exlim/blb
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
blb/study/isbe/5200.html

114 lines
266 KiB
HTML
Raw 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[5201]='Judas of Damascus``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUDAS">JUDAS</a>`1';
isbe[5202]='Judas of Galilee`(ho Galilaios): Mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,37);">Ac 5:37</a> as the leader of an insurrection occasioned by the census of Quirinius in 7 AD (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=QUIRINIUS">QUIRINIUS</a>). He, and those who obeyed him, it is said, perished in that revolt. Josephus also repeatedly mentions Judas by this same name, "the Galilean," and speaks of his revolt (Ant., XVIII, i, 6; XX, v, 2; BJ, II, viii, 1; xviii, 8; VII, viii, 1), but in Ant, XVIII, i, names him a Gaulonite, of the city of Gamala. As Gamala was in Gaulonitis, not far from the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, it may be regarded as belonging to that province. The party of Judas seems to have been identified with the Zealots.``132';
isbe[5203]='Judas of James`(Ioudas Iakobou): One of the twelve apostles (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,16);">Lu 6:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,13);">Ac 1:13</a>; for etymology, etc., see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUDAS">JUDAS</a>). the King James Version has the reading "brother of James," and the Revised Version (British and American) reads "son of James." The latter is to be preferred. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,22);">Joh 14:22</a> he is described as "Judas (not Iscariot)." The name corresponds with the "Thaddaeus" or "Lebbaeus whose surname was Thaddaeus" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,3);">Mt 10:3</a> the King James Version and <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,18);">Mr 3:18</a> (compare <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=THADDAEUS">THADDAEUS</a>). The identification of Thaddaeus with Judas is generally accepted, though Ewald and others hold that they were different). The identification of Thaddaeus with Judas is generally accepted, though Ewald and others hold that they were different persons, that Thaddeus died during Christ\'s lifetime, and that Judas was chosen in his place (compare Bruce, Training of the Twelve, 34). If the Revised Version (British and American) is accepted as the correct rendering of <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,16);">Lu 6:16</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,13);">Ac 1:13</a>, this Judas cannot be identified either with the Juda (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,3);">Mr 6:3</a> the King James Version), Judas (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,3);">Mr 6:3</a> the Revised Version (British and American)), or Judas (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,55);">Mt 13:55</a>), the brother of Jesus; or with the Judas (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,1);">Jude 1:1</a> the Revised Version margin) or Jude (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,1);">Jude 1:1</a> the King James Version), the brother of James, whether these two latter Judases are to be regarded as the same or not. The only incident recorded of Judas of James is in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,22);">Joh 14:22</a>, where during Christ\'s address to the disciples after the last supper he put the question, "Lord, what is come to pass that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?"``88';
isbe[5204]='Judas, Juda`(1) The name of an ancestor of Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,30);">Lu 3:30</a>). In the King James Version it occurs also in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,26);">Lu 3:26</a>, but the Revised Version (British and American) has "Joda" (Westcott-Hort, Ioda).<P>(2) <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUDAS+ISCARIOT">Judas Iscariot</a> (see separate article).<P>(3) One of the brothers of Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,55);">Mt 13:55</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,3);">Mr 6:3</a>).<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUDE">JUDE</a>.<P>(4) An apostle, "not Iscariot" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,22);">Joh 14:22</a>). He is generally identified with Lebbaeus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,3);">Mt 10:3</a>) and Thaddeus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,18);">Mr 3:18</a>). See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LEBBAEUS">LEBBAEUS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=THADDAEUS">THADDAEUS</a>. He is called <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUDAS+OF+JAMES">JUDAS OF JAMES</a> (which see) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,16);">Lu 6:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,13);">Ac 1:13</a>), which means "the son of James" not (the King James Version) "the brother of James."<P>(5) A Galilean who stirred up rebellion "in the days of the enrollment" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,37);">Ac 5:37</a>).<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUDAS+OF+GALILEE">JUDAS OF GALILEE</a>.<P>(6) One with whom Paul lodged in Damascus, whose house was in "the street which is called Straight" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,11);">Ac 9:11</a>). Nothing further is known of him. A house is pointed out as his, in a lane off the Straight Street.<P>(7) <A href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUDAS+BARSABBAS">Judas Barsabbas</a> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,22,27,32);">Ac 15:22,27,32</a>; see separate article).``78';
isbe[5205]='Judas, Not Iscariot`(Ioudas ouch ho Iskariotes): One of the Twelve Apostles (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,22);">Joh 14:22</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUDAS+OF+JAMES">JUDAS OF JAMES</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LEBBAEUS">LEBBAEUS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=THADDAEUS">THADDAEUS</a>`1';
isbe[5206]='Judas, the Lord\'s Brother``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUDE">JUDE</a>`1';
isbe[5207]='Juddah`jud\'-a.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUTTAH">JUTTAH</a>`1';
isbe[5208]='Jude`jood (Ioudas): Brother of the Lord, and author of the Epistle of Jude.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUDAS+OF+JAMES">JUDAS OF JAMES</a>`1';
isbe[5209]='Jude, the Epistle of`<b>THE WRITER</b><P><b>I. JUDE\'S POSITION IN THE CANON</b><P><b>II. THE OCCASION OF ITS COMPOSITION</b><P><b>III. DESCRIPTION OF THE LIBERTINES AND APOSTATES</b><P><b>IV. RELATION OF JUDE TO THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER</b><P class="in15">1. Resemblances<P class="in15">2. Differences<P class="in15">3. Further Contrasts<P class="in15">4. Summary<P class="in15">5. Evidence of Priority of Peter<P class="in15">6. Corroborative References<P><b>V. DATE OF THE EPISTLE</b><P><b>VI. THE LIBERTINES OF JUDE\'S EPISTLE</b><P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>The Writer:<P>The writer of this short epistle calls himself Jude or Judas (Ioudas. His name was a common one among the Jews: there were few others of more frequent use. Two among the apostles bore it, namely, Judas, mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,22);">Joh 14:22</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,16);">Lu 6:16</a>), and Judas Iscariot. Jude describes himself as "a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,1);">Jude 1:1</a>). The James here mentioned is no doubt the person who is called "the Lord\'s brother" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,19);">Ga 1:19</a>), the writer of the epistle that bears his name. Neither of the two was an apostle. The opening sentence of Jude simply affirms that the writer is a "servant of Jesus Christ." This, if anywhere, should be the appropriate place for the mention of his apostleship, if he were an apostle. The appellation "servant of Jesus Christ" "is never thus barely used in an address of an epistle to designate an apostle" (Alford). <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,1);">Php 1:1</a> has a similar expression, "Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus Christ," but "the designation common to two persons necessarily sinks to the rank of the inferior one." In other instances "servant" is associated with "apostle" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,1);">Ro 1:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,1);">Tit 1:1</a>). <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,17,18);">Jude 1:17,18</a> speaks of the "apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; that they said to you"<22>language which an apostle would hardly use of his fellow-apostles.<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,3);">Mr 6:3</a> are found the names of those of whom Jesus is said to be the brother, namely, James and Joses, and Judas and Simon. It is quite generally held by writers that the James and Judas here mentioned are the two whose epistles are found in the New Testament. It is noteworthy, however, that neither of them hints at his relationship with Jesus; their unaffected humility kept them silent. Jude mentions that he is the "brother of James," perhaps to give authority and weight to his words, for James was far more distinguished and influential than he. The inference seems legitimate that Jude addresses Christians among whom James was highly esteemed, or, if no longer living, among whom his memory was sacredly revered, and accordingly it is altogether probable that Jude writes to the same class of readers as James<65>Jewish Christians. James writes to the "Twelve Tribes of the Dispersion." Jude likewise addresses a wide circle of believers, namely, the "called, beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,1);">1:1</a>). While he does not designate a special and distinct class, yet as James\'s "brother," as belonging to the family of Joseph, and as in some true sense related to the Lord Jesus Himself, it seems probable, if not certain, that his Epistle was intended for Christian Hebrews who stood in urgent need of such testimony and appeal as Jude offers.<P>I. Jude\'s Position in the Canon.<P>It is now and for a long while has been an assured one. Its rank, though not altogether that of 1 Peter and 1 John, is high, for centuries indeed undoubted. Almost from the beginning of the Christian era men every way qualified to speak with authority on the question of genuineness and authenticity endorsed it as entitled to a place in the New Testament Scriptures. Origen repeatedly quotes it, in one place describing it as an "ep. of but few lines, but full of powerful words of heavenly grace" (Matt., tom. X, 17). But Origen knew that it was not universally received. Clement of Alexandria "gave concise expositions of all the canonical Scriptures, not omitting the disputed books<6B>the Epistle of Jude and the other Catholic epp." (quoted by Westcott, Canaanite, 322-23 and Salmon, Intro, 493). Tertullian (Cult. Fem. i.3) in striving to establish the authority of the Book of Enoch urges as a crowning argument that it is quoted by "the apostle Jude." "We may infer that, Jude\'s Ep, was an unquestioned part of Tertullian\'s Canon. Athanasius inserted it in his list of New Testament books, but Eusebius placed it among the disputed books in his classification. The Canon of Muratori includes Jude among the books of Scripture, though it omits the Epistles of James, Peter and Hebrews. This is one of the earliest documents containing a list of the New Testament books now known. By the great majority of writers the date of the fragment is given as circa 170 AD, as it claims to have been written not long after Pius was bishop of Rome, and the latest date of Pius <span clas="noTag">is</span> 142-57 AD. The words of the document are, "The Shepherd was written very recently in our own time by Hermas, while his brother Pius sat in the chair of the Church of Rome." Twenty or twenty-five years would probably satisfy the period indicated by the words, "written very recently in our own time," which would fix the date of the fragment at circa 170 AD. Salmon, however, strongly inclines to a later date, namely, circa 200-210 AD, as does Zahn.<P>Zahn (Introduction to the New Testament, II,259,English Translation), and Professor Chase (H D B) are of the decided opinion that the Didache, ii. 7: "Thou shalt not hate anyone, but some thou shalt rebuke, and for some thou shalt pray, and some thou shalt love above thine own soul (or life)," is rounded on <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,22);">Jude 1:22</a>. Dr. Philip Schaff dates the Didache between 90-100 AD. L\'Abbe E. Jacquier (La doctrine des Douze Apotres, 1891) is persuaded that the famous document was written not later than 80 AD. It appears, therefore, more than probable that the Epistle of Jude was known and referred to as Scripture some time before the end of the 1st century. From the survey we have thus rapidly taken of the field in which the Epistle circulated, we may conclude that in Palestine, at Alexandria, in North Africa, and at Rome, it was received as the veritable letter of Jude, "the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James."<P>The chief reason why it was rejected by some and regarded with suspicion by others in primitive times is its quotation from the apocryphal Book of Enoch, so Jerome informs us (Vir. Ill., 4). It is possible that Jude had in mind another spurious writing, namely, the Assumption of Moses, when he spoke of the contention of Michael the archangel with the devil about the body of Moses (1:9). This, however, is not quite certain, for the date assigned to that writing is circa 44 AD, and although Jude might have seen and read it, yet its composition is so near his own day that it could hardly have exerted much influence on his mind. Besides, the brevity of the Epistle and its dealing with a special class of errorists would limit to a certain extent its circulation among Christians. All this serves to explain its refusal by some and the absence of reference to it by others.<P>II. The Occasion of Its Composition.<P>Jude, after his brief introduction (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,1,2);">1:1,2</a>), explains very definitely why he writes as he does. He indicates distinctly his anxiety on behalf of the saints (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,3);">1:3</a>): "Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write unto you of our common salvation, I was constrained to write unto you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints." He had received very distressing knowledge of the serious state into which the Christian brotherhood was rapidly drifting, and he must as a faithful servant of Jesus Christ exhort them to steadfastness and warn them of their danger. He had in mind to write them a doctrinal work on the salvation common to all Christians. Perhaps he contemplated the composition of a book or treatise that would have discussed the great subject in an exhaustive manner. But in face of the perils that threatened, of the evils already present in the community, his purpose was indefinitely postponed. We are not told how he became acquainted with the dangers which beset his fellow-believers, but the conjecture is probably correct that it was by means of his journeys as an evangelist. At any rate, he was thoroughly conversant with the evils in the churches, and he deals with them as befitted the enormities that were practiced and the ruin that impended.<P>The address of the Epistle is remarkable for the affection Jude expresses for these saints. Obviously they are distinct from the libertines of whom he speaks with such solemn condemnation. They were the faithful who kept aloof from the ungodly that surrounded them, and who held fast to the truth they had been taught. Jude describes them as those "that are called, beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ: Mercy unto you and peace and love be multiplied." At the close of the Epistle he commends them "unto him that is able to guard you from stumbling, and to set you before the presence of his glory without blemish in exceeding joy." A separated and devoted band they certainly were, a noble and trustworthy company of believers for whose well-being Jude was supremely anxious.<P>III. Description of the Libertines and Apostates.<P>It is needful to gaze with steady vision on the portrait Jude furnishes of these depraved foes, if we are to appreciate in any measure the force of his language and the corruption already wrought in the brotherhood. Some of their foul teachings and their vicious practices, not all, are here set down.<P>1. Surreptitious Foes.<P>"For there are certain men crept in privily...ungodly men" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,4);">Jude 1:4</a>). They are enemies who feign to be friends, and hence, in reality are spies and traitors; like a stealthy beast of prey they creep into the company of the godly, actuated by evil intent.<P>2. Perverters of Grace and Deniers of Christ.<P>"Turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,4);">Jude 1:4</a>). They are those who by a vile perverseness turn the grace and the liberty of the Gospel into a means for gratifying their unholy passions, and who in doctrine and life repudiate their Master and Lord.<P>3. Censorious and Arrogant Detractors.<P>"In their dreamings defile the flesh, and set at nought dominion, and rail at dignities" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,8);">Jude 1:8</a>). Destitute of true reverence, they rail at the holiest and best things, and sit in judgment on all rule and all authority. They have the proud tongue of the lawless: "Our lips are our own: who Is lord over us?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',12,4);">Ps 12:4</a>).<P>4. Ignorant Calumniators and Brutish Sensualists.<P>"These rail at whatsoever things they know not: and what they understand naturally, like the creatures without reason, in these things are they destroyed" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,10);">Jude 1:10</a>). What they do not know, as something lofty and noble, they deride and denounce; what they know is that which ministers to their disordered appetites and their debased tastes.<P>5. Hypocrites and Deceivers.<P>"These are they who are hidden rocks in your love-feasts when they feast with you, shepherds that without fear feed themselves; clouds without water...autumn trees without fruit...wild waves of the sea...wandering stars, for whom the blackness of darkness hath been reserved forever" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,12,13);">Jude 1:12,13</a>). A most graphic picture of the insincerity, the depravity, and the doom of these insolents! And yet they are found in the bosom of the Christian body, even sitting with the saints at their love-feasts!<P>6. Grumblers, Fault-finders, Pleasure-seekers, Boasters, Parasites.<P>"These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts...showing respect of persons for the sake of advantage" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,16);">Jude 1:16</a>). They impeach Divine wisdom, are the foes of peace and quietness, boast of their capacities to manage things, and yet they can be servile, even sycophants, when thereby advantage is secured.<P>7. Schismatics and Sensualists.<P>"These are they who make separations, sensual, having not the Spirit" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,19);">Jude 1:19</a>). It was characteristic of the false teachers and mockers who had invaded the Christian church that they drew lines of demarcation between themselves and others, or between different classes of believers, which the Holy Spirit did not warrant, but which was the product of their own crafty and wicked wills. There seems to be a hint in these words of incipient Gnosticism, that fatal heresy that boasted of a recondite knowledge, a deep mystery which only the initiated possessed, of which the great mass of Christians were ignorant. Jude brands the pretension as the offspring of their own sensuality, not at all of God\'s Spirit.<P>Such is the forbidding portrait drawn of the libertines in the Epistle. But Jude adds other and even darker features. He furnishes a number of examples of apostates and of apostasy which disclose even more strikingly the spirit and the doom of them that pervert the truth, that deny the Lord Jesus Christ, and that mock at the things of God. These all mark a fatal degeneracy, a "falling away," which bodes nothing but evil and judgment. Against the corrupters and skeptics Jude writes with a vehemence that in the New Testament is without a parallel. Matters must have come to a dreadful pass when the Spirit of God is compelled to use such stern and awful language.<P>IV. Relation of Jude to the Second Epistle of Peter.<P>1. Resemblances:<P>The relation is confined to <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,1);">2Pe 2-3:4</a>. A large portion of Peter\'s Epistle, namely, <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,\'1-\');">2 Peter 1</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,\'5-18\');">3:5-18</a>, bears no resemblance to Jude, at least no more than does James or 1 Peter. Between the sections of 2 Peter indicated above and Jude the parallelism is close, both as to the subjects treated and the historical illustrations introduced, and the language itself to some considerable extent is common to both. All readers must be impressed with the similarity. Accordingly, it is very generally held by interpreters that one of the writers copied from the other. There is not entire agreement as to which of the two epistles is the older, that is, whether Peter copied from Jude, or Jude from Peter. Perhaps a majority favor the former of the two alternatives, though some of the very latest and most learned of those who write on Introductions to the New Testament hold strongly to the view that Jude copied from 2 Peter. Reference is made particularly to Deuteronomy. Theodore v. Zahn, whose magnificent work on Introduction has been but recently translated into English, and who argues convincingly that Jude copied from 2 Petter.<P>2. Differences:<P>However, it must be admitted that there are in the two epistles as pronounced differences and divergences as there are resemblances. If one of the two did actually copy from the other, he was careful to add, subtract, and change what he found in his "source" as best suited his purpose. A servile copyist he certainly was not. He maintained his independence throughout, as an exact comparison of the one with the other will demonstrate.<P>If we bring them into close proximity, following the example of Professor Lumby in the "Bible Comm." (Intro to 2 Peter), we shall discover a marked difference between the two pictures drawn by the writers. We cannot fail to perceive how much darker and more sinister is that of Jude. The evil, alarming certainly in Peter, becomes appalling in Jude. Subjoined are proofs of the fact above stated:<P><a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,1);">2 Peter 2:1</a> But there arose false prophets also among the people, as among you also there shall be false teachers ....<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,4);">Jude 1:4</a> For there are certain men crept in privily...<P><a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,1);">2 Peter 2:1</a> who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them...<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,4);">Jude 1:4</a>...ungodly men, turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.<P><a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,3);">2 Peter 2:3</a> And in covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you...<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,16);">Jude 1:16</a>...murmerers, complainers, walking after their own lusts (and their mouth speaketh great swelling words), showing respect of persons for the sake of advantage.<P>These contrasts and comparisons between the two epistles prove<P>(1) that in Jude the false teachers are worse, more virulent than in Peter, and<P>(2) that in Peter the whole description is predictive, whereas in Jude the deplorable condition is actually present.<P>If 2Pe is dependent on Jude, if the apostle cited from Jude, how explain the strong predictive element in his opening verses (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,\'1-3\');">2Pe 2:1-3</a>)? If as Peter wrote he had lying before him Jude\'s letter, which represents the corrupters as already within the Christian community and doing their deadly work, his repeated use of the future tense is absolutely inexplicable. Assuming, however, that he wrote prior to Jude, his predictions become perfectly intelligible. No doubt the virus was working when he wrote, but it was latent, undeveloped; far worse would appear; but when Jude wrote the poison was widely diffused, as <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,12,19);">1:12,19</A> clearly show. The very life of the churches was endangered.<P><a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,4,5);">2 Peter 2:4,5</a> For if God spared not the angels when they sinned...and spared not the ancient world, but preserved Noah with seven others ....<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,5,6);">Jude 1:5,6</a> ...The Lord, having saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them...and angels that...left their proper habitation...<P>3. Further Contrasts:<P>Peter speaks of the angels that sinned, Jude of their apostasy. Peter makes prominent the salvation of Noah and his family when the flood overwhelmed the world of the ungodly, while Jude tells of those who, delivered from bondage, afterward were destroyed because of their unbelief. He speaks of no rescue; we know of but two who survived the judgments of the wilderness and who entered the Land of Promise, Caleb and Joshua. Peter mentions the fate of the guilty cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, but he is careful to remind us of the deliverance of righteous Lot, while Jude makes prominent their nameless crimes and consigns them to "the punishment of eternal fire," but he is silent on the rescue of Lot. Manifestly Jude\'s illustrations are darker and more hopeless than Peter\'s.<P>Peter instances Balsam as an example of one who loved the hire of wrongdoing and who was rebuked for his transgression. But Jude cites three notable instances in the Old Testament to indicate how far in apostasy and rebellion the libertines had gone. Three words mark their course, rising into a climax, "way" "error" "gainsay." They went in the way of Cain, i.e. in the way of self-will, of hate, and the spirit of murder. Moreover, they "ran riotously in the error of Balsam for hire." The words denote an activity of viciousness that enlisted all their eagerness and all their might. Balaam\'s error was one that led into error, one that seduced others into the commission of the like sins. The reference seems to be to the whole career of this heathen prophet, and includes his betrayal of the Israelites through the women of Moab (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',31,16);">Nu 31:16</a>). Balsam is the prototype of Jude\'s libertines, both in his covetousness and his seductive counsel. Furthermore, they "perished in the gainsaying of Korah." This man with 250 followers rebelled against the Divinely appointed leaders and rulers of Israel, Moses and Aaron, and sought to share their authority in Israel, if not to displace them altogether. Comparable with these rebels in ancient Israel are the treacherous and malignant foes whom Jude so vigorously denounces.<P>Peter speaks of them as "daring, self-willed, they tremble not to rail at dignities: whereas angels, though greater in might and power, bring not a railing judgment against them before the Lord" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,10,11);">Jude 1:10,11</a>). Jude is more specific: These dreamers "defile the flesh, and set at nought dominion, and rail at dignities." They repudiate all authority, despise every form of lordship, and revile those in positions of power. He cites the contention of Michael the archangel with the devil about the body of Moses, and yet this loftiest of the heavenly spirits brought no railing judgment against the adversary. Jude\'s description is more vivid and definite: he describes an advanced stage of apostasy.<P>Very noteworthy is <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,22,23);">Jude 1:22,23</a>. He here turns again to the loyal and stedfast believers whom he addresses at the beginning of his letter, and he gives them directions how they are to deal with those who were ensnared by the wily foes. (The text in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,22);">1:22</a> is somewhat uncertain, but the revision is followed.) There were some who were "in doubt." They were those who had been fascinated by the new teaching, and although not captured by it, they were engaged in its study, were drawn toward it and almost ready to yield. On these the faithful were to have mercy, were to convince them of their danger, show them the enormities to which the false system inevitably leads, and so win them back to Christ\'s allegiance. As if Jude said, Deal with the wavering in love and fidelity; but rescue them if possible.<P>There were others whose peril was greater: "And some save, snatching them out of the fire." These were identified with the wicked, were scorched by the fires of destruction and hence, almost beyond reach of rescue; but if possible they are to be saved, however seethed and blackened. Others still there were who were in worse state than the preceding, who were polluted and smirched by the foul contamination of the guilty seducers, and such were to be saved, and the rescuers were to fear lest they should be soiled by contact with the horrible defilement. This is Jude\'s tremendous summary of the shameful work and frightful evils wrought in the bosom of the church by the libertines. He discloses in these trenchant verses how deeply sunk in sin the false teachers were, and how awful the ruin they had wrought. The description is quite unparalleled in 2 Peter. The shadings in Jude are darker and deeper than those in 2 Peter.<P>4. Summary:<P>The comparison between the two writings warrants, we believe, the following conclusions:<P>(1) that Peter and Jude have in view the same corrupt parties;<P>(2) that Peter paints them as godless and extremely dangerous, though not yet at their worst; while Jude sets them forth as depraved and as lawless as they can well be;<P>(3) that Peter\'s is the older writing and that Jude was acquainted with what the apostle had written.<P>Stronger evidence than any yet produced of Peter\'s priority is now to be submitted, and here we avail ourselves in part of Zahn\'s array of evidence.<P>5. Evidence of Priority of Peter:<P>Jude asserts with great positiveness that (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,4);">1:4</A>) certain men had crept in privily into the Christian fold, "even they who were of old written of beforehand unto this condemnation, ungodly men." Obviously Jude is here speaking of the enemies whom he afterward goes on to describe and denounce in his Epistle. He distinctly affirms that these foes had been of old written of and beforehand designated unto "this condemnation." He clearly has in mind an authoritative writing that spoke of the identical parties Jude himself deals with. He does not tell us whose writing it is that contains the "condemnation" of the errorists; he only declares that there is such a Scripture existing and that he is acquainted with it. Now, to what writing does he refer? Not to any Old Testament prophecy, for none can be found that answers to the words. Nor yet to the prediction of Enoch (<span class="noTag">1:14,15</A>), for it speaks of the advent of the Lord in judgment at the last day, whereas Jude applies his reference to the ungodly who were then present in the Christian assemblies, corrupting the churches with their wicked teaching and practices. "In <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,\'1-\');">2Pe 2</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,\'1-4);">3:4</a>, we have a prophecy which exactly suits, namely, the announcement that false teachers whose theory and practice exactly correspond to those godless bearers of the Christian name in Jude will appear among a certain group of Jewish Christian churches" (Zahn). Peter\'s account of them is so particular that Jude would encounter no difficulty in identifying them. He is furnished by the apostle with such characteristics of them, with such illustrations and even words and phrases that he has only to place the description alongside of the reality to see how completely they match.<P>It may be objected that the words, "were of old written of beforehand," denote a long period, longer than that which elapsed between the two epistles. But the objection is groundless. The original term for "of old" (palai) sometimes indicates but a brief space of time, e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,44);">Mr 15:44</a> (according to the text of Weymouth and Nestle, and the Revised Version (British and American)) relates that Pilate asked the centurion if Jesus had been "any while" (palai) dead, which limits the term to a few hours. In <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',12,19);">2Co 12:19</a> the word occurs, and there it must be restricted to Paul\'s self-defense which occupies the part of the Epistle preceding, and hence, does not extend beyond a day or two. Probably some years lie between the composition of these two epp., ample time to justify Jude\'s use of the word if he is referring to <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,1);">2Pe 2-3:4</a>, as we certainly believe he is.<P>6. Corroborative References:<P>This interpretation of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,4);">Jude 1:4</a> is confirmed by <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,17,18);">Jude 1:17,18</a>. These verses are intimately connected with <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,\'2-4\');">2Pe 3:2-4</a>. Jude\'s readers are told to keep in remembrance the words spoken by the apostles of Christ, namely, "In the last time there shall be mockers, walking after their own ungodly lusts." Peter writes, "that in the last days mockers shall come with mockery, walking after their own lusts." The resemblance of the one passage to the other is very close, indeed, they are almost identical. Both urge their readers to remember what had been said by the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, and both speak of the immoral scoffers who would invade or had invaded the Christian brotherhood. But Peter distinctly asserts that these mockers shall appear in the last days. His words are, "Knowing this first, that in the last days mockers shall come with mockery, walking after their own lusts." Jude writes that "in the last time there shall be mockers, walking after their own ungodly lusts." The phrases, "the last days," and "the last time," denote our age, the dispensation in which we live, as <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,2);">Heb 1:2</a> proves. Peter puts the appearance of the scoffers in the future, whereas Jude, after quoting the words, significantly adds, "These are they who make separations, sensual, having not the Spirit." He means, of course the mockers just mentioned, and he affirms they are now present. With Peter they are yet to come when he wrote, but with Jude the prediction is already fulfilled, so far as the scoffers are concerned. Therefore Jude\'s writing is subsequent to Peter\'s, and if there be copying on the part of either, it is Jude who copies.<P>Peter mentions "your apostles," including himself in the phrase, but Jude does not employ the plural pronoun, for he was not of the apostolic body. But why the plural, "apostles"? Because at least one other apostle had spoken of the perilous times which were coming on the church of God. Paul unites his testimony with that of Peter, and writes, "But know this, that in the last days grievous times shall come" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',3,\'1-5\');">2Ti 3:1-5</a>). His prediction is near akin to that of Peter; it belongs apparently to the same historic time and to the same perilous class of evil-doers and corrupters. In <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,15);">2Pe 3:15</a> the apostle lovingly and tenderly speaks of his "brother Paul," and says suggestively that in his Epistle he speaks of these things<67>no doubt about the scoffers of the last days among the rest. He certainly seems to have Paul in mind when he penned the words. "Knowing this first, that in the last days mockers shall come."<P>Here, then, is positive ground for the reference in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,4);">Jude 1:4</a> to a writing concerning those who had crept into the fold and who were of old doomed to this condemnation, with which writing his readers were acquainted; they had it in the writing of the apostles Peter and Paul both, and so were forewarned as to the impending danger. Jude\'s Epistle is subsequent to Peter\'s.<P>V. Date of the Epistle.<P>There is little or no agreement as to the year, yet the majority of writers hold that it belongs to the latter half of the 1st century. Zahn assigns it to 70-75 AD; Lumby, circa 80 AD; Salmon, before the reign of Domitian (81 AD); Sieffert, shortly. prior to Domitian; Chase, not later than 80 AD, probably within a year or two of the Pastoral Epistles. Zahn strongly insists on 64 AD as the date of Peter\'s death. If the 2nd Epistle bearing his name is authentic, the apostle could not possibly have copied from Jude, for Jude\'s letter was not in existence when he died. Even on the supposition that he suffered death 65-66 AD, there could have been no copying done save by Jude, for it is almost demonstrable that Jude was written after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. If 2 Peter is pseudonymous and written about the middle of the 2nd century, as some confidently affirm, it has no right to a place in the Canon nor any legitimate relation to Jude. If genuine, it antedates Jude.<P>VI. The Libertines of Jude\'s Epistle.<P>Their character is very forcibly exhibited, but no information is given us of their origin or to what particular region they belonged. They bore the Christian name, were of the loosest morals, and were guilty of shameful excesses. Their influence seems to have been widespread and powerful, else Jude would not denounce them in such severe language. Their guilty departure from the truth must not be confounded with the Gnosticism of the 2nd century, though it tended strongly in that direction; it was a 1st-century defection. Were they newly risen sensualists, without predecessors? To some extent their forerunners had already appeared. Sensuality in some of its greaser forms disgraced the church at Corinth (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,\'1-13\');">1Co 5:1-13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',6,\'13-20\');">6:13-20</a>). In the common meals of this congregation which ended in the celebration of the Lord\'s Supper, they indulged in revelry and gluttony, some of them even being intoxicated (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,\'17-22\');">1Co 11:17-22</a>). Participation in a heathen festival exposed the Christians to the danger of sharing in idolatry, and yet some of the Corinthians were addicted to it (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',8,\'1-\');">1Co 8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,\'14-32\');">10:14-32</a>). In reading of the state of things in the church at Colosse, one perceives how fatal certain views and practices there would soon become if suffered to grow (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,\'16-23\');">Col 2:16-23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,\'5-11\');">3:5-11</a>). Twenty years after the probable date of Jude, in some of the churches of Asia Minor, wicked parties flourished and dominated Christian assemblies that were closely allied in teaching and conduct with the ungodly of Jude. The Nicolaitans, and the "woman Jezebel, who calleth herself a prophetess; and she teacheth and seduceth my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed to idols" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,20);">Re 2:20</a>) belong to the same company of libertines as those of Jude. It should be no surprise to us with these examples before us, that according to Jude there were found in the bosom of the Christian community moral delinquents and shameless profligates whose conduct shocks our sense of propriety and decency, for the like evils, though not so flagrant, troubled the churches in Paul\'s lifetime.<P>Jude brands them as enemies and apostates. He pronounces their doom in the words of Enoch: "Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment upon all" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,14,15);">Jude 1:14,15</a>). It is generally believed that this prophecy of Enoch is quoted by Jude from the apocryphal Book of Enoch. Granting such quotation, that fact does not warrant us to affirm that he endorsed the book. Paul cites from three Greek poets: from Aratus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,28);">Ac 17:28</a>), from Menander (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,33);">1Co 15:33</a>; see Earle, Euripides, "Medea," Intro,30,where this is attributed to Euripides), and from Epimenides (<a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,12);">Tit 1:12</a>). Does anyone imagine that Paul endorses all that these poets wrote? To the quotation from Epimenides the apostle adds, "This testimony is true" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,13);">Tit 1:13</a>), but no one imagines he means to say the whole poem is true. So Jude cites a passage from a non-canonical book, not because he accepts the whole book as true, but this particular prediction he receives as from God. Whence the writer of Enoch derived it is unknown. It may have been cherished and transmitted from generation to generation, or in some other way faithfully preserved, but at any rate Jude accepted it as authentic. Paul quotes a saying of the Lord Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,35);">Ac 20:35</a>) not recorded in the Gospels, but whence he derived it is unknown. As much may be said of this of Enoch which Jude receives as true.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Zahn, Introduction to New Testament; Salmon, Introduction to New Testament; Westcott, Canon of New Testament; Purves, Apostolic Age; Alford, Greek Test.; Plumptre, Commentary, "Cambridge Bible Series"; Lillie, Commentary on 1 and 2 Pet; Bigg, ICC; Vincent, Word Studies.``123';
isbe[5210]='Judea`joo-de\'-a: In <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',5,8);">Ezr 5:8</a> for "Judah"; thus the Revised Version (British and American). In the New Testament the form is <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUDAEA">JUDAEA</a> (which see).``1';
isbe[5211]='Judge`juj (shophet; New Testament dikastes, krites): In the early patriarchal times the heads of families and the elders of the tribes were the judges (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',38,24);">Ge 38:24</a>), and their authority was based on custom. In the wilderness Moses alone was the judge until Jethro suggested a scheme of devolution. On his advice Moses divided the people into groups of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens, and over each group a wise and good man was set as a judge. Thereafter only the most important cases were brought before Moses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,\'13-26\');">Ex 18:13-26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',1,\'9-17\');">De 1:9-17</a>). This arrangement ceased to be practicable when the children of Israel settled down in Canaan. Although David took counsel with the heads of thousands and hundreds (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',13,1);">1Ch 13:1</a>), it need not be assumed that this was a continuation of the plan adopted by Moses. Probably the local courts were not organized till the time of David. In the days of the Judges justice was ministered by those who had risen by wisdom or valor to that rank (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',4,5);">Jud 4:5</a>). An organized circuit court was established by Samuel, who judged cases himself, and also made his sons judges (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',7,16);">1Sa 7:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',8,1);">8:1</a>). After the monarchy was instituted, the king tried all cases, when requested to do so by the wronged person, in the palace gate (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',7,7);">1Ki 7:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',20,8);">Pr 20:8</a>). There was no public prosecutor (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',14,4);">2Sa 14:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',15,\'2-6\');">15:2-6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',18,14);">1Ch 18:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',3,16);">1Ki 3:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',15,5);">2Ki 15:5</a>). Under David and Solomon there were probably local courts (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',23,4);">1Ch 23:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',26,29);">26:29</a>). Jehoshaphat organized a high court of justice (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',19,8);">2Ch 19:8</a>). The prophets often complain bitterly that the purity of justice is corrupted by bribery and false witness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,23);">Isa 1:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',5,23);">5:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,1);">10:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',5,12);">Am 5:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',6,12);">6:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',3,11);">Mic 3:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',7,3);">7:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',6,19);">Pr 6:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',12,17);">12:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',18,5);">18:5</a>). Even kings sometimes pronounced unjust sentences, especially in criminal cases (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',22,\'6-19\');">1Sa 22:6-19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',22,26);">1Ki 22:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',21,16);">2Ki 21:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',36,26);">Jer 36:26</a>). An evil king could also bend local courts to do his will, as may be gathered from the case of Naboth\'s vineyard (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',21,\'1-13\');">1Ki 21:1-13</a>).<P>The first duty of a judge was to execute absolute justice, showing the same impartiality to rich and poor, to Jew and foreigner. He was forbidden to accept bribes or to wrest the judgment of the poor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,\'6-8\');">Ex 23:6-8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',16,19);">De 16:19</a>). He must not let himself be swayed by popular opinion, or unduly favor the poor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,2,3);">Ex 23:2,3</a>).<P>The court was open to the public (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,13);">Ex 18:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rth\',4,1,2);">Ru 4:1,2</a>). Each party presented his view of the case to the judge (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',1,16);">De 1:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',25,1);">25:1</a>). Possibly the accused appeared in court clad in mourning (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',3,3);">Zec 3:3</a>). The accuser stood on the right hand of the accused (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',3,1);">Zec 3:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',109,6);">Ps 109:6</a>). Sentence was pronounced after the hearing of the case, and the judgment carried out (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',7,24,25);">Jos 7:24,25</a>). The only evidence considered by the court was that given by the witnesses. In criminal cases, not less than two witnesses were necessary (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',19,15);">De 19:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',35,30);">Nu 35:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',17,6);">De 17:6</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,16);">Mt 18:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',13,1);">2Co 13:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',5,19);">1Ti 5:19</a>). In cases other than criminal the oath (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=OATH">OATH</a>) was applied (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,11);">Ex 22:11</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',6,16);">Heb 6:16</a>). The lot was sometimes appealed to (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',7,\'14-18\');">Jos 7:14-18</a>), especially in private disputes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',18,18);">Pr 18:18</a>), but this was exceptional. When the law was not quite definite, recourse was had to the Divine oracle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,12);">Le 24:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',15,34);">Nu 15:34</a>).``98';
isbe[5212]='Judges, Book of`juj\'-iz, :<P>1. Title<P>2. Place in the Canon<P>3. Contents<P class="in15">(1) Introductory, <span class="noTag">Judges 1-2:5</span><P class="in15">(2) Central and Main Portion, <span class="noTag">Judges 2:6-16</span><P class="in15">(3) An Appendix, <span class="noTag">Judges 17-21</span><P>4. Chronology<P>5. Authorship and Sources<P>6. Relation to Preceding Books<P>7. Relation to Septuagint and Other versions<P>8. Religious Purpose and Value<P>LITERATURE<hr /><P>1. Title:<P>The English name of the Book of Judges is a translation of the Hebrew title (shophetim), which is reproduced in the Greek Kritai, and the Latin Liber Judicum. In the list of the canonical books of the Old Testament given by Origen (apud Euseb., HE, VI, 25) the name is transliterated Saphateim, which represents rather "judgments" (shephatim; krimata) than "judges." A passage also is quoted from Philo (De Confus. Linguarum, 26), which indicates that he recognized the same form of the name; compare the Greek title of "Kingdoms" (Basileiai) for the four Books of Samuel and Kings.<P>2. Place in the Canon:<P>In the order of the Hebrew Canon the Book of Judges invariably occupies the 7th place, following immediately upon Joshua and preceding Samuel and Kings. With these it formed the group of the four "earlier prophets" (nebhi\'im ri\'shonim), the first moiety of the 2nd great division of the Hebrew Scriptures. As such the Book of Judges was classified and regarded as "prophetical," equally with the other historical books, on the ground of the religious and spiritual teaching which its history conveyed. In the rearrangement of the books, which was undertaken for the purposes of the Greek translation and Canon, Judges maintained its position as 7th in order from the beginning, but the short historical Book of Ruth was removed from the place which it held among the Rolls (meghilloth) in the 3rd division of the Jewish Canon, and attached to Judges as a kind of appendix, probably because the narrative was understood to presuppose the same conditions and to have reference to the same period of time. The Greek order was followed in all later VSS, and has maintained itself in modern Bibles. Origen (loc. cit.) even states, probably by a mere misunderstanding, that Judges and Ruth were comprehended by the Jews under the one title Saphateim.<P>3. Contents:<P>The Book of Judges consists of 3 main parts or divisions, which are readily distinguished.<P>(1) Introductory, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,\'1-\');">Judges 1</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',2,\'1-5\');">2:5</a>.<P>A brief summary and recapitulation of the events of the conquest of Western Palestine, for the most part parallel to the narrative of Joshua, but with a few additional details and some divergences from the earlier account, in particular emphasizing (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,\'27-36\');">Jud 1:27-36</a>) the general failure of the Israelites to expel completely the original inhabitants of the land, which is described as a violation of their covenant with Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',2,\'1-3\');">Jud 2:1-3</a>), entailing upon them suffering and permanent weakness. The introductory verse (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,1);">Jud 1:1</a>), which refers to the death of Joshua as having already taken place, seems to be intended as a general indication of the historical period of the book as a whole; for some at least of the events narrated in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,\'1-\');">Jud 1</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',2,\'2-5\');">2:5</a> took place during Joshua\'s lifetime.<P>(2) The Central and Main Portion, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',2,\'6-16\');">Judges 2:6-16</a>.<P>A series of narratives of 12 "judges," each of whom in turn, by his devotion and prowess, was enabled to deliver Israel from thralldom and oppression, and for a longer or shorter term ruled over the people whom he had thus saved from their enemies. Each successive repentance on the part of the people, however, and their deliverance are followed, on the death of the judge, by renewed apostasy, which entails upon them renewed misery and servitude, from which they are again rescued when in response to their prayer the Lord "raises up" for them another judge and deliverer. Thus the entire history is set as it were in a recurrent framework of moral and religious teaching and warning; and the lesson is enforced that it is the sin of the people, their abandonment of Yahweh and persistent idolatry, which entails upon them calamity, from which the Divine longsuffering and forbearance alone makes for them a way of escape.<P>(a) <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',2,6);">Judges 2:6-3:6</a>:<P>A second brief introduction, conceived entirely in the spirit of the following narratives, which seems to attach itself to the close of the Book of Joshua, and in part repeats almost verbally the account there given of the death and burial of Israel\'s leader (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',2,\'6-9\');">Jud 2:6-9</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',24,\'28-31\');">Jos 24:28-31</a>), and proceeds to describe the condition of the land and people in the succeeding generation, ascribing their misfortunes to their idolatry and repeated neglect of the warnings and commands of the judges; closing with an enumeration of the peoples left in the land, whose presence was to be the test of Israel\'s willingness to obey Yahweh and at the same time to prevent the nation from sinking into a condition of lethargy and ease.<P>(b) <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',3,\'7-11\');">Judges 3:7-3:11</a>:<P>Judgeship of Othniel who delivered Israel from the hand of Cushan-rishathaim.<P>(c) <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',3,\'12-30\');">Judges 3:12-30</a>:<P>Victory of Ehud over the Moabites, to whom the Israelites had been in servitude 18 years. Ehud slew their king Eglon, and won for the nation a long period of tranquillity.<P>(d) <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',3,31);">Judges 3:31</a>:<P>In a few brief words Shamgar is named as the deliverer of Israel from the Philistines. The title of "judge" is not accorded to him, nor is he said to have exercised authority in any way. It is doubtful, therefore, whether the writer intended him to be regarded as one of the judges.<P>(e) <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',4,\'1-\');">Judges 4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,\'1-\');">5</a>:<P>Victory of Deborah and Barak over Jabin the Canaanite king, and death of Sisera, captain of his army, at the hands of Jael, the wife of Kenite chief; followed by a So of Triumph, descriptive and commemorative of the event.<P>(f) <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,\'1-\');">Judges 6-8</a>:<P>A 7-year oppression at the hands of the Midianites, which is described as peculiarly severe, so that the land became desolate on account of the perpetual raids to which it was subject. After a period of hesitation and delay, Gideon defeats the combined forces of the Midianites and Amalekites and the "children of the east," i.e. the wandering Bedouin bands from the eastern deserts, in the valley of Jezreel. The locality and course of the battle are traced by the sacred writer, but it is not possible to follow his account in detail because of our inability to identify the places named. After the victory, Gideon is formally offered the position of ruler for himself and his descendants, but refuses; nevertheless, he seems to have exercised a measure of restraining influence over the people until his death, although he himself and his family apparently through covetousness fell away from their faithfulness to Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,27,33);">Jud 8:27,33</a>).<P>(g) <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',9,\'1-\');">Judges 9</a>:<P>Episode of Abimelech, son of Gideon by a concubine, who by the murder of all but one of his brethren, the legitimate sons of Gideon, secured the throne at Shechem for himself, and for 3 years ruled Israel. After successfully stamping out a revolt at Shechem against his authority, he is himself killed when engaged in the siege of the citadel or tower of Thebez by a stone thrown by woman.<P>(h) (i) <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',10,\'1-5\');">Judges 10:1-5</a>:<P>Tola and Jair are briefly named as successive judges of Israel for 23 and 22 years respectively.<P>(j) <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',10,\'6-\');">Judges 10:6-12:7</a>:<P>Oppression of Israel for 18 years by the Philistines and Ammonites. The national deliverance is effected by Jephthah, who is described as an illegitimate son of Gilead who had been on that account driven out from his home and had become the captain of a band of outlaws. Jephthah stipulates with the elders of Gilead that if he undertakes to do battle on their behalf with the Ammonites, he is afterward to be recognized as their ruler; and in accordance with the agreement, when the victory has been won, he becomes judge over Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',11,9);">Jud 11:9</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',12,7);">12:7</a>).<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JEPHTHAH">JEPHTHAH</a>.<P>(k) (l) (m) <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',12,\'8-15\');">Judges 12:8-15</a>:<P>Three of the so-called "minor" judges, Ibzan, Elon and Abdon, judged Israel in succession for 7, 10 and 8 years respectively. As they are not said to have delivered the nation from any calamity or oppression, it is perhaps to be understood that the whole period was a time of rest and tranquillity.<P>(n) <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',13,\'1-\');">Judges 13-16</a>:<P>The history of Samson (see separate article [<A href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SAMSON">SAMSON</a>).<P>(3) An Appendix, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',17,\'1-\');">Judges 17-21</a>.<P>The final section, in the nature of an appendix, consisting of two narratives, independent apparently of the main portion of the book and of one another. They contain no indication of date, except the statement 4 times repeated that "in those days there was no king in Israel" <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,\'1-\');">Jud 6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',18,1);">18:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',19,1);">19:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',21,25);">21:25</a>). The natural inference is that the narratives were committed to writing in the days of the monarchy; but the events themselves were understood by the compiler or historian to have taken place during the period of the Judges, or at least anterior to the establishment of the kingdom. The lawless state of society, the violence and disorder among the tribes, would suggest the same conclusion. No name of a judge appears, however, and there is no direct reference to the office or to any central or controlling authority. Josephus also seems to have known them in reverse order, and in a position preceding the histories of the judges themselves, and not at the close of the book (Ant., V, ii, 8-12; iii, 1; see E. Konig in HDB, II, 810). Even if the present form of the narratives is thus late, there can be little doubt that they contain elements of considerable antiquity.<P>(a) <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',17,\'1-\');">Judges 17</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',18,\'1-\');">18</a>:<P>The episode of Micah the Ephraimite and the young Levite who is consecrated as priest in his house. A war party, however, of the tribe of Dan during a migration northward, by threats and promises induced the Levite to accompany them, taking with him the priestly ephod, the household goods of his patron, and a costly image which Micah had caused to be made. These Micah in vain endeavors to recover from the Danites. The latter sack and burn Laish in the extreme north of Palestine, rebuilding the city on the same site and renaming it "Dan." There they set up the image which they had stolen, and establish a rival priesthood and worship, which is said to have endured "all the time that the house of God was in Shiloh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',18,31);">18:31</a>).<P>(b) <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',19,\'1-\');">Judges 19-21</a>:<P>Outrage of the Benjamites of Gibeah against the concubine of a Levite lodging for a night in the city on his way from Bethlehem to the hill country of Ephraim. The united tribes, after twice suffering defeat at the hands of the men of Benjamin, exact full vengeance; the tribe of Benjamin is almost annihilated, and their cities, including Gibeah, are destroyed. In order that the tribe may not utterly perish, peace is declared with the 600 survivors, and they are provided with wives by stratagem and force, the Israelites having taken a solemn vow not to permit intermarriage between their own daughters and the members of the guilty tribe.<P>4. Chronology:<P>The period covered by the history of the Book of Judges extends from the death of Joshua to the death of Samson, and adds perhaps a later reference in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',18,31);">Jud 18:31</a>, "all the time that the house of God was in Shiloh" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',1,3);">1Sa 1:3</a>). It is, however, difficult, perhaps impossible, to compute in years the length of time that the writer had in mind. That he proceeded upon a fixed chronological basis, supplied probably by tradition but modified or arranged on a systematic principle, seems evident. The difficulty may be due in part to the corruption which the figures have suffered in the course of the transmission of the text. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',6,1);">1Ki 6:1</a> an inclusive total of 480 years is given as the period from the Exodus to the building of the Temple in the 4th year of the reign of Solomon. This total, however, includes the 40 years\' wandering in the desert, the time occupied in the conquest and settlement of the Promised Land, and an uncertain period after the death of Joshua, referred to in the Book of Judges itself (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',2,10);">2:10</a>), until the older generation that had taken part in the invasion had passed away. There is also to be reckoned the 40 years\' judgeship of Eli (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',4,18);">1Sa 4:18</a>), the unknown length of the judgeship of Samuel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',7,15);">Jud 7:15</a>), the years of the reign of Saul (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,1);">1Sa 13:1</a>, where, however, no statement is made as to the length of his reign), the 40 years during which David was king (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',2,11);">1Ki 2:11</a>), and the 4 years of Solomon before the building of the Temple. The recurrence of the number 40 is already noticeable; but if for the unknown periods under and after Joshua, of Samuel and of Saul, 50 or 60 years be allowed<65>a moderate estimate<74>there would remain from the total of 480 years a period of 300 years in round numbers for the duration of the times of the Judges. It may be doubted whether the writer conceived of the period of unsettlement and distress, of alternate oppression and peace, as lasting for so long a time.<P>The chronological data contained in the Book of Judges itself are as follows:<P>A total of 410 years, or, if the years of foreign oppression and of the usurpation of Abimelech are omitted, of 296.<P>It has been supposed that in some instances the rule of the several judges was contemporaneous, not successive, and that therefore the total period during which the judges ruled should be reduced accordingly. In itself this is sufficiently probable. It is evident, however, that this thought was not in the mind of the writer, for in each case he describes the rule of the judge as over "Israel" with no indication that "Israel" is to be understood in a partial and limited signification. His words must therefore be interpreted in their natural sense, that in his own belief the rulers whose deeds he related exercised control in the order named over the entire nation. Almost certainly, however, he did not intend to include in his scheme the years of oppression or the 3 years of Abimelech\'s rule. If these be deducted, the resultant number (296) is very near the total which the statement in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',6,1);">1Ki 6:1</a> suggests.<P>No stress, however, must be laid upon this fact. The repeated occurrence of the number 40, with its double and half, can hardly be accidental. The same fact was noted above in connection with earlier and later rulers in Israel. It suggests that there is present an element of artificiality and conscious arrangement in the scheme of chronology, which makes it impossible to rely upon it as it stands for any definite or reliable historical conclusion.<P>5. Authorship and Sources:<P>Within the Book of Judges itself no author is named, nor is any indication given of the writer or writers who are responsible for the form in which the book appears; and it would seem evident, also, that the 3 parts or divisions of which the book is composed are on a different footing as regards the sources from which they are drawn. The Talmudic tradition which names Samuel as the author can hardly be seriously regarded. The historical introduction presents a form of the traditional narrative of the conquest of Palestine which is parallel to but not identical with that contained in the Book of Joshua. Brief and disconnected as it is, it is of the greatest value as a historical authority, and contains elements which in origin, if not in their present form, are of considerable antiquity. The main portion of the book, comprising the narratives of the judges, is based upon oral or written traditions of a local and perhaps a tribal character, the value of which it is difficult to estimate, but which undoubtedly in some instances have been more carefully preserved than in others. In particular, around the story of Samson there seem to have gathered elements derived from the folklore and the wonder-loving spirit of the countryside; and the exploits of a national hero have been enhanced and surrounded with a glamor of romance as the story of them has passed from lip to lip among a people who themselves or their forefathers owed so much to his prowess. Of this central part of Judges, the Song of Deborah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,\'1-\');">Judges 5</a>) is the most ancient, and bears every mark of being a contemporary record of a remarkable conflict and victory. The text is often difficult, almost unintelligible, and has so greatly suffered in the course of transmission as in some passages to be beyond repair. As a whole the song is an eloquent and impassioned ode of triumph, ascribing to Yahweh the great deliverance which has been wrought for His people over their foes.<P>The narratives of Judgess, moreover, are set in a framework of chronology and of ethical comment and teaching, which are probably independent of one another. The moral exhortations and the lessons drawn from hardships and sufferings, which the people of Israel incur as the consequence of their idolatry and sin, are conceived entirely in the spirit of Deuteronomy, and even in the letter and form bear a considerable resemblance to the writings of that book. In the judgment of some scholars, therefore, they are to be ascribed to the same author or authors. Of this, however, there is no proof. It is possible, but perhaps hardly probable. They certainly belong to the same school of thought, of clear-sighted doctrine, of reverent piety, and of jealous concern for the honor of Yahweh. With the system of chronology, the figures and dates, the ethical commentary and inferences would seem to have no direct relation. The former is perhaps a later addition, based in part at least upon tradition, and applied to existing accounts, in order to give them their definite place and succession in the historical record. Finally, the three strands of traditional narrative, moral comment, and chronological framework were woven into one whole by a compiler or reviser who completed the book in the form in which it now exists. Concerning the absolute dates, however, at which these processes took place very little can be determined.<P>The two concluding episodes are distinct, both in form and character, from the rest of the book. They do not relate the life or deeds of a judge, nor do they, explicitly at least, convey any moral teaching or warning. They are also mutually independent. It would seem therefore that they are to be regarded as accounts of national events or experiences, preserved by tradition, which, because they were understood to have reference to the period of the Judges, were included in this book. The internal nature of the narratives themselves would suggest that they belong rather to the earlier than the later part of the time during which the judges held rule; and their ancient character is similarly attested. There is no clue, however, to the actual date of their composition, or to the time or circumstances under which they were incorporated in the Book of Judges.<P>6. Relation to Preceding Books:<P>The discussion of the relation of the Book of Judges to the generally recognized sources of the Pentateuch and to Joshua has been in part anticipated in the previous paragraph. In the earliest introductory section of the book, and in some of the histories of the judges, especially in that of Gideon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,\'1-\');">Judges 6-8</a>), it is not difficult to distinguish two threads of narrative, which have been combined together in the account as it now stands; and by some scholars these are identified with the Jahwist (Jahwist) and the Elohist (E) in the Pentateuch. The conclusion, however, is precarious and uncertain, for the characteristic marks of the Pentateuch "sources" are in great measure absent. There is more to be said for the view that regards the introduction (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,\'1-\');">Jud 1-<a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',2,\'1-5\');">2:5</a>), with its verbal parallels to Joshua as derived ultimately from the history of JE, from which, however, very much has been omitted, and the remainder adapted and abbreviated. Even this moderate conclusion cannot be regarded as definitely established. The later author or compiler was in possession of ancient documents or traditions, of which he made use in his composite narrative, but whether these were parts of the same historical accounts that are present in the books of Moses and in Joshua must be regarded as undetermined. There is no trace, moreover, in Judges of extracts from the writing or school of P; nor do the two concluding episodes of the book (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',17,\'1-\');">Judges 17-21</a>) present any features which would suggest an identification with any of the leading "sources" of the Pentateuch.<P>The moral and religious teaching, on the other hand, which makes the varied national experiences in the times of the Judges a vehicle for ethical instruction and warning, is certainly derived from the same school as Deuteronomy, and reproduces the whole tone and spirit of that book. There is no evidence, however, to identify the writer or reviser who thus turned to spiritual profit the lessons of the age of the Judges with the author of Deuteronomy itself, but he was animated by the same principles, and endeavored in the same way to expound the same great truths of religion and the Providence of God.<P>7. Relation to Septuagint and Other Versions:<P>There are two early Greek translations of the Book of Judges, which seem to be on the whole independent of one another. These are represented by the two great uncial manuscripts, B (Codex Vaticanus) and A (Codex Alexandrinus). With the former is associated a group of cursive manuscripts and the Sahidic or Upper Egyptian version. It is therefore probable that the translation is of Egyptian origin, and by some it has been identified with that of Hesychius. It has been shown, moreover, that in this book, and probably elsewhere, the ancient character of the text of B is not always maintained, but in parts at least betrays a later origin. The other version is contained in AV and the majority of the uncial and cursive manuscripts of the Greek texts, and, while certainly a real and independent translation from the original, is thought by some to show acquaintance with the version of B. There is, however, no definite evidence that B\'s translation is really older. Some of the cursives which agree in general with A form sub-groups; thus the recension of Lucian is believed to be represented by a small number of cursives, the text of which is printed by Lagarde (Librorum VT Canonicorum, Pars Prior, 1883), and is substantially identical with that in the "Complutensian Polyglot" (see G. F. Moore, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges, Edinburgh,1895,xliiiff). It is probable that the true original text of the Septuagint is not represented completely either by the one or the other version, but that it partially underlies both, and may be traced in the conflicting readings which must be judged each on its own merits.<P>Of the other principal versions, the Old Latin and the Hexaplar Syriac, together with the Armenian and the Ethiopic, attach themselves to a sub-group of the manuscripts associated with A. The Bohairic version of the Book of Judges has not hitherto been published, but, like the rest of the Old Testament, its text would no doubt be found to agree substantially with B. Jerome\'s translation follows closely the Massoretic Text, and is independent of both Greek VSS; and the Peshitta also is a direct rendering from the Hebrew.<P>8. Religious Purpose and Value:<P>Thus the main purpose of the Book of Judges in the form in which it has been preserved in the Old Testament is not to record Israel\'s past for its own sake, or to place before the writer\'s contemporaries a historical narrative of the achievements of their great men and rulers, but to use these events and the national experiences of adversity as a text from which to educe religious warning and instruction. With the author or authors spiritual edification is the first interest, and the facts or details of the history, worthy of faithful records, because it is the history of God\'s people, find their chief value in that they are and were designed to be admonitory, exhibiting the Divine judgments upon idolatry and sin, and conveying the lesson that disobedience and rebellion, a hard and defiant spirit that was forgetful of Yahweh, could not fail to entail the same disastrous consequences. The author is preeminently a preacher of righteousness to his fellow-countrymen, and to this aim all other elements in the book, whether chronological or historical, are secondary and subordinate. In his narrative he sets down the whole truth, so far as it has become known to him through tradition or written document, however discreditable it may be to his nation. There is no ground for believing that he either extenuates on the one hand, or on the other paints in darker colors than the record of the transgressions of the people deserved. Neither he nor they are to be judged by the standards of the 20th century, with its accumulated wealth of spiritual experience and long training in the principles of righteousness and truth. But he holds and asserts a lofty view of the character of Yahweh, of the immutability of His wrath against obstinate transgression and of the certainty of its punishment, and yet of the Divine pitifulness and mercy to the man or nation that turns to Him with a penitent heart. The Jews were not mistaken when they counted the Book of Judges among the Prophets. It is prophecy, more than history, because it exhibits and enforces the permanent lessons of the righteousness and justice and loving-kindness of God.<P>LITERATURE.<P>A complete bibliography of the literature up to date will be found in the Dicts. under the word "Judges," D B2, 1893; HDB, II, 1899; EB, II, 1901; compare G. F. Moore, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges, Edinburgh, 1895; SBOT, Leipzig, 1900; R. A. Watson, "Jgs" and "Ruth," in Expositor\'s Bible, 1889; G. W. Thatcher, "Jgs" and "Ruth," in Century Bible; S. Oettli, "Das Deuteronomium und die Bucher Josua und Richter," in Kurzgefasster Kommentar, Munchen, 1893; K. Budde, "Das Buch der Richter," in Kurzer HandKommentar zum Altes Testament, Tubingen, 1897; W. Nowack, "Richter," in Hand-kommentar zum Altes Testament, 1900.``65';
isbe[5213]='Judges, Period of`<b>I. SOURCES</b><P><b>II. CHRONOLOGY</b><P><b>III. GENERAL POLITICAL SITUATION</b><P class="in15">1. The Canaanites<P class="in15">2. Foes Without<P><b>IV. MAIN EVENTS</b><P class="in15">1. Struggles of Individual Tribes<P class="in15">2. Civil Strife<P class="in15">3. The Six Invasions<P class="in15">4. Need of Central Government<P><b>V. RELIGIOUS CONDITIONS</b><P><b>VI. THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION</b><P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. Sources.<P>Our chief sources of information are the Book of Judges and <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',1,1);">1Sa 1-12</a>. The material contained in these is not all of the same age. The oldest part, by common consent, is the Song of Deborah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,\'1-\');">Jud 5</a>). It is a contemporaneous document. The prose narratives, however, are also early, and are generally regarded as presenting a faithful picture of the times with which they deal. The Book of Ruth, which also refers to this period, is probably in its present form a later composition, but there is no adequate ground for denying to it historical basis (Konig, Einleitung, 286ff; Kent, Student\'s Old Testament, I, 310f).<P>II. Chronology.<P>The period of the Judges extends from the death of Joshua to the establishment of the monarchy. How long a time elapsed between these limits is a matter of wide difference of opinion. The chronological data in the Book of Judges, i.e. omitting Eli and Samuel, make a total of 410 years. But this is inconsistent with <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',6,1);">1Ki 6:1</a>, where the whole period from the Exodus to the 4th year of Solomon is reckoned at 480 years. Various attempts have been made to harmonize these divergent figures, e.g. by eliminating the 70 years attributed to the Minor Judges (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',10,\'1-5\');">10:1-5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',12,\'7-15\');">12:7-15</a>), by not counting the 71 years of foreign domination, and by theory that some of the judges were contemporaneous. It is probable that the 480 years of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',6,1);">1Ki 6:1</a> was a round number and did not rest on exact records. Indeed, it is doubtful if there was any fixed calendar in Israel before the time of the monarchy. The only way then to determine the length of the period of the Judges is from the date of the Exodus. The common view is that the Exodus took place during or just after the reign of Merenptah in the latter half of the 13th century BC. This, however, leaves hardly more than 150 years to the period of the Judges, for Saul\'s reign fell in the 2nd half of the 11th century BC. Hence, some, to whom this seems too short, assign the Exodus to the reign of Amenophis II, about 1450 BC. This harmonizes with the 480 years of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',6,1);">1Ki 6:1</a>, and is supported by other considerations (POT, 422-24). Still others have connected the Exodus with the expulsion of the Hyksos about 1580 BC (G.A. Reisner); and this would fit in very well with the chronological data in the Book of Judges. The objection to the last two views is that they require a rather long period of subjection of the Israelites in Canaan to Egypt, of which there is no trace in the Book of Judges.<P>See, further, <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUDGES,+BOOK+OF">JUDGES, BOOK OF, IV</a>.<P>III. General Political Situation.<P>The death of Joshua left much land yet to be possessed by the Israelites.<P>1. The Canaanites:<P>The different tribes had received their respective allotments (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,3);">Jud 1:3</a>), but the actual possession of the territory assigned each still lay in the future and was only gradually achieved. The Canaanites remained in the land, and were for a time a serious menace to the power of Israel. They retained possession of the plains and many of the fortified cities, e.g. Gezer, Harheres, Aijalon, Shaalhim, and Jerusalem on the northern border of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,21,29,35);">Jud 1:21,29,35</a>), and Bethshean, Ibleam, Taanach, Megiddo, and Dot along the northern border of Manasseh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,27,28);">Jud 1:27,28</a>).<P>2. Foes Without:<P>Besides these foes within Canaan, the Israelites had enemies from without to contend with, namely, the Moabites, Midianites, Ammonites, and Philistines. The danger from each of these quarters, except that from the Philistines, was successfully warded off. The conflicts in which the Israelites were thus involved were all more or less local in character. In no case did all the tribes act together, though the duty of such united action is clearly taught in the Song of Deborah, at least so far as the 10 northern tribes are concerned. The omission of Judah and Simeon from this ancient song is strange, but may not be so significant as is sometimes supposed. The judges, who were raised up to meet the various emergencies, seem to have exercised jurisdiction only over limited areas. In general the different tribes and clans acted independently of each other. Local home rule prevailed. "Every man did that which was right in his own eyes" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',17,6);">Jud 17:6</a>).<P>That Canaan was not during this period subdued and kept in subjection by one of the great world-powers, Egypt or Babylonia, is to be regarded as providential (HPM, I, 214f). Such subjection would have made impossible the development of a free national and religious life in Israel. The Cushan-rishathaim of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',3,\'7-10\');">Jud 3:7-10</a> was more likely a king of Edom than of Mesopotamia (Paton, Early History of Syria and Palestine, 161-62).<P>IV. Main Events.<P>1. Struggles of Individual Tribes:<P>Much of what took place during this period is unrecorded. Of the struggles through which the individual tribes passed before they succeeded in establishing themselves in the land, little is known. One interesting episode is preserved for us in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',17,\'1-\');">Jud 17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',18,\'1-\');">18</a>. A considerable portion of the tribe of Dan, hard pressed by the Amorites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,34);">Jud 1:34</a>f), migrated from their allotted home west of Judah to Laish in the distant north, where they put the inhabitants to the sword, burnt the city and then rebuilt it under the name of Dan. This took place early in the period of the Judges, apparently during the first generation after the conquest (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',18,30);">Jud 18:30</a>).<P>2. Civil Strife:<P>At about the same time also (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',20,28);">Jud 20:28</a>) seems to have occurred the war with Benjamin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',19,\'1-\');">Jud 19-21</a>), which grew out of an outrage perpetrated at Gibeah and the refusal of the Benjamites to surrender the guilty parties for punishment. The historicity of this war has been called in question, but it seems to be attested by <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',9,9);">Ho 9:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',10,9);">10:9</a>. And that civil strife in Israel was not otherwise unknown during this period is clear from the experiences of Gideon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,\'1-3\');">Jud 8:1-3</a>) and Jephthah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',12,\'1-6\');">Jud 12:1-6</a>), not to mention those of Abimelech (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',9,\'1-\');">Jud 9</a>). It is a current theory that the tribes of Simeon and Levi early in this period suffered a serious reverse (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,\'5-7\');">Ge 49:5-7</a>), and that a reflection of this event is to be found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',34,\'1-\');">Ge 34</a>; but the data are too uncertain to warrant any confidence in this view.<P>3. The Six Invasions:<P>Six wars with other nations are recorded as taking place in this period, and each called forth its judge or judges. Othniel delivered the Israelites from the Mesopotamians or Edomites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',3,\'7-11\');">Jud 3:7-11</a>), Ehud from the Moabites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',3,\'12-30\');">Jud 3:12-30</a>), Deborah and Barak from the Canaanites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',4,\'1-\');">Judges 4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,\'1-\');">5</a>), Gideon from the Midianites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,\'1-\');">Judges 6-8</a>), and Jephthah from the Ammonites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',10,\'6-12\',17);">Jud 10:6-12,17</a>). In the strife with the Philistines, which was not terminated during this period, Samson (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',13,\'1-\');">Judges 13-16</a>), Eli (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',4,\'1-\');">1Sa 4-6</a>), and Samuel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',7,\'3-14\');">1Sa 7:3-14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',9,16);">9:16</a>) figure. Of these six wars those which brought Othniel, Ehud and Jephthah to the front were less serious and significant than the other three. The conflicts with the Canaanites, Midianites and Philistines mark distinct stages in the history of the period.<P>After the first successes of the Israelites in Canaan a period of weakness and disintegration set in. The Canaanites, who still held the fortified cities in the plain of Esdraelon, banded themselves together and terrorized the region round about. The Hebrews fled from their villages to the caves and dens. None had the heart to offer resistance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,6,8);">Jud 5:6,8</a>). It seemed as though they were about to be subdued by the people they had a short time before dispossessed. Then it was that Deborah appeared on the scene. With her passionate appeals in the name of Yahweh she awakened a new sense of national unity, rallied the discouraged forces of the nation and administered a final crushing defeat upon the Canaanites in the plain of Megiddo.<P>But the flame thus kindled after a time went out. New enemies came from without. The Midianites invaded the land year after year, robbing it of its produce (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,1,3);">Jud 6:1,3</a>). This evil was suddenly put an end to by the bold stroke of Gideon, whose victory was long treasured in the public memory (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',9,4);">Isa 9:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,26);">10:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',83,\'9-12\');">Ps 83:9-12</a>). But the people, at least of Manasseh and perhaps also of Ephraim, now realized that it was no longer safe to depend upon such temporary leadership. They needed a permanent organization to ward off the dangers that beset them. They therefore offered the kingship to Gideon. He formally declined it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,22,23);">Jud 8:22,23</a>), but still set up a government at Ophrah which the people looked upon as hereditary (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',9,2);">Jud 9:2</a>). He was succeeded by his son Abimelech, who, after slaying all but one of his 70 brothers, assumed the title of king. The new kingdom, however, was of short duration. It ended after three years with the ignominious death of the king.<P>4. Need of Central Government:<P>A great danger was needed before the people of Israel could be welded into unity and made to see the necessity of a strong central government. This came eventually from the Philistines, who twice defeated the Israelites in battle, captured the ark, and overran a large part of the country (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',4,1);">1Sa 4-6</a>). In the face of such a foe as this it was clear that only a strong and permanent leadership of the whole people would suffice (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',9,15);">1Sa 9:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,1);">10:1</a>); and thus the rule of the Judges gave way to the monarchy.<P>V. Religious Conditions.<P>The Hebrew mind to which Moses addressed himself was not a tabula rasa, and the Palestinian world into which the Israelites entered was not an intellectual blank. Formative influences had for ages been at work on the Hebrew mind, and Palestine had long been inhabited by people with fixed institutions, customs and ideas. When then Israel settled in Canaan, they had both a heathen inheritance and a heathen environment to contend with. It should therefore occasion no surprise to find during this period such lapses from the purity of the Mosaic faith as appear in the ephod of Gideon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,\'24-27\');">Jud 8:24-27</a>), the images of Micah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',17,\'1-\');">Judges 17</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',18,\'1-\');">18</a>), and the sacrifice of Jephthah\'s daughter (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',11,\'34-40\');">Jud 11:34-40</a>). In the transition from a nomadic to an agricultural life it was inevitable that the Hebrews with their native heathen proclivities would adopt many of the crude and even immoral religious customs and beliefs of the people among whom they settled. But the purer Mosaic faith still had its representatives. The worship of the central sanctuary at Shiloh remained imageless. Leaders like Deborah and Samuel revived the spirit of Moses. And there can hardly be a doubt that in many a quiet home a true and earnest piety was cultivated like that in the home of Elimelech and Naomi.<P>VI. Theological Interpretation.<P>The Biblical historian was not content simply to narrate events. What concerned him most was the meaning lying back of them. And this meaning he was interested in, not for its own sake, but because of its application to the people of his own day. Hence, intermingled with the narratives of the period of the Judges are to be found religious interpretations of the events recorded and exhortations based upon them. The fundamental lesson thus inculcated is the same as that continually insisted upon by the prophets. The Divine government of the world is based upon justice. Disobedience to the moral law and disloyalty to Yahweh means, therefore, to Israel suffering and disaster. All the oppressions of the period of the Judges arose in this way. Relief and deliverance came only when the people turned unto Yahweh. This religious pragmatism, as it is called, does not lie on the surface of the events, so that a naturalistic historian might see it. But it is a correlate of the ethical monotheism of the prophets, and constitutes the one element in the Old Testament which makes the study of Israel\'s history supremely worth while.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Josephus, Ant, V, ii-vi, 5; Ottley, Short History of the Hebrews, 101-24; Kittel, History of the Hebrews, II, 60f; 2nd German edition, II, 52-135.``90';
isbe[5214]='Judging Judgment`juj\'-ing, juj\'-ment: Often in the Old Testament for "to act as a magistrate" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,13);">Ex 18:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',1,16);">De 1:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',16,18);">16:18</a>, etc.), justice being administered generally by "elders" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,\'13-27\');">Ex 18:13-27</a>), or "kings" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',8,20);">1Sa 8:20</a>) or "priests" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,15);">De 18:15</a>); applied to God as the Supreme Judge (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',9,7,8);">Ps 9:7,8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',10,18);">10:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',96,13);">96:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',4,3);">Mic 4:3</a>, etc.; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',7,8);">Ps 7:8</a> "Yahweh ministereth judgment," vividly describes a court scene, with Yahweh as Judge).<P>Often in the New Testament, ethically, for<P>(1) "to decide," "give a verdict," "declare an opinion" (Greek krino);<P>(2) "to investigate," "scrutinize" (Greek anakrino);<P>(3) "to discriminate," "distinguish" (Greek diakrino).<P>For (1), see <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,43);">Lu 7:43</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,19);">Ac 15:19</a>;<P>for (2) see <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',2,15);">1Co 2:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',4,3);">4:3</a>;<P>for (3) see <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,31);">1Co 11:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',14,29);">14:29</a> margin.<P>Used also forensically in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,30);">Lu 22:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',25,10);">Ac 25:10</a>; and applied to God in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,22);">Joh 5:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,30);">Heb 10:30</a>. The judgments of God are the expression of His justice, the formal declarations of His judgments, whether embodied in words (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',5,1);">De 5:1</a> the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "statutes"), or deeds (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,6);">Ex 6:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',16,7);">Re 16:7</a>), or in decisions that are yet to be published (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',36,6);">Ps 36:6</a>). Man\'s consciousness of guilt inevitably associates God\'s judgments as declarations of the Divine justice, with his own condemnation, i.e. he knows that a strict exercise of justice means his condemnation, and thus "judgment" and "condemnation" become in his mind synonymous (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,16);">Ro 5:16</a>); hence, the prayer of <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',143,2);">Ps 143:2</a>, "Enter not into judgment"; also, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,29);">Joh 6:29</a>, "the resurrection of judgment" (the King James Version "damnation"); <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,29);">1Co 11:29</a>, "eateth and drinketh judgment" (the King James Version "damnation").``84';
isbe[5215]='Judgment Hall`juj\'-ment hol (to praitorion, "Then led they Jesus...unto the hall of judgment...and they themselves went not into the judgment hall" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,28);">Joh 18:28</a> the King James Version); "Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,33);">Joh 18:33</a> the King James Version); "(Pilate) went again into the judgment hall" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,9);">Joh 19:9</a>); "He commanded him to be kept in Herod\'s judgment hall" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',23,35);">Ac 23:35</a>)):<P>"Judgment hall" is one of the ways in which the King James Version translates praitorion, which it elsewhere renders "Praetorium" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,16);">Mr 15:16</a>); "the common hall" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,27);">Mt 27:27</a>). In this passage the English Revised Version renders it "palace"; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,33);">Joh 18:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,9);">19:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',23,35);">Ac 23:35</a>, "palace" is also given by the English Revised Version; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,13);">Php 1:13</a>, the King James Version renders, "palace," while the Revised Version (British and American) gives "the praetorian guard." Praitorion accordingly is translated in all these ways, "Praetorium," "the common hall," "the judgment hall," "the palace," "the praetorian guard." In the passages In the Gospels, the American Standard Revised Version renders uniformly "Praetorium."<P>The word originally meant the headquarters in the Roman camp, the space where the general\'s tent stood, with the camp altar; the tent of the commander-in-chief. It next came to mean the military council, meeting in the general\'s tent. Then it came to be applied to the palace in which the Roman governor or procurator of a province resided. In Jerusalem it was the magnificent palace which Herod the Great had built for himself, and which the Roman procurators seem to have occupied when they came from Caesarea to Jerusalem to transact public business.<P>Praitorion in <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,13);">Php 1:13</a> has been variously rendered, "the camp of the praetorian soldiers," "the praetorian guard," etc. For what is now believed to be its true meaning, see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PRAETORIUM">PRAETORIUM</a>.``155';
isbe[5216]='Judgment Seat`(bema, "a raised place," "platform," "tribune," <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,19);">Mt 27:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,13);">Joh 19:13</a>; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GABBATHA">GABBATHA</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',12,21);">Ac 12:21</a> margin (text "throne"); <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,12,16);">18:12,16</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',25,6,17);">25:6,17</a>): In Greek law courts, one bema was provided for the accuser, another for the accused; but in the New Testament the word designates the official seat of a judge, usually of the Roman governor; also of the emperor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',25,10);">Ac 25:10</a>); then of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',14,10);">Ro 14:10</a>), of Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,10);">2Co 5:10</a>). The word kriterion, "a tribunal," "bench of judges" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',2,6);">Jas 2:6</a>) occurs also in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',6,\'2-4\');">1Co 6:2-4</a>, and is there translated in the Revised Version margin by "tribunals."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUDGE">JUDGE</a>`1';
isbe[5217]='Judgment, Day of``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUDGMENT+LAST">JUDGMENT, LAST</a>`1';
isbe[5218]='Judgment, Last`1. A Transcendental Doctrine:<P>In Christian theology the Last Judgment is an act in which God interposes directly into human history, brings the course of this world to a final close, determines the eternal fate of human beings, and places them in surroundings spiritually adapted to their final condition. The concept is purely transcendental, and is to be distinguished from the hope that God will interfere in the history of this world to determine it undeviatingly toward good. The transcendental doctrine is possible only when an exalted idea of God has been attained, although it may afterward be united with crasser theories, as in certain naive conceptions of Christianity at the present day.<P>2. The Doctrine in the Religion of Israel:<P>In the religion of Israel, the doctrine of the Last Judgment arose from "transcendentalizing" the concept of the "Day of the Lord." Just as hope of immortality replaced desire for length of days on earth, just the as for "the rejuvenation of Palestine" was substituted "an eternal abode in a new earth," so the ideal of a military victory over Israel\'s enemies expanded into God\'s solemn condemnation of evil. The concept thus strictly defined is hardly to be sought in the Old Testament, but <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',12,\'1-3\');">Da 12:1-3</a> may contain it. The first unequivocal assertion would appear to be in Enoch 91:17, where the final state is contrasted with a preceding reign of earthly happiness. (If there has been no redaction in the latter part of this section, its date is prior to 165 BC.) Hereafter the idea is so prevalent in the Jewish writings that detailed reference is needless. But it is by no means universal. Writings touched with Greek thought (En 108; 4 Macc; Philo) are content with an individual judgment at death. A unique theory is that of the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,\'8-14\');">Levi 18:8-14</a>, e.g.), where the world grows into final blessedness without catastrophe. But much more common is the persistence of the non-transcendental ideas, ingrained as they were in the thought of the people (even in Philo; compare his prophecy of national earthly glory in Excr 9). This type of thought was so tenacious that it held its own alongside of the transcendental, and both points of view were accepted by more than one writer. Then the earthly happiness precedes the heavenly (as in Enoch 91), and there are two judgments, one by the Messiah and the other by God (2Esdras 7; Syriac Baruch 30). So in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,\'1-\');">Revelation 19</a> where Christ overcomes the enemies in battle-symbolism and establishes the Millennium, while the Last Judgment is held by God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,11);">20:11</a>ff). Otherwise the Messiah is never the judge except in the Parables of Enoch, where He appears as God\'s vicar uniformly (in <span class="noTag">47:3</a> God fixes the time of judgment only). Possibly in The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 4:16; 5:1</span> men share in the judgment-act but otherwise they (and angels) appear only as "assessors" or as executors of the sentence. In The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 3:8</span>, "judging" is used in the Old Testament sense of "rule" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',3,10);">Jud 3:10</a>, etc.), as is the case in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,28);">Mt 19:28</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,30);">Lu 22:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',6,2,3);">1Co 6:2,3</a> (in the last case with the word in two senses). Further studies in the variation of the (rather conventionally fixed) details of the judgment will interest the special student only.<P>For discussions of the relevant Biblical passages, see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DAY+OF+THE+LORD">DAY OF THE LORD</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ESCHATOLOGY">ESCHATOLOGY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PAROUSIA">PAROUSIA</a>. The doctrine has real religious value, for it insists on a culmination in the evolution (or degeneration!) of the race as well as of the individual. So it is contrasted with the pessimism of natural science, which points only toward the gradual extinction of humanity through the cooling of the sun.<P>LITERATURE.<P>The variations of the concept are treated, fully only in Volz, Judische Eschatologie. For general literature see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ESCHATOLOGY">ESCHATOLOGY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PAROUSIA">PAROUSIA</a>.``48';
isbe[5219]='Judicial Blindness`joo-dish\'-al.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BLINDNESS,+JUDICIAL">BLINDNESS, JUDICIAL</a>`1';
isbe[5220]='Judicial Courts``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=COURTS,+JUDICIAL">COURTS, JUDICIAL</a>`1';
isbe[5221]='Judicial Hardening``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HARDEN">HARDEN</a>`1';
isbe[5222]='Judith`joo\'-dith (for etymology, see next article [<A href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUDITH,+BOOK+OF">Judith, Book of</a>]):<P>(1) A wife of Esau, daughter of Beeri the Hittite (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,34);">Ge 26:34</a>).<P>(2) The heroine of the Book of Judith in Apocrypha<68>a pious, wealthy, courageous, and patriotic widow who delivered Jerusalem and her countrymen from the assault of Holofernes, the general of Nebuchadnezzar who had arranged the expedition which aimed at making Nebuchadnezzar the object of universal human worship.<P>The 8th and following chapters of the book describe her actions which resulted in the cutting off of the head of Holofernes, the rout of the Assyrian army, and the deliverance of the Jews.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUDITH,+BOOK+OF">JUDITH, BOOK OF</a>`1';
isbe[5223]='Judith, Book of`<b>I. NAME</b><P><b>II. CANONICITY</b><P><b>III. CONTENTS</b><P><b>IV. FACT OR FICTION?</b><P><b>V. DATE</b><P class="in15">1. Probably during the Maccabean Age<P class="in15">2. Other Opinions<P class="in30">(1) Invasion of Pompey<P class="in30">(2) Insurrection under Bar Cochba<P><b>VI. ORIGINAL LANGUAGE</b><P><b>VII. VERSIONS</b><P class="in15">1. Greek<P class="in15">2. Syriac<P class="in15">3. Latin<P class="in15">4. Hebrew<P></a>LITERATURE</a><hr /><P>I. Name.<P>This apocryphal book is called after the name of its principal character Judith (yehudhith], "a Jewess"; Ioudith, Ioudeth). The name occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,34);">Ge 26:34</a> and the corresponding masculine form (yehudhi, "a Jew") in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',36,14,21,23);">Jer 36:14,21,23</a> (name of a scribe). In other great crises in Hebrew history women have played a great part (compare Deborah, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,\'1-\');">Jud 5</a>, and Esther). The Books of Ruth, Esther, Judith and Susannah are the only ones in the Bible (including the Apocrypha) called by the names of women, these women being the principal characters in each case.<P>II. Canonicity.<P>Though a tale of Jewish patriotism written originally in Hebrew, this book was never admitted into the Hebrew Canon, and the same applies to the Book of Tobit. But both Judith and Tobit were recognized as canonical by the Council of Carthage (397 AD) and by the Council of Trent (1545 AD). Though, however, all Romanists include these books in their Bible (the Vulgate), Protestant versions of the Bible, with very few exceptions, exclude the whole of the Apocrypha (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCRYPHA">APOCRYPHA</a>). In the Septuagint and Vulgate, Tobit and Judith (in that order) follow Nehemiah and precede Esther. In the English Versions of the Bible of the Apocrypha, which unfortunately for its understanding stands alone, 1Esdras, 2Esdras, Tobit and Judith occupy the first place and in the order named. In his translation of the Apocrypha, Luther, for some unexplained reason, puts Judith at the head of the apocryphal books, Wisdom taking the next place.<P>III. Contents.<P>The book opens with an account of the immense power of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Assyria, whose capital was Nineveh. (In the days of the real Nebuchadnezzar, Assyria had ceased to be, and its capital was destroyed.) He calls upon the peoples living in the western country, including Palestine, to help him to subdue a rival king whose power he feared<65>Arphaxad, king of the Medes (otherwise quite unknown). But as they refused the help he demanded, he first conquered his rival, annexing his territory, and then sent his general Holofernes to subdue the western nations and to punish them for their defiance of his authority. The Assyrian general marched at the head of an army 132,000 strong and soon took possession of the lands north and east of Palestine, demolishing their idols and sanctuaries that Nebuchadnezzar alone might be worshipped as god (Judith 1-3). He now directed his forces against the Jews who had recently returned from exile and newly rebuilt and rededicated their temple. Having heard of the ruin of other temples caused by the invading foe, the Jews became greatly alarmed for the safety of their own, and fortified the mountains and villages in the south, providing themselves with food to meet their needs in the event of war. At the urgent request of Joakim ("Eliakim" in the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) and Peshitta), the inhabitants of Bethulia (so the Latin, English, and other VSS, but Betuloua is more correct according to the Greek) and of Betomestham (both places otherwise unknown) defended the adjoining mountain passes which commanded the way to Jerusalem. Holofernes at once laid siege to Bethulia, and by cutting off the water supply aimed at starving the people to submission. But he knows little of the people he is seeking to conquer, and asks the chiefs who are with him who and what these Jews are. Achior, the Ammonite chief, gives an account of the Israelites,<P>cluding that when faithful to their God they were invincible, but that when they disobeyed Him they were easily overcome. Achior is for this saying expelled and handed over to the Jews. After holding out for some days, the besieged people insisted that Onias their governor should surrender. This he promises to do if no relief comes in the course of five days. A rich, devout and beautiful widow called Judith (daughter of Merari, of the tribe of Simeon (Jth 8:1)), hearing of these things, rebukes the murmurers for their lack of faith and exhorts them to trust in God. As Onias abides by his promise to the people, she resolves to attempt another mode of deliverance. She obtains consent to leave the fortress in the dead of night, accompanied by her maidservant, in order to join the Assyrian camp. First of all she prays earnestly for guidance and success; then doffing her mourning garb, she puts on her most gorgeous attire together with jewels and other ornaments. She takes with her food allowed by Jewish law, that she might have no necessity to eat the forbidden meats of the Gentiles. Passing through the gates, she soon reaches the Assyrians. First of all, the soldiers on watch take her captive, but on her assuring them that she is a fugitive from the Hebrews and desires to put Holofernes in the way of achieving a cheap and easy victory over her fellow-countrymen, she is warmly welcomed and made much of. She reiterates to Holofernes the doctrine taught by Achior that these Jews can easily be conquered when they break the laws of their Deity, and she knows the necessities of their situation would lead them to eat food prohibited in their sacred laws, and when this takes place she informs him that he might at once attack them. Holofernes listens, applauds, and is at once captured by her personal charms. He agrees to her proposal and consents that she and her maid should be allowed each night to say their prayers out in the valley near the Hebrew fortress. On the 4th night after her arrival, Holofernes arranges a banquet to which only his household servants and the two Jewesses are invited. When all is over, by a preconcerted plan the Assyrian general and the beautiful Jewish widow are left alone. He, however, is dead drunk and heavily asleep. With his own scimitar she cuts off his head, calls her maid who puts it into the provision bag, and together they leave the camp as if for their usual prayers and join their Hebrew compatriots, still frantic about the immediate future. But the sight of the head of their arch foe puts new heart into them, and next day they march upon the enemy now in panic at what had happened, and win an easy victory. Judith became ever after a heroine in Jewish romance and poetry, a Hebrew Joan of Arc, and the tale of the deliverance she wrought for her people has been told in many languages. For later and shorter forms of the tale see VII, 4 (Hebrew Midrashes).<P>IV. Fact or Fiction?<P>The majority of theologians down to the 19th century regarded the story of Judith as pure history; but with the exception of O. Wolf (1861) and yon Gumpach, Protestant scholars in recent times are practically agreed that the Book of Judith is a historical novel with a purpose similar to Daniel, Esther and Tobit. Schurer classes it with "parenetic narratives" (paranetische Erzahlung). The Hebrew novel is perhaps the earliest of all novels, but it is always a didactic novel written to enforce some principle or principles. Roman Catholic scholars defend the literal historicity of the book, though they allow that the proper names are more or less disguised. But the book abounds with anachronisms, inconsistencies and impossibilities, and was evidently written for the lesson it teaches: obey God and trust Him, and all will be well. The author had no intention to teach history. Torrey, however, goes too far when he says (see Jewish Encyclopedia, "Book of Judith") that the writer aimed at nothing more than to write a tale that would amuse. A tone of religious fervor and of intense patriotism runs through the narrative, and no opportunity of enforcing the claims of the Jewish law is lost. Note especially what is taught in the speeches of Achior (Jth 5:12-21) and Judith (8:17-24; compare 11:10), that, trusting in God and keeping His commandments, the nation is invulnerable.<P>According to the narrative Nebuchadnezzar has been for 12 years king of Assyria and has his capital at Nineveh, though we know he never was or could be king of Assyria. He became king of Babylon in 604 BC, upon the death of his father Nabopolassar, who in 608 had destroyed Assyria. The Jews had but recently returned from exile (Jth 4:3; 5:19), but were independent, and Holofernes knew nothing about them (Jth 5:3). Nebuchadnezzar died in 561 BC and the Jews returned under Cyrus in 538. Bethulia to which Holofernes lay siege was otherwise quite unknown: it is probably a disguised form of Beth \'Elohim or Beth \'Eloah, "house of God," and means the place where God is with His people. The detailed description of the site is but part of the writer\'s art; it was the place which every army must pass on its way to Jerusalem. As a matter of fact, there is no such position in Palestine, and least of all Shechem, which Torrey identified with Bethulia. We know nothing besides what Judith 1 tells us of "Arphaxad who reigned over the Medes in Ecbatana"; on the contrary, in every other mention of the name it stands for a country or a race (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,22,24);">Ge 10:22,24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,\'10-13\');">11:10-13</a>).<P>V. Date.<P>1. Probably during the Maccabean Age:<P>It is evident that this religious romance was prompted by some severe persecution in which the faith of the Jews was sorely tried, and the writer\'s dominant aim is identical with that of the author of Daniel, namely, to encourage those suffering for their religion by giving instances of Divine deliverance in the darkest hour. "Only trust and keep the law; then deliverance will unfailingly come"<22>that is the teaching. Judith might well have been written during the persecution of the Maccabean age, as was almost certainly the Book of Daniel. We have in this book that zeal for orthodox Judaism which marked the age of the Maccabees, and the same strong belief that the war in which the nation was engaged was a holy one. The high priest is head of the state (see Jth 4:6), as suiting a period when the religious interest is uppermost and politics are merged in religion, though some say wrongly that John Hyrcanus (135-106 BC) was the first to combine priestly and princely dignities. We have another support for a Maccabean date in the fact that Onias was high priest during the siege of Bethulia (Jth 4:6), the name being suggested almost certainly by Onias III, who became high priest in 195 (or 198) BC, and who died in 171 after consistently opposing the Hellenizing policy of the Syrians and their Jewish allies.<P>That the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 BC) supply as good a background for this book as any other event in Jewish history is the least that can be said; but one may not be dogmatic on the matter, as similar conditions recurred in the nation\'s history, and there is no external or internal evidence that fixes the date definitely. The following scholars decide for a date in the Maccabean age: Fritzsche, Ewald, Hilgenfeld, Schurer, Ball, Cornill and Lohr. The author was certainly a resident in Palestine, as his local knowledge and interests show; and from his punctilious regard for the law one may judge that he belonged to the Hasidean (chacidhim) party. Since he so often mentions Dothan (Greek Dothae, Dothaim) (Jth 3:9; 4:6; 7:3,18; 8:3), it is probable that he belonged to that neighborhood. Though, however, the author wrote in the time of the Maccabees, he seems to set his history in a framework that is some 200 years earlier, as Noldeke (Die alttest. Lit.,1868,96; Aufsatze zur persischen Geschichte,1887,78) and Schurer (GJV, III, 323ff) show. In 350 BC, Artaxerxes Ochus (361-338 BC) invaded Phoenicia and Egypt, his chief generals being Holofernes (Jth 2:4, etc.) and Bagoas (Jth 12:11), both of whom are in Judith officials of King Nebuchadnezzar and take part in the expedition against the Jews. This was intended probably to disarm the criticism of enemies who might resent any writing in which they were painted in unfavorable colors.<P>2. Other Opinions:<P>(1) Invasion of Pompey.<P>That it was the invasion of Pompey which gave rise to the book is the opinion held by Gaster. If this were so, Judith and the Psalms of Solomon arose under the pressure of the same circumstances (see Ryle and James, The Psalms of Solomon, XL, and J. Rendel Harris, The Odes and Psalms of Solomon, XIII) But in the Psalms of Solomon the supreme ruler is a king (<span class="noTag">17:22</span>), not a high priest (Judith 4:6). Besides, anyone who reads the Psalm of Solomon and Judith will feel that in the former he has to do with a different and later age.<P>(2) Insurrection under Bar Cochba.<P>Hitzig (who held that the insurrection under Bar Cochba, 132 AD, is the event referred to), Volkmar and Graetz date this book in the days of the emperor Trajan (or Hadrian?). Volkmar gives himself much trouble in his attempt to prove that the campaigns of Nebuchadnezzar stand really for those of Trajan. But it is a sufficient refutation of this opinion that the book is quoted by Clement of Rome (55), who died in 100 AD, and whose reference to the book shows that it was regarded in his day as authoritative and even as canonical, so that it must have been written long before.<P>VI. Original Language.<P>That a Hebrew or (less likely) an Aramaic original once existed is the opinion of almost all modern scholars, and the evidence for this seems conclusive. There are many Hebraisms in the book, e.g. en tais hemerais ("in the days of," Jth 1:7, and 9 times besides); the frequent use of sphodra, in the sense of the Hebrew me\'odh, and even its repetition (also a Hebraism, Jth 4:8); compare epi polu sphodra (Jth 5:18) and plethos polu sphodra (Jth 2:17). Note further the following: "Let not thy eye spare" etc. (Jth 2:11; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',5,11);">Eze 5:11</a>, etc.); "as I live" (in an oath, Jth 2:12); "God of heaven" (Jth 5:8; 11:17); "son of man," parallel with "man," and in the same sense (Jth 8:16); "and it came to pass when she had ceased crying," etc. (Jth 10:1); "the priests who serve in Jerusalem before the face of our God" (Jth 11:13). In Jth 16:3 we have the words: "For a god that shatters battle is (the) Lord." Now "Lord" without the article can be only the Hebrew "Yahweh," read always \'adhonay, "Lord." But the phrase, "to shatter battle," is not good Greek or good sense. The Hebrew words shabhath ("to rest"; compare shabbath, "Sabbath") and shabhar ("to break") are written much alike, and in the original Hebrew we must have had the causative form of the first vb.: "A God that makes war cease is (the) Lord" (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',46,9);">Ps 46:9</a>). Moreover, the Hebrew idiom which strengthens a finite verb by placing a cognate (absolute) infinitive before it is represented in the Greek of this book in the usual form in which it occurs in the Septuagint (and in Welsh), namely, a participle followed by a finite verb (see Jth 2:13). The present writer has noted other examples, but is prevented by lack of space from adding them here. That the original book was Hebrew and not Aramaic is made extremely likely by the fact that the above examples of Hebrew idiom are peculiar to this language. Note especially the idiom, "and it came to pass that," etc. (Jth 2:4), with the implied "waw consecutive," and what is said above about Jth 11:13, where the senseless Greek arose through the confusion of two similarly written Hebrew (not Aramaic) words. There are cases also of mistakes in the Greek text due to wrong translation from the Hebrew, as in Jth 1:8 (where for "nations" read "cities" or "mountains"); Jth 2:2 (where for "concluded," Hebrew wa-yekhal, read "revealed," wa-ye-ghal); Jth 3:1,9,10 (see Fritzsche, under the word), etc.<P>VII. Versions.<P>1. Greek:<P>The Greek text appears in three forms:<P>(1) that of the principal Greek uncials (A, B, agreeing closely), which is followed in printed editions of the Septuagint (Septuagint);<P>(2) that of codices 19, 108 (Lucian\'s text), an evident revision of (1);<P>(3) codex 58 which closely resembles (2) and with which the Old Latin and Peshitta agree in most points.<P>2. Syriac:<P>There are two extant Syriac VSS, both of them dependent on the Greek text (3) noted above. The Peshitta is given in Walton\'s Polyglot and in a critically revised form in Lagarde, Lib. Vet. Test Apocrypha Syriac, 104-26. The so-called Hexaplar Syriac text was made by Paul of Tella in the 6th century<P>3. Latin:<P>(1) The Old Latin seems to have been made from the Greek text, codex 58 (see above).<P>(2) Jerome made his Latin version (with which the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) is identical) from a lost Chaldee version. That this last is not the original text of the book is certain, because neither Origen nor his Jewish teachers knew anything of a Hebrew or Aramaic text of Judith.<P>4. Hebrew Midrashes<P>Several late Hebrew versions of the book have been found, no one of them with strong claims to be considered the original text, though Caster (see EB, II, <span class="noTag">col 2,642</span>) does make such a claim for the manuscript found, edited and translated by him (see PSBA, XVI, 156-63). The Hebrew midrashes were made to be read in Jewish homes and vary according to the circumstances of their origin. But they agree in these points: Proper names are often omitted. Jerusalem is the scene of action, the wars being those of the Maccabees. Judith is a Jewish maiden and daughter of Ahitah, according to the Gaster MS, and she belongs apparently to the Maccabean family. It is Nicanor who is beheaded, the occasion being the Feast of Dedication; in the Gaster manuscript it is the king who is killed. Translations of these midrashes may be seen in Jellinck, Beth Hammidrash, I, 130-41; II, 12f; Lepsius, Zeitschr. fur wiss. Theologie,1867,337ff; Ball, Speaker\'s Apocrypha, I, 25ff; Scholz, Comm.2, Anhange I and II; Gaster, in the work quoted Gaster argues that the much shorter form of the tale in his manuscript is older than the longer version. But if a writer were to expand a short story, he would hardly be likely to invent several proper names and to change others. It is probable that Judith came to be represented as a pure maiden (a virgin) under the influence of the low conception of marriage fostered in the medieval Christian church.<P>LITERATURE.<P>For the editions of the Greek text and for commentaries on the Apocrypha, see under <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCRYPHA">APOCRYPHA</a>. But on Judith note in particular the commentaries by Fritzsche and Ball, the latter containing elaborate bibliography. But the following must in addition be mentioned: Scholz, Commentar uber das Buch Judith und uber Bel und Drache, 1896; a 2nd edition has appeared; A.S. Weissmann, Das Buch Judith historisch-kritisch beleuchtet, Wien, 1891; Schurer, GJV4, III, 230-37, with full bibliography; compare HJP, II, iii, 32-37; Pentin, The Apocrypha in English Lit., Judith, 1908; and the relevant articles in the Bible dicts., especially that by F. C. Porter in HDB.``33';
isbe[5224]='Juel`joo\'-el (1) Iouna; (2) Iouel:<P>(1) 1Esdras 9:34 = "Uel" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,34);">Ezr 10:34</a>.<P>(2) 1Esdras 9:35 = "Joel" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,43);">Ezr 10:43</a>.``1';
isbe[5225]='Jugglery`jug\'-ler-i goetia: The word occurs once in 2Macc 12:24 the Revised Version margin (the King James Version "craft," the Revised Version (British and American) "crafty guile").``1';
isbe[5226]='Juice`joos, jus: The word occurs once in <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',8,2);">So 8:2</a> (translation of \'acic, the Revised Version margin "sweet wine"), and once in the Revised Version margin of <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',6,6);">Job 6:6</a>, where for "the white of an egg" margin reads, "the juice of purslain." Septuagint has rhemasin kenois, "empty words."``1';
isbe[5227]='Julia`joo\'-li-a (Ioulia): The name of a Roman Christian to whom Paul sent greetings, the wife or sister of Philologus with whose name hers is coupled (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,15);">Ro 16:15</a>). The name points to member of the imperial household.``1';
isbe[5228]='Julius`joo\'-li-us (Ioulios): The centurion of the Augustan cohort under whose charge Paul was sent a prisoner to Rome (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',27,1,3);">Ac 27:1,3</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ARMY,+ROMAN">ARMY, ROMAN</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=AUGUSTAN+BAND">AUGUSTAN BAND</a>`1';
isbe[5229]='Jumping`jum\'-ping.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GAMES">GAMES</a>.``1';
isbe[5230]='Junias; Junla`joo\'-ni-as or joo\'-ni-a (Iounias, Iounia): One to whom, with Andronicus, greetings are sent by Paul at the close of his letter to the Romans (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,7);">Ro 16:7</a>). The name may be masculine, Junias, a contraction of Junianus, or feminine Junia; it is Iounian, the accus. form, that is given. In all probability this is the masc., Junias. Paul defines the two as<P class="in15">(1) "my kinsmen,"<P class="in15">(2) "my fellow-prisoners,"<P class="in15">(3) "who are of note among the apostles," and<P class="in15">(4) "who also have been in Christ before me."<P>(1) They were Jews. Paul calls the Jews "my brethren," "my kinsmen according to the flesh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,3);">Ro 9:3</a>). Because Prisca and Aquila, a Jew and Jewess, are not designated as kinsfolk, Conybeare and Howson suppose "the epithet to denote that the persons mentioned were of the tribe of Benjamin."<P>(2) They had been companions of Paul in some unrecorded imprisonment. The phrase denotes more than the fact that they, like Paul, had suffered imprisonment for the sake of Christ.<P>(3) This may mean<P class="in15">(a) that they were well known to the apostolic circle (so Gifford and Weiss), or<P class="in15">(b) distinguished as apostles. The latter is probably correct, "apostle" being used in a wide sense (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,7);">1Co 15:7</a>).<P>The prophetic ministry of the early church consisted of apostles, prophets and teachers (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',12,28);">1Co 12:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,11);">Eph 4:11</a>), the apostles being missionaries in the modern sense (see Lindsay, Church and Ministry, chapter iii). Some apostles were missionaries sent out by particular churches (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,2,3);">Ac 13:2,3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,23);">2Co 8:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,25);">Php 2:25</a>).<P>(4) They were among the first converts, "early disciples" like Mnason of Cyprus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,16);">Ac 21:16</a>).``78';
isbe[5231]='Juniper`joo\'-ni-per (rothem; rhathmen, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',19,4);">1Ki 19:4</a>f; margin "broom"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',120,4);">Ps 120:4</a>, m "broom"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',30,4);">Job 30:4</a> translated "broom"): This is quite certainly the Arabic ratam (Retama retem, Natural Order, Leguminosae), a variety of broom which is one of the most characteristic shrubs of the deserts of Southern Palestine and southward to Egypt. Though the shade it affords is but scanty, in the absence of other shrubs it is frequently used by desert travelers as a refuge from the sun\'s scorching rays (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',19,4);">1Ki 19:4</a>). The root yields good charcoal, giving out much heat (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',120,4);">Ps 120:4</a>). For people to be reduced to chew it for nourishment betokens the lowest depth of starvation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',30,4);">Job 30:4</a>). Indeed so hopeless is this root as a source of food that many commentators believe that the accepted text is in error, and by altering a single letter, substituting the Hebrew letter, cheth, ("ch") for he ("h"), they get a reading, which has been adopted in the Revised Version margin, "to warm them" instead of "their meat," which certainly is much more probable.``117';
isbe[5232]='Jupiter`joo\'-pi-ter, ju\'-pi-ter (Zeus): "Jupiter" is mentioned in 2Macc 6:2; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,12,13);">Ac 14:12,13</a>, with "Zeus" in the Revised Version margin in all cases. In addition the Greek stem appears in diopetous, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,35);">Ac 19:35</a>, English Versions of the Bible "which fell down from Jupiter"; but the word means "from the clear sky" (compare "from heaven" in the Revised Version margin). "Jupiter" was considered the Latin equivalent of the Greek "Zeus," the highest god in the developed Greek pantheon, and Zeus in turn, in accord with the syncretism of the period, was identified with countless deities in the local cults of Asia Minor and elsewhere. So in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,12,13);">Ac 14:12,13</a>, "Zeus" and "Hermes" are local deities that had been renamed. On the other hand, the Zeus of 2Macc 6:2 is the genuine Greek deity, who had been adopted as a special patron by Antiochus Epiphanes and to whose temple in Athens Antiochus had contributed largely. The title "Olympius" (2Macc 6:2) is derived from the early worship on Mt. Olympus, but had come to be thought one of the god\'s highest appellations; Xenios, "protector of strangers," was a title in a cult particularly popular with travelers.<P>See also Smith, HGHL, 333-34.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ABOMINATION+OF+DESOLATION">ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION</a>`48';
isbe[5233]='Jupiter And Mercury``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASTROLOGY">ASTROLOGY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MERCURY">MERCURY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUPITER">JUPITER</a>`1';
isbe[5234]='Jurisdiction`joo-ris-dik\'-shun (exousia): The word exousia is well known in New Testament Greek. It is derived from the word exesti, and suggests the absence of any hindrance to an act. It contains the idea of right and might (Cremer). In the New Testament it means right, authority, capability (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,21);">Ro 9:21</a>); power, strength (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',9,8);">Mt 9:8</a>); right and might (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,27);">Joh 5:27</a>). Thus it gets the meaning of the powers of the magistrate, which it bears in later Greek (<a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',3,1);">Tit 3:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',13,\'1-3\');">Ro 13:1-3</a>). And in this sense it is used in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,7);">Lu 23:7</a>, where it is translated "jurisdiction."``1';
isbe[5235]='Jushab-Hesed`joo\'-shab-he\'-sed (yushabh checedh, "loving-kindness is returned"): Son of Zerubbabel. The name is probably symbolical (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',3,20);">1Ch 3:20</a>);`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHEAR-JASHUB">SHEAR-JASHUB</a>`1';
isbe[5236]='Justice`jus\'-tis (tsedhaqah; tsedheq; dikaiosune): The original Hebrew and Greek words are the same as those rendered "righteousness." This is the common rendering, and in about half the cases where we have "just" and "justice" in the King James Version, the American Standard Revised Version has changed to "righteous" and "righteousness." It must be constantly borne in mind that the two ideas are essentially the same.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RIGHTEOUSNESS">RIGHTEOUSNESS</a>.<P>1. Human Justice:<P>Justice had primarily to do with conduct in relation to others, especially with regard to the rights of others. It is applied to business, where just weights and measures are demanded (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,35,36);">Le 19:35,36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',25,\'13-16\');">De 25:13-16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',8,5);">Am 8:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',11,1);">Pr 11:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',16,11);">16:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',45,9,10);">Eze 45:9,10</a>). It is demanded in courts, where the rights of rich and poor, Israelite and sojourner, are equally to be regarded. Neither station nor bribe nor popular clamor shall influence judge or witness. "Justice, justice shalt thou follow" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',16,20);">De 16:20</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',16,\'18-20\');">De 16:18-20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,\'1-3\',\'6-9\');">Ex 23:1-3,6-9</a>). In general this justice is contrasted with that wickedness which "feared not God, and regarded not man" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,2);">Lu 18:2</a>).<P>In a larger sense justice is not only giving to others their rights, but involves the active duty of establishing their rights. So Israel waits upon God\'s justice or cries out: "The justice due to me (literally, "my justice") is passed away from my God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,27);">Isa 40:27</a>). Yahweh is to show her to be in the right as over against the nations. Justice here becomes mercy. To "seek justice" means to "relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,17);">Isa 1:17</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',11,4);">Isa 11:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',22,15,16);">Jer 22:15,16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',82,\'2-4\');">Ps 82:2-4</a>). The same idea appears in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',24,12,13);">De 24:12,13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',37,21,26);">Ps 37:21,26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',112,\'4-6\');">112:4-6</a>, where the translation is "righteous" instead of "just."<P>In this conception of justice the full meaning of the New Testament is not yet reached. It does not mean sinlessness or moral perfection. Job knows the sin in his heart (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',13,23,26);">Job 13:23,26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',7,21);">7:21</a>), and yet speaks of himself as a just or righteous man (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',12,4);">12:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',14,18);">13:18</a>). The Psalmist confidently depends upon the righteousness of God though he knows that no man is righteous in God\'s sight (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',143,1,2);">Ps 143:1,2</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',7,8);">Ps 7:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',18,\'20-24\');">18:20-24</a>). It is not a lack of humility or dependence upon God when the Psalmist asks to be judged according to his righteousness. In relation to God, the just, or righteous, man is the one who holds to God and trusts in Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',33,\'18-22\');">Ps 33:18-22</a>). This is not the later Judaistic legalism with its merit and reward, where God\'s justice is simply a matter of giving each man what he has earned.<P>The word "justice" does not occur in the New Testament, and in most cases where we find "just" in the King James Version it is changed to "righteous" in the American Standard Revised Version. The idea of justice or righteousness (remembering that these are essentially the same) becomes more spiritual and ethical in the New Testament. It is a matter of character, and God\'s own spirit is the standard (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,7);">1Joh 3:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,48);">Mt 5:48</a>). The mere give-and-take justice is not enough. We are to be merciful, and that to all. The ideal is righteousness, not rights. As Holtzmann says, "The keynote of the Sermon on the Mount is justitia and not jus."<P>2. Justice of God:<P>God\'s justice, or righteousness, is founded in His essential nature. But, just as with man, it is not something abstract, but is seen in His relation to the world. It is His kingship establishing and maintaining the right. It appears as retributive justice, "that reaction of His holy will, as grounded in His eternal being, against evil wherever found." He cannot be indifferent to good and evil (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',1,13);">Hab 1:13</a>). The great prophets, Isaiah, Micah, Amos, Hosea, all insist upon Yahweh\'s demand for righteousness.<P>But this is not the main aspect of God\'s justice. Theology has been wont to set forth God\'s justice as the fundamental fact in His nature with which we must reconcile His mercy as best we may, the two being conceived as in conflict. As a matter of fact, the Scriptures most often conceive God\'s justice, or righteousness, as the action of His mercy. Just as with man justice means the relief of the oppressed and needy, so God\'s justice is His kingly power engaged on behalf of men, and justice and mercy are constantly joined together. He is "a just God and a Saviour" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',45,21);">Isa 45:21</a>). "I bring near my righteousness (or "justice")...and my salvation shall not tarry" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',46,13);">Isa 46:13</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',51,14);">Ps 51:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',103,17);">103:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',71,15);">71:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',116,5);">116:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',51,5,6);">Isa 51:5,6</a>). The "righteous acts of Yahweh" mean His deeds of deliverance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,11);">Jud 5:11</a>). And so Israel sings of the justice, or judgments, or righteousness of Yahweh (they are the same), and proclaims her trust in these (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',7,17);">Ps 7:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',35,23,24,28);">35:23,24,28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',36,6);">36:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',140,12,13);">140:12,13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',50,5,6);">50:5,6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',94,14,15);">94:14,15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',103,6);">103:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',143,1);">143:1</a>).<P>The New Testament, too, does not lack the idea of retributive justice. The Son of Man "shall render unto every man according to his deeds" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,27);">Mt 16:27</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,\'14-46\');">Mt 25:14-46</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,\'45-48\');">Lu 12:45-48</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,\'2-16\');">Ro 2:2-16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,23);">6:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,10);">2Co 5:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,24,25);">Col 3:24,25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',1,8,9);">2Th 1:8,9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,2,3);">Heb 2:2,3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,\'26-31\');">10:26-31</a>). But God\'s justice is far more than this. The idea of merit and reward is really superseded by a higher viewpoint in the teaching of Jesus. He speaks, indeed, of recompense, but it is the Father and not the judge that gives this (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,1,4,6,18);">Mt 6:1,4,6,18</a>). And it is no mere justice of earth, because the reward transcends all merit (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,46,47);">Mt 24:46,47</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,30);">Mr 10:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,37);">Lu 12:37</a>). This is grace not desert (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',17,10);">Lu 17:10</a>). And the parable of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,\'1-15\');">Mt 20:1-15</a> gives at length the deathblow to the whole Judaistic scheme of merit and reward.<P>And God\'s justice is not merely gracious, but redemptive. It not simply apportions rights, it establishes righteousness. Thus, just as in the Old Testament, the judge is the Saviour. The difference is simply here: in the Old Testament the salvation was more national and temporal, here it is personal and spiritual. But mercy is opposed to justice no more here than in the Old Testament. It is by the forgiveness of sins that God establishes righteousness, and this is the supreme task of justice. Thus it is that God is at the same time "just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,26);">Ro 3:26</a>). "He is faithful and righteous (or "just"; see the King James Version) to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,9);">1Joh 1:9</a>).<P>LITERATURE.<P>See Comm., and Biblical Theologies under "Justice" and "Righteousness," and especially Cremer, Biblical-Theol. Lex. of New Testament Greek``143';
isbe[5237]='Justification`jus-ti-fi-ka\'-shun (tsedheq, verb tsadheq; Septuagint and New Testament dikaioma, dikaiosis, verb dikaioo, "justification" "to justify," in a legal sense, the declaring just or righteous. In Biblical literature, dikaioun, without denying the real righteousness of a person, is used invariably or almost invariably in a declarative or forensic sense. See Simon, HDB, II, 826; Thayer, Grimm, and Cremer under the respective words):<P><b>I. THE WRITINGS OF PAUL</b><P class="in15">1. Universality of Sin<P class="in15">2. Perfection of the Law of God<P class="in15">3. Life, Work and Death of the Atoning Saviour<P class="in30">(1) Paul\'s Own Experience<P class="in30">(2) The Resurrection Connected with the Death<P class="in30">(3) Faith, Not Works, the Means of Justification<P class="in30">(4) Baptism Also Eliminated<P class="in30">(5) Elements of Justification<P class="in45">(a) Forgiveness of Sins<P class="in45">(b) Declaring or Approving as Righteous<P class="in30">(6) Justification Has to Do with the Individual<P><b>II. THE OTHER NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS</b><P class="in15">1. The Synoptic Gospels<P class="in15">2. John\'s Writings<P class="in15">3. 1 Peter and Hebrews<P class="in15">4. Epistle of James<P><b>III. THE OLD TESTAMENT</b><P><b>IV. LATER DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE</b><P class="in15">1. Apostolic and Early Church Fathers<P class="in15">2. Council of Trent<P class="in15">3. Luther<P class="in15">4. Schleiermacher<P class="in15">5. Meaning and Message to the Modern Man<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. The Writings of Paul.<P>1. The Universality of Sin:<P>In this article reference will first be made to the writings of Paul, where justification receives its classic expression, and from there as a center, the other New Testament writers, and finally the Old Testament, will be drawn in. According to Paul, justification rests on the following presuppositions:<P>The universality of sin. All men are not only born in sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,3);">Eph 2:3</a>), but they have committed many actual transgressions, which render them liable to condemnation. Paul proves this by an appeal to the Old Testament witnesses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,9);">Ro 3:9</a>), as well as by universal experience, both of the heathen (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,\'18-32\');">Ro 1:18-32</a>) and Jews (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,\'17-28\');">Ro 2:17-28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,9);">3:9</a>).<P>2. Perfection of the Law of God:<P>The perfection of the Law of God and the necessity of its perfect observance, if justification is to come by it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,10);">Ro 3:10</a>). The modern notion of God as a good-natured, more or less nonchalant ruler, to whom perfect holiness is not inexorable, was not that of Paul. If one had indeed kept the law, God could not hold him guilty (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,13);">Ro 2:13</a>), but such an obedience never existed. Paul had no trouble with the law as such. Those who have tried to find a difference here between Galatians and Romans have failed. The reminder that the law was ordained by angels (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,19);">Ga 3:19</a>) does not mean that it was not also given by God. It might be reckoned in a sense among the elements of the world (kosmos, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,3);">Ga 4:3</a>), as it is an essential part of an ordered universe, but that does not at all mean that it is not also holy, right and good (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,12);">Ro 7:12</a>). It was added, of course, on account of transgressions (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,19);">Ga 3:19</a>), for it is only a world of intelligent, free spirits capable of sin which needs it, and its high and beautiful sanctions make the sin seem all the more sinful (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,13);">Ro 7:13</a>).<P>3. Life, Work and Death of the Atoning Savior:<P>It was fundamental in Paul\'s thinking that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,3);">1Co 15:3</a>). In due season He died for the ungodly (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,6);">Ro 5:6</a>); while we were yet sinners He died for us (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,8);">Ro 5:8</a>); we are justified in His blood (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,9);">Ro 5:9</a>), and it is through Him that we are saved from the wrath (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,9);">Ro 5:9</a>). While we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,10);">Ro 5:10</a>), being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus whom God set forth as a propitiation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,24,25);">Ro 3:24,25</a>). There is no reconciliation, no justification, except through and by and for Christ.<P>(1) Paul\'s Own Experience.<P>Paul\'s own experience cannot be left out of the account. He lived through the doctrine, as well as found it through illumination of the Spirit in the Old Testament. It was not that he had only outwardly kept the law. He had been jealous for it, and had been blameless in every requirement of its righteousness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,6);">Php 3:6</a>). What was borne in upon him was how little such blamelessness could stand before the absolute standard of God. Just how far he was shaken with doubts of this kind we cannot say with certainty; but it seems impossible to conceive the Damascus conversion scene in the case of such an upright man and strenuous zealot without supposing a psychological preparation, without supposing doubts as to whether his fulfilling of the law enabled him to stand before God. Now, for a Pharisaically educated man like himself, there was no way of overcoming these doubts but in a renewed struggle for his own righteousness shown in the fiery zeal of his Damascus journey, pressing on even in the blazing light of noonday. This conversion broke down his philosophy of life, his Lebensgewissheit, his assurance of salvation through works of the law done never so conscientiously and perfectly. The revelation of the glorified Christ, with the assurance that He, the God-sent Messiah, was the very one whom he was persecuting, destroyed his dependence on his own righteousness, a righteousness which had led him to such shocking consequences. Although this was for him an individual experience, yet it had universal applications. It showed him that there was an inherent weakness in the law through flesh, that is, through the whole physical, psychical and spiritual nature of man considered as sinful, as working only on this lower plane, and that the law needed bracing and illuminating by the Son, who, though sent in the likeness of the flesh of sin, yet (as an offering) for sin condemned sin and cast it out (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,3);">Ro 8:3</a>), to the end that the law might be fulfilled in those who through Him walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,4);">Ro 8:4</a>). That was the glory of the new righteousness thus revealed. If the law had been able to do that, to give life, Christ need not have come, righteousness would have been by the law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,21);">Ga 3:21</a>). But the facts show that the law was not thus able, neither the law written on the heart given to all, nor the law given to Moses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,\'18-\');">Ro 1:18-3:19</a>). Therefore every mouth is stopped, and all flesh is silent before God. On the ground of law-keeping, what the modern man would call morality, our hope of salvation has been shattered. The law has spoken its judgment against us (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,10);">Ga 3:10</a>). It cannot therefore lead us to righteousness and life, nor was that its supreme intention: it was a pedagogue or tutor ("paidagogos") to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,24);">Ga 3:24</a>; see Ihmels in RE3, 16, 483-84). What made Paul to differ from his companions in the faith was that his own bitter experience under the revelation of Christ had led him to these facts.<P>(2) The Resurrection Connected with the Death.<P>It was remarked above that the ground of justification according to Paul is the work of Christ. This means especially. His death as a sacrifice, in which, as Ritschl well says (Rechtfertigung und Versohnung, 3. Aufl.,1899, II 157), the apostles saw exercised the whole power of His redemption. But that death cannot be separated from His resurrection, which first awakened them to a knowledge of its decisive worth for salvation, as well as finally confirmed their faith in Jesus as the Son of God. "The objective salvation," says Ritschl (p. 158), "which was connected with the sacrificial death of Christ and which continued on for the church, was made secure by this, that it was asserted also as an attribute of the resurrected one," who was delivered up for our trespasses, and was raised for our justification (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',4,25);">Ro 4:25</a>). But this last expression is not to be interpreted with literal preciseness, as though Paul intended to distinguish between the forgiveness of sins as brought about by the death, and justification, by the resurrection, for both forgiveness and justification are identified in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',4,\'6-8\');">Ro 4:6-8</a>. It was the resurrection which gave Christians their assurance concerning Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,31);">Ac 17:31</a>); by that resurrection He has been exalted to the right hand of God, where He maketh intercession for His people (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,34);">Ro 8:34</a>), which mediatorship is founded upon His death<74>the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',13,8);">Re 13:8</a>; compare Greek text).<P>B. Weiss well says: "It was by the certainty of the exaltation of Christ to Messianic sovereignty brought about by the resurrection that Paul attained to faith in the saving significance of His death, and not conversely. Accordingly, the assurance that God cannot condemn us is owing primarily to the death of Christ, but still more to His resurrection and exaltation to God\'s right hand (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,34);">Ro 8:34</a>), inasmuch as these first prove that His death was the death of the mediator of salvation, who has redeemed us from condemnation....The objective atonement was accomplished by the death of Christ, but the appropriation of it in justification is possible only if we believe in the saving significance of His death, and we can attain to faith in that only as it is sealed by the resurrection" (Biblical Theology of the New Testament, I, 436-37).<P>(3) Faith, Not Works, the Means of Justification.<P>The means or condition of justification is faith (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,22,25,26,28);">Ro 3:22,25,26,28</a>, etc.) which rests upon the pure grace of God and is itself, therefore, His gift (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,8);">Eph 2:8</a>). This making faith the only instrument of justification is not arbitrary, but because, being the receptive attitude of the soul, it is in the nature of the case the only avenue through which Divine blessing can come. The gifts of God are not against the laws of the soul which He has made, but rather are in and through those laws. Faith is the hand outstretched to the Divine Giver, who, though He sends rain without our consent, does not give salvation except through an appropriate spiritual response. This faith is not simply belief in historical facts, though this is presupposed as to the atoning death (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,25);">Ro 3:25</a>), and the resurrection (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',10,9);">Ro 10:9</a>) of Jesus, but is a real heart reception of the gift (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',10,10);">Ro 10:10</a>), and is therefore able to bring peace in our relation to God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,1);">Ro 5:1</a>). The object of this faith is Jesus Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,22);">Ro 3:22</a>, etc.), through whom only comes the gift of righteousness and the reigning in life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,17);">Ro 5:17</a>), not Mary, not angels, not doctrine, not the church, but Jesus only. This, to be sure, does not exclude God the Father as an object of faith, as the redeeming act of Christ is itself the work of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,19);">2Co 5:19</a>), whose love expressed itself toward us in this way (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,8);">Ro 5:8</a>). Faith in the only one God is always presupposed (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',8,6);">1Co 8:6</a>), but it was the apostolic custom rather to refer repentance to God and faith to Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,21);">Ac 20:21</a>). But the oneness of God the Father and Christ the Son in a work of salvation is the best guaranty of the Divinity of the latter, both as an objective fact and as an inner experience of the Christian.<P>The justification being by faith, it is not by works or by love, or by both in one. It cannot be by the former, because they are lacking either in time or amount or quality, nor could they be accepted in any case until they spring from a heart renewed, for which faith is the necessary presupposition. It cannot be by the latter, for it exists only where the Spirit has shed it abroad in the heart (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,5);">Ro 5:5</a>), the indispensable prerequisite for receiving which is faith. This does not mean that the crown of Christianity is not love, for it is (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',13,13);">1Co 13:13</a>); it means only that the root is faith. Nor can love be foisted in as a partial condition of justification on the strength of the word often quoted for that purpose, "faith working through love" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,6);">Ga 5:6</a>). The apostle is speaking here only of those who are already "in Christ," and he says that over against the Galatian believers bringing in a lot of legal observances, the only availing thing is not circumcision or its lack, but faith energizing through love. Here the interest is, as Ritschl says (II, 343), in the kingdom of God, but justification proper has reference to the sinner in relation to God and Christ. See the excellent remarks of Bruce, Paul\'s Conception of Christianity, 1894, 226-27. At the same time this text reveals the tremendous ethical religious force abiding in faith, according to Paul. It reminds us of the great sentence of Luther in his preface to the Epistles to the Romans, where he says: "Faith is a Divine work within us which changes and renews us in God according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,13);">Joh 1:13</a>, \'who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.\' This destroys the old Adam and makes new creatures of us in heart, will, disposition, and all our powers. Oh, faith is a living, active, jealous, mighty thing, inasmuch as it cannot possibly remain unproductive of good works" (Werke, Erl. Ausg.,63,124-25).<P>(4) Baptism also Eliminated.<P>Not only are good works and love removed as conditions or means of justification of the sinner, but baptism is also eliminated. According to Paul, it is the office of baptism not to justify, but to cleanse, that is, symbolically to set forth and seal the washing away of sin and the entrance into the new life by a dramatic act of burial, which for the subject and all witnesses would mark a never-to-be-forgotten era in the history of the believer. "Baptism," says Weiss (I, 454), "presupposes faith in Him as the one whom the church designates as Lord, and also binds to adherence to Him which excludes every dependence upon any other, inasmuch as He has acquired a claim upon their devotion by the saving deed of His self-surrender on the cross." So important was baptism in the religious atmosphere at that time that hyperbolical expressions were used to express its cleansing and illuminating office, but these need not mislead us. We must interpret them according to the fundamental conceptions of Christianity as a religion of the Spirit, not of magic nor of material media. Baptism pointed to a complete parting with the old life by previous renewal through faith in Christ, which renewal baptism in its turn sealed and announced in a climax of self-dedication to him, and this, while symbolically and in contemporary parlance of both Jew and Gentile called a new birth, was probably often actually so in the psychological experience of the baptized. But while justification is often attributed to faith, it is never to baptism.<P>(5) Elements of Justification.<P>What are the elements of this justification? There are two:<P>(a) Forgiveness of Sins<P>Forgiveness of sins (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',4,\'5-8\');">Ro 4:5-8</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,38,39);">Ac 13:38,39</a>). With this are connected peace and reconciliation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,1,9,10);">Ro 5:1,9,10</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',10,11);">Ro 10:11</a>).<P>(b) The Declaring or Approving as Righteous<P>The declaring or approving as righteous or just (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,\'21-30\');">Ro 3:21-30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',4,\'2-9\',22);">4:2-9,22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,1,9,10,11,\'16-21\');">5:1,9-11,16-21</a>, etc.). C.F. Schmid is perfectly right when he says that Paul (and James) always uses dikaioun in the sense of esteeming and pronouncing and treating as righteous, both according to the measure of the law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,13);">Ro 2:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,20);">3:20</a>) and also according to grace (Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 1870, 497). The word is a forensic one, and Godet goes so far as to say that the word is never used in all Greek literature for making righteous (Commentary on Romans, English translation, I, 157, American edition, 95). This is shown further by the fact that it is the ungodly who are justified (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',4,5);">Ro 4:5</a>), and that the justification is a reckoning or imputation (logizesthai) of righteousness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',4,6,22);">Ro 4:6,22</a>), not an infusing or making righteous. The contrast of "to justify" is not "to be a sinner" but is "to accuse" or "to condemn" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,33,34);">Ro 8:33,34</a>), and the, contrast of "justification" is "condemnation" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,18);">Ro 5:18</a>). Besides, it is not the infusing of a new life, of a new holiness, which is counted for righteousness, but it is faith which is so counted (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',4,5);">Ro 4:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,9);">Php 3:9</a>). That upon which God looks when He justifies is not the righteousness He has imparted or is to impart, but the atonement He has made in Christ. It is one of the truest paradoxes of Christianity that unless a righteous life follows, there has been no justification, while the justification itself is for the sake of Christ alone through faith alone. It is a "status, rather than a character," says Stevens (The Pauline Theology, 1892, 265); "it bears the stamp of a legal rather than of an ethical conception," and he refers to the elaborate and convincing proof of the forensic character of Paul\'s doctrine of justification," in Morison, Exposition of Romans, chapter III, 163-200. An interesting illustration of how further study may correct a wrong impression is given by Lipsius, who, in his Die Paulinische Rechfertigungslehre, 1853, maintained that righteousness or justification meant not "exclusively an objectively given external relation to God, but always at the same time a real inner condition of righteousness" (p. 10), whereas in his Lehrbuch der evangelisch-protestantischen Dogmatik, 1876, 3. Aufl.,1893, he makes the righteousness of God properly an "objective gift of grace, not simply in the sense in which the Old Testament just one judged his position of salvation as a gift of grace, but as a righteousness specially reckoned and adjudicated by way of grace and acknowledged before the judgment (or court, Gericht) of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',4,6);">Ro 4:6</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',4,\'1-8\',11);">Ro 4:1-8,11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,23);">3:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,6);">Ga 3:6</a>). This is always the meaning of dikaioun, dikaiousthai, or dikaiosis in Paul. It consists in the not-reckoning of sins," etc. (p. 658). Of course justification is only a part of the process of salvation, which includes regeneration and sanctification, but these are one thing and justification is another.<P>(6) Justification Has to Do with the Individual.<P>Finally it is asked whether justification in Paul\'s mind has to do with the individual believer or with the society or Christian congregation. Ritschl (II, 217f) and Sanday-Headlam (The Epistle to the Romans, 122-23) say the latter; Weiss (I, 442), the former. It is indeed true that Paul refers to the church as purchased with Christ\'s blood (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,28);">Ac 20:28</a>, or God\'s blood, according to the two oldest manuscripts and ancient authorities; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,25);">Eph 5:25</a>), and he uses the pronoun "we" as those who have received redemption, etc. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,14);">Col 1:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,18);">Eph 2:18</a>); but it is evident on the other hand that faith is an individual matter, a thing first between man and his God, and only after a man has been united to Christ by faith can he enter into a spiritual fellowship with fellow-believers. Therefore the subject of justification must be in the first place the individual, and only in the second place and by consequence the society. Besides, those justified are not the cleansed and sanctified members of churches, but the ungodly (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',4,5);">Ro 4:5</a>).<P>As to the argument from baptism urged by Sanday-Headlam, it must be said that Paul always conceives of baptism as taking place in the Christian community with believers and for believers, that that for and to which they are baptized is not justification, but the death and resurrection of Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,3,4);">Ro 6:3,4</a>), and that the righteousness of God has been manifested not through baptism but through faith in Jesus Christ unto all that believe (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,22);">Ro 3:22</a>), being justified freely, not through baptism, but through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,24);">Ro 3:24</a>). With Paul baptism has always a mystical significance as symbolizing and externally actualizing union with the death of the Lord, and would be both impossible and impertinent in the case of those not already believers in Christ and thus inwardly united to His society.<P>II. The Other New Testament Writings.<P>So much for Paul. Let us now take a glance at the other New Testament books. It is a commonplace of theology that is called "modern" or "critical," that Paul and not Jesus is the founder of Christianity as we know it, that the doctrines of the Divinity of Christ, atonement, justification, etc., are Paul\'s work, and not his Master\'s. There is truth in this. It was part of the humiliation of Christ as well as His pedagogical method to live, teach and act under the conditions of His time and country, on the background of Palestine of 30 AD; and it was specially His method to do His work and not His disciples\', to live a life of love and light, to die for the sins of the world, and then go back to the Father that the Holy Spirit might come and lead His followers into all truth. A full statement of the doctrines of Christianity on His part would have been premature (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,12);">Joh 16:12</a>), would have been pedagogically unwise, if not worthless. First the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',4,28);">Mr 4:28</a>). It would also have been spiritually and philosophically impossible, for Christianity was not a set of teachings by Christ<73>but a religion springing out of His life, death, resurrection, ascension, intercession, mediatorial activity in history through the Spirit who works in His disciples and on the world through and by that life, death, etc. The only question is whether the apostles were true to the spirit and content of His teachings in its moral and religious outlines. And especially in this matter of justification, a teaching by Christ is not to be looked for, because it is the very peculiarity of it that its middle point is the exalted Lord, who has become the mediator of salvation by His death and resurrection. Did the Pauline doctrine fit into the concrete situation made by the facts of Christ mentioned above, and was it the necessary consequence of His self-witness? Let us look into the Synoptic Gospels.<P>1. The Snyoptic Gospels:<P>So far is it from being true, as Harnack says (What Is Christianity? 2nd edition, revised, New York,1901,68), that the "whole of Jesus\' message may be reduced to these two heads: God as Father, and the human soul so ennobled that it can and does unite with Him," that an essential part of His message is omitted, namely, that salvation is bound up in His (Christ\'s) own person. (The reader is asked to verify the references for himself, as space will not allow quotation.) See <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,\'37-39\');">Mt 10:37-39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,\'24-27\');">16:24-27</a>. Confession of Him (not simply of the Father) determines acknowledgment above (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,32);">Mt 10:32</a>), where judgment is rendered according to our attitude to Him in His unfortunate ones <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,35);">Mt 25:35</a>ff). No sooner was His person rightly estimated than He began to unfold the necessity of His death and resurrection (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,21);">Mt 16:21</a>). The evening before that death occurred, He brings out its significance, perpetuates the lesson in the institution of the Supper (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,24);">Mr 14:24</a>), and reenforces it after His resurrection (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,26);">Lu 24:26</a>). Paul himself could hardly have expressed the fact of the atonement through Christ\'s death more decisively than <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,28);">Mt 20:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,28);">26:28</a>. With this foundation, could the Christian doctrine of salvation take any other course than that it actually did take? Instead of referring men to the Father, Christ forgives sins Himself (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',9,\'2-6\');">Mt 9:2-6</a>), and He reckons all men as needing this forgiveness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,12);">Mt 6:12</a>). While the time had not arrived for the Pauline doctrine of righteousness, Jesus prepared the way for it, negatively, in demanding a humble sense of sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,3);">Mt 5:3</a>), inner fitness and perfection (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,6,8,20);">Mt 5:6,8,20,48</a>), and positively in requiring recourse to Him by those who felt the burden of their sins (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,28);">Mt 11:28</a>), to Him who was the rest-giver, and not simply to God the Father, a passage of which <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,1);">Ro 5:1</a> is an echo. For it was specially to those to whom, as to the awakened Paul, the law brought condemnation that He came, came to heal and to save (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,17);">Mr 2:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',9,13);">Mt 9:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',15,7);">Lu 15:7</a>). It was for sinners and to sinners that He came (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',15,2);">Lu 15:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,39);">7:39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',19,7);">19:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,19);">Mt 11:19</a>), just as Paul understood; and the way for their salvation was not better law-keeping, but trusting prayer in the confession of sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,13);">Lu 18:13</a>), really equivalent to faith, the humble heart and a hunger for righteousness = (faith). See <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,3,6);">Mt 5:3,6</a>. He who brings most of himself, of his own pride and works, is the least likely to obtain the kingdom of heaven (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,3,4);">Mt 18:3,4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,14);">Mr 10:14</a>). Not only entrance, but the final reward itself is of grace (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,30);">Mt 19:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,\'1-16\');">20:1-16</a>), a parable in the true spirit of Paul, and in anticipation of whose message was the promise of Paradise to the penitent robber (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,43);">Lu 23:43</a>). At the very beginning the message sounded out, "Repent ye, and believe in the gospel" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,15);">Mr 1:15</a>), the gospel which was summed up in Christ, who would gather the people, not directly to God the Father, but to Himself (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,37);">Mt 23:37</a>). All this means justification through that faith in Himself, in His Divine-human manifestation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,\'13-16\');">Mt 16:13-16</a>), of which faith He expresses Himself with anxiety in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,8);">Lu 18:8</a>, and the presence of which he greeted with joy in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',8,10);">Mt 8:10</a>. Ihmels is right therefore in holding (RE3, XVI, 490) that Paul\'s proclamation was continuous with the self-witness of Jesus, which conversely pointed as a consequence to the witness of Paul.<P>2. John\'s Writings:<P>Justification by faith is not more implicit in John\'s Gospel than in the first three; it is only more explicit (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,\'14-16\');">Joh 3:14-16</a>). Eternal life is the blessing secured, but this of course is only possible to one not under condemnation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,36);">Joh 3:36</a>). The new Sonship of God came also in the wake of the same faith (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,12);">Joh 1:12</a>). The Epistles of John vary from Paul in word rather than in substance. The atoning work of Jesus is still in the background; walking in the light is not conceivable in those under condemnation and without faith; and the confession of sins that leads to forgiveness seems only another name for the justification that brings peace (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,9,10);">1Joh 1:9,10</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,1,2);">2:1,2</a>). Everything is, as with Paul (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,7);">Eph 2:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',3,4);">Tit 3:4</a>), led back to the love of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,1);">1Joh 3:1</a>), who sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,10);">1Joh 4:10</a>).<P>3. 1 Peter and Hebrews:<P>Seeberg\'s point that the "Pauline doctrine of justification is not found in any other New Testament writer" (History of Doctrine, I, 48) is true when you emphasize the word "doctrine." Paul gave it full scientific treatment, the others presuppose the fact, but do not unfold the doctrine. Peter\'s "Repent ye, and be baptized...in the name of Jesus Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,38);">Ac 2:38</a>) is meaningless unless faith were exercised in Christ. It is He in whom, though we see Him not, yet believing, we rejoice greatly with joy unspeakable (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,8);">1Pe 1:8</a>), receiving the end of our faith, the salvation of our souls (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,9);">1Pe 1:9</a>). It is only, however, through the precious blood as of a lamb without blemish, even that of Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,19);">1Pe 1:19</a>), and is only through Him that we are believers in God (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,21);">1Pe 1:21</a>). The familiar expression, "Come to Jesus," which simply means have faith in Jesus for justification and salvation, goes back to Peter (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,4);">1Pe 2:4</a>). The Epistle to the Hebrews has other interests to look after, but it does not deny faith, but rather exhorts us to draw near with a true heart in fullness of faith (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,22);">10:22</A>), which it lays at the foundation of all true religion, thinking and achievement (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,\'1-\');">Hebrews 11</a>). The writer can give no better exhortation than to look unto Jesus the author and perfecter of our faith (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,2);">12:2</a>), an exhortation in the true spirit of Paul, whose gospel of faith for justification is also summed up in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',4,16);">4:16</A>.<P>4. Epistle of James:<P>We come lastly to the core of the matter in regard to New Testament representations of justification<6F>the famous passage in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',2,\'14-26\');">Jas 2:14-26</a>, which at first sight seems a direct blow at Paul. Here we are met by the interesting question of the date of James. As we cannot enter into this (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JAMES,+EPISTLE+OF">JAMES, EPISTLE OF</a>), what we say must be independent of this question. A careful look at this vigorous and most valuable letter (valuable in its own place, which is not that of Paul\'s letters, in comparison with which it is a "right strawy epistle," as Luther truthfully said (Erl. Ausg., 63, 115; see also pp. 156-57), in saying which he did not mean to reject it as useless (straw has most important uses), but as giving the doctrine of salvation, for which we must look to Paul) will show us that contradiction on the part of James to Paul is apparent and not real.<P>(1) In this section James uses the word faith simply for intellectual belief in God, and especially in the unity of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',2,19);">2:19</A>; see also context), whereas Paul uses it for a saving trust in Christ. As Feine well says (Theol. d. New Testament, Leipzig, 2 1911, 660-63), for Paul faith is the appropriation of the life-power of the heavenly Christ. Therefore he knows no faith which does not bring forth good works corresponding to it. What does not come from faith is sin. For James faith is subordination of man to the heavenly Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',2,1);">2:1</a>), or it is theoretic acknowledgment of one God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',2,19);">2:19</a>). Justification is for James a speaking just of him who is righteous, an analytical judgment. (Feine also says that James did not understand Paul, but he did not fight him. It was left to Luther through his deep religious experience first to understand Paul\'s doctrine of justification.)<P>(2) James uses the word "works" as meaning practical morality, going back behind legalism, behind Pharisaism, to the position of the Old Testament prophets, whereas Paul uses the word as meritorious action deserving reward.<P>(3) When James is thinking of a deeper view, faith stands central in Christianity (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,3,6);">1:3,6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',2,1);">2:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',5,15);">5:15</A>).<P>(4) Paul also on his part is as anxious as James vitally to connect Christianity and good works through faith (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',1,3);">1Th 1:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,6);">Ga 5:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',13,2);">1Co 13:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,6,7);">Ro 2:6,7</a>; see Mayor, The Epistle of James, 1892, lxxxviiiff; Franks, in DCG, I, 919-20; Findlay in HDB, 1-vol edition, 511).<P>(5) The whole argument of James is bent on preserving a real practical Christianity that is not content with words merely (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',2,15,16);">2:15-16</a>), but shows itself in deeds. He is not trying to show, as Paul, how men get rid of their guilt and become Christians, but how they prove the reality of their profession after they receive the faith. He is not only writing to Christians, as of course Paul was, but he was writing to them as Christians ("my brethren," <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',2,14);">2:14</a>), as already justified and standing on the "faith of our Lord Jesus Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',2,1);">2:1</a>), whereas Paul was thinking of men, Gentile and Jew, shivering in their guilt before the Eternal Justice, and asking, How can we get peace with God? "There is not," says Beyschlag (New Testament Theology, Edinburgh,1895, I, 367-68), "an objective conflict between the Pauline and Jacobean doctrines; both forms of teaching exist peacefully beside each other. James thought of justification in the simple and most natural sense of justificatio justi, as the Divine recognition of an actually righteous man, and he thought of it as the final judgment of God upon a man who is to stand in the last judgment and become a partaker of the final soteria (\'salvation\'). Paul also demands as a requisite for this last judgment and the final soteria right works, the love that fulfills the law and the perfected sanctification, but he (except in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,13);">Ro 2:13</a>) does not apply the expression dikaiousthai (\'to be justified\') to the final judgment of God, which recognizes this righteousness of life as actual. He applies it rather to that first sentence of God with which He graciously receives the believing sinner returning to Him, and takes him into fellowship with Himself." Beyschlag rightly insists that James undoubtedly taught with the first apostles that whoever believes in Christ and is baptized receives the forgiveness of sins (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,38);">Ac 2:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',3,19);">3:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,43);">10:43</a>), and that he would not have contested the Pauline idea of justification by grace on account of faith, insisting only that works must follow. Theologically, the chief if not the only difference is that James has not yet made the cross of Christ the center of his point of view, while the atonement was fundamental with all Paul\'s thinking.<P>See, further, <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JAMES,+EPISTLE+OF">JAMES, EPISTLE OF</a>.<P>III. The Old Testament.<P>A word in conclusion as to the Old Testament. All the New Testament writers built on the Old Testament. That there should be a cleft or contradiction between the Old Testament and what we call the New Testament would have been to them inconceivable. But they realized that that was the early dawn, while they lived in the light of day. Abraham believed in Yahweh; and He reckoned it to him for righteousness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,6);">Ge 15:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',4,3);">Ro 4:3</a>). Who does not keep all parts of the law all the time is condemned (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',27,26);">De 27:26</a> Septuagint; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,10);">Ga 3:10</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',14,1);">Ps 14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',143,2);">143:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,20);">Ro 3:20</a>; see <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,\'9-20\');">3:9-20</a>, and the references to the Old Testament in the American Standard Revised Version). The prophets insisted upon the practical works of righteousness<73>"What doth Yahweh require of thee, but to do justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',6,8);">Mic 6:8</a>). No religious attitude or services could take the place of uprightness of life. This does not mean that the Old Testament writers understood that men were justified simply by their good deeds, for it was always believed that underneath all was the mercy and lovingkindness of God, whose forgiving grace was toward the broken and contrite spirit, the iniquities of whom were to be carried by the Servant of Yahweh, who shall justify many (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',103,\'8-13\');">Ps 103:8-13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',85,10);">85:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',57,15);">Isa 57:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,11);">53:11</a>, and many other passages). IV. Later Development of the Doctrine.<P>1. Apostolic and Early Church Fathers:<P>A brief statement now on the development of the doctrine in the Christian church. It is humiliating to confess that the witness immediately after the apostles (the apostolic Fathers) did not reach the serene heights of Paul, or even the lower levels of his brethren. There are passages which remind one of him, but one feels at once that the atmosphere is different. Christianity is conceived as a new law rather than as a gospel of the grace of God. We cannot go into the reasons for this: suffice it to say that in GentileChristendom the presuppositions for that gospel failed, and the New Testament writings were not yet in the consciousness of the church to the extent that they dominated her thinking. The fine passage in Clement of Rome (97 AD, chapter xxxii: "They all therefore (i.e. Abraham and other early saints) were glorified and magnified, not through themselves or their own works or the righteous doings which they wrought, but through His (God\'s) will. And so we, having been called through His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith, whereby the Almighty God justified all men that ever have been from the beginning; to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.") is not at all on a paragraph with his whole Epistle, as he coordinates faith with other virtues in chapter xxxv, makes hospitality and godliness the saving virtues for Lot in chapter xi, couples hospitality and faith together as equal for Rahab in chapter xii, and represents forgiveness of sins through keeping commandments and love in chapter l. Ignatius (about 110-15 AD) speaks in one place about Jesus Christ dying for us, that believing on His death we might escape death (Tral. 2), but with him the real saving things are love, concord, obedience to bishops, and the indwelling God = Christ, though he has also the excellent passage: "None of these things is hidden from you if ye be perfect in your faith and love toward Jesus Christ, for these things are the beginning and end of life<66>faith is the beginning and love the end, and the two being found in unit are God, while all things else follow in their train unto true nobility" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,4);">Eph 1:4</a>). The so-called Barnabas (date uncertain) puts the death of Christ Jesus at the foundation of salvation, which is expressed by the remission of sins through His blood (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,\'1-\');">Eph 5</a>), the kingdom of Jesus being on the cross, so that they who set their hope on Him shall live forever (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,\'1-\');">Eph 6</a>), while at the time even believers are not yet justified (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,\'1-\');">Eph 4</a>), for which finally a whole series of works of light must be done and works of darkness avoided (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,9);">Eph 1:9</a>). The Shepherd of Hermas and the Ancient Homily = 2 Clem are even more moralistic, where with whatever praise of faith we have the beginning of merit. The same legalistic tone sounds through that invaluable little roll found by Bryennios in 1873 and first published by him in Constantinople in December,1883,The Teaching (Didache) of the Twelve Apostles. That Catholic trend went forward till it is almost full-fledged as early as Tertullian (fl. 200 AD) and Cyprian (250 AD). See a full statement in my Cyprian,1906,146ff. And thus it continued until<69>as far as our outline is concerned<65>it struck Augustine, bishop of Hippo (396ff), who in a masterly and living way united, so far as they could be united, the Pauline thoughts of sin, grace, and justification with the regular Catholic legalism. His book, De Spiritu et Litera (412 AD), was largely after Paul\'s own heart, and the Reformers hailed it with joy. But the Catholic elements he still kept, as for instance, that in justification a good concupiscence and a good-will are infused, that justification grows, that our merits must be taken into the account even though they are God\'s merits, that the faith which justifies is a faith which works by love, that faith is the holding true what God (and the church) says, though occasionally a deeper view of faith is seen, and that works are emphasized, as in De fide et operibus, in a Catholic fashion. With profound and thoroughly Christian thoughts, Augustine had not so worked himself clear of his Catholic inheritance that he could reproduce Paul purely. He made a bridge by which we could go either back to Paul or forward to Aquinas. As Harnack well says, Augustine experienced, on the one hand, the last revival in the ancient church of the principle that "faith alone saves," and, on the other, he silenced that principle for a thousand years. The very Catholic theologian who stood nearest to that principle overcame it (Zeitschrift f. Theol. u. Kirche,1891,177). His misunderstanding of Paul\'s "faith that worketh through love" had momentous consequences.<P>2. Council of Trent:<P>Those consequences are best seen in the decrees of the Council of Trent (Session 6, 1547), to which we now turn, and which are the definite and final crystallization of the medieval development, so far as that development was Catholic.<P>(1) Justification is a translation from a natural state to a state of grace. With this works prevenient grace, awakening and assisting, and with this in his man cooperates and prepares himself for justification. This cooperation has the merit of congruity, though the first call comes before any merit.<P>(2) Faith is an element in justification. "Receiving faith by hearing, they of free will draw near to God, believing those things to be true which have been Divinely revealed and promised." Faith as a living trust in a personal Saviour for salvation is lacking. Among the truths believed is the mercy of God and that He wishes to justify the sinner in Christ.<P>(3) This faith begets love to Christ and hatred to sin, which are elements also of the justifying process.<P>(4) Now follows justification itself, "which is not a bare remission of sins, but also sanctification and renewal of the inner man through the voluntary reception of grace and of gifts."<P>(5) But this renewal must take place through baptism, which, to the prepared adult, both gives and seals all the graces of salvation, forgiveness, cleansing, faith, hope and love.<P>(6) Justification is preserved by obeying the commandments and by good works, which also increase it.<P>(7) In case it is lost<73>and it can be lost, not by venial, but by mortal sin and by unbelief<65>it can be regained by the sacrament of penance.<P>(8) To get it, to keep or regain it, it is also necessary to believe the doctrines as thus laid down and to be laid down by this Council (see the decrees in any edition, or in Mirbt, Quellen zur Geschichte des Papsttums, 2. Aufl., 206-16, or in Buckley\'s or in Waterworth\'s translations, and for an admirable and objective summary see Seeberg, History of Doctrine, II, 433-38).<P>3. Luther:<P>Recent researches in Luther\'s early writings have shown that almost from the beginning of his earnest study of religious questions, he mounted up to Paul\'s view of justification by faith alone (Loofs, DG, 4. Aufl.,1906, 696-98). Faith is the trust in the mercy of God through Christ, and justification is the declaring righteous for His sake, which is followed by a real making righteous. From the beginning to the end of his life as a religious teacher these are the elements of his doctrine. Speaking of 1513-15, Loofs says (p. 697): "Upon these equations (to justify = to forgive, grace = mercy of the non-imputing God, faith = trust in His mercy) as the regulators of his religious self-judgment, Luther\'s piety rests, and corresponding to them his view of Christianity, and even later" (than 1513-15); and he adds that "to reckon as righteous" (reputari justum) must not be understood with Luther as an opposition "to make righteous," for his "to be justified without merits" in the sense of "to forgive" (absolvi) is at the same time the beginning of a new life: remissio peccati...ipsa resurrectio. "His constantly and firmly held view, even more deeply understood later than in 1513-15, that \'to be justified without merit\' =\' to be resurrected (to be born again)\' =\' to be sanctified\' is a pregnant formulation of his Christianity." So much being said, it is not necessary to draw out Luther\'s doctrine further, who in this respect "rediscovered Christianity as a religion," but it will suffice to refer to the Histories of Doctrine (Seeberg gives a full and brilliant exposition), to Kostlin, Luthers Theologie, 2. Aufl., 1901 (see Index under the word "Rechtfertigung," and I, 349), and especially to Thieme, Die sittliche Triebkraft des Glaubens: eine Untersuchung zu Luthers Theologie,1895,103-314.<P>From Luther and the other reformers the New Testament doctrine went over to the Protestant churches without essential modification, and has remained their nominal testimony until the present. A classic expression of it, which may be taken as representing evangelical Christendom, is the 11th of the 39 Articles of Religion of the Church of England: "We are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings: wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort; as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification." It is true that at one time Wesley\'s opponents accused him of departing from this doctrine, especially on account of his famous Minute of 1770, but this was due to a radical misunderstanding of that Minute, for to the last he held staunchly Paul\'s doctrine (for proof see my article in Lutheran Quarterly, April,1906,171-75).<P>4. Schleiermacher:<P>A new point of view was brought into modern theology by Schleiermacher, who starts from the fundamental fact of Christian experience that we have redemption and reconciliation with Christ, which fact becomes ours by union with Christ through faith. This union brings justification with other blessings, but justification is not considered as even in thought a separate act based on Christ\'s death, but as part of a great whole of salvation, historically realized step by step in Christ. The trend of his teaching is to break down the distinction between justification and regeneration, as they are simply different aspects of union with Christ.<P>Ritschl carried forward this thought by emphasizing the grace of the heavenly Father mediated in the first instance through the Son to the Christian community, "to which God imputes the position toward him of Christ its founder," and in the second instance to individuals "as by faith in the Gospel they attach themselves to this community. Faith is simply obedience to God and trust in the revelation of his grace in Christ." This brings sinners into fellowship with God which means eternal life, which is here and now realized, as the Fourth Gospel points out, in lordship over the world (compare Franks in DCG, I, 922-23). The judicial or forensic aspect of justification so thoroughly in-wrought in Paul\'s thought is denied by Ritschl. "In whatsoever way we view the matter," he says, "the attitude of God in the act of justification cannot be conceived as that of a judge" (Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation, English translation,1900,90). W.N. Clarke agrees with Schleiermacher in eliminating justification as a separate element in the work of salvation, and harks back to the Catholic view in making it dependent on the new life and subsequent to it (Christian Theology, 407-8). No book has had as much influence in destroying the New Testament conception of justification among English-speaking readers as that of J. H. Newman, Lectures on Justification,1838,3rd edition,1874,which contains some of the finest passages in religious literature (pp. 270-73, 302, 338-39), but which was so sympathetic to the Catholic view that the author had nothing essential to retract when he joined Rome in 1845. "Whether we say we are justified by faith, or by works, or by sacraments, all these but mean this one doctrine that we are justified by grace which is given through sacraments, impetrated by faith, manifested in works" (p. 303).<P>5. Meaning and Message to the Modern Man:<P>Lastly, has the New Testament conception of justification by faith any message to the modern man, or is it, as Lagarde held, dead in the Protestant churches, something which went overboard with the old doctrine of the Trinity and of Atonement? After an able historical, survey, Holl concludes (Die Rechtfertigungslehre im Licht der Geschichte d. Protestantismus, Tubingen, 1906, 40-42) that there are two principles thoroughly congenial to modern thought which favor this doctrine, namely, that of the sanctity and importance of personality, the "I" that stands face to face with God, responsible to Him alone; and second, the restoration of the Reformation-thought of an all-working God. Whoever feels the pressure of these two principles, for him the question of justification becomes a living one. "The standard on which he must measure himself is the Absolute God, and who can stand in this judgment? Not simply on account of single acts, but with his \'I\' and even with his good-willing. For that is just the curse which rests upon a man that his \'I\' is the thing with which alone he wills and can seek God, and that it is this very \'I\' which by its willfulness, vanity and self-love poisons all his willing. Accordingly, it remains true, what the Reformers said, that man is entirely corrupt, and that he can do no otherwise than to despair when the majesty of God dawns upon him" (p. 41). There is, then, no other solution than the venture of faith that the same God who crushes our self-deceit lifts up with His sovereign grace, that we live through Him and before Him. Luther is right that religiously we can find no hold except on the Divine act of grace, which through faith in the Divine love and power working in us and for us ever makes us new in Christ. To give up the doctrine of justification, says Holl rightly (p. 42), is to give up conscious personal religion. Holl writes as a liberal, and he quotes a stronger liberal still, Treitschke, as saying that in the 19th century it was the orthodox preachers who proclaimed this doctrine, who built better than the liberals. Nor, says Holl in another book (Was hat die Rechtfertigungslehre dem modernen Menschen zu sagen? Tubingen,1907,26), can anyone who has experienced justification as an inner transformation be misled into moral unconcern. A moral ideal becomes his, much stronger and more compelling than worldly ethics. The new attitude toward God constituted by justification impels to an unending movement in the service of God and man. The doctrine has not had its day. It is a part of the eternal gospel. As long as sinful man has to do with an all-holy God, the experience of Paul, Luther and Wesley becomes in a sense normative for the race.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Besides the books mentioned in the text, the following on justification itself may be consulted (those marked with a star are Protestant, those with a dagger are Catholic or High Church Anglican): Goodwin, new edition, with preface by Wesley, 1807; Junkins, 1839; Hare, new edition, 1839 (1st edition with preface by Jackson, 1817); Kerwick, 1841; Heurtley, 1846 (Bampton Lectures for 1845); McIlvaine,1861,3rd edition, 1868 (Righteousness of Faith, important); Buchanan, 1867 (important); Body, 1870; Bunyan, new edition, 1873; Harkey, 1875; Davies, 1878; Sadler, 1888; and Holden, 1901. Besides these, Laurence, Bampton Lectures for 1804, sermon 6; Drummond, Apostolic Teaching and Christ\'s Teaching (see index); Schlatter, New Testament Theology, 2 volumes, 1909-10; the various systematic Theologies; Theologies of the New Testament, and Commentaries may be consulted; also Menegoz, Die Rechtfertigungslehre nach Paulus und nach Jakobus, 1903; Kuhl, Die Stellung des Jakobusbriefes z. alttest. Gesetz u. z. Paulinischen Rechtfertigungslehre, 1905.``58';
isbe[5238]='Justle`jus\'-l (shaqaq): The word occurs once in <a onClick="return mV(\'Nah\',2,4);">Na 2:4</a> (in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)), where the American Standard Revised Version has "rush to and fro."``1';
isbe[5239]='Justus`jus\'-tus (Ioustos): There are three of this name mentioned in the New Testament.<P>(1) It was the Roman surname of <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOSEPH+BARSABBAS">JOSEPH BARSABBAS</a> (which see) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,23);">Ac 1:23</a>).<P>(2) A Corinthian proselyte (sebomenos ton Theon), whose house adjoined the synagogue and who received Paul when the Jews opposed him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,7);">Ac 18:7</a>). He was probably a Roman citizen, one of the colonies, and so he would be of assistance to the apostle in his work among the better class of Corinth. There is some disagreement among manuscripts regarding the name. Textus Receptus of the New Testament gives "Justus" alone. the Revised Version (British and American) following Codex Sinaiticus, Codex E, Vulgate, Bohairic, Armenian, gives "Titus Justus"; Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, Tischendorf, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Bezae, give "Titius Justus"; Cheyne (EB, under the word "Justus") thinks these forms a corruption of "Tertius Justus," and that the bearer of the name was the "Tertius" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,22);">Ro 16:22</a>. Paul still continued his lodgings with Aquila and Priscilla, but made the house of Justus his own synagogue.<P>(3) A Jew, Jesus Justus, mentioned with Mark and Aristarchus by Paul in his letters to the Colossians (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,11);">Col 4:11</a>), is a fellow-worker and one that had been a comfort unto him.``78';
isbe[5240]='Juttah; Jutah`jut\'-a, joo\'-ta (yuttah, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,16);">Jos 21:16</a>; Septuagint Tanu; and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,55);">Jos 15:55</a> the King James Version, Septuagint Itan, A, Ietta); ju\'-ta (Yatah, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,55);">Jos 15:55</a>): A town in the hill country of Judah, mentioned with Maon, Carmel and Ziph; a Levitical city (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,16);">Jos 21:16</a>). In some versions of Septuagint it occurs (Iota) in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,57);">1Ch 6:57</a>. In the Eusebius, Onomasticon (266 49; 133 10) a large village called "Juttah" is described as 18 Roman miles from Eleutheropolis. This agrees with the position of Yutta, a large and prosperous Moslem village, 3,740 ft. above sea-level, 5 1/3 miles south of Hebron and 15 1/2 miles from Beit Jebrin (Eleutheropolis). There are many rock-cut tombs and ancient winepresses all around the village.<P>Reland (Pal, 870) suggested (and many others have followed him) that the ... polis Iouda, translated "city of Judah," in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,39);">Lu 1:39</a>, should be polis Iouta, "the city Yuta." The translation "city of Judah" is suspicious, because Iouda is without the article, which is usually put before the name of a district; the interchange of "t" and "d" is a very common one. Dr. Paterson, resident many years in Hebron, states that there is a local Moslem tradition in the district that Yutta was the home of John the Baptist. For Yutta see PEF, III, 310, Sh XXI.``117';
isbe[5241]='Kab`kab (qabh, "something hollowed out," <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',6,25);">2Ki 6:25</a>; the King James Version Cab): A Hebrew dry measure and liquid measure equal to about 2 quarts.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WEIGHTS+AND+MEASURES">WEIGHTS AND MEASURES</a>`1';
isbe[5242]='Kabzeel`kab\'-ze-el, kab\'-zel (kabhtse\'el "(whom) God collects"): One of the "uttermost cities" of Judah toward the border of Edom in the south (Negeb) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,21);">Jos 15:21</a>). It was the native place of Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada, one of David\'s mighty men (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,20);">2Sa 23:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,22);">1Ch 11:22</a>). "Jekabzeel and the villages thereof," one of the places re-inhabited by the men of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,25);">Ne 11:25</a>), appears to be the same place. The site is unknown.``1';
isbe[5243]='Kadesh`ka\'-desh (qadhesh; Kades, <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',29,8);">Ps 29:8</a>; Judith 1:9).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KADESH+BARNEA">KADESH-BARNEA</a>`1';
isbe[5244]='Kadesh in Galilee``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KEDESH">KEDESH</a>`1';
isbe[5245]='Kadesh On the Orontes`o-ron\'-tez (in Massoretic Text of <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',24,6);">2Sa 24:6</a>, under the corrupt form tachtim chodhshi, which should be corrected from the Septuagint (Luc.) reading: eis ten genitive Chettieim Kades, "to the land of the Hittites unto Kadesh," into \'erets ha-chittim qadheshah. Ewald and others, fixing the northern ideal boundary of Israel at the sources of the Jordan, would read "Hermon" for chodhshi, but the conjectures of Thenius and Hitzig of a reference to the northern Kadesh are fully confirmed by the reading given): Kadesh was the southern capital of the Hittites, and was situated on the upper waters of the Orontes, 80 miles north of Damascus. It is now represented by a large mound 5 miles south of what, till the Middle Ages, was called the Lake of Kades, but now the Lake of Homs. Here Thothmes III of Egypt (flourished circa 1650 BC), after the battle of Megiddo, met and received hostages from the Assyrians, and here too Rameses II defeated Hatesar, king of the Hittites (circa 1320 BC), and concluded with him a treaty, which was formally inscribed on a disk of silver. The incidents of the battle are depicted on the walls of the Ramesseum, and an Egyptian epic records the heroic deeds of Rameses. Under the name Kadytis, it is mentioned as being taken by Pharaoh-necoh (Herodotus ii.159) in 609 BC. In the only Bible reference (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',24,6);">2Sa 24:6</a>), it is named as the northern limit of the census made by David.``23';
isbe[5246]='Kadesh-Barnea`ka\'-desh-bar\'-ne-a (qadhesh barnea\'; Kades): Mentioned 10 times; called also "Kadesh" simply. The name perhaps means "the holy place of the desert of wandering." There are references to Kadesh in early history. At En-mishpat ("the same is Kadesh") Chedorlaomer and his allies smote the Amalekite and Amorite. Abraham dwelt near Kadesh, and it was at Beer-lahai-roi between Kadesh and Bered that the Angel of Yahweh appeared to Hagar (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,7);">Ge 14:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,14);">16:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,1);">20:1</a>). It was an important camp of the Israelites during their wanderings, and seems to have been their headquarters for 38 years (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',1,2);">De 1:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',2,14);">2:14</a>; Judith 5:14). There the returning spies found the camp (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,26);">Nu 13:26</a>); there Miriam died and was buried (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',20,1);">Nu 20:1</a>); from thence messengers were sent to the king of Edom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',20,14);">Nu 20:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',11,16);">Jud 11:16</a>). There the people rebelled because of the want of water, and Moses brought water from the rock (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',20,2);">Nu 20:2</a>); it was called therefore Meribath<74>or Meriboth-Kadesh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',27,14);">Nu 27:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',47,19);">Eze 47:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',48,28);">48:28</a>). It was situated in the wilderness of Zin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',20,1);">Nu 20:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,36,37);">33:36,37</a>) in the hill country of the Amorites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',1,19);">De 1:19</a>), 11 days\' journey from Horeb, by the way of Mt. Seir (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',1,2);">De 1:2</a>), "in the uttermost" of the border of Edom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',20,16);">Nu 20:16</a>), and on the southern border, probably the southeast corner, of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',47,19);">Eze 47:19</a>; compare Judith 19). See Cobern, Homiletic Review, April and May, 1914.``78';
isbe[5247]='Kadmiel`kad\'-mi-el (qadhmi\'el, "before God," "priest"(?); "Cadmiel" in parallel lists in 1Esdras 5:26,58 the King James Version; omitted in Septuagint Codex Vaticanus; Codex Alexandrinus reads kai Kadmielon): A Levite (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,40);">Ezr 2:40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,43);">Ne 7:43</a>), founder of a family whose descendants returned from captivity with Zerubbabel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,1);">Ezr 2:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,43);">Ne 7:43</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,1,8);">12:1,8</a>). He is named among those who praise God for the return (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',9,4,5);">Ne 9:4,5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,24);">12:24</a>); was of those who "set forward" the work of the Lord\'s house (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',3,9);">Ezr 3:9</a>; 1Esdras 5:26,58), and is again mentioned with those who "seal" the new Return Covenant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,28);">Ne 10:28</a>) after the re-establishment of worship (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,1,9);">Ne 10:1,9</a>).``1';
isbe[5248]='Kadmonite`kad\'-mon-it (qadhmoni; Kedmonaioi, signifies "the Easterner," or, less probably, "one of the ancient race"): The Kadmonites are mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,19);">Ge 15:19</a> along with the Kenites and Kenizzites of Edom, and are doubtless the same as "the children of the east," whose wisdom was celebrated (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,30);">1Ki 4:30</a>). qedhemah, "the East," was a son of Ishmael (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,15);">Ge 25:15</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,6);">Ge 25:6</a>). In an Egyptian story describing the adventures of a political refugee who fled from Egypt in the time of the XIIth Dynasty, it is said that he found a refuge in Canaan in the land of Kaduma or Kedem.``157';
isbe[5249]='Kain (1)`kan (ha-qayin; the King James Version Cain): A town in the hill country of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,57);">Jos 15:57</a>). There is, too, apparently a reference to this place in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',24,21,22);">Nu 24:21,22</a>:<P class="in15">"And he looked on the Kenite, and took up his parable, and said,<br>Strong is thy dwelling-place,<br>And thy nest is set in the rock.<br>Nevertheless Kain shall be wasted,<br>Until Asshur shall carry thee away captive."<P>This place has been very doubtfully identified as the ruin Yukin, a place on a lofty hill southeast of Hebron, overlooking the wilderness of Judah; the tomb of Cain is shown there. See PEF, III, 312, Sh XXI.``117';
isbe[5250]='Kain (2)`(qayin): A clan name, the King James Version "the Kenite" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',24,22);">Nu 24:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',4,11);">Jud 4:11</a>). In the first passage the Revised Version (British and American) has "Kain" and margin "the Kenites"; in the second, the Revised Version (British and American) has "the Kenite" in text and margin "Kain."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KAIN+1">KAIN 1</a>`1';
isbe[5251]='Kallai`kal\'-a-i, kal\'-i (qallay, qal, "swift"): A priest among those who returned with Zerubbabel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,1);">Ne 12:1</a>). He represented the family of Sallai (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,20);">Ne 12:20</a>).``1';
isbe[5252]='Kamon`ka\'-mon (qamon; the King James Version Camon): The place where Jair was buffed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',10,\'3-5\');">Jud 10:3-5</a>). It is possibly represented either by Kamm or Kumeim, ruins which lie about 6 and 7 miles respectively to the south-southeast of Umm Keis. See further <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HAVVOTH-JAIR">HAVVOTH-JAIR</a>. The ruins of Kamm, about 200 yds. square, crown a small elevation, and point to an important place in the past. There are large rock-hewn cisterns to the south. Among the ruins of Kumein, which are not considerable, a few mud huts are built, occupied today by about 200 souls (Schumacher, Northern \'Ajlun, 137).``1';
isbe[5253]='Kanah`ka\'-na (qanah, "reeds"):<P>(1) The name of a "brook," i.e. wady, or "torrent bed," which formed part of the boundary between Ephraim and Manasseh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',16,8);">Jos 16:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',17,9);">17:9</a>). The border of Ephraim went out westward from Tappuah to the brook Kanah, ending at the sea; the border of Manasseh from Tappuah, which belonged to Ephraim, "went down unto the brook of Kanah, southward of the brook." There seems no good reason to doubt the identification of "the brook Kanah" with the modern Wady Kanah. The transition from the heavy "q" to the lighter "k" is easy, so the phonetic difficulty is not serious. The stream rises in the southwest of Shechem, flows through Wady Ishkar, and, joining the \'Aujeh, reaches the sea not far to the north of Jaffa. Guerin, influenced, apparently, by the masses of reeds of various kinds which fill the river, argues in favor of Nahr el-Fallq, to the north of Arsuf. He identifies it with Nahr el-Kasab, "river of reeds," mentioned by Beha ed-Din, the Moslem historian. But this last must be identified with Nahr el-Mafjir, 13 miles farther north, too far north for "the brook Kanah."<P>(2) A town on the northern boundary of Asher (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,28);">Jos 19:28</a>), probably identical with the village of Qana, about 7 miles southeast of Tyre (SWP, I,51,64, Sh I).``54';
isbe[5254]='Kaph`kaf "k": The 11th letter of the Hebrew alphabet; transliterated in this Encyclopedia as "k", with daghesh, and "kh" (= German ch) without daghesh. It came also to be used for the <span class="noTag">number 20</span>.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ALPHABET">ALPHABET</a>`1';
isbe[5255]='Kareah`ka-re\'-a (qareach, "bald head"): The father of Johanan and Jonathan, who after the fall of Jerusalem joined Gedaliah at Mizpah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',25,23);">2Ki 25:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',40,8);">Jer 40:8</a>).``1';
isbe[5256]='Kariathiarius`ka-ri-ath-i-a\'-ri-us (Kariathiarios; Codex Vaticanus reads Kartatheiareios; the King James Version, Kiriathiarim (1Esdras 5:19))= Kiriath-jearim in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,29);">Ne 7:29</a>.``1';
isbe[5257]='Karka`kar\'-ka (ha-qarqa\'ah<61>with the article and locale; the King James Version Karkaa): A place in the south of Judah, between Addar and Wady el-\'Arish (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,3);">Jos 15:3</a>). Eusebius, Onomasticon speaks of a village in Judah lying toward the wilderness, named Akarka. It cannot now be identified. The name means "the pavement,"\' or "ground."``1';
isbe[5258]='Karkor`kar\'-kor (qarqor): An unidentified place where Gideon surprised and overwhelmed the remnants of the army of Zeba and Zalmunnah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,10);">Jud 8:10</a>). It probably corresponds to Qarkar mentioned by Shalmaneser II, S. of Hamath (KB, I, 173).``1';
isbe[5259]='Kartah`kar\'-ta (qartah): A city in the territory of Zebulun, assigned to the Levites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,34);">Jos 21:34</a>). It is not identified. Possibly it is a variant of <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KATTATH">KATTATH</a>, or of <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KARTAN">KARTAN</a> (which see).``1';
isbe[5260]='Kartan`kar\'-tan (qartan): A city in the territory of Naphtali, given to the Gershonite Levites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,32);">Jos 21:32</a>). It is called Kiriathaim in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,76);">1Ch 6:76</a>. Kartan may be a contraction of this. Cheyne (EB, under the word) suggests that both names may be corruptions from "Chinnereth." Neither is mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,32,38);">Jos 19:32,38</a>, in the list of Naphtalite cities, while Chinnereth is.``1';
isbe[5261]='Kattath`kat\'-ath (qattath): A city in the territory of Zebulun, named with Iphtah-el, Nahalel, and Shimron (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,15);">Jos 19:15</a>), perhaps to be identified with Kitron (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,30);">Jud 1:30</a>), from which Zebulun did not expel the Canaanites; and with Kartah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,34);">Jos 21:34</a>), which was given to the Merarite Levites. The Babylonian Talmud (Meg. 6a) identifies Kattath with Sepphoris, the modern Seffuriyeh (but see Neubauer, Geographie du Talmud, 191). The Jerusalem Talmud takes it as identical with Ketunith, Kuteineh, to the west of Esdraelon. It should probably, however, be sought near to Shimron, the modern Semuniyeh.``54';
isbe[5262]='Kedar`ke\'-dar (qedhar; Kedar): Second in order of the sons of Ishmael (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,13);">Ge 25:13</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,29);">1Ch 1:29</a>). The name occurs as typical of a distant eastern country in opposition to the lands of the Mediterranean (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',2,10);">Jer 2:10</a>). The author of Second Isaiah introduces this tribe in company with Nebaioth, and both are represented as owners of flocks (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',60,7);">Isa 60:7</a>). Evidence of their nomadic habits appears in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',49,28,29);">Jer 49:28,29</a>, where they are classed among the Bene-Qedhem, and mention is made of their flocks, camels, tents, curtains and furniture. They are spoken of (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',42,11);">Isa 42:11</a>) as dwelling in chatserim ("villages"), from which it would appear that they were a somewhat settled tribe, corresponding to the Arabic chadariya or "town-dwellers," as distinct from wabariya or "nomads." Ezekiel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,21);">27:21</a>) gives another hint of their pastoral nature where, in his detailed picture of the wealth of Tyre, Kedar and Arabia provide the Tyrians with lambs, rams and goats. The fame of the tribe is further reflected in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',21,16,17);">Isa 21:16,17</a> (the only allusion to their might in war), and in the figurative references to their tents (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',120,5);">Ps 120:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',1,5);">So 1:5</a>). In this last passage where the tents are made symbolic of dark beauty, the word qadhar ("to be black") may have been in the writer\'s mind.<P>The settlements of Kedar were probably in the northwest of Arabia, not far from the borders of Palestine. Assyrian inscriptions have thrown light upon the history of the tribe. There Kedar is mentioned along with the Arabs and Nebaioth, which decides its identity with Kedar of the Old Testament, and there is found also an account of the conflicts between the tribe and King Assurbanipal (see Margoliouth in HDB).<P>Of the Ishmaelite tribes, Kedar must have been one of the most important, and thus in later times the name came to be applied to all the wild tribes of the desert. It is through Kedar (Arabic, keidar) that Muslim genealogists trace the descent of Mohammed from Ishmael.``63';
isbe[5263]='Kedemah`ked\'-e-ma, ke-de\'-ma (qedhemah, "eastward"): Son of Ishmael (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,16);">Ge 25:16</a>), head of a clan (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,31);">1Ch 1:31</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KADMONITE">KADMONITE</a>`1';
isbe[5264]='Kedemoth`ked\'-e-moth, ke-de\'-moth (qedhemoth, "eastern parts"): From the wilderness to which this town gave its name, Moses sent messengers to Sihon, king of the Amorites in Heshbon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',2,26);">De 2:26</a>). It was given by Moses to the tribe of Reuben (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,18);">Jos 13:18</a>), and assigned to the Merarite Levites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,37);">Jos 21:37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,79);">1Ch 6:79</a>). It must probably be sought on the upper course of the Arnon. Buhl (GAP, 268) suggests that it may be identified with Umm er-Resas.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JAHAZ">JAHAZ</a>`1';
isbe[5265]='Kedesh (1)`ke\'-desh (qedhesh; Kades):<P>(1) One of the "uttermost cities" of Judah "toward the border of Edom in the south" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,23);">Jos 15:23</a>). Possibly it is to be identified with <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KADESH-BARNEA">KADESH-BARNEA</a> (which see); otherwise it is strange that this latter should be omitted from the list. Dillmann would identify it with Kadus, to the south of Hebron, mentioned by Muqaddasi.<P>(2) A town in the territory of Issachar, given to the Gershonite Levites (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,72);">1Ch 6:72</a>). In the list of Joshua (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,28);">21:28</a>) its place is taken by <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KISHION">KISHION</a> (which see). Conder suggests identification with Tell Abu Qades, near Megiddo.<P>(3) Kedesh-naphtali, the famous city of refuge in the uplands of Naphtali. It is called "Kedesh," simply, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',12,22);">Jos 12:22</a>, etc.; Kedesh-naphtali in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',4,6);">Jud 4:6</a>; Tobit 1:2; Kedesh in Galilee in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',20,7);">Jos 20:7</a>, etc. It was assigned to the Gershonite Levites (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,76);">1Ch 6:76</a>). From the name "holy," we gather that it was a sanctuary from old time. It was therefore a place of asylum, and only preserved its ancient character in this respect when chosen as one of the cities of refuge. It was the home of Barak, and here his host assembled. When the Assyrians invaded the land under Tiglath-pileser, it was among the first cities to be captured, and its inhabitants were deported (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',15,29);">2Ki 15:29</a>). Near Kedesh was fought the great battle between Jonathan the Maccabee and Demetrius (1Macc 11:63ff). Josephus says that in his time it belonged to the Tyrians, lying between their land and that of Galilee (Ant., XIII, v, 6; B J, II, xviii, 1; IV, ii,3,etc.). Eusebius, Onomasticon places it 20 miles from Tyre, near to Paneas. It is represented by the modern village of Kedes, which lies on the plateau to the west of el-Chuleh. It crowns a tell which runs out in a low ridge into the little plain to the west. Near the fountain, which rises under the ridge to the north, are the most interesting of the ancient remains. There are many fine sarcophagi, some of them being used as watering-troughs. From its lofty situation, Kedesh commanded a spacious view over a richly varied landscape, With smiling cornfields, and hills clothed with oak and terebinth.``54';
isbe[5266]='Kedesh (2)`(1Maccc 11:63,73, Codex Alexandrinus, Kedes; the King James Version Cades): Scene of a battle between Judas Maccabeus and the forces of Demetrius.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KEDESH">KEDESH</a>`1';
isbe[5267]='Kedesh-Naphtali`ke\'-desh-naf\'-ta-li.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KEDESH">KEDESH</a>`1';
isbe[5268]='Keeper; Keepers`kep\'-er, (mostly from shamar; phulax): The word is used of keepers of sheep, vineyards, doors, prisons (in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',39,21);">Ge 39:21</a>ff, car; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,23);">Ac 5:23</a>), etc. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',12,3);">Ec 12:3</a>, "The keepers of the house shall tremble," the allusion is to the decay of bodily powers, the "keepers" being specially the arms, which had become feeble through age.``1';
isbe[5269]='Kehelathah`ke-he-la\'-tha, ke-hel\'-a-tha (qehlathah, "gathering," "assembly"): A desert camp of the Israelites between Rissah and Mt. Shepher (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,22,23);">Nu 33:22,23</a>). Situation is unknown.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WANDERINGS+OF+ISRAEL">WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL</a>`1';
isbe[5270]='Keilah`ke-i\'-la (qe\'ilah; Keeilam):<P>(1) A city of the Shephelah mentioned (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,44);">Jos 15:44</a>) along with Nezib, Aehzib and Mareshah. Among those who repaired the walls of Jerusalem was "Hashabiah, the ruler of half the district of Keilah, for his district. After him repaired their brethren, Bavvai the son of Henadad, the ruler of half the district of Keilah" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',3,17,18);">Ne 3:17,18</a>).<P>1. David and Keilah:<P>It is, however, from the story of the wandering of David that we have most information regarding this place. It was a city with gates and bars (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',23,7);">1Sa 23:7</a>). The Philistines came against it and commenced robbing the threshing-floors. David, after twice inquiring of Yahweh, went down with his 600 men (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',23,13);">1Sa 23:13</a>) and "fought with the Philistines, and brought away their cattle, and slew them with great slaughter." Saul hearing that David and his men were within a fortified town "summoned all the people to war, to go down to Keilah, to besiege David and his men" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',23,8);">1Sa 23:8</a>). Then David asked Abiathar the priest to bring him an ephod, and he inquired of Yahweh whether, if Saul came, the men of Keilah would surrender him to save that city; hearing from Yahweh, "They will deliver thee up," he and all his men escaped from Keilah and went into the wilderness. The reputed strength of Keilah is confirmed by its mention in 5 tablets in the Tell el-Amarna Letters under the name of Kilts (qilti, Petrie) with Gedor, Gath, Rabbah and Gezer.<P>2. Identification:<P>Although other identifications were proposed by the older topographers, there is now a general consensus of opinion that the site of this city is Khurbet Kila (Josephus, Ant, VI, xiii,1,in his account of David\'s adventure calls the place "Killa"). It is a hill covered with ruins in the higher part of Wady es Sur, 1,575 ft. above sea-level, whose terraced sides are covered with grainfields. The Eusebius, Onomasticon (Latin text) states that it was 8 miles from Eleutheropolis, which is about the distance of Khurbet Kila from Beit Jibrin. Beit Nusib (Nezib) is a couple of miles away, and Tell Sandahannah (Mareshah) but 7 miles to the west (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,44);">Jos 15:44</a>). An early Christian tradition states that the prophet Habakkuk was buried at Keilah.<P>(2) The <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GARMITE">Garmite</a> (which see), <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,19);">1Ch 4:19</a>; see PEF, 314, Sh XXI.``117';
isbe[5271]='Kelaiah`ke-la\'-ya, ke-li\'-a (qelayah, "swift for Yah"[?]; Kolios; Codex Vaticanus, Konos): One of the priests who had "foreign wives" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,23);">Ezr 10:23</a>, also "Kelita"). In parallel list of 1Esdras 9:23, he again has a double name<6D>"Colius" and "Calitas." A "Kelita" is named as helping Ezra at the expounding of the law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,7);">Ne 8:7</a>; compare 1Es 9:48, "Calitas"), and also among the signatories of the covenant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,9);">Ne 10:9</a>; for nature of covenant see <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,28);">Ne 10:28</a>). They may not, however, be the same person.``1';
isbe[5272]='Kelita`kel\'-i-ta, ke-li\'-ta (qelita\' "dwarf").`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KELAIAH">KELAIAH</a>`1';
isbe[5273]='Kemuel`kem\'-u-el, ke-mu\'-el (qemu\'el, "God\'s mound"):<P>(1) Nephew of Abraham (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,21);">Ge 22:21</a>), father of Aram, whom Ewald identifies with Ram of <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',32,2);">Job 32:2</a>; but compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,22);">Ge 10:22</a>, where Aram is described as one of the children of Shem. They may not be the same person.<P>(2) Prince of Ephraim, one of the land commissioners who divided Canaan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',34,24);">Nu 34:24</a>).<P>(3) A Levite, father of Hashabiah, one of the tribal princes of David\'s time, a ruler among the Levites (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',27,17);">1Ch 27:17</a>).``1';
isbe[5274]='Kenan`ke\'-nan (qenan; Kainan): A son of Enosh, the son of Seth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,9,10,12,13,14);">Ge 5:9,10,12,13,14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,2);">1Ch 1:2</a>). The King James Version form (except in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,2);">1Ch 1:2</a>), is "Cainan."``1';
isbe[5275]='Kenath`ke\'-nath (qenath; Kaath kaanath, in Septuagint, Codex Alexandrinus): A city in Bashan, taken along with its "daughters," i.e. "villages" from the Amorites by Nobah who gave it his own name (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',32,42);">Nu 32:42</a>). It was recaptured by Geshur and Aram (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,23);">1Ch 2:23</a>). It is probably identical with the modern Kanawat, which is built on the site, and largely from the materials of an ancient city. It lies about 16 miles to the north of Bosra eski Sham, the Bostra of the Romans, on both sides of Wady Kanawat, where, descending from the slopes of Jebel ed-Druze, it plunges over a precipice, forming a picturesque waterfall. On the plateau above the modern village, there is a striking collection of Roman and Christian remains, the shapely forms of many columns lending distinction to the scene. One large building is associated with the name of the patriarch Job<6F>Maqam Ayyub. The position commands a spacious and interesting view over the whole of the Chauran. The identification has been rejected by Socin (Baedeker, Pal3, 207), but his reasons are not given. Moore (Judges, 222) also rejects it, but for reasons that are not convincing.``54';
isbe[5276]='Kenaz; Kenez`ke\'-naz, ke\'-nez (qenaz "hunting"):<P>(1) A "duke" of Edom, grandson of Esau (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,11,15,42);">Ge 36:11,15,42</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,36,53);">1Ch 1:36,53</a>).<P>(2) Father of Othniel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,17);">Jos 15:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,13);">Jud 1:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',3,9,11);">3:9,11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,13);">1Ch 4:13</a>).<P>(3) The unidentified qenaz of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,15);">1Ch 4:15</a>, who appears to be a descendant of (2). There is, however, some difficulty with the passage here.``1';
isbe[5277]='Kenezite`ke\'-nez-it (qenizzi; Kenezaios): the King James Version in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,19);">Ge 15:19</a> and the Revised Version (British and American) uniformly, spell "Kenizzite." The Kenezites were the clan whose name-father was <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KENAZ">KENAZ</a> (which see). Their land, along with that of their Canaanite tribes, was promised to Abram (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,19);">Ge 15:19</a>). To this clan belonged Jephunneh, the father of Caleb (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',32,12);">Nu 32:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',14,6,14);">Jos 14:6,14</a>). It had evidently been absorbed by the tribe of Judah. If the Kenezites went down with Jacob into Egypt, they may have become identified with his family there.``1';
isbe[5278]='Kenites`ke\'-nits (ha-qeni, haqeni; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',24,22);">Nu 24:22</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',4,11);">Jud 4:11</a>, qayin; of hoi Kenaioi, hoi Kinaioi): A tribe of nomads named in association with various other peoples. They are first mentioned along with the Kadmonites and Kenizzites among the peoples whose land was promised to Abram (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,19);">Ge 15:19</a>). Balaam, seeing them from the heights of Moab; puns upon their name, which resembles the Hebrew ken, "a nest," prophesying their destruction although their nest was "set in the rock"<22>possibly a reference to Sela, the city. Moses\' father-in-law, Jethro, is called "the priest of Midian" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,1);">Ex 3:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,1);">18:1</a>; but in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,16);">Jud 1:16</a> he is described as a Kenite, showing a close relation between the Kenites and Midian. At the time of Sisera\'s overthrow, Heber, a Kenite, at "peace" with Jabin, king of Hazor, pitched his tent far north of his ancestral seats (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',4,17);">Jud 4:17</a>). There were Kenites dwelling among the Amalekites in the time of Saul (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',15,6);">1Sa 15:6</a>). They were spared because they had "showed kindness to all the children of Israel, when they came up out of Egypt." David, in his answer to Achish, links the Kenites with the inhabitants of the south of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',27,10);">1Sa 27:10</a>). Among the ancestors of the tribe of Judah, the Chronicler includes the Kenite Hammath, the father of the Rechabites (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,55);">1Ch 2:55</a>). These last continued to live in tents, practicing the ancient nomadic customs (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',35,6);">Jer 35:6</a>).ichly varied landscape, With smiling cornfields, and hills clothed with oak and terebinth.<P>The word qeni in Aramaic means "smith." Professor Sayce thinks they may really have been a tribe of smiths, resembling "the gipsies of modern Europe, as well as the traveling tinkers or blacksmiths of the Middle Ages" (HDB, under the word). This would account for their relations with the different peoples, among whom they would reside in pursuit of their calling.<P>In Josephus they appear as Kenetides, and in Ant, IV, vii, 3 he calls them "the race of the Shechemites."``54';
isbe[5279]='Kenizzite`ken\'-i-zit.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KENEZITE">KENEZITE</a>`1';
isbe[5280]='Kenosis`ke-no\'-sis: The word "kenosis" (kenosis) has entered theological language from <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,7);">Php 2:7</a>, where in the sentence he "emptied himself" the Greek verb is ekenosen. "Kenosis," then, the corresponding noun, has become a technical term for the humiliation of the Son in the incarnation, but in recent years has acquired a still more technical sense, i.e. of the Son\'s emptying Himself of certain attributes, especially of omniscience.<P>1. The New Testament:<P>(1) The theological question involved was one about as far as possible from the minds of the Christians of the apostolic age and apparently one that never occurred to Paul. For in <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,7);">Php 2:7</a> the only "emptying" in point is that of the (external) change from the "form of God" to the "form of a servant." Elsewhere in the New Testament it is usually taken as a matter of course that Christ\'s knowledge was far higher than that of other men (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',2,24);">Joh 2:24</a> is the clearest example). But passages that imply a limitation of that knowledge do exist and are of various classes. Of not much importance are the entirely incidental references to the authorship of Old Testament passages where the traditional authorship is considered erroneous, as no other method of quotation would have been possible. Somewhat different are the references to the nearness of the Parousia (especially <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,23);">Mt 10:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,29);">24:29</a>). But with these it is always a question how far the exact phraseology has been framed by the evangelists and, apart from this, how far Christ may not have been consciously using current imagery for the impending spiritual revolution, although knowing that the details would be quite different (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PAROUSIA">PAROUSIA</a>). Limitation of knowledge may perhaps be deduced from the fact that Christ could be amazed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',8,10);">Mt 8:10</a>, etc.), that He could be really tempted (especially <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',4,15);">Heb 4:15</a>), or that He possessed faith (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,2);">Heb 12:2</a>; see commentary). More explicitly Christ is said to have learned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,52);">Lu 2:52</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',5,8);">Heb 5:8</a>. And, finally, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,32);">Mr 13:32</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,36);">Mt 24:36</a>, Christ states categorically that He is ignorant of the exact time of the Parousia.<P>(2) An older exegesis felt only the last of these passages as a real difficulty. A distinction constructed between knowledge naturally possessed and knowledge gained by experience (i.e. although the child Jesus knew the alphabet naturally, He was obliged to learn it by experience) covered most of the others. For <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,32);">Mr 13:32</a> a variety of explanations were offered. The passage was translated "neither the Son, except the Father know it," a translation that can be borne by the Greek. But it simply transfers the difficulty by speaking of the Father\'s knowledge as hypothetical, and is an impossible translation of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,36);">Mt 24:36</a>, where the word "only" is added. The explanations that assume that Christ knew the day but had no commission to reveal it are most unsatisfactory, for they place insincere words in His mouth; "It is not for you to know the day" would have been inevitable form of the saying (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,7);">Ac 1:7</a>).<P>2. Dogmatic:<P>(1) Yet the attempt so to misinterpret the verses is not the outcome of a barren dogmatic prejudice, but results from a dread lest real injury be done to the fundamentals of Christian consciousness. Not only does the mind of the Christian revolt from seeing in Christ anything less than true God, but it revolts from finding in Him two centers of personality<74>Christ was One. But as omniscience is an essential attribute of God, it is an essential attribute of the incarnate Son. So does not any limitation of Christ\'s human knowledge tend to vitiate a sound doctrine of the incarnation? Certainly, to say with the upholders of the kenosis in its "classical" form that the Son, by an exercise of His will, determined to be ignorant as man, is not helpful, as the abandonment by God of one of His own essential attributes would be the preposterous corollary.<P>(2) Yet the Biblical data are explicit, and an explanation of some kind must be found. And the solution seems to lie in an ambiguous use of the word "knowledge," as applied to Christ as God and as man. When we speak of a man\'s knowledge in the sense discussed in the kenotic doctrine, we mean the totality of facts present in his intellect, and by his ignorance we mean the absence of a fact or of facts from that intellect. Now in the older discussions of the subject, this intellectual knowledge was tacitly assumed (mystical theology apart) to be the only knowledge worthy of the name, and so it was at the same time also assumed that God\'s knowledge is intellectual also<73>"God geometrizes." Under this assumption God\'s knowledge is essentially of the same kind as man\'s, differing from man\'s only in its purity and extent. And this assumption is made in all discussions that speak of the knowledge of the Son as God illuminating His mind as man.<P>(3) Modern critical epistemology has, however, taught man a sharp lesson in humility by demonstrating that the intellect is by no means the perfect instrument that it has been assumed to be. And the faults are by no means faults due to lack of instruction, evil desires, etc., but are resident in the intellect itself, and inseparable from it\' as an intellect. Certain recent writers (Bergson, most notably) have even built up a case of great strength for regarding the intellect as a mere product of utilitarian development, with the defects resulting naturally from such an evolution. More especially does this restriction of the intellect seem to be true in religious knowledge, even if the contentions of Kant and (espescially) Ritschl be not fully admitted. Certain it is, in any case, that even human knowledge is something far wider than intellectual knowledge, for there are many things that we know that we never could have learned through the intellect, and, apparently, many elements of our knowledge are almost or quite incapable of translation into intellectual terms<6D> Omniscience, then, is by no means intellectual omniscience, and it is not to be reached by any mere process of expansion of an intellect. An "omniscient intellect" is a contradiction in terms<6D><P>(4) In other words, God\'s omniscience is not merely human intellectual knowledge raised to the infinite power, but something of an entirely different quality, hardly conceivable to human thought<68>as different from human intellectual knowledge as the Divine omnipotence is different from muscular strength. Consequently, the passage of this knowledge into a human intellect is impossible, and the problem of the incarnation should be stated: What effect did Divine omniscience in the person have on the conscious intellect of the manhood? There is so little help from the past to be gained in answering this question, that it must remain open at present<6E>if, indeed, it is ever capable of a full answer. But that ignorance in the intellect of the manhood is fully consistent with omniscience in the person seems to be not merely a safe answer to the question as stated, but an inevitable answer if the true humanity of Christ is to be maintained at all.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Sanday\'s Christology and Personality, 1911, and La Zouche, The Person of Christ in Modern Thought, 1912, are among the latest discussions of the subject, with very full references to the modern literature.``48';
isbe[5281]='Keras`ke\'-ras (Kiras): In 1Esdras 5:29, the head of a family of temple-servants, called "Keroz" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,44);">Ezr 2:44</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,47);">Ne 7:47</a>.``1';
isbe[5282]='Kerchief`ker\'-chif (micpachoth; epibolaia): Occurs only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',13,18,21);">Eze 13:18,21</a>, in a passage which refers to some species of divination. Their exact shape or use is unknown. They were apparently long veils or coverings put over the heads of those consulting the false prophetesses and reaching down to the feet, for they were for "persons of every stature."``1';
isbe[5283]='Keren-Happuch`ker\'-en-hap\'-uk, ke\'-ren-hap\'-uk (qeren happukh, "horn of antimony," i.e. beautifier; Septuagint Amaltheias keras): The 3rd daughter of Job (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',42,14);">Job 42:14</a>), born after his restoration from affliction. Antimony, producing a brilliant black, was used among the Orientals for coloring the edges of the eyelids, making the eyes large and lustrous. Hence, the suggestiveness of this name of an article of the ladies\' toilet, a little horn or receptacle for the eye-paint.``1';
isbe[5284]='Kerioth`ke\'-ri-oth, -oth (qeriyoth):<P>(1) A city of Moab, named with Beth-meon and Bozrah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',48,24,41);">Jer 48:24,41</a>). Here was a sanctuary of Chemosh, to which Mesha says (M S, l. 13) he dragged "the altar hearths of Davdoh." It may possibly be represented by the modern Kuraiat, between Diban and \'Attarus. Some (e.g. Driver on <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',2,2);">Am 2:2</a>) think it may be only another name for Ar-Moab. Buhl (GAP, 270) would identify it with Kir of Moab (Kerak). No certainty is yet possible.<P>(2) A city of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,25);">Jos 15:25</a>; the Revised Version (British and American) <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KERIOTH-HEZRON">KERIOTH-HEZRON</a> (which see)), possibly the modern el-Kuryatain, to the northeast of Tell \'Arad.``54';
isbe[5285]='Kerioth-Hezron`ke\'-ri-oth-hez\'-ron (qeriyoth chetsron; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,25);">Jos 15:25</a> says, "The same is Hazor"; the King James Version "Kerioth and Hezron which is Hazor"): One of the cities in the "south" of Judah. Robinson (BR, II, 101) identifies it with the ruined site of Kuryatain, 4 1/2 miles north of Tell \'Arad. It has been suggested that Kerioth was the birth place of <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUDAS+ISCARIOT">JUDAS ISCARIOT</a> (which see).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KERIOTH">KERIOTH</a>`1';
isbe[5286]='Kernel`kur\'-nel (chartsannim, English Versions of the Bible "kernels"; Septuagint reads stemphullon used by Aristophanes as olives from which oil has been pressed, later, in same, of raisin pulp): Mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',6,4);">Nu 6:4</a> along with zagh, translated "husks." This translates, "kernels" or "grape stones," is from the Targum and Talmud, but is doubtful, and it may be the word should be translated "sour grapes."``1';
isbe[5287]='Keros`ke\'-ros (qeroc, "fortress"(?)): One of the Nethinim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,44);">Ezr 2:44</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,47);">Ne 7:47</a>), an order appointed to the liturgical offices of the temple.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NETHINIM">NETHINIM</a>`1';
isbe[5288]='Kesil`ke\'-zil (Orion).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASTRONOMY">ASTRONOMY</a>`1';
isbe[5289]='Kesitah`kes\'-i-ta, ke-se\'-ta (qesitah).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PIECE+OF+MONEY">PIECE OF MONEY</a>`1';
isbe[5290]='Ketab`ke\'-tab (Ketab): Ancestor of a family of Nethinim (1Esdras 5:30).``1';
isbe[5291]='Kettle`ket\'-\'l: In English Versions of the Bible only in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',2,14);">1Sa 2:14</a> for dudh, "a vessel for cooking." The same word in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',35,13);">2Ch 35:13</a> is rendered "caldrons," and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',41,20);">Job 41:20</a> (Hebrew 12)</a>, "pot." <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',81,6);">Ps 81:6 (Hebrew 7)</a> (the King James Version "pots") belongs rather to another signification of the word (the Revised Version (British and American) "basket," for carrying clay or bricks).``1';
isbe[5292]='Keturah`ke-tu\'-ra, ke-too\'-ra (qeturah; Chettoura, "incense"): The second wife of Abraham (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,1);">Ge 25:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,32);">1Ch 1:32</a>f). According to the Biblical tradition, he contracted this second marriage after the death of Sarah (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,\'1-\');">Ge 23</a>), and very likely after the marriage of Isaac (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,\'1-\');">Ge 24</a>). It is not improbable that, as some writers have suggested, this change in the life of his son prompted Abraham to remarry in order to overcome the feeling of lonesomeness caused by Isaac\'s entering the state of matrimony.<P><a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,32);">1Ch 1:32</a> (and also <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,6);">Ge 25:6</a>) shows us that Keturah was not considered to be of the same dignity as Sarah who, indeed, was the mother of the son of promise, and, for obvious reasons, the sons of Abraham\'s concubines were separated from Isaac. She was the mother of 6 sons representing Arab tribes south and east of Palestine (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,\'1-6\');">Ge 25:1-6</a>), so that through the offspring of Keturah Abraham became "the father of many nations."``8';
isbe[5293]='Key`ke (maphteach, an "opener"; compare kleis, "that which shuts"): Made of wood, usually with nails which fitted into corresponding holes in the lock, or rather bolt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',3,25);">Jud 3:25</a>). Same is rendered "opening" in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,27);">1Ch 9:27</a>.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HOUSE">HOUSE</a>.<P>Figurative: Used figuratively for power, since the key was sometimes worn on the shoulder as a sign of official authority (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',22,1);">Isa 22-22</a>). In the New Testament it is used several times thus figuratively: of Peter: "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,19);">Mt 16:19</a>); of Christ, in Revelation, having the "keys of death and of Hades" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,18);">Re 1:18</a>), also having "the key of David" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',3,7);">Re 3:7</a>). An angel was given "the key of the pit of the abyss" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',9,1);">Re 9:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,1);">20:1</a>). our Lord accused the teachers of the law of His day of taking away "the key of knowledge" from men, that is, locking the doors of truth against them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',11,52);">Lu 11:52</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,13);">Mt 23:13</a>).``137';
isbe[5294]='Keys, Power of the`kez<P><b>I. THE PROBLEMS INVOLVED</b><P class="in15">1. The Keys; and the Binding and Loosing<P class="in15">2. Meaning of the Statements<P class="in15">3. How Peter Is Related to These Powers<P class="in15">4. Is the Primary Idea that of Position and Authority?<P><b>II. VIEWS MAINTAINED</b><P class="in15">1. Agent of the Power<P class="in15">2. Nature of the Power<P class="in15">3. Scope of the Power<P><b>III. DATA FOR DECIDING THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED</b><P class="in15">1. Passages Employing the Terms "Key," "Binding and Loosing"<P class="in15">2. Related Passages<P class="in15">3. Examples of Exercise of This Power<P><b>IV. CONCLUSION</b><P class="in15">1. Nature of the Power<P class="in15">2. Agent of the Power<P class="in15">3. Scope of the Power<hr /><P>There is no more stubbornly contested conception in Christian terminology. The thought connects itself immediately with <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,19);">Mt 16:19</a>, but it is hardly correct to say that it originates there, for the controversy is one that grows out of the conflict of forces inherent in the institutional development of religion and of society. It must have arisen, in any event, if there had been no such word as that in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,19);">Mt 16:19</a>, although not in the same terms as it is now found. Since the Reformation it has been recognized, by Catholic and Protestant, that on the interpretation of this passage depends the authority of the Church of Rome and its exclusive claims, so far as their foundation in Scripture is concerned; while on the other hand there is involved the "validity" of the "sacraments," "ordinances" and "orders" of Protestantism and the very hope of salvation of Protestants.<P>I. The Problems Involved.<P>1. The Keys; and the Binding and Loosing:<P>The crucial passage has two declarations, commonly spoken of as promises to Peter: to him Christ will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatsoever he shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, while whatsoever he shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. How are the facts of having committed to him the keys and the function of binding and loosing related? Are they two forms of one declaration? Is the first general, and the second a specific sphere of its application?<P>Both statements are made in figurative terms. That of the keys is supposed to be drawn from the duties of the chief steward of a house, or establishment. The idea of the keys of a city turned over to some distinguished person is advanced, but is hardly to be considered. We need, then, to know the functions of the chief steward and how they apply to the kingdom of heaven, and to Peter as its steward.<P>2. Meaning of the Statements:<P>What was Peter to bind and loose, men or things, persons or teachings? Numerous examples could be cited of the use of these terms to signify forbidding (binding) and permitting (loosing) conduct as legitimate under the law of the Old Testament (Lightfoot, McClintock and Strong, Schaff-Herzog, Hastings, etc.). The strict school of Shammai bound many things loosed by the laxer school of Hillel (Broadus, Matthew). Is this conclusive that Jesus is here giving Peter authority for "laying down the law for his fellow-disciples," "authority to say what the law of God allows, and what it forbids," "the power of legislation for the church"? (Compare Mason in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes), IV, 30.)<P>3. How Peter Is Related to These Powers:<P>Ecclesiastical contentions turn especially on Peter\'s relation to these words of Jesus. Do they signify powers and "privileges" conferred on Peter, exclusively or representatively? Are they official or personal? Do they belong to other apostles, and to other officers besides apostles? Can the powers be exercised by individuals or by the church alone? If any besides Peter have these powers, do they pass to them from Peter, and how?<P>4. Is the Primary Idea That of Position and Authority?:<P>What seems to the writer a fundamental question here is either passed over very lightly or entirely omitted in the discussions of this subject. Did Jesus mean by these words to confer on Peter, or on anyone to whom they may apply, authority, or obligation; privilege, or responsibility? Does He promise position, or does He impose duty? These alternatives are not necessarily exclusive, but the interpretation of the thought will be determined in no small measure by where the stress is laid.<P>II. Views Maintained.<P>1. Agent of the Power:<P>The possibilities have been exhausted in the interpretations and applications advocated. It is not possible to classify on lines of the creeds, except very generally, for there is little uniformity of view existing within the various communions.<P>(1) Generally speaking, the Roman Catholic church gives to Peter a unique position. Her theologians also agree that all the powers and privileges of Peter descend to his successors in the vicarate of Christ. When the question is raised of the extension of these prerogatives beyond Peter and the popes, all sorts of views are held, concerning both the fact and the method of that extension.<P>(2) Among Protestants there is general agreement that the church is the agent of this power, but there is not uniformity as to the nature of the authority or the manner of its exercise.<P>(3) Some think that Peter has no peculiar relation to the keys; that these words were spoken to him only as the first who gave expression to that conception and experience, on the basis of which Jesus commits the keys of the kingdom to any believer in Him as the Christ of God.<P>We may summarize the more important views as to Peter thus:<P class="in15">(a) the power committed to him alone and exercised,<P class="in30">(i) at Pentecost, or<P class="in30">(ii) at Pentecost, Caesarea and other places;<P class="in15">(b) the power committed to Peter and to the other apostles, including Paul, discharged by them, and descended to no others;<P class="in15">(c) the power conferred on Peter officially and on his official successors;<P class="in15">(d) the power conferred on Peter and the other apostles and to such as hold their place in the church;<P class="in15">(e) that the power belongs to Peter as representative of the church, and so to the church to be exercised<P class="in30">(i) by the officials of the church,<P class="in30">(ii) by the officials and those to whom they commit it,<P class="in30">(iii) by all priests and persons allowed to represent the church, de facto,<P class="in30">(iv) by the church in its councils, or other formal and official decisions,<P class="in30">(v) by the church in less formal way than (iv),<P class="in30">(vi) by all members the church as representing it without specific commission;<P class="in15">(f) that it belongs to the Christian as such, and so is imposed upon, or offered to, all Christians.<P>2. Nature of the Power:<P>There is general<61>not absolute<74>agreement that the holder of the keys is to admit men into the kingdom. It is not agreed that the holder of the keys may, or can, determine who are members of the kingdom. Both sides are-taken. Some think that the power is that of announcing authoritatively the conditions of entrance, while others insist that the holder of the keys also determines what individuals have accepted the conditions.<P>3. Scope of the Power:<P>(1) There is strong support for the view that the primary function of the keys lies in determining the teaching of the kingdom, maintaining purity of doctrine. Emphasis is laid on the use of the neuter, "whatsoever"<22>not "whomsoever"<22>with the binding and loosing. This would lead, however, to the secondary and implied function of declaring who had or had not accepted the teaching of the kingdom.<P>(2) In the Roman Catholic church we find insistence on distinguishing between the general authority of the keys in all affairs of the church and religion, and the binding and loosing which they specifically apply to absolution. Only on this last are Catholics in full agreement. That the church administers salvation is held by Roman and Greek Catholics and by not a few Protestants, although Protestants do not, as a rule, claim exclusive power in salvation as do the others. Absolution is held to be a general (derived) priestly function, while the authority of the keys resides in the pope alone.<P>(3) Eminent Catholic authorities admit that the Fathers generally understood the keys to signify the power of forgiving sins, and that they seldom make any reference to the supremacy of Peter. But they claim that rarely the Fathers do take "Christ\'s promise in the fuller meaning of the gift of authority over the church." Suarez was the first to develop the doctrine that it conferred on Peter and his successors authority in its widest sense, administrative and legislative.<P>(4) The extension of the authority of the keys to include civil matters is a contention of the Roman church, shared in modified form by some Protestants. Indeed the relation of ecclesiastical to civil authority must be said still to be awaiting clear definition in Protestantism. Macedo (De Clavibus Petri) claims theologians of the church for the civil authority of the keys. Joyce in the Catholic Encyclopedia affirms that he is unable to verify this claim, but, on the contrary, finds that the opponents of the extension of the authority of the church to civil matters use <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,19);">Mt 16:19</a> in support of their position on the ground that to Peter were committed the keys of the kingdom of heaven, not of the kingdoms of this world.<P>III. Data for Deciding the Questions Involved.<P>1. Passages Employing the Terms "Key," "Binding and Loosing":<P>We must first examine the Scriptures employing the terms we seek to define.<P>(1) <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,19);">Mt 16:19</a>, the crucial passage, is part of paragraph over which there is no end of controversy. The incident at Caesarea Philippi was understood then and afterward to mark an epoch in the life and teaching of Jesus. Having elicited Peter\'s confession, Jesus pronounces a benediction on him because his insight represented a Divinely mediated experience of fundamental significance in His own plan and mission. Jesus goes on to say: "And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter ("a stone"), and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,18);">Mt 16:18</a>). The controversy rages about "Peter" (petros) and the "rock" (petra), "gates of Hades," and "prevail against it." Are the church to be built on the rock and the kingdom whose keys are to be given to Peter the same? Such a shifting of figure is not conclusive against the thought. Perhaps the church is the organic form of the kingdom, its personal content and expression on earth at any given time. This church exists wherever men consciously accept and are included in the kingdom. The kingdom will always embrace influences, institutions, individuals, not be reckoned in any organized or visible church. The church has never had<61>in the nature of the case can never have<76>one complete organization including all the organized life of the kingdom, or even of the church. Any claims to this are contradicted by facts obvious at every moment of history. The change in figure from <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,18);">Mt 16:18</a> to <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,19);">16:19</A> is not conclusive against supposing the church to be built in him. But it seems far better to understand that Peter is the first stone in the building, while the foundation is that vital experience in which Peter came to know Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God. On this is erected the church, out of those living stones (lithoi zontes, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,4);">1Pe 2:4</a>) that know and confess Jesus the Christ. The transition is thus easy to giving Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the reason for giving them to him rather than to any other may be found in the fact that he is now the first so to enter into the kingdom as to be fitted for church functions.<P>It is not needful to determine, for our purpose, the exact meaning of "gates of Hades" and their not prevailing against the church (compare various commentaries). It is clear that the church is to persist in the life of the world and so the kingdom will not lack organized and aggressive expression. Nor does the relation of binding and loosing depend at all upon the critical question of reading or omitting "and" between the two parts of the verse. The conviction could hardly be escaped that the latter function is intimately related to the former, and is either directly or indirectly involved within it.<P>(2) The plural "keys," occurs elsewhere only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,18);">Re 1:18</a>, where the Christ represents Himself as holding the keys of death and of Hades. The word "Hades" might connect this with <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,19);">Mt 16:19</a>. The immediate occasion for the statement is that He who was dead, is alive; He has not only overcome death in His own person but has conquered it and its realm, so that they can no more have power except as subject to Him, since He holds their keys. Men on earth will either fall under the power of death and Hades or they must enter the kingdom of heaven. If the living Christ has the keys of the kingdom in the hands of Peter, or other friends, and holds the keys of its enemies in His own hands, the work will go on with success. It is not certain that the two passages can properly be so closely connected, but they thus afford just the assurance that is contained for the churches in Revelation.<P>(3) In <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',3,7);">Re 3:7</a> Christ appears in the character, "he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key (singular) of David, he that openeth and none can shut, and that shutteth and none openeth." The idea is not restricted but indicates mastery over all things in the Messianic kingdom, its own operations and all forms of opposition. In the next verse, as a specific instance, He has set before the church at Philadelphia an open door (opportunity and progress) which none can shut. Compare as to this <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,22);">Eph 1:22</a>.<P>(4) It seems to be taken for granted that Jesus, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,19);">Mt 16:19</a>, had direct reference to <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',22,22);">Isa 22:22</a>, yet the passage is not Messianic except in a general sense and on the assumption that the power of Yahweh over the nations in the Old Testament is wielded by the Christ in the New Testament (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JEHOVAH">JEHOVAH</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LORD">LORD</a>). Eliakim is to have absolute power, holding the key of the house of David. The use of the words "open" and "shut," as well as the general conception, connects the passage rather with <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',3,7);">Re 3:7</a>.<P>(5) <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',9,1);">Re 9:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,1);">20:1</a> are to be taken together. "The key of the pit of the abyss" in the hands of the angel or angels signifies, in these specific circumstances, the same power as that indicated in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,18);">1:18</a>.<P>(6) In <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',11,52);">Lu 11:52</a> Jesus pronounces a woe upon the "lawyers" who had "taken away the key of knowledge" from the people, neither entering in nor allowing those about to go in, to enter. The knowledge of God and Divine things was in the control, in great measure, of these scribes. This connects the figure directly with the idea of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,19);">Mt 16:19</a>, and the connection is emphasized by comparing <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,2);">Mt 23:2</a>f; and is made definite by the word of Jesus in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,52);">Mt 13:52</a> with which is to be compared <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,42);">Lu 12:42</a>, where it would not be allowable, to suppose that Jesus meant to limit the idea of "the faithful and wise steward" to Peter. This passage with the references seems to be highly important for our subject.<P>2. Related Passages:<P>Light is to be drawn from several passages that do not use the exact terms of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,19);">Mt 16:19</a>, but that deal with the same general ideas.<P>(1) <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,18);">Mt 18:18</a> places the responsibility for binding and loosing on all disciples (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,1);">18:1</a>), and the reason is explained in the assured presence of the Christ Himself in any company of two or three who have come together in prayer touching any matter in His name, i.e. as His representatives. The immediate reference is to matters of discipline in the effort to rescue any "brother" from sin. The passage is to be taken of sin generally, for the reading "against thee" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,15);">18:15</A>) is to be rejected, in spite of both revised versions. The reference of binding and loosing here to the man is conclusive against limiting the idea in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,19);">16:19</a> to teaching (compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',17,1);">Lu 17:1</a>ff). It is also to be noted that the responsibility is placed upon the individual Christian to cooperate with others when necessary.<P>(2) <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',9,8);">Mt 9:8</a> shows that the multitude recognized that God had given power on earth to pronounce forgiveness of sins, and apparently they do not limit this power to the Divine Person, for they do not yet know Him as such.<P>(3) <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',5,14);">Jas 5:14</a>ff recognizes the value of elders, and probably of others also, in securing the forgiveness of them that have sinned.<P>(4) What one must regard as the proper starting-point for studying this subject is <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,21);">Joh 20:21</a>ff. Appearing to ten of the apostles and to others on the first night after the resurrection, Jesus says: "As the Father sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Whose soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whose soever ye retain, they are retained." By comparing this with the corresponding account in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,\'1-\');">Lu 24</a> we see that Jesus is directing that they shall carry on His work (see also <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,\'12-14\');">Joh 14:12-14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',15,15,16);">15:15,16</a>), that He teaches them at length of the nature of His work as seen in the Old Testament, and that the method of their work is to be preaching repentance and remission of sins in His name among all nations. Significant for our purpose are the presence of others than the apostles, the gift of the Holy Spirit, His own self-projection in His messengers, and the solemn statement that the sins of men will be retained or forgiven as it is done through these followers.<P>3. Examples of Excercise of This Power:<P>(1) It is remarkable that there is no distinct reference to this authority of the keys in the records of the work of the apostles and others in the New Testament. Their consciousness seems most of all to have been dominated by the fact that they were witnesses of Jesus, and this corresponds exactly with the point of emphasis in all the various forms and occasions of the giving of the commission (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,32);">Ac 2:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',3,15);">3:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',4,33);">4:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,32);">5:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,39,41);">10:39,41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,31);">13:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,1);">1Pe 5:1</a>; compare Carver, Missions in the Plan of the Ages). It is said of Paul and Barnabas (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,27);">Ac 14:27</a>) that after their first missionary journey they rehearsed to the church at Antioch "all things that God had done with them, and that he had opened a door of faith unto the Gentiles." At Pentecost and at other times Peter was the chief speaker, and so opened the door of the kingdom. Referring to his preaching to Cornelius and his friends, Peter reminds the saints in the conference at Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,\'1-\');">Ac 15</a>) that God made choice among them, that by his mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of God and believe, but this was said by way of conciliating the Jewish party and not as claiming any priority in authority. It was Philip, the deacon-evangelist, who first preached to the Samaritans (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',8,\'1-\');">Ac 8</a>), and some "men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,20);">Ac 11:20</a>), the first example of "opening a door of faith" to full heathen. Peter appears in the Jerusalem conference with no authority above that of other apostles and elders. By reference to <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,\'1-\');">Ga 2</a> we see that Paul was here only as a matter of prudence and fraternity, not recognizing any authority to legislate for his churches or his ministry. The decision there reached is promulgated as that of the brethren as a body, loosing all the law of Moses save four matters that were "necessary" on account of fundamental morals and of the universal presence of Jews in every city (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,20,28);">Ac 15:20f; 28f</a>). In the sense of teaching Christian conduct all Paul\'s letters are examples of binding and loosing.<P>(2) As to binding and loosing sins Peter speaks in the cases of Ananias and Sapphira (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,\'1-\');">Ac 5</a>), Simon Magus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',8,\'1-\');">Ac 8</a>), and in deciding upon the baptism of Cornelius and his household (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,48);">Ac 10:48</a>). Paul speaks with equal boldness in the judgment of Elymas (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,10);">Ac 13:10</a>), where we are told that he was under the Spirit; passes upon the faith of a dozen men at Ephesus, and requires their new baptism after instruction (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,\'3-7\');">Ac 19:3-7</a>); commands the church at Corinth to turn over to Satan the incestuous man (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,5);">1Co 5:5</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,20);">1Ti 1:20</a>), and later urges the man\'s restoration to loving fellowship, declaring that he has been forgiven (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',2,5);">2Co 2:5</a>). Obscure men like Philip (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',8,\'1-\');">Ac 8</a>) and Ananias of Damascus in the case of Paul himself (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,\'1-\');">Ac 9</a>) exercised the same sort of judgment as to the forgiveness and reception of men into the fellowship.<P>IV. Conclusion.<P>1. Nature of the Power:<P>We sum up what seems to be the teaching of Scripture. We conclude that the power is not a special privilege and extraordinary authority, but a responsibility entrusted by Jesus Christ as the method of extending His work. There is in it nothing magical, mysterious, or arbitrary; not ecclesiastical or official, but spiritual and primarily personal. The keys of the kingdom of heaven are first of all the gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ. By this means men are admitted into the kingdom. The fully attested method of using the keys is that of witnessing personally to an experience of Jesus Christ. He was conferring power for saving and not for barring from salvation. Let it be borne in mind always that Jesus was offering Peter not power but duty, not privilege but responsibility. Neither of these terms, "power" and "privilege," that have come to be associated with the gift of the keys occurs with that gift in the words of the Master. The keys are primarily for admitting to the kingdom of heaven, not for barring from the church.<P>2. Agent of the Power:<P>The holder of the keys is any man with that experience that called forth from Jesus the assurance that Peter should have the keys. Such a man will be in fellowship and cooperation with like men, in a church, and the Spirit of Jesus will be present in them, so that their decisions and their testimony will be His as well as theirs. There is a corporate, or church, agency, therefore, and the man who would ignore that lacks the experience or the Spirit needful for the use of the keys. Yet the church is never to overshadow or exclude the individual responsibility and authority.<P>3. Scope of the Power:<P>It is to be understood that the keys of the kingdom of heaven confer no political authority or power, save that of holy and redemptive influence. The kingdom of Jesus is not of this world. Its power is spiritual and is to be exercised always primarily in the saving of men. Men do not need to be locked out of the kingdom. They are out, and too contented to remain so. It does happen that evil men seek to take possession of the kingdom for evil ends, and then it is that the authority rests in spiritual men to exclude. Men that are to be brought into the kingdom of heaven are now in sin, and where the duty of releasing them is not discharged by Christians, the sinners are left bound in their sins.<P>There is also involved of necessity the duty of declaring not only the conditions of entrance into the kingdom, but the courses of conduct appropriate to the kingdom. It is thus that binding and loosing in teaching devolve upon the holders of the keys. To that extent, and in that sense, alone, is there the power of "legislating" within the kingdom. This is only interpreting and applying the principles that are given us in the Scriptures.``21';
isbe[5295]='Keziah`ke-zi\'-a (qetsi\'ah, "cassia"; Kasia, Codex Alexandrinus, Kassia): The 2nd daughter of Job (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',42,14);">Job 42:14</a>), born after his restoration from affliction. The word "cassia" became a feminine name from the fragrance of the flower.``1';
isbe[5296]='Keziz`ke\'-ziz (qetsits).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EMEK+KEZIZ">EMEK-KEZIZ</a>`1';
isbe[5297]='Khan`kan, kan.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=INN">INN</a>`1';
isbe[5298]='Kibroth-Hattaavah`kib-roth-ha-ta\'-a-va, kib-roth (qibhroth ha-ta\'awah "the graves of greed"): A desert camp of the Israelites, one day\'s journey from the wilderness of Sinai. There the people lusted for flesh to eat, and, a great number of quails being sent, a plague resulted; hence, the name (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,34);">Nu 11:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,16);">33:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',9,22);">De 9:22</a>).``1';
isbe[5299]='Kibzaim`kib-za\'-im, kib\'-za-im`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOKMEAM">JOKMEAM</a>`1';
isbe[5300]='Kick`(laktizo): In the famous vision on the road to Damascus the unseen voice said to Saul: "Why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against the goad" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,4);">Ac 9:4</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',26,14);">26:14</a>). The words are omitted from the best manuscripts in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,4);">Ac 9:4</a>. This was a familiar proverb in both Greek and Latin literature, and refers to the severer goading received by an ox which kicks back at the goad used to guide or urge him on. The words seem to mean that Paul\'s paroxysm of persecution was a painful as well as profitless resistance to the pricks of conscience by which God was leading him into the light.``1';
</script>
<script src="./study/isbe/author.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./study/isbe/isbeDisplay.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./js/MainFooter.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink