exlim/blb
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
blb/study/isbe/9100.html

114 lines
297 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[9101]='Viper`vi\'-per (\'eph\'eh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',20,16);">Job 20:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,6);">Isa 30:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',59,5);">59:5</a>); echidna (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,7);">Mt 3:7</a> = <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,7);">Lu 3:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,34);">Mt 12:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,33);">23:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',28,3);">Ac 28:3</a>)): Several vipers are found in Palestine, but it is not certain that \'eph\'eh referred definitely to any of them.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SERPENT">SERPENT</a>`1';
isbe[9102]='Virgin Birth`<B>I. DEFINITION</B><P><B>II. THE TEXTUAL QUESTION</B><P><B>III. THE HISTORICAL QUESTION</B><P class="in15">1. Statement Not Dogmatic but Vital as History<P class="in15">2. Its Importance to Leaders of the Early Church<P class="in15">3. Hypothesis of Invention Discredits the Church<P><B>IV. THE CRITICAL QUESTION</B><P class="in15">1. Basis of Virgin-Birth Statement<P class="in15">2. Interrelationship of Narratives<P class="in15">3. Sources, Origin and age of Documents<P><B>V. THE DOCTRINAL QUESTION</B><P class="in15">1. In the New Testament<P class="in15">2. Portrait of Jesus in Synoptic Gospels <P class="in15">3. In Rest of the New Testament<P class="in15">4. Oppositions to the Doctrine<P class="in15">5. Its Importance to Modern Thought<P><B>LITERATURE</B><HR /><P>I. Definition.<P>"Virgin-birth" is the correct and only correct designation of the birth statement contained in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. "Immaculate conception" is of course manifestly a blunder due to the confusion of one idea with another. "Supernatural or miraculous birth" will not do, because there is no intimation that the process of birth was in any way exceptional. "Supernatural or miraculous conception" is equally unsatisfactory as it involves a question-begging comparison between the birth of Christ and the exceptional births of the Sons of Promise (e.g. Isaac, John the Baptist, etc.). The only statement which is sufficiently specific is "virgin-birth," inasmuch as according to the New Testament statement Mary was at the time of this birth virgo intacta.<P>II. The Textual Question.<P>We may deal with this division of our subject very briefly, because if we are to allow any weight at all to textual evidence there is no question as to the infancy narratives, either in whole or in part. Their position is flawless and unassailable. There is a voluminous literature devoted to the discussion of the subject, but it is notably jejune even for critical writing, and much more impressive for ingenuity and dialectic skill in arguing a poor case than for anything in the way of results. We do not hesitate to refer the reader who is interested in discussions of this sort to entirely satisfactory reviews of them found elsewhere (see Machen, Princeton Review, October, 1905; January, 1906; and Orr, The Virgin Birth of Christ). We may summarize the entire discussion in the words of Johannes Weiss (Theologische Rundschau,1903,208, quoted by Machen, ut sup.): "There never were forms of Matthew and Luke without the infancy narratives." One point only we shall consider in this connection; namely, the disputed reading of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,16);">Mt 1:16</a>. The Ferrar group of manuscripts (nos. 346, 556, 826, 828) interpose a second "begat" between the names Joseph and Jesus. It is affirmed that this reading with the variants represents an original form of the genealogy preserved in the Gospels which affirms the literal sonship of Jesus to Joseph. The first and most obvious remark to be made upon this question is, granting<6E>what is extremely uncertain<69>that this reading is original, it does not prove nor begin to prove the point alleged. This is now widely conceded. For one thing, the word "begat" is used elsewhere for legal or putative fatherhood (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,12);">Mt 1:12</a> and see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GENEALOGY+OF+JESUS+CHRIST">GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST</A>). Allen\'s statement of the case indicates clearly enough that the radical use of this variation has broken down (see ICC; "Matthew," 8). This writer holds that the reading of Sam 1 ("Jacob begat Joseph. Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus, called the Messiah," <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,16);">Mt 1:16</a>) is nearest the original form. By four steps, which he enumerates in order, he conceives that the original text, which was intended to convey the idea of a legal fatherhood on the part of Joseph, was modified so as to guard the statement from misinterpretation. This hypothesis is ingenious if somewhat complicated. The weak spot in the whole case (for the variation) lies in the fact that all manuscripts concur in the name of Mary and the term "virgin." It is evident, in any view of the relative standing of the various readings,<P>(1) that the genealogy as deposited in public or private record would read: "Jacob begat Joseph, Joseph begat Jesus,"<P>(2) that the person who used the genealogy in the Gospel and placed it in connection with <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,\'18-25\');">Mt 1:18-25</a><P>(a) had Mary particularly in mind and inserted the names of women to prepare the way for the mention of Mary, all of which was a departure from usual and orderly procedure;<P>(b) that he used the word "begat" in the legal sense throughout (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,8,12);">1:8,12</A>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',3,11,12,19);">1Ch 3:11,12,19</a>);<P>(c) that he believed in the virgin-birth as evinced by the connection and the use of names of women including Mary\'s.<P>There is therefore no basis for the idea that the genealogy, even without the strongly attested relative clause of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,16);">Mt 1:16</a>, ever meant anything but an attestation of the virgin-birth.<P>III. The Historical Question.<P>1. Statement Not Dogmatic but Vital as History:<P>The twofold birth announcement of Matthew and Luke is a statement of historical or, more strictly speaking, biographical fact. The accounts, as we shall see, are very rigidly confined to the matter of fact concerned. It is not a dogma and receives very little doctrinal elaboration even in the infancy narratives themselves. It is an event, wholly real or wholly imaginary. The statement of it is wholly true or entirely false. But as a historical statement this narrative is of peculiar quality and significance.<P>(1) It touches upon the most delicate matters, at a place where the line between that which is most sacred and that which is most degraded in human life is closely drawn. To discredit it leaves the most intimate mystery of our Lord\'s earthly life under the shadow of suspicion. It is therefore a statement of the greatest personal moment in the evangelic record.<P>(2) It involves the secret history and public honor of a family most dear and sacred to the entire Christian body. It records the inner and outer experiences of the mother of the Lord and of His brethren, themselves honored leaders in the church.<P>(3) It touches upon the central mystery of the Lord\'s person in such a way as to involve either a very important contribution to the doctrine of the incarnation or a very serious mutilation of the truth. We may dismiss altogether the contention of many, that whether true or not the fact is of no great importance. It must be of importance. No fact in which the relationship of Jesus to His ancestors according to the flesh, to His mother, to the laws of life in the race at large, are so evidently and so deeply involved can possibly be a matter of indifference. The nature of His experience in the world, the quality and significance of His manhood, the fundamental constitution of His person, the nature and limits of the incarnation are necessarily and vitally concerned in the discussion. It is impossible to begin with the acceptance or rejection of the fact and arrive by logical processes at like convictions on any fundamental matter in the region of Christology.<P>2. Its Importance to Leaders of the Early Church:<P>All this must have been as patent to the earliest believers as to ourselves. The men who incorporated this incident into the gospel narrative could not possibly have been blind to the importance of what they were doing (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,3);">Lu 1:3</a>). In view of these facts it would be well for the serious student to ask himself this question: "On the hypothesis of invention, what manner of men were they who fabricated these narratives and succeeded in foisting them upon the church so early as to dominate its earliest official records and control the very making of all its creeds?" It is clear that deliberate invension is the only alternative to historical credit. We may throw out of court as altogether inadmissible the hypothesis that the church as a whole, by a naive and semi-unconscious process, came to believe these stories and to accept them without criticism. Rumors always grow in the absence of known facts, especially where curiosity is keen. Absurd rumors multiply among the credulous. But no statement contrary to natural expectation was ever yet promulgated among people of even average intelligence without meeting the resistance of incredulity on the part of some individuals who wish to inquire, especially if means of verification are within reach. In this particular instance, the issue may be stated much more sharply. At no period reasonably to be assigned for the origin and incorporation of these documents could they have been honestly accepted by any member of the Christian community, sufficiently taught to occupy a position of authority. If the story was invented, there must have been a time when Jesus was universally accepted as the son by natural generation of Joseph and Mary. The story surely was not invented before His birth nor for some time after. The first person, therefore, who spoke contrary to the prevalent and natural belief must have had it from the family, which alone knew the truth, or else have been a wanton and lying gossip. Such a story is recognizable on the face of it as authoritative or pure invention. There is no middle ground. It could not have been recounted without being challenged for its strangeness and for its contravention of the accepted belief. It could not have been challenged without the exposure of its groundless and fraudulent character, for the simple reason that the lack of positive and authoritative certification would be its immediate and sufficient condemnation. It is not difficult to draw the portrait of the inventor of this story. He must have been lacking, not only in the sense of truthfulness, but also in the elementary instinct of delicacy, to have invaded the privacy of the most sacred home known to him and deliberately invented a narrative which included the statement that Mary had come under suspicion of wrongdoing in such a way as to shadow the life of her Son. He must also have been doctrinally lax in the extreme, as well as temperamentally presumptuous, to have risked a mutilation of the truth by an invention dealing with such essential matters.<P>3. Hypothesis of Invention Discredits the Church:<P>Moreover, this hypothesis demands that this fabrication must have met with instantaneous and universal success. It passed the scrutiny of the church at large and of its authorized teachers, and was never challenged save by a small group of heretics who disliked it on purely dogmatic grounds.<P>To whatever origin in the way of suggestion from without one may attribute the story<72>whether one may ascribe it to the influence of Old Testament prophecy, or Jewish Messianic expectations in general, or to ethnic analogies, Babylonian. Egyptian or Greek<65>the fact remains that the story had to be invented and published by those who ought to have known better and could easily have known better had they possessed sufficient interest in the cause of truth to have made even casual inquiries into the credentials of such an important statement offered for their acceptance. It is fairly true to say that ethnic analogies for the birth of Christ fail (see article on "Heathen Wonder-Births and the Birth of Christ," Princeton Review, January, 1908). It is also true that the rooted Sere conviction shared by the Hebrews, that family descent is to be traced through the male line only, so persistent even among the New Testament writers that both evangelists, on the face of them, trace the lineage of Joseph, would have acted as an effectual barrier against this particular legendary development. It is further true that no passage of the Old Testament, including <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',7,14);">Isa 7:14</a>, can be adduced as convincing evidence that the story was invented under the motive of finding fulfillment for Messianic predictions (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=IMMANUEL">IMMANUEL</a>). But far more satisfactory is the elementary conviction that the founders of the Christian church and the writers of its documents were not the kind of men to accept or circulate stories which they knew perfectly well would be used by unbelief in a malignant way to the discredit of their Master and His family. The hypothesis of invention not only leaves an ugly cloud of mystery over the birth of Jesus, but it discredits beyond repair every man who had to do with the writing and circulation of the Gospels, down to and including the man who professes to have "traced the course of all things accurately from the beginning," according to the testimony of those who were "eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,2);">Lu 1:2</a>f). It is simply impossible to save the credit, in any matter involving honesty or commonsense, of one who uses words like these and yet incorporates unauthenticated legends into the narrative to which he has thus pledged himself.<P>One may venture at the close of this section of the discussion to point out that everything which the inventor of this story must have been, the narrators of it are not. Both narratives exhibit a profound reverence, a chaste and gracious reserve in the presence of a holy mystery, a simplicity, dignity and self-contained nobility. of expression which are the visible marks of truth, if such there are anywhere in human writing.<P>IV. The Critical Question.<P>1. Basis of Virgin-Birth Statement:<P>The infancy narratives evidently stand somewhat apart from the main body of apostolic testimony. The personal contact of the disciples with Jesus, upon which their testimony primarily rests, extended from the call of the disciples, near the opening of the ministry, to the resurrection and post-resurrection appearances. It is hyper-skepticism to deny that the substance of the gospel narrative rests upon the basis of actual experience. But all four evangelists show a disposition to supplement the immediate testimony of the disciples by the use of other well-attested materials. Luke\'s introductory paragraph, if it was written by an honest man, indicates that he at least was satisfied with nothing less than a careful scrutiny of original sources, namely, the testimony, written or oral, of eyewitnesses. It may reasonably be surmised that this was the general attitude of the entire group of apostles, evangelists and catechists who are responsible for the authorship and circulation of the Gospels.<P>But, to say nothing of the infancy narratives, for one of which Luke himself is responsible, these writers have embodied in the narrative the ministry of John the Baptist, the baptism and temptation of Jesus, all of which events happened before their fellowship with Jesus, strictly speaking, began. In particular, assuredly no disciple was an eyewitness of the temptation. None the less the narrative stands, simply because imaginative invention of such an incident in the absence of accredited facts cannot reasonably be considered. The fact that the birth narratives do not rest upon the testimony of the same eyewitnesses who stand for the ministry of Jesus does not discredit them as embodying reliable tradition, unless it can be proved that they contradict the rest of the apostolic testimony or that no reliable witness to the events in question was within reach at the time when the documents were composed. In the present instance such a contention is absurd. The very nature of the event points out the inevitable firsthand witnesses. There could be no others. In the absence of their decisive word, bald invention would be necessary. To charge the entire church of the time (for this is what the hypothesis amounts to) as particeps criminis in its own official and documentary deception is an extreme position as unwarranted as it is cruel.<P>The internal harmony of the facts as recorded points in the same direction. The silence or comparative lack of emphasis with reference to the birth of Christ on the part of the other New Testament writers is to be explained partly on the basis of doctrinal viewpoint (see V, below) and partly because an ingrained sense of delicacy would naturally tend to reticence on this point, at least during the lifetime of Mary and the Lord\'s brethren. The following intimately corresponding facts are sufficiently significant in this connection:<P>(1) that the fact of Jesus\' unique birth could not be proclaimed as a part of His own teaching or as the basis of His incarnate life;<P>(2) that He was popularly known as the son of Joseph;<P>(3) that the foster-fatherhood of Joseph, as embodied in the genealogy (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GENEALOGY+OF+JESUS+CHRIST">GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST</A>), was the recognized basis of His relationship to the house of David. All these facts appear just as they should in the narrative.<P>The very fact that the genealogies, ending with the name of Joseph, and the current representations of Jesus as Joseph\'s son, are allowed to appear in the same documents in which the virgin-birth statements appear, together with the entirely congruous facts that the main synoptic narrative does not emphasize the event, and that neither Paul nor John nor any other New Testament writer gives it a prominent place, is indication enough that it rested, in the opinion of the entire witnessing body, on a sufficient basis of evidence and required no artificial buttressing. Internal harmonies and incidental marks of truthfulness are of the utmost importance here because in a narrative so complex and vital it would have been easy to make a misstep. Since none was made, we are constrained to believe that the single eye to truth filled the apostolic mind with light. Every item, in the infancy narratives themselves, as well as in the more strictly doctrinal statements of other New Testament books, is as we should expect, provided the birth statement be accepted as true. Internal evidence of truthfulness could not be stronger.<P>2. Interrelationship of Narratives:<P>This general conclusion is confirmed when we come to consider the relationship of the two narratives to each other. To begin with, we have two narratives, differing greatly in method of treatment, grouping of details, order and motive of narration, and general atmosphere. It is evident that we have two documents which have had quite a different history.<P>In two points, at any rate, what might be considered serious discrepancies are discoverable (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BIBLICAL+DISCREPANCIES">BIBLICAL DISCREPANCIES</A>). These two points are:<P>(1) the relationship of the Massacre of the Innocents and the journey to Egypt, as related by Matthew, to Luke\'s account, which carries the holy family directly back to Nazareth from Bethlehem after the presentation in the temple;<P>(2) the discrepancy as to the previous residence at Nazareth (Luke) and the reason given for the return thither (Matthew).<P>As to (1) it is quite clear that Matthew\'s account centers about an episode interpolated, so to say, into the natural order of events (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=INNOCENTS,+MASSACRE+OF+THE">INNOCENTS, MASSACRE OF THE</A>). It is also clear that the order of Luke\'s narrative, which is in the highest degree condensed and synoptic, does not forbid the introduction of even a lengthy train of events into the midst of <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,39);">Lu 2:39</a> (compare condensation in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,40,41,42,51,52);">2:40-42,51,52</A>). It may easily be that the lacunae in each account are due to a lack of knowledge on the part of either writer as to the point supplied by the other. Matthew may not have known that the family had resided formerly in Nazareth, and Luke may not have known that a return to Galilee as a permanent residence was not contemplated in the original plan. The difficulty here is not serious. We consider the discrepancy as it stands as of more value to the account as indicating the independence of the two accounts and the honesty of those who incorporated them into the Gospels without attempting to harmonize them, than any hypothetical harmonization however satisfactory. We introduce this caveat, however, that Matthew had an especial reason for introducing the episode connected with Herod and for explaining the residence at Nazareth during our Lord\'s early years as occurring by divine authority (see Sweet, Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ, 218f; for discussion of this point; and compare <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=INNOCENTS,+MASSACRE+OF+THE">INNOCENTS, MASSACRE OF THE</a>).<P>We are now free to consider the remarkable convergence of these two documents. The following particulars may be urged:<P>(1) the synchronism in the Herodian era; (2) the name "Jesus" given by divine authority before birth;<P>(3) Davidic kinship;<P>(4) the virgin-birth;<P>(5) the birth at Bethlehem;<P>(6) residence at Nazareth.<P>In addition we may urge the essential and peculiar harmony of descriptive expressions (see V, below) and the correspondence of the inner and outer experiences of Mary.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MARY">MARY</A>, II.<P>3. Sources, Origin and Age of Documents:<P>We have now reached the final and crucial point of this phase of our discussion when we take up the question as to the sources, origin and date of these narratives. Our method of approach to the general question of their credibility delivers us from the necessity of arguing in extenso theories which have been framed to account for the narrative in the absence of historical fact. We resort to the simple and convincing principle that the story could not have been honestly composed nor honestly published as derived from any source other than the persons who could have guaranteed its trustworthiness. Every indication, of which the narratives are full, of honesty and intelligence on the part of the narrators is an argument against any and all theories which presuppose a fictitious origin for the central statement. Negatively, we may with confidence assert that wide excursions into ethnic mythology and folklore have failed to produce a single authentic parallel either in fact or in form to the infancy narratives. In addition to this, the attempt to deduce the story from Messianic prophecy also fails to justify itself. In addition, there are two considerations which may justly be urged as pointing to trustworthy sources for the narrative: First, the strongly Hebraic nature of both narratives. It has often been pointed out that nowhere in the New Testament do we find documents so deeply tinged with the Hebraic spirit (see Adeney, Essays for the Times, number XI, 24f; and Briggs, New Lights on the Life of Christ, 161f). This statement involves both narratives and is another evidence of profound internal unity. A second important fact is that the doctrinal viewpoint is Jewish-Christian and undeveloped. The term "Holy Spirit" is used in the Old Testament sense; the Christology is undeveloped, omitting reference to Christ\'s preexistence and interpreting His sonship as official and ethical rather than metaphysical. The soteriology is Jewish and Messianic, not unfolding the doctrine of the cross. All these facts point in one direction, namely, to the conclusion that these documents are early. It is impossible reasonably to suppose that such documents could have been composed in the absence of sources, or by persons devoid of the historical spirit, after the death and resurrection and ascension of Jesus had shed such light upon His person and mission as to transform both Christology and soteriology through the ideas of incarnation, atonement and the Trinity.<P>It is still asserted, in the face of the most convincing evidence to the contrary, that the infancy narratives are late addenda to the gospel tradition as a whole. This idea is due, primarily, to a confusion of thought between origin and publication. The latter must have been coincident with the original issue of the Gospels in their present form. The textual evidence here is convincing. On the other hand, the main body of testimony incorporated into the Gospels at the time of their publication had been in the hands of the apostles and their helpers for some years, as evidenced by the Pauline letters and the Book of Acts. In all probability the sources upon which the infancy narratives rest, which had their origin and received the impress which characterizes them in the period antecedent to the public ministry of Jesus, came into the hands of the Gospel writers toward the end of the formative period at the close of which the Gospels were issued. In other words, the story of the Lord\'s birth was withheld until the time was ripe for its publication. Two occasions may have served to release it: the death of Mary may have made it possible to use her private memoirs, or the rise of anti-Christian calumny may have made the publication of the true history imperative. At any rate, the narratives show every indication of being contemporary documents of the period with which they deal. This fact puts an additional burden of proof, already heavier than they can bear, upon those who would antagonize the documents. We may reasonably affirm that the narratives will bear triumphantly any fair critical test.<P>V. The Doctrinal Question.<P>1. In the New Testament:<P>The discussion of the doctrinal significance of the virgin-birth statement falls naturally into three parts:<P>(1) Its doctrinal elaboration in the New Testament;<P>(2) its historic function in the development of Christian doctrine;<P>(3) its permanent value to Christian thought.<P>We begin with the narratives themselves. As has just been said, they were incorporated into the Gospels at a time when the New Testament Christology had reached maturity in the Pauline and Johannine writings and the Epistle to the Hebrews. The doctrine of the incarnation was fully unfolded. It had been unequivocally asserted that in Jesus all the fullness of the Godhead was historically and personally manifested (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,14);">Joh 1:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,\'5-8\');">Php 2:5-8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,18);">Col 1:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,9);">2:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,14);">Heb 2:14</a>). In contrast with these statements the infancy narratives not only, as adverted to above, exhibit on the surface a rudimentary Christology, but in several items, of profound interest and most surprising tenor, show that the birth notice was not apprehended or stated in view of the doctrine of the incarnation at all.<P>The detailed justification of this statement follows:<P>(1) Matthew (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,\'18-25\');">1:18-25</A>) does not use the term "Son of God." The only expression implying a unique relationship to God, other than in the "of Holy Spirit" phrase, twice used, is in the word "Immanuel" quoted from Isaiah, which does not necessarily involve incarnation. At the beginning of the genealogy Jesus is introduced as the son of David, the son of Abraham.<P>(2) The assertion as to His conception by Holy Spirit is conditioned by three striking facts:<P>(a) His conception is interpreted in terms of conception by the power of Holy Spirit, not of begetting by the Father. The Old Testament expression "This day have I begotten thee," used twice, occurs in quite a different connection (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,5);">Heb 1:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',5,5);">5:5</a>).<P>(b) The term "Holy Spirit" is used without the article.<P>(c) The phrase descriptive of the being conceived is expressed in the neuter, \'the thing conceived in her is of Holy Spirit\' (to gar en aute gennethen ek pneumatos estin hagiou).<P>The implication of these three facts is<P>(i) that the sonship of Jesus through His exceptional birth is interpreted in terms of divine power working upon humanity, not as the correlative of divine and essential fatherhood; it is the historical sonship that is in view (contrast with this the two passages in Hebrews referred to above);<P>(ii) the writer is speaking in the Old Testament sense of "Holy Spirit" as the forthgoing of creative power from God, not as personal hypostasis;<P>(iii) he is also emphasizing (in the use of the neuter) the reality of the physical birth. These three facts, all the more remarkable because they are attributed to a heavenly messenger who might be expected to speak more fully concerning the mystery, exclude the supposition that we have one historic form of the doctrine of incarnation. On the contrary, had we no other statements than those found here we should be unable logically to postulate an incarnation. Every statement made concerning Jesus, apart from the virgin-birth statement itself, might be true were He the son of Joseph and Mary.<P>The case is far stronger when we turn to Luke\'s account, in spite of the fact that the terms "Son of the Most High" and "Son of God" ordinarily implying incarnation are used. We notice<P>(d) that the anarthrous use of "Holy Spirit" reappears and that a poetic parallelism defines the term (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,35);">Lu 1:35</a>), making "Holy Spirit" = "Power of the Most High";<P>(e) that the neuter phrase is also found here, "the holy thing which is begotten," etc. (dio kai to gennomenon hagion klethesetai);<P>(f) that future tenses are used in connection with His career and the titles which He bears: "He shall be (as the outcome of a process) great," and "He shall be called (as a matter of ultimate titular recognition) the Son of the Most High" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,32);">Lu 1:32</a>); "The holy thing...shall be called the Son of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,35);">Lu 1:35</a>).<P>In these instances the title is connected directly with the career rather than the birth. Even the "wherefore" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,35);">Lu 1:35</a>, in connection with the future verb, carries the power of God manifested in the holy conception forward into the entire career of Jesus rather than bases the career upon the initial miracle. These three facts taken together exclude the reference to any conception of the incarnation. The incarnation is directly and inseparably connected with Christ\'s eternal sonship to the Father. The title "Son of God" includes that but does not specify it. It includes also the ethical, historical, human sonship. The term "Holy Spirit" used without the article also is a comprehensive expression covering both a work of divine power in any sphere and a work of divine grace in the personal sphere only.<P>These accounts are concerned with the historic fact rather than its metaphysical implications. This historic fact is interpreted in terms of a divine power in and through the human career of Jesus (which is so stated as to include an impersonal, germinal life) rather than a dogmatic definition of the Messiah\'s essential nature. The omission of all reference to pre-existence is negatively conclusive on this point. The divine power manifested in His exceptional origin is thought of as extending on and including His entire career. This leads us directly to a second phase in the interpretation of Christ and compels to a reconsideration at a new angle of the miracle of His origin.<P>2. Portrait of Jesus in Synoptic Gospels:<P>The narrators of the life and ministry of Jesus on the basis of ascertained fact and apostolic testimony were confronted with a very definite and delicate task. They had to tell with unexaggerating truthfulness the story of the human life of Jesus. Their ultimate aim was to justify the doctrine of incarnation, but they could not have been unaware that the genuine and sincere humanity of Christ was a pillar of the doctrine quite as much as His essential Deity. To portray the human experience of a being considered essentially divine was the Herculean task attempted and carried to a successful issue in the Synoptic Gospels. These writers do not conceal for a moment their conviction that they are depicting the career of the wonder-working Son of God, but they never forget that it is a career of self-limitation within the human sphere, the period of self-imposed and complete humiliation undertaken on behalf of the Father, "for us men and for our salvation." Hence, the nature and limitations of the narrative. Mark omits reference to the virgin-birth. Matthew and Luke narrate it and forthwith drop it. These facts are exactly on a paragraph. It is no more remarkable that Mark omits the story than that Matthew and Luke make so little of it. To allege either fact as a motive to doubt is to misinterpret the whole situation. By the terms of their task they could do nothing else. The Fourth Gospel and the Epistles announce that the human life of Jesus was due to the voluntary extra-temporal act of a pre-existent Divine Being, but in the synoptic narrative four passages only hint at pre-existence, and then as incidental flashes from the inner consciousness of Jesus. This omission is no more remarkable and no less so than the omissions noted above. By the terms of their task the synoptic writers could do nothing else. The fact of pre-existence could be announced only when the earthly task had been triumphantly finished (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,9,11);">Mr 9:9,11</a>). During the entire period of the earthly life as such Jesus was under trial (note <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,17);">Mt 3:17</a>, correctly translating the aorist; compare the remarkable words of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,17);">Joh 10:17</a>), performing a task, accomplishing a commission, achieving a victory as human son. The story of the Temptation exhibits the conditions under which Jesus performed His task. The temptations were one and all addressed to His consciousness as God\'s Son. They were resisted on the sole basis of self-humiliation and dependence. The entire synoptic narrative is consistent with this representation. Jesus is consciously one in will and spirit with God, but that oneness with God is consummated and conducted in the Spirit, through faith, by prayer. They describe His entire career of holiness, wisdom and power, each unique, in the terms of the Spirit-filled, trustful, prayerful human life. Here is the vital point. They disclose the eternal Sonship (in which beyond question they believe) on its ethical, not on its metaphysical side, by prediction of His future triumph rather than by definition of His person. In such a narrative, consistently carried out, there can be no resort to the preexistent, eternal Sonship, nor to the miracle of His human origin in the story of His career under trial. In particular, the miracle, whereby His germinal connection with the race was established could not extend to the personal and spiritual life in which His victory was His own through the personal Holy Spirit. The argument from the virgin-birth to His sinlessness (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=IMMACULATE+CONCEPTION">IMMACULATE CONCEPTION</A>) was made by the church, not by the New Testament writers. The sinlessness of Christ was His own achievement in the flesh which He sacrificed through His holy will of obedience to the Father.<P>3. In Rest of the New Testament:<P>This leads us to a third phase of development in the New Testament doctrine of incarnation. In the Fourth Gospel and the Epistles it is asserted that the innermost moral significance of the earthly career of Jesus lay in the fact that it was the consistent carrying-out of an extra-temporal volition of divine mercy and love whereby He became the Revealer of God and the Saviour of men. This doctrine is based upon the story of the human career completed in the glorification which, according to the testimony, ensued upon His death and disclosed His place in the divine sphere of being. But it is also based upon the virgin-birth narrative and grounded in it. Attention has already been called to the fact that the virgin-birth is not (in the infancy narrative) connected with the metaphysical sonship of Jesus. All that is said then, doctrinally, concerning Jesus might be true were He the son of Joseph and Mary. On the contrary, what is said in John and the Epistles depends upon the virgin-birth narrative for its foundational basis. It has often been asserted that Paul and John do not refer to the virgin-birth. This statement the present writer takes to be more than doubtful, but if it is true, all the more striking is the indirect and unconscious testimony to the virgin-birth involved in their doctrinal reliance upon it. According to these writers the incarnation was due to a divine act of self-limitation whereby the divine mode of existence was exchanged for the human (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,\'5-11\');">Php 2:5-11</a> et al.). According to the infancy narrative, the birth of Jesus was due to a divine creative act whereby a human life began germinally and passed through the successive stages of growth to maturity. The synoptic narrative outside the infancy narrative supplies a third point, that the entire conscious personal career of Jesus upon earth was lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. The infancy narrative is the keystone of an arch, one half resting upon the synoptic account, the other upon the doctrinal construction of John and the Epistles. The virgin-birth statement by its adoption of Old Testament terminology makes room for a divine activity both in the impersonal and in the personal spheres. The doctrine of incarnation implies that as in every new human being the creative divine power manifests itself impersonally in germinal beginnings, so in the life of Christ the divine power conditions itself within the impersonal forces of germinant life with this important and suggestive difference: In the career of Jesus there issues from the sphere of germinal beginnings not a new human person created from the life-stock of the race, but the personal human life, including all human powers, of a pre-existent divine person self- conditioned and self-implanted within the human sphere. The central conscious self, the agent of His activities and the subject of His experiences in the historic sphere was the eternal Son of God. His life in the human sphere was that of a true human being in the full actuality of a human life. Hence, it follows, since ordinary generation involves necessarily (that is the intent of it) the origination of a new person not hitherto existing, that the birth of Jesus could not have been by ordinary generation. The birth of Christ through ordinary generation would have involved a quite incomprehensible miracle, namely, the presence and action of the ordinary factors in human origins with a contrary and unique result. The virgin-birth is the only key that fits the vacant space in the arch. In addition it may reasonably be urged that the relationship of human parents to each other, ordinarily a natural, necessary and sacred act, could have no part in this transaction, while the very fact that Mary\'s relationship was to God alone, in an act of submission involving complete self-renunciation and solitary enclosure within the divine will, fulfils the spiritual conditions of this unique motherhood as no other imaginable experience could.<P>4. Oppositions to the Doctrine: Historically the virgin-birth statement performed a function commensurate with the importance ascribed to it in this discussion rather than the current depreciation of it. The doctrine of Christ was menaced in two opposite directions, which may be designated respectively by the terms "Ebionite" and "Gnostic." According to the former teaching (the word "Ebionite" being used in a general sense only), Jesus was reduced to the human category and interpreted as a Spirit-led man or prophet, in the Old Testament meaning of the term. According to the opposite tendency, He was interpreted as divine, while His human experience was reduced to mere appearance of a temporary external union with the Logos. The virgin-birth statement resisted both these tendencies with equal effectiveness. On the one hand, it asserted with unequivocal definiteness a real humanity conditioned by true birth into an actual connection with the race. On the other hand, it asserted an exceptional birth, setting Jesus apart as one whose entrance into the world was due to a new, creative contact of God with the race. Historically, it is difficult to see how the New Testament doctrine could have escaped mutilation apart from the statement, seemingly framed with express reference to conditions arising afterward, which so wonderfully guarded it. The holy mystery of the Lord\'s origin became the symbol of the holier mystery of His divine nature. It thus appears in every one of the historic creeds, an assertion of fact around which the belief of the church crystallized into the faith which alone accounts for its history, a profound and immovable conviction that Jesus Christ was really incarnate Deity.<P>5. Its Importance to Modern Thought:<P>The importance for modern thinking of the virgin-birth statement is threefold:<P>(1) First, it involves in general the question, never more vital than at the present time, of the trustworthiness of the gospel tradition. This particular fact, i.e. the virgin-birth, has been a favorite, because apparently a vulnerable, point of attack. But the presuppositions of the attack and the method according to which it has been conducted involve a general and radical undermining of confidence in the testimony of the gospel witnesses. This process has finally met its nemesis in the Christus-myth propaganda. The virgin-birth statement can be successfully assailed on no grounds which do not involve the whole witnessing body of Christians in charges of blind credulity or willful falsification, very unjust indeed as respects their character and standing in general, but very difficult to repel in view of the results of denial at this point.<P>(2) The virgin-birth is important for the simple historical reason that it involves or is involved in a clear and consistent account of the Lord\'s birth and early years. Apart from the infancy narratives we are utterly without direct information as to His birth, ancestry or early years. Apart from these narratives we have no information as to the marriage of Joseph and Mary; we are shut up to vague inferences as to this entire period. No biographer ever leaves these points obscure if he can avoid it. It is very earnestly suggested that those who cast discredit upon the infancy story do not clearly recognize the seriousness of the situation brought about in the absence of any narrative which can be trusted as to this vital point. Calumny there is and has been from an early day. If there is nowhere an authoritative answer to the calumny, in what sort of a position is the Christian believer placed? He can assert nothing, because apart from what he has too lightly thrown away he knows nothing.<P>(3) Lastly, the more closely the statement as to the Lord\'s birth is studied, the more clearly it will be seen that it involves in a most vital and central way the entire doctrine of the incarnation. This doctrine is an interpretation of facts. Those facts stand together. In the midst of those facts, harmonizing with them, shedding light upon them and receiving light from them, resting upon the same consentient testimony is the statement, which is thus worded in the oldest symbol of our historical faith: "Conceived by the Holy Spirit, Born of the Virgin Mary" (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOSTLES\'+CREED">APOSTLES\' CREED</A>). There is no adequate reason why the intelligent believer should feel uncertain as to this statement of our holy religion.<P>LITERATURE.<P>There is a vast and growing literature which more or less directly deals with the subject of our Lord\'s birth. The literature may be classified as follows:<P>(1) Lives of Christ;<P>(2) critical commentaries on Matthew and Luke;<P>(3) critical and historical investigations of Christian origins;<P>(4) monographs on the Apostles\' Creed;<P>(5) monographs and articles on the specific subject.<P>For a list and analysis of discussions see Sweet, Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ, 354-57.``169';
isbe[9103]='Virgin, Virginity`vur\'-jin; vur-jin\'-i-ti:<P>(1) bethulah, from a root meaning "separated," is "a woman living apart," i.e. "in her father\'s house," and hence "a virgin." Bethulah seems to have been the technical term for "virgin," as appears from such a combination as na\'arah bhethulah, "a damsel, a virgin," in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',22,23,28);">De 22:23,28</a>, etc. An apparent exception is <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',1,8);">Joe 1:8</a>, "Lament like a virgin bethulah...for the husband of her youth," but the word is probably due to a wish to allude to the title "virgin daughter of Zion" (the translation "a betrothed maiden" is untrue to Hebrew sentiment). and the use of "virgin" for a city (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',37,22);">Isa 37:22</a>, etc.; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',23,12);">Isa 23:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',47,1);">47:1</a>) probably means "unsubdued," though, as often, a title may persist after its meaning is gone (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,4);">Jer 31:4</a>). The King James Version and the English Revised Version frequently render bethulah by "maiden" or "maid" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',19,24);">Jud 19:24</a>, etc.), but the American Standard Revised Version has used "virgin" throughout, despite the awkwardness of such a phrase as "young men and virgins" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',148,12);">Ps 148:12</a>). For "tokens of virginity" ("proofs of chastity") see the commentary on <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',22,15);">De 22:15</a>ff.<P>(2) \'almah, rendered in the Revised Version (British and American) by either "damsel" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',68,25);">Ps 68:25</a>), "maiden" (so usually, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,8);">Ex 2:8</a>, etc.), or "virgin" with margin "maiden" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',1,3);">So 1:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',6,8);">6:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',7,14);">Isa 7:14</a>). The word (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=OHL">OHL</A>) means simply "young woman" and only the context can give it the force "virgin." This force, however, seems required by the contrasts in <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',6,8);">So 6:8</a>, but in <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',1,3);">1:3</A> "virgin" throws the accent in the wrong place. The controversies regarding <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',7,14);">Isa 7:14</a> are endless, but Septuagint took \'almah as meaning "virgin" (parthenos). But in New Testament times the Jews never interpreted the verse as a prediction of a virgin-birth<74>a proof that the Christian faith did not grow out of this passage. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=IMMANUEL">IMMANUEL</A>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=VIRGIN+BIRTH">VIRGIN BIRTH</A>.<P>(3) parthenos, the usual Greek word for "virgin" (Judith 16:5, etc.; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,23);">Mt 1:23</a>, etc.). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',14,4);">Re 14:4</a> the word is masculine. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',7,25);">1Co 7:25</a>ff the Revised Version (British and American) has explained "virgin" by writing "virgin daughter" in 7:36-38. This is almost certainly right, but "virgin companion" (see Lietzmann and J. Weiss in the place cited.) is not quite impossible.<P>(4) neanis, "young woman" (Sirach 20:4).<P>(5) Latin virgo (2Esdras 16:33).<P>The Old Testament lays extreme emphasis on chastity before marriage (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',22,21);">De 22:21</a>), but childlessness was so great a misfortune that death before marriage was to be bewailed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',11,37,38);">Jud 11:37,38</a>). Paul\'s preference for the unmarried state (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',7,29);">1Co 7:29</a> if) is based on the greater freedom for service (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,12);">Mt 19:12</a>), and the Greek estimate of virginity as possessing a religious quality per se is foreign to true Jewish thought (such a passage as Philo Mund. opif., section symbol 53, is due to direct Greek influence). Some have thought to find a trace of the Greek doctrine in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',14,4);">Re 14:4</a>. But 144,000 1st-century Christian ascetics are out of the question, and the figure must be interpreted like that of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',4,4);">Jas 4:4</a> (reversed).``48';
isbe[9104]='Virtue`vur\'-tu: This word has two quite distinct meanings in the King James Version: (1) It was formerly often used in the now obsolete sense of "manly power," "valor," "efficacy" (Latin, virtus, "manly strength" or "excellence," from vir, "man"):<P class="in15">"Trust in thy single virtue; for thy soldiers<br>All levied in thy name, have in thy name<br>Took their discharge."<br><EFBFBD>Shakespeare, King Lear, V, iii, 103ff.<P>It was also used in the sense of a mighty work, a miracle. Thus Wycliffe translates <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,20);">Mt 11:20</a>: "Thanne Jhesus bigan to saye repreef to cities in whiche ful many vertues of him weren don." So in the King James Version, <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',5,30);">Mr 5:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,19);">Lu 6:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',8,46);">8:46</a>, in the sense of "power," "miraculous energy or influence" (dunamis, "inherent power, residing in the nature of a thing"; contrast exousia, "power arising from external opportunity or liberty of action"). In these passages it is translated in the Revised Version (British and American) "power" (as elsewhere in the King James Version; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',3,12);">Ac 3:12</a>, etc.). (2) In its ordinary modern meaning of "moral goodness" it occurs in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 4:1</span>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',5,13);">5:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',8,7);">8:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,8);">Php 4:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,3,5);">2Pe 1:3,5</a>. In these passages it stands for arete, the usual classical term for "moral excellence" (originally "fitness" of any sort), used in Septuagint to translate words meaning "glory," "praiseworthiness," as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',3,3);">Hab 3:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',42,12);">Isa 42:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',63,7);">63:7</a> (of God); <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',6,13);">Zec 6:13</a> (of the Messiah). The Septuagint sense may color the meaning of the word as applied to God in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,3);">2Pe 1:3</a> the Revised Version (British and American); as also in its plural use (of God) in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,9);">1Pe 2:9</a> (the King James Version "praises," the Revised Version (British and American) "excellencies").<P>The adjective "virtuous" occurs in the King James Version, the English Revised Version <a onClick="return mV(\'Rth\',3,11);">Ru 3:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',12,4);">Pr 12:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',31,10);">31:10</a> (the American Standard Revised Version "worthy"), and the adverb "virtuously" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',31,29);">Pr 31:29</a> (the American Standard Revised Version "worthily"), in each case for chayil, "strength," "force" (whether of body or of mind), then in a moral sense of "worth," "virtue."``49';
isbe[9105]='Vision`vizh\'-un (chazon, chizzayon, mar\'ah; horama, optasia): Psychologists find that man is prevailingly and persistently "eye-minded." That is, in his waking life he is likely to think, imagine and remember in terms of vision. Naturally then, his dreaming is predominantly visual; so strongly visual, we are told, that it is not rare to find dreams defined as "trains of fantastic images." Whether man was made this way in order that God might communicate with him through dreams and visions is hardly worth debating; if the records of human life, in the Bible and out of it, are to be trusted at all, there is nothing better certified than that God has communicated with man in this way (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',89,19);">Ps 89:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',29,18);">Pr 29:18</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',8,11,12);">Am 8:11,12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',12,10);">Ho 12:10</a>). If one is disposed to regard the method as suited only to primitive peoples and superstitious natures, it still remains true that the experience is one associated with lives and characters of the most saintly and exalted kind (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',3,1);">1Sa 3:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',1,11);">Jer 1:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,1);">Eze 1:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',2,19);">Da 2:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,10);">Ac 9:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,3);">10:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,9);">16:9</a>).<P>The vision may come in one\'s waking moments (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',10,7);">Da 10:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,7);">Ac 9:7</a>); by day (Cornelius, <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,3);">Ac 10:3</a>; Peter, <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,9);">Ac 10:9</a>ff; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',24,4,16);">Nu 24:4,16</a>) or night (Jacob, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,2);">Ge 46:2</a>); but commonly under conditions of dreaming (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',12,6);">Nu 12:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',4,13);">Job 4:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',4,9);">Da 4:9</a>). The objects of vision, diverse and in some instances strange as they are, have usually their points of contact with experiences of the daily life. Thus Isaiah\'s vision of the seraphim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',6,2);">Isa 6:2</a>) was doubtless suggested by familiar figures used in the decoration of the temple at Jerusalem; Paul\'s "man of Macedonia" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,9);">Ac 16:9</a>) had its origin in some poor helot whom Paul had seen on the streets of Troas and who embodied for him the pitiful misery of the regions across the sea; and "Jacob\'s ladder" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,12);">Ge 28:12</a>) was but a fanciful development of the terraced land which he saw sun-glorified before him as he went to sleep. Among the recurring objects of vision are natural objects<74>rivers, mountains, trees, animals<6C>with which man has daily and hourly association.<P>The character of the revelation through vision has a double aspect in the Biblical narrative. In one aspect it proposes a revelation for immediate direction, as in the ease of Abram (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,2);">Ge 15:2</a> and frequently); Lot (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,15);">Ge 19:15</a>); Balaam (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',22,22);">Nu 22:22</a>), and Peter (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',12,7);">Ac 12:7</a>). In another aspect it deals with the development of the Kingdom of God as conditioned by the moral ideals of the people; such are the prophetic visions of Isaiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, and Micah, and the apoealypses of Daniel and John. The revelation for immediate direction has many correspondences in the life of the devout in all ages; the prophetic vision, dealing in a penetrating way with the sources of national growth and decay, has its nearest approach in the deliverances of publicists and statesmen who are persuaded that the laws of God, as expressed in self-control, truth, justice, and brotherly love, are supreme, and that the nations which disregard them are marked for ultimate and speedy extinction.<P>From the nature of the vision as an instrument of divine communication, the seeing of visions is naturally associated with revivals of religion (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',12,\'21-25\');">Eze 12:21-25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',2,28);">Joe 2:28</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,17);">Ac 2:17</a>), and the absence of visions with spiritual decline (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',29,11,12);">Isa 29:11,12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',2,9);">La 2:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',7,26);">Eze 7:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',3,6);">Mic 3:6</a>).<P>One may see visions without being visionary in the bad sense of that word. The outstanding characters to whom visions were vouchsafed in the history of Israel<65>Abraham, Moses, Jacob, David, Isaiah, Jesus and Paul<75>were all men of action as well as sentiment, and it is manifest from any fair reading of their lives that their work was helped and not hindered by this aspect of their fellowship with God. For always the vision emphasizes the play of a spiritual world; the response of a man\'s spirit to the appeal of that world; and the ordering of both worlds by an "intelligent and compelling Power able to communicate Himself to man and apparently supremely interested in the welfare of man.``168';
isbe[9106]='Visitation`viz-i-ta\'-shun, vis-(pequddah; episkope): In Biblical writings, the divine investigation or inspection of men\'s character and deeds with a view to apportioning to them their due lot, whether of reward or of chastisement; divine dispensation of mercy or of punishment.<P>(1) In a general sense: "Visited after the visitation of all men" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',16,29);">Nu 16:29</a>), i.e. in natural death, the usual lot of men, as opposed to a calamitous death; "She shall have fruit in the visitation of souls" (<span class="noTag">The Wisdom of Solomon 3:13</span> the King James Version), i.e. in the time of divine judgment. So Sirach 18:20 and perhaps <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,12);">1Pe 2:12</a>.<P>(2) In a good sense, of God\'s care, providence and mercy: "Thy visitation (the Revised Version margin "care") hath preserved my spirit" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',10,12);">Job 10:12</a>). So <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',19,44);">Lu 19:44</a>, and, according to some, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,12);">1Pe 2:12</a> (see above).<P>(3) Most frequently in an evil sense, of calamity or distress viewed as divine punishment: "What will ye do in the day of visitation, and in the desolation which shall come from far?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,3);">Isa 10:3</a>). So <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',8,12);">Jer 8:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',10,15);">10:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',11,23);">11:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',23,12);">23:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',46,21);">46:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',48,44);">48:44</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',50,27);">50:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,18);">51:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',9,7);">Ho 9:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',7,4);">Mic 7:4</a>; <span class="noTag">The Wisdom of Solomon 14:11</span>.``49';
isbe[9107]='Vocation`vo-ka\'-shun.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CALLING">CALLING</a>`1';
isbe[9108]='Voice`vois.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BATH+KOL">BATH KOL</a>`1';
isbe[9109]='Void`void: The uses of "void" in English Versions of the Bible are all modern, except for the phrase "void place" in the King James Version <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',22,10);">1Ki 22:10</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',18,9);">2Ch 18:9</a> (the Revised Version (British and American) "open"); 2Macc 14:44 (so the King James Version and the Revised Version margin). On the Old Testament passages see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=OPEN+PLACE">OPEN PLACE</A>. In 2 Maccabees the Greek word is keneon, which may mean either "an open place," in general, or, specifically, "the hollow between the ribs and the hip," whence the Revised Version (British and American) "his side." Moffatt in Charles\' Apocrypha translates "the open street."``1';
isbe[9110]='Volume`vol\'-um: This word (from Latin volvere, "roll"), twice used in the King James Version (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',40,7);">Ps 40:7</a> (Hebrew meghillah); <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,7);">Heb 10:7</a>), is better in English as "roll" in the Revised Version (British and American).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ROLL">ROLL</a>`1';
isbe[9111]='Voluntary`vol\'-un-ta-ri: For the sake of variety the King James Version in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,16);">Le 7:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',46,12);">Eze 46:12</a> (bis) has rendered nedhabhah, by "voluntary offering" instead of the usual "freewill offering" (so the Revised Version (British and American)). The words "of his own voluntary will" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,3);">Le 1:3</a> the King James Version are a pure gloss, properly omitted in the Revised Version (British and American), as they represent nothing in the Hebrew text. 1Macc 2:42 has "voluntarily" as part of the translation of hekousiazo, the Revised Version (British and American) "willingly."``1';
isbe[9112]='Vophsi`vof\'-si (wophci, meaning unknown): Father of Nahbi the Naphtalite spy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,14);">Nu 13:14</a>); but the text is doubtful. The Septuagint\'s Codex Vaticanus has Iabei; Codex Alexandrinus, Codex F, and Lucian Iabi.``1';
isbe[9113]='Vow`vou (nedher; euche; \'iccar, found only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',30,6,8,10);">Nu 30:6,8,10</a> and translated horismos, by the Septuagint: A vow could be positive (nedher) and included all promises to perform certain things for, or bring certain offerings to, God, in return for certain benefits which were hoped for at His hand (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,\'20-22\');">Ge 28:20-22</a>, Jacob; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,2,8);">Le 27:2,8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',30,\'1-\');">Nu 30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',11,30);">Jud 11:30</a>, Jephthah; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',1,11);">1Sa 1:11</a>, Hannah; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',15,8);">2Sa 15:8</a>, Absalom; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jon\',1,16);">Jon 1:16</a>, vows of heathen); or negative (\'iccar), and included promises by which a person bound himself or herself to abstain from certain things (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',30,3);">Nu 30:3</a>). Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find the making of vows regarded as a religious duty (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',23,22);">De 23:22</a>), but the fulfilling of a vow was considered as a sacred and binding duty (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',23,\'21-23\');">De 23:21-23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',11,35);">Jud 11:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',5,4);">Ec 5:4</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',22,25);">Ps 22:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',66,13);">66:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',76,11);">76:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',116,18);">116:18</a>). A vow was as binding as an oath (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=OATH">OATH</a>) and therefore to be kept to the letter; and it was not to be lightly made (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',20,25);">Pr 20:25</a>). A father could veto a daughter\'s vow, and a husband a wife\'s. If a husband did not veto a wife\'s vow, and then caused her to break it, the sin was his and not hers (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',30,\'1-\');">Nu 30</a>, passim). It seems that vows were considered binding only when actually uttered (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',23,23);">De 23:23</a>). Persons, including one\'s self, animals, land and other possessions, could be vowed, but all these could be redeemed with money (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JEPHTHAH">JEPHTHAH</A>), which money was to be estimated by the priest, except in the case of a clean animal. In the case of land, houses and unclean animals a fifth part of the estimated value was to be added to make up the redemption money. In the case of land the sum was greater or smaller as the coming year of Jubilee was far off or near (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,\'1-\');">Le 27</a>, passim). Nothing which was by nature holy could be made the object of a vow, e.g. firstlings, tithes, etc. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,26,28,30);">Le 27:26,28,30</a>); and, on the other hand, an abomination, e.g. the hire of a prostitute, could not be made the object of a vow (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',23,18);">De 23:18</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',1,14);">Mal 1:14</a> the offering of what was of less value than what had been vowed is vigorously condemned.<P>In the New Testament Jesus refers to vows only to condemn the abuse of them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',15,\'4-6\');">Mt 15:4-6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,\'10-13\');">Mr 7:10-13</a>; compare Talmud, Nedharim, and see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CORBAN">CORBAN</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,18);">Ac 18:18</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,23,24);">Ac 21:23,24</a>) Paul desires to show his Jewish brethren that he is willing to keep the forms of Jewish piety so long as they do not clash with his Christian conscience (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',9,21);">1Co 9:21</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NAZIRITE">NAZIRITE</a>`98';
isbe[9114]='Voyage And Shipwreck of Paul`voi\'-aj, ship\'-rek.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PAUL,+THE+APOSTLE">PAUL, THE APOSTLE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PHOENIX">PHOENIX</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHIPS+AND+BOATS">SHIPS AND BOATS</a>`1';
isbe[9115]='Vulgate`vul\'-gat:<P><b>I. NAME AND ITS HISTORY</b><P class="in15">1. Present Usage<P class="in15">2. Earlier Usage<P class="in15">3. Post-Hieronymic<P class="in15">4. Historical Importance of the Vulgate<P><b>II. ORIGIN</b><P class="in15">1. Corruption and Confusion of Old Versions<P class="in15">2. Heresy<P class="in15">3. Inevitable Separation of East and West<P class="in15">4. Request of Pope Damasus<P><b>III. JEROME\'S TRANSLATIONS AND REVISIONS: METHOD</b><P class="in15">1. The New Testament Gospels or Whole New Testament?<P class="in15">2. Old Testament from the Septuagint<P class="in15">3. Translation of Old Testament from the Hebrew<P><b>IV. SUBSEQUENT RECENSIONS AND HISTORY OF VULGATE</b><P class="in15">1. In the Manuscripts<P class="in15">2. Printed Vulgate<P><b>V. MANUSCRIPTS OF VULGATE</b><P><b>VI. LATINITY</b><P><b>VII. USE OF VULGATE VERSIONS</b><P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. Name and Its History.<P>1. Present Usage:<P>The term "Vulgate" with us means but one thing<6E>the standard authoritative Bible of the Latin or Roman church, prepared mostly by the labors of Jerome. But this is not the original use of the word and it was never so used by Jerome himself; indeed, it did not at first refer to a Latin version or translation at all. The word "Vulgate" comes from the adjective or participle vulgata which usually accompanied editio, and meant at first current or regularly used text. It was originally used as the equivalent of koine ekdosis = the Septuagint. Jerome and Augustine both use the term in this sense.<P>2. Earlier Usage:<P>Jerome (Commentary in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',65,20);">Isa 65:20</a>), "<i>Hoc juxta Septuagint interpretes diximus, quorum editio toto orbe vulgata est</i>" (and same place <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,22);">Isa 30:22</a>), <i>vulgata editio</i> again refers to the Septuagint. Elsewhere Jerome actually gives the Greek words (of the Septuagint) as found in <i>editione vulgata</i> (Commentary in Osee 7 13). Augustine identifies the expression with the Septuagint (De doctr. christ., xvi. 10): "Secundum vulgatam editionem, hoc est interpretum Septuaginta." The term editio vulgata was next extended to the form in which the Septuagint was at first known to the West<73>the Old Latin versions (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LATIN">LATIN</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LATIN+VERSION,+THE+OLD">LATIN VERSION</A>), although, as Westcott remarks, there does not appear to be any instance in the age of Jerome of the application of the term to the Latin version of the Old Testament without regard to its derivation from the Septuagint or to that of the New Testament, so that Jerome usually intended the Septuagint though he quoted it in Latin form. <I>Vulgata editio</I>, having acquired the meaning of the current or ordinarily used text of Septuagint, was once again extended to mean a corrupt or uncorrected text as opposed to the standard emended Septuagint version of Origen\'s Hexapla, and in this sense is used by Jerome as synonymous with antiqua or vetus editio.<P>Epistle cvi.2 deserves citing in this connection: "<I>Admoneo alia m esse editionem quam Origenes et Caesariensis Eusebius omnesque Graeciae translatores (koinen), i.e. communem appellant atque vulgatam, et a plerisque (Loukianos) nunc dicitur: aliam Septuagint interpretum quae in (Hexaplois) (i.e. of Origen) codicibus reperitur, et a nobis in Latinum sermonem fideliter versa .....(koine) (communis editio)...vetus corrupta editio est, ea antem quae habetur in (Hexaplois) et quam nos vertimus, ipsa est quae in eruditorum libris incorrupta et immaculata Septuagint interpretum translatio reservatur.<I>" ("I recall that one is the text which Origen and Eusebius of Caesarea and all the Greek translators call the (koine), i.e. the common and current text, and is now called by most persons Lucian\'s (version); the other is the text of the translators of the Septuagint which is found in the codices (or books) of Origen (or the Hexapla), and has been faithfully translated by us into the Latin language...the koine (the ordinary text)...is the old corrupted text, but that which is found in the Hexapla, and which we are translating, is the same one which the version of the translators of the Septuagint has preserved unchanged and immaculate in the books of the scholars.")<P>3. Post-Hieronymic:<P>It was only very slowly that Jerome\'s version acquired this name, the phrase editio vulgata being applied to the Septuagint or the Old Latin versions of the Septuagint sometimes down to medieval times, while Jerome\'s translation was known as <I>editio nostra, codices nostri, translation emendatior, or translation quam tenet Rorn ecclesia</I>. The Tridentine Fathers were therefore guilty of an anachronism when they referred to Jerome\'s translation as <I>vetus et vulgata editio</I>. Roger Bacon was apparently the first, in the 13th century, to apply the term Vulgata in our sense (not exclusively, but also to the Septuagint), and this usage became classic through its acceptance by the Tridentine Council ("<I>vetus et vulgata editio</I>").<P>4. Historical Importance of the Vulgate:<P>The interest of the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) will be apparent when we reflect that this translation proved to be to the West what the Septuagint had been to the East, that it was prepared with great care by the greatest scholar whom Latin Christianity produced, that it was for hundreds of years the only Bible in universal use in Europe, that it has given to us much of our modern theological terminology as well as being the sponsor for many Greek words which have enriched our conceptions. It has also proved of primary importance as an early and excellent witness to the sacred text. Add to this that "directly or indirectly it is the real parent of all the vernacular versions of Western Europe" except the Gothic of Ulfilas. For English-speaking students it possesses peculiar interest as the source of the earlier translations made by the Venerable Bede, and portions of the Old Testament were translated in the 10th century from the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) by AElfric. Its greatest influence was exerted in the English version of Wycliffe<66>a literal translation from the Vulgate (1383). And Coverdale\'s Bible (1535) was "faithfully and truly translated out of Dutch (i.e. German of Luther) and Latin." The Rheims and Douay version was based on the Vulgate, though "diligently conferred with the Hebrew and Greek." The Vulgate exercised considerable influence upon Luther\'s version and through it upon our the King James Version.<P>II. Origin.<P>1. Corruption and Confusion of Old Versions:<P>Latin Christianity had not been without a Bible in its own language. Old Latin versions are found in North Africa as early as the middle of the 3rd century and are found in the texts of Cyprian and Tertullian. But these translations were characterized by "simplicity," "rudeness" and provincialism. There was not one standard authoritative version with any ecclesiastical recognition. Versions were rather due to "individual and successive efforts." Augustine says that anyone who got hold of a Greek manuscript and thought he knew Greek and Latin would venture on a translation. These versions originated in Africa and not from Rome, else they had been more authoritative. Besides, the first two centuries of the Roman church were rather Greek; the earliest Christian literature of Rome is Greek, its bishops bear Greek names, its earliest liturgy was Greek. When the church of Italy became Lat-speaking<6E>probably at the end of the 3rd century<72>the provincialisms of the African version rendered it unfit for the more polished Romans, and so recensions were called for. Scholars now recognize a European type of Old Latin text. And Westcott thinks a Northern Italian recension (at least in the Gospels) was made in the 4th century. and known as the Itala (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LATIN">LATIN</A>), and which he recognizes in the Itala mentioned in Aug., De doctr. christ., xv, as "<I>verborum tenacior cum perspicuitate sententiae</I>"; but F.C. Burkitt (The Old Latin and the Itala, 54ff) takes the Itala here as referring to Jerome\'s version. Amid such confusion and the appearance of national or provincial recensions, the Latin church became conscious of the need of a standard edition. There were almost as many types of texts as there were manuscripts: "Tot exemplaria paene quot codices," says Jerome (Preface to Gospels). Independent and unauthorized or anonymous translatitons"<22>especially of the New Testament<6E>aided by the gross carelessness of scribes, made confusion worse confounded. Augustine complains of this "Latinorum interpretum infinita varietas."<P>2. Heresy:<P>In addition to the inconvenience in preaching and the liturgical variations, a greater demand for an authoritative version arose from the continual watch of the early church against heretics. Confusion of text abetted heresy, and the absence of a standard text made it harder to refute it. Besides, the Jews, with one authoritative text, laughed at the confusion of the Christian Scriptures.<P>3. Inevitable Separation of East and West:<P>The inevitable separation of East and West, both politically and ecclesiastically, and the split between Greek and Latin Christianity, rendered the existence of a standard Latin text imperative. Christianity was felt to be the religion of a book, and hence that book must be inspired and authoritative in every word<72>even in its order of words.<P>Pope Damasus determined to remedy this state of affairs, and with all the authority of the papal see commissioned Jerome to produce an authentic and standard authorized version<P>4. Request of Pope Damasus:<P>The pope\'s choice could not have fallen upon a more competent scholar<61>a man who had been providentially gifted and prepared for the task. Jerome<6D>his Latin name was Eusebius Hieronymus<75>was born at Stridon on the borders of Dalmatia about 340 AD, or a little later, of Christian parentage. He had the advantages of the best classical education and became a devoted student of the best Latin writers. In a dream he saw a vision of judgment, and on claiming to be a Christian he was rebuked: "Mentiris, Ciceronianus es, non Christianus." He began his theological studies in Gaul; but later sought the seclusion of ascetic life in the desert near Antioch. Here he studied Hebrew from a converted rabbi in order to subdue fierce passions by the difficulties of that language. About 375 or 376 began his correspondence with Damasus. In 382 he came to Rome, and became the intimate friend and adviser of Damasus.<P>III. Jerome\'s Translations and Revisions: Method.<P>1. The New Testament:<P>These fall into three main groups:<P>(1) revision of the New Testament;<P>(2) Old Testament juxta the Septuagint;<P>(3) Old Testament from Hebrew.<P>The exact date of the pope\'s commission is not given: it was probably in 382<38>the year of Jerome\'s arrival in Rome<6D>or early in 383, in which year the Gospels appeared in revised form. Damasus asked simply for a revision of the Old Latin versions by the help of the Greek rather than a new version Jerome collated Greek manuscripts, and carefully compared them with the "Italian" type of Old Latin texts; where possible the Old Latin was preserved. Thus, Jerome approached the task with a conservative spirit. Still the result was a considerable departure from the Old Latin version, the changes being<P>(1) linguistic, removal of provincialisms and rudeness,<P>(2) in interpretation, e.g. <I>supersubstantialis</I> for epiousion, in the Lord\'s Prayer,<P>(3) the removal of interpolations,<P>(4) the insertion of the Eusebian Canons.<P>Gospels or Whole New Testament?<P>It is disputed whether Jerome revised the whole New Testament or only the Gospels.<P>Against the revision of the whole New Testament the arguments briefly are:<P>(1) That Augustine, writing 20 years after the appearance of the revised Gospels, speaks only of "Gospel": "<I>Evangelium ex Graeco interpretatus est</I>" (Epistle civ.6); but Augustine may here be speaking generally or applying "Gospel" to the whole New Testament.<P>(2) Jerome in his preface apparently speaks of "only four Gospels" ("<I>quattuor tantum evangelia</I>").<P>(3) The rest of the New Testament does not show the same signs of revision as the Gospels.<P>(4) The absence of the prefaces usual ("<I>solita praefatione</I>") to Jerome\'s revised versions.<P>On the other hand, to more than counterbalance these,<P>(1) Damasus required a revision of the whole New Testament, not only of the Gospels (Preface of Damasus).<P>(2) In other statements of Jerome he expressly says he revised the New Testament (not Gospel or Gospels); in Epistle cxii.20, he seems to correct Augustine\'s evangelium by writing: "<I>Si me, ut dicis, in Novi Testamenti emendatione suspicis</I>," and in Epistle lxxi.5, "I translated the New Testament according to the Greek" ("<I>NT Graecae reddidi auctoritati</I>"); compare also De Vir. Ill., cxxxv.<P>(3) Jerome quotes passages outside the Gospels where his version differed from the Old Latin VSS, e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',12,11);">Ro 12:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,15);">1Ti 1:15</a>; compare Epistle xxvii.<P>(4) Damasus died at the end of 384<38>perhaps before the rest of Jerome\'s revision was published, and so Jerome thought no further prefaces needed.<P>2. Old Testament from the Septuagint:<P>The more likely conclusion is that Jerome revised the whole New Testament, though not all with equal care. His revision was hasty and soon became more or less confused with the Old Latin versions to which the people clung as they do to all old versions. Having probably completed the New Testament from the Greek, Jerome began immediately on the Old Testament from the Greek of the Septuagint.<P>(1) Roman Psalter.<P>He commenced with the Psalms, which he simply emended only where imperatively required (compare preface), and cursorily (circa 384). This revision is called the Roman Psalter (Psalterium Romanum), which continued in use in Rome and Italy till it was displaced under the pontificate of Plus V by the Gallican Psalter, though the Roman Psalter is still used in Peter\'s, Rome, and in Mark\'s, Milan.<P>(2) Galliean Psalter.<P>This Psalter soon became so corrupted by the Old Latin version that Jerome (circa 387) undertook a second revision at the request of Paula and Eustochium. This became known as the Gallican Psalter because of its early popularity in Gaul. It was also made from the Septuagint, but with the aid of other Greek versions. Jerome adopted in it the critical signs used by Origen<65>a passage enclosed between an obelus and two points being absent from the Hebrew but present in the Septuagint, that between an asterisk and two points being absent from the Septuagint but supplied from Theodotion (Preface to Psalms).<P>(3) Rest of the Old Testament.<P>About the same time Jerome published translations of other Old Testament books from the Septuagint. Job was revised very soon after the Gallican Psalter. The preface to Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles and Chronicles is extant to show he had revised these books. Job and Psalms are the only books of this revision <I>juxta Septuagint</I> extant.<P>It is again disputed whether Jerome completed the whole Old Testament in this revision because (1) the usual prefaces are again lacking (except to the books already mentioned), and (2) in his prefaces to the revision from the Hebrew Jerome makes no reference to an earlier revision of his own; (3) the work implied was too great for the brief space possible and must have been done between 387 and 390 (or 391), for by this latter date he was already on the translation from the Hebrew. But Jerome was a phenomenal worker, as we learn that his translation of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Canticles from the Hebrew was made in three days. And his commentary on Ephesians was written at the rate of 1,000 lines a day.<P>Jerome probably completed the whole, as we infer from his own direct positive statements. He speaks of "<I>mea in libris canonicis interpretatio</I>" (Epistle cxii.19; see references in Westcott), and in the preface to the Books of Solomon after the Septuagint he states he did not correct Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, "desiring only to emend the canonical books" ("<I>tantummodo canonicas scripturas vobis emendare desiderans</I>"). Once again, he speaks of having carefully translated the Septuagint into Latin (Con Ruf., ii.24; compare Epistle lxxi).<P>3. Translation of Old Testament from the Hebrew:<P>If the postscript to Epistle cxxxiv, to Augustine is genuine, Jerome complains he had lost the most of his former labors by fraud ("<I>pleraque enim prioris laboris fraude cuiusdam amisimus</I>"). And Augustine requests (Epistle xcvi.34) from Jerome his versions from the Septuagint ("<I>Nobis mittas, obsecro, interpretationem tuam de Septuagint quam te edidisse nesciebam</I>"). Having in the course of these labors discovered the unsatisfactory condition of the Septuagint text and his friends pleading the need of a translation direct from the Hebrew, Jerome began this huge task about 390 with Samuel and Kings, which he published with the <I>Prologus galeatus</I> ("helmeted prologue") next the Psalms (circa 392), Job and the Prophets (393), 1 and 2Esdras (circa 394) (3 and 4 being omitted), Chronicles (396). Then followed a severe illness until 398, when "<I>post longam aegrotationem</I>" he translated Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Canticles. He then started on the Octateuch: "<I>Octateucho quem nunc in manibus habeo</I>" (Epistle lxxi.5), the Pentateuch being first translated in 401, Joshua, Judges, Ruth and Esther soon after (xl.4: "<I>post sanctae Paulae dormitionem</I>"). Tobit and Judith were translated for him from Chaldee into Hebrew from which he then translated them into Latin (circa 405), and shortly before or after these he added the apocryphal additions to Daniel and Esther. Baruch he passed over. Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus were not revised by him. Whether he revised Maccabees is doubtful. Thus was completed in 15 strenuous years (390-405) a work which has proved a <I>ktema es aei</I> (Thucydides i.22), "a possession for all time." The translation was largely undertaken at the request of friends and at no papal request. Indeed Jerome did not pretend to be working for publicity; he actually asked one friend not to show his translation.<P>Reception.<P>But human nature rarely recognizes merit in its own generation, and the spirit of conservatism rose in rebellion against beneficial innovation. Jerome was accused of slighting the Septuagint, which even in the eyes of Augustine was equally inspired with the Hebrew original. Jerome\'s fiery temper and his biting tongue were not calculated to conciliate.<P>IV. Subsequent Recensions and History of Vulgate.<P>1. In the Manuscripts:<P>By degrees the fierce opposition died down, and even by the time of Jerome\'s death men were beginning to perceive the merits of his version which Augustine used in the Gospels. Some parts of Jerome\'s Vulgate (390-405 A.D.) won their way to popularity much sooner than others<72>the Old Latin versions died hard and not without inflicting many a wound on the Vulgate. His Psalter from the Hebrew never ousted the Gallican which still holds its place in the Vulgate. Some scholars were able to appreciate Jerome\'s edition sooner than others. And it was at different dates that the different provinces and countries of the West adopted it. Pelagius used it in his commentary on the Pauline Epistles. As might be expected, the Old Latin versions retained their place longest in the place of their origin<69>North Africa. Britain proved the next most conservative. The old versions were never authoritatively deposed, and so Jerome\'s version was compelled to win its way by its own merits. In the 5th century<72>especially in Gaul<75>it continued to grow in popularity among scholars, being adopted by Vincent of Lerins, Eucherius of Lyons, Sedulius, and Claudianus Mamertus, and Prosper of Aquitaine. In the next century its use became almost universal except in Africa, where the Old Latin was retained by Junilius and Facundus. At the close of the 6th century. Pope Gregory the Great acknowledges that the new (i.e. the Vulgate) and the old are both equally used by the Apostolic See; and thus the Vulgate was at least on equal footing with the old. In the 7th century the Old Latin retreats, but traces of it survive down into the Middle Ages, affecting and corrupting the Jerome version. Mixed texts and conflated readings arose<73>the familiarity of the Old Latin in lectionaries and liturgies telling on the Vulgate. The New Testament, being only a revision and not a fresh translation, and being most in use, degenerated most.<P>(1) As early as the 6th century the need of an emendated Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) text was felt, and Cassidorius undertook to revise part of it. This was merely private enterprise and did little to stem the flood of corruption.<P>(2) About the close of the 8th century, Charlemagne commissioned an Englishman Alcuin, abbot of Martin, Tours, to produce a revised text on the basis of the best Latin manuscripts, without reference to the Greek text. Alcuin sent to York for his manuscripts and thus produced a text after British manuscripts. On Christmas Day, 801 AD, he presented the emperor with the emended text. The authority by which this text was prepared and its public use together with the class of manuscripts used did much to preserve a pure Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) text and stay interpolations: "The best manuscripts of his recension do not differ widely from the pure Hieronymian text" (Westcott).<P>(3) Another recension of about the same date<74>but a scholar\'s private enterprise<73>was produced by a Visigoth, Theodulf, bishop of Orleans. He made the Spanish family of manuscripts together with those of Southern France the basis of his text. His inscribing variant readings in the margin really helped the process of corruption. His text<78>though prepared at enormous labor<6F>was far inferior to that of Alcuin and exerted little influence in face of the authoritative version of Alcuin. Manuscripts were rapidly multiplied in the 9th century on the Alcuinian model by the school of Tours, but with carelessness and haste which helped to a speedy degeneration of the text. Again the confusion called for remedy.<P>(4) In the 11th century Lanfranc, bishop of Canterbury (1069-89), attempted correction<6F>apparently with little success. About the middle of the 12th century, Stephen Harding of Citeaux produced a revision<6F>extant in manuscript in Dijon public library (<span class="noTag">number 9</span>), as did also Cardinal Nicolaus. The increased demand for Bibles in the 13th century gave opportunity for further corruption of the text<78>publishers and copyists being indifferent as to the character of manuscript chosen as a basis.<P>(5) In consequence of the fame of the University of Paris in the 13th century and the enormous activity in producing Bible manuscripts, there resulted a type of text called by Roger Bacon Exemplar Parisiense, for which he has nothing good to say.<P>(6) In the same century steps were taken toward a standard text and to stay corruption by the drawing up of correctoria, i.e. books in which the readings of Greek and Latin manuscripts were weighed to decide a text, the authority of Fathers cited, etc. Some of the principal correctoria are: Correctorium Parisiense known also as Senonense<73>one of the worst, following the Parisian type of text; Correotorium Vaticanum, the best; Correctorium Sorbonicum, in the Sorbonne; Correctorium Dominicanum.<P>2. Printed Vulgate:<P>(1) Early Editions.<P>Little more was done till the invention of printing, and the first products of the press were Latin Bibles. Unfortunately at first the current text was accepted without any critical labors, and so the earliest printed Vulgates only perpetuated an inferior text. Only a few from among some hundreds of early versions can be noted:<P>(a) the Mazarin Bible<6C>one of the most beautiful and valuable books in the world<6C>printed at Mainz about the middle of the 15th century (1455, Westcott) by Gutenberg, Schoffer or Fust;<P>(b) the first Bible published at Rome in 1471 by Sweynheym and Pannartz and reprinted in Nuremberg in 1475;<P>(c) 1504 a Paris edition with variant readings;<P>(d) an edition in Complutensian Polyglot (1514ff) from ancient manuscripts and from the Greek;<P>(e) practically the first critical edition, by Robertus Stephanus (1st edition 1528, 2nd 1532, reprinted later), of interest as being practically the basis of the standard Roman Vulgate;<P>(f) Hentenian critical edition (Louvain, 1547).<P>Attempts to produce a corrected text by aid of the original were made by Erasmus in 1516, Pagninus in 1518ff, Cardinal Cajetan, Steuchius in 1529, Clarius in 1542, etc. Even new translations were made by both Roman Catholic and Protestant scholars. This bewildering number of versions and the controversies of the 16th century called for a standard edition. The Council of Trent (1546) took up the matter and decreed that the "<i>ipsa vetus et vulgata editio quae Iongo tot saeculorum usu in ipsa ecclesia probata</i>" ("the same old and ordinarily used text which has been approved in the church itself by the long usage of so many centuries") should be regarded as authentic (<i>authentica</i>). By this they apparently meant the Jerome version, but did not state in which manuscript or printed edition it was to be found.<P>(2) Sixtine Edition (1590).<P>No further steps were taken for the present to secure a standard official Bible for the church<63>the private edition of John Hentenius of Louvain serving in the meanwhile until the pontificate of Sixtus V. This pope entrusted the work to a committee under Cardinal Caraffa, but he himself strenuously cooperated. Manuscripts and printed editions were examined, but the original Greek or Hebrew was to be regarded as decisive in difficulties. The result was published as the Sixtine edition of the Vulgate by the Vatican press in 1590 (see title on 1st and 2nd pages). The text resembles the Stephanus edition of 1540. A new puzzling method of verse enumeration was introduced. As one would expect, there was prefixed to the edition a Bull Aeternus ille, etc., in which the divines gave themselves credit for their painstaking labors, and the result was declared the authorized Vulgate of the Tridentine Council, "<i>pro vera, legitima, authentica et indubitata, in omnibus publicis privatisque disputationibus ....</i>"(" by virtue of truth, usage, authenticity and certainty, in all public and private disputes"). Errors of printing were corrected by the pen or by pasting a slip of paper with the correction over the error. This edition was not to be reprinted for 10 years except at the Vatican, and after that any edition must be compared with the Vatican edition, so that "not even the smallest particle should be altered, added or removed" under pain of the "greater excommunication." Sixtus died the same year, and the Jesuit Bellarmine persuaded Clement VIII to recall the Sixtine edition and prepare another standard Vulgate in 1592.<P>(3) Clementine Edition (1592).<P>In the same year appeared the Clementine edition with a preface by Bellarmine asserting that Sixtus had himself determined to recall his edition on account of printers\' errors (from which it was remarkably free). The pains and penalties of the Sixtine Bull were evaded by printing the book as a Sixtine edition, actually printing the name of Sixtus instead of Clement on the title-page: <i>Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis Sixti Quinti Pont. Max. iussu recognita atque edita</i>. The awkward system of verse enumeration of the Sixtine was dropped. The text itself was rather of the Hentenian type. No future edition was to be printed except on the exact pattern, "even to the smallest particle" of the Vatican edition. Thanks largely to the papal Bull this Clementine edition of 1592 still remains the official version of the Roman Catholic church. A second edition appeared in 1593, and a third in 1598. Roman Catholic scholars were discouraged from undertaking a new version, and Protestant scholars were, until recently, too occupied with the original texts.<P>Bentley\'s projected edition of the New Testament never appeared. Under cover of the works of Jerome a corrected text was published by Vallarsi, 1734<33>really the completion and revision of the edition of Martianay of 1706. Little more was done in the way of critical editions till the latter half of the 19th century.<P>(4) Modern Critical Editions.<P>In 1861 Vercellone reprinted the Clementine Vulgate (with an excellent preface), the names of Sixtus and Clement both appearing on the title-page. In 1906 an edition<6F>Biblical Sac Vulgatae edition by Hetzenauer<65>was published at Oeniponte. (The majority of recent editions have been confined to the New Testament or part of it: Tischendorf, Nov. Test. Latin: textum Hieronymi...restituit, Leipzig, 1864; Hetzenauer, Nov. Test. Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) ed.: ex Vat. editions earumque correctorio critice edidit P.M.H., Oeniponte, 1899.) The Oxford Vulg, prepared by Bishop J. Wordsworth and H.J. White, of which the first part was issued in 1889, is a comprehensive work of great value. P. Corssen published the first installment of a Vulgate New Testament (Epistle ad Gal, Berlin, 1885). This is exclusive of the printed editions of several important manuscripts. Pope Plus X entrusted the preparation of a revised edition of the Vulgate to the Benedictine order<65>but as yet nothing has appeared.<P>V. Manuscripts of Vulgate.<P>To give a satisfactory list would be impossible within our space limits. The number is legion<6F>estimated at about 8,000. As yet the same order has not been called out of the chaos of Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) and Old Latin manuscripts in the manner in which Westcott and Hort have reduced the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament to a system. The student may conveniently approach the subject in White\'s list in the 4th edition of Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, II 67ff, or the longer one by Gregory in Tischendorf\'s New Testament Greek, 8th edition, III, 983ff, also in Westcott\'s article in DB or White\'s in HDB; Vercellone, Variae Lectiones, 1860; Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate, 374ff.<P>VI. Latinity.<P>Space permits only a few general remarks. The Latin of the old versions was simple, rude and vernacular, abounding in literalisms and provincialisms. In many ways, in vocabulary, diction and construction, it offended scholars. As was natural Jerome smoothed the roughness of the old versions and removed the most glaring solecisms and offensive provincialisms. His work is a masterpiece<63>like our the King James Version<6F>in the harmonious blend of simple, popular, forceful language and a scholarly graceful translation. "As a monument of ancient linguistic power the translation of the Old Testament stands unrivaled and unique" (Westcott). The Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) has enriched our language by introducing many Greek words, "apostle," "evangel," "synagogue," "baptism," etc. It has also given us much of our theological vocabulary, "edification," "justification," "propitiation," "regeneration," "Scripture," etc. It still retains many marks of its birth in (1) Old Latin words elevated from the vernacular, (2) Africanisms: <i>clarifico</i>, etc., <i>saeculum</i> for <i>mundus</i>, long compound verbs like <i>obtenebrare</i>, etc., (3) Graecisms, like the use of the pronoun for the article, as <i>hic mundus<i> = <i>ho kosmos</i>, (4) Hebraisms, like <i>adposuit ut apprehenderet et Petrum</i> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',12,3);">Ac 12:3</a>; see special works mentioned in "Literature").<P>VII. Use of Vulgate.<P>In the Old Testament the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) is not of much importance for the criticism of the Hebrew text, because of the freedom which Jerome permitted himself in translation, and because our present Massoretic Hebrew text had by that time taken on its present form. But on the Septuagint it often throws a very useful light. In the New Testament Jerome\'s version ranks practically in importance with our oldest and best Greek manuscripts in establishing (in conjunction with the Old Latin VSS) the received Greek text of the 4th century, both by way of supplementing and correcting our Greek authorities. It is in the Gospels that Jerome\'s work is most thorough and useful. His version also supplies many a hint for the interpretation of our Greek text.<P>VIII. Differences between Vulgate and Our English Versions.<P>Apart from differences of rendering and minor points, the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) text differs from the English in the order of the books, in the amount contained in some of them, in the occasional divergence of chapter and verse enumeration. The New Testament is practically the same in the Clementine text, though the order of books varies in many manuscripts<74>the Catholic Epistles being placed sometimes after Acts. In some manuscripts the Epistle to the Laodiceans is found. Most variety obtains in the Old Testament. The sequence of canonical books is the same, but the apocryphal books are interspersed among them and not placed at the end. Tobit and Judith are inserted between Nehemiah (2Esdras) and Esther, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus between Canticles and Isaiah. Baruch follows Lamentaions, chapter 5 of which is called the "Prayer of Jeremiah the Prophet"; 1 and 2 Maccabees are placed after Malachi; 3 and 4 Esdras and Prayer of Manasses appear as an appendix after the New Testament. In Psalms the divergence is considerable, the Vulgate<74>like the Hebrew<65>counting the title as the first verse. <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',9,\'1-\');">Psalms 9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',10,\'1-\');">10</a> of our version = <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',9,\'1-\');">Ps 9</a> in Vulgate, so that the Vulgate is one Psalm behind the English till <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',114,\'1-\');">Ps 114</a>, then <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',114,\'1-\');">Psalms 114</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',115,\'1-\');">115</a> again form one Psalm = <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',113,\'1-\');">Vulgate 113</A>. The Vulgate is now two behind. Matters are equalized by <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',116,\'1-\');">Ps 116</a> being divided into two in the Vulgate (= <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',114,\'1-\');">114</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',115,\'1-\');">115</a>), and 147 again = two Vulgate <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',146,1);">Psalms 146</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',147,\'1-\');">147</a>. Thus, only <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',1,\'1-\');">Psalms 1-8</span> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',148,\'1-\');">148-150</A> run the same. Against Jerome\'s advice the apocryphal parts of Daniel and Esther were accepted as integral parts of those books, the Song of Three Children being inserted at <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',3,23);">Da 3:23</a>, Susanna forming chapter 13 and Bel and the Dragon chapter 14. Ad Esther is linked on to the end of Esther. In conclusion, the present Vulgate, as Westcott remarks, is a composite of elements belonging to every period and form of the Latin version, including<P>(1) unrevised Old Latin (Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Maccabees and Baruch);<P>(2) Old Latin corrected from the Septuagint (Psalter);<P>(3) Jerome\'s free translation from the original (Job and Judith);<P>(4) Jerome\'s translation from the original (the Old Testament except the Psalter);<P>(5) Old Latin revised from Greek manuscripts (the Gospels);<P>(6) Old Latin cursorily revised (the rest of the New Testament).<P>LITERATURE.<P>This is too vast to cite, but in some of the following works sufficient bibliographies will be found: Berger, Hist de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siecles du moyen age, 1893; H. Hody, De bib. textibus originalibus, 1705; F. Kaulen, Gesch. der Vulg, 1868; Van Ess, Pragmatisch-krit. Gesch. der Vulg, 1824; E. Nestle, Urtext u. Uebersetzungen der Bibel,1897,and Ein Jubilaum d. tat. Biblical, 1892. Two splendid articles<65>each by an authority<74>in DB (Westcott) and in HDB (White). A very readable account is in Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient manuscripts, 165ff, and in his Handbook to the Text Crit. of the New Testament, 168ff. For the language: Ronsch, Itala u. Vulgata, 2nd edition, 1875; A. Hartl, Sprachliche Eigentumlichkeiten d. Vulg, 1864.``5';
isbe[9116]='Vulture`vul<75>-tur (da<64>ah; Septuagint gups, and iktinos; Latin Vulturidae): Any member of a family of large birds that subsist wholly or in part on carrion. The largest vulture of Palestine was the Lammer-geier. This bird waited until smaller vultures, eagles and hawks stripped a carcass to the bone, then carried the skeleton aloft and dashed it on the rocks until the marrow could be secured. This was a favorite delicacy. This bird was fond of tortoise also, and is said to have dropped the one that struck the bald head of Aeschylus, which the bird mistook for a stone, so causing the death of the poet. Several smaller species, including "Pharaoh<6F>s chickens," flocked all over Palestine. These were protected by a death penalty for their value as scavengers in cities. They fed on carcasses of animals that killed each other, ate putrid fish under the nests of pelican and cormorant, followed caravans across the desert, and were ready for offal thrown from animals dressed for feasting. They flocked over the altars for the entrails from sacrifice, and devoured scraps cast aside by tent-dwellers and residents of cities. They paired with affectionate courting and nested in crevices, in walls, hollow trees and on cliffs. They raised only one pair of young to the season, as the nestlings were over two months old before they took wing. The young were white at first, then black feathers enveloped them. On account of their steady diet of carrion, no one ever has been able to use their flesh for food, although some daring ornithologists have tried. For this reason the vulture was placed among the abominations and should by right have headed the lists (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,18);">Le 11:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,13);">De 14:13</a>). The other references that used to be translated "vulture" in the King James Version, the Septuagint elaphos, Vulgate (Jerome<6D>s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) correctly milous) are changed to "falcon" and "kite." <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,15);">Isa 34:15</a> changes "vulture" to "kite." <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',28,7);">Job 28:7</a> changes "vulture" to "falcon."``167';
isbe[9117]='Wafer`wa\'-fer.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BREAD">BREAD</a>`1';
isbe[9118]='Wages`wa\'-jez, wa\'-jiz (chinnam, maskoreth, pe\'ullah, sakhar, sakhar; misthos, opsonion):<P>(1) Chinnam means "gratis," without cost or any advantage, for nought, or in vain; wages in the sense of reasonable return. Jeremiah pronounces woe upon him who "useth his neighbor\'s service without wages, and giveth him not his hire" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',22,13);">Jer 22:13</a>; the only place where the word is used).<P>(2) Maskoreth means "reward" or "wages." Laban said to Jacob: "Shouldest thou therefore serve me for nought? Tell me, what shall thy wages be?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',29,15);">Ge 29:15</a>). Jacob said, concerning Laban, speaking to Rachel and Leah: "Your father hath deceived me, and changed my wages ten times" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,7);">Ge 31:7</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,41);">31:41</a>).<P>(3) Pe\'ullah generally means "work," "labor," "reward," "wages." The old Levitical Law was insistent on honesty in wages and on promptness in payments: "The wages of a hired servant shall not abide with thee all night until the morning" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,13);">Le 19:13</a>).<P>(4) Mistakker means "earning," "hire," "reward," "wages," from root sakhar, meaning "to hire," and has in it the idea of temporary purchase: "He that earneth wages earneth wages to put it into a bag with holes" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hag\',1,6);">Hag 1:6</a>).<P>(5) Sakhar means "payment of contract," in the material way of salary, maintenance, fare, and so compensation, reward, price, benefit, wages<65>seemingly wages received after an understanding as to time, manner and amount of payment. Laban (employer) said to Jacob (employee): "Appoint me thy wages, and I will give it" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,28);">Ge 30:28</a>); "If he said thus, The speckled shall be thy wages" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,8);">Ge 31:8</a>); Pharaoh\'s daughter said to Moses\' mother: "Take this child away, and nurse it for me, and I will give thee thy wages" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,9);">Ex 2:9</a>); Nebuchadrezzar and his army served against Tyre, "yet had he no wages, nor his army" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',29,18);">Eze 29:18</a>), and the prey of Egypt "shall be the wages for his army" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',29,19);">Eze 29:19</a>); swift and sure judgment is predicted against "those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',3,5);">Mal 3:5</a>).<P>(6) Misthos means either in a literal or figurative sense "pay for service," either primitive or beneficial, and so reward, hire, wages. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,36);">Joh 4:36</a> Jesus said, "He that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal." <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,15);">2Pe 2:15</a> has changed "wages" (the King James Version) to "hire," reading "who loved the hire of wrongdoing."<P>(7) Opsonion, meaning primarily "rations for soldiers" (opson being the word for cooked meat) and so "pay" or stipend, provision wages. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,14);">Lu 3:14</a> John said to the soldiers, "Be content with your wages"; "The wages of sin is death" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,23);">Ro 6:23</a>); Paul said: "I robbed other churches, taking wages of them" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',11,8);">2Co 11:8</a>); the same word in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',9,7);">1Co 9:7</a> is translated "charges."<P>The Bible refers to wages actual and wages figurative. Of actual wages there are three kinds:<P>(1) money wages,<P>(2) provision (usually food) wages, and<P>(3) what may be called "exchange" wages, wages in kind, sometimes "human-kind," e.g. Jacob\'s wages from Laban.<P>Often laborers and soldiers received both money and "keep" wages. The laborer in New Testament times received about 15 cents per day (the "shilling" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,2);">Mt 20:2</a>), besides in some cases his provisions. The old Law required daily payment, honesty in dealing, also sufficient food for the laborer.<P>It is practically impossible to test "Bible" wages by any of theories of modern economists. In this connection, however, mere mention of the six principal theories may be of interest. Concisely put, they are:<P>(1) the wage-fund theory,<P>(2) the standard-of-living theory,<P>(3) the German-socialistic theory,<P>(4) the production theory,<P>(5) Henry George\'s theory, and<P>(6) the laborer\'s value theory.<P>The incidents in the Old Testament of Jacob and in the New Testament of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,1);">Mt 20</a> both show that the laborer was at the caprice of the employer. Therefore, we may designate the Bible law of wages as the "employer\'s theory."``142';
isbe[9119]='Wagon, Waggon`wag\'-un.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CART">CART</a>`1';
isbe[9120]='Wail, Wailing`wal, wal\'-ing.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BURIAL">BURIAL</a>`1';
isbe[9121]='Wait`wat:<P>1. The Substantive:<P>The word is used in the Old Testament both as a substantive add as a verb. In the New Testament it appears as a verb only. \'erebh, ma\'arabh, mean a concealed hiding-place for purposes of sudden attack, an ambuscade.<P>(1) "Lie in wait": "Abimelech rose up...from lying in wait" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',9,35);">Jud 9:35</a> the King James Version); "When they...abide in the covert to lie in wait" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',38,40);">Job 38:40</a>).<P>(2) "Lay wait": "They compassed him in, and laid wait for him" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',16,2);">Jud 16:2</a>).<P>2. The Verb:<P>(1) sharath, "to serve," "to minister," to act in the capacity of servant or attendant: "These waited on the king" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',17,19);">2Ch 17:19</a>). Used especially in this sense with regard to the ceremonial service of the host: "They shall go in to wait upon the service in the work of the tent of meeting" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',8,24);">Nu 8:24</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',8,25);">8:25</A>); "The Levites wait upon their business" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',13,10);">2Ch 13:10</a> the King James Version). "Wait at" occurs in the same sense in the New Testament: "They which wait at (the Revised Version (British and American) "wait upon") the altar," etc. (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',9,13);">1Co 9:13</a> the King James Version).<P>(2) The simple verb is used to describe the longsuffering and patience of God toward His willful people: "And therefore will Yahweh wait, that he may be gracious unto you" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,18);">Isa 30:18</a>); "When the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah" (apekdechomai, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,20);">1Pe 3:20</a>).<P>(3) The most important and frequent use of the word "wait," however, is to define the attitude of a soul God-ward. It implies the listening ear, a heart responsive to the wooing of God, a concentration of the spiritual faculties upon heavenly things, the patience of faith, "the earnest expectation of the creation" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,19);">Ro 8:19</a>). It describes an eager anticipation and yearning for the revelation of truth and love as it is in the Father. Thus: "My soul, wait thou...for God only" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',69,5);">Ps 69:5</a>); "Our soul hath waited for Yahweh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',33,20);">Ps 33:20</a>); "Mine eyes fail while I wait for my God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',69,3);">Ps 69:3</a>); "Wait for Yahweh, and he will save thee" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',20,22);">Pr 20:22</a>).<P>Also the New Testament thus: "Waiting for our adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,23);">Ro 8:23</a>); "For we through the Spirit by faith wait for the hope of righteousness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,5);">Ga 5:5</a>). From various references in the New Testament there seems to have been in the days of Jesus a sect in whose name the word "wait" played an important part. Of the aged Simeon, who met Mary and Joseph when they brought the infant Jesus to the temple, it is said that he was "waiting for (the Revised Version (British and American) "looking for") the consolation of Israel" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,25);">Lu 2:25</a>), that is, he was looking for the fulfillment of the Messianic promise. Again, after our Lord\'s crucifixion, when Joseph of Arimathea begged for the body of Jesus, we are told that he was one of those that "waited for the kingdom of God" (prosdechomai, <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,43);">Mr 15:43</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,51);">Lu 23:51</a> the King James Version). It is thought by some authorities that this implies their having belonged to the sect of the Essenes. Epiphanius associates the sect with one which he names "Gortheni," whose title is derived from a word which means "to expect."``52';
isbe[9122]='Walk`wok (peripatein): Aside from its frequent occurrence in the usual sense, the word "walk" is used figuratively of conduct and of spiritual states.<p>(1) Observance of laws or customs: "Thou teachest all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,21);">Ac 21:21</a>).<p>(2) Of the spiritual life: "If we walk in the light, as he is in the light" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,7);">1Joh 1:7</a>); "That like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,4);">Ro 6:4</a>); "Walk by the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,16);">Ga 5:16</a>); "For we walk by faith, not by sight" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,7);">2Co 5:7</a>).``121';
isbe[9123]='Wall`wol.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ARCHITECTURE">ARCHITECTURE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CITY">CITY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FORTIFICATION">FORTIFICATION</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HOUSE">HOUSE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JERUSALEM">JERUSALEM</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=VILLAGE">VILLAGE</a>`1';
isbe[9124]='Wallet`wol\'-et, -it.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SCRIP">SCRIP</a>`1';
isbe[9125]='Wandering Stars`won\'-der-ing.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASTRONOMY">ASTRONOMY</a>`1';
isbe[9126]='Wanderings of Israel`won\'-der-ingz:<P><b>I. CONDITIONS</b><P class="in15">1. The Wilderness<P class="in15">2. Four Separate Regions Included<P class="in15">3. "The Sandy Tract"<P class="in15">4. Description of the Arabah<P class="in15">5. Physical Condition of the Wilderness<P class="in15">6. Difficulties Regarding the Numbers of Israel and Account of Tabernacle<P class="in15">7. Difficulty as to Number of Wagons<P class="in15">8. Fauna of the Desert<P class="in15">9. Characteristic Names of the Districts<P><b>II. FIRST JOURNEY</b><P class="in15">1. Mode of Traveling<P class="in15">2. The Route: the First Camp<P class="in15">3. Waters of Marah<P class="in15">4. Camp by the Red Sea<P class="in15">5. The Route to Sinai<P><b>III. SECOND JOURNEY</b><P class="in15">1. The Stay at Sinai<P class="in15">2. Site of Kadesh-barnea<P class="in15">3. The Route: Hazeroth to Moseroth<P class="in15">4. The Camps between Hazeroth and Moseroth<P><b>IV. THE THIRTY-EIGHT YEARS</b><P class="in15">1. The History<P class="in15">2. The Camps Visited<P><b>V. THE FINAL JOURNEY</b><P class="in15">1. The Route<P class="in15">2. The Five Stations to the Border of Moab<P class="in15">3. From Iyim to Arnon<P class="in15">4. The Message to Sihon<P class="in15">5. From the Arnon to Shittim<P class="in15">6. Review<hr /><P>I. Conditions.<P>1. The Wilderness:<P>A consideration of the geography and natural features of the desert between Egypt and Edom, in which the Hebrews are said to have wandered for 40 years, has a very important bearing on the question of the genuineness of the Pentateuch narrative. This wilderness forms a wedge between the Gulfs of Suez and \'Aqabah, tapering south to the granite mountains near Sinai. It has a base 175 miles long east and west on the north, and the distance north and south is 250 miles. The area is thus over 20,000 square miles, or double the size of the Promised Land east and west of Jordan. On the north of this desert lie the plains of Gaza and Gerar, and the Neghebh or "dry region" (the south; see <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,17);">Nu 13:17</a> the Revised Version (British and American)), including the plateau and low hills round Beersheba.<P>2. Four Separate Regions Included:<P>There are four separate regions included in the area, the largest part (13,000 square miles) being a plateau which on the south rises 3,000 to 4,000 feet above the sea, and shelves gently toward the Philistine plains. It is drained into the broad Wady el-\'Arish, named from el-\'Arish ("the booth"), a station on the Mediterranean coast south of Gaza, where this valley enters the sea. In this direction several prominent mountains occur (Jebel Yeleq, Jebel Hilal, and Jebel Ikhrimm), while further east<73>near the site of the Western Kadesh<73>there is a step on the plateau culminating on the south in Jebel el-Mukhrah; but none of these ranges appears to be more than about 4,000 feet above the sea. The plateau is known as Badiet et-Tih ("the pathless waste"), and though some Arab geographers of the Middle Ages speak of it as the desert "of the wandering of the Beni Israil," they refer to the whole region as far as \'Aqabah, and not to the plateau alone. The elevation on the south forms a very steep ascent or "wall" (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHUR">SHUR</a>), bending round on the west and east, and rising above the shore plains near Suez and the \'Arabah near Edom. Near the center of the plateau is the small fort of Nakhl ("the palms"), where water is found; but, as a whole, the Tih is waterless, having very few springs, the most important being those near the western Kadesh (\'Ain Kadis); for Rehoboth belongs to the region of the Neghebh rather than to the Tih. In winter, when very heavy rains occur, the valleys are often flooded suddenly by a seil, or "torrent," which is sometimes 10 feet deep for a few hours. Such a seil has been known to sweep away trees, flocks, and human beings; yet, in consequence of the hard rocky surface, the flood rushes away to the sea and soon becomes a mere rivulet. Where soft soil is found, in the valleys, grass will grow and afford pasture, but even early in spring the Arabs begin to suffer from want of water, which only remains in pits and in water holes among rocks. They have then much difficulty in watering their goats and sheep.<P>3. "The Sandy Tract":<P>Below the Tih escarpment on the south is another region called Debbet er-ramleh ("the sandy tract"), which is only 20 miles across at its widest; and to the west are the sandy plains, with limestone foothills, stretching east of the Bitter Lakes and of the Gulf of Suez. The third region consists of the granite chain (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SINAI">SINAI</a>) which rises to 8,550 feet above the sea, and some 6,000 feet above its valleys, near Jebel Musa. Parts of this region are better watered than is any part of the Tih, and the main route from Egypt to Edom has consequently always run through it.<P>4. Description of the Arabah:<P>The fourth region is that of the \'Arabah, or broad valley (10 miles wide) between the Gulf of \'Aqabah and the Dead Sea. It has a watershed some 700 feet high above the Gulf (south of the neighborhood of Petra); and north of this shed the water flows to the Dead Sea 1,292 feet below the Mediterranean. The total length of this valley is 120 miles, the watershed being (near the Edomite chain) about 45 miles north of \'Aqabah. The head of the Gulf was once farther north; and, near \'Ain Ghudian (probably Eziongeber) and \'Ain et-Tabah (probably Jotbath), there is a mud flat which becomes a lake in winter<65>about 20 miles from the sea. Lower down<77>at \'Ain edition Deffiyeh<65>there is another such flat, the head being 10 miles from \'Aqabah. The whole region is much better watered than either of the three preceding districts, having springs at the foot of the mountains on either side; and the \'Arabah is thus the best pastoral country within the limits described. It now supports a nomad population of about 2,000 or 3,000 souls (Chaiwatat and \'Alawin Arabs), while the region round Sinai has some 2,000 souls (Towarah Arabs): the whole of the Tih has probably not more than 5,000 inhabitants; for the stronger tribes (\'Azazimeh and Terabin) live chiefly between Gaza and Beersheba. These Arabs have goats, sheep and camels, but cattle are only found near Beersheba. The flocks are watered daily<6C>as in Palestine generally<6C>and are sometimes driven 20 miles in winter to find pasture and water. The water is also brought on donkeys and camels to the camps, and carried in goatskin bags on a journey through waterless districts.<P>See also <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ARABAH">ARABAH</A>.<P>5. Physical Condition of the Wilderness:<P>There is no reason to think that the conditions at the time of the Exodus differed materially from those of the present time. The Arabs have cut down a good many acacia trees for firewood in recent times, but the population is too small materially to affect the vegetation. The annual rainfall<6C>except in years of drought<68>is from 10 to 20 inches, and snow falls in winter on the Tih, and whitens Sinai and the Edomite mountains for many days. The acacia, tamarisk and palm grow in the valleys. At Wady Feiran there are said to be 5,000 date palms, and they occur also in the \'Arabah and the Edomite gorges, while the white broom (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',19,5);">1Ki 19:5</a>, the King James Version "juniper") grows on the Tih plateau. This Tih plateau is the bed of an ancient ocean which once surrounded the granite mountains of Sinai. It was upheaved probably in the Miocene age, long before man appeared on earth. The surface formation (Hull, Memoir on the Geology and Geography of Arabia-Petraea, etc., 1886) consists of Cretaceous limestones of the Eocene and Chalk ages, beneath which lies the Nubian sandstone of the Greensand period, which is also visible all along the route from Sinai to \'Aqabah, and on the east side of the Dead Sea, and even at the foot of the Gilead plateau. These beds are all visible in the Tih escarpment; and north of Sinai there are yet older formations of limestone, and the "desert sandstone" of the Carboniferous period. Since the conditions of natural water-supply depend entirely on geological formation and on rainfall, neither of which can be regarded as having changed since the time of Moses, the scientific conclusion is that the desert thus described represents that of his age, This, as we shall see, affects our conclusion as to the route followed by Israel from Egypt to the \'Arabah; for, on the direct route from Suez to Nakhl (about 70 miles), there is no water for the main part of the way, so it has to be carried on camels; while, east of Nakhl, in a distance of 80 miles, there is only one known supply in a well (Bir eth-Themed) a few miles south of the road. This route was thus practically impassable for the Hebrews and their beasts, whereas the Sinai route was passable. Thus when Wellhausen (History of Israel and Judah, 343) speaks of Israel as going straight to Kadesh, and not making a "digression to Sinai," he seems not to have considered the topography as described by many modern travelers. For not only was the whole object of their journey first to visit the "Mount of God," but it also lay on the most practicable route to Kadesh.<P>6. Difficulties Regarding the Numbers of Israel and Account of Tabernacle<P>It is true that there are certain difficulties as regards both the numbers of Israel and the account of the tabernacle. The first of these objections has been considered elsewhere (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS">EXODUS</a>). The detailed account of the tabernacle (<span class="noTag">Ex 25-28; 36-39</span>) belongs to a part of the Pentateuch which many critical writers assign to a later date than that of the old narrative and laws (<span class="noTag">Ex 1-24</span>). The description may seem more applicable to the semi-permanent structure that existed at Shiloh and Nob, than to the original "tent of meeting" in the desert. On the other hand, living so long in civilized Egypt, the Hebrews no doubt had among them skilled artificers like Bezalel. The Egyptians used acacia wood for furniture; and though the desert acacia does not grow to the size which would furnish planks 1 1/4 cubits broad, it may be that these were made up by joiner\'s work such as the ancients were able to execute. There was plenty of gold in Egypt and Asia, but none near Sinai. It is suggested, however, that the ornaments of which the Hebrews spoiled the Egyptians were presented, like the stuffs (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',36,6);">Ex 36:6</a>) prepared for the curtains<6E>just as the Arabs weave stuffs for their tents<74>and they might have served to spread a thin layer of gold over acacia boards, and on the acacia altar. It is more difficult to understand (on our present information) where silver enough for the bases (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,25);">Ex 26:25</a>) would be found. Copper (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',27,4);">Ex 27:4</a>) presents less difficulty, since there were copper mines in Wady Nucb near Serabit el Khadim. The women gave gold earrings to Aaron (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,3);">Ex 32:3</a>) for the Golden Calf, but this may have been a small object. Eusebius (in Onomasticon), referring to Dizahab, "the place of gold" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',1,1);">De 1:1</a>), now Dhahab ("gold") on the west shore of the Gulf of \'Aqabah, east of Sinai, mentions the copper mines of Punon; and thought that veins of gold might also have existed in the mountains of Edom in old times. A little gold is also found in Midian. We know that the Egyptians and Assyrians carried arks and portable altars with their armies, and a great leather tent of Queen Habasu actually exists. Thothmes III, before the Exodus, speaks of "seven tent poles covered with plates of gold from the tent of the hostile king" which he took as spoil at Megiddo. The art of engraving gems was also already ancient in the time of Moses.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NUMBERS,+BOOK+OF">NUMBERS, BOOK OF</A>.<P>7. Difficulty as to Number of Wagons:<P>Another difficulty is to understand how six ox wagons (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',7,3);">Nu 7:3</a>) sufficed to carry all the heavy planks and curtains, and vessels of the tabernacle; and though the use of ox carts, and of four-wheeled wagons also, is known to have been ancient in Asia, there are points on even the easiest route which it would seem impossible for wagons to pass, especially on the rough road through Edom and Moab. On the other hand, we know that an Egyptian Mohar did drive his chariot over the mountains in Palestine in the reign of Rameses II, though it was finally broken near Joppa.<P>8. Fauna of the Desert:<P>Whatever be thought as to these questions, there are indications in other passages of actual acquaintance with the desert fauna. Although the manna, as described (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,31);">Ex 16:31</a>), is said not to resemble the sweet gum which exudes from the twigs of the tamarisk (to which it has been compared by some), which melts in the sun, and is regarded as a delicacy by the Arabs, yet the quail (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,13);">Ex 16:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,31);">Nu 11:31</a>) still migrate from the sea northward across the desert in spring, flying low by night. The birds noticed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,1);">Le 11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,\'1-\');">De 14</a>) include<64>as Canon Tristram remarked<65>species found on the seashores and in the wilderness, such as the cormorant, pelican and gull; the ostrich (in the desert east of Moab); the stork, the crane and the heron which migrate from Africa to the Jordan valley. It is notable that, except the heron (Assyrian anpatu), the Hebrew names are not those used by later Assyrians. The mammals include the boar which loves the marshes, and the hyrax (the King James Version "coney") which still exists near Sinai and in the desert of Judah, with the desert hare. It is remarkable that in Deuteronomy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,5);">14:5</A>), besides the ibex and the bubak, two species are added (the fallow deer, Hebrew \'ayyal, the King James Version "hart," and the roebuck, Hebrew yachmur, Arabic yachmur, the King James Version "fallow deer") which are not desert animals. The former occurs at Tabor; the latter was found by the present writer in 1873 on Carmel, and is since known in Gilead and Lebanon. But Deuteronomy refers to conditions subsequent to the capture of Gilead and Bashan.<P>9. Characteristic Names of the Districts:<P>The various districts in the desert receive characteristic names in the account of the Exodus. Thus, Shur is the coast region under the "wall" of the Tih, and Sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,1);">Ex 17:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,11);">Nu 33:11</a>) was the "glaring" desert (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SINAI">SINAI</A>) of white chalk, west of Sinai. Paran is noticed 10 times, as a desert and mountain region (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,2);">De 33:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',3,3);">Hab 3:3</a>) between Sinai and Kadesh. The name seems to survive in Wady Feiran west of Sinai. It means some kind of "burrows," whether referring to mines, caves or water pits, according to the usual explanation; but in Arabic the root also means "hot," which is perhaps more likely. The term seems to be of very wide extension, and to refer to the Tih generally (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,21);">Ge 21:21</a>); for David (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',25,1);">1Sa 25:1</a>) in Paran was not far from Maon and Carmel south of Hebron, and the same general application (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,18);">1Ki 11:18</a>) is suggested in another passage. Finally the desert of Zin (tsin) is noticed 9 times, and very clearly lay close to Kadesh-barnea and east of Paran (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,21);">Nu 13:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',20,1);">20:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',34,3);">34:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,51);">De 32:51</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,3);">Jos 15:3</a>). The rabbis rendered it "palm" (tsin), which is appropriate to the \'Arabah valley which still retains the old name mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',1,1);">De 1:1</a>. These various considerations as to the conditions to be fulfilled may serve to show that the difficulties often raised, as to the historic character of the Exodus narrative, have been much overstated; and a further study of the various journeys serves to confirm this view.<P>II. First Journey.<P>1. Mode of Traveling:<P>Israel left Egypt in the early part of April (after the 14th of Abib) and reached Sinai about the 14th or 19th of the 3rd month (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,1);">Ex 19:1</a>), or at the end of May. They thus took two months to accomplish a journey of about 117 miles; but from the first camp after crossing the Red Sea to that in the plain before the Mount ten marches are mentioned, giving intervals of less than 12 miles between each camp. Thus they evidently remained in camp for at least 50 days of the time, probably at the better supplied springs, including that of the starting-point, and those at Elim and Rephidim, in order to rest their flocks. The camps were probably not all crowded round one spring, but spread over a distance of some miles. The Arabs indeed do not camp or keep their flocks close to the waters, probably in order not to defile them, but send the women with donkeys to fetch water, and drive the sheep and goats to the spring or well in the cool of the afternoon. Thus we read that Amalek "smote the hindmost" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',25,18);">De 25:18</a>), which may either mean the stragglers unable to keep up when "weary," or perhaps those in the camp most in the rear.<P>2. The Route: the First Camp:<P>The route of Israel has been very carefully described by Robinson (BR,1838, I, 60-172; II, 95-195), and his account is mainly followed in this and the next sections. We may place the first camp (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS">EXODUS</A>), between the springs which supply Suez (\'Ain Nab\'a and \'Ayyun Musa), which are about 4 miles apart. The first of these is scooped out among the sand hillocks, and bubbles up in a basin some 6 ft. deep. The water is brackish, but supplies as many as 200 camel loads at once for Suez. At \'Ayyun Musa ("the springs of Moses") there are seven springs, some being small and scooped in the sand. A few palms occur near the water (which is also brackish), and a little barley is grown, while in recent times gardens of pomegranates have been cultivated (A. E. Haynes, Man-Hunting in the Desert,1894,106), which, with the palms, give a grateful shade.<P>3. Waters of Marah:<P>From this base Israel marched "three days in the wilderness" of Shur, "and found no water" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,22);">Ex 15:22</a>). They no doubt carried it with them, and may have sent back camels to fetch it. Even when they reached the waters of Marah ("the bitter") they found them undrinkable till sweetened. The site of Marah seems clearly to have been at \'Ain Chawarah ("the white chalk spring"), named from the chalky mound beside it. This <span class="noTag">is</span> 36 miles from \'Ayyun Musa, giving an average daily march of 12 miles. There is no water on the route, though some might have been fetched from \'Ain Abu Jerad in Wady Sudr, and from the small spring of Abu Suweirah near the sea. Burckhardt thought that the water was sweetened from the berries of the Gharqad shrub (which have an acid juice) on the thorny bushes near the spring. This red berry ripens, however, in June. There is no doubt, on the other hand, that the best treatment for brack water is the addition of an acid taste. The Arabs consider the waters of this spring to be the most bitter in the country near.<P>4. Camp by the Red Sea:<P>From Marah, the next march led to Elim ("the palms"), where were "twelve springs (not "wells") of water and seventy palms." The site seems clearly to have been in Wady Gharandil, where a brook is found fed by springs of better water than that of Marah. The distance is only about 6 miles, or an easy march, and palm trees exist near the waters. Israel then entered the desert of Sin, stretching from Elim to Sinai, reaching a camp "by the Red Sea" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,10);">Nu 33:10</a>) just a month after leaving Egypt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,1);">Ex 16:1</a>). The probable site is near the mouth of Wady et-Taiyibeh ("the goodly valley"), which is some 10 or 12 miles from the springs of Gharandil. The foothills here project close to the coast, and north of the valley is Jebel Chammam Far\'aun ("the mountain of Pharaoh\'s hot bath"), named from hot sulphur springs. The water in Wady et-Taiyibeh is said to be better than that of Marah, and this is the main Arab watering-place after passing Gharandil. A small pond is here described by Burckhardt at el-Murkhat, in the sandstone rock near the foot of the mountains, but the water is bitter and full of weeds, moss and mud. The site is close to a broad shore plain stretching south Here two roads diverge toward Sinai, which lies about 65 miles to the southeast, and in this interval (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,\'11-15\');">Nu 33:11-15</a>) five stations are named, giving a daily march of 13 miles. The Hebrews probably took the lower and easier road, especially as it avoided the Egyptian mines of Wady el-Maghdrah ("valley of the cave") and their station at Serabit el-Khadim ("pillars of the servant"), where<72>though this is not certain<69>there may have been a detachment of bowmen guarding the mines.<P>5. The Route to Sinai:<P>None of the five camps on this section of the route is certainly known. Dophkah apparently means "overdriving" of flocks, and Alush (according to the rabbis) "crowding," thus indicating the difficulties of the march. Rephidim ("refreshments") contrasts with these names and indicates a better camp. The site, ever since the 4th century AD, has always been shown in Wady Feiran (Eusebius, Onomasticon, under the word "Rephidim")<29>an oasis of date palms with a running stream. The distance from Sinai is about 18 miles, or 14 from the western end of the broad plain er-Rachah in which Israel camped in sight of Horeb; and the latter name (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,6);">Ex 17:6</a>) included the Desert of Sinai even as far west as Rephidim. Here the rod of Moses, smiting the rock, revealed to the Hebrews an abundant supply, just as they despaired of water. Here apparently they could rest in comfort for some three weeks before the final march to the plain "before the mount" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,1,2);">Ex 19:1,2</a>), which they reached two months after leaving Egypt. Here Amalek<65>coming down probably from the mines<65>attacked them in the rear. Meanwhile there was ample time for the news of their journey to reach Midian, and for the family of Moses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,\'1-5\');">Ex 18:1-5</a>) to reach Sinai. On one of the low hills near Wady Feiran, Moses watched the doubtful fight and built his stone altar. A steep pass separates the oasis from the Rachah plain, and baggage camels usually round it on the north by Wady esh-Sheikh, which may have been the actual route. The Rephidim oasis has a fertile alluvial soil, and the spot was chosen by Christian hermits perhaps as early as the 3rd century AD.<P>III. Second Journey.<P>1. The Stay at Sinai:<P>Israel remained at Mt. Sinai for 10 months, leaving it after the Passover of the "second year" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',9,\'1-3\');">Nu 9:1-3</a>), and apparently soon after the feast, since, when they again witnessed the spring migration of the quail (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,31);">Nu 11:31</a>) "from the sea"<22>as they had done in the preceding year (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,13);">Ex 16:13</a>) farther west<73>they were already about 20 miles on their road, at Kibroth-hattaavah, or "the graves of lust."<P>2. Site of Kadesh-barnea:<P>(1) In order to follow their journey it is necessary to fix the site of Kadesh-barnea to which they were going, and there has been a good deal of confusion as to this city since, in 1844, John Rowlands discovered the site of the western Kadesh, at \'Ain Qadis in the northern part of the Tih. Robinson pointed out (BR, II, 194, note 3) that this site could not possibly be right for Kadesh-barnea; and, though it was accepted by Professor Palmer, who visited the vicinity in January, 1870, and has been advocated by Henry Clay Trumbull (Kadesh-barnea, 1884), the identification makes hopeless chaos of the Old Testament topography. The site of \'Ain Qadis is no doubt that of the Kadesh of Hagar (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHUR">SHUR</A>), and a tradition of her presence survives among the Arabs, probably derived from one of the early hermits, since a small hermitage was found by Palmer in the vicinity (Survey of Western Palestine, Special Papers, 1881, 19). But this spring is not said to have been at the "city" of Kadesh-barnea, which is clearly placed at the southeast corner of the land of Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,3);">Jos 15:3</a>), while, in the same chapter (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,23);">Jos 15:23</a>), another site called Kedesh is mentioned, with Adadah (\'Ada\'deh 7 miles southeast of Arad) and Hazor (at Jebel Chadireh); this Kedesh may very well have been at the western Kadesh.<P>(2) Kadesh-barnea is noticed in 10 passages of the Old Testament, and in 16 other verses is called Kadesh only. The name probably means "the holy place of the desert of wandering," and<6E>as we shall see<65>the wanderings of Israel were confined to the \'Arabah. The place is described as "a city in the uttermost...border" of Edom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',20,16);">Nu 20:16</a>), Edom being the "red land" of Mt. Seir, so called from its red sandstones, as contrasted with the white Tih limestone. It is also very clearly placed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',34,3,4);">Nu 34:3,4</a>) south of the Dead Sea (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,3);">Jos 15:3</a>), while Ezekiel also (47:19) gives it as the southeastern limit of the land, opposed to Tamar (Tamrah near Gaza) as the southeastern border town. A constant tradition, among Jews and Christians alike, identifies Kadesh-barnea with Petra, and this as early as the time of Josephus, who says that Aaron died on a mountain near Petra (Ant., IV, iv, 7), and that the old name of Petra was Arekem (vii, 1). The Targum of Onkelos (on <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',34,4);">Nu 34:4</a>) renders Kadesh-barnea by "Rekem of the G\'aia" and this name<6D>meaning "many-colored"<22>was due to the many-colored rocks near Petra, while the g\'aia or "outcry" is probably that of Israel at Meribah-kadesh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',27,14);">Nu 27:14</a>), and may have some connection with the name of the village el-Jii, at Petra, which is now called Wady Musa ("the valley of Moses") by the Arabs, who have a tradition that the gorge leading to Petra was cloven by the rod of Moses when he struck the rock at the "waters of strife" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',27,14);">Nu 27:14</a>), forming the present stream which represents that of "Meribah of Kadesh." Eusebius also (in Onomasticon under the word "Barne") connects Kadesh with Petra, and this traditional site so fully answers the requirements of the journey in question that it may be accepted as one of the best-fixed points on the route, especially as the position of Hazeroth agrees with this conclusion. Hazeroth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,35);">Nu 11:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',12,16);">12:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,17);">33:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',1,1);">De 1:1</a>) means "enclosures," and the name survives at \'Ain Chadrah ("spring of the enclosure") about 30 miles northeast of Mt. Sinai on the way to the \'Arabah. It was the 3rd camp from Sinai, the 1st being Taberah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,3);">Nu 11:3</a>) and the 2nd Kibroth-hattaavah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,35);">Nu 11:35</a>), giving a daily march of 10 miles.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KADESH-BARNEA">KADESH-BARNEA</a>.<P>3. The Route: Hazeroth to Moseroth:<P>After passing Hazeroth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',12,16);">Nu 12:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,3);">13:3</a>) the journey appears to have been leisurely, and Israel probably camped for some time in the best pastures of the \'Arabah. For the spies were sent from Paran near Hazeroth to explore the route to Kadesh, and to examine the "south country" through which Israel hoped to enter Palestine (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,17,21);">Nu 13:17,21</a>). They explored this district (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,21);">Nu 13:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',32,8);">32:8</a>) from "the wilderness of Zin," or otherwise "from Kadesh-barnea," on the east, to Rehob<6F>probably Rehoboth (now er-Ruheibeh)<29>on the west; and<6E>having been absent 40 days (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,25);">Nu 13:25</a>)<29>after visiting Hebron (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,22);">Nu 13:22</a>) they returned by the direct route leading south of Arad (Tell \'Arad) to Petra, which road is called (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,1);">Nu 21:1</a>) the "way of the spies." On their return, in the season of "first-ripe grapes" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,20);">Nu 13:20</a>), they found Israel at Kadesh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,26);">Nu 13:26</a>). No place north of Hebron is mentioned in the account of their explorations, and it is difficult to suppose that, in 40 days, they could have reached the Syrian city of Hamath, which is some 350 miles north of Petra, and have returned thence. The definition of Rehob (mentioned before Hebron) as being \'on the coming to Hamath\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,21);">Nu 13:21</a>) is best explained as a scribe\'s error, due to an indistinct manuscript, the original reading being chalatseth, and referring to the classical Elussa (now Khalasah) which lies 10 miles north of Rehoboth on the main road to Beersheba and Hebron. Israel left Sinai in the spring, after the Passover, and was near Hazeroth in the time of the quail migration. Hazeroth possesses the only perennial supply of water in the region, from its vicinity the spies set forth in August.<P>4. The Camps between Hazeroth and Moseroth:<P>Most of the sites along this route are unknown, and their position can only be gathered from the meaning of the names; but the 6th station from Hazeroth was at Mt. Shepher (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,23);">Nu 33:23</a>), and may have left its name corrupted into Tell el-\'Acfar (or \'Asfar), the Hebrew meaning "the shining hill," and the Arabic either the same or else "the yellow." This site <span class="noTag">is</span> 60 miles from Hazeroth, giving a daily march of 10 miles. As regards the other stations, Rithmah means "broomy," referring to the white desert broom; Rimmon-perez was a "cloven height," and Libnab a "white" chalky place; Rissah means "dewy," and Kehelathah, "gathering." From Mt. Shepher the distance to the vicinity of Mt. Hor is about 55 miles, and seven stations are named, giving an average march of 8 miles. The names are Haradah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,24);">Nu 33:24</a>), "fearful," referring to a mountain; Makheloth, "gatherings"; Tahath<74>probably "below"<22>marking the descent into the \'Arabah; Terah, "delay," referring to rest in the better pastures; Mithkah, "sweetness" of pasture or of water; Hashmonah, "fatness"; and Moseroth; probably meaning "the boundaries," near Mt. Hor. These names, though now lost, agree well with a journey through a rugged region of white limestone and yellow sandstone, followed by a descent into the pastoral valley of the \'Arabah. The distances also are all probable for flocks.<P>IV. The Thirty-eight Years.<P>1. The History:<P>From the time of their first arrival at Kadesh-barnea, in the autumn of the 2nd year, to the day that the Hebrews crossed the brook Zered in Moab on their final march, is said to have been a period of 38 years (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',2,14);">De 2:14</a>), during which the first generation died out, and a strong race of desert warriors succeeded it. During this period Israel lived in the nomadic state, like modern Arabs who change camp according to the season within well-defined limits, visiting the higher pastures in summer, and wintering in the lower lands. On their first arrival near Kadesh-barnea, they were discouraged by the report of the spies, and rebelled; but when they were ordered to turn south "by the way of the Red Sea" or Gulf of \'Aqabah, they made an unsuccessful attempt to enter Palestine by the way of the spies (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,\'25-45\');">Nu 14:25-45</a>). They were discomfited by Amalekites at Hormah ("cutting off"), which place is otherwise called Zephath (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,17);">Jud 1:17</a>). Here also they were again defeated by the king of Arad (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,1,3);">Nu 21:1,3</a>) in the early autumn of the 40th year of wandering. This site may well be placed at the ascent now called Nuqb es-Cufah ("the pass of Zephath"), which preserves the Hebrew name, 45 miles northwest of Mt. Hor, on the main road from Hebron to Petra. The route is well watered, and \'Ain Yemen is a spring at the foot of this ascent leading to the higher terrace of the Tih. Arad lies north of the road, and its Canaanite king no doubt marched south some 40 miles, to defend the top of the ascent down which the Amalekites had driven the first generation of Hebrews, who returned to the Kadesh-barnea camp.<P>2. The Camps Visited:<P>We are not left without any notice of the stations which Israel visited, and no doubt revisited annually, during the 38 years of nomadic life. We have in fact three passages which appear to define the limits of their wanderings.<P>(1) In the first of these (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,\'31-36\');">Nu 33:31-36</a>) we find that they left Moseroth, near Mt. Hor, the site of which latter has always been shown<77>since the time of Josephus at least<73>at the remarkable mountain west of Petra, now called Jebel Haran ("Aaron\'s Mountain"); thence they proceeded to the wells of the Bene-jaakan, to Hor-haggidgad, and to Jotbathah. Hor-haggidgad (or Gudgodah, <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',10,7);">De 10:7</a>) signifies apparently the "hill of thunder," and the word is not in any way connected with the name of Wady Ghadaghid ("the valley of failing waters"), applying to a ravine west of the \'Arabah; for the Hebrew and Arabic words have not a letter in common. The site of Jotbathah, which was in "a land of brooks of waters" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',10,7);">De 10:7</a>), is, on the other hand, pretty clearly to be fixed at \'Ain et-Tabah ("the good spring"), 28 miles north of \'Aqabah, and about 40 along the road from Mt. Hor. This spring, near a palm grove, feeds the winter lake of et-Tabah to its west in the \'Arabah. The next station was Abronah ("the crossing"), and if this refers to crossing the \'Arabah to the western slopes, we are naturally brought<68>on the return journey<65>to Ezion-geber, at \'Ain-ghudian (the usual identification), which springs from the western slopes of the Tih on the side of the lake opposite to Jotbathah. Thence the migrants gradually returned to Kadesh.<P>(2) The second passage (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',10,6,7);">De 10:6,7</a>). is one of many geographical notes added to the narrative of the wanderings, and gives the names in a different order<65>Wells of the Bene-jaakan, Moserah, Gudgodah, and Jotbathah<61>but this has little importance, as the camps, during 38 years, would often be at these springs.<P>(3) The third passage is in the preface to Deuteronomy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',1,1,2);">1:1,2</a>), which enumerates the various places where Moses spoke to Israel at various times after leaving Sinai. These include the region east of Jordan, the wilderness, the \'Arabah, "over against Suph," with all the district between Paran and Tophel (now Tufileh, on the southern border of Moab), as well as Laban (probably the Libnah of <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,20);">Nu 33:20</a>), Hazeroth, and Dizahab which may be Dhahab on the seashore east of Sinai. This list, with the valuable notes added showing that Kadesh-barnea was 11 days from Horeb in the direction of Mt. Seir, refers to speeches down to the last days of Moses\' life. The wanderings of the 38 years do not include the march through Edom and Moab; and, though it is of course possible that they may have extended to Hazeroth and Sinai, it seems more probable that they were confined to the \'Arabah between Petra and Jotbathah. Elath (now \'Aqabah), on the eastern shore at the head of the gulfs, is not mentioned; for the raised beach south of the Lake of Jotbathah would not give pasture. In summer the camps would be on the western slopes of the valley, where grass might be found in April; and the annual migrations were thus within the limits of some 500 square miles, which is about the area now occupied by a strong tribe among Arabs.<P>V. The Final Journey.<P>1. The Route:<P>In the 1st month of the 40th year (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',20,1);">Nu 20:1</a>) Israel was at Kadesh in the desert of Zin, where Miriam was buried. They were troubled once more by want of water, till Moses smote the rock of Meribah ("strife"). They were commanded to keep peace with their relatives of Edom and Moab, whose lands were not attacked by the Hebrews till the time of Saul, and of David and his successors. They camped on the border of Kadesh, desiring to reach the main road to Moab through the city; and, when this was refused by the king of Edom, they withdrew a few miles west to Mt. Hor. Here Aaron was buried, and was mourned for 30 days (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',20,29);">Nu 20:29</a>), after which the 2nd attempt to reach Hebron by the main road (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,1);">Nu 21:1</a>) was also repulsed. Since, on this occasion, Israel remained "many days" in Kadesh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',1,46);">De 1:46</a>) and left it less than 38 years after they first reached it in autumn, it would seem that they may have started in August, and have taken about a month to reach the brook Zered; but only five stations are noticed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,\'10-12\');">Nu 21:10-12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,\'41-44\');">33:41-44</a>) on the way. They are not said<69>in any passage<67>to have gone to Elath, but they turned "from mount Hor by the way to the Red Sea, to compass the land of Edom" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,4);">Nu 21:4</a>), or, as otherwise stated (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',2,8);">De 2:8</a>), they went "from the way of the Arabah" on the road which led "from Elath and from Ezion-geber"; and thus, starting on the "way to the Red Sea," they "compassed mount Seir many days," turning "northward" by the "way of the wilderness of Moab" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',2,1,8);">De 2:1,8</a>) after passing through the coast of Edom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',2,4);">De 2:4</a>).<P>2. The Five Stations to the Border of Moab:<P>If the list of five stations is complete, we may suppose that they left the \'Arabah road not many miles south of Petra, striking east by an existing road leading to Ma\'an, and thus gaining the high plateau above Petra to the east, and reaching the present Chaj route. This view is confirmed by the notice of Punon as the 2nd camp, if we accept the statement of Eusebius (Onomasticon, under the word "Phinon"); for he appears to have known it as an Edomite village north of Petra, in the desert, where convicts were employed digging copper. The name, however, has not been recovered. The preceding camp at Zalmonah suggests some "gloomy" valley leading up to the Edomite plateau. North of Punon, the 3rd camp was at Oboth ("water bags"), and the 4th was at Iyim or Iye-abarim ("the ruins" or "the ruins of the crossings"), the site of which is pretty certainly at \'Aimeh, a few miles north of Tophel. The total distance thus seems to have been about 60 miles for four marches, or 15 miles a day. Iyim was "in the border of Moab" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,44);">Nu 33:44</a>) and in the desert facing Moab, in the east (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,11);">Nu 21:11</a>).<P>3. From Iyim to Arnon:<P>Here therefore Israel left Edom; and between Iyim and the river Arnon, in a distance of about 32 miles, only one station is mentioned, being at the valley of Zered (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,12);">Nu 21:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',2,13,14);">De 2:13,14</a>). This has usually been placed at Wady el-Chesy ("the pebbly valley"), which flows into the Dead Sea, having its head near Iyim; but this is evidently too far south, and it is no doubt the great gorge at Kerak that is intended, having its head close to the Chaj road, halfway from Iyim to Arnon, giving a daily march of 16 miles. The traditional identification of the Arnon with Wady Mojib is rendered certain by the positions of Diban (Dhiban) and Aroer (\'Ar\'air) close by. It was the border of the Amorites, who had driven the Moabites south of this river (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,13);">Nu 21:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',2,36);">De 2:36</a>), depriving them of their best lands which stretched to Heshbon. These Amorites were apparently recent intruders who, with the Hittites (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HITTITES">HITTITES</a>), had invaded Damascus and Bashan from Northern Syria, and who no doubt had thus brought the fame of Balaam from Pethor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',22,5);">Nu 22:5</a>), on the Euphrates near Carchemish.<P>4. The Message to Sihon:<P>The Hebrews were now a strong people fit for war, and Moses sent messengers from the "wilderness of Kedemoth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',2,26);">De 2:26</a>) to Sihon in Heshbon, demanding a peaceful passage through his lands, such as had been accomplished through Edom and Moab. Kedemoth ("the Eastern Lands") was evidently the desert of Moab.<P>It was objected, by Colenso, to the narrative of the Pentateuch that, since Israel only reached the brook Zered in autumn of the 40th year, only six months are left for the conquest of Northern Moab, Gilead and Bashan. But it must be remembered that the Hebrews left all their impedimenta in the "plains of Moab" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',22,1);">Nu 22:1</a>) opposite Jericho at Shittim, so that the advance of their army in Gilead and Bashan was unimpeded. The Assyrians, in later times, covered in a season much longer distances than are attributed to Hebrew conquerors, and the six months leave quite enough time for the two missions sent from Moab (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',22,\'5-36\');">Nu 22:5-36</a>) to fetch Balaam.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NUMBERS,+BOOK+OF">NUMBERS, BOOK OF</A>.<P>5. From the Arnon to Shittim:<P>(1) It is notable that, for the march from the Arnon to Shittim, we have two lists of stations. That which is said to have been written down by Moses himself (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,\'45-49\');">Nu 33:45-49</a>) mentions only four stations in a distance of about 25 miles<65>namely Dibon-gad, Almon-diblathaim, Nebo and the plains of Moab, where the camps were placed at various waters from Beth-jeshimoth (Sueimeh) on the northeastern shore of the Dead Sea to Abelshittim ("the Meadow of Acacias"), now called the Ghor es-Seiseban, or "Valley of Acacias." In this area of 50 square miles there were four running streams, besides springs, and excellent pasture for flocks. This therefore was the headquarters of the nation during the Amorite war.<P>(2) In the 2nd list (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,\'13-20\');">Nu 21:13-20</a>) we read of a still more gradual and cautious advance in the Amorite lands, and this may represent the march of the main body following the men of war. Leaving the Arnon, they reached "a well" (Beer), probably near Dibon, this being one of those shallow water pits which the Arabs still scoop out in the valleys when the water runs below the surface. Between Arnon and Pisgah (or Nebo) no less than five stations are noticed in about 20 miles, namely Beer, Mattanah ("the gift"), Nahaliel ("the valley of God"), Bamoth (or Bamoth-Baal (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',22,41);">Nu 22:41</a>), "the monuments of Baal"), and Pisgah (Jebel Neba). Of these only the last is certainly known, but the central station at Nahaliel may be placed at the great gorge of the Zerqa Ma\'ain, the road from Dibon to Nebo crossing its head near Beth-meon. There was plenty of water in this vicinity. The last stage of Israel\'s march thus seems to represent a program of only about 4 miles a day, covered by the more rapid advance of the fighting men; and no doubt the women, children and flocks were not allowed to proceed at all until, at least, Sihon had been driven from Heshbon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,\'21-25\');">Nu 21:21-25</a>).<P>6. Review:<P>We have thus considered every march made by the Hebrews, from Egypt to Shittim, by the light of actual knowledge of their route. We have found no case in which the stations are too far apart for the passage of their beasts, and no discrepancies between any of the accounts when carefully considered. If, as some critical writers think, the story of the spies and the list of camps said to have been written down by Moses are to be attributed to a Hebrew priest writing in Babylonia, we cannot but wonder how he came to be so accurately informed as to the topography of the wilderness, its various regions, its water-supply and its natural products. It does not seem necessary to suppose a "double source," because, in the spring of two successive years, the manna is noticed, and Israel is recorded as having eaten the quail flying (as now) by night to the Jordan valley from Africa. The march was not continuous, and plenty of time is left, by the recorded dates, for the resting of the flocks at such waters as those of Elim, Rephidim and Hazeroth. The wanderings of the 38 years represent a nomadic life in the best pastures of the region, in and near the \'Arabah. Here the new race grew up<75>hardy as the Arabs of today. When they left Egypt the Pharaoh still had a firm hold on the "way of the Philistines," and the Canaanites owned his sway. But 40 years later Egypt was defeated by the Amorites, and the forces of the Pharaoh were withdrawn from Jerusalem after suffering defeat in Bashan (see Tell el-Amarna Letters, number 64, British Museum, where no less than nine known places near Ashteroth and Edrei are noticed); general chaos then resulted in Southern Palestine, when the \'Abiri (or Hebrews) appeared from Seir, and "destroyed all the rulers" (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS">EXODUS</A>). This then, was the historic opportunity for the defeat of the Amorites, and for Joshua\'s conquest of the Promised Land.``28';
isbe[9127]='War, Man of`(\'ish milchamah):<P>"Yahweh is a man of war:<P>Yahweh is his name" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,3);">Ex 15:3</a>).<P>In early Israel the character of Yahweh as the war-God forms a prominent feature in the conception of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',10,35);">Nu 10:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,14);">21:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',5,13);">Jos 5:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,11);">10:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,4,13,20,23,31);">Jud 5:4,13,20,23,31</a>, etc.).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GOD,+NAMES+OF">GOD, NAMES OF</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LORD+OF+HOSTS">LORD OF HOSTS</a>`1';
isbe[9128]='War; Warfare`wor, wor\'-far (milchamah, \'anshe m., "men of war," "soldiers"; polemos, polemein, strateuesthai, stratia):<P>1. Religious Significance<P>2. Preliminaries<P>3. Operations of War<P>4. Strategy<P>5. Important Requisites<P>6. Characteristics<P>7. Defeat and Victory<P>8. Spoils and Trophies<P>9. Treaties of Peace<P>10. War in the New Testament<P>LITERATURE<hr /><P>1. Religious Significance:<P>From an early period of Hebrew history war had a religious significance. The Hebrews were the people of Yahweh, and they were reminded in their wars by the priest or priests who accompanied their armies that Yahweh was with them to fight their battles (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',20,\'1-4\');">De 20:1-4</a>). It was customary to open a campaign, or to enter an engagement, with sacrificial rites (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',7,\'8-10\');">1Sa 7:8-10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,9);">13:9</a>). Hence, in the Prophets, to "prepare" war is to carry out the initiatory religious rites and therefore to "sanctify" war (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',6,4);">Jer 6:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',22,7);">22:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,27,28);">51:27,28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',3,5);">Mic 3:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',3,9);">Joe 3:9</a>; the Revised Version margin in each case); and Isaiah even speaks of Yahweh mustering His host and summoning to battle His "consecrated ones" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',13,3);">Isa 13:3</a>), the warriors consecrated by the sacrifices offered before the war actually opened. The religious character attaching to war explains also the taboo which we find associated with it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',20,7);">De 20:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',23,10);">23:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',11,11);">2Sa 11:11</a>).<P>2. Preliminaries:<P>(1) Religious Preliminaries.<P>It was in keeping with this that the oracle should be consulted before a campaign, or an engagement (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',20,18);">Jud 20:18</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,37);">1Sa 14:37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',23,2);">23:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',28,6);">28:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',30,8);">30:8</a>). The ark of God was believed to be possessed of special virtue in assuring victory, and, because it was identified in the eyes of the Israelites with the presence of Yahweh, it was taken into battle (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',4,3);">1Sa 4:3</a>). The people learned, however, by experience to put their trust in Yahweh Himself and not in any outward token of His presence. At the battle of Ebenezer the ark was taken into the fight with disastrous results to Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',4,4);">1Sa 4:4</a>). On the other hand at the battle of Michmash, the sacred ephod at Saul\'s request accompanied the Israelites into the field, and there was a great discomfiture of the Philistines (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,18);">1Sa 14:18</a>). In the later history prophets were appealed to for guidance before a campaign (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',22,5);">1Ki 22:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',3,11);">2Ki 3:11</a>), although fanatical members of the order sometimes gave fatal advice, as to Ahab at Ramoth-gilead, and probably to Josiah at Megiddo. Upon occasion the king addressed the host before engaging the enemy (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',20,\'20-22\');">2Ch 20:20-22</a>, where Jehoshaphat also had singers to go before the army into battle); and Judas Maccabeus did so, with prayer to God, on various occasions (1Macc 3:58; 4:30; 5:32).<P>(2) Military Preliminaries.<P>The call to arms was given by sound of trumpet throughout the land (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',3,27);">Jud 3:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,34);">6:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,3);">1Sa 13:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',15,10);">2Sa 15:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',20,1);">20:1</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',10,2);">Nu 10:2</a>). It was the part of the priests to sound an alarm with the trumpets (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',13,\'12-16\');">2Ch 13:12-16</a>; compare 1Macc 4:40; 16:8), and the trumpets were to be blown in time of battle to keep God in remembrance of Israel that they might gain the victory. In the Prophets, we find the commencement of war described as the drawing of the sword from its sheath (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',21,3);">Eze 21:3</a>), and the uncovering of the shield (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',22,6);">Isa 22:6</a>). Graphic pictures of the mobilizing of forces, both for invasion and for defense, are found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',22,\'6-8\');">Isa 22:6-8</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Nah\',3,2);">Na 3:2</a> and other Prophets. It was in the springtime that campaigns were usually opened, or resumed after a cessation of hostilities in winter (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',11,1);">2Sa 11:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',20,22,26);">1Ki 20:22,26</a>).<P>3. Operations of War:<P>Of the actual disposition of troops in battle there are no full accounts till the Maccabean time, but an examination of the Biblical battlefields by modern travelers with knowledge of military history has yielded valuable results in showing the position of the combatants and the progress of the fight (an excellent example in Dr. William Miller\'s Least of All Lands, 85ff, 116ff, 150ff, where the battles of Michmash, Elah and Gilboa are described with plans). With the Israelites the order of battle was simple. The force was drawn up, either in line, or in three divisions, a center and two wings. There was a rearguard (called in the King James Version "rereward," in the Revised Version (British and American) "rearward") to give protection on the march or to bring in stragglers (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',7,16);">Jud 7:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',11,11);">1Sa 11:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',18,2);">2Sa 18:2</a>; 1Macc 5:33; compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',10,25);">Nu 10:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',6,9);">Jos 6:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',29,2);">1Sa 29:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',58,8);">Isa 58:8</a>). The signal for the charge and the retreat was given by sound of trumpet. There was a battle-cry to inspire courage and to impart confidence (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',7,20);">Jud 7:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',1,14);">Am 1:14</a>, etc.). The issue of the battle depended upon the personal courage and endurance of the combatants, fighting man against man, but there were occasions when the decision was left to single combat, as at the battle of Elah between the giant Goliath and the stripling David (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',17,\'1-\');">1Sa 17</a>). The combat at Gibeon between the men of Benjamin, twelve in number, followers of Ish-bosheth, and twelve of the servants of David, in which each slew his man and all fell together by mutual slaughter, was the prelude to "a very sore battle" in which Abner and the men of Israel were beaten before the servants of David (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',2,16);">2Sa 2:16</a>).<P>To the minor operations of war belong the raid, such as the Philistines made into the Valley of Rephaim (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',14,9);">1Ch 14:9</a>), the foray, the object of which was plunder (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',3,22);">2Sa 3:22</a>), the foraging to secure supplies (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,11);">2Sa 23:11</a> margin), and the movements of bands who captured defenseless inhabitants and sold them as slaves (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',5,2);">2Ki 5:2</a>).<P>4. Strategy:<P>Of strategical movements in war there was the ambush with liers-in-wait resorted to by Joshua at Ai (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',8,3);">Jos 8:3</a>); the feint, resorted to by the Israelites against the tribe of Benjamin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',20,20);">Jud 20:20</a>); the flank movement, adopted by David in the Valley of Rephaim to rout the Philistines (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',5,22);">2Sa 5:22</a>f); and the surprise, inflicted successfully at the Waters of Merom upon the Canaanites under Jabin by Joshua (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',11,1);">Jos 11:1</a>f). Of all these the story of Judas Maccabeus, the great military leader of the Jewish nation, furnishes illustrations (1Macc 4:5 and elsewhere).<P>5. Important Requisites:<P>Among the requisites for the proper conduct of war the most important was the camp (machaneh). Of the exact configuration of the camp of the Israelites, it is not possible to speak with certainty. The camp of Israel in the wilderness seems to have been quadrilateral, although some have supposed it to be round or triangular (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',2,1);">Nu 2:1</a>). The camp in the wilderness was furnished with ensigns and standards<64>the family ensign (\'oth), and a standard (deghel) for the group of tribes occupying each of the four sides. The standard or banner (nec) is used of the signal for the mustering of troops, but standard-bearer, which occurs only once in the Bible, is a doubtful reading (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,18);">Isa 10:18</a>, where the Revised Version margin, "sick man," is rather to be followed). In time of war the camp was surrounded by a barricade, or wagon-rampart (ma\'gal), as at Elah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',17,20);">1Sa 17:20</a>); and Saul lay within such a barricade in the wilderness of Ziph with his people round about him when David surprised him and carried off his spear (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',26,5);">1Sa 26:5</a>). Tents were used for the shelter of troops, at any rate when occupied with a siege (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',7,7);">2Ki 7:7</a>), although at the siege of Rabbah we read of booths for the purpose (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',11,11);">2Sa 11:11</a>). Pickets were set to watch the camp, and the watch was changed three times in the course of the night (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',7,19);">Jud 7:19</a>; 1Macc 12:27). It was usual to leave a guard in charge of the camp when the force went into action or went off upon a raid (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',25,13);">1Sa 25:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',30,10);">30:10</a>). Careful prescriptions were laid down for the preservation of the purity of the camp, "for Yahweh thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp,...therefore shall thy camp be holy" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',23,\'9-14\');">De 23:9-14</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',5,\'1-4\');">Nu 5:1-4</a>). Garrisons (matstsabh) were placed in occupation of fortresses and strategical centers (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',17,2);">2Ch 17:2</a>). No doubt the caves in the hillsides and rocky fastnesses of the land, as at Michmash, would serve for their reception (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,1);">1Sa 13</a>). The garrisons, however, which are expressly mentioned, were for the most part military posts for the occupation of a subject country<72>Philistines in Israelite territory (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,23);">1Sa 13:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,1,11);">14:1,11</a>), and Israelites in Syrian and Edomite territory (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',8,6,14);">2Sa 8:6,14</a>).<P>6. Characteristics:<P>Among the characteristic notes of war, the tumult and the shouting were often noticed by the sacred historians (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',4,6);">1Sa 4:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,19);">14:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',7,6);">2Ki 7:6</a>). In the figurative language of the prophets the terrors and horrors and devastation of war are set forth in lurid colors. "The snorting of his horses is heard from Dan," is Jeremiah\'s description of an invading army, "at the sound of the neighing of his strong ones the whole land trembleth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',8,16);">Jer 8:16</a>). \'The crack of the whip and the noise of the rumbling wheel and the galloping horse, and the jolting chariot and the rearing horsemen; and the flash of the sword and the glitter of the spear, and the multitude of slain; and a mass of dead bodies and no end to the carcasses\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Nah\',3,\'2-4\');">Na 3:2-4</a>: J. M. P. Smith\'s translation in ICC). Because of the devastation of territory and the slaughter of men which it entails, the sword is named with famine and "noisome beasts" (the American Standard Revised Version has "evil beasts") and "pestilence" as one of God\'s "four sore judgments" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',14,21);">Eze 14:21</a>, the King James Version). By a familiar figure "the sword" is often taken for all the operations of war, because it is characteristic of it to devour and to destroy (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',2,26);">2Sa 2:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',2,30);">Jer 2:30</a>).<P>7. Defeat and Victory:<P>While the treatment of the vanquished in the wars of Israel never reached the pitch of savagery common in Assyrian warfare, there are not wanting examples of excessive severity, such as David\'s treatment of his Moabite prisoners (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',8,2);">2Sa 8:2</a>) and of the Ammonites captured at Rabbah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',12,31);">2Sa 12:31</a>), and Menahem\'s barbarous treatment of Tiphsah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',15,16);">2Ki 15:16</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',31,17);">Nu 31:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',6,21);">Jos 6:21</a>). That it was common for the Philistines to mutilate and abuse their prisoners is shown by Saul\'s determination not to fall into their hands (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',31,4);">1Sa 31:4</a>). On that occasion the Philistines not only stripped the slain, but cut off Saul\'s head and fixed his body to the wall of Bethshan (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',31,9,10);">1Sa 31:9,10</a>). It was usual to carry off prisoners and sell them as slaves (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',5,2);">2Ki 5:2</a>; 1Macc 3:41). The conquerors were wont to deport the population of the subjugated country (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,6);">2Ki 17:6</a>), to carry off treasure and impose tribute (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',16,8);">2Ki 16:8</a>), and even to take the gods into captivity (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',46,1);">Isa 46:1</a>). On the other hand, the victors were hailed with acclamations and songs of rejoicing (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,6);">1Sa 18:6</a>), and victory was celebrated with public thanksgivings (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,1);">Ex 15:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,1);">Jud 5:1</a>; 1Macc 4:24).<P>The spoils of war, spoken of as booty also<73>armor, clothing, jewelry, money, captives and animals<6C>falling to the victors, were divided equally between those who had taken part in the battle and those who had been left behind in camp (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',31,27);">Nu 31:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',22,8);">Jos 22:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',30,24);">1Sa 30:24</a>f).<P>8. Spoils and Trophies:<P>A proportion of the spoils was reserved for the Levites, and "a tribute unto the Lord" was also levied before distribution was made of the collected booty (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',31,28,30);">Nu 31:28,30</a>). To the Lord, in the Israelite interpretation of war, the spoils truly belong, and we see this exemplified at the capture of Jericho when the silver and the gold and the vessels of brass were put into the treasury of the house of the Lord (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',6,24);">Jos 6:24</a>). Under the monarchy, part of the spoils fell to the king who might in turn dedicate it to the Lord or use it for the purposes of war (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',14,14);">2Ki 14:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',18,7,11);">1Ch 18:7,11</a>). The armor of the conquered was sometimes dedicated as a trophy of victory and placed in the temple of the heathen or preserved near the ark of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',21,9);">1Sa 21:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',31,9);">31:9</a>).<P>9. Treaties of Peace:<P>As the blast of the war-horn summoned to war, so it intimated the cessation of hostilities (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',2,28);">2Sa 2:28</a>); and as to draw the sword was the token of the entrance upon a campaign, so to return it to its sheath, or to put it up into the scabbard, was emblematic of the establishment of peace (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',47,6);">Jer 47:6</a>). As ambassadors were sent to summon to war (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',49,14);">Jer 49:14</a>), or to dissuade from war (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',35,21);">2Ch 35:21</a>), so ambassadors were employed to negotiate peace (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',33,7);">Isa 33:7</a>). Treaties of peace were made on occasion between combatants, as between Ahab and Ben-hadad II after the defeat of the latter and his fortunate escape from the hands of Ahab with his life (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',20,30,31);">1Ki 20:30,31</a>). By the appeal of Ben-hadad\'s representative to Ahab\'s clemency his life was spared, and in return therefor he granted to Ahab the right to have bazaars for trade in Damascus as his father had had in Samaria (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',20,34);">1Ki 20:34</a>). Alliances, offensive and defensive, were common, as Ahab and Jehoshaphat against Syria (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',22,2);">1Ki 22:2</a>), Jehoram and Jehoshaphat and the king of Edom against Moab (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',3,7);">2Ki 3:7</a>), and the kings of the west, including Ahab and Hadadezer of Damascus, to resist Shalmaneser II of Assyria, who routed the allies at the battle of Qarqar in 854 BC. It is among the wonderful works of Yahweh that He makes war to cease to the end of the earth, that He breaks the bow, and cuts the spear in sunder, and "burneth the chariots in the fire" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',46,9);">Ps 46:9</a>). And prophetic pictures of the peace of the latter days include the breaking of "the bow and the sword and the battle out of the land" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',2,18);">Ho 2:18</a>), the beating of "swords into plowshares, and...spears into pruning-hooks" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',2,4);">Isa 2:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',4,3);">Mic 4:3</a>).<P>10. War in the New Testament:<P>Among the signs of the last days given by our Lord are "wars and rumors of wars" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,6);">Mt 24:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,7);">Mr 13:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,9);">Lu 21:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,24);">21:24</a>). Jesus accepts war as part of the present world-order, and draws from it an impressive illustration of the exacting conditions of Christian discipleship (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',14,31);">Lu 14:31</a>). He foresees how Jerusalem is to be encompassed with armies and devoted to the bitterest extremities of war (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',19,41);">Lu 19:41</a>). He conceives Himself come, not to send peace on earth, but a sword (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,34);">Mt 10:34</a>); and declares that they who take the sword shall perish by the sword (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,52);">Mt 26:52</a>). The apostles trace war to the selfishness and greed of men (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',4,1);">Jas 4:1</a>); they see, speaking figuratively, in fleshly lusts enemies which war against the soul (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,11);">1Pe 2:11</a>); they find in war apt figures of the spiritual struggle and divine protection and ultimate victory of the Christian (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,23);">Ro 7:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,37);">8:37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',10,3,5);">2Co 10:3,5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,18);">1Ti 1:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',13,13);">Heb 13:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,5);">1Pe 1:5</a>), and of the triumphs of Christ Himself (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',2,14);">2Co 2:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,15);">Col 2:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,16,17);">Eph 2:16,17</a>). Paul made the acquaintance of the barracks, both at Jerusalem and at Caesarea (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,34,37);">Ac 21:34,37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',23,35);">23:35</a>); and at Rome his bonds became familiar to the members of the Praetorian guard who were from time to time detailed to have him in keeping (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,13);">Php 1:13</a>). It is under the figures of battle and war that John in the Apocalypse conceives the age-long conflict between righteousness and sin, Christ and Satan, and the final triumph of the Lamb, who is King of kings, and Lord of lords (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',16,\'14-16\');">Re 16:14-16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',17,14);">17:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,14);">19:14</a>). For other references see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ARMY">ARMY</A>, 9; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PRAETORIAN+GUARD">PRAETORIAN GUARD</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TREATY">TREATY</a>.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Benzinger, article "Kriegswesen" in Herzog, Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche(3), XI; Nowack, Hebraische Archaeologie, 72; Browne, Hebrew Antiquities, 44-47.``128';
isbe[9129]='Ward`word: "Ward" and "guard" are two different spellings of the same word, and in consequence no clear line can be drawn between them. English Versions of the Bible, however, has used "guard" only in the sense of "a special body of soldiers" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,36);">Ge 37:36</a>, etc.), while "ward" is used, not only in this sense (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',37,13);">Jer 37:13</a>; contrast 39:9), but also in a variety of others. So a "ward" may mean "any body of men on special duty," as <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,23);">1Ch 9:23</a>; the King James Version <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',26,16);">1Ch 26:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,24,25);">Ne 12:24,25</a> (the Revised Version (British and American) "watch"), or the duty itself, as <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',21,8);">Isa 21:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',12,29);">1Ch 12:29</a> the King James Version (the Revised Version (British and American) "allegiance"); <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',25,8);">1Ch 25:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',26,12);">26:12</a> (the Revised Version (British and American) "office," margin "ward"); <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,45);">Ne 12:45</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',13,30);">13:30</a> (the Revised Version (British and American) "charge"). Or "ward" may mean "guarded place," always in the phrase "put in ward." the Revised Version (British and American) has kept this phrase throughout (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',40,3);">Ge 40:3</a>, etc.), changing it only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',19,9);">Eze 19:9</a>, where "cage" better carries out the figure of the context.<P>The distinction of the older English between "watch" and "ward," as applying respectively to the night and to the day seems unknown in English Versions of the Bible. Compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',21,8);">Isa 21:8</a>.<P>The affix "-ward," denoting direction and still used in such forms as "toward," "northward," etc., had a much wider range in Biblical English. So, "to God-ward" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,19);">Ex 18:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',3,4);">2Co 3:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',1,8);">1Th 1:8</a>); "to thee-ward" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',19,4);">1Sa 19:4</a>); "to us-ward" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',40,5);">Ps 40:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,19);">Eph 1:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,9);">2Pe 3:9</a> the King James Version); "to you-ward" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',1,12);">2Co 1:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',13,3);">13:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,2);">Eph 3:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,9);">2Pe 3:9</a> the Revised Version (British and American)); and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',37,9);">Ex 37:9</a>, the King James Version "even to the mercy seatward" (the Revised Version (British and American) "toward the mercy-seat").``48';
isbe[9130]='Wares`warz (maqqachah, mekher, mimkar, kin\'ah, ma\'aseh, \'izzabhon, keli):<P>(1) maqqachah, something received or purchased (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,31);">Ne 10:31</a>);<P>(2) mekher, "price" or "pay," value, merchandise (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',13,16);">Ne 13:16</a>);<P>(3) mimkar, a "selling," the thing sold (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',13,20);">Ne 13:20</a>);<P>(4) kin\'ah, a "package," hence, wares (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',10,17);">Jer 10:17</a>);<P>(5) ma\'aseh, "transaction," activity, property, possession, work, occupation, thing made, deed, business (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,16,18);">Eze 27:16,18</a>);<P>(6) \'izzabhon, "selling," trade, revenue, mart, letting go for a price (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,33);">Eze 27:33</a>);<P>(7) keli, a "prepared" something, as an implement, tool, weapon, utensil, armor, furniture, sack, vessel, hence, wares (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jon\',1,5);">Jon 1:5</a>).<P>In most cases the real sense is merchandise (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MERCHANDISE">MERCHANDISE</A>). "That which did not a little amuse the Merchandizers (in Vanity-Fair) was, that these Pilgrims set very light by all their Wares; they cared not so much as to look upon them" (Bunyan, The Pilgrim\'s Progress).``142';
isbe[9131]='Warfare``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WAR,+WARFARE">WAR, WARFARE</a>`1';
isbe[9132]='Warp`worp (shethi (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',13,\'48-59\');">Le 13:48-59</a>)): The long threads fixed into the loom to form the basis of the web, and into which the woof is wrought from the shuttle. The warp and the woof lying at right angles to one another have in their Hebrew form (shethi we\'erebh) given to modern Jewish speech a secret expression to designate the cross.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WEAVING">WEAVING</a>`1';
isbe[9133]='Wars of Yahweh (the Lord) Book of the`worz.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BIBLE">BIBLE</a>`1';
isbe[9134]='Wash; Washing`wosh, wosh\'-ing: The two usual Hebrew words for "wash" are rachats, and kabhac, the former being normally used of persons or of sacrificial animals (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,4);">Ge 18:4</a>, etc., often translated "bathe"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,5);">Le 15:5</a>, etc.), and the latter of things (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,11);">Ge 49:11</a>, etc.), the exceptions to this distinction being few (for rachats, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',22,38);">1Ki 22:38</a> margin; for kabhac, <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',51,2,7);">Ps 51:2,7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',2,22);">Jer 2:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',4,14);">4:14</a>). Much less common are duach (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',4,6);">2Ch 4:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',4,4);">Isa 4:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,38);">Eze 40:38</a>) and shataph (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',22,38);">1Ki 22:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',14,19);">Job 14:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',16,9);">Eze 16:9</a>), translated "rinse" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,28);">Le 6:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,11,12);">15:11,12</a>. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',4,23);">Ne 4:23</a> the King James Version has "washing" and the Revised Version (British and American) "water" for mayim, but the text is hopelessly obscure (compare the Revised Version margin). In the Apocrypha and New Testament the range of terms is wider. Most common is nipto (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,17);">Mt 6:17</a>, etc.), with aponipto in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,24);">Mt 27:24</a>. Of the other terms, louo (Susanna verses 15,17; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,10);">Joh 13:10</a>, etc.), with apolouo (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,16);">Ac 22:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',6,11);">1Co 6:11</a>) and the noun loutron (Sirach 34:25b; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,26);">Eph 5:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',3,5);">Tit 3:5</a>), usually has a sacral significance. On baptizo (Sirach 34:25a; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,4);">Mr 7:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',11,38);">Lu 11:38</a>), with the noun baptismos (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,4);">Mr 7:4</a> (text?); <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,10);">Heb 9:10</a>), see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BAPTISM">BAPTISM</a>. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',5,2);">Lu 5:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',7,14);">Re 7:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,14);">22:14</a> the Revised Version (British and American) occurs pluno, while Judith 10:3 has perikluzo. Virtually, as far as meaning is concerned, all these words are interchangeable. Of the figurative uses of washing, the most common and obvious is that of cleansing from sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',51,2);">Ps 51:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,16);">Isa 1:16</a>, etc.), but, with an entirely different figure, "to wash in" may signify "to enjoy in plenty" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,11);">Ge 49:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',29,6);">Job 29:6</a>; the meaning in <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',5,12);">So 5:12</a> is uncertain). Washing of the hands, in token of innocence, is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',21,6);">De 21:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,24);">Mt 27:24</a>.<P>The "washing balls" of Susanna verse 17 (smegma, a very rare word) were of soap.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SOAP">SOAP</a>`48';
isbe[9135]='Washing of Feet`The Old Testament references (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,4);">Ge 18:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,2);">19:2:</a> 24: <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',43,24);">43:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',19,21);">Jud 19:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',25,41);">1Sa 25:41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',11,8);">2Sa 11:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',5,3);">So 5:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',58,10);">Ps 58:10</a>) show that the washing of the feet was the first act on entering the tent or house after a journey. The Orientals wore only sandals, and this washing was refreshing as well as cleanly. In the case of ordinary people, the host furnished the water, and the guests washed their own feet, but in the richer houses, the washing was done by a slave. It was looked upon as the lowliest of all services (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',25,41);">1Sa 25:41</a>). Jesus pointedly contrasts Simon\'s neglect of even giving Him water for His feet with the woman\'s washing His feet with tears and wiping them with her hair (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,44);">Lu 7:44</a>). On the last evening of His life, Jesus washed the disciples\' feet (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,\'1-16\');">Joh 13:1-16</a>). Their pride, heightened by the anticipations of place in the Messianic kingdom whose crisis they immediately expected, prevented their doing this service for each other. Possibly the same pride had expressed itself on this same evening in a controversy about places at table. Jesus, conscious of His divine dignity and against Peter\'s protest, performed for them this lowliest service. His act of humility actually cleansed their hearts of selfish ambition, killed their pride, and taught them the lesson of love. See also The Expository Times, XI, 536 f.<P>Was it meant to be a perpetual ordinance? <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,15);">Joh 13:15</a>, with its "as" and the present tense of the verb "do," gives it a priori probability. It has been so understood by the Mennonites and the Dunkards. Bernard of Clairvaux advocated making it a sacrament. The Pope, the Czar, and the Patriarch of Constantinople wash the feet of 12 poor men on Maundy Thursday; so did the English kings till James II, and it is still practiced in the royal palaces of Madrid, Munich and Vienna. But the objections to such an interpretation are overwhelming: (1) It is never referred to in the Synoptic Gospels, the Acts or the Epistle; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',5,10);">1Ti 5:10</a> refers only to lowly service to the saints. (2) It was first in the 4th century (compare Ambrose and Augustine) that it became the custom to wash the feet of the baptized on Maundy Thursday. (3) Ritualizing such an act of love absolutely destroys its meaning. (4) No large body of Christians has ever received it as a sacrament or an ordinance.<P>F. L. Anderson<P>According to the Belief and Practice of the Church of the Brethren<P>1. Practice:<P>Feet-washing is always practiced in connection with the Agape and the Lord\'s Supper. This entire service is usually called "Love Feast." These Love Feasts are always held in the evening (in conformity to the time of Jesus\' Last Supper). Preparatory services on self-examination are held either at a previous service or at the opening of the Love Feast. Each church or congregation is supposed to hold one or two Love Feasts annually. No specified time of the year is set for these services. Before the supper is eaten all the communicants wash one another\'s feet; the brethren by themselves, and likewise the sisters by themselves.<P>(1) The Mode.<P>In earlier years the "Double Mode" was practiced, where one person would wash the feet of several persons and another would follow after and wipe them. At present the "Single Mode" is almost universal, wherein each communicant washes and wipes the feet of another. Hence, each one washes and wipes the feet of other, and in turn has this same service performed to himself.<P>(2) The Salutation.<P>Feet-washing is also accompanied with the "Holy Kiss." As soon as one has finished washing and wiping the feet of another, he takes him by the hand and greets him with the "holy kiss," usually with an appropriate benediction as: "God bless you," or "May the Lord bless us."<P>2. Scriptural Basis for Feet-Washing:<P>There are three texts in the New Testament referring to feet-washing (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,\'36-50\');">Lu 7:36-50</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,\'1-17\');">Joh 13:1-17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',5,10);">1Ti 5:10</a>).<P>(1) Jesus Washing the Disciples\' Feet (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,\'1-17\');">Joh 13:1-17</a>).<P>"At supper time" (deipnou genomenou) Jesus arose, laid aside His garments (himatia = "outer garments"), girded Himself with a towel, poured water into a basin, and began to wash and wipe the feet of the disciples.<P>(2) Peter\'s Objection.<P>"Simon Peter...saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet (su mou nipteis tous podas)? Jesus answered...What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt understand hereafter. Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet." Whereupon Jesus said: "If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me."<P>(3) Jesus Explains.<P>Peter now goes to the other extreme and desires complete washing. Jesus answers "He that is bathed (leloumenos, from louo, "to bathe entire body") needeth not save to wash (niptein<69>"to wash a part of the body") his feet." Jesus was not instituting a new symbol to take the place of baptism, to cleanse the entire person, but clearly distinguishes between the bathing (louo) of the entire body and the partial cleansing needed after the bath (baptism or immersion).<P>(4) The Command.<P>"If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another\'s feet" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,14);">Joh 13:14</a>, kai humeis opheilete allelon niptein tous podas), "I have given you an example (sign, symbol, hupodeigma), that ye also should do as I have done to you" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,15);">Joh 13:15</a>). "If ye know these things, happy (or "blessed" the Revised Version (British and American), makarioi) are ye if ye do them" (ean poiete auta). No language is clearer, and no command of Jesus is stronger than this. Furthermore, no symbol is accompanied with a greater promise. Note also, "If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me."<P>3. The Meaning of the Symbol:<P>(1) Negatively.<P>(a) It cannot be explained as necessity or custom, i.e. that the dust must be washed from the feet of the disciples before proceeding with the supper. It was so cold that Peter had to warm himself, and this is sufficient evidence that they wore shoes instead of sandals at this time. Furthermore, Peter did not understand the action of Jesus, hence, it could not have been customary. Most of all, Jesus was not scrupulous about keeping the customs or practices of the Jews; compare Jesus\' breaking of the Jewish Sabbath (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,\'23-26\');">Mr 2:23-26</a>); the Jewish fasts (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,\'18-22\');">Mr 2:18-22</a>); the Jewish cleansings (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,\'1-20\');">Mr 7:1-20</a>). (b) It was not customary for the host to wash the feet of the guests. Peter objected, and Jesus told him distinctly that he could not understand at the time (arti), but would afterward (meta tauta). The symbol had a deeper meaning.<P>(2) Positively.<P>(a) Feet-washing symbolizes humility and service. The apostles had been quarreling as to who would be greatest in the kingdom which they thought Jesus was about to set up (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,\'24-30\');">Lu 22:24-30</a>). Most authorities agree that this quarrel took place before the supper. Peter\'s question. "Dost thou wash my feet?" shows clearly that his objection lay principally in this, that Jesus, the Lord and Master, should perform such humble service. But Jesus was trying all the time to teach His disciples that true greatness in His kingdom is humility and service. "I am in the midst of you as he that serveth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,27);">Lu 22:27</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,5);">Mt 5:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,11,12);">23:11,12</a>). Humility and service are fundamental virtues in the Christian life. To wash the feet of another symbolizes these virtues in the same way that the Eucharist symbolizes other Christian virtues. (b) Cleansing: Jesus clearly distinguished between the first cleansing which cleanses the whole person, and the washing of a part of the body. Baptism is the new birth, which means complete cleansing. But after baptism we still commit sins, and need the partial cleansing as symbolized by feetwashing. Compare Bernard of Clairvaux: "Feet-washing is cleansing of those daily offenses which seem inevitable for those who walk in the dust of the world" (sed pedes (abluti sunt) qui aunt animae affectiones, dum in hac pulvere gradimur, ex toto mundi ease non possunt).<P>4. Practised by the Church of the Brethren:<P>Feet-washing is practiced by the Church of the Brethren for the following reasons:<P>(1) Jesus washed His disciples\' feet and said, "I have given you an example, that ye also should do as I have done to you" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,15);">Joh 13:15</a>).<P>(2) Jesus said, "Ye also ought ("are bound," opheilete) to wash one another\'s feet" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,14);">Joh 13:14</a>).<P>(3) "If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,8);">Joh 13:8</a>),<P>(4) "If ye know these things, blessed are ye if ye do them" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,17);">Joh 13:17</a>).<P>(5) Feet-washing symbolizes humility and service, which are fundamental virtues.<P>(6) Feet-washing symbolizes cleansing from the sins committed after baptism.<P>LITERATURE.<P>For the Church of the Brethren: C. F. Yoder, God\'s Means of Grace; R. H. Miller, The Doctrine of the Brethren Defended; tracts issued by the Brethren Publishing House, Elgin, III. For history of feet-washing, see ERE, V; New Sch-Herz Eric of Religious Knowledge, IV, 4; Smith and Cheetham, Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, articles "Baptism," "Maundy Thursday."``92';
isbe[9136]='Washpot`wosh\'-pot (sir rachats, "vessel for washing"): Only <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',60,8);">Ps 60:8</a> = <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',108,9);">108:9</a>, "Moab is my washpot"; i.e. "Moab is my chattel, to betreated contemptuously," as the vessel in which the conqueror\'s feet are washed.``1';
isbe[9137]='Wasp`wosp.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HORNET">HORNET</a>`1';
isbe[9138]='Watch`woch (\'ashmurah, \'ashmoreth; phulake): A division of the night. The night was originally divided into three watches (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',7,19);">Jud 7:19</a>), but later into four, as we find in the New Testament (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',14,25);">Mt 14:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,48);">Mr 6:48</a>). We do not know the limits of the watches in the first division, but the middle watch probably began two hours before midnight and ended two hours after. The fourfold division was according to the Roman system, each of which was a fourth part of the night.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TIME">TIME</a>.<P>"Watch" is also the guard placed on watch (mishmar, <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',4,9);">Ne 4:9</a>; koustodia, from Latin custodia, <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,65,66);">Mt 27:65,66</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,11);">28:11</a>). It sometimes refers to the act of watching, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',11,6,7);">2Ki 11:6,7</a> (mishmereth); <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,8);">Lu 2:8</a> (phulake).<P>"Watch" is also used figuratively, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',141,3);">Ps 141:3</a> for restraint: "Set a watch, O Yahweh, before my mouth" (shomrah).<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WARD">WARD</a>.``138';
isbe[9139]='Watch-Tour`woch\'-tou-er (mitspeh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',21,8);">Isa 21:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',20,24);">2Ch 20:24</a>); bachan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',32,14);">Isa 32:14</a> the Revised Version (British and American))): In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',2,16);">Isa 2:16</a> the words sekhiyoth ha-chemdah have puzzled the translators. the King James Version gives "pleasant pictures," the Revised Version (British and American) "pleasant imagery," while the Revised Version margin has "pleasant watchtowers." Guthe in Kautzsch\'s Bible translates Schaustucke, which practically agrees with the Revised Version (British and American).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MIZPEH">MIZPEH</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TOWER">TOWER</a>`1';
isbe[9140]='Watcher`woch\'-er (Aramaic \'ir, "wakeful one"): In Nebuchadnezzar\'s dream (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',4,13,17,23);">Da 4:13,17,23</a> (<span class="noTag">Mas Text 10,14,20</span>)) a messenger who with "a holy one" descended from heaven, they having joint authority to issue decrees. In the apocryphal literature the doctrine of the "watchers" is much elaborated. In Jubilees they are regarded as angels sent to instruct mankind in righteousness. In Enoch they sometimes appear as archangels and at other times as fallen angels. In the latter condition only we find them in the Book of Adam and Eve. The place of descent was according to Enoch 6:6 the summit of Mt. Hermon.``23';
isbe[9141]='Watchman`woch\'-man (tsopheh, shomer, metsappeh, notser): Used to designate a sentinel on the city walls (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',18,25);">2Sa 18:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',9,18);">2Ki 9:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',127,1);">Ps 127:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',62,6);">Isa 62:6</a>) or on the hilltops (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,6);">Jer 31:6</a>). <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',3,3);">So 3:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',5,7);">5:7</a> introduces another class, "the watchmen that go about the city," and thus, it would seem, points to some system of municipal police. The distinction in meaning between the various words is clear, tsopheh having the idea of "outlooker" and notser that of "careful watcher" (being applied even to besiegers from outside: <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',4,16);">Jer 4:16</a>, "watchers"), while shomer also embraces the idea of "defending" or "guarding." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',21,6);">Isa 21:6</a> metsappeh is to be taken generally in the sense of "watch." In Sirach 37:14 skopos, means simply "looker."``23';
isbe[9142]='Water`wo\'-ter (mayim; hudor):<P>(1) The Greek philosophers believed water to be the original substance and that all things were made from it. The Koran states, "From water we have made all things." In the story of the creation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,2);">Ge 1:2</a>) water plays an elemental part.<P>(2) Because of the scarcity of water in Palestine it is especially appreciated by the people there. They love to go and sit by a stream of running water. Men long for a taste of the water of their native village (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,17);">1Ch 11:17</a>). A town or village is known throughout the country for the quality of its water, which is described by many adjectives, such as "light," "heavy," etc.<P>(3) The rainfall is the only source of supply of water for Palestine. The moisture is carried up from the sea in clouds and falls on the hills as rain or snow. This supplies the springs and fountains. The rivers are mostly small and have little or no water in summer. For the most part springs supply the villages, but in case this is not sufficient, cisterns are used. Most of the rain falls on the western slopes of the mountains, and most of the springs are found there. The limestone in many places does not hold the water, so wells are not very common, though there are many references to them in the Bible.<P>(4) Cisterns are usually on the surface of the ground and vary greatly in size. Jerusalem has always had to depend for the most part on water stored in this way, and carried to the city in aqueducts. A large number of cisterns have been found and partially explored under the temple-area itself. The water stored in the cisterns is surface water, and is a great menace to the health of the people. During the long, dry summer the water gets less and less, and becomes so stagnant and filthy that it is not fit to drink. In a few instances the cisterns or pools are sufficiently large to supply water for limited irrigation.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CISTERN">CISTERN</a>.<P>(5) During the summer when there is no rain, vegetation is greatly helped by the heavy dews. A considerable amount of irrigation is carried on in the country where there is sufficient water in the fountains and springs for the purpose. There was doubtless much more of it in the Roman period. Most of the fruit trees require water during the summer.<P>(6) Many particular wells or pools are mentioned in the Bible, as: Beersheba (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,19);">Ge 21:19</a>), Isaac\'s well (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,11);">Ge 24:11</a>), Jacob\'s well (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,6);">Joh 4:6</a>), Pool of Siloam (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',9,7);">Joh 9:7</a>), "waters of Nephtoah" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,9);">Jos 15:9</a>).<P>(7) Washing with water held a considerable place in the Jewish temple-ceremony (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,32);">Le 11:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,4);">16:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,15);">17:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,6);">22:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',19,7);">Nu 19:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',30,18);">Ex 30:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',40,7);">40:7</a>). Sacrifices were washed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,4);">Ex 29:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,9);">Le 1:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,28);">6:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,5);">14:5</a>).<P>(8) The lack of water caused great suffering (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,22);">Ex 15:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',8,15);">De 8:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',3,9);">2Ki 3:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',63,1);">Ps 63:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',9,17);">Pr 9:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',4,11);">Eze 4:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',5,4);">La 5:4</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FOUNTAIN">FOUNTAIN</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PIT">PIT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=POOL">POOL</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SPRING">SPRING</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WELL">WELL</a>`85';
isbe[9143]='Water of Bitterness (or of Jealousy)``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ADULTERY">ADULTERY</a>`1';
isbe[9144]='Water of Separation (or of Uncleanness)``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DEFILEMENT">DEFILEMENT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SEPARATION">SEPARATION</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=UNCLEANNESS">UNCLEANNESS</a>`1';
isbe[9145]='Watercourse`wo\'-ter-kors:<P>(1) \'aphiq (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',6,3);">Eze 6:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',31,12);">31:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',32,6);">32:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',34,13);">34:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',35,8);">35:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',36,4,6);">36:4,6</a>), the King James Version "river," elsewhere "stream," "channel," or "brook."<P>(2) pelegh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',21,1);">Pr 21:1</a>). "The king\'s heart is in the hand of Yahweh as the watercourses," the King James Version "rivers," elsewhere "streams" or "rivers."<P>(3) yabhal, yibheley mayim, "watercourses" (English Versions of the Bible) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',44,4);">Isa 44:4</a>); in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,25);">Isa 30:25</a>, English Versions of the Bible has "streams of water"; compare yubhal, "rivers" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',17,8);">Jer 17:8</a>); yubhal, "Jubal" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,21);">Ge 4:21</a>); \'ubhal, "the river Ulai" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',8,2,3,6);">Da 8:2,3,6</a>).<P>(4) te\'alah, "channel," the King James Version "watercourse" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',38,25);">Job 38:25</a>); elsewhere "conduit," "the conduit of the upper pool" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',18,17);">2Ki 18:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',7,3);">Isa 7:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',36,2);">36:2</a>).<P>(5) tsinnor, "watercourse," the King James Version "gutter" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',5,8);">2Sa 5:8</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BROOK">BROOK</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RIVER">RIVER</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=STREAM">STREAM</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WATERFALL">WATERFALL</a>`37';
isbe[9146]='Waterfall`wo\'-ter-fol (tsinnor; only in the American Standard Revised Version (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',42,7);">Ps 42:7</a>)):<P class="in15">"Deep calleth unto deep at the<br>noise of thy waterfalls;<br>All thy waves and thy billows<br>are gone over me."<P>The King James Version and the English Revised Version have "waterspouts," the English Revised Version margin "cataracts." The etymology of the word is uncertain. It occurs also in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',5,8);">2Sa 5:8</a>, translated "watercourse," the King James Version "gutter." Compare (tsanteroth), "spouts" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',4,12);">Zec 4:12</a>).``1';
isbe[9147]='Waterpot`wo\'-ter-pot (hudria; compare hudor, "water"): An earthen vessel, or jar, for carrying or holding water (in the Septuagint for kadh, "jar," or "pitcher"). It was usually carried by women upon the head, or upon the shoulder (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,28);">Joh 4:28</a>). Pots of larger size, holding eighteen or twenty gallons apiece, were used by the Jews for purposes of ceremonial purification (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',2,6);">Joh 2:6</a>).``1';
isbe[9148]='Waters`wo\'-terz (mayim, plural of may, "water"; in the New Testament hudor, "water"; kindunois potamon (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',11,26);">2Co 11:26</a>), the King James Version "perils of waters," is in the Revised Version (British and American) "perils of rivers"): In the New Testament there is frequent reference to the water of baptism. Pilate washes his hands with water to signify his guiltlessness. Jesus tells the Samaritan woman of the living water. The Lamb shall guide the redeemed unto fountains of waters of life.<P>The uses of mayim are well classified in BDB, especially the figurative references, as follows: a symbol of distress, "when thou passest through the waters" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',43,2);">Isa 43:2</a>); of force, "like the breach of waters" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',5,20);">2Sa 5:20</a>); of that which is overwhelming, "a tempest of mighty waters overflowing" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',28,2);">Isa 28:2</a>); of fear, "The hearts of the people...became as water" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',7,5);">Jos 7:5</a>); of transitoriness, "Thou shalt remember it as waters that are passed away" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',11,16);">Job 11:16</a>); of refreshment, "as streams of water in a dry place" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',32,2);">Isa 32:2</a>); of peace, "He leadeth me beside still waters" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',23,2);">Ps 23:2</a>); of legitimate pleasures, "waters out of thine own cistern" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',5,15);">Pr 5:15</a>); of illegitimate pleasures, "Stolen waters are sweet" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',9,17);">Pr 9:17</a>); of that which is poured out abundantly, blood (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',79,3);">Ps 79:3</a>), wrath (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',5,10);">Ho 5:10</a>), justice (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',5,24);">Am 5:24</a>), groanings (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',3,24);">Job 3:24</a>).``37';
isbe[9149]='Waters of Merom``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MEROM,+WATERS+OF">MEROM, WATERS OF</a>`1';
isbe[9150]='Waters of Strife`strif.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MERIBAH">MERIBAH</a>`1';
isbe[9151]='Waterspout`wo\'-ter-spout:<P>(1) (tsinnor) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',42,7);">Ps 42:7</a>), the American Standard Revised Version "waterfalls," the King James Version and the English Revised Version "waterspouts," the English Revised Version margin "cataracts."<P>(2) (tannin) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',148,7);">Ps 148:7</a>), the American Standard Revised Version "sea-monsters," the King James Version and the English Revised Version "dragons," the English Revised Version margin, "sea-monsters" or "water-spouts."<P>"Praise Yahweh from the earth, Ye sea-monsters, and all deeps."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DRAGON">DRAGON</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SEA+MONSTER">SEA-MONSTER</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WATERFALL">WATERFALL</a>`37';
isbe[9152]='Wave offering`wav of\'-er-ing.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SACRIFICE">SACRIFICE</a>`1';
isbe[9153]='Waw`waw "w": The sixth letter of the Hebrew alphabet; transliterated in this Encyclopedia "w" (or "v"). It came also to be used for the <span class="noTag">number 6</span>.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ALPHABET">ALPHABET</a>`1';
isbe[9154]='Wax`waks:<P>(1) Noun (donagh): Used only in a simile of melting (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',22,14);">Ps 22:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',68,2);">68:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',97,5);">97:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',1,4);">Mic 1:4</a>).<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WRITING">WRITING</a>.<P>(2) A now archaic verb, meaning "to grow," used freely in English Versions of the Bible as a translation of various terms in Greek and Hebrew. The past participle in the King James Version and the English Revised Version is "waxen," except in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,12);">Ge 18:12</a>. There (and throughout in the American Standard Revised Version) the form is "waxed."``1';
isbe[9155]='Way`wa (\'orach, orcha\',\' erets, bo\', derekh, halikhah, ma\'galah, nathibh; hodos, parodos, poreia, tropos; "highway," mecillah, meclul; diexodoi ton hodon): The list just cited contains only a portion of the words translated "way" or "highway" in the King James Version. Most of them have the primary meaning of "road," "customary path," "course of travel" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,24);">Ge 3:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,20);">Ex 23:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',20,17);">Nu 20:17</a>, etc.). By a very easy and natural figure "way" is applied to the course of human conduct, the manner of life which one lives (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,20);">Ex 18:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,8);">32:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',22,32);">Nu 22:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',8,3);">1Sa 8:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',13,33);">1Ki 13:33</a>, etc.; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,16);">Ac 14:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',4,17);">1Co 4:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',5,20);">Jas 5:20</a>). "The way of an eagle...of a serpent...of a ship...and of a man" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',30,19);">Pr 30:19</a>) agree in that they leave no trace behind them (compare The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 5:10,11</span>). In some cases the language may be such as to leave it indeterminate whether the way or course of conduct is good or bad (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',28,29);">De 28:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,14);">1Sa 18:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',27,7);">2Ch 27:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',13,15);">Job 13:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',3,6);">Pr 3:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',6,6);">6:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,8);">Jas 1:8</a>), though in most cases the Bible writers attach to every act an ethical evaluation. Sometimes this way of conduct is of purely human choice, without reference to either God or good (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',2,19);">Jud 2:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',22,15);">Job 22:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',34,21);">34:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,9);">Ps 119:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',12,15);">Pr 12:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',16,2);">16:2</a>). Such a course is evil (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',7,14);">2Ch 7:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',1,6);">Ps 1:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,101,104,128);">119:101,104,128</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',1,19);">Pr 1:19</a>, etc.) and will obtain such punishment as its lack of merit warrants (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',8,32,39);">1Ki 8:32,39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',6,23);">2Ch 6:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',30,12);">Job 30:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',34,11);">34:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',17,10);">Jer 17:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',7,3,9);">Ezk 7:3,9</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',12,2);">Ho 12:2</a>). At the opposite extreme from this is the good way (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',1,6);">Ps 1:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',8,20);">Pr 8:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',12,28);">12:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',15,10);">15:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',26,7);">Isa 26:7</a>), which is that course of conduct enjoined by God and exemplified in His perfect conduct (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,12);">Ge 6:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,19);">18:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',8,6);">De 8:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',26,17);">26:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',2,3);">1Ki 2:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',23,11);">Job 23:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',51,13);">Ps 51:13</a>, etc.). These two ways briefly but graphically described by the Lord (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,13,14);">Mt 7:13,14</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',13,24);">Lu 13:24</a>) became the subject of extended catechetical instruction in the early church. See the Epistle of Barnabas, xviii, and the Didache i.1. Frequently the way in this metaphorical sense is characterized by that quality which is its outstanding feature, e.g. mention is made of the way of life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',15,24);">Pr 15:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',21,8);">Jer 21:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,28);">Ac 2:28</a>); of truth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,30);">Ps 119:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,2);">2Pe 2:2</a>); of peace (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',59,8);">Isa 59:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,79);">Lu 1:79</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,17);">Ro 3:17</a>); of justice (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',17,23);">Pr 17:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',4,37);">Da 4:37</a>); of righteousness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',21,32);">Mt 21:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,21);">2Pe 2:21</a>); of salvation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,17);">Ac 16:17</a>); of lying (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,29);">Ps 119:29</a>), and of death (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',21,8);">Jer 21:8</a>). Frequently God\'s purpose or His customary action is described as His way (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',103,7);">Ps 103:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',26,8);">Isa 26:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,16);">Mt 22:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,10);">Ac 13:10</a>). Since all of God\'s plans and purposes tend toward man\'s salvation, His provisions to this end are frequently spoken of as His Way, and inasmuch as all of the divine plans center in Christ He is preeminently the Way (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,6);">Joh 14:6</a>). Out of this fact grew the title, "The Way," one of the earliest names applied to Christianity (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,2);">Ac 9:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,25,26);">18:25,26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,9,23);">19:9,23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,4);">22:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',24,22);">24:22</a>).<P>The word highway is used to denote a prominent road, such a one for example as was in ancient times maintained for royal travel and by royal authority. It is always used in the literal sense except in <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',15,19);">Pr 15:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',16,17);">16:17</a>, where it is a course of conduct.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PATH,+PATHWAY">PATH, PATHWAY</a>`124';
isbe[9156]='Way, Covered``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=COVERED+WAY">COVERED WAY</a>`1';
isbe[9157]='Way, Little`(kibhrah, "length," "a measure"): A technical measure of distance in the Hebrew; but it must be considered undefined (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,16);">Ge 35:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',48,7);">48:7</a> the King James Version, the English Revised Version "some way," the American Standard Revised Version "some distance"; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',5,19);">2Ki 5:19</a>, the English Revised Version "some way," the American Revised Version margin "some distance"). The Hebrew term kibhrah is also found in Phoenician inscriptions as a measure of distance.``1';
isbe[9158]='Wayfaring Man`wa\'-far-ing, The translation in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',19,17);">Jud 19:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',12,4);">2Sa 12:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',9,2);">Jer 9:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',14,8);">14:8</a> of (\'oreach), the participle of \'arach, "to journey." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',33,8);">Isa 33:8</a> of \'obher \'orach, "one passing on a path," and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',35,8);">Isa 35:8</a> of holekh derekh, "one walking on a road." "Traveler" is the meaning in all cases.``1';
isbe[9159]='Waymark`wa\'-mark (tsyun): In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,21);">Jer 31:21</a>, "Set thee up waymarks," explained by the parallel, "Make thee guide-posts" (the King James Version "Make thee high heaps"). A sign or guiding mark on the highway.``1';
isbe[9160]='Wealth, Wealthy`welth, wel\'-thi (hon, chayil, nekhacim; euporia, "to possess riches," "to be in a position of ease" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',49,31);">Jer 49:31</a>)): The possession of wealth is not regarded as sinful, but, on the contrary, was looked upon as a sign of the blessing of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',5,19);">Ec 5:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',6,2);">6:2</a>). The doctrine of "blessed are the poor, and cursed are the rich" finds no countenance in the Scriptures, for <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,20,24);">Lu 6:20,24</a> refers to concrete conditions (disciples and persecutors; note the "ye"). God is the maker of rich and poor alike (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',22,2);">Pr 22:2</a>). But while it is not sinful to be rich it is very dangerous, and certainly perilous to one\'s salvation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,23);">Mt 19:23</a>). Of this fact the rich young ruler is a striking example (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,22,23);">Lu 18:22,23</a>). It is because of the danger of losing the soul through the possession of wealth that so many exhortations are found in the Scriptures aimed especially at those who have an abundance of this world\'s goods (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,17);">1Ti 6:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,10,11);">Jas 1:10,11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',5,1);">5:1</a>, etc.). Certain parables are especially worthy of note in this same connection, e.g. the Rich Fool (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,\'16-21\');">Lu 12:16-21</a>), the Rich Man and Lazarus<75>if such can be called a parable<6C>(<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,\'19-31\');">Lu 16:19-31</a>). That it is not impossible for men of wealth to be saved, however, is apparent from the narratives, in the Gospels, of such rich men as Nicodemus, and Joseph of Arimathea (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,38,39);">Joh 19:38,39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,\'57-60\');">Mt 27:57-60</a>), and Zaccheus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',19,\'1-10\');">Lu 19:1-10</a>). It may fairly be inferred from the Gospel records that James and John, who were disciples of our Lord, were men of considerable means (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,19,20);">Mr 1:19,20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,27);">Joh 19:27</a>).<P>Wealth may be the result of industry (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',10,4);">Pr 10:4</a>), or the result of the special blessing of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',1,11,12);">2Ch 1:11,12</a>). We are warned to be careful lest at any time we should say "My power and the might of my hand hath gotten me this wealth. But thou shalt remember Yahweh thy God, for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',8,17,18);">De 8:17,18</a>).<P>Those possessing wealth are liable to certain kinds of sins against which they are frequently warned, e.g., highmindedness (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,17);">1Ti 6:17</a>); oppression of the poor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',2,6);">Jas 2:6</a>); selfishness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,\'1-\');">Lu 12</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,\'1-\');">16</A>); dishonesty (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',19,\'1-10\');">Lu 19:1-10</a>); self-conceit (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',28,11);">Pr 28:11</a>); self-trust (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',18,11);">Pr 18:11</a>).<P>It is of interest to note that in the five places in the New Testament in which the word "lucre"<22>as applying to wealth<74>is used, it is prefaced by the word "filthy" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',3,3);">1Ti 3:3</a> (the King James Version), <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',3,8);">8</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,7,11);">Tit 1:7,11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,2);">1Pe 5:2</a>), and that in four of these five places it refers to the income of ministers of the gospel, as though they were particularly susceptible of being led away by the influences and power of money, and so needed special warning.<P>The Scriptures are not without instruction as to how we may use our wealth wisely and as well-pleasing to God. The parable of the Unjust Steward (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,\'1-\');">Lu 16</a>) exhorts us to "make...friends by means of the mammon of unrighteousness," by which is meant that we should use the wealth which God has committed to us as stewards in order that we may win friends (souls) with it for Him and His kingdom, just as the unfaithful steward used the goods with which his master had entrusted him to make friends for himself. The parable of Dives and Lazarus gives us the sad picture of a selfish rich man who had abused his trust, who had failed to make friends with his money, and who, in the other world, would have given anything just for such a friend (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,\'19-31\');">Lu 16:19-31</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RICHES">RICHES</a>`53';
isbe[9161]='Wean`wen: "To wean" in English Versions of the Bible is always the translation of (gamal), but gamal has a much wider force than merely "to wean," signifying "to deal fully with," as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',13,6);">Ps 13:6</a>, etc. Hence, as applied to a child, gamal covers the whole period of nursing and care until the weaning is complete (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,20);">1Ki 11:20</a>). This period in ancient Israel extended to about 3 years, and when it was finished the child was mature enough to be entrusted to strangers (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',1,24);">1Sa 1:24</a>). And, as the completion of the period marked the end of the most critical stage of the child\'s life, it was celebrated with a feast (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,8);">Ge 21:8</a>), a custom still observed in the Orient. The weaned child, no longer fretting for the breast and satisfied with its mother\'s affection, is used in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',131,2);">Ps 131:2</a> as a figure for Israel\'s contentment with God\'s care, despite the smallness of earthly possessions. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',28,9);">Isa 28:9</a> there is an ironical question, \'Is God to teach you knowledge as if you were children? You should have learned His will long ago!\'``48';
isbe[9162]='Weapons`wep\'-unz.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ARMOR">ARMOR</a>`1';
isbe[9163]='Weasel`we\'-z\'-l (choledh; compare Arabic khuld, "mole-rat"):<P>(1) Choledh is found only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,29);">Le 11:29</a>, where it stands first in the list of eight unclean "creeping things that creep upon the earth." the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) agree in rendering choledh by "weasel," and the Septuagint has gale, "weasel" or "marten." According to Gesenius, the Vulgate, Targum, and Talmud support the same rendering. In spite of this array of authorities, it is worth while to consider the claims of the mole-rat, Spalax typhlus, Arabic khuld. This is a very common rodent, similar in appearance and habits to the mole, which does not exist in Palestine. The fact that it burrows may be considered against it, in view of the words, "that creepeth upon the earth." The term "creeping thing" is, however, very applicable to it, and the objection seems like a quibble, especially in view of the fact that there is no category of subterranean animals. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MOLE">MOLE</a>.<P>(2) The weasel, Mustela vulgaris, has a wide range in Asia, Europe, and North America. It is from 8 to 10 inches long, including the short tail. It is brown above and white below. In the northern part of its range, its whole fur, except the tail, is white in winter. It is active and fearless, and preys upon all sorts of small mammals, birds and insects.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LIZARD">LIZARD</a>`37';
isbe[9164]='Weather`weth\'-er (zahabh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',37,22);">Job 37:22</a>), yom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',25,20);">Pr 25:20</a>), translated "day"; eudia, "clear sky," cheimon, "tempest"): In the East it is not customary to talk of the weather as in the West. There seems to be no word in the Hebrew corresponding to "weather." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',37,22);">Job 37:22</a> the King James Version translates "Fair weather comes out of the north," but the Revised Version (British and American) translates more literally, "Out of the north cometh golden splendor." "As one that taketh off a garment in cold weather (or literally, "on a cold day"),...so is he that singeth songs to a heavy heart" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',25,20);">Pr 25:20</a>).<P>Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for their lack of spiritual foresight when they took such interest in natural foresight. He said, "When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the heaven is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather to-day: for the heaven is red and lowering" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,2,3);">Mt 16:2,3</a>). The general conditions of the weather in the different seasons are less variable in Palestine than in colder countries, but the precise weather for a given day is very hard to predict on account of the proximity of the mountains, the desert and the sea.``85';
isbe[9165]='Weaving`we\'-ving: Although weaving was one of the most important and best developed of the crafts of Bible times, yet we have but few Biblical references to enlighten us as to the processes used in those early days. A knowledge of the technique of weaving is necessary, however, if we are to understand some of the Biblical incidents. The principle of weaving in all ages is illustrated by the process of darning. The hole to be darned is laid over with parallel threads which correspond to the "warp" (shethi) of a woven fabric. Then, by means of a darning needle which takes the place of the shuttle in the loom, other threads are interlaced back and forth at right angles to the first set of strands. This second set corresponds to the woof (\'erebh) or weft of woven cloth. The result is a web of threads across the hole. If the warp threads, instead of being attached to the edges of a fabric, are fastened to two beams which can be stretched either on a frame or on the ground, and the woof is interlaced exactly as in darning, the result will be a web of cloth. The process is then called weaving (\'aragh), and the apparatus a loom. The most up-to-date loom of our modern mills differs from the above only in the devices for accelerating the process. The first of these improvements dates back some 5,000 years to the early Egyptians, who discovered what is technically known as shedding, i.e. dividing the warp into two sets of threads, every other thread being lifted so that the woof can run between, as is shown in the diagram of the Arabic loom.of considerable means (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,19,20);">Mr 1:19,20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,27);">Joh 19:27</a>).<P>The looms are still commonly used among the Bedouins. Supppose only eight threads are used for an illustration. In reality the eight strands are made by passing one continuous thread back and forth between the two poles which are held apart by stakes driven into the ground. The even strands run through loops of string attached to a rod, and from there under a beam to the pole. By placing the ends upon stones, or by suspending it on loops, the even threads are raised above the odd threads, thus forming a shed through which the weft can be passed. The separating of odds and evens is assisted by a flat board of wedge-shaped cross-section, which is turned at right angles to the odd threads. After the shuttle has been passed across, this same stick is used to beat up the weft.<P>The threads are removed from the stones or loops, and allowed to lie loosely on the warp; it is pulled forward toward the weaver and raised on the stones in the position previously occupied by it. The flat spreader is passed through the new shed in which the odd threads are now above and the even threads below. The weft is run through and is beaten into place with the thin edge of it. The shuttle commonly used is a straight tree branch on which the thread is loosely wound "kite-string" fashion.<P>The loom used by Delilah was no doubt like the one described above (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',16,13,14);">Jud 16:13,14</a>). It would have been an easy matter for her to run in Samson\'s locks as strands of the weft while he lay sleeping on the ground near the loom adjacent to rod under the beam. The passage might be transposed thus: "And he said unto her, If thou weavest the seven locks of my head into the web. And she passed in his locks and beat them up with the batten (yathedh), and said unto him, The Philistines are upon thee, Samson. And he awakened out of his sleep and as he jumped up he pulled away the pins of the loom."<P>The counterpart of the Bedouin loom is shown on the ancient tombs at Beni Chasan (see EB, 5279,or Wilkinson, I, 317). As Dr. Kennedy points out, the artist of that ancient picture has unwittingly reversed the order of the beams. The shedding beam, of the two, should be nearer the weaver. At what period the crude shedding device described above was replaced by a double set of loops worked by pedals is unknown. Some writers believe that the Jews were acquainted with it. The "flying shuttle" of the modern loom is probably a comparatively recent invention.<P>The products of the Bedouin looms are coarse in texture. Such passages as <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,35);">Ex 35:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',19,9);">Isa 19:9</a>, and examples of ancient weaving, lead us to believe that in Bible times contemporaneous with the primitive loom were more highly developed machines, just as in the cities of Egypt and Palestine today, alongside of the crude Bedouin loom, are found the more intricate hand looms on which are produced the most delicate fabrics possible to the weaver\'s article. Examples of cloth comparing favorably with our best grades of muslin have been found among the Egyptian mummy wrappings.<P>Two other forms of looms have been used for weaving, in both of which the warp is upright. In one type the strands of the warp, singly or in bundles, are suspended from a beam and held taut by numerous small weights made of stones or pottery. Dr. Bliss found at Tel el-Chesy collections of weights, sometimes 60 or more together, individual examples of which showed marks where cords had been attached to them. These he assumed were weavers\' weights (see A Mound of Many Cities). In this form the weaving was necessarily from top to bottom.<P>The second type of upright loom is still used in some parts of Syria, especially for weaving coarse goat\'s hair cloth. In this form the warp is attached to the lower beam and passes vertically upward over another beam and thence to a wall where it is gathered in a rope and tied to a peg, or it is held taut by heavy stone weights. The manipulation is much the same as in the primitive loom, except that the weft is beaten up with an iron comb. The web is wound up on the lower beam as it is woven (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',38,12);">Isa 38:12</a>).<P>Patterns are woven into the web<P>(1) by making the warp threads of different colors,<P>(2) by alternating colors in the weft,<P>(3) by a combination of (1) and (2); this produces checked work (shibbets, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',28,39);">Ex 28:39</a> the Revised Version (British and American));<P>(4) by running special weft threads through only a portion of the warp. This requires much skill and is probably the kind of weaving referred to in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,1);">Ex 26:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',16,13);">Eze 16:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,16);">27:16</a>;<P>(5) when metals are to be woven, they are rolled thin, cut into narrow strips, wound in spirals about threads of cotton or linen (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',28,5);">Ex 28:5</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',39,3);">39:3</a>ff). In all these kinds of weaving the Syrian weavers of today are very skillful. If a cylindrical web is referred to in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,23);">Joh 19:23</a>, then Jesus\' tunic must have been woven with two sets of warp threads on an upright loom so arranged that the weft could be passed first through one shed and then around to the other side and back through the shed of the second set.<P>Goliath\'s spear was compared in thickness to that of the weaver\'s beam, i.e. 2 inches to 2 1/2 inches in diameter (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',17,7);">1Sa 17:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,19);">2Sa 21:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,23);">1Ch 11:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',20,5);">20:5</a>).<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',7,6);">Job 7:6</a>, if "shuttle" is the right rendering for \'eregh, the reference is to the rapidity with which the thread of the shuttle is used up, as the second part of the verse indicates.<P>For a very full discussion of the terms employed see A. R. S. Kennedy in EB, IV, 5276-90.``133';
isbe[9166]='Web``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SPIDER">SPIDER</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WEAVING">WEAVING</a>`1';
isbe[9167]='Wedding``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MARRIAGE">MARRIAGE</a>`1';
isbe[9168]='Wedge, of Gold`wej, (lashon zahabh, literally, "tongue of gold"): A piece of gold in the form of a wedge found by Achan in the sack of Jericho. It was in one of the forms in which gold was used for money and was probably stamped or marked to indicate its weight, which was 50 shekels, i.e. one maneh, according to the Hebrew standard, or nearly two pounds troy. Its value would be 102 British pounds 10 shillings or $510.00 (in 1915). See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MONEY">MONEY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=POUND">POUND</a>. A wedge, or rather, oblong rectangular strip of gold, of similar weight has been found in the excavations of Gezer (Macalister, Bible Side-Lights, 121). Along with metal rings they were doubtless used as an early form of currency. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',13,12);">Isa 13:12</a> the King James Version, kethem, "pure gold" (so the Revised Version (British and American)), is translated as "golden wedge" on insufficient grounds.``138';
isbe[9169]='Weeds`wedz (cuph, "a weed" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jon\',2,5);">Jon 2:5</a>)).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FLAG">FLAG</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=COCKLE">COCKLE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RED+SEA">RED SEA</a>`1';
isbe[9170]='Week`wek (shebhua\', from shebha\', "seven"; sabbaton-ta, "from sabbath to sabbath"): The seven-day division of time common to the Hebrews and Babylonians (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',29,27,28);">Ge 29:27,28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,12);">Lu 18:12</a>). See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASTRONOMY">ASTRONOMY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TIME">TIME</a>. "Week" is used in the apocalyptic writings of Daniel for an unknown, prophetic period (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',9,\'24-27\');">Da 9:24-27</a>). For the names of the days see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASTROLOGY">ASTROLOGY, 12</a>.``1';
isbe[9171]='Weeks, Feast of``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PENTECOST">PENTECOST</a>`1';
isbe[9172]='Weeks, Seventy``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SEVENTY+WEEKS">SEVENTY WEEKS</a>`1';
isbe[9173]='Weeping`wep\'-ing.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BURIAL">BURIAL</a>`1';
isbe[9174]='Weight`wat (Measure of quantity) mishqal, (mishqol (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',4,10);">Eze 4:10</a>), from shaqkal, "to weigh" \'ebhen, "a stone" used for weighing in the balance): Weights were commonly of stone or bronze (or of lead, <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',5,7,8);">Zec 5:7,8</a>). They were of various forms, such as the lion-shaped weights of Babylonia and Assyria, or in the form of birds and other animals. The Hebrew and Phoenician weights, when made of stone, were barrel-shaped or spindle-shaped, but in bronze they were often cubical or octagonal or with numerous faces (see illustration under <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WEIGHTS+AND+MEASURES">WEIGHTS AND MEASURES</a>). Hemispherical or dome-shaped stone weights have been found in Palestine (PEFS, 1902, p. 344; 1903, p. 117; 1904, p. 209).<P>Figurative: The phrase "without weight" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',25,16);">2Ki 25:16</a>) signifies a quantity too great to be estimated. "Weight of glory" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',4,17);">2Co 4:17</a>, baros) has a similar meaning, but with a spiritual reference. "Weighty," "weightier" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,23);">Mt 23:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',10,10);">2Co 10:10</a>, barus, baruteros), signify what is important. The Greek (ogkos) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,1);">Heb 12:1</a>), is used in the sense of burden, hindrance, as is also the Hebrew netel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',27,3);">Pr 27:3</a>).``138';
isbe[9175]='Weights And Measures`wats me\'-zhur:The system of weights and measures in use among the Hebrews was derived from Babylonia and Egypt, especially from the former. The influence of these countries upon Palestine has long been recognized, but archaeological investigations in recent years have shown that the civilization of Babylonia impressed itself upon Syria and Palestine more profoundly in early times than did that of Egypt. The evidence of this has been most clearly shown by the discovery of the Tell el-Amarna Letters, which reveal the fact that the official correspondence between the Egyptian kings and their vassals in these lands was carried on in the language of Babylonia long after its political influence had been supplanted by that of Egypt. It is natural, then, that we should look to Babylonia for the origin of such important elements of civilization as a system of weights and measures.<P>1. Linear Measures:<P>It was quite natural that men should have found a standard for linear measures in the parts of the human body, and we find the cubit, originally the length of the forearm, taken as the standard, and the span, the palm and the digit, or finger-breadth, associated with it in linear measurement. They do not seem to have employed the foot, though it is represented in the two-thirds of the cubit, which was used by the Babylonians in the manufacture of building-brick.<P>This system, though adequate enough for man in the earliest times, was not so for an advanced stage of civilization, such as the Babylonians reached before the days of Abraham, and we find that they had introduced a far more accurate and scientific system (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CUBIT">CUBIT</a>). They seem to have employed, however, two cubits, of different lengths, one for commercial purposes and one for building. We have no undoubted examples of either, but judging by the dimensions of their square building-bricks, which are regarded as being two-thirds of a cubit on a side, we judge the latter to have been of about 19 or 20 inches. Now we learn from investigations in Egypt that a similar cubit was employed there, being of from 20.6 to 20.77 inches, and it can hardly be doubted that the Hebrews were familiar with this cubit, but that in more common use was certainly shorter. We have no certain means of determining the length of the ordinary cubit among the Hebrews, but there are two ways by which we may approximate its value. The Siloam Inscription states that the tunnel in which it was found was 1,200 cubits long. The actual length has been found to be about 1,707 feet, which would give a cubit of about 17.1 in. (see PEFS, 1902, 179). Of course the given length may be a round number, but it gives a close approximation.<P>Again, the Mishna states that the height of a man <span class="noTag">is</span> 4 cubits, which we may thus regard as the average stature of a Jew in former times. By reference to Jewish tombs we find that they were of a length to give a cubit of something over 17 inches, supposing the stature to be as above, which approximates very closely to the cubit of the Siloam tunnel. The consensus of opinion at the present day inclines toward a cubit of 17.6 inches for commercial purposes and one of about 20 inches for building. This custom of having two standards is illustrated by the practice in Syria today, where the builder\'s measure, or dra\', is about 2 inches longer than the commercial.<P>Of multiples of the cubit we have the measuring-reed of 6 long cubits, which consisted of a cubit and a hand-breadth each (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,5);">Eze 40:5</a>), or about 10 feet. Another measure was the Sabbath day\'s journey, which was reckoned at 2,000 cubits, or about 1,000 yards. The measuring-line was used also, but whether it had a fixed length we do not know.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SABBATH+DAY\'S+JOURNEY">SABBATH DAY\'S JOURNEY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MEASURING+LINE">MEASURING LINE</a>.<P>In the New Testament we have the fathom (orguia), about 6 feet, and the furlong (stadion), 600 Greek feet or 606 3/4 English feet, which is somewhat less than one-eighth of a mile. The mile (milion) was 5,000 Roman feet, or 4,854 English feet, somewhat less than the English mile.<P>2. Measures of Capacity:<P>Regarding the absolute value of the measures of capacity among the Hebrews there is rather more uncertainty than there is concerning those of length and weight, since no examples of the former have come down to us; but their relative value is known. Sir Charles Warren considers them to have been derived from the measures of length by cubing the cubit and its divisions, as also in the case of weight. We learn from <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',45,11);">Eze 45:11</a> that the bath and ephah were equivalent, and he (Warren) estimates the capacity of these as that of 1/30 of the cubit cubed, or about 2,333.3 cubic inches, which would correspond to about 9 gallons English measure. Assuming this as the standard, we get the following tables for liquid and dry measure: Ce\'ah and lethekh, in the above, occur in the Hebrew text, but only in the margin of the English. It will be noticed that the prevailing element in these tables is the duodecimal which corresponds to the sexagesimal of the Babylonian system, but it will be seen that in the case of weights there was a tendency on the part of the Hebrews to employ the decimal system, making the maneh 50 shekels instead of 60, and the talent 3,000 instead of 3,600, of the Babylonian, so here we see the same tendency in making the \'omer the tenth of the \'ephah and the \'ephah the tenth of the chomer or kor.<P>3. Weights:<P>Weights were probably based by the ancients upon grains of wheat or barley, but the Egyptians and Babylonians early adopted a more scientific method. Sir Charles Warren thinks that they took the cubes of the measures of length and ascertained how many grains of barley corresponded to the quantity of water these cubes would contain. Thus, he infers that the Egyptians fixed the weight of a cubic inch of rain water at 220 grains, and the Babylonians at 222 2/9. Taking the cubic palm at 25,928 cubic inches, the weight of that quantity of water would be 5,760 ancient grains. The talent he regards as the weight of 2/3 of a cubit cubed, which would be equal to 101,6 cubic palms, but assumes that for convenience it was taken at 100, the weight being 576,000 grains, deriving from this the maneh (1/60 of the talent) of 9,600 grains, and a shekel (1/50 of the maneh) 192 grains. But we have evidence that the Hebrew shekel differed from this and that they used different shekels at different periods. The shekel derived from Babylonia had a double standard: the light of 160 grains, or 1/3600 of the talent; and the heavy of just double this, of 320 grains. The former seems to have been used before the captivity and the latter after. The Babylonian system was sexagesimal, i.e. 60 shekels went to the maneh and 60 manehs to the talent, but the Hebrews reckoned only 50 shekels to the maneh, as appears from <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',38,25,26);">Ex 38:25,26</a>, where it is stated that the amount of silver collected from 603,550 males was 100 talents and 1,775 shekels, and, as each contributed a half-shekel, the whole amount must have been 301,775. Deducting the 1,775 shekels mentioned besides the 100 talents, we have 300,000 or 3,000 to the talent, and, as there were 60 manehs in the talent, there were 50 shekels to each maneh. When the Hebrews adopted this system we do not know, but it was in vogue at a very early date.<P>The shekel was divided into gerahs, 20 to a shekel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',30,13);">Ex 30:13</a>). The gerah (gerah) is supposed to be some kind of seed, perhaps a bean or some such plant. The shekel of which it formed a part was probably the royal or commercial shekel of 160 grains, derived from Babylon. But the Hebrews certainly had another shekel, called the Phoenician from its being the standard of the Phoenician traders. This would be natural on account of the close connection of the two peoples ever since the days of David and Solomon, but we have certain evidence of it from the extant examples of the monetary shekels of the Jews, which are of this standard, or very nearly so, allowing some loss from abrasion. The Phoenician shekel was about 224 grains, varying somewhat in different localities, and the Jewish shekels now in existence vary from 212 to 220 grains. They were coined after the captivity (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=COINS">COINS</A>), but whether this standard was in use before we have no means of knowing.<P>Examples of ancient weights have been discovered in Palestine by archaeological research during recent years, among them one from Samaria, obtained by Dr. Chaplin, bearing the inscription, in Hebrew rebha\' netseph. This is interpreted, by the help of the cognate Arabic, as meaning "quarter-half," i.e. of a shekel. The actual weight <span class="noTag">is</span> 39.2 grains, which, allowing a slight loss, would correspond quite closely to a quarter-shekel of the light Babylonian standard of 160 grains, or the quarter of the half of the double standard. Another specimen discovered at Tell Zakariyeh weighs 154 grains, which would seem to belong to the same standard. The weights, of which illustrations are given in the table, are all in the collection of the Syrian Protestant College, at Beirut, and were obtained from Palestine and Phoenicia and are of the Phoenician standard, which was the common commercial standard of Palestine. The largest, of the spindle or barrel type, weighs 1,350 grains, or 87.46 grams, evidently intended for a 6-shekel weight, and the smaller ones of the same type are fractions of the Phoenician shekel. They were of the same standard, one a shekel and the other a two-shekel weight. They each have 12 faces, and the smaller has a lion stamped on each face save one, reminding us of the lion-weights discovered in Assyria and Babylonia. The spindle weights are of black stone, the others of bronze.<P>The above is the Phoenician standard. In the Babylonian the shekel would be 160 or 320 grains; the maneh 8,000 or 16,000, and the talent 480,000 or 960,000 grains, according as it was of the light or heavy standard.``138';
isbe[9176]='Well`(1) (be\'er; compare Arabic bi\'r, "well" or "cistern"; usually artificial: "And Isaac\'s servants digged (dug) in the valley, and found there a well of springing (margin "living") water" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,19);">Ge 26:19</a>); some times covered: "Jacob...rolled the stone from the well\'s mouth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',29,10);">Ge 29:10</a>). Be\'er may also be a pit: "The vale of Siddim was full of slime pits" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,10);">Ge 14:10</a>); "the pit of destruction" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',55,23);">Ps 55:23</a>).<P>(2) (bor), usually "pit": "Let us slay him, and cast him into one of the pits" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,20);">Ge 37:20</a>); may be "well": "drew water out of the well of Beth-lehem" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,16);">2Sa 23:16</a>).<P>(3) (pege), usually "running water," "fount," or "source": "Doth the fountain send forth from the same opening sweet water and bitter?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',3,11);">Jas 3:11</a>); may be "well"; compare "Jacob\'s well" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,6);">Joh 4:6</a>).<P>(4) (phrear), usually "pit": "the pit of the abyss" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',9,1);">Re 9:1</a>); but "well"; compare "Jacob\'s well" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,11,12);">Joh 4:11,12</a>): "Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a well" (the King James Version "pit") (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',14,5);">Lu 14:5</a>).<P>(5) (krene), "wells" (Sirach 48:17), Latin, fons, "spring" (2Esdras 2:32).<P>(6) ayin), compare Arabic \'ain "fountain," "spring": "the fountain (English Versions of the Bible) which is in Jezreel" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',29,1);">1Sa 29:1</a>); "In Elim were twelve springs (the King James Version "fountains") of water" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,9);">Nu 33:9</a>); "She (Rebekah) went down to the fountain" (the King James Version "well") (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,16);">Ge 24:16</a>); "the jackal\'s well" (the English Revised Version "the dragon\'s well," the King James Version "the dragon well") (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',2,13);">Ne 2:13</a>).<P>(7) (ma\'yan), same root as (6); "the fountain (the King James Version "well") of the waters of Nephtoah" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',18,15);">Jos 18:15</a>); "Passing through the valley of Weeping (the King James Version "Baca") they make it a place of springs" (the King James Version "well") (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',84,6);">Ps 84:6</a>); "Ye shall draw water out of the wells of salvation" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',12,3);">Isa 12:3</a>).<P>(8) (maqor), usually figurative: "With thee is the fountain of life" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',36,9);">Ps 36:9</a>); "The mouth of the righteous is a fountain (the King James Version "well") of life" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',10,11);">Pr 10:11</a>); "make her (Babylon\'s) fountain (the King James Version "spring") dry" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,36);">Jer 51:36</a>); "a corrupted spring" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',25,26);">Pr 25:26</a>).<P>(9) (mabbu\'), (nabha\', "to flow," "spring," "bubble up"; compare Arabic (nab\', manba\', yanbu\') "fountain": "or the pitcher is broken at the fountain" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',12,6);">Ec 12:6</a>); "the thirsty ground springs of water" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',35,7);">Isa 35:7</a>).<P>(10) (motsa\')," spring," (yatsa\')," to go out," "the dry land springs of water" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',41,18);">Isa 41:18</a>); "a dry land into watersprings" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',107,35);">Ps 107:35</a>); "the upper spring of the waters of Gihon" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',32,30);">2Ch 32:30</a>).<P>(11) (nebhekh), root uncertain, reading doubtful; only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',38,16);">Job 38:16</a>, "Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea?"<P>(12) (tehom), "deep," "abyss"; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,2);">Ge 1:2</a>; translated "springs," the King James Version "depths" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',8,7);">De 8:7</a>).<P>(13) (gal), (galal), "to roll"; compare Gilgal (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',5,9);">Jos 5:9</a>); "a spring shut up" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',4,12);">So 4:12</a>).<P>(14) (gullah), "bowl," "basin," "pool," same root: "Give me also springs of water. And he gave her the upper sprigs and the nether springs" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,19);">Jos 15:19</a>); compare Arabic (kullat), pronounced gullat, "a marble," "a cannon-ball."<P>As is clear from references cited above, wells and springs were not sharply distinguished in name, though be\'er, and phrear are used mainly of wells, and \'ayin, ma\'yan, motsa\', mabbua\' and (poetically) maqor are chiefly used of fountains. The Arabic bi\'r, the equivalent of the Hebrew be\'er, usually denotes a cistern for rain-water, though it may be qualified as bi\'r jam\', "well of gathering," i.e. for rain-water, or as bi\'r nab\', "well of springing water." A spring or natural fountain is called in Arabic \'ain or nab\' (compare Hebrew \'ayin and mabbua\'). These Arabic and Hebrew words for "well" and "spring" figure largely in place-names, modern and ancient: Beer (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,16);">Nu 21:16</a>); Beer-elim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',15,8);">Isa 15:8</a>), etc.; \'Ain<P>(a) on the northeast boundary of Palestine (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',34,11);">Nu 34:11</a>),<P>(b) in the south of Judah, perhaps = En-rimmon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,32);">Jos 15:32</a>); Enaim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',38,14);">Ge 38:14</a>); Enam (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,34);">Jos 15:34</a>), etc.<P>Modern Arabic names with \'ain are very numerous, e.g. \'Ainul-fashkhah, \'Ain-ul-chajleh, \'Ain-karim, etc.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CISTERN">CISTERN</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FOUNTAIN">FOUNTAIN</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PIT">PIT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=POOL">POOL</a>`37';
isbe[9177]='Well, Jacob\'s``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JACOB\'s+well">JACOB\'S WELL</a>`1';
isbe[9178]='Wellspring`wel\'-spring (maqor): Usually "spring" or "fountain" (figuratively), translated "wellspring" only in two passages: "Understanding is a wellspring of life unto him that hath it" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',16,22);">Pr 16:22</a>); "The wellspring of wisdom is as a flowing brook" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',18,4);">Pr 18:4</a>). See Burroughs, Pepacton, p. 35; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WELL">WELL</A>.``1';
isbe[9179]='Wen`Only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,22);">Le 22:22</a>, "maimed" or "having a wen (margin "sores"), or scurvy," for (yabbal), "running," hence, "a suppurating sore" (compare the Revised Version margin). A "wen" is a non-inflamed indolent tumor, and so "wen" is about as far as possible from the meaning of the Hebrew.``1';
isbe[9180]='Wench`wench, wensh (shiphchah): The word "wench" is found only in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',17,17);">2Sa 17:17</a> the King James Version, where the Revised Version (British and American) has "maid-servant." The Hebrew word shiphchah here used is a common term for maid-servant, female slave. the King James Version used the word "wench" to convey the meaning maid-servant, which was a common use of the word at that time, but it is now practically obsolete.``1';
isbe[9181]='West`(1) Usually (yam), "sea" because the Mediterranean lies to the west of Palestine; not usually in figurative expressions; but compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',11,10);">Ho 11:10</a>.<P>(2) Often (ma\'arabh); compare Arabic (gharb), and (maghrib), "west" (maghrib-ush-shems), or simply (maghrib), "sunset."<P>(3) (mebho\' ha-chemesh), "entrance of the sun," (mabho\', bo\')," to come in." (Just as mizrach, is the rising of the sun, or east, so mabho\' (or ma\'arabh], is the setting of the sun, or west: "From the rising of the sun (mizrach-shemesh) unto the going down (mabho) thereof" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',50,1);">Ps 50:1</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',113,3);">113:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',1,11);">Mal 1:11</a>).)<P>(4) (dusme, from duo), "to enter," "sink," "set." The Greek usage is parallel to the Hebrew just cited: "Many shall come from the east anatole, "rising") and the west" (dusme, "setting") (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',8,11);">Mt 8:11</a>).<P>The chief figurative use of the word "west" is in combination with "east" to denote great or infinite distance, as:<P class="in15">"As far as the east is from the west,<br>So far hath he removed our transgressions from us" <br>(<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',103,12);">Ps 103:12</a>).``37';
isbe[9182]='Whale`hwal:<P>(1) ketos (Sirach 43:25 (the Revised Version (British and American) "sea-monster"); The Song of Three Children verse 57 (the Revised Version (British and American) "whale"); <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,40);">Mt 12:40</a> (the Revised Version (British and American) "whale," margin "sea-monster"; the King James Version "whale" throughout)).<P>(2) tannin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,21);">Ge 1:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',7,12);">Job 7:12</a>), "sea-monster," the King James Version "whale."<P>(3) tannim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',32,2);">Eze 32:2</a>), "monster," the English Revised Version "dragon" the King James Version "whale" the King James Version margin "dragon."<P>It will be seen from the above references that the word "whale" does not occur in the Revised Version (British and American) except in The Song of Three Children verse 57 and <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,40);">Mt 12:40</a>. Ketos, the original word in these passages, is, according to Liddell and Scott, used by Aristotle for "whale," Aristotle using also the adjective ketodes, "cetacean"; Homer and Herodotus used ketos for any large fish or sea-monster or for a seal. It is used in Euripides of the monster to which Andromeda was exposed. In the Hebrew, in the Book of Jonah, we find dagh or daghah, the ordinary word for "fish": "And Yahweh prepared great fish to swallow up Jonah" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jon\',1,17);">Jon 1:17</a>). Whales are found in the Mediterranean and are sometimes cast up on the shore of Palestine, but it is not likely that the ancient Greeks or Hebrews were very familiar with them, and it is by no means certain that whale is referred to, either in the original Jonah story or in the New Testament reference to it. If any particular animal is meant, it is more likely a shark. Sharks are much more familiar objects in the Mediterranean than whales, and some of them are of large size.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FISH">FISH</A>.<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,21);">Ge 1:21</a>, "And God created the great seamonsters" (the King James Version, "whales"), and <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',7,12);">Job 7:12</a>,<P class="in15">"Am I a sea, or a sea-monster (the King James Version "whale"),<br>That thou settest a watch over me?"<P>The Hebrew has tannin, which word occurs 14 times in the Old Testament and in the American Standard Revised Version is translated "monster," "sea-monster," or "serpent," and, exceptionally, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',4,3);">La 4:3</a>, "jackals." the King James Version renders in several passages "dragon" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',29,3);">Eze 29:3</a> the English Revised Version).<P>Tannim in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',29,3);">Eze 29:3</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',32,2);">32:2</A> is believed to stand for tannin. the American Standard Revised Version has "monster," the English Revised Version "dragon," the King James Version "whale," the King James Version margin "dragon," in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',32,2);">Eze 32:2</a>, and "dragon" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',29,3);">29:3</a>. Tannim occurs in 11 other passages, where it is considered to be the plural of tan, and in the Revised Version (British and American) is translated "jackals," in the King James Version "dragons" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',30,29);">Job 30:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',44,19);">Ps 44:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',13,22);">Isa 13:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,13);">34:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',35,7);">35:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',43,20);">43:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',9,11);">Jer 9:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',10,22);">10:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',14,6);">14:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',49,33);">49:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,37);">51:37</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',1,3);">Mal 1:3</a> we find the feminine plural tannoth.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DRAGON">DRAGON</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JACKAL">JACKAL</a>`37';
isbe[9183]='Wheat`hwet<P>(1) chittah, the specific word for wheat (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,14);">Ge 30:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,22);">Ex 34:22</a>, etc.), with puros (Judith 3:3; Sirach 39:26);<P>(2) bar, or bar (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',23,28);">Jer 23:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',2,24);">Joe 2:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',5,11);">Am 5:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',8,6);">8:6</a>); in other passages translated "grain" or "corn";<P>(3) sitos (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,12);">Mt 3:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,25,29,30);">13:25,29,30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,17);">Lu 3:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,7);">16:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,31);">22:31</a>, etc.) (for other words translated occasionally "wheat" in the King James Version see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CORN">CORN</A>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FOOD">FOOD</a>)): Wheat, usually the bearded variety, is cultivated all over Palestine, though less so than barley. The great plain of the Hauran is a vast expanse of wheat fields in the spring; considerable quantities are exported via Beirut, Haifa, and Gaza. The "wheat harvest" was in olden times one of the regular divisions of the year (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,22);">Ex 34:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',15,1);">Jud 15:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',12,17);">1Sa 12:17</a>); it follows the barley harvest (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',9,31,32);">Ex 9:31,32</a>), occurring in April, May or June, according to the altitude.``117';
isbe[9184]='Wheel`hwel:<P>(1) \'ophan, is the usual word (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,25);">Ex 14:25</a>, etc.). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',20,26);">Pr 20:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',28,27);">Isa 28:27</a> the rollers of a threshing wagon are meant (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=AGRICULTURE">AGRICULTURE</a>).<P>(2) galgal, "rolling thing," generally in the sense of "wheel" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',5,28);">Isa 5:28</a>, etc.), but the Revised Version (British and American) in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',10,2,6,13);">Eze 10:2,6,13</a> has "whirling wheels," an advantageous change. The "wheel...broken at the cistern" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',12,6);">Ec 12:6</a> is the windlass for drawing the water, and by the figure the breakdown of the old man\'s breathing apparatus is probably meant. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',83,13);">Ps 83:13</a>, the King James Version has "wheel," but this translation (that of the Septuagint) is quite impossible; the Revised Version (British and American) "whirling dust" (sucked up by a miniature whirlwind) is perhaps right, but the translations proposed are end-less.<P>(3) gilgal, <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',28,28);">Isa 28:28</a>, the roller of a threshing wagon.<P>(4) \'obhnayim, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',18,3);">Jer 18:3</a>. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=POTTER">POTTER</a>.<P>(5) pa\'am, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,28);">Jud 5:28</a>, literally, "step" (so the Revised Version margin), and the sound of horses\' hoofs is intended.<P>(6) trochos, Sirach 33:5; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',3,6);">Jas 3:6</a> (the King James Version "course"). In the former passage, "The heart of a fool is as a cart-wheel," the changeableness of a light disposition is satirized. In James the figure is of a wheel in rotation, so that a flame starting at any point is quickly communicated to the whole. Just so an apparently insignificant sin of the tongue produces an incalculably destructive effect.<P>The phrase "wheel of nature" (trochos tes geneseos) is used here for "the world in progress." It is not a very natural figure and has given rise to much discussion. the King James Version accents trochos ("course") instead of trochos ("wheel"). but the language throughout is metaphorical and "course" is not a sufficiently metaphorical word. The translation "birth" for geneseos (so the Revised Version margin). i.e. "a wheel set in motion by birth." is out of the question. as the argument turns on results wider than any individual\'s existence. "Wheel of nature" is certainly right. But a comparison of life to a wheel in some sense or other (chiefly that of "Fortune\'s wheel") is common enough in Greek and Latin writers, and, indeed the exact combination trochos geneseos is found in at least one (Orphic) writer (full references in the commentaries of Mayor and W. Bauer). It would seem, then, that James had heard the phrase, and he used it as a striking figure, with entire indifference to any technical significance it might have. This supposition is preferable to that of an awkward translation from the Aramaic.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=COURSE">COURSE</a>`48';
isbe[9185]='Whelp`hwelp (gur, or gor; either absol. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',19,2,3,5);">Eze 19:2,3,5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Nah\',2,12);">Nah 2:12</a>); or constr. with \'aryeh, "lion" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,9);">Ge 49:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,22);">De 33:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,38);">Jer 51:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Nah\',2,11);">Na 2:11</a>); also benelabhi\', literally, "sons of a lioness," translated "the whelps of the lioness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',4,11);">Job 4:11</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',28,8);">Job 28:8</a>, the King James Version has "lion\'s whelps" for bene shachats, which the Revised Version (British and American) renders "proud beasts," margin "sons of pride." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',4,3);">La 4:3</a> gur is used of the young of tannin the Revised Version (British and American) "jackal," the King James Version "sea-monsters," the King James Version margin "sea-calves"; it may possibly mean "wolves"; skumnos, the technical word for "lion\'s whelp" (1Macc 3:4)): These references are all figurative: "Judah is a lion\'s whelp" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,9);">Ge 49:9</a>); "Dan is a lion\'s whelp" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,22);">De 33:22</a>); it is said of the Babylonians, "They shall roar together like young lions; they shall growl as lions\' whelps" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,38);">Jer 51:38</a>); of the Assyrians, "Where is the den of the lions, and the feeding-place of the young lions, where the lion and the lioness walked, the lion\'s whelp, and none made them afraid? The lion did tear in pieces enough for his whelps, and strangled for his lionesses, and filled his caves with prey, and his dens with ravin" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Nah\',2,11,12);">Na 2:11,12</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',19,\'2-9\');">Eze 19:2-9</a>, the princes of Israel are compared to lions\' whelps.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DRAGON">DRAGON</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LION">LION</a>`37';
isbe[9186]='Whirlwind`hwurl\'-wind (cuphah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',1,27);">Pr 1:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',10,25);">10:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',5,28);">Isa 5:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',17,13);">17:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',66,15);">66:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',8,7);">Ho 8:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',1,14);">Am 1:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Nah\',1,3);">Nah 1:3</a>), ca\'ar (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',3,14);">Hab 3:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',7,14);">Zec 7:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',13,3);">Ho 13:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',58,9);">Ps 58:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',11,40);">Da 11:40</a>), ce\'arah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',2,1);">2Ki 2:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',38,1);">Job 38:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',40,6);">40:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,24);">Isa 40:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',41,16);">41:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',9,14);">Zec 9:14</a>)): When two currents from opposite directions meet, a circular motion results called a whirlwind. On the sea this takes up small particles of water from the sea and condenses some of the moisture in the clouds above, forming a great funnel-shaped column. They are quite common off the coast of Syria. Considerable damage might be done to a small ship overtaken by them. In the desert sand is taken up in the same way, causing terrible sandstorms which are greatly dreaded by caravans. Most of the references in the Bible do not necessarily imply a circular motion, and the word "tempest" might be used in translation.<P>Storms usually come from the southwest. "Out of the...south cometh the storm" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',37,9);">Job 37:9</a>); yet in Ezekiel\'s vision he saw a whirlwind coming out of the north (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,4);">Eze 1:4</a>). Elijah "went up by a whirlwind into heaven" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',2,11);">2Ki 2:11</a>). The whirlwind indicates the power and might of Yahweh: "Yahweh hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Nah\',1,3);">Na 1:3</a>); He "answered Job out of the whirlwind" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',38,1);">Job 38:1</a>).<P>Most of the Scriptural uses are figurative; of destruction: "He will take them away with a whirlwind" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',58,9);">Ps 58:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',1,27);">Pr 1:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',10,25);">10:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',13,3);">Ho 13:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',11,40);">Da 11:40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',1,14);">Am 1:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',3,14);">Hab 3:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',7,14);">Zec 7:14</a>); of quickness: "wheels as a whirlwind" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',5,28);">Isa 5:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',66,15);">66:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',4,13);">Jer 4:13</a>); of the anger of God: "A whirlwind of the Lord is gone forth in fury" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',23,19);">Jer 23:19</a> the King James Version); of punishment to the wicked: "A continuing whirlwind...shall fall...on the wicked" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',30,23);">Jer 30:23</a> the King James Version).``85';
isbe[9187]='White`hwit.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=COLORS">COLORS</a>`1';
isbe[9188]='White Horse``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HORSE,+WHITE">HORSE, WHITE</a>`1';
isbe[9189]='Whitewash`hwit\'wosh: the American Revised Version margin gives "whitewash" for "untempered mortar" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',13,10);">Eze 13:10</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',22,28);">22:28</A>. \'Her prophets have daubed for them,\' i.e. seconded them, "with whitewash," thus giving "a slight wall" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',13,10);">13:10</a> margin) a specious appearance of strength.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MORTAR">MORTAR</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=UNTEMPERED">UNTEMPERED</a>`1';
isbe[9190]='Whole; Wholesome`hol, hol\'-sum: "Whole," originally "hale" (a word still in poetic use), had at first the meaning now expressed by its derivative "healthy." In this sense "whole" is fairly common (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',5,18);">Job 5:18</a>, etc.) in English Versions of the Bible, although much more common in the New Testament than in the Old Testament. From this meaning "healthy," the transition to the modern force. "complete," "perfect," "entire" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,6);">Ex 12:6</a>, ere) was not unnatural, and it is in this later sense alone that the adverb "wholly" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,22);">Le 6:22</a>, etc.) is used. "Wholesome," however, is derived from the earlier meaning of "whole." It occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',15,4);">Pr 15:4</a>, the King James Version, the English Revised Version, "a wholesome tongue" (rapha\', "heal," the Revised Version margin "the healing of the tongue," the American Standard Revised Version "a gentle tongue"), and in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,3);">1Ti 6:3</a>, the King James Version "wholesome words" (hugiaino, "be healthy," the Revised Version margin "healthful," the Revised Version (British and American) "sound").``48';
isbe[9191]='Whore; Whoredom`hor, hor\'-dum.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CRIMES">CRIMES</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HARLOT">HARLOT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PUNISHMENTS">PUNISHMENTS</a>`1';
isbe[9192]='Wickedness`wik\'-ed-nes:<P>1. In the Old Testament:<P>The state of being wicked; a mental disregard for justice, righteousness, truth, honor, virtue; evil in thought and life; depravity; sinfulness; criminality. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SIN">SIN</a>. Many words are rendered "wickedness." There are many synonyms for wickedness in English and also in the Hebrew. Pride and vanity lead to it: "All the proud, and all that work wickedness (rish\'ah) shall be stubble" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',4,1);">Mal 4:1</a>). Akin to this is the word \'awen, "iniquity," "vanity": "She eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',30,20);">Pr 30:20</a>). Then we have the word hawwah, meaning "mischief," "calamity," coming from inward intent upon evil: "Lo, this is the man that made not God his strength, but trusted in the abundance of his riches, and strengthened himself in his wickedness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',52,7);">Ps 52:7</a>); zimmah, "wickedness" in thought, carnality or lust harbored: "And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,14);">Le 20:14</a>); \'awlah, "perverseness," "Neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as at the first" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',7,10);">2Sa 7:10</a>). The word for evil ra\' is many times employed to represent wickedness: "Remember all their wickedness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',7,2);">Ho 7:2</a>). Wickedness like all forms and thoughts of wrong, kept warm in mind, seems to be a thing of growth; it begins with a thought, then a deed, then a character, and finally a destiny. Even in this life men increase in wickedness till they have lost all desire for that which is good in the sight of God and good men; the men in the vision of Isaiah seem to be in a condition beyond which the human heart cannot go: "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',5,20);">Isa 5:20</a>). Shades of thought are added by such words as roa\', "evil," "badness": "Give them according to their work, and according to the wickedness of their doings" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',28,4);">Ps 28:4</a>). And resha\' or rish\'ah, also gives the common thought of wrong, wickedness. The prophets were strong in denunciations of all iniquity, perverseness, and in announcing the curse of God which would certainly follow.<P>2. In the New Testament:<P>Wickedness, malignity, evil in thought and purpose is presented by the word poneria: "But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why make ye trial of me, ye hypocrites?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,18);">Mt 22:18</a>). Jesus points out the origin of all wrong: "For from within, out of the heart of men, evil thoughts proceed...wickednesses, deceit, lasciviousness...all these evil things proceed from within, and defile the man" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,\'21-23\');">Mr 7:21-23</a>). See Imitation of Christ, xiii, 5.``45';
isbe[9193]='Widow`wid\'-o (\'almanah; chera): In the Old Testament widows are considered to be under the special care of Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',68,5);">Ps 68:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',146,9);">146:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',15,25);">Pr 15:25</a>). Sympathetic regard for them comes to be viewed as a mark of true religion (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',31,16);">Job 31:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,27);">Jas 1:27</a>). Deuteronomy is rich in counsel in their behalf (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',24,17);">24:17</a>, etc.).<P>The word is first mentioned in the New Testament in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',6,1);">Ac 6:1</a>: "There arose a murmuring of the Grecian Jews against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration." Paul charges that they be particularly cared for, especially those that are "widows indeed," i.e. poor, without support and old (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',5,\'2-16\');">1Ti 5:2-16</a>). Some try to find proof in this passage of that ecclesiastical order of widows mentioned in post-apostolic writings.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LITERATURE,+SUB+APOSTOLIC">LITERATURE, SUB-APOSTOLIC</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WOMAN">WOMAN</a>`47';
isbe[9194]='Wife`wif.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MARRIAGE">MARRIAGE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RELATIONSHIPS,+FAMILY">RELATIONSHIPS, FAMILY</a>`1';
isbe[9195]='Wife, Brother\'s``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MARRIAGE">MARRIAGE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RELATIONSHIPS,+FAMILY">RELATIONSHIPS, FAMILY</a>`1';
isbe[9196]='Wild Beast`wild best:<P>(1) ziz, only with sadhay, "field," in the expression, ziz sadhay, translated "wild beasts of the field" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',50,11);">Ps 50:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',80,13);">80:13</a>); compare Targum to <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',80,13);">Ps 80:13</a>, ziza\', "worm" (BDB); Arabic ziz, "worm."<P>(2) tsiyim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',13,21);">Isa 13:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,14);">34:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',50,39);">Jer 50:39</a>).<P>(3) \'iyim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',13,21);">Isa 13:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,14);">34:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',50,39);">Jer 50:39</a>).<P>(4) chay, "living thing," often translated "wild beast" in English Versions of the Bible (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',17,46);">1Sa 17:46</a>, etc.).<P>(5) In Apocrypha (Additions to Esther 16:24, etc.) and the New Testament (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,13);">Mr 1:13</a>), therion.<P>(6) <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,12);">Ac 10:12</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,6);">Ac 11:6</a>, tetrapodon, the Revised Version (British and American) "four-rooted beast."<P>(1), (2) and (3) are of doubtful etymology, but the context makes it clear in each case that wild beasts of some sort are meant. The Targum ziza\', "worm," is possible in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',80,13);">Ps 80:13</a>, though not probable in view of the parallel "boar": "The boar out of the wood doth ravage it, and the wild beasts of the field feed on it," i.e. on the vine (figurative) brought out of Egypt. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',50,11);">Ps 50:11</a>, however, such an interpretation is out of the question. All the references from <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',50,\8-13\');">50:8 to 50:13</a> are to large animals, bullocks, goats, cattle and birds. Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) and the Septuagint have in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',80,13);">80:13</A> "wild beast" and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',50,11);">50:11</A> "beauty of the field" (translated)!<P>Tsiyim, doubtfully referred to tsiydh, "drought," occurs in prophecies of the desolation of Babylon in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',13,21);">Isa 13:21</a> ("wild beasts of the desert") and <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',50,39);">Jer 50:39</a>, of Edom in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,14);">Isa 34:14</a>, of Assyria in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',23,13);">Isa 23:13</a> ("them that dwell in the wilderness"). It is associated in these passages with names of wild beasts and birds, some of them of very doubtful meaning, such as tannim, \'ochim, \'iyim, se\'irim, benoth ya\'anah. Wild beasts of some sort are clearly meant, though the kind can only be conjectured. The word occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',74,14);">Ps 74:14</a> ("the people inhabiting the wilderness") where it is possible to understand "beasts" instead of people. It occurs also in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',72,9);">Ps 72:9</a> ("they that dwell in the wilderness"), where it seems necessary to understand "men." If the reading stands, it is not easy to reconcile this passage with the others.<p>\'Iyim occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',13,21);">Isa 13:21</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,14);">34:14</A> and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',50,39);">Jer 50:39</a>, three of the passages cited for tsiyim. the King James Version referring to \'i, "island," renders "wild beasts of the islands" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',13,22);">Isa 13:22</a>). the Revised Version (British and American) has "wolves," margin "howling creatures"; compare Arabic \'anwa\', "to howl," and ibn-\'awa\' or wawi, "jackal."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JACKAL">JACKAL</a>`37';
isbe[9197]='Wild Ox`(re\'em): The word "unicorn" occurs in the King James Version in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',23,22);">Nu 23:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',24,8);">24:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,17);">De 33:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',39,9,10);">Job 39:9,10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',22,21);">Ps 22:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',29,6);">29:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',92,10);">92:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,7);">Isa 34:7</a> (the King James Version margin "rhinoceros"). the Revised Version (British and American) has everywhere "wild-ox" (margin "ox-antelope," <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',23,22);">Nu 23:22</a>). The Septuagint has monokeros, "one-horned," except in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,7);">Isa 34:7</a>, where we find hoi hadroi, "the large ones," "the bulky ones." In this passage also the Septuagint has hoi krioi, "the rams," instead of English Versions of the Bible "bullocks." Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) has rhinoceros in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',23,22);">Nu 23:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',24,8);">24:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,17);">De 33:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',39,9,10);">Job 39:9,10</a>; and unicornis in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',22,21);">Ps 22:21 (Hebrew 22)</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',29,6);">29:6 (Hebrew 28:6)</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',92,10);">92:10 (Hebrew 91:11)</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,7);">Isa 34:7</a>.<P>As stated in the articles on <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ANTELOPE">ANTELOPE</a> and <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CATTLE">CATTLE</a>, re\'em and te\'o (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,5);">De 14:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',51,20);">Isa 51:20</a>) may both be the Arabian oryx (Oryx beatrix), of which the common vernacular name means "wild-ox." It may be presumed that "ox-antelope" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',23,22);">Nu 23:22</a> the Revised Version margin is meant to indicate this animal, which is swift and fierce, and has a pair of very long, sharp and nearly straight horns. The writer feels, however, that more consideration should be given to the view of Tristram (Natural History of the Bible) that re\'em is the urus or aurochs, the primitive Bos taurus, which seems to be depicted in Assyrian monuments and referred to as remu (BDB). The etymology of re\'em is uncertain, but the word may be from a root signifying "to rise" or "to be high." At any rate, there is no etymological warrant for the assumption that it was a one-horned creature. The Arabic raim, is used of a light-colored gazelle. The great strength and fierceness implied in most of the references suit the wild-ox better than the oryx. On the other hand, Edom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,7);">Isa 34:7</a>) was adjacent to the present home of the oryx, while there is no reason to suppose that the wild-ox came nearer than Northern Assyria. There is possibly a reference to the long horns of the oryx in "But my horn hast thou exalted like the horn of the wild-ox" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',92,10);">Ps 92:10</a>). For te\'o, The Septuagint has orux, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,5);">De 14:5</a> (but seutlion hemiephthon, "half-boiled beet" (!) in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',51,20);">Isa 51:20</a>). Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) has oryx in both passages. While we admit that both re\'em and te\'o may be the oryx, it is perhaps best to follow the Revised Version margin, rendering re\'em "wild-ox." The rendering of "antelope" (Revised Version) for te\'o is defensible, but "oryx" would be better, because the oryx is the only antelope that could possibly be meant, it and the gazelle (tsebhi), already mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,5);">De 14:5</a>, being the only antelopes known to occur in Palestine and Arabia. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,7);">Isa 34:7</a> it seems to be implied that the re\'em might be used in sacrifice.<P>Figurative: The wild-ox is used as a symbol of the strength of Israel: "He hath as it were the strength of the wild-ox". (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',23,22);">Nu 23:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',24,8);">24:8</a>). In the blessing of the children of Israel by Moses it is said of Joseph:<P class="in15">"And his horns are the horns of the wild-ox:<br>With them he shall push the peoples all of them,<br>even the ends of the earth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,17);">De 33:17</a>).<P>The Psalmist (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',29,5,6);">Ps 29:5,6</a>) in describing the power of Yahweh says:<P class="in15">"Yea, Yahweh breaketh in pieces the cedars of Lebanon.<br>He maketh them also to skip like a calf;<br>Lebanon and Sirion like a young wild-ox."<P>Again, in praise for Yahweh\'s goodness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',92,10);">Ps 92:10</a>): "But my horn hast thou exalted like the horn of the wildox."<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',39,\'9-12\');">Job 39:9-12</a> the subduing and training of the wild-ox are cited among the things beyond man\'s power and understanding.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ANTELOPE">ANTELOPE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CATTLE">CATTLE</a>`37';
isbe[9198]='Wilderness`wil\'-der-nes.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DESERT">DESERT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUDAEA,+WILDERNESS+OF">JUDAEA, WILDERNESS OF</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WANDERINGS+OF+ISRAEL">WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL</a>`1';
isbe[9199]='Will``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TESTAMENT">TESTAMENT</a>`1';
isbe[9200]='Will, Volition`vo-lish\'-un (\'abhah, ratson; thelo) boulomai, thelema: "Will" as noun and verb, transitive and intrans, carries in it the idea of "wish," "purpose," "volition." "Will" is also used as an auxiliary of the future tense of other words, but the independent verb is frequent, and it is often important to distinguish between it and the mere auxiliary, especially in the New Testament.<P>In the Old Testament the word chiefly rendered "to will" is \'abhah, "to breathe after," "to long for." With the exception of <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',39,9);">Job 39:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,19);">Isa 1:19</a>, it is accompanied by a negation, and is used of both man and God. Several other words are employed, but only sparsely. "Will" as noun is the translation chiefly of ratson, "good-will," "willfulness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,6);">Ge 49:6</a>), with emphasis on the voluntariness of action (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,3);">Le 1:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,5);">19:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,19,29);">22:19,29</a>, etc.); also of nephesh, and a few other words. In the New Testament "will" is chiefly the translation of thelo and boulomai, the difference between the two being that thelo expresses an active choice or purpose, boulomai, "passive inclination or willingness, or the inward predisposition from which the active choice proceeds" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,9,12);">Mr 15:9,12</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,15);">15:15</a>). "Will," noun, is thelema. With the exception of a few passages, it is used of the will of God (over all, <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,14);">Mt 18:14</a>; in all things to be done, <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,10);">Mt 6:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,42);">26:42</a> parallel, etc.; ordering all things, <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,11);">Eph 1:11</a>, etc.); human will, however, may oppose itself to the will of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,25);">Lu 23:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,13);">Joh 1:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,18);">Ro 7:18</a>; here the capacity to will is distinguished from the power to do, etc.). Boulema is properly counsel or purpose. While it is possible to oppose the will of God, His counsel or purpose cannot be frustrated (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,23);">Ac 2:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',4,28);">4:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,19);">Ro 9:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,11);">Eph 1:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',6,17);">Heb 6:17</a>); it may, however, be resisted for a time (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,30);">Lu 7:30</a>).<P>In Apocrypha, for "will" we have thelema (1Esdras 9:9 (of God); Ecclesiasticus 43:16; 1Macc 3:60; Ecclesiasticus 8:15, "his own will"); boule (<span class="noTag">The Wisdom of Solomon 9:13</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "counsel); boulema (2Macc 15:5, "wicked will," the Revised Version (British and American) "cruel purpose"); "willful" (Ecclesiasticus 30:8) is proales, the Revised Version (British and American) "headstrong"; "willing" (<span class="noTag">The Wisdom of Solomon 14:19</span>), boulomai, the Revised Version (British and American) "wishing"; thelo (Ecclesiasticus 6:35); "wilt" (<span class="noTag">The Wisdom of Solomon 12:18</span>), thelo, the Revised Version (British and American) "hast the will" (compare 2Macc 7:16).<P>The Revised Version (British and American) has many changes, several of them of note as bringing out the distinction between the auxiliary and the independent verb. Thus, <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,27);">Mt 11:27</a>, "willeth to"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',7,17);">Joh 7:17</a>, "if any man willeth to do his will"; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,9);">1Ti 6:9</a>, the American Standard Revised Version "they that are minded to be rich," the English Revised Version "desire," etc.<P>The words employed and passages cited show clearly that man is always regarded as a responsible being, free to will in harmony with the divine will or contrary to it. This is further shown by the various words denoting refusal. "Ye will not come to me, that ye may have life" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,40);">Joh 5:40</a>). So with respect to temptation. We may even choose and act deliberately in opposition to the will of God. Yet God\'s counsel, His will in its completeness, ever prevails, and man, in resisting it, deprives himself of the good it seeks to confer upon him.<P>In modern psychology the tendency is to make will primary and distinctive of personality.``185';
</script>
<script src="./study/isbe/author.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./study/isbe/isbeDisplay.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./js/MainFooter.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink