exlim/blb
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
blb/study/isbe/7400.html

114 lines
460 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[7401]='Retention of Sins`re-ten\'-shun, (krateo, "to lay fast hold of" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,23);">Joh 20:23</a>)): The opposite of "the remission of sins." Where there was no evidence of repentance and faith, the community of believers were unauthorized to give assurance of forgiveness, and, therefore, could only warn that the guilt of sin was retained, and that the sinner remained beneath God\'s judgment.<P>While such retention has its place in connection with all preaching of the gospel, since the offers of grace are conditional, it is especially exercised, like the absolution, in the personal dealing of a pastor with a communicant, preparatory to the reception of the Lord\'s Supper. As the absolution is properly an assurance of individual forgiveness, so the retention is an assurance of individual non-forgiveness. That the retention is exercised by the ministry, not as an order, but as the representatives of the congregation of believers to which Christ gave the power of the keys, is shown by Alford, Greek Testament, on above passage. See also Melanchthon, Appendix to the "Schmalkald Articles."``84';
isbe[7402]='Retribution`ret-ri-bu\'-shun:<P>1. New Testament Terms<P>2. A Revelation of Wrath as Well as Grace<P>3. Witness of Natural Theology<P>4. Retribution the Natural Consequence of Sin<P>5. Also the Positive Infliction of Divine Wrath<P>6. Instances of Use of Orge and Thumos<P>7. Instances of Use of Greek Words for "Vengeance"<P>8. Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent<P>9. Judgment Implies Retribution<P>10. Moral Sense Demands Vindication of God\'s Righteousness<P>11. Scripture Indicates Certainty of Vindication<P>LITERATURE<hr /><P>1. New Testament Terms:<P>The word as applied to the divine administration is not used in Scripture, but undoubtedly the idea is commonly enough expressed. The words which come nearest to it are orge, and thumos wrath attributed to God; ekdikeo, ekdikesis, ekdikos, and dike, all giving the idea of vengeance; kolasis, and timoria, "punishment"; besides krino, and its derivatives, words expressive of judgment.<P>2. A Revelation of Wrath as Well as Grace:<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,\'1-\');">Romans 2</a> is full of the thought of retribution. The apostle, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,5,6);">2:5,6</a>, comes very near to using the word itself, and gives indeed a good description of the thing: the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, "who will render to every man according to his works." It is well in approaching the subject to remind ourselves that there is undoubtedly, as the apostle says, a Revelation of wrath. We are so accustomed to think of the gracious revelation which the gospel brings us, and to approach the subject of the doom of the impenitent under the influence of the kindly sentiments engendered thereby, and with a view of God\'s gracious character as revealed in salvation, that we are apt to overlook somewhat the sterner facts of sin, and to misconceive the divine attitude toward the impenitent sinner. It is certainly well that we should let the grace of the gospel have full influence upon all our thinking, but we must beware of being too fully engrossed with one phase of the divine character. It is an infirmity of human nature that we find it difficult to let two seemingly conflicting conceptions find a place in our thought. We are apt to surrender ourselves to the sway of one or the other of them according to the pressure of the moment.<P>3. Witness of Natural Theology:<P>Putting ourselves back into the position of those who have only the light of natural theology, we find that all deductions from the perfections of God, as revealed in His works, combined with a consideration of man\'s sin and want of harmony with the Holy One, lead to the conclusion announced by the apostle: "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,18);">Ro 1:18</a>). Wrath implies punishment, punishment is decreed, punishment is denounced. The word of God but confirms the verdict which conscience forecasts. Nature teaches that punishment, retribution, must follow sin. Within the sphere of physical law this is clearly exemplified. No breach of the so-called laws of Nature is tolerated. Strictly speaking, the laws of Nature cannot be broken, but let a man fail to keep in harmony with them, and the natural consequences will be trouble, punishment, retribution. Harmony with law is blessing; collision with law is loss. Thus law in Nature "worketh wrath" to the neglecters of it. Punishment necessarily results. So we may well expect that in the higher sphere, God\'s moral laws cannot be neglected or violated with impunity, and Scripture fully justifies the expectation and shows that sin must be punished. All things considered, the fact of punishment for sinners need not surprise; the fact of pardon is the surprising thing. The surprise of pardon has ceased to surprise us because we are so familiar with the thought. We know the "how" of it because of the revelation of grace. Grace, however, saves on certain conditions, and there is no such thing known in Scripture as indiscriminate, necessary, universal grace. It is only from the Bible that we know of the salvation by grace. That same revelation shows that the grace does not come to all, in the sense of saving all; though, of course, it may be considered as presented to all. Those who are not touched and saved by grace remain shut up in their sins. They are, and must be, in the nature of the case, left to the consequences of their sins, with the added guilt of rejecting the offered grace. "Except ye believe that I am he," said Incarnate Grace, "ye shall die in your sins" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,24);">Joh 8:24</a>).<P>4. Retribution the Natural Consequence of Sin:<P>Another conclusion we may draw from the general Scriptural representation is that the future retribution is one aspect of the natural consequence of sin, yet it is also in another aspect the positive infliction of divine wrath. It is shown to be the natural outcome of sin in such passages as "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',6,7);">Ga 6:7</a>); "He that soweth unto his own flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',6,8);">Ga 6:8</a>). It is not without suggestiveness that the Hebrew word \'awon means both iniquity and punishment, and when Cain said "My punishment is greater than I can bear" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,13);">Ge 4:13</a>), he really said "My iniquity is greater than I can bear"; his iniquity became his punishment. A due consideration of this thought goes a long way toward meeting many of the objections brought against the doctrine of future punishment.<P>5. Also the Positive Infliction of Divine Wrath:<P>The other statement, however, remains true and must be emphasized, that there is an actual infliction of divine wrath. All the great statements about the divine judgment imply this, and while it is wrong not to take account of the natural working out of sin in its terrible consequences, it is equally wrong, perhaps more so, to refuse to recognize this positive divine infliction of punishment. This, indeed, is the outstanding feature of retribution as it assumes form in Scripture. Even the natural consequences of sin, rightly viewed, are part of the divine infliction, since God, in the nature of things, has conjoined sin and its consequences, and part of the positive infliction is the judicial shutting up of the sinner to the consequences of his sin. So in the case of Cain, his iniquity became his punishment, inasmuch as God sentenced him to bear the consequences of that iniquity. On the other hand, we might say that even the terribly positive outpourings of God\'s wrath upon the sinner are the natural consequences of sin, since sin in its very nature calls down the divine displeasure. Indeed, these two phases of future punishment are so very closely connected that a right view of the matter compels us to keep both before us, and no full explanation of the punishment is possible when either phase is ignored.<P>6. Instances of the Use of Orge and Thumos:<P>The terms in Scripture applied to the doom of sinners all imply divine displeasure, punitive action, retribution. The two outstanding Greek words for "wrath," orge and thumos, are both freely applied to God. Orge indicates settled displeasure, whereas thumos is rather the blazing out of the anger. The former is, as we should expect, more frequently applied to God, and, of course, all that is capricious and reprehensible in human wrath must be eliminated from the word as used of God. It indicates the settled opposition of His holy nature against sin. It was an affection found in the sinless Saviour Himself, for "he looked round about on them with anger" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,5);">Mr 3:5</a>). In the Baptist\'s warning "to flee from the wrath to come" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,7);">Mt 3:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,7);">Lu 3:7</a>), it is unquestionably the wrath of God that is meant, the manifestation of that being further described as the burning of the chaff with unquenchable fire (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,12);">Mt 3:12</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,36);">Joh 3:36</a> it is said of the unbeliever that "the wrath of God" abideth on him. In Romans it is used at least 9 times in reference to God, first in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,18);">Ro 1:18</a>, the great passage we have already quoted about "the wrath of God revealed from heaven." The connection is a suggestive one and is often overlooked. In the passage Paul has quite a chain of reasons; he is ready to preach the gospel at Rome for he is not ashamed of the gospel; he is not ashamed of the gospel for it is the power of God unto salvation; it is the "power of God" for therein is revealed the righteousness of God by faith; and this salvation by faith is a necessity "for the wrath of God is revealed," etc. Thus the divine wrath on account of sin is the dark background of the gospel message. Had there been no such just wrath upon men, there had been no need for the divine salvation. The despising of God\'s goodness by the impenitent means a treasuring up of "wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,\'3-5\');">Ro 2:3-5</a>). God "visiteth with wrath" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,5);">Ro 3:5</a>).<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',4,15);">Ro 4:15</a> the apostle shows that "the law worketh wrath" (i.e. brings down the divine displeasure), while in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,9);">5:9</a> he shows that believers are saved from wrath<74>undoubted wrath of God. The other two instances are in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,22);">9:22</A>. Men are "by nature children of wrath" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,3);">Eph 2:3</a>); surely not "wrathful children," but liable to the wrath of God, and because of evil deeds cometh "the wrath of God upon the sons of disobedience" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,6);">Eph 5:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,6);">Col 3:6</a>). Christ "delivereth us from the wrath to come" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',1,10);">1Th 1:10</a>); wrath has come upon the opposing Jews (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',2,16);">1Th 2:16</a>); but believers are not appointed unto wrath (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',5,9);">1Th 5:9</a>). With all these specific passages in view, to say nothing of the general teaching of the apostle on the question of coming judgment and punishment, it is utterly impossible to eliminate the idea of the divine displeasure against sinners, and His consequent retributive action toward them. Even Ritschl, who absolutely denies the great principle of retribution, of positive displeasure, admits that Paul teaches it; hence, the only way for him out of the difficulty is to reject Paul\'s teaching as unauthoritative. Other references to the "wrath of God" are in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',3,11);">Heb 3:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',4,3);">4:3</a>; and 6 passages in the Apocalypse<73><a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,16);">Re 6:16</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',11,18);">11:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',14,10);">14:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',16,19);">16:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,15);">19:15</a>. Two of these refer to the "wrath of the Lamb," one of the most terrible phrases in the whole of the New Testament. Thumos is only used in the Apocalypse concerning God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',14,\'10-19\');">Re 14:10-19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',15,\'1-7\');">15:1-7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',16,\'1-19\');">16:1-19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,15);">19:15</a>). In each case it refers to the manifestation, the blazing forth of the wrath; in the last two passages it is used in combination with orge, and is rendered "fierceness," the fierceness of His wrath.<P>7. Instances of Use of Greek Words for "Vengeance":<P>Ekdikeo, which means to avenge, is twice used of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,10);">Re 6:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,2);">19:2</a>); and ekdikesis, "vengeance," 6 times <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,7);">Lu 18:7</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',12,19);">Ro 12:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',1,8);">2Th 1:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,30);">Heb 10:30</a>). In the first two instances it is used by Jesus concerning the divine action; ekdikos, "avenger," occurs once in application to God (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',4,6);">1Th 4:6</a>); dike, "judgment" or "vengeance" is twice used of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',1,9);">2Th 1:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,7);">Jude 1:7</a>). The use of these terms shows that the punishment inflicted on sinful men is strictly punishment of the vindicatory sort, the vindication of outraged justice, the infliction of deserved penalty. Very significant is the passage in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',1,6);">2Th 1:6</a>, "It is a righteous thing with God to recompense affliction to them that afflict you." There is no question of bettering the offender.<P>8. Words Meaning "Chastisement" Not Used of the Impenitent:<P>It is very remarkable that the terms in Greek which would carry the meaning of punishment for the good of the offender are never used in the New Testament of the infliction which comes upon the impenitent; these are paideia and paideuo, and they are frequently used of the "chastisement" of believers, but not of the impenitent. It is often claimed that the word kolasis used in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,46);">Mt 25:46</a> carries the meaning of chastisement for the improvement of the offender, but although Aristotle, in comparing it with timoria, may seem to suggest that it is meant for the improvement of the offender (what he really says is that it is tou paschontos heneka, "on account of the one suffering it," "has the punished one in view," whereas timoria is tou poiountos, "on account of the one inflicting" "that he may be satisfied"), the usage even in classical Greek is predominantly against making the supposed distinction. Both words are used interchangeably by the leading classical authors, including Aristotle himself, and kolasis is continually employed where no thought of betterment can be in question, while all admit that in Hellenistic Greek the distinction is not maintained, and in any case timoria is also used of the punishment of the sinner (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,29);">Heb 10:29</a>).<P>9. Judgment Implies Retribution:<P>All the representations of the coming day of judgment tell of the fact of retribution, and Christ Himself distinctly asserts it. Apart from His great eschatological discourses, concerning which criticism still hesitates and stammers, we have the solemn close of the Sermon on the Mount, and the pregnant statement of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,27);">Mt 16:27</a>, "The Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds," and all the apostolic teaching upon the solemn theme is but the unfolding of the same great thought.<P>10. Moral Sense Demands Vindication of God\'s Righteousness:<P>The conception of God as a perfect moral governor demands that His righteousness shall be fully vindicated. Looking at the course of history as it unfolds itself before us, we cannot fail to be struck with the anomalies which are presented. Righteousness does not always triumph, goodness is often put to shame, wickedness appears to be profitable, and wicked men often prosper while good men are under a cloud. Sometimes signal divine interpositions proclaim that God is indeed on the side of righteousness, but too often it seems as if He were unmindful, and men are tempted to ask the old question, "How doth God know? And is there knowledge in the Most High?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',73,11);">Ps 73:11</a>), while the righteous say in their distress, "Yahweh, how long shall the wicked, how long shall the wicked triumph?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',94,3);">Ps 94:3</a>). The moral sense cries out for some divine vindication, and the Scriptures, in harmony with this feeling, indicate that the final judgment will bring such vindication.<P>11. Scripture Indicates Certainty of Vindication:<P>In the Old Testament it is frequently presented as the solution of the baffling problems which beset the ethical sphere, as for instance in that fine utterance of religious philosophy in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',73,\'1-\');">Ps 73</a>; the Psalmist has before him all the puzzling elements of the problem; the prosperity, the insolent and aggressive prosperity of the wicked, the non-success, the oppression, the misery of the righteous; he is well-nigh overwhelmed by the contemplation, and nearly loses his footing on the eternal verities, until he carries the whole problem into the light of God\'s presence and revelation, and then he understands that the end will bring the true solution.<P>So too the somber ruminations of the Preacher upon the contradictions arid anomalies and mysteries of human life, "under the sun," close in the reflection which throws its searchlight upon all the blackness: "This is the end of the matter:...Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every work into judgment, with every hidden thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',12,13);">Ec 12:13</a>f). In the light of the same truth, the apostles labored, believing that when the Lord comes He "will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and make manifest the counsels of the hearts" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',4,5);">1Co 4:5</a>). The more fully the subject is considered, the more we must feel that for the vindication of righteousness, the justification of the divine procedure, the rectification of wrongs, the explanation of mysteries, the reward and triumph of the righteous and the confession and punishment of the wicked, a great final, retributive judgment is Scriptural, reasonable, necessary.<P>LITERATURE.<P>See the articles on <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PUNISHMENT,+EVERLASTING">PUNISHMENT, EVERLASTING</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUDGMENT">JUDGMENT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHEOL">SHEOL</a>, etc., and the works cited there``110';
isbe[7403]='Reu`re\'-u, roo (re\'u, Rhagau): A son of Peleg, a descendant of Shem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,18);">Ge 11:18</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,25);">1Ch 1:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,35);">Lu 3:35</a>).``1';
isbe[7404]='Reuben`roo\'-ben, ru\'-ben (re\'ubhen; Rhouben): The eldest son of Jacob, born to him by Leah in Paddan-aram (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',29,32);">Ge 29:32</a>).<P>1. Jacob\'s Oldest Son:<P>This verse seems to suggest two derivations of the name. As it stands in Massoretic Text it means "behold a son"; but the reason given for so calling him is "The Lord hath looked upon my affliction," which in Hebrew is ra\'ah be\'onyi, literally, "He hath seen my affliction." Of his boyhood we have only the story of the mandrakes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,14);">Ge 30:14</a>). As the firstborn he should really have been leader among his father\'s sons. His birthright was forfeited by a deed of peculiar infamy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,22);">Ge 35:22</a>), and as far as we know his tribe never took the lead in Israel. It is named first, indeed, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',1,5,20);">Nu 1:5,20</a>, but thereafter it falls to the fourth place, Judah taking the first (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',2,10);">Nu 2:10</a>, etc.). To Reuben\'s intervention Joseph owed his escape from the fate proposed by his other brethren (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,29);">Ge 37:29</a>). Some have thought Reuben designed to set him free, from a desire to rehabilitate himself with his father. But there is no need to deny to Reuben certain noble and chivalrous qualities. Jacob seems to have appreciated these, and, perhaps, therefore all the more deeply lamented the lapse that spoiled his life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,3);">Ge 49:3</a>f). It was Reuben who felt that their perils and anxieties in Egypt were a fit recompense for the unbrotherly conduct (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',42,22);">Ge 42:22</a>). To assure his father of Benjamin\'s safe return from Egypt, whither Joseph required him to be taken, Reuben was ready to pledge his own two sons (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',42,37);">Ge 42:37</a>). Four sons born to him in Canaan went down with Reuben at the descent of Israel into Egypt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,8);">Ge 46:8</a>f).<P>The incidents recorded are regarded by a certain school of Old Testament scholars as the vague and fragmentary traditions of the tribe, wrought into the form of a biography of the supposed ancestor of the tribe. This interpretation raises more difficulties than it solves, and depends for coherence upon too many assumptions and conjectures. The narrative as it stands is quite intelligible and self-consistent. There is no good reason to doubt that, as far as it goes, it is an authentic record of the life of Jacob\'s son.<P>2. Tribal History:<P>At the first census in the wilderness Reuben numbered 46,500 men of war (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',1,21);">Nu 1:21</a>); at the second they had fallen to 43,730; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NUMBERS">NUMBERS</a>. The standard of the camp of Reuben was on the south side of the tabernacle; and with him were Simeon and Gad; the total number of fighting men in this division being 151, 450. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan says that the standard was a deer, with the legend "Hear O Israel, the Lord thy God is one Lord." On the march this division took the second place (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',2,10);">Nu 2:10</a>). The prince of the tribe was Elizur ben Shedeur, whose oblation is described in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',7,30);">Nu 7:30</a>ff. The Reubenite among the spies was Shammua ben Zaccur (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,4);">13:4</a>). It is possible that the conspiracy against Moses, organized by the Reubenites Dathan and Abiram, with the assistance of Korah the Levite (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',16,\'1-\');">Nu 16</a>), was an attempt on the part of the tribe to assert its rights as representing the firstborn. It is significant that the children of Korah did not perish (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,11);">26:11</a>). May not the influence of this incident on Moses\' mind be traced in his "blessing," wishing for the continuance of the tribe, indeed, but not in great strength (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,6);">De 33:6</a>)? This was a true forecast of the tribal history.<P>When the high plateau east of the Dead Sea and the Jordan fell into the hands of the Israelite invaders, these spacious pastoral uplands irresistibly attracted the great flock-masters of Reuben and Gad, two tribes destined to be neighbors during succeeding centuries. At their earnest request Moses allowed them their tribal possessions here subject to one condition, which they loyally accepted. They should not "sit here," and so discourage their brethren who went to war beyond the Jordan. They should provide for the security of their cattle, fortify cities to protect their little ones and their wives from the inhabitants of the land, and their men of war should go before the host in the campaign of conquest until the children of Israel should have inherited every man his inheritance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',32,\'1-27\');">Nu 32:1-27</a>). Of the actual part they took in that warfare there is no record, but perhaps "the stone of Bohan the son of Reuben" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,6);">Jos 15:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',18,17);">18:17</a>) marked some memorable deed of valor by a member of the tribe. At the end of the campaign the men of Reuben, having earned the gratitude of the western tribes, enriched by their share of the spoils of the enemy, returned with honor to their new home. Along with their brethren of Gad they felt the dangers attaching to their position of isolation, cut off from the rest of their people by the great cleft of the Jordan valley. They reared therefore the massive altar of Ed in the valley, so that in the very throat of that instrument of severance there might be a perpetual witness to themselves and to their children of the essential unity of Israel. The western tribes misunderstood the action and, dreading religious schism, gathered in force to stamp it out. Explanations followed which were entirely satisfactory, and a threatening danger was averted (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',22,\'1-\');">Jos 22</a>). But the instincts of the eastern tribes were right, as subsequent history was to prove. The Jordan valley was but one of many causes of sundering. The whole circumstances and conditions of life on the east differed widely from those on the west of the river, pastoral pursuits and life in the open being contrasted with agricultural and city life.<P>The land given by Moses to the tribe of Reuben reached from the Arnon, Wady el-Mojib, in the South, to the border of Gad in the north. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',32,34);">Nu 32:34</a> cities of Gad are named which lay far South, Aroer being on the very lip of the Arnon; but these are probably to be taken as an enclave in the territory of Reuben. From <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,15);">Jos 13:15</a>ff it is clear that the northern border ran from some point north of the Dead Sea in a direction east-northeast, passing to the north of Heshbon. The Dead Sea formed the western boundary, and it marched with the desert on the east. No doubt many districts changed hands in the course of the history. At the invasion of Tiglath-pileser, e.g., we read that Aroer was in the hands of the Reubenites, "and eastward...even unto the entrance of the wilderness from the river Euphrates" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',5,8);">1Ch 5:8</a>f). Bezer the city of refuge lay in Reuben\'s territory (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',20,8);">Jos 20:8</a>, etc.). A general description of the country will be found under <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MOAB">MOAB</a>; while the cities of Reuben are dealt with in separate articles.<P>Reuben and Gad, occupying contiguous districts, and even, as we have seen, to some extent overlapping, are closely associated in the history. Neither took part in the glorious struggle against Sisera (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,15);">Jud 5:15</a>). Already apparently the sundering influences were taking effect. They are not excepted, however, from "all the tribes of Israel" who sent contingents for the war against Benjamin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',20,10);">Jud 20:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',21,5);">21:5</a>), and the reference in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,15);">Jud 5:15</a> seems to show that Reuben might have done great things had he been disposed. The tribe therefore was still powerful, but perhaps absorbed by anxieties as to its relations with neighboring peoples. In guarding their numerous flocks against attack from the South, and sudden incursions from the desert, a warlike spirit and martial prowess were developed. They were "valiant men, men able to bear buckler and sword, and to shoot with bow, and skillful in war" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',5,18);">1Ch 5:18</a>). They overwhelmed the Hagrites with Jetur and Naphish and Nodab, and greatly enriched themselves with the spoil. In recording the raid the Chronicler pays a compliment to their religious loyalty: "They cried to God in the battle, and he was entreated of them, because they put their trust in him" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',5,19);">1Ch 5:19</a>). Along with Gad and Manasseh they sent a contingent of 120,000 men "with all manner of instruments of war for the battle,...men of war, that could order the battle array," men who "came with a perfect heart to Hebron, to make David king" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',12,37);">1Ch 12:37</a>f). Among David\'s mighty men was Adina, "a chief of the Reubenites, and thirty with him" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,42);">1Ch 11:42</a>). In the 40th year of David\'s reign overseers were set over the Reubenites "for every matter pertaining to God, and for the affairs of the king" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',26,32);">1Ch 26:32</a>). Perhaps in spite of the help given to David the Reubenites had never quite got over their old loyalty to the house of Saul. At any rate, when disruption came they joined the Northern Kingdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,31);">1Ki 11:31</a>).<P>The subsequent history of the tribe is left in much obscurity. Exposed as they were to hostile influences of Moab and the East, and cut off from fellowship with their brethren in worship, in their isolation they probably found the descent into idolatry all too easy, and the once powerful tribe sank into comparative insignificance. Of the immediate causes of this decline we have no knowledge. Moab established its authority over the land that had belonged to Reuben; and Mesha, in his inscription (M S), while he speaks of Gad, does not think Reuben worthy of mention. They had probably become largely absorbed in the northern tribe. They are named as suffering in the invasion of Hazael during the reign of Jehu (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',10,32);">2Ki 10:32</a>f). That "they trespassed against the God of their fathers, and played the harlot after the gods of the peoples of the land" is given as the reason for the fate that befell them at the hands of Pul, king of Assyria, who carried them away, "and brought them unto Halah, and Habor, and Hara, and to the river of Gozan" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',5,25);">1Ch 5:25</a>f).<P>The resemblance of Reuben\'s case to that of Simeon is striking, for Simeon also appears to have been practically absorbed in the tribe of Judah. The prestige that should have been Reuben\'s in virtue of his birthright is said to have passed to Joseph (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',5,1);">1Ch 5:1</a>). And the place of Reuben and Simeon in Israel is taken by the sons of Joseph, a fact referred to in the blessing of Jacob (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',48,5);">Ge 48:5</a>).<P>Ezekiel finds a place for Reuben in his picture of restored Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',48,6);">48:6</A>). He appears also<73>in this case preceded by Judah only<6C>in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',7,5);">Re 7:5</a>.``54';
isbe[7405]='Reubenites`roo\'-ben-its (ha-re\'ubheni; demoi Rhouben): Members of the tribe of Reuben (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,7);">Nu 26:7</a>, etc.). Adina, one of David\'s mighty men, was a Reubenite (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,42);">1Ch 11:42</a>).``1';
isbe[7406]='Reuel`roo\'-el (re\'u\'el, "God is his friend"; the Septuagint Rhagouel):<P>(1) In the genealogical system Reuel is both a son of Esau by Basemath (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,4,10,13,17);">Ge 36:4,10,13,17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,35,37);">1Ch 1:35,37</a>) and the father of the father-in-law of Moses, Hobab (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',10,29);">Nu 10:29</a>). In the account of the marriage of Zipporah to Moses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,\'16-21\');">Ex 2:16-21</a>) Jethro seems to be called Reuel (compare <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HOBAB">HOBAB</a>). The various names of Jethro perplexed the Talmudists, too; some held that his real name was "Hobab," and that Reuel was his father. Reuel is probably a clan name (Gray, "Nu," ICC), and Hobab is a member of the clan ("son") of Reuel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',10,29);">Nu 10:29</a>, the King James Version reads "Raguel").<P>(2) The father of Eliasaph, the prince of Gad (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',2,14);">Nu 2:14</a>), called (by some copyist\'s mistake) "Deuel" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',1,14);">Nu 1:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',7,42,47);">7:42,47</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',10,20);">10:20</a>. The Septuagint has uniformly Rhagouel.<P>(3) A Benjamite (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,8);">1Ch 9:8</a>).``197';
isbe[7407]='Reumah`roo\'-ma (re\'umah): The concubine of Nahor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,24);">Ge 22:24</a>).``1';
isbe[7408]='Revelation of John`<b>I. TITLE AND GENERAL CHARACTER OF BOOK</b><P class="in15">1. Title<P class="in15">2. Uniqueness and Reality of Visions<P><b>II. CANONICITY AND AUTHORSHIP</b><P class="in15">1. Patristic Testimony<P class="in15">2. Testimony of Book Itself<P class="in15">3. Objections to Johannine Authorship<69>Relation to Fourth Gospel<P><b>III. DATE AND UNITY OF THE BOOK</b><P class="in15">1. Traditional Date under Domitian<P class="in15">2. The Nero-Theory<P class="in15">3. Composite Hypotheses<65>Babylonian Theory<P><b>IV. PLAN AND ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK</b><P class="in15">1. General Scope<P class="in15">2. Detailed Analysis<P><b>V. PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION</b><P class="in15">1. General Scheme of Interpretation<P class="in15">2. The Newer Theories<P class="in15">3. The Book a True Prophecy<P><b>VI. THEOLOGY OF THE BOOK</b><P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>The last book of the New Testament. It professes to be the record of prophetic visions given by Jesus Christ to John, while the latter was a prisoner, "for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,9);">Re 1:9</a>), in <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PATMOS">PATMOS</a> (which see), a small rocky island in the Aegean, about 15 miles west of Ephesus. Its precursor in the Old Testament is the Book of Daniel, with the symbolic visions and mystical numbers of which it stands in close affinity. The peculiar form of the book, its relation to other "apocalyptic" writings, and to the Fourth Gospel, likewise attributed to John, the interpretation of its symbols, with disputed questions of its date, of worship, unity, relations to contemporary history, etc., have made it one of the most difficult books in the New Testament to explain satisfactorily.<P>I. Title and General Character of Book.<P>1. Title:<P>"Revelation" answers to apokalupsis, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,1);">Re 1:1</a>. The oldest form of the title would seem to be simply, "Apocalypse of John," the appended words "the divine" (theologos, i.e. "theologian") not being older than the 4th century (compare the title given to Gregory of Nazianzus, "Gregory theologian"). The book belongs to the class of works commonly named "apocalyptic," as containing visions and revelations of the future, frequently in symbolical form (e.g. the Book of Enoch, the Apocalypse of Bar, the Apocalypse of Ezr; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCALYPTIC+LITERATURE">APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE</a>), but it is doubtful if the word here bears this technical sense. The tendency at present is to group the New Testament Apocalypse with these others, and attribute to it the same kind of origin as theirs, namely, in the unbridled play of religious fantasy, clothing itself in unreal visional form.<P>2. Uniqueness and Reality of Visions:<P>But there is a wide distinction. These other works are pseudonymous<75>fictitious; on the face of them products of imagination; betraying that this is their origin in their crude, confused, unedifying character. The Apocalypse bears on it the name of its author<6F>an apostle of Jesus Christ (see below); claims to rest on real visions; rings with the accent of sincerity; is orderly, serious, sublime, purposeful, in its conceptions; deals with the most solemn and momentous of themes. On the modern Nerotheory, to which most recent expositors give adherence, it is a farrago of baseless fantasies, no one of which came true. On its own claim it is a product of true prophecy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,3);">Re 1:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,18);">22:18</a>f), and has or will have sure fulfillment. Parallels here and there are sought between it and the Book of Enoch or the Apocalypse of Ezra. As a rule the resemblances arise from the fact that these works draw from the same store of the ideas and imagery of the Old Testament. It is there the key is chiefly to be sought to the symbolism of John. The Apocalypse is steeped in the thoughts, the images, even the language of the Old Testament (compare the illustrations in Lightfoot, Galatians, 361,where it is remarked: "The whole book is saturated with illustrations from the Old Testament. It speaks not the language of Paul, but of Isaiah and Ezekiel and Daniel"). These remarks will receive elucidation in what follows.<P>II. Canonicity and Authority.<P>1. Patristic Testimony:<P>The two questions of canonicity and authorship are closely connected. Eusebius states that opinion in his day was divided on the book, and he himself wavers between placing it among the disputed books or ranking it with the acknowledged (homologoumena). "Among these," he says, "if such a view seem correct, we must place the Apocalypse of John" (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 25). That it was rightly so placed appears from a survey of the evidence. The first to refer to the book expressly is Justin Martyr (circa 140 AD), who speaks of it as the work of "a certain man, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ" (Dial, 81). Irenaeus (circa 180 AD) repeatedly and decisively declares that the Apocalypse was written by John, a disciple of the Lord (Adv. Haer., iv.20, 11; 30, 4; v.26, 1; 35,2,etc.), and comments on the number 666 (v.30, 1). In his case there can be no doubt that the apostle John is meant. Andreas of Cappadocia (5th century) in a Commentary on the Apocalypse states that Papias (circa 130 AD) bore witness to its credibility, and cites a comment by him on <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',12,\'7-9\');">Re 12:7-9</a>. The book is quoted in the Epistle on the martyrs of Vienne and Lyons (177 AD); had a commentary written on it by Melito of Sardis (circa 170 AD), one of the churches of the Apocalypse (Euseb., HE, IV, 26); was used by Theophilus of Antioch (circa 168 AD) and by Apollonius (circa 210 AD; HE, V, 25)<29>in these cases being cited as the Apocalypse of John. It is included as John\'s in the Canon of Muratori (circa 200 AD). The Johannine authorship (apostolic) is abundantly attested by Tertullian (circa 200 AD; Adv. Mar., iii.14,24,etc.); by Hippolytus (circa 240 AD), who wrote a work upon it; by Clement of Alexandria (circa 200 AD); by Origen (circa 230 AD), and other writers. Doubt about the authorship of the book is first heard of in the obscure sect of the Alogi (end of the 2nd century), who, with Caius, a Roman presbyter (circa 205 AD), attributed it to Cerinthus. More serious was the criticism of Dionysius of Alexandria (circa 250 AD), who, on internal grounds, held that the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse could not have come from the same pen (Euseb., HE, VII, 25). He granted, however, that it was the work of a holy and inspired man<61>another John. The result was that, while "in the Western church," as Bousset grants, "the Apocalypse was accepted unanimously from the first" (EB, I, 193), a certain doubt attached to it for a time in sections of the Greek and Syrian churches. It is not found in the Peshitta, and a citation from it in Ephraim the Syrian (circa 373) seems not to be genuine. Cyril of Jerusalem (circa 386 AD) omits it from his list, and it is unmentioned by the Antiochian writers (Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret). The Canon attributed to the Council of Laodicea (circa 360 AD) does not name it, but it is doubtful whether this document is not of later date (compare Westcott; also Bousset, Die Offenb. Joh., 28). On the other hand, the book is acknowledged by Methodius, Pamphilus, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril Alex., Epiphanius, etc.<P>2. Testimony of Book Itself:<P>The testimony to the canonicity, and also to the Johannine authorship, of the Apocalypse is thus exceptionally strong. In full accordance with it is the claim of the book itself. It proclaims itself to be the work of John (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,1,4,9);">Re 1:1,4,9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,8);">22:8</a>), who does not, indeed, name himself an apostle, yet, in his inspired character, position of authority in the Asian churches, and selection as the medium of these revelations, can hardly be thought of as other than the well-known John of the Gospels and of consentient church tradition. The alternative view, first suggested as a possibility by Eusebius, now largely favored by modern writers, is that the John intended is the "presbyter John" of a well-known passage cited by Eusebius from Papias (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 39). Without entering into the intricate questions connected with this "presbyter John"<22>whether he was really a distinct person from the apostle (Zahn and others dispute it), or whether, if he was, he resided at Ephesus (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOHN,+GOSPEL+OF">JOHN, GOSPEL OF</a>)<29>it is enough here to say that the reason already given, viz: the importance and place of authority of the author of the Apocalypse in the Asian churches, and the emphatic testimony above cited connecting him with the apostle, forbid the attribution of the book to a writer wholly unknown to church tradition, save for this casual reference to him in Papias. Had the assumed presbyter really been the author, he could not have dropped so completely out of the knowledge of the church, and had his place taken all but immediately by the apostle.<P>3. Objections to Johannine Authorship<69>Relation to Fourth Gospel:<P>One cause of the hesitancy regarding the Apocalypse in early circles was dislike of its millenarianism; but the chief reason, set forth with much critical skill by Dionysius of Alexandria (Euseb., HE, VII, 25), was the undoubted contrast in character and style between this work and the Fourth Gospel, likewise claiming to be from the pen of John. Two works so diverse in character<65>the Gospel calm, spiritual, mystical, abounding in characteristic expressions as "life," "light," "love," etc., written in idiomatic Greek; the Apocalypse abrupt, mysterious, material in its imagery, inexact and barbarous in its idioms, sometimes employing solecisms<6D>could not, it was argued, proceed from the same author. Not much, beyond amplification of detail, has been added to the force of the arguments of Dionysius. There were three possibilities<65>either first, admitting the Johannine authorship of the Apocalypse, to assail the genuineness of the Gospel<65>this was the method of the school of Baur; or, second, accepting the Gospel, to seek a different author for the Apocalypse<73>John the presbyter, or another: thus not a few reverent scholars (Bleek, Neander, etc.); or, third, with most moderns, to deny the Johannine authorship of both Gospel and Apocalypse, with a leaning to the "presbyter" as the author of the latter (Harnack, Bousset, Moffatt, etc.). Singularly there has been of late in the advanced school itself a movement in the direction of recognizing that this difficulty of style is less formidable than it looks<6B>that, in fact, beneath the surface difference, there is a strong body of resemblances pointing to a close relationship of Gospel and Apocalypse. This had long been argued by the older writers (Godet, Luthardt, Alford, Salmon, etc.), but it is now more freely acknowledged. As instances among many may be noted the use of the term "Logos" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,13);">Re 19:13</a>), the image of the "Lamb," figures like "water of life" words and phrases as "true," "he that overcometh," "keep the commandments," etc. A striking coincidence is the form of quotation of <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',12,10);">Zec 12:10</a> in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,37);">Joh 19:37</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,7);">Re 1:7</a>. If the Greek in parts shows a certain abruptness and roughness, it is plainly evidenced by the use of the correct constructions in other passages that this is not due to want of knowledge of the language. "The very rules which he breaks in one place he observes in others" (Salmon). There are, besides, subtle affinities in the Greek usage of the two books, and some of the very irregularities complained of are found in the Gospel (for ample details consult Bousset, op. cit.; Godet, Commentary on John, I, 267-70, English translation; Alford, Greek Test., IV, 224-28; Salmon, Introduction to the New Testament, 233-43, 2nd edition; the last-named writer says: "I have produced instances enough to establish decisively that there is the closest possible affinity between the Revelation and the other Johannine books"). Great differences in character and style no doubt still remain. Some, to leave room for these, favor an early date for the Apocalypse (68-69 BC; on this below); the trend of opinion, however, now seems, as will be shown, to be moving back to the traditional date in the reign of Domitian, in which case the Gospel will be the earlier, and the Apocalypse the later work. This, likewise, seems to yield the better explanation. The tremendous experiences of Patmos, bursting through all ordinary and calmer states of consciousness, must have produced startling changes in thought and style of composition. The "rapt seer" will not speak and write like the selfcollected, calmly brooding evangelist.<P>III. Date and Unity of the Book.<P>1. Traditional Date under Domitian:<P>Eusebius, in summing up the tradition of the Church on this subject, assigns John\'s exile to Patmos, and consequently the composition of the Apocalypse, to the latter part of the reign of Domitian (81-96 AD). Irenaeus (circa 180 AD) says of the book, "For it was seen, not a long time ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian" (Adv. Haer., v.30, 3). This testimony is confirmed by Clement of Alexandria (who speaks of "the tyrant"), Origen, and later writers. Epiphanius (4th century), indeed, puts (Haer., li.12, 233) the exile to Patmos in the reign of Claudius (41-54 AD); but as, in the same sentence, he speaks of the apostle as 90 years of age, it is plain there is a strange blunder in the name of the emperor. The former date answers to the conditions of the book (decadence of the churches; widespread and severe persecution), and to the predilection of Domitian for this mode of banishment (compare Tacitus, History i.2; Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 18).<P>2. The Nero-Theory:<P>This, accordingly, may be regarded as the traditional date of composition of the Apocalypse, though good writers, influenced partly by the desire to give time for the later composition of the Gospel, have signified a preference for an earlier date (e.g. Westcott, Salmon). It is by no means to be assumed, however, that the Apocalypse is the earlier production. The tendency of recent criticism, it will be seen immediately, is to revert to the traditional date (Bousset, etc.); but for a decade or two, through the prevalence of what may be called the "Nero-theory" of the book, the pendulum swung strongly in favor of its composition shortly after the death of Nero, and before the destruction of Jerusalem (held to be shown to be still standing by <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',11,\'1-\');">Re 11</a>), i.e. about 68-69 AD. This date was even held to be demonstrated beyond all question. Reuss may be taken as an example. According to him (Christian Theology of the Apostolic Age, I, 369ff, English translation), apart from the ridiculous preconceptions of theologians, the Apocalypse is "the most simple, most transparent book that prophet ever penned." "There is no other apostolical writing the chronology of which can be more exactly fixed." "It was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, under the emperor Galba<62>that is to say, in the second half of the year 68 of our era." He proceeds to discuss "the irrefutable proofs" of this. The proof, in brief, is found in the beast (not introduced till <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',13,\'1-\');">Re 13</a>) with seven heads, one of which has been mortally wounded, but is for the present healed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',13,3);">Re 13:3</a>). "This is the Roman empire, with its first 7 emperors, one of whom is killed, but is to live again as Antichrist" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',17,10);">Re 17:10</a>f). The key to the whole book is said to be given in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',13,18);">Re 13:18</a>, where the number of the beast is declared to be 666. Applying the method of numerical values (the Jewish Gematria), this number is found to correspond with the name "Nero Caesar" in Hebrew letters (omitting the yodh, the Hebrew letter "y"). Nero then is the 5th head that is to live again; an interpretation confirmed by rumors prevalent at that time that Nero was not really dead, but only hidden, and was soon to return to claim his throne. As if to make assurance doubly sure, it is found that by dropping the final "n" in "Neron," the number becomes 616<31>a number which Irenaeus in his comments on the subject (v.30,1) tells us was actually found in some ancient copies. The meaning therefore is thought to be clear. Writing under the emperor Galba, the 6th emperor (reckoning from Augustus), the author anticipates, after a short reign of a 7th emperor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',17,10);">Re 17:10</a>), the return of the Antichrist Nero<72>an 8th, but of the 7, with whom is to come the end. Jerusalem is to be miraculously preserved (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',11,\'1-\');">Re 11</a>), but Rome is to perish. This is to happen within the space of 3 1/2 years. "The final catastrophe, which was to destroy the city and empire, was to take place in three years and a half....The writer knows...that Rome will in three years and a half perish finally, never to rise again." It does not matter for this theory that not one of the things predicted happened<65>that every anticipation was falsified. Nero did not return; Jerusalem was not saved; Rome did not perish; 3 1/2 years did not see the end of all things. Yet the Christian-church, though the failure of every one of these predictions had been decisively demonstrated, received the book as of divine inspiration, apparently without the least idea that such things had been intended (see the form of theory in Renan, with a keen criticism in Salmon\'s Introduction to the New Testament, lecture xiv).<P>3. Composite Hypotheses<65>Babylonian Theory:<P>What is to be said with reference to this "Nero-theory" belongs to subsequent sections: meanwhile it is to be observed that, while portions of theory are retained, significant changes have since taken place in the view entertained of the book as a whole, and with this of the date to be assigned to it. First, after 1882, came a flood of disintegrating hypotheses, based on the idea that the Apocalypse was not a unity, but was either a working up of one or more Jewish apocalypses by Christian hands, or at least incorporated fragments of such apocalypses (Uslter, Vischer, Weizsacker, Weyland, Pfieiderer, Spitta, etc.). Harnack lent his influential support to the form of this theory advocated by Vischer, and for a time the idea had vogue. Very soon, however, it fell into discredit through its own excesses (for details on the different views, see Bousset, or Moffatt\'s Introduction to the New Testament, 489ff), and through increasing appreciation of the internal evidence for the unity of the book. Gunkel, in his Schopfung und Chaos (1895), started another line of criticism in his derivation of the conceptions of the book, not from Jewish apocalypse, but from Babylonian mythology. He assailed with sharp criticism the "contemporary history" school of interpretation (the "Nero-theory" above), and declared its "bankruptcy." The number of the beast, with him, found its solution, not in Nero, but in the Hebrew name for the primeval chaos. This theory, too, has failed in general acceptance, though elements in it are adopted by most recent interpreters. The modified view most in favor now is that the Apocalypse is, indeed, the work of a Christian writer of the end of the 1st century, but embodies certain sections borrowed from Jewish apocalypse (as <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',7,\'1-8\');">Re 7:1-8</a>, the 144,000; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',11,\'1-\');">Re 11</a>, measuring of the temple and the two witnesses; especially <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',12,\'1-\');">Re 12</a>, the woman and red dragon<6F>this, in turn, reminiscent of Babylonian mythology). These supposed Jewish sections are, however, without real support in anything that is known, and the symbolism admits as easily of a Christian interpretation as any other part of the book. We are left, therefore, as before, with the book as a unity, and the tide of opinion flows back to the age of Domitian as the time of its origin. Moffatt (connecting it mistakenly, as it seems to us, with Domitian\'s emphasis on the imperial cult, but giving also other reasons) goes so far as to say that "any earlier date for the book is hardly possible" (Expository Greek Testament, V, 317). The list of authorities for the Domitianie date may be seen in Moffatt, Introduction, 508.<P>IV. Plan and Analysis of the Book.<P>1. General Scope:<P>The method of the book may thus be indicated. After an introduction, and letters to the seven churches (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,\'1-\');">Re 1-3</a>), the properly prophetic part of the book commences with a vision of heaven (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',4,\'1-\');">Re 4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',5,\'1-\');">5</a>), following upon which are two series of visions of the future, parallel, it would appear, to each other<65>the first, the 7 seals, and under the 7th seal, the 7 trumpets (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,\'1-\');">Re 6:1-11:19</a>, with interludes in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',7,\'1-\');">Re 7</a> and again in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',10,\'1-\');">Re 10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',11,\'1-\');">11:1</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',12,1);">12:1</a>); the second, the woman and her child (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',12,\'1-\');">Re 12</a>), the 2 beasts (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',13,\'1-\');">Re 13</a>), and, after new interludes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',14,\'1-\');">Re 14</a>), the bowls and 7 last plagues (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',15,\'1-\');">Re 15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',16,\'1-\');">16</a>). The expansion of the last judgments is given in separate pictures (the scarlet woman, doom of Babylon, Har-Magedon, <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',17,1);">Re 17-19</a>); then come the closing scenes of the millennium, the last apostasy, resurrection and judgment (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,\'1-\');">Re 20</a>), followed by the new heavens and new earth, with the descending new Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',21,\'1-\');">Re 21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,1);">22</a>). The theme of the book is the conflict of Christ and His church with anti-Christian powers (the devil, the beast, the false prophet, <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',16,13);">Re 16:13</a>), and the ultimate and decisive defeat of the latter; its keynote is in the words, "Come, Lord Jesus" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,20);">Re 22:20</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,7);">Re 1:7</a>); but it is to be noticed, as characteristic of the book, that while this "coming" is represented as, in manner, ever near, the end, as the crisis approaches, is again always postponed by a fresh development of events. Thus, under the 6th seal, the end seems reached (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,\'12-17\');">Re 6:12-17</a>), but a pause ensues (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',7,\'1-\');">Re 7</a>), and on the opening of the seventh seal, a new series begins with the trumpets (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',8,2);">Re 8:2</a>). Similarly, at the sounding of the 6th trumpet, the end seems at hand (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',9,\'12-21\');">Re 9:12-21</a>), but a new pause is introduced before the last sounding takes place (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',11,15);">Re 11:15</a>). Then is announced the final victory, but as yet only in summary. A new series of visions begins, opening into large perspectives, till, after fresh interludes, and the pouring out of 6 of the bowls of judgment, Har-Magedon itself is reached; but though, at the outpouring of the 7th bowl, it is proclaimed, "It is done" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',16,17);">Re 16:17</a>), the end is again held over till these final judgments are shown in detail. At length, surely, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,\'1-\');">Re 19</a>, with the appearance of the white horseman<61>"The Word of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,13);">19:13</A>)<29>and the decisive overthrow of all his adversaries (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,\'18-21\');">19:18-21</A>), the climax is touched; but just then, to our surprise, intervenes the announcement of the binding of Satan for 1,000 years, and the reign of Jesus and His saints upon the earth (the interpretation is not here discussed), followed by a fresh apostasy, and the general resurrection and judgment (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,\'1-\');">Re 20</a>). Precise time-measures evidently fail in dealing with a book so constructed: the 3 1/2 years of the Nero-interpreters sink into insignificance in its crowded panorama of events. The symbolic numbers that chiefly rule in the book are "seven," the number of completeness (7 spirits, seals, trumpets, bowls, heads of beasts); "ten," the number of worldly power (10 horns); "four," the earthly number (4 living creatures, corners of earth, winds, etc.); 3 1/2 years<72>42 months<68>"time, and times, and half a time" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',12,14);">Re 12:14</a>) = 1,260 days, the period, borrowed from Daniel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',7,25);">7:25</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',12,7);">12:7</A>), of anti-Christian ascendancy.<P>2. Detailed Analysis:<P>The following is a more detailed analysis:<P><b>I. INTRODUCTION</b><P class="in15">1. Title and Address (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,\'1-8\');">Re 1:1-8</a>)<P class="in15">2. Vision of Jesus and Message to the Seven Churches of the Province of Asia (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,\'9-20\');">Re 1:9-20</a>)v3. The Letters to the Seven Churches (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,\'1-\');">Re 2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',3,\'1-\');">3</a>)<P class="in30">(1) Ephesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,\'1-7\');">Re 2:1-7</a>)<P class="in30">(2) Smyrna (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,\'8-11\');">Re 2:8-11</a>)<P class="in30">(3) Pergamos (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,\'12-17\');">Re 2:12-17</a>)<P class="in30">(4) Thyatira (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,\'18-29\');">Re 2:18-29</a>)<P class="in30">(5) Sardis (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',3,\'1-6\');">Re 3:1-6</a>)<P class="in30">(6) Philadelphia (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',3,\'7-13\');">Re 3:7-13</a>)<P class="in30">(7) Laodicea (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',3,\'14-22\');">Re 3:14-22</a>)<P><b>II. THE THINGS TO COME. FIRST SERIES OF VISIONS: THE SEALS AND TRUMPETS</b><P class="in15">1. The Vision of Heaven<P class="in30">(1) Adoration of the Creator (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',4,\'1-\');">Re 4</a>)<P class="in30">(2) The 7-Sealed Book; Adoration of God and the Lamb (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',5,\'1-\');">Re 5</a>)<P class="in15">2. Opening of Six Seals (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,\'1-\');">Re 6</a>)<P class="in30">(1) The White Horse (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,1,2);">Re 6:1,2</a>)<P class="in30">(2) The Red Horse (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,3,4);">Re 6:3,4</a>)<P class="in30">(3) The Black Horse (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,5,6);">Re 6:5,6</a>)<P class="in30">(4) The Pale Horse (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,7,8);">Re 6:7,8</a>)<P class="in30">(5) Souls under the Altar (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,\'9-11\');">Re 6:9-11</a>)<P class="in30">(6) The Wrath of the Lamb (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,\'12-17\');">Re 6:12-17</a>)<P class="in15">3. Interludes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',7,\'1-\');">Re 7</a>)<P class="in30">(1) Sealing of 144,000 on Earth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',7,\'1-8\');">Re 7:1-8</a>)<P class="in30">(2) Triumphant Multitude in Heaven (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',7,\'9-17\');">Re 7:9-17</a>)<P class="in15">4. Opening of Seventh Seal: under This Seven Trumpets, of Which Six Now Sounded (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',8,\'1)-\';">Re 8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',9,\'1-\');">9</a>)<P class="in30">(1) Hail and Fire on Earth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',8,7);">Re 8:7</a>)<P class="in30">(2) Burning Mountain in Sea (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',8,8,9);">Re 8:8,9</a>)<P class="in30">(3) Burning Star on Rivers and Fountains (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',8,10,11);">Re 8:10,11</a>)<P class="in30">(4) One-third Sun, Moon, and Stars Darkened (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',8,12);">Re 8:12</a>). "Woe"<22>Trumpets (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',8,13);">Re 8:13</a>)<P class="in30">(5) The Fallen Star-Locusts (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',9,\'1-11\');">Re 9:1-11</a>)<P class="in30">(6) Angels Loosed from Euphrates<65>the Horseman (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',9,\'12-21\');">Re 9:12-21</a>)<P class="in15">5. Interludes<65><P class="in30">(1) Angel with Little Book (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',10,\'1-\');">Re 10</a>)<P class="in30">(2) Measuring of Temple and Altar<61>the Two Witnesses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',11,\'1-13\');">Re 11:1-13</a>)<P class="in15">6. Seventh Trumpet Sounded<65>Final Victory (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',11,\'14-19\');">Re 11:14-19</a>)<P><b>III. SECOND SERIES OF VISIONS: THE WOMAN AND THE RED DRAGON; THE TWO BEASTS; THE BOWLS AND LAST PLAGUES</b><P class="in15">1. The Woman and Child; the Red Dragon and His Persecutions (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',12,\'1-\');">Re 12</a>)<P class="in15">2. The Beast from the Sea, Seven-headed, Ten-horned (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',13,\'1-10\');">Re 13:1-10</a>); the Two-horned Beast (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',13,\'11-18\');">Re 13:11-18</a>)<P class="in15">3. Interludes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',14,1);">Re 14</a>)<P class="in30">(1) The Lamb on Mt. Zion; the 144,000 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',14,\'1-5\');">Re 14:1-5</a>)<P class="in30">(2) The Angel with "an Eternal Gospel" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',14,6,7);">Re 14:6,7</a>)<P class="in30">(3) Second Angel<65>(Anticipatory) Proclamation of Fall of Babylon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',14,8);">Re 14:8</a>)<P class="in30">(4) Third Angel<65>Doom of Worshippers of the Beast (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',14,\'9-12\');">Re 14:9-12</a>)<P class="in30">(5) Blessedness of the Dead in the Lord (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',14,13);">Re 14:13</a>)<P class="in30">(6) The Son of Man and the Great Vintage (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',14,\'14-20\');">Re 14:14-20</a>)<P class="in15">4. The Seven Last Plagues<65>the Angels and Their Bowls: the Preparation in heaven (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',15,\'1-\');">Re 15</a>)<29>the Outpouring (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',16,\'1-\');">Re 16</a>)<P class="in30">(1) On Earth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',16,2);">Re 16:2</a>)<P class="in30">(2) On Sea (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',16,3);">Re 16:3</a>)<P class="in30">(3) On Rivers and Fountains (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',16,\'4-7\');">Re 16:4-7</a>)<P class="in30">(4) On Sun (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',16,8,9);">Re 16:8,9</a>)<P class="in30">(5) On Seat of Beast (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',16,10),11;">Re 16:10,11</a>)<P class="in30">(6) On Euphrates<65>Har-Magedon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',16,\'12-16\');">Re 16:12-16</a>)<P class="in30">(7) In the Air<69>Victory and Fall of Babylon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',16,\'17-21\');">Re 16:17-21</a>)<P><b>IV. EXPANSION OF LAST JUDGMENTS</b> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',17,\'1-\');">Re 17-19</a>)<P class="in15">1. The Scarlet Woman on Beast<73>Her Judgment (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',17,\'1-\');">Re 17</a>)<P class="in15">2. Doom of Babylon and Lament over Her (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',18,\'1-\');">Re 18</a>)<P class="in15">3. Interlude<64>Announcement of Marriage of the Lamb (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,\'1-10\');">Re 19:1-10</a>)<P class="in15">4. Rider on White Horse ("The Word of God") and His Armies<65>Last Battle and Doom of Beast, False Prophet, and Their Followers (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,\'11-21\');">Re 19:11-21</a>)<P><b>V. THE MILLENNIUM<55>NEW HEAVENS AND NEW EARTH</b> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,\'1-\');">Re 20</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',21,\'1-\');">21; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,\'1-\');">22</a>)<P class="in15">1. Satan Bound; First Resurrection and Reign of Saints for 1,000 Years (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,\'1-6\');">Re 20:1-6</a>)<P class="in15">2. Loosing of Satan and Final Conflict<63>Doom of Adversaries and of the Devil (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,\'7-10\');">Re 20:7-10</a>)<P class="in15">3. General Resurrection and Last Judgment (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,\'11-15\');">Re 20:11-15</a>)<P class="in15">4. New Heavens and New Earth<P class="in30">(1) The New Jerusalem from Heaven (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',21,\'1-9\');">Re 21:1-9</a>)<P class="in30">(2) Description of the City (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',21,\'10-27\');">Re 21:10-27</a>)<P class="in30">(3) Blessedness of Its Citizens (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,\'1-7\');">Re 22:1-7</a>)<P class="in30">(4) Epilogue (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,\'8-21\');">Re 22:8-21</a>)<hr /><P>V. Principles of Interpretation.<P>1. General Scheme of Interpretation:<P>As a book intended for the consolation of the church under present and future afflictions, the Apocalypse is meant by its author to be understood (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,3);">Re 1:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,7);">22:7</a>). He must have been aware, however, that, while its general scope might be apprehended, mystery must rest upon many of its symbols, till the time of their actual fulfillment. The book relates to "things which must shortly come to pass" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,1);">Re 1:1</a>)<29>in their beginnings at least<73>and the divers interpretations since put upon its prophecies are the best evidence of the difficulties attaching to them. Schemes of interpretation have generally been grouped into praeterist (the prophecies being regarded as already fulfilled), futurist (the fulfillment being thrown wholly into the future), and the historical (the fulfillment being looked for in the continuous history of the church from John\'s day till the end).<P>(1) The older praeterist view may be taken as represented by Moses Stuart, who finds the fulfillment of <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,\'1-\');">Re 6-11</a> in the destruction of Jerusalem (Commentary, 520ff), and of <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',13,\'1-\');">Re 13-19</a> in the reign of Nero (690ff). Even he, however, has to interpret the chapter on the last things of the future.<P>(2) The futurist view connects the whole with the times of the second advent and the millennium. The beast is an individual who shall then appear as Antichrist. This rejects the plain intimations of the book that the events predicted lay, in their beginnings at least, immediately in the future of the writer.<P>(3) The historical view connects the various symbols with definite occurrences<65>as the invasions which overthrew the Roman Empire (the first 4 trumpets), the Saracens (first woe-trumpet), the Turks (second woe-trumpet), the papacy (the beast, <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',13,\'1-\');">Re 13</a>; the scarlet woman, <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',17,\'1-\');">Re 17</a>), etc. A day-year principle is applied to the periods (1,260 days<79>1,260 years). As representatives of this view may be mentioned Mode, Vitringa, Sir Isaac Newton, Elliott in Horae Apocalypticae, A. Barnes.<P>2. The Newer Theories:<P>These older schemes are largely put out of date by the newer theories, already alluded to, in which the Apocalypse is explained out of contemporary conditions, the legend of the returning Nero, Jewish apocalypse, and Babylonian mythology. These are praeterist theories also, but differ from the older in that in them all real prophecy is denied. A mainstay of such theories is the declaration of the book that the events announced are close at hand (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,1,3);">Re 1:1,3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,20);">22:20</a>). When, however, it is remembered that, on any view, this nearness includes a period of 1,000 years before the judgment and descent of the new Jerusalem, it will be felt that it will not do to give these expressions too restricted a temporal significance. The horizon is wider. The coming of Christ is ever near<61>ever approaching<6E>yet it is not to be tied down to "times and seasons"; it is more of the nature of a process and has anticipatory exemplifications in many crises and providential events forecasting the end (see above). The "coming," e.g. to the church at Ephesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,5);">Re 2:5</a>), or to the church at Pergamos (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',9,16);">Re 9:16</a>)<29>contingent events<74>can hardly exhaust the full meaning of the Parousia. The Nero-theory demands a date at latest under Galba, but that date we have seen to be generally abandoned. Those who place it under Vespasian (omitting three short reigns) sacrifice the advantage of dating the book before the destruction of Jerusalem, and have to fall back on a supposititious Jewish fragment in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',11,\'1-\');">Re 11</a>, which those who incorporated it must have known had never been fulfilled. The attempt to give a "contemporary historical" interpretation to the symbols of the successive churches, as Gunkel has acutely shown, completely breaks down in practice, while Gunkel\'s own attempt at a Babylonian explanation will be judged by most to be overstrained. "Dragon" in the Old Testament and elsewhere may be associated with widespread oriental ideas, but the definite symbolism of the Apocalypse in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',12,\'1)-\';">Re 12</a> has no provable connection with Babylonian myths. There is the widest disagreement in theories of "composite" origin (from Jewish apocalypse). What seems simple and demonstrable to one has no plausibility to others. A form of "Nero Caesar," indeed, yields the mystic 666, but so do 1,000 other names<65>almost any name, with proper manipulation (compare Salmon, lecture xiv). Lastly, the returning-Nero legend yields no satisfactory explanation of the language in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',13,3,12,14);">Re 13:3,12,14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',17,11);">17:11</a>. The theory is that these words allude to the belief that Nero would return from the dead and become Antichrist (see above). Tacitus attests that there were vague rumors that Nero had not really died (Hist. ii.8), and later a pretender arose in Parthia taking advantage of this feeling (Suet. Nero. 57). The idea of Nero returning from the dead is categorically stated in Sib Or 5:363-70 (circa 120 AD); compare Sib Or 4:119-22 (circa 80 AD). Augustine mentions the idea (City of God, xx.19, 3), but without connection with the Apocalypse. By Domitian\'s time, however, it was perfectly certain that Nero had not returned, and there was no longer, on this interpretation, any appositeness in speaking of a "head" the "deathstroke" of which was healed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',13,3);">Re 13:3</a>), which became the "eighth head" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',17,11);">Re 17:11</a><3E>if, indeed, the apostle could be conceived capable of being influenced by such vagaries. The events predicted lay, evidently, still in the future. It may be added that neither Irenaeus, nor any early interpreter, seems to have heard of the connection of 666 with "Nero." Ireneus himself suggests the solution Lateinos (compare Salmon, ut supra).<P>3. The Book a True Prophecy:<P>It is not proposed here to attempt the lines of a positive interpretation. If it is once recognized that the Apocalypse is a book of true prophecy, that its symbols stand for something real, and that its perspective is not to be limited to a brief period like 3 1/2 years, the way is opened, not, indeed, for a reading into it of a series of precise historical occurrences, but still for doing justice to the truth which lies at the basis of the historical interpretation, namely, that there are here prefigured the great crises in the age-long conflict of Christ and His church with pagan and anti-Christian adversaries. Events and tendencies may be grouped, or under different forms may relate to the same subject (e.g. the 144,000 sealed on earth<74>a spiritual Israel<65>in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',7,\'1-8\');">Re 7:1-8</a>, and the triumphant multitude in heaven, <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',7,\'9-17\');">7:9-17</a>); successions of events may be foreshortened; different pictures may overlap; but, shining through the symbols, great truths and facts which have historical realization appear. There is no need for supposing that, in a drama of this range, the "heads" of the beast of <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',13,\'1-\');">Re 13</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',17,\'1-\');">17</A> (behind whom is the Dragon-enemy, Satan, of <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',12,\'1-\');">Re 12</a>) stand, in contrariety to the analogy of Daniel, for seven individual emperors, and that "the image of the beast," which has life given to it and "speaks" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',13,14,15);">Re 13:14,15</a>), is the statue of the emperor; or that such tremendous events as the fall of the Roman Empire, or the rise of the papacy<63>with which, however, must be combined all ecclesiastical anti-Christianism<73>or the false prophecy of later intellectual anti-Christianism have no place in the symbolism of the book. Sane, reverent thought will suggest many lines of correspondence with the course of God\'s providence, which may serve to illuminate its dark places. More than this need not be said here.<P>VI. Theology of the Book.<P>On this it is hardly necessary to dwell, for expositors are now well agreed that in its great doctrines of God, Christ, man, sin, redemption, the teaching of the Apocalypse does not vary essentially from the great types in the Epistles. The assonances with John\'s mode of thinking have already been alluded to. It is granted by all writers that the Christology is as high as anywhere in the New Testament. "It ought unhesitatingly to be acknowledged," says Reuss, "that Christ is placed in the Apocalypse on a paragraph with God" (op. cit., I, 397-98; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,4,17);">Re 1:4,17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,8);">2:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',5,\'12-14\');">5:12-14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,13);">22:13</a>, etc.). Not less striking are the correspondences with the teaching of Paul and of Peter on redemption through the blood of Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,5);">Re 1:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',5,9);">5:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',7,14);">7:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',14,4);">14:4</a>, etc.). The perverted conception of the school of Baur that we have in the book an anti-Pauline manifesto (thus also Pfieiderer; compare Hibbert Lectures, 178), is now practically dead (see the criticism of it by Reuss, op. cit., I, 308-12). The point in which its eschatology differs from that of the rest of the New Testament is in its introduction of the millennium before the final resurrection and judgment. This enlarges, but does not necessarily contradict, the earlier stage of thought.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Moses Stuart, Commentary on Apocalypse; Alford, Greek Testament, IV, "The Revelation"; S. Davidson, Introduction to the New Testament (3rd edition), 176ff; G. Salmon, Introduction to the New Testament (2nd edition), lects xiii, xiv; Elliott, Horae Apocalypticae, with literature there mentioned; Farrar, Early Days of Christianity, chapter xxviii; Milligan, Discussions on the Apocalypse; H. Gunkel, Schopfung und Chaos; W. Bousset, Die Offenbarung Johannis, and article "Apocalypse" in EB, I; C. Anderson Scott, "Revelation" in Century Bible; J. Moffatt, Introduction to Literature of the New Testament (with notices of literature); also "Revelation" in Expositor\'s Bible; Trench, Epistles to the Seven Churches; W. M. Rarnsay, Letters to the Seven Churches; H. B. Swete, The Apocalypse of John.``132';
isbe[7409]='Revelation, 1-2`rev-e-la\'-shun:<P><b>I. THE NATURE OF REVELATION</b><P class="in15">1. The Religion of the Bible the Only Supernatural Religion<P class="in15">2. General and Special Revelation<P class="in30">(1) Revelation in Eden<P class="in30">(2) Revelation among the Heathen<P><b>II. THE PROCESS OF REVELATION</b><P class="in15">1. Place of Revelation among the Redemptive Acts of God<P class="in15">2. Stages of Material Development<P><b>III. THE MODES OF REVELATION</b><P class="in15">1. The Several Modes of Revelation<P class="in15">2. Equal Supernaturalness of the Several Modes<P class="in15">3. The Prophet God\'s Mouthpiece<P class="in15">4. Visionary Form of Prophecy<P class="in15">5. "Passivity" of Prophets<P class="in15">6. Revelation by Inspiration<P class="in15">7. Complete Revelation of God in Christ<P><b>IV. BIBLICAL TERMINOLOGY</b><P class="in15">1. The Ordinary Forms<P class="in15">2. "Word of Yahweh" and "Torah"<P class="in15">3. "The Scriptures"<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. The Nature of Revelation.<P>1. The Religion of the Bible the Only Supernatural Religion:<P>The religion of the Bible is a frankly supernatural religion. By this is not meant merely that, according to it, all men, as creatures, live, move and have their being in God. It is meant that, according to it, God has intervened extraordinarily, in the course of the sinful world\'s development, for the salvation of men otherwise lost. In Eden the Lord God had been present with sinless man in such a sense as to form a distinct element in his social environment (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,8);">Ge 3:8</a>). This intimate association was broken up by the Fall. But God did not therefore withdraw Himself from concernment with men. Rather, He began at once a series of interventions in human history by means of which man might be rescued from his sin and, despite it, brought to the end destined for him. These interventions involved the segregation of a people for Himself, by whom God should be known, and whose distinction should be that God should be "nigh unto them" as He was not to other nations (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',4,7);">De 4:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',145,18);">Ps 145:18</a>). But this people was not permitted to imagine that it owed its segregation to anything in itself fitted to attract or determine the Divine preference; no consciousness was more poignant in Israel than that Yahweh had chosen it, not it Him, and that Yahweh\'s choice of it rested solely on His gracious will. Nor was this people permitted to imagine that it was for its own sake alone that it had been singled out to be the sole recipient of the knowledge of Yahweh; it was made clear from the beginning that God\'s mysteriously gracious dealing with it had as its ultimate end the blessing of the whole world (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,2,3);">Ge 12:2,3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,4,5,6,16);">17:4,5,6,16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,18);">18:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,18);">22:18</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',4,13);">Ro 4:13</a>), the bringing together again of the divided families of the earth under the glorious reign of Yahweh, and the reversal of the curse under which the whole world lay for its sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,3);">Ge 12:3</a>). Meanwhile, however, Yahweh was known only in Israel. To Israel God showed His word and made known His statutes and judgments, and after this fashion He dealt with no other nation; and therefore none other knew His judgments (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',147,19);">Ps 147:19</a>f). Accordingly, when the hope of Israel (who was also the desire of all nations) came, His own lips unhesitatingly declared that the salvation He brought, though of universal application, was "from the Jews" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,22);">Joh 4:22</a>). And the nations to which this salvation had not been made known are declared by the chief agent in its proclamation to them to be, meanwhile, "far off," "having no hope" and "without God in the world" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,12);">Eph 2:12</a>), because they were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenant of the promise.<P>The religion of the Bible, thus announces itself, not as the product of men\'s search after God, if haply they may feel after Him and find Him, but as the creation in men of the gracious God, forming a people for Himself, that they may show forth His praise. In other words, the religion of the Bible presents itself as distinctively a revealed religion. Or rather, to speak more exactly, it announces itself as the revealed religion, as the only revealed religion; and sets itself as such over against all other religions, which are represented as all products, in a sense in which it is not, of the art and device of man.<P>It is not, however, implied in this exclusive claim to revelation<6F>which is made by the religion of the Bible in all the stages of its history<72>that the living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that in them is, has left Himself without witness among the peoples of the world (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,17);">Ac 14:17</a>). It is asserted indeed, that in the process of His redemptive work, God suffered for a season all the nations to walk in their own ways; but it is added that to none of them has He failed to do good, and to give from heaven rains and fruitful seasons, filling their hearts with food and gladness. And not only is He represented as thus constantly showing Himself in His providence not far from any one of them, thus wooing them to seek Him if haply they might feel after Him and find Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,27);">Ac 17:27</a>), but as from the foundation of the world openly manifesting Himself to them in the works of His hands, in which His everlasting power and divinity are clearly seen (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,20);">Ro 1:20</a>). That men at large have not retained Him in their knowledge, or served Him as they ought, is not due therefore to failure on His part to keep open the way to knowledge of Him, but to the darkening of their senseless hearts by sin and to the vanity of their sin-deflected reasonings (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,21);">Ro 1:21</a>), by means of which they have supplanted the truth of God by a lie and have come to worship and serve the creature rather than the ever-blessed Creator. It is, indeed, precisely because in their sin they have thus held down the truth in unrighteousness and have refused to have God in their knowledge (so it is intimated); and because, moreover, in their sin, the revelation God gives of Himself in His works of creation and providence no longer suffices for men\'s needs, that God has intervened supernaturally in the course of history to form a people for Himself, through whom at length all the world should be blessed.<P>2. General and Special Revelation:<P>It is quite obvious that there are brought before us in these several representations two species or stages of revelation, which should be discriminated to avoid confusion. There is the revelation which God continuously makes to all men: by it His power and divinity are made known. And there is the revelation which He makes exclusively to His chosen people: through it His saving grace is made known. Both species or stages of revelation are insisted upon throughout the Scriptures. They are, for example, brought significantly together in such a declaration as we find in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',19,\'1-\');">Ps 19</a>: "The heavens declare the glory of God...their line is gone out through all the earth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',19,1,4);">19:1,4</A>); "The law of Yahweh is perfect, restoring the soul" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',19,7);">19:7</a>). The Psalmist takes his beginning here from the praise of the glory of God, the Creator of all that is, which has been written upon the very heavens, that none may fail to see it. From this he rises, however, quickly to the more full-throated praise of the mercy of Yahweh, the covenant God, who has visited His people with saving instruction. Upon this higher revelation there is finally based a prayer for salvation from sin, which ends in a great threefold acclamation, instinct with adoring gratitude: "O Yahweh, my rock, and my redeemer" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',19,14);">19:14</a>). "The heavens," comments Lord Bacon, "indeed tell of the glory of God, but not of His will according to which the poet prays to be pardoned and sanctified." In so commenting, Lord Bacon touches the exact point of distinction between the two species or stages of revelation. The one is adapted to man as man; the other to man as sinner; and since man, on becoming sinner, has not ceased to be man, but has only acquired new needs requiring additional provisions to bring him to the end of his existence, so the revelation directed to man as sinner does not supersede that given to man as man, but supplements it with these new provisions for his attainment, in his new condition of blindness, helplessness and guilt induced by sin, of the end of his being.<P>These two species or stages of revelation have been commonly distinguished from one another by the distinctive names of natural and supernatural revelation, or general and special revelation, or natural and soteriological revelation. Each of these modes of discriminating them has its particular fitness and describes a real difference between the two in nature, reach or purpose. The one is communicated through the media of natural phenomena, occurring in the course of nature or of history; the other implies an intervention in the natural course of things and is not merely in source but in mode supernatural. The one is addressed generally to all intelligent creatures, and is therefore accessible to all men; the other is addressed to a special class of sinners, to whom God would make known His salvation. The one has in view to meet and supply the natural need of creatures for knowledge of their God; the other to rescue broken and deformed sinners from their sin and its consequences. But, though thus distinguished from one another, it is important that the two species or stages of revelation should not be set in opposition to one another, or the closeness of their mutual relations or the constancy of their interaction be obscured. They constitute together a unitary whole, and each is incomplete without the other. In its most general idea, revelation is rooted in creation and the relations with His intelligent creatures into which God has brought Himself by giving them being. Its object is to realize the end of man\'s creation, to be attained only through knowledge of God and perfect and unbroken communion with Him. On the entrance of sin into the world, destroying this communion with God and obscuring the knowledge of Him derived from nature, another mode of revelation was necessitated, having also another content, adapted to the new relation to God and the new conditions of intellect, heart and will brought about by sin. It must not be supposed, however, that this new mode of revelation was an ex post facto expedient, introduced to meet an unforeseen contingency. The actual course of human development was in the nature of the case the expected and the intended course of human development, for which man was created; and revelation, therefore, in its double form was the divine purpose for man from the beginning, and constitutes a unitary provision for the realization of the end of his creation in the actual circumstances in which he exists. We may distinguish in this unitary revelation the two elements by the cooperation of which the effect is produced; but we should bear in mind that only by their cooperation is the effect produced. Without special revelation, general revelation would be for sinful men incomplete and ineffective, and could issue, as in point of fact it has issued wherever it alone has been accessible, only in leaving them without excuse (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,20);">Ro 1:20</a>). Without general revelation, special revelation would lack that basis in the fundamental knowledge of God as the mighty and wise, righteous and good maker and ruler of all things, apart from which the further revelation of this great God\'s interventions in the world for the salvation of sinners could not be either intelligible, credible or operative.<P>(1) Revelation in Eden.<P>Only in Eden has general revelation been adequate to the needs of man. Not being a sinner, man in Eden had no need of that grace of God itself by which sinners are restored to communion with Him, or of the special revelation of this grace of God to sinners to enable them to live with God. And not being a sinner, man in Eden, as he contemplated the works of God, saw God in the unclouded mirror of his mind with a clarity of vision, and lived with Him in the untroubled depths of his heart with a trustful intimacy of association, inconceivable to sinners. Nevertheless, the revelation of God in Eden was not merely "natural." Not only does the prohibition of the forbidden fruit involve a positive commandment (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,16);">Ge 2:16</a>), but the whole history implies an immediacy of intercourse with God which cannot easily be set to the credit of the picturesque art of the narrative, or be fully accounted for by the vividness of the perception of God in His works proper to sinless creatures. The impression is strong that what is meant to be conveyed to us is that man dwelt with God in Eden, and enjoyed with Him immediate and not merely mediate communion. In that case, we may understand that if man had not fallen, he would have continued to enjoy immediate intercourse with God, and that the cessation of this immediate intercourse is due to sin. It is not then the supernaturalness of special revelation which is rooted in sin, but, if we may be allowed the expression, the specialness of supernatural revelation. Had man not fallen, heaven would have continued to lie about him through all his history, as it lay about his infancy; every man would have enjoyed direct vision of God and immediate speech with Him. Man having fallen, the cherubim and the flame of a sword, turning every way, keep the path; and God breaks His way in a round-about fashion into man\'s darkened heart to reveal there His redemptive love. By slow steps and gradual stages He at once works out His saving purpose and molds the world for its reception, choosing a people for Himself and training it through long and weary ages, until at last when the fullness of time has come, He bares His arm and sends out the proclamation of His great salvation to all the earth.<P>(2) Revelation among the Heathen.<P>Certainly, from the gate of Eden onward, God\'s general revelation ceased to be, in the strict sense, supernatural. It is, of course, not meant that God deserted His world and left it to fester in its iniquity. His providence still ruled over all, leading steadily onward to the goal for which man had been created, and of the attainment of which in God\'s own good time and way the very continuance of men\'s existence, under God\'s providential government, was a pledge. And His Spirit still everywhere wrought upon the hearts of men, stirring up all their powers (though created in the image of God, marred and impaired by sin) to their best activities, and to such splendid effect in every department of human achievement as to command the admiration of all ages, and in the highest region of all, that of conduct, to call out from an apostle the encomium that though they had no law they did by nature (observe the word "nature") the things of the law. All this, however, remains within the limits of Nature, that is to say, within the sphere of operation of divinely-directed and assisted second causes. It illustrates merely the heights to which the powers of man may attain under the guidance of providence and the influences of what we have learned to call God\'s "common grace." Nowhere, throughout the whole ethnic domain, are the conceptions of God and His ways put within the reach of man, through God\'s revelation of Himself in the works of creation and providence, transcended; nowhere is the slightest knowledge betrayed of anything concerning God and His purposes, which could be known only by its being supernaturally told to men. Of the entire body of "saving truth," for example, which is the burden of what we call "special revelation," the whole heathen world remained in total ignorance. And even its hold on the general truths of religion, not being vitalized by supernatural enforcements, grew weak, and its knowledge of the very nature of God decayed, until it ran out to the dreadful issue which Paul sketches for us in that inspired philosophy of religion which he incorporates in the latter part of the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans.<P>Behind even the ethnic development, there lay, of course, the supernatural intercourse of man with God which had obtained before the entrance of sin into the world, and the supernatural revelations at the gate of Eden (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,8);">Ge 3:8</a>), and at the second origin of the human race, the Flood (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',8,21,22);">Ge 8:21,22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',9,\'1-17\');">9:1-17</a>). How long the tradition of this primitive revelation lingered in nooks and corners of the heathen world, conditioning and vitalizing the natural revelation of God always accessible, we have no means of estimating. Neither is it easy to measure the effect of God\'s special revelation of Himself to His people upon men outside the bounds of, indeed, but coming into contact with, this chosen people, or sharing with them a common natural inheritance. Lot and Ishmael and Esau can scarcely have been wholly ignorant of the word of God which came to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob; nor could the Egyptians from whose hands God wrested His people with a mighty arm fail to learn something of Yahweh, any more than the mixed multitudes who witnessed the ministry of Christ could fail to infer something from His gracious walk and mighty works. It is natural to infer that no nation which was intimately associated with Israel\'s life could remain entirely unaffected by Israel\'s revelation. But whatever impressions were thus conveyed reached apparently individuals only: the heathen which surrounded Israel, even those most closely affiliated with Israel, remained heathen; they had no revelation. In the sporadic instances when God visited an alien with a supernatural communication<6F>such as the dreams sent to Abimelech (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,\'1-\');">Ge 20</a>) and to Pharaoh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',40,\'1-\');">Ge 40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,\'1-\');">41</a>) and to Nebuchadnezzar (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',2,1);">Da 2:1</a>) and to the soldier in the camp of Midian (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',7,13);">Jud 7:13</a>)<29>it was in the interests, not of the heathen world, but of the chosen people that they were sent; and these instances derive their significance wholly from this fact. There remain, no doubt, the mysterious figure of Melchizedek, perhaps also of Jethro, and the strange apparition of Balaam, who also, however, appear in the sacred narrative only in connection with the history of God\'s dealings with His people and in their interest. Their unexplained appearance cannot in any event avail to modify the general fact that the life of the heathen peoples lay outside the supernatural revelation of God. The heathen were suffered to walk in their own ways (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,16);">Ac 14:16</a>).<P>II. The Process of Revelation.<P>Meanwhile, however, God had not forgotten them, but was preparing salvation for them also through the supernatural revelation of His grace that He was making to His people. According to the Biblical representation, in the midst of and working confluently with the revelation which He has always been giving of Himself on the plane of Nature, God was making also from the very fall of man a further revelation of Himself on the plane of grace. In contrast with His general, natural revelation, in which all men by virtue of their very nature as men share, this special, supernatural revelation was granted at first only to individuals, then progressively to a family, a tribe, a nation, a race, until, when the fullness of time was come, it was made the possession of the whole world. It may be difficult to obtain from Scripture a clear account of why God chose thus to give this revelation of His grace only progressively; or, to be more explicit, through the process of a historical development. Such is, however, the ordinary mode of the Divine working: it is so that God made the worlds, it is so that He creates the human race itself, the recipient of this revelation, it is so that He builds up His kingdom in the world and in the individual soul, which only gradually comes whether to the knowledge of God or to the fruition of His salvation. As to the fact, the Scriptures are explicit, tracing for us, or rather embodying in their own growth, the record of the steady advance of this gracious revelation through definite stages from its first faint beginnings to its glorious completion in Jesus Christ.<P>1. Place of Revelation among the Redemptive Acts of God:<P>So express is its relation to the development of the kingdom of God itself, or rather to that great series of divine operations which are directed to the building up of the kingdom of God in the world, that it is sometimes confounded with them or thought of as simply their reflection in the contemplating mind of man. Thus it is not infrequently said that revelation, meaning this special redemptive revelation, has been communicated in deeds, not in words; and it is occasionally elaborately argued that the sole manner in which God has revealed Himself as the Saviour of sinners is just by performing those mighty acts by which sinners are saved. This is not, however, the Biblical representation. Revelation is, of course, often made through the instrumentality of deeds; and the series of His great redemptive acts by which He saves the world constitutes the pre-eminent revelation of the grace of God<6F>so far as these redemptive acts are open to observation and are perceived in their significance. But revelation, after all, is the correlate of understanding and has as its proximate end just the production of knowledge, though not, of course, knowledge for its own sake, but for the sake of salvation. The series of the redemptive acts of God, accordingly, can properly be designated "revelation" only when and so far as they are contemplated as adapted and designed to produce knowledge of God and His purpose and methods of grace. No bare series of unexplained acts can be thought, however, adapted to produce knowledge, especially if these acts be, as in this case, of a highly transcendental character. Nor can this particular series of acts be thought to have as its main design the production of knowledge; its main design is rather to save man. No doubt the production of knowledge of the divine grace is one of the means by which this main design of the redemptive acts of God is attained. But this only renders it the more necessary that the proximate result of producing knowledge should not fail; and it is doubtless for this reason that the series of redemptive acts of God has not been left to explain itself, but the explanatory word has been added to it. Revelation thus appears, however, not as the mere reflection of the redeeming acts of God in the minds of men, but as a factor in the redeeming work of God, a component part of the series of His redeeming acts, without which that series would be incomplete and so far inoperative for its main end. Thus, the Scriptures represent it, not confounding revelation with the series of the redemptive acts of God, but placing it among the redemptive acts of God and giving it a function as a substantive element in the operations by which the merciful God saves sinful men. It is therefore not made even a mere constant accompaniment of the redemptive acts of God, giving their explanation that they may be understood. It occupies a far more independent place among them than this, and as frequently precedes them to prepare their way as it accompanies or follows them to interpret their meaning. It is, in one word, itself a redemptive act of God and by no means the least important in the series of His redemptive acts.<P>This might, indeed, have been inferred from its very nature, and from the nature of the salvation which was being worked out by these redemptive acts of God. One of the most grievous of the effects of sin is the deformation of the image of God reflected in the human mind, and there can be no recovery from sin which does not bring with it the correction of this deformation and the reflection in the soul of man of the whole glory of the Lord God Almighty. Man is an intelligent being; his superiority over the brute is found, among other things, precisely in the direction of all his life by his intelligence; and his blessedness is rooted in the true knowledge of his God<6F>for this is life eternal, that we should know the only true God and Him whom He has sent. Dealing with man as an intelligent being, God the Lord has saved him by means of a revelation, by which he has been brought into an evermore and more adequate knowledge of God, and been led ever more and more to do his part in working out his own salvation with fear and trembling as he perceived with ever more and more clearness how God is working it out for him through mighty deeds of grace.<P>2. Stages of Material Development:<P>This is not the place to trace, even in outline, from the material point of view, the development of God\'s redemptive revelation from its first beginnings, in the promise given to Abraham<61>or rather in what has been called the Protevangelium at the gate of Eden<65>to its completion in the advent and work of Christ and the teaching of His apostles; a steadily advancing development, which, as it lies spread out to view in the pages of Scripture, takes to those who look at it from the consummation backward, the appearance of the shadow cast athwart preceding ages by the great figure of Christ. Even from the formal point of view, however, there has been pointed out a progressive advance in the method of revelation, consonant with its advance in content, or rather with the advancing stages of the building up of the kingdom of God, to subserve which is the whole object of revelation. Three distinct steps in revelation have been discriminated from this point of view. They are distinguished precisely by the increasing independence of revelation of the deeds constituting the series of the redemptive acts of God, in which, nevertheless, all revelation is a substantial element. Discriminations like this must not be taken too absolutely; and in the present instance the chronological sequence cannot be pressed. But, with much interlacing, three generally successive stages of revelation may be recognized, producing periods at least characteristically of what we may somewhat conventionally call theophany, prophecy and inspiration. What may be somewhat indefinitely marked off as the Patriarchal age is characteristically "the period of Outward Manifestations, and Symbols, and Theophanies": during it "God spoke to men through their senses, in physical phenomena, as the burning bush, the cloudy pillar, or in sensuous forms, as men, angels, etc. ..... In the Prophetic age, on the contrary, the prevailing mode of revelation was by means of inward prophetic inspiration": God spoke to men characteristically by the movements of the Holy Spirit in their hearts. "Prevailingly, at any rate from Samuel downwards, the supernatural revelation was a revelation in the hearts of the foremost thinkers of the people, or, as we call it, prophetic inspiration, without the aid of external sensuous symbols of God" (A.B. Davidson, Old Testament Prophecy,1903,p. 148; compare pp. 12-14, 145ff). This internal method of revelation reaches its culmination in the New Testament period, which is preeminently the age of the Spirit. What is especially characteristic of this age is revelation through the medium of the written word, what may be called apostolic as distinguished from prophetic inspiration. The revealing Spirit speaks through chosen men as His organs, but through these organs in such a fashion that the most intimate processes of their souls become the instruments by means of which He speaks His mind. Thus, at all events there are brought clearly before us three well-marked modes of revelation, which we may perhaps designate respectively, not with perfect discrimination, it is true, but not misleadingly,<P>(1) external manifestation,<P>(2) internal suggestion, and<P>(3) concursive operation.``187';
isbe[7410]='Revelation, 3-4`III. The Modes of Revelation.<P>1. Modes of Revelation:<P>Theophany may be taken as the typical form of "external manifestation"; but by its side may be ranged all of those mighty works by which God makes Himself known, including express miracles, no doubt, but along with them every supernatural intervention in the affairs of men, by means of which a better understanding is communicated of what God is or what are His purposes of grace to a sinful race. Under "internal suggestion" may be subsumed all the characteristic phenomena of what is most properly spoken of as "prophecy": visions and dreams, which, according to a fundamental passage (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',12,6);">Nu 12:6</a>), constitute the typical forms of prophecy, and with them the whole "prophetic word," which shares its essential characteristic with visions and dreams, since it comes not by the will of man but from God. By "concursive operation" may be meant that form of revelation illustrated in an inspired psalm or epistle or history, in which no human activity<74>not even the control of the will<6C>is superseded, but the Holy Spirit works in, with and through them all in such a manner as to communicate to the product qualities distinctly superhuman. There is no age in the history of the religion of the Bible, from that of Moses to that of Christ and His apostles, in which all these modes of revelation do not find place. One or another may seem particularly characteristic of this age or of that; but they all occur in every age. And they occur side by side, broadly speaking, on the same level. No discrimination is drawn between them in point of worthiness as modes of revelation, and much less in point of purity in the revelations communicated through them. The circumstance that God spoke to Moses, not by dream or vision but mouth to mouth, is, indeed, adverted to (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',12,8);">Nu 12:8</a>) as a proof of the peculiar favor shown to Moses and even of the superior dignity of Moses above other organs of revelation: God admitted him to an intimacy of intercourse which He did not accord to others. But though Moses was thus distinguished above all others in the dealings of God with him, no distinction is drawn between the revelations given through him and those given through other organs of revelation in point either of Divinity or of authority. And beyond this we have no Scriptural warrant to go on in contrasting one mode of revelation with another. Dreams may seem to us little fitted to serve as vehicles of divine communications. But there is no suggestion in Scripture that revelations through dreams stand on a lower plane than any others; and we should not fail to remember that the essential characteristics of revelations through dreams are shared by all forms of revelation in which (whether we should call them visions or not) the images or ideas which fill, or pass in procession through, the consciousness are determined by some other power than the recipient\'s own will. It may seem natural to suppose that revelations rise in rank in proportion to the fullness of the engagement of the mental activity of the recipient in their reception. But we should bear in mind that the intellectual or spiritual quality of a revelation is not derived from the recipient but from its Divine Giver. The fundamental fact in all revelation is that it is from God. This is what gives unity to the whole process of revelation, given though it may be in divers portions and in divers manners and distributed though it may be through the ages in accordance with the mere will of God, or as it may have suited His developing purpose<73>this and its unitary end, which is ever the building up of the kingdom of God. In whatever diversity of forms, by means of whatever variety of modes, in whatever distinguishable stages it is given, it is ever the revelation of the One God, and it is ever the one consistently developing redemptive revelation of God.<P>2. Equal Supernaturalness of the Several Modes:<P>On a prima facie view it may indeed seem likely that a difference in the quality of their supernaturalness would inevitably obtain between revelations given through such divergent modes. The completely supernatural character of revelations given in theophanies is obvious. He who will not allow that God speaks to man, to make known His gracious purposes toward him, has no other recourse here than to pronounce the stories legendary. The objectivity of the mode of communication which is adopted is intense, and it is thrown up to observation with the greatest emphasis. Into the natural life of man God intrudes in a purely supernatural manner, bearing a purely supernatural communication. In these communications we are given accordingly just a series of "naked messages of God." But not even in the Patriarchal age were all revelations given in theophanies or objective appearances. There were dreams, and visions, and revelations without explicit intimation in the narrative of how they were communicated. And when we pass on in the history, we do not, indeed, leave behind us theophanies and objective appearances. It is not only made the very characteristic of Moses, the greatest figure in the whole history of revelation except only that of Christ, that he knew God face to face (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',34,10);">De 34:10</a>), and God spoke to him mouth to mouth, even manifestly, and not in dark speeches (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',12,8);">Nu 12:8</a>); but throughout the whole history of revelation down to the appearance of Jesus to Paul on the road to Damascus, God has shown Himself visibly to His servants whenever it has seemed good to Him to do so and has spoken with them in objective speech. Nevertheless, it is expressly made the characteristic of the Prophetic age that God makes Himself known to His servants "in a vision," "in a dream" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',12,6);">Nu 12:6</a>). And although, throughout its entire duration, God, in fulfillment of His promise (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,18);">De 18:18</a>), put His words in the mouths of His prophets and gave them His commandments to speak, yet it would seem inherent in the very employment of men as instruments of revelation that the words of God given through them are spoken by human mouths; and the purity of their supernaturalness may seem so far obscured. And when it is not merely the mouths of men with which God thus serves Himself in the delivery of His messages, but their minds and hearts as well<6C>the play of their religious feelings, or the processes of their logical reasoning, or the tenacity of their memories, as, say, in a psalm or in an epistle, or a history<72>the supernatural element in the communication may easily seem to retire still farther into the background. It can scarcely be a matter of surprise, therefore, that question has been raised as to the relation of the natural and the supernatural in such revelations, and, in many current manners of thinking and speaking of them, the completeness of their supernaturalness has been limited and curtailed in the interests of the natural instrumentalities employed. The plausibility of such reasoning renders it the more necessary that we should observe the unvarying emphasis which the Scriptures place upon the absolute supernaturalness of revelation in all its modes alike. In the view of the Scriptures, the completely supernatural character of revelation is in no way lessened by the circumstance that it has been given through the instrumentality of men. They affirm, indeed, with the greatest possible emphasis that the Divine word delivered through men is the pure word of God, diluted with no human admixture whatever.<P>3. The Prophet God\'s Mouthpiece:<P>We have already been led to note that even on the occasion when Moses is exalted above all other organs of revelation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',12,6);">Nu 12:6</a>), in point of dignity and favor, no suggestion whatever is made of any inferiority, in either the directness or the purity of their supernaturalness, attaching to other organs of revelation. There might never afterward arise a prophet in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',34,10);">De 34:10</a>). But each of the whole series of prophets raised up by Yahweh that the people might always know His will was to be like Moses in speaking to the people only what Yahweh commanded them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,15,18,20);">De 18:15,18,20</a>). In this great promise, securing to Israel the succession of prophets, there is also included a declaration of precisely how Yahweh would communicate His messages not so much to them as through them. "I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee," we read (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,18);">De 18:18</a>), "and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." The process of revelation through the prophets was a process by which Yahweh put His words in the mouths of the prophets, and the prophets spoke precisely these words and no others. So the prophets themselves ever asserted. "Then Yahweh put forth his hand, and touched my mouth," explains Jeremiah in his account of how he received his prophecies, "and Yahweh said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',1,9);">Jer 1:9</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',5,14);">Jer 5:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',51,16);">Isa 51:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',59,21);">59:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',22,35);">Nu 22:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',23,5,12,16);">23:5,12,16</a>). Accordingly, the words "with which" they spoke were not their own but the Lord\'s: "And he said unto me," records Ezekiel, "Son of man, go, get thee unto the house of Israel, and speak with my words unto them" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',3,4);">Eze 3:4</a>). It is a process of nothing other than "dictation" which is thus described (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',14,3,19);">2Sa 14:3,19</a>), though, of course, the question may remain open of the exact processes by which this dictation is accomplished. The fundamental passage which brings the central fact before us in the most vivid manner is, no doubt, the account of the commissioning of Moses and Aaron given in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,\'10-17\');">Ex 4:10-17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,\'1-7\');">7:1-7</a>. Here, in the most express words, Yahweh declares that He who made the mouth can be with it to teach it what to speak, and announces the precise function of a prophet to be that he is "a mouth of God," who speaks not his own but God\'s words. Accordingly, the Hebrew name for "prophet" (nabhi\'), whatever may be its etymology, means throughout the Scriptures just "spokesman," though not "spokesman" in general, but Spokesman by way of eminence, that is, God\'s spokesman; and the characteristic formula by which a prophetic declaration is announced is: "The word of Yahweh came to me," or the brief "saith Yahweh" (ne\'um Yahweh). In no case does a prophet put his words forward as his own words. That he is a prophet at all is due not to choice on his own part, but to a call of God, obeyed often with reluctance; and he prophesies or forbears to prophesy, not according to his own will but as the Lord opens and shuts his mouth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',3,26);">Eze 3:26</a>f) and creates for him the fruit of the lips (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',57,19);">Isa 57:19</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',6,7);">Isa 6:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',50,4);">50:4</a>). In contrast with the false prophets, he strenuously asserts that he does not speak out of his own heart ("heart" in Biblical language includes the whole inner man), but all that he proclaims is the pure word of Yahweh.<P>4. Visionary Form of Prophecy:<P>The fundamental passage does not quite leave the matter, however, with this general declaration. It describes the characteristic manner in which Yahweh communicates His messages to His prophets as through the medium of visions and dreams. Neither visions in the technical sense of that word, nor dreams, appear, however, to have been the customary mode of revelation to the prophets, the record of whose revelations has come down to us. But, on the other hand, there are numerous indications in the record that the universal mode of revelation to them was one which was in some sense a vision, and can be classed only in the category distinctively so called.<p>The whole nomenclature of prophecy presupposes, indeed, its vision-form. Prophecy is distinctively a word, and what is delivered by the prophets is proclaimed as the "word of Yahweh." That it should be announced by the formula, "Thus saith the Lord," is, therefore, only what we expect; and we are prepared for such a description of its process as: "The Lord Yahweh...wakeneth mine ear to hear," He "hath opened mine ear" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',50,4,5);">Isa 50:4,5</a>). But this is not the way of speaking of their messages which is most usual in the prophets. Rather is the whole body of prophecy cursorily presented as a thing seen. Isaiah places at the head of his book: "The vision of Isaiah...which he saw" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',29,10,11);">Isa 29:10,11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Oba\',1,1);">Ob 1:1</a>); and then proceeds to set at the head of subordinate sections the remarkable words, "The word that Isaiah...saw" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',2,1);">2:1</A>); "the burden (margin "oracle")...which Isaiah...did see" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',13,1);">13:1</A>). Similarly there stand at the head of other prophecies: "the words of Amos...which he saw" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',1,1);">Am 1:1</a>); "the word of Yahweh that came to Micah...which he saw" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',1,1);">Mic 1:1</a>); "the oracle which Habakkuk the prophet did see" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',1,1);">Hab 1:1</a> margin); and elsewhere such language occurs as this: "the word that Yahweh hath showed me" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',38,21);">Jer 38:21</a>); "the prophets have seen...oracles" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',2,14);">La 2:14</a>); "the word of Yahweh came...and I looked, and, behold" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,3,4);">Eze 1:3,4</a>); "Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',13,3);">Eze 13:3</a>); "I...will look forth to see what he will speak with me,...Yahweh...said, Write the vision" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',2,1);">Hab 2:1</a>f). It is an inadequate explanation of such language to suppose it merely a relic of a time when vision was more predominantly the form of revelation. There is no proof that vision in the technical sense ever was more predominantly the form of revelation than in the days of the great writing prophets; and such language as we have quoted too obviously represents the living point of view of the prophets to admit of the supposition that it was merely conventional on their lips. The prophets, in a word, represent the divine communications which they received as given to them in some sense in visions.<P>It is possible, no doubt, to exaggerate the significance of this. It is an exaggeration, for example, to insist that therefore all the divine communications made to the prophets must have come to them in external appearances and objective speech, addressed to and received by means of the bodily eye and ear. This would be to break down the distinction between manifestation and revelation, and to assimilate the mode of prophetic revelation to that granted to Moses, though these are expressly distinguished (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',12,\'6-8\');">Nu 12:6-8</a>). It is also an exaggeration to insist that therefore the prophetic state must be conceived as that of strict ecstasy, involving the complete abeyance of all mental life on the part of the prophet (amentia), and possibly also accompanying physical effects. It is quite clear from the records which the prophets themselves give us of their revelations that their intelligence was alert in all stages of their reception of them. The purpose of both these extreme views is the good one of doing full justice to the objectivity of the revelations vouchsafed to the prophets. If these revelations took place entirely externally to the prophet, who merely stood off and contemplated them, or if they were implanted in the prophets by a process so violent as not only to supersede their mental activity but, for the time being, to annihilate it, it would be quite clear that they came from a source other than the prophets\' own minds. It is undoubtedly the fundamental contention of the prophets that the revelations given through them are not their own but wholly God\'s. The significant language we have just quoted from <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',13,3);">Eze 13:3</a>: "Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing," is a typical utterance of their sense of the complete objectivity of their messages. What distinguishes the false prophets is precisely that they "prophesy out of their own heart" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',13,\'2-17\');">Eze 13:2-17</a>), or, to draw the antithesis sharply, that "they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of Yahweh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',23,16,26);">Jer 23:16,26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',14,14);">14:14</a>). But these extreme views fail to do justice, the one to the equally important fact that the word of God, given through the prophets, comes as the pure and unmixed word of God not merely to, but from, the prophets; and the other to the equally obvious fact that the intelligence of the prophets is alert throughout the whole process of the reception and delivery of the revelation made through them.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=INSPIRATION">INSPIRATION</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PROPHECY">PROPHECY</a>.<P>That which gives to prophecy as a mode of revelation its place in the category of visions, strictly so called, and dreams is that it shares with them the distinguishing characteristic which determines the class. In them all alike the movements of the mind are determined by something extraneous to the subject\'s will, or rather, since we are speaking of supernaturally given dreams and visions, extraneous to the totality of the subject\'s own psychoses. A power not himself takes possession of his consciousness and determines it according to its will. That power, in the case of the prophets, was fully recognized and energetically asserted to be Yahweh Himself or, to be more specific, the Spirit of Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,6,10);">1Sa 10:6,10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',9,30);">Ne 9:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',7,12);">Zec 7:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',2,28,29);">Joe 2:28,29</a>). The prophets were therefore \'men of the Spirit\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',9,7);">Ho 9:7</a>). What constituted them prophets was that the Spirit was put upon them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',42,1);">Isa 42:1</a>) or poured out on them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',2,28,29);">Joe 2:28,29</a>), and they were consequently filled with the Spirit (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',3,8);">Mic 3:8</a>), or, in another but equivalent locution, that "the hand" of the Lord, or "the power of the hand" of the Lord, was upon them (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',3,15);">2Ki 3:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,3);">Eze 1:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',3,14,22);">3:14,22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',33,22);">33:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',37,1);">37:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,1);">40:1</a>), that is to say, they were under the divine control. This control is represented as complete and compelling, so that, under it, the prophet becomes not the "mover," but the "moved" in the formation of his message. The apostle Peter very purely reflects the prophetic consciousness in his well-known declaration: \'No prophecy of scripture comes of private interpretation; for prophecy was never brought by the will of man; but it was as borne by the Holy Spirit that men spoke from God\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,20,21);">2Pe 1:20,21</a>).<P>5. "Passivity" of Prophets:<P>What this language of Peter emphasizes<65>and what is emphasized in the whole account which the prophets give of their own consciousness<73>is, to speak plainly, the passivity of the prophets with respect to the revelation given through them. This is the significance of the phrase: \'it was as borne by the Holy Spirit that men spoke from God.\' To be "borne" (pherein) is not the same as to be led (agein), much less to be guided or directed (hodegein): he that is "borne" contributes nothing to the movement induced, but is the object to be moved. The term "passivity" is, perhaps, however, liable to some misapprehension, and should not be overstrained. It is not intended to deny that the intelligence of the prophets was active in the reception of their message; it was by means of their active intelligence that their message was received: their intelligence was the instrument of revelation. It is intended to deny only that their intelligence was active in the production of their message: that it was creatively as distinguished from receptively active. For reception itself is a kind of activity. What the prophets are solicitous that their readers shall understand is that they are in no sense coauthors with God of their messages. Their messages are given them, given them entire, and given them precisely as they are given out by them. God speaks through them: they are not merely His messengers, but "His mouth." But at the same time their intelligence is active in the reception, retention and announcing of their messages, contributing nothing to them but presenting fit instruments for the communication of them<65>instruments capable of understanding, responding profoundly to and zealously proclaiming them.<P>There is, no doubt, a not unnatural hesitancy abroad in thinking of the prophets as exhibiting only such merely receptive activities. In the interests of their personalities, we are asked not to represent God as dealing mechanically with them, pouring His revelations into their souls to be simply received as in so many buckets, or violently wresting their minds from their own proper action that He may do His own thinking with them. Must we not rather suppose, we are asked, that all revelations must be "psychologically mediated," must be given "after the mode of moral mediation," and must be made first of all their recipients\' "own spiritual possession"? And is not, in point of fact, the personality of each prophet clearly traceable in his message, and that to such an extent as to compel us to recognize him as in a true sense its real author? The plausibility of such questionings should not be permitted to obscure the fact that the mode of the communication of the prophetic messages which is suggested by them is directly contradicted by the prophets\' own representations of their relations to the revealing Spirit. In the prophets\' own view they were just instruments through whom God gave revelations which came from them, not as their own product, but as the pure word of Yahweh. Neither should the plausibility of such questionings blind us to their speciousness. They exploit subordinate considerations, which are not without their validity in their own place and under their own limiting conditions, as if they were the determining or even the sole considerations in the case, and in neglect of the really determining considerations. God is Himself the author of the instruments He employs for the communication of His messages to men and has framed them into precisely the instruments He desired for the exact communication of His message. There is just ground for the expectation that He will use all the instruments He employs according to their natures; intelligent beings therefore as intelligent beings, moral agents as moral agents. But there is no just ground for asserting that God is incapable of employing the intelligent beings He has Himself created and formed to His will, to proclaim His messages purely as He gives them to them; or of making truly the possession of rational minds conceptions which they have themselves had no part in creating. And there is no ground for imagining that God is unable to frame His own message in the language of the organs of His revelation without its thereby ceasing to be, because expressed in a fashion natural to these organs, therefore purely His message. One would suppose it to lie in the very nature of the case that if the Lord makes any revelation to men, He would do it in the language of men; or, to individualize more explicitly, in the language of the man He employs as the organ of His revelation; and that naturally means, not the language of his nation or circle merely, but his own particular language, inclusive of all that gives individuality to his self-expression. We may speak of this, if we will, as "the accommodation of the revealing God to the several prophetic individualities." But we should avoid thinking of it externally and therefore mechanically, as if the revealing Spirit artificially phrased the message which He gives through each prophet in the particular forms of speech proper to the individuality of each, so as to create the illusion that the message comes out of the heart of the prophet himself. Precisely what the prophets affirm is that their messages do not come out of their own hearts and do not represent the workings of their own spirits. Nor is there any illusion in the phenomenon we are contemplating; and it is a much more intimate, and, we may add, a much more interesting phenomenon than an external "accommodation" of speech to individual habitudes. It includes, on the one hand, the "accommodation" of the prophet, through his total preparation, to the speech in which the revelation to be given through him is to be clothed; and on the other involves little more than the consistent carrying into detail of the broad principle that God uses the instruments He employs in accordance with their natures.<P>No doubt, on adequate occasion, the very stones might cry out by the power of God, and dumb beasts speak, and mysterious voices sound forth from the void; and there have not been lacking instances in which men have been compelled by the same power to speak what they would not, and in languages whose very sounds were strange to their ears. But ordinarily when God the Lord would speak to men He avails Himself of the services of a human tongue with which to speak, and He employs this tongue according to its nature as a tongue and according to the particular nature of the tongue which He employs. It is vain to say that the message delivered through the instrumentality of this tongue is conditioned at least in its form by the tongue by which it is spoken, if not, indeed, limited, curtailed, in some degree determined even in its matter, by it. Not only was it God the Lord who made the tongue, and who made this particular tongue with all its peculiarities, not without regard to the message He would deliver through it; but His control of it is perfect and complete, and it is as absurd to say that He cannot speak His message by it purely without that message suffering change from the peculiarities of its tone and modes of enunciation, as it would be to say that no new truth can be announced in any language because the elements of speech by the combination of which the truth in question is announced are already in existence with their fixed range of connotation. The marks of the several individualities imprinted on the messages of the prophets, in other words, are only a part of the general fact that these messages are couched in human language, and in no way beyond that general fact affect their purity as direct communications from God.<P>6. Revelation by Inspiration:<P>A new set of problems is raised by the mode of revelation which we have called "concursive operation." This mode of revelation differs from prophecy, properly so called, precisely by the employment in it, as is not done in prophecy, of the total personality of the organ of revelation, as a factor. It has been common to speak of the mode of the Spirit\'s action in this form of revelation, therefore, as an assistance, a superintendence, a direction, a control, the meaning being that the effect aimed at<61>the discovery and enunciation of divine truth<74>is attained through the action of the human powers<72>historical research, logical reasoning, ethical thought, religious aspiration<6F>acting not by themselves, however, but under the prevailing assistance, superintendence, direction, control of the Divine Spirit. This manner of speaking has the advantage of setting this mode of revelation sharply in contrast with prophetic revelation, as involving merely a determining, and not, as in prophetic revelation, a supercessive action of the revealing Spirit. We are warned, however, against pressing this discrimination too far by the inclusion of the whole body of Scripture in such passages as <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,20);">2Pe 1:20</a>f in the category of prophecy, and the assignment of their origin not to a mere "leading" but to the "bearing" of the Holy Spirit. In any event such terms as assistance, superintendence, direction, control, inadequately express the nature of the Spirit\'s action in revelation by "concursive operation." The Spirit is not to be conceived as standing outside of the human powers employed for the effect in view, ready to supplement any inadequacies they may show and to supply any defects they may manifest, but as working confluently in, with and by them, elevating them, directing them, controlling them, energizing them, so that, as His instruments, they rise above themselves and under His inspiration do His work and reach His aim. The product, therefore, which is attained by their means is His product through them. It is this fact which gives to the process the right to be called actively, and to the product the right to be called passively, a revelation. Although the circumstance that what is done is done by and through the action of human powers keeps the product in form and quality in a true sense human, yet the confluent operation of the Holy Spirit throughout the whole process raises the result above what could by any possibility be achieved by mere human powers and constitutes it expressly a supernatural product. The human traits are traceable throughout its whole extent, but at bottom it is a divine gift, and the language of Paul is the most proper mode of speech that could be applied to it: "Which things also we speak, not in words which man\'s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',2,13);">1Co 2:13</a>); "The things which I write unto you...are the commandment of the Lord" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',14,37);">1Co 14:37</a>).<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=INSPIRATION">INSPIRATION</a>.<P>7. Complete Revelation of God in Christ:<P>It is supposed that all the forms of special or redemptive revelation which underlie and give its content to the religion of the Bible may without violence be subsumed under one or another of these three modes<65>external manifestation, internal suggestion, and concursive operation. All, that is, except the culminating revelation, not through, but in, Jesus Christ. As in His person, in which dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, He rises above all classification and is sui generis; so the revelation accumulated in Him stands outside all the divers portions and divers manners in which otherwise revelation has been given and sums up in itself all that has been or can be made known of God and of His redemption. He does not so much make a revelation of God as Himself is the revelation of God; He does not merely disclose God\'s purpose of redemption, He is unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption. The theophanies are but faint shadows in comparison with His manifestation of God in the flesh. The prophets could prophesy only as the Spirit of Christ which was in them testified, revealing to them as to servants one or another of the secrets of the Lord Yahweh; from Him as His Son, Yahweh has no secrets, but whatsoever the Father knows that the Son knows also. Whatever truth men have been made partakers of by the Spirit of truth is His (for all things whatsoever the Father hath are His) and is taken by the Spirit of truth and declared to men that He may be glorified. Nevertheless, though all revelation is thus summed up in Him, we should not fail to note very carefully that it would also be all sealed up in Him<69>so little is revelation conveyed by fact alone, without the word<72>had it not been thus taken by the Spirit of truth and declared unto men. The entirety of the New Testament is but the explanatory word accompanying and giving its effect to the fact of Christ. And when this fact was in all its meaning made the possession of men, revelation was completed and in that sense ceased. Jesus Christ is no less the end of revelation than He is the end of the law.<P>IV. Biblical Terminology.<P>1. The Ordinary Forms:<P>There is not much additional to be learned concerning the nature and processes of revelation, from the terms currently employed in Scripture to express the idea. These terms are ordinarily the common words for disclosing, making known, making manifest, applied with more or less heightened significance to supernatural acts or effects in kind. In the English Bible (the King James Version) the verb "reveal" occurs about 51 times, of which 22 are in the Old Testament and 29 in the New Testament. In the Old Testament the word is always the rendering of a Hebrew term galah, or its Aramaic equivalent gelah, the root meaning of which appears to be "nakedness." When applied to revelation, it seems to hint at the removal of obstacles to perception or the uncovering of objects to perception. In the New Testament the word "reveal" is always (with the single exception of <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,35);">Lu 2:35</a>) the rendering of a Greek term apokalupto (but in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',1,7);">2Th 1:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,13);">1Pe 4:13</a> the corresponding noun apokalupsis), which has a very similar basal significance with its Hebrew parallel. As this Hebrew word formed no substantive in this sense, the noun "revelation" does not occur in the English Old Testament, the idea being expressed, however, by other Hebrew terms variously rendered. It occurs in the English New Testament, on the other hand, about a dozen times, and always as the rendering of the substantive corresponding to the verb rendered "reveal" (apokalupsis). On the face of the English Bible, the terms "reveal," "revelation" bear therefore uniformly the general sense of "disclose," "disclosure." The idea is found in the Bible, however, much more frequently than the terms "reveal" "revelation" in English Versions of the Bible. Indeed, the Hebrew and Greek terms exclusively so rendered occur more frequently in this sense than in this rendering in the English Bible. And by their side there stand various other terms which express in one way or another the general conception.<P>In the New Testament the verb phaneroo, with the general sense of making manifest, manifesting, is the most common of these. It differs from apokalupto as the more general and external term from the more special and inward. Other terms also are occasionally used: epiphaneia, "manifestation" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,8);">2Th 2:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,14);">1Ti 6:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',1,10);">2Ti 1:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,1);">4:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',2,13);">Tit 2:13</a>; compare epiphaino, <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',2,11);">Tit 2:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',3,4);">3:4</a>); deiknuo (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,1);">Re 1:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',17,1);">17:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,1,6,8);">22:1,6,8</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,16);">Ac 9:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',4,15);">1Ti 4:15</a>); exegomai (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,18);">Joh 1:18</a>), of which, however, only one perhaps<70>chrematizo (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',2,12,22);">Mt 2:12,22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,20);">Lu 2:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,22);">Ac 10:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',8,5);">Heb 8:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,7);">11:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,25);">12:25</a>); p chrematismos (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',11,4);">Ro 11:4</a>)<29>calls for particular notice as in a special way, according to its usage, expressing the idea of a divine communication.<P>In the Old Testament, the common Hebrew verb for "seeing" (ra\'ah) is used in its appropriate stems, with God as the subject, for "appearing," "showing": "the Lord appeared unto...";" the word which the Lord showed me." And from this verb not only is an active substantive formed which supplied the more ancient designation of the official organ of revelation: ro\'eh, "seer"; but also objective substantives, mar\'ah, and mar\'eh, which were used to designate the thing seen in a revelation<6F>the "vision." By the side of these terms there were others in use, derived from a root which supplies to the Aramaic its common word for "seeing," but in Hebrew has a somewhat more pregnant meaning, chazah. Its active derivative, chozeh, was a designation of a prophet which remained in occasional use, alternating with the more customary nabhi\', long after ro\'eh, had become practically obsolete; and its passive derivatives chazon, chizzayon, chazuth, machazeh provided the ordinary terms for the substance of the revelation or "vision." The distinction between the two sets of terms, derived respectively from ra\'ah and chazah, while not to be unduly pressed, seems to lie in the direction that the former suggests external manifestations and the latter internal revelations. The ro\'eh is he to whom divine manifestations, the chozeh he to whom divine communications, have been vouchsafed; the mar\'eh is an appearance, the chazon and its companions a vision. It may be of interest to observe that mar\'ah is the term employed in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',12,6);">Nu 12:6</a>, while it is chazon which commonly occurs in the headings of the written prophecies to indicate their revelatory character. From this it may possibly be inferred that in the former passage it is the mode, in the latter the contents of the revelation that is emphasized. Perhaps a like distinction may be traced between the chazon of <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',8,15);">Da 8:15</a> and the mar\'eh of the next verse. The ordinary verb for "knowing," yadha\', expressing in its causative stems the idea of making known, informing, is also very naturally employed, with God as its subject, in the sense of revealing, and that, in accordance with the natural sense of the word, with a tendency to pregnancy of implication, of revealing effectively, of not merely uncovering to observation, but making to know. Accordingly, it is paralleled riot merely with galah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',98,2);">Ps 98:2</a> \'The Lord hath made known his salvation; his righteousness hath he displayed in the sight of the nation\'), but also with such terms as lamadh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',25,4);">Ps 25:4</a> \'Make known to me thy ways, O Lord: teach me thy paths\'). This verb yadha\' forms no substantive in the sense of "revelation" (compare da\'ath, <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',24,16);">Nu 24:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',19,3);">Ps 19:3</a>). 2. "Word of Yahweh" and "Torah":<P>The most common vehicles of the idea of "revelation" in the Old Testament are, however, two expressions which are yet to be mentioned. These are the phrase, "word of Yahweh," and the term commonly but inadequately rendered in the English Versions of the Bible by "law." The former (debhar Yahweh, varied to debhar \'Elohim or debhar ha-\'Elohim; compare ne\'um Yahweh, massa\' Yahweh) occurs scores of times and is at once the simplest and the most colorless designation of a divine communication. By the latter (torah), the proper meaning of which is "instruction," a strong implication of authoritativeness is conveyed; and, in this sense, it becomes what may be called the technical designation of a specifically divine communication. The two are not infrequently brought together, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,10);">Isa 1:10</a>: "Hear the word of Yahweh, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law (margin "teaching") of our God, ye people of Gomorrah"; or <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',2,3);">Isa 2:3</a> margin; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',4,2);">Mic 4:2</a>: "For out of Zion shall go forth the law (margin "instruction"), and the word of Yahweh from Jerusalem." Both terms are used for any divine communication of whatever extent; and both came to be employed to express the entire body of divine revelation, conceived as a unitary whole. In this comprehensive usage, the emphasis of the one came to fall more on the graciousness, and of the other more on the authoritativeness of this body of divine revelation; and both passed into the New Testament with these implications. "The word of God," or simply "the word," comes thus to mean in the New Testament just the gospel, "the word of the proclamation of redemption, that is, all that which God has to say to man, and causes to be said" looking to his salvation. It expresses, in a word, precisely what we technically speak of as God\'s redemptive revelation. "The law," on the other hand, means in this New Testament use, just the whole body of the authoritative instruction which God has given men. It expresses, in other words, what we commonly speak of as God\'s supernatural revelation. The two things, of course, are the same: God\'s authoritative revelation is His gracious revelation; God\'s redemptive revelation is His supernatural revelation. The two terms merely look at the one aggregate of revelation from two aspects, and each emphasizes its own aspect of this one aggregated revelation.<P>Now, this aggregated revelation lay before the men of the New Testament in a written form, and it was impossible to speak freely of it without consciousness of and at least occasional reference to its written form. Accordingly we hear of a Word of God that is written, (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',15,25);">Joh 15:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,54);">1Co 15:54</a>), and the Divine Word is naturally contrasted with mere tradition, as if its written form were of its very idea (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,10);">Mr 7:10</a>); indeed, the written body of revelation<6F>with an emphasis on its written form<72>is designated expressly \'the prophetic word\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,19);">2Pe 1:19</a>).<P>3. "The Scriptures":<P>More distinctly still, "the Law" comes to be thought of as a written, not exactly, code, but body of Divinely authoritative instructions. The phrase, "It is written in your law" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,34);">Joh 10:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',15,25);">15:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,19);">Ro 3:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',14,21);">1Co 14:21</a>), acquires the precise sense of, "It is set forth in your authoritative Scriptures, all the content of which is \'law,\' that is, divine instruction." Thus, "the Word of God," "the Law," came to mean just the written body of revelation, what we call, and what the New Testament writers called, in the same high sense which we give the term, "the Scriptures." These "Scriptures" are thus identified with the revelation of God, conceived as a well-defined corpus, and two conceptions rise before us which have had a determining part to play in the history of Christianity<74>the conception of an authoritative Canon of Scripture, and the conception of this Canon of Scripture as just the Word of God written. The former conception was thrown into prominence in opposition to the Gnostic heresies in the earliest age of the church, and gave rise to a richly varied mode of speech concerning the Scriptures, emphasizing their authority in legal language, which goes back to and rests on the Biblical. usage of "Law." The latter it was left to the Reformation to do justice to in its struggle against, on the one side, the Romish depression of the Scriptures in favor of the traditions of the church, and on the other side the Enthusiasts\' supercession of them in the interests of the "inner Word." When Tertullian, on the one hand, speaks of the Scriptures as an "Instrument," a legal document, his terminology has an express warrant in the Scriptures\' own usage of torah, "law," to designate their entire content. And when John Gerhard argues that "between the Word of God and Sacred Scripture, taken in a material sense, there is no real difference," he is only declaring plainly what is definitely implied in the New Testament use of "the Word of God" with the written revelation in mind. What is important to recognize is that the Scriptures themselves represent the Scriptures as not merely containing here and there the record of revelations<6E>"words of God," toroth<74>given by God, but as themselves, in all their extent, a revelation, an authoritative body of gracious instructions from God; or, since they alone, of all the revelations which God may have given, are extant<6E>rather as the Revelation, the only "Word of God" accessible to men, in all their parts "law," that is, authoritative instruction from God.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Herman Witsius, "De Prophetis et Prophetia" in Miscell. Sacr., I, Leiden,1736,1-318; G. F. Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament, English translation, Edinburgh,1874,I, part I (and the appropriate sections in other Biblical Theologies); H. Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek(2), I, Kampen,1906,290-406 (and the appropriate sections in other dogmatic treatises); H. Voigt, Fundamentaldogmatik, Gotha,1874,173ff; A. Kuyper, Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology, English translation, New York,1898,Division III, Chapter ii; A. E. Krauss, Die Lehre von der Offenbarung, Gotha, 1868; C. F. Fritzsche, De revelationis notione biblica, Leipzig, 1828; E. W. Hengstenberg, The Christology of the O T, ET2, Edinburgh,1868,IV, Appendix 6, pp. 396-444; E. Konig, Per Offenbarungsbegriff des Altes Testament, Leipzig, 1882; A. B. Davidson, Old Testament Prophecy, 1903; W. J. Beecher, The Prophets and the Promise, New York, 1905; James Orr, The Christian View of God and the World,1893,as per Index, "Revelation," and Revelation and Inspiration, London and New York, 1910. Also: T. Christlieb, Modern Doubt and Christian Belief, English translation, New York, 1874; G. P. Fisher, The Nature and Method of Revelation, New York, 1890; C. M. Mead, Supernatural Revelation, 1889; J. Quirmbach, Die Lehre des h. Paulus von der naturlichen Gotteserkenntnis, etc., Freiburg, 1906.``187';
isbe[7411]='Revellings`rev\'-el-ingz (komos): The word is found both in the King James Version and in the Revised Version (British and American) in <span class="noTag">The Wisdom of Solomon 14:23</A> (the Revised Version (British and American) "revels," orgiastic heathen worship is in point); 2Macc 6:4; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,21);">Ga 5:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,3);">1Pe 4:3</a>. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,21);">Ga 5:21</a> it is classed with fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, etc., as one of the works of the flesh. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,3);">1Pe 4:3</a> it is spoken of the Gentiles and is classcd with drunkenness and carousings and such like. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',13,13);">Ro 13:13</a> the Revised Version has "revelling" instead of the King James Version "rioting," and in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,13);">2Pe 2:13</a>, "revel" replaces "riot." Similarly in <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',6,7);">Am 6:7</a>, "revelry" replaces "banquet." The obvious meaning of the word is excessive and boisterous intemperance and lustful indulgence.``64';
isbe[7412]='Revenge; Revenger`re-venj\', re-venj\'-er: The same Hebrew and Greek words are used to express the idea of "to avenge" and "to revenge" (naqam, or derivative; ekdikeo, or derivative). In English these words are synonymous in that they are both used to express the infliction of punishment upon the wrongdoer, but "to take revenge" may also imply a spiteful, wrong or malignant spirit. In the latter case, the Revised Version (British and American) preserves "revenge" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',20,10);">Jer 20:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',25,15);">Eze 25:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',25,17);">25:17</a> is an anthropomorphism), but, wherever it is synonymous with "avenge," this word is used (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',31,2,3);">Nu 31:2,3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',79,10);">Ps 79:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Nah\',1,2);">Na 1:2</a>; Jdt 13:20; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',13,4);">Ro 13:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',7,11);">2Co 7:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',10,6);">10:6</a> the Revised Version (British and American); the King James Version has "revenge" in all these cases). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,42);">De 32:42</a>, the King James Version "revenge" is a wrong translation. Read with the Revised Version (British and American) "from the head of the leaders of the enemy" or the Revised Version margin "the hairy head of the enemy."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=AVENGE,+AVENGER">AVENGE, AVENGER</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html??string=BLOOD">BLOOD</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html??string=GOEL">GOEL</a>`16';
isbe[7413]='Revenue`rev\'-e-nu:<P>(1) appethom, "revenue or income" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,13);">Ezr 4:13</a> the King James Version);<P>(2) tebhu\'ah, "increase," "revenue" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',8,19);">Pr 8:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',15,6);">15:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',23,3);">Isa 23:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',12,13);">Jer 12:13</a>); prosodos, "income" (2Macc 3:3; 4:8 (the Revised Version (British and American) "fund"); 9:16).``1';
isbe[7414]='Reverence`rev\'-er-ens: In the Old Testament, "reverence" occurs as the translation of two Hebrew words, yare\' and shachah. The root idea of the former is "fear." It is used to express the attitude toward God Himself, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',89,7);">Ps 89:7</a> the King James Version; or toward His sanctuary, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,30);">Le 19:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,2);">26:2</a>. So the group of ideas there would be "fear," "awe," "reverence." The root idea of the second is "falling down," as prostration of the body. It is used to express the bearing toward another who is considered superior, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',9,6);">2Sa 9:6</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',1,31);">1Ki 1:31</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',3,2,5);">Es 3:2,5</a>. The group of ideas here, therefore, is "honor," "obeisance," "reverence."<P>In the New Testament "reverence" occurs as the translation of three Greek words, aidos, phobeomai, and entrepomai. In the first, the idea is "modesty" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,28);">Heb 12:28</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',2,9);">1Ti 2:9</a>). In the second, "fear" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,33);">Eph 5:33</a> the King James Version), though here it is used to set forth the attitude of proper subjection on the part of a wife toward her husband (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,2,5);">1Pe 3:2,5</a>). In the third, the idea is that of the "self-valuation of inferiority," and so sets forth an attitude toward another of doing him honor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',21,37);">Mt 21:37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,6);">Mr 12:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',20,13);">Lu 20:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,9);">Heb 12:9</a>).<P>In the Apocrypha entrepomai occurs in The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 2:10</span>; Sirach 4:22. In addition, proskuneo, "make obeisance," occurs in Judith 10:23; 14:7; thaumazo, "wonder," Sirach 7:29, and aischunomai, "be ashamed," Baruch 4:15.<P>"Reverend" occurs in the Old Testament in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',111,9);">Ps 111:9</a>, of the name of God (yare\'), and in the Apocrypha in 2Macc 15:12, "a man reverend (aidemon, "modest") in bearing," and in the New Testament the Revised Version (British and American) has "reverent in demeanor" (hieroprepes) in <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',2,3);">Tit 2:3</a> and "reverend" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,8);">Php 4:8</a> margin (semnos).``61';
isbe[7415]='Revile`re-vil\'.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CRIMES">CRIMES</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html??string=PUNISHMENTS">PUNISHMENTS</a>`1';
isbe[7416]='Revive; Reviving`re-viv\', reviv\'-ing: revive is the translation of chayah, "to live," "cause to live," used of restoration to life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',45,27);">Ge 45:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',15,19);">Jud 15:19</a>, etc.); of rebuilding (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',4,2);">Ne 4:2</a>); of restoration to well-being (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',85,6);">Ps 85:6</a> (the Revised Version (British and American) "quicken"); <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',138,7);">Ps 138:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',57,15);">Isa 57:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',6,2);">Ho 6:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',14,7);">14:7</a>); of Yahweh\'s gracious work for His people (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',3,2);">Hab 3:2</a>, "revive thy work in the midst of the years," etc.); "reviving" is the translation of michydh "preservation" or "means of life" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',9,8,9);">Ezr 9:8,9</a>). "Revive" occurs in the New Testament as the translation of anazao, "to live again" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,9);">Ro 7:9</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,14);">14:9</a>, the King James Version "Christ both died, and rose, and revived," the Revised Version (British and American) (omitting "and rose") "Christ died and lived again" zao).<P>In 1Macc 13:7 the Revised Version (British and American) we have "And the spirit of the people revived," anazopureo, "to stir or kindle up as a fire," the same word as in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',1,6);">2Ti 1:6</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "stir up the gift of God, which is in thee," margin "Greek: \'stir into flame.\'"<P>In view of the frequent modern use of "revive" and "revival," it is worthy of notice that it is to Timothy himself the exhortation is addressed. We too often merely pray for "revivals," forgetting that it is for us to "stir into flame" the gift of the Spirit which we have already received of God. It is ours from Him, but we let it lie dormant, as a slumbering ember merely.``185';
isbe[7417]='Reward`re-word\':In modern English (except when influenced by the Biblical forms) a "reward" is something given in recognition of a good act. In English Versions of the Bible, however, "reward" is used quite generally for anything given, and the term covers the recompense of evil (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',91,8);">Ps 91:8</a>), wages (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',5,18);">1Ti 5:18</a> the King James Version), bribes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',7,3);">Mic 7:3</a>), and gifts (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',40,5);">Jer 40:5</a> the King James Version). The Revised Version (British and American) has specialized the meaning in a number of cases (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',94,2);">Ps 94:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',16,34);">Eze 16:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',40,5);">Jer 40:5</a>, etc.), but not systematically.``1';
isbe[7418]='Rezeph`re\'-zef (retseph;<P>1. Forms of the Name:<P>Codex Vaticanus Rhapheis; Rhaphes; Codex Alexandrinus ten Rhapheth (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',19,12);">2Ki 19:12</a>), B Q margin Rhapheth Codex Sinaiticus Q Rhafes; Codex Alexandrinus Rhapheis (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',37,12);">Isa 37:12</a>); Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) Roseph (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',19,12);">2Ki 19:12</a>), Reseph (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',37,12);">Isa 37:12</a>)): One of the places referred to by Sennacherib\'s Rabshakeh when delivering that king\'s message to Hezekigh demanding the surrender of Jerusalem. The names which precede are Gozan and Haran; and "the children of Eden that were Telassar" follows.<P>2. Now Called Rucafa:<P>It is now represented by Rucafa, east of Tipsah and northeast of Hamath, and is regarded as the (Rhesapha) of Ptolemy (v.15). It was for some time under Assyrian dominion, and appears in a geographical list (2 R 53, 37a) preceded by Arrapba (Arrapachitis) and Halabbu (Halah), and followed by Tamnunu, uder the form of Rasappa (elsewhere Racapi).<P>3. Its Assyrian Governors:<P>From the Eponym Canons, Ninip-kibsi-ucur was, it appears, prefect in 839 BC, Uras-eres from 804 to 775 BC, Sin-sallimanni in 747, and Bel-emuranni in 737 BC. Judging from their names, all these were Assyrians, but a seemingly native governor, Abda\'u (or Abda\'i), possibly later than the foregoina, is mentioned in a list of officials (K. 9921). Yabutu was sanu (deputy-governor?) of Rezeph in 673 BC. Its mention in the Assyrian geographical lists implies that Rezeph was an important trade-center in Old Testament times.``136';
isbe[7419]='Rezia`re-zi\'-a.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RIZIA">RIZIA</a>`1';
isbe[7420]='Rezin`re\'-zin (retsin; Rhaasson): The last of the kings of Syria who reigned in Damascus (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',15,37);">2Ki 15:37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',16,\'5-10\');">16:5-10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',7,1);">Isa 7:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',8,\'4-7\');">8:4-7</a>). Alona with Pekah, the son of Remaliah, who reigned 20 years over Israel in Samaria, he joined in the Syro-Ephraimitic war aaainst Ahaz, the king of Judah. Together they laid siege to Jerusalem, but were unsuccessful in the effort to take it (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',16,5);">2Ki 16:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',7,1);">Isa 7:1</a>). It was to calm the fears, and to restore the fainting spirits of the men of Judah, that Isaiah was commissioned by the Lord to assure them that the schemes of "these two tails of smoking firebrands" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',7,4);">Isa 7:4</a>) were destined to miscarry. It was then, too, that the sign was aiven of the vigin who should conceive, and bear a son, and should call his name Immanuel. Rezin had to content himself on this campaign to the South with the capture of Elath from the men of Judah and its restoration to the men of Edom, from whom it had been taken and made a seaport by Solomon (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',16,6);">2Ki 16:6</a>, where it is agareed that "Syria" and "Syrians" should be read "Edom" and "Edomites," which in the Hebrew script are easy to be mistaken for one another, and are in fact often mistaken). Rezin, however, had a more formidable enemy to encounter on his return to Damascus. Ahaz, like kings of Judah before and after him, placed his reliance more on the arm of flesh than on the true King of his people, and appealed to Tiglath-pileser III, of Assyria, for help. Ahaz deliberately sacrificed the independence of his country in the terms of his offer of submission to the Assyrian: "I am thy servant and thy son" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',16,7);">2Ki 16:7</a>). Tiglath-pileser had already carried his arms to the west and ravaged the northern border of Israel; and now he crossed the Euphrates and hastened to Damascus, slaying Rezin and carrying his people captive to Kir (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',16,9);">2Ki 16:9</a>). In the copious Annals of Tialath-pileser, Rezin figures with the designation Racunu(ni), but the tablet recording his death, found and read by Sir Henry Rawlinson, has been irrecoverably lost, and only the fact of its existence and loss remains (Schrader, COT, I, 252, 257). With the death of Rezin the kingdom of Damascus and Syria came to an end.<P>Rezin, Sons of: Mentioned among the Nethinim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,48);">Ezr 2:48</a>), who returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel from captivity (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,50);">Ne 7:50</a>).<P>LITERATURE.<P>Schrader, COT, as above; Driver, Authority, 99ff,``128';
isbe[7421]='Rezon`re\'-zon (rezon; Rhazon): Son of Eliadah, and a subject of Hadadezer, king of Zobah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,23);">1Ki 11:23</a>). The name appears to be given as chezyon; Hazein (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',15,18);">1Ki 15:18</a>; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HEZION">HEZION</a>), where he is the father of Tabrimmon, whose son Ben-hadad I is known through his leaaue with Asa, king of Judah. When David conquered Zobah, Rezon renounced his allegiance to Hadadezer and became powerful as an independent chief, capturing Damascus and setting up as king. Along with Hadad, the noted Edomite patriot, he became a thorn in the side of Solomon, the one making himself obnoxious in the South, the other in the north, of the kingdom of Israel, both being animated with a bitter hatred of the common foe. It is said of Rezon that he "reigned over Syria" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,25);">1Ki 11:25</a>), and if the surmise adopted by many scholars is correct that he is the same as Hezion (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',15,18);">1Ki 15:18</a>), then he was really the founder of the dynasty of Syrian kings so well known in the history of this period of Israel; and the line would run: Rezon, Tabrimmon, Ben-hadad I, and Ben-hadad II.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Burney on <span class="noTag">1Ki 11:23 and 15:18</span> in Notes on Hebrew Text of Books of Kings; Winckler, Alttest. Untersuchunaen, 60ff.``128';
isbe[7422]='Rhegium`re-ji-um: This city [Rhegion] (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',28,13);">Ac 28:13</a>), the modern Reggio di Calabria) was a town situated on the east side of the Sicilian Straits, about 6 miles South of a point opposite Messana (Messina). Originally a colony of Chalcidian Greeks, the place enjoyed great prosperity in the 5th century BC, but was captured and destroyed by Dionysius, tyrant of Syracuse, in 387 BC, when all the surviving inhabitants were sold into slavery (Diodorus xiv. 106-8, 111, 112). The city never entirely recovered from this blow, althouah it was partially restored by the younaer Dionysius. On the occasion of the invasion of Italy by Pyrrhus, the people of Rhegium had recourse to an alliance with Rome (280 BC) and received 4,000 Campanian troops within their walls, who turned out to be very unruly guests. For, in imitation of a similar band of mercenaries across the strait in Messana, they massacred the male inhabitants and reduced the women to slavery (Polybius i.7; Orosius iv.3). They were not punished by the Romans until 270 BC, when the town was restored to those of its former inhabitants who still survived. The people of Rhegium were faithful to their alliance with Rome during the Second Punic War (Livy xxiii.30; xxiv. 1; xxvi.12; xxix.6). At the time of the Social War they were incorporated with the Roman state, Rhegium becoming a municipality (Cicero Verr. v.60; Pro Archia, 3).<P>The ship in which Paul sailed from Melita to Puteoli encountered unfavorable winds after leaving Syracuse, and reached Rhegium by means of tacking. It waited at Rhegium a day for a south wind which bore it to Puteoli (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',28,13);">Ac 28:13</a>), about 180 miles distant, where it probably arrived in about 26 hours.``3';
isbe[7423]='Rhesa`re\'-sa (Rhesa): A son of Zerubbabel in the genealogy of Jesus according to Luke (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,27);">Lu 3:27</a>).``1';
isbe[7424]='Rhinoceros`ri-nos\'-er-os: This word is found in the King James Version margin to <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,7);">Isa 34:7</a> ("rhinocerots") for re\'emim, the King James Version "unicorns," the Revised Version (British and American) "wild-oxen." The word is quite inappropriate to the passage, which refers to the land of Edom. The one-horned rhinoceros, Rhinoceros unicornis, is confined to India. Other rhinoceroses are found in India and in equatorial Africa, but it is hardly to be presumed that these animals were meant by the Hebrew writers.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=UNICORN">UNICORN</a>`1';
isbe[7425]='Rhoda`ro\'-da (Rhode, "rose"): A maid in the house of Mary the mother of John Mark. She came to answer when Peter knocked at Mary\'s door after his miraculous release from prison. On recognizing his voice, she so forgot herself with joy that she neglected to open the door, but ran in to tell the others the glad news. They would not believe her, thinking she was mad; and when she persisted in her statement they said it must be his angel. The Jewish belief was that each man had a guardian angel assigned to him. Peter continued knocking, and was ultimately admitted (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',12,12);">Ac 12:12</a>).``78';
