112 lines
295 KiB
HTML
112 lines
295 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[3901]='Gospels, the Synoptic`si-nop\'-tik:<P><b>I. INTRODUCTORY</b><P class="in15">1. Scope of this Article<P class="in15">2. The Gospels in Church Tradition<P><b>II. THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM</b><P class="in15">1. Nature of the Problem<P class="in15">2. Proposed Solutions<P class="in30">(1) Oral Gospel<P class="in30">(2) Mutual Use<P class="in30">(3) Hypothesis of Sources<P class="in30">(4) Other Sources<P><b>III. LITERARY ANALYSIS AND ORAL TRADITION</b><P class="in15">1. The Problem not Solely a Literary One<P class="in15">2. Influence of Oral Instruction<P><b>IV. ORDER OF EVENTS AND TIME OF HAPPENINGS IN THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS</b><P class="in15">1. Range of Apostolic Witness<P class="in15">2. Bearing on Order<P class="in15">3. Time of Happenings<P><b>V. DATING OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS</b><P class="in15">1. Return to Earlier Dating<P class="in15">2. The Material Still Older<P><b>VI. THE MESSIANIC IDEA IN ITS BEARINGS ON HISTORICITY OF THE GOSPELS</b><P class="in15">1. The Jewish and Christian Messiah<P class="in15">2. Originality of the Christian Conception<P class="in15">3. The Messianic Hope<P><b>VII. THE OLD TESTAMENT IN ITS BEARINGS ON THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS</b><P><b>VIII. THE JESUS OF THE GOSPELS AS THINKER</b><P class="in15">1. The Ethics of Jesus<P class="in15">2. Jesus as Thinker<P><b>IX. THE PROBLEM OF THE GOSPELS</b><P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. Introductory.<P>1. Scope of Article:<P>The present article is confined to the consideration of the relations and general features of the first 3 Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke)—ordinarily named "the Synoptic Gospels," because, in contrast with the Fourth Gospel, they present, as embodying a common tradition, the same general view of the life and teaching of Jesus during His earthly ministry, and of His death and resurrection. The Fourth Gospel, in itself and in its relation to the Synoptics, with the Johannine literature and theology generally, are treated in special articles.<P>See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=JOHN,+GOSPEL+OF">JOHN, GOSPEL OF</a>; <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=JOHANNINE+THEOLOGY,+1">JOHANNINE THEOLOGY</A>, etc.<P>2. The Gospels in Church Tradition:<P>The place of the Gospels in church tradition is secure. Eusebius places the 4 Gospels among the books that were never disputed in the church (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 25). It is acknowledged that by the end of the 2nd century these 4 Gospels, and none else, ascribed to the authors whose names they bear, were in universal circulation and undisputed use throughout the church, stood at the head of church catalogues and of all VSS, were freely used, not only by the Fathers of the church (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement, Origen, etc.), but by pagans and heretics, and by these also were ascribed to the disciples of Christ as their authors. Justin Martyr, in the middle of the century, freely quotes from "Memoirs of the Apostles," "which are called Gospels," "composed by the apostles and those that followed them" (1 Apol. 66-67; Dial. with Trypho,10,100, 103). What these Gospels were is made apparent by the Diatessaron, or Harmony of Four, of his disciple Tatian (circa 170), constructed from the 4 Gospels we possess. The first to mention Matthew and Mark by name is Papias of Hierapolis (circa 120-30; in Euseb., HE, III, 39). Dr. Sanday is disposed to carry back the extracts from Papias to about 100 AD (Fourth Gospel, 151); Dr. Moffatt likewise says, "These explanations of Matthew and Mark must have been in circulation by the end of the 1st century" (Introduction to Lit. of New Testament, 187). The gist of the testimony of Papias is: "Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though he did not record in order, that which was either said or done by Christ"; "Matthew composed the Oracles (Logia) in Hebrew (Aramaic), and each one interpreted them as he was able." Eusebius evidently took what he quotes about Matthew and Mark from Papias to refer to our present Gospels, but a problem arises as to the relation of the Aramaic "Logia" said to be composed by Matthew to our canonical Greek Gospel, which was the only Gospel of Matthew known to the early Fathers. There is no ground for the supposition that the Jewish-Christian <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=HEBREWS,+GOSPEL+ACCORDING+TO+THE">GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE HEBREWS</a> (which see) was the original of the Greek Matthew; it was on the other hand derived from it. The Gnostic Marcion used a mutilated Luke. Compare further, below on dating, and for details see special articles on the respective Gospels; also <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=BIBLE+ THE,+I-III+INTRODUCTION">BIBLE</a>; <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=CANON+OF+THE+NEW+TESTAMENT">CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT</A>.<P>II. The Synoptic Problem.<P>1. Nature of the Problem:<P>Arising from their peculiar nature, there has always been a Synoptic problem, ever since the 3 Gospels appeared together in the Canon of the New Testament. No one could read these Gospels consecutively with attention, without being aware of the resemblances and differences in their contents. Each writer sets forth his own account without reference to the other two, and, with the partial exception of Luke (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,\'1-4\');">1:1-4</A>), does not tell his readers anything about the sources of his Gospel. A problem thus arose as to the relations of the three to one another, and the problem, though it approaches a solution, is not yet solved. A history of the Synoptic problem will be found in outline in many recent works; the most elaborate and best is in Zahn\'s Introduction, III. In it Zahn briefly indicates what the problem was as it presented itself to the church in the earlier centuries, and gives in detail the history of the discussion from the time of Lessing (1778) to the present day. It is not possible within the limits of this article to refer otherwise than briefly to these discussions, but it may be remarked that, as the discussion went on, large issues were raised; every attempt at solution seemed only to add to the difficulty of finding an adequate one; and at length it was seen that no more complex problem was ever set to literary criticism than that presented by the similarities and differences of the Synoptic Gospels.<P>2. Proposed Solutions:<P>Of the hypotheses which seek to account for these resemblances and differences, the following are the most important.<P>(1) Oral Gospel:<P>The hypothesis of oral tradition: This theory has rather fallen into disfavor among recent critics. Dr. Stanton, e.g., says, "The relations between the first 3 Gospels cannot be adequately explained simply by the influence of oral tradition" (Gospels as Historical Documents, II, 17; similarly Moffatt, in the work quoted 180ff). Briefly stated, theory is this. It assumes that each of the evangelists wrote independently of the others, and derived the substance of his writing, not from written sources, but from oral narratives of sayings and doings of Jesus, which, through dint of repetition, had assumed a relatively fixed form. The teaching of the apostles, first given in Jerusalem, repeated in the catechetical schools (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,4);">Lu 1:4</a>, the Revised Version (British and American)), and entrusted to the trained memories of the Christian converts, is held to be sufficient to account for the phenomena of the 3 Gospels. The oral Gospel took its essential form in Palestine, and written editions of it would by and by appear in more or less complete form (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,1);">Lu 1:1</a>). The first distinguished advocate of the oral hypothesis was Gieseler (1818). It was upheld in Britain by Alford and Westcott, and is today advocated, with modifications, by Dr. A. Wright in his Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek (2nd edition, 1908).<P>(2) Mutual Use:<P>As old as Augustine, this hypothesis, which assumes the use of one of the Gospels by the other two, has been frequently advocated by scholars of repute in the history of criticism. There have been many variations of theory. Each of the 3 Gospels has been put first, each second, and each third, and each in turn has been regarded as the source of the others. In fact, all possible permutations (6 in number) have been exhausted. As the hypothesis has few advocates at the present day, it is not necessary to give a minute account of these permutations and combinations. Two of them which may be regarded as finally excluded are<P>(a) those which put Luke first; and<P>(b) those which put Mark last (the view of Augustine; in modern times, of F. Baur and the Tubingen school).<P>(3) Hypothesis of Sources:<P>This is theory which may be said to hold the field at the present time. The tendency in criticism is toward the acceptance of two main sources for the Synoptic Gospels.<P>(a) One source is a Gospel like, if not identical with, the canonical Gospel of Mark. As regards this 2nd Gospel there is a consensus of opinion that it is prior to the other two, and the view that the 2nd and 3rd used it as a source is described as the one solid result of literary criticism. Eminent critics of various schools of thought are agreed on this point (compare W.C. Allen, Matthew, Pref. vii; F.C. Burkitt, Gospel History and Its Transmission, 37). It has been shown that most of the contents of Mark have been embodied in the other two, that the order of events in Mark has been largely followed by Matthew and Luke, and that the departures from the style of Mark can be accounted for by the hypothesis of editorial amendment.<P>(b) The other source (now commonly named Q) is found first by an examination of the matter not contained in the 2nd Gospel, which is common to Matthew and Luke. While there are differences as to the extent and character of the 2nd source, there is something like general agreement as to its existence. It is not agreed as to whether this source contained narratives of events, as well as sayings, or whether it was a book of sayings alone (the former is thought to be the more probable view), nor is it agreed as to whether it contained an account of the Passion week (on the differing views of the extent of Q, see Moffatt, op. cit., 197ff); but while disagreement exists as to these and other points, the tendency, as said, is to accept a "two-source" theory in some form as the only sufficient account of the phenomena of the Gospels.<P>(4) Other Sources:<P>To make the source-theory probable, some account must be taken of other sources beyond the two enumerated above. Both the 1st and the 3rd Gospels contain material not borrowed from these sources. There is the fore-history of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,2);">Mt 1:2</a>, which belongs to that Gospel alone, with other things likewise recorded by Matthew (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',9,\'27-34\');">9:27-34</>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,22);">12:22</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',14,\'28-33\');">14:28-33</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',17,24);">17:24</A>ff, etc.). Then not only has Luke a fore-history (chapters <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,\'1-\');">1</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,\'1-\');">2</A>), but a large part of his Gospel consists of material found nowhere else (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,\'11-16\',\'36-50\');">7:11-16, 36-50</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,25);">10:25</a>ff; parables in chapters <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',15,\'1-\');">15</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,\'1-\');">16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,\'1-14\');">18:1-14</A>, etc.). This Sondergut of Matthew and Luke will be more appropriately treated in the articles which deal with these Gospels respectively. Here it is sufficient to point out that the criticism of the Synoptic Gospels is not complete till it has found a probable source<P>(a) for what is common to them all,<P>(b) for what is common to any two of them, and<P>(c) for what is peculiar to each.<P>The literature on the subject is so voluminous that only a few references can be given. In addition to those named, the following works may suffice to set forth the present condition of the Synoptic problem: B. Weiss, Introduction to New Testament, and other works; Harnack, Luke the Physician, The Sayings of Jesus, The Acts of the Apostles, Date of the Acts of the Apostles and of the Synoptic Gospels (English translations); Wellhausen, Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien, and works on each of the Synoptic Gospels, especially Studies in the Synoptic Problem, edited by Dr. Sanday.<P>III. Literary Analysis and Oral Tradition.<P>1. The Problem Not Solely a Literary One:<P>Looked at merely as a problem of literary analysis, it is scarcely possible to advance farther than has been done in the works of Harnack, of Sanday and his co-adjutors, and of Stanton, referred to above. The work done has been of the most patient and persevering kind. No clue has been neglected, no labor has been spared, and the interrelations of the three Gospels have been almost exhaustively explored. Yet the problem remains unsolved. For it must not be forgotten that the materials of the Synoptic Gospels were in existence before they assumed a written form. Literary analysis is apt to forget this obvious fact, and to proceed by literary comparison alone. The Gospel was confessedly at first and for some years a spoken Gospel, and this fact has to be taken into account in any adequate attempt to understand the phenomena. It is not enough to say with Dr. Stanton that "the relations of the first three Gospels cannot be adequately explained simply by the influence of oral tradition"; for the question arises, Can the relations between the first three Gospels be explained simply by the results of literary analysis, be it as exhaustive and thorough as it may? Let it be granted that literary analysis has accomplished a great deal; that it has almost compelled assent to the two-source hypothesis; that it has finally made good the priority of Mk; that it has made out a probable source consisting mainly of sayings of Jesus, yet many problems remain which literary analysis cannot touch, at least has not touched. There is the problem of the order of events in the Gospels, which is so far followed by all three. How are we to account for that sequence? Is it sufficient to say, as some do, that Mark set the style of the Gospel narrative, and that the others so far followed that style? All Gospels must follow the method set by Mark, so it is affirmed. But if that is the case, how did Matthew and Luke depart from that copy by writing a fore-history? Why did they compile a genealogy? Why did they give so large a space to the sayings of Jesus, and add so much not contained in the Gospel which, on the hypothesis, set the pattern of what a Gospel ought to be? These questions cannot be answered on the hypothesis that the others simply followed a fashion set by Mark. Sometimes the 2nd Gospel is described as if it were suddenly launched on the Christian world; as if no one had ever heard of the story contained in it before Mark wrote it. From the nature of the case, it is obvious that the church had knowledge of many of the facts in the life of Christ, and was in possession of much of His teaching before any of the Gospels were written. So much is plain from the Epistles of Paul. How many facts about Jesus, and how much of His teaching may be gathered from these epistles, we do not inquire at present. But we do learn much from Paul about the historical Jesus.<P>2. Influence of Oral Instruction:<P>The Christian church in its earlier form arose out of the teaching, example and influence of the apostles at Jerusalem. It was based on apostolic testimony as to the life, character, teaching, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That testimony told the church what Jesus had done, what He had taught, and of the belief of the apostles as to what He was, and what He continued to be. We read that the early church "continued steadfastly in the apostles\' teaching and fellowship" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,42);">Ac 2:42</a>). The "teaching" consisted of reminiscences of the Lord, of interpretations of the facts about Jesus and of agreements between these and the Old Testament. The first instruction given to the church was oral. Of this fact there can be no doubt. How long oral teaching continued we may not say, but it is likely that it continued as long as the apostles dwelt together at Jerusalem. To them an appeal could constantly be made. There was also the strictly catechetical teaching given to the converts, and this teaching would be given after the manner to which they had been accustomed in their earlier education. It consisted mainly in committing accurately to memory, and in repetition from memory (see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=CATECHIST">CATECHIST</a>; <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=CATECHUMEN">CATECHUMEN</a>. There would thus be a stricter tradition, as it was taught in the catechetical classes, and a looser tradition which consisted of as much as the people could carry with them from the preaching of the apostles at the weekly assemblies. Those, besides, who were present at the day of Pentecost, and others present at the feasts at Jerusalem, who had passed under Christian influence, would carry with them on their return to their homes some knowledge of the life and death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. It may have been a meager Gospel that these carried with them to Antioch, to Rome, or to other cities in which the diaspora dwelt. But that they did carry a Gospel with them is plain, for from their testimony arose the church at Antioch, where the Christians had without question a knowledge of the Gospel, which informed their faith and guided their action.<P>IV. Order of Events and Time of Happenings in the Synoptic Gospels.<P>1. Range of Apostolic Witness:<P>It is known from Acts that the main topic of the preaching of the apostles was the resurrection of the Lord. "With great power gave the apostles their witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',4,33);">Ac 4:33</a>). It is evident, however, that the apostolic witness would not be limited to the events of the Passion week, or to the fact of the resurrection. There would arise a thirst for information regarding the life of Jesus, what He had done, what He had said, what manner of life He had lived, and what teaching He had given. Accounts of Him and of His work would be given by the apostles, and once these accounts were given, they would continue to be given in the same form. Tell a story to a child and he will demand that it be always given in the form in which he first knew it. Hearers of a story are impatient of variations in the subsequent telling of it. Memory is very tenacious and very conservative.<P>2. Bearing on Order:<P>It is clear that the first lessons of the apostles were accounts of the Passion week, and of the resurrection. But it went backward to events and incidents in the life of Jesus, and as we read the Synoptic Gospels, we soon see that the order was dictated by the events themselves. They are grouped together for no other reason than that they happened so. Most of the incidents are hung on a geographical thread. In the 2nd Gospel, which seems to preserve most faithfully the traditional order, this is obvious to every attentive reader; but in all the 3 Gospels many of the narratives go in well-established cycles. To take only one illustration, where many might be instanced, the healing of the woman with the issue of blood is represented as occurring in the course of the walk to the house of Jairus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',5,21);">Mr 5:21</a>). The only explanation is that this was the actual mode of its happening. Events happened, incidents arose, in the course of the journeys of Jesus and His disciples, words were also spoken, and in the memories of the disciples, when the journey was recalled, there arose also what had happened in the course of the journey. In fact, as we follow the journey through Galilee, to the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, through Samaria, down the valley of the Jordan, through Jericho to Jerusalem, we find that the grouping of the material of the Gospels is determined by the facts. Most of what is recorded happened in the course of the journeys, and was borne in the memories of the disciples in the order of its happening. The order, then, is not arbitrary, nor is it the product of reflection; it is the outcome of the facts. It is true that in pursuance of their several plans, Luke sometimes, Matthew frequently, deserts the order of Mark, but it is noteworthy that they never do so together. As Professor Burkitt says, "Matthew and Luke never agree against Mark in transposing a narrative. Luke sometimes deserts the order of Mark, and Matthew often does so; but in these cases Mark is always supported by the remaining Gospel" (op. cit., 36). In Matthew, after <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,1);">19:1</a>, the events follow each other quite as in Mark.<P>3. Time of Happenings:<P>When one studies the rather kaleidoscopic political geography of Palestine in the first 40 years of our era, he will find many confirmations of the historic situation in the Synoptic Gospels. The birth of Jesus was in the time of Herod the Great, when the whole of Palestine was under one government. After the death of Herod, Palestine was under several rulers. Archelaus had possession of Judea until the year 9 AD. Galilee was under Herod Antipas until the year 37, and the tetrarchy of Philip had a distinct government of its own. About the year 40 Palestine was again under one government under Herod Agrippa. Now it is clear that the events of the Gospels happened while Herod Antipas ruled in Galilee and Peraea, and while Pilate was procurator in Judea (see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=CHRONOLOGY+OF+THE+NEW+TESTAMENT">CHRONOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT</a>, and <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=JESUS+CHRIST,+1+OUTLINE">JESUS CHRIST</A>). Nor is the significance of this environment exhausted by the reference to the time. As Professor Burkitt has shown (op. cit., in his chapter entitled "Jesus in Exile"), in the itinerary recorded in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',5,\'1-\');">Mr 5</a>, the parts avoided are the dominions of Herod Antipas. It is said in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,6);">Mr 3:6</a>, "And the Pharisees went out, and straightway with the Herodians took counsel against him, how they might destroy him." The significance of this alliance between the Pharisees and the Herodians is well drawn out by Professor Burkitt in the work cited above. It is simply noted by Mark, and on it the evangelist makes no remark. But the conspiracy had a great effect on the work of Jesus. A little later we find Jesus no more in any of the synagogues. He devotes Himself to the training of the Twelve, and is outside of the dominions of Herod Antipas. It is not to be forgotten that during these months Jesus is an exile from His own land, and it was during that period of exile that the issue of His work became clear to Him, and from the time of the great confession at Caesarea-Philippi He began to tell His disciples of the decease that He should accomplish at Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,13);">Mt 16:13</a>ff parallel).<P>V. Dating of the Synoptic Gospels.<P>1. Return to Earlier Dating:<P>The question as to the dates at which the Synoptic Gospels appear in a published form may more suitably be dealt with in connection with the articles on the separate Gospels. It need only be observed here that opinion is tending toward much earlier dates than were common till lately. By all but extreme writers it is now admitted that the first 3 Gospels fall well within the limits of the apostolic age. In the Preface to his work on Luke (1906), Harnack reminded his readers that 10 years before he had told them that "in the criticism of the sources of the oldest Christianity we are in a movement backward to tradition." The dates he formerly favored were, for Mark between 65 and 70 AD, for Matthew between 70 and 75, for Luke between 78 and 23. Harnack\'s more recent pronouncement as to the date of Acts, which he states with all the emphasis of italics, "It seems now to be established beyond question that both books of this great historical work were written while Paul was yet alive" (Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels,124,English translation), must have a determining influence on critical opinion. If Acts were written during the lifetime of Paul (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',28,30);">Ac 28:30</a>f), then the 3rd Gospel must have been written earlier. It is likely that Luke had all his material in hand during the imprisonment of Paul at Caesarea. If he made use of the 2nd Gospel, then Mark must have had a still earlier date, and the whole problem of the dating of the Gospels is revolutionized. The essential thing is that the 3 Gospels were probably written and published before the destruction of Jerusalem (70 AD). There is nothing in their contents that makes this view untenable.<P>2. The Material Still Older:<P>It is still to be remembered, however, that the materials of which the Gospels are composed existed before they were put into a written form. Every discussion must take note of that fact. The literature of the New Testament presupposes just such accounts of the life of Jesus as we find in the Synoptic Gospels, and readers of the Gospels have a right to rest on their veracity and sufficiency as accounts of Jesus, of what He was, what He said, and what He did. They are their own best witnesses.<P>VI. The Messianic Idea in Its Bearings on Historicity of the Gospels.<P>1. The Jewish and the Christian Messiah:<P>In a striking passage in his Das Evangelium Marci (65, 66), Wellhausen vividly sets forth the significant contrast between the Jewish and the Christian conceptions of the Messiah. We quote the words, notwithstanding the fact that Wellhausen does not regard the passage, <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,31);">Mr 8:31</a>ff, as historical. With him what is set forth there is not the figure of the historical Jesus, but a picture of the persecuted church.<P>"The confession of Peter, \'Thou art the Messiah,\' affords," he says, "the occasion for the setting forth of what up to this time was latent. He has elicited the confession and accepted it. Nevertheless, He accepts it with a correction; a correction that follows as a matter of course. He is not the Messiah who will restore the kingdom of Israel, but another Messiah altogether. Not to set up the kingdom does He go to Jerusalem, but He goes in order to be crucified. Through sorrow and death He goes into glory, and only by this way can others also enter. The kingdom of God is no Judaistic kingdom; the kingdom is destined only for some chosen individuals, for disciples. The thought of the possibility of a metanoia of the people has wholly disappeared. Into the place of a command to repent addressed to all steps the command to follow, and that can be obeyed only by a very few. The conception of following loses now its proper forces and takes a higher meaning. It does not mean what it meant up to this time, namely, to accompany and to follow Him during His lifetime; it overflows that meaning; one is to follow Him even unto death. The following is an imitatio possible only after His death, and this is to be attained only by a very few. One must bear his cross after Him....The situation of the oldest congregation and its tone is here foreshadowed by Jesus as He goes to meet his fate."<P>A similar passage occurs in the Einleitung, which ends with the significant sentence, "All these are noteworthy signs of the time in which He takes His standpoint" (81).<P>2. Originality of the Christian Conception:<P>Elsewhere Wellhausen admits that the sections of the Gospels following the scene at Caesarea-Philippi contain what was known as the distinctive Gospel of the apostolic church. But this Gospel owed its origin to the apostolic church itself. It is a question of the highest importance, and the answer cannot be determined by mere literary criticism: Is the Christian conception of the Messiah due to Jesus? or is it due to the reflection of the church? Which is the more probable? It is agreed, Wellhausen being witness, that the Christian conception was subversive of the Jewish outlook, that the two were in contradiction in many ways. One can understand the Christian conception, and its triumph over the Jewish among the Christian people, if it had been set forth by the Master; but it is unintelligible as a something which originated in the congregation itself. The conception of a crucified Messiah, of a suffering Saviour, was a conception which was, during the years of His earthly ministry, in the mind of Jesus alone. It was not in the minds of the disciples, until He had risen from the dead. And it was not in the minds of His contemporaries. But it was the ruling conception in the Jerusalem church as it is in the Epistles of Paul. No: the conception of the suffering Saviour was not the invention of the church, nor did it rise from her thought of her own needs; it was a gift to her from the suffering and risen Lord. Not without a great impulse, nor without a strong source of persuasion, do men displace notions which they have cherished for generations, and substitute notions which are contradictory and subversive of those fiercely and firmly held.<P>We take these chapters therefore as historical, and as descriptive of the historical Jesus. If we can do so, then the matter is intelligible, not otherwise. It is also to be observed in this relation that the needs of the church are new needs. There is no provision in the New Testament for the needs of the natural man. The critical view often puts the cart before the horse, and this is one illustration of the fact. The needs of the church are the creation of Christ. They are new needs, or needs only imperfectly felt by humanity before Jesus came.<P>3. The Messianic Hope:<P>Be the needs of the church as great as they may, they are not creative; they are only responsive to the higher call. Nor is it a possible hypothesis that lies at the basis of the criticism of Wellhausen and of many others. Since the time of Baur it has often been said or assumed that it was the Messianic hope that gave concreteness to Christianity; that through the prevalence of the Messianic hope, Christianity was enabled to enter on its career of victory. This is another case of the husteron proteron. It is the historical Jesus that has given concreteness and definiteness to the Messianic conceptions which were current in His time. Because at the heart of the Christian conception there was this concrete gracious figure, and because of the commanding influence of Jesus Christ, this form of Messianism entered into human life, flourished and endured, and is with us today. Other forms of Messianism have only an antiquarian value. They may be discussed as of literary interest, but their practical significance is as nothing. No doubt Messianic categories were ransacked by the church to see if they could be used in order more fully to set forth the significance of Jesus Christ. But the essence of the matter did not lie in them but in Him, whom they had known, loved and served. It is time that a newer critical assumption should be found than the obsolete, worn-out one that the church invented the Christ. We know a little of the early church, and we know its immaturity and its limitations. We have learned something, too, of the Jews at the time of our Lord, and we note that in the Gospels their limitations have been transcended, their immaturity has been overcome, and how? By the fact of Christ. He is so great that He must be real. VII. The Old Testament in Its Bearing on the Synoptic Gospels.<P>It is always to be remembered that the Old Testament was the Bible of the early Christians. They accepted it as the Word of God, and as authoritative for the guidance of life and conduct. It is one thing to admit and assert this; it is another thing to say that the story of the Old Testament molded and directed the story of Jesus as it is in the Synoptic Gospels. This has been widely asserted, but without adequate proof. As a matter of fact Christianity, when it accepted the Old Testament as the word of God, interpreted it in a fashion which had not been accented before. It interpreted it in the light of Jesus Christ. Tendencies, facts, meanings, which had been in the Old Testament came into light, and the Bible of the Christians was a Bible which testified of Christ. That on which the Jews laid stress passed into the background, and that which they had neglected came into prominence. This view is set forth by Paul: "Unto this day, whenever Moses is read, a veil lieth upon their heart" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',3,15);">2Co 3:15</a>). Or as it is put in Luke, "O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Behooved it not the Christ to suffer these things, and to enter into his glory?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,35);">24:25</A>f). In the Christian interpretation stress was laid on meanings which Jewish readers had neglected, and so the church read the Old Testament in the new light, and things formerly hidden leaped into view. So the suffering servant of Yahweh became for them the keystone of the Old Testament, and the ritual sacrifices and ceremonies of the Old Testament obtained a new meaning. The story of Israel and of its patriarchs, lawgivers, priests, kings and prophets, became full of significance for the new religion, and its psalms and prophecies were searched because they testified of Christ. This is not the place to inquire into the truth of the Christian interpretation, but the fact is undeniable. The inference is that the Old Testament did not, as it was understood by the Jews, influence the conceptions which the church had of Christ; rather the influence of Christ, His commanding personality, and His history gave a new meaning to the Old Testament, a meaning undreamed of before. The Epistle to the Hebrews might have as an alternative title, "How to find Christ in the Old Testament." So powerful was the impression made on the disciples by the personality of Jesus, by His whole demeanor, by His teaching, His life, death and resurrection, that they saw all things in the light of it. The difficulty we have in justifying the references to prophecy, in the light of historical criticism, is a testimony to the fact that the prophecy did not dictate the fact; it was the fact that dictated the accommodation of the prophecy. In this relation also, the supreme fact is the personality of Jesus.<P>VIII. The Jesus of the Gospels as Thinker.<P>1. The Ethics of Jesus:<P>Turning from the conception of the suffering Saviour in the Synoptics, we come to the aspect of Jesus as teacher and thinker, and here also we find abundant evidence of the historical character of the Gospel presentation. As the ethics of Jesus are treated in another article, it is sufficient to say here that the conception of the ethical man and His conduct set forth in His teaching is of unusual breadth, and when worked out in detail, yields an ideal of man in himself, and in relation to others, which transcends all other ethical teaching known to mankind. This, too, we must trace to His unique personality, and not to the reflection of the church.<P>2. Jesus as Thinker:<P>A glance may be taken at Jesus under His more general aspect as thinker. As thinker, Jesus stands alone. He speaks with authority, and whoever understands must obey. The Synoptic Gospels, in this respect, are unique. There is nothing like them in literature. Not even in the Bible is there anything to compare with them. Even in the other books of the New Testament we do not find anything like the attitude of Jesus to the common things of life. The world\'s literature shows no parallel to the parables of the Gospels. Here, at any rate, we are on safe ground in saying that these are not due to the reflection of the church. They have an individual stamp which accredits them as the product of one mind. But a great deal more may be said on the characteristic features of the thinking of Jesus. He is the only thinker who goes straight from the common things of daily life and daily experience into the deepest mysteries of life. The deepest thoughts which man can think are suggested to Him by what everybody sees or does. It is not easy within reasonable limits to do justice to this feature of the Synoptic Gospels. Jesus is at home amid the common things and common occupations of life, because He discerns the Father\'s presence in them all. What a series of pictures of the world, and of occupations of men, could be gathered from these Gospels! This feature of them was neglected until men under the teaching of poets and painters returned into sympathy with external Nature. We are only beginning to see what wealth, from this point of view, is in the Gospels. Poetic sympathy with Nature is a comparatively modern attainment, yet it is in the Gospels. Wind and weather, mountain and valley, seedtime and harvest, summer and winter, sowing and reaping, buying and selling, all are there, transfigured into higher meanings, and made vocal of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. Other thinkers rise gradually, and by many steps, from common experience, into what they have to describe of the higher thought and wider generalizations through which they seek to interpret the mystery of life and of the universe. But this thinker needs no middle terms. He sees, e.g., a woman preparing bread for the use of the family, and in this process perceives the mystery of the kingdom of heaven. Whenever He touches on these common things, immediately they are transfigured. They become luminous with the presence of the spiritual world, and earth becomes full of heaven, and every bush is aflame with God.<P>We note these things because they have a close bearing on the origin and character of the Synoptic Gospels. They bear the stamp of a unique, a creative personality. Be the processes through which the materials of the Gospels have passed what they may, yet these have not obliterated nor blurred the essential characteristics of that unique personality. When the comparisons of the similarities and differences of the Gospels have been exhausted, the problem of their origin remains, and that problem can be solved only by the recognition of a creative personality who alike by word and work was unlike any other that the world has ever seen.<P>IX. The Problem of the Gospels.<P>The Jesus of the Gospels is the Son of God. Stated in its highest form, the problem which the evangelists had in hand was how to represent a Divine being under human conditions, and to set Him forth in such a way that in that presentation there should be nothing unworthy of the Divine, and nothing inconsistent with the human conditions under which He worked and lived. This was the greatest problem ever set to literature, and how the evangelists presented and solved it is found in the Gospels. There it has been solved. Even a writer like Bousset admits: "Already for Mark is Jesus not only the Messiah of the Jewish people, but the miraculous eternal Son of God, whose glory shone in the world....For the faith of the community, which the oldest evangelist already shares, Jesus is the miraculous Son of God, in whom men believe, whom men put wholly on the side of God" (Was wissen wir von Jesus? 54, 57). The contrast between the Jesus of the Synoptics and the Pauline and Johannine Christ, so often emphasized, thus begins to disappear. The purpose of the Synoptics, as of John, is to lead men to "believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God," that, believing, they "may have life in his name" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,31);">Joh 20:31</a>).<P>LITERATURE.<P>Besides the works mentioned in the article, reference may be made to the following: E.A. Abbott, article "Gospels" in Encyclopedia Britannica (11th edition), edition 9 (with Rushbrooke), Common Tradition of the Synoptic Gospels, and other works; Sanday, Gospels in the 2nd Century, The Life of Christ in Recent Criticism; Sir John Hawkins, Horae Synopticae; G. Salmon, Introduction to New Testament; H. Chase, "The Gospels in the Light of Historical Criticism," Essay X in Cambridge Biblical Essays, edited by Dr. Swete (1905); H. L. Jackson, "The Present State of the Synop, tic Problem," Essay XIII in Cambridge Biblical Essays, edited by Dr. Swete (1909); Peake, Introduction to New Testament; A. Loisy, Les evangiles synoptiques (1907-8); J.M. Thomson, The Synoptic Gospels, Arranged in Parallel Cols. (1910; this scholarly work does for English Versions of the Bible what such works as Greswell\'s Harmonia Evangelica, Rushbrooke\'s Synopticon and Wright\'s Synopsis have done for the Greek texts); A.A. Hobson, The Diatessaron of Tatian and the Synoptic Problem (The University of Chicago Press, 1904).``83';
|
||
isbe[3902]='Gothic, Version`goth\'-ik.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=VERSIONS">VERSIONS</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3903]='Gotholias`goth-o-li\'-as (Gotholias): Father of Josias, one of the sons of Elam who returned from Babylon with Ezra (1Esdras 8:33). The name corresponds to Athaliah, the Greek Gotholias being substituted for the Hebrew guttural \'ayin, as in Gomorrah, Gaza, etc. Taken with <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',11,1);">2Ki 11:1</a>, the name would seem to have been used for both men and women.``1';
|
||
isbe[3904]='Gothoniel`go-tho\'-ni-el (Gothoniel): The same as Othniel, father of Chabris who was one of the governors of the city of Bethulia (Judith 6:15).``1';
|
||
isbe[3905]='Gourd`gord, goord (qiqayon): The Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) has hedera ("ivy"), which is impossible. Philologically qiqayon appears to be connected with kiki, which was the Egyptian name for the castor oil plant (Ricinus communis). This grows plentifully all over the Orient, and under favorable conditions may reach a height of 10 to 15 ft.; its larger leaves afford a grateful shade. The requirements of the narrative in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jon\',4,6);">Jon 4:6</a>ff are, however, much more suitably met by the "bottle gourd" (Cucurbita lagenaria), the Arab qar\'ah. This is a creeping, vinelike plant which may frequently be seen trained over the rough temporary sun-shelters erected in fields or by the roadside in Palestine and Mesopotamia.``117';
|
||
isbe[3906]='Gourd, Wild`wild (paqqu\'oth sadheh, <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',4,39);">2Ki 4:39</a>): The root paqa\', means "to split" or "burst open," and on this ground these "wild gourds" have been identified with the fruit of the squirting cucumber (Ecballium elaterium). This little gourd, 1 1//2 to 2 inches long, when fully ripe falls suddenly when touched or shaken, the bitter, irritating juice is squirted to a considerable distance, and the seeds are thrown all around. It is exceedingly common in Palestine, and its familiar poisonous properties, as a drastic cathartic, made it unlikely that under any circumstances its fruit could be mistaken for any edible gourd; it is, too, in no way vinelike ("wild vine," <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',4,39);">2Ki 4:39</a>) in appearance; the stem is stiff and upright, and there are no tendrils. The traditional plant, Cucumis prophetarium, which grows in the desert, and has very small "gourds," has nothing really to recommend it. By far the most probable plant is the Colocynth (Citrullus colocynthis), belonging like the last two, to Natural Order, Cucurbitaceae. This view has the support of the Septuagint and Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) It is a vinelike plant which spreads over the ground or attaches itself by its spiral tendrils to other plants. The rounded "gourds" are 3 inches or more in diameter, and contain a pulp intensely bitter and, in any but minute quantities, extremely poisonous.``117';
|
||
isbe[3907]='Government`guv\'-ern-ment: The government of the Hebrews varied at different periods, of which we may distinguish seven:<P>(1) The nomadic period, from the Exodus to the entrance into Palestine;<P>(2) The period of transition from nomadic to civil life;<P>(3) The monarchy;<P>(4) The period of subjection to other oriental nations;<P>(5) The period from Ezra to the Greeks;<P>(6) Greek rule;<P>(7) Roman rule.<HR /><P>1. The Nomadic Period:<P>The government of the primitive period is that proper to nomadic tribes composed of families and clans, in no wise peculiar to the Hebrews, but shared in its essential features by the most diverse peoples at a corresponding stage of civilization. Though we might draw illustrations from many sources, the government of the Bedouins, Semitic nomads inhabiting the steppes of Arabia, affords the most instructive parallel. In the patriarchal state the family is the household (including slaves and concubines) of the father, who is its head, having power of life and death over his children (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,\'1-\');">Ge 22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',11,31);">Jud 11:31</a>). A clan is a collection of families under a common chieftain, chosen for his personal qualifications, such as prowess and generous hospitality. The composition of the clan was essentially shifting, subject, according to circumstances, to the loss or accession of individuals and families. Although the possession of the same grazing-grounds doubtless played a large part in determining the complexion of the clan, the fiction of descent from a common ancestor was maintained, even when kinship was established by the blood covenant. In all probability community of worship, which cemented the tribe, served as the most effective bond of union also in the clan. Vestiges of such clan cults are still to be detected (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',20,5);">1Sa 20:5</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',18,19);">Jud 18:19</a>). The familiar tradition of the twelve tribes must not be allowed to blind us to the evidence that the tribe also was not constant. Mention of the Kenites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,16);">Jud 1:16</a>) and the list of tribes in the Song of Deborah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,\'1-\');">Jud 5</a>) remind us that such organizations vanished. In the readjustment incident to the change from the pastoral life of the nomad to that of the settled agricultural population of Palestine, many units were doubtless shifted from one tribe to another, and the same result may be assumed as following from the endless strife between the tribes before and during the period of the kings. The large and powerful tribe of Judah seems to have originated comparatively late. The union of the tribes under the leadership of Moses was essentially similar to the formation of a new tribe out of a group of clans actuated by a desire to accomplish a common end. Many such temporary aggregations must have originated, only to succumb to the centrifugal forces of jealousy and conflicting interests. Even after the entrance of the Hebrews into Palestine, their history for long is that of kindred tribes, rather than that of a nation. The leadership of Moses rested on personal, not on constitutional, authority, and was rendered precarious by the claims of family and of clan, as in the case of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',16,\'1-\');">Nu 16</a>). The authority of Moses naturally extended to the administration of justice, as well as to matters pertaining to war and religion. He appointed officers to assist him in this judicial function (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,21);">Ex 18:21</a>), but the laws according to which they rendered judgment were those of custom and usage, not those of a written code. As among the tribal chieftains, important matters were referred to the leader, who, in cases of doubt or in default of recognized custom, resorted to the lot or to the oracle.<P>2. The Period of Transition:<P>When the nomad tribes settled in Palestine to become an agricultural people, there ensued a period of unrest due to the necessity for read-justment to changed conditions. The old tribal organization, admirably adapted to the former, ill suited the new requirements. These may be summed up in the demand for the substitution of local organization, based on the rights of individuals, for the tribal government, which had regard solely to the interests of family, clan and tribe. Such readjustment did not, of course, at once ensue, but came piecemeal in answer to the gradually realized wants of the community. Nor was the development entirely from within, but was unquestionably in large measure influenced by the institutions existing among the Canaanite population, only a part of which had been expelled by the invaders. Although the tribes still clung to the fiction of descent from a common ancestor, which was embodied in the accepted genealogies with their filiation of clans into tribes and of tribes into a nation, that which henceforth passed as a "tribe" was less an aggregation of kindred units than a geographical unit or group of units. The times were turbulent, disturbed by contending elements within and by foes without the tribes. Then it was that there arose a class of chieftains of strongly marked character, called by a new name. The "judge" (shophet) was not the ruler of a nation, but the chieftain of a tribe, winning and maintaining his authority by virtue of his personal prowess. The cases of Gideon and Abimelech (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,\'1-\');">Jud 8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',9,\'1-\');">9</A>) show that the authority of the "judge" was not hereditary. Agreeably to the generally changed conditions, the "elders" (zeqenim), who were formerly heads of families or kindreds, now came, possibly under the influence of the Canaanites, to be constituted an aristocratic upper class, with certain functions as administrative officers and councilors. Cities also grew and acquired importance, so that the adjacent hamlets were subordinated to them, probably even ruled from them as executive centers. In all this there is a certain similarity to the process by which, in the period just preceding the beginning of real history, Athens became the metropolis of Attica, and conventional tribes supplanted those based on kinship, while the rise of the purely local organization of the demos led speedily to the appearance of the "tyrants." The high places of clans and tribes continued to be frequented, and certain "seers" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',9,6);">1Sa 9:6</a>) enjoyed considerable prestige by virtue of their peculiar relation to the tribal god.<P>3. The Monarchy:<P>While the succession of tribal chieftains and of the "judges" depended on personal qualifications, the principle of heredity is essential to the institution of monarchy, which originated in the desire to regulate the succession with a view to having an assured authoritative leadership. This principle could not, of course, be invoked in the appointment of Saul, the first king (melekh), who won this distinction in virtue of his personal prowess, supported by the powerful influence of the "seer," Samuel. His son Ishbosheth ruled two years over Israel, but lost his throne through the disaffection of his subjects (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',2,\'1-\');">2Sa 2-4</a>). The accession of David, king of Judah, to the throne of all Israel was likewise exceptional, owing as much to the character of the heir presumptive as to his own qualifications. Solomon, as the choice of his father David, succeeded by right of heredity with the support of the military and religious leaders. In the Southern Kingdom of Judah, heredity was henceforth observed because of its homogeneity and the consequent absence of internal discord; whereas the principle often failed in the turbulent Northern Kingdom of Israel, which was distracted by tribal jealousies. But even when not effectually operative, heredity was recognized as constituting a claim to the succession, although the popular voice, which had been supreme in the institution of the monarchy, was a power always to be reckoned with.<P>(1) Royal Prerogatives.<P>The history and functions of monarchy defined the prerogatives and duties of the king. Just as the head of the family, or the chieftain of a tribe, functioned as representative of those subject to him in matters of religion, war, and the administration of justice, so also was it with the king. In all these spheres he was supreme, exercising his authority either personally or through representatives who thus became part of the royal establishment. It is to be noted that the sacerdotal or sacral character of the king, which was merely an extension of his privileges as individual and head of a household, was not emphasized among the Hebrews to a like extent as among other oriental peoples; and the priests whom he appointed were perhaps in the first instance court chaplains, though in time they came to assume greater authority. The responsibility of the king for the public safety carried with it the obligation to guard the state treasures, to which the treasures of the temples were felt to belong; and it was his privilege to use them when necessary for defense. The levying of taxes, also, and the collection and use of revenues from various sources likewise fell of necessity to the king and his representatives.<P>(2) Officers.<P>In regard to the constitution of the king\'s court under Saul and David we learn comparatively little; even touching that of Solomon we are not fully informed, although we know that it must have been far removed from the original simplicity. We may classify the known officers as follows:<P>(a) religious: priests (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',8,17);">2Sa 8:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',20,23);">20:23</a>);<P>(b) household: cupbearer (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,5);">1Ki 10:5</a>); master of the vestry (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',10,22);">2Ki 10:22</a>); master of the household (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,6);">1Ki 4:6</a>), who probably was a eunuch (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',22,9);">1Ki 22:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',8,6);">2Ki 8:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',9,32);">9:32</a>);<P>(c) state: scribe or clerk (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',8,17);">2Sa 8:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',20,25);">20:25</a>, etc.); recorder, or prompter (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,3);">1Ki 4:3</a>); king\'s counselor (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',15,12);">2Sa 15:12</a>); and, perhaps, the king\'s friend (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',15,37);">2Sa 15:37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',16,16);">16:16</a>); overseer of taskwork (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',20,24);">2Sa 20:24</a>);<P>(d) military: commander-in-chief of the army (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',8,16);">2Sa 8:16</a>); commander of the king\'s guards (?)(<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',8,18);">2Sa 8:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',20,23);">20:23</a>).<P>(3) Fiscal Institutions.<P>The simplicity of Saul\'s rule was such as to make slight demands upon the resources of the people. He lived in the manner of a tribal chieftain on his ancestral estate, receiving from his subjects voluntary gifts (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,27);">1Sa 10:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',16,20);">16:20</a>), and also, without doubt, his due share of the booty. Whether he instituted a regular tax (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',17,25);">1Sa 17:25</a>) is not certain. With the growth and prosperity of the nation, David changed the character of the court, imitating in a measure the state of other oriental potentates. It is not clear whether he levied a regular tax, although it may be surmised that he had it in view, together with the regulation of taskwork, in ordaining the census taken in his time (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',24,1);">2Sa 24:1</a>). We know that he received his portion of the booty (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',8,11);">2Sa 8:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',12,30);">12:30</a>). The increasing luxury of Solomon\'s court required the imposition of additional taxes. It is probable that some income was derived from the enforced cultivation of crown lands (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',8,12);">1Sa 8:12</a>), although the taskwork, which became extremely burdensome and subsequently provoked the secession of the Northern Kingdom, was chiefly applied to public works. The tribute of subject peoples (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,21);">1Ki 4:21</a>) was considerable (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,14);">1Ki 10:14</a>). We now for the first time hear of taxes upon caravans and merchants, although it was in all probability a source of income even in the time of the nomad chieftains; there was also revenue from the carrying trade of his merchant fleet (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,11,22);">1Ki 10:11, 22</a>) and from the trade in horses and chariots carried on with Egypt (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,28);">1Ki 10:28</a>). Solomon also divided his kingdom into twelve provinces commanded by prefects, who should provide victuals for the king and his household: each prefect had to make provision for a month in the year (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,7);">1Ki 4:7</a>). It does not appear whether Judah, which is not included in the list of provinces, was as a mark of special favor exempted from this tax, or whether the omission is to be otherwise explained. The seizure of the vineyard of Naboth by Ahab (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',21,\'1-\');">1Ki 21</a>) makes it seem not improbable that the property of persons condemned on certain charges was confiscate to the king.<P>(4) Administration of Justice.<P>The king, like the tribal chieftain of the steppes, still sat in judgment, but chiefly in matters of moment; less important cases were decided by the prefects of provinces and other officers. Under the earlier kings there was no code except the Book of the Covenant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,\'1-\');">Ex 20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,\'1-\');">Ex 22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,\'1-\');">Ex 23</a>), but judgment was rendered on the basis of the law of custom or usage, the function of the judge being essentially that of an arbiter. For the later code see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=DEUTERONOMY">DEUTERONOMY</A>.<P>(5) Religion.<P>The king was regarded as the natural representative of his people before God; but while he did exercise certain sacerdotal functions in person, such offices were generally performed by the priest whom he had appointed.<P>(6) Secular Administration.<P>The authority of the king in matters of state was exercised partly by him in person, partly through his ministers, the "princes" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,2);">1Ki 4:2</a>). Among these functions are to be classed the communication with subject and foreign princes and the direction of the taskwork, which was employed for public improvements, partly military, as in the fortification of cities, partly religious, as in the building of the temple. Local affairs had always been left largely to the tribes and their subdivisions, but, with the gradual increase of royal authority, the king sought to exercise it more and more in the conduct of the village communities. Conversely, the "elders of the people," as the (albeit aristocratic) representatives of the communes, occasionally had a voice even in larger matters of state.<P>4. Israel under Oriental Potentates:<P>The principle of local autonomy; was widely observed in the oriental states, which concerned themselves chiefly about political and military organization and about the collection of revenues. Hence, there is no occasion for surprise on finding that the Jews enjoyed a large measure of autonomy during the period of their subjection to other oriental powers and that even during the exile they resorted, in matters of dispute, to their own representatives for judgment. Under Persian rule Palestine formed part of the satrapy lying west of the Euphrates and had, for a time, its own governor.<P>5. After the Restoration:<P>Ezra and Nehemiah endeavored to introduce a new code, which, after a period of perhaps two centuries, established a dual form of government subject to the supreme authority of the suzerain power. By the new code the secular officers were subordinated to the high priest, who thus virtually assumed the position of a constitutional prince, ruling under the Law. The "prince," however, as the representative of the tribes, and the "elders of the people," as the representatives of the communes, continued to exercise a certain limited authority.<P>6. The Greeks:<P>Under the Greek rulers of Egypt and Syria the Jews continued to enjoy a large measure of autonomy, still maintaining in general the type of internal government formulated under Ezra and Nehemiah. We now hear of a council of "elders" presided over by the high priest. The latter, appointed by the kings, was recognized as ethnarch by both Ptolemies and Seleucids and held accountable for the payment of the tribute, for the exaction of which he was, of course, empowered to levy taxes. The brief period of political independence under the Hasmoneans (see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=ASMONEANS">ASMONEANS</A>) did not materially alter the character compare the government, except that the high who had long been a prince in everything but in name, now openly so styled himself. The council of the "elders" survived, although with slightly diminished authority. In other respects the influence of Greek institutions made itself felt.<P>7. The Romans:<P>When Pompey terminated the reign of the Hasmoneans, the government still continued with little essential change. Following the example of the Greek kings, the Romans at Romans first appointed the high priest to the "leadership of the nation." He was soon, however, shorn for a time of his political dignity, the country being divided into five districts, each governed by its "synod"; but Caesar once more elevated the high priest to the office of ethnarch. Under Herod, the high priest and the synedrium (Sanhedrin), appointed or deposed at will as his interests seemed to require, lost much of their former prestige and power. After the death of Herod the land was again divided, and a procurator, subordinate to the governor of Syria, ruled in Judea, having practical independence in his sphere. In their internal affairs the Jews now, as under former masters, enjoyed a large measure of freedom. The high priest no longer exercising any political authority, the synedrium, of which he was a member, now gained in influence, being in fact an aristocratic council in many respects not unlike the Roman senate. It combined judicial and administrative functions, limited in the exercises of its authority only by the provision that its decisions might be reviewed by the procurator. (See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=GOVERNOR">GOVERNOR</a>.) Naturally the outlying jurisdictions were organized on the same model, each with its synedrium competent in local matters. The synedrium at Jerusalem served also as a governing board for the city.``75';
|
||
isbe[3908]='Governor`guv\'-er-ner: The word "governor" is employed in English Versions of the Bible in rendering a great variety of Hebrew and Greek words. In certain cases strict consistency is neither observed nor possible.<P>1. In the Old Testament:<P>In the rendering of Hebrew terms account has naturally been taken of the translations offered in Septuagint, which, being the work of different hands, is both uneven in quality and inconsistent. But there are inherent difficulties which can never be entirely overcome. First and most important, there is the difficulty arising from our ignorance of many details of the government of the oriental nations to which the terms apply. Hardly less is the embarrassment occasioned by the vague employment of words in indiscriminate reference to persons of superior rank and somehow exercising authority. There is consequently much confusion in the use of titles such as "deputy," "duke," "judge," "lawgiver," "overseer" "prince" "ruler" etc. for which the student may consult the special articles.<P>(1) alluwph or \'alluph, "governor" (the Revised Version (British and American) "chieftain") in Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',9,7);">Zec 9:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',12,5);">12:5</a>f).<P>(2) choqeq (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,9);">Jud 5:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,14);">5:14</a>, the King James Version margin"or lawgivers"). The word is variously rendered with "ruler" or "lawgiver" in English Versions of the Bible of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,10);">Ge 49:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,21);">De 33:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',33,22);">Isa 33:22</a>.<P>(3) moshel, participle of mashal, "to be master," "to rule" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',45,26);">Ge 45:26</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "ruler").<P>(4) nasi\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',1,2);">2Ch 1:2</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "prince").<P>(5) caghan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',3,2);">Da 3:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,23);">Jer 51:23</a>, the Revised Version, margin "or lieutenants"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,28,57);">Jer 51:28, 57</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',23,6,12,23);">Eze 23:6, 12, 23</a>). The same word is rendered "rulers" or "deputies" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',41,25);">Isa 41:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',9,2);">Ezr 9:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',2,16);">Ne 2:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',5,7);">5:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,5);">7:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,40);">12:40</a>).<P>(6) pechah, is variously used:<P class="in15">(a) of the military governor of a province among the Assyrians (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',36,9);">Isa 36:9</a>);<P class="in15">(b) among the Chaldees (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',23,6,23);">Eze 23:6, 23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,23,28,57);">Jer 51:23, 28, 57</a>);<P class="in15">(c) among the Persians (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',3,12);">Es 3:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',8,9);">8:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',9,3);">9:3</a>);<P class="in15">(d) of the governor-general of the province beyond the River (Euphrates) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,36);">Ezr 8:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',2,7);">Ne 2:7:9</a>);<P class="in15">(e) of Nehemiah as subordinate "governor in the land of Judah" under him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',5,14);">Ne 5:14</a>);<P class="in15">(f) of Zerubbabel as "governor of Judah" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hag\',1,1,14);">Hag 1:1, 14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hag\',2,2,21);">2:2, 21</a>);<P class="in15">(g) of Solomon\'s governors (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,15);">1Ki 10:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',20,24);">20:24</a> (in Syria)).<P>(7) paqidh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',20,1);">Jer 20:1</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "chief officer"). Elsewhere it is rendered "overseer" or "officer" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,34);">Ge 41:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',25,19);">2Ki 25:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,9,22);">Ne 11:9, 22</a>).<P>(8) sar "governor of the city" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',22,26);">1Ki 22:26</a>). Elsewhere commonly rendered "prince."<P>(9) shallit (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',42,6);">Ge 42:6</a>). Elsewhere rendered "ruler" or "captain."<P>(10) tirshatha\' the Revised Version (British and American) "the governor," the King James Version "the Tirshatha" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,63);">Ezr 2:63</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,70);">Ne 7:70</a>).<P>See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=TIRSHATHA">TIRSHATHA</a>.<P>2. In the New Testament:<P>The word "governor" in English Versions of the Bible represents an almost equal variety of Greek words. Here again the usage is for the most part lax and untechnical; but since reference is chiefly had to officers of the Roman imperial administration, concerning which we possess ample information, no embarrassment is thereby occasioned. The words chiefly in use for "governor" are derived from root ag-," drive," "lead":<P>(1) hegeomai, "lead" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',2,6);">Mt 2:6</a>; of Joseph as grand vizier of Egypt, <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,10);">Ac 7:10</a>).<P>(2) hegemon, "leader" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,18);">Mt 10:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,14);">1Pe 2:14</a>; of Pilate, <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,2,11,14,15,21,27);">Mt 27:2, 11, 14, 15, 21, 27</a>; of Felix, <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',23,24,26,33);">Ac 23:24, 26, 33</a>; of Festus, <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',24,1,10);">Ac 24:1, 10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',26,30);">26:30</a>).<P>(3) hegemoneuo, "function as leader" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,2);">Lu 2:2</a>; of Pilate, <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,1);">Lu 3:1</a>).<P>To these are added terms of more specific meaning:<P>(4) ethnarches, "ethnarch" or "ruler of a nation" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',11,32);">2Co 11:32</a>).<P>See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=GOVERNMENT">GOVERNMENT</a>, 6, 7.<P>(5) euthuno "direct," "guide" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',3,4);">Jas 3:4</a>). Here the Revised Version (British and American) properly render it "steersman."<P>(6) architriklinos, "president of a banquet" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',2,8);">Joh 2:8</a>f; the American Standard Revised Version "ruler of the feast ").<P>(7) oikonomos, "steward," "manager of a household or estate" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,2);">Ga 4:2</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "stewards").<P>It is thus seen that in the New Testament "governor" in the political sense occurs chiefly in reference to the Roman procurators of Judea—Pilate, Felix, and Festus. See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=PILATE;+PONTIUS">PILATE</a>; <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=FELIX">FELIX</a>; <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=FESTUS;+PORCIUS">FESTUS</a>. It remains for us here to speak briefly of the government of Roman provinces.<P>Latin provincia signifies a magistrate\'s sphere of duty or authority, either<P class="in15">(a) judicially or legally, defining the scope of his competence, or<P class="in15">(b) geographically, designating the territorial limits within which he may exercise authority.<P>It is in the latter sense that we are now considering the word. When, in the 3rd century BC, Rome began to rule conquered lands outside Italy, each territory was set under the authority of a single magistrate, and hence came to be called a "province." Conquered territories left under the rule of native princes or kings were not so designated, although their government was practically directed by Rome. At first provinces were governed by proconsuls or proprietors (i.e. ex-consuls or ex-praetors); but with the steady multiplication of provinces various expedients became necessary in order to provide governors of suitable rank and dignity. Thus, the number of praetors was largely augmented, and the term of possible service as governor was extended. Under Augustus the provinces were parceled out between the emperor and the senate, the former reserving for himself such as seemed to require the maintenance of a considerable armed force. In these the emperor was himself proconsul. Early in the Empire imperial provinces of a different type appear, in which the emperor, regarded as sovereign proprietor, governs by a viceroy (praefectus) or steward (procurator). In some of these, tributary kings or princes ruled with the emperor\'s representative—a legatus or a procurator—by their side, much as England now rules Egypt. Among the provinces so ruled were Egypt and Judea, partly, no doubt, because of their strategic position, partly because of the temper of their inhabitants.``75';
|
||
isbe[3909]='Goyim`goi\'-yim.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GOIIM">GOIIM</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3910]='Gozan`go\'-zan (gozan; Gozan, Codex Vaticanus, Gozar in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,6);">2Ki 17:6</a>, Chozar in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',5,26);">1Ch 5:26</a>): A place in Assyria to which Israelites were deported on the fall of Samaria (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,6);">2Ki 17:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',18,11);">18:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',5,26);">1Ch 5:26</a>). It is also mentioned in a letter of Sennacherib to Hezekiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',19,12);">2Ki 19:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',37,12);">Isa 37:12</a>). The district is that named Guzana by the Assyrians, and Gauzanitis by Ptolemy, west of Nisibis, with which, in the Assyrian geographical list (WAI, II, 53, l. 43), it is mentioned as the name of a city (alu Guzana; alu Nasibina). It became an Assyrian province, and rebelled in 759 BC, but was again reduced to subjection.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HABOR">HABOR</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HALAH">HALAH</a>`132';
|
||
isbe[3911]='Graba`gra\'-ba.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=AGGABA">AGGABA</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3912]='Grace`gras:<P>1. The Word Charis:<P>In the English New Testament the word "grace" is always a translation of (charis), a word that occurs in the Greek text something over 170 times (the reading is uncertain in places). In secular Greek of all periods it is also a very common word, and in both Biblical and secular Greek it is used with far more meanings than can be represented by any one term in English Primarily<P>(a) the word seems to denote pleasant external appearance, "gracefulness" "loveliness"; compare the personificaion in the Graces." Such a use is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,22);">Lu 4:22</a>, where \'wondered at the charm of his words\' is a good translation; and similarly in <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,6);">Col 4:6</a>.<P>(b) Objectively, charis may denote the impression produced by "gracefulness," as in <a onClick="return mV(\'3Jo\',1,4);">3Joh 1:4</a> \'greater gratification have I none than this\' (but many manuscripts read chara, "joy," here).<P>(c) As a mental attribute charis may be translated by "graciousness," or, when directed toward a particular person or persons, by "favor." So in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,52);">Lu 2:52</a>, "Jesus advanced...in favor with God and men."<P>(d) As the complement to this, charis denotes the emotion awakened in the recipient of such favor, i.e. "gratitude." So <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',17,9);">Lu 17:9</a> reads literally, \'Has he gratitude to that servant?\' In a slightly transferred sense charis designates the words or emotion in which gratitude is expressed, and so becomes "thanks" (some 10 times, <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,17);">Ro 6:17</a>, etc.)\'.<P>(e) Concretely, charis may mean the act by which graciousness is expressed, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',16,3);">1Co 16:3</a>, where the King James Version translates by "liberality," and the Revised Version (British and American) by "bounty." These various meanings naturally tend to blend into each other, and in certain cases it is difficult to fix the precise meaning that the writer meant the word to convey, a confusion that is common to both New Testament and secular Greek And in secular Greek the word has a still larger variety of meanings that scarcely concern theologian.<P>2. Grace as Power:<P>Naturally, the various meanings of the word were simply taken over from ordinary language by the New Testament writers. And so it is quite illegitimate to try to construct on the basis of all the occurrences of the word a single doctrine that will account for all the various usages. That one word could express both "charm of speech" and "thankfulness for blessings" was doubtless felt to be a mere accident, if it was thought of at all. But none the less, the very elasticity of the word enabled it to receive still another—new and technically Christian—meaning. This seems to have originated in part by fusing together two of the ordinary significances. In the first place, as in (e) above, charis may mean "a gift." In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',16,3);">1Co 16:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,19);">2Co 8:19</a> it is the money given by the Corinthians to the Jerusalemites. In <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',9,8);">2Co 9:8</a> it is the increase of worldly goods that God grants for charitable purposes. In <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',1,15);">2Co 1:15</a> it is the benefit received by the Corinthians from a visit by Paul. In a more spiritual sense charis is the endowment for an office in the church (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,7);">Eph 4:7</a>), more particularly for the apostolate (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,5);">Ro 1:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',12,3);">12:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,15);">15:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',3,10);">1Co 3:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,2,7);">Eph 3:2, 7</a>). So in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,\'4-7\');">1Co 1:4-7</a> margin charis is expanded into "word and all knowledge," endowments with which the Corinthians were especially favored. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,13);">1Pe 1:13</a> charis is the future heavenly blessedness that Christians are to receive; in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,7);">3:7</A> it is the present gift of "life." In the second place, charis is the word for God\'s favor, a sense of the term that is especially refined by Paul (see below). But God\'s favor differs from man\'s in that it cannot be conceived of as inactive. A favorable "thought" of God\'s about a man involves of necessity the reception of some blessing by that man, and "to look with favor" is one of the commonest Biblical paraphrases for "bestow a blessing." Between "God\'s favor" and "God\'s favors" there exists a relation of active power, and as charis denoted both the favor and the favors, it was the natural word for the power that connected them. This use is very clear in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,10);">1Co 15:10</a>, where Paul says, "not I, but the grace of God which was with me" labored more abundantly than they all: grace is something that labors. So in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',12,9);">2Co 12:9</a>, "My grace is sufficient for thee: for my power is made perfect in weakness"; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',2,1);">2Ti 2:1</a>, "strengthened in the grace," and <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,10);">1Pe 4:10</a>, "stewards of the manifold grace." Evidently in this sense "grace" is almost a synonym for the Spirit (see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=HOLY+SPIRIT,+1">HOLY SPIRIT</a>), and there is little real difference between "full of the Holy Spirit" and "full of grace and power" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',6,5,8);">Ac 6:5, 8</a>, while there is a very striking parallel between <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,\'7-13\');">Eph 4:7-13</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',12,\'4-11\');">1Co 12:4-11</a>, with "gifts of grace" in the one passage, and "gifts of the Spirit" in the other. And this connection between grace and the Spirit is found definitely in the formula "Spirit of grace" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,29);">Heb 10:29</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',12,10);">Zec 12:10</a>). And, as is well known, it is from this sense of the word that the Catholic doctrine of grace developed.<P>3. Grace in Justification:<P>This meaning of charis was obtained by expanding and combining other meanings. By the opposite process of narrowly restricting one of the meanings of the word, it came again into Christian theology as a technical term, but this time in a sense quite distinct from that just discussed. The formation of this special sense seems to have been the work of Paul. When charis is used with the meaning "favor," nothing at all is implied as to whether or not the favor is deserved. So, for instance, in the New Testament, when in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,52);">Lu 2:52</a> it is said that "Jesus advanced...in favor with God and men," the last possible thought is that our Lord did not deserve this favor. Compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,40);">Lu 2:40</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,47);">Ac 2:47</a> and, as less clear cases, <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,30);">Lu 1:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,46);">Ac 7:46</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',4,16);">Heb 4:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,15,28);">12:15, 28</a>. But the word has abundant use in secular Greek in the sense of unmerited favor, and Paul seized on this meaning of the word to express a fundamental characteristic of Christianity. The basic passage is <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',11,5,6);">Ro 11:5-6</a>, where as a definition is given, "If it is by grace, it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace." That the word is used in other senses could have caused no 1st-century reader to miss the meaning, which, indeed, is unmistakable. "Grace" in this sense is an attitude on God\'s part that proceeds entirely from within Himself, and that is conditioned in no way by anything in the objects of His favor. So in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',4,4);">Ro 4:4</a>. If salvation is given on the basis of what a man has done, then salvation is given by God as the payment of a debt. But when faith is reckoned for what it is not, i.e. righteousness, there is no claim on man\'s part, and he receives as a pure gift something that he has not earned. (It is quite true that faith involves moral effort, and so may be thought of as a sort of a "work"; it is quite true that faith does something as a preparation for receiving God\'s further gifts. But it simply clouds the exegetical issue to bring in these ideas here, as they certainly were not present in Paul\'s mind when the verses were being written.) "Grace" then, in this sense is the antinomy to "works" or to "law"; it has a special relation to the guilt of sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,20);">Ro 5:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,1);">6:1</a>), and has almost exactly the same sense as "mercy." Indeed, "grace" here differs from "mercy" chiefly in connoting eager love as the source of the act. See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=JUSTIFICATION">JUSTIFICATION</A>. Of course it is this sense of grace that dominates <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,\'1-\');">Ro 3-6</a>, especially in the thesis <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,24);">3:24</A>, while the same use is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,21);">Ga 2:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,5,8);">Eph 2:5, 8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',1,9);">2Ti 1:9</a>. The same strict sense underlies <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,6);">Ga 1:6</a> and is found, less sharply formulated, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',3,\'5-7\');">Tit 3:5-7</a>. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,4);">Ga 5:4</a> is perhaps different.) Outside of Paul\'s writings, his definition of the word seems to be adopted in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,17);">Joh 1:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,11);">Ac 15:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',13,9);">Heb 13:9</a>, while a perversion of this definition in the direction of antinomianism is the subject of the invective in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,4);">Jude 1:4</a>. And, of course, it is from the word in this technical Pauline sense that an elaborate Protestant doctrine of grace has been developed.<P>4. Special Uses:<P>A few special uses of the word may be noted. That the special blessing of God on a particular undertaking (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,26);">Ac 14:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,40);">15:40</a>) should be called a "grace" needs no explanation. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,\'32-34\');">Lu 6:32-34</a>, and <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,19);">1Pe 2:19-20</a>, charis seems to be used in the sense of "that which deserves the thanks of God," i.e. a specifically Christian act as distinguished from an act of "natural morality." "Grace for grace" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,16);">Joh 1:16</a> is a difficult phrase, but an almost exact parallel in Philo (Poster. Cain, 43) may fix the sense as "benefit on benefit." But the tendency of the New Testament writers is to combine the various meanings the word can have, something that is particularly well illustrated in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,\'1-\');">2Co 8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',9,\'1-\');">9</a>. In these two chapters the word occurs 10 t, but in so many different senses as to suggest that Paul is consciously playing with the term. Charis is the money given to the Jerusalemites by the Corinthians (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,19);">2Co 8:19</a>), it is the increase of goods that God will grant the Corinthians (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',9,8);">2Co 9:8</a>), it is the disposition of the givers (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,6);">2Co 8:6</a>), it is the power of God that has wrought this disposition (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,1);">2Co 8:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',9,14);">9:14</a>), it is the act of Christ in the Incarnation (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,9);">2Co 8:9</a>; contrast the distinction between "God\'s grace" and "Christs act" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,9);">Heb 2:9</a>), it is the thanks that Paul renders (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',9,15);">2Co 9:15</a>). That all a Christian is and all that he has is God\'s gift could have been stated of course without the use of any special term at all. But in these two chapters Paul has taught this truth by using for the various ideas always the same term and by referring this term to God at the beginning and the end of the section. That is, to the multiplicity of concepts there is given a unity of terminology, corresponding to the unity given the multiple aspects of life by the thought of entire dependence on God. So charis, "grace," becomes almost an equivalent for "Christianity," viewed as the religion of dependence on God through Christ. As one may think of entering Christianity, abiding in it, or falling from it, so one may speak of entering into (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,2);">Ro 5:2</a>), abiding in (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,43);">Ac 13:43</a>), or falling from (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,4);">Ga 5:4</a>) grace; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,12);">1Pe 5:12</a>. So the teaching of Christianity may be summed up as word or gospel of grace (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,3);">Ac 14:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,24,32);">20:24, 32</a>). So "grace be with you" closes the Epistles as a sufficient summary of all the blessings that can be wished Christian readers. At the beginning of the Epistles the words "and peace" are usually added, but this is due only to the influence of the Jewish greeting "peace be with you" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,5);">Lu 10:5</a>, etc.), and not to any reflection on "grace" and "peace" as separate things. (It is possible that the Greek use of chairein, "rejoice," as an epistolary salutation (so in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,1);">Jas 1:1</a>) influenced the Christian use of charis. But that "grace and peace" was consciously regarded as a universalistic combination of Jewish and Gentile custom is altogether unlikely.) The further expansion of the introductory formula by the introduction of "mercy" in 1 and 2Ti is quite without theological significance.<P>5. Teaching of Christ:<P>In the Greek Gospels, charis is used in the words of Christ only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,\'32-34\');">Lu 6:32-34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',17,9);">17:9</a>. As Christ spoke in Aram, the choice of this word is due to Luke, probably under the influence of its common Christian use in his own day. And there is no word in our Lord\'s recorded sayings that suggests that He employed habitually any especial term to denote grace in any of its senses. But the ideas are unambiguously present. That the pardon of sins is a free act on God\'s part may be described as an essential in Christ\'s teaching, and the lesson is taught in all manner of ways. The prodigal knowing only his own wretchedness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',15,20);">Lu 15:20</a>), the publican without merit to urge (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,13);">Lu 18:13</a>), the sick who need a physician (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,17);">Mr 2:17</a>), they who hunger and thirst after righteousness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,6);">Mt 5:6</a>), these are the ones for whom God\'s pardon is inexhaustible. And positive blessings, be they temporal or spiritual, are to be looked for from God, with perfect trust in Him who clothes the lilies and knows how to give good gifts to His children (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,11);">Mt 7:11</a>; here <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',11,13);">Lu 11:13</a> has "Holy Spirit" for "gifts," doubtless a Lukan interpretation, but certainly a correct one). Indeed, it is not too much to say that Christ knows but one unpardonable sin, the sin of spiritual self-satisfaction—"That which is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,15);">Lu 16:15</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',17,\'7-10\');">Lu 17:7-10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,\'1-16\');">Mt 20:1-16</a>).<P>6. In the Old Testament:<P>There is no word in Hebrew that can represent all the meanings of charis, and in the Septuagint charis itself is used, practically, only as a translation of the Hebrew chen, "favor," this restriction of meaning being due to the desire to represent the same Hebrew word by the same Greek word as far as possible. And chen, in turn, is used chiefly only in the phrase "find favor" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,8);">Ge 6:8</a>, etc.), whether the reference is to God or men, and without theological importance. Much nearer Paul\'s use of charis is ratson, "acceptance," in such passages as <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',60,10);">Isa 60:10</a>, "In my favor have I had mercy on thee"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',44,3);">Ps 44:3</a>, "not...by their own sword...but...because thou wast favorable unto them." Perhaps still closer parallels can be detected in the use of checedh, "kindness," "mercy," as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,6);">Ex 20:6</a>, etc. But, of course, a limitation of the sources for the doctrine to passages containing only certain words would be altogether unjust. The main lines seem to be these:<P>(1) Technically, salvation by grace in the New Testament is opposed to an Old Testament doctrine of salvation by works (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',4,4);">Ro 4:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',11,6);">11:6</a>), or, what is the same thing, by law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,14);">Ro 6:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,17);">Joh 1:17</a>); i.e men and God are thought of as parties to a contract, to be fulfilled by each independently. Most of the legislation seems to presuppose some idea of man as a quantity quite outside of God, while <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',30,\'11-14\');">De 30:11-14</a> states explicitly that the law is not too hard nor too far off for man.<P>(2) Yet even this legalism is not without important modifications. The keeping of the law is man\'s work, but that man has the law to keep is something for which God only is to be thanked. <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,\'1-\');">Ps 119</a> is the essence of legalism, but the writer feels overwhelmed throughout by the greatness of the mercy that disclosed such statutes to men. After all, the initial (and vital!) act is God\'s not man\'s. This is stated most sharply in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',23,\'1-4\');">Eze 23:1-4</a>—Oholibah and her sister became God\'s, not because of any virtue in them, but in spite of most revolting conduct. Compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',7,7);">De 7:7</a>, etc.<P>(3) But even in the most legalistic passages, an absolute literal keeping of the law is never (not even in such a passage as <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',15,30,31);">Nu 15:30-31</a>) made a condition of salvation. The thought of transgression is at all times tempered with the thought of God\'s pardon. The whole sacrificial system, in so far as it is expiatory, rests on God\'s gracious acceptance of something in place of legal obedience, while the passages that offer God\'s mercy without demanding even a sacrifice (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,18);">Isa 1:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',7,\'18-20\');">Mic 7:18-20</a>, etc.) are countless. Indeed, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',16,\'1-\');">Eze 16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',20,\'1-\');">20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',23,\'1-\');">23</a>, mercy is promised to a nation that is spoken of as hardly even desiring it, a most extreme instance.<P>(4) But a mere negative granting of pardon is a most deficient definition of the Old Testament idea of God\'s mercy, which delights in conferring positive benefits. The gift to Abraham of the land of Canaan, liberation from Egypt, food in the wilderness, salvation from enemies, deliverance from exile—all of Israel\'s history can be felt to be the record of what God did for His people through no duty or compulsion, grateful thanksgiving for such unmerited blessings filling, for instance, much of the Psalter. The hearts of men are in God\'s keeping, to receive from Him the impulse toward what is right (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',29,18);">1Ch 29:18</a>, etc.). And the promise is made that the God who has manifested Himself as a forgiving Father will in due time take hold of His children to work in them actual righteousness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,26);">Isa 1:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',4,3,4);">4:3-4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',32,\'1-8\');">32:1-8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',33,24);">33:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,33,34);">Jer 31:33-34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',36,25);">Eze 36:25-26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',8,\'1-\');">Zec 8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',9,24);">Da 9:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',51,\'10-12\');">Ps 51:10-12</a>) With this promise—for the Old Testament always a matter of the future—the Old Testament teaching passes into that of the New Testament.<P>7. Summary:<P>Most of the discussions of the Biblical doctrine of grace have been faulty in narrowing the meaning of "grace" to some special sense, and then endeavoring to force this special sense on all the Biblical passages. For instance, Roman scholars, starting with the meaning of the word in (say) <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',12,9);">2Co 12:9</a>, have made <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,24);">Ro 3:24</a> state that men are justified by the infusion of Divine holiness into them, an interpretation that utterly ruins Paul\'s argument. On the other hand, Protestant extremists have tried to reverse the process and have argued that grace cannot mean anything except favor as an attitude, with results that are equally disastrous from the exegetical standpoint. And a confusion has resulted that has prevented men from seeing that most of the controversies about grace are at cross-purposes. A rigid definition is hardly possible, but still a single conception is actually present in almost every case where "grace" is found—the conception that all a Christian has or is, is centered exclusively in God and Christ, and depends utterly on God through Christ. The kingdom of heaven is reserved for those who become as little children, for those who look to their Father in loving confidence for every benefit, whether it be for the pardon so freely given, or for the strength that comes from Him who works in them both to will and to do.<P>LITERATURE.<P>All the Biblical theologies contain full discussions of the subject; for the New Testament the closest definitions are given by Bernard Weiss. But for the meaning of "grace" in any particular place the commentaries must be consulted, although the student may be warned against discussions that argue too closely from what may seem to be parallel passages.``48';
|
||
isbe[3913]='Gracious`gra\'-shus (chanan; charis): In general, the word means "to favor," "to show kindness" to an inferior and "to be compassionate." All Old Testament passages are derived from the same root, and yet there are two evident shades of meaning derived from it.<p class="in15">(1) As above, "favorable" or, causative, "to cause to be gracious," as "Yahweh make his face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',6,25);">Nu 6:25</a>); "And the Lord was gracious unto them" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',13,23);">2Ki 13:23</a> the King James Version); "The Lord is gracious and full of compassion" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',145,8);">Ps 145:8</a> the King James Version).<p class="in15">(2) In a modified sense, "graceful," "winsome" or "attractive," as applied particularly to persons and things. Used thus 3 times in the Old Testament and once in the New Testament. "A gracious woman retaineth honor" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',11,16);">Pr 11:16</a> the King James Version; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',10,12);">Ec 10:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,22);">Lu 4:22</a>).<P>The word is used once in the New Testament from root of Greek word chrestos, meaning "useful" as a benefit: "if ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,3);">1Pe 2:3</a>).<P>In the main, however, the adjective is applied in the Old Testament to Yahweh, as indicative of His favor and mercy, His long-suffering and general inclination of favor and kindness.``25';
|
||
isbe[3914]='Graecia`gre\'-sha.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GREECE;+GRAECIA">GREECE</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3915]='Graft`graft (egkentrizo; the Revised Version (British and American) "graft"; the King James Version, "graff"): The word occurs 6 times in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',11,\'1-\');">Ro 11</a>. Paul assumed that those living about Rome were familiar with the process of grafting olive trees, for olive culture had been adopted by the Greeks and Romans in Paul\'s time. The wild olive trees (Arabic colloquial, zeitun berri) are cut back, slits made on the freshly sawed branch ends, and two or three grafts from a cultivated olive (Arabic colloquial, zeitun jouwi) are inserted in such a way that the bark of the scion and of the branch coincide. The exposed ends are smeared with mud made from clay, and then bound with cloth or date straw, which is held by thongs made from the bark of young mulberry branches. The fruit thus obtained is good. Wild olives cannot be made cultivated olives by engrafting, as Paul implies (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',11,24);">Ro 11:24</a>), but a wild olive branch thus grafted would thrive. So Gentiles would flourish spiritually when grafted into the fullness of God\'s mercy, first revealed to the world through Israel.``133';
|
||
isbe[3916]='Grain`gran`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=AGRICULTURE">AGRICULTURE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GARNER">GARNER</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3917]='Granary`gran\'-a-ri.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GARNER">GARNER</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=STOREHOUSES">STOREHOUSES</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3918]='Grapes`graps.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=VINE">VINE</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3919]='Grapes, Wild`(be\'ushim, <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',5,2);">Isa 5:2, 4</a>): A word closely allied to bo\'shah, <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',31,40);">Job 31:40</a>, translated "<a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=COCKLE">cockle</A>" (which see). It implies something noisome or worthless, but no particular fruit.``1';
|
||
isbe[3920]='Grasp`grasp: The word harpagmos (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,6);">Php 2:6</a>), is rendered by the King James Version "robbery," by the Revised Version (British and American) "a prize," and by the American Standard Revised Version "a thing to be grasped." By derivation the term may denote either an act of seizing or the aim or result of the action. In the context Paul is discussing, not Christ\'s opinion of His equality with God, but His amazing self-sacrifice in laying aside His equally for our sakes. He but laid it aside for us. It is better to render with the Revised Version (British and American) "a prize."``1';
|
||
isbe[3921]='Grass`gras:<P>(1) chatsir, from a root meaning "greenness"; compare Arabic Khudra, which includes grasses and green vegetables (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',18,5);">1Ki 18:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',19,26);">2Ki 19:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',40,15);">Job 40:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',104,14);">Ps 104:14</a>, etc.). <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',15,6);">Isa 15:6</a> is translated in the King James Version "have," the Revised Version (British and American) "grass"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',27,25);">Pr 27:25</a>, English Versions of the Bible "hay," margin "Hebrew grass"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,5);">Nu 11:5</a> English Versions of the Bible translates "leeks." It is a term for herbage in general.<P>(2) deshe\', from root meaning "to sprout abundantly." Generally translated "tender grass" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,11);">Ge 1:11</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,4);">2Sa 23:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',6,5);">Job 6:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',15,6);">Isa 15:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',66,14);">66:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',14,5);">Jer 14:5</a>, etc.); translated "grass" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',6,5);">Job 6:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',14,5);">Jer 14:5</a>); translated "herb" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',19,26);">2Ki 19:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',27,2);">Ps 27:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',37,27);">Isa 37:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',66,14);">66:14</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',50,11);">Jer 50:11</a> we have "heifer at grass" (deshe\') in the King James Version and the Revised Version, margin, but in the Revised Version (British and American) "heifer that treadeth out the grain." (dethe\'), the Aramaic form, occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',4,15,23);">Da 4:15, 23</a>, and is translated "tender grass."<P>(3) chashash, probably "dry" or "cut grass"; compare Arabic chashesh, "dry fodder" or "cut grass" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',5,24);">Isa 5:24</a>, the King James Version "chaff," the Revised Version (British and American) "dry grass"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',33,11);">Isa 33:11</a>, English Versions of the Bible "chaff").<P>(4) leqesh, from root meaning "to come late," hence used in <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',7,1);">Am 7:1</a> for the "latter growth" of grass after mowing.<P>(5) yereq, literally, "green thing" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',22,4);">Nu 22:4</a>, elsewhere translated "herb").<P>(6) \'esebh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',11,15);">De 11:15</a>, etc.), generally translated "herb" (for (5) and (6) see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=HERB">HERB</a>).<P>(7) chortos (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,30);">Mt 6:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',14,19);">14:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,39);">Mr 6:39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,28);">Lu 12:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,10);">Joh 6:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,10,11);">Jas 1:10-11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,24);">1Pe 1:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',8,7);">Re 8:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',9,4);">9:4</a>); translated "blade" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,26);">Mt 13:26</a> <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',4,28);">Mr 4:28</a>); translated "hay" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',3,12);">1Co 3:12</a>).<P>There are 243 species of true grasses (Natural Order, Gramineae) in Palestine, but Hebrew, like modern Arabic, does not discriminate between these and other herbs which together make up herbage. Actual turf is practically unknown in Palestine, and grass seed is not artificially sown; young green barley is used in the neighborhood of towns as fresh fodder for horses and cattle. It is not the native custom to cut herbage for hay, though the writer has seen many carloads of sweet-smelling hay being carried from the land by Circassian settlers, east of the Jordan.<P>The "grass upon the house tops" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',129,6);">Ps 129:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',37,27);">Isa 37:27</a>), the growth which springs from the seeds mingled with the mud of which the roof is made, springs up quickly with the rains, but as quickly dries up before it reaches half its normal height—or not infrequently is set on fire.<P>Dew, rain or showers upon the grass are mentioned (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,6);">De 32:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',19,12);">Pr 19:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',5,7);">Mic 5:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',72,6);">Ps 72:6</a>, "rain upon the mown grass," i.e. the grass eaten short by cattle).``117';
|
||
isbe[3922]='Grasshopper`gras\'-hop-er.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LOCUST">LOCUST</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3923]='Grate; Grating`grat, grat\'-ing (mikhbar, resheth; the King James Version Grate): This "grating of network of brass" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',27,4);">Ex 27:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',38,4);">38:4</a>), called also "the net" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',27,4);">Ex 27:4</a>f), and "grating of brass" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',38,4);">Ex 38:4</a>), was that reticulated casting or wrought work of bronze which, in the tabernacle system, formed an element of the altar of sacrifice. Its position is well defined: "Thou shalt put it under the ledge round the altar beneath, that the net may reach halfway up the altar" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',27,5);">Ex 27:5</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',38,4);">Ex 38:4</a>). The altar being a hollow box—"hollow with planks" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',27,8);">Ex 27:8</a>)—3 cubits high, overlaid with brass, and presumably filled with stones, there appears to have been a ledge round about it halfway from the base, from which depended vertically this grating of bronze. On the grating were four rings through which the staves were passed by which the altar was borne (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',27,4,7);">Ex 27:4, 7</a>). If the ledge was for the priests to stand on while handling the sacrifices on the altar, the grating need be thought of only as an ornamental support for the ledge. Others ascribe to it different uses.``17';
|
||
isbe[3924]='Grave (1)`grav.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BURIAL">BURIAL</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3925]='Grave (2)`(Adj.).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GRAVITY">GRAVITY</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3926]='Grave; Graving`grav\'-ing.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CRAFTS">CRAFTS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ENGRAVING">ENGRAVING</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3927]='Gravel`grav\'-el (chatsats, from root chatsats, "to divide." Kindred roots have the meaning of "to cut," "to hew," "to sharpen," hence chets, "arrow" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',13,17);">2Ki 13:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',64,7);">Ps 64:7</a> and often); compare Arabic chacca, "to fall to the lot of," chiccah, "portion"): In <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',20,17);">Pr 20:17</a>, we have:<P class="in15">"Bread of falsehood is sweet to a man;<br>But afterwards his mouth shall be filled with gravel."<P>And in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',3,16);">La 3:16</a>:<P class="in15">"He hath also broken my teeth with gravel stones;<br> he hath covered me with ashes."<P>The only other occurrence of the word is in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',77,17);">Ps 77:17</a>, where it is the equivalent of chets, "arrow" (see supra):<P class="in15">"The clouds poured out water;<br>The skies sent out a sound:<br>Thine arrows also went abroad."<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',20,17);">Pr 20:17</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',3,16);">La 3:16</a> both suggest the frequent occurrence of grit in the coarse bread, the source of the grit being not necessarily the grindstone, but possibly even small stones originally mingled with the wheat and never properly separated from it.``37';
|
||
isbe[3928]='Gravity`grav\'-i-ti (semnotes): The word, meaning properly "venerableness," "sanctity," is used in 2Macc 3:12 of the "sanctity" of the temple. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',3,4);">1Ti 3:4</a> the writer declares that a characteristic of a bishop should be that he has "his children in subjection with all gravity." Titus is enjoined (<a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',2,7);">2:7</A>f) in his "doctrine" (teaching) to show "uncorruptness, gravity, sound speech (Revised Version), that cannot be condemned" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',3,8);">1Ti 3:8</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',2,2);">1Ti 2:2</a> the same word is translated "honesty" (the Revised Version (British and American) "gravity"), "that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and gravity." A better rendering of semnotes might be "dignity" or "dignified seriousness" (Olshausen), which quality is necessary, both on the part of parents in relation to their children, if they are to be properly trained, and on the part of preachers and teachers, if their "doctrine" is to be worthily represented. All mere lightness of demeanor (the opposite of gravity) tells against the great trusts committed to both parents and teachers (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',3,11);">1Ti 3:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',2,2);">Tit 2:2</a>). Such "gravity" or "dignified seriousness" ought indeed to characterize Christian demeanor in general, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',2,2);">1Ti 2:2</a> above.``185';
|
||
isbe[3929]='Gray`gra.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=COLORS">COLORS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HOARY">HOARY</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3930]='Grease`gres (chelebh, "fat," "suet"): The word occurs once in the metaphorical sense "prosperous," then dull, gross, brutal: "Their heart is as fat as grease" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,70);">Ps 119:70</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',6,10);">Isa 6:10</a>, and see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=FAT">FAT</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[3931]='Great; Greatness`grat, grat\'-nes: "Great" occurs very often in Scripture. The chief words so translated are gadhol, rabh; megas, polus.<P>(1) In the Old Testament many other terms are employed:<P>(a) gadhol is used to express greatness in various senses, chiefly of magnitude, including excellence, e.g. "great lights" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,16);">Ge 1:16</a>); "the great city" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,12);">Ge 10:12</a>); "a great nation" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,2);">Ge 12:2</a>); "a great sight" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,3);">Ex 3:3</a>); "Moses was very great" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',11,3);">Ex 11:3</a>); "the great God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',10,17);">De 10:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',1,5);">Ne 1:5</a>); "great is Yahweh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',48,1);">Ps 48:1</a>). It is sometimes translated by "mighty" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',4,37);">De 4:37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',7,21);">7:21</a>, "a mighty God," the Revised Version (British and American) "great"). It is also used to designate the high priest (literally, "great," <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,10);">Le 21:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',3,1);">Zec 3:1</a>, etc.); also to express the "elder" of a family, e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,1);">Ge 27:1</a>, "Esau his eldest son," the Revised Version (British and American) "elder"; probably also of great stature: "a great man among the Anakims," the Revised Version (British and American) "the greatest" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',14,15);">Jos 14:15</a>).<P>(b) rabh denotes, rather, quantity, number, therefore, often, "many" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,34);">Ge 21:34</a>, etc.; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,23);">Ex 2:23</a> the Revised Version (British and American), etc.); "abundant" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,6);">Ex 34:6</a>, the English Revised Version "plenteous"), and similar terms; thus we have "a great people" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',17,14);">Jos 17:14</a>); "His mercies are great," the Revised Version, margin "many" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',24,14);">2Sa 24:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',21,13);">1Ch 21:13</a>); "Great was the company," the Revised Version (British and American) "a great host" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',68,11);">Ps 68:11</a>); "great reward" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',19,11);">Ps 19:11</a>); "Mine iniquity...is great" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',25,11);">Ps 25:11</a>); "exceedingly" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',123,3);">Ps 123:3</a>). In the Septuagint rabh is, for the most part, translated by polus. But it is used for "great" in other senses, e.g. "the great (God)" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',26,10);">Pr 26:10</a>), the Revised Version (British and American) "as an archer," margin "master worker; Hebrew text obscure"; "a saviour, and a great one," the Revised Version (British and American) "defender," margin "or a mighty one" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',19,20);">Isa 19:20</a>); "Great shall be the peace" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',54,13);">Isa 54:13</a>), etc. It is sometimes translated "mighty" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',89,50);">Ps 89:50</a>, the Revised Version, margin "many"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',63,1);">Isa 63:1</a>).<P>(c) Other words thus translated are kabhedh, "heavy," e.g. "so great a people," the Revised Version (British and American) "thy great people," margin "heavy" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',3,9);">1Ki 3:9</a>); me\'odh, implying force, might, e.g. "with all his might" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,25);">2Ki 23:25</a>). \'El and \'Elohim are sometimes used to express greatness. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',36,6);">Ps 36:6</a>, we have "Thy righteousness is like the great (\'El) mountains," the Revised Version (British and American) "mountains of God"; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,8);">Ge 30:8</a>, "with great (\'Elohim) wrestlings," the Revised Version (British and American) "mighty," margin "wrestlings of God"; and in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,15);">1Sa 14:15</a> "a very great (\'Elohim) trembling," the Revised Version (British and American) "exceeding great," margin "a trembling of God."<P>(2) New Testament<p>(a) Megas denotes magnitude, in its various aspects, physical, moral, etc., e.g. "great joy" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',2,10);">Mt 2:10</a>); "a great light" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',4,16);">Mt 4:16</a>); "the great King" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,35);">Mt 5:35</a>); "great in the kingdom" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,19);">Mt 5:19</a>, etc.); "Great is thy faith" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',15,28);">Mt 15:28</a>); "The greatest is charity" (love), the Revised Version, margin "greater" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',13,13);">1Co 13:13</a>); "a great high priest" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',4,14);">Heb 4:14</a>); "the great shepherd" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',13,20);">Heb 13:20</a>); "a great voice" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,10);">Re 1:10</a>); in Revelation megas is very frequent.<P>(b) Polus denotes properly number, multitude, e.g. "great multitudes" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',4,25);">Mt 4:25</a>); "a great company" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',5,29);">Lu 5:29</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "a great multitude"; frequent in the Gospels); "great possessions" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,22);">Mr 10:22</a>). But also "great" in the sense of magnitude, e.g. "great plainness of speech," the Revised Version (British and American) "boldness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',3,12);">2Co 3:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',7,4);">7:4</a>); "a great trial of affliction," the Revised Version (British and American) "much proof" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,2);">2Co 8:2</a>); "great love" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,4);">Eph 2:4</a>).<P>(c) Among other terms we have telikoutos, "so great" (in degree), "so great a salvation" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,3);">Heb 2:3</a>); tosoutos, "so great" (in quantity), "so great faith" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',8,10);">Mt 8:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,9);">Lu 7:9</a>); "so great a cloud of witnesses" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,1);">Heb 12:1</a>); hosos, "how great" (in quantity) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,8);">Mr 3:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',5,19);">5:19</a>f); helikos, "how great" (in degree) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,1);">Col 2:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',3,5);">Jas 3:5</a>, "how great a matter," the Revised Version (British and American) "how much wood," margin "how great a forest"); pelikos, "how great" (in degree) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',7,4);">Heb 7:4</a>); posos, "how great" (in quantity) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,23);">Mt 6:23</a>), etc.<P>(3) In His person and teaching, Jesus introduced into the world a new conception of greatness. It was to be found in humility and self-forgetting service: "Whosoever would become great among you shall be your minister (the Revised Version, margin "servant"); and whosoever would be first among you shall be your servant (the Revised Version, margin "(Greek) bond-servant"): even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,\'26-28\');">Mt 20:26-28</a>; compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,\'1-4\');">Mt 18:1-4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,11);">23:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,\'5-11\');">Php 2:5-11</a>).``185';
|
||
isbe[3932]='Greaves`grevz.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ARMOR;+arms">ARMOR, ARMS</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3933]='Grecians; Greeks`gre\'-shanz, greks: In the Old Testament the word "Grecians" occurs but once (<a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',3,6);">Joe 3 (4):6</a>). For references to Greece in the Old Testament see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=JAVAN">JAVAN</A>. In the King James Version of the Old Testament Apocrypha "Grecians" and "Greeks" are used without distinction, e.g. 1Macc 1:10; 6:2; 8:9; 2Macc 4:15,36. Thus, in 1Macc 1:1, Alexander the Great is spoken of as king of Greece, and in 1Macc 1:10 the Macedonian empire is called "the kingdom of the Greeks" (basileia Hellenon). In 2Macc 13:2 the army of Antiochus, king of Syria, is called "Grecian" (dunamis Hellenike), and in 2Macc 6:8 the "Greek cities" (poleis Hellenides) are Macedonian colonies. Reference is made in 2Macc 6:1 to an aged Athenian who was sent by Antiochus the king charged with the duty of Hellenizing the Jews; in 2Macc 9:15 Antiochus vows that he will make the Jews equal to the Athenians; in 1Macc 12-14, reference is made to negotiations of Jonathan, the high priest, with the Spartans, whom he calls brethren, seeking the renewal of a treaty of alliance and amity against the Syrians. With the spread of Greek power and influence, everything not specifically Jewish was called Greek; thus in 2Macc 4:36; 11:2; 3Macc 3:3,1 the "Greeks" contrasted with the Jews are simply non-Jews, so called because of the prevalence of Greek institutions and culture, and "Greek" even came to be used in the sense of "anti-Jewish" (2Macc 4:10,15; 6:9; 11:24).<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',9,12);">Isa 9:12</a> the Septuagint reads tous Hellenas, for Pelishtim, "Philistines"; but we are not therefore justified in assuming a racial connection between the Philistines and the Greeks. Further light on the ethnography of the Mediterranean<P>basin may in time show that there was actually such a connection; but the rendering in question proves nothing, since "the oppressing sword" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',46,16);">Jer 46:16</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',50,16);">50:16</a> is likewise rendered in the Septuagint with "the sword of the Greeks" (machaira Hellenike). In all these cases the translators were influenced by the conditions existing in their own day, and were certainly not disclosing obscure relations long forgotten and newly discovered.<P>In the New Testament, English Versions of the Bible attempts to distinguish between (Hellenes), which is rendered "Greeks," and (Hellenistai), which is rendered "Grecians" or "Grecian Jews," or in the Revised Version, margin "Hellenists," e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',6,1);">Ac 6:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,29);">9:29</a>. These latter were Jews of the Dispersion, who spoke Greek (see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=HELLENISM">HELLENISM</a>; <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=HELLENIST">HELLENIST</A>), as distinguished from Palestinian Jews; but since many of the latter also spoke Greek by preference, the distinction could in no sense be absolute. Indeed in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',7,35);">Joh 7:35</a>, "the Dispersion among (the Revised Version, margin, Greek "of") the Greeks," can hardly refer to any but "Grecian Jews" (Hellenistai), although Hellenes is used, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,20);">Joh 12:20</a> the "Greeks" (Hellenes) who went up to worship at the feast of the Passover were almost certainly "Grecian Jews" (Hellenistai). Thus, while English Versions of the Bible consistently renders Hellenes with "Greeks," we are not by that rendering apprised of the real character of the people so designated. This difficulty is aggravated by the fact, already noted in connection with the Old Testament Apocrypha, that, in consequence of the spread of Hellenism, the term Hellenes was applied not only to such as were of Hellenic descent, but also to all those who had appropriated the language of Greece, as the universal means of communication, and the ideals and customs collectively known as Hellenism. The latter were thus in the strict sense Hellenists, differing from the "Grecians" of English Versions of the Bible only in that they were not of Jewish descent. In other words, Hellenes (except perhaps in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',7,35);">Joh 7:35</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,20);">12:20</A>, as noted above) is, in general, equivalent to ta ethne, "Gentiles" (see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=GENTILES">GENTILES</A>). The various readings of the manuscripts (and hence the difference between the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)) in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,23);">1Co 1:23</a> well illustrate this. There is consequently much confusion, which it is quite impossible, with our limited knowledge of the facts in particular cases, to clear up. In general, it would seem probable that where "Greeks" are comprehensively contrasted with "Jews," the reference is to "Gentiles," as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,1);">Ac 14:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,4);">17:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,4);">18:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,10,17);">19:10, 17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,21);">20:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,16);">Ro 1:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',10,12);">10:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,\'22-24\');">1Co 1:22-24</a> (the Revised Version (British and American) "Gentiles," representing ethnesin; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,28);">Ga 3:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,11);">Col 3:11</a>. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,26);">Mr 7:26</a> the woman of Tyre, called "a Greek (the Revised Version, margin "Gentile") a Syrophoenician," was clearly not of Hellenic descent. Whether Titus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,3);">Ga 2:3</a>) and the father of Timothy; (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,1,3);">Ac 16:1, 3</a>) were in the strict sense "Greeks," we have no means of knowing. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,14);">Ro 1:14</a>, "I am debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians," there is an undoubted reference to Greeks strictly so called; possibly, though by no means certainly, the "Greeks" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,28);">Ac 21:28</a>, alluding to Trophimus the Ephesian (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,29);">Ac 21:29</a>), are to be taken in the same sense. References to the Greek language occur in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,20);">Joh 19:20</a> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,38);">Lu 23:38</a> is properly omitted in the Revised Version (British and American)); <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,37);">Ac 21:37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',9,11);">Re 9:11</a>.<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,20);">Ac 11:20</a> the manuscripts vary between Hellenistas, and Hellenas (the King James Version "Grecians," the Revised Version (British and American) "Greeks"), with the preponderance of authority in favor of the former; but even if one adopts the latter, it is not clear whether true Greeks or Gentiles are intended.``75';
|
||
isbe[3934]='Greece, Religion in Ancient` <p><b>I. THE GREEK GODS</b><P class="in15">1. Greek Myths<P class="in15">2. Mythology Distinguished from Religion<P class="in15">3. Local Shrines<P class="in15">4. Epithets of the Gods<P class="in15">5. Nature of the Gods of Worship<P class="in15">6. Relation of Greek Gods to Nature<P class="in15">7. The Greater Gods of Greece<P class="in15">8. Nature Gods<P class="in15">9. Gods of Human Activities and Emotions<P><b>II. REVELATION: INSPIRATION</b><P class="in15">1. Omens<P class="in15">2. Divination by Sacrifice<P class="in15">3. Dreams<P class="in15">4. Oracles<P><b>III. FORMS OF WORSHIP</b><P class="in15">1. Shrines<P class="in15">2. Temples<P class="in15">3. Priests<P class="in15">4. Seasons of Worship: Festivals<P class="in15">5. Elements of Worship<P class="in15">6. Prayer<P class="in15">7. Burnt Offering, or Sacrificial Meal<P class="in15">8. Meaning of Sacrifice<P class="in15">9. Propitiatory Sacrifice<P class="in15">10. Purification<P class="in15">11. The Great Religious Festivals<P class="in15">12. Mysteries at Eleusis<P class="in15">13. Absence of Magic and Mystery<P><b>IV. THE FUTURE LIFE</b><P class="in15">1. Funeral Rites<P class="in15">2. Future Life in the Homeric Poems<P class="in15">3. Later Beliefs in Immortality<P><b>V. SIN, EXPIATION, AND THE RELIGIOUS LIFE</b><P class="in15">1. Greek Idea of Sin<P class="in15">2. Religious Ideals<P><b>VI. THE INFLUENCE OF GREEK RELIGION ON CHRISTIANITY</b><P class="in15">1. Greek Philosophy and Christian Theology<P class="in15">2. Greek Influence on Christian Liturgy<P class="in15">3. Greek Influence on the Sacraments<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. The Greek Gods.<P>1. Greek Myths:<P>The gods of ancient Greece are well known to our western civilization through the myths which have found so large a place in our literature. In Greece itself, fancy had free play in dealing with these divine beings, and the myths were the main treasure-house from which the poet drew; the same myths and the same gods, under different names, reappear in Rome; and Rome passed them on, a splendid heritage of imagination, to the literatures of later Europe. It is characteristic of myths that they deal with persons, not so different from men in their nature, but with more than human powers. Gods, nymphs and satyrs, noble "heroes" or evil spirits have superhuman powers in varying degree, but they remain persons with a human interest because of their human type. And, further, as men are organized in families, cities and states, so there is a tendency to organize the beings of myth into social groups, and even to bring men, heroes and gods together into one large social organism, the universe of persons.<P>These Greek myths, the story of Athena\'s birth full-armed from the brain of Zeus, of Circe\'s magic potion, of Poseidon\'s chariot on the waves, and of Apollo\'s shafts are familiar to us from childhood. To regard them as expressing the content of Greek religion is as natural as it is false. Very few myths have any religious meaning at all, in spite of the large part the gods play in them. A little comparison with the facts of worship serves to show that here the gods are quite different from the gods of story.<P>2. Mythology Distinguished from Religion:<P>Some of the gods hardly appear in myths, and some of the beings of myth are not worshipped; in worship, each god is for the time being the only god thought of, not a member of the hierarchy established in myth; moreover in myth the gods are treated as universal, while the gods of worship are most closely attached, each to one shrine. Along with these external differences goes the one essential difference between a being of story and an object of worship. The failure to recognize the deep meaning of Greek religion results from the superficial assumption that myths constitute a peculiar kind of theology, when in reality they teach but little, and that, indirectly, about religion proper.<P>3. Local Shrines:<P>The essential fact about the gods of Greek religion is that each god was worshipped in a unique form at one or another particular shrine by a group of worshippers more or less definite. The group might include the state, the dwellers in one locality or simply the family; whatever its limits, it included those connected with the god by a social-religious tie, and the fundamental purpose of the worship was to strengthen this tie. In a city like Athens there were hundreds of such shrines, varying in importance, each the place where one particular phase of a god was worshipped at specified times. The particular form of the god was ordinarily indicated by an epithet attached to his name, Zeus Olympios, Dionysus Eleutherios, Athena Nike. This epithet might refer to the locality of the worship (Aphrodite of the Gardens), to the center from which the worship was brought (Artemis Brauronia), to some local spirit identified with the greater god (Poseidon Erechtheus), or to the nature of the god himself (Apollo Patroos).<P>4. Epithets of the Gods:<P>Each of the many shrines in Athens had thus its unique god, its group of worshippers connected with the god, its particular form of worship and times of worship, its own officials. While the state exercised general supervision over all the shrines, they were not organized in a hierarchy under any distinctly religious officials, but remained as independent units. Religious worship in a given city meant the aggregation of independent worships at the different local shrines.<P>5. Nature of the Gods of Worship:<P>The god of worship, then, was the god of a local shrine whose blessing and favor were sought at certain times by those who had the right to worship there. As in myth the gods were drawn after human types, that is, with human virtues and human frailties, and bodies almost human, except that they were not made to die; so in worship the gods were persons not unlike men in their nature. Worship proceeds on the assumption that gods are like human rulers, in that men honor the gods by games and processions, seek to please them by gifts, and ask them to share banquets made in their honor. Only the humanness of the gods in worship is something more subtle, more intimate than in myth. No stress is laid on human form or the vagaries of human character in the gods of worship; in form they remain spirits more or less vague, but spirits who care for men, who may be approached as a man approaches his ruler, spirits bound to man by close social ties which it is his duty and pleasure to strengthen. Zeus is father of gods and men, a father not untouched by the needs of his children; Athena cares for the city of Athens as her special pride; each family worships gods which are all but akin to the family; in the gymnasium, Apollo or Hermes is represented as the patron and ideal of the youths who exercise there; the drama is part of the service of Dionysus; in a word each form of human activity, be it work or pleasure, was a point of contact with the gods. The real forces at work in the world were first men, and secondly beings with a nature like man\'s, but with powers superior to man\'s; worship was the attempt to ally the gods more closely to man by social-religious ties, in order that as both worked together the ends of life might be successfully attained. This conception of the gods as higher members of society is the keynote of Greek religion. In some ethnic religions the gods seem to be evil beings whose desire for mischief man must overcome; in others they are beings to be avoided as much as possible; or again they are rulers who delight in man\'s abject servitude; or again by cultivating the friendship of one god, man may hope to win blessing and avoid harm from the others. In Greece all the gods of worship were essentially friendly to man, because they were akin to him and a part of the society in which he lived.<P>6. Relation of Greek Gods to Nature:<P>The relation of the gods to Nature is not so simple as might at first appear. Within certain limits the forces of Nature were subject to the will of the gods. From the Greek point of view, however, the relation is much more intimate, in that the forces in the world, at least in so far as they affect man, are personal activities, activities that express the will of divine beings. We say that Poseidon personifies the sea, Gaia the earth, Helios the sun; and the origin of religion has been sought in man\'s awe before the forces of Nature. The truer statement is that the Greek world, including the physical world, was made up of spiritual beings, not of physical forces. "The fire, as useful as it is treacherous, is the province of Hephaestus; all the dangers and changeableness of the sea are reflected in Poseidon and his followers; an Artemis is there to guide the hunter, a Demeter to make the grain sprout, a Hermes or Apollo to watch over the herds; Athena is the spirit of wisdom, Hermes of shrewdness, Ares of tumultuous war....In a word the Greek gods are in the world, not above the world, superior beings who embody in personal form all the forces that enter into human life." The contrast between such a personal point of view and the mechanical view of modern science is as marked as the contrast between it and the Hebrew conception of a universe brought into being and controlled by a God quite distinct from the physical world.<P>7. The Greater Gods of Greece:<P>Of the particular gods, little need be said. The five greater gods, Zeus, Hera, Athena, Apollo and Artemis, are not closely connected with any one phenomenon of Nature or human life, though Zeus has to do with the sky, and Apollo and Artemis acquire a connection with the sun and moon. The most important worship of Zeus was at Olympia, where the pan-Hellenic games were held in his honor. Elsewhere he was worshipped mainly in connection with the weather and the changing seasons. Apparently much of his preeminence in Greek thought was due to myth. Hera was worshipped with Zeus on mountain tops, but her special place in worship was as the goddess of marriage. Athena, the maiden goddess of war and of handicrafts, was worshipped especially in Northern Greece. War dances found a place in her worship, and she was rarely represented without aegis, spear and helmet. All the arts, agriculture, handicrafts, even the art of government, were under her care. Apollo was worshipped widely as the protector of the crops, and of the shepherd\'s flocks. In this aspect his festivals included purifications and rites to ward off dangers. He was also the god of music and of prophecy. At Delphi his prophetic powers won great renown, but the Pythian games with their contests in music, in rhythmic dancing, and in athletic sports were hardly less important. Artemis, in myth the chaste sister of Apollo, was worshipped as the queen of wild creatures and the mother of life in plants as well as in animals. She was the patron and the ideal of young women, as was Apollo of young men.<P>8. Nature Gods:<P>The gods most closely associated with Nature were not so important for religion. Gain, mother earth, received sacrifices occasionally as the abode of the dead. Rhea in Crete, Cybele in Asia Minor, also in origin forms of the earth mother, received more real worship; this had to do primarily with the birth of vegetation in the spring, and again with its destruction by drought and heat. Rivers were honored in many places as gods of fertility, and springs as nymphs that blessed the land and those who cultivated it. Poseidon was worshipped that he might bless fishing and trade by sea; inland he was sometimes recognized as the "father of waters," and a god of fertility; and where horses were raised, it was under the patronage of Poseidon. The heavenly bodies marked the seasons of worship, but were rarely themselves worshipped. In general, the phenomena of Nature seem to have been too concrete to rouse sentiments of worship in Greece.<P>9. Gods of Human Activity and Emotions:<P>A third class of gods, gods of human activities and emotions, were far more important for religion. Demeter, once no doubt a form of the original earth-goddess, was the goddess of the grain, worshipped widely and at many seasons by an agricultural people. Dionysus, god of souls, of the inner life, and of inspiration by divine power, was worshipped by all who cultivated the vine or drank wine. The Attic drama was the most important development of his worship. Hermes was quite generally honored as the god of shepherds and the god of roads. As the herald, and the god of trade and gain, he found a place in the cities. Aphrodite was perhaps first the goddess of the returning life of the spring; in Greece proper she was rather the goddess of human love, of marriage and the family, the special patron of women. Ares, the Thracian god of war, was occasionally worshipped in Greece, but more commonly the god of each state was worshipped to give success in battle to his people. Hephaestus, pictured as himself a lame blacksmith working at the art which was under his protection, was worshipped now as the fire, now as the patron of cunning work in metal. Asclepius received men\'s prayers for relief from disease.<P>II. Revelation: Inspiration.<P>For the Greeks revelation was a knowledge of the divine will in special circumstances, and inspiration was evinced by the power to foresee the divine purpose in a particular case. There is no such thing as the revelation of the divine nature, nor any question of universal truth coming to men through an inspired teacher; men knew a god through his acts, not through any seer or prophet. But some warning in danger or some clue to the right choice in perplexity might be expected from gods so close to human need as were the Greek gods. The Homeric poems depicted the gods as appearing to men to check them, to encourage them or to direct them. In Homer also men might be guided by signs; while in later times divine guidance came either from signs or from men who were so close to the gods as to foresee something of the divine purpose.<P>1. Omens:<P>The simplest class of signs were those that occurred in Nature. In the Iliad the thunderbolt marked the presence of Zeus to favor his friends or check those whose advance he chose to stop. The Athenian assembly adjourned when rain began to fall. Portents in Nature—meteors, comets, eclipses, etc.—claimed the attention of the superstitious; but there was no science of astrology, and superstition had no great hold on the Greeks. In the Homeric poems, birds frequently denoted the will of the gods, perhaps because their place was in the sky beyond any human control, perhaps because certain birds were associated with particular gods. The presence of an eagle on the right hand (toward the east) was favorable, especially when it came in answer to prayer. At times, the act of the bird is significant, as when the eagle of Zeus kills the geese eating grain in Odysseus\' hall—portent of the death of the suitors. In later Greek history there are but few references to signs from birds. The theory of these signs in Nature is very simple: all Nature but expresses the will of the gods, and when the gods wish to give men some vague hint of the future, it is necessary only to cause some event not easily explained to attract man\'s attention.<P>2. Divination by Sacrifice:<P>From the 5th century on, divination by means of sacrificial victims took the place ordinarily of signs such as have just been described. In the presence of the enemy or before some important undertaking, animals were sacrificed to the gods. If they came willingly to the altar, if the inward parts, especially the liver, were sound and well shaped and of good color, if the sacrifice burned freely and without disturbing the arrangement on the altar, success might be expected. The theory was very simple: if the gods were pleased and accepted the sacrifice, their favor was assured; but if the sacrifice deviated in any way from the normal, it would not please the gods. Thus any sacrifice might have prophetic significance, while sacrifices offered before important undertakings had special meaning. The practice arose of repeating sacrifices before a battle until a favorable one was obtained, and at length, as religion began to lose its hold, the time came when a general might disregard them completely.<P>3. Dreams:<P>An important means of learning the will of the gods was through dreams, when the ordinary channels of perception were closed and the mind was free to receive impressions from the gods. The treacherousness of dreams was fully recognized, even in the Homeric poem; students of natural science came to recognize that dreams arose from natural causes; none the less they were generally regarded as a source of knowledge about the future, and gradually a science for interpreting dreams was evolved. For Pindar and for Plato the soul was more free when the body slept, and because the soul was the divine part of man\'s nature it could exercise the power of divination in sleep. Many of the recorded dreams are signs which came to the mind in sleep, like the dreams of Joseph and of Pharaoh, signs that needed later interpretation.<P>See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=DIVINATION">DIVINATION</a>; <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=DREAM;+DREAMER">DREAM</a>.<P>Prophets and seers were not as important in Greece as among many peoples. The blind Teiresias belongs to the realm of myth, though there were great families of seers, like the Iamidae at Olympia, who were specially gifted to interpret dreams, or signs from sacrifices. Ordinarily it was the "chresmologist," the man with a collection of ancient sayings to be applied to present events, whose advice was sought in time of need; or else men turned to the great oracles of Greece.<P>4. Oracles:<P>The most important oracle was that of Apollo at Delphi. Hither came envoys of nations as well as individuals, and none went away without some answer to their questions. After preliminary sacrifices, the priestess purified herself and mounted the tripod in the temple; the question was propounded to her by a temple official, and it was his function also to put her wild ravings into hexameter verse for the person consulting the oracle. A considerable number of these answers remain to us, all, of course, somewhat vague, many of them containing shrewd advice on the question that was brought to the oracle. The honor paid to the oracle and its influence, on the whole an influence making for high ethical standards and wise statesmanship, must be recognized. The early Christian Fathers held that the Pythian priestess was inspired by an evil spirit; later critics have treated the whole institution as a clever device to deceive the people; but in view of the respect paid to the oracle through so many generations, it is hard to believe that its officials were not honest in their effort to discover and make known the will of the god they served.<P>III. Forms of Worship.<P>1. Shrines:<P>It has already been pointed out that Greek religion centered about local shrines. While in early times the shrine consisted of an altar with perhaps a sacred grove, and later it might be no more than a block of stone on which offerings were laid, the more important shrines consisted of a plot of land sacred to the god, a temple or home for the god, and an altar for sacrifices. The plot of land, especially in the case of shrines outside a city, might be very large, in which case it often was used as a source of income to the shrine, being cultivated by the priests or leased under restrictions to private persons.<P>2. Temples:<P>In this precinct stood the temple, facing toward the east, so that the morning sun would flood its interior when it was opened on a festival day. With one or two exceptions, the temple was not a place of assembly for worship, but a home for the god. It contained some symbol of his presence, after the 5th century BC ordinarily an image of the god; it served as the treasure-house for gifts brought to the god; worship might be offered in it by the priests, while the people gathered at the sacrifice outside. And as a home for the god, it was adorned with all the beauty and magnificence that could be commanded. The images of the gods, the noblest creation of sculpture in the 5th and 4th centuries, were not exactly "idols"; that is, the images were not themselves worshipped, even though they were thought to embody the god in some semblance to his true form. In Greece men worshipped the gods themselves, grateful as they were to artists who showed them in what beautiful form to think of their deities.<P>3. Priests:<P>Each of these shrines was directly in the hands of one or more officials, whose duty it was to care for the shrine and to keep up its worship in due form. Occasionally the priesthood was hereditary and the office was held for life; quite as often priests were chosen for a year or a term of years; but it was exceptional when the duties of the office prevented a man from engaging in other occupations. In distinction from the priests of many other forms of religion, the Greek priest was not a sacred man set apart for the service of the gods; the office may be called sacred, but the office was distinct from the man. The result was important, in that the priests in Greece could never form a caste by themselves, nor could they claim any other powers than were conferred on them by the ritual of the shrine. Thus Greek religion remained in the possession of the people, and developed no esoteric side either in dogma or in worship.<P>4. Seasons of Worship: Festivals:<P>The seasons of worship varied with each particular shrine. While the state observed no recurring sabbath, it recognized a certain number of religious festivals as public holidays; thus at Athens the number of religious holidays in the year was somewhat larger than our fifty-two Sundays. The tradition of each shrine determined whether worship should be offered daily or monthly or yearly, and also what were the more important seasons of worship. The principle of the sacred days was that at certain seasons the god was present in his temple expecting worship; just as it was the principle of sacred places that the temple should be located where the presence of the god had been felt and therefore might be expected again. Neither the location of the temple nor the seasons of worship were determined primarily by human convenience.<P>5. Elements of Worship:<P>The elements of worship in Greece were<P class="in15">(1) prayers, hymns, and votive offerings,<P class="in15">(2) the sacrificial meal,<P class="in15">(3) propitiatory sacrifice and purification, and<P class="in15">(4) the processions, musical contests and athletic games, which formed part of the larger festivals.<P>The heroes of Homer prayed to the gods at all times, now a word of prayer in danger, now more formal prayers in connection with a sacrifice; and such was doubtless the practice in later times.<P>6. Prayer:<P>In the more formal prayers, it was customary to invoke the god with various epithets, to state the petition, and to give the reason why a favorable answer might be expected—either former worship by the petitioner, or vows of future gifts, or former answers to prayer, or an appeal to the pity of the god. Sometimes a prayer reads as if it were an attempt to win divine favor by gifts; more commonly, if not always, the appeal is to a relationship between man and his god, in which man\'s gifts play a very subordinate part. Thanksgiving finds small place in prayer or in sacrifice, but it was rather expressed in votive offerings. In every temple these abounded, as in certain Roman Catholic shrines today; and as is the case today they might be of value in themselves, they might have some special reference to the god, or they might refer to the human need in which the giver had found help. So far as the great public festivals are concerned, the prayer seems to have been merged with the hymn of praise in which the element of petition found a small place.<P>7. Burnt Offering or Sacrificial Meal:<P>The most common form of worship consisted of the sacrificial meal, like the meat offering or meal offering of the Hebrews. The sacrifice consisted of a domestic animal, selected in accordance with the ritual of the shrine where it was to be offered. First the animal was led to the altar, consecrated with special rites and killed by the offerer or the priest while hymns and cries of worship were uttered by the worshippers. Then some of the inward parts were roasted and eaten by priests and worshippers. Finally the remainder of the creature was prepared, the thigh bones wrapped in fat and meat to be burned for the god, the balance of the meat to be roasted for the Worshippers; and with libations of wine the whole was consumed. The religious meaning of the act is evidently found in the analogy of a meal prepared for an honored guest.<P>8. Meaning of the Sacrifice:<P>The animal, an object valuable in itself, is devoted to this religious service; the god and his worshippers share alike this common meal; and the god is attached to his worshippers by a closer social bond, because they show their desire to honor and commune with him, while he condescends to accept the gift and to share the meal they have prepared. (Possibly the animal was once thought to have been made divine by the act of consecration, or the god was believed to be present in his flesh, but there is no evidence that such a belief existed in the 5th century BC, or later.) The simple, rational character of this worship is characteristic of Greek religion.<P>9. Propitiatory Sacrifice:<P>When men felt that the gods were displeased or in circumstances where for any reason their favor was doubtful, a different form of sacrifice was performed. A black animal was selected, and brought to a low altar of earth; the sacrifice was offered toward evening or at night, and the whole animal was consumed by fire. While in general this type of sacrifice may be called propitiatory, its form, if not its meaning, varied greatly. It might be worship to spirits of the earth whose anger was to be feared; it might be offered when an army was going into battle, or when the crops were in danger of blight, or of drought; or again it was the normal form of worship in seasons of pestilence or other trouble. Sometimes the emphasis seems to be laid on the propitiation of anger by an animal wholly devoted to the god, while at other times there is the suggestion that some evil substance is removed by the rite.<P>10. Purification:<P>The later conception is clearer in rites of purification, where, by washing, by fire, or by the blood of an animal slain for the purpose, some form of defilement is removed. In the sacrifice of a pig to Demeter for this purpose, or of a dog to Hecate, some mystic element may exist, since these animals were sacred to the respective goddesses.<P>These various elements of worship were combined in varying degree in the great religious festivals. These lasted from a day to a fortnight. After purification of the worshippers, which might be simple or elaborate, and some preliminary sacrifice, there was often a splendid procession followed by a great public sacrifice.<P>11. The Great Religious Festivals:<P>In the greater festivals, this was followed by athletic games and horse races in honor of the god, and sometimes by contests in music and choral dancing, or, in the festivals of Dionysus at Athens, by the performance of tragedy and comedy in theater. In all this, the religious element seems to retreat into the background, though analogies may be found in the history of Christianity. The religious mystery plays were the origin of our own drama; and as for the horse races, one may still see them performed as a religious function, for example, at Siena. The horse races and the athletic games were performed for the gods as for some visiting potentate, a means of affording them pleasure and doing them honor. The theatrical performances apparently originated in ceremonies more essentially religious, in which men acted some divine drama depicting the experiences attributed to the gods themselves.<P>12. Mysteries at Eleusis:<P>This last feature is most evident in the mysteries at Eleusis, where the experiences of Demeter and Persephone were enacted by the people with the purpose of bringing the worshippers into some more intimate connection with these goddesses, such that their blessing was assured not only for this world, but for the life after death.<P>13. Absence of Magic and Mystery:<P>In all the forms of Greek worship perhaps the most striking feature was the absence of magic or superstition, almost the absence of mystery. Men approached the gods as they would approach superior men, bringing them petitions and gifts, making great banquets for their entertainment, and performing races and games for their pleasure, although this was by no means the whole of Greek religion, a phase of religion far more highly developed in the rational atmosphere of Greek thought than among other races. As the Greek gods were superior members of the social universe, so Greek worship was for the most part social, even human, in its character.<P>IV. The Future Life.<P>1. Funeral Rites:<P>Greek thought of the life after death was made up of three elements which developed successively, while the earlier ones never quite lost their hold on the people in the presence of the later. The oldest and most permanent thought of the future found its expression in the worship of ancestors. Whether the body of the dead was buried or burned, the spirit was believed to survive, an insubstantial shadowy being in the likeness of the living man. And rites were performed for these shades to lay them to rest and to prevent them from injuring their survivors, if not to secure their positive blessing. As at other points in Greek religion, the rites are fairly well known, while the belief must be inferred from the rites. The rites consisted first of an elaborate funeral, including sometimes animal sacrifices and even athletic games, and secondly of gifts recurring at stated intervals, gifts of water for bathing, of wine and food, and of wreaths and flowers. The human wants and satisfaction of the spirit are thus indicated. And the purpose is perhaps to keep the spirit alive, certainly to keep it in good humor so that it will not injure the survivors and bring on them defilement which would mean the wrath of the gods. At the same time, any contact with death demands purification before one can approach the gods in worship.<P>2. Future Life in the Homeric Poems:<P>The second element in Greek thought of the future life appears in the Homeric poems, and through the epic exerted a wide influence on later periods. Here the separateness of the souls of the dead from the human life is emphasized. Once the bodies of the dead are burned, the souls go to the realm of Hades, whence there is no return even in dreams, and where (according to one view) not even consciousness remains to them. It would seem that the highly rational view of the world in the epic, a point of view which laid stress on the greater Olympian gods, banished the belief in souls as akin to the belief in sinister and magic influences. We might almost say that the thought of the greater gods as personal rulers tended to drive out the thought of lesser and more mystic spiritual influences, and made a place for souls only as shades in the realm of Hades. Certainly the result for Greek religion was to render far less vivid any idea of a real life after death.<P>3. Later Beliefs in Immortality:<P>The third element was associated with the worship of the gods of the lower world, and in particular Demeter and Persephone. In this worship, particularly at Eleusis, the fact of life after death was assumed, a fact that the Greeks never had denied; but the reality of the future life, the persistence of human relationship after death, and the kindly rule of Persephone as Queen of Souls were vividly impressed on the worshippers. In part through the influence of the Orphic sect, the actual divinity of the soul was believed by many thinkers, a doctrine which was formulated by Plato in a manner which profoundly affected early Christian thought. If the epic emphasis on the greater gods made the souls mere shades in Hades, it was again a religious movement, namely the worship of gods like Persephone and Dionysus, which taught to some Greeks the divine reality of the soul and its hope for a blessed life in communion with the gods.<P>This development in Greece is the more interesting because there are indications of the same. thing in Hebrew history. In the Old Testament there are found traces of an old worship of souls, practiced by races akin to the Hebrews if not by the Hebrews themselves; this worship was brought to an end under the clarifying power of the worship of Yahweh; and finally the later prophets perceived the truth that while souls were not to be worshipped, the dead who died in the Lord did not become mere shades, but continued to live as the objects of His Divine love.<P>V. Sin, Expiation, and the Religious Life.<P>1. Greek Idea of Sin:<P>The ancient Hebrew religion made much of sin, and of the remedy for sin which God, in loving mercy to His people, had provided; in Greece the thought of sin found no such place in the religious life, though of course it was not absent altogether. If sin is defined as that which causes divine displeasure and wrath, it appears in Greek thought in three forms:<P class="in15">(1) as the transgression of moral law,<P class="in15">(2) as neglect of the gods and consequent presumption, and<P class="in15">(3) as pollution.<P>The cause of sin is traced to human folly, either some passion like envy or anger or desire for gain, or to undue self-reliance which develops into presumption; and once a man has started in the wrong direction, his sin so affects judgment and will that he is all but inevitably led on into further sin. According to the simple Greek theodicy, the transgression of moral law brings its penalty, nor can any sacrifice induce the gods to intervene on behalf of the transgressor. All that expiation can accomplish is to set right the spirit of the transgressor so that he will not be led into further sin. Neglect of the gods—the second type of sin—brings its penalty in the results of divine wrath, but in this case, prompt repentance and submission to the gods may appease the wrath and therefore change its results. Pollution, the third cause of divine displeasure, often cannot be called sin; the failure to remove pollution, however, especially before one approaches the gods, is a just cause of divine anger. In general the Greek thought of sin centers about the idea of undue self-reliance and presumption, (hubris), which is the opposite of the characteristic Greek virtue, (sophrosune), namely that temperate mode of life in which everything is viewed in right proportion. Inasmuch as the Greek gods are righteous rulers, the nature of sin lies in its opposition to divine justice, not in unholiness or in the rejection of divine love.<P>2. Religious Ideals:<P>The demands of the religious life in Greece were relatively simple. To avoid acts of impiety such as are mentioned above, to perform the ordinary acts of worship regularly and punctiliously, were all that was required, though the religious man might find many opportunities for worship beyond what was expected of everyone. Little is said of the spirit of worship which underlay the outward acts. Nor does the command, "Be ye therefore holy, even as I am holy," find an echo in Greece. At the same time the fact that the gods so definitely represented human ideals of life, must have meant that in a way men aimed to make their lives conform to divine ideals. The essential feature of the religious life was the true recognition of human dependence on the gods, a dependence which showed itself in obedience to the divine rule, in trustful confidence that the gods would bless their worshippers, in resignation when misfortune came, and particularly in the belief in the loving care and protection of the divine rulers. In Greece, the religious man looked to the gods not so much for salvation from evil, as for positive blessings.<P>VI. The Influence of Greek Religion on Christianity.<P>1. Greek Philosophy and Christian Theology:<P>This is not the place to speak of the decadence of Greek religion, of its ameliorating influence on the Alexandrian world, or of the control it exercised over the Roman state. Its most permanent effect is found rather in Christianity. And here its shaping influence is first noted in Christian theology beginning with Paul and the Apostle John. For although Greek religion was more free from dogma or anything that could be called theology than are most religions, it furnished the religious content to the greatest philosophical systems we know; and all through the centuries the leaders of Christian thought have been trained in the religious philosophy of Plato and of Aristotle. Our Christian conceptions of the nature of God and the soul, of the relation of God to the physical universe, and of God\'s government of the world, have been worked out along the lines laid down by these Greek thinkers. And while the debt is primarily to Greek philosophy, it should never be forgotten that Greek philosophy formulated these conceptions out of the material which Greek religion furnished; indeed one may believe that it was the religious conceptions formulated by centuries of thoughtful worshippers which found final expression in the Greek philosophic systems.<P>2. Greek Influence on Christian Liturgy:<P>Again, the organization of the early Christian church and its form of government was quite as much Greek as it was Hebrew in origin. Here the influence of Greek religion as such was less marked; still it must be remembered that every form of Greek organization had its religious side, be it family, or school, or state; and further, that some phases of religion in Greece were quite thoroughly organized in a manner that was adapted without much difficulty to the conditions of the new religion. Moreover the thought of the Greek priest as not a sacred man, but a man appointed by the community to a sacred office, was naturally adopted by the nascent Christian communities. Even in the organization of worship, in the prayers and hymns and liturgy which gradually developed from the simplest beginnings, it is not difficult to trace the influence of what the Greek converts to Christianity had been brought up to regard as worship of the gods.<P>3. Greek Influence on the Sacraments:<P>The most striking case of the effect of the old religion on the new is found in the method of celebrating the Christian sacraments. In the 2nd century AD, the baptismal bath took place after a brief period of instruction, and at the common meal the bread and wine were blessed in commemoration of the Master. Three centuries passed and this simplicity had given way to splendid ceremony. Baptism ordinarily was performed only on the "mystic night," the night before Easter. Almost magic rites with fasting had exorcised evil from the candidate; ungirded, with loose hair and bare feet, he went down into the water, and later was anointed with oil to signify the gift of the Holy Spirit; then the candidates, dressed in white, wearing crowns, and carrying torches, proceeded to their first communion in which a mixture of honey and milk might take the place of wine. The whole ceremony had been assimilated to what Greek religion knew as an initiation, in which the baptized underwent some essential change of nature. They were said to have "put on the dress of immortality."<P>The Lord\'s Supper was carefully limited to those who had been through this initiation, and even among these, at length, degrees of privilege arose. The ceremony came to be known as a mystery, the table as an altar, the officiating priest as a "hierarch," and the result as a blessed "vision" of sacred things by which the resurrection life was imparted. In its formal character and the interpretation of its meaning, as well as in the terms used to describe it, the effect of the Greek mysteries may be seen.<P>Yet during these three centuries Christianity had been waging a life-and-death struggle with the old religion. It is indeed impossible to believe that converts to Christianity should intentionally copy the forms of a worship which they had often at much cost to themselves rejected as false. The process must have been slow and quite unconscious. As the language of heathen philosophy was used in forming a Christian theology, so the conceptions and practices which had developed in Greek religion found their way into the developing Christian ritual. Much of this ritual which had no essential place in Christianity was later rejected; some still remains, the contribution of the religious life of Greece to the forms of worship in our world religion.<P>LITERATURE.<P>O. Gruppe, "Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte" in I. von Muller\'s Handbuch, 1897-1906; Preller-Robert, Griechische Mythologie, I, 1894; W. H. Roscher, Ausfuhrliches Lexikon der griechischen und romishen Mythologie, 1884-; L. R. Farnell, The Cults of the Greek States, 1896-1910; L. Campbell, Religion in Greek Literature, 1898; J. Adam, The Religious Teachers of Greece, 1908; P. Stengel, "Die griechischen Kultusaltertumer," in I. von Muller\'s Handbuch, 2nd edition, 1898; B.I. Wheeler, Dionysus and Immortality, 1899; E. Hatch, Greek Ideas and Usages, Their Influence upon the Christian Church, 1890; G. Anrich, Das antike Mysterienwesen in seinem Einfluss auf das Christentum, 1894; E. E. G., The Makers of Hellas: A Critical Inquiry into the Philosophy and Religion of Ancient Greece, 1903; E. Caird, Evolution of Theology in Greek Philosophers, 1904; E.A. Gardner, Religion and Art in Ancient Greece, 1910; A. Fairbanks, Handbook of Greek Religion, 1910.``55';
|
||
isbe[3935]='Greece, Sons of`"I will stir up thy sons, O Zion, against thy sons, O Greece, and will make thee as the sword of a mighty man" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',9,13);">Zec 9:13</a>). The passage doubtless refers to the captive Hebrews who are held by the Greeks. The exhortation is to insurrection against the Greeks. Although bearing a striking similarity to the passage in <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',3,6);">Joe 3:6</a>, there is evidently no connection between the two. In the first, there was conflict between the nations; in the second, simply a reflection upon Tyre and Sidon for having sold into Greece certain Jewish captives. From a Jewish standpoint the Maccabean wars were really between Jews and Greeks.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JAVAN">JAVAN</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASMONEANS">ASMONEANS</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3936]='Greece; Graecia`gres, gre\'-sha;<P>1. Name:<P>In the earliest times there was no single name universally and exclusively in use either of the people or of the land of Greece. In Homer, three appellations, (Achaioi), (Danaoi), (Argeioi), were with no apparent discrimination applied to all the Greeks. By the Orientals they were called Ionians. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JAVAN">JAVAN</a>. The name (Hellenes), which in historical times came into general use as a collective appellation, was applied in Homer to a small tribe in Thessaly. But the corresponding name (Hellas) was not primarily a geographical term, but designated the abode of the Hellenes wherever they had their own states or cities. In the 4th century BC many felt, as did Isocrates, that even "Hellene" stood not so much for a distinction in race, as for preeminence of culture, in contrast to the despised "Barbarian." Hence, there was much dispute as touching certain peoples, as, e.g. the Epirotes, Macedonians, and even the Thessalians, whether they should be accounted Hellenes and as included in Hellas. The word (Graikoi), Latin Graeci) occurs in Aristotle, who says that it was an older name for those who were later called Hellenes. The meaning and truth of this statement are alike in doubt; but he probably refers only to the tribe inhabiting the vicinity of Dodona, in Epirus. At any rate, Graeci and Graecia owed their introduction practically to the Romans after their contact with the Greeks in the war with Pyrrhus, and in consequence they included (what "Hellenes" and "Hellas" did not) Epirus and Macedonia.<P>2. Location and Area:<P>"Hellas," as the land of the Hellenes, is used in a broad sense to include not only Greece proper, but also the islands of the Ionian and Aegean seas, the seaboard of the Hellespont, of the Pontus, and of Asia Minor, the flourishing colonial regions of Magna Grecia and Sicily, Crete, and occasionally Cyprus, Cyrene, and the scattered colonies dotting the shore of the Mediterranean, almost to the Pillars of Hercules. "Grecia," however, was used in a more restricted sense as applying to "Continuous" (or continental) Greece, which forms the southern extremity of the Balkan peninsula. While the Romans included Macedonia and Epirus, it will be well for us to limit Greece to the territory lying roughly below 40 degrees, and extending almost to 36 degrees North latitude, and ranging between 17 degrees and 23 degrees East longitude. If, as is proper, we include the immediately adjacent islands, its greatest length, from Mt. Olympus in the north to Cythera in the south, is about 280 miles; its greatest breadth, from Cephallenia in the west to Euboea in the east, is about 240 miles. The area, however, owing to the great irregularity of its contour, is far less than one might expect, amounting to about 30,000 square miles. With an area, therefore, considerably less than that of Portugal, Greece has a coastline exceeding in length that of Spain and Portugal combined. In Greece the ratio of coastline to area <span class="noTag">is</span> 1:3 1/4, whereas that of the Iberian peninsula <span clas="noTag">is</span> 1:25.<P>3. Mountain Structure:<P>The northern boundary of Greece is formed by an irregular series of mountain chains, beginning on the west with the Acroceraunian range and ending in Mt. Olympus (now, Elymbos, 9,790 ft.) on the east. Intersecting this line, the lofty Pindus range, forming the backbone of Northern Greece, extends southward to Mt. Tymphrestus (now, Velouchi, 7,610 ft.) in Aetolia, at which point spurs radiate through Central Greece. The highest peaks are Mt. Corax (now, Vardusia, 8,180 ft.) in Aetolia, Mt. Oeta (7,060 ft.), Parnassus (now, Lyakoura, 8,070 ft.), Helicon (now, Paleo Vouno, 5,740 ft.), Cithaeron (now, Elatias, 4,630 ft.), lying on the boundary between Boeotia and Attica, Mt. Geranea (now, Makri Plaghi, 4,500 ft.), north of the Isthmus, and, in Attica, Parnes (now, Ozea, 4,640 ft.), Pentelicon (now, Mendeli, 3,640 ft.) and Hymettus (now Trelovouni, 3,370 ft.). Along the eastern coast extends a broken range of mountains, the highest peaks of which are Ossa (now, Kissavos, 6,400 ft.), Pelion (now, Plessidi, 5,310 ft.); and, in Euboea, which virtually belongs to this range, Dirphys (now, Delphi, 5,730 ft.) and Ocha (now, Elias, 4,610 ft.). Southern Greece, or the Peloponnesus, is united to Central Greece only by a narrow isthmus (now cut by a canal 4 miles long), with a minimum altitude of about 250 ft. In the northern portion, a confused mass of mountains rises to great heights in Cyllene (now, Ziria, 7,790 ft.), Erymanthus (now, Olonos, 7,300 ft), Maenalus (now, Apano Chrepa, 6,500 ft.), all in Arcadia, Panachaicus (now, Voidia, 6,320 ft.), in Achaia; and, running southward through Laconia, the two important ranges called Taygetus (now, Pentedaktylo, 7,900 ft.) and Parnon (now, Malevo, 6,430 ft.). Minor ranges jut seaward in Argolis, Laconia and Messenia.<P>4. Rivers and Lakes:<P>The rainfall in Greece is not abundant and is confined largely to late autumn and winter. Whether the present rainfall differs much in amount from that of antiquity is a matter in dispute, although it seems reasonable to assume that the progressive denudation of the mountains since the 5th century AD has entailed a corresponding loss in humidity. Even in antiquity, however, the rivers of Greece were much like the arroyos of the southwest portion of the U.S.A., which are in winter raging mountain torrents, and in summer dry channels. Owing to the proximity of the sea to all points in Greece, the rivers are short, and the scarcity of springs makes them dependent upon the direct and immediate rainfall. Among the more considerable rivers may be enumerated, in Northern Greece, the Peneius, with its tributaries, in Thessaly; Central Greece, the Achelous and the Evenus, in Aetolia; the Spercheius, flowing between Oeta and Othrys into the Maliac Gulf; the storied, but actually insignificant, Ilyssus and Cephissus, of the Attic plain; in Southern Greece, the Alpheius, rising in Arcadia and flowing westward through Elis, and the Eurotas, which drains Laconia. Eastern Greece consists of a series of somewhat considerable basins, which become lakes in winter and are pestilent marshes in summer, except where Nature or man has afforded an outlet. The former is the case with the Peneius, which has cut a channel through the celebrated Vale of Tempe. Lake Copais, in Boeotia, affords an example of man\'s activity. The Minyae, in prehistoric times, are credited with enlarging the natural outlets, and so draining the basin for a time; in recent times the same undertaking has again been brought to a successful issue. Similar basins occur at Lake Boebeis, in Thessaly, and at Lake Stymphalus, in Arcadia, besides others of less importance. Western Greece has relatively few such basins, as at Lake Pambotis, in Epirus, and at Lake Trichonis, in Aetolia. In many cases, where there is no surface outlet to these basins, subterranean channels (called by the Greeks Katavothrae) are formed in the calcareous rock, through which the waters are drained and occasionally again brought to the surface at a lower level.<P>5. Climate:<P>The climate of Greece was probably much the same in ancient times as it is today, except that it may have been more salubrious when the land was more thickly populated and better cultivated. Herodotus says that of all countries, Greece possessed the most happily tempered seasons; and Hippocrates and Aristotle commend it for the absence of extremes of heat and cold, as favorable for intelligence and energy. But owing to the inequalities of its surface, to the height of its mountains and the depth of its valleys, the climate varies greatly in different districts. In the highlands of the interior the winter is often cold and severe, the snow lying on the ground until late in the spring, while in the lowlands near the sea there is rarely any severe weather, and snow is almost unknown. The following data for Athens may be taken as a basis for comparison: humidity 41 per cent, rainfall 13,1 inches, distributed over 100 days; mean temperature, Jan. 48,2 degrees F., July 80,6 degrees F. Greece lies open to the northern winds which, during certain seasons, prevail and give a bracing quality to the air not always present in places of the same latitude.<P>6. Geology:<P>The western half of Greece, in which the mountain ranges run generally from north to south, consists of a formation of grayish and yellowish-white compact limestone, while the eastern half—Macedonia, Thessaly, Euboea, Cyllene, and the mountains from Artemision to Cape Malea and Taygetus—together with the greater part of Attica and of the Cyclades, consists of mica-schist and crystalline-granular limestone (marble) Tertiary formations occur in narrow strips on the north and northwest slopes of the ranges in the Peloponnesus and in the valley of the Eurotas, in Boeotia and Euboea. Volcanic action is evidenced both in the parallel elevations of similar or contemporary formation, and in the earthquakes frequent in all ages, especially in Southern and Central Greece, and in the islands of the Aegean. Perennially active volcanoes are nowhere found in Greece, but new formations due to volcanic action are most clearly seen on the island of Them among the Cyclades, where they have occurred within the last half-century. The solfatara between Megara and Corinth, and the abundant hot springs at widely scattered points in Greece also bear witness to the volcanic character of the region. Many an ancient site, venerated for its sanctity in antiquity, like those of Delphi and Olympia, in their ruined temples offer mute testimony to the violence of the earthquakes; and history records repeated instances of cities engulfed by tidal waves of appalling height.<P>7. Topography:<P>Mention has already been made of the sinuous coastline of Greece, and the land has been spoken of as consisting of three divisions. Northern Greece, to which Epirus and Thessaly belong, is marked off from Central Greece by the deep indentations of the Ambracian Gulf on the west and the Maliac Gulf on the east. The Pegasean Gulf, virtually continued by Lake Boebeis, reaches far into Thessaly, and divides it from Magnesia, which lies to the eastward. The land of the Dolopians really belongs to Northern Greece. Central Greece consists of Acarnania and Aetolia on the west, and of Phocis, Boeotia and Attica (with the adjacent island of Euboea) on the east, separated by a group of lesser states, Aenis, Oetaea, Doris, Locris and Phocis. Southern Greece is separated from central Greece by the Corinthian and Saronic Gulfs, which almost meet at the Isthmus of Corinth, and are now, after repeated efforts, dating from the time of Julius Caesar, united by a sea-level canal. Megaris, which, by its position, belongs to Central Greece, is here, in accordance with its political affinities and predilections, classed with Corinth, the keeper of the isthmus, as belonging to Southern Greece. Facing the Corinthian Gulf, Achaia forms the northern division of the Peloponnesus, touching Elis, Arcadia and Argolis, which belt the peninsula in this order from west to east Arcadia is the only political division which does not have access to the sea, occupying as it does the great central plateau intersected by lesser ranges of varying height. The southernmost divisions, Messenia and Laconia, are deeply indented by the Messeniac and Laconic Gulfs, and Laconia is separated from the peninsula of Argolis by the Argolic Gulf, all of which head somewhat west of north of the subjacent islands, which a reasonable view must include in the boundaries of Greece, Euboea has already been mentioned; but we should add the group of great islands lying in the Ionian Sea, namely, Corcyra (now, Corfu), Leukas, Ithaca, Cephallenia (now, Cephalonia), Zacynthus (now, Zante), and Cythera (now, Cerigo), at the mouth of the Laconic Gulf, as well as Salamis and Aegina in the Saronic Gulf.<P>Greece was never, in ancient times, a united state, but consisted of a large number of separate states. These were essentially of two types, (a) city-states, in which a city dominated the adjacent territory whose free population constituted its citizenship, or (b) confederacies, in which neighboring cities or districts combined into political organizations which we may call federal states. These matters cannot, however, be discussed except in connection with the history of Greece, for which the reader must consult the standard works. It may be advisable here, however, to name the principal cities of Greece. Northern Greece had no great cities which developed as commercial centers. Aegina was the first to attain to special importance, then Corinth and Athens; Chalcis and Eretria, in Euboea, were for a time rich and prosperous, and Megara, in Megarid, and Argos, in Argolis, became formidable rivals of Athens. Sparta, though never a commercial center, early won and long maintained the hegemony of Greece, for a while disputed by Athens, in virtue of her power as the home of the militant Dorian aristocracy, which was disastrously defeated by the Beotians under Epaminondas, when Thebes, for a time, assumed great importance. Megalopolis, in Arcadia, enjoyed a brief prominence at the time of the Achean League, and Corcyra flourished in the 5th and 4th centuries BC. We should also not fail to mention three great centers of Greek religion: Olympia, in Elis, as the chief sanctuary of Zeus; Delphi, in Phocis, as the oracular seat of Apollo; and Eleusis, in Attica, as the pilgrim-shrine to which all Greeks resorted who would be initiated in the mysteries of Demeter and Cora. Argos also possessed a far-famed shrine of Hera, and Thermopile and Calauria were the centers at which met the councils of influential amphictyonies. Epidaurus was famous for her sanctuary of Asclepius. Delos, a little island in mid-Aegean, celebrated as a sanctuary of Apollo and as the meeting-place of a most influential amphictyony, falls without the limits of Greece proper; but Dodona, in Southern Epirus, should be mentioned as the most ancient and venerable abode of the oracle of Zeus. The Greeks, incorrigibly particularistic in politics, because of the almost insuperable barriers erected by Nature between neighboring peoples in the lofty mountain ranges, were in a measure united by their religion which, like the sea, another element making for intercourse and union, touched them at nearly every point.<P>For Greece in the Old Testament, see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JAVAN">JAVAN</A>. In the New Testament "Greece" occurs but once—<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,2);">Ac 20:2</a>—where it is distinguished from Macedonia.``75';
|
||
isbe[3937]='Greek Language``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LANGUAGE+OF+THE+NEW+TESTAMENT">LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3938]='Greek Versions``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SEPTUAGINT,+1">SEPTUAGINT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=VERSIONS">VERSIONS</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3939]='Greeks``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GRECIANS">GRECIANS</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3940]='Green; Greenish`gren.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=COLOR;+COLORS">COLOR</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3941]='Greeting`gret\'-ing (sha\'-al; chairo, aspasmos, aspazomai):<P>(1) Sha\'-al means "to ask," "to inquire of anyone respecting welfare," hence, "to greet." In the Old Testament the word "greet" occurs only once in the King James Version or the Revised Version (British and American), namely, in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',25,5);">1Sa 25:5</a>, "Go to Nabal, and greet him in my name." But it is implied in other places where shalom ("well," "prosperity," "peace"), the common Hebrew greeting, is used; e.g. in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,4);">Ge 37:4</a>, it is said of Joseph that "his brethren could not speak peaceably unto him," i.e. could not give him the common friendly greeting of "Peace!" "Peace be to thee!" So, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',43,27);">Ge 43:27</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "He asked them of their welfare" (King James Version margin "peace"); <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,7);">Ex 18:7</a>, "They asked each other of their Welfare"(king James Version, margin "peace"); <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',11,7);">2Sa 11:7</a>, "how Joab did, and how the people did" (the Revised Version (British and American) "fared," the King James Version margin "of the peace of"); Joab said to Amasa (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',20,9);">2Sa 20:9</a>), the Revised Version (British and American) "Is it well with thee, my brother?" (Hebrew "Art thou in peace, my brother?"); Boaz greeted his reapers with "Yahweh be with you," and they answered, "Yahweh bless thee" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rth\',2,4);">Ru 2:4</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',129,8);">Ps 129:8</a>, "The blessing of Yahweh be upon you; we bless you in the name of Yahweh"). For the king, we have, the King James Version and the English Revised Version God save the king (m "Let the king live," the American Standard Revised Version "(Long) live the king") (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,24);">1Sa 10:24</a>, etc.); "Let my lord king David live for ever" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',1,31);">1Ki 1:31</a>; see also <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',2,3);">Ne 2:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',2,4);">Da 2:4</a>, etc.). In Ecclesiasticus 6:5 it is said "a fair-speaking tongue will increase kind greetings," the Revised Version (British and American) "multiply courtesies" (euprosegora).<P>(2) When Jesus sent forth His disciples to proclaim the kingdom, they were to "salute" the house they came to (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,12);">Mt 10:12</a>), saying (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,5);">Lu 10:5</a>), "Peace (eirene) be to this house!"; if it was not worthy, the blessing should return to themselves. After His resurrection He greeted His disciples saying, "Peace be unto you" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,36);">Lu 24:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,19,21,26);">Joh 20:19, 21, 26</a>); He left His "peace" with them as His parting blessing (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,27);">Joh 14:27</a>)—"not as the world giveth," in a formal way. A frequent form of greeting in the New Testament is chairo ("to rejoice," imperative and infinitive, chaire, chairete, "Joy to thee," "Joy to you," translated "Hail!" and "All hail!" <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,49);">Mt 26:49</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,29);">27:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,9);">28:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,18);">Mr 15:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,28);">Lu 1:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,3);">Joh 19:3</a>), "Rejoice!" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,1);">Php 3:1</a>; the English Revised Version, margin "farewell"). Another word for greeting is aspasmos, "greetings in the markets" (the King James Version <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,7);">Mt 23:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,38);">Mr 12:38</a>, "salutations"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',11,43);">Lu 11:43</a>, "greetings," <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',20,46);">Lu 20:46</a>; also <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,29,41,44);">Lu 1:29, 41, 44</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',16,21);">1Co 16:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,18);">Col 4:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',3,17);">2Th 3:17</a>; in all these places the Revised Version (British and American) has "salutation").<P>(3) Of epistolary greetings we have examples in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,17);">Ezr 4:17</a>, "Peace" (shelam), etc.; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',5,17);">5:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',4,1);">Da 4:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',6,25);">6:25</a>. These are frequent in the Apoc: 1Esdras 6:7, "to King Darius greeting" (chairo); 8:9; 1Macc 10:18, etc.; 2Macc 1:10, "greeting, health," etc. We have the same form in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,23);">Ac 15:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',23,26);">23:26</a>. In <a onClick="return mV(\'3Jo\',1,14);">3Joh 1:14</a> it is, "Peace (be) unto thee. The friends salute thee." Paul opens most of his epistles with the special Christian greeting, "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,7);">Ro 1:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,3);">1Co 1:3</a>, etc.). Also at the close, "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',16,23);">1Co 16:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',13,14);">2Co 13:14</a>, etc.). He directs greetings to be given to various persons, and sends greetings from those who are with him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,\'5-23\');">Ro 16:5-23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',16,19);">1Co 16:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',13,13);">2Co 13:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,21);">Php 4:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,10);">Col 4:10</a>, etc.). In those cases the word is aspazomai, and the Revised Version (British and American) translates "salute," etc. (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,1);">Jas 1:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,2);">1Pe 1:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,14);">5:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,2);">2Pe 1:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Jo\',1,3,13);">2Joh 1:3, 13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,2);">Jude 1:2</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GODSPEED">GODSPEED</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KISS">KISS</a>`185';
|
||
isbe[3942]='Greyhound`gra\'-hound.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DOG">DOG</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3943]='Grief; Grieve`gref, grev: There are some 20 Hebrew words translated in the King James Version by "grief," "grieve," "to be grieved," etc. Among the chief are chalah, choli, yaghon, ka\'ac, atsabh. They differ, partly, in their physical origin, and partly, in the nature and cause of the feeling expressed. the Revised Version (British and American) in several instances gives effect to this.<P>(1) Chalah, choli express the sense of weakness, sickness, pain (e.g. Samson, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',16,7,11,17);">Jud 16:7, 11, 17</a>, "Then shall I become weak (chalah), and be as another man"); <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',17,11);">Isa 17:11</a> the King James Version, "a heap in the day of grief"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,3,4);">Isa 53:3-4</a>, "a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief," "He hath borne our griefs" (choli), the Revised Version, margin Hebrew "sickness, sicknesses"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,10);">53:10</A>, "He hath put him to grief," the Revised Version, margin "made him sick" (chalah) (translated by Dillmann and others, "to crush him incurably"; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',6,13);">Mic 6:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Nah\',3,19);">Na 3:19</a>); yaghon, perhaps from the pain and weariness of toil (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',31,10);">Ps 31:10</a>), "For my life is spent with grief," the Revised Version (British and American) "sorrow"; "The Lord added grief to my sorrow," the Revised Version (British and American) "sorrow to my pain" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',45,3);">Jer 45:3</a>); ka\'ac implies provocation, anger, irritation; thus Hannah said to Eli (the King James Version), "Out of the abundance of my complaint and my grief (the Revised Version (British and American) "provocation") have I spoken" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',1,16);">1Sa 1:16</a>). <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',6,7);">Ps 6:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',31,9);">31:9</a>, "grief"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',17,25);">Pr 17:25</a>, "A foolish son is a grief to his father" (i.e. source of provocation; the same word is rendered "wrath" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',12,16);">12:16</A>, the King James Version "a fool\'s wrath," the Revised Version (British and American) "vexation"; so also <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',27,3);">Pr 27:3</a>); <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',6,2);">Job 6:2</a>, "Oh that my grief were thoroughly weighed," the Revised Version (British and American) "Oh that my vexation were but weighed" (in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',5,2);">5:2</a> the King James Version the same word is translated "wrath," the Revised Version (British and American) "vexation"); ke\'ebh, is "sorrow," "pain," properly "to hurt." It occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',2,13);">Job 2:13</a> "His grief (the Revised Version, margin "or pain") was very great"; also <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',16,6);">16:6</a> the Revised Version (British and American), "grief"; makh\'obh "sorrows," "pain," "suffering" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',6,29);">2Ch 6:29</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "sorrow"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',69,26);">Ps 69:26</a>, the Revised Version, margin "or pain"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,3);">Isa 53:3</a>, "a man of sorrows"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,4);">53:4</A>, "Surely he hath carried our sorrows"); marah and marar indicate "bitterness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,35);">Ge 26:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,23);">49:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',30,6);">1Sa 30:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rth\',1,13);">Ru 1:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',14,10);">Pr 14:10</a>, "The heart knoweth its own bitterness, marah); puqah implies staggering, or stumbling, only in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',25,31);">1Sa 25:31</a>, "This shall be no grief unto thee," the Revised Version, margin Hebrew "cause of staggering"; ra\' (a common word for "evil") denotes an evil, a calamity, only once in the King James Version translated "grief," namely, of Jonah\'s gourd, "to deliver him from his grief," the Revised Version (British and American) "from his evil case" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jon\',4,6);">Jon 4:6</a>); yara\', "to be evil," <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',15,10);">De 15:10</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "Thy heart shall not be grieved when thou givest unto him" (also <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',1,8);">1Sa 1:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',2,10);">Ne 2:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',13,8);">13:8</a>; several times translated "grievous"); charah, "to burn," "to be wroth" (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,6);">Ge 4:6</a>, "Why art thou wroth?"), is translated "grieved" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',45,5);">Ge 45:5</a>, and <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',15,11);">1Sa 15:11</a> the King James Version (the Revised Version (British and American) "Samuel was wroth"); the same word is often used of the kindling of anger; la\'ah, "to be weary," "tired," "faint" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',26,15);">Pr 26:15</a>), the King James Version "The slothful hideth his hand in his bosom, it grieveth him to bring it again to his mouth," the Revised Version (British and American) "wearieth"; also <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',4,2);">Job 4:2</a>; atsabh, "to grieve," "to be vexed," occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,6);">Ge 6:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',34,7);">34:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',45,5);">45:5</a>, etc.; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',78,40);">Ps 78:40</a>, "How oft did they...grieve him in the desert." Of other words sometimes translated "grief" may be mentioned quT, "to weary of," "to loathe" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',95,10);">Ps 95:10</a>), "Forty long years was I grieved with that generation"; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,158);">119:158</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',193,21);">139:21</a>, the Revised Version, margin "loathe"; chamets, implying to be bitterly or violently moved, sour (often translated "leavened"), only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',73,21);">Ps 73:21</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "For my soul was grieved," margin, Hebrew "was in a ferment."<P>(2) In the New Testament "grief," "grieve," etc., are infrequent. The commonest words are lupe (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,19);">1Pe 2:19</a>), the Revised Version (British and American) "griefs," elsewhere translated "sorrow"; lupeo, "to grieve," "afflict" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,22);">Mr 10:22</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "sorrowful"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',21,17);">Joh 21:17</a> "Peter was grieved"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',14,15);">Ro 14:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',2,4);">2Co 2:4</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "made sorry"; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',2,5);">2:5</A>, "caused sorrow"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,30);">Eph 4:30</a>, "Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God"); diaponeomai, literally, "to labor through," "to grieve self" occurs twice (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',4,2);">Ac 4:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,18);">16:18</a> the Revised Version (British and American) "sore troubled"); stenazo, "to groan, or sigh," once only translated "grief" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',13,17);">Heb 13:17</a>), the Revised Version, margin "groaning"; prosochthizo, "to be indignant," etc., twice (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',3,10,17);">Heb 3:10, 17</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "displeased"). The reference is to <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',95,10);">Ps 95:10</a>, where the Septuagint by this Greek word translates qut (see above).<P>The less frequency in the New Testament of words denoting "grief" is significant. Christ came "to comfort all that mourn—to give a garland for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness." Christians, however, cannot but feel sorrow and be moved by grief, and it is to be noted that in both the Old Testament and New Testament, God Himself is said to be susceptible to grief.``185';
|
||
isbe[3944]='Grievance`grev\'-ans (\'amal): Occurs only in the King James Version as a translation of <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',1,3);">Hab 1:3</a>, "Why dost thou show me iniquity, and cause me to behold grievance?" (the Revised Version (British and American) "look upon perverseness"); \'amal is also translated "perverseness" by the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',23,21);">Nu 23:21</a>, "perverseness in Israel"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,1);">Isa 10:1</a>, the King James Version "grievousness," the Revised Version (British and American) "perverseness." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',1,13);">Hab 1:13</a>, the King James Version translates the same word "iniquity" (margin "grievance"), "Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil and canst not look on iniquity" (margin "grievance"), the Revised Version (British and American) "perverseness." The word means originally "toil," "labor" with sorrow, misery, etc., as the consequence, and is often so translated. It is the word in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,11);">Isa 53:11</a>, "He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied."``185';
|
||
isbe[3945]='Grievous; Grievously; Greievousness`grev\'-us; grev\'-us-li; grev\'-us-nes: In addition to several of the words mentioned under <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=GRIEF">GRIEF</a> (which see), we have kabhedh ("heavy") 8 times, e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,10);">Ge 12:10</a>, "The famine was grievous in the land," the Revised Version (British and American) "sore"; marats ("powerful"), "a grievous curse" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',2,8);">1Ki 2:8</a>); cur, "to turn aside" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',6,28);">Jer 6:28</a>), "grievous revolters"; qasheh, "to make sharp" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',12,4);">1Ki 12:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',10,4);">2Ch 10:4</a>); tachalu\'im (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',16,4);">Jer 16:4</a>), "They shall die grievous deaths," the Revised Version, margin "deaths of sicknesses"; \'athaq (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',31,18);">Ps 31:18</a>), "which speak grievous things proudly," the Revised Version (British and American) "against the righteous insolently"; cheT, "sin" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',1,8);">La 1:8</a>), "Jerus hath grievously sinned" (literally, "hath sinned a sin"); ma\'al, "trespass" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',14,13);">Eze 14:13</a>), "trespassing grievously" (literally, "trespassing a trespass") the Revised Version (British and American) "committing a trespass"; kobhedh, "weight" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',21,15);">Isa 21:15</a>), "grievousness"; barus, "heavy," "grievous wolves" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,29);">Ac 20:29</a>), "grievous charges" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',25,7);">Ac 25:7</a>), "His commandments are not grievous" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,3);">1Joh 5:3</a>); okneros, the Revised Version (British and American) "irksome" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,1);">Php 3:1</a>); poneros, "evil" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',16,2);">Re 16:2</a>), "a grievous sore"; dusbastaktos, "grievous to be borne" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,4);">Mt 23:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',11,46);">Lu 11:46</a>); deinos, "greatly," "grievously tormented" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',8,6);">Mt 8:6</a>); kakos, "badly," "grievously vexed" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',15,22);">Mt 15:22</a>).``185';
|
||
isbe[3946]='Grinder`grin\'-der.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MILL">MILL</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3947]='Grinding`grind\'-ing.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CRAFTS">CRAFTS</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3948]='Grisled; Grizzled`griz\'-\'-ld.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=COLOR;+COLORS">COLORS</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3949]='Groan`gron (na\'aq, \'anaq; stenazo, embrimaomai): The English word, noun and verb, is an attempt to imitate the vocal sound which is expressive of severe pain or distress, physical or mental. It is cognate with the Scottish dialect word girn, and with grin in its original obsolete sense, as used in the Anglican Prayer-book version of <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',59,6,14);">Ps 59:6, 14</a>, "grin like a dog and go about the city"; here "grin" is a translation of hamah, and means the sound of the nightly howling of the pariah dogs in Jerusalem and other oriental cities. It is used in the Old Testament:<P>(1) To denote the expression accompanying physical suffering, as in the case of the Israelites in Egypt oppressed by Pharaoh\'s taskmasters (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,24);">Ex 2:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,5);">6:5</a>), or in Palestine under the yoke of the Canaanites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',2,18);">Jud 2:18</a>, neqaqah). It is also used in Job\'s description of the sufferings and wretchedness of the poor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',24,12);">Job 24:12</a>) as well as in his complaint concerning his own suffering when smitten by the hand of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',23,2);">Job 23:2</a>). The Psalmist speaks of groaning when fever-stricken and remorseful, the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) "roaring all the day long" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',32,3);">Ps 32:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',38,9);">38:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',102,5);">102:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',22,1);">22:1</a>).<P>(2) The expression of suffering on the part of beasts, hungry and thirsty in drought (<a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',1,18);">Joe 1:18</a>).<P>(3) The manifestation of mental and spiritual distress as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',6,6);">Ps 6:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',102,20);">102:20</a> (the Revised Version (British and American) "sighing").<P>(4) Metaphorically groaning is the despairing note of Egypt in the prophecy of her overthrow by Babylon, the sound being that uttered by a deadly wounded man (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',30,24);">Eze 30:24</a>; similarly in the prophecy of the Persian conquest the misery of Babylon is thus represented by <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,52);">Jer 51:52</a>); and the misery of Tyre when taken by Babylon is similarly described (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',26,15);">Eze 26:15</a>, the King James Version "cry").<P>The word for "sigh" (\'anachah) is closely allied, and the meanings are sufficiently akin, so that the terms seem interchangeable. A sigh is physically a sign of respiratory distress due to depressed action of the heart; sighing is consequently the indication of physical weakness or mental disquietude, as <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',12,5);">Ps 12:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',31,10);">31:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',79,11);">79:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',21,2);">Isa 21:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',24,7);">24:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',35,10);">35:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',45,3);">Jer 45:3</a>.<P>Na\'aq is the crying of persons dying or starving, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',30,24);">Eze 30:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',24,12);">Job 24:12</a>. A somewhat similar word, haghah, means the complaining sound like that of the cooing of doves (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',59,11);">Isa 59:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Nah\',2,7);">Na 2:7</a>). Nehi is the sound of lamentation of the dead (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',9,10);">Jer 9:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,15);">31:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',5,16);">Am 5:16</a>).<P>In the New Testament "groaning" is used for the expression of mental distress. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,33,35);">Joh 11:33, 35</a> the word used is part of the verb embrimaomai, which conveys the idea of deep and earnest emotion. The same word in two other passages is translated "strictly charged," and indicates the emphasis of the charge (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',9,30);">Mt 9:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,43);">Mr 1:43</a>). Elsewhere "sighing" and "groaning" are renderings of words derived from the verb stenazo, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,23);">Ro 8:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,2,4);">2Co 5:2, 4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,34);">Mr 7:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,12);">8:12</a>. Stephen calls the groaning of Israel in Egypt stenagmos (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,34);">Ac 7:34</a>), and the united wail of the travailing creation is expressed by Paul by the word sunstenazei (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,22);">Ro 8:22</a>). The sigh is a characteristic sign of woe in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',21,2);">Isa 21:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',24,7);">24:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',45,3);">Jer 45:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',1,4,8,11,12);">La 1:4,8,11,12</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',9,4);">Eze 9:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',21,6);">21:6</a> f.``107';
|
||
isbe[3950]='Gross`gros (\'araphel): Used twice with "darkness" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',60,2);">Isa 60:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',13,16);">Jer 13:16</a>. In the New Testament the verb pachuno, "to make fat," is applied twice to "making gross" the heart (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,15);">Mt 13:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',28,27);">Ac 28:27</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GREASE">GREASE</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3951]='Ground; Grounded`ground, ground\'-ed (\'adhamah, \'erets; ge):<P>(1) "Ground" is in the King James Version the translation of \'adhamah, "the soil," the ground so called from its red color, frequently also translated "earth" and "land" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,5);">Ge 2:5</a>f; etc.; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,5);">Ex 3:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,21);">8:21</a>, etc.); it is more often the translation of \'erets, which means rather the earth, most often translated "earth" and "land" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,2);">Ge 18:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',74,7);">Ps 74:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',3,26);">Isa 3:26</a>, etc.); other words are chelqah, "portion," "field" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,12);">2Sa 23:12</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "plot"); charish, "ploughing" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',8,12);">1Sa 8:12</a>); sadheh, "a plain," "a field" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,13);">1Ch 11:13</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "plot of ground"); for other special words see dry; <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=FALLOW">FALLOW</a>; <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=PARCHED">PARCHED</A>.<P>(2) In the New Testament the common word for "ground" is ge, "earth," "soil," "land" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,8);">Mt 13:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,33);">Ac 7:33</a>, "holy ground," etc.); other words are agros, "field" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',14,18);">Lu 14:18</a>, "I have bought a piece of ground" the Revised Version (British and American) "field"); chorion, "spot," "place" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,5);">Joh 4:5</a>, "parcel of ground").<P>(3) As past participle of "to grind," "ground" appears as the translation of riphoth, pounded grain (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',17,19);">2Sa 17:19</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "bruised"); "ground" is also the translation of Tachan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,20);">Ex 32:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,8);">Nu 11:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',9,21);">De 9:21</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "grinding").<P>(4) "Ground," as the basis or foundation of anything, occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',3,15);">1Ti 3:15</a> as the translation of hedraioma (from edaphos), "the pillar and ground of the truth," the Revised Version, margin "stay."<P>"Grounded" is used in the sense of founded, based, fixed in (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,32);">Isa 30:32</a>), "and in every place where the grounded staff shall pass, which the Lord shall lay upon him," the King James Version margin "Hebrew every passing of the rod founded," the Revised Version (British and American) "and every stroke (margin "Hebrew passing") of the appointed staff (margin "Or staff of doom (Hebrew foundation)"), which Yahweh shall lay upon him"; following, <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,31);">Isa 30:31</a>, "with his rod will he (Yahweh) smite him"; Delitzsch, "every stroke of the rod of destiny which Yahweh causes to fall upon Asshur"; the word is mucadhah, from yacadh, "to place," "to found," "to appoint," "to ordain," hence, "appointed rod (of punishment)," seems the simplest rendering.<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,17);">Eph 3:17</a> we have "rooted and grounded in love," and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,23);">Col 1:23</a>, "if ye continue in the faith, grounded and settled," the Revised Version (British and American) "steadfast," both themelioo, "to lay a foundation." In Ecclesiasticus 18:6 "ground" is used for the "bottom of things," but the Revised Version (British and American) has "to track them out" (exichneuo), "to trace out."<P>(5) Figurative uses of "ground" are as representing the heart in relation to its reception of words of truth and righteousness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',4,3);">Jer 4:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',10,12);">Ho 10:12</a>, "Break up your fallow ground"); to the word of the kingdom as preached by Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,8,23);">Mt 13:8, 23</a>); dry, parched, thirsty ground stands for a poor condition (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',107,33,35);">Ps 107:33, 35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',35,7);">Isa 35:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',44,3);">44:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,2);">53:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',19,13);">Eze 19:13</a>).``185';
|
||
isbe[3952]='Grove`grov:<P>(1) \'asherah.<P>(2) \'eshel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,33);">Ge 21:33</a> the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "a tamarisk tree")`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TAMARISK">TAMARISK</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASHERAH">ASHERAH</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3953]='Grudge`gruj (natar; stenazo, goggusmos): "Grudge" (perhaps a mimetic word, compare Greek gru) is "to grumble" or "murmur" at any person or thing, to entertain an envious or covetous feeling, to do or give anything unwillingly, etc. It occurs in the King James Version as the translation of natar, "to keep (anger)" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,18);">Le 19:18</a>, "Thou shalt not...bear any grudge against the children of thy people"); in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',59,15);">Ps 59:15</a>, as the translation, in text, of Hebrew lun or lin, "to pass the night," "to tarry," Niphal, "to show oneself obstinate," "to murmur or complain" (of the enemies who were hunting David like dogs), "Let them wander up and down for meat, and grudge if they be not satisfied," margin "If they be not satisfied then will they stay all night," the Revised Version (British and American) "And tarry all night if they be not satisfied"; but see <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,24);">Ex 15:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,2);">16:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,2);">Nu 14:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',9,18);">Jos 9:18</a>, etc., where the translation is "murmur"; may not the meaning be "and growl (or howl) if they be not satisfied"? "Grudge" formerly implied open expression of discontent, etc., e.g. Wyclif has in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',15,2);">Lu 15:2</a>, "The farisies and scribis grucchiden seiynge," etc.<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',5,9);">Jas 5:9</a>, stenazo, "to groan," "to complain" (from affliction or from impatience or ill-humor), is translated "grudge," "Grudge not one against another, brethren," the Revised Version (British and American) "murmur not"; goggusmos, "a murmuring" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',7,12);">Joh 7:12</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',6,1);">Ac 6:1</a>), is rendered "grudging" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,9);">1Pe 4:9</a>), "Use hospitality one to another without grudging," the Revised Version (British and American) "murmuring"; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,14);">Php 2:14</a>; me ek lupes, "not out of grief," is "without grudging" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',9,7);">2Co 9:7</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "not grudging" margin, Greek "of sorrow"); in Ecclesiasticus 10:25 we have "will not grudge" (gogguzo), the Revised Version (British and American) "murmur."<P>"Grudge" was frequent in the earlier VSS, but is changed in the King James Version for the most part into "murmur"; the Revised Version (British and American) completes the change, except <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,18);">Le 19:18</a>, and text of <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',9,7);">2Co 9:7</a>.``185';
|
||
isbe[3954]='Guard`gard:<P>(1) sar ha-Tabbachim, "captain of the guard," literally, "slaughterers" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,36);">Ge 37:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',39,1);">39:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',40,3,4);">40:3-4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,10,12);">41:10, 12</a>); rabh Tabbachim (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',25,8,11,20);">2Ki 25:8, 11, 20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',39,9);">Jer 39:9</a>, etc.); rabh tabbachayyah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',2,14);">Da 2:14</a>); ratsim, "guard," the King James Version "footmen" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',22,17);">1Sa 22:17</a>); sare ha-ratsim, "chief of the guard" the King James Version "captains of the guard" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',14,27);">1Ki 14:27</a>); ta\' ha-ratsim, "guard-chamber" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',14,28);">1Ki 14:28</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,21);">Eze 40:21</a>, etc., where "lodges" are "guardrooms"; see A.B. Davidson at the place).<P>(2) mishmar, "guard," a defense to a point of danger (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',4,22);">Ne 4:22</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',38,7);">Eze 38:7</a>).<P>(3) mishma\'ath, "guard" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,23);">2Sa 23:23</a>, where the American Revised Version, margin and the Revised Version, margin have "council," the body over which Benaiah was set by David and whose functions were perhaps those of consultation)<P>(4) spekoulator, "guard" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,27);">Mr 6:27</a>, "a man of Herod\'s guard," where, as in one or two other cases, Mark, writing for Romans, simply transliterates the Latin speculator "a scout," "an executioner," as in loc.).<P>(5) stratopedarches, "captain of the guard" the King James Version, "captain of the praetorian guard" the Revised Version, margin, <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',28,16);">Ac 28:16</a>. See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=CAPTAIN">CAPTAIN</a>.<P>(6) (koustodia), "watch" the King James Version, "guard" the American Standard Revised Version and the Revised Version (British and American) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,65,66);">Mt 27:65-66</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,11);">28:11</a>).<P>1. Royal Body-Guard:<P>An oriental monarch\'s body-guard consisted of picked men attached to his person and ready to fulfill his pleasure in important and confidential concerns. At the courts of Egypt and Babylon the members of the guard were known as "slaughterers," "executioners" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,36);">Ge 37:36</a> King James Version margin, the American Revised Version, margin and the Revised Version, margin, where Potiphar is called their captain); <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',25,8);">2Ki 25:8</a>, where Nebuzaradan is called their captain (King James Version margin "chief marshal"). Whether it had ever been the function of the body-guard to kill meat for the royal table there is little directly to show; that they acted as executioners can be well understood. In Israel they were known as "the footmen" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',22,17);">1Sa 22:17</a> the King James Version, the American Revised Version, margin and the Revised Version, margin "runners") who acted as royal messengers or couriers from the time of Saul onward (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',10,25);">2Ki 10:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',11,6);">11:6</a>); and this designation connects them with the couriers of the kings of Persia (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',3,13,15);">Es 3:13, 15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',8,14);">8:14</a>, where our versions render "posts," though the Hebrew is ratsim).<P>2. Composed of Foreigners:<P>The men of the royal body-guard were usually foreigners like the janissaries of oriental monarchs down to modern times, who prefer to have around their persons warriors uninfluenced by family connection with the people of the land. Rameses II had such a body-guard whose commanders ranked with the great officers of the crown (Maspero, Struggle of the Nations, 766). David\'s body-guard of 600, known also as the gibborim or "mighty men," consisted of Cherethites, Pelethites, and Gittites (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',15,18);">2Sa 15:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',20,23);">20:23</a>), and we read of Carites (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',11,19);">2Ki 11:19</a>), who may have been Carians or Cretans, as forming part of the guard at the coronation of King Jehoash.<P>3. Connection with the Temple:<P>That this guard had duties in connection with the temple as well as the king\'s house seems clear. That they were employed as slaughterers of the sacrifices before the Levites were entrusted with the office is unlikely, inasmuch as this guard is not said to have been composed of "slaughterers" but of "runners." But they accompanied King Rehoboam when he visited the temple (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',14,28);">1Ki 14:28</a>), and to their captains were committed the shields of brass which took the place of the shields of gold which Solomon had hung up in the temple; Jehoiada employed their captains to put Athaliah to death and to exterminate the worshippers of Baal who had fled to the temple precincts (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',11,4);">2Ki 11:4</a>); the temple gate leading to the palace was called "the gate of the guard" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',11,19);">2Ki 11:19</a>). At this time, and for this occasion, at least, the royal body-guard were the temple guards; and when Ezekiel drew up his plans for the temple which he conceived to replace the temple destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar, the "lodges" or "little chambers" were rooms for the accommodation of the temple guard (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,7,10.21,33);">Eze 40:7, 10, 21, 33</a>, etc.).<P>LITERATURE.<P>Robertson Smith, OTJC, 262, and note.``128';
|
||
isbe[3955]='Guardian`gar\'-di-an.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FAMILY">FAMILY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ANGEL">ANGEL</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3956]='Gudgodah`gud-go\'-da (gudhgodhah): A place in the wilderness journeyings (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',10,7);">De 10:7</a>), corresponding to Hor-haggidgad in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,32);">Nu 33:32</a>. Septuagint in each case renders (Gadgad). The site cannot now be identified; but there may be an echo of the ancient name in that of Wady Gudaghid, a confluent of Wady Jerafeh, which comes down from et Tih into the \'Arabah nearly due west of Petra. There are difficulties, however, as the consonants do not correspond.``1';
|
||
isbe[3957]='Guest`gest (qara\'; anakeimai): Oriental customs growing out of a nomadic life demand a greater abandon and freedom with respect to the relation of host and guest than are permitted by the conventionalities of western life. A householder is expected to entertain a traveler, and in turn the traveler may accept with perfect ease the hospitality shown without any obligation to pay. See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=HOSPITALITY">HOSPITALITY</a>. The significance of the word is that of one who is called or invited. A certain sacredness, unknown to modern western society, was attached to the guest, so that a special apartment was set aside for the guests. See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=GUEST-CHAMBER">GUEST-CHAMBER</a>. In the Old Testament only 3 times is the word itself used, with reference to the guests of Adonijah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',1,41,49);">1Ki 1:41, 49</a>), of the foolish woman (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',9,18);">Pr 9:18</a>), and of Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',1,7);">Ze 1:7</a>). In the New Testament, 3 times (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,10);">Mt 22:10</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',19,7);">Lu 19:7</a> the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "to lodge"). Though but few actual uses of the word occur, there are abounding illustrations of the guest relation in both Old Testament and New Testament. Especially is this manifest in the striking social attitudes of Jesus on occasions. Notable among these are the hospitality of Matthew (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',5,29);">Lu 5:29</a>); Jesus\' relation to Martha and Mary (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,38);">Lu 10:38</a>), and His entrance into the home of Zaccheus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',19,1);">Lu 19:1</a>). Likewise Jesus spoke frequently of the relation which should exist between the guest and his host (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,\'44-46\');">Lu 7:44-46</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,35);">Mt 25:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,40);">10:40</a>).``25';
|
||
isbe[3958]='Guest-Chamber`gest\'-cham-ber: The translation of<P>(1) (lishkah) (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',9,22);">1Sa 9:22</a>, the King James Version "parlor"), and<P>(2) (kataluma) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,14);">Mr 14:14</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,11);">Lu 22:11</a>).<P>The lishkah was probably a room in which the sacrificial feasts were held. Kataluma is derived from kataluo, which means "to slacken," i.e. the ropes of the beasts of burden, and hence, "to lodge." Kataluma has accordingly often the sense of "inn," but as used in Mark and Luke it has the narrower meaning of a room in which to eat.``1';
|
||
isbe[3959]='Guide`gid (\'alluph, nachal, nachah; hodegos, hodegeo): "Guide" (noun) is the translation of \'alluph, "an intimate," "a friend," the leader of a family or tribe: <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',55,13);">Ps 55:13</a>, "a man mine equal, my guide," the Revised Version (British and American) "my companion"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',2,17);">Pr 2:17</a>, "the guide of her youth," the Revised Version (British and American) "friend," margin "or guide"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',3,4);">Jer 3:4</a>, "My father, thou (art) the guide of my youth," the Revised Version, margin "companion"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',7,5);">Mic 7:5</a>, "Put ye not confidence in a guide," the American Standard Revised Version "in a friend," margin "confidant" (which the context shows to be the meaning), the English Revised Version "guide," margin "familiar friend"; once of katsin, "a judge," "a military leader or commander" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,24);">Jos 10:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',11,18);">Da 11:18</a>); <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',6,7);">Pr 6:7</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "chief," margin "judge"; once nahagh, "to lead," is translated "guide" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',48,14);">Ps 48:14</a>). In the New Testament hodegos, "a way-leader," is translated "guide" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,16);">Mt 23:16</a>, "ye blind guides"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,24);">Mt 23:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,16);">Ac 1:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,19);">Ro 2:19</a>); "to guide" is the translation of nachah, "to lead forth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',38,32);">Job 38:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',73,24);">Ps 73:24</a>); once of \'ashar, Piel, "to guide" or "lead straight (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',23,19);">Pr 23:19</a>); of ya\'ats, "to command," "to give counsel" ("I will guide thee with mine eye," the Revised Version (British and American) "I will counsel thee with mine eye upon thee," <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',32,8);">Ps 32:8</a>); of kul, "to contain," "to sustain" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',112,5);">Ps 112:5</a>, "He will guide his affairs with discretion," the Revised Version (British and American) "He shall maintain his cause in judgment"); of nahagh, "to drive," "to lead" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',78,52);">Ps 78:52</a>); of hodegeo, "to show the way," "guide" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,13);">Joh 16:13</a>, "He shall guide you into all truth," the Revised Version (British and American) "the truth"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',8,31);">Ac 8:31</a>); oikodespoteo is translated "to guide the house" the Revised Version (British and American) "rule the household" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',5,14);">1Ti 5:14</a>); the word means literally, to be a house-master (the head of the house).<P>The Revised Version (British and American) has "guide" for "lead" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',25,5);">Ps 25:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',15,14);">Mt 15:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,39);">Lu 6:39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',7,17);">Re 7:17</a>); "a guide to" for "more excellent than" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',12,26);">Pr 12:26</a>); "guided" for "brought in" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',78,26);">Ps 78:26</a>); "guideth" for "maketh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',22,33);">2Sa 22:33</a>), for "leadeth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',23,3);">Ps 23:3</a>); "my heart yet guiding me," margin "holding its course," for "yet acquainting mine heart" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',2,3);">Ec 2:3</a>).<P>"Guide-posts" is substituted for "high heaps" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,21);">Jer 31:21</a>).``185';
|
||
isbe[3960]='Guile`gil (mirmah; dolos): "Guile" is twice the translation of mirmah, "fraud," "deceit" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',34,13);">Ps 34:13</a>, "Keep...thy lips from speaking guile"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',55,11);">Ps 55:11</a>, "deceit and guile," the Revised Version (British and American) "oppression (margin "fraud") and guile"); once of \'ormah, "craftiness," "guile" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,14);">Ex 21:14</a>); once of remiyah, "deception," "fraud" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',32,2);">Ps 32:2</a>, "in whose spirit there is no guile"); in the New Testament of dolos, "bait," hence, generally, "fraud," "guile," "deceit"; Septuagint for mirmah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,9);">Isa 53:9</a>, English Versions of the Bible "deceit") and for remiyah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',13,7);">Job 13:7</a>, English Versions of the Bible "deceitfully"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,47);">Joh 1:47</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',12,16);">2Co 12:16</a>, "Being crafty, I caught you with guile"; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',2,3);">1Th 2:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,1);">1Pe 2:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,22);">2:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,10);">3:10</a>, quoted from <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',34,13);">Ps 34:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',14,5);">Re 14:5</a>, "In their mouth was found no guile," the Revised Version (British and American) after corrected text, "no lie").<P>Paul\'s words in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',12,16);">2Co 12:16</a> have sometimes been quoted in justification of "guile" in religious work, etc.; but he is not describing his actual procedure; but that which the Corinthians might have attributed to him; the lips of the Christian must be kept free from all guile (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',34,13);">Ps 34:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,1);">1Pe 2:1</a>, etc.; The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 1:5</span> "A holy spirit of discipline will flee deceit" (dolos), the Revised Version (British and American) "A holy spirit"). "Guile" does not appear in Apocrypha; dolos is frequently rendered "deceit."<P>The Revised Version (British and American) has "guile" for "subtilty" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,35);">Ge 27:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,10);">Ac 13:10</a>); "cover itself with guile" for "is covered by deceit" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',26,26);">Pr 26:26</a>); "with guile" for "deceitfully" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',34,13);">Ge 34:13</a>); "spiritual milk which is without guile" for "sincere milk of the word," the English Revised Version, margin "reasonable," the American Revised Version, margin, Greek "belonging to the reason" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',12,1);">Ro 12:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,2);">1Pe 2:2</a>); "guileless" for "harmless" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',7,26);">Heb 7:26</a>).``185';
|
||
isbe[3961]='Guilt`gilt: The Christian idea of guilt involves three elements: responsibility (Greek aitia, "cause," depending upon a man\'s real freedom), blameworthiness (Latin reatus culpae, depending upon a man\'s knowledge and purpose) and the obligation to make good through punishment or compensation (Latin reatus poenae; compare Greek opheilema, "debt," <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,12);">Mt 6:12</a>). In other words, in thinking of guilt we ask the questions of cause, motive and consequence, the central idea being that of the personal blameworthiness of the sinner.<P>I. In the Old Testament.<P>1. The Ritualistic and Legalistic Conception:<P>Not all of this is found at once in the Old Testament. The idea of guilt corresponds to that of righteousness or holiness. When these are ritual and legal, instead of ethical and spiritual, they will determine similarly the idea of guilt. This legalistic and ritualistic conception of guilt may first be noted. Personal blameworthiness does not need to be present. "If any one sin, and do any of the things which Yahweh hath commanded not to be done; though he knew it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',5,17);">Le 5:17</a>). The man is guilty, not because he might or should have known; he may merely have touched unwittingly the body of an unclean beast (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',5,2,);">Le 5:2-3</a>). The guilt is here because the law has been transgressed and must be made good (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',5,15,16);">Le 5:15-16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',4,2,3,13,22,27);">4:2-3, 13, 22, 27</a>; see also <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',5,2,3,4,17);">5:2, 3, 4, 17</A>).<P>Moreover, the element of personal responsibility is sometimes lacking where guilt is assigned. The priest may sin "so as to bring guilt on the people" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',4,3);">Le 4:3</a>). One man\'s wrongdoing may "cause the land to sin" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',24,4);">De 24:4</a>). Israel has sinned in Achan\'s greed and therefore suffers. Even when the guilty man is found, his children and his very cattle must bear the guilt and punishment with him, though there is no suggestion of their participation or even knowledge (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',7,\'1-\');">Jos 7</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',24,\'1-\');">2Sa 24</a>). Here the full moral idea of sin and guilt is wanting because the idea of personality and personal responsibility has not come to its own. The individual is still merged here in the clan or nation.<P>The central idea in all this is not that of the individual, his responsibility, his motive, his blame. It is that of a rule and the transgression of it, which must be made good. For this reason we see the ú ideas of sin and guilt and punishment constantly passing over into each other. This may be seen by noting the use of the words whose common root is\'-sh-m, the distinctive Hebrew term for guilt. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',5,\'1-\');">Le 5 to 7</a> in the adjective form it is rendered "guilty," in the noun as "trespass offering." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',5,15);">Ho 5:15</a> it seems to mean punishment (see margin, "have borne their guilt," and compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',6,6);">Eze 6:6</a>), while in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',5,7,8);">Nu 5:7-8</a> the idea is that of compensation (rendered "restitution for guilt").<P>2. Prophetic Teaching:<P>With the prophets, the ideas of sin and righteousness come out more clearly as ethical and personal, and so we mark a similar advance in the conception of guilt. It is not ritual correctness that counts with God, incense and sacrifices and new moons and Sabbaths, but to cease to do evil, to learn to do well (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,\'1-\');">Isa 1</a>). Thus the motive and the inner spirit come in (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',6,8);">Mic 6:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',57,15);">Isa 57:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',58,\'1-12\');">58:1-12</a>), and guilt gains a new depth and quality. At the same time the idea of personal responsibility comes. A man is to bear his own sins. The children\'s teeth are not to be set on edge because the fathers have eaten sour grapes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,29,30);">Jer 31:29-30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',18,\'29-32\');">Eze 18:29-32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',14,6);">2Ki 14:6</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',24,17);">2Sa 24:17</a>).<P>II. In the New Testament.<P>1. With Jesus:<P>Here as elsewhere Jesus came to fulfill. With Him it is the inner attitude of the soul that decides. It is the penitent publican who goes down justified, not the Pharisee with his long credit account (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,\'9-14\');">Lu 18:9-14</a>). That is why His attitude is so kindly toward some notorious sinners and so stern toward some religious leaders. The Pharisees are outwardly correct, but their spirit of bigotry and pride prevents their entering the kingdom of heaven, while the penitent harlots and publicans take it by storm.<P>Because it is not primarily a matter of the outward deed but of the inner spirit, Jesus marks different degrees of guilt as depending upon a man\'s knowledge and motive (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',11,\'29-32\');">Lu 11:29-32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,47,48);">12:47-48</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,34);">23:34</a>). And yet Jesus does not lighten the sense of guilt but rather deepens it. The strength of the Old Testament thought lay in this, that it viewed all transgression as a sin against God, since all law came from Him. This religious emphasis remains with Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',15,21);">Lu 15:21</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',51,4);">Ps 51:4</a>). But with Jesus God is far more than a giver of rules. He gives Himself. And so the guilt is the deeper because the sin is against this love and mercy and fellowship which God offers us. Jesus shows us the final depth of evil in sin. Here comes the New Testament interpretation of the cross, which shows it on the one hand as the measure of God\'s love in the free gift of His Son, and on the other as the measure of man\'s guilt whose sin wrought this and made it necessary.<P>2. With Paul:<P>Paul also recognizes differences of degree in guilt, the quality of blameworthiness which is not simply determined by looking at the outward transgression (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,30);">Ac 17:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,18);">Eph 4:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,9);">Ro 2:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,26);">3:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,13);">5:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,13);">7:13</a>). He, too, looks within to decide the question of guilt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',14,23);">Ro 14:23</a>). But sin is not a matter of single acts or choices with Paul. He sees it as a power that comes to rule a man\'s life and that rules in the race. The question therefore arises, Does Paul think of guilt also as native, as belonging to man because man is a part of the race? Here it can merely be pointed out that <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,\'12-21\');">Ro 5:12-21</a> does not necessarily involve this. Paul is not discussing whether all men committed sin in Adam\'s fall, or whether all are guilty by virtue of their very place in a race that is sinful. It is not the question of guilt in fact or degree, but merely the fact that through one man men are now made righteous as before through one sin came upon them all. This no more involves native guilt as a non-ethical conception than it does the idea that the righteousness through Christ is merely forensic and non-ethical. Paul is simply passing over the other elements to assert one fact. <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,\'1-\');">Ro 1</a> suggests how Paul looked at universal sin as involving guilt because universal knowledge and choice entered in.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Mueller, Christian Doctrine of Sin, I, 193-267; Schultz, Old Testament Theology; Kaehler, article "Schuld," Hauck-Herzog, Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SIN+(1)">SIN</a>`143';
|
||
isbe[3962]='Guilt offering``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SACRIFICE">SACRIFICE</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3963]='Guiltless`gilt\'-les: The primary meaning of the Hebrew word is "to be clean." Sometimes the meaning is "freedom from blame," at other times to be "free from punishment," these two ideas running over into each other as with the word "guilt." The latter meaning seems to predominate in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,7);">Ex 20:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',5,11);">De 5:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',14,9);">2Sa 14:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',2,9);">1Ki 2:9</a>. The other meaning holds in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',32,22);">Nu 32:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',2,19);">Jos 2:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',3,28);">2Sa 3:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,5,7);">Mt 12:5, 7</a>.``1';
|
||
isbe[3964]='Guilty`gil\'-ti: In addition to the general discussion under <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=GUILT">GUILT</a> (which see), several New Testament passages demand special notice because the word "guilty" is not used in the principal sense of blameworthy, but with one of the two lesser meanings noted above which go to make up the complete idea. In 3 of these passages the King James Version renders "guilty" and the Revised Version (British and American) gives another rendering. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,66);">Mt 26:66</a> the King James Version, Jesus\' foes declare he is "guilty of death" (enochos, "liable to"). Here "guilty" simply means the one who is legally held, and the reference is not to the blame but to the consequence. This is a true use of the word in the lower and legal sense. It does not correspond with our higher usage, and so we have it in the Revised Version (British and American) "worthy of death." So in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,19);">Ro 3:19</a>, "guilty" is changed to "under the judgment," and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,18);">Mt 23:18</a>, to "debtor."<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',2,10);">Jas 2:10</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,27);">1Co 11:27</a>, the word "guilty" is also used in the lesser or more primitive sense, not primarily as involving blame but as involving the sinner\'s authorship or responsibility. This is the first element suggested in the definition of guilt given above, just as the preceding passages illustrate the third element. The man who stumbles in one point is "guilty" of the whole law. James does not refer here to the degree of blameworthiness. "Guilty of" means transgressor of, and he has transgressed the whole because the law is one. So in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,27);">1Co 11:27</a>, those "guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord" are those who have transgressed in the matter of the body and the blood of the Lord.``143';
|
||
isbe[3965]='Gulf`(chasma, "a chasm," "vent," "a gaping opening"—a great interval; from chaino, "to gape" or "yawn"): Occurs only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,26);">Lu 16:26</a>, "Between us and you there is a great gulf fixed" (compare "afar off" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,23);">16:23</A>). This is very different from, though it probably reflects, the rabbinical conception of the separation between the two compartments of Hades (Sheol) by "a hand\'s breadth," "a wall," or even, later, "a chasm," as the parable can be given here only a figurative significance, and is of purely ethical import. The fundamental difference between the Rich Man and Lazarus lies not in their conditions but in their characters. For "besides all this" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,26);">16:26</a>) the Revised Version, margin gives "in all these things," thus implying that the moral distinctions which exist in this life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,25);">16:25</A>) become more pronounced ("fixed") in the next world, and the "gulf" is impassable in the sense that a change of condition will not necessarily produce a change of soul.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BOSOM,+ABRAHAM\'s">ABRAHAM\'S BOSOM</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HADES">HADES</a>`91';
|
||
isbe[3966]='Guni; Gunites`gu\'-ni, gu\'-nits (guni):<P>(1) The name of a Naphtalite clan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,24);">Ge 46:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,48);">Nu 26:48</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,13);">1Ch 7:13</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,48);">Nu 26:48</a> the gentilic "Gunites" is also found, having in Hebrew the same form, with the article.<P>(2) The head of a Gadite family (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',5,15);">1Ch 5:15</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[3967]='Gur-Baal`gur-ba\'-al (gur ba\'-al): The residence of certain Arabs against whom God helped Uzziah, king of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',26,7);">2Ch 26:7</a>). Its mention immediately after the Philistines may have suggested the "Gerar" of the Targum. Association with the Meunim points to the East. It may be taken as certain that Jebel Neby Harun, near Petra, has always been crowned by a sanctuary. This may have been "the dwelling place of Baal"; or, accepting Kittel\'s emendation (Tur ba\'al), "the rock" or "mountain of Baal." The Arabs probably dwelt in the region before the days of Petra (EB, under the word)``54';
|
||
isbe[3968]='Gur; the Ascent, of`gur, a-sent\', (ma\'-aleh ghur): The place where the servants of Jehu mortally wounded Ahaziah, king of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',9,27);">2Ki 9:27</a>). The ascent (the King James Version "going up") was hard by Ibleam, the site of which is identified about 1/2 mile south of Jenin.``1';
|
||
isbe[3969]='Gutter`gut\'-er.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HOUSE">HOUSE</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3970]='Gymnasium`jim-na\'-zi-um.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GAMES">GAMES</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PALAESTRA,+PALESTRA">PALAESTRA.`1';
|
||
isbe[3971]='Ha`ha (he\'-ah): In <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',39,25);">Job 39:25</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "Aha," of the battle-horse.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=AH+AHA">AH, AHA</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3972]='Haahashtari`ha-a-hash\'-ta-ri (ha\'-achashtari, possibly a corruption of ha\'-ashchuri): A descendant of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,6);">1Ch 4:6</a>). The name is probably corrupt. If the emendation suggested above is accepted, it means the Ashurites, and is a description of the preceding names.``1';
|
||
isbe[3973]='Habaiah; Hobaiah`ha-ba\'-ya, (cha-bhayah, chobhayah): A post-exilic priestly family which was unable to establish its pedigree. "Habaiah" is the form in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,61);">Ezr 2:61</a>; in the parallel passage (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,63);">Ne 7:63</a>), the King James Version has "Habaiah," and the Revised Version (British and American) "Hobaiah"; in the parallel passage in 1Esdras 5:38, the form is Obdia, Codex Vaticanus, Obbeia.``1';
|
||
isbe[3974]='Habakkuk`ha-bak\'-uk, hab\'-a-kuk:<P><b>I. THE AUTHOR</b><P class="in15">1. Name<P class="in15">2. Life<P><b>II. THE BOOK</b><P class="in15">1. Interpretation of <span class="noTag">Habakkuk 1 and 2</span><P class="in15">2. Contents<P class="in15">3. Style<P class="in15">4. Integrity<P><b>III. THE TIME</b><P class="in15">1. Date<P class="in15">2. Occasion<P><b>IV. ITS TEACHING</b><P class="in15">1. Universal Supremacy of Yahweh<P class="in15">2. Faithfulness the Guarantee of Permanency<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. The Author. 1. Name:<P>Habakkuk (chabhaqquq) means "embrace," or "ardent embrace." Some of the ancient rabbis, connecting the name with <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',4,16);">2Ki 4:16</a>, "Thou shalt embrace a son," imagined that the prophet was the son of the Shunammite woman. The Septuagint form of the name, Hambakoum; Theodotion Hambakouk, presupposes the Hebrew chabbaquq. A similar word occurs in Assyrian as the name of a garden plant.<P>2. Life:<P>Practically nothing is known of Habakkuk. The book bearing his name throws little light upon his life, and the rest of the Old Testament is silent concerning him; but numerous legends have grown up around his name. The identification of the prophet with the son of the Shunammite woman is one. Another, connecting <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',21,6);">Isa 21:6</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',2,1);">Hab 2:1</a>, makes Habakkuk the watchman set by Isaiah to watch for the fall of Babylon. One of the recensions of the Septuagint text of Bel and the Dragon declares that the story was taken "from the prophecy of Habakkuk, the son of Jesus of the tribe of Levi." This must refer to an unknown apocryphal book ascribed to our prophet. What authority there may be for calling his father Jesus we do not know. The claim that he was of the tribe of Levi may be based upon the presence of the musical note at the end of the third chapter. According to the Lives of the Prophets, ascribed, though perhaps erroneously, to Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis in Cyprus during the latter part of the 4th century AD, he belonged to Bethtsohar, of the tribe of Simeon. A very interesting story is found in Bel and the Dragon (33-39), according to which Habakkuk, while on his way to the field with a bowl of pottage, was taken by an angel, carried to Babylon and placed in the lions den, where Daniel ate the pottage, when Habakkuk was returned to his own place. According to the Lives, Habakkuk died two years before the return of the exiles from Babylon. All these legends have little or no historical value.<P>II. The Book.<P>1. Interpretation of <span class="noTag">Habakkuk 1 and 2</span>:<P>It is necessary to consider the interpretation of <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',1,\'1-\');">Hab 1</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',2,\'1-\');">2</A> before giving the contents of the book, as a statement of the contents of these chapters will be determined by their interpretation. The different interpretations advocated may be grouped under three heads:<P>(1) According to the first view: <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',1,\'2-4\');">Hab 1:2-4</a>: The corruption of Judah; the oppression of the righteous Jews by the wicked Jews, which calls for the Divine manifestation in judgment against the oppressors. <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',1,\'5-11\');">1:5-11</A>: Yahweh announces that He is about to send the Chaldeans to execute judgment. <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',1,\'12-17\');">1:12-17</A>: The prophet is perplexed. He cannot understand how a righteous God can use these barbarians to execute judgment upon a people more righteous than they. He considers even the wicked among the Jews better than the Chaldeans. <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',2,\'1-4\');">2:1-4</A>: Yahweh solves the perplexing problem by announcing that the exaltation of the Chaldeans will be but temporary; in the end they will meet their doom, while the righteous will live. <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',2,\'5-20\');">2:5-20</A>: Woes against the Chaldeans.<P>(2) The second view finds it necessary to change the present arrangement of <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',1,\'5-11\');">Hab 1:5-11</a>; in their present position, they will not fit into the interpretation. For this reason Wellhausen and others omit these verses as a later addition; on the other hand, Giesebrecht would place them before <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',1,2);">1:2</A>, as the opening verses of the prophecy. The transposition would require a few other minor changes, so as to make the verses a suitable beginning and establish a smooth transition from <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',1,11);">1:11</A> to <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',1,2);">1:2</a>. Omitting the troublesome verses, the following outline of the two chapters may be given: <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',1,\'2-4\');">1:2-4</A>: The oppression of the righteous Jews by the wicked Chaldeans. <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',1,\'12-17\');">1:12-17</A>: Appeal to Yahweh on behalf of the Jews against their oppressors. <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',2,\'1-4\');">2:1-4</A>: Yahweh promises deliverance (see above). <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',2,\'5-20\');">2:5-20</A>: Woes against the Chaldeans.<P>(3) The third view also finds it necessary to alter the present order of verses. Again <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',1,\'5-11\');">Hab 1:5-11</a>, in the present position, interferes with theory; therefore, these verses are given a more suitable place after <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',2,4);">2:4</A>. According to this interpretation the outline is as follows: <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',1,\'2-4\');">1:2-4</A>: Oppression of the righteous Jews by the wicked Assyrians (Budde) or Egyptians (G. A. Smith). <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',1,\'12-17\');">1:12-17</A>: Appeal to Yahweh on behalf of the oppressed against the oppressor. <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',2,\'1-4\');">2:1-4</A>: Yahweh promises deliverance (see above). <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',1,\'5-11\');">1:5-11</A>: The Chaldeans will be the instrument to execute judgment upon the oppressors and to bring deliverance to the Jews. <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',2,\'5-20\');">2:5-20</A>: Woes against the Assyrians or Egyptians.<P>A full discussion of these views is not possible in this article (see Eiselen, Minor Prophets, 466-68). It may be sufficient to say that on the whole the first interpretation, which requires no omission or transposition, seems to satisfy most completely the facts in the case.<P>2. Contents:<P>The contents of <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',1,\'1-\');">Hab 1</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',2,\'1-\');">2</A> are indicated in the preceding paragraph. <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',3,\'1-\');">Hab 3</a> contains a lyrical passage called in the title "Prayer." The petitioner speaks for himself and the community. He remembers the mighty works of Yahweh for His people; the thought of them causes him to tremble; nevertheless, he calls for a repetition of the ancient manifestations (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',3,2);">3:2</A>). In majestic pictures the poet describes the wonderful appearances of Yahweh in the past (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',3,\'3-11\');">3:3-11</A>) for His chosen people (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',3,\'12-15\');">3:12-15</A>). The remembrance of these manifestations fills the Psalmist with fear and trembling, but also with joy and confidence in the God of his salvation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',3,\'16-19\');">3:16-19</A>).<P>3. Style:<P>Only the Hebrew student can get an adequate idea of the literary excellence of the Book of Habakkuk. "The literary power of Habakkuk," says Driver, "is considerable. Though his book is a brief one, it is full of force; his descriptions are graphic and powerful; thought and expression are alike poetic; he is still a master of the old classical style, terse, parallelistic, pregnant; there is no trace of the often prosaic diffusiveness which manifests itself in the writings of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. And if <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',3,\'1-\');">Hab 3</a> be his, he is, moreover, a lyric poet of high order; the grand imagery and the rhythmic flow of this ode will bear comparison with some of the finest productions of the Hebrew muse."<P>4. Integrity:<P>More than half of the book, including <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',1,\'5-11\');">Hab 1:5-11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',2,\'9-20\');">2:9-20</a>, and chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',3,\'1-\');">3</a> entire, has been denied to the prophet Habakkuk. If the prophecy is rightly interpreted (see above), no valid reason for rejecting <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',1,\'5-11\');">1:5-11</A> can be found. <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',2,\'9-20\');">Hab 2:9-20</a> are denied to Habakkuk chiefly on two grounds:<P>(1) The "woes" are said to be in part, at least, unsuitable, if supposed to be addressed to the Chaldean king. This difficulty vanishes when it is borne in mind that the king is not addressed as an individual, but as representing the policy of the nation, as a personification of the nation.<P>(2) Some parts, especially <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',2,\'12-14\');">2:12-14</a>, "consist largely of citations and reminiscences of other passages, including some late ones" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',2,12);">2:12</A> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',3,10);">Mic 3:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',2,13);">Hab 2:13</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,58);">Jer 51:58</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',2,14);">Hab 2:14</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',11,9);">Isa 11:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',2,16);">Hab 2:16b</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',25,15,16);">Jer 25:15-16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',2,\'18-20\');">Hab 2:18-20</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',44,9);">Isa 44:9</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',46,6,7);">46:6,7</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',10,\'1-16\');">Jer 10:1-16</a>).<P>Aside from the fact that the argument from literary parallels is always precarious, in this case the resemblances are few in number and of such general character that they do not necessarily presuppose literary dependence. <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',3,\'1-\');">Habakkuk 3</a> is denied to the prophet even more persistently, but the arguments are by no means conclusive. The fact that the chapter belongs to the psalm literature does not prove a late date unless it is assumed, without good reasons, that no psalms originated in the preexilic period. Nor do the historical allusions, which are altogether vague, the style, the relation to other writers, and the character of the religious ideas expressed, point necessarily to a late date. The only doubtful verses are <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',2,16);">2:16</a>ff, which seem to allude to a calamity other than the invasion of the Chaldeans; and Driver says, not without reason, "Had the poet been writing under the pressure of a hostile invasion, the invasion itself would naturally have been expected to form a prominent feature in this picture." Hence, while it may be impossible to prove that Habakkuk is the author of the prayer, it is equally impossible to prove the contrary; and while there are a few indications which seem to point to a situation different from that of Habakkuk, they are by no means definite enough to exclude the possibility of Habakkuk\'s authorship.<P>III. The Time.<P>1. Date:<P>The question of date is closely bound up with that of interpretation. Budde, on theory that the oppressors, threatened with destruction, are the Assyrians (see above, 3), dates the prophecy 621 to 615 BC. Granting that the Assyrians are in the mind of the prophet, the date suggested by Betteridge (AJT,1903, 674ff), circa 701 BC, is to be preferred; but if the Assyrians are not the oppressors, then with the Assyrians fall the dates proposed by Budde and Betteridge. If the prophecy is directed against Egypt, we are shut up to a very definite period, between 608 and 604 BC, for the Egyptian supremacy in Judah continued during these years only. If the Egyptians are not the oppressors, another date will have to be sought. If the Chaldeans are the oppressors of Judah, the prophecy must be assigned to a date subsequent to the battle of Carchemish in 605-604, for only after the defeat of the Egyptians could the Chaldeans carry out a policy of world conquest; and it was some years after that event that the Chaldeans first came into direct contact with Judah. But on this theory, <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',1,\'2-4\',12);">Hab 1:2-4, 12</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',2,8);">2:8</A>ff, presupposes the lapse of a considerable period of conquest, the subduing of many nations, the cruel oppression of Judah for some length of time; therefore, Nowack is undoubtedly correct, on this theory, in bringing the prophecy down to a period subsequent to the first exile in 597, or, as he says, "in round numbers about 590 BC."<P>A different date must be sought if <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',1,\'2-4\');">Hab 1:2-4</a> is interpreted as referring to the oppression of Jews by Jews, and <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',1,5);">1:5</a>ff, as a threat that Yahweh will raise up the Chaldeans, already known as a nation thirsting for blood, to punish the wickedness of Judah. These verses would seem to indicate (1) that the Chaldeans had not yet come into direct contact with Judah, and (2) that they had already given exhibitions of the cruel character of their warfare. Nebuchadnezzar advanced against Judah about 600 BC; but the years since the fall of Nineveh, in 607-606, and the battle of Carchemish, in 605-604, had given abundant opportunity to the Chaldeans to reveal their true character, and to the prophet and his contemporaries to become acquainted with this cruel successor of Nineveh. On this theory, therefore, the prophetic activity of Habakkuk must be assigned to shortly before 600 BC.<P>2. Occasion:<P>If Habakkuk prophesied about 600 BC, he lived under King Jehoiakim. The pious and well-meaning Josiah had been slain in an attempt to stop the advance of Egypt against Assyria. With his death the brief era of reform came to an end. After a reign of three months Jehoahaz was deposed by Pharaoh-necoh, who placed Jehoiakim on the throne. The latter was selfish, tyrannical and godless. In a short time the deplorable conditions of Manasseh\'s reign returned. It was this situation that caused the prophet\'s first perplexity: "O Yahweh, how long shall I cry, and thou wilt not hear? I cry out unto thee of violence, and thou wilt not save" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',1,2);">Hab 1:2</a>).<P>IV. Its Teaching.<P>In the Book of Habakkuk a new type of prophecy appears. The prophets were primarily preachers and teachers of religion and ethics. They addressed themselves to their fellow-countrymen in an attempt to win them back to Yahweh and a righteous life. Not so Habakkuk. He addresses himself to Yahweh, questioning the justice or even the reality of the Divine Providence. He makes complaint to God and expostulates with Him. The prophet Habakkuk, therefore, is a forerunner of the author of the Book of Job. "As a whole, his book is the fruit of religious reflection. It exhibits the communings and questionings of his soul—representative, no doubt, of many other pious spirits of the time—with God; and records the answers which the Spirit of God taught him for his own sake and for the sake of tried souls in every age.<P>Habakkuk has been called the prophet of faith. He possessed a strong, living faith in Yahweh; but he, like many other pious souls, was troubled and perplexed by the apparent inequalities of life. He found it difficult to reconcile these with his lofty conception of Yahweh. Nevertheless, he does not sulk. Boldly he presents his perplexities to Yahweh, who points the way to a solution, and the prophet comes forth from his trouble with a faith stronger and more intense than ever. It is in connection with his attempts to solve the perplexing problems raised by the unpunished sins of his countrymen and the unlimited success of the Chaldeans that Habakkuk gives utterance to two sublime truths:<P>1. The Universal Supremacy of Yahweh:<P>Yahweh is interested not only in Israel. Though Habakkuk, like the other prophets, believes in a special Divine Providence over Israel, he is equally convinced that Yahweh\'s rule embraces the whole earth; the destinies of all the nations are in His hand. The Chaldeans are punished not merely for their sins against Judah, but for the oppression of other nations as well. Being the only God, He cannot permit the worship of other deities. Temporarily the Chaldeans may worship idols, or make might their god, they may "sacrifice unto their net," and burn incense "unto their drag," because by them "their portion is fat and their food plenteous"; but Yahweh is from everlasting, the Holy One, and He will attest His supremacy by utterly destroying the boastful conqueror with his idols.<P>2. Faithfulness the Guarantee of Permanency:<P>The second important truth is expressed in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',2,4);">Hab 2:4</a>: "The righteous shall live by his faith" (the American Revised Version, margin "faithfulness"). Faithfulness assures permanency. The thought expressed by the prophet is not identical with that expressed by the apostle who quotes the words (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,11);">Ga 3:11</a>); nevertheless, the former also gives expression to a truth of profound significance. "Faithfulness" is with the prophet an external thing; it signifies integrity, fidelity, steadfastness under all provocations; but this implies, in a real sense, the New Testament conception of faith as an active principle of right conduct. A living faith determines conduct; religion and ethics go hand in hand, and especially in the hour of adversity a belief in Yahweh and unflinching reliance upon Him are the strongest preservers of fidelity and integrity. Faith without works is dead; faith expresses itself in life. Habakkuk places chief emphasis upon the expressions of faith, and he does so rightly; but in doing this he also calls attention, by implication at least, to the motive power behind the external manifestations. As an expression of living faith, <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',3,\'17-19\');">3:17-19</A> is not surpassed in the Old Testament.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Commentaries on the Minor Prophets by Ewald, Pusey, Keil, Orelli, G. A. Smith (Expositor\'s Bible), Driver (New Century Bible), Eiselen; A. B. Davidson, Commentary on "Nah," "Hab," "Zeph" (Cambridge Bible); A. F. Kirkpatrick, Doctrine of the Prophets; F. C. Eiselen, Prophecy and the Prophets; F. W. Farrar, Minor Prophets ("Men of the Bible"); Driver, LOT; HDB, article "Habakkuk"; EB, article "Habakkuk."``50';
|
||
isbe[3975]='Habakkuk, the Prayer of``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BETH+HORON,+THE+BATTLE+OF">BETH-HORON, THE BATTLE OF</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3976]='Habaziniah`(chabhatstsinyah. Thus in the King James Version, but more correctly as in the Revised Version (British and American) Habazziniah, hab-a-zi-ni\'-a (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',35,3);">Jer 35:3</a>)): The grandfather of Jaazaniah, who was the leader of the Rechabites who were tested by Jeremiah as to their obedience to their ancestor\'s command with reference to wine. Their loyalty to the commands of Jonadab was effectively used by Jeremiah in an appeal to the people of Judah to obey the words of Yahweh.``1';
|
||
isbe[3977]='Habergeon`hab’-er-jun, ha-bur’-jun, the King James Version (tachara’): In the Revised Version (British and American), <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',28,32);">Ex 28:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',39,23);">39:23</a>, etc., "coat of mail"; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',41,26);">Job 41:26</a>, "pointed shaft," margin "coat of mail."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ARMOR;+ARMS">ARMOR, ARMS</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3978]='Habitation`hab-i-ta\'-shun: Properly a place of sojourn or dwelling. The term in the King James Version representing some 16 Hebrew words (moshabh, ma\'-on, mishkan, naweh, etc.), and 5 Greek words, is variously changed in certain passages in the Revised Version (British and American), as <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,5);">Ge 49:5</a>, "swords"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',13,46);">Le 13:46</a> "dwelling"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',5,24);">Job 5:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',25,30,37);">Jer 25:30b,37</a>,"fold"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',89,14);">Ps 89:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',97,2);">97:2</a>, etc., "foundation"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',132,5);">Ps 132:5</a>, "tabernacle"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,9);">Lu 16:9</a>, "tabernacles," etc. Conversely, "habitation" appears in the Revised Version (British and American) for the King James Version "dwelling place" in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',30,27);">2Ch 30:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',79,7);">Ps 79:7</a>, "house"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',83,12);">Ps 83:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,2);">2Co 5:2</a>, "tabernacle," <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,46);">Ac 7:46</a>, etc.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HOUSE">HOUSE</a>`132';
|
||
isbe[3979]='Habor`ha\'-bor (chabhor; Habor, Habior; Isidor of Charax, Aburas (Abouras), Zosias, Aboras):<P>1. Its Position and Course:<P>Is described in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,6);">2Ki 17:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',18,11);">18:11</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',5,26);">1Ch 5:26</a>) as "the river of Gozan." It is the Arabic Khabur, and flows in a southerly direction from several sources in the mountains of Karaj Dagh (Mons Masius), which, in the 37th parallel, flanks the valley of the Tigris on the west. The river ultimately joins the Euphrates after receiving its chief tributary, the Jaghjagha Su (Mygdonius), at Circesium (Kirkisiyeh).<P>2. Etymologies of Habor:<P>The meaning of its name is doubtful, but Delitzsch has suggested a Sumerian etymology, namely, habur, "the fish-waterway," or it may be connected with "mother Hubur\'" a descriptive title of Tiamat (see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=MERODACH">MERODACH</a>; <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=RAHAB">RAHAB</a>).<P>3. Historical References:<P>Layard found several interesting Assyrian remains in the district, including man-headed bulls bearing the name of Muses-Ninip, possibly an Assyrian governor. Tiglath-pileser I (circa 1120 BC) boasts of having killed 10 mighty elephants in Haran and on the banks of the Habor; and Assur-nacir-apli (circa 880 BC), after conquering Harsit (Harrit, Harmis), subjugated the tract around piate sa nar Habur, "the mouths of the Habor." According to 2Ki and 1 Chronicles, Shalmaneser IV and Sargon transported the exiled Israelites thither. Philological considerations exclude the identification of the Chebar of <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',13,\'1-\');">Eze 13</a>, etc., with the Habor.``136';
|
||
isbe[3980]='Hacaliah`hak-a-li\'-a (chakhalyah, meaning doubtful, perhaps "wait for Yahweh"; the King James Version Hachaliah): Father of Nehemiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,\'1-\');">Ne 11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,1);">10:1</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[3981]='Hachilah, Hill of`ha-ki\'-la, hak\'-i-la, (chakhilah): A hill in the wilderness of Judah, associated with the wanderings of David. It is stated (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',23,19);">1Sa 23:19</a>) to be "on the south of the desert" (or Jeshimon), and (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',26,1);">1Sa 26:1</a>) to be "before (on the front (i.e. edge) of) the desert." It was near Ziph and Maon. The only plausible hypothesis is that it is represented by the ridge Dhahret el-Kolah in the wilderness of Ziph, toward the desert of En-gedi (PEF, III, 313, Sh XXI).``1';
|
||
isbe[3982]='Hachmoni; Hachmonite`hak-mo\'-ni, hak\'-mo-ni, or probably (chakhmoni, "wise"): The same word is rendered "Hachmoni," a proper name, in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',27,32);">1Ch 27:32</a> and "a Hachmonite" in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,11);">1Ch 11:11</a>. The form of the Hebrew word suggests that the latter translation should be adopted in both passages, and that it describes the warrior in one case, and the companion or tutor of David\'s sons in the other, as a member of a certain family—a Hachmonite of which nothing further is known. <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,8);">2Sa 23:8</a>, "Josheb-basshebeth a Tahchemonite," bears the marks of a corrupt text, and should be parallel with <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,11);">1Ch 11:11</a> so far as the name goes, reading "Jashobeam the Hachmonite." So Klostermann, Driver, Wellhausen, Budde, etc.``76';
|
||
isbe[3983]='Hadad`ha\'-dad:<P>(1) (chadhadh, "sharpness"): One of the twelve sons of Ishmael (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,15);">Ge 25:15</a>, where the King James Version, following a mistake in Hebrew text, has "Hadar"; but "Hadad" is found in parallel passage <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,30);">1Ch 1:30</a>; the Revised Version (British and American) reads "Hadad" in both places).<P>(2) (hadhadh): A king of Edom, son of Bedad (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,35,36);">Ge 36:35-36</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,46,47);">1Ch 1:46-47</a>), "who smote Midian in the field of Moab," and whose "city was Avith."<P>(3) Another king of Edom, written "Hadar" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,39);">Ge 36:39</a> by a copyist\'s mistake, but "Hadad" in the parallel passage <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,50,51);">1Ch 1:50-51</a>. His city was Pau or Palestine.<P>(4) A member of the royal family of Edom in David\'s time, who as a child escaped Joab\'s slaughter of the Edomites, and fled to Egypt. On David\'s death he returned to Edom, where he made trouble for Solomon by stirring up the Edomites against the rule of Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,\'14-22\',25);">1Ki 11:14-22, 25</a>).<P>(5) The supreme god of Syria, whose name is found in Scripture in the names of Syrian kings, Benhadad, Hadadezer. The god Hadad (= perhaps, "maker of loud noise") is mentioned in Assyrian inscriptions, and called on the monolith of Shalmaneser "the god of Aleppo." In the Assyrian inscriptions he is identified with the air-god Rammon or Rimmon. The union of the two names in <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',12,11);">Zec 12:11</a> suggests this identity, though the reference is uncertain, some regarding Hadadrimmon as the name of a place, others as the name of the god—"Hadad (is) Rimmon." The name "Hadad" is found in various other forms: Adad, Dadu, and Dadda. See A. H. Sayce in HDB under the word "Hadad."``76';
|
||
isbe[3984]='Hadadezer`had-ad-e\'-zer (hadhadh\'ezer; so <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',8,\'1-\');">2Sa 8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,23);">1Ki 11:23</a>, but hadhar\'ezer, <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',10,\'1-\');">2Sa 10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',18,\'1-\');">1Ch 18</a>): Mentioned in connection with David\'s wars of conquest (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',8,3);">2Sa 8:3</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',10,\'1-19\');">2Sa 10:1-19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',18,3);">1Ch 18:3</a>); was king of Zobah in Syria. The exact position and size of this Syrian principality are uncertain, but it seems to have extended in David\'s time southward toward Ammon and eastward to the Euphrates. When the Ammonites had put themselves in the wrong with David by the insult done to his ambassadors (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',10,\'1-5\');">2Sa 10:1-5</a>) they summoned to their aid against the incensed king of Israel the Syrians of various adjoining principalities, among them the Syrians of Zobah under Hadadezer, the son of Rehob. The strategy of Joab, who set the force under command of Abishai his brother in array against the Ammonites, and himself attacked the Syrian allies, won for Israel a decisive victory. Not content with this result, Hadadezer gathered together another Syrian force, summoning this time also "the Syrians that were beyond the River" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',10,16);">2Sa 10:16</a>), with Shobach the captain of his host at their head. On this occasion David himself took command of the Israelite forces and again defeated them near Helam, Shobach being left dead on the field. Hadadezer and his Syrian vassals, finding resistance hopeless, "made peace with Israel and served them" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',10,19);">2Sa 10:19</a>). For the name Hadador Hadarezer, see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=BENHADAD">BENHADAD</a>.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Winckler, Geschichte Israels, I, 137ff; McCurdy, HPM, 204; Maspero, The Struggle of the Nations, 731.``128';
|
||
isbe[3985]='Hadadrimmon`ha-dad-rim\'-on, had-ad-rim\'-on (hadhadh rimmon): A name which occurs, along with Megiddon, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',12,11);">Zec 12:11</a>. It was long thought that this was a place in the plain of Megiddo, and that the mourning referred to was that for Josiah, slain in battle with Pharaoh-necoh (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,29);">2Ki 23:29</a>). This last, however, was certainly at Jerusalem. Jerome (Comm. on Zec) identifies Hadadrimmon with Maximianopolis, a village near Jezreel, probably Legio, the ancient Megiddo. Possibly, however, the form "Hadadrimmon" has arisen through the combination of two divine names; and the weeping may be that for Tammuz (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',8,14);">Eze 8:14</a>), with whom the old Semitic deity had become confused in the popular mind.``54';
|
||
isbe[3986]='Hadar`ha\'-dar (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,39);">Ge 36:39</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HADAD">HADAD</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3987]='Hadarezer`had-ar-e\'-zer.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HADADEZER">HADADEZER</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3988]='Hadashah`ha-da\'-sha, had\'-a-sha (chadhashah, "new"): A town in the Shephelah of Judah, named with Zenan and Migdal-gad (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,37);">Jos 15:37</a>). According to the Mishna (\'Erubhin, v. 6), it was the smallest town in Judah. It is not identified.``1';
|
||
isbe[3989]='Hadassah`ha-das\'-a (hadhaqqah, "myrtle"): The Hebrew name (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',2,7);">Es 2:7</a>) formerly borne by <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=ESTHER">ESTHER</a> (which see).``1';
|
||
isbe[3990]='Hadattah`ha-dat\'-a (chadhattah, "new"):`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HAZOR">HAZOR</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[3991]='Hades`ha\'-dez (Haides, haides, "not to be seen"): Hades, Greek originally Haidou, in genitive, "the house of Hades," then, as nominative, designation of the abode of the dead itself. The word occurs in the New Testament in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,23);">Mt 11:23</a> (parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,15);">Lu 10:15</a>); <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,18);">Mt 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(\'Rev\',1,18);">Re 1:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,8);">6:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,13);">20:13</a>f. It is also found in Textus Receptus of the New Testament <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,55);">1Co 15:55</a>, but here the correct reading (Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, the Revised Version (British and American)) is probably Thanate, "O Death," instead of Haide, "O Hades." the King James Version renders "Hades" by "hell" in all instances except <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,55);">1Co 15:55</a>, where it puts "grave" (margin "hell") in dependence on <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',13,14);">Ho 13:14</a>. the Revised Version (British and American) everywhere has "Hades."<P>1. In Old Testament: Sheol:<P>In the Septuagint Hades is the standing equivalent for Sheol, but also translates other terms associated with death and the state after it. The Greek conception of Hades was that of a locality receiving into itself all the dead, but divided into two regions, one a place of torment, the other of blessedness. This conception should not be rashly transferred to the New Testament, for the latter stands not under the influence of Greek pagan belief, but gives a teaching and reflects a belief which model their idea of Hades upon the Old Testament through the Septuagint. The Old Testament Sheol, while formally resembling the Greek Hades in that it is the common receptacle of all the dead, differs from it, on the one hand, by the absence of a clearly defined division into two parts, and, on the other hand, by the emphasis placed on its association with death and the grave as abnormal facts following in the wake of sin. The Old Testament thus concentrates the partial light it throws on the state after death on the negative, undesirable side of the prospect apart from redemption. When in the progress of Old Testament revelation the state after death begins to assume more definite features, and becomes more sharply differentiated in dependence on the religious and moral issue of the present life this is not accomplished in the canonical writings (otherwise in the apocalyptic literature) by dividing Sheol into two compartments, but by holding forth to the righteous the promise of deliverance from Sheol, so that the latter becomes more definitely outlined as a place of evil and punishment.<P>2. In the New Testament: Hades:<P>The New Testament passages mark a distinct stage in this process, and there is, accordingly, a true basis in Scripture for the identification in a certain aspect of Sheol—Hades—with hell as reflected in the King James Version. The theory according to which Hades is still in the New Testament the undifferentiated provisional abode of all the dead until the day of judgment, with the possibility of ultimate salvation even for those of its inmates who have not been saved in this life, is neither in harmony with the above development nor borne out by the facts of New Testament usage. That dead believers abide in a local Hades cannot be proven from <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',4,16);">1Th 4:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,23);">1Co 15:23</a>, for these passages refer to the grave and the body, not to a gathering-place of the dead. On the other hand <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,43);">Lu 23:43</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,\'6-8\');">2Co 5:6-8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,23);">Php 1:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,9);">Re 6:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',7,9);">7:9</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',15,2);">15:2</A>ff teach that the abode of believers immediately after death is with Christ and God.<P>3. <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,27,31);">Ac 2:27, 31</a>:<P>It is, of course, a different matter, when Hades, as not infrequently already the Old Testament Sheol, designates not the place of the dead but the state of death or disembodied existence. In this sense even the soul of Jesus was in Hades according\' to Peter\'s statement (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,27,31);">Ac 2:27, 31</a>—on the basis of <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',16,10);">Ps 16:10</a>). Here the abstract sense is determined by the parallel expression, "to see corruption" None the less from a comparatively early date this passage has been quoted in support of the doctrine of a local descent of Christ into Hades.<P>4. <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,13);">Re 20:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,8);">6:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,18);">1:18</a>:<P>The same abstract meaning is indicated for <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,13);">Re 20:13</a>. Death and Hades are here represented as delivering up the dead on the eve of the final judgment. If this is more than a poetic duplication of terms, Hades will stand for the personified state of death, Death for the personified cause of this state. The personification appears plainly from <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,14);">20:14</A>: "Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire." In the number of these "dead" delivered up by Hades, believers are included, because, even on the chiliastic interpretation of <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,\'4-6\');">20:4-6</a>, not all the saints share in the first resurrection, but only those "beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, and for the word of God," i.e. the martyrs. A similar personifying combination of Death and Hades occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,8);">Re 6:8</a> ("a pale horse: and he that sat upon him his name was Death; and Hades followed with him"). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,18);">Re 1:18</a>, on the other hand, Death and Hades are represented as prisons from which Christ, in virtue of His own resurrection, has the power to deliver, a representation which again implies that in some, not necessarily local, sense believers also are kept in Hades.<P>5. <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,23);">Lu 16:23</a>:<P>In distinction from these passages when the abstract meaning prevails and the local conception is in abeyance, the remaining references are more or less locally conceived. Of these <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,23);">Lu 16:23</a> is the only one which might seem to teach that recipients of salvation enter after death into Hades as a place of abode. It has been held that Hades is here the comprehensive designation of the locality where the dead reside, and is divided into two regions, "the bosom of Abraham" and the place of torment, a representation for which Jewish parallels can be quoted, aside from its resemblance to the Greek bisection of Hades. Against this view, however, it may be urged, that if "the bosom of Abraham" were conceived as one of the two divisions of Hades, the other division would have been named with equal concreteness in connection with Dives. In point of fact, the distinction is not between "the bosom of Abraham" and another place, as both included in Hades, but between "the bosom of Abraham" and Hades as antithetical and exclusive. The very form of the description of the experience of Dives: "In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torments," leads us to associate Hades as such with pain and punishment. The passage, therefore, does not prove that the saved are after death in Hades. In further estimating its bearing upon the problem of the local conditions of the disembodied life after death, the parabolic character of the representation must be taken into account. The parable is certainly not intended to give us topographical information about the realm of the dead, although it presupposes that there is a distinct place of abode for the righteous and wicked respectively.<P>6. <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,23);">Mt 11:23</a>:<P>The two other passages where Hades occurs in the teaching of our Lord (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,23);">Mt 11:23</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,15);">Lu 10:15</a>; and <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,18);">Mt 16:18</a>) make a metaphorical use of the conception, which, however, is based on the local sense. In the former utterance it is predicted of Capernaum that it shall in punishment for its unbelief "go down unto Hades." As in the Old Testament Sheol is a figure for the greatest depths known (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,22);">De 32:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',7,11);">Isa 7:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',57,9);">57:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',11,8);">Job 11:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',26,6);">26:6</a>), this seems to be a figure for the extreme of humiliation to which that city was to be reduced in the course of history. It is true, <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',11,24);">11:24</A>, with its mention of the day of judgment, might seem to favor an eschatological reference to the ultimate doom of the unbelieving inhabitants, but the usual restriction of Hades to the punishment of the intermediate state (see below) is against this.<P>7. <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,18);">Mt 16:18</a>:<P>In the other passage, <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,18);">Mt 16:18</a>, Jesus declares that the gates of Hades shall not katischuein the church He intends to build. The verb katischuein may be rendered, "to overpower" or "to surpass." If the former be adopted, the figure implied is that of Hades as a stronghold of the power of evil or death from which warriors stream forth to assail the church as the realm of life. On the other rendering there is no reference to any conflict between Hades and the church, the point of comparison being merely the strength of the church, the gates of Hades, i.e. the realm of death, serving in common parlance as a figure of the greatest conceivable strength, because they never allow to escape what has once entered through them.<P>The above survey of the passages tends to show that Hades, where it is locally conceived, is not a provisional receptacle for all the dead, but plainly associated with the punishment of the wicked. Where it comes under consideration for the righteous there is nothing to indicate a local sense. On <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,19);">1Pe 3:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,6);">4:6</a> (where, however, the word "Hades" does not occur), see articles <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=ESCHATOLOGY+OF+THE+NEW+TESTAMENT,+I-V">ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT</a>; <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=PRISON,+SPIRITS+IN">SPIRITS IN PRISON</a>.<P>8. Not a Final State:<P>The element of truth in theory of the provisional character of Hades lies in this, that the New Testament never employs it in connection with the final state of punishment, as subsequent to the last judgment. For this <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=GEHENNA">GEHENNA</a> (which see) and other terms are used. Dives is represented as being in Hades immediately after his death and while his brethren are still in this present life. Whether the implied differentiation between stages of punishment, depending obviously on the difference between the disembodied and reembodied state of the lost, also carries with itself a distinction between two places of punishment, in other words whether Hades and Gehenna are locally distinct, the evidence is scarcely sufficient to determine. The New Testament places the emphasis on the eschatological developments at the end, and leaves many things connected with the intermediate state in darkness.``182';
|
||
isbe[3992]='Hadid`ha\'-did (chadhidh): A city in Benjamin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,33);">Ne 11:33</a>f) named with Lod and Ono (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,33);">Ezr 2:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,37);">Ne 7:37</a>), probably identical with Adida Septuagint Hadida) of 1Macc 12:38; 13:13, "over against the plain," which was fortified by Simon Maccabeus. It is represented by the modern el-Chaditheh, about 3 miles northeast of Lydda.``1';
|
||
isbe[3993]='Hadlai`had\'-li, had\'-la-i (chadhlay, "resting"): An Ephraimite (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',28,12);">2Ch 28:12</a>), father of Amasa, who was one of the heads of the tribe in the time of Pekah, king of Israel.``1';
|
||
isbe[3994]='Hadoram`ha-do\'-ram (hadhoram):<P>(1) Son of Joktan and apparently 6th in descent from Noah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,27);">Ge 10:27</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,21);">1Ch 1:21</a>).<P>(2) Son of Tou, king of Hamath, sent by his father with presents to King David (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',18,10);">1Ch 18:10</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',8,9,10);">2Sa 8:9-10</a>, written probably incorrectly "Joram," "son of Toi."<P>(3) Rehoboam\'s superintendent of the forced labor department (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',10,18);">2Ch 10:18</a>), called Adoram <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',12,18);">1Ki 12:18</a>, a contraction of <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=ADONIRAM">ADONIRAM</A> (which see). He was sent by Rehoboam as messenger to Israel at the time of the revolt of the ten tribes and was stoned to death by them.``76';
|
||
isbe[3995]='Hadrach`ha\'-drak, had\'-rak (chadhrakh): "The land of Hadrach" is mentioned only once in Scripture (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',9,1);">Zec 9:1</a>), and there it is grouped with Damascus, Hamath, Tyre and Sidon. It may be safely identified with the "Hatarikka" of the Assyrian inscriptions, against which Assur-dan III made expeditions in his 1st (772 BC), 8th and 18th years. It also appears in inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III. They place it in the north of Lebanon.``1';
|
||
isbe[3996]='Hagab`ha\'-gab (chaghabh, "locust"): Ancestor of some of the Nethinim who returned from the Babylonian captivity with Zerubbabel and Nehemiah. The name occurs second after Hagabah in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,46);">Ezr 2:46</a>, but is omitted entirely from the parallel list of <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,48);">Ne 7:48</a>.``1';
|
||
isbe[3997]='Hagaba`ha-ga\'-ba, hag\'-a-ba (chaghabha\'): Same as the following (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,48);">Ne 7:48</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[3998]='Hagabah`ha-ga\'-ba, hag\'-a-ba (chaghabhah, "locust"): Like Hagab, an ancestor of some of the Nethinim who returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,45);">Ezr 2:45</a>); spelled Hagaba in the parallel passage (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,48);">Ne 7:48</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[3999]='Hagar`ha\'-gar (haghar, "emigration," "flight"; Hagar, Agar): An Egyptian woman, the handmaid or slave of Sarai; a present, perhaps, from Pharaoh when Abram dissembled to him in Egypt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,16);">Ge 12:16</a>). Mention is made of her in two passages (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,\'1-\');">Ge 16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,\'8-21\');">21:8-21</a>).<P>1. The Scornful Handmaid and Her Flight:<P>In the first narrative (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,\'1-\');">Ge 16</a>) it is related that Sarai, despairing at her age of having children, gave Hagar to Abram as a concubine. As Hagar was not an ordinary household slave but the peculiar property of her mistress (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',29,24,29);">Ge 29:24, 29</a>), any offspring which she might bear to Abram would be reckoned as Sarai\'s (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,\'3-9\');">Ge 30:3-9</a>). In the prospect of becoming a mother, Hagar, forgetting her position, seems to have assumed an insolent bearing toward her childless mistress. Sarai felt keenly the contempt shown her by her handmaid, and in angry tones brought her conduct before Abram. Now that her plan was not working out smoothly, she unfairly blamed her husband for what originated with herself, and appealed to Heaven to redress her grievance. Abram refused to interfere in the domestic quarrel, and renouncing his rights over his concubine, and her claims on him, put her entirely at Sarai\'s disposal. Under the harsh treatment of her mistress Hagar\'s life became intolerable, and she fled into the wilderness, turning her steps naturally toward Egypt, her native land.<P>2. Her Vision and Return:<P>But the angel of Yahweh (who is here introduced for the first time as the medium of theophany) appeared to her as she was resting by a spring and commanded her to return and submit herself to her mistress, promising her an innumerable seed through her unborn son, concerning whom he uttered a striking prediction (see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=ISHMAEL+(1)">ISHMAEL</a>). To the angel (who is now said to be Yahweh Himself) Hagar gave the name "Thou art a God of seeing" (the Revised Version (British and American) "that seeth"), for she said, "Have I even here (in the desert where God, whose manifestations were supposed to be confined to particular places, might not be expected to reveal Himself) looked after him that seeth me?"—the meaning being that while God saw her, it was only while the all-seeing God in the person of His angel was departing that she became conscious of His presence. The spring where the angel met with her was called in Hebrew tradition Be\'er-lachay-ro\'i, "the well of the living one who seeth me" (Revised Version, margin).<P>Obedient to the heavenly vision Hagar returned, as the narrative implies, to her mistress and gave birth to Ishmael, Abram being then eighty-six years old.<P>The idea in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,13);">30:13</a> is not very clearly expressed. The word translated "here" generally means "hither," and there is no explanation of the "living one" in the name of the well. It has therefore been proposed to emend the Hebrew text and read "Have I even seen God, and lived after my seeing?"—an allusion to the belief that no one could "see God and live" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',32,30);">Ge 32:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,20);">Ex 33:20</a>). But there are difficulties in the way of accepting this emendation. The name of God, "a God of seeing," would require to be interpreted in an objective sense as "a God who is seen," and the consequent name of the well, "He that seeth me liveth," would make God, not Hagar, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,13);">30:13</a>, the speaker.<P>3. Her Harsh Expulsion and Divine Help:<P>The other narrative (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,\'8-21\');">Ge 21:8-21</a>) relates what occurred in connection with the weaning of Isaac. The presence and conduct of Ishmael during the family feast held on the occasion roused the anger and jealousy of Sarah who, fearing that Ishmael would share the inheritance with Isaac, peremptorily demanded the expulsion of the slave-mother and her son. But the instincts of Abraham\'s fatherly heart recoiled from such a cruel course, and it was only after the revelation was made to him that the ejection of Hagar and her son would be in the line of the Divine purpose—for Isaac was his real seed, while Ishmael would be made a nation too—that he was led to forego his natural feelings and accede to Sarah\'s demand. So next morning the bondwoman and her son were sent forth with the bare provision of bread and a skin of water into the wilderness of Beersheba. When the water was spent, Hagar, unable to bear the sight of her boy dying from thirst, laid him under a shrub and withdrew the distance of a bowshot to weep out her sorrow. But the angel of God, calling to her out of heaven, comforted her with the assurance that God had heard the voice of the lad and that there was a great future before him. Then her eyes were opened to discover a well of water from which she filled the skin and gave her son to drink. With God\'s blessing the lad grew up amid the desert\'s hardships, distinguished for his skill with the bow. He made his home in the wilderness of Paran, and his mother took a wife for him out of her own country.<P>4. Practical Lessons from the History:<P>The life and experience of Hagar teach, among other truths, the temptations incident to a new position; the foolishness of hasty action in times of trial and difficulty; the care exercised over the lonely by the all-seeing God; the Divine purpose in the life of everyone, however obscure and friendless; how God works out His gracious purposes by seemingly harsh methods; and the strength, comfort and encouragement that ever accompany the hardest experiences of His children.<P>5. Critical Points in the Documents:<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,\'1-\');">Genesis 16</a> belongs to the Jahwist, J, (except <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,1,3);">16:1a, 3,15f</A> which are from P), and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,\'8-21\');">21:8-21</A> to E. From the nature of the variations in the narratives many critics hold that we have here two different accounts of the same incident. But the narratives as they stand seem to be quite distinct, the one referring to Hagar\'s flight before the birth of Ishmael, and the other to her expulsion at the weaning of Isaac. It is said, however, that Elohist (E) represents Ishmael as a child "playing" (The Revised Veersion, margin, Septuagint paizonta) with Isaac at the weaning festival, and young enough to be carried by his mother and "cast" under a shrub; while according to the Priestly Code, the Priestly Code (P), (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,16);">Ge 16:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,5);">21:5</a>), as a child was weaned at the age of two or three years, he would be a lad of sixteen at that time. The argument for the double narrative here does not seem conclusive. The word metsacheq (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,9);">16:9</A>) does not necessarily mean "playing" when used absolutely; it is so used in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,14);">Ge 19:14</a>, evidently in the sense of "mocking" or "jesting," and Delitzsch gives it that meaning there. Then as to <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,14);">19:14</A>, the Massoretic Text does not state that the child was put on her shoulder, although the Septuagint does; nor does "cast" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,15);">19:15</a>) so "clearly imply" that Ishmael was an infant carried by his mother (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',15,30);">Mt 15:30</a>). It may be added that the words yeledh and na\'ar, translated "child" and "lad" respectively, determine nothing as to age, as they are each used elsewhere in both senses.<P>6. Allegorical Use of the Story by Paul:<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,21);">Ga 4:21</a>ff Paul makes an allegorical use of this episode in the history of Ishmael and Isaac to support his argument for the transitory character of the Jewish ritual and the final triumph of Christian freedom over all Judaizing tendencies. In elaborating his reference, the apostle institutes a series of contrasts. Hagar, the bondwoman, represents the old covenant which was given from Mt. Sinai; and as Ishmael was Abraham\'s son after the flesh, so the Judaizing Christians, who wish to remain in bondage to the law, are Hagar\'s children. On the other hand, Sarah, the freewoman, represents the new covenant instituted by Christ; and as Isaac was born to Abraham in virtue of the promise, so the Christians who have freed themselves entirely from the law of carnal ordinances and live by faith are Sarah\'s children. Thus Hagar corresponds to "the Jerusalem that now is," that is, the Jewish state which is in spiritual bondage with her children; while Sarah represents "the Jerusalem that is above," "our mother" (Revised Version (British and American)), the mother of us Christians, that free spiritual city to which Christians even now belong (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,20);">Php 3:20</a>). By this allegory the apostle would warn the Galatian Christians of the danger which beset them from their Judaizing brethren, of their subjection to the covenant of works and their ultimate expulsion from the household of faith.<P>To us Paul\'s reference does not appeal with the same force as it would do to those to whom he was writing. The incident taken by itself, indeed, does not contain any suggestion of such a hidden meaning. Yet the history of the Hebrew nation is but typical of the history of the church in all ages, and the apostle\'s familiarity with rabbinical modes of interpretation may have led him to adopt this method of confirming the truth which he had already proved from the law itself.<P>For a discussion of the text and interpretation of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,25);">Ga 4:25a</a>, "Now this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia," and an account of Philo\'s allegory of Hagar and Sarah, see Lightfoot\'s notes at the end of chapter iv in his Commentary on Gal.``32';
|
||
isbe[4000]='Hagarenes; Hagarites`ha\'-gar-enz, ha\'-gar-its.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HAGRITES">HAGRITES</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> |