exlim/blb
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
blb/study/isbe/5500.html

114 lines
637 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[5501]='Levis`le\'-vis (Leuis): 1Esdras 9:14, properly the Levite of <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,15);">Ezr 10:15</a>; "Shabbethai the Levite" for "Levis and Sabbateus."``1';
isbe[5502]='Levites`le\'-vits.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PRIESTS+AND+LEVITES">PRIESTS AND LEVITES</a>`1';
isbe[5503]='Levitical Cities`le-vit\'-i-kal<P><b>I. LEGAL PROVISIONS</b><P class="in15">1. Numbers<P class="in15">2. Deuteronomy<P><b>II. WELLHAUSEN\'S VIEW</b><P><b>III. ALTERNATIVE VIEW AND EVIDENCE</b><P class="in15">1. Traces of the Cities<P class="in15">2. Wellhausen\'s Arguments Answered<P class="in15">3. Van Hoonacker\'s Reply<P class="in15">4. Ezekiel\'s Vision<P class="in15">5. Priestly Cities and Cities in Which Priests Dwell<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. Legal Provisions.<P>1. Numbers: <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',35,\'1-8\');">Nu 35:1-8</a> provides that 48 cities should be given to the Levites, each surrounded by a pasturage. The exact details are not quite clear, for in the Hebrew, <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',35,4);">Nu 35:4</a> would naturally be read as meaning that the pasturage was a radius of 1,000 cubits from the city walls, while <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',35,5);">35:5</a> makes each city the center of a square, each side of which was 2,000 cubits long. Extant variants in the versions suggest, however, that the text has suffered slightly in transmission. Originally there seems to have been no discrepancy between the two verses, and it may be doubted whether the intent was that the city was always to be in the mathematical center of the patch. The Levites were to have the right of redeeming the houses at any time, and in default of redemption they were to go out in the Jubilee. The field was not to be sold (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,32);">Le 25:32</a>f).<P>2. Deuteronomy:<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,8);">De 18:8</a> undoubtedly recognizes patrimonial possessions of the Levites outside the religious capital, and sees no inconsistency with its earlier statement that Levi had no portion or inheritance with Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,1);">18:1</A>). The explanation lies in the fact that these cities were not a tribal portion like the territories of the secular tribes. The area occupied by the whole 48 jointly would only have amounted to less than 16 miles.<P>II. Wellhausen\'s View.<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,\'1-\');">Jos 21</a> relates that this command was fulfilled by the allocation of 48 cities, but it is clear that some of those cities were not in fact reduced into possession; see e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',16,10);">Jos 16:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,29);">Jud 1:29</a> as to Gezer, and <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,27);">Jud 1:27</a> as to Taanach. Wellhausen treats the whole arrangement as fictitious. His main reasons are: (1) that the arrangement is physically impracticable in a mountainous country, and (2) that "there is not a historical trace of the existence of the Levitical cities." Many remained in the hands of the Canaanites till a late period, while others were "important but by no means ecclesiastical towns" (Prolegomena, 160). Two pages later he says that "four of them were demonstrably famous old seats of worship," and conjectures that most, if not all, were ancient sanctuaries. He also regards Ezekiel\'s scheme of a heave offering of land (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',45,\'1-\');">Eze 45</a>) as the origin of the idea. Yet "Jerus and the temple, which, properly speaking, occasioned the whole arrangement, are buried in silence with a diligence which is in the highest degree surprising" (p. 164).<P>III. Alternative View and Evidence.<P>1. Traces of the Cities:<P>In point of fact, there are traces of some of the Levitical cities in the later history. Such are Anathoth (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',2,26);">1Ki 2:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',1,1);">Jer 1:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',32,7,8,9);">32:7,8,9</a>), Jattir (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',20,26);">2Sa 20:26</a>, where, as shown in the article <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PRIESTS+AND+LEVITES">PRIESTS AND LEVITES</a> (which see), Jattirite should be read for the Massoretic Jairite), Beth-shemesh (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',6,\'13-15\');">1Sa 6:13-15</a>; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PRIESTS+AND+LEVITES">PRIESTS AND LEVITES</a> as to the text). (From <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',7,17);">Am 7:17</a> it appears that Amaziah of Bethel had land, but we do not know that he was of Levitical descent or where the land was.)<P>2. Wellhausen\'s Arguments Answered:<P>Further, the fact that many other Levitical cities appear to have been centers of worship points to the presence of priests. Was the great high place of Gibeon (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',3,4);">1Ki 3:4</a>) unserved by priests? It is surely natural to suppose that during the period between the capture of the Ark and its transport to Jerusalem there was a tendency for high places to spring up in cities where there were priests rather than elsewhere; indeed there would probably be a disposition on the part of unemployed priests to go astray in a direction that would prove lucrative.<P>3. Van Hoonacker\'s Reply:<P>With regard to the other objection, Van Hoonacker\'s answer is convincing: "As to the way in which the measurements were to be carried out in the mountainous country of Palestine, the legislator doubtless knew what method was usually employed. Besides, we are free to believe that he only gives these figures as approximate indications" (Sacerdoce levitique, 433).<P>4. Ezekiel\'s Vision:<P>The same writer\'s reply to theory that the idea originated with Ezekiel is wholly admirable. "Strictly we could ask...whether Ezekiel did not found himself on the description of the camp of the Israelites in the desert. It is only too manifest that the division and appointment of the territory as presented in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',48,\'1-\');">Eze 48</a> of the prophet are scarcely inspired by practical necessities, that they have a very pronounced character of ideal vision; and \'as no fancy is pure fancy,\' we ought also to find the elements which are at the basis of Ezekiel\'s vision. The tents of the tribe of Levi ranged around the tabernacle explain themselves in the Priestly Code; we may doubt whether the Levites, deprived of territory (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,28);">Eze 44:28</a>) and nevertheless grouped on a common territory, in the conditions described in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',48,\'1-\');">Eze 48</a>, explain themselves with equal facility. A camp is readily conceived on the pattern of a chessboard, but not the country of Canaan. We need not stop there. It is in fact certain that Ezekiel here has in view the protection of the holiness of the temple from all profanation; and in the realm of the ideal, the means are appropriate to the end" (op. cit., 425f).<P>5. Priestly Cities and Cities in Which Priests Dwell:<P>Lastly there runs through Wellhausen\'s discussion the confusion between a city where priests may be dwelling and a priestly city. There were priests in Jerusalem, as there are today in London or Chicago; but none of these three places can be regarded as a priestly city in the same sense as the Levitical cities. Not one of them has ever been a patrimonial city of priests, or could be the origin of such an arrangement.<P>While therefore the whole of the cities mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,\'1-\');">Jos 21</a> were certainly not reduced into possession at the time of the conquest, the Wellhausen theory on this matter cannot be sustained.<P>LITERATURE.<P>J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 159-63; A. Van Hoonacker, Sacerdoce levitique, 423-35 (very brilliant and important).``193';
isbe[5504]='Leviticus, 1`le-vit\'-i-kus:<P><b>I. GENERAL DATA</b><P class="in15">1. Name<P class="in15">2. Character of Book<P class="in15">3. Unity of Book: Law of Holiness Examination of Critical Theory<P><b>II. STRUCTURE</b><P class="in15">1. Modern Analyses<P class="in30">(1) Theories of Disintegration<P class="in30">(2) Reasons for Dismemberment<P class="in30">(3) Insufficiency of These Reasons<P class="in15">2. Structure of the Biblical Text<P class="in30">(1) Structure in General<P class="in30">(2) Structure of the Individual Pericopes<P><b>III. ORIGIN</b><P class="in15">1. Against the Wellhausen Hypothesis<P class="in30">(1) The Argument from Silence<P class="in30">(2) Attitude of Prophets toward Sacrificial System<P class="in30">(3) The People\'s Disobedience<P class="in30">(4) Indiscriminate Sacrificing<P class="in30">(5) Deuteronomy and Priestly Code<P class="in15">2. Connection with Mosaic Period<P class="in30">(1) Priestly Code and Desert Conditions<P class="in30">(2) Unity and Construction Point to Mosaic Origin<P><b>IV. THE SIGNIFICANCE</b><P class="in15">1. Positive<P class="in30">(1) The Law Contains God\'s Will<P class="in30">(2) The Law Prepares for the Understanding of Christianity<P class="in30">(3) The Law as a Tutor unto Christ<P class="in15">2. Negative<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. General Data.<P>1. Name:<P>The third book of the Pentateuch is generally named by the Jews according to the first word, wayyiqra\' (Origen Ouikra, by the Septuagint called according to its contents Leuitikon, or Leueitikon, by the Vulgate, accordingly, "Leviticus" (i.e. Liber), sometimes "Leviticum"). The Jews have also another name taken from its contents, namely, torath kohanim, "Law of the Priests."<P>2. Character of Book:<P>As a matter of fact ordinances pertaining to the priesthood, to the Levitical system, and to the cults constitute a most important part of this book; but specifically religious and ethical commands, as we find them, e.g. in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,\'1-\');">Le 18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,\'1-\');">19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,\'1-\');">20</a>, are not wanting; and there are also some historical sections, which, however, are again connected with the matter referring to the cults, namely the consecration of the priests in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,\'1-\');">Le 8</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',9,\'1-\');">9</A>, the sin and the punishment of two sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,1);">10:1</A>ff), and the account of the stoning of a blasphemer (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,10);">24:10</A>ff). Of the Levites, on the other hand, the book does not treat at all. They are mentioned only once and that incidentally in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,32);">25:32</A>ff. The laws are stated to have been given behar Cinay (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,38);">7:38</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,1);">25:1</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,46);">26:46</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,34);">27:34</a>), which expression, on account of <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,\'1-\');">Le 11</a>, in which Yahweh is described as speaking to Moses out of the tent of meeting, is not to be translated "upon" but "at" Mt. Sinai. The connection of this book with the preceding and following books, i.e. Exodus and Numbers, which is commonly acknowledged as being the case, at least in some sense, leaves for the contents of Leviticus exactly the period of a single month, since the last chronological statement of <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',40,17);">Ex 40:17</a> as the time of the erection of the tabernacle mentions the 1st day of the 1st month of the 2nd year of the Exodus, and <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',1,1);">Nu 1:1</a> takes us to the 1st day of the 2nd month of the same year. Within this time of one month the consecration of the priests fills out 8 days (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,33);">Le 8:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',9,1);">9:1</a>). A sequence in time is indicated only by <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,1);">Le 16:1</a>, which directly connects with what is reported in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,\'1-\');">Le 10</a> concerning Nadab and Abihu. In the same way the ordinances given in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,6);">10:6</a>ff are connected with the events described in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,\'1-\');">8:1-10:5</a>. The laws are described as being revelations of Yahweh, generally given to Moses (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,1);">1:1</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',4,1);">4:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',5,14);">5:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,19,24);">6:19,24 (Hebrew 12,17)</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,22,28);">7:22,28</A>, etc.); sometimes to Moses and Aaron (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,1);">11:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',13,1);">13:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,33);">14:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,1);">15:1</a>, etc.), and, rarely, to Aaron alone (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,8);">10:8</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,21);">10:12</a>ff, Moses gives some directions to the priests, which are based on a former revelation (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,16);">6:16 (Hebrew 9)</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,37);">7:37</a>ff). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,16);">10:16</A>ff, we have a difference of opinion between Moses and Aaron, or rather his sons, which was decided on the basis of an independent application of principles given in Leviticus.Most of these commands are to be announced to Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,2);">1:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',4,2);">4:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,23,29);">7:23,29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',9,3);">9:3</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,2);">11:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',12,2);">12:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,2);">15:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,2);">18:2</a>, etc.); others to the priests (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,9,25);">6:9,25 (Hebrew 2,18)</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,2);">21:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,2);">22:2</a>, etc.); or to the priests and the Israelites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,2);">17:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,18);">22:18</a>), while the directions in reference to the Day of Atonement, with which Aaron was primarily concerned (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,2);">16:2</a>), beginning with <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,29);">16:29</a>, without a special superscription, are undeniably changed into injunctions addressed to all Israel; compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,24);">21:24</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,2);">21:2</a>. As the Book of Exodus treats of the communion which God offers on His part to Israel and which culminates at last in His dwelling in the tent of meeting (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',40,34);">40:34</a>ff; compare under <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS">EXODUS, I, 2</a>), the Book of Leviticus contains the ordinances which were to be carried out by the Israelites in religious, ethical and cultural matters, in order to restore and maintain this communion with God, notwithstanding the imperfections and the guilt of the Israelites. And as this book thus with good reason occupies its well established place in the story of the founding and in the earliest history of theocracy, so too even a casual survey and intelligent glance at the contents of the book will show that we have here a well-arranged and organic unity, a conviction which is only confirmed and strengthened by the presentation of the structure of the book in detail (see under II, below).<P>3. Unity of Book: Law of Holiness:<P>As a rule, critics are accustomed first of all to regard <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-\');">Le 17:1-25:55</a> or <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,\')1-\';">26</a> as an independent section, and find in these chapters a legal code that is considered to have existed at one time as a group by itself, before it was united with the other parts.<P>It is indeed true that a series of peculiarities have been found in these chapters of Leviticus. To these peculiarities belongs the frequent repetition of the formula: "I am Yahweh your God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,2,4);">18:2,4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,2,4);">19:2,4</a>, etc.); or "I am Yahweh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,5,6,21);">18:5,6,21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,14,16);">19:14,16</a>, etc.), or "I am Yahweh...who hath separated you" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,24);">20:24</a>), or "who sanctifieth you" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,8);">20:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,8,15,23);">21:8,15,23</a>, etc.). To these peculiarities belong the references in words, or, in fact, to the land of Canaan, into which Israel is to be led (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,3,14);">18:3,14</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,23,29);">19:23ff, 29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,22,23,25);">20:22ff; 23; 25</a>), and also to Egypt, out of which He has led the people (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,3);">18:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,34);">19:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,33);">22:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,13,15);">26:13,15</a>, etc.); as, further, the demand for sanctification (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,2);">19:2</a>), or the warning against desecration (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,12);">19:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,23);">21:23</a>, etc.), both based on the holiness of Yahweh. In addition, a number of peculiar expressions are repeatedly found in these chapters. Because of their contents these chapters have, since Klostermann, generally been designated by the letter H (i.e. Law of Holiness); or, according to the suggestion of Dillmann, by the letter S (i.e. Sinaitic Law), because, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,1);">25:1</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,46);">26:46</a>, they are said to have been given at Mt. Sinai, and because in certain critical circles it was at one time claimed that these chapters contain old laws from the Mosaic period, although these had been changed in form. These earlier views have apparently now been discarded by the critics entirely.<P>Examination of Critical Theory.<P>We, however, do not believe that it is at all justifiable to separate these laws as a special legal code from the other chapters. In the first place, these peculiarities, even if such are found here more frequently than elsewhere, are not restricted to these chapters exclusively. The Decalogue (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,2);">Ex 20:2</a>) begins with the words, "I am Yahweh thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,31);">Ex 22:31</a> contains the demand, "Ye shall be holy men unto me." <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,44,45);">Ex 29:44,45</a> contains a promise that God will dwell in the midst of the Israelites, so that they shall learn that He is Yahweh, their God, who has brought them out of Egypt in order to dwell in their midst as Yahweh, their God (compare, further, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,\'6-8\');">Ex 6:6-8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',31,13);">31:13</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,10,11);">Le 10:10,11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,44);">11:44</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',15,\'37-41\');">Nu 15:37-41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,52,55);">33:52f; 55f</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,2,21);">De 14:2,21</a>). It is a more than risky undertaking to find in these and in other sections scattered remnants of H, especially if these are seen to be indispensable in the connection in which they are found, and when no reason can be given why they should be separated from this collection of laws. Then, too, the differences of opinion on the part of the critics in assigning these different parts to H, do not make us favorably inclined to the whole hypothesis. Hoffmann, especially (Die wichtigsten Instanzen gegen die Graf-Wellhausensche Hypothese, 16ff), has shown how impossible it is to separate H from the other ordinances of the Priestly Code in so radical a manner. In saying this we do not at all wish to deny the peculiar character of these chapters, only we do not believe that <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-\');">Le 17</a> can be added or <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,\'1-\');">Le 26</a> can be taken away from this section; for in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-\');">Le 17</a> all the characteristic peculiarities of the Holiness Law are lacking; and, on the other hand, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,\'1-\');">Le 26</a> the expression "I am Yahweh your God," or a similar one in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,12,13,14);">26:12,13,14</A>f; is found. The subscription in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,46);">26:46</A> connects <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,\'1-\');">Le 26</a> with the preceding; and, further, the reference to the Sabbatical year as described in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,\'1-\');">Le 25</a>, found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',34,43);">26:34f,43</A>,is not to be overlooked. Finally, also, other legal codes, such as that in the first Book of the Covenant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,\'20-33\');">Ex 23:20-33</a>) and that of Deuteronomy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',27,\'11-\');">27:11</A>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',28,\'1-68\');">28:68</a>) close with the offer of a blessing or a curse.<P>The chapters under consideration (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,\'1-\');">Le 18:1-26:46</a>) are most closely connected with each other solely through their contents, which have found expression in a particular form, without these facts being sufficient to justify the claim of their being a separate legal code. For since in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">Le 1-17</a> all those things which separate the Israelites from their God have been considered and bridged over (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">Le 1-7</a>, the laws concerning sacrifices; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,\'1-\');">Le 8-10</a>, the mediatorship of the priests; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,\'1-\');">Le 11-15</a>, the unclean things; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,\'1-\');">Le 16</a>, the Day of Atonement; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-\');">Le 17</a>, the use made of blood), we find in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,\'1-\');">Le 18:1-26:46</a> an account of the God-pleasing conduct, which admits of nothing that desecrates; namely, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,\'1-\');">Le 18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,\'1-\');">19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,\'1-\');">20</a> contain laws dealing with marriage and chastity and other matters of a religious, ethical or cultural kind, together with the punishments that follow their transgression; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,\'1-\');">Le 21</a>f determine the true character of the priests and of the sacred oblations; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,\'1-\');">Le 23</a>f; the consecration of the seasons, of life and death, etc.; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,\'1-\');">Le 25</a>, the Sabbath and the Jubilee year; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,\'1-\');">Le 26</a> contains the offer of a blessing or a curse. <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">Le 1-17</a> have, as it were, a negative character; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,\'1-\');">Le 18:1-26:46</a> a positive character. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">Le 1-17</a> the consciousness of what is unclean, imperfect and guilty is awakened and the possibility of their removal demonstrated; while in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,\'1-\');">Le 18:1-26:46</a> the norm of a holy life is set forth. Even if these two parts at certain places show so great a likeness that the occurrence of an interchange of ordinances could be regarded as possible, nevertheless the peculiar character of each part is plainly recognized; and this is also a very essential argument for the view that both parts have one and the same author, who intentionally brought the two parts into closer connection and yet separated the one from the other. On this supposition the peculiarities of <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,\'1-\');">Le 18:1-26:46</a> are sufficiently explained, and also the positive contents of these chapters and the fact that just these chapters are referred to in pre-exilic literature oftener than is the case with <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">Le 1-17</a>, and particularly the close connection between Ezekiel and H is to be regarded as a consequence of the common tendency of both authors and not as the result of their having used a common source (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EZEKIEL">EZEKIEL, II, 2</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,46);">Le 26:46</a> we have what is clearly a conclusion, which corresponds to <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,1);">25:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,37);">7:37</A>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,1);">1:1</A>, and accordingly regards <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">Le 1:1-26:46</a> as a unity; while <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,\'1-\');">Le 27</a>, which treats of vows and of tithes, with its separate subscription in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,34);">27:34</A>, shows that it is an appendix or a supplement, which is, however, in many ways connected with the rest of the book, so that this addition cannot, without further grounds, be regarded as pointing to another author.<P>II. Structure.<P>1. Modern Analyses:<P>Modern criticism ascribes the entire Book of Leviticus, being a special legal code, to the Priestly Code (P). The questions which arise in connection with this claim will be discussed under III, below. At this point we must first try to awaken a consciousness of the fact, that in this special particular, too, the documentary theory has entered upon the stage of total disintegration; that the reasons assigned for the separation of the sources are constantly becoming more arbitrary and subjective; and that the absurd consequences to which they consistently lead from the very outset arouse distrust as to the correctness of the process. Just as in the historical parts the critics have for long been no longer content with J (Jahwist) and E (Elohist), but have added a J1 and Later additions to J, an E1 and Later additions to E, and as Sievers and Gunkel have gone farther, and in detail have completely shattered both J and E into entirely separate fragments (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GENESIS">GENESIS</a>), So the Priestly Code (P), too, is beginning to experience the same fate. It is high time that, for both the historical and the legal sections, the opposite course be taken, and that we turn from the dismemberment to the combination of these documents; that we seek out and emphasize those features which, in form and content, unite the text into a clear unity. For this reason we lay the greatest stress on these in this section, which deals with the structure of the book, and which treats of the matter (1) negatively and (2) positively (see also <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS">EXODUS, II</a>).<P>(1) Theories of Disintegration.<P>We have already seen in the article <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DAY+OF+ATONEMENT">DAY OF ATONEMENT (I,2,(2))</a> in connection with <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,\'1-\');">Le 16</a> an example of these attempts at dissection, and here still add several examples in order to strengthen the impression on this subject.<P>(a) General Considerations:<P>If we for the present disregard the details, then, according to Bertholet (Kurzer Hand-Kommentar zum Alten Testament), not only <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-\');">Le 17:1-26:46</a> (see, above, under I) at one time existed as a separate legal corpus, but also the sacrificial legislation in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">Le 1-7</a>, and also the laws concerning the clean and the unclean in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,\'1-\');">Le 11-15</a>. Concerning <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,\'1-\');">Le 16</a> see above. Then, too, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,\'1-\');">Le 27</a> is regarded as a supplement and is ascribed to a different author. Finally, the so-called "fundamental document" of P (marked Pg) contained only parts from <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',9,\'1-\');">Le 9</a>f (also a few matters from <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,\'1-\');">Le 8</a>), as also one of the three threads of <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,\'1-\');">Le 16</a>, for <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,\'1-\');">Le 8-10</a>, it is said, described the consecration of the priests demanded in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,\'1-\');">Ex 25</a>ff, which also are regarded as a part of Pg, and <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,\'1-\');">Le 16:1</a> is claimed to connect again with <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,\'1-\');">Le 10</a> (compare on this point <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DAY+OF+ATONEMENT">DAY OF ATONEMENT, I, 2</a>). All these separate parts of Leviticus (i.e. <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">Le 1:1-27:34</a>) are further divided into a number of more or less independent subparts; thus, e.g., <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">Le 1-7</a>, containing the sacrificial laws, are made to consist of two parts, namely, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">Le 1-5</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,\'1-\');">Le 6</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,\'1-\');">7</a>; or the laws concerning the clean and the unclean in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,\'1-\');">Le 11-15</a> are divided into the separate pieces, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,\'1-\');">Le 11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',12,\'1-\');">12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',13,\'1-46\');">13:1-46</a>; and these are regarded as having existed at one time and in a certain manner independently and separated from each other. But how complicated in detail the composition is considered to be, we can see from <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-\');">Le 17:1-26:46</a>.<P>(b) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-\');">Leviticus 17-26</a> Considered in Detail:<P>While Baentsch (Hand-Kommentar zum Alten Testament) accepts, to begin with, three fundamental strata (H1 = <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,\'1-\');">Le 18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,\'1-\');">19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,\'1-\');">20</a> and certain portions from <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,\'1-\');">Le 23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,\'1-\');">24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,\'1-\');">25</a>; H2 = <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,\'1-\');">Le 21</a>f; H3 = <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-\');">Le 17</a>), Bertholet, too (op. cit., x), regards the development of these chapters as follows: "In detail we feel justified in separating the following pieces: (i) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,3,4,5,\'7-14\');">Le 17:3,4 (5,7a), 8,9,10-14</a>; (ii) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,\'7-10\',\'12-20\',22);">18:7-10,12-20,22</a>f; and this united with (iii) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,3,11,27,30,31,35,36);">19:3f; 11f; 27f; 30,31,35,36</a>, which was probably done by the author of (iii). The following were inserted by the person who united these parts, namely, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,6,\'25-28\',30);">18:6,27,25,26,28,30</A>; (iv) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,9,10,\'13-18\',19,29,32);">19:9,10,13-18,19,29,32</A>; (v) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,\'5-8\',\'23-26\');">19:5-8,23-26</a>; (vi) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,2,6);">20:2(Hebrew 3), 6(Hebrew 27)</a>; (vii) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,\'9-21\');">20:9,10-21; 19:20</a>; (viii) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,\'1-5\',5,7,\'9-15\',\17-24\');">21:1b-5,7,9-15,17b-24</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,3,8,\'10-14\',\'18-25\',\'27-30\');">22:3,8,10-14,18b-25,27-30</a>; (ix) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',30,\'10-20\',\'39-43\');">23:10-20,39-43</a>; (x) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,\'15-22\');">24:15-22</a>, except verses <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,16</a>);">16a(?)b; (xi) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,\'2-7\',\'18-22\,\'35-40\',42,47,53,55);">25:2-7 (Hebrew 4), 18-22,35-38,39,40a, 42f; 47,53,55</a>; (xii) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,8.9.10,\'13-17\',24);">25:8a, 9b, 10a, 13,14-16,17,24f</a>. In uniting these pieces Rh (the Redactor of the Law of Holiness) seems to have added de suo the following: <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,5);">17:5 (beginning)</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,\'2-5\',21,24,26,29);">18:2b-5,21,24,26a(?), 29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,33,37);">19:33f; 37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,4,7,\'22-26\');">20:4f; 7f; 22-26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,6,8);">21:6,8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,2,9,15,31,32,33);">22:2,9,15f; 31-33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,22);">23:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,11);">25:11f</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,1);">26:1</a>f. At the same time he united with these an older parenetic section, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,\'3-45\');">26:3-45</A>, which, by inserting <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,10,34,\39-43\');">26:10,34f; 39-43</a>, he changed into a concluding address of this small legal code. All the rest that is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-\');">Le 17:1-26:46</a> seems to be the result of a revision in the spirit of the Priestly Code (P), not, however, as though originally it all came from the hand of Rp (Redactor P). That he rather added and worked together older pieces from P (which did not belong to Pg) is seen from an analysis of <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,\'1-\');">Le 23</a>...As far as the time when these parts were worked together is concerned, we have a reliable terminus ad quem in a comparison of <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,\'14-18\');">Ne 8:14-18</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,36,39);">Le 23:36 (P), 39ff (H)</a>. Only we must from the outset remember, that still, after the uniting of these different parts, the marks of the editorial pen are to be noticed in the following <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-\');">Le 17:1-26:46</a>, i.e. that after this union a number of additions were yet made to the text. This is sure as far as <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,\'26-32\');">23:26-32</a> is concerned, and is probable as to <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,\'1-14\',23);">24:1-9,10-14,23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,32,33,34);">25:32-34</a>; and that this editorial work even went so far as to put sections from P in the place of parts of H can possibly be concluded from <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,\'1-9\');">24:1-9</a>."<P>(c) Extravagance of Critical Treatment:<P>This is also true of all the other sections, as can be seen by a reference to the books of Bertholet and Baentsch. What should surprise us most, the complicated and external manner in which our Biblical text, which has such a wonderful history back of it, is declared by the critics to have originated, or the keenness of the critics, who, with the ease of child\'s play, are able to detect and trace out this growth and development of the text, and can do more than hear the grass grow? But this amazement is thrust into the ackground when we contemplate what becomes of the Bible text under the manipulations of the critics. The compass of this article makes it impossible to give even as much as a general survey of the often totally divergent and contradictory schemes of Baentsch and Bertholet and others on the distribution of this book among different sources; and still less possible is it to give a criticism of these in detail. But this critical method really condemns itself more thoroughly than any examination of its claims would. All who are not yet entirely hypnotized by the spell of the documentary hypothesis will feel that by this method all genuine scientific research is brought to an end. If the way in which this book originated had been so complicated, it certainly could never have been again reconstructed.<P>(2) Reasons for Dismemberment.<P>We must at this place confine ourselves to mentioning and discussing several typical reasons which are urged in favor of a distribution among different authors.<P>(a) Alleged Repetitions:<P>We find in the parts belonging to P a number of so-called repetitions. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-7\');">Le 1-7</a> we find a twofold discussion of the five kinds of sacrifices (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">1-5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,1);">6:1</A>ff); in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,\'1-\');">Le 20</a> punitive measures are enacted for deeds which had been described already in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,\'1-\');">Le 18</a>; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,3,10);">19:3,10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,3);">23:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,2);">26:2</A> the Sabbath command is intensified; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,5);">19:5</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,9);">22:29</a>f; we find commands which had been touched upon already in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,15);">7:15</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,9);">19:9</a>f we find almost verbally repeated in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,22);">23:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,2);">24:2</A>ff repeats ordinances concerning the golden candlestick from <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',27,20);">Ex 27:20</a>ff, etc. The existence of these repetitions cannot be denied; but is the conclusion drawn from this fact correct? It certainly is possible that one and the same author could have handled the same materials at different places and from different viewpoints, as is the case in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">Le 1-7</a> in regard to the sacrifices. <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,\'1-\');">Le 18</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,\'1-\');">20</a> (misdeeds and punishments) are even necessarily and mutually supplementary. Specially important laws can have been repeated, in order to emphasize and impress them all the more; or they are placed in peculiar relations or in a unique light (compare, e.g., <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,1);">24:1</a>ff, the command in reference to the golden candlestick in the pericope <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,\'1-\');">Le 23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,\'1-\');">24</a>; see below). Accordingly, as soon as we can furnish a reason for the repetition, it becomes unobjectionable; and often, when this is not the case, the objections are unremoved if we ascribe the repetitions to a new author, who made the repetition by way of an explanation (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS">EXODUS, II,2,(5)</a>).<P>(b) Separation of Materials:<P>Other reasons will probably be found in uniting or separating materials that are related. That <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,\'1-\');">Le 16</a> is connected with <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,\'1-\');">Le 8-10</a>, and these connect with <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,\'1-\');">Ex 25</a>ff, is said to prove that this had been the original order in these sections. But why should materials that are clearly connected be without any reason torn asunder by the insertion of foreign data? Or has the interpolator perhaps had reasons of his own for doing this? Why are not these breaks ascribed to the original author? The sacrificial laws in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">Le 1-7</a> are properly placed before <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,\'1-\');">Le 8-10</a>, because in these latter chapters the sacrifices are described as already being made (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',9,7,15);">9:7,15</A>, the sin offering; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',9,7,12,16);">9:7,12,16</A>, the burnt offering; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',9,17);">9:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,12);">10:12</a>, the meal offering; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',9,18);">9:18</A>, the peace offering; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',9,3);">9:3</a>f; all kinds). In the same way <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,\'1-\');">Le 11-15</a>, through <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,31);">15:31</A>, are inwardly connected with <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,\'1-\');">Le 16</a>, since these chapters speak of the defiling of the dwelling-place of Yahweh, from which the <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DAY+OF+ATONEMENT">Day of Atonement</a> delivers (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,16,33);">16:16f; 33</A>). As a matter of course, the original writer as well as a later redactor could have at times also connected parts in a looser or more external manner. In this way, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,22);">7:22</a>ff, the command not to eat of the fats or of the blood has been joined to the ordinances with reference to the use of the peace offerings in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,19);">7:19</a>ff. This again is the case when, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',2,11,12,13);">Le 2, verses 11-13</a> have been inserted in the list of the different kinds of meal offering; when after the general scheme of sin offerings, according to the hierarchical order and rank in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',4,\'1-\');">Le 4</a>, a number of special cases are mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',5,1);">5:1</A>ff; and when in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',5,7);">5:7</A>ff commands are given to prevent too great poverty; or when in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,19);">6:19</A>ff the priestly meal offerings are found connected with other ordinances with references to the meat offerings in general (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,14);">6:14</A>ff); or when the share that belongs to the priest (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,8);">7:8</a>ff) is found connected with his claim to the guilt offering (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,1);">7:1</a>ff); or the touching of the meat offering by something unclean (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,19);">7:19</A>ff) is found connected with the ordinances concerning the peace offerings; or when in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,\'1-\');">Le 11</a> the ordinances dealing with the unclean animals gradually pass over into ordinances concerning the touching of these animals, as is already indicated by the subscription <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,4,6);">11:4,6</A>f (compare with <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,12);">11:2</A>). Still more would it be natural to unite different parts in other ways also. In this way the ordinances dealing with the character of the sacrifices in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,\'17-30\');">22:17-30</A> could, regarded by themselves, be placed also in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">Le 1-7</a>. But in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,\'1-\');">Le 22</a> they are also well placed. On the other hand, the character of <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">Le 1-7</a> would have become too complicated if they were inserted here. In such matters the author must have freedom of action.<P>(c) Change of Singular and Plural:<P>Further, the frequent change between the singular and the plural in the addresses found in the laws which are given to a body of persons is without further thought used by the critics as a proof of a diversity of authors in the section under consideration (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,12);">Le 10:12</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,9,11,15);">19:9,11ff, 15ff</a>, etc.). But how easily this change in numbers can be explained! In case the plural is used, the body of the people are regarded as having been distributed into individuals; and in the case of a more stringent application the plural can at once be converted into the singular, since the author is thinking now only of separate individuals. Naturally, too, the singular is used as soon as the author thinks again rather of the people as a whole. Sometimes the change is made suddenly within one and the same verse or run of thought; and this in itself ought to have banished the thought of a difference of authors in such cases. In the case of an interpolator or redactor, it is from the outset all the more probable that he would have paid more attention to the person used in the addresses than that this would have been done by the original writer, who was completely absorbed by the subject-matter. Besides, such a change in number is frequently found in other connections also; compare in the Book of the Covenant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,\'20-25\',29);">Ex 22:20-25,29</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,9);">23:9</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,2,13);">De 12:2ff, 13</a>). In regard to these passages, also, the modern critics are accustomed to draw the same conclusion; and in these cases, too, this is hasty. In the same way the change in the laws from the 3rd to the 2nd person can best be explained as the work of the lawgiver himself, before whose mind the persons addressed are more vividly present and who, when speaking in the 2nd person, becomes personal (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',2,4);">Le 2:4</a>ff with <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',2,1,2,3);">2:1-3</a>, and also <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,2);">1:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',3,17);">3:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,18,21,25);">6:18,21,25</a>ff).<P>(d) Proofs of Religious Development:<P>A greater importance seemingly must be attributed to the reasons based on a difference in the terminology or on contradictions in the laws, as these appear to lead to a religio-historical development. But the following examples are intended to show how all important it is to be slow in the acceptance of the materials which the critics offer in this connection.<P>(3) Insufficiency of These Reasons.<P>(a) In <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',5,\'1-7\');">Le 5:1-7</a>, in the section treating of the sin offering (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',4,\'1-\');">4:1-5:13</A>), we find the word \'asham, which also signifies "guilt offering" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',5,14);">5:14</A>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,1);">7:1</a>ff). Accordingly, it is claimed, the author of <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',5,\'1-7\');">5:1-7</A> was not yet acquainted with the difference between the two kinds of offerings, and that this part is older than that in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',4,1);">4:1</A>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',5,14);">5:14</A>ff. However, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',5,1);">5:1</a>ff the word \'asham is evidently used in the sense of "repentance," and does not signify "sin offering" at all; at any rate, already in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',5,6);">5:6</A>f we find the characteristic term chattath to designate the latter, and thus this section appears as entirely in harmony with the connection.<P>(b) Critics find a contradiction in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,26);">Le 6:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,33);">7:33</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,7);">7</a>, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,29);">6:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,31);">7:31</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,6);">6</A>, since in the first case the officiating priest and in the other case the entire college of priests is described as participating in the sacrifice. In reply it is to be said that the first set of passages treat of the individual concrete cases, while the second set speak of the general principle. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,8);">7:8</A>f; however, where the individual officiating priest is actually put in express contrast with all the sons of Aaron, the matter under consideration is a difference in the meal offerings, which, beginning with <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',2,\'1-\');">Le 2</a>, could be regarded as known. Why this difference is made in the use of this sacrifice is no longer intelligible to us, as we no longer retain these sacrifices, nor are we in possession of the oral instruction which possibly accompanied the written formulation of these laws; but this is a matter entirely independent of the question as to the author.<P>(c) According to <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,7);">Ex 29:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',4,3,5,16);">Le 4:3,5,16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,20,22);">6:20,22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,12);">8:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,32);">16:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,10,12);">21:10,12</a>, the high priest is the only one who is anointed; while, on the other hand, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',28,41);">Ex 28:41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,21);">29:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',30,30);">30:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',40,15);">40:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,36);">Le 7:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,7);">10:7</a>, all the priests are anointed. But the text as it reads does not make it impossible that there was a double anointing. According to the first set of passages, Aaron is anointed in such a manner that the anointing oil is poured out upon his head (compare especially <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,7);">Ex 29:7</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,12);">Le 8:12</a>). Then, too, he and all his sons are anointed in such a way that a mixture of the oil and of the blood is sprinkled upon them and on their garments (compare especially <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,21);">Ex 29:21</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,30);">Le 8:30</a>). Were we here dealing with a difference in reference to theory and the ranks of the priesthood, as these discussions were current at the time of the exile (see III, below), then surely the victorious party would have seen to it that their views alone would have been reproduced in these laws, and the opposing views would have been suppressed. But now both anointings are found side by side, and even in one and the same chapter!<P>(d) The different punishments prescribed for carnal intercourse with a woman during her periods in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,24);">Le 15:24</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,18);">20:18</A> are easily explained by the fact that, in the first passage, the periods are spoken of which only set in during the act, and in the second passage, those which had already set in before.<P>(e) As far as the difference in terminology is concerned, it must be remembered that in their claims the critics either overlook that intentional differences may decide the preference for certain words or expressions; or else they ignore the fact that it is possible in almost every section of a writer\'s work to find some expressions which are always, or at least often, peculiar to him; or finally, they in an inexcusable way ignore the freedom of selection which a writer has between different synonyms or his choice in using these.<P>All in all, it must be said that however much we acknowledge the keenness and the industry of the modern critics in clearing up many difficulties, and the fact that they bring up many questions that demand answers, it nevertheless is the fact that they take the matter of solving these problems entirely too easily, by arbitrarily claiming different authors, without taking note of the fact that by doing this the real difficulty is not removed, but is only transferred to another place. What could possibly be accepted as satisfactory in one single instance, namely that through the thoughtlessness of an editor discrepancies in form or matter had found their way into the text, is at once claimed to be the regular mode of solving these difficulties<65>a procedure that is itself thoughtlessness. On the other hand, the critics overlook the fact that it makes little difference for the religious and the ethical value of these commands, whether logical, systematic, linguistic or aesthetic correctness in all their parts has been attained or not; to which must yet be added, that a failure in the one particular may at the same time be an advantage in the other. In this respect we need recall only the anacoluths of the apostle Paul.<P>2. Structure of the Biblical Text:<P>(1) Structure in General.<P>The most effective antidote against the craze to split up the text in the manner described above will be found in the exposition of all those features which unite this text into one inseparable whole. What we have tried to demonstrate in the articles <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GENESIS">GENESIS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS">EXODUS, II</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DAY+OF+ATONEMENT">DAY OF ATONEMENT, I, 2</a> (compare also <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EZEKIEL">EZEKIEL, I,2,(2)</a>) can be repeated at this point. The Book of Leviticus shows all the marks of being a well-constructed and organic literary product, which in its fundamental characteristics has already been outlined under I above. And as this was done in the several articles just cited, we can here add further, as a corroborative factor in favor of the acceptance of an inner literary unity of the book, that the division of the book into its logical parts, even down to minute details, is here, as is so often the case elsewhere, not only virtually self-evident in many particulars, but that the use made of typical numbers in many passages in this adjustment of the parts almost forces itself upon our recognition. In other places the same is at least suggested, and can be traced throughout the book without the least violence to the text. The system need not be forced upon the materials. We often find sections but loosely connected with the preceding parts (compare under 1 above) and not united in a strictly logical manner, but which are nevertheless related in thought and association of ideas. In harmony with the division of the Book of Genesis we find at once that the general contents, as mentioned under I above, easily fall into 10 pericopes, and it is seen that these consist of 2 sets each of 5 pericopes together with an appendix.<P>(a) Ten Pericopes in Two Parts:<P>Part I, the separation from God and the removal of this separation: (i) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">Le 1:1-7:38</a>; (ii) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,\'1-\');">Le 8:1-10:20</a>; (iii) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,\'1-\');">Le 11:1-15:33</a>; (iv) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,\'1-\');">Le 16</a>; (v) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-\');">Le 17</a>.<P>Part II, the normal conduct of the people of God: (i) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,\'1-\');">Le 18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,\'1-\');">19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,\'1-\');">20</a>; (ii) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,\'1-\');">Le 21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,\'1-\');">22</a>; (iii) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,\'1-\');">Le 23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,\'1-\');">24</a>; (iv) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,\'1-\');">Le 25</a>; (v) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,\'1-\');">Le 26</a>.<P>Appendix, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,\'1-\');">Le 27</a>; compare for the <span class="noTag">number 10</span> the division of <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,\'8-\');">Ex 1:8-7:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,\'8-\');">7:8-13:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,\'17-\');">13:17-18:27</a>; also the Decalogue, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,1);">20:1</A>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,\'1-\');">21:1-23:19</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',32,\'1-\');">32:1-35:1</A>; and see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS">EXODUS, II, 2</a>; and in Leviticus probably <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,\'6-18\');">18:6-18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,\'9-18\');">19:9-18</A>, and with considerable certainty <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,\'1-37\');">19:1-37</a> (see below).<P>(b) Correspondence and Connections:<P>I leave out of consideration in this case the question whether an intentional correspondence among the different parts be traced or not, even in their details. Thus, e.g.; when the 2nd pericope (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,\'1-\');">Le 8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',9,\'1-\');">9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,\'1-\');">10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,\'1-\');">21</a>f) treats particularly of the order of the priests, or when the 4th pericope of the 2nd set (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,\'1-\');">Le 25</a>) states that the beginning of the Year of Jubilee fell on the 10th day of the 7th month, i.e. on the Day of Atonement as described in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,\'1-\');">Le 16</a>, in the 4th pericope of the 1st set (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,9);">25:9</A> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,29);">16:29</A>); or when both sets close with two shorter pericopes, which evidently express high stages of development (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,\'1-\');">Le 16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-\');">17</a>, respectively, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,\'1-\');">Le 25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,\'1-\');">26</a> treating of the Day of Atonement, of the use made of blood and the purposes of blood for the altar or the Jubilee Year, of the blessing and the curse).<P>And, as far as the order in other respects is concerned, it is throughout to be regarded as founded in the subject-matter itself that <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">Le 1-17</a> must precede <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,\'1-\');">Le 18:1-26:46</a>. First that which separates the people from God must be removed, and then only is a God-pleasing conduct possible. Just as easily, and in agreement with the context, it is possible that the consecration of the priests in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,\'1-\');">Le 8-10</a> presupposes the sacrificial torah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">Le 1-7</a>; compare under 1 above) and follows the latter, and is immediately introduced by the mention made of the installation sacrifices for which otherwise there are no reasons assigned in the concluding formula in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,37);">7:37</A> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,\'22-32\');">8:22-32</a>). The Day of Atonement (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,\'1-\');">Le 16</a>), which in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,16);">16:16</a>f and <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',33,\'1-\');">33</a> is spoken of in connection with the purification of the sanctuary, is in turn introduced by <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,\'1-\');">Le 11-15</a>, or more particularly by the remark in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,31);">15:31</A>, where mention is made of the pollution of the dwelling-place of Yahweh. And on the other hand, the ordinances dealing with the priests (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,\'1-\');">Le 8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',9,\'1-\');">9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,\'1-\');">10</a>) in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,10);">10:10</a>, where the command is given to discriminate between what is holy and what is unholy and to teach Israel accordingly, already point to the contents of <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,\'1-\');">Le 11-15</a>. The sacrifices, with which the first part in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">Le 1-7</a> begins, are taken up again by the conclusion in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-\');">Le 17</a>, in the commandment concerning the blood for the altar. The second part, too, already at the beginning (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,\'1-\');">Le 18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,\'1-\');">19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,\'1-\');">20</a>) in its religiously cultural and ethical ordinances, shows in the clearest possible manner what matters it proposes to discuss. In this way the systematic structure of the book is apparent in all particulars.<P>Close connections: comparison with Exodus: And, further, the different pericopes are also so closely Connected among themselves and with the corresponding pericopes in the Books of Exodus and Numbers, that many have thought it necessary to regard them as a special body of laws. But the connection is so close and involves all the details so thoroughly, that all efforts to divide and distribute them after the examples described under 1 above must fail absolutely. We shall now give the proofs for the different pericopes in Leviticus, but in such a manner as to take into consideration also <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,\'1-\');">Ex 25:1-31:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,\'1-\');">35</a>ff, treating of the tabernacle and its utensils and the Aaronitic priesthood, which are most intimately connected with Lev. All details in this matter will be left out of consideration.<P>(i) Tabernacle and priesthood: That <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,\'1-\');">Le 8-10</a> (the consecration of the priests, etc.), together with <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,\'1-\');">Ex 25</a>ff, constitutes a single whole is accepted on all hands. But the tent of meeting and its utensils, and also the priesthood, both with and without any emphasis on the Aaronitic origin, are presupposed also in almost each one of the other pericopes of Leviticus; compare for <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">Le 1-7</a>, e.g., <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,3,5);">1:3,5</>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',3,2,8,13);">3:2,8,13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',4,4,5,7,14,16,18);">4:4,5,7,14,16,18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,26);">6:26</a> (tent of meeting); <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,5,12);">1:5,12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',3,5);">3:5</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',4,7,25,30);">4:7,25,30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,12);">6:12</a> (altar of burnt sacrifices); <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',4,7,18);">4:7,18</a> (altar of incense sacrifices); <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',4,6,17);">4:6,17</A> (veil); <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,9,19);">6:9,19</A> (court); <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,5,7,11);">1:5,7,8,11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',2,2);">2:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',3,2,5,8,13);">3:2,5,8,13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,9,14,16,20,25);">6:9,14,16,20,25</a>, etc. (Aaron and his sons as priests); for <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,\'1-\');">Le 11-15</a> see <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',12,4.6);">12:4,6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,11,23);">14:11,23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,14.29.31);">15:14,29,31</a> (sanctuary, tent of meeting, dwelling-place); <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,1);">11:1</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',12,6);">12:6</A>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',13,1);">13:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,2,33);">14:2ff, 33ff</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,1);">15:1</a> (priesthood); for <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,\'1-\');">Le 16</a> see verses <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,2,7,16,20,23,33);">2,7,16f; 20,23,33</a> (sanctuary and Holy of Holies, tent of meeting); <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,2,12);">16:2,12</a> (veil); <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,2,13);">16:2,13</a>ff (lid of the Ark of the Covenant); <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,12,18,20,33);">16:12,18,20,33</a> (altar); <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,1);">16:1</a>ff (Aaronitic priesthood); for <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-\');">Le 17</a> see verses <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,4,5,6,9);">4-6,9</a> (tent of meeting); <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,6,11);">17:6,11</a> (altar); <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,5);">17:5</a> (priesthood); for <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,\'1-\');">Le 18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,\'1-\');">19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,\'1-\');">20</a> see <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,30);">19:30</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,21);">21</a> (sanctuary of Yahweh, tent of meeting); <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,22);">19:22</A> (priesthood); for <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,\'1-\');">Le 21</a>f see <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,12);">21:12</a> (sanctuary); <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,23);">21:23</A> (sanctuaries of Yahweh); <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,23);">21:23</a> (veil, altar); <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,1,21);">21:1ff, 21</A> (Aaronitic priesthood); for <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,\'1-\');">Le 23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,\'1-\');">24</a> see <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,2,4,21,24,27,36);">23:2,4,21,24,27,36</A>f (sanctuary); <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,1);">24:1</A>ff (candlestick, tent of meeting); <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,5);">24:5</a>ff (table of showbread); <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,10,20);">23:10,20</a> (priesthood); <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,3,9);">24:3,9</a> (Aaronitic priesthood); for <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,\'1-\');">Le 26</a> see verses <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,2,11,31);">2,11,31</a> (sanctuary, dwelling-place of Yahweh, sanctuaries); for <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,\'1-\');">Le 27</a> see verses <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,10,33);">10,33</a> (sanctuary); <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,8);">27:8</A>ff (priesthood).<P>(ii) In the same way the sacrificial laws of <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\';">Le 1-7</a> are mentioned in the following pericopes as matters that are well known. For <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,\'1-\');">Le 8-10</a> see <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',9,7,15);">9:7,15</a>(sin offering); <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',9,7,12,16);">9:7,12,16</a> (burnt offering); <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',9,17);">9:17</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,12);">10:12</a> (meal offering); <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',9,18);">9:18</a> (peace offering); <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',9,3);">9:3</A>f (all together); compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,14,18,28);">Ex 29:14,18,28</a>. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',9,21);">Le 9:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,14);">10:14</a>f (wave-breasts and heave-thigh) direct reference is made to <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,\'30-36\');">7:30-36</a>. In the same manner <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,16);">10:16</A>ff presupposes the ordinances dealing with the different ways of offering the sin offerings in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',4,3,13);">4:3ff, 13</A>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,\'24-30\');">6:24-30</A>; for <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,\'1-\');">Le 11-15</a> see <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',12,6);">12:6</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,12);">14:12</a>ff (compare especially <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,13);">14:13</A> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',4,24);">4:24</a>); <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,21);">14:21</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,14,29);">15:14f; 29f</a>; for <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,\'1-\');">Le 16</a> see verses <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,3,5,9,11,15,24,27);">3,5f; 9,11,15,24f; 27</a>; for <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-\');">Le 17</a> see verses <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,5,8,11);">5ff, 8,11</a>; for <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,\'1-\');">Le 18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,\'1-\');">19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,\'1-\');">20</a> see <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,6,21);">19:6ff, 21f</A> (here is therefore the \'asham found in H, which is claimed to be of a later date); for <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,\'1-\');">Le 21</a>f see <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,6,21);">21:6,21f</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,17,29);">22:17ff, 29f</A>; for <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,\'1-\');">Le 23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,\'1-\');">24</a> see <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,12);">23:12</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,19,27,37);">18:19,27,37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,9);">24:9</a>; for <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,\'1-\');">Le 26</a> see verses <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,30);">30</a>f; for <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,\'1-\');">Le 27</a> compare verses <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,15,19,27,31);">15,19,27,31</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',5,16);">5:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,5);">6:5</A>.<P>(iii) Laws on clean and unclean: The laws in reference to the clean and the unclean in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,\'1-\');">Le 11-15</a> are also interwoven with the whole book. For <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">Le 1-7</a> see <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',5,2);">5:2</A>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,27);">6:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,19);">7:19</a>ff; for <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,\'1-\');">Le 8-10</a> see <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,10);">10:10</A>f; for <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,\'1-\');">Le 16</a> see verses <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,16,19);">16,19</A>; for <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-\');">Le 17</a> see verses <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,13,15);">13,15</a>f; for <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,\'1-\');">Le 18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,\'1-\');">19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,\'1-\');">20</a> compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,25);">20:25</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,44);">11:44</a>, and in general with <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,\'1-\');">Le 11</a>; for <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,\'1-\');">Le 21</a>f see <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,10);">21:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',13,45);">13:45</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,3);">22:3</a>ff with <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',13,\'1);">Le 13-15</a>; for <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,1);">Le 27</a> see verses <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,11);">11</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,27);">27</a>, as also <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,\'1-\');">Le 11</a>.<P>(iv) The laws in reference to the Day of Atonement found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,\'1-\');">Le 16</a> are prepared for by those found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,\'1-\');">Le 11-15</a>, namely, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,4,49);">14:4ff, 49ff</a> (the ceremony with the two birds in connection with the purification from leprosy), and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,31);">15:31</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,16,19);">16:16,19</a>; see above). For <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,\'1-\');">Le 23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,\'1-\');">24</a> compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,26);">23:26</a>ff with <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,29);">16:29</a>ff, and for <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,9);">25:9</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,29);">16:29</a> see above; compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',30,10);">Ex 30:10</a>.<P>(v) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-\');">Leviticus 17</a> is re-echoed in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">Le 1-7</a> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,26);">7:26</a>f) and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,\'1-\');">Le 18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,\'1-\');">19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,\'1-\');">20</a> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,26);">19:26</a>).<P>(vi) Finally <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,\'1-\');">Le 25</a> (Year of Rest and Year of Jubilee) is presupposed in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,34,43);">Le 26:34f; 43</a> and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,17,23);">Le 27:17ff, 23f</a>.<P>The above, however, by no means exhausts this list of references and similar thoughts, and we have here given only some leading illustrations. What literary tricks must be resorted to when, over against this overwhelming mass of evidence, critics yet insist that the different parts of the book were originally independent writings, especially, too, when the entire tabernacle and utensils of the Aaronitic priesthood, the Day of Atonement, the Year of Jubilee, the whole sacrificial scheme and the laws dealing with the great festivals, the restriction of the slaying of the sacrificial animals to the central sanctuary, are regarded as the products of imagination alone, according to the Wellhausen hypothesis (compare III, below, and see also <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS">EXODUS, III, 5</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DAY+OF+ATONEMENT">DAY OF ATONEMENT, III, 1</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EZEKIEL">EZEKIEL, II, 2</a>). And how little is gained in addition when, as is sometimes done, in a most arbitrary manner, the statements found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">Le 1-3</a> concerning the tabernacle of revelation ("tent of meeting") and concerning Aaron\'s sons, or concerning Aaron and his sons together, are regarded as later additions. In Leviticus and <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,\'1-\');">Ex 25</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,\'1-\');">35</a>ff, everything is so entirely of one and the same character and has so clearly emanated from one and the same spirit, that it is impossible to separate from this product any constituent parts and to unite these into groups that were originally independent, then to split up these still further and to trace the parts to their sources, and even to construct a scheme of religious and historical development on this reconstruction of the sources.<P>(2) Structure of the Individual Pericopes.<P>As the windows and the column capitals of a medieval cathedral are arranged according to different schemes and this divergence is regarded as an enrichment of the structure, thus, too, we find it to be in the structure of the various pericopes of the Book of Leviticus. These latter, too, possess a certain symphony of different tones, but all are rhythmically arranged, and only when united do they produce the entire symphony.<P>(a) The Laws Concerning the Sacrifices (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">Leviticus 1-7</a>):<P>In the first place, the five different kinds of sacrifices in Israel are mentioned in succession twice, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">Le 1:1-7:21</a>: Part I, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">Le 1-5</a>, namely (i) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">Le 1</a>, burnt offerings; (ii) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',2,\'1-\');">Le 2</a>, meal offering; (iii) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',3,\'1-\');">Le 3</a>, peace offerings; (iv) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',4,\'1-\');">4:1</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',5,\'1-13\');">5:13</a>, sin offering; (v) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',5,\'14-26\');">5:14-26</a>, guilt offering; Part II, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,\'1-\');">6:1</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,\'1-21\');">7:21</a>, namely<P>(i) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,\'8-13\');">6:8-13</a>, burnt offerings;<P>(ii) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,\'14-23\');">6:14-23</a>, meal offering;<P>(iii) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,\'24-30\');">6:24-30</a>, sin offering;<P>(iv) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,\'1-7\');">7:1-7</a> with appendix, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,\/8,9,10\');">7:8-10</a>, dealing with that part of the sacrifices which belongs to the priest (see under 1, above), guilt offering;<P>(v) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,\'11-21\');">7:11-21</a>, peace offerings.<P>With this is found connected in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,\'22-27\');">7:22-27</a> the prohibition of the use of the fat or the blood, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,\'28-36\');">7:28-36</a>, the laws concerning the wave-breast and the heave-thigh. We have accordingly at once twelve of these laws (compare on <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,\'1-\');">Ex 25:1-30:10</a> in article on <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS">EXODUS, II,2,(5)</a> and on <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EZEKIEL">EZEKIEL, I,2,5)</a>). But even apart from this we have no right to ascribe <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">Le 1-5</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,\'1-\');">6:1</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,\'1-21\');">7:21</a>, on the ground that they are duplicates, to different authors.<P>That there is a difference between these two accounts is proved, not only by the fact that the first set of laws from <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">Le 1-5</a> is addressed to all the Israelites (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,2);">1:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',4,2);">4:2</a>), and the second set <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,8);">6:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,21);">7:21</a> to Aaron and his sons (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,9,25);">6:9,25</a>); but the second set has also in content a number of altogether different viewpoints as compared with the first set, so that the same author found himself induced or compelled to write both sets. On the other hand, the fact that both have the same author is evident from the very close connection between the two sections. In addition to the fact that both make mention of all five kinds of sacrifices, we can yet compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',3,5);">3:5</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,22);">6:22</a> (fat pieces of the peace offering over the burnt sacrifices upon the pieces of wood); and, further, the express reference of <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,17);">6:17</a> to <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',4,\'1-\');">Le 4</a>, while <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,30);">6:30</a> presupposes the distinct separation of the sin offering, the blood of which is brought into the tent of meeting, from the other sacrifices, as these are given in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',4,3,13);">4:3ff, 13ff</a> over against <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',4,22,27);">4:22ff, 27ff</a>. <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',4,\'1-\');">Leviticus 4</a>, with its reference to the peace offerings (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',4,10,26,31,35);">4:10,26,31,35</a>), is again most closely connected with <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',3,\'1-\');">Le 3</a>. We must accordingly insist that the whole account is most intimately interwoven. Over against this, the omission within the first set, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">Le 1-5</a>, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',5,14,15,16);">5:14-16</a>, of the ritual for the peace offering, is sufficiently explained only by the fact that this ritual was to be used in the second set (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,\'8-\');">6:8</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,\'1-21\');">7:21</a>), and here for the first time only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,\'1-15\');">7:1-15</a>, which fact again speaks for the same author for both sets and against the supposition that they were merely mechanically united by a redactor. The fact that the second set <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,\'8-\');">6:8</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,21);">7:21</a> has a different order from that of <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">Le 1-5</a>, by uniting the sin offering immediately with the meal offering (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,24);">6:24</a>ff with <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,\'14-23\');">6:14-23</a>), is probably on account of the similar ordinances in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,9);">7:9</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,19);">7:19</a> (manner of eating the meal offering and the sin offering). On the other hand, the position of the peace offering at the close of the second set (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,11);">7:11</a>ff) furnished the possibility of giving to the piece of the entire pericope embraced in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,\'22-36);">7:22-27,28-36</a> a suitable conclusion; since <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,22);">7:22</a>ff (prohibition of the eating of the fat and the blood), connected with <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,19);">7:19</a>ff, contained in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,28);">7:28</a>ff an ordinance that pertained to the peace offering (heave-breast and wave-thigh). At any rate, these last two pieces are to be regarded separately from the rest, since they are no longer addressed to the priests, as <span class="noTag">is</span> <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',6,\'8-\');">6:8</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,\'1-21\');">7:21</a>, but to all Israel; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,23,29);">7:23,29</a>. On some other data less intimately connected with the matter, compare above under 1.<P>(b) Consecration of priests and related matters (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,\'1-\');">Le 8-10</a>): In this pericope, as in the following, down to <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-\');">Le 17</a> inclusive, but especially from <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,\'1-\');">Le 11</a> on, the principle of division on the basis of the number four predominates, in many cases in the details, too; so that this could scarcely be regarded as an accidental feature (compare also the history of Abraham in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,\'1-\');">Ge 12-26</a>; further, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,\'4-\');">Ex 35:4-40:38</a>; and in <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS">EXODUS, II,2,(7)</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,\'1-\');">Le 16</a>, under <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DAY+OF+ATONEMENT">DAY OF ATONEMENT, I,2,(1)</a>); <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,\'1-\');">De 12-26</a>, too, is probably to be divided on this principle, even to the minutest details (compare finally <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,\'1-\');">Le 21</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,\'1-16\');">22:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,\'17-30\');">22:17-30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,\'1-\');">Le 23</a>f and <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,\'1-\');">26</a>).<P>(i) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,\'1-\');">Leviticus 8</a>, treating of the first seven days of the consecration of the priests: The outline is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,2);">8:2</a>, namely Aaron, the sacred garments, the anointing oil, the bullock of the sin offering, two rams, unleavened bread (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,6,7,10,14,18,22,26);">8:6,7ff, 10ff, 14ff, 18ff, 22ff, 26ff</a>).<P>(ii) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',9,\'1-\');">Leviticus 9</a> the first sacrifices of Aaron and his sons on the 8th day (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',9,2,3,4);">9:2-4</a> contain the outline, after the manner of <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,2);">8:2</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',9,7,11);">9:7ff, 11ff</a>, the sin offering and the burnt offering of Aaron, with <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',9,2);">9:2</a>; also <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',9,\'15-18\');">9:15-18</a>, treating of what the people brought for the sacrifices, with <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',9,3);">9:3</A>f; but it is to be noticed that the meal offering and the peace offering (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',9,17,18);">9:17,18</a>) are given in inverted order from that found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',9,3);">9:3</a>f). Here too we find the number seven, if we add the burnt offering for the morning (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',9,17);">9:17</a>).<P>(iii) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,\'1-7\');">10:1-7</a>, the sin of Nadab and Abihu and their punishment by death; (iv) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,\'8-20\');">10:8-20</a>, ordinances concerning the priests, occasioned by <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,\'1-\');">8:1-10:7</a> and provided with a new superscription in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,8);">10:8</a>, namely <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,8);">10:8</a>, dealing with the prohibition of the use of wine and intoxicants; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,9);">10:9</a>f; distinction between the holy and the unholy; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,\'10-15\');">10:12-15</a>, the eating of the sacred oblations; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,\'16-20\');">10:16-20</a>, the treatment of the goat for the sin offering.<P>(c) Laws Concerning the Clean and Unclean (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,\'1-\');">Le 11-15</a>):<P>(i) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,\'1-\');">Le 11</a>, treating of clean and unclean animals. The outline of the chief contents is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,46);">11:46</a> with a free transposition of one number. There are accordingly four pieces, namely, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,\'2-8\');">11:2-8</a>, quadrupeds; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,\'9-12\');">11:9-12</a>, water animals; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,\'13-23\');">11:13-23</a>, birds (with an appendix, treating of contact with the unclean, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,\'24-28\');">11:24-28</a>, which give a summary of the animals mentioned (see under 1); <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,\'29-45\');">11:29-45</a>, the small animals upon the earth (again in four subdivisions, namely, (i) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,\'29-38\');">11:29-38</a>; (ii) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,39);">11:39</a>ff; (iii) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,41);">11:41</a>f; (iv) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,44);">11:44</a>f).<P>(ii) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',12,\'1-\');">Leviticus 12</a> treats of women in confinement, also in four pieces (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',12,\'2-4\');">12:2-4</a>, birth of a male child; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',12,5);">12:5</a>, birth of a female child; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',12,6);">12:6</a>f; purification ceremony; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',12,8);">12:8</A>, ordinances in case of extreme poverty). These parts are not joined logically, but in a rather external manner.<P>(iii) The passage <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',13,\'1-\');">13:1</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,\'1-53\');">14:53</a>, containing the laws of leprosy, with the subscription in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,54);">14:54</a>ff. (Because seven points are to be enumerated, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,55);">14:55</a> (garments and houses), this is not as in its further exposition separated from the other laws and is placed in their midst.) The exposition contains four pieces, namely, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',13,\'1-44\');">13:1-44</a>, leprosy on human beings (with concluding <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',13,45);">13:45</a>f), with seven subdivisions, of which the first five longer ones are constructed along fairly parallel lines, and again can be divided into four sub-subdivisions, namely, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',13,\'1-8\');">13:1-8<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,8);">; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'9-17\');">1:9-17</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'18-23\');">1:18-23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'24-28\');">1:24-28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'29-37\');">1:29-37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,38);">1:38</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,40-44\');">1:40-44</a>. The significance of the number seven for the structure (see (2), (b), i, above) is akin to that found, e.g., in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,\'18-\');">Ex 24:18b</a> through <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',31,18);">31:18</a> (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS">EXODUS, II,2,(5)</a>); <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,\'1-\');">Le 8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',9,\'1-\');">9</a> (see above); <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,\'1-\');">Le 23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,\'1-\');">25</a>; and <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,\'1-\');">27</a>; and possibly <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,\'3-39\');">26:3-13,14-39</a> (see below); finally, the whole Book of Exodus is divided into seven parts (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS">EXODUS, II, 1</a>). <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',13,\'47-59\');">13:47-59</a>, leprosy in connection with garments, with four subdivisions, namely <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',13,\'47-50\');">13:47-50</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',31,51);">13:51</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',13,53);">13:53</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',13,55);">13:55</a>ff. The last subdivision can again be readily separated into four sub-subdivisions, namely, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',13,55);">13:55</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',13,56);">13:56</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',13,57);">13:57</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',13,58);">13:58</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,\'1-32\');">14:1-32</a>, purifications (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,2);">14:2</a> being a special superscription), with 4 subdivisions, namely,<P>(i) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,2,3);">14:2b-3a</a>, the leper before the priest;<P>(ii) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,\'3-9\');">14:3b-9</a>, the purification ceremonies on the first seven days, again divided into 4 sub-subdivisions: <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,3);">14:3b</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,5,6,7);">14:5-7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,8);">14:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,9);">14:9</a>;<P>(iii) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,\'10-20\');">14:10-20</a>, the ceremony of the eighth day (4 sacrifices, namely <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,\'12-18\');">14:12-18</a>, guilt offering; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,19);">14:19a</a>, sin offering; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,19);">14:19b</a>, burnt offering; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,20);">14:20</a>, meal offering; in the 4 sacrifices (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',5,\'12-\');">5:12</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,\'1-7\');">6:7</a>) there are again 4 different actions: <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,14);">14:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,15);">14:15</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,17);">14:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,18);">14:18</a>;<P>(iv) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,\'21-32\');">14:21-32</a> (in cases of poverty) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,\'33-53\');">14:33-53</a>, leprosy in houses, with four subdivisions: <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,\'33-35\');">14:33-35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,36,37,38);">14:36-38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,\'39-42\');">14:39-42</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,\'43-53\');">14:43-53</a>.<P>(iv) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,\'1-\');">Leviticus 15</a>, sickness or natural issues, with 4 subdivisions, namely, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,\'1-15\');">15:1-15</a>, checked or running issues together with their purification (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,\'3-12\');">15:3-12</A> contain 12 laws: <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,3);">15:3</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,4);">15:4a</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,4);">15:4b</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,5);">15:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,6);">15:6</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,7);">15:7</A</a>; 15:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,9);">15:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,10);">15:10a</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,10);">15:10b</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,11);">15:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,12);">15:12</a>); <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,16,17,18);">15:16-18</A>, issue of seed; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,\'19-24\');">15:19-24</a>, periods; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,\'25-30\');">15:25-30</a>, other flows of blood and their purification. <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,\'1-15\');">Le 15:1-15</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,16,17,18);">15:16-18</a> refer to men, and <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,\'19-24\');">15:19-24</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,\'25-30\');">15:25-30</a> to women; and in addition to these implied suggestions, as <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,\'1-15\');">15:1-15</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,\'25-30\');">15:25-30</a> to dealing with abnormal issues and their purification ceremonies, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,16,17,18);">15:16-18</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,\'19-24\');">15:19-24</a> deal with normal issues.<P>(d) The Day of Atonement (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,\'1-\');">Le 16</a>):<P>See IV, 1, (2), 2, and under <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ATONEMENT,+DAY+OF">ATONEMENT, DAY OF</a>.<P>(e) Uses and significance of the blood of sacrifices (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-\);">Le 17</a>): (i) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'3-7\);">17:3-7</a>, only one place for killing the Sacrifices and the rejection of all foreign cultures; (ii) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,8,9);">17:8,9</a>, only one place for sacrificing; (iii) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'10-14\);">17:10-14</a>, prohibitive of eating the blood; (iv) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,15);">17:15</A>, pertaining to carcasses of animals found dead or which have been torn by wild beasts.<P>Here the form and the contents of the section have been brought into perfect harmony by the author. <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,3,8,10,13);">Le 17:3ff, 8ff, 10ff, 13ff</a> begin with same words, and each contains a similar formula in reference to the punishment, while logically <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,10);">17:10ff</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,13);">13ff</A> are evidently only subdivisions of the third part in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'10-14\');">17:10-14</a>, which treats of the prohibition of eating blood. In the fourth division, again, while in substance connected with the rest, there is lacking the formal agreement with the first three divisions.<P>(f) (g) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,\'1-\');">Le 18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,\'1-\');">19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,\'1-\');">20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,\'1-\');">21</a>): These naturally fall each into 2 parts. <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,\'1-\');">Leviticus 18-20</a> contain<P>(i) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,\'1-\');">Le 18</a>f; religious and ethical laws;<P>(ii) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,\'1-\');">Le 20</a>, laws dealing with punishments. (f) (i) Religious and ethical laws (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,\'1-\');">Le 18</a>f):<P>(a) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,\'1-\');">Le 18</a>: Ordinances with reference to marriage and chastity. <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,\'1-5\');">Le 18:1-5</a>, introductory; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,6,7,8);">18:6-18</a>, prohibition of marriage between kindred of blood; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,\'19-23\');">18:19-23</a>, prohibition of other sexual sins; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,\'24-30\');">18:24-30</a>, warnings.<P>The subdivision can perhaps be divided into 10 subordinate parts, if it is permitted to combine the different degrees of relationship mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,\'12-14\');">Le 18:12-14</a> (namely, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,\'7-18\');">18:7,8,9,10,11,12-14,15,16,17,18</a>). Since it, of itself, manifestly consists of 5 ordinances (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,\'19-23\');">18:19,20,21,22,23</a>), this whole section, if we are permitted to divide it into 5 commandments (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,\'2-5\');">18:2,3a, 3b, 4,5</A>) and also into 5 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,24,\'26-30\');">18:24f; 26-28,29,30a, 30b</A>), would contain 5 X 5 words; but this is uncertain.<P>(b) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,\'1-\');">Leviticus 19</a>: various commands of the deepest significance. In order to discover the divisions of this chapter we must note the characteristic formula, "I am Yahweh, your Gods" or a similar expression, which often appears at the beginning and at the end of certain divisions, e.g. in series (1) (9) and (10), but which in the middle series appears in each case only once, and which in all the series is found also at the conclusion.<P>In this way we can compute 10 tetralogues. Thus after the superscription in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,2);">19:2</A> containing a summary, we have<P>(i) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,3,4);">19:3,4</A> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,3);">19:3a</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,3);">3b</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,4);">4a</A>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,4);">4b</A>);<P>(ii) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,\'5-10\');">19:5-10</A> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,5);">19:5</A>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,7);">7</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,9);">9</a>,<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,10);">10</a>);<P>(iii) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,11,12);">19:11</a>f (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,11);">19:11a</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,11);">11b(?)</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,11);">11b(?)</A>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,12);">12</A>);<P>(iv) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,13,14);">19:13</A>f (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,13);">19:13a</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,13);">13b</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,14);">14a</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,14);">14b</a>);<P>(v) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,15,16);">19:15</a>f (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,15);">15a</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,15);">15b</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,16);">16a</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,16);">16b</a>);<P>(vi) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,17,18);">19:17</a>f (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,17);">19:17a</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,17);">17b</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,18);">18a</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,18);">18b</a>);<P>(vii) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,\'19-25\');">19:19-25</a> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,19);">19:19a</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,19);">19b</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,20,21,22);">20-22</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,23,24,25);">23-25</a>);<P>(viii) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,26,27,28);">19:26-28</a> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,26,);">19:26a</A>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,26,);">26b</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,27,);">27</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,28,);">28</a>),<P>(ix) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,\'29-32\');">19:29-32</a> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,29);">19:29</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,30);">30</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,31);">31</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,32);">32</a>);<P>(x) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,\'33-36\');">19:33-36</a> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,33);">19:33</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,34);">34</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,35);">35</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,36);">36</a>); <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,37);">19:37</a> constitutes the conclusion of the whole.<P>(Note that the number ten here is certain in the conviction of the present writer; but he is not quite so sure of the number of subdivisions within the main divisions; we may have to do here with pentalogues and not with tetralogues. If this is the case, then the agreements with <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,\'1-\');">Le 18</a> would under certain circumstances be even greater.)<P>Possibly groupings of two can yet form a closer union (compare on <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,\'1-\');">Ex 1:1-18:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,\'1-\');">21:1-23:33</a>, <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS">EXODUS, II, 2, (1-4)</a>). At any rate (iii) and (iv) can be summarized under the general heading of defrauding one\'s neighbors; (v) and (vi) under that of observation of the laws; (vii) and (viii) under that of heathen abuses; while (ix) and (x) perhaps intentionally mingle together the religious and cultural and ethical elements, in order thereby already to express that all these things are most intimately connected (but compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,12,14,17);">Le 19:12,14,17</a>, in the middle sections). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,5,20,23);">19:5ff, 20ff, 23ff</a>, the author develops his subject somewhat more fully.<P>(f ii) Laws dealing with punishments (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,\'1-\');">Le 20</a>): The regulations in reference to punishments stand in such close relation to the contents of <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,\'1-\');">Le 18</a> and to parts of <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,\'1-\');">Le 19</a>, that it is absolutely incomprehensible how the Critics can assign these three chapters to different authors. Even if certain regulations of <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,\'1-\');">Le 18</a> are not found here in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,7,10,17,18);">Le 20:7,10,17b,18</a>,and even if another order has been followed, this variation, which doubtless also hangs together with a new grouping of the materials, is rather an advantage than a disadvantage for the whole. It is impossible to conceive that a redactor would have altered anything in two entirely parallel and similar texts, or would himself have written a parallel text differing from the other. <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,\'1-\');">Leviticus 20</a> can probably be divided into 4 parts, namely,<P>(i) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,\'1-8\');">20:1-8</a>, punishments for idolatry and witchcraft with a concluding formula, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,7);"><a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,7);">20:7</a>f;<P>(ii) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,\'9-18\');">20:9-18</a>, punishment of death for ten crimes, all of which, with the exception of the first, are of a sexual nature (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,\'9-18\');">20:9-18</a>). It is a question whether the first in the second group (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,14);">20:14</a>), i.e. the sixth in the whole series, was intended to be made prominent by the peculiar character of the punishment (burning to death);<P>(iii) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,19,20,21);">20:19-21</a>, other sexual sins, with lighter punishments;<P>(iv) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,\'22-27\');">20:22-27</a>, with 4 subdivisions (warning, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,22);">20:22</a>f; promise, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,24);">20:24</a>; emphatic repetitions of two commands already given, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,25);">20:25</a>ff; (compare with <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,44);">11:44</a>ff, and in general with <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,\'1-\');">Le 11</a>); and <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,27);">20:27</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,26,31);">19:26,31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,6);">20:6</a>). Perfectly certain in this chapter is the fact that the different kinds of punishments are likewise decisive for their order. It is doubtless not to be regarded as accidental that both at the beginning and at the end death by stoning is mentioned.<P>(g) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,\'1-\');">Le 21:1</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,33);">22:33</a>):<P>(i) Laws concerning the quality of the priests (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,\'1-\');">21:1-<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,\'1-16\');">22:16</a>); and (ii) concerning sacred oblations (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,\'17-30\');">22:17-30</a>) with the subscription <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,31,32,33);">22:31-33</a>.<P>(g i) Qualities of priests: <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,\'1-\');">Le 21:1</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,\'1-16\',);">22:16</a> in four sections (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,1);">21:1</a>ff, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,10);">10</a>ff, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,16);">16</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,1);">22:1</a>ff; note also in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,18,19,20);">21:18-20</a> the 12 blemishes; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,\'4-8\');">22:4-8</a> the 7 cases of uncleanness). (g ii) Sacred oblations: <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,\'17-30\');">Le 22:17-30</a> in four sections (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,18,19,20);">22:18-20</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,\'21-25\');">21-25</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,26,27,28);">26-28</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,29);">29</a>f).<P>(h) Consecration of seasons, etc. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,\'1-\');">Le 23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,\'1-\');">24</a>):<P>(i) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,\'1-\');">Le 23</a>, laws for the feasts (7 sections, namely, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,3,4);">23:3,4</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,\'6-14\');">6-14</a>,<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,\'15-22\');">15-22</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,23,24.25\');">23-25</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,\'26-32\');">26-32</a>,<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,\'33-36\');">33-36</a>, with the appendix that in every particular suits the connection, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,39);">23:39</a>ff, added to the feast of the tabernacles);<P>(ii) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,\'1-4\');">24:1-4</a>, treating of the sacred candlestick, which represents the moral conduct of the Israelites, and for this reason suits admirably in the connection; as this is true also of<P>(iii) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,\'5-9\');">24:5-9</a>, treating of the showbread, which represents the results of the labor of Israel;<P>(iv) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,\'10-23\');">24:10-23</a>, containing the report of the punishment of a blasphemer of God and of one who cursed.<P>Probably the example was made of a person who took the name of God in vain at the time which this chapter describes. But possibly there is a still closer connection to be found with that which precedes. The showbread and the candlestick were found in the holy place, which with its utensils pictured the relation of Israel\'s character to their God; while the utensils in the Holy of Holies indicated God\'s relation to His people (compare Hengstenberg, Beitrage, III, 644ff). But since the holy place, in addition to the showbread and the candlestick, contained only the incense altar, which symbolized the prayers of Israel, and as the blasphemer represents the exact opposite of prayer, it is probable that in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,10);">24:10</a>ff prayer is indicated by its counterpart. This section consists of 4 parts, namely, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,10,11,12);">24:10-12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,13,14);">24:13-14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,\'15-22\');">24:15-22</a> (giving a series of punishments for certain wrongdoings which are more or less closely connected with that found in the text); <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,23);">24:23</a>.<P>(i) Sabbatic and Jubilee years (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,\'1-\');">Le 25</a>): Sabbatic and Jubilee years in 7 sections, namely, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,\'1-7\');">25:1-7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,\'8-12\');">25:8-12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,\'13-28\');">25:13-28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,\'29-34\');">25:29-34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,\'35-38\');">25:35-38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,\'39-46\');">25:39-46</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,\'47-55\');">25:47-55</a>.<P>(j) Conclusion: Curse and blessing (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,\'1-\');">Le 26</a>): The grand concluding chapter, offering a curse and a blessing and containing all the prophetic utterances of later times in a nutshell, namely,<P>(i) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,1,2);">26:1-2</a>, repetition of four important demands (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,1);">26:1a</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,1);">1b</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,2);">2a</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,2);">2b</a>);<P>(ii) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,\'3-13\');">26:3-13</a>, the blessing, possibly to be divided into 7 stages, one more spiritual than the other;<P>(iii) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,\'4-39);">26:4-39</a>, the curse, possibly to be divided into seven stages, one more intense than the other (compare also the play on words 7 times repeated, in reference to shabbath, possibly found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,34);">26:34</a>f; and certainly found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,18,21,24,27);">26:18,21,24,27</a>f);<P>(iv) <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,\'40-45\');">26:40-45</a>, the mercy finally shown by Yahweh for His covenant\'s sake.<P>(k) Appendix: Finally, the appendix in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,\'1-\');">Le 27</a>, dealing with vows and tithes, in 7 parts, namely, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,\'1-8\');">27:1-8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,\'9-13\');">27:9-13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,14,15);">27:14-15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,\'16-21\');">27:16-21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,26);">27:26</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,28,29);">27:28-29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,\'30-33\');">27:30-33</a>.``1';
isbe[5505]='Leviticus, 2`III. Origin.<P>1. Against the Wellhausen Hypothesis:<P>As in the article <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ATONEMENT,+DAY+OF">ATONEMENT, DAY OF, sec. I, 2, (2)</a>, we took a stand against the modern attempts at splitting up the text, and in III, 1 against theory of the late origin of the whole pericope, we must, after trying under II to prove the unity of the Book of Leviticus, yet examine the modern claim that the book as a whole is the product of later times. Since the entire book is ascribed to the Priestly Code (see II, 1 above), the answer to the question as to the time when it was written will depend on the attitude which we take toward the Wellhausen hypothesis, which insists that the Priestly Code was not published until the time of the exile in 444 BC (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,\'1-\');">Ne 8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',9,\'1-\');">9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,\'1-\');">10</a>).<P>(1) The Argument from Silence.<P>One of the most important proofs for this claim is the "argument from silence" (argumentum e silentio). How careful one must be in making use of this argument can be seen from the fact that, e.g., the high priest with his full title is mentioned but a single time in the entire Book of Leviticus, namely in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,10);">21:10</a>; and that the Levites are not mentioned save once (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,32);">25:32</a>ff), and then incidentally. As is well known, it is the adherents of the Wellhausen hypothesis themselves who now claim that the bulk of the entire literature of the Old Testament originated in the post-exilic period and long after the year 444 BC. Leaving out of consideration for the present the Books of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, all of which describe the history of Israel from the standpoint of the Priestly Code (P), we note that this later literature is not any richer in its references to P than is the older literature; and that in those cases where such references are found in this literature assigned to a late period, it is just as difficult to decide whether these passages refer merely to a custom or to a codified set of laws.<P>(2) Attitude of Prophets toward Sacrificial System.<P>A further proof against the pre-exilic origin of the priestly legislation is found in what is claimed to be the hostile attitude of the prophets to the sacrificial system (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',5,21);">Am 5:21</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',4,4);">4:4</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',6,6);">Ho 6:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',6,6);">Mic 6:6</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,11);">Isa 1:11</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',6,20);">Jer 6:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',7,21);">7:21</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',40,6);">Ps 40:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',50,8,9);">50:8,9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',51,16);">51:16</a>f). But this cannot possibly be an absolute antithesis; for in this case, it would be directed also against the Books of the Covenant and, in part, too, against Deuteronomy, which books in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,24);">Ex 20:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,19);">22:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,18);">23:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,25);">34:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,5,11,13,17,26);">De 12:5f; 11,13,17,26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',15,\'19-23\');">15:19-23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',16,2,5);">16:2,5</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',17,1);">17:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,1,3);">18:1,3</a> also give directions for sacrifices, and which, at least in part, are yet regarded as older writings. Further, these passages under discussion are also, in part, assigned to a later and even a very late period (compare even such cases as <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',40,6);">Ps 40:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',50,8);">50:8</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',51,16);">51:16</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',6,6);">Mic 6:6</a>ff, and in addition also <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',1,10);">Mal 1:10</a>), i.e. they are assigned to a time in which, according to the views of the critics, the priestly laws are said to have had their origin or were already regarded as authoritative. As a rule, the prophets make sacrifices, Sabbaths, sacred places and persons a part of their pictures of the future; cf, as far as sacrifices are concerned, e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',17,26);">Jer 17:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,14);">31:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',33,14);">33:14</a>ff. Finally, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,31);">Le 26:31</a> shows how, under certain circumstances, even P can declare sacrifices to be useless.<P>(3) The People\'s Disobedience. Further, the transgressions of the Levitical laws in the course of Israel\'s history cannot be regarded as a proof of the non-existence of the priestly legislation in pre-exilic times. This is clear from an analogous case. Idolatry was forbidden by the Books of the Covenant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,\'1-\');">Ex 20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,\'1-\');">21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,\'1-\');">22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,\'1-\');">23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,\'1-\');">24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,\'1-\');">34</a>), which are recognized as ancient documents; but according to <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',22,\'1-\');">2Ki 22</a> the pious king Josiah down to the year 622 BC takes no offense at idolatry. Even after the reformation, which had been inaugurated in consequence of the finding of the Book of the Law in the temple during the reign of Josiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',22,\'1-\');">2Ki 22</a>f), idolatry was again practiced in Israel, as is proved by <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',8,\'1-\');">Eze 8</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',44,\'1-\');">Jer 44</a>, notwithstanding that the Books of the Covenant and Deuteronomy already were extant at that time, even according to the views of the critics.<P>But let us pass on to P itself, and not forget that the directions given for the Jubilee Year (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,\'1-\');">Le 25</a>), according to Jewish tradition, were never actually observed. According to the reasoning of the critics, this law could not be in existence even in the present day. According to all reports the transgressions of the Divine ordinances began even as early as the Mosaic period; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,\'1-\');">Ex 32</a> (J, E, golden calf); <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',5,25);">Am 5:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',20,\'1)-\';">Eze 20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,8);">De 12:8</a> and also <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,7);">Le 17:7</a> (sacrifice to the Satyrs in Priestly Code). This condition of affairs can readily be understood because the religion of Yahweh does not claim to be an emanation from the spirit of the people, but the result of a revelation from on high. In the light of these facts can we be surprised, that in the times of the Judges, when a great prophetic leader was so often not to be found in Israel, the apostasy was so great and so widespread? But all of these cases of disobedience, that have been demonstrated as actual facts in Israel\'s history, are not able to eliminate the fact that there are many data to prove the existence of a central sanctuary already in the earliest history of the people, which fact presupposes as a matter of course that there were also laws for the cults in existence (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS">EXODUS, III, 5</a>). We must further not forget how the sacrifices of the sons of Samuel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',2,11);">1Sa 2:11</a>), notwithstanding all their arbitrary conduct, presupposes such passages as <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,\'30-32\');">Le 7:30-32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,15);">10:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,31);">Ex 29:31</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,31);">Le 8:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',6,19);">Nu 6:19</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,\'23-32\');">Le 7:23-32</a>; or that the high priest, as described in Priestly Code, is already before the year 444 BC as well-known a character as he is after the exile (compare <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EZEKIEL">EZEKIEL, II, 2</a>); or that the question of <a onClick="return mV(\'Hag\',2,11);">Hag 2:11</a>ff takes into consideration a code of cult- laws, and that the answer is given on the basis of <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,27);">Le 6:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',19,22);">Nu 19:22</a>.<P>(4) Indiscriminate Sacrificing.<P>To this must be added that the transgressions, to which the critics appeal in proof of their claims, and which they abuse for their own purposes, must in part be interpreted differently from what they are. In the case of sacrificing indiscriminately at any place whatever, and by any person whatever, we have in many cases to deal with extraordinary instances of theophanies (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',2,1);">Jud 2:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,11);">6:11</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',13,1);">13:1</a>), as these had been foreseen in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,24);">Ex 20:24</a>. Even the Book of Deuteronomy does not insist throughout (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',16,21);">16:21</a>) that the sacrifices, must be made at one and the same place (compare also PC: <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,31);">Le 24:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',22,\'1-\');">Jos 22</a>). After the rejection of Shiloh, at which the central sanctuary had been deposited, as recorded in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',4,\'1-\');">1Sa 4</a>, the cultural ordinances of Priestly Code, as we learn from <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',7,11);">Jer 7:11</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',26,6);">26:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',78,59);">Ps 78:59</a>ff, became more or less a dead letter. Even the Books of Chronicles, which throughout record history from the standpoint of the Priestly Code, at this period and down to the dedication of the temple take no offense at the cultural acts of a Solomon in contrast with their attitude toward the conduct of Uzziah (see <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',1,6);">2Ch 1:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',6,\'1-4\');">6:1-4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',7,\'1-7\');">7:1-7</a>, as compared with <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',26,16);">26:16</a>ff). In the same way the pious people in the Northern Kingdom, after it had, by Divine consent, been separated from the Southern, could not do otherwise than erect altars for themselves, since they could not participate in the worship of the calves in Bethel and Dan. Further, modern criticism overlooks the fact that what is regular and normal is much less liable to be reported in historical narrative than that which is irregular and abnormal.<P>(5) Deuteronomy and Priestly Code.<P>It is not possible at this place to enter into further details; we accordingly refer only to <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS,+THE+BOOK+OF,+3-4">EXODUS, III and IV</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DAY+OF+ATONEMENT">DAY OF ATONEMENT, III</a>, and especially <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EZEKIEL">EZEKIEL, II, 2</a>, where the proof has been furnished that this prophet belongs to a later period than Priestly Code as far as <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,\'1-\');">Eze 40:1-48:35</a> (containing his picture of the future) in general is concerned, and as far as <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,4);">Eze 44:4</a>ff (where it is claimed that the prophet first introduces the distinction between priests and Levites) in particular is concerned. All the important problems that are connected with this matter, especially the difficulties which result from the Wellhausen hypothesis, when the questions as to the purpose, the form, the success and the origin of the priestly legislation come under consideration, are discussed in my book, Are the Critics Right? The result of this investigation is all the more noteworthy, as I was myself formerly an adherent of the Wellhausen school, but was forced to the conclusion that this hypothesis is untenable.<P>We have here yet to refer to the one fact that the relation of Deuteronomy (D) and the Priestly Code (P), as far as Leviticus in particular is concerned, justifies the scheme of P followed by D as the historical order, while Wellhausen makes D older than P. <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',10,8);">De 10:8</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,8);">33:8</a>ff presuppose more detailed ordinances in reference to the priests such as those which have been given in P. The book of Deuteronomy further takes into account different kinds of sacrifices (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,5,11,13,17,26);">12:5f; 11,13,17,26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',15,\'19-23\');">15:19-23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',17,1);">17:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,1,3);">18:1,3</A>, such as are described in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">Le 1</a>ff). The law in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,\'1-\');">De 14</a> (ordinances with reference to what is clean) agrees almost word for word with <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,\'1-\');">Le 11</a>, and is in such perfect harmony with the linguistic peculiarities of Priestly Code, that <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,\'1-\');">Le 11</a> must be regarded as the original, and not vice versa. <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',24,8);">De 24:8</a>f refers directly to the injunctions concerning leprosy, as we find these in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',13,\'1-\');">Le 13</a>f; and the Deuteronomic passage is doubtless modeled after that of Lev. <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,15,22);">De 12:15,22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',15,22);">15:22</a> cannot be understood at all, except in the light of <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,13);">Le 17:13</a>. <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',26,14);">De 26:14</a>ff again expressly takes into account ideas that have been taken from <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,3);">Le 22:3</a>ff. As far as the laws dealing with the great feasts in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',16,\'1-\');">De 16</a> are concerned, it is impossible to understand <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',16,9);">16:9</a> without <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,15);">Le 23:15</a>ff, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,10);">10</a>f; and the designation "feast of tabernacles" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',16,13);">De 16:13</a>ff cannot even be understood without a reference to such a law as we find in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,39);">Le 23:39</a>ff. The other passages to be discussed on this subject lead us to the following results.<P>2. Connection with Mosaic Period:<P>Even if the Book of Deuteronomy were the product of the 7th century BC, the facts that have been stated above would nevertheless disprove the claim of the Wellhausen hypothesis as to an exilic or post-exilic date for the Priestly Code. But if Deuteronomy, even in its essential and fundamental parts, merely, is Mosaic (compare Are the Critics Right? 1-55), then the Priestly Code which is still older than Deuteronomy must also belong to the Mosaic period.<P>(1) Priestly Code and Desert Conditions.<P>This conclusion is in this point confirmed still further by a series of facts. As Deuteronomy permits the firstborn to be ransomed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,22);">De 14:22</a>), but the Priestly Code demands their consecration in natura (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,26);">Le 27:26</a>f; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',18,15);">Nu 18:15</a>), the latter ordinances could be preferred and enforced only during the wandering in the desert, where the whole nation was in the neighborhood of the sanctuary. The fact that the ordinances dealing with the domestic celebration of the Passover in the private houses on the 14th of Nisan and the holy convocation on the 15th of Nisan at the sanctuary could be carried out only during the wanderings in the desert (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,3,6);">Ex 12:3ff, 6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,5);">Le 23:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',28,16);">Nu 28:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,6);">Le 27:6</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',28,17);">Nu 28:17</a>ff), and that this was changed in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',16,5);">De 16:5</a>f to correspond to changed conditions, can be seen by reference to <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS">EXODUS, III, 3</a>. Still more important is a third command in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-\');">Le 17</a> in comparison with <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,\'1-\');">De 12</a>. The commandment that every animal that is to be slain is to be brought to the central sanctuary can have a purpose only for the Mosaic period, and could not even have been invented at a later period. Because of the entrance of Israel into Canaan, the Book of Deuteronomy changes this ordinance in such a way that from this time on the killing of the animals is permitted at any place (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',12,13,20);">12:13ff, 20ff</a>). The different commands in reference to the carcasses of animals that have died and of those torn to pieces are all dependent on <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-\');">Le 17</a>. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,21);">De 14:21</a>, it was possible to forbid the use of such animals absolutely for Israel, because from now on, and in contrast to <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-\');">Le 17</a>, the killing of sacrificial animals was permitted at any place (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,13);">17:13</a>ff). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,30);">Ex 22:30</a> all use of such meat could be forbidden, because <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-\');">Le 17</a>, with its command to bring all blood to the sanctuary, had not yet been given. Leviticus, now, on the other hand, forbids this use only to the priests (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,8);">22:8</a>), and sees in this use in the case of the other Israelites only a transitory defilement (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,15);">Le 17:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,40);">11:40</a>); and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,24);">7:24</a> forbids only the use of the fat, but not of the meat of these animals; for now, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-\');">Le 17:1</a>ff, all the killing is a sacrifice which only those who are clean were permitted to eat and which could not be secured at all times (compare Hoffmann, op. cit., 23f).<P>Our exposition of <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-\');">Le 17:1</a>ff is, however, in another respect also of the greatest significance, for in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,4,5,6,8);">17:4-6,8</a>f the tent of meeting is presupposed as existing; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,5,8);">17:5,8</a> also different kinds of sacrifices, and in verse <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,6);">6</a> the priesthood; so that at once further ordinances concerning the tent of meeting, the sacrificial code, the priesthood, such as we find in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,\'1-\');">Ex 25</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,\'1-\');">35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">Le 1:1-7:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,\'1-\');">Ex 29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,\'1-\');">Le 8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',9,\'1-\');">9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,20);">10:21</a>ff, were possible and necessary, and these very laws must probably originate in and date from the Mosaic period. This same conclusion is sustained by the following considerations. For what other source or time could be in harmony with such statements found very often in other parts of Leviticus also, as "into the camp" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',4,1);">4:11</A>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,11);">6:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',13,46);">13:46</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,3,8);">14:3,8</a> (unconscious contrast to later times); <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,33,40,41,45,53);">14:33ff, 40,41,45,53</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,26,27,28);">16:26-28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,\'10-23\');">24:10-23</a>; or "into the desert," in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,10,21);">16:10,21</a>f. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,15,18);">6:15,18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,6);">6:6</a> (compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,2);">27:2</a>ff), the words "according to thy estimation" are addressed personally to Moses. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,20);">6:20</a> a calculation is based on the day on which Aaron was consecrated to the priesthood, while <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,22);">6:22</a> is the first that has general coloring. Such hints, which, as it were, have only been accidentally scattered in the body of the laws, and which point to the situation of the lawgiver and of his times, are of especial value for the argument in favor of the Mosaic origin of these laws. Further, we everywhere find that Aaron and his sons are as yet the only incumbents of the priestly office (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,5,7,8,11);">1:5,7,8,11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',2,3);">2:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',3,13);">3:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,9,14,16);">6:9,14,16</a>, etc.). All the laws claim to have been given through Moses or Aaron or through both at Mt. Sinai (see I above). And who, in later times, if it was the purpose to magnify the priesthood of Aaron, would have thought of inventing the fact that on the Day of Atonement and on other occasions it was necessary for Aaron to bring a burnt offering and a sin offering for himself (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,\'1-\');">Le 16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,\'1-\');">8-10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,19);">6:19</a>), or that Moses in his view of a certain cultural act had been mistaken (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,16);">Le 10:16</a>ff)? The law concerning the Jubilee Year (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,\'1-\');">Le 25</a>) presupposes that each tribe is confined in its own district and is not intermingled with the other tribes, a presupposition which was no longer possible after the occupation of Canaan, and is accordingly thinkable only in the Mosaic times. And now let us remember that this fact, when we recall (see II, above) that the unity of the book was proved, is a ground for claiming that the entire book dates from the Mosaic period. As far as Leviticus at least is concerned, there is nothing found in the book that calls for a later date. <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,24);">Le 18:24</a>ff can be regarded as post-Mosaic only if we translate these verses thoughtlessly, as though the inhabitants of the country were here described as being expelled earlier. On the other hand, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,24);">18:24</a>, just as is the case with the parallel passage, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,22);">20:22</a>ff, the idea is, without any doubt, that Israel is not yet in the Holy Land. Accordingly the waw consecutives at this place are to be regarded not as indicating temporal but logical sequences. In the passage <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,27);">18:27</a>, we further find the archaic form ha\'-el for ha\'-elleh; compare in the Pentateuch <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,8,25);">Ge 19:8,25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,3,4);">26:3,4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',4,42);">De 4:42</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',7,22);">7:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',19,11);">19:11</a>. Just as little does <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,\'1-\');">Le 26</a> take us into the exilic period. Only dogmatical prejudices can take offense at prediction of the exile. <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,\'1-\');">Le 26</a> cannot be regarded as a "prophecy after the event," for the reason, too, that the restoration of the people by God\'s pardon is here promised (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,40);">26:40</a>ff). And, too, the exile is not the only punishment with which Israel is threatened; and finally as far as Israel is concerned, by the side of the statements concerning their dwelling in one single country (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,34,38,41,44);">26:34,38,41,44</a>), it is also said that they are to be scattered among many nations and countries (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,23,36,39);">26:23,36,39</a>).<P>(2) Unity and Construction Point to Mosaic Origin.<P>If to this we yet add the unity of the thought and of the external construction, looking at the whole matter, we do not see anything that would lead us to accept a post-Mosaic period for this book. Then, too, it is from the outset in itself only probable that Moses gave his people a body of cult-laws and did not leave this matter to chance. We need only think of the great role which among the oriental peoples was assigned to their religious cults. It is indeed nowhere said, in so many words, that Moses wrote even the laws of the Priestly Code. But the references made by Deuteronomy to the Priestly Code; the fact that <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,\'1-\');">Nu 33</a>, which also is credited to Moses, is characterized by the style of Priestly Code; further, that the author of Deuteronomy could write in the style of P (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,\'1-\');">De 14</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,\'1-\');">Le 11</a>); and, per contra, that the author of <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,\'1-\');">Le 26</a> had the mastery of the style peculiar to Deuteronomy (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',28,\'1-\');">De 28</a>)<29>all this makes it probable that Moses even wrote these things himself; at any rate, no reasons can be cited against this view. Very interesting in connection with the question of the unity of the Pentateuch are the close connecting links between <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,24);">Le 18:24</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,22);">20:22</a>, and JE. The question whether Moses in the composition of the book made use of his own notes or of those of others, cannot be decided; but this is an irrelevant matter. What the facts may be in reference to the development of other ordinances, which have taken different forms in the Books of the Covenant and in Priestly Code, or in Deuteronomy and in Priestly Code, and whether the existence of these differences in the cases of particular laws compels us to accept later additions, cannot be discussed at this place. Yet from the outset it is to be emphasized that already in the Mosaic period there could possibly have been reasons for changing some of these laws; especially was this so in the Book of Deuteronomy, just before the people entered the promised land (compare e.g. the laws concerning tithes, <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,6,17);">De 12:6f; 17ff</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,22);">14:22</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',26,12);">26:12; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,30);">Le 27:30</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',18,20);">Nu 18:20</a>ff, or the laws concerning contributions for sacrifices, <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,3);">De 18:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,29);">Le 7:29</a>ff).<P>Then, too, the decision whether this development took place as early as the time of Moses or not is not to be made dependent on the possibility of our being able to explain the reasons for such changes. We lack both the daily practice in these cultural ordinances, as also the oral instruction which makes these ordinances intelligible. The manner in which in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">Le 1</a>ff the different kinds of sacrifices are introduced sounds as though these were already known to the people and were practiced by them, except in the case of sin and guilt offerings. This is further in harmony with earlier narratives, which already report concerning sacrifices. It is possible that in this way we can also explain a certain relationship between the Jewish sacrificial ritual and that of Babylon (compare Zimmern, Beitrage zur Kenntnis der babylonischen Religion). The ordinances in reference to the clean and the unclean may also have emanated from religious and ethical ideas which are older than Moses\' times. In this matter the thought was decisive, that everything that was impure, everything that suggested death or decay or sin or displeasure to God, should be kept separated and apart from the religion of Yahweh. In all such cases it is not the newness of the laws but their adaptability to the character and spirit of the Yahweh-religion that is to be regarded as the decisive factor.<P>IV. The Significance.<P>1. Positive:<P>(1) The Law Contains God\'s Will.<P>The law contains God\'s will, although in transitory form. In the article <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EZEKIEL">EZEKIEL under II, 2, (3)</a> we have referred to the fact that Leviticism is an important and necessary stage in the development of true religion, and that the entire Old Testament did not advance beyond this stage and was not intended to go beyond it. The leading prophets (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,\'1-\');">Isa 40</a>, Jeremiah, Ezekiel), even in their visions of the future, cling to the temple, sacrifices, holy oblations, sacred seasons and persons. Christianity was the first to discard this external shell, after it had ripened the kernel that was concealed in this shell (compare worship in the spirit and in the truth, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,\'20-24\');">Joh 4:20-24</a>). Down to this time, kernel and shell were inseparably united. This must not be forgotten, if we would appreciate the Book of Leviticus properly. It is true that this book to a large extent deals with laws and ordinances, to which we Christians should not and need not return (compare the voice from heaven to Peter, <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,15);">Ac 10:15</a>, "What God hath cleansed, make not thou common," and Paul\'s opposition to all work-righteousness that was based on compliance with these external institutions, e.g. in Romans, Galatians, Colossians, as also his independent attitude over against the Jewish law in those cases where it could not be taken into consideration as the way to salvation; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,17);">Ac 21:17</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',14,1);">Ro 14:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',9,19);">1Co 9:19</a>ff). But these laws and ordinances were something more than merely external matters, since they contained the highest religious thoughts. We surely should not forget from the outset that <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,\'1-\');">Le 19</a> contains also the word, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,18);">19:18</A>), a command which in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,33);">19:33</A>f is even made to cover the strangers too, and which by Jesus, next to the absolute love demanded for God, is designated as the chief commandment of the law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,39);">Mt 22:39</a>); and when in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,17);">19:17</a>f the hatred of the brother and desire for revenge on him are forbidden, we already seem to breathe atmosphere of Christianity. The entire <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,\'1-\');">Le 19</a> is, in addition, as it were, a sermon on almost all of the commandments of the Decalogue, the abiding authority of which the Christian, after the example and interpretation of Jesus, will at once recognize. But as the Decalogue itself is found enclosed in the specifically Jewish national shell (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,2);">Ex 20:2</a>, Exodus out of Egypt; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,8);">20:8</a>, Sabbath commandment; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,12);">20:12</a>, promise of the holy land; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,17);">20:17</a>, slaves), so, too, this is the case in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,\'1-\');">Le 19</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,3,6,20,\'20-25\',29,30,33);">19:3,6ff, 20-22,23-25,29,30,33</a>f). But how little the specifically Levitical ordinances, in the narrower sense of the term, exclude the spiritual factor, and how closely they are interwoven with the deepest of thoughts, can be seen from <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,\'1-\');">Le 26</a>, according to which all merely external sacrifices, into which formalism naturally the Levitical legal code could degenerate, do not protect from punishment, if the heart remains uncircumcised (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,30,41);">26:30f; 41</a>).<P>Above all, there are four leading thoughts which are emphasized forcibly, particularly by the legal system of Priestly Code. In reality all times, all places, all property, all persons are sacred to God. But as it is impossible that this ideal should be realized in view of the imperfections and guilt of man, it was decided that certain particular seasons and places, gifts and persons should be separated from others, and that in these this sacredness should be realized as far as possible, and that these representatives should by their mere existence continually remind the people of God\'s more comprehensive claims, and at the same time arouse and maintain the consciousness that their entire life was to be saturated by the thoughts of a holy God and His demands. From this point of view, none of the particular laws are worthless; and when they are once appreciated in this their central significance, we can understand that each law has its share in the eternal authority of the law (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,17);">Mt 5:17</a>f). Paul, too, who absolutely rejects the law as a way to salvation expresses no doubt that the law really contains the will of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,3);">Ro 8:3</a>f); and he declares that it was the purpose of the sending of Jesus, that the demands made upon us by the law should be fulfilled; and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',13,10);">Ro 13:10</a> he tells us that love is the fulfillment of the law (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',13,8);">13:8</a>); and according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,12);">Ro 7:12</a>, it is certain that the law is holy and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.<P>(2) The Law Prepares for the Understanding of Christianity.<P>But the ceremonial law, too, contains not only the demands of God\'s will. It prepares also for the understanding of the work, the person and the mission of Jesus. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,8);">Ex 25:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,45);">29:45</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',40,34);">40:34</a>ff the indwelling of God in the tent of meeting is declared, which prophesied the incarnation of God in Christ Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,14);">Joh 1:14</a>); and then the indwelling of God through the Holy Spirit in the Christian congregation (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,5);">1Pe 2:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,12);">Eph 4:12</a>) and in the individual (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',3,16);">1Co 3:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',6,19);">6:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',6,16);">2Co 6:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,23);">Joh 14:23</a>). Through the sacrificial system in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">Le 1-7</a>, and the ordinances of the Day of Atonement (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,\'1-\');">Le 16</a>), we are enabled to understand the character of sin, of grace and of the forgiveness of sin (compare <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ATONEMENT,+DAY+OF">ATONEMENT, DAY OF, sec. II</a>). Let us remember to what extent Jesus and Paul, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the other New Testament writings operate with Old Testament thoughts, particularly with those of Leviticus (priest-hood, sacrifices, atonement, Passover, signification of blood, etc.), and Paul correctly says that the righteousness of God was prophesied, not only by the prophets, but also by the law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,21);">Ro 3:21</a>).<P>(3) The Law as a Tutor unto Christ.<P>Finally, the ceremonial law too has the purpose to protect Israel from the errors of the heathen, a thought that is especially emphasized in the Law of Holiness (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,3,14);">Le 18:3,14</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,26);">19:26</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,2,22);">20:2ff, 22ff</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,1);">26:1</a>) and which is in harmony with the elementary stage of Israel\'s education in the Old Testament, when the people still stood in need of the "tutor...unto Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,23);">Ga 3:23</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,1);">4:1</a>). This already leads us over to the negative side, which Paul particularly emphasizes.<P>2. Negative:<P>The law is in itself holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,12);">Ro 7:12</a>), but it has lost its power because the flesh of man is sinful (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,3);">Ro 8:3</a>); and thus it happens that the law is the occasion for sin and leads to a knowledge of sin and to an increase of sin (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,20);">Ro 3:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',4,15);">4:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,20);">5:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,13);">7:13</a>); and this shall be brought about according to the purposes of God in order that in upright hearts the desire for forgiveness should arise. It is true that nothing was so well adapted as were the details of the law, to bring to consciousness in the untutored mind that in which man yet came short of the Divine commands. And as far as the removal of the guilt was concerned, nothing was needed except the reference to this in order to make men feel their imperfections (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',7,\'1-\');">Heb 7-10</a>). God merely out of grace was for the time being contented with the blood of goats and of calves as a means for atonement; He was already counting on the forgiveness in Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,25);">Ro 3:25</a>). All the sacrifices in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">Le 1-7</a>, e.g., did not make the ritual of the Day of Atonement superfluous (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,\'1-\');">Le 16</a>); and in this case the very man who brought the sacrifice was also a sinful creature who must first secure the forgiveness of God for himself. Only Jesus, at once the perfect priest and the perfect sacrifice, has achieved the perfect redemption. It accordingly remains a fact that the righteousness which avails before God can be secured only through faith in Jesus Christ, and not through the deeds of the law (Romans and Galatians).<P>The law with its incomplete atonement and with its arousing of the consciousness of sin drives man to Jesus; and this is its negative significance. Jesus, however, who Himself has fulfilled the demands of the law, gives us through His spirit the power, that the law with its demands (1, (1) above) may no longer stand threateningly over against us, but is now written in our hearts. In this way the Old Testament law is fulfilled in its transitory form, and at the same time becomes superfluous, after its eternal contents have been recognized, maintained and surpassed.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Commentaries by Ryssel, Lange, Keil, Strack, Baentsch, Bertholet; especially for the Law of Holiness see Horst, <span class="noTag">Le 17:1-26:46</span> and Ezk; Wurster, Zeitschrift fur alttestamentliche Wissenschaft,1884,112ff; Baentsch, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz; Klostermann, Der Pentateuch, 368ff; Delitzsch, Zeitschrift fur kirch. Wissenschaft und Leben,1880,617ff; Intros to the Old Testament by Baudissin, Strack, Kuenen, Konig, Cornill, Driver, Sellin; Archaeology, by Benzinger, Nowack; History of Israel, by Kohler, Konig, Kittel, Oettli, Klostermann, Stade, Wellhausen; for kindred laws in Babylonia, compare Zimmern, Beitrage zur Kenntnis der babyl. Religion; against the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis, Moller, Are the Critics Right? (ibid., "Literature"), and article <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EZEKIEL">EZEKIEL</a> in this Encyclopedia; Orr, Orr, The Problem of the Old Testament; Wiener, Wiener, Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism, Wiener, Origin of the Pentateuch; Hoffmann, Die wichtigsten Instanzen gegen die Graf-Wellhausensche Hypothese; Kegel, Wilh. Vatke und die Graf-Wellhausensche Hypothese.``122';
isbe[5506]='Levy`lev\'-i.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WAR">WAR</a>`1';
isbe[5507]='Lewd; Lewdness`lud, lud\'-nes (zimmah, mezimmah, nabhluth; poneros, rhadiourgema):<P>1. In the Old Testament:<P>There are three Hebrew words translated "lewd," "lewdness":<P>(1) Zimmah, meaning a "plan," a "purpose," so translated several times and then shading off into "evil plan"; translated also "heinous crime," "wicked purpose or device." It is the most frequent word for "lewdness": <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',16,27);">Eze 16:27</a>, "lewd way"; found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',20,6);">Jud 20:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',16,27,43,58);">Eze 16:27,43,58</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',22,9,11);">22:9,11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',23,21,27,29,35,\'44-48\',49);">23:21,27,29,35,44-48,49</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',24,13);">24:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',6,9);">Ho 6:9</a>.<P>(2) Mezimmah means a "plan," generally "(evil) machination"; used only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',11,15);">Jer 11:15</a>, "lewdness."<P>(3) Nabhluth, meaning "disgrace" in reference to females. Found only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',2,10);">Ho 2:10</a>; the American Revised Version margin "shame."<P>2. In the New Testament:<P>The word translated "lewd," "lewdness" in the King James Version occurs only twice in the New Testament, and in each instance is more correctly translated in the Revised Version (British and American) by another word:<P>(1) Poneros, found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,5);">Ac 17:5</a>, translated in the American Standard Revised Version "vile." The Greek word elsewhere is translated "bad," "evil," "grievous," "harmful," "malicious," "wicked." the King James Version "lewd" gives the wrong impression. The idea of unchastity is not present in the text or context.<P>(2) Rhadiourgema likewise occurs only once, namely, <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,14);">Ac 18:14</a>, and is correctly translated in the Revised Version (British and American) and the American Standard Revised Version "wicked villany." The thought of impurity or lewdness is foreign to the meaning in this connection.``142';
isbe[5508]='Libanus`lib\'-a-nus.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LEBANON">LEBANON</a>`1';
isbe[5509]='Libation`li-ba\'-shun.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SACRIFICE">SACRIFICE</a>`1';
isbe[5510]='Liberal; Liberality; Liberally`lib\'-er-al, lib-er-al\'-i-ti, lib\'-er-al-i: The different forms of the word all refer to one who is generous, bountiful, willing and ready to give and to help. Both the Hebrew words of the Old Testament and the Greek words of the New Testament translated into the English word "liberal" have a deeper and nobler meaning than is generally conveyed by the English word. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',11,25);">Pr 11:25</a>, the liberal soul (nephesh berakhah) means a soul that carries a blessing. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',32,5);">Isa 32:5</a>, the American Standard Revised Version has "bountiful" where the King James Version has "liberal," and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',32,8);">Isa 32:8</a> "noble" takes the place of "liberal" (nadhibh). The principal Greek words are haplotes literally, "simplicity," "sincerity," and charis, "grace," "favor." In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',16,3);">1Co 16:3</a>, "bounty" substitutes "liberality." It is well to bear in mind that a Biblical liberality can spring only out of a noble soul, and is Godlike in its genesis and spirit.``64';
isbe[5511]='Libertines`lib\'-er-tinz, li-bur\'-tinz (Libertinoi): These were among Stephen\'s opponents: "There arose certain of them that were of the synagogue called (the synagogue) of the Libertines, and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and Asia, disputing with Stephen" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',6,9);">Ac 6:9</a>).have a deeper and nobler meaning than is generally conveyed by the English word. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',11,25);">Pr 11:25</a>, the liberal soul (nephesh berakhah) means a soul that carries a blessing. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',32,5);">Isa 32:5</a>, the American Standard Revised Version has "bountiful" where the King James Version has "liberal," and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',32,8);">Isa 32:8</a> "noble" takes the place of "liberal" (nadhibh). The principal Greek words are haplotes literally, "simplicity," "sincerity," and charis, "grace," "favor." In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',16,3);">1Co 16:3</a>, "bounty" substitutes "liberality." It is well to bear in mind that a Biblical liberality can spring only out of a noble soul, and is Godlike in its genesis and spirit.<P>1. "Synagogue of the Libertines":<P>How many synagogues are denoted? The answer may aid in the interpretation of "Libertines":<P>(1) The words may be read as denoting one synagogue (Calvin). However<P>(a) the number of worshippers would be extremely large,<P>(b) the bond of union is not obvious,<P>(c) rabbinic tradition speaks of 480 synagogues in Jerusalem.<P>(2) The double ton ("of them") seems to denote two parties, the one consisting "of them that were of the synagogue called (the synagogue) of Libertines and Cyrenians and Alexandrians," the other "of them of Cilicia and Asia", (Winer, Wendt, Holtzmann). But the second ton is dependent on synagogue. "As Cyrenians and Alexandrians both belong to towns...a change of designation would be necessary when the Jews of whole provinces came to be mentioned: this being the case, the article could not but be repeated, without any reference to the ton before" (Alford).<P>(3) There were three synagogues:<P>(a) that of the Libertines,<P>(b) that of the Cyrenians and Alexandrians and<P>(c) that "of them of Cilicia and Asia" (Alford). There is no grammatical reason for this division, but it is based on an interpretation of "Libertines." There were "Libertines," Africans and Asiatics.<P>(4) Each party had a separate synagogue (Schurer, Hausrath). The number of worshippers, their different origin and connections, and the number of synagogues in Jerusalem give weight to this view.<P>2. Interpretation of "Libertines":<P>(1) They are "freedmen," liberated slaves or their descendants. Against this it is held that the Greek equivalent (apeleutheroi) would have been used in this case. However, the Roman designation would be common all over the empire. In what sense were they "freedmen"? Various answers are given:<P>(a) they were freedmen from Jewish servitude (Lightfoot);<P>(b) they were Italian freedmen who had become proselytes;<P>(c) they were "the freedmen of the Romans" (Chrysostom), the descendants of Jewish freedmen at Rome who had been expelled by Tiberius. In 63 BC Pompey had taken prisoners of war to Rome. These, being liberated by those who had acquired them as slaves, formed a colony on the banks of the Tiber (Philo, Legat. ad Caium). Tacitus relates that the senate decreed (19 AD) that a number of Jewish Libertines should be transported to Sardinia, and that the rest should leave Italy, unless they renounced, before a certain day, their profane customs (Ann. ii, 85; see also Josephus, Ant, XVIII, iii, 5). Many would naturally seek refuge in Jerusalem and build there a synagogue.<P>(2) They are an African community. There were two synagogues, one of which was Asiatic. In the other were men from two African towns (Cyrene and Alexandria), therefore the Libertines must have been African also, all forming an African synagogue. Various explanations are given:<P>(a) They were inhabitants of Libertum, a town in Africa proper: an "Episcopus Ecclesiae Catholicae Libertinensis" sat in the Synod of Carthage (411 AD).<P>(b) Some emend the text; Wetstein and Blass, following the Armenian VS, conjecture Libustinon, "of the Libystines." Schulthess reads for "Libertines and Cyrenians" (Libertinon kai Kurenaion) "Libyans, those about Cyrene" (Libuon ton kata Kurenen) (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,10);">Ac 2:10</a>).<P>These emendations are conjectural; the manuscripts read "Libertines." It seems, therefore, that 2, (1) (c) above is the correct interpretation.``78';
isbe[5512]='Liberty`lib\'-er-ti (deror, rachabh; eleutheria): The opposite of servitude or bondage, hence, applicable to captives or slaves set free from oppression (thus deror, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,10);">Le 25:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',61,1);">Isa 61:1</a>, etc.). Morally, the power which enslaves is sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,34);">Joh 8:34</a>), and liberty consists, not simply in external freedom, or in possession of the formal power of choice, but in deliverance from the darkening of the mind, the tyranny of sinful lusts and the enthrallment of the will, induced by a morally corrupt state. In a positive respect, it consists in the possession of holiness, with the will and ability to do what is right and good. Such liberty is possible only in a renewed condition of soul, and cannot exist apart from godliness. Even under the Old Testament godly men could boast of a measure of such liberty (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,45);">Ps 119:45</a>, rachabh, "room," "breadth"), but it is the gospel of Christ which bestows it in its fullness, in giving a full and clear knowledge of God, discovering the way of forgiveness, supplying the highest motives to holiness and giving the Holy Spirit to destroy the power of sin and to quicken to righteousness. In implanting a new life in the soul, the gospel lifts the believer out of the sphere of external law, and gives him a sense of freedom in his new filial relation to God. Hence, the New Testament expressions about "the glorious liberty" of God\'s children (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,21);">Ro 8:21</a> the King James Version; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,4);">Ga 2:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,13);">5:13</a>, etc.), about liberty as resulting from the possession of the Spirit (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',3,17);">2Co 3:17</a>), about "the perfect law of liberty" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,25);">Jas 1:25</a>). The instrument through which this liberty is imparted is "the truth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,32);">Joh 8:32</a>). Christians are earnestly warned not to presume upon, or abuse their liberty in Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,13);">Ga 5:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,16);">1Pe 2:16</a>).``132';
isbe[5513]='Libnah`lib\'-na (libhnah "whiteness," "transparency," "pavement" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,10);">Ex 24:10</a> where libhnath, is translated "paved work" or a "compact foundation"); Lebna):<P>(1) A desert camp of the Israelites between Rimmon-perez and Rissah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,20,21);">Nu 33:20,21</a>). Probably the same as Laban (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',1,1);">De 1:1</a>).<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WANDERINGS+OF+ISRAEL">WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL</a>.<P>(2) A town in the Shephelah of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,42);">Jos 15:42</a>). "Joshua passed from Makkedah, and all Israel with him, unto Libnah, and fought against Libnah: and Yahweh delivered it also, and the king thereof, into the hand of Israel....And Joshua passed from Libnah, and all Israel with him, unto Lachish, and encamped against it, and fought against it" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,\'29-31\');">Jos 10:29-31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',12,15);">12:15</a>). It was one of the cities given to the "children of Aaron" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,13);">Jos 21:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,57);">1Ch 6:57</a>). In the reign of Joram, Libnah joined the Edomites in a revolt against the king of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',8,22);">2Ki 8:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',21,10);">2Ch 21:10</a>). In the reign of Hezekiah, Libnah was besieged by Sennacherib (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',19,8);">2Ki 19:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',37,8);">Isa 37:8</a>). The wife of King Josiah was "Hamutal the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah," she was the mother of Jehoahaz and Zedekiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,31);">2Ki 23:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',24,18);">24:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',52,1);">Jer 52:1</a>).<P>The site of this important stronghold remains unknown. In the Eusebius, Onomasticon it is described, under the name Lobana or Lobna, as near Eleutheropolis (Beit Jebrin). All the indications point to a site in the southwest of the Shephelah, not very far from Lachish. The Palestine Exploration Fund surveyors suggested (PEF, III, 259) the commanding site \'Arak el Menshiyeh, or rather the white chalky mound 250 ft. high to the north of this village, and Stanley proposed Tell es Cafi. (Both these identifications are due to the interpretation of Libnah as meaning "whiteness.") In the PEFS (1897, Sh XX) Conder suggests a ruin called el Benawy, 10 miles southeast of Lachish.``117';
isbe[5514]='Libni`lib\'-ni (libhni):<P>(1) Son of Gershon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,17);">Ex 6:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',3,18);">Nu 3:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,17,20);">1Ch 6:17,20</a>). Families who traced their descent from Libni are called Libnites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',3,21);">Nu 3:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,58);">26:58</a>).<P>(2) A son of Merari (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,29);">1Ch 6:29</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LADAN">LADAN</a>`1';
isbe[5515]='Libnites`lib\'-nits (ha-libhni).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LIBNI">LIBNI</a>`1';
isbe[5516]='Libraries`li\'-bra-riz, li\'-brer-iz:<P>1. The Bible a Library<P>2. Mythological and Apocryphal Libraries<P>3. Libraries for the Dead<P>4. Memory Libraries<P>5. Prehistoric and Primitive Libraries<P>6. Mesopotamian Period<P>7. Patriarchal Period<P>8. Egyptian Period<P>9. The Exodus<P>10. Palestine at the Conquest<P>11. Period of the Judges<P>12. Saul to the Maccabees<P>13. New Testament Times<P>14. Bookcases and Buildings<P>LITERATURE<hr /><P>A library is a book or books kept for use, not for sale. A one-book library is just as much a library as a one-cell animal is animal. The earliest libraries, like the earliest plants and animals, were very simple, consisting of a few books or perhaps only a single tablet or manuscript. An archive is a library of official documents not in active use; a registry, a library of going documents.<P>1. The Bible a Library:<P>The Bible is itself a library. During the Middle Ages it was commonly called, first, "The Divine Library," and then, "The Library" (Bibliotheca), in the same exclusive sense as it is now known as "The Book" (Biblia as Latin singular). Even the word "Bible" itself is historically "Library" rather than "Book" (for it was originally the neuter plural Biblia, "The Books"; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',9,2);">Da 9:2</a>). The Bible is also a library in that it is an organized collection of books rather than a single work.<P>This fact that the Bible is itself a library is increasingly mentioned of late, especially in Old Testament studies (Kent, Narratives of the Beginnings of Hebrew History,1,"The Old Testament as a Library"; Delitzsch, Babel and Bible,4,"the Old Testament, that small library of books of the most multifarious kind"). Its profound bearing on the theory of the composition and inspiration of the Bible (compare <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BOOK">BOOK</a>) has given the fact new significance and makes an understanding of the nature of a library one of the best tools for the interpretation of the Bible in the face of modern problems. While it is not possible to elaborate this within these limits, it may be said briefly that the logical end of the application of the doctrine of evolution to books and libraries is that the Bible is, like man, the result of natural selection, and is as unique among books as man among the animals. And, whatever may be true of men, in the case of books the formation of a book-library by natural selection tends toward the elimination of error. The more numerous the individuals and the longer the period, the greater the reduction of error, so that the logical inference as to the Bible is that on purely natural grounds it may be, or is, the nearest approximation to inerrancy among books, because of its history as a library. This does not quite lead to the position that the Bible is as unique among books as Jesus Christ among men, but under the doctrine of a creative Providence, it does imply what may be called real superhuman authorship and authority.<P>2. Mythological and Apocryphal Libraries:<P>Somewhat apart from historical libraries, but closely connected with Bible study, are the alleged superhuman libraries, libraries of, or written by, the gods, libraries for the dead and apocryphal libraries. The Vedas are said to have existed as a collection even before the Creator created Himself (Manu 1 21). All religions have their book-gods<64>Thoth and Seshait, Apollo, Hermes, Minerva, Ida, Bridget, Soma, Brahma, Odin, Kvasir, Ygdrasil and many others. To the ancient Babylonians the whole firmament was a library of "celestial tablets." The mythological ideas often have important bearing on Biblical doctrines, e.g. the Creation, the Word, the Tree of Life, the Book of Life, the Holy Spirit. Apocryphal libraries include the library which Yahweh is alleged to have formed on the 7th day of creation on a mount east of the Garden of Eden, and other libraries ascribed to Enoch, Noah and Seth. See for this the Old Testament pseudepigrapha.<P>3. Libraries for the Dead:<P>Another class of collections of real books, written or gathered for mythological purposes, is what may be called libraries for the dead. It is well known that in most countries of antiquity, at one time or another, and among primitive people like the American Indians, in modern times, it has been the custom to bury with the dead the things which friends thought would be useful in the Elysian fields or happy hunting grounds, or on the way thither<65>the bow and horse of the warrior, the ushabti servants, children\'s playthings, the models of food objects, and so on. This same motive led also to the burying of books with the dead. For long periods in the history of Egypt every Egyptian of any position was buried with one or more books. These books were not his chance possessions, buried with him as, in some burials, all a man\'s personal belongings are, but books selected for their usefulness to him after death. For the most part these were of the nature of guidebooks to the way to the heavenly world, magic formulas for the opening of doors, instruction as to the right method of progress toward, or introduction into, paradise, etc. These books were afterward gathered together and form what is now known as "the Book of the Dead" and other such books.<P>4. Memory Libraries:<P>In modern times the actor or professional story-teller often has in memory a collection of remembered books which is in effect a library. Among primitive peoples the medicine-man was literally a library of tribal traditions. The priests of India and the minstrels of Greece or of the Middle Ages often had a large repertory. By the prevailing theory of the origin of the books of the Old Testament such memory traditions, transmitted orally, were the chief source of the Hexateuch, but in view of what is now known of the library situation of the time, this must be doubted.<P>5. Prehistoric and Primitive Libraries:<P>In general terms it may be said that when man began not only to make but to keep records, libraries began. Even a memorial stone contains the germ of a mnemonic library. The primitive medicine-man\'s collection of notched message sticks, tallies, quipus or wampum belts is a great advance in complexity on these, and the simplest collection of picture narratives of Hottentot or American Indian, an advance on this. A combination of pictures with signs is still another forward step, and this step is already to be found in the Pyrenean caves of the Stone Age (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WRITING">WRITING</a>). Most of these earliest libraries were kept at the sanctuary. The gathering together of books in libraries had its origin in the ideas of<P>(1) preservation,<P>(2) gathering together like books in order to join together their contents, and<P>(3) circulation<6F>the great modern expansion of the idea.<P>The owner of flocks and herds gathers together his lists of cattle or other possessions, his receipts for purchases and record of sales, whether these are recorded on the walls of his cave or on wooden tallies or on knotted cords or on clay tablets gathered in little jars and buried under the floor of his house. Large owners and sovereigns and the temples of Egypt and Assyria gathered large stores of these archival records and with them records of tribute, oracles, etc. As early as 2700 BC we have the account of King Dedkere Isesi, his archival library and his librarian Senezemib. The annals of Thutmose III were preserved in the palace library as well as cut in selections on the walls of the temple. A few years later, and we know that the archival records were kept in a special room in the palace at Amarna<6E>and many of the records themselves were found there. All this was before the year 1300.<P>6. Mesopotamian Period:<P>Bible history through <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'1-\');">Genesis 10</a> covers the whole civilized world, but its main line up to about 2000 BC is almost wholly Mesopotamian. Up to the time of Abram\'s migration from Haran, the history of Biblical libraries and the history of Babylonian and Sumerian libraries are one. Most of the cities mentioned in this period are now known to have had collections of books in those days. At the time when Abram left Haran there were hundreds of collections of written documents in scores of different geographical localities and containing millions of tablets.<P>7. Patriarchal Period:<P>From Abram\'s emigration out of Haran to Jacob\'s emigration to Egypt was, on the face of Biblical data, mainly a time of wandering in Palestine, but this was not wholly nomad nor wholly Palestinian. Whether there were libraries in Palestine at this time or not, the Patriarchs were all in close personal contact with the library lands of Babylonia and Egypt. Abram himself was familiar with both Mesopotamia and Egypt. His son Ishmael married an Egyptian, his son Isaac a Mesopotamian. His grandson Jacob married two wives from between the rivers, and had himself 20 years\' residence in the region. While it does not appear that Isaac lived at any time either in Syria or in Egypt, during most of his life all the members of his nearest family, father, mother, wife, sons\' wives, had had from one to three score years\' life in the mother-country. Whether there were public records in this region at this time is another matter, but it would seem that the whole region during the whole period was under the influence of the Babylonian civilization. It was freely traversed by trading caravans, and the Hittite and Mesopotamian records extend at least a little back into this period.<P>8. Egyptian Period:<P>The Egyptian period of Bible history begins with the immigration of Jacob and his sons, but fringes back to the visit of Abram (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,\'10-20\');">Ge 12:10-20</a>), if not to Mizraim of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,6);">Ge 10:6</a>. On the other hand, it ends properly with the exodus, but fringes forward through frequent points of contact to the flight of the Virgin and Pentecost. Whether the sojourn was 430 or 215 years, or less, it was a long residence at a time when libraries were very flourishing in Egypt. Already at the time of Abram\'s visit, collections of books, not only of official accounts, but of religious texts, medical texts, annals, and the like, had been common in Egypt for nearly 1,000 years, and had perhaps existed for 1,000 years or more before that.<P>Under the older of the modern datings of the exodus, the period of the sojourn included the times of Thothmes III (Thutmose), and in this reign there are peculiarly interesting records, not only of the existence of temple and palace libraries, but of the nature of their contents. The official recorder of Thothmes III, accompanying him on his campaign in Syria and Palestine, set down each day the events of the day, while he or others also made lists of tribute, spoils, commissary matters, etc. These daily records were deposited in the palace library, as it appears, but a narrative compiled from these and written on a leather roll was deposited in the temple library, and from this roll in turn an abstract was engraved on the walls of the temple, where it remains to this day. This probably gives the library situation of the time in a nutshell:<P>(1) the simple saving of utilitarian documents, often on papyrus or wood tablets,<P>(2) the gathering of books written for information on more durable material,<P>(3) preserving choice books for posterity by a local series of inscriptions.<P>The rolls must have been kept in chests or small boxes, like the box containing the medical papyri of King Neferikere some 1,300 years before, or the "many boxes" at Edfu long after. Many pictures of these book-chests or bookcases are found in the monuments (Birt, Buchrolle, 12, 15ff).<P>Again, the palace library of King Akhnaton (circa 1360 BC) at Amarna, which contained collections of the royal foreign correspondence on clay tablets, has been excavated. Its bricks bear the inscription, "Place of the records of the palace of the king," and some hundreds of tablets from this spot have been recovered.<P>At the time of the exodus there were thus probably libraries in all palaces, temples and record offices, although the temple libraries were by no means confined to sacred writings or the palace to secular. There were also at least archives, or registers, in the royal treasury and in all public departments. Schools for scribes were, it would seem, held in the palace, temple and treasury libraries. There were, therefore, apparently, at this time millions of documents or books, in hundreds of organized collections, which could be called archives or libraries.<P>9. The Exodus:<P>Supposing any exodus at all, Moses and Aaron and all the Hebrew "officers" ("scribes" or writers) under the Egyptian taskmasters (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',5,6,10,14,15,19);">Ex 5:6,10,14,15,19</a>), brought up as they were in the scribal schools, were of course quite familiar with the Egyptian ways of keeping their books. It is not surprising, therefore, to find the first and chief provision which Moses made for the Tabernacle was a book-chest for the preservation of the sacred directions given by Yahweh. It makes little difference whether the account is taken in its final form, divided horizontally into Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy and Joshua, or divided perpendicularly into J, E, D, the Priestly Code (P), the fact of the ark and enough of its details are given even in the very oldest sources to show that the authors understood the ark to be a glorified book-chest in or near which were kept written documents: the tables of stone, the inscribed rod, all the testimony given from the mercy-seat which formed its lid, and perhaps the Book of Deuteronomy. The ark is in fact much the size and shape of a portable bookcase, and the Septuagint translation renders the word by the ordinary technical Greek word for the book-chest (kibotos; compare Birt, op. cit., 248-49). It appears also to have been the later Hebrew word for book-chest (compare Jewish Encyclopedia, II, 107ff). At the exodus, whenever that may have been, Moses is alleged to have made the ark the official library, and in it apparently he is thought to have kept the oracles as uttered from time to time and the record of his travels from day to day (as well as the tables of stone), precisely as the scribe of Thutmose recorded his Syrian campaigns from day to day. This record (if it was a record) was in all likelihood on a leather roll, since this became the traditional form of books among the Hebrews, and this too was like the annals of Thutmose. When the tribes separated to north and south, the books may have been either separated or copied, and doubtless they suffered much wear and tear from the harsh times until we find Deuteronomy turning up again in a temple library (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',22,8);">2Ki 22:8</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',34,14);">2Ch 34:14</a>).<P>The evidence from Egyptian Babylonian, Mitannian, Amorite and Hittite documents shows the existence of official chanceries and by implication of archives throughout the whole region of Syria and Palestine at the time when the "Hebrew" invasion began (Winckler, Tell el-Amarna Tablets).<P>10. Palestine at the Conquest:<P>The Tell el-Amarna Letters and the tablets from the Hittite archives at Boghaz-keui (Winckler, Deutsche Orientalische Gesellschaft Mitt.,1907,<span class="noTag">number 35</span>) include actual letters from the princes, elders and governors of dozens of places, scattered all over this region from Egypt to the land of the Hittites and the Mitannians. These places include among others Jerusalem, Damascus, Tyre, Sidon, Acco, Ashkelon, Gaza, Lachish, Keilah and Aijalon.<P>Remains of two of such archival libraries have been dug up<75>one at Lachish and one at Taanach near Megiddo, both dating back to the 14th century BC.<P>Whether there were temple libraries as well does not appear so clearly from external evidence but may probably be inferred from the names, Debir and (perhaps) Nebo, as well as from the well-known fact that each of the many city-lands must have had its center of worship. When it was thought that writing did not exist to any extent in Palestine before the time of David, it was the fashion to account for the name of the city of "Kirjath Sepher," the "City of Books," by curious tours de force of conjectural emendation (Sephur for Sepher, Tabor for Debir), but with the recent progress of excavation the possibility of the name has been fully established and the insight of Sayce probably justified.<P>11. Period of the Judges:<P>That the situation at the Conquest continued also during the period of the Judges appears from sundry considerations:<P>(1) The fact that all the surrounding nations, Moabites, Edomites, Amorites, Hittites, Mitannians, etc., were literate nations with public archives.<P>(2) The high state of organization under David requires an evolutionary background.<P>(3) Even the extreme (and quite untenable) theory that the Hebrews were illiterate wild Arab nomads and remained so for a long time would actually demonstrate the matter, for, as has been pertinently observed (Sellin, Einl, 7), many at least of the Canaanite cities were not destroyed or even occupied for a long time, but were surrounded by the Hebrews, and finally occupied and assimilated. It follows, therefore, that the archival system continued, and, under this theory, for a long time, until the Hebrews absorbed the culture of their neighbors<72>and, by inference, libraries with the rest.<P>(4) Taking the evidence of the documents as they stand, the matter is simple enough; various works were kept in or near the ark. Joshua added to these at least the report of a boundary commission (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',18,9,10);">Jos 18:9,10</a>) which was brought to the sanctuary, and Samuel "laid up" the book that he wrote "before Yahweh," i.e. at the ark. Moreover, the Books of Jasher, the Wars of Yahweh, etc., imply a literature which in turn implies libraries. Whenever or however composed, there is no good reason to distrust their historical existence.<P>(5) Even on the extreme critical hypothesis, "Most of the stories found in the first 8 books of the Old Testament originated before or during the age of song and story (circa 1250-1050)" (Kent, Beginnings, 17).<P>(6) To this may also be added, with all reservations, the mysterious metal ephod which appears only in this period. The ephod seems to have been either<P>(a) a case (BDB, 66) or<P>(b) an instrument for consulting an oracle (BDB, 65). The linen ephod had a pouch for the Urim and Thummim. The metal ephod seems to be distinguished from the image and may have contained the written oracular instructions (torah?) as well as the oracular instruments.<P>(7) The Kenite scribes of Jabez (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,55);">1Ch 2:55</a>); the simple fact that a chance captive from Succoth could write out a list of names and some one at least of the rudest 300 survivals of Gideon\'s 32,000 primitive warriors in those bloody frontier times could read it, the reference to the staff of the muster-master, marshal or scribe, and the "governors" (inscribers), in Deborah\'s Song, point in the same direction.<P>While, therefore, the times were doubtless wild, the political unity very slight, and the unity of worship even less, there is evidence that there were both political and religious libraries throughout the period.<P>12. Saul to the Maccabees:<P>Beginning with the monarchy, the library situation among the Israelites appears more and more clearly to correspond with that of the surrounding nations. The first act the recorded after the choice and proclamation of Saul as king was the writing of a constitution by Samuel and the depositing of this in the sacred archives (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,25);">1Sa 10:25</a>). This document Septuagint biblion) was perhaps one of the documents ("words") of Samuel whose words (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',29,29);">1Ch 29:29</a>, history, chronicles, acts, book, etc.) seem to have been possibly a register kept by him, perhaps from the time that he succeeded Eli, as later the high-priestly register (day-book) of Johannes Maccabeus was certainly kept from the beginning of his high-priesthood (1Macc 16:24).<P>Whether these "words" of Samuel were equivalent to the technical register or "book of the words of days" or not, such registers were undoubtedly kept from the time of David on, and there is nothing so illuminating as to the actual library conditions of the times as the so-called chronicles, histories or acts<74>the registers, journals or archives of the time. The roll-register seems to be called in full "the book of the words of days," or with explanatory fullness "book of the records of the words of days," but this appears to be an evolution from "words of days" or even "words," and these forms as well as the abbreviations "book of days" and "book" are used of the same technical work, which is the engrossing in chronological book-form of any series of individual documents<74>all the documents of a record-office, general or local. The name is used also of histories written up on the basis of these register-books (the Books of Chronicles are in Hebrew, "words of days") but not themselves records. These charter-books, of course, so far as they go, mirror the contents of the archives which they transcribe, and the key to the public-library history of the period, both sacred and royal, as regards contents, at least, is to be found in them, while in turn the key to the understanding of this technical book-form itself lies in the understanding of the "word" as a technical book-form.<P>The "word" in Hebrew is used of books, speeches, sayings, oracles, edicts, reports, formal opinions, agreements, indictments, judicial decisions, stories, records, regulations, sections of a discourse, lines of poetry, whole poems, etc., as well as acts, deeds, "matters," "affairs," events and words in the narrowest sense. It is thus very exactly, as well as literally, translated in the Septuagint by logos, which as a technical book-term (Birt, Antikes Buchwesen, 28, 29) means any distinct composition, long or short, whether a law, an epigram, or a whole complex work. The best English equivalent for this "work-complete-in-itself," in the case of public records, is "document," and in the case of literary matters, it is "work or writing." The "words" of Samuel or David thus are his "acts" or "deeds" in the sense, not of doings, but of the individual documentary records of those doings quite in the modern sense of the "acts and proceedings" of a convention, or the "deeds" to property.<P>In the plural, dibhre and logoi or logia alike mean a collection of documents, works or writings, i.e. "a library." Sometimes this is used in the sense of archives or library, at other times as a book containing these collected works.<P>These collected documents in register-form constituted apparently a continuous series until the time when the Book of Chronicles was written and were extant at that time: the "words" of Samuel, "chronicles" and "last words" of David (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',23,27);">1Ch 23:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',27,24);">27:24</a>), the "book of the words (acts) of Solomon" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,41);">1Ki 11:41</a>), the book of the words of days of the kings of Judah, and the book of the words of days of the kings of Israel<65>the kingdoms after division each having naturally its own records.<P>The general situation during the period as to archival matters is pretty well summarized by Moore in the EB. From the time of Solomon, and more doubtfully from the time of David, he recognizes that "records were doubtless kept in the palace," and that "the temples also doubtless had their records," while there may have been also local records of cities and towns. These records contained probably chief events, treaties, edicts, etc.<2E>probably brief annals "never wrought into narrative memoirs." The temple records contained annals of succession, repairs, changes, etc. (EB, II, 2021-28). The records were, however, probably not brief, but contained treaties, etc., verbatim in full. To this should moreover be added the significant fact that these archives contained not only business records but also various works of a more or less literary character. Those mentioned include letters, prophecies, prayers, and even poems and Wisdom literature. The "words" of the kings of Israel contained prayers, visions and other matter not usually counted archival. The "acts" (words) of Solomon also contained literary or quasi-literary material. According to Josephus the archives of Tyre contained similar material and this was also true of the Amarna archives (circa 1380 BC) and those at Boghazkeui, as well as of the palace archives of Nineveh and the great temple archives of Nippur and Abu Habeh (Sippara). So, too, in Egypt the palace archives of King Neferikere contained medical works and those of Rameses III, at least, magical works, while the temple archives in the time of Thutmose III (Breasted, Ancient Records) contained military annals, and those of Denderah certainly many works of a non-registerial character. The temples of early Greece also contained literary works and secular laws as well as temple archives proper.<P>In short, the palace collections of Israel were no exception to the general rule of antiquity in containing, besides palace archives proper, more or less of religious archives and literary works, while the temple collections contained more or less political records and literary works.<P>This record system in Israel and Judah, as appears from the Old Testament itself, was the system of Persia in Old Testament times. It was the system of the Jews in Maccabean times, of Egypt during this whole period and for centuries before and after, and of Northern Syria likewise at about this time (Zakar-Baal, of Gebal, circa 1113 BC). The Books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, whenever written, reveal the same system, Exodus to Numbers being in the form of a register, and Deuteronomy represented as an abstract prepared for engraving on stone, a use which Joshua is said to have made of it. We have, therefore, the same system existing before and after and on all sides geographically.<P>All this neighboring practice points to a system of<P>(1) archival collections,<P>(2) contemporary book registers,<P>(3) contemporary publication by inscription, and, in the light of these, the Old Testament method, from the time of David at least, becomes clear, certainly as to archival collections and registers and hardly less so as to the setting-up of inscriptions in permanent material. Even if D is not earlier than 621 BC, it assumes public inscription long before that time, quite comparable in extent to the inscriptions of Thutmose III or King Mesha of Moab, and, although few long inscriptions have been recovered thus far, there is at least the Siloam inscription (compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,8);">Isa 30:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',19,23,24);">Job 19:23,24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',8,1);">Isa 8:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',17,1);">Jer 17:1</a>; also the Decalogue). Each one of these three elements (even the collection of inscriptions in the temple) was, it must be remembered, called in antiquity a "library."<P>The reference to "the books" in Dan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',9,2);">9:2</a>) may possibly point to or foreshadow the synagogue library.<P>Little weight is generally and properly given to the statement of 2Macc 2:13, that Nehemiah founded a library and gathered into it the writings "about the kings, the prophets and David, and the letters of the kings concerning votive offerings," but it is, as a matter of fact, evident that he, as well as Judas Maccabeus, who is linked with him in the statement, must have done just this.<P>From the time of the Septuagint translated, the idea of the library (bibliotheke) and even the public library ("books of the people," i.e. public records) was familiar enough, the Septuagint itself also, according to Josephus, linking the temple library of Jerusalem with the Alexandrian library through the furnishing of books by the former to the latter for copying.<P>13. New Testament Times:<P>With the Roman conquest and the rise of the Idumeans, naturally the methods developed in accordance with Roman practice. It appears from the frequent references of Josephus that the public records were extensive and contained genealogical records as well as official letters, decrees, etc. The triple method of record continues. It appears, further (Blau, 96; Krauss, III, 179), that there were libraries and even lending libraries in the schools and synagogues, not of Palestine only, but wherever Jews were settled. Josephus and Chrysostom with the Mishna confirm the already very clear inference from Luke\'s account of our Lord\'s teaching in the synagogue that at this time, and probably from the beginning of the synagogue, the books, the manner of their keeping and the ritual of their using were already essentially as in the modern synagogue. The first preaching-places of the Christians were the synagogues, and when churches succeeded these, the church library naturally followed, but whether in Bible times or not is a matter of conjecture; they appear at least in very early churches.<P>Whether the rich secular literature to which Josephus had access was in public or private libraries does not appear directly. It is well known that it was as much a part of Roman public policy in Herod\'s time to found public libraries in the provinces as it was to restore temples. Twenty-four such provincial libraries, chiefly temple libraries, are known.<P>The Roman practice of the time still mixed literary with the archival material, and it is likely therefore that the public records of the Jewish temple had in them both Greek and Latin secular books in considerable quantity, as well as the Greek Apocrypha and a large amount of Aramaic or late Hebrew literature of Talmudic character.<P>14. Bookcases and Buildings:<P>As to the receptacles and places in which the books were kept, we have reference even in the Hebrew period to most of the main forms used among the nations: the wooden box, the clay box or pot, the pouch, and on the other hand, once, the "house of books" so familiar in Egyptian use and apparently referring to an individual chamber or semi-detached building of temple or palace. Most significant, however, is the statement that the books were kept in the palace and temple treasuries or storehouses.<P>The sacred ark (\'aron), whatever it may have originally contained, was looked on when D was written as a sacred wooden book-chest, and the ark in which the teaching priests carried the law about for public reading was in fact likewise a chest.<P>Such chests were common among the Jews later, some with lids and some with side-opening (Jewish Encyclopedia, II, 107-108; Blau, 178). It is tempting to find in D, where the book is to be put "by (the King James Version "in") the side of the ark" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',31,26);">De 31:26</a>), a chest having both lid and openings in the side, but more likely perhaps D means a separate chest, like the coffer or pouch with the golden mice, which was also put "by the side" (matstsadh) of the ark (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',6,8);">1Sa 6:8</a>).<P>In the New Testament the "cloak" which Paul left behind at Troas (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,13);">2Ti 4:13</a>) was probably (Wattenb., 614; see also Birt and Gardthausen), if not a wooden "capsa," at least some sort of bookcase or cover.<P>The earthen vessel in which Jeremiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',32,14);">32:14</a>) puts the two "books" (translated "deeds"), one sealed and one unsealed, was one of the commonest bookcases of the ancient world. This information has lately been widely reinforced and associated with Biblical history by the discovery of the Elephantine papyri, which were, for the most part, kept in such clay jars (Meyer, Papyrusfund, 15). The word Pentateuch perhaps harks back to a five-roll jar, but more likely to a basket or wooden box with five compartments (Blau, 65; Birt, Buchrolle, 21, 22). It was the collective label of a five-roll case, whether of earthenware, wood or basket work.<P>The pouch or bag bookcase has perhaps its representative in the phylactery (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,5);">Mt 23:5</a>), which was a sort of miniature armarium in that each of the four little rolls of its four compartments was technically a "book" (cepher). This name is commonly explained as an amulet guarding against evil spirits, but the term actually occurs in the papyri (Bibliophylax) of the preservation of books.<P>The "house of books" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',6,1);">Ezr 6:1</a> margin) or "place of books" is a very close parallel to bibliotheke, by which (in the plural) it is translated in the Septuagint. The phrase was a common term in Egypt for library, perhaps also sometimes for scriptorium or even registry, and it points to a chamber or semi-detached room or building where the book-chests, jars, etc., were kept. That at Edfu is a semi-detached room and contained many such cases.<P>While there is little record of libraries in Biblical times, the very formation of the Canon itself, whether by the higher critical process, or by natural processes of gathering whole literary works, implies the gathering together of books, and the temple libraries common to both Egypt and Assyria-Babylonia are almost inevitably implied wherever there was a temple or sanctuary, whatever may be the facts as to the temple libraries. According to Hilprecht there were certainly such libraries and from very ancient times. The palace library of Assurbani-pal, though itself a discovery of the last times, brings the story down to the times of the written history. For the rest of the story see literature below, especially Dziatzko, Bibliotheken, and the article on "Libraries" in the Encyclopedia Britannica (11th edition).<P>See also <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NINEVEH,+LIBRARY+OF">NINEVEH, LIBRARY OF</a>.<P>In the earlier period at least and including for the Jews the New Testament times, the particular locality in palace or temple seems to have been the treasury. In the Book of Ezra, search for the decree of Cyrus was to be made in the king\'s treasure-house (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',5,17);">Ezr 5:17</a>), and was made in the "house of books where the treasures were laid up" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',6,1);">Ezr 6:1</a> margin). The document was finally found in the palace at Ecbatana<6E>so too in 1Macc 14:49 the archives are placed in the treasury.<P>In New Testament times there had already been a good deal of development in the matter of library buildings. A general type had been evolved which consisted of<P>(1) a colonnade,<P>(2) a lecture-room, a reading-room or assembly room,<P>(3) small rooms for book storage.<P>Such accounts as we have of the Alexandrian libraries, with the excavations at Pergamus, Athens and Rome, reveal the same type<70>the book-rooms, the colonnade where masters walked or sat and talked with their pupils, the rooms for assembly where the senate or other bodies sometimes sat. In short, as long before in Egypt, whether in palace or temple, the place of teaching was the place of books.<P>It is significant thus that our Lord taught in the Treasury, which in Herod\'s Temple was in the court of the temple proper<65>probably the porticos under the women\'s gallery, some of the adjoining rooms being used for books. As this was within the barrier which no Gentile could pass, Herod must have had also a library of public records in the outer colonnade.<P>See further, <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NINEVEH,+LIBRARY+OF">NINEVEH, LIBRARY OF</a>.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Ludwig Blau, Studien zum althebraischen Buchwesen, Strassburg i, E,1902,178-80: Sam. Krauss, Talmudische Archaologie, Leipzig,1912,III, 193-98; J.W. Clark, Care of Books, Cambridge, 1901; E. C. Richardson, Biblical Libraries: A Sketch of Library History from 3400 BC to 150 AD. London. Oxford University Press, 1914.<P>See the literature under <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WRITING">WRITING</a>.``147';
isbe[5517]='Library of Nineveh``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NINEVEH,+LIBRARY+OF">NINEVEH, LIBRARY OF</a>`1';
isbe[5518]='Libya; Libyans`lib\'-i-a, lib\'-i-anz: In the Old Testament the word occurs in the King James Version in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',12,3);">2Ch 12:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',16,8);">16:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Nah\',3,9);">Na 3:9</a> for "Lubim" (thus the Revised Version (British and American)). the Revised Version (British and American), however, retains "Libyans" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',11,43);">Da 11:43</a>. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',46,9);">Jer 46:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',30,5);">Eze 30:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',38,5);">38:5</a>, the words are replaced in the Revised Version (British and American) by <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PUT">PUT</a> (which see). In the New Testament the word "Libya" (Libue) occurs, in close connection with <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CYRENE">CYRENE</a> (which see) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,10);">Ac 2:10</a>). Greek and Roman writers apply the term to the African continent, generally excluding Egypt.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LUBIM">LUBIM</a>`1';
isbe[5519]='Lice`lis (kinnim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,17,18);">Ex 8:17,18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',105,31);">Ps 105:31</a>), kinnim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,16);">Ex 8:16</a>), kinnam (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,17,18);">Ex 8:17,18</a>); Septuagint skniphes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,16,18);">Ex 8:16,18</a>), ton sknipha, once in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,18);">Ex 8:18</a>; sknipes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',105,31);">Ps 105:31</a>); Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) scniphes; according to Liddell and Scott, under the word sknips, Slav. sknipa equals culex): The references, both in Exodus and in Psalms, are all to the plague of "lice." the Revised Version margin suggests "fleas" or "sandflies." The Septuagint rendering would favor "sandflies" or "mosquitoes," between which two insects the Old Testament writers would hardly be expected to discriminate. Mosquitoes belong to the order of Diptera, family Culicidae; the sandfly (Plebotomus papataci) to the family of Simuliidae of the same order. The sandflies are much smaller than mosquitoes, and are nearly noiseless, but give a sharp sting which may leave an unpleasant irritation. They are abundant in the Levant. In Southern Europe they cause the "three-day fever" or "papataci." As stated under <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GNAT">GNAT</a> (which see), there is little ground other than the authority of the Septuagint for deciding between "lice," "fleas," "sand-flies," or "mosquitoes" as translations of kinnim. See also under <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GNAT">GNAT</a> the note on ken, the Revised Version margin "gnat" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',51,6);">Isa 51:6</a>).``37';
isbe[5520]='Licence`li\'-sens: This word is not found at all in the Revised Version (British and American) (except in Judith 11:14; Ecclesiasticus 15:20; 1Macc 1:13), and twice only in the King James Version (except in 2Macc 4:9), both times in Acts. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,40);">Ac 21:40</a> (as translation of epitrepo) the American Standard Revised Version has "leave" where the King James Version has "licence." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',25,16);">Ac 25:16</a>, "opportunity to make his defense" (as translation of topon apologias) takes the place of "have licence to answer for himself."``1';
isbe[5521]='Lidebir`lid\'-e-ber (lidhebhir): For "of Debir" in EV; the Revised Version margin suggests the name "Lidebir" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,26);">Jos 13:26</a>), a city in the territory of Gad. It is probably identical with <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LO-DEBAR">LO-DEBAR</a> (which see).``1';
isbe[5522]='Lie; Lying`li, (sheqer (usually, e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',9,15);">Isa 9:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',13,3);">Zec 13:3</a>), or kazabh verb (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',34,6);">Job 34:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',2,11);">Mic 2:11</a>); pseudos (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,44);">Joh 8:44</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',21,27);">Re 21:27</a>), "to speak falsely," "to fabricate," "to make a false statement"; pseudomai, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,3,4);">Ac 5:3,4</a>):<P>1. Lying Defined:<P>In its very essence, a lie is something said with intent to deceive. It is not always a spoken word that is a lie, for a life lived under false pretenses, a hypocritical life, may be a lie equally with a false word (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',23,14);">Jer 23:14</a>). A vain thing, like an idol, may be a lie (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',59,4);">Isa 59:4</a>), as also a false system (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,7);">Ro 3:7</a>). Error, as opposed to truth, is a lie (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,21);">1Joh 2:21</a>). The denial of the deity of Jesus Christ is regarded as "the" lie (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,22);">1Joh 2:22</a>).<P>The origin of lies and lying is traced to Satan who is called "a liar, and the father thereof" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,44);">Joh 8:44</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,3);">Ac 5:3</a>). Satan\'s dealing with Eve (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,\'1-\');">Ge 3</a>) furnishes us with a splendid illustration of the first lie, so far as we have any record of it.<P>2. A Racial Sin:<P>The whole race is guilty of this sin: "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',58,3);">Ps 58:3</a>). It is a part of the old Adamic nature, "the old man" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,9);">Col 3:9</a>), which the believer in Jesus Christ is called upon to put off. So prominent a factor is it in the experience of the race that among the condensed catalogue of sins, for the commission of which men are finally condemned, the sin of lying finds its place: "All liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',21,8);">Re 21:8</a> the King James Version).<P>3. God\'s Attitude to It:<P>God\'s attitude toward this sin is strongly marked throughout both the Old Testament and New Testament. The righteous are called upon to hate lying (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',13,5);">Pr 13:5</a>), to avoid it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',3,13);">Ze 3:13</a>), to respect not those who lie, and utterly reject their company (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',40,4);">Ps 40:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',101,7);">101:7</a>), to pray to be delivered from it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,29);">Ps 119:29</a>). The wicked are said to love lying (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',52,3);">Ps 52:3</a>), to delight in it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',62,4);">Ps 62:4</a>), to seek after it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',4,2);">Ps 4:2</a>), and to give heed to it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',17,4);">Pr 17:4</a>). Lying leads to worse crimes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',4,1,2);">Ho 4:1,2</a>).<P>4. The Penalty:<P>The punishment to be meted out to liars is of the severest kind. They are positively and absolutely excluded from heaven (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',21,27);">Re 21:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,15);">22:15</a>), and those who are guilty of this sin are cast into the lake of fire (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',21,8);">Re 21:8</a>). We are reminded of the awful fate meted out to Ananias and Sapphira when they lied to God and man (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,\'1-11\');">Ac 5:1-11</a>). God will "destroy them that speak lies" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',5,6);">Ps 5:6</a>), and "he that uttereth lies shall not escape" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',19,5);">Pr 19:5</a>), yea "a sword is upon the liars" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',50,36);">Jer 50:36</a> the King James Version). The liar is thereby debarred from rendering any true and acceptable worship unto the Lord (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',24,4);">Ps 24:4</a>).<P>The Scriptures abound with illustrations of lying and the results and penalties therefor. A careful study of these illustrations will reveal the subtlety of falsehood. Sometimes a lie is a half-truth, as set forth in the story of Satan\'s temptation of Eve (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,\'1-\');">Ge 3</a>). Cain\'s lie (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,9);">Ge 4:9</a>) was of the nature of an evasive answer to a direct question. Jacob\'s deception of his father, in order that he might inherit the blessing of the firstborn, was a barefaced and deliberate lie (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,19);">Ge 27:19</a>). The answer which Joseph\'s brethren gave to their father when he asked them concerning the welfare of their brother Joseph is an illustration, as well as a revelation, of the depth of the wickedness of hearts that deliberately set themselves to falsify and deceive (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,31,32);">Ge 37:31,32</a>). Even good men are sometimes overtaken in a lie, which, of course, is no more excusable in them than in the wicked; indeed, it is more shameful because the righteous are professed followers of the truth (David in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',21,2);">1Sa 21:2</a>). What more striking example of the heinousness of lying in the sight of God can we have than the fate which befell Gehazi who, in order to satisfy a covetous desire for possessions, misrepresented his master Elisha to Naaman the Syrian whom the prophet had healed of his leprosy: "The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto thy seed for ever. And he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',5,\'22-27\');">2Ki 5:22-27</a>)? The story of Peter\'s denial of his Lord, and his persistent asseverations that he did not know Him and was not one of His followers, makes us shudder to think that it is possible for a follower of Christ so far to forget himself as not only to lie, but buttress lying with swearing (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,72);">Mt 26:72</a>).<P>5. Pseudos United with Other Words:<P>Throughout the Scriptures we find pseudos joined to other words, e.g. "false apostles" (pseudapostolos, <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',11,13);">2Co 11:13</a>), so called probably because a true apostle delivers the message of another, namely, God, while these "false apostles" cared only for self. Such are from Satan, and, like him, they transform themselves into angels of light, and sail under false colors. We read also of "false prophets" (pseudoprophetes, <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,15);">Mt 7:15</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',23,16);">Jer 23:16</a>f), thereby meaning those who falsely claim to bring messages from God and to speak in behalf of God. Mention is made also of "false brethren" (pseudadelphos, <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',11,26);">2Co 11:26</a>), meaning Judaizing teachers, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,4);">Ga 2:4</a>; "false teachers" (pseudodidaskalos, <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,1);">2Pe 2:1</a>), men whose teaching was false and who falsely claimed the teacher\'s office. We read further of "false witnesses" (pseudomartus, <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,60);">Mt 26:60</a>); by such are meant those who swear falsely, and testify to what they know is not true. So, too, we find mention of the "false Christs" (pseudochristoi, <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,24);">Mt 24:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,22);">Mr 13:22</a>). This personage does not so much deny the existence of a Christ, but rather, on the contrary, builds upon the world\'s expectations of such a person, and falsely, arrogantly, blasphemously asserts they he is the Christ promised and foretold. It is the Antichrist who denies that there is a Christ; the false Christ affirms himself to be the Christ. Of course there is a sense in which the man of sin will be both Antichrist and a false Christ.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FALSE,+FALSE+SWEARING,+FALSE+WITNESS">FALSE, FALSE SWEARING, FALSE WITNESS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FALSE,+CHRISTS">FALSE, CHRISTS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FALSE+PROPHETS">FALSE PROPHETS</a>`53';
isbe[5523]='Liers-In-Wait`li-erz-in-wat\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',9,25);">Jud 9:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',16,12);">16:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',20,36);">20:36</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=AMBUSH">AMBUSH</a>`1';
isbe[5524]='Lieutenant`lu-ten\'-ant, lef-ten\'-ant.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SATRAPS">SATRAPS</a>`1';
isbe[5525]='Life`lif (chayyim, nephesh, ruach, chayah; zoe, psuche, bios, pneuma):<P><b>I. THE TERMS</b><P><b>II. THE OLD TESTAMENT TEACHING</b><P class="in15">1. Popular Use of the Term<P class="in15">2. Complexity of the Idea<P><b>III. IN THE APOCRYPHA</b><P><b>IV. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT</b><P class="in15">1. In the Synoptic Gospels<P class="in15">2. In the Fourth Gospel<P class="in15">3. In the Acts of the Apostles<P class="in15">4. In the Writings of Paul<P class="in15">5. In the Writings of John<P class="in15">6. In the Other Books of the New Testament<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. The Terms.<P>Of the Hebrew terms, chayah is the verb which means "to live," "to have life," or the vital principle, "to continue to live," or "to live prosperously." In the Piel it signifies "to give life, or preserve, or quicken and restore life." The Hiphil is much like the Piel. The noun hayyim generally used in the plural is an abstract noun meaning "life," i.e. the possession of the vital principle with its energies and activities. Nephesh often means "living being" or "creature." Sometimes it has the force of the reflexive "self." At other times it refers to the seat of the soul, the personality, the emotions, the appetites<65>passions and even mental acts. Frequently it means "life," the "seat of life," and in this way it is used about 171 times in the Old Testament, referring to the principle of vitality in both men and animals. Ruach signifies "wind," "breath," principle or source of vitality, but is never used to signify life proper.<P>II. The Old Testament Teaching.<P>1. Popular Use of the Term:<P>The term "life" is used in the Old Testament in the popular sense. It meant life in the body, the existence and activity of the man in all his parts and energies. It is the person complete, conscious and active. There is no idea of the body being a fetter or prison to the soul; the body was essential to life and the writers had no desire to be separated from it. To them the physical sphere was a necessity, and a man was living when all his activities were performed in the light of God\'s face and favor. The secret and source of life to them was relationship with God. There was nothing good or desirable apart from this relation of fellowship. To overcome or be rid of sin was necessary to life. The real center of gravity in life was in the moral and religious part of man\'s nature. This must be in fellowship with God, the source of all life and activity.<P>2. Complexity of the Idea:<P>The conception of life is very complex. Several meanings are clearly indicated:<P>(1) Very frequently it refers to the vital principle itself, apart from its manifestations (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,7);">Ge 2:7</a>). Here it is the breath of life, or the breath from God which contained and communicated the vital principle to man and made him a nephesh or living being (see also <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,30);">Ge 1:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,17);">6:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',7,22);">7:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',45,5);">45:5</a>, etc.).<P>(2) It is used to denote the period of one\'s actual existence, i.e. "lifetime" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,1);">Ge 23:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,7);">25:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',47,9);">47:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,16,18,20);">Ex 6:16,18,20</a>, etc.).<P>(3) The life is represented as a direct gift from God, and dependent absolutely upon Him for its continuance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'11-27\');">Ge 1:11-27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,7);">2:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',16,22);">Nu 16:22</a>).<P>(4) In a few cases it refers to the conception of children, denoting the time when conception was possible (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,10,14);">Ge 18:10,14</a> margin; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',4,16,17);">2Ki 4:16,17</a> margin).<P>(5) In many cases it refers to the totality of man\'s relationships and activities, all of which make up life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,47);">De 32:47</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',25,29);">1Sa 25:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',10,1);">Job 10:1</a>, etc.).<P>(6) In a few instances it is used synonymously with the means of sustaining life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',24,6);">De 24:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',27,27);">Pr 27:27</a>).<P>(7) Many times it is used synonymously with happiness or well-being (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',30,15,19);">De 30:15,19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',6,10);">Ezr 6:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',16,11);">Ps 16:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',30,5);">30:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',2,19);">Pr 2:19</a>, and frequently).<P>(8) It is always represented as a very precious gift, and offenses against life were to be severely punished (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',9,4,5);">Ge 9:4,5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,14);">Le 17:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,17);">24:17</a>).<P>Capital punishment is here specifically enjoined because of the value of the life that has been taken. The lexicon talionis required life for life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,23);">Ex 21:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',19,21);">De 19:21</a>); and this even applies to the beast (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,18);">Le 24:18</a>). The life was represented as abiding in the blood and therefore the blood must not be eaten, or lightly shed upon the ground (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,15);">Le 17:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,23);">De 12:23</a>). The Decalogue forbids murder or the taking of human life wrongfully (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,13);">Ex 20:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',5,17);">De 5:17</a>). Garments taken in pledge must not be kept over night, for thereby the owner\'s life might be endangered (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',24,6);">De 24:6</a>). That life was considered precious appears in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',10,24);">2Ki 10:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',7,7);">Es 7:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',2,4);">Job 2:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',4,23);">Pr 4:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',6,26);">6:26</a>. The essence of sacrifice consisted in the fact that the life (the nephesh) resided in the blood; thus when blood was shed, life was lost (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,23);">De 12:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,11);">Le 17:11</a>). Oppression on the part of judges and rulers was severely condemned because oppression was detrimental to life.<P>(9) Long life was much desired and sought by the Israelites, and under certain conditions this was possible (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',91,16);">Ps 91:16</a>). The longevity of the ante-diluvian patriarchs is a problem by itself (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ANTEDILUVIANS">ANTEDILUVIANS</a>). It was one of the greatest of calamities to be cut off in the midst of life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',38,\'10-12\');">Isa 38:10-12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,8);">53:8</a>); that a good old age was longed for is shown by <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,12);">Ex 20:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',21,4);">Ps 21:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',34,12);">34:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',61,6);">61:6</a>, etc. This long life was possible to the obedient to parents (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,12);">Ex 20:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',5,16);">De 5:16</a>), and to those obedient to God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',4,4);">De 4:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',3,1,2);">Pr 3:1,2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',10,27);">10:27</a>); to the wise (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',3,16);">Pr 3:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',9,11);">9:11</a>); to the pure in heart (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',34,\'12-14\');">Ps 34:12-14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',91,\'1-10\');">91:1-10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',3,12,13);">Ec 3:12,13</a>); to those who feared God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',10,27);">Pr 10:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',65,\'18-21\');">Isa 65:18-21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',38,\'2-5\');">38:2-5</a>, etc.).<P>(10) The possibility of an immortal life is dimly hinted at in the earliest writing, and much more clearly taught in the later. The Tree of Life in the midst of the garden indicated a possible immortality for man upon earth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,9);">Ge 2:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,22,24);">3:22,24</a>) (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TREE+OF+LIFE">TREE OF LIFE</a>).<P>Failing to partake of this and falling into sin by partaking of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil," they were driven forth from the garden lest they should eat of the tree of life and become immortal beings in their sinful condition. To deprive man of the possibility of making himself immortal while sinful was a blessing to the race; immortality without holiness is a curse rather than a blessing. The way to the tree of life was henceforth guarded by the cherubim and the flame of a sword, so that men could not partake of it in their condition of sin. This, however, did not exclude the possibility of a spiritual immortality in another sphere. Enoch\'s fellowship with God led to a bodily translation; so also Elijah, and several hundred years after their deaths, God called Himself the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, implying that they were really alive then. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',26,19);">Isa 26:19</a> there is a clear prophecy of a resurrection, and an end of death. <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',12,2);">Da 12:2</a> asserts a resurrection of many of the dead, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt. Some of the psalmists firmly believed in the continuity of the life in fellowship with God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',16,10,11);">Ps 16:10,11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',17,15);">17:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',23,6);">23:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',49,15);">49:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',73,24,25);">73:24,25</a>). The exact meaning of some of these statements is difficult to understand, yet this much is clear: there was a revolt against death in many pious minds, and a belief that the life of fellowship with God could not end or be broken even by death itself.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=IMMORTALITY">IMMORTALITY</a>.<P>(11) The fundamental fact in the possession of life was vital relationship with God. Men first lived because God breathed into them the breath of life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,7);">Ge 2:7</a>). Man\'s vital energies are the outflowing of the spirit or vital energies of God, and all activities are dependent upon the vitalizing power from God. When God sends forth His spirit, things are created, and live; when He withdraws that spirit they die (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',104,30);">Ps 104:30</a>). "In his favor is life" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',30,5);">Ps 30:5</a> the King James Version). He is the fountain of life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',36,9);">Ps 36:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',63,3);">63:3</a>). "All my fountains are in thee" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',87,7);">Ps 87:7</a>). The secret of Job\'s success and happiness was that the Almighty was with him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',29,2);">Job 29:2</a>). This fellowship brought him health, friends, prosperity and all other blessings. The consciousness of the fellowship with God led men to revolt against the idea of going to Sheol where this fellowship must cease. They felt that such a relationship could not cease, and God would take them out of Sheol.<P>III. In the Apocrypha.<P>A similar conception of life appears here as in the Old Testament. Zoe and peuche are used and occur most frequently in the books of The Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclus. In 1 and 2Esdras the word is little used; 2Esdras 3:5; 16:61 are but a quotation from <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,7);">Ge 2:7</a>, and refer to the vital principle; 2Esdras 14:30, Tobit, Judith, Ad Esther use it in the same sense also. Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus use it in several senses closely resembling the use in Proverbs (compare Ecclesiasticus 4:12; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',3,18);">Pr 3:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',10,16);">10:16</a>). In general there is no additional meaning attached to the word. The Psalms of Solomon refer to everlasting life in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',3,16);">3:16</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',13,10);">13:10</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',14,2,6);">14:2,6</a>.<P>IV. In the New Testament.<P>Of the Greek terms bios is used at times as the equivalent of the Hebrew chayyim. It refers to life extensively, i.e. the period of one\'s existence, a lifetime; also to the means of sustaining life, such as wealth, etc. Psuche is also equivalent to chayyim at times, but very frequently to nephesh and sometimes to ruach. Thus, it means the vital principle, a living being, the immaterial part of man, the seat of the affections, desires and appetites, etc. The term zoe corresponds very closely to chayyim, and means the vital principle, the state of one who is animate, the fullness of activities and relationship both in the physical and spiritual realms.<P>The content of the word zoe is the chief theme of the New Testament. The life is mediated by Jesus Christ. In the Old Testament this life was through fellowship with God, in the New Testament it is through Jesus Christ the Mediator. The Old Testament idea is carried to its completion, its highest development of meaning, being enriched by the supreme teaching and revelation of Jesus Christ. In the New Testament as well as in the Old Testament, the center of gravity in human life is in the moral and religious nature of man.<P>1. In the Synoptic Gospels:<P>The teaching here regarding life naturally links itself with Old Testament ideas and the prevailing conceptions of Judaism. The word is used in the sense of<P>(1) the vital principle, that which gives actual physical existence (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',2,20);">Mt 2:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,45);">Mr 10:45</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,22);">Lu 12:22</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',14,26);">14:26</a>).<P>(2) It is also the period of one\'s existence, i.e. lifetime (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,75);">Lu 1:75</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,25);">16:25</a>).<P>(3) Once it may mean the totality of man\'s relationships and activities (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,15);">Lu 12:15</a>) which do not consist in abundance of material possessions.<P>(4) Generally it means the real life, the vital connection with the world and God, the sum total of man\'s highest interests. It is called "eternal life" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,29);">Mt 19:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,46);">25:46</a>). It is called "life" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,8,9);">Mt 18:8,9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,17);">19:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,43,45,46);">Mr 9:43,45,46</a>). In these passages Jesus seems to imply that it is almost equivalent to "laying up treasures in heaven," or to "entering the kingdom of God." The entering into life and entering the kingdom are practically the same, for the kingdom is that spiritual realm where God controls, where the principles, activities and relationships of heaven prevail, and hence, to enter into these is to enter into "life."<P>(5) The lower life of earthly relationship and activities must be subordinated to the higher and spiritual (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,39);">Mt 10:39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,25);">16:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,24);">Lu 9:24</a>). These merely earthly interests may be very desirable and enjoyable, but whoever would cling to these and make them supreme is in danger of losing the higher. The spiritual being infinitely more valuable should be sought even if the other relationship should be lost entirely.<P>(6) Jesus also speaks of this life as something future, and to be realized at the consummation of the age (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,29);">Mt 19:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,30);">Lu 18:30</a>), or the world to come.<P>This in no wise contradicts the statement that eternal life can be entered upon in this life. As Jesus Himself was in vital relationship with the spiritual world and lived the eternal life, He sought to bring others into the same blessed state. This life was far from being perfect. The perfection could come only at the consummation when all was perfection and then they would enter into the perfect fellowship with God and connection with the spirit-world and its blessed experiences. There is no conflict in His teaching here, no real difficulty, only an illustration of Browning\'s statement, "Man never is but wholly hopes to be." Thus in the synoptists Jesus teaches the reality of the eternal life as a present possession as well as future fruition. The future is but the flowering out and perfection of the present. Without the present bud, there can be no future flower.<P>(7) The conditions which Jesus lays down for entering into this life are faith in Himself as the one Mediator of the life, and the following of Him in a life of obedience. He alone knows the Father and can reveal Him to others (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,27);">Mt 11:27</a>). He alone can give true rest and can teach men how to live (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,28);">Mt 11:28</a>f). The sure way to this life is: "Follow me." His whole ministry was virtually a prolonged effort to win confidence in Himself as Son and Mediator, to win obedience, and hence, bring men unto these spiritual relationships and activities which constitute the true life.<P>2. In the Fourth Gospel:<P>The fullest and richest teachings regarding life are found here. The greatest word of this Gospel is "life." The author says he wrote the Gospel in order that "ye may have life" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,31);">Joh 20:31</a>). Most of the teachings recorded, circle around this great word "life." This teaching is in no way distinctive and different from that of the synoptists, but is supplementary, and completes the teaching of Jesus on the subject. The use of the word is not as varied, being concentrated on the one supreme subject.<P>(1) In a few cases it refers only to the vital principle which gives life or produces a lifetime (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,11,\'15-18\');">Joh 10:11,15-18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,37);">13:37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',15,13);">15:13</a>).<P>(2) It represents Jesus the Loges as the origin and means of all life to the world. As the preincarnate Loges He was the source of life to the universe (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,4);">Joh 1:4</a>). As the incarnate Loges He said His life had been derived originally from the Father (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,26);">Joh 5:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,57);">6:57</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,18);">10:18</a>). He then was the means of life to men (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,15,16);">Joh 3:15,16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,14);">4:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,21,39,40);">5:21,39,40</a>); and this was the purpose for which He came into the world (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,33,34,51);">Joh 6:33,34,51</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,10);">10:10</a>).<P>(3) The prevailing reference, however, is to those activities which are the expression of fellowship with God and Jesus Christ. These relationships are called "eternal life" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,15,16,36);">Joh 3:15,16,36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,14);">4:14</a>, etc.). The nearest approach to a definition of eternal life is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,3);">Joh 17:3</a>. Though not a scientific or metaphysical definition, it is nevertheless Jesus\' own description of eternal life, and reveals His conception of it. It is thus more valuable than a formal definition. It is "to know God and Jesus Christ whom He hath sent."<P>This knowledge is vastly more than mere intellectual perception or understanding. It is moral knowledge, it is personal acquaintance, it is fellowship, a contact, if we may so speak, of personality with personality, an inner affinity and sympathy, an experience of similar thoughts, emotions, purposes, motives, desires, an interchange of the heart\'s deepest feelings and experiences. It is a bringing of the whole personality of man into right relationship with the personality of God. This relation is ethical, personal, binding the two together with ties which nothing can separate. It is into this experience that Jesus came to bring men. Such a life Jesus says is satisfying to all who hunger and thirst for it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,14);">Joh 4:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,35);">6:35</a>); it is the source of light to all (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,4);">Joh 1:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,12);">8:12</a>); it is indestructible (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,58);">Joh 6:58</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,26);">11:26</a>); it is like a well of water in the soul (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,14);">Joh 4:14</a>); it is procured by personally partaking of those qualities which belong to Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,53);">Joh 6:53</a>).<P>(4) This life is a present possession and has also a glorious future fruition.<P>(a) To those who exercise faith in Jesus it is a present experience and possession (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,10);">Joh 4:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,24,40);">5:24,40</a>). Faith in Him as the Son of God is the psychological means by which persons are brought into this vital relationship with God. Those who exercised the faith immediately experienced this new power and fellowship and exercised the new activities.<P>(b) It has a glorious fruition in the future also (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,36);">Joh 4:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,29);">5:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,39,44,54);">6:39,44,54</a>). John does not give so much prominence to the eschatological phase of Jesus\' teachings as to the present reality and actual possession of this blessed life.<P>(5) It has been objected that in speaking of the Logos as the source of life John is pursuing a metaphysical line, whereas the life which he so much emphasizes has an ethical basis, and he makes no attempt to reconcile the two. The objection may have force to one who has imbibed the Ritschlian idea of performing the impossible task of eliminating all metaphysics from theology. It will not appeal very strongly to the average Christian. It is a purely academic objection. The ordinary mind will think that if Jesus Christ is the source of ethical and eternal life it is because He possesses something of the essence and being of God, which makes His work for men possible. The metaphysical and the ethical may exist together, may run concurrently, the one being the source and seat of the other. There is no contradiction. Both metaphysics and ethics are a legitimate and necessary exercise of the human mind.<P>3. In the Acts of the Apostles:<P>In His intercessory prayer, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,\'1-\');">John 17</a>, Jesus said His mission was to give eternal life to as many as the Father had given Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,2);">17:2</A>). The record in Acts is the carrying out of that purpose. The word "life" is used in several senses:<P>(1) the vital principle or physical life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,25);">17:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,10,24);">20:10,24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',27,10,22);">27:10,22</A>);<P>(2) also the sum total of man\'s relationships and activities upon earth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,20);">5:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',26,4);">26:4</A>);<P>(3) Jesus Christ is regarded as the source and principle of life, being called by Peter, "the Prince of life" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',3,15);">3:15</A>). Also the life eternal or everlasting is spoken of with the same significance as in the Gospels (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,18);">11:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,46,48);">13:46,48</a>).<P>4. In the Writings of Paul:<P>Here also the words for "life" are used in various senses:<P>(1) the vital principle which gives physical vitality and existence (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,11,38);">Ro 8:11,38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',11,15);">11:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',3,22);">1Co 3:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,20);">Php 1:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,30);">2:30</a>);<P>(2) the sum total of man\'s relationships and activities (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',6,3,4);">1Co 6:3,4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',2,2);">1Ti 2:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',4,8);">4:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',1,1);">2Ti 1:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',3,10);">3:10</a> the King James Version);<P>(3) those relationships with God and with Christ in the spiritual realm, and the activities arising therefrom which constitute the real and eternal life.<P>This is mediated by Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,10);">Ro 5:10</a>). It is in Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,11);">Ro 6:11</a>). It is the free gift of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,23);">Ro 6:23</a>). It is also mediated or imparted to us through the Spirit (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,2,6,9,10);">Ro 8:2,6,9,10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',2,16);">2Co 2:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',3,6);">3:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',6,8);">Ga 6:8</a>). It comes through obedience to the word (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,10);">Ro 7:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,16);">Php 2:16</a>); and through faith (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,16);">1Ti 1:16</a>). It may be apprehended in this life (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,12,19);">1Ti 6:12,19</a>). It is brought to light through the gospel (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',1,10);">2Ti 1:10</a>). It is a reward to those who by patience in well-doing seek it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,7);">Ro 2:7</a>). It gives conquering power over sin and death (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,17,18,21);">Ro 5:17,18,21</a>). It is the end or reward of a sanctified life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,22);">Ro 6:22</a>). It is a present possession and a hope (<a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,2);">Tit 1:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',3,7);">3:7</a>). It will be received in all its fullness hereafter (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,7);">Ro 2:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,4);">2Co 5:4</a>). Thus Paul\'s use of the word substantially agrees with the teaching in the Gospels, and no doubt was largely based upon it.<P>5. In the Writings of John:<P>In the Johannine Epistles and Revelation, the contents of the term "life" are the same as those in the Fourth Gospel. Life in certain passages (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,16);">1Joh 3:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',8,9);">Re 8:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',11,11);">11:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',12,11);">12:11</a>) is mere physical vitality and existence upon earth. The source of life is Christ Himself (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,1);">1Joh 1:1</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,11,16);">5:11f; 16</a>). The blessed eternal life in Christ is a present possession to all those who are in fellowship with the Father and the Son (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,11,12);">1Joh 5:11,12</a>). Here is an echo of the words of Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,3);">Joh 17:3</a>) where John describes the life, the eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested unto us. It is virtually fellowship with the Father and with the Son (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,2,4);">1Joh 1:2,4</a>). Life is promised to those who are faithful (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,7);">Re 2:7</a>); and the crown of life is promised to those who are faithful unto death (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,10);">Re 2:10</a>). The crown of life doubtless refers to the realization of all the glorious possibilities that come through fellowship with God and the Son. The thirsty are invited to come and drink of the water of life freely (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',21,6);">Re 21:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,17);">22:17</a>). The river of life flows through the streets of the New Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,1);">Re 22:1</a>), and the tree of life blooms on its banks, bearing twelve manner of fruit (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,2,14);">22:2,14</a>).<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TREE+OF+LIFE">TREE OF LIFE</a>.<P>6. In the Other Books of the New Testament:<P>The Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of our lifetime or periods of existence upon earth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,15);">2:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',7,3);">7:3</A>), likewise of the power of an indissoluble life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',7,16);">7:16</a>); James promises the crown of life to the faithful (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,12);">1:12</a>). This reward is the fullness of life\'s possibilities hereafter. Our lifetime is mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',4,14);">4:14</a> and represented as brief as a vapor. Peter in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,7);">1Pe 3:7</a> speaks of man and wife as joint-heirs of the grace of life, and of loving life (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,10);">1Pe 3:10</a>), referring to the totality of relationships and activities. The "all things that pertain unto life and godliness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,3);">2Pe 1:3</a>) constitute the whole Christian life involving the life eternal.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Articles on "Life" in HDB, DCG, Jewish Encyclopedia; on "Soul," "Spirit," etc., ibid, and in Encyclopedia Brit, EB, Kitto, Smith, Standard, etc.; Laidlaw, Bible Doctrine of Man; Delitzsch, A System of Biblical Psychology; cornms. on the various passages; Davidson, Old Testament Theology; Oehler and Schultz, Old Testament Theology; Stevens, Johannine Theology and Pauline Theology; Holtzmann, New Testament Theology, I, 293ff; G. Dalman, Words of Jesus; Phillips Brooks, More Abundant Life; B.F. Westcott, Historic Faith; F.J.A. Hort, The Way, the Truth, the Life; J.G. Hoare, Life in John\'s Gospels; E. White, Life and Christ; Salmond, The Christian Doctrine of Immortality; R.J. Knowling, Witness of the Epistles and The Testimony of Paul to Christ; commentaries on the various passages; McPherson, "The New Testament View of Life," The Expositor, I, set. v, 72ff; Massie, "Two New Testament Words Denoting Life," The Expositor, II, series iv, 380ff; Schrenk, Die Johannistische Anschauung yom Leben.``146';
isbe[5526]='Life, Tree of``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TREE+OF+LIFE">TREE OF LIFE</a>`1';
isbe[5527]='Lift`To make lofty, to raise up. A very common word in English Versions of the Bible representing a great variety of Hebrew and Greek words, although in the Old Testament used chiefly as the translation of nasa\'. Of none of these words, however, is "lift" used as a technical translation, and "lift" is interchanged freely with its synonyms, especially "exalt" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',75,5);">Ps 75:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',89,24);">89:24</a>) and "raise" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',4,10);">Ec 4:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',12,17);">2Sa 12:17</a>). "Lift" is still perfectly good English, but not in all the senses in which it is used in English Versions of the Bible; e.g. such phrases as "men that lifted up axes upon a thicket" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',74,5);">Ps 74:5</a>), "lift up thy feet unto the perpetual ruins" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',74,3);">Ps 74:3</a>, etc.), and even the common "lift up the eyes" or "hands" are distinctly archaic. However, almost all the uses are perfectly clear, and only the following need be noted. "To lift up the head" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',40,13,19,20);">Ge 40:13,19,20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',25,27);">2Ki 25:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',3,3);">Ps 3:3</a>; Sirach 11:13; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,28);">Lu 21:28</a>) means to raise from a low condition (but on <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',24,7,9);">Ps 24:7,9</a> see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GATE">GATE</a>). To "lift up the horn" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',75,5);">Ps 75:5</a>) is to assume a confident position, the figure being taken from fighting oxen (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HORN">HORN</a>). "Lift up the face" may be meant literally (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',9,32);">2Ki 9:32</a>), or it may denote the bestowal of favor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',4,6);">Ps 4:6</a>); it may mean the attitude of a righteous man toward God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',22,26);">Job 22:26</a>), or simply the attitude of a suppliant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',9,6);">Ezr 9:6</a>).``48';
isbe[5528]='Light`lit (\'or, ma\'or; phos; many other words):<P>1. Origin of Light<P>2. A Comprehensive Term<P class="in15">(1) Natural Light<P class="in15">(2) Artificial Light<P class="in15">(3) Miraculous Light<P class="in15">(4) Mental, Moral, Spiritual Light<P>3. An Attribute of Holiness<P class="in15">(1) God<P class="in15">(2) Christ<P class="in15">(3) Christians<P class="in15">(4) The Church<P>4. Symbolism<P>5. Expressive Terms<hr /><P>1. Origin of Light:<P>The creation of light was the initial step in the creation of life. "Let there be light" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,3);">Ge 1:3</a>) was the first word of God spoken after His creative Spirit "moved" upon the primary material out of which He created the heavens and the earth, and which lay, until the utterance of that word, in the chaos of darkness and desolation. Something akin, possibly, to the all-pervasive electro-magnetic activity of the aurora borealis penetrated the chaotic night of the world. The ultimate focusing of light (on the 4th day of creation, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,14);">Ge 1:14</a>) in suns, stars, and solar systems brought the initial creative process to completion, as the essential condition of all organic life. The origin of light thus finds its explanation in the purpose and very nature of God whom John defines as not only the Author of light but, in an all-inclusive sense, as light itself: "God is light" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,5);">1Joh 1:5</a>).<P>2. A Comprehensive Term:<P>The word "light" is Divinely rich in its comprehensiveness and meaning. Its material splendor is used throughout the Scriptures as the symbol and synonym of all that is luminous and radiant in the mental, moral and spiritual life of men and angels; while the eternal God, because of His holiness and moral perfection, is pictured as "dwelling in light unapproachable" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,16);">1Ti 6:16</a>). Every phase of the word, from the original light in the natural world to the spiritual glory of the celestial, is found in Holy Writ.<P>(1) Natural Light.<P>The light of day (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,5);">Ge 1:5</a>); of sun, moon and stars; "lights in the firmament" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'14-18\');">Ge 1:14-18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',74,16);">Ps 74:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',136,7);">136:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',148,3);">148:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',12,2);">Ec 12:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,5);">Re 22:5</a>). Its characteristics are beauty, radiance, utility. It "rejoiceth the heart" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',15,30);">Pr 15:30</a>); "Truly the light is sweet" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',11,7);">Ec 11:7</a>); without it men stumble and are helpless (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,9,10);">Joh 11:9,10</a>); it is something for which they wait with inexpressible longing (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',30,26);">Job 30:26</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',130,6);">Ps 130:6</a>). Life, joy, activity and all blessings are dependent upon light.<P>Light and life are almost synonymous to the inhabitants of Palestine, and in the same way darkness and death. Theirs is the land of sunshine. When they go to other lands of clouded skies their only thought is to return to the brightness and sunshine of their native land. In Palestine there is hardly a day in the whole year when the sun does not shine for some part of it, while for five months of the year there is scarcely an interruption of the sunshine. Time is reckoned from sunset to sunset. The day\'s labor closes with the coming of darkness. "Man goeth forth unto his work and to his labor until the evening" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',104,23);">Ps 104:23</a>).<P>The suddenness of the change from darkness to light with the rising sun and the disappearance of the sun in the evening is more striking than in more northern countries, and it is not strange that in the ancient days there should have arisen a worship of the sun as the giver of light and happiness, and that Job should mention the enticement of sun-worship when he "beheld the sun when it shined, or the moon walking in brightness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',31,26);">Job 31:26</a>). The severest plague in Egypt next to the slaying of the firstborn was the plague of darkness which fell upon the Egyptians (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',10,23);">Ex 10:23</a>). This love of light finds expression in both Old Testament and New Testament in a very extensive use of the word to express those things which are most to be desired and most helpful to man, and in this connection we find some of the most beautiful figures in the Bible.<P>(2) Artificial Light.<P>When natural light fails, man by discovery or invention provides himself with some temporary substitute, however dim and inadequate. The ancient Hebrews had "oil for the light" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,6);">Ex 25:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,8);">35:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,2);">Le 24:2</a>) and lamps (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,14);">Ex 35:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,15);">Mt 5:15</a>). "There were many lights. (lampas) in the upper chamber" at Troas, where Paul preached until midnight (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,8);">Ac 20:8</a>); so <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',25,10);">Jer 25:10</a> the Revised Version (British and American), "light of the lamp;" the King James Version, "candle."<P>(3) Miraculous Light.<P>When the appalling plague of "thick darkness," for three days, enveloped the Egyptians, terrified and rendered them helpless, "all the children of Israel had light in their dwellings" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',10,23);">Ex 10:23</a>). Whether the darkness was due to a Divinely-ordered natural cause or the light was the natural light of day, the process that preserved the interspersed Israelites from the encompassing darkness was supernatural. Miraculous, also, even though through natural agency, was the "pillar of fire" that gave light to the Israelites escaping from Pharaoh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,21);">Ex 13:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,20);">14:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',78,14);">Ps 78:14</a>), "He led them...all the night with a light of fire." Supernatural was the effulgence at Christ\'s transfiguration that made "his garments...white as the light" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',17,2);">Mt 17:2</a>). Under the same category Paul classifies \'the great light\' that \'suddenly shone round about him from heaven\' on the way to Damascus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,6);">Ac 22:6</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,3);">Ac 9:3</a>). In these rare instances the supernatural light was not only symbolic of an inner spiritual light, but instrumental, in part at least, in revealing or preparing the way for it.<P>(4) Mental, Moral, Spiritual Light.<P>The phenomena of natural light have their counterpart in the inner life of man. Few words lend themselves with such beauty and appropriateness to the experiences, conditions, and radiance of the spiritual life. For this reason the Scriptures use "light" largely in the figurative sense. Borrowed from the natural world, it is, nevertheless, inherently suited to portray spiritual realities. In secular life a distinct line of demarcation is drawn between intellectual and spiritual knowledge and illumination. Education that enlightens the mind may leave the moral man untouched. This distinction rarely obtains in the Bible, which deals with man as a spiritual being and looks upon his faculties as interdependent in their action.<P>(a) A few passages, however, refer to the light that comes chiefly to the intellect or mind through Divine instruction, e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,130);">Ps 119:130</a>, "The opening of thy words giveth light"; so <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',6,23);">Pr 6:23</a>, "The law is light." Even here the instruction includes moral as well as mental enlightenment.<P>(b) Moral: <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',24,13,16);">Job 24:13,16</a> has to do exclusively with man\'s moral attitude to truth: "rebel against the light"; "know not the light." <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',5,20);">Isa 5:20</a> describes a moral confusion and blindness, which cannot distinguish light from darkness.<P>(c) For the most part, however, light and life go together. It is the product of salvation: "Yahweh is my light and my salvation" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',27,1);">Ps 27:1</a>). "Light," figuratively used, has to do preeminently with spiritual life, including also the illumination that floods all the faculties of the soul: intellect, conscience, reason, will. In the moral realm the enlightenment of these faculties is dependent wholly on the renewal of the spirit. "In thy light...we see light" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',36,9);">Ps 36:9</a>); "The life was the light of men" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,4);">Joh 1:4</a>).<P>Light is an attribute of holiness, and thus a personal quality. It is the outshining of Deity.<P>3. An Attribute of Holiness:<P>(1) God.<P>"God is light, and in him is no darkness at all" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,5);">1Joh 1:5</a>). Darkness is the universal symbol and condition of sin and death; light the symbol and expression of holiness. "The light of Israel will be for a fire, and his Holy One for a flame" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,17);">Isa 10:17</a>). God, by His presence and grace, is to us a "marvellous light" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,9);">1Pe 2:9</a>). The glory of His holiness and presence is the "everlasting light" of the redeemed in heaven (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',60,19,20);">Isa 60:19,20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',21,23,24);">Re 21:23,24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,5);">22:5</a>).<P>(2) Christ.<P>Christ, the eternal Word (logos, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,1);">Joh 1:1</a>), who said "Let there be light" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,3);">Ge 1:3</a>), is Himself the "effulgence of (God\'s) glory" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,3);">Heb 1:3</a>), "the light which lighteth every man, coming into the world" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,9);">Joh 1:9</a>) (compare the statements concerning Wisdom in The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 7:25f</span> and concerning Christ in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,3);">Heb 1:3</a>; and see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CREEDS">CREEDS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LOGOS">LOGOS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOHANNINE+THEOLOGY">JOHANNINE THEOLOGY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WISDOM">WISDOM</a>). As the predicted Messiah, He was to be "for alight of the Gentiles" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',42,6);">Isa 42:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',49,6);">49:6</a>). His birth was the fulfillment of this prophecy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,32);">Lu 2:32</a>). Jesus called Himself "the light of the world" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,12);">Joh 8:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',9,5);">9:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,46);">12:46</a>); As light He was "God...manifest in the flesh (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',3,16);">1Ti 3:16</a> the King James Version). "The Word was God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,1);">Joh 1:1</a>). Jesus as logos is the eternal expression of God as a word is the expression of a thought. In the threefold essence of His being God is Life (zoe) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,26);">Joh 5:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,57);">6:57</a>); God is Love (agape) (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,8);">1Joh 4:8</a>); God is Light (phos) (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,5);">1Joh 1:5</a>). Thus Christ, the logos, manifesting the three aspects of the Divine Nature, is Life, Love and Light, and these three are inseparable and constitute the glory. which the disciples beheld in Him, "glory as of the only begotten from the Father" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,14);">Joh 1:14</a>). In revealing and giving life, Christ becomes "the light of men" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,4);">Joh 1:4</a>). God gives "the light of the knowledge of (his) glory in the face of Jesus Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',4,6);">2Co 4:6</a>), and this salvation is called "the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',4,4);">2Co 4:4</a>). Christ is thus the Teacher, Enlightener ("Christ shall give thee light," <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,14);">Eph 5:14</a> the King James Version), Guide, Saviour of men.<P>(3) Christians.<P>All who catch and reflect the light of God and of Christ are called "light," "lights."<P>(a) John the Baptist: "a burning and a shining light" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,35);">Joh 5:35</a> the King James Version). It is significant that this pre-Christian prophet was termed luchnos, while the disciples of the new dispensation are called phos (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,14);">Mt 5:14</a>): "Ye are the light of the world."<P>(b) Henceforth Christians and saints were called "children of light" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,8);">Lu 16:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,36);">Joh 12:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,8);">Eph 5:8</a>), and were expected to be "seen as lights in the world" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,15);">Php 2:15</a>).<P>(c) The Jew who possessed the law mistakenly supposed he was "a light of them that are in darkness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,19);">Ro 2:19</a>).<P>(4) The Church.<P>Zion was to "shine" because her \'light had come\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',60,1);">Isa 60:1</a>). The Gentiles were to come to her light (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',60,3);">Isa 60:3</a>). Her mission as the enlightener of the world was symbolized in the ornamentations of her priesthood. The Urim of the high priest\'s breastplate signified light, and the name itself is but the plural form of the Hebrew \'or. It stood for revelation, and thummim for truth. The church of the Christian dispensation was to be even more radiant with the light of God and of Christ. The seven churches of Asia were revealed to John, by the Spirit, as seven golden candlesticks, and her ministers as seven stars, both luminous with the light of the Gospel revelation. In Ephesians, Christ, who is the Light of the world, is the Head of the church, the latter being His body through which His glory is to be manifested to the world, "to make all men see," etc. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,9,10);">Eph 3:9,10</a>). "Unto him be the glory in the church" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,21);">Eph 3:21</a>), the church bringing glory to God, by revealing His glory to men through its reproduction of the life and light of Christ.<P>4. Symbolism:<P>Light symbolizes:<P>(1) the eye, "The light of the body is the eye" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,22);">Mt 6:22</a>, the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',11,34);">Lu 11:34</a>);<P>(2) watchfulhess, "Let your lights (the Revised Version (British and American) "lamps") be burning," the figure being taken from the parable of the Virgins;<P>(3) protection, "armor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',13,12);">Ro 13:12</a>), the garment of a holy and Christ-like life;<P>(4) the sphere of the Christian\'s daily walk, "inheritance of the saints in light" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,12);">Col 1:12</a>);<P>(5) heaven, for the inheritance just referred to includes the world above in which "the Lamb is the light thereof"<P>(6) prosperity, relief (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',8,16);">Es 8:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',30,26);">Job 30:26</a>), in contrast with the calamities of the wicked whose "light...shall be put out" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',18,5);">Job 18:5</a>);<P>(7) joy and gladness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',3,20);">Job 3:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',97,11);">Ps 97:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',112,4);">112:4</a>);<P>(8) God\'s favor, the light of thy countenance" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',4,6);">Ps 4:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',44,3);">44:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',89,15);">89:15</a>), and a king\'s favor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',16,15);">Pr 16:15</a>);<P>(9) life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',13,3);">Ps 13:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',49,19);">49:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,4);">Joh 1:4</a>).<P>5. Expressive Terms:<P>Expressive terms are:<P>(1) "fruit of the light" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,9);">Eph 5:9</a>), i.e. goodness, righteousness, truth;<P>(2) "light in the Lord" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,8);">Eph 5:8</a>), indicating the source of light (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',2,5);">Isa 2:5</a>);<P>(3) "inheritance of the saints in light" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,12);">Col 1:12</a>), a present experience issuing in heaven;<P>(4) "Father of lights" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,17);">Jas 1:17</a>), signifying the Creator of the heavenly bodies;<P>(5) "marvellous light" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,9);">1Pe 2:9</a>), the light of God\'s presence and fellowship;<P>(6) "Walk in the light" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,7);">1Joh 1:7</a>), in the light of God\'s teaching and companionship;<P>(7) "abideth in the light" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,10);">1Joh 2:10</a>), in love, Divine and fraternal;<P>(8) "Light of the glorious gospel of Christ ";" light of the knowledge of the glory of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',4,4,6);">2Co 4:4,6</a> the King James Version).``139';
isbe[5529]='Light; Lightness`lit\'-nes: "Light" is used in Scripture, as in ordinary speech, in the sense of what is small, slight, trivial, easy; "lightness" with the connotation of vacillation or lasciviousness. Thus in the Old Testament, "a light thing," a small, easy, slight thing (qalal, <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',3,18);">2Ki 3:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',49,6);">Isa 49:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',8,17);">Eze 8:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',22,7);">22:7</a>, in the last case "to treat slightingly"). "Lightness" (qol) occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',3,9);">Jer 3:9</a> ("the lightness of her whoredom"); in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',23,32);">23:32</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) changes "lightness" (a different word) to "vain boasting." In the New Testament the phrase occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,5);">Mt 22:5</a>, "made light of it" (ameleo), i.e. "treated it with neglect"; and Paul asks (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',1,17);">2Co 1:17</a>), "Did I show lightness?" (the Revised Version (British and American) "fickleness"). These examples sufficiently illustrate the meaning.``132';
isbe[5530]='Lightning`lit\'-ning (baraq, chaziz; astrape): Lightning is caused by the discharge of electricity between clouds or between clouds and the earth. In a thunder-storm there is a rapid gathering of particles of moisture into clouds and forming of large drops of rain. This gathers with it electric potential until the surface of the cloud (or the enlarged water particles) is insufficient to carry the charge, and a discharge takes place, producing a brilliant flash of light and the resulting thunder-clap. Thunder-storms are common in Syria and Palestine during the periods of heavy rain in the spring and fall and are often severe. Lightning is usually accompanied by heavy rainfall or by hail, as at the time of the plague of hail (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',9,24);">Ex 9:24</a>).<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HAIL">HAIL</a>.<P>In the Scriptures it is used:<P>(a) indicating the power of God: The power of God is shown in His command of the forces of Nature, and He is the only one who knows the secrets of Nature: "He made...a way for the lightning" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',28,26);">Job 28:26</a>); "He directeth...his lightning" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',37,3);">Job 37:3</a> the King James Version); "Canst thou send forth lightnings, that they may go?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',38,35);">Job 38:35</a>); "Ask ye of Yahweh...that maketh lightnings" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',10,1);">Zec 10:1</a>). See also <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',18,14);">Ps 18:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',97,4);">97:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',135,7);">135:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',36,32);">Job 36:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',10,13);">Jer 10:13</a>;<P>(b) figuratively and poetically: David sings of Yahweh, "He sent...lightnings manifold, and discomfited them" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',18,14);">Ps 18:14</a>); used for speed: "The chariots...run like the lightnings" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Nah\',2,4);">Na 2:4</a>): "His arrow shall go forth as the lightning" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',9,14);">Zec 9:14</a>); "The living creatures ran and returned as the appearance of a flash of lightning" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,14);">Eze 1:14</a>). The coming of the kingdom is described by Jesus as the shining of the lightning from one part of heaven to another, even "from the east unto the west" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,27);">Mt 24:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',17,24);">Lu 17:24</a>);<P>(c) meaning bright or shining: Daniel in his vision saw a man and "his face (was) as the appearance of lightning" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',10,6);">Da 10:6</a>). See also <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',4,5);">Re 4:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',8,5);">8:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',16,18);">16:18</a>.``85';
isbe[5531]='Lign-Aloes`lin-al\'-oz, lig-nal\'-oz.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ALOES">ALOES</a>`1';
isbe[5532]='Ligure`lig\'-ur (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',28,19);">Ex 28:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',39,12);">39:12</a> the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "jacinth").`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=STONES,+PRECIOUS">STONES, PRECIOUS</a>`1';
isbe[5533]='Like; Liken; Likeness; Liking`lik, lik\'-n, lik\'-nes, lik\'-ing:<P>(1) As a noun, "like" in modern English is virtually obsolete, except in the phrase "and the like," which is not found in English Versions of the Bible. "The like," however, occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,20);">1Ki 10:20</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',9,19);">2Ch 9:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',1,12);">2Ch 1:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',5,9);">Eze 5:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',18,10);">18:10</a> (the Revised Version (British and American) "any one of these things"<22>the text is uncertain); <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',45,25);">45:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',2,2);">Joe 2:2</a>; The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 16:1</span> (the Revised Version (British and American) "creatures like those"); Sirach 7:12. "His like" is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',41,33);">Job 41:33</a>; Sirach 13:15; "their like" in Sirach 27:9. "And such like" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,21);">Ga 5:21</a>) is only slightly archaic, but "doeth not such like" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',18,14);">Eze 18:14</a>) is quite obsolete.<P>(2) As an adjective "like" is common in the King James Version in such combinations as "like manner" (frequently), "like weight" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',30,34);">Ex 30:34</a>), "like occupation" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,25);">Ac 19:25</a>), etc. Modern English would in most cases replace "like" by "the same," as has been done in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',2,14);">1Th 2:14</a> the Revised Version (British and American) (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,5);">Ro 15:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,2);">Php 2:2</a>). So the Revised Version (British and American) has modernized the archaic "like precious faith" of <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,1);">2Pe 1:1</a> by inserting "a" before "like." The King James Version\'s rendering of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,21);">1Pe 3:21</a>, "the like figure whereunto," could not have been very clear at any time, and the Revised Version (British and American) has revised completely into "after a true likeness" (margin, "in the antitype").<P>(3) As an adverb "like" is used in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',38,9);">Jer 38:9</a>, "He is like to die"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jon\',1,4);">Jon 1:4</a>, "like to be broken." the Revised Version (British and American) could have used "likely" in these verses. Most common of all the uses of "like" is the quasi-prepositional construction in "He is like a man," etc. This is of course good modern English, but not so when "like" is enlarged (as it usually is in the English Versions of the Bible) into the forms "like to" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',7,5);">Da 7:5</a>), "like unto" (very common), "like as" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',26,17);">Isa 26:17</a>, etc.). These forms and the simple "like" are interchanged without much distinction, and the Revised Version (British and American) has attempted little systematizing beyond reducing the occurrences of "like as" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,13);">Mt 12:13</a>, and the American Standard Revised Version <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',13,4);">Isa 13:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',23,29);">Jer 23:29</a>).<P>(4) The verb "like" has two distinct meanings, "be pleased with" and "give pleasure to." The latter sense occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',23,16);">De 23:16</a> (The King James Version, the English Revised Version), "in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best," and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',8,8);">Es 8:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',4,5);">Am 4:5</a> the King James Version; Sirach 33:13 (the American Standard Revised Version has "pleaseth" in the three Old Testament passages). The other use of "like" belongs also to modern English, although in a much weakened sense. On account of this weakening, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',28,4);">1Ch 28:4</a> the King James Version, "liked me to make me king" and <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,28);">Ro 1:28</a> the King James Version "did not like to retain God," have become in the Revised Version (British and American) "took pleasure in" and "refused to" (margin "did not approve"). It would have been better if <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',25,7,8);">De 25:7,8</a>, "like not to take," had been modified also into "hath no wish to take." From this use of "like" is derived liking in the modern sense in The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 16:21</span>, tempered itself to every man\'s liking" (the Revised Version (British and American) "choice"). In 1Esdras 4:39, "All men do well like of her works" is a further obsolete use.<P>(5) Liken and "make like" are common. To be noted only is that, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',7,3);">Heb 7:3</a>, "made like unto the Son of God," the sense really is "likened to," "presented by the writer with the qualities of." Likeness normally means "a copy of," but in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',17,15);">Ps 17:15</a> it means the actual form itself ("form" in the American Standard Revised Version, the English Revised Version margin); compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,5);">Ro 6:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,3);">8:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,7);">Php 2:7</a>, and perhaps <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,11);">Ac 14:11</a>. Closely allied with likeness" is an obsolete use of "liking" (quite distinct from that above) in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',39,4);">Job 39:4</a> the King James Version the English Revised Version, "Their young ones are in good liking" <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',1,10);">Da 1:10</a>, "see your faces worse liking." The meaning is "appearance," "appearing," and the American Standard Revised Version renders "their young ones become strong," "see your faces worse looking." Likewise varies in meaning from the simple conjunction "and" to a strong adverb, "in exactly the same way." the Revised Version (British and American) has made some attempt to distinguish the various forces (e.g. compare the King James Version with the Revised Version (British and American) in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,36);">Lu 22:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',15,7);">15:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,20);">22:20</a>). But complete consistency was not attainable, and in certain instances was neglected deliberately, in order to preserve the familiar wording, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,37);">Lu 10:37</a>, "Go, and do thou likewise."``48';
isbe[5534]='Likhi`lik\'-hi (liqchi): A descendant of Manasseh (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,19);">1Ch 7:19</a>).``1';
isbe[5535]='Lilith`lil\'-ith, li\'-lith.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NIGHT+MONSTER">NIGHT-MONSTER</a>`1';
isbe[5536]='Lily`lil\'-i (shushan (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',7,19);">1Ki 7:19</a>), shoshannah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',4,5);">2Ch 4:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',2,1);">So 2:1</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',14,5);">Ho 14:5</a>); plural (<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',2,16);">So 2:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',4,5);">4:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',5,13);">5:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',6,2);">6:2</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',7,2);">7:2</a>; Ecclesiasticus 39:14; 50:8); krinon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,28);">Mt 6:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,27);">Lu 12:27</a>)): The Hebrew is probably a loan word from the Egyptian the original s-sh-n denoting the lotus-flower, Nymphaea lotus. This was probably the model of the architectural ornament, translated "lily-work," which appeared upon the capitals of the columns in the temple porch (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',7,19);">1Ki 7:19</a>), upon the top of the pillars (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',7,22);">1Ki 7:22</a>) and upon the turned-back rim of the "molten sea" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',7,26);">1Ki 7:26</a>).<P>Botanically the word shoshannah, like the similar modern Arabic Susan, included in all probability a great many flowers, and was used in a way at least as wide as the popular use of the English word "lily." The expression "lily of the valleys" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',2,1);">So 2:1</a>) has nothing to do with the plant of that name; the flowers referred to appear to have been associated with the rank herbage of the valley bottoms (<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',4,5);">So 4:5</a>); the expression "His lips are as lilies" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',5,13);">So 5:13</a>) might imply a scarlet flower, but more probably in oriental imagery signifies a sweet-scented flower; the sweet scent of the lily is referred to in <span class="noTag">Ecclesiasticus 39:14, and in 50:8</span> we read of "lilies by the rivers of water." The beauty of the blossom is implied in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',14,5);">Ho 14:5</a>, where Yahweh promises that repentant Israel shall "blossom as the lily." A "heap of wheat set about with lilies" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',7,2);">So 7:2</a>) probably refers to the smoothed-out piles of newly threshed wheat on the threshing-floors decorated by a circlet of flowers.<P>The reference of our Lord to the "lilies of the field" is probably, like the Old Testament references, quite a general one.<P>The Hebrew and the Greek very likely include not only any members of the great order Liliaceae, growing in Palestine, e.g. asphodel, squill, hyacinth, ornithogalum ("Star of Bethlehem"), fritillaria, tulip and colocynth, but also the more showy irises ("Tabor lilies" "purple irises," etc.) and the beautiful gladioli of the Natural Order. Irideae and the familiar narcissi of the Natural Order Amaryllideae.<P>In later Jewish literature the lily is very frequently referred to symbolically, and a lotus or lily was commonly pictured on several Jewish coins.``117';
isbe[5537]='Lily-Work`The ornament of the capitals on the bronze pillars, Jachin and Boaz, in front of Solomon\'s temple (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',7,19);">1Ki 7:19,22</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LILY">LILY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TEMPLE">TEMPLE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JACHIN+AND+BOAZ">JACHIN AND BOAZ</a>`1';
isbe[5538]='Lime`lim<P>(1) sidh; compare Arabic shad, "to plaster";<P>(2) gir; compare Arabic jir, "gypsum" or "quick-lime";<P>(3) \'abene-ghir):<P>Sidh is translated "lime" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',33,12);">Isa 33:12</a>, "And the peoples shall be as the burnings of lime, as thorns cut down, that are burned in the fire," and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',2,1);">Am 2:1</a>, "He burned the bones of the king of Edom into lime." It is translated "plaster" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',27,2);">De 27:2</a>, "Thou shalt set thee up great stones, and plaster them with plaster," also in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',27,4);">De 27:4</a>. Gir is translated "plaster" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',5,5);">Da 5:5</a>, "wrote...upon the plaster of the wall." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',27,9);">Isa 27:9</a> we have, "He maketh all the stones of the altar as chalkstones" (\'abhene-ghir).<P>Everywhere in Palestine limestone is at hand which can be converted into lime. The lime-kiln is a thick-walled, cylindrical or conical, roofless structure built of rough stones without mortar, the spaces between the stones being plastered with clay. It is usually built on the side of a hill which is slightly excavated for it, so that the sloping, external wall of the kiln rises much higher from the ground on the lower side than on the upper. The builders leave a passage or tunnel through the base of the thick wall on the lower side. The whole interior is filled with carefully packed fragments of limestone, and large piles of thorny-burner and other shrubs to serve as fuel are gathered about the kiln. The fuel is introduced through the tunnel to the base of the limestone in the kiln, and as the fire rises through the mass of broken limestone a strong draft is created. Relays of men are kept busy supplying fuel day and night. By day a column of black smoke rises from the kiln, and at night the flames may be seen bursting from the top. Several days are required to reduce the stone to lime, the amount of time depending upon the size of the kiln and upon the nature of the fuel. At the present day, mineral coal imported from Europe is sometimes employed, and requires much less time than the shrubs which are ordinarily used.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHALKSTONE">CHALKSTONE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CLAY">CLAY</a>`37';
isbe[5539]='Limit`lim\'-it (gebhul, "bound"): Occurs once in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',43,12);">Eze 43:12</a> ("limit" of holy mountain). "Limited" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',78,41);">Ps 78:41</a>) and "limiteth" (horizo, <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',4,7);">Heb 4:7</a>) are changed in the Revised Version (British and American) to "provoked" (the margin retains "limited") and "defineth" respectively.``1';
isbe[5540]='Line`lin (qaw, chebhel): Usually of a measuring line, as <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,39);">Jer 31:39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',47,3);">Eze 47:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',1,16);">Zec 1:16</a> (qaw); <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',78,55);">Ps 78:55</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',7,17);">Am 7:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',2,1);">Zec 2:1</a> (chebhel). Other Hebrew words mean simply a cord or thread (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',2,18,21);">Jos 2:18,21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',7,15);">1Ki 7:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,3);">Eze 40:3</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',19,4);">Ps 19:4</a> (qaw, "Their line is gone out through all the earth"), the reference is probably still to measurement (the heaven as spanning and bounding the earth), though the Septuagint, followed by <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',10,18);">Ro 10:18</a>, takes it as meaning a musical cord phthoggos). The "line," as measure, suggests rule of conduct (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',28,10);">Isa 28:10</a>). For "line" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',44,13);">Isa 44:13</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) reads "pencil," margin "red ochre" (seredh), and in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',10,16);">2Co 10:16</a>, "province," margin "limit" (kanon).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MEASURING+LINE">MEASURING LINE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WEIGHTS+AND+MEASURES">WEIGHTS AND MEASURES</a>`132';
isbe[5541]='Lineage`lin\'-e-aj (patria): Found only once in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,4);">Lu 2:4</a> (the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "family"), and signifying the line of paternal family descent. A word pregnant in meaning among the Jews, who kept all family records with religious care, as may be seen from the long genealogical records found everywhere in the Old Testament.``1';
isbe[5542]='Linen`lin\'-en (badh, "white linen," used chiefly for priestly robes, buts, "byssus," a fine white Egyptian linen, called in the earlier writings shesh; pesheth, "flax," cadhin; bussos, othonion, linon, sindon): Thread or cloth made of flax.<P>1. History:<P>Ancient Egypt was noted for its fine linen (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,42);">Ge 41:42</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',19,9);">Isa 19:9</a>). From it a large export trade was carried on with surrounding nations, including the Hebrews, who early learned the art of spinning from the Egyptians (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,25);">Ex 35:25</a>) and continued to rely on them for the finest linen (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',7,16);">Pr 7:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,7);">Eze 27:7</a>). The culture of flax in Palestine probably antedated the conquest, for in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',2,6);">Jos 2:6</a> we read of the stalks of flax which Rahab had laid in order upon the roof. Among the Hebrews, as apparently among the Canaanites, the spinning and weaving of linen were carried on by the women (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',31,13,19);">Pr 31:13,19</a>), among whom skill in this work was considered highly praiseworthy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,25);">Ex 35:25</a>). One family, the house of Ashbea, attained eminence as workers in linen (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,21);">1Ch 4:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',2,14);">2Ch 2:14</a>).<P>2. General Uses:<P>Linen was used, not only in the making of garments of the finer kinds and for priests, but also for shrouds, hangings, and possibly for other purposes in which the most highly prized cloth of antiquity would naturally be desired.<P>3. Priestly Garments:<P>The robes of the Hebrew priests consisted of 4 linen garments, in addition to which the high priest wore garments of other stuffs (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',28,\'1-\');">Ex 28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',39,\'1-\');">39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,10);">Le 6:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,4);">16:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',22,18);">1Sa 22:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,17,18);">Eze 44:17,18</a>). Egyptian priests are said to have worn linen robes (Herod. ii.37). In religious services by others than priests, white linen was also preferred, as in the case of the infant Samuel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',2,18);">1Sa 2:18</a>), the Levite singers in the temple (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',5,12);">2Ch 5:12</a>), and even royal personages (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',6,14);">2Sa 6:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',15,27);">1Ch 15:27</a>). Accordingly, it was ascribed to angels (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',9,2,3,11);">Eze 9:2,3,11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',10,2,6,7);">10:2,6,7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',10,5);">Da 10:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',12,6,7);">12:6,7</a>). Fine linen, white and pure, is the raiment assigned to the armies which are in heaven following Him who is called Faithful and True (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,14);">Re 19:14</a>). It is deemed a fitting symbol of the righteousness and purity of the saints (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,8);">Re 19:8</a>).<P>4. Other Garments:<P>Garments of distinction were generally made of the same material: e.g. those which Pharaoh gave Joseph (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,42);">Ge 41:42</a>), and those which Mordecai wore (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',8,15);">Es 8:15</a>; compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,19);">Lu 16:19</a>). Even a girdle of fine linen could be used by a prophet as a means of attracting attention to his message (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',13,1);">Jer 13:1</a>). It is probable that linen wrappers of a coarser quality were used by men (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',14,12,13);">Jud 14:12,13</a>) and women (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',31,22);">Pr 31:22</a>). The use of linen, however, for ordinary purposes probably suggested unbecoming luxury (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',3,23);">Isa 3:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',16,10,13);">Eze 16:10,13</a>; compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',18,12,16);">Re 18:12,16</a>). The poorer classes probably wore wrappers made either of unbleached flax or hemp (Ecclesiasticus 40:4; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,51);">Mr 14:51</a>). The use of a mixture called sha\'atnez, which is defined (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',22,11);">De 22:11</a>) as linen and wool together, was forbidden in garments.<P>5. Shrouds:<P>The Egyptians used linen exclusively in wrapping their mummies (Herod. ii.86). As many as one hundred yards were used in one bandage. Likewise, the Hebrews seem to have preferred this material for winding-sheets for the dead, at least in the days of the New Testament (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,59);">Mt 27:59</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,46);">Mr 15:46</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,53);">Lu 23:53</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,40);">Joh 19:40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,5);">20:5</a>) and the Talmud (Jerusalem Killayim 9:32b).<P>6. Hangings:<P>The use of twisted linen (shesh moshzar) for fine hangings dates back to an early period. It was used in the tabernacle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,1);">Ex 26:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',27,9);">27:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,\'1-\');">35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',36,\'1-\');">36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',38,\'1-\');">38</a>; Josephus, Ant, III, vi, 2), in the temple (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',3,14);">2Ch 3:14</a>), and no doubt in other places (Mishna, Yoma\', iii. 4). Linen cords for hangings are mentioned in the description of the palace of Ahasuerus at Shushan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',1,6);">Es 1:6</a>).<P>7. Other Uses:<P>Other uses are suggested, such as for sails, in the imaginary ship to which Tyre is compared (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,7);">Eze 27:7</a>), but judging from the extravagance of the other materials in the ship, it is doubtful whether we may infer that such valuable material as linen was ever actually used for this purpose. It is more likely, however, that it was used for coverings or tapestry (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',7,16);">Pr 7:16</a>), and possibly in other instances where an even, durable material was needed, as in making measuring lines (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,3);">Eze 40:3</a>).``80';
isbe[5543]='Lintel`lin\'-tel.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HOUSE">HOUSE</a>`1';
isbe[5544]='Linus`li\'-nus (Linos (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,21);">2Ti 4:21</a>)): One of Paul\'s friends in Rome during his second and last imprisonment in that city. He was one of the few who remained faithful to the apostle, even when most of the Christians had forsaken him. And writing to Timothy when he realized that his execution could not be very far distant<6E>for he was now ready to be offered, and the time of his departure was at hand (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,6);">2Ti 4:6</a>)<29>he sends greeting to Timothy from four friends whom he names, and Linus is one of them. There is a tradition that Linus was bishop of the church at Rome. "It is perhaps fair to assume, though of course there is no certainty of this, that the consecration of Linus to the government of the Roman church as its first bishop was one of the dying acts of the apostle Paul" (H.D.M. Spence, in Ellicott\'s New Testament Commentary on 2 Tim).<P>Irenaeus<75>bishop of Lyons about 178 AD<41>in his defense of orthodox doctrine against the Gnostics "appeals especially to the bishops of Rome, as depositories of the apostolic tradition." The list of Irenaeus commences with Linus, whom he identifies with the person of this name mentioned by Paul, and whom he states to have been "entrusted with the office of the bishopric by the apostles ..... With the many possibilities of error, no more can safely be assumed of Linus...than that he held some prominent position in the Roman church" (Lightfoot\'s "Dissertation on the Christian Ministry," in Commentary on Phil, 220f).<P>"Considering the great rarity of this Greek mythological name as a proper name for persons, we can hardly doubt that here, as Irenaeus has directly asserted, the same Roman Christian is meant who, according to ancient tradition, became after Peter and Paul the first bishop of Rome. Among the mythical characters in Apostolical Constitutions, vii, 46 occurs Linos ho Klaudias, who is declared to have been ordained by Paul as the first bishop of Rome. He is thus represented as the son or husband of the Claudia whose name comes after his in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,21);">2Ti 4:21</a>.<P>"These meager statements have been enlarged upon by English investigators. The Claudia mentioned here is, they hold, identical with the one who, according to Martial, married a certain Pudens (85-90 AD), and she, in turn, with the Claudia Rufina from Britain, who is then made out to be a daughter of the British king, Cogidumnus, or Titus Claudius Cogidubnus. For a refutation of these assumptions, which, even chronologically considered, are impossible, see Lightfoot, Clement, I, 76-79" (Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, 20).``155';
isbe[5545]='Lion`li\'-un:<P>(1) Occurring most often in the Old Testament is \'aryeh, plural \'ardyoth. Another form, \'ari, plural \'arayim, is found less often.<P>1. Names:<P>Compare \'ari\'el, "Ariel" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,16);">Ezr 8:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',29,1,2,7);">Isa 29:1,2,7</a>); char\'el, "upper altar," and \'ari\'el, "altar hearth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',43,15);">Eze 43:15</a>); \'aryeh, "Arieh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',15,25);">2Ki 15:25</a>); \'ar\'eli, "Areli" and "Arelites" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,16);">Ge 46:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,17);">Nu 26:17</a>).<P>(2) kephir, "young lion," often translated "lion" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',35,17);">Ps 35:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',19,12);">Pr 19:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',23,1);">23:1</a>, etc.).<P>(3) shachal, translated "fierce lion" or "lion" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',4,10);">Job 4:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',10,16);">10:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',28,8);">28:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',5,14);">Ho 5:14</a>).<P>(4) layish, translated "old lion" or "lion" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',4,11);">Job 4:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',30,30);">Pr 30:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,6);">Isa 30:6</a>).<P>Compare Arabic laith, "lion": layish, "Laish," or "Leshem" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,47);">Jos 19:47</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',18,7,14,27,29);">Jud 18:7,14,27,29</a>); layish, "Laish" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',25,44);">1Sa 25:44</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',3,15);">2Sa 3:15</a>).<P>(5) lebhi, plural lebha\'im, "lioness", also labhi\', and \'lebhiya\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,9);">Ge 49:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',23,24);">Nu 23:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',24,9);">24:9</a>); compare town in south of Judah, Lebaoth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,32);">Jos 15:32</a>) or Beth-lebaoth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,6);">Jos 19:6</a>); also Arabic labwat, "lioness "; Lebweh, a town in Coele-Syria.<P>(6) aur, gor, "whelp," with \'aryeh or a pronoun, e.g. "Judah is a lion\'s whelp," gur \'aryeh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,9);">Ge 49:9</a>); "young ones" of the jackal (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',4,3);">La 4:3</a>). Also bene labhi\', "whelps (sons) of the lioness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',4,11);">Job 4:11</a>); and kephir \'arayoth, "young lion," literally, "the young of lions" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',14,5);">Jud 14:5</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',28,8);">Job 28:8</a>, the King James Version has "lion\'s whelps" for bene shachats, the Revised Version (British and American) "proud beasts." the Revised Version margin "sons of pride"; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',41,34);">Job 41:34 (Hebrew 26)</a>.<P>(7) leon, "lion" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,17);">2Ti 4:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,33);">Heb 11:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,8);">1Pe 5:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',4,7);">Re 4:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',5,5);">5:5</a>; The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 11:17; Ecclesiasticus 4:30; 13:19; Bel and the Dragon 31,32,34</span>).<P>(8) skumnos, "whelp" (1Macc 3:4).<P>2. Natural History:<P>The lion is not found in Palestine at the present day, though in ancient times it is known to have inhabited not only Syria and Palestine but also Asia Minor and the Balkan peninsula, and its fossil remains show that it was contemporary with prehistoric man in Northwestern Europe and Great Britain. Its present range extends throughout Africa, and it is also found in Mesopotamia, Southern Persia, and the border of India. There is some reason to think that it may be found in Arabia, but its occurrence there remains to be proved. The Asiatic male lion does not usually have as large a mane as the African, but both belong to one species, Fells leo.<P>3. Figurative:<P>Lions are mentioned in the Bible for their strength (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',14,18);">Jud 14:18</a>), boldness (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',17,10);">2Sa 17:10</a>), ferocity (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',7,2);">Ps 7:2</a>), and stealth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',10,9);">Ps 10:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',3,10);">La 3:10</a>). Therefore in prophetical references to the millennium, the lion, with the bear, wolf, and leopard, is mentioned as living in peace with the ox, calf, kid, lamb and the child (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',91,13);">Ps 91:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',11,\'6-8\');">Isa 11:6-8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',65,25);">65:25</a>). The roaring of the lion is often mentioned (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',4,10);">Job 4:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',104,21);">Ps 104:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',31,4);">Isa 31:4</a> (the Revised Version (British and American) "growling"); <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,38);">Jer 51:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',22,25);">Eze 22:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',11,10);">Ho 11:10</a>). Judah is a "lion\'s whelp" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,9);">Ge 49:9</a>), likewise Dan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,22);">De 33:22</a>). It is said of certain of David\'s warriors (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',12,8);">1Ch 12:8</a>) that their "faces were like the faces of lions." David\'s enemy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',17,12);">Ps 17:12</a>) "is like a lion that is greedy of his prey." "The king\'s wrath is as the roaring of a lion" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',19,12);">Pr 19:12</a>). God in His wrath is "unto Ephraim as a lion, and as a young lion to the house of Judah" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',5,14);">Ho 5:14</a>). "The devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,8);">1Pe 5:8</a>). "Lion" occurs in the figurative language of Ezekiel, Daniel, and Revelation. The figures of lions were used in the decorations of Solomon\'s temple and throne (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',7,29,36);">1Ki 7:29,36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,19);">10:19</a>f).<P>4. Narrative:<P>Nearly all references to the lion are figurative. The only notices of the lion in narrative are of the lion slain by Samson (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',14,5);">Jud 14:5</a>); by David (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',17,34);">1Sa 17:34</a>f); by Benaiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,20);">2Sa 23:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,22);">1Ch 11:22</a>); the prophet slain by a lion (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',13,24);">1Ki 13:24</a>; also <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',20,36);">1Ki 20:36</a>); the lions sent by the Lord among the settlers in Samaria (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,25);">2Ki 17:25</a>); Daniel in the lions\' den (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',6,16);">Da 6:16</a>). In all these cases the word used is \'aryeh or \'ari.<P>5. Vocabulary:<P>The Arabic language boasts hundreds of names for the lion. Many of these are, however, merely adjectives used substantively. The commonest Arabic names are sab\', \'asad, laith, and labwat, the last two of which are identified above with the Hebrew layish and labhi\'. As in Arabic, so in Hebrew, the richness of the language in this particular gives opportunity for variety of expression, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',4,10,11);">Job 4:10,11</a>:<P class="in15">"The roaring of the lion (\'aryeh), and the voice of the fierce lion (shachal),<br>And the teeth of the young lions (kephirim), are broken.<br>The old lion (layish) perisheth for lack of prey,<br>And the whelps of the lioness (bene labhi\') are scattered abroad."<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',14,\'5-18\');">Jud 14:5-18</a>, no less than three different terms, kephir \'arayoth, aryeh, and \'ari, are used of Samson\'s lion.``37';
isbe[5546]='Lip`(saphah, sepheth, "lip," "language," "speech," "talk" (also "rim," "border," "shore," "bank," etc.), sapham, "(upper) lip," "moustache," "beard"; cheilos, "lip" (also once, "shore" in the quotation <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,12);">Heb 11:12</a> equals <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,17);">Ge 22:17</a>)):<P>(1) Lips stand in oriental idiom for speech or language, like "mouth," "tongue"; therefore they stand in parallelism. "The lip of truth shall be established for ever; but a lying tongue is but for a moment" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',12,19);">Pr 12:19</a>). "To shoot out the lip" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',22,7);">Ps 22:7</a>) means to make a mocking, contemptuous, scornful face. As the lips are the chief instrument of speech, we find numerous idiomatic phrases for "speaking," such as: "the utterance of the lips" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',30,6,8);">Nu 30:6,8</a>), "to proceed out of the lips" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',30,12);">Nu 30:12</a>), "to open the lips" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',32,20);">Job 32:20</a>), "to go out of the lips" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',17,1);">Ps 17:1</a>). These expressions do not convey, as a rule, the idea that the utterance proceeds merely out of the lips, and that it lacks sincerity and the consent of the heart, but occasionally this is intended, e.g. "This people draw nigh unto me, and with their mouth and with their lips do honor me, but have removed their heart far from me" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',29,13);">Isa 29:13</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',15,8);">Mt 15:8</a>). The "fruit of the lips" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',57,19);">Isa 57:19</a> equals <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',13,15);">Heb 13:15</a>) and "calves of the lips" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',14,2);">Ho 14:2</a> the King James Version) designate the praise and thanksgiving due to God. "Fervent (the King James Version "burning") lips" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',26,23);">Pr 26:23</a>) are synonymous with eloquence. "To refrain the lips" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',40,9);">Ps 40:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',10,19);">Pr 10:19</a>) means to keep silence, where the godless or unwise would wish to assert his rights.<P>Numerous other expressions need no further explanation, such as "perverse lips" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',4,24);">Pr 4:24</a>), "uncircumcised lips" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,12,30);">Ex 6:12,30</a>), "feigned lips" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',17,1);">Ps 17:1</a>), "lying lips" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',31,18);">Ps 31:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',10,18);">Pr 10:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',12,22);">12:22</a>), "wicked (or false) lips" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',17,4);">Pr 17:4</a>), "unclean lips" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',6,5);">Isa 6:5</a>), "strange (the King James Version "stammering") lips" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',28,11);">Isa 28:11</a>), "flattering lips" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',12,2,3);">Ps 12:2,3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',7,21);">Pr 7:21</a>), "righteous lips" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',16,13);">Pr 16:13</a>).<P>(2) The Hebrew word sapham is found only in the phrase "to cover the lip or lips," which is an expression of mourning, submission and shame. The Oriental covers his lips with his hand or a portion of his garment, when he has been sunk into deep grief and sorrow. He expresses, thereby, that he cannot open his mouth at the visitation of God. Differently, however, from common mourners, Ezekiel was forbidden of God "to cover his lips" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',24,17);">Eze 24:17</a>; see also <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',24,22);">Eze 24:22</a>), i.e. to mourn in the usual way over Israel\'s downfall, as Israel had brought these judgments upon himself. The leper, victim of an incurable disease, walks about with rent clothes and hair disheveled, covering his lips, crying: "Unclean, unclean!" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',13,45);">Le 13:45</a>). The thought here is that even the breath of such a one may defile. The prophet calls upon all seers and diviners, to whom God has refused the knowledge of the future, to cover their lips in shame and confusion (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',3,7);">Mic 3:7</a>).``106';
isbe[5547]='Liquor`lik\'-er: Every sort of intoxicating liquor except the beverage prepared from the juice of the grape (yayin), according to the usage of the Old Testament, is comprehended under the generic term shekhar (compare shakhar, to "be drunk"), rendered "strong drink" (compare Greek sikera in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,15);">Lu 1:15</a>). The two terms, yayin and shekhar, "wine" and "strong drink," are often found together and are used by Old Testament writers as an exhaustive classification of the beverages in use among the ancient Hebrews (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,9);">Le 10:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',1,15);">1Sa 1:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',20,1);">Pr 20:1</a>, etc.).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WINE">WINE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DRINK,+STRONG">DRINK, STRONG</a>`1';
isbe[5548]='List`A variant of "lust" (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LUST">LUST</a>), meaning "to wish," found in the King James Version of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',17,12);">Mt 17:12</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,13);">Mr 9:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,8);">Joh 3:8</a>, as translation of thelo, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',3,4);">Jas 3:4</a> as translation of boulomai. The last case the English Revised Version has rendered "will," and the American Standard Revised Version has made the same change throughout. The word is obsolete in modern English, but <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,8);">Joh 3:8</a> is still used proverbially, "The wind bloweth where it listeth."``1';
isbe[5549]='Literature, Sub-Apostolic, 1`lit\'-er-a-tur, sub-ap-os-tol\'-ik (Christian):<P><b>I. EPISTLE OF CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS</b><P class="in15">1. Authorship and Date<P class="in15">2. Occasion and Contents<P class="in15">3. Apologetic Testimony<P class="in15">4. Doctrinal Testimony<P class="in15">5. Office-Bearers and Organization<P class="in15">6. Ritual<P><b>II. THE DIDACHE</b><P class="in15">1. Disappearance and Recovery<P class="in15">2. Date<P class="in15">3. Standpoint, Authorship and Object<P class="in15">4. Testimony to New Testament Writings<P class="in15">5. Contents and Notabilia<P><b>III. EPISTLES OF IGNATIUS</b><P class="in15">1. Author and Date<P class="in15">2. Genuineness<P class="in15">3. Leading Ideas<P class="in15">4. Other Notabilia<P><b>IV. EPISTLES OF POLYCARP</b><P class="in15">1. Date and Genuineness<P class="in15">2. Occasion and Contents<P class="in15">3. Notabilia<P><b>V. PAPIAS FRAGMENTS</b><P class="in15">1. Author and Date<P class="in15">2. Testimony to Matthew and Mark<P class="in15">3. Other Notabilia<P><b>VI. EPISTLE OF BARNABAS</b><P class="in15">1. Authorship<P class="in15">2. Date<P class="in15">3. Object and Contents<P class="in15">4. Notabilia<P><b>VII. PASTOR (SHEPHERD) OF HERMAS</b><P class="in15">1. Authorship and Date<P class="in15">2. Object and Contents<P class="in15">3. Notabilia<P><b>VIII. SECOND EPISTLE OF CLEMENT</b><P class="in15">1. Nature and Document<P class="in15">2. Date and Authorship<P class="in15">3. Contents<P class="in15">4. Notabilia<P><b>IX. APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES</b><P class="in15">1. Recovery and Date<P class="in15">2. Contents<P class="in15">3. Notabilia<P><b>X. JUSTIN MARTYR</b><P class="in15">1. Incidents of Life<P class="in15">2. First Apology<P class="in15">3. Second Apology<P class="in15">4. Dialogue with Trypho the Jew<P class="in15">5. Notabilia<P><b>XI. EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS</b><P class="in15">1. Date and Authorship<P class="in15">2. Contents<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>The Sub-apostolic Age is usually held to extend from the death of John, the last surviving apostle, about 100 AD, to the death of Polycarp, John\'s aged disciple (155-56 AD). The Christian literature of this period, although as a whole of only moderate intrinsic value, is of historical interest and importance. This is owing to the light which it throws back on apostolic times, and the testimony borne to Christian life, thought, worship, work and organization during an age when the church was under the guidance, mainly, of men who had been associated with the apostles and who might be supposed, therefore, to know their mind. Some writings are omitted from this review, having been dealt with in previous articles. For the Protevangelium of James and the Gospel and Apocalypse of Peter see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCRYPHAL+GOSPELS">APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCRYPHAL+ACTS">APOCRYPHAL ACTS</a>. For an account of extant fragments of Basilides and Valentinus, see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GNOSTICISM">GNOSTICISM</a>. For pseudo-Clementine writings see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PETER,+EPISTLES+OF">PETER, EPISTLES OF</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SIMON+MAGUS">SIMON MAGUS</a>.<P>I. Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.<P>1. Authorship and Date:<P>Only the larger part had previously been extant, when the complete epistle was recovered in 1875 by Bryennios, bishop of Nicomedia. The high honor in which it was held by early Christendom is attested<P>(1) by its position in Codex Alexandrinus, at the end of the New Testament, and in an ancient Syriac MS, between the Catholic and Pauline Epistles;<P>(2) by its being publicly read in many churches down to the 4th century.<P>(Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 16). The work is anonymous, but sent in the name of the Roman church. Dionysius of Corinth (170 AD) refers to it as written by the agency of (dia) Clement (Historia Ecclesiastica, IV, 23); Clement of Alexandria states distinctly the Clementine authorship (Strom., iv.17). The writer is evidently leading office-bearer of his church, and is identified with the Clement whom Eusebius designates as third "bishop" (or chief presbyter) of Rome after Peter, and as holding office between 92 and 101 AD (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 34). Clement is further identified by Origen (Commentary on John) and in HE, III, 15 with the Clement of <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,3);">Php 4:3</a>; but the name is too common and the interval too long to render this identity more than possible. Some conjecture the writer to be the consul, Flavius Clemens, whom Domitian (his cousin) put to death in 95 AD for alleged "atheism," i.e. probably, profession of Christianity (see Harnack, Gesch. Lit., I,253,note 1). But Clement the "bishop" is never otherwise referred to as a martyr, and a member of the imperial family would hardly have been head of the Roman church without so signal a fact being noted by some contemporary or later writer. Lightfoot, with some probability, supposes (Apostolic Fathers, I, 61) that Clement was a "freedman or the son of freedman, belonging to the household of Flavius Clemens." From Paul\'s time (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,22);">Php 4:22</a>) the imperial household included Christians; and many slaves were men of culture. To such a Christian freedman\'s influence the consul\'s conversion may have been due. Internal evidence points to Clement having been a Hellenist Jew or proselyte of Judaism; for he writes with some classical culture and with knowledge of Old Testament history and of the Septuagint; his style, moreover, has a "strong Hebraistic tinge" (Lightfoot, p. 59). The date of the epistle is fixed approximately by a reference to a persecution at Rome in progress or very recent; this persecution (during Clement\'s "episcopate") was doubtless that by Domitian in 95 AD. Clement\'s Epistle is thus not strictly within the Sub-apostolic Age, but it is uniformly included in sub-apostolic literature.<P>2. Occasion and Contents:<P>The occasion was a church feud at Corinth, and the expulsion of some faithful presbyters. The writer seeks to procure their restoration and to heal the dissension. He quotes Old Testament examples of the evil issue of envy and strife, and of the blessedness of humility, submission and concord. He adduces as a pattern the peace and harmony of Nature. In this connection occurs an anticipation of geographical discovery, when the author writes (chapter xx) of "the impassable ocean and the worlds beyond it" (compare Seneca, Medea ii.375; Strabo i.4; Plut. Mor. ix.41). Paul\'s warnings in 1 Corinthians about party spirit are recalled; a not unworthy echo of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',13,\'1-\');">1Co 13</a> is embodied; and the erring community is solemnly monished.<P>In the course of the letter, with obvious reference to <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,\'1-\');">1Co 15</a>, Clement introduces the resurrection, for which he argues from the Old Testament and from natural analogies. He refers to the phoenix which lives 500 years, and, when dissolution approaches, builds a nest of spices into which it enters to die. As the flesh decays, however, a "worm is generated, which is nurtured from the dead bird\'s moisture and putteth forth wings." The fable is mentioned by Herodotus and Pliny.<P>A lengthy prayer of intercession for "all sorts and conditions of men" is abruptly introduced near the end, in order, presumably, to imbue Corinthian Christians with that charity which they needed and which is the chief incentive to intercession. The epistle closes with a hopeful anticipation of restored concord and peace.<P>3. Apologetic Testimony:<P>Apologetic testimony is found to (1) books of the New Testament, namely, to the Pauline authorship of I Corinthians; to Mark\'s Gospel, through which (chapter xv) he quotes <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',29,13);">Isa 29:13</a>, reproducing Mark\'s variations from the Septuagint; to Acts, through which he similarly quotes (chapter xviii) <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,14);">1Sa 13:14</a>; to Romans, Ephesians, 1 Timothy, Titus, James, 1 Peter (chapters xxxv, xlvi, xxi, ii, xlvi, xlix, respectively). The parallels between Clement and He are so numerous that the latter work has from early times been ascribed to him by some (Historia Ecclesiastica, VI, 25). But the general type both of thought and of diction is dissimilar; (2) against the Tubingen theory of essential divergence between the doctrine of Peter and of Paul. The chief presbyter of Rome could not have been ignorant of such divergence; yet he refers the partisanship of which the two apostles were victims entirely to the Corinthians, not at all to the apostles (chapter xlix).<P>4. Doctrinal Testimony:<P>Doctrinal testimony is found:<P>(1) to the Trinity, "As God liveth and the Lord Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy Spirit" (chapter lviii);<P>(2) to the personality of Christ, "The Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory and the majesty forever." In union and communion with Christ we have life, are sanctified, possess love, manifest godliness (chapter i, xxxvi);<P>(3) to the atonement: Clement ascribes to Christ\'s death not merely subjective moral influence, but objective vicarious efficacy in securing our salvation, without any attempt, however, to explain the mystery. Christ hath "given his flesh for our flesh, his life for our lives" (chapter xlix);<P>(4) to justification which is distinctly enunciated as before God through faith (chapter xxxii). But this faith (as in Paul\'s writings) is a "faith which worketh" (chapter xxxv), and such justification is consistent with our being justified by works before men;<P>(5) to the inspiration of Scripture, which is real ("the Holy Spirit saith"), but not verbal; for quotations are often inexact. Apocryphal books are quoted, but not with a formula indicating Divine authority.<P>5. Office-Bearers and Organization:<P>(1) The basis of authority is not sacerdotal, but a combination of official succession and popular call; office-bearers are appointed "by the apostles or afterward by men of repute with consent of the whole ecclesia."<P>(2) Clement indicates no distinction between presbyter and bishop. Office-bearers designated as presbyters (chapters xlvii, liv) are referred to (chapters xlii, xliv) as filling the office of bishop. Addressing a church on congregational strife and insubordination, he refers to no single bishop in authority over the church. Had the episcopate, in the post-New Testament sense of mono-episcopate, been apostolically enjoined, surely the injunction would have been obeyed or enforced in Corinth.<P>(3) None the less we discern in Clement\'s own position and action the anticipation of the later episcopate. Clement is an example of how, through the personal qualities and ecclesiastical services of the man, the status of presiding presbyter developed out of seniority into superiority, out of representativeness into official authority.<P>(4) The early germ of the papacy is disclosed in the passage: "If certain persons should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and peril" (chapter lix). Such assumption by a revered man like Clement might give no offense, and the Corinthians plainly needed correction. Still we have here the first stage in the process which ultimately issued in the Roman claim to universal spiritual supremacy. The assumption, however, is not grounded on Clement\'s own official position (he speaks always in the 1st person plural), but on the superior dignity of the Roman church. The later theory of supremacy builds Roman authority on the primacy of Peter and his successors; but here the authority of the leading presbyter, in dealing with a provincial church, rests on the suggested primacy of the ecclesia in which he presides.<P>6. Ritual:<P>(1) The long prayer (chapters lix-lxi) bears internal evidence of liturgical character, through its balanced and rhythmical style, its somewhat remote relevance to the special object of the ep., and greater suitability for congregational worship, than as part of a counsel to a sister church. This internal testimony is confirmed by the correspondence of the prayer in certain verbal details with the earliest extant liturgies, particularly those of Mark and James, pointing to the early use in the Roman church of forms of prayer afterward incorporated into these liturgies. While there is evidence that down at least to the time (148 AD) of Justin\'s 1st Apology (chapter lxvii) a minister offered up prayers of his own composition, this prayer of Clement\'s Epistle indicates that before the close of the Apostolic Age, forms of supplication had begun to be introduced, not to the exclusion of "free prayer," but simply as a mode of congregational devotion countenanced by a venerated leader of the church at Rome.<P>(2) In chapter lvi Clement writes about "compassionate remembrance of them (i.e. the erring brethren) before God and the saints." By the saints, however, are most probably meant, not the beatified dead, but the living Christian brotherhood, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,2);">1Co 1:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,4);">2Co 8:4</a>.<P>This epistle leaves on readers\' minds two different yet mutually compatible impressions<6E>impressions both apparently made on the early church, by which the letter was widely read at public worship and yet excluded from the Canon of Scriptures. We realize, on the one hand, the inferiority of this writing to epistles of apostles. Clement\'s mind is receptive, not creative; and the freshness of thought characteristic of New Testament writers is absent. What New Testament book, moreover, contains such a foolish legend as that of the phoenix? On the other hand, this epistle breathes much of the spirit, as it adopts in considerable measure the phraseology and style of apostolic writings. It is as if, although the sun of special inspiration had sunk below the horizon, there remained to the church for a while a spiritual afterglow.<P>II. The "Didache"<P>1. Disappearance and Recovery:<P>The "Didache" or Teaching (longer title, "The Teaching of the Lord, by (dia) the Twelve Apostles, to the Gentiles").<2E>This work is quoted as "Scripture," without being named, by Clement of Alexandria (circa 170 AD, in Strom., i. 20). It is mentioned in HE, III, 25 as the "Teachings so-called of the Apostles," "recognized by most ecclesiastical writers," although "not a genuine" composition of apostles. Athanasius (Fest. Epistle, 39) denies its canonicity, but acknowledges its utility. The latest ancient reference to the work from personal knowledge is by Nicephoros (9th century) who includes it among apocryphal writings. Thenceforth it disappears until its recent recovery in 1875 by Bryennios.<P>2. Date:<P>There is no reliable external testimony to date. Resemblances too considerable to be accidental exist between the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas; but opinion is divided as to priority of composition. Lightfoot and others favor a common lost source. As to internal evidence the simplicity of the Eucharist and of baptism as here described, with no formal admission to the catechumenate (chapter vii); the use of "bishop" to denote the same office-bearer as presbyter; and the expectation of an impending Second Advent<6E>point to an early date. On the other hand it is unlikely that a writing which professes to give the Teaching of the Twelve would be issued until all or most apostles had passed away; and the writer seems to be acquainted with writings of John (Didache, ix.2; x.2; x.5; see Schaff, Oldest Church Manual, 90). Probably the document went through a series of recensions (Harnack in Sch-Herz; Bertlet in DB, V), and the date or dates of composition may be put between 80 and 120 AD.<P>3. Standpoint, Authorship and Object:<P>The work does not profess to be written by apostles; but the author seems to be a Jewish Christian, for he calls Friday "Preparation Day," and the style and diction are Hebraic. The work is neither Judaistic nor Ebionite: circumcision, the Sabbath, and special Mosaic observances, are ignored. From the book in whole or in part being addressed specially, although not exclusively, to Gentiles, we infer that the community among whom it was composed, while mainly Jewish Christian, made special provision for conversion and instruction of Gentiles. The doctrinal standpoint is neither Pauline nor anti-Pauline, but resembles that of James. Canon Spence (Teaching) conjectures plausibly that the author may be Simeon, cousin of James the Lord\'s brother, who became chief presbyter of the Jewish Christian community, first at Jerusalem, afterward at Pella, until his martyrdom in 107 AD.<P>4. Testimony to New Testament Writings:<P>Mt was certainly in the writer\'s hands; for the Didache contains 22 quotations from, or reminiscences of, that Gospel, extending over ten chapters of it. Particularly notable is Didache, viii.2, "Neither pray ye as the hypocrites, but as the Lord commanded in His Gospel; after this manner pray ye, Our Father," etc. (see also vii.1; ix.5; xvi.6). There are also references to the Gospel of Luke (Didache, iii.5, 16); John\'s writings (see above); Acts (Didache, iv.8), Romans (Didache, iv.5), 2 Thessalonians (Didache, xiv.1), 1 Peter (Didache, i.4). No extra-canonical saying of our Lord is recorded.<P>5. Contents and Notabilia:<P>The contents and notabilia may be examined as follows:<P>(1) Didactic (Chapters i through vi):<P>Intended for catechumens in preparation for baptism. This catechetical manual (the earliest of its kind) opens with the words: "There are two ways: one of life and one of death" (suggested probably by <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',21,8);">Jer 21:8</a>). From this text the writer gives a summary of Christian duty especially toward our neighbor, based on the Decalogue, the Golden Rule, and the Sermon on the Mount, which is frequently quoted.<P>Among notable precepts is a command to fast as well as pray for enemies; a warning against infanticide which, in the case of sickly infants, heathenism approved, and against augury and astrology as generating idolatry; an admonition not to" stretch out one\'s hands for receiving and to draw them in for giving"; an injunction to " share all things with thy brethren, and not to say that they are thine own"; a command to "love some above thine own life"; and a quaint corrective against indiscriminate and ill-informed beneficence: "Let thine alms sweat into thy hands until thou know to whom thou shouldest give." A precept to "give with thy hands a ransom for sin" may not mean more than that sinful habits are subdued by good works, but it suggests and paves the way for the error of the atoning efficacy of almsgiving. The summary of duty relates chiefly to the second Table of the Law; duty toward God is afterward (so far) dealt with under "worship." This may account for obedience to parents being strangely omitted; for among the Jews the Fifth Commandment was included in the First Table.<P>(2) Devotional: Worship and Rites (Chapters vii through x, xiv).<P>The Lord\'s Prayer is to be used thrice a day. "Heaven" and "debt" are found instead of "heavens" and "debts." The Doxology is added (with "kingdom" omitted)<29>its earliest recorded use in this connection. Christians are to fast on Wednesday and Friday, the days of the betrayal and crucifixion. Fasting is enjoined for a day or two before baptism, both on baptizer and on baptized; it is recommended to "others who can." There is no mention of oil, salt, or exorcism. The baptismal formula, "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost," is commanded, confirming the historical trustworthiness of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,19);">Mt 28:19</a>. Triple immersion in "living water" is assumed to be normal; but where this is impracticable, other water and affusion are permitted (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TRINE+IMMERSION">TRINE IMMERSION</a>). The Lord\'s Supper is dealt with only on its eucharistic side, the writer\'s object being not to expound the nature of the rite, but to give models of thanksgiving.<P>The phrase, "after being filled give thanks," suggests that the Agape was still associated with the sacrament: the dissociation had begun when Pliny wrote to Trajan in 112 AD. A liturgical element in sacramental worship is indicated by the prescription of forms of thanksgiving for the cup, the broken bread, and spiritual mercies. "Give thanks thus." The thanksgiving for the cup is as follows: "We give thanks to thee our Father, for the holy vine of David, thy servant, which thou hast made known to us through Jesus Christ." But nothing suggests that the entire service is liturgical, and the forms supplied are not rigidly imposed; for prophets are to offer thanks in such terms as they choose. On the Lord\'s Day congregational worship and eucharistic bread-breaking, after confession to God and reconciliation with men, are distinctly enjoined.<P>(3) Ecclesiastical (Chapters xi through xiii, xv).<P>Of church office-bearers, two classes are mentioned, ordinary and extraordinary. Of the former (essential to congregational organization) only bishops and deacons are mentioned, i.e. those entrusted with rule and oversight, with their assistants. Presbyter and bishop appear to be still identical, as the former is not specified (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,1);">Php 1:1</a>). Popular election of these functionaries is indicated: "Elect for yourselves"; without denial, however, of those already in office having a share in the settlement. In the second class, apostles, prophets and teachers are included. "Apostle" is used, not in the narrower sense of men called to the office personally by Christ, but in the wider sense which embraces all whose call to be His ambassadors has been signalized by Divine gifts-specially accredited evangelists unconnected with any particular community. (Among Jewish Christians the designation survived to the 4th century, for the Theodosian Code of that period refers to Jewish presbyters and to those "quos ipsi apostolos vocant.") These apostles were to be received as the Lord," and hospitably entertained; but, unlike apostles in the special sense, they were not to remain anywhere longer than "one or two days." Their function was to scatter the seed widely, and any expression of desire to remain longer was to be discouraged, while a demand for salary from a particular community would be evidence of false apostleship. The special function of prophets and teachers, on the other hand, was the instruction and comfort of church members. They accordingly might be encouraged to settle in a community and receive "first-fruits" for their support. These prophets and teachers, however, were not to supersede the "bishops" or presbyters in ruling, but were to undertake only those functions for which they were specially qualified. On the other hand, bishops and deacons were not to be excluded from preaching and teaching by the settlement of prophets and official teachers in particular communities; and in the Didache may be traced the transition, then being gradually accomplished, of the preaching and teaching functions from extraordinary to ordinary office-bearers. "They also (the bishops and deacons) minister to you the ministry of prophets and teachers: therefore despise them not." Even before the close of Paul\'s ministry, the episkopos, whose essential function was rule and oversight, was expected, if not required, also to be didatikos, "qualified to teach," i.e. along with teachers specially set apart for the purpose (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',3,2);">1Ti 3:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',5,17);">5:17</a>). By the middle of the 2nd century, the prophets had disappeared, and their preaching function had been vested in the office of bishop or presbyter, assisted by the diaconate.<P>(4) Eschatological (Chapter xvi).<P>This concluding section consists chiefly of exhortations to watchfulness in view of the Second Advent. The premonitory signs of that Coming are given, with reminiscences from Christ\'s eschatological discourses, namely, rise of false prophets, decline of love, persecution, lawlessness, and the appearance of Antichrist, who is designated the World-deceiver. Without definitely stating chiliastic doctrine, the writer suggests it; for in referring to the immediate signals of Christ\'s advent (opening in heaven, voice of trumpet, resurrection of dead) he is careful to add "Not of all the dead; but the Lord shall come, and all the saints with Him"<22>implying that the general resurrection would take place at an after-stage, presumably, as Millennialists held, after the 1,000 years had expired. Without dogmatic authority, and with only moderate spiritual value, the Didache is important historically as a witness to the church\'s beliefs, usages and condition during the transition between the Apostolic and the Post-apostolic Age. During that transition period, we see much of the freedom of primitive Christianity mingled with rudiments of ecclesiastical regulations and formularies; and while we cannot assume that every belief and usage recorded in the Didache were sanctioned by apostles, we may reasonably ascribe them to apostolic times, and regard them as not opposed by those apostles within whose view they must have come.<P>III. Epistles of Ignatius.<P>1. Author and Date:<P>Ignatius was bishop of Antioch early in the 2nd century Origen (Hom. vi on Luke) refers to him as "second after Peter"; Euodius came between (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 22). As he calls himself ektroma, "untimely born" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,8);">1Co 15:8</a>), he was probably converted in mature life: the legend of his being the "child" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,3);">Mt 18:3</a> rests on misinterpretation of his designation "Theophotos." Traditions current in the 4th century represent him as a disciple of John (Eusebius, Chron.) and ordained by Paul (Apostolical Constitutions, vii.46).<P>The Martyrium of Ignatius (6th century) dates his trial at Antioch in the 9th year of Trajan\'s reign (107-8 AD) and represents it as conducted before the emperor. Only one visit, however, of Trajan to Antioch is known, in 114-15; neither any Ignatian letter nor Eusebius, nor any other early writer refers to so memorable a circumstance as the presidency of an emperor over a Christian\'s trial, and Ignatius speaks of a proposed attempt by Roman friends to secure a reversal of the sentence, which would have been impossible had Trajan personally pronounced it. His alleged presence, therefore, must be rejected as a later embellishment.<P>The epistles, so far as genuine, were written after Ignatius\' condemnation, on his way to martyrdom at Rome.<P>2. Genuineness:<P>The epistles are extant in 3 editions:<P>(1) the longer Greek, of 15 letters now admitted to be largely spurious;<P>(2) a Syriac recension of three letters, now generally held to be a mere epitome;<P>(3) the shorter Greek edition, containing 7 letters of intermediate length, to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Philadelphians, Smyrneans, Romans, and Polycarp. Lightfoot, Zahn, and most recent critics accept the substantial genuineness of these seven.<P>The chief external evidence is that of Polycarp (Phil., xiii), who, soon after Ignatius\' death, writes of a letter addressed to himself, of another to the Smyrneans, and of "all the rest which we have by us." Now 2 Ignatian epistles are addressed to Polycarp and the Christians of Smyrna, while 4 profess to be written by Ignatius at Smyrna, harmonizing well with copies of these being in Polycarp\'s possession.<P>Further external evidence is supplied by Irenaeus (v.29) who quotes a saying from Ignat., Romans, iv, as that of a martyr, and who uses 8 notable phrases borrowed apparently from Ignatius. This external testimony (only got rid of by an arbitrary assumption of Polycarp\'s Epistle being wholly or partly spurious) is supported by strong internal and cumulative evidence:<P>(1) Frequent Grammatical Dislocation:<P>Natural in letters written on a journey but unaccountable on the supposition of a later forgery (Rom., i; Mag., ii; Eph., i).<P>(2) Geographical Particulars:<P>E.g. Ignatius goes by land from Antioch to Smyrna<6E>an unusual route which a forger would hardly invent.<P>(3) Historical Illustrations:<P>E.g. conveyance of prisoners from distant provinces to Rome harmonizes with the account by Dion Cassius (lxviii.15) of the magnitude of amphitheatrical exhibitions under Trajan causing extensive orders for human victims from all parts.<P>(4) Theological Evidence:<P>E.g. these epistles refer to Judaistic error combined with a type of doctrine denying any real incarnation<6F>a combination which ceased after Ignatius\' time.<P>(5) Ecclesiastical Usage:<P>Thus, the Agape still includes the Eucharist (Smyr., viii), whereas soon after Ignatius\' death these were separated (Pliny, Epistle 96; Just., 1 Ap., 65,67).<P>(6) Personal References.<P>The writer shows an excess and affectation of self-depreciation<6F>"last of Antiochene Christians" (Trall., xiii) "not worthy to be counted one of the brotherhood" (Rom., ix)<29>such as a later forger would hardly have introduced.<P>3. Leading Ideas:<P>(1) Joy and Glory of Martyrdom.<P>Heroic courage and loyalty to Christ are united with fanatical craving after a martyr\'s death: "I would rather die for Christ than reign over the whole earth" (Rom., vi); "He who is near the sword is near to God" (Smyr., iv). This is noble; but when he writes, "Entice wild beasts to become my sepulchre" (Rom., iv); "May I have joy of the wild beasts and find them prompt"; "Though they be unwilling I will force them" (Rom., iv.5), we realize how Aurelius (recalling perhaps some such case) was moved to write that "death was to be encountered, not as by the Christians like a military display, but solemnly, and not as if one acted in a tragedy" (Med. xi.3).<P>(2) Evil and Peril of Heresy and Schism.<P>"Abstain from heresy"; "These heretics mix up Jesus Christ with their own poison" (Trall., vi); "Flee those evil outshoots, which produce death-bearing fruit" (Trall., xi); "Avoid all divisions as the beginning of evils"; "Nothing is better than unity" (To Polyc., i; Phil., iii).<P>(3) Submission to Office-Bearers, Especially to the Bishop.<P>"Do nothing without your bishop, and be subject to the presbyters" (Mag., vii); "Be on your guard against heresy: and this will be, if ye continue in intimate union with Christ and with the bishop"; "He who does anything without the bishop\'s knowledge serveth the devil" (Smyr., ix). The bishop here is higher than "primus inter pares"; he is a new and separate office-bearer. Yet, without going beyond these epistles, we discern that such an episcopate was not an express apostolic institution. For had Ignatius been able to magnify the office as apostolically enjoined, so zealous a champion of episcopal authority would have adduced such injunction as the most cogent reason for submission. His zeal for the episcopate apparently sprang only from its high ecclesiastical expediency as the most effective agency for maintaining the church\'s unity against heresy and schism.<P>4. Other Notabilia:<P>(1) References to the Gospel of John.<P>The Gospel of John is never quoted, but numerous phrases suggest that it was in the writer\'s hands. He speaks of Christ "proceeding from the Father," "doing nothing without the Father," "in all things pleasing Him who sent Him." Christ is the "Door of the Father" and "Living water." Satan is the" Prince of this world." "The Holy Spirit knoweth whence He cometh and whither He goeth."<P>(2) Doctrine.<P>Ignatius asserts emphatically Christ\'s true Divinity: "Our God" (Eph., xviii; Trall, vii). The Trinity is frequently suggested, although not expressly affirmed. Christians are "established in the Son, the Father, and the Spirit"; "subject to Christ and the Father, and the Spirit." With strong support of episcopal authority no sacerdotalism is united. "Priest" occurs only once, "The priests are good: but Christ, the High Priest, is better." Here, as the context shows, the imperfect Levitical priesthood is contrasted with perfect high-priesthood of Christ.<P>(3) Ecclesiastical Usage.<P>Ignatius contains one of the latest references to the Agape as still conjoined with the Eucharist. The letter to Polycarp (chapter iv) contains the earliest allusion to the practice of redeeming Christian slaves at the cost of the congregation. Slaves are not to "long to be set free," thus implying that such emancipation, while not required as a duty, was often conferred as a privilege.<P>(4) General Characteristics.<P>Ignatius presents striking contrast, as a writer, to Clement. Clement is calm, cultured, chaste in diction, but somewhat commonplace and deficient in originality; his best passages are echoes of Scripture. The diction and style of Ignatius are impassioned, rugged, turgid, but pithy, fresh and individualistic.<P>IV. Epistles of Polycarp.<P>1. Date and Genuineness:<P>Polycarp was born not later, perhaps considerably earlier, than 70 AD; for at his martyrdom, of which the now accepted date is 155 or 156 (Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, II, i, 629), he declared, when invited to abjure his faith, that he had "served Christ for 86 years" (Mart. Pol., ix). He was disciple of John, who ordained him as bishop or leading presbyter of Smyrna before 100 AD (Iren., iii.3, 4). Of several letters by Polycarp, only this epistle remains: it professes (chapter xiii) to have been written soon after the martyrdom of Ignatius. The genuineness of the letter is attested by Irenaeus, Polycarp\'s own disciple (in the place cited), whose evidence cannot be set aside on the ground of its testimony to the Ignatian letters without an obvious begging of the question. The supposition that the Ignatian letters and Polycarp\'s Epistle are parts of one great forgery is otherwise negatived by the very marked difference of style and standpoint between those writings (Lightfoot, l.c., 577).<P>2. Occasion and Contents:<P>The epistle replies to a letter from the Philippian church inviting his counsel, and asking for epistles of the recently martyred Ignatius. He acknowledges their kind ministry to that martyr and to others, "entwined with saintly fetters," who had "set a pattern of all patience." He sends what he has of the letters of Ignatius and asks in return for any information which they might possess. He commends to their careful study Paul\'s epistle to themselves, acknowledging his inability to attain to the apostle\'s wisdom. With much Scripture language, interwoven with his own matter, and giving to his letter the semblance of an apostolic echo, he exhorts his readers to righteousness and godliness, charity and mercy, and warns them against covetousness, evil-speaking and revenge. He dwells on the mutual relations and obligations of presbyters and deacons, on the one hand, and of the congregation on the other. He repeats John\'s admonition against teachers who denied the reality of the incarnation: "Every spirit that confesseth not," etc. (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,3);">1Joh 4:3</a>). He grieves over the lapse of a Philippian presbyter, Valens, who, along with his wife had flagrantly sinned; but he bids his readers not count such as enemies, but seek to recall them from their wanderings.<P>3. Notabilia:<P>(1) Polycarp mentions only one book of the New Testament, namely, Philippians, but within the brief compass of 200 lines he quotes verses or reproduces phrases from 12 New Testament writings, Matthew, 1 Peter, 1 John, and 9 Pauline Epistles, including three whose early date has been disputed in modern times (1 and 2 Timothy and Ephesians). The absence of any quotation from the Gospel of John is notable, considering his relation to the apostle; but the shortness of the letter prevents any conclusion being drawn against the authenticity of that Gospel; and he quotes (as we have seen) from 1 John, which is a kind of appendix to the Gospel (Lightfoot).<P>(2) At a time when Ignatius had been emphasizing the paramount duty of submission to the bishop, Polycarp, even when enjoining subjection to presbyters, does not mention a bishop. These two inferences are irresistible:<P>(a) there was then no episkopos, in the post-New Testament, sense, at Philippi;<P>(b) Polycarp did not consider the defect (?) sufficiently important to ask the Philippians to supply it.<P>Had John instituted the mono-episcopate as the one proper form of church government, surely his disciple Polycarp would have embraced the opportunity, when the Philippians invited his counsel, to inform them of the apostolic ordinance, and to enjoin its adoption.``1';
isbe[5550]='Literature, Sub-Apostolic, 2`V. Papias Fragments.<P>1. Author and Date:<P>Papias is called by his younger contemporary Irenaeus (v.33) a "disciple of John and friend of Polycarp." Eusebius writes (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 36) that he was episkopos of Hierapolis in Phrygia. The Chronicon Paschale (7th century, but embodying materials from older documents) states that he was martyred about the same time as Polycarp (155-56). His work, Exposition of our Lord\'s Sayings, was extant in the 13th century, but only fragments quoted by Irenaeus, Eusebius, etc., remain. These bear out the twofold description of Papias by Eusebius, as a "man of little judgment" yet "most learned and well acquainted with the Scriptures" (Historia Ecclesiastica, III,39,36). (But the words of praise in verse 36 may be a gloss.) Papias states that he subjoins to his expositions "whatsoever I learned carefully from the elders and treasured up in my memory...I was wont to put questions regarding the words of the elders (i.e. presumably men of an earlier generation), what Andrew or Peter said, or what Philip or Thomas, or James, or what John or Matthew, or any other of the Lord\'s disciples said, as well as regarding what Aristion, and the presbyter John, the disciple of the Lord, have to say."<P>It is disputed whether Papias here refers to two Johns, the apostle and another disciple of the same name; or to John the apostle in two different relations, i.e. first as one about whose testimony Papias heard from others, and second, as one with whom, also, he held personal communication. In favor of the first view is,<P>(1) Eusebius\' own opinion (in the place cited);<P>(2) the alleged unlikelihood of the same John being twice mentioned in one sentence;<P>(3) a statement by Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 39) that in his day two monuments (mnemata) of "John" existed at Ephesus.<P>For the latter view is,<P>(1) no other writer until Eusebius hints the existence of a presbyter John distinct from the apostle;<P>(2) the change in the quotation from "said" to "say" seems to give a reason for John being twice mentioned; some things stated by John having been heard by Papias through "elders," others having been told him by the apostle himself.<P>The fact that John is called presbyter, instead of apostle, is no insuperable objection, since John so designates himself in 2 John and 3 John; and Jerome denies that the two mnemata were both tombs. See Lightfoot, Essay on Papias, and Nicol, Four Gospels, 187 if, who come to divergent conclusions.<P>2. Testimony to Matthew and Mark:<P>On the testimony to Matthew and Mark see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MATTHEW,+THE+GOSPEL+OF">MATTHEW, THE GOSPEL OF</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MARK,+THE+GOSPEL+ACCORDING+TO">MARK, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO</a>.<P>3. Other Notabilia:<P>(1) According to Eusebius, Papias relates the story of "a woman accused before our Lord"<22>the story, presumably, which eventually crept into <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,\'1-\');">Joh 8</a>; so that to him, in part, is due the preservation of a narrative, which, whether historical or not, finely illustrates the union in our Lord of holy purity and merciful charity.<P>(2) Papias is quoted by the Chronicler Georgius Hamartolos (in a manuscript of the 9th century) as declaring in his Expositon that John "was put to death by the Jews," and a similar quotation is made by Philip of Side (Epitome manuscript of the 7th-8th centuries). On the bearing of this upon the question of the apostle\'s residence at Ephesus see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOHN,+THE+APOSTLE">JOHN, THE APOSTLE</a>.<P>(3) Irenaeus (v.32) quotes Papias as writing about a Post-resurrection millennium, and as reporting, on John\'s authority, how the Lord said, "The days will come when vines shall grow having each 10,000 branches, and on each branch 10,000 twigs, and on each twig 10,000 shoots," etc. This may be an exaggerated record (misunderstood by Papias) of some parabolic utterance of Christ, indicating prophetically the wonderful extension of the church.<P>VI. Epistle of Barnabas.<P>1. Authorship:<P>This book is first expressly quoted by Clement of Alexandria (circa 190 AD) as the composition of Barnabas, companion of Paul (Strom., ii.6). Origen concurs, and calls it a "Catholic ep." (Con. Celsum, i.63), thus suggesting canonical position; Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 25) testifies to the widespread ascription of it to this Barnabas, although he himself regards it as "spurious." Codex Sinaiticus places it immediately after the New Testament, as being read in churches, and thus suggests its composition by a companion at least of apostles. Against this external testimony, however, to authorship by the Barnabas of Acts, is strong internal evidence:<P>(1) apostolic sinfulness prior to discipleship is spoken of in exaggerated terms hardly credible in a writer who knew the Twelve<76>"exceedingly lawless beyond all (ordinary) sin" (chapter v)<29>an echo apparently of Paul\'s "sinners of whom I am chief";<P>(2) ignorance of Jewish rites incomprehensible in a Levite who had lived in Jerusalem, e.g. the priests are said to eat goat\'s flesh on the great Day of Atonement;<P>(3) extreme anti-Judaism (see below), inconsistent with the representation of Barnabas in Acts and Galatians.<P>The writer may have been some other Barnabas, a converted Alexandrian Jew, or, more probably, a converted Gentile proselyte, trained in Philo\'s school, but ignorant of Jewish rites as practiced at Jerusalem, and possessing little real sympathy with Judaism.<P>2. Date:<P>The epistle must be dated after 70 AD, as the destruction of Jerusalem is referred to (chapter xvi); also after the publication of the Gospel of John, of which there are several reminiscences. But the absence of any reference to the rebuilding of Jerusalem under Hadrian, in 120 AD, in a passage (chapter xvi) where such allusion might have been expected, suggests a date prior to that year. We may place the writing between 90 and 120 AD.<P>3. Object and Contents:<P>The object is to deter both Jewish and Gentile Christians from Judaistic lapse by a bold application of the allegorizing method to the Old Testament, far beyond what Philo would have sanctioned. Jewish sacrifices, festivals, Sabbath enactments, temple-worship, distinction of clean and unclean food, are not only not of perpetual obligation, but never were binding at all, even on Jews. Belief in their obligatoriness rests on a slavishly liberal exegesis of the Old Testament, which, properly interpreted, is not a preparation for Christ but Christianity itself in allegorical disguise.<P>Ceremonies are simply allegorical enforcements of spiritual worship; distinctions of clean and unclean are merely pictorial representations of the necessity of separation from vice and vicious men; interdict of swine\'s flesh means no more than "associate not with swinish men." The only circumcision really commanded by God is circumcision of the heart. Barnabas ignores what Paul realized, that Jewish laws and rites, even literally interpreted, are a Divine discipline of wholesome self-restraint, neighborly consideration and obedience to God. Barnabas not only explains away Old Testament enactments, but finds in trivial Old Testament statements Christian fact and truth. Thus, in Abraham\'s circumcision of the 318 men of his house, the 10 and 8 are significantly denoted by the Greek letters "I" and "H", the initial letters of Iesous (Jesus); while the 300 represented by the Greek "T", points to the cross. The writer self-complacently intimates that "no one has been admitted by me to a more genuine piece of knowledge than this!" (chapter ix).<P>When Barnabas, however, leaves obscure allegory for plain exhortation, he writes effectively of the "two ways" of light and darkness. Among edifying admonitions the following are outstanding: "Thou shalt not go to prayer with an evil conscience"; "Thou shalt not let the word of God issue from lips stained with impurity"; "Be not ready to stretch forth thine hands to take, while thou contractest them to give"; "Thou shalt not issue orders with bitterness to thy servant, lest thou fail in reverence to God who is above you both"; "Thou shalt not make a schism, but shalt bring together them who contend"; "The way of darkness is crooked"; "In this way are (among others mentioned) those who labor not to aid him who is overdone with toil" (chapters xix, xx).<P>4. Notabilia:<P>(1) The Divinity of Christ is emphasized: "Lord of all the world"; "Joint Creator, with the Father, of mankind" (chapter v). (2) The writer, while following the Alexandrian method of allegorical interpretation, is free from the Alexandrian doctrine of the essential evil of matter; the necessity of a real incarnation is affirmed (chapter v). (3) In chapter xi, he writes, "We go down into the water full of sins and filth, and come up bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear of God and trust in Jesus in our spirit." This has been interpreted as involving the doctrine of baptismal regeneration; but the reference may be rather to the regeneration which baptism symbolizes. (4) In chapter xv, the words, "We keep the 8th day with joy, the day on which Jesus rose again," are the earliest express testimony that the observance of the Lord\'s Day was a memorial of our Lord\'s resurrection. This observance is distinguished from Jewish Sabbath-keeping which is called an error; the Sabbath really intended to be kept being a period of 1,000 years after the 6,000 years in which all things will be finished (chapter xv). (5) Testimony to New Testament Books,<P>(a) the existence and canonical authority of the Gospel of Matthew are attested (chapter iv) by the quotation of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,14);">Mt 22:14</a>, "Many are called, but few chosen," introduced by the formula, "It is written";<P>(b) various passages taken together testify to the writer having the Gospel of John in his hands: "Whoso eateth of these shall live for ever" (chapter xi and <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,58);">Joh 6:58</a>); "Abraham looking before in Spirit to Jesus" (chapter ix and <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,58);">Joh 8:58</a>); "the new law of our Lord Jesus Christ" (chapter ii and <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,34);">Joh 13:34</a>); a reference to the brazen serpent as a type of Christ\'s suffering, glory and healing power (chapter xii and <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,14);">Joh 3:14</a>);<P>(c) "Thou shalt not say that anything is thine own" (chapter xix) appears to be a reminiscence of <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',4,32);">Ac 4:32</a>; (d) the passage in xv, "The day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years," seems to be an echo of <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,8);">2Pe 3:8</a>, and, if so, is the earliest testimony to the existence of that writing, and thus proves its great antiquity, although not its canonicity.<P>VII. Pastor (Shepherd) of Hermas.<P>1. Authorship and Date:<P>This work is the earliest example, on a large scale, of Christian allegory, and was hardly less popular in the early church than the Pilgrim\'s Progress in later times. It was reckoned by many almost, by some altogether, as "Scripture." Irenaeus quotes it as "Scripture" (iv.20); Clement of Alexandria refers to it as "containing revelations Divinely imparted" (Strom., i.29); Origen regards it as "Divinely inspired" (Commentary on <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,14);">Romans 16:14</a>). It is placed with the Epistle of Barnabas in the Codex Sinaiticus at the close of the New Testament, and was read in many churches down to Jerome\'s time (Works, II, 846). The writer represents himself as a slave sold to a Roman Christian lady. He afterward obtained freedom, lived with his family in Rome, became earnestly religious, and saw visions which he imparted the community in this book with a view to repentance and spiritual well-being.<P>Origen (followed by Eusebius, Jerome, etc.) ascribes the work to the Hermes of <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,14);">Ro 16:14</a>; but his opinion is pure conjecture (puto). The Canon Muratori (170 AD) of Italian authorship describes the work as "recently composed at Rome by the brother of Plus during the latter\'s episcopate" (137-54). This distinct local testimony has been widely accepted (Hefele, Lightfoot, Charteris, Cruttwell, etc.). Yet the writer represents himself (Vision, ii.4) as enjoined to send his book to Clement as man in authority in the church, whom it is natural to identify with the chief presbyter of Rome between 92 and 101. This reference, along with the absence of any allusion to Gnosticism or to the mono-episcopate, has led Schaff, Zahn, and others to fix the date of the work at about 100 AD. The external and internal evidence, thus apparently divergent, may be reconciled by supposing (with Kruger and Harnack) that the book was not "written in a single draft"; that portions were issued successively during Clement\'s episcopate; and that under Plus (circa 140) the separate issues were gathered into a volume under the title of The Pastor. In Rome, where the author was known, the Canon Muratori attested at once its religious usefulness as a "book to be read" and the absence of any claim to canonical authority.<P>2. Object and Contents:<P>The purpose of the book is not doctrinal but ethical; it is an allegorical manual of Christian duty with earnest calls to individual repentance and church revival in view of the near Advent.<P>The book consists of<P>(1) Five Visions,<P>(2) Twelve Mandates,<P>(3) Ten Similitudes or Parables.<P>In (1) the church appears\' to the writer as a venerable matron, then as a tower near completion, thereafter as a Holy Virgin. In the last vision, the Angel of Repentance, in pastoral garb, delivers to him the Mandates and Similitudes. The Mandates deal with chastity, truth, patience, meekness, reverence, prayer, penitence, and warn against grieving the Spirit. In the similitudes the church is again a tower whose stones are examined for approbation or reprobation. Similitudes are also drawn from trees. The vine clinging to the elm signifies union of rich and poor in the church; a large willow from which a multitude receive branches or twigs, some of these blossoming or fruit-bearing, others dry or rotten, symbolizes the diverse effect of law and gospel on different souls. The author, although a Gentile, writes from the standpoint of James rather than of Paul. The closing words summarize his combined ethical and eschatological purpose: "Ye who have received good from the Lord, do good works, lest while ye delay, the tower be completed, and you be rejected."<P>3. Notabilia:<P>(1) Montanistic Affinity.<P>Hermas, indeed, differs from Montanists in permitting, though not encouraging, second marriage, and recognizing one possible repentance after post-baptismal flagrant sin; but he is also their fore-runner, through his disallowance of readmission after second lapse, through emphatic expectation of an impending Advent, and through his rigorous view of fasting: "On the fast day taste nothing but bread and water."<P>(2) Fasting, However, Is Regarded Not as an End but as a Means<P>A discipline toward humility, purity, charity. Fasting for charity is illustrated by the injunction (Sim., v.3) to "reckon up the price of what you meant to eat, and give that to one in want."<P>(3) Absence of Names "Jesus" and "Christ."<P>The names" Jesus and "Christ" never occur. He is "Son of God" and "Lord of His people," whom "God made to dwell in flesh," by whom "the whole world is sustained," who "endured great sufferings that He might do away with the sins of His people" (Sim., .v.6; ix. 14).<P>(4) Church Organization.<P>Hermas is charged (Via., ii.4) to "read his writings to (or along with) the presbyters who preside over the church" in Rome. It is reasonable to conclude that no one in that community could then be called "bishop" in the later sense of the holder of an office distinct from and superior to the presbyterate. Episkopoi ("bishops") are mentioned (Sim., ix.27) as "given to hospitality," the description of the episkopos in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',3,2);">1Ti 3:2</a>, where admittedly bishop = presbyter.<P>VIII. Second Epistle of Clement.<P>1. Nature of Document:<P>This writing is doubly miscalled: it is neither an epistle nor a composition of Clement. Style, thought, and standpoint differ from those of the accepted Ep., and HE, III,38,suggests that the Clementine authorship was not generally recognized. The recent recovery by Bryennios of the previously lost conclusion proves that the writing is a sermon (chapter xix).<P>Antiquity is indicated by (1) the use, as an authority, of the lost heretical Gospel of the Egyptians, which by the time of the Canon Muratori (175 AD) had ceased to be regarded as Scripture by Catholics; (2) the adoption, without Gnostic intention, of phrases which became notably associated, after 150 AD with Gnosticism: "God made male and female: the male is Christ, the female, the church" (chapter xiv).<P>2. Date and Authorship:<P>The date usually assigned is 120-150 AD (Lightfoot, Part I, volume II, 201). The author is a Gentile presbyter; he had "worshipped stocks and stones." The sermon was probably preached at Corinth, for the preacher describes many arriving by sea for the race-course, without mentioning a port, which would be appropriate in a sermon preached to Corinthians.<P>3. Contents:<P>No text is given, but the sermon starts from <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',54,1);">Isa 54:1</a>, without express quotation; this chapter had probably been read at the service. The discourse, without great literary merit, is earnest and practical. There are exhortations to repentance and good works, to purity, charity, prayer and fasting, with special reference to coming judgment. The standpoint is that of James. "Be not troubled (so the sermon concludes) because we see the unrighteous with abundance, and God\'s servants in straits. Let us have faith, brethren and sisters. Had God recompensed the righteous speedily, we should have had training not in piety but in bargaining; and our uprightness would be a mere semblance, since our pursuit would be not of godliness but of gain."<P>4. Notabilia:<P>(1) The sermon is the oldest extant in post-New Testament times, and appears to have been read (chapter xix) to a congregation.<P>(2) Sayings of Christ not in our Gospels are quoted:<P>(a) "The Lord, being asked when His kingdom would come, answered: When the two shall be one (i.e. when harmony shall prevail?), and when the outside shall be as the inside (i.e. when men shall be as they seem?); and the male with the female, neither male nor female" (interpreted by this preacher ascetically as discountenancing marriage, presumably because "the time is short," but explained mystically by Clement of Alexandria in Strom., iii.13, as indicating the abolition of all distinctions in God\'s kingdom). Clement assigns the passage to the lost Gospel of the Egyptians.<P>(b) "The Lord saith, ye shall be as lambs among wolves. Peter answered: What if the wolves tear the lambs? Jesus said: Let not the lambs fear the wolves: and ye, also, fear not them which kill you, and can do nothing more to you."<P>(3) No episcopate, apparently, in the post-New Testament sense, existed in the church where this sermon was delivered. Unfaithful men are represented as confessing, "We obeyed not the presbyters when they told us of salvation." Had a bishop in the later sense been head of the community, obedience to his admonitions would surely have been inculcated.<P>(4) The Christology is high; "We ought to think of Christ as of God"; "When we think mean things of Christ, we expect to receive mean things" (chapter i).<P>IX. Apology of Aristides.<P>1. Recovery and Date:<P>Aristides was an Athenian philosopher, who (according to HE, IV, 3) presented an Apology to Hadrian, presumably when the emperor was at Athens (125 AD). After disappearance in the 17th century, a fragment in an Armenian version was discovered in 1878, and the entire Apology in Syriac was found in 1889. It was then found that almost the whole treatise was imbedded anonymously in a Greek medieval romance, Barlaam and Josaphat. The Apology in the Syriac is inscribed to Antoninus; it may have been addressed to both emperors successively, or the real date may be 137, when they were colleagues in the empire.<P>2. Contents:<P>The treatise refers to oppression, imprisonment, and other maltreatment endured by Christians, and pleads for their protection against persecution, because of their true and noble creed, and their pure and benevolent lives. The writer compares the Christian doctrine of Godhead with that of barbarians, Greeks, Egyptians, Jews, and dwells on the elevating influence of Christian belief in Jesus Christ and in a future life. He refers to the abstention of Christians from unchastity, dishonesty and other vices; to their abounding charity and brotherliness which are shown particularly to the widow, the orphan, the poor, the stranger, the oppressed, and even their oppressors. All who become Christians, of however low a station, are brethren. This bright picture has, however, its shadows: "If Christians see that one of their number has died in his sins, over him they weep bitterly as over one about to go into punishment." This frank acknowledgment of some black sheep gives point to his general testimony, "Blessed is the race of Christians above all men."<P>3 Notabilia:<P>(1) A distinct reference to a collection of Christian writings, and especially of Gospels, designated the Gospel, and indicating the existence of a kind of rudimentary New Testament Canon.<P>(2) Similar indication of a rudimentary Apostles\' Creed. Christians are said to believe in God, "the Maker of Heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ who was born of a Hebrew virgin, who was transfixed by the Jews; he died and was buried; and Christians state that after three days he rose again and ascended into heaven." In this early time the virgin birth was apparently a settled matter<65>part of the Creed.<P>(3) Aristides describes a familiar custom among poor Christians of fasting two or three days, so as to supply with needful food Christians poorer still (Compare Hermas).<P>(4) The Apology is interesting as the earliest known literary tribute of a philosopher to Christianity, and probably the earliest extant defense of the faith, if the Epistle to Diognetus be not ancient. It is notable also as a treatise on Christian evidence drawn not from miraculous credentials, but from the self-evidencing excellence and effect of Christianity.<P>Finally, it is interesting as the earliest detailed record of harvest reaped at Athens from seed sown by Paul 80 or 90 years before. Athens appeared at first a barren soil; but by and by this church in a university city took the lead, as this treatise and another lost apology by Quadratus show, in the literary defense of the Christian faith. Quadratus is stated in HE IV,3,to have presented his Apology to Hadrian, and is described by Jerome as "a disciple of the apostles." In a fragment preserved in HE, he attests the survival ("to our own day") of some whom Christ had healed.<P>X. Justin Martyr.<P>1. Incidents of Life:<P>Born of pagan parents at Flavia Neapolis (Nablous), in Samaria about 100 AD<41>a seeker for truth, who, after trying Stoic, Peripatetic, Pythagorean and Platonic philosophies, found in Christ and Christianity the satisfaction of philosophic cravings and spiritual needs. He became a Christian apostle and apologist, wearing still the philosopher\'s mantle in token of continued quest after wisdom, but making it now his life-work, not as presbyter, but as itinerating Christian teacher, to impart to pagan, to Jew and also to heretic the truth which he himself had found and prized. After long Christian service, he suffered martyrdom under Aurelius in 166 AD.<P>2. First Apology:<P>It is addressed to Antoninus and dated 138-48. He approaches the emperor without flattery, and asks judgment after searching inquiry. He answers three charges against Christians:<P>(1) atheism: Justin replies that Christians were atheists only as Socrates was; they disbelieved in so-called gods who were wicked demons or humanly fashioned images; but they worshipped the Father of Righteousness;<P>(2) immorality: Justin admits the existence of pretended Christians who are evil-doers; but Christianity makes the evil good, the licentious chaste, the covetous generous, the revengeful forgiving;<P>(3) disloyalty: this is calumny based on the preaching of Christ\'s kingdom which is spiritual, not temporal.<P>Christians are taught and are wont to pay tribute promptly and to pray for rulers regularly. Justin then sets forth the credibility and excellence of Christianity, adducing,<P>(1) its pure morality as contrasted with vices condoned by heathens,<P>(2) its noble doctrines<65>immortality, resurrection, future judgment, incarnation,<P>(3) Old Testament prophecy regarding the Divinity and sufferings of the Christ. His reference to the prediction of a virgin bringing forth Emmanuel (chapter xxxiii) shows that in his day the virgin birth was accepted, although Jews understood by virgin (in Isaiah) merely a young woman,<P>(4) foreshadowings of Christian truth by philosophy, referring especially to Plato\'s teaching about the Divine Logos and judgment to come.<P>To refute prevalent calumny Justin describes Sunday service and administration of sacraments in his time. On the Lord\'s Day Christians assembled for worship; prophetic Scriptures and "memoirs" by apostles and their followers were read; prayers and thanksgivings were offered and an address delivered by the "president"; bread and wine were distributed and sent by deacons to those absent; and an offering for charitable purposes was made. "As many as believe what is taught, and undertake to live accordingly, are, after prayer and fast, baptized" (chapters lxv, lxvii).<P>3. Second Apology:<P>This is probably a postscript to the first; Eusebius quotes from both as from one work. After a protest against a recent summary execution of three Christians without proper trial, Justin deals with two popular taunts:<P>(1) "If at death they went to heaven, why did they not commit suicide?": "We do not shrink from death but from opposing God\'s will."<P>(2) "If God is really on the Christians\' side, why does He allow them to be persecuted?": "The world by Divine decree is meanwhile under the dominion of angels who have become demons." Justin here contrasts Christ with Socrates, whom yet he describes as a preacher of the "true but then unknown God" (chapter x): "No one put such faith in Socrates as to die for his convictions." Christ hath won the faith, "not only of philosophers, but of simple folk who through faith can despise death." Justin, however, testifies clearly and warmly to the Christian element by anticipation, in the higher teachings and aspirations of heathen philosophy through an implanted seed of the Divine Logos; and he recognizes thus a pre-advent ministry of the Son of God, not only in the sheltered fold of Judaism, but in the broad open of heathendom.<P>4. Dialogue with Trypho the Jew:<P>This Dialogue indicates the attitude of some cultured Jews of that day to Christianity, and the mode in which their objections to it were met. Trypho argued that Jesus did not fulfill Old Testament prophecy which represented the Messiah as establishing a glorious and everlasting kingdom; whereas Jesus was a humble peasant who died an ignominious death; Justin pleads <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,\'1-\');">Isa 53</a>. Trypho charges Christianity with treason to theocracy through exalting Jesus to Godhead, thus trenching on the Divine unity, and also through repudiating the perpetual obligation of the Law. Justin, in reply, quotes Genesis, "Let us make man," and also <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',45,\'1-\');">Psalms 45</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',72,\'1-\');">72</A>,<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',110,\'1-\');">110</a>, with <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',7,\'1-\');">Isa 7</a> about Emmanuel. The Mosaic Law was intended to be temporary, and was now superseded by the Law of Christ; moreover, the destruction of Jerusalem rendered complete fulfillment of the Jewish Law impracticable. The disputants part on friendly terms, "I have been particularly pleased with this conference," says Trypho. "If we could confer oftener we should be much helped in reading the Scriptures." "For my part," replies Justin, "I would have wished to repeat our conference daily; but since I am about to set sail, I bid you give all diligence in this struggle after salvation." Of other works ascribed to Justin, two (On the Resurrection and Appeal to the Greeks) may or may not be genuine; the others are spurious.<P>5. Notabilia:<P>(1) Justin\'s Quotations:<P>Bearing of Justin\'s quotations from "memoirs" on the Age of Our Gospels (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GOSPELS">GOSPELS</a>).<P>(2) Testimony to Harmony of Apostolic Doctrine.<P>Justin is a disciple of Paul, and a strong anti-Judaist; yet he recognizes thoroughly the Twelve as the true source of Christian teaching, "sent by Christ to teach to all the Word of God" (1 Ap., 39, 49; Dial., 42, 109).<P>(3) Diffusion of Christianity:<P>From personal knowledge as a traveler, Justin testifies to the wide diffusion of Christianity: "No race of men exists among whom prayers are not offered up to the Father through the name of the crucified Jesus (Dial., 117).<P>(4) Authorship of Revelation:<P>"John, one of the apostles, prophesied, by a revelation made to him, that believers would dwell 1,000 years in Jerus" (Dial., 81)<29>the earliest direct witness to Johannine authorship, by one who had resided at Ephesus.<P>(5) Belief of the Primitive Church in Our Lord\'s True Divinity:<P>Writing in the name of Christians as a body, he declares, "Both Him (the Father) and the Son who came forth from Him we adore" (1 Ap., 5). He speaks also of some "who held that Jesus was a mere man" as a small and heretical minority (Dial., 48). He writes elsewhere (1 Ap., 13) of the Son as the object of worship "in the second place"; but this statement, made long before the Arian Controversy necessitated precision of language, does not invalidate his other testimonies.<P>(6) The Holy Spirit:<P>As to the Holy Spirit, Justin refers to baptism as administered in "the name of Father, Son, and Spirit" (1 Ap., 61), implying the Divinity of the Third Person; although elsewhere he appears to subordinate Him to the Son, as the Son to the Father. He is to be "worshipped in the third order" (1 Ap., 13).<P>(7) Millenarianism:<P>"I and others are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead and 1,000 years in Jerusalem which will be built, adorned and enlarged" (Dial., 80). He admits, however, that many pure and pious Christians think otherwise.<P>(8) Future punishment: On this subject Justin speaks with two voices. In 1 Ap.,8,he writes of "condemned souls suffering eternal punishment, not for a millennial period only." But in Dial.,5,he introduces an old man who was the immediate means of his conversion as saying that "the wicked shall be punished as long as God shall will them to exist."<P>(9) Angel-worship:<P>In 1 Ap.,6,Justin, when refuting the charge of atheism, writes: "We reverence and worship the Father, and the Son, and the host of other good messengers (or angels), and the Prophetic Spirit." The context, however, shows that this cult does not necessarily amount to what is usually meant by worship, but simply to veneration and homage. The Greek words here, sebomai and proskuneo, are often used in this lower sense; and the train of thought seems to be this: "You call us atheists; the charge is not true, for we not only believe in one God and Father of all, but in one who is preeminently the Son of God, who was sent by God. We believe further in other heavenly messengers from God, a host of angelic spirits; yea we believe in one who is preeminently God\'s Spirit, by whom prophets were inspired. All these are the object in different degrees of our veneration and homage." Undoubtedly, however, the statement is at best unguarded and misleading.<P>(10) Doctrine of the Sacraments:<P>Justin uses "regenerate" as the synonym of "baptized" (1 Ap., 61), but he identifies the two, not as essentially inseparable, but as uniformly associated. As regards the Lord\'s Supper, while emphasizing the ideas of commemoration, communion, and thanksgiving, he in one place speaks of the bread and wine being the flesh and blood of the Incarnate Jesus, "from which, by a transmutation, our flesh and blood are nourished" (1 Ap., 66). These words tend to transubstantiation; but, in the absence of any controversy at the time, may be no more than a strongly figurative representation of a spiritual participation.<P>XI. Epistle to Diognetus.<P>1. Date and Authorship:<P>This short apologetic work is mentioned by no ancient writer, and was unknown until its discovery in 1592 by Henry Stephens in a manuscript which perished in the Strassburg fire of 1870. The manuscript appears to ascribe it to the author of another work (To the Greeks); and this, again, is attributed with some probability on the authority of a Syriac document (600-700 AD) to one Ambrosius, "chief among the Greeks" otherwise unknown (see Birks in DCB, "Ep. to D."). If genuinely ancient, the epistle probably belongs to the Sub-apostolic Age, for it refers to Christianity as "having only now entered the world, not long ago"; and in chapter xi (written, however, by a different hand or at a different time) the author calls himself a "disciple of the apostles." Diognetus was a very common Greek name, so that his identification with the tutor of Marcus Aurelius (130-40 AD) is a mere conjecture. Donaldson (Chr. Lit., II, 142) inclines to the belief that the work was composed by one of the many Greeks who came westward in the 14th century and that the author intended merely to write a "good declamation in the old style." The smart but superficial way in which heathenism and Judaism are dealt with is more befitting a medieval rhetorical exercise than the serious treatment, by a cultured writer, of prevalent religions.<P>2. Contents:<P>The author, after welcoming the inquiry of Diognetus about Christianity, pours contempt on the pagan worship of gods of wood, stone and metal, without any apparent realization that for cultured heathens of that time such images were not objects, but only symbolic media of worship; and he ridicules Mosaic observances without any recognition of their significance as a Divine educative discipline. But when he proceeds (chapters vii through xii) to describe Christianity, the work merits Hefele\'s designation, praestantissima Epistola. Into a world, yea, into human hearts, which had become degenerate and wicked, "God sent no mere servant or angel, but His own Son," and Him, not as a condemning Judge, or fear-inspiring Tyrant, but as a gracious Saviour. To the inquiry, "If Christianity is so precious, why was Christ sent so late?" the author replies: "In order first to bring home to mankind their unworthiness to attain eternal life through their own works" and their incapacity for salvation apart from Him "who is able to save even what it was impossible (formerly) to save." But faith in the Son of God now revealed, would lead to "knowledge of the Father"; knowledge of God to "love of Him who hath first so loved us"; and love of God to "imitation of Him and of His lovingkindness." And wherein consists such imitation? Not in "seeking lordship over those weaker," or in "showing violence toward those below us"; but in "taking on oneself the burden of one\'s neighbor," even as "God took on Himself the burden of our iniquities, and gave His own Son as a ransom for us." "He who in whatsoever he may be superior is ready to benefit another who is deficient; he who, by distributing to the needy what he has received from God, becomes a god to those who receive his benefits: he is an imitator of God."<P>LITERATURE.<P>Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, larger and smaller editions; in Clark\'s "Ante-Nicene Libary," Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, and Recently Discovered Additions to Early Christian Literature (American edition, The Ants-Nicene Fathers); Eusebius, HE, particularly McGiffert\'s translation with excellent notes; James Donaldson, Critical History of Christian Literature; Cruttwell, Literary History of Early Christianity; Kruger, History of Early Christian Literature, translation by Gillett; Harnack, Geschichte der altchr. Litt.; Zahn, Geschichte des New Testament Kanons; Forschungen zur Gesch. des New Testament Kanons und der altchr. Lift.; Robinson, Texts and Studies, Aristides; Schaff, Oldest Christian Manual: H.D.M. Spence, Teaching of the Twelve Apostles; Bartlet, article on "Didache" in HDB; Cunningham, Epistle of Barnabas; articles in DCB (Smith and Wace).``30';
isbe[5551]='Litter`lit\'-er (tsabh): (1) Used upon backs of camels for easy riding, made of a wooden frame with light mattress and pillows, also a covering above, supported by upright pieces, sometimes having also side awnings for protection from the sun\'s rays. Mule litters were made with pairs of shafts projecting before and behind, between which the animals were yoked (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',66,20);">Isa 66:20</a>). Litter-wagons (\'eghloth tsabh) are mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',7,3);">Nu 7:3</a>; the horse litter (phorion) is mentioned in 2Macc 9:8; compare <span class="noTag">3:27</a>. (2) mittah, "palanquin" or "litter of Solomon" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',3,7);">So 3:7</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',3,9);">So 3:9</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PALANQUIN">PALANQUIN</a>`1';
isbe[5552]='Little Genesis``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BOOK+OF+JUBILEES">BOOK OF JUBILEES</a>`1';
isbe[5553]='Lively; Living`liv\'-li, liv\'-ing (chay; zao): "Living," sometimes "lively," is the translation of chay (often also translated "life"); it denotes all beings possessed of life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,21,24);">Ge 1:21,24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,7,19);">2:7,19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,35);">Ex 21:35</a>, "live"); we have frequently the phrase, "the land of the living" (as contrasted with she\'ol, the abode of the dead), e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',28,13);">Job 28:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',27,13);">Ps 27:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',52,5);">52:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',38,11);">Isa 38:11</a>; the characteristically Biblical expression, "the living God," also frequently occurs (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',3,10);">Jos 3:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',17,26,36);">1Sa 17:26,36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',19,4);">2Ki 19:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',84,2);">Ps 84:2</a>); also frequently in the New Testament as the translation of zao (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,16);">Mt 16:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,63);">26:63</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,57);">Joh 6:57</a>, "the living Father"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,15);">Ac 14:15</a>); "lively" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,19);">Ex 1:19</a> (chayeh) and <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',38,19);">Ps 38:19</a> denotes fullness of life, vigor; chayyah, "a living being," is mostly confined to Ezekiel, translated "living creatures" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,5,13,14);">1:5,13,14</A>, etc.), also <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,28);">Ge 1:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',8,17);">8:17</a>, "living thing"; "living" is sometimes applied figuratively to that which is not actually alive; thus we have the phrase "living waters" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',2,13);">Jer 2:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',17,13);">17:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',14,8);">Zec 14:8</a>, "Living waters shall go out from Jerusalem") in contrast with stagnant waters<72>waters that can give life; so <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,10,11);">Joh 4:10,11</a> (bubbling up from the spring at bottom of the well); <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',7,38);">7:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',7,17);">Re 7:17</a> the King James Version; "living bread" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,51);">Joh 6:51</a>); a new and living way (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,20);">Heb 10:20</a>), perhaps equivalent to "ever-living" in Christ; "living stones" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,4,5);">1Pe 2:4,5</a>) are those made alive in Christ; a "living hope" (a hope full of life), <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,3);">1Pe 1:3</a>; "living" (zao)is sometimes also "manner of life" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',15,13);">Lu 15:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,20);">Col 2:20</a>); diago, "to lead or go through," is also so translated (<a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',3,3);">Tit 3:3</a>); bios is "means of life," translated "living" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,44);">Mr 12:44</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',8,43);">Lu 8:43</a>); "living," in this sense, occurs in Apocrypha as the translation of zoe, "Defraud not the poor of his living" (Ecclesiasticus 4:1).<P>The Revised Version (British and American) has "living" for "alive" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,4);">Le 14:4</a>), for "the lively" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,38);">Ac 7:38</a>), for "quick" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',4,12);">Heb 4:12</a>), for "lively" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,3);">1Pe 1:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,5);">2:5</a>), for "conversation" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,15);">1Pe 1:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,11);">2Pe 3:11</a>); "living creatures" for "beasts" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',4,6);">Re 4:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',5,6);">5:6</a>, etc.); "every living thing" for "all the substance" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',11,6);">De 11:6</a>); "living things" for "beasts" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,2,47);">Le 11:2,47</a> twice); for "living" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',58,9);">Ps 58:9</a>), "the green" (thorns under the pots), margin "Wrath shall take them away while living as with a whirlwind"; for "the book of the living" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',69,28);">Ps 69:28</a>), "the book of life"; for "(I am) he that liveth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,18);">Re 1:18</a>), "the Living one"; for "living fountains of waters" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',7,17);">Re 7:17</a>), "fountains of waters of life"; for "trade" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',18,17);">Re 18:17</a>), "gain their living," margin "work the sea"; for "Son of the living God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,69);">Joh 6:69</a>), "the Holy One of God" (emended text).``185';
isbe[5554]='Liver`liv\'-er (qabhedh, derived from a root meaning "to be heavy," being the heaviest of the viscera; Septuagint hepar): The word is usually joined with the Hebrew yothereth (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CAUL">CAUL</a>) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,13,22);">Ex 29:13,22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',9,10,19);">Le 9:10,19</a>) as a special portion set aside for the burnt offering.<P>This represents the large lobe or flap of the liver, Lobos tou hepatos (thus, Septuagint and Josephus, Ant, III, ix,2,(228)). Others, however, interpret it as the membrane which covers the upper part of the liver, sometimes called the "lesser omenturn." Thus, the Vulgate: reticulurn iecoris. It extends from the fissures of the liver to the curve of the stomach. Still others consider it to be the "fatty mass at the opening of the liver, which reaches to the kidneys and becomes visible upon the removal of the lesser omentum or membrane" (Driver and White, Leviticus, 65).<P>As in the scholastic psychology of the Middle Ages, the liver played an important part in the science of Semitic peoples. It was the seat of feeling, and thus became synonymous with temper, disposition, character (compare Assyrian kabittu, "liver", "temper," "character," and Arabic kabid, vulgar kibdi). Thus, Jeremiah expresses his profound grief with the words: "My liver is poured upon the earth, because of the destruction of the daughter of my people" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',2,11);">La 2:11</a>). The liver is also considered one of the most important and vital parts of the body (compare Virgil, cerebrum, iecur domicilia vitae). A hurt in it is equivalent to death. So we find the fate of a man enticed by the flattering of a loose woman compared to that of the ox that "goeth to the slaughter...till an arrow strike through his liver; as a bird hasteth to the snare, and knoweth not that it is for his life" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',7,22,23);">Pr 7:22,23</a>; the rest of the verse is obscure as to its meaning).<P>In a few passages of the Old Testament, kabhedh ("liver") and kabhodh ("glory") have been confounded, and we are in uncertainty as to the right translation Several authors, to give but one example, would read kabhedh in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',16,9);">Ps 16:9</a>, for reasons of Hebrew poetical parallelism: "Therefore my heart is glad and my liver (English Versions of the Bible, "glory") rejoiceth." While this is quite possible, it is not easy to decide, as according to Jewish interpretation "my glory" is synonymous with "my soul," which would present as proper a parallelism.<P>The liver has always played an important role in heathen divination, of which we have many examples in old and modern times among the Greeks, Etrurians, Romans and now among African tribes. The prophet Ezekiel gives us a Biblical instance. The king of Babylon, who had been seeking to find out whether he should attack Jerusalem, inquired by shaking "arrows to and fro, he consulted the teraphim, he looked in the liver" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',21,21);">Eze 21:21 (Hebrew 21:26)</a>; compare Tobit 6:4ff; 8:2).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASTROLOGY">ASTROLOGY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DIVINATION">DIVINATION</a>`106';
isbe[5555]='Living Creature`liv\'-ing kre\'-tur:<P>(1) (nephesh chayyah, or nephesh hachayyah (nephesh, "breath" or "living things"; chayyah, "living"; compare Arabic nefs, "breath," chaiy, "living")): In the account of the creation this term is used of aquatic animals (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,21);">Ge 1:21</a>), of mammals (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,24);">Ge 1:24</a>) and of any animals whatsoever (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,19);">Ge 2:19</a>).<P>(2) ([chayyoth], plural of chayyah): The name of the "living creatures" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,\'5-25\');">Eze 1:5-25</a>, which had wings and the faces of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',10,\'1-22\');">Eze 10:1-22</a>.<P>(3) (zoon, "living thing," "animal"): The four "living creatures" (the King James Version "beasts") of <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',4,6);">Re 4:6</a>, etc., the first like a lion, the second like a calf, the third having a face as of a man, and the fourth like an eagle, having each six wings.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CREATURE,+LIVING">CREATURE, LIVING</a>`37';
isbe[5556]='Lizard`liz\'-ard: The list of unclean "creeping things" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,29,30);">Le 11:29,30</a> contains eight names, as follows:<P>1. Names:<P class="in15">(1) choledh, English Versions of the Bible "<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WEASEL">WEASEL</a>" (which see);<P class="in15">(2) \'akhbar, English Versions of the Bible "<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MOUSE">MOUSE</a>" (which see);<P class="in15">(3) tsabh, the King James Version "tortoise," the Revised Version (British and American) "<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GREAT+LIZARD">GREAT LIZARD</a>" (which see);<P class="in15">(4) \'anaqah, the King James Version "ferret," the Revised Version (British and American) "<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GECKO">GECKO</a>" (which see);<P class="in15">(5) koach, the King James Version "chameleon," the Revised Version (British and American) "<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LAND-CROCODILE">LAND-CROCODILE</a>" (which see);<P class="in15">(6) leta\'ah, English Versions of the Bible "lizard"; compare Arabic lata\', "to cling to the ground";<P class="in15">(7) chormeT, the King James Version "snail," the Revised Version (British and American) "<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SAND-LIZARD">SAND-LIZARD</a>" (which see);<P class="in15">(8) tinshemeth, the King James Version "mole," the Revised Version (British and American) "<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHAMELEON">CHAMELEON</a>" (which see). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',30,28);">Pr 30:28</a>, we find<P class="in15">(9) semamith, the King James Version "spider," the Revised Version (British and American) "lizard."<hr /><P>Since (1), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) occur as names of animals only in this passage, and as the philological evidence available is in most cases not very convincing, their determination is difficult and uncertain. the Revised Version margin to "gecko" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,30);">Le 11:30</a>) has "Words of uncertain meaning, but probably denoting four kinds of lizards."<P>2. Lizards of Palestine:<P>Among the many lizards of Palestine, the monitor and thorny-tailed lizard are remarkable for their size, and the chameleon for its striking appearance and habits. On etymological grounds, koach, the King James Version "chameleon," the Revised Version (British and American) "land-crocodile," Septuagint chamaileon, has been taken to be the monitor; tsabh, the King James Version "tortoise," the Revised Version (British and American) "great lizard," Septuagint krokodeilos chersaios, to be the thorny-tailed lizard; and tinshemeth, the King James Version "mole," the Revised Version (British and American) "chameleon," Septuagint aspalax, to be the chameleon. On the same grounds, choledh, English Versions of the Bible "weasel," Septuagint gale, might be the mole-rat.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHAMELEON">CHAMELEON</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TORTOISE">TORTOISE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WEASEL">WEASEL</a>.<P>The commonest lizard of Palestine is the rough-tailed agama, Agama stellio, Arabic chirdaun or chirdaun, which is everywhere in evidence, running about on the ground, rocks or walls, frequently lying still basking in the sun, or bobbing its head up and down in the peculiar manner that it has. The gecko, Ptyodactylus lobatus, is common in houses. By means of adhesive disks on the under sides of its toes, it clings with ease to smooth walls which other lizards cannot scale. Although perfectly harmless, it is believed to be poisonous, and is much feared. It is called abu-brais, "father of leprosy," either on account of its supposed poisonous qualities or because it has a semi-transparent and sickly appearance, being of a whitish-yellow color with darker spots. It utters a little cry, which may be the reason why the Revised Version (British and American) has "gecko" for \'anaqah; the King James Version has "ferret."<P>Various species of the genus Lacerta and its allies, the true lizards, may always be found searching for insects on trees and walls. They are scaly, like all lizards, but are relatively smooth and are prettily colored, and are the most attractive members of the group which are found in the country. They are called by the Arabs saqqaiyeh or shammuseh.<P>The skinks include Scincus officinalis, and allied species. Arabic sa qanqur = Greek skigkos (skinkos). They are smooth, light-colored lizards, and are found in sandy places. They cannot climb, but they run and burrow in the sand with remarkable rapidity. The dried body of Scincus officinalis is an important feature of the primitive oriental materia medica, and may be found in the shops (officinae) of the old-style apothecaries.<P>3. Identifications:<P>Semamith (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',30,28);">Pr 30:28</a>, the King James Version "spider," the Revised Version (British and American) "lizard") is one of the "four things which are little...but...exceeding wise." the Revised Version (British and American) reads:<P class="in15">"The lizard taketh hold with her hands,<br>Yet is she in kings\' palaces."<P>The Septuagint (Septuagint) has kalabotes, which according to Liddell and Scott = askalabotes, "a spotted lizard." There is no other lizard which fits this passage as does the gecko. If Gesenius is correct in deriving semamith from the root samam (compare Arabic samma, "to poison"), we have another reason for making this identification, in which case we must rule out the rendering of the Revised Version margin, "Thou canst seize with thy hands."<P>For none of the names in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,29,30);">Le 11:29,30</a> have we as many data for identification as for semamith. For leta\'ah, English Versions of the Bible "lizard," the Septuagint has chalabotes, which is another variant of askalabotes. If we follow the Septuagint, therefore, we should render leta\'ah "gecko." Tristram quotes Bochart as drawing an argument that leta\'ah is "gecko" from the Arabic lata\', "to cling to the ground." This view is at least in accordance with Septuagint. It is of course untenable if \'anaqah is "gecko," but (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FERRET">FERRET</a>) the writer thinks it quite possible that \'anaqah may mean the shrew or field-mouse, which is also in agreement with Septuagint. It will not do to follow Septuagint in all cases, but it is certainly safe to do so in the absence of a clear indication to the contrary.<P>There seems to be little evidence available for deciding the identity of chomeT, the King James Version "snail," the Revised Version (British and American) "sand-lizard." Septuagint has saura, and Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) lacerta, both words for lizard. Gesenius refers the word to an obsolete chamaT, "to bow down," "to lie upon the ground." Tristram, NHB, cites Bochart as referring to a word meaning "sand." Hence, perhaps the Revised Version (British and American) "sand-lizard." If by this is meant the skink, there is no inherent improbability in the identification.<P>We have thus more or less tentatively assigned various words of the list to the monitor, the thorny-tailed lizard, the chameleon, the gecko and the skink, but we have done nothing with the rough-tailed agama and the Lacertae, or true lizards, which are the commonest lizards of Palestine, and this fact must be reckoned against the correctness of the assignment. The translation of the Revised Version (British and American) has this to commend it, that it gives two small mammals followed by six lizards, and is therefore to that extent systematic. It is, however, neither guided in all cases by etymological considerations, nor does it follow Septuagint.<P>As none of the etymological arguments is very cogent, the writer can see no harm in consistently following Septuagint, understanding for<P class="in15">(1) gale, weasel or pole-cat; for<P class="in15">(2) mus, mouse; for<P class="in15">(3) krokodeilos chersaios, some large lizard, either the monitor or the thorny-tailed lizard; for<P class="in15">(4) mugale, shrew or field-mouse; for<P class="in15">(5) chamaileon, chameleon; for<P class="in15">(6) chalabotes, gecko; for<P class="in15">(7) saura, a Lacerta or true lizard; for<P class="in15">(8) aspalax, mole-rat.<P>On the other hand, if etymological considerations are to be taken into account and Septuagint abandoned when it conflicts with them we might have<P class="in15">(1) holedh, mole-rat;<P class="in15">(2) \'akhbar, mouse;<P class="in15">(3) tsabh, thorny-tailed lizard;<P class="in15">(4) \'anaqah, field-mouse;<P class="in15">(5) koach, monitor;<P class="in15">(6) leta\'ah, gecko;<P class="in15">(7) chomet, skink;<P class="in15">(8) tinshemeth, chameleon.<P>Neither of these lists has the systematic arrangement of that of the Revised Version (British and American), but we must remember that the Biblical writers were not zoologists, as is seen in the inclusion of the bat among birds (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,19);">Le 11:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,18);">De 14:18</a>), and of the hare and coney among ruminants (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,5,6);">Le 11:5,6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,7);">De 14:7</a>).``37';
isbe[5557]='Lo-Ammi`lo-am\'-i (lo\'-\'ammi, "not my people"): The 2nd son and 3rd child of Gomer bath-Diblaim, wife of the prophet Hosea (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',1,9);">Ho 1:9</a>). An earlier child, a daughter, had been named Lo-ruhamah (lo\'-ruchamah, "uncompassionated"). The names, like those given by Isaiah to his children, are symbolic, and set forth Hosea\'s conviction that Israel has, through sin, forfeited Yahweh\'s compassion, and can no longer claim His protection. Of the bearers of these names nothing further is known; but their symbolism is alluded to in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',2,1,23);">Ho 2:1,23</a>. This latter passage is quoted by Paul (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,25);">Ro 9:25</a>f).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HOSEA">HOSEA</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JEZREEL">JEZREEL</a>`95';
isbe[5558]='Lo-Debar`lo\'-de-bar, lo-de\'-bar (lo dhebhar): A place in Gilead where dwelt Machir, son of Ammiel, who sheltered Mephibosheth, son of Saul, after that monarch\'s death (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',9,4);">2Sa 9:4</a>), until he was sent for by David. This same Machir met David with supplies when he fled to Gilead from Absalom (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',17,27);">2Sa 17:27</a>f). Possibly it is the same place as Lidebir in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,26);">Jos 13:26</a> (Revised Version margin). No certain identification is possible; but Schumacher (Northern \'Ajlun, 101) found a site with the name Ibdar about 6 1/2 miles east of Umm Qeis, north of the great aqueduct, which may possibly represent the ancient city. Lidebir, at least, seems to be placed on the northern boundary of Gilead. The modern village stands on the southern shoulder of Wady Samar. There is a good spring to the east, a little lower down, while ancient remains are found in the neighborhood.``54';
isbe[5559]='Lo-Ruhamah`lo-roo-ha\'-ma, lo-roo-ha\'-ma.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LO+AMMI">LO-AMMI</a>`1';
isbe[5560]='Loaf`lof.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BREAD">BREAD</a>`1';
isbe[5561]='Locks`loks<P>(1) tsitsith,<P>(2) pera\';<P>(3) machlaphah,<P>(4) qewutstsah):<hr /><P>See in general the article on <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HAIR">HAIR</a>.<P>(1) The first word, tsitsith, means really a tassel, such as is worn by the Jews on the four corners of the prayer-shawl or Tallith and on the \'arba\' kanephoth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',22,12);">De 22:12</a>), translated in the New Testament by kraspedon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',9,20);">Mt 9:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',14,36);">14:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,5);">23:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,56);">Mr 6:56</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',8,44);">Lu 8:44</a>). Once it is applied to a forelock of hair. The prophet Ezekiel, describing his sensations which accompanied his vision of Jerusalem, says: "He put forth the form of a hand, and took me by a lock of my head; and the Spirit lifted me up between earth and heaven, and brought me in the visions of God to Jerus" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',8,3);">Eze 8:3</a>).<P>(2) The word pera\' signifies the uncut and disheveled locks of the Nazirite (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',6,5);">Nu 6:5</a>) or of the priests, the sons of Zadok (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,20);">Eze 44:20</a>).<P>(3) The Book of Judges employs the word machlaphah when speaking of the "seven locks" of Samson (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',16,13,19);">Jud 16:13,19</a>), which really represent the plaited (etymologically, "interwoven") strands of hair still worn in our days by youthful Bedouin warriors.<P>(4) Qewutstsah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',5,2,11);">So 5:2,11</a>) means the luxuriant hair of the Hebrew youth, who was careful of his exterior. It is called bushy (the Revised Version margin "curling") and black as a raven. the King James Version translations also the word tsammah with "locks" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',4,1);">So 4:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',6,7);">6:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',47,2);">Isa 47:2</a>), but the Revised Version (British and American) has corrected this into "veil," leaving the word "locks" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',4,1);">So 4:1</a> margin.``106';
isbe[5562]='Locust`lo\'-kust: The translation of a large number of Hebrew and Greek words:<P>1. Names:<P>(1) \'arbeh from the root rabhah, "to increase" (compare Arabic raba\', "to increase").<P>(2) sal\'am, from obsolete [?] cal\'am, "to swallow down," "to consume."<P>(3) chargol (compare Arabic charjal, "to run to the right or left," charjalat, "a company of horses" or "a swarm of locusts," charjawan, a kind of locust).<P>(4) chaghabh (compare Arabic chajab, "to hide," "to cover").<P>(5) gazam (compare Arabic jazum, " to cut off")<P>(6) yeleq, from the root laqaq "to lick" (compare Arabic laqlaq, "to dart out the tongue" (used of a serpent)).<P>(7) chacil, from the root chacal, "to devour" (compare Arabic chaucal, "crop" (of a bird)).<P>(8) gobh, from the obsolete root gabhah (compare Arabic jabi, "locust," from the root jaba\', "to come out of a hole").<P>(9) gebh, from same root.<P>(10) tselatsal from [?] tsalal (onomatopoetic), "to tinkle," "to ring" (compare Arabic call, "to give a ringing sound" (used of a horse\'s bit); compare also Arabic Tann, used of the sound of a drum or piece of metal, also of the humming of flies).<P>(11) akris (genitive akridos; diminutive akridion, whence Acridium, a genus of locusts).<P>2. Identifications:<P>(1), (2), (3) and (4) constitute the list of clean insects in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,21);">Le 11:21</a>f; characterized as "winged creeping things that go upon all fours, which have legs above their feet, wherewith to leap upon the earth." This manifestly refers to jumping insects of the order Orthoptera, such as locusts, grasshoppers and crickets, and is in contrast to the unclean "winged creeping things that go upon all fours," which may be taken to denote running Orthoptera, such as cockroaches, mole-crickets and ear-wigs, as well as insects of other orders.<p>\'Arbeh (1) is uniformly translated "locust" in the Revised Version (British and American). the King James Version has usually "locust," but "grasshopper" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,5);">Jud 6:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',7,12);">7:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',39,20);">Job 39:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',46,23);">Jer 46:23</a>. Septuagint has usually akris, "locust"; but has brouchos, "wingless locust," in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,22);">Le 11:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',8,37);">1Ki 8:37</a> (akris in the parallel passage, <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',6,28);">2Ch 6:28</a>); <a onClick="return mV(\'Nah\',3,15);">Na 3:15</a>; and attelebos, "wingless locust," in <a onClick="return mV(\'Nah\',3,17);">Na 3:17</a>. \'Arbeh occurs (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',10,\'4-19\');">Ex 10:4-19</a>) in the account of the plague of locusts; in the phrase "as locusts for multitude" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,5);">Jud 6:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',7,12);">7:12</a>); "more than the locusts...innumerable" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',46,23);">Jer 46:23</a>);<P class="in15">"The locusts have no king,<br>Yet go they forth all of them by bands" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',30,27);">Pr 30:27</a>).<p>\'Arbeh is referred to as a plague in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',28,38);">De 28:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',8,37);">1Ki 8:37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',6,28);">2Ch 6:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',78,46);">Ps 78:46</a>; in Joel and in Nahum. These references, together with the fact that it is the most used word, occurring 24 times, warrant us in assuming it to be one of the swarming species, i.e. Pachtylus migratorius or Schistocerca peregrina, which from time to time devastate large regions in the countries bordering on the Mediterranean.<P>Cal\'am (2), English Versions of the Bible "bald locust," occurs only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,22);">Le 11:22</a>. According to Tristram, NBH, the name "bald locust" was given because it is said in the Talmud to have a smooth head. It has been thought to be one of the genus Tryxalis (T. unguiculata or T. nasuta), in which the head is greatly elongated.<P>Chargol (3), the King James Version "beetle," the Revised Version (British and American) "cricket," being one of the leaping insects, cannot be a beetle. It might be a cricket, but comparison with the Arabic (see supra) favors a locust of some sort. The word occurs only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,22);">Le 11:22</a>.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BEETLE">BEETLE</a>.<P>Haghabh (4) is one of the clean leaping insects of <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,22);">Le 11:22</a> (English Versions of the Bible "grasshopper"). The word occurs in four other places, nowhere coupled with the name of another insect. In the report of the spies (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,33);">Nu 13:33</a>), we have the expression, "We were in our own sight as grasshoppers"; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',12,5);">Ec 12:5</a>, "The grasshopper shall be a burden"; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,22);">Isa 40:22</a>, "It is he that sitteth above the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers." These three passages distinctly favor the rendering "grasshopper" of the English Versions of the Bible. In the remaining passage (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',7,13);">2Ch 7:13</a>), ".... if I command the locust (English Versions) to devour the land," the migratory locust seems to be referred to. Doubtless this as well as other words was loosely used. In English there is no sharp distinction between the words "grasshopper" and "locust."<P>The migratory locusts belong to the family Acridiidae, distinguished by short, thick antennae, and by having the organs of hearing at the base of the abdomen. The insects of the family Locustidae are commonly called "grasshoppers," but the same name is applied to those Acridiidae which are not found in swarms. The Locustidae have long, thin antennae, organs of hearing on the tibiae of the front legs, and the females have long ovipositors. It may be noted that the insect known in America as the seventeen-year locust, which occasionally does extensive damage to trees by laying its eggs in the twigs, is a totally different insect, being a Cicada of the order Rhynchota. Species of Cicada are found in Palestine, but are not considered harmful.<P>The Book of Joel is largely occupied with the description of a plague of locusts. Commentators differ as to whether it should be interpreted literally or allegorically (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOEL">JOEL</a>). Four names \'arbeh (1), gazam (5), yeleq (6) and chacil (7), are found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',1,4);">Joe 1:4</a> and again in <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',2,25);">2:25</A>.<P>For the etymology of these names, see 1 above. Gazam (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',4,9);">Am 4:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',1,4);">Joe 1:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',2,25);">2:25</a>) is in the Revised Version (British and American) uniformly translated "palmer-worm" Septuagint kampe, "caterpillar"). Chacil in the Revised Version (British and American) (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',8,37);">1Ki 8:37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',6,28);">2Ch 6:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',78,46);">Ps 78:46</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',23,4);">Isa 23:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',1,4);">Joe 1:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',2,25);">2:25</a>) is uniformly translated "caterpillar." The Septuagint has indifferently brouchos, "wingless locust," and erusibe, "rust" (of wheat). Yeleq (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',105,34);">Ps 105:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,14,27);">Jer 51:14,27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',1,4);">Joe 1:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',2,25);">2:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Nah\',3,15,16);">Na 3:15,16</a>) is everywhere "canker-worm" in the Revised Version (British and American), except in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',105,34);">Ps 105:34</a>, where the American Standard Revised Version has "grasshopper." the King James Version has "caterpillar" in Psalms and Jeremiah and "canker-worm" in Joel and Nahum. Septuagint has indifferently akris and brouchos. "Palmerworm" and "canker-worm" are both Old English terms for caterpillars, which are strictly the larvae of lepidopterous insects, i.e. butterflies and moths.<P>While these four words occur in <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',1,4);">Joe 1:4</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',2,25">2:25</a>, a consideration of the book as a whole does not show that the ravages of four different insect pests are referred to, but rather a single one, and that the locust. These words may therefore be regarded as different names of the locust, referring to different stages of development of the insect. It is true that the words do not occur in quite the same order in <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',1,4);">1:4</a> and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',2,25">2:25</a>, but while the former verse indicates a definite succession, the latter does not. If, therefore, all four words refer to the locust, "palmer-worm," "canker-worm," "caterpillar" and the Septuagint erusibe, "rust," are obviously inappropriate.<P>Gobh (8) is found in the difficult passage (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',7,1);">Am 7:1</a>), ".... He formed locusts (the King James Version "grasshoppers," the King James Version margin "green worms," Septuagint akris) in the beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth"; and (<a onClick="return mV(\'Nah\',3,17);">Na 3:17</a>) in ".... thy marshals (are) as the swarms of grasshoppers (Hebrew gobh gobhay; the King James Version "great grasshoppers"), which encamp in the hedges in the cold day, but when the sun ariseth they flee away, and their place is not known where they are." The related gebh (9) occurs but once, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',33,4);">Isa 33:4</a>, also a disputed passage, "And your spoil shall be gathered as the caterpillar (chacil) gathereth: as locusts (gebhim) leap shall men leap upon it." It is impossible to determine what species is meant, but some kind of locust or grasshopper fits any of these passages.<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',28,42);">De 28:42</a>, "All thy trees and the fruit of thy ground shall the locust (English Versions of the Bible) possess," we have (10) tselatsal, Septuagint erusibe). The same word is translated in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',6,5);">2Sa 6:5</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',150,5);">Ps 150:5</a> bis "cymbals," in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',41,7);">Job 41:7</a> "fish-spears," and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',18,1);">Isa 18:1</a> "rustling." As stated in 1, above, it is an onomatopoetic word, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',28,42);">De 28:42</a> may well refer to the noise of the wings of a flight of locusts.<P>In the New Testament we have (11) akris, "locust," the food of John the Baptist (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,4);">Mt 3:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,6);">Mr 1:6</a>); the same word is used figuratively in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',9,3,7);">Re 9:3,7</a>; and also in the Apocrypha (Judith 2:20; The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 16:9</span>; and see 2Esdras 4:24).<P>3. Habits:<P>The swarms of locusts are composed of countless individuals. The statements sometimes made that they darken the sky must not be taken too literally. They do not produce darkness, but their effect may be like that of a thick cloud. Their movements are largely determined by the wind, and while fields that are in their path may be laid waste, others at one side may not be affected. It is possible by vigorous waving to keep a given tract clear of them, but usually enough men cannot be found to protect the fields from their ravages.<P>Large birds have been known to pass through a flight of locusts with open mouths, filling their crops with the insects. Tristram, NHB, relates how he saw the fishes in the Jordan enjoying a similar feast, as the locusts fell into the stream. The female locust, by means of the ovipositor at the end of her abdomen, digs a hole in the ground, and deposits in it a mass of eggs, which are cemented together with a glandular secretion. An effective way of dealing with the locusts is to gather and destroy these egg-masses, and it is customary for the local governments to offer a substantial reward for a measure of eggs. The young before they can fly are frequently swept into pits or ditches dug for the purpose and are burned.<P>The young are of the same general shape as the adult insects, differing in being small, black and wingless. The three distinct stages in the metamorphosis of butterflies and others of the higher insects are not to be distinguished in locusts. They molt about six times, emerging from each molt larger than before. At first there are no wings. After several molts, small and useless wings are found, but it is only after the last molt that the insects are able to fly. In the early molts the tiny black nymphs are found in patches on the ground, hopping out of the way when disturbed. Later they run, until they are able to fly.<P>In all stages they are destructive to vegetation. Some remarkable pictures of their ravages are found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',1,6,7);">Joe 1:6,7</a>, "For a nation is come up upon my land, strong, and without number; his teeth are the teeth of a lion, and he hath the jaw-teeth of a lioness. He hath laid my vine waste, and barked my figtree: he hath made it clean bare, and cast it away; the branches thereof are made white" (see also <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',2,\'2-9\',20);">2:2-9,20</A>).<P>4. Figurative:<P>Locusts are instruments of the wrath of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',10,\'4-19\');">Ex 10:4-19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',28,38,42);">De 28:38,42</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',7,13);">2Ch 7:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',78,46);">Ps 78:46</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',105,34);">105:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Nah\',3,\'15-17\');">Na 3:15-17</a>; The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 16:9</span>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',9,3);">Re 9:3</a>); they typify an invading army (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,14,27);">Jer 51:14,27</a>); they are compared with horses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',2,4);">Joe 2:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',9,7);">Re 9:7</a>); in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',39,20);">Job 39:20</a>, Yahweh says of the horse: "Hast thou made him to leap as a locust?" the King James Version "Canst thou make him afraid as a grasshopper?" Locusts are among the "four things which are little upon the earth, but...are exceeding wise" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',30,27);">Pr 30:27</a>). Like the stars and sands of the sea, locusts are a type of that which cannot be numbered (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,5);">Jud 6:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',7,12);">7:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',46,23);">Jer 46:23</a>; Judith 2:20). Grasshoppers are a symbol of insignificance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,33);">Nu 13:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',12,5);">Ec 12:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,22);">Isa 40:22</a>; 2Esdras 4:24).<P>5. Locusts as Food:<P>The Arabs prepare for food the thorax of the locust, which contains the great wing muscles. They pull off the head, which as it comes away brings with it a mass of the viscera, and they remove the abdomen (or "tail"), the legs and the wings. The thoraxes, if not at once eaten, are dried and put away as a store of food for a lean season. The idea of feeding upon locusts when prepared in this way should not be so repellent as the thought of eating the whole insect. In the light of this it is not incredible that the food of John the Baptist should have been "locusts and wild honey" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,4);">Mt 3:4</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=INSECTS">INSECTS</a>`37';
isbe[5563]='Lod; Lydda`(lodh; Ludda):<P>1. Scriptural Notices:<P>Ono and Lod and the towns thereof are said to have been built by Shemed, a Benjamite (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,12);">1Ch 8:12</a>). The children of Lod, Hadid and One, to the number of 725, returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,33);">Ezr 2:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,37);">Ne 7:37 (Hebrew 7:21)</a>). The town lay in the Shephelah, perhaps in ge ha-charashim, "the valley of craftsmen" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,35);">Ne 11:35</a>). In the New Testament it appears as Lydda. Here the apostle Peter visited the saints and healed the palsied Arenas (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,32);">Ac 9:32</a>). Hence he was summoned by messengers from Joppa on the death of Dorcas.<P>2. History from Maccabean Times:<P>The three governments of Aphaerema, Lydda and Ramathaim were added to Judea from the country of Samaria by King Demetrius II (1Macc 11:34). Lydda presided over one of the toparchies under Jerusalem, into which Judea was divided (BJ, III, iii, 5). After the death of Julius Caesar the inhabitants of Lydda and certain other towns, having failed to pay the contributions Cassius demanded, were by him sold into slavery. They were freed by Antony (Ant., XIV, xi, 2; xii, 2). Lydda suffered severely under Cestius Gallus (BJ, II, xix, 1). Along with Jamnia it surrendered to Vespasian (BJ, IV, viii, 1). After the fall of Jerusalem it was noted as a seat of rabbinical learning. The classical name of the city was Diospolis. In the 4th century it was connected with the trade in purple. It became the seat of a bishopric, and the bishop of Lydda was present at the Council of Nicea. At Lydda, in 415 AD, took place the trial of Pelagius for heresy.<P>Under the Moslems it became capital of the province of Filastin but later it was superseded by er-Ramleh, founded by Khalif Suleiman, whither its inhabitants were removed (Ya\'kubi, circa 891 AD). Mukaddasi (circa 985) says that in Lydda "there is a great mosque in which are wont to assemble large numbers of people from the capital (er-Ramleh) and from the villages around. In Lydda, too, is that wonderful church (of George) at the gate of which Christ will slay the antichrist" (quoted by Guy le Strange, Palestine under the Moslems, 493). It was rebuilt by the Crusaders; but was destroyed by Saladin after the Battle of Chattin, 1191 AD. It was again restored; but in 1271 it was sacked by the Mengels, and from this blow it has never recovered.<P>3. Identification and Description:<P>The ancient Lod or Lydda is represented by the modern village of Ludd, on the road to Jerusalem, about 11 miles southeast of Yafa. It is a station on the Jaffa-Jerusalem Railway. It occupies a picturesque hollow in the plain of Sharon, and is surrounded by gardens and orchards, the beauty of which intensifies by contrast the squalor of the village. It was the reputed birthplace of George, and here he is said to have been buried. The one ruin of importance in the place is that of the church which perpetuates his name.<P>The town stood on the great caravan road between Babylon and Egypt, near its intersection with that from Joppa to Jerusalem and the East. Its position on these great arteries of commerce meant trade for the inhabitants. "The manufacture and repair of such requisites for the journey as sacks, saddles and strappings would create the skilled labor in cloth, leather, wood and metal that made the neighborhood once the valley of craftsmen" (Mackie, HDB, under the word). Like many other once prosperous cities on these and similar caravan routes, Lydda suffered from diversion of traffic to the sea; and it may be that for none of them is any great revival now possible.``54';
isbe[5564]='Loddeus`lod-e\'-us (Loddeus; Swete reads Laadaios with Doldaiosas variant in Codex Alexandrinus; the King James Version Daddeus, Saddeus): The captain, who was in the place of the treasury. Ezra sent to him for men who "might execute the priests\' office" (1Esdras 8:46); called "Iddo" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,17);">Ezr 8:17</a>.``1';
isbe[5565]='Lodge`loj (lin; kataskenoo, etc.): To stay or dwell, temporarily, as for the night (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',32,13,21);">Ge 32:13,21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',22,8);">Nu 22:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',2,1);">Jos 2:1</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',4,3);">Jos 4:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',13,19);">Lu 13:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',21,17);">Mt 21:17</a>, aulizomai), or permanently (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rth\',1,16);">Ru 1:16</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,8);">Isa 1:8</a>, "a lodge (melunah) in a garden of cucumbers," the meaning is "hut," "cottage." "Evil thoughts" are said to "lodge" in the wicked (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',4,14);">Jer 4:14</a>).``1';
isbe[5566]='Loft`In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',17,23);">1Ki 17:23</a>, changed in the Revised Version (British and American) to "chamber."``1';
isbe[5567]='Loftily; Loftiness; Lofty`lof\'-ti-li, lof\'-ti-nes: The first form is only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',73,8);">Ps 73:8</a>, where it means "haughtily," as if from on high. The second is found only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',48,29);">Jer 48:29</a>, where the loftiness of Moab also means his haughtiness, his groundless self-conceit.<P>Lofty likewise means \'"haughty," "lifted up" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',131,1);">Ps 131:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',2,11);">Isa 2:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',30,13);">Pr 30:13</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',26,5);">Isa 26:5</a> it refers to a self-secure and boastful city. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',57,15);">57:15</A> it is used in a good sense of God who really is high and supreme. Isaiah uses the word more than all the other sacred writers put together.``1';
isbe[5568]='Log`log, logh, "deepened," "hollowed out" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,\'10-24\');">Le 14:10-24</a>)): The smallest liquid or dry measure of the Hebrews, equal to about 1 pint.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WEIGHTS+AND+MEASURES">WEIGHTS AND MEASURES</a>`1';
isbe[5569]='Logia, the`log\'-i-a, (Logia):<P>1. The Word "Logia" and Its History:<P>The word logion, which is a diminutive of logos, was regularly used of Divine utterances. There are examples in the classics, the Septuagint, the writings of Josephus and Philo and in four passages in the New Testament (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,38);">Ac 7:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,2);">Ro 3:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',5,12);">Heb 5:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,11);">1Pe 4:11</a>) where it is uniformly rendered both in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) "oracles." It is not, therefore, surprising that early Christian writers, who thought of Christ as Divine, applied this term to His sayings also. We find this use, according to the usual interpretation, in the title of the lost work of Papias as preserved by Eusebius, Logion kuriakon exegesis, "Exposition of the Lord\'s Logia" (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 39), in that writer\'s obscure reference to a Hebrew or Aramaic writing by the apostle Matthew (same place), and in Polycarp\'s Epistle (section symbol 7), "the logia of the Lord." The modern use of the word is twofold:<P>(a) as the name of the document referred to by Papins which may or may not be the Q of recent inquirers;<P>(b) as the name of recently discovered sayings ascribed to Jesus. For the former compare <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GOSPELS">GOSPELS</a>.<P>The latter is theme of this article.<P>2. The Discovery of the Logia:<P>About 9 1/2 miles from the railway station of Beni Mazar, 121 miles from Cairo, a place now called Behnesa marks the site of an ancient city named by the Greeks Oxyrhynchus, from the name of a sacred fish, the modern binni, which had long been known as a great Christian center in early times and was therefore selected by Messrs. Grenfell and Hunt for exploration in behalf of the Egyptian Exploration Fund. They began work on the ruins of the town, January 11,1897,and on the following day discovered a papyrus leaf inscribed with a number of sayings introduced by the formula legei Iesous, "saith Jesus," some of which were at once seen to be quite new. When excavation was resumed in February,1903,a second fragment was discovered, which must have belonged to the same or a similar collection, as the formula "saith Jesus" is employed in exactly the same way, and the sayings exhibit the same mixed character. The first of these two fragments was named by the discoverers logia, but the short preface to the second fragment suggests that the word used in the original title may have been logoi, which is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,35);">Ac 20:35</a> as the title perhaps of a collection of sayings of Jesus used by the apostle Paul. It is convenient, however, to retain logia, at any rate for the present. Other remains of early Christian texts have been found on the same site (compare <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=AGRAPHA">AGRAPHA</a>) but none of precisely the same character.<P>3. Description of the Texts:<P>The first fragment, found and published in 1897, afterward referred to as A, is a leaf from a papyrus book measuring in its present state 5 3/4 X 3 3/4 inches and having 42 lines on the two pages. As it is broken at the bottom it is impossible, in the absence of another leaf, to ascertain or even conjecture how much has been lost. At the top right-hand corner of one page are the letters iota, alpha, used as numerals, that <span class="noTag">is</span> 11, and it has been suggested that this, with other characteristics, marks the page as the first of the two. The uncial writing is assigned to the 3rd century, perhaps to the early part of it. The text is fairly complete except at the end of the third logion, for the five following lines, and at the bottom. The second fragment, henceforth referred to as B, found in 1903 and published in 1904, has also 42 lines, or rather parts of lines, but on only one page or column, the Christian text being written on the back of a roll the recto of which contained a survey list. The characters of this, too, are uncial, and the date, like that of A, seems to be also the 3rd century, but perhaps a little later. B is unfortunately very defective, the bit of papyrus being broken vertically throughout, so that several letters are lost at the end of each line, and also horizontally for parts of several lines at the bottom.<P>4. Logia with Canonical Parallels:<P>Seven of these sayings, or logia, inclusive of the preface of B, have or contain canonical parallels, namely:<P>(1) A1, which coincides with the usual text of <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,42);">Lu 6:42</a>;<P>(2) A5a (according to the editio princeps, 6a), which comes very close to <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,24);">Lu 4:24</a>;<P>(3) A6 (or 7), a variant of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,14);">Mt 5:14</a>;<P>(4) the saying contained in the preface of B which resembles <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,52);">Joh 8:52</a>;<P>(5) B2, ll. 7f; "The kingdom of heaven is within you," which reminds us of <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',17,21);">Lu 17:21</a>;<P>(6) B3, ll. 4f; "Many that are first shall be last; and the last first," which corresponds to <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,31);">Mr 10:31</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,30);">Mt 19:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',13,30);">Lu 13:30</a>;<P>(7) B4, ll. 2-5, "That which is hidden from thee shall be revealed to thee: for there is nothing hidden that shall not be made manifest," which is like <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',4,22);">Mr 4:22</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,26);">Mt 10:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,2);">Lu 12:2</a>).<P>These parallels or partial parallels<6C>for some of them exhibit interesting variations<6E>are, with one exception, of synoptic character.<P>5. New Sayings:<P>The other seven or eight logia, although not without possible echoes of the canonical Gospels in thought and diction, are all non-canonical and with one exception new.<P>Three of them, namely B2 and 3 (apart from the canonical sayings given above) and 5, may be set aside as too uncertain to be of any value. What is preserved of the first ("Who are they that draw you (MS, us) to the kingdom?" etc.) is indeed very tempting, but the restoration of the lost matter is too precarious for any suggestion to be more than an ingenious conjecture. This is seen by comparing the restoration of this logion by the discoverers, Dr. Swete and Dr. C. Taylor, with that proposed by Delssmann (Licht vom Osten1, 329). While the English scholars take helko in the sense of "draw," the German takes it in the sense which it has in the New Testament, "drag," with the result of utter divergence as to the meaning and even the subject of the logion. The logia which remain are undeniably of great interest, although the significance of at least one is exceedingly obscure. The number of the sayings is not certain. Dr. Taylor has shown that in A2 f "and" may couple two distinct utterances brought together by the compiler. If this suggestion is adopted, and if the words after A3 in the editio princeps are regarded as belonging to it and not as the remains of a separate logion, we get the following eight sayings:<P>(1) "Except ye fast to the world (or "from the world"), ye shall in no wise find the kingdom of God" (A2a);<P>(2) "Except ye keep the sabbath (Taylor "sabbatize the sabbath"), ye shall not see the Father" (A2b);<P>(3) "I stood in the midst of the world, and in flesh was I seen of them, and I found all men drunken, and none found I athirst among them" (A3a);<P>(4) "My soul grieveth over the sons of men, because they are blind in their heart and see not their wretchedness and their poverty" (the last clause restored by conjecture) (A3b);<P>(5) "Wherever there are two they are not without God, and where there is one alone I say I am with him (after Blass). Raise the stone and (there) thou shalt find me: cleave the wood (Taylor, "the tree") and there am I" (A4);<P>(6) "A physician does not work cures on them that know him" (A5b);<P>(7) "Thou hearest with one ear but the other thou hast closed" (largely conjectural but almost certain) (A6);<P>(8) "(There is nothing) buried which shall not be raised" (or "known") (B4, 1,5).<P>6. Origin and Character of the Logia:<P>Attempts have been made to trace the collection represented by these fragments (assuming that they belong to the same work) to some lost gospel<65>the Gospel according to the Egyptians (Harnack, Van Manen), the Gospel of the Ebionites or the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles (Zahn), or the Gospel according to the Hebrews (Batiffol), but without decisive result. That there is a connection of some kind with the last-mentioned apocryphal work is evident from the fact that B1 ("Jesus saith, Let not him who seeks...cease until he find Him; and having found Him, let him be amazed; and being amazed he shall reign, and reigning shall rest") is ascribed by Clement of Alexandria to this writing, but that cannot have been the only source. It was probably one of a number drawn on by the compiler. The latter, so far as B is concerned, represents the sayings as spoken by Jesus to ".... and Thomas." In whatever way the gap is supplied<65>whether by "Philip," or "Judas" or "the other disciples"<22>one of the Twelve known as Thomas is clearly referred to as the medium or one of the media of transmission. It is possible that the short preface in which this statement is made belongs not to the whole collection but to a part of it. The whole work may, as Swete suggests (Expository Times, XV, 494), have been entitled "Words of Jesus to the Twelve," and this may have been the portion addressed to Thomas. The other fragment, A, might belong to a section associated with the name of another apostle. In any case the Logia must have formed part of a collection of considerable extent, as we know of material for 24 pages or columns of about 21 or 22 lines each. So far as can be judged the writing was not a gospel in the ordinary sense of that term, but a collection of sayings perhaps bearing considerable resemblance as to the form to the Logia of Matthew mentioned by Papias.<P>The remains of B5, however, show that a saying might be prefaced with introductory matter. Perhaps a short narrative was sometimes appended. The relation to the canonical Gospels cannot be determined with present evidence. The sayings preserved generally exhibit the synoptic type, perhaps more specifically the Lukan type, but Johannine echoes, that is, possible traces of the thought and diction represented in the Fourth Gospel, are not absent (compare A, logia 2f; and preface to B). It seems not improbable that the compiler had our four Gospels before him, but nothing can be proved. There is no distinct sign of heretical influence. The much-debated saying about the wood and the stone (A4b) undoubtedly lends itself to pantheistic teaching, but can be otherwise understood.<P>Under these circumstances the date of the compilation cannot at present be fixed except in a very general way. If our papyri which represent two copies were written, as the discoverers think, in the 3rd century, that fact and the indubitably archaic character of the sayings make it all but certain that the text as arranged is not later than the 2nd century. To what part of the century it is to be assigned is at present undiscoverable. Sanday inclines to about 120 AD, the finders suggest about 140 AD as the terminus ad quem, Zahn dates 160-70 AD, and Dr. Taylor 150-200 AD. Further research may solve these problems, but, with the resources now available, all that can be said is that we have in the Logia of Oxyrhynchus a few glimpses of an early collection of sayings ascribed to Jesus which circulated in Egypt in the 3rd century of great interest and possibly of considerable value, but of completely unknown origin.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Of the extensive literature which has gathered round the Logia<69>as many as fifty publications relating to A only in the first few months<68>only a few can be mentioned here. A was first published in 1897 as a pamphlet and afterward as <span class="noTag">Number 1</span> of Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Valuable articles by Cross and Harnack peared in The Expositor, series V, volume VI, 257ff, 321ff, 401ff, an important lecture by Swete in The Expository Times, VIII, 544ff,568,and a very useful pamphlet by Sanday and Lock in the same year. B appeared in 1904 in pamphlet form and as Number 654 of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, with a fuller commentary. Dr. C. Taylor\'s pamphlets on A and B issued respectively in 1899 and 1905, and Swete\'s lecture on B, The Expositor T, XV, 488ff, are of exceptional significance for the study of the subject. Compare also Griffinhoofe, The Unwritten Sayings of Christ (A only), 55-67; Klostermann, Kleine Texte, <span class="noTag">Numbers 8</span>, pp. 11f and 11, pp. 17ff; Resch, Agrapha2, 68-73, 353f; HDB, article "Agrapha," extra vol; also articles on "Unwritten Sayings" in HDB, 1909, and DCG.``162';
isbe[5570]='Logos`log\'-os (logos):<P><b>I. GREEK SPECULATION</b><P class="in15">1. Heraclitus<P class="in15">2. Anaxagoras<P class="in15">3. Plato<P class="in15">4. Aristotle<P class="in15">5. Stoics<P><b>II. HEBREW ANTICIPATION OF DOCTRINE</b><P class="in15">1. Word as Revelation of God<P class="in15">2. Suggestions of Personal Distinctions in Deity<P class="in15">3. Theophanies<P class="in15">4. Wisdom<P class="in15">5. Targums<P><b>III. ALEXANDRIAN SYNTHESIS</b><P class="in15">Philo<P><b>IV. CHRISTIAN REALIZATION</b><P class="in15">1. Pauline Doctrine<P class="in15">2. Doctrine in Hebrews<P class="in15">3. Doctrine in Fourth Gospel<P class="in30">(1) Content of Doctrine<P class="in45">(a) Relation of Logos to God<P class="in45">(b) Relation of Logos to World<P class="in30">(2) Origin of Terminology<P class="in45">(a) Hebrew Source<P class="in45">(b) Hellenic Source<P class="in45">(c) Contrast between Philo and John<P><b>V. PATRISTIC DEVELOPMENT</b><P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>The doctrine of the Logos has exerted a decisive and far-reaching influence upon speculative and Christian thought. The word has a long history, and the evolution of the idea it embodies is really the unfolding of man\'s conception of God. To comprehend the relation of the Deity to the world has been the aim of all religious philosophy. While widely divergent views as to the Divine manifestation have been conceived, from the dawn of Western speculation, the Greek word logos has been employed with a certain degree of uniformity by a series of thinkers to express and define the nature and mode of God\'s revelation.<P>Logos signifies in classical Greek both "reason" and "word." Though in Biblical Greek the term is mostly employed in the sense of "word," we cannot properly dissociate the two significations. Every word implies a thought. It is impossible to imagine a time when God was without thought. Hence, thought must be eternal as the Deity. The translation "thought" is probably the best equivalent for the Greek term, since it denotes, on the one hand, the faculty of reason, or the thought inwardly conceived in the mind; and, on the other hand, the thought outwardly expressed through the vehicle of language. The two ideas, thought and speech, are indubitably blended in the term logos; and in every employment of the word, in philosophy and Scripture, both notions of thought and its outward expression are intimately connected.<P>In this article it will be our aim to trace the evolution of the doctrine from its earliest appearance in Greek philosophy through its Hebrew and Alexandrian phases till it attained its richest expression in the writings of the New Testament, and especially in the Fourth Gospel.<P>The doctrine may be said to have two stages: a Hellenistic and a Hebrew; or, more correctly, a pre-Christian and a Christian. The theory of Philo and of the Alexandrian thinkers generally may be regarded as the connecting link between the Greek and the Christian forms of the doctrine. The Greek or pre-Christian speculation on the subject is marked by the names of Heraclitus, Plato and the Stoics. Philo paves the way for the Christian doctrine of Paul, Hebrews and the Johannine Gospel.<P>I. Greek Speculation.<P>The earliest speculations of the Greeks were occupied with the world of Nature, and the first attempts at philosophy take the shape of a search for some unitary principle to explain the diversity of the universe.<P>1. Heraclitus:<P>Heraclitus was practically the first who sought to account for the order which existed in a world of change by a law or ruling principle. This profoundest of Greek philosophers saw everything in a condition of flux. Everything is forever passing into something else and has an existence only in relation to this process. We cannot say things are: they come into being and pass away. To account for this state of perpetual becoming, Heraclitus was led to seek out a new and primary element from which all things take their rise. This substance he conceived to be, not water or air as previous thinkers had conjectured, but something more subtle, mysterious and potent<6E>fire. This restless, all-consuming and yet all-transforming activity<74>now darting upward as a flame, now sinking to an ember and now vanishing as smoke<6B>is for him at once the symbol and essence of life. But it is no arbitrary or lawless element. If there is flux everywhere, all change must take place according to "measure." Reality is an "attunement" of opposites, a tension or harmony of conflicting elements. Heraclitus saw all the mutations of being governed by a rational and unalterable law. This law he calls sometimes "Justice," sometimes "Harmony"; more frequently "Logos" or "Reason," and in two passages at least, "God." Fire, Logos, God are fundamentally the same. It is the eternal energy of the universe pervading all its substance and preserving in unity and harmony the perpetual drift and evolution of phenomenal existence. Though Heraclitus sometimes calls this rational principle God, it is not probable that he attached to it any definite idea of consciousness. The Logos is not above the world or even prior to it. It is in it, its inner pervasive energy sustaining, relating and harmonizing its endless variety.<P>2. Anaxagoras:<P>Little was done by the immediate successors of Heraclitus to develop the doctrine of the Logos, and as the distinction between mind and matter became more defined, the term nous superseded that of Logos as the rational force of the world. Anaxagoras was the first thinker who introduced the idea of a supreme intellectual principle which, while independent of the world, governed it. His conception of the nous or "mind" is, however, vague and confused, hardly distinguishable from corporeal matter. By the artificial introduction of a power acting externally upon the world, a dualism, which continued throughout Greek philosophy, was created. At the same time it is to the merit of Anaxagoras that he was the first to perceive some kind of distinction between mind and matter and to suggest a teleological explanation of the universe.<P>3. Plato:<P>In Plato the idea of a regulative principle reappears. But though the word is frequently used, it is nous and not Logos which determines his conception of the relation of God and the world. The special doctrine of the Logos does not find definite expression, except perhaps in the Timaeus, where the word is employed as descriptive of the Divine force from which the world has arisen. But if the word does not frequently occur in the dialogues, there is not wanting a basis upon which a Logos-doctrine might be framed; and the conception of archetypal ideas affords a philosophical expression of the relation of God and the world. The idea of a dominating principle of reason was lifted to a higher plane by the distinction which Plato made between the world of sense and the world of thought, to the latter of which God belonged. According to Plato, true reality or absolute being consisted of the "Ideas" which he conceived as thoughts residing in the Divine mind before the creation of the world. To these abstract concepts was ascribed the character of supersensible realities of which in some way the concrete visible things of the world were copies or images. Compared with the "Ideas," the world of things was a world of shadows. This was the aspect of the Platonic doctrine of ideas which, as we shall see, Philo afterward seized upon, because it best fitted in with his general conception of the transcendence of God and His relation to the visible world. Three features of Plato\'s view ought to be remembered as having a special significance for our subject:<P>(1) While God is regarded by Plato as the intelligent power by which the world is formed, matter itself is conceived by him as in some sense eternal and partly intractable.<P>(2) While in the Philebus Plato employs the expression, "the regal principle of intelligence in the nature of God" nous basilikos en te tou Dios phusei), it is doubtful if reason was endowed with personality or was anything more than an attribute of the Divine mind.<P>(3) The ideas are merely models or archetypes after which creation is fashioned.<P>4. Aristotle:<P>The doctrine of the Logos cannot be said to occupy a distinctive place in the teaching of Aristotle, though the word does occur in a variety of senses (e.g. orthos logos, "right insight," the faculty by which the will is trained to proper action). Aristotle sought to solve the fundamental problem of Greek philosophy as to how behind the changing multiplicity of appearances an abiding Being is to be thought by means of the concept of development. Plato had regarded the "ideas" as the causes of phenomena<6E>causes different from the objects themselves. Aristotle endeavored to overcome the duality of Plato by representing reality as the essence which contains within itself potentially the phenomena, and unfolds into the particular manifestations of the sensible world. This conception has exerted a powerful influence upon subsequent thought, and particularly upon the monotheistic view of the world. At the same time in working it out, the ultimate "prime-mover" of Aristotle was not materially different from the idea of "the Good" of Plato. And inasmuch as God was conceived as pure thought existing apart from the world in eternal blessedness, Aristotle did not succeed in resolving the duality of God and the universe which exercised the Greek mind.<P>5. Stoics:<P>It is to the Stoics we must look for the first systematic exposition of the doctrine of the Logos. It is the key to their interpretation of life, both in the realms of Nature and of duty. Interested more in ethical than physical problems, they were compelled to seek general metaphysical basis for a rational moral life. Some unitary idea must be found which will overcome the duality between God and the world and remove the opposition between the sensuous and supersensuous which Plato and Aristotle had failed to reconcile. For this end the Logos-doctrine of Heraclitus seemed to present itself as the most satisfactory solution of the problem. The fundamental thought of the Stoics consequently is that the entire universe forms a single living connected whole and that all particulars are the determinate forms assumed by the primitive power which they conceived as never-resting, all-pervading fire. This eternal activity or Divine world-power which contains within itself the conditions and processes of all things, they call Logos or God. More particularly as the productive power, the Deity is named the logos spermatikos, the Seminal Logos or generative principle of the world. This vital energy not only pervades the universe, but unfolds itself into innumerable logoi spermatikoi or formative forces which energize the manifold phenomena of Nature and life. This subordination of all particulars to the Logos not only constitutes the rational order of the universe but supplies a norm of duty for the regulation of the activities of life. Hence, in the moral sphere "to live according to Nature" is the all-determining law of conduct.<P>II. Hebrew Anticipation of Doctrine.<P>So far we have traced the development of the Logos-doctrine in Greek philosophy. We have now to note a parallel movement in Hebrew thought. Though strictly speaking it is incorrect to separate the inner Reason from the outer expression in the term Logos, still in the Hellenistic usage the doctrine was substantially a doctrine of Reason, while in Jewish literature it was more especially the outward expression or word that was emphasized.<P>1. Word as Revelation of God:<P>The sources of this conception are to be found in the Old Testament and in the post-canonical literature. The God who is made known in Scripture is regarded as one who actively reveals Himself. He is exhibited therefore as making His will known in and by His spoken utterances. The "Word of God" is presented as the creative principle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,3);">Ge 1:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',33,6);">Ps 33:6</a>); as instrument of judgment (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',6,5);">Ho 6:5</a>); as agent of healing (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',107,20);">Ps 107:20</a>); and generally as possessor of personal qualities (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',55,2);">Isa 55:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',147,15);">Ps 147:15</a>). Revelation is frequently called the "Word of the Lord," signifying the spoken as distinct from the written word.<P>2. Suggestions of Personal Distinctions in Deity:<P>In particular, we may note certain adumbrations of distinction of persons within the Being of God. It is contended that the phrase "Let us make" in Genesis points to a plurality of persons in the God-head. This indefinite language of Genesis is more fully explained by the priestly ritual in Numbers (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',5,\'23-26\');">6:23-26</A>) and in the Psalter. In Jeremiah, Ezra and the vision of Isaiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',6,\'2-8\');">6:2-8</a>) the same idea of Divine plurality is implied, showing that the Old Testament presents a doctrine of God far removed from the sterile monotheism of the Koran (compare Liddon, Divinity of our Lord, and Konig).<P>3. Theophanies:<P>Passing from these indefinite intimations of personal distinction in the inner life of God, we may mention first that series of remarkable apparitions commonly known as the theophanies of the Old Testament. These representations are described as the "Angel of Yahweh" or of "the Covenant"; or as the "Angel of his presence." This angelic appearance is sometimes identified with Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,11,13);">Ge 16:11,13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',32,\'29-31\');">32:29-31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,2);">Ex 3:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,21);">13:21</a>), sometimes distinguished from Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,15);">Ge 22:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,7);">24:7</a>); sometimes presented in both aspects (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,6);">Ex 3:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',1,11);">Zec 1:11</a>). We find God revealing Himself in this way to Abraham, Sarah, Lot, Hagar, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Manoah. Who was this angel? The earliest Fathers reply with general unanimity that He was the "Word" or "Son of God." But while the earlier church teachers distinguished between the "Angel of the Lord" and the Father, the Arians sought to widen the distinction into a difference of natures, since an invisible Being must be higher than one cognizable by the senses. Augustine insists upon the Scriptural truth of the invisibility of God as God, the Son not less than the Father. He will not presume, however, to say which of the Divine persons manifested Himself in this or that instance; and his general doctrine, in which he has been followed by most of the later teachers of the church, is that theophanies were not direct appearances of a Person of the Godhead, but self-manifestations of God through a created being.<P>4. Wisdom:<P>A further development of the conception of a personal medium of revelation is discernible in the description of Wisdom as given in some of the later books of the Old Testament. The wisdom of Jewish Scripture is more than a human endowment or even an attribute of God, and may be said to attain almost to a personal reflex of the Deity, reminding us of the archetypal ideas of Plato. In Job, wisdom is represented as existent in God and as communicated in its highest form to man. It is the eternal thought in which the Divine Architect ever beholds His future creation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',28,\'23-27\');">Job 28:23-27</a>). If in Job wisdom is revealed only as underlying the laws of the universe and not as wholly personal, in the Book of Proverbs it is coeternal with Yahweh and assists Him in creation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',8,\'22-31\');">Pr 8:22-31</a>). It may be doubtful whether this is the language of a real person or only of a poetic personification. But something more than a personified idea may be inferred from the contents of the sapiential books outside the Canon. Sirach represents Wisdom as existing from all eternity with God. In Baruch, and still more in Wisdom, the Sophia is distinctly personal<61>"the very image of the goodness of God." In this pseudo-Solomonic book, supposed to be the work of an Alexandrian writer before Philo, the influence of Greek thought is traceable. The writer speaks of God\'s Word (me\'mera\') as His agent in creation and judgment.<P>5. Targums:<P>Finally in the Targums, which were popular interpretations or paraphrases of the Old Testament Scripture, there was a tendency to avoid anthropomorphic terms or such expressions as involved a too internal conception of God\'s nature and manifestation. Here the three doctrines of the Word, the Angel, and Wisdom are introduced as mediating factors between God and the world. In particular the chasm between the Divine and human is bridged over by the use of such terms as me\'mera\' ("word") and shekhinah ("glory"). The me\'mera proceeds from God, and is His messenger in Nature and history. But it is significant that though the use of this expression implied the felt need of a Mediator, the Word does not seem to have been actually identified with the Messiah.<P>III. Alexandrian Synthesis.<P>We have seen that according to Greek thought the Logos was conceived as a rational principle or impersonal energy by means of which the world was fashioned and ordered, while according to Hebrew thought the Logos was regarded rather as a mediating agent or personal organ of the Divine Being. The Hellenistic doctrine, in other words, was chiefly a doctrine of the Logos as Reason; the Jewish, a doctrine of the Logos as Word.<P>Philo:<P>In the philosophy of Alexandria, of which Philo was an illustrious exponent, the two phases were combined, and Hellenistic speculation was united with Hebrew tradition for the purpose of showing that the Old Testament taught the true philosophy and embodied all that was highest in Greek reflection. In Philo the two streams meet and flow henceforth in a common bed. The all-pervading Energy of Heraclitus, the archetypal Ideas of Plato, the purposive Reason of Aristotle, the immanent Order of the Stoics are taken up and fused with the Jewish conception of Yahweh who, while transcending all finite existences, is revealed through His intermediatory Word. As the result of this Philonic synthesis, an entirely new idea of God is formulated. While Philo admits the eternity of matter, he rejects the Greek view that the world is eternal, since it denies the creative activity and providence of God. At the same time he separates Divine energy from its manifestations in the world, and is therefore compelled to connect the one with the other by the interposition of subordinate Powers. These Divine forces are the embodiment of the ideai, of Plato and the aggeloi, of the Old Testament. The double meaning of Logos<6F>thought and speech<63>is made use of by Philo to explain the relation subsisting between the ideal world existing only in the mind of God and the sensible universe which is its visible embodiment. He distinguishes, therefore, between the Logos inherent in God (logos endiathetos), corresponding to reason in man, and the Logos which emanates from God (logos prophorikos), corresponding to the spoken Word as the revelation of thought. Though in His inner essence God is incomprehensible by any but Himself, He has created the intelligible cosmos by His self-activity. The Word is therefore in Philo the rational order manifested in the visible world.<P>Some special features of the Philonic Logos may be noted:<P>(1) It is distinguished from God as the instrument from the Cause.<P>(2) As instrument by which God makes the world, it is in its nature intermediate between God and man.<P>(3) As the expressed thought of God and the rational principle of the visible world, the Logos is "the Eldest or Firstborn Son of God." It is the "bond" (desmos) holding together all things (De Mundi, i.592), the law which determines the order of the universe and guides the destinies of men and nations (same place). Sometimes Philo calls it the "Man of God": or the "Heavenly man," the immortal father of all noble men; sometimes he calls it "the Second God," "the Image of God."<P>(4) From this it follows that the Logos must be the Mediator between God and man, the "Intercessor" (hiketes) or "High Priest," who is the ambassador from heaven and interprets God to man. Philo almost exhausts the vocabulary of Hebrew metaphor in describing the Logos. It is "manna," "bread from heaven," "the living stream," the "sword" of Paradise, the guiding "cloud," the "rock" in the wilderness.<P>These various expressions, closely resembling the New Testament descriptions of Christ, lead us to ask: Is Philo\'s Logos a personal being or a pure abstraction? Philo himself seems to waver in his answer, and the Greek and the Jew in him are hopelessly at issue. That he personifies the Logos is implied in the figures he uses; but to maintain its personality would have been inconsistent with Philo\'s whole view of God and the world. His Jewish faith inclines him to speak of the Logos as personal, while his Greek culture disposes him to an impersonal interpretation. Confronted with this alternative, the Alexandrian wavers in indecision. After all has been said, his Logos really resolves itself into a group of Divine ideas, and is conceived, not as a distinct person, but as the thought of God which is expressed in the rational order of the visible universe.<P>In the speculations of Philo, whose thought is so frequently couched in Biblical language, we have the gropings of a sincere mind after a truth which was disclosed in its fullness only by the revelation of Pentecost. In Philo, Greek philosophy, as has been said, "stood almost at the door of the Christian church." But if the Alexandrian thinker could not create the Christian doctrine, he unconsciously prepared the soil for its acceptance. In this sense his Logos-doctrine has a real value in the evolution of Christian thought. Philo was not, indeed, the master of the apostles, but even if he did nothing more than call forth their antagonism, he helped indirectly to determine the doctrine of Christendom.<P>IV. Christian Realization.<P>We pass now to consider the import of the term in the New Testament. Here it signifies usually "utterance," "speech" or "narrative." In reference to God it is used sometimes for a special utterance, or for revelation in general, and even for the medium of revelation<6F>Holy Scripture. In the prologue of the Fourth Gospel it is identified with the personal Christ; and it is this employment of the term in the light of its past history which creates the interest of the problem of the New Testament doctrine.<P>1. Pauline Doctrine:<P>The author of the Fourth Gospel is not, however, the first New Testament writer who represents Jesus as the Logos. Though Paul does not actually use the word in this connection, he has anticipated the Johannine conception. Christ is represented by Paul as before His advent living a life with God in heaven (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,4);">Ga 4:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',10,6);">Ro 10:6</a>). He is conceived as one in whose image earthly beings, and especially men, were made (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,7);">1Co 11:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,\'45-49\');">15:45-49</a>); and even as participating in the creation (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',8,6);">1Co 8:6</a>). In virtue of His distinct being He is called God\'s "own Son" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,32);">Ro 8:32</a>).<P>Whether Paul was actually conversant with the writings of Philo is disputed (compare Pfleider, Urchristentum), but already when he wrote to the Colossians and Ephesians the influence of Alexandrian speculation was being felt in the church. Incipient Gnosticism, which was an attempt to correlate Christianity with the order of the universe as a whole, was current. Most noticeable are the pointed allusions to Gnostic watchwords in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,19);">Eph 3:19</a> ("fullness of God") and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,3);">Col 2:3</a> ("Christ, in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden"), where Paul shows that everything sought for in the doctrine of the Pleroma is really given in Christ. The chief object of these epistles is to assert the unique dignity and absolute power of the Person of Christ. He is not merely one of the Eons which make up the Pleroma, as Gnostic teachers affirm, but a real and personal Being in whom all the fullness of the Godhead dwells. He is not merely an inferior workman creating glory for a higher Master. He creates for Himself. He is the end as well as the source of all created. things (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,\'15-20\');">Col 1:15-20</a>). Though throughout this epistle the word "Logos" is never introduced, it is plain that the eikon, of Paul is equivalent in rank and function to the Logos of John. Each exists prior to creation, each is equal to God, shares His life and cooperates in His work.<P>2. Doctrine in Hebrews:<P>In the Epistle to the Hebrews we have an equally explicit, if not fuller, declaration of the eternal Deity of Christ. Whatever may be said of Paul there can be little doubt that the author of He was familiar with the Philonic writings. Who this writer was we do not know; but his Philonism suggests that he may have been an Alexandrian Jew, possibly even a disciple of Philo. In language seemingly adapted from that source ("Son of God," "Firstborn," "above angels," "Image of God," "Agent in Creation," "Mediator," "Great High Priest" "Melchizedek") the author of He sneaks of Christ as a reflection of the majesty and imprint of the nature of God, just as in a seal the impression resembles the stamp. The dignity of His title indicates His essential rank. He is expressly dressed as God; and the expression "the effulgence of his glory" (the Revised Version (British and American) apaugasma) implies that He is one with God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,3);">Heb 1:3</a>). By Him the worlds have been made, and all things are upheld by the fiat of His word (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,3);">Heb 1:3</a>). In the name He bears, in the honors ascribed to Him, in His superiority to angels, in His relationship as Creator both to heaven and earth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,10);">Heb 1:10</a>), we recognize (in language which in the letter of it strongly reminds us of Philo, yet in its spirit is so different) the description of one who though clothed with human nature is no mere subordinate being, but the possessor of all Divine prerogatives and the sharer of the very nature of God Himself.<P>3. Doctrine in the Fourth Gospel:<P>In the Fourth Gospel the teaching of Paul and the author of He finds its completest expression. "The letter to the He stands in a sense half-way between Pauline and Johannine teaching" (Weizsacker, Apostolic Age, V, 11). It is, however, too much to say that these three writers represent the successive stages of single line of development. While all agree in emphasizing the fact of Christ\'s Divine personality and eternal being, Paul represents rather the religious interest, the Epistle to the Hebrews the philosophical. In the Johannine Christology the two elements are united.<P>In discussing the Johannine doctrine of the Logos we shall Speak first of its content and secondly of its terminology.<P>(1) Content of Doctrine.<P>The evangelist uses "Logos" 6 times as a designation of the Divine preexistent person of Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,1,14);">Joh 1:1,14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,1);">1Joh 1:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,13);">Re 19:13</a>), but he never puts it into the mouth of Christ. The idea which John sought to convey by this term was not essentially different from the conception of Christ as presented by Paul. But the use of the word gave a precision and emphasis to the being of Christ which the writer must have felt was especially needed by the class of readers for whom his Gospel was intended. The Logos with whom the Fourth Gospel starts is a Person. Readers of the Synoptics had long been familiar with the term "Word of God" as equivalent to the Gospel; but the essential purport of John\'s Word is Jesus Himself, His Person. We have here an essential change of meaning. The two applications are indeed connected; but the conception of the perfect revelation of God in the Gospel passes into that of the perfect revelation of the Divine nature in general (compare Weizsacker, Apostolic Age, V, ii, 320).<P>In the prologue (which, however, must not be regarded as independent of, or having no integral connection with, the rest of the book) there is stated: (a) the relation of the Logos to God; and (b) the relation of the Logos to the world.<P>(a) Relation of Logos to God:<P>Here the author makes three distinct affirmations:<P>(i) "In the beginning was the Word."<P>The evangelist carries back his history of our Lord to a point prior to all temporal things. Nothing is said of the origin of the world. As in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,1);">Ge 1:1</a>, so here there is only implied that the Logos was existent when the world began to be. When as yet nothing was, the Logos was. Though the eternal preexistence of the Word is not actually stated, it is implied.<P>(ii) "The Word was with God."<P>Here His personal existence is more specifically defined. He stands distinct from, yet in eternal fellowship with, God. The preposition pros (bei, Luther) expresses beyond the fact of coexistence that of perpetual intercommunion. John would guard against the idea of mere self-contemplation on the one hand, and entire independence on the other. It is union, not fusion.<P>(iii) "The Word was God."<P>He is not merely related eternally, but actually identical in essence with God. The notion of inferiority is emphatically excluded and the true Deity of the Word affirmed. In these three propositions we ascend from His eternal existence to His distinct personality and thence to His substantial Godhead. All that God is the Logos is. Identity, difference, communion are the three phases of the Divine relationship.<P>(b) Relation of Logos to the World:<P>The Logos is word as well as thought, and therefore there is suggested the further idea of communicativeness. Of this self-communication the evangelist mentions two phases<65>creation and revelation. The Word unveils Himself through the mediation of objects of sense and also manifests Himself directly. Hence, in this section of the prologue (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,\'3-5\');">Joh 1:3-5</a>) a threefold division also occurs.<P>(i) He is the Creator of the visible universe. "All things were made through him"<22>a phrase which describes the Logos as the organ of the entire creative activity of God and excludes the idea favored by Plato and Philo that God was only the architect who molded into cosmos previously existing matter. The term egeneto ("becomes," werden), implies the successive evolution of the world, a statement not inconsistent with the modern theory of development.<P>(ii) The Logos is also the source of the intellectual, moral and spiritual life of man. "In him was life; and the life was the light of men." He is the light as well as the life<66>the fountain of all the manifold forms of being and thought in and by whom all created things subsist, and from whom all derive illumination (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,\'1-3\');">1Joh 1:1-3</a>; also <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,17);">Col 1:17</a>). But inasmuch as the higher phases of intelligent life involve freedom, the Divine Light, though perfect and undiminished in itself, was not comprehended by a world which chose darkness rather than light (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,5,11);">Joh 1:5,11</a>).<P>(iii) The climax of Divine revelation is expressed in the statement, The Word became flesh," which implies on the one hand the reality of Christ\'s humanity, and, on the other, the voluntariness of His incarnation, but excludes the notion that in becoming man the Logos ceased to be God. Though clothed in flesh, the Logos continues to be the self-manifesting God, and retains, even in human form, the character of the Eternal One. In this third phase is embodied the highest manifestation of the Godhead. In physical creation the power of God is revealed. In the bestowal of light to mankind His wisdom is chiefly manifested. But in the third especially is His love unveiled. All the perfections of the Deity are focused and made visible in Christ<73>the "glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,14);">Joh 1:14</a>).<P>Thus the Word reveals the Divine essence. The incarnation makes the life, the light and the love which are eternally present in God manifest to men. As they meet in God, so they meet in Christ. This is the glory which the disciples beheld; the truth to which the Baptist bore witness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,7);">Joh 1:7</a>); the fullness whereof His apostles received (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,16);">Joh 1:16</a>); the entire body of grace and truth by which the Word gives to men the power to become the sons of God.<P>There is implied throughout that the Word is the Son. Each of these expressions taken separately have led and may lead to error. But combined they correct possible misuse. On the one hand, their union protects us from considering the Logos as a mere abstract impersonal quality; and, on the other, saves us from imparting to the Son a lower state or more recent origin than the Father. Each term supplements and protects the other. Taken together they present Christ before His incarnation as at once personally distinct from, yet equal with, the Father<65>as the eternal life which was with God and was manifested to us.<P>(2) Origin of Terminology.<P>We have now to ask whence the author of the Fourth Gospel derived the phraseology employed to set forth his Christology. It will be well, however, to distinguish between the source of the doctrine itself and the source of the language. For it is possible that Alexandrian philosophy might have suggested the linguistic medium, while the doctrine itself had another origin. Writers like Reuss, Keim, Holtzmann, Weizsacker, Schmiedel, etc., who contend for the Alexandrian derivation of the prologue, are apt to overlook two considerations regarding the Johannine doctrine:<P>(1) There is no essential difference between the teaching of John and that of the other apostolic writers; and even when the word "Logos" is not used, as in Paul\'s case, the view of Christ\'s person is virtually that which we find in the Fourth Gospel.<P>(2) The writer himself affirms that his knowledge of Christ was not borrowed from others, but was derived from personal fellowship with Jesus Himself. "We beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten." This is John\'s summary and witness upon which he proceeds to base the vivid memories of Jesus which follow. The Johannine doctrine is not to be regarded merely as a philosophical account of the nature of God and His creation of the world, but rather as the statement of a belief which already existed in the Christian church and which received fresh testimony and assurance from the evangelist\'s own personal experience.<P>But the question may still be asked: Even if it was no novel doctrine which John declared, what led him to adopt the language of the Logos, a word which had not been employed in this connection by previous Christian writers, but which was prevalent in the philosophical vocabulary of the age? It would be inconceivable that the apostle lighted upon this word by chance or that he selected it without any previous knowledge of its history and value. It may be assumed that when he speaks of the "Word" in relation to God and the world, he employs a mode of speech which was already familiar to those for whom he wrote and of whose general import he himself was well aware.<P>The truth that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ was borne in upon John. The problem which confronted him was how he could make that truth real to his contemporaries. This he sought to do by using the language of the highest religious thought of his day.<P>We have seen that the term "Logos" had undergone a twofold and to some extent parallel evolution. On the one hand, it had a Hebrew and, on the other, a Hellenic history. In which direction are we to look for the immediate source of the Johannine terminology?<P>(a) Hebrew Source:<P>As a Palestinian Jew familiar with current Jewish ideas and forms of devout expression, it would be natural for him to adopt a word, or its Greek equivalent, which played so important a part in shaping and expressing the religious beliefs of the Old Testament people. Many scholars consider that we have here the probable source of Johannine language. In the Old Testament, and particularly, in the Targums or Jewish paraphrases, the "Word" is constantly spoken of as the efficient instrument of Divine action; and the "Word of God" had come to be used in a personal way as almost identical with God Himself. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,13);">Re 19:13</a>, we have obviously an adoption of this Hebrew use of the phrase. Throughout the Gospel there is evinced a decided familiarity and sympathy with the Old Testament teaching, and some expressions would seem to indicate the evangelist\'s desire to show that Jesus is the fulfillment of Jewish expectation (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,14,29,31);">Joh 1:14,29,31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',2,19);">2:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,14);">3:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,32);">6:32</a>,<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,\'48-50\');">48-50</a>), and the living embodiment of Israelite truth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,16);">Joh 1:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,12);">8:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,25);">11:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,6);">14:6</a>). But as against this it has been pointed out by Weizsacker (Apostolisches Zeitalter) that the Word of God is not conceived in the Old Testament as an independent Being, still less as equivalent for the Messiah, and that the rabbinical doctrine which identifies the memra with God is of much later date.<P>At the same time the Hebrew cast of thought of the Johannine Gospel and its affinities with Jewish rather than Hellenic modes of expression can hardly be gainsaid. Though John\'s knowledge of and sympathy with Palestinian religion may not actually account for his use of the term "Logos," it may have largely colored and directed his special application of it. For, as Neander observes, that name may have been put forward at Ephesus in order to lead those Jews, who were busying themselves with speculations on the Logos as the center of all theophanies, to recognize in Christ the Supreme Revelation of God and the fulfillment of their Messianic hopes.<P>(b) Hellenic Source:<P>Other writers trace the Johannine ideas and terms to Hellenic philosophy and particularly to Alexandrian influence as represented in Philo. No one can compare the Fourth Gospel with the writings of Philo without noting a remarkable similarity in diction, especially in the use of the word "Logos". It would be hazardous, however, on this ground alone to impute conscious borrowing to the evangelist. It is more probable that both the Alexandrian thinker and the New Testament writer were subject to common influences of thought and expression. Hellenism largely colors the views and diction of the early church. Paul takes over many words from Greek philosophy. "There is not a single New Testament writing," says Harnack (Dogmen-Geschichte, I,47,note), "which does not betray the influence of the mode of thought and general culture which resulted from the Hellenizing of the East." But, while that is true, it must not be forgotten, as Harnack himself points out, "that while the writers of the New Testament breathe an atmosphere created by Greek culture, the religious ideas in which they live and move come to them from the Old Testament."<P>It is hardly probable that John was directly acquainted with the writings of Philo. But it is more than likely that he was cognizant of the general tenor of his teaching and may have discovered in the language which had floated over from Alexandria to Ephesus a suitable vehicle for the utterance of his own beliefs, especially welcome and intelligible to those who were familiar with Alexandrian modes of thought.<P>But whatever superficial resemblances there may be between Philo and John (and they are not few or vague), it must be at once evident that the whole spirit and view of life is fundamentally different. So far from the apostle being a disciple of the Alexandrian or a borrower of his ideas, it would be more correct to say that there is clearly a conscious rejection of the Philonic conception, and that the Logos of John is a deliberate protest against what he must have regarded as the inadequate and misleading philosophy of Greece.<P>(c) Contrast between Philo and John:<P>The contrast between the two writers is much more striking than the resemblance. The distinction is not due merely to the acceptance by the Christian writer of Jesus as the Word, but extends to the whole conception of God and His relation to the world which has made Christianity a new power among men. The Logos of Philo is metaphysical, that of John, religious. Philo moves entirely in the region of abstract thought, his idea of God is pure being; John\'s thought is concrete and active, moving in a region of life and history. Philo\'s Logos is intermediate, the instrument which God employs in fashioning the world; John\'s Logos is not subsidiary but is Himself God, and as such is not a mere instrument, but the prime Agent in creation. According to Philo the Deity is conceived as an architect who forms the world out of already existent matter. According to John the Logos is absolute Creator of all that is, the Source of all being, life and intelligence. In Philo the Logos hovers between personality and impersonality, and if it is sometimes personified it can hardly be said to have the value of an actual person; in John the personality of the Logos is affirmed from the first and it is of the very essence of his doctrine, the ground of His entire creative energy. The idea of an incarnation is alien to the thought of Philo and impossible in his scheme of the universe; the "Word that has become flesh" is the pivot and crown of Johannine teaching. Philo affirms the absolute incomprehensibility of God; but it is the prime object of the evangelist to declare that God is revealed in Christ and that the Logos is the unveiling through the flesh of man of the self-manifesting Deity. Notwithstanding the personal epithets employed by Philo, his Logos remains a pure abstraction or attribute of God, and it is never brought into relation with human history. John\'s Logos, on the other hand, is instinct with life and energy from the beginning, and it is the very heart of his Gospel to declare as the very center of life and history the great historical event of the incarnation which is to recreate the world and reunite God and man.<P>From whatever point of view we compare them, we find that Philo and John, while using the same language, give an entirely different value to it. The essential purport of the Johannine Logos is Jesus Christ. The adoption of the term involves its complete transformation. It is baptized with a new spirit and henceforth stands for a new conception. From whatsoever source it was originally derived<65>from Hebrew tradition or Hellenic speculation<6F>on Christian soil it is a new product. It is neither Greek nor Jewish, it is Christian. The philosophical abstraction has become a religious conception. Hellenism and Hebrewism have been taken up and fused into a higher unity, and Christ as the embodiment of the Logos has become the creative power and the world-wide possession of mankind.<P>The most probable view is that Philo and John found the same term current in Jewish and Gentile circles and used it to set forth their respective ideas; Philo, following his predilections for Greek philosophy, to give a Hellenic complexion to his theory of the relation of Divine Reason to the universe; John, true to, his Hebrew instincts, seeing in the Logos the climax of that revelation of God to man of which the earlier Jewish theophanies were but partial expressions.<P>There is nothing improbable in the surmise that the teaching of Philo gave a fresh impulse to the study of the Logos as Divine Reason which was already shadowed forth in the Biblical doctrine of Wisdom (Westcott). Nor need we take offense that such an important idea should have come to the Biblical author from an extra-Biblical writer (compare Schmiedel, Johannine Writings), remembering only that the author of the Johannine Gospel was no mechanical borrower, but an entirely independent and original thinker who gave to the Logos and the ideas associated with it a wholly-new worth and interpretation. Thus, as has been said, the treasures of Greece were made contributory to the full unfolding of the Gospel.<P>V. Patristic Development.<P>The Johannine Logos became the fruitful source of much speculation in Gnostic circles and among the early Fathers regarding the nature of Christ. The positive truth presented by the Fourth Gospel was once more broken up, and the various elements of which it was the synthesis became the seeds of a number of partial and one-sided theories respecting the relation of the Father and the Son. The influence of Greek ideas, which had already begun in the Apostolic Age, became more pronounced and largely shaped the current of ante-Nicene theology (see Hatch, Hibbert Lectures).<P>Gnosticism in particular was an attempt to reconcile Christianity with philosophy; but in Gnostic systems the term "Logos" is only sparingly employed. According to Basilides the "Logos" was an emanation from the nous as personified Wisdom, which again was directly derived from the Father. Valentinus, in whose teaching Gnosticism culminated, taught that Wisdom was the last of a series of Eons which emanated from the Primal Being, and the Logos was an emanation of the first two principles which issued from God<6F>Reason, Faith. Justin Martyr, the first of the sub-apostolic Fathers, sought to unite the Scriptural idea of the Logos as Word with the Hellenic idea of Reason. According to him God produced in His own nature a rational power which was His agent in creation and took the form in history of the Divine Man. Christ is the organ of all revelations, and as the logos spermatikos, He sows the seeds of virtue and truth among the heathen. All that is true and beautiful in the pagan world is to be traced to the activity of the Logos before His incarnation. Tatian and Theophilus taught essentially the same doctrine; though in Tatian there is a marked leaning toward Gnosticism, and consequently a tendency to separate the ideal from the historical Christ. Athenagoras, who ascribes to the Logos the creation of all things, regarding it in the double sense of the Reason of God and the creative energy of the world, has a firm grasp of the Biblical doctrine, which was still more clearly expressed by Irenaeus, who held that the Son was the essential Word, eternally begotten of the Father and at once the interpreter of God and the Creator of the world.<P>The Alexandrian school was shaped by the threefold influence of Plato, Philo and the Johannine Gospel. Clement of Alexandria views the Son as the Logos of the Father, the Fountain of all intelligence, the Revealer of the Divine Being and the Creator and Illuminator of mankind. He repudiates the idea of the inferiority of the Son, and regards the Logos not as the spoken but as the creative word. Origen seeks to reconcile the two ideas of the eternity and the subordination of the Logos, and is in this sense a mediator between the Arian and more orthodox parties and was appealed to by both. According to him the Son is equal in substance with the Father, but there is a difference in essence. While the Father is "the God" (ho theos) and "God Himself" (autotheos), the Logos is "a second God" (deuteros theos). In the Nicene Age, under the shaping influence of the powerful mind of Athanasius, and, to a lesser degree, of Basil and the two Gregories, the Logos-doctrine attained its final form in the triumphant statement of the Nicene Creed which declared the essential unity, but, at the same time, the personal distinction of the Father and Son. The Council of Nicea practically gathered up the divergent views of the past and established the teaching of the Fourth Gospel as the doctrine of the church.<P>LITERATURE.<P>(1) On Greek Logos:<P>Schleiermacher, Herakleitos der Dunkle; Histories of Philosophy, Zeller, Ueberweg, Hitter; Heinze, Die Lehre yore Logos in der Greek Phil. (1872); Aall, Gesch. d. Logosidee in d. Greek Phil. (1896).<P>(2) On Jewish Doctrine:<P>Oehler, O T Theol. (1873); Schurer, Lehrbuch d. New Testament Zeitgesch; Schultz, Old Testament Theol.<P>(3) On Alexandrian Doctrine:<P>Gfrorer, Philo u. die alex. Theosophie (1831); Dahne, Gesch. Darstell. der jud-alex. Religions-Philosophic (1843); Keferstein, Philos Lehre yon den gottlichen Mittelwesen (1846); Dorner, Entwicklungsgesch. der Lehre v. d. Person Christi; Siegfried, Philo v. Alex. (1875); Drummond, Philo Judaeus (1888); Reville, La doctrine du Logos; Huber, Die Philosophic der Kirchenvater; Grossmann, Questiones Philoneae (1841); Watson, Philos. Basis of Religion (1907).<P>(4) On Johannine Gospel:<P>Relative comma. of Meyer, Godet, Westcott, Luthardt, E. Scott (1907); Liddon, Divinity of our Lord ("Bampton Lectures," 1866); Watkins, Modern Criticism on the Fourth Gospel ("Bampton Lectures," 1890); Gloag, Introduction to Johannine Writing, (1891); Stevens, Johannine Theol. (1894); Drummond, Gospel of John; Bertling, Der Johan. Logos (1907); Schmiedel, The Johannine Writings (1908); Weizsacker, Apostolic Age, V, ii; Beyschlag and Weiss, Biblical Theol. of New Testament; Drummond, Via, Veritas, Vita (1894); Hatch, Greek Ideas and Usages, Their Influence upon the Christian Church (Hibbert Lectures, 1888).<P>(5) Patristic Period:<P>Harnack, Dogmen-Gesch.; Baur, Kirchen-Gesch.; Dorner, System d. chr. Glaubenslehre; Loofs, Leitfaden fur seine Vorlesungen uber Dogmengeschichte; Atzbergen, Die Logoslehre d. heiligen Athanasius (1880).``2';
isbe[5571]='Loins`loinz (chalats, Aramaic charats, mothen, kecel, yarekh; osphus): This variety of Hebrew synonyms seems to be used rather promiscuously for the loins, though there is no little difference in the secondary meanings of these words. They represent various modes of expressing the loins as the seat of strength and vigor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',40,16);">Job 40:16</a>, Hebrew mothen, here used of Behemoth), the center of procreative power, the portion of the body which is girded about, and is considered as specially needful of covering, even under primitive conditions of life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',31,20);">Job 31:20</a>), and where painful disease most effectually unfits a man for work and warfare.<P>Jacob receives the Divine promise that "kings shall come out of (his) loins" (chalats, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,11);">Ge 35:11</a>), and we read of 66 souls "that came out of his loins" (yarekh) which went into Egypt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,26);">Ge 46:26</a>). The Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of the Levites as having come out of the loins of Abraham (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',7,5);">Heb 7:5</a>).<P>As the seat of strength (compare <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LEG">LEG</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=THIGH">THIGH</a>), the loins are girded with belts of leather (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',1,8);">2Ki 1:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,4);">Mt 3:4</a>), or cloth, often beautifully embroidered (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',28,39);">Ex 28:39</a>), or of costly material (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',39,29);">Ex 39:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',13,1);">Jer 13:1</a>f). Girded loins are a sign of readiness for service or endeavor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,11);">Ex 12:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',18,46);">1Ki 18:46</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',4,29);">2Ki 4:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',38,3);">Job 38:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',31,17);">Pr 31:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,35);">Lu 12:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,13);">1Pe 1:13</a>). Of God it is said that "he looseth the bond of kings, and bindeth their loins with a girdle," i.e. strengthens them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',12,18);">Job 12:18</a>). On the loins the sword is worn (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',20,8);">2Sa 20:8</a>). It is a sign of mourning to gird the loins with sackcloth (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',20,32);">1Ki 20:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',32,11);">Isa 32:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',48,37);">Jer 48:37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',8,10);">Am 8:10</a>; see also the First Papyrus of Elephantine, l. 20). A man whose strength is in his attachment to truth, in other words is faithful, is spoken of as having his loins girt about with truth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,14);">Eph 6:14</a>). Thus, the Messiah is described: "Righteousness shall be the girdle of his waist, and faithfulness the girdle of his loins" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',11,5);">Isa 11:5</a>). One of the most primitive modes of clothing consisted of a fleece tied around the loins (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',31,20);">Job 31:20</a>).<P>The condition of unfitness for service is described in that the loins (kecel) are filled with a burning (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',38,7);">Ps 38:7</a>, the King James Version "loathsome disease"), or that "a sore burden" is laid upon the "loins" (mothen, <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',66,11);">Ps 66:11</a>). Thus the loins are made "continually to shake" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',69,23);">Ps 69:23</a>), "the joints of (the) loins" (charats) are loosed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',5,6);">Da 5:6</a>), the "loins are filled with anguish" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',21,3);">Isa 21:3</a>). It is very likely that originally a disabling lumbago or the painful affections of the gall or the bladder (calculus, etc.) are meant, but very soon the expression becomes merely metaphorical to express personal helplessness, especially that which can but rely upon assistance and help from God.``106';
isbe[5572]='Lois`lo\'-is (Lois (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',1,5);">2Ti 1:5</a>)): The grandmother of Timothy, and evidently the mother of Eunice, Timothy\'s mother. The family lived at Lystra (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,1);">Ac 16:1</a>). It was on the occasion of Paul\'s first missionary journey (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,1);">Ac 14</a>) that Eunice and Timothy were converted to Christ, and it was, in all likelihood, on the same occasion that Lois also became a Christian. Paul speaks of the unfeigned faith that there was in Timothy, and he adds that this faith dwelt at the first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice. This is the only passage where Lois is mentioned; but by comparing <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',1,5);">2Ti 1:5</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',3,15);">2Ti 3:15</a> (the King James Version), where Paul refers to Timothy\'s having "from a child known the holy scriptures," it would appear that Lois was associated with Eunice, both in a reverent faith in God and in the careful instruction in the Old Testament which was given to Timothy.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EUNICE">EUNICE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TIMOTHY">TIMOTHY</a>`155';
isbe[5573]='Longevity`lon-jev\'-i-ti: In the part of Genesis ascribed to the Priestly Code (P), the names and genealogies of the patriarchs are given (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,\'1-\');">Ge 5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,\'1-\');">11</a>). In the three versions which are our chief sources, Massoretic Text, Septuagint and Sam, the age-numbers given for these patriarchs are hopelessly at variance. It is in accord with what we find in the earliest legend of most races that in these chapters a great length of life is ascribed to these; thus Berosus attributes to the first 10 kings of Babylonia a span of 430,000 years, and Hesiod (Works and Days, 129) says that in the Silver Age childhood lasted 100 years, during which a boy was reared and grew up beside his mother. On the other hand the evidence of prehistoric archaeology shows that the rate of development of the individual in the early Stone Age differed very little from that of humanity at the present day. It is possible that, in the case of the Hebrew record, the names of certain pre-Abrahamic patriarchs were derived from an ancient tradition, and that in the desire to fill up the chronology of the period before the call of Abraham, these names were inserted and the time which was supposed to have elapsed was divided among them; on the basis of some such hypothesis as that which is said to have existed among the Jews, that the Messiah should come 4,000 years after Adam.<P>We know from the archaeological evidence that the antiquity of primitive man extends to a date very much farther back than 4,000 years. Indeed, we can prove that before 4000 BC there were settled nationalities both in the valley of the Nile and that of the Euphrates, and that among these the duration of individual life was much the same as at the present day. The first three dynasties in Egypt, starting at or about 4400 BC, consisted of 25 consecutive kings, the average length of whose several reigns was about 30 years. The biographic sketches of Biblical persons other than those in Genesis showed that their longevity did not exceed that of our contemporaries. Eli was blind and feeble at 98. At 70 David was bedridden and frail. Manasseh, the king of Judah whose reign was longest, died at 67; Uzziah died at 68. The statement in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',90,10);">Ps 90:10</a> attributed to Moses is a correct estimate of what has been the expectation of life at all time.<P>At the present day among Palestinian fellahin very old men are uncommon. I have never seen anyone among them who could prove that he was 80 years of age; the rate of infant mortality is appallingly high. Maturity is earlier, and signs of senility appear among them sooner than among the same class in Great Britain.``107';
isbe[5574]='Longsuffering`long-suf\'-er-ing (\'erekh \'appayim; makrothumia): The words \'erekh \'appayim, translated longsuffering, mean literally, "long of nose" (or "breathing"), and, as anger was indicated by rapid, violent breathing through the nostrils, "long of anger," or "slow to wrath." The adjective is applied to God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,6);">Ex 34:6</a> the King James Version, in the name of Yahweh as proclaimed to Moses; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,18);">Nu 14:18</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',86,15);">Ps 86:15</a> the King James Version; the Revised Version (British and American) "slow to anger," which is also the translation in other places; the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',9,17);">Ne 9:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',103,8);">Ps 103:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',145,8);">145:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',15,18);">Pr 15:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',16,32);">16:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',2,13);">Joe 2:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jon\',4,2);">Jon 4:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Nah\',1,3);">Na 1:3</a>); it is associated with "great kindness" and "plenteous in mercy." The substantive occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',15,15);">Jer 15:15</a>: "Take me not away in thy longsuffering." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',7,8);">Ec 7:8</a>, we have \'erekh ruach, the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) "patient in spirit."<P>The word in the New Testament rendered "longsuffering," makrothumia (once makrothumeo, "to be longsuffering"), which is the rendering of \'erekh \'appayim in the Septuagint, is literally, "long of mind or soul" (regarded as the seat of the emotions), opposed to shortness of mind or soul, irascibility, impatience, intolerance. It is attributed to God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,4);">Ro 2:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,22);">9:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,9);">2Pe 3:9</a>), of His bearing long with sinners and slowness to execute judgment on them. It is, therefore, one of "the fruits of the Spirit" in man (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,22);">Ga 5:22</a>) which Christians are frequently exhorted to cherish and show one toward the other (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,2);">Eph 4:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,11);">Col 1:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,12);">3:12</a>, etc.); it belongs, Paul says, to the love, without which all else is nothing: "Love suffereth long (makrothumei), and is kind" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',13,4);">1Co 13:4</a>); The verb makrothumeo is sometimes translated by "patience" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,26,29);">Mt 18:26,29</a>, "Have patience with me"). <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,7);">Lu 18:7</a> has been variously rendered; the King James Version has "And shall not God avenge his own elect...though he bear long with them"; the Revised Version (British and American) "and yet he is longsuffering over them," the American Revised Version margin "and is he slow to punish on their behalf?" Weymouth (New Testament in Modern Speech) has "although he seems slow in taking action on their behalf," which most probably gives the sense of the passage; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',5,7,8);">Jas 5:7,8</a> the verb occurs thrice, the King James Version "be patient," "hath long patience"; the Revised Version (British and American) also translates by "patient"; this, however, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,26,29);">Mt 18:26,29</a>, seems to lose the full force of the Greek word. According to Trench (Synonyms of the New Testament, 189), the difference between hupomone ("patience") and makrothumia is that the latter word expresses patience in respect to persons, and the former in respect to things; hence, hupomone is never ascribed to God; where He is called "the God of patience," it is as He gives it to His servants and saints. But in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',5,7);">Jas 5:7</a> it is used with reference to things, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,11);">Col 1:11</a> it is associated with patience (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',6,12,15);">Heb 6:12,15</a>), suggesting patient endurance of trials and sufferings. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,11);">Col 1:11</a> it is also associated with "joy," indicating that it is not a mere submissiveness, but a joyful acceptance of the will of God, whatever it may be. In The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 15:1; Ecclesiasticus 5:4</span>, we have "longsuffering" (makrothumos) ascribed to God; also in Ecclesiasticus 2:11, the Revised Version (British and American) "mercy."``185';
isbe[5575]='Look`look:<P>(1) The uses of the simple verb in English Versions of the Bible are nearly all good modern English. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',5,2);">Isa 5:2</a>, however, "He looked that it should bring forth grapes"<22>"look" is used in the sense of "expect." Compare the King James Version of Sirach 20:14; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',28,6);">Ac 28:6</a>, "They looked when he should have swollen" (the Revised Version (British and American) "They expected that he would have swollen"). In 1Macc 4:54, the King James Version has inserted "look" (omitted in the Revised Version (British and American)) as a simple interjection, without a corresponding word in the Greek<P>(2) "Look upon" means "fix one\'s attention on," and is often so used in English Versions of the Bible without further significance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',2,11);">Ec 2:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,56);">Lu 22:56</a>, etc.); but in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',24,22);">2Ch 24:22</a> the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American), "Yahweh look upon it" means "remember." However, continual attention given to an object usually denotes that pleasure is found in it, and from this fact such uses as those of <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',23,31);">Pr 23:31</a>, "Look not thou upon the wine when it is red," are derived. In particular, God\'s "looking upon" a person becomes a synonym for "showing favor unto," as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',26,7);">De 26:7</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',84,9);">Ps 84:9</a> the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American); <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,132);">Ps 119:132</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,48);">Lu 1:48</a> the Revised Version (British and American) only, etc. (the Revised Version (British and American) usually, re-words, in such passages). On the other hand, "look on" may be weakened, as in such phrases as "fair to look unon" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,11);">Ge 12:11</a> etc.), where it means only "fair to the sight." Or as in modern English, "look on" may describe the attitude of the passive spectator, even when applied to God. So <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',35,17);">Ps 35:17</a>, "Lord, how long wilt thou look on?"<P>(3) "Look to" usually means "pay attention to," as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',14,15);">Pr 14:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',39,12);">Jer 39:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Jo\',1,8);">2Joh 1:8</a>, etc., and the Revised Version (British and American) occasionally uses this phrase in place of AV\'s "look upon" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,4);">Php 2:4</a>). The reverse change is made in the King James Version\'s <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',16,12);">1Sa 16:12</a>, "goodly to look to"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',23,15);">Eze 23:15</a>, "all of them princes to look to," but in the latter verse a more drastic revision was needed, for the meaning is "all of them in appearance as princes." "Look out" may mean "search for" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,33);">Ge 41:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',6,3);">Ac 6:3</a>), but may also be used literally, (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,8);">Ge 26:8</a>, etc.). The King James Version\'s "looking after those things" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,26);">Lu 21:26</a> has been changed by the Revised Version (British and American) into "expectation of the things." "Look one another in the face" in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',14,8,11);">2Ki 14:8,11</a> means "meet in battle."``48';
isbe[5576]='Looking-Glass`look\'-ing-glas (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',38,8);">Ex 38:8</a> the King James Version margin "brasen glasses").`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GLASS">GLASS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MIRROR">MIRROR</a>`1';
isbe[5577]='Loom`loom`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WEAVING">WEAVING</a>`1';
isbe[5578]='Loop`loop (in plural lula\'oth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,4,10);">Ex 26:4f; 10f</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',36,11,17);">36:11f; 17</a>)): A ring or fold made of blue thread to fasten into the corresponding golden clasps, or taches upon the curtains of the tabernacle, joining them in sets, or pairs.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TABERNACLE">TABERNACLE</a>`1';
isbe[5579]='Lord of Hosts`A name or title of God frequently used in the Old Testament, always translated "Yahweh of Hosts" (Yahweh tsebha\'oth) in the American Standard Revised Version, since Yahweh, never \'Adhonay, is used in this phrase. Evidently the meaning of the title is that all created agencies and forces are under the leadership or dominion of Yahweh, who made and maintains them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,1);">Ge 2:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',45,12);">Isa 45:12</a>). It is used to express Yahweh\'s great power.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GOD,+NAMES+OF">GOD, NAMES OF</a>`1';
isbe[5580]='Lord\'s Day`(he kuriake hemera):<P>1. Linguistic:<P>Formerly it was supposed that the adjective kuriakos (translated "the Lord\'s") was a purely Christian word, but recent discoveries have proved that it was in fairly common use in the Roman Empire before Christian influence had been felt. In secular use it signified "imperial," "belonging to the lord"<22>the emperor<6F>and so its adoption by Christianity in the sense "belonging to the Lord"<22>to Christ<73>was perfectly easy. Indeed, there is reason to suppose that in the days of Domitian, when the issue had been sharply defined as "Who is Lord? Caesar or Christ?" the use of the adjective by the church was a part of the protest against Caesar-worship (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LORD">LORD</a>). And it is even possible that the full phrase, "the Lord\'s day," was coined as a contrast to the phrase, "the Augustean day" he sebaste hemera), a term that seems to have been used in some parts of the Empire to denote days especially dedicated in honor of Caesar-worship.<P>2. Post-Apostolic:<P>"Lord\'s day" in the New Testament occurs only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,10);">Re 1:10</a>, but in the post-apostolic literature we have the following references: Ignatius, Ad Mag., ix.1, "No longer keeping the Sabbath but living according to the Lord\'s day, on which also our Light arose"; Ev. Pet., verse 35, "The Lord\'s day began to dawn" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,1);">Mt 28:1</a>); verse 50, "early on the Lord\'s day" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,1);">Lu 24:1</a>); Barn 15 9, "We keep the eighth day with gladness," on which Jesus arose from the dead." I.e. Sunday, as the day of Christ\'s resurrection, was kept as a Christian feast and called "the Lord\'s day," a title fixed so definitely as to be introduced by the author of Ev. Pet. into phrases from the canonical Gospels. Its appropriateness in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,10);">Re 1:10</a> is obvious, as John received his vision of the exalted Lord when all Christians had their minds directed toward His entrance into glory through the resurrection.<P>3. In the New Testament:<P>This "first day of the week" appears again in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,7);">Ac 20:7</a> as the day on which the worship of the "breaking of bread" took place, and the impression given by the context is that Paul and his companions prolonged their visit to Troas so as to join in the service. Again, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',16,2);">1Co 16:2</a> contains the command, "Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store," where the force of the form of the imperative used (the present for repeated action) would be better represented in English by "lay by on the successive Sundays." Worship is here not explicitly mentioned (the Greek of "by him" is the usual phrase for "at home"), but that the appropriateness of the day for Christian acts involves an appropriateness for Christian worship is not to be doubted. Indeed, since the seven-day week was unknown to Greek thought, some regular observance of a hebdomadal cycle must have been settled at Corinth before Paul could write his command. Finally, the phrase, "first day in the week" is found elsewhere in the New Testament only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,1);">Mt 28:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',16,2);">Mr 16:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,1);">Lu 24:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,1,19);">Joh 20:1,19</a>. The word in all passages for "first" is poor Greek (mia, "one," for prote, a Hebraism), and the coincidence of the form of the phrase in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,7);">Ac 20:7</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',16,2);">1Co 16:2</a> with the form used by all four evangelists for the Resurrection Day \'is certainly not accidental; it was the fixed Christian base, just as "Lord\'s day" was to the writer of Ev. Pet.<P>4. Origin:<P>The hebdomadal observance of Sunday points back of Corinth to Jewish-Christian soil, but it is impossible to say when the custom first began. Not, apparently, in the earliest days, for <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,46);">Ac 2:46</a> represents the special worship as daily. But this could not have continued very long, for waning of the first enthusiasm, necessity of pursuing ordinary avocations, and increasing numbers of converts must soon have made general daily gatherings impracticable. A choice of a special day must have become necessary, and this day would, of course, have been Sunday. Doubtless, however, certain individuals and communities continued the daily gatherings to a much later date, and the appearance of Sunday as the one distinctive day for worship was almost certainly gradual.<P>5. Sunday and the Sabbath:<P>Sunday, however, was sharply distinguished from the Sabbath. One was the day on which worship was offered in a specifically Christian form, the other was a day of ritual rest to be observed by all who were subject? the Law of Moses through circumcision (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,3);">Ga 5:3</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,20);">Ac 21:20</a>). Uncircumcised Gentiles, however, were free from any obligation of Sabbath observance, and it is quite certain that in apostolic times no renewal of any Sabbath rules or transfer of them to Sunday was made for Gentile converts. No observance of a particular "day of rest" is contained among the "necessary things" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,28,29);">Ac 15:28,29</a>, nor is any such precept found among all the varied moral directions given in the whole epistolary literature. Quite on the contrary, the observance of a given day as a matter of Divine obligation is denounced by Paul as a forsaking of Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,10);">Ga 4:10</a>), and Sabbath-keeping is condemned explicitly in <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,16);">Col 2:16</a>. As a matter of individual devotion, to be sure, a man might do as he pleased (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',14,5,6);">Ro 14:5,6</a>), but no general rule as necessary for salvation could be compatible with the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free. Evidently, then, the fact that the Christian worship was held on Sunday did not sanctify Sunday any more than (say) a regular Wednesday service among us sanctifies Wednesday, noting especially that the apostolic service was held in the evening. For it was felt that Christian enthusiasm would raise every day to the highest religious plane, the decay of that enthusiasm through the long delay of the Parousia not being contemplated.<P>6. Later History:<P>The delay occurred, however, and for human beings in the ordinary routine of life there are necessary, not only set periods of worship, but set periods of relaxation from routine to make worship profitable. And the Christian fundamental doctrine of mercy demands that Christianity, where she has the power, shall give to men relief from the drain of continuous toil.<P>The formulation of general rules to carry these principles into effect, however, belongs to a period outside New Testament times, and so does not come within the scope of this Encyclopedia. It is enough to say that the ecclesiastical rules for Sunday were felt to be quite distinct from the laws for Sabbath observance, and that Alcuin (733?-804) is the first to hold that the church had transferred the Sabbath rules as a whole to Sunday. This principle is still maintained in Roman Catholic theology, but at the Reformation was rejected uncompromisingly by both Lutherans (Augsb. Conf., II, 7) and Calvinists (Helvet. Conf., XXIV, 1-2) in favor of a literally apostolic freedom (Calvin even proposed to adopt Thursday in place of Sunday). The appearance of the opposite extreme of a genuinely "legalistic" Sabbatarianism in the thoroughly Evangelical Scotch and English Puritanism is an anomaly that is explained by reaction from the extreme laxity of the surroundings.<P>7. Practical:<P>Sunday was fixed as the day for Christian worship by general apostolic practice, and the academic possibility of an alteration hardly seems worth discussing. If a literal apostolicity is to be insisted upon, however, the "breaking of bread" must be made part of the Sunday service. Rest from labor for the sake of worship, public and private, is intensely desirable, since the regaining of the general apostolic enthusiasm seems unattainable, but the New Testament leaves us quite free as to details. Rest from labor to secure physical and mental renewal rests on a still different basis, and the working out of details involves a knowledge of sociological and industrial conditions, as well as a knowledge of religious principles. It is the task of the pastor to combine the various principles and to apply them to the particular conditions of his people in their locality, in accordance with the rules that his own church has indubitably the right to lay down<77>very special attention being given, however, to the highly important matter of the peculiar problem offered by children. In all cases the general principles underlying the rules should be made clear, so that they will not appear as arbitrary legalism, and it is probably best not to use the term "Sabbath" for Sunday. Under certain conditions great freedom may be desirable, and such is certainly not inconsistent with our liberty in Christ. But experience, and not least of all the experience of the first churches of the Reformation, has abundantly shown that much general laxness in Sunday rules invariably results disastrously.<P>See further, <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ETHICS+OF+JESUS">ETHICS OF JESUS, I,3,(1)</a>.<P>LITERATURE. For the linguistic matters, Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East,1910,361-66. Hessey\'s Sunday (ed 1880) ("Bampton Lectures," 1860) contains a good summary of the history of the problems. Zockler\'s "Sonntagsfeier," PRE, edition 3, XVIII,1906,521-29 is the best general survey. In Sch-Herz this article ("Sunday") is harmed by abbreviation, but an exhaustive bibliography is added.``48';
isbe[5581]='Lord\'s Prayer, the`(<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,\'9-13\');">Mt 6:9-13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',11,\'2-4\');">Lu 11:2-4</a>): Prayer occupied an important place in the life and the teachings of Jesus. He was emphatically a man of prayer, praying frequently in private and in public, and occasionally spending whole nights in communion with His heavenly Father. He often spoke to His disciples on the subject of prayer, cautioning them against ostentation, or urging perseverance, faith and large expectation, and He gave them a model of devotion in the Lord\'s prayer.<P>1. Twofold Form:<P>This prayer is given by the evangelists in two different forms and in two entirely different con nections. In Matthew\'s account the prayer is given as a part of the Sermon on the Mount and in connection with a criticism of the ostentation usual in the prayers of the hypocrites and the heathen. Luke introduces the prayer after the Galilean ministry and represents it as given in response to a request from one of His disciples, "Lord teach us to pray, as John taught his disciples." It gives us, however, no note of time or place, and it is quite possible that the incident which it records took place much earlier. The later form is much shorter than that of Matthew and the common parts differ materially in language.<P>In view of the differences, the reader instinctively inquires whether the prayer was given on two different occasions in these different connections, or the evangelists have presented the same incident in forms derived from different sources, or modified the common source to suit their immediate purposes.<P>If the prayer was given only on one occasion, there is little doubt that Luke preserves the true historical circumstances, though not necessarily the accurate point of time or place, or the exact form of language. Such a request made at the close of the prayer of Jesus would be natural, and the incident bears every mark of reality. On the other hand, it would be reasonable to assume that the author of Matthew\'s source, remembering the incident, incorporated the prayer in the Sermon on the Mount as an illustration of the injunctions concerning prayer.<P>There are many reasons for regarding the Sermon as a collection of sayings spoken on different occasions and summarized for convenience in teaching and memorizing. There is, however, no proof that the prayer was given but once by Jesus. We need not suppose that His disciples were always the same, and we know that He gave instruction in prayer on various occasions. He may have given the model prayer on one occasion spontaneously and at another time on the request of a disciple. It is probable that the two evangelists, using the same or different sources, presented the prayer in such connection as best suited the plan of their narratives. In any case, it is rather remarkable that the prayer is not quoted or directly mentioned anywhere else in the New Testament.<P>2. Arrangement:<P>In addition to the opening salutation, "Our Father who art in heaven," the Lord\'s Prayer consists of six petitions. These are arranged in three equal parts. In the first part, the thought is directed toward God and His great purposes. In the second part, the attention is directed to our condition and wants. The two sets of petitions are closely related, and a line of progress runs through the whole prayer. The petitions of the first part are inseparable, as each includes the one which follows. As the hallowing of God\'s name requires the coming of His kingdom, so the kingdom comes through the doing of His will. Again, the first part calls for the second, for if His will is to be done by us, we must have sustenance, forgiveness and deliverance from evil. If we seek first the glory of God, the end requires our good. While we hallow His name we are sanctified in Him. The doxology of Matthew and our rituals is not found in the leading manuscripts and is generally regarded as an ancient liturgical addition. For this reason it is omitted by the Revised Version (British and American).<P>3. Sources:<P>The sources of the two accounts cannot be known with certainty. It is hardly correct to say that one account is more original than the other. The original was spoken in Aramaic, while both of the reports are certainly based on Greek sources. The general agreement in language, especially in the use of the unique term epiousios shows that they are not independent translations of the Aramaic original.<P>4. Special Expressions:<P>Three expressions of the prayer deserve special notice. The words, "Our Father," are new in the Bible and in the world. When God is called Father in the Old Testament, He is regarded as Father of the nation, not of the individual. Even in the moving prayer of <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',63,16);">Isa 63:16</a> (the King James Version), "Doubtless thou art our father," the connection makes clear that the reference is to God in the capacity of Creator. The thought of God as the Father of the individual is first reached in the Apocrypha: "O Lord, Father and Master of my life" (Sirach 23:1; compare The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 2:16; 14:3</span>). Here also the notion is veiled in the thought of God as Creator. It was left for Jesus the Son to give us the privilege of calling God "Our Father."<P>Of the adjective epiousion, "daily" or "needful," neither the origin nor the exact meaning is or is likely to be known. Whether it is qualitative or temporal depends on its derivation from epeinai, or epienai. Our translators usually follow the latter, translating "daily." the American Standard Revised Version gives "needful" as a marginal rendering.<P>The phrase apo tou ponerou, is equally ambiguous. Since the adjective may be either masculine or neut., it is impossible to decide whether "from the evil one" or "from the evil" was intended. The probability is in favor of the masculine. The Oriental naturally thought of evil in the concrete, just as we think of it in the abstract. For this reason the Authorized rendering "from evil" is more real to us. The evil deprecated is moral, not physical.<P>5. Purpose: The Lord\'s Prayer was given as a lesson in prayer. As such this simple model surpasses all precepts about prayer. It suggests to the child of God the proper objects of prayer. It supplies suitable forms of language and illustrates the simple and direct manner in which we may trustingly address our heavenly Father. It embraces the elements of all spiritual desire summed up in a few choice sentences. For those who are not able to bring their struggling desires to birth in articulate language it provides an instructive form. To the mature disciple it ever unfolds with richer depths of meaning. Though we learn these words at our mother\'s knee, we need a lifetime to fill them with meaning and all eternity to realize their answer.<P>LITERATURE.<P>The literature of this subject is very extensive. For brief treatment the student will consult the relative sections in the commentaries on the Gospels of Matthew and Luke and in the Lives of Christ and the articles on the Lord\'s Prayer in the several Bible diets. A collection of patristic comment is given by G. Tillmann in his Das Gebet nach der Lehre der Heiligen dargestellt, 2 volumes, Freiburg, 1876. The original comments may be found in any of the standard collections of the Church Fathers.<P>Among historical studies may be mentioned, F.H. Chase, The Lord\'s Prayer in the Early Church, Cambridge,1891,and G. Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, I, Leipzig,1898,English translation, Edinburgh, 1902.<P>Among the numerous interpretative treatments, the following are some of the more important: N. Hall, The Lord\'s Prayer, Edinburgh, 1889; H.J. Van Dyke, The Lord\'s Prayer, New York, 1891; J. Ruskin, Letters to the Clergy on the Lord\'s Prayer and the Church, late edition, New York, 1896; E. Wordsworth, Thoughts on the Lord\'s Prayer, New York, 1898; C.W. Stubbs, Social Teachings of the Lord\'s Prayer, London, 1900; A.B. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, chapter vi, 4th edition, New York, 1905; L.T. Chamberlain, The True Doctrine of Prayer, New York, 1906; F.M. Williams, Spiritual Instructions on the Lord\'s Prayer, New York, 1907.``121';
isbe[5582]='Lord\'s Supper; (Eucharist), 1`u\'-ka-rist<P><b>GENERAL</b><p><b>I. DEFINITION</b><P><b>II. NEW TESTAMENT SOURCES</b><P class="in15">1. Textual Considerations<P class="in15">2. Narratives Compared<P class="in30">(1) Mark<P class="in30">(2) Matthew<P class="in30">(3) Pauline<P class="in30">(4) Luke<P class="in15">3. Other Pauline Data<P><b>III. PREPARATION FOR THE EUCHARIST</b><P class="in15">1. Miracles of Loaves and Fishes<P class="in15">2. Discourse at Capernaum<P><b>IV. HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE EUCHARIST</b><P class="in15">1. Other Acts and Words of Christ on Eve of the Passion<P class="in15">2. Sacrificial Language of the Institution<P class="in15">3. Sacrificial System of Jewish Dispensation<P class="in15">4. Paschal Background of the Institution of the Eucharist<P><b>V. SEQUENCE OF THE INSTITUTION</b><P class="in15">Points to Be Noted<P><b>VI. THE CHURCH\'S OBSERVATIONS or THE EUCHARIST</b><P class="in15">1. Heavenly Background<P class="in30">(1) Christians a Priestly Race<P class="in30">(2) Christ, the Eternal High Priest<P class="in15">2. Celebrated Each Lord\'s Day<P class="in15">3. Names of the Eucharist<P class="in30">(1) Eucharist<P class="in30">(2) Lord\'s Supper<P class="in30">(3) Breaking of Bread<P class="in30">(4) Communion<P class="in30">(5) Oblation<P><b>VII. POST-APOSTOLIC CHURCH</b><P class="in15">1. Guidance by the Holy Spirit<P class="in15">2. The Early Fathers<P class="in30">(1) Ignatian Epistles<P class="in30">(2) Justin Martyr<P class="in30">(3) Irenaeus<P class="in30">(4) Cyprian<P><b>VIII. LITURGICAL TRADITION</b><P class="in15">1. Outline of Eucharistic Prayer<P class="in15">2. Significance of This for Unity<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr .<<P>I. Definition.<P>Eucharist.<2E>The distinctive rite of Christian worship, instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ upon the eve of His atoning death, being a religious partaking of bread and wine, which, having been presented before God the Father in thankful memorial of Christ\'s inexhaustible sacrifice, have become (through the sacramental blessing) the communion of the body and blood of Christ (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,54);">Joh 6:54</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,42);">Ac 2:42</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,7,11);">20:7,11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,16);">Ro 15:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,16);">1Co 10:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,\'23-26\');">11:23-26</a>).<P>II. New Testament Sources.<P>The New Testament sources of our knowledge of the institution of the Eucharist are fourfold, a brief account thereof being found in each of the Synoptic Gospels and in Paul\'s First Epistle to the Corinthians (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,\'26-29\');">Mt 26:26-29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,\'22-25\');">Mr 14:22-25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,\'14-20\');">Lu 22:14-20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,\'23-26\');">1Co 11:23-26</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,16,17);">10:16,17</A>).<P>1. Textual Considerations:<P>The text of these narratives has been found to need little amendment, save the dropping of a word or two, from each account, that had crept in through the tendency of copyists, consciously or unconsciously, to assimilate the details of parallel passages. The genuineness of <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,19,20);">Lu 22:19,20</a> is absolutely beyond question. Their omission in whole or part, and the alterations in the order of two or three verses in the whole section (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,\'14-20\');">22:14-20</A>), characteristic of a very small number of manuscripts, are due to confusion in the minds of a few scribes and translators, between the paschal cup (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,17);">22:17</a>) and the eucharistic cup (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,20);">22:20</a>), and to their well-meant, but mistaken, attempt to improve upon the text before them.<P>2. Narratives Compared:<P>(1) Mark:<P>The briefest account of the institution of the Eucharist is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,\'22-24\');">Mr 14:22-24</a>. In it the Eucharist is not sharply distinguished from its setting, the paschal meal: "And as they were eating, he took bread, and when he had blessed, he brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take ye: this is my body. And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many." This represents a tradition settled within 20 years of the event described.<P>(2) Matthew:<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,\'26-28\');">Mt 26:26-28</a> gives a few touches by way of revision, apparently from one then present. He adds the exhortation "eat" at the giving of the bread, and puts the personal command, "Drink ye all of it," in place of the mere statement, "and they all drank of it." He adds also of the blood that, as "poured out for many," it is "unto remission of sins."<P>(3) Pauline:<P>The Pauline-account, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,\'23-26\');">1Co 11:23-26</a> (the earliest written down, circa 55 AD), was called forth in rebuke of the scandalous profanation of the Eucharist at Corinth. It gives us another tradition independent of; and supplementary to, that of Mark-Matthew. It claims the authority of the Savior as its source, and had been already made known to the Corinthians in the apostle\'s oral teaching. The time of the institution is mentioned as the night of the betrayal. We note of the bread, "This is my body, which is for you," of the cup, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood," and the redoubled command, "This do in remembrance of me."<P>(4) Luke:<P>The narrative given in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,\'14-20\');">Lu 22:14-20</a> is the latest (circa 80 AD) of our New Testament records. Luke had taken pains to follow up everything to its source, and had reedited the oral tradition in the light of his historical researches (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,2,3);">1:2,3</a>), and thus his account is of the highest value. Writing for a wider circle of readers, he carefully separates and distinguishes the Eucharist from the paschal meal which preceded it, and puts the statement of Christ about not drinking "from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come," in its proper place as referring to the paschal cup (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,29);">Mt 26:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,25);">Mr 14:25</a>; and <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,\'15-18\');">Lu 22:15-18</a>). In describing the actual institution of the Eucharist, he gives us an almost verbal identity with the account given by Paul (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,\'23-25\');">1Co 11:23-25</a>).<P>3. Other Pauline Data: We should note the statement appended by Paul to his account of the Institution, wherein he emphasizes the memorial aspect and evidential value of the witness the eucharistic observance would give throughout the ages of the Christian dispensation (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,26);">1Co 11:26</a>). We should also note the fact upon which the apostle bases his rebuke to the profane (Corinthians, namely, the real, though undefined, identity of the bread and wine of the Eucharist with the body and blood of Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,\'27-29\');">1Co 11:27-29</a>); an identity established through the blessing pronounced upon them, so that the bread and cup have come to be the "communion of the body of Christ" and the "communion of the blood of Christ," respectively (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,\'15-17\');">1Co 10:15-17</a>). To receive the Eucharist, and also to partake of sacrifices offered to idols, is utterly incompatible with Christian loyalty. To receive the Eucharist after a gluttonous, winebibbing agape, not recognizing the consecrated elements to be what the Lord Christ called them, is, likewise, a defiance of God. Both acts alike provoke the judgment of God\'s righteous anger (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,21,22);">1Co 10:21,22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,21,22,27,28,29);">11:21,22,27-29</a>).<P>III. Preparation for the Eucharist.<P>The institution of the Eucharist had been prepared for by Christ through the object-lesson of the feeding of the five thousand (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',14,\'13-21\');">Mt 14:13-21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,\'35-44\');">Mr 6:35-44</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,\'12-17\');">Lu 9:12-17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,\'4-13\');">Joh 6:4-13</a>), which was followed up by the discourse about Himself as the Bread of Life, and about eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood as the nourishment of eternal life.<P>1. Miracles of Loaves and Fishes:<P>This again was clinched by the second object-lesson of the feeding of the four thousand afterward (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',15,\'32-39\');">Mt 15:32-39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,\'1-9\');">Mr 8:1-9</a>). The Lord Christ\'s thanksgiving, and His blessing of the loaves and fishes<65>acts not elsewhere recorded of Him, except at the institution of the Eucharist, and at the self-revealing meal at Emmaus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,30);">Lu 24:30</a>)<29>deeply impressed those present, as indicating the source whence came His power to satisfy the hunger of the multitude (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',14,19);">Mt 14:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',15,36);">15:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,41);">Mr 6:41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,6);">8:6,7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,16);">Lu 9:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,11,23);">Joh 6:11,23</a>).<P>2. Discourse at Capernaum:<P>In the discourse at Capernaum (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,\'26-58\');">Joh 6:26-58</a>) Christ led the thought of His hearers from earthly to heavenly food, from food that perished to the true bread from heaven. He declared Himself to be the living bread, and, further, that it is through eating His flesh and drinking His blood that they shall possess true life in themselves, and be raised by Him at the last day. The difficulties raised by this discourse Christ did not solve at the time. His ascension would but add to them. He asked of His disciples acceptance of His words in faith. Under the administration of the Spirit would these things be realized (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,\'60-69\');">Joh 6:60-69</a>). The institution of the Eucharist, later, gave the clue to these otherwise "hard" words. Today the Eucharist remains as the explanation of this discourse. A hardy mountaineer, e.g. who had read <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,\'1-\');">Joh 6</a> many times, could form no notion of its purport. When first privileged to be present at the eucharistic service of the Book of Common Prayer, the meaning of feeding upon Christ\'s flesh and blood forthwith became apparent to him (see The Spirit of Missions, July, 1911, 572-73).<P>IV. Historical Setting of the Eucharist.<P>1. Other Acts and Words of Christ on Eve of the Passion:<P>We should note the setting in which the institution of the Eucharist was placed. Though the Fourth Gospel does not record this, it gives us many otherwise unknown data of the words of Christ spoken upon the eve of His death, in which historically the institution of the Eucharist was set. The symbolic washing of the feet of the disciples (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,\'3-10\');">Joh 13:3-10</a>), the "new" commandment (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,34);">Joh 13:34</a>), Christ as the means of access to the Father (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,6);">Joh 14:6</a>), love for Christ to be shown by keeping His commandments (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,15,21,23,24);">Joh 14:15,21,23,24</a>), the sending of the Paraclete Spirit (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,16,17,26);">Joh 14:16,17,26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',15,26);">15:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,13,14);">16:13,14</a>), the intimate fellowship of Christ and His disciples, shown in the metaphor of the vine and its branches (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',15,\'1-9\');">Joh 15:1-9</a>,<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',15,\'13-16\');">13-16</a>)<29>all these throw their illumination upon the commandment, "This do in remembrance of me" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,19);">Lu 22:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,24,25);">1Co 11:24,25</a>). The efficacy of prayer \'in Christ\'s name\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,23,24,26,27,28);">Joh 16:23,24,26-28</a>) after His final withdrawal from the midst of His disciples, and His great prayer of self-oblation and intercession for His church throughout time (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,\'1-\');">Joh 17</a>, especially <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,\'9-26\');">17:9-26</a>) must not be forgotten in considering, "This is my body which is given for you" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,19);">Lu 22:19</a>), and, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,28);">Mt 26:28</a>).<P>2. Sacrificial Language of the Institution:<P>The sacrificial connotation of many of the words used in the narratives of institution should be noted: e.g. "body," "blood," "covenant," "given," "poured out," "for you," "for many" "unto remission of sins," "memorial" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,\'6-8\');">Ex 24:6-8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',2,2,16);">Le 2:2,9,16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',4,\'5-7\');">4:5-7</a>,<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',4,\'16-18\',34);">16-18,34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,11,14);">17:11,14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,7);">24:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',10,10);">Nu 10:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,\'11-28\');">Heb 9:11-28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,\'4-10\',19,20);">10:4-10,19,20</a>). The very elements of bread and wine also suggested the idea of sacrifice to those accustomed to their use in the older system of worship (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,\'38-42\');">Ex 29:38-42</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',15,\'4-10\');">Nu 15:4-10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',28,\'1-\');">28</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',29,\'1-\');">29</a> passim).<P>3. Sacrificial System of Jewish Dispensation:<P>The general background, moreover, out of which the institution of the Eucharist stands forth, is the sacrificial system of the older dispensation. The chosen people of God, as a priestly race, a holy nation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,5,6);">Ex 19:5,6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',7,6);">De 7:6</a>), worshipped God with a sequence of offerings, Divinely molded and inspired, which set forth the sovereign majesty and overloading of God, His holiness, and the awe and penitence due from those who would draw nigh unto Him, and their desire for communion with Him.<P>The more immediate background of the Eucharist is the Passover, and that without prejudice as to whether the Lord Christ ate the paschal meal with His disciples before He instituted the Eucharist, as seems most probable (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,\'7-18\');">Lu 22:7-18</a>), or whether He died upon the day of its observance (see article "Preparation," DCG, II, 409).<P>4. Paschal Background of the Institution of the Eucharist:<P>The Passover was at once a covenant-recalling and a covenant-renewing sacrifice, and the Eucharist, as corresponding to it, was instituted at the time of its yearly observance, and of the immolation of the true paschal lamb, of whose death it interpreted the value and significance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,\'3-28\');">Ex 12:3-28</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,\'3-10\');">13:3-10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',16,\'1-8\');">De 16:1-8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,7);">1Co 5:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,51);">Joh 6:51</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,10,11,15,17,18);">10:10,11,15,17,18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',15,13);">15:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,19);">17:19</a>).<P>V. Sequence of the Institation.<P>Let us put before ourselves clearly the sequence of the Lord Christ\'s acts and words at the institution of the Eucharist ere we proceed to examine the church\'s mode of celebrating this ordinance.<P>Points to Be Noted<P>At the close of the paschal Supper,<P>(1) the Lord Christ "took" the bread and cup, respectively, for use in His new rite;<P>(2) He "gave thanks" over them, constituting them a thank offering to God;<P>(3) He "blessed" them to their new and higher potency;<P>(4) He "gave" them to the apostles (the breaking being a requisite preliminary to distribution of the bread);<P>(5) He bade them "Take, eat," and "Drink ye all of it," respectively;<P>(6) He declared, of the bread, "This is my body given for you," of the cup, "This is my blood of the covenant," or, "This is the new covenant in my blood which is poured out for you," "unto remission of sins";<P>(7) He adds the reiterated command, "This do for my memorial."<P>It is obvious that we are bidden to follow out the same series of acts, and statements, as those of Christ Himself. We should take bread and wine, set them apart by rendering thanks to God over them, presenting them to Him as symbols of Christ\'s body and blood, once for all "given" and "poured out" for us; bless them by asking God\'s blessing upon them (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,19);">Ge 14:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',6,\'23-27\');">Nu 6:23-27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,7);">Mr 8:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,34);">Lu 2:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,16);">9:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,50);">24:50</a>); and receive and give them as the body and blood of Christ; for, "the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,16);">1Co 10:16</a>). It is obvious that we shall not forget, in this connection, the distinction between the natural body of Christ which He took of the Blessed Virgin, and the bread which He held in His hand, and blessed and made to function as His body for our participation and inherence in Him thereby<62>His sacramental body. The church with her many members united to the Head, and thus to each other, is also called His body mystical (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,17);">1Co 10:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',12,27);">12:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,22,23);">Eph 1:22,23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,24);">Col 1:24</a>).<P>VI. The Church\'s Observance of the Eucharist.<P>1. Heavenly Background:<P>(1) Christians a Priestly Race:<P>We should remember the priestly character of the church of Christ, whose sacrifices are made under the dispensation of the Holy Spirit (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,5,9);">1Pe 2:5,9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,6);">Re 1:6</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,2,8);">Ac 1:2,8</a>); and also the eternal priesthood in the heavens of our risen, ascended and ever-living Lord Christ.<P>(2) Christ the Eternal High Priest:<P>He laid down His life in order to take it again (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,17);">Joh 10:17</a>), and now in the perfection of His glorified human nature, by His very presence in heaven, He is forever the propitiation inexhaustible for our sins (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,\'17-\');">Heb 2:17</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',3,1,2,3);">3:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',4,\'14-\');">4:14</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',5,\'1-10\');">5:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',7,\'1-\');">7:1</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',8,\'1-7\');">8:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,\'11-28\');">9:11-28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,\'1-25\');">10:1-25</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,1,2);">1Joh 2:1,2</a>). As the Lamb slain once for all but alive for evermore, the Lord Christ is the focus of the worship of angels and the redeemed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,17,18);">Re 1:17,18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',5,\'6-14\');">5:6-14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',7,9,10);">7:9,10</a>), and the Christian disciple has the privilege of feeding upon that eternal Priest and Victim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',13,10);">Heb 13:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,16);">1Co 10:16</a>).<P>2. Celebrated Each Lord\'s Day:<P>The celebration of the Eucharist was characteristic of the pentecostal church (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,42);">Ac 2:42</a>), especially upon the Lord\'s Day (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,7);">Ac 20:7</a>). Its observance was preceded by the agape (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,20,34);">1Co 11:20,34</a>) on the eve (for the circumstances of the institution were closely imitated, and the day was reckoned as beginning at sunset after the Jewish fashion), and thus the Eucharist proper came late into the night, or toward morning (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,11);">Ac 20:11</a>).<P>3. Names of the Eucharist:<P>(1) Eucharist:<P>The name "Eucharist" is derived from the eucharistesas ("gave thanks") of the institution and was the most widely used term in primitive times, as applied to the whole service, to the consecration of the bread and wine or to the consecrated elements themselves (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',14,16);">1Co 14:16</a>).<P>(2) Lord\'s Supper:<P>It should be noted that the name, "Lord\'s Supper," belongs to the agape rather than to the Eucharist; its popular use is a misnomer of medieval and Reformation times.<P>(3) Breaking of Bread:<P>The term "breaking of bread" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,42);">Ac 2:42</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,7,11);">20:7,11</a>) had little vogue after New Testament times.<P>(4) Communion:<P>"Communion" obviously is derived from <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,16);">1Co 10:16</a>.<P>(5) Oblation:<P>In connection with the early and frequent use of the word "oblation" (prosphora) and its cognates, we should note Paul\'s description of his ministry in terms that suggest the rationale of the prayer of consecration, or eucharistic prayer, as we know it in the earliest liturgical tradition: "that I should be a minister of Christ Jesus unto the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be made acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Spirit" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,16);">Ro 15:16</a>).<P>VII. Post-Apostolic Church.<P>1. Guidance by the Holy Spirit:<P>The same Spirit who guided the church in the determination of the Canon of the New Testament Scriptures, the same Spirit who guided the church in the working out of her explicit formulation of the Christian doctrine of the Godhead, and of the Christ<73>that self-same Spirit guided the church in the formation and fashioning of her great eucharistic prayer into its norm in the same 4th century. The historic churches of the East, by their faithful adherence to this norm, have been almost undisturbed by the dissensions and disputes of Western Christendom touching the Eucharist.<P>2. The Early Fathers:<P>The glimpses given us in the earlier Fathers of the Eucharist are in entire accord with the more articulate expression of the church\'s corporate eucharistic worship, which we find in the liturgical documents and writings of the Nicene era.<P>(1) Ignatian Epistles:<P>The Ignatian Epistles show us the Eucharist as the focus of the church\'s life and order, the source of unity and fellowship. The Eucharist consecrated by the prayer of the bishop and church is the Bread of God, the Flesh and Blood of Christ, the communication of love incorruptible and life eternal (compare Ephesians, 5, 13, 10; Trallians, 7, 8; Romans, 7; Philadelphians, 4; Smyrnaeans, 7, 8; Magnesians, 7).<P>(2) Justin Martyr:<P>Justin Martyr tells us that the Eucharist was celebrated on the Lord\'s Day, the day associated with creation and with Christ\'s resurrection. To the celebrant were brought bread and wine mixed with water, who then put up to God, over them, solemn thanksgiving for His lovingkindness in the gifts of food and health and for the redemption wrought by Christ. The oblations of bread and wine are presented to God in memorial of Christ\'s passion, and become Christ\'s body and blood through prayer. The Eucharist is a spiritual sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving commemorative of Christ\'s death; and the consecrated elements the communion of Christ\'s body and blood, by reason of the sacramental character bestowed upon them by the invocation of the Divine blessing (compare 1 Apol., 13, 15, 66, 67; Dial. with Trypho, 41,70, 117).<P>(3) Irenaeus:<P>Irenaeus, also, emphasizes the fact that Christ taught His disciples to offer the new oblation of the New Covenant, to present in thank offering the first-fruits of God\'s creatures<65>bread and wine<6E>the pure sacrifice prophesied before by Malachi. The Eucharist consecrated by the church, through the invocation of God\'s blessing, is the communion of the body and blood of Christ, just as He pronounced the elements to be at the institution (compare Against Heresies, i.13, 1; iv.17, 5; 18,1-6; 33,1; v.22, 3).<P>(4) Cyprian:<P>Cyprian, too, gives evidence of the same eucharistic belief, and alludes very plainly to the "Lift up your hearts," to the great thanksgiving, and to the prayer of consecration. This last included the rehearsal of what Christ did and said at the institution, the commemoration of His passion, and the invocation of the Holy Spirit (compare Epistle to Caecilius, sections 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 14, 17; Epistle to Epictetus, sections 2, 4; On the Unity of the Church, I, 17; On the Lord\'s Prayer, section 31; Firmilian to Cyprian, sections 10, 17).<P>VIII. Liturgical Tradition.<P>1. Outline of Eucharistic Prayer:<P>When we proceed to examine the early liturgical remains we find the articulate expression of the church\'s sacrifice following along these lines. After an introductory summons to the worshippers to "lift up their hearts," the great eucharistic prayer goes on to pour forth sublime praises to God for all the blessings of creation, and for the fruits of the earth; aligning the praises of the church with the worship of the heavenly host around the throne of God. The love of God in bringing about the redemption of fallen man through the incarnation, and through the self-oblation of His only Son upon the cross is then recalled in deep thankfulness. The institution of the Eucharist in the night of the betrayal is next related, and then, taking up, and fulfilling the command of Christ (\'Do this for my memorial\') therein recited, most solemn memorial is made before God, with the antitypical elements, of the death and of the victorious resurrection and ascension of the Lord Christ. Then, as still further carrying out this act of obedience, most humble prayer is made to the Eternal Father for the hallowing of the oblations, through the operation of the Holy Spirit, to be the body and blood of Christ, and to be to those who partake of them, for the imparting of remission of sins, and the bestowal of life eternal. To this great act of praise and prayer the solemn "Amen" of the assembled congregation assents, and thereafter the sacramental gifts are received by the faithful present, with another "Amen" from each recipient to whom they are administered.<P>The great eucharistic prayer, as outlined, was the first part of the liturgy to crystallize into written form, and of its component parts the invocation of the Divine blessing upon the elements was probably the first to be written down.<P>2. Significance of This for Unity:<P>Around the simplicity and the depth of such a truly apostolic norm of eucharistic worship, alone, can be gathered into one the now dispersed and divided followers of the Christ, for therein subsist in perfect harmony the Godward and the manward aspects of the memorial He commanded us to make as complementary, not contradictory; and the identity of the consecrated bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ is manifested to be in the realm of their spiritual function and potency.<P>LITERATURE.<P>E.F. Willis, The Worship of the Old Covenant...in Relation to That of the New; Frederic Rendall, Sacrificial Language of the New Testament; Maurice Goguel, L\'eucharistie des origines a Justin Martyr, 105ff; W.B. Frankland, The Early Eucharist (excellent); H.B. Swete, "Eucharistic Belief in the 2nd and 3rd Cents.," Journal of Theological Studies, June,1902,161ff; R.M. Woolley, The Liturgy of the Primitive Church; M. Lepin, L\'idee du sacrifice dans la religion chretienne; W. Milligan, The Ascension and Heavenly Priesthood of our Lord; Thomas Brett, A True Scripture Account of the Nature and benefits of the Holy Eucharist, 1736; id, A Discourse Concerning the Necessity of Discerning the Lord\'s Body in the Holy Communion, 1720; J.R. Milne, Considerations on Eucharistic Worship; id, The Doctrine and Practice of the Eucharist; H.R. Gummey, The Consecration of the Eucharist; A.J. Maclean, Recent Discoveries Illustrating Early Christian Life and Worship; id, The Ancient Church Orders; L. Duchesne, Origines du culte chretien; J.T. Levens, Aspects of the Holy Communion; John Wordsworth, The Holy Communion; F.E. Brightman, Liturgies, Eastern and Western.``70';
isbe[5583]='Lord\'s Supper; (Eucharist), 2`HISTORICAL<p>1. Original Institution<P>2. The Elements<P>3. The Eucharist in the Apostolic Church<P>4. The Eucharist in the Post-apostolic Church<P>5. Rome and the Eucharist<P>6. Luther and the Eucharist<P>7. Zwingli and the Eucharist<P>8. Calvin and the Eucharist<hr /><P>This name of the Lord\'s Supper is derived from eucharistia, the prayer of consecration, and this in turn points back to <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,27);">Mt 26:27</a>, "And he took a cup, and gave thanks" (eucharistesas). The most common name is "Lord\'s Supper" (deipnon kuriou (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,20);">1Co 11:20</a>)). It is also called "Lord\'s table" (trapeza kuriou (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,21);">1Co 10:21</a> the King James Version)); while the cup is called "the cup of blessing" (poterion tes eulogias (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,16);">1Co 10:16</a>)) and "the cup of the Lord" (poterion kuriou (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,21);">1Co 10:21</a>)). The word koinonia points both to the bread and the cup, whence our common term "communion." In post-apostolic days it became known as leitourgia, a sacred ministration, whence our word "liturgy." It was also named thusia, a sacrifice, and musterion, from its mystic character and perhaps from the fact that it was celebrated only in the closed circle of believers. The Roman Catholic church calls it missa or "mass," from the words congregatio missa est, whereby in post-apostolic times the first part of worship, called the missa cathechumenorum, was closed, and whereby the second part of worship was ushered in, known as the missa fidelium, the sacramental part of worship, only destined for believers.<P>1. Original Institution:<P>The origin of the Eucharist is described in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,\'1-\');">Mt 26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,\'1-\');">Mr 14</a>, and <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,\'1-\');">Lu 22</a>. Paul introduces his simple and comprehensive recital of the origin of the institution<6F>the earliest written record of it<69>with the words: "For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,23);">1Co 11:23</a>). A comparison between the Gospels and <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,\'1-\');">Ex 12</a> indicates a considerable modification of the original Passover ritual in the days of Jesus (see Smith\'s DB, article "Lord\'s Supper"). The composite Gospel-picture of the institution of the Eucharist shows us the Saviour in the deep consciousness of the catastrophe about to overwhelm Him, surrounded by treason on the part of Judas and a strange and total lack of appreciation of the true situation on the part of the other disciples. He had greatly \'desired to eat this passover with them before he suffered\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,15);">Lu 22:15</a>), and yet they are wholly unresponsive, the chief question apparently in their minds being the old contention of rank and preeminence. Whether or not Judas was present at the eating of the Supper is a moot point, which we will not discuss here. Neither will we touch the question whether or not this Passover-meal was the true Jewish festive meal or an anticipation of it, called pascha only, in allusion to the great feast, which had brought the hundreds of thousands of Jews to Jerusalem (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,\'1-\');">Mt 26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,\'1-\');">Mr 14</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,1);">Joh 12:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,1,2,26);">13:1,2,29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,28);">18:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,14,31);">19:14,31</a>).<P>Both Matthew and Mark leave the exact place of the institution of the Supper in the festive meal indefinite, "as they were eating" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,26);">Mt 26:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,22);">Mr 14:22</a>); the words of Luke, "after supper" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,20);">22:20</A>), may be a hint in regard to this matter (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,1);">Joh 13:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,25);">1Co 11:25</a>). But the custom of the early church of celebrating the Eucharist after the agape or "love feast" appears to be strong evidence that the original institution was separate from the paschal festival and followed it. The entire subject of the Eucharist has been called in question by the radical German critics, who point to the absence of the whole matter in John and to the omission of the words, "Do this in remembrance of me," in Matthew and Mark. Its occurrence in Luke is ascribed to Paul\'s influence over him and to his familiarity with the story of the institution as described by the apostle. But this position is utterly untenable in the light of the unquestioned fact that the Lord\'s Supper as a fixed part of worship was firmly established from the earliest days of the Christian church. The doctrine of Christ\'s vicarious suffering is nowhere so clearly enunciated as in the words of the institution of the Supper, "This is my body which is given for you" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,19);">Lu 22:19</a>); "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,28);">Mt 26:28</a>). Small wonder that those who have utterly done away with the doctrine of the vicarious atonement or of substitution should attack the historicity of the Eucharist and should seek by all means to wipe it from the record.<P>Jesus bids His followers to observe the new institution "in remembrance of" Him. As Dr. Bavinck says, "The Lord\'s Supper is instituted by Christ as a permanent benefit to His church; it is a blessing added to all other blessings to signify and to seal them" (Geref. Dogm., IV, 310).<P>2. The Elements:<P>As to the elements used in the original institution of the Supper, they were bread and wine. The bread of course was the unleavened bread of the Passover, during which feast every trace of leaven was removed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,19);">Ex 12:19</a>). The Eastern church, perhaps influenced by the bitter Ebionite spirit of the Judaizers, later adopted the use of common bread (koinos artos); the Western church used unleavened bread. Protestantism left the matter among the adiaphora.<P>As regards the wine, the matter has been in dispute from the beginning (see Kitto\'s Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature). The early church always used mixed wine, wine and water, following the Jewish custom. Whether the wine used at the institution of the Lord\'s Supper was fermented or unfermented wine, must of course be determined by the Jewish Passover-customs prevailing at that time. The matter is in dispute and is not easily settled.<P>Modern Jews quite generally use raisin-wine, made by steeping raisins over night in water and expressing the juice the next day for use at the Passover-meal. The ancient Jews, we are told, used for this purpose a thick boiled wine, mixed with water (Mishna, Terumoth, xi). Whether oinos, the word used in the New Testament, stands literally, as the name indicates, for fermented wine, or figuratively for the mixed drinks, well known to ancient and modern Jews, is a debatable matter. As late as the 16th century the Nestorian Christians celebrated communion with raisin-wine, and the same is said of the Indian Christians ("St. Thomas Christians"). The word "new," used by Christ in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,29);">Mt 26:29</a>, is believed by some to indicate the character of the wine used by Christ at the institution of the Eucharist, namely, the juice of grapes fresh pressed out (see Clem. Alex., Paed., xi). On the other hand the third Council of Braga explicitly forbade this practice as heretical. It is evident that the whole subject is shrouded in much mystery. Some ancient sects substituted an entirely different element, water and milk, for instance, being used (Epiph., Haer., xlix; Aug., Haer., xxviii). Such customs were utterly condemned by the Council of Braga (675 AD). In general, however, the Christian church, almost from the beginning, seems to have used fermented red wine, either mixed or pure, in the administration of the Eucharist, in order to maintain the correspondence between the symbol and the thing symbolized.<P>3. The Eucharist in the Apostolic Church:<P>Originally the apostolic church celebrated communion at every meeting for worship. They continued steadfastly in the apostle\'s teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,42,46);">Ac 2:42,46</a>). Very soon, however, if we may judge from the Acts and the Church Pauline Epistles, its administration was confined to the meeting on the first day of the week. The agape always preceded communion, and at some part of the service the believers, the sexes after the plan of the synagogue being separated, would salute each other with the "holy kiss" (philema hagion) (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',16,20);">1Co 16:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',13,12);">2Co 13:12</a>). But the introduction of the sacrament, with all its accessories, had evidently occasioned grave abuses at Corinth (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,34);">1Co 11:34</a>). Paul corrects these in unmistakable language. Thus we received our first written record of the institution of the Supper. In Corinth it seems to have been restricted from the beginning to the first day of the week (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,7);">Ac 20:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',16,2);">1Co 16:2</a>). By a slow transition the deipnon was transferred from the midnight hour to the morning. At least we find that Paul kept it after midnight at Troas (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,11);">Ac 20:11</a>). It would appear as if the apostle had also partaken of the Lord\'s Supper, together with his Christian companions, on board the ship, toward the close of his fateful trip on the Adriatic (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',27,35);">Ac 27:35</a>).<P>4. The Eucharist in the Post-apostolic Church:<P>In the post-apostolic church the Eucharist continued to be celebrated every Lord\'s day. But it separated itself from the preaching of the Word and from prayers, as in the previous period. It was invested with a mystic meaning, something too holy for the common eye, and thus the missa catechumenorum, the open church-meeting, was separated from the missa fidelium, the gathering of believers only, in which the Eucharist was celebrated. Bread, wine, oil, milk, honey, all the ingredients for the agape, from which the elements for the Supper were selected, were furnished by the free-will offerings of the believers. These were solemnly set apart by the officiating bishop with a consecrating prayer, eucharistia, and thus the sacrament obtained the name "Eucharist." The gifts themselves were called prosphorai, "oblations," or thusiai, "sacrifices." The sacrificial conception of the Supper was thus gradually created (Ign., Phil., iv; Smyrna, vii, viii; Justin, Apol., i. 66; Dial., xii. 70; Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., iv. 18,5). The Eucharist once being conceived as a sacrifice, the conception of the officiating bishop as a priest became logically inevitable. The Apostolical Constitutions, xliii (4) gives us a fair idea of the worship of the church, toward the close of the 3rd century. Even at that early day a well-developed ritual had replaced the simplicity of the worship of the apostolic days. In the African and Eastern churches, baptized children were allowed to partake of communion, through the fear engendered by <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,53);">Joh 6:53</a>. The regenerative conception of baptism largely influenced this custom. The remnants of the consecrated elements were brought by the deacons to the sick and to imprisoned believers. We have not the space in a brief article like this to enter fully into the development of the doctrinal conception of the Supper as found in the Fathers. Suffice it to say that the symbolical and spiritual concept of the Eucharist, usually defined as the "dynamic" view of the Supper, was advocated by such men as Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzen and others. On the other hand Cyril, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom and John Damascenus developed the "realistic" theory of the Eucharist, and this view again divided itself into the "diophysitic" theory, later called "consubstantiation," and the "monophysitic" theory, later known as "transubstantiation." Augustinns, the great Latin Father, knew nothing of theory of tran-substantiation. He taught that communion carries a blessing only for believers, while to the unbelieving it is a curse, and that the true eating of the body of Christ consists in believing (Serm. Ad Infantes, De Civ., x.6; xxii. 10; Tract. 25 in Joann.). Paschasins Radbert (died 865 AD) was the first fully to formulate the realistic view as the doctrine of the Romish church, and although the dynamic view triumphed for a while, the condemnation of Berengarius of Tours (died 1088 AD) proved that by the middle of the 11th century the realistic view of the Supper had become the generally accepted doctrine of the Eucharist.<P>5. Rome and the Eucharist:<P>The Romish church couches its doctrine of the Eucharist in the word "transubstantiation," which means the conversion of the substance of the elements used in the Eucharist. The word was first used by Hildebert of Tours (died 1134 AD) in a sermon. The doctrine of the Supper was finally fixed, together with the new term, by Pope Innocent III, at the Lateran Council 1215 AD. It was decided that the body and blood of Christ are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar, under the species of bread and wine, the bread being transubstantiated into the body and the wine into the blood of Christ, by the Divine power. This has been the Romish doctrine of the Supper ever since. The bread and wine are changed into the veritable body and blood of Christ, by the words of the institution. By the institution of the Supper, Christ made His disciples priests, wherefore the Eucharist may be administered only by an ordained priest. In the miracle of the sacrament, the "accidents" of the elements<74>bread and wine<6E>remain, but they are no longer inherent in a subject, the substance in which they inhered being replaced by another. This new substance is the body and blood of Christ, which is hidden from observation under the appearance of the elements. The whole Christ is present in each of these elements, hence, it is not necessary to commune under both forms (sub utraque). In the Romish conception of the Supper communion with Christ is a secondary idea. The main idea is that of the transubstantiation itself, for the Supper is more a sacrifice than a sacrament; thus the mass becomes a sin offering. While it feeds faith, keeps us from mortal sin, wards off temporal punishment, unites believers, it also has a potency for those who are not present, and even for the dead in purgatory. Thus the mass became the very heart and center of the entire Romish cult (Conf. Trid., XIII, 21, 22; Cat. Rom., CXII, c. 4; Bellarm, De Sacr. Euch., I, iv; Moehler, Symb., section 34).<P>6. Luther and the Eucharist:<P>The Reformers rejected the doctrine of transubstantiation, the sacrificial conception of the Eucharist, the adoration of the "host," the withholding of the cup, the efficiency of the Eucharist in behalf of the dead, the entire Romish conception of the sacrament of the Supper. The original position of Luther, that the elements in the Supper were signs and seals of the remission of sins, was soon replaced by the doctrine of "consubstantiation." The bitter controversy with Carlstadt, and especially the failure of the Marburg Conference, drove Luther forever into the camp of the realists. As early as 1524 he had outlined his doctrine against Carlstadt. He placed himself squarely on the realistic conception of the words of the institution, and held that "the body of Christ in accordance with the will and omnipotence of God and its own ubiquity is really and substantially present in, with and under the Supper, even as His Divine nature is in the human as warmth is in the iron. Wherefore the Supper is physically partaken of by those who are unworthy, albeit to their own destruction" (Bavinck, Geref. Dogm., IV, 318). This doctrine has been fully developed by the Lutheran divines, and is till this day the view of the Lutheran church.<P>7. Zwingli and the Eucharist:<P>Zwingli essentially sided with Carlstadt in his controversy with Luther, whom he thereby greatly embittered. He interpreted the words of the institution<6F>"this is"<22>as signifying "this stands for," "this signifies." This view was fully set forth in a letter to Matthew Alber at Reutlingen in 1524 and was given its final form in his dogmatic tract, Com. de vera et falsa rel. (1525), where he characterizes Luther\'s doctrine as "an opinion not only rustic but even impious and frivolous." The breach was widened by the Marburg Conference of 1529. Reduced to its last analysis, the eucharistic concept of Zwingli is that of a symbolical memorial of the suffering and death of Christ, although Zwingli does not deny that Christ is present to the eye of faith. On the contrary, He is enjoyed through the word and through faith, i.e. in a spiritual way. In the Supper we confess our faith, we express what that faith means to us, and we do it in memory of Christ\'s death (Oper., ii.1, 426; iii.239, 326, 459; iv.51, 68). The Zwinglian view has been consciously or unconsciously adopted by a very large portion of the Protestant church.<P>8. Calvin and the Eucharist:<P>Calvin\'s position on the doctrine of the Eucharist tends rather to the Lutheran than to the Zwinglian view. With Zwingli the sacrament is little more than a sign, with Calvin it is both a sign and a seal. The reality of communion with Christ and the benefits of His death, received by a living faith<74>all this is common to the Lutheran and the Calvinistic views. The Lord\'s Supper is far more than a mere memorial service, it is a marvelous means of grace as well. Calvin sides with Zwingli in denying all physical, local or substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist. But he differs from him in making the eucharistic act far more than a confession of faith, and he lays far greater stress than Zwingli on the meaning of its true participation. With Luther he holds that Christ is truly present in the Supper, and he lays stress especially on the mystic union of the believer with Christ. In the Supper both the benefits of Christ\'s death and His glorious person are touched. But Christ does not descend in the Supper to the believer, but the latter ascends to Him in heaven. The central thought of the Calvinistic conception of the Supper is this, that the communicant, through the operation of the Holy Spirit, comes in spiritual contact with the entire person of Christ and that he is thus fed unto life eternal. Every close student of Calvin\'s works will have to admit that his ideas on the subject are somewhat involved and confusing. This is due no doubt to the mediating position he occupied between Luther and Zwingli. But his position as a whole is quite plain. All his followers agree in holding that (1) Christ is only spiritually present in the Supper; (2) that the participation in the benefits of the Supper must therefore be spiritual, although it is real, and (3) that only true communicants, by a living faith, can communicate therein, and that this participation in the atoning death of the Saviour is sealed to us by the use of the ordained signs of the sacrament.<P>Henry E. Dosker<hr /><P><b>LUTHERAN INTERPRETATION</b><p><b>I. THE TERM</b><P class="in15">1. The Derivation and Meaning<P class="in15">2. Synonyms<P><b>II. THE ORDINANCE</b></a><P class="in15">1. Source and Norm of the Doctrine of the Eucharist<P class="in15">2. Interpretation of the Eucharistic Texts<P class="in15">3. Doctrinal Contents of the Eucharistic Passages<P><b>III. DIFFICULTIES</b><P class="in15">1. Question of Possibility<P class="in15">2. The Place of Faith in the Sacrament<P class="in15">3. The Words of the Institution<hr /><P>I. The Term.<P>1. The Derivation and Meaning:<P>"Eucharist" is the anglicized form of the Greek noun eucharistia, which signifies "gratitude," "thanks," or "praise offering." The noun is derived from the verb eucharisteo, which, with the verb eulogeo of kindred meaning in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,26,27);">Mt 26:26,27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,22,23);">Mr 14:22,23</a>, is used to describe the action of the Lord in blessing the bread and wine at the institution of the Lord\'s Supper (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,19);">Lu 22:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,23);">1Co 11:23</a>). When used absolutely, as in these places, it signifies "the offering up of praise that is prompted by nothing else than God Himself and His revealed glory" (Cremer). The blessing of the physical elements was part of the sacramental action at subsequent celebrations of the ordinance (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,16);">1Co 10:16</a>), and thus eucharistia soon (2nd century) came to mean the blessed elements and the entire ordinance in which these were administered.<P>2. Synonyms:<P>Other Scriptural terms for the same ordinance are "Communion" (from koinonia, in the twofold sense indicated in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,16,17);">1Co 10:16,17</a>), "Lord\'s Supper" (kuriakon deipnon (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,20);">1Co 11:20</a>)), "Lord\'s Table" (trapeza kuriou (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,21);">1Co 10:21</a>)), "Breaking of Bread" (klasis tou artou (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,42);">Ac 2:42</a>)). The literature of the church developed a great many terms which emphasize one or the other feature of the ordinance. Luther, in his Small Catechism, adopts the name "Sacrament of the Altar," because it is administered at the altar. The Lutheran Confessions occasionally employ the term "mass," however, in the original meaning which the early church, not in that which the Roman church, connects with the term ("mass" derived either from missa, "things sent," because the materials for communion were sent to the place of celebration, or from missio, "a sending (away)," because worshippers who were not members, or minors, were dismissed from the service before the celebration of the Eucharist began; but see McClintock and Strong, Cyclop. of Biblical, Theol., and Eccles. Lit., V, 863).<P>II. The Ordinance.<P>1. Source and Norm of the Doctrine of the Eucharist:<P>The "seats of doctrine," i.e. the Scripture texts which must be employed for determining every essential part of the teaching of Scripture regarding the second sacrament of the Christian church, are the words of institution recorded in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,\'26-28\');">Mt 26:26-28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,\'22-24\');">Mr 14:22-24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,19,20);">Lu 22:19,20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,\'23-25\');">1Co 11:23-25</a>. Valuable statements, chiefly concerning the proper use of the sacrament, are found in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,15);">1Co 10:15</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,20);">11:20</a>ff. That these texts are disputed is no reason why a doctrine should not be established from them. No doctrine of the Christian religion could be established, if every text of Scripture had to be withdrawn from the argument, so soon as it had become disputed. <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,\'32-59\');">Joh 6:32-59</a> does not treat of this ordinance, because<P>(1) the ordinance must be dated from the night of the betrayal, which was considerably after the Lord\'s discourse at Capernaum;<P>(2) because this passage speaks of "eating the flesh," not the body, of the Son of man, and of drinking "his blood," in such a manner that a person\'s eternal salvation is made to depend upon this eating and drinking. If this passage were eucharistic, infants, children, persons in durance among pagans, or temporarily deprived of the ministration of the Christian church, hence, unable to commune, could not be saved.<P>2. Interpretation of the Eucharistic Texts:<P>The exposition of the genuine eucharistic texts of Scripture is governed by the common law of Bible exegesis, namely, that every word and statement of Scripture must be understood in its proper and native sense, unless a plain and urgent reason compels the adoption of a figurative interpretation. The writers who have recorded the institution of the sacrament have given no hint that they wish to be understood figuratively. The solemn occasion<6F>the Eucharist being the expression of the last will or testament of the Lord<72>forbids the use of figurative language (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,15);">Ga 3:15</a>). The fact that a statement of Scripture transcends our natural powers of comprehension does not justify us in giving it a figurative meaning. If this rationalistic principle were to be applied in explaining Scripture, we could not retain a single revealed doctrine. Besides, those who have adopted a figurative interpretation are not agreed where to locate the figure in the words of institution. Some claim that the word touto, others that esti, others that to soma mou contain a figure, while still others would take the institutional words in their proper sense, but understand the entire ordinance figuratively.<P>3. Doctrinal Contents of the Eucharistic Passages:<P>The eucharistic passages contain:<p>(1) a statement fixing the time and occasion of the institution. It was "in the night in which he was betrayed," immediately before the beginning of the passio magna of Christ, and in connection with the celebration of the Jewish Passover (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,17);">Mt 26:17</a>). The ordinance which Christ instituted was to take the place of the ancient Passover (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,7);">1Co 5:7</a>, which text Luther aptly renders: "We, too, have a passover, which is Christ crucified for us"). Jewish custom at the time of Christ seems to have allowed some latitude as regards the time for eating the paschal lamb. Thus the difference between John (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,28);">18:28</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,42);">19:42</a>) and the synoptists is overcome. Our Lord was deeply stirred with thoughts of love and affection for His disciples at the time of the institution (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,1);">13:1</a>).<P>(2) An authoritative declaration of Christ, the God-man, fixing the constituent parts of the sacrament, and the essential features of the sacramental act (speciem actus). This declaration names:<P>(a) The elements of the sacrament, which are of two kinds: bread and wine (materia terrena), and the body and blood of the Lord (materia coelestis) (see Ireneus Adv. Haer., iv.34, 363, quoted in Form. Conc. Sol. Decl., Art. VII, <span class="noTag">number 14</span>, 649). There is no law laid down as regards the quality, form, or quantity of the bread (leavened or unleavened, round or oblong, in large loaves, cakes, or in wafer form ready for immediate distribution). Likewise the color and quality of the wine is left undefined. The expression gennema tes ampelou, "fruit of the vine" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,29);">Mt 26:29</a>), sanctions the use of any substance that has grown on the vine, has been pressed from grapes, and has the characteristics of the substance known as wine. That the wine used by the Lord at that season of the year and in accordance with Jewish custom was fermented wine, there can be no doubt (Hodge, Systematic Theol., III, 616). The use of unfermented wine is apt to introduce an element of uncertainty into the sacrament. The heavenly elements are defined thus: "My body, which is given for you," "my blood, which is shed for many." These terms signify the real, substantial, natural body of Christ, and His real, natural blood (Luther: "the true body and blood of our Lord "). Both the earthly and the heavenly elements are really present at the same time in every eucharistic act. To deny either the presence of real bread and wine at any stage during the eucharistic act, as the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation does (against <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,26,28);">1Co 11:26,28</a>), or the real presence of the true body and blood of Christ, as reformed teaching does, is not doing justice to Scripture.<P>(b) The relation of the elements to one another: In offering the physical elements to the disciples the Lord employs the locutio exhibitiva, common to every language of men: He names that which is not seen while giving that which is seen. (" Here are your spices," says the grocer delivering the package containing them.) The locutio exhibitiva, except when used by a jester or dishonest person, always states a fact. The bread in the Eucharist is the body of Christ, the wine, likewise, is the blood of Christ. The relation is expressed in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,16,17);">1Co 10:16,17</a> by koinonia, "communion." This term is not the same as metocht, "participation," which would refer to the communicants (Plummer, HDB, III, 149). Koinonia declares a communion of the bread with the body, of the wine with the blood, of Christ. It is impossible to define the mode and manner of this communion of the earthly with the heavenly elements. Such terms as "consubstantiation," "impanation," "invination," are faulty attempts to define the undefinable. All we can assert is, that in a manner incomprehensible to us the body and blood of the Lord are in a sacramental union with the eucharistic bread and wine.<P>(c) The action required, namely, "take, eat"; "take, drink." These words refer to the distribution and reception of the sacramental elements. These are essential, the mode is not, unless one wishes to emphasize, e.g. by the breaking of the bread, the merely symbolical meaning of the entire ordinance. Accordingly, it is also immaterial whether the administrant place the elements into the hands of the communicant, who then conveys them to his mouth, or whether the administrant conveys the elements directly to the mouth of the communicant. The acts of distributing and receiving, however, extend to the entire sacramental substance, i.e. not the bread, or the wine, alone are distributed and received, but "in, with, and under the bread" the body, "in, with, and under the wine" the blood, of Christ. The eating and drinking in the Eucharist is of a peculiar kind. It differs from mere natural eating and drinking of common food, and from spiritual eating and drinking, which is a figurative expression signifying the believing appropriation of the Saviour\'s atoning work, and which can never be "for judgment." In natural eating and drinking there would be only bread and wine, not the body and blood of the Lord; in spiritual eating and drinking there would be only the merits of the Redeemer, not bread and wine. In sacramental eating and drinking both the bread and the body, the wine and the blood, of Christ, are sacramentally received, the earthly elements in a natural, the heavenly in a supernatural, undefinable manner, both, however, orally, and both by every communicant. For, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,29);">1Co 11:29</a>, also the unworthy communicant receives the Lord\'s body, and that for his judgment, "not discerning" it (the King James Version).<P>(d) The end and aim of the ordinance: The Lord says: "This do in remembrance of me." Paul says: "As often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord\'s death till he come." These words make the Eucharist an efficient means for strengthening the spiritual union of the disciples with the Lord until His second coming. They are a call for faith on the part of the communicants, and restrict admission to communion to the believing followers of the Lord. Worthy communicants are those who understand the meaning of Christ\'s sacrifice and hope for His return in glory. (Luther: "The sacrament is instituted for us Christians.") The duty of self-exploration enjoined upon communicants further emphasizes the purpose of this ordinance. Self-exploration embraces knowledge and acknowledgment of our sinful state, confidence in the ever-present forgiveness of God for Christ\'s sake, and a sincere purpose to forsake sin and grow in holiness. Accordingly, non-believers, morally irresponsible persons, and persons who lead offensive lives which they will not amend, cannot be admitted to communion (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,6);">Mt 7:6</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,17);">1Co 10:17</a> Paul names another purpose: the strengthening of the bonds of brotherly love and fellowship by means of communion. Hence, unity of faith and active Christian charity are required in those who are to commune together (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,23,24);">Mt 5:23,24</a>), and "close communion," not "open, or promiscuous communion" is in accord with the teaching of Scripture. In the absence of any fixed rule as to the frequency of a Christian\'s communing, the above reasons suffice to induce him to commune frequently ("as often as").<P>(3) An authoritative statement of Christ concerning the continued use of the sacrament (exercitium actus): "This do." This means<P>(a) that the action of Christ is to be repeated, i.e., bread and wine should be blessed, distributed and received. The blessing is called the consecration and consists in the reciting of a prayer and the words of the institution. Consecration has no magical effects, it does not produce the sacramental union. On the other hand, it is not a mere meaningless ceremony, but a solemn declaration that in accordance with the will of the Lord, bread and wine are now being separated from their common use, to be devoted to the use which the Lord commanded. It is also a prayer to the Lord to be present in the sacrament;<P>(b) that whenever disciples do as their Lord did, He will connect His body and blood with the earthly substances as He did at the first communion;<P>(c) that besides the blessing of the elements, only the giving, or distribution, and the taking, or reception, of the sacramental elements are proper and essential parts of a sacramental action. A true sacramental action is complete only where these three acts concur: consecration, distribution, reception, and outside of these acts nothing that may be done with the elements possesses the nature of a sacrament or a sacramental action. Offering the consecrated wafer for adoration is no part of the sacrament, but is a form of idolatry (artolatry), because there is no sacramental union except in the act of distributing and receiving the consecrated elements. The withdrawal of the cup from the lay communicants is an unwarranted mutilation of the sacrament (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,27);">Mt 26:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,23);">Mr 14:23</a>). But the grossest perversion of the sacrament, and a standing reproach to the completeness of the atoning sacrifice of the Lord is the offering up of the consecrated elements as an unbloody sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead, which is being done in the Roman mass (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,14,18);">Heb 10:14,18</a>).<P>III. Difficulties.<P>1. Question of Possibility:<P>"How can these things be?" This question might be raised against every doctrine of Scripture. The union of the natures in the God-man, the imputation of His merit to the believer, the quickening power of the word of Divine grace, the resurrection of the dead, etc., can all be subjected to the same questioning.<P>2. The Place of Faith in the Sacrament:<P>"Has faith no place in this sacrament?" Faith does not create, nor help to create the sacrament, neither the administrant\'s nor the communicant\'s faith. The sacrament is fully constituted in all its parts by the institutional act of the Lord and by His command to continue the observance of it. Man\'s faith cannot make, man\'s unbelief cannot unmake, an ordinance of God. But faith is necessary in order that a communicant may receive the blessings offered in the Eucharist, and testify to his believing relation to the Lord and to his Christian fellowship with the brethren. The sacrament bestows no blessing ex opere operato, i.e. by the mere mechanical performance of the physical act.<P>3. The Words of the Institution:<P>"Are the words of the institution part of the sacred text?" Up to the age of Paulus, they were universally regarded so, and the critical labors of Briggs, P. Gardner, Grafe, Immer, Julicher, etc., which can readily be explained by theological position of these men, lack unity of result and are offset by the labors of Scrivener, Schultzen, R.A. Hoffman, Blass, Beyschlag, etc. Christianity as yet sees no reason for discarding the words of the institution and for discontinuing the Eucharist as a Divine ordinance.<P>W. H. T. Dau<hr /><P><b>ACCORDING TO THE BELIEF AND PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH OF THE BRETHREN (DUNKERS)</b><p><b>I. THE LAST SUPPER WAS NOT THE JEWISH PASSOVER</b><P class="in15">1. Date<P class="in15">2. Doctrinal<P class="in15">3. Tradition<P><b>II. THE PERPETUATION OF THE LAST SUPPER</b><P><b>III. PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH OF THE BRETHREN</b><P><b>IV. THE MEANING AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LOVE FEAST</b><P><b>LITERATURE</b><P><hr />The interest of this denomination in the Lord\'s Supper as related to the Passover consists in two points:<P>(1) that the "Lord\'s Supper" was not the Jewish Passover, but was eaten the evening before the Jewish feast; and<P>(2) that this "Last Supper" was intended to be perpetuated. This is perpetuated by the Church of the Brethren under the name of "Love Feast" (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=AGAPE">AGAPE</a>).<P>I. The Last Supper Was Not the Jewish Passover.<P>1. Date:<P>John gives five distinct intimations of the date:<P>(1)) "Now before the feast of the passover" (Pro de tes heortes tou pascha; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,1);">Joh 13:1</a>). This shows that the washing of the disciples\' feet, and the discourses at the Last Supper were before the Passover.<P>(2) "Buy what things we have need of for the feast" agorason hon chreian echomen eis ten heorten; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,29);">Joh 13:29</a>). This shows that the Supper (daiphon) was not the Passover feast heorten).<P>(3) "They lead Jesus therefore from Caiaphas into the Pretorium; and it was early; and they themselves entered not into the Pretorium, that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover" (hina phagosin to pascha; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,28);">Joh 18:28</a>). This was after the Supper, early on the day of crucifixion, before the Passover.<P>(4) "Now it was the Preparation of the passover: it was about the sixth hour" (en de paraskeue tou pascha; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,14);">Joh 19:14</a>). This again shows conclusively that the Passover was not yet eaten. Jesus is before Pilate; it is the day of the crucifixion, and after the Last Supper.<P>(5) "The Jews therefore, because it was the Preparation, that the bodies should not remain on the cross upon the sabbath (for the day of that sabbath was a high day)," <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,31);">Joh 19:31</a>, etc. Here we have again a reference to the Preparation (paraskeue tou pascha), and also to the Sabbath which, in this case was a "high day" (en gar megale he hemera ekeinou tou sabbatou). This shows that the Passover was eaten on Friday evening after sunset on the 15th of Nisan at the beginning of the Jewish Sabbath. Whenever the Passover fell upon the Sabbath, that Sabbath was a "high day."<P>2. Doctrinal:<P>Christ is our Passover: died at the time the Passover lamb was slain, hence, after the Last Supper.<P>(1) Christ died at the time the Passover lamb was slain on Friday afternoon, the 14th of Nisan, and thus became Our Passover (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,7);">1Co 5:7</a>), "For our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ."<P>(2) Jesus, the "Lamb of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,29);">Joh 1:29</a>) corresponds to the Passover lamb (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,3);">Ex 12:3</a>). "Without blemish" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,5);">Ex 12:5</a>) = Jesus, "who did no sin" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,\'22-24\');">1Pe 2:22-24</a>). The blood of a lamb sprinkled upon houses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,7,13);">Ex 12:7,13</a>) corresponds to salvation by the blood of Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,\'7-9\');">1Joh 1:7-9</a>).<P>(3) Jesus arose the third day and became "the first-fruits of them that are asleep" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,4,20,23);">1Co 15:4,20,23</a>). The resurrection was on the first day of the week. The sheaf, or first-fruits, was gathered on the 16th of Nisan. Therefore Jesus must have died on Friday the 14th of Nisan, when the Passover lamb was slain; hence, after the Last Supper.<P>3. Tradition:<P>All the early traditions, both Jewish and Christian, agree that Jesus was crucified on the day of Preparation of the Passover, and they distinguish between the Passover and the Last Supper which was eaten the evening before the Jewish feast.<P>II. The Perpetuation of the Last Supper.<P>(1) Since the Last Supper was a new institution, there is no more reason for perpetuating one part than another. It is a unit, and each event of that night has its meaning and place.<P>(2) Jesus commanded the disciples to perpetuate feet-washing (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WASHING+OF+FEET">WASHING OF FEET</a>) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,14,15,17);">Joh 13:14,15,17</a>), and likewise He commanded the Eucharist to be perpetuated as a memorial of Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,24,25);">1Co 11:24,25</a>). Why not the Agape?<P>(3) The Agape was perpetuated by the apostles and disciples. They certainly understood Jesus to mean that the entire services of the Last Supper should be perpetuated, else they would not have done so.<P>III. Practice of the Church of the Brethren.<P>The "Love Feast" commemorates Jesus\' Last Supper with His disciples. These Love Feasts are held once or twice each year, always in the evening, by each local church or congregation. Preparatory services on "self-examination" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,28);">1Co 11:28</a>) precede the ordinances. The church pews are converted into tables. The Supper (deipnon) is made ready beforehand by the deacons and deaconesses. The devotional exercises aim to accomplish special consecration, confession, and reconciliation. Before the eating of the Supper, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,\'1-17\');">Joh 13:1-17</a> is read and explained, whereupon the brethren proceed to wash one another\'s feet, and the sisters likewise by themselves. All tarry one for another (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,33);">1Co 11:33</a>) until they are ready for the Supper. The officiating elder then calls upon someone to offer prayer for the meal, which is then eaten together. Another prayer of thanksgiving is offered at the close of the meal. After the meal, the officiating elder calls upon one to read the story of Christ\'s sufferings (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,\'1-\');">Isa 53</a>, or <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,\'1-\');">Joh 19</a>). After a short explanation of the meaning of the symbol, the communicants rise while the officiating elder gives thanks for the bread. He then turns to his brother at his right and breaks a piece of the unleavened bread for him with the words, "My beloved brother, the bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ" (see <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,16);">1Co 10:16</a>). The brethren then break the bread one to the other, with these words. Likewise the sisters in the same manner. Again the congregation rises while the officiating elder gives thanks for the cup, which is then passed by one to the other with the words "Beloved brother (or sister), the cup of the New Testament is the communion of the blood of Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,16);">1Co 10:16</a>). This is followed by prayers of praise and thanksgiving, then a hymn (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,30);">Mt 26:30</a>) and a benediction.<P>IV. The Meaning and Significance of the Love Feast.<P>All these ordinances or symbols signify some fundamental virtue in the Christian life. We are commanded to follow our Master who is the Way and the Truth. But these symbols have a real significance, apart from merely "following" or "obeying" the Lord\'s command.<P>(1) Feet-washing symbolized humility and service, and also the partial cleansing which all Christians need.<P>(2) The Agape signifies the bread-and-water covenant of brotherhood and peace. It is not only the symbol of true Christian fellowship, but is productive of such fellowship. It is also symbolic of the "Marriage Supper of the Lamb," which is supremely a symbol of joy.<P>(3) the Eucharist:<P>(a) The broken bread represents the "body of Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,16);">1Co 10:16</a>) "which is broken for you" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,24);">1Co 11:24</a> the King James Version); hence, the symbol of sacrifice. It is a memorial of Christ\'s sufferings, and a consecration to suffer with Him. It means also feeding on Christ, whose flesh we must eat (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,35,51,53,54);">Joh 6:35,51,53,54</a>).<P>(b) The cup represents the blood of Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,16);">1Co 10:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,53,54);">Joh 6:53,54</a>). It is the blood covenant that symbolizes the unity of man with God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,21);">Joh 17:21</a>). Jesus is the vine, we are the branches (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',15,\'1-\');">Joh 15</a>). The same mind, spirit, life and love which are in God and Christ are to be in us.<P>LITERATURE.<P>C. F. Yoder, God\'s Means of Grace; R.H. Miller, Doctrine of Brethren Defended; D. W. Kurtz, Outline of the Fundamental Doctrines (all of Elgin, Illinois, U.S.A.).``92';
isbe[5584]='Lord; the Lord`lord, This English word in our Bible represents one Aramaic, 3 Greek and 9 Hebrew words, two of them in two forms. It thus expresses all grades of dignity, honor, and majesty. It is not always possible to be sure of the sense in which the term is to be taken. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,3);">Ge 18:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,18);">19:18</a>, the translators waver between interpreting of the Divine Person and a finite angel (compare marginal readings). It represents the most sacred Hebrew name for God, as their covenant God, Yah, Yahweh, and the more usual designation of Deity, \'Adhonay, \'Adhon, a term which they adopted to avoid pronouncing the most holy designation. They had placed on <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,16);">Le 24:16</a> an interpretation that aroused such a dread that they seldom dared use the name at all. When two of the words usually translated "Lord," both referring to God, occur together, the King James Version renders "Lord God," and the American Standard Revised Version "Lord Yahweh." the American Standard Revised Version has adopted the rule of using the covenant name transliterated, instead of the term "Lord," in which the King James Version adopts the rule of the Hebrews to avoid the holy name.<P>The Aramaic designation, Mare\', occurs only in Daniel (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',2,47);">2:47</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',5,23);">5:23</A>), and the same word refers to a man (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',4,24);">4:24</A>).<P>Of the Greek words, Kurios is freely used of both the Deity and men. Despotes, of men in classic usage, occurs only of God, including the ascended Jesus, and is employed only 5 times. Megistanes (plural) is found once, of men (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,21);">Mr 6:21</a>). Rabboni (Hebrew in Greek letters) is applied only to the Christ, and is simply transliterated in the Revised Version (British and American), but rendered "Lord" in the King James Version (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,51);">Mr 10:51</a>).<P>Our English versions distinguish the 3 main uses of the term thus:<P>(1) "LORD" represents the Hebrew Yahweh, Septuagint Kurios, except where \'Adhonay or \'Adhon is combined with Yahweh (= "Lord God"); the American Standard Revised Version has in these examples employed the name as it is found in the Hebrew, simply transliterated.<P>(2) "Lord" corresponds to \'Adhonay, \'Adhon, Mare\', also Greek Kurios (see (1)), and Despotes, for which the American Standard Revised Version has always "Master" in either the text or the margin.<P>(3) "Lord" ("lord") translates all the remaining 8 Hebrew words and the Greek words except Despotes. It is thus seen that Kurios corresponds to all three forms of writing the English term.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JEHOVAH">JEHOVAH</a>`21';
isbe[5585]='Lords of the Philistines`(ceren, same as Hebrew word for "axle," probably a native designation): These "lords" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,3);">Jos 13:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',3,3);">Jud 3:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',16,5);">16:5</a>, etc.; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',5,8,11);">1Sa 5:8,11</a>, etc.), elsewhere called "princes" (sar, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,30);">1Sa 18:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',29,3,4,9);">29:3,4,9</a>), were the petty rulers or kings of the 5 Philistine cities, Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron, Gath.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PHILISTINES">PHILISTINES</a>`1';
isbe[5586]='Loss`chata "to suffer as one erring, or as a sinner" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,39);">Ge 31:39</a>, where Jacob assures Laban that he (Jacob) suffered the loss of all animals of the flock torn by beasts); shekhol, "bereavement" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',47,8);">Isa 47:8</a>f; where the prophet foretells the humiliation of proud Babylon who shall suffer the loss of her children, and widowhood); shikkulim, "bereavement" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',49,20);">Isa 49:20</a>, translated "bereavement" in the Revised Version (British and American), where the prophet promises to the desolate Zion enlargement). In the New Testament the translations of three Greek words: apobole, "casting away" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',27,22);">Ac 27:22</a>, where Paul assures the crew and passengers that there shall be no "loss" of life from the storm); zemia, "loss" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',27,21);">Ac 27:21</a>, referring to the harm sustained in the storm; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,7);">Php 3:7</a>f; where Paul counts all his natural privileges and attainments as forfeited for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ); zemioo. "to suffer loss" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',3,15);">1Co 3:15</a>, where Paul says the man whose works are burned shall suffer "loss"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,8);">Php 3:8</a>, same context as above).``194';
isbe[5587]='Lot (1)`lot:<P>I. Personality.<P>The man who bore the name Lot (lot; Lot) is mentioned for the first time in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,27);">Ge 11:27</a>, at the beginning of that section of Genesis which is entitled "the generations of Terah." After Terah\'s 3 sons are named, it is added that the third of these, Haran, begat Lot.<P>The reason for thus singling out but one of the grandsons of Terah appears in the next verse, where we are told that "Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees." For that period in the life of this family, therefore, which begins with the migration from Ur, Lot represents his father\'s branch of the family (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,31);">Ge 11:31</a>). It is hardly probable that the relation between Abraham and Lot would have been what it was, had not Haran died; but be this as it may, we read this introduction of Lot into the genealogy of Terah as an anticipation of the story to which it furnishes an introduction, and in which Lot is destined to play an important part.<P>The sections of that story in which Lot appears are: in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,\'1-\');">Ge 11</a>, the migration from Ur to Haran; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,\'1-\');">Ge 12</a>, Abraham\'s wanderings; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,\'1-\');">Ge 13</a>, the separation of Abraham and Lot; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,\'1-\');">Ge 14</a>, the campaign of the eastern kings against Sodom and Abraham\'s recovery of the captives; and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,\'1-\');">Ge 19</a>, the destruction of Sodom.<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,14,16);">Ge 14:14,16</a> Lot is termed the "brother" of Abraham; but that this does not represent a variant tradition is proved by reference to <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,12);">14:12</a> of the same chapter (ascribed to "an independent source") and to <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,8);">13:8</a> (ascribed to J; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,28);">11:28</A> J).<P>II. Career.<P>1. First Period:<P>Lot\'s life, as the scanty references to him permit us to reconstruct it, falls into four periods. Of the first period<6F>that previous to the migration from Haran<61>we know nothing save Lot\'s birth in Ur, the death of his father there, the marriage of his sister Milcah to his uncle Nahor (of another sister, Iscah, we learn only the name), and the journey to Haran in company with Terah, Abraham and Sarah. The fact that Sarah\'s childlessness and Haran\'s death are the only two circumstances related of the family history, may serve to explain why Lot went with Abraham instead of staying with Nahor. A childless uncle and a fatherless nephew may well have remained together with the idea that, even if there was no formal adoption, the nephew might become his uncle\'s heir. Certainly, the promise of a numberless seed, so often repeated to the patriarchs, comes first to Abraham immediately after Lot has separated from him (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,\'6-18\');">Ge 13:6-18</a>).<P>2. Second Period:<P>In the second period of Lot\'s life, we find him the companion of Abraham on his journeys from Mesopotamia to Canaan, through Canaan to Egypt, and back again to the neighborhood of Beth-el. His position is subordinate, for his uncle is head of the family, and oriental custom is uniform and rigorous in the matter of family rule. Hence, the use of the singular number throughout the narrative. What Abraham did, his whole "clan" did. Yet Lot\'s position was as nearly independent as these patriarchal conditions admit. When the story reaches the point where it is necessary to mention this fact, the narrator explains, first, the generosity with which Abraham treated his nephew, in permitting him to have "flocks, and herds, and tents" of his own, a quasi-independent economy, and second, that disproportion between their collective possessions and the land\'s resources which made separation inevitable. Up to this point the only mention of Lot during this period of wandering is contained in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,1);">Ge 13:1</a>, in the words "and Lot with him." And even here the words are useless (because stating a fact perfectly presumable here as elsewhere), except as they prepare the reader for the story of the separation that is immediately to follow.<P>3. Third Period:<P>That story introduces the third period of Lot\'s career, that of his residence in the Kikkar (the Revised Version (British and American) "Plain," the Revised Version margin "Circle") and in Sodom. To the fundamental cause of separation, as above stated, the author adds the two circumstances which contributed to produce the result, namely, first, the strife that arose between Abraham\'s herdsmen and Lot\'s herdsmen, and, second, the presence in the same country of others<72>the Canaanites and Perizzites<65>thus reminding his readers that it was no vacant land, through which they might spread themselves absolutely at will and so counteract the operation of the principal cause and the contributory cause already set forth.<P>With a magnanimity that must have seemed even greater to minds accustomed to patriarchal authority than it seems to us, and that was in fact much more remarkable than it would be here and now, Abraham offers to his nephew the choice of the land<6E>from the nomad\'s point of view. In the "we are brethren" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,8);">Ge 13:8</a>), the whole force of the scene is crystallized. Lot, who believes himself to have chosen the better part, is thereupon traced in his nomadic progress as far as Sodom, and the reader leaves him for a time face to face with a city whose men "were wicked and sinners against Yahweh exceedingly," while the narrative moves on with Abraham through that fresh scene of revelation which presented to this man of magnanimity a Divine deed to all the land, and to this man, now left without an heir from among his own kindred (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,2,3);">Ge 15:2,3</a>), a Divine pledge of innumerable offspring.<P>Lot returns for a moment to our view as the mainspring of Abraham\'s motions in the campaign of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,\'1-\');">Ge 14</a>. We are expressly told that it was "when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive," that he "led forth his trained men...and pursued." On the one hand we hear that Lot now "dwelt in Sodom," having abandoned the life in tents that he had led since Mesopotamian days, and on the other hand we find in him a foil to the energetic, decisive and successful figure of his uncle<6C>for Lot plays a sorry role, bracketed always with "the women and the goods."<P>This period of his life ends with the annihilation of his chosen home, his wealth, his companions, and all that was his save two daughters, who, it would seem, might better have perished with the rest. <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,\'1-\');">Genesis 19</a>, coming immediately after the intercession of Abraham for Sodom that poignantly impresses on the reader\'s mind the wickedness of Lot\'s environment, exhibits to us the man himself in his surroundings, as they have affected him through well-nigh a score of years (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,4);">12:4</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,1);">17:1</A>). What we see is a man who means well (courtesy, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,1);">19:1</A>; hospitality, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,2,3,6,7,8);">19:2,3,6-8</a>; natural shame, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,7);">19:7</A>; loyalty, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,14);">19:14</A>; and gratitude, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,19);">19:19</A>), but who is hopelessly bound up with the moral life of the city through his family connections<6E>alliances that have pulled him down rather than elevated others (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,9,14,26,\31-35\');">19:9,14,26,31-35</a>). The language of <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,7,8);">2Pe 2:7,8</a> reminds us that Lot was, even at this time of his life, a "righteous" man. Viewed as a part of his environment (the writer has been speaking of Sodom, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,6);">19:6</A>), Lot was certainly entitled to be called a "righteous" man, and the term fits the implications of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,\'23-32\');">Ge 18:23-32</a>. Moreover, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,\'1-\');">Ge 19</a> itself shows Lot "vexed...with their lawless deeds" and "sore distressed by the lascivious life of the wicked" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,3,7,8,14);">19:3,7,8,14</A>). Yet the contrast with Abraham is always present in the reader\'s mind, so that the most lasting impressions are made by Lot\'s selfishness worldliness vacillation and cowardice, not to mention the moral effect made by the closing scene of his life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,\'30-38\');">19:30-38</a>).<P>4. Fourth Period:<P>The fourth period of Lot\'s career is of uncertain duration. Upon the destruction of Sodom he dwelt at first in Zoar, the "little" city, spared as a convenient refuge for him and his; but at some time unspecified, he "went up out of Zoar," for "he feared to dwell in Zoar"<22>why, we cannot say. This fear was greater than even the evidently great fear he entertained of dwelling in "the mountain" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,19);">Ge 19:19</a>). In this mountain-country of rocks and caves (Driver in HDB, article "Lot," cites Buckingham, Travels in Syria, 61-63,87,as authority for the statement that people still live in caves in this region), Lot and his two remaining daughters dwell; and the biography of this companion of "the friend of God" ends in a scene of incest, which supplies the logical epilogue to a drama of progressive moral deterioration. This bestial cave-man of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,\'1-\');">Ge 19</a> is the "brother" of Abraham, but he has reached this goal because his path had led down from Beth-el to Sodom. The origin of the two neighboring and kindred nations, Moab and Ammon, is by the Hebrew tradition traced thus to Lot and his daughters.<P>III. Place in Later Literature.<P>In the Bible, Lot finds mention only as the father of Moab and Ammon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',2,9,19);">De 2:9,19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',83,8);">Ps 83:8</a>), and in the passage in 2 Peter already noticed; and, besides these places, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',17,\'28-32\');">Lu 17:28-32</a>. Here Lot represents the central figure in the destruction of Sodom, as Noah in the flood in the preceding context (compare the association of these two characters in 2 Peter and the Koran). His deliverance is mentioned, the haste and narrowness of that escape is implied, and his wife\'s fate is recalled. In Jewish and Mohammedan lore (including many passages in the Koran itself), Lot is a personage of importance, about whom details are told which fancy has added to the sober traditions of old Israel. But particularly for Mohammed there was point of attachment in Lot\'s career, offered in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,7,14);">Ge 19:7,14</a>. Like Mohammed to the men of wicked Mecca, Lot becomes a preacher of righteousness and a messenger of judgment to the men of wicked Sodom. He is one of the line of apostles, sent to reveal God\'s will and purpose to his contemporaries.<P>IV. Critical Theories about the Figure of Lot.<P>The common view of those who deny the historical reality of Lot is that this name simply stands for the ethnic group, Moab and Ammon. Wellhausen, e.g., expressly calls "Lot" a national name (Volksname). As to what is told of him in Genesis he remarks: "Were it not for the remarkable depression in which the Dead Sea lies, Sodom and Gomorrah would not have perished; were it not for the little flat tongue of land that reaches out into the swamp from the southeast, Lot would have fled at once to the mountains of his sons, Moab and Ammon, and not have made the detour by Zoar, which merely serves the purpose of explaining why this corner is excepted from \'the overthrow,\' to the territory of which it really belongs" (Prolegomena 6, 323). Meyer confesses that nothing can be made of Lot, because "any characteristic feature that might furnish a point of attachment is entirely lacking." The first of the families of the Horites of Seir was named Lotan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,20,22);">Ge 36:20,22</a>), and this writer believes it "probable that this name is derived from Lot; but that Lot was ever a tribal name (Stammname) follows neither from this fact (rather the contrary) nor from the designation of Moab and the bene \'Ammon as \'Sons of Lot\' "(Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstamme, 311; Compare 261, 339). If "Horite" was understood as "cave-dweller," the story in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,30);">Ge 19:30</a> might be adduced in support of this combination. But the most recent line of reasoning concerning these patriarchal figures makes their names "neither Divine names nor tribal names, whether in actual use or regarded as such, but rather simple personal names like Tom, Dick and Harry....Typical names they became...so that...Israel\'s story-tellers would connect the name of Lot with the overthrow of the cities" (Gressmann, article in ZATW, 1910). These names were chosen just because "they were very common at the time when the narratives were stamped into types"; later they became unfashionable, but the story-tellers held fast to the old names. "One sees from this at once into how ancient a time the proper names Abraham and Lot must reach, and understands therefore the more easily how they could be changed into tribal ancestors." It does not require the cautions, uttered by writers of this way of thinking, against regarding their views as a return to the old historical view of the patriarchs, to remind us that, in spite of all that may be said to the contrary, the present trend of thought among the most radical critics of the Genesis-traditions is much mote favorable to that conservative historical view than were the opinions which they have overthrown. So that it may justly be asserted, as Gressmann writes: "Confidence in tradition is in any case on the rise."<P>Lot\'s Wife: This woman, unknown by name, figures in the narrative of Lot that relates his escape from Sodom. She is mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,\'1-\');">Ge 19</a> only in verses <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,15,16,17);">15-17</A>, where she is commanded to flee from the doomed city with her husband and daughters, and is laid hold upon by the angelic visitors in their effort to hasten the slow departure; and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,26;">19:26</A>, where she alone of the four fugitives disobeys the warning, looks back, and becomes a "pillar of salt" This disobedience, with the moral state it implied and the judgment it entailed, is held up as an example by Christ in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',17,32);">Lu 17:32</a>. In the Scriptures this is all that is said of a person and event that furnished the basis for a great deal of speculation. Josephus (Ant., I, xi, 4) adds to the statement derived from Genesis, "She was changed into a pillar of salt," the words, "for I visited it, and it still remains even now" (see also The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 10:7</span>).<P>Among Christian writers contemporary with and subsequent to Josephus, as well as among the Jews themselves and other Orientals, the same assertion is found, and down to recent times travelers have reported the persistence of such a "pillar of salt," either on the testimony of natives or as eyewitnesses. The question of the origin and nature of these "pillars" is a part of the larger question of Sodom and its neighborhood (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SALT">SALT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SIDDIM">SIDDIM</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SLIME">SLIME</a>); for that no one particular "pillar" has persisted through the centuries may be regarded as certain; nor if it had, would the identification of Lot\'s wife with it and with it alone be ascertainable. This is just an early, persistent and notable case of that "identification" of Biblical sites which prevails all over the Holy Land. It is to be classed with the myth-and legend-building turn of mind in simple peoples, which has e.g. embroidered upon this Old Testament account of the destruction of Sodom such marvelous details and embellishments.<P>The principal thing to observe is the vagueness and the simplicity of the story in Genesis. For it does not necessarily imply the "metamorphosis" popularly attributed to it, in the strict sense of that word. And it lacks, even in a narrative like this, where the temptation would be greatest, all indications of that "popular archaeology" or curiosity, which according to some critics, is alleged to have furnished the original motive for the invention of the patriarchal narratives. "She became a pillar of salt," and "Remember Lot\'s wife": this is the extent of the Biblical allusions. All the rest is comment, or legend, or guess, or "science."``15';
isbe[5588]='Lot (2)``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DIVINATION">DIVINATION</a>`1';
isbe[5589]='Lotan`lo\'-tan (lotan): Son of Seir, a chief (the King James Version "duke") of Edom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,20,22,29);">Ge 36:20,22,29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,38);">1Ch 1:38</a>f).``1';
isbe[5590]='Lothasubus`loth-a-su\'-bus (Lothasoubos): One of those who stood by Ezra at the reading of the law (1Esdras 9:44); called "Hashum" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,4);">Ne 8:4</a>.``1';
isbe[5591]='Lots``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DIVINATION">DIVINATION</a>`1';
isbe[5592]='Lots, Feast of``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PURIM">PURIM</a>`1';
isbe[5593]='Lotus Trees`lo\'-tus (tse\'elim; the King James Version shady trees): The trees under which behemoth (the "hippopotams") rests; "He lieth under the lotus-trees," "The lotus-trees cover him with their shade" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',40,21,22);">Job 40:21,22</a>). The Arabic equivalent is the dom tree, Zizyphus lotus, a species of jujube tree (Natural Order Rhamneae); it has many spines and small globular fruit a little bigger than a pea. It is common in the Jordan valley. This plant has nothing to do with the Egyptian lotus.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LILY">LILY</a>`1';
isbe[5594]='Love`luv (\'ahebh, \'ahabhah, noun; phileo, agapao, verb; agape, noun): Love to both God and man is fundamental to true religion, whether as expressed in the Old Testament or the New Testament. Jesus Himself declared that all the law and the prophets hang upon love (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,40);">Mt 22:40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,\'28-34\');">Mr 12:28-34</a>). Paul, in his matchless ode on love (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',13,\'1-\');">1Co 13</a>), makes it the greatest of the graces of the Christian life<66>greater than speaking with tongues, or the gift of prophecy, or the possession of a faith of superior excellence; for without love all these gifts and graces, desirable and useful as they are in themselves, are as nothing, certainly of no permanent value in the sight of God. Not that either Jesus or Paul underestimates the faith from which all the graces proceed, for this grace is recognized as fundamental in all God\'s dealings with man and man\'s dealings with God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,28);">Joh 6:28</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,6);">Heb 11:6</a>); but both alike count that faith as but idle and worthless belief that does not manifest itself in love to both God and man. As love is the highest expression of God and His relation to mankind, so it must be the highest expression of man\'s relation to his Maker and to his fellow-man.<P>I. Definition.<P>While the Hebrew and Greek words for "love" have various shades and intensities of meaning, they may be summed up in some such definition as this: Love, whether used of God or man, is an earnest and anxious desire for and an active and beneficent interest ins the well-being of the one loved. Different degrees and manifestations of this affection are recognized in the Scriptures according to the circumstances and relations of life, e.g. the expression of love as between husband and wife, parent and child, brethren according to the flesh, and according to grace; between friend and enemy, and, finally, between God and man. It must not be overlooked, however, that the fundamental idea of love as expressed in the definition of it is never absent in any one of these relations of life, even though the manifestation thereof may differ according to the circumstances and relations. Christ\'s interview with the apostle Peter on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',21,\'15-18\');">Joh 21:15-18</a>) sets before us in a most beautiful way the different shades of meaning as found in the New Testament words phileo, and agapao. In the question of Christ, "Lovest thou me more than these?" the Greek verb agapas, denotes the highest, most perfect kind of love (Latin, diligere), implying a clear determination of will and judgment, and belonging particularly to the sphere of Divine revelation. In his answer Peter substitutes the word philo, which means the natural human affection, with its strong feeling, or sentiment, and is never used in Scripture language to designate man\'s love to God. While the answer of Peter, then, claims only an inferior kind of love, as compared to the one contained in Christ\'s question, he nevertheless is confident of possessing at least such love for his Lord.<P>II. The Love of God.<P>First in the consideration of the subject of "love" comes the love of God<6F>He who is love, and from whom all love is derived. The love of God is that part of His nature<72>indeed His whole nature, for "God is love"<22>which leads Him to express Himself in terms of endearment toward His creatures, and actively to manifest that interest and affection in acts of loving care and self-sacrifice in behalf of the objects of His love. God is "love" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,8,16);">1Joh 4:8,16</a>) just as truly as He is "light" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,5);">1Joh 1:5</a>), "truth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,6);">1Joh 1:6</a>), and "spirit" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,24);">Joh 4:24</a>). Spirit and light are expressions of His essential nature; love is the expression of His personality corresponding to His nature. God not merely loves, but is love; it is His very nature, and He imparts this nature to be the sphere in which His children dwell, for "he that abideth in love abideth in God, and God abideth in him" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,16);">1Joh 4:16</a>). Christianity is the only religion that sets forth the Supreme Being as Love. In heathen religions He is set forth as an angry being and in constant need of appeasing.<P>1. Objects of God\'s Love:<P>The object of God\'s love is first and foremost His own Son, Jesus Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,17);">Mt 3:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',17,5);">17:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',20,13);">Lu 20:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,24);">Joh 17:24</a>). The Son shares the love of the Father in a unique sense; He is "my chosen, in whom my soul delighteth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',42,1);">Isa 42:1</a>). There exists an eternal affection between the Son and the Father<65>the Son is the original and eternal object of the Father\'s love (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,24);">Joh 17:24</a>). If God\'s love is eternal it must have an eternal object, hence, Christ is an eternal being.<P>God loves the believer in His Son with a special love. Those who are united by faith and love to Jesus Christ are, in a different sense from those who are not thus united, the special objects of God\'s love. Said Jesus, thou "lovedst them, even as thou lovedst me" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,23);">Joh 17:23</a>). Christ is referring to the fact that, just as the disciples had received the same treatment from the world that He had received, so they had received of the Father the same love that He Himself had received. They were not on the outskirts of God\'s love, but in the very center of it. "For the father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,27);">Joh 16:27</a>). Here phileo is used for love, indicating the fatherly affection of God for the believer in Christ, His Son. This is love in a more intense form than that spoken of for the world (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,16);">Joh 3:16</a>).<P>God loves the world (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,16);">Joh 3:16</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',2,4);">1Ti 2:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,9);">2Pe 3:9</a>). This is a wonderful truth when we realize what a world this is<69>a world of sin and corruption. This was a startling truth for Nicodemus to learn, who conceived of God as loving only the Jewish nation. To him, in his narrow exclusiveism, the announcement of the fact that God loved the whole world of men was startling. God loves the world of sinners lost and ruined by the fall. Yet it is this world, "weak," "ungodly," "without strength," "sinners" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,\'6-8\');">Ro 5:6-8</a>), "dead in trespasses and sins" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,1);">Eph 2:1</a> the King James Version), and unrighteous, that God so loved that He gave His only begotten Son in order to redeem it. The genesis of man\'s salvation lies in the love and mercy of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,4);">Eph 2:4</a>f). But love is more than mercy or compassion; it is active and identifies itself with its object. The love of the heavenly Father over the return of His wandering children is beautifully set forth in the parable of the Prodigal Son (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',15,1);">Lu 15</a>). Nor should the fact be overlooked that God loves not only the whole world, but each individual in it; it is a special as well as a general love (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,16);">Joh 3:16</a>, "whosoever"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,20);">Ga 2:20</a>, "loved me, and gave himself up for me").<P>2. Manifestations of God\'s Love:<P>God\'s love is manifested by providing for the physical, mental, moral and spiritual needs of His people (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',48,14,20,21);">Isa 48:14,20,21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',62,\'9-12\');">62:9-12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',63,3,12);">63:3,12</a>). In these Scriptures God is seen manifesting His power in behalf His people in the time of their wilderness journeying and their captivity. He led them, fed and clothed them, guided them and protected them from all their enemies. His love was again shown in feeling with His people, their sorrows and afflictions (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',63,9);">Isa 63:9</a>); He suffered in their affliction, their interests were His; He was not their adversary but their friend, even though it might have seemed to them as if He either had brought on them their suffering or did not care about it. Nor did He ever forget them for a moment during all their trials. They thought He did; they said, "God hath forgotten us," "He hath forgotten to be gracious"; but no; a mother might forget her child that she should not have compassion on it, but God would never forget His people. How could He? Had He not graven them upon the palms of His hands (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',49,15);">Isa 49:15</a>f)? Rather than His love being absent in the chastisement of His people, the chastisement itself was often a proof of the presence of the Divine love, "for whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,\'6-11\');">Heb 12:6-11</a>). Loving reproof and chastisement are necessary oftentimes for growth in holiness and righteousness. Our redemption from sin is to be attributed to God\'s wondrous love; "Thou hast in love to my soul delivered it from the pit of corruption; for thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',38,17);">Isa 38:17</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',50,21);">Ps 50:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',90,8);">90:8</a>). <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,4);">Eph 2:4</a>f sets forth in a wonderful way how our entire salvation springs forth from the mercy and love of God; "But God, being rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ," etc. It is because of the love of the Father that we are granted a place in the heavenly kingdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,\'6-8\');">Eph 2:6-8</a>). But the supreme manifestation of the love of God, as set forth in the Scripture, is that expressed in the gift of His only-begotten Son to die for the sins of the world (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,16);">Joh 3:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,\'6-8\');">Ro 5:6-8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,9);">1Joh 4:9</a>f), and through whom the sinful and sinning but repentant sons of men are taken into the family of God, and receive the adoption of sons (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,1);">1Joh 3:1</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,\'4-6\');">Ga 4:4-6</a>). From this wonderful love of God in Christ Jesus nothing in heaven or earth or hell, created or uncreated or to be created, shall be able to separate us (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,37);">Ro 8:37</a>f).<P>III. The Love of Man.<P>1. Source of Man\'s Love:<P>Whatever love there is in man, whether it be toward God or toward his fellowman, has its source in God<6F>"Love is of God; and every one that loveth is begotten of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,7);">1Joh 4:7</a>f); "We love, because he first loved us" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,19);">1Joh 4:19</a>). Trench, in speaking of agape, says it is a word born within the bosom of revealed religion. Heathen writers do not use it at all, their nearest approach to it being philanthropia or philadelphia<69>the love betweeen those of the same blood. Love in the heart of man is the offspring of the love of God. Only the regenerated heart can truly love as God loves; to this higher form of love the unregenerate can lay no claim (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,7,19,21);">1Joh 4:7,19,21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,\'7-11\');">2:7-11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,10);">3:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,11);">4:11</a>f). The regenerate man is able to see his fellow-man as God sees him, value him as God values him, not so much because of what he is by reason of his sin and unloveliness, but because of what, through Christ, he may become; he sees man\'s intrinsic worth and possibility in Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,\'14-17\');">2Co 5:14-17</a>). This love is also created in the heart of man by the Holy Ghost (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,5);">Ro 5:5</a>), and is a fruit of the Spirit (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,22);">Ga 5:22</a>). It is also stimulated by the example of the Lord Jesus Christ, who, more than anyone else, manifested to the world the spirit and nature of true love (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,34);">Joh 13:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',15,12);">15:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,20);">Ga 2:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,\'25-27\');">Eph 5:25-27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,9);">1Joh 4:9</a>f).<P>2. Objects of Man\'s Love:<P>God must be the first and supreme object of man\'s love; He must be loved with all the heart, mind, soul and strength (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,37);">Mt 22:37</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,\'29-34\');">Mr 12:29-34</a>). In this last passage the exhortation to supreme love to God is connected with the doctrine of the unity of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',6,4);">De 6:4</a>f)<29>inasmuch as the Divine Being is one and indivisible, so must our love to Him be undivided. Our love to God is shown in the keeping of His commandments (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,6);">Ex 20:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,3);">1Joh 5:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Jo\',1,6);">2Joh 1:6</a>). Love is here set forth as more than a mere affection or sentiment; it is something that manifests itself, not only in obedience to known Divine commands, but also in a protecting and defense of them, and a seeking to know more and more of the will of God in order to express love for God in further obedience (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',10,12);">De 10:12</a>). Those who love God will hate evil and all forms of worldliness, as expressed in the avoidance of the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh and the pride of life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',97,10);">Ps 97:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,\'15-17\');">1Joh 2:15-17</a>). Whatever there may be in his surroundings that would draw the soul away from God and righteousness, that the child of God will avoid. Christ, being God, also claims the first place in our affections. He is to be chosen before father or mother, parent, or child, brother or sister, or friend (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,\'35-38\');">Mt 10:35-38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',14,26);">Lu 14:26</a>). The word "hate" in these passages does not mean to hate in the sense in which we use the word today. It is used in the sense in which Jacob is said to have "hated" Leah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',29,31);">Ge 29:31</a>), that is, he loved her less than Rachel; "He loved also Rachel more than Leah" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',29,30);">Ge 29:30</a>). To love Christ supremely is the test of true discipleship (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',14,26);">Lu 14:26</a>), and is an unfailing mark of the elect (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,8);">1Pe 1:8</a>). We prove that we are really God\'s children by thus loving His Son (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,42);">Joh 8:42</a>). Absence of such love means, finally, eternal separation (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',16,22);">1Co 16:22</a>).<P>Man must love his fellow-man also. Love for the brotherhood is a natural consequence of the love of the fatherhood; for "In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,10);">1Joh 3:10</a>). For a man to say "I love God" and yet hate his fellowman is to brand himself as "a liar" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,20);">1Joh 4:20</a>); "He that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, cannot love God whom he hath not seen" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,20);">1Joh 4:20</a>); he that loveth God will love his brother also (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,21);">1Joh 4:21</a>). The degree in which we are to love our fellow-man is "as thyself" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,39);">Mt 22:39</a>), according to the strict observance of law. Christ set before His followers a much higher example than that, however. According to the teaching of Jesus we are to supersede this standard: "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; even as I have loved you, that ye also love one another" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,34);">Joh 13:34</a>). The exhibition of love of this character toward our fellow-man is the badge of true discipleship. It may be called the sum total of our duty toward our fellow-man, for "Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: love therefore is the fulfillment of the law"; "for he that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the law" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',13,8,10);">Ro 13:8,10</a>). The qualities which should characterize the love which we are to manifest toward our fellow-men are beautifully set forth in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',13,\'1-\');">1Co 13</a>. It is patient and without envy; it is not proud or self-elated, neither does it behave discourteously; it does not cherish evil, but keeps good account of the good; it rejoices not at the downfall of an enemy or competitor, but gladly hails his success; it is hopeful, trustful and forbearing<6E>for such there is no law, for they need none; they have fulfilled the law.<P>Nor should it be overlooked that our Lord commanded His children to love their enemies, those who spoke evil of them, and despitefully used them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,\'43-48\');">Mt 5:43-48</a>). They were not to render evil for evil, but contrariwise, blessing. The love of the disciple of Christ must manifest itself in supplying the necessities, not of our friends only (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,\'16-18\');">1Joh 3:16-18</a>), but also of our enemies (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',12,20);">Ro 12:20</a>f).<P>Our love should be "without hypocrisy" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',12,9);">Ro 12:9</a>); there should be no pretense about it; it should not be a thing of mere word or tongue, but a real experience manifesting itself in deed and truth (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,18);">1Joh 3:18</a>). True love will find its expression in service to man: "Through love be servants one to another" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,13);">Ga 5:13</a>). What more wonderful illustration can be found of ministering love than that set forth by our Lord in the ministry of foot-washing as found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,\'1-\');">Joh 13</a>? Love bears the infirmities of the weak, does not please itself, but seeks the welfare of others (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,\'1-3\');">Ro 15:1-3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,21);">Php 2:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',6,2);">Ga 6:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,24);">1Co 10:24</a>); it surrenders things which may be innocent in themselves but which nevertheless may become a stumbling-block to others (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',14,15,21);">Ro 14:15,21</a>); it gladly forgives injuries (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,32);">Eph 4:32</a>), and gives the place of honor to another (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',12,10);">Ro 12:10</a>). What, then, is more vital than to possess such love? It is the fulfillment of the royal law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',2,8);">Jas 2:8</a>), and is to be put above everything else (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,14);">Col 3:14</a>); it is the binder that holds all the other graces of the Christian life in place (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,14);">Col 3:14</a>); by the possession of such love we know that we have passed from death unto life (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,14);">1Joh 3:14</a>), and it is the supreme test of our abiding in God and God in us (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,12,16);">1Joh 4:12,16</a>).``53';
isbe[5595]='Love, Brotherly``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BROTHERLY+LOVE">BROTHERLY LOVE</a>`1';
isbe[5596]='Love-Feast`luv\'-fest.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=AGAPE">AGAPE</a>`1';
isbe[5597]='Lovely`luv\'-li (\'ahabh, \'ahebh; prosphiles): "Lovely" occurs only 4 times. In <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',1,23);">2Sa 1:23</a> it is the translation of \'ahebh, "to be loved" ("Saul and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant (the King James Version margin "sweet") in their lives"), where it seems to mean "loving" or "lovable." Two other words are so translated in the Old Testament: machmadch, "desire" a "desirable thing" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',5,16);">So 5:16</a>, "He is altogether lovely," that is, "lovable," "to be desired," literally, "all of him lovableness," or "desirableness"); \'aghabhim "loves," or "charms" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',33,32);">Eze 33:32</a>, "Thou art unto them as a very lovely song," the King James Version margin "a song of loves," the Revised Version margin "a love-song"; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',33,31);">33:31</A> the same word is translated "much love," the King James Version margin "They make loves or jests"); in <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,8);">Php 4:8</a> we have prosphiles, "very lovely," or "lovable," "whatsoever things are lovely."``185';
isbe[5598]='Lover`luv\'-er (\'ohebh, \'ahebh): In the Old Testament \'ohebh, from \'ahebh, "to love," is sometimes "lover" in the sense of "friend," in the older English sense of the word (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',5,1);">1Ki 5:1</a>, "Hiram was ever a lover of David"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',38,11);">Ps 38:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',88,18);">88:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',1,2);">La 1:2</a>); more frequently it has the meaning of "lover" in the special sense, sometimes in the evil sense of the word (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',22,20,22);">Jer 22:20,22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',30,14);">30:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',16,33,36);">Eze 16:33,36</a>f; etc.; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',2,5,7,10);">Ho 2:5,7,10</a>, etc.); \'aghabh, "to love" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',4,30);">Jer 4:30</a>), rea\', "companion" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',3,1);">Jer 3:1</a>), and ahabhim, "loves" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',8,9);">Ho 8:9</a>), are also translated "lovers" in this sense.<P>In the New Testament the simple word "lover" does not occur, but we have various compound words, philotheos "lover of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',3,4);">2Ti 3:4</a>); philagathos, "lover of good," and philoxenos, "lover of hospitality" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,8);">Tit 1:8</a>); philautos, "lover of self" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',3,2);">2Ti 3:2</a>); philedonos, "lover of pleasure" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',3,4);">2Ti 3:4</a>).<P>In the Revised Version (British and American) we have, for "a lover of hospitality" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,8);">Tit 1:8</a>), "given to"; for "covetous" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,14);">Lu 16:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',3,2);">2Ti 3:2</a>), "lovers of money"; for "not covetous" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',3,3);">1Ti 3:3</a>), "no lover of money"; for "despisers of them that are good" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',3,3);">2Ti 3:3</a>), "no lovers of good."``185';
isbe[5599]='Loves`luvz (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',45,1);">Ps 45:1, title</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PSALMS">PSALMS</a>`1';
isbe[5600]='Lovingkindness`luv-ing-kind\'-nes (hecedh): "Lovingkindness" in the King James Version always represents this word (30 times), but of hecedh there are many other renderings, e.g. "mercy" (frequently), "kindness" (38 [times]), "goodness" (12 [times]). The word is derived from chacadh, meaning, perhaps, "to bend or bow oneself," "to incline oneself"; hence, "to be gracious or merciful." the English Revised Version has not many changes, but in the American Standard Revised Version "lovingkindness" is invariably employed when checedh is used of God, and, as a rule, "kindness" when it is used of man, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,23);">Ge 21:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,24);">Jud 1:24</a> (the King James Version "mercy," the Revised Version (British and American) "deal kindly"); <a onClick="return mV(\'Rth\',3,10);">Ru 3:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',32,32);">2Ch 32:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',35,26);">35:26</a> (the King James Version "goodness,"\'); margin "Hebrew: kindness" the Revised Version (British and American) "good deeds"); <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',6,14);">Job 6:14</a>, etc. Of the uses of the word as on man\'s part toward God, the only occurrences are: <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',2,2);">Jer 2:2</a>, "I remember for thee the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals," etc.; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',6,4,6);">Ho 6:4,6</a>, "Your goodness (the Revised Version margin "or kindness") is as a morning cloud," "I desire goodness (the King James Version "mercy," the Revised Version margin "Kindness"), and not sacrifice," which last passage may denote kindness as toward man.<P>When used of God checedh denotes, in general, "the Divine Love condescending to His creatures, more especially to sinners, in unmerited kindness" (Delitzsch). It is frequency associated with forgiveness, and is practically equivalent to "mercy" or "mercifulness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,6);">Ex 20:6</a>), "showing lovingkindness (the English Revised Version "mercy") unto thousands of them that love me"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,6);">Ex 34:6</a>f; "slow to anger, and abundant in lovingkindness (the English Revised Version "plenteous in mercy")"; (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,7);">34:7</A>) "keeping lovingkindness (the English Revised Version "mercy") for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,18);">Nu 14:18</a>); <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',7,18);">Mic 7:18</a>, "He retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in lovingkindness" (the English Revised Version "mercy"). This quality in Yahweh was one by which He sought to bind His people to Himself. It is greatly magnified in the Old Testament, highly extolled and gloried in, in many of the psalms (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',136,\'1-\');">Ps 136</a> has the constant refrain, "For his lovingkindness endureth forever"). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',7,12);">De 7:12</a> it is associated with the covenant, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',7,15);">2Sa 7:15</a> with the covenant with David (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',55,3);">Isa 55:3</a>, etc.). It was something that could always be relied on.<P>Being such an essential and distinctive quality of God, the prophets taught that it should also characterize His people. It is part of the Divine requirement in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',6,8);">Mic 6:8</a>, "to love kindness" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',7,9);">Zec 7:9</a>, "Show kindness and compassion every man to his brother"). The want of it in the nation was a cause of Yahweh\'s controversy with them, e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',4,1);">Ho 4:1</a>, "There is no truth, nor goodness (checedh) (the King James Version and the English Revised Version "mercy"), nor knowledge of God in the land"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',12,6);">Ho 12:6</a>, "Therefore turn thou to thy God: keep kindness (the King James Version and the English Revised Version "mercy") and justice, and wait for thy God continually." Cheyne (Encyclopedia Biblica) regards checedh as denoting paternal affection on God\'s part, answered by filial and loyal affection and brotherly love on man\'s part (philadelphia in the New Testament).<P>The word "lovingkindness" does not occur in the New Testament, but as its equivalents we have such terms as "mercy" "goodness," "kindness," "brotherly love" (see special articles).``185';
</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