isbe[7426]='Rhodes`rodz (Rhodos): An island (and city) in the Aegean Sea, west of Caria, rough and rocky in parts, but well watered and productive, though at present not extensively cultivated. Almost one-third of the island is now covered with trees in spite of earlier deforestation. The highest mountains attain an altitude of nearly 4,000 ft. The older names were Ophiusa, Asteria, Trinacria, Corymbia. The capital in antiquity was Rhodes, at the northeastern extremity, a strongly fortitled city provided with a double harbor. Near the entrance of the harbor stood one of the seven wonders of the ancient world<6C>a colossal bronze statue dedicated to Helios. Tiffs colossus, made by Chares about 290 BC, at a cost of 300 talents ($300,000 in 1915), towered to the height of 104 ft.<P>In the popular mind<6E>both before and after Shakespeare represented Caesar as bestriding the world like a colossus<75>this gigantic figure is conceived as an image of a human being of monstrous size with leas spread wide apart, at the entrance of the inner harbor, so huge that the largest ship with sails spread could move in under it; but the account on which this conception is based seems to have no foundation.<P>The statue was destroyed in 223 BC by an earthquake. It was restored by the Romans. In 672 AD the Saracens sold the ruins to a Jew. The quantity of metal was so areat that it would fill the cars of a modern freight train (900 camel loads).<P>The most ancient cities of Rhodes were Ialysus, Ochyroma, and Lindus. The oldest inhabitants were immigrants from Crete. Later came the Carians. But no real advance in civilization was made before the immigration of the Dorians under Tlepolemus, one of the Heraclidae, and (after the Trojan war) Aethaemanes. Lindus, Ialysus and Camirus formed with Cos, Cnidus and Halicarnassus the so-called Dorian Hexapolis (Six Cities), the center of which was the temple of the Triopian Apollo on the coast of Caria. Rhodes now founded many colonies<65>in Spain (Rhode), in Italy (Parthenope, Salapia, Sirus, Sybaris), in Sicily (Gela), in Asia Minor (Soli), in Cilicia (Gaaae), and in Lycia (Corydalla). The island attained no political greatness until the three chief cities formed a confederation and rounded the new capital (Rhodes) in 408 BC. In the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, Rhodes sided with the Athenians, but, after 19 years of loyalty to Athens, went over to the Spartans (412 BC). In 394, when Conon appeared with his fleet before the city, the island fell into the hands of the Athenians again. A garrison was stationed at Rhodes by Alexander the Great. After his death this garrison was driven out by the Rhodians. It is at this time that the really great period of the island\'s history begins. The inhabitants bravely defended their capital against Demetrius Poliorcetes in 304 BC<42>the same Demetrius who two years before had won a naval victory and had coins stamped with a "Victory" that is the counterpart of the "Winaed Victory" which commands the unbounded admiration of the modern world<6C>and extended their dominion over a strip of the Carian coast, as well as over several of the neiahboring islands, and for the first time in the history of the world established an international maritime and commercial law. The arts and sciences now began to flourish in the fair island in the southeastern Aegean. Aeschines, the famous orator of Athens, fled to Rhodes after his defeat by Demosthenes, and rounded a school of oratory, which was attended by many Romans. Rhodes became the faithful ally of Rome after the defeat of Antiochus in 189 BC. As a reward for her loyalty she received Caria. In 168, however, only a small portion of this territory remained under Rhodian sway (Peraea, or the Chersonesus). In 42 BC the island was devastated by Cassius. Later it was made a part of the Roman province of Asia (44 AD). Strabo says that he knows no city so splendid in harbor, walls and streets. When the Roman power declined, Rhodes fell into the hands of Caliph Moawijah, but later was taken by the Greeks, from whom at a later date the Genoese wrested the island. In 1249 John Cantacuzenus attempted to recover Rhodes, but in vain. Finally, however, success crowned the efforts of the Greeks under Theodoros Protosebastos. In 1310 the Knights of John, who had been driven from Palestine, made Rhodes their home. After the subjuaation of the island by Sultan Soliman in 1522 the Knights of John removed to Malta, and Rhodes has remained uninterruptedly a possession of the Sublime Porte down to the recent war between Turkey and the Balkan allies, forming, with the other islands, the province of the "Islands of the White Sea" (Archipelago). It has a Christian governor whose seat, though mostly at Rhodes, is sometimes at Chios. The population of the island has greatly diminished by emigration. In 1890 the total number of inhabitants was 30,000 (20,000 Greeks, 7,000 Mohammedans, 1,500 Jews). The chief products of Rhodes are wheat, oil, wine, figs and tropical fruits. A very important industry is the exportation of sponges. The purity of the air and the mildness of the climate make Rhodes a most delightful place to live in during the fall, winter and early spring. The city, built in the shape of an amphitheater, has a magnificent view toward the sea. It contains several churches made out of old mosques. The once famous harbor is now almost filled with sand. The inhabitants number nearly 12,000 (all Turks and Jews). Rhodes is mentioned in the New Testament only as a point where Paul touched on his voyage southward from the Hellespont to Caesarea (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,1);">Ac 21:1</a>); but in 1Macc 15:23 we are informed that it was one of the states to which the Romans sent letters in behalf of the Jews.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Berg, Die Insel Rhodes (Braunschweig, 1860-62): Schneiderwirth, Geschichte der Insel Rhodes (Heiligenstadt, 1868); Guerin, L\'ile de Rhodes, 2nd edition, Paris, 1880; Biliotti and Cottrel, L\'ile de Rhodes (Paris, 1881); Torr, Rhodes in Ancient Times (Cambridge, 1885) and Rhodes in Modern Times (1887).``71';
isbe[7427]='Rhodocus`rod\'-o-kus (Rhodokos): A Jewish traitor who disclosed the plans of Judas to Antiochus (Eupator) (2Macc 13:21) 162 BC. Of his fate nothing more is known.``1';
isbe[7428]='Rib`(tsela\', tsal\'ah; Aramaic \'ala\'): The Hebrew words designate the "side," "flank," thence the "ribs." They are found thus translated only in connection with the creation of Eve: "He (Yahweh) took one of his (Adam\'s) ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof: and the rib, which Yahweh God had taken from the man, made he (margin "builded he into") a woman" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,21,22);">Ge 2:21,22</a>). The Aramaic word is only found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',7,5);">Da 7:5</a>.<P>Twice the Revised Version (British and American) uses the word "rib" in a figurative sense of two beams or rafters built in to the ark of the covenant and the altar of incense, on which the golden rings were fastened, which served to carry ark and altar by means of staves (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',30,4);">Ex 30:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',37,27);">37:27</a>).<P>A curious mistranslation has crept into the King James Version, which here follows Jewish commentators or etymologists, in four passages in 2 Samuel (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',2,23);">2:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',3,27);">3:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',4,6);">4:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',20,10);">20:10</a>), where the "fifth rib" is mentioned as the place of the body under which spears or swords are thrust, so as to cause lethal wounds. The Hebrew word chomesh, which indeed means "fifth," is here a noun, derived from a root meaning "to be staunch," "stalwart," "stout" "fleshy," "obese" (compare chamush, "armed," "equipped soldier"; Arabic el khamis (el chamis), "the army," which, however, Arabic lexicographers explain as meaning "fivefold," namely, vanguard, right and left wing, center and rear guard). The word is to be translated "abdomen," "belly." the Revised Version (British and American) renders correctly "into the body."``106';
isbe[7429]='Ribai`ri\'-ba-i, ri\'-bi (ribhay; Septuagint Rheiba, with variants): A Benjamite, the father of <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ITTAI">ITTAI</a> (which see), one of David\'s "mighty men" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,29);">2Sa 23:29</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,31);">1Ch 11:31</a>).``1';
isbe[7430]='Ribband`rib\'-and, rib\'-an (pathil (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',15,38);">Nu 15:38</a> the King James Version)).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=COLOR">COLOR</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html??string=CORD">CORD</a>`1';
isbe[7431]='Riblah`rib\'-la (ribhlah; Rheblatha, with variants):<P>(1) Riblah in the land of Hamath first appears in history in 608 BC. Here Pharaoh-necoh, after defeating Josiah at Megiddo and destroying Kadytis or Kadesh on the Orontes, fixed his headquarters, and while in camp he deposed Jehoahaz and cast him into chains, fixed the tribute of Judah, and appointed Jehoiakim king (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,\'31-35\');">2Ki 23:31-35</a>). In 588 BC Nebuchadnezzar, at war with Egypt and the Syrian states, also established his headquarters at Riblah, and from it he directed the subjugation of Jerusalem. When it fell, Zedekiah was carried prisoner to Riblah, and there, after his sons and his nobles had been slain in his presence, his eyes were put out, and he was taken as a prisoner to Babylon (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',25,6,20);">2Ki 25:6,20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',39,\'5-7\');">Jer 39:5-7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',52,\'8-11\');">52:8-11</a>). Riblah then disappears from history, but the site exists today in the village of Ribleh, 35 miles northeast of Baalbek, and the situation is the finest that could have been chosen by the Egyptian or Babylonian kings for their headquarters in Syria. An army camped there had abundance of water in the control of the copious springs that go to form the Orontes. The Egyptians coming from the South had behind them the command of the rich corn and forage lands of Coele-Syria, while the Babylonian army from the north was equally fortunate in the rich plains extending to Hamath and the Euphrates. Lebanon, close by, with its forests, its hunting grounds and its snows, ministered to the needs and luxuries of the leaders. Riblah commanded the great trade and war route between Egypt and Mesopotamia, and, besides, it was at the dividing-point of many minor routes. It was in a position to attack with facility Phoenicia, Damascus or Palestine, or to defend itself against attack from those places, while a few miles to the South the mountains on each side close in forming a pass where a mighty host might easily be resisted by a few. In every way Riblah was the strategical point between North and South Syria. Riblah should probably be read for Diblah in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',6,14);">Eze 6:14</a>, while in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',34,11);">Nu 34:11</a> it does not really appear. See (2).<P>(2) A place named as on the ideal eastern boundary of Israel in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',34,11);">Nu 34:11</a>, but omitted in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',47,\'15-18\');">Eze 47:15-18</a>. The Massoretic Text reads "Hariblah"; but the Septuagint probably preserves the true vocalization, according to which we should translate "to Harbel." It is said to be to the east of \'Ain, and that, as the designation of a district, can only mean Merj \'Ayun, so that we should seek it in the neighborhood of Hermon, one of whose spurs Furrer found to be named Jebel \'Arbel.``23';
isbe[7432]='Riches`rich\'-ez, rich\'-iz: Used to render the following Hebrew and Greek words:<P>(1) \'Osher, which should, perhaps, be considered the most general word, as it is the most often used (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,16);">Ge 31:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',4,8);">Ec 4:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',9,23);">Jer 9:23</a>). It looks at riches simply as riches, without regard to any particular feature. Alongside this would go the Greek ploutos (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,22);">Mt 13:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,7);">Eph 2:7</a>).<P>(2) Chocen (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',27,24);">Pr 27:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',20,5);">Jer 20:5</a>), nekhacim and rekhush (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,7);">Ge 36:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',11,13,14);">Da 11:13,14</a> the King James Version) look at riches as things accumulated, collected, amassed.<P>(3) Hon looks upon riches as earnings, the fruit of toil (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,14);">Ps 119:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',8,18);">Pr 8:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,27);">Eze 27:27</a>).<P>(4) Hamon regards riches in the aspect of being much, this coming from the original idea of noise, through the idea of a multitude as making the noise, the idea of many, or much, being in multitude (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',37,16);">Ps 37:16</a> the King James Version).<P>(5) Chayil regards riches as power (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',62,1);">Ps 62:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',8,4);">Isa 8:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,14);">10:14</a>).<P>(6) Yithrah means "running over," and so presents riches as abundance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',48,36);">Jer 48:36</a> the King James Version). Along with this may be placed shua\', which has the idea of breadth, and so of abundance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',36,19);">Job 36:19</a> the King James Version).<P>(7) Qinyan regards riches as a creation, something made (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',104,24);">Ps 104:24</a>; compare margin);<P>(8) (chrema) looks at riches as useful (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,23);">Mr 10:23</a>f parallel). Like the New Testament, the Apoe uses only ploutos and chrema.<P>Material riches are regarded by the Scriptures as neither good nor bad in themselves, but only according as they are properly or improperly used. They are transitory (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',27,24);">Pr 27:24</a>); they are not to be trusted in (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,23);">Mr 10:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,24);">Lu 18:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,17);">1Ti 6:17</a>); they are not to be gloried in (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',9,23);">Jer 9:23</a>); the heart is not to be set on them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',62,10);">Ps 62:10</a>); but they are made by God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',104,24);">Ps 104:24</a>), and come from God (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',29,12);">1Ch 29:12</a>); and they are the crown of the wise (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',14,24);">Pr 14:24</a>). Material riches are used to body forth for us the most precious and glorious realities of the spiritual realm. See, e.g., <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,23);">Ro 9:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',11,33);">11:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,7);">Eph 2:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,19);">Php 4:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,27);">Col 1:27</a>.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MAMMON">MAMMON</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html??string=TREASURE">TREASURE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html??string=WEALTH">WEALTH</a>`61';
isbe[7433]='Rid; Riddance`rid, rid\'-ans: "Rid" originally meant "rescue" (the King James Version <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,22);">Ge 37:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,6);">Ex 6:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',82,4);">Ps 82:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',144,7,11);">144:7,11</a>), whence the meaning "remove" or "clean out" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,6);">Le 26:6</a> the King James Version, with "riddance" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,22);">Le 23:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',1,18);">Ze 1:18</a>). The word occurs in the American Standard Revised Version and in the English Revised Version in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,6);">Ex 6:6</a>.``1';
isbe[7434]='Riddle`rid\'-\'-l (chidhah; ainigma).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GAMES">GAMES</a>`1';
isbe[7435]='Rie`ri "Rye" (King James Version, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',9,32);">Ex 9:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',28,25);">Isa 28:25</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SPELT">SPELT</a>`1';
isbe[7436]='Right`rit (yashar, mishpat; dikaios, euthus): Many Hebrew words are translated "right," with different shades of meaning. Of these the two noted are the most important: yashar, with the sense of being straight, direct, as "right in the sight" of Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,26);">Ex 15:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,25);">De 12:25</a>, etc.), in one\'s own eyes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',17,6);">Jud 17:6</a>), "right words" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',6,25);">Job 6:25</a> the King James Version, yosher), "right paths" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',4,11);">Pr 4:11</a> the King James Version); and mishpat "judgment" "cause" etc., a forensic term, as "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,25);">Ge 18:25</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',34,17);">Job 34:17</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) has "justice" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',34,6);">34:6</A>, "right"), etc. The word tsedheq, tsedhaqah, ordinarily translated "righteousness," are in a few cases rendered "right" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',19,28);">2Sa 19:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',2,20);">Ne 2:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',9,4);">Ps 9:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',17,1);">17:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,75);">119:75</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',18,5);">Eze 18:5</a>, etc.). In the New Testament the chief word is dikaios, primarily "even," "equal" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,4);">Mt 20:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,57);">Lu 12:57</a>, etc.); more generally the word is rendered "just" and "righteous." Euthus, used by Septuagint for yashar (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',12,23);">1Sa 12:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',14,9);">Ho 14:9</a>), occurs a few times (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',8,21);">Ac 8:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,10);">13:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,15);">2Pe 2:15</a>); so orthos, "straight," "upright" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,28);">Lu 10:28</a>). "Right-hand" or "side" represents Hebrew yamin and kindred forms (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',48,13,14,17);">Ge 48:13,14,17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,6);">Ex 15:6</a>, etc.); the Greek, in this sense, is dexios (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,3);">Mt 6:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,21);">20:21</a>, etc.).<P>Revised Version, among other changes, has "right" for the King James Version "judgment" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',27,2);">Job 27:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',34,5);">34:5</a>, and for "right" in the King James Version substitutes "straight" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,21);">Ezr 8:21</a>, "skillful" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',4,4);">Ec 4:4</a>, margin "successful," etc. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,12);">Joh 1:12</a> the Revised Version (British and American) reads, "the right to become children of God" for the King James Version "the power" (exousia); in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,7,15);">Mt 20:7,15</a> "right" is omitted, with the larger part of the verse. In <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',2,15);">2Ti 2:15</a> "rightly dividing" (orthotomeo) is changed to "handling aright" with margin "holding a straight course in the word of truth. Or, rightly dividing the word of truth."``185';
isbe[7437]='Righteousness`ri\'-chus-nes (tsaddiq, adjective, "righteous," or occasionally "just" tsedheq, noun, occasionally = "riahteousness," occasionally = "justice"; dikaios, adjective, dikaiosune, noun, from dike, whose first meaning seems to have been "custom"; the general use suggested conformity to a standard: righteousness, "the state of him who is such as he ought to be" (Thayer)):<P>1. Double Aspect of Righteousness: Changing and Permanent<P>2. Social Customs and Righteousness<P>3. Changing Conception of Character of God: Obligations of Power<P>4. Righteousness as Inner<P>5. Righteousness as Social<P>6. Righteousness as Expanding in Content with Growth in Ideals of Human Worth<P>LITERATURE<hr /><P>1. Double Aspect of Righteousness: Changing and Permanent:<P>In Christian thought the idea of righteousness contains both a permanent and a changing element. The fixed element is the will to do right; the changing factor is the conception of what may be right at different times and under different circumstances. Throughout the entire course of Christian revelation we discern the emphasis on the first factor. To be sure, in the days of later Pharisaism righteousness came to be so much a matter of externals that the inner intent was often lost sight of altogether (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,23);">Mt 23:23</a>); but, on the whole and in the main, Christian thought in all ages has recognized as the central element in righteousness the intention to be and do right. This common spirit binds together the first worshippers of God and the latest. Present-day conceptions of what is right differ by vast distances from the conceptions of the earlier Hebrews, but the intentions of the first worshippers are as discernible as are those of the doers of righteousness in the present day.<P>2. Social Customs and Righteousness:<P>There seems but little reason to doubt that the content of the idea of righteousness was determined in the first instance by the customs of social groups. There are some, of course, who would have us believe that what we experience as inner moral sanction is nothing but the fear of consequences which come through disobeying the will of the social group, or the feeling of pleasure which results as we know we have acted in accordance with the social demands. At least some thinkers would have us believe that this is all there was in moral feeling in the beginning. If a social group was to survive it must lay upon its individual members the heaviest exactions. Back of the performance of religious rites was the fear of the group that the god of the group would be displeased if certain honors were not rendered to him. Merely to escape the penalties of an angry deity the group demanded ceremonial religious observances. From the basis of fear thus wrought into the individuals of the group have come all our loftier movements toward righteousness.<P>It is not necessary to deny the measure of truth there may be in this account. To point out its inadequacy, however, a better statement would be that from the beginning the social group utilized the native moral feeling of the individual for the defense of the group. The moral feeling, by which we mean a sense of the difference between right and wrong, would seem to be a part of the native furnishing of the mind. It is very likely that in the beginning this moral feeling was directed toward the performance of the rites which the group looked upon as important.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ALMS">ALMS</a>.<P>As we read the earlier parts of the Old Testament we are struck by the fact that much of the early Hebrew morality was of this group kind. The righteous man was the man who performed the rites which had been handed down from the beginning (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',6,25);">De 6:25</a>). The meaning of some of these rites is lost in obscurity, but from a very early period the characteristic of Hebrew righteousness is that it moves in the direction of what we should call today the enlargement of humanity. There seemed to be at work, not merely the forces which make for the preservation of the group, not merely the desire to please the God of the Hebrews for the sake of the material favors which He might render the Hebrews, but the factors which make for the betterment of humanity as such. As we examine the laws of the Hebrews, even at so late a time as the completion of the formal Codes, we are indeed struck by traces of primitive survivals (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',5,\'11-31\');">Nu 5:11-31</a>). There are some injunctions whose purpose we cannot well understand. But, on the other hand, the vast mass of the legislation had to do with really human considerations. There are rules concerning Sanitation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',13,\'1-\');">Le 13</a>), both as it touches the life of the group and of the individual; laws whose mastery begets emphasis, not merely upon external consequences, but upon the inner result in the life of the individual (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',51,3);">Ps 51:3</a>); and prohibitions which would indicate that morality, at least in its plainer decencies, had come to be valued on its own account. If we were to seek for some clue to the development of the moral life of the Hebrews we might well find it in this emphasis upon the growing demands of human life as such. A suggestive writer has pointed out that the apparently meaningless commandment, "Thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother\'s milk" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,19);">Ex 23:19</a>), has back of it a real human purpose, that there are some things which in themselves are revolting apart from any external consequences (see also <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,\'1-\');">Le 18</a>).<P>3. Changing Conception of Character of God: Obligations of Power:<P>An index of the growth of the moral life of the people is to be found in the changing conception of the character of God. We need not enter into the question as to just where on the moral plane the idea of the God of the Hebrews started, but from the very beginning we see clearly that the Hebrews believed in their God as one passionately devoted to the right (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,25);">Ge 18:25</a>). It may well be that at the start the God of the Hebrews was largely a God of War, but it is to be noticed that His enmity was against the peoples who had little regard for the larger human considerations. It has often been pointed out that one proof of the inspiration of the Scriptures is to be found in their moral superiority to the Scriptures of the peoples around about the Hebrews. If the Hebrew writers used material which was common property of Chaldeans, Babylonians, and other peoples, they nevertheless used these materials with a moral difference. They breathed into them a moral life which forever separates them from the Scriptures of other peoples. The marvel also of Hebrew history is that in the midst of revoltingly immoral surroundings the Hebrews grew to such ideals of human worth. The source of these ideals is to be found in their thougth of God. Of course, in moral progress there is a reciprocal effect; the thought of God affects the thought of human life and the thought of human life affects the thought of God; but the Hebrews no sooner came to a fresh moral insight than they made their moral discovery a part of the character of God. From the beginning, we repeat, the God of the Hebrews was a God directed in His moral wrath against all manner of abominations, aberrations and abnormalities. The purpose of God, according to the Hebrews, was to make a people "separated" in the sense that they were to be free from anything which would detract from a full moral life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,22);">Le 20:22</a>).<P>We can trace the more important steps in the growth of the Hebrew ideal. First, there was an increasingly clear discernment that certain things are to be ruled out at once as immoral. The primitive decencies upon which individual and social life depended were discerned at an early period (compare passages in Leviticus cited above). Along with this it must be admitted there was a slower approach to some ideals which we today consider important, the ideals of the marriage relations for example (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',24,1,2);">De 24:1,2</a>). Then there was a growing sense of what constitutes moral obligation in the discharge of responsibilities upon the part of men toward their fellows (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',5,8,23);">Isa 5:8,23</a>). There was increasing realization also of what God, as a moral Being, is obligated to do. The hope of salvation of nations and individuals rests at once upon the righteousness of God.<P>By the time of Isaiah the righteousness of God has come to include the obligations of power (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',63,1);">Isa 63:1</a>). God will save His people, not merely because He has promised to save them, but because He must save them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',42,6);">Isa 42:6</a>). The must is moral. If the people of Israel show themselves unworthy, God must punish them; but if a remnant, even a small remnant, show themselves faithful, God must show His favor toward them. Moral worth is not conceived of as something that is to be paid for by external rewards, but if God is moral He must not treat the righteous and the unrighteous alike. This conception of what God must do as an obligated Being influences profoundly the Hebrew interpretation of the entire course of history (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,20,21);">Isa 10:20,21</a>).<P>Upon this ideal of moral obligation there grows later the thought of the virtue of vicarious suffering (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,\'1-\');">Isaiah 53</a>). The sufferings of the good man and of God for those who do not in themselves deserve such sufferings (for them) are a mark of a still higher righteousness (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HOSEA">HOSEA</a>). The movement of the Scriptures is all the way from the thought of a God who gives battle for the right to the thought of a God who receives in Himself the heaviest shocks of that battle that others may have opportunity for moral life.<P>These various lines of moral development come, of course, to their crown in the New Testament in the life and death of Christ as set before us in the Gospels and interpreted by the apostles. Jesus stated certain moral axioms so clearly that the world never will escape their power. He said some things once and for all, and He did some things once and for all; that is to say, in His life and death He set on high the righteousness of God as at once moral obligation and self-sacrificing love (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,16);">Joh 3:16</a>) and with such effectiveness that the world has not escaped and cannot escape this righteous influence (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,32);">Joh 12:32</a>). Moreover, the course of apostolic and subsequent history has shown that Christ put a winning and compelling power into the idea of righteousness that it would otherwise have lacked (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,31,32);">Ro 8:31,32</a>).<P>4. Righteousness as Inner:<P>The ideas at work throughout the course of Hebrew and Christian history are, of course, at work today. Christianity deepens the sense of obligation to do right. It makes the moral spirit essential. Then it utilizes every force working for the increase of human happiness to set on high the meaning of righteousness. Jesus spoke of Himself as "life," and declared that He came that men might have life and have it more abundantly (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,10);">Joh 10:10</a>). The keeping of the commandments plays, of course, a large part in the unfolding of the life of the righteous Christian, but the keeping of the commandments is not to be conceived of in artificial or mechanical fashion (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,\'25-37\');">Lu 10:25-37</a>). With the passage of the centuries some commandments once conceived of as essential drop into the secondary place, and other commandments take the controlling position. In Christian development increasing place is given for certain swift insights of the moral spirit. We believe that some things are righteous because they at once appeal to us as righteous. Again, some other things seem righteous because their consequences are beneficial, both for society and for the individual. Whatever makes for the largest life is in the direction of righteousness. In interpreting life, however, we must remember the essentially Christian conception that man does not live through outer consequences alone. In all thought of consequences the chief place has to be given to inner consequences. By the surrender of outward happiness and outward success a man may attain inner success. The spirit of the cross is still the path to the highest righteousness.<P>5. Righteousness as Social:<P>The distinctive note in emphasis upon righteousness in our own day is the stress laid upon social service. This does not mean that Christianity is to lose sight of the worth of the individual in himself. We have come pretty clearly to see that the individual is the only moral end in himself. Righteousness is to have as its aim the upbuilding of individual lives. The commandments of the righteous life are not for the sake of society as a thing in itself. Society is nothing apart from the individuals that compose it; but we are coming to see that individuals have larger relationships than we had once imagined and greater responsibilities than we had dreamed of. The influence of the individual touches others at more points than we had formerly realized. We have at times condemned the system of things as being responsible for much human misery which we now see can be traced to the agency of individuals. The employer, the day-laborer, the professional man, the public servant, all these have large responsibilities for the life of those around. The unrighteous individual has a power of contaminating other individuals, and his deadliness we have just begun to understand. All this is receiving new emphasis in our present-day preaching of righteousness. While our social relations are not ends in themselves, they are mighty means for reaching individuals in large numbers. The Christian conception of redeemed humanity is not that of society as an organism existing on its own account, but that of individuals knit very closely together in their social relationships and touching one another for good in these relationships (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,2);">1Co 1:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',7,9,10);">Re 7:9,10</a>). If we were to try to point out the line in which the Christian doctrine of righteousness is to move more and more through the years, we should have to emphasize this element of obligation to society. This does not mean that a new gospel is to supersede the old or even place itself alongside the old. It does mean that the righteousness of God and the teaching of Christ and the cross, which are as ever the center of Christianity, are to find fresh force in the thought of the righteousness of the Christian as binding itself, not merely by commandments to do the will of God in society, but by the inner spirit to live the life of God out into society.<P>6. Righteousness as Expanding in Content with Growth in Ideals of Human Worth:<P>In all our thought of righteousness it must be borne in mind that there is nothing in Christian revelation which will tell us what righteousness calls for in every particular circumstance. The differences between earlier and later practical standards of conduct and the differences between differing standards in different circumstances have led to much confusion in the realm of Christian thinking. We can keep our bearing, however, by remembering the double element in righteousness which we mentioned in the beginning; on the one hand, the will to do right, and, on the other, the difficulty of determining in a particular circumstance just what the right is. The larger Christian conceptions always have an element of fluidity, or, rather, an element of expansiveness. For example, it is clearly a Christian obligation to treat all men with a spirit of good will or with a spirit of Christian love. But what does love call for in a particular case? We can only answer the question by saying that love seeks for whatever is best, both for him who receives and for him who gives. This may lead to one course of conduct in one situation and to quite a different course in another. We must, however, keep before us always the aim of the largest life for all persons whom we can reach. Christian righteousness today is even more insistent upon material things, such as sanitary arrangements, than was the Code of Moses. The obligation to use the latest knowledge for the hygienic welfare is just as binding now as then, but "the latest knowledge" is a changing term. Material progress, education, spiritual instruction, are all influences which really make for full life.<P>Not only is present-day righteousness social and growing; it is also concerned, to a large degree, with the thought of the world which now is. Righteousness has too often been conceived of merely as the means of preparing for the life of some future Kingdom of Heaven. Present-day emphasis has not ceased to think of the life beyond this, but the life beyond this can best be met and faced by those who have been in the full sense righteous in the life that now is. There is here no break in true Christian continuity. The seers who have understood Christianity best always have insisted that to the fullest degree the present world must be redeemed by the life-giving forces of Christianity. We still insist that all idea of earthly righteousness takes its start from heavenly righteousness, or, rather, that the righteousness of man is to be based upon his conception of the righteousness of God. Present-day thinking concerns itself largely with the idea of the Immanence of God. God is in this present world. This does not mean that there may not be other worlds, or are not other worlds, and that God is not also in those worlds; but the immediate revelation of God to us is in our present world. Our present world then must be the sphere in which the righteousness of God and of man is to be set forth. God is conscience, and God is love. The present sphere is to be used for the manifestation of His holy love. The chief channel through which that holy love is to manifest itself is the conscience and love of the Christian believer. But even these terms are not to be used in the abstract. There is an abstract conscientiousness which leads to barren living: the life gets out of touch with things that are real. There is an experience of love which exhausts itself in well-wishing. Both conscience and love are to be kept close to the earth by emphasis upon the actual realities of the world in which we live.<P>LITERATURE.<P>G. B. Stevens, The Christian Doctrine of Salvation; A. E. Garvie, Handbook of Christian Apologetics; Borden P. Bowne, Principles of Ethics; Newman Smyth, Christian Ethics; A. B. Bruce, The Kingdom of God; W. N. Clarke, The Ideal of Jesus; H. C. King, The Ethics of Jesus.``112';
isbe[7438]='Rimmon (1)`rim\'-on:<P>(1) The rock Rimmon (cela\' rimmon; he petra Rhemmon): The place of refuge of the 600 surviving Benjamites of Gibeah (Jeba\') who "turned and fled toward the wilderness unto the rock of Rimmon, and abode in the rock of Rimmon four months" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',20,45,47);">Jud 20:45,47</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',21,13);">21:13</a>). Robinson\'s identification (RB, I, 440) has been very generally accepted. He found a conical and very prominent hill some 6 miles north-northeast of Jeba\' upon which stands a village called Rummon. This site was known to Eusebius and Jerome (OS 146 6; 287 98), who describe it as 15 Roman miles from Jerusalem. Another view, which would locate the place of refuge of the Benjamites in the Mugharet el jai, a large cavern on the south of the Wady Suweinit, near Jeba\', is strongly advocated by Rawnsley and Birch (see PEF, III, 137-48). The latter connects this again with <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,2);">1Sa 14:2</a>, where Saul, accompanied by his 600, "abode in the uttermost part of Gibeah" under the pomegranate tree (Rimmon).<P>(2) (rimmon; Eremmon, or Rhemmoth): A city in the Negeb, near the border of Edom, ascribed to Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,32);">Jos 15:32</a>) and to Simeon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,7);">Jos 19:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,32);">1Ch 4:32</a>, the King James Version "Remmon"). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',14,10);">Zec 14:10</a> it is mentioned as the extreme South of Judah<61>"from Geba to Rimmon, South of Jerusalem." In the earlier references Rimmon occurs in close association with \'Ain (a spring), and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,29);">Ne 11:29</a>, what is apparently the same place, \'Ain Rimmon, is called <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EN-RIMMON">En-rimmon</a> (which see).<P>(3) (rimmon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,13);">Jos 19:13</a>), rimmonah, in some Hebrew manuscripts dimah (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DIMNAH">DIMNAH</a>) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,35);">Jos 21:35</a>), and rimmono (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,77);">1Ch 6:77</a>)): In the King James Version we have "Remmon-methoar" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,13);">Jos 19:13</a>, but the Revised Version (British and American) translates the latter as "which stretcheth." This was a city on the border of Zebulun (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,13);">Jos 19:13</a>) allotted to the Levites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,35);">Jos 21:35</a>, "Dimnah"; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,77);">1Ch 6:77</a>). The site is now the little village of Rummaneh on a low ridge South of the western end of the marshy plain el Battauf in Galilee; there are many rock-cut tombs and cisterns. It is about 4 miles north of el Mesh-hed, usually considered to be the site of Gath-hepher. See PEF, I, 363, Sh VI.``117';
isbe[7439]='Rimmon (2)`(rimmon, "pomegranate"; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RIMMON-PEREZ">RIMMON-PEREZ</a>):<P>(1) A Syrian god. Naaman the Syrian leper after being cured is troubled over the fact that he will still have to bow down in the house of the Syrian god, Rimmon, when his master goes into the house to worship leaning on his hand (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',5,18);">2Ki 5:18</a>). Elisha answers him ambiguously: "Go in peace." Judging from Naaman\'s position and this incident, Rimmon must have been one of the leading gods of the Syrians worshipped in Damascus. He has been identified with Rammanu, the Assyrian god of wind, rain and storm. The name appears in the Syrian personal names <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HADADRIMMON">HADADRIMMON</a> and <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TABRIMMON">TABRIMMON</a> (which see) and its meaning is dubious (ramamu, "to thunder" (?))<P>(2) A Benjamite of Beeroth, whose sons Baanah and Rechab assassinated Ish-bosheth (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',4,2,5,9);">2Sa 4:2,5,9</a>).``81';
isbe[7440]='Rimmon, Rock of``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RIMMON">RIMMON</a>`1';
isbe[7441]='Rimmon-Perez`rim-mon-pe\'-rez (rimmon perets; the King James Version Rimmon-parez): A desert camp of the Israelites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,19);">Nu 33:19</a>f), unidentified. Gesenius translates rimmon as "pomegranate," the place deriving its name from the abundance of pomegranates. But Conder derives it from ramam, "to be high," and translates it "cloven height."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WANDERINGS+OF+ISRAEL">WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL</a>`1';
isbe[7442]='Rimmonah; Rimmono`rim-mo\'-na, rimmo\'-no.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RIMMON">RIMMON</a>`1';
isbe[7443]='Ring`(Anglo-Saxon, Hring, "ring"): The word renders (the American Standard Revised Version) two Hebrew words (in the King James Version and the English Revised Version three) and two Greek words. Tabba\'ath, the principal Hebrew word, is from Tabha\', "sink," either because the ring is something "cast" or molded, or, more probably, since the principal use of the ring was as a seal, because it "sank" into the wax or clay that received the impression. In Exodus, Tabba\'ath, "ring," is a detail of furniture or equipment, as the rings of the ark through which the staves were thrust (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,12);">Ex 25:12</a>, etc.), rings for curtains, in the high priest\'s ephod (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',28,28);">Ex 28:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',39,21);">39:21</a>), etc. Its other use was perhaps the original, to describe the article of personal adornment worn on the finger, apparently in the Old Testament always a signet-ring, and as such an indispensable article of masculine attire. Such a ring Pharaoh gave Joseph as a symbol of authority (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,42);">Ge 41:42</a>); and Ahasuerus gave Haman (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',3,10);">Es 3:10</a>); with it the royal missive was sealed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',3,12);">Es 3:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',8,8,10);">8:8 twice, 10</a>). It was also a feminine ornament in Isaiah\'s list of the fashionable feminine paraphernalia, "the rings and the nose-jewels" (quite likely rings also) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',3,21);">Isa 3:21</a>). Either as ornaments or for their intrinsic value, or both, rings were used as gifts for sacred purposes from both men and women: "brooches, and ear-rings, and signet-rings" (margin "nose-rings") (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,22);">Ex 35:22</a>); "bracelets, rings (the American Standard Revised Version "signet-rings"), ear-rings" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',31,50);">Nu 31:50</a> the King James Version). chotham, "signet," mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',38,18,25);">Ge 38:18,25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',28,11,21,36);">Ex 28:11,21,36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',39,6,14,30);">Ex 39:6,14,30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',22,24);">Jer 22:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hag\',2,23);">Hag 2:23</a>, etc., was probably usually a seal ring, but in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',38,1);">Ge 38</a> and elsewhere the seal may have been swung on wire, and suspended by a cord from the neck. It was not only an identification, but served as a stamp for signature. galil, "circle" (compare "Galilee," "Circle" of the Gentiles), rendered "ring" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',1,6);">Es 1:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',5,14);">So 5:14</a>, may rather mean "cylinder" or "rod" of metal. <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EARRING">Earring</a> (which see) in the King James Version is from totally different words: nezem, whose etymology is unknown, aghil, "round," or lachash, "amulet"; so the Revised Version (British and American). The "rings" of the wheels in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,18);">Eze 1:18</a> (the King James Version) are gabh, "curved," and mean "rims" (American Standard Revised Version), "felloes." Egyptians especially wore a great profusion of rings, principally of silver or gold, engraved with scarabaei, or other devices. In the New Testament the ring, daktulios, "finger-ring," is a token of means, position, standing: "put a ring on his hand" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',15,22);">Lu 15:22</a>). Perhaps also it included the right to give orders in his father\'s name. To be chrusodaktulios, "golden-ringed," perhaps with more than one, indicated wealth and social rank: "a man with a gold ring" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',2,2);">Jas 2:2</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EARRING">EARRING</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html??string=SIGNET">SIGNET</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html??string=SEAL">SEAL</a>`31';
isbe[7444]='Ringleader`ring\'-led-er: In <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',24,5);">Ac 24:5</a> the translation of protostates, "one who stands first." Not an opprobrious word in the Greek.``1';
isbe[7445]='Ringstreaked`ring\'-strekt (the King James Version and the English Revised Version ringstraked): <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,35,39,40);">Ge 30:35,39,40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,8,10,12);">31:8 (twice), 10,12</a> for \'aqodh. In the context of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,35);">Ge 30:35</a>, etc., \'aqodh certainly denotes defective coloring of some sort, but the exact meaning of the word is uncertain. The translation "ringstreaked" ("marked with circular bands") comes from connecting the word with the Hebrew root \'-q-d, "to bind" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,9);">Ge 22:9</a>), but this connection is dubious.``1';
isbe[7446]='Rinnah`rin\'-a (rinnah, "praise to God"; Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus Ana; Codex Alexandrinus Rhannon): A Judahite, according to Massoretic Text a son of Shimon (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,20);">1Ch 4:20</a>). But the Septuagint makes him a son of Hanan (Codex Vaticanus Phana; Codex Alexandrinus Anan) by reading "ben" in the next name (Ben-hanan) as "son of."``1';
isbe[7447]='Riot`ri\'-ut: Properly, "unrestrained behavior" of any sort, but in modern English usually connoting mob action, although such phrases as a "riotous banquet" are still in common use. the King James Version uses the word in the first sense, and it is retained by the Revised Version (British and American) in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',15,13);">Lu 15:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,6);">Tit 1:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,4);">1Pe 4:4</a> for asotos, asotia, "having no hope of safety," "profligate]." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',23,20);">Pr 23:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',28,7);">28:7</a> the Revised Version (British and American) has preferred "gluttonous," "glutton," in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',13,13);">Ro 13:13</a>, "revelling," and in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,13);">2Pe 2:13</a>, "revel."``48';
isbe[7448]='Riphath`ri\'-fath (riphath): A son of Gomer, the eldest son of Japhet (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,3);">Ge 10:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,6);">1Ch 1:6</a>, where Massoretic Text and the Revised Version (British and American) read <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DIPHATH">DIPHATH</a> (which see)). Josephus (Ant., I, vi, 1) identifies the Ripheans with the Paphlagonians, through whose country on the Black Sea ran the river "Rhebas" (Pliny, NH, vi.4).``1';
isbe[7449]='Rising`riz\'-ing (se\'eth, "a tumor," "swelling" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',13,2,10);">Le 13:2,10</a>, etc.)).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LEPROSY">LEPROSY</a>`1';
isbe[7450]='Rissah`ris\'-a (riccah, "dew"): A camp of the Israelites in the wilderness wanderings between Libnah and Kehelathah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,21);">Nu 33:21</a>f).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WANDERINGS+OF+ISRAEL">WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL</a>`1';
isbe[7451]='Rithmah`rith\'-ma (rithmah, "broom"): A desert camp of the Israelites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,18,19);">Nu 33:18,19</a>). The name refers to the white desert broom.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WANDERINGS+OF+ISRAEL">WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL</a>`1';
isbe[7452]='River`riv\'-er:<P>(1) The usual word is nahar (Aramaic nehar (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,10);">Ezr 4:10</a>, etc.)), used of the rivers of Eden (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,\'10-14\');">Ge 2:10-14</a>), often of the Euphrates (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,18);">Ge 15:18</a>, etc.), of Abana and Pharpar (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',5,12);">2Ki 5:12</a>), the river of Gozan (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,6);">2Ki 17:6</a>), the river Chebar (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,1);">Eze 1:1</a>), the rivers (canals?) of Babylon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',137,1);">Ps 137:1</a>), the rivers of Ethiopia (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',18,1);">Isa 18:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',3,10);">Ze 3:10</a>). Compare nahr, the common Arabic word for "river."<P>(2) ye\'or, according to BDB from Egyptian iotr, \'io\'r, "watercourse," often of the Nile (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,22);">Ex 1:22</a>, etc.). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',19,6);">Isa 19:6</a>, for ye\'ore matsor, the King James Version "brooks of defense," the Revised Version (British and American) has "streams of Egypt." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',19,7,8);">Isa 19:7,8</a>, for ye\'or, the King James Version "brooks," and <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',10,11);">Zec 10:11</a>, the King James Version "river," the Revised Version (British and American) has "Nile." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',28,10);">Job 28:10</a>, the King James Version "He cutteth out rivers among the rocks," the Revised Version (British and American) has "channels," the Revised Version margin "passages."<P>(3) There are nearly 100 references to nachal. In about half of these the King James Version has "brook" and in about half "river." the Revised Version (British and American) has more often "brook" or "valley." But the Revised Version (British and American) has river in "whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,9);">Le 11:9</a>); "the river Jabbok" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',2,37);">De 2:37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',12,2);">Jos 12:2</a>); the stream issuing from the temple (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',47,\'5-12\');">Eze 47:5-12</a>). the Revised Version (British and American) has "brook of Egypt," i.e. el-\'Arish (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',34,5);">Nu 34:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,47);">Jos 15:47</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',8,65);">1Ki 8:65</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',24,7);">2Ki 24:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',7,8);">2Ch 7:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',6,14);">Am 6:14</a>, "of the Arabah"); "brook (the King James Version "river") of Kanah" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',16,8);">Jos 16:8</a>); "valley (the King James Version "river") of the Arnon" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',2,24);">De 2:24</a>). English Versions of the Bible has "valley": of Gerar (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,17);">Ge 26:17</a>), of Zered (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,12);">Nu 21:12</a>), but "brook Zered" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',2,13);">De 2:13</a>), of Eschol (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',32,9);">Nu 32:9</a>), of Sorek (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',16,4);">Jud 16:4</a>), of Shittim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',3,18);">Joe 3:18</a>). English Versions of the Bible has "brook": Besor (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',30,10);">1Sa 30:10</a>), Kidron (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',15,23);">2Sa 15:23</a>), Gaash, (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,30);">2Sa 23:30</a>), Cherith (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',17,3);">1Ki 17:3</a>); also the feminine nachalah, "brook (the King James Version "river") of Egypt" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',47,19);">Eze 47:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',48,28);">48:28</a>). The torrent-valley (wady) is often meant.<P>(4) pelegh, with feminine pelaggah, the King James Version "river," is in the Revised Version (British and American) translated "stream," except English Versions of the Bible "river of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',65,9);">Ps 65:9</a>); "streams of water" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',1,3);">Ps 1:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',5,16);">Pr 5:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',32,2);">Isa 32:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',3,48);">La 3:48</a>); "streams of honey" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',20,17);">Job 20:17</a>); "streams of oil" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',29,6);">Job 29:6</a>).<P>(5) \'aphiq, the King James Version "river," except English Versions of the Bible "water brooks" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',42,1);">Ps 42:1</a>), is in the Revised Version (British and American) "watercourses" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',6,3);">Eze 6:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',31,12);">31:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',32,6);">32:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',34,13);">34:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',35,8);">35:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',36,4,6);">36:4,6</a>), "water-brooks" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',5,12);">So 5:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',1,20);">Joe 1:20</a>).<P>(6) yubhal, English Versions of the Bible "river" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',17,8);">Jer 17:8</a>). \'ubhal, and \'ubhal, English Versions of the Bible "river" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',8,2,3,6);">Da 8:2,3,6</a>).<P>(7) potamos: of the Jordan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,5);">Mr 1:5</a>); Euphrates (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',9,14);">Re 9:14</a>); "rivers of living water" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',7,38);">Joh 7:38</a>); "river of water of life" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,1);">Re 22:1</a>). So always in Greek for "river" in the Revised Version (British and American) Apocrypha (1Esdras 4:23, etc.).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BROOK">BROOK</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html??string=STREAM">STREAM</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html??string=VALLEY">VALLEY</a>`37';
isbe[7453]='River of Egypt``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BROOK+OF+EGYPT,+THE">BROOK OF EGYPT</a>`1';
isbe[7454]='River, the (Great)``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EUPHRATES">EUPHRATES</a>`1';
isbe[7455]='Rivers of Eden``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EDEN">EDEN</a>`1';
isbe[7456]='Rizia`riz\'-i-a (ritsya\'): An Asherite (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,39);">1Ch 7:39</a>).``1';
isbe[7457]='Rizpah`riz\'-pa (ritspah, "hot stone"; Josephus, Rhaispha): In <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',3,7);">2Sa 3:7</a> the subject of a coarse slander. <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,1);">2Sa 21</a> contains the pathetic story of Rizpah\'s faithful watch over the bodies of her dead sons Mephibosheth and Armoni (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,10,11);">21:10,11</A>). Did this story suggest Tennyson\'s "Rizpah"? A three years\' famine had made David anxious, and in seeking a reason for the affliction he concluded that it lay in Saul\'s unavenged conduct to the Gibeonites (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,2);">21:2</a>). To appease Yahweh he gave up to the Gibeonites the two sons of Saul, Mephibosheth and Armoni, as well as Saul\'s 5 grandsons (whether by Michal or Merab; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MERAB">MERAB</A>). These seven were hanged at Gibeah. Rizpah watched 5 months over their exposed bodies, but meanwhile the famine did not abate. Word was brought to David of Rizpah\'s act (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,10,11);">21:10,11</a>), and it is possible that her action suggested to David his next step in expiation. At any rate, he remembered the uncared-for bones of Jonathan and Saul lying in ignominy at Jabesh-gilead, whither they had been carried by stealth after the Philistines had kept them hung in the streets of Beth-shan for some time. The bones were recovered and apparently mingled with the bones Rizpah had guarded, and they were together buried in the family grave at Zelah. We are told that then "God was entreated for the land" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,14);">21:14</a>).``186';
isbe[7458]='Road (Inroad)`rod the King James Version (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',27,10);">1Sa 27:10</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',23,27);">1Sa 23:27</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RAID">RAID</a>`1';
isbe[7459]='Road (Way)``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ROMAN+EMPIRE+AND+CHRISTIANITY">ROMAN EMPIRE AND CHRISTIANITY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html??string=WAY">WAY</a>`1';
isbe[7460]='Roast``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FOOD">FOOD</a>`1';
isbe[7461]='Robber; Robbery`rob\'-er, rob\'-er-i: "Robber" represents no particular Hebrew word in the Old Testament, but in the Apocrypha and the New Testament is always a translation of lestes (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=THIEF">THIEF</A>). In the King James Version <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',5,5);">Job 5:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',18,9);">18:9</a>, "robber" stands for the doubtful word tsammim, the Revised Version (British and American) "hungry" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',5,5);">Job 5:5</A> and "snare" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',18,9);">18:9</A>. The meaning is uncertain, and perhaps tseme\'im, "thirsty," should be read in both places. <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',62,10);">Ps 62:10</a>, "Become not vain in robbery," means "put not your trust in riches dishonestly gained." RV\'s changes of the King James Version in <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',21,7);">Pr 21:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',11,14);">Da 11:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Nah\',3,1);">Na 3:1</a> are obvious. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,6);">Php 2:6</a> the King James Version reads "thought it not robbery to be equal with God." the English Revised Version has "a prize," while the English Revised Version margin and the American Standard Revised Version read "a thing to be grasped," the American Standard Revised Version rewording "counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped." The Greek here is harpagmos, a word derived from harpazo, "to ravish away," "carry off," "plunder" (compare "harpy"). Properly speaking, the termination -mos should give the derived noun an active sense, "the act of plundering," whence the King James Version\'s "robbery." The verse would then mean "who thought that being on an equality with God did not consist in grasping," and this translation gives good sense in the context and has some excellent scholarly support. But a passive significance is frequently found despite a -mos termination, giving to harpagmos the sense of "thing grasped," as in the Revised Version (British and American). Usually English commentators take "grasped" as meaning "clung to"<22>"did not think equality with God should be clung to tenaciously"<22>but "to cling to" seems unknown as a translation of harpazo. Hence, render "a thing to be grasped at"<22>did not seek equality with God by selfish methods but by humbling himself." It is to be noticed, naturally, that Paul is thinking of "equality with God" simply in the sense of "receiving explicit adoration from men" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,10,11);">Php 2:10,11</a>), and that the metaphysical relation of the Son to the Father is not at all in point.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GRASP">GRASP</a>`48';
isbe[7462]='Robbers of Temples`(hierosuloi, "guilty of sacrilege"): A term used by the town clerk of Ephesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,37);">Ac 19:37</a>, the King James Version "robbers of churches"). As the temple of Diana (Artemas) had a great treasure-chamber, the offense might not be unknown among them; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,22);">Ro 2:22</a>.<P>In 2Macc 4:42 the King James Version the epithet "church-robber" (the Revised Version (British and American) "author of the sacrilege") is applied to <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LYSIMACHUS">LYSIMACHUS</a> (which see).``1';
isbe[7463]='Robe`rob.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DRESS">DRESS</a>`1';
isbe[7464]='Roboam`ro-bo\'-am (Rhoboam). the King James Version; Greek form of "Rehoboam" (thus the Revised Version (British and American)) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,7);">Mt 1:7</a>); successor of Solomon.``1';
isbe[7465]='Rock`rok (1) cela\'; (2) tsur (3) challamish, "flint"; compare Arabic khalanbus, "flint"; (4) kephim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',30,6);">Job 30:6</a>;" <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',4,29);">Jer 4:29</a>); compare Kephas, "Cephas" = Petros, "Peter" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,42);">Joh 1:42</a> the King James Version and the Revised Version margin); (5) petra):<P>1. Names:<P>Tsur and cela\' are the words most often found, and there is no well-defined distinction between them. They are frequently coupled together in the parallelism which is characteristic of the Hebrew writers: e.g.<P class="in15">"Be thou to me a strong rock (tsur),<br>A house of defense to save me.<br>For thou art my rock (tsela) and my fortress"<br>(<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',31,2,3);">Ps 31:2,3</a>).<P class="in15">"He clave rocks (tsur) in the wilderness,<br>And gave them drink abundantly as out of the depths.<br>He brought streams also out of the rock (sela),<br>And caused waters to run down like rivers"<br>(<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',78,15,16);">Ps 78:15,16</a>).<P>It is plain here that the two words are used for the sake of variety, without any clear difference of meaning. Even challamish (translated "flint") is used in the same way with tsur in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',114,8);">Ps 114:8</a>:<P class="in15">"Who turned the rock (tsur) into a pool of water;<br>The flint (callamish) into a fountain of waters."<P>2. Figurative:<P>(1) Some of the most striking and beautiful imagery of the Bible is based upon the rocks. They are a symbol of God: "Yahweh is my rock, and my fortress" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',22,2);">2Sa 22:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',18,2);">Ps 18:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',71,3);">71:3</a>); "God, the rock of my salvation" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',22,47);">2Sa 22:47</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',62,2,7);">Ps 62:2,7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',89,26);">89:26</a>); "my God the rock of my refuge" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',94,22);">Ps 94:22</a>); "the rock of thy strength" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',17,10);">Isa 17:10</a>); "Lead me to the rock that is higher than I" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',61,2);">Ps 61:2</a>); repeatedly in the Song of Moses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,3,4,18,30,31);">De 32:3,4,18,30,31</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',22,32);">2Sa 22:32</a>). Paul applies the rock smitten in the wilderness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,6);">Ex 17:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',20,11);">Nu 20:11</a>) to Christ as the source of living water for spiritual refreshment (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,4);">1Co 10:4</a>).<P>(2) The rocks are a refuge, both figuratively and literally (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',48,28);">Jer 48:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',2,14);">So 2:14</a>); "The rocks are a refuge for the conies" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',104,18);">Ps 104:18</a>). Many a traveler in Palestine has felt the refreshment of "the shade of a great rock in a weary land" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',32,2);">Isa 32:2</a>). A very different idea is expressed in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',8,14);">Isa 8:14</a>, "And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offense" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,33);">Ro 9:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,8);">1Pe 2:8</a>).<P>(3) The rock is a symbol of hardness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',5,3);">Jer 5:3</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',50,7);">Isa 50:7</a>). Therefore, the breaking of the rock exemplifies the power of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',23,29);">Jer 23:29</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',19,11);">1Ki 19:11</a>). The rock is also a symbol of that which endures, "Oh that they...were graven in the rock for ever!" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',19,23,24);">Job 19:23,24</a>). A rock was an appropriate place for offering a sacrifice (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,20);">Jud 6:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',13,19);">13:19</a>). The central feature of the Mosque of \'Umar in Jerusalem is Qubbat-uc-Cakhrat, the "dome of the rock." The rock or cakhrat under the dome is thought to be the site of Solomon\'s altar of burnt offering, and further is thought to be the site of the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite which David purchased to build an altar to Yahweh.<P>3. Kinds of Rock:<P>(1) The principal rock of Palestine and Syria is limestone of which there are many varieties, differing in color, texture, hardness and degrees of impurity, some of the limestone having considerable admixtures of clay or sand. Some of the harder kinds are very dense and break with a conchoidal fracture similar to the fracture of flint. In rocks which have for ages been exposed to atmospheric agencies, erosion has produced striking and highly picturesque forms. Nodules and layers of flint are of frequent occurrence in the limestone.<P>(2) Limestone is the only rock of Western Palestine, with the exception of some local outpourings of basaltic rock and with the further exception of a light-brown, porous, partly calcareous sandstone, which is found at intervals along the coast. This last is a superficial deposit of Quaternary or recent age, and is of aeolian origin. That is, it consists of dune sands which have solidified under the influence of atmospheric agencies. This is very exceptional, nearly all stratified rocks having originated as beds of sand or mud in the bottom of the sea.<P>(3) In Sinai, Edom, Moab, Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon is found the Nubian sandstone, a silicious sandstone which, at least in the north, is of middle or lower Cretaceous age. In the South, the lower strata of this formation seem to be paleozoic. Most of it is not sufficiently coherent to make good building stone, though some of its strata are very firm and are even used for millstones. In some places it is so incoherent or friable that it is easily dug with the pick, the grains falling apart and forming sand that can be used in mortar. In color the Nubian sandstone is on the whole dark reddish brown, but locally it shows great variation, from white through yellow and red to black. In places it also has tints of blue. The celebrated rock tombs and temples of Petra are carved in this stone.<P>(4) Extensive areas of the northern part of Eastern Palestine are covered with igneous rock. In the Jaulan Southeast of Mt. Hermon, this has been for ages exposed to the atmosphere and has formed superficially a rich dark soil. Further Southeast is the Leja\' (Arabic "refuge"), a wild tract covered with a deposit of lava which is geologically recent, and which, while probably earlier than man, is still but little affected by the atmosphere. It is with difficulty traversed and frequently furnishes an asylum to outlaws.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CRAG">CRAG</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html??string=FLINT">FLINT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html??string=GEOLOGY+OF+PALESTINE">GEOLOGY OF PALESTINE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html??string=LIME">LIME</a>`37';
isbe[7466]='Rock of Ages``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=AGES,+ROCK+OF">AGES, ROCK OF</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html??string=ISAIAH+VII">ISAIAH, VII</a>`1';
isbe[7467]='Rock-Badger`r.-baj\'-er: This term is found in the Revised Version margin for "coney," shaphan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,5);">Le 11:5</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,7);">De 14:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',104,18);">Ps 104:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',30,26);">Pr 30:26</a>). It is a translation of klip das, the name given by the Boers to the Cape hyrax or coney.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CONEY">CONEY</a>`1';
isbe[7468]='Rod`(maqqel, matteh, shebhet; rhabdos): Little distinction can be drawn between the Hebrew words used for "rod" and "staff." Maqqel is the word used in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,37);">Ge 30:37</a>ff for the twigs of poplar put by Jacob before his sheep, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',1,11);">Jer 1:11</a> of the "rod of an almond-tree." Matteh is used of a rod in the hand, as the "rods" of Moses and of Aaron (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,2);">Ex 4:2</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,9);">7:9</a>, etc.). Shebhet is used, but sometimes also matteh, of the rod used for correction (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,20);">Ex 21:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',7,14);">2Sa 7:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',10,13);">Pr 10:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',13,24);">13:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,5);">Isa 10:5</a>, etc.). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',23,4);">Ps 23:4</a> ("Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me"), however, shebhet is the shepherd\'s rod, figurative of divine guidance and care. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',21,10,13);">Eze 21:10,13</a>, the word stands for the royal scepter. In the New Testament "rod" is used of a rod of correction (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',4,21);">1Co 4:21</a>), Aaron\'s rod (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,4);">Heb 9:4</a>), a ruler\'s rod "of iron" (severity, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,27);">Re 2:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',12,5);">12:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,15);">19:15</a>), a measuring rod (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',11,1);">Re 11:1</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ARMOR;+ARMS">ARMOR, ARMS</a>`132';
isbe[7469]='Rodanim`rod\'-a-nim: The reading of Massoretic Text in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,7);">1Ch 1:7</a> for the <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DODANIM">DODANIM</a> (which see) of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,4);">Ge 10:4</a>, corresponding to the Rhodioi of the Septuagint in both passages. The Rodanim are generally identified as inhabitants of the island of <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RHODES">RHODES</a> (which see), well known to the ancient Phoenicians (Homer\'s Iliad).``1';
isbe[7470]='Roe; Roebuck`ro, ro\'-buk: the King James Version has "roe" and "roebuck" for tsehi, tsebhiyah. the Revised Version (British and American) usually substitutes "gazelle" in the text (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,15);">De 12:15</a>, etc.) or margin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',6,5);">Pr 6:5</a>, etc.), but retains "roe" in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',2,18);">2Sa 2:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',12,8);">1Ch 12:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',3,5);">So 3:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',7,3);">7:3</a>. So the Revised Version (British and American) has "gazelle" for the King James Version "roe" in Sirach 27:20 (dorkas). the Revised Version (British and American) has "roe-buck" for yachmur (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,5);">De 14:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,23);">1Ki 4:23</a>), where the King James Version has "fallow deer." In the opinion of the writer, \'ayyal English Versions of the Bible "hart," should be translated "roe-buck," yachmur "fallow deer," and tsebhi "gazelle."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DEER">DEER</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html??string=GAZELLE">GAZELLE</a>`37';
isbe[7471]='Rogelim`ro\'-ge-lim, ro-ge\'-lim (roghelim; Rhogelleim): The place whence came Barzillai the Gileadite to succor David in his flight from Absalom (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',17,27);">2Sa 17:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',19,31);">19:31</a>). It probably lay near the path followed by David, but it is not identical.``1';
isbe[7472]='Rohgah`ro\'-ga (Kethibh rohaghah, Qere rohgah): A name in the genealogy of Asher (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,34);">1Ch 7:34</a>).``1';
isbe[7473]='Roimus`ro\'-i-mus (Rhoeimos; Codex Alexandrinus Rhomelios): One of the leaders with Zerubbabel in the return (1Esdras 5:8) = "Rehum" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,2);">Ezr 2:2</a>, of which it is the Greek form = "Nehum" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,7);">Ne 7:7</a>.``1';
isbe[7474]='Roll (Scroll)`rol: The usual form of book in Biblical times. It had been in use in Egypt for perhaps 2,000 years at the time when, according to the Pentateuch, the earliest Biblical books were written in this form. The Babylonian tablet seems to have been the prevailing form in Palestine up to about 1350 BC, but by 1100 BC, at least, the roll had been in established use for some time as far north as Byblos. Two Hebrew words, gillayon, meghillah, one Aramaic, cephar, and one Greek word, biblion, are so translated in the King James Version. Cephar (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',6,1);">Ezr 6:1</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "archives, margin "books"), with the corresponding Hebrew form cepher, is the generic word for any whole work large or small, but as a book form (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,4);">Isa 34:4</a>) it may mean "roll," and, according to Blau (pp. 37,45,etc.), it never does mean anything else. Both the other words seem to be connected with galal, "roll," which is the technical term for opening or closing a book. The meghillath cepher (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',36,2);">Jer 36:2</a>) means the unwritten roll, or the roll considered in its material form as contrasted with the work. Meghillah, which is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',6,2);">Ezr 6:2</a> (English Versions of the Bible, "roll"), Jeremiah (often), Ezekiel (often) and Zechariah, is a somewhat late word, and came to mean a small roll (but with a complete work) as distinguished from a book, corresponding thus to the modern distinction of pamphlet and book or document and book. The word gillayon is translated in the Revised Version (British and American) as "tablet," and is universally regarded as meaning (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',8,1);">Isa 8:1</a>) some smooth surface, corresponding to the same word in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',3,23);">Isa 3:23</a> which is rendered "hand-mirror." But "cylinder-seal" would possibly fit the sense in both cases; this being hung round the neck as an ornament in one case and inscribed with a personal name in the other.<P>Biblion is regarded by the Bible translators as equivalent to meghillah in the sense of small roll. It is in fact 4 times in the Septuagint of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',36,\'1-\');">Jer 36</a> used as the translation for meghillah, but very much oftener it is the translation for cepher, for which in fact it is the correct technical equivalent (Birt, Buchrolle, 21). Indeed the "small book" (Thayer, Lexicon, 101) is hardly consistent with the ideas of the heavens as a scroll, of the Lamb\'s Book of Life, or of the vast quantity of books of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',21,25);">Joh 21:25</a>, although in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,17);">Lu 4:17</a> it may perhaps correspond closely with meghillah in the sense of a complete roll and work, which is at the same time a whole part of a larger work. Its use in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,14);">Re 6:14</a> is reminiscent of <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,4);">Isa 34:4</a> ("scroll"), and is conclusive for the roll form. It is indeed always technically a roll and never codex or tablet.<P>It is not likely that Isaiah and John (here and in his Gospel, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',21,25);">21:25</A>) refer directly to the Babylonian idea that the heavens are a series of written tablets or to the rabbinic saying that "if all the oceans were ink, all reeds pens, the heavens and earth sheets to write upon, and all men writers, still it would not suffice for writing out the teachings of my Masters" (Blau, op. cit., 34). Nevertheless, the "whole Cosmos" does suggest "the heavens and earth" as sheets to write on, and under all there does perhaps lurk a conception of the broad expanse of heaven as a roll for writing upon.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Birt, Die Buchrolle in der Kunst, Leipzig, 1907; Jewish Encyclopedia, XI, 126-34, "Scroll of the Law"; Blau, Studien z. althebr. Buchwesen, Strassburg,1902,37-66, etc., and the literature under the article "<A href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WRITING">Writing</A>," especially Gardthausen, 134-54.``147';
isbe[7475]='Roller`rol\'-er: the King James Version and the English Revised Version in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',30,21);">Eze 30:21</a> for chittul, "bandage" (so the American Standard Revised Version). "Roller" was formerly a technical term in surgery for a wide bandage.``1';
isbe[7476]='Rolling Thing`rol\'-ing: <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',17,13);">Isa 17:13</a>, the King James Version "like a rolling thing before the whirlwind," a noncommittal translation of galgal, "revolving thing," "wheel" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',12,6);">Ec 12:6</a>). the Revised Version (British and American) "like the whirling dust before the storm" is probably right.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHAFF">CHAFF</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html??string=DUST">DUST</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html??string=STUBBLE">STUBBLE</a>`1';
isbe[7477]='Romamti-Ezer`ro-mam-ti-e\'-zer, ro-mam-ti-e\'-zer (romamti \'ezer, "highest help"): Son of Heman, appointed chief of the 24th division of singers in David\'s time (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',25,4,31);">1Ch 25:4,31</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOSHBEKASHAH">JOSHBEKASHAH</a>`1';
isbe[7478]='Roman Army``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ARMY,+ROMAN">ARMY, ROMAN</a>`1';
isbe[7479]='Roman Empire and Christianity, 1`em\'-pir:<P><b>I. OUTLINE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE</b><P class="in15">1. Roman Empire a Result of Social Conflict<P class="in15">2. Coming of Monarchy<P class="in30">(1) Exhaustion of Parties<P class="in30">(2) Inability of Either Aristocracy or Democracy to Hold Equilibrium<P class="in30">(3) Precedents<P class="in30">(4) Withdrawal from Public Life: Individualism<P class="in30">(5) Industrial<P class="in30">(6) Military<P class="in30">(7) Imperial Interests<P class="in30">(8) Influence of Orient<P><b>II. PREPARATION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE FOR CHRISTIANITY</b><P class="in15">1. Pax Romana and the Unification of the World<P class="in15">2. Cosmopolitanism<P class="in15">3. Eclecticism<P class="in15">4. Protection for Greek Culture<P class="in15">5. Linguistically<P class="in15">6. Materially<P class="in15">7. Tolerance<P class="in15">8. Pattern for a Universal Church<P class="in15">9. Roman Jurisprudence<P class="in15">10. Negative Preparation<P><b>III. ATTITUDE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE TO RELIGIONS</b><P class="in15">1. Roman or State Religion<P class="in15">2. Non-Roman Religions<6E>religiones licitae and religiones illicitae<P class="in30">(1) Judaism a religio licita<P class="in30">(2) Why Christianity Was Alone Proscribed<P class="in30">(3) Two Empires: Causes of Conflict<P class="in45">(a) Confusion of Spiritual and Temporal<P class="in45">(b) Unique Claims of Christianity<P class="in45">(c) Novelty of Christianity<P class="in45">(d) Intolerance and Exclusiveness of the Christian Religion and Christian Society<P class="in45">(e) Obstinatio<P class="in45">(f) Aggressiveness against Pagan Faith<P class="in45">(g) Christianos ad leones: Public Calamities<P class="in45">(h) Odium generis humani<P class="in30">(4) The Roman Empire Not the Only Disturbing Factor<P><b>IV. RELATIONS BETWEEN THE ROMAN EMPIRE AND CHRISTIANITY</b><P class="in15">1. Beginning of Christianity until Death of Nero, 68 AD<P class="in15">2. Flavian Period, 68-96 AD<P class="in15">3. The Antonine Period, 96-192 AD<P class="in15">4. Changing Dynasties, 192-284 AD<P class="in15">5. Diocletian until First General Edict of Toleration, 284-311 AD<P class="in15">6. First Edict of Toleration until Extinction of Western Empire, 311-476 AD<P><b>V. VICTORY OF CHRISTIANITY AND CONVERSION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE</b><P class="in15">1. Negative Causes<P class="in15">2. Positive Causes<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. Outline of the Roman Empire.<P>1. Roman Empire a Result of Social Conflict:<P>The founding of the Roman empire was the grandest political achievement ever accomplished. The conquests of Alexander the Great, Charlemagne and Napoleon seem small compared with the durable structure reared by Julius and his successor, Augustus. In one sense Julius Caesar<61>the most wonderful man that Rome or any other country produced<65>was the founder of the empire, and Augustus the founder of the principate. But the Roman empire was the culmination of a long process of political, constitutional, and social growth which gives a lasting interest to Roman history. The Roman empire was the only possible solution of a 700 years\' struggle, and Roman history is the story of the conflict of class with class, patrician against plebeian, populus against plebs, the antagonism of oligarchy and democracy, plutocracy against neglected masses. It is the account of the triumphant march of democracy and popular government against an exclusive governing caste. Against heavy odds the plebeians asserted their rights till they secured at least a measure of social, political and legal equality with their superiors (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ROME">ROME</a>, I, 2-4). But in the long conflict both parties degenerated until neither militant democracy nor despotic oligarchy could hold the balance with justice. Democracy had won in the uphill fight, but lost itself and was obliged to accept a common master with aristocracy. It was of no small importance for Christianity that the Roman empire<72>practically synonymous with the orbis terrarum<75>had been converging both from internal and external causes toward a one-man government, the political counterpart of a universal religion with one God and Saviour.<P>(1) Julius Caesar.<P>For a couple of generations political leaders had foreseen the coming of supreme power and had tried to grasp it. But it was Julius Caesar who best succeeded in exploiting democracy for his own aggrandizement. He proved the potent factor of the first triumvirate (60 BC); his consulship (59) was truly kingly. In 49 BC he crossed the Rubicon and declared war upon his country, but in the same year was appointed Dictator and thus made his enemies the enemies of his country. He vanquished the Pompeians<6E>senatorial and republican<61>at Pharsalia in 48 BC, Thapsus in 46 BC, and Munda in 45 BC. Between 46 and the Ides of March 44 no emperor before Diocletian was more imperial. He was recognized officially as "demigod"; temples were dedicated to his "clemency." He encouraged the people to abdicate to him their privileges of self-government and right of election, became chief (princeps) of the senate and high priest (pontifex maximus), so that he could manipulate even the will of the gods to his own purposes. His plans were equally great and beneficent. He saw the necessity of blending the heterogeneous populations into one people and extending Roman citizenship. His outlook was larger and more favorable to the coming of Christianity than that of his successor, Augustus. The latter learned from the fate of Caesar that he had advanced too rapidly along the imperial path. It taught Augustus caution.<P>(2) Augustus.<P>Octavian (Augustus) proved the potent factor of the second triumvirate. The field of Actiuim on September 2, 31 BC, decided the fate of the old Roman republic. The commonwealth sank in exhaustion after the protracted civil and internecine strife. It was a case of the survival of the fittest. It was a great crisis in human history, and a great man was at hand for the occasion. Octavian realized that supreme power was the only possible solution. On his return to Rome he began to do over again what Caesar had done<6E>gather into his own hands the reins of government. He succeeded with more caution and shrewdness, and became the founder of the Roman empire, which formally began on January 16, 27 BC, and was signalized by the bestowal of the title <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=AUGUSTUS">AUGUSTUS</a> (which see). Under republican forms he ruled as emperor, controlling legislation, administration and the armies. His policy was on the whole adhered to by the Julio-Claudian line, the last of which was Nero (died 68 AD).<P>(3) Flavian Dynasty.<P>In 68 AD a new "secret of empire" was discovered, namely, that the principate was not hereditary in one line and that emperors could be nominated by the armies. After the bloody civil wars of 68, "the year of the four emperors," Vespasian founded the IInd Dynasty, and dynastic succession was for the present again adopted. With the Flavians begins a new epoch in Roman history of pronounced importance for Christianity. The exclusive Roman ideas are on the wane. Vespasian was of plebeian and Sabine rank and thus non-Roman, the first of many non-Roman emperors. His ideas were provincial rather than Roman, and favorable to the amalgamation of classes, and the leveling process now steadily setting in. Though he accepted the Augustan "diarchy," he began to curtail the powers of the senate. His son Titus died young (79-81). Domitian\'s reign marks a new epoch in imperialism: his autocratic spirit stands half-way between the Augustan principate and the absolute monarchy of Diocletian. Domitian, the last of the "twelve Caesars" (Suetonius), was assassinated September 18, 96 AD. The soldiers amid civil war had elected the last dynasty. This time the senate asserted itself and nominated a brief series of emperors<72>on the whole the best that wore the purple.<P>(4) Adoptive or Antonine Emperors.<P>The Antonine is another distinct era marked by humane government, recognition of the rights of the provinces and an enlargement of the ideas of universalism. Under Trajan the empire was extended; a series of frontier blockades was established<65>a confession that Rome could advance no farther. Under Hadrian a policy of retreat began; henceforth Rome is never again on the aggressive but always on the defensive against restless barbarians. Unmistakable signs of weakness and decay set in under Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. This, the best and happiest period of Roman imperial government, was the beginning of the end. In this era we detect a growing centralization of authority; the senate practically becomes a tool of the emperor. A distinct civil service was established which culminated in bureaucracy under Hadrian.<P>(5) Changing Dynasties, 193-284 AD.<P>On the death of Commodus, whose reign 180-93 AD stands by itself, the empire was put up for sale by the soldiery and knocked down to the highest bidder. The military basis of the empire was emphasized<65>which was indeed essential in this period of barbaric aggressiveness to postpone the fall of the empire until its providential mission was accomplished. A rapid succession of rulers follows, almost each new ruler bringing a new dynasty. Those disintegrating forces set in which developed so rapidly from the reign of Diocletian. The pax Romana had passed; civil commotion accentuated the dangers from invading barbarians. Plague and famine depopulated rich provinces. Rome itself drops into the background and the provincial spirit asserts itself proportionally. The year 212 AD is memorable for the edict of Caracalla converting all the free population into Roman citizens.<P>(6) From Diocletian until Partition.<P>In the next period absolute monarchy of pure oriental type was established by Diocletian, one of the ablest of Roman rulers. He inaugurated the principle of division and subdivision of imperial power. The inevitable separation of East and West, with the growing prominence of the East, becomes apparent. Rome and Italy are reduced to the rank of provinces, and new courts are opened by the two Augusti and two Caesars. Diocletian\'s division of power led to civil strife, until Constantine once more united the whole empire under his sway. The center of gravity now shifted from West to East by the foundation of Constantinople. The empire was again parceled out to the sons of Constantine, one of whom, Constantius, succeeded in again reuniting it (350 AD). In 364 it was again divided, Valentinian receiving the West and Valens the East.<P>(7) Final Partition.<P>On the death of Theodosius I (395), West and East fell to his sons Honorius and Arcadius, never again to be united. The western half rapidly degenerated before barbaric hordes and weakling rulers. The western provinces and Africa were overrun by conquering barbarians who set up independent kingdoms on Roman soil. Burgundians and Visigoths settled in Gaul; the latter established a kingdom in Spain. The Vandals under Genseric settled first in Southern Spain, then crossed to Africa and reduced it. Goths burst over Roman frontiers, settled in Illyria and invaded Italy. Alaric and his Goths spared Rome in 408 for a ransom; in 409 he appeared again and set up Attalus as king of the Romans, and finally in 410 he captured and sacked the city. It was again sacked by the Vandals under Genseric in 462, and, lastly, fell before Odoacer and his Germans in 476; he announced to the world that the empire of the West had ceased. The empire of the East continued at Constantinople the greatest political power through a chequred history down to the capture of the city in 1214 and its final capture by the Turks in 1453, when its spiritual and intellectual treasures were opened to western lands and proved of untold blessing in preparing the way for the Reformation of the 16th century. The East conquered the West intellectually and spiritually. In the East was born the religion of humanity.<P>2. Coming of the Monarchy:<P>(1) Exhaustion of Parties.<P>The Roman world had for two generations been steadily drifting toward monarchy, and at least one generation before the empire was set up clear minds saw the inevitable necessity of one-man government or supreme power, and each political leader made it his ambition to grasp it. The civil wars ceased for a century with the death of Antony. But the struggles of Tiberius Gracchus and Scipio Aemilianus, Caius Gracchus and Opimius, Drusus and Philippus, Marius and Sulla, Pompey and Caesar, and lastly Octavian and Antony had exhausted the state, and this exhaustion of political parties opened the way for monarchy. In fact it was a necessity for the welfare of the commonwealth that one should be elevated who could fairly hold the balance between oligarchy and the commons and duly recognize the claims of all parties. Even Cato Uticensis<69>the incarnation of republican ideas<61>admitted it would be better to choose a master than wait for a tyrant. The bloody wars could find no solution except the survival of the fittest. Moreover, the free political institutions of Rome had become useless and could no longer work under the armed oppression of factions. If any form of government, only supreme power would prove effectual amid an enfeebled, unpopular senate, corrupt and idle commons, and ambitious individuals.<P>(2) Inability of Either Aristocracy or Democracy to Hold Equilibrium.<P>Events had proved that a narrow exclusive aristocracy was incapable of good government because of its utterly selfish policy and disregard for the rights of all lower orders. It had learned to burke liberty by political murders. Neither was the heterogeneous population of later Rome disciplined to obey or to initiate just government when it had seized power. This anarchy within the body politic opened an easy way to usurpation by individuals. No republic and no form of free popular government could live under such conditions. Caesar said of the republic that it was "a name without any substance," and Curio declared it to be a "vain chimera." The law courts shared in the general corruption. The judicia became the bone of contention between the senate and the knights as the best instrument for party interests, and enabled the holders<P>(a) to receive large bribes,<P>(b) to protect their own order when guilty of the most flagrant injustice, and<P>(c) to oppress other orders.<P>Justice for all, and especially for conquered peoples, was impossible. Elective assemblies refused to perform their proper functions because of extravagant bribery or the presence of candidates in arms. In fact, the people were willing to forego the prerogative of election and accept candidates at the nomination of a despotic authority. The whole people had become incapable of self-government and were willing<6E>almost glad<61>to be relieved of the necessity.<P>(3) Precedents.<P>Besides, precedents for one-man government, or the concentration of supreme power in one hand, were not wanting, and had been rapidly multiplying in Roman history as it drew nearer to the end of the republic. Numerous protracted commands and special commissions had accustomed the state to the novelty of obedience without participation in administration. The 7 consulships of Marius, the 4 of Cinna, the 3 extraordinary commissions of Pompey and his sole consulship, the dictatorship of Sulla without time limit, the two 5-year-period military commands of Caesar, his repeated dictatorships the last of which was to extend for 10 years<72>all these were pointing directly toward Caesarism.<P>(4) Withdrawal from Public Life: Individualism.<P>On another side the way was opened to supreme power by the increasing tendency for some of the noblest and best minds to withdraw from public life to the seclusion of the heart life and thus leave the field open for demagogic ambition. After the conquests of Alexander the Great, philosophy abandoned the civic, political or city-state point of view and became moral and individual. Stoicism adopted the lofty spiritual teachings of Plato and combined them with the idea of the brotherhood of humanity. It also preached that man must work out his salvation, not in public political life, but in the secret agonies of his own soul. This religion took hold of the noblest Roman souls who were conscious of the weariness of life and felt the desire for spiritual fellowship and comfort. The pendulum in human systems of thought generally swings to the opposite extreme, and these serious souls abandoned public life for private speculation and meditation. Those who did remain at the helm of affairs<72>like the younger Cato<74>were often too much idealists, living in the past or in an ideal Platonic republic, and proved very unequal to the practical demagogues who lived much in the present with a keen eye to the future. Also a considerable number of the moderate party, who in better days would have furnished leaders to the state, disgusted with the universal corruption, saddened by the hopeless state of social strife and disquieted by uncertainty as to the issue of victory for either contending party, held aloof and must have wished for and welcomed a paramount authority to give stability to social life. Monarchy was in the air, as proved by the sentiments of the two pseudo-Sallustian letters, the author of which calls upon Caesar to restore government and reorganize the state, for if Rome perish the whole world must perish with her.<P>(5) Industrial.<P>To another considerable class monarchy must have been welcome<6D>the industrial and middle class who were striving for competence and were engaged in trade and commerce. Civil wars and the strife of parties must have greatly hindered their activity. They cast their lot neither with the optimates nor with the idle commonalty. They desired only a stable condition of government under which they could uninterruptedly carry on their trades.<P>(6) Military.<P>Military conditions favored supreme power. Not only had the lengthened commands familiarized the general with his legions and given him time to seduce the soldiery to his own cause, but the soldiery too had been petted and spoiled like the spoon-fed populace. The old republican safeguards against ambition had been removed. The ranks of the armies had also been swollen with large numbers of provincials and non-Romans who had no special sentiment about republican forms. We have seen the military power growing more and more prominent. The only way of averting a military despotism supported and prompted by the soldiers was to set up a monarchy, holding all the military, legislative and administrative functions of the state in due proportion. This was superior to a merely nominal republic always cringing under fear of military leaders.<P>(7) Imperial Interests.<P>Lastly, the aggression and conquests of the republic had brought about a state of affairs demanding an empire. The East and the West had been subdued; many provinces and heterogeneous populations were living under the Roman eagle. These provinces could not permanently be plundered and oppressed as under the republican senate. The jus civile of Rome must learn also the jus naturale and jus gentium. An exclusive selfish senatorial clique was incapable of doing justice to the conquered peoples. One supreme ruler over all classes raised above personal ambition could best meet their grievances. The senate had ruled with a rod of iron; the provinces could not possibly be worse under any form of government. Besides, monarchy was more congenial to the provincials than a republic which they could not comprehend.<P>(8) Influence of Orient.<P>The Orientals had long been used to living under imperial and absolute forms of government and would welcome such a form among their new conquerors. Besides, residence in the Orient had affected Roman military leaders with the thirst after absolute power. And no other form was possible when the old city-state system broke down, and as yet federal government had not been dreamed of. Another consideration: the vast and dissimilar masses of population living within the Roman dominions could more easily be held together under a king or emperor than by a series of ever-changing administrations, just as the Austro-Hungarian and the British empires are probably held together better under the present monarchies than would be possible under a republican system. This survey may make clear the permanent interest in Roman history for all students of human history. The Roman empire was established indeed in the fullness of the times for its citizens and for Christianity.<P>II. Preparation of the Roman Empire for Christianity.<P>About the middle of the reign of Augustus a Jewish child was born who was destined to rule an empire more extensive and lasting than that of the Caesars. It is a striking fact that almost synchronous with the planting of the Roman empire Christianity appeared in the world. Although on a superficial glance the Roman empire may seem the greatest enemy of early Christianity, and at times a bitter persecutor, yet it was in many ways the grandest preparation and in some ways the best ally of Christianity. It ushered in politically the fullness of the times. The Caesars<72>whatever they may have been or done<6E>prepared the way of the Lord. A brief account must here be given of some of the services which the Roman empire rendered to humanity and especially to the kingdom of God.<P>1. Pax Romana and the Unification of the World:<P>The first universal blessing conferred by the empire was the famous pax Romana ("Roman peace"). The world had not been at peace since the days of Alexander the Great. The quarrels of the Diadochi, and the aggression of the Roman republic had kept the nations in a state of constant turmoil. A universal peace was first established with the beginning of the reign of Augustus and the closing of the temple of Janus. In all the countries round the Mediterranean and from distant Britain to the Euphrates the world was at rest. Rome had made an end of her own civil wars and had put a stop to wars among the nations. Though her wars were often iniquitous and unjustifiable, and she conquered like a barbarian, she ruled her conquests like a humane statesman. The quarrels of the Diadochi which caused so much turmoil in the East were ended, the territory of the Lagids; Attalids, Seleucids and Antigonids having passed under the sway of Rome. The empire united Greeks, Romans and Jews all under one government. Rome thus blended the nations and prepared them for Christianity. Now for the first time we may speak of the world as universal humanity, the orbis terrarum, he oikoumene (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,1);">Lu 2:1</a>), the genus humanum. These terms represented humanity as living under a uniform system of government. All were members of one earthly state; the Roman empire was their communis omnium patria.<P>2. Cosmopolitanism:<P>This state of affairs contributed largely to the spread of cosmopolitanism which had set in with the Macedonia conqueror. Under the Roman empire all national barriers were removed; the great cities<65>Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, etc.<2E>became meeting-places of all races and languages. The Romans were everywhere carrying their laws and civilization; Greeks settled in thousands at all important centers as professors, merchants, physicians, or acrobats; Orientals were to be found in large numbers with their gods and mysteries in Rome, "the epitome of the world." In the Roman armies soldiers from all quarters of the empire became companions. And many thousands of slaves of fine education and high culture contributed much to cosmopolitanism. Being in many cases far superior in culture to their masters, they became their teachers. And in every city of importance, East or West, large bodies of the Jewish Diaspora were settled.<P>3. Eclecticism:<P>This cosmopolitanism gave great impetus to a corresponding eclecticism of thought. Nothing could have been more favorable to Christianity than this intermixture of all races and mutual exchange of thought. Each people discovered how much it had in common with its neighbors. From the days of the Diadochi, Stoicism had been preaching the gospel of a civic and ethical brotherhood of humanity. In the fusion of different philosophic systems the emphasis had shifted from the city-state or political or national to the moral and human point of view. All men were thus reduced to equality before the One; only virtue and vice were the differentiating factors. Men were akin with the divine<6E>at least the wise and good<6F>so that one poet could say, "We are His offspring."<P>Stoicism did a noble service in preparation for Christianity by preaching universalism along the path of individualism. It also furnished comfort and strength to countless thousands of weary human lives and ministered spiritual support and calm resignation at many a heathen deathbed. It may be declared to be the first system of religious thought<68>for it was a religion more than a philosophy<68>which made a serious study of the diseases of the human soul. We know of course its weakness and imperfections, that it was an aristocratic creed appealing only to the elect of mortals, that it had little message for the fallen and lower classes, that it was cold and stern, that it lacked<65>as Seneca felt<6C>the inspiration of an ideal life. But with all its failures it proved a worthy pedagogue to a religion which brought a larger message than that of Greece. It afforded the spiritual and moral counterpart to the larger human society of which the Roman empire was the political and visible symbol. Hitherto a good citizen had been a good man. Now a good man is a good citizen, and that not of a narrow city-state, but of the world. Stoicism also proved tile interpreter and mouthpiece to the Roman empire of the higher moral and spiritual qualities of Greek civilization; it diffused the best convictions of Greece about God and man, selecting those elements that were universal and of lasting human value.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=STOICS">STOICS</a>.<P>The mind of the Roman empire was further prepared for Christianity by the Jewish Diaspora. Greeks learned from Jews and Jews from Greeks and the Romans from both. The unification effected by Roman Law and administration greatly aided the Diaspora. Jewish settlements became still more numerous and powerful both in the East and West. Those Jews bringing from the homeland the spiritual monotheism of their race combined it with Greek philosophy which had been setting steadily for monotheism. With the Jews the exclusively national element was subordinated to the more human and universal, the ceremonial to the religious. They even adopted the world-language of that day<61>Greek<65>and had their sacred Scriptures translated into this language in which they carried on an active proselytism. The Roman spirit was at first essentially narrow and exclusive. But even the Romans soon fell beneath the spell of this cosmopolitanism and eclecticism. As their conquests increased, their mind was correspondingly widened. They adopted the policy of Alexander<65>sparing the gods of the conquered and admitting them into the responsibility of guarding Rome; they assimilated them with their own Pantheon or identified them with Roman gods. In this way naturally the religious ideas of conquered races more highly civilized than the conquerors laid hold on Roman minds.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DISPERSION">DISPERSION</a>.<P>4. Protection for Greek Culture:<P>Another inestimable service rendered to humanity and Christianity was the protection which the Roman power afforded the Greek civilization. We must remember that the Romans were at first only conquering barbarians who had little respect for culture, but idealized power. Already they had wiped out two ancient and superior civilizations<6E>that of Carthage without leaving a trace, and that of Etruria, traces of which have been discovered in modern times. It is hard to conceive what a scourge Rome would have proved to the world had she not fallen under the influence of the superior culture and philosophy of Greece. Had the Roman Mars not been educated by Pallas Athene the Romans would have proved Vandals and Tartars in blotting out civilization and arresting human progress. The Greeks, on the other hand, could conquer more by their preeminence in everything that pertains to the intellectual life of man than they could hold by the sword. A practical and political power was needed to protect Greek speculation. But the Romans after causing much devastation were gradually educated and civilized and have contributed to the uplifting and enlightenment of subsequent civilizations by both preserving and opening to the world the spiritual qualities of Greece. The kinship of man with the divine, learned from Socrates and Plato, went forth on its wide evangel. This Greek civilization, philosophy and theology trained many of the great theologians and leaders of the Christian church, so that Clement of Alexandria said that Greek philosophy and Jewish law had proved schoolmasters to bring the world to Christ. Paul, who prevented Christianity from remaining a Jewish sect and proclaimed its universalism, learned much from Greek<65>especially from Stoic<69>thought. It is also significant that the early Christian missionaries apparently went only where the Greek language was known, which was the case in all centers of Roman administration.<P>5. Linguistically:<P>The state of the Roman empire linguistically was in the highest degree favorable to the spread of Christianity. The Greek republics by their enterprise, superior genius and commercial abilities extended their dialects over the Aegean Islands, the coasts of Asia Minor, Sicily and Magna Graecia. The preeminence of Attic culture and literature favored by the short-lived Athenian empire raised this dialect to a standard among the Greek peoples. But the other dialects long persisted. Out of this babel of Greek dialects there finally arose a normal koine or "common language." By the conquests of Alexander and the Hellenistic sympathies of the Diadochi this common Greek language became the lingua franca of antiquity. Greek was known in Northern India, at the Parthian court, and on the distant shores of the Euxine (Black Sea). The native land of the gospel was surrounded on all sides by Greek civilization. Greek culture and language penetrated into the midst of the obstinate home-keeping Palestinian Jews. Though Greek was not the mother-tongue of our Lord, He understood Greek and apparently could speak it when occasion required<65>Aramaic being the language of His heart and of His public teachings. The history of the Maccabean struggle affords ample evidence of the extent to Which Greek culture, and with it the Greek language, were familiar to the Jews. There were in later days Hellenistic bodies of devout Jews in Jerusalem itself. Greek was recognized by the Jews as the universal language: the inscription on the wall of the outer temple court forbidding Gentiles under pain of death to enter was in Greek. The koine became the language even of religion<6F>where a foreign tongue is least likely to be used<65>of the large Jewish Diaspora. They perceived the advantages of Greek as the language of commerce<63>the Jews\' occupation<6F>of culture and of proselytizing. They threw open their sacred Scriptures in the Septuagint and other versions to the Greek-Roman world, adapting the translation in many respects to the requirements of Greek readers. "The Bible whose God was Yahweh was the Bible of one people: the Bible whose God was (kurios, "Lord") was the Bible of humanity." When the Romans came upon the scene, they found this language so widely known and so deeply rooted they could not hope to supplant it. Indeed they did not try<72>except in Sicily and Magna Graecia<69>to suppress Greek, but rather gladly accepted it as the one common means of intercourse among the peoples of their eastern dominions.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LANGUAGE+OF+THE+NEW+TESTAMENT">LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT</a>.<P>Though Latin was of course the official language of the conquerors, the decrees of governors generally appeared with a Greek translation, so that they might be "understanded of the people," and Greek overcame Latin, as English drove out the French of the Norman invaders. Latin poets and historians more than once complained that Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit ("conquered Greece vanquished its stern conqueror"). With the spread of Latin there were two world-languages side by side for the whole Roman empire, but Greek was prevailingly the language of the eastern half of the Roman empire which was the first soil for Christian churches and the first half of the empire to be Christianized. Later when Christianity was able to extend her activity to the West, she found Latin ready as the common means of intercourse. That Rome respected Greek is greatly to her credit and much to the advantage of Christianity. For Christianity, when it began to aim at universalism, dropped its native Aramaic. The gospel in order to become a world-evangel was translated into Greek. The early Christian missionaries did not learn the languages or patois of the Roman empire, but confined themselves to centers of Greek culture. Paul wrote in Greek to the church in Rome itself, of which Greek was the language. And while Christianity was spreading through the Greek East under the unification of Roman administration, the Romans were Romanizing and leveling the West for Latin Christianity (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LATIN">LATIN</a>). In the West it may be noted that the first foothold of the Christian religion was in Greek<65>witness the church in Gaul.<P>6. Materially:<P>In material ways too Rome opened the way for Christianity by building the great highways for the gospel. The great system of roads that knit then civilized world together served not only the legions and the imperial escorts, but were of equal service to the early missionaries, and when churches began to spring up over the empire, these roads greatly facilitated that church organization and brotherhood which strengthened the church to overcome the empire. With the dawn of the pax Romana all these roads became alive once more with a galaxy of caravans and traders. Commerce revived and was carried on under circumstances more favorable than any that obtained till the past century. Men exchanged not only material things, but also spiritual things. Many of these early traders and artisans were Christians, and while they bought and sold the things that perish, they did not lose an opportunity of spreading the gospel. For an empire which embraced the Mediterranean shores, the sea was an important means of intercommunication; and the Mediterranean routes were safer for commerce and travel at that period than during any previous one. Pompey the Great had driven the pirates off the sea, and with the fall of Sextus Pompey no hostile maritime forces remained. The ships which plied in countless numbers from point to point of this great inland sea offered splendid advantages and opportunity for early Christian missionary enthusiasm.<P>7. Tolerance:<P>The large measure of freedom permitted by Roman authorities to the religions of all nations greatly favored the growth of infant Christianity. The Roman empire was never in principle a persecutor with a permanent court of inquisition. Strange cults from the East and Egypt flourished in the capital, and except when they became a danger to public morality or to the peace of society they were allowed to spread unchecked under the eyes of the police. See below on non-Roman religions.<P>8. Pattern for a Universal Church:<P>Further, the Roman empire afforded Christianity a material and outward symbol for its spiritual ambition. It enlarged the vision of the church. Only a citizen (Paul) of such a world-empire could dream of a religion for all humanity. If the Roman sword could so conquer and unify the orbis terrarum, the militant church should be provoked to attempt nothing less in the religious sphere. It also furnished many a suggestion to the early organizers of the new community, until the Christian church became the spiritual counterpart of the Roman empire. The Christians appropriated many a weapon from the arsenal of the enemy and learned from them aggressiveness, the value of thorough organization and of military methods.<P>9. Roman Jurisprudence:<P>Roman law in its origins was characterized by the narrowest exclusiveness, and the first formal Roman code was on Greek patterns, yet the Romans here as in so many other respects improved upon what they had borrowed and became masters of jurisprudence in the antique world. As their empire and conceptions expanded, they remodeled their laws to embrace all their subjects. One of the greatest boons conferred by Rome upon the antique world was a uniform system of good laws<77>the source of much of our European jurisprudence. The Roman law played an equally important role with the Jewish in molding and disciplining for Christianity. It taught men to obey and to respect authority, and proved an effective leveling and civilizing power in the empire. The universal law of Rome was the pedagogue for the universal law of the gospel.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ROMAN+LAW">ROMAN LAW</a>.<P>10. Negative Preparation:<P>The Romans could offer their subjects good laws, uniform government and military protection, but not a satisfactory religion. A universal empire called for a universal religion, which Christianity alone could offer. Finally, not only by what Rome had accomplished but by what she proved incapable of accomplishing, the way of the Lord was made ready and a people prepared for His coming. It was a terrible crisis in the civilization and religion of antiquity. The old national religions and systems of belief had proved unable to soothe increasing imperious moral and spiritual demands of man\'s nature. A moral bankruptcy was immanent. The old Roman religion of abstract virtues had gone down in formalism; it was too cold for human hearts. Man could no longer find the field of his moral activity in the religion of the state; he was no longer merely an atom in society performing religious rites, not for his own soul, but for the good of the commonwealth. Personality had been slowly emerging, and the new schools of philosophy called man away from the state to seek peace with God in the solitude of his own soul first of all. But even the best of these schools found the crying need of a positive, not a negative religion, the need for a perfect ideal life as a dynamic over ordinary human lives. Thus was felt an imperious demand for a new revelation, for a fresh vision or knowledge of God. In earlier days men had believed that God had revealed Himself to primitive wise men or heroes of their race, and that subsequent generations must accept with faith what these earlier seers, who stood nearer God, as Cicero said, had been pleased to teach of the divine. But soon this stock of knowledge became exhausted. Plato, after soaring to the highest point of poetic and philosophic thought about the divine, admitted the need of a demon or superman to tell us the secrets of eternity. With the early Roman empire began a period of tremendous religious unrest. Men tried philosophy, magic, astrology, foreign rites, to find a sure place of rest. This accounts for the rapid and extensive diffusion of oriental mysteries which promised to the initiated communion with God here, a "better hope" in death, and satisfied the craving for immortality beyond time. These were the more serious souls who would gladly accept the consolations of Jesus. Others, losing all faith in any form of religion, gave themselves up to blank despair and accepted Epicureanism with its gospel of annihilation and its carpe diem morals. This system had a terrible fascination for those who had lost themselves; it is presented in its most attractive form in the verses of Lucretius<75>the Omar Khayyam of Latin literature. Others again, unable to find God, surrendered themselves to cheerless skepticism. The sore need of the new gospel of life and immortality will be borne in upon the mind of those who read the Greek and Roman sepulchral inscriptions. And even Seneca, who was almost a Christian in some respects, speaks of immortality as a "beautiful dream" (bellum somnium), though tribulation later gave a clearer vision of the "city of God." Servius Sulpicius, writing to Cicero a letter of consolation on the death of his much-missed Tullia, had only a sad "if" to offer about the future (Cic. Fam. iv.5). Nowhere does the unbelief and pessimism of pre-Christian days among the higher classes strike one more forcibly than in the famous discussion recorded by Sallust (Bel. Cat. lif) as to the punishment of the Catilinarian conspirators. Caesar, who held the Roman high-priesthood and the highest authority on the religion of the state, proposes life imprisonment, as death would only bring annihilation and rest to these villains<6E>no hereafter, no reward or punishment (eam cuncta mortalium mala dissolvere; ultra neque curae neque gaudio locum esse). Cato next speaks<6B>the most religious man of his generation<6F>in terms which cast no rebuke upon Caesar\'s Epicureanism and materialism (ibid., 52). Cicero (In Cat. iv.4) is content to leave immortality an open question. The philosophers of Athens mocked Paul on Mars\' Hill when he spoke of a resurrection. Such was the attitude of the educated classes of the Greek-Roman world at the dawn of Christianity, though it cannot be denied that there was also a strong desire for continued existence. The other classes were either perfunctorily performing the rites of a dead national religion or wereseeking, some, excitement or aesthetic worship or even scope for their baser passions, some, peace and promise for the future, in the eastern mysteries. The distinction between moral and physical evil was coming to the surface, and hence, a consciousness of sin. Religion and ethics had not yet been united. "The throne of the human mind" was declared vacant, and Christianity was at hand as the best claimant. In fact, the Greek-Roman mind had been expanding to receive the pure teachings of Jesus.``5';
isbe[7480]='Roman Empire And Christianity, 2`III. Attitude of the Roman Empire to Religions.<P>1. Roman or State Religion:<P>The history of Roman religion reveals a continuous penetration of Italian, Etruscan, Greek, Egyptian and oriental worship and rites, until the old Roman religion became almost unrecognizable, and even the antiquarian learning of a Varro could scarcely discover the original meaning or use of<P>many Roman deities. The Roman elements or modes of worship progressively retreated until they and the foreign rites with which they were overlaid gave way before the might of Christianity. As Rome expanded, her religious demands increased. During the regal period Roman religion was that of a simple agricultural community. In the period between the Regifugium and the Second Punic War Roman religion became more complicated and the Roman Pantheon was largely increased by importations from Etruria, Latium and Magna Graecia. The mysterious religion of Etruria first impressed the Roman mind, and from this quarter probably came the Trinity of the Capitol (Jupiter, Juno, Minerva) previously introduced into Etruria from Greek sources, thus showing that the Romans were not the first in Italy to be influenced by the religion of Greece. New modes of worship, non-Roman in spirit, also came in from the Etruscans and foreign elements of Greek mythology. Latium also made its contribution, the worship of Diana coming from Aricia and also a Latin Jupiter. Two Latin cults penetrated even within the Roman pomoerium<75>that of Hercules and Castor, with deities of Greek origin. The Greek settlements in Southern Italy (Magna Graecia) were generous in their contributions and opened the way for the later invasion of Greek deities. The Sibylline Books were early imported from Cumae as sacred scriptures for the Romans. In 493 BC during a famine a temple was built to the Greek trinity Demeter, Dionysus, and Persephone, under the Latin names of Ceres, Liber, and Libera<72>the beginning of distrust in the primitive Roman numina and of that practice, so oft repeated in Roman history, of introducing new and foreign gods at periods of great distress. In 433 Apollo came from the same region. Mercury and Asclepius followed in 293 BC, and in 249 BC Dis and Proserpina were brought from Tarentum. Other non-Roman modes of approach to deity were introduced. Rome had been in this period very broad-minded in her policy of meeting the growing religious needs of her community, but she had not so far gone beyond Italy. A taste had also developed for dramatic and more aesthetic forms of worship. The period of the Second Punic War was a crisis in Roman religious life, and the faith of the Romans waned before growing unbelief. Both the educated classes and the populace abandoned the old Roman religion, the former sank into skepticism, the latter into superstition; the former put philosophy in the place of religion, the latter the more sensuous cults of the Orient. The Romans went abroad again to borrow deities<65>this time to Greece, Asia and Egypt. Greek deities were introduced wholesale, and readily assimilated to or identified with Roman deities (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ROME">ROME, III, 1</a>). In 191 BC Hebe entered as Juventas, in 179 Artemis as Diana, in 138 Ares as Mars. But the home of religion<6F>the Orient<6E>proved more helpful. In 204 BC Cybele was introduced from Pessinus to Rome, known also as the Great Mother (magna mater)<29>a fatal and final blow to old Roman religion and an impetus to the wilder and more orgiastic cults and mysterious glamor which captivated the common mind. Bacchus with his gross immorality soon followed. Sulla introduced Ma from Phrygia as the counterpart of the Roman Bellona, and Egypt gave Isis. In the wars of Pompey against the pirates Mithra was brought to Rome<6D>the greatest rival of Christianity. Religion now began to pass into the hands of politicians and at the close of the republic was almost entirely in their hands. Worship degenerated into formalism, and formalism culminated in disuse. Under the empire philosophic systems continued still more to replace religion, and oriental rites spread apace. The religious revival of Augustus was an effort to breathe life into the dry bones. His plan was only partly religious, and partly political<61>to establish an imperial and popular religion of which he was the head and centering round his person. He discovered the necessity of an imperial religion. In the East kings had long before been regarded as divine by their subjects. Alexander the Great, like a wise politician, intended to use this as one bond of union for his wide dominions. The same habit extended among the Diadochian kings, especially in Egypt and Syria. When Augustus had brought peace to the world, the Orient was ready to hail him as a god. Out of this was evolved the cult of the reigning emperor and of Roma personified. This worship gave religious unity to the empire, while at the same time magnifying the emperor. But the effort was in vain: the old Roman religion was dead, and the spiritual needs of the empire continued to be met more and more by philosophy and the mysteries which promised immortality. The cult of the Genius of the emperor soon lost all reality. Vespasian himself on his deathbed jested at the idea of his becoming a god. The emperor-worship declined steadily, and in the 3rd and 4th centuries oriental worships were supreme. The religion of the Roman empire soon became of that cosmopolitan and eclectic type so characteristic of the new era.<P>2. Non-Roman Religions: religiones licitae and religiones illicitae:<P>The non-Roman religions were divided into religiones licitae ("licensed worships") and religiones illicitae ("unlicensed"). The Romans at different times, on account of earthquakes, pestilences, famine or military disasters, introduced non-Roman cults as means of appeasing the numina. This generally meant that the cults in question could be performed with impunity by their foreign adherents. It legalized the collegia necessary for these worships from which Roman citizens were by law excluded. But, generally speaking, any people settling at Rome was permitted the liberty of its own native worship in so far as the exercise of it did not interfere with the peace of the state or corrupt the morals of society. On one occasion (186 BC), by a decree of the senate, a severe inquisition was instituted against the Bacchanalian rites which had caused flagrant immorality among the adherents. But Rome was never a systematic persecutor. These foreign rites and superstitions, though often forbidden and their professed adherents driven from the city, always returned stronger than ever. Roman citizens soon discovered the fascination of oriental and Greek mysteries, and devoted themselves to foreign gods while maintaining the necessary formalism toward the religion of the state. Very often too Roman citizens would be presidents of these religious brotherhoods. It should not be forgotten that the original moral elements had fallen out of Roman religion, and that it had become simply a political and military religion for the welfare of the state, not for the salvation of the individual. The individual must conform to certain prescribed rites in order to avert calamity from the state. This done, the state demanded no more, and left him a large measure of freedom in seeking excitement or aesthetic pleasure in the warm and more social foreign mysteries. Thus, while the Romans retained the distinction of religiones licitae and illicitae, they seldom used severity against the latter. Many unlicensed cults were never disturbed. In fact, the very idea of empire rendered toleration of non-Roman religions a necessity. Practically, though not theoretically, the empire abandoned the idea of religiones illicitae, while it retained it upon the statute-book to use in case of such an emergency as the Christian religion involved. Not only the government was tolerant, but the different varieties of religions were tolerant and on good terms with each other. The same man might be initiated into the mysteries of half a dozen divinities. The same man might even be priest of two or more gods. Some had not the slightest objection to worshipping Christ along with Mithra, Isis and Adonis. Men were growing conscious of the oneness of the divine, and credited their neighbors with worshipping the One Unknown under different names and forms. Hadrian is said to have meditated the erection of temples throughout the empire to the Unknown God.<P>(1) Judaism a "religio licita."<P>An interesting and, for the history of Christianity, important example of a religio licita is Judaism. No more exclusive and obstinate people could have been found upon whom to bestow the favor. Yet from the days of Julius Caesar the imperial policy toward the Jew and his religion was uniformly favorable, with the brief exception of the mad attempt of Gaius. The government often protected them against the hatred of the populace. Up to 70 AD they were allowed freely to send their yearly contribution to the temple; they were even allowed self-governing privileges and legislative powers among themselves, and thus formed an exclusive community in the midst of Roman society. Even the disastrous war of 68-70 AD and the fall of Jerusalem did not bring persecution upon the Jew, though most of these self-governing and self-legislating powers were withdrawn and the Jews were compelled to pay a poll-tax to the temple of the Capitoline Jupiter. Still their religion remained licensed, tolerated, protected. They were excused from duties impossible for their religion, such as military service. This tolerance of the Jewish religion was of incalculable importance to infant Christianity which at first professed to be no more than a reformed and expanded Judaism.<P>(2) Why Christianity Was Alone Proscribed.<P>The question next arises: If such was the universally mild and tolerant policy of the empire to find room for all gods and cults, and to respect the beliefs of all the subject peoples, how comes the anomaly that Christianity alone was proscribed and persecuted? Christianity was indeed a religio illicita, not having been accepted by the government as a religio licita, like Judaism. But this is no answer. There were other unlicensed religions which grew apace in the empire. Neither was it simply because Christianity was aggressive and given to proselytism and dared to appear even in the imperial household: Mithraism and Isism were militant and aggressive, and yet were tolerated. Nor was it simply because of popular hatred, for the Christian was not hated above the Jew. Other reasons must explain the anomaly.<P>(3) Two Empires: Causes of Conflict.<P>The fact was that two empires were born about the same time so like and yet so unlike as to render a conflict and struggle to the death inevitable. The Christians were unequivocal in asserting that the society for which they were waiting and laboring was a "kingdom."<P>(a) Confusion of Spiritual and Temporal:<P>They thought not merely in national or racial but in ecumenical terms. The Romans could not understand a kingdom of God upon earth, but confused Christian ambition with political. It was soon discovered that Christianity came not to save but to destroy and disintegrate the empire. Early Christian enthusiasm made the term "kingdom" very provoking to pagan patriotism, for many, looking for the Parousia of their Lord, were themselves misled into thinking of the new society as a kingdom soon to be set up upon the earth with Christ as king. Gradually, of course, Christians became enlightened upon this point, but the harm had been done. Both the Rein empire and Christianity were aiming at a social organization to embrace the genus humanum. But though these two empires were so alike in several points and the one had done so much to prepare the way for the other, yet the contrast was too great to allow conciliation. Christianity would not lose the atom in the mass; it aimed at universalism along the path of individualism<73>giving new value to human personality.<P>(b) Unique Claims of Christianity:<P>It seemed also to provoke Roman pride by its absurd claims. It preached that the world was to be destroyed by fire to make way for new heavens and a new earth, that the Eternal City (Rome) was doomed to fall, that a king would come from heaven whom Christians were to obey, that amid the coming desolations the Christians should remain tranquil.<P>(c) Novelty of Christianity:<P>Again after Christianity came from underneath the aegis of Judaism, it must have taken the government somewhat by surprise as a new and unlicensed religion which had grown strong under a misnomer. It was the newest and latest religion of the empire; it came suddenly, as it were, upon the stage with no past. It was not apparent to the Roman mind that Christianity had been spreading for a generation under the tolerance granted to Judaism (sub umbraculo licitae Judeorum religionis: Tert.), the latter of which was "protected by its antiquity," as Tacitus said. The Romans were of a conservative nature and disliked innovations. The greatest statesman of the Augustan era, Maecenas, advised the emperor to extend no tolerance to new religions as subversive of monarchy (Dio Cassius lii.36). A new faith appearing suddenly with a large clientele might be dangerous to the public peace (multitude ingens: Tac. Ann. xv.44; polu plethos Clem. Rom.; Cor 1 6).<P>(d) Intolerance and Exclusiveness of the Christian Religion and Christian Society:<P>In one marked way Christians contravcned the tolerant eclective spirit of the empire<72>the intolerance and absoluteness of their religion and the exclusiveness of their society. All other religions of the empire admitted compromise and eclecticism, were willing to dwell rather on the points of contact with their neighbors than on the contrast. But Christianity admitted no compromise, was intolerant to all other systems. It must be admitted that in this way it was rather unfair to other cults which offered comfort and spiritual support to thousands of the human race before the dawn of Christianity. But we shall not blame, when we recognize that for its own life and mission it was necessary to show itself at first intolerant. Many heathen would gladly accept Christ along with Mithra and Isis and Serapis. But Christianity demanded complete separation. The Jesus cult could tolerate no rival: it claimed to be absolute, and worshippers of Jesus must be separate from the world. The Christian church was absolute in its demands; would not rank with, but above, all worships. This spirit was of course at enmity with that of the day which enabled rival cults to co-exist with the greatest indifference. Add to this the exclusive state of Christian society. No pious heathen who had purified his soul by asceticism and the sacraments of antiquity could be admitted into membership unless he renounced things dear to him and of some spiritual value. In every detail of public life this exclusive spirit made itself felt. Christians met at night and held secret assemblies in which they were reputed to perpetrate the most scandalous crimes. Thyestean banquets, Oedipean incest, child murder, were among the charges provoked by their exclusiveness.<P>(e) Obstinatio:<P>Add to this also the sullen obstinacy with which Christians met the demands of imperial power<65>a feature very offensive to Rein governors. Their religion would be left them undisturbed if they would only render formal obedience to the religion of the state. Roman clemency and respect for law were baffled before Christian obstinacy. The martyr\'s courage appeared as sheer fanaticism. The pious Aurelius refers but once to Christianity, and in the words psile parataxis, "sheer obstinacy," and Aristides apparently refers to Christianity as authadeia, stubbornness.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PERSECUTION">PERSECUTION, sec. 18</a>.<P>(f) Aggressiveness against Pagan Faith:<P>But the Christians were not content with an uncompromising withdrawal from the practices of heathen worship: they also actively assailed the pagan cult. To the Christians they became doctrines of demons. The imperial cult and worship of the Genius of the emperor were very unholy in their sight. Hence, they fell under the charges of disloyalty to the emperor and might be proved guilty of majestas. They held in contempt the doctrine that the greatness of Rome was due to her reverence for the gods; the Christians were atheists from the pagan point of view. And as religion was a political concern for the welfare of the state, atheism was likely to call down the wrath of divinity to the subversion of the state.<P>(g) Christianos ad leones: Public Calamities:<P>Very soon when disasters began to fall thickly upon the Roman empire, the blame was laid upon the Christians. In early days Rome had often sought to appease the gods by introducing external cults; at other times oriental cults were expelled in the interests of public morality. Now in times of disaster Christians became the scapegoats. If famine, drought, pestilence, earthquake or any other public calamity threatened, the cry was raised "the Christians to the lions" (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NERO">NERO</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PERSECUTION">PERSECUTION, sec. 12</a>). This view of Christianity as subversive of the empire survived the fall of Rome before Alaric. The heathen forgot<6F>as the apologists showed<65>that Rome had been visited by the greatest calamities before the Christian era and that the Christians were the most self-sacrificing in periods of public distress, lending succor to pagan and Christian alike.<P>(h) Odium generis humani:<P>All prejudices against Christianity were summed up in odium generis humani, "hatred for the human race" or society, which was reciprocated by "hatred of the human race toward them." The Christians were bitterly hated, not only by the populace, but by the upper educated classes. Most of the early adherents belonged to the slave, freedman and artisan classes, "not many wise, not many noble." Few were Roman citizens. We have mentioned the crimes which popular prejudice attributed to this hated sect. They were in mockery styled Christiani by the Antiochians (a name which they at first resented), and Nazarenes by the Jews. No nicknames were too vile to attach to them<65>Asinarii (the sect that worshipped the ass\'s head), Sarmenticii or Semaxii. Roman writers cannot find epithets strong enough. Tacitus reckons the Christian faith among the "atrocious and abominable things" (atrocia aut pudenda) which flooded Rome, and further designates it superstitio exitiabilis ("baneful superstition," Ann. xv.44), Suetonius (Ner. 16) as novel and maletic (novae ac maleficae), and the gentle Pliny (Ep. 97) as vile and indecent (prava immodica). Well might Justus say the Christians were "hated and reviled by the whole human race." This opprobrium was accentuated by the attacks of philosophy upon Christianity. When the attention of philosophers was drawn to the new religion, it was only to scorn it. This attitude of heathen philosophy is best understood in reading Celsus and the Christian apologists.<P>(4) The Roman Empire Not the Only Disturbing Factor.<P>Philosophy long maintained its aloofness from the religion of a crucified Galilean: the "wise" were the last to enter the kingdom of God. When later Christianity had established itself as a permanent force in human thought, philosophy deigned to consider its claims. But it was too late; the new faith was already on the offensive. Philosophy discovered its own weakness and began to reform itself by aiming at being both a philosophy and a religion. This is particularly the case in neo-Platonism (in Plotinus) in which reason breaks down before revelation and mysticism. Another force disturbing the peace of the Christian church was the enemy within the fold. Large numbers of heathen had entered the ecclesia bringing with them their oriental or Greek ideas, just as Jewish Christians brought their Judaism with them. This led to grave heresies, each system of thought distorting in its own way the orthodox faith. Later another ally joined the forces against Christianity<74>reformed paganism led by an injured priesthood. At first the cause of Christianity was greatly aided by the fact that there was no exclusive and jealous priesthood at the head of the Greek-Roman religion, as in the Jewish and oriental religions. There was thus no dogma and no class interested in maintaining a dogma. Religious persecution is invariably instituted by the priesthood, but in the Roman world it was not till late in the day when the temples and sacrifices were falling into desuetude that we find a priesthood as a body in opposition. Thus the Roman imperial power stood not alone in antagonism to Christianity, but was abetted and often provoked to action by<P>(a) popular hate,<P>(b) philosophy,<P>(c) pagan priesthood,<P>(d) heresies within the church.<P>IV. Relations between the Roman Empire and Christianity.<P>We have here to explain how the attitude of the Roman empire, at first friendly or indifferent, developed into one of fierce conflict, the different stages in the policy<63>if we can speak of any uniform policy<63>of the Roman government toward Christianity, the charges or mode of procedure on which Christians were condemned, and when and how the profession of Christianity (nomen ipsum) became a crime. We shall see the Roman empire progressively weakening and Christianity gaining ground. For the sake of clearness we shall divide the Roman empire into six periods, the first from the commencement of the Christian era till the last of the Julio-Claudian dynasty.<P>1. Beginning of Christianity until Death of Nero, 68 AD:<P>At first the presence of the Christian faith was unknown to Roman authorities. It appeared first merely as a reformed and more spiritual Judaism; its earliest preachers and adherents alike never dreamed of severing from the synagogue. Christians were only another of the Jewish sects to which a Jew might belong while adhering to Mosaism and Judaism. But soon this friendly relation became strained on account of the expanding views of some of the Christian preachers, and from the introduction of Gentile proselytes. The first persecutions for the infant church came entirely from exclusive Judaism, and it was the Jews who first accused Christians before the Roman courts. Even so, the Roman government not only refused to turn persecutor, but even protected the new faith both against Jewish accusations and against the violence of the populace (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,31);">Ac 21:31</a>f). And the Christian missionaries<65>especially Paul<75>soon recognized in the Roman empire an ally and a power for good. Writing to the Romans Paul counsels them to submit in obedience to the powers that be, as "ordained of God." His favorable impression must have been greatly enhanced by his mild captivity at Rome and his acquittal by Nero on the first trial. The Roman soldiers had come to his rescue in Jerusalem to save his life from the fanaticism of his own coreligionists. Toward the accusations of the Jews against their rivals the Romans were either indifferent, as Gallio the proconsul of Achaia, who "cared for none of those things" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,12);">Ac 18:12</a>), or recognized the innocence of the accused, as did both Felix (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',24,1);">Ac 24:1</a>) and Porcius Festus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',25,14);">Ac 25:14</a>). Thus the Romans persisted in looking upon Christians as a sect of the Jews. But the Jews took another step in formulating a charge of disloyalty (begun before Pilate) against the new sect as acting "contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,7);">Ac 17:7</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',25,8);">Ac 25:8</a>). Christianity was disowned thus early by Judaism and cast upon its own resources. The increasing numbers of Christians would confirm to the Roman government the independence of Christianity. And the trial of a Roman citizen, Paul, at Rome would further enlighten the authorities.<P>The first heathen persecution of Christianity resulted from no definite policy, no apprehension of danger to the body politic, and no definite charges, but from an accidental spark which kindled the conflagration of Rome (July, 64 AD). Up to this time no emperor had taken much notice of Christianity. It was only in the middle of the reign of Augustus that Jesus was born. In the reign of Tiberius belong Jesus\' public ministry, crucifixion and resurrection; but his reign closed too early (37 AD) to allow any prominence to the new faith, though this emperor was credited with proposing to the senate a decree to receive Christ into the Roman pantheon<6F>legend of course. Under the brief principate of the mad Gaius (37-41 AD) the "new way" was not yet divorced from the parent faith. Gaius caused a diversion in favor of the Christians by his persecution of the Jews and the command to set up his own statue in the temple. In the next reign (Claudius, 41-54 AD) the Jews were again harshly treated, and thousands were banished from Rome (Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit: Suet. Claud. 25). Some would see in this an action against the Christians by interpreting the words as meaning riots between Jews and Christians, in consequence of which some Christians were banished as Jews, but Dio Cassius (lx.6) implies that it was a police regulation to restrain the spread of Jewish worship. It was in the reign of Nero, after the fire of 64 AD, that the first hostile step was taken by the government against the Christians, earliest account of which is given by Tacitus (Ann. xv.44). Nero\'s reckless career had given rise to the rumor that he was the incendiary, that he wished to see the old city burned in order to rebuild it on more magnificent plans. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NERO">NERO</A>. Though he did everything possible to arrest the flames, even exposing his own life, took every means of alleviating the destitution of the sufferers, and ordered such religious rites as might appease the wrath of the gods, the suspicion still clung to him.<P>"Accordingly in order to dissipate the rumor, he put forward as guilty (subdidit reos) and inflicted the most cruel punishments on those who were hated for their abominations (flagitia) and called Christians by the populace. The originator of that name, Christus, had been executed by the procurator Pontius Pilatus in the reign of Tiberius, and the baneful superstition (exitiabilis superstitio) put down for the time being broke out again, not only throughout Judea, the home of this evil, but also in the City (Rome) where all atrocious and shameful (atrocia aut pudenda) things converge and are welcomed. Those therefore who confessed (i.e. to being Christians) were first arrested, and then by the information gained from them a large number (multitudo ingens) were implicated (coniuncti is the manuscript reading, not conuicti), not so much on the charge of incendiarism as for hatred of mankind (odio humani generis). The victims perished amid mockery (text here uncertain); some clothed in the skins of wild beasts were torn to pieces by dogs; others impaled on crosses in order to be set on fire to afford light by night after daylight had died....Whence (after these cruelties) commiseration began to be felt for them, though guilty and deserving the severest penalties (quamquam adversus sontes et novissima exempla meritos), for men felt their destruction was not from considerations of public welfare but to gratify the cruelty of one person (Nero)."<P>This passage<67>the earliest classical account of the crucifixion and the only mention of Pilate in a heathen author<6F>offers some difficulties which require to be glanced at. It is held by some that Tacitus contradicts himself by writing subdidit reos at the beginning and sontes at the end, but sontes does not mean guilty of incendiarism, but guilty from the point of view of the populace and deserving severe punishment for other supposed flagitia, not for arson. It is thus quite clear that Tacitus regards the Christians as innocent, though he had not the slightest kindly feeling toward them. Qui fatebantur means most naturally, "those who confessed to being Christians," though Arnold argues that confiteri or profiteri would be the correct word for professing a religion. But this would contradict both the sense and the other evidences of the context; for if fatebantur could mean "confessed to arson," then the whole body of Christians should have been arrested, and, further, this would have diverted suspicion from Nero, which was not the case according to Tacitus. Some Christians boldly asserted their religion, others no doubt, as in Bithynia, recanted before tribulation. By indicio eorum Ramsay (Christianity in the Roman Empire, 233) understands "on the information elicited at their trial," i.e. from information gathered by the inquisitors in the course of the proceedings. This incidental information implicated a large number of others, hence Ramsay prefers the manuscript reading coniuncti to the correction conuicti. This is in order to explain the difficulty seemingly raised, namely, that the noblest Christians who boldly confessed their Christianity would seek to implicate brethren. But it is not impossible that some of these bold spirits did condescend to give the names of their coreligionists to the Roman courts. Hence, Hardy (Christianity and the Roman Government, 67) prefers the more usual rendering of indicio eorum as "on information received from them." This may have occurred either<P>(1) through torture, or<P>(2) for promised immunity, or<P>(3) on account of local jealousies.<P>The early Christian communities were not perfect; party strife often ran high as at Corinth. And in a church like that of Rome composed of Jewish and pagan elements and undoubtedly more cosmopolitan than Corinth, a bitter sectarian spirit is easy to understand. This as a probable explanation is much strengthened and rendered almost certain by the words of Clement of Rome, who, writing to the church at Corinth (chapter vi) from Rome only a generation after the persecution, and thus familiar with the internal history of the Roman ecclesia, twice asserts that a (polu plethos = Tac. multitudo ingens) of the Roman Christians suffered (dia zelos), "through jealousy or strife." The most natural and obvious meaning is "mutual or sectarian jealousy." But those who do not like this fact explain it as "by the jealousy of the Jews." Nothing is more easily refuted, for had it been the jealousy of the Jews Clement would not have hesitated one moment to say so. Those who are familiar with the Christian literature of that age know that the Christians were none too sensitive toward Jewish feelings. But the very fact that it was not the Jews made Clement rather modestly omit details the memory of which was probably still bearing fruit, even in his day. Once more correpti, usually rendered "arrested," is taken by Hardy as "put upon their trial." He argues that this is more in accord with Tacitean usage. A "huge multitude" need not cause us to distrust Tacitus. It is a relative term; it was a considerable number to be so inhumanly butchered. There is some hesitation as to whether odio humani generis is objective or subjective genitive: "hatred of the Christians toward the human race" or "hatred of the human race toward the Christians." Grammatically of course it may be either, but that it is the former there can be no doubt: it was of the nature of a charge against Christians (Ramsay).<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PERSECUTION">PERSECUTION</a>.<P>Some have impugned the veracity of Tacitus in this very important passage, asserting that he had read back the feelings and state of affairs of his own day (half a century later) into this early Neronian period. This early appearance of Christianity as a distinct religion and its "huge multitude" seem impossible to some. Schiller has accordingly suggested that it was the Jews who as a body at Rome were persecuted, that the Christians being not yet distinct from Jews shared in the persecutions and suffered, not as Christians, but as Jews. But Tacitus is too trustworthy a historian to be guilty of such a confusion; besides, as proconsul in Asia he must have been more or less familiar with the origin of the Christian party. Also Poppea was at this time mistress of Nero\'s affections and sufficiently influential with him to stay such a cruel persecution against those to whom she had a leaning and who claimed her as proselyte. Again, the Jewish faith was certe licita and a recognized worship of the empire.<P>The next question is, Why were the Christians alone selected for persecution? That they were so singled out we know, but exactly for what reason is hard to say with certainty. A number of reasons no doubt contributed.<P>(1) Farrar (Early Days chapter iv) sees "in the proselytism of Poppea, guided by Jewish malice, the only adequate explanation of the first Christian persecution," and Lightfoot is of the same opinion, but this by itself is inadequate, though the Jews would be glad of an opportunity of taking revenge on their aggressive opponents.<P>(2) Christians had already become in the eyes of the Roman authorities a distinct sect, either from the reports of the eastern provincial governors, where Christianity was making most headway, or from the attention attracted by Paul\'s first trial. They were thus the newest religious sect, and as such would serve as victims to appease deity and the populace.<P>(3) Even if ingens multitudo be rhetorical, the Christians were no doubt considerably numerous in Rome. Their aggressiveness and active proselytism made their numbers even more formidable.<P>(4) They were uncompromising in their expression of their beliefs; they looked for a consummation of the earth by fire and were also eagerly expecting the Parousia of their king to reconstitute society. These tenets together with their calm faith amid the despair of others would easily cast suspicion upon them.<P>(5) For whatever reason, they had earned the opprobrium of the populace. "The hatred for the Jews passed over to hatred for the Christians" (Mommsen). A people whom the populace so detested must have fallen under the surveillance of the city police administration.<P>(6) A large proportion of the Christian community at Rome would be non-Roman and so deserve no recognition of Roman privileges.<P>These reasons together may or may not explain the singling-out of the Christians. At any rate they were chosen as scapegoats to serve Nero and his minion Tigellinus. The origin of the first persecution was thus purely accidental<61>in order to remove suspicion from Nero. It was not owing to any already formulated policy, neither through apprehension of any danger to the state, nor because the Christians were guilty of any crimes, though it gave an opportunity of investigation and accumulation of evidence. But accidental as this persecution was in origin, its consequences were of far reaching importance. There are three principal views as to the date of the policy of proscription of the new faith by the Roman government:<P>(1) the old view that persecution for the name, i.e. for the mere profession of Christianity, began under Trajan in 112 AD<41>a view now almost universally abandoned;<P>(2) that of Ramsay (Christianity in the Roman Empire, 242ff, and three articles in The Expositor, 1893), who holds that this development from punishment for definite crimes (flagitia) to proscription "for the name" took place between 68 and 96 AD, and<P>(3) that of Hardy (Christianity and the Roman Government, 77), Mommsen (Expos,1893,1-7) and Sanday (ibid.,1894,406ff)<29>and adopted by the writer of this article<6C>that the trial of the Christians under Nero resulted in the declaration of the mere profession of Christianity as a crime punishable by death.<P>Tacitus apparently represents the persecution of the Christians as accidental and isolated and of brief duration (in the place cited), while Suetonius (Ner. 16) mentions the punishment of Christians in a list of permanent police regulations for the maintenance of good order, into which it would be inconsistent to introduce an isolated case of procedure against the "baneful superstition" (Ramsay, op. cit., p. 230). But these two accounts are not contradictory, Tacitus giving the initial stage and Suetonius "a brief statement of the permanent administrative principle into which Nero\'s action ultimately resolved itself" (ibid., 232). Nero\'s police administration, then, pursued as a permanent policy what was begun merely to avert suspicion from Nero. But as yet, according to Ramsay, Christians were not condemned as Christians, but on account of certain flagitia attaching to the profession and because the Roman police authorities had learned enough about the Christians to regard them as hostile to society. A trial still must be held and condemnation pronounced "in respect not of the name but of serious offenses naturally connected with the name," namely, first incendiarism, which broke down, and secondly hostility to civilized society and charges of magic. The others agree so far with Ramsay as describing the first stages, but assert that odium humani generis was not of the nature of a definite charge, but disaffection to the social and political arrangements of the empire. At the outset a trial was needed, but soon as a consequence the trial could be dispensed with, the Christians being "recognized as a society whose principle might be summarized as odium generis humani." A trial became unnecessary; the religion itself involved the crimes, and as a religion it was henceforth proscribed. The surveillance over them and their punishment was left to the police administration which could step in at any time with severe measures or remain remiss, according as exigencies demanded. Christianity was henceforth a religio illicita. The Roman government was never a systematic persecutor. The persecution or non-persecution of Christianity depended henceforth on the mood of the reigning emperor, the character of his administration, the activity of provincial governors, the state of popular feeling against the new faith, and other local circumstances. There is no early evidence that the Neronian persecution extended beyond Rome, though of course the "example set by the emperor necessarily guided the action of all Roman officials." The stormy close of Nero\'s reign and the tumultuous days till the accession of Vespasian created a diversion in favor of Christianity. Orosius (Hist. vii.7) is too late an authority for a general persecution (per omnes provincias pari persecutione excruciari imperavit; ipsum nomen exstirpare conatus ....). Besides, Paul after his acquittal seems to have prosecuted his missionary activity without any extraordinary hindrances, till he came to Rome the second time. This Neronian persecution is important for the history of Christianity: Nero commenced the principle of punishing Christians, and thus made a precedent for future rulers. Trouble first began in the world-capital; the next stage will be found in the East; and another in Africa and the West. But as yet persecution was only local. Nero was the first of the Roman persecutors who, like Herod Agrippa, came to a miserable end<6E>a fact much dwelt upon by Lactantius and other Christian writers.<P>2. Flavian Period, 68-96 AD:<P>In the Flavian period no uniform imperial policy against Christianity can be discovered. According to Ramsay the Flavians developed the practice set by Nero from punishment of Christians for definite crimes to proscription of the name. But, as we have seen, the Neronian persecution settled the future attitude of the Roman state toward the new faith. The Flavians could not avoid following the precedent set by Nero. Christianity was spreading<6E>especially in the East and at Rome. We have no account of any persecution under Vespasian (though Hilary erroneously speaks of him as a persecutor along with Nero and Decius) and Titus, but it does not follow that none such took place. As the whole matter was left to the police administration, severity would be spasmodic and called forth by local circumstances. The fall of Jerusalem must have had profound influence both on Judaism and on Christianity. For the former it did what the fall of Rome under Goths, Vandals, and Germans did for the old Roman religion<6F>it weakened the idea of a national God bound up with a political religion. The cleft between Judaism and its rival would now become greater. Christianity was relieved from the overpowering influence of a national center, and those Jews who now recognized the futility of political dreams would more readily join the Christian faith. Not only the distinction but the opposition and hostility would now be more apparent to outsiders, though Vespasian imposed the poll-tax on Jewish Christians and Jews alike. No memory of harshness against Christianity under Vespasian has survived. Ramsay (op. cit., 257) would interpret a mutilated passage of Suetonius (Vesp. 15) as implying Vespasian\'s reluctance to carry out justa supplicia against Christians.<P>Titus, "the darling of the human race," is not recorded as a persecutor, but his opinion of Judaism and Christianity as stated in the council of war before Jerusalem in 70 AD and recorded by Sulpicius Severus (Chron. ii.30, 6) is interesting as an approval of the policy adopted by Nero. Severus\' authority is undoubtedly Tacitus (Bernays and Mommsen). The authenticity of the speech as contradicting the account of Josephus has been impugned; at any rate it represents the point of view of Tacitus. Titus then advocates the destruction of the temple in order that the religion of the Jews and the Christians may be more thoroughly extirpated (quo plenius Judeorum et Christianorum religio tolleretur), since these religions though opposed to each other were of the same origin, the Christians having sprung from the Jews. If the root was removed the stem would readily perish (radice sublata, stirpem facile perituram). We know, however, of no active measures of Titus against either party, his short reign perhaps allowing no time for such.<P>It is Domitian who stands out prominently as the persecutor of this period, as Nero of the first period. His procedure against Christians was not an isolated act, but part of a general policy under which others suffered. His reign was a return to ancient principles. He attempted to reform morals, suppress luxury and vice, banish immoral oriental rites, actors, astrologers and philosophers. It was in his attempt to revive the national religion that he came in conflict with the universal religion. His own cousin, Flavius Clemens, was condemned apparently for Christianity (atheism), and his wife, Domitilla, was banished. The profession of Christianity was not sufficient for the condemnation of Roman citizens of high standing; hence the charges of atheism or majestas were put forward. Refusal to comply with the religion of the national gods could be brought under the latter. But for ordinary Roman citizens and for provincials the profession of Christianity merited death. No definite edict or general proscription was enacted; only the principle instituted by Nero was allowed to be carried out. There was, as Mommsen remarks, a standing proscription of Christians as of brigands, but harsh procedure against both was spasmodic and depended on the caprice or character of provincial governors. Domitian took one definite step against Christianity in establishing an easy test by which to detect those who were Christians and so facilitate inquiries. This test was the demand to worship the Genius of the emperor. This too was only part of Domitian\'s general policy of asserting his own dominus et deus title and emphasizing the imperial cult as a bond of political union. The Apocalypse reflects the sufferings of the church in this reign.<P>3. The Antonine Period, 96-192 AD:<P>(1) Nerva and Trajan.<P>On the death of Domitian peace was restored to the Christian church which lasted throughout the brief reign of Nerva (96-98) and the first 13 years of Trajan. It is a curious fact that some of the best of the Roman emperors (Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, Decius and Diocletian) were harsh to the Christians, while some of the worst (as Commodus, Caracalla, Heliogabalus) left them in peace (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PERSECUTION">PERSECUTION</a>, 17). Christianity had been rapidly spreading in the interval of tranquillity. Pliny became governor of Bithynia in 111 AD and found, especially in the eastern part of his province, the temples almost deserted. Some Christians were brought before him and on established precedents were ordered to be executed for their religion. But Pliny soon discovered that many of both sexes and all ages, provincials and Roman citizens, were involved. The Roman citizens he sent to Rome for trial; but being of a humane disposition he shrank from carrying out the wholesale execution required by a consistent policy.<P>He wrote to Trajan telling him what he had already done, rather covertly suggesting tolerant measures. Should no distinction be made between old and young? Should pardon not be extended to those who recanted and worshipped the emperor\'s image and cursed Christ? Should mere profession (nomen ipsum) be a capital offense if no crimes could be proven, or should the crimes rather be punished that were associated with the faith (an flagitia cohaerentia nomini)? He then explains his procedure: he gave those who were accused an abundant opportunity of recanting; those who persisted in this faith were executed. He considered their "stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy" (pertinaciam certe et inflexibilem obstinationem) as in itself deserving punishment. But the administration having once interfered found plenty to do. An anonymous list of many names was handed in, most of whom, however, denied being Christians. Informers then put forward others who likewise denied belonging to the faith. Pliny was convinced their meetings were harmless, and on examination of two deaconesses under torture discovered nothing but a perverse extravagant superstition (sup. pravam immodicam). Trajan replied that no universal and definite rule could be laid down, apparently confirming the correctness of Pliny\'s action and perhaps disappointing Pliny in not yielding to his humane suggestions. Nevertheless, the emperor made three important concessions: (1) the Christians were not to be sought out by the police authorities, but if they were accused and convicted they must be punished; (2) anonymous information against them was not to be accepted; (3) even those suspected of flagitia in the past were to be pardoned on proving they were not Christians or on renouncing Christianity. Some regard this rescript of Trajan as the first official and legal authorization to proscribe Christianity; but we have already seen that Christianity as such was proscribed as a result of the Neronian investigations. Besides, there is not the slightest trace of any new principle of severity, either in the letters of Pliny or in the rescript of Trajan. The persecution of Christianity had been "permanent" like that of highwaymen, but not systematic or general. Neither was Trajan\'s rescript an edict of toleration, though on the whole it was favorable to the Christians in minimizing the dangers to which they were exposed. The question was as yet purely one of administration.<P>Trajan initiated no procedure against Christians<6E>in fact rather discouraged any, asking his lieutenant to close his eyes to offenders<72>and Pliny consulted him in the hope of obtaining milder treatment for the Christians by putting in question form what he really wished to be approved. Trajan\'s rescript "marks the end of the old system of uncompromising hostility."<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PERSECUTION">PERSECUTION, 15</A>.<P>(2) Hadrian.<P>The reign of Hadrian (117-38) was a period of toleration for the Christians. He was no bigot, but tolerant and eclective, inquiring into all religions and initiated into several mysteries and willing to leave religion an open question. In Asia, where Christianity was making most progress, a state of terrorism was imminent if delatores were encouraged against Christians making a profession of delatio (giving information). As we saw in the letter of Pliny, even non-Christians were accused, and any professing Christian could be threatened by these informers in order to secure a bribe for proceeding no farther. Licinius Silvanus Granianus, like Pliny, found himself involved in difficulties and wrote to Hadrian for advice. Hadrian\'s rescript in reply is addressed to Granianus\' successor, Minucius Fundanus, the proconsul of Asia, about 124 AD. The genuineness of this important document, though impugned by Overbeck, Keim and Lipsius, is vouched for by Mommsen, Hardy, Lightfoot and Ramsay. Indeed, it is much easier accounted for as authentic than as a forgery, for who but the broad-minded Hadrian could have written such a rescript? Apparently the questions put by the proconsul must have been of a similar nature to those extant of Pliny. The answer of Hadrian is a decided step in favor of Christianity and goes beyond that of Trajan:<P>(1) information is not to be passed over (a) lest the innocent suffer (as was the case under Pliny), and (b) lest informers should make a trade of lodging accusations;<P>(2) provincials accusing Christians must give proof that the accused have committed something illegal;<P>(3) mere petitions and acclamations against the Christians are not to be admitted;<P>(4) a prosecutor on failing to make good his case is to be punished.<P>These terms would greatly increase the risk for informers and lessen the dangers for Christians. That the name is a crime is not admitted, neither is this established principle rescinded. It is quite possible that Hadrian\'s rescript "gave a certain stimulus toward the employment of the more definite and regular legal procedure."<P>(3) Antoninus Pius (138-161).<P>The liberal policy of Trajan and Hadrian was continued by Antoninus, though persecution occurred in his reign in which Ptolemeus and Lucius were executed at Rome and Polycarp at Smyrna. But he decidedly confirmed Hadrian\'s policy of protecting the Christians uncondemned against mob violence in his letters to Larissae, Athens, Thessalonica and to "all the Hellenes." As at Smyrna, his "rescript was in advance of public feeling," and so was disregarded. Anonymous delation was also repressed.<P>(4) Marcus Aurelius (161-80).<P>Under Aurelius a strong reaction set in affecting the Christians, caused partly by the frontier disasters and devastating pestilence and partly by Aurelius\' policy of returning to ancient principles and reviving the Roman national religion. In this reign we find persecution extending to the West (Gaul) and to Africa<63>a step toward the general persecutions of the next century. Though no actual change was made by Aurelius, the leniency of the last three reigns is absent. No general edict or definite rescript of persecution was issued; the numerous martyrdoms recorded in this reign are partly due to the fuller accounts and the rise of a Christian literature. Christianity in itself still constituted a crime, and the obstinacy (parataxis) of Christians in itself deserved punishment. Aurelius seems to have actually rebuked the severity of the Roman governor at Lugdunum, and to have further discouraged the trade of informers against Christians. Tertullian actually styles him as debellator Christianorum ("protector of Christians"). We find as yet therefore no systematic or serious attempt to extirpate the new faith. The central government "was all this time without a permanent or steady policy toward the Christians. It had not yet made up its mind" (Hardy).<P>Under the rule of Commodus (180-192) Christians gain enjoyed a respite. The net result of the collisions between the new faith and the government in this period is somewhat differently estimated by Ramsay and by Hardy. The latter thinks (Christianity and Roman Government, 156f) that Ramsay "has to some extent antedated the existence of anything like a policy of proscription," due to antedating the time when Christianity was regarded as a serious political danger. Hardy thinks that the Christian organization was never suspected as more than an abstract danger during the first two centuries. Had Rome taken the view that Christianity in its organization was a real danger and an imperium in imperio, she must have started a systematic exterminating policy during a period when Christianity could have least withstood it. When the empire did<69>as in the 3rd century<72>apprehend the practical danger and took the severest general measures, Christianity was already too strong to be harmed, and we shall find the empire henceforth each time worsted and finally offering terms.<P>4. Changing Dynasties, 192-284 AD:<P>In the next period the insecurity of the throne, when in less than 100 years about a score of candidates wore the purple and almost each new emperor began a new dynasty, enabled Christianity to spread practically untroubled. Further diversions in its favor were created by those fierce barbarian wars and by the necessity of renewed vigilance at the frontier posts. The Christians\' aloofness from political strife and their acquiescence in each new dynasty brought them generally into no collision with new rulers. Further, the fact that many of these emperors were non-Roman provincials, or foreigners who had no special attachment to the old Roman faith, and were eclectic in their religious views, was of much importance to the new eastern faith. Moreover, some of the emperors proved not only not hostile to Christianity, but positively friendly. In this period we find no severe (except perhaps that of Decius) and certainly no protracted persecution. The Christian church herself was organized on the principle of the imperial government, and made herself thus strong and united, so that when the storm did come she remained unshaken. In 202 Severus started a cruel persecution in Africa and Egypt, but peace was restored by the savage Caracalla (lacte Christiano educatus: Tert.). Heliogabalus assisted Christianity indirectly (1) by the degradation of Roman religion, and (2) by tolerance. According to one writer he proposed to fuse Christianity, Judaism and Samaritanism into one religion. Alexander Severus was equally tolerant and syncretic, setting up in his private chapel images of Orpheus, Apollonius, Abraham, and Christ, and engraving the golden rule on his palace walls and public buildings. He was even credited with the intention of erecting a temple to Christ. Local persecution broke out under Maximin the Thracian. The first general persecution was that of Decius, in which two features deserve notice: (1) that death was not the immediate result of Christian profession, but every means was employed to induce Christians to recant; (2) Roman authorities already cognizant of the dangers of Christian organization directed their efforts especially against the officers of the church. Gallus continued this policy, and Valerian, after first stopping persecution, tried to check the spread of the worship by banishing bishops and closing churches, and later enacted the death penalty. Gallienus promulgated what was virtually the first edict of toleration, forbade persecution and restored the Christian endowments. Christianity now entered upon a period of 40 years\' tranquillity: as outward dangers decreased, less desirable converts came within her gates and her adherents were overtaken in a flood of worldliness, stayed only by the persecution of Diocletian.<P>5. Diocletian until First General Edict of Toleration, 284-311 AD:<P>Like some other persecutors, Diocletian was one of the ablest Roman rulers. He was not disposed to proceed against the Christians, but was finally driven to harsh measures by his son-in-law Galerius. The first edict, February 24,303,was not intended to exterminate Christianity, but to check its growth and weaken its political influence, and was directed principally against Bibles, Christian assemblies and churches. The second was against church organization. A third granted freedom to those who recanted, but sought to compel the submission of recalcitrants by tortures<65>a partial confession of failure on the part of the imperial government. Bloodshed was avoided and the death penalty omitted. But a fourth edict issued by Maximin prescribed the death penalty and required the act of sacrifice to the gods. In the same year (304) Diocletian, convinced of the uselessness of these measures, stayed the death penalty. The change of policy on the part of the emperor and his abdication next year were virtually a confession that the Galilean had conquered. After the persecution had raged 8 years (or 10, if we include local persecutions after 311), Galerius, overtaken by a loathsome disease, issued from Nicomedia with Constantine and Licinius the first general edict of toleration, April 30, 311. Christianity had thus in this period proved a state within a state; it was finally acknowledged as a religio licita, though not yet on equality with paganism.<P>6. First Edict of Toleration until Fall of Western Empire, 311-476 AD:<P>In the next period the first religious wars began, and Christianity was first placed on an equal footing with its rival, then above it, and finally it became the state religion of both West and East. As soon as Christianity had gained tolerance it immediately became an intolerant, bitter persecutor, both of its old rival and of heresy. Constantine, having defeated Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge (October 27, 312), became sole ruler of the West, and, in conjunction with his eastern colleague Licinius, issued the famous edict of toleration from Milan, March 30,313,by which all religions were granted equal tolerance, and Christianity was thus placed on an equal footing with heathenism. Constantine\'s favors toward the Christian faith were largely political; he wished simply to be on the winning side. With each fresh success he inclined more toward Christianity, though his whole life was a compromise. His dream was to weld pagan and Christian into one society under the same laws; he in no way prohibited paganism. With the rounding of Constantinople Christianity became practically the state religion<6F>an alliance with baneful consequences for Christianity. It now began to stifle the liberty of conscience for which it had suffered so much, and orthodoxy began its long reign of intolerance. The sons of Constantine inherited their father\'s cruel nature with his nominal Christianity. Constantine had left the old and the new religions on equal footing: his sons began the work of exterminating paganism by violence. Constantius when sole emperor, inheriting none of his father\'s compromise or caution, and prompted by women and bishops, published edicts demanding the closing of the temples and prohibiting sacrifices. Wise provincial administrators hesitated to carry out these premature measures. Christianity was now in the ascendancy and on the aggressive. It not only persecuted paganism, but the dominant Christian party proscribed its rival<61>this time heterodoxy banishing orthodoxy. The violence and intolerance of the sons of Constantine justified the mild reaction under Julian the Apostate<74>the most humane member of the Constantine family. He made a "romantic" effort to reestablish the old religion, and while proclaiming tolerance for Christianity, he endeavored to weaken it by heaping ridicule upon its doctrines, rescinding the privileges of the clergy, prohibiting the church from receiving many bequests, removing Christians from public positions and forbidding the teaching of classics in Christian schools lest Christian tongues should become better fitted to meet heathen arguments, and lastly by adding renewed splendor to pagan service as a counter-attraction. But the moral power of Christianity triumphed. Dying on a battle-field, where he fought the Persians, he is said (but not on good authority) to have exclaimed, "Thou hast conquered, O Galilean" (nenikekas Galilaie). For a brief period after his death there was religious neutrality. Gratian<61>at the instigation of Ambrose<73>departed from this neutrality, removed the statue of Victory from the senate-house, refused the title and robes of pontifex maximus, prohibited bloody sacrifices, and dealt a severe blow to the old faith by withdrawing some of the treasury grants, thereby making it dependent on the voluntary system. Theodosius I, or the Great, adopted a strenuous religious policy against both heresy and paganism. His intolerance must be attributed to Ambrose<73>a bigot in whose eyes Jews, heretics and pagans alike had no rights. Systematic proscription of paganism began. In 381 Theodosius denied the right of making a will to apostates from Christianity, in 383 the right of inheritance, in 391 heathen public worship was interdicted, in 392 several acts of both private and public heathen worship were forbidden, and greater penalties were attached to the performance of sacrifice. Christian vandalism became rampant; all kinds of violence and confiscation were resorted to, monks or priests often leading the populace. For the present the West did not suffer so severely from fanatic iconoclasm. Under the sons of Theodosius the suppression of paganism was steadily pursued. Honorius in the West excluded (408 AD) pagans from civil and military offices; in a later edict (423) the very existence of paganism is doubted (paganos...quamquam iam nullos esse credamus). That heathenism was still an attraction is proved by the repeated laws against apostasy. Under Valentinian III (423-55) and Theodosius II, laws were enacted for the destruction of temples or their conversion into Christian churches. In the western empire heathenism was persecuted till the end, and its final overthrow was hastened by the extinction of the western empire (476). In the East Justinian closed the heathen schools of philosophy at Athens (529 AD), and in a despotic spirit prohibited even heathen worship in private under pain of death.``5';
isbe[7481]='Roman Empire And Christianity, 3`V. Victory of Christianity and Conversion of the Roman Empire.<P>Christianity was now acknowledged as the religion of both East and West. It had also grown strong enough to convert the barbarians who overran the West. It restrained and educated them under the lead of the papacy, so that its conquests now extended beyond the Roman empire.<P>Merivale (preface to Conversion of Roman Empire) attributes the conversion of the Roman empire to four causes: (1) the external evidence of apparent fulfillment of prophecy and the evidence of miracles, (2) internal evidence as satisfying the spiritual wants of the empire and offering a Redeemer, (3) the example of the pure lives and heroic deaths of the early Christians, and (4) the success which attended the Christian cause under Constantine. Gibbon (chapter xv of Decline and Fall) seeks to account for the phenomenal success of Christianity in the empire by (1) the zeal and enthusiasm of the early Christians, (2) the belief of Christianity in immortality with both future rewards and future retributions, (3) miracles, (4) the high ethical code and pure morals of professing Christians, and (5) strong ecclesiastical organization on imperial patterns. But neither of these lists of causes seems to account satisfactorily for the progress and success of the religion of Jesus.<P>1. Negative Causes:<P>This was due in the first place to negative causes<65>the moral and spiritual bankruptcy of the antique world, the internal rottenness and decay of heathen systems. All ancient national religions had failed and were abandoned alike by philosophers and the masses, and no universal religion for humanity was offered except by Christianity. Worship had degenerated into pure formalism which brought no comfort to the heart. An imperious demand for revelation was felt which no philosophy or natural religion could satisfy.<P>2. Positive Causes:<P>But it was to positive causes chiefly that the success of the new religion was due, among which were the zeal, enthusiasm, and moral earnestness of the Christian faith. Its sterling qualities were best shown in persecution and the heroic deaths of its adherents. Paganism, even with the alliance of the civil power and the prestige of its romantic past, could not withstand persecution. And when heathenism was thrown back on the voluntary system, it could not prosper as Christianity did with its ideals of self-sacrifice. The earnestness of early Christianity was raised to its highest power by its belief in a near second coming of the Lord and the end of the aeon. The means of propagation greatly helped the spread of Christianity, the principal means being the exemplary lives of its professors. It opposed moral and spiritual power to political. Besides, Christianity when once studied by the thinkers of the ancient world was found to be in accord with the highest principles of reason and Nature. But "the chief cause of its success was the congruity of its teaching with the spiritual nature of mankind" (Lecky). There was a deepseated earnestness in a large section of the ancient world to Whom Christianity offered the peace, comfort and strength desired. It was possessed also of an immense advantage over all competing religions of the Roman empire in being adapted to all classes and conditions and to all changes. There was nothing local or national about it; it gave the grandest expression to the contemporary ideal of brotherhood. Its respect for woman and its attraction for this sex gained it many converts who brought honor to it; in this respect it was far superior to its greatest rival, Mithraism. In an age of vast social change and much social distress it appealed to the suffering by its active self-denial for the happiness of others. As an ethical code it was equal and superior to the noblest contemporary systems. One incalculable advantage it could show above all religions and philosophies<65>the charm and power of an ideal perfect life, in which the highest manhood was held forth as an incentive to nobler living. The person of Jesus was an ideal and moral dynamic for both philosopher and the common man, far above any abstract virtue. "It was because it was true to the moral sentiments of the age, because it represented faithfully the supreme type of excellence to which men were then tending, because it corresponded with their religious wants, aims and emotions, because the whole spiritual being could then expand and expatiate under its influence that it planted its roots so deeply in the hearts of men" (Lecky, Hist of European Morals, chapter iii). Add to all this the favorable circumstances mentioned under "Preparation for Christianity," above (II), and we can understand how the Roman empire became the kingdom of Christ.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Ancient sources include Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, Pliny\'s Letters, x.97-98 (in Hardy\'s edition), Dio Cassius (in Xiphilin), the apologists, Church Fathers, Inscriptions, etc.<P>Modern sources are too numerous to mention in full, but those most helpful to the student are: Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire; Merivale, Hist of the Romans under the Empire; The Fall of the Roman Republic, 1856; Conversion of the Roman Empire, 1865; Milman, Hist of Christianity; Hist of Latin Christianity; Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire; The Expositor, IV, viii, pp. 8ff, 110ff, 282ff; E. G. Hardy, Christianity and the Roman Government, 1894; D. Duff, The Early Church: a Hist of Christianity in the First Six Centuries, Edinburgh, 1891; J. J. Blunt, A Hist of the Christian Church during the First Three Centuries, 1861; Harnack, Mission and Expansion of Christianity, 1907; Mommsen, "Der Religionsfrevel nach rom. Recht," in Hist. Zeit,1890,LXIV (important); Provinces of the Roman Empire; The Expositor,1893,pp. 6ff; G. Boissier, La religion romaine d\'Auguste aux Antonins; La fin du paganisme; Wissowa, Religion u. Kultus der Romer; Gerb. Uhlhorn, Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism, English translation by Smyth and Ropes, 1879; B. Aube, Histoire des persecutions de l\'eglise jusqu\'a la fin des Antonins, 1875; Schaff, Hist of the Christian Church (with useful bibliographies of both ancient and modern authorities); Orr, Neglected Factors in Early Church Hist; Keim, Ro u. Christentum; Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, English translation, London, 1910; Wendland, Die hellenistischromische Kultur2, 1912; F. Overbeck, "Gesetze der rom. Kaiser gegen die Christen," in his Studien, 1875; C. F. Arnold, Die Neronische Christenverfolgung; Stud. zur Gesch. der Plinianischen Christenverfolgung; Westcott, "The Two Empires," in commentary to Epistles. of John, 250-82; Friedlander, Sittengeschichte Roms; Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers; Lecky, Hist of European Morals, chapter iii. "The Conversion of Rome."``5';
isbe[7482]='Roman Law`<b>I. ROMAN PRIVATE LAW</b><P class="in15">1. The Twelve Tables<P class="in15">2. Civil Procedure<P class="in15">3. Jus honorarium<P class="in15">4. The praetor peregrinus<P class="in15">5. Imperial Ordinances<P class="in15">6. Golden Age of Juristic Literature<P class="in15">7. Codification in the Later Empire<P><b>II. ROMAN CRIMINAL LAW</b><P class="in15">1. Jurisdiction in the Royal Period<P class="in15">2. The Right of Appeal<P class="in30">(1) Penalties<P class="in30">(2) The Porcian Law<P class="in15">3. Popular Jurisdiction Curtailed<P class="in15">4. Jurors<P class="in15">5. Disappearance of Criminal Courts<P class="in15">6. Right of Trial at Rome<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>In the present article we shall treat (I) Roman Private Law and (II) Criminal Law only, reserving a consideration of the development of the principles of constitutional law for the article on <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ROME">ROME</a>, since it is so closely interwoven with the political history of the state.<P>It will be necessary to confine the discussion of private law to its external history, without attempting to deal with the substance of the law itself. In the treatment of criminal law attention will be directed chiefly to the constitutional guaranties which were intended to protect Roman citizens against arbitrary and unjust punishments, these being one of the most important privileges of Roman citizenship.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CITIZENSHIP">CITIZENSHIP</A>.<P>Roman law found its original source in the family as a corporation. The proprietary rights of the pater familias as representative of this primitive unit of organization are a fundamental element in private law, and the scope of the criminal jurisdiction of the state was limited by the power of life and death which was exercised by the head of the family over those who were under his authority, by virtue of which their transgressions were tried before the domestic tribunal.<P>It is likewise of fundamental importance to recall the fact that before the earliest period in the history of Roman law of which we have positive information, there must have been a time when a large number of different classes of crime were punished by the priests as sacrilege, in accordance with divine law (fas), by putting the offender to death as a sacrifice to the offended deity, while restitution for private violence or injustice was left to private initiative to seek. For a law of the Twelve Tables that the person guilty of cutting another\'s grain by night should be hanged, as an offering to Ceres, is a survival of the older religious character of condemnation to death, and the right to kill the nocturnal thief and the adulterer caught in the act may be cited as survivals of primitive private vengeance. The secular conception of crime as an offense against the welfare of the state gradually superseded the older conception, while private law arose when the community did away with the disorder incident to the exercise of self-help in attempting to secure justice, by insisting that the parties to a disagreement should submit their claims to an arbitrator.<P>I. Roman Private Law.<P>1. The Twelve Tables:<P>Roman private law was at first a body of unwritten usages handed down by tradition in the patrician families. The demand of the plebeians for the publication of the law resulted in the adoption of the famous Twelve Tables (449 BC), which was looked upon by later authorities as the source of all public and private law (quae nunc quoque in hoc immenso aliarum super alias acervatarum legum cumulo fons omnis publici privdtique est iuris: Livy iii.34, 6), although it was not a scientific or comprehensive code of all the legal institutions of the time. This primitive system of law was made to expand to meet the growing requirements of the republican community chiefly by means of interpretation and the jus honorarium, which corresponds to equity.<P>2. Civil Procedure:<P>The function of interpretation may be defined by mentioning the principal elements in civil procedure. The praetor, or magistrate, listened to the claims of the litigants and prepared an outline of the disputed issues, called a formula, which was submitted to the judex, or arbitrator, a jury, as it were, consisting of one man, who decided the questions of fact involved in the case. Neither praetor nor judex had special legal training. The court had recourse, therefore, for legal enlightenment to those who had gained distinction as authorities on the law, and the opinions, or responsa, of these scholars (jurisprudentes) formed a valuable commentary on the legal institutions of the time. In this way a body of rules was amassed by interpretative adaptation which the authors of the Twelve Tables would never have recognized.<P>3. Jus honorarium:<P>Jus honorarium derived its name from the circumstance that it rested upon the authority of magistrates (honor = magistracy). In this respect and because it was composed of orders issued for the purpose of affording relief in cases for which the existing law did not make adequate provision, this second agency for legal expansion may be compared with English equity. These orders issued by the praetors had legal force during the tenure of their office only; but those the expediency of which had been established by this period of trial were generally reissued by succeeding magistrates from year to year, so that in time a large, but uniform body of rules, subject to annual renewal, formed the greater part of the edict which was issued by the praetors before entering upon their term of office. By these means Roman law maintained a proper balance between elasticity and rigidity.<P>4. The praetor peregrinus:<P>After the institution of the praetor peregrinus (241 BC) who heard cases in which one or both of the parties were foreigners, a series of similar edicts proceeded from those who were chosen to this tribunal. The annual edicts of the praetor peregrinus became an important means for broadening Roman law, for the strangers who appeared in the court of this magistrate were mostly Greeks from Southern Italy, so that the principles of law which were gradually formulated as a basis for proceedings were largely an embodiment of the spirit of Greek law.<P>5. Imperial Ordinances:<P>Direct legislation superseded the other sources of law under the empire, taking the form, occasionally, of bills ratified by the people (leges), but usually of enactments of the senate (senatus consulta), or imperial ordinances. The latter, which eventually prevailed to the exclusion of all other types, may be classified as edicta, which were issued by the emperor on the analogy of the similar orders of the republican magistrates, decreta, or decisions of the imperial tribunal, which had force as precedents, and rescripta, which were replies by the emperor to requests for the interpretation of the law. All these acts of imperial legislation were known as constitutiones.<P>6. Golden Age of Juristic Literature:<P>In the 2nd century Salvius Julianus was commissioned to invest the praetorian edict with definite form. The Institutes of Gaius appearing about the same time became a model for subsequent textbooks on jurisprudence (Gaii institutionum commentarii quattuor, discovered by Niebuhr in 1816 at Verona in a palimpsest). This was the Golden Age of juristic literature. A succession of able thinkers, among whom Papinian, Paulus, Ulpian, Modestinus, and Gaius hold foremost rank (compare Codex Theodosianus 1,4,3), applied to the incoherent mass of legal material the methods of scientific investigation, developing a system of Roman law and establishing a science of jurisprudence.<P>7. Codification in the Later Empire:<P>The period of the later empire was characterized by various attempts at codification which culminated in the final treatment of the body of Roman law under Justinian. The work of the board of eminent jurists to whom this vast undertaking was entrusted was published in three parts: (1) the Code, which contains a selection of the imperial enactments since Hadrian in twelve books, (2) the Digest or Pandects, which is composed of extracts from the juristic literature in fifty books, and (3) the Institutes, which is a textbook in four books. In this form mainly Roman private law has come down to modern times, and has become, in the words of an eminent authority Bryce, Studies in History and Jurisprudence, Oxford, 1901), next to the Christian religion, the most plentiful source of the rules governing actual conduct throughout Western Europe.<P>II. Roman Criminal Law.<P>1. Jurisdiction in the Royal Period:<P>In the royal period criminal jurisdiction, in so far as it was a function of secular administration, belonged by right to the king. The titles quaestores parricidii and duumviri perduellionis, belonging to officials to whom the royal authority in these matters was occasionally delegated, indicate the nature of the earliest crimes brought under secular jurisdiction. The royal prerogative passed to the republican magistrates, and embraced, besides the right to punish crimes, the power to compel obedience to their own decrees (coercitio) by means of various penalties.<P>2. The Right of Appeal:<P>But the right of the people to final jurisdiction in cases involving the life or civil status of citizens was established by an enactment (lex Valeria) which is said to have been proposed by one of the first consuls (509 BC), and which granted the right of appeal to the assembly (provocatio) against the execution of a capital or other serious penalty pronounced by a magistrate (Cicero De Re Publica ii.31, 54; Livy ii.8, 2; Dionysius v.19). This right of appeal was reinforced or extended by subsequent enactments (leges Valeriae) in 449 and 299 BC. It was valid against penalties imposed by virtue of the coercive power of the magistrates as well as those based upon a regular criminal charge. Generally the magistrates made no provisional sentence of their own, but brought their charges directly before the people.<P>(1) Penalties.<P>The death penalty was practically abrogated in republican times by allowing the accused the alternative of voluntary exile. The Romans rarely employed imprisonment as a punishment. The imposition of fines above a certain amount was made subject to the right of appeal. At first the dictator possessed absolute power of life and death over the citizens, but this authority was limited, probably about 300 BC (Livy xxvii.6, 5), by being made subject to the right of appeal<P>(2) The Porcian Law.<P>The right of appeal to the people was valid within the city and as far as the first milestone; and although it was never extended beyond this limit, yet its protection was virtually secured for all Roman citizens, wherever they might be, by the provision of the Porcian law (of unknown date), which established their right to trial at Rome. In consequence of this a distinction of great importance was created in criminal procedure in the provinces, since Roman citizens were sent to Rome for trial in all serious cases, while other persons were subject to the criminal jurisdiction of the municipalities, except when the governor summoned them before his own tribunal.<P>3. Popular Jurisdiction Curtailed:<P>The exercise of popular jurisdiction in criminal matters was gradually curtailed by the establishment of permanent courts (quaestiones perpetuae) by virtue of laws by which the people delegated their authority to judge certain classes of cases. The first of these courts was authorized in 149 BC for the trial of charges of extortion brought against provincial governors. Compensation was the main purpose of accusers in bringing charges before this and later permanent courts, and for this reason, perhaps, the procedure was similar to that which was employed in civil cases. A praetor presided over the tribunal; a number of judices took the place of the single juror. The laws by which Sulla reorganized the systems of criminal jurisdiction provided for seven courts dealing individually with extortion, treason, peculation, corrupt electioneering practices, murder, fraud, and assault.<P>4. Jurors:<P>The judices, or jurors, were originally chosen from the senate. A law proposed by C. Gracchus transferred membership in all the juries to the equestrian class. Sulla replenished the senate by admitting about 300 members of the equestrian class, and then restored to it the exclusive control of the juries. But a judicial law of 70 BC provided for the equal representation of all three classes of the people in the courts. There were then about 1,080 names on the list of available jurors, of whom 75 seem to have been chosen for each trial (Cicero In Pisonem 40). Caesar abolished the plebeian jurors (Suetonius Caesar 41). Augustus restored the representatives of the third class (Suetonius Aug. 32), but confined their action to civil cases of minor importance. He likewise excused the members of the senate from service as jurors.<P>5. Disappearance of Criminal Courts:<P>The system of criminal courts (quaestiones perpetuae) diminished in importance under the empire and finally disappeared toward the close of the 2nd century. Their place was taken by the senate under the presidency of a consul, the emperor, and eventually by imperial officials by delegated authority from the emperor. In the first case the senate stood in somewhat the same relation to the presiding consul as the jurors in the permanent courts to the praetor. But the emperor and imperial officials decided without the help of a jury, so that after the 3rd century, when the judicial competence of the senate was gradually lost, trial by jury ceased to exist. An important innovation in the judicial system of the empire was the principle of appeal from the decision of lower courts to higher tribunals. For the emperors and eventually their delegates, chiefly the praefectus urbi and praefectus praetorio, heard appeals from Roman and Italian magistrates and provincial governors.<P>6. Right of Trial at Rome:<P>Under the early empire, provincial governors were generally under obligation to grant the demand of Roman citizens for the privilege of trial at Rome (Digest xlviii. 6, 7), although there appear to have been some exceptions to this rule (Pliny, Epist. ii.1l; Digest xlviii.8, 16). Lysias, tribune of the cohort at Jerusalem, sent Paul as prisoner to Caesarea, the capital of the province, so that Felix the procurator might determine what was to be done in his case, inasmuch as he was a Roman citizen (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',23,27);">Ac 23:27</a>), and two years later Paul asserted his privilege of being tried at Rome by the emperor for the same reason (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',25,11,21);">Ac 25:11,21</a>).<P>Roman citizens who were sent to Rome might be brought either before the senate or emperor, but cognizance of these cases by the imperial tribunal was more usual, and finally supplanted entirely that of the senate, the formula of appeal becoming proverbial: cives Romanus sum, provoco ad Caesarem (Kaisara epikaloumai: <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',25,11);">Ac 25:11</a>).<P>As Roman citizenship became more and more widely extended throughout the empire its relative value diminished, and it is obvious that many of the special privileges, such as the right of trial at Rome, which were attached to it in the earlier period must have been gradually lost. It became customary for the emperors to delegate their power of final jurisdiction over the lives of citizens (ius gladii) to the provincial governors, and finally, after Roman citizenship had been conferred upon the inhabitants of the empire generally by Caracalla, the right of appeal to Rome remained the privilege of certain classes only, such as senators, municipal decurions (Digest xlviii.19, 27), officers of equestrian rank in the army, and centurions (Dio Cassius lii.22, 33).<P>LITERATURE.<P>Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero\'s Time, Oxford, 1901; Kruger, Geschichte der Quellen u. Litteratur des romischen Rechts, Leipzig, 1888; Mommsen, Romisches Strafrecht, Leipzig, 1899; Roby, Roman Private Law in the Times of Cicero and of the Antonines, Cambridge, 1902; Sohm, The Institutes of Roman Law, translated by J.C. Ledlie, Oxford, 1892.``3';
isbe[7483]='Roman Religion``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ROMAN+EMPIRE+AND+CHRISTIANITY">ROMAN EMPIRE AND CHRISTIANITY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html??string=ROME">ROME</a>`1';
isbe[7484]='Roman; Romans`ro\'-man, ro\'-manz.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ROME">ROME</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html??string=CITIZENSHIP">CITIZENSHIP</a>`1';
isbe[7485]='Romans, Epistle to the`1. Its Genuineness<P>2. Its Integrity<P>3. The Approximate Date<P>4. The Place of Writing<P>5. The Destination<P>6. The Language<P>7. The Occasion<P>8. Some Characteristics<P>9. Main Teachings of the Epistle<P class="in15">(1) Doctrine of Man<P class="in15">(2) Doctrine of God<P class="in15">(3) Doctrine of Son of God<6F>Redemption; Justification<P class="in15">(4) Doctrine of the Spirit of God<P class="in15">(5) Doctrine of Duty<P class="in15">(6) Doctrine of Israel<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>This is the greatest, in every sense, of the apostolic letters of Paul; in scale, in scope, and in its wonderful combination of doctrinal, ethical and administrative wisdom and power. In some respects the later Epistles, Ephesians and Colossians, lead us to even higher and deeper arcana of revelation, and they, like Romans, combine with the exposition of truth a luminous doctrine of duty. But the range of Roman is larger in both directions, and presents us also with noble and far-reaching discussions of Christian polity, instructions in spiritual utterance and the like, to which those Epistles present no parallel, and which only the Corinthian Epistles rival.<P>1. Its Genuineness:<P>No suspicion on the head of the genuineness of the Epistle exists which needs serious consideration. Signs of the influence of the Epistle can be traced, at least very probably, in the New Testament itself; in 1 Peter, and, as some think, in James. But in our opinion James was the earlier writing, and Lightfoot has given strong grounds for the belief that the paragraph on faith and justification (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',2,1);">Jas 2</a>) has no reference to perversions of Pauline teaching, but deals with rabbinism. Clement of Rome repeatedly quotes Romans, and so do Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin. Marcion includes it in his list of Pauline Epistles, and it is safe to say in general Romans "has been recognized in the Christian church as long as any collection of Paul\'s Epistles has been extant" (A. Robertson, in HDB, under the word). But above all other evidences it testifies to itself. The fabrication of such a writing, with its close and complex thought, its power and marked originality of treatment, its noble morale, and its spiritual elevation and ardor, is nothing short of a moral impossibility. A mighty mind and equally great heart live in every page, and a soul exquisitely sensitive and always intent upon truth and holiness. Literary personation is an art which has come to anything like maturity only in modern times, certainly not before the Renaissance. In a fully developed form it is hardly earlier than the 19th century. And even now who can point to a consciously personated authorship going along with high moral principle and purpose?<P>2. Its Integrity:<P>The question remains, however, whether, accepting the Epistle in block as Pauline, we have it, as to details, just as it left the author\'s hands. Particularly, some phenomena of the text of the last two chapter invite the inquiry. We may<61>in our opinion we must<73>grant those chapters to be Pauline. They breathe Paul in every sentence. But do they read precisely like part of a letter to Rome? For example, we have a series of names (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,\'1-15\');">Ro 16:1-15</a>), representing a large circle of personally known and loved friends of the writer, a much longer list than any other in the Epistles, and all presumably<6C>on theory that the passage is integral to the Epistle<6C>residents at Rome. May not such a paragraph have somehow crept in, after date, from another writing? Might not a message to Philippian, Thessalonian or Ephesian friends, dwellers in places where Paul had already established many intimacies, have fallen out of its place and found lodgment by mistake at the close of this letter to Rome? It seems enough to reply by one brief statement of fact. We possess some 300 manuscripts of Romans, and not one of these, so far as it is uninjured, fails to give the Epistle complete, all the chapters as we have them, and in the present order (with one exception, that of the final doxology). It is observable meanwhile that the difficulty of supposing Paul to have had a large group of friends living at Rome, before his own arrival there, is not serious. To and from Rome, through the whole empire, there was a perpetual circulation of population. Suppose Aquila and Priscilla (e.g.) to have recently returned (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,2);">Ac 18:2</a>) to Rome from Ephesus, and suppose similar migrations from Greece or from Asia Minor to have taken place within recent years; we can then readily account for the greetings of <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,\'1-\');">Ro 16</a>.<P>Lightfoot has brought it out in an interesting way (see his Philippians, on <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,22);">4:22</A>) that many of the names (e.g. Amplias, Urbanus, Tryphena) in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,\'1-\');">Ro 16</a> are found at Rome, in inscriptions of the early imperial age, in cemeteries where members of the widely scattered "household of Caesar" were interred. This at least suggests the abundant possibility that the converts and friends belonging to the "household" who, a very few years later, perhaps not more than three, were around him at Rome when he wrote to Philippi (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,22);">Php 4:22</a>), and sent their special greeting ("chiefly they") to the Philipplans, were formerly residents at Philippi, or elsewhere in Macedonia, and had moved thence to the capital not long before the apostle wrote to the Romans. A. Robertson (ut supra) comes to the conclusion, after a careful review of recent theories, "that the case for transferring this section...from its actual connection to a lost Epistle to Ephesus is not made out."<P>Two points of detail in the criticism of the text of Romans may be noted. One is that the words "at Rome" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,7,15);">1:7,15</A>) are omitted in a very few manuscripts, in a way to remind us of the interesting phenomenon of the omission of "at Ephesus" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,1);">Eph 1:1</a> margin). But the evidence for this omission being original is entirely inadequate. The fact may perhaps be accounted for by a possible circulation of Romans among other mission churches as an Epistle of universal interest. This would be much more likely if the manuscripts and other authorities in which the last two chapters are missing were identical with those which omit "at Rome," but this is not the case.<P>The other and larger detail is that the great final doxology (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,\'25-27\');">Ro 16:25-27</a>) is placed by many cursives at the end of <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',14,\'1-\');">Romans 14</a>, and is omitted entirely by three manuscripts and by Marcion. The leading uncials and a large preponderance of ancient evidence place it where we have it. It is quite possible that Paul may have reissued Romans after a time, and may only then have added the doxology, which has a certain resemblance in manner to his later (captivity) style. But it is at least likely that dogmatic objections led Marcion to delete it, and that his action accounts for the other phenomena which seem to witness against its place at the finale.<P>It is worth noting that Hort, a singularly fearless, while sober student, defends without reserve the entirety of the Epistle as we have it, or practically so. See his essay printed in Lightfoot\'s Biblical Studies.<P>3. The Approximate Date:<P>We can fix the approximate date with fair certainty within reasonable limits. We gather from <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,19);">Ro 15:19</a> that Paul, when he wrote, was in the act of closing his work in the East and was looking definitely westward. But he was first about (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,25,26);">15:25,26</A>) to revisit Jerusalem with his collection, mainly made in Macedonia and Achaia, for the "poor saints." Placing these allusions side by side with the references in 1 and 2 Corinthians to the collection and its conveyance, and again with the narrative of Acts, we may date Romans very nearly at the same time as 2 Corinthians, just before the visit to Jerusalem narrated in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,\'1-\');">Ac 20</a>, etc. The year may be fixed with great probability as 58 AD. This estimate follows the lines of Lightfoot\'s chronology, which Robertson (ut supra) supports. More recent schemes would move the date back to 56 AD.<P>"The reader\'s attention is invited to this date. Broadly speaking, it was about 30 years at the most after the Crucifixion. Let anyone in middle life reflect on the freshness in memory of events, whether public or private, which 30 years ago made any marked impression on his mind. Let him consider how concrete and vivid still are the prominent personages of 30 years ago, many of whom of course are still with us. And let him transfer this thought to the 1st century, and to the time of our Epistle. Let him remember that we have at least this one great Christian writing composed, for certain, within such easy reach of the very lifetime of Jesus Christ when His contemporary friends were still, in numbers, alive and active. Then let him open the Epistle afresh, and read, as if for the first time, its estimate of Jesus Christ<73>a Figure then of no legendary past, with its halo, but of the all but present day. Let him note that this transcendent estimate comes to us conveyed in the vehicle not of poetry and rhetoric, but of a treatise pregnant with masterly argument and admirable practical wisdom, tolerant and comprehensive. And we think that the reader will feel that the result of his meditations on date and circumstances is reassuring as to the solidity of the historic basis of the Christian faith" (from the present writer\'s introduction to the Epistle in the Temple Bible; see also his Light from the First Days: Short Studies in 1 Thessalonians).<P>4. The Place of Writing:<P>With confidence we may name Corinth as the place of writing. Paul was at the time in some "city" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,23);">Ro 16:23</a>). He was staying with one Gaius, or Caius (same place), and we find in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,14);">1Co 1:14</a> a Gaius, closely connected with Paul, and a Corinthian. He commends to the Romans the deaconess Phoebe, attached to "the church at Cenchrea" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,1);">16:1</A>), presumably a place near that from which he was writing; and Cenchrea was the southern part of Corinth.<P>5. The Destination:<P>The first advent of Christianity to Rome is unrecorded, and we know very little of its early progress. Visiting Romans (epidemountes), both Jews and proselytes, appear at Pentecost (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,10);">Ac 2:10</a>), and no doubt some of these returned home believers. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,2);">Ac 18:2</a> we have Aquila and Priscilla, Jews, evidently Christians, "lately come from Italy," and probably from Rome. But we know practically nothing else of the story previous to this Epistle, which is addressed to a mission church obviously important and already spiritually advanced. On the other hand (a curious paradox in view of the historical development of Roman Christianity), there is no allusion in the Epistle to church organization. The Christian ministry (apart from Paul\'s own apostleship) is not even mentioned. It may fairly be said to be incredible that if the legend of Peter\'s long episcopate were historical, no allusion whatever to his work, influence and authority should be made. It is at least extremely difficult to prove that he was even present in Rome till shortly before his martyrdom, and the very ancient belief that Peter and Paul founded the Roman church is more likely to have had its origin in their martyrdoms there than in Peter\'s having in any sense shared in the early evangelization of the city.<P>As to Rome itself, we may picture it at the date of the Epistle as containing, with its suburbs, a closely massed population of perhaps 800,000 people; a motley host of many races, with a strong oriental element, among which the Jews were present as a marked influence, despised and sometimes dreaded, but always attracting curiosity.<P>6. The Language:<P>The Epistle was written in Greek, the "common dialect," the Greek of universal intercourse of that age. One naturally asks, why not in Latin, when the message was addressed to the supreme Latin city? The large majority of Christian converts beyond doubt came from the lower middle and lowest classes, not least from the slave class. These strata of society were supplied greatly from immigrants, much as in parts of East London now aliens make the main population. Not Latin but Greek, then lingua franca of the Mediterranean, would be the daily speech of these people. It is remarkable that all the early Roman bishops bear Greek names. And some 40 years after the date of this Epistle we find Clement of Rome writing in Greek to the Corinthians, and later again, early in the 2nd century, Ignatius writing in Greek to the Romans.<P>7. The Occasion:<P>We cannot specify the occasion of writing for certain. No hint appears of any acute crisis in the mission (as when 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, or Colossians were written). Nor would personal reminiscences influence the writer, for he had not yet seen Rome. We can only suggest some possibilities as follows:<P>(1) A good opportunity for safe communication was offered by the deaconess Phoebe\'s proposed visit to the metropolis. She doubtless asked Paul for a commendatory letter, and this may have suggested an extended message to the church.<P>(2) Paul\'s thoughts had long gone toward Rome. See <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,21);">Ac 19:21</a>: "I must see Rome," words which seem perhaps to imply some divine intimation (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',23,11);">23:11</A>). And his own life-course would fall in with such a supernatural call. He had always aimed at large centers; and now his great work in the central places of the Levant was closing; he had worked at Ephesus, Thessalonica, Corinth; he was at last to think of the supreme center of all. Rome must always have had a dominant interest for the "Apostle of the Nations," and any suggestion that his Lord\'s will tended that way would intensify it to the highest degree.<P>(3) The form of the Epistle may throw further light on the occasion. The document falls, on the whole, into three parts. First we have <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,\'1-\');">Romans 1-8</a> inclusive, a prolonged exposition of the contrasted and related phenomena of sin and salvation, with special initial references to the cases of Jew and non-Jew respectively. Then come <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,\'1-\');">Romans 9-11</a>, which deal with the Jewish rejection of the Jewish Messiah, developing into a prophetic revelation of the future of Israel in the grace of God. Lastly we have <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',12,\'1-\');">Romans 12-16</a>. Some account of the writer\'s plans, and his salutations to friends, requests for prayer, etc., form the close of this section. But it is mainly a statement of Christian duty in common life, personal, civil, religious. Under the latter head we have a noble treatment of problems raised by varying opinions, particularly on religious observances, among the converts, Jew and Gentile.<P>Such phenomena cast a possible light on the occasion of writing. The Roman mission was on one side, by its locality and surroundings, eminently gentile. On the other, there was, as we have seen, a strong Judaic element in Roman life, particularly in its lower strata, and no doubt around the Jewish community proper there had grown up a large community of "worshippers" (sebomenoi) or, as we commonly call them, "proselytes" ("adherents," in the language of modern missionary enterprise), people who, without receiving circumcision, attended Jewish worship and shared largely in Jewish beliefs and ideals. Among these proselytes, we may believe, the earliest evangelists at Rome found a favorable field, and the mission church as Paul knew of it contained accordingly not only two definite classes, converts from paganism, converts from native Judaism, but very many in whose minds both traditions were working at once. To such converts the problems raised by Judaism, both without and within the church, would come home with a constant intimacy and force, and their case may well have been present in a special degree in the apostle\'s mind alike in the early passages (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,\'1-\');">Romans 1-3</a>) of the Epistle and in such later parts as <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,\'1-\');">Romans 2-11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',14,\'1-\');">14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,\'1-\');">15</a>. On the one hand they would greatly need guidance on the significance of the past of Israel and on the destiny of the chosen race in the future. Moreover, discussions in such circles over the way of salvation would suggest to the great missionary his exposition of man\'s reconciliation with a holy God and of His secrets for purity and obedience in an unholy world. And meanwhile the ever-recurring problems raised by ceremonial rules in common daily life<66>problems of days and seasons, and of forbidden food<6F>would, for such disciples, need wise and equitable treatment.<P>(4) Was it not with this position before him, known to him through the many means of communication between Rome and Corinth, that Paul cast his letter into this form? And did not the realization of the central greatness of Rome suggest its ample scale? The result was a writing which shows everywhere his sense of the presence of the Judaic problem. Here he meets it by a statement, massive and tender, of "heaven\'s easy, artless, unencumbered plan" of redemption, grace, and glory, a plan which on its other side is the very mystery of the love of God, which statement is now and forever a primary treasure of the Christian faith. And then again he lays down for the too eager champions of the new "liberty" a law of loving tolerance toward slower and narrower views which is equally our permanent spiritual possession, bearing a significance far-reaching and benign.<P>(5) It has been held by some great students, notably Lightfoot and Hort, that the main purpose of Romans was to reconcile the opposing "schools" in the church, and that its exposition of the salvation of the individual is secondary only. The present writer cannot take this view. Read the Epistle from its spiritual center, so to speak, and is not the perspective very different? The apostle is always conscious of the collective aspect of the Christian life, an aspect vital to its full health. But is he not giving his deepest thought, animated by his own experience of conviction and conversion, to the sinful man\'s relation to eternal law, to redeeming grace, and to a coming glory? It is the question of personal salvation which with Paul seems to us to live and move always in the depth of his argument, even when Christian polity and policy is the immediate theme.<P>8. Some Characteristics:<P>Excepting only Ephesians (the problem of the authorship of which is insoluble, and we put that great document here aside), Romans is, of all Paul has written, least a letter and most a treatise. He is seen, as we read, to approach religious problems of the highest order in a free but reasoned succession; problems of the darkness and of the light, of sin and grace, fall and restoration, doom and remission, faith and obedience, suffering and glory, transcendent hope and humblest duty, now in their relation to the soul, now so as to develop the holy collectivity of the common life. The Roman converts are always first in view, but such is the writer, such his handling, that the results are for the universal church and for every believer of all time. Yet all the while (and it is in this a splendid example of that epistolary method of revelation which is one of the glories of the New Testament) it is never for a moment the mere treatise, however great. The writer is always vividly personal, and conscious of persons. The Epistle is indeed a masterpiece of doctrine, but also always "the unforced, unartificial utterance of a friend to friends."<P>9. Main Teachings of the Epistle:<P>Approaching the Epistle as a treatise rather than a letter (with the considerable reserves just stated), we indicate briefly some of its main doctrinal deliverances. Obviously, in limine, it is not set before us as a complete system either of theology or of morals; to obtain a full view of a Pauline dogma and ethics we must certainly place Ephesians and Colossians, not to speak of passages from Thessalonians, beside Romans. But it makes by far the nearest approach to doctrinal completeness among the Epistles.<P>(1) Doctrine of Man.<P>In great measure this resolves itself into the doctrine of man as a sinner, as being guilty in face of an absolutely holy and absolutely imperative law, whether announced by abnormal revelation, as to the Jew, or through nature and conscience only, as to the Gentile. At the back of this presentation lies the full recognition that man is cognizant, as a spiritual being, of the eternal difference of right and wrong, and of the witness of creation to personal "eternal power and Godhead" as its cause, and that he is responsible in an awe-inspiring way for his unfaithfulness to such cognitions. He is a being great enough to be in personal moral relation with God, and able to realize his ideal only in true relation with Him; therefore a being whose sin and guilt have an unfathomable evil in them. So is he bound by his own failure that he cannot restore himself; God alone, in sovereign mercy, provides for his pardon by the propitiation of Christ, and for his restoration by union with Christ in the life given by the Holy Spirit. Such is man, once restored, once become "a saint" (a being hallowed), a "son of God" by adoption and grace, that his final glorification will be the signal (in some sense the cause?) of a transfiguration of the whole finite universe. Meanwhile, man is a being actually in the midst of a life of duty and trial, a member of civil society, with obligations to its order. He lives not in a God-forsaken world, belonging only to another and evil power. His new life, the "mind of the Spirit" in him, is to show itself in a conduct and character good for the state and for society at large, as well as for the "brotherhood."<P>(2) Doctrine of God.<P>True to the revelation of the Old Testament, Paul presents God as absolute in will and power, so that He is not only the sole author of nature but the eternal and ultimately sole cause of goodness in man. To Him in the last resort all is due, not only the provision of atonement but the power and will to embrace it. The great passages which set before us a "fore-defining" (proorisis, "predestination") and election of the saints are all evidently inspired by this motive, the jealous resolve to trace to the one true Cause all motions and actions of good. The apostle seems e.g. almost to risk affirming a sovereign causation of the opposite, of unbelief and its sequel. But patient study will find that it is not so. God is not said to "fit for ruin" the "vessels of wrath." Their woeful end is overruled to His glory, but nowhere is it taken to be caused by Him. All along the writer\'s intense purpose is to constrain the actual believer to see the whole causation of his salvation in the will and power of Him whose inmost character is revealed in the supreme fact that, "for us all," "he spared not his Son."<P>(3) Doctrine of Son of God<6F>Redemption; Justification.<P>The Epistle affords materials for a magnificently large Christology. The relation of the Son to creation is indeed not expounded in terms (as in Col), but it is implied in the language of <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,\'1-\');">Romans 8</a>, where the interrelation of our redemption and the transfiguration of Nature is dealt with. We have the Lord\'s manhood fully recognized, while His Godhead (as we read in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,5);">9:5</A>; so too Robertson, ut supra) is stated in terms, and it is most certainly implied in the language and tone of e.g. the close of <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,\'1-\');">Romans 8</a>. Who but a bearer of the Supreme Nature could satisfy the conception indicated in such words as those of <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,32,\35-39\');">8:32,35-39</A>, coming as they do from a Hebrew monotheist of intense convictions? Meantime this transcendent Person has so put Himself in relation with us, as the willing worker of the Father\'s purpose of love, that He is the sacrifice of peace for us (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,\'1-\');">Romans 3</a>), our "propitiatory" One (hilasterion, is now known to be an adjective), such that (whatever the mystery, which leaves the fact no less certain) the man who believes on Him, i.e. (as <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',4,\'1-\');">Romans 4</a> fully demonstrates) relies on Him, gives himself over to His mercy, is not only forgiven but "justified," "justified by faith." And "justification" is more than forgiveness; it is not merely the remission of a penalty but a welcome to the offender, pronounced to be lawfully at peace with the eternal holiness and love.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUSTIFICATION">JUSTIFICATION</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PROPITIATION">PROPITIATION</a>.<P>In closest connection with this message of justification is the teaching regarding union with the Christ who has procured the justification. This is rather assumed than expounded in Romans (we have the exposition more explicitly in Eph, Col, and Gal), but the assumption is present wherever the pregnant phrase "in Christ" is used. Union is, for Paul, the central doctrine of all, giving life and relation to the whole range. As Lightfoot has well said (Sermons in Paul\'s, <span class="noTag">number 16</span>), he is the apostle not primarily of justification, or of liberty, great as these truths are with him, but of union with Christ. It is through union that justification is ours; the merits of the Head are for the member. It is through union that spiritual liberty and power are ours; the Spirit of life is from the Head to the member. Held by grace in this profound and multiplex connection, where life, love and law are interlaced, the Christian is entitled to an assurance full of joy that nothing shall separate him, soul and (ultimately) body, from his once sacrificed and now risen and triumphant Lord.<P>(4) Doctrine of the Spirit of God.<P>No writing of the New Testament but John\'s Gospel is so full upon this great theme as <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,\'1-\');">Romans 8</a> may be said to be the locus classicus in the Epistles for the work of the Holy Ghost in the believer. By implication it reveals personality as well as power (see especially <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,26);">8:26</A>). Note particularly the place of this great passage, in which revelation and profoundest conditions run continually into each other. It follows <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,\'1-\');">Romans 7</a>, in which the apostle depicts, in terms of his own profound and typical experience, the struggles of conscience and will over the awful problem of the "bondage" of indwelling sin. If we interpret the passage aright, the case supposed is that of a regenerate man, who, however, attempts the struggle against inward evil armed, as to consciousness, with his own faculties merely, and finds the struggle insupportable. Then comes in the divine solution, the promised Spirit of life and liberty, welcomed and put into use by the man who has found his own resources yam. "In Christ Jesus," in union with Him, he "by the Spirit does to death the practices of the body," and rises through conscious liberty into an exulting hope of "the liberty of the glory of the sons of God"<22>not so, however as to know nothing of "groaning within himself," while yet in the body; but it is a groan which leaves intact the sense of sonship and divine love, and the expectation of a final completeness of redemption.<P>(5) Doctrine of Duty.<P>While the Epistle is eminently a message of salvation, it is also, in vital connection with this, a treasury of principle and precept for the life of duty. It does indeed lay down the sovereign freedom of our acceptance for Christ\'s sake alone, and so absolutely that (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,1,2,15);">Ro 6:1,2,15</a>) the writer anticipates the inference (by foes, or by mistaken friends), "Let us continue in sin." But the answer comes instantly, and mainly through the doctrine of union. Our pardon is not an isolated fact. Secured only by Christ\'s sacrifice, received only by the faith which receives Him as our all, it is ipso facto never received alone but with all His other gifts, for it becomes ours as we receive, not merely one truth about Him, but Him. Therefore, we receive His Life as our true life; and it is morally unthinkable that we can receive this and express it in sin. This assumed, the Epistle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',12,\'1-\');">Romans 12</a> and onward) lays down with much detail and in admirable application large ranges of the law of duty, civil, social, personal, embracing duties to the state, loyalty to its laws, payment of its taxes, recognition of the sacredness of political order, even ministered by pagans; and also duties to society and the church, including a large and loving tolerance even in religious matters, and a response to every call of the law of unselfish love. However we can or cannot adjust mentally the two sides, that of a supremely free salvation and that of an inexorable responsibility, there the two sides are, in the Pauline message. And reason and faith combine to assure us that both sides are eternally true, "antinomies" whose harmony will be explained hereafter in a higher life, but which are to be lived out here concurrently by the true disciple, assured of their ultimate oneness of source in the eternal love.<P>(6) Doctrine of Israel.<P>Very briefly we touch on this department of the message of Romans, mainly to point out that the problem of Israel\'s unbelief nowhere else in Paul appears as so heavy a load on his heart, and that on the other hand we nowhere else have anything like the light he claims to throw (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',11,\'1-\');">Romans 11</a>) on Israel\'s future. Here, if anywhere, he appears as the predictive prophet, charged with the statement of a "mystery," and with the announcement of its issues. The promises to Israel have never failed, nor are they canceled. At the worst, they have always been inherited by a chosen remnant, Israel within Israel. And a time is coming when, in a profound connection with Messianic blessing on the Gentiles, "all Israel shall be saved," with a salvation which shall in turn be new life to the world outside Israel. Throughout the passage Paul speaks, not as one who "will not give up a hope," but as having had revealed to him a vast and definite prospect, in the divine purpose.<P>It is not possible in our present space to work out other lines of the message of Romans. Perhaps enough has been done to stimulate the reader\'s own inquiries.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Of the Fathers, Chrysostom and Augustine are pre-eminent as interpreters of Romans: Chrysostom in his expository Homilies, models of eloquent and illuminating discourse, full of "sanctified common sense," while not perfectly appreciative of the inmost doctrinal characteristics; Augustine, not in any continuous comm., but in his anti-Pelagian writings, which show the sympathetic intensity of his study of the doctrine of the Epistle, not so much on justification as on grace and the will. Of the Reformers, Calvin is eminently the great commentator, almost modern in his constant aim to ascertain the sacred writer\'s meaning by open-eyed inference direct from the words. On Romans he is at his best; and it is remarkable that on certain leading passages where grace is theme he is much less rigidly "Calvinistic" than some of his followers. In modern times, the not learned but masterly exposition of Robert Haldane (circa 1830) claims mention, and the eloquent and highly suggestive expository lectures (about the same date) of Thomas Chalmers. H. A. W. Meyer (5th edition,1872,English translation 1873-1874) among the Germans is excellent for carefulness and insight; Godet (1879, English translation 1881) equally so among French-writing divines; of late English interpreters I. A. Beet (1877, many revisions), Sanday and Headlam (1895, in the "International" series) and E. H. Gifford (admirable for scholarship and exposition; his work was printed first in the Speaker\'s (Bible) Comm.,1881,now separately) claim particular mention. J. Denney writes on Romans in The Expositor\'s Greek Test. (1900).<P>Luther\'s lectures on Romans, delivered in 1516-1517 and long supposed lost, have been recovered and were published by J. Ficker in 1908. Among modern German commentators, the most important is B. Weiss in the later revisions of the Meyer series (9th edition, 1899), while a very elaborate commentary has been produced by Zahn in his own series (1910). Briefer are the works of Lipsius (Hand-Kommentar, 2nd edition,1892,very scholarly and suggestive); Lietzmann (Handbuch zum N T, interest chiefly linguistic), and Julicher (in J. Weiss, Schriften des NTs, 2nd edition,1908,an intensely able piece of popular exposition).<P>A. E. Garvie has written a brilliant little commentary in the "(New) Century" series (no date); that of R. John Parry in the Cambridge Greek Testament,1913,is more popular, despite its use of the Greek text. F. B. Westcott\'s Paul and Justification,1913,contains a close grammatical study with an excellent paraphrase.<P>The writer may be allowed to name his short commentary (1879) in the Cambridge Bible for Schools and a fuller one, in a more homiletic style, in the Expositor\'s Bible, 1894.``46';
isbe[7486]='Rome`rom:<P><b>I. DEVELOPMENT OF THE REPUBLICAN CONSTITUTION</b><P class="in15">1. Original Roman State<P class="in15">2. The Struggle between Patricians and Plebeians<P class="in15">3. The Senate and Magistrates<P class="in15">4. Underlying Principles<P><b>II. EXTENSION OF ROMAN SOVEREIGNTY</b><P><b>III. THE IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT</b><P class="in15">1. Imperial Authority<P class="in15">2. Three Classes of Citizens<P><b>IV. ROMAN RELIGION</b><P class="in15">1. Deities<P class="in15">2. Religious Decay<P><b>V. ROME AND THE JEWS</b><P class="in15">1. Judea under Roman Procurators and Governors<P class="in15">2. Jewish Proselytism<P><b>VI. ROME AND THE CHRISTIANS</b><P class="in15">1. Introduction of Christianity<P class="in15">2. Tolerance and Proscription<P class="in15">3. Persecution<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>Rome (Latin and Italian, Roma; Rhome): The capital of the Roman republic and empire, later the center of Lot Christendom, and since 1871 capital of the kingdom of Italy, is situated mainly on the left bank of the Tiber about 15 miles from the Mediterranean Sea in 41 degrees 53 minutes 54 seconds north latitude and 12 degrees 0 minutes 12 seconds longitude east of Greenwich.<P>It would be impossible in the limited space assigned to this article to give even a comprehensive outline of the ancient history of the Eternal City. It will suit the general purpose of the work to consider the relations of the Roman government and society with the Jews and Christians, and, in addition, to present a rapid survey of the earlier development of Roman institutions and power, so as to provide the necessary historical setting for the appreciation of the more essential subjects.<P>I. Development of the Republican Constitution.<P>1. Original Roman State:<P>The traditional chronology for the earliest period of Roman history is altogether unreliable, partly because the Gauls, in ravaging the city in 390 BC, destroyed the monuments which might have offered faithful testimony of the earlier period (Livy vi.1). It is known that there was a settlement on the site of Rome before the traditional date of the founding (753 BC). The original Roman state was the product of the coalition of a number of adjacent clan-communities, whose names were perpetuated in the Roman genres, or groups of imaginary kindred, a historical survival which had lost all significance in the period of authentic history. The chieftains of the associated clans composed the primitive senate or council of elders, which exercised sovereign authority. But as is customary in the development of human society a military or monarchical regime succeeded the looser patriarchal or sacerdotal organs of authority. This second stage may be identified with the legendary rule of the Tarquins, which was probably a period of Etruscan domination. The confederacy of clans was welded into a homogeneous political entity, and society was organized for civic ends, upon a timocratic basis. The forum was drained and became a social, industrial and political center, and the Capitoline temple of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva (Etruscan pseudo-Hellenic deities) was erected as a common shrine for all the people. But above all the Romans are indebted to these foreign kings for a training in discipline and obedience which was exemplified in the later conception of magisterial authority signified by the term imperium.<P>The prerogatives of the kings passed over to the consuls. The reduction of the tenure of power to a single year and the institution of the principle of colleagueship were the earliest checks to the abuse of unlimited authority. But the true cornerstone of Roman liberty was thought to be the lexicon Valeria, which provided that no citizen should be put to death by a magistrate without being allowed the right of appeal to the decision of the assembly of the people.<P>2. The Struggle between Patricians and Plebeians:<P>A period of more than 150 years after the establishment of the republic was consumed chiefly by the struggle between the two classes or orders, the patricians and plebeians. The former were the descendants of the original clans and constituted the populus, or body-politic, in a more particular sense. The plebeians were descendants of former slaves and dependents, or of strangers who had been attracted to Rome by the obvious advantages for industry and trade. They enjoyed the franchise as members of the military assembly (comitia centuriata), but had no share in the magistracies or other civic honors and emoluments, and were excluded from the knowledge of the civil law which was handed down in the patrician families as an oral tradition.<P>The first step in the progress of the plebeians toward political equality was taken when they wrested from the patricians the privilege of choosing representatives from among themselves, the tribunes, whose function of bearing aid to oppressed plebeians was rendered effective by the right of veto (intercessio), by virtue of which any act of a magistrate could be arrested. The codification of the law in the Twelve Tables was a distinct advantage to the lower classes, because the evils which they had suffered were largely due to a harsh and abusive interpretation of legal institutions, the nature of which had been obscure (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ROMAN+LAW">ROMAN LAW</a>). The abrogation, directly thereafter, of the prohibition of intermarriage between the classes resulted in their gradual intermingling.<P>3. The Senate and Magistrates: The kings had reduced the senate to the position of a mere advising body. But under the republican regime it recovered in fact the authority of which it was deprived in theory. The controlling power of the senate is the most significant feature of the republican government, although it was recognized by no statute or other constitutional document. It was due in part to the diminution of the power of the magistrates, and in part to the manner in which the senators were chosen. The lessening of the authority of the magistrates was the result of the increase in their number, which led not only to the curtailment of the actual prerogative of each, but also to the contraction of their aggregate independent influence. The augmentation of the number of magistrates was made necessary by the territorial expansion of the state and the elaboration of administration. But it was partly the result of plebeian agitation. The events of 367 BC may serve as a suitable example to illustrate the action of these influences. For when the plebeians carried by storm the citadel of patrician exclusiveness in gaining admission to the consulship, the highest regular magistracy, the necessity for another magistrate with general competency afforded an opportunity for making a compensating concession to the patricians, and the praetorship was created, to which at first members of the old aristocracy were alone eligible. Under the fully developed constitution the regular magistracies were five in number, consulship, praetorship, aedileship, tribunate, and quaestorship, all of which were filled by annual elections.<P>Mention has been made of the manner of choosing the members of the senate as a factor in the development of the authority of the supreme council. At first the highest executive officers of the state exercised the right of selecting new members to maintain the senators at the normal number of three hundred. Later this function was transferred to the censors who were elected at intervals of five years. But custom and later statute ordained that the most distinguished citizens should be chosen, and in the Roman community the highest standard of distinction was service to the state, in other words, the holding of public magistracies. It followed, therefore, that the senate was in reality an assembly of all living ex-magistrates. The senate included, moreover, all the political wisdom and experience of the community, and so great was its prestige for these reasons, that, although the expression of its opinion (senatus consultum) was endowed by law with no compelling force, it inevitably guided the conduct of the consulting magistrate, who was practically its minister, rather than its president.<P>When the plebeians gained admission to the magistracies, the patriciate lost its political significance. But only the wealthier plebeian families were able to profit by this extension of privilege, inasmuch as a political career required freedom from gainful pursuits and also personal influence. These plebeian families readily coalesced with the patricians and formed a new aristocracy, which is called the nobilitas for the sake of distinction. It rested ultimately upon the foundation of wealth. The dignity conferred by the holding of public magistracies was its title to distinction. The senate was its organ. Rome was never a true democracy except in theory. During the whole period embraced between the final levelling of the old distinctions based upon blood (287 BC) and the beginning of the period of revolution (133 BC), the magistracies were occupied almost exclusively by the representatives of the comparatively limited number of families which constituted the aristocracy. These alone entered the senate through the doorway of the magistracies, and the data would almost justify us in asserting that the republican and senatorial government were substantially and chronologically identical.<P>The seeds of the political and social revolution were sown during the Second Punic War and the period which followed it. The prorogation of military authority established a dangerous precedent in violation of the spirit of the republic, so that Pub. Cornelius Scipio was really the forerunner of Marius, Julius Caesar, and Augustus. The stream of gold which found its way from the provinces to Rome was a bait to attract the cupidity of the less scrupulous senators, and led to the growth of the worst kind of professionalism in politics. The middle class of small farmers decayed for various reasons; the allurement of service in the rich but effete countries of the Orient attracted many. The cheapness of slaves made independent farming unprofitable and led to the increase in large estates; the cultivation of grain was partly displaced by that of the vine and olive, which were less suited to the habits and ability of the older class of farmers.<P>The more immediate cause of the revolution was the inability of the senate as a whole to control the conduct of its more radical or violent members. For as political ambition became more ardent with the increase in the material prizes to be gained, aspiring leaders turned their attention to the people, and sought to attain the fulfillment o.f their purposes by popular legislation setting at nought the concurrence of the senate, which custom had consecrated as a requisite preliminary for popular action. The loss of initiative by the senate meant the subversion of senatorial government. The senate possessed in the veto power of the tribunes a weapon for coercing unruly magistrates, for one of the ten tribunes could always be induced to interpose his veto to prohibit the passage of popular legislation. But this weapon was broken when Tib. Gracchus declared in 133 BC that a tribune who opposed the wishes of the people was no longer their representative, and sustained this assertion.<P>4. Underlying Principles:<P>It would be foreign to the purpose of the present article to trace the vicissitudes of the civil strife of the last century of the republic. A few words will suffice to suggest the general principles which lay beneath the surface of political and social phenomena. Attention has been called to the ominous development of the influence of military commanders and the increasing emphasis of popular favor. These were the most important tendencies throughout this period, and the coalition of the two was fatal to the supremacy of the senatorial government. Marius after winning unparalleled military glory formed a political alliance with Glaucia and Saturninus, the leaders of the popular faction in the city in 100 BC. This was a turning-point in the course of the revolution. But the importance of the sword soon outweighed that of the populace in the combination which was thus constituted. In the civil wars of Marius and Sulla constitutional questions were decided for the first time by superiority of military strength exclusively. Repeated appeals to brute force dulled the perception for constitutional restraints and the rights of minorities. The senate had already displayed signs of partial paralysis at the time of the Gracchi. How rapidly its debility must have increased as the sword cut off its most stalwart members! Its power expired in the proscriptions, or organized murder of political opponents. The popular party was nominally triumphant, but in theory the Roman state was still an urban commonwealth with a single po1itical center. The franchise could be exercised only at Rome. It followed from this that the actual political assemblies were made up largely of the worthless element which was so numerous in the city, whose irrational instincts were guided and controlled by shrewd political leaders, particularly those who united in themselves military ability and the wiles of the demagogue. Sulla, Crassus, Julius Caesar, Antony, and lastly Octavian were in effect the ancient counterpart of the modern political "boss." When such men realized their ultimate power and inevitable rivalry, the ensuing struggle for supremacy and for the survival of the fittest formed the necessary process of elimination leading naturally to the establishment of the monarchy, which was in this case the rule of the last survivor. When Octavian received the title Augustus and the proconsular power (27 BC), the transformation was accomplished.<P>LITERATURE.<P>The standard work on Roman political institutions is Mommsen and Marquardt, Handbuch der klassischen Altertumer. Abbott, Roman Political Institutions, Boston and London,1901,offers a useful summary treatment of the subject.<P>II. Extension of Roman Sovereignty.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ROMAN+EMPIRE+AND+CHRISTIANITY">ROMAN EMPIRE AND CHRISTIANITY</a>, I.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Only the most important general works on Roman history can be mentioned: Ihne, Romische Geschichte (2nd edition), Leipzig, 1893-96, English translation, Longmans, London, 1871-82; Mommsen, History of Rome, English translation by Dickson, New York, 1874; Niebuhr, History of Rome, English translation by Hare and Thirlwall, Cambridge, 1831-32; Pais, Storia di Roma, Turin, 1898-99; Ferrero, Greatness and Decline of Rome, English translation by Zimmern, New York, 1909.<P>III. The Imperial Government.<P>1. Imperial Authority:<P>Augustus displayed considerable tact in blending his own mastery in the state with the old institutions of the republican constitution. His authority, legally, rested mainly upon the tribunician power, which he had probably received as early as 36 BC, but which was established on a better basis in 23 BC, and the proconsular prerogative (imperiurn proconsulare), conferred in 27 BC. By virtue of the first he was empowered to summon the senate or assemblies and could veto the action of almost any magistrate. The second title of authority conferred upon him the command of the military forces of the state and consequently the administration of the provinces where troops were stationed, besides a general supervision over the government of the other provinces. It follows that a distinction was made (27 BC) between the imperial provinces which were administered by the emperor\'s representatives (legati Augusti pro praetore) and the senatorial provinces where the republican machinery of administration was retained. The governors of the latter were called generally proconsuls (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PROVINCE">PROVINCE</a>). Mention is made of two proconsuls in the New Testament, Gallio in Achaia (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,12);">Ac 18:12</a>) and Sergius Paulus in Cyprus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,7);">Ac 13:7</a>). It is instructive to compare the lenient and common-sense attitude of these trained Roman aristocrats with that of the turbulent local mobs who dealt with Paul in Asia Minor, Judea, or Greece (Tucker, Life in the Roman World of Nero and Paul, New York,1910, 95).<P>2. Three Classes of Citizens:<P>Roman citizens were still divided into three classes socially, senatorial, equestrian, and plebeian, and the whole system of government harmonized with this triple division. The senatorial class was composed of descendants of senators and those upon whom the emperors conferred the latus clavus, or privilege of wearing the tunic with broad purple border, the sign of membership in this order. The quaestorship was still the door of admission to the senate. The qualifications for membership in the senate were the possession of senatorial rank and property of the value of not less than 1,000,000 sesterces ($45,000; <20>9,000). Tiberius transferred the election of magistrates from the people to the senate, which was already practically a closed body. Under the empire senatus consulta received the force of law. Likewise the senate acquired judicial functions, sitting as a court of justice for trying important criminal cases and hearing appeals in civil cases from the senatorial provinces. The equestrian class was made up of those who possessed property of the value of 400,000 sesterces or more, and the privilege of wearing the narrow purple band on the tunic. With the knights the emperors filled many important financial and administrative positions in Italy and the provinces which were under their control.<P>IV. Roman Religion.<P>1. Deities:<P>(1) The Roman religion was originally more consistent than the Greek, because the deities as conceived by the unimaginative Latin genius were entirely without human character. They were the influences or forces which directed the visible phenomena of the physical world, whose favor was necessary to the material prosperity of mankind. It would be incongruous to assume the existence of a system of theological doctrines in the primitive period. Ethical considerations entered to only a limited extent into the attitude of the Romans toward their gods. Religion partook of the nature of a contract by which men pledged themselves to the scrupulous observance of certain sacrifices and other ceremonies, and in return deemed themselves entitled to expect the active support of the gods in bringing their projects to a fortunate conclusion. The Romans were naturally polytheists as a result of their conception of divinity. Since before the dawn of science there was no semblance of unity in the natural world, there could be no unity in heaven. There must be a controlling spirit over every important object or class of objects, every person, and every process of nature. The gods, therefore, were more numerous than mankind itself.<P>(2) At an early period the government became distinctly secular. The priests were the servants of the community for preserving the venerable aggregation of formulas and ceremonies, many of which lost at an early period such spirit as they once possessed. The magistrates were the true representatives of the community in its relationship with the deities both in seeking the divine will in the auspices and in performing the more important sacrifices.<P>(3) The Romans at first did not make statues of their gods. This was partly due to lack of skill, but mainly to the vagueness of their conceptions of the higher beings. Symbols sufficed to signify their existence, a spear, for instance, standing for Mars. The process of reducing the gods to human form was inaugurated when they came into contact with the Etruscans and Greeks. The Tarquins summoned Etruscan artisans and artists to Rome, who made from terra cotta cult statues and a pediment group for the Capitoline temple.<P>The types of the Greek deities had already been definitely established when the Hellenic influence in molding Roman culture became predominant. When the form of the Greek gods became familiar to the Romans in works of sculpture, they gradually supplanted those Roman deities with which they were nominally identified as a result of a real or fancied resemblance.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GREECE,+RELIGION+IN+ANCIENT">GREECE, RELIGION IN ANCIENT</A>.<P>(4) The importation of new gods was a comparatively easy matter. Polytheism is by its nature tolerant because of its indefiniteness. The Romans could no more presume to have exhaustive knowledge of the gods than they could pretend to possess a comprehensive acquaintance with the universe. The number of their gods increased of necessity as human consciousness of natural phenomena expanded. Besides, it was customary to invite the gods of conquered cities to transfer their abode to Rome and favor the Romans in their undertakings. But the most productive source for religious expansion was the Sibylline Books. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCALYPTIC+LITERATURE">APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE</a>, sec. V. This oracular work was brought to Rome from Cumae, a center of the cult of Apollo. It was consulted at times of crisis with a view to discover what special ceremonies would secure adequate divine aid. The forms of worship recommended by the Sibylline Books were exclusively Greek. As early as the 5th century BC the cult of Apollo was introduced at Rome. Heracles and the Dioscuri found their way thither about the same time. Later Italian Diana was merged with Artemis, and the group of Ceres, Liber, and Libera were identified with foreign Demeter, Dionysus, and Persephone. Thus Roman religion became progressively Hellenized. By the close of the Second Punic War the greater gods of Greece had all found a home by the Tiber, and the myriad of petty local deities who found no counterpart in the celestial beings of Mt. Olympus fell into oblivion. Their memory was retained by the antiquarian lore of the priests alone.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ROMAN+EMPIRE+AND+CHRISTIANITY">ROMAN EMPIRE AND CHRISTIANITY, III, 1</a>.<P>2. Religious Decay:<P>Roman religion received with the engrafted branches of Greek religion the germs of rapid decay, for its Hellenization made Roman religion peculiarly susceptible to the attack of philosophy. The cultivated class in Greek society was already permeated with skepticism. The philosophers made the gods appear ridiculous. Greek philosophy gained a firm foothold in Rome in the 2nd century BC, and it became customary a little later to look upon Athens as a sort of university town where the sons of the aristocracy should be sent for the completion of their education in the schools of the philosophers. Thus at the termination of the republican era religious faith had departed from the upper classes largely, and during the turmoil of the civil wars even the external ceremonies were often abandoned and many temples fell into ruins. There had never been any intimate connection between formal religion and conduct, except when the faith of the gods was invoked to insure the fulfillment of sworn promises.<P>Augustus tried in every way to restore the old religion, rebuilding no fewer than 82 temples which lay in ruins at Rome. A revival of religious faith did occur under the empire, although its spirit was largely alien to that which had been displayed in the performance of the official cult. The people remained superstitious, even when the cultivated classes adopted a skeptical philosophy. The formal religion of the state no longer appealed to them, since it offered nothing to the emotions or hopes. On the other hand the sacramental, mysterious character of oriental religions inevitably attracted them. This is the reason why the religions of Egypt and Syria spread over the empire and exercised an immeasurable influence in the moral life of the people. The partial success of Judaism and the ultimate triumph of Christianity may be ascribed in part to the same causes.<P>In concluding we should bear in mind that the state dictated no system of theology, that the empire in the beginning presented the spectacle of a sort of religious chaos where all national cults were guaranteed protection, that Roman polytheism was naturally tolerant, and that the only form of religion which the state could not endure was one which was equivalent to an attack upon the system of polytheism as a whole, since this would imperil the welfare of the community by depriving the deities of the offerings and other services in return for which their favor could be expected.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Marquardt, Romische Staatsverwaltung, III,3,"Das Sacralwesen"; Wissowa, Religion u. Kultus der Romer, Munich, 1902; Boissier, La religion romaine, Paris, 1884.<P>V. Rome and the Jews.<P>1. Judea under Roman Procurators and Governors:<P>Judaea became a part of the province of Syria in 63 BC (Josephus, BJ, vii, 7), and Hyrcanus, brother of the last king, remained as high priest (archiereus kai ethnarches; Josephus, Ant, XIV, iv, 4) invested with judicial as well as sacerdotal functions. But Antony and Octavius gave Palestine (40 BC) as a kingdom to Herod, surnamed the Great, although his rule did not become effective until 3 years later. His sovereignty was upheld by a Roman legion stationed at Jerusalem (Josephus, Ant, XV, iii, 7), and he was obliged to pay tribute to the Roman government and provide auxiliaries for the Roman army (Appian, Bell. Civ., v.75). Herod built Caesarea in honor of Augustus (Josephus, Ant, XV, ix, 6), and the Roman procurators later made it the seat of government. At his death in 4 BC the kingdom was divided between his three surviving sons, the largest portion falling to Archelaus, who ruled Judea, Samaria and Idumaea with the title ethnarches (Josephus, Ant, XVII, xi, 4) until 6 AD, when he was deposed and his realm reduced to the position of a province. The administration by Roman procurators (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PROCURATOR">PROCURATOR</a>), which was now established, was interrupted during the period 41-44 AD, when royal authority was exercised by Herod Agrippa, grandson of Herod the Great, over the lands which had been embraced in the kingdom of his grandfather (Josephus, Ant, XIX, viii, 2), and, after 53 AD, Agrippa II ruled a considerable part of Palestine (Josephus, Ant, XX, vii, 1; viii, 4).<P>After the fall of Jerusalem and the termination of the great revolt in 70 AD, Palestine remained a separate province. Henceforth a legion (legio X Fretensis) was added to the military forces stationed in the land, which was encamped at the ruins of Jerusalem. Consequently, imperial governors of praetorian rank (legati Augusti pro praetore) took the place of the former procurators (Josephus, BJ, VII, i,2,3; Dio Cassius lv.23).<P>Several treaties are recorded between the Romans and Jews as early as the time of the Maccabees (Josephus, Ant, XII, x, 6; XIII, ix, 2; viii, 5), and Jews are known to have been at Rome as early as 138 BC. They became very numerous in the capital after the return of Pompey who brought back many captives (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LIBERTINES">LIBERTINES</a>). Cicero speaks of multitudes of Jews at Rome in 58 BC (Pro Flacco 28), and Caesar was very friendly toward them (Suetonius Caesar 84). Held in favor by Augustus, they recovered the privilege of collecting sums to send to the temple (Philo Legatio ad Caium 40). Agrippa offered 100 oxen in the temple when visiting Herod (Josephus, Ant, XVI, ii, 1), and Augustus established a daily offering of a bull and two lambs. Upon the whole the Roman government displayed noticeable consideration for the religious scruples of the Jews. They were exempted from military service and the duty of appearing in court on the Sabbath. Yet Tiberius repressed Jewish rites in Rome in 19 AD (Suetonius Tiberius 36) and Claudius expelled the Jews from the city in 49 AD (Suetonius Claudius 25); but in both instances repression was not of long duration.<P>2. Jewish Proselytism:<P>The Jews made themselves notorious in Rome in propagating their religion by means of proselytizing (Horace Satires i.4, 142; i.9, 69; Juvenal xiv.96; Tacitus Hist. v. 5), and the literature of the Augustan age contains several references to the observation of the Sabbath (Tibullus i.3; Ovid Ars amatoria i.67, 415; Remedium amoris 219). Proselytes from among the Gentiles were not always required to observe all the prescriptions of the Law. The proselytes of the Gate (sebomenoi), as they were called, renounced idolatry and serious moral abuses and abstained from the blood and meat of suffocated animals. Among such proselytes may be included the centurion of Capernaum (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,5);">Lu 7:5</a>), the centurion Cornelius (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,1);">Ac 10:1</a>), and the empress Poppea (Josephus, Ant, XX, viii, 11; Tacitus Ann. xvi.6).<P>On "proselytes of the Gate," GJV4, III,177,very properly corrects the error in HJP. These "Gate" people were not proselytes at all; they refused to take the final step that carried them into Judaism<73>namely, circumcision (Ramsay, The Expositor,1896,p. 200; Harnack, Expansion of Christianity, I, 11).<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DEVOUT">DEVOUT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PROSELYTE">PROSELYTE</a>.<P>Notwithstanding the diffusion of Judaism by means of proselytism, the Jews themselves lived for the most part in isolation in the poorest parts of the city or suburbs, across the Tiber, near the Circus Maximus, or outside the Porta Capena. Inscriptions show that there were seven communities, each with its synagogue and council of elders presided over by a gerusiarch. Five cemeteries have been discovered with many Greek, a few Latin, but no Hebrew inscriptions.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Ewald, The Hist of Israel, English translation by Smith, London, 1885; Renan, Hist of the People of Israel, English translation, Boston, 1896; Schurer, The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, English translation by MacPherson, New York.<P>VI. Rome and the Christians.<P>1. Introduction of Christianity:<P>The date of the introduction of Christianity into Rome cannot be determined. A Christian community existed at the time of the arrival of Paul (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',28,15);">Ac 28:15</a>), to which he had addressed his Epistle a few years before (58 AD). It is commonly thought that the statement regarding the expulsion of the Jews from Rome under Claudius on account of the commotion excited among them by the agitation of Chrestus (Suetonius Claudius 25: Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit), probably in 49 AD, is proof of the diffusion of Christian teaching in Rome, on the ground that Chrestus is a colloquial, or mistaken, form of Christus. It has been suggested that the Christian faith was brought to the capital of the empire by some of the Romans who were converted at the time of Pentecost (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,10,41);">Ac 2:10,41</a>). It would be out of place to discuss here the grounds for the traditional belief that Peter was twice in Rome, once before 50 AD and again subsequent to the arrival of Paul, and that together the two apostles established the church there. Our present concern is with the attitude of the government and society toward Christianity, when once established. It may suffice, therefore, to remind the reader that Paul was permitted to preach freely while nominally in custody (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,13);">Php 1:13</a>), and that as early as 64 AD the Christians were very numerous (Tacitus Ann. xv.44: multitudo ingens).<P>2. Tolerance and Proscription:<P>At first the Christians were not distinguished from the Jews, but shared in the toleration, or even protection, which was usually conceded to Judaism as the national religion of one of the peoples embraced within the empire. Christianity was not legally proscribed until after its distinction from Judaism was clearly perceived. Two questions demand our attention: (1) When was Christianity recognized as distinct from Judaism? (2) When was the profession of Christianity declared a crime? These problems are of fundamental importance in the history of the church under the Roman empire.<P>(1) If we may accept the passage in Suetonius cited above (Claudius 25) as testimony on the vicissitudes of Christianity, we infer that at that time the Christians were confused with the Jews. The account of Pomponia Graecina, who was committed to the jurisdiction of her husband (Tacitus Ann. xiii.32) for adherence to a foreign belief (superstitionis externae rea), is frequently cited as proof that as early as 57 AD Christianity had secured a convert in the aristocracy. The characterization of the evidence in this case by the contemporary authority from whom Tacitus has gleaned this incident would apply appropriately to the adherence to Judaism or several oriental religions from the point of view of Romans of that time; for Pomponia had lived in a very austere manner since 44 AD. Since there is some other evidence that Pomponia was a Christian, the indefinite account of the accusation against her as mentioned by Tacitus is partial proof that Christianity had not as yet been commonly recognized as a distinct religion (Marucchi, Elements d\'archeologie chretienne I, 13). At the time of the great conflagration in 64 AD the populace knew of the Christians, and Nero charged them collectively with a plot to destroy the city (Tacitus Ann. xv.44). The recognition of the distinctive character of Christianity had already taken place at this time. This was probably due in large measure to the circumstances of Paul\'s sojourn and trial in Rome and to the unprecedented number of converts made at that time. The empress Poppea, who was probably an adherent of Judaism (Josephus, Ant, XX, viii), may have enlightened the imperial court regarding the heresy of the Christians and their separation from the parent stock.<P>(2) In attempting to determine approximately the time at which Christianity was placed under the official ban of the imperial government, it will be convenient to adopt as starting-points certain incontestable dates between which the act of prosecution must have been issued. It is clear that at the time of the great conflagration (64 AD), the profession of Christianity was not a ground for criminal action. Paul had just been set at liberty by decree of the imperial court (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,17);">2Ti 4:17</a>). Moreover, the charge against the Christians was a plot to burn the city, not adherence to a proscribed religion, and they were condemned, as it appears, for an attitude of hostility toward the human race (Tacitus Ann. xv. 44). While governor of Bithynia (circa 112 AD), Pliny the younger addressed Trajan in a celebrated letter (x.96) asking advice to guide his conduct in the trial of many persons who were accused as Christians, and inquiring particularly whether Christianity in itself was culpable, or only the faults which usually accompanied adherence to the new faith. The reply of the emperor makes quite plain the fundamental guilt at that time of adherence to Christianity, and it supposes a law already existing against it (x.97). It follows, therefore, that the law against Christianity which was the legal basis for persecution must have been issued between the conflagration in 64 AD and Pliny\'s administration of Bithynia.<P>We cannot define the time of this important act of legislation more closely with absolute certainty, although evidence is not wanting for the support of theories of more or less apparent probability. Tradition ascribes a general persecution to the reign of Domitian, which would imply that Christianity was already a forbidden religion at that time. Allusions in Revelation (as <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,9);">6:9</a>), the references to recent calamities in Rome by Clement in his letter to the Corinthians (1 Ad Cor.), the condemnation of Acilius Glabrio (Dio Cassius lxvii.13), a man of consular rank, together with the emperor\'s cousin Flavius Clemens (Dio Cassius, xiii) and Flavia Domitilla and many others on the charge of atheism and Jewish customs (95 AD), are cited as evidence for this persecution. The fact that a number of persons in Bithynia abandoned Christianity 20 years before the judicial investigation of Pliny (Pliny x. 96) is of some importance as corroborative evidence.<P>But there are grounds worthy of consideration for carrying the point of departure back of Domitian. The letter of Peter from Babylon (Rome ?) to the Christians in Asia Minor implies an impending persecution (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,\'12-16\');">1Pe 4:12-16</a>). This was probably in the closing years of the reign of Nero. Allard cleverly observes (Histoire des persecutions, 61) that the mention of the Neronian persecution of the Christians apart from the description of the great fire in the work of Suetonius (Ner. 16), amid a number of acts of legislation, is evidence of a general enactment, which must have been adopted at the time of, or soon after, the proceedings which were instituted on the basis of the charge of arson. Upon the whole theory that the policy of the imperial government was definitely established under Nero carries with it considerable probability (compare Sulpitius Severus, Chron., ii.41).<P>3. Persecution:<P>Although the original enactment has been lost the correspondence of Pliny and Trajan enables us to formulate the imperial policy in dealing with the Christians during the 2nd century. Adherence to Christianity was in itself culpable. But proceedings were not to be undertaken by magistrates on their own initiative; they were to proceed only from charges brought by voluntary accusers legally responsible for establishing the proof of their assertions. Informal and anonymous information must be rejected. Penitence shown in abjuring Christianity absolved the accused from the legal penalty of former guilt. The act of adoring the gods and the living emperor before their statues was sufficient proof of non-adherence to Christianity or of repentance.<P>The attitude of the imperial authorities in the 3rd century was less coherent. The problem became more complicated as Christianity grew. Persecution was directed more especially against the church as an organization, since it was believed to exert a dangerous power. About 202 AD, Septimius Severus issued a decree forbidding specifically conversion to Judaism or Christianity (Spartianus, Severus, 17), in which he departed from the method of procedure prescribed by Trajan (conquirendi non sunt), and commissioned the magistrates to proceed directly against suspected converts. At this time the Christians organized funerary associations for the possession of their cemeteries, substituting corporative for individual ownership, and it would appear that under Alexander Severus they openly held places of worship in Rome (Lampridius, Alexander Severus, 22, 49). The emperor Philip (244-49) is thought to have been a Christian at heart (Eusebius, HE, VI, 34). A period of comparative calm was interrupted by the persecution under Decius (250-51 AD), when the act of sacrifice was required as proof of non-adherence to Christianity. Several certificates testifying to the due performance of this rite have been preserved.<P>Under Valerian (257 AD) the Christian organizations were declared illegal and the cemeteries were sequestrated. But an edict in 260 AD restored this property (Eusebius, VII, 13). A short persecution under Aurelian (274 AD) broke the long period of calm which extended to the first edict of persecution of Diocletian (February 24, 303). The Christians seem to have gained a sort of prescriptive claim to exist, for Diocletian did not at first consider them guilty of a capital crime. He sought to crush their organization by ordering the cessation of assemblies, the destruction of churches and sacred books, and abjuration under pain of political and social degradation. (Lactantius, De Morte Persecutorum, x.11,12,13; Eusebius, VIII, 2; IX, 10). Later he ordered the arrest of all the clergy, who were to be put to death unless they renounced the faith (Eusebius, VIII, 6). Finally the requirement of an act of conformity in sacrificing to the gods was made general. This final persecution, continuing in an irregular way with varying degrees of severity, terminated with the defeat of Maxentius by Constantine (October 29, 312). The Edict of Milan issued by Constantine and Licinius the following year established toleration, the restoration of ecclesiastical property and the peace of the church.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Allard, Histoire des persecutions, Paris, 1903; Le christianisme et l\'empire romain, Paris, 1903; Duchesne, Histoire ancienne de l\'eglise, Paris, 1907 (English translation); Marucchi, Elements d\'archeologie chretienne, Paris, 1899-1902; Hardy, Christianity and the Roman Government, London, 1894; Renan, L\'eglise chretienne, Paris, 1879; Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, London, 1893.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ROMAN+EMPIRE+AND+CHRISTIANITY">ROMAN EMPIRE AND CHRISTIANITY</a>`3';
isbe[7487]='Roof`roof.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HOUSE">HOUSE</a>`1';
isbe[7488]='Roof-Chamber``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HOUSE">HOUSE</a>`1';
isbe[7489]='Room`room.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HOUSE">HOUSE</a>`1';
isbe[7490]='Root`root (shoresh; rhiza): Frequently mentioned in the Old Testament and New Testament, but almost always in a figurative sense, e.g. "root of the righteous" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',12,3,12);">Pr 12:3,12</a>); "root that beareth gall" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',29,18);">De 29:18</a>); "Their root shall be as rottenness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',5,24);">Isa 5:24</a>); "root of bitterness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,15);">Heb 12:15</a>). Also of peoples: "they whose root is in Amalek" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,14);">Jud 5:14</a>); of Assyria (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',31,7);">Eze 31:7</a>); "Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',9,16);">Ho 9:16</a>); "Judah shall again take root downward" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',19,30);">2Ki 19:30</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',27,6);">Isa 27:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',37,31);">37:31</a>); the root of Jesse (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',11,10);">Isa 11:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,12);">Ro 15:12</a>); root of David (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',5,5);">Re 5:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,16);">22:16</a>).``1';
isbe[7491]='Root of David``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DAVID,+ROOT+OF">DAVID, ROOT OF</a>`1';
isbe[7492]='Root of Jesse`(shoresh yishay (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',11,10);">Isa 11:10</a>); rhiza tou Iessai (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,12);">Ro 15:12</a>)): The Hebrew and Greek words are practically the same in meaning. "Root" means descendant, branch of the family or stock. The Messianic king was to be of the family of Jesse the father of David. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,12);">Ro 15:12</a> Paul quotes the Septuagint of <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',11,10);">Isa 11:10</a>. Jesus is a branch or descendant of the family of Jesse, as well as of David.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DAVID,+ROOT+OF">DAVID, ROOT OF</a>`1';
isbe[7493]='Rope`rop: Used in the Old Testament for chebhel, "that which binds" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',17,13);">2Sa 17:13</a>, etc.), and for \'abhoth, "that which is woven" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',15,13);">Jud 15:13</a>, etc.). In neither word is any specified thickness or strength connoted, and chebhel is translated equally well by "line" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',8,2);">2Sa 8:2</a>, etc.) or "cord" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',2,15);">Jos 2:15</a>, etc.), and \'abhoth by "cord" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',118,27);">Ps 118:27</a>, etc.), as best suits the context. Similarly in the New Testament the word schoinion, literally, "made of rushes" can mean the rope by which a boat is fastened (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',27,32);">Ac 27:32</a>) or small cords suitable for a whip (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',2,15);">Joh 2:15</a>). The usual material for ropes was certainly flax (hemp), but the Egyptians, and so possibly the Hebrews, at times made ropes of leathern thongs.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CORD">CORD</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html??string=LINE">LINE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html??string=SHIPS+AND+BOATS">SHIPS AND BOATS</a>`48';
isbe[7494]='Rose`roz: (1) (chabhatstseleth; anthos, "a flower" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',2,1);">So 2:1</a>) krinon, "a lily" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',35,1);">Isa 35:1</a>)): By general consent English Versions of the Bible is wrong: in <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',2,1);">So 2:1</a> margin reads "Hebrew habazzeleth, the autumn crocus" and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',35,1);">Isa 35:1</a>, margin reads "or autumn crocus." This is the Colchicum autumnale (Natural Order, Liliaceae). A Targum on <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',2,1);">So 2:1</a> explains the Hebrew word as "narcissus", a very common plant in the plains and mountains of Palestine and a great favorite with the natives. Two species, N. tazetta and N. serolinus (Natural Order, Amaryllideae), occur, the latter being the finer; they are autumn plants. All authorities agree that the so-called "rose" was some kind of bulbed plant. (2) (rhodon, "the rose," mentioned in Ecclesiasticus 24:14; 39:13; 50:8; <span class="noTag">The Wisdom of Solomon 2:8</span>; 2Esdras 2:19): There is no reason why the rose, of which several varieties are common in Palestine, should not be meant. Tristram favors the rhododendron. The expression, "rose plants in Jericho," in Ecclesiasticus 24:14 has nothing whatever to do with what is now sold there as a "rose of Jericho," a dwarf annual plant, Anastatica hierochuntina (Natural Order, Cruciferae), which dries up and can be made to reexpand by placing the root in water.``117';
isbe[7495]='Rosh (1)`rosh, rosh (ro\'sh): A son or grandson of Benjamin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,21);">Ge 46:21</a>).``1';
isbe[7496]='Rosh (2)`(ro\'sh; Rhos, variant (Q margin) kephales; Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) capiris):<P>1. Rosh and Its Renderings:<P>This name occurs in the prophecies against Gog in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',38,2,3);">Eze 38:2,3</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',39,1);">39:1</a>, where the King James Version has "Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal." This translation is due to ro\'sh being the common Hebrew word for "head" or "chief" (compare the Greek variant and the Vulgate), and is regarded as incorrect, that of the Revised Version (British and American), "Gog, of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal," being preferred.<P>2. Identification with Russia:<P>The identification of Rosh is not without its difficulties. Gesenius regarded it as indicating the Russians, who are mentioned in Byzantine writers of the 10th century under the name of Rhos. He adds that they are also noticed by Ibn Fosslan (same period), under the name of Rus, as a people dwelling on the river Rha (Volga). Apart from the improbability that the dominion of Gog extended to this district, it would be needful to know at what date the Rus of the Volga arrived there.<P>3. Probably the Assyrian Rasu:<P>Notwithstanding objections on account of its eastern position, in all probability Fried. Delitzsch\'s identification of Rosh with the mat Rasi, "land of Rash" of the Assyrian inscriptions, is the best. Sargon of Assyria (circa 710 BC) conquered the countries "from the land of Rasu on the border of Elam as far as the river of Egypt," and this country is further described in his Khorsabad Inscription,18,as "the land of Rasu, of the boundary of Elam, which is beside the Tigris." Assyria having disappeared from among the nations when Ezekiel wrote his prophecies, Babylonia was probably the only power with which "Gog of the land of Magog" would have had to reckon, but it may well be doubted whether the Babylonian king would have allowed him to exercise power in the district of Rasu, except as a very faithful vassal. It may here be noted that the Hebrew spelling of Rosh presupposes an earlier pronunciation as Rash, a form agreeing closely with that used by the Assyrians. See Fried. Delitzsch, Wo lag das Paradies? 325.``136';
isbe[7497]='Rot; Rottenness`rot, rot\'-\'-n-nes (verb raqebh, noun raqabh (riqqabhon, <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',41,27);">Job 41:27</a>), with maq, "decay" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',5,24);">Isa 5:24</a>), and \'abhash, "shrivel" (so <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',1,17);">Joe 1:17</a> the Revised Version margin)): "Rottenness of the bones" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',12,4);">Pr 12:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',14,30);">14:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',3,16);">Hab 3:16</a>) is ulceration (caries) of the bones, used as an example of an intensely painful disease. the King James Version, in addition, has "rot" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',5,21,22,27);">Nu 5:21,22,27</a>, where the Revised Version (British and American) has "fall away" (naphal), but a euphemistic paraphrase is in point (see the comms.). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',38,11,12);">Jer 38:11,12</a> the King James Version has "old rotten rags" for melach, "rag" (the Revised Version (British and American) "wornout garments," a translation that specializes too far).``1';
isbe[7498]='Rote`rot: the Revised Version margin gives "learned by rote" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',29,13);">Isa 29:13</a> for the King James Version "taught," which indicates that the service of Yahweh was merely formal.``1';
isbe[7499]='Rower; Rowing`ro\'-er, ro\'-ing.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHIPS+AND+BOATS">SHIPS AND BOATS</a>`1';
isbe[7500]='Royal`roi\'-al: Either belonging to a king (kingdom) or having kingly power, dignity, authority, etc. In Hebrew, the word is expressed by using different nouns in the gen. case (the "construct state"). They are:<P>(1) melekh, "king": "Asher...shall yield royal dainties," literally, choice morsels of the king, meaning fit for a king (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,20);">Ge 49:20</a>); "besides that which Solomon gave her of his royal bounty," literally, which he gave her according to the hand (the wealth) of King Solomon (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,13);">1Ki 10:13</a>; compare the Revised Version margin); "a royal statute," literally, statute of a malka\', which is the emphatic Aramaic term for melekh, "king" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',6,7);">Da 6:7</a>);<P>(2) mamlakhah, "the power and dignity of a king," "Gibeon...one of the royal cities," i.e. a capital city with a king of her own (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,2);">Jos 10:2</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',27,5);">1Sa 27:5</a>); "all the seed royal," literally, the seed of the kingdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',11,1);">2Ki 11:1</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',22,10);">2Ch 22:10</a>);<P>(3) malkhuth, "kinghood," "kingdom": "royal majesty," literally, majesty of kinghood (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',29,25);">1Ch 29:25</a>); quite frequently in the Book of Esther; royal wine (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',1,7);">1:7</A>); crown (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',1,11);">1:11</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',2,17);">2:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',6,8);">6:8</a>); commandment (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',1,19);">1:19</A>); "her royal estate," literally, her kinghood (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',1,19);">1:19</A>); house royal (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',2,16);">2:16</A>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',5,1);">5:1</A>); royal apparel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',5,1);">5:1</A>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',6,8,15);">6:8,15</a>); throne (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',5,1);">5:1</A>);<P>(4) melukhah, "kingdom," "kingly power and dignity": "royal city," literally, the city of the kingdom, meaning here that part of the city (Rabbah) in which the royal palace was situated (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',12,26);">2Sa 12:26</a>); "royal diadem," literally, turban of kinghood (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',62,3);">Isa 62:3</a>);<P>(5) in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',43,10);">Jer 43:10</a> we find the word shaphrir; its meaning is uncertain: "royal pavilion" (the Revised Version (British and American) and the King James Version), "glittering" (Revised Version, margin), "scepter," "a carpet covering a throne."<P>The New Testament uses the word for basilikos, "belonging to king": "royal apparel" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',12,21);">Ac 12:21</a>); "the royal law," something like "the golden rule," being foremost because including all others (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',2,8);">Jas 2:8</a>), and for basileios (being vested with kingly power and honor), "royal priesthood," the Hebrew rendering would be mamlekheth kohanim, "a kingdom of priests," i.e. a kingdom whose citizens are priests, emphasizing the two facts that the true Christians have free access to the grace of God and that they enjoy the liberties and privileges of His kingdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,9);">1Pe 2:9</a>).``8';
</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