exlim/blb
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
blb/study/isbe/7300.html

114 lines
329 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[7301]='Reba`re-bek\'-a (rebha\', "fourth part"; Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus Rhobe; Codex Alexandrinus Rhebek): One of the five chieftains of Midian who were slain by the Israelites, under Moses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',31,8);">Nu 31:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,21);">Jos 13:21</a>). Like his comrades, he is termed a "king" in Numbers, but a "chief" or "prince" in Joshua.``1';
isbe[7302]='Rebekah`re-bek\'-a (ribhqah; Septuagint and New Testament Rhebekka, whence the usual English spelling Rebecca): Daughter of Bethuel and an unknown mother, grand-daughter of Nahor and Milcah, sister of Laban, wife of Isaac, mother of Esau and Jacob.<P>Her name is usually explained from the Arabic, rabqat, "a tie-rope for animals," or, rather, "a noose" in such a rope; its application would then by figure suggest the beauty (?) of her that bears it, by means of which men are snared or bound; The root is found in Hebrew only in the noun meaning "hitching-place" or "stall," in the familiar phrase "fatted calf" or "calf of the stall," and in view of the meaning of such names as Rachel and Eglah the name Rebekah might well mean (concrete for abstract, like riqmah, chemdah, etc.) a "tied-up calf" (or "lamb"?), one therefore peculiarly choice and fat.<P>Rebekah is first mentioned in the genealogy of the descendants of Nahor, brother of Abraham (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,\'20-24\');">Ge 22:20-24</a>). In fact, the family is there carried down just so far as is necessary in order to introduce this woman, for whose subsequent appearance and role the genealogy is obviously intended as a preparation. All this branch of the family of Terah had remained in Aram when Abraham and Lot had migrated to Canaan, and it is at Haran, "the city of Nahor," that we first meet Rebekah, when in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,\'1-\');">Genesis 24</a> she is made known to Abraham\'s servant at the well before the gate.<P>That idyllic narrative of the finding of a bride for Isaac is too familiar to need rehearsal and too simple to require comment. Besides, the substance both of that story and of the whole of Rebekah\'s career is treated in connection with the sketches of the other actors in the same scenes. Yet we note from the beginning the maiden\'s decision of character, which appears in every line of the narrative, and prepares the reader to find in subsequent chapters the positive, ambitious and energetic woman that she there shows herself.<P>Though the object of her husband\'s love (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,67);">Ge 24:67</a>), Rebekah bore him no children for 20 years (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,20,26);">Ge 25:20,26</a>). Like Sarah, she too was barren, and it was only after that score of years and after the special intercession of Isaac that God at length granted her twin sons. "The purpose of God according to election," as Paul expresses the matter in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,11);">Ro 9:11</a>, was the cause of that strange oracle to the wondering, inquiring parents, "The elder shall serve the younger" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,23);">Ge 25:23</a>).<P>Whether because of this oracle or for some other reason, it was that younger son, Jacob, who became the object of his mother\'s special love (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,28);">Ge 25:28</a>). She it was who led him into the deception practiced upon Isaac (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,\'5-17\');">Ge 27:5-17</a>), and she it was who devised the plan for extricating Jacob from the dangerous situation into which that deception had brought him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,\'42-46\');">Ge 27:42-46</a>). When the absence of Jacob from home became essential to his personal safety, Rebekah proposed her own relations in Aram as the goal of his journey, and gave as motive the desirability of Jacob\'s marrying from among her kindred. Probably she did not realize that in sending her favorite son away on this journey she was sending him away from her forever. Yet such seems to have been the case. Though younger than Isaac, who was still living at an advanced age when Jacob returned to Canaan a quarter of a century later, Rebekah seems to have died during that term. We learn definitely only this, that she was buried in the cave of Machpelah near Hebron (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,31);">Ge 49:31</a>).<P>Outside of Genesis, Rebekah is alluded to in Scripture only in the passage from Romans (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,10,11,12);">9:10-12</a>) already cited. Her significance there is simply that of the wife of Isaac and the mother of two sons of such different character and destiny as Esau and Jacob. And her significance in Genesis, apart from this, lies in her contribution to the family of Abraham of a pure strain from the same eastern stock, thus transmitting to the founders of Israel both an unmixed lineage and that tradition of separateness from Canaanite and other non-Hebrew elements which has proved the greatest factor in the ethnological marvel of the ages, the persistence of the Hebrew people.``15';
isbe[7303]='Rebuke`re-buk\':As a verb "rebuke" is in the Old Testament the translation of ga\'ar and yakhach; another word, ribh, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',5,7);">Ne 5:7</a>, is in the Revised Version (British and American) translated "contended with." "Rebuke" (noun) is most frequently the translation of ge\'arah; also in the King James Version of cherpah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',25,8);">Isa 25:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',15,15);">Jer 15:15</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "reproach"), and of a few other words signifying reproach, etc. "Rebuker" (mucar, literally, "correction," "chastisement") in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',5,2);">Ho 5:2</a> has the Revised Version margin "Hebrew \'rebuke.\'" In the New Testament "to rebuke" is most often the translation of epitimao (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',8,26);">Mt 8:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,22);">16:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',17,18);">17:18</a>, etc.); also in the King James Version of elegcho, always in the Revised Version (British and American) rendered "reprove" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',5,20);">1Ti 5:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,13);">Tit 1:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',2,15);">2:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,5);">Heb 12:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',3,19);">Re 3:19</a>). Another word is epipletto (once, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',5,1);">1Ti 5:1</a>); "without rebuke" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,15);">Php 2:15</a> is in the Revised Version (British and American) "without blemish." On the other hand, the Revised Version (British and American) has "rebuke" for several words in the King James Version, as for "reprove" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',19,4);">2Ki 19:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',37,4);">Isa 37:4</a>), "reproof" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',26,11);">Job 26:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',17,10);">Pr 17:10</a>), "charged" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,48);">Mr 10:48</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',2,4);">Isa 2:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',4,3);">Mic 4:3</a>, the English Revised Version has "reprove" for "rebuke," and in the margin "decide concerning," which is text in the American Standard Revised Version. In Ecclesiasticus 11:7 we have the wise counsel: "Understand first, and then rebuke" (epitimao).``185';
isbe[7304]='Recah`re\'-ka (rekhah; Codex Vaticanus Rhechab; Codex Alexandrinus Rhepha; the King James Version Rechah): In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,12);">1Ch 4:12</a> certain persons are described as "the men of Recah," but there is absolutely no information either about the place or its position.``1';
isbe[7305]='Receipt of Custom`re-set.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CUSTOM">CUSTOM</a>`1';
isbe[7306]='Receiver`re-sev\'-er: Found in the King James Version (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',33,18);">Isa 33:18</a>); but the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes "he that weighed the tribute." The Hebrew is shoqel, which means "one who weighs," "a weigher."``1';
isbe[7307]='Rechab; Rechabites`re\'-kab, rek\'-a-bits (rekhabh, rekhabhim): Rechab is the name of two men of some prominence in the Old Testament records:<P>(1) A Benjamite of the town of Beeroth, son of Rimmon (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',4,2);">2Sa 4:2</a>); he and his brother Baanah were "captains" of the military host of Ish-bosheth. On the death of Abner (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',3,30);">2Sa 3:30</a>) the two brothers treacherously entered Ish-bosheth\'s house, when at noon he was resting and helpless, beheaded him, and escaped with the head to David at Hebron (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',4,\'6-8\');">2Sa 4:6-8</a>). They expected to receive reward and honor from David for the foul deed, which left him without a rival for the throne of all Israel. But the just and noble-minded king ordered their immediate execution (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',4,\'9-12\');">2Sa 4:9-12</a>), as in the case of the Amalekite, who asserted that he had killed Saul (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',1,\'1-\');">2Sa 1</a>). For some reason the Beerothites left their own town and fled to Gittaim, another town in Benjamin, where they were still living when the Books of Samuel were written (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',4,3);">2Sa 4:3</a>).<P>(2) The more prominent of the men bearing this name was a Kenite (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KENITES">KENITES</a>), a descendant of Hammath (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,55);">1Ch 2:55</a>). A part of the Kenite tribe joined the Israelites during the wilderness wanderings (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',10,\'29-32\');">Nu 10:29-32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,16);">Jud 1:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',4,17);">4:17</a>), becoming identified with the tribe of Judah, although Heber and Jael his wife were settled in Northern Palestine (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',4,17);">Jud 4:17</a>). Rechab was the ancestor or founder of a family, or order, in Israel known as the Rechabites, who at various times were conspicuous in the religious life of the nation. The most notable member of this family was Jehonadab (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',10,15,23);">2Ki 10:15ff, 23</a>), or Jonadab, as he is called in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',35,\'1-\');">Jer 35</a>. Jehonadab was a zealous Yahweh-worshipper and took part with Jehu in the extirpation of Baal-worship and the house of Ahab. He set for his descendants a vow of asceticism: that they should drink no wine, nor plant fields or vineyards, nor build nor live in houses throughout their generations (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',35,6,7);">Jer 35:6,7</a>). That must have been a singular feature in Palestinian life: the simple, nomadic life of this family from generation to generation in the midst of settled agricultural and industrial conditions! They followed this simple life in order to guard against the enervating tendencies of sensualism, and as a covenant of fidelity to Yahweh, to whom they wholly devoted themselves when they joined themselves to Israel. Jeremiah used the Rechabites, who had been driven into Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar\'s investment of the land, as an object-lesson to covenant-breaking Judah. The Rechabites, hungry and thirsty, refused wine when it was set before them, because of the command of their ancestor Jonadab (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',35,\'8-10\');">Jer 35:8-10</a>); but Judah refused to heed Yahweh\'s commands or to keep His covenant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',35,14,15);">Jer 35:14,15</a>).<P>If the Rechab of <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',3,14);">Ne 3:14</a> is the same as this Kenite, then his descendant Malchijah, who assisted Nehemiah in rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem, may have abandoned the vow of his ancestors, for he was "ruler of the district of Beth-haccherem" (i.e. "house of the vineyard").``109';
isbe[7308]='Rechah`re\'-ka (rekhah).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RECAH">RECAH</a>`1';
isbe[7309]='Reclining`re-klin\'-ing (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,23);">Joh 13:23</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MEALS">MEALS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TRICLINIUM">TRICLINIUM</a>`1';
isbe[7310]='Reconcile; Reconciliation`rek\'-on-sil, rek-on-sil-i-a\'-shun katallasso, katallage, also the compound form apokatallasso; once the cognate diallassomai is used in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,24);">Mt 5:24</a>):<P>1. The Terms<P class="in15">(1) New Testament Usage<P class="in15">(2) Old Testament Usage<P class="in15">(3) Special Passage in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',29,4);">1 Samuel 29:4</a><P class="in15">(4) Usage in the Apocrypha<P>2. Non-doctrinal Passage<67><a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,24);">Matthew 5:24</a><P>3. Doctrinal Passages<P class="in15">(1) <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,\'1-\');">Romans 5</a><P class="in15">(2) <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,\'18-20\');">2 Corinthians 5:18-20</a><P class="in15">(3) <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,16);">Ephesians 2:16</a><P class="in15">(4) <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,\'20-22\');">Colossians 1:20-22</a><P>LITERATURE<HR /><P>1. The Terms:<P>(1) New Testament Usage.<P>In the last case, <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,24);">Mt 5:24</a>, the word is not used in a doctrinal sense, though its use is very helpful in considering the force of the other terms. All the other instances are in Paul\'s Epistles (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,10);">Ro 5:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',7,11);">1Co 7:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,\'18-20\');">2Co 5:18-20</a>, the verb; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,11);">Ro 5:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',11,15);">11:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,18,19);">2Co 5:18,19</a>, the noun; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,16);">Eph 2:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,22);">Col 1:22</a>, the compound). The word "reconcile" has a double meaning and usage, and the context must in each case determine how it is to be taken. The great doctrine is the reconciliation of God and men, but the question to be decided is whether it is God who is reconciled to men, or men who are reconciled to God, and different schools of theology emphasize one side or the other. The true view embraces both aspects. The word "to reconcile" means literally to exchange, to bring into a changed relationship. Some maintain that it is only a change in the sinner that is intended, a laying aside of his enmity, and coming into peaceful relations with God. But that manifestly does not exhaust the meaning, nor is it in the great Pauline passages the primary and dominant meaning.<P>(2) Old Testament Usage.<P>The Old Testament usage does not materially help in the elucidation of the New Testament terms, for though the word occurs in a number of passages in the King James Version, it is in the Revised Version (British and American) generally changed to "atonement," which more accurately represents the Hebrew kaphar, which is generally rendered by "atonement," and by hilaskomai or exilaskomai in the Greek (In one passage of the New Testament (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,17);">Heb 2:17</a>), the phrase "to make reconciliation" represents the Greek hilaskomai, and is better rendered in the Revised Version (British and American) by "to make propitiation.") The making atonement or propitiation is the basis of the reconciliation, the means of its accomplishment, and the fact that the translators of the King James Version sometimes rendered kaphar by "reconcile" shows that they understood reconciliation to have the Godward aspect. Whatever may be said of the nature of the atonement or propitiation in the old dispensation, it was something contemplated as appeasing or satisfying, or at least in some way affecting God so as to make Him willing, or render it possible for Him, to enter into, or abide in, gracious relations with men. In one passage in the Old Testament where "reconciliation" occurs (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',29,24);">2Ch 29:24</a>) it represents a different Hebrew word, but here the Revised Version (British and American) has changed it into "sin-offering," which is in harmony with the general meaning and usage of the Hebrew.<P>(3) Special Passage in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',29,4);">1 Samuel 29:4</a>.<P>There is yet another Hebrew word rendered "reconcile" in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',29,4);">1Sa 29:4</a>, and inasmuch as this passage in the Septuagint has as the equivalent of the Hebrew the Greek word diallasso, it is of some importance in guiding to the New Testament meaning. On one occasion when the Philistines gathered together to battle against Israel, David and his band of men accompanied Achish king of Gath to the muster-place. "The princes of the Philistines" did not at all appreciate the presence of "these Hebrews," and although Achish testified in favor of David\'s fidelity, they were very indignant, and demanded that David and his men be sent back, "lest in the battle he become an adversary to us: for wherewith should this fellow reconcile himself unto his lord? should it not be with the heads of these men?" The Hebrew is ratsah, which means "to be pleased with" or "to accept favorably," and the Hithpael form here used is "to make himself pleasing or acceptable," "to reconcile himself." But assuredly the Philistines\' idea of David reconciling himself to Saul was not that he should lay aside his enmity against Saul, and so become friends with him. The enmity was on Saul\'s side, and the thought of the princes was that David by turning against them in the battle would gratify Saul, and lead him to lay aside his enmity against David.<P>(4) Usage in the Apocrypha.<P>It may be noted that in 2Macc 5:20, katallage is used evidently of the Godward side: "And the place which was forsaken in the wrath of the Almighty was, at the reconciliation of the great Sovereign, restored again with all glory." The verb occurs in 2Macc 1:5 when again the Godward side seems intended, though not perhaps so certainly: "May God...hearken to your supplications, and be reconciled with you," and in 7:33: "If for rebuke and chastening our living Lord has been angered a little while, yet shall he again be reconciled with his own servants," and 8:29: "They besought the merciful Lord to be wholly reconciled with his servants." In these two, especially the last, it is unquestionably the laying aside of the divine displeasure that is meant.<P>2. Non-doctrinal Passage<67><a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,24);">Matthew 5:24</a>:<P>Before passing on to look at the great utterances in the Epistles, we may now look at the non-doctrinal passage referred to at the beginning. There is, indeed, another non-doctrinal instance in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',7,11);">1Co 7:11</a>, where the wife who has departed from her husband is enjoined either to "remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband." But as it is indeterminate whether the wife or the husband is the offending party, and so which is the one to be influenced, the passage does not help us much. But <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,24);">Mt 5:24</a> is a very illuminating passage. Here as in the passage from 1 Samuel, the word used is diallasso, but it is practically identified in meaning with katallasso. The injunction is given by Christ to the one who is at variance with his brother, not to complete his offering until first he has been reconciled to his brother. But the whole statement shows that it is not a question of the one who is offering the gift laying aside his enmity against his brother, but the reverse. Christ says, "If therefore thou art offering thy gift at the altar, and there rememberest (not that thou hast a grudge against thy brother but) that thy brother hath aught against thee"<22>the brother was the offended one, he is the one to be brought round<6E>"leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift." Plainly it means that he should do something to remove his brother\'s displeasure and so bring about a reconciliation.<P>3. Doctrinal Passages:<P>(1) <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,\'1-\');">Romans 5</a>.<P>Turning now to <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,\'1-\');">Ro 5</a>, how stands the matter? Paul has been speaking of the blessed results of justification; one of these results is the shedding abroad of the love of God in the heart. Then he dwells upon the manifestation of that love in the death of Christ, a love that was displayed to the loveless, and he argues that if in our sinful and unloving state we were embraced by the love of God, a fortiori that love will not be less now that it has already begun to take effect. If He loved us when we were under His condemnation sufficiently to give His Son to die for our salvation, much more shall His love bestow upon us the blessings secured by that death. "Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,9);">Ro 5:9</a>).<P>(a) The Fact of Divine Wrath:<P>It is well to note, then, that there is "wrath" on the part of God against sin and sinners. One of the key-thoughts of the apostle in this epistle is that "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,18);">Ro 1:18</a>), and the coming day of judgment is "the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,5);">Ro 2:5</a>). And because of this stern fact, the gospel is a revelation not only of love, but specifically "a righteousness of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,17);">Ro 1:17</a>). And he shows that the essence of the gospel is found in the propitiatory death of the Lord Jesus Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,24,25,26);">Ro 3:24,25,26</a>), through whom alone can men who have been "brought under the judgment of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,19);">Ro 3:19</a>) find justification, salvation, deliverance from the wrath of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',4,25);">Ro 4:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,\'1-6\');">5:1-6</a>). Of course it is not necessary to add that the wrath of God is not to be thought of as having any unworthy or capricious element in it<69>it is the settled opposition of His holy nature against sin.<P>(b) Reconciliation, Godward, as Well as Manward:<P>The apostle proceeds (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,10);">Ro 5:10</a>): "For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by his life." Now if, as many maintain, it is only the reconciliation on the manward side that is meant, that the manifested love led to the sinner laying aside his enmity, it would entirely reverse the apostle\'s argument. He is not arguing that if we have begun to love God we may reckon upon His doing so and so for us, but because He has done so much, we may expect Him to do more. The verse is parallel to the preceding, and the being reconciled is on the same plane as being justified; the being justified was God\'s action, and so is the reconciling. Justification delivers from "the wrath of God"; reconciliation takes effect upon enemies.<P>(c) The Meaning of the Word "Enemies":<P>The word "enemies" is important. By those who take the manward aspect of reconciliation as the only one, it is held that the word must be taken actively<6C>those who hate God. But the passive meaning, "hatred of God," seems far the preferable, and is indeed demanded by the context. Paul uses the verb echthroi, "enemies," in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',11,28);">Ro 11:28</a>, in antithesis to "beloved" of God, and that is the consistent sense here. The enemies are those who are the objects of the wrath of the previous verse. And when we were thus hated of God, the objects of His just displeasure on account of our sin, "we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son." God laid aside His enmity, and in the propitiatory death of Christ showed Himself willing to receive us into His favor.<P>(d) The Manward Side:<P>By this propitiation, therefore, the barrier was removed, and, God having assumed a gracious attitude toward the sinner, it is possible for the sinner now, influenced by His love, to come into a friendly relationship with God. And so in the second phrase, the two meanings, the Godward and the manward, may coalesce: "being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." The reconciliation becomes mutual, for there is no kind of doubt that sinners are enemies to God in the active sense, and require to lay aside their hostility, and so be reconciled to Him. But the first step is with God, and the reconciliation which took place in the death of His Son could only be the Godward reconciliation, since at that time men were still uninfluenced by His love. But, perhaps, just because that first reconciliation is brought about through the divine love which provides the propitiation, the apostle avoids saying "God is reconciled," but uses the more indirect form of speech. The manward aspect is emphasized in the next verse, although the Godward is not lost sight of: "We also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,11);">Ro 5:11</a>). It is therefore something that comes from God and does not proceed from man. God is the first mover; He makes the reconciliation as already indicated, and then the fruit of it is imputed to the believing sinner, and the very fact that our receiving the reconciliation, or being brought into a state of reconciliation; follows the being reconciled of <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,10);">Ro 5:10</a>, shows that the other is divine reconciliation as the basis of the human.<P>(2) <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,\'18-20\');">2 Corinthians 5:18-20</a>.<P>(a) The Godward Aspect Primary:<P>In the same way the great passage in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,\'18-20\');">2Co 5:18-20</a> cannot be understood apart from the conception that there is a reconciliation on the divine side. There is unquestionably reference to the human side of the matter as well, but, as in Romans, the Godward aspect is primary and dominating: "All things are of God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation." It might be possible to argue from the King James Version that this describes the process going on under gospel influences, men being brought into gracious relations with God, but the aorist of the Greek rightly rendered by the Revised Version (British and American), "who reconciled us to himself," points back to the historic time when the transaction took place. It cannot be simply the surrender of the sinner to God that is meant, though that comes as a consequence; it is a work that proceeds from God, is accomplished by God, and because of the accomplishment of that work it is possible for a ministry of reconciliation to be entrusted to men. To make this mean the human aspect of the reconciliation, it would be necessary unduly to confine it to the reconciliation of Paul and his fellow-workers, though even then it would be a straining of language, for there is the other historic act described, "and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation." The plain meaning is that through Jesus Christ, God established the basis of agreement, removed the barrier to the sinner\'s approach to Himself, accomplished the work of propitiation, and, having done so, He entrusts His servants with the ministry of reconciliation, a ministry which, basing itself upon the great propitiatory, reconciling work of Christ, is directed toward men, seeking to remove their enmity, to influence them in their turn to be reconciled with God. This is more clearly set forth in the verse which follows, which in explaining the ministry of reconciliation says: "To wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses." Here there can be no question that the historic Incarnation is meant, and the reconciling of the world can be nothing other than the objective work of atonement culminating in the cross. And in that transaction there can be no thought of the sinner laying aside his hostility to God; it is God in Christ so dealing with sin that the doom lying upon the guilty is canceled, the wrath is averted, propitiation is made.<P>(b) The Manward Side also Prominent:<P>God, in a word, enters into gracious relations with a world of sinners, becomes reconciled to man. This being done, gracious influences can be brought to bear upon man, the chief of which is the consideration of this stupendous fact of grace, that God has in Christ dealt with the question of sin. This is the substance of the "word of reconciliation" which is preached by the apostle. So he continues, "We are ambassadors therefore on behalf of Christ, as though God were entreating by us: we beseech you on behalf of Christ, be ye reconciled to God." Here is the human side. The great matter now is to get the sinner to lay aside his enmity, to respond to the gracious overtures of the gospel, to come into harmony with God. But that is only possible because the reconciliation in the Godward aspect has already been accomplished. If the first reconciliation, "the reconciliation of the world unto himself," had been the laying aside of human enmity, there could now be no point in the exhortation, "Be ye reconciled to God."<P>(3) <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,16);">Ephesians 2:16</a>.<P>The two passages where the compound word occurs are in complete harmony with this interpretation. <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,16);">Eph 2:16</a>: "And might reconcile them both (Jew and Gentile) in one body unto God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby," is the outcome of Christ "making peace" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,15);">2:15</A>), and the reconciling work is effected through the cross, reconciliation both Godward and manward, and, having made peace, it is possible for Christ to come and preach peace to them that are far off<66>far off even though the reconciling work of the cross has been accomplished.<P>(4) <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,\'20-22\');">Colossians 1:20-22</a>.<P>So in <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,20);">Col 1:20</a>, "And through him to reconcile all things unto himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross; through him, I say, whether things upon the earth, or things in the heavens." Here the thought of the apostle trembles away into infinity, and there seems a parallel to the thought of <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,23);">Heb 9:23</a>, that according to the typical teaching even "the things in the heavens" in some way stood in need of cleansing. May it be that the work of Christ in some sense affected the angelic intelligence, making it possible for harmony to be restored between redeemed sinners and the perfect creation of God? In any case, the reconciling all things unto Himself is not the laying aside of the creaturely hostility, but the determining of the divine attitude. Then comes the specific reference to the human side, "And you, being in time past alienated and enemies in your mind in your evil works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death"; there, as in Romans, the two phases coalescing, God appearing gracious through the work of Christ, sinners coming into gracious relation with Him. "Having made peace through the blood of his cross," the ground of peace has been established. Christ has done something by His death which makes it possible to offer peace to men. God has laid aside His holy opposition to the sinner, and shows Himself willing to bring men into peace with Himself. He has found satisfaction in that great work of His Son, has been reconciled, and now calls upon men to be reconciled to Him<69>to receive the reconciliation.<P>LITERATURE.<P>See the works on New Testament Theology of Weiss, Schmid, Stevens, etc.; Denney, Death of Christ; articles on "Reconciliation" in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes), Hastings, Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, etc.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ATONEMENT">ATONEMENT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PROPITIATION">PROPITIATION</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WRATH">WRATH</a>`110';
isbe[7311]='Record`rek\'-ord, rek\'-ord:<P>(1) The English word, where it occurs in the Old Testament and the New Testament in the sense of testimony, is translated in the Revised Version (British and American) "witness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',30,19);">De 30:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',31,28);">31:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,19,32);">Joh 1:19,32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,13,14);">8:13,14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',10,2);">Ro 10:2</a>, etc.). See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WITNESS">WITNESS</A>. But in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',16,19);">Job 16:19</a> for the King James Version "my record," the Revised Version (British and American) has "he that voucheth for me."<P>(2) In <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,15);">Ezr 4:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',6,2);">6:2</a> (dokhran, dikhron), and <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',6,1);">Es 6:1</a> (zikkaron), the word denotes Persian state chronicles; compare 1Macc 14:23; 2Macc 2:1.``1';
isbe[7312]='Recorder`re-kor\'-der (mazkir; the Revised Version margin "chronicler"): A high functionary in the court of the Jewish kings, part of whose duty seems to have been to chronicle the events of the reign, but who also occupied a position corresponding with that of the modern vizier (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',8,16);">2Sa 8:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',20,24);">20:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',18,15);">1Ch 18:15</a>, etc.). His high rank is shown by the facts that, with other officers, he represented Hezekiah in speaking with Rabshakeh (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',18,18);">2Ki 18:18</a>), and, in the reign of Josiah, superintended the repairs of the temple (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',34,8);">2Ch 34:8</a>).``1';
isbe[7313]='Recover`re-kuv\'-er: "Recover" has<P>(1) the transitive meaning of "to retake" or "regain" (anything); and<P>(2) the intransitive sense of "to regain health" or "become well."<P>In Judith 14:7 it means "restore to consciousness." In the former sense it is in the Old Testament the translation of natsal, "to snatch away" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',11,26);">Jud 11:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',30,8,22);">1Sa 30:8,22</a>; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',2,9);">Ho 2:9</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "pluck away"); also of shubh (Qal and Hiphil <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',30,19);">1Sa 30:19</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',8,3);">2Sa 8:3</a>, etc.), and of various other words in single instances. In <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',5,3,6,7,11);">2Ki 5:3,6,7,11</a>, "to restore to health" is \'acaph. In its intransitive sense "recover" is chiefly the translation of chayah, "to live," "revive" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',1,2);">2Ki 1:2</a>, etc.; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',38,9,21);">Isa 38:9,21</a>). "Recover" appears only twice in the King James Version of the New Testament; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',16,18);">Mr 16:18</a> (for kalos hexousin) and <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',2,26);">2Ti 2:26</a> (from ananepho, the Revised Version margin "Greek: \'return to soberness\' "); but the Revised Version (British and American) has "recover" for "do well" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,12);">Joh 11:12</a> (sothesetai; margin "Greek: \'be saved\'"). "Recovering" (of sight) (anablepsis) occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,18);">Lu 4:18</a>.``185';
isbe[7314]='Red``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=COLORS">COLORS</a>`1';
isbe[7315]='Red Dragon``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=REVELATION+OF+JOHN">REVELATION OF JOHN</a>`1';
isbe[7316]='Red Heifer``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HEIFER+RED">HEIFER, RED</a>`1';
isbe[7317]='Red Horse``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HORSE+RED">HORSE, RED</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=REVELATION+OF+JOHN">REVELATION OF JOHN</a>`1';
isbe[7318]='Red Sea`(yam-cuph (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',10,19);">Ex 10:19</a> and often), but in many passages it is simply hayam, "the sea"\' Septuagint with 2 or 3 exceptions renders it by he eruthra thalassa, "the Red Sea"; Latin geographers Mare Rubrum):<P>1. Name<P>2. Peculiarities<P>3. Old Testament References<P>4. Passage through the Red Sea by the Israelites<P class="in15">Objections<P class="in15">(1) Steep Banks of the Channel<P class="in15">(2) Walls Formed by the Water<P class="in15">(3) The East Winds<P class="in15">(4) The Miraculous Set Aside<P>LITERATURE<hr /><P>1. Name:<P>The Hebrew name yam-cuph has given rise to much controversy. Yam is the general word for sea, and when standing alone may refer to the Mediterranean, the Dead Sea, the Red Sea, or the Sea of Galilee. In several places it designates the river Nile or Euphrates. Cuph means a rush or seaweed such as abounds in the lower portions of the Nile and the upper portions of the Red Sea. It was in the cuph on the brink of the river that the ark of Moses was hidden (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,3,5);">Ex 2:3,5</a>). But as this word does not in itself mean red, and as that is not the color of the bulrush, authorities are much divided as to the reason for this designation. Some have supposed that it was called red from the appearance of the mountains on the western coast, others from the red color given to the water by the presence of zoophytes, or red coral, or some species of seaweed. Others still, with considerable probability, suppose that the name originated in the red or copper color of the inhabitants of the bordering Arabian peninsula. But the name yam-cuph, though applied to the whole sea, was especially used with reference to the northern part, which is alone mentioned in the Bible, and to the two gulfs (Suez and Aqabah) which border the Sinaitic Peninsula, especially the Gulf of Suez.<P>2. Pecularities:<P>The Red Sea has a length of 1,350 miles and an extreme breadth of 205 miles. It is remarkable that while it has no rivers flowing into it and the evaporation from its surface is enormous, it is not much salter than the ocean, from which it is inferred that there must be a constant influx of water from the Indian Ocean through the Straits of Bab-el-Mandeb, together with an outflow of the more saline water beneath the surface. The deepest portion measures 1,200 fathoms. Owing to the lower land levels which prevailed in recent geological times, the Gulf of Suez formerly extended across the lowland which separates it from the Bitter Lakes, a distance of 15 or 20 miles now traversed by the Suez Canal, which encountered no elevation more than 30 ft. above tide. In early historic times the Gulf ended at Ismailia at the head of Lake Timsah. north of this the land rises to a height of more than 50 ft. and for a long time furnished a road leading from Africa into Asia. At a somewhat earlier geological (middle and late Tertiary) period the depression of the land was such that this bridge was also submerged, so that the Red Sea and the Mediterranean were connected by a broad expanse of water which overflowed the whole surface of Lower Egypt.<P>The evidence of the more recent depression of the land surface in all Lower Egypt is unmistakable. Raised beaches containing shells and corals still living in the Red Sea are found at various levels up to more than 200 ft. above tide. One of the most interesting of these is to be seen near the summit of the "Crow\'s Nest," a half-mile south of the great pyramids, where, near the summit of the eminence, and approximately 200 ft. above tide, on a level with the base of the pyramids, there is a clearly defined recent sea beach composed of water-worn pebbles from 1 inches to 1 or 2 ft. in diameter, the interstices of which are filled with small shells loosely cemented together. These are identified as belonging to a variable form, Alectryonia cucullata Born, which lives at the present time in the Red Sea. On the opposite side of the river, on the Mokattam Hills south of Cairo, at an elevation of 220 ft. above tide, similar deposits are found containing numerous shells of recent date, while the rock face is penetrated by numerous borings of lithodomus mollusks (Pholades rugosa Broc.). Other evidences of the recent general depression of the land in this region come from various places on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean. According to Lartet at Ramleh, near Jaffa, a recent beach occurs more than 200 ft. above sea-level containing many shells of Pectunculus violascens Lamk, which is at the present time the most abundant mollusk on the shore of the adjoining Mediterranean. A similar beach has been described by Dr. Post at Lattakia, about 30 miles north of Beirut; while others, according to Hull, occur upon the island of Cyprus. Further evidence of this depression is also seen in the fact that the isthmus between Suez and the Bitter Lakes is covered with recent deposits of Nile mud, holding modern Red Sea shells, showing that, at no very distant date, there was an overflow of the Nile through an eastern branch into this slightly depressed level. The line of this branch of the Nile overflow was in early times used for a canal, which has recently been opened to furnish fresh water to Suez, and the depression is followed by the railroad. According to Dawson, large surfaces of the desert north of Suez, which are now above sea-level, contain buried in the sand "recent marine shells in such a state of preservation that not many centuries may have elapsed since they were in the bottom of the sea" (Egypt and Syria, 67).<P>3. Old Testament References:<P>The Red Sea is connected with the children of Israel chiefly through the crossing of it recorded in Exodus (see 4, below); but there are a few references to it in later times. Solomon is said (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',9,26);">1Ki 9:26</a>) to have built a navy at "Ezion-geber, which is beside Eloth, on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom." This is at the head of the Gulf of Aqabah, the eastern branch of the Red Sea. Here his ships were manned by Hiram king of Tyre with "shipmen that had knowledge of the sea" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',9,27);">1Ki 9:27</a>). And (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',9,28);">1Ki 9:28</a>) "they came to Ophir, and fetched from thence gold." But Eloth was evidently lost to Israel when Edom successfully revolted in the time of Joram (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',8,20);">2Ki 8:20</a>). For a short time, however, it was restored to Judah by Amaziah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',14,22);">2Ki 14:22</a>); but finally, during the reign of Ahaz, the Syrians, or more probably, according to another reading, the Edomites, recovered the place and permanently drove the Jews away. But in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',22,48);">1Ki 22:48</a> Jehoshaphat is said to have "made ships of Tarshish to go to Ophir for gold: but they went not; for the ships were broken at Ezion-geber"; while in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',20,36);">2Ch 20:36</a> Jehoshaphat is said to have joined with Ahaziah "to make ships to go to Tarshish; and they made the ships in Ezion-geber."<P>Unless there is some textual confusion here, "ships of Tarshish:" is simply the name of the style of the ship, like "East Indiaman," and Tarshish in Chronicles may refer to some place in the East Indies. This is the more likely, since Solomon\'s "navy" that went to Tarshish once every 3 years came "bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks," which could hardly have come from any other place than India.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHIPS+AND+BOATS">SHIPS AND BOATS, II,1,(2)</a>.<P>4. Passage through the Red Sea by the Israelites:<P>Until in recent times it was discovered that the Gulf of Suez formerly extended 30 miles northward to the site of the present Ismailia and the ancient Pithom, the scene of the Biblical miracle was placed at Suez, the present head of the Gulf. But there is at Suez no extent of shoal water sufficient for the east wind mentioned in Scripture (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,21);">Ex 14:21</a>) to have opened a passage-way sufficiently wide to have permitted the host to have crossed over in a single night. The bar leading from Suez across, which is now sometimes forded, is too insignificant to have furnished a passage-way as Robinson supposed (BR(3), I, 56-59). Besides, if the children of Israel were south of the Bitter Lakes when there was no extension of the Gulf north of its present limits, there would have been no need of a miracle to open the water, since there was abundant room for both them and Pharaoh\'s army to have gone around the northern end of the Gulf to reach the eastern shore, while south of Suez the water is too deep for the wind anywhere to have opened a passage-way. But with an extension of the waters of the Gulf to the Bitter Lakes and Lake Timsah, rendered probable by the facts cited in the previous paragraph, the narrative at once so perfectly accords with the physical conditions involved as to become not only easily credible, but self-evidencing.<P>The children of Israel were at Rameses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,37);">Ex 12:37</a>) in the land of Goshen, a place which has not been certainly identified, but could not have been far from the modern Zagazig at the head of the Fresh Water Canal leading from the Nile to the Bitter Lakes. One day\'s journey eastward along Wady Tumilat, watered by this canal brought them to Succoth, a station probably identical with Thuket, close upon the border line separating Egypt from Asia. Through the discoveries of Naville in 1883 this has been identified as Pithom, one of the store-cities built by Pharaoh during the period of Hebrew oppression (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,11);">Ex 1:11</a>). Here Naville uncovered vast store pits for holding grain built during the reign of Rameses II and constructed according to the description given in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,\'1-\');">Ex 1</a>: the lower portions of brick made with straw, the middle with stubble, and the top of simple clay without even stubble to hold the brick together (see Naville, "The Store-City Pithom and the Route of the Exodus," Egyptian Exploration Fund, 1885; M. G. Kyle, "A Re-examination of Naville\'s Works," Records of the Past, VIII,1901,304-7). The next day\'s journey brought them to Etham on the "edge of the wilderness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,20);">Ex 13:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,6);">Nu 33:6</a>), probably in the vicinity of the modern Ismailia at the head of Lake Timsah. From this point the natural road to Palestine would have been along the caravan route on the neck of land referred to above as now about 50 ft. above sea-level. Etham was about 30 miles southeast of Zoan or Tanis, the headquarters at that time of Pharaoh, from which he was watching the movements of the host. If they should go on the direct road to Palestine, his army could easily execute a flank movement and intercept them in the desert of Etham. But by divine command (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,2);">Ex 14:2</a>) Moses turned southward on the west side of the extension of the Red Sea and camped "before Pihahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, before Baal-zephon" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,22);">Ex 14:22</a> <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,\'5-7\');">Nu 33:5-7</a>). At this change of course Pharaoh was delighted, seeing that the children of Israel were "entangled in the land" and "the wilderness" had "shut them in." Instead of issuing a flank movement upon them, Pharaoh\'s army now followed them in the rear and "overtook them encamping by the sea, beside Pi-hahiroth," the location of which is essential to a proper understanding of the narrative which follows.<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,2);">Ex 14:2</a>, Pi-hahiroth is said to be "between Migdol and the sea, before Baal-zephon." Now though Migdol originally meant "watch-tower," it is hardly supposable that this can be its meaning here, otherwise the children of Israel would have been moving directly toward a fortified place. Most probably, therefore, Migdol was the tower-like mountain peak marking the northeast corner of Jebel Geneffeh, which runs parallel with the Bitter Lakes, only a short distance from their western border. Baal-zephon may equally well be some of the mountain peaks on the border of the Wilderness of Paran opposite Cheloof, midway between the Bitter Lakes and Suez. In the clear atmosphere of the region this line of mountains is distinctly visible throughout the whole distance from Ismailia to Suez. There would seem to be no objection to this supposition, since all authorities are in disagreement concerning its location. From the significance of the name it would seem to be the seat of some form of Baal worship, naturally a mountain. Brugsch would identify it with Mr. Cassius on the northern shore of Egypt. Naville (see Murray\'s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, "Red Sea, Passage of") would connect it with the hill called Tussum east of Lake Timsah, where there is a shrine at the present day visited every year about July 14 by thousands of pilgrims to celebrate a religious festival; but, as this is a Mohammedan festival, there seems no reason to connect it with any sanctuary of the Canaanites. Dawson favors the general location which we have assigned to Pi-hahiroth, but would place it beside the narrow southern portion of the Bitter Lakes.<P>Somewhere in this vicinity would be a most natural place for the children of Israel to halt, and there is no difficulty, such as Naville supposes, to their passing between Jebel Geneffeh and the Bitter Lakes; for the mountain does not come abruptly to the lake, but leaves ample space for the passage of a caravan, while the mountain on one side and the lake on the other would protect them from a flank movement by Pharaoh and limit his army to harassing the rear of the Israelite host. Protected thus, the Israelites found a wide plain over which they could spread their camp, and if we suppose them to be as far south as Cheloof, every condition would be found to suit the narrative which follows. Moses was told by the Lord that if he would order the children of Israel to go forward, the sea would be divided and the children of Israel could cross over on dry ground. And when, in compliance with the divine command, Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, "Yahweh caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all the night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left. And the Egyptians pursued, and went in after them into the midst of the sea, all Pharaoh\'s horses, his chariots, and his horsemen" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,\'21-30\');">Ex 14:21-30</a>). But when the children of Israel were safely on the other side the waters returned and overwhelmed the entire host of Pharaoh. In the So of Moses which follows, describing the event, it is said that the waters were piled up by the "blast of thy (God\'s) nostrils" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,8);">Ex 15:8</a>), and again, verse 10, "Thou didst blow with thy wind, the sea covered them." Thus 3 times the wind is mentioned as the means employed by God in opening the water. The competency of the wind temporarily to remove the water from the passage connecting the Gulf of Suez with the Bitter Lakes, provided it was only a few feet deep, is amply proved by facts of recent observation. Major General Tullock of the British army (Proc. Victoria Inst., XXVIII, 267-80) reports having witnessed the driving off of the water from Lake Menzaleh by the wind to such an extent as to lower the level 6 ft., thus leaving small vessels over the shallow water stranded for a while in the muddy bottom. According to the report of the Suez Canal Company, the difference between the highest and the lowest water at Suez <span class="noTag">is</span> 10 ft. 7 inches, all of which must be due to the effect of the wind, since the tides do not affect the Red Sea. The power of the wind to affect water levels is strikingly witnessed upon Lake Erie in the United States, where according to the report of the Deep Waterways Commission for 1896 (165, 168) it appears that strong wind from the southwest sometimes lowers the water at Toledo, Ohio, on the western end of the lake to the extent of more than 7 ft., at the same time causing it to rise at Buffalo at the eastern end a similar amount; while a change in the wind during the passage of a single storm reverses the effect, thus sometimes producing a change of level at either end of the lake of 14 ft. in the course of a single day. It would require far less than a tornado to lower the water at Cheloof sufficiently to lay bare the shallow channel which we have supposed at that time to separate Egypt from the Sinaitic Peninsula.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS,+THE">EXODUS, THE</a>.<P>Objections:<P>Several objections to this theory, however, have been urged which should not pass without notice.<P>(1) Steep Banks of the Channel:<P>Some have said that the children of Israel would have found an insuperable obstacle to their advance in the steep banks on either side of the supposed channel. But there were no steep banks to be encountered. A gentle sag leads down on one side to the center of the depression and a correspondingly gentle rise leads up on the other.<P>(2) Walls Formed by the Water:<P>Much has also been made of the statement (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,22);">Ex 14:22</a>) that "the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left"; but when we consider the rhetorical use of this word "wall" it presents no difficulty. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',18,11);">Pr 18:11</a> we are told that "The rich man\'s wealth is his strong city, And as a high wall in his own imagination." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',26,1);">Isa 26:1</a> we are told that God will appoint salvation "for walls and bulwarks." Again Nahum (<a onClick="return mV(\'Nah\',3,8);">3:8</a>) says of Egypt that her "rampart was the sea (margin "the Nile"), and her wall was of the sea." The water upon either side of the opening served the purpose of a wall for protection. There was no chance for Pharaoh to intercept them by a flank movement. Nor is there need of paying further attention to the poetical expressions in the So of Moses, where among other things it is said "that the deeps were congealed in the heart of the sea," and that the "earth (instead of the water) swallowed them."<P>(3) The East Winds:<P>Again it is objected that an east wind does not come from the right direction to produce the desired result. On the other hand it is an east wind only which could have freed the channel from water. A north wind would have blown the water from the Bitter Lakes southward, and owing to the quantity of water impounded would have increased the depth of the water in the narrow passage from the southern end of Suez. An east wind, however, would have pressed the water out from the channel both ways, and from the contour of the shore lines would be the only wind that could have done so.<P>(4) The Miraculous Set Aside:<P>Again, it is objected that this explanation destroys the miraculous character of the event. But it should be noted that little is said in the narrative about the miraculous. On the other hand, it is a straightforward statement of events, leaving their miraculous character to be inferred from their nature. On the explanation we have given the transaction it is what Robinson felicitously calls a mediate miracle, that is, a miracle in which the hand of God is seen in the use of natural forces which it would be impossible for man to command. If anyone should say that this was a mere coincidence, that the east wind blew at the precise time that Moses reached the place of crossing, the answer is that such a coincidence could have been brought about only by supernatural agency. There was at that time no weather bureau to foretell the approach of a storm. There are no tides on the Red Sea with regular ebb and flow. It was by a miracle of prophecy that Moses was emboldened to get his host into position to avail themselves of the temporary opportunity at exactly the right time. As to the relation of the divine agency to the event, speculation is useless. The opening of the sea may have been a foreordained event in the course of Nature which God only foreknew, in which case the direct divine agency was limited to those influences upon the human actors that led them to place themselves where they could take advantage of the natural opportunity. Or, there is no a priori difficulty in supposing that the east wind was directly aroused for this occasion; for man himself produces disturbances among the forces of Nature that are as far-reaching in their extent as would be a storm produced by direct divine agency. But in this case the disturbance is at once seen to be beyond the powers of human agency to produce.<P>It remains to add an important word concerning the evidential value of this perfect adjustment of the narrative to the physical conditions involved. So perfect is this conformity of the narrative to the obscure physical conditions involved, which only recent investigations have made clear, that the account becomes self-evidencing. It is not within the power of man to invent a story so perfectly in accordance with the vast and complicated conditions involved. The argument is as strong as that for human design when a key is found to fit a Yale lock. This is not a general account which would fit into a variety of circumstances. There is only one place in all the world, and one set of conditions in all history, which would meet the requirements; and here they are all met. This is scientific demonstration. No higher proof can be found in the inductive sciences. The story is true. It has not been remodeled by the imagination, either of the original writers or of the transcribers. It is not the product of mythological fancy or of legendary accretion.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Dawson, Egypt and Syria; Hull, Mt. Seir, Sinai and Western Palestine; Naville, "The Store-City Pithom and the Route of the Exodus," Egyptian Exploration Fund, 1885; Kyle, "Bricks without Straw at Pithom: A Re-examination of Naville\'s Works," Records of the Past, VIII, 1901, 304-7; Wright, Scientific Confirmations of Old Testament History, 83-117.``198';
isbe[7319]='Redeemer; Redemption`re-dem\'-er, re-demp\'-shun (paraq, "to tear loose," "to rescue," padhah, ga\'al; agorazo, referring to purchase, lutroumai, from lutron, "a ransom"):<P>1. Gradual Moralizing of Idea of Redemption<P>2. Redemption as Life in Individual<P>3. Redemption as Social<P>4. Redemption as Process<P>5. Moral Implications in Scriptural Idea of Redeemer<P>6. Uniqueness of Son of God as Redeemer<P>LITERATURE<hr /><P>The idea of redemption in the Old Testament takes its start from the thought of property (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,26);">Le 25:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rth\',4,4);">Ru 4:4</a>). Money is paid according to law to buy back something which must be delivered or rescued (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',3,51);">Nu 3:51</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',5,8);">Ne 5:8</a>). From this start the word "redemption" throughout the Old Testament is used in the general sense of deliverance. God is the Redeemer of Israel in the sense that He is the Deliverer of Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',9,26);">De 9:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',7,23);">2Sa 7:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',17,21);">1Ch 17:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',52,3);">Isa 52:3</a>). The idea of deliverance includes deliverance from all forms of evil lot, from national misfortune (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',52,9);">Isa 52:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',63,9);">63:9</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,38);">Lu 2:38</a>), or from plague (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',78,35,52);">Ps 78:35,52</a>), or from calamity of any sort (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',48,16);">Ge 48:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',25,4,9);">Nu 25:4,9</a>). Of course, the general thought of the relation of Israel to God was that God had both a claim upon Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',15,15);">De 15:15</a>) and an obligation toward Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',17,21);">1Ch 17:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',25,22);">Ps 25:22</a>). Israel belonged to Him, and it was by His own right that He could move into the life of Israel so as to redeem Israel. On the other hand, obligation was upon Him to redeem Israel.<P>In the New Testament the idea of redemption has more a suggestion of ransom. Men are held under the curse of the law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,13);">Ga 3:13</a>), or of sin itself (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,23);">Ro 7:23</a>f). The Redeemer purchases their deliverance by offering Himself as payment for their redemption (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,7);">Eph 1:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,18);">1Pe 1:18</a>).<P>1. Gradual Moralizing of Idea of Redemption:<P>Throughout both the Old Testament and the New Testament there is to be observed a gradual moralizing of the meaning of redemption. The same process of moralizing has continued throughout all the Christian ages. Starting with the idea of redemption price, conceived almost in material terms, religious thought has advanced to conceptions entirely moral and spiritual. Through the Scriptures, too, the idea of redemption becomes more specffic with the progress of Christian revelation. In the beginning God is the Redeemer from distresses of all kinds. He redeems from calamity and from sorrows. This general idea, of course, persists throughout the revelation and enters largely into our thinking of today, but the growing moral discernment of the Biblical writers comes to attach more and more importance to sin as the chief disturber of man\'s welfare. We would not minimize the force of the Scriptural idea that God is the Deliverer from all misfortune to which man falls heir, but the Scriptural emphasis moves more and more to deliverance from sin. Paul states this deliverance as a deliverance from the law which brings sin out into expression, but we must not conceive his idea in any artificial fashion. He would have men delivered not only from the law, but also from the consequences of evil doing and from the spirit of evil itself (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,2);">Ro 8:2</a>).<P>2. Redemption as Life in the Individual:<P>In trying to discern the meaning of redemption from sin, toward which the entire progress of Biblical and Christian thought points, we may well keep in mind the Master\'s words that He came that men might have life and might have it more abundantly (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,10);">Joh 10:10</a>). The word "life" seems to be the final New Testament word as a statement of the purpose of Christ. God sent His Son to bring men to life. The word "life,"\' however, is indefinite. Life means more at one period of the world\'s history than at another. It has the advantage, nevertheless, of always being entirely intelligible in its essential significance. Our aim must be to keep this essential significance in mind and at the same time to provide for an increasing fullness and enlargement of human capacity and endeavor. The aim of redemption can only be to bring men to the fullest use and enjoyment of their powers. This is really the conception implicit even in the earliest statements of redemption. The man redeemed by money payment comes out of the prison to the light of day, or he comes out of slavery into freedom, or he is restored to his home and friends. The man under the law is redeemed from the burden and curse of the law. Paul speaks of his experience under the law as the experience of one chained to a dead body (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,24);">Ro 7:24</a>). Of course, relief from such bondage would mean life. In the more spiritual passages of the New Testament, the evil in men\'s hearts is like a blight which paralyzes their higher activities (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,\'33-51\');">Joh 8:33-51</a>). In all redemption, as conceived of in Christian terms, there is a double element. There is first the deliverance as from a curse. Something binds a man or weights him down: redemption relieves him from this load. On the other hand, there is the positive movement of the soul thus relieved toward larger and fuller life. We have said that the Biblical emphasis is always upon deliverance from sin as the essential in redemption, but this deliverance is so essential that the life cannot progress in any of its normal activities until it is redeemed from evil. Accordingly in the Scriptural thought all manner of blessings follow deliverance. The man who seeks first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness finds all other things added unto him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,33);">Mt 6:33</a>). Material, intellectual and social blessings follow as matters of course from the redemption of the inner spirit from evil. The aim of redemption, to beget in men\'s hearts the will to do right, once fulfilled, leads men to seek successfully along all possible avenues for life. This, of course, does not mean that the redeemed life gives itself up to the cultivation of itself toward higher excellencies. It means that the redeemed life is delivered from every form of selfishness. In the unselfish seeking of life for others the redeemed life finds its own greatest achievement and happiness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,25);">Mt 16:25</a>).<P>3. Redemption as Social:<P>Just as the idea of redemption concerned itself chiefly with the inner spirit; so also it concerns itself with the individual as the object of redemption. But as the redemption of the inner spirit leads to freedom in all realms of life, so also the redemption of the individual leads to large social transformations. It is impossible to strike out of the Scriptures the idea of a redeemed humanity. But humanity is not conceived of in general or class terms. The object of redemption is not humanity, or mankind, or the masses. The object of redemption is rather men set in relation to each other as members of a family. But it would do violence to the Scriptural conception to conceive of the individual\'s relations in any narrow or restricted fashion (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',12,\'12-27\');">1Co 12:12-27</a>).<P>An important enlargement of the idea of redemption in our own time has come as men have conceived of the redemption of individuals in their social relationships. Very often men have thought of redemption as a snatching of individuals from the perils of a world in itself absolutely wicked. Even the material environment of men has at times been regarded as containing something inherently evil. The thought of redemption which seems most in line with Scriptural interpretation would seem to be that which brings the material and social forces within reach of individual wills. Paul speaks of the whole creation groaning and travailing in pain waiting for the revelation of the sons of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,22);">Ro 8:22</a>). This graphic figure sets before us the essentially Christian conception of the redemption of the forces in the midst of which men are placed. Those redeemed for the largest life, by the very force of their life, will seize all powers of this world to make them the servants of divine purposes. The seer saw a great multitude which no man could number, of every kindred and nation and tongue, shouting the joys of salvation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',7,9);">Re 7:9</a>), yet the implication nowhere appears that these were redeemed in any other fashion than by surrendering themselves to the forces of righteousness.<P>4. Redemption as Process:<P>We have said that the aim of redemption is to bring men to the largest and fullest life. We have also said that "life" is a general term. To keep close to the Scriptural conceptions we would best say that the aim of redemption is to make men like Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,9);">Ro 8:9</a>). Otherwise, it might be possible to use the word "life" so as to imply that the riotous exercise of the faculties is what we mean by redemption. The idea of redemption, as a matter of fact, has been thus interpreted in various times in the history of Christian thinking. Life has been looked upon as sheer quantitative exuberance<63>the lower pleasures of sense being reckoned as about on the same plane with the higher. We can see the moral and spiritual anarchy which would thus be brought about. In Christ\'s words to His disciples He once used the expression, "Ye are clean because of the word which I have spoken unto you" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',15,3);">Joh 15:3</a>). In this particular context the idea does not seem to be that of an external washing. Christ seems rather to mean that His disciples are cleansed as a vineyard is cleansed by pruning away some of the branches that others may bear fruit. In other words, the redemption of life is to be interpreted so that stress is laid upon the qualitative rather than the quantitative. Christ indeed found place in His instructions and in His own life for the normal and healthy activities of human existence. He was not an ascetic; He went to feasts and to weddings, but His emphasis was always upon life conceived of in the highest terms. We can say then that the aim of redemption is to beget in men life like that in Christ.<P>5. Moral Implications in the Scriptural Idea of Redeemer:<P>Moreover, redemption must not be conceived of in such fashion as to do away with the need of response upon the part of the individual will. The literal suggestion of ransom has to do with paying a price for a man\'s deliverance, whether the man is willing to be delivered or not. Of course, the assumption in the mind of the Biblical writers was that any man in prison or in slavery or in sickness would be overjoyed at being redeemed; but in dealing with men whose lives are set toward sin we cannot always make this assumption. The dreadfulness of sin is largely in the love of sinning which sinning begets. Some thinkers have interpreted redemption to mean almost a seizing of men without regard to their own will. It is very easy to see how this conception arises. A man who himself hates sin may not stop to realize that some other men love sin. Redemption, to mean anything, must touch this inner attitude of will. We cannot then hold to any idea of redemption which brings men under a cleansing process without the assent of their own wills. If we keep ourselves alive to the growing moral discernment which moves through the Scriptures, we must lay stress always upon redemption as a moral process. Not only must we say that the aim of redemption is to make men like Christ, but we must say also that the method of redemption must be the method of Christ, the method of appealing to the moral will. There is no Scriptural warrant for the idea that men are redeemed by fiat. The most we can get from the words of Christ is a statement of the persistence of God in His search for the lost: \'(He goeth) after that which is lost, until he finds it\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',15,4);">Lu 15:4</a>). Some would interpret these words to mean that the process of redemption continues until every man is brought into the kingdom. We cannot, in the light of the New Testament, limit the redeeming love of God; but we cannot, on the other hand, take passages from figurative expressions in such sense as to limit the freedom of men. The redemption must be conceived of as respecting the moral choices of men. In our thought of the divine search for the control of inner human motive we must not stop short of the idea of men redeemed to the love of righteousness on its own account. This would do away with the plan of redeeming men by merely relieving them of the consequences of their sins. Out of a changed life, of course, there must come changed consequences. But the Scriptural teaching is that the emphasis in redemption is always moral, the turning to life because of what life is.<P>Having thus attempted to determine, at least in outline, the content of the Christian idea of redemption, it remains for us to point out some implications as to the work of the Redeemer. Throughout the entire teaching on redemption in the Scriptures, redemption is set before us primarily as God\'s own affair (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,16);">Joh 3:16</a>). God redeems His people; He redeems them out of love for them. But the love of God is not to be conceived of as mere indulgence, partiality, or good-humored affection. The love of God rests down upon moral foundations. Throughout the Scriptures, therefore, we find implied often, if not always clearly stated, the idea that God is under obligations to redeem His people. The progress of later thinking has expanded this implication with sureness of moral discernment. We have come to see the obligations of power. The more powerful the man the heavier his obligations in the discharge of this power. This is a genuinely Christian conception, and this Christian conception we apply to the character of God, feeling confident that we are in line with Scriptural teaching. Hence, we may put the obligations of God somewhat as follows: God is the most obligated being in the universe. If a man is under heavy obligations to use aright the power of controlling the forces already at work in the world, how much heavier must be the obligations on the Creator who started these forces! The obligation becomes appalling to our human thought when we think that creation includes the calling of human beings into existence and endowing them with the unsolicited boon of freedom. Men are not in the world of their own choice. Vast masses of them seem to be here as the outworking of impulses almost blind. The surroundings of men make it very easy for them to sin. The tendencies which at least seem to be innate are too often tragically inclined toward evil. Men seem, of themselves, utterly inadequate for their own redemption. If there is to be redemption it must come from God, and the Christian thought of a moral God would seem to include the obligation on the part of God to redeem those whom He has sent into the world. Christ has made clear forever the absolutely binding nature of moral considerations. If the obligation to redeem men meant everything to Christ, it must also mean everything to the God of Christ. So we feel in line with true Christian thinking in the doctrine that redemption comes first as a discharge of the obligations on the part of God Himself.<P>If we look for the common thought in all the Christian statements of God\'s part in redemption we find it in this: that in all these statements God is conceived of as doing all that He can do for the redemption of man. If in earlier times men conceived of the human race as under the dominion of Satan, and of Satan as robbed of his due by the deliverance of man and therefore entitled to some compensation, they also conceived of God Himself as paying the ransom to Satan. If they thought of God as a feudal lord whose dignity had been offended by sin, they thought of God as Himself paying the cost due to offended dignity. If their idea was that a substitute for sinners must be furnished, the idea included the thought of God as Himself providing a substitute. If they conceived of the universe as a vast system of moral laws<77>broken by sin<69>whose dignity must be upheld, they thought of God Himself as providing the means for maintaining the dignity of the laws. If they conceived of men as saved by a vast moral influence set at work, they thought of this influence as proceeding, not from man, but from God. The common thought in theories of redemption then, so far as concerns God\'s part, is that God Himself takes the initiative and does all He can in the discharge of the obligation upon Himself. Each phrasing of the doctrine of redemption is the attempt of an age of Christian thinking to say in its own way that God has done all that He can do for men.<P>6. Uniqueness of the Son of God as Redeemer:<P>It is from this standpoint that we must approach the part played by Christ in redemption. This is not the place for an attempt at formal statement, but some elements of Christian teaching are, at least in outline, at once clear. The question is, first, to provide some relation between God and Christ which will make the redemptive work of Christ really effective. Some have thought to find such a statement in the conception that Christ is a prophet. They would empty the expression, "Son of God," of any unique meaning; they would make Christ the Son of God in the same sense that any great prophet could be conceived of as a son of God. Of course, we would not minimize the teaching of the Scripture as to the full humanity of Christ, and yet we may be permitted to voice our belief that the representation of Christ as the Redeemer merely in the same sense in which a prophet is a redeemer does not do justice to the Scripture teaching; and we feel, too, that such a solution of the problem of Christ would be inadequate for the practical task of redemption. If Christ is just a prophet giving us His teaching we rejoice in the teaching, but we are confronted with the problem as to how to make the teaching effective. If it be urged that Christ is a prophet who in Himself realized the moral ideal, we feel constrained to reply that this really puts Christ at a vast distance from us. Such a doctrine of Christ\'s person would make Him the supreme religious genius, but the human genius stands apart from the ordinary mass of men. He may gather up into Himself and realize the ideals of men; He may voice the aspirations of men and realize those aspirations; but He may not be able to make men like unto Himself. Shakespeare is a consummate literary genius. He has said once and for all many things which the common man thinks or half thinks. When the common man comes upon a phrase of Shakespeare he feels that Shakespeare has said for all time the things which he would himself have said if he had been able. But the appreciation of Shakespeare does not make the ordinary man like Shakespeare; the appreciation of Christ has not proved successful in itself in making men like unto Christ.<P>If, on the contrary, without attempting formal theological construction, we put some real meaning into the idea of Christ as the Son of God and hold fast to a unique relationship between Christ and God which makes Christ the greatest gift that God can give us, we find indeed that Christ is lifted up to essentially divine existence; but we find also that this divinity does not estrange Him from us. Redemption becomes feasible, not merely when we have a revelation of how far up man can go, but when we have also a revelation of how far down God can come. If we can think of God as having in some real way come into the world through His Son Jesus Christ, that revelation makes Christ the Lord who can lead us to redemption.<P>Such a conception furnishes the dynamic which we must have in any real process of redemption. We need not only the ideal, but we need power by which to reach the ideal. If we can feel that the universe is under the sway of a moral God, a God who is under obligations to bear the burdens of men, and who willingly assumes these obligations, we really feel that moral life at its fullest and best is the greatest fact in the universe. Moreover, we must be true to the Scriptures and lift the entire conception of redemption beyond the realm of conscience to the realm of the heart. What the conscience of God calls for, the love of God willingly discharges. The Cross of Christ becomes at once the revelation of the righteousness of God and the love of God. Power is thus put back of human conscience and human love to move forward toward redemption (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,\'35-39\');">Ro 8:35-39</a>).<P>The aim of the redemption in Christ then is to lift men out of death toward life. The mind is to be quickened by the revelation of the true ideals of human life. The conscience is to be reenforced by the revelation of the moral God who carries on all things in the interests of righteousness. The heart is to be stirred and won by the revelation of the love which sends an only begotten Son to the cross for our redemption. And we must take the work of Christ, not as a solitary incident or a mere historic event, but as a manifestation of the spirit which has been at work from the beginning and works forever. The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',13,8);">Re 13:8</a>); the spirit of God revealed in the cross of Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. We have in the cross a revelation of holy love which, in a sense, overpowers and at the same time encourages. The cross is the revelation of the length to which God is willing to go in redemption rather than set aside one jot or tittle of His moral law. He will not redeem men except on terms which leave them men. He will not overwhelm them in any such manner as to do away with their power of free choice. He will show men His own feeling of holiness and love. In the name of a holy love which they can forever aspire after, but which they can never fully reach, men call to Him for forgiveness and that forgiveness men find forever available.<P>It remains to add one further item of Scriptural teaching, namely that redemption is a continuous process. If we may again use the word "life," which has been the key to this discussion, we may say that the aim of redemption is to make men progressively alive. There are not limits to the development of human powers touched by the redemptive processes of God. The cross is a revelation of divine willingness to bear with men who are forever being redeemed. Of course, we speak of the redeemed man as redeemed once and for all. By this we mean that he is redeemed once and for all in being faced about and started in a right direction, but the progress toward full life may be faster or slower according to the man and the circumstances in the midst of which he is placed. Still the chief fact is the direction in which the man is moving. The revelation of God who aids in redemption is of the God who takes the direction as the chief fact rather than the length of the stride or the rate of the movement. Every man is expected to do his best. If he stumbles he is supposed to find his way to his feet; if he is moving slowly, he must attempt to move faster; if he is moving at a slower rate than he can attain, he must strive after the higher rate, but always the dynamic force is the revelation of the holy love of God.<P>The Scriptures honor the prophets in whatever land or time they appear. The Scriptures welcome goodness under any and all circumstances. They have a place for a "light that lighteneth every man that cometh into the world," but they still make it clear that the chief force in the redemption of men is the revelation of holy love in Jesus Christ. The redemption, we repeat, is never conceived of in artificial or mechanical terms. If any man hath not the spirit of Christ he does not belong to Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,9);">Ro 8:9</a>). The aim of redemption is to beget this spirit, and this spirit is life.<P>LITERATURE.<P>H. C. Sheldon, Systematic Theology; Clarke, Outline of Christian Theology; Brown, Christian Theology in Outline; Mackintosh, Doctrine of Person of Christ; Bowne, Studies in Christianity; Tymms, The Christian Atonement.``112';
isbe[7320]='Redness of Eyes`red\'-nes.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DRUNKENNESS">DRUNKENNESS</a>`1';
isbe[7321]='Redound`re-dound\' (from re-," back," and undare, "to surge as a wave"): To be sent back as a reaction, to overflow; occurs only as the translation of perisseuo, "to be over and above," "to superabound" (frequent in the New Testament); in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',4,15);">2Co 4:15</a>, "might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God," the Revised Version (British and American) "may cause the thanksgiving to abound."``1';
isbe[7322]='Reed`red:<P>(1) achu, translated "reed-grass" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,2,18);">Ge 41:2,18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',8,11);">Job 8:11</a> margin). See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FLAG">FLAG</a>.<P>(2) \'ebheh, translated "swift," margin "reed" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',9,26);">Job 9:26</a>). The "ships of reed" are the light skiffs made of plaited reeds used on the Nile; compare "vessels of papyrus" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',18,2);">Isa 18:2</a>).<P>(3) \'aghammim, translated "reeds," margin "marshes," Hebrew "pools" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,32);">Jer 51:32</a>); elsewhere "pools" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,19);">Ex 7:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,5);">8:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',14,23);">Isa 14:23</a>, etc.). See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=POOL">POOL</a>.<P>(4) \'aroth; achi, translated "meadows," the King James Version "paper reeds" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',19,7);">Isa 19:7</a>). See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MEADOW">MEADOW</A>.<P>(5) qaneh; kalamos (the English "cane" comes from Hebrew via Latin and Greek canna), "stalk" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,5,22);">Ge 41:5,22</a>); "shaft" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',37,17);">Ex 37:17</a>, etc.); "reed," or "reeds" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',14,15);">1Ki 14:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',18,21);">2Ki 18:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',36,6);">Isa 36:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',42,3);">42:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',68,30);">Ps 68:30</a>, the King James Version "spearman"); "calamus" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',30,23);">Ex 30:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',4,14);">So 4:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,19);">Eze 27:19</a>); "sweet cane," margin "calamus" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',43,24);">Isa 43:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',6,20);">Jer 6:20</a>); "bone" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',31,22);">Job 31:22</a>); used of the cross-beam of a "balance" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',46,6);">Isa 46:6</a>); "a measuring reed" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,3);">Eze 40:3</a>); "a staff of reed," i.e. a walking-stick (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',36,6);">Isa 36:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',29,6);">Eze 29:6</a>); the "branches" of a candlestick (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',37,18);">Ex 37:18</a>).<P>(6) kalamos, "a reed shaken with the wind" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,7);">Mt 11:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,24);">Lu 7:24</a>); "a bruised reed" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,20);">Mt 12:20</a>); they put "a reed in his right hand" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,29,30);">Mt 27:29,30</a>); "They smote his head with a reed" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,19);">Mr 15:19</a>); "put it on a reed" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,48);">Mt 27:48</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,36);">Mr 15:36</a>); "a measuring reed" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',11,1);">Re 11:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',21,15,16);">21:15,16</a>); "a pen" (<a onClick="return mV(\'3Jo\',1,13);">3Joh 1:13</a>).<P>It is clear that qaneh and its Greek equivalent kalamos mean many things. Some refer to different uses to which a reed is put, e.g. a cross-beam of a balance, a walking-stick, a measuring rod, and a pen (see above), but apart from this qaneh is a word used for at least two essentially different things:<P>(1) an ordinary reed, and<P>(2) some sweet-smelling substance.<P>(1) The most common reed in Palestine is the Arundo donax (Natural Order Gramineae), known in Arabic as qacabfarasi, "Persian reed." It grows in immense quantities in the Jordan valley along the river and its tributaries and at the oases near the Dead Sea, notably around \'Ain Feshkhah at the northwest corner. It is a lofty reed, often 20 ft. high, of a beautiful fresh green in summer when all else is dead and dry, and of a fine appearance from a distance in the spring months when it is in full bloom and the beautiful silky panicles crown the top of every reed. The "covert of the reed" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',40,21);">Job 40:21</a>) shelters a large amount of animal and bird life. This reed will answer to almost all the requirements of the above references.<P>(2) Qaneh is in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',6,20);">Jer 6:20</a> qualified qaneh ha-tobh, "sweet" or "pleasant cane," and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',30,23);">Ex 30:23</a>, qeneh bhosem, "sweet calamus," or, better, a "cane of fragrance." <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',4,14);">So 4:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',43,24);">Isa 43:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,19);">Eze 27:19</a> all apparently refer to the same thing, though in these passages the qaneh is unqualified. It was an ingredient of the holy oil (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',30,23);">Ex 30:23</a>); it was imported from a distance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',6,20);">Jer 6:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,19);">Eze 27:19</a>), and it was rare and costly (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',43,24);">Isa 43:24</a>). It may have been the "scented calamus" (Axorus calamus) of Pliny (NH, xii.48), or some other aromatic scented reed or flag, or, as some think, some kind of aromatic bark. The sweetness refers to the scent, not the taste.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BULRUSH">BULRUSH</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PAPYRUS">PAPYRUS</a>`117';
isbe[7323]='Reed, Measuring`mezh\'-ur-ing (qeneh ha-middah): In Ezekiel\'s vision of the temple a "man" (an angel) appears with a "measuring reed" to measure the dimensions of the temple (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,3);">Eze 40:3</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',42,16);">42:16</a>). The reed is described as 6 cubits long, "of a cubit and a handbreadth each," i.e. the cubit used was a handbreadth longer than the common cubit (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CUBIT">CUBIT</A>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WEIGHTS+AND+MEASURES">WEIGHTS AND MEASURES</A>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TEMPLE">TEMPLE</A>). In the Apocalypse this idea of a measuring reed reappears for measuring the temple (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',11,1);">Re 11:1</a>) and the holy city (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',21,15,16);">Re 21:15,16</a>, "a golden reed"). The thought conveyed is exactitude in the dimensions of these edifices, symbolic of the symmetry and perfection of God\'s church.``132';
isbe[7324]='Reed-Grass`(<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,2,18);">Ge 41:2,18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',8,11);">Job 8:11</a> margin).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FLAG">FLAG</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=REED">REED</a>`1';
isbe[7325]='Reelaiah`re-el-a\'-ya, re-el-i\'-a (re\'elyah): One of the 12 chiefs who returned with Zerubbabel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,2);">Ezr 2:2</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,7);">Ne 7:7</a>). In the passage in Nehemiah the name is Raamiah" (ra\'amyah), and in 1Esdras 5:8 "Resaias." Which is the original, it is almost impossible to decide; "Reelaiah" seems preferable.``1';
isbe[7326]='Reelias`re-el\'-i-as (Codex Alexandrinus Rheelias (Fritzschel); Codex Vaticanus followed by Swete, Boroleias; the King James Version Reelius): One of the "leaders" with Zerubbabel in the return from exile (1Esdras 5:8, margin "Reelaiah"). It occupies the place of "Bigvai" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,2);">Ezr 2:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,7);">Ne 7:7</a>, but in form it must be the equivalent of "Reelaiah" of Ezra and "Raamiah" of Nehemiah. It is perhaps a duplicate of "Resaias."``1';
isbe[7327]='Reesaias`re-e-sa\'-yas, re-e-si\'-as: the King James Version; the Revised Version (British and American) <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RESAIAS">RESAIAS</A> (which see).``1';
isbe[7328]='Refiner; Refining`re-fin\'-er, re-fin\'-ing: Two Hebrew words have been translated "refine": (1) tsaraph, literally, to "fuse" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',13,9);">Zec 13:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',48,10);">Isa 48:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',3,2,3);">Mal 3:2,3</a>, etc.). The same word is rendered also "tried" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',66,10);">Ps 66:10</a>); "melt" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',6,29);">Jer 6:29</a> the King James Version); "purge" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,25);">Isa 1:25</a>). (2) zaqaq, literally, to "strain" or "sift." In the case of silver and gold the term probably referred to some washing process in connection with refining, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',3,3);">Mal 3:3</a> both tsaraph and zaqaq are used (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',28,18);">1Ch 28:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',29,4);">29:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',28,1);">Job 28:1</a>). The same word in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',25,6);">Isa 25:6</a> referred to the straining of wine. Greek puroo, in the passive, literally, "to be ignited," is translated "refined," in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,15);">Re 1:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',3,18);">3:18</a>.<P>The ancient process of refining gold has already been described under <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=METALLURGY">METALLURGY</A> (which see). Most of the Bible references are to the refining of silver (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',25,4);">Pr 25:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',13,9);">Zec 13:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',48,10);">Isa 48:10</a>). The silver used by the ancients was probably obtained by smelting lead sulfide ore, rich in silver (argentiferous galena). After the ore had been reduced to a metallic condition, the lead was separated from the silver by blowing hot air over the surface of the melted metal. The lead was thus changed to lead oxide which, in a powdered condition, was driven away by the air blast. The resulting lead oxide, called in the Bible silver dross, was used for glazing pottery (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',26,23);">Pr 26:23</a>), a use to which it is still put by Syrian potters. The description of refining in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',22,\'18-22\');">Eze 22:18-22</a> may indicate that a flux (compare "as with lye," <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,25);">Isa 1:25</a> the American Revised Version margin) was sometimes added to the melted metal to dissolve the oxides of copper, lead, tin and iron as they formed, thus leaving the silver pure. Crude processes similar to those described above are used in the Taurus Mountains today.<P>Figurative:<P>In the various Bible references the refining of precious metals is used figuratively to illustrate the kind of trial God\'s children are called upon to go through. If they are of the right metal the dross will finally be blown away, leaving pure, clear, shining silver. If of base metal they will be like the dross described in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',6,29,30);">Jer 6:29,30</a>. The refiner may blow fiercely, but in vain, for nothing but lead dross appears.``133';
isbe[7329]='Reform`re-form\' (yacar): The word in the Revised Version (British and American) is found only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,23);">Le 26:23</a>, in the phrase "ye will not be reformed." The meaning is, "to be instructed," or, more fully, "to let one\'s self be chastened," i.e. by God\'s discipline to learn the lessons of this chastening.<P>The Hebrew word is the same in a similar connection in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',6,8);">Jer 6:8</a>, where it is rendered, "Be thou instructed," and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,18);">Jer 31:18</a>, "I was chastised." <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',2,10);">Ps 2:10</a> ("instructed"); <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',29,19);">Pr 29:19</a> ("corrected") use the Hebrew term of admonition by the words of man.<P>The King James Version also has "reform" in 2Esdras 8:12; <span class="noTag">The Wisdom of Solomon 9:18</span>.``1';
isbe[7330]='Reformation`ref-or-ma\'-shun: The word is found only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,10);">Heb 9:10</a>, being the translation of diorthosis, in its only occurrence. This Greek word means etymologically "making straight," and was used of restoring to the normally straight condition that which is crooked or bent. In this passage it means the rectification of conditions, setting things to rights, and is a description of the Messianic time.``1';
isbe[7331]='Refresh; Refreshing`re-fresh\', re-fresh\'-ing: "Refresh" occurs a few times in the Old Testament as the translation of naphash, "to take breath," figurative "to be refreshed" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,12);">Ex 23:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',31,17);">31:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',16,14);">2Sa 16:14</a>); of rawach, "to have room (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',16,23);">1Sa 16:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',32,20);">Job 32:20</a>, margin "find relief," the King James Version margin "may breathe"); of ca\'adh, "to support" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',13,7);">1Ki 13:7</a>); and in the New Testament as the translation of anapauo, "to give rest" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',16,18);">1Co 16:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',7,13);">2Co 7:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phm\',1,7,20);">Phm 1:7,20</a>; in compound middle, <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,32);">Ro 15:32</a> the King James Version); also of anapsucho, "to invigorate," "revive" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',1,16);">2Ti 1:16</a>), and other words. "Refreshing" is in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',28,12);">Isa 28:12</a> marge\'ah, "rest" or "quiet"; and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',3,19);">Ac 3:19</a>, anapsuxis, "seasons of refreshing," through the coming of Jesus, the Christ; compare 2Esdras 11:46 and the King James Version, Sirach 43:22 hilaroo).``185';
isbe[7332]='Refuge`ref\'-uj: A place of resort and safety. The principal words in the Old Testament are machceh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',14,6);">Ps 14:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',46,1);">46:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',62,7,8);">62:7,8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',4,6);">Isa 4:6</a>, etc.), and manoc (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',22,3);">2Sa 22:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',59,16);">Ps 59:16</a>, etc.), both applied chiefly to God as a "refuge" for His people. For the King James Version "refuge" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,27);">De 33:27</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) has "dwelling-place," and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',9,9);">Ps 9:9</a>, "high tower." Conversely, the Revised Version (British and American) has "refuge" for the King James Version "shelter" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',61,3);">Ps 61:3</a>, and "hope" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',17,17);">Jer 17:17</a>.``1';
isbe[7333]='Refuge, Cities of`\'are ha-miqlat; poleis ton phugadeuterion (compare 1Macc 10:28), and other forms):<P>1. Location:<P>Six cities, three on each side of the Jordan, were set apart and placed in the hands of the Levites, to serve as places of asylum for such as might shed blood unwittingly. On the east of the Jordan they were <A href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BEZER">Bezer</a> in the lot of Reuben, <A href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RAMOTH-GILEAD">Ramoth-gilead</a> in the tribe of Gad, and <A href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GOLAN; GAULONITIS">Golan</a> in the territory of Manasseh. On the west of the Jordan they were <A href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HEBRON+(1)">Hebron</a> in Judah, <A href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=Shechem">Shechem</a> in Mt. Ephraim, and <A href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KEDESH">Kedesh</a> in Naphtali (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',35,6,14);">Nu 35:6,14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',20,2,7);">Jos 20:2,7</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,13,21,27,32,38);">21:13,21,27,32,38</a>; Bezer is named in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,36);">Jos 21:36</a>, but not described as a City of Refuge). An account of these cities is given in separate articles under their names. <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',19,2);">De 19:2</a> speaks of three cities thus to be set apart, referring apparently to the land west of the Jordan.<P>2. Purpose:<P>From time immemorial in the East, if a man were slain the duty of avenging him has lain as a sacred obligation upon his nearest relative. In districts where more primitive conditions prevail, even to this day, the distinction between intentional and unintentional killing is not too strictly observed, and men are often done to death in revenge for what was the purest accident. To prevent such a thing where possible, and to provide for a right administration of justice, these cities were instituted. Open highways were to be maintained along, which the manslayer might have an unobstructed course to the city gate.<P>3. Regulations:<P>The regulations concerning the Cities of Refuge are found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',35,\'1-\');">Nu 35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',19,\'1-13\');">De 19:1-13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',20,\'1-\');">Jos 20</a>. Briefly, everything was to be done to facilitate the flight of the manslayer, lest the avenger of blood, i.e. the nearest of kin, should pursue him with hot heart, and, overtaking him, should smite him mortally. Upon reaching the city he was to be received by the elders and his case heard. If this was satisfactory, they gave him asylum until a regular trial could be carried out. They took him, apparently, to the city or district from which he had fled, and there, among those who knew him, witnesses were examined. If it were proved that he was not a willful slayer, that he had no grudge against the person killed, and had shown no sign of purpose to injure him, then he was declared innocent and conducted back to the city in which he had taken refuge, where he must stay until the death of the high priest. Then he was free to return home in safety. Until that event he must on no account go beyond the city boundaries. If he did, the avenger of blood might slay him without blame. On the other hand, if he were found guilty of deliberate murder, there was no more protection for him. He was handed over to the avenger of blood who, with his own hand, took the murderer\'s life. Blood-money, i.e. money paid in compensation for the murder, in settlement of the avenger\'s claim, was in no circumstances permitted; nor could the refugee be ransomed, so that he might "come again to dwell in the land" until the death of the high priest (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',35,32);">Nu 35:32</a>).<P>A similar right of refuge seems to have been recognized in Israel as attaching to the altar in the temple at Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',1,50);">1Ki 1:50</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',2,28);">2:28</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,12);">Ex 21:12</a>f). This may be compared with the right of asylum connected with the temples of the heathen.``54';
isbe[7334]='Refuse`re-fuz\': Formerly used with the additional meaning "reject," and hence, the change from the King James Version to the Revised Version (British and American) in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',16,7);">1Sa 16:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',5,6);">Eze 5:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',4,4);">1Ti 4:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,7);">1Pe 2:7</a>, etc.``1';
isbe[7335]='Refute`re-fut\': Only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,22);">Jude 1:22</a>, the American Revised Version margin "And some refute while they dispute with you," where the Revised Version (British and American) in the text reads "And on some have mercy, who are in doubt."<P>The Greek text of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,22,23);">Jude 1:22,23</a> is very uncertain, being given very differently in the various manuscripts. the Revised Version (British and American) text follows the two oldest manuscripts, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Instead of eleate, "have mercy," the reading elegchete, "refute," "convict," has the powerful support of Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Ephraemi, the best cursives, Vulgate, Memphitic, Armenian and Ethiopian versions, and is placed in the text by Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles (Westcott-Hort in list of "Suspected Readings" says: "Some primitive error probable: perhaps the first eleate an interpolation"). Compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,15);">Jude 1:15</a>, where the same Greek word occurs in the same sense (the King James Version "convince," the Revised Version (British and American) "convict"); compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',5,20);">1Ti 5:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,9);">Tit 1:9</a>, where the same idea of refuting the sinful occurs.``49';
isbe[7336]='Regem`re\'-gem (reghem, "friend" (?)): A Calebite, the son of Jahdai (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,47);">1Ch 2:47</a>), mentioned as the eponym of a Calebite family or clan.``1';
isbe[7337]='Regem-Melech`re\'-gem-me\'-lek, re\'-gem-mel\'-ek (reghem melekh): One of a deputation sent to inquire concerning the propriety of continuing the commemoration of the destruction of the temple by holding a fast (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',7,2);">Zec 7:2</a>). The text of the passage is in disorder. The name may mean "friend of the king"; hence, some have sought to remove the difficulty by interpreting reghem melekh as a title, not a personal name, reading the clause, "They of Beth-el had sent <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHAREZER">SHAREZER</A> (q.v. (2)), the friend of the king."``1';
isbe[7338]='Regeneration`re-jen-er-a\'-shun, re-:<P><B>I. THE TERM EXPLAINED</B><P class="in15">1. First Biblical Sense (Eschatological)<P class="in15">2. Second Biblical Sense (Spiritual)<P><B>II. THE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF REGENERATION</B><P class="in15">1. In the Old Testament<P class="in15">2. In the Teaching of Jesus<P class="in15">3. In Apostolic Teaching<P><B>III. LATER DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE</b><P><B>IV. PRESENT SIGNIFICANCE</B><P><B>LITERATURE</b><HR /><P>I. The Term Explained.<P>The theological term "regeneration" is the Latin translation of the Greek expression palingenesia, occurring twice in the New Testament (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,28);">Mt 19:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',3,5);">Tit 3:5</a>). The word is usually written paliggenesia, in classical Greek. Its meaning is different in the two passages, though an easy transition of thought is evident.<P>1. First Biblical Sense (Eschatological):<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,28);">Mt 19:28</a> the word refers to the restoration of the world, in which sense it is synonymical to the expressions apokatastasis panton, "restoration of all things" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',3,21);">Ac 3:21</a>; the verb is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',17,11);">Mt 17:11</a>, apokatastsei panta, "shall restore all things"), and anapsuxis, "refreshing" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',3,19);">Ac 3:19</a>), which signifies a gradual transition of meaning to the second sense of the word under consideration. It is supposed that regeneration in this sense denotes the final stage of development of all creation, by which God\'s purposes regarding the same are fully realized, when "all things (are put) in subjection under his feet" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,27);">1Co 15:27</a>). This is a "regeneration in the proper meaning of the word, for it signifies a renovation of all visible things when the old is passed away, and heaven and earth are become new" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',21,1);">Re 21:1</a>). To the Jew the regeneration thus prophesied was inseparably connected with the reign of the Messiah.<P>We find this word in the same or very similar senses in profane literature. It is used of the renewal of the world in Stoical philosophy. Josephus (Ant., XI, iii, 9) speaks of the anaktesis kai paliggenesia tes patridos, "a new foundation and regeneration of the fatherland," after the return from the Babylonian captivity. Philo (ed. Mangey, ii.144) uses the word, speaking of the post-diluvial epoch of the earth, as of a new world, and Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (xi.1), of a periodical restoration of all things, laying stress upon the constant recurrence and uniformity of all happenings, which thought the Preacher expressed by "There is no new thing under the sun" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',1,9);">Ec 1:9</a>). In most places, however, where the word occurs in philosophical writings, it is used of the "reincarnation" or "subsequent birth" of the individual, as in the Buddhistic and Pythagorean doctrine of the transmigration of souls (Plut., edition Xylander, ii.998c; Clement of Alexandria, edition Potter, 539) or else of a revival of life (Philo i.159). Cicero uses the word in his letters to Atticus (vi.6) metaphorically of his return from exile, as a new lease of life granted to him.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ESCHATOLOGY+OF+THE+NEW+TESTAMENT">ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, IX</A>.<P>2. Second Biblical Sense (Spiritual):<P>This sense is undoubtedly included in the full Biblical conception of the former meaning, for it is unthinkable that a regeneration in the eschatological sense can exist without a spiritual regeneration of humanity or the individual. It is, however, quite evident that this latter conception has arisen rather late, from an analysis of the former meaning. It is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',3,5);">Tit 3:5</a> which, without absolute certainty as to its meaning, is generally interpreted in agreement with the numerous nouns and verbs which have given the dogmatical setting to the doctrine of regeneration in Christian theology. Clement of Alexandria is the first to differentiate this meaning from the former by the addition of the adjective pneumatike, "spiritual" (compare anapsuxis, <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',3,20);">Ac 3:20</a>; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=REFRESHING">REFRESHING</a>). In this latter sense the word is typically Christian, though the Old Testament contains many adumbrations of the spiritual process expressed thereby.<P>II. The Biblical Doctrine of Regeneration.<P>1. In the Old Testament:<P>It is well known that in the earlier portions of the Old Testament, and to a certain degree all through the Old Testament, religion is looked at and spoken of more as a national possession, the benefits of which are largely visible and tangible blessings. The idea of regeneration here occurs therefore<72>though no technical expression has as yet been coined for the process<73>in the first meaning of the word elucidated above. Whether the divine promises refer to the Messianic end of times, or are to be realized at an earlier date, they all refer to the nation of Israel as such, and to individuals only as far as they are partakers in the benefits bestowed upon the commonwealth. This is even true where the blessings prophesied are only spiritual, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',60,21,22);">Isa 60:21,22</a>. The mass of the people of Israel are therefore as yet scarcely aware of the fact that the conditions on which these divine promises are to be attained are more than ceremonial and ritual ones. Soon, however, great disasters, threatening to overthrow the national entity, and finally the captivity and dispersion which caused national functions to be almost, if not altogether, discontinued, assisted in the growth of a sense of individual or personal responsibility before God. The sin of Israel is recognized as the sin of the individual, which can be removed only by individual repentance and cleansing. This is best seen from the stirring appeals of the prophets of the exile, where frequently the necessity of a change of attitude toward Yahweh is preached as a means to such regeneration. This cannot be understood otherwise than as a turning of the individual to the Lord. Here, too, no ceremony or sacrifice is sufficient, but an interposition of divine grace, which is represented under the figure of a washing and sprinkling from all iniquity and sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,18);">Isa 1:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',13,23);">Jer 13:23</a>). It is not possible now to follow in full the development of this idea of cleansing, but already in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',52,15);">Isa 52:15</a> the sprinkling of many nations is mentioned and is soon understood in the sense of the "baptism" which proselytes had to undergo before their reception into the covenant of Israel. It was the symbol of a radical cleansing like that of a "new-born babe," which was one of the designations of the proselyte (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',87,5);">Ps 87:5</a>; see also the tractate Yebhamoth 62a). Would it be surprising that Israel, which had been guilty of many sins of the Gentiles, needed a similar baptism and sprinkling? This is what <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',36,25);">Eze 36:25</a> suggests: "I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you." In other passages the cleansing and refining power of fire is alluded to (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',3,2);">Mal 3:2</a>), and there is no doubt that John the Baptist found in such passages the ground for his practice of baptizing the Jews who came to him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,\'25-28\');">Joh 1:25-28</a> and parallel\'s).<P>The turning of Israel to God was necessarily meant to be an inward change of attitude toward Him, in other words, the sprinkling with clean water, as an outward sign, was the emblem of a pure heart. It was Isaiah and Jeremiah who drew attention to this (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',57,15);">Isa 57:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',24,7);">Jer 24:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,\'33-35\');">31:33-35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',32,\'38-40\');">32:38-40</a>, et passim). Here again reference is made to individuals, not only to the people in general (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,34);">Jer 31:34</a>). This promised regeneration, so lovingly offered by Yahweh, is to be the token of a new covenant between God and His people (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,31);">Jer 31:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',11,\'19-21\');">Eze 11:19-21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',18,31,32);">18:31,32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',37,23,24);">37:23,24</a>).<P>The renewing and cleansing here spoken of is in reality nothing else than what <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',30,6);">De 30:6</a> had promised, a circumcision of the heart in contradistinction to the flesh, the token of the former (Abrahamic) covenant (of circumcision, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',4,4);">Jer 4:4</a>). As God takes the initiative in making the covenant, the conviction takes root that human sin and depravity can be effectually eliminated only by the act of God Himself renewing and transforming the heart of man (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',14,4);">Ho 14:4</a>). This we see from the testimony of some of Israel\'s best sons and daughters, who also knew that this grace was found in the way of repentance and humiliation before God. The classical expression of this conviction is found in the prayer of David: "Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right (margin "stedfast") spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy Spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with a willing spirit" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',51,\'10-12\');">Ps 51:10-12</a>). Jeremiah puts the following words into the mouth of Ephraim: "Turn thou me, and I shall be turned" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,18);">Jer 31:18</a>). Clearer than any passages of the Old Testament, John the Baptist, forerunner of Christ and last flaming torch of the time of the earlier covenant, spoke of the baptism, not of water, but of the Holy Spirit and of fire (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,11);">Mt 3:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,16);">Lu 3:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,33);">Joh 1:33</a>), leading thus to the realization of Old Testament foreshadowings which became possible by faith in Christ.<P>2. In the Teaching of Jesus:<P>In the teaching of Jesus the need of regeneration has a prominent place, though nowhere are the reasons given. The Old Testament had succeeded<65>and even the Gentile conscience agreed with it<69>in convincing the people of this need. The clearest assertion of it and the explanation of the doctrine of regeneration is found in the conversation of Jesus with Nicodemus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,\'1-\');">Joh 3</a>). It is based upon<P>(1) the observation that man, even the most punctilious in the observance of the Law, is dead and therefore unable to "live up" to the demands of God. Only He who gave life at the beginning can give the (spiritual) life necessary to do God\'s will.<P>(2) Man has fallen from his virginal and divinely-appointed sphere, the realm of the spirit, the Kingdom of God, living now the perishing earthly life. Only by having a new spiritual nature imparted to him, by being "born anew" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,3);">Joh 3:3</a>, the Revised Version margin "from above," Greek anothen), by being "born of the Spirit" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,6,8);">Joh 3:6,8</a>), can he live the spiritual life which God requires of man.<P>These words are a New Testament exegesis of Ezekiel\'s vision of the dead bones (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',37,\'1-10\');">Eze 37:1-10</a>). It is the "breath from Yahweh," the Spirit of God, who alone can give life to the spiritually dead.<P>But regeneration, according to Jesus, is more than life, it is also purity. As God is pure and sinless, none but the pure in heart can see God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,8);">Mt 5:8</a>). This was always recognized as impossible to mere human endeavor. Bildad the Shuhite declared, and his friends, each in his turn, expressed very similar thoughts (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',4,17);">Job 4:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',14,4);">14:4</a>): "How then can man be just with God? Or how can he be clean that is born of a woman? Behold, even the moon hath no brightness, and the stars are not pure in his sight: how much less man, that is a worm! and the son of man, that is a worm!" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',25,\'4-6\');">Job 25:4-6</a>).<P>To change this lost condition, to impart this new life, Jesus claims as His God-appointed task: "The Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',19,10);">Lu 19:10</a>); "I came that they may have life, and may have it abundantly" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,10);">Joh 10:10</a>). This life is eternal, imperishable: "I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,28);">Joh 10:28</a>). This life is imparted by Jesus Himself: "It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, and are life" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,63);">Joh 6:63</a>). This life can be received on the condition of faith in Christ or by coming to Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,6);">Joh 14:6</a>). By faith power is received which enables the sinner to overcome sin, to "sin no more" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,11);">Joh 8:11</a>).<P>The parables of Jesus further illustrate this doctrine. The prodigal is declared to have been "dead" and to be "alive again" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',15,24);">Lu 15:24</a>). The new life from God is compared to a wedding garment in the parable of the Marriage of the King\'s Son (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,11);">Mt 22:11</a>). The garment, the gift of the inviting king, had been refused by the unhappy guest, who, in consequence, was \'cast out into the outer darkness\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,13);">Mt 22:13</a>).<P>Finally, this regeneration, this new life, is explained as the knowledge of God and His Christ: "And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,3);">Joh 17:3</a>). This seems to be an allusion to the passage in Hosea (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',4,6);">4:6</A>): "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me."<P>3. In Apostolic Teaching:<P>It may be said in general that the teaching of the apostles on the subject of regeneration is a development of the teaching of Jesus on the lines of the adumbrations of the Old Testament. Considering the differences in the personal character of these writers, it is remarkable that such concord of views should exist among them. Paul, indeed, lays more stress on the specific facts of justification and sanctification by faith than on the more comprehensive head of regeneration. Still the need of it is plainly stated by Paul. It is necessary to salvation for all men. "The body is dead because of sin" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,\'3-11\');">Ro 8:3-11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,1);">Eph 2:1</a>). The flesh is at enmity with God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,15);">Eph 2:15</a>); all mankind is "darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,18);">Eph 4:18</a>). Similar passages might be multiplied. Paul then distinctly teaches that thus is a new life in store for those who have been spiritually dead. To the Ephesians he writes: "And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,1);">2:1</A>), and later on: "God, being rich in mercy,...made us alive together with Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,4,5);">2:4,5</a>). A spiritual resurrection has taken place. This regeneration causes a complete revolution in man. He has thereby passed from under the law of sin and death and has come under "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,2);">Ro 8:2</a>). The change is so radical that it is possible now to speak of a "new creature" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,17);">2Co 5:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',6,15);">Ga 6:15</a>, margin "new creation"), of a "new man, that after God hath been created in righteousness and holiness of truth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,24);">Eph 4:24</a>), and of "the new man, that is being renewed unto knowledge after the image of him that created him" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,10);">Col 3:10</a>). All "old things are passed away; behold, they are become new" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,17);">2Co 5:17</a>).<P>Paul is equally explicit regarding the author of this change. The "Spirit of God," the "Spirit of Christ" has been given from above to be the source of all new life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,\'1-\');">Ro 8</a>); by Him we are proved to be the "sons" of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,6);">Ga 4:6</a>); we have been adopted into the family of God (huiothesia, <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,15);">Ro 8:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,5);">Ga 4:5</a>). Thus Paul speaks of the "second Adam," by whom the life of righteousness is initiated in us; just as the "first Adam" became the leader in transgression, He is "a life-giving spirit" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,45);">1Co 15:45</a>). Paul himself experienced this change, and henceforth exhibited the powers of the unseen world in his life of service. "It is no longer I that live," he exclaims, "but Christ liveth in me: and that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,20);">Ga 2:20</a>).<P>Regeneration is to Paul, no less than to Jesus, connected with the conception of purity and knowledge. We have already noted the second New Testament passage in which the word "regeneration" occurs (<a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',3,5);">Tit 3:5</a>): "According to his mercy he saved us, through the washing (margin "laver") of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour." In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',12,13);">1Co 12:13</a> such cleansing is called the baptism of the Spirit in agreement with the oft-repeated promise (<a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',2,28);">Joe 2:28 (in the Hebrew text 3:1)</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,11);">Mt 3:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,8);">Mr 1:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,16);">Lu 3:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,5);">Ac 1:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,16);">11:16</a>). There is, of course, in these passages no reference to mere water baptism, any more than in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',36,25);">Eze 36:25</a>. Water is but the tertium comparationis. As water cleanseth the outer body, so the spirit purifies the inner man (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',6,11);">1Co 6:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,21);">1Pe 3:21</a>).<P>The doctrine that regeneration redounds in true knowledge of Christ is seen from <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,\'15-19\');">Eph 3:15-19</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,\'17-24\');">4:17-24</a>, where the darkened understanding and ignorance of natural man are placed in contradistinction to the enlightenment of the new life (see also <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,10);">Col 3:10</a>). The church redeemed and regenerated is to be a special "possession," an "heritage" of the Lord (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,11,14);">Eph 1:11,14</a>), and the whole creation is to participate in the final redemption and adoption (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,\'21-23\');">Ro 8:21-23</a>).<P>James finds less occasion to touch this subject than the other writers of the New Testament. His Epistle is rather ethical than dogmatical in tone, still his ethics are based on the dogmatical presuppositions which fully agree with the teaching of other apostles. Faith to him is the human response to God\'s desire to impart His nature to mankind, and therefore the indispensable means to be employed in securing the full benefits of the new life, i.e. the sin-conquering power (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,2,3,4);">1:2-4</A>), the spiritual enlightenment (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,5);">1:5</A>) and purity (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,27);">1:27</A>). There seems, however, to be little doubt that James directly refers to regeneration in the words: "Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,18);">1:18</A>). It is supposed by some that these words, being addressed "to the twelve tribes which are of the Dispersion" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,1);">1:1</a>), do not refer to individual regeneration, but to an election of Israel as a nation and so to a Christian Israel. In this case the aftermath would be the redemption of the Gentiles. I understand the expression "first-fruits" in the sense in which we have noticed Paul\'s final hope in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,\'21-32\');">Ro 8:21-32</a>, where the regeneration of the believing people of God (regardless of nationality) is the first stage in the regeneration or restoration of all creation. The "implanted (the Revised Version margin "inborn") word" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,21);">Jas 1:21</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,23);">1Pe 1:23</a>) stands parallel to the Pauline expression, "law of the Spirit" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,2);">Ro 8:2</a>).<P>Peter uses, in his sermon on the day of Pentecost, the words "refreshing" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',3,19);">Ac 3:19</a>) and "restoration of all things" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',3,21);">Ac 3:21</a>) of the final completion of God\'s plans concerning the whole creation, and accordingly looks here at God\'s people as a whole. In a similar sense he says in his Second Epistle, after mentioning "the day of God": "We look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,13);">2Pe 3:13</a>). Still he alludes very plainly to the regeneration of individuals (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,3,13);">1Pe 1:3,13</a>). The idea of a second birth of the believers is clearly suggested in the expression, "newborn babes" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,2);">1Pe 2:2</a>), and in the explicit statement of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,23);">1Pe 1:23</a>: "having been begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of God, which liveth and abideth." It is in this sense that the apostle calls God "Father" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,17);">1Pe 1:17</a>) and the believers "children of obedience" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,14);">1Pe 1:14</a>), i.e. obedient children, or children who ought to obey. We have seen above that the agent by which regeneration is wrought, the incorruptible seed of the word of God, finds a parallel in Paul\'s and James\'s theology. All these expressions go back probably to a word of the Master in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',15,3);">Joh 15:3</a>. We are made partakers of the word by having received the spirit. This spirit (compare the Pauline "lifegiving spirit," <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,45);">1Co 15:45</a>), the "mind" of Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,1);">1Pe 4:1</a>), is the power of the resurrected Christ active in the life of the believer. Peter refers to the same thought in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,15,21);">1Pe 3:15,21</a>. By regeneration we become "an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God\'s own possession" in whom divine virtues, "the excellencies of him who called you" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,9);">1Pe 2:9</a>), are manifested. Here the apostle uses well-known Old Testament expressions foreshadowing New Testament graces (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',61,6);">Isa 61:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',66,21);">66:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,6);">Ex 19:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',7,6);">De 7:6</a>), but he individualizes the process of regeneration in full agreement with the increased light which the teaching of Jesus has brought. The theology of Peter also points out the contact of regeneration with purity and holiness (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,15,16);">1Pe 1:15,16</a>) and true knowledge (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,14);">1Pe 1:14</a>) or obedience (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,14);">1Pe 1:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,16);">3:16</a>). It is not surprising that the idea of purity should invite the Old Testament parallel of "cleansing by water." The flood washed away the iniquity of the world "in the days of Noah," when "eight souls were saved through water: which also after a true likeness (the Revised Version margin "in the antitype") doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation (the Revised Version margin "inquiry," "appeal") of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection (-life) of Jesus Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,20,21);">1Pe 3:20,21</a>).<P>The teaching of John is very closely allied with that of Jesus, as we have already seen from the multitude of quotations we had to select from John\'s Gospel to illustrate the teaching of the Master. It is especially interesting to note the cases where the apostle didactically elucidates certain of these pronouncements of Jesus. The most remarkable apostolic gloss or commentary on the subject is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',7,39);">Joh 7:39</a>. Jesus had spoken of the change which faith in Him ("coming to him") would cause in the lives of His disciples; how divine energies like "rivers of water" should issue forth from them; and the evangelist continues in explanation: "But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believed on him were to receive: for the Spirit was not yet given; because Jesus was not yet glorified." This recognition of a special manifestation of divine power, transcending the experience of Old Testament believers, was based on the declaration of Christ, that He would send "another Comforter (the Revised Version (British and American) "advocate," "helper," Greek Parakletos), that he may be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,16,17);">Joh 14:16,17</a>).<P>In his Epistles, John shows that this Spirit bestows the elements of a Godlike character which makes us to be "sons of God," who before were "children of the devil" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,10,24);">1Joh 3:10,24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,13);">4:13</a>, etc.). This regeneration is "eternal life" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,13);">1Joh 5:13</a>) and moral similarity with God, the very character of God in man. As "God is love," the children of God will love (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,2);">1Joh 5:2</a>). At the same time it is the life of God in man, also called fellowship with Christ, victorious life which overcomes the world (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,4);">1Joh 5:4</a>); it is purity (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,\'3-6\');">1Joh 3:3-6</a>) and knowledge (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,20);">1Joh 2:20</a>).<P>The subject of regeneration lies outside of the scope of the Epistle to the Hebrews, so that we look in vain for a clear dogmatical statement of it. Still the epistle does in no place contradict the dogma, which, on the other hand, underlies many of the statements made. Christ, "the mediator of a better covenant, which hath been enacted upon better promises" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',8,6);">8:6</A>), has made "purification of sins" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,3);">1:3</A>). In contradistinction to the first covenant, in which the people approached God by means of outward forms and ordinances, the "new covenant" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',8,13);">8:13</A>) brought an "eternal redemption" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,12);">9:12</A>) by means of a divine cleansing (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,14);">9:14</A>). Christ brings "many sons unto glory" and is "author of their salvation" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,10);">2:10</A>). Immature Christians are spoken of (as were the proselytes of the Old Testament) as babies, who were to grow to the stature, character and knowledge of "full-grown men" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',5,13,14);">5:13,14</A>).<P>III. Later Development of the Doctrine.<P>Very soon the high spiritual meaning of regeneration was obscured by the development of priestcraft within the Christian church. When the initiation into the church was thought of as accomplished by the mediation of ministers thereto appointed, the ceremonies hereby employed became means to which magic powers were of necessity ascribed. This we see plainly in the view of baptismal regeneration, which, based upon half-understood passages of Scripture quoted above, was taught at an early date. While in the post-apostolic days we frequently find traces of a proper appreciation of an underlying spiritual value in baptism (compare Didache vii) many of the expressions used are highly misleading. Thus Gregory Nazianzen (Orations, xi.2) calls baptism the second of the three births a child of God must experience (the first is the natural birth, the third the resurrection). This birth is "of the day, free, delivering from passions, taking away every veil of our nature or birth, i.e. everything hiding the divine image in which we are created, and leading up to the life above" (Ullmann, Gregor v. Nazienz, 323). Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat., xvii, c. 37) ascribes to baptism the power of absolution from sin and the power of endowment with heavenly virtues. According to Augustine baptism is essential to salvation, though the baptism of blood (martyrdom) may take the place of water baptism, as in the case of the thief at the cross (Augustine, De Anima et Eius Origine, i.11, c. 9; ii.14, c. 10; ii.16, c. 12). Leo the Great compares the spirit-filled water of baptism with the spirit-filled womb of the Virgin Mary, in which the Holy Spirit engenders a sinless child of God (Serm. xxiv.3; xxv.5; see Hagenbach, Dogmengeschichte, section 137).<P>In general this is still the opinion of pronounced sacrmentarians, while evangelical Christianity has gone back to the teaching of the New Testament.<P>IV. Present Significance.<P>Although a clear distinction is not always maintained between regeneration and other experiences of the spiritual life, we may summarize our belief in the following theses:<P>(1) Regeneration implies not merely an addition of certain gifts or graces, a strengthening of certain innate good qualities, but a radical change, which revolutionizes our whole being, contradicts and overcomes our old fallen nature, and places our spiritual center of gravity wholly outside of our own powers in the realm of God\'s causation.<P>(2) It is the will of God that all men be made partakers of this new life (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',2,4);">1Ti 2:4</a>) and, as it is clearly stated that some fall short of it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,40);">Joh 5:40</a>), it is plain that the fault thereof lies with man. God requires all men to repent and turn unto Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,30);">Ac 17:30</a>) before He will or can effect regeneration. Conversion, consisting in repentance and faith in Christ, is therefore the human response to the offer of salvation which God makes. This response gives occasion to and is synchronous with the divine act of renewal (regeneration). The Spirit of God enters into union with the believing, accepting spirit of man. This is fellowship with Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,10);">Ro 8:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',6,17);">1Co 6:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,17);">2Co 5:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,3);">Col 3:3</a>).<P>(3) The process of regeneration is outside of our observation and beyond the scope of psychological analysis. It takes place in the sphere of subconsciousness. Recent psychological investigations have thrown a flood of light on the psychic states which precede, accompany and follow the work of the Holy Spirit. "He handles psychical powers; He works upon psychical energies and states; and this work of regeneration lies somewhere within the psychical field." The study of religious psychology is of highest value and greatest importance. The facts of Christian experience cannot be changed, nor do they lose in value by the most searching psychological scrutiny.<P>Psychological analysis does not eliminate the direct workings of the Holy Spirit. Nor can it disclose its process; the "underlying laboratory where are wrought radical remedial processes and structural changes in the psychical being as portrayed in explicit scriptural utterances: \'Create in me a clean heart\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',51,10);">Ps 51:10</a>); \'Ye must be born again\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,7);">Joh 3:7</a> the King James Version); \'If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold all things are become new\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,17);">2Co 5:17</a> the King James Version), is in the region of subconsciousness. To look in the region of consciousness for this Person or for His work is fruitless and an effort fraught with endless confusion. Christian psychology thus traces to its deep-lying retreat the divine elaboration of the regenerated life. Here God works in the depths of the soul as silently and securely as if on the remotest world of the stellar universe" (H. E. Warner, Psychology of the Christian Life, 117).<P>(4) Regeneration manifests itself in the conscious soul by its effects on the will, the intelligence and the affections. At the same time regeneration supplies a new life-power of divine origin, which enables the component parts of human nature to fulfill the law of God, to strive for the coming of God\'s kingdom, and to accept the teachings of God\'s spirit. Thus regenerate man is made conscious of the facts of justification and adoption. The former is a judicial act of God, which frees man from the law of sin and absolves him from the state of enmity against God; the latter an enduement with the Spirit, which is an earnest of his inheritance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,14);">Eph 1:14</a>). The Spirit of God, dwelling in man, witnesses to the state of sonship (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,2,15,16);">Ro 8:2,15,16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,6);">Ga 4:6</a>).<P>(5) Regeneration, being a new birth, is the starting-point of spiritual growth. The regenerated man needs nurture and training. He receives it not merely from outside experiences, but from an immanent power in himself, which is recognized as the power of the life of the indwelling Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,26,27);">Col 1:26,27</a>). Apart from the mediate dealings of God with man through word and sacraments, there is therefore an immediate communication of life from God to the regenerate.<P>(6) The truth which is mentioned as the agent by whom regeneration is made possible (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,32);">Joh 8:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,18);">Jas 1:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,23);">1Pe 1:23</a>), is nothing else than the Divine Spirit, not only the spoken or written word of God, which may convince people of right or wrong, but which cannot enable the will of man to forsake the wrong and to do the right, but He who calls Himself the Truth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,6);">Joh 14:6</a>) and who has become the motive power of regenerated life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,20);">Ga 2:20</a>).<P>(7) Recent philosophy expressive of the reaction from the mechanical view of bare materialism, and also from the depreciation of personality as seen in socialism, has again brought into prominence the reality and need of personal life. Johannes Muller and Rudolf Eucken among others emphasize that a new life of the spirit, independent of outward conditions, is not only possible, but necessary for the attainment of the highest development. This new life is not a fruit of the free play of the tendencies and powers of natural life, but is in sharp conflict with them. Man as he is by nature stands in direct contrast to the demands of the spiritual life. Spiritual life, as Professor Eucken says, can be implanted in man by some superior power only and must constantly be sustained by superior life. It breaks through the order of causes and effects; it severs the continuity of the outer world; it makes impossible a rational joining together of realities; it prohibits a monastic view of the immediate condition of the world. This new life derives its power not from mere Nature; it is a manifestation of divine life within us (Hauptprobleme der Religionsphilosophie, Leipzig,1912,17ff; Der Kampf um einen geistigen Lebensinhalt, Leipzig, 1907; Grundlinien einer neuen Lebensanschauung, Leipzig, 1907; Johannes Muller, Bausteine fur personliche Kultur, 3 volumes, Munchen, 1908). Thus the latest development of idealistic philosophy corroborates in a remarkable way the Christian truth of regeneration.<P>LITERATURE<P>New Testament Theologies by Weiss, Beyschlag, Holtzmann, Schlatter, Feine, Stevens, Sheldon, Weinel. Textbooks on Systematic Theology: articles "Bekehrung" by R. Seeberg; "Wiedergeburt" by O. Kirn in Hauck-Herzog RE3; "Regeneration" by J. V. Bartlett in HDB; "Conversion" by J. Strachan in ERE; George Jackson, The Fact of Conversion, London, 1908; Newton H. Marshall, Conversion; or, the New Birth, London, 1909; J. Herzog, Der Begriff der Bekehrung, Giessen, 1903; P. Feine, Bekehrung im New Testament und in der Gegenwart, Leipzig, 1908; P. Gennrich, Die Lehre yon der Wiedergeburt, Leipzig, 1907. Psychological: W. James, Varieties of Religious Experience, 189-258; G. Stanley Hall, Adolescence, II, 281-362; G. A. Coe, The Spiritual Life, New York, 1900; E. D. Starbuck, Psychology of Religion, New York, 1911; G. B. Cutten, Psychological Phenomena of Christianity, London, 1909; H. E. Warner, The Psychology of the Christian Life, New York, 1910; H. W. Clark, The Philosophy of Christian Experience, London, 1906; Harold Begbie, Broken Earthenware, or Twice-Born Men, London, 1909; M. Scott Fletcher, The Psychology of the New Testament, London, 1912.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CONVERSION">CONVERSION</a>`129';
isbe[7339]='Regeneration, Baptismal``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BAPTISMAL+REGENERATION">BAPTISMAL REGENERATION</a>`1';
isbe[7340]='Region`re\'-jun: A "district," as in modern English. The word "region" is used by English Versions of the Bible interchangeably with "country," "coasts," etc., for various Hebrew and Greek terms, but "region round about" is usually in the King James Version and invariably in the Revised Version (British and American) the translation of perichoros, "surrounding country." For a possible technical use of "region" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,6);">Ac 16:6</a> and the Revised Version (British and American) <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,23);">18:23</A>.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GALATIA">GALATIA</a>`1';
isbe[7341]='Register`rej\'-is-ter.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GENEALOGY">GENEALOGY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=QUIRINIUS">QUIRINIUS</a>`1';
isbe[7342]='Rehabiah`re-ha-bi\'-a (rechabhyah, rechabhyahu, "Yah is wide"): Son of Eliezer, and grandson of Moses. Eponym of a Levitical family (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',23,17);">1Ch 23:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',24,21);">24:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',26,25);">26:25</a>).``1';
isbe[7343]='Rehearse`re-hurs\' (sum, dabhar, naghadh, tanah; anaggello): Usually means simply "to relate," "to tell," "to declare" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,14);">Ex 17:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,11);">Jud 5:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',8,21);">1Sa 8:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',17,31);">17:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,27);">Ac 14:27</a>); with "rehearse from the beginning" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,4);">Ac 11:4</a> for archomai, "begin" (so the Revised Version (British and American)). the Revised Version (British and American) has preserved uniformity by translating anaggello by "rehearse" also in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,4);">Ac 15:4</a>, and has introduced "rehearse" as the translation of exegeomai, throughout (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,35);">Lu 24:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,8);">Ac 10:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,12,14);">15:12,14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,19);">21:19</a>), except in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,18);">Joh 1:18</a> ("declare"). Sirach 19:7, the King James Version has "rehearse" for deuteroo, "repeat" (so the Revised Version (British and American)).``1';
isbe[7344]='Rehob`re\'-hob (rechobh; Rhoob, Rhaab):<P>(1) Etymologically the word means "broad" and might be applied either to a road or a plain. Rehob is given (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,21);">Nu 13:21</a>) as the northern limit of Israel as reached by the spies. This agrees with the position assigned to Beth-rehob in the narrative of the settlement of the Danites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',18,28);">Jud 18:28</a>). It is mentioned again along with the kingdom of Zobah in connection with the wars of Saul (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,47);">1Sa 14:47</a> Septuagint Lag.), and as having been associated with, Zobah and Maacah against David in the Ammonite war and as having been defeated by him (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',10,6);">2Sa 10:6</a>). Robinson sought to identify it with Hunin, but it hardly suits the references. Buhl (GAP, 240) following Thomson (LB, II, 547) seeks it at Paneas (modern Banias). This would suit all the requirements of the capital, Beth-rehob, which might then be the second Rehob, assigned as part of the territory of Sidon to the tribe Asher (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,28,30);">Jos 19:28,30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',18,28);">Jud 18:28</a>). We must, however, assign to the kingdom of Rehob a territory extending from the settlements of the Danites to the "entering in of Hamath" or to Libo (modern Leboue), i.e. the Great Plain of Coele-Syria bounded by Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon and within the limits indicated.<P>(2) Two separate towns belonging to Asher (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,28);">Jos 19:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,30);">19:30</a>). One of them was given to the Gershonite Levites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,31);">Jos 21:31</a>), and one is mentioned as remaining in the hands of the Canaanites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,31);">Jud 1:31</a>).<P>(3) Father of Hadadezer, king of Aram Zobah, who was overwhelmed by David at the Euphrates (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',8,3,12);">2Sa 8:3,12</a>).<P>(4) One of the Levites who sealed Nehemiah\'s covenant on the 24th Tishri, 444 BC (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,11);">Ne 10:11</a>).``23';
isbe[7345]='Rehoboam`re-ho-bo\'-am (rechabh\'am, "the people is enlarged," or perhaps "Am is wide" Rhoboam; "Roboam," <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,7);">Mt 1:7</a> the King James Version):<P>1. The Disruption of the Kingdom<P>2. Underlying Causes of Disruption<P>3. Shemaiah Forbids Civil War<P>4. Rehoboam\'s Prosperity<P>5. Shishak\'s Invasion<P>6. His Death<hr /><P>The son and successor of Solomon, the last king to claim the throne of old Israel and the first king of Judah after the division of the kingdom. He was born circa 978 BC. His mother was Naamah, an Ammonitess. The account of his reign is contained in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',14,\'21-31\');">1Ki 14:21-31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',10,\'1-\');">2Ch 10-12</a>. The incidents leading to the disruption of the kingdom are told in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,\'43-\');">1Ki 11:43</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',12,\'1-24\');">12:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',9,\'31-\');">2Ch 9:31-11:4</a>.<P>1. The Disruption of the Kingdom:<P>Rehoboam was 41 years old (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',12,13);">2Ch 12:13</a>) when he began to reign Septuagint <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',12,24);">1Ki 12:24a</a> says 16 years). He ascended the throne at Jerusalem immediately upon his father\'s death with apparently no opposition. Northern Israel, however, was dissatisfied, and the people demanded that the king meet them in popular assembly at Shechem, the leading city of Northern Israel. True, Israel was no longer, if ever, an elective monarchy. Nevertheless, the people claimed a constitutional privilege, based perhaps on the transaction of Samuel in the election of Saul (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,25);">1Sa 10:25</a>), to be a party to the conditions under which they would serve a new king and he become their ruler: David, in making Solomon his successor, had ignored this wise provision, and the people, having lost such a privilege by default, naturally deemed their negligence the cause of Solomon\'s burdensome taxes and forced labor. Consequently, they would be more jealous of their rights for the future, and Rehoboam accordingly would have to accede to their demand. Having come together at Shechem, the people agreed to accept Rehoboam as their king on condition that he would lighten the grievous service and burdensome taxes of his father. Rehoboam asked for three days\' time in which to consider the request. Against the advice of men of riper judgment, who assured him that he might win the people by becoming their servant, he chose the counsel of the younger men, who were of his own age, to rule by sternness rather than by kindness, and returned the people a rough answer, saying: "My father made your yoke heavy, but I will add to your yoke: my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',12,14);">1Ki 12:14</a>). Rehoboam, however, misjudged the temper of the people, as well as his own ability. The people, led by Jeroboam, a leader more able than himself, were ready for rebellion, and so force lost the day where kindness might have won. The threat of the king was met by the Marseillaise of the people: "What portion have we in David? neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: to your tents, O Israel: now see to thine own house, David" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',12,16);">1Ki 12:16</a>). Thus the ten tribes dethroned Rehoboam, and elected Jeroboam, their champion and spokesman, their king (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JEROBOAM">JEROBOAM</A>). Rehoboam, believing in his ability to carry out his threat (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',12,14);">1Ki 12:14</a>), sent Adoram, his taskmaster, who no doubt had quelled other disturbances, to subdue the populace, which, insulted by indignities and enraged by Rehoboam\'s renewed insolence, stoned his messenger to death. Realizing, for the first time, the seriousness of the revolt, Rehoboam fled ignominiously back to Jerusalem, king only of Judah and of the adjacent territory of the tribe of Benjamin. The mistake of Rehoboam, was the common mistake of despots. He presumed too much on privilege not earned by service, and on power for which he was not willing to render adequate compensation.<P>2. Underlying Causes of Disruption:<P>It is a mistake, however, to see in the disruption the shattering of a kingdom that had long been a harmonious whole. From the earliest times the confederation of tribes was imperfectly cemented. They seldom united against their common foe. No mention is made of Judah in the list of tribes who fought with Deborah against Sisera. A chain of cities held by the Canaanites, stretching across the country from east to west, kept the north and the south apart. Different physical characteristics produced different types of life in the two sections. Old jealousies repeatedly fanned into new flame intensified the divisions due to natural and artificial causes. David labored hard to break down the old antagonisms, but even in his reign Israel rebelled twice. Northern Israel had produced many of the strongest leaders of the nation, and it was not easy for them to submit to a ruler from the Judean dynasty. Solomon, following David\'s policy of unification, drew the tribes closely together through the centralization of worship at Jerusalem and through the general splendor of his reign, but he, more than any other, finally widened the gulf between the north and the south, through his unjust discriminations, his heavy taxes, his forced labor and the general extravagances of his reign. The religion of Yahweh was the only bond capable of holding the nation together. The apostasy of Solomon severed this bond. The prophets, with their profound knowledge of religious and political values, saw less danger to the true worship of Yahweh in a divided kingdom than in a united nation ruled over by Rehoboam, who had neither political sagacity nor an adequate conception of the greatness of the religion of Yahweh. Accordingly, Ahijah openly encouraged the revolution, while Shemaiah gave it passive support.<P>3. Shemaiah Forbids Civil War:<P>Immediately upon his return to Jerusalem, Rehoboam collected a large army of 180,000 men (reduced to 120,000 in the Septuagint\'s Codex Vaticanus), for the purpose of making war against Israel. The expedition, however, was forbidden by Shemaiah the prophet on the ground that they should not fight against their brethren, and that the division of the kingdom was from God. Notwithstanding the prohibition, we are informed that "there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',14,30);">1Ki 14:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',12,15);">2Ch 12:15</a>).<P>4. Rehoboam\'s Prosperity:<P>Rehoboam next occupied himself in strengthening the territory which still remained to him by fortifying a number of cities (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',11,\'5-12\');">2Ch 11:5-12</a>). These cities were on the roads to Egypt, or on the western hills of the Judean Shephelah, and were doubtless fortifled as a protection against Egypt. According to <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',11,\'13-17\');">2Ch 11:13-17</a>, Rehoboam\'s prosperity was augmented by an immigration of priests and Levites from Israel, who came to Jerusalem because of their opposition to the idolatrous worship instituted by Jeroboam. All who were loyal to Yahweh in the Northern Kingdom are represented as following the example of the priests and Levites in going to Jerusalem, not simply to sacrifice, but to reside there permanently, thus strengthening Rehoboam\'s kingdom. In view of the fact that Rehoboam added to the innovations of his father, erected pillars of Baal in Jerusalem long before they were common in Northern Israel, and that he permitted other heathen abominations and immoralities, it seems that the true worship of Yahweh received little encouragement from the king himself. As a further evidence of his prosperity, Chronicles gives an account of Rehoboam\'s family. Evidently he was of luxurious habit and followed his father in the possession of a considerable harem (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',11,\'18-23\');">2Ch 11:18-23</a>). He is said to have had 18 wives and 60 concubines, (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',11,21);">2Ch 11:21</a>; the Septuagint\'s Codex Vaticanus and Josephus, Ant, VIII, x, 1 give "30 concubines").<P>5. Shishak\'s Invasion:<P>One of the direct results of the disruption of the kingdom was the invasion of Palestine by Shishak, king of Egypt, in the 5th year of Rehoboam. Shishak is Sheshonk. I, the first king of the XXIId or Bubastite Dynasty. He is the same ruler who granted hospitality to Jeroboam when he was obliged to flee from Solomon (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,40);">1Ki 11:40</a>). The Septuagint (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',12,24);">1Ki 12:24</a> e) informs us that Jeroboam married Ano, the sister of Shishak\'s wife, thus becoming brother-in-law to the king of Egypt. It is therefore easy to suppose that Jeroboam, finding himself in straits in holding his own against his rival, Rehoboam, called in the aid of his former protector. The results of this invasion, however, are inscribed on the temple at Karnak in Upper Egypt, where a list of some 180 (Curtis, "Chronicles," ICC) towns captured by Shishak is given. These belong to Northern Israel as well as Judah, showing that Shishak exacted tribute there as well as in Judah, which seems scarcely reconcilable with the view that he invaded Palestine as Jeroboam\'s ally. However, the king of Israel, imploring the aid of Shishak against his rival, thereby made himself vassal to Egypt. This would suffice to make his towns figure at Karnak among the cities subjected in the course of the campaign. The Chronicler saw in Shishak an instrument in the hand of God for the punishment of R. and the people for the national apostasy. According to <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',12,3);">2Ch 12:3</a>, Shishak had a force of 1,200 chariots and 60,000 horsemen to which Josephus adds 400,000 foot-soldiers, composed of Lubim, Sukkum and Ethiopians. No resistance appears to have been offered to the advance of the invading army. Not even Jerusalem seems to have stood a siege. The palace and the temple were robbed of all their treasures, including the shields of gold which Solomon had made. For these Rehoboam later substituted shields of brass (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',12,9,10);">2Ch 12:9,10</a>).<P>6. His Death:<P>Rehoboam died at the age of fifty-eight, after having reigned in Jerusalem for 17 years. His son Abijah became his successor. He was buried in Jerusalem. Josephus says that in disposition he was a proud and foolish man, and that he "despised the worship of God, till the people themselves imitated his wicked actions" (Ant., VIII, x, 2).``125';
isbe[7346]='Rehoboth`re-ho\'-both, re-ho\'-both (rehobhoth, "broad places"; Euruchoria): One of the wells dug by Isaac (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,22);">Ge 26:22</a>). It is probably the Rubuta of the Tell el-Amarna Letters (Petrie, numbers 256, 260; see also The Expository Times, XI, 239 (Konig), 377 (Sayce)), and it is almost certainly identical with the ruin Ruchaibeh, 8 hours southwest of Beersheba. Robinson (BR, I, 196-97) describes the ruins of the ancient city as thickly covering a "level tract of 10 to 12 acres in extent"; "many of the dwellings had each its cistern, cut in the solid rock"; "once this must have been a city of not less than 12,000 or 15,000 inhabitants. Now it is a perfect field of ruins, a scene of unutterable desolation, across which the passing stranger can with difficulty find his way." Huntington (Palestine and Its Transformation, 124) describes considerable remains of a suburban population extending both to the north and to the south of this once important place.``117';
isbe[7347]='Rehoboth By the River`(rehobhoth ha-nahar; Codex Vaticanus Rhooboth (Rhoboth in Chronicles) he para potamon; Codex Alexandrinus Rhoboth): This city is mentioned only as the residence of Shaul, one of the rulers of Edom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,37);">Ge 36:37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,48);">1Ch 1:48</a>). There is nothing to guide us with certainty as to the situation of the city. Eusebius (Onomasticon) places it in Idumaea (Gebalene), but no trace of a name resembling this has been found in the district. "The river" usually means the Euphrates. If the city could have been so far from Edom, it might be identified with Rahaba on the west of the river, 8 miles south of its confluence with the Khabur. Winckler thinks it might possibly be on the boundary between Palestine and Egypt, "the river" being Wady el-\'Arish, "the brook of Egypt" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',5,\'1-\');">Nu 5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,4);">Jos 15:4</a>, etc.).``54';
isbe[7348]='Rehoboth-Ir`r.-ur, r.-ir (rehobhoth \'ir, "Rehoboth City"; Septuagint he Rhohbos (Rhooboth) polis, "the city Rhoobos, Rhooboth"):<P>1. Probably Rebit Ninua:<P>The second of the cities built by Asshur (the Revised Version (British and American) by Nimrod) in Assyria (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,11,12);">Ge 10:11,12</a>). Unlike the other three, the exact equivalent of this name is not found in Assyrian literature Fried. Delitzsch points out (Wo lag das Paradies? 260f) that rechobhoth is the equivalent of the Assyrian rebite, "streets," and suggests that the site referred to may be the Rebit Ninua, "streets of Nineveh," mentioned by Sargon of Assyria in connection with the peopling of Maganubba (Khorsabad or Dur-Sarru-kin; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NINEVEH">NINEVEH</A>); and it was through this tract that Esar-haddon, his grandson, caused the heads of the kings of Kundi and Sidon to be carried in procession when he returned from his expedition to the Mediterranean.<P>2. Or, Possibly, the Old Capital, Assur:<P>Though the probabilities in favor of Rebit Ninua are great, it is doubtful whether a suburb could have been regarded as a foundation worthy of a primitive ruler, and that a very important city, Assur, the old capital of Assyria, would rather be expected. One of the groups expressing its name is composed of the characters Sag-uru, or, dialectically, Sab-eri, the second element being the original of the Hebrew \'ir. As the "center-city," Assur may have been regarded as the city of broad spaces (rechobhoth)<29>its ruins are of considerable extent. The German explorers there have made many important discoveries of temples, temple- towers, palaces and streets, the most picturesque in ancient times being the twin tower-temples of Anu (the sky) and Adad (Hadad). The ruins lie on the Tigris, about 50 miles south of Nineveh. It practically ceased to be the capital about the middle of the 8th century BC.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NINEVEH">NINEVEH</a>`136';
isbe[7349]='Rehum`re\'-hum (rechum, or rechum):<P>(1) One of the twelve heads of the Jewish community returning from captivity with Zerubbabel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,2);">Ezr 2:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,7);">Ne 7:7</a> (by a copyist\'s error "Nehum"); <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,3);">Ne 12:3</a>; 1Es 5:8, "Roimus").<P>(2) A Persian officer of high rank (literally, "master of judgment, taste, reason") who with others wrote a letter against Jerusalem to King Artaxerxes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,8,9,17,23);">Ezr 4:8,9,17,23</a>).<P>(3) Son of Bani, a Levite, one of the wall-builders under Nehemiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',3,17);">Ne 3:17</a>).<P>(4) One of the signers of the covenant in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,25);">Ne 10:25</a>.<P>(5) In <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,3);">Ne 12:3</a> (omitted in the Septuagint) one Rehum is mentioned with those who went up with Zerubbabel. It is probable that we should read here "Harim" (charim for rechum of <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,15);">Ne 12:15</a>).``164';
isbe[7350]='Rei`re\'-i (re\'i, "friendly"; Rhesei): Rei, Shimei and the Gibborim who belonged to David are listed among those who did not join Adonijah in his attempt on the throne (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',1,8);">1Ki 1:8</a>). The name is very uncertain. Winckler (Geschichte, II, 247) identifies him with Ira, the Jairite, who was a "priest to David" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',20,26);">2Sa 20:26</a> the Revised Version margin); he tries to prove that this Ira (or Jair) was a priest of Bethlehem. Stade (GVI, I, 293, note 1) holds that Shimei and Rei were two officers of David\'s bodyguard. Josephus (Ant., VII, xiv, 4) has ho Daouidou philos, thus making Shimei a "friend," the courtier of <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',15,37);">2Sa 15:37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',16,16);">16:16</a>, and omitting Rei entirely. This would call for an original reading re\'h ha-melekh, or re\'eh ha-melekh, and is too wide a variant from the Massoretic Text. Assuming that Rei belongs in the text, it is safe to conjecture that he was an officer of the royal guard.``197';
isbe[7351]='Reign`ran: The Hebrew word malekhuth, may be rendered "kinghood," "royal dignity," "kingdom," "government" ("reign"). The verb is malakh, "to be king" ("to reign as king"), "to become king," "to accede to the throne," "to assume royal power publicly" and, generally speaking, "to become powerful." In the New Testament hegemonia, basileia, basileuein. The word is used, either as a noun or as a verb, of Yahweh (God), the Messiah (Christ) and men (kings, etc.); then of such terms as sin, death, grace; of the woman in Revelation and, conditionally, of the Christians; once, ironically, of the Corinthians. "Reign" as a noun referring to the time of reigning occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',6,1);">1Ki 6:1</a> (Solomon); <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',24,12);">2Ki 24:12</a> (Nebuchadnezzar); <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,31);">1Ch 4:31</a> (David; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',29,30);">1Ch 29:30</a>); <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',36,20);">2Ch 36:20</a> ("until the reign of the kingdom of Persia"); <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,22);">Ne 12:22</a> (Darius); <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',2,16);">Es 2:16</a> (Ahasuerus); <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,1);">Lu 3:1</a> (Tiberius Caesar). More often occurs the verb "to reign," malakh, basileuein. It is applied to:<P>(1) Yahweh at the close of the song of Moses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,18);">Ex 15:18</a>); "Yahweh reigneth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',16,31);">1Ch 16:31</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',93,1);">Ps 93:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',96,10);">96:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',99,1);">99:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,6);">Re 19:6</a>); "God reigneth over the nations" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',47,8);">Ps 47:8</a>); "Yahweh of hosts will reign in mount Zion" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',24,23);">Isa 24:23</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',4,7);">Mic 4:7</a>); "Thy God reigneth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',52,7);">Isa 52:7</a>); "Thou hast taken thy great power and didst reign" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',11,17);">Re 11:17</a>, meaning probably "thou didst assume thy might");<P>(2) the Messiah (Christ) as a just and righteous king (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',23,5);">Jer 23:5</a>); an eternal king (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,33);">Lu 1:33</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',11,15);">Re 11:15</a>); punishing and subduing His enemies (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',19,14,27);">Lu 19:14,27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,25);">1Co 15:25</a>).<P>(3) Men (kings, etc.), in regard to the source of their power ("By me (i.e. the wisdom of God), kings reign" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',8,15);">Pr 8:15</a>)); respecting legitimate succession (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',23,3);">2Ch 23:3</a>); meaning "to have power or dominion" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,8);">Ge 37:8</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',34,30);">Job 34:30</a>); in regard to an essential characteristic (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',32,1);">Isa 32:1</a>); in connection with the covenant of Yahweh with David (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',33,21);">Jer 33:21</a>); then the word is used in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',12,12);">1Sa 12:12</a>, where Samuel reminds the children of Israel of their demanding a king of him (compare verse <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',12,14);">14</A>); of Saul (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,1);">1Sa 13:1</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',11,12);">1Sa 11:12</a>); of Saul\'s son Ish-bosheth (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',2,10);">2Sa 2:10</a>); of David (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',5,4);">2Sa 5:4</a>f; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',3,21);">2Sa 3:21</a>); of Adonijah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',1,11,24);">1Ki 1:11,24</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',2,15);">1Ki 2:15</a>); of Solomon (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',1,13);">1Ki 1:13</a>); quite frequently of the kings of Judah and Israel (in the Books of Kings and Chronicles); of the kings of Edom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,31);">Ge 36:31</a>); of Jabin, king of Canaan, in Razor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',4,2);">Jud 4:2</a>); of Abimelech, Jerubbaal\'s son, in Jotham\'s fable (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',9,\'8-15\');">Jud 9:8-15</a>); of Hanun, king of the Ammonites (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',10,1);">2Sa 10:1</a>); of Rezon and his men in Damascus (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,24);">1Ki 11:24</a>); of Hazael and Ben-hadad, kings of Syria (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',8,15);">2Ki 8:15</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',8,13);">13:24</a>); of Esar-haddon, king of Assyria (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',19,37);">2Ki 19:37</a>); of Ahasuerus, king of Persia (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',1,1);">Es 1:1</a>); of Archelaus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',2,22);">Mt 2:22</a>).<P>(4) In the New Testament the term basileuein, "to reign," is used to illustrate and emphasize the power of sin, death and grace (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,14,17,21);">Ro 5:14,17,21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,12);">6:12</a>). Sin, the vitiating mental factor, is to be looked upon as being constantly and resolutely bent on maintaining or regaining its hold upon man, its power being exercised and reinforced by the lusts of the body. Death, the logical outcome of sin, at once testifies to the power of sin and its inherent corruption, while grace is the restoring spiritual factor following up and combating everywhere and always the pernicious influence of sin. It strives to dethrone sin, and to establish itself in man as the only dominating force.<P>(5) In describing the future glorious state of the believers, the New Testament uses the expression of those who endure (in faith; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',2,12);">2Ti 2:12</a>); of those \'purchased unto God with the blood of the Lamb\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',5,10);">Re 5:10</a>); of those partaking in the first resurrection (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,6);">Re 20:6</a>); of the servants of God, "they shall reign for ever and ever" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,5);">Re 22:5</a>); on the other hand, it teaches us not to anticipate the privileges of heaven, while our Christian life is anything but satisfactory (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',4,8);">1Co 4:8</a>), and <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',17,18);">Re 17:18</a> shows us the terrible fate of the woman, the great city (the corrupt church), "which reigneth over the kings of the earth."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KING,+KINGDOM">KING, KINGDOM</a>`8';
isbe[7352]='Reins`ranz (kilyah; nephros, words promiscuously translated "heart," "inward parts," "kidneys" or "reins." The latter word, which is derived from Latin "renes" through Old French "reins", has given place in modern English to the word "kidneys" (see Skeat, Concise Etymological Dictionary of the English Language, 398). the Revised Version (British and American) has, however, retained the older word, at least in the margin, in all passages in which it is found in the King James Version): According to Hebrew psychology the reins are the seat of the deepest emotions and affections of man, which God alone can fully know. Thus the Revised Version (British and American) has substituted "heart" for "reins" in the text of <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',19,27);">Job 19:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',7,9);">Ps 7:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',16,7);">16:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',26,2);">26:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',73,21);">73:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',23,16);">Pr 23:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',11,20);">Jer 11:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',12,2);">12:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',17,10);">17:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',20,12);">20:12</a>; the translation "inward parts" is found but once (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',139,13);">Ps 139:13</a>). In one passage the King James Version has translated the Hebrew halac ("<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LOINS">loins</a>") with "<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=REINS">reins</a>" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',11,5);">Isa 11:5</a>), where the Revised Version (British and American) has rightly substituted "waist" (which see). The Greek word nephros (which is etymologically allied to the Middle English nere, Get. Niere; see Skeat, ibid, 231, under the word "Kidney") is found in 1Macc 2:24; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,23);">Re 2:23</a>.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KIDNEYS">KIDNEYS</a>`106';
isbe[7353]='Rekem`re\'-kem (rekem, "friendship"):<P>(1) One of the five kings of Midian slain by the Israelites under Moses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',31,8);">Nu 31:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,21);">Jos 13:21</a> (Codex Vaticanus Rhobok; Codex Alexandrinus Rhokom)). Like his companions, he is called a "king" in Numbers, but a "prince" or "chieftain" in the passage in Josh. The two references are hardly related; both are based on an earlier tradition.glish Language, 398). the Revised Version (British and American) has, however, retained the older word, at least in the margin, in all passages in which it is found in the King James Version): According to Hebrew psychology the reins are the seat of the deepest emotions and affections of man, which God alone can fully know. Thus the Revised Version (British and American) has substituted "heart" for "reins" in the text of <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',19,27);">Job 19:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',7,9);">Ps 7:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',16,7);">16:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',26,2);">26:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',73,21);">73:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',23,16);">Pr 23:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',11,20);">Jer 11:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',12,2);">12:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',17,10);">17:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',20,12);">20:12</a>; the translation "inward parts" is found but once (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',139,13);">Ps 139:13</a>). In one passage the King James Version has translated the Hebrew halac ("loins") with "reins" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',11,5);">Isa 11:5</a>), where the Revised Version (British and American) has rightly substituted "waist" (which see). The Greek word nephros (which is etymologically allied to the Middle English nere, Get. Niere; see Skeat, ibid, 231, under the word "Kidney") is found in 1Macc 2:24; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,23);">Re 2:23</a>. compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',4,7);">Mic 4:7</a>); "Thy God reigneth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',52,7);">Isa 52:7</a>); "Thou hast taken thy great power and didst reign" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',11,17);">Re 11:17</a>, meaning probably "thou didst assume thy might"); (2) the Messiah (Christ) as a just and righteous king (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',23,5);">Jer 23:5</a>); an eternal king (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,33);">Lu 1:33</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',11,15);">Re 11:15</a>); punishing and subduing His enemies (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',19,14,27);">Lu 19:14,27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,25);">1Co 15:25</a>).<P>(2) Eponym of a Calebite family (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,43);">1Ch 2:43</a> (Rhekom). Probably a town in Southern Judah. A town of this name is given as belonging to Benjamin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',18,27);">Jos 18:27</a>).<P>(3) A city of Benjamin, mentioned with Irpeel and Taralah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',18,27);">Jos 18:27</a>); the site is unknown.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RAKEM">RAKEM</a>`197';
isbe[7354]='Relationships, Family`re-la\'-shun-ships:<P><B>I. CONSANGUINITY</B><P class="in15">1. In General<P class="in15">2. Parents and Children<P class="in15">3. Brothers and Sisters<P class="in15">4. Uncles, Aunts, Cousins, Kinsmen<P><B>II. AFFINITY</B><P class="in15">1. Husband and Wife<P class="in15">2. Father-in-Law, etc.<P class="in15">3. Brother-in-Law, etc.<P><B>III. OTHER DOMESTIC RELATIONS</B><P class="in15">1. Foster-Father<P class="in15">2. Master and Servants<P class="in15">3. Host and Guest<P class="in15">4. The Dependent Stranger<HR /><P>The family or domestic relations of the Bible include<P>(1) those of consanguinity or blood relationship,<P>(2) affinity or marriage relationship, and<P>(3) legal convention.<P>Those of consanguinity may be divided into lineal and collateral groups; the former are those of parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren, and ancestors and descendants in general; the latter are those of brothers and sisters, uncles and aunts in relation to nephews and nieces, cousins of various degrees, including mere tribesmen and even remoter kinsfolk. The relations of affinity include besides that of husband and wife or concubine, the relations among rival wives, and their children, those of father-in-law and mother-in-law in relation to son-in-law and daughter-in-law, and those of brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law. The domestic relations based on legal convention are either legal fictions or the results of agreement: among the former we must include those of foster-father or mother and foster-children; among the latter the relations between master and the various classes of servants and slaves held by the ancient Hebrews, those between host and guest, especially where they became covenant brothers, and between the citizen and the stranger who had attached himself to him for his protection.<P>I. Consanguinity.<P>1. In General:<P>Genealogies were carefully kept by the ancient Hebrews (compare those of Genesis, Numbers, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Matthew, Luke), not only because they formed the basis of a man\'s title to his property (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',27,\'8-11\');">Nu 27:8-11</a>; exceptional case, <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',36,\'1-12\');">Nu 36:1-12</a>), but also because on one\'s pedigree depended the right of his family to intermarry with the priestly caste. Descent was traced through the father; a man\'s closest association was therefore with his father\'s family, and he was ordinarily referred to as the son of his father, thus Isaac the son of Abraham (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,19);">Ge 25:19</a>), Joshua the son of Nun, Caleb the son of Jephunneh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,6);">Nu 14:6</a>). Still there are instances of men named for their mothers (Joab the son of Zeruiah), and a man\'s relation with his mother\'s family was fully recognized in the laws forbidding incest. No lineal relatives were permitted to intermarry (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,7,10);">Le 18:7,10</a>). The relations of ancestors and descendants were considered so close that the ordinary terms of relationship between children and parents are used constantly in relation to grandparents and remoter ancestors. The wishes of a great-grandfather are respected long after his death as the wishes of a father (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',35,16);">Jer 35:16</a>).<P>2. Parents and Children:<P>The father (\'abh; pater) was the head of the family (mishpachah) or household (bayith), which was a religious (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',20,6,29);">1Sa 20:6,29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,3);">Ex 12:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',1,5);">Job 1:5</a>) as well as a social and political unit, consisting usually of a combination of families in the modern sense. As long as polygamy prevailed a family would include at least the several groups of children of the wives and concubines. The Bible represents the Hebrew father as commanding (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',50,16);">Ge 50:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',35,6);">Jer 35:6</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',6,20);">Pr 6:20</a>), instructing (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',1,8);">Pr 1:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',4,1);">4:1</a>), and rebuking (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,10);">Ge 37:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',12,14);">Nu 12:14</a>); at the same time, as loving (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,28);">Ge 25:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,4);">37:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',44,20);">44:20</a>), pitying (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',103,13);">Ps 103:13</a>), and blessing his household (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,41);">Ge 27:41</a>), rejoicing over its triumphs (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',10,1);">Pr 10:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',15,20);">15:20</a>), or grieving over its misfortunes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,35);">Ge 37:35</a>). The mother, too (\'em; meter), naturally displays love and care (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,28);">Ge 25:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',4,3);">Pr 4:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',49,15);">Isa 49:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',66,13);">66:13</a>). To the Hebrew woman childlessness was considered the greatest of misfortunes (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',1,10);">1Sa 1:10</a>, of Hannah; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,23);">Ge 30:23</a>, of Rachel). Children were looked upon as a blessing from God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',127,3);">Ps 127:3</a>) and the defenders of the home (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',127,4,5);">Ps 127:4,5</a>). In early life a child was more directly under the control of the mother than the father; the mother was its first teacher (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',1,8);">Pr 1:8</a>). Thereafter the father was expected to direct the training of the son (ben; huios, teknon) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,19);">Ge 18:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,26);">Ex 12:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,8,14,15);">13:8,14,15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',6,7);">De 6:7</a>), while the daughter (bath; thugater) probably remained with the mother until her marriage (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',7,6);">Mic 7:6</a>). Both parents are looked upon in the Law as objects of honor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,12);">Ex 20:12</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',5,16);">De 5:16</a> (the Fifth Commandment); <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,15);">Ex 21:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,9);">Le 20:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',27,16);">De 27:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',20,20);">Pr 20:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',22,7);">Eze 22:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',7,6);">Mic 7:6</a>), obedience (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,7);">Ge 28:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,3);">Le 19:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',21,18);">De 21:18</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',1,8);">Pr 1:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',30,17);">30:17</a>) and love (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',19,20);">1Ki 19:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',28,24);">Pr 28:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',30,11);">30:11</a>). The control of parents was so great as to include the right to sell daughters in marriage, but not, without restrictions, into slavery (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,\'7-11\');">Ex 21:7-11</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,16);">Ex 22:16</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',5,5);">Ne 5:5</a>), and never into a life of shame (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,29);">Le 19:29</a>); they could chastise children (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',8,5);">De 8:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',21,18);">21:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',13,24);">Pr 13:24</a>; compare Ecclesiasticus 30:1-13), and in the early days even exerted the power of life and death over them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,\'1-\');">Ge 22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',11,39);">Jud 11:39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,21);">Le 18:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,\'2-5\');">20:2-5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,10);">2Ki 23:10</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',15,4);">Mt 15:4</a>). This power, at least for sacrificial purposes, was entirely removed by the Law, and changed, even for punishment, in the case of a stubborn, rebellious, gluttonous and disobedient son to a mere right of complaint to the proper authorities (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',21,\'18-21\');">De 21:18-21</a>), who were to put him to death. Infanticide by exposure, such as was common among other ancient peoples, seems never to have been practiced by the Hebrews. That the children were nevertheless the chattels of the parents seems to be attested from the fact that they could be seized for the debts of the father (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',4,1);">2Ki 4:1</a>). The father could annul the vows of his daughter (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',30,\'3-5\');">Nu 30:3-5</a>), and damages for wrongs done to her were paid to him, as in English law "for loss of services" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',22,29);">De 22:29</a>). A widowed or divorced daughter could return to her father (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',38,11);">Ge 38:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,13);">Le 22:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rth\',1,15);">Ru 1:15</a>). At his death the mother would become the actual, if not the legal, head of the household (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',8,\'1-6\');">2Ki 8:1-6</a>, the Shunammite woman; Tobit 1:8, Tobit\'s grandmother; compare the position of the mother of Jesus). This was especially true of the queen mother (gebhirah), whose name is usually given in the accounts of the kings of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',1,11);">1Ki 1:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',2,19);">2:19</a>, where a throne at the king\'s right hand was set for the king\'s mother; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,26);">1Ki 11:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',14,21,31);">14:21,31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',15,2,10,13);">15:2,10,13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',22,42);">22:42</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',8,26);">2Ki 8:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',10,13);">10:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',14,2);">14:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',15,2,33);">15:2,33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',18,2);">18:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',21,1,19);">21:1,19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',22,1);">22:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,31,36);">23:31,36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',24,8,12,15,18);">24:8,12,15,18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',22,2);">2Ch 22:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',13,18);">Jer 13:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',22,26);">22:26</a>; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=QUEEN+MOTHER">QUEEN MOTHER</A>). While it is true that the position of the widowed mother depended to some extent on the will of her son (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',2,18);">1Ki 2:18</a>), it must be remembered that the sense of filial duty was highly developed among all classes in Palestine (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',2,13,18);">Jos 2:13,18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',6,23);">6:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',22,3);">1Sa 22:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',19,37);">2Sa 19:37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',19,20);">1Ki 19:20</a>). The rebellion of children marked the acme of social degeneration (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',7,6);">Mic 7:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',30,11);">Pr 30:11</a>); on the other hand the "great day" according to Malachi (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',4,5);">4:5 (Hebrew 3:23)</a>) is one of conciliation of parents and children.<P>3. Brothers and Sisters:<P>The terms "brother" (\'ach; adelphos) and "sister" (\'ahoth; adelphe) apply to children of the same father and mother (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,2);">Ge 4:2</a>), and also to children of one father (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,12);">Ge 20:12</a>) or of one mother (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',43,7);">Ge 43:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,9);">Le 18:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,17);">20:17</a>). The brother as well as the father was the natural protector of the honor of his sister; thus, the sons of Jacob speak of Dinah as "our daughter" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',34,17);">Ge 34:17</a>). Absalom feels more deeply aggrieved over the crime against Tamar than does David himself (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',13,21);">2Sa 13:21</a>). The brother\'s other duties toward a sister were very much like those of a father (<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',8,8);">So 8:8</a>). The Law strictly forbids the intermarriage of brother and sister, whether of the same father and mother or not, whether born at home or born abroad, as a "disgraceful thing" (chesedh, a different word from checedh, "kindness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,9,11);">Le 18:9,11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,17);">20:17</a>). In earlier times marriage between half-brother and sister was allowable (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,12);">Ge 20:12</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',13,13);">2Sa 13:13</a>). In fact, we are expressly told that the laws against incest were not obeyed by the Egyptians or the Canaanites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,3);">Le 18:3</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,23);">20:23</a>). Brotherly sentiment was highly developed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,60);">Ge 24:60</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',2,13);">Jos 2:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',17,17);">Pr 17:17</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,35);">Le 25:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',15,11);">De 15:11</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',25,3);">25:3</a>); the dwelling of brothers together in unity is considered good and pleasant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',133,1);">Ps 133:1</a>). Brothers were ever ready to protect or avenge each other (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',3,27);">2Sa 3:27</a>). Indeed, it is part of the unwritten, common law, recognized though not necessarily approved in the Bible, that the brother or next of kin, the go\'el, is expected to avenge a death (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',35,19);">Nu 35:19</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',19,6);">De 19:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',20,3);">Jos 20:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',14,11);">2Sa 14:11</a>), and no punishment is meted out to prevent such self-help, unless it occurs in a refuge-city. A brother was also expected to ransom a captive or slave (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,48);">Le 25:48</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',49,7);">Ps 49:7</a>). Half-brothers were of course not so near as brothers of the full blood (compare Joseph and his brothers), and it is not surprising to find the sons of a wife despising and driving out the son of a harlot (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',11,1);">Jud 11:1</a>, Jephthah). The words "brother" and "sister" are used frequently of more distant relationships (see below) and figuratively of a friend.<P>4. Uncles, Aunts, Cousins, Kinsmen:<P>The Hebrew dodh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,4);">Le 10:4</a>, "uncles"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',36,11);">Nu 36:11</a>, "cousins"; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,50);">1Sa 14:50</a>), coming from a primitive caressing word, possibly indicating "dandle" "fondle" "love" means both "uncle" and "beloved." It is used of the father\'s and also of the mother\'s brother, and the corresponding feminine form (dodhah) is used of the father\'s sister (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,20);">Ex 6:20</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,59);">Nu 26:59</a>) and even of the father\'s brother\'s wife (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,14);">Le 18:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,20);">20:20</a>). Intermarriage between nephew and aunt (i.e. father\'s sister, mother\'s sister, or father\'s brother\'s wife, or, in general, uncle\'s wife) was prohibited (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,12,13,14);">Le 18:12,13,14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,19,20);">20:19,20</a>), though nothing is said of intermarriage between uncle and niece nor between cousins (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',36,11);">Nu 36:11</a>). On the relations between uncle and nephew compare the Bible accounts of Jacob and Laban, Abraham and Lot, David and Joab, etc. In a more general sense the word dodh is used of kinsmen, <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',6,10);">Am 6:10</a> (where the dodh, "even he that burneth him" (mecarepho, perhaps "maternal uncle"; the Jewish Encyclopedia, under the word "Cremation"), takes charge of a dead body); ben dodh is used of cousin (compare ben \'ahi \'immo, brother of his mother," etc.) and bath dodh of a female cousin. For other relations of this and remoter degrees the word for brother is loosely used (e.g. of nephews, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,8);">Ge 13:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,14);">14:14</a>, etc.; of tribesmen, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,10);">Le 21:10</a>; and of more distant relatives, <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',2,4,8);">De 2:4,8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',23,7);">23:7</a>).<P>II. Affinity.<P>1. Husband and Wife:<P>The husband (\'ish; compare ba\'al, <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',2,16);">Ho 2:16</a>; aner), though in a sense leaving father and mother for his wife (\'ishshah; gune) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,24);">Ge 2:24</a>), under normal conditions remained a member of his father\'s family. If such passages as <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,24);">Ge 2:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,10);">21:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,5,67);">24:5,67</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,3);">30:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,31);">31:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',4,17);">Jud 4:17</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,24);">5:24ff</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,19);">8:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',9,3);">9:3</a>, indicate the existence in pre-Biblical times of a matriarchate, the allusions are at least too vague to justify the predication of its persistence in Biblical times. The wife was "taken" by her husband, or "given" by her father or, in the case of a servant, by her master or mistress (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,22);">Ge 2:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,3);">16:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',34,9,21);">34:9,21</a>), and although the contract was between the men (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',29,\'1-\');">Ge 29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',34,16);">34:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,16);">Ex 22:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',22,29);">De 22:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rth\',4,10);">Ru 4:10</a>) or the parents (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,21);">Ge 21:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,\'1-\');">24</a>), it is probable that the consent of the girl was usually asked (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,58);">Ge 24:58</a>). Love between the young people was given due consideration (as in the case of Samson, Shechem, Jacob and Rachel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',29,18);">Ge 29:18</a>), David and Michal (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,20);">1Sa 18:20</a>)); at least it developed among married people, so that Hosea could compare the attitude of husband toward wife to that of Yahweh toward Israel. As a matter of legal right, it is probable that throughout the Orient long before the events narrated in the Book of Esther, every man did "bear rule in his own house" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',1,22);">Es 1:22</a>). In fact a precedent for the Persian decree has been traced as far back as the first human pair (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,16);">Ge 3:16</a>). Nevertheless, we find many instances in which the wife seems to take the lead in the affairs of the household, as in the case of Samson\'s parents (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',13,23);">Jud 13:23</a>), of the Shunammite woman (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',4,1);">2Ki 4</a>), of Jael (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',4,18);">Jud 4:18</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,24);">5:24), of Achsah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,18);">Jos 15:18</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,12);">Jud 1:12</a>f), and in less pleasant matters of Jezebel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',18,4);">1Ki 18:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',21,\'1-\');">21</a>), Sapphira (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,2);">Ac 5:2</a>), and Zeresh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',5,14);">Es 5:14</a>), who were at least consulted in the affairs of their several households. Abraham is even commanded by the voice of God, "In all that Sarah saith unto thee, hearken unto her voice" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,12);">Ge 21:12</a>). That most women were not so fortunate is probably best attested by the fact that at least in the earlier times the best of them had to resort to stratagem to accomplish their purposes (as in the cases of Rebekah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,6);">Ge 27:6</a>), Rachel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,34);">Ge 31:34</a>), Leah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,16);">Ge 30:16</a>) and Abigail (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',25,18);">1Sa 25:18</a>), and even to get information as to their husband\'s affairs (Sarah, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,10);">Ge 18:10</a>; Rebekah, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,5);">Ge 27:5</a>)). Perhaps their humbler sisters in later days accomplished their ends by being so contentious as to attract the notice of two proverb-collectors (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',21,9);">Pr 21:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',25,24);">25:24</a>). Though we have no instance of the exercise of the right of life and death over the wife by the husband, and though it is clear that the Hebrew husband had no power of sale (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,8);">Ex 21:8</a>), it is frequently asserted on the basis of the one-sided divorce doctrine of the Old Testament (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',24,1);">De 24:1</a>), and on the basis of analogy with other ancient laws, as well as because the wife is spoken of in conjunction with property (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,17);">Ex 20:17</a>) and because the husband exercised the right to annul the wife\'s vows (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',30,6);">Nu 30:6</a>), that the wife occupied in the ordinary Hebrew home a very subordinate position. It must not be forgotten, however, that the husband owed duties to the wife (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,10);">Ex 21:10</a>). It must also be borne in mind that great divergence existed at different times and places, and in different stations of society. Most of our Old Testament evidence pertains to the wealthier classes. The two extremes of the women that are "at ease in Zion" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',32,\'9-20\');">Isa 32:9-20</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',4,1);">Am 4:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',6,1);">6:1</a>) and the busy "good wife" described in <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',31,10);">Pr 31:10</a>ff are hardly exceeded in the most complex society today. The latter probably gives the fairer as well as the more wholesome picture of the functions of the wife in the home, and it is significant that her husband as well as her sons are expected to call her blessed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',31,28);">Pr 31:28</a>).<P>It is difficult to estimate the extent to which polygamy and concubinage were practiced in ancient Palestine, but it is clear that the former practice was discouraged even among kings (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',17,17);">De 17:17</a>), and the latter, an outgrowth of slavery, was not held in high repute (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',21,\'10-14\');">De 21:10-14</a>). The position of a less-favored wife (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',21,15);">De 21:15</a>, "hated") was naturally unpleasant, and her relations with other wives of her husband decidedly bitter<65>they were called each other\'s tsaroth, literally, "vexers" (the Revised Version (British and American) "rivals," <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,18);">Le 18:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',1,6);">1Sa 1:6</a>, the King James Version "adversary"; compare Ecclesiasticus 37:11)<29>even when they were sisters (as in the case of Rachel and Leah, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,1);">Ge 30:1</a>). Hence, the Law forbade the marrying of two sisters (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,18);">Le 18:18</a>). On the other hand so strong was the desire of a Hebrew mother for children that the childless wife welcomed the children of a maidservant born to her husband as her own (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,\'1-12\');">Ge 30:1-12</a>, etc.).<P>2. Father-in-Law, etc.:<P>In normal Hebrew society, for reasons already explained, the relations of a family with the husband\'s parents (cham, from chamoth) were closer than those with the wife\'s parents (chothen, feminine chotheneth; pentheros, penthera. Where under special conditions a man remained with his wife\'s tribe after marriage, as in the case of Jacob, serving out his mohar, or Moses fleeing from the wrath of the Egyptians, or the sons of Elimelech sojourning in the land of Moab because of the famine in Palestine, his identity with his own tribe was not destroyed, and at the first opportunity the natural impulse was to return to his own country. The bride, on the other hand, leaving her people, would become a member of her husband\'s family, with all the rights and duties of a daughter (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',7,6);">Mic 7:6</a>). Thus Judah can order Tamar burned for violation of the obligations of a widow (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',38,24);">Ge 38:24</a>). No doubt the position of the daughter-in-law varied in the Hebrew home between the extremes of those who vexed their parents-in-law unto-the death (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,35);">Ge 26:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,46);">27:46</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,8);">28:8</a>) and the one who said to her mother-in-law, "Yahweh do so to me...if aught but death part thee and me" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rth\',1,17);">Ru 1:17</a>). Parents-in-law and children-in-law were considered too closely related to intermarry (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,15);">Le 18:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,12,14);">20:12,14</a>).<P>3. Brother-in-Law, etc.:<P>A woman\'s brother acting in loco parentis might perform all the offices of a father-in-law and possibly be called chothen (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,50,55);">Ge 24:50,55</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',34,11);">34:11</a>). Naturally, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law would be considered too closely related to intermarry (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,16,18);">Le 18:16,18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,21);">20:21</a>). Nevertheless the husband\'s brother (yabham) was expected to marry the childless widow to establish the name of the deceased on his inheritance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',25,\'5-10\');">De 25:5-10</a>). This custom dated back to Canaanitic practice (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',38,8);">Ge 38:8</a>), and from the connection between marrying the childless widow and the redemption of land may be called a part of the land law of Palestine (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rth\',4,\'1-12\');">Ru 4:1-12</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',32,6);">Jer 32:6</a>). In practice the Levirate was probably considered more in the nature of a moral duty than a privilege (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',25,7);">De 25:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rth\',4,6);">Ru 4:6</a>), and devolved not only on the brother, but on other members of a deceased husband\'s family in the order of the nearness of their relationship to him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rth\',3,12);">Ru 3:12</a>). In the Hebrew family brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law would form part of the same household. In this relation as in others we find both ideal friendship (David and Jonathan, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,3);">1Sa 18:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',1,26);">2Sa 1:26</a>) and petty jealousies (in the matter of Moses\' wife, <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',12,1);">Nu 12:1</a>).<P>III. Other Domestic Relations.<P>1. Foster-father:<P>The Hebrew \'omen, feminine \'omeneth (participle of \'aman), literally, "nourishing," is translated "nursing father" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,12);">Nu 11:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',49,23);">Isa 49:23</a>), nursing mother" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',49,23);">Isa 49:23</a>), "nurse" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rth\',4,16);">Ru 4:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',4,4);">2Sa 4:4</a>), or simply as the equivalent of "bringing up" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',10,1,5);">2Ki 10:1,5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',2,7);">Es 2:7</a>). In the case of Esther and of Ahab\'s children, and possibly in the other instances referred to, the relation of foster-parents is suggested. The foster-children under such conditions obeyed the words of the foster-father as the words of a father (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',2,20);">Es 2:20</a>). Michal is spoken of as the mother of Merab\'s two children (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,8);">2Sa 21:8</a>) because she reared them (Sanhedhrin 19b). Adoption in the Roman sense was, however, hardly to be expected in a polygamous society where the childless father could remarry. Nevertheless, Jacob adopts Manasseh and Ephraim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',48,5);">Ge 48:5</a>), and thereby makes them the fathers of tribes. According to Josephus, while Abraham was childless he adopted Lot (Ant., I, vii, 1), and the daughter of Pharaoh adopted Moses (Ant., II, ix, 7; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,10);">Ex 2:10</a>). In New Testament times the notion of adoption was so familiar that Paul uses the word figuratively of conversion (huiothesia, <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,15);">Ro 8:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,4);">9:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,5);">Ga 4:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,5);">Eph 1:5</a>).<P>2. Master and Servants:<P>The "family" as the word is used of ancient peoples included dependents. The Hebrew mishpachah is connected with the word shiphchah, "maidservant," as the Latin familia is connected with famulus, "servant." For a discussion of the various classes of servants and slaves, Hebrew and foreign, male and female, see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SLAVERY">SLAVERY</A>.<P>3. Host and Guest:<P>When Lot protested against betraying his visitors to the men of Sodom, forasmuch as they had come under the shadow of his roof, and he even preferred to give his daughters to the mob rather than fail in his duties as a host (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,8);">Ge 19:8</a>), he was acting on the ancient principle of guest-friendship (compare Greek xenia), which bound host and guest by sacred ties. In the light of this principle the act of Jael, who receives Sisera as a guest, and then betrays him, becomes startling and capable of explanation only on the basis of the intense hatred existing at the time, and justifiable, if at all, only on theory that all is fair in war (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',4,\'18-21\');">Jud 4:18-21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,\'24-27\');">5:24-27</a>). The nomads of ancient times and even the post-exilic Hebrews, like the Arabs of today, were bound by a temporary covenant whenever there was "salt between them," that is, in the relation of host and guest (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,14);">Ezr 4:14</a>; compare the expression "covenant of salt," <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',13,5);">2Ch 13:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',18,19);">Nu 18:19</a>). In the early Christian church breaking bread together served as a sort of a berith \'ahim, or covenant of brothers. In large households such as those of a king, those that ate at the table were members of the household (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',9,11);">2Sa 9:11</a>, compared to sons; compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',9,7,10,13);">2Sa 9:7,10,13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',19,28);">19:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',2,7);">1Ki 2:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,27);">4:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',18,19);">18:19</a>).<P>4. The Dependent Stranger:<P>The ger or stranger (as indicated by the expression "thy stranger" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,10);">Ex 20:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,6);">Le 25:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',5,14);">De 5:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',29,11);">29:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',31,12);">31:12</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',1,16);">De 1:16</a>), Hebrew gero, literally, "his stranger") attached himself to an influential Hebrew for protection. Thus we read of a "sojourner of the priest\'s" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,10);">Le 22:10</a>, toschabh; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,6);">Le 25:6</a>) who was in many respects a dependent, but still to be distinguished from a servant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,11);">Le 22:11</a>). The Mosaic Law commands that such strangers be treated with consideration (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,49);">Ex 12:49</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,10);">20:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,21);">22:21</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,9);">23:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,33);">Le 19:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',1,16);">De 1:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',10,18);">10:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,21);">14:21</a>, etc.; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',146,9);">Ps 146:9</a>) and even with love (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',16,14);">De 16:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,34);">Le 19:34</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HOSPITALITY">HOSPITALITY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=STRANGER+AND+SOJOURNER">STRANGER AND SOJOURNER</a>`82';
isbe[7355]='Release`re-les\':(1) The forgiveness of a debt (shemittah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',15,1,2,9);">De 15:1,2,9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',31,10);">31:10</a>; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUBILEE+YEAR">JUBILEE YEAR</A>)), with verb shamat, "to release," <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',31,2,3);">De 31:2,3</a>. (2) To exempt from taxation or military service (hanachah, "release," "rest" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',2,18);">Es 2:18</a>)). Some would render "granted a holiday." (3) To set a prisoner or slave at liberty (apoluo, "to let go free" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,15);">Mt 27:15</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,10);">Joh 19:10</a>), etc.).``1';
isbe[7356]='Religion`re-lij\'-un: "Religion" and "religious" in Elizabethan English were used frequently to denote the outward expression of worship. This is the force of threskeia, translated "religion" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',26,5);">Ac 26:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,26,27);">Jas 1:26,27</a> (with adjective threskos, "religious"), while the same noun in <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,18);">Col 2:18</a> is rendered "worshipping" ("cult" would give the exact meaning). And in the same external sense "religion" is used by the King James Version for latreia, "worship" (so the Revised Version (British and American)), in 1Macc 1:43; 2:19,22. Otherwise "Jews\' religion" (or "religion of the Jews") appears in 2Macc 8:1; 14:38 (the Revised Version (British and American) bis); <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,13,14);">Ga 1:13,14</a> (Ioudaismos, "Judaism"); and "an alien religion" in 2Macc 6:24 (allophulismos, "that belonging to another tribe"). The neglect of the external force of "religion" has led to much reckless misquoting of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,26,27);">Jas 1:26,27</a>. Compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,22);">Ac 17:22</a>.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SUPERSTITION">SUPERSTITION</a>`48';
isbe[7357]='Religion, Comparative``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=COMPARATIVE+RELIGION">COMPARATIVE RELIGION</a>`1';
isbe[7358]='Religion, Science of``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=COMPARATIVE+RELIGION">COMPARATIVE RELIGION</a>`1';
isbe[7359]='Remainder`re-man\'-der (yathar, "to be left," she\'erith, "remnant"): In <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',14,7);">2Sa 14:7</a> "residue" would have been clearer (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',76,10);">Ps 76:10</a>), but the changes of the Revised Version (British and American) in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,16);">Le 6:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,16,17);">7:16,17</a> are pointless (contrast <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,34);">Ex 29:34</a>).``1';
isbe[7360]='Remaliah`rem-a-li\'-a (remalyahu, "whom Yahweh has adorned"): The father of Pekah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',15,25);">2Ki 15:25</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',7,4);">Isa 7:4</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',8,6);">8:6</a>). The contemptuous allusion to Pekah as "the son of Remaliah" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',7,4);">Isa 7:4</a> (similarly "the son of Kish," <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,11);">1Sa 10:11</a>) may be a slur on Remaliah\'s humble origin.``1';
isbe[7361]='Remember; Remembrance`re-mem\'-ber, re-mem\'-brans: "Remember" is mostly the translation, in the Old Testament, of zakhar, and in the New Testament of mnaomai (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,23);">Mt 5:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,75);">26:75</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',2,17);">Joh 2:17</a>, etc.), and of mnemoneuo (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,9);">Mt 16:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,18);">Mr 8:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',17,32);">Lu 17:32</a>, etc.), and "remembrance" the translation of derivatives of these (zekher, anamnesis, etc.). There are a few other words. "To remember" is used of God in remembering persons (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',8,1);">Ge 8:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,29);">19:29</a>, etc.), His covenant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',9,15);">Ge 9:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,24);">Ex 2:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',16,60);">Eze 16:60</a>, etc.), in answering prayer (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',16,28);">Jud 16:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',13,14,22);">Ne 13:14,22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',20,3);">Ps 20:3</a>, etc.), and in other ways. Men are exhorted to "remember" God\'s dealings with them, His commandments (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',8,2,18);">De 8:2,18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,34);">Jud 8:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',16,12);">1Ch 16:12</a>, etc.), the Sabbath (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,8);">Ex 20:8</a>), etc. A specially solemn command is that relating to the Lord\'s Supper in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,19);">Lu 22:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,24,25);">1Co 11:24,25</a>, "This do in remembrance of me." "Remembrancer" (writer of chronicles) occurs in the King James Version margin of <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',8,16);">2Sa 8:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',20,24);">20:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,3);">1Ki 4:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',18,15);">1Ch 18:15</a> (text "recorder," the Revised Version margin "chronicler"). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',62,6);">Isa 62:6</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) reads, "ye that are Yahweh\'s remembrancers." the Revised Version (British and American) has frequent changes on the King James Version text, as "have marked" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',15,2);">1Sa 15:2</a>); "make mention of" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',20,7);">Ps 20:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',77,11);">77:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',1,4);">So 1:4</a>); "remember" for "be ye mindful of" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',16,15);">1Ch 16:15</a>); "memorial" for "remembrance" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',57,8);">Isa 57:8</a>); in the American Standard Revised Version, "to his holy memorial name" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',30,4);">Ps 30:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',97,12);">97:12</a>, the English Revised Version "to his holy name," margin "Hebrew \'memorial\' "); in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',1,5);">2Ti 1:5</a>, "having been reminded of" for the King James Version "call to remembrance," etc.``185';
isbe[7362]='Remeth`re\'-meth, rem\'-eth (remeth; Codex Vaticanus Rhemmas; Codex Alexandrinus Rhamath): A place in the territory of Issachar named with En-gannim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,21);">Jos 19:21</a>). It is probably identical with Ramoth of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,73);">1Ch 6:73</a>, and Jarmuth of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,29);">Jos 21:29</a>. It is represented today by the village er-Rameh, situated on a hill which rises abruptly from the green plain about 11 miles southwest of Jenin (Engannim). While the southern boundary of Issachar was, roughly, the southern edge of the plain of Esdraelon, the possessions of the tribes seem sometimes to have overlapped.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JARMUTH">JARMUTH</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RAMOTH">RAMOTH</a>`1';
isbe[7363]='Remission of Sins`re-mish\'-un (aphesis, paresis): The two Greek words, of which the latter occurs only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,25);">Ro 3:25</a>, were translated by the same English word in the King James Version. In the Revised Version (British and American), paresis is translation "passing over." It is contrasted with the other term as pretermission with remission. Remission is exemption from the consequences of an offense, forgiveness; pretermission is the suspension of the penalty (Philippi, Ellicott, Trench (Synonyms, XXXIII), Weiss; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,30);">Ac 17:30</a>). Cremer (Lexicon of N T Gr) regards the meaning of the two words as identical, except that the one refers to the Old Testament and the other to the New Testament. Sins are remitted when the offender is treated as though the offense had never been committed. Remission is restricted to the penalty, while forgiveness refers more particularly to the person, although it may be used also of the sin itself. Remission also is used of offenses against God\'s law; forgiveness, against either divine or human law.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ABSOLUTION">ABSOLUTION</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FORGIVENESS">FORGIVENESS</a>`84';
isbe[7364]='Remmon`rem\'-on (rimmon, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,7);">Jos 19:7</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RIMMON">RIMMON</a>`1';
isbe[7365]='Remmon-Methoar`rem\'-on-meth\'-o-ar, rem\'-on-me-tho\'-ar (rimmon ha-metho\'-ar (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,13);">Jos 19:13</a>)).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RIMMON">RIMMON</a>`1';
isbe[7366]='Remnant`rem\'-nant: Remnant is the translation of yether, "what is left over" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',3,11);">De 3:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',28,54);">28:54</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',12,4);">Jos 12:4</a>, etc.); of she\'-ar, "the rest" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',3,8);">Ezr 3:8</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,20,21,22);">Isa 10:20,21,22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',11,16);">11:16</a>, etc.; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',1,4);">Ze 1:4</a>); more frequently of she\'-erith, "residue," etc. (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',19,4,31);">2Ki 19:4,31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',34,9);">2Ch 34:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',9,14);">Ezr 9:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',14,30);">Isa 14:30</a>, etc.). As the translation of the last-mentioned two words, "remnant" has a special significance in the prophecies of Isaiah, as denoting "a holy seed," or spiritual kernel, of the nation which should survive impending judgment and become the germ of the people of God, being blessed of God and made a blessing (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',2,12);">Mic 2:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',4,7);">4:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',5,7,8);">5:7,8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',7,18);">7:18</a>; also <a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',2,7);">Ze 2:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',3,13);">3:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hag\',1,12,14);">Hag 1:12,14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',8,6);">Zec 8:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',2,32);">Joe 2:32</a>). Paul, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,27);">Ro 9:27</a>, quotes from <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,22);">Isa 10:22</a>f; "the remnant [kataleimma, "what is left over"] shall be saved"; compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',11,5);">Ro 11:5</a> (where the word is leimma) with <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',19,4);">2Ki 19:4</a>. Several other Hebrew words are less frequently translated "remnant": \'ahar, "after"; yathar, "to be left over," etc.; in the New Testament (the King James Version) we have also loipos, "left," "remaining" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,6);">Mt 22:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',11,13);">Re 11:13</a>, etc.).<P>For "remnant" the Revised Version (British and American) has "overhanging part" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,12);">Ex 26:12</a>), "rest" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,18);">Le 14:18</a>, etc.); on the other hand gives "remnant" for "posterity" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',45,7);">Ge 45:7</a>), for "rest" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,20);">Jos 10:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,43);">1Ch 4:43</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,19);">Isa 10:19</a>), for "residue" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hag\',2,2);">Hag 2:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',8,11);">Zec 8:11</a>), etc.``185';
isbe[7367]='Remphan`rem\'-fan.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=REPHAN">REPHAN</a>`1';
isbe[7368]='Rending of Garments`ren\'-ding.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BURIAL">BURIAL</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DRESS">DRESS</a>`1';
isbe[7369]='Renew`re-nu\': The word is used in various senses:<P>(1) of material things, e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',104,30);">Ps 104:30</a>; here it means to give a new appearance, to refresh, to restore the face of the earth;<P>(2) in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',11,14);">1Sa 11:14</a>, to establish more firmly the kingdom by reinstalling King Saul;<P>(3) in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',15,8);">2Ch 15:8</a>, to rebuild or repair the broken altar;<P>(4) in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',5,21);">La 5:21</a>, "renew our days," restore the favors of former days;<P>(5) in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',41,1);">Isa 41:1</a>, \'let them gather together, or marshal their strongest arguments for answer\';<P>(6) in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',103,5);">Ps 103:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,31);">Isa 40:31</a>, it refers to the restoring of spiritual strength;<P>(7) in the New Testament it invariably refers to spiritual renewal, e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',12,2);">Ro 12:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',4,16);">2Co 4:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,23);">Eph 4:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,10);">Col 3:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',3,5);">Tit 3:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',6,6);">Heb 6:6</a>; all derivatives of kainos, "new."``64';
isbe[7370]='Repair`re-par\' (machceh, "refuge"): In <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',3,16);">Joe 3:16</a>, for the King James Version The Lord will be the hope of his people" the King James Version margin renders "place of repair," or, "harbour" = haven of repair. the Revised Version (British and American) gives "refuge." Other words are chazaq, "to strengthen," "harden," "fix" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',12,5);">2Ki 12:5</a> and often; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',3,\'1-\');">Ne 3</a>); rapha\' "to heal" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',18,30);">1Ki 18:30</a>); \'amadh, "to cause to stand still" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',9,9);">Ezr 9:9</a>); chayah, "to revive" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,8);">1Ch 11:8</a>); caghar, "to close up" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,27);">1Ki 11:27</a>).<P>In the Revised Version (British and American) Apocrypha for huporrapto, "to patch up" (Sirach 50:1); episkeuazo, "to get ready" (1Macc 12:37). In 1Macc 14:34 occurs "reparation" (modern English "repairs") for epanorthosis, "straightening up."``91';
isbe[7371]='Repentance`re-pen\'-tans:<P><B>I. OLD TESTAMENT TERMS</B><P class="in15">1. To Repent<6E>"to Pant," "to Sigh"<P class="in15">2. To Repent<6E>"to Turn" or "Return"<P><B>II. NEW TESTAMENT TERMS</B><P class="in15">1. Repent<6E>"to Care," "Be Concerned"<P class="in15">2. Repent<6E>"to Change the Mind"<P class="in15">3. Repent<6E>"to Turn Over," "to Turn Upon," "to Turn Unto"<P><B>III. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ELEMENTS</B><P class="in15">1. The Intellectual Element<P class="in15">2. The Emotional Element<P class="in15">3. The Volitional Element<P><b>LITERATURE</b><HR /><P>To get an accurate idea of the precise New Testament meaning of this highly important word it is necessary to consider its approximate synonyms in the original Hebrew and Greek The psychological elements of repentance should be considered in the light of the general teaching of Scripture.<P>I. Old Testament Terms.<P>1. To Repent<6E>"to Pant," "to Sigh":<P>The Hebrew word naham, is an onomatopoetic term which implies difficulty in breathing, hence, "to pant," "to sigh," "to groan." Naturally it came to signify "to lament" or "to grieve," and when the emotion was produced by the desire of good for others, it merged into compassion and sympathy, and when incited by a consideration of one\'s own character and deeds it means "to rue," "to repent." To adapt language to our understanding, God is represented as repenting when delayed penalties are at last to be inflicted, or when threatened evils have been averted by genuine reformation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,6);">Ge 6:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jon\',3,10);">Jon 3:10</a>). This word is translated "repent" about 40 times in the Old Testament, and in nearly all cases it refers to God. The principal idea is not personal relation to sin, either in its experience of grief or in turning from an evil course. Yet the results of sin are manifest in its use. God\'s heart is grieved at man\'s iniquity, and in love He bestows His grace, or in justice He terminates His mercy. It indicates the aroused emotions of God which prompt Him to a different course of dealing with the people. Similarly when used with reference to man, only in this case the consciousness of personal transgression is evident. This distinction in the application of the word is intended by such declarations as God "is not a man, that he should repent" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',15,29);">1Sa 15:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',42,6);">Job 42:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',8,6);">Jer 8:6</a>).<P>2. To Repent<6E>"to Turn" or "Return":<P>The term shubh, is most generally employed to express the Scriptural idea of genuine repentance. It is used extensively by the prophets, and makes prominent the idea of a radical change in one\'s attitude toward sin and God. It implies a conscious, moral separation, and a personal decision to forsake sin and to enter into fellowship with God. It is employed extensively with reference to man\'s turning away from sin to righteousness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',4,30);">De 4:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',1,9);">Ne 1:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',7,12);">Ps 7:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',3,14);">Jer 3:14</a>). It quite often refers to God in His relation to man (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,12);">Ex 32:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',7,26);">Jos 7:26</a>). It is employed to indicate the thorough spiritual change which God alone can effect (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',85,4);">Ps 85:4</a>). When the term is translated by "return" it has reference either to man, to God, or to God and man (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',7,3);">1Sa 7:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',90,13);">Ps 90:13</a> (both terms, nacham and shubh; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',21,12);">Isa 21:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',55,7);">55:7</a>). Both terms are also sometimes employed when the twofold idea of grief and altered relation is expressed, and are translated by "repent" and "return" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',14,6);">Eze 14:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',12,6);">Ho 12:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jon\',3,8);">Jon 3:8</a>).<P>II. New Testament Terms.<P>1. Repent<6E>"to Care," "Be Concerned":<P>The term metamelomai, literally signifies to have a feeling or care, concern or regret; like nacham, it expresses the emotional aspect of repentance. The feeling indicated by the word may issue in genuine repentance, or it may degenerate into mere remorse (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',21,29,32);">Mt 21:29,32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,3);">27:3</a>). Judas repented only in the sense of regret, remorse, and not in the sense of the abandonment of sin. The word is used with reference to Paul\'s feeling concerning a certain course of conduct, and with reference to God in His attitude toward His purposes of grace (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',7,8);">2Co 7:8</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',7,21);">Heb 7:21</a>).<P>2. Repent<6E>"to Change the Mind":<P>The word metanoeo, expresses the true New Testament idea of the spiritual change implied in a sinner\'s return to God. The term signifies "to have another mind," to change the opinion or purpose with regard to sin. It is equivalent to the Old Testament word "turn." Thus, it is employed by John the Baptist, Jesus, and the apostles (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,2);">Mt 3:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,15);">Mr 1:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,38);">Ac 2:38</a>). The idea expressed by the word is intimately associated with different aspects of spiritual transformation and of Christian life, with the process in which the agency of man is prominent, as faith (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,21);">Ac 20:21</a>), and as conversion (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',3,19);">Ac 3:19</a>); also with those experiences and blessings of which God alone is the author, as remission and forgiveness of sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,47);">Lu 24:47</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,31);">Ac 5:31</a>). It is sometimes conjoined with baptism, which as an overt public act proclaims a changed relation to sin and God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,4);">Mr 1:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,3);">Lu 3:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,24);">Ac 13:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,4);">19:4</a>). As a vital experience, repentance is to manifest its reality by producing good fruits appropriate to the new spiritual life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,8);">Mt 3:8</a>).<P>3. Repent<6E>"to Turn Over," "to Turn Upon," "to Turn Unto":<P>The word epistrepho, is used to bring out more clearly the distinct change wrought in repentance. It is employed quite frequently in Acts to express the positive side of a change involved in New Testament repentance, or to indicate the return to God of which the turning from sin is the negative aspect. The two conceptions are inseparable and complementary. The word is used to express the spiritual transition from sin to God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,35);">Ac 9:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',1,9);">1Th 1:9</a>); to strengthen the idea of faith (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,21);">Ac 11:21</a>); and to complete and emphasize the change required by New Testament repentance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',26,20);">Ac 26:20</a>).<P>There is great difficulty in expressing the true idea of a change of thought with reference to sin when we translate the New Testament "repentance" into other languages. The Latin version renders it "exercise penitence" (poenitentiam agere). But "penitence" etymologically signifies pain, grief, distress, rather than a change of thought and purpose. Thus Latin Christianity has been corrupted by the pernicious error of presenting grief over sin rather than abandonment of sin as the primary idea of New Testament repentance. It was easy to make the transition from penitence to penance, consequently the Romanists represent Jesus and the apostles as urging people to do penance (poenitentiam agite). The English word "repent" is derived from the Latin repoenitere, and inherits the fault of the Latin, making grief the principal idea and keeping it in the background, if not altogether out of sight, the fundamental New Testament conception of a change of mind with reference to sin. But the exhortations of the ancient prophets, of Jesus, and of the apostles show that the change of mind is the dominant idea of the words employed, while the accompanying grief and consequent reformation enter into one\'s experience from the very nature of the case.<P>III. The Psychological Elements.<P>1. The Intellectual Element:<P>Repentance is that change of a sinner\'s mind which leads him to turn from his evil ways and live. The change wrought in repentance is so deep and radical as to affect the whole spiritual nature and to involve the entire personality. The intellect must function, the emotions must be aroused, and the will must act. Psychology shows repentance to be profound, personal and all-pervasive. The intellectual element is manifest from the nature of man as an intelligent being, and from the demands of God who desires only rational service. Man must apprehend sin as unutterably heinous, the divine law as perfect and inexorable, and himself as coming short or falling below the requirements of a holy God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',42,5,6);">Job 42:5,6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',51,3);">Ps 51:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,20);">Ro 3:20</a>).<P>2. The Emotional Element:<P>There may be a knowledge of sin without turning from it as an awful thing which dishonors God and ruins man. The change of view may lead only to a dread of punishment and not to the hatred and abandonment of sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',9,27);">Ex 9:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',22,34);">Nu 22:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',7,20);">Jos 7:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',15,24);">1Sa 15:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,4);">Mt 27:4</a>). An emotional element is necessarily involved in repentance. While feeling is not the equivalent of repentance, it nevertheless may be a powerful impulse to a genuine turning from sin. A penitent cannot from the nature of the case be stolid and indifferent. The emotional attitude must be altered if New Testament repentance be experienced. There is a type of grief that issues in repentance and another which plunges into remorse. There is a godly sorrow and also a sorrow of the world. The former brings life; the latter, death (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,3);">Mt 27:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,23);">Lu 18:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',7,9,10);">2Co 7:9,10</a>). There must be a consciousness of sin in its effect on man and in its relation to God before there can be a hearty turning away from unrighteousness. The feeling naturally accompanying repentance implies a conviction of personal sin and sinfulness and an earnest appeal to God to forgive according to His mercy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',51,1,2,\'10-14\');">Ps 51:1,2,10-14</a>).<P>3. The Volitional Element:<P>The most prominent element in the psychology of repentance is the voluntary, or volitional. This aspect of the penitent\'s experience is expressed in the Old Testament by "turn", or "return," and in the New Testament by "repent" or "turn." The words employed in the Hebrew and Greek place chief emphasis on the will, the change of mind, or of purpose, because a complete and sincere turning to God involves both the apprehension of the nature of sin and the consciousness of personal guilt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',25,5);">Jer 25:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,15);">Mr 1:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,38);">Ac 2:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',7,9,10);">2Co 7:9,10</a>). The demand for repentance implies free will and individual responsibility. That men are called upon to repent there can be no doubt, and that God is represented as taking the initiative in repentance is equally clear. The solution of the problem belongs to the spiritual sphere. The psychical phenomena have their origin in the mysterious relations of the human and the divine personalities. There can be no external substitute for the internal change. Sackcloth for the body and remorse for the soul are not to be confused with a determined abandonment of sin and return to God. Not material sacrifice, but a spiritual change, is the inexorable demand of God in both dispensations (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',51,17);">Ps 51:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,11);">Isa 1:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',6,20);">Jer 6:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',6,6);">Ho 6:6</a>).<P>Repentance is only a condition of salvation and not its meritorious ground. The motives for repentance are chiefly found in the goodness of God, in divine love, in the pleading desire to have sinners saved, in the inevitable consequences of sin, in the universal demands of the gospel, and in the hope of spiritual life and membership in the kingdom of heaven (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',33,11);">Eze 33:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,15);">Mr 1:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',13,\'1-5\');">Lu 13:1-5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,16);">Joh 3:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,30);">Ac 17:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,4);">Ro 2:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',2,4);">1Ti 2:4</a>). The first four beatitudes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,\'3-6\');">Mt 5:3-6</a>) form a heavenly ladder by which penitent souls pass from the dominion of Satan into the Kingdom of God. A consciousness of spiritual poverty dethroning pride, a sense of personal unworthiness producing grief, a willingness to surrender to God in genuine humility, and a strong spiritual desire developing into hunger and thirst, enter into the experience of one who wholly abandons sin and heartily turns to Him who grants repentance unto life.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Various theological works and commentaries Note especially Strong, Systematic Theology, III, 832-36; Broadus on <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,2);">Mt 3:2</a>, American Comm.; article "Busse" (Penance). Hauck-Herzog, Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche.``38';
isbe[7372]='Repetitions`rep-e-tish\'-unz: In <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,7);">Mt 6:7</a> only, "Use not vain repetitions," for battalogeo (so Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus), a word found nowhere else and spelled variously in the manuscripts, battologeo in Codices K, L, M; etc., batologeo in Codices F G, blattologeo in Codex Bezae (probably influenced by the Latin blatero, "talk idly"); presumably connected with battarizo, "stammer," and perhaps formed under the influence of the Aramaic beta\', "speak carelessly," or batel, "useless." Whether, however battalogeo means the constant repetition of the same phrase or the mechanical recitation of a long series of obscure or meaningless formulas (if, indeed, a distinction between the acts was thought of) cannot be determined. Either practice is abundantly evidenced as a "heathen" custom of the day, and either can be classed as "much speaking."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PRAYER">PRAYER</a>`48';
isbe[7373]='Rephael`re\'-fa-el, ref\'-a-el (repha\'el, "God has healed"; Rhaphael): The eponym of a family of gatekeepers (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',26,7);">1Ch 26:7</a>). The name occurs in Tobit and Enoch ("Raphael"); it probably belongs to a group of late formations. See Gray, HPN, 225, 311.``1';
isbe[7374]='Rephah`re\'-fa (rephach (the form is corrupt); Rhaphe): The eponym of an Ephraimite family (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,25);">1Ch 7:25</a>).``1';
isbe[7375]='Rephaiah`re-fa\'-ya, re-fi\'-a (rephayah, probably "Yah is healing"; Septuagint Rhaphaia(s)): <P>(1) In David\'s family, Septuagint also Rhaphal (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',3,21);">1Ch 3:21</a>).<P>(2) A captain of Simeon (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,42);">1Ch 4:42</a>).<P>(3) A grandson of Issachar, Septuagint also Rhaphara (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,2);">1Ch 7:2</a>).<P>(4) A descendant of Saul (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,43);">1Ch 9:43</a>; in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,37);">1Ch 8:37</a> called "Raphah" (raphah); Septuagint also Raphai).<P>(5) One of the repairers of the wall under Nehemiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',3,9);">Ne 3:9</a>).``1';
isbe[7376]='Rephaim`ref\'-a-im, re-fa\'-im (repha\'-im, from rapha\', "a terrible one" hence "giant," in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',20,4);">1Ch 20:4</a>, yelidhe ha-rapha\', "sons of the giant"; the King James Version, Rephaims): A race of aboriginal or early inhabitants east of the Jordan in Ashterothkarnaim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,5);">Ge 14:5</a>) and in the valley of Rephaim southwest of Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,8);">Jos 15:8</a>). They associated with other giant races, as the Emim and Anakim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',2,10,11);">De 2:10,11</a>) and the Zamzummim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',2,20);">De 2:20</a>). It is probable that they were all of the same stock, being given different names by the different tribes who came in contact with them. The same Hebrew word is rendered "the dead," or "the shades" in various passages (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',26,5);">Job 26:5</a> margin; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',88,10);">Ps 88:10</a> margin; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',2,18);">Pr 2:18</a> margin; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',9,18);">Pr 9:18</a> margin; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',21,16);">Pr 21:16</a> margin; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',14,9);">Isa 14:9</a> margin; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',26,14,19);">Isa 26:14,19</a> margin). In these instances the word is derived from rapheh, "weak," "powerless," "a shadow" or "shade."``138';
isbe[7377]='Rephaim, Vale of`(\'emeq repha\'-im; koilas Rhaphaeim, koilas ton Titanon): This was a fertile vale (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',17,5);">Isa 17:5</a>), to the southwest of Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,8);">Jos 15:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',18,16);">18:16</a>; the King James Version "Valley of the Giants"), on the border between Judah and Benjamin. Here David repeatedly defeated the invading Philistines (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',5,18,22);">2Sa 5:18,22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,13);">23:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,15);">1Ch 11:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',14,9);">14:9</a>). It is located by Josephus between Jerusalem and Bethlehem (Ant., VII, iv, i; xii, 4). It corresponds to the modern el-Biqa\', which falls away to the southwest from the lip of the valley of Hinnom. The name in ancient times may perhaps have covered a larger area, including practically all the land between Jerusalem and Bethlehem, where the head-waters of Nahr Ruben are collected.``54';
isbe[7378]='Rephan`re\'-fan: A name for Chiun, the planet Saturn.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASTROLOGY">ASTROLOGY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHIUN">CHIUN</a>`1';
isbe[7379]='Rephidim`ref\'-i-dim (rephidhim, "rests"; Rhaphidin): A station in the Wanderings, between the wilderness of Sin and the wilderness of Sinai (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,1,8);">Ex 17:1,8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,2);">19:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,14);">Nu 33:14</a>). The host expected to find water here; to their distress the streams were dry, and water was miraculously provided. Palmer (Desert of the Exodus, 158ff) states cogent reasons for identifying Rephidim with Wady Feiran. It is the most fertile part of the peninsula, well watered, with a palm grove stretching for miles along the valley. Palmer speaks of passing through the palm grove as a "most delightful" walk; "the tall, graceful trees afforded a delicious shade, fresh water ran at our feet, and, above all, bulbuls flitted from branch to branch uttering their sweet notes." His camp was pitched at "the mouth of Wady \'Aleyat, a large open space completely surrounded by steep, shelving mountains of gneiss, the fantastic cleavage of which added greatly to the beauty of the scene. Palms and tamarisks were dotted all around, and on every knoll and mountain slope were ruined houses, churches, and walls, the relics of the ancient monastic city of Paran. Behind our tents rose the majestic mass of Serbal, and beneath the rocky wall opposite ran a purling brook, only a few inches in depth, but still sufficiently cool, clear, and refreshing."<P>Such a place as this the Amalekites would naturally wish to preserve for themselves against an invading people. For these desert dwellers, indeed, the possession of this watered vale may well have been a matter of life and death.<P>If this identification is correct, then Jebel Tachuneh, "Mount of the mill," a height that rises on the north of the valley, may have been the hill from which Moses, with Aaron and Hur, viewed the battle.``54';
isbe[7380]='Reprobate`rep\'-ro-bat: This word occurs in the English Bible in the following passages: <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',6,30);">Jer 6:30</a> (the Revised Version (British and American) "refuse"); <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,28);">Ro 1:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',13,5,6,7);">2Co 13:5,6,7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',3,8);">2Ti 3:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,16);">Tit 1:16</a>. In all these cases the Greek has adokimos. The same Greek word, however, is found with other renderings in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,22);">Isa 1:22</a> ("dross"); <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',25,4);">Pr 25:4</a> ("dross"); <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',9,27);">1Co 9:27</a> ("castaway," the Revised Version (British and American) "rejected"). The primary meaning of adokimos is "not-received," "not-acknowledged." This is applied to precious metals or money, in the sense of "not-current," to which, however, the connotation "not-genuine" easily attaches itself. It is also applied to persons who do not or ought not to receive honor or recognition. This purely negative conception frequently passes over into the positive one of that which is or ought to be rejected, either by God or men. Of the above passages <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',9,27);">1Co 9:27</a> uses the word in this meaning. Probably <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,28);">Ro 1:28</a>, "God gave them up unto a reprobate mind" must be explained on the same principle: the nous of the idolatrous heathen is permitted by God to fall into such extreme forms of evil as to meet with the universal rejection and reprobation of men. Wettstein\'s interpretation, "an unfit mind," i.e. incapable of properly performing its function of moral discrimination, has no linguistic warrant, and obliterates the wordplay between "they refused to have God in their knowledge (ouk edokimasan)," and "God gave them up to a reprobate (= unacknowledged, adokimos) mind." Even <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,16);">Tit 1:16</a>, "unto every good work reprobate," affords no instance of the meaning unfit, but belongs to the following rubric.<P>The close phonetic resemblance and etymological affinity of dokimos to the verb dokimazo, "to try," "test," has caused the notion of "being tested," "tried," and its opposite of "being found wanting in the test" to associate itself more or less distinctly with the adjectives dokimos and adokimos. Thus the more complex meaning results of that which is acknowledged or rejected, because it has approved or not approved itself in testing. This connotation is present in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',13,5,6,7);">2Co 13:5,6,7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',3,8);">2Ti 3:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,16);">Tit 1:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',6,8);">Heb 6:8</a>. In the first two of these passages the word is used of Christians who ostensibly were in the true faith, but either hypothetically or actually are represented as having failed to meet the test. "Reprobate unto every good work" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,16);">Tit 1:16</a>) are they who by their life have disappointed the expectation of good works. The "reprobate (rejected) land" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',6,8);">Heb 6:8</a> is land that by bearing thorns and thistles has failed to meet the test of the husband man. It should be noticed, however, that adokimos, even in these cases, always retains the meaning of rejection because of failure in trial; compare in the last-named passage: "rejected and nigh unto cursing."<P>LITERATURE.<P>Cremer, Biblisch-theologisches Worterbuch der neutestamentlichen Gracitat(10), 356-57.``182';
isbe[7381]='Reproof; Reprove`re-proof\', re-proov\':"Reprove" in Elizabethan English had a variety of meanings ("reject" "disprove" "convince," "rebuke"), with "put to the proof" (see <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,2);">2Ti 4:2</a> the Revised Version margin) as the force common to all, although in modern English the word means only "rebuke" (with a connotation of deliberateness). the King James Version uses the word chiefly (and the Revised Version (British and American) exclusively, except in 2Esdras 12:32; 14:13; 2Macc 4:33) for yakhach, and elegcho, words that have very much the same ambiguities of meaning. Hence, a fairly easy rendition into English was possible, but the result included all the ambiguities of the original, and to modern readers such a passage as "But your reproof, what doth it reprove? Do ye think to reprove words" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',6,25,26);">Job 6:25,26</a> the American Standard Revised Version) is virtually incomprehensible. The meaning is, approximately: "What do your rebukes prove? Are you quibbling about words?" In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,8);">Joh 16:8</a> no single word in modern English will translate elegcho, and "reprove" (the King James Version), "convince" (King James Version margin), and "convict" (Revised Version) are all unsatisfactory. The sense is: "The Spirit will teach men the true meaning of these three words: sin, righteousness, judgment."``48';
isbe[7382]='Reptile`rep\'-til, -til: Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',7,17);">Mic 7:17</a> has reptilis for zohale, "crawling things," the American Standard Revised Version "worms of the earth," the King James Version margin "creeping things."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LEVIATHAN">LEVIATHAN</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LIZARD">LIZARD</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SERPENT">SERPENT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TORTOISE">TORTOISE</a>`1';
isbe[7383]='Reputation`rep-u-ta\'-shun: the King James Version uses "reputation" where modern English would use "repute," as connoting prominence rather than moral character. Hence, the Revised Version\'s change to "repute" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,2);">Ga 2:2</a> (for dokeo, "seem," perhaps with a slightly sarcastic touch). The Revised Version\'s alteration of "reputation" into "have in honor" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,34);">Ac 5:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,29);">Php 2:29</a>) is to secure uniformity of translation for the derivatives of time, "honor," but the Revised Version (British and American) retains "reputation" in Susanna, verse 64. The King James Version\'s "made himself of no reputation" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,7);">Php 2:7</a> is a gloss. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KENOSIS">KENOSIS</A>. On <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',10,1);">Ec 10:1</a> see the commentaries.``1';
isbe[7384]='Require`re-kwir\':"Require" meant originally "seek after," whence "ask," and so (as in modern English) "demand." All meanings are common in the King James Version (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',21,8);">1Sa 21:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',3,15);">Ec 3:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,22);">Ezr 8:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',4,2);">1Co 4:2</a>), and the Revised Version (British and American) has made little change.``1';
isbe[7385]='Rereward`rer\'-word.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=REARWARD">REARWARD</a>`1';
isbe[7386]='Resaias`re-sa\'-yas, re-si\'-as (Rhesaias; the King James Version Reesaias): One of the "leaders" with Zerubbabel in the return (1Esdras 5:8) = "Reelaiah" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,2);">Ezr 2:2</a>, "Raamiah" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,7);">Ne 7:7</a>. The name is apparently duplicated in 1Esdras 5:8 in the form "Reelias."``1';
isbe[7387]='Resen`re\'-sen (recen; Septuagint Dasen, Dasem):<P>1. The Name and Its Native Equivalent:<P>The Greek forms show that the Septuagint translators had "d", for "r", but the reading of the Massoretic Text is to be preferred. Resen<65>the last of the four cities mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,11,12);">Ge 10:11,12</a> as having been founded by Nimrod (the King James Version by Asshur)<29>probably represents the Assyrian pronunciation of the place-name Res-eni, "fountainhead." The only town so named in the inscriptions is one of 18 mentioned by Sennacherib in the Bavian inscription as places from which he dug canals connecting with the river Khosr<73>in fact, it was one of the sources of Nineveh\'s water supply. It probably lay too far north, however, to be the city here intended. Naturally the name "Resen" could exist in any place where there was a spring.<P>2. Possibly the Modern Selamiyeh:<P>As the Biblical text requires a site lying between Nineveh and Calah (Kouyunjik and Nimroud), it is generally thought to be represented by the ruins at Selamiyeh, about 3 miles north of the latter city. It is noteworthy that Xenophon (Anab. iii.4) mentions a "great" city called Larissa as occupying this position, and Bochart has suggested that it is the same place. He supposes that when the inhabitants were asked to what city the ruins belonged, they answered la Resen, "to Resen," which was reproduced by the Greeks as Larissa. Xenophon describes its walls as being 25 ft. wide, 100 ft. high, and 2 parasangs in circuit. Except for the stone plinth 20 ft. high, they were of brick. He speaks of a stone-built pyramid near the city<74>possibly the temple-tower at Nimroud.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CALAH">CALAH</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NINEVEH">NINEVEH</a>`136';
isbe[7388]='Reservoir`rez\'-er-vwor, -vwar (miqwah; the King James Version ditch (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',22,11);">Isa 22:11</a>)).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DITCH">DITCH</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CISTERN">CISTERN</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=POOL">POOL</a>`1';
isbe[7389]='Resh`resh, rash "r": The 20th letter of the Hebrew alphabet; transliterated in this Encyclopedia as "r". It came also to be used for the number 200.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ALPHABET">ALPHABET</a>`1';
isbe[7390]='Resheph`re\'-shef (resheph, "flame" or "fire-bolt"): Personal name found in Phoenician as a divine name. In the Old Testament the name of a descendant of Ephraim, the eponym of an Ephraimite family or clan (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,25);">1Ch 7:25</a>).``1';
isbe[7391]='Residue`rez\'-i-du.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=REMNANT">REMNANT</a>`1';
isbe[7392]='Respect of Persons`re-spekt\':The phrase nasa\' phanim, means literally, "lift up the face," and, among other translations, is rendered indifferently "accept" or "respect the person" in the King James Version (contrast <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',18,5);">Pr 18:5</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',24,23);">24:23</A>). As applied to a (prostrate) suppliant, the phrase means "receive him with favor," and is so used in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',25,35);">1Sa 25:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',1,8,9);">Mal 1:8,9</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,21);">Ge 19:21</a>, etc.). By a shift in force the phrase came to mean "accept the person instead of the cause" or "show partiality" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',13,8,10);">Job 13:8,10</a> the American Standard Revised Version), and is so used commonly. A literal translation into Greek gave lambano prosopon (Sirach 35:13 (32:16); <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',20,21);">Lu 20:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,6);">Ga 2:6</a>), with the noun prosopolempsia, "face-taking" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,11);">Ro 2:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,9);">Eph 6:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,25);">Col 3:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',2,1);">Jas 2:1</a>), rendered uniformly "respect of persons" in English Versions of the Bible. A noun prosopolemptes, "respecter of persons," and a verb prosopolempteo, are found <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,34);">Ac 10:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',2,9);">Jas 2:9</a>. God\'s judgment rests solely on the character of the man and will be influenced by no worldly (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,9);">Eph 6:9</a>) or national (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,11);">Ro 2:11</a>) considerations.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ACCEPT">ACCEPT</a>`48';
isbe[7393]='Rest`(nuach, menuchah, "cessation from motion," "peace," "quiet," etc.; anapausis, katapausis): "Rest" in the above sense is of frequent occurrence, and is the translation of several words with various applications and shades of meaning, chiefly of the words given above. It is applied to God as ceasing from the work of creating on the 7th day (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,2);">Ge 2:2</a>f); as having His place of rest in the midst of His people in the temple (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',28,2);">1Ch 28:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',132,8,14);">Ps 132:8,14</a>); as resting in His love among His people (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',3,17);">Ze 3:17</a>, the Revised Version margin "Hebrew, \'be silent\' "). The 7th day was to be one of rest (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,23);">Ex 16:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',31,15);">31:15</a>; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SABBATH">SABBATH</A>); the land also was to have its rest in the 7th year (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,4);">Le 25:4</a>f). Yahweh promised His people rest in the land He should give them; this they looked forward to and enjoyed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,9);">De 12:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',11,23);">Jos 11:23</a>). "To rest on" often means to come upon to abide, as of the Spirit of Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,25);">Nu 11:25</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',11,2);">Isa 11:2</a>), of wisdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',14,33);">Pr 14:33</a>), of anger (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',7,9);">Ec 7:9</a>). There is again the "rest" of the grave (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',3,13,17,18);">Job 3:13,17,18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',57,2);">Isa 57:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',12,13);">Da 12:13</a>). Rest is sometimes equivalent to trust, reliance (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',14,11);">2Ch 14:11</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "rely"). Hence, rest in Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',37,7);">Ps 37:7</a>, etc.); "rest" in the spiritual sense is not, however, prominent in the Old Testament. In the New Testament Christ\'s great offer is rest to the soul (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,28);">Mt 11:28</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',4,1);">Heb 4:1</a>ff, it is argued from God\'s having promised His people a "rest"<22>a promise not realized in Canaan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',4,8);">4:8</A>)<29>that there remains for the people of God "a Sabbath rest" (sabbatismos, <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',4,9);">4:9</A>). For "rest" the Revised Version (British and American) has "solemn rest" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,23);">Ex 16:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',31,15);">31:15</a>, etc.), "resting-place" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',132,8,14);">Ps 132:8,14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',11,10);">Isa 11:10</a>), "peace" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,31);">Ac 9:31</a>), "relief" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',2,13);">2Co 2:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',7,5);">7:5</a>), etc.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=REMNANT">REMNANT</a>`185';
isbe[7394]='Restitution; Restoration`res-ti-tu\'-shun.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PUNISHMENTS">PUNISHMENTS</a>`1';
isbe[7395]='Restoration`res-to-ra\'-shun: The idea of a restoration of the world had its origin in the preaching of the Old Testament prophets. Their faith in the unique position and mission of Israel as the chosen people of God inspired in them the conviction that the destruction of the nation would eventually be followed by a restoration under conditions that would insure the realization of the original divine purpose. When the restoration came and passed without fulfillment of this hope, the Messianic era was projected into the future. By the time of Jesus the conception became more or less spiritualized, and the anticipation of a new order in which the consequences of sin would no longer appear was a prominent feature of the Messianic conception. In the teaching of Jesus and the apostles such a restoration is taken for granted as a matter of course.<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',17,11);">Mt 17:11</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,12);">Mr 9:12</a>), the moral and spiritual regeneration preached by John the Baptist is described as a restoration and viewed as a fulfillment of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',4,6);">Mal 4:6</a>. It is "to be observed, however, that the work of John could be characterized as restoration only in the sense of an inception of the regeneration that was to be completed by Jesus. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,28);">Mt 19:28</a> Jesus speaks of a regeneration (palingenesia) of the world in terms that ascribe to the saints a state of special felicity. Perhaps the most pointed expression of the idea of restoration as a special event or crisis is found in the address of Peter (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',3,21);">Ac 3:21</a>), where the restoration is described as an apokatastasis panton, and is viewed as a fulfillment of prophecy.<P>In all the passages cited the restoration is assumed as a matter with which the hearers are familiar, and consequently its nature is not unfolded. The evidence is, therefore, too limited to justify any attempt to outline its special features. Under such circumstances there is grave danger of reading into the language of the Scriptures one\'s own conception of what the restoration is to embody. We are probably expressing the full warrant of the Scripture when we say that the reconstruction mentioned in these passages contemplates the restoration of man, under the reign of Christ, to a life in which the consequences of sin are no longer present, and that this reconstruction is to include in some measure a regeneration of both the physical and the spiritual world.<P>Whether the benefits of the restoration are to accrue to all men is also left undefined in the Scriptures. In the passages already cited only the disciples of Christ appear in the field of vision. Certain sayings of Jesus are sometimes regarded as favorable to the more inclusive view. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,32);">Joh 12:32</a> Jesus speaks of drawing all men to Himself, but here, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,14,15);">Joh 3:14,15</a>, it is to be observed that while Christ\'s sacrifice includes all men in its scope, its benefits will doubtless accrue to those only who respond willingly to His drawing power. The saying of Caiaphas (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,52);">Joh 11:52</a>) is irrelevant, for the phrase, "the children of God that are scattered abroad," probably refers only to the worthy Jews of the dispersion. Neither can the statements of Paul (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',11,32);">Ro 11:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,22);">1Co 15:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,9,10);">Eph 1:9,10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,20);">Col 1:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',2,4);">1Ti 2:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',4,10);">4:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',2,11);">Tit 2:11</a>) be pressed in favor of the restorationist view. They affirm only that God\'s plan makes provision for the redemption of all, and that His saving will is universal. But men have wills of their own, and whether they share in the benefits of the salvation provided depends on their availing themselves of its privileges. The doctrine of the restoration of all can hardly be deduced from the New Testament.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PUNISHMENT,+EVERLASTING">PUNISHMENT, EVERLASTING</a>`121';
isbe[7396]='Resurrection`rez-u-rek\'-shun (in the New Testament anastasis, with verbs anistemi, "stand up," and egeiro, "raise." There is no technical term in the Old Testament, but in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',26,19);">Isa 26:19</a> are found the verbs chayah, "live," kum "rise," kic "awake").<P><B>I. ISRAEL AND IMMORTALITY</B><P class="in15">1. Nationalism<P class="in15">2. Speculation<P class="in15">3. Religious Danger<P class="in15">4. Belief in Immortality<P class="in15">5. Resurrection<P class="in15">6. Greek Concepts<P><B>II. RESURRECTION IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND INTERMEDIATE LITERATURE</B><P class="in15">1. The Old Testament<P class="in15">2. The Righteous<P class="in15">3. The Unrighteous<P class="in15">4. Complete Denial<P><B>III. TEACHING OF CHRIST</B><P class="in15">1. <span class="noTag">Mark 12:18-27</span><P class="in15">2. In General<P><B>IV. THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE</B><P class="in15">1. References<P class="in15">2. Pauline Doctrine<P class="in15">3. Continuity<P class="in15">4. <span class="noTag">2 Corinthians 5</span><P><B>V. SUMMARY</B><P class="in15">1. New Testament Data<P class="in15">2. Interpretation<P><B>LITERATURE</B><HR /><P>I. Israel and Immortality.<P>1. Nationalism:<P>It is very remarkable that a doctrine of life after death as an essential part of religion was of very late development in Israel, although this doctrine, often highly elaborated, was commonly held among the surrounding nations. The chief cause of this lateness was that Israel\'s religion centered predominantly in the ideal of a holy nation. Consequently the individual was a secondary object of consideration, and the future of the man who died before the national promises were fulfilled either was merged in the future of his descendants or else was disregarded altogether.<P>2. Speculation:<P>Much speculation about life after death evidently existed, but it was not in direct connection with the nation\'s religion. Therefore, the Old Testament data are scanty and point, as might be expected, to non-homogeneous concepts. Still, certain ideas are clear. The living individual was composed of "flesh" and nephesh, or ruach (a trichotomy appears to be post-Biblical, despite <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',5,23);">1Th 5:23</a>; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PSYCHOLOGY">PSYCHOLOGY</A>). In the individual nephesh and ruach seem to be fairly synonymous words, meaning primarily "breath," as the animating principle of the flesh (so for the lower animals in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',104,29,30);">Ps 104:29,30</a>). But nephesh came to be used to denote the "inner man" or "self" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,20);">De 12:20</a>, etc.; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HEART">HEART</A>), and so in English Versions of the Bible is usually rendered "soul." But there are only a very few cases where nephesh is used for the seat of the personality after death (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',30,3);">Ps 30:3</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',16,10);">Ps 16:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',38,17);">38:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',33,18);">Job 33:18</a>, etc.), and nearly all of such passages seem quite late. Indeed, in some 13 cases the nephesh of a dead man is unmistakably his corpse (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,28);">Le 19:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',5,2);">Nu 5:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hag\',2,13);">Hag 2:13</a>, etc.). It seems the question of what survives death was hardly raised; whatever existed then was thought of as something quite new. On the one hand the dead man could be called a "god" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',28,13);">1Sa 28:13</a>), a term perhaps related to ancestor-worship. But more commonly the dead are thought of as "shades," repha\'im (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',26,5);">Job 26:5</a> margin, etc.), weak copies of the original man in all regards (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',32,25);">Eze 32:25</a>). But, whatever existence such "shades" might have, they had passed out of relation to Yahweh, whom the "dead praise not" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',115,17,18);">Ps 115:17,18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',38,18,19);">Isa 38:18,19</a>), and there was no religious interest in them.<P>3. Religious Danger:<P>Indeed, any interest taken in them was likely to be anti-religious, as connected with necromancy, etc. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,1);">De 14:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',26,14);">26:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',8,19);">Isa 8:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',106,28);">Ps 106:28</a>, etc.; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SORCERY">SORCERY</A>), or as connected with foreign religions. Here, probably, the very fact that the surrounding nations taught immortality was a strong reason for Israel\'s refusing to consider it. That Egypt held an elaborate doctrine of individual judgment at death, or that Persia taught the resurrection of the body, would actually tend to render these doctrines suspicious, and it was not until the danger of syncretism seemed past that such beliefs could be considered on their own merits. Hence, it is not surprising that the prophets virtually disregard the idea or that Ecclesiastes denies any immortality doctrine categorically.<P>4. Belief in Immortality:<P>Nonetheless, with a fuller knowledge of God, wider experience, and deeper reflection, the doctrine was bound to come. But it came slowly. Individualism reaches explicit statement in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',14,\'1-\');">Eze 14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',18,\'1-\');">18</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',33,\'1-\');">33</A> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',24,16);">De 24:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,29,30);">Jer 31:29,30</a>), but the national point of view still made the rewards and punishments of the individual matters of this world only (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',14,14);">Eze 14:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',37,\'1-\');">Ps 37</a>, etc.), a doctrine that had surprising vitality and that is found as late as Sirach (1:13; 11:26). But as this does not square with the facts of life (Job), a doctrine of immortality, already hinted at (II,1,below), was inevitable. It appears in full force in the post-Maccabean period, but why just then is hard to say; perhaps because it was then that there had been witnessed the spectacle of martyrdoms on a large scale (1Macc 1:60-64).<P>5. Resurrection:<P>Resurrection of the body was the form immortality took, in accord with the religious premises. As the saint was to find his happiness in the nation, he must be restored to the nation; and the older views did not point toward pure soul-immortality. The "shades" led a wretched existence at the best; and Paul himself shudders at the thought of "nakedness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,3);">2Co 5:3</a>). The nephesh and ruach were uncertain quantities, and even the New Testament has no consistent terminology for the immortal part of man ("soul," <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,9);">Re 6:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,4);">20:4</a>; "spirit," <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,23);">Heb 12:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,19);">1Pe 3:19</a>; Paul avoids any term in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,\'1-\');">1Co 15</a>, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,\'1-\');">2Co 5</a> says: "I"). In the Talmud a common view is that the old bodies will receive new souls (Ber. R. 2 7; 6 7; Vayy. R. 12 2; 15 1, etc.; compare Sib Or 4:187).<P>6. Greek Concepts:<P>Where direct Greek influence, however, can be predicated, pure soul-immortality is found (compare <span class="noTag">The Wisdom of Solomon 8:19,20; 9:15</a> (but Wisd\'s true teaching is very uncertain); Enoch 102:4-105; 108; Slavonic Enoch; 4Macc; Josephus, and especially Philo). According to Josephus (BJ, II, viii, 11) the Essenes held this doctrine, but as Josephus graecizes the Pharisaic resurrection into Pythagorean soul-migration (II, viii, 14; contrast Ant, XVIII, i, 3), his evidence is doubtful. Note, moreover, how <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,9);">Lu 6:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,25);">9:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,4,5);">12:4,5</a> has re-worded <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,4);">Mr 3:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,36);">8:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,28);">Mt 10:28</a> for Greek readers. In a vague way even Palestinian Judaism had something of the same concepts (2Esdras 7:88; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',4,16);">2Co 4:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',12,2);">12:2</a>), while it is commonly held that the souls in the intermediate state can enjoy happiness, a statement first appearing in Enoch 22 (Jubilees 23:31 is hardly serious).<P>II. Resurrection in the Old Testament and Intermediate Literature.<P>1. The Old Testament:<P>For the reasons given above, references in the Old Testament to the resurrection doctrine are few. Probably it is to be found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',17,15);">Ps 17:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',16,11);">16:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',49,15);">49:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',73,24);">73:24</a>, and in each case with increased probability, but for exact discussions the student must consult the commentaries. Of course no exact dating of these Psalm passages is possible. With still higher probability the doctrine is expressed in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',14,\'13-15\');">Job 14:13-15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',19,\'25-29\');">19:25-29</a>, but again alternative explanations are just possible, and, again, Job is a notoriously hard book to date (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOB,+BOOK+OF">JOB, BOOK OF</A>). The two certain passages are <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',26,19);">Isa 26:19</a> margin and <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',12,2);">Da 12:2</a>. In the former (to be dated about 332 (?)) it is promised that the "dew of light" shall fall on the earth and so the (righteous) dead shall revive. But this resurrection is confined to Palestine and does not include the unrighteous. For <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',12,2);">Da 12:2</a> see below.<P>2. The Righteous:<P>Indeed, resurrection for the righteous only was thought of much more naturally than a general resurrection. And still more naturally a resurrection of martyrs was thought of, such simply receiving back what they had given up for God. So in Enoch 90:33 (prior to 107 BC) and 2Macc 7:9,11,23; 14:46 (only martyrs are mentioned in 2Macc); compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,4);">Re 20:4</a>. But of course the idea once given could not be restricted to martyrs only, and the intermediate literature contains so many references to the resurrection of the righteous as to debar citation. Early passages are Enoch 91:10 (perhaps pre-Maccabean); Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Test. Judah 25:4 (before 107). A very curious passage is Enoch 25:6, where the risen saints merely live longer than did their fathers, i.e. resurrection does not imply immortality. This passage seems to be unique.<P>3. The Unrighteous:<P>For a resurrection of unrighteous men (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',12,2);">Da 12:2</a>; Enoch 22:11; Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Test. Benj. 10:7,8, Armenian text<78>in none of these cases a general resurrection), a motive is given in Enoch 22:13: for such men the mere condition of Sheol is not punishment enough. For a general resurrection the motive is always the final judgment, so that all human history may be summed up in one supreme act. The idea is not very common, and Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Test. Benj. 10:7,8 (Greek text); Baruch 50:2; Enoch 51:1; Sib Or 4:178-90; Life of Adam (Greek) 10, and 2Esdras 5:45; 7:32; 14:35 about account for all the unequivocal passages. It is not found in the earliest part of the Talmud, Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Test. Benj. 10:7,8 (Greek) has two resurrections.<P>4. Complete Denial:<P>Finally, much of the literature knows no immortality at all. Ecclesiasticus, Sirach and 1Maccabees are the most familiar examples, but there are many others. It is especially interesting that the very spiritual author of 2Esdras did not think it worth while to modify the categorical denial in the source used in 13:20. Of course, the Jewish party that persisted most in a denial of any resurrection was the Sadducees (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,23);">Mt 22:23</a> and parallel\'s; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',23,8);">Ac 23:8</a>), with an extreme conservatism often found among aristocrats.<P>III. Teaching of Christ.<P>1. <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,\'18-27\');">Mark 12:18-27</a>:<P>The question is discussed explicitly in the familiar passage <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,\'18-27\');">Mr 12:18-27</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,\'23-33\');">Mt 22:23-33</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',20,\'27-38\');">Lu 20:27-38</a>. The Sadducees assumed that resurrection implies simply a resuscitation to a resumption of human functions, including the physical side of marriage. Their error lay in the low idea of God. For the Scriptures teach a God whose ability and willingness to care for His creatures are so unlimited that the destiny He has prepared for them is caricatured if conceived in any terms but the absolutely highest. Hence, there follows not only the truth of the resurrection, but a resurrection to a state as far above the sexual sphere as that of the angels. (The possibility of mutual recognition by husband and wife is irrelevant, nor is it even said that the resurrection bodies are asexual) Luke (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',20,36);">20:36</a>) adds the explanation that, as there are to be no deaths, marriage (in its relation to births) will not exist. It may be thought that Christ\'s argument would support equally well the immortality of the soul only, and, as a matter of fact, the same argument is used for the latter doctrine in 4Macc 7:18,19; 16:25. But in Jerusalem and under the given circumstances this is quite impossible. And, moreover, it would seem that any such dualism would be a violation of Christ\'s teaching as to God\'s care.<P>2. In General:<P>However, the argument seems to touch only the resurrection of the righteous, especially in the form given in Luke (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',14,14);">Lu 14:14</a>). (But that Luke thought of so limiting the resurrection is disproved by <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',24,15);">Ac 24:15</a>.) Similarly in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',8,11);">Mt 8:11</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',13,28);">Lu 13:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,27);">Mr 13:27</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,31);">Mt 24:31</a>. But, as a feature in the Judgment, the resurrection of all men is taught. Then the men of sodom, Tyre, Nineveh appear (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,22,24);">Mt 11:22,24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,41,42);">12:41,42</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,14);">Lu 10:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',11,32);">11:32</a>), and those cast into Gehenna are represented as having a body (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,\'43-47\');">Mr 9:43-47</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,29,30);">Mt 5:29,30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,28);">10:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,8,9);">18:8,9</a>). And at the great final assize (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,\'31-46\');">Mt 25:31-46</a>) all men appear. In the Fourth Gospel a similar distinction is made (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,39,40,44,54);">Joh 6:39,40,44,54</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,25);">11:25</a>), the resurrection of the righteous, based on their union with God through Christ and heir present possession of this union, and (in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,28,29);">Joh 5:28,29</a>) the general resurrection to judgment. Whether these passages imply two resurrections or emphasize only the extreme difference in conditions at the one cannot be determined.<P>The passages in 4 Maccabees referred to above read: "They who care for piety with their whole heart, they alone are able to conquer the impulses of the flesh, believing that like our patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, they do not die to God but live to God" (7:18,19); and "They knew that dying for God they would live to God, even as Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the patriarchs" (16:25). It is distinctly possible that our Lord\'s words rnay have been known to the author of 4 Maccabees, although the possibility that Christ approved and broadened the tenets of some spiritually-minded few is not to be disregarded. More possible is it that 4 Maccabees influenced Luke\'s Greek phraseology.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MACCABEES,+BOOKS+OF">MACCABEES, BOOKS OF, IV</A>.<P>IV. The Apostolic Doctrine.<P>1. References:<P>For the apostles, Christ\'s victory over death took the resurrection doctrine out of the realm of speculative eschatology. Henceforth, it is a fact of experience, basic for Christianity. Direct references in the New Testament are found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',4,2);">Ac 4:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,18,32);">17:18,32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',23,6);">23:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',24,15,21);">24:15,21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',4,17);">Ro 4:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,17);">5:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,5,8);">6:5,8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,11);">8:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',11,15);">11:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',6,14);">1Co 6:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,\'1-\');">15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',1,9);">2Co 1:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',4,14);">4:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,\'1-10\');">5:1-10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,10,11,21);">Php 3:10,11,21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,18);">Col 1:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',4,\'13-18\');">1Th 4:13-18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',2,18);">2Ti 2:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',6,2);">Heb 6:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,19,35);">11:19,35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,4,5);">Re 20:4,5</a> (martyrs only); <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,12,13);">20:12,13</a>. Of these only <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',24,15);">Ac 24:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,12,13);">Re 20:12,13</a>, refer to a general resurrection with absolute unambiguity, but the doctrine is certainly contained in others and in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,1);">2Ti 4:1</a> besides.<P>2. Pauline Doctrine:<P>A theology of the resurrection is given fully by Paul. Basic is the conception of the union of the believer with Christ, so that our resurrection follows from His (especially <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,\'5-11\');">Ro 6:5-11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,10,11);">Php 3:10,11</a>). Every deliverance from danger is a foretaste of the resurrection (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',4,10,11);">2Co 4:10,11</a>). Indeed so certain is it, that it may be spoken of as accomplished (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,6);">Eph 2:6</a>). From another standpoint, the resurrection is simply part of God\'s general redemption of Nature at the consummation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,11,\'18-25\');">Ro 8:11,18-25</a>). As the believer then passes into a condition of glory, his body must be altered for the new conditions (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,50);">1Co 15:50</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,21);">Php 3:21</a>); it becomes a "spiritual" body, belonging to the realm of the spirit (not "spiritual" in opposition to "material"). Nature shows us how different "bodies" can be<62>from the "body" of the sun to the bodies of the lowest animals the kind depends merely on the creative will of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,\'38-41\');">1Co 15:38-41</a>). Nor is the idea of a change in the body of the same thing unfamiliar: look at the difference in the "body" of a grain of wheat at its sowing and after it is grown! (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,37);">1Co 15:37</a>). Just so, I am "sown" or sent into the world (probably not "buried") with one kind of body, but my resurrection will see me with a body adapted to my life with Christ and God (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,\'42-44\');">1Co 15:42-44</a>). If I am still alive at the Parousia, this new body shall be clothed upon my present body (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,53,54);">1Co 15:53,54</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,\'2-4\');">2Co 5:2-4</a>) otherwise I shall be raised in it (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,52);">1Co 15:52</a>). This body exists already in the heavens (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,1,2);">2Co 5:1,2</a>), and when it is clothed upon me the natural functions of the present body will be abolished (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',6,13);">1Co 6:13</a>). Yet a motive for refraining from impurity is to keep undefiled the body that is to rise (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',6,13,14);">1Co 6:13,14</a>).<P>3. Continuity:<P>The relation of the matter in the present body to that in the resurrection body was a question Paul never raised. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',6,13,14);">1Co 6:13,14</a> it appears that he thought of the body as something more than the sum of its organs, for the organs perish, but the body is raised. Nor does he discuss the eventual fate of the dead body. The imagery of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',4,16,17);">1Th 4:16,17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,52);">1Co 15:52</a> is that of leaving the graves, and in the case of Christ\'s resurrection, the type of ours, that which was buried was that which was raised (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,4);">1Co 15:4</a>). Perhaps the thought is that the touch of the resurrection body destroys all things in the old body that are unadapted to the new state; perhaps there is an idea that the essence of the old body is what we might call "non-material," so that decay simply anticipates the work the resurrection will do. At all events, such reflections are "beyond what is written."<P>4. <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,\'1-\');">2 Corinthians 5</a>:<P>A partial parallel to the idea of the resurrection body being already in heaven is found in Slavonic Enoch 22:8,9, where the soul receives clothing laid up for it (compare Ascension of <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',7,22,23);">Isaiah 7:22,23</a> and possibly <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,11);">Re 6:11</a>). But Christ also speaks of a reward being already in heaven (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,12);">Mt 5:12</a>). A more important question is the time of the clothing in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,\'1-5\');">2Co 5:1-5</a>. A group of scholars (Heinrici, Schmiedel, Holtzmann, Clemen, Charles, etc.) consider that Paul has here changed his views from those of 1 Corinthians; that he now considers the resurrection body to be assumed immediately at death, and they translate <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,2,3);">2Co 5:2,3</a> "\' we groan (at the burdens of life), longing to be clothed upon with our habitation which is from heaven\':because, when we shall be clothed with it, we shall have no more nakedness to experience" (Weizsacker\'s translation of the New Testament). But 2 Corinthians would have been a most awkward place to announce a change of views, for it was written in part as a defense against inconsistency (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',1,17);">1:17</A>, etc.). The willingness to be absent from the body (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,8);">5:8</A>) loses all its point if another and better body is to be given at once. The grammatical reasons for the interpretation above (best stated by Heinrici) are very weak. And the translation given reads into the verse something that simply is not there. Consequently it is far better to follow the older interpretation of Meyer (B. Weiss, Bousset, Lietzmann, Bachmann, Menzies, etc.; Bachmann is especially good) and the obvious sense of the passage: Paul dreads being left naked by death, but finds immediate consolation at the thought of being with Christ, and eventual consolation at the thought of the body to be received at the Parousia. (In <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,\'21-24\');">Php 1:21-24</a> this dread is overcome.)<P>Of a resurrection of the wicked, Paul has little to say. The doctrine seems clearly stated in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,10);">2Co 5:10</a> (and in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,1);">2Ti 4:1</a>, unless the Pauline authorship of 2 Timothy is denied). But Paul is willing to treat the fate of the unrighteous with silence.<P>V. Summary.<P>1. New Testament Data:<P>The points in the New Testament doctrine of the resurrection of the righteous, then, seem to be these: The personality of the believer survives after death and is with Christ. But it is lacking in something that will be supplied at the consummation, when a body will be given in which there is nothing to hinder perfect intercourse with God. The connection of this body with the present body is not discussed, except for saying that some connection exists, with the necessity of a transformation for those alive at the end. In this state nothing remains that is inconsistent with the height to which man is raised, and in particular sexual relations (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,25);">Mr 12:25</a>) and the processes of nutrition (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',6,13);">1Co 6:13</a>) cease. For this end the whole power of God is available. And it is insured by the perfect trust the believer may put in God and by the resurrection of Christ, with whom the believer has become intimately united. The unrighteous are raised for the final vindication of God\'s dealings in history. Two resurrections are found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,5,13);">Re 20:5,13</a> and quite possibly in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',4,16);">1Th 4:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,23,24);">1Co 15:23,24</a>. Hence, the phrase first resurrection.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUDGMENT,+LAST">JUDGMENT, LAST</A>.<P>2. Interpretation:<P>Into the "blanks" of this scheme the believer is naturally entitled to insert such matter as may seem to him best compatible with his other concepts of Christianity and of philosophy. As is so often the case with passages in the Bible, the student marvels at the way the sacred writers were restrained from committing Christianity to metaphysical schemes that growth in human knowledge might afterward show to be false. But theologian must take care to distinguish between the revealed facts and the interpretation given them in any system that he constructs to make the doctrine conform to the ideas of his own time or circle<6C>a distinction too often forgotten in the past and sometimes with lamentable results. Especially is it well to remember that such a phrase as "a purely spiritual immortality" rests on a metaphysical dualism that is today obsolete, and that such a phrase is hardly less naive than the expectation that the resurrection body will contain identically the material of the present body. We are still quite in the dark as to the relations of what we call "soul" and "body," and so, naturally, it is quite impossible to dogmatize. A. Meyer in his RGG article ("Auferstehung, dogmatisch") has some interesting suggestions. For an idealistic metaphysic, where soul and body are only two forms of God\'s thought, the resurrection offers no difficulties. If the body be regarded as the web of forces that proceed from the soul, the resurrection would take the form of the return of those forces to their center at the consummation. If "body" be considered to embrace the totality of effects that proceed from the individual, at the end the individual will find in these effects the exact expression of himself (Fechner\'s theory). Or resurrection may be considered as the end of evolution<6F>the reunion in God of all that has been differentiated and so evolved and enriched. Such lines must be followed cautiously, but may be found to lead to results of great value.<P>In recent years the attention of scholars has been directed to the problem of how far the teachings of other religions assisted the Jews in attaining a resurrection doctrine. Practically only the Persian system comes into question, and here the facts seem to be these: A belief among the Persians in the resurrection of the body is attested for the pre-Christian period by the fragments of Theopompus (4th century BC), preserved by Diogenes Laertius and Aeneas of Gaza. That this doctrine was taught by Zoroaster himself is not capable of exact proof, but is probable. But on the precise details we are in great uncertainty. In the Avesta the doctrine is not found in the oldest part (the Gathas), but is mentioned in the 19th Yasht, a document that has certainly undergone post-Christian redaction of an extent that is not determinable. The fullest Persian source is the Bundahesh (30), written in the 9th Christian century. It certainly contains much very ancient matter, but the age of any given passage in it is always a problem. Consequently the sources must be used with great caution. It may be noted that late Judaism certainly was affected to some degree by the Persian religion (see Tob, especially), but there are so many native Jewish elements that were leading to a resurrection doctrine that familiarity with the Persian belief could have been an assistance only. Especially is it to be noted that the great acceptance of the doctrine lies in the post-Maccabean period, when direct Persian influence is hardly to be thought of.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ZOROASTRIANISM">ZOROASTRIANISM</A>.<P>LITERATURE.<P>The older works suffer from a defective understanding of the presuppositions, but Salmond, Christian Doctrine of Immortality, is always useful. Brown, The Christian Hope,1912,is excellent and contains a full bibliography. Charles, Eschatology, and article "Eschatology" in Encyclopedia Biblica are invaluable, but must be used critically by the thorough student, for the opinions are often individualistic. Wotherspoon\'s article "Resurrection" in DCG is good; Bernard\'s in HDB is not so good. On 1 Corinthians, Findlay or (better) Edwards; on 2 Corinthians, Menzies. In German the New Testament Theologies of Weiss, Holtzmann, Feine; Schaeder\'s "Auferstehung" in PRE3. On 1 Corinthians, Heinrici and J. Weiss in Meyer (editions 8 and 9); on 2 Corinthians, Bachmann in the Zahn series. On both Corinthian epistles Bousset in the Schriften des New Testament of J. Weiss (the work of an expert in eschatology), and Lietzmann in his Handbuch.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BODY">BODY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ESCHATOLOGY+(old+testament+and+new+testament)">ESCHATOLOGY (OLD TESTAMENT AND NEW TESTAMENT)</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FLESH">FLESH</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SOUL">SOUL</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SPIRIT">SPIRIT</a>`48';
isbe[7397]='Resurrection of Jesus Christ, The`1. First Proof: The Life of Jesus<P>2. Second Proof: The Empty Grave<P>3. Third Proof: Transformation of the Disciples<P>4. Fourth Proof: Existence of the Primitive Church<P>5. Fifth Proof: The Witness of Paul<P>6. Sixth Proof: The Gospel Record<P>7. Summary and ConClusion<P>8. Theology of the Resurrection<P>LITERATURE<HR /><P>The Resurrection has always been felt to be vital in connection with Christianity. As a consequence, opponents have almost always concentrated their attacks, and Christians have centered their defense, upon it. It is therefore of the utmost importance to give attention to the subject, as it appears in the New Testament. There are several converging lines of evidence, and none can be overlooked. Each must have its place and weight. The issues at stake are so serious that nothing must be omitted.<P>1. First Proof: The Life of Jesus:<P>The first proof is the life of Jesus Christ Himself. It is always a disappointment when a life which commenced well finishes badly. We have this feeling even in fiction; instinct demands that a story should end well. Much more is this true of Jesus Christ. A perfect life characterized by divine claims ends in its prime in a cruel and shameful death. Is that a fitting close? Surely death could not end everything after such a noble career. The Gospels give the resurrection as the completion of the picture of Jesus Christ. There is no real doubt that Christ anticipated His own resurrection. At first He used only vague terms, such as, "Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up." But later on He spoke plainly, and whenever He mentioned His death, He added, "The Son of man...must be raised the third day." These references are too numerous to be overlooked, and, in spite of difficulties of detail, they are, in any proper treatment of the Gospels, an integral part of the claim made for Himself by Jesus Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,\'38-40\');">Mt 12:38-40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,21);">16:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',17,9,23);">17:9,23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,19);">20:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,63);">27:63</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,31);">Mr 8:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,9,31);">9:9,31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,34);">10:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,58);">14:58</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,22);">Lu 9:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,33);">18:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',2,\'19-21\');">Joh 2:19-21</a>). His veracity is at stake if He did not rise. Surely the word of such a One must be given due credence. We are therefore compelled to face the fact that the resurrection of which the Gospels speak is the resurrection of no ordinary man, but of Jesus<75>that is of One whose life and character had been unique, and for whose shameful death no proper explanation was conceivable (Denhey, Jesus and the Gospel, 122f). Is it possible that, in view of His perfect truthfulness of word and deed, there should be such an anti-climax as is involved in a denial of His assurance that He would rise again (C.H. Robinson, Studies in the Resurrection, 30)? Consider, too, the death of Christ in the light of His perfect life. If that death was the close of a life so beautiful, so remarkable, so Godlike, we are faced with an insoluble mystery<72>the permanent triumph of wrong over right, and the impossibility of believing in truth or justice in the world (C.H. Robinson, op. cit., 36). So the resurrection is not to be regarded as an isolated event, a fact in the history of Christ separated from all else. It must be taken in close connection with what precedes. The true solution of the problem is to be found in that estimate of Christ which "most entirely fits in with the totality of the facts" (Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 14).<P>2. Second Proof: The Empty Grave:<P>Another line of proof is the fact of the empty grave and the disappearance of the body. That Jesus died and was buried, and that on the third morning the tomb was empty, is not now seriously challenged. The theory of a swoon and a recovery in the tomb is impossible, and to it Strauss "practically gives its deathblow" (Orr, op. cit., 43). At Christ\'s burial a stone was rolled before the tomb, the tomb was sealed, and a guard was placed before it. Yet on the third morning the body had disappeared, and the tomb was empty. There are only two alternatives. His body must have been taken out of the grave by human hands or else by superhuman power. If the hands were human, they must have been those of His friends or of His foes. If His friends had wished to take out His body, the question at once arises whether they could have done so in the face of the stone, the seal and the guard. If His foes had contemplated this action, the question arises whether they would seriously have considered it. It is extremely improbable that any effort should have been made to remove the body out of the reach of the disciples. Why should His enemies do the very thing that would be most likely to spread the report of His resurrection? As Chrysostom said, "If the body had been stolen, they could not have stolen it naked, because of the delay in stripping it of the burial clothes and the trouble caused by the drugs adhering to it" (quoted in Day, Evidence for the Resurrection, 35). Besides, the position of the grave-clothes proves the impossibility of the theft of the body (see Greek of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,6,7);">Joh 20:6,7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,44);">11:44</a>; Grimley, Temple of Humanity, 69, 70; Latham, The Risen Master; The Expository Times, XIII, 293f; XIV, 510). How, too, is it possible to account for the failure of the Jews to disprove the resurrection? Not more than seven weeks afterward Peter preached in that city the fact that Jesus had been raised. What would have been easier or more conclusive than for the Jews to have produced the dead body and silenced Peter forever? "The silence of the Jews is as significant as the speech of the Christians" (Fairbairn, Studies in the Life of Christ, 357).<P>The fact of the empty tomb with the disappearance of the body remains a problem to be faced. It is now admitted that the evidence for the empty tomb is adequate, and that it was part of the primitive belief (Foundations, 134, 154). It is important to realize the force of this admission, because it is a testimony to Paul\'s use of the term "third day" (see below) and to the Christian observance of the first day of the week. And yet in spite of this we are told that a belief in the empty tomb is impossible. By some writers the idea of resurrection is interpreted to mean the revival of Christ\'s spiritual influence on the disciples, which had been brought to a close by His death. It is thought that the essential idea and value of Christ\'s resurrection can be conserved, even while the belief in His bodily rising from the grave is surrendered (Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 23). But how can we believe in the resurrection while we regard the basis of the primitive belief in it as a mistake, not to say a fraud? The disciples found the tomb empty, and on the strength of this they believed He had risen. How can the belief be true if the foundation be false? Besides, the various forms of the vision-theory are now gradually but surely being regarded as inadequate and impossible. They involve the change of almost every fact in the Gospel history, and the invention of new scenes and conditions of which the Gospels know nothing (Orr, op. cit., 222). It has never been satisfactorily shown why the disciples should have had this abundant experience of visions; nor why they should have had it so soon after the death of Christ and within a strictly limited period; nor why it suddenly ceased. The disciples were familiar with the apparition of a spirit, like Samuel\'s, and with the resuscitation of a body, like Lazarus\', but what they had not experienced or imagined was the fact of a spiritual body, the combination of body and spirit in an entirely novel way. So the old theory of a vision is now virtually set aside, and for it is substituted theory of a real spiritual manifestation of the risen Christ. The question at once arises whether this is not prompted by an unconscious but real desire to get rid of anything like a physical resurrection. Whatever may be true of unbelievers, this is an impossible position for those who believe Christ is alive.<P>Even though we may be ready to admit the reality of telepathic communication, it is impossible to argue that this is equivalent to the idea of resurrection. Psychical research has not proceeded far enough as yet to warrant arguments being built on it, though in any case it is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain material from this quarter which will answer to the conditions of the physical resurrection recorded in the New Testament. "The survival of the soul is not resurrection." "Whoever heard of a spirit being buried?" (Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 229).<P>In view of the records of the Gospels and the general testimony of the New Testament, it is impossible to be "agnostic" as to what happened at the grave of Jesus, even though we are quite sure that He who died now lives and reigns. It is sometimes said that faith is not bound up with, holding a particular view of the relations of Christ\'s present glory with the body that was once in Joseph\'s tomb, that faithis to be exercised in the exalted Lord, and that belief in a resuscitation of the human body is no vital part of it. It is no doubt true that faith today is to be exercised solely in the exalted and glorified Lord, but faith must ultimately rest on fact, and it is difficult to understand how Christian faith can really be "agnostic" with regard to the facts about the empty tomb and the risen body, which are so prominent in the New Testament, and which form an essential part of the apostolic witness. The attempt to set faith and historical evidence in opposition to each other, which is so marked a characteristic of much modern thought will never satisfy general Christian intelligence, and if there is to be any real belief in the historical character of the New Testament, it is impossible to be "agnostic" about facts that are writ so large on the face of the records. When once the evidence for the empty tomb is allowed to be adequate, the impossibility of any other explanation than that indicated in the New Testament is at once seen. The evidence must be accounted for and adequately explained. And so we come again to the insuperable barrier of the empty tomb, which, together with the apostolic witness, stands impregnable against all the attacks of visional and apparitional theories. It is becoming more evident that these theories are entirely inadequate to account for the records in the Gospels, as well as for the place and power of those Gospels in the early church and in all subsequent ages. The force of the evidence for the empty grave and the disappearance of the body is clearly seen by the explanations suggested by various modern writers (those of Oscar Holtzmann, K. Lake, and A. Meyer can be seen in Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, chapter viii, and that of Reville in C. H. Robinson, Studies in the Resurrection of Christ, 69; see also the article by Streeter in Foundations). Not one of them is tenable without doing violence to the Gospel story, and also without putting forth new theories which are not only improbable in themselves, but are without a shred of real historical or literary evidence. The one outstanding fact which baffles all these writers is the empty grave.<P>Others suggest that resurrection means a real objective appearance of the risen Christ without implying any physical reanimation, that the "resurrection of Christ was an objective reality, but was not a physical resuscitation" (C. H. Robinson, Studies in the Resurrection of Christ, 12). But the difficulty here is as to the meaning of the term "resurrection." If it means a return from the dead, a rising again (re-), must there not have been some identity between that which was put in the tomb and the "objective reality" which appeared to the disciples? Wherein lies the essential difference between an objective vision and an objective appearance? If we believe the apostolic testimony to the empty tomb, why may we not accept their evidence to the actual resurrection? They evidently recognized their Master, and this recognition must have been due to some familiarity with His bodily appearance. No difficulty of conceiving of the resurrection of mankind hereafter must be allowed to set aside the plain facts of the record about Christ. It is, of course, quite clear that the resurrection body of Jesus was not exactly the same as when it was put in the tomb, but it is equally clear that there was definite identity as well as definite dissimilarity, and both elements must be faced and accounted for. There need be no insuperable difficulty if we believe that in the very nature of things Christ\'s resurrection must be unique, and, since the life and work of Jesus Christ transcend our experience (as they certainly should do), we must not expect to bring them within the limitations of natural law and human history. How the resurrection body was sustained is a problem quite outside our ken, though the reference to "flesh and bones," compared with Paul\'s words about "flesh and blood" not being able to enter the kingdom of God, may suggest that while the resurrection body was not constituted upon a natural basis through blood, yet that it possessed "all things appertaining to the perfection of man\'s nature" (Church of England Article IV). We may not be able to solve the problem, but we must hold fast to all the facts, and these may be summed up by saying that the body was the same though different, different though the same. The true description of the resurrection seems to be that "it was an objective reality, but, that it was not merely a physical resuscitation." We are therefore brought back to a consideration of the facts recorded in the Gospels as to the empty tomb and the disappearance of the body, and we only ask for an explanation which will take into consideration all the facts recorded, and will do no violence to any part of the evidence. To predicate a new resurrection body in which Christ appeared to His disciples does not explain how in three days\' time the body which had been placed in the tomb was disposed of. Does not this theory demand a new miracle of its own (Kennett, Interpreter, V, 271)?<P>3. Third Proof: Transformation of the Disciples:<P>The next line of proof to be considered is the transformation of the disciples caused by the resurrection. They had seen their Master die, and through that death they lost all hope. Yet hope returned three days after. On the day of the crucifixion they were filled with sadness; on the first day of the week with gladness. At the crucifixion they were hopeless; on the first day of the week their hearts glowed with certainty. When the message of the resurrection first came they were incredulous and hard to be convinced, but when once they became assured they never doubted again. What could account for the astonishing change in these men in so short a time? The mere removal of the body from the grave could never have transformed their spirits and characters. Three days are not enough for a legend to spring up which should so affect them. Time is needed for a process of legendary growth. There is nothing more striking in the history of primitive Christianity than this marvelous change wrought in the disciples by a belief in the resurrection of their Master. It is a psychological fact that demands a full explanation. The disciples were prepared to believe in the appearance of a spirit, but they never contemplated the possibility of a resurrection (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',16,11);">Mr 16:11</a>). Men do not imagine what they do not believe, and the women\'s intention to embalm a corpse shows they did not expect His resurrection. Besides, a hallucination involving five hundred people at once, and repeated several times during forty days, is unthinkable. 4. Fourth Proof: Existence of the Primitive Church:<P>From this fact of the transformation of personal life in so incredibly short a space of time, we proceed to the next line of proof, the existence of the primitive church. "There is no doubt that the church of the apostles believed in the resurrection of their Lord" (Burkitt, The Gospel History and Its Transmission, 74).<P>It is now admitted on all hands that the church of Christ came into existence as the result of a belief in the resurrection of Christ. When we consider its commencement, as recorded in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, we see two simple and incontrovertible facts:<P>(1) the Christian society was gathered together by preaching;<P>(2) the substance of the preaching was the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was put to death on a cross, and would therefore be rejected by Jews as accursed of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',21,23);">De 21:23</a>).<P>Yet multitudes of Jews were led to worship Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,41);">Ac 2:41</a>), and a great company of priests to obey Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',6,7);">Ac 6:7</a>). The only explanation of these facts is God\'s act of resurrection (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,36);">Ac 2:36</a>), for nothing short of it could have led to the Jewish acceptance of Jesus Christ as their Messiah. The apostolic church is thus a result of a belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The early chapters of Acts bear the marks of primitive documents, and their evidence is unmistakable. It is impossible to allege that the early church did not know its own history, that myths and legends quickly grew up and were eagerly received, and that the writers of the Gospels had no conscience for principle, but manipulated their material at will, for any modern church could easily give an account of its history for the past fifty years or more (Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 144). And it is simply absurd to think that the earliest church had no such capability. In reality there was nothing vague or intangible about the testimony borne by the apostles and other members of the church. "As the church is too holy for a foundation of rottenness, so she is too real for a foundation of mist" (Archbishop Alexander, The Great Question, 10).<P>5. Fifth Proof: The Witness of Paul:<P>One man in the apostolic church must, however, be singled out as a special witness to the resurrection. The conversion and work of Saul of Tarsus is our next line of proof. Attention is first called to the evidence of his life and writings to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Some years ago an article appeared (E. Medley, The Expositor, V, iv, 359). inquiring as to the conception of Christ which would be suggested to a heathen inquirer by a perusal of Paul\'s earliest extant writing, 1 Thessalonians. One point at least would stand out clearly<6C>that Jesus Christ was killed (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',2,15);">2:15</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',4,14);">4:14</A>) and was raised from the dead (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',4,14);">4:14</A>). As this Epistle is usually dated about 51 AD<41>that is, only about 22 years after the resurrection<6F>and as the same Epistle plainly attributes to Jesus Christ the functions of God in relation to men (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',1,1,6);">1:1,6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',2,14);">2:14</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',3,11);">3:11</A>), we can readily see the force of this testimony to the resurrection. Then a few years later, in an epistle which is universally accepted as one of Paul\'s, we have a much fuller reference to the event. In the well-known chapter (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,\'1-\');">1Co 15</a>) where he is concerned to prove (not Christ\'s resurrection, but) the resurrection of Christians, he naturally adduces Christ\'s resurrection as his greatest evidence, and so gives a list of the various appearances of Christ, ending with one to himself, which he puts on an exact level with the others: "Last of all he was seen of me also." Now it is essential to give special attention to the nature and particularity of this testimony. "I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,3);">1Co 15:3</a>f). This, as it has often been pointed out, is our earliest authority for the appearances of Christ after the resurrection, and dates from within 30 years of the event itself. But there is much more than this: "He affirms that within 5 years of the crucifixion of Jesus he was taught that \'Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures" (Kennett, Interpreter, V, 267). And if we seek to appreciate the full bearing of this act and testimony we have a right to draw the same conclusion: "That within a very few years of the time of the crucifixion of Jesus, the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus was, in the mind of at least one man of education, absolutely irrefutable" (Kennett, op. cit., V, 267).<P>Besides, we find this narrative includes one small but significant statement which at once recalls a very definite feature of the Gospel tradition<6F>the mention of "the third day." A reference to the passage in the Gospels where Jesus Christ spoke of His resurrection will show how prominent and persistent was this note of time. Why, then, should Paul have introduced it in his statement? Was it part of the teaching which he had "received"? What is the significance of this plain emphasis on the date of the resurrection? Is it not that it bears absolute testimony to the empty tomb? From all this it may be argued that Paul believed the story of the empty tomb at a date when the recollection was fresh, when he could examine it for himself, when he could make the fullest possible inquiry of others, and when the fears and opposition of enemies would have made it impossible for the adherents of Jesus Christ to make any statement that was not absolutely true. "Surely common sense requires us to believe that that for which he so suffered was in his eyes established beyond the possibility of doubt" (Kennett, op. cit., V, 271).<P>In view, therefore, of Paul\'s personal testimony to his own conversion, his interviews with those who had seen Jesus Christ on earth before and after His resurrection, and the prominence given to the resurrection in the apostle\'s own teaching, we may challenge attention afresh to this evidence for the resurrection. It is well known that Lord Lyttelton and his friend Gilbert West left Oxford University at the close of one academic year, each determining to give attention respectively during the long vacation to the conversion of Paul and the resurrection of Christ, in order to prove the baselessness of both. They met again in the autumn and compared experiences. Lord Lyttelton had become convinced of the truth of Paul\'s conversion, and Gilbert West was convinced of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If, therefore, Paul\'s 25 years of suffering and service for Christ were a reality, his conversion was true, for everything he did began with that sudden change. And if his conversion was true, Jesus Christ rose from the dead, for everything Paul was and did he attributed to the sight of the risen Christ.<P>6. Sixth Proof: The Gospel Record:<P>The next line of proof of the resurrection is the record in the Gospels of the appearances of the risen Christ, and it is the last in order to be considered. By some writers it is put first, but this is in forgetfulness of the dates when the Gospels were written. The resurrection was believed in by the Christian church for a number of years before our Gospels were written, and it is therefore impossible for these records to be our primary and most important evidence. We must get behind them if we are to appreciate fully the force and variety of the evidence. It is for this reason that, following the proper logical order, we have reserved to the last our consideration of the appearances of the risen Christ as given in the Gospels. The point is one of great importance (Denney, Jesus and the Gospel, 111).<P>Now, with this made clear, we proceed to consider the evidence afforded by the records of the post-resurrection appearances of Christ. Modern criticism of the Gospels during recent years has tended to adopt the view that Mark is the earliest, and that Matthew and Luke are dependent on it. This is said to be "the one solid result" (W. C. Allen, "St. Matthew," International Critical Commentary, Preface, vii; Burkitt, The Gospel History, 37) of the literary criticism of the Gospels. If this is so, the question of the records of the resurrection becomes involved in the difficult problem about the supposed lost ending of Mark, which, according to modern criticism, would thus close without any record of an appearance of the risen Christ. On this point, however, two things may be said at the present juncture: (1) There are some indications that the entire question of the criticism of the Gospels is to be reopened (Ramsay, Luke the Physician, chapter ii; see also Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 63ff). (2) Even if the current theory be accepted, it would not seriously weaken the intrinsic force of the evidence for the resurrection, because, after all, Mark does not invent or "doctor" his material, but embodies the common apostolic tradition of his time (Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 62).<P>We may, therefore, meanwhile examine the record of the appearances without finding them essentially affected by any particular theory of the origin and relations of the Gospels. There are two sets of appearances, one in Jerusalem and the other in Galilee, and their number, and the amplitude and weight of their testimony should be carefully estimated. While we are precluded by our space from examining each appearance minutely, and indeed it is unnecessary for our purpose to do so, it is impossible to avoid calling attention to two of them. No one can read the story of the walk to Emmaus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,\'1-\');">Lu 24</a>), or of the visit of Peter and John to the tomb (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,1);">Joh 20</a>), without observing the striking marks of reality and personal testimony in the accounts. As to the former incident: "It carries with it, as great literary critics have pointed out, the deepest inward evidences of its own literal truthfulness. For it so narrates the intercourse of \'a risen God\' with commonplace men as to set natural and supernatural side by side in perfect harmony. And to do this has always been the difficulty, the despair of imagination. The alternative has been put reasonably thus: Luke was either a greater poet, a more creative genius, than Shakespeare, or<6F>he did not create the record. He had an advantage over Shakespeare. The ghost in Hamlet was an effort of laborious imagination. The risen Christ on the road was a fact supreme, and the Evangelist did but tell it as it was" (Bishop Moule, Meditations for the Church\'s Year, 108). Other writers whose attitude to the Gospel records is very different bear the same testimony to the impression of truth and reality made upon them by the Emmaus narrative (A. Meyer and K. Lake, quoted in Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 176f).<P>It is well known that there are difficulties connected with the number and order of these appearances, but they are probably due largely to the summary character of the story, and certainly are not sufficient to invalidate the uniform testimony to the two facts: (1) the empty grave, (2) the appearances of Christ on the third day. These are the main facts of the combined witness (Orr, op. cit., 212).<P>The very difficulties which have been observed in the Gospels for nearly nineteen centuries are a testimony to a conviction of the truth of the narratives on the part of the whole Christian church. The church has not been afraid to leave these records as they are because of the facts that they embody and express. If there had been no difficulties men might have said that everything had been artificially arranged, whereas the differences bear testimony to the reality of the event recorded. The fact that we possess these two sets of appearances<65>one in Jerusalem and one in Galilee<65>is really an argument in favor of their credibility, for if it had been recorded that Christ appeared in Galilee only, or Jerusalem only, it is not unlikely that the account might have been rejected for lack of support. It is well known that records of eyewitnesses often vary in details, while there is no question as to the events themselves. The various books recording the story of the Indian mutiny, or the surrender of Napoleon III at Sedan are cases in point, and Sir William Ramsay has shown the entire compatibility of certainty as to the main fact with great uncertainty as to precise details (Ramsay, Paul the Traveler, 29). We believe, therefore, that a careful examination of these appearances will afford evidence of a chain of circumstances extending from the empty grave to the day of the ascension.<P>7. Summary and Conclusion:<P>When we examine carefully all these converging lines of evidence and endeavor to give weight to all the facts of the case, it seems impossible to escape from the problem of a physical miracle. That the prima facie view of the evidence afforded by the New Testament suggests a miracle and that the apostles really believed in a true physical resurrection are surely beyond all question. And yet very much of present-day thought refuses to accept the miraculous. The scientific doctrine of the uniformity and continuity of Nature bars the way, so that from the outset it is concluded that miracles are impossible. We are either not allowed to believe (see Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 44), or else we are told that we are not required to believe (C. H. Robinson, Studies in the Resurrection of Christ, chapter ii), margin, the reanimation of a dead body. If we take this view, "there is no need, really, for investigation of evidence: the question is decided before the evidence is looked at" (Orr, op. cit., 46).<P>We challenge the tenableness of this position. It proves too much. We are not at all concerned by the charge of believing in the abnormal or unusual. New things have happened from the beginning of the present natural order, and the Christian faith teaches that Christ Himself was a "new thing," and that His coming as "God manifest in the flesh" was something absolutely unique. If we are not allowed to believe in any divine intervention which we may call supernatural or miraculous, it is impossible to account for the Person of Christ at all. "A Sinless Personality would be a miracle in time." Arising out of this, Christianity itself was unique, inaugurating a new era in human affairs. No Christian, therefore, can have any difficulty in accepting the abnormal, the unusual, the miraculous. If it be said that no amount of evidence can establish a fact which is miraculous, we have still to account for the moral miracles which are really involved and associated with the resurrection, especially the deception of the disciples, who could have found out the truth of the case; a deception, too, that has proved so great a blessing to the world. Surely to those who hold a true theistic view of the world this a priori view is impossible. Are we to refuse to allow to God at least as much liberty as we possess ourselves? Is it really thinkable that God has less spontaneity of action than we have? We may like or dislike, give or withhold, will or not will, but the course of Nature must flow on unbrokenly. Surely God cannot be conceived of as having given such a constitution to the universe as limits His power to intervene if necessary and for sufficient purpose with the work of His own hands. Not only are all things of Him, but all things are through Him, and to Him. The resurrection means the presence of miracle, and "there is no evading the issue with which this confronts us" (Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 53). Unless, therefore, we are prepared to accept the possibility of the miraculous, all explanation of the New Testament evidence is a pure waste of time.<P>Of recent years attempts have been made to account for the resurrection by means of ideas derived from Babylonian and other Eastern sources. It is argued that mythology provides the key to the problem, that not only analogy but derivation is to be found. But apart from the remarkable variety of conclusions of Babylonian archaeologists there is nothing in the way of historical proof worthy of the name. The whole idea is arbitrary and baseless, and prejudiced by the attitude to the supernatural. There is literally no link of connection between these oriental cults and the Jewish and Christian beliefs in the resurrection.<P>And so we return to a consideration of the various lines of proof. Taking them singly, they must be admitted to be strong, but taking them altogether, the argument is cumulative and sufficient. Every effect must have its adequate cause, and the only proper explanation of Christianity today is the resurrection of Christ. Thomas Arnold of Rugby, no ordinary judge of historical evidence, said that the resurrection was the "best-attested fact in human history." Christianity welcomes all possible sifting, testing, and use by those who honestly desire to arrive at the truth, and if they will give proper attention to all the facts and factors involved, we believe they will come to the conclusion expressed years ago by the Archbishop of Armagh, that the resurrection is the rock from which all the hammers of criticism have never chipped a single fragment (The Great Question, 24).<P>8. Theology of the Resurrection:<P>The theology of the resurrection is very important and calls for special attention. Indeed, the prominence given to it in the New Testament affords a strong confirmation of the fact itself, for it seems incredible that such varied and important truths should not rest on historic fact. The doctrine may briefly be summarized: (1) evidential: the resurrection is the proof of the atoning character of the death of Christ, and of His Deity and divine exaltation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,4);">Ro 1:4</a>); (2) evangelistic: the primitive gospel included testimony to the resurrection as one of its characteristic features, thereby proving to the hearers the assurance of the divine redemption (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,\'1-4\');">1Co 15:1-4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',4,25);">Ro 4:25</a>); (3) spiritual: the resurrection is regarded as the source and standard of the holiness of the believer. Every aspect of the Christian life from the beginning to the end is somehow associated therewith (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,\'1-\');">Ro 6</a>); (4) eschatological: the resurrection is the guaranty and model of the believer\'s resurrection (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,\'1-\');">1Co 15</a>). As the bodies of the saints arose (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,52);">Mt 27:52</a>), so ours are to be quickened (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,11);">Ro 8:11</a>), and made like Christ\'s glorified body (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,21);">Php 3:21</a>), thereby becoming spiritual bodies (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,44);">1Co 15:44</a>), that is, bodies ruled by their spirits and yet bodies. These points offer only the barest outline of the fullness of New Testament teaching concerning the doctrine of the resurrection of Christ.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 1908; W. J. Sparrow Simpson, The Resurrection and Modern Thought; Westcott, The Historic Faith and The Gospel of the Resurrection. Very full literary references in Bowen, The Resurrection in the New Testament,1911,which, although negative in its own conclusions, contains a valuable refutation of many negative arguments.``171';
isbe[7398]='Resurrection, Gospel of the``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCRYPHAL+GOSPELS">APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS</a>`1';
isbe[7399]='Retain`re-tan\':Several Hebrew words are thus translated: chazaq, "to hold fast" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',7,8);">Jud 7:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',19,4);">19:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',2,9);">Job 2:9</a> the King James Version (the Revised Version (British and American) "hold fast"); <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',7,18);">Mic 7:18</a>); \'atsar, "to shut up" (only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',10,8,16);">Da 10:8,16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',11,6);">11:6</a>); tamakh, "to hold" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',3,18);">Pr 3:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',4,4);">4:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',11,16);">11:16</a> the King James Version (the Revised Version (British and American) "obtain")); in one case kala\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',8,8);">Ec 8:8</a>). In the New Testament krateo, is used in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,23);">Joh 20:23</a> of the "retaining" of sins by the apostles (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RETENTION+OF+SINS">RETENTION OF SINS</A>); in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,28);">Ro 1:28</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) has "refused to have," margin "Greek, \'did not approve,\' " for the King James Version "did not like to retain" (echo); and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Phm\',1,13);">Phm 1:13</a>, substitutes "fain have kept" for "retained" (katecho). Sirach 41:16 has "retain" for diaphulasso, "keep."``1';
isbe[7400]='Retaliation`re-tal-i-a\'-shun, re-.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LAW+IN+THE+NEW+TESTAMENT">LAW IN THE NEW TESTAMENT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PUNISHMENTS">PUNISHMENTS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RETRIBUTION">RETRIBUTION</a>`1';
</script>
<script src="./study/isbe/author.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./study/isbe/isbeDisplay.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./js/MainFooter.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink