114 lines
447 KiB
HTML
114 lines
447 KiB
HTML
<!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[3101]='Enflame``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=INFLAME">INFLAME</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3102]='Engage`en-gaj\':<P>From \'arabh, "to pledge," <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',30,21);">Jer 30:21</a>, the King James Version "Who is this that engaged his heart?"; the Revised Version (British and American) "he that hath had boldness?"; the Revised Version, margin Hebrew "hath been surety for his heart?"``1';
|
||
isbe[3103]='Engine`en\'-jin (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',26,15);">2Ch 26:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',26,9);">Eze 26:9</a>; 1Macc 6:51; 13:43f).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SIEGE">SIEGE</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3104]='English Versions`in\'-glish vur\'-shunz:<P>Contents<P>1. Introductory<P>2. The Bible in Anglo-Saxon and Norman Times<P>3. John Wycliffe<P>4. How Far Was the 14th-Century Version Wycliffe\'s Work?<P>5. From Wycliffe to Tyndale<P>6. William Tyndale<P>7. Miles Coverdale<P>8. Matthew\'s Bible<P>9. Richard Taverner<P>10. The Great Bible (Cranmer\'s Bible)<P>11. Reaction, 1541-57<P>12. Edward VI<P>13. Mary<P>14. The Geneva Bible (the "Breeches Bible")<P>15. The Bishops\' Bible<P>16. Rheims and Douai Version<P>17. The Authorized Version<P>18. The Apocrypha<P>19. Further Revisions<P>20. English Revised Version<P>21. American Revised Version<P>22. Has the Revised Version (British and American) Displaced the King James Version?<P>23. LITERATURE<hr /><P>English Versions of the Scriptures.<P>1. Introductory:<P>The battle for vernacular Scripture, the right of a nation to have the sacred writings in its own tongue, was fought and won in England. Ancient VSS, such as the Syriac and the Gothic, were produced to meet obvious requirements of the teacher or the missionary, and met with no opposition from any quarter. The same was the case with the efforts of the Anglo-Saxon church to provide portions of Scripture for the use of the people. Even in later times the Latin church seems to have followed no consistent policy in permitting or forbidding the translation of the Scriptures. In one country the practice was forbidden, in another it was regarded with forbearance or permitted under authority (Addis and Arnold, Catholic Dictionary, London, 1884, article "Bible"); and so it came about that the different nations of Europe came by the inestimable boon of an open Bible in different ways. Germany, for example, after the attempts of numerous translators who seem to have been quite untrammeled in their work owed, under Providence, to the faith, the intrepidity and the genius of Luther the national version which satisfied it for more than three centuries, and, after a recent and essentially conservative revision, satisfies it still. In England, as related below, things took a different course. In the Reformation period the struggle turned mainly on the question of the translation of the Bible.<P>2. The Bible in Anglo-Saxon and Norman Times:<P>The clergy and learned men had always of course access to the Scriptures in the Vulgate, a translation of the original Scriptures into Latin completed by Jerome at the very beginning of the 5th century; and from this version<6F>the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 AD.)<29>practically all further translations were made till the days of Luther. Within a century or little more after the landing of Augustine in England and his settlement at Canterbury (597 AD) Caedmon, a monk of Whitby, produced (670) his metrical version of the Bible, hardly indeed to be reckoned a version of the Scriptures in the ordinary sense, though it paved the way for such. Bede of Jarrow (672-735) translated the Creed and the Lord\'s Prayer and, according to the beautiful letter of his pupil, Cuthbert, breathed his last on the completion of his translation of the Gospel of John into the language of the people. Aldhelm, bishop of Sherborne in the county of Dorset (died 709), translated the Psalter in another translation with which the name of King Alfred is associated; and the other efforts of that ruler to spread the knowledge of the Scriptures among his people are well known. Notice, too, should be taken of the glosses. "The gloss," says Eadie (English Bible, I,14,note), "was neither a free nor yet a literal translation, but the interlinear insertion of the vernacular, word against word of the original, so that the order of the former was really irrespective of idiom and usage." The finest example of these is seen in the Lindisfarne Gospels, which were written in Latin about the year 700, and provided with an interlinear translation about 950 by Aldred, the priest. These with a version of a considerable section of the Old Testament by Aelfric, archbishop of Canterbury about the year 990, comprise the main efforts at Bible translation into English before the Norman Conquest. In Anglo-Saxon there is no proof of the existence of any translation of the complete Bible, or even of the complete New Testament. The sectional VSS, moreover, cannot be shown to have had any influence upon succeeding versions. For nearly three centuries after the Conquest the inter-relations of the different sections of the people and the conditions of the language prevented any real literary progress. The period, however, was marked by the appearance of fragmentary translations of Scripture into Norman French. From some Augustinian monastery, too, in the north of the East Midland district of England, about the year 1200, appeared the Ormulum, a curious metrical work of some 20,000 lines, consisting of a paraphrase of the Gospel of the day and an explanatory homily for 32 days of the year. Like the work of Caedmon the monk, it was not exactly Bible translation, but it doubtless prepared the way for such. Three versions of the Psalter, naturally always a favorite portion of Scripture with the translator, are assigned to the first half of Wycliffe\'s century. The reformer himself in one of his tracts urges a translation of the Bible to suit the humbler classes of society, on the plea that the upper classes already have their version in French. It was only in the long and splendid reign of Edward III (1327-77), when the two races that had existed in the country since the Conquest were perfectly united, that the predominance of English asserted itself, and the growth of the power and of the mental activity of the people instinctively demanded a new form of expression. The century of Wycliffe, it is to be remembered, was also that of Langland, Gower and Chaucer.<P>3. John Wycliffe:<P>Born in Yorkshire about the year 1320, Wycliffe was educated at Balliol College, Oxford, of which he soon became a Fellow and was for a short time Master, resigning the latter position in the year 1361 on his presentation to a living in Lincolnshire. He died at Lutterworth in Leicestcrshire in 1384. It was during the last quarter of his life that he came forward as a friend of the people and as a prolific writer on their behalf. Notwithstanding the external glory of the reign of Edward III, there was much in the ecclesiastical and social circumstances of the time to justify popular discontent. The Pope derived from England alone a revenue larger than that of any prince in Christendom. The nobles resented the extortion and pretensions of the higher clergy; and, according to Green, "the enthusiasm of the Friars, who in the preceding century had preached in praise of poverty, had utterly died away and left a crowd of impudent mendicants behind it." The Black Death, "the most terrible plague the world ever witnessed," fell in the middle of the century and did much further to embitter the already bitter condition of the poor. In France things were no better than in England, and the Turk had settled permanently in Europe. It is not wonderful that Wycliffe began, as is said, his version of the New Testament with the Book of Revelation. With his social teaching the present article is not specially concerned. It probably involved no more than the inculcation of the inherently democratic and leveling doctrines of Christianity, though some of the Lollards, like the Munster peasants in the German Reformation, associated it with dangerous socialistic practice. In any case the application of Christianity to the solution of social problems is not in any age easy to effect in practice. His tracts show (Eadie, I, 59ff) that it was from what Wycliffe had felt the Bible to be to himself that there sprang his strong desire to make the reading of it possible for his countrymen. To this was due the first English version of the Bible. To this also was likewise due the institution of the order of "poor priests" to spread the knowledge of the Bible as widely as possible throughout the country.<P>4. How Far Was the 14th-Century Version Wycliffe\'s Work?:<P>There is some uncertainty as to the exact share which Wycliffe had in the production of the 14th century version. The translation of the New Testament was finished about the year 1380 and in 1382 the translation of the entire Bible was completed, the greater part of the Old Testament being the work of Nicholas Hereford, one of the reformer\'s most ardent supporters at Oxford. The work was revised on thoroughly sound principles of criticism and interpretation, as these are explained in the prologue to the new edition, by John Purvey, one of Wycliffe\'s most intimate friends during the latter part of his life, and finished in 1388. "Other scholars," says Mr. F. G. Kenyon, of the British Museum, "assisted him in his work, and we have no certain means of knowing how much of the translation was actually done by himself. The New Testament is attributed to him, but we cannot say with certainty that it was entirely his own work" (Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts,200,3rd edition, London, 1898). This entirely corresponds with the position taken up by Forshall and Madden, the editors of the great Oxford edition of Wycliffe\'s version issued in 4 large quarto volumes in 1850. That work was undertaken to honor Wycliffe and in some measure to repay England\'s indebtedness to the reformer. The editors were men of the first literary rank; they spent 22 years upon this work; and it is recognized as a credit at once to the scholarship and research of Oxford and of England. Its honest and straightforward Introduction answers by anticipation by far the greater part of the criticisms and claims put forth by Dr. Gasquet (Our Old English Bible and Other Essays, London, 1898; 2nd edition, 1908). The claim is made that the work published in Oxford in 1850 is really not Wycliffe\'s at all but that of his bitterest opponents, the bishops of the English church who represented the party of Rome. Gasquet\'s work on this subject is mainly worthy of notice on account of his meritorious research in other departments of the English Reformation. His arguments and statements are met by Kenyon (op. cit., 204-8). The controversy is further noticed in The Age of Wycliffe, by G. M. Trevelyan (2nd edition, London, 1908), a work which cannot be too highly praised for its deep research, its interesting exposition and its cordial appreciation of the reformer and his works. "Nothing," says Trevelyan (Appendix, 361), "can be more damning than the licenses to particular people to have English Bibles, for they distinctly show that without such licenses it was thought wrong to have them." The age of printing, it is to be remembered, was not yet. The Wycliffe Bible was issued and circulated in copies each of which was written by the hand. About 170 copies of this manuscript Bible are still in existence. They form a striking proof of what England and the world owe to the faith, the courage and the labor of John Wycliffe and his "poor priests."<P>5. From Wycliffe to Tyndale:<P>It is a remarkable fact that before the year 1500 most of the countries of Europe had been supplied with a version of the Scriptures printed in the vernacular tongue, while England had nothing but the scattered copies of the Wycliffe manuscript version. Even Caxton, eager as was his search for works to translate and to print, while he supplied priests with service- books, preachers with sermons, and the clerk with the "Golden Legende," left the Scriptures severely alone. Nor was there a printed English version, even of the New Testament, for close on half a century after Caxton\'s death, a circumstance largely due to the energy of the Tudor dictatorship and the severity of the Arundelian Constitutions enacted by Convocation at Oxford in the year 1408:against Wycliffe and his work. These enactments forbade "upon pain of the greater excommunication the unauthorized translation of any text of the Scriptures into English or any other tongue by way of a book, pamphlet, treatise or the reading of such." Meanwhile the study of the new learning, including that of the original languages of Scripture, though generally resisted by the clergy, was greatly promoted by the invention of printing.<P>6. William Tyndale:<P>Erasmus, perhaps the chief representative name of the new age in the domain of learning, was professor of Greek at Cambridge from 1509 to 1524, and in the 2nd year of his professorship William Tyndale, an Oxford student in the 26th year of his age, migrated to Cambridge to study Greek. Ten years later Tyndale returned to his native county<74>Gloucestershire<72>to take up a private tutorship and there formed the determination which became the one fixed aim of his life<66>to put an English translation, not of the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 AD.) but of the original Greek and Hebrew Scriptures, into the hands of his countrymen. "If God spared him life," he said, "ere many years he would cause a boy that driveth a plow to know more of the Scriptures than the Pope did." Erasmus at Cambridge had uttered a similar aspiration. "He boldly avows his wish for a Bible open and intelligible to all. ....\' I long for the day when the husbandman shall sing to himself portions of the Scriptures as he follows the plow, when the weaver shall hum them to the time of his shuttle, when thetraveler shall while away with their stories the weariness of his journey\'"(Green, History of the English People, 1st edition, 308). In 1522 Tyndale went to London to try to find a patron for his work in Tunstall, bishop of London, who had studied Greek with Latimer at Padua and was one of the most noted humanists of the day. To show himself capable for the work, Tyndale took with him to London a version of a speech of Isocrates. But the Bishop of London\'s service was full; and after spending a year with a friendly alderman in London, "at last," he says in the Preface to his Five Books of Moses, "I understood not only that there was no room in my Lord of London\'s palace to translate the New Testament, but also that there was no place to do it in all England." He left the country and never returned to it. He spent the remaining twelve years of his life in exile and for the most part in great hardship, sustained by steady labor and by the one hope of his life<66>the giving to his countrymen of a reliable version of the Holy Scriptures in their own tongue. He went first to Hamburg, and there, as it seems, issued in the year 1524 versions of Matthew and Mark separately, with marginal notes. Next year he removed to Cologne, and arranged for the printing of the complete New Testament, the translation of which he accomplished alone, from the study of the Greek text of Erasmus in its original and revised editions and by a comparison of these with the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 AD.) and several European vernacular versions which, as already stated, had anticipated that of England. The story of the interruption by Cochlaeus of the actual work of printing, and of his warning the King and Wolsey of the impending invasion of England by Lutheranism, reads like a romance. His interference resulted in the prohibition by the city authorities of the printing of the work and in the sudden flight of Tyndale and his assistant, Joye, who sailed up the Rhine with the precious sheets already printed of their 3,000 quarto edition to Worms, the city of the famous Diet in which Luther four years before had borne his testimony before the Emperor. The place was now Lutheran, and here the work of printing could be carried out in security and at leisure. To baffle his enemies, as it seems, a small octavo edition was first printed without glosses; then the quarto edition was completed. The "pernicious literature" of both editions, without name of the translator, was shipped to England early in 1526; and by 1530 six editions of the New Testament in English (three surreptitiously) were distributed, numbering, it is computed, 15,000 copies. The unfavorable reception of Tyndale\'s work by the King and the church authorities may in some measure be accounted for by the excesses which at the moment were associated with the Reformation in Germany, and by the memories of Lollardism in connection with the work of Wycliffe.<P>So vehement was the opposition at any rate to Tyndale\'s work, and so determined the zeal in buying up and burning the book, that of the six editions above mentioned there "remains of the first edition one fragment only;...of the second one copy, wanting the title-page, and another very imperfect; and of the others, two or three copies which are not however satisfactorily identified" (Westcott, History of the English Bible,45,London, 1868). Meanwhile Tyndale took to working on the Old Testament. Much discussion has taken place on the question whether he knew Hebrew (see Eadie, I, 209ff). Tyndale\'s own distinct avowal is that it was from the Hebrew direct that such translation of the Old Testament as he accomplished was made. Very early in 1531 he published separately versions of Genesis and Deuteronomy, and in the following year the whole of the Pentateuch in one volume, with a preface and marginal glosses. In 1534 appeared the Book of Jonah, with a prologue; and in the same year a new version of the New Testament to counteract one made by Joye from the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 AD.) This has been described by Westcott (op. cit., 185) as "altogether Tyndale\'s noblest monument," mainly on account of its short and pregnant glosses. "Bengel himself is not more terse or pointed." A beautifully illuminated copy of this edition was struck off on vellum and presented to Queen Anne Boleyn; and an edition of his revised New Testament was printed in London<6F>"The first volume of Holy Scripture printed in England"<22>in 1536, the year of the Queen\'s death. Tyndale had for some time lived at Antwerp, enjoying a "considerable yearly exhibition" from the English merchants there; but his enemies in England were numerous, powerful and watchful. In 1534 he was betrayed and arrested; and after an imprisonment of nearly a year and a half at the castle of Vilorde, about 18:miles from Brussels, he was strangled and then burned in 1536, the same year as that of the death of the Queen. The last days of the hero and martyr may have been cheered by the news of the printing of his revised edition of the New Testament in England.<P>7. Miles Coverdale:<P>Miles Coverdale, who first gave England a complete and authorized version of the Bible, was a younger contemporary of Tyndale. Tyndale was a year younger than Luther, who was born in 1483, and Coverdale was four years younger than Tyndale. Born in the North Riding of Yorkshire, he found his way to Cambridge at the time when Erasmus was professor of Greek, and appears at an early date<74>how is not known<77>to have got into the good graces of Crumwell, the "malleus monachorum," factotum and secretary to Wolsey, and later on the King\'s principal abettor in his efforts to render the Church of England thoroughly national, if not to an equal extent Protestant. Adopting the liberal party in the church, he held Lutheran or evangelical views of religion, east off his monastic habit, and, as Bale says, gave himself up wholly to the preaching of the gospel. He is found in 1527 in intimate connection with More and Crumwell and probably from them he received encouragement to proceed with a translation of the Bible. In 1528 he was blamed before Tunstall, bishop of London, as having caused some to desert the mass, the confessional and the worship of images; and seeking safety, he left England for the Continent. He is said by Foxe to have met Tyndale at Hamburg in 1529, and to have given him some help in the translation of the Pentateuch. An uncertainty hangs over Coverdale\'s movements from 1529 to 1535, a period during which much was happening that could not fail to be powerfully changing opinion in England.<P>The result of the Assembly held at Westminster by Warham in May,1530,and of the Convocation held under his successor, Cranmer, in December,1534,was that in the latter it was petitioned that "his Majesty would vouchsafe to decree that the sacred Scriptures should be translated into the English tongue by certain honest and learned men, named for that purpose by his Majesty, and should be delivered to the people according to their learning." Crumwell, meanwhile, who had a shrewd forecast of the trend of affairs, seems to have arranged with Coverdale for the printing of his translation. However this may be, by the year 1534 "he was ready, as he was desired, to set forth" (i.e. to print) his translation; and the work was finished in 1535. And thus, "as the harvest springs from the seed which germinates in darkness, so the entire English Bible, translated no one knows where, presented itself, unheralded and unanticipated, at once to national notice in 1535" (Eadie, I, 266). It is declared on the title-page to be "faithfully and truly translated out of Douche and Latyn into Englishe: MDXXXV." Coverdale\'s own statements about his work leave the impression that he was a conspicuously honest man. Unlike Tyndale who regarded himself as, in a way, a prophet, with his work as a necessity Divinely laid upon him, Coverdale describes that he had no particular desire to undertake the work<72>and how he wrought, as it were, in the language of these days, under a committee from whom he took his instructions and who "required-him to use the Douche (i.e. the German) and the Latyn." He claims further to have done the work entirely himself, and he certainly produced a new version of the Old Testament and a revised version of the New Testament. He used, he says, five sundry interpreters of the original languages. These interpreters were, in all probability, the Vulgate, Luther\'s version, the Zurich or Swiss-German Bible, the Latin version of Pagninus, and he certainly consulted Tyndale on the Pentateuch and the New Testament. He successfully studied musical effect in his sentences and many of the finest phrases in the King James Version are directly traced to Coverdale. His version of the Psalms is that which is retained and is still in daily use in the ritual of the Church of England. Two new editions of Coverdale\'s version were issued in 1537 "with the King\'s most gracious license," and after this the English Bible was allowed to circulate freely. Certain changes in the title-page, prefaces and other details are discussed in the works mentioned at the end of this article.<P>8. Matthew\'s Bible:<P>Convocation meanwhile was not satisfied with Coverdale\'s translation, and Coverdale himself in his honest modesty had expressed the hope that an improved translation should follow his own. Accordingly in 1537<33>probably at the suggestion of, and with some support from, Crumwell and certainly to his satisfaction<6F>a large folio Bible appeared, as edited and dedicated to the King, by Thomas Matthew. This name has, since the days of Foxe, been held to be a pseudonym for John Rogers, the protomartyr of the Marian persecution, a Cambridge graduate who had for some years lived in intimacy with Tyndale at Antwerp, and who became the possessor of his manuscript at his death. Besides the New Testament, Tyndale, as above mentioned, had published translations of the Pentateuch, the Book of Jonah, and portions of the Apocrypha, and had left a manuscript version of Joshua to 2 Chronicles. Rogers, apparently taking all he could find of the work of Tyndale, supplemented this by the work of Coverdale and issued the composite volume with the title, "The Bible, which is all the Holy Scriptures, in which are contayned the Olde and Newe Testaments, truely and purely translated into English by Thomas Matthew. Esaye I, Hearken to, ye heavens, and thou earth, geave eare: for the Lord speaketh. MDXXXVII." After the banning and burning of Tyndale\'s New Testament on its arrival in England 11 years before, it is not easy to account for the royal sanction with which the translation appeared. It was probably granted to the united efforts of Cranmer and Crumwell, aided perhaps by the King\'s desire to show action independent of the church. The royal sanction, it will be noted, was given in the same year in which it was given to Coverdale\'s second edition. That version became the basis of our present Bible. It was on Matthew\'s version that for 75 years thereafter all other versions were based.<P>9. Richard Taverner:<P>Matthew\'s first edition of 1,500 copies was soon exhausted, and a new edition was issued with some revision by Richard Taverner, a cultivated young layman and lawyer who had in his early years been selected by Wolsey for his college at Oxford. He was imprisoned in its cellar for reading Tyndale\'s New Testament; but he was soon released for his singular musical accomplishments. He was an excellent Grecian, of good literary taste and of personal dignity. For the Old Testament curiously enough he made, good Grecian as he was, no use of the Septuagint; but throughout aimed successfully at idiomatic expression, as also at compression and vividness. Some of his changes are kept in the King James Version, such as "parables" for "similitudes" and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,12);">Mt 24:12</a>, "The love of the many shall wax cold," and others. He also does greater justice to the Greek article. His dedication to the king is manly and dignified and compares most favorably with the dedications of other translators, including that of the King James Version. The book appeared in two editions, folio and quarto, in 1539, and in the same year two editions, folio and quarto, of the New Testament. The Bible and the New Testament were each reprinted once, and his Old Testament was adopted in a Bible of 1551. But with these exceptions Taverner\'s version was practically outside of influence on later translations.<P>10. The Great Bible (Cranmer\'s Bible):<P>The next Bible to appear was named from its size. Its pages are fully 15 inches long and over 9 inches broad. It was meant to be in a way a state edition, and is known as the Great Bible. As sufficiently good type, paper and other requisites could not be found in England, it was resolved that it should be printed in Paris. Coverdale and Grafton, the printer, went to Paris to superintend the printing; but the French church authorities interfered and the presses, types and workmen had to be transferred to London where the work was finished. It was the outcome of the Protestant zeal of Crumwell who wished to improve upon the merely composite volume of Tyndale and Coverdale. Its origin is not very accurately known, and authorities such as Hume, Burnet and Froude have ventured upon statements regarding it, for which there is really no proof (Eadie, I, 356ff). The duty of editor or reviser was by Crumwell assigned to Coverdale who, as a pliant man and really interested in the improvement of the English version, was quite willing to undertake a work that might supersede his own. The rapidity with which the work was executed and the proofs of the minute care devoted to it by Coverdale may appear remarkable to those who are acquainted with the deliberate and leisurely methods of the large committee that produced the King James Version in the reign of King James or the Revised Version (British and American) in the reign of Queen Victoria. Of course Coverdale had been over all the work before and knew the points at which improvements were to be applied; and a zealous and expert individual can accomplish more than a committee. Luther translated the New Testament and, after revising his work with Melanchthon, had it printed and published in less than a year. The printing of the Great Bible began in May, 1538, and was completed in April, 1539, a handsome folio, printed in black letter, with the title, "The Byble in Englyshe, that is to say, the contents of all the holy scripture, bothe of the olde and newe testament, truly translated after the veryte of the Hebrue and Greke textes, by the dylygent studye of dyverse excellent learned men, expert in the forsayde tongues. Prynted by Rychard Grafton and Edward Whitchurch. Cum privilegio ad imprimendum solum. 1539." The elaborate notes for which asterisks and various other marks are provided were never supplied; but the actual translation shows devoted attention to the work and much fine appreciation of the original languages and of English. In the New Testament the version derived assistance from the Latin version of Erasmus, and in the Old Testament from Munster and Pagninus. Variations in the text could of course be got from the Complutensian Polyglot. The Great Bible shows considerable improvement upon Tyndale in the New Testament, and upon Coverdale in the Old Testament. "So careful," says Eadie (I, 370), "had been Coverdale\'s revision and so little attachment had he to his own previous version, that in the 53rd chapter of Isaiah the Bible of 1539 differs in nearly forty places from his version of 1535." The clergy of course had no love for Crumwell and still less for his work, though to avert clerical prejudices, Coverdale had made concessions in his translation. The work was cordially welcomed by the people, and a copy was ordered to be printed for every parish church, the cost to be paid half by the parson and half by the parishioners. A further revision of this version was carried out by Coverdale for a second edition which appeared in April, 1540, and is known as Cranmer\'s Bible, mainly from the judicious and earnest preface which the archbishop wrote for it. "It exhibits a text formed on the same principles as that of 1539, but after a fuller and more thorough revision" (Westcott, 254). Two other editions followed in the same year and three more in the year following (1541).<P>11. Reaction, 1541-57:<P>After the publication of the Great Bible (1539-41) no further advance took place for many years. The later years of Henry VIII indeed were marked by serious reaction. In 1542 Convocation with the royal consent made an attempt, fortunately thwarted by Cranmer, to Latinize the English version and to make it in reality what the Romish version of Rheims subsequently became. In the following year Parliament, which then practically meant the King and two or three members of the Privy Council, restricted the use of the English Bible to certain social classes that excluded nine-tenths of the population; and three years later it prohibited the use of everything but the Great Bible. It was probably at this time that there took place the great destruction of all previous work on the English Bible which has rendered examples of that work so scarce. Even Tunstall and Heath were anxious to escape from their responsibility in lending their names to the Great Bible. In the midst of this reaction Henry VIII died, January 28, 1547.<p>12. Edward VI:<P>No new work marked the reign of Edward VI, but great activity prevailed in the printing of previous versions Thirty-five New Testaments and thirteen Bibles were published during his reign of six years and a half; and injunctions were issued urging every person to read "the very lively Word of God" and for a copy of the Great Bible with the English paraphrase of Erasmus to be set up in every church. By royal order a New Testament was to be sold for 22d, a sum representing as many shillings of present value.<P>13. Mary:<P>Less repressive work regarding the translation and diffusion of Scripture than might have been expected occurred in the reign of Mary, though in other directions the reaction was severe enough. According to Lord Burghley, during the three years and nine months of Mary\'s reign, the number of 400 persons perished<65>men, women, maidens and children<65>by imprisonment, torment, famine and fire. Among the martyrs were Cranmer and Rogers; Coverdale escaped martyrdom only by exile and the powerful intervention of the king of Denmark. The copies of the Bibles in the churches were of course burned; and<6E>though individual translations were not specified<65>proclamations were issued against certain books and authors. Still the books were not, as formerly, bought up and confiscated; and so the activity of Edward\'s reign in the production of Bibles left copies widely distributed throughout the country at the close of Mary\'s reign. At this time a New Testament was printed at Geneva which had great influence upon future versions of the Bible.<P>14. The Geneva Bible (the Breeches Bible):<P>This New Testament was issued in 1557 and was most probably the work of West Whittingham, an English exile who had married Calvin\'s sister. It was translated from the Greek and compared carefully with other versions. It had also a marginal commentary which was more complete than anything similar that had yet appeared in England; and it was the first translation that was printed in roman letter and in which chapters were divided into verses. Calvin wrote for it an introductory epistle, and it had also an address by the reviser himself. A few months after its publication the more serious task of the revision of the whole Bible was begun and continued for the space of two years and more, the translators working at it "day and night." Who the translators were is not said; but Whittingham, probably with Gilby and Sampson, stayed at Geneva for a year and a half after Elizabeth came to the throne, and saw the work through. It was finished in 1560, and in a dignified preface was dedicated to Elizabeth. The cost was met by members of the Congregation at Geneva, among whom was John Bodley, father of the founder of the great library at Oxford. Its handy form<72>a modest quarto<74>along with its vigorously expressed commentary, made it popular even with people who objected to its source and the occasional Calvinistic tinge of its doctrines. It became and remained the popular edition for nearly three- quarters of a century. The causes of its popularity are explained in Westcott, 125f. Bodley had received the patent for its publication; and upon his asking for an extension of the patent for twelve years, the request was generously granted by Archbishop Parker and Grindly, bishop of London, though the Bishops\' Bible was already begun.<P>The "Breeches Bible."<P>The Geneva version is often called the "Breeches Bible" from its translation of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,7);">Ge 3:7</a>: "They sewed figleaves together, and made themselves breeches." This translation, however, is not peculiar to the Genevan version. It is the translation of perizomata in both the Wycliffe VSS; it is also found in Caxton\'s version of the "Golden Legende."<P>15. The Bishops\' Bible:<P>Queen Elizabeth, the beginning of whose reign was beset with great difficulties, restored the arrangements of Edward VI. A copy of the Great Bible was required to be provided in every church, and every encouragement was given to the reading of the Scriptures. The defects of the Great Bible were admitted, and were the not unnatural result of the haste with which<63>notwithstanding its two revisions<6E>it had been produced. These became more apparent when set beside the Geneva version, which, however, the archbishop and clergy could hardly be expected to receive with enthusiasm, as they had had nothing to do with its origin and had no control over its renderings and marginal notes. Archbishop Parker, moreover, who had an inclination to Biblical studies, had at the same time a passion for uniformity; and probably to this combination of circumstances may be traced the origin of the Bishops\' Bible. Parker superintended the work, which was begun in 1563-64; he was aided by eight bishops<70>from whom the version received its name<6D>and other scholars. It appeared in a magnificent volume in 1568, without a word of flattery, but with a preface in which the revisers express a lofty consciousness of the importance of their work. It was published in 1568: cum privilegio regiae Majestatis. A revised and in many places corrected edition was issued in 1572, and another in 1575, the year of the archbishop\'s death. The general aim of the version is a quaint literality, but along with this is found the use of not a few explanatory words and phrases not found in the original text. More exact notice also than in previous versions is taken of the use of the Greek article and of the particles and conjunctions. It bears marks, however, of the hand of the individual translators by whom the work was done; and of the want of the revision of each translator\'s work by the rest, and of some general revision of the whole. The Genevan version was the work of collegiate labor, to which much of its superiority is due. Though Parker did not object to the circulation of the Genevan version, Convocation after his death made some unsuccessful attempts to popularize the Bishops\' Bible; but the Genevan translation was not easily thrust aside. "It grew," says Eadie (II, 35), "to be in greater demand than the Bishops\' or Cranmer\'s. Ninety editions of it were published in the reign of Elizabeth, as against forty of all the other versions. Of Bibles, as distinct from New Testaments, there were twenty-five editions of Cranmer\'s and the Bishops\', but sixty of the Genevan."<P>16. Rheims and Douai Version:<P>The production of an official version of the sacred Scriptures for English Roman Catholics was probably due more to rivalry with the Reformers than to any great zeal of the authorities of the Roman church for the spread of vernacular Scripture; though, according to the Arundelian Constitution above mentioned, it was only to the printing and reading of unauthorized translations that objection was then taken by the Roman authorities. But if there was to be a special version for Catholics, it was clearly reasonable that the work should be done by Catholics and accompanied by Catholic explanations. This was undertaken by some English Catholic scholars who, on the success of the Reformation in England, had left the country and settled at Douai in the Northeast of France, with a short transference of their seminary to Rheims. The version was probably produced under the influence of (Cardinal) Allen and an Oxford scholar, Gregory Martin. It was made from the Vulgate, the Bible of Jerome and Augustine, and not, like the Protestant VSS, from the Hebrew and Greek originals. The New Testament was issued from Rheims in 1582 and the Old Testament from Douai in 1609. The main objection to the version is the too close adherence of the translators to the words of the original and the too great Latinizing of the English, so that their translation "needs," as Fuller said, "to be translated." Still they have a few words which along with a few Latinisms were adopted by the translators of the King James Version, such as "upbraideth not," "bridleth his tongue," at his own charges, and others; and they have the special merit of preserving uniformity of rendering. The translation met with no great success and the circulation was not large.<P>17. The Authorized Version:<P>The King James Version owed its origin to a chance remark regarding mistranslations in the existing versions made at the Hampton Court Conference, a meeting of bishops and Puritan clergy held (1604) in the interest of religious toleration before James was actually crowned. The meeting was ineffectual in all points raised by the Puritans, but it led to the production of the English Bible. Dr. Reynolds, president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, probably with some reference to the rivalry between the Bishops\' Bible and the Genevan version, remarked on the imperfections of the current Bibles. The remark was not very enthusiastically received except by the King, who caught eagerly at the suggestion of a fresh version, "professing that he could never yet see a Bible well translated in English," and blaming specially the Genevan version, probably on account of the pointed character of its marginal notes. Probably with the aid of the universities, the King without delay nominated the revisers to the number of fifty-four from among the best Hebrew and Greek scholars of the day. Only 47 actually took part in the work which, however<65>officially at least<73>they were in no hurry to begin; for, although named in 1604 and with all the preliminaries arranged before the end of that year, they did not begin their work till 1607. Their remuneration was to be by church preferment, for which the archbishop was to take measures. The immediate expenses, the King suggested, should be supplied by the bishops and chapters who, however, did not respond. "King James\' version never cost King James a farthing," says Eadie (II, 153f), who here gives some interesting information on this aspect of the revision. They wrought in six companies of which two met respectively in Westminster, Cambridge and Oxford. Elaborate rules, given in full in most histories of the Bible, were laid down for the revisers\' guidance, the King being particularly insistent upon Rule 9, which provided for the revision of the work of each Company by the rest. When any Company had finished the revision of a book, it was to be sent to all the rest for their criticism and suggestions, ultimate differences of opinion to be settled at a general meeting of each Company. Learned men outside the board of revisers were to be invited to give their opinions in cases of special difficulty.<P>18. The Apocrypha:<P>One of the Cambridge Companies was specially appointed to revise the Apocrypha, in which considerable license was taken, as the seven members composing the Company had probably no very firm belief in the inspiration of its books. The marginal notes, too, are freer in character than those of the Old Testament. By the early translators, Tyndale and Coverdale, the Apocrypha was simply accepted as part of the heritage of the church; it had a place likewise in the Great Bible, the Bishops\' Bible and most even of the Genevan copies. But by the middle of the 17th century opinion even in the Church of England had changed regarding it, and it was about this time that Bibles began to be printed having the canonical books only. The Apocrypha is now hardly at all printed otherwise than separately (note also should be taken of the treatment of the Apocrypha in the Revised Version (British and American), as stated below).<P>Impressed with the importance of their task, the revisers worked strenuously at it for two years; and nine months more were devoted to revision by a special committee consisting of two members from each center, and in 1611 the result of the work appeared. It is not wonderful that the work was described by a contemporary entitled to give a judgment on it (Selden, Table Talk) as "the best translation in the world"<22>a verdict that later opinion has abundantly ratified. It was the copestone of a work on which 90 years of solid labor had by different hands been expended, and it was done by half a hundred of the foremost scholars of the day who knew Hebrew and Greek, and who also knew English. For three centuries it has grown in popular esteem, and it is justly regarded as one of the best possessions and one of the most unifying influences of the widely scattered English-speaking race.<P>On the title-page as issued in 1611 the version is described as "newly translated out of the original tongues" and as "appointed to be read in churches," two statements not easy to reconcile with the actual facts. The first rule for the revisers\' guidance provided that the work was to consist in a revision of the Bishops\' Bible: it was not said that it was to be a new translation. There is, further, no sanction of the version by King, Parliament, Convocation or Privy Council. Like Jerome\'s version twelve centuries before, it was left to find acceptance as best it might by its own intrinsic merit.<P>19. Further Revisions:<P>Already in the days of the Commonwealth proposals were made for a new version; but though several meetings were held of a committee appointed by Parliament for the purpose in 1657, nothing came of the movement (Lewis, History of Translations, 354). For nearly half a century the chief rival of the King James Version was the Geneva Bible which was in wide private use. Formal revision was not undertaken again till the reign of Queen Victoria. But between 1611 and the date of the recent revision not a few small alterations had been silently introduced into the King James Version, as was indeed only to be expected if the changes in the orthography of the language were to be correctly represented on the printed page. Advancing literary criticism, too, and minute linguistic study showed that since the days of the revisers many words had changed their meaning, and that verbal inaccuracies and a few less venial errors could be proved in the revisers\' work. But what probably weighed most with scholars in inducing them to enter upon a new version was the extraordinary increase that since the last revision had taken place in our knowledge of the Hebrew text and more especially of the Greek text of Scripture. Important manuscripts had been brought to light of which the 17th-century revisers knew nothing, and scholars had with minute care examined and compared all the early copies of the Scripture studies which, without altering the main import of the gospel story, were shown to have considerable importance on the actual words\' and sometimes on the meaning of the text. After much discussion of the subject in special volumes and in the leading magazines and reviews of Britain and America, there was a general agreement among scholars that a fresh version was advisable.<P>20. English Revised Version:<P>The history of the English revision is given at length in the preface to the English Revised Version of the New Testament. It originated with the Convocation of Canterbury of the Church of England in the year 1870, when a committee of 16 members was appointed with power to add to its numbers. By this committee invitations to join it were issued to the outstanding Hebrew and Greek scholars of the country, irrespective of religious denomination, and eventually two Companies were formed, one for the Old Testament and one for the New Testament, consisting each of 27 members, in which all the churches of the country were represented, the Roman Catholics alone excepted, and Dr. Newman had been invited to join the New Testament committee. The churches of America were also invited to cooperate, and this they did by forming two Companies corresponding to the British with due provision for the mutual comparison of results and suggestions. Where the suggestions from America were not accepted by the British revisers, they were recorded in an appendix to the published volume. The names of the revisers and the rules and principles laid down for the procedure of both Companies will be found in Eadie (II, 481ff). The New Testament was published in May, 1881; the work occupied the Company for about 40 days in each year for 10 years. The Old Testament revision occupied the Company for 792 days in a period of 14 years. The entire Bible was published in May, 1885. It did not include the Apocrypha, a revision of which was issued separately in 1895.<P>21. American Revised Version:<P>This was undertaken, not by Convocation, but by the University Presses, a special Company being formed for the purpose from the Old Testament and New Testament Companies. For <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=AMERICAN+REVISED+VERSION">AMERICAN REVISED VERSION</A> see separate article.<P>On <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=REVISED+VERSION">REVISED VERSION</a> see also <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BIBLE">BIBLE</a>.<P>22. Has the Revised Version (British and American) Displaced the American Version?:<P>The Revised Version (British and American) has been before the English-speaking world for a quarter of a century and it can hardly be said with safety that it has as yet made any progress in displacing the King James Version in public esteem. Of course as much could be said for the King James Version in its day. It was very slow in gaining acceptance with the people: and yet unreasoning affection for its very words and phraseology is now one of the main obstacles to the acceptance of an admittedly more scientifically based original text and a more correct and not displeasing rendering of the same. A large number of the changes are certainly not such as appeal strongly to popular sympathy. "The Greek text of the New Testament of 1881 has been estimated to differ from that of 1611 in no less than 5,788: readings, of which about a quarter are held notably to modify the subject-matter; though even of these only a small proportion can be considered as of first-rate importance" (Kenyon, 239). On the other hand Hebrew, and especially the cognate Semitic languages, are now a great deal better known than before 1611, and considerable improvement is noticeable in the bringing out of the meaning in the poetical and prophetical books. The Revised Version (British and American) contains the best results of the scholarship of the Victorian age and cannot fail to be regarded as of the greatest utility to the reader and student of the King James Version. In the religious life the mind is essentially conservative, and nothing but time will show whether the undoubted merits of the Revised Version (British and American) are such as to outweigh the claims of sentiment and affection with which the King James Version is held.<P>See further <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=AMERICAN+REVISED+VERSION">AMERICAN REVISED VERSION</a>.<P>23. LITERATURE.<P>Perhaps the most complete work on the subject in all its aspects is that by Dr. John Eadie, The English Bible: an External and Critical History of the Various English Translations of Scripture, 1876. Eadie was himself one of the revisers of 1870, and some of his concluding chapters contain "Remarks on the Need of Revision of the English New Testament." He is also highly appreciative but judiciously critical of his predecessors in the same field, eg. of Lewis, Complete History of Several Translations of the Holy Bible and New Testament into English, 1731,1 818; and Christopher Anderson, The Annals of the English Bible, 2 volumes, 1845,1 volume rev. edition, 1862. An earlier and also very good book is Westcott\'s General View of the History of the English Bible, 1868. Westcott was also one of the revisers of 1870 and criticizes the work of the various translators as well as narrates the succession of the translations. A good discussion of the internal history of the text will also be found in the History of the English Bible by Dr. Moulton, another of the revisers. Kenyon, Our Bible and Ancient manuscripts, 1895, considers specially the text on which the successive English versions were based. He writes judiciously also on the Wycliffe period and on the Revised Version (British and American). The Wycliffe period should also be studied in Forshall and Madden, 4 volumes, 4to, Oxford, 1850; England in the Age of Wycliffe, by G. M. Trevelyan; Dr. Gasquet\'s Our Old English Bible and Other Essays, 1908; and Lechler\'s John Wycliffe and His English Precursors, translated and edited by Lorimer. For the Reformation period generally Foxe\'s History of the Acts and Monuments of the Church still deserves to be studied. "Foxe\'s story is doubtless substantially true, although disfigured by credulity and bitter prejudice." For Tyndale\'s special work see William Tyndale, a Biography, by R. Demaus, new edition by Lovett, 1886; and Fry\'s Bibliographical Descriptions of the Editions of the New Testament, Tyndale\'s Version in English. Fry has also written special works on the Great Bible, Cranmer\'s Bible and the Genevan Version. The King James Version is very fully described in the works above mentioned, and in this connection notice is due to Scrivener, The Authorised Edition of the English Bible, 1884, and more especially to his careful and thorough "Introduction" to the Quarto Paragraph Bible, 1873. More popular histories of the Bible are those of Stoughton, Pattison, 1874, and Professor Milligan of Glasgow, 1895. General histories of England and of English literature may also be profitably consulted on the history of the Bible and its translation into the vernacular, such as those of Hume, Burnet, Hallam, Froude, Green and Gardiner. The revision of the King James Version called forth a large literature, either in the way of preparation for it or of criticism of it when carried through. To this literature many of the revisers themselves contributed, among whom may be mentioned Eadie, Ellicott, Westcott, Humphry, Newth and Kennedy; nor should the important contributions of Archbishop Trench and Dean Alford, though of a slightly earlier generation, be overlooked. The American revisers also republished a series of Essays written by some of their number on Biblical Revision: Its Necessity and Purpose, 1879; and account should be taken also of the Documentary History of the American Committee on Revision prepared by that committee for the use of its members.``79';
|
||
isbe[3105]='Engraft`en-graft\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,21);">Jas 1:21</a> the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=IMPLANT">IMPLANT</A>).``1';
|
||
isbe[3106]='Engraving`en-grav\'-ing.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=carving">CARVING</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=crafts">CRAFTS</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3107]='Enigma`e-nig\'-ma`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=games">GAMES</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3108]='Enjoin`en-join\':<P>Its usual sense is "to impose something," as a command, a charge or a direction. In this last sense it is used in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',36,23);">Job 36:23</a>, i.e. "Who hath directed?" In <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',9,31);">Es 9:31</a> it means "to command"; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Phm\',1,8);">Phm 1:8</a>, "to order" or "direct."``1';
|
||
isbe[3109]='Enlarge; Enlargement`en-larj\', en-larj\'-ment:<P>"To enlarge" is very frequently used figuratively: "God enlarge Japheth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',9,27);">Ge 9:27</a>), i.e. "make him a great nation"; or "Thou hast enlarged my steps under me" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',22,37);">2Sa 22:37</a>), i.e. "Thou hast given me success." A very peculiar use of "enlarge" is found in the King James Version <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',4,1);">Ps 4:1</a>: "Thou hast enlarged me" (the Revised Version (British and American) "set me at large"), i.e. "Thou hast given me freedom, deliverance from distress." "Our heart is enlarged" (platuno; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',6,11);">2Co 6:11</a>), and "Be ye also enlarged" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',6,13);">2Co 6:13</a>), express great love of one party to another. See also <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',2,1);">1Sa 2:1</a>, "My mouth is enlarged," i.e. "full of praise." <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',41,7);">Eze 41:7</a>, "were broader" (the King James Version "an enlarging").<P>Enlargement, the King James Version, <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',4,14);">Es 4:14</a> from rawach, "to enlarge," "to respite," is rendered "relief" by the Revised Version (British and American) in better harmony with "deliverance" with which the word is paired.``16';
|
||
isbe[3110]='Enlighten`en-lit\'-\'-n:<P>(1) \'or, "illumination" in every sense, used in the ordinary sense of giving natural light (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',97,4);">Ps 97:4</a> the King James Version; see also <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',9,8);">Ezr 9:8</a>) or as a sign of health and vigor (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,27,29);">1Sa 14:27,29</a>). "His eyes were enlightened," literally, "became bright." He had become weary and faint with the day\'s exertions and anxieties, and now recovers (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',33,30);">Job 33:30</a> and compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',13,3);">Ps 13:3</a>). Thus in sickness and grief, the eyes are dull and heavy; dying eyes are glazed; but health and joy render them bright and sparkling, as with a light from within.<P>(2) In <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',18,28);">Ps 18:28</a> the King James Version, The word naghah, figuratively describes the believer\'s deliverance from the gloom of adversity and the restoration of joy in the knowledge of God.<P>(3) Most frequently the terms so translated mean the giving of spiritual light to the soul (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',19,8);">Ps 19:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,18);">Eph 1:18</a>, photizo; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',6,4);">Heb 6:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,32);">10:32</a>). This spiritual enlightening the Spirit of God brings about through the Divine word (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,130);">Ps 119:130</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',3,15);">2Ti 3:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,19);">2Pe 1:19</a>). Sin mars the intellectual discernment; "but he that is spiritual discerneth all things" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',2,15);">1Co 2:15</a> King James Version, margin).``91';
|
||
isbe[3111]='Enmity`en\'-mi-ti (\'ebhah; echthra):<P>"Enmity" (hate) occurs as the translation of \'ebhah in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,15);">Ge 3:15</a>, "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed," and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',35,21,22);">Nu 35:21-22</a>, where the absence of enmity on the part of the man-slayer modifies the judgment to be passed on him.<P>In the New Testament "enmity" is the translation of echthra: <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,12);">Lu 23:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,7);">Ro 8:7</a>, "The mind of the flesh is enmity against God." <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',4,4);">Jas 4:4</a>, "The friendship of the world is enmity with God" (because "the world" is preferred to God); in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,15,16);">Eph 2:15-16</a>, Christ is said to have "abolished in his flesh the enmity," by His cross to have "slain the enmity," that is, the opposition between Jew and Gentile, creating in Himself "one new man, (so) making peace."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ABOLISH">ABOLISH</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html??string=HATE">HATE</a>`185';
|
||
isbe[3112]='Ennatan`en\'-a-tan (Ennatan; the King James Version Eunatan (a misprint)):<P>One of Ezra\'s messengers to fetch Levites for the temple service (1Esdras 8:44); called "Elnathan" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,16);">Ezr 8:16</a>.``1';
|
||
isbe[3113]='Enoch`e\'-nok (chanokh, "initiated"; Henoch):<P>(1) The eldest son of Cain (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,17,18);">Ge 4:17-18</a>).<P>(2) The son of Jared and father of Methuselah, seventh in descent from Adam in the line of Seth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,14);">Jude 1:14</a>). He is said (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,23);">Ge 5:23</a>) to have lived 365 years, but the brief record of his life is comprised in the words, "Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,24);">Ge 5:24</a>). The expression "walked with God" denotes a devout life, lived in close communion with God, while the reference to his end has always been understood, as by the writer of He, to mean, "By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God translated him" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,5);">Heb 11:5</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCALYPTIC+LITERATURE">APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE</a>`68';
|
||
isbe[3114]='Enoch (City)`In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,17);">Ge 4:17</a> it is narrated that Cain, who had taken up his abode in the land of Nod, east of Eden (verse 16), built there a city, and called it after the name of his firstborn son Enoch. It is impossible to fix more definitely the locality of this first of cities, recorded, as Delitzsch says (Genesis, in the place cited.), as registering an advance in civilization. The "city" would be a very simple affair, a place of protection for himself, wife and household, perhaps connected with the fear spoken of in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,14);">Ge 4:14</a>.``1';
|
||
isbe[3115]='Enoch, Book of``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ENOCH,+ETHIOPIC,+BOOK+OF">ENOCH, ETHIOPIC, BOOK OF</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html??string=ENOCH,+SLAVONIC">ENOCH, SLAVONIC</a>.`1';
|
||
isbe[3116]='Enoch, Ethiopic, Book of`e-thi-op\'-ik`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCALYPTIC+LITERATURE">APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3117]='Enoch, Slavonic, Book of`sla-von\'-ik.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCALYPTIC+LITERATURE">APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3118]='Enoch; the Book of the Secrets of``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCALYPTIC+LITERATURE">APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3119]='Enormity`e-nor\'-mi-ti:<P>The marginal rendering in the King James Version of <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',6,9);">Ho 6:9</a> for "lewdness," and in the Revised Version (British and American) of <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,17);">Le 18:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,29);">19:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,14);">20:14</a> for "wickedness." In each case it is the translation of zimmah, meaning originally, "thought" or "plot," mostly in a bad sense, lewdness, wickedness; in Leviticus it is unnatural wickedness - incest.``1';
|
||
isbe[3120]='Enos; Enosh`e\'-nos, e\'-nosh (\'enosh, "mortal"; \'Enos):<P>In the New Testament (the Revised Version (British and American) and the King James Version) and the Old Testament (the King James Version except <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,1);">1Ch 1:1</a>), the form is Enos; in the Old Testament (the Revised Version (British and American) and <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,1);">1Ch 1:1</a> the King James Version), the form is Enosh. The son of Seth and grandson of Adam (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,26);">Ge 4:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,6);">5:6</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,1);">1Ch 1:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,38);">Lu 3:38</a>). Enosh denotes man as frail and mortal. With Enosh a new religious development began, for "then began men to call upon the name of Yahweh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,26);">Ge 4:26</a>). There seems to be an implied contrast to <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,17);">Ge 4:17</a>ff which records a development in another department of life, represented by Enoch the son of Cain.``78';
|
||
isbe[3121]='Enquire`en-kwir\':<P>This is an Old English word now obsolescent. It is common in the King James Version. In the American Standard Revised Version it is nearly always replaced by the more modern "inquire," a few times by "seek" and "ask," once by "salute" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',18,10);">1Ch 18:10</a>). With this one exception in the Old Testament the change does not affect the meaning. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',23,15);">Ac 23:15</a>, "enquire something more perfectly" is substituted by "judge more exactly." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,11);">Mt 10:11</a>, "search out" replaces it. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',2,7,16);">Mt 2:7, 16</a>, "learned exactly" replaces "inquired diligently."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=INQUIRE">INQUIRE</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3122]='Enrolment`en-rol\'-ment`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=QUIRINIUS">QUIRINIUS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TAX">TAX</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3123]='Ensample`en-sam\'-p\'-l`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EXAMPLE">EXAMPLE</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3124]='Ensign`en\'-sin`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BANNER">BANNER</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3125]='Ensue`en-su\':<P>Synonymous with "to pursue," "ensue" is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,11);">1Pe 3:11</a> the King James Version as a translation of dioko, "to follow after," "to pursue."<P>Also in Judith 9:5, "such as ensued after" (ta metepeita, "the things that follow").``1';
|
||
isbe[3126]='Entangle`en-tan\'-g\'-l:<P>Found but 5 times in the Scriptures (the King James Version), once in the Old Testament, yet most significant as illustrating the process of mental, moral and spiritual confusion and enslavement.<P>(1) Physical:<P>Used of physical entanglement, as in the mazes of a labyrinth (bukh, to involve, "be perplexed"). At Moses\' command the children of Israel, before crossing the Red Sea, took the wrong way in order to give Pharaoh the impression that they were lost in the wilderness and cause him to say "They are entangled in the land" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,3);">Ex 14:3</a>).<P>(2) Mental:<P>pagideuo, "to entrap," "ensnare," with words, as birds are caught in a snare; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',9,12);">Ec 9:12</a>. The Pharisees sought to "entangle" (the Revised Version (British and American) "ensnare") Jesus in His talk (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,15);">Mt 22:15</a>).<P>(3) Moral:<P>\'empleko, "to inweave," hence, intertwine and involve. "A god soldier of Jesus Christ," says Paul, does not "entangle himself," i.e. become involved, "in the affairs of this life" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',2,4);">2Ti 2:4</a>). Having "escaped the defilements of the world," Christians are not to be "again entangled therein" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,20);">2Pe 2:20</a>).<P>(4) Spiritual:<P>enecho, "to hold in," hence, to hold captive, as a slave in fetters or under a burden. Having experienced spiritual emancipation, freedom, through Christ from bondage to sin and false religion (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,1);">Ga 5:1</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,8);">Ga 4:8</a>), the Gentiles were not to become "entangled again in a yoke of bondage" by submission to mere legal requirements, as the external rite of circumcision.<P>With reference to the thoroughness and irresistibleness of God\'s judgments, we read in <a onClick="return mV(\'Nah\',1,10);">Na 1:10</a>, "For entangled like thorns" (the King James Version "while they be folden together as thorns"), damp, closely packed and intertwined, "they are consumed utterly as dry stubble" (the King James Version "devoured as stubble fully dry").``139';
|
||
isbe[3127]='Entreat`en-tret\'.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=INTREAT">INTREAT</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3128]='Envy`en\'-vi (qin\'ah; zelos, phthonos):<P>"Envy," from Latin in, "against," and video, "to look," "to look with ill-will," etc., toward another, is an evil strongly condemned in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. It is to be distinguished from jealousy. "We are jealous of our own; we are envious of another man\'s possessions. Jealousy fears to lose what it has; envy is pained at seeing another have" (Crabb\'s English Synonyms). In the Old Testament it is the translation of qin\'ah from kana\', "to redden," "to glow" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',5,2);">Job 5:2</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "jealousy," margin "indignation"; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',26,11);">Isa 26:11</a> the Revised Version (British and American) renders "see thy zeal for the people"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',27,4);">Pr 27:4</a>, etc.); the verb occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,14);">Ge 26:14</a>, etc.; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,29);">Nu 11:29</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',106,16);">Ps 106:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',3,31);">Pr 3:31</a>, etc.; in the New Testament it is the translation of phthonos, "envy" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,18);">Mt 27:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,29);">Ro 1:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,21);">Ga 5:21</a>, "envyings," etc.); of zelos, "zeal", "jealousy," "envy" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,45);">Ac 13:45</a>), translated "envying," the Revised Version (British and American) "jealousy" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',13,13);">Ro 13:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',3,3);">1Co 3:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',12,20);">2Co 12:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',3,14,16);">Jas 3:14, 16</a>); the verb phthoneo occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,26);">Ga 5:26</a>; zeloo in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,9);">Ac 7:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,5);">17:5</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "moved with jealousy"; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',13,4);">1Co 13:4</a>, "charity (the Revised Version (British and American) "love") envieth not."<P>The power of envy is stated in <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',27,4);">Pr 27:4</a>: "Who is able to stand before envy?" (the Revised Version (British and American) "jealousy"); its evil effects are depicted in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',5,2);">Job 5:2</a> (the Revised Version (British and American) "jealousy"), in <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',14,30);">Pr 14:30</a> (the Revised Version, margin "jealousy"); it led to the crucifixion of Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,18);">Mt 27:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,10);">Mr 15:10</a>); it is one of "the works of the flesh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,21);">Ga 5:21</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,29);">Ro 1:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,4);">1Ti 6:4</a>); Christian believers are earnestly warned against it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',13,13);">Ro 13:13</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',3,3);">1Co 3:3</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,26);">Ga 5:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,1);">1Pe 2:1</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',4,5);">Jas 4:5</a> "envy" is used in a good sense, akin to the jealousy ascribed to God. Where the King James Version has "The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy," the Revised Version (British and American) reads "Doth the spirit which he made to dwell in us long unto envying?"; the American Revised Version, margin "The spirit which he made to dwell in us he yearneth for even unto jealous envy"; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',3,14);">Jer 3:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',2,19);">Ho 2:19</a>f; or the English Revised Version, margin "That spirit which he made to dwell in us yearneth (for us) even unto jealous envy." This last seems to give the sense; compare "Ye adulteresses" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',2,4);">Ho 2:4</a>), the American Revised Version, margin "That is, who break your marriage vow to God."``185';
|
||
isbe[3129]='Epaenetus`ep-e\'-ne-tus (Epainetos, "praised"):<P>One of the Christians at Rome to whom greetings are sent by Paul (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,5);">Ro 16:5</a>). All that is known of him is told here. Paul describes him as<P>(1) "my beloved,"<P>(2) "who is the firstfruits of Asia unto Christ."<P>Textus Receptus of the New Testament has "firstfruits of Achaia" but this wrong reading is due to <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',16,15);">1Co 16:15</a>. He was one of the first Christians in the Roman province of Asia.<P>This salutation brings up the question of the destination of <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,\'3-16\');">Ro 16:3-16</a>, for it is argued that they are addressed to the church in Ephesus owing to the fact that Prisca and Aquila and Epenetus are known to have dwelt in Asia. On the other hand, there are more than 20 others in this list who are not known to have spent any time in Asia. Prisca and Aquila had once dwelt in Rome (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,2);">Ac 18:2</a>), and there is nothing unusual in an Ephesian dwelling in the capital of the empire. An interesting discovery was made in Rome of an inscription in which was the name of Epenetus, an Ephesian.``78';
|
||
isbe[3130]='Epaphras`ep\'-a-fras (Epaphras):<P>A contracted form of Epaphroditus. He must not, however, be confounded with the messenger of the Philippian community. He was with Paul during a part of his 1st Roman imprisonment, joining in Paul\'s greetings to Philemon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phm\',1,23);">Phm 1:23</a>). Epaphras was the missionary by whose instrumentality the Colossians had been converted to Christianity (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,7);">Col 1:7</a>), and probably the other churches of the Lycus had been founded by him. In sending his salutation to the Colossians Paul testified, "He hath much labor for you, and for them in Laodicea, and for them in Hierapolis" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,13);">Col 4:13</a>). Epaphras had brought to Paul good news of the progress of the gospel, of their "faith in Christ Jesus" and of their love toward all the saints (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,4);">Col 1:4</a>). Paul\'s regard for him is shown by his designating him "our beloved fellow-servant," "a faithful minister of Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,7);">Col 1:7</a>), and "a bondservant of Christ Jesus" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,12);">Col 4:12</a> margin). The last designation Paul uses several times of himself, but only once of another besides Epaphras (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,1);">Php 1:1</a>).``78';
|
||
isbe[3131]='Epaphroditus`e-paf-ro-di\'-tus (Epaphroditos, "lovely"):<P>Mentioned only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,25);">Php 2:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,18);">4:18</a>. The name corresponds to the Latin Venustus (= handsome), and was very common in the Roman period. "The name occurs very frequently in inscriptions both Greek and Latin, whether at full length Epaphroditus, or in its contracted form Epaphras" (Lightfoot, Philippians, 123). Epaphroditus was the delegate of the Christian community at Philippi, sent with their gift to Paul during his first Roman imprisonment. Paul calls him "my brother and fellow-worker and fellow-soldier." "The three words are arranged in an ascending scale: common sympathy, common work, common danger and toil and suffering" (Lightfoot, l. c.). On his arrival at Rome, Epaphroditus devoted himself to "the work of Christ," both as Paul\'s attendant and as his assistant in missionary work. So assiduously did he labor that he lost his health, and "was sick nigh unto death." He recovered, however, and Paul sent him back to Philippi with this letter to quiet the alarm of his friends, who had heard of his serious illness. Paul besought for him that the church should receive him with joy and hold him in honor.``78';
|
||
isbe[3132]='Ephah (1)`e\'-fa \'ephah, "darkness"; Gephar (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,4);">Ge 25:4</a>), Gaipha (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',60,6);">Isa 60:6</a>):<P>The name of three persons in the Old Testament, both masculine and feminine<P>(1) The son of Midian, descended from Abraham by his wife Keturah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,4);">Ge 25:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,33);">1Ch 1:33</a>), mentioned again in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',60,6);">Isa 60:6</a> as a transporter of gold and frankincense from Sheba, who shall thus bring enlargement to Judah and praise to Yahweh. According to Fried. Delitzsch, Schrader, and Hommel, \'Ephah is an abbreviation of \'Ayappa, the Kha-yappa Arabs of the time of Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon. See treatment of this view in Dillmann\'s Commentary on Genesis (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,4);">Ge 25:4</a>).<P>(2) A concubine of Caleb (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,46);">1Ch 2:46</a>).<P>(3) The son of Jahdai, a descendant of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,47);">1Ch 2:47</a>).``194';
|
||
isbe[3133]='Ephah (2)`e\'-fa (\'ephah):<P>A dry measure of about one bushel capacity. It corresponds to the bath in liquid measure and was the standard for measuring grain and similar articles since it is classed with balances and weights (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,36);">Le 19:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',8,5);">Am 8:5</a>) in the injunctions regarding just dealing in trade. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',5,\'6-10\');">Zec 5:6-10</a> it is used for the utensil itself.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WEIGHTS+AND+MEASURES">WEIGHTS AND MEASURES</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3134]='Ephai`e\'-fi, e\'-fa-i (\'ephay, in Qere, \'ophai, in Kethibh; Iophe, Ophe, "gloomy," "obscuring," in the Septuagint, Septuagint):<P>"The Netophathite," whose sons were numbered among "the captains of the forces" left in Judah after the carrying away to Babylon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',40,\'1-\');">Jer 40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',47,\'1-\');">Jer 47</a>). His sons assembled at Mizpah with Gedaliah, governor of the scattered Jews, and with him were slain by Ishmael, the son of Nethaniah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',41,3);">Jer 41:3).``1';
|
||
isbe[3135]='Epher`e\'-fer \'epher, "calf," "young deer"; Apher, Opher:<P>(1) The second son of Midian, descended from Abraham by his wife Keturah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,4);">Ge 25:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,33);">1Ch 1:33</a>). See further Dillmann\'s Commentary on Genesis (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,4);">Ge 25:4</a>).<P>(2) The third son of Ezra, descended from the tribe of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,17);">1Ch 4:17</a>).<P>(3) The first of five heads of their fathers\' houses, "mighty men of valor, famous men," in the halftribe of Manasseh, who dwelt between Bashan and Mt. Hermon (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',5,23,24);">1Ch 5:23-24</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[3136]='Ephes-Dammim`e-fes-dam\'-im (\'ephec dammim):<P>Some spot between Socoh and Azekah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',17,1);">1Sa 17:1</a>) where the Philistines were encamped; called in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,13);">1Ch 11:13</a>, "Pas- dammin." Ephes "end of" or "boundary" and the whole word may mean the "boundary of blood." The deep red color of the newly plowed earth in this situation is noticeable and may have given origin to the idea of "blood" (compare <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ADUMMIM">ADUMMIM</A>). Cheyne suggests that from \'adhummin, to dammim, is an easy step, and that the former, meaning "red brown earth," may have been the original. No other satisfactory locality has been found to explain the name or fix the site.``117';
|
||
isbe[3137]='Ephesian; Ephesians`e-fe\'-zhan (Ephesios), e-fe\'-zhanz:<P>A term which, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,28,34,35);">Ac 19:28, 34-35</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,29);">Ac 21:29</a>, was applied to those natives or residents of the city of Ephesus who were adherents of the cult of the goddess Diana. A Jew or a Christian, though a native of Ephesus, would probably have been designated as such, rather than as an Ephesian.``1';
|
||
isbe[3138]='Ephesians, Epistle to the`Contents<P><b>I. AUTHENTICITY</b><P class="in15">1. External Evidence<P class="in15">2. Internal Evidence<P><b>II. PLACE AND DATE OF WRITING</b><P><b>III. DESTINATION</b><P class="in15">1. Title<P class="in15">2. The Inscription<P class="in15">3. The Evidence of the Letter Itself<P class="in15">4. Conclusion<P><b>IV. RELATION TO OTHER NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS</b><P class="in15">1. Peter<P class="in15">2. Johannine Writings<P class="in15">3. Colossians<P><b>V. THE PURPOSE</b><P><b>VI. ARGUMENT</b><P><b>VII. TEACHING</b><P><b>VIII. LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. Authenticity.<P>1. External Evidence:<P>None of the epistles which are ascribed to Paul have a stronger chain of evidence to their early and continued use than that which we know as the Epistle to the Ephesians. Leaving for the moment the question of the relation of Eph to other New Testament writings, we find that it not only colors the phraseology of the Apostolic Fathers, but is actually quoted. In Clement of Rome (circa 95 AD) the connection with Ephesians might be due to some common liturgical form in xlvi.6 (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,6);">Eph 4:6</a>); though the resemblance is so close that we must feel that our epistle was known to Clement both here and in lxiv (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,\'3-4\');">Eph 1:3-4</a>); xxxviii (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,21);">Eph 5:21</a>); xxxvi (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,18);">Eph 4:18</a>); lix (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,18);">Eph 1:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,18);">4:18</a>). Ignatius (died 115) shows numerous points of contact with Ephesians, especially in his Epistle to the Ephesians. In chap. xii we read: "Ye are associates and fellow students of the mysteries with Paul, who in every letter makes mention of you in Christ Jesus." It is difficult to decide the exact meaning of the phrase "every letter," but in spite of the opinion of many scholars that it must be rendered "in all his epistle," i.e. in every part of his epistle, it is safer to take it as an exaggeration, "in all his epistles," justified to some extent in the fact that besides Ephesians, Paul does mention the Ephesian Christians in Romans (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,5);">16:5</a>); 1 Corinthians (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,32);">15:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',16,8,19);">16:8, 19</a>); 2 Corinthians (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',1,8);">1:8</a>f); 1 Timothy (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,3);">1:3</a>) and 2 Timothy (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',1,18);">1:18</a>). In the opening address the connection with <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,\'3-6\');">Eph 1:3-6</a> is too close to be accidental. There are echoes of our epistle in chap. i (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,1);">Eph 6:1</a>); ix (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,\'20-22\');">Eph 2:20-22</a>); xviii (oikonomia, <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,10);">Eph 1:10</a>); xx (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,18);">Eph 2:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,24);">4:24</a>); and in Ignat. ad Polyc. v we have close identity with <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,25);">Eph 5:25</a> and less certain connection with <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,2);">Eph 4:2</a>, and in vi with <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,\'13-17\');">Eph 6:13-17</a>.<P>The Epistle of Polycarp in two passages shows verbal agreement with Eph: in chap. i with <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,8);">Eph 1:8</a>, and in xii with <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,26);">Eph 4:26</a>, where we have (the Greek is missing here) ut his scripturis dictum est. Hermas speaks of the grief of the Holy Spirit in such a way as to suggest Ephesians (Mand. X, ii; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,30);">Eph 4:30</a>). Sim. IX, xiii, shows a knowledge of <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,\'3-6\');">Eph 4:3-6</a>, and possibly of <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,26);">5:26</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,13);">1:13</a>. In the Didache (4) we find a parallel to <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,5);">Eph 6:5</a>: "Servants submit yourselves to your masters." In Barnabas there are two or three turns of phrase that are possibly due to Ephesians. There is a slightly stronger connection between II Clement and Ephesians, especially in chap. xiv, where we have the Ephesian figure of the church as the body of Christ, and the relation between them referred to in terms of husband and wife. This early evidence, slight though it is, is strengthened by the part Ephesians played in the 2nd century where, as we learn from Hippolytus, it was used by the Ophites and Basilides and Valentinus. The latter (according to Hip., Phil., VI, 29) quoted <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,\'16-18\');">Eph 3:16-18</a>, saying, "This is what has been written in Scripture," while his disciple Ptolemais is said by Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., i.8, 5) to have attributed <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,13);">Eph 5:13</a> to Paul by name. According to the addenda to the eighth book of the Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria, Theodotus, a contemporary of Valentinus, quoted <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,10);">Eph 4:10</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,30);">30</a> with the words: "The apostle says," and attributes <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,24);">Eph 4:24</a> to Paul. Marcion knew Ephesians as Tertullian tells us, identifying it with the epistle referred to in <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,16);">Col 4:16</a> as ad Laodicenos. We find it in the Muratorian Fragment (10b, l. 20) as the second of the epistles which "Paul wrote following the example of his predecessor John." It is used in the letter from the church of Lyons and Vienne and by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and later writers. We can well accept the dictum of Dr. Hort that it "is all but certain on this evidence that the Epistle was in existence by 95 AD; quite certain that it was in existence by about fifteen years later or conceivably a little more" (Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 118).<P>2. Internal Evidence:<P>To this very strong chain of external evidence, reaching back to the very beginning of the 2nd century, if not into the end of the 1st, showing Ephesians as part of the original Pauline collection which no doubt Ignatius and Polycarp used, we must add the evidence of the epistle itself, testing it to see if there be any reason why the letter thus early attested should not be accredited to the apostle.<P>(1) That it claims to be written by Paul is seen not only in the greeting, "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, to the saints that are at Ephesus," but also in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,1);">Eph 3:1</a>, where we read: "For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus in behalf of you Gentiles," a phrase which is continued in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,1);">4:1</a>: "I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord." This claim is substantiated by the general character of the epistle which is written after the Pauline norm, with greeting and thanksgiving, leading on to and serving as the introduction of the special doctrinal teaching of the epistle. This is the first great division of the Pauline epistles and is regularly followed by an application of the teaching to practical matters, which in turn yields to personal greetings, or salutations, and the final benediction, commonly written by the apostle\'s own hand. In only one particular does Ephesians fail to answer completely to this outline. The absence of the personal greetings has always been marked as a striking peculiarity of our letter. The explanation of this peculiarity will meet us when we consider the destination of the epistle (see III below).<P>(2) Further evidence for the Pauline authorship is found in the general style and language of the letter. We may agree with von Soden (Early Christ. Lit., 294) that "every sentence contains verbal echoes of Pauline epistles, indeed except when ideas peculiar to the Epistle come to expression it is simply a mosaic of Pauline phraseology," without accepting his conclusion that Paul did not write it. We feel, as we read, that we have in our hands the work of one with whom the other epistles have made us familiar. Yet we are conscious none the less of certain subtle differences which give occasion for the various arguments that critics have brought against the claim that Paul is the actual author. This is not questioned until the beginning of the last century, but has been since Schleiermacher and his disciple Usteri, though the latter published his doubts before his master did his. The Tubingen scholars attacked the epistle mainly on the ground of supposed traces of Gnostic or Montanist influences, akin to those ascribed to the Colossians. Later writers have given over this claim to put forward others based on differences of style (De Wette, followed by Holtzmann, von Soden and others); dependence on Colossians (Hitzig, Holtzmann); the attitude to the Apostles (von Soden); doctrinal differences, especially those that concern Christology and the Parousia, the conception of the church (Klopper, Wrede and others). The tendency, however, seems to be backward toward a saner view of the questions involved; and most of those who do not accept the Pauline authorship would probably agree with Julicher (Encyclopedia Biblica), who ascribes it to a "Pauline Christian intimately familiar with the Pauline epistles, especially with Colossians, writing about 90," who sought in Ephesians "to put in a plea for the true catholicism in the meaning of Paul and in his name."<P>(3) Certain of these positions require that we should examine the doctrinal objections.<p>(a) First of these is the claim that Ephesians has a different conception of the person and work of Christ from the acknowledged epistles of Paul. Not only have we the exaltation of Christ which we find in <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,16);">Col 1:16</a>ff, but the still further statement that it was God\'s purpose from the beginning to "sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,10);">Eph 1:10</a>). This is no more than the natural expansion of the term, "all things," which are attributed to Christ in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',8,6);">1Co 8:6</a>, and is an idea which has at least its foreshadowing in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,19,20);">Ro 8:19-20</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,18,19);">2Co 5:18-19</a>. The relation between Christ and the church as given in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,22);">Eph 1:22</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,23);">5:23</a> is in entire agreement with Paul\'s teaching in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',12,\'1-\');">Ro 12</a>, and <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',12,\'1-\');">1Co 12</a>. It is still the Pauline figure of the church as the body of Christ, in spite of the fact that Christ is not thought of as the head of that body. The argument in the epistle does not deal with the doctrine of the cross from the standpoint of the earlier epistles, but the teaching is exactly the same. There is redemption (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,7,14);">Eph 1:7, 14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,30);">4:30</a>); reconciliation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,\'14-16\');">Eph 2:14-16</a>); forgiveness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,7);">Eph 1:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,32);">4:32</a>). The blood of Christ shed on the cross redeems us from our sin and restores us to God. In like manner it is said that the Parousia is treated (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,7);">Eph 2:7</a>) as something far off. But Paul has long since given up the idea that it is immediately; even in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,\'1-\');">2Th 2</a> he shows that an indeterminate interval must intervene, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',11,25);">Ro 11:25</a> he sees a period of time yet unfulfilled before the end.<p>(b) The doctrine of the church is the most striking contrast to the earlier epistles. We have already dealt with the relation of Christ to the church. The conception of the church universal is in advance of the earlier epistles, but it is the natural climax of the development of the apostle\'s conception of the church as shown in the earlier epistles. Writing from Rome with the idea of the empire set before him, it was natural that Paul should see the church as a great whole, and should use the word ekklesia absolutely as signifying the oneness of the Christian brotherhood. As a matter of fact the word is used in this absolute sense in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',12,28);">1Co 12:28</a> before the Captivity Epistles (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,2);">1Co 1:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,32);">10:32</a>). The emphasis here on the unity of Jew and Gentile in the church finds its counterpart in the argument of the Epistle to the Romans, though in Ephesians this is "urged on the basis of God\'s purpose and Christian faith, rather than on the Law and the Promises."<P>Neither is it true that in Ephesians the Law is spoken of slightingly, as some say, by the reference to circumcision (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,11);">2:11</a>). In no case is the doctrinal portion of the epistle counter to that of the acknowledged Pauline epistles, though in the matter of the church, and of Christ\'s relationship to it and to the universe, there is evidence of progress in the apostle\'s conception of the underlying truths, which none the less find echoes in the earlier writings. "New doctrinal ideas, or a new proportion of these ideas, is no evidence of different authorship."<p>(c) In the matter of organization the position of Ephesians is not in any essential different from what we have in 1 Corinthians.<P>(4) The linguistic argument is a technical matter of the use of Greek words that cannot well be discussed here. The general differences of style, the longer "turgid" sentences, the repetitions on the one hand; the lack of argument, the full, swelling periods on the other, find their counterpart in portions of Romans. The minute differences which show themselves in new or strange words will be much reduced in number when we take from the list those that are due to subjects which the author does not discuss elsewhere (e.g. those in the list of armor in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,13);">Eph 6:13</a>ff). Holtzmann (Einl, 25) gives us a list of these hapax legomena (76 in all). But there are none of these which, as Lock says, Paul could not have used, though there are certain which he does not use elsewhere and others which are only found in his accepted writings and here. The following stand out as affording special ground for objection. The phrase "heavenly places" (ta epourania, <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,3,10);">Eph 1:3, 10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,6);">2:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,10);">3:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,12);">6:12</a>) is peculiar to this epistle. The phrase finds a partial parallel it in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,49);">1Co 15:49</a> and the thought is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,20);">Php 3:20</a>. The devil (ho diabolos, <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,27);">Eph 4:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,11);">6:11</a>) is used in place of the more usual Satan (satanas).<P>But in Acts, Paul is quoted as using diabolos in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,10);">13:10</a> and satanas in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',26,18);">26:18</a>. It is at least natural that he would have used the Greek term when writing from Rome to a Greek-speaking community. The objection to the expression "holy" (hagiois) apostles (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,5);">Eph 3:5</a>) falls to the ground when we remember that the expression "holy" (hagios) is Paul\'s common word for Christian and that he uses it of himself in this very epistle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,8);">Eph 3:8</a>). In like manner "mystery" (musterion), "dispensation" (oikonomia) are found in other epistles in the same sense that we find them in here. The attack on the epistle fails, whether it is made from the point of teaching or language; and there is no ground whatever for questioning the truth of Christian tradition that Paul wrote the letter which we know as the Epistle to the Ephesians.<P>II. Place and Date of Writing.<P>The time and place of his writing Ephesians turn on the larger question of the chronology of Paul\'s life (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PAUL">PAUL</a>) and the relation of the Captivity Epistles to each other; and the second question whether they were written from Caesarea or Rome (for this see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PHILEMON,+EPISTLE+TO">PHILEMON, EPISTLE TO</a>). Suffice it here to say that the place was undoubtedly Rome, and that they were written during the latter part of the two years\' captivity which we find recorded in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',28,30);">Ac 28:30</a>. The date will then be, following the later chronology, 63 or 64 AD; following the earlier, which is, in many ways, to be preferred, about 58 AD.<P>III. Destination.<P>To whom was this letter written?<P>1. Title:<P>The title says to the Ephesians. With this the witness of the early church almost universally agrees. It is distinctly stated in the Muratorian Fragment (10b, 1. 20); and the epistle is quoted as to the Ephesians by Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., v.14, 3; 24, 3); Tertullian (Adv. Marc., v.11, 17; De Praesc., 36; De Monag., v); Clement of Alexandria (Strom., iv.65; Paed., i.18) and Origen (Contra Celsum, iii.20). To these must be added the evidence of the extant manuscripts and VSS, which unite in ascribing the epistle to the Ephesians. The only exception to the universal evidence is Tertullian\'s account of Marcion (circa 150 AD) who reads Ad Laodicenos (Adv. Marc., v.11: "I say nothing here about another epistle which we have with the heading \'to the Ephesians,\' but the heretics \'to the Laodiceans\' ....(v.17): According to the true belief of the church we hold this epistle to have been dispatched to the Ephesians, not to the Laodiceans; but Marcion had to falsify its title, wishing to make himself out a very diligent investigator").<P>2. The Inscription:<P>This almost universal evidence for Ephesus as the destination of our epistle is shattered when we turn to the reading of the first verse. Here according to Textus Receptus of the New Testament we read "Paul unto the saints which are at Ephesus (en Epheso) and to the faithful in Christ Jesus." When we look at the evidence for this reading we find that the two words en Epheso are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, and that the corrector of the cursive known as 67 has struck them out of his copy. Besides these a recently described MS, Cod. Laura 184, giving us a text which is so closely akin to that used by Origen that the scribe suggests that it was compiled from Origen\'s writings, omits these words (Robinson, Ephesians, 293). To this strong manuscript evidence against the inclusion of these two words in the inscription we must add the evidence of Origen and Basil. Origen, as quoted in Cramer\'s Catena at the place, writes: "In the Ephesians alone we found the expression \'to the saints which are,\' and we ask, unless the phrase \'which are\' is redundant, what it can mean. May it not be that as in Exodus He who speaks to Moses declares His name to be the Absolute One, so also those who are partakers of the Absolute become existent when they are called, as it were, from non-being into being?" Origen evidently knows nothing here of any reading en Epheso, but takes the words "which are" in an absolute, metaphysical sense. Basil, a century and a half later, probably refers to this comment of Origen (Contra Eun., ii.19) saying: "But moreover, when writing to the Ephesians, as to men who are truly united with the Absolute One through clear knowledge, he names them as existent ones in a peculiar phrase, saying \'to the saints which are and faithful in Christ Jesus.\' For so those who were before us have handed it down, and we also have found (this reading) in old copies." In Jerome\'s note on this verse there is perhaps a reference to this comment on Origen, but the passage is too indefinitely expressed for us to be sure what its bearing on the reading really is. The later writers quoted by Lightfoot (Biblical Essays, 384f) cannot, as Robinson shows (Eph, 293), be used as witnesses against the Textus Receptus. We may therefore conclude that the reading en Epheso was wanting in many early manuscripts, and that there is good ground for questioning its place in the original autograph. But the explanations suggested for the passage, as it stands without the words, offend Pauline usage so completely that we cannot accept them. To take "which are" in the phrase "the saints which are" (tois ousin) as absolute, as Origen did; or as meaning "truly," is impossible. It is possible to take the words with what follows, "and faithful" (kai pistois), and interpret this latter expression (pistois) either in the New Testament sense of "believers" or in the classical sense of "steadfast." The clause would then read either "to the saints who are also believers," or "to the saints who are also faithful," i.e. steadfast. Neither of these is wholly in accord with Paul\'s normal usage, but they are at least possible.<P>3. The Evidence of the Letter Itself:<P>The determining factor in the question of the destination of the epistle lies in the epistle itself. We must not forget that, save perhaps Corinth, there was no church with which Paul was so closely associated as that in Ephesus. His long residence there, of which we read in Acts (chapters <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,\'1-\');">19</>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,\'1-\');">20</a>), finds no echo in our epistle. There is no greeting to anyone of the Christian community, many of whom were probably intimate friends. The close personal ties, that the scene of <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,\'17-38\');">Ac 20:17-38</a> shows us existed between him and his converts in Ephesus, are not even hinted at. The epistle is a calm discussion, untouched with the warmth of personal allusion beyond the bare statement that the writer is a prisoner (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,\'1-\');">Eph 3:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,1);">4:1</a>), and his commendation of Tychicus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,21,22);">Eph 6:21-22</a>), who was to tell them about Paul\'s condition in Rome. This lack of personal touch is intensified by the assumption underlying <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,\'1-\');">Eph 3</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,\'1-\');">4</a> that the readers do not know his knowledge of the mysteries of Christ. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,2);">3:2</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,21,22);">4:21-22</a> there is a particle (eige, "if indeed") which suggests at least some question as to how far Paul himself was the missionary through whom they believed. All through the epistle there is a lack of those elements which are so constant in the other epistles, which mark the close personal fellowship and acquaintance between the apostle and those to whom he is writing.<P>4. Conclusion:<P>This element in the epistle, coupled with the strange fact of Marcion\'s attributing it to the Laodiceans, and the expression in <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,16);">Col 4:16</a> that points to a letter coming from Laodicea to Colosse, has led most writers of the present day to accept Ussher\'s suggestion that the epistle is really a circular letter to the churches either in Asia, or, perhaps better, in that part of Phrygia which lies near Colosse. The readers were evidently Gentiles (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,1);">Eph 2:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,1,2);">3:1-2</a>) and from the mission of Tychicus doubtless of a definite locality, though for the reasons given above this could not well be Ephesus alone. It is barely possible that the cities to whom John was bidden to write the Revelation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,\'1-\');">Re 1-3</a>) are the same as those to whom Paul wrote this epistle, or it may be that they were the churches of the Lycus valley and its immediate neighborhood. The exact location cannot be determined. But from the fact that Marcion attributed the epistle to Laodicea, possibly because it was so written in the first verse, and from the connection with Colossians, it is at least probable that two of these churches were at Colosse and Laodicea. On this theory the letter would seem to have been written from Rome to churches in the neighborhood of, or accessible to, Colosse, dealing with the problem of Christian unity and fellowship and the relations between Christ and the church and sent to them by the hands of Tychicus. The inscription was to be filled in by the bearer, or copies were to be made with the name of the local church written in, and then sent to or left with the different churches. It was from Ephesus, as the chief city of Asia in all probability, that copies of this circular letter reached the church in the world, and from this fact the letter came to be known in the church at large as that from Ephesus, and the title was written "to the Ephesians," and the first verse was made to read to the "saints which are in Ephesus."<P>IV. Relation to Other New Testament Writings.<P>Ephesians raises a still further question by the close resemblances that can be traced between it and various other New Testament writings.<P>1. Peter:<P>The connection between Ephesians and 1 Peter is not beyond question. In spite of the disclaimer of as careful a writer as Dr. Bigg (ICC) it is impossible to follow up the references given by Holtzmann and others and not feel that Peter either knew Ephesians or at the very least had discussed these subjects with its author. For, as Dr. Hort tells us, the similarity is one of thought and structure rather than of phrase. The following are the more striking passages with their parallels in 1 Peter: <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,3);">Eph 1:3</a> (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,3);">1Pe 1:3</a>); <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,18,19,20);">1:18-20</A> (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,\'3-5\');">1Pe 1:3-5</a>); <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,\'18-22\');">2:18-22</A> (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,\'4-6\');">1Pe 2:4-6</a>); <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,\'20-22\');">1:20-22</a> (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,22);">1Pe 3:22</a>); <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,9);">3:9</a> (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,20);">1Pe 1:20</a>); <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,20);">3:20</a> (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,12);">1Pe 1:12</a>); <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,19);">4:19</A> (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,14);">1Pe 1:14</a>). The explanations that 1 Peter and Ephesians are both from the pen of the same writer, or that Ephesians is based on 1 Peter, are overthrown, among other reasons, by the close relation between Ephesians and Colossians.<P>2. Johannine Writings:<P>The connection with the Apocalypse is based on <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,20);">Eph 2:20</a> as compared with <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',21,14);">Re 21:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,5);">Eph 3:5</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',10,7);">Re 10:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,11);">Eph 5:11</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',18,4);">Re 18:4</a>, and the figure of the bride of the Lamb (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,7);">Re 19:7</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,25);">Eph 5:25</a>). Holtzmann adds various minor similarities, but none of these are sufficient to prove any real knowledge of, let alone dependence on Ephesians. The contact with the Fourth Gospel is more positive. Love (agape) and knowledge (gnosis) are used in the same sense in both Ephesians and the Gospel. The application of the Messianic title, the Beloved (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,6);">Eph 1:6</a>), to Christ does not appear in the Gospel (it is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,17);">Mt 3:17</a>), but the statement of the Father\'s love for Him constantly recurs. The reference to the going up and coming down of Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,9);">Eph 4:9</a>) is closely akin to <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,13);">Joh 3:13</a> ("No man hath ascended into heaven, but he," etc.). So, too, <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,11,13);">Eph 5:11, 13</a> finds echo in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,19,20);">Joh 3:19-20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,4,7);">Eph 4:4, 7</a> in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,34);">Joh 3:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,6);">Eph 5:6</a> in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,36);">Joh 3:36</a>. <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,8);">Eph 5:8</a>f is akin to <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,6);">1Joh 1:6</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,3);">Eph 2:3</a> to <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,10);">1Joh 3:10</a>.<P>3. Colossians:<P>When we turn to Colossians we find a situation that is without parallel in the New Testament. Out of 155 verses in Ephesians, 78 are found in Colossians in varying degrees of identity. Among them are these: <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,6);">Eph 1:6</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,13);">Col 1:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,16);">Eph 1:16</a>ff parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,9);">Col 1:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,21);">Eph 1:21</a>ff parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,16);">Col 1:16</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,16);">Eph 2:16</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,20);">Col 2:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,2);">Eph 4:2</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,12);">Col 3:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,15);">Eph 4:15</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,19);">Col 2:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,22);">Eph 4:22</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,9);">Col 3:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,32);">Eph 4:32</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,12);">Col 3:12</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,5);">Eph 5:5</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,5);">Col 3:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,19);">Eph 5:19</a>ff parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,16);">Col 3:16</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,4);">Eph 6:4</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,21);">Col 3:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,\'5-9\');">Eph 6:5-9</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,\'22-\');">Col 3:22</a> - <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,1);">4:1</a>. For a fuller list see Abbott (ICC, xxiii). Not only is this so, but there is an identity of treatment, a similarity in argument so great that Bishop Barry (NT Commentary for English Readers, Ellicott) can make a parallel analysis showing the divergence and similarity by the simple device of different type. To this we must add that there are at least a dozen Greek words common to these two epistles not found elsewhere. Over against this similarity is to be set the dissimilarity. The general subject of the epistles is not approached from the same standpoint.<P>In one it is Christ as the head of all creation, and our duty in consequence. In the other it is the church as the fullness of Christ and our duty<74>put constantly in the same words<64>in consequence thereof. In Ephesians we have a number of Old Testament references, in Colossians only one. In Ephesians we have unique phrases, of which "the heavenly spheres" (ta epourania) is most striking, and the whole treatment of the relation of Jew and Gentile in the church, and the marriage tie as exemplified in the relation between Christ and the church. In Colossians we have in like manner distinct passages which have no parallel in Ephesians, especially the controversial section in chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,\'1-\');">2</a>, and the salutations. In truth, as Davies (Ephesians, Paul to Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians.) well says: "It is difficult indeed to say, concerning the patent coincidences of expression in the two epistles, whether the points of likeness or of unlikeness between them are the more remarkable." This situation has given rise to various theories. The most complicated is that of H. Holtzmann, who holds that some passages point to a priority of Colossians, others to that of Ephesians; and as a result he believes that Colossians, as we have it, is a composite, based on an original epistle of Paul which was expanded by the author of Ephesians<6E>who was not Paul<75>after he had written this epistle. So Holtzmann would give us the original Colossians (Pauline), Ephesians (based on it), and the present Colossians (not Pauline) expanded from the former through the latter. The theory falls to the ground on its fundamental hypothesis, that Colossians as it stands is interpolated. The most reasonable explanation is that both Colossians and Ephesians are the work of Paul, written at practically the same time, and that in writing on the same subjects, to different people, there would be just the differences and similarity which we have in these epistles. The objection that Paul could not repeat himself and yet differ as these two letters do is purely imaginary. Zahn shows us that men do just this very thing, giving an account of Bismarck\'s speaking on a certain subject to a group of officers and later to a large body of men, and yet using quite different language. Moreover, Paul is not averse to repeating himself (compare Romans and Galatians and 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy) when to do so will serve his purpose. "Simultaneous authorship by one writer," and that writer Paul, is the only explanation that will satisfy all the facts in the case and give them due proportion.<P>V. The Purpose.<P>If our interpretation of the circumstances, composition and destination of Ephesians be right, we are now in a position to look beneath the surface and ask why the apostle wrote it. To understand its central theme we must remember that Paul, the prisoner of the Lord, is writing in the calm of his imprisonment, far from the noise and turmoil, the conflict and strife, that marked his earlier life. He is now able to look out on the church and get a view of it in its wholeness, to see the part it is to play in God\'s scheme for the restoration of the human race, to see God\'s purpose in it and for it and its relation to Him. With this stand-point he can write to the churches about Ephesus on the occasion of Tychicus\' return to Colosse, not to correct false views on some special point, but to emphasize the great central truth which he had put in the very forefront of his letter. God\'s eternal purpose is to gather into one the whole created universe, to restore harmony among His creatures and between them and Himself. The apostle\'s whole prayer is for this end, his whole effort and desire is toward this goal: that they may have full, clear knowledge of this purpose of God which He is working out through Christ Jesus, who is the head of the church, the very fullness of Him who is being fulfilled all over the world. Everything, for the apostle, as he looks forth upon the empire, centers in the purpose of God. The discord between the elements in the church, the distinction between Jew and Gentile, all these must yield to that greater purpose. The vision is of a great oneness in Christ and through Him in God, a oneness of birth and faith and life and love, as men, touched with the fire of that Divine purpose, seek to fulfil, each in himself, the part that God has given him to play in the world, and, fighting against the foes of God, to overcome at last.<P>It is a noble purpose to set before men this great mystery of the church as God\'s means by which, in Christ, He may restore all men to union with Himself. It is an impossible vision except to one who, as Paul was at the time, is in a situation where the strife and turmoil of outside life can enter but little, but a situation where he can look out with a calm vision and, in the midst of the world\'s discord, discern what God is accomplishing among men.<P>VI. Argument.<P>The Argument of Ephesians is as follows:<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,1,2);">Ephesians 1:1-2</a>: Greeting.<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,\'3-10\');">Ephesians 1:3-10</a>: Hymn of praise to God for the manifestation of His purpose for men in Christ Jesus, chosen from the beginning to a holy life in love, predestined to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, in whom as the Beloved He has given us grace (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,\'3-6\');">1:3-6</a>). Redeemed by the blood of Christ by whom we have forgiveness of sins through His grace abounding in us and making us know the mystery of His purpose, namely, to unite all in one, even the entire universe (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,\'7-10\');">1:7-10</a>).<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,\'11-14\');">Ephesians 1:11-14</a>: For this Israel has served as a preparation, and to this the Gentiles are come, sealed unto salvation by the Holy Spirit of power.<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,15,16);">Ephesians 1:15-16</a> a: Thanksgiving for their faith.<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,\'16-21\');">Ephesians 1:16-21</a>: Prayer that they may, by the spirit of wisdom and revelation, know their destiny and the power of God to fulfill it.<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,\'22-\');">Ephesians 1:22</a> - <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,\'1-10\');">2:10</a>: Summary of what God has done in Christ. Christ\'s sovereignty (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,\'22-23\');">1:22-23</a>), and headship in the church (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,\'22-23\');">1:22-23</a>); His work for men, quickening us from a death of sin into which man has sunk, and exalting us to fellowship with Christ by His grace, who has created us for good works as part of His eternal purpose (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,\'1-10\');">2:1-10</a>).<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,\'11-13\');">Ephesians 2:11-13</a>: The contrast between the former estate of the Gentiles, as strangers and aliens, and their present one, "near" by the blood of Christ.<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,\'14-18\');">Ephesians 2:14-18</a>: Christ, who is our peace, uniting Jew and Gentile and reconciling man to God through the cross; by whom we all have access to the Father.<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,\'19-22\');">Ephesians 2:19-22</a>: This is theirs who as fellow-citizens of the saints, built up on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, become a sanctuary of God in the Spirit.<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,\'1-21\');">Ephesians 3:1-21</a>: A digression on the "mystery," i.e. the revelation to Paul, together with a prayer that men may grasp it. The "mystery" is that all men, Jews and Gentiles, are partakers of the promise. Of this Paul is a minister, to whom has been given the stewardship of that mystery, unfolding to all creatures God\'s wisdom, in accord with His eternal purpose (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,\'1-13\');">3:1-13</a>). Prayer that they may live up to their opportunities (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,\'14-19\');">3:14-19</a>). Doxology (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,\'20-21\');">3:20-21</a>).<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,\'1-6\');">Ephesians 4:1-6</a>: The outcome of this privilege, the fulfillment of the Divine purpose, must show itself in unity of life in the Christian fellowship.<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,\'7-16\');">Ephesians 4:7-16</a>: The different gifts which the Christians have are for the upbuilding of the church into that perfect unity which is found in Christ.<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,\'17-24\');">Ephesians 4:17-24</a>: The spiritual darkness and corruption of the old Gentile life set over against the enlightenment and purity and holiness of the new life in Christ.<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,25);">Ephesians 4:25-6:9</a>: Special features of the Christian life, arising out of the union of Christians with Christ and making for the fellowship in the church. On the side of the individual: sins in word (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,\'25-30\');">4:25-30</a>); of temper (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,\'31-32\');">4:31-32</a>); self-sacrifice as opposed to self-indulgence (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,\'1-8\');">5:1-8</a>); the contrast of the present and the past repeated (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,\'9-14\');">5:9-14</A>); general behavior (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,\'15-20\');">5:15-20</a>); on the side of social relations: husband and wife exemplified in the relation of Christ and the church (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,\'23-33\');">5:23-33</a>); children and parents (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,\'1-4\');">6:1-4</a>); servants and masters (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,\'5-9\');">6:5-9</A>).<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,\'19-20\');">Ephesians 6:19-20</a>: The Christian warfare, its foes and armor and weapons.<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,\'21-24\');">Ephesians 6:21-24</a>: Conclusion.<P>VII. Teaching<P>The keynote to the doctrinal basis of the epistle is struck at the very outset. The hymn of praise centers in the thought of God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is to Him that the blessing is due, to Him, who had chosen us from the beginning, in whom there is redemption in Eph (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,\'3-7\');">1:3-7</a>). God as the very heart and soul of everything, "is over all, and through all, and in all" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,6);">4:6</a>). He is the Father from whom all revelation comes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,17);">1:17</a>), and from whom every human family derives its distinctive characteristics (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,15);">3:15</a>). But He is not only Father in relation to the universe: He is in a peculiar sense the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,3);">1:3</a>). The eternity of our Lord is distinctly asserted (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,4,5);">1:4-5</a>) as of one existing before the foundation of the world, in whom everything heavenly as well as earthly is united, summed up (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,10);">1:10</A>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,12);">2:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,18);">4:18</a>). He is the Messiah (the Beloved (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,6);">1:6</a>) is clearly a Messianic term, as the voice from heaven at Christ\'s baptism, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased," shows (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,17);">Mt 3:17</a>)). In Him we are quickened (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,5);">2:5</a>). He is made flesh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,15);">2:15</a>). He died on the cross (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,16);">2:16</a>), and by His blood (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,7);">1:7</a>) we have redemption (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,30);">4:30</a>), and reconciliation with God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,16);">2:16</a>). He whom God raised from the dead (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,20);">1:20</a>), now is in heaven (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,20);">1:20</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,8);">4:8</a>) from which place He comes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,8);">4:8</a>), bringing gifts to men. (This interpretation makes the descent follow the ascent, and the passage teaches the return of Christ through His gifts of the Spirit which He gave to the church.)<P>He who is in heaven fills all things (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,10);">4:10</a>); and, from a wealth which is unsearchable (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,8);">3:8</a>), as the Head of the church (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,22);">1:22</a>), pours out His grace to free us from the power of sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,1);">2:1</a>). To this end He endues us with His Spirit (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,16);">3:16</a>). This teaching about God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is no abstract theorizing. It is all intensely practical, having at its heart the purpose of God from the ages, which, as we saw above, is to restore again the unity of all things in Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,9,10);">1:9-10</a>); to heal the breach between man and God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,16,17);">2:16-17</a>); to break down the separation between Jew and Gentile, and to abolish the enmity not only between them, but between them and God. This purpose of God is to be accomplished in a visible society, the one church, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,20);">2:20</a>), of which Jesus Christ is the head of the corner, into which men are to be admitted by holy baptism, where they own one Lord, hold to one faith, in one God and Father of all who is above all and through all (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,\'4-7\');">4:4-7</a>).<P>The teaching as to the church is one of the most striking elements of the epistle. In the first place we have the absolute use of the term, which has been already discussed. The apostle sees the whole Christian community throughout the world bound together into a unity, one fellowship, one body. He has risen to a higher vision than man had ever had before. But there is a further teaching in the epistle. Not only is the church throughout the world one body, but it is the body of Christ who is its Head (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,21);">Eph 1:21</a>f). He has, as Lightfoot suggests, the same relation to the church which in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,10);">Eph 1:10</a> He has to the universe. He is its Head, "the inspiring, ruling, guiding, combining, sustaining power, the mainspring of its activity, the center of its unity, and the seat of its life." But the relation is still closer. If, as the evidence adduced would necessitate, one accepts J. Armitage Robinson\'s explanation of pleroma, as that without which a thing is incomplete (Ephesians, 255f), then the church, in some wonderful mystery, is the complement of Christ, apart from which He Himself, as the Christ, lacks fullness. We are needed by Him, that so He may become all in all. He, the Head of restored humanity, the Second Adam, needs His church, to fulfill the unity which He came upon earth to accomplish (compare Stone, Christian Church, 85, 86). Still further, we find in this epistle the two figures of the church as the Temple of the Spirit (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,21);">2:21</a>ff; and the Bride of Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,23);">5:23</a>ff)). Under the latter figure we find the marriage relation of the Lord to Israel, which runs through the Old Testament (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',2,16);">Hos 2:16</a>, et al.), applied to the union between Christ and the church. The significance is the close tie that binds them, the self-sacrificing love of Christ and the self-surrender of obedience on the part of the church; and the object of this is that so the church may be free from any blemish, holy and spotless. In the figure of the Temple, which is an expansion of the earlier figure in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',3,16);">1Co 3:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',6,16);">2Co 6:16</a>, we see the thought of a spiritual building, a sanctuary, into which all the diverse elements of the churches grow into a compact unity.<P>These figures sum up the apostle\'s thought of that in which the Divine purpose finds its fulfillment. The progress forward to that fulfillment is due to the combined effort of God and man. "The church, the society of Christian men...is built and yet it grows. Human endeavor and Divine energy cooperate in its development" (Westcott). Out of this doctrinal development the apostle works out the practical life by which this Divine purpose can find its fulfillment. Admitted into the fellowship of the church by baptism, we become members one of another Eph (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,25);">4:25</a>). It is on this basis that he urges honesty and patience and truth in our intercourse with each other, and pleads for gentleness and a forgiving spirit (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,\'25-32\');">4:25-32</a>). As followers of God we are to keep free from the sins that spring from pride and self-indulgence and any fellowship with the spirit of evil (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,14);">5:1-14</a>). Our life is to be lived as seeking the fulfillment of God\'s purpose in all the relationships of life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,\'15-\');">5:15</a> - <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,\'1-9\');">6:9</a>). All is to be done with the full armor of the Christian soldier, as is fitting for those who fight spiritual enemies (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,10);">6:10</a>ff). The epistle is preeminently practical, bringing the significance of the great revelation of God\'s will to the everyday duties of life, and lifting all things up to a higher level which finds its ideal in the indwelling of Christ in our hearts, out of which we may be filled with all the fullness of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,\'17-19\');">3:17-19</a>).<P>VIII. LITERATURE. J. Armitage Robinson, Paul\'s Epistle to the Ephesians; Westcott, Epistle to the Ephesains; Abbott, "Ephesians and Colossians," International Critical Commentary; Moule, "Ephesians," Cambridge Bible; Salmond, "Ephesians," Expositor\'s Greek Testament; Macpherson, Commentary on Ephesians; Findlay, "Epistle to the Ephesians," Expositor\'s Bible; Alexander, "Colossians and Ephesians," Bible for Home and School; Haupt, Meyer\'s Exeget. und krit. Kommentar; von Soden, Handcommentar; Hort, Prolegomena to the Epistles to the Romans and Ephesians; Dale, Lectures on the Ephesians.``101';
|
||
isbe[3139]='Ephesus`ef\'-e-sus (Ephesos, "desirable"):<P>A city of the Roman province of Asia, near the mouth of the Cayster river, 3 miles from the western coast of Asia Minor, and opposite the island of Samos. With an artificial harbor accessible to the largest ships, and rivaling the harbor at Miletus, standing at the entrance of the valley which reaches far into the interior of Asia Minor, and connected by highways with the chief cities of the province, Ephesus was the most easily accessible city in Asia, both by land and sea. Its location, therefore, favored its religious, political and commercial development, and presented a most advantageous field for the missionary labors of Paul. The city stood upon the sloping sides and at the base of two hills, Prion and Coressus, commanding a beautiful view; its climate was exceptionally fine, and the soil of the valley was unusually fertile.<P>Tradition says that in early times near the place where the mother goddess of the earth was born, the Amazons built a city and a temple in which they might worship. This little city of the Amazons, bearing at different times the names of Samorna, Trachea, Ortygia and Ptelea, flourished until in the early Greek days it aroused the cupidity of Androclus, a prince of Athens. He captured it and made it a Greek city. Still another tradition says that Androclus was its founder. However, under Greek rule the Greek civilization gradually supplanted that of the Orientals, the Greek language was spoken in place of the Asiatic; and the Asiatic goddess of the temple assumed more or less the character of the Greek Artemis. Ephesus, therefore, and all that pertained to it, was a mixture of oriental and Greek Though the early history of the city is obscure, it seems that at different times it was in the hands of the Carians, the Leleges and Ionians; in the early historical period it was one of a league of twelve Ionfan cities. In 560 BC it came into the possession of the Lydians; 3 years later, in 557, it was taken by the Persians; and during the following years the Greeks and Persians were constantly disputing for its possession. Finally, Alexander the Great took it; and at his death it fell to Lysimachus, who gave it the name of Arsinoe, from his second wife. Upon the death of Attalus II (Philadelphus), king of Pergamos, it was bequeathed to the Roman Empire; and in 190, when the Roman province of Asia was formed, it became a part of it. Ephesus and Pergamos, the capital of Asia, were the two great rival cities of the province. Though Pergamos was the center of the Roman religion and of the government, Ephesus was the more accessible, the commercial center and the home of the native goddess Diana; and because of its wealth and situation it gradually became the chief city of the province. It is to the temple of Diana, however, that its great wealth and prominence are largely due. Like the city, it dates from the time of the Amazons, yet what the early temple was like we now have no means of knowing, and of its history we know little except that it was seven times destroyed by fire and rebuilt, each time on a scale larger and grander than before. The wealthy king Croesus supplied it with many of its stone columns, and the pilgrims from all the oriental world brought it of their wealth. In time the temple possessed valuable lands; it controlled the fisheries; its priests were the bankers of its enormous revenues. Because of its strength the people stored there their money for safe-keeping; and it became to the ancient world practically all that the Bank of England is to the modern world.<P>In 356 BC, on the very night when Alexander the Great was born, it was burned; and when he grew to manhood he offered to rebuild it at his own expense if his name might be inscribed upon its portals. This the priests of Ephesus were unwilling to permit, and they politely rejected his offer by saying that it was not fitting for one god to build a temple to another. The wealthy Ephesians themselves undertook its reconstruction, and 220 years passed before its final completion. Not only was the temple of Diana a place of worship, and a treasure-house, but it was also a museum in which the best statuary and most beautiful paintings were preserved. Among the paintings was one by the famous Apelles, a native of Ephesus, representing Alexander the Great hurling a thunderbolt. It was also a sanctuary for the criminal, a kind of city of refuge, for none might be arrested for any crime whatever when within a bowshot of its walls. There sprang up, therefore, about the temple a village in which the thieves and murderers and other criminals made their homes. Not only did the temple bring vast numbers of pilgrims to the city, as does the Kaaba at Mecca at the present time, but it employed hosts of people apart from the priests and priestesses; among them were the large number of artisans who manufactured images of the goddess Diana, or shrines to sell to the visiting strangers.<P>Such was Ephesus when Paul on his 2nd missionary journey in Acts (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,\'19-21\');">18:19-21</a>) first visited the city, and when, on his 3rd journey (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,\'8-10\');">19:8-10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,31);">20:31</a>), he remained there for two years preaching in the synagogue (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,8,10);">19:8,10</a>), in the school of Tyrannus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,9);">19:9</A>) and in private houses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,20);">20:20</a>). Though Paul was probably not the first to bring Christianity to Ephesus, for Jews had long lived there (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,9);">2:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',6,9);">6:9</a>), he was the first to make progress against the worship of Diana. As the fame of his teachings was carried by the pilgrims to their distant homes, his influence extended to every part of Asia Minor. In time the pilgrims, with decreasing faith in Diana, came in fewer numbers; the sales of the shrines of the goddess fell off; Diana of the Ephesians was no longer great; a Christian church was rounded there and flourished, and one of its first leaders was the apostle John. Finally in 262 AD, when the temple of Diana was again burned, its influence had so far departed that it was never again rebuilt. Diana was dead. Ephesus became a Christian city, and in 341 AD a council of the Christian church was held there. The city itself soon lost its importance and decreased in population. The sculptured stones of its great buildings, which were no longer in use and were falling to ruins, were carried away to Italy, and especially to Constantinople for the great church of Saint Sophia. In 1308 the Turks took possession of the little that remained of the city, and deported or murdered its inhabitants. The Cayster river, overflowing its banks, gradually covered with its muddy deposit the spot where the temple of Diana had once stood, and at last its very site was forgotten.<P>The small village of Ayasaluk, 36 miles from Smyrna on the Aidin R. R., does not mark the site of the ancient city of Ephesus, yet it stands nearest to its ruins. The name Ayasaluk is the corruption of three Greek words meaning "the Holy Word of God." Passing beyond the village one comes to the ruins of the old aqueduct, the fallen city walls, the so-called church of John or the baths, the Turkish fort which is sometimes called Paul\'s prison, the huge theater which was the scene of the riot of Paul\'s time, but which now, with its marble torn away, presents but a hole in the side of the hill Prion. In 1863 Mr. J. T. Wood, for the British Museum, obtained permission from the Turkish government to search for the site of the lost temple of Diana. During the eleven years of his excavations at Ephesus, $80,000 were spent, and few cities of antiquity have been more thoroughly explored. The city wall of Lysimachus was found to be 36,000 ft. in length, enclosing an area of 1,027 acres. It was 10 1/2 ft. thick, and strengthened by towers at intervals of 100 ft. The six gates which pierced the wall are now marked by mounds of rubbish. The sites and dimensions of the various public buildings, the streets, the harbor, and the foundations of many of the private houses were ascertained, and numerous inscriptions and sculptures and coins were discovered. Search, however, did not reveal the site of the temple until January 1,1870, after six years of faithful work. Almost by accident it was then found in the valley outside the city walls, several feet below the present surface. Its foundation, which alone remained, enabled Mr. Wood to reconstruct the entire temple plan. The temple was built upon a foundation which was reached by a flight of ten steps. The building itself was 425 ft. long and 220 ft. wide; each of its 127 pillars which supported the roof of its colonnade was 60 ft. high; like the temples of Greece, its interior was open to the sky. For a further description of the temple, see Mr. Wood\'s excellent book, Discoveries at Ephesus.``7';
|
||
isbe[3140]='Ephlal`ef\'-lal (\'ephlal, "judgment"):<P>A descendant of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,37);">1Ch 2:37</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[3141]='Ephod (1)`ef\'-od (\'ephowdh (28 times), \'ephodh (20 times), \'ephodh; Septuagint epomis, ephoth, ephod, ephoud, stole exallos, stole bussine):<P>(1) A sacred vestment originally designed for the high priest (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',28,4);">Ex 28:4</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',39,2);">39:2</a>ff), and made "of gold, blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen," held together by two shoulder-pieces and a skillfully woven band which served as a girdle for the ephod. On the shoulderpieces were two onyx stones on which were engraved the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. It is not known whether the ephod extended below the hips or only to the waist. Attached to the ephod by chains of pure gold was a breastplate containing twelve precious stones in four rows. Underneath the ephod was the blue robe of the ephod extending to the feet of the priest. The robe of the ephod was thus a garment comprising, in addition to the long robe proper, the ephod with its shoulderpieces and the breastplate of judgment.<P>(2) From the historical books we learn that ephods were worn by persons other than the high priest. Thus, the boy Samuel was girded with a linen ephod while assisting the aged high priest (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',2,18);">1Sa 2:18</a>); the priests at Nob, 85 in number, are described as men wearing a linen ephod (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',22,18);">1Sa 22:18</a>); and David was girded with a linen ephod when he danced in the procession that brought the ark into Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',6,14);">2Sa 6:14</a>). The ephod was considered appropriate for the king on this solemn and happy occasion; but it would be reading into the narrative more than it contains to infer that lay worshippers were regularly clothed with the ephod; nor are we to suppose that priests other than the high priest were accustomed to wear ephods as rich and elaborate as that of the high priest. Abiathar, who became high priest after the assassination of his father by Doeg, probably brought to the camp of David the ephod worn by the high priest in his ministrations at Nob (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',23,6);">1Sa 23:6</a>), and through this ephod David sought in certain crises to learn Yahweh\'s will (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',23,9);">1Sa 23:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',30,7);">30:7</a>). Some have argued that the ephod, which Abiathar brought in his hand, was an image rather than a priestly garment, but there seems no sufficient reason for regarding it as other than a vestment for the high priest. The ephod behind which the sword of Goliath was kept wrapped in a cloth may well have been a garment suspended from the wall or itself wrapped in a protecting cloth (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',21,9);">1Sa 21:9</a>).<P>(3) The ephod mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',17,5);">Jud 17:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',18,14);">18:14</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',3,4);">Ho 3:4</a> is associated with teraphim and other idolatrous images. We may frankly confess that we do not know the shape, size and use of the ephod in these cases, though even here also the ephod may well have been a priestly garment. The same remark holds good of the ephod made by Gideon, and which became an object of idolatrous worship in Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,27);">Jud 8:27</a>). It has been argued that a vestment would not cost seventeen hundred shekels of gold. Possibly Gideon set up an apparatus of worship containing other articles just as the mother of Micah began with the promise to make a graven image and a molten image, and afterward added an ephod and teraphim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',17,\'1-5\');">Jud 17:1-5</a>). Moreover, if gems and brilliants were put on Gidcon\'s ephod, who can say that it did not cost seventeen hundred shekels?<p>LITERATURE.<P>Braun, De vestitu sacerdotum (1698), 462ff; Ugolini, Thesaurus antiquitatum sacrarum (1744-69), XII, 785f; Ancessi, Annales de philos. chretienne, 1872; Konig, Rel. Hist. of Israel, 107ff; Van Hoonackcr, Le sacerdoce levitique (1899), 370ff; Foote, The Ephod, in "Johns Hopkins University Circulars," 1900.``156';
|
||
isbe[3142]='Ephod (2)`e\'-fod (\'ephodh):<P>Father of Hanniel, prince of Manasseh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',34,23);">Nu 34:23</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[3143]='Ephphatha`ef\'-a-tha, ef-a\'-tha (Ephphatha):<P>Aramaic word used by Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,34);">Mr 7:34</a>), the \'ethpa\'al imperative of Aramaic pethach (Hebrew pathach), translated, "Be (thou) opened"; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',35,5);">Isa 35:5</a>. The Aramaic was the sole popular language of Palestine (Shurer, History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, IIg, 9) and its use shows that we have here the graphic report of an eyewitness, upon whom the dialectic form employed made a deep impression. This and the corresponding act of the touch with the moistened finger is the foundation of a corresponding ceremony in the Roman Catholic formula for baptism.``1';
|
||
isbe[3144]='Ephraim (1)`e\'-fra-im, e\'-fra-im (\'ephrayim, "double fruit"):<P>1. The Patriarch:<P>The younger of the two sons of Joseph and Asenath, born in Egypt. He and his brother Manasseh were adopted by Jacob, and ranked as his own sons, each becoming the ancestor of a tribe in Israel. In blessing his grandchildren, despite their father\'s protest, Jacob preferred the younger, foreshadowing the future eminence of his descendants (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,50);">Ge 41:50</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',48,20);">48:20</a>ff). In the Blessing of Jacob however, the two are included under the name of Joseph (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,22);">Ge 49:22</a>f).<P>2. The Tribe:<P>At the first census on leaving Egypt, Ephraim\'s men of war numbered 40,500; and at the second census they are given as 32,500 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',1,33);">Nu 1:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,37);">26:37</a>). See, however, article <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NUMBERS">NUMBERS</A>. The head of the tribe at the Exodus was Elishama, son of Ammihud (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',1,10);">Nu 1:10</a>). With the standard of the tribe of Ephraim on the west of the tabernacle in the desert march were Manasseh and Benjamin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',2,18);">Nu 2:18</a>ff). The Ephraimite among the spies was Hoshea (i.e. Joshua), the son of Nun (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,8);">Nu 13:8</a>). At the division of the land Ephraim was represented by prince Kemuel, son of Shiphtan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',34,24);">Nu 34:24</a>). The future power of this tribe is again foreshadowed in the Blessing of Moses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,17);">De 33:17</a>). When Moses died, a member of the tribe, Joshua, whose faith and courage had distinguished him among the spies, succeeded to the chief place in Israel. It was natural that the scene of national assemblies, and the center of the nation\'s worship, should be chosen within the land occupied by the children of Joseph, at Shechem and Shiloh respectively. The leadership of Ephraim was further emphasized by the rule of Samuel. From the beginning of life in Palestine they enjoyed a certain prestige, and were very sensitive on the point of honor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',7,24);">Jud 7:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,1);">8:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',12,1);">12:1</a>ff). Their acceptance of and loyalty to Saul, the first king chosen over Israel, may be explained by his belonging to a Rachel tribe, and by the close and tender relations existing between Joseph and Benjamin. But they were never reconciled to the passing of the scepter to Judah in the person of David (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',2,8);">2Sa 2:8</a>f). That Israel would have submitted to the sovereignty of Absalom, any more than to that of David, is not to be believed; but his revolt furnished an opportunity to deal a shrewd blow at the power of the southern tribe (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',15,13);">2Sa 15:13</a>). Solomon\'s lack of wisdom and the crass folly of Rehoboam in the management of the northern tribes fanned the smoldering discontent into a fierce flame. This made easy the work of the rebel Jeroboam; and from the day of the disruption till the fall of the Northern Kingdom there was none to dispute the supremacy of Ephraim, the names Ephraim and Israel being synonymous. The most distinguished of Ephraim\'s sons were Joshua, Samuel and Jeroboam I.<P>3. The Territory:<P>The central part of Western Palestine fell to the children of Joseph; and, while the boundaries of the territory allotted to Ephraim and Manasseh respectively are given in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',16,\'1-\');">Jos 16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',17,1);">17:1</a>ff, it seems to have been held by them in common for some time (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',17,114;">17:14</A>). The Canaanites in certain cities of both divisions were not driven out. It was probably thought more profitable to enslave them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',16,10);">16:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',17,13);">17:13</A>). The boundaries of Ephraim cannot be followed with accuracy, but roughly, they were as follows: The southern boundary, agreeing with the northern border of Benjamin, started from Bethel, and passed down westward by nether Beth-horon and Gezer toward the sea (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',16,3);">16:3</a>; in verse <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',16,5);">5</a> it stops at upper Beth-horon); it turned northward to the southern bank of the brook Kanah (Wady Kanah) along which it ran eastward (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',17,10);">17:10</a>) to Michmethath (the plain of Mukhneh); thence it went northward along the western edge of the plain to Shechem. It then bent eastward and southward past Taanath-shiloh (Ta\'ana), Janoah (Yankun) to Ataroth and Naarah (unidentified) and the Jordan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',16,7);">16:7</a>). From Ataroth, which probably corresponds to Ataroth-addar (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',16,5);">16:5</a>), possibly identical with the modern et-Truneh, the southern border passed up to Bethel. Along the eastern front of the land thus defined there is a steep descent into the Jordan valley. It is torn by many gorges, and is rocky and unfruitful. The long slopes to the westward, however, furnish much of the finest land in Palestine. Well watered as it is, the valleys are beautiful in season with cornfields, vineyards, olives and other fruit trees. The uplands are accessible at many points from the maritime plain; but the great avenue of entrance to the country runs up Wady esh-Sha\'ir to Nablus, whence, threading the pass between Gerizim and Ebal, it descends to the Jordan valley. In this favored region the people must have lived in the main a prosperous and happy life. How appropriate are the prophetic allusions to these conditions in the days of Ephraim\'s moral decay (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',28,1,4);">Isa 28:1-4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,18);">Jer 31:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',9,13);">Ho 9:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',10,11);">10:11</a>, etc.)!``54';
|
||
isbe[3145]='Ephraim (2)`(1) A position apparently of some importance, since the position of Baal-hazor (probably = Tell \'Asur) where Abraham\'s sheep-farm was located, is determined by relation to it (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',13,23);">2Sa 13:23</a>). That it lay north of Jerusalem seems to be indicated in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',13,34);">2Sa 13:34</a>. It may be identical with the Ephraim of Eusebius, Onomasticon, 20 Roman miles north of Jerusalem, and therefore to be sought somewhere in the neighborhood of Sinjil and el- Lubban. Connected with this may have been the name Aphaerema, a district in Samaria mentioned in 1Macc 11:34; Ant, XIII, iv, 9.<P>(2) The town near the wilderness to which Jesus retired after the raising of Lazarus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,54);">Joh 11:54</a>). This probably corresponds to Ephrem of Eusebius, Onomasticon (s .v. "Afra") 5 Roman miles east of Bethel. This may be the place named along with Bethel by Josephus (BJ, IV, ix, 9). It probably answers to eT-Taiyebeh, a large village about 4 miles north of Beitin. The antiquity of the site is attested by the cisterns and rock tombs. It stands on a high hill with a wide outlook including the plains of Jericho and the Dead Sea.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EPHRON">EPHRON</a>`54';
|
||
isbe[3146]='Ephraim, Forest of`(ya\'ar \'ephrayim):<P>The word ya\'ar (Hebrew) probably agrees in meaning with the Arabic wa\'r, which indicates a rough country, abounding in rocks, stones and scrub, with occasional trees; not a "forest," as we understand the term. Here Absalom was defeated and slain (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',18,6);">2Sa 18:6</a>ff, the King James Version "wood of Ephraim"). It must be sought, therefore, east of the Jordan, in the neighborhood of Mahanaim; but no identification is yet possible.``1';
|
||
isbe[3147]='Ephraim, Gate of``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JERUSALEM">JERUSALEM</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3148]='Ephraim, Mount`(har \'ephrayim):<P>Means that part of the mountain which fell to Ephraim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,50);">Jos 19:50</a>, etc.). The natives speak today of Jebel Nablus, Jebel Cafed, etc., meaning that section of the central range which is subject to each city. It is better therefore to retain the rendering of the King James Version, and not to read with the Revised Version (British and American) "hill-country of Ephraim."``1';
|
||
isbe[3149]='Ephraim, Wood of``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EPHRAIM,+forest+of">EPHRAIM, FOREST OF</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3150]='Ephraimite`e\'-fra-im-it (\'ephrayim; singular \'ephrathi):<P>A member of the tribe of Ephraim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',16,10);">Jos 16:10</a>, etc.).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EPHRATHITE">EPHRATHITE</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3151]='Ephrain`e\'-fra-in (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',13,19);">2Ch 13:19</a>), the Revised Version (British and American) <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EPHRON">EPHRON</a>, which see.``1';
|
||
isbe[3152]='Ephrath; Ephrathah`ef\'-rath, e\'-frath, ef\'-ra-tha, ef-ra\'-tha (\'ephrath; Ephratha; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,16);">Ge 35:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',48,7);">48:7</a>); (\'ephrathah, in the other references: <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,59);">Jos 15:59</a> (in added verse of Septuagint only); <a onClick="return mV(\'Rth\',4,11);">Ru 4:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,19,24,50);">1Ch 2:19, 24, 50</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',132,6);">Ps 132:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',5,2);">Mic 5:2</a>, the King James Version "Ephratah"):<P>The name either of Bethlehem itself or of a district in which Bethlehem was situated. A man of this place was called an Ephrathite (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rth\',1,2);">Ru 1:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',17,12);">1Sa 17:12</a>). It is held by many authorities that the Ephrath where Rachel was buried (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,16);">Ge 35:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',48,7);">48:7</a>) was a different place, the words "the same is Bethlehem" being a gloss. The reading in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',132,6);">Ps 132:6</a> is doubtful; the Revised Version, margin has "Ephraim."``117';
|
||
isbe[3153]='Ephrathite`ef\'-rath-it, e\'-frath-it.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EPHRATH">EPHRATH</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3154]='Ephron (1)`e\'-fron (\'ephron, "fawnlike"):<P>The Hittite of whom Abraham bought the field and cave of Machpelah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,8);">Ge 23:8</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,9);">25:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,30);">49:30</a>). The transaction was conducted in true oriental fashion, with excessive courtesy; but the large sum of 400 shekels\' weight of silver was in the end required (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',33,19);">33:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',16,24);">1Ki 16:24</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MONEY">MONEY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html??string=MONEY,+current">MONEY, CURRENT</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3155]='Ephron (2)`e\'-fron (\'ephron; Ephron):<P>(1) <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',13,19);">2Ch 13:19</a>: "And Abijah pursued after Jeroboam, and took cities from him, Beth-el with the towns thereof, and Jeshanah with the towns thereof, and Ephron with the towns thereof." Another reading is "Ephraim" (Revised Version, margin). This is thought by many to be identical with Ophrah (\'ophrah, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',18,23);">Jos 18:23</a>) and perhaps with Ephraim (\'ephrayim, <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',13,23);">2Sa 13:23</a>) which both have been localized at the lofty town of et Taiyibeh.<P>(2) A city east of the Jordan between Carnion (Ashteroth-karnain) and Scythopolis (Beisan): "Then Judas gathered together all the Israelites that were in the country....Now when they came unto Ephron (this was a great city in the way as they should go, very well fortified) they could not turn from it either on the right hand or on the left, but they must needs pass through the midst of it" (1Macc 5:45,46 the King James Version; Ant, XII, viii, 5; also 2Macc 12:27). Buhl and Schumacher propose Kacr Wady el Ghafr, a ruined tower which completely commands the deep Wady el Ghafr, but the ruins appear to be scanty.<P>(3) Mt. Ephron: The border of Judah is described (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,9);">Jos 15:9</a>): "It went out to the cities of Mount Ephron." The position will depend on that of Nephtoah and of Kiriath-jearim.``117';
|
||
isbe[3156]='Epicureans`ep-i-ku-re\'-anz (Epikoureioi):<P>Contents<P>1. Social and Political Causes<P>2. Egoistic Hedonism<P>3. Back to Nature<P>4. Ataraxy<P>5. Pleasure Is the Absence of Pain<P>6. Social Contract<P>7. Atomic Theory<P>8. Materialism<P>9. Theory of Ideas<P>10. Epicurean Gods<P>11. Consensus Gentium<P>12. Causes of Success<P>13. Complete Antithesis of Paul\'s Teaching<P>14. LITERATURE<hr /><P>The Epicureans with the <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=STOICS">STOICS</A> (which see) encountered Paul in Athens (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,18);">Ac 17:18</a>). They were the followers of Epicurus, a philosopher who was born in Samos in 341 BC, and who taught first in Asia Minor and afterward in Athens till his death in 270 BC. His system, unlike most philosophies, maintained its original form, with little development or dissent, to the end of its course. The views of Paul\'s opponents of this school may therefore be gathered from the teaching of Epicurus.<P>1. Social and Political Causes:<P>The conditions for the rise of Epicureanism and Stoicism were political and social rather than intellectual. Speculative thought had reached its zenith in the great constructive ideals of Plato, and the encyclopaedic system of Aristotle. Criticism of these would necessarily drive men back upon themselves to probe deeper into the meaning of experience, as Kant did in later times. But the conditions were not propitious to pure speculation. The breaking up of the Greek city-states and the loss of Greek independence had filled men\'s minds with a sense of insecurity. The institutions, laws and customs of society, which had hitherto sheltered the individual, now gave way; and men demanded from philosophy a haven of rest for their homeless and weary souls. Philosophy, therefore, became a theory of conduct and an art of living.<P>Epicurus deprecated the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, whether as philosophy or science, and directed his inquiries to the two practical questions: What is the aim of life? and How to attain to it? Philosophy he defined as "a daily business of speech and thought to secure a happy life."<P>2. Egoistic Hedonism:<P>His ethical teaching is therefore the central and governing factor of Epicurus\' philosophy. It belongs to the type generally described as Egoistic Hedonism. The same general principles had been taught by Aristippus and his school, the Cyrenaics, a century earlier, and they were again revived in the 17th century in England by Thomas Hobbes. The aim and end of life for every man is his own happiness, and happiness is primarily defined as pleasure. "Wherefore we call pleasure the Alpha and Omega of a blessed life. Pleasure is our first and kindred good. It is the starting-point of every choice and of every aversion, and to it we come back, inasmuch as we make feeling the rule by which to judge every good thing" (Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus). So far Epicurus might seem to be simply repeating the view of the Cyrenaics. But there are important differences. Aristippus held the pleasure of the moment to be the end of action; but Epicurus taught that life should be so lived as to secure the greatest amount of pleasure during its whole course. And in this larger outlook, the pleasures of the mind came to occupy a larger place than the pleasures of the body. For happiness consists not so much in the satisfaction of desires, as in the suppression of wants, and in arriving at a state of independence of all circumstances, which secures a peace of mind that the privations and changes of life cannot disturb. Man\'s desires are of various kinds: "Some are natural, some are groundless; of the natural, some are necessary as well as natural, and some are natural only. And of the necessary desires, some are necessary if we are to be happy, some if the body is to be rid of uneasiness, some if we are even to live." Man\'s aim should be to suppress all desires that are unnecessary, and especially such as are artificially produced. Learning, culture, civilization and the distractions of social and political life are proscribed, much as they were in the opposite school of the Cynics, because they produce many desires difficult to satisfy, and so disturb the peace of the mind. This teaching has been compared to that of Rousseau and even of Buddha. Like the former, Epicurus enjoins the withdrawal of life from the complexities and perplexities of civilization, to the bare necessities of Nature, but he stops short of the doctrine of Nirvana, for life and the desire to live he regards as good things.<P>3. Back to Nature:<P>He even rises above Naturalism to a view that has some kinship with modern Spiritualism, in his affirmation of the mastery of mind over adverse circumstances. "Though he is being tortured on the rack, the wise man is still happy."<P>4. Ataraxy:<P>Epicurus\' definition of the end of life and of the way to it bears a superficial resemblance to that of his opponents, the Stoics. The end sought by both is ataraxia, "imperturbability," a peace of mind that transcends all circumstances, and the way to it is the life according to Nature. But Nature for Epicurus is purely physical and material, and the utmost happiness attainable is the complete absence of pain.<P>5. Pleasure Is the Absence of Pain:<P>He justly protests against the representation of his teaching as gross and immoral. "When we say, then, that pleasure is the end and aim, we do not mean the pleasures of the prodigal, or the pleasures of sensuality, as we are understood to do by some, through ignorance, prejudice or willful misrepresentation. By pleasure we mean the absence of pain in the body and trouble in the soul" (Letter to Menoeceus). His own life was marked by a simplicity verging on asceticism, and by kindly consideration for his friends. But theory was capable of serving the purposes of worse men to justify license and selfishness.<P>6. Social Contract:<P>Justice and ordinary morality were recognized in the system as issuing from an original social compact, such as Hobbes and Rousseau supposed, and resting upon the self-interest and happiness of individuals who entered into the compact the better to gain those ends. Ordinary morality has therefore no stronger sanction than the individual\'s desire to secure his own happiness. Against public violations of the moral code, the sanction finds its agent in the social order and the penalties it inflicts; but the only deterrent from secret immorality is the fear of being found out, and the necessarily disturbing character of that fear itself. Friendship, the supreme virtue of Epicureanism, is based upon the same calculating selfishness, and is to be cultivated for the happiness it begets to its owners. The fundamental defect of the system is its extreme individualism, which issues in a studied selfishness that denies any value of their own to the social virtues, and in the negation of the larger activities of life.<P>Epicurus had no interest in knowledge for its own sake, whether of the external world, or of any ultimate or supreme, reality. But he found men\'s minds full of ideas about the world, immortality and the gods, which disturbed their peace and filled them with vain desires and fears. It was therefore necessary for the practical ends of his philosophy to find a theory of the things outside of man that would give him tranquillity and serenity of mind.<P>7. Atomic Theory:<P>For this purpose Epicurus fell back upon Democritus\' atomic theory of the world. The original constituents of the universe, of which no account could be given, were atoms, the void, and motion. By a fixed law or fate, the atoms moved through the void, so as to form the world as we know it. The same uniform necessity maintains and determines the abiding condition of all that exists. Epicurus modified this system so far as to admit an initial freedom to the atoms, which enabled them to divert slightly from their uniform straight course as they fell like rain through space, and so to impinge, combine and set up rotatory motions by which the worlds, and all that is in them, came into being.<P>8. Materialism:<P>He did not follow the idea of freedom in Nature and man beyond the exigencies of his theory, and the thoroughly materialistic nature of his universe precluded him from deducing a moral realm. By this theory he gets rid of the causes of fear and anxiety that disturb the human mind. Teleology, providence, a moral order of the universe, the arbitrary action of the gods, blind fate, immortality, hell, reward and punishment after death, are all excluded from a universe where atoms moving through space do everything. The soul, like the body, is made of atoms, but of a smaller or finer texture. In death, the one like the other dissolves and comes to its end.<P>9. Theory of Ideas:<P>From the same premises one would expect the complete denial of any Divine beings. But it is a curiosity of the system that a grossly materialistic theory of knowledge should require the affirmation of the existence of the gods. Men\'s ideas are derived from thin material films that pass from the objects around them into the kindred matter of their minds. It follows that every idea must have been produced by a corresponding object. Men generally possess ideas of gods. Therefore, gods must exist to produce those ideas, which come to men in sleep and dreams. But they are not such gods as men generally believe to exist. They are constituted of the same atomic matter as men, but of a still finer texture. They dwell in the intermundia, the interspaces outside the worlds, where earthly cares and the dissolution of death cannot approach them. They are immortal and completely blessed. They cannot therefore know anything of the world, with its pain and its troubles, nor can they be in any way concerned with it. They are apotheoses of the Epicurean sage, entirely withdrawn from the world\'s turmoil, enjoying a life of calm repose, and satisfied with the bounty that Nature provides for them.<P>10. Epicurean Gods:<P>"For the nature of the gods must ever in itself of necessity enjoy immortality with supreme repose, far removed and withdrawn from our concerns; since exempt from every pain, exempt from all dangers, strong in its own resources, not wanting aught of us, it is neither gained by favors nor moved by anger" (Lucretius). All religion is banned, though the gods are retained. Epicurus\' failure to carry the logic of his system to the denial of the gods lies deeper than his theory of ideas.<P>11. Consensus Gentium:<P>He was impressed by the fact that "a steadfast unanimity continues to prevail among all men without exception" that gods exist. "A consciousness of godhead does not allow him to deny the existence of God altogether. Hence, his attempt to explain the fact so as not to interfere with his general theory" (Wallace, Epicureanism, 209). During his lifetime, Epicurus attracted a large following to his creed, and it continued to flourish far down into the Christian era. It was presented to the Roman world by the poet Lucretius in his poem De natura rerum, which is still the chief source for the knowledge of it. One Old Testament writer, the author of Ecclesiastes, may have been influenced by its spirit, though he did not adopt all its ideas.<P>12. Causes of Success:<P>The personal charm and engaging character of Epicurus himself drew men to him, and elevated him into the kind of ideal sage who personified the teaching of the school, as was the custom of all schools of philosophy. The system was clear-cut and easily understood by ordinary men, and it offered a plausible theory of life to such as could not follow the profounder and more difficult speculations of other schools. Its moral teaching found a ready response in all that was worldly, commonplace and self-seeking in men that had lost their high ideals and great enthusiasms. Above all it delivered men from the terrors of a dark superstition that had taken the place of religion. It is a remarkable revelation of the inadequacy of Greek religion that Epicurus should have relegated the gods from the visible world, without any sense of loss, but only the relief of a great deliverance.<P>13. Complete Antithesis of Paul\'s Teaching:<P>It was inevitable that the teaching of Paul should have brought this school up against him. He came to Athens teaching a God who had become man, who had suffered and died to accomplish the utmost self-sacrifice, who had risen from the dead and returned to live among men to guide and fashion their lives, and who at last would judge all men, and according to their deeds reward or punish them in a future world. To the Epicurean this was the revival of all the ancient and hated superstitions. It was not only folly but impiety; for Epicurus had taught that "not the man who denies the gods worshipped by the multitude, but he who affirms of the gods what the multitude believe about them, is truly impious."<P>14. LITERATURE.<P>Hicks, Stoic and Epicurean (whose translations are adopted in all quotations in this article); Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics; Wallace, Epicureanism; Lucretius, De natura rerum.``145';
|
||
isbe[3157]='Epilepsy`ep\'-i-lep-si.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LUNATIC">LUNATIC</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3158]='Epiphanes`e-pif\'-a-nez.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ANTIOCHUS+IV">ANTIOCHUS IV</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3159]='Epiphi`ep\'-i-fi (Epiphi):<P>Name of a month mentioned in connection with Pachon in 1Macc 6:38.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TIME">TIME</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3160]='Epistle`e-pis\'-\'-l (epistole, "a letter," "epistle"; from epistello, "to send to"):<P>Contents<P>1. New Testament Epistles<P>2. Distinctive Characteristics<P>3. Letter-Writing in Antiquity<P>4. Letters in the Old Testament<P>5. Letters in the Apocrypha<P>6. Epistolary Writings in the New Testament<P>7. Epistles as Distinguished from Letters<P>8. Patristic Epistles<P>9. Apocryphal Epistles<hr /><P>1. New Testament Epistles:<P>A written communication; a term inclusive of all forms of written correspondence, personal and official, in vogue from an early antiquity. As applied to the twenty-one letters, which constitute well-nigh one-half of the New Testament, the word "epistle" has come to have chiefly a technical and exclusive meaning. It refers, in common usage, to the communications addressed by five (possibly six) New Testament writers to individual or collective churches, or to single persons or groups of Christian disciples. Thirteen of these letters were written by Paul; three by John; two by Peter; one each by James and Jude; one<6E>the epistle to the Hebrews<77>by an unknown writer.<P>2. Distinctive Characteristics:<P>As a whole the Epistles are classified as Pauline, and Catholic, i.e. general; the Pauline being divided into two classes: those written to churches and to individuals, the latter being known as Pastoral (1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus; some also including Philemon; see Lange on Romans, American edition, 16). The fact that the New Testament is so largely composed of letters distinguishes it, most uniquely, from all the sacred writings of the world. The Scriptures of other oriental religions<6E>the Vedas, the Zend Avesta, the Tripitaka, the Koran, the writings of Confucius<75>lack the direct and personal address altogether. The Epistles of the New Testament are specifically the product of a new spiritual life and era. They deal, not with truth in the abstract, but in the concrete. They have to do with the soul\'s inner experiences and processes. They are the burning and heart-throbbing messages of the apostles and their confreres to the fellow-Christians of their own day. The chosen disciples who witnessed the events following the resurrection of Jesus and received the power (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,8);">Ac 1:8</a>) bestowed by the Holy Spirit on, and subsequent to, the Day of Pentecost, were spiritually a new order of men. The only approach to them in the spiritual history of mankind is the ancient Hebrew prophets. Consequently the Epistles, penned by men who had experienced a great redemption and the marvelous intellectual emancipation and quickening that came with it, were an altogether new type of literature. Their object is personal. They relate the vital truths of the resurrection era, and the fundamental principles of the new teaching, to the individual and collective life of all believers. This specific aim accounts for the form in which the apostolic letters were written. The logic of this practical aim appears conspicuously in the orderly Epistles of Paul who, after the opening salutation in each letter, lays down with marvelous clearness the doctrinal basis on which he builds the practical duties of daily Christian life. Following these, as each case may require, are the personal messages and affectionate greetings and directions, suited to this familiar form of address.<P>The Epistles consequently have a charm, a directness, a vitality and power unknown to the other sacred writings of the world. Nowhere are they equaled or surpassed except in the personal instructions that fell from the lips of Jesus. Devoted exclusively to experimental and practical religion they have, with the teachings of Christ, become the textbook of the spiritual life for the Christian church in all subsequent time. For this reason "they are of more real value to the church than all the systems of theology, from Origen to Schleiermacher" (Schaff on St. Paul\'s Epistles, History of the Christian Church, 741). No writings in history so unfold the nature and processes of the redemptive experience. In Paul and John, especially, the pastoral instinct is ever supreme. Their letters are too human, too personal, too vital to be formal treatises or arguments. They throb with passion for truth and love for souls. Their directness and affectionate intensity convert their authors into prophets of truth, preachers of grace, lovers of men and missionaries of the cross. Hence, their value as spiritual biographies of the writers is immeasurable. As letters are the most spontaneous and the freest form of writing, the New Testament Epistles are the very life-blood of Christianity. They present theology, doctrine, truth, appeal, in terms of life, and pulsate with a vitality that will be fresh and re-creative till the end of time. (For detailed study of their chronology, contents and distinguishing characteristics, see articles on the separate epistles.)<P>3. Letter-Writing in Antiquity:<P>While the New Testament Epistles, in style and quality, are distinct from and superior to all other literature of this class, they nevertheless belong to a form of personal and written address common to all ages. The earliest known writings were epistolary, unless we except some of the chronologies and inscriptions of the ancient Babylonian and Assyrian kings. Some of these royal inscriptions carry the art of writing back to 3800 BC, possibly to a period still earlier (see Goodspeed, Kent\'s Historical Series, 42-43, secs. 40-41), and excavations have brought to light "an immense mass of letters from officials to the court<72>correspondence between royal personages or between minor officials," as early as the reign of Khammurabi of Babylon, about 2275 BC (ibid., 33). The civilized world was astonished at the extent of this international correspondence as revealed in the Tell el-Amarna Letters (1480 BC), discovered in Egypt in 1887, among the ruins of the palace of Amenophis IV. This mass of political correspondence is thus approximately synchronous with the Hebrew exodus and the invasion of Canaan under Joshua.<P>4. Letters in the Old Testament:<P>As might be expected, then, the Old Testament abounds with evidences of extensive epistolary correspondence in and between the oriental nations. That a postal service was in existence in the time of Job (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',9,25);">Job 9:25</a>) is evident from the Hebrew term ratsim, signifying "runners," and used of the mounted couriers of the Persians who carried the royal edicts to the provinces. The most striking illustration of this courier service in the Old Testament occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',3,13,15);">Es 3:13, 15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',8,10,14);">8:10, 14</a> where King Ahasuerus, in the days of Queen Esther, twice sends royal letters to the Jews and satraps of his entire realm from India to Ethiopia, on the swiftest horses. According to Herodotus, these were usually stationed, for the sake of the greatest speed, four parasangs apart. Hezekiah\'s letters to Ephraim and Manasseh were sent in the same way (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',30,1,6,10);">2Ch 30:1, 6, 10</a>). Other instances of epistolary messages or communications in the Old Testament are David\'s letter to Joab concerning Uriah and sent by him (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',11,14,15);">2Sa 11:14-15</a>); Jezebel\'s, to the elders and nobles of Jezreel, sent in Ahab\'s name, regarding Naboth (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',21,8,9);">1Ki 21:8-9</a>); the letter of Ben-hadad, king of Syria, to Jehoram, king of Israel, by the hand of Naaman (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',5,\'5-7\');">2Ki 5:5-7</a>); Jehu\'s letters to the rulers of Jezreel, in Samaria (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',10,1,2,6,7);">2Ki 10:1-2, 6-7</a>); Sennacherib\'s letter to Hezekiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',19,14);">2Ki 19:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',37,14);">Isa 37:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',32,17);">2Ch 32:17</a>), and also that of Merodach- baladan, accompanied with a gift (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',20,12);">2Ki 20:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',39,1);">Isa 39:1</a>). Approximating the New Testament epistle in purpose and spirit is the letter of earnest and loving counsel sent by Jeremiah to the exiles in Babylon. It is both apostolic and pastoral in its prophetic fervor, and is recorded in full (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',29,1,4-32);">Jer 29:1, 4-32</a>) with its reference to the bitterly hostile and jealous letter of Shemaiah, the false prophet, in reply.<P>As many writers have well indicated, the Babylonian captivity must have been a great stimulus to letter-writing on the part of the separated Hebrews, and between the Far East and Palestine. Evidences of this appear in the histories of Ezra and Nehemiah, e.g. the correspondence, back and forth, between the enemies of the Jews at Jerusalem and Artaxerxes, king of Persia, written in the Syrian language (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,\'7-23\');">Ezr 4:7-23</a>); also the letter of Tattenai (the King James Version "Tatnai") the governor to King Darius (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',5,\'6-17\');">Ezr 5:6-17</a>); that of Artaxerxes to Ezra (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',7,11);">Ezr 7:11</a>ff), and to Asaph, keeper of the royal forest (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',2,8);">Ne 2:8</a>); finally the interchange of letters between the nobles of Judah and Tobiah; and those of the latter to Nehemiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',6,17,19);">Ne 6:17, 19</a>; so Sanballat verse <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',6,5);">5</a>).<P>5. Letters in the Apocrypha:<P>The Old Testament Apocrypha contains choice specimens of personal and official letters, approximating in literary form the epistles of the New Testament. In each case they begin, like the latter, in true epistolary form with a salutation: "greeting" or "sendeth greeting" (1Macc 11:30,32; 12:6,20; 15:2,16), and in two instances closing with the customary "Fare ye well" or "Farewell" (2Macc 11:27-33,34-38; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',13,11);">2Co 13:11</a>), so universally characteristic of letter-writing in the Hellenistic era.<P>6. Epistolary Writings in the New Testament:<P>The most felicitous and perfect example official correspondence in the New Testament is Claudius Lysias\' letter to Felix regarding Paul (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',23,\'25-30\');">Ac 23:25-30</a>). Equally complete in form is the letter, sent, evidently in duplicate, by the apostles and elders to their Gentile brethren in the provinces of Asia (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,\'23-29\');">Ac 15:23-29</a>). In these two letters we have the first, and with <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,1);">Jas 1:1</a>, the only, instance of the Greek form of salutation in the New Testament (chairein). The latter is by many scholars regarded as probably the oldest letter in epistolary form in the New Testament, being in purport and substance a Pastoral Letter issued by the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem to the churches of Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. It contained instructions as to the basis of Christian fellowship, similar to those of the great apostle to the churches under his care.<P>The letters of the high priest at Jerusalem commending Saul of Tarsus to the synagogues of Damascus are samples of the customary letters of introduction (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,2);">Ac 9:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,5);">22:5</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',28,21);">Ac 28:21</a>; also <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,27);">Ac 18:27</a>). As a Christian apostle Paul refers to this common use of "epistles of commendation" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',3,1);">2Co 3:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',16,3);">1Co 16:3</a>) and himself made happy use of the same (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,1);">Ro 16:1</a>ff); he also mentions receiving letters, in turn, from the churches (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',7,1);">1Co 7:1</a>). Worthy of classification as veritable epistles are the letters, under the special guidance of the Holy Spirit, to the seven churches of Asia (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,\'1-\');">Re 2:1</A> - <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',3,\'1-22\');">3:22</a>). In fact, the entire Book of Revelation is markedly epistolary in form, beginning with the benedictory salutation of personal and apostolic address, and closing with the benediction common to the Pauline epistles. This again distinguishes the New Testament literature in spirit and form from all other sacred writings, being almost exclusively direct and personal, whether in vocal or written address. In this respect the gospels, histories and epistles are alike the product and exponent of a new spiritual era in the life of mankind.<P>7. Epistles as Distinguished from Letters:<P>This survey of epistolary writing in the Far East, and especially in the Old Testament and New Testament periods, is not intended to obscure the distinction between the letter and the epistle. A clear line of demarcation separates them, owing not merely to differences in form and substance, but to the exalted spiritual mission and character of the apostolic letters. The characterization of a letter as more distinctly personal, confidential and spontaneous, and the epistle as more general in aim and more suited to or intended for publication, accounts only in part for the classification. Even when addressed to churches Paul\'s epistles were as spontaneous and intimately and affectionately personal as the ordinary correspondence. While intended for general circulation it is doubtful if any of the epistolary writers of the New Testament ever anticipated such extensive and permanent use of their letters as is made possible in the modern world of printing. The epistles of the New Testament are lifted into a distinct category by their spiritual eminence and power, and have given the word epistle a meaning and quality that will forever distinguish it from letter. In this distinction appears that Divine element usually defined as inspiration: a vitality and spiritual endowment which keeps the writings of the apostles permanently "living and powerful," where those of their successors pass into disuse and obscurity.<P>8. Patristic Epistles:<P>Such was the influence of the New Testament Epistles on the literature of early Christianity that the patristic and pseudepigraphic writings of the next century assumed chiefly the epistolary form. In letters to churches and individuals the apostolic Fathers, as far as possible, reproduced their spirit, quality and style.<P>9. Apocryphal Epistles:<P>Pseudo-epistles extensively appeared after the patristic era, many of them written and circulated in the name of the apostles and apostolic Fathers. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCRYPHAL+EPISTLES">APOCRYPHAL EPISTLES</A>. This early tendency to hide ambitious or possibly heretical writings under apostolic authority and Scriptural guise may have accounted for the anathema pronounced by John against all who should attempt to add to or detract from the inspired revelation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,18,19);">Re 22:18-19</a>). It is hardly to be supposed that all the apostolic letters and writings have escaped destruction. Paul in his epistles refers a number of times to letters of his that do not now exist and that evidently were written quite frequently to the churches under his care (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,9);">1Co 5:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',10,9,10);">2Co 10:9-10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,3);">Eph 3:3</a>); "in every epistle" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',3,17);">2Th 3:17</a>) indicates not merely the apostle\'s uniform method of subscription but an extensive correspondence. <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,16);">Col 4:16</a> speaks of an "epistle from Laodicea," now lost, doubtless written by Paul himself to the church at Laodicea, and to be returned by it in exchange for his epistle to the church at Colosse.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LITERATURE,+sub-apostolic">LITERATURE, SUB-APOSTOLIC</a>`139';
|
||
isbe[3161]='Epistles, Captivity``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PHILEMON,+epistle+to">PHILEMON, EPISTLE TO</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3162]='Epistles, Spurious`spu\'-ri-us.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCRYPHAL+EPISTLES">APOCRYPHAL EPISTLES</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3163]='Epistles, the Pastoral``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PASTORAL+EPISTLES">PASTORAL EPISTLES</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3164]='Equal`e\'-kwal isos:<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',18,25);">Eze 18:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',29,\'1-\');">29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',33,17,20);">33:17, 20</a>, "The way of the Lord is not equal" translates Hebrew yittakhen for takhan, "to weigh," and means "is not adjusted to any fixed standard," "arbitrary," "fitful," and, therefore, "not equitable, fair, or impartial" Septuagint ("is not set straight"). Compare same Hebrew word in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',2,3);">1Sa 2:3</a>, where the Lord is said to \'weigh actions.\' "Equal," therefore, is what will bear the closest investigation and strictest judgment. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,12);">Mt 20:12</a>, "made them equal" means "put them upon the same footing," i.e. regarded their brief service as though it were the very same as our long hours of toil. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',20,36);">Lu 20:36</a> the context restricts the equality to a particular relation. The precise meaning of isos in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,18);">Joh 5:18</a>, "making himself equal with God," is clearly defined by the preceding clause, for our Lord\'s opponents say that He has "called God his own Father" (Greek idion patera, i.e. His Father in a peculiar and exclusive sense; compare idiou huiou of <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,32);">Ro 8:32</a>, applying the same adjective to the Son in His relation to the Father, i.e. His Son in a sense in which no one else can claim the title). They correctly interpreted the language of Jesus as declaring that He was the Son of God in a way that put Him on an equality with God. The charge against Him is not that He said that He was "like" (homoios), but that He was "equal" (isos), i.e. of the very same rank and authority.``84';
|
||
isbe[3165]='Equality`e-kwol\'-i-ti (isotes):<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,14);">2Co 8:14</a>, literally, ." out of equality," i.e. "in equal proportion" or "that there may be equality." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,6);">Php 2:6</a>, it occurs in a paraphrase of Greek to einai isa theo, "the being on an equality with God." In this much-discussed passage, isa, according to a not unusual Attic idiom, is construed adverbially (see Meyer on passage), meaning, therefore, not \'the being equal\' (the King James Version), which would require ison, but "the having equal prerogatives and privileges." The personal equality is one thing; the equality of attributes is another, and it is the latter which is here expressed (Lightfoot). The "being on an equality" and the "having equal prerogatives" are both deductions from the possession of "the form of God." The thought is that if He who had "the form of God" had under all circumstances exercised His Divine attributes, He would have been employing only what belonged to Him, and would in no way have derogated from what belongs only to God. We regard this as referring to the incarnate Son in His historical manifestation.``84';
|
||
isbe[3166]='Equity`ek\'-wi-ti:<P>Is synonymous with "uprightness," which is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',17,26);">Pr 17:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',59,14);">Isa 59:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',2,6);">Mal 2:6</a> in place of the King James Version "equity." <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',2,21);">Ec 2:21</a> has "skilfulness" and the Revised Version, margin "success" for the King James Version "equity." The context favors this translation of kishron, which is derived from kasher, "to succeed."<P>Equity is the spirit of the law behind the letter; justice is the application of the spirit of equity; honesty is the general everyday use of justice or fairness, equity being the interior or abstract ideal. The Court of Equity overrides the Court of Common Law, deciding not upon terms, but the spirit of the deed.``91';
|
||
isbe[3167]='Er`ar (\'er, "watcher"; Er\'):<P>(1) The eldest son of Judah, the son of Jacob, by Shua the Canaanite. Judah took for him a wife named Tamar. It is recorded that Er "was wicked in the sight of Yahweh; and Yahweh slew him" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',38,3,6,7);">Ge 38:3, 6-7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,12);">46:12</a>).<P>(2) "Er the father of Lecah" is mentioned among "the sons of Shelah the son of Judah" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,21);">1Ch 4:21</a>).<P>(3) An ancestor of Jesus in Luke\'s genealogy in the 7th generation before Zerubbabel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,28);">Lu 3:28</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[3168]='Era`e\'-ra:<P>We find no definite era in use in Old Testament times, and such usage does not appear until we reach the period of the Maccabees. There are some references to important events that might have served as eras had they been generally accepted and constantly employed. Such was the Exodus; and this is referred to as the starting-point in fixing the date of the building of Solomon\'s temple (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',6,1);">1Ki 6:1</a>), and also for the date of Aaron\'s death (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,38);">Nu 33:38</a>).<P>An earthquake is referred to by <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',1,1);">Amos 1:1</a> as a well-known event by which to date the beginning of his prophetic career; and Ezekiel in two passages refers to the captivity of Judah as a date for marking certain events in his life. Of these the Exodus would have been the most appropriate event to use as an era, since it marked the birth of the Hebrew nation; but the universal custom of antiquity was to date from the regnal years of the kings, as we see in the history of Egypt and Babylonia and Assyria; this custom was followed by the Israelites as soon as the kingdom was established, and was continued down to the Captivity. After the return of the Jews they naturally adopted the regnal years of the Persian kings, under whose rule they were, until the overthrow of the kingdom by Alexander. After this event, the era that prevailed most widely in Syria was that of the Seleucid kingdom, which began in 312 BC, and must have been familiar to the Jews, and we have evidence that they made use of it. When Simon the Maccabee secured the independence of the Jews from the Seleucid king, Demetrius II, in 141-140, they began to date their instruments and contracts from this event as is stated in 1Macc 13:41,42; and we find that the year of their independence is fixed by reference to the Seleucid era, the first year of Simon being the 170th of that era (see Josephus, Ant, XIII, vi, 7).<P>After this they used the era of Simon, dating by his regnal years; but whether they used this as a permanent era during the Asmonean Dynasty or dated simply from the accession of each king, we do not know. There is no doubt that the Seleucid era continued to be used throughout the country for several centuries after the downfall of the Seleucid kingdom, as we have abundant evidence from inscriptions. When the Romans took possession of Syria and Palestine, their era was of course employed by Roman officials, but this did not prevail among the people. The dynasty of the Herods sometimes employed their own regnal years and sometimes those of the emperors, as appears from their coins. The Jews must have been familiar with the eras employed by some of the Phoenician towns, such as Tyre and Sidon. Tyre had a local era which began in 126 BC, and Sidon one beginning in 112 BC; and most of the towns on the coast used the era of Alexander, dating from the battle of Issus, until the establishment of the Seleucid era. The Jews would be familiar with these from their commercial connections with the coast towns, but we do not know that they used them. They did not adopt the era of the Creation until after the time of Christ. It was fixed at 4,000 years before the destruction of the later temple, or 3760 BC.``138';
|
||
isbe[3169]='Eran`e\'-ran (\'eran, "watcher," "watchful"; Eden):<P>The son of Ephraim\'s oldest son Shuthelah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,36);">Nu 26:36</a>).<P>Eranites, the descendants of Eran (same place) .``1';
|
||
isbe[3170]='Erastus`e-ras\'-tus (Erastos, "beloved"):<P>The name occurs three times, each time denoting a companion of Paul.<P>(1) Erastus was sent with Timothy from Ephesus into Macedonia while Paul remained in Asia for a while. They are designated "two of them that ministered unto him" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,22);">Ac 19:22</a>).<P>(2) "Erastus the treasurer of the city" sent greetings to the Christians in Rome (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,23);">Ro 16:23</a>). He was apparently an important person in the Corinthian community, and with Gaius probably represented that church in these fraternal relations with the Roman community.<P>(3) Erastus is one who, in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,20);">2Ti 4:20</a>, "remained at Corinth."<P>We have no means of discovering whether one or more than one person is meant in these references. A. C. Headlam (HDB, under the word) thinks it improbable that one who held an office implying residence in one locality should have been one of Paul\'s companions in travel. On the other hand Paul may be designating Erastus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,23);">Ro 16:23</a>) by an office he once held, but which he gave up to engage in mission work.``78';
|
||
isbe[3171]='Erech`e\'-rek, er\'-ek (\'erekh; Orech):<P>1. Etymology of the Name:<P>The second of the cities founded by Nimrod, the others being Babel, Accad and Calneh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,10);">Ge 10:10</a>). The derivation of the name is well known, Erech being the Semitic-Babylonian Uruk, from the Sumerian Unug, a word meaning "seat," probably in the sense of "residential city." The character with which it is written enters into the composition of the Babylonian names of Larsa and Ur of the Chaldees.<P>2. Position and Nature of the Ruins:<P>Its identification with Warka, on the left bank of the Euphrates, half-way between Hillah (Babylon) and Korna, is beyond a doubt. It is thought that the Euphrates must have flowed nearer to the city in ancient times, as the Gilgames legend relates that that hero and his companion Enkidu washed their hands in the stream after having killed the divine bull sent by the goddess Ishtar to destroy them. The shape of the ruin is irregular, the course of the walls of the Northeast having been seemingly determined by that of the Nile canal (Shatt-en-Nil), which flowed on that side. The extreme length of the site from north to south is over 3,000 yds., and its width about 2,800 yds. This space is very full of remains of buildings; and the foundations of the walls, with their various windings, gateways and defenses, are traceable even now.<P>3. Its Patron-Deities and Their Temples:<P>Two great deities, Ishtar and Nanaa, were worshipped in this city, the temple of the former being E-anna, "the house of heaven" (or "of Anu," in which case it is probable that the god of the heavens, Anu, was also one of the patrons of the city). The shrine dedicated to Ishtar is apparently now represented by the ruin known as Buwariyya or "reed-mats," and so called on account of the layers of matting at intervals of 4 or 5 ft. This is the great temple-tower (ziq-qurat) of the place, called E-gipar-imina, "the house of 7 enclosures." The remains are situated in a large courtyard measuring 350 ft. by 270 ft. As in the case of other Babylonian erections, the corners are directed toward the cardinal points, and its height is about 100 ft. above the desert-plain.<P>As Erech is mentioned with Babylon, Niffer (Calneh) and Eridu, as one of the cities created by Merodach (Nimrod), it is clear that it was classed with the oldest foundations in Babylonia. It was the city of Gilgames, the half-mythical king of the earliest period, who seems to have restored the walls and temples. Its earliest known ruler of historical times was Ensag-kus-anna, about 4,000 BC.<P>4. History of the City\'s Temples, etc.:<P>The celebrated shrine of Ishtar was already in existence in the time of Lugal-zaggi-si, who came somewhat later. King Dungi (2600 BC) restored E-anna and built its great wall. This was in the time of the great Ur Dynasty, but later the city seems to have come under the dominion of the kings of Isin, Libit-Ishtar having apparently restored the sanctuary of Ishtar on E- gipara. Another great ruler of the early period was Sin-gasid, king of Erech, who was a patron of E-anna; and when he restored this shrine, he endowed it with grain, wool, oil and 1 shekel of gold. There seems also to have been a shrine to Nergal, god of war, which was restored by King Sin-gamil. About 2280 BC Kudur-Nanchunde, the Elamite king, plundered the city, and carried off the statue of the goddess Nanaa, which was only restored to its place by Assur-bani-apli, the Assyrian king, about 635 BC. Samsu-iluna seems to have surpassed his father Hammurabi (Amraphel) in the restoration of the city\'s temples, and other rulers who did not forget Erech were Nebuchadrezzar and Nabonidus.<P>5. Literature Referring to Erech:<P>Many tablets have been found on the site, and give promise of interesting discoveries still to come. Having been the capital of the hero-king Gilgames, who saw the wonders of the wide world, spoke with the Babylonian Noah face to face, and almost attained immortality as a living man, it was always a place of romance. Poetical compositions concerning it exist, one of the most interesting being a lamentation possibly written after the invasion of Kudur-Nanchundi, when famine was rife in the city, blood flowed like water in E-ulbar, the house of Istar\'s oracle, and the enemy heaped up fire in all the goddess\' lands as one heaps up embers.<P>6. The City\'s Numerous Names:<P>The consideration in which the city was held is made plain by the geographical lists, from which it would seem that it had no less than 11 names, among them being Illab or Illag, Tir-anna, "the heavenly grove"; Ub-imina, "the 7 regions"; Uru- gipara-imina, "the city of the 7 enclosures"; and Uruk-supuri, "Erech of the folds" (the name which it always bears in the Gilgames legend), given to it either on account of its being a center where pastoral tribes gathered, or because of the flocks kept for sacrifice to its deities.<P>7. Tablets and Tombs of Late Date:<P>Besides the inscriptions of the kings already mentioned, tablets of the reigns of Nabopolassar, Nebuchadrezzar, Nabonidus, Cyrus, Darius and some of the Seleucids have been found on the site. In the ruins of the town and the country around, numerous glazed earthenware (slipper-shaped) coffins and other receptacles, used for and in connection with the burial of the dead, occur. These are mostly of the Parthian period, but they imply that the place was regarded as a necropolis, possibly owing to the sanctity attached to the site.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Schrader, KAT; Loftus, Chaldoea and Susiana, 162ff; Fried. Delitzsch, Wo lag das Paradies? 221f; Zehnpfund, Babylonien in seinen wichtigsten Ruinenstatten, 48ff.``136';
|
||
isbe[3172]='Eri-Aku`er-i-a-koo\', e-ri-a-ku\':<P>1. The Name and Its Etymology:<P>This is the probable Sumerian reading of the well-known Babylonian name written with the characters for "servant" (Sem wardu or ardu) and the group standing for the Moon-god Sin (written En-zu = Zu-en), otherwise Aku, the whole meaning "servant of the Moon-god." This ruler, who was king of Larsa (<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ELLASAR">ELLASAR</a>, compare that article), is generally identified with the <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ARIOCH">ARIOCH</a> (which see) of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,9);">Ge 14:9</a>. Several Assyriologists read the name with the Semitic Babylonian pronunciation of Warad-Sin; and, if this be correct, there would be a certain amount of doubt as to the generally received identification; though this, on the other hand, might simply prove that the ancient Hebrews obtained their transcription from a Sumerian source.<P>2. Inscriptions Mentioning Eri-Aku:<P>In addition to a number of contract-tablets, the following inscriptions mentioning Eri-Aku or Warad-Sin are known:<P>(1) A dedication, by Kudur-mabuk, "father of Martu" (Amurru, the land of the Amorites), son of Simti-Silchak, of some sacred object to the Moon-god Nannar, for his own life and that of Eri-Aku, his son, the king of Larsa.<P>(2) A dedication, by Eri-Aku, to Ishtar of Challabu, for his own life and that of his father and begetter Kudur-mabuk. The text records the restoration of Istar\'s sanctuary.<P>(3) A dedication, by Eri-Aku, to the god Nannar, for the preservation of his own life and that of his father, Kudur-mabuk. The restoration of several temples is referred to.<P>(4) An inscription of Eri-Aku, "the powerful man," "the nourisher of Ur (of the Chaldees), the king of Larsa, the king of Sumer and Akkad; son of Kudur-mabuk, the father of Emutbala." The text records that he raised the wall of Ur, called "Nannar is the consolidator of the foundations of the land," high like a mountain.<P>(5) A dedication by Eri-Aku to Nin-insina (titles as above). It records the building of the temple E-u-namtila, for his own life, and the life of Kudurmabuk, the father his begetter.<P>3. The Nationality of His Family:<P>These inscriptions and others show that Eri-Aku belonged to an Elamite family which held the throne of Larsa, a state which, in common with Babylonia itself, acknowledged the suzerainty of Elam. Kudurmabuk would seem, from motives of policy, to have given his sons Sumerian and Semitic Babylonian names; and it is noteworthy that he did not retain the rule of Larsa for himself, but delegated it to his offspring, keeping for himself the dominion of Emutbala and, as his own inscription shows, the land of the Amorites. With regard to these it may be noted, that the expression adda, "father," probably means simply "administrator."<P>4. Eri-Aku and Rim-Sin:<P>Eri-Aku seems to have died while his father was still alive, and was succeeded by Rim-Sin, who, as Francois Thureau-Dangin points out, must have been his brother. As in the case of Eri-Aku, Kudur-mabuk inaugurated the reign of Rim-Sin by a dedication; but there seems to be no inscription in which Rim-Sin makes a dedication for the life of his father, implying that Kudur-mabuk died soon after his second son came to the throne.<P>And here the question of the identification of Eri-Aku with Eri-Eaku (var. -Ekua) claims consideration. This name occurs on certain tablets of late date from Babylonia, and is coupled with a name which may be read Kudur-lachgumal (for Kudurlachbgomar, i.e. Chedorlaomer), and Tud-chul, 1 (NOTE: 1 Written Tudchula, but the syllabaries indicate the final a as silent.) the Biblical Tidal.<P>5. Is Eri-Aku to Be Identified with Eri-Eaku?:<P>These inscriptions are very mutilated, but from the smaller one it would seem that Eri-(E)aku had a son named Durmah-ilani, who ravaged some district, and there were floods at Babylon. (But) his son slaughtered him like a lamb, and old man and child (were slain) with the sword. Similar things seem to be said of Tudchul or Tidal. The larger fragment gives further details of the life of Durmach-ilani, who had usurped royal power and had been killed with the sword. If the events recorded belong to this period, they must have taken place after the death of Eri-Aku (-Eaku, -Ekua), but before that of Kudur-lachgumal. It is to be noted that, in accordance with Elamite usage, the crown did not pass to the eldest son after a king\'s death, but to the king\'s eldest brother. In Elam this led to endless conflicts, and the same probably took place in Larsa until incorporated with the states of Babylonia.<P>6. A Historical Romance:<P>The fact that the history of Kudur-lachgumal (?) forms the subject of a poetical legend suggests that the texts mentioning these kings may have belonged to a kind of historical romance, of which Chedorlaomer (Amraphel), Arioch, and Tidal were the heroes<65>and, in truth, this is implied by their style. That they are utterly apocryphal, however, remains to be proved.<P>LITERATURE.<P>See "Inscriptions and Records Referring to Babylonia and Elam," etc., Journal of the Victoria Institute, 1895-96 (also separately); and the articles <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHEDORLAOMER">CHEDORLAOMER</a> and <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ELAM">ELAM, section 12 (5)</a>.``136';
|
||
isbe[3173]='Eri; Erites`e\'-ri, e\'-rits (\'eri, "watcher"):<P>The fifth of the seven sons of Gad (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,16);">Ge 46:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,16);">Nu 26:16</a>).<P>Patronymic, Erites (same place), a clan of Gad.``1';
|
||
isbe[3174]='Err; Error`ur, er\'-er:<P>To err is in the Old Testament the translation of shaghah, and ta\'ah, both of which mean literally, ." to wander," "to go astray." We have shaghah in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',26,21);">1Sa 26:21</a>, "I have played the fool, and have erred"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',19,4);">Job 19:4</a>, "Mine error remaineth with myself," i.e. "is my own concern," or, perhaps, "only injures myself"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,118);">Ps 119:118</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',28,7);">Isa 28:7</a> the King James Version (thrice); ta\'ah, <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',95,10);">Ps 95:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',14,22);">Pr 14:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',35,8);">Isa 35:8</a>. It means also "to cause to err" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',3,12);">Isa 3:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,28);">30:28</a>, "a bridle that causeth to err"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',23,13,32);">Jer 23:13, 32</a>; "Their lies (i.e. the unreal deities, creatures of their own imagination) have caused them to err," <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',2,4);">Am 2:4</a>).<P>In the New Testament the word is generally planaomai, "to wander" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,24,27);">Mr 12:24, 27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',3,10);">Heb 3:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',5,19);">Jas 5:19</a>); astocheo, "to miss the mark," "to swerve," occurs twice (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,21);">1Ti 6:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',2,18);">2Ti 2:18</a>).<P>Error in the Old Testament represents various words: sheghaghah, "mistake," "oversight" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',5,6);">Ec 5:6</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',20,25);">Pr 20:25</a> and see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=INQUIRE">INQUIRE</a>); meshughah, with the same meaning, "wandering" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',19,4);">Job 19:4</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',19,12);">Ps 19:12</a>); shal, "rashness," "mistake" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',6,7);">2Sa 6:7</a>, "God smote him there for his error," the Revised Version, margin "rashness"); shalu, Aramaic "mistake" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',6,4);">Da 6:4</a>); to\'ah, "injury" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',32,6);">Isa 32:6</a>).<P>In the New Testament we have plane, "wandering" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,27);">Ro 1:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',5,20);">Jas 5:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,6);">1Joh 4:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,11);">Jude 1:11</a>, "the error of Balaam"); agnoema, "ignorance" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,7);">Heb 9:7</a>, margin, Greek "ignorances"). For "is deceived" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',20,1);">Pr 20:1</a>) the Revised Version (British and American) has "erreth," margin "or reeleth"; for "them that are out of the way" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',5,2);">Heb 5:2</a>), "the ignorant and erring"; for "deceit" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',2,3);">1Th 2:3</a>), "error."<P>The English word "error" has the same original meaning as the Hebrew and Greek main words, being derived from erro, "to wander." "To err is human," but there are errors of the heart as well as of the head. The familiar phrase just quoted seems to have its equivalent in the marginal rendering of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,3);">Ge 6:3</a>, "in their going astray they are flesh." Errors through ignorance are in the Bible distinguished from errors of the heart and willful errors (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',5,18);">Le 5:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',15,22);">Nu 15:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',45,20);">Eze 45:20</a>).``185';
|
||
isbe[3175]='Esaias`e-za\'-yas.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ISAIAH">ISAIAH</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3176]='Esarhaddon`e-sar-had\'-on (\'ecar-chaddon; Assyrian Asur-ach-iddina, "Ashur hath given a brother"):<P>During his lifetime, Sennacherib, king of Assyria, made his favorite son, Esarhaddon (680-668 BC), the viceroy of Babylon; and although he was not the eldest son, he decreed that he should become the legal heir to the throne of Assyria. Sennacherib, having been slain in 681, apparently by two of his sons, who are called in the Old Testament Adrammelech and Sharezer (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',19,37);">2Ki 19:37</a>), Esarhaddon proceeded to Nineveh, where the rebellion which followed the death of his father collapsed, having existed for about a month and a half. The Old Testament informs us that the murderers of his father fled to Armenia. This is corroborated by the inscriptions which say that at Melid, in the land of Hanirabbat, which can be said to be in Armenia, Esarhaddon fought the rebels and defeated them; whereupon he was proclaimed king. His father had been so displeased with Babylon that he had attempted to annihilate the city by making it a swamp. Esarhaddon, however, having been infatuated with the ancient culture of the Babylonians, adopted a conciliatory attitude toward the people. Immediately he planned to restore the city on magnificent proportions. The foundations of his work were laid with impressive ceremonies, and in every way he endeavored to ameliorate the inhabitants by his gracious deeds. Even at Nippur evidences of his work in restoring the ancient shrine of Ellil are seen. The kings of the west who became his vassals, among them being Manasseh of Judah, were required to furnish building materials for his operations in Babylonia. His work in that land explains why the Judean king was incarcerated at Babylon (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',33,11);">2Ch 33:11</a>) instead of Assyria.<P>Esarhaddon was first compelled to defend the kingdom against the inroads of the hordes from the North. The Gimirra (perhaps referring to Gomer of the Old Testament), who were called Manda, seemed to pour into the land. A decisive victory was finally gained over them, and they were driven back into their own country. Afterward, the Medes and the Chaldeans were also subjugated. He then directed his attentions toward the west. Sidon having revolted against Assyria, Esarhaddon laid siege to the city, which after three years was finally captured and destroyed. He built another city upon the same site, which he called Kar-Esarhaddon, and endeavored to revive its commerce. And, as is mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,2);">Ezr 4:2</a>; compare 10, he repopulated the city (Samaria) with captives from Elam and Babylonia.<P>The capture of Tyre was also attempted, but, the city being differently situated, a siege from the land was insufficient to bring about submission, as it was impossible to cut off the commerce by sea. The siege, after several years, seems to have been lifted. Although on a great monolith Esarhaddon depicts Ba\'al, the king of Tyre, kneeling before him with a ring through his lips, there is nothing in the inscriptions to bear this out.<P>His work in Canaan was preparatory to his conquest of Egypt. Tirhakah, the Ethiopian king of Egypt, was attacked on the borders, but no victory was gained. Several years later he crossed the borders and gained a decisive victory at Iskhupri. He then proceeded to lay siege to Memphis, which soon capitulated; and Egypt, to the confines of Nubia, surrendered to Assyria. Esarhaddon reorganized the government, and even changed the names of the cities. Necoh was placed over the 22 princes of the land. In 668, Egypt revolted and Esarhaddon, while on his way to put down the revolt, died. He had arranged that the kingdom be divided between two of his sons: Ashurbanipal was to be king of Assyria, and Shamash-shum-ukin was to reign over Babylonia. The nobles decreed, however, that the empire should not be divided, but Shamash-shum-ukin was made viceroy of Babylonia.``24';
|
||
isbe[3177]='Esau`e\'-so (\'esaw, "hairy"; Esau):<P>Son of Isaac, twin brother of Jacob. The name was given on account of the hairy covering on his body at birth: "all over like a hairy garment" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,25);">Ge 25:25</a>). There was a prenatal foreshadowing of the relation his descendants were to sustain to those of his younger brother, Jacob (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,23);">Ge 25:23</a>). The moment of his birth also was signalized by a circumstance that betokened the same destiny (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,26);">Ge 25:26</a>).<P>The young Esau was fond of the strenuous, daring life of the chase<73>he became a skillful hunter, "a man of the field" (\'ish sadheh). His father warmed toward him rather than toward Jacob, because Esau\'s hunting expeditions resulted in meats that appealed to the old man\'s taste (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,28);">Ge 25:28</a>). Returning hungry from one of these expeditions, however, Esau exhibited a characteristic that marked him for the inferior position which had been foretokened at the time of his birth. Enticed by the pottage which Jacob had boiled, he could not deny himself, but must, at once, gratify his appetite, though the calm and calculating Jacob should demand the birthright of the firstborn as the price (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,\'30-34\');">Ge 25:30-34</a>). Impulsively he snatched an immediate and sensual gratification at the forfeit of a future glory. Thus he lost the headship of the people through whom God\'s redemptive purpose was to be wrought out in the world, no less than the mere secular advantage of the firstborn son\'s chief share in the father\'s temporal possessions. Though Esau had so recklessly disposed of his birthright, he afterward would have secured from Isaac the blessing that appertained, had not the cunning of Rebekah provided for Jacob. Jacob, to be sure, had some misgiving about the plan of his mother (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,12);">Ge 27:12</a>), but she reassured him; the deception was successful and he secured the blessing. Now, too late, Esau bitterly realized somewhat, at least, of his loss, though he blamed Jacob altogether, and himself not at all (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,34,36);">Ge 27:34, 36</a>). Hating his brother on account of the grievance thus held against him, he determined upon fratricide as soon as his father should pass away (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,41);">Ge 27:41</a>); but the watchful Rebekah sent Jacob to Haran, there to abide with her kindred till Esau\'s wrath should subside (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,\'42-45\');">Ge 27:42-45</a>).<P>Esau, at the age of forty, had taken two Hittite wives, and had thus displeased his parents. Rebekah had shrewdly used this fact to induce Isaac to fall in with her plan to send Jacob to Mesopotamia; and Esau, seeing this, seems to have thought he might please both Isaac and Rebekah by a marriage of a sort different from those already contracted with Canaanitish women. Accordingly, he married a kinswoman in the person of a daughter of Ishmael (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,6,9);">Ge 28:6, 9</a>). Connected thus with the "land of Seir," and by the fitness of that land for one who was to live by the sword, Esau was dwelling there when Jacob returned from Mesopotamia. While Jacob dreaded meeting him, and took great pains to propitiate him, and made careful preparations against a possible hostile meeting, very earnestly seeking Divine help, Esau, at the head of four hundred men, graciously received the brother against whom his anger had so hotly burned. Though Esau had thus cordially received Jacob, the latter was still doubtful about him, and, by a sort of duplicity, managed to become separated from him, Esau returning to Seir (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',33,\'12-17\');">Ge 33:12-17</a>). Esau met his brother again at the death of their father, about twenty years later (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,29);">Ge 35:29</a>). Of the after years of his life we know nothing.<P>Esau was also called Edom ("red"), because he said to Jacob: "Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red pottage" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,30);">Ge 25:30</a>). The land in which he established himself was "the land of Seir," so called from Seir, ancestor of the Horites whom Esau found there; and called also Edom from Esau\'s surname, and, it may be, too, from the red sandstone of the country (Sayce).<P>"Esau" is sometimes found in the sense of the descendants of Esau, and of the land in which they dwelt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',2,5);">De 2:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Oba\',1,6,8,18,19);">Ob 1:6, 8, 18-19</a>).``61';
|
||
isbe[3178]='Esay`e\'-sa (Esaias):<P>the King James Version for Isaiah (2Esdras 2:18; Ecclesiasticus 48:22).``1';
|
||
isbe[3179]='Eschatology``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ESCHATOLOGY+OF+THE+NEW+TESTAMENT">ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ESCHATOLOGY+OF+THE+OLD+TESTAMENT">ESCHATOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3180]='Eschatology of the New Testament, I-V`es-ka-tol\'-o-ji:<P>Contents<P><b>I. DOCTRINAL AND RELIGIOUS SIGNIFICANCE</b><P><b>II. GENERAL STRUCTURE</b><P><b>III. COURSE OF DEVELOPMENT</b><P><b>IV. GENERAL AND INDIVIDUAL ESCHATOLOGY</b><P><b>V. THE PAROUSIA</b><P class="in15">1. Definition<P class="in15">2. Signs Preceding the Parousia<P class="in15">3. Events Preceding the Parousia<P class="in30">(1) The Conversion of Israel<P class="in30">(2) The Coming of the Antichrist<P class="in15">4. The Manner of the Parousia<P><b>VI. THE RESURRECTION</b><P class="in15">1. Its Universality<P class="in15">2. The Millennium<P class="in15">3. The Resurrection of Believers<P class="in15">4. The Resurrection-Body<P><b>VII. THE CHANGE OF THOSE LIVING AT THE PAROUSIA</b><P><b>VIII. THE JUDGMENT</b><P><b>IX. THE CONSUMMATE STATE</b><P><b>X. THE INTERMEDIATE STATE</b><P><b>XI. LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. Doctrinal and Religious Significance.<P>The subject of eschatology plays a prominent part in New Testament teaching and religion. Christianity in its very origin bears an eschatological character. It means the appearance of the Messiah and the inauguration of His work; and from the Old Testament point of view these form part of eschatology. It is true in Jewish theology the days of the Messiah were not always included in the eschatological age proper, but often regarded as introductory to it (compare Weber, Judische Theol. 2, 371ff). And in the New Testament also this point of view is to some extent represented, inasmuch as, owing to the appearance of the Messiah and the only partial fulfillment of the prophecies for the present, that which the Old Testament depicted as one synchronous movement is now seen to divide into two stages, namely, the present Messianic age and the consummate state of the future. Even so, however, the New Testament draws the Messianic period into much closer connection with the strictly eschatological process than Judaism. The distinction in Judaism rested on a consciousness of difference in quality between the two stages, the content of the Messianic age being far less spiritually and transcendentally conceived than that of the final state. The New Testament, by spiritualizing the entire Messianic circle of ideas, becomes keenly alive to its affinity to the content of the highest eternal hope, and consequently tends to identify the two, to find the age to come anticipated in the present. In some cases this assumes explicit shape in the belief that great eschatological transactions have already begun to take place, and that believers have already attained to at least partial enjoyment of eschatological privileges. Thus the present kingdom in our Lord\'s teaching is one in essence with the final kingdom; according to the discourses in John eternal life is in principle realized here; with Paul there has been a prelude to the last judgment and resurrection in the death and resurrection of Christ, and the life in the Spirit is the first-fruits of the heavenly state to come. The strong sense of this may even express itself in the paradoxical form that the eschatological state has arrived and the one great incision in history has already been made (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,3,5);">Heb 2:3, 5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,11);">9:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,1);">10:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,\'22-24\');">12:22-24</a>). Still, even where this extreme consciousness is reached, it nowhere supersedes the other more common representation, according to which the present state continues to lie this side of the eschatological crisis, and, while directly leading up to the latter, yet remains to all intents a part of the old age and world-order. Believers live in the "last days," upon them "the ends of the ages are come," but "the last day," "the consummation of the age," still lies in the future (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,39,40,49);">Mt 13:39-40, 49</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,3);">24:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,20);">28:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,39,44,54);">Joh 6:39, 44, 54</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,48);">12:48</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,11);">1Co 10:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',3,1);">2Ti 3:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,2);">Heb 1:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,26);">9:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',5,3);">Jas 5:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,5,20);">1Pe 1:5, 20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,3);">2Pe 3:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,18);">1Joh 2:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,18);">Jude 1:18</a>).<P>The eschatological interest of early believers was no mere fringe to their religious experience, but the very heart of its inspiration. It expressed and embodied the profound supernaturalism and soteriological character of the New Testament faith. The coming world was not to be the product of natural development but of a Divine interposition arresting the process of history. And the deepest motive of the longing for this world was a conviction of the abnormal character of the present world, a strong sense of sin and evil. This explains why the New Testament doctrine of salvation has grown up to a large extent in the closest interaction with its eschatological teaching. The present experience was interpreted. in the light of the future. It is necessary to keep this in mind for a proper appreciation of the generally prevailing hope that the return of the Lord might come in the near future. Apocalyptic calculation had less to do with this than the practical experience that the earnest of the supernatural realities of the life to come was present in the church, and that therefore it seemed unnatural for the full fruition of these to be long delayed. The subsequent receding of this acute eschatological state has something to do with the gradual disappearance of the miraculous phenomena of the apostolic age.<P>II. General Structure.<P>New Testament eschatology attaches itself to the Old Testament and to Jewish belief as developed on the basis of ancient revelation. It creates on the whole no new system or new terminology, but incorporates much that was current, yet so as to reveal by selection and distribution of emphasis the essential newness of its spirit. In Judaism there existed at that time two distinct types of eschatological outlook. There was the ancient national hope which revolved around the destiny of Israel. Alongside of it existed a transcendental form of eschatology with cosmical perspective, which had in view the destiny of the universe and of the human race. The former of these represents the original form of Old Testament eschatology, and therefore occupies a legitimate place in the beginnings of the New Testament development, notably in the revelations accompanying the birth of Christ and in the earlier (synoptical) preaching of John the Baptist. There entered, however, into it, as held by the Jews, a considerable element of individual and collective eudaemonism, and it had become identified with a literalistic interpretation of prophecy, which did not sufficiently take into account the typical import and poetical character of the latter. The other scheme, while to some extent the product of subsequent theological development, lies prefigured in certain later prophecies, especially in Daniel, and, far from being an importation from Babylonian, or ultimately Persian, sources, as some at present maintain, represents in reality the true development of the inner principles of Old Testament prophetic revelation. To it the structure of New Testament eschatology closely conforms itself.<P>In doing this, however, it discards the impure motives and elements by which even this relatively higher type of Jewish eschatology was contaminated. In certain of the apocalyptic writings a compromise is attempted between these two schemes after this manner, that the carrying out of the one is merely to follow that of the other, the national hope first receiving its fulfillment in a provisional Messianic kingdom of limited duration (400 or 1,000 years), to be superseded at the end by the eternal state. The New Testament does not follow the Jewish theology along this path. Even though it regards the present work of Christ as preliminary to the consummate order of things, it does not separate the two in essence or quality, it does not exclude the Messiah from a supreme place in the coming world, and does not expect a temporal Messianic kingdom in the future as distinguished from Christ\'s present spiritual reign, and as preceding the state of eternity. In fact the figure of the Messiah becomes central in the entire eschatological process, far more so than is the case in Judaism. All the stages in this process, the resurrection, the judgment, the life eternal, even the intermediate state, receive the impress of the absolute significance which Christian faith ascribes to Jesus as the Christ. Through this Christocentric character New Testament eschatology acquires also far greater unity and simplicity than can be predicated of the Jewish schemes. Everything is practically reduced to the great ideas of the resurrection and the judgment as consequent upon the Parousia of Christ. Much apocalyptic embroidery to which no spiritual significance attached is eliminated. While the overheated fantasy tends to multiply and elaborate, the religious interest tends toward concentration and simplification.<P>III. Course of Development.<P>In New Testament eschatological teaching a general development in a well-defined direction is traceable. The starting-point is the historico-dramatic conception of the two successive ages. These two ages are distinguished as houtos ho aion, ho nun aion, ho enesios aion, "this age," "the present age" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,32);">Mt 12:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,22);">13:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,8);">Lu 16:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',12,2);">Ro 12:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,20);">1Co 1:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',2,6,8);">2:6, 8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',3,18);">3:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',4,4);">2Co 4:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,4);">Ga 1:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,21);">Eph 1:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,2);">2:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,12);">6:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,17);">1Ti 6:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,10);">2Ti 4:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',2,12);">Tit 2:12</a>), and ho aion ekeinos, ho aion mellon, ho aion erchomenos, "that age," "the future age" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,32);">Mt 12:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,30);">Lu 18:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',20,35);">20:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,7);">Eph 2:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',6,5);">Heb 6:5</a>). In Jewish literature before the New Testament, no instances of the developed antithesis between these two ages seem to be found, but from the way in which it occurs in the teaching of Jesus and Paul it appears to have been current at that time. (The oldest undisputed occurrence is a saying of Johanan ben Zaqqay, about 80 AD.) The contrast between these two ages is (especially with Paul) that between the evil and transitory, and the perfect and abiding. Thus, to each age belongs its own characteristic order of things, and so the distinction passes over into that of two "worlds" in the sense of two systems (in Hebrew and Aramaic the same word \'olam, \'olam, does service for both, in Greek aion usually renders the meaning "age," occasionally "world" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,2);">Heb 1:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,3);">11:3</a>), kosmos meaning "world"; the latter, however, is never used of the future world). Compare Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, I, 132-46. Broadly speaking, the development of New Testament eschatology consists in this, that the two ages are increasingly recognized as answering to two spheres of being which coexist from of old, so that the coming of the new age assumes the character of a revelation and extension of the supernal order of things, rather than that of its first entrance into existence. Inasmuch as the coming world stood for the perfect and eternal, and in the realm of heaven such a perfect, eternal order of things already existed, the reflection inevitably arose that these two were in some sense identical. But the new significance which the antithesis assumes does not supersede the older historicodramatic form. The higher world so interposes in the course of the lower as to bring the conflict to a crisis.<P>The passing over of the one contrast into the other, therefore, does not mark, as has frequently been asserted, a recession of the eschatological wave, as if the interest had been shifted from the future to the present life. Especially in the Fourth Gospel this "de-eschatologizing" process has been found, but without real warrant. The apparent basis for such a conclusion is that the realities of the future life are so vividly and intensely felt to be existent in heaven and from there operative in the believer\'s life, that the distinction between what is now and what will be hereafter enjoyed becomes less sharp. Instead of the supersedure of the eschatological, this means the very opposite, namely, its most real anticipation. It should further be observed that the development in question is intimately connected and keeps equal pace with the disclosure of the preexistence of Christ, because this fact and the descent of Christ from heaven furnished the clearest witness to the reality of the heavenly order of things. Hence, it is especially observable, not in the earlier epistles of Paul, where the structure of eschatological thought is still in the main historico-dramatic, but in the epistles of the first captivity (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,3);">Eph 1:3</a>,<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,\'10-22\');">10-22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,6);">2:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,9,10);">3:9-10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,9,10);">4:9-10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,12);">6:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,\'5-11\');">Php 2:5-11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,20);">3:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,15,17);">Col 1:15, 17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,2);">3:2</a>; further, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,2,3);">Heb 1:2-3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,5);">2:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',3,4);">3:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',6,5,11);">6:5, 11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',7,13,16);">7:13, 16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,14);">9:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,10,16);">11:10, 16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,22,23);">12:22-23</a>). The Fourth Gospel marks the culmination of this line of teaching, and it is unnecessary to point out how here the contrast between heaven and earth in its christological consequences determines the entire structure of thought. But here it also appears how the last outcome of the New Testament progress of doctrine had been anticipated in the highest teaching of our Lord. This can be accounted for by the inherent fitness that the supreme disclosures which touch the personal life of the Saviour should come not through any third person, but from His own lips.<P>IV. General and Individual Eschatology.<P>In the Old Testament the destiny of the nation of Israel to such an extent overshadows that of the individual, that only the first rudiments of an individual eschatology are found. The individualism of the later prophets, especially Jeremiah and Ezekiel, bore fruit in the thought of the intermediate period. In the apocalyptic writings considerable concern is shown for the ultimate destiny of the individual. But not until the New Testament thoroughly spiritualized the conceptions of the last things could these two aspects be perfectly harmonized. Through the centering of the eschatological hope in the Messiah, and the suspending of the individual\'s share in it on his personal relation to the Messiah, an individual significance is necessarily imparted to the great final crisis. This also tends to give greater prominence to the intermediate state. Here, also, apocalyptic thought had pointed the way. None the less the Old Testament point of view continues to assert itself in that even in the New Testament the main interest still attaches to the collective, historical development of events. Many questions in regard to the intermediate period are passed by in silence. The Old Testament prophetic foreshortening of the perspective, immediately connecting each present crisis with the ultimate goal, is reproduced in New Testament eschatology on an individual scale in so far as the believer\'s life here is linked, not so much with his state after death, but rather with the consummate state after the final judgment. The present life in the body and the future life in the body are the two outstanding illumined heights between which the disembodied state remains largely in the shadow. But the same foreshortening of the perspective is also carried over from the Old Testament into the New Testament delineation of general eschatology. The New Testament method of depicting the future is not chronological. Things lying widely apart to our chronologically informed experience are by it drawn closely together. This law is adhered to doubtless not from mere limitation of subjective human knowledge, but by reason of adjustment to the general method of prophetic revelation in Old Testament and New Testament alike.<P>V. The Parousia.<P>1. Definition:<P>The word denotes "coming," "arrival." It is never applied to the incarnation of Christ, and could be applied to His second coming only, partly because it had already become a fixed Messianic term, partly because there was a point of view from which the future appearance of Jesus appeared the sole adequate expression of His Messianic dignity and glory. The explicit distinction between "first advent" and "second advent" is not found in the New Testament. It occurs in Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Testament of Abraham 92:16. In the New Testament it is approached in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,28);">Heb 9:28</a> and in the use of epiphaneia for both the past appearance of Christ and His future manifestation (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,8);">2Th 2:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,14);">1Ti 6:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',1,10);">2Ti 1:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,1);">4:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',2,11,113);">Tit 2:11, 13</a>). The Christian use of the word parousia is more or less colored by the consciousness of the present bodily absence of Jesus from His own, and consequently suggests the thought of His future abiding presence, without, however, formally coming to mean the state of the Saviour\'s presence with believers (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',4,17);">1Th 4:17</a>). Parousia occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,3,17,39);">Mt 24:3, 17, 39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,23);">1Co 15:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',2,19);">1Th 2:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',3,13);">3:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',4,15);">4:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',5,23);">5:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,1,8);">2Th 2:1, 8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',5,7,8);">Jas 5:7-8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,16);">2Pe 1:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,4,12);">3:4, 12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,28);">1Joh 2:28</a>. A synonymous term is apokalupsis, "revelation," probably also of pre-Christian origin, presupposing the pre-existence of the Messiah in hidden form previous to His manifestation, either in heaven or on earth (compare Apocrypha Baruch 3:29; 1:20; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,1);">Ezra 4</a>; 2Esdras 7:28; Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, <span class="noTag">Testament of Levi 18</span>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',7,27);">Joh 7:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,20);">1Pe 1:20</a>). It could be adopted by Christians because Christ had been withdrawn into heaven and would be publicly demonstrated the Christ on His return, hence used with special reference to enemies and unbelievers (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',17,30);">Lu 17:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',3,21);">Ac 3:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',16,1);">1Co 16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',1,7,8);">2Th 1:7-8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,13,20);">1Pe 1:13, 20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,4);">5:4</a>). Another synonymous term is "the day of the (Our) Lord," "the day," "that day," "the day of Jesus Christ." This is the rendering of the well-known Old Testament phrase. Though there is no reason in any particular passage why "the Lord" should not be Christ, the possibility exists that in some cases it may refer to God (compare "day of God" in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,12);">2Pe 3:12</a>). On the other hand, what the Old Testament with the use of this phrase predicates of God is sometimes in the New Testament purposely transferred to Christ. "Day," while employed of the parousia generally, is, as in the Old Testament, mostly associated with the judgment, so as to become a synonym for judgment (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,38);">Ac 19:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',4,3);">1Co 4:3</a>). The phrase is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,22);">Mt 7:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,36);">24:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,32);">Mr 13:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,12);">Lu 10:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',17,24);">17:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,34);">21:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,20);">Ac 2:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',13,12);">Ro 13:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,8);">1Co 1:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',3,13);">3:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,5);">5:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',1,14);">2Co 1:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,6);">Php 1:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,16);">2:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',5,2,4);">1Th 5:2, 4</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',5,5,8);">5:5, 8</a>); <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,2);">2Th 2:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',1,12,18);">2Ti 1:12, 18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,8);">4:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,25);">Heb 10:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,10);">2Pe 3:10</a>.<P>2. Signs Preceding the Parousia:<P>The parousia is preceded by certain signs heralding its approach. Judaism, on the basis of the Old Testament, had worked out the doctrine of "the woes of the Messiah," chebhele ha-mashiach, the calamities and afflictions attendant upon the close of the present and the beginning of the coming age being interpreted as birth pains of the latter. This is transferred in the New Testament to the parousia of Christ. The phrase occurs only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,8);">Mt 24:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,8);">Mr 13:8</a>, the idea, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,22);">Ro 8:22</a>, and allusions to it occur probably in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',7,26);">1Co 7:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',3,3);">1Th 3:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',5,\'1-\);">5</a> Besides these general "woes," and also in accord with Jewish doctrine, the appearance of the Antichrist is made to precede the final crisis. Without Jewish precedent, the New Testament links with the parousia as preparatory to it, the pouring out of the Spirit, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, the conversion of Israel and the preaching of the gospel to all the nations. The problem of the sequence and interrelation of these several precursors of the end is a most difficult and complicated one and, as would seem, at the present not ripe for solution. The "woes" which in our Lord\'s eschatological discourse (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,1);">Mt 24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,1);">Mr 13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,\'1-\');">Lu 21</a>) are mentioned in more or less close accord with Jewish teaching are:<P class="in15">(1) wars, earthquakes and famines, "the beginning of travail";<P class="in15">(2) the great tribulation;<P class="in15">(3) commotions among the heavenly bodies; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,\'2-17\');">Re 6:2-17</a>.<P>For Jewish parallels to these, compare Charles, Eschatology,326,327. Because of this element which the discourse has in common with Jewish apocalypses, it has been assumed by Colani, Weiffenbach, Weizsacker, Wendt, et al., that here two sources have been welded together, an actual prophecy of Jesus, and a Jewish or Jewish-Christian apocalypse from the time of the Jewish War 68-70 (Historia Ecclesiastica, III,5,3). In the text of Mark this so-called "small apocalypse" is believed to consist of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,7,8,\'14-20\',\'24-47\',30,31);">13:7,8,14-20,24-27,30,31</a>. But this hypothesis mainly springs from the disinclination to ascribe to Jesus realistic eschatological expectations, and the entirely unwarranted assumption that He must have spoken of the end in purely ethical and religious terms only. That the typically Jewish "woes" bear no direct relation to the disciples and their faith is not a sufficient reason for declaring the prediction of them unworthy of Jesus. A contradiction is pointed out between the two representations, that the parousia will come suddenly, unexpectedly, and that it will come heralded by these signs. Especially in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,30,32);">Mr 13:30, 32</a> the contradiction is said to be pointed. To this it may be replied that even after the removal of the assumed apocalypse the same twofold representation remains present in what is recognized as genuine discourse of Jesus, namely, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,28,29);">Mr 13:28-29</a> as compared with <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,\'32-37\');">13:32, 33-37</a> and other similar admonitions to watchfulness. A real contradiction between <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,30);">13:30</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,32);">13:32</a> does not exist. Our Lord could consistently affirm both: "This generation shall not pass away, until all these things be accomplished," and "of that day or that hour knoweth no one." To be sure, the solution should not be sought by understanding "this generation" of the Jewish race or of the human race. It must mean, according to ordinary usage, then living generation. Nor does it help matters to distinguish between the prediction of the parousia within certain wide limits and the denial of knowledge as to the precise day and hour. In point of fact the two statements do not refer to the same matter at all. "That day or that hour" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,32);">13:32</a> does not have "these things" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,30);">13:30</a> for its antecedent. Both by the demonstrative pronoun "that" and by "but" it is marked as an absolute self-explanatory conception. It simply signifies as elsewhere the day of the Lord, the day of judgment. Of "these things," the exact meaning of which phrase must be determined from the foregoing, Jesus declares that they will come to pass within that generation; but concerning the parousia, "that (great) day," He declares that no one but God knows the time of its occurrence. The correctness of this view is confirmed by the preceding parable, <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,28,29);">Mark 13:28-29</a>, where in precisely the same way "these things" and the parousia are distinguished. The question remains how much "these things" (verse <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,29);">29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,31);">Lu 21:31</a>), "all these things" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,33,34);">Mt 24:33-34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,30);">Mr 13:30</a>), "all things" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,32);">Lu 21:32</a>) is intended to cover of what is described in the preceding discourse. The answer will depend on what is there represented as belonging to the precursors of the end, and what as strictly constituting part of the end itself; and on the other question whether Jesus predicts one end with its premonitory signs, or refers to two crises each of which will be heralded by its own series of signs. Here two views deserve consideration. According to the one (advocated by Zahn in his Commentary on Matthew, 652-66) the signs cover only <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,\'4-14\');">Mt 24:4-14</a>.<P>What is related afterward, namely, "the abomination of desolation," great tribulation, false prophets and Christs, commotions in the heavens, the sign of the Son of Man, all this belongs to "the end" itself, in the absolute sense, and is therefore comprehended in the parousia and excepted from the prediction that it will happen in that generation, while included in the declaration that only God knows the time of its coming. The destruction of the temple and the holy city, though not explicitly mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,\'4-14\');">Mt 24:4-14</a>, would be included in what is there said of wars and tribulation. The prediction thus interpreted would have been literally fulfilled. The objections to this view are:<P class="in15">(1) It is unnatural thus to subsume what is related in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,\'15-29\');">24:15-29</a> under "the end." From a formal point of view it does not differ from the phenomena of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,\'4-14\');">24:4-14</a> which are "signs."<P class="in15">(2) It creates the difficulty, that the existence of the temple and the temple-worship in Jerusalem are presupposed in the last days immediately before the parousia.<P>The "abomination of desolation" taken from <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',8,13);">Da 8:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',9,27);">9:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',11,31);">11:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',12,11);">12:11</a>; compare Sirach 49:2<>according to some, the destruction of the city and temple, better a desecration of the temple-site by the setting up of something idolatrous, as a result of which it becomes desolate<74>and the flight from Judea, are put among events which, together with the parousia, constitute the end of the world. This would seem to involve chiliasm of a very pronounced sort. The difficulty recurs in the strictly eschatological interpretation of <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,3,4);">2Th 2:3-4</a>, where "the man of sin" (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SIN,+MAN+OF">SIN, MAN OF</a>) is represented as sitting in "the temple of God" and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',11,1,2);">Re 11:1-2</a>, where "the temple of God" and "the altar," and "the court which is without the temple" and "the holy city" figure in an episode inserted between the sounding of the trumpet of the sixth angel and that of the seventh. On the other hand it ought to be remembered that eschatological prophecy makes use of ancient traditional imagery and stereotyped formulas, which, precisely because they are fixed and applied to all situations, cannot always bear a literal sense, but must be subject to a certain degree of symbolical and spiritualizing interpretation. In the present case the profanation of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes may have furnished the imagery in which, by Jesus, Paul and John, anti-Christian developments are described of a nature which has nothing to do with Israel, Jerusalem or the temple, literally understood.<P>(3) It is not easy to conceive of the preaching of the gospel to all the nations as falling within the lifetime of that generation. It is true <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,13);">Ro 1:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',10,18);">10:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,\'19-24\');">15:19-24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,6);">Col 1:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',3,16);">1Ti 3:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,17);">2Ti 4:17</a> might be quoted in support of such a view. In the statement of Jesus, however, it is definitely predicted that the preaching of the gospel to all the nations not only must happen before the end, but that it straightway precedes the end: "Then shall the end come" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,14);">Mt 24:14</a>). To distinguish between the preaching of the gospel to all the nations and the completion of the Gentile mission, as Zahn proposes, is artificial. As over against these objections, however, it must be admitted that the grouping of all these later phenomena before the end proper avoids the difficulty arising from "immediately" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,29);">Mt 24:29</a> and from "in those days" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,24);">Mr 13:24</a>.<P>The other view has been most lucidly set forth by Briggs, Messiah of the Gospels, 132-65. It makes Jesus\' discourse relate to two things:<P class="in15">(1) the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple;<P class="in15">(2) the end of the world.<P>He further assumes that the disciples are informed with respect to two points:<P class="in15">(1) the time;<P class="in15">(2) the signs.<P>In the answer to the time, however, the two things are not sharply distinguished, but united into one prophetic perspective, the parousia standing out more conspicuously. The definition of the time of this complex development is: (a) negative (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,\'5-8\');">Mr 13:5-8</a>); (b) positive (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,\'9-13\');">Mr 13:9-13</a>). On the other hand in describing the signs Jesus discriminates between (a) the signs of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,\'14-20\');">Mr 13:14-20</a>); (b) the signs of the parousia (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,\'24-27\');">Mr 13:24-27</a>). This view has in its favor that the destruction of the temple and the city, which in the question of the disciples figured as an eschatological event, is recognized as such in the answer of Jesus, and not alluded to after a mere incidental fashion, as among the signs. Especially the version of <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,\'20-24\');">Lu 21:20-24</a> proves that it figures as an event. This view also renders easier the restriction of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,30);">Mr 13:30</a> to the first event and its signs. It places "the abomination of desolation" in the period preceding the national catastrophe. The view that the two events are successively discussed is further favored by the movement of thought in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,32);">Mr 13:32</a>ff. Here, after the Apocalypse has been brought to a close, the application to the disciples is made, and, in the same order as was observed in the prophecy, first, the true attitude toward the national crisis is defined in the parable of the Fig Tree and the solemn assurance appended that it will happen in this generation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,\'28-31\');">13:28-31</a>); secondly, the true attitude toward the parousia is defined (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,\'32-37\');">13:32-37</a>). The only serious objection that may be urged against this view arises from the close concatenation of the section relating to the national crisis with the section relating to the parousia (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,29);">Mt 24:29</a>: "immediately after...those days"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,24);">Mr 13:24</a>: "in those days"). The question is whether this mode of speaking can be explained on the principle of the well-known foreshortening of the perspective of prophecy. It cannot be a priori denied that this peculiarity of prophetic vision may have here characterized also the outlook of Jesus into the future which, as <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,32);">Mr 13:32</a> shows, was the prophetic outlook of His human nature as distinct from the Divine omniscience. The possibility of misinterpreting this feature and confounding sequence in perspective with chronological succession is in the present case guarded against by the statement that the gospel must first be preached to all the nations (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',3,19,25,26);">Ac 3:19, 25-26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',11,25);">Ro 11:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,2);">Re 6:2</a>) before the end can come, that no one knows the time of the parousia except God, that there must be a period of desolation after the city shall have been destroyed, and that the final coming of Jesus to the people of Israel will be a coming not of judgment, but one in which they shall hail Him as blessed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,38,39);">Mt 23:38-39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',13,34,35);">Lu 13:34-35</a>), which presupposes an interval to account for this changed attitude (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,24);">Lu 21:24</a>: "until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled"). It is not necessary to carry the distinction between the two crises joined together here into the question as put by the disciples in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,3);">Mt 24:3</a>, as if "when shall these things be?" related to the destruction of the temple exclusively, as the other half of the question speaks of the coming of Jesus and the end of the world. Evidently here not the two events, but the events (complexly considered) and the signs are distinguished. "These things" has its antecedent not exclusively in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,2);">24:2</a>, but even more in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,38,39);">23:38-39</a>.<P>The disciples desired to know not so much when the calamitous national catastrophe would come, but rather when that subsequent coming of the Lord would take place, which would put a limit to the distressing results of this catastrophe, and bring with it the reacceptance of Israel into favor. This explains also why Jesus does not begin His discourse with the national crisis, but first takes up the question of the parousia, to define negatively and positively the time of the latter, and that for the purpose of warning the disciples who in their eagerness for the ultimate issue were inclined to foreshorten the preceding calamitous developments. That Jesus could actually join together the national and the cosmical crises appears from other passages, such as <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,23);">Mt 10:23</a>, where His interposition for the deliverance of the fugitive disciples is called a "coming" of the Son of Man (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,28);">Mt 16:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,1);">Mr 9:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,27);">Lu 9:27</a>, where a coming of the Son of Man in His kingdom (Matthew), or a coming of the kingdom of God with power (Mark), or a seeing of the kingdom of God (Luke) is promised to some of that generation). It is true these passages are frequently referred to the parousia, because in the immediately preceding context the latter is spoken of. The connection of thought, however, is not that the parousia and this promised coming are identical. The proximate coming is referred to as an encouragement toward faithfulness and self-sacrifice, just as the reward at the parousia is mentioned for the same purpose. The conception of an earlier coming also receives light from the confession of Jesus at His trial (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,64);">Mt 26:64</a>; where the "henceforth" refers equally to the coming on the clouds of heaven and to the sitting at the right hand of God; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,62);">Mr 14:62</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,69);">Lu 22:69</a>). The point of the declaration is, that He who now is condemned will in the near future appear in theophany for judgment upon His judges. The closing discourses of John also have the conception of the coming of Jesus to His disciples in the near future for an abiding presence, although here this is associated with the advent of the Spirit (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,18,19,21,23);">Joh 14:18-19, 21, 23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,16,19,22,23);">16:16, 19, 22-23</a>). Finally the same idea recurs in Rev, where it is equally clear that a preliminary visitation of Christ and not the parousia for final judgment can be meant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',2,5,);">Joh 2:5, 16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,3,10);">3:3, 10</a>; compare also the plural "one of the days of the Son of man" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',17,22);">Lu 17:22</a>).<P>3. Events Preceding the Parousia:<P>(1) The Conversion of Israel:<P>To the events preceding the parousia belongs, according to the uniform teaching of Jesus, Peter and Paul, the conversion of Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,39);">Mt 23:39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',13,35);">Lu 13:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,6,7);">Ac 1:6-7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',3,19,21);">3:19, 21</a>; where the arrival of "seasons of refreshing" and "the times of restoration of all things" is made dependent on the (eschatological) sending of the Christ to Israel), and this again is said to depend on the repentance and conversion and the blotting out of the sins of Israel; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',11,\'1-\');">Ro 11</a>, where the problem of the unbelief of Israel is solved by the twofold proposition: (1) that there is even now among Israel an election according to grace; (2) that in the future there will be a comprehensive conversion of Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',11,5,\'25-32\');">Ro 11:5, 25-32</a>).<P>(2) The Coming of the Antichrist:<P>Among the precursors of the parousia appears further the Antichrist. The word is found in the New Testament in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,18,22);">1Joh 2:18, 22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,3);">4:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Jo\',1,7);">2Joh 1:7</a> only, but the conception occurs also in the Synoptics, in Paul and in Revelation. There is no instance of its earlier occurrence in Jewish literature. Anti may mean "in place of" and "against"; the former includes the latter. In John it is not clear that the heretical tendencies or hostile powers connected with the anti-Christian movement make false claim to the Messianic dignity. In the Synoptics the coming of false Christs and false prophets is predicted, and that not merely as among the nearer signs (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,6);">Mr 13:6</a>), but also in the remote eschatological period (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,22);">Mr 13:22</a>). With Paul, who does not employ the word, the conception is clearly the developed one of the counter-Christ. Paul ascribes to him an apokalupsis as he does to Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,6,8);">2Th 2:6, 8</a>); his manner of working and its pernicious effect are set over against the manner in which the gospel of the true Christ works (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',9,\'1-\');">2Th 9-12</a>). Paul does not treat the idea as a new one; it must have come down from the Old Testament and Jewish eschatology and have been more fully developed by New Testament prophecy; compare in <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',7,8,20);">Da 7:8, 20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',8,10,11);">8:10-11</a> the supernaturally magnified figure of the great enemy. According to Gunkel (Schopfung und Chaos, 1895) and Bousset (Der Antichrist in der Uberlieferung des Judenthums, des New Testament und der allen Kirche, 1875) the origin of the conception of a final struggle between God and the supreme enemy must be sought in the ancient myth of Chaos conquered by Marduk; what had happened at the beginning of the world was transferred to the end. Then this was anthropomorphized, first in the form of a false Messiah, later in that of a political tyrant or oppressor. But there is no need to assume any other source for the idea of a last enemy than Old Testament eschatological prophecy (Ezekiel and Daniel and Zechariah). And no evidence has so far been adduced that the Pauline idea of a counter-Messiah is of pre-Christian origin. This can only be maintained by carrying back into the older period the Antichrist tradition as found later among Jews and Christians. It is reasonable to assume in the present state of the evidence that the combination of the two ideas, that of the great eschatological enemy and that of the counter-Messiah, is a product of Christian prophecy. In fact even the conception of a single last enemy does not occur in pre- Christian Jewish literature; it is found for the first time in Apocrypha Baruch 40:1,2, which changes the general conception of 4Ezra to this effect. Even in the eschatological discourse of Jesus the idea is not yet unified, for false Christs and false prophets in the plural are spoken of, and the instigator of "the abomination of desolation," if any is presupposed, remains in the background. In the Epistle of John the same plural representation occurs (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,18,22);">1Joh 2:18, 22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Jo\',1,7);">2Joh 1:7</a>), although the idea of a personal Antichrist in whom the movement culminates is not only familiar to the author and the reader (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,18);">1Joh 2:18</a>, "as ye heard that antichrist cometh"), but is also accepted by the writer (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,3);">1Joh 4:3</a>, "This is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already"; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,7);">2Th 2:7</a>, "The mystery of lawlessness doth already work").<P>Various views have been proposed to explain the concrete features of the Pauline representation in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,\'1-\');">2Th 2</a> and that of <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',13,\'1-\');">Re 13</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',17,\'1-\');">17</a>. According to Schneckenburger, JDT, 1859, and Weiss, SK, 1869, Paul has in mind the person whom the Jews will acclaim as their Messiah. The idea would then be the precipitate of Paul\'s experience of hostility and persecution from the part of the Jews. He expected that this Jewish Messianic pretender would, helped by Satanic influence, overthrow the Roman power. The continuance of the Roman power is "that which restraineth," or as embodied in the emperor, "one that restraineth now" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,6,7);">2Th 2:6-7</a>). (For an interesting view in which the roles played by these two powers are reversed, compare Warfield in The Expositor, 3rd series, IV, 30-44.) The objection to this is that "the lawless one," not merely from Paul\'s or the Christian point of view, but in his own avowed intent, opposes and exalts himself against all that is called God or worshipped. This no Jewish pretender to the Messiahship could possibly do: his very Messianic position would preclude it. And the conception of a counter-Christ does not necessarily point to a Jewish environment, for the idea of Messiahship had in Paul\'s mind been raised far above its original national plane and assumed a universalistic character (compare Zahn, Einleitung in das NT(1), I, 171). Nor does the feature that according to <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,4);">2Th 2:4</a>, "the lawless one" will take his seat in the temple favor the view in question, for the desecration of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes and later similar experiences may well have contributed to the figure of the great enemy the attribute of desecrator of the temple. It is not necessary to assume that by Paul this was understood literally; it need mean no more than that the Antichrist will usurp for himself Divine honor and worship. Patristic and later writers gave to this feature a chiliastic interpretation, referring it to the temple which was to be rebuilt in the future. Also the allegorical exegesis which understands "the temple" of the Christian church has found advocates. But the terms in which "the lawless one" is described exclude his voluntary identification with the Christian church. According to a second view the figure is not a Jewish but a pagan one. Kern, Baur, Hilgenfeld and many others, assuming that 2 Thessalonians is post-Pauline, connect the prophecy with the at-one-time current expectation that Nero, the great persecutor, would return from the East or from the dead, and, with the help of Satan, set up an anti-Christian kingdom. The same expectation is assumed to underlie <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',13,3,12,14);">Re 13:3,12,14</a> (one of the heads of the beast smitten unto death and his death stroke healed); <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',17,8,10,11);">17:8,10-11</a> (the beast that was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss; the eighth king, who is one of the seven preceding kings).<P>As to Paul\'s description, there is nothing in it to make us think of a Nero reappearing or redivivus. The parousia predicated of the lawless one does not imply it, for parousia as an eschatological term means not "return" but "advent." The Antichrist is not depicted as a persecutor, and Nero was the persecutor par excellence. Nor does what is said about the "hindering" or the "hinderer" suit the case of Nero, for the later Roman emperors could not be said to hold back Nero\'s reappearance. As to Revelation, it must be admitted that the role here ascribed to the beast would be more in keeping with the character of Nero. But, as Zahn has well pointed out (Einleitung in das NT(1), II, 617-26), this interpretation is incompatible with the date of Revelation. This book must have been written at a date when the earlier form of the expectation that Nero would reappear still prevailed, namely, that he would return from the East to which he had fled. Only when too long an interval had elapsed to permit of further belief in Nero\'s still being alive, was this changed into the superstition that he would return from the dead. But this change in the form of the belief did not take place until after Revelation must have been written. Consequently, if the returning Nero did figure in Revelation, it would have to be in the form of one reappearing from the East. As a matter of fact, however, the beast or the king in which Nero is found is said by <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',13,1);">Re 13:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',17,8);">17:8</a> to have been smitten unto death and healed of the death stroke, to come up out of the sea or the abyss, which would only suit the later form of the expectation. It is therefore necessary to dissociate the description of the beast and its heads and horns entirely from the details of the succession of the Roman empire; the prophecy is more grandly staged; the description of the beast as partaking of several animal forms in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',13,2);">Re 13:2</a> refers back to Daniel, and here as there must be understood of the one world-power in its successive national manifestations, which already excludes the possibility that a mere succession of kings in one and the same empire can be thought of. The one of the heads smitten unto death and the death stroke healed must refer to the world-power to be made powerless in one of its phases, but afterward to revive in a new phase. Hence, here already the healing of the death stroke is predicated, not merely of one of the heads, but also of the beast itself (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',13,3);">Re 13:3</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',13,12);">13:12</a>).<P>And the same interpretation seems to be required by the mysterious statements of <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',17,\'1-\');">Re 17</a>, where the woman sitting upon the beast is the metropolis of the world-power, changing its seat together with the latter, yet so as to retain, like the latter in all its transformations, the same character whence she bears the same name of Babylon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',17,5);">17:5</A>). Here as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',13,\'1-\');">Re 13</a> the beast has seven heads, i.e. passes through seven phases, which idea is also expressed by the representation that these seven heads are seven kings (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',17,10);">17:10</a>), for, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',7,\'1-\');">Da 7</a>, the kings stand not for individual rulers, but for kingdoms, phases of the world-power. This explains why in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',17,11);">Re 17:11</a> the beast is identified with one of the kings. When here the further explanation, going beyond <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',13,\'1-\');">Re 13</a>, is added, that the beast was and is not and is about to come up out of the abyss (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',13,8);">13:8</a>), and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',13,10,11);">13:10-11</a> that of the seven kings five are fallen, one is, the other is not yet come, and when he comes must continue a little while, to be followed by the eighth, who is identical with the beast that was and is not, and with one of the seven, the only way to reconcile these statements lies in assuming that "the beast," while in one sense a comprehensive figure for the world-power in all its phases, can also in another sense designate the supreme embodiment and most typical manifestation of the world-power in the past; in respect to this acute phase the beast was and is not and is to appear again, and this acute phase was one of seven successive forms of manifestation, and in its reappearance will add to this number the eighth. Although a certain double sense in the employment of the figures thus results, this is no greater than when on the other view Nero is depicted both as "the beast" and as one of the heads of "the beast." Which concrete monarchies are meant by these seven phases is a matter of minor importance. For a suggestion compare Zahn, op. cit., II, 624: (1) Egypt; (2) Assyria; (3) Babylon; (4) the Medo-Persian power; (5) the Greco-Alexandrian power; (6) the Roman power; (7) a short-lived empire to succeed Rome; (8) the eighth and last phase, which will reproduce in its acute character the fifth, and will bring on the scene the Antichrist, the counterpart and, as it were, reincarnation of Antiochus Epiphanes. The seer evidently has his present in the Roman phase of the power of the beast, and this renders it possible for him to give in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',17,9);">Re 17:9</a> another turn to the figure of the seven heads, interpreting it of the seven mountains on which the woman sits, but this apocalyptic looseness of handling of the imagery can furnish no objection to the view just outlined, since on any view the two incongruous explanations of the seven heads as seven mountains and seven kings stand side by side in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',17,9);">Re 17:9</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',17,10);">10</a>. Nor should the mysterious number of 666 in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',13,18);">13:18</a> be appealed to in favor of the reference of the beast to Nero, for on the one hand quite a number of other equally plausible or implausible solutions of this riddle have been proposed, and on the other hand the interpretation of Nero is open to the serious objection, that in order to make out the required number from the letters of Nero\'s name this name has to be written in Hebrew characters and that with scriptio defectiva of Qesar (Neron Qesar) instead of Qeisar, the former of which two peculiarities is out of keeping with the usage of the book elsewhere (compare Zahn, op. cit., II, 622, 624, 625, where the chief proposed explanations of the number 666 are recorded). Under the circumstances the interpretation of the figure of the beast and its heads must be allowed to pursue its course independently of the mystery of the number 666 in regard to which no certain conclusion appears attainable.<P>The following indicates the degree of definiteness to which, in the opinion of the writer, it is possible to go in the interpretation of the prophecy. The terms in which, Paul speaks remind of Daniel\'s description of the "little horn." Similarly Revelation attaches itself to the imagery of the beasts in Daniel. Both Paul and Revelation also seem to allude to the self-deification of rulers in the Hellenistic and Roman world (compare Zeitsehrift fur neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1904, 335ff). Both, therefore, appear to have in mind a politically organized world-power under a supreme head. Still in both cases this power is not viewed as the climax of enmity against God on account of its political activity as such, but distinctly on account of its self-assertion in the religious sphere, so that the whole conception is lifted to a higher plane, purely spiritual standards being applied in the judgment expressed. Paul so thoroughly applies this principle that in his picture the seductive, deceptive aspect of the movement in the sphere of false teaching is directly connected with the person of "the lawless one" himself (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,\'9-12\');">2Th 2:9-12</a>), and not with a separate organ of false prophecy, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',13,\'11-17\');">Re 13:11-17</a> (the second beast). In Revelation, as shown above, the final and acute phase of anti-Christian hostility is clearly distinguished from its embodiment in the Roman empire and separated from the latter by an intermediate stage. In Paul, who stands at a somewhat earlier point in the development of New Testament prophecy, this is not so clearly apparent. Paul teaches that the "mystery of lawlessness" is already at work in his day, but this does not necessarily involve that the person of "the lawless one," subsequently to appear, must be connected with the same phase of the world-power, with which Paul associates this mystery already at work, since the succeeding phases being continuous, this will also insure the continuity between the general principle and its personal representative, even though the latter should appear at a later stage. It is impossible to determine how far Paul consciously looked beyond the power of the Roman empire to a later organIzation as the vehicle for the last anti-Christian effort. On the other hand, that Paul must have thought of "the lawless one" as already in existence at that time cannot be proven. It does not follow from the parallelism between his "revelation" and the parousia of Christ, for this "revelation" has for its correlate simply a previous hidden presence for some time somewhere, not an existence necessarily extending to Paul\'s time or the time of the Roman empire, far less a pre-existence, like unto Christ\'s, in the supernatural world. Nor is present existence implied in what Paul says of "the hindering power." This, to be sure, is represented as asserting itself at that very time, but the restraint is not exerted directly upon "the lawless one"; it relates to the power of which he will be the ultimate exponent; when this power, through the removal of the restraint, develops freely, his revelation follows. According to <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,9);">2Th 2:9</a> his "parousia is according to the working of Satan," but whether this puts a supernatural aspect upon the initial act of his appearance or relates more to his subsequent presence and activity in the world, which will be attended with all powers and signs and lying wonders, cannot be determined with certainty. But the element of the supernatural is certainly there, although it is evidently erroneous to conceive of "the lawless one" as an incarnation of Satan, literally speaking. The phrase "according to the working of Satan" excludes this, and "the lawless one" is a true human figure, "the man of sin" (or "the man of lawlessness," according to another reading; compare the distinction between Satan and "the beast" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,10);">Re 20:10</a>), <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,3);">2Th 2:3</a>. The "power" and "signs" and "wonders" are not merely "seeming"; the genitive pseudous is not intended to take them out of the category of the supernatural, but simply means that what they are intended to accredit is a lie, namely, the Divine dignity of "the lawless one." Most difficult of all is the determination of what Paul means by the hindering power or the hinderer in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,7);">2Th 2:7</a>.<P>The most common view refers this to the Roman authority as the basis of civil order and protection, but there are serious objections to this. If Paul at all associated the Antichrist in any way with the Roman power, he cannot very well have sought the opposite principle in the same quarter. And not only the hindering power but also the hindering person seems to be a unit, which latter does not apply to the Roman empire, which had a succession of rulers. It is further difficult to dismiss the thought that the hindering principle or person must be more or less supernatural, since the supernatural factor in the work of "the lawless one" is so prominent. For this reason there is something attractive in the old view of von Hofmann, who assumed that Paul borrowed from Daniel, besides other features, also this feature that the historical conflict on earth has a supernatural background in the world of spirits (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',10,\'1-\');">Da 10</a>). A more precise definition, however, is impossible. Finally it should be noticed that, as in the eschatological discourse of Jesus "the abomination of desolation" appears connected with an apostasy within the church through false teaching (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,22,23);">Mr 13:22-23</a>), so Paul joins to the appearance of "the lawless one" the destructive effect of error among many that are lost (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,\'9-12\');">2Th 2:9-12</a>). The idea of the Antichrist in general and that of the apostasy in particular reminds us that we may not expect an uninterrupted progress of the Christianization of the world until the parousia. As the reign of the truth will be extended, so the forces of evil will gather strength, especially toward the end. The universal sway of the kingdom of God cannot be expected from missionary effort alone; it requires the eschatological inter-position of God.<P>4. The Manner of the Parousia:<P>In regard to the manner and attending circumstances of the parousia we learn that it will be widely visible, like the lightning (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,27);">Mt 24:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',17,24);">Lu 17:24</a>; the point of comparison does not lie in the suddenness); to the unbelieving it will come unexpectedly (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,\'37-42\');">Mt 24:37-42</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',17,\'26-32\');">Lu 17:26-32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',5,2,3);">1Th 5:2-3</a>). A sign will precede, "the sign of the Son of Man," in regard to the nature of which nothing can be determined. Christ will come "on the clouds," "in clouds," "in a cloud," "with great power and glory" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,30);">Mt 24:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,26);">Mr 13:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,27);">Lu 21:27</a>); attended by angels (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,31);">Mt 24:31</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,41);">Mt 13:41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,27);">16:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,38);">Mr 8:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,26);">Lu 9:26</a>); <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,27);">Mr 13:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',1,7);">2Th 1:7</a>).<A href="file:./study/isbe/3100.html?toc=3181"><p>Continued...``182';
|
||
isbe[3181]='Eschatology of the New Testament, VI-X`VI. The Resurrection.<P>The resurrection coincides with the parousia and the arrival of the future aeon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',20,35);">Lu 20:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,40);">Joh 6:40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',4,16);">1Th 4:16</a>). From <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',3,13);">1Th 3:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',4,16);">4:16</a> it has been inferred that the dead rise before the descent of Christ from heaven is completed; the sounds described in the later passage are then interpreted as sounds accompanying the descent (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,16);">Ex 19:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',27,13);">Isa 27:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,31);">Mt 24:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,52);">1Co 15:52</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,19);">Heb 12:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',10,7);">Re 10:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',11,15);">11:15</a>; "the trump of God" = the great eschatological trumpet). The two words for the resurrection are egeirein, "to wake," and anistanai, "to raise," the latter less common in the active than in the intransitive sense.<P>1. Its Universality:<P>The New Testament teaches in some passages with sufficient clearness that all the dead will be raised, but the emphasis rests to such an extent on the soteriological aspect of the event, especially in Paul, where it is closely connected with the doctrine of the Spirit, that its reference to non-believers receives little notice. This was already partly so in the Old Testament (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',26,19);">Isa 26:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',12,2);">Da 12:2</a>). In the intervening Jewish literature the doctrine varies; sometimes a resurrection of the martyrs alone is taught (Enoch 90); sometimes of all the righteous dead of Israel (<span class="noTag">Psalms of Solomon 3:10</span>ff; Enoch 91-94.); sometimes of all the righteous and of some wicked Israelites (Enoch 1-36); sometimes of all the righteous and all the wicked (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,\'1-\');">Ezra 4</a>; 2Esdras 5:45; 7:32;). Josephus ascribes to the Pharisees the doctrine that only the righteous will share in the resurrection. It ought to be noticed that these apocalyptic writings which affirm the universality of the resurrection present the same phenomena as the New Testament, namely, that they contain passages which so exclusively reflect upon the resurrection in its bearing upon the destiny of the righteous as to create the appearance that no other resurrection was believed in. Among the Pharisees probably a diversity of opinion prevailed on this question, which Josephus will have obliterated. Our Lord in His argument with the Sadducees proves only the resurrection of the pious, but does not exclude the other (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,26,27);">Mr 12:26-27</a>); "the resurrection of the just" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',14,14);">Lu 14:14</a> may suggest a twofold resurrection. It has been held that the phrase, he anastasis he ek nekron <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',20,35);">Lu 20:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',4,2);">Ac 4:2</a>, always describes the resurrection of a limited number from among the dead, whereas he anastasisis ton nekron would be descriptive of a universal resurrection Plummer, Commentary on <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',20,35);">Lu 20:35</a>, but such a distinction breaks down before an examination of the passages.<P>The inference to the universality of the resurrection sometimes drawn from the universality of the judgment is scarcely valid, since the idea of a judgment of disembodied spirits is not inconceivable and actually occurs. On the other hand the punishment of the judged is explicitly affirmed to include the body (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,28);">Mt 10:28</a>). It cannot be proven that the term "resurrection" is ever in the New Testament eschatologically employed without reference to the body, of the quickening of the spirit simply (against, Fries, in ZNTW, 1900, 291ff). The sense of our Lord\'s argument with the Sadducees does not require that the patriarchs were at the time of Moses in possession of the resurrection, but only that they were enjoying the covenant-life, which would in due time inevitably issue in the resurrection of their bodies. The resemblance (or "equality") to the angels (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,25);">Mr 12:25</a>) does not consist in the disembodied state, but in the absence of marriage and propagation. It has been suggested that Hebrews contains no direct evidence for a bodily resurrection (Charles, Eschatology, 361), but compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Heb\',11,22,35);">11:22, 35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Heb\',12,2);">12:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Heb\',13,20);">13:20</a>. The spiritualism of the epistle points, in connection with its Pauline type of teaching, to the conception of a pneumatic heavenly body, rather than to a disembodied state.<P>2. The Millennium:<P>The New Testament confines the event of the resurrection to a single epoch, and nowhere teaches, as chiliasm assumes, a resurrection in two stages, one, at the parousia, of saints or martyrs, and a second one at the close of the millennium. Although the doctrine of a temporary Messianic kingdom, preceding the consummation of the world, is of pre-Christian Jewish origin, it had not been developed in Judaism to the extent of assuming a repeated resurrection; the entire resurrection is always placed at the end. The passages to which this doctrine of a double resurrection appeals are chiefly <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',3,\'19-21\');">Ac 3:19-21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,\'23-28\');">1Co 15:23-28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,\'9-11\');">Php 3:9-11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',4,\'13-18\');">1Th 4:13-18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',1,\'5-12\');">2Th 1:5-12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,\'1-6\');">Re 20:1-6</a>. In the first-named passage Peter promises "seasons of refreshing," when Israel shall have repented and turned to God. The arrival of these coincides with the sending of the Christ to the Jews, i.e. with the parousia. It is argued that Peter in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',3,21);">Ac 3:21</a>, "whom the heavens must (present tense) receive until the times of restoration of all things," places after this coming of Jesus to His people a renewed withdrawal of the Lord into heaven, to be followed in turn, after a certain interval, by the restoration of all things. The "seasons of refreshing" would then constitute the millennium with Christ present among His people. While this interpretation is not grammatically impossible, there is no room for it in the general scheme of the Petrine eschatology, for the parousia of Christ is elsewhere represented as bringing not a provisional presence, but as bringing in the day of the Lord, the day of judgment (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,\'17-21\');">Ac 2:17-21</a>). The correct view is that "the seasons of refreshing" and "the times of restoration of all things" are identical; the latter phrase relates to the prospects of Israel as well as the former, and should not be understood in the later technical sense. The present tense in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',3,21);">Ac 3:21</a> "must receive" does not indicate that the reception of Christ into heaven still lies in the future, but formulates a fixed eschatological principle, namely, that after His first appearance the Christ must be withdrawn into heaven till the hour for the parousia has come. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,\'23-28\');">1Co 15:23-28</a> two tagmata, "orders," of the resurrection are distinguished, and it is urged that these consist of "believers" and "non-believers." But there is no reflection here upon non-believers at all, the two "orders" are Christ, and they that are Christ\'s. "The end" in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,24);">15:24</a> is not the final stage in the resurrection, i.e. the resurrection of non-believers, but the end of the series of eschatological events. The kingdom of Christ which comes to a close with the end is not a kingdom beginning with the parousia, but dates from the exaltation of Christ; it is to Paul not future but already in operation.<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',4,\'13-18\');">1Th 4:13-18</a> the presupposition is not that the readers had worried about a possible exclusion of their dead from the provisional reign of Christ and from a first resurrection, but that they had sorrowed even as the Gentiles who have no hope whatever, i.e. they had doubted the fact of the resurrection as such. Paul accordingly gives them in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',4,14);">4:14</a> the general assurance that in the resurrection of Jesus that of believers is guaranteed. The verb "precede" in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',4,15);">4:15</a> does not imply that there was thought of precedence in the enjoyment of glory, but is only an emphatic way of affirming that the dead will not be one moment behind in inheriting with the living the blessedness of the parousia. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',4,17);">4:17</a>, "so shall we ever be with the Lord," the word "ever" excludes the conception of a provisional kingdom. <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',1,\'5-12\');">2Th 1:5-12</a> contains merely the general thought that sufferings and glory, persecution and the inheritance of the kingdom are linked together. There is nothing to show that this glory and kingdom are aught else but the final state, the kingdom of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',1,5);">2Th 1:5</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,\'9-11\');">Php 3:9-11</a>, it is claimed, Paul represents attainment to the resurrection as dependent on special effort on his part, therefore as something not in store for all believers. Since the general resurrection pertains to all, a special grace of resurrection must be meant, i.e. inclusion in the number of those to be raised at the parousia, at the opening of the millennial kingdom. The answer to this is, that it was quite possible to Paul to make the resurrection as such depend on the believer\'s progress in grace and conformity to Christ, seeing that it is not an event out of all relation to his spiritual development, but the climax of an organic process of transformation begun in this life. And in verse <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,20);">20</a> the resurrection of all is joined to the parousia (compare for the Pauline passages Vos, "The Pauline Eschatology and Chiliasm," PTR,1911,26-60).<P>The passage <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,\'1-6\');">Re 20:1-6</a> at first sight much favors the conception of a millennial reign of Christ, participated in by the martyrs, brought to life in a first resurrection, and marked by a suspension of the activity of Satan. And it is urged that the sequence of visions places this millennium after the parousia of Christ narrated in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,\'1-\');">Re 19</a>. The question of historic sequence, however, is in Revelation difficult to decide. In other parts of the book the principle of "recapitulation," i.e. of cotemporaneousness of things successively depicted, seems to underlie the visions, and numbers are elsewhere in the book meant symbolically. These facts leave open the possibility that the thousand years are synchronous with the earlier developments recorded, and symbolically describe the state of glorified life enjoyed with Christ in heaven by the martyrs during the intermediate period preceding the parousia. The terms employed do not suggest an anticipated bodily resurrection. The seer speaks of "souls" which "lived" and "reigned," and finds in this the first resurrection. The scene of this life and reign is in heaven, where also the "souls" of the martyrs are beheld (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,9);">Re 6:9</a>). The words "this is the first resurrection" may be a pointed disavowal of a more realistic (chiliastic) interpretation of the same phrase. The symbolism of the thousand years consists in this, that it contrasts the glorious state of the martyrs on the one hand with the brief season of tribulation passed here on earth, and on the other hand with the eternal life of the consummation. The binding of Satan for this period marks the first eschatological conquest of Christ over the powers of evil, as distinguished from the renewed activity to be displayed by Satan toward the end in bringing up against the church still other forces not hitherto introduced into the conflict. In regard to a book so enigmatical, it were presumptuous to speak with any degree of dogmatism, but the uniform absence of the idea of the millennium from the eschatological teaching of the New Testament elsewhere ought to render the exegete cautious before affirming its presence here (compare Warfield, "The Millennium and the Apocalypse," PTR, 1904, 599-617).<P>3. The Resurrection of Believers:<P>The resurrection of believers bears a twofold aspect. On the one hand it belongs to the forensic side of salvation. On the other hand it belongs to the pneumatic transforming side of the saving process. Of the former, traces appear only in the teaching of Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,9);">Mt 5:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,\'29-32\');">22:29-32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',20,35,36);">Lu 20:35-36</a>). Paul clearly ascribes to the believer\'s resurrection a somewhat similar forensic significance as to that of Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,10,23);">Ro 8:10, 23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,\'30-32\',\'55-58\');">1Co 15:30-32, 55-58</a>). Far more prominent with him is, however, the other, the pneumatic interpretation. Both the origin of the resurrection life and the continuance of the resurrection state are dependent on the Spirit (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,\'1-\');">Ro 8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',10,\'1-\');">10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',11,\'1-\');">11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,\'45-49\');">1Co 15:45-49</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',6,8);">Ga 6:8</a>). The resurrection is the climax of the believer\'s transformation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,11);">Ro 8:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',6,8);">Ga 6:8</a>). This part ascribed to the Spirit in the resurrection is not to be explained from what the Old Testament teaches about the Spirit as the source of physical life, for to this the New Testament hardly ever refers; it is rather to be explained as the correlate of the general Pauline principle that the Spirit is the determining factor of the heavenly state in the coming eon. This pneumatic character of the resurrection also links together the resurrection of Christ and that of the believer. This idea is not yet found in the Synoptics; it finds expression in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,\'22-29\');">Joh 5:22-29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,25);">11:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,6,19);">14:6, 19</a>. In early apostolic teaching a trace of it may be found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',4,2);">Ac 4:2</a>. With Paul it appears from the beginning as a well-established principle. The continuity between the working of the Spirit here and His part in the resurrection does not, however, lie in the body. The resurrection is not the culmination of a pneumatic change which the body in this life undergoes. There is no preformation of the spiritual body on earth. <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,10,11);">Ro 8:10-11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,49);">1Co 15:49</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,1,2);">2Co 5:1-2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,12);">Php 3:12</a> positively exclude this, and <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',3,18);">2Co 3:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',4,\'7-18\');">4:7-18</a> do not require it.<P>The glory into which believers are transformed through the beholding (or reflecting) of the glory of Christ as in a mirror is not a bodily but inward glory, produced by illumination of the gospel. And the manifestation of the life of Jesus in the body or in the mortal flesh refers to the preservation of bodily life in the midst of deadly perils. Equally without support is the view that at one time Paul placed the investiture with the new body immediately after death. It has been assumed that this, together with the view just criticized, marks the last stage in a protracted development of Paul\'s eschatological belief. The initial stage of this process is found in 1 Thessalonians: the resurrection is that of an earthly body. The next stage is represented by 1 Corinthians: the future body is pneumatic in character, although not to be received until the parousia. The third stage removes the inconsistency implied in the preceding position between the character of the body and the time of its reception, by placing the latter at the moment of death (2 Corinthians, Romans, Colossians), and by an extreme flight of faith the view is even approached that the resurrection body is in process of development now (Teichmann, Charles). This scheme has no real basis of fact. 1 Thessalonians does not teach an unpneumatic eschatology (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',4,14,16);">4:14,16</A>). The second stage given is the only truly Pauline one, nor can it be shown that the apostle ever abandoned it. For the third position named finds no support in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,\'1-10\');">2Co 5:1-10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,19);">Ro 8:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,4);">Col 3:4</a>. The exegesis of <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,\'1-10\');">2Co 5:1-10</a> is difficult and cannot here be given in detail. Our understanding of the main drift of the passage, put into paraphrase, is as follows: we feel assured of the eternal weight of glory (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',4,17);">4:17</a>), because we know that we shall receive, after our earthly tent-body shall have been dissolved (aorist subjunctive), a new body, a supernatural house for our spirit, to be possessed eternally in the heavens. A sure proof of this lies in the heightened form which our desire for this future state assumes. For it is not mere desire to obtain a new body, but specifically to obtain it as soon as possible, without an intervening period of nakedness, i.e. of a disembodied state of the spirit. Such would be possible, if it were given us to survive till the parousia, in which case we would be clothed upon with our habitation from heaven (= supernatural body), the old body not having to be put off first before the new can be put on, but the new body being superimposed upon the old, so that no "unclothing" would have to take place first, what is mortal simply being swallowed up of life (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,2,4);">5:2, 4</A>). And we are justified in cherishing this supreme aspiration, since the ultimate goal set for us in any case, even if we should have to die first and to unclothe and then to put on the new body over the naked spirit, since the ultimate goal, I say, excludes under all circumstances a state of nakedness at the moment of the parousia (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,3);">5:3</a>). Since, then, such a new embodied state is our destiny in any event, we justly long for that mode of reaching it which involves least delay and least distress and avoids intermediate nakedness. (This on the reading in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,3);">5:3</a> of ei ge kai endusamenoi ou gumnoi heurethesometha. If the reading ei ge kai ekdusamenoi be adopted the rendering of <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,3);">5:3</a> will have to be: "If so be that also having put off (i.e. having died), we shall not at the end be found naked." If eiper kai ekdusamenoi be chosen it will be: "Although even having put off (i.e. having died) we shall not at the end be found naked." These other readings do not materially alter the sense.) The understanding of the passage will be seen to rest on the pointed distinction between being "clothed upon," change at the parousia without death (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,2,4);">5:2, 4</a>), to be "unclothed," loss of the body in death with nakedness resulting (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,4);">5:4</A>), and "being clothed," putting on of the new body after a state of nakedness (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,3);">5:3</a>). Interpreted as above, the passage expresses indeed the hope of an instantaneous endowment with the spiritual body immediately after this life, but only on the supposition that the end of this life will be at the parousia, not for the case that death should intervene before, which latter possibility is distinctly left open. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,19);">Ro 8:19</a> what will happen at the end to believers is called a "revealing of the sons of God," not because their new body existed previously, but because their status as sons of God existed before, and this status will be revealed through the bestowal upon them of the glorious body. <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,3,4);">Col 3:3-4</a> speaks of a "life...hid with Christ in God," and of the "manifestation" of believers with Christ in glory at the parousia, but "life" does not imply bodily existence, and while the "manifestation" at the parousia presupposes the body, it does not imply that this body must have been acquired long before, as is the case with Christ\'s body. In conclusion it should be noted that there is ample evidence in the later epistles that Paul continued to expect the resurrection body at the parousia (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,10);">2Co 5:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,20,21);">Php 3:20-21</a>).<P>4. The Resurrection-Body:<P>The main passage informing us as to the nature of the resurrection body is <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,\'35-58\');">1Co 15:35-58</a>. The difficulty Paul here seeks to relieve does not concern the substance of the future body, but its kind (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,35);">1Co 15:35</a> "With what manner of body do they come?"). Not until <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,50);">1Co 15:50</a> is the deeper question of difference in substance touched upon. The point of the figure of "sowing" is not that of identity of substance, but rather this, that the impossibility of forming a concrete conception of the resurrection body is no proof of its impossibility, because in all vegetable growth there appears a body totally unlike that which is sown, a body the nature and appearance of which are determined by the will of God. We have no right to press the figure in other directions, to solicit from it answers to other questions. That there is to be a real connection between the present and the future body is implied rather than directly affirmed. <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,36);">1Co 15:36</a> shows that the distinction between the earthly body and a germ of life in it, to be entrusted with it to the grave and then quickened at the last day, does not lie in the apostle\'s mind, for what is sown is the body; it dies and is quickened in its entirety. Especially the turn given to the figure in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,37);">15:37</a><3E>that of a naked grain putting on the plant as a garment<6E>proves that it is neither intended nor adapted to give information on the degree of identity or link of continuity between the two bodies. The "bare grain" is the body, not the spirit, as some would have it (Teichmann), for it is said of the seed that it dies; which does not apply to the Pneuma (compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,44);">15:44</a>). The fact is that in this entire discussion the subjective spirit of the believer remains entirely out of consideration; the matter is treated entirely from the standpoint of the body. So far as the Pneuma enters into it, it is the objective Spirit, the Spirit of Christ. As to the time of the sowing, some writers take the view that this corresponds to the entire earthly life, not to the moment of burial only (so already Calvin, recently Teichmann and Charles). In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,42,43);">15:42-43</a> there are points of contact for this, inasmuch as especially the three last predicates "in dishonor," "in weakness," "a natural body," seem more applicable to the living than to the dead body. At any rate, if the conception is thus widened, the act of burial is certainly included in the sowing. The objection arising from the difficulty of forming a conception of the resurrection body is further met in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,\'39-41\');">15:39-41</a>, where Paul argues from the multitude of bodily forms God has at His disposal. This thought is illustrated from the animal world (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,39);">15:39</a>); from the difference between the heavenly and the earthly bodies (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,40);">15:40</A>); from the difference existing among the heavenly bodies themselves (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,41);">15:41</a>). The structure of the argument is indicated by the interchange of two words for "other," allos and heteros, the former designating difference of species within the genus, the latter difference of genus, a distinction lost in the English version. In all this the reasoning revolves not around the substance of the bodies but around their kind, quality, appearance (sarx in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,39);">15:39</a> = soma, "body," not = "flesh").<P>The conclusion drawn is that the resurrection body will differ greatly in kind from the present body. It will be heteros, not merely allos. The points of difference are enumerated in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,42,43);">15:42-43</a>. Four contrasts are named; the first three in each case appear to be the result of the fourth. The dominating antithesis is that between the soma psuchikon and the soma pneumatikon. Still Paul can scarcely mean to teach that "corruption," "dishonor," "weakness" are in the same sense necessary and natural results of the "psychical" character of the earthly body, as the corresponding opposites are necessary and natural concomitants of the pneumatic character of the resurrection body. The sequel shows that the "psychical body" was given man at creation, and according to <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,53);">15:53</a> corruption and death go together, whereas death is not the result of creation but of the entrance of sin according to Paul\'s uniform teaching elsewhere. Hence, also the predicate sarkikos is avoided in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,46,47);">15:46-47</a>, where the reference is to creation, for this word is always associated in Paul with sin. The connection, therefore, between the "natural (psychical, margin) body" and the abnormal attributes conjoined with it, will have to be so conceived, that in virtue of the former character, the body, though it need not of itself, yet will fall a prey to the latter when sin enters. In this lies also the explanation of the term "psychical body." This means a body in which the psuche, the natural soul, is the vitalizing principle, sufficient to support life, but not sufficient to that supernatural, heavenly plane, where it is forever immune to death and corruption. The question must be asked, however, why Paul goes back to the original state of man\'s body and does not content himself with contrasting the body in the state of sin and in the state of eternal life. The answer is found in the exigency of the argument. Paul wished to add to the argument for the possibility of a different body drawn from analogy, an argument drawn from the typical character of the original creation-body. The body of creation, on the principle of prefiguration, pointed already forward to a higher body to be received in the second stage of the world-process: \'if there exists a psychical body, there exists also a pneumatic body\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,44);">15:44</a>). The proof lies in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,7);">Ge 2:7</a>. Some think that Paul here adopts the Philonic doctrine of the creation of two men, and means <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,45);">1Co 15:45b</a> as a quotation from <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,27);">Ge 1:27</a>. But the sequence is against this, for Paul\'s spiritual man appears on the scene last, not first, as in Philo. Nor can the statement have been meant as a correction of Philo\'s sequence, for Paul cannot have overlooked that, once a double creation were found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'1-\');">Ge 1</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,\'1-\');">2</A>, then Philo\'s sequence was the only possible one, to correct which would have amounted to correcting Scripture.<P>If Paul does here correct Philo, it must be in the sense that he rejects the entire Philonic exegesis, which found in Genesis a twofold creation (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,7);">1Co 11:7</a>). Evidently for Paul, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,7);">Ge 2:7</a> taken by itself contains the proof of his proposition, that there is both a psychical and a pneumatic body. Paul regarded the creation of the first Adam in a typical light. The first creation gave only the provisional form in which God\'s purpose with reference to man was embodied, and in so far looked forward to a higher embodiment of the same idea on a higher pneumatic plane (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,14);">Ro 5:14</a>): "The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is of heaven" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,47);">1Co 15:47</a>); "of" or "from heaven" does not designate heavenly material, for even here, by not giving the opposite to choikos, "earthly," Paul avoided the question of substantiality. A "pneumatic" body is not, as many assume, a body made out of pneuma as a higher substance, for in that case Paul would have had pneumatikon ready at hand as the contrast to choikon. Only negatively the question of substance is touched upon in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,50);">1Co 15:50</a>: "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God," but the apostle does not say what will take their place. Compare further, for the non-substantial meaning of pneumatikos, <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,27);">Ro 15:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',9,11);">1Co 9:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,3,4);">10:3-4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,3);">Eph 1:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,19);">5:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,12);">6:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,9);">Col 1:9</a>. The only positive thing which we learn in this direction is formal, namely, that the resurrection body of the believer will be the image of that of Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,49);">1Co 15:49</a>).<P>VII. The Change of Those Living at the Parousia.<P>This is confined to believers. Of a change in the body of non-believers found living or raised at the parousia the New Testament nowhere speaks. The passages referring to this subject are <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,\'51-53\');">1Co 15:51-53</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,\'1-5\');">2Co 5:1-5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,20,21);">Php 3:20-21</a>. The second of these has already been discussed: it represents the change under the figure of a putting-on of the heavenly body over the earthly body, in result of which what is mortal is swallowed up so as to disappear by life. This representation starts with the new body by which the old body is absorbed. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,\'1-\');">1Co 15</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,\'1-\');">Php 3</a>, on the other hand, the point of departure is from the old body which is changed into a new. The difference between the resurrection and the charge of the living is brought out in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,\'1-5\');">2Co 5:1-5</a> in the two figures of "putting on" and "putting on over" endusasthai and ependusasthai. Some exegetes find in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,\'51-53\');">1Co 15:51-53</a> the description of a process kept in such general terms as to be equally applicable to those raised and to those transformed alive. If this be adopted it yields new evidence for the continuity between the present body and the resurrection body. Others, however, find here the expectation that Paul and his readers will "all" survive until the parousia, and be changed alive, in which case no light is thrown on the resurrection-process. The more plausible exegesis is that which joins the negative to "all" instead of to the verb, and makes Paul affirm that "not all" will die, but that all, whether dead or surviving, will be changed at the parousia; the difficulty of the exegesis is reflected in the early attempts to change the reading. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,20,21);">Php 3:20-21</a> there are no data to decide whether the apostle conceives of himself and his readers as living at the moment of the parousia or speaks generally so as to cover both possibilities.<P>VIII. The Judgment.<P>The judgment takes place on a "day" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,22);">Mt 7:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,15);">10:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,36);">24:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,12);">Lu 10:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,34);">21:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,8);">1Co 1:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',3,13);">3:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,8);">2Ti 4:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,17);">Re 6:17</a>), but this rests on the Old Testament conception of "the day of Yahweh," and is not to be taken literally, whence also "hour" interchanges with "day" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,32);">Mr 13:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',14,7);">Re 14:7</a>). While not confined to an astronomical day the judgment is plainly represented as a definitely circumscribed transaction, not as an indefinite process. It coincides with its parousia. Of a judgment immediately after death, the New Testament nowhere speaks, not even in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,27,28);">Heb 9:27-28</a>. Its locality is the earth, as would seem to follow from its dependence on the parousia (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,41,42);">Mt 13:41-42</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,26,27);">Mr 13:26-27</a>), although some infer from <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',4,17);">1Th 4:17</a> that, so far as believers are concerned, it will take place in the air. But this passage does not speak of the judgment, only of the parousia and the meeting of believers with Christ. The judge is God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,4,6,14,18);">Mt 6:4, 6, 14, 18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,28,32);">10:28, 32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,8);">Lu 12:8</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,36);">21:36</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,42);">Ac 10:42</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,30,31);">17:30-31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,2,3,5,16);">Ro 2:2-3, 5, 16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',14,10);">14:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',4,\'3-5\');">1Co 4:3-5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,13);">5:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,25);">Heb 12:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',13,4);">13:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,17);">1Pe 1:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,23);">2:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,10);">Re 6:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',14,7);">14:7</a>), but also Christ, not only in the great scene depicted in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,\'31-46\');">Mt 25:31-46</a>, but also in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,38);">Mr 8:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,26);">13:26</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,22);">Mt 7:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',13,\'25-27\');">Lu 13:25-27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,31);">Ac 17:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,10);">2Co 5:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,11);">Re 19:11</a>, whence also the Old Testament conception of "the day of Yahweh" is changed into "the day of the Lord" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,5);">1Co 5:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',1,14);">2Co 1:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',5,2);">1Th 5:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,10);">2Pe 3:10</a>). In the sense of the final assize the judgment does not in earlier Jewish eschatology belong to the functions of the Messiah, except in Enoch 51:3; 55:4; 61:8ff; 62:1ff; 63. Only in the later apocalypses the Messiah appears as judge (4 Ezra (2Esdras) 13; Apocrypha Baruch 72:2 (compare Sibylline Oracles 3 286)). In the more realistic, less forensic, sense of an act of destruction, the judgment forms part of the Messiah\'s work from the outset, and is already assigned to Him by the Baptist and still more by Paul (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,10,11,12);">Mt 3:10-12</a> = <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,16,17);">Lu 3:16-17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,8,10,12);">2Th 2:8, 10, 12</a>).<P>The one representation passes over into the other. Jesus always claims for Himself the judgment in the strictly forensic sense. Already in His present state He exercises the right to forgive sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,5,10);">Mr 2:5, 10</a>). In the Fourth Gospel, it is true, He denies that His present activity involves the task of judging (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,15);">Joh 8:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,47);">12:47</a>). That this, however, does not exclude His eschatological judgeship appears from <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,22,27);">Joh 5:22, 27</a> (notice the article in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,22);">5:22</a> "the whole judgment," which proves the reference to the last day). But even for the present, though not directly, yet indirectly by His appearance and message, Christ according to John effects a judgment among men (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,16);">8:16</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',9,39);">9:39</A>), which culminates in His passion and death, the judgment of the world and the Prince of the world (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,31);">12:31</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,30);">14:30</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,11);">16:11</A>). A share of the judgment is assigned to angels and to the saints (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,39,41,49);">Mt 13:39, 41, 49</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,27);">16:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,31);">24:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,31);">25:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',3,13);">1Th 3:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',1,7);">2Th 1:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,14);">Jude 1:14</a>f). In regard to the angels this is purely ministerial; of believers it is affirmed only in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',6,\'1-3\');">1Co 6:1-3</a> that they will have something to do with the act of judgment itself; passages like <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,28);">Mt 19:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,23);">20:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,30);">Lu 22:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',3,21);">Re 3:21</a> do not refer to the judgment proper, but to judging in the sense of "reigning," and promise certain saints a preeminent position in the kingdom of glory. The judgment extends to all men, Tyre, Sidon, Sodom, as well as the Galilean cities (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,22,24);">Mt 11:22, 24</a>); all nations (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,32);">Mt 25:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,29);">Joh 5:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,30,31);">Ac 17:30-31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,6,16);">Ro 2:6, 16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,10);">2Co 5:10</a>). It also includes the evil spirits (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',6,3);">1Co 6:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,4);">2Pe 2:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,6);">Jude 1:6</a>). It is a judgment according to works, and that not only in the case of non-believers; of believers also the works will come under consideration (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,34);">Mt 25:34</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',4,5);">1Co 4:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,10);">2Co 5:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,12);">Re 22:12</a>). Side by side with this, however, it is taught already in the Synoptics that the decisive factor will be the acknowledgment of individuals by Jesus, which in turn depends upon the attitude assumed by them toward Jesus here, directly or indirectly (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,23);">Mt 7:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,28);">19:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,\'35-45\');">25:35-45</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,38);">Mr 8:38</a>).<P>By Paul the principle of judgment according to works is upheld, not merely hypothetically as a principle preceding and underlying every soteriological treatment of man by God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,\'1-\');">Ro 2</a>), and therefore applying to non-Christians for whose judgment no other standard is available, but also as remaining in force for Christians, who have already, under the soteriological regime of grace, received absolute, eternal acquittal in justification. This raises a twofold problem:<p class="in15">(a) why justification does not render a last judgment superfluous;<p class="in15">(b) why the last judgment in case of Christians saved by grace should be based on works.<p>In regard to (a) it ought to be remembered that the last judgment differs from justification in that it is not a private transaction in foro conscientiae, but public, in foro mundi. Hence, Paul emphasizes this element of publicity (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,16);">Ro 2:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',3,13);">1Co 3:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,10);">2Co 5:10</a>). It is in accordance with this that God the Father is always the author of justification, whereas as a rule Christ is represented as presiding at the assize of the last day. As to (b), because the last judgment is not a mere private but a public transaction, something more must be taken into account than that on which the individual eternal destiny may hinge. There can be disapproval of works and yet salvation (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',3,15);">1Co 3:15</a>). But the trial of works is necessary for the sake of the vindication of God. In order to be a true theodicy the judgment must publicly exhibit and announce the complete overthrow of sin in man, and the complete working out in him of the idea of righteousness, including not merely his acquittal from the guilt, but also his deliverance from the power, of sin, not merely his imputed righteousness, but also his righteousness of life. In order to demonstrate this comprehensively, the judgment will have to take into account three things: faith (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,5);">Ga 5:5</a>), works done in the Christian state, sanctification. Besides this the works of the Christian appear as the measure of gracious reward (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,12,46);">Mt 5:12, 46</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,1);">6:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,41,42);">10:41-42</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,28);">19:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,\'1-16\');">20:1-16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,\'14-45\');">25:14-45</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,41);">Mr 9:41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,23,35);">Lu 6:23, 35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',3,8);">1Co 3:8, 14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',9,17,18);">9:17-18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,18);">Col 2:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,24);">3:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,35);">Heb 10:35</a>). These works, however, are not mechanically or commercially appraised, as in Judaism, for Paul speaks by preference of "work" in the singular (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,7,15);">Ro 2:7, 15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',3,13);">1Co 3:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',9,1);">9:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',6,4);">Ga 6:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,12);">Eph 4:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,6,22);">Php 1:6, 22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',1,3);">1Th 1:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',1,11);">2Th 1:11</a>). And this one organic product of "work" is traced back to the root of faith (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',1,3);">1Th 1:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',1,11);">2Th 1:11</a> where the genitive pisteos is a gen. of origin), and Paul speaks as a rule not of poiein but of prassein, i.e. of the practice, the systematic doing, of that which is good.<P>The judgment assigns to each individual his eternal destiny, which is absolute in its character either of blessedness or of punishment, though admittedly of degrees within these two states. Only two groups are recognized, those of the condemned and of the saved (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,33,34);">Mt 25:33-34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,29);">Joh 5:29</a>); no intermediate group with as yet undetermined destiny anywhere appears. The degree of guilt is fixed according to the knowledge of the Divine will possessed in life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,15);">Mt 10:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,\'20-24\');">11:20-24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,\'12-15\');">Lu 10:12-15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,47);">12:47-48</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',15,22,24);">Joh 15:22, 24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,12);">Ro 2:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,\'20-22\');">2Pe 2:20-22</a>). The uniform representation is that the judgment has reference to what has been done in the embodied state of this life; nowhere is there any reflection upon the conduct or product of the intermediate state as contributing to the decision (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,10);">2Co 5:10</a>). The state assigned is of endless duration, hence described as aionios, "eternal." While this adjective etymologically need mean no more than "what extends through a certain eon or period of time," yet its eschatological usage correlates it everywhere with the "coming age," and, this age being endless in duration, every state or destiny connected with it partakes of the same character. It is therefore exegetically impossible to give a relative sense to such phrases as pur aionion, "eternal fire" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,8);">Mt 18:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,41);">25:41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,7);">Jude 1:7</a>), kolasis aionios, "eternal punishment" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,46);">Mt 25:46</a>), olethros aionios, "eternal destruction" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',1,9);">2Th 1:9</a>), krisis aionios or krima aionion, "eternal judgment" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,29);">Mr 3:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',6,2);">Heb 6:2</a>). This is also shown by the figurative representations which unfold the import of the adjective: the "unquenchable fire" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,12);">Mt 3:12</a>), "the never-dying worm" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,\'43-48\');">Mr 9:43-48</a>), "The smoke of their torment goeth up for ever and ever" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',14,11);">Re 14:11</a>), "tormented day and night forever and ever" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,10);">Re 20:10</a>). The endless duration of the state of punishment is also required by the absolute eternity of its counterpart, zoe aionios, "eternal life" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,46);">Mt 25:46</a>). In support of the doctrine of conditional immortality it has been urged that other terms descriptive of the fate of the condemned, such as apoleia, "perdition," phthora, "corruption," olethros, "destruction," thanatos, "death," point rather to a cessation of being. This, however, rests on an unscriptural interpretation of these terms, which everywhere in the Old Testament and the New Testament designate a state of existence with an undesirable content, never the pure negation of existence, just as "life" in Scripture describes a positive mode of being, never mere existence as such. Perdition, corruption, destruction, death, are predicated in all such cases of the welfare or the ethical spiritual character of man, without implying the annihilation of his physical existence. No more support can be found in the New Testament for the hypothesis of an apokatastasis panton, "restoration of all things," i.e. absolute universalism implying the ultimate salvation of all men. The phrase occurs only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',3,21);">Ac 3:21</a>, where, however, it has no cosmical reference but relates to the fulfillment of the promises to Israel.<P>Josephus uses it of the restoration of the Jews to their land after the Captivity, Philo of the restoration of inheritances in the year of jubilee (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',4,6);">Mal 4:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',17,11);">Mt 17:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,12);">Mr 9:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,6);">Ac 1:6</a>). Absolute universalism has been found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,18);">Ro 5:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,22,28);">1Co 15:22, 28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,10);">Eph 1:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,20);">Col 1:20</a>, but in all these passages only a cosmical or national universalism can be found, not the doctrine of the salvation of all individuals, which latter would bring the statements in question in direct contradiction to the most explicit deliverances of Paul elsewhere on the principle of predestination and the eternity of the destiny of the wicked.<P>IX. The Consummate State.<P>Side by side with "the future age," and characterizing it from a less formal point of view, the phrase "kingdom of God" designates the consummate state, as it will exist for believers after the judgment. Jesus, while making the kingdom a present reality, yet continues to speak of it in accordance with its original eschatological usage as "the kingdom" which lies in the future (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,43);">Mt 13:43</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,34);">25:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,29);">26:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,47);">Mr 9:47</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,32);">Lu 12:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',13,28,29);">13:28-29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,31);">21:31</a>). With Paul the phrase bears preponderatingly an eschatological sense, although occasionally he uses it of the present state of believers (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',14,17);">Ro 14:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',4,20);">1Co 4:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',6,9,10);">6:9-10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,24,50);">15:24, 50</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,21);">Ga 5:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,5);">Eph 5:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,13);">Col 1:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,11);">4:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',2,12);">1Th 2:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',1,5);">2Th 1:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,1,18);">2Ti 4:1, 18</a>). Elsewhere in the New Testament the eschatological use occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,28);">Heb 12:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',2,5);">Jas 2:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,11);">2Pe 1:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',11,15);">Re 11:15</a>. The idea is universalistic, unpolitical, which does not exclude that certain privileges are spoken of with special reference to Israel. Although the eschatological kingdom differs from the present kingdom largely in the fact that it will receive an external, visible embodiment, yet this does not hinder that even in it the core is constituted by those spiritual realities and relations which make the present kingdom. Still it will have its outward form as the doctrine of the resurrection and the regenerated earth plainly show. Hence, the figures in which Jesus speaks of it, such as eating, drinking, reclining at table, while not to be taken sensually, should not on the other hand be interpreted allegorically, as if they stood for wholly internal spiritual processes: they evidently point to, or at least include, outward states and activities, of which our life in the senses offers some analogy, but on a higher plane of which it is at present impossible to form any concrete conception or to speak otherwise than in figurative language. Equivalent to "the kingdom" is "life." But, unlike the kingdom, "life" remains in the Synoptics an exclusively eschatological conception.<P>It is objectively conceived: the state of blessedness the saints will exist in; not subjectively as a potency in man or a process of development (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,14);">Mt 7:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,8,9);">18:8-9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,16,29);">19:16, 29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,46);">25:46</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,30);">Mr 10:30</a>). In John "life" becomes a present state, and in connection with this the idea is subjectivized, it becomes a process of growth and expansion. Points of contact for this in the Synoptics may be found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',8,22);">Mt 8:22</a> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,60);">Lu 9:60</a>); <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',15,24);">Lu 15:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',20,38);">20:38</a>. When this eschatological life is characterized as aionios, "eternal," the reference is not exclusively to its eternal duration, but the word has, in addition to this, a qualitative connotation; it describes the kind of life that belongs to the consummate state (compare the use of the adjective with other nouns in this sense: <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,1);">2Co 5:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',2,10);">2Ti 2:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',5,9);">Heb 5:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,12,15);">9:12, 15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,11);">2Pe 1:11</a>, and the unfolding of the content of the idea in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,4);">1Pe 1:4</a>). With Paul "life" has sometimes the same eschatological sense (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,7);">Ro 2:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,17);">5:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,2);">Tit 1:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',3,7);">3:7</a>), but most often it is conceived as already given in the present state, owing to the close association with the Spirit (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,11);">Ro 6:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,4,8,11);">7:4, 8, 11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,2,6);">8:2, 6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,19);">Ga 2:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',6,8);">6:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,18);">Eph 4:18</a>). In its ultimate analysis the Pauline conception of "life," as well as that of Jesus, is that of something dependent on communion with God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,32);">Mt 22:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,27);">Mr 12:27</a> = <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',20,38);">Lu 20:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,6,7);">Ro 8:6-7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,18);">Eph 4:18</a>). Another Pauline conception associated with the consummate state is that of doxa, "glory." This glory is everywhere conceived as a reflection of the glory of God, and it is this that to the mind of Paul gives it religious value, not the external radiance in which it may manifest itself as such. Hence, the element of "honor" conjoined to it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,23);">Ro 1:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,7);">2:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,21);">8:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,23);">9:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,43);">1Co 15:43</a>). It is not confined to the physical sphere (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',3,18);">2Co 3:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',4,16,17);">4:16-17</a>). The outward doxa is prized by Paul as a vehicle of revelation, an exponent of the inward state of acceptance with God. In general Paul conceives of the final state after a highly theocentric fashion (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,28);">1Co 15:28</a>); it is the state of immediate vision of and perfect communion with God and Christ; the future life alone can bring the perfected sonship (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,10);">Ro 6:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,23,29);">8:23, 29</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',20,36);">Lu 20:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',4,4);">2Co 4:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,6,7,8);">5:6-8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',13,4);">13:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,23);">Php 1:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,13);">Col 2:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,3,4);">3:3-4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',4,17);">1Th 4:17</a>).<P>The scene of the consummate state is the new heaven and the new earth, which are called into being by the eschatological palingenesia "regeneration" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,18);">Mt 5:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,28);">19:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,35);">24:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',7,31);">1Co 7:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,12);">Heb 1:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,26,27);">12:26-27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,10);">2Pe 3:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,17);">1Joh 2:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',21,1);">Re 21:1</a>, in which last passage, however, some exegetes understand the city to be a symbol of the church, the people of God). An annihilation of the substance of the present world is not taught (compare the comparison of the future world-conflagration with the Deluge in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,6);">2Pe 3:6</a>). The central abode of the redeemed will be in heaven, although the renewed earth will remain accessible to them and a part of the inheritance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,5);">Mt 5:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,2,3);">Joh 14:2-3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,\'18-22\');">Ro 8:18-22</a>; and the closing visions of the Apocalypse).<P>X. The Intermediate State.<P>In regard to the state of the dead, previously to the parousia and the resurrection, the New Testament is far less explicit than in its treatment of what belongs to general eschatology. The following points may here briefly be noted:<P>(1) The state of death is frequently represented as a "sleeping," just as the act of dying as a "falling asleep" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',9,24);">Mt 9:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',9,4);">Joh 9:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,11);">11:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',7,39);">1Co 7:39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,30);">11:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,6,18,20,51);">15:6, 18, 20, 51</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',4,13,15);">1Th 4:13, 15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,4);">2Pe 3:4</a>). This usage, while also purely Greek, rests on the Old Testament. There is this difference, that in the New Testament (already in the apocryphal and pseudepigraphical books) the conception is chiefly used with reference to the righteous dead, and has associated with it the thought of their blessed awaking in the resurrection, whereas in the Old Testament it is indiscriminately applied to all the dead and without such connotation. With Paul the word always occurs of believers. The representation applies not to the "soul" or "spirit," so that a state of unconsciousness until the resurrection would be implied. It is predicated of the person, and the point of comparison is that as one who sleeps is not alive to his surroundings, so the dead are no longer en rapport with this earthly life. Whatever may have been the original implications of the word, it plainly had become long before the New Testament period a figurative mode of speech, just as egeirein, "to wake," was felt to be a figurative designation of the act of the resurrection. Because the dead are asleep to our earthly life, which is mediated through the body, it does not follow that they are asleep in every other relation, asleep to the life of the other world, that their spirits are unconscious. Against the unconsciousness of the dead compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,23);">Lu 16:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,43);">23:43</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,25,26);">Joh 11:25-26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,59);">Ac 7:59</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,8);">1Co 15:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,23);">Php 1:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,\'9-11\');">Re 6:9-11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',7,9);">7:9</a>. Some have held that the sleep was for Paul a euphemism employed in order to avoid the terms "death" and "to die," which the apostle restricted to Christ. <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',4,16);">1Th 4:16</a> shows that this is unfounded.<P>(2) The New Testament speaks of the departed after an anthropomorphic fashion as though they were still possessed of bodily organs (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,23,24);">Lu 16:23-24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,11);">Re 6:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',7,9);">7:9</a>). That no inference can be drawn from this in favor of the hypothesis of an intermediate body appears from the fact that God and angels are spoken of in the same manner, and also from passages which more precisely refer to the dead as "souls," "spirits" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,46);">Lu 23:46</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,59);">Ac 7:59</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,23);">Heb 12:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,19);">1Pe 3:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,9);">Re 6:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,4);">20:4</a>).<P>(3) The New Testament nowhere encourages the living to seek converse with the dead. Its representation of the dead as "sleeping" with reference to the earthly life distinctly implies that such converse would be abnormal and in so far discountenances it, without explicitly affirming its absolute impossibility. Not even the possibility of the dead for their part taking knowledge of our earthly life is affirmed anywhere. <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,1);">Heb 12:1</a> does not necessarily represent the Old Testament saints as "witnesses" of our race of faith in the sense of spectators in the literal sense, but perhaps in the figurative sense, that we ought to feel, having in memory their example, as if the ages of the past and their historic figures were looking down upon us (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,29);">Lu 16:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',8,9);">Ac 8:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,6);">13:6</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,13);">19:13</a>ff).<P>(4) As to the departed saints themselves, it is intimated that they have mutual knowledge of one another in the intermediate state, together with memory of facts and conditions of the earthly life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,9,\'19-31\');">Lu 16:9, 19-31</a>). Nowhere, however, is it intimated that this interest of the departed saints in our earthly affairs normally expresses itself in any act of intercession, not even of intercession spontaneously proffered on their part.<P>(5) The New Testament does not teach that there is any possibility of a fundamental change in moral or spiritual character in the intermediate state. The doctrine of a so-called "second probation" finds in it no real support. The only passages that can with some semblance of warrant be appealed to in this connection are <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,\'19-21\');">1Pe 3:19-21</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,6);">4:6</a>. For the exegesis of the former passage, which is difficult and much disputed, compare <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SPIRITS+IN+PRISON">SPIRITS IN PRISON</a>. Here it may simply be noted that the context is not favorable to the view that an extension of the opportunity of conversion beyond death is implied; the purport of the whole passage points in the opposite direction, the salvation of the exceedingly small number of eight of the generation of Noah being emphasized (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,20);">1Pe 3:20</a>). Besides this it would be difficult to understand why this exceptional opportunity should have been granted to this peculiar group of the dead, since the contemporaries of Noah figure in Scripture as examples of extreme wickedness. Even if the idea of a gospel-preaching with soteriological purpose were actually found here, it would not furnish an adequate basis for building upon it the broad hypothesis of a second probation for all the dead in general or for those who have not heard the gospel in this life. This latter view the passage is especially ill fitted to support, because the generation of Noah had had the gospel preached to them before death. There is no intimation that the transaction spoken of was repeated or continued indefinitely. As to the second passage (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,6);">1Pe 4:6</a>), this must be taken by itself and in connection with its own context. The assumption that the sentence "the gospel (was) preached even to the dead" must have its meaning determined by the earlier passage in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,\'19-21\');">1Pe 3:19-21</a>, has exercised an unfortunate influence upon the exegesis. Possibly the two passages had no connection in the mind of the author. For explaining the reference to "the dead" the connection with the preceding verse is fully sufficient. It is there stated that Christ is "ready to judge the living and the dead." "The living and the dead" are those who will be alive and dead at the parousia. To both the gospel was preached, that Christ might be the judge of both. But that the gospel was preached to the latter in the state of death is in no way indicated. On the contrary the telic clause, "that they might be judged according to men in the flesh," shows that they heard the gospel during their lifetime, for the judgment according to men in the flesh that has befallen them is the judgment of physical death. If a close connection between the passage in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,\'1-\');">1Pe 3</a> and that in chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,\'1-\');">4</a> did exist, this could only serve to commend the exegesis which finds in the earlier passage a gospel-preaching to the contemporaries of Noah during their lifetime, since, on that view, it becomes natural to identify the judgment in the flesh with the Deluge.<P>(6) The New Testament, while representing the state of the dead before the parousia as definitely fixed, nevertheless does not identify it, either in degree of blessedness or punishment, with the final state which follows upon the resurrection. Although there is no warrant for affirming that the state of death is regarded as for believers a positively painful condition, as has been mistakenly inferred from <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,30);">1Co 11:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',4,13);">1Th 4:13</a>, nevertheless Paul shrinks from it as from a relatively undesirable state, since it involves "nakedness" for the soul, which condition, however, does not exclude a relatively high degree of blessedness in fellowship with Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,2,3,4,6,8);">2Co 5:2-4, 6, 8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,23);">Php 1:23</a>). In the same manner a difference in the degree or mode of punishment between the intermediate state and the age to come is plainly taught. For on the one hand the eternal punishment is related to persons in the body (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,28);">Mt 10:28</a>), and on the other hand it is assigned to a distinct place, Gehenna, which is never named in connection with the torment of the intermediate state. This term occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,22,29,30);">Mt 5:22, 29-30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,28);">10:28</a> = <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,5);">Lu 12:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,9);">18:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,33);">23:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,43,45,47);">Mr 9:43, 45, 47</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',3,6);">Jas 3:6</a>. Its opposite is the eschatological kingdom of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,47);">Mr 9:47</a>). The term abussos differs from it in that it is associated with the torment of evil spirits (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',8,31);">Lu 8:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',10,7);">Ro 10:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',9,1,2);">Re 9:1-2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',11,7);">11:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,1);">20:1</a>), and in regard to it no such clear distinction between a preliminary and final punishment seems to be drawn (compare also the verb tartaroun, "to bind in Tartarus"; of evil spirits in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,4);">2Pe 2:4</a>). Where the sphere of the intermediate state is locally conceived, this is done by means of the term Hades, which is the equivalent of the Old Testament She\'ol. The passages where this occurs are <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,23);">Mt 11:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,18);">16:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,23);">Lu 16:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,27,31);">Ac 2:27, 31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,55);">1Co 15:55</a> (where others read "death"); <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,18);">Re 1:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,8);">6:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,13,14);">20:13-14</a>. These passages should not be interpreted on the basis of the Greek classical usage, but in the light of the Old Testament doctrine about She\'ol. Some of them plainly employ the word in the non-local sense of the state of death (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,18);">Mt 16:18</a>; possibly <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,27,31);">Ac 2:27, 31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,55);">1Co 15:55</a> (personified); <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,18);">Re 1:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,8);">6:8</a> (personified); <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,13);">Re 20:13</a> (personified)). The only passage where the conception is local is <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,23);">Lu 16:23</a>, and this occurs in a parable, where aside from the central point in comparison, no purpose to impart topographical knowledge concerning the world beyond death can be assumed, but the imagery is simply that which was popularly current. But, even if the doctrine of Hades as a place distinct from Gehenna should be found here, the terms in which it is spoken of, as place of torment for Dives, prove that the conception is not that of a general abode of neutral character, where without blessedness or pain the dead as a joint-company await the last judgment, which would first assign them to their separate eternal habitations. The parable plainly teaches, whether Hades be local and distinct from Gehenna or not, that the differentiation between blessedness and punishment in its absolute character (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,26);">Lu 16:26</a>) is begun in it and does not first originate at the judgment (see further, <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HADES">HADES</A>).<P>LITERATURE.<P>Besides the articles on the several topics in the Bible Dictionaries and in Cremer\'s Lexicon of New Testament Greek, and the corresponding chapters in the handbooks on New Testament Theology, the following works and articles may be consulted: Bousset, Die Religion des Judenthums2,1906,especially 233-346; id, Der Antichrist in der Ueberlieferung des Judenthums, des New Testament und der alten Kirche, 1895; Bruston, La vie future d\'apres Paul, 1895; Charles, Eschatology Hebrew, Jewish and Christian: A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life, 1899; Cremer, Ueber den Zustand nach dem Tode3, 1892; Grimm, "Ueber die Stelle 1 Kor 15:20-28," ZWT, 1873; Haupt, Die eschatologischen Aussagen Jesu in den synoptischen Evangelien, 1895; Kabisch, Eschatologie des Paulus in ihren Zusammenhangen mit dem Gesamtbegriff des Paulinismus, 1893; Kennedy, Paul\'s Conceptions of the Last Things, 1904; Kliefoth, Christliche Eschatologie, 1886; Klopper, "Zur Paulinischen Lehre von der Auferstehung: Auslegung von 2 Kor 5:1-6," JDT, 1862 (the author modified his views in his commentary on 2 Cor); Kostlin, "Die Lehre des Apostels Paulus von der Auferstehung," JDT, 1877; Luthardt, Lehre von den letzten Dingen3, 1885; Muirhead, The Eschatology of Jesus, 1904; Oesterley, The Doctrine of the Last Things, 1908; Philippi, Die biblische und kirchliche Lehre vom Antichrist, 1877; Rinck, Vom Zustande nach dem Tode, 1885; Salmond, The Christian Doctrine of Immortality5, 1901; Schwally, Das Leben nach dem Tode, 1892; Sharman, The Teaching of Jesus about the Future According to the Synoptic Gospels, 1909; Stahelin, "Zur Paulinischen Eschatologie," JDT, 1874; Teichmann, Die Paulinischen Vorstellungen von Auferstehung und Gericht, 1896; Volz, Judische Eschatologie von Daniel bis Akiba, 1903; Waitz, "Ueber 2 Kor 5:1-4," JPT, 1882; Wetzel, "Ueber 2 Kor 5:1-4," SK, 1886; Wendt, Die Begriffe Fleisch und Geist im biblischen Sprachgebrauch, 1878.``182';
|
||
isbe[3182]='Eschatology of the Old Testament`es-ka-tol\'-o-ji<P>Contents <p>(A) Scope of Article<p>(B) Dr. Charles\' Work<p>(C) Individual Religion in Israel<P><b>I. FUNDAMENTAL IDEAS</b><P class="in15">1. Idea of God<P class="in15">2. Idea of Man Body, Soul and Spirit<P class="in15">3. Sin and Death<P><b>II. CONCEPTIONS OF THE FUTURE LIFE<46>SHEOL</b><P class="in15">Had Israel No Belief in a Future Life?<P class="in15">1. Reserve on This Subject: Hopes and Promises Largely Temporal<P class="in15">2. A Future State not Therefore Denied Belief Non-Mythological<P class="in15">3. Survival of Soul, or Conscious Part<P class="in15">4. The Hebrew Sheol<P><b>III. THE RELIGIOUS HOPE<50>LIFE AND RESURRECTION</b><P class="in30">(a) Nature and Grace<63>Moral Distinctions <P class="in30">(b) Religious Hope of Immortality<P class="in15">1. Sheol, Like Death, Connected with Sin<P class="in15">2. Religious Root of Hope of Immortality Not Necessarily Late<P>3. Hope of Resurrection<P class="in30">(1) Not a Late or Foreign Doctrine<P class="in30">(2) The Psalms<P class="in30">(3) The Book of Job<P class="in30">(4) The Prophets <P class="in30">(5) Daniel<65>Resurrection of Wicked<P><b>IV. THE IDEA OF JUDGMENT<4E>THE DAY OF YAHWEH</b><P class="in15">Judgment a Present Reality<P class="in15">1. Day of Yahweh<P class="in30">(1) Relation to Israel<P class="in30">(2) To the Nations<P class="in15">2. Judgment beyond Death<P class="in30">(1) Incompleteness of Moral Administration<P class="in30">(2) Prosperity of Wicked<P class="in30">(3) Suffering of Righteous with Wicked<P class="in15">3. Retribution beyond Death<P><b>V. LATER JEWISH CONCEPTIONS<4E>APOCRYPHAL, APOCALYPTIC, RABBINICAL</b><P class="in15">1. Sources<P class="in30">(1) Apocrypha<P class="in30">(2) Apocalyptic Literature<P class="in30">(3) Rabbinical Writings<P class="in15">2. Description of Views<P class="in30">(1) Less Definite Conceptions<P class="in30">(2) Ideas of Sheol<P class="in30">(3) The Fallen Angels<P class="in30">(4) Resurrection<P class="in30">(5) Judgment The Messiah<P class="in30">(6) The Messianic Age and the Gentiles<P class="in30">(7) Rabbinical Ideas<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><p>Eschatology of the Old Testament (with Apocryphal and Apocalyptic Writings).<P>(A) Scope of Article:<P>By "eschatology," or doctrine of the last things, is meant the ideas entertained at any period on the future life, the end of the world (resurrection, judgment; in the New Testament, the Parousia), and the eternal destinies of mankind. In this article it is attempted to exhibit the beliefs on these matters contained in the Old Testament, with those in the Jewish apocryphal and apocalyptic writings that fill up the interval between the Old Testament and the New Testament.<P>(B) Dr. Charles\' Work:<P>The subject here treated has been dealt with by many writers (see "Literature" below); by none more learnedly or ably than by Dr. R. H. Charles in his work on Hebrew, Jewish and Christian eschatology (A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel, in Judaism, and in Christianity). The present writer is, however, unable to follow Dr. Charles in many of his very radical critical positions, which affect so seriously the view taken of the literary evidence, and of the development of Israel\'s religion; is unable, therefore, to follow him in his interpretation of the religion itself. The subject, accordingly, is discussed in these pages from a different point of view from his.<P>(C) Individual Religion in Israel.<P>One special point in which the writer is unable to follow Dr. Charles in his treatment, which may be noticed at the outset, is in his idea<65>now so generally favored<65>that till near the time of the Exile religion was not individual<61>that Yahweh was thought of as concerned with the well-being of the people as a whole, and not with that of its individual members. "The individual was not the religious unit, but the family or tribe" (op. cit., 58). How anyone can entertain this idea in face of the plain indications of the Old Testament itself to the contrary is to the present writer a mystery. There is, indeed, throughout the Old Testament, a solidarity of the individual with his family and tribe, but not at any period to the exclusion of a personal relation to Yahweh, or of individual moral and religious responsibility. The pictures of piety in the Book of Genesis are nearly all individual, and the narratives containing them are, even on the critical view, older than the 9th century. Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, are all of them, to the writers of the history, individuals; Moses, Joshua, Caleb, are individuals; the deeds of individuals are counted to them for righteousness; the sins of others slay them. If there had been ten righteous persons in Sodom, it would have been spared (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,32);">Ge 18:32</a>). It was as an individual that David sinned; as an individual he repented and was forgiven. Kings are judged or condemned according to their individual character. It is necessary to lay stress on this at the beginning; otherwise the whole series of the Old Testament conceptions is distorted.<P>I. Fundamental Ideas.<P>The eschatology of the Old Testament, as Dr. Charles also recognizes, is dependent on, and molded by, certain fundamental ideas in regard to God, man, the soul and the state after death, in which lies the peculiarity of Israel\'s religion. Only, these ideas are differently apprehended here from what they are in this writer\'s learned work.<P>1. Idea of God:<P>In the view of Dr. Charles, Yahweh (Yahweh), who under Moses became the God of the Hebrew tribes, was, till the time of the prophets, simply a national God, bound up with the land and with this single people; therefore, "possessing neither interest nor jurisdiction in the life of the individual beyond the grave....Hence, since early Yahwism possessed no eschatology of its own, the individual Israelite was left to his hereditary heathen beliefs. These beliefs we found were elements of Ancestor Worship" (op. cit., 52; compare 35). The view taken here, on the contrary, is, that there is no period known to the Old Testament in which Yahweh<65>whether the name was older than Moses or not need not be discussed<65>was not recognized as the God of the whole earth, the Creator of the world and man, and Judge of all, nations. He is, in both <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'1-\');">Ge 1</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,\'1-\');">Ge 2</a>, the Creator of the first pair from whom the whole race springs; He judged the whole world in the Flood; He chose Abraham to be a blessing to the families of the earth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,3);">Ge 12:3</a>); His universal rule is acknowledged (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,25);">Ge 18:25</a>); in infinite grace, displaying His power over Egypt, He chose Israel to be a people to Himself (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,\'3-6\');">Ex 19:3-6</a>). The ground for denying jurisdiction over the world of the dead thus falls. The word of Jesus to the Sadducees is applicable here: "Have ye not read...I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,31,32);">Mt 22:31-32</a>). The Old Testament instances of resurrection in answer to prayer point in the same direction (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',17,21);">1Ki 17:21</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',4,34);">2Ki 4:34</a>ff; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',16,10);">Ps 16:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',49,15);">49:15</a>, etc.; see further, below).<P>2. Idea of Man:<P>According to Dr. Charles, the Old Testament has two contradictory representations of the constitution of man, and of the effects of death. The older or pre-prophetic view distinguishes between soul and body in man (pp. 37ff, 45ff), and regards the soul as surviving death (this is not easily reconcilable with the other proposition (p. 37) that the "soul or nephesh is identical with the blood"), and as retaining a certain self-consciousness, and the power of speech and movement in Sheol (pp. 39ff). This view is in many respects identical with that of ancestor worship, which is held to be the primitive belief in Israel (p. 41). The other and later view, which is thought to follow logically from the account in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,7);">Ge 2:7</a>, supposes the soul to perish at death (pp. 41ff). We read there that "Yahweh God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." The "breath of life" (nishmath chayyim) is identified with the "spirit of life" (ruach chayyim) of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,17);">Ge 6:17</a>, and is taken to mean that the soul has no independent existence, but is "really a function of the material body when quickened by the (impersonal) spirit" (p. 42). "According to this view the annihilation of the soul ensues inevitably at death, that is, when the spirit is withdrawn" (p. 43). This view is held to be the parent of Sadduceeism, and is actually affirmed to be the view of Paul (pp. 43-44, 409)<29>the apostle who repudiated Sadduceeism in this very article (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',23,\'6-9\');">Ac 23:6-9</a>). <p>Body, Soul and Spirit.<P>The above view of man\'s nature is here rejected, and the consistency of the Old Testament doctrine affirmed. The Biblical view has nothing to do with ancestor worship (compare the writer\'s Orr, The Problem of the Old Testament, 135-36). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,26,27);">Ge 1:26-27</a> man is created in God\'s image, and in the more anthropomorphic narrative of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,7);">Ge 2:7</a>, he becomes "a living soul" through a unique act of Divine inbreathing. The soul (nephesh) in man originates in a Divine inspiration (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',32,8);">Job 32:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',33,4);">33:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',42,5);">Isa 42:5</a>), and is at once the animating principle of the body (the blood being its vehicle, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,11);">Le 17:11</a>), with its appetites and desires, and the seat of the self-conscious personality, and source of rational and spiritual activities. It is these higher activities of the soul which, in the Old Testament, are specially called "spirit" (ruach). Dr. Charles expresses this correctly in what he says of the supposed earlier view ("the ruach had become the seat of the highest spiritual functions in man," p. 46; see more fully the writer\'s God\'s Image in Man, 47ff). There is no ground for deducing "annihilation" from <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,7);">Ge 2:7</a>. Everywhere in Genesis man is regarded as formed for living fellowship with God, and capable of knowing, worshipping and serving Him.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SOUL">SOUL</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SPIRIT">SPIRIT</a>.<P>3. Sin and Death:<P>It follows from the above account that man is regarded in the Old Testament as a compound being, a union of body and soul (embracing spirit), both being elements in his one personality. His destiny was not to death, but to life<66>not life, however, in separation of the soul from the body (disembodied existence), but continued embodied life, with, perhaps, as its sequel, change and translation to higher existence (thus Enoch, Elijah; the saints at the Parousia). This is the true original idea of immortality for man (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=IMMORTALITY">IMMORTALITY</a>). Death, accordingly, is not, as it appears in Dr. Charles, a natural event, but an abnormal event<6E>a mutilation, separation of two sides of man\'s being never intended to be separated<65>due, as the Scripture represents it, to the entrance of sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,17);">Ge 2:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,19,22);">3:19, 22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,12);">Ro 5:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,21);">1Co 15:21-22</a>). It is objected that nothing further is said in the Old Testament of a "Fall," and a subjection of man to death as the result of sin. In truth, however, the whole picture of mankind in the Old Testament, as in the New Testament, is that of a world turned aside from God, and under His displeasure, and death and all natural evils are ever to be considered in relation to that fact (compare Dillmann, Alttest. Theol.,368,376ff; God\'s Image in Man, 198ff, 249ff). This alone explains the light in which death is regarded by holy men; their longing for deliverance from it (see below); the hope of resurrection; the place which resurrection<6F>"the redemption of our body" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,23);">Ro 8:23</a>)<29>after the pattern of Christ\'s resurrection (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,21);">Php 3:21</a>), has in the Christian conception of immortality.<P>II. Conceptions of the Future Life<66>Sheol.<P>Had Israel No Belief in a Future Life?:<P>It is usual to find it contended that the Israelites, in contrast with other peoples, had not the conception of a future life till near the time of the Exile; that then, through the teaching of the prophets and the discipline of experience, ideas of individual immortality and of judgment to come first arose. There is, however, a good deal of ambiguity of language, if not confusion of thought, in such statements. It is true there is development in the teaching on a future life; true also that in the Old Testament "life" and "immortality" are words of pregnant meaning, to which bare survival of the soul, and gloomy existence in Sheol, do not apply. But in the ordinary sense of the expression "future life," it is certain that the Israelites were no more without that notion than any of their neighbors, or than most of the peoples and races of the world to whom the belief is credited.<P>1. Reserve on This Subject: Hopes and Promises Largely Temporal:<P>Israel, certainly, had not a developed mythology of the future life such as was found in Egypt. There, life in the other world almost over-shadowed the life that now is; in contrast with this, perhaps because of it, Israel was trained to a severer reserve in regard to the future, and the hopes and promises to the nation<6F>the rewards of righteousness and penalties of transgression<6F>were chiefly temporal. The sense of individual responsibility, as was shown at the commencement, there certainly was<61>an individual relation to God. But the feeling of corporate existence<63>the sense of connection between the individual and his descendants<74>was strong, and the hopes held out to the faithful had respect rather to multiplication of seed, to outward prosperity, and to a happy state of existence (never without piety as its basis) on earth, than to a life beyond death. The reason of this and the qualifications needing to be made to the statement will afterward appear; but that the broad facts are as stated every reader of the Old Testament will perceive for himself. Abraham is promised that his seed shall be multiplied as the stars of heaven, and that the land of Canaan shall be given them to dwell in (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,\'1-3\');">Ge 12:1-3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,\'1-\');">15</a>); Israel is encouraged by abundant promises of temporal blessing (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',11,8);">De 11:8</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',28,\'1-14\');">28:1-14</A>), and warned by the most terrible temporal curses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',28,15);">De 28:15</a>ff); David has pledged to him the sure succession of his house as the reward of obedience (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',7,11);">2Sa 7:11</a>ff). So in the Book of Job, the patriarch\'s fidelity is rewarded with return of his prosperity (chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',42);">42</A>). Temporal promises abound in the Prophets (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',2,14);">Ho 2:14</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',2,\'1-\');">14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,19,26);">Isa 1:19, 26</a>, etc.); the Book of Proverbs likewise is full of such promises (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',3,13);">3:13 </a>ff, etc.).<P>2. A Future State not Therefore Denied:<P>All this, however, in no way implies that the Israelites had no conceptions of, or beliefs in, a state of being beyond death, or believed the death of the body to be the extinction of existence. This was very far from being the case. A hope of a future life it would be wrong to call it; for there was nothing to suggest hope, joy or life in the good sense, in the ideas they entertained of death or the hereafter. In this they resembled most peoples whose ideas are still primitive, but to whom it is not customary to deny belief in a future state. They stand as yet, though with differences to be afterward pointed out, on the general level of Semitic peoples in their conceptions of what the future state was. This is also the view taken by Dr. Charles. He recognizes that early Israelite thought attributed a "comparatively large measure of life, movement, knowledge and likewise power (?) to the departed in Sheol" (op. cit., 41). A people that does this is hardly destitute of all notions of a future state. This question of Sheol now demands more careful consideration. Here again our differences from Dr. Charles will reveal themselves.<P>Belief Non-Mythological.<P>It would, indeed, have been amazing had the Israelites, who dwelt so long in Egypt, where everything reminded of a future life, been wholly destitute of ideas on that subject. What is clear is that, as already observed, they did not adopt any of the Egyptian notions into their religion. The simplicity of their belief in the God of their fathers kept them then and ever after from the importation of mythological elements into their faith. The Egyptian Amenti may be said, indeed, to answer broadly to the Hebrew Sheol; but there is nothing in Israelite thought to correspond to Osiris and his assessors, the trial in the hall of judgment, and the adventures and perils of the soul thereafter. What, then, was the Hebrew idea of Sheol, and how did it stand related to beliefs elsewhere?<P>3. Survival of Soul, or Conscious Part:<P>That the soul, or some conscious part of man for which the name may be allowed to stand, does not perish at death, but passes into another state of existence, commonly conceived of as shadowy and inert, is a belief found, not only among the lower, so-called nature-peoples, but in all ancient religions, even the most highly developed. The Egyptian belief in Amenti, or abode of the dead, ruled over by Osiris, is alluded to above; the Babylonian Arallu (some find the word "Sualu" = she\'ol), the land of death, from which there is no return; the Greek Hades, gloomy abode of the shades of the departed, are outstanding witnesses to this conception (the various ideas may be seen, among other works, in Salmond, Christian Doctrine of Immortality, I (ideas of lower races, Indian, Egyptian Babylonian, Persian and Greek beliefs); in Sayce, Hibbert Lectures, Religion of Ancient Babylonians, and Gifford Lectures, Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia; Dr. Charles, Eschatology, chapter iii, on Greek conceptions). The Hebrew conception of Sheol, the gathering-place of the dead, is not in essentials dissimilar. "The resemblance," says Dr. Salmond, "between the Hebrew Sheol, the Homeric Hades, and Babylonian Arallu is unmistakable" (op. cit., 3rd edition, 173). As to its origin, Dr. Charles would derive the belief from ancestor worship. He supposes that "in all probability Sheol was originally conceived as a combination of the graves of the clan or nation, and as thus its final abode" (op. cit., 33). It is far from proved, however, that ancestor worship had the role he assigns to it in early religion; and, in any case, the explanation inverts cause and effect. The survival of the soul or shade is already assumed before there can be worship of ancestors. Far simpler is the explanation that man is conscious from the first of a thinking, active principle within him which disappears when death ensues, and he naturally thinks of this as surviving somewhere else, if only in a ghost-like and weakened condition (compare Max Muller, Anthropological Religion,195, 281, 337-38). Whatever the explanation, it is the case that, by a sure instinct, peoples of low and high culture alike all but universally think of the conscious part of their dead as surviving. On natural grounds, the Hebrews did the same. Only, in the Scriptural point of view, this form of survival is too poor to be dignified with the high name of "immortality."<P>4. The Hebrew Sheol:<P>It is not necessary to do more than sketch the main features of the Hebrew sheol (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHEOL">SHEOL</a>). The word, the etymology of which is doubtful (the commonest derivations are from roots meaning "to ask" or "to be hollow," sha\'al), is frequently, but erroneously, translated in the Revised Version (British and American) "grave" or "hell." It denotes really, as already said, the place or abode of the dead, and is conceived of as situated in the depths of the earth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',63,9);">Ps 63:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',86,13);">86:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',26,20);">Eze 26:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',31,14);">31:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',32,18,24);">32:18, 24</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',16,30);">Nu 16:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,22);">De 32:22</a>). The dead are there gathered in companies; hence, the frequently recurring expression, "gathered unto his people" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,8);">Ge 25:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,29);">35:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,33);">49:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',20,24);">Nu 20:24</a>, etc.), the phrase denoting, as the context shows, something quite distinct from burial. Jacob, e.g. was "gathered unto his people"; afterward his body was embalmed, and, much later, buried (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',50,2);">Ge 50:2</a>ff). Poetical descriptions of Sheol are not intended to be taken with literalness; hence, it is a mistake, with Dr. Charles, to press such details as "bars" and "gates" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',17,16);">Job 17:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',38,17);">38:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',9,14);">Ps 9:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',38,10);">Isa 38:10</a>, etc.). In the general conception, Sheol is a place of darkness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',10,21,22);">Job 10:21-22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',143,3);">Ps 143:3</a>), of silence (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',94,17);">Ps 94:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',115,17);">115:17</a>), of forgetfulness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',88,12);">Ps 88:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',9,5,6,10);">Ec 9:5-6, 10</a>). It is without remembrance or praise of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',6,5);">Ps 6:5</a>), or knowledge of what transpires on earth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',14,21);">Job 14:21</a>). Even this language is not to be pressed too literally. Part of it is the expression of a depressed or despairing (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',38,10);">Isa 38:10</a>ff) or temporarily skeptical (thus in Ecclesiastes; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',7,13,14);">12:7, 13-14</a>) mood; all of it is relative, emphasizing the contrast with the brightness, joy and activity of the earthly life (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',10,22);">Job 10:22</a>, "where the light is as midnight"<22>comparative). Elsewhere it is recognized that consciousness remains; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',14,9);">Isa 14:9</a>ff the shades (repha\'im) of once mighty kings are stirred up to meet the descending king of Babylon (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',32,21);">Eze 32:21</a>). If Sheol is sometimes described as "destruction" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',26,6);">Job 26:6</a> margin; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',28,22);">Job 28:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',15,11);">Pr 15:11</a> margin) and "the pit" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',30,9);">Ps 30:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',55,23);">55:23</a>), at other times, in contrast with the weariness and trouble of life, it is figured and longed for as a place of "rest" and "sleep" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',3,17);">Job 3:17</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',14,12,13);">14:12,13</a>). Always, however, as with other peoples, existence in Sheol is represented as feeble, inert, shadowy, devoid of living interests and aims, a true state of the dead (on Egyptian Babylonian and Greek analogies, compare Salmond, op. cit., 54-55, 73-74, 99ff, 173-74). The idea of Dr. Charles, already commented on, that Sheol is outside the jurisdiction of Yahweh, is contradicted by many passages (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,22);">De 32:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',26,6);">Job 26:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',15,11);">Pr 15:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',139,8);">Ps 139:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',9,2);">Am 9:2</a>, etc.; compare above).<P>III. The Religious Hope<70>Life and Resurrection.<P>(a) Nature and Grace<63>Moral Distinctions:<P>Such is Sheol, regarded from the standpoint of nature; a somewhat different aspect is presented when it is looked at from the point of view of grace. As yet no trace is discernible between righteous and wicked in Sheol; the element of retribution seems absent. Reward and punishment are in this world; not in the state beyond. Yet one must beware of drawing too sweeping conclusions even here. The state, indeed, of weakened consciousness and slumbrous inaction of Sheol does not admit of much distinction, and the thought of exchanging the joys of life for drear existence in that gloomy underworld may well have appalled the stoutest hearts, and provoked sore and bitter complainings. Even the Christian can bewail a life brought to a sudden and untimely close. But even on natural grounds it is hardly credible that the pious Israelite thought of the state of the godly gathered in peace to their people as quite the same as those who perished under the ban of God\'s anger, and went down to Sheol bearing their iniquity. There is a pregnancy not to be overlooked in such expressions as, "The wicked shall be turned back unto Sheol" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',9,17);">Ps 9:17</a>), a "lowest Sheol" unto which God\'s anger burns (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,22);">De 32:22</a>), "uttermost parts of the pit" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',14,15);">Isa 14:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',32,23);">Eze 32:23</a>) to which the proud and haughty in this life are consigned. Dr. Charles goes so far as to find a "penal character of Sheol" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',49,\'1-\');">Psalms 49</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',73,\'1-\');">73</a> (op. cit., 74). Consolation breathes in such utterances as, "Mark the perfect man, and behold the upright; for there is a happy end to the man of peace" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',37,37);">Ps 37:37</a>), or (with reference to the being taken from the evil to come), "He entereth into peace; they rest in their beds, each one that walketh in his uprightness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',57,2);">Isa 57:2</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',57,21);">Isa 57:21</a> "There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked"). Even Balaam\'s fervent wish, "Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',23,10);">Nu 23:10</a>), seems weakened when interpreted only of the desire for a green and blessed old age. It is possible to read too much into Old Testament expressions; the tendency at the present time would seem to be to read a great deal too little (P. Fairbairn, Typology of Scripture, I, 173ff, 422ff, may profitably be consulted).<P>(b) Religious Hope of Immortality:<P>To get at the true source and nature of the hope of immortality in the Old Testament, however, it is necessary to go much farther than the idea of any happier condition in Sheol. This dismal region is never there connected with ideas of "life" or "immortality" in any form. Writers who suppose that the hopes which find utterance in passages of Psalms and Prophets have any connection with existence in Sheol are on an altogether wrong track. It is not the expectation of a happier condition in Sheol, but the hope of deliverance from Sheol, and of restored life and fellowship with God, which occupies the mind. How much this implies deserves careful consideration.<P>1. Sheol, Like Death, Connected with Sin:<P>It has already been seen that, in the Old Testament, Sheol, like death, is not the natural fate of man. A connection with sin and judgment is implied in it. Whatever Sheol might be to the popular, unthinking mind, to the reflecting spirit, that really grasped the fundamental ideas of the religion of Yahweh, it was a state wholly contrary to man\'s true destiny. It was, as seen, man\'s dignity in distinction from the animal, that he was not created under the law of death. Disembodied existence, which is of necessity enfeebled, partial, imperfect existence, was no part of the Divine plan for man. His immortality was to be in the body, not out of it. Separation of soul and body, an after-existence of the soul in Sheol, belong to the doom of sin. Dr. Salmond fully recognizes this in his discussion of the subject. "The penal sense of death colors all that the Old Testament says of man\'s end. It is in its thoughts where it is not in its words" (op. cit., 159; see the whole passage; compare also Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament, I, 242ff, English translation; A. B. Davidson, Theology of the Old Testament, 432ff, 439ff). The true type of immortality is therefore to be seen in cases like those of Enoch (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,24);">Ge 5:24</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,5);">Heb 11:5</a>) and Elijah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',2,11);">2Ki 2:11</a>); of a bare "immortality of the soul," Scripture has nothing to say.<P>It is on all hands conceded that, so far as the hope of immortality, in any full or real sense, is found in the Old Testament, it is connected with religious faith and hope. It has not a natural, but a religious, root. It springs from the believer\'s trust and confidence in the living God; from his conviction that God<6F>his God<6F>who has bound him to Himself in the bonds of an unchanging covenant, whose everlasting arms are underneath him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,27);">De 33:27</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',90,1);">Ps 90:1</a>), will not desert him even in Sheol<6F>will be with him there, and will give him victory over its terrors (compare A. B. Davidson, Commentary on Job, 293-95; Salmond, op. cit., 175).<P>2. Religious Root of Hope of Immortality:<P>Life is not bare existence; it consists in God\'s favor and fellowship (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',16,11);">Ps 16:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',30,5);">30:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',63,3);">63:3</a>). The relevant passages in Psalms and Prophets will be considered after. Only, it is contended by the newer school, this hope of immortality belongs to a late stage of Israel\'s religion<6F>to a period when, through the development of the monotheistic idea, the growth of the sense of individuality, the acute feeling of the contradictions of life, this great "venture" of faith first became possible. One asks, however, Was it so? Was this hope so entirely a matter of "intuitous ventures, and forecasts of devout souls in moments of deepest experience or keenest conflict," as this way of considering the matter represents? Not Necessarily Late.<P>That the hope of immortality could only exist for strong faith is self-evident. But did strong faith come into existence only in the days of the prophets or the Exile? Exception has already been taken to the assumption that monotheism was a late growth, and that individual faith in God was not found in early times. It is not to be granted without demur that, as now commonly alleged, the Psalms and the Book of Job, which express this hope, are post-exilian products. If, however, faith in a covenant-keeping God is of earlier date<74>if it is present in patriarchal and Mosaic days<79>the question is not, Why should it not give rise to similar hopes? but rather, How should it be prevented from doing so? If a patriarch like Abraham truly walked with God, and received His promises, could he, any more than later saints, be wholly distrustful of God\'s power to keep and deliver him in and from Sheol? It is hard to credit it. It is replied, there is no evidence of such hope. Certainly these ancient saints did not write psalms or speak with the tongues of prophets. But is there nothing in their quiet and trustful walk, in their tranquil deaths, in their sense of uncompleted promises, in their pervading confidence in God in all the vicissitudes of life, to suggest that they, too, were able to commit themselves into the hands of God in death, and to trust Him to see that it was, or would ultimately be, well with them in the future? Thus at least Jesus understood it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,32);">Mt 22:32</a>); thus, New Testament writers believed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,13,14);">Heb 11:13-14</a>). Faith might falter, but in principle, this hope must have been bound up with faith from the beginning.<P>3. Hope of Resurrection:<P>This raises now the crucial question, What shape did this hope of immortality assume? It was not, as already seen, an immortality enjoyed in Sheol; it could only then be a hope connected with deliverance from the power of Sheol<6F>in essence, whether precisely formulated or not, a hope of resurrection. It is, we believe, because this has been overlooked, that writers on the subject have gone so often astray in their discussions on immortality in the Old Testament. They have thought of a blessedness in the future life of the soul (thus Charles, op. cit., 76-77); whereas the redemption the Bible speaks of invariably embraces the whole personality of man, body and soul together. Jesus, it may be remembered, thus interprets the words, "I am the God of Abraham," etc. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,32);">Mt 22:32</a>), as a pledge not simply of continued existence, but of resurrection. This accords with what has been seen of the connection of death with sin and its abnormality in the case of man. The immortality man would have enjoyed, had he not sinned, would have been an immortality of his whole person. It will be seen immediately that this is borne out by all the passages in which the hope of immortality is expressed in the Old Testament. These never contemplate a mere immortality of the soul, but always imply resurrection.<P>(1) Not a Late or Foreign Doctrine.<P>If the above is correct, it follows that it is a mistake to place the belief in resurrection so late as is often done, still more to derive it from Zoroastrianism (thus, Cheyne, Origin of Psalter, lecture viii) or other foreign sources. It was a genuine corollary from the fundamental Israelite beliefs about God, man, the soul, sin, death and redemption. Professor Gunkel emphasizes "the immeasurable significance" of this doctrine, and speaks of it as "one of the greatest things found anywhere in the history of religion," but thinks "it cannot be derived from within Judaism itself, but must take its origin from a ruling belief in the Orient of the later time" (Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verstandniss des New Testament, 32-33; for criticism of Gunkel\'s positions see the writer\'s Resurrection of Jesus, 255ff). To make good his theory, however, he has to discount all the evidences for the belief furnished by the earlier Old Testament writings, and this, it is believed, cannot be done successfully. It was before noted that cases of resurrection appear in the historical books (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',17,21);">1Ki 17:21</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',4,34);">2Ki 4:34</a>ff). It is not impossible that the reverent care of the patriarchs for their dead was, as with the Egyptians, inspired by some hope of this kind (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,\'1-\');">Ge 23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',50,5,25);">50:5, 25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,19);">Ex 13:19</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,22);">Heb 11:22</a>). In any case an impartial survey of the evidence proves that the thought of resurrection colors all the later expressions of the hope of immortality (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=IMMORTALITY">IMMORTALITY</a>; compare also the writer\'s appendix on the subject in Christian View of God, 200ff).<P>(2) The Psalms.<P>The passages in the Psalms in which faith rises to the hope of immortality are principally <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',16,\'8-11\');">Ps 16:8-11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',17,15);">17:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',49,14,15);">49:14-15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',73,24);">73:24</a>. There are a few others, but these are the chief, and so far as they are allowed to express a hope of immortality at all, they do so in a form which implies resurrection. Dr. Cheyne, believing them to be influenced by Zoroastrianism, formerly granted this (Origin of Psalter, lecture viii); now he reads the passages differently. There is no good reason for putting these psalms in post-exilian times, and, taken in their most natural sense, their testimony seems explicit. <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',16,\'8-11\');">Ps 16:8-11</a> (cited in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,\'24-31\');">Ac 2:24-31</a> as a prophecy of the resurrection of Christ) reads "My flesh also shall dwell in safety (or confidently, margin). For thou wilt not leave my soul to Sheol; neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption (or the pit, margin). Thou wilt show me the path of life," etc. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',17,15);">Ps 17:15</a>, the Psalmist, after describing the apparent prosperity of the wicked, says, "As for me, I shall behold thy face in rightousness; I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with beholding thy form" (King James Version, the English Revised Version, "with thy likeness"). Cheyne (op. cit., 406) refers this to the resurrection (compare Delitzsch, Perowne, etc.). Yet more explicit is <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',49,14,15);">Ps 49:14-15</a>, "They (the wicked) are appointed as a flock for Sheol...and the upright shall have dominion over them in the morning....But God will redeem my soul from the power (hand, margin) of Sheol; for he will receive me." The last clause, literally, "He will take me," has, as Perowne, Delitzsch, Cheyne (formerly), even Duhm, allow, allusion to cases like those of Enoch and Elijah. It cannot, however, contemplate actual bodily translation; it must therefore refer to resurrection. Similar in strain is <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',73,24);">Ps 73:24</a>, "Thou wilt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory." Dr. Charles grants that, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',49,\'1-\');">Psalms 49</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',73,\'1-\');">73</A>, "God takes the righteous to Himself" in heaven (pp. 76-77), but fails to connect this with the doctrine of resurrection which he finds appearing about the same time (p. 78).<P>(3) The Book of Job.<P>Before looking at the prophets, a glance should be taken at the Book of Job, which, irrespective of date (it is quite unwarrantably made post-exilian), reflects patriarchal conditions. Ch <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',14,\'1-\');">14</a> raises the question, "If a man die, shall he live again?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',14,14);">14:14</A>), and it is to be remarked that the form in which it does it, is the possibility of bodily revival. The appearances hostile to man\'s living again are enumerated (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',14,\'7-12\');">14:7-12</a>), then faith, reasserting itself, flings itself on God to accomplish the apparently impossible: "Oh that thou wouldest hide me in Sheol, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time and remember me. ...Thou wouldest call and I would answer thee: thou wouldest have a desire to the work of thy hands" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',14,\'13-15\');">14:13-15</a>; margin reads "Thou shalt call," etc.). Dr. A. B. Davidson says, "To his mind this involves a complete return to life again of the whole man" (Cambridge Commentary on Job, in the place cited.). With this must be taken the splendid outburst in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',19,\'25-27\');">19:25-27</a>, "I know that my Redeemer liveth," etc., which, whatever doubts may attach to the precise rendering of certain clauses, undoubtedly expresses a hope not inferior in strength to that in the verse just quoted.<P>(4) The Prophets.<P>The presence of the idea of resurrection in the Prophets is not doubted, but the passages are put down to exilic or preexilic times, and are explained of "spiritual" or "national," not of individual, resurrection (compare Charles, op. cit., 128-29). It seems plain, however, that, before the figure of resurrection could be applied to the nation, the idea of resurrection must have been there; and it is by no means clear that in certain of the passages the resurrection of individuals is not included. Cheyne granted this regarding the passages in Isaiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',25,\'6-8\');">25:6-8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',26,19);">26:19</a>): "This prospect concerns not merely the church-nation, but all of its believing members, and indeed all, whether Jews or not, who submit to the true king, Yahweh" (op. cit., 402). There is no call for putting the remarkable passages in Hos<6F>"After two days will he revive us: on the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live before him" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',6,\'1-\');">6:2</a>); "I will ransom them from the power of Sheol: I will redeem them from death: O death, where are thy plagues? O Sheol, where is thy destruction?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',13,14);">13:14</a>)<29>later than the time of that prophet. In them the idea of resurrection is already fully present; as truly as in the picture in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',37,\'1-10\');">Eze 37:1-10</a> of the valley of dry bones. The climax is, however, reached in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',25,\'6-8\');">Isa 25:6-8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',26,19);">26:19</a>, above referred to, from which the individual element cannot be excluded (compare Salmond, op. cit., 211-12: "The theme of this great passage, <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',26,19);">26:19</A>, therefore, is a personal, not a corporate resurrection").<P>(5) Daniel<65>Resurrection of Wicked.<P>Finally, in the Old Testament we have the striking statement in <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',12,2);">Da 12:2</a>, "And many of them that sleep in the dust...shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that are wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament," etc. The peculiarity of this passage is, that in it, for the first time, is announced a resurrection of the wicked as well as of the righteous (compare in the New Testament <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,28,29);">Joh 5:28-29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',24,15);">Ac 24:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,12);">Re 20:12</a>ff). The word "many" is not to be understood in contrast with "all," though probably only Israel is in view. The event is connected with a "time of trouble" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',12,1);">Da 12:1</a>) following upon the overthrow of Antiochus, here representative of Antichrist. The really difficult problem is, How did this conception of the resurrection of the wicked come about? The resurrection of the righteous, it has been seen, is a corollary from the covenant-faithfulness of Yahweh. But this does not apply to the wicked. Whence then does the idea come? It is given as a revelation, but even revelation connects itself with existing ideas and experiences. The resurrection of the wicked, certainly, does not arise, like that of the righteous, from the consciousness of an indissoluble union with God, but it may well arise from the opposite conviction of the judgment of God. As the sense of individuality grew strong<6E>and it is granted that the teaching of the prophets did much to strengthen that feeling<6E>and the certainty of moral retribution developed, it was inevitable that this should react on the conception of the future, in making it as certain that the wicked should be punished, as that the good should be rewarded, in the world to come. Naturally too, as the counterpart of the other belief, this shaped itself into the form of a resurrection to judgment. We are thus brought, as a last step, to consider the idea of judgment and its effects as found in the prophetic teaching.<P>IV. The Idea of Judgment<6E>the Day of Yahweh.<P>Judgment a Present Reality:<P>It was seen that, under Mosaism, the promises and threatenings of God were mainly confined to the present life, and that the sense of distinctions in Sheol, though not absent, was vague and wavering. Through temporal dispensations men were trained to faith in the reality of moral retribution. Under the prophets, while the judgments of God on nations and individuals were still primarily viewed as pertaining to this life, there gradually shaped itself a further idea<65>that of an approaching consummation of history, or Day of Yahweh, when God\'s enemies would be completely overthrown, His righteousness fully vindicated and His kingdom established in triumph throughout the earth. The developments of this idea may now briefly be exhibited. In this relation, it need only be stated that the writer does not follow the extraordinary mangling of the prophetic texts by certain critics, accepted, though with some misgiving, by Dr. Charles.<P>1. Day of Yahweh:<P>The "Day of Yahweh," in the prophetic writings, is conceived of, sometimes more generally, as denoting any great manifestation of God\'s power in judgment or salvation (e.g. the locusts in <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',2,\'1-\');">Joe 2</a>), sometimes more eschatologically, of the final crisis in the history of God\'s kingdom, involving the overthrow of all opposition, and the complete triumph of righteousness (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',2,\'2-5\');">Isa 2:2-5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',3,\'1-\');">Joe 3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',9,11);">Am 9:11</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',14,\'1-\');">Zec 14</a>, etc.). The two things are not unconnected; the one is the prelude, or anticipatory stage, of the other. That feature of prophetic vision sometimes spoken of as the absence of perspective is very conspicuous in the fact that chronology is largely disregarded, and the "Day of Yahweh" is seen looming up as the immediate background of every great crisis in which the nation may for the time be involved (Assyrian invasions; Babylonian captivity; Maccabean persecution). The one thing ever certain to the prophet\'s mind is that the "Day" is surely coming<6E>it is the one great, dread, yet for God\'s people joyful, event of the future<72>but the steps by which the goal is to be reached are only gradually revealed in the actual march of God\'s providence.<P>(1) Relation to Israel.<P>The "Day" is in its primary aspect a day of judgment (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',2,12);">Isa 2:12</a>); not, however, to be thought of as a day of vengeance only on the adversaries of Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',5,18);">Am 5:18</a>ff). Israel itself would be the first to experience the strokes of the Divine chastisement: "You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will visit upon you all your iniquities" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',3,2);">Am 3:2</a>). God\'s judgments on Israel, while retributive, were also purifying and sifting; a "remnant" would remain, who would be the seed of a holier community (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',6,13);">Isa 6:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',9,9);">Am 9:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',3,13,20);">Ze 3:13, 20</a>, etc.). The Book of Hosea beautifully exhibits this aspect of the Divine dealings.<P>(2) To the Nations.<P>Of wider scope is the relation of the "Day" to the Gentile world. The nations are used as the instruments of God\'s judgments on Israel (Assyrians, Chaldeans, Persians), but they, too, would in turn be judged by Yahweh (compare the prophecies against the nations in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Nahum, Habakkuk, etc.). The end would be, although this does not fully appear in every prophet, that a remnant of the heathen also would turn to Yahweh, and be rescued from the judgment (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',14,16);">Zec 14:16</a>). More generally, an extension of the kingdom of God would take place till the earth was filled with God\'s glory (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',2,\'2-5\');">Isa 2:2-5</a>, with <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',4,\'1-5\');">Mic 4:1-5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',42,4);">Isa 42:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',66,\'3-6\');">66:3-6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',12,\'14-16\');">Jer 12:14-16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',16,\'19-21\');">16:19-21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',16,53,55,61);">Eze 16:53, 55, 61</a>, God will turn the captivity of Sodom and her daughters; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',9,11);">Am 9:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',2,14);">Hab 2:14</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',22,\'27-31\');">Ps 22:27-31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',65,2,5);">65:2, 5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',86,9);">86:9</a>). These events, in prophetic speech, belong to "the latter days" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',2,2);">Isa 2:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',48,47);">Jer 48:47</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',38,16);">Eze 38:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',3,5);">Ho 3:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',4,1);">Mic 4:1</a>). In Daniel\'s great prophecy of the four kingdoms, these are represented as broken in pieces by the kingdom of heaven, symbolized by a stone cut out of the mountain without hands (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',2,44,45);">Da 2:44-45</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',7,27);">Dan 7:27</a>). The kingdom is given by the Ancient of Days to one "like unto a son of man" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',7,13);">Da 7:13</a>). Haggai and Zechariah, the post-exilian prophets, share in these glowing hopes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hag\',2,6,7);">Hag 2:6-7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',2,10);">Zec 2:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',8,\'20-23\');">8:20-23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',14,16);">14:16</a>). In Malachi is found one of the noblest of all the prophetic utterances: "From the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles," etc. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',1,11);">1:11</a>); and prophecy closes with the announcement of Him, Yahweh\'s messenger, by whom this "great and terrible day of Yahweh" is to be brought in (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',4,\'1-\');">Mal 4</a>).<P>2. Judgment beyond Death:<P>The purview, in what is said of the "Day of Yahweh," is thus seen to be confined to earth, though the references to resurrection, and the passages in the close of Isaiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',65,17);">65:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',66,22);">66:22</a>) about "new heavens and a new earth" imply a further vista. The hope of immortality<74>of resurrection life<66>in the case of the righteous has already been considered. But what of judgment after death in the case of the wicked? Only dim premonitions of retribution, it was seen, are found in the earlier doctrine of Sheol. There are frequent references to "judgment" in the Psalms, sometimes on the world (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',93,13);">96:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',98,9);">98:9</A>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',50,\'1-\');">50</a>), sometimes on individuals (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',1,5);">1:5</a>), but it is doubtful if any of them look beyond earth. Yet many things combined to force this problem on the attention.<P>(1) Incompleteness of Moral Administration.<P>There was the sharpening of the sense of individual responsibility in the prophetic age (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,29-30);">Jer 31:29-30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',18,2);">Eze 18:2</a>ff), and the obvious fact of the incompleteness of the Divine moral administration in the present life, as respects the individual. The working of moral laws could be discerned, but this fell far short of exact individual retribution. Life was full of moral anomalies and perplexities (compare <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOB,+BOOK+OF">JOB, BOOK OF</a>).<P>(2) Prosperity of Wicked.<P>There was the special difficulty that the wicked did not always seem to meet with the punishment due to their misdeeds in time. On the contrary they often seemed to flourish, to have success in their schemes, to triumph over the godly, who were afflicted and oppressed. This was the enigma that so painfully exercised the minds of the psalmists (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',10,\'1-\');">Pss 10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',17,\'1-\');">17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',37,\'1-\');">37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',49,\'1-\');">49</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',73,\'1-\');">73</a>, etc.). The solution they found was that the prosperity of the wicked did not endure. It came to a sudden end (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',37,35,36);">Ps 37:35-36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',73,\'18-20\');">73:18-20</a>), while the righteous had a sure compensation in the future (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',17,15);">Ps 17:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',49,15);">49:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',73,24);">73:24</a>, etc.). It was not, however, always the case that the wicked were thus visibly cut off. Besides, a sudden end hardly seemed an adequate punishment for a long career of triumphant iniquity, and, if the righteous were recompensed hereafter, the thought lay near that the wicked might be, and should be, also.<P>(3) Suffering of Righteous with Wicked.<P>There was the kindred fact that, in the calamities that overtook the wicked, the righteous were often the involuntary sharers. The wicked did not suffer by themselves; the godly were involved in the storm of judgment (war, captivity, plagues) that broke upon them. Here was something else calling for redress at the hands of a God of righteousness.<P>3. Retribution beyond Death:<P>From these causes the thought almost necessarily presented itself of the extension of retribution for the wicked into the state beyond death. Hence, as before seen, Sheol did come in the later age to assume something of a penal character for the unrighteous. There was a wrath of God that burned to the lowest Sheol (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,22);">De 32:22</a>; compare Charles, op. cit., 74). But this abode of the shades was not, for the evil any more than for the good, a fitting sphere for moral recompense. If, for the complete reward of the righteous, a resurrection-state was necessary, did not the same hold true for the wicked? It is questioned whether the very definite announcements of an individual judgment in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',11,9);">Ec 11:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',12,14);">12:14</a> refer to the state beyond death<74>it is probable that they do (compare Salmond, op. cit., 216-17). The first clear intimation of a resurrection of the wicked, however, is found, as already said, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',12,2);">Da 12:2</a>, which likewise implies judgment. Perhaps a hint of the same idea is given in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',66,24);">Isa 66:24</a>: "They shall go forth (the prophet is speaking of the times of the new heavens and the new earth, verse <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',66,22);">22</a>), and look upon the dead bodies of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh." Dr. Charles connects this with the idea of Gehenna as "a place of punishment for rebellious and apostate Jews," which he thinks also to be implied in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',50,11);">Isa 50:11</a> (op. cit., 158). It is the same word "abhorrence" (dera\'on), found in the above passage, which is rendered in <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',12,2);">Da 12:2</a> "contempt," and the punishment "is conceived of as eternal" (pp. 158-59).<P>It is hardly possible to carry the subject farther within the limits of the Old Testament. Further developments belong to the later Judaism.<P>V. Later Jewish Conceptions<6E>Apocryphal, Apocalyptic, Rabbinical.<P>1. Sources:<P>The sources of our knowledge of the eschatological conceptions among the Jews in the immediately pre-Christian period are:<P>(1) Apocrypha.<P>The books of the Old Testament Apocrypha (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCRYPHA">APOCRYPHA</a>), taken over, with the exception of 2Esdras, from the Septuagint. 2Esdras, better known as 4Esdras, is more properly classed with the apocalyptic writings. The original work consists only of chapters 3-14, with a passage in chapter 7 not found in the ordinary version. The book is post-Christian (circa 80-96 AD).<P>(2) <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCALYPTIC+LITERATURE">Apocalyptic Literature</a>.<P>(See article under that head, II, i, 1; II, ii.) The remains of this literature consist of the Sibylline Oracles (oldest parts, Book III, from 2nd century BC), the Book Enoch (see below), the Psalms of Solomon (70-40 BC), with the Apocrypha Baruch (50-100 AD), the Book of Jubilees, and Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (see below), the Assumption of Moses (early 1st century AD), and the Ascension of Isaiah (before 50 AD). A good deal turns on the dating of some of these books. Several (Apocrypha Baruch, Assumption of Moses, Ascension of Isaiah, with 4Esdras) are post-Christian. The Book of Jubilees and Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs have also usually been regarded as such, but Dr. Charles argues for dates going back to the close of the 2nd century BC for both. Late Jewish and Christian additions are recognized in the latter. Formerly Dr. Charles dated Jubilees "before 10 AD." The chief dispute relates to (the "Similitudes") of the Book of Enoch chapters 37-70. These important sections are held by some (Dr. Stanton, etc.) to be post-Christian (end of 1st century AD)--a view to which we incline; Dr. Charles and others place them in the 1st century BC. Most of the remaining portions of the book are assigned to dates in the 2nd century BC. To the above should be added the notices of Jewish opinions in Josephus<P>(3) Rabbinical Writings.<P>For rabbinical ideas, we are chiefly dependent on the Talmudic writings and the Targums<6D>sources whose late character makes their witness often doubtful (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TALMUD">TALMUD</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TARGUM">TARGUM</a>).<P>2. Description of Views:<P>It is only possible to summarize very briefly the varying and frequently conflicting conceptions on eschatological subjects to be gleaned from this extensive literature. The representations are often wildly imaginative, and, so far as they are not genuine developments from Old Testament ideas, have value only as they may be supposed to throw light on the teachings of the New Testament. With one or two exceptions, little is to be gathered from the apocryphal books, and it will be best to treat the subject under headings.<P>(1) Less Definite Conceptions.<P>In the apocryphal Ecclesiasticus (Wisdom of the Son of Sirach) we remain still on the old ground of Sheol as a place in which there is no remembrance, thanksgiving or retribution (Sirach 17:27,28; 41:3,1, etc.; a somewhat different note is heard in 21:10). It is the same in Baruch (2:17) and Tobit (3:6). In 1Macc we have simply the Old Testament phrases, "gathered to his fathers" (2:69), "gathered to his people" (14:30). In the Book of Wisdom, the influence of Greek ideas is seen in a doctrine of the immortality of the soul only (2:23; 3:1-4; 4:13,14; 15:3; not a resurrection), possibly of pre-existence (8:20). The wicked suffer punishment in Sheol (3:1-10; 5:1-14, etc.).<P>(2) Ideas of Sheol.<P>Generally, however, in the apocalyptic books, a marked change is seen in the ideas of Sheol. It is still the place of the dead, but is regarded more as a state intermediate between death and the resurrection for such as shall be raised; in which righteous and wicked are separated; in which the wicked suffer punishment. The Book of Enoch distinguishes four abodes for the departed<65>two for the righteous, and two for the wicked (21:1-13). One class of the wicked (those already punished in this life) remain there forever, while the others are raised, and pass to the torment of Gehenna (17:2). The righteous are in Paradise<73>"the garden of life" (61:12), "the garden of righteousness" (67:3). This character of Sheol as a place of punishment (intermediate or final) is met with frequently (Book of Jubilees 7:29; 22:22; 2Macc 6:23; Psalter of Solomon 14:6; 15:11; 16:2, etc.). In certain places, Dr. Charles says, "Sheol has become an abode of fire, and therefore synonymous so far with Gehenna....In several passages in the Similitudes, and throughout Enoch 91-104, Sheol and Gehenna are practically identical" (op. cit., 237). Similar ideas are found in the Slavonic version of Enoch (ibid., 261ff).<P>(3) The Fallen Angels.<P>Much prominence in the Book of Enoch is given to the fallen angels (those who sinned with women, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,2);">Ge 6:2</a>). They are consigned in the judgment to ever-burning fire (En 21:1-6; 90:20-25).<P>(4) Resurrection.<P>Ideas of the resurrection vary, In Enoch 22, the righteous and one class of the wicked are raised; elsewhere all the righteous are raised and none of the wicked (En 61:5; 90:33; Psalter of Solomon 3:16); sometimes there is to be a resurrection of all, just and unjust (En 51:1,2). 2Macc dwells much on the resurrection, which seems to embrace all Israel (3:16; 13:9; 7:9,14,23, etc.). For the Gentiles there is no resurrection (7:14,36). In Enoch 90:38, the bodies of the righteous are described as "transformed" in the resurrection (compare in the "Similitudes," 39:7; 51:4; 62:15). The doctrine of the resurrection (universal) is taught in the Apocrypha Baruch 30:2-5; 50; 51, and in 4Esdras 7:32-37. In Josephus the Pharisees are said to have believed in the resurrection of the righteous only (Ant., XVIII, i, 3). This does not coincide with Paul\'s statement in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',24,15);">Ac 24:15</a>.<P>(5) Judgment.<P>The reality of a final judgment, supervening upon the intermediate judgment in Sheol, is strongly affirmed in most of the apocalyptic books. The Book of Enoch speaks much of this final judgment. It describes it as "the great day," "the righteous judgment," "the great day of judgment" "the last judgment," "the judgment of all eternity" (10:6,12; 16:1; 19:1; 22:4,11; 25:4; 90:26,27, etc.). Wicked angels and men are judged, and sentenced to Gehenna<6E>a doom without end.<P>The Messiah:<P>An interesting point is the relation of the Messiah to this judgment. With the exception of 4Esd, the apocryphal books are silent on the Messiah. In the apocalyptic books the Messiah does appear, but not always in the same light. In the Sibylline Oracles (3), Psalms of Solomon (17; 18), Apocrypha Baruch (39; 40) and in 4Esdras (13:32ff) the appearance of Messiah is associated with the overthrow and judgment of the ungodly worldly powers; in the older portions of Enoch (90:16-25) God Himself executes this judgment, and holds the great assize<7A>the Messiah does not appear till after. In the section of Enoch, chapters 37-70, on the other hand, the Messiah appears definitely as the judge of the world, and titles resembling those in the New Testament, "the Righteous One" (38:2; 53:6), "the Elect One" (40:5; 45:3,4, etc.), above all, "the Son of Man" (46:2-4; 48:2, etc.), are given Him. It is these passages which suggest Christian influence, especially as the conception is not found elsewhere in pre-Christian Apocalypse, and the Book of Jubilees, which refers otherwise to Enoch, makes no mention of these passages. Yet another idea appears in later Apocalypse, that, namely, of a limited reign of Messiah, after which take place the resurrection and judgment. 4Esdras has the extraordinary notion that, after a reign of 400 years, the Messiah dies (7:28,29). God in this case is the judge.<P>(6) The Messianic Age and the Gentiles.<P>The Messianic age, when conceived of as following the judgment (the older view), is unlimited in duration, has Jerusalem for its center, and includes in the scope of its blessing the converted Gentiles (Sibylline Oracles 3:698-726; Enoch 90:30,37; compare 48:5; 53:1; Psalms of Solomon 17:32-35). The righteous dead of Israel are raised to participate in the kingdom. Already in Enoch 90:28,29 is found the idea that the new Jerusalem is not the earthly city, but a city that comes down from heaven, where, as in 4Esdras, the Messianic reign is limited, the blessed life after resurrection is transferred to heaven.<P>(7) Rabbinical Ideas.<P>Little is to be added from the rabbinical conceptions, which, besides being difficult to ascertain precisely, are exceedingly confused and contradictory. Most of the ideas above mentioned appear in rabbinical teaching. With the destruction of the hostile world-powers is connected in later rabbinism the appearance of "Armilus"<22>an Antichrist. The reign of Messiah is generally viewed as limited in duration<6F>400 years (as in 4Esdras), and 1,000 years being mentioned (compare Schurer, History of Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, Div. II, Vol. II,179,English translation). At its close takes place a renovation of the world, resurrection (for Israelites only, certain classes being excluded), judgment, and eternal heavenly happiness for the righteous. The punishments of the wicked appear mostly to be regarded as eternal, but the view is also met with of a limited duration of punishment (see authorities in Schurer, op. cit., 183; Edersheim, Jesus the Messiah, appendix. XIX, and other works noted in "Literature" below).<P>LITERATURE.<P>R. H. Charles, D. D., A Crit. History of the Doctrine of a Future Life (1899); apocalyptic works translated and edited by same writer (Book of Enoch, Apocrypha Baruch, Book of Jubilees, Testament of the 12 Patriarchs, etc.); V. H. Stanton, The Jewish and the Christian Messiah (1886); S. D. F. Salmond, Christian Doct of Immortality (4th edition, 1901); A. Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, edition 1906 (especially appendix. XIX); E. Schurer, History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (Div. II, Vol. II, English translation). Old Testament Theologies: Oehler, A. B. Davidson, etc.; articles in Dictionaries: Hastings, Encyclopedia Biblica, etc. For fuller lists, see Charles.``132';
|
||
isbe[3183]='Eschew`es-choo\' (cur; ekklino):<P>Only 4 times in the King James Version (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',1,1,8);">Job 1:1, 8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',2,3);">2:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,11);">1Pe 3:11</a>), in all of which the American Standard Revised Version renders by the appropriate form of "turn away from."``1';
|
||
isbe[3184]='Esdraelon, Plain of`es-dra-e\'-lon, (yizre\'e\'l; in Apocrypha the name varies: Esdrelon, Esdraelon, Esdrelom, Esrelon, Esrechon):<P>1. The Name:<P>The Greek name of the great plain in Central Palestine (Judith 3:9; 7:3, etc.). It is known in Scripture by the Hebrew name "valley of Jezreel" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',17,16);">Jos 17:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,33);">Jud 6:33</a>, etc.). It is called \'emeq in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,15);">Jud 5:15</a>, which properly denotes "a depression," or "deepening," and is used more commonly of the vale running eastward between Gilboa and Little Hermon. Biq\'ah is the term usually employed (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',35,22);">2Ch 35:22</a>, etc.), which accurately describes it, "an opening," a level space surrounded by hills. The modern name is Merj ibn \'Amr, "meadow of the son of Amr."<P>2. Position and Description:<P>It lies between Gilboa and Little Hermon on the east, and Mt. Carmel on the west. It is enclosed by irregular lines drawn from the latter along the base of the foothills of Nazareth to Tabor; from Tabor, skirting Little Hermon and Gilboa to Jenin, and from Jenin along the north edge of the Samaritan uplands to Carmel. These sides of the triangle are, respectively, about 15, 15 and 20 miles in length. North of Jenin a bay of the plain sweeps eastward, hugging the foot of Mt. Gilboa. An offshoot passes down to the Jordan valley between Gilboa and Little Hermon; and another cuts off the latter hill from Tabor. The average elevation of the plain is 200 ft. above the level of the Mediterranean. The Vale of Jezreel between Zer\'in and Beisan, a distance of about 12 miles, descends nearly 600 ft., and then sinks suddenly to the level of the Jordan valley. The chief springs supplying water for the plain are those at Jenin and at Megiddo. The former are the most copious, and are used to create a "paradise" on the edge of the plain. Those at Megiddo drive mills and serve for irrigation, besides forming extensive marshes. The springs near Zer\'in, three in number, \'Ain Jalud, possibly identical with the well of Harod, being the most copious, send their waters down the vale to the Jordan. The streams from the surrounding heights are gathered in the bed of the Kishon, a great trench which zigzags through the plain, carrying the water through the gorge at Carmel to the sea. For the most of its course this sluggish stream is too low to be available for irrigation. The deep, rich soil, however, retains the moisture from the winter rains until far on in the year, the surface only, where uncovered by crops, being baked to brick in the sun. When winter sets in it quickly absorbs the rain, great breadths being turned to soft mud. This probably happened in the battle with Sisera: the northern cavalry, floundering in the morass, would be an easy prey to the active, lightly armed foot-soldiers. The fertility of the plain is extraordinary: hardly anywhere can the toil of the husbandman find a greater reward. The present writer has ridden through crops of grain there, when from his seat on the saddle he could no more than see over the tops of the stalks. Trees do not flourish in the plain itself, but on its borders, eg. at Jenin, the palm, the olive and other fruit trees prosper. The oak covers the slopes of the hills north of Carmel.<P>3. Part Played in History:<P>This wide opening among the mountains played a great part in the history of the land. This was due to the important avenues of communication between north and south that lay across its ample breadths. The narrow pass between the promontory of Carmel and the sea was not suitable for the transport of great armies: the safer roads over the plain were usually followed. So it happened that here opposing hosts often met in deadly strife. Hardly an equal area of earth can so often have been drenched with the blood of men. No doubt many conflicts were waged here in far-off times of which no record remains. The first battle fought in the plain known to history was that in which Sisera\'s host was overthrown (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,20);">Jud 5:20</a>). The children of the East were surprised and routed by Gideon\'s 300 chosen men in the stretches north of Zer\'in (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',7,\'1-\');">Jud 7</a>). Near the same place the great battle with the Philistines was fought in which Saul and his sons, worsted in the plain, retired to perish on the heights of Gilboa (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',31,\'1-\');">1Sa 31</a>). In the bed of the Kishon at the foot of Carmel Elijah slaughtered the servants of Baal (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',18,40);">1Ki 18:40</a>). Dark memories of the destruction of Ahab\'s house by the furiously driving Jehu linger round Jezreel. Ahaziah, fleeing from the avenger across the plain, was overtaken and cut down at Megiddo (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',9,\'1-\');">2Ki 9</a>). In the vale by Megiddo Josiah sought to stay the northward march of Pharaoh-necoh, and himself fell wounded to death (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,30);">2Ki 23:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',35,20);">2Ch 35:20</a>ff). The army of Holofernes is represented as spreading out over all the southern reaches of the plain (Judith 7:18,19). Much of the fighting during the wars of the Jews transpired within the circle of these hills. It is not unnatural that the inspired seer should place the scene of war in "the great day of God" in the region so often colored crimson in the history of his people<6C>the place called in the Hebrew tongue "Har-Magedon" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',16,14,16);">Re 16:14, 16</a>).<P>Esdraelon lay within the lot of Issachar (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,17);">Jos 19:17</a>). The Canaanite inhabitants were formidable with their chariots of iron (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',17,16,18);">Jos 17:16, 18</a>). The tribe does not appear to have prosecuted the conquest with vigor. Issachar seems to have resumed the tent life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,18);">De 33:18</a>), and ignobly to have secured enjoyment of the good things in the land by stooping to "taskwork" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,14);">Ge 49:14</a>f).<P>4. Arab Raids:<P>Through many centuries the plain was subject to raids by the Arabs from the east of the Jordan. The approach was open and easy, and the rich breadths of pasture irresistibly attracted these great flock masters. The Romans introduced some order and security; but with the passing of the eastern empire the old conditions resumed sway, and until comparatively recent times the alarm of an Arab invasion was by no means infrequent.<P>The railway connecting Haifa with Damascus and Mecca crosses the plain, and enters the Jordan valley near Beisan.``54';
|
||
isbe[3185]='Esdras 5 And 6`(or 4 Ezr):<P>These names have been applied respectively to the first two and the last two chapters of 2 (4) Esdras in the Latin Bible of 1462. In matter these chapters, which are of Christian origin, agree in the main with the genuine parts of 2 (4) Esdras. See foregoing article [<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ESDRAS,+FOURTH+BOOK+OF">Esdras, Fourth Book of</A>].``1';
|
||
isbe[3186]='Esdras, Fourth Book of``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCALYPTIC+LITERATURE">APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3187]='Esdras, Second Book of``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCALYPTIC+LITERATURE">APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3188]='Esdras, the First Book of`ez\'-dras, es\'-dras:<P>Contents<P>1. Name<P>2. Contents<P>3. Relation to Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah<P>4. Versions<P>5. Date and Authorship<P>LITERATURE<hr /><P>1. Name:<P>In some of the Greek uncials (Codex Vaticanus, etc.) of the Septuagint the book is called Esdras, Codex Alexandrinus (or Proton); so in the editions of Fritzsche, Tischendorf, Nestle and Swete. It is absent from Codex Sinaiticus and in Codex Alexandrinus its name is Ho Hiereus = The Priest, i.e. Ezra, who is emphatically the priest. It is also called 1Esdras in the old Latin and Syriac VSS, as well as in the English, Welsh and other modern translations. In the English and other Protestant Bibles which generally print the Apocrypha apart, this book stands first in the Apocrypha under the influence partly of its name, and in part on account of its contents, as it seemed a suitable link between the canonical and the apocryphal writings. The English 2Esdras is the apocalyptic Esdras and stands immediately after the English and Greek 1Esdras. The Vulgate, following Jerome\'s version, gave the names 1, 2 and 3 Esdras to our Ezra, Nehemiah, and 1Esdras, respectively, and in editions of the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 AD.) down to that of Pope Sixtus (died 1590) these three books appear in that order. The name 3Esdras is, therefore, that current in the Roman church, and it has the sanction of the 6th article of the Anglican Creed and of Miles Coverdale who in his translation follows the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 AD.) in naming the canonical Ezra, Nehemiah and the apocryphal 1Esdras,1, 2 and 3 Esdras, respectively. Other reformers adhered to these titles. In Fritzsche\'s commentary on the Apocrypha 3Esdras is preferred and he treats this book first. In Kautzsch\'s German edition of the Apocrypha and in most recent German works the Latin designation 3 is revived. The English commentators Bissell (Lange) and Wace (Speaker\'s Commentary) follow the custom of the Bible and speak of 1Esdras, placing the book first in the collection, and this is the prevailing custom among English Protestant theologians. The name 2Esdras has also been given to this book, the canonical Ezra and Nehemiah being then counted as one<6E>1Esdras. See Origen quoted by HE, V, 25; Zunz, Der Gottesdienst, Vortrage Berlin,1832,15.<P>2. Contents:<P>With the exception of 1Esdras 3:1-5:6<>the incident of the royal banquet and the contest for a prize of the three young men<65>the present books agree in everything essential, down to the minutest details, with the canonical Ezra and part of 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah. Before discussing the relation between 1Esdras and the Biblical books named (see next section), it will be advantageous to give an outline of the book now specially under consideration, with reference to the parallel passages in the corresponding parts of the Canon. It will be seen that practically the whole of Ezra is concerned, and for explanations of the parts common to this book and to Nehemiah reference may be made to the Century Bible Commentary on Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther.<P>1. 1Esdras 1 = <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',35,\'1-\');">2Ch 35:1</a> - <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',36,\'1-21\');">36:21</a> and maybe analyzed thus: 1Esdras 1:1-20 = <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',35,\'1-19\');">2Ch 35:1-19</a>: Josiah\'s great Passover. 1Esdras 1:21f has no exact parallel. 1Esdras 1:23-31 = <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',35,\'20-27\');">2Ch 35:20-27</a>: The death of Josiah. This took place on the battlefield at Megiddo according to <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,29);">2Ki 23:29</a>, but 1Esdras 1:31 and <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',35,24);">2Ch 35:24</a> say he died at Jerusalem. 1Esdras 1:32-58 = <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',36,\'1-21\');">2Ch 36:1-21</a>, closing years of the monarchy followed by the exile in Babylon.<P>2. 1Esdras 2:1-15 = <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',1,\'1-11\');">Ezr 1:1-11</a>: The return from Babylon through the edict of Cyrus.<P>3. 1Esdras 2:16-26 = <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,\'7-24\');">Ezr 4:7-24</a>. Certain Persian officials in Samaria induced King Artaxerxes I (died 424 BC) to stop the work of rebuilding the temple, which is not resumed until the second year of the reign of Darius Hystaspis (519 BC).<P>4. 1Esdras 3:1-5:6 has no parallel in any part of the Old Testament. King Darius (Hystaspis?) makes a great feast, after which he returns to his bedchamber but finds sleeping very difficult. Three young men belonging to his bodyguard resolve each to make a sentence to be written down and placed under the king\'s pillow, so that upon rising from his bed he might hear the three sayings read to him. The question which each one seeks to answer is, What in this world is strongest? The first says it is "wine," the second, that it is "the king." The reply of the third is "woman, though strongest of all is truth" (from this arose the Latin saying Magna est veritas et praevalebit). The third is declared the best, and as a reward the king offers him whatever he might wish. This young man happened to be Zerubbabel (Zorobabel), and the request that he makes is that King Darius might perform the vow which he made on coming to the throne to rebuild Jerusalem and its temple and to restore the sacred vessels removed to Babylon. This request is at once granted, and there follows an account of the home-coming of Jews exiled in Babylon and the protection accorded them by the Persian government similar to what we read of in 1Esdras 1 as taking place in the reign of Cyrus. But many things in this narrative are striking and indeed odd. Zerubbabel is called a young man. Among those mentioned in 1Esdras 5:5 Zerubbabel is not named, though his son Joakim is. In the very next verse (5:6) this Joakim is identified with the young man (Zerubbabel) who won the king\'s prize for writing the wisest sentence, though the sense is not quite clear; perhaps Zerubbabel is meant in 1Esdras 5:6. Fritzsche argues that Joakim can alone be meant. This whole episode stands in no organic connection with the rest of 1Esdras, and if it is omitted the narrative is continuous. Besides this the account given of the return from Babylon contradicts what is said in 1Esdras 1 and the corresponding part of Ezr. We must regard 1Esdras 3:1-5:6 as a Jewish haggadah which at an early time was written in the margin as supplying illustrative matter and then got incorporated into the text. Nevertheless, from a literary point of view this part of the book is the gem of the whole.<P>5. 1Esdras 5:7-73 = <span class="noTag">Ezr 2 - 4:1-5</a>: The names of those who returned with number of animals (horses, etc.) (1Esdras 5:7-43); altar of burnt offering erected (1Esdras 5:48); sacrifices offered on it (1Esdras 5:50). Foundation of the temple laid (1Esdras 5:56f). The Jews refuse the offer of the Samaritan party to help in the rebuilding of the temple, with the result that this party had the work stopped (1Esdras 5:66-73). <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,\'6-24\');">Ezra 4:6-24</a> finds its parallel in 1Esdras 2:16-30 (see above). 1Esdras 2:30 and 5:73 are evidently duplicates.<P>6. 1Esdras 6:1-7:15 = <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',5,\'1-\');">Ezr 5:1</a> - <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',6,\'1-22\');">6:22</a>: Building of the temple resumed through the preaching of Haggai and Zechariah (1Esdras 6:1f). Persian officials unsuccessfully oppose the work (1Esdras 6:3-34) which is soon completed, the temple being then dedicated (1Esdras 7:1-11). Observance of the Passover (1Esdras 7:12-15). Between 1Esdras 7 and 8 there is an interval of some 60 years, for chapter 8 begins with the arrival of Ezra (458 BC).<P>7. 1Esdras 8:1-67 = <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',7,\'1-\');">Ezr 7:1</a> - <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,\'1-36\');">8:36</a>: Journey of Ezra and his party from Babylon to Jerusalem bearing letters of authority from King Artaxerxes I (died 424 BC) (1Esdras 8:1-27); list of those who return (1Esdras 8:28-40); gathering together of the party by the river Ahava; incidents of the journey; the arrival (1Esdras 8:41).<P>8. 1Esdras 8:68-90 = <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',9,\'1-\');">Ezr 9</a>: Ezra\'s grief on hearing of the marriage of some Jews with foreign wives (1Esdras 8:68-73). His confession and prayer (1Esdras 8:74-90).<P>9. 1Esdras 8:91-9:36 = <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,\'1-\');">Ezr 10</a>: The means used to end the mixed marriages; lists of the men (priests and others) who had married strange wives.<P>10. 1Esdras 9:37-55 = <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,\'73-\');">Ne 7:73 b</a> through <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,\'1-12\');">8:12</a>: The reforms of Ezra. In the Canonical Scriptures <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,\'73-\');">Ne 7:73 b through 10</a> gives the history of Ezra, not that of Nehemiah<61>the two never labored or lived together at Jerusalem. (The name Nehemiah in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,9);">Ne 8:9</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,1);">10:1</a> is an evident interpolation.) In 1Esdras Nehemiah is not once mentioned in this section. In 1Esdras 9:49 (parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,9);">Ne 8:9</a>) "Attharates" is the word used, and as a proper name (see 1Esdras 5:40, "Nehemiah and Attharates"). The majority of modern scholars assign this section to Ezra, adding it to <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,\'1-\');">Ezr 10</a>, or incorporating it into the Ezra narrative. So Ewald, Wellhausen, Schrader, Klostermann, Baudissin, Budde and Ryssel. The present writer defends this view in the Century Bible in Ezra-Nehemiah-Esther, 242f. In this case 1Esdras borrows from Chronicles and Ezra alone and not from Nehemiah. It should be remembered however that Ezra-Nehemiah formed originally but one book. Some will say that Chronicles preceded Ezra-Nehemiah as a single book, but for this there is no evidence (see Century Bible, 4). The last verse of 1Esdras in all manuscripts ends in the middle of a sentence: "And they assembled ...." showing that the closing part of the book has been lost. The present writer suggests that the missing part is <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,\'13-\');">Ne 8:13 - Ne 10</a>, which begins, "And on the second day were gathered together (assembled) the heads of fathers\' houses," etc., the same verb being used in the Septuagint Greek of both passages with a very slight difference (episunechthesan, and sunechthesan, in Ezra and Esdras respectively).<P>3. The Relation to Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah:<P>Since <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,\'73-\');">Ne 7:73 b</a> through <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,\'1-12\');">8:12</a> belongs to the Book of Ezra (see above) describing the work of Ezra, not that of Nehemiah, the contents of 1Esdras are parallel with those of Ezra alone with the exception of chapter 1 which agrees with <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',35,\'1-\');">2Ch 35:1</a> - <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',36,\'1-21\');">36:21</a>. Various explanations have been offered, the following being the principal: (1) that 1Esdras is a compilation based on the Septuagint of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah: so Keil, Bissell and formerly Schurer (GJV, II, ii, 179f; Herzog2, I, 496); the arguments for this opinion are well marshaled by Bissell in his Commentary on the Apocrypha (Lange); (2) that 1Esdras is an independent Greek translation from a now lost Hebrew (or Aramaic) origin in many respects superior to our Massoretic Text: so Whiston, Pohlmann, Herzfeld, Fritzsche, Ginsburg, Cheyne, Thackeray, Nestle, Howarth, Torrey and Bertholet. Most of these writers hold that the original 1Esdras included the whole of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah; (3) the bulk of those who support view 2 argue that the original 1Esdras formed the real Septuagint version of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, what exists in our present Septuagint being another Greek translation, probably by Theodotion (fl, about 150 AD), just as we now know that what up to 1772 (the date of the publication in Rome of the Codex Chisianus) was considered as the Septuagint of Daniel is really Theodotion\'s version. Howarth (see articles in the Academy, 1893; PSBA, XXIX, etc.), and Torrey (Ezra Studies) stoutly champion this view. The evidence offered is of two kinds, external and internal:<P>(1) External Evidence.<P>(a) Josephus uses this version as his source for the period, though for other Old Testament books he follows the Septuagint. (b) In the foreword to the Syriac version of 1Esdras in Walton\'s Polyglot it is said that this version follows the Septuagint, which surely counts for nothing since copies of the Septuagint known to us contain both 1Esdras and the Greek translation reckoned up to recently as the true Septuagint. (c) Howarth maintains, but without proof, that in Origen\'s Hexapla, 1Esdras takes the place of our Septuagint version, and that the same is true of the Virus Itala.<P>(2) Internal Evidence.<P>(a) It is said by Dr. Gwyn, Thackeray and Howarth that the Greek of the true Septuagint of Daniel and that of 1Esdras are very similar in character, which however only goes to prove that one man translated both.<P>(b) Howarth holds that the Greek of Daniel and Ezra in the orthodox Septuagint version is very literal, as was all Theodotion\'s translation work. But such statements have to be received with very great caution, as in judging of style so much depends on the personal equation. The present writer has compared carefully parts ascribed with confidence to Theodotion and the Septuagint without reaching the above conclusions. At the most the matter has not been set at rest by any facts or reasoning as yet supplied. It must be admitted that 1Esdras and Josephus preserve the true sequence of the events chronicled in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,\'73-\');">Ne 7:73b through 10</a>, the Massoretic Text and the Greek version based on it having gone wrong at this point, probably through the mixing of Hebrew skins or leaves. Those who see in 1Esdra the true Septuagint agree almost to a man that 1Esdras 3:1-5:6 is a late interpretation, never having had a Hob original. This may account in a large degree for the vigor and elegance of the Greek Howarth, however, parts company with his friends Torrey, Bertholet, etc., by arguing strenuously for this part. (See more fully in Century Bible, Ezra, etc., 27ff.)<P>4. Versions:<P>1Esdras exists in the following ancient versions in addition to the Greek text which may or may not be a translation (see 3 above):<P>(1) Latin: (a) Jerome. (b) Vulgate.<P>(2) Syriac: (a) The Peshitta. The Peshitta, given in Walton\'s Polyglot and with a critically revised text by Lagarde (Libri Veteris Testamenti Apocrypha Syriace, 1861). (b) The Hexaplar Syriac version. For details of manuscripts, etc., see "Literature" below.<P>5. Date and Authorship:<P>Nothing is known or can be conjectured as to the author or translator of 1Esdras, nor can anything be positively affirmed as to the date. If the work be the genuine Septuagint text this would give it an earlier origin than the view which makes it depend on the Septuagint. But this is to say but little. As Josephus (died 95 AD) used this book it must have been written some years before he wrote his history (say 67 AD). We must assume that it existed some time before the beginning of our era. Ewald, on account of some resemblances to the earliest of the Sibylline Books, dates 1Esdras about 190 BC. But admitting dependence in this matter<65>which is doubtful<75>it is impossible to say which is dependent and which is independent in such cases.<P>LITERATURE.<P>The most important books have been named at the end of the general article on <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCRYPHA">APOCRYPHA</a> (which see). Recent contributions by Howarth and Torrey have been mentioned in the course of the foregoing article.``33';
|
||
isbe[3189]='Esdras,The Second (Forth) Book; Apocalyptic Esdras`Or The Apocalyptic Esdras:<P>Contents<P>1. Name<P>2. Contents<P>3. Language<P>4. Versions<P>5. Origin of the Book<P>6. Date<P>LITERATURE<hr /><P>This book was not received by the Council of Trent as canonical, nor has it ever been acknowledged as such by the Anglican church.<P>1. Name:<P>The book is not found in the Septuagint and no complete copy of the Greek text is known, though at one time it did exist. The oldest extant name is "The Prophet Ezra" (Esdras ho prophetes; see Clement of Alexandria, Strom., iii.16): It has been often called the Latin Esdras because it exists more completely in that language; compare the name Greek Esdras for 1Esdras.<P>3Esdras is the designation in old editions of the Vulgate, 1Esdras being Ezra and Nehemiah, 2Esdras denoting what in English is called 1Esdras. But in editions of the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 AD.) later than the Council of Trent, and also in Walton\'s Polyglot, Ezra is called 1Esdras, Nehemiah, 2Esdras, 1Esdras = 3Esdras, the present book (the Latin Esdras) being known as 4Esdras. In authorized copies of the Vulgate, i.e. in those commonly used, this book is lacking. On account of its contents, Westcott, following the example of Anastasius Sinaita (bishop of Antioch from 559 AD), called the book the "Apocalypse of Esdras." But as Tischendorf in 1866 edited a later and inferior work with this title the present writer suggests the name "The Apocalyptic Esdras." Of all the Jewish apocalypses this is the sublimest and most pleading.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCALYPTIC+LITERATURE">APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE, sec. II,1,5</a>.<P>2. Contents:<P>The original work consists of 2Esdras 3-14, chapters 1f and 15f being late additions. The entire book of 16 chapters exists in the Latin version only, the other versions containing chapters 3-14 only. The real 2nd (apocalyptic) Esdras, consisting of chapters 3-14, is made up of 7 visions given to Ezra in exile 30 years after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. The drift of these visions is, How can a just and loving God allow His own people to suffer so much? The problem thus raised is fully and beautifully dealt with. For lack of space the present writer must refer for a fuller analysis to the article <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCALYPTIC+LITERATURE">APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE, sec. I,5</a>,and the literature there cited. For 2Esdras 1ff and 15ff see under <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ESDRAS+5+AND+6">ESDRAS 5 AND 6</a>.<P>3. Language:<P>Though no complete text even of 2Esdras 3-14 has survived, a careful examination of the Latin shows that it has been made from a Greek original.<P>(1) Some fragments of the Greek can be traced, as 5:35 in Clement of Alexandria and 8:23 in the Apostolical Constitutions.<P>(2) The order of the twelve prophets in 1:39f follows that in the Septuagint.<P>(3) The Latin version bears throughout clear traces of Greek idiom.<P>Thus the gen. is used with the comparative (5:3; 11:29); we have the genitive (not ablative) absolute in 10:9, the double negative and the use of de (Greek apo) and ex (Greek ek) with the genitive in various parts. But there are cogent reasons for concluding that the Greek version implied in the Latin itself implies a Hebrew original, and the proof is similar to that of a Greek version as the basis of the Latin In the Greek there are idioms which are Hebrew, not Greek, not even in their frequency Hellenistic Greek. The participle used to strengthen the finite verb is the regular Hebrew idiom of the absolute with the finite verb: see 4:2 (excedens excessit); 5:30 (odiens odisti). For other examples see Gunkel (in Kautzsch, Die Apokryphen u. Pseud. des Altes Testament, 332f); R. H. Charles (Enc Brit, X, 106). Ewald was the first to defend a Hebrew original, but in 1866 he was followed by his distinguished pupil Wellhausen and also by R. H. Charles (Apoc Bar, lxxii).<P>4. Versions:<P>(1) Latin.<P>The Latin version is far the most important and on it the English Versions of the Bible depends. But all published editions of the Latin text (those of Fabricius, Hilgenfeld, Fritzsche, etc.) go back to one and the same MS, the so-called Codex Sangermanensis (date 822), which omits a large part of the text between 2Esdras 7:36 and 7:37 Any reader of the English text can see the lack of continuity between these verses. In 1875 Bensly published the missing fragment with an Introduction and critical notes. In 1895 Bensly and James published a critical edition of The Fourth Book of Ezra in Latin, restoring the missing fragment and correcting with the aid of the best-known manuscripts.<P>(2) Other Versions.<P>There are Syriac (Peshitta), Ethiopic, Arabic, Armenian and yet other VSS, but all depend on the lost Greek except one of the two extant Arabic translations. The number and variety of versions show that 2Esdras was widely circulated. By the Greek and Latin Fathers it was quoted as a genuine prophetical work. Its importance in the estimation of the medieval Roman church is vouched for by the fact that it has reached us in a number of wellknown manuscripts of the Scriptures, and that it was added to the authorized Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 AD.) as an appendix.<P>5. Origin of the Book:<P>Two main views may briefly be noted:<P>(1) That of Kabisch (Das vierte Buch Esra, 1889) who holds that the editor of the book freely used a goodly number of sources, subtracting, adding and altering to suit his purpose. He gives a list of probable sources. R. H. Charles (Enc Brit, X, 107) is inclined to adopt this analysis.<P>(2) Gunkel (loc. cit.) maintains and tries to prove that the book is the production of a single writer. Yet he admits that the book contains a large number of inconsistencies which he explains by assuming that the editor made free use of oral and written traditions. The two views do not therefore stand very far apart, for both take for granted that several sources have been used. It is simply a question of more or less.<P>Wellhausen is probably right in saying that the author of 2 (4) Esdras had before him the Apocrypha of Baruch, written under the impression awakened by the destruction of Jerusalem in 71 AD.<P>6. Date:<P>The opinion of the best modern scholars is that the book was written somewhere in the East in the last decade of the 1st century of our era. This conclusion rests mainly on the most likely interpretation of the vision of the Eagle and the Lion in 2Esdras 11:1-12:51; but also on the fact that Clement of Alexandria (died 217 AD) quotes the Greek of 5:35.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Besides the literature referred to above see Schurer, A Hist of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, II, iii, 93ff (Ger. edition 4, III, 315ff); the articles in HDB (Thackeray) and Encyclopedia Biblica (James); the New Sch-Herz under the word "Pseudepigrapha, Old Testament" (G. Beer), and in the present work under <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCRYPHA">APOCRYPHA</a> and <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCALYPTIC+LITERATURE">APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE</A>.``33';
|
||
isbe[3190]='Esdris`ez\'-dris, es\'-dris (Esdris):<P>A leader mentioned in 2Macc 12:36 in best texts and adopted in the Revised Version (British and American) for Gorgias of the King James Version. Grotius conjectured "men of Ephron" from 12:27.``1';
|
||
isbe[3191]='Esebon`es\'-e-bon (Judith 5:15) = <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HESHBON">HESHBON</a> (Revised Version (British and American)), the chief city of the Ammonites.``1';
|
||
isbe[3192]='Esebrias`es-e-bri\'-as, e-se\'-bri-as.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ESEREBIAS">ESEREBIAS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHEREBIAH">SHEREBIAH</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3193]='Esek`e\'-sek (eseq; Septuagint Adikia):<P>The name given by Isaac to a well dug by his servants, for the use of which the herdsmen of Gerar strove with them<65>"contention" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,20);">Ge 26:20</a>). It lay in the neighborhood of Rehoboth and Gerar: but the site is not identified.``1';
|
||
isbe[3194]='Eserebias`es-er-e-bi\'-as (Eserebias):<P>One of the chiefs of the priests (1Esdras 8:54).``1';
|
||
isbe[3195]='Eshan`e\'-shan (\'esh\'an; Esan; the King James Version Eshean):<P>A town of Judah in the uplands of Hebron (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,52);">Jos 15:52</a>). No satisfactory identification has yet been suggested. Some think the name may be a corruption of Beersheba (Encyclopaedia Biblica, which see).``1';
|
||
isbe[3196]='Eshbaal`esh\'-ba-al.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ISH+BOSHETH">ISH-BOSHETH</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3197]='Eshban`esh\'-ban (\'eshban; perhaps "thoughtful," "intelligent"; Asban):<P>Name of a chief of the Horites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,26);">Ge 36:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,41);">1Ch 1:41</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[3198]='Eshcol (1)`esh\'-kol (\'eshkol, "cluster"; Eschol):<P>The brother of Mamre and Aner, the Amorite allies of Abraham who took part with him in the pursuit and defeat of Chedorlaomer\'s forces (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,13,14);">Ge 14:13-14</a>). He lived in the neighborhood of Hebron (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,18);">Ge 13:18</a>), and may have given his name to the valley of Eshcol, which lay a little north of Hebron (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,23);">Nu 13:23</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[3199]='Eshcol (2)`esh\'-kol (\'eshkol; Pharagx botruos), "a cluster of grapes":<P>The spies came to Hebron "and they came unto the valley of Eshcol, and cut down from thence a branch with one cluster of grapes" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,23,24);">Nu 13:23-24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',32,9);">32:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',1,24);">De 1:24</a>). It was a valley near Hebron rich in vineyards. Fruitful vineyards are still the most characteristic feature of the environs of Hebron, especially on the North. No particular valley can be identified, though popular tradition favors the wide and fertile valley, near the traditional site of "Abraham\'s oak," a little to the west of the carriage road just before it enters the outskirts of Hebron.``117';
|
||
isbe[3200]='Eshean`esh\'-e-an, e\'-she-an.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ESHAN">ESHAN</a>`1';
|
||
</script>
|
||
<script src="./study/isbe/author.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
|
||
<script src="./study/isbe/isbeDisplay.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
|
||
<script src="./js/MainFooter.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
|
||
|