the statement. Had the evangelist said (as he does in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,2);">1Joh 4:2</a>) that the Word \'came in flesh,\' it would have been the continuity through the change which would have been most emphasized. When he says rather that the Word became flesh, while the continuity of the personal subject is, of course, intimatead, it is the reality and the completeness of the humanity assumed which is made most prominent.<P>(3) The Incarnated Person.<P>That in becoming flesh the Word did not cease to be what He was before entering upon this new sphere of experiences, the evangelist does not leave, however, to mere suggestion. The glory of the Word was so far from quenched, in his view, by His becoming flesh, that he gives us at once to understand that it was rather as "trailing clouds of glory" that He came. "And the Word became flesh," he says, and immediately adds: "and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,14);">Joh 1:14</a>). The language is colored by reminiscences from the Tabernacle, in which the Glory of God, the Shekinah, dwelt. The flesh of our Lord became, on its assumption by the Word, the Temple of God on earth (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',2,19);">Joh 2:19</a>), and the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord. John tells us expressly that this glory was visible, that it was precisely what was appropriate to the Son of God as such. "And we beheld his glory," he says; not divined it, or inferred it, but perceived it. It was open to sight, and the actual object of observation. Jesus Christ was obviously more than man; He was obviously God. His actually observed glory, John tells us further, was a "glory as of the only begotten from the Father." It was unique; nothing like it was ever seen in another. And its uniqueness consisted precisely in its consonance with what the unique Son of God, sent forth from the Father, would naturally have; men recognized and could not but recognize in Jesus Christ the unique Son of God. When this unique Son of God is further described as "full of grace and truth," the elements of His manifested glory are not to be supposed to be exhausted by this description (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',2,11);">Joh 2:11</a>). Certain items of it only are singled out for particular mention. The visible glory of the incarnated Word was such a glory as the unique Son of God, sent forth from the Father, who was full of grace and truth, would naturally manifest.<P>That nothing should be lacking to the declaration of the continuity of all that belongs to the Word as such into this new sphere of existence, and its full manifestation through the veil of His flesh, John adds at the close of his exposition the remarkable sentence: \'As for God, no one has even yet seen him; God only begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father<65>he hath declared him\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,18);">Joh 1:18</a> margin). It is the incarnate Word which is here called \'only begotten God.\' The absence of the article with this designation is doubtless due to its parallelism with the word "God" which stands at the head of the corresponding clause. The effect of its absence is to throw up into emphasis the quality rather than the mere individuality of the person so designated. The adjective "only begotten" conveys the idea, not of derivation and subordination, but of uniqueness and consubstantiality: Jesus is all that God is, and He alone is this. Of this \'only begotten God\' it is now declared that He "is"<22>not "was," the state is not one which has been left behind at the incarnation, but one which continues uninterrupted and unmodified<65>"into"<22>not merely "in"<22>"the bosom of the Father"<22>that is to say, He continues in the most intimate and complete communion with the Father. Though now incarnate, He is still "with God" in the full sense of the external relation intimated in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,1);">Joh 1:1</a>. This being true, He has much more than seen God, and is fully able to "interpret" God to men. Though no one has ever yet seen God, yet he who has seen Jesus Christ, "God only begotten," has seen the Father (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,9);">Joh 14:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,45);">12:45</a>). In this remarkable sentence there is asserted in the most direct manner the full Deity of the incarnate Word, and the continuity of His life as such in His incarnate life; thus He is fitted to be the absolute revelation of God to man.<P>3. The Gospel:<P>This condensed statement of the whole doctrine of the incarnation is only the prologue to a historical treatise. The historical treatise which it introduces, naturally, is written from the point of view of its prologue. Its object is to present Jesus Christ in His historical manifestation, as obviously the Son of God in flesh. "These are written," the Gospel testifies, "that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,31);">Joh 20:31</a>); that Jesus who came as a man (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,30);">Joh 1:30</a>) was thoroughly known in His human origin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',7,27);">Joh 7:27</a>), confessed Himself man (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,40);">Joh 8:40</a>), and died as a man dies (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,5);">Joh 19:5</a>), was, nevertheless, not only the Messiah, the Sent of God, the fulfiller of all the divine promises of redemption, but also the very Son of God, that God only begotten, who, abiding in the bosom of the Father, is His sole adequate interpreter. From the beginning of the Gospel onward, this purpose is pursued: Jesus is pictured as ever, while truly man, yet manifesting Himself as equally truly God, until the veil which covered the eyes of His followers was wholly lifted, and He is greeted as both Lord and God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,28);">Joh 20:28</a>). But though it is the prime purpose of this Gospel to exhibit the divinity of the man Jesus, no obscuration of His manhood is involved. It is the Deity of the man Jesus which is insisted on, but the true manhood of Jesus is as prominent in the representation as in any other portion of the New Testament. Nor is any effacement of the humiliation of His earthly life involved. For the Son of man to come from heaven was a descent (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,13);">Joh 3:13</a>), and the mission which He came to fulfill was a mission of contest and conflict, of suffering and death. He brought His glory with Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,14);">Joh 1:14</a>), but the glory that was His on earth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,22);">Joh 17:22</a>) was not all the glory which He had had with the Father before the world was, and to which, after His work was done, He should return (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,5);">Joh 17:5</a>). Here too the glory of the celestial is one and the glory of the terrestrial is another. In any event, John has no difficulty in presenting the life of our Lord on earth as the life of God in flesh, and in insisting at once on the glory that belongs to Him as God and on the humiliation which is brought to Him by the flesh. It is distinctly a duplex life which he ascribes to Christ, and he attributes to Him without embarrassment all the powers and modes of activity appropriate on the one hand to Deity and on the other to sinless (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,46);">Joh 8:46</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,30);">Joh 14:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,5);">1Joh 3:5</a>) human nature. In a true sense his portrait of our Lord is a dramatization of the God-man which he presents to our contemplation in his prologue. V. Teaching of the Synoptic Gospels.<P>The same may be said of the other Gospels. They are all dramatizations of the God-man set forth in thetical exposition in the prologue to John\'s Gospel. The Gospel of Luke, written by a known companion of Paul, gives us in a living narrative the same Jesus who is presupposed in all Paul\'s allusions to Him. That of Mark, who was also a companion of Paul, as also of Peter, is, as truly as the Gospel of John itself, a presentation of facts in the life of Jesus with a view to making it plain that this was the life of no mere man, human as it was, but of the Son of God Himself. Matthew\'s Gospel differs from its fellows mainly in the greater richness of Jesus\' own testimony to His Deity which it records. What is characteristic of all three is the inextricable interlacing in their narratives of the human and divine traits which alike marked the life they are depicting. It is possible, by neglecting one series of their representations and attending only to the other, to sift out from them at will the portrait of either a purely divine or a purely human Jesus. It is impossible to derive from them the portrait of any other than a divine-human Jesus if we surrender ourselves to their guidance and take off of their pages the portrait they have endeavored to draw. As in their narratives they cursorily suggest now the fullness of His Deity and now the completeness of His humanity and everywhere the unity of His person, they present as real and as forcible a testimony to the constitution of our Lord\'s person as uniting in one personal life a truly divine and a truly human nature, as if they announced this fact in analytical statement. Only on the assumption of this conception of our Lord\'s person as underlying and determining their presentation, can unity be given to their representations; while, on this supposition, all their representations fall into their places as elements in one consistent whole. Within the limits of their common presupposition, each Gospel has no doubt its own peculiarities in the distribution of its emphasis. Mark lays particular stress on the divine power of the man Jesus, as evidence of His supernatural being; and on the irresistible impression of a veritable Son of God, a Divine Being walking the earth as a man, which He made upon all with whom He came into contact. Luke places his Gospel by the side of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the prominence it gives to the human development of the Divine Being whose life on earth it is depicting and to the range of temptation to which He was subjected. Matthew\'s Gospel is notable chiefly for the heights of the divine self-consciousness which it uncovers in its report of the words of Him whom it represents as nevertheless the Son of David, the Son of Abraham; heights of divine self-consciousness which fall in nothing short of those attained in the great utterances preserved for us by John. But amid whatever variety there may exist in the aspects on which each lays his particular emphasis, it is the same Jesus Christ which all three bring before us, a Jesus Christ who is at once God and man and one individual person. If that be not recognized, the whole narrative of the Synoptic Gospels is thrown into confusion; their portrait of Christ becomes an insoluble puzzle; and the mass of details which they present of His life-experiences is transmuted into a mere set of crass contradictions.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GOSPELS,+THE+SYNOPTIC">GOSPELS, THE SYNOPTIC</a>`187';
isbe[6834]='Person of Christ, 4-8`VI. Teaching of Jesus.<P>1. The Johannine Jesus:<P>The Gospel narratives not only present us, however, with dramatizations of the God-man, according to their authors\' conception of His composite person. They preserve for us also a considerable body of the utterances of Jesus Himself, and this enables us to observe the conception of His person which underlay and found expression in our Lord\'s own teaching. The discourses of our Lord which have been selected for record by John have been chosen (among other reasons) expressly for the reason that they bear witness to His essential Deity. They are accordingly peculiarly rich in material for forming a judgment of our Lord\'s conception of His higher nature. This conception, it is needless to say, is precisely that which John, taught by it, has announced in the prologue to his Gospel, and has illustrated by his Gospel itself, compacted as it is of these discourses. It will not be necessary to present the evidence for this in its fullness. It will be enough to point to a few characteristic passages, in which our Lord\'s conception of His higher nature finds especially clear expression.<P>(1) His Higher Nature.<P>That He was of higher than earthly origin and nature, He repeatedly asserts. "Ye are from beneath," he says to the Jews (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,23);">Joh 8:23</a>), "I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,16);">Joh 17:16</a>). Therefore, He taught that He, the Son of Man, had "descended out of heaven" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,13);">Joh 3:13</a>), where was His true abode. This carried with it, of course, an assertion of pre-existence; and this pre-existence is explicitly affirmed: "What then," He asks, "if ye should behold the Son of man ascending where he was before?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,62);">Joh 6:62</a>). It is not merely pre-existence, however, but eternal pre-existence which He claims for Himself: "And now, Father," He prays (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,5);">Joh 17:5</a>), "glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,24);">Joh 17:24</a>); and again, as the most impressive language possible, He declares (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,58);">Joh 8:58</a> the King James Version): "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am," where He claims for Himself the timeless present of eternity as His mode of existence. In the former of these two last cited passages, the character of His pre-existent life is intimated; in it He shared the Father\'s glory from all eternity ("before the world was"); He stood by the Father\'s side as a companion in His glory. He came forth, when He descended to earth, therefore, not from heaven only, but from the very side of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,42);">Joh 8:42</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,8);">17:8</a>). Even this, however, does not express the whole truth; He came forth not only from the Father\'s side where He had shared in the Father\'s glory; He came forth out of the Father\'s very being<6E>"I came out from the Father, and am come into the world" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,28);">Joh 16:28</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,42);">Joh 8:42</a>). "The connection described is inherent and essential, and not that of presence or external fellowship" (Westcott). This prepares us for the great assertion: "I and the Father are one" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,30);">Joh 10:30</a>), from which it is a mere corollary that "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,9);">Joh 14:9</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,19);">Joh 8:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,45);">12:45</a>).<P>(2) His Humiliation<P>In all these declarations the subject of the affirmation is the actual person speaking: it is of Himself who stood before men and spoke to them that our Lord makes these immense assertions. Accordingly, when He majestically declared, "I and the Father are" (plurality of persons) "one" (neuter singular, and accordingly, singleness of being), the Jews naturally understood Him to be making Himself, the person then speaking to them, God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,33);">Joh 10:33</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,18);">Joh 5:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,7);">19:7</a>). The continued sameness of the person who has been, from all eternity down to this hour, one with God, is therefore fully safeguarded. His earthly life is, however, distinctly represented as a humiliation. Though even on earth He is one with the Father, yet He "descended" to earth; He had come out from the Father and out of God; a glory had been left behind which was yet to be returned to, and His sojourn on earth was therefore to that extent an obscuration of His proper glory. There was a sense, then, in which, because He had "descended," He was no longer equal with the Father. It was in order to justify an assertion of equality with the Father in power (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,25,29);">Joh 10:25,29</a>) that He was led to declare: "I and my Father are one" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,30);">Joh 10:30</a>). But He can also declare "The Father is greater than I" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,28);">Joh 14:28</a>). Obviously this means that there was a sense in which He had ceased to be equal with the Father, because of the humiliation of His present condition, and in so far as this humiliation involved entrance into a status lower than that which belonged to Him by nature. Precisely in what this humiliation consisted can be gathered only from the general, implication of many statements. In it He was a "man": \'a man who hath told you the truth, which I have heard from God\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,40);">Joh 8:40</a>), where the contrast with "God" throws the assertion of humanity into emphasis (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,33);">Joh 10:33</a>). The truth of His human nature is, however, everywhere assumed and endlessly illustrated, rather than explicitly asserted. He possessed a human soul (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,27);">Joh 11:27</a>) and bodily parts (flesh and blood, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,53);">Joh 6:53</a>ff; hands and side, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,27);">20:27</a>); and was subject alike to physical affections (weariness, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,6);">Joh 4:6</a>, and thirst, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,28);">19:28</a>, suffering and death), and to all the common human emotions<6E>not merely the love of compassion (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,34);">Joh 13:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,21);">14:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',15,\'8-13\');">15:8-13</a>), but the love of simple affection which we pour out on "friends" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,11);">Joh 11:11</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',15,14,15);">Joh 15:14,15</a>), indignation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,33,38);">Joh 11:33,38</a>) and joy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',15,11);">Joh 15:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,13);">17:13</a>). He felt the perturbation produced by strong excitement (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,33);">Joh 11:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,27);">11:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,21);">13:21</a>), the sympathy with suffering which shows itself in tears (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,35);">Joh 11:35</a>), the thankfulness which fills the grateful heart (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,11,23);">Joh 6:11,23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,41);">11:41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,27);">16:27</a>). Only one human characteristic was alien to Him: He was without sin: "the prince of the world," He declared, "hath nothing in me" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,30);">Joh 14:30</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,46);">Joh 8:46</a>). Clearly our Lord, as reported by John, knew Himself to be true God and true man in one indivisible person, the common subject of the qualities which belong to each.<P>2. The Synoptic Jesus:<P>(1) His Deity.<P>(a) <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,32);">Mark 13:32</a>:<P>The same is true of His self-consciousness as revealed in His sayings recorded by the synoptists. Perhaps no more striking illustration of this could be adduced than the remarkable declaration recorded in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,32);">Mr 13:32</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,36);">Mt 24:36</a>): \'But of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, nor yet the Son, but the Father.\' Here Jesus places Himself, in an ascending scale of being, above "the angels in heaven," that is to say, the highest of all creatures, significantly marked here as supramundane. Accordingly, He presents Himself elsewhere as the Lord of the angels, whose behests they obey: "The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that cause stumbling, and them that do iniquity" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,41);">Mt 13:41</a>), "And he shall send forth his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,31);">Mt 24:31</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,49);">Mt 13:49</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,31);">25:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,38);">Mr 8:38</a>).Thus the "angels of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,8,9);">Lu 12:8,9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',15,10);">15:10</a>) Christ designates as His angels, the "kingdom of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,28);">Mt 12:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,24);">19:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',21,31,43);">21:31,43</A>; Mark and Luke often) as His Kingdom, the "elect of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,20);">Mr 13:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,7);">Lu 18:7</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,33);">Ro 8:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,12);">Col 3:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,1);">Tit 1:1</a>) as His elect. He is obviously speaking in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,22);">Mr 13:22</a> out of a divine self-consciousness: "Only a Divine Being can be exalted above angels" (B. Weiss). He therefore designates Himself by His divine name, "the Son," that is to say, the unique Son of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,7);">Mr 9:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,11);">1:11</a>), to claim to be whom would for a man be blasphemy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,61,64);">Mr 14:61,64</a>). But though He designates Himself by this divine name, He is not speaking of what He once was, but of what at the moment of speaking He is: the action of the verb is present, "knoweth." He is claiming, in other words, the supreme designation of "the Son," with all that is involved in it, for His present self, as He moved among men: He is, not merely was, "the Son." Nevertheless, what He affirms of Himself cannot be affirmed of Himself distinctively as "the Son." For what He affirms of Himself is ignorance<63>"not even the Son" knows it; and ignorance does not belong to the divine nature which the term "the Son" connotes. An extreme appearance of contradiction accordingly arises from the use of this terminology, just as it arises when Paul says that the Jews "crucified the Lord of glory" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',2,8);">1Co 2:8</a>), or exhorts the Ephesian elders to "feed the church of God which he purchased with his own blood" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,28);">Ac 20:28</a> margin); or John Keble praises our Lord for the blood of souls by Thee redeemed." It was not the Lord of Glory as such who was nailed to the tree, nor have either "God" or "souls" blood to shed.<P>We know how this apparently contradictory mode of speech has arisen in Keble\'s case. He is speaking of men who are composite beings, consisting of souls and bodies, and these men come to be designated from one element of their composite personalities, though what is affirmed by them belongs rather to the other; we may speak, therefore, of the "blood of souls" meaning that these "souls," while not having blood as such, yet designate persons who have bodies and therefore blood. We know equally how to account for Paul\'s apparent contradictions. We know that he conceived of our Lord as a composite person, uniting in Himself a divine and a human nature. In Paul\'s view, therefore, though God as such has no blood, yet Jesus Christ who is God has blood because He is also man. He can justly speak, therefore, when speaking of Jesus Christ of His blood as the blood of God. When precisely the same phenomenon meets us in our Lord\'s speech of Himself, we naust presume that it is the outgrowth of precisely the same state of things. When lie speaks of "the Son" (who is God) as ignorant, we must understand that tie is designating Himself as "the Son" because of His higher nature, and yet has in mind the ignorance of His lower nature; what He means is that the person properly designated "the Son" is ignorant, that is to say with respect to the human nature which is as intimate an element of His personality as is His Deity.<P>When our Lord says, then, that "the Son knows not," He becomes as express a witness to the two natures which constitute His person as Paul is when he speaks of the blood of God, or as Keble is a witness to the twofold constitution of a human being when he speaks of souls shedding blood. In this short sentence, thus, our Lord bears witness to His divine nature with its supremacy above all creatures, to His human nature with its creaturely limitations, and to the unity of the subject possessed of these two natures.<P>(b) Other Passages: Son of Man and Son of God:<P>All these elements of His personality find severally repeated assertions in other utterances of our Lord recorded in the Synoptics. There is no need to insist here on the elevation of Himself above the kings and prophets of the Old Covenant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,41);">Mt 12:41</a>), above the temple itself (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,6);">Mt 12:6</a>), and the ordinances of the divine law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,8);">Mt 12:8</a>); or on His accent of authority in both His teaching and action, His great "I say unto you" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',5,21,22);">Mr 5:21,22</a>), \'I will; be cleansed\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,41);">Mr 1:41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,5);">2:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,14);">Lu 7:14</a>); or on His separation of Himself from men in His relation to God, never including them with Himself in an "Our Father," but consistently speaking distinctively of "my Father" (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,49);">Lu 24:49</a>) and "your Father" (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,16);">Mt 5:16</a>); or on His intimation that He is not merely David\'s Son but David\'s Lord, and that a Lord sitting on the right hand of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,44);">Mt 22:44</a>); or on His parabolic discrimination of Himself a Son and Heir from all "servants" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',21,33);">Mt 21:33</a>); or even on His ascription to Himself of the purely divine functions of the forgiveness of sins (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,8);">Mr 2:8</a>) and judgment of the world (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,31);">Mt 25:31</a>), or of the purely divine powers of reading the heart (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,8);">Mr 2:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,47);">Lu 9:47</a>), omnipotence (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,30);">Mt 24:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,62);">Mr 14:62</a>) and omnipresence (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,20);">Mt 18:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,10);">28:10</a>). These things illustrate His constant assumption of the possession of divine dignity and attributes; the claim itself is more directly made in the two great designations which He currently gave Himself, the Son of Man and the Son of God. The former of these is His favorite self-designation. Derived from <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',7,13,14);">Da 7:13,14</a>, it intimates on every occasion of its employment our Lord\'s consciousness of being a supramundane being, who has entered into a sphere of earthly life on a high mission, on the accomplishment of which He is to return to His heavenly sphere, whence He shall in due season come back to earth, now, however, in His proper majesty, to gather up the fruits of His work and consummate all things. It is a designation, thus, which implies at once a heavenly preexistence, a present humiliation, and a future glory; and He proclaims Himself in this future glory no less than the universal King seated on the throne of judgment for quick and dead (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,31);">Mr 8:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,31);">Mt 25:31</a>). The implication of Deity imbedded in the designation, Son of Man, is perhaps more plainly spoken out in the companion designation, Son of God, which our Lord not only accepts at the hands of others, accepting with it the implication of blasphemy in permitting its application to Himself (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,63,65);">Mt 26:63,65</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,61,64);">Mr 14:61,64</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,29,30);">Lu 22:29,30</a>), but persistently claims for Himself both, in His constant designation of God as His Father in a distinctive sense, and in His less frequent but more pregnant designation of Himself as, by way of eminence, "the Son." That His consciousness of the peculiar relation to God expressed by this designation was not an attainment of His mature spiritual development, but was part of His most intimate consciousness from the beginning, is suggested by the sole glimpse which is given us into His mind as a child (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,49);">Lu 2:49</a>). The high significance which the designation bore to Him is revealed to us in two remarkable utterances preserved, the one by both Matthew (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,27);">11:27</a>ff) and Luke (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,22);">10:22</a>ff), and the other by Matthew (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,19);">28:19</a>).<P>(c) <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,27);">Matthew 11:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,19);">28:19</a>:<P>In the former of these utterances, our Lord, speaking in the most solemn manner, not only presents Himself, as the Son, as the sole source of knowledge of God and of blessedness for men, but places Himself in a position, not of equality merely, but of absolute reciprocity and interpenetration of knowledge with the Father. "No one," He says, "knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither doth any know the Father, save the Son ...."" varied in Luke so as to read: "No one knoweth who the Son is, save the Father; and who the Father is, save the Son ...." as if the being of the Son were so immense that only God could know it thoroughly; and the knowledge of the Son was so unlimited that He could know God to perfection. The peculiarly pregnant employment here of the terms "Son" and "Father" over against one another is explained to us in the other utterance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,19);">Mt 28:19</a>). It is the resurrected Lord\'s commission to His disciples. Claiming for Himself all authority in heaven and on earth<74>which implies the possession of omnipotence<63>and promising to be with His followers \'alway, even to the end of the world\'<27>which adds the implications of omnipresence and omniscience<63>He commands them to baptize their converts \'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.\' The precise form of the formula must be carefully observed. It does not read: \'In the names\' (plural)<29>as if there were three beings enumerated, each with its distinguishing name. Nor yet: \'In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit,\' as if there were one person, going by a threefold name. It reads: \'In the name (singular) of the Father, and of the (article repeated) Son, and of the (article repeated) Holy Spirit,\' carefully distinguishing three persons, though uniting them all under one name. The name of God was to the Jews Yahweh, and to name the name of Yahweh upon them was to make them His. What Jesus did in this great injunction was to command His followers to name the name of God upon their converts, and to announce the name of God which is to be named on their converts in the threefold enumeration of "the Father" and "the Son" and \'the Holy Spirit.\' As it is unquestionable that He intended Himself by "the Son," He here places Himself by the side of the Father and the Spirit, as together with them constituting the one God. It is, of course, the Trinity which He is describing; and that is as much as to say that He announces Himself as one of the persons of the Trinity. This is what Jesus, as reported by the Synoptics, understood Himself to be.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TRINITY">TRINITY</A>.<P>(2) His Humanity.<P>In announcing Himself to be God, however, Jesus does not deny that He is man also. If all His speech of Himself rests on His consciousness of a divine nature, no less does all His speech manifest His consciousness of a human nature. He easily identifies Himself with men (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',4,4);">Mt 4:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,4);">Lu 4:4</a>), and receives without protest the imputation of humanity (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,19);">Mt 11:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,34);">Lu 7:34</a>). He speaks familiarly of His body (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,12,26);">Mt 26:12,26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,8);">Mr 14:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,22);">14:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,19);">Lu 22:19</a>), and of His bodily parts<74>His feet and hands (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,39);">Lu 24:39</a>), His head and feet (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,\'44-46\');">Lu 7:44-46</a>), His flesh and bones (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,39);">Lu 24:39</a>), His blood (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,28);">Mt 26:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,24);">Mr 14:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,20);">Lu 22:20</a>). We chance to be given indeed a very express affirmation on His part of the reality of His bodily nature; when His disciples were terrified at His appearing before them after His resurrection, supposing Him to be a spirit, He reassures them with the direct declaration: "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me having" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,39);">Lu 24:39</a>). His testimony to His human soul is just as express: "My soul," says He, "is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,38);">Mt 26:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,34);">Mr 14:34</a>). He speaks of the human dread with which He looked forward to His approaching death (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,50);">Lu 12:50</a>), and expresses in a poignant cry His sense of desolation on the cross (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,46);">Mt 27:46</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,34);">Mr 15:34</a>). He speaks also of His pity for the weary and hungering people (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',15,32);">Mt 15:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,2);">Mr 8:2</a>), and of a strong human desire which He felt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,15);">Lu 22:15</a>). Nothing that is human is alien to Him except sin. He never ascribes imperfection to Himself and never betrays consciousness of sin. He recognizes the evil of those about Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',11,13);">Lu 11:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,11);">Mt 7:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,34,39);">12:34,39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',11,29);">Lu 11:29</a>), but never identifies Himself with it. It is those who do the will of God with whom He feels kinship (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,50);">Mt 12:50</a>), and He offers Himself to the morally sick as a physician (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',9,12);">Mt 9:12</a>). He proposes Himself as an example of the highest virtues (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,28);">Mt 11:28</a>) and pronounces him blessed who shall find no occasion of stumbling in Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,6);">Mt 11:6</a>).<P>(3) Unity of the Person.<P>These manifestations of a human and divine consciousness simply stand side by side in the records of our Lord\'s self-expression. Neither is suppressed or even qualified by the other. If we attend only to the one class we might suppose Him to proclaim Himself wholly divine; if only to the other we might equally easily imagine Him to be representing Himself as wholly human. With both together before us we perceive Him alternately speaking out of a divine and out of a human consciousness; manifesting Himself as all that God is and as all that man is; yet with the most marked unity of consciousness. He, the one Jesus Christ, was to His own apprehension true God and complete man in a unitary personal life.<P>VII. The Two Natures Everywhere Presupposed.<P>There underlies, thus, the entire literature of the New Testament a single, unvarying conception of the constitution of our Lord\'s person. From Matthew where He is presented as one of the persons of the Holy Trinity (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,19);">28:19</a>)<29>or if we prefer the chronological order of books, from the Epistle of James where He is spoken of as the Glory of God, the Shekinah (2:1)<29>to the Apocalypse where He is represented as declaring that He is the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,8),17;">Re 1:8,17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,13);">22:13</a>), He is consistently thought of as in His fundamental being just God. At the same time from the Synoptic Gospels, in which He is dramatized as a man walking among men, His human descent carefully recorded, and His sense of dependence on God so emphasized that prayer becomes almost His most characteristic action, to the Epistles of John in which it is made the note of a Christian that He confesses that Jesus Christ has come in flesh (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,2);">1Joh 4:2</a>) and the Apocalypse in which His birth in the tribe of Judah and the house of David (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',5,5);">Re 5:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,16);">22:16</a>), His exemplary life of conflict and victory (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',3,21);">Re 3:21</a>), His death on the cross (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',11,8);">Re 11:8</a>) are noted, He is equally consistently thought of as true man. Nevertheless, from the beginning to the end of the whole series of books, while first one and then the other of His two natures comes into repeated prominence, there is never a question of conflict between the two, never any confusion in their relations, never any schism in His unitary personal action; but He is obviously considered and presented as one, composite indeed, but undivided personality. In this state of the case not only may evidence of the constitution of our Lord\'s person properly be drawn indifferently from every part of the New Testament, and passage justly be cited to support and explain passage without reference to the portion of the New Testament in which it is found, but we should be without justification if we did not employ this common presupposition of the whole body of this literature to illustrate and explain the varied representations which meet us cursorily in its pages, representations which might easily be made to appear mutually contradictory were they not brought into harmony by their relation as natural component parts of this one unitary conception which underlies and gives consistency to them all. There can scarcely be imagined a better proof of the truth of a doctrine than its power completely to harmonize a multitude of statements which without it would present to our view only a mass of confused inconsistencies. A key which perfectly fits a lock of very complicated wards can scarcely fail to be the true key.<P>VIII. Formulation of the Doctrine.<P>Meanwhile the wards remain complicated. Even in the case of our own composite structure, of soul and body, familiar as we are with it from our daily experience, the mutual relations of elements so disparate in a single personality remain an unplumbed mystery, and give rise to paradoxical modes of speech which would be misleading, were not their source in our duplex nature well understood. We may read, in careful writers, of souls being left dead on battlefields, and of everybody\'s immortality. The mysteries of the relations in which the constituent elements in the more complex personality of our Lord stand to one another are immeasurably greater than in our simpler case. We can never hope to comprehend how the infinite God and a finite humanity can be united in a single person; and it is very easy to go fatally astray in attempting to explain the interactions in the unitary person of natures so diverse from one another. It is not surprising, therefore, that so soon as serious efforts began to be made to give systematic explanations of the Biblical facts as to our Lord\'s person, many onesided and incomplete statements were formulated which required correction and complementing before at length a mode of statement. was devised which did full justice to the Biblical data. It was accordingly only after more than a century of controversy, during which nearly every conceivable method of construing and misconstruing the Biblical facts had been proposed and tested, that a formula was framed which successfully guarded the essential data supplied by the Scriptures from destructive misconception. This formula, put together by the Council of Chalcedon, 451 AD, declares it to have always been the doctrine of the church, derived from the Scriptures and our Lord Himself, that our Lord Jesus Christ is "truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures-inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and Only-begotten, God, the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ." There is nothing here but a careful statement in systematic form of the pure teaching of the Scriptures; and therefore this statement has stood ever since as the norm of thought and teaching as to the person of the Lord. As such, it has been incorporated, in one form or another, into the creeds of all the great branches of the church; it underlies and gives their form to all the allusions to Christ in the great mass of preaching and song which has accumulated during the centuries; and it has supplied the background of the devotions of the untold multitudes who through the Christian ages have been worshippers of Christ.<P>LITERATURE.<P>The appropriate sections in the treatises on the Biblical theology of the New Testament; also A. B. Bruce, The Humiliation of Christ, 2nd edition, Edinburgh, 1881; R. L. Ottley, The Doctrine of the Incarnation, London, 1896; H. C. Powell, The Principle of the Incarnation, London, 1896; Francis J. Hall, The Kenotic Theory, New York, 1898; C. A. Briggs, The Incarnation of the Lord, New York, 1902; G. S. Streatfeild, The Self-Interpretation of Jesus Christ, London, 1906; B. B. Warfield, The Lord of Glory, New York, 1907; James Denhey, Jesus and the Gospel, London, 1909; M. Lepin, Christ and the Gospel: or, Jesus the Messiah and Son of God, Philadelphia, 1910; James Stalker, The Christology of Jesus, New York, 1899; D. Somerville, Paul\'s Conception of Christ, Edinburgh, 1897; E.H. Gifford, The Incarnation: a Study of <span class="noTag">Philippians 2:5-11</span>, London, 1897; S.N. Rostron, The Christology of Paul, London, 1912; E. Digges La Touche, The Person of Christ in Modern Thoughts, London, 1912.<P>(NOTE.<2E>In this article the author has usually given his own translation of quotations from Scripture, and not that of any particular version.)``187';
isbe[6835]='Person, Personality`pur\'-sun, pur\'-s\'n, pur-un-al\'-ti (nephesh, \'ish, \'adham, panim, prosopon, hupostasis): The most frequent word for "person" in the Old Testament is nephesh, "soul" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,21);">Ge 14:21</a>, "Give me the persons, and take the goods"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,6);">Ge 36:6</a>, the King James Version "all the persons" <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',5,6);">Nu 5:6</a> the King James Version "that person," etc.) \'ish "a man," "an individual," Is also used (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',9,2);">Jud 9:2</a>, "threescore and ten persons"; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',16,18);">1Sa 16:18</a>, "a comely person," etc.); \'adham, "a man," "a human being" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',31,28);">Nu 31:28</a>, "of the persons, and of the oxen"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',6,12);">Pr 6:12</a>, "a worthless person," etc.); \'enosh, "a man," "a weak, mortal man," occurs twice (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',9,4);">Jud 9:4</a>, the King James Version "vain and light persons"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',3,4);">Ze 3:4</a>); ba\'al, "owner," "lord," is once translated "person" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',24,8);">Pr 24:8</a>, the King James Version "a mischievous person"), and methim, "men," once (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',26,4);">Ps 26:4</a>, the King James Version "vain persons"); panim "face," is frequently translated "person" when the reference is to the external appearance, as of persons in high places, rich persons who could favor or bribe, etc., chiefly in the phrases "regarding the person," "accepting the person" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',10,17);">De 10:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',1,8);">Mal 1:8</a>).<P>In the New Testament prosopon, "face," "countenance," stands in the same connection (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,16);">Mt 22:16</a>,"thou regardest not the person of men"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,6);">Ga 2:6</a>, "God accepteth not man\'s person"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,34);">Ac 10:34</a>, "God is no respecter of persons"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,11);">Ro 2:11</a>, "there is no respect of persons with God"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,9);">Eph 6:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,25);">Col 3:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',2,1,9);">Jas 2:1,9</a>); in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',1,11);">2Co 1:11</a> we have "persons" (prosopon), absolute as in the later Greek, "the gift bestowed...by many persons," the only occurrence in the New Testament; in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',2,10);">2Co 2:10</a> prosopon may stand for "presence," as the Revised Version (British and American) "in the presence of Christ," but it might mean "as representing Christ"; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,3);">Heb 1:3</a>, the King James Version hupostasis, "that which lies under," substratum, is rendered "person," "the express image of his person," i.e. of God, which the Revised Version (British and American) renders "the very image of his substance," margin "the impress of his substance," i.e. the manifestation or expression of the invisible God and Father. "Person" is also frequently supplied as the substantive implied in various adjectives, etc., e.g. profane, perjured, vile.<P>In the Apocrypha we have prosopon translated "person" (Judith 7:15, the Revised Version (British and American) "face"; Ecclesiasticus 10:5, etc.); the "accepting of persons" is condemned (The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 6:7</span>; Ecclesiasticus 4:22,27; 7:6; 20:22, the Revised Version (British and American) "by a foolish countenance"; 35:13; 42:1; "With him (God) is no respecter of persons, Ecclesiasticus 35:12).<P>The Revised Version (British and American) has "soul" for "person" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',5,6);">Nu 5:6</a>), "face" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',52,25);">Jer 52:25</a>), "man" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,24);">Mt 27:24</a>); "reprobate" for "vile person" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',15,4);">Ps 15:4</a>), the American Standard Revised Version, the English Revised Version margin "fool" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',32,5,6);">Isa 32:5,6</a>); the American Standard Revised Version "men of falsehood" for "vain persons" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',26,4);">Ps 26:4</a>); for "a wicked person," the Revised Version (British and American) has "an evil thing" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',101,4);">Ps 101:4</a>); "back to thee in his own person" (auton, different text) for "again thou therefore receive him" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phm\',1,12);">Phm 1:12</a>); "take away life" for "respect any person" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',14,14);">2Sa 14:14</a>); "with seven others" for "the eighth person" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,5);">2Pe 2:5</a>); "false swearers" for "perjured persons" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,10);">1Ti 1:10</a>); "seven thousand persons" for "of men seven thousand" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',11,13);">Re 11:13</a>).<P>Personality is that which constitutes and characterizes a person. The word "person" (Latin, persona) is derived from the mask through which an actor spoke his part (persona). "From being applied to the mask, it came next to be applied to the actor, then to the character acted, then to any assumed character, then to anyone having any character or station"; lastly, it came to mean an individual, a feeling, thinking and acting being. For full personality there must be self-consciousness, with the capability of free thought and action<6F>self-determination<6F>hence, we speak of personal character, personal action, etc. A person is thus a responsible being, while an animal is not. Personality is distinctive of man. The personality is the unit of the entire rational being, perhaps most clearly represented by "the will"; it is that which is deepest in man, belonging, of course, not to the realm of space or the region of the visible, but existing as a spiritual reality in time, with a destiny beyond it. It is the substance (hupostasis) of the being, that which underlies all its manifestations; hence, the rendering "the express image of his person" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,3);">Heb 1:3</a> the King James Version. Hupostasis was employed by the early Greek Fathers to express what the Latins intended by persona; afterward prosopon was introduced.<P>Recent psychology has brought into prominence elements in the subconscious realm, the relation of which to the personality is obscure. There seems to be more in each individual than is normally expressed in the personal consciousness and action. The real, responsible personality, however, is something which is always being formed. The phenomenon of double personality is pathological, as truly the result of brain disease as is insanity.<P>In the Bible man is throughout regarded as personal, although it was only gradually that the full importance of the individual as distinct from the nation was realized. The use of prosopon for "person" indicates also a more external conception of personality than the modern. With the Hebrews the nephesh was the seat of personality, e.g. "Thou wilt not leave my soul (nephesh) to Sheol" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',16,10);">Ps 16:10</a>); "Thou hast brought up my soul from Sheol" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',30,3);">Ps 30:3</a>). God is also always regarded as personal (who has created man in His own image), and although the representations seem often anthropomorphic they are not really such. The divine personality could only be conceived after the analogy of the human, as far as it could be definitely conceived at all; but God was regarded as transcending, not only the whole of Nature, but all that, is human, e.g. "God is not a man, that he should lie" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',23,19);">Nu 23:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',15,29);">1Sa 15:29</a>); "Canst thou by searching find out God?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',11,7);">Job 11:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,28);">Isa 40:28</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',3,11);">Ec 3:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',8,17);">8:17</a>, etc.). In the New Testament the personality of God is, on the warrant of Jesus Himself, conceived after the analogy of human fatherhood, yet as transcending all our human conceptions: "How much more?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,11);">Mt 7:11</a>); "Who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counselor?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',11,34);">Ro 11:34</a>). Man is body, soul and spirit, but God in Himself is Spirit, infinite, perfect, ethical Spirit (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,48);">Mt 5:48</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,24);">Joh 4:24</a>). He is forever more than all that is created, "For of him, and through him, and unto him, are all things" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',11,36);">Ro 11:36</a>). The human personality, being spiritual, survives bodily dissolution and in Christ becomes clothed again with a spiritual body (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,21);">Php 3:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,44);">1Co 15:44</a>).``185';
isbe[6836]='Personality``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PERSON">PERSON</a>`1';
isbe[6837]='Persuade; Persuasion`per-swad\', per-swazhun: (1) In the older English "persuade" need not mean "convince" (although this is its usual sense in the King James Version: <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,20);">Mt 27:20</a>, etc.), but may mean only "attempt to convince," "argue with." This is well brought out in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',26,28);">Ac 26:28</a>, where the Greek is literally "In little thou \'persuadest\' peitheis to make me a Christian." the King James Version took peitheis as "convince" ("almost thou persuadest me ...."), but this is impossible, and so the Revised Version (British and American) rendered peitheis by "thou wouldest fain." To keep something of the language of the King James Version, "persuasion" was supplied after "little," but it should have been italicized, for it is merely conjectural, as the American Revised Version margin recognizes by giving "time" as an alternative for "persuasion." The text of the passage, however, is suspected. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ALMOST">ALMOST</a>. Similarly in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,43);">Ac 13:43</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) replaces "persuade" by "urge," and the same change should have been made also in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',18,32);">2Ki 18:32</a> and its parallels. (2) The "popular persuasions" of 1Esdras 5:73 are "efforts to persuade the people" (uncertain text, however). <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,8);">Ac 19:8</a> the King James Version writes "persuading the things" (the Revised Version (British and American) "as to the things") for "present the things persuasively." And in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,10);">Ga 1:10</a> (the English Revised Version and the King James Version, not in the American Standard Revised Version) and <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,11);">2Co 5:11</a>, there is a half-ironic force in the word: Paul\'s enemies have accused him of using unworthy persuasion in making his conversions.``48';
isbe[6838]='Peruda`pe-roo\'-da (perudha\').`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PERIDA">PERIDA</a>`1';
isbe[6839]='Perverse`per-vurs\':The group "perverse, -ly, -ness," "act perversely" in the King James Version represents nearly 20 Hebrew words, of which, however, most are derivatives of the stems \'awah, luz, \'aqash. The Revised Version (British and American) has made few changes. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',6,30);">Job 6:30</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "mischievous" is better for the taste of a thing, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',59,3);">Isa 59:3</a> greater emphasis is gained by the Revised Version (British and American) "wickedness." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',9,9);">Eze 9:9</a>, "wresting of judgment" is perhaps too concrete, and "perverseness" is kept in the margin (inverted in the King James Version). the Revised Version margin "headlong" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',22,32);">Nu 22:32</a> is over-literal, but in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',23,21);">23:21</A> the American Standard Revised Version margin\'s "trouble" is a distinct improvement.``1';
isbe[6840]='Pestilence`pes\'-ti-lens (debher; loimos): Any sudden fatal epidemic is designated by this word, and in its Biblical use it generally indicates that these are divine visitations. The word is most frequently used in the prophetic books, and it occurs 25 times in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, always associated with the sword and famine. In 4 other passages it is combined with noisome or evil beasts, or war. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',4,10);">Am 4:10</a> this judgment is compared with the plagues of Egypt, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',3,5);">Hab 3:5</a> it is a concomitant of the march of God from the Arabian mountain. There is the same judicial character associated with pestilence in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',5,3);">Ex 5:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',9,15);">9:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,25);">Le 26:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,12);">Nu 14:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',28,21);">De 28:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',24,21);">2Sa 24:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',21,12);">1Ch 21:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',14,19,21);">Eze 14:19,21</a>. In the dedication prayer of Solomon, a special value is besought for such petitions against pestilence as may be presented toward the temple (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',6,28);">2Ch 6:28</a>). Such a deliverance is promised to those who put their trust in God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',91,6);">Ps 91:6</a>). Here the pestilence is called noisome, a shortened form of "annoysome," used in the sense of "hateful" or that which causes trouble or distress. In modern English it has acquired the sense of loathsome. "Noisome" is used by Tyndale where the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) have "hurtful" in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,9);">1Ti 6:9</a>. <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,8);">Ac 19:8</a> the King James Version writes "persuading the things" (the Revised Version (British and American) "as to the things") for "present the things persuasively." And in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,10);">Ga 1:10</a> (the English Revised Version and the King James Version, not in the American Standard Revised Version) and <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,11);">2Co 5:11</a>, there is a half-ironic force in the word: Paul\'s enemies have accused him of using unworthy persuasion in making his conversions.<P>The Latin word pestilentia is connected with pestis, "the plague," but pestilence is used of any visitation and is not the name of any special disease; debher is applied to diseases of cattle and is translated "murrain."<P>In the New Testament pestilence is mentioned in our Lord\'s eschatological discourse (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,7);">Mt 24:7</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,11);">Lu 21:11</a>) coupled with famine. The assonance of loimos and limos in these passages (loimos is omitted in the Revised Version (British and American) passage for Mt) occurs in several classical passages, e.g. Herodotus vii.171. The pestilence is said to walk in darkness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',91,6);">Ps 91:6</a>) on account of its sudden onset out of obscurity not associated with any apparent cause.``107';
isbe[6841]='Pestle`pes\'-\'l (\'eli): A rounded implement of wood or stone used for pounding, bruising, or powdering materials in a mortar. Used only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',27,22);">Pr 27:22</a>. The assonance of loimos and limos in these passages (loimos is omitted in the Revised Version (British and American) passage for Mat) occurs in several classical passages, e.g. Herodotus vii.171. The pestilence is said to walk in darkness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',91,6);">Ps 91:6</a>) on account of its sudden onset out of obscurity not associated with any apparent cause.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MORTAR">MORTAR</a>`1';
isbe[6842]='Peter, Apocalypse of``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCRYPHAL+GOSPELS">APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LITERATURE,+SUB+APOSTOLIC">LITERATURE, SUB-APOSTOLIC</a>`1';
isbe[6843]='Peter, Epistles of``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PETER,+THE+FIRST+EPISTLE+OF">PETER, THE FIRST EPISTLE OF</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PETER,+THE+SECOND+EPISTLE+OF">PETER, THE SECOND EPISTLE OF</a>`1';
isbe[6844]='Peter, Gospel According To``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCRYPHAL+GOSPELS">APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LITERATURE,+SUB+APOSTOLIC">LITERATURE, SUB-APOSTOLIC</a>`1';
isbe[6845]='Peter, Simon`pe\'-ter, si\'-mon): <p>1. Name and Early Career<P>2. First Appearance in Gospel History<P>3. Life-Story<P class="in15">(1) First Period<P class="in15">(2) Second Period<P>4. Character<P>5. Writings<P class="in15">(1) First Epistle<P class="in15">(2) Second Epistle<P>6. Theology<P class="in15">(1) Messianic Teaching<P class="in15">(2) Justification<P class="in15">(3) Redemption<P class="in15">(4) Future Life<P class="in15">(5) Holy Scripture<P class="in15">(6) Apostasy and Judgment<P class="in15">(7) Second Coming of Christ<P>LITERATURE<hr /><P>The data for this article are found chiefly in the four Gospels; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,\'1-\');">Ac 1-15</a>; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,\'1-\');">Ga 1</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,\'1-\');">2</A>; and in the two Epistles of Peter.<P>1. Name and Early Career:<P>Simon (or Simeon) was the original name of Peter, the son of Jonas (or John), and brother of Andrew, a disciple of John the Baptist, as Peter also may have been. A fisherman by occupation, he was an inhabitant of Bethsaida on the Sea of Galilee, though subsequently he dwelt with his family at Capernaum (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',4,18);">Mt 4:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',8,14);">8:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,2);">10:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,16,17);">16:16,17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',17,25);">17:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,16,29,30,36);">Mr 1:16,29,30,36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',5,3,4,5,8,10);">Lu 5:3,4,5,8,10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,31);">22:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,34);">24:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,\'40-44\');">Joh 1:40-44</a>).<P>2. First Appearance in Gospel History:<P>His first appearance in Gospel history is in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,\'35-42\');">Joh 1:35-42</a>, when Andrew, having discovered Jesus to be the Messiah, "first findeth his own brother Simon," and "brought him unto Jesus"; on which occasion it was that the latter, beholding him, said, "Thou shalt be called Cephas," an Aramaic surname whose Greek synonym is Petros, or Peter, meaning "a rock" or "stone" At this time also he received his first call to the discipleship of Jesus, although, in common with that of others of the Twelve, this call was twice repeated. See <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',4,19);">Mt 4:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,17);">Mr 1:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',5,3);">Lu 5:3</a> for the second call, and <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,2);">Mt 10:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,14,16);">Mr 3:14,16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,13,14);">Lu 6:13,14</a> for the third. Some interpret the second as that when he was chosen to be a constant companion of Jesus, and the third when he was at length selected as an apostle.<P>3. Life-Story:<P>The life-story of Peter falls into two parts: first, from his call to the ascension of Christ; secondly, from that event to the close of his earthly career.<P>(1) First Period:<P>The first period again may be conveniently divided into the events prior to the Passion of Christ and those following. There are about ten of the former: the healing of his wife\'s mother at Capernaum (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',8,14);">Mt 8:14</a>); the great draught of fishes, and its effect in his self-abasement and surrender of his all to Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',5,\'1-11\');">Lu 5:1-11</a>); his call to the apostolic office and his spiritual equipment therefor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,2);">Mt 10:2</a>); his attachment to his Master, as shown in his attempt to walk upon the waves (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',14,28);">Mt 14:28</a>); the same attachment as shown at a certain crisis, in his inquiry "Lord, to whom shall we go?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,68);">Joh 6:68</a>); his noble confession of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God, and, alas, the rebuke that followed it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,\'13-23\');">Mt 16:13-23</a>); the exalted privileges he enjoyed with James and John as witness of the raising of Jairus\' daughter (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',5,37);">Mr 5:37</a>) and the transfiguration of his Lord (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',17,\'1-5\');">Mt 17:1-5</a>); and finally, the incident of the tribute money, found only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',17,24);">Mt 17:24</a>.<P>The events beginning at the Passion are more easily recalled, because to so large an extent are they found in all the Gospels and about in the same order. They commence with the washing of his feet by the Master at the time of the last Passover, and the two mistakes he made as to the spiritual import of that act (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,\'1-10\');">Joh 13:1-10</a>); the first of his presumptuous boastings as to the strength of his devotion to his Master, and the warning of the latter as to Satan\'s prospective assault upon him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,\'31-34\');">Lu 22:31-34</a>), twice repeated before the betrayal in Gethsemane (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,\'31-35\');">Mt 26:31-35</a>); the admission to the garden to behold the Saviour\'s deepest distress, the charge to watch and pray, and the failure to do so through sleepiness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,\'36-46\');">Mt 26:36-46</a>); the mistaken courage in severing the ear of Malchus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,\'10-12\');">Joh 18:10-12</a>); the forsaking of his Lord while the latter was being led away as a prisoner, his following Him afar off, his admission into the high priest\'s palace, his denial "before them all," his confirmation of it by an oath, his remembrance of the warning when "the Lord turned and looked upon Peter," and his tears of bitterness as he went out (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,\'56-58\');">Mt 26:56-58</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,\'66-72\');">Mr 14:66-72</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,\'54-62\');">Lu 22:54-62</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,\'15-27\');">Joh 18:15-27</a>).<P>It will be seen that the story of Peter\'s fall is thus related by all the evangelists, but, to quote another, "None have described it in a more heinous light, than Mark; and if, as is generally supposed, that Gospel was reviewed by Peter himself and even written under his direction this circumstance may be considered as an evidence of his integrity and sincere contrition."<P>Nothing more is heard of Peter until the morning of the resurrection, when, on the first tidings of the event, he runs with John to see the tomb (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,\'1-10\');">Joh 20:1-10</a>); his name is especially mentioned to the women by the angel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',16,7);">Mr 16:7</a>); and on the same day he sees Jesus alive before any of the rest of the Twelve (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,34);">Lu 24:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,5);">1Co 15:5</a>). Subsequently, at the Sea of Tiberias, Peter is given an opportunity for a threefold confession of Jesus whom he had thrice denied, and is once more assigned to the apostolic office; a prediction follows as to the kind of death he should die, and also a command to follow his Lord (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',21,\'1-\');">Joh 21</a>).<P>(2) Second Period:<P>The second period, from the ascension of Christ to the conversion of Paul, is more briefly sketched. After the ascension, of which Peter was doubtless a witness, he "stood up in the midst of the brethren" in the upper room in Jerusalem to counsel the choice of a successor to Judas (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,\'15-26\');">Ac 1:15-26</a>). On the day of Pentecost he preaches the first gospel sermon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,\'1-\');">Ac 2</a>), and later, in company with John, instrumentally heals the lame man, addresses the people in the Temple, is arrested, defends himself before the Sanhedrin and returns to his "own company" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',3,\'1-\');">Ac 3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',4,\'1-\');">4</a>). He is again arrested and beaten (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,\'1-\');">Ac 5</a>); after a time he is sent by the church at Jerusalem to communicate the Holy Spirit to the disciples at Samaria (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',8,\'1-\');">Ac 8</a>). Returning to Jerusalem (where presumably Paul visits him, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,18);">Ga 1:18</a>), he afterward journeys "throughout all parts," heals Aeneas at Lydda, raises Dorcas from the dead at Joppa, sees a vision upon the housetop which influences him to preach the gospel to the Gentile centurion at Caesarea, and explains this action before "the apostles and the brethren that were in Judea" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,\'32-41\');">Ac 9:32-41</a>; chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,\'1-\');">11</a>).<P>After a while another persecution arose against the church, and Herod Agrippa, having put James to death, imprisons Peter with the thought of executing him also. Prayer is made by the church on his behalf, however, and miraculous deliverance is given him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',12,\'1-\');">Ac 12</a>). Retiring for a while from public attention, he once more comes before us in the church council at Jerusalem, when the question is to be settled as to whether works are needful to salvation, adding his testimony to that of Paul and Barnabas in favor of justification by faith only (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,\'1-\');">Ac 15</a>).<P>Subsequently, he is found at Antioch, and having fellowship with GentileChristians until "that certain came from James," when "he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision," for which dissembling Paul "resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,\'11-14\');">Ga 2:11-14</a>).<P>Little more is authentically known of Peter, except that he traveled more or less extensively, being accompanied by his wife (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',9,5);">1Co 9:5</a>), and that he wrote two epistles, the second of which was penned as he approached the end of his life (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,\'12-15\');">2Pe 1:12-15</a>).<P>The tradition is that he died a martyr at Rome about 67 AD, when about 75 years old. His Lord and Master had predicted a violent death for him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',21,18,19);">Joh 21:18,19</a>), which it is thought came to pass by crucifixion under Nero. It is said that at his own desire he was crucified head downward, feeling himself unworthy to resemble his Master in his death.<P>It should be observed, however, that the tradition that he visited Rome is only tradition and nothing more, resting as it does partly upon a miscalculation of some of the early Fathers, "who assume that he went to Rome in 42 AD, immediately after his deliverance from prison" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,17);">Ac 11:17</a>). Schaff says this "is irreconcilable with the silence of Scripture, and even with the mere fact of Paul\'s Epistle to the Romans, written in 58, since the latter says not a word of Peter\'s previous labors in that city, and he himself never built on other men\'s foundations" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,20);">Ro 15:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',10,15,16);">2Co 10:15,16</a>).<P>4. Character:<P>The character of Peter is transparent and easily analyzed, and it is doubtless true that no other "in Scriptural history is drawn for us more clearly or strongly." He has been styled the prince of the apostles, and, indeed, seems to have been their leader on every occasion. He is always named first in every list of them, and was their common spokesman. He was hopeful, bold, confident, courageous, frank, impulsive, energetic, vigorous, strong, and loving, and faithful to his Master notwithstanding his defection prior to the crucifixion. It is true that he was liable to change and inconsistency, and because of his peculiar temperament he sometimes appeared forward and rash. Yet, as another says, "His virtues and faults had their common root in his enthusiastic disposition," and the latter were at length overruled by divine grace into the most beautiful humility and meekness, as evinced in his two Epistles.<P>The leadership above referred to, however, should not lead to the supposition that he possessed any supremacy over the other apostles, of which there is no proof. Such supremacy was never conferred upon him by his Master, it was never claimed by himself, and was never conceded by his associates. See in this Connection <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,\'8-12\');">Mt 23:8-12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,13,14);">Ac 15:13,14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',12,11);">2Co 12:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,11);">Ga 2:11</a>.<P>It is true that when Christ referred to the meaning of his name (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,18);">Mt 16:18</a>), He said, "Upon this rock I will build my church," but He did not intend to teach that His church would be built upon Peter, but upon Himself as confessed by Peter in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,16);">Mt 16:16</a>. Peter is careful to affirm this in the first of his two Epistles (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,\'4-9\');">1Pe 2:4-9</a>). Moreover, when Christ said, "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven," etc. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,19);">Mt 16:19</a>), He invested him with no power not possessed in common with his brethren, since they also afterward received the same commission (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,18);">Mt 18:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,23);">Joh 20:23</a>). A key is a badge of power or authority, and, as many Protestant commentators have pointed out, to quote the language of one of them, "the apostolic history explains and limits this trust, for it was Peter who opened the door of the gospel to Israel on the day of Pentecost (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,\'38-42\');">Ac 2:38-42</a>) and to the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,\'34-46\');">Ac 10:34-46</a>)." Some, however, regard this authority as identical with the great commission (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,19);">Mt 28:19</a>).<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KEYS,+POWER+OF+THE">KEYS, POWER OF THE</a>.<P>5. Writings:<P>The two Epistles of Peter were written presumably late in life, as appears especially of the Second (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,\'12-15\');">2Pe 1:12-15</a>). Both were addressed to the same class of persons, chiefly Jewish Christians scattered abroad in the different provinces of Asia Minor, among whom Paul and his associates had planted the gospel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,1,2);">1Pe 1:1,2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,1);">2Pe 3:1</a>). The First was written at Babylon (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,13);">1Pe 5:13</a>), doubtless the famous Babylon on the Euphrates, which, though destroyed as a great capital, was still inhabited by a small colony of people, principally Jews (see Weiss, Introduction, II, 150).<P>See also <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PETER,+THE+FIRST+EPISTLE+OF">PETER, THE FIRST EPISTLE OF</a>.<P>(1) First Epistle.<P>The theme of the First Epistle seems to be the living hope to which the Christian has been begotten, and the obligations it lays upon him. The living hope is expounded in the earlier part of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,\'1-13\');">1Pe 1:1-13</a>, where the obligations begin to be stated, the first group including hope, godly fear, love to the brethren, and praise (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,\'13-\');">1:13</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,\'1-10\');">2:10</A>).<P>The writer drops his pen at this point, to take it up again to address those who were suffering persecution for righteousness\' sake, upon whom two more obligations are impressed, submission to authority, and testimony to Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,11);">1Pe 2:11-4:6</a>). The third group which concludes the book begins here, dealing with such themes as spiritual hospitality in the use of heavenly gifts, patience in suffering, fidelity in service, and humility in ministering to one another. The letter was Sent to the churches "by Silvanus, our faithful brother," the author affirming that his object in writing was to exhort and testify concerning "the true grace of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,12);">1Pe 5:12</a>).<P>The genuineness of this First Epistle has never been doubted, except of course by those who in these latter days have doubted everything, but the same cannot be said of the Second. It is not known to whom the latter was entrusted; as a matter of fact it found no place in the catalogues of the New Testament Scriptures of the 2nd and 3rd centuries. The first church employing it was at Alexandria, but subsequently the church at large became satisfied from internal evidence of its genuineness and inspiration, and when the Canon was pronounced complete in the 4th century, it was without hesitancy received.<P>(2) Second Epistle.<P>The Second Epistle claims to have been written by Peter (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,1);">2Pe 1:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,1,2);">3:1,2</a>), to doubt which would start more serious difficulties than can be alleged against its genuineness, either because of its late admission to the Canon or its supposed diversity of style from Peter\'s early writing.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PETER,+THE+SECOND+EPISTLE+OF">PETER, THE SECOND EPISTLE OF</a>.<P>His object is the same in both Epistles, to "stir up your sincere mind by putting you in remembrance" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,1);">2Pe 3:1</a>). Like Paul in his Second Epistle to Timothy, he foresees the apostasy in which the professing church will end, the difference being that Paul speaks of it in its last stage when the laity have become infected (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',3,\'1-5\');">2Ti 3:1-5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,3,4);">4:3,4</a>), while Peter sees it in its origin as traceable to false teachers (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,\'1-3\',\'15-19\');">2Pe 2:1-3,15-19</a>). As in the First Epistle he wrote to exhort and to testify, so here it is rather to caution and warn. This warning was, as a whole, against falling from grace (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,17,18);">2Pe 3:17,18</a>), the enforcement of which warning is contained in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,\'2-11\');">2Pe 1:2-11</a>, the ground of it in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,\'12-21\');">1:12-21</a>, and the occasion of it in the last two chapters. To speak only of the occasion: This, as was stated, was the presence of false teachers (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,1);">2:1</A>), whose eminent success is predicted (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,2);">2:2</A>), whose punishment is certain and dreadful (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,\'3-9\');">2:3-9</A>), and whose description follows (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,\'10-22\');">2:10-22</A>). The character of their false teaching (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,\'1-\');">2Pe 3</a>) forms one of the most interesting and important features of the Epistle, focusing as it does on the Second Coming of Christ.<P>6. Theology:<P>The theology of Peter offers an interesting field of study because of what may be styled its freshness and variety in comparison with that of Paul and John, who are the great theologians of the New Testament.<P>(1) Messianic Teaching.<P>In the first place, Peter is unique in his Messianic teaching as indicated in the first part of the Acts, where he is the chief personage, and where for the most part his ministry is confined to Jerusalem and the Jews. The latter, already in covenant relations with Yahweh, had sinned in rejecting Jesus as the Messiah, and Peter\'s preaching was directed to that point, demanding repentance or a change of mind about Him. The apparent failure of the Old Testament promises concerning the Davidic kingdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',11,\'10-12\');">Isa 11:10-12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',23,\'5-8\');">Jer 23:5-8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',37,\'21-28\');">Eze 37:21-28</a>) was explained by the promise that the kingdom would be set up at the return of Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,\'25-31\');">Ac 2:25-31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,\'14-16\');">15:14-16</a>); which return, personal and corporeal, and for that purpose, is presented as only awaiting their national repentance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',3,\'19-26\');">Ac 3:19-26</a>). See Scofield, Reference Bible, at the places named.<P>(2) Justification.<P>But Peter\'s special ministry to the circumcision is by no means in conflict with that of Paul to the Gentiles, as demonstrated at the point of transition in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,\'1-\');">Ac 10</a>. Up until this time the gospel had been offered to the Jews only, but now they have rejected it in the national sense, and "the normal order for the present Christian age" is reached (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,\'44-48\');">Ac 13:44-48</a>). Accordingly, we find Peter, side by side with Paul, affirming the great doctrine of justification by faith only, in the words, "We believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we (Jews) shall be saved, even as they (Gentiles)" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,11);">Ac 15:11</a> the King James Version). Moreover, it is clear from Peter\'s Second Epistle (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,1);">2Pe 1:1</a>) that his conception of justification from the divine as well as the human side is identical with that of Paul, since he speaks of justifying faith as terminating on the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ. As we understand it, this is not the righteousness which God is, but the righteousness which God gives (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,16,17);">Ro 1:16,17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,\'21-25\');">3:21-25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,20,21);">2Co 5:20,21</a>).<P>(3) Redemption.<P>Passing from his oral to his written utterances, Peter is particularly rich in his allusions to the redemptive work of Christ. Limiting ourselves to his First Epistle, the election of the individual believer is seen to be the result of the sprinkling of Christ\'s blood (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,1);">1Pe 1:1</a>); his obedience and godly fear are inspired by the sacrifice of the "lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,\'17-20\');">1Pe 1:17-20</a> the King James Version). But most interesting are the manner and the connection in which these sublime truths are sometimes set before the reader. For example, an exhortation to submission on the part of household slaves is the occasion for perhaps the most concise and yet comprehensive interpretation of Christ\'s vicarious sufferings anywhere in the New Testament (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,\'18-25\');">1Pe 2:18-25</a>, especially the last two verses; compare also in its context <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,\'18-22\');">1Pe 3:18-22</a>).<P>(4) Future Life.<P>Next to the redemptive work of Christ, the Petrine teaching about the future life claims attention. The believer has been begotten again unto "a lively (or living) hope" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,3);">1Pe 1:3</a>); which is "an inheritance" "reserved in heaven" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,4);">1Pe 1:4</a>); and associated with "praise, and glory and honor at the revelation (Second Coming) of Jesus Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,7,13);">1Pe 1:7,13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,13);">4:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,4,10);">5:4,10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,11,16);">2Pe 1:11,16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,13);">3:13</a>, etc.). This "hope" or "inheritance" is so real and so precious as to cause rejoicing even in times of heaviness and trial (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,6);">1Pe 1:6</a>); to stimulate to holiness of living (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,\'13-16\');">1Pe 1:13-16</a>); to patience in persecution (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,12,13);">1Pe 4:12,13</a>); fidelity in service (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,\'1-4\');">1Pe 5:1-4</a>); stedfastness against temptation (5:8-10); and growth in grace (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,10,11);">2Pe 1:10,11</a>). It is a further peculiarity that the apostle always throws the thought of the present suffering forward into the light of the future glory. It is not as though there were merely an allotment of suffering here, and an allotment of glory by and by, with no relation or connection between the two, but the one is seen to be incident to the other (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,7,11);">1Pe 1:7,11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,13);">4:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,1);">5:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,12,13);">2Pe 3:12,13</a>). It is this circumstance, added to others, that gives Peter the title of the apostle of hope, as Paul has been called the apostle of faith, and John the apostle of love.<P>(5) Holy Scripture.<P>Considering their limitations as to space, Peter\'s Epistles are notable for the emphasis they lay upon the character and authority of the Holy Scriptures. <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,\'10-12\');">1Pe 1:10-12</a> teaches a threefold relation of the Holy Spirit to the Holy Word as its Author, its Revealer, and its Teacher or Preacher. The same chapter (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,\'22-25\');">1:22-25</a>) speaks of its life-giving and purifying power as well as its eternal duration. <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,\'1);">1 Peter 2</a> opens with a declaration of its vital relation to the Christian\'s spiritual growth. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,11);">4:11</A>, it is shown to be the staple of the Christian\'s ministry. Practically the whole of the Second Epistle is taken up with the subject. Through the "exceeding great and precious promises" of that Word, Christians become "partakers of the divine nature" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,4);">2Pe 1:4</a> the King James Version); that they may be kept "always in remembrance" is Peter\'s object in writing (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,\'12-15\');">2Pe 1:12-15</a> the King James Version); the facts of that Word rest on the testimony of eyewitnesses (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,\'16-18\');">2Pe 1:16-18</a>); its origin is altogether divine (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,20,21);">2Pe 1:20,21</a>); which is as true of the New Testament as of the Old Testament (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,2);">2Pe 3:2</a>); including the Epistles of Paul (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,15,16);">2Pe 3:15,16</a>).<P>(6) Apostasy and Judgment.<P>This appreciation of the living Word of God finds an antithesis in the solemn warning against apostate teachers and teaching forming the substance of <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,\'1-\');">2 Peter 2</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,\'1-\');">3</A>. The theology here is of judgment. It is swift and "lingereth not" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,\'1-3\');">2:1-3</a>); the Judge is He who "spared not" in olden time (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,\'4-7\');">2:4-7</a>); His delay expresses mercy, but He "will come as a thief" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,9,10);">3:9,10</a>); the heavens "shall pass away," the earth and its works shall be burned up (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,10);">3:10</A>); "What manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy living and godliness?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,11);">3:11</A>).<P>(7) Second Coming of Christ.<P>Peter\'s theology concerning judgment is a further illustration of the Messianic character of his instruction. For example, the Second Coming of Christ of which he speaks in the closing chapter of the Second Epistle is not that aspect of it associated with the translation of His church, and of which Paul treats (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',4,\'13-18\');">1Th 4:13-18</a>), but that pertaining to Israel and the day of Yahweh spoken of by the Old Testament prophets (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',2,\'12-22\');">Isa 2:12-22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,\'11-21\');">Re 19:11-21</a>, etc.).<P>LITERATURE.<P>The history of Peter is treated more or less at length in the introductions to the commentaries on his Epistles, and in works on the life of Christ. But particular reference is made to the following: E. W. Farrar, Early Days of Christianity, London, 1882; J. S. Howson, Studies in the Life of Peter, London, 1883; H. A. Birks, Life and Character of Peter, London, 1887; W. M. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, London, 1893; Mason Gallagher, Was Peter Ever at Rome? Philadelphia, 1895; A. C. McGiffert, The Apostolic Age, New York, 1897; W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Apostle Peter, London, 1904; G. Matheson, Representative Men of the New Testament, London, 1905; A. J. Southhouse, The Making of Simon Peter) New York, 1906; A. C. Gaebtelein, The Gospel of Matthew, New York, 1907; The Acts of the Apostles, New York, 1912; Edmundson, Church in Rome in the 1st Century, 1913; Smith, The Days of His Flesh, New York, 1911.<P>On theology of Peter, consult the subject in works on Systematic or Biblical, Theology, and see also R. W. Dale The Atonement, 97-148. London 1875: C. A. Briggs, Messiah of the Apostles, 21-41, New York, 1895; Scofield, Reference Bible, where pertinent.<P>Among commentaries on 1 and 2 Peter may be mentioned: Brown, 3 volumes, Edinburgh, 1848-56; Demarest, 2 volumes, New York, 1851-65; Leighton, republished, Philadelphia, 1864; Lillie, New York, 1869; G. F. C. Fronmuller, in Lange\'s Comm., English translation, New York, 1874; Plumptre, Cambridge Bible, 1883; Spitta, Der zweite Brief des Petrus, Halle, 1885; F. B. Meyer, London, 1890; Lumby, Expositor\'s Bible, London, 1894; J. H. Jowett, London, 1905; Bigg, ICC, 1901.``69';
isbe[6846]='Peter, the First Epistle of`<b>I. CANONICITY OF 1 PETER</b><P class="in15">1. External Evidence<P class="in15">2. Internal Evidence<P><b>II. THE ADDRESS</b><P class="in15">Silvanus<P><b>III. PLACE AND TIME OF COMPOSITION</b><P class="in15">1. Babylon: Which?<P class="in15">2. Babylon Not Rome<P><b>IV. DESIGN</b><P class="in15">1. Persecution<P class="in15">2. Example of Christ<P class="in15">3. Relation to State<P><b>V. CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF THE EPISTLE</b><P class="in15">1. Freedom in Structure<P class="in15">2. Hope<P class="in15">3. Inheritance<P class="in15">4. Testimony of Prophets<P class="in30">(1) Salvation<P class="in30">(2) Spirit of Christ<P class="in30">(3) Prophetic Study<P class="in15">5. The Christian Brotherhood<P class="in15">6. Spirits in Prison<P><b>VI. ANALYSIS</b><P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>Simon Peter was a native of Galilee. He was brought to the Saviour early in His ministry by his brother Andrew (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,40,41);">Joh 1:40,41</a>). His call to the office of apostle is recorded in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,\'1-4\');">Mt 10:1-4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,\'13-16\');">Mr 3:13-16</a>.<P>He occupied a distinguished place among the Lord\'s disciples. In the four lists of the apostles found in the New Testament his name stands first (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,\'2-4\');">Mt 10:2-4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,\'16-19\');">Mr 3:16-19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,\'14-16\');">Lu 6:14-16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,13);">Ac 1:13</a>). He is the chief figure in the first twelve chapters of the Acts. It is Peter that preaches the first Christian sermon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,\'1-\');">Ac 2</a>), he that opens the door of the gospel to the Gentile world in the house of the Roman soldier, Cornelius, and has the exquisite delight of witnessing scenes closely akin to those of Pentecost at Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,\'44-47\');">Ac 10:44-47</a>). It was given him to pronounce the solemn sentence on the guilty pair, Ananias and Sapphira, and to rebuke in the power of the Spirit the profane Simon Magus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,\'1-11\');">Ac 5:1-11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',8,\'18-23\');">8:18-23</a>). In these and the like instances Peter exhibited the authority with which Christ had invested him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,19);">Mt 16:19</a>)<29>an authority bestowed upon all the disciples (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,22,23);">Joh 20:22,23</a>)<29>the power to bind and to loose.<P>Two Epistles are ascribed to Peter. Of the Second doubt and uncertainty have existed from the early ages to the present. The genuineness and authenticity of the First are above suspicion.<P>I. Canonicity of 1 Peter.<P>1. External Evidence:<P>The proof of its integrity and trustworthiness is ample and altogether satisfactory. It falls into parts: external and internal. The historical attestation to its authority as an apostolic document is abundant. Polycarp, disciple of the apostle John, martyed in 156 AD at 86 or more years of age, refers to the Epistle in unmistakable terms. Irenaeus, a man who may well be said to represent both the East and the West, who was a disciple of Polycarp, quotes it copiously, we are assured. Clement of Alexandria, born circa 150 AD, died circa 216 AD, cites it many times in his Stromata, one passage (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,8);">1Pe 4:8</a>) being quoted five times by actual count. "The testimony of the early-church is summed up by Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, xxiii, 3). He places it among those writings about which no question was ever raised, no doubt ever entertained by any portion of the catholic church" (Professor Lumby in Bible Comm.).<P>2. Internal Evidence:<P>The internal evidence in favor of the Epistle is as conclusive as the external. The writer is well acquainted with our Lord\'s teaching, and he makes use of it to illustrate and enforce his own. The references he makes to that teaching are many, and they include the four Gospels. He is familiar likewise with the Epistles, particularly James, Romans, and Ephesians. But what is especially noteworthy is the fact that 1 Peter in thought and language stands in close relation with the apostle\'s discourses as recorded in Acts. By comparing <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,17);">1Pe 1:17</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,34);">Ac 10:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,21);">1Pe 1:21</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,\'32-36\');">Ac 2:32-36</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,40,41);">10:40,41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,7,8);">1Pe 2:7,8</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',4,10,11);">Ac 4:10,11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,17);">1Pe 2:17</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,28);">Ac 10:28</a>, and <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,18);">1Pe 3:18</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',3,14);">Ac 3:14</a>, one will perceive how close the parallel between the two is. The inference from these facts appears legitimate, namely, 1 Peter in diction and thought belongs to the same period of time and moves in the same circle of truth as do the other writings of the New Testament. The writer was an apostle, and he was Simon Peter.<P>II. The Address.<P>Peter writes to the "elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion." James employs the term "Dispersion" to designate believing Hebrews of the Twelve Tribes who lived outside the land (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,1);">Jas 1:1</a>). The Jews included in it the whole body of Israelites scattered among the Gentile nations (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',7,35);">Joh 7:35</a>). But we must not conclude from this that the Epistle is directed to Christian Jews alone. Gentile believers are by no means excluded, as <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,14,18,20);">1Pe 1:14,18,20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,10);">2:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,6);">3:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,3,4);">4:3,4</a> abundantly attest. Indeed, the Gentile element in the churches of Asia Minor largely predominated at the time. The term "sojourners" represents a people away from home, strangers in a strange land; the word is translated "pilgrims" in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,11);">2:11</A> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,13);">Heb 11:13</a><3E>an appropriate name for those who confess that they have here no continuing city, but who seek one to come. While no doubt Peter had believing Israelites in mind when he wrote, for he never forgot that his ministry belonged primarily to the circumcision (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,7,8);">Ga 2:7,8</a>), he did not neglect the more numerous Gentile converts, and to these he speaks as earnestly as to the others; and these also were "sojourners."<P>Three of the four provinces Peter mentions, namely, Pontus, Cappadocia, and Asia, had representatives at the memorable Pentecost in Jerua (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,9);">Ac 2:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,1);">1Pe 1:1</a>). Many of these "sojourners of the Dispersion" may have believed the message of the apostle and accepted salvation through Jesus Christ, and returned home to tell the good news to their neighbors and friends. This would form a strong bond of union between them and Peter, and would open the way for him to address them in the familiar and tender manner of the Epistle.<P>Silvanus:<P>Silvanus appears to have been the bearer of the letter to the Christians of Asia Minor: "By Silvanus, our faithful brother, as I account him, I have written unto you briefly" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,12);">1Pe 5:12</a>). It is an assumption to assert from these words that Silvanus was employed in the composition of the letter. The statement denotes rather the bearer than the writer or secretary. Silvanus was Paul\'s companion in the ministry to the Asiatic churches, and since we do not read of him as going with Paul to Jerusalem or to Rome, it is probable he returned from Corinth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,5);">Ac 18:5</a>) to Asia Minor and labored there. He and Peter met, where no one knows, though not a few think in Rome; as likely a guess perhaps is in Palestine. At any rate, Silvanus gave Peter an account of the conditions in the provinces, the afflictions and persecutions of believers, and the deep need they had for sympathy and counsel. He would, accordingly, be of the greatest assistance to the apostle. This seems to account for the peculiarity of language which Peter uses: "By Silvanus, our faithful brother, I have written unto you," as if he had some share in furnishing the contents of the Epistle.<P>III. Place and Time of Composition.<P>1. Babylon: Which?:<P>According to <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,13);">1Pe 5:13</a> the Epistle was written in Babylon. But what place is meant? Two cities having this name were known in apostolic times. One was in Egypt, probably on or near the present site of Cairo, and we are told that it was a "city of no small importance." Epiphanius calls it "great Babylon" (Zahn). The absence, however, of all tradition that would tend to identify this place with the Babylon of the Epistle seems to shut it out of the problem. Babylon on the Euphrates is regarded by many as the place here designated. Jews in considerable numbers still dwelt in Babylon, notwithstanding the massacre of thousands in the reign of Claudius and the flight of multitudes into other countries. There is much to be said in favor of this city as the place meant, and yet the absence of tradition in its support is a very serious difficulty. A third view regards it as symbolical of Rome. Roman Catholics thus interpret it, and not a few Protestants so understand it. Tradition which runs back into the first half of the 2nd century appears to favor it, though much uncertainty and obscurity still surround the earliest ages of our era, in spite of the unwearied researches of modern scholars. Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, who lived in the first half of the 2nd century, appears to have had no doubt that Peter was martyred in Rome, and that the Babylon of the Epistle designates the Imperial City. There are very serious objections to this interpretation. One is, that it is totally out of keeping with Peter\'s manner of writing. Preeminently he is direct and matter-of-fact in his style. The metaphorical language he employs is mostly drawn from the Old Testament, or, if from himself, it is so common of use as to be well understood by all readers. It is altogether improbable that this man, plain of speech almost to bluntness, should interject in the midst of his personal explanations and final salutations such a mystical epithet with no hint of what he means by it, or why he employs such a mode of speech.<P>2. Babylon Not Rome:<P>Besides, there is no evidence that Rome was called Babylon by the Christians until the Book of Revelation was published, i.e. circa 90-96 AD. But if 1 Peter is dependent on the Apocalypse for this name of Babylon as Rome, Peter could not have been its author, for he died years before that date. The Epistle was written about 64 AD, at the time when persecutions under the infamous Nero were raging, at which time also the apostle himself bore his witness and went to his heavenly home, even as his Master had forewarned him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',21,18,19);">Joh 21:18,19</a>). While not unmindful of the great difficulties that beset the view, nevertheless we are reclined to the opinion that the Babylon of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,13);">1Pe 5:13</a> is the ancient city on the Euphrates.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PETER,+(SIMON)">PETER, (SIMON)</a>.<P>IV. Design.<P>The apostle had more than one object in view when he addressed the "elect" in Asia Minor. The Lord Jesus had charged him, "Feed my lambs" "Tend my sheep"<22>"Feed my sheep" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',21,\'15-17\');">Joh 21:15-17</a>). His two Epistles certify how faithfully he obeyed the charge. With loving and tender hand he feeds the lambs and tends the whole flock, warns against foes, guards from danger, and leads them into green pastures and beside still waters. He reminds them of the glorious inheritance they are to possess (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,\'3-9\');">1Pe 1:3-9</a>); he exhorts them to walk in the footsteps of the uncomplaining Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,\'20-25\');">1Pe 2:20-25</a>); to be compassionate, loving, tender-hearted, humble-minded, and circumspect in their passage through this unfriendly world (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,\'8-12\');">1Pe 3:8-12</a>). He sums up the main duties of Christian life in the short but pregnant sentences, "Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,17);">1Pe 2:17</a>). But his supreme object is to comfort and encourage them amid the persecutions and the sufferings to which they were unjustly subjected, and to fortify them against the heavier trials that were impending.<P>1. Persecution:<P>From the beginning the Christian church was the object of suspicion and of hatred, and many of its adherents had suffered even unto death at the hands of both hostile Jews and fanatical Gentiles. But these afflictions were generally local and sporadic. There were churches of large membership and wide influence which were unmolested (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',4,\'8-10\');">1Co 4:8-10</a>), and which seem to have been able to get fair treatment in heathen courts (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',6,\'1-6\');">1Co 6:1-6</a>). But the condition brought to view in 1 Peter is altogether different. Trials and afflictions of the severest sort assail them, and an enmity and hostility, bent on their destruction, pursue them with tireless energy. The whole Christian body shared in the persecutions (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,9);">5:9<A>). The trial was a surprise (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,12);">4:12</A>), both in its intensity, for Peter calls it "fiery," and for its unexpectedness. The apostle represents it as a savage beast of prey, a roaring lion, prowling about them to seize and devour (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,8,9);">5:8,9</A>).<P>A variety of charges were brought against the Christians, but they were calumnies and slanders, without any foundation in fact. They were spoken against as evil-doers (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,12);">1Pe 2:12</a> kakopoion; malefici, Tacitus calls them). Their adversaries railed against them (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,9);">1Pe 3:9</a>); reviled them (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,16);">1Pe 3:16</a>); spake evil of them (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,4);">1Pe 4:4</a>); reproached them for the name of Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,14);">1Pe 4:14</a>). These are ugly epithets. They show how bitter was the hatred and how intense the hostility felt by the heathen toward the Christians who dwelt among them. If there had been any justification for such antagonism in the character and the conduct of Christ\'s people, if they were evil-doers, "haters of the human race," to be classed with thieves and murderers and meddlers in other men\'s matters (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,\'14-16\');">1Pe 4:14-16</a>), as they were accused of being and doing, we could understand the fierce opposition which assailed them and the savage purpose to suppress them altogether, but the only ground for the enmity felt against them was the refusal of the Christians to join their heathen neighbors in their idolatries, their feasts, winebibbings, revelings, carousings, lasciviousness and lusts in which once they freely shared (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,\'2-4\');">1Pe 4:2-4</a>). The Asian saints had renounced all such wicked practices, had separated themselves from their old companions in riotous living and revolting debaucheries; they were witnesses against their immoralities, and hence, became the objects of intense dislike and persecuting animosity. Peter bears testimony to the high character, the purity of life and the self-sacrificing devotion of these believers. In all Asia Minor no better company of men and women could be found than these disciples of Jesus Christ; none more submissive to constituted authority, none more ready to help their fellow-men in their distress and trouble. The head and front of their offending was their separation from the ungodly world about them, and their solemn witness against the awful sins done daily before their eyes.<P>2. Example of Christ:<P>How mightily does the apostle minister to his suffering friends! He bids them remember the uncomplaining Christ when He was unjustly afflicted by cruel men (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,\'19-25\');">1Pe 2:19-25</a>). He tells them how they may effectively put to silence their accusers, and refute the calumnies and the slanders that are so cruelly circulated against them, namely, by living such pure and godly lives, by being so meek, docile, patient, stedfast, true and faithful to God, that none can credit the false accusations (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,\'1-5\');">1Pe 2:1-5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,\'13-17\');">2:13-17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,8,9,\'13-17\');">3:8,9,13-17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,\'6-11\');">5:6-11</a>).<P>3. Relation to State:<P>There is little or no evidence in the Epistle that the persecutions were inflicted by imperial authority or that the state was dealing with the Christians as enemies who were dangerous to the peace of society. In the provinces to which the letter was sent there seems to have been complete absence of formal trial and punishment through the courts. Peter does not speak of Iegal proceedings against the Christians by the magistrates. On the contrary, he urges them to be subject to every ordinance of man for the Lord\'s sake: whether to the king as supreme; or unto governors, as sent by him for vengeance on evil-doers and for praise to them that do well (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,13);">1Pe 2:13</a>). They are to honor all men, to honor the king (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,17);">1Pe 2:17</a>). This submission would scarcely be pressed if the state had already proscribed Christianity and decreed its total suppression. This the imperial government did later on, but there is no evidence furnished by the apostle that in 64 AD<41>the date of the Epistle<6C>the government formally denounced Christians and determined to annihilate them.<P>Peter exhorts his fellow-believers to silence their persecutors by their upright conduct (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,15);">1Pe 2:15</a>); they are thus to put them to shame who falsely accuse them (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,16);">1Pe 3:16</a>); and they are not to combat evil with evil nor answer reviling with reviling, but contrariwise with blessing (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,9);">1Pe 3:9</a>). The antagonism here indicated obviously springs from the heathen populace; there is no hint of arraignment before magistrates or subjection to legal proceedings. It is unbelievers who revile and slander and denounce the people of God in the provinces.<P>Everything in the Epistle points to the time of Nero, 64 AD, and not to the time of Domitian or Trajan, or even Titus. In Rome vast multitudes of Christians were put to death in the most brutal fashion, so Tacitus relates, but the historian asserts that there was a sinister report to the effect that Nero himself instigated the burning of the city (July 19, 64), and "he (Nero) falsely diverted the charge on to a set of people to whom the vulgar gave the name of Christians (or Chrestians), and who were detested for the abominations which they perpetrated." See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NERO">NERO</a>. Certain facts are clear from Tacitus\' statements, namely, that at the time the Christians were well known as a distinct sect; and that they were subjected to the dreadful sufferings inflicted upon them because they were Christians; and the persecutions at the time were instigated by the fear and the brutality of the tyrant. Peter likewise recognizes the fact that believers were disliked and calumniated by their heathen neighbors for the same reason<6F>they were Christians: "If ye are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are ye" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,14);">1Pe 4:14</a>); "But if a man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God in this name" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,16);">1Pe 4:16</a>). But the imperial government at the time does not appear to have taken formal action for the overthrow of Christianity as a system inimical to the empire. Of course, where direct charges of a criminal nature were made against Christians, judicial inquiry into them would be instituted. But in the Epistle what believers had to endure and suffer were the detraction, the vituperation, the opprobrium and the vile and malignant slanders with which the heathen assailed them.<P>V. Characteristic Features of the Epistle.<P>It has certain very distinct marks, some of which may be noticed.<P>1. Freedom in Structure:<P>It does not observe a close logical sequence in its structure, as those of Paul so prominently display. There is truth in Dean Alford\'s statement, although perhaps he pushes it rather far: "The link between one idea and another is found, not in any progress of unfolding thought or argument, but in the last word of the foregoing sentence which is taken up and followed out in the new one" (see <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,5,6,7,9,10);">1Pe 1:5,6,7,9,10</a>, etc.). This peculiarity, however, does not interfere with the unity of the epistle, it rather adds to it, and it gives to it a vividness which it otherwise might not possess.<P>2. Hope:<P>It is the epistle of hope. How much it makes of this prime grace! Peter seems never to grow weary of describing it and exalting its radiant beauty and desirableness. He calls it a living hope (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,3);">1Pe 1:3</a>). It is born by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and it calmly awaits the glorious inheritance that soon will be enjoyed. It is a hope that will be perfected at the advent of Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,13);">1Pe 1:13</a>), and it is set on God, hence, cannot fail (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,21);">1Pe 1:21</a>). With sickly, dying hope we are quite familiar. The device which a certain state (South Carolina) has inscribed on its Great Seal is, dum spiro spero ("while I live I hope"). Such a hope may serve for a commonwealth whose existence is limited to this world, but a man needs something more enduring, something imperishable. "It is a fearful thing when a man and his hopes die together" (Leighton). A Christian can confidently write, "when I am dying I hope," for his is a living hope that fills and thrills the future with a blessed reality.<P>3. Inheritance:<P>The Christian\'s glorious inheritance (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,\'3-5\');">1Pe 1:3-5</a>) is depicted in one of the most comprehensive and suggestive descriptions of the believer\'s heritage found in the Bible. It is declared to be "incorruptible." The word points to its substance. It is imperishable. In it there is no element of decay. It holds in its heart no germ of death. Like its author, the living God, it is unchangeable and eternal. It is "undefiled." It is not stained by sin nor polluted by crime, either in its acquisition or its possession. Human heritages generally are marred by human wrongs. There is hardly an acre of soil that is not tainted by fraud or violence. The coin that passes from hand to hand is in many instances soiled by guilt. But this of Peter is absolutely pure and holy. It "fadeth not away." It never withers. Ages do not impair its beauty or dim its luster. Its bloom will remain fresh, its fragrance undiminished, forever. Thus our inheritance "is glorious in these respects: it is in its substance, incorruptible: in its purity, undefiled: in beauty, unfading" (Alford).<P>Now why does the apostle in the very opening of his Epistle give so lofty a place to the saints\' inheritance? He does so in order to comfort and encourage his fellow-believers with the consolations of the Lord Himself, that they may bear stedfastly their manifold sufferings and triumph over their weighty afflictions. Hence, he writes: "Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, ye have been put to grief in manifold trials, that the proof of your faith...may be found unto praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,\'6-9\');">1Pe 1:6-9</a>). He lifts their thoughts and their gaze up far above the troubles and distresses around them to Him whose they are, whom they serve, who will by and by crown them with immortal bliss.<P>4. Testimony of Prophets:<P>The prophets and their study are described in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,10,11);">1Pe 1:10,11</a>: "Concerning which salvation the prophets sought and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you," etc. With Peter and his fellow-apostles the testimony of the prophets was authoritative and final. Where they had a clear word from the Old Testament Scriptures, they felt that every question was settled and controversy was at an end.<P>(1) Salvation.<P>The burden of the prophetic communications was salvation. The prophets spoke on many subjects; they had to exhort, rebuke and entreat their wayward contemporaries; to denounce sin, to announce judgment on the guilty and to recall them to repentance and reformation. But ever and anon their vision was filled with the future and its blessedness, their voices would swell with rapture as they saw and foretold the great salvation to be brought to the world and the grace that would then so copiously go out unto men; for the Messiah was to appear and to suffer, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God.<P>(2) Spirit of Christ.<P>The prophet\'s messages were the messages of the Spirit of Christ. It was He who testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that should follow. The prophets always disclaim any part in the origination of their messages. They affirm in the most positive and solemn manner that their predictions are not their own, but God\'s. Hence, they are called the Lord\'s "spokesmen," the Lord\'s "mouth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,15,16);">Ex 4:15,16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,1,2);">7:1,2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,21);">2Pe 1:21</a>).<P>(3) Prophetic Study.<P>They "sought and searched diligently." These terms are strong and emphatic. They pored over the predictions which the Spirit had revealed through themselves; they scrutinized them with eager and prolonged inquiry. Two points engaged their attention: "What time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto." The first "what" relates to the time of the Messiah\'s advent; the second "what" to the events and circumstances which would attend His appearing<6E>a fruitful theme, one that engages the inquiry of nobler students<74>"which things angels desire to look into."<P>5. The Christian Brotherhood:<P>The Christian brotherhood is described in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,9,10);">1Pe 2:9,10</a>: "But ye are an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God\'s own possession, that ye may show forth the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light." The brotherhood is the new Israel. The apostle describes it in terms which were applied to the old Israel, but which include more than the ancient Israel ever realized. The exalted conception is by one who was a strict Jew, the apostle of the circumcision, and who held somewhat closely to the Mosaic institutions to the end of his life. All the more significant on this account is his testimony. The descriptive titles which he here gathers together and places on the brow of the Christian brotherhood are of the most illustrious sort. A distinguished man, a noble, a general, a statesman, will sometimes appear in public with his breast covered with resplendent decorations which mark his rank or his achievements. But such distinctions sink into insignificance alongside of this dazzling cluster. This is the heavenly nobility, the royal family of the Lord of glory, decorated with badges brighter far than ever glittered on the breast of king or emperor. But even in this instance Peter reminds Christians of the glorious destiny awaiting them that they may be strengthened and stimulated to stedfastness and loyalty in the midst of the trials and afflictions to which they are subjected (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,11,12);">1Pe 2:11,12</a>)<P>6. Spirits in Prison:<P>A study of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,\'18-20\');">1Pe 3:18-20</a><3E>"preached unto the spirits in prison"<22>should here follow in the present cursory review of the characteristic features of the Epistle, but anything like an adequate examination of this difficult passage would require more space than could be given it. Suffice it to quote a sentence from Professor Zahn (New Testament, II, 289) with which the writer agrees: "That interpretation of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,19);">1Pe 3:19</a> is in all probability correct, according to which a preaching of Christ at the time of the Flood is referred to, i.e. a preaching through Noah, so that Noah is here represented as a preacher of righteousness, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,5);">2Pe 2:5</a>."<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PRISON,+SPIRITS+IN">PRISON, SPIRITS IN</a>.<P>VI. Analysis.<P>A very general analysis of the Epistle is the following:<P>(1) Christian privileges, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,\'1-\');">1Pe 1</A>-<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,\'1-10\');">2:10</a>.<P>(2) Christian duties, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,\'11-\');">1Pe 2:11-4:11</a>.<P>(3) Persecutions and trials, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,\'12-\');">1Pe 4:12</A>-<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,\'5-11\');">5:11</a>.<P>(4) Personal matters and salutations, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,\'12-14\');">1Pe 5:12-14</a>.<P>The chief doctrines of Christianity are found in 1 Peter. The vicarious suffering and death of the Lord Jesus Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,24);">2:24</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,18);">3:18</a>); the new birth (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,3,13);">1:3,13</A>); redemption by the blood of Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,18,19);">1:18,19</A>), faith, hope, patient endurance under unjust suffering, and holiness of life, are all pressed upon Christians with great earnestness and force.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Bible Dicts., DB, HDB, Davis, DB, EB, Sch-Herz, volume VIII; Intros: Westcott, Salmon, Zahn; Vincent, Word Studies; Commentaries: Bible Commentary, Cambridge Bible for Schools; Lillie, Jameson, Fausett and Brown, Alford, Bigg, Mayor (on 2 Peter), Johnstone (homiletical), New York, 1888; Hort, <span class="noTag">1Pe 1:1-2:17</span>, New York, 1898.``123';
isbe[6847]='Peter, the Second Epistle of`<b>I. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF ITS APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY</b><P class="in15">1. Ancient Opinion<P class="in15">2. Modern Opinion<P class="in15">3. Dr. Chase\'s View<P>II. INTERNAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY<P class="in15">1. Style and Diction<P class="in15">2. Reason of Dissimilarities<P class="in15">3. Claim to Petrine Authorship<P class="in15">4. Christian Earnestness<P class="in15">5. Relation to Apostles<P class="in15">6. Autobiographical Allusions<P class="in15">7. Quoted by Jude<P><b>III. DOCTRINAL TEACHINGS OF THE EPISTLE</b><P class="in15">1. Saving Knowledge<P class="in30">(1) Basis<P class="in30">(2) Growth<P class="in30">(3) Inerrancy of Sources<P class="in15">2. The Three Worlds<P class="in30">(1) The Old World<P class="in30">(2) The Present World<P class="in30">(3) The New World<hr /><P>The Second Epistle of Peter comes to us with less historical support of its genuineness than any other book of the New Testament. In consequence, its right to a place in the Canon is seriously doubted by some and denied by others. There are those who confidently assign it to the Apostolic age and to the apostle whose name it bears in the New Testament, while there are those who as confidently assign it to post-apostolic times, and repudiate its Petrine authorship. It is not the aim of this article to trace the history of the two opinions indicated above, nor to cite largely the arguments employed in the defense of the Epistle, or those in opposition to it; nor to attempt to settle a question which for more than a thousand years the wisest and best men of the Christian church have been unable to settle. Such a procedure would in this case be the height of presumption. What is here attempted is to point out as briefly as may be some of the reasons for doubting its canonicity, on the one hand, and those in its support, on the other.<P>I. External Evidence in Favor of Its Apostolic Authority.<P>1. Ancient Opinion:<P>It must be admitted at the very outset that the evidence is meager. The first writer who mentions it by name is Origen (circa 240 AD). In his homily on Joshua, he speaks of the two Epistles of Peter. In another place he quotes <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,4);">2Pe 1:4</a>: "partakers of the divine nature," and gives it the name of Scripture. But Origen is careful to say that its authority was questioned: "Peter has left one acknowledged Epistle, and perhaps a second, for this is contested." Eusebins, bishop of Caesarea, regarded it with even more suspicion than did Origen, and accordingly he placed it among the disputed books (Antilegomena). Jerome knew the scruples which many entertained touching the Epistle, but notwithstanding, he included it in his Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) Version. The main reason for Jerome\'s uncertainty about it he states to be "difference of style from 1 Peter." He accounts for the difference by supposing that the apostle "made use of two different interpreters." As great teachers and scholars as Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, e.g. Athanasius, Augustine, Epiphanius, Rufinus and Cyril, received it as genuine. At the Reformation Erasmus rejected 2 Peter; Luther seems to have had no doubt of its genuineness; while Calvin felt some hesitancy because of the "discrepancies between it and the First." In the 4th century, two church councils (Laodicea, circa 372, and Carthage, 397) formally recognized it and placed it in the Canon as equal in authority with the other books of the New Testament.<P>2. Modern Opinion:<P>The opinion of modern scholars as to references in post-apostolic literature to 2 Peter is not only divided, but in many instances antagonistic. Salmon, Warfield, Zahn and others strongly hold that such references are to be found in the writings of the 2nd century, perhaps in one or two documents of the 1st. They insist with abundant proof in support of their contention that Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Didache, and Clement of Rome, were all acquainted with the Epistle and made allusions to it in their writings. Weighing as honestly and as thoroughly as one can the citations made from that literature, one is strongly disposed to accept the evidence as legitimate and conclusive.<P>3. Dr. Chase\'s View:<P>On the other side, Professor Chase (HDB) has subjected all such references and allusions in the primitive writings to a very keen and searching criticism, and it must be frankly confessed that he has reduced the strength of the evidence and argument very greatly. But Professor Chase himself, from the remains of the ancient literature, and from the internal evidence of the Epistle itself, arrives at the conclusion that 2 Peter is not at all an apostolic document, that it certainly was not written by Peter, nor in the 1st century of our era, but about the middle of the 2nd century, say 150 AD. If this view is accepted, we must pronounce the Epistle a forgery, pseudonymous and pseudepigraphic, with no more right to be in the New Testament than has the Apocalypse of Peter or the romance of the Shepherd of Hermas.<P>II. Internal Evidence in Support of Its Apostolic Authority.<P>1. Style and Diction:<P>At first sight, this seems to be not altogether reassuring, but looking deeper into the letter itself we arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. Difference of style between the two Epistles attributed to Peter is given as one prominent reason for questioning the validity of the Second. It is mainly if not entirely on this ground that Jerome, Calvin and others hesitated to receive it. It is noteworthy that in the earlier times objections were not urged because of its relation to Jude<64>its borrowing from Jude, as is often charged in our days. Its alleged dissimilarity to 1 Peter in diction, structure, and measurably in its contents, explains why it was discredited. Admitting that there is substantial ground for this criticism, nevertheless there are not a few instances in which words rarely found in the other Biblical books are common to the two Epistles. Some examples are given in proof: "precious" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,7,19);">1Pe 1:7,19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,1);">2Pe 1:1</a>) (a compound), occurring often in Rev, not often in other books; "virtue" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,9);">1Pe 2:9</a>, the King James Version margin; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,3);">2Pe 1:3</a>), found elsewhere only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,8);">Php 4:8</a>; "supply" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,11);">1Pe 4:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,5);">2Pe 1:5</a>), rare in other books; "love of brethren" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,22);">1Pe 1:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,7);">2Pe 1:7</a> margin), only in three places besides; "behold" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,12);">1Pe 2:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,2);">3:2</a> (verbal form); <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,16);">2Pe 1:16</a>) (eyewitnesses), not found elsewhere in the New Testament; "without blemish," "without spot" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,19);">1Pe 1:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,14);">2Pe 3:14</a>) (order of words reversed); also positive side (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,13);">2Pe 2:13</a>), "spots and blemishes"; the words do not occur elsewhere; "ungodly" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,18);">1Pe 4:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,5);">2Pe 2:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,7);">3:7</a>) occurs in but three other places, except Jude, which has it three times.<P>2. Reason of Dissimilarities:<P>Besides, there are many striking similarities in thought and diction in the two Epistles. Two instances are given. In the First the saved are described as the "elect" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,1);">1Pe 1:1</a>), and as "called" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,21);">1Pe 2:21</a>). In the Second, the two great truths are brought together (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,10);">2Pe 1:10</a>). Likewise, in both stress is laid upon prophecy (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,\'10-12\');">1Pe 1:10-12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,\'19-21\');">2Pe 1:19-21</a>). Now, all this tends to prove that the writer of the Second Epistle was well acquainted with the peculiarity of diction employed in the First, and that he made use purposely of its uncommon terms, or, if the Second was written by another than the apostle, he succeeded surprisingly well in imitating his style. The latter alternative does not merit discussion. The differences arise mainly out of the subjects treated in the two, and the design which the writer seems to have kept constantly in view. In the First, he sought to comfort, strengthen and sustain his persecuted brethren; this is his supreme aim. In the Second he is anxious to warn and to shield those whom he addresses as to impending dangers more disastrous and more to be feared than the sufferings inflicted by a hostile world. In the First, judgment had begun at the house of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,17,18);">1Pe 4:17,18</a>), and believers were to arm, not to resist their persecutors, but for martyrdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,1);">1Pe 4:1</a>). But in the Second, a very different condition of things is brought to view. Ungodly men holding degrading principles and practicing shocking immoralities were threatening to invade the Christian brotherhood. Evil of a most vicious sort was detected by the watchful eye of the writer, and he knew full well that if suffered to continue and grow, as assuredly it would, utter ruin for the cause he loved would ensue. Therefore he forewarns and denounces the tendency with the spirit and energy of a prophet of God.<P>3. Claim to Petrine Authorship:<P>2 Peter opens with the positive statement of Peter\'s authorship: "Simon ["Symeon," Nestle, Weymouth] Peter, a servant...of Jesus Christ." The insertion of "Symeon," the old Hebrew name, in the forefront of the document is significant. If a forger had been writing in Peter\'s name he would have begun his letter almost certainly by copying the First Epistle and simply written, "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ." Note also that "servant" is introduced into the Second Epistle, but absent from the First. He designates himself as a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ. "Although several pseudonymous writings appear in early Christian literature, there is no Christian document of value written by a forger who uses the name of an apostle" (Dods, SBD). If this important statement is accepted at its full worth, it goes far to settle the question of authorship. Both "servant" and "apostle" appear in the opening sentence, and the writer claims both for himself.<P>4. Christian Earnestness:<P>Furthermore, the writer is distinctively a Christian; he addresses those who "have obtained a like precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,1);">2Pe 1:1</a>). His is the same precious faith which all the saints enjoy; his also the exceeding great and precious promises of God, and he expects with all other believers to be made a partaker of the divine nature (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,3,4);">2Pe 1:3,4</a>). Is it at all probable that one with such a faith and such expectations would deliberately forge the name of Simon Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ? The writer is unsparing in his denunciations of false teachers, corrupters of others, and perverters of the truth. He instances the fall of the angels, the destruction of Sodom, the rebuke of Balaam, as examples of the doom of those who know the truth and yet live in shameful sin and crime. Would a Christian and servant of Jesus Christ be at all likely to commit in the most flagrant manner the things he so vehemently condemns? If the writer was not the apostle Peter, he was a false teacher, a corrupter of others, and a hypocrite, which seems incredible to us.<P>5. Relation of Apostles:<P>Moreover, he associates himself with the other apostles (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,2);">2Pe 3:2</a>), is in full sympathy with Paul and is acquainted with Paul\'s Epistles (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,15,16);">2Pe 3:15,16</a>), and he holds and teaches the same fundamental truth. An apostolic spirit breathes through this document such as is generally absent from spurious writings and such as a forger does not exhibit. He is anxiously concerned for the purity of the faith and for the holiness and fidelity of believers. He exhorts them to give "diligence that ye may be found in peace, without spot and blameless in his sight," and that they "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,14,18);">2Pe 3:14,18</a>). All this and much more of like devout teaching is apostolic in tone and betokens genuineness and reality.<P>6. Autobiographical Allusions:<P>Still further, the writer appeals to certain facts in the life of Peter that are almost autobiographical. For example, he speaks of "putting off of my tabernacle...even as our Lord Jesus Christ signified unto me" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,13,14);">2Pe 1:13,14</a>). The reference undoubtedly is to <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,36);">Joh 13:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',21,18,19);">21:18,19</a>. He claims to have been a witness of the Transfiguration (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,\'16-18\');">2Pe 1:16-18</a>). He indirectly claims the inspiration without which true prophecy is impossible (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,\'19-21\');">2Pe 1:19-21</a>). He asserts that this is his "second epistle" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,1);">2Pe 3:1</a>). This testimony on the part of the writer is personal, emphatic and direct. It reads much like Peter\'s plain way of speaking of himself at the Council of Jerusalem, "Ye know that a good while ago God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,7);">Ac 15:7</a>).<P>7. Quoted by Jude:<P>Once more, Jude appears to quote from 2 Peter (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUDE">JUDE</a>). The question of the priority of the two Epistles is by no means settled. Many recent writers give the precedence to Jude, others to Peter. One of the highest authority, by Zahn (New Testament, II, 238ff), argues with great force in support of the view that Peter\'s is the older and that Jude cites from it. The arguments in favor of this latter belief are here only summarized:<P>(1) Jude cites from writings other than Scripture, as the apocryphal Book of Enoch and perhaps also from the Assumption of Moses. Peter scarcely quotes from any source. The former would be more likely to cite <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,\'1-\');">2Pe 2</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,\'1-3\');">3:3</A></a> than the latter from <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,\'4-16\');">Jude 1:4-16</a>. The resemblance between these two sections of the Epistles is so close that one must have drawn both thoughts and language from the other, or both availed themselves of the same documentary source. Of this latter supposition antiquity furnishes no hint. The differences are as marked as the resemblances, and hence, the one who cites from the other is no servile copyist. The real difference between the two is that between prediction and fulfillment.<P>(2) Peter predicts the advent of the "false teachers" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,1);">2Pe 2:1</a>). His principal verbs are in the future tense (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,1,2,3,12,13);">2Pe 2:1,2,3,12,13</a>). He employs the present tense indeed in describing the character and the conduct of the libertines (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,17,18);">2Pe 2:17,18</a>), but their presence and their disastrous teaching he puts in the future (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,13,14);">2Pe 2:13,14</a>). The deadly germs were there when he wrote, the rank growth would speedily follow. Jude, on the contrary, throughout his short letter, speaks of the same corrupters as already come; his objects are present, they are in the midst of the people of God and actively doing their deadly work.<P>(3) Jude twice refers to certain sources of information touching these enemies, with which his readers were acquainted and which were designed to warn them of the danger and keep them from betrayal. The two sources were<P>(a) a writing that spoke of "ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ," <a onClick="return mV(\'Jde\',1,4);">1:4</A>;<P>(b) the prediction of Peter that "in the last days mockers shall come with mockery, walking after their own lusts" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,3);">2Pe 3:3</a>). Jude urges his readers to remember the words which the apostles of Christ had before spoken, and then he cites this prediction of Peter in almost the exact terms: "In the last time there shall be mockers, walking after their ungodly lusts." He applies the prediction to the libertines then and there practicing their unholy deeds: "These are they, who make separations, sensual, having not the Spirit." The conclusion is inevitable. Jude quotes from Peter.<P>(4) Chronology gives the priority to Peter. The apostle died between 63-67 AD, probably in 64 AD. The vast majority of recent interpreters date the Epistle of Jude at 75-80 AD. There is no doubt but that it was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, 70 AD. Accordingly, it is later than Peter\'s death by from 5 to 10 years. Jude quoted from 2 Peter. This being so, it follows that his Epistle endorses that of Peter as being apostolic and likewise canonical, for he recognizes Peter as an apostle and gifted with the prophetic spirit.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUDE">JUDE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PETER+(SIMON)">PETER (SIMON)</A>.<P>III. Doctrinal Teachings of the Epistle.<P>Only some of the more important features of the Epistle are here noticed. If all were treated as they deserve to be, this article would expand into the proportions of a commentary.<P>1. Saving Knowledge:<P>The key-word of 1 Peter is Hope; of 2 Peter Knowledge. The apostle gives to this gift of grace a prominent place (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,2,3,5,6,8);">1:2,3,5,6,8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,20,21);">2:20,21</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,18);">3:18</A>). The term he uses is largely in the intensified form, namely, "full knowledge"; that is, knowledge that rests on fact, knowledge that comes to the believer as something supernatural, as being communicated by the Spirit of God, and therefore is true and complete. The grace and peace Peter asks for the saints should issue in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, who has granted unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness through the knowledge of Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,2,3);">1:2,3</A>).<P>(1) Basis:<P>The basis of saving knowledge rests on the "exceeding great and precious promises" which He has made us, and which become ours by faith in Him. It leads us into acquaintance with the righteousness of God, into the realization of our calling as saints, and of the glorious destiny that awaits them who know and trust God (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,\'2-4\');">2Pe 1:2-4</a> the King James Version).<P>(2) Growth:<P>The growth in true knowledge (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,\'5-11\');">2Pe 1:5-11</a>): "In your faith supply virtue," etc. He does not ask that faith be supplied, that these believers already had. But starting with faith as the foundation of all, let the other excellencies and virtues be richly and abundantly furnished. The original word for "supply" is derived from the Greek "chorus," in behalf of the members of which the manager supplied all the equipments needed. And Peter appropriating that fact urges Christians to give all diligence to furnish themselves with the gifts and grace he mentions, which are far more needful to the Christian than were the equipments for the ancient chorus.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SUPPLY">SUPPLY</a>.<P>What a magnificent cluster Peter here gives! Each springs out of the other; each is strengthened by the other. "In your faith supply virtue," or fortitude, manliness; and let virtue supply "knowledge." Knowledge by itself tends to puff up. But tempered by the others, by self-control, by patience, by godliness, by love, it becomes one of the most essential and powerful forces in the Christian character. Paul begins his list of the "fruits of the Spirit" with love (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,22);">Ga 5:22</a>); Peter ends his with love. It is like a chain, each link holds fast to its fellow and is a part of the whole. It matters little at which end of the chain we begin to count, for the links form a unity, and to touch one is to touch all. God freely gives what we need and all we need; we are to "add all diligence" to supply the need richly.<P>(3) Inerrancy of Sources:<P>Inerrancy of the sources of saving knowledge (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,\'16-21\');">2Pe 1:16-21</a>). The apostle rests his teaching on two trustworthy facts:<P>(a) the fact and meaning of the Saviour\'s Transfiguration;<P>(b) the fact of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.<P>Taken together these two facts invest his teaching with infallible certainty. "For we did not follow cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." Pagan mythology, so widely prevailing at the time in Asia Minor, indeed over the whole heathen world, was composed of "myths" (Peter\'s word) skillfully framed and poetically embellished. Jewish cabalism, and the wild vagaries springing up in the Christian brotherhood itself had no place in the gospel message nor in apostolic teaching. What Peter and his fellow-disciples taught was the very truth of God, for at the Transfiguration they saw the outshining glory of the Son of God, they heard the Divine Voice, they beheld the two visitants from the unseen world, Moses and Elijah. Of the majestic scene they were eyewitnesses. Peter adds, "And we have the word of prophecy made more sure." The Transfiguration has confirmed what the prophets say touching the future and God\'s purpose to fill the earth with His glory; every word He has spoken is to be made good.<P>Moreover, the apostle appeals to the inspiration of the prophets in confirmation of his teaching: "No prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit." He recognizes this as primary truth, that prophecy is not of one\'s own origination, nor is it to be tied up to the times of the prophet. The prophecy was brought to him, as it is brought to us. Peter and his fellow-believers did not follow "cunningly devised fables"; they were borne along in their prophetic utterances by the Spirit.<P>2. The Three Worlds:<P>Of course in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,\'5-13\');">2Pe 3:5-13</a>, where the three worlds are spoken of, three globes are not meant, but three vast epochs, three enormous periods in earth\'s history. The apostle divides its history into three clearly defined sections, and mentions some of the characteristic features of each.<P>(1) The Old World.<P>"The world that then was" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,6);">2Pe 3:6</a>): this is his first world. It is the antediluvian world that is meant, the world which the Flood overwhelmed. Scoffers in Peter\'s time asked, no doubt with a sneer, "Where is the promise of his coming? for, from the day that the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,4);">2Pe 3:4</a>). This is a surprisingly modern inquiry. Mockers then as now appealed to the continuity of natural processes, and to the inviolability of Nature\'s laws. Nature keeps her track with unwavering precision. There is no sign of any change; no catastrophe is likely, is possible. The promise of His coming fails. Peter reminds the skeptics that a mighty cataclysm did once overwhelm the world. The Flood drowned every living thing, save those sheltered within the ark. As this is a historical fact, the query of the mockers is foolish.<P>(2) The Present World.<P>Peter\'s second world is "the heavens that now are, and the earth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,7);">2Pe 3:7</a>). It is the present order of things in sky and earth that is meant. He asserts that this world is "stored up for fire, being reserved against the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." The margin reads, "stored with fire," i.e., it contains within itself the agency by which it may be consumed. The world that now is, is held in strict custody, reserved, not for a second deluge, but for fire. The advent of Christ and the judgment are associated in Scripture with fire: "Our God shall come, and shall not keep silence: a fire shall devour before him, and it shall be very tempestuous round about him" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',50,3);">Ps 50:3</a> the King James Version; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',66,15,16);">Isa 66:15,16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',7,10,11);">Da 7:10,11</a>). Nor is the New Testament silent on this point: "the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with the angels of his power in flaming fire" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',1,7);">2Th 1:7</a>).<P>Ample materials are stored up in the earth for its consumption by fire. The oils and the gases so inflammable and destructive in their energy can, when it may please God to release these forces, speedily reduce the present order of things to ashes. Peter\'s language does not signify earth\'s annihilation, nor its dissolution as an organic body, nor the end of time. He speaks of cosmical convulsions and physical revolutions of both sky and earth, such as shall transform the planet into something glorious and beautiful.<P>(3) The New World.<P>The third world is this: "But, according to his promise, we look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,13);">2Pe 3:13</a>). This is Paradise restored. We have sure ground for the expectancy; the last two chapters of Revelation contain the prophetic fulfillment: "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth are passed away; and the sea is no more." The accomplishment of these sublime predictions will involve a fundamental change in the constitution of the globe. Life would be impossible if the sea was no more. But He who made the world can surely recreate it, clearing it of every vestige of sin and misery and imperfection, fitting it for the dwelling of perfect beings and of His supreme glory. Immanuel will dwell with the holy inhabitants of the new earth and in the new Jerusalem which is to descend into the glorified planet. John is bidden, "Write, for the predictions are faithful and true; they shall not fail to come to pass."<P>"Earth, thou grain of sand on the shore of the Universe of God,<P>On thee has the Lord a great work to complete."<P>LITERATURE.<P>See at end of <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PETER,+THE+FIRST+EPISTLE+OF">PETER, THE FIRST EPISTLE OF</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PETER+(SIMON)">PETER (SIMON)</a>.``123';
isbe[6848]='Pethahiah`peth-a-hi\'-a (Pethachyah, "Yah opens up"):<P>(1) Chief of the 19th course of priests (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',24,16);">1Ch 24:16</a>).<P>(2) One of the Levites having "foreign wives" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,23);">Ezr 10:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',9,5);">Ne 9:5</a>; "Patheus" in 1Esdras 9:23).<P>(3) Son of Meshezabeel, descendant of Judah, who was "at the king\'s hand in all matters concerning the people" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,24);">Ne 11:24</a>).``1';
isbe[6849]='Pethor`pe\'-thor (pethor; Phathoura, Bathoura): The dwelling-place of Balaam, situated on "the river" (the Euphrates) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',22,5,13);">Nu 22:5</a>). <P>1. Possibly the Asyrian Pitru:<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',23,4);">De 23:4</a>, it is further described as being in Mesopotamia (Aram-naharaim). Pethor is identified with the Pedru(i) of the geographical lists of Thothmes III (circa 1500 BC) and the Pitru (Pithru) of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser II, who states that in his 3rd year (857 BC) he took the city Ana-Assur-utir-acbat (meaning: "I founded (it) anew for Assur"), which the Hattaa (Hittites) called Pitru. He says that it lay on the farther (western) bank of the Euphrates, by the Sagurru or Sagura River, the modern Sajur. The importance of Pitru is indicated by the fact that he received there the tribute of the kings of Carchemish, Comagene, Melitene and other districts.<P>2. Difficulties of Identification:<P>As Pitru is about 400 miles from Moab, this meant for Balaam a three or four weeks\' journey, but the messengers sent to fetch him, though they had to travel that distance twice, could naturally, by pressing their mounts, have performed it much less time. Doubt may likewise be entertained as to the identity of Pethor with Pitru by the absence in the latter of the o, which would lead one to expect rather the Assyrian form Pit(h)uru. Shalmaneser, however, says that Pitru was the Hittite name, and that may account for it. With regard to the derivation, nothing can at present be said, except that, as a Hittite name, Tomkins (Records of the Past, V (London, 1891), 38) has compared the name Pitru with the Pteria of Herodotus i.76 (identified with Bog-haz-keui, the great Hittite capital in Cappadocia, in ancient times called Hattu).``136';
isbe[6850]='Pethuel`pe-thu\'-el (pethu\'el, "God\'s opening"): Father of Joel the prophet (<a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',1,1);">Joe 1:1</a>).``1';
isbe[6851]='Petition`pe-tish\'-un: Used in English Versions of the Bible only as a noun, usually as representing the Hebrew she\'elah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',20,5);">Ps 20:5</a>, mish\'alah), from the common verb sha\'al, "to ask." The noun, consequently, has no technical meaning, and may be used indifferently in the active (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',7,2);">Es 7:2</a>) or passive (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',1,27);">1Sa 1:27</a>) sense, or for a petition addressed to either God (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',1,17);">1Sa 1:17</a>) or man (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',2,16);">1Ki 2:16</a>), while in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,24);">Jud 8:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',6,8);">Job 6:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',106,15);">Ps 106:15</a>, it is rendered simply "request." Otherwise "petition" represents the Aramaic ba\'u (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',6,7,13);">Da 6:7,13</a>), the Greek aitema (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,15);">1Joh 5:15</a>), and deesis (1Macc 7:37, the Revised Version (British and American) "supplication"), and the Latin oratio (2Esdras 8:24).ru with the Pteria of Herodotus i.76 (identified with Bog-haz-keui, the great Hittite capital in Cappadocia, in ancient times called Hattu).``48';
isbe[6852]='Petra`pe\'-tra.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SELA">SELA</a>`1';
isbe[6853]='Peulthai; Peullethai`pe-ul\'-thi, pe-ul\'-e-thi (pe\'ullethay, "Yah\'s seed"): One of the "porters," 8th son of Obed-edom (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',26,5);">1Ch 26:5</a>).``1';
isbe[6854]='Phaath Moab`fa\'-ath, mo\'-ab (Codex Alexandrinus Phaath Moab; Codex Vaticanus followed by Swete, Phthaleimoab (1Esdras 5:11); 1Esdras 8:31 (the King James Version "Pahath Moab"), Codex Vaticanus followed by Swete reads Maathmoab; Fritzsche in both places reads Phaath Moab): One of the families, part of which, consisting "of the sons of Jesus and Joab 2,812," went up out of captivity with Zerubbabel and Joshua (1Esdras 5:11), and part of which, namely, "Eliaonias the son of Zaraias and with him 200 men," went up with Ezra (1Esdras 8:31 equals "Pahath-moab" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,6);">Ezr 2:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,4);">8:4</a>; (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,30);">10:30</A>); and <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,11);">Ne 7:11</a> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',3,11);">3:11</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,14);">10:14</a>)). As the name of a Jewish clan or family the name Phaath or Pahath Moab presents difficulties of which explanations are offered, though none is convincing. It is generally taken as "ruler of Moab," which may refer to the Israelite conquest of Moab in which this family may have distinguished itself, or it may have arisen from the settlement and incorporation of a Moabite family in Hebrew territory, or from the settlement of an Israelite family in Moabite territory (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,22);">1Ch 4:22</a>); or it may be the corruption of some unknown word or name. Instances of such corruption are quite common in these apocryphal Hebrew proper names.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PAHATH+MOAB">PAHATH-MOAB</a>`5';
isbe[6855]='Phacareth`fak\'-a-reth (Phakareth, but Codex Vaticanus, followed by Swete, correctly reads Sabeie, together, Codex Alexandrinus followed by the King James Version reading "sons of Sabie," as a distinct family, 1Esdras 5:34): The same as "Pochereth-hazzebaim" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,57);">Ezr 2:57</a>.``1';
isbe[6856]='Phaisur`fa\'-sur, fa-i\'-sur (Codex Vaticanus Phaisour; Codex Alexandrinus Phaisou): Head of one of the families of priests some of whom had taken "strange wives" (1Esdras 9:22) equals "Pashhur" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,22);">Ezr 10:22</a>; styled "Phassurus" in 1Esdras 5:25.``1';
isbe[6857]='Phaldeus`fal-de\'-us (Codex Alexandrinus (Fritzsche) Phaldaios; Codex Vaticanus (Swete) Phaladaios; the King James Version Phaldaius): One of those who stood on Ezra\'s left hand when he expounded the Law (1Esdras 9:44) equals "Pedaiah" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,4);">Ne 8:4</a>.``1';
isbe[6858]='Phaleas`fa-le\'-as (Phalaias): A family of "temple-servants" who went up with Zerubbabel from Babylon (1Esdras 5:29) = "Padon" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,44);">Ezr 2:44</a>; the King James Version Phaldaius): One of those who stood on Ezra\'s left hand when he expounded the Law (1Esdras 9:44) = "Pedaiah" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,4);">Ne 8:4</a>.``1';
isbe[6859]='Phalec`fa\'-lek (Phalek, Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, Phalek): the King James Version; Greek form of "Peleg" (thus the Revised Version (British and American)) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,35);">Lu 3:35</a>).``1';
isbe[6860]='Phalias`fa-li\'-as (Phalias Codex Alexandrinus Phiathas; the King James Version, Biatas, following Aldine Biatas): One of the Levites who read and explained the Law to the multitude (1Esdras 9:48) = "Pelaiah" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,7);">Ne 8:7</a>. Ezra\'s left hand when he expounded the Law (1Esdras 9:44) = "Pedaiah" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,4);">Ne 8:4</a>.``1';
isbe[6861]='Phallu`fal\'-oo (pallu\').`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PALLU">PALLU</a>`1';
isbe[6862]='Phalti`fal\'-ti (palti).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PALTI">PALTI</a>`1';
isbe[6863]='Phaltiel`fal\'-ti-el (palti\'el; Syriac "Psaltiel"; Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) and the King James Version Salathiel): "The captain of the people" who came to Esdras between his first and second vision (2Esdras 5:16). Fritzsche (Libri Apocrypha vet. test.) reads "Phalthiel."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PALTIEL">PALTIEL</a>`1';
isbe[6864]='Phanuel`fan-u\'-el, fan\'-u-el (penu\'el, "vision of God"; Phanouel): Parent of Anna (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,36);">Lu 2:36</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PENIEL">PENIEL</a>`1';
isbe[6865]='Pharakim`far\'-a-kim (Pharakeim Codex Vaticanus Pharakem; the King James Version Pharacim): One of the families of temple-servants who returned with Zerubbabel (1Esdras 5:31; not found in Ezra or Nehemiah).``1';
isbe[6866]='Pharaoh`fa\'-ro, fa\'-ra-o (par\'oh; Pharao); Egyptian per aa, "great house"):em; the King James Version Pharacim): One of the families of temple-servants who returned with Zerubbabel (1Esdras 5:31; not found in Ezra or Nehemiah).<P>1. The Use of Name in Egypt:<P>Many and strange differences of opinion have been expressed concerning the use of this name in Egypt and elsewhere, because of its importance in critical discussions (see below). Encyclopaedia Biblica says "a name given to all Egyptian kings in the Bible"; it also claims that the name could not have been received by the Hebrews before 1000 BC. HDB (III, 819) says that a letter was addressed to Amenhotep as "Pharaoh, lord of," etc. According to Winckler\'s theory of a North Arabian Musri, it was the Hebrews alone in ancient times who adopted the term Pharaoh from the Egyptians, the name not being found even in the Tell el-Amarna Letters or anywhere else in cuneiform literature for the king of Egypt. Such a result is obtained according to Winckler\'s theory by referring every reference in cuneiform to "Pir\'u, king of Musri" to the North Arabian country.<P>In Egyptian inscriptions the term "Pharaoh" occurs from the Pyramid inscriptions onward. At first it is used with distinct reference to its etymology and not clearly as an independent title. Pharaoh, "great house," like Sublime Porte, was applied first as a metaphor to mean the government. But as in such an absolute monarchy as Egypt the king was the government, Pharaoh was, by a figure of speech, put for the king. Its use in Egypt clearly as a title denoting the ruler, whoever he might be, as Caesar among the Romans, Shah among Persians, and Czar among Russians, belongs to a few dynasties probably beginning with the XVIIIth, and certainly ending not later than the XXIst, when we read of Pharaoh Sheshonk, but the Bible does not speak so, but calls him "Shishak king of Egypt" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',14,25);">1Ki 14:25</a>). This new custom in the use of the title Pharaoh does not appear in the Bible until we have "Pharaoh-necoh." Pharaoh is certainly used in the time of Rameses II, in the "Tale of Two Brothers" (Records of the Past, 1st series, II, 137; Recueil de Travaux, XXI,13,l. 1).<P>2. Significance of Use in the Bible:<P>It appears from the preceding that Biblical writers use this word with historical accuracy for the various periods to which it refers, not only for the time of Necoh and Hophra, but for the time of Rameses II, and use the style of the time of Rameses II for the time of Abraham and Joseph, concerning which we have not certain knowledge of its use in Egypt. It is strongly urged that writers of the 7th or 5th century BC would not have been able to make such historical use of this name, while, to a writer at the time of the exodus, it would have been perfectly natural to use Pharaoh for the king without any further name; and historical writers in the time of the prophets in Palestine would likewise have used Pharaoh-necoh and Pharaoh Hophra. This evidence is not absolutely conclusive for an early authorship of the Pentateuch and historical books, but is very difficult to set aside for a late authorship (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,\'14-20\');">Ge 12:14-20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,14);">41:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,11);">Ex 1:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,11);">3:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',3,1);">1Ki 3:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',14,25);">14:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,29);">2Ki 23:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',44,30);">Jer 44:30</a>; also <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,19);">1Ki 11:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',18,21);">2Ki 18:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,18);">1Ch 4:18</a>).``93';
isbe[6867]='Pharaoh Hophra`hof\'-ra (par\'oh chophra\'; Houaphre):<P>1. Sole King, 589-570 BC:<P>He is so called in Scripture (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',44,30);">Jer 44:30</a>); Herodotus calls him Apries (ii.169). He is known on the monuments as Uah \'ab \'ra]. He was the son of Psammetichus II, whose Greek mercenaries have left in scriptions upon the rocks of Abu-Sim-bel, and the grandson of Pharaoh-necoh. He reigned alone from 589 BC to 570 BC, and jointly, by compulsion of his people, with his son-in-law Aahmes (Greek Amasis) for some years longer.<P>2. Alliance with Zedekiah:<P>No sooner had he mounted the throne than he yielded to the overtures of Zedekiah of Judah, who thought Hophra\'s accession a good opportunity for throwing off the yoke of Babylon. So, as Ezekiel says (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',17,15);">17:15</a>), "he rebelled against him (Nebuchadrezzar) in sending his ambassadors into Egypt, that they might give him horses and much people." Zedekiah had entered into the intrigue against the advice of Jeremiah, and it proved fatal to Zedekiah and the kingdom. Nebuchadrezzar was not slow to punish the disloyalty of his vassal, and in a brief space his armies were beleaguering Jerusalem. The Egyptians did indeed march to the relief of their allies, and the Chaldeans drew off their forces from Jerusalem to meet them. But the Egyptians returned without attempting to meet the Chaldeans in a pitched battle, and Jerusalem was taken, the walls broken down and the temple burnt up with fire.<P>3. Reception of Jeremiah and Jewish Captives:<P>When Jerusalem had fallen and Nebuchadrezzar\'s governor, Gedaliah, had been assassinated, the dispirited remnant of Judah, against the advice of Jeremiah, fled into Egypt, carrying the prophet with them. They settled at Tahpanhes, then Daphnae (modern Tell Defenneh), now identified with a mound bearing the significant name of Qatsr Bint el Yahudi, "the palace of the Jew\'s daughter." Here Pharaoh had a palace, for Jeremiah took great stones and hid them in mortar in the brickwork "which is at the entry of Pharaoh\'s house at Tahpanhes," and prophesied that Nebuchadrezzar would spread his royal pavilion over them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',43,\'8-13\');">Jer 43:8-13</a>). The Pharaoh of that day was Hophra, and when the fortress of Tahpanhes was discovered and cleared in 1886, the open-air platform before the entrance was found. "Here the ceremony described by Jeremiah took place before the chiefs of the fugitives assembled on the platform, and here Nebuchadrezzar spread his royal pavilion. The very nature of the site is precisely applicable to all the events" (Flinders Petrie, Nebesheh and Defenneh, 51). It was in 568 BC that the prophecy was fulfilled when Nebuchadrezzar marched into the Delta.<P>4. Palace of Memphis:<P>More recently, in 1909, in the course of excavations carried on by the British School of Archaeology in Egypt, the palace of King Apries, Pharaoh Hophra, has been discovered on the site of Memphis, the ancient capital of Egypt. Under the gray mud hill, close to the squalid Arab village of Mitrahenny, which every tourist passes on the way to Sakkhara, had lain for centuries Hophra\'s magnificent palace, 400 ft. long by 200 ft., with a splendid pylon, an immense court, and stonelined halls, of which seven have been found intact. With many other objects of value there was found a fitting of a palanquin of solid silver, decorated with a bust of Hathor with a gold face. It is said to be of the finest workmanship of the time of Apries, a relic of the fire, which, Jeremiah predicted at Tahpanhes, the Lord of Hosts was to kindle "in the houses of the gods of Egypt" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',43,12);">Jer 43:12</a>).<P>Pharaoh Hophra, as Jeremiah prophesied (44:29f), became the victim of a revolt and was finally strangled.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Flinders Petrie, History of Egypt, III, 344f; Wiedemann, Geschichte von Alt-Aegypten, 190ff; Flinders Petrie and J. H. Walker, Memphis, I, II ("The Palace of Apries"); Herodotus ii.161-69.``128';
isbe[6868]='Pharaoh\'s Daughter`(bath-par\'oh): The princess who rescued Moses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,\'5-10\');">Ex 2:5-10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,24);">Heb 11:24</a>). This is probably a title as well as an appellation, indicating not only one of the daughters of a Pharaoh, but also some very distinguished rank, thought to be most probably that of the heir to the throne by birth; though she was debarred from reigning by reason of sex, she still possessed the right to entail the scepter and crown to her oldest son. Positive identification of the "Pharaoh\'s daughter" mentioned in the Bible is not possible yet. All attempts toward identification are, of course, guided by the particular theory of the oppressor accepted. If the Pharaoh of the Oppression was Rameses II, as is most likely, then Pharaoh\'s daughter was probably the daughter of Seti I, an older sister of Rameses II. If, as many think, the Pharaoh of the Oppression was Thothmes III, then Pharaoh\'s daughter was some unknown princess. Some have thought she was Hatshepsut, the "Queen Elizabeth of Egypt."``93';
isbe[6869]='Pharaoh-Necoh`ne\'-ko (par\'oh nekhoh, also nekho; Nechao (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,29,33,34);">2Ki 23:29,33,34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',35,22);">2Ch 35:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',36,4);">36:4</a>, the King James Version, Necho, the Revised Version (British and American) <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NECO">NECO</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',46,2);">Jer 46:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',35,20);">2Ch 35:20</a>, the King James Version Necho, the Revised Version (British and American) <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NECO">NECO</a>)):<P>1. Pharaoh-Necoh, 610-594 BC:<P>Nekau II of the monuments<74>Greek Nekos<6F>was the 2nd king of the XXVIth Dynasty, being the son of Psammetichus I, famous in Greek contemporary history, whose long reign has left so many memorials both in Upper and Lower Egypt (Herodotus ii. 153, 158, 169). The great event of his reign (610-594 BC) was his expedition across Syria to secure for himself a share in the decaying empire of Assyria. In the days of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, Egypt had been tributary to Assyria, and, when it began to break up, Egypt and other subject kingdoms saw their opportunity to throw off its yoke. Psammetichus had turned back the Scythian hordes which had reached his border on their western march, and now his son Necoh was to make a bold stroke for empire.<P>2. Battle of Megiddo, 608 BC:<P>On his expedition toward the East, he had to pass through the territory of Judah, and he desired to have Josiah its king as an ally. Whatever may have been his reasons, Josiah remained loyal to his Assyrian suzerain, declined the Egyptian alliance, and threw himself across the path of the invader. The opposing armies met on the battlefield of Megiddo, 608 BC, where Josiah was mortally wounded and soon after died amid the lamentations of his people. Necoh marched northward, captured Kadesh, and pressed on to the Euphrates. Not having met an enemy there, he seems to have turned back and established himself for a time at Riblah in Syria. To Riblah he summoned Jehoahaz whom the people had anointed king in room of his father Josiah, deposed him after a brief reign of 3 months, and set his brother Jehoiakim on the throne as the vassal of Egypt. Jehoiakim paid up the tribute of a hundred talents of silver and a talent of gold which Necoh had imposed upon the land, but he recovered it by exactions which he made from the people (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,35);">2Ki 23:35</a>).<P>3. Battle of Carchemish, 604 BC:<P>The Egyptian monarch still kept some hold upon Syria, and his presence there had attracted the attention of the newly established power at Babylon. The Chaldeans under Nebuchadrezzar set out for the Euphrates, and, meeting the army of Pharaoh-necoh at Carchemish, inflicted upon him a signal defeat. The Chaldeans were now undisputed masters of Western Asia, and the sacred historian relates that "the king of Egypt came not again any more out of his land; for the king of Babylon had taken, from the brook of Egypt unto the river Euphrates, all that pertained to the king of Egypt" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',24,7);">2Ki 24:7</a>).<P>4. Commercial Development of Egypt:<P>While Pharaoh-necoh II was ambitious to extend his empire, he was bent also upon the commercial development of Egypt. For this he set himself to collect a navy. He had two fleets built, composed of triremes, one of them to navigate the Mediterranean, the other to navigate the Red Sea. In order to secure a combination of his fleets, he conceived the idea of reopening the canal between the Nile and the Red Sea which had been originally constructed by Seti I and Rameses II, two Pharaohs of the days of the Israelite oppression, but had become silted up by desert sands. He excavated this old canal, following the line of the former cutting, and widening it so that two triremes might meet and pass each other in it. According to Herodotus he was obliged to desist from the undertaking in consequence of the mortality among the laborers, and it was left to Darius to complete. He also resolved to try whether it was possible to circumnavigate Africa, and, manning his ships with Phoenician sailors, he sent them forth with instructions to keep the coast of Africa on their right and to return to Egypt by way of the Mediterranean. They succeeded, and, rounding the Cape of Good Hope from the east, anticipated by two millenniums the feat which Vasco da Gama accomplished from the West. The enterprise took more than two years, and the result of it was of no practical value. Herodotus, when he visited Egypt in 450 BC, saw still remaining the docks which Necoh had built for the accommodation of his fleet.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Flinders Petrie, History of Egypt, III, 335ff; Wiedemann, Geschichte von Alt-Aegypten, 179-90; Rawlinson, Egypt ("Story of the Nations"), 354ff; Herodotus ii.158, 159.``128';
isbe[6870]='Pharathon`far\'-a-thon (Pharathon): One of the strong cities of Judea fortified by Bacchides during the Maccabean war (1Macc 9:50). Septuagint reads "Thamnatha-pharathon" as the name of one city. Josephus, however (Ant., XIII, i, 3), and Syriac supply the "and" between them. The name represents a Hebrew pir\'athon. If it is to be taken strictly as in Judean territory, it cannot be identified with <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PIRATHON">PIRATHON</a> (which see) of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',12,15);">Jud 12:15</a>. In that case we should probably seek for it with Dr. G.A. Smith in some fortress covering the top of Wady Far\'ah.``54';
isbe[6871]='Phares`fa\'-rez (Phares): the King James Version; Greek form of "Perez" (thus the Revised Version (British and American)) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,3);">Mt 1:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,33);">Lu 3:33</a>).``1';
isbe[6872]='Pharez`fa\'-rez (King James Version 1Esdras 5:9; 8:30): The same as Revised Version <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PHOROS">PHOROS</a> (which see).``1';
isbe[6873]='Pharida`fa-ri\'-da (Phareida, A, Pharida; King James Version Pharira): The clan name of one of the families of "the servants of Solomon" who came up from Babylon with Zerubbabel (1Esdras 5:33) = "Peruda" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,55);">Ezr 2:55</a> = "Perida" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,57);">Ne 7:57</a>.``1';
isbe[6874]='Pharira`fa-ri\'-ra: King James Version = Revised Version <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PHARIDA">PHARIDA</a> (which see).``1';
isbe[6875]='Pharisees`far\'-i-sez (perushim; Pharisaioi):<P>1. Name and General Character<P>2. Authorities<65>Josephus<75>New Testament<6E>Talmud<P><b>I. HISTORY OF THE SECT</b><P class="in15">1. Associated at First with Hasmoneans, but Later Abandon Them<P class="in15">2. Change of Name<P class="in15">3. Later Fortunes of the Sect<P class="in15">4. In New Testament Times<P class="in15">5. In Post-apostolic Times<P><b>II. DOCTRINES OF THE PHARISEES</b><P class="in15">1. Josephus\'s Statements Colored by Greek Ideas<P class="in15">2. Conditional Reincarnation<P class="in15">3. New Testament Presentation of Pharisaic Doctrines<65>Angels and Spirits<74>Resurrection<P class="in15">4. Traditions Added to the Law<P class="in15">5. Traditional Interpretations of the Law by Pharisees (Sabbath, etc.)<P class="in15">6. Close Students of the Text of Scripture<P class="in30">(1) Messianic Hopes<P class="in30">(2) Almsgiving<P><b>III. ORGANIZATION OF THE PHARISAIC PARTY</b><P class="in15">The Chabherim<69>Pharisaic Brotherhoods<P><b>IV. CHARACTER OF THE PHARISEES</b><P class="in15">1. Pharisees and People of the Land<P class="in15">2. Arrogance toward Other Jews<P class="in15">3. Regulations for the Chabher<P class="in15">4. The New Testament Account<P class="in30">(1) Their Scrupulosity<P class="in30">(2) Their Hypocrisy<P class="in15">5. Talmudic Classification of the Pharisees<P><p>V. OUR LORD\'S RELATION TO THE PHARISEES</b><P class="in15">1. Pharisaic Attempts to Gain Christ Over<P class="in15">2. Reasons for Pharisaic Hatred of Christ<P class="in15">3. Our Lord\'s Denunciation of the Pharisees<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>1. Name and General Character:<P>A prominent sect of the Jews. The earliest notice of them in Josephus occurs in connection with Jonathan, the high priest. Immediately after the account of the embassy to the Lacedaemonians, there is subjoined (Josephus, Ant, XIII, v, 9) an account of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, therefore implying that then and in this connection they had been prominent, although no notice of any of these parties is to be found that confirms that view. Later (XIII, x, 5), the Pharisees are represented as envious of the success of John Hyrcanus; Eleazar, one of them, insults him at his own table. From the fact that earlier in the history the Assideans occupy a similar place to that occupied later by the Pharisees, it may be deduced that the two parties are in a measure one. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HASIDAEANS">HASIDAEANS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASMONEANS">ASMONEANS</a>. It would seem that not only the Pharisees, but also the Essenes, were derived from the Assideans or chacidhim.<P>2. Authorities<65>Josephus<75>New Testament<6E>Talmud:<P>In considering the characteristics and doctrines of the Pharisees we are in some difficulty from the nature of our authorities. The writers of the New Testament assume generally that the character and tenets of the Pharisees are well known to their readers, and only lay stress on the points in which they were in antagonism to our Lord and His followers. The evidence of Josephus, a contemporary and himself a Pharisee, is lessened in value by the fact that he modified his accounts of his people to suit the taste of his Roman masters. The Pharisees, with him, are a philosophic sect, and not an active political party. Their Messianic hopes are not so much as mentioned. Although the Talmud was written, both Mishna and Gemara, by the descendants of the Pharisees, the fact that the Gemara, from which most of our information is derived, is so late renders the evidence deduced from Talmudic statements of little value. Even the Mishna, which came into being only a century after the fall of the Jewish state, shows traces of exaggeration and modification of facts. Still, taking these deficiencies into consideration, we may make a fairly consistent picture of the sect. The name means "separatists," from parash, "to separate"<22>those who carefully kept themselves from any legal contamination, distinguishing themselves by their care in such matters from the common people, the \'am ha\'arets, who had fewer scruples. Like the Puritans in England during the 17th century, and the Presbyterians in Scotland during the same period, the Pharisees, although primarily a religious party, became ere long energetically political. They were a closely organized society, all the members of which called each other chabherim, "neighbors"; this added to the power they had through their influence with the people.<P>I. History of the Sect.<P>The Assideans (chacidhim) were at first the most active supporters of Judas Maccabeus in his struggle for religious freedom. A portion of them rather than fight retired to the desert to escape the tyranny of Epiphanes (1Macc 2:27f). The followers of these in later days became the Essenes. When Judas Maccabeus cleansed the temple and rededicated it with many sacrifices, it is not expressly said, either in the Books of Maccabees or by Josephus, that he acted as high priest, but the probability is that he did so. This would be a shock to the Assidean purists, as Judas, though a priest, was not a Zadokite; but his actions would be tolerated at that time on account of the imminent necessity for the work of reconsecration and the eminent services of Judas himself and his family.<P>1. Associated at First with Hasmoneans, but Later Abandon Them:<P>When Bacchides appeared against Jerusalem with Alcimus in his camp, this feeling against Judas took shape in receiving the treacherous Alcimus into Jerusalem and acknowledging him as high priest, a line of action which soon showed that it was fraught with disaster, as Alcimus murdered many of the people. They had to betake themselves anew to Judas, but this desertion was the beginning of a separating gulf which deepened when he made a treaty with the idolatrous Romans. As is not infrequently the case with religious zealots, their valor was associated with a mystic fanaticism. The very idea of alliance with heathen powers was hateful to them, so when Judas began to treat with Rome they deserted him, and he sustained the crushing defeat of Eleasa. Believing themselves the saints of God and therefore His peculiar treasure, they regarded any association with the heathen as faithlessness to Yahweh. Their attitude was much that of the Fifth Monarchy men in the time of Cromwell, still more that of the Cameronians in Scotland at the Revolution of 1688 who, because William of Orange was not a "covenanted" king, would have none of him. As the later Hasmoneans became more involved in worldly politics, they became more and more alienated from the strict Assideans, yet the successors of Judas Maccabeus retained their connection with the party in a lukewarm fashion, while the Sadducean sect was gaining in influence.<P>About this time the change of name seems to have been effected. They began to be called Pharisees, perushim, instead of chacidhim<69>"separatists" instead of saints. A parallel instance is to be found in the religious history of England.<P>2. Change of Name:<P>The Puritans of the 17th century became in the 19th "Non-conformists." The earliest instance of the Pharisees\' intervening in history is that referred to in Josephus (Ant., XIII, x, 5), where Eleazar, a Pharisee, demanded that John Hyrcanus should lay down the high-priesthood because his mother had been a captive, thus insinuating that he<68>Hyrcanus<75>was no true son of Aaron, but the bastard of some nameless heathen to whom his mother had surrendered herself. This unforgivable insult to himself and to the memory of his mother led Hyrcanus to break with the Pharisaic party definitely. He seems to have left them severely alone.<P>3. Later Fortunes of the Sect:<P>The sons of Hyrcanus, especially Alexander Janneus, expressed their hostility in a more active way. Alexander crucified as many as 800 of the Pharisaic party, a proceeding that seems to intimate overt acts of hostility on their part which prompted this action. His whole policy was the aggrandizement of the Jewish state, but his ambition was greater than his military abilities. His repeated failures and defeats confirmed the Pharisees in their opposition to him on religious grounds. He scandalized them by calling himself king, although not of the Davidic line, and further still by adopting the heathen name "Alexander," and having it stamped in Greek characters on his coins. Although a high priest was forbidden to marry a widow, he married the widow of his brother. Still further, he incurred their opposition by abandoning the Pharisaic tradition as to the way in which the libation water was poured out. They retaliated by rousing his people against him and conspiring with the Syrian king. On his deathbed he advised his wife, Alexandra Salome, who succeeded him on the throne, to make peace with the Pharisees. This she did by throwing herself entirely into their hands. On her death a struggle for the possession of the throne and the high-priesthood began between her two sons, John Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II. The latter, the more able and energetic, had the support of the Sadducees; the former, the elder of the two brothers, had that of the Pharisees. In the first phase of the conflict, Hyrcanus was defeated and compelled to make a disadvantageous peace with his brother, but, urged by Antipater, the Idumean, he called in Aretas, who inclined the balance at once to the side of Hyrcanus. The Romans were appealed to and they also, moved partly by the astuteness of Antipater, favored Hyrcanus. All this resulted ultimately in the supremacy of the Herodians, who through their subservience to Rome became inimical to the Pharisees and rivals of the Sadducees.<P>4. In New Testament Times:<P>When the New Testament records open, the Pharisees, who have supreme influence among the people, are also strong, though not predominant, in the Sanhedrin. The Herodians and Sadducees, the one by their alliance with the Roman authorities, and the other by their inherited skill in political intrigue, held the reins of government. If we might believe the Talmudic representation, the Pharisees were in the immense majority in the Sanhedrin; the nasi\', or president, and the \'abh-beth-din, or vice-president, both were Pharisees. This, however, is to be put to the credit of Talmudic imagination, the relation of which to facts is of the most distant kind.<P>Recently Buchler (Das grosse Synedrion in Jerusalem) has attempted to harmonize these Talmudic fables with the aspect of things appearing in the New Testament and Josephus. He assumes that there were two Sanhedrins, one civil, having to do with matters of government, in which the Sadducees were overwhelmingly predominant, and the other scholastic, in which the Pharisees were equally predominant<6E>the one the Senate of the nation, like the Senate of the United States, the other the Senate of a university, let us say, of Jerusalem. Although followed by Rabbi Lauterbach in the Jewish Encyclopedia, this attempt cannot be regarded as successful. There is no evidence for this dual Sanhedrin either in the New Testament or Josephus, on the one hand, or in the Talmud on the other.<P>Outside the Sanhedrin the Pharisees are ubiquitous, in Jerusalem, in Galilee, in Peraea and in the Decapolis, always coming in contact with Jesus. The attempts made by certain recent Jewish writers to exonerate them from the guilt of the condemnation of our Lord has no foundation; it is contradicted by the New Testament records, and the attitude of the Talmud to Jesus.<P>The Pharisees appear in the Book of Acts to be in a latent way favorers of the apostles as against the high-priestly party. The personal influence of Gamaliel, which seems commanding, was exercised in their favor. The anti-Christian zeal of Saul the Tarsian, though a Pharisee, may have been to some extent the result of the personal feelings which led him to perpetuate the relations of the earlier period when the two sects were united in common antagonism to the teaching of Christ. He, a Pharisee, offered himself to be employed by the Sadducean high priest (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,1,2);">Ac 9:1,2</a>) to carry on the work of persecution in Damascus. In this action Saul appears to have been in opposition to a large section of the Pharisaic party. The bitter disputes which he and the other younger Pharisees had carried on with Stephen had possibly influenced him.<P>5. In Post-apostolic Times:<P>When Paul, the Christian apostle, was brought before the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem, the Pharisaic party were numerous in the Council, if they did not even form the majority, and they readily became his defenders against the Sadducees.<P>From Josephus we learn that with the outbreak of the war with the Romans the Pharisees were thrust into the background by the more fanatical Zealots, Simon ben Gioras and John of Gischala (BJ, V, i). The truth behind the Talmudic statements that Gamaliel removed the Sanhedrin to Jabneh and that Johanan ben Zakkai successfully entreated Vespasian to spare the scholars of that city is that the Pharisees in considerable numbers made peace with the Romans. In the Mishna we have the evidence of their later labors when the Sanhedrin was removed from Jabneh, ultimately to Tiberias in Galilee. There under the guidance of Jehuda ha-Qadhosh ("the Holy") the Mishna was reduced to writing. It may thus be said that Judaism became Pharisaism, and the history of the Jews became that of the Pharisees. In this later period the opposition to Christianity sprang up anew and became embittered, as may be seen in the Talmudic fables concerning Jesus.<P>II. Doctrines of the Pharisees.<P>1. Josephus\' Statements Colored by Greek Ideas:<P>The account given of the doctrines of the Pharisees by Josephus is clearly influenced by his desire to parallel the Jewish sects with the Greek philosophical schools. He directs especial attention to the Pharisaic opinion as to fate and free will, since on this point the Stoic and Epicurean sects differed very emphatically. He regards the Pharisaic position as mid-way between that of the Sadducees, who denied fate altogether and made human freedom absolute, and that of the Essenes that "all things are left in the hand of God." He says "The Pharisees ascribe all things to fate and God, yet allow that to do what is right or the contrary is principally in man\'s own power, although fate cooperates in every action." It is to be noted that Josephus, in giving this statement of views, identifies "fate" with "God," a process that is more plausible in connection with the Latin fatum, "something decreed," than in relation to the impersonal moira, or heimarmene, of the Greeks. As Josephus wrote in Greek and used only the second of these terms, he had no philological inducement to make the identification; the reason must have been the matter of fact. In other words, he shows that the Pharisees believed in a personal God whose will was providence.<P>2. Conditional Reincarnation:<P>In connection with this was their doctrine of a future life of rewards and punishments. The phrase which Josephus uses is a peculiar one: "They think that every soul is immortal; only the souls of good men will pass into another body, but the souls of the evil shall suffer everlasting punishment" (aidia timoria kolazesthai). From this it has been deduced that the Pharisees held the transmigration of souls. In our opinion this is a mistake. We believe that really it is an attempt of Josephus to state the doctrine of the resurrection of the body in a way that would not shock Hellenic ideas. The Greek contempt for the body made the idea of the resurrection abhorrent, and in this, as in most philosophical matters, the Romans followed the Greeks. It would seem that Josephus regarded the Pharisees as maintaining that this resurrection applied only to the righteous. Still even this restriction, though certainly the natural interpretation, is not absolutely necessary. This is confirmed by the corresponding section in the Antiquities (XVIII, i, 3): "They also believe...that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life, and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but that the former shall have power to revive and live again." Josephus also declares the Pharisees to be very attentive students of the law of God: "they interpret the law with careful exactitude."<P>3. New Testament Presentation of Pharisaic Doctrines<65>Angels and Spirits<74>Resurrection:<P>Nothing in the Gospels or the Acts at all militates against any part of this representation, but there is much to fill it out. They believed in angels and spirits (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',23,8);">Ac 23:8</a>). From the connection it is probable that the present activity of such beings was the question in the mind of the writer. In that same sentence belief in the resurrection is ascribed to the Pharisees.<P>4. Traditions Added to the Law:<P>Another point is that to the bare letter of the Law they added traditions. While the existence of these traditions is referred to in Gospels, too little is said to enable us to grasp their nature and extent (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',15,2);">Mt 15:2</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,5);">16:5</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,\'1-23\');">Mr 7:1-23</a>). The evangelists only recorded these traditional glosses when they conflicted with the teaching of Christ and were therefore denounced by Him. We find them exemplified in the Mishna. The Pharisaic theory of tradition was that these additions to the written law and interpretations of it had been given by Moses to the elders and by them had been transmitted orally down through the ages. The classical passage in the Mishna is to be found in Pirqe\' Abhoth: "Moses received the (oral) Law from Sinai and delivered it to Joshua and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets and the prophets to the men of the great synagogue." Additions to these traditions were made by prophets by direct inspiration, or by interpretation of the words of the written Law. All this mass, as related above, was reduced to writing by Jehuda ha-Qadhosh in Tiberias, probably about the end of the 2nd century AD. Jehuda was born, it is said, 135 AD, and died somewhere about 220 AD.<P>The related doctrines of the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, and the final judgment with its consequent eternal rewards and punishments formed a portion and a valuable portion of this tradition.<P>5. Traditional Interpretations of the Law by Pharisees (Sabbath, etc.):<P>Less valuable, at times burdensome and hurtful, were the minute refinements they introduced into the Law. Sometimes the ingenuity of the Pharisaic doctors was directed to lighten the burden of the precept as in regard to the Sabbath. Thus a person was permitted to go much farther than a Sabbath day\'s journey if at some time previous he had deposited, within the legal Sabbath day\'s journey of the place he wished to reach, bread and water; this point was now to be regarded as the limit of his house, and consequently from this all distances were to be ceremonially reckoned (Jewish Encyclopedia, under the word "Erub"): The great defect of Pharisaism was that it made sin so purely external. An act was right or wrong according as some external condition was present or absent; thus there was a difference in bestowing alms on the Sabbath whether the beggar put his hand within the door of the donor or the donor stretched his hand beyond his own threshold, as may be seen in the first Mishna in the Tractate Shabbath. A man did not break the Sabbath rest of his ass, though he rode on it, and hence did not break the Sabbath law, but if he carried a switch with which to expedite the pace of the beast he was guilty, because he had laid a burden upon it.<P>6. Close Students of the Text of Scripture:<P>Along with these traditions and traditional interpretations, the Pharisees were close students of the sacred text. On the turn of a sentence they suspended many decisions. So much so, that it is said of them later the Text of that they suspended mountains from hairs. This is especially the case with regard to the Sabbath law with its burdensome minutiae. At the same time there was care as to the actual wording of the text of the Law; this has a bearing on textual criticism, even to the present day. A specimen of Pharisaic exegesis which Paul turns against their followers as an argumentum ad hominem may be seen in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,16);">Ga 3:16</a>: "He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."<P>(1) Messianic Hopes.<P>It is also to be said for them, that they maintained the Messianic hopes of the nation when their rivals were ready to sacrifice everything to the Romans, in order to gain greater political influence for themselves. Their imagination ran riot in the pictures they drew of these future times, but still they aided the faith of the people who were thus in a position to listen to the claims of Christ. They were led by Rabbi Aqiba in the reign of Hadrian to accept Bar-Cochba about a century after they had rejected Jesus. They were fanatical in their obedience to the Law as they understood it, and died under untold tortures rather than transgress.<P>(2) Almsgiving.<P>They elevated almsgiving into an equivalent for righteousness. This gave poverty a very different place from what it had in Greece or among the Romans. Learning was honored, although its possessors might be very poor. The story of the early life of Hillel brings this out. He is represented as being so poor as to be unable sometimes to pay the small daily fee which admitted pupils to the rabbinic school, and when this happened, in his eagerness for the Law, he is reported to have listened on the roof to the words of the teachers. This is probably not historically true, but it exhibits the Pharisaic ideal.<P>III. Organization of the Pharisaic Party.<P>We have no distinct account of this organization, either in the Gospels, in Josephus, or in the Talmud. But the close relationship which the members of the sect sustained to each other, their habit of united action as exhibited in the narratives of the New Testament and of Josephus are thus most naturally explained. The Talmudic account of the chabherim affords confirmation of this. These were persons who primarily associated for the study of the Law and for the better observance of its precepts. No one was admitted to these chabhuroth without taking an oath of fidelity to the society and a promise of strict observance of Levitical precepts.<P>The Chabherim<69>Pharisaic Brotherhoods:<P>One of the elements of their promise has to be noted. The chabher promised not to pay ma\'asroth, "tithe," or terumah, "heave offering," to a priest who was not a chabher. They were only permitted to take this oath when their associates in the brotherhood certified to their character. Even then the candidate had to pass through a period of probation of 30 days, according to the "house of Hillel," of a year, according to the "house of Shammai." This latter element, being quite more Talmudico, may be regarded as doubtful. Association with any not belonging to the Pharisaic society was put under numerous restrictions. It is at least not improbable that when the lawyer in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,29);">Lu 10:29</a> demanded "Who is my neighbor?" he was minded to restrict the instances of the command in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,18);">Le 19:18</a> to those who were, like himself, Pharisees. A society which thus had brotherhoods all over Palestine and was separated from the rest of the community would naturally wield formidable power when their claims were supported by the esteem of the people at large. It is to be observed that to be a chabher was a purely personal thing, not heritable like priesthood, and women as well as men might be members. In this the Pharisees were like the Christians. In another matter also there was a resemblance between them and the followers of Jesus; they, unlike the Sadducees, were eager to make proselytes. "Ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,15);">Mt 23:15</a>). Many members of Roman society, especially women, were proselytes, as, for instance, Poppea Sabina.<P>IV. Character of the Pharisees.<P>1. Pharisees and People of the Land:<P>Because the ideal of the Pharisees was high, and because they reverenced learning and character above wealth and civil rank they had a tendency to despise those who did not agree with them. We see traces of this in the Gospels; thus <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',7,49);">Joh 7:49</a>: "This multitude that knoweth not the law are accursed." The distinction between the Pharisees, the Puritans and the \'am ha-\'arets, "the people of the land," began with the distinction that had to be kept between the Jews and the Gentiles who had entered the land as colonists or intruders. These would, during the Babylonian captivity, almost certainly speak Western Aramaic, and would certainly be heathen and indulge in heathen practices. They were "the people of the land" whom the returning exiles found in possession of Judea.<P>2. Arrogance toward Other Jews:<P>Mingled with them were the few Jews that had neither been killed nor deported by the Babylonians, nor carried down into Egypt by Johanan, the son of Kareah. As they had conformed in a large measure to the habits of their heathen neighbors and intermarried with them, the stricter Jews, as Ezra and Nehemiah, regarded them as under the same condemnation as the heathen, and shrank from association with them. During the time of our Lord\'s life on earth the name was practically restricted to the ignorant Jews whose conformity to the law was on a broader scale than that of the Pharisees. Some have, however, dated the invention of the name later in the days of the Maccabean struggle, when the ceremonial precepts of the Law could with difficulty be observed. Those who were less careful of these were regarded as \'am ha-\'arets.<P>3. Regulations for the Chabher:<P>The distinction as exhibited in the Talmud shows an arrogance on the part of the Pharisaic chabher that must have been galling to those who, though Jews as much as the Pharisees, were not Puritans like them. A chabher, that is a Pharisee, might not eat at the table of a man whose wife was of the \'am ha-\'arets, even though her husband might be a Pharisee. If he would be a full chabher, a Pharisee must not sell to any of the \'am ha-\'arets anything that might readily be made unclean. If a woman of the \'am ha-\'arets was left alone in a room, all that she could touch without moving from her place was unclean. We must, however, bear in mind that the evidence for this is Talmudic, and therefore of but limited historical value.<P>4. The New Testament Account;<P>(1) Their Scrupulosity.<P>We find traces of this scrupulosity in the Gospels. The special way in which the ceremonial sanctity of the Pharisees exhibited itself was in tithing, hence the reference to their tithing "mint and anise and cummin" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,23);">Mt 23:23</a>). In the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, one of the things that the Pharisee plumes himself on is that he gives tithes of all he possesses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,12);">Lu 18:12</a>). He is an example of the Pharisaic arrogance of those "who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and set all others at nought." Their claiming the first seats in feasts and synagogues (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,6);">Mt 23:6</a>) was an evidence of the same spirit.<P>(2) Their Hypocrisy.<P>Closely akin to this is the hypocrisy of which the Pharisees were accused by our Lord. When we call them "hypocrites," we must go back to the primary meaning of the word. They were essentially "actors," poseurs. Good men, whose character and spiritual force have impressed themselves on their generation, have often peculiarities of manner and tone which are easily imitated. The very respect in which they are held by their disciples leads those who respect them to adopt unconsciously their mannerisms of voice and deportment. A later generation unconsciously imitates, "acts the part." In a time when religion is persecuted, as in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, or despised as it was in the Hellenizing times which preceded and succeeded, it would be the duty of religious men not to hide their convictions. The tendency to carry on this public manifestation of religious acts after it had ceased to be protest would be necessarily great. The fact that they gained credit by praying at street corners when the hour of prayer came, and would have lost credit with the people had they not done so, was not recognized by them as lessening the moral worth of the action. Those who, having lived in the period of persecution and contempt, survived in that when religion was held in respect would maintain their earlier practice without any arriere-pensee. The succeeding generation, in continuing the practice, consciously "acted." They were poseurs. Their hypocrisy was none the less real that it was reached by unconscious stages. Hypocrisy was a new sin, a sin only possible in a spiritual religion, a religion in which morality and worship were closely related. Heathenism, which lay in sacrifices and ceremonies by which the gods could be bribed, or cajoled into favors, had a purely casual connection with morality; its worship was entirely a thing of externals, of acting, "posing." Consequently, a man did not by the most careful attention to the ceremonies of religion produce any presumption in favor of his trustworthiness. There was thus no sinister motive to prompt to religion. The prophets had denounced the insincerity of worship, but even they did not denounce hypocrisy, i.e. religion used as a cloak to hide treachery or dishonesty. Religion had become more spiritual, the connection between morality and worship more intimate by reason of the persecution of the Seleucids.<P>5. Talmudic Classification of the Pharisees:<P>The Talmud to some extent confirms the representation of the Gospels. There were said to be seven classes of Pharisees:<P>(1) the "shoulder" Pharisee, who wears his good deeds on his shoulders and obeys the precept of the Law, not from principle, but from expediency;<P>(2) the "wait-a-little" Pharisee, who begs for time in order to perform a meritorious action;<P>(3) the "bleeding" Pharisee, who in his eagerness to avoid looking on a woman shuts his eyes and so bruises himself to bleeding by stumbling against a wall; (4) the "painted" Pharisee, who advertises his holiness lest any one should touch him so that he should be defiled;<P>(5) the "reckoning" Pharisee, who is always saying "What duty must I do to balance any unpalatable duty which I have neglected?";<P>(6) the "fearing" Pharisee, whose relation to God is one merely of trembling awe;<P>(7) the Pharisee from "love." In all but the last there was an element of "acting," of hypocrisy. It is to be noted that the Talmud denounces ostentation; but unconsciously that root of the error lies in the externality of their righteousness; it commands an avoidance of ostentation which involves equal "posing."<P>V. Our Lord\'s Relationship to the Pharisees.<P>1. Pharisaic Attempts to Gain Christ Over:<P>The attitude of the Pharisees to Jesus, to begin with, was, as had been their attitude to John, critical. They sent representatives to watch His doings and His sayings and report. They seem to have regarded it as possible that He might unite Himself with them, although, as we think, His affinities rather lay with the Essenes. Gradually their criticism became opposition. This opposition grew in intensity as He disregarded their interpretations of the Sabbatic law, ridiculed their refinements of the law of tithes and the distinctions they introduced into the validity of oaths, and denounced their insincere posing. At first there seems to have been an effort to cajole Him into compliance with their plans. If some of the Pharisees tempted Him to use language which would compromise Him with the people or with the Roman authorities, others invited Him to their tables, which was going far upon the part of a Pharisee toward one not a chabher. Even when He hung on the cross, the taunt with which they greeted Him may have had something of longing, lingering hope in it: "If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,42);">Mt 27:42</a> King James Version). If He would only give them that sign, then they would acknowledge Him to be the Messiah.<P>2. Reasons for Pharisaic Hatred of Christ:<P>The opposition of the Pharisees to Jesus was intensified by another reason. They were the democratic party; their whole power lay in the reputation they had with the people for piety. our Lord denounced them as hypocrites; moreover He had secured a deeper popularity than theirs. At length when cajolery failed to win Him and astute questioning failed to destroy His popularity, they combined with their opponents, the Sadducees, against Him as against a common enemy.<P>3. Our Lord\'s Denunciation of the Pharisees:<P>On the other hand, Jesus denounced the Pharisees more than He denounced any other class of the people. This seems strange when we remember that the main body of the religious people, those who looked for the Messiah, belonged to the Pharisees, and His teaching and theirs had a strong external resemblance. It was this external resemblance, united as it was with a profound spiritual difference, which made it incumbent on Jesus to mark Himself off from them. All righteousness with them was external, it lay in meats and drinks and divers washings, in tithing of mint, anise and cummin. He placed religion on a different footing, removed it into another region. With Him it was the heart that must be right with God, not merely the external actions; not only the outside of the cup and platter was to be cleansed, but the inside first of all. It is to be noted that, as observed above, the Pharisees were less antagonistic to the apostles when their Lord had left them. The after-history of Pharisaism has justified Our Lord\'s condemnation.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Histories of Israel:<P>Ewald, V, 365ff, English translation; Herzfeld, III, 354ff; Jost, I, 197ff; Gratz, V, 91ff; Derenbourg, 75-78, 117-44, 452-54; Holtzmann, II, 124ff; Renan, V, 42ff; Stanley, III, 376ff; Cornill, 145ff, English translation; Schurer, II, ii, 4ff, English translation (GJV4, II. 447ff); Kuenen, III, 233ff. ET.<P>Life and Times of Christ:<P>Hausrath, I, 135ff, English translation; Edersheim, I, 310ff; Lange, I, 302ff, English translation; Farrar, II. 494ff; Geikie, II, 223.ff; Keim, I, 250ff; Thomson. Books Which Influenced our Lord, 50ff; Weiss. I, 285ff. English translation; de Pressense, 116ff.<P>Articles in Encyclopedias, Bible Dictionaries, Lexicons, etc.:<P>Ersch and Gruber, Allg. Eric (Daniel); Winer, Realworterbuch; Herzog, RE, edition 1 (Reuss), editions 2, 3 (Sieffert); Hamburger, Realenic.; Smith\'s DB (Twisleton); Kitto\'s Cyclopaedia of Biblical Lit. (Ginsburg); HDB (Eaton); Encyclopedia Biblica (Cowley. Prince); Schenkel, Bibel-Lexicon (Hausrath); Jewish Encyclopedia (Kohler); Temple Dict. of the Bible (Christie); Hastings, DCG (Hugh Scott, Mitchell).<P>Monographs:<P>Wellhausen, Montet, Geiger, Baneth, Muller, Hanne, Davaine, Herford; Weber, System der altsynagogen Palestinischen Theologie, 10ff, 44ff; Keil, Biblical Archaeology, II, 1680; Ryle and James, Psalms of Solomon. xlivff; Nicolas. Doctrines religieuses des juifs, 48ff.``173';
isbe[6876]='Pharosh`fa\'-rosh (par\'osh).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PAROSH">PAROSH</a>`1';
isbe[6877]='Pharpar`far\'-par (parpar; Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus Apharpha; Codex Alexandrinus Pharphara): A river of Damascus, mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',5,12);">2Ki 5:12</a>, along with the Abana or Amana. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ABANA">ABANA</a>.``1';
isbe[6878]='Pharzites`far\'-zits (ha-partsi). See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PEREZ;+PHAREZ">PEREZ</a>``1';
isbe[6879]='Phaseah, Paseah`fa-se\'-a, pa-se\'-a (paceach, "lame"):<P>(1) A descendant of Judah, son of Eshton (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,12);">1Ch 4:12</a>).<P>(2) Name of a family of Nethinim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,49);">Ezr 2:49</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,51);">Ne 7:51</a> (King James Version "Phaseah"); "Phinoe" of 1Esdras 5:31 Revised Version).<P>(3) Father of Joiada (King James Version "Jehoiada"), the repairer of the "old gate" in Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',3,6);">Ne 3:6</a>).``1';
isbe[6880]='Phaselis`fa-se\'-lis (Phaselis): A city of Lycia in Southern Asia Minor, on the seacoast, near the boundary of Pamphylia, to which country some ancient writers have assigned it. Situated on the extreme end of a promontory which projected into the sea, and with high mountains in the rear, it was separated both politically and geographically from the rest of Lycia. Hence it may be understood how it early became the favorite haunt of pirates. Already in the 6th century BC, when trade was carried on with Egypt, the city struck coins of its own; upon them the prow and the stern of a war galley were commonly represented. The coinage ceased in 466 BC, but it was resumed about 400 BC, when the city again became practically independent. For a time Phaselis was under the control of the Seleucid kings of Syria, but in 190 BC it again regained its independence or continued as a member of the league of Lycian cities (1Macc 15:23). Before the beginning of the Christian era it had lost considerable of its earlier importance, yet it was still famed for its temple of Athene in which it was said that the sword of Achilles was preserved, and also for the attar of roses which was produced there. It figures little in early Christian history, yet in Byzantine times it was the residence of a bishop. Its site, now marked by the ruins of the stadium, temples and theater, bears the Turkish name of Tekir Ova.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LYCIA">LYCIA</a>`7';
isbe[6881]='Phasiron`fas\'-i-ron (Codex Alexandrinus Phasiron; Codex Vaticanus Phaseiron, V, Pharison): The name of an unknown Arab tribe whom Jonathan overcame in the wilderness near Bethbasi; or possibly the name of an Arab chief (1Macc 9:66).``1';
isbe[6882]='Phassaron`fas\'-a-ron: King James Version = Revised Version <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PHASSURUS">PHASSURUS</A> (which see).``1';
isbe[6883]='Phassurus`fas-su\'-rus, fas\'-u-rus (Phassouros; Codex Vaticanus Phassoros King James Version Phassaron, after Aldine): The name of one of the families which went up from exile with Zerubbabel (1Esdras 5:25)= "Pashhur" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,38);">Ezr 2:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,41);">Ne 7:41</a>; according to Ezra and Nehemiah and Revised Version numbering, 1,247; according to King James Version following A, 1,047.``1';
isbe[6884]='Phebe`febe (Phoibe).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PHOEBE">PHOEBE</a>`1';
isbe[6885]='Phenice`fe-ni\'-se.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PHOENICIA">PHOENICIA</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PHOENIX">PHOENIX</a>`1';
isbe[6886]='Phenicia`fe-nish\'-i-a (Phoinike).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PHOENICIA">PHOENICIA</a>`1';
isbe[6887]='Pheresites`fer\'-e-sits: King James Version= Revised Version "Pherezites" (1Esdras 8:69; 2Esdras 1:21) = "Perizzite."``1';
isbe[6888]='Pherezite`fer\'-e-zit: King James Version form in Judith 5:16 for Revised Version "Perizzite" and both King James Version and Revised Version in 2Esdras 1:21 for "Perizzite"; one of the Canaanitish tribes.``1';
isbe[6889]='Phi-Beseth`fi\'-be-seth, fib\'-e-seth (pi-bheceth).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PI+BESETH">PI-BESETH</a>`1';
isbe[6890]='Phicol`fi\'-kol (pikhol, Phikol; King James Version Phichol): The captain of the host of the Philistine king Abimelech of Gerar (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,22);">Ge 21:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,26);">26:26</a>).``1';
isbe[6891]='Philadelphia`fil-a-del-\'fi-a (Philadelphia: A city of ancient Lydia in Asia Minor on the Cogamus River, 105 miles from Smyrna. It stood upon a terrace 650 ft. above the sea. Behind it are the volcanic cliffs to which the Turks have given the name of Devitt, or "inkwells"; on the other side of the city the land is exceedingly fertile, and there was produced a wine of whose excellence the celebrated Roman poet Virgil wrote. Philadelphia is not so ancient as many of the other cities of Asia Minor, for it was founded after 189 BC on one of the highways which led to the interior. Its name was given to it in honor of Attalus II, because of his loyalty to his elder brother, Eumenes II, king of Lydia. Still another name of the city was Decapolis, because it was considered as one of the ten cities of the plain. A third name which it bore during the 1st century. AD was Neo-kaisaria; it appears upon the coins struck during that period. During the reign of Vespasian, it was called Flavia. Its modern name, Ala-shehir, is considered by some to be a corruption of the Turkish words Allah-shehir, "the city of God," but more likely it is a name given it from the reddish color of the soil. In addition to all of these names it sometimes bore the title of "Little Athens" because of the magnificence of the temples and other public buildings which adorned it. Philadelphia quickly became an important and wealthy trade center, for as the coast cities declined, it grew in power, and retained its importance even until late Byzantine times. One of the Seven Churches of the Book of Revelation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',3,7);">Re 3:7</a>) was there, and it was the seat of a bishop. As in most Asia Minor cities, many Jews lived there, and they possessed a synagogue. During the reign of Tiberius the city was destroyed by an earthquake, yet it was quickly rebuilt. Frederick Barbarossa entered it while on his crusade in 1190. Twice, in 1306 and 1324, it was besieged by the Seljuk Turks, but it retained its independence until after 1390, when it was captured by the combined forces of the Turks and Byzantines. In 1403 Tamerlane captured it, and, it is said, built about it a wall of the corpses of his victims.<P>Ala-shehir is still a Christian town; one-fourth of its modern population is Greek, and a Greek bishop still makes his home there. One of the chief modern industries is a liquorice factory; in the fields about the city the natives dig for the roots. On the terrace upon which the ancient city stood, the ruins of the castle and the walls may still be seen, and among them is pointed out the foundation of the early church. The place may now best be reached by rail from Smyrna.``7';
isbe[6892]='Philarches`fi-lar\'-kez.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PHYLARCHES">PHYLARCHES</a>`1';
isbe[6893]='Philemon`fi-le\'-mon, fi-le\'-mun (Philemon): Among the converts of Paul, perhaps while at Ephesus, was one whom he calls a "fellow-worker," Philemon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phm\',1,1);">Phm 1:1</a>). He was probably a man of some means, was celebrated for his hospitality (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phm\',1,\'5-7\');">Phm 1:5-7</a>) and of considerable importance in the ecclesia at Colosse. It was at his house (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phm\',1,2);">Phm 1:2</a>) that the Colossian Christians met as a center. It is more than probable that this was a group of the Colossian church rather than the entire ekklesia. His wife was named Apphia (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phm\',1,2);">Phm 1:2</a>); and Archippus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phm\',1,2);">Phm 1:2</a>) was no doubt his son. From <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,17);">Col 4:17</a> we learn that Archippus held an office of some importance in Colosse, whether he was a presbyter (Abbott, ICC), or an evangelist, or perhaps the reader (Zahn), we cannot tell. He is called here (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phm\',1,2);">Phm 1:2</a>) Paul\'s "fellow-soldier."<P>The relation between the apostle and Philemon was so close and intimate that Paul does not hesitate to press him, on the basis of it, to forgive his slave, Onesimus, for stealing and for running away.<P>Tradition makes Philemon the bishop of Colosse (Apostolical Constitutions, vii, 46), and the Greek Martyrology (Menae) for November 22 tells us that he together with his wife and son and Onesimus were martyred by stoning before Androcles, the governor, in the days of Nero. With this the Latin Martyrology agrees (compare Lightfoot, Ignatius, II, 535). This evidence, however, is unsatisfactory and cannot be trusted as giving unquestionable facts as to Philemon. The only sure information is that in the epistle bearing his name.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PHILEMON,+EPISTLE+TO">PHILEMON, EPISTLE TO</a>`101';
isbe[6894]='Philemon, Epistle to`This most beautiful of all Paul\'s Epistles, and the most intensely human, is one of the so-called Captivity Epistles of which Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians are the others. Of these four <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PHILIPPIANS">PHILIPPIANS</a> (which see) stands apart, and was written more probably after the other three. These are mutually interdependent, sent by the same bearer to churches of the same district, and under similar conditions.<P>1. Place of Writing:<P>There is some diversity of opinion as to the place from which the apostle wrote these letters. Certain scholars (Reuss, Schenkel, Weiss, Holtzmann, Hilgenfeld, Hausrath and Meyer) have urged Caesarea in opposition to the traditional place, Rome. The arguments advanced are first that Onesimus would have been more likely to have escaped to Caesarea than to Rome, as it is nearer Colosse than Rome is, to which we may reply that, though Caesarea is nearer, his chance of escape would have been far greater in the capital than in the provincial city. Again it is said that as Onesimus is not commended in Ephesians, he had already been left behind at Colosse; against which there are advanced the precarious value of an argument from silence, and the fact that this argument assumes a particular course which the bearers of the letters would follow, namely, through Colosse to Ephesus. A more forcible argument is that which is based on the apostle\'s expected visit. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,24);">Php 2:24</a> we read that he expected to go to Macedonia on his release; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Phm\',1,22);">Phm 1:22</a> we find that he expected to go to Colosse. On the basis of this latter reference it is assumed that he was to the south of Colosse when writing and so at Caesarea. But it is quite as probable that he would go to Colosse through Philippi as the reverse; and it is quite possible that even if he had intended to go direct to Colosse when he wrote to Philemon, events may have come about to cause him to change his plans. The last argument, based on the omission of any reference to the earthquake of which Tacitus (Ann. xiv.27) and Eusebius (Chron., O1, 207) write, is of force as opposed to the Roman origin of the letters only on the assumption that these writers both refer to the same event (by no means sure) and that the epistles. were written after that event, and that it was necessary that Paul should have mentioned it. If the early chronology be accepted it falls entirely, as Tacitus\' earlier date would be after the epistles. were written. In addition we have the further facts, favorable to Rome, that Paul had no such freedom in Cuesarea as he is represented in these epistles as enjoying; that no mention is made of Philip who was in Caesarea and a most important member of that community (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,8);">Ac 21:8</a>), and finally that there is no probability that so large a body of disciples and companions could have gathered about the apostle in his earlier and more strict imprisonment, at Caesarea. We may therefore conclude that the Captivity Epistles were written from Rome, and not from Caesarea.<P>2. Authenticity:<P>The external evidence for the epistle is less extensive than that of some of the other epp., but it is abundantly strong. The play on the word Onesimus which Paul himself uses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phm\',1,11);">Phm 1:11</a>) is found in Ignatius, Ephesians, ii. This may not mean necessarily a literary connection, but it suggests this. The epistle is known to Tertullian, and through him we know that Marcion accepted it (Adv. Marc., v.21). It is in the list in the Muratorian Fragment (p. 106, l. 27), and is quoted by Origen as Pauline (Hom. in Jer., 19) and placed by Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, xxv) among the acknowledged books.<P>It has twice been the object of attack. In the 4th and 5th centuries it was opposed as unworthy of Paul\'s mind and as of no value for edification. This attack was met successfully by Jerome (Commentary on Philemon, praef.), Chrysostom (Argum. in Philem) and Theodore of Mopsuestia (Spicil. in Solesm, I, 149), and the epistle. was finally established in its earlier firm position. The later attack by Baur was inspired by his desire to break down the corroborative value of Phm to the other Captivity Epistles, and has been characterized by Weiss as one of Baur\'s worst blunders. The suggestions that it is interpolated (Holtzmann), or allegorical (Weizsacker and Pfleiderer), or based on the letter of Pliny (Ep. IX, 21) to Sabinianus (Steck), are interesting examples of the vagaries of their authors, but "deserve only to be mentioned" (Zahn). In its language, style and argument the letter is clearly Pauline.<P>3. Date:<P>The date will, as is the case with the other Captivity Epistles, depend on the chronology. If the earlier scheme be followed it may be dated about 58, if the later about 63, or 64.<P>4. Argument:<P>The apostle writes in his own and Timothy\'s name to his friend <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PHILEMON">PHILEMON</a> (which see) in behalf of Onesimus, a runaway slave of the latter. Beginning with his usual thanksgiving, here awakened by the report of Philemon\'s hospitality, he intercedes for his \'son begotten in his bonds\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phm\',1,10);">Phm 1:10</a>), Onesimus, who though he is Philemon\'s runaway slave is now "a brother." It is on this ground that the apostle pleads, urging his own age, and friendship for Philemon, and his present bonds. He pleads, however, without belittling Onesimus\' wrongdoing, but assuming himself the financial responsibility for the amount of his theft. At the same time the apostle quietly refers to what Philemon really owes him as his father in Christ, and begs that he will not disappoint him in his expectation. He closes with the suggestion that he hopes soon to visit him, and with greetings from his companions in Rome.<P>5. Value:<P>The charm and beauty of this epistle have been universally recognized. Its value to us as giving a glimpse of Paul\'s attitude toward slavery and his intimacy with a man like Philemon cannot be over-estimated. One of the chief elements of value in it is the picture it gives us of a Christian home in the apostolic days; the father and mother well known for their hospitality, the son a man of position and importance in the church, the coming and going of the Christian brethren, and the life of the brotherhood centering about this household.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Lightfoot, Col and Philem; Vincent, "Phil" and "Philem" (ICC); yon Soden, Hand Commentar; Alexander, in Speaker\'s Commentary.``101';
isbe[6895]='Philetus`fi-le\'-tus (Philetos (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',2,17);">2Ti 2:17</a>)):<P>1. The Nature of His Error:<P>This person is mentioned by Paul, who warns Timothy against him as well as against his associate in error, Hymeneus. The apostle speaks of Hymeneus and Philetus as instances of men who were doing most serious injury to the church by their teaching, and by what that teaching resulted in, both in faith and morals. The specific error of these men was that they denied that there would be any bodily resurrection. They treated all Scriptural references to such a state, as figurative or metaphorical. They spiritualized it absolutely, and held that the resurrection was a thing of the past. No resurrection was possible, so they taught, except from ignorance to knowledge, from sin to righteousness. There would be no day when the dead would hear the voice of Christ and come forth out of the grave. The Christian, knowing that Christ was raised from the dead, looked forward to the day when his body should be raised in the likeness of Christ\'s resurrection. But this faith was utterly denied by the teaching of Hymeneus and Philetus.<P>2. How It Overthrew Faith:<P>This teaching of theirs, Paul tells us, had overthrown the faith of some. It would also overthrow Christian faith altogether, for if the dead are not raised, neither is Christ risen from the dead, and "ye are yet in your sins" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,17);">1Co 15:17</a>).<P>The denial of the resurrection of the body, whether of mankind generally or of Christ, is the overthrow of the faith. It leaves nothing to cling to, no living Christ, who saves and leads and comforts His people. The apostle proceeds to say that teaching of this kind "eats as doth a gangrene," and that it increases unto more ungodliness. As a canker or gangrene eats away the flesh, so does such teaching eat away Christian faith. Paul is careful to say, more than once, that the teaching which denies that there will be a resurrection of the dead leads inevitably to "ungodliness" and to "iniquity."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HYMENAEUS">HYMENAEUS</a>`155';
isbe[6896]='Philip (1)`fil\'-ip (Philippos, "lover of horses"):<P>(1) The father of Alexander the Great (1Macc 1:1; 6:2), king of Macedonia in 359-336 BC. His influence for Greece and for mankind in general lay in hastening the decadence of the Greek city-state and in the preparations he left to Alexander for the diffusion throughout the world of the varied phases of Greek intellectual life.<P>(2) A Phrygian left by Antiochus Epiphanes as governor at Jerusalem (circa 170 BC) and described in 2Macc 5:22 as "more barbarous" than Antiochus himself, burning fugitive Jews who had assembled in caves near by "to keep the sabbath day secretly" (2Macc 6:11) and taking special measures to check the opposition of Judas Maccabeus (2Macc 8:8). There is some ground for identifying him with<74><P>(3) A friend or foster-brother of Antiochus (2Macc 9:29), appointed by Antiochus on his deathbed as regent. Lysias already held the office of regent, having brought up the son of Antiochus from his youth, and on the death of his father set him up as king under the name of Eupator. The accounts of the rivalries of the regents and of the fate of Philip as recorded in 1Macc 6:56; 2Macc 9:29; Josephus, Ant, XII, ix,7,are not easily reconciled.<P>(4) Philip V, king of Macedonia in 220-179 BC. He is mentioned in 1Macc 8:5 as an example of the great power of the Romans with whom Judas Maccabeus made a league on conditions described (op. cit.). The conflict of Philip with the Romans coincided in time with that of Hannibal, after whose defeat at Zama the Romans were able to give undivided attention to the affairs of Macedonia. Philip was defeated by the Romans under Flaminius, at Cynoscephalae (197 BC), and compelled to accept the terms of the conquerors. He died in 179, and was succeeded by his son Perseus, last king of Macedonia, who lost his crown in his contest with the Romans.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PERSEUS">PERSEUS</a>`79';
isbe[6897]='Philip (2)`(Philippos):<P>1. New Testament References:<P>One of the Twelve Apostles. Philip belonged to Bethsaida of Galilee (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,44);">Joh 1:44</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,21);">12:21</a>). Along with Andrew and other fellow-townsmen, he had journeyed to Bethany to hear the teaching of John the Baptist, and there he received his first call from Christ, "Follow me" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,43);">Joh 1:43</a>). Like Andrew, Philip immediately won a fresh follower, Nathanael, for Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,45);">Joh 1:45</a>). It is probable that he was present at most of the events recorded of Jesus\' return journey from Bethany to Galilee, and that the information relating to these was supplied to John by him and Andrew (compare <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ANDREW">ANDREW</a>). His final ordination to the Twelve is recorded in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,3);">Mt 10:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,18);">Mr 3:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,14);">Lu 6:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,13);">Ac 1:13</a>. At the feeding of the 5,000, Philip was asked the question by Jesus, "Whence are we to buy bread, that these may eat?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,\'5-7\');">Joh 6:5-7</a>). He was appealed to by the Greeks when they desired to interview Jesus at the Passover (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,\'20-33\');">Joh 12:20-33</a>). During the address of Jesus to His disciples after the Last Supper, Philip made the request, "Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,8);">Joh 14:8</a>).<P>2. Apocryphal References:<P>According to the "Genealogies of the Twelve Apostles," Philip was of the house of Zebulun (compare Budge, Contendings of the Apostles, II, 50). Clement of Alexandria (Strom., iii.4, 25,and iv.9, 73) gives the tradition identifying him with the unknown disciple who asked permission to go and bury his father ere he followed Jesus (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',8,21);">Mt 8:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,59);">Lu 9:59</a>), and says that he died a natural death. Owing to confusion with Philip the evangelist, there is much obscurity in the accounts of Apocrypha literature concerning the earlier missionary activities of Philip the apostle. The "Ac of Philip" tell of a religious controversy between the apostle and a Judean high priest before the philosophers of Athens. Later Latin documents mention Gaul (Galatia) as his field. As to his sending Joseph of Arimathea thence to Britain, see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOSEPH+OF+ARIMATHAEA">JOSEPH OF ARIMATHAEA</a>. The evidence seems conclusive that the latter part of his life was spent in Phrygia. This is supported by Polycrates (bishop of Ephesus in the 2nd century), who states that he died at Hierapolis, by Theodoret, and by the parts of the Contendings of the Apostles dealing with Philip. Thus, according to "The Preaching of Philip and Peter" (compare Budge, Contendings of the Apostles, II, 146), Phrygia was assigned to Philip as a mission field by the risen Christ when He appeared to the disciples on the Mount of Olives, and "The Martyrdom of Philip in Phrygia" (Budge, II, 156) tells of his preaching, miracles and crucifixion there.<P>Philip was regarded in early times as the author of "The Gospel of Philip," a Gnostic work of the 2nd century, part of which was preserved by Epiphanius (compare Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, 40, 41).<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCRYPHAL+GOSPELS">APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS</a>.<P>3. Character:<P>As with Andrew, Philip\'s Greek name implies he had Greek connections, and this is strengthened by the fact that he acted as the spokesman of the Greeks at the Passover. Of a weaker mold than Andrew, he was yet the one to whom the Greeks would first appeal; he himself possessed an inquirer\'s spirit and could therefore sympathize with their doubts and difficulties. The practical, strong-minded Andrew was naturally the man to win the impetuous, swift-thinking Peter; but the slower Philip, versed in the Scriptures (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,45);">Joh 1:45</a>), appealed more to the critical Nathanael and the cultured Greeks. Cautious and deliberate himself, and desirous of submitting all truth to the test of sensuous experience (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,8);">Joh 14:8</a>), he concluded the same criterion would be acceptable to Nathanael also (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,46);">Joh 1:46</a>). It was the presence of this materialistic trend of mind in Philip that induced Jesus, in order to awaken in His disciple a larger and more spiritual faith, to put the question in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,6);">Joh 6:6</a>, seeking "to prove him." This innate diffidence which affected Philip\'s religious beliefs found expression in his outer life and conduct also. It was not merely modesty, but also a certain lack of self-reliance, that made him turn to Andrew for advice when the Greeks wished to see Jesus. The story of his later life is, however, sufficient to show that he overcame those initial defects in his character, and fulfilled nobly the charge that his risen Lord laid upon him (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,\'16-20\');">Mt 28:16-20</a>).``88';
isbe[6898]='Philip (3)`("tetrarch," <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,1);">Lu 3:1</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HEROD">HEROD</a>`1';
isbe[6899]='Philip, the Evangelist`One of "the seven" chosen to have the oversight of "the daily ministration" of the poor of the Christian community in Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',6,5);">Ac 6:5</a>). Whether Philip, bearing a Greek name, was a Hellenist, is not known, but his missionary work reveals to us one free from the religious prejudices of the strict Hebrew.<P>The martyrdom of Stephen was the beginning of a systematic persecution of the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered over Judea and Samaria (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',8,1);">Ac 8:1</a>), and even as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,19);">Ac 11:19</a>). Thus, the influence of the new teaching was extended, and a beginning made to the missionary movement. The story of Philip\'s missionary labors is told in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',8,5);">Ac 8:5</a>ff. He went to the chief city of Samaria, called Sebaste in honor of Augustus (Greek Sebastos). The Samaritans, of mixed Israelite and Gentile blood, had, in consequence of their being rigidly excluded from the Jewish church since the return from exile, built on Mt. Gerizim a rival sanctuary to the temple. To them Philip proclaimed the Christ and wrought signs, with the result that multitudes gave heed, and "were baptized, both men and women." They had been under the influence of a certain sorcerer, Simon, who himself also believed and was baptized, moved, as the sequel proved, by the desire to learn the secret of Philip\'s ability to perform miracles (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SIMON+MAGUS">SIMON MAGUS</a>). The apostles (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',8,14);">Ac 8:14</a>) at Jerusalem sanctioned the admission of Samaritans into the church by sending Peter and John, who not only confirmed the work of Philip, but also themselves preached in many Samaritan villages.<P>The next incident recorded is the conversion of a Gentile, who was, however, a worshipper of the God of Israel, a eunuch under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. As he was returning from worshipping in the temple at Jerusalem, he was met by Philip on the road to Gaza. Philip expounded to him that portion of <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,\'1-\');">Isa 53</a> which he had been reading aloud as he sat in his chariot, and preached unto him Jesus. It is another sign of Philip\'s insight into the universality of Christianity that he baptized this eunuch who could not have been admitted into full membership in the Jewish church (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',23,1);">De 23:1</a>).<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ETHIOPIAN+EUNUCH">ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH</a>.<P>After this incident, Philip went to Azotus (Ashdod), and then traveled north to Caesarea, preaching in the cities on his way. There he settled, for Luke records that Paul and his company abode in the house of Philip, "the evangelist," "one of the seven," for some days (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,8);">Ac 21:8</a>). This occurred more than 20 years after the incidents recorded in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',8,\'1-\');">Ac 8</a>. Both at this time and during Paul\'s imprisonment at Caesarea, Luke had the opportunity of hearing about Philip\'s work from his own lips. Luke records that Philip had 4 daughters who were preachers (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,9);">Ac 21:9</a>).<P>The Jewish rebellion, which finally resulted in the fall of Jerusalem, drove many Christians out of Palestine, and among them Philip and his daughters. One tradition connects Philip and his daughters with Hierapolis in Asia, but in all probability the evangelist is confounded with the apostle. Another tradition represents them as dwelling at Tralles, Philip being the first bishop of the Christian community.``78';
isbe[6900]='Philip, the Gospel of``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCRYPHAL+GOSPELS">APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PHILIP">PHILIP</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