114 lines
249 KiB
HTML
114 lines
249 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[5901]='Medeba`med\'-e-ba (medhebha\'; Maidaba, Medaba): The name may mean "gently flowing water," but the sense is doubtful. This city is first mentioned along with Heshbon and Dibon in an account of Israel\'s conquests (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,30);">Nu 21:30</a>). It lay in the Mishor, the high pastoral land of Moab. The district in which the city stood is called the Mishor or plain of Medeba in the description of the territory assigned to Reuben (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,9);">Jos 13:9</a>), or the plain by Medeba (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,16);">Jos 13:16</a>). Here the Ammonites and their Syrian allies put the battle in array against Joab, and were signally defeated (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',19,7);">1Ch 19:7</a>). This must have left the place definitely in the possession of Israel. But it must have changed hands several times. It was taken by Omri, evidently from Moab; and Mesha claims to have recovered possession of it (M S, ll. 7, 8, 29, 30). It would naturally fall to Israel under Jeroboam II; but in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',15,2);">Isa 15:2</a> it is referred to as a city of Moab. It also figures in later Jewish history. John, son of Mattathias, was captured and put to death by the Jambri, a robber tribe from Medeba. This outrage was amply avenged by Jonathan and Simon, who ambushed a marriage party of the Jambri as they were bringing a noble bride from Gabbatha, slew them all and took their ornaments (1Macc 9:36ff; Ant, XII, i, 2, 4). Medeba was captured by Hyrcanus "not without the greatest distress of his army" (Ant., XIII, ix, 1). It was taken by Janneus from the Nabateans. Hyrcanus promised to restore it with other cities so taken to Aretas in return for help to secure him on the Judean throne (ibid., xv, 4; XIV, i, 4). Ptolemy speaks of it as a town in Arabia Petrea, between Bostra and Petra. Eusebius and Jerome knew it under its ancient name (Onomasticon, under the word). It became the seat of a bishropric, and is mentioned in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD), and in other ecclesiastical lists.<P>The ancient city is represented by the modern Madeba, a ruined site with an Arab village, crowning a low hill, some 6 miles south of Heshbon, with which it was connected by a Roman road. The ruins, which are considerable, date mainly from Christian times. The surrounding walls can be traced in practically their whole circuit. There is a large tank, now dry, measuring 108 yds. X 103 yds., and about 12 ft. in depth. In 1880 it was colonized by some Christian families from Kerak, among whom the Latins carry on mission work. In December,1896,a most interesting mosaic was found. It proved to be a map of part of Palestine and Lower Egypt of the time of Justinian. Unfortunately it is much damaged. An account of it will be found in Palestine Exploration Fund Statement, 1897, 213ff, 239; 1898, 85,177ff, 251.``54';
|
||
isbe[5902]='Medes`medz (madhi; Assyrian Amada, Mada; Achaem. Persian Mada; Medoi (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,2);">Ge 10:2</a>; <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\',1,5);">1Ch 1:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',6,2);">Ezr 6:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',1,3,14,18,19);">Es 1:3,14,18,19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',10,2);">10:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',13,17);">Isa 13:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',21,2);">21:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',25,25);">Jer 25:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,11,28);">51:11,28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',5,28);">Da 5:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',6,1,9,13,16);">6:1,9,13,16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',8,20);">8:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',9,1);">9:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',11,1);">11:1</a>)): Mentioned as Japhethites in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,2);">Ge 10:2</a>, i.e. Aryans, and accordingly they first called themselves Arioi (Herod. vii.62), in Avestic Airya = Skt. Arya, "noble." They were closely allied in descent, language and religion with the Persians, and in secular history preceded their appearance by some centuries. Like most Aryan nations they were at first divided into small village communities each governed by its own chiefs (called in Assyrian chazanati by Assur-bani-pal: compare Herod. i.96). Shalmaneser II mentions them (Nimrod Obelisk, i.121) about 840 BC. They then inhabited the modern A\'zarbaijan (Media Atropatene). Rammanu-nirari III of Assyria (Rawlinson, Western Asiatic Inscriptions, I, 35) declares that he (810-781 BC) had conquered "the land of the Medes and the land of Parsua" (Persis), as well as other countries. This probably meant only a plundering expedition, as far as Media was concerned. So also Assur-nirari II (Western Asiastic Inscriptions, II, 52) in 749-748 BC overran Namri in southwest Media. Tiglath-pileser IV (in Babylonian called Pulu, the "Pul" of <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',15,19);">2Ki 15:19</a>) and Sargon also overran parts of Media. Sargon in 716 BC conquered Kisheshin, Kharkhar and other parts of the country. Some of the Israelites were by him transplanted to "the cities of the Medes" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,6);">2Ki 17:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',18,11);">18:11</a>; the Septuagint reading Ore, cannot be rendered "mountains" of the Medes here) after the fall of Samaria in 722 BC. It was perhaps owing to the need of being able to resist Assyria that about 720 BC the Medes (in part at least) united into a kingdom under Deiokes, according to Herodotus (i.98). Sargon mentions him by the name Dayaukku, and says that he himself captured this prince (715 BC) and conquered his territory two years later. After his release, probably, Deiokes fortified Ecbatana (formerly Ellippi) and made it his capital. It has been held by some that Herodotus confounds the Medes here with the Manda (or Umman-Manda, "hosts of the Manda") of the inscriptions; but these were probably Aryan tribes, possibly of Scythian origin, and the names Mada and Manda may be, after all, identical. Esar-haddon in his 2nd year (679-678 BC) and Assurbani-pal warred with certain Median tribes, whose power was now growing formidable. They (or the Manda) had conquered Persis and formed a great confederacy. Under Kyaxares (Uvakh-shatara<72>Deiokes\' grandson, according to Herodotus), they besieged Nineveh, but Assur-bani-pal, with the assistance of the Ashguza (? the Ashkenaz of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,3);">Ge 10:3</a>), another Aryan tribe, repelled them. The end of the Assyrian empire came, however, in 606 BC, when the Manda under their king Iriba-tukte, Mamiti-arsu "lord of the city of the Medes," Kastarit of the Armenian district of Kar-kassi, the Kimmerians (Gimirra = Gomer) under Teushpa (Teispes, Chaishpish), the Minni (Manna; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,27);">Jer 51:27</a>), and the Babylonians under Nabu-pal-ucsur, stormed and destroyed Nineveh, as Nabu-nahid informs us. The last king of Assyria, Sin-sar-iskun (Sarakos), perished with his people.<P>Herodotus says that Deiokes was succeeded by Phraortes (Fravartish) his son, Phraortes by his son Kyaxares; and the latter in turn left his kingdom to his son Astyages whose daughter Mandane married Cambyses, father of the great Cyrus. Yet there was no Median empire (such as he describes) then, or at least it did not embrace all the Aryan tribes of Western Asia, as we see from the inscriptions that in 606 BC, and even later, many of them were under kings and princes of their own (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',25,25);">Jer 25:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,11);">51:11</a>). Herodotus tells us they were divided into six tribes, of whom the Magi were one (Herod. i.101). Kyaxares warred for 5 years (590-585 BC) with the Lydians, the struggle being ended in May,585,by the total eclipse of the sun foretold by Thales (Herodotus i.74).<P>The alliance between the Medes and the Babylonians ended with Nebuchadnezzar\'s reign. His successor Nabu-nahid (555 BC) says that in that year the Medes under Astyages (Ishtuwegu) entered Mesopotamia and besieged Haran. Soon after, however, that dynasty was overthrown; for Cyrus the Persian, whom Nabu-nahid the first time he mentions him styles Astyages\' "youthful slave" (ardusu cachru), but who was even then king of Anshan (Anzan), attacked and in 549 BC captured Astyages, plundered Ecbatana, and became king of the Medes. Though of Persian descent, Cyrus did not, apparently, begin to reign in Persia till 546 BC. Henceforth there was no Median empire distinguished from the Persian (nor is any such mentioned in Daniel, in spite of modern fancies). As the Medes were further advanced in civilization and preceded the Persians in sovereignty, the Greek historians generally called the whole nation "the Medes" long after Cyrus\' time. Only much later are the Persians spoken of as the predominant partners. Hence, it is a sign of early date that Daniel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',8,20);">8:20</a>) speaks of "Media and Persia," whereas later the Book of Esther reverses the order ("Persia and Media," <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',1,3,14,18,19);">Es 1:3,14,18,19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',10,2);">10:2</a>), as in the inscriptions of Darius at Behistun. Under Darius I, Phraortes (Fravartish) rebelled, claiming the throne of Media as a descendant of Kyaxares. His cause was so powerfully supported among the Medes that the rebellion was not suppressed till after a fierce struggle. He was finally taken prisoner at Raga (Rai, near Tehran), brutally mutilated, and finally impaled st Ecbatana. After that Median history merges into that of Persia. The history of the Jews in Media is referred to in Daniel and Esther. <span class="noTag">1 Maccabees</span> tells something of Media under the Syrian (6:56) and Parthian dominion (14:1-3; compare Josephus, Ant, XX, iii). Medes are last mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,9);">Ac 2:9</a>. They are remarkable as the first leaders of the Aryan race in its struggle with the Semites for freedom and supremacy.``175';
|
||
isbe[5903]='Media`me\'-di-a (madhay; Achaem. Persian Mada; Media): Lay to the west and southwest of the Caspian, and extended thence to the Zagrus Mountains on the west. On the north in later times it was bounded by the rivers Araxes and Cyrus, which separated it from Armenia. Its eastern boundaries were formed by Hyrcania and the Great Salt Desert (now called the Kavir), and it was bounded on the south by Susiana. In earlier times its limits were somewhat indefinite. It included Atropatene, (Armenian Atrpatakan, the name, "Fire-guarding," showing devotion to the worship of Fire) to the north, and Media Magna to the south, the former being the present A\'zarbaijan. Near the Caspian the country is low, damp and unhealthy, but inland most of it is high and mountainous, Mt. Demavand in the Alburz range reaching 18,600 ft. Atropatene was famed for the fertility of its valleys and table-lands, except toward the north. Media Magna is high; it has fruitful tracts along the course of the streams, but suffers much from want of water, though this was doubtless more abundant in antiquity. It contained the Nisaean Plain, famous for its breed of horses. The chief cities of ancient Media were Ecbatana, Gazaea, and Ragae. The Orontes range near Ecbatana is the present Alvand. Lake Spauta is now known as Urmi (Urumiah).``175';
|
||
isbe[5904]='Median`me\'-di-an.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DARIUS">DARIUS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html??string=MEDES">MEDES</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html??string=MEDIA">MEDIA</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5905]='Mediation; Mediator`me-di-a\'-shun, me\'-di-a-ter:<P><b>I. INTRODUCTORY</b><P class="in15">1. The Terms<P class="in30">(1) Mediation<P class="in30">(2) Mediator<P class="in15">2. The Principle of Mediation<P><b>II. MEDIATION IN THE OLD TESTAMENT</b><P class="in15">1. Negative Teaching in the Old Testament<P class="in15">2. The Positive Teaching: Early Period<P class="in15">3. Prophetic Mediation<P class="in15">4. Priestly Mediation<P class="in15">5. The Theocratic King: the Messiah<P class="in15">6. The Suffering Servant<P class="in15">7. Superhuman Agents of Mediation<P class="in30">(1) Angelic Mediation<P class="in30">(2) Divine Wisdom<P><b>III. IN SEMI-CANONICAL AND NON-CANONICAL JEWISH LITERATURE</b><P><b>IV. MEDIATION AND MEDIATOR IN THE NEW TESTAMENT</b><P class="in15">1. The Synoptic Gospels<P class="in30">(1) Christ as Prophet<P class="in30">(2) Christ as King<P class="in30">(3) Christ as Priest (Redeemer)<P class="in15">2. Primitive Apostolic Teachings<P class="in30">(1) The Early Speeches in Acts<P class="in30">(2) Epistles of James and Jude<P class="in30">(3) 1 Peter<P class="in15">3. Epistles of Paul<P class="in30">(1) The Need of a Mediator<P class="in30">(2) The Qualifications<P class="in30">(3) The Means, the Death of Christ<P class="in30">(4) The Resurrection and Exaltation<P class="in30">(5) The Cosmic Aspect of Christ\'s Mediatorship<P class="in15">4. Epistle to the Hebrews<P class="in15">5. The Johannine Writings<P class="in30">(1) The Fourth Gospel<P class="in30">(2) The Epistles<P class="in30">(3) The Apocalypse<P><b>V. CONCLUSION</b><P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I Introductory.<P>1. The Terms:<P>(1) Mediation:<P>"Mediation" in its broadest sense may be defined as the act of intervening between parties at variance for the purpose of reconciling them, or between parties not necessarily hostile for the purpose of leading them into an agreement or covenant. Theologically, it has reference to the method by which God and man are reconciled through the instrumentality of some intervening process, act or person, and especially through the atoning work of Jesus Christ. The term itself does not occur in Biblical literature.<P>(2) Mediator:<P>The term "mediator" (equals middleman, agent of mediation) is nowhere found in Old Testament or Apocrypha (English Versions of the Bible), but the corresponding Greek word mesites, occurs once in Septuagint (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',9,33);">Job 9:33</a> the King James Version, "Neither is there any daysman betwixt us," where "daysman" stands for Hebrew mokhiach, "arbitrator," the American Standard Revised Version, the English Revised Version margin "umpire" (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DAYSMAN">DAYSMAN</a>); Septuagint has ho mesites hemon, "our mediator," as a paraphrase for Hebrew benenu, "betwixt us"). Even in the New Testament, mesites, "mediator," occurs only 6 times, namely, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,19,20);">Ga 3:19,20</a> (of Moses), and <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',2,5);">1Ti 2:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',8,6);">Heb 8:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,15);">9:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,24);">12:24</a> (of Christ).<P>2. The Principle of Mediation:<P>Though the actual terms are thus very rare, the principle of mediation is one of great significance in Biblical theology, as well as in the Jewish-Alexandrian philosophy. It corresponds to a profound human instinct or need which finds expression in some form or other in most religions. It is an attempt to solve the problem raised by (1) the idea of the infinite distance which separates God from man and the universe, and (2) the deeply felt want of bringing them into a harmonious relation. The conception of mediation will differ, therefore, according to whether the distance to be surmounted is understood ethically or metaphysically. If it be thought of in an ethical or religious sense, that is, if the emphasis be laid on the fact of human sin as standing in the way of man\'s fellowship with God, then mediation will be the mode by which peaceful relations are established between sinful man and the absolutely righteous God. But if the antithesis of God and the world be conceived of metaphysically, i.e. be based on the ultimate nature of God and of the world conceived as essentially opposed to each other, then mediation will be the mode by which the transcendent God, without Himself coming into direct contact with the world, is able to produce effects in it through an intermediate agent (or agents). The latter conception (largely the result of an exaggerated Platonic dualism) exerted an important influence on later Jewish thought, and even on Christian theology, and will come briefly under our consideration. But in the main we shall be concerned with the former view, as more in harmony with the development of Biblical theology which culminates in the New Testament doctrine of atonement. Mediation between God and man as presented in the Scriptures has 3 main aspects, represented respectively by the functions of the prophet, the priest, and theocratic king. Here and there in the Old Testament these tend to meet, as in Melchizedek the priest-king, and in the Suffering Servant of Deutero-Isaiah, who unites the priestly function of sacrifice with the prophetic function of revealing the Divine will. But on the whole, these aspects of mediation in the Old Testament run along lines which have no meeting-point in one person adequate to all the demands. In the New Testament they intersect in the person and work of Jesus Christ, who realizes in Himself the full meaning of the prophetic, priestly, and kingly ideals.<P>II. Mediation in the Old Testament.<P>1. Negative Teaching in the Old Testament:<P>We do not find in the Old Testament a fixed and final doctrine of mediation universally accepted as an axiom of religious thought, but only a gradual movement toward such a doctrine, under the growing sense of God\'s exaltation and of man\'s frailty and sinfulness. Such a passage as <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',2,25);">1Sa 2:25</a> seems definitely to contradict the idea of mediation. Still more striking are the words of Job above referred to, "There is no umpire betwixt us, that might lay his hand upon us both," i.e. to enforce his decision (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',9,33);">Job 9:33</a>), where the Septuagint paraphrases, "Would that there were a mediator and a reprover and a hearer between us both." The note of despair which characterizes this passage shows that Job has no hope that such an arbitrator between him and God is forthcoming. Yet the words give pathetic utterance to the deep inarticulate cry of humanity for a mediator. In this connection we should note the protests of prophets and psalmists against an unethical view of mediation by animal sacrifices (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',6,\'6-8\');">Mic 6:6-8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',40,\'6-8\');">Ps 40:6-8</a>, etc.), and their frequent direct appeals to God for mercy without reference to any mediation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',25,7);">Ps 25:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',32,5);">32:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',103,8);">103:8</a>, etc.).<P>2. The Positive Teaching: Early Period:<P>(1) Mediatory Sacrifice.<P>In the patriarchal age, before the official priest had been differentiated from the rest of the community, the function of offering sacrifice was discharged by the head of the family or clan on behalf of his people, as by Noah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',8,20);">Ge 8:20</a>), Abraham (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,7,8);">Ge 12:7,8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,\'9-11\');">15:9-11</a>), Isaac (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,24);">Ge 26:24</a>f), Jacob (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,54);">Ge 31:54</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',33,20);">33:20</a>). So Job, conceived by the writer as living in patriarchal antiquity, is said to have offered sacrifices vicariously for his sons (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',1,5);">Job 1:5</a>). Melchizedek, the priest-king of Salem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,\'18-20\');">Ge 14:18-20</a>), is a figure of considerable theological interest, inasmuch as he was taken by the author of <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',110,1);">Ps 110</a> as the forerunner of the ideal theocratic king who was also priest, and by the author of He as prototype of Christ\'s priesthood.<P>(2) Intercessory Prayer.<P>Intercession is in all stages of thought an essential element in mediation. We have striking examples of it in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,\'22-33\');">Ge 18:22-33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',42,\'8-10\');">Job 42:8-10</a>.<P>(3) The Mosaic Covenant.<P>In Moses we have for the first time a recognized national representative who acted both as God\'s spokesman to the people, and the people\'s spokesman before God. He alone was allowed to "come near unto Yahweh," and to him Yahweh spake "face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,11);">Ex 33:11</a>). He went up to God and "reported the words of the people" to Him, as to a sovereign who cannot be approached save by his duly accredited minister (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,8);">Ex 19:8</a>). We have a striking example of his intercessory mediation in the episode of the golden calf, when he pleaded effectively with God to turn from His wrath (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,\'12-14\');">Ex 32:12-14</a>), and even offered to "make atonement for" (kipper, literally, "cover") their sin by confessing their sin before God, and being willing to be blotted out of God\'s book, so that the people might be spared (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,\'30-32\');">Ex 32:30-32</a>). Here we have already the germs of the idea of vicarious suffering for sin.<P>(4) Intercessory Mediation.<P>Samuel is by Jeremiah classed with Moses as the chief representative of intercessory mediation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',15,1);">Jer 15:1</a>). He is reported as mediating by prayer between Israel and God, and succeeding in warding off the punishment of their sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',7,\'5-12\');">1Sa 7:5-12</a>). On such occasions, prayer was wont to be accompanied by confessions of sins and by an offering to Yahweh.<P>3. Prophetic Mediation:<P>Samuel represents the transition from the ancient seer or soothsayer to the prophetic order. The prophet was regarded as the organ of Divine revelation, to consult whom was equivalent to "inquiring of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',9,9);">1Sa 9:9</a>)<29>a commissioner sent by God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',6,8);">Isa 6:8</a>f) to proclaim His will by word and action. In that capacity he was Yahweh\'s representative among men, and so could speak in a tone of authority. Prophetic revelation is essential to the Old Testament religion (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,1);">Heb 1:1</a>), which by it stands distinguished from a mere philosophy or natural religion. God is not merely a passive object of human discovery, but one who actively and graciously reveals Himself to His chosen people through the medium of the authorized exponents of His mind and will. Thus in the main the prophet stands for the principle of mediation in its man-ward aspect. But the God-ward aspect is not absent, for we find the prophet mediating with God on behalf of men, making intercession for them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',14,\'19-22\');">Jer 14:19-22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',7,2,5);">Am 7:2f; 5f</a>).<P>4. Priestly Mediation:<P>Mediation is in a peculiar sense the function of the priest. In the main he stands for the principle in its God-ward aspect. Yet in the early period it was the man-ward aspect that was most apparent; i.e. the priest was at first regarded as the medium through which Yahweh delivered His oracles to men, the human mouthpiece of supernatural revelation, giving advice in difficult emergencies by casting the sacred lot. Before the time of the first literary prophets, the association of the priests with the ephod and the lot had receded into the background (though the high priest theoretically retained the gift of interpreting the Divine will through the Urim and Thummim, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',28,30);">Ex 28:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,8);">Le 8:8</a>); but the power they lost with the oracle they gained at the altar. First they acquired a preferential status at the local sanctuaries; then, in the Deuteronomic legislation, where sacrifice is limited to the Jerusalem sanctuary, it is assumed that only Levite priests can officiate. Finally, in the Levitical system as set forth in the Priestly Code (which regulated Jewish worship in the post-exilic times), the Aaronic priests, now clearly distinguished from the Levites, have the sole privilege of immediate access to God in His sanctuary (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',4,19,20);">Nu 4:19,20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',16,\'3-5\');">16:3-5</a>). God\'s transcendence and holiness are now so emphasized that between Him and the sin-stained people there is almost an infinite chasm. Hence, the people can only enjoy its ideal right of drawing nigh unto God and offering sacrifice to Him through the mediation of the official priesthood. The mediatorship of priests derived its authority, not from their moral purity or personal worth, but from the ceremonial purity which attached to their office. All priests are not on the same level. A process of graduated sanctity narrows down their number as the approach is made to the Most Holy Place, which symbolizes the presence chamber of Yahweh.<P>(1) Out of the sacred nation as a whole, the priestly tribe of Levi is elected and invested with a special sanctity to perform all the subordinate acts of service within the tabernacle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',8,19);">Nu 8:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',18,6);">18:6</a>).<P>(2) Within this sacred tribe, the members of the house of Aaron are set apart and invested with a still higher sanctity; they alone officiate at the altar in the Holy Place and expiate the guilt of the people by sacrifice and prayer, thus representing the people before God. Yet even they are only admitted to the proximate nearness of the Holy Place.<P>(3) The gradation of the hierarchy is completed by the recognition of a single, supreme head of the priesthood<6F>the high priest. He alone can enter the Holy of Holies, and that alone once a year, on the Day of Atonement, when he makes propitiation not only for himself and the priesthood, but for the entire congregation. The ritual of the Day of Atonement is the highest exercise of priestly mediatorship. On that day, the whole community has access to Yahweh through their representative, the high priest, and through him offer atonement for their sins. Moreover, the role of the high priest as mediator is symbolized by his wearing the breastplate bearing the names of the children of Israel, whenever he goes into the Holy Place (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',28,29);">Ex 28:29</a>).<P>Something must be said of the sacrificial system, through which alone the priest exercised his mediatorial functions. For his mediatorship did not depend on his direct personal influence with God, exercised, for instance, through intercessory prayer (intercession is not mentioned by the Priestly Code (P) as a duty of the priest, though referred to by the prophets, <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',2,17);">Joe 2:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',1,9);">Mal 1:9</a>). It depended rather on an elaborate system of sacrifice, of which the priest was but an official agent. It was he who derived his authority from the system, rather than the system from him. The most characteristic features in the ritual of P are the sin offering (chatta\'th, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',4,1);">Le 4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',5,1);">5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,\'24-30\');">6:24-30</a>) and the guilt offering (\'asham, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',5,\'1-\');">Le 5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,\'1-\');">6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,\'1-\');">7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,\'1-\');">14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,\'1-\');">19</a>), which seem peculiar to P. These are meant to restore the normal relation of the people or of individuals to God, a relation which sin has disturbed. Hence, these sacrifices, when duly administered by the priest, are distinctly mediatorial or reconciliatory in character, i.e. they make atonement for or "cover" (kipper) the sin of the guilty community or individuals. This seems the case also, though in a far less degree, even with the burnt, peace, and meal offerings, which, though "not offered expressly, like the sin and guilt offerings, for the forgiveness of sin, nevertheless were regarded...as \'covering,\' or neutralizing, the offerer\'s unworthiness to appear before God, and so, though in a much less degree than the sin or guilt offering, as effecting propitiation" (Driver in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, IV, 132). We must beware, however, of reading the full New Testament doctrine of sin and propitiation into the sacrificial law. Two important points of difference may be noted: (1) The law does not provide atonement for all sins, but only for sins of ignorance or inadvertence, committed within the covenant. Deliberate sins fall outside the scope of priestly mediation. (2) While sin includes moral impurity, it must be admitted that the chief emphasis falls on ceremonial uncleanness, because it is only violation of physical sanctity that can be fully rectified by ritual ordinance. The law was essentially a civil code, and was not adequate to deal with inward sins. Thus the sacrificial system in itself is but a faint adumbration of the New Testament doctrine of Christ\'s high-priestly work, which has reference to sin in its widest and deepest meaning. Yet, in spite of these limitations, the priestly ritual was, as far as it went, an organized embodiment of the sin-consciousness, and so prepared the way for the coming of a perfect Mediator.<P>5. The Theocratic King: the Messiah:<P>On another plane than that of the priest is the mediation of theocratic king. Yahweh was ideally the sole king of Israel. But He governed the people mediately through His vicegerent theocratic king, the agent of His will. The king was regarded as "Yahweh\'s anointed" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',16,6);">1Sa 16:6</a>, etc.), and his person as inviolable. He was the "visible representative of the invisible Divine King" (Riehm). The ideal of theocratic king was most nearly represented by David, the man after Yahweh\'s own heart (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,14);">1Sa 13:14</a>). This fact led to Yahweh\'s covenant-promise that David\'s house should constitute a permanent dynasty, and his throne be established forever (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',7,\'5-17\');">2Sa 7:5-17</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',89,\'19-37\');">Ps 89:19-37</a>). The indestructibility of the Davidic dynasty was the basal conviction on which the hope of a Messiah was built. It led to attention being further concentrated on one preeminent King in David\'s line, who should be the Divinely accredited representative of Yahweh, and reign in His name. As a Divinely endowed human hero, the Messiah will possess attributes which will qualify Him to mediate between God and His people in national life and affairs, and so inaugurate the ideal age of peace and righteousness. He is portrayed especially as the Royal Saviour of Israel, through whom the salvation of the people is mediated and justice administered (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',11,\'1-10\');">Isa 11:1-10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',61,\'1-3\');">61:1-3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',72,4,13);">Ps 72:4,13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',23,5,6);">Jer 23:5,6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',33,15,16);">33:15,16</a>).<P>6. The Suffering Servant:<P>In the wonderful figure of exilic prophecy, the Suffering Servant of Yahweh, the principle of mediation is exemplified both in its man-ward and God-ward aspects. In its man-ward aspect, his mission is the prophetic one of being God\'s anointed messenger to men, His witness before the world (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',42,6,19);">Isa 42:6,19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',43,10);">43:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',49,2);">49:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',50,4,5);">50:4,5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',61,\'1-3\');">61:1-3</a>). But the profound originality of the conception of the Servant lies chiefly in the God-ward significance of his suffering (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,\'1-\');">Isa 53</a>). The Servant suffered vicariously as an atonement for the sins of the people. His death is even said to be a "guilt-offering" (\'asham, <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,10);">Isa 53:10</a>), and he is represented as making "intercession for the transgressors" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,12);">Isa 53:12</a>). Here is the profoundest expression in the Old Testament of the principle of mediatorship.<P>The substitution of voluntary, deliberate, human sacrifice for that of unwilling beasts elevates the sacrificial idea to a new ethical plane, and brings it into far more vital and organic relation to human life. The basis of the mediatorship of the Servant seems to be the principle of the solidarity or organic unity of the people, involving the ideal unity of the Servant and the people he represents. In the earlier servant-passages the Servant is identical with the whole nation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',41,8);">Isa 41:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',44,1);">44:1</a>f; and often), and the unity is therefore actual, not ideal merely. In other passages, however, they are clearly to be distinguished, for while the people as a whole is unfaithful to its mission, the Servant remains faithful and suffers for it. Whether in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,\'1-\');">Isa 53</a> the Servant is the pious remnant of the people or is conceived of as an individual we need not here consider. In either case, the tie between the Servant and the whole nation is never completely broken; the idea of their mystical union is still the groundwork of the prophet\'s thought. In virtue of this ideal relation, the Servant is the representative of the nation before God, not in a mere official sense (as in the case of the priest), but on the ground of personal merit, as the true Israel, the embodiment of the national ideal. On that ground God can accept his suffering in lieu of the deserved penalty of the whole people. We have here a wonderful adumbration of the New Testament doctrine of atonement through the One Mediator, the Son of Man, the representative of the race.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SERVANT+OF+JEHOVAH">SERVANT OF JEHOVAH</a>.<P>7. Superhuman Agents of Mediation:<P>In later Judaism, the growing sense of God\'s transcendence favored the tendency to introduce supernatural intermediaries between God and the world.<P>(1) Angelic Mediation.<P>Not until post-exilic times did angels come to have theological significance. Previously, when God was anthropomorphically conceived as appearing periodically on earth in visible form, the need of angelic mediation was not felt. The "angel" in early narrative (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,\'7-11\');">Ge 16:7-11</a>) did not possess abiding personality distinct from God, but was God Himself temporarily manifested in human form. But the more God came to be conceived as "the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity," the greater was the need for mediation between God and the world, and even between God and His servant the prophet. In post-exilic writers there is an increasing disposition to fill up the gap between God and the prophet with superhuman beings. Thus Zechariah receives all Divine instruction through angels; and similarly Daniel receives explanations of his dreams. We do not in the Old Testament hear of angels interceding with God (God-ward mediation), but only as intermediaries of revelation and of the Divine will (man-ward mediation). Modern Jewish scholars deny that Judaistic angelology implied that God was transcendent in the sense of being remote and out of contact with the world. So, e.g., Montefiore (Hibbert Lectures, 423-31), but even he admits a "natural disinclination to bring the Godhead downward to human conditions," and that "for supernatural conversations angels formed a convenient substitute for God" (p. 430). The doctrine of angels had no influence on the New Testament doctrine of mediation, which moves on the plane of the ethical, rather than on the basis of the merely physical transcendenee of God.<P>(2) Divine Wisdom.<P>Of more importance as a preparation for theology of the New Testament is the doctrine of Wisdom, in which the Jews found "a middle term between the religion of Israel and the philosophy of Greece." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',8,\'22-31\');">Pr 8:22-31</a> Wisdom is depicted as an individual energy, God\'s elect Son, His companion and master-workman (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',8,30);">Pr 8:30</a>) in creation, but whose chief delight is with the children of men. Though the personification is here purely ideal and poetical, and the ethical interest predominates over the metaphysical, yet we have in such a passage a clear proof of contact with Greek thought (especially Platonism and Stoicism), and of the felt need of a mediator between God and the visible world. This mode of thought, linked to the Hebrew conception of the Divine Word as the efficient expression of God\'s thought and the medium of His activity (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',55,11);">Isa 55:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',33,6);">Ps 33:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',107,20);">107:20</a>), has left its mark on Philo\'s Logos-doctrine and on the New Testament Christology.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WISDOM">WISDOM</A>.<P>III. In Semi-and Non-canonical Jewish Literature.<P>In the Apocrypha, the idea of mediation is for the most part absent. We have one or two references to angelic intercession (Tobit 12:12,15), a function not attributed to angels in the Old Testament, but prominent in later apocalyptic literature (e.g. Enoch 9:10; 15:2; 40:6). The tradition of the agency of angels in the promulgation of the law is first found in the Septuagint of <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,2);">De 33:2</a> (not in the Hebrew original), but was greatly amplified in rabbinical literature (Josephus, Ant, XV, v, 3). In The Wisdom of Solomon a bold advance is made toward the conception of Wisdom as a personal mediator of creation (especially <span class="noTag">7:22-27</span>). In later Judaism, the idea of the Word is further developed. The Targums constantly refer the Divine activity to the memera\' or "Word" of God, where the Old Testament refers it to God directly, and speaks of it as Israel\'s Intercessor before God and as Redeemer. This usage seems to arise out of a reluctance to bring God into immediate contact with the world; hence, God\'s self-manifestation is represented as mediated through a quasi-personal agent. The tendency finds its full development, however, not among the Jerusalem Jews, but among the Jews of Alexandria, especially in Philo\'s Logos-doctrine. Deeply influenced by the Platonic dualism, Philo thought of God as pure Spirit, incapable of contact with matter, so that without mediation God could not act on the world. To fill up the great gap he conceived of intermediary beings which represented at once the Ideas of Plato, the active Powers of the Stoics, and the angels of the Old Testament. The highest of these was the Divine Logos, the mediator between the inaccessible, transcendent Being and the material universe. On the one hand, in relation to the world, the Logos is the Mediator of creation and of revelation; on the other, in his God-ward activity, he is the representative of the world before God, its High Priest, Intercessor, and Paraclete. Yet Philo\'s Logos was probably nothing more than a high philosophical abstraction vividly imaged in the mind. In spite of Philo\'s influence on early Christian theology, and even perhaps on some New Testament writers, his doctrine of mediation moves on quite different lines from the central New Testament doctrine, which is concerned above all with the reconciliation of God and man on account of sin, and not with the metaphysical reconciliation of the absolute and the finite world. The Mediator of Philo is an abstraction of speculative thought; the Mediator of the New Testament is a concrete historical person known to experience.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PHILO,+JUDAEUS">PHILO, JUDAEUS</a>.<P>IV. Mediation and Mediator in the New Testament.<P>The relatively independent lines of development which the conception of mediation has hitherto taken now meet and coalesce in Jesus Christ.<P>1. The Synoptic Gospels:<P>The traditional division of Christ\'s mediatorial work into that of prophet, priest and king (very common since Calvin, but now often discarded) offers a convenient method of treating the subject, though we must avoid making the division absolute, as if Christ\'s work fell apart into three separate and independent functions. The unity of the work of salvation is preserved by the fact that "no one of the offices fills up a moment of time alone, but the others are always cooperative," although "Christ\'s mediatorial work puts now this, now that side in the foreground." "The triple division is of special value, because it sets in a vivid light the continuity between the Old Testament theocracy and Christianity" (Dorner, System of Christian Doctrine, English translation, III, 385ff). These three aspects of Christ\'s mediatorship can be distinguished in the Synoptics, although the formal distinction is the work of later analysis.<P>(1) Christ as Prophet.<P>It was in the character of Prophet that He mainly impressed the common mind, which was moved to inquire "Whence hath this man this wisdom?" and by His reply, "A prophet is not without honor," etc., He virtually accepts that title (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,54,57);">Mt 13:54,57</a>). As Prophet, Christ is the mediator of revelation; through Him alone can men come to know God as Father (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,27);">Mt 11:27</a>) and "the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,11);">Mt 13:11</a>). In all His teaching we feel that He speaks within the center of truth, and hence can teach with authority and not as the scribes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,29);">Mt 7:29</a>), who approach the truth from without. His teaching is part of His redemptive work, and not something extraneous to it, for the sin from which He redeems includes ignorance and error.<P>(2) Christ as King.<P>The official name "Christ" (equals Messiah, the anointed King) refers primarily to His kingship. The Messianic hope had taught men to look forward to the rule of God on earth instituted and administered through His representative. Christ was the fulfillment of that hope. Though He held an attitude of reserve in the matter, there can be no doubt that He conceived of Himself as the Messiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,\'27-30\');">Mr 8:27-30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,16);">14:16</a>f; compare His entry into Jerusalem as a triumphant king, <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',11,1);">Mr 11:1</a>; the inscription on the cross, <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,26);">Mr 15:26</a>). But it is also clear that He fundamentally modified the Messianic idea, (a) by suffusing it with the thought of vicarious suffering, and (b) by giving it an ethical and spiritual rather than a national and official significance. The note of His kingship was that of authority (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,27);">Mr 1:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,10);">2:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,29);">Mt 7:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,18);">28:18</a>) exercised in the realm of truth and conscience. His kingship includes the future as well as the present; He is the arbiter of human destiny (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,31);">Mt 25:31</a>).<P>(3) Christ as Priest (Redeemer).<P>The synoptists do not hint at the priestly analogy. Our Lord often spoke of forgiveness without mentioning Himself as the one through whom it was mediated, as if it flowed directly from the gracious heart of the Father (compare the parables of <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',15,\'1-\');">Lu 15</a>). But there are other passages which emphasize the close connection of His person with men\'s redemption. Men\'s attitude to Him decides absolutely their relation to God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,32,40);">Mt 10:32,40</a>). Rest of soul is mediated to the heavy laden through Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,\'28-30\');">Mt 11:28-30</a>). He claims authority on earth to forgive sins (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,10);">Mr 2:10</a>). We have no evidence that He spoke definitely of His death until after Peter\'s confession at Caesarea (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,31);">Mr 8:31</a>, "began to teach," etc.), though we seem to have vague allusions earlier (e.g. the allegory of the bridegroom, <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,19,20);">Mr 2:19,20</a>). This may be partly due to conscious reserve, in accordance with the true pedagogical method by which He adapted His teaching to the progressive receptivity of His followers. But inasmuch as we must think of Him as subject to the ordinary laws of human psychology, the idea of His death must have been to Him a growth, matured partly by outward events, and partly by the development of His inner consciousness as the Suffering Messiah. In His later ministry, He frequently taught that He must suffer and die (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,12,31);">Mr 9:12,31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,32);">10:32</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,8);">12:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,8);">14:8</a> and parallel passages; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,38);">Mr 10:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,49);">Lu 12:49</a>f). There are two important passages which expressly connect His death with His mediatorial work. The first is <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,45);">Mr 10:45</a> (parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,28);">Mt 20:28</a>), "The Son of Man came not to be ministered unto but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." The context shows that it was while the thought of His approaching death filled His mind that our Lord uttered these words (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,33,38);">Mr 10:33,38</a>f). As to the exact meaning of ransom (lutron) there are two circles of ideas with which it may be associated. (a) It may mean a sacrificial offering, representing Hebrew kopher (literally, "covering," "propitiatory gift") which it translates several times in Septuagint (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',30,12);">Ex 30:12</a>). Thus, Ritschl defines it as "an offering which, because of its specific worth to God, is a protection or coveting against sin" (Rechtfertigung und Versohnung, II, 68-88). (b) It may mean ransom price, the purchase-money paid for the emancipation of a slave. In Septuagint, lutron in most cases stands for some form of the roots ga\'al, "to deliver," padhah, "to redeem" (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,51);">Le 25:51</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',3,51);">Nu 3:51</a>). Hence, Wendt explains the "ransom" as the price by which Jesus redeemed His disciples from their bondage to suffering and death (Teaching of Jesus, II, 226ff). This analogy certainly suits the context better than that drawn from the Levitical ritual, for it brings out the contrast between the liberating work of Christ and the enslaving work of those who "lord it over" men. We must not press the analogy in detail or seek here an answer to the question, who was the recipient of the ransom price (e.g. whether the Devil, as many Fathers, notably Origen and Gregory of Nyssa; God, as Anselm and later theologians; the "eternal law of righteousness," as Dale). The purpose of the passage is primarily practical, not speculative. It is certainly pressing the figurative language of Jesus too far to insist that the ransom price is the exact quantitative equivalent of the lives liberated, or of the penalty they had deserved regarded as a debt. This is too prosaic and literalistic an interpretation of a passage which has its setting in the ethical rather than in the commercial realm, and which breathes a spirit closely akin to that of <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,\'1-\');">Isa 53</a>, where suffering and service are, as here, combined.<P>The other passage in which Christ definitely connects His mediatorship with His death is that which reports His words at the Last Supper (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,\'22-24\');">Mr 14:22-24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,\'26-28\');">Mt 26:26-28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,19);">Lu 22:19</a>f; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,24);">1Co 11:24</a>f). The reported words are not identical in the several narratives. But even in their simplest form (in Mark), there is evidently a threefold allusion, to the paschal lamb, to the sacrifice offered by Moses at the ratification of the covenant at Sinai (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,8);">Ex 24:8</a>), and to Jeremiah\'s prophecy of a new covenant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',31,\'1-\');">Ex 31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,\'1-\');">32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,\'1-\');">33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,\'1-\');">34</a>). There can be little doubt that the paschal feast, though it does not conform in detail to any of the Levitical sacrifices, was regarded as a sacrifice, as is indicated by the blood ceremonial (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,\'21-27\');">Ex 12:21-27</a>). The blood of the covenant, too, is sacrificial; and, as we have seen, it is probable that all blood sacrifices, and not those of the sin and guilt offerings only, were associated with propitiatory power. Wendt denies that there is here any reference to sin and its forgiveness (Teachings of Jesus, II, 241f). It must be admitted that the words in Matthew "unto remission of sins," which have no counterpart in the other reports, are probably an explanatory expansion of the words actually uttered. But they are a true interpretation of their meaning, as is attested by the fact that the new covenant of Jeremiah\'s prophecy was one of forgiveness and justification (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,34);">Jer 31:34</a>), and that Christ speaks of His blood as shed for others. And as the Passover signified deliverance from bondage to an earthly power (Egypt), so the Supper stands for forgiveness and deliverance from a spiritual power (sin). Clearly Christ here represents Himself as the Mediator of the new covenant, through whom men are to find acceptance with God, though the exact modus operandi of His sacrifice is not indicated.<P>The Synoptics give special prominence to those historical events which are most intimately associated with Christ\'s mediatorship<69>not only the agony in the garden and the crucifixion, but also the resurrection and ascension (which make possible His intercessory mediation in heaven).<P>2. Primitive Apostolic Teachings:<P>(1) The Early Speeches in Acts.<P>The early speeches in Acts reveal a primitive stage of theological reflection. Yet they are essentially Christocentric. (a) It is the Messianic Kingship of Christ that is chiefly emphasized. The main thesis is that Jesus is the Messiah (the "anointed one"; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',4,27);">Ac 4:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,38);">10:38</a>), and that His Messiahship was realized in the crucifixion and attested by the resurrection. An important feature is the use of the title "Servant" for Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',3,13,16);">Ac 3:13,16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',4,27,30);">4:27,30</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',8,\'30-35\');">Ac 8:30-35</a>), in evident reference to the Suffering Servant of Deutero-Isaiah. In the phrase, "thy holy Servant...whom thou didst anoint," coming immediately after the Messianic quotation, "against the Lord, and against his Anointed" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',4,26);">Ac 4:26</a>f), we have a concise instance of that coalescing of the idea of the Messiah with that of the Suffering Servant which gave the Messianic idea an entirely new meaning. As Messiah, Jesus was the sole Mediator of salvation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',4,12);">Ac 4:12</a>). (b) Another Old Testament type which finds its fulfillment in Jesus is that of the "prophet like unto" Moses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',3,22);">Ac 3:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,37);">7:37</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,15,18);">De 18:15,18</a>). (c) But the priestly functions of Christ are not explicitly touched on. The questions are not faced, What is the God-ward significance of His death? How is it effective for man\'s salvation? It is rather the man-ward significance that is made explicit, i.e. Jesus as Messiah mediates salvation to men from His place of exaltation at the right hand of God. Yet the germs of a God-ward mediation are found in the identification of the Messiah with the Suffering Servant.<P>(2) Epistles of James and Jude.<P>In these epistles the doctrine of Christ\'s mediation does not occupy a prominent place. To James, Christianity is the culmination of Judaism. Christ\'s mediatorial functions are set forth more by way of presupposition than by explicit statement, and the whole weight is laid on the kingly and prophetic offices. The Messiahship of Jesus is assumed to such an extent that the title "Christ" has become part of the proper name, and His Lordship is also implied (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jas\',1,1);">1:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jas\',2,1);">2:1</A>). Nothing definite is said of His function in salvation; it is God Himself who regenerates, but the medium of regeneration is "the word of truth," "the implanted word" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jas\',1,18,21;">1:18,21</A>), which<P>must refer to the word which Jesus had preached. This implies that Jesus as prophetic teacher is the Mediator of salvation. Nothing is said of the death on the cross or its saving significance. The Epistle of Jude assumes the Lordship of Christ, through whom God\'s Saviourhood works, and whose mercy results in eternal life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,4,21,25);">1:4,21,25</a>).<P>(3) 1 Peter.<P>In 1 Peter we have the early apostolic teaching touched with Paulinism. The fact that salvation is mediated through the sufferings and death of Christ is now explicitly stated. Christ has suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,18);">3:18</A>). The suffering has significance both God-ward and man-ward. Relatively to God it is a sacrificial offering which opens up a way of access to Him; He suffered "that he might bring us to God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,18);">3:18</A>), and that through His representative priesthood the ideal "holy priesthood" of all God\'s people might be realized, for it is "through Jesus Christ" that men\'s "spiritual sacrifices" become "acceptable to God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,5);">2:5</a>). So the elect are sprinkled with the blood of Christ, i.e. brought into communion with God by His sacrifice (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,2);">1:2</a>). Relatively to man, it is a means of ransoming or liberating man from the bondage compare sin. "Knowing that ye were redeemed (elutrothete, literally, "ransomed," from lutron, "ransom," an echo of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,45);">Mr 10:45</a>)...with precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,18,19);">1Pe 1:18,19</a>). The sacrificial language is simple and undeveloped, and it is not clear whether the figure of "lamb" implies a reference to the paschal lamb or to <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,7);">Isa 53:7</a>, or to both. The effect on man is, however, clear. Christ "bare our sins in his body upon the tree, that we, having died unto sins, might live unto righteousness; by whose stripes ye were healed" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,24);">1Pe 2:24</a>; see the whole passage, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,\'21-24\');">1Pe 2:21-24</a>, reminiscent of the figure of the Suffering Servant of <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,\'1-\');">Isa 53</a>).<P>3. Epistles of Paul:<P>Christ\'s mediatorship stands at the very center of Paul\'s gospel; this in spite of the fact that only once does he apply the term "mediator" to Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',2,5);">1Ti 2:5</a>), and that in the only other passage where he uses the word, he applies it to Moses, in a sense which might seem to be inconsistent with the idea of Christ\'s mediatorship, namely, where he discusses the relation of law to promise. The law was "ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not...of one; but God is one" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,19,20);">Ga 3:19,20</a>).<P>This passage has had to undergo about 300 different interpretations. The view that the "mediator" here is Christ (Origen, Augustine and most of the Fathers, Calvin, etc.) is clearly untenable. Modern exegetes agree that the reference is to Moses (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',26,46);">Le 26:46</a>, where the Septuagint has "by the hand of Moses"; Philo calls Moses "mediator and reconciler," De Vit. Moys, iii.19), who, according to a rabbinical tradition, received the Law through the intermediation of angles (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,53);">Ac 7:53</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,2);">Heb 2:2</a>). Nor is it likely that Paul meant the reader to realize the glory of the law and the solemnity of its ordination (Meyer). The point is rather the inferiority of the law to the evangelical promise to Abraham. Mediation implies at least two parties between whom it is carried on. The law was given by a double mediatorship, that of the angels and that of Moses, and was thus two removes from its Divine source. But in relation to the promise God stood alone, i.e. acted freely, unconditionally, independently, and for Himself alone. The promise is no agreement between two, buy the free gift of the one God (so Schleiermacher, Lightfoot, etc.). This is by no means a denial of the Divine origin of the law (Ritschl), for the mediation of angels and of Moses was Divinely authorized; but it does seem to make the method of mediation inferior to that of the direct communication of God\'s gracious will to man. Paul is not, however, treating of the principle of mediation in the abstract, but only that form of it which implies a contract between two parties. Christ is not Mediator in the same sense as Moses, for the free and unconditioned character of the forgiving grace which Christ mediates is by no means diminished by the fact of His mediation.<P>What, then, is Paul\'s positive teaching on Christ\'s Mediatorship?<P>(1) The Need of a Mediator:<P>The need of a Mediator arises out of the fact of sin. Sin interrupts the harmonious relation between God and man. It results in a state of mutual alienation. On the one hand, man is in a state of enmity to God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,10);">Ro 5:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,7);">8:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,21);">Col 1:21</a>). On the other hand, God is moved to righteous wrath in relation to the sinner (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,18);">Ro 1:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,9);">5:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,6);">Eph 5:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,6);">Col 3:6</a>). Hence, the need of a mutual change of attitude, a removal of God\'s displeasure against the sinner as well as of the sinner\'s hostility to God. God could not restore man to favor by a mere fiat, without some public exhibition of Divine righteousness, and vindication of His character as not indifferent to sin (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,25,26);">Ro 3:25,26</a>). Such exhibition demanded a Mediator.<P>(2) The Qualifications:<P>The qualification of Christ to be the Mediator depends on His intimate relation to both parties at variance.<P>(a) Christ\'s Relation to Man:<P>Firstly, He is Himself a man, i.e. not merely "man" generically, but an individual man. The "one mediator between God and men" is "himself man, Christ Jesus" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',2,5);">1Ti 2:5</a>), "born of a woman" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,4);">Ga 4:4</a>), "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,3);">Ro 8:3</a>, where the word "likeness" does not make "flesh" unreal, but qualifies "sinful"), i.e. bore to the eye the aspect of an ordinary man; secondly, He bore a particular relation to a section of humanity, the Jews (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,3);">Ro 1:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,5);">9:5</a>); thirdly, He bore a universal relation to mankind in general. He was more than an individual among many, like a link in a chain. He was the Second Adam, the archetypal, universal, representative Man, whose actions therefore had significance beyond Himself and were ideally the actions of humanity, just as Adam\'s act had, on a lower plane, a significance for the whole race (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,\'12-21\');">Ro 5:12-21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,22,45);">1Co 15:22,45</a>).<P>(b) His Relation to God:<P>Paul very frequently speaks of Christ as the "Son of God," and that in a unique sense. Moreover, He was the "image of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',4,4);">2Co 4:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,15);">Col 1:15</a>), and subsisted originally "in the form of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,6);">Php 2:6</a>). He is set alongside with God over against idols (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',8,5,6);">1Co 8:5,6</a>), and is coordinated with God in the benediction (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',13,14);">2Co 13:14</a>). Clearly Paul sets Him in the Divine sphere over against all that is not God. Yet he assigns Him a certain subordination, and even asserts that His mediatorial kingship will come to an end, that God may be all in all (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,24,28);">1Co 15:24,28</a>). But this cessation of His function as Mediator of salvation, when its end shall have been attained, cannot affect His Divine dignity, "since the mediatorial sovereignty which is now ceasing was not its cause, but its consequence" (B. Weiss, II, 396).<P>(3) The Means, the Death of Christ:<P>The means of effecting the reconciliation was mainly the death on the cross. Paul emphasizes the mediating value of the death both on its objective (God-ward) side and on its subjective (man-ward) side. First, it is the objective ground of forgiveness and favor with God. On the basis of what Christ has done, God ceases to reckon to men their sins (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,19);">2Co 5:19</a>). Paul\'s view of the death may be seen by considering some of his most characteristic expressions.<P>(a) It is an act of reconciliation. This involves a change of attitude, not only in man, but in God, a relinquishing of the Divine wrath without which there can be no restoration of peaceful relations (though this is disputed by many, e.g. Ritschl, Lightfoot, Westcott, Beyschlag), but not a change of nature or of intention, for the Divine wrath is but a mode of the eternal love, and moreover it is the Father Himself who provides the means of reconciliation and undertakes to accomplish it (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,19);">2Co 5:19</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,20,21);">Col 1:20,21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,16);">Eph 2:16</a>).<P>(b) It is an act of propitiation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,25);">Ro 3:25</a>, hilasterion, from hilaskesthai, "to render favorable" or "propitious"). Here there is a clear though tacit reference to a change of attitude on God\'s part. He who was not formerly propitious to man was appeased through the death of Christ. Yet the propitiatory means are provided by God Himself, who takes the initiative in the matter ("whom God set forth," etc.).<P>(c) It is a ransom. The Mediator "gave himself a ransom for all" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',2,6);">1Ti 2:6</a>). The idea of payment of a ransom price is clearly implied in the word "redemption" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,24);">Ro 3:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,30);">1Co 1:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,7);">Eph 1:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,14);">Col 1:14</a>, apolutrosis, from lutron, "ransom"). It is not alone the fact of liberation (Westcott, Ritschl), but also the cost of liberation that is referred to. Hence, Christians are said to be "redeemed," "bought with a price" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,13);">Ga 3:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,5);">4:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',6,20);">1Co 6:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',7,23);">7:23</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,18);">1Pe 1:18</a>f). Yet the metaphor cannot be pressed to yield an answer to the question to whom the ransom was paid. All that can safely be said is that it expresses the tremendous cost of our salvation, namely, the self-surrendered life ("the blood") of Christ.<P>(d) Strong substitutionary language is sometimes used, notably in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,13);">Ga 3:13</a> ("having become a curse for us") and in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,21);">2Co 5:21</a> ("Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf"). But the sinless substitute is not regarded as actually punished (that would be a moral contradiction). His death was not penal substitution, but a substitute for penalty. It had the value to God of the punishment of sinners, in virtue of His oneness with the race. It was the recognition from within humanity of the sinfulness of sin, and expressed the Divine righteousness as fully as penalty would have done. The secret seems to be Christ\'s sympathetic love by which He identified Himself with man\'s sin and doom of death.<P>(e) Sacrificial language is used, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,7);">1Co 5:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,2);">Eph 5:2</a>, and in the references to Christ\'s "blood." Not often, however, does Paul explicitly speak of the death in terms of the Levitical ritual, which would be less congenial to his mind than the prophetic conception of the Suffering Servant. Yet he does seem to regard the death of Christ as the culmination of all that the sacrifices of the Old Testament had imperfectly realized. Secondly, the subjective aspect of Christ\'s work is emphasized quite as much as the objective. The death of Christ, being inwardly assimilated by faith, becomes to the believer the principle of ethical transformation, so that he may become worthy of the Divine favor which he now enjoys. As a result of his subjective identity with Christ through faith, the objective state of privilege is changed into actual liberation from sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,20);">Ga 2:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',6,14);">6:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,6,7);">Ro 6:6,7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,3);">Col 3:3</a>).<P>(4) The Resurrection and Exaltation:<P>The resurrection and exaltation of Christ are essential to His mediatorial work (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,17);">1Co 15:17</a>). It is not alone that the resurrection "proves that the death of Christ was not the death of a sinner, but the vicarious death of the sinless Mediator of salvation" (B. Weiss, I, 436), but that salvation cannot be realized except through communion with the living, glorified Christ, without which the subjective identity of the believer with Christ by which redemption is personally appropriated would not be possible (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,20);">Ga 2:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,4,5);">Ro 6:4,5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,10);">Php 3:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,1);">Col 3:1</a>). The exaltation also makes possible His continuous heavenly intercession on our behalf (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,34);">Ro 8:34</a>), which is the climax of His mediatorial activities.<P>(5) The Cosmic Aspect of Christ\'s Mediatorship:<P>In his later epistles (especially Colossians and Ephesians), Paul lays stress on Christ\'s mediatorial activity in creation and providence, though the germs of his later teaching are found in the earlier epistles (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',8,6);">1Co 8:6</a>). He is resisting a kind of nascent Gnostic dualism, according to which God could communicate with the world only through a hierarchy of intermediate powers. Against this he proclaims Christ as the one and only Mediator between God and the universe, having, on the one hand, a unique relation to God ("the image of the invisible God," <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,15);">Col 1:15</a>; in whom the fullness of God dwells, <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,19);">1:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,9);">2:9</a>), and, on the other hand, a unique relation to the world, as its creative agent, its immanent principle of unity, and its ultimate goal (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,\'15-17\');">Col 1:15-17</a>). Here the apostle shows affinity with the Logos-doctrine of Philo, though the differences are marked and fundamental. Corresponding to this wider view of Christ\'s person, there is a wide view of the reconciliation wrought through Him. It even extends to the world beyond man, and restores the broken harmony of the universe (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,20);">Col 1:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,10);">Eph 1:10</a>).<P>4. Epistle to the Hebrews:<P>The main thesis of Hebrews is the absoluteness and finality of the gospel and its superiority over Judaism. The finality of Christianity depends on the fact that it has a perfect Mediator, who is the substance of which the various Jewish forms of mediation were types and shadows. He illustrates this by a series of contrasts between Christ and the mediators of the old system (by the application of principles and exegetical methods which reveal the influence of the school of Philo). In each contrast, Christ\'s superiority is based on His Sonship.<P>(1) Christ is superior to the prophets as Mediator of revelation. The Old Testament revelation was fragmentary and multiform, while now God speaks, not through many agents, but through One, and that one a Son. As Son He is the perfectly adequate expression of the Father. The author takes us at once to the high transcendental sphere of Christ\'s relations to God and the universe, in virtue of which He is God\'s Mediator in creation, providence, revelation and redemption (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,\'1-3\');">Heb 1:1-3</a>).<P>(2) He is superior to the angels, through whose mediation the law was given (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,\'4-14\');">Heb 1:4-14</a>).<P>(3) He is superior to Moses, the human agent in the giving of the law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',3,\'1-6\');">Heb 3:1-6</a>). (4) He is greater than Aaron the high priest, the people\'s representative before God. This leads to the central doctrine of the epistle, the high-priesthood of Jesus. The following are the salient points in the elaborate treatment of this subject:<P>(1) Christ\'s Qualification for the High-Priesthood Is Twofold:<P>(a) His participation in all human experience (except sin), which guarantees His power of sympathy. Every high priest, as men\'s representative before God, must be "taken from among men" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',5,1);">Heb 5:1</a>). Hence, the author lays great stress on the human nature and experiences of Christ (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,10,17,18);">Heb 2:10,17,18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',4,15);">4:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',5,7,8);">5:7,8</a>).<p>(b) His Divine appointment. Every priest must have a call from God. So Christ has been appointed priest, not indeed in the Aaronic line, but after the order of Melchizedek (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',5,\'1-10\');">Heb 5:1-10</a>).<P>(2) The Nature of His Priesthood, Its Superiority to the Levitical Priesthood.<P>The priests of the Old Testament themselves needed atonement, for they were not sinless; Christ is holy, guileless, undefiled, and need not make atonement for His own sins. They were priests only for a time, and were many in number, for they were mortal; but He abideth forever, and His priesthood is eternal. They were dependent on the law of physical descent; He was a priest after the order of Melchizedek, whose priesthood did not depend on genealogy or pedigree, and who combined the functions of king with those of priest. In a word, their order was transient, temporary, shadowy; His belonged to the world of unchanging reality (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',7,\'1-\');">Heb 7</a>).<P>(3) The Realization of His High-Priesthood.<P>A high priest implies a sacrifice; hence, Christ must "have somewhat to offer" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',8,3);">Heb 8:3</a>). In the Levitical system, the priest and the sacrifice are distinct from each other. But Christ offered not an external gift, but Himself. Much stress is laid on Christ\'s voluntary obedience (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',5,8);">Heb 5:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,7);">10:7</a>), progressively attained through suffering, and culminating in the absolute surrender of His life ("blood") in death. His sacrifice harmonizes with the principle that "apart from shedding of blood there is no remission" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,22);">Heb 9:22</a>), although the principle is lifted from the physical to the spiritual realm. In working this out, the author makes use of analogies drawn from three parts of the Levitical ritual.<P>(a) Christ\'s death was a sin offering. He has offered one final sacrifice for sins (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,12,18);">Heb 10:12,18</a>). As priest, he has "made propitiation for the sins of the people" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,17);">Heb 2:17</a>); as victim He was "once (for all) offered to bear the sins of many" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,28);">Heb 9:28</a>).<P>(b) The Sinaitic covenant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,8);">Ex 24:8</a>) is made use of. Christ is "the mediator of a new (better) covenant" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',8,6);">Heb 8:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,15);">9:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,24);">12:24</a>), i.e. the agent interposing between God and man in the establishment of a new relationship analogous to Moses in the old covenant. Even the first covenant was dedicated with blood, and so the blood of the Son of God was "the blood of the covenant" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,29);">Heb 10:29</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,24);">Mr 14:24</a>). On the double meaning of the word diatheke ("covenant," "testament"), the author bases a twofold argument for the necessity of Christ\'s death (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,15);">Heb 9:15</a>).<P>(c) The ritual of the Day of Atonement furnishes another analogy. As the high priest once a year entered the most holy place of the earthly people, so Christ has entered once for all the true spiritual sanctuary in heaven, and there He presents Himself to God as the Mediator able to make intercession for us with the Father (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,12);">Heb 9:12</a>,<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,\'24-26\');">24-26</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',7,25);">Heb 7:25</a>). He is a ministering priest in the true tabernacle, the immediate presence of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',8,2);">Heb 8:2</a>). Thus the ascension and session make possible the culmination of the mediatorial work of Christ in the eternal sacrifice and intercession within the veil.<P>(4) The Man-ward Efficacy of His Mediatorship.<P>The effect of Christ\'s death on man is described by the words "cleanse," "sanctify," "perfect" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,14);">Heb 9:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,10,14,29);">10:10,14,29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',13,12);">13:12</a>), words which have a ritualistic quite as much as an ethical sense, meaning the removal of the sense of guilt, dedication to God, and the securing of the privilege of full fellowship with Him. The ultimate blessing that comes to man through the work of Christ is the privilege of free, unrestricted access to God by the removal of the obstacle of guilt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',4,16);">Heb 4:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,19);">10:19</a>).<P>5. The Johannine Writings:<P>(1) The Fourth Gospel.<P>Aspects of our Lord\'s teaching unassimilated by the other disciples, and therefore but meagerly touched on in the Synoptics, find prominence in the Gospel of John, but colored by his own meditations. Great emphasis is laid on the idea of salvation by revelation mediated through Jesus Christ. The historical revelation of God in the person and teaching of Jesus is the main subject of the Gospel. But in the Prologue we have the eternal background of the historical manifestation in the doctrine of the Logos, who, as Son in eternal fellowship with the Father, His mediator in creation, and the immanent principle of revelation in the world, is fitted to become God\'s Revealer in history (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,\'11-17\');">1:11-18</A>). His work on earth is to dispense light and life, knowledge of God and salvation. Through Him God gives to the world eternal life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,16);">3:16</A>). He is the Water of Life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,14);">4:14</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',7,37);">7:37</A>), the Bread of Life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,48);">6:48</A>ff), the Light of the World (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,12);">8:12</A>); it is by inward appropriation of Him that salvation is mediated to men (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,52);">6:52</a>ff). He is the perfect revealer of God, hence, the only means of access to the Father (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,6,9);">14:6,9</A>). It is on salvation by illumination and communion, rather than on salvation by reconciliation and atonement that chief stress is laid. Sacrificial or propitiatory language is not used of Christ\'s death. Yet emphasis is laid on the voluntary and vicarious character of His death. He lays down His life of Himself (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,18);">10:18</a>); "The good shepherd layeth down his life for (equals on behalf of) the sheep" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,11);">10:11</A>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',15,13);">15:13</a>). Christ\'s death was the supreme example of the law that self-sacrifice is necessary to the highest and most fruitful life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,23);">12:23</A>ff). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,\'1-\');">John 17</a> we have a unique instance of our Lord\'s intercessory prayer.<P>(2) The Epistles.<P>In 1 John we find more explicit statements with regard to the connection between the death of Christ and sin. "The blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,7);">1:7</A>); "He was manifested to take away sins" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,5);">3:5</A>); "If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father," i.e. a pleader who will mediate with God on our behalf, the ground of His intercessory efficacy being that He is the "propitiation for our sins" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,2);">2:2</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,10);">4:10</A>, a term which links the Johannine doctrine to that of Paul, though 1 John represents Christ Himself, and not merely His death on the cross, as the propitiation). This latter term shows that an objective value is attached to the atonement, as in some way neutralizing or making amends for sin in the eyes of God, yet in such a way as not to contradict the principles of righteousness (compare "Jesus Christ the righteous," <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,1);">2:1</A>).<P>(3) The Apocalypse.<P>The Apocalypse presents both aspects of Christ\'s mediation. On the one hand, He is associated with God in the government of the world and in judgment (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',3,21);">Re 3:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',7,10);">7:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,16);">6:16</a>), holds the keys of death and Hades (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,18);">Re 1:18</a>), is the Lord of lords and King of kings (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',17,14);">Re 17:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,16);">19:16</a>), and is the Mediator of creation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',3,14);">Re 3:14</a>). On the other hand, by His sacrificial act He represents men before God. The most characteristic expression of this is the title "the Lamb" (29 times). By His blood the guilty are cleansed and made saints, purchased unto God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',5,9);">Re 5:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',7,14);">7:14</a>). The lamb is the symbol of the sacrificial love which is the heart of God\'s sovereignty (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',5,6);">Re 5:6</a>). It is not clear whether the allusion in this title is to the paschal lamb or to the Suffering Servant pictured as a lamb led to the slaughter (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,7);">Isa 53:7</a>), or to both. In any case it contains the idea of Christ\'s redemptive sacrifice, which is declared to be an essential part of God\'s eternal counsel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',13,8);">Re 13:8</a> margin, "the Lamb that hath been slain from the foundation of the world").<P>V. Conclusion.<P>Our inquiry will have shown how central and prominent is the idea of mediation throughout the Scriptures. We might even say it supplies the key to the unity of the Bible. In the Old Testament the principle is given "in divers portions and in divers manners," but in the New Testament it converges in the doctrine of the person and work of the One final Mediator, the Son of God. Amid all the rich diversity of the various parts of the New Testament, there is one fundamental conception common to all, that of Christ as at once the interpreter of God to men and the door of access for men to God. Especially is Christ\'s self-sacrifice presented as the effective cause of our salvation, as a means of removing the guilt and sin which stand as a barrier in the way of God\'s purpose concerning man and of man\'s fellowship with God. There is a tendency in some influential writers of today to speak disparagingly of the doctrine of the one Mediator, on the ground that it injures the direct relationship of man with God (e.g. R. Eucken, Truth of Religion, 583ff). Here we can reply only that the doctrine properly defined is attested in universal Christian experience, and that, so far from standing in the way of our personal approach to God, it is a simple historical fact that apart from the work of Jesus we would not enjoy that free access to Him which is now our privilege.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Besides the commentaries, such works on Old Testament Theology as those of Oehler, Schultz, A.B. Davidson, and on New Testament Theology by B. Weiss, Beyschlag, Holtzmann, W.B. Stevens, Weinel; Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus; A.B. Bruce, Paul\'s Conception of Christianity and The Epistle to the Hebrews; J. Denney, The Death of Christ; Du Bose, The Gospel in the Gospels, The Gospel according to Paul, High-Priesthood and Sacrifice. For the idea of mediation in Jewish religion, Oesterley, The Jewish Doctrine of Mediation; Toy, Judaism and Christianity. Much material on the Biblical doctrine may be found in such works as Dorner, System of Christian Doctrine; Ritschl, Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Versohnung, 3 volumes (Volumes I and III, English translation); Dale, The Atonement; McLeod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement; F.D. Maurice, The Doctrine of Sacrifice; Moberly, Atonement and Personality; J. Scott Lidgett, The Spiritual Principle of the Atonement; G.B. Stevens, Christian Doctrine of Salvation; articles in HDB, DCG, and in this Encyclopedia on "Mediation"; "Mediator"; "Atonement"; "Messiah"; "Propitiation"; "Prophets"; "Priests"; "Ransom"; "Reconciliation"; "Sacrifice"; Salvation," etc.``49';
|
||
isbe[5906]='Medicine`med\'-i-sin, med\'-i-s\'-n (gehah, teruphah, rephu\'ah): These words are used in the sense of a remedy or remedies for disease. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',17,22);">Pr 17:22</a> the King James Version, a merry heart is said to do good "like a medicine." There is an alternative reading in the King James Version margin, "to a medicine," the Revised Version (British and American) "is a good medicine"; the Revised Version margin gives another rendering, "causeth good healing," which is the form that occurs in the Septuagint and which was adopted by Kimchi and others. Some of the Targums, substituting a waw for the first h in gehah, read here "doeth good to the body," thus making this clause antithetic to the latter half of the verse. In any case the meaning is that a cheerful disposition is a powerful remedial agent.<P>In the figurative account of the evil case of Judah and Israel because of their backsliding (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',30,13);">Jer 30:13</a>), the prophet says they have had no rephu\'ah, or "healing medicines." Later on (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',46,11);">Jer 46:11</a>), when pronouncing the futility of the contest of Neco against Nebuchadrezzar, Jeremiah compares Egypt to an incurably sick woman going up to Gilead to take balm as a medicine, without any benefit. In Ezekiel\'s vision of the trees of life, the leaves are said (the King James Version) to be for medicine, the Revised Version (British and American) reads "healing," thereby assimilating the language to that in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,2);">Re 22:2</a>, "leaves of the tree...for the healing of the nations" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',47,12);">Eze 47:12</a>).<P>Very few specific remedies are mentioned in the Bible. "Balm of Gilead" is said to be an anodyne (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',8,22);">Jer 8:22</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,8);">Jer 51:8</a>). The love-fruits, "mandrakes" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,14);">Ge 30:14</a>) and "caperberry" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',12,5);">Ec 12:5</a> margin), myrrh, anise, rue, cummin, the "oil and wine" of the Good Samaritan, soap and sodic carbonate ("natron," called by mistake "nitre") as cleansers, and Hezekiah\'s "fig poultice" nearly exhaust the catalogue. In the Apocrypha we have the heart, liver and gall of Tobit\'s fish (Tobit 6:7). In the Egyptian pharmacopoeia are the names of many plants which cannot be identified, but most of the remedies used by them were dietetic, such as honey, milk, meal, oil, vinegar, wine. The Babylonian medicines, as far as they can be identified, are similar. In the Mishna we have references to wormwood, poppy, hemlock, aconite and other drugs. The apothecary mentioned in the King James Version (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',30,25);">Ex 30:25</a>, etc.) was a maker of perfumes, not of medicines. Among the fellahin many common plants are used as folk-remedies, but they put most confidence in amulets or charms, which are worn by most Palestinian peasants to ward off or to heal diseases.``107';
|
||
isbe[5907]='Meditation`med-i-ta\'-shun (haghuth, sichah): "Meditation" is the translation of haghuth, from haghah, "to murmur," "to have a deep tone," hence, "to meditate" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',49,3);">Ps 49:3</a>); of haghigh, "sighing," "moaning" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',5,1);">Ps 5:1</a>; see <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',5,2);">Ps 5:2</a>); of higgayon, "the murmur" or dull sound of the harp, hence, meditation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',19,14);">Ps 19:14</a>, "Let...the meditation of my heart be acceptable in thy sight"); of siach, "speech," "meditation" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',104,34);">Ps 104:34</a>, "Let my meditation be sweet unto him"); of sichah, a "bowing down," "musing" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,97,99);">Ps 119:97,99</a>; 2Es 10:5). "To meditate" is the translation of haghah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',1,8);">Jos 1:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',1,2);">Ps 1:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',63,6);">63:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',33,18);">Isa 33:18</a> the King James Version); of suach (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,63);">Ge 24:63</a>); of siach (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,15,23);">Ps 119:15,23</a>, etc.; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',143,5);">Ps 143:5</a>, the King James Version "muse"; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',16,9);">1Ch 16:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',105,2);">Ps 105:2</a> margin). In Apocrypha we have "to meditate" (Ecclesiasticus 14:20, "Blessed is the man that shall mediate in wisdom," the Revised Version margin "most authorities read come to an end" (teleutesei); Ecclesiasticus 39:1, "meditateth in the law of the Most High" (dianoeomai)). The lack of meditation is a great want in our modern religious life. In the New Testament, we have "to meditate" (promeletao, "to take care beforehand"), <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,14);">Lu 21:14</a>, and "meditate" (meletao, "to take care"), <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',4,15);">1Ti 4:15</a> the King James Version (the Revised Version (British and American) "be diligent"); compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,8);">Php 4:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,2);">Col 3:2</a>.``185';
|
||
isbe[5908]='Mediterranean Sea`med-i-te-ra\'-ne-an (he thalassa): To the Hebrews the Mediterranean was the sea, as was natural from their situation.<P>Hence, they speak of it simply as "the sea" (ha-yam), e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,13);">Ge 49:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,29);">Nu 13:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',34,5);">34:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,17);">Jud 5:17</a>; or, again, it is "the great sea" (ha-yam ha-gadhol, e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',34,6,7);">Nu 34:6,7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',9,1);">Jos 9:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,12,47);">15:12,47</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',47,10,15,19,20);">Eze 47:10,15,19,20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',48,28);">48:28</a>); or, because it lay to the west of Palestine, as "the great sea toward the going down or the sun" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',1,4);">Jos 1:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',23,4);">23:4</a>), and, since the west was regarded as the "back," in contrast to the east as the "front," as "hinder (or "western" the Revised Version (British and American), "uttermost" or "utmost" the King James Version) sea" (ha-yam ha-\'acharon), <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',11,24);">De 11:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',34,2);">34:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',14,8);">Zec 14:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',2,20);">Joe 2:20</a>, in the last two passages contrasted with "the former (King James Version, "eastern" the Revised Version (British and American)) sea" ha-yam ha-qadhmoni), i.e. the Dead Sea. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FORMER">FORMER</a>. That portion of the Mediterranean directly west of Palestine is once (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,31);">Ex 23:31</a>) referred to as "the sea of the Philis" yam pelishtim). the King James Version has "sea of Joppa" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',3,7);">Ezr 3:7</a>) where the Revised Version (British and American) correctly renders "to the sea, unto Joppa" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',2,16);">2Ch 2:16</a>). Similarly, the King James Version "the sea of Cilicia and Pamphylia" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',27,5);">Ac 27:5</a>) is better rendered "the sea which is off Cilicia and Pamphylia" (Revised Version).<P>In the New Testament, references to the Mediterranean are common, especially in the accounts of Paul\'s voyages, for which see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PAUL">PAUL</a>. Jesus once (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,24);">Mr 7:24</a>) came to or near the sea.<P>The Mediterranean basin was the scene of most ancient civilizations which have greatly influenced that of the western world, except those whose home was in the valleys of the Tigris and the Euphrates; and even these continually thrust themselves into it, so far as they could. As its name implies, it is an inland area, united to the Atlantic only by the narrow Straits of Gibraltar. In comparatively recent geological time it was also joined to the Red Sea, the alluvial deposits of the Nile, which have extended the line of the Delta, having with the aid of drifting desert sands subsequently closed the passage and joined the continents of Asia and Africa. The total length of the Mediterranean is about 2,300 miles, its greatest breadth about 1,080 miles, and its area about 1,000,000 square miles. It falls naturally into the western and eastern (Levant) halves, dividing at the line running from Tunis to Sicily, where it is comparatively shallow; the western end is generally the deeper, reaching depths of nearly 6,000 ft. On the north it is intersected by the Italian and Balkan peninsulas, forming the Gulf of Lyons, the Adriatic and the Aegean. In ancient times these and other divisions of the Mediterranean bore specific names given by the Greeks and Romans, but from the nature of the case their limits were ill defined. The temperature of the Mediterranean is in summer warmer, in winter about the same as that of the Atlantic. Its water has a slightly greater specific gravity, probably because of a larger proportionate evaporation.``75';
|
||
isbe[5909]='Meeda`me-e\'-da.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MEEDDA">MEEDDA</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5910]='Meedda`me-ed\'-a (Meedda, but Swete, Dedda, following Codex Vaticanus; the King James Version Meeda): The head of one of the families of Nethinim (temple slaves) who went up with Zerubbabel from the captivity (1Esdras 5:32); identical with "Mehida" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,52);">Ezr 2:52</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,54);">Ne 7:54</a>.``1';
|
||
isbe[5911]='Meekness`mek\'-nes (\'anawah; praotes, prautes): "Meekness" in the Old Testament (\'anawah, \'anwah) is from \'anaw, "suffering," "oppressed," "afflicted," denoting the spirit produced under such experiences. The word is sometimes translated "poor" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',24,4);">Job 24:4</a>, the Revised Version margin "meek"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',8,4);">Am 8:4</a>); "humble" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',9,12,18);">Ps 9:12,18</a>, the Revised Version margin "meek"); "lowly" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',3,34);">Pr 3:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',16,19);">16:19</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "poor," margin "meek"). It is generally associated with some form of oppression. The "meek" were the special objects of the Divine regard, and to them special blessings are promised (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',22,26);">Ps 22:26</a>, "The meek shall eat and be satisfied"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',25,9);">25:9</A>, "The meek will he guide in justice; and the meek will he teach his way"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',37,11);">37:11</A>, "The meek shall inherit the land"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',147,6);">147:6</A>, "Yahweh upholdeth the meek"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',149,4);">149:4</a>, "He will beautify the meek with salvation," the Revised Version margin "victory"; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',11,4);">Isa 11:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',29,19);">29:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',61,1);">61:1</a>, "Yahweh hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek," the Revised Version margin "poor"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',2,3);">Ze 2:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',45,4);">Ps 45:4</a>, "because of (the Revised Version margin "in behalf of") truth and meekness and righteousness"). Of Moses it is said he "was very meek, above all the men that were upon the face of the earth," notwithstanding the Divine revelations given him, and in the face of opposition (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',12,3);">Nu 12:3</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',12,\'1-6\');">2Co 12:1-6</a>). Meekness is ascribed even to Yahweh Himself (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',22,36);">2Sa 22:36</a>, "Thy gentleness (\'anawah) hath made me great"; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',18,36);">Ps 18:36</a> (\'anwah), the Revised Version margin "condescension"); men are exhorted to seek it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',2,3);">Ze 2:3</a>, "Seek righteousness, seek meekness"; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',15,1);">Pr 15:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',16,14);">16:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',25,15);">25:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',10,4);">Ec 10:4</a>).<P>In the Apocrypha also "meekness" holds a high place (Ecclesiasticus 1:27, "The fear of the Lord is wisdom and instruction: faith and meekness are his delight," the Revised Version (British and American) "in faith and meekness is his good pleasure"; Ecclesiasticus 3:19, "Mysteries are revealed unto the meek" (the Revised Version (British and American) omits); compare <span class="noTag"10:14</span>).<P>"Meekness" in the New Testament (praotes, prautes) is not merely a natural virtue, but a Christian "grace"; it is one of the "fruits of the Spirit" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,23);">Ga 5:23</a>). The conception of meekness, as it had been defined by Aristotle, was raised by Christianity to a much higher level, and associated with the commonly despised quality of humility (see under the word). It was the spirit of the Saviour Himself (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,29);">Mt 11:29</a>): "I am meek (praos) and lowly in heart" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',10,1);">2Co 10:1</a>, "by the meekness and gentleness of Christ"); it presupposes humility, flows from it, and finds expression in moderation (see under the word). (See Trench, Syn. of New Testament, 145; Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, New Testament Lexicon, under the word) Christians are exhorted to cherish it and show it in their relations to one another (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,2);">Eph 4:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,12);">Col 3:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,11);">1Ti 6:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',3,2);">Tit 3:2</a>, "showing all meekness toward all men"); it ought to characterize Christian teachers or those in authority in "instructing (the Revised Version (British and American) "correcting," margin "instructing") them that oppose themselves" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',2,25);">2Ti 2:25</a>); the saving, "implanted" (the Revised Version margin "inborn") word is to be received "with meekness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,21);">Jas 1:21</a>); a man is to "show by his good life his works in meekness of wisdom" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',3,13);">Jas 3:13</a>), and to give a reason for the hope that is in him, "with meekness and fear" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,15);">1Pe 3:15</a>).<P>The interchangeableness of "meek" with "poor," etc., in the Old Testament ought to be specially noted. Our Lord\'s opening of His ministry at Nazareth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,18);">Lu 4:18</a>, "He anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor"), and His message to John (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,5);">Mt 11:5</a>, "The poor have good tidings preached to them") are in harmony therewith.``185';
|
||
isbe[5912]='Meet`met, adjective (yashar; axios): Various words are employed to express meetness, the sense of what is proper, worthy, or fit. We have yashar, "straight," "upright," "right" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',10,3);">2Ki 10:3</a>, "meetest"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',26,14);">Jer 26:14</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "right"); yashar (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',27,5);">Jer 27:5</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "right"); yosher (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',11,24);">Pr 11:24</a>, the Revised Version margin "what is justly due"); \'arikh, Aramaic "meet" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,14);">Ezr 4:14</a>); bene, "sons of" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',3,18);">De 3:18</a>, the King James Version "meet for the war," margin "Hebrew sons of power," the Revised Version (British and American) "men of valor"); kun, "to be right" etc. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,26);">Ex 8:26</a>); \'asah "to be made," "used" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',15,5);">Eze 15:5</a> twice, the Revised Version margin "made into"), tsaleach, "to be good or fit for" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',15,4);">Eze 15:4</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "profitable"); ra\'ah, "seen," "looked out," "chosen" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',2,9);">Es 2:9</a>); axios, "worthy" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,8);">Mt 3:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',26,20);">Ac 26:20</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "worthy"; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',16,4);">1Co 16:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',1,3);">2Th 1:3</a>); dikaios, "just," "right" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,7);">Php 1:7</a> the Revised Version (British and American) "right"; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,13);">2Pe 1:13</a> the Revised Version (British and American) "right"); euthetos, "we set" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',6,7);">Heb 6:7</a>); euchrestos, "very useful," "profitable" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',2,21);">2Ti 2:21</a>, "meet for the master\'s use"); hikanos, "sufficient" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,9);">1Co 15:9</a>); hikanoo, "to make sufficient" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,12);">Col 1:12</a>); kalos, "beautiful," "honest" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',15,26);">Mt 15:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,27);">Mr 7:27</a>); dei "it behooveth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',15,32);">Lu 15:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,27);">Ro 1:27</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "due"). For "meet" (supplied) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,30);">Jud 5:30</a>), the Revised Version (British and American) has "on"; for "Surely it is meet to be said unto God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',34,31);">Job 34:31</a>), "For hath any said unto God?" In 2Macc 9:12, we have dikaios, the Revised Version (British and American) "right."``185';
|
||
isbe[5913]='Megiddo; Megiddon`me-gid\'-o, me-gid\'-on (meghiddo, meghiddon; Magiddo, Mageddon, Magdo): A royal city of the Canaanites, the king of which was slain by Joshua (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',12,21);">Jos 12:21</a>). It lay within the territory of Issachar, but was one of the cities assigned to Manasseh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',17,11);">Jos 17:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,29);">1Ch 7:29</a>). Manasseh, however, was not able to expel the Canaanites, who therefore continued to dwell in that land. Later, when the children of Israel were waxen strong, the Canaanites were put to taskwork (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',17,12);">Jos 17:12</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,27);">Jud 1:27</a>f). The host of Sisera was drawn to the river Kishon, and here, "by the waters of Megiddo," the famous battle was fought (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,19);">Jud 5:19</a>). By the time of Solomon, Israel\'s supremacy was unquestioned. Megiddo was included in one of his administrative districts (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,12);">1Ki 4:12</a>), and it was one of the cities which he fortified (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',9,15);">1Ki 9:15</a>). Ahaziah, mortally wounded at the ascent of Gur, fled to Megiddo to die (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',9,27);">2Ki 9:27</a>). At Megiddo, Josiah, king of Judah, attempted to arrest Pharaoh-necoh and his army on their march to the Euphrates against the king of Assyria. Here the Egyptian monarch "slew him...when he had seen him," and from Megiddo went the sorrowful procession to Jerusalem with Josiah\'s corpse (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,29);">2Ki 23:29</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',35,20);">2Ch 35:20</a>). The sad tale is told again in 1Esdras 1:25ff. "The mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon" became a poetical expression for the deepest and most despairing grief (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',12,11);">Zec 12:11</a>).<P>See also <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ARMAGEDDON">ARMAGEDDON</a>.<P>The constant association of Megiddo with Taanach (Tell Ta\'anek) points to a position on the south edge of the plain of Esdraelon. In confirmation of this, we read (RP, 1st series, II, 35-47) that Thothmes III captured Megiddo, after having defeated the Palestinian allies who opposed him. He left his camp at Aruna (possibly \'Ar\'arah), and, following a defile (possibly Wady \'Arah), he approached Megiddo from the south We should thus look for the city where the pass opens on the plain; and here, at Khan el-Lejjan, we find extensive ruins on both sides of a stream which turns several mills before falling into the Kishon. We may identify the site with Megiddo, and the stream with "the waters of Megiddo." Pharaoh-necoh would naturally take the same line of march, and his advance could be nowhere more hopefully opposed than at el-Lejjun. Tell el-Mutasellim, a graceful mound hard by, on the edge of the plain, may have formed the acropolis of Megiddo.<P>The name Mujadda\' attaches to a site 3 miles south of Beisan in the Jordan valley. Here Conder would place Megiddo. But while there is a resemblance in the name, the site really suits none of the Biblical data. The phrase "Taanach by the waters of Megiddo" alone confines us to a very limited area. No position has yet been suggested which meets all the conditions as well as el-Lejjun.<P>The Khan here shows that the road through the pass from Esdraelon to the plain of Sharon and the coast was still much frequented in the Middle Ages.``54';
|
||
isbe[5914]='Mehetabel; Mehetabeel`me-het\'-a-bel, me-het\'-a-bel (mehetah\'el, "whom God makes happy"):<P>(1) Daughter of Matred, wife of Hadad or Hadar, the 8th and apparently last of the kings of Edom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,39);">Ge 36:39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,50);">1Ch 1:50</a>).<P>(2) Grandfather of that Shemaiah who played a treacherous part against Nehemiah at the suggestion of Tobiah and Sanballat, by trying to persuade Nehemiah to commit sacrilege (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',6,\'10-13\');">Ne 6:10-13</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[5915]='Mehida`me-hi\'-da (mechidha\', "renowned"; "Meeda" (1Esdras 5:32)): Ancestor and patronymic of a family of Nethinim who came back from Babylon with Zerubbabel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,52);">Ezr 2:52</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,54);">Ne 7:54</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[5916]='Mehir`me\'-her (mechir, "price," "hire"): A descendant of Judah, son of Chelub, nephew of Shuah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,11);">1Ch 4:11</a>). Perug, a Chaldee name of equivalent meaning, is given for this person in the Targum of Rabbi Joseph.``1';
|
||
isbe[5917]='Meholathite`me-ho\'-la-thit (mecholathi): The Gentile designation of Adriel, the son of Barzillai, who married Merab, the daughter of King Saul (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,19);">1Sa 18:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,8);">2Sa 21:8</a>), the name Michal in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,8);">2Sa 21:8</a> being doubtless a copyist\'s error.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ABEL-MEHOLAH">ABEL-MEHOLAH</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5918]='Mehujael`me-hu\'-ja-el (mechuya\'el, mechiya\'el, "smitten of God"): A descendant of Cain through Enoch and Irad (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,18);">Ge 4:18</a>). The list in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,12);">Ge 5:12</a>ff is a working-over of the same material of genealogy by another hand at a different date of spelling (compare spelling of Chaucer and that of today). In that ease, Mehalalel would be the correspondent name to Mehujael (see Expository Times, X, 353).``1';
|
||
isbe[5919]='Mehuman`me-hu\'-man (me\'human (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',1,10);">Es 1:10</a>)): A eunuch of Ahasuerus, the first of the seven chamberlains.``1';
|
||
isbe[5920]='Mehunim`me-hu\'-nim (me\'unim).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MEUNIM">MEUNIM</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5921]='Mekonah`me-ko\'-na (mekhonah).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MECONAH">MECONAH</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5922]='Melatiah`mel-a-ti\'-a (melatyah, "Yah\'s deliverance"): A Gibeonite who assisted in building the wall of Jerusalem under Nehemiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',3,7);">Ne 3:7</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[5923]='Melchi`mel\'-ki (Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, Melchei; Textus Receptus of the New Testament, Melchi): The name of two ancestors of Jesus according to Luke\'s genealogy, one being in the 4th generation before Joseph, the husband of Mary, the other being in the 3rd generation before Zerubbabel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,24,28);">Lu 3:24,28</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[5924]='Melchiah`mel-ki\'-a (malkhiyah, "Yah\'s king"): A priest and father of Pashur (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',21,1);">Jer 21:1</a> the King James Version); elsewhere and in the Revised Version (British and American) called <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MALCHIAH">MALCHIAH</A> and <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MALCHIJAH">MALCHIJAH</a> (which see).``1';
|
||
isbe[5925]='Melchias`mel-ki-as (Codex Vaticanus, Melcheias, Codex Vaticanus (b), Codex Alexandrinus, Melchias): Name of three men who had taken "strange wives":<P>(1) 1Esdras 9:26 = "Malchijah" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,25);">Ezr 10:25</a>).<P>(2) 1Esdras 9:32 = "Malchijah" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,31);">Ezr 10:31</a>).<P>(3) One of those who stood at Ezra\'s left hand when the law was read (1Esdras 9:44) = "Malchijah" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,4);">Ne 8:4</a>), possibly identical with (1) or (2).``1';
|
||
isbe[5926]='Melchiel`mel\'-ki-el (Melchiel, Codex Vaticanus, Melcheiel): The father of Charmis, one of the governors of Bethulia (Judith 6:15). Other readings are Sellem and Mochisel.``1';
|
||
isbe[5927]='Melchishua`mel-ki-shoo\'-a (malkishua\', "king\'s help").`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MALCHI+SHUA">MALCHI-SHUA</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5928]='Melchizedek; Melchisedec`mel-kiz\'e-dek, and (the King James Version in the book of Hebrews) (malki-tsedheq, "Tsedheq, or Tsidhiq is my king" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,18);">Ge 14:18</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',110,4);">Ps 110:4</a>); Melchisedek (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',5,6,10);">Heb 5:6,10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',6,20);">6:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',7,1,10,11,15,17);">7:1,10,11,15,17</a>)): The name is explained in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',7,2);">Heb 7:2</a> as "king of righteousness," with "-i" as the old genitive ending; but the correct explanation is no doubt the one given above; compare Adoni-zedek in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,1);">Jos 10:1</a>, where Septuagint with <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,\'5-7\');">Jud 1:5-7</a> has Adonibezek. Melchizedek was king of Salem (= Jerusalem) and "a priest unto \'El \'Elyon" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,18);">Ge 14:18</a>). He brought bread and wine to Abraham after the latter\'s victory over the kings, and also bestowed upon him the blessing of \'El \'Elyon. Abraham gave him "a tenth of all," i.e. of the booty probably, unless it be of all his possessions. <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,22);">Ge 14:22</a> identifies Yahweh with \'El \'Elyon, the title of the Deity as worshipped at Jerusalem; and so <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',7,1);">Heb 7:1</a>ff, following Septuagint of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,18);">Ge 14:18</a>ff, calls Melchizedek. "priest of God Most High," i.e. Yahweh.<P>Skinner (Gen, 271,where Josephus, Ant, XVI, vi, 2, and Am M 6:1 are cited) points out that the Maccabees were called "high priests of God most high." Hence, some hold that the story of Melchizedek is an invention of Judaism, but Gunkel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,1);">Genesis 3</a>, 285ff) maintains that he is a traditional, if not a historical, character.<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',110,4);">Ps 110:4</a> makes the klng-priest who is addressed there a virtual successor of Melchizedek, and the kings of Jerusalem might well, as Gunkel suggests, have been considered successors of Melchizedek in the same way that Charlemagne was regarded as the successor of the Caesars, and the latter as successors of the Pharaohs in Egypt. This leads naturally to an early date being ascribed to <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',110,\'1-\');">Ps 110</a>.<P>The thought of a priest after the order of Melchizedek is taken up by the author of Hebrews. He wanted to prove the claim of Christ to be called priest. It was impossible, even had he so wished, to consider Jesus as an Aaronic priest, for He was descended from the tribe of Judah and not from that of Levi (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',7,14);">7:14</a>). The words of <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',110,4);">Ps 110:4</a> are taken to refer to Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',5,5);">Heb 5:5</a>f), and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',7,5);">Heb 7:5</a>ff the order of Melchizedek is held to be higher than that of Aaron, for the superiority of Melchizedek was acknowledged by Abraham (a) when he paid tithes to Melchizedek and (b) when he was blessed by Melchizedek, for "the less is blessed of the better." It might be added that Jesus can be considered a priest after the order of Melchizedek in virtue of His descent from David, if the latter be regarded as successor to Melchizedek But the author of He does not explicitly say this. Further, Aaron is only a "type" brought forward in He to show the more excellent glory of the work of Jesus, whereas Melchizedek is "made like unto the Son of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',7,3);">7:3</a>), and Jesus is said to be "after the likeness of Melchizedek" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',7,15);">7:15</a>).<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',7,1);">Heb 7:1</a>ff presents difficulties. Where did the author get the material for this description of Melchizedek?<P>(1) Melchizedek is said to be "without father, without mother, (i.e.) without genealogy"; and<P>(2) he is described as "having neither beginning of days nor end of life"; he "abideth a priest continually."<P>The answer is perhaps to be had among the Tell el-Amarna Letters, among which are at least 6, probably 8, letters from a king of Urusalim to Amenophis IV, king of Egypt, whose "slave" the former calls himself. Urusalim is to be identified with Jerusalem, and the letters belong to circa 1400 BC. The name of this king is given as Abd-Khiba (or Abd-chiba), though Hommel, quoted by G.A. Smith, Jerusalem, II,14,note 7, reads Chiba. Zimmer, in ZA, 1891, 246, says that it can be read Abditaba, and so Sayce (HDB, III, 335b) calls him \'ebhedh tobh. The king tells his Egyptian overlord, "Neither my father nor my mother set me in this place: the mighty arm of the king (or, according to Sayce, "the arm of the mighty king") established me in my father\'s house" (Letter 102 in Berlin collection, ll. 9-13; also number 103, ll. 25-28; number 104, ll. 13-15; see, further, H. Winckler, Die Thontafeln von Tell-el-Amarna; Knudtzon, Beitrage zur Assyriologie, IV, 101ff, 279ff, cited by G.A. Smith, Jerusalem, II,8,note 1).<P>It thus becomes clear that possibly tradition identified Melchizedek with Abd-Khiba. At any rate the idea that Melchizedek was "without father, without mother, (i.e.) without genealogy" can easily be explained if the words of Abd-Khiba concerning himself can have been also attributed to Melchizedek. The words meant originally that he acknowledged that he did not come to the throne because he had a claim on it through descent; he owed it to appointment. But Jewish interpretation explained them as implying that he had no father or mother. <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',110,4);">Ps 110:4</a> had spoken of the king there as being "a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek," and this seems to have been taken to involve the perpetuity of Melchizedek also as priest. Melchizedek was then thought of as "having neither beginning of days" = "without father, without mother, without genealogy," and again as not having "end of life" = "abideth a priest continually." Hence, he is "made like unto the son of God," having neither beginning of days nor end of life. We get another New Testament example of Jewish interpretation in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,21);">Ga 4:21</a>ff. We have no actual proof that Melchizedek is identical with Abd-Khiba; possibly the reference to the former as being "without father," etc., is not to be explained as above. But why should Melchizedek, and he alone, of all the Old Testament characters be thought of in this way?<P>Westcott, Hebrews, 199, has a suggestive thought about Melchizedek: "The lessons of his appearance lie in the appearance itself. Abraham marks a new departure....But before the fresh order is established we have a vision of the old in its superior majesty; and this, on the eve of disappearance, gives its blessing to the new."<P>On the references to Melchizedek in Philo see Westcott, op. cit., 201; F. Rendall, Hebrews, App., 58ff; and especially (with the passages and other authorities cited there) G. Milligan, Theology of Epistle to the Hebrews, 203ff.<P>The conclusions we come to are:<P>(1) There was a tradition in Jerusalem of Melchizedek, a king in pre-Israelitish times, who was also priest to \'El \'Elyon. This is the origin of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,18);">Ge 14:18</a>ff, where \'El \'Elyon is identified with Yahweh.<P>(2) <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',110,\'1-\');">Ps 110</a> makes use of this tradition and the Psalmist\'s king is regarded as Melchizedek\'s successor.<P>(3) The Epistle to the Hebrews makes use of<P class="in15">(a) <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',110,\'1-\');">Ps 110</a>, which is taken to be a prophecy of Christ,<P class="in15">(b) of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,18);">Ge 14:18</a>ff, and<P class="in15">(c) of oral tradition which was not found in the Old Testament. It is this unwritten tradition that is possibly explained by the Tell el-Amarna Letters. See, further, articles by Sayce, Driver, and Hommel in Expository Times, VII, VIII.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JERUSALEM">JERUSALEM</a>`149';
|
||
isbe[5929]='Melea`me\'-le-a, mel\'-e-a (Melea): An ancestor of Jesus in Luke\'s genealogy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,31);">Lu 3:31</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[5930]='Melech`me\'-lek (melekh, "king"): Great-grandson of Jonathan, son of Saul, grandson of Mephibosheth or Meribbaal (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,35);">1Ch 8:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,41);">9:41</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[5931]='Melicu`mel\'-i-ku (melikhu, also melukhi, "regnant"): Same as <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MALLUCHI">MALLUCHI</a> (which see).``1';
|
||
isbe[5932]='Melita`mel\'-i-ta (Melite, <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',28,1);">Ac 28:1</a>): Is now generally identified with Malta. The former error in attributing the reference to the island of Meleda on the east coast of the Adriatic Sea was due to the ancient practice of employing the term Adria to include the Ionian and Sicilian seas.<P>Malta is the largest of a group of islands including Gozo and the islets Comino, Cominotto and Filfla, lying about 56 miles from the southern extremity of Sicily, 174 from the mainland of Italy, and 187 from the African coast. Malta itself <span class="noTag">is</span> 17 1/2 miles long and 9 1/4 broad, and contains an area of 95 square miles. Its modern capital, Valetta, is situated in 35 degrees 54\' North latitude and 14 degrees 31\' East longitude.<P>The central position of Malta in the Mediterranean Sea gave it great importance as a naval station. It was probably at first a Phoenician colony, and later passed under the influence, if not domination, of the Sicilian Greeks. But the Romans captured it from the Carthaginians in 218 BC (Livy xxi.51) and attached it definitely to the province of Sicily. Under Roman rule the inhabitants were famous for their industry, especially in the production of textile fabrics, probably of native cotton. The celebrated vestis melitensis was a fine and soft material for dresses and for the covering of couches (Cicero Verr. ii.72,176; ii.74,183; iv.46,103; Diodorus v.12,22). At the time when Paul visited the island it would seem that the administration was entrusted to a deputy of the proprietor of Sicily, who is referred to as protos Melitaion (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',28,7);">Ac 28:7</a>; CIG, 5754), or Melitensium primus omnium (CIL, x, 7495) (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PUBLIUS">PUBLIUS</a>). A bay 2 1/2 miles northwest of Valetta, the mouth of which is held by tradition to be the place where the vessel that bore Paul ran ashore, tallies admirably with the description of the locality in Acts. The Admiralty charts indicate places near the west side of the entrance to the bay, where the depth is first 20 ft. and then 15 ft., while the rush of the breakers in front of the little island of Salmoneta and behind it suit the reference to a place "where two seas met" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',27,41);">Ac 27:41</a>). The inlet is called the Bay of Paul. The topographical question has been exhaustively treated by Ramsay in Paul the Traveler.``3';
|
||
isbe[5933]='Melody`mel\'-o-di: zimrah, a musical piece or song to be accompanied by an instrument (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',51,3);">Isa 51:3</a>); an instrument of praise (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',5,23);">Am 5:23</a>); naghan, "to play on a stringed instrument," "Make sweet melody, sing many songs" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',23,16);">Isa 23:16</a>); psallo to celebrate the praises of God with music (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,19);">Eph 5:19</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MUSIC">MUSIC</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5934]='Melons`mel\'-unz (\'abhattichim; compare Arabic battikh, the "water melon"; pepones): In <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,5);">Nu 11:5</a>, the melon is referred to as common in Egypt, and there can be no doubt that the variety indicated is the watermelon (Citrullus vulgaris) which is indigenous in tropical Africa. It has been cultivated in Egypt since the earliest times.``1';
|
||
isbe[5935]='Melzar`mel\'-zar (ha-meltsar; Septuagint Abiesdri, Theod. Hamelsad): Possibly a transliteration of the Babylonian Ameluucur, the officer to whom was entrusted the bringing-up of Daniel and his three companions (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',1,11);">Da 1:11</a> the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "the steward," margin "Hebrew: Hammelzar"). It has been suggested that the name is not the name of a person, but denotes the office of guardian, like the Babylonian maccaru. In this case the "l" would come by dissimulation from the first of the two "s" sounds, which on its side has come from an assimilated "n", the root being nacaru, "to protect" "to guard."``196';
|
||
isbe[5936]='Mem`mam, mem "m": The 13th letter of the Hebrew alphabet, transliterated in this Encyclopedia as "m". It came also to be used for the number 40.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ALPHABET">ALPHABET</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5937]='Member`mem\'-ber<P>(1) yatsur; melos;<P>(2) shaphekhah, "membrum virile" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',23,1);">De 23:1</a>)):<P>The first Hebrew word is derived from a root meaning "to knead," "to mold in clay," "to create." It therefore denotes any feature or part of the body. "So the tongue also is a little member, and boasteth great things" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',3,5);">Jas 3:5</a>). "The members" is equivalent with "<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BODY">the body</a>" (which see; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',139,16);">Ps 139:16</a> the King James Version). The members are not self-governing, but execute the orders of the mind, obeying either the lower nature in the commission of sin or iniquity, unrighteousness and uncleanness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,13,19);">Ro 6:13,19</a>), or following the higher nature, the Divine impulses in the fulfilling of the law of Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,19);">6:19</a>).<P>By nature, the "law in my members" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,23);">Ro 7:23</a>) is opposed to the better nature (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',4,1);">Jas 4:1</a>) until by "<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=REGENERATION">regeneration</a>" (which see) this condition is changed, when the Spirit of Christ becomes the governing power, using our members, i.e. all our abilities, in the execution of His plans. This is not done while we remain passive, but only when we have actively presented or yielded our members to His service (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,19);">Ro 6:19</a>). Therefore our bodies must not be desecrated by baser uses (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',6,15,19,20);">1Co 6:15,19,20</a>). The Lord Jesus illustrates the severe discipline which is needed to subdue the members of even the regenerate to perfect submission under the higher law of the Spirit by the simile of the right eye, which is to be plucked out, and the right hand, which is to be cut off (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,29,30);">Mt 5:29,30</a>), and Paul speaks of putting to death (the King James Version "mortifying") the "members which are upon the earth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,5);">Col 3:5</a>).<P>It is the difference in character and gifts of individual Christians which leads Paul to speak of the variety of members, which, though of manifold functions, are equally important to the completeness of the body. It is thus in the manifold variety of the body of Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',12,\'12-27\');">1Co 12:12-27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,16);">Eph 4:16</a>), and Christians being members of Christ, who is the head (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,22);">Eph 1:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,15);">4:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,23);">5:23</a>), are members one of another (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',12,5);">Ro 12:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,25);">Eph 4:25</a>).<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',23,1);">De 23:1</a> the Israelite Law against emasculation is referred to, and a religious disability is stated for the eunuch. Heathen Semites and other neighbors of Israel often castrated for religious purposes in the temple service of various divinities and for functions in princely palaces and harems. Heathen monarchs almost invariably had large numbers of these unfortunates, who frequently attained to positions of high power and responsibility. Herodotus states their frequent occurrence among the Persians (Hist. vi.32), and in the light of <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',20,18);">2Ki 20:18</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',1,3);">Da 1:3</a> it appears as not impossible that Daniel and his friends belonged to this class. In later years their existence is certain in Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',8,15);">1Sa 8:15</a> the Revised Version margin; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',38,7);">Jer 38:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,12);">Mt 19:12</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CONCISION">CONCISION</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html??string=EUNUCH">EUNUCH</a>`106';
|
||
isbe[5938]='Memeroth`mem\'-e-roth (Codex Alexandrinus, Mareroth; Codex Vaticanus here omits Memeroth and two other names; the King James Version Meremoth): A name in the genealogy of Ezra (1Esdras 8:2) = "Meraioth" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',7,3);">Ezr 7:3</a>, also "Marimoth" in 2Esdras 1:2.``1';
|
||
isbe[5939]='Memmius, Quintus`mem\'-i-us, kwin\'-tus (Kointos Memmios): One of the 2 Roman legates who bore a letter to the Jews after their victory over Lysias 163 BC (2Macc 11:34). No Quintus Memmius is otherwise known to history, and no Memmius among the list of legates sent to Asia. Polybius (xxxi.18) mentions a Quintus and a Canuleius as sent to Egypt, 162 BC, and again (xxxiii.15) the same Quintus as sent as an ambassador to Rhodes, 153 BC. A Titus Memmius had been an envoy of the senate to Achaia and Macedonia before the date of this letter (Livy xliii.5). None of these is likely to be the one referred to in 2Macc 11:34, and it is possible that no such person was sent with the letter, which is spurious.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MANIUS">MANIUS</a>`5';
|
||
isbe[5940]='Memorial; Memory`me-mo\'-ri-al, mem\'-o-ri (\'azkarah, zekher, zekher, zikkaron; mnemosunon): "Memorial" as the translation of \'azkdrah is a sacrificial term, that which brings the offerer into remembrance before God, or brings God into favorable remembrance with the offerer; it is used of the burning of a portion of the meal offering, the Revised Version (British and American) (the King James Version "meat-offering"); better, cereal offering, on the altar (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',2,2);">Le 2:2</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "as the memorial"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',2,9,16);">Le 2:9,16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',5,12);">5:12</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "as"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,7);">Le 24:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',5,26);">Nu 5:26</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "as"); as the translation of zekher (zekher), zikkaron, it is a memorial in the sense of a remembrance (zekher, zekher, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,15);">Ex 3:15</a>; the memorial (name) of Yahweh); hence, we have in the Revised Version (British and American) "memorial name" for "remembrance" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',30,4);">Ps 30:4</a> the American Standard Revised Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',97,12);">Ps 97:12</a>, the English Revised Version "holy name," marin "Hebrew memorial"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',102,12);">Ps 102:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',135,13);">135:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',26,8);">Isa 26:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',12,5);">Ho 12:5</a>, the English Revised Version "memorial"); for "memorial" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',9,28);">Es 9:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',9,6);">Ps 9:6</a>, the American Standard Revised Version "remembrance"); zikkaron, "a remembrance" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,14);">Ex 12:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,9);">13:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,24);">Le 23:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',5,15);">Nu 5:15</a> (of the meal offering); <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',4,7);">Jos 4:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',2,20);">Ne 2:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',6,14);">Zec 6:14</a>); the Passover feast was to be in this sense "a memorial...for ever" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,14);">Ex 12:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,9);">13:9</a>); so also the shema\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',6,4);">De 6:4</a>f); "memorial" occurs in The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 4:1</span> (mneme), the Revised Version (British and American) "memory"; The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 4:19</span>; Ecclesiasticus 45:1 (mnemosunon); Ecclesiasticus 49:1; 1Macc 3:7; 12:53, the Revised Version (British and American) "memorial."<P>"Memorial" occurs in the New Testament as the translation of mnemosunon, "a token of remembrance" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,13);">Mt 26:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,9);">Mr 14:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,4);">Ac 10:4</a>, "Thy prayers and thine alms are gone up for a memorial before God," which suggests the sense in which "memorial" was used in the sacrificial ritual, and also the "better sacrifices" of the new dispensation).<P>Memory is the translation of zekher (zekher) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',109,15);">Ps 109:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',145,7);">145:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',10,7);">Pr 10:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',9,5);">Ec 9:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',26,14);">Isa 26:14</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "remembrance"); it occurs also in 1Macc 13:29; 2Macc 7:20. Katecho, "to have or hold fast," is rendered in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,2);">1Co 15:2</a> the King James Version "keep in memory," margin "hold fast," the American Standard Revised Version "hold fast," the English Revised Version "hold it fast," i.e. the word preached to them.``185';
|
||
isbe[5941]='Memphis`mem\'-fis:<P>1. Name:<P>The ancient capital of Egypt, 12 miles south of the modern Cairo. This Greek and Roman form of the name was derived from the Coptic form Menfi (now Arabic Menf), the abbreviation of the Egyptian name Men-nofer, "the good haven." This name was applied to the pyramid of Pepy I, in the cemetery above the city; some have thought the city name to have been derived from the pyramid, but this is unlikely, as the city must have had a regular name before that. It may perhaps mean "the excellence of Mena," its founder. It appears still more shortened in Ho (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',9,6);">9:6</A>) as Moph (moph), and in Isaiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',19,13);">19:13</a>), Jereremiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',2,16);">2:16</a>), and Ezekiel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',30,13);">30:13</a>) as Noph (noph).<P>2. Political Position:<P>The classical statements show that the city in Roman times was about 8 miles long and 4 miles wide, and the indications of the site agree with this. It was the sole capital of Position Egypt from the Ist to the XVIIth Dynasty; it shared supremacy with Thebes during the XVIIIth to XXVth Dynasties, and with Sais to the XXXth Dynasty. Alexandria then gradually obscured it, but the governor of Egypt signed the final capitulation to the Arabs in the old capital. While other cities assumed a political equality, yet commercially Memphis probably remained supreme until the Ptolemies.<P>3. The Founders and the City:<P>The oldest center of settlement was probably the shrine of the sacred bull, Apis or Hapy, which was in the south of the city. This worship was doubtless prehistoric, so that when the first king of all Egypt, Mena, founded his capital, there was already a nucleus. His great work was taking in land to the north, and founding the temple of the dynastic god Ptah, which was extended until its enclosure included as much as the great temple of Amon at Thebes, about 3 furlongs long and 2 furlongs wide. To the north of this was the sacred lake; beyond that, the palace and camp. Gradually the fashionable quarters moved northward in Egypt, in search of fresher air; the rulers had moved 10 miles north to Babylon by Roman times, then to Fostat, then Cairo, and lastly now to Abbasiyeh and Kubkeh, altogether a shift of 18 miles in 8,000 years.<P>4. Archaeological Results:<P>After the shrine of Apis the next oldest center is that of Ptah, founded by Mena. This was recently cleared in yearly sections by the British School, finding principally sculptures of the XVIIIth and XIXth Dynasties. The account of the north gate given by Herodotus, that it was built by Amenemhat III, has been verified by finding his name on the lintel. An immense sphinx of alabaster 26 ft. long has also been found. To the east of this was the temple of the foreign quarter, the temple of King Proteus in Greek accounts, where foreign pottery and terra cotta heads have been found. Other temples that are known to have existed in Memphis are those of Hathor, Neit, Amen, Imhotep, Isis, Osiris-Sokar, Khnumu, Bastel, Tahuti, Anubis and Sebek.<P>A large building of King Siamen (XXIst Dynasty) has been found south of the Ptah temple. To the north of the great temple lay the fortress, and in it the palace mound of the XXVIth Dynasty covered two acres. It has been completely cleared, but the lower part is still to be examined. The north end of it was at least 90 ft. high, of brickwork, filled up to half the height by a flooring raised on cellular brickwork. The great court was about 110 ft. square, and its roof was supported by 16 columns 45 ft. high.<P>The principal sights of Memphis now are the great colossus of Rameses II, the lesser colossus of the same, and the immense alabaster sphinx. The cemetery of the city is the most important in Egypt; it lies 2 miles to the west on the desert, and is known as Saqqareh, from So-kar, the god of the dead.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SAQQAREH">SAQQAREH</a>`135';
|
||
isbe[5942]='Memucan`me-mu\'-kan (memukhan; derivation unknown but probably of Persian origin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',1,14,16,21);">Es 1:14,16,21</a>)): One of "the seven princes of Persia and Media, who saw the king\'s face, and sat first in the kingdom." Ahasuerus consults these men, as those "that knew law and judgment," as to the proper treatment of the rebellious Vashti. Memucan is the spokesman of the reply. He recommends Vashti\'s deposition so that "all the wives will give to their husbands honor, both to great and small." This advice is adopted and incorporated into a royal decree<65>with what success is not said.``1';
|
||
isbe[5943]='Menahem`men\'-a-hem (menachem, "one who comforts"; Manaem; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',15,\'14-22\');">2Ki 15:14-22</a>):<P>1. Accession and Reign:<P>Son of Gadi and 16th king of Israel. He reigned 10 years. Menahem was probably the officer in charge of the royal troops in Tirzah, one of the king\'s residences, at the time of the murder of Zechariah by Shallum. Hearing of the deed, he brought up his troops and avenged the death of his master by putting Shallum to death in Samaria. He then seized the vacant throne. His first full year may have been 758 BC (others, as seen below, put later).<P>2. Early Acts:<P>The country at this time, as depicted by Hosea and Amos, was in a deplorable condition of anarchy and lawlessness. Menahem, with a strong hand, enforced his occupation of the throne. One town only seems to have refused to acknowledge him. This was Tiphsah, a place 6 miles southwest of Shechem, now the ruined village of Khurbet Tafsah. As Menahem is said to have attacked this enclosed city from Tirzah, lying to its north, it is probable that he took it on the way to Samaria, before proceeding to do battle with Shallum. If this was so, it is some explanation of the cruelty with which he treated its inhabitants (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',15,16);">2Ki 15:16</a>). One such instance of severity was enough. The whole kingdom was at his feet. He proved to be a strong and determined ruler, and during the 9 or 10 years of his governorship had no further internecine trouble to contend with.<P>3. Menahem and Assyria:<P>But there was another source of disquiet. Assyria, under Pul, had resumed her advance to the west and threatened the kingdoms of Palestine. Menahem resolved on a policy of diplomacy, and, rather than risk a war with the conqueror of the East, agreed to the payment of a heavy tribute of 1,000 talents of silver. To raise this sum he had to assess his wealthier subjects to the extent of 50 shekels each. As there are 3,000 shekels in a talent of silver, it is obvious that some 60,000 persons, "mighty men of wealth," must have been laid under contribution in this levy<76>an indication at once of the enormity of the tribute, and of the prosperity of the country at the time. However short-sighted the policy, its immediate purpose was attained, which was that the hand of the Assyrian king "might be with him to confirm the kingdom in his hand" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',15,19);">2Ki 15:19</a>).<P>4. A Conflict of Dates:<P>A difficulty attaches to the dates of this period. The Pul of <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',15,19);">2Ki 15:19</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',5,26);">1Ch 5:26</a> is now identified with Tiglath-pileser III, who took this title on ascending the throne of Assyria in 745 BC. In an inscription of Tiglath-pileser, Menahem appears as Minehimmu Samarina (Menahem the Samarian), together with Racunnu (Rezin) of Damascus and Hirumu (Hiram) of Tyre. The date given to this inscription is 738 BC, whereas the last year we can give to Menahem is 749, or 10 years earlier.<P>5. Proposed Solutions:<P>The chronological difficulty which thus arises may be met in one of two ways. Either the inscription, like that on the black obelisk of Kurkh (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JEHU">JEHU</a>), was written some years after the events to which it refers and contains records of operations in which Tiglath-pileser took part before he became king; or Pekah<61>who was on the throne of Israel in 738 (?)<29>is spoken of under the dynastic name Menahem, though he was not of his family. The former of these hypotheses is that which the present writer is inclined to adopt. (By others the dates of Menahem are lowered in conformity with the inscription.)<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHRONOLOGY+OF+THE+OLD+TESTAMENT">CHRONOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT</a>.<P>6. Character:<P>Menahem attempted no reformation in the national religion, but, like all his predecessors, adhered to the worship of the golden calves. On this account, like them, he incurs the heavy censure of the historian.``17';
|
||
isbe[5944]='Menan`me\'-nan.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MENNA">MENNA</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5945]='Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin`me\'-ne, me\'-ne, te\'-kel, u-far\'-sin, men\'-a, men\'a, tek\'-el, oo-far\'-sin (mene\' mene\' teqel upharcin; Theodotion, Mane, thekel, phares): These are the words that, according to Daniel\'s reading, were inscribed on the walls of Belshazzar\'s palace and that caused the great commotion on the occasion of his last feast (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',5,25);">Da 5:25</a>). As the only authority that we have for the reading is that of Daniel, it seems but fair that the interpretation of the terms be left to the person who gave us the text. According to his interpretation, there is a double sense to be found in the three different words of the inscription (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',5,\'26-28\');">Da 5:26-28</a>).<P>Mene\', which, however it is pointed, must be taken from the verb menah (Hebrew manah; Babylonian manu), is said to have indicated that God had numbered (the days of) Belshazzar\'s kingdom and finished it (or delivered it up). Both of these meanings can be shown to be proper to the menah.<P>Teqel, on the contrary, is interpreted as coming from two roots: the first, teqal, "to weigh," and the second, qal, "to be light or wanting" (Hebrew qalal; Babylonian qalalu).<P>Perec (or parcin) also is interpreted as coming from two roots: first, perac, "to divide" (Hebrew paras or parash; Babylonian parasu), and the second as denoting the proper name Parac, "Persia." Thus interpreted, the whole story hangs together, makes good sense, and is fully justified by the context and by the language employed. If the original text was in Babylonian, the signs were ambiguous; if they were in Aramaic, the consonants alone were written, and hence, the reading would be doubtful. In either case, the inscription was apparent but not readable, except by Daniel with the aid of God, through whom also the seer was enabled to give the proper interpretation. That Daniel\'s interpretation was accepted by Belshazzar and the rest shows that the interpretation of the signs was reasonable and convincing when once it had been made. We see, therefore, no good reason for departing from the interpretation that the Book of Daniel gives as the true one.<P>As to the interpretation of the inscription, it makes no difference whether the signs represented a mina, a shekel, and two perases, as has been recently suggested by M. Clermont-Ganneau. In this case the meaning was not so apparent, but the puns, the play upon the sounds, were even better. We doubt, however, if it can be shown that teqel means sheqel. On the old Aramaic documents of Egypt and Assyria, it is with one exception spelled sheqel. In the Targum of Onkelos, sheqel is always rendered by cela\'; in the Peshitta and Arabic VSS, by mathqal; in the Samaritan Targum, by mathqal (except only perhaps in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,16);">Ge 23:16</a>, where we have ethqel). In the Targum of Onkelos, wherever tiqla\' occurs, it translates the Hebrew beqa\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,22);">Ge 24:22</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',38,26);">Ex 38:26</a> only). Mene\', to be sure, may have meant the mina, and perec, the half-mina. The parash is mentioned in the inscription of Panammu and in an Aramaic inscription on an Assyrian weight. Besides this, it is found in the New Hebrew of the Mishna It is not found, however, in the Targum of Onkelos, nor in Syriac, nor in the Old Testament Hebrew; nor in the sense of half-shekel in the Aramaic papyri. While, then, it may be admitted that Daniel may have read, "A mina, a mina, a shekel, and two half-minas," it is altogether unlikely, and there is certainly no proof that he did. Yet, if he did, his punning interpretations were justified by the usage of ancient oracles and interpreters of signs, and also by the event.``196';
|
||
isbe[5946]='Menelaus`men-e-la\'-us (Menelaos): According to the less likely account of Josephus (Ant., XII, v, 1; XV, iii, 1; XX, x, 3), Menelaus was a brother of Jason and Onias III, and his name was really Onias. But it is very unlikely that there should be two brothers of the same name. The account of 2Maccabees is more credible<6C>that Menelaus was the brother of the notorious Simon who suggested to the Syrians the plundering of the temple; he was thus of the tribe of Benjamin (2Macc 4:23; compare with 3:4) and not properly eligible to the high-priesthood. He was entrusted by Jason (171 BC), who had supplanted Onias, with contributions to the king of Syria, Antiochus Epiphanes, and by outbidding Jason in presents he secured the office of high priest for himself (2Macc 4:23f), 171 BC. Menelaus returned with "the passion of a cruel tyrant" to Jerusalem, and Jason fled. But as Menelaus failed to pay the promised amount, both he and Sostratus, the governor, were summoned to appear before the king. Lysimachus, the brother of Menelaus, was left at Jerusalem in the meantime as deputy high priest. The king was called from his capital to suppress an insurrection of Tarsus and Mallus. Menelaus took advantage of his absence to win over Andronicus, the king\'s deputy, by rich presents stolen from the temple. For this sacrilege Onias III sharply reproved him and fled to a sanctuary, Daphne, near Antioch. Andronicus was then further persuaded by Menelaus to entice Onias from his retreat and murder him (2Macc 4:34f)<29>an act against which both Jews and Greeks protested to the king on his return, and secured deserved punishment for Andronicus. Meanwhile, the oppression of Lysimachus, abetted by Menelaus, caused a bloody insurrection in Jerusalem, in connection with which a Jewish deputation brought an accusation against Menelaus on the occasion of Antiochus\' visit to Tyre. Menelaus bribed Ptolemy, son of Dorymenes, to win over the king to acquit himself and secure the execution of "those hapless men, who, if they had pleaded even before Scythians, would have been discharged uncondemned" (2Macc 4:39ff). Menelaus returned in triumph to his office. But Jason, taking advantage of Epiphanes\' absence in Egypt and a false rumor of his death, made a bloody but unsuccessful attempt upon the city, in order to secure his office again; his rival took refuge in the citadel. The king returned in fury, caused a three days\' slaughter of the citizens, rifled the temple with Menelaus as guide, and left him as one of his agents to keep the Jews in subjection (2Macc 5:1ff). He appears next and for the last time in the reign of Eupator in 162 BC. Lysias, the king\'s chancellor, accused him to the king as the cause of all the troubles in Judea (2Macc 13:3-8). Eupator caused him to be brought to Berea and there<72>before, according to 2Maccabees, loc. cit., or after, according to Josephus, Ant, XII, ix, 7, the invasion of Judea by Eupator and Lysias<61>to be put to death by being flung from the top of a high tower into the ashes of which it was full<6C>a fitting end for such a wretch.``5';
|
||
isbe[5947]='Menestheus`me-nes\'-thus, me-nes\'-the-us (Menestheus Codex Alexandrinus, Menestheseos): The father of Apollonius, a general of Epiphanes (2Macc 4:21 and in 2Macc 4:4 the Revised Version (British and American), following a conjecture of Hort Menestheos for mainesthai heos the latter is retained in Swete and Fritzache]). "Son of Menestheus" is added to distinguish this Apollonius from "Apollonius, Son of Thrasaeus" (2Macc 3:5) and "Apollonius, Son of Gennaeus" (2Macc 12:2).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOLLONIUS">APOLLONIUS</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5948]='Meni`me\'-ni: Destiny, a god of Good Luck, possibly the Pleiades (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',65,11);">Isa 65:11</a> margin).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASTROLOGY">ASTROLOGY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html??string=GAD">GAD</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5949]='Menna`men\'-a (Menna Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, Tregelles, Tischendorf; Mainan Textus Receptus of the New Testament; the King James Version Menan): An ancestor of Jesus, a great-grandson of David (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,31);">Lu 3:31</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[5950]='Menuhah`men-u\'-ha, men-u\'-ka (menuchah, "place of rest"; the King James Version Menuchah): Rendered in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',20,43);">Jud 20:43</a> the King James Version "with ease," the Revised Version (British and American) "at their resting-place." Both, however, have a marginal suggestion which would make the word a place-name, which would then more naturally read "from Nuhah over against Gibeah," thus describing the ground over which the slaughter of the Benjamites occurred. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,2);">1Ch 8:2</a> the word "Nohah" occurs as that of a Benjamite elan. The place intended is perhaps <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MANAHATH">MANAHATH</A> (which see).``1';
|
||
isbe[5951]='Menuhoth`men-u\'-hoth (menuchoth, "dwellings"; the King James Version manachti Manahethites): The first form is the Revised Version (British and American) transliterated in the name; the second form is the King James Version retained by the Revised Version (British and American) in the passages where the word occurs (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,52);">1Ch 2:52</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,54);">2:54</A>). The people here spoken of by the King James Version as "half of the Manahethites" are mentioned as descendants of Salma (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,54);">1Ch 2:54</a>), while those mentioned as Menuhoth are mentioned as descendants of Judah through Shobal, father of Kiriath-jearim. Both words are from the same root. the King James Version keeps the same designation for both passages, while the Revised Version (British and American) has marked the difference in spelling by changing the first passage and following the King James Version in the second. Both sections of the family belong to the Caleb clan, and it would seem that they became the dominant people in the otherwise unknown town of Manahath, so that it came to be regarded as belonging to Judah. It may be connected with the Menuchah (the Revised Version (British and American) "Menuhah") suggested as a place-name in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',20,43);">Jud 20:43</a> margin. In the Septuagint, between <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,59);">Joshua 15:59</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,60);">60</A>, the names of 11 cities are inserted, among them being a Manocho whose Hebrew equivalent gives the word. It is difficult to identify, and the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) cuts the knot by translating "dimidium requietionum"!`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MANAHATH">MANAHATH</a>`186';
|
||
isbe[5952]='Meonenim, Oak of`me-on\'-e-nim, me-o\'-ne-nim: (\'elon me\'onenim; Codex Vaticanus, Elonmaonemein, Codex Alexandrinus, druos apobleponton; the King James Version Plain of): This was a sacred tree which apparently could be seen from the gate of Shechem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',9,37);">Jud 9:37</a>). No doubt it took its name from the soothsayers who sat under it, practicing augury, etc. Several times mention is made of sacred trees in the vicinity of Shechem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,4);">Ge 35:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',24,26);">Jos 24:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',9,6);">Jud 9:6</a>, etc.). Where this tree stood is not known.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=AUGUR\'S+OAK">AUGUR\'S OAK</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5953]='Meonothai`me-on\'-o-thi, me-o\'-no-thi, me-o-no\'-thi (me\'onothai, "my dwellings"): A son of Othniel, nephew of Caleb (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,14);">1Ch 4:14</a>). Possibly, as the King James Version margin suggests, and the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) and Complutensian Septuagint say, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,13,14);">1Ch 4:13,14</a> should read "the sons of Othniel, Hathath and Meonothai; and Meonothai begat Ophrah," etc. The latter may be founder of the town of that name.``1';
|
||
isbe[5954]='Mephaath`mef\'-a-ath, me-fa\'-ath (mepha\'ath and meypha\'ath, mopha\'ath; Codex Vaticanus, Maiphaath, Mephaath): A city of the Amorites in the territory allotted to Reuben, named with Kedemoth and Kiriathaim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,18);">Jos 13:18</a>), and given to the Merarite Levites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,37);">Jos 21:37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,79);">1Ch 6:79</a>). It appears again as a Moabite town in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',48,21);">Jer 48:21</a>. It was known to Eusebius and Jerome (Onom) as occupied by a Roman garrison, but the site has been lost.``1';
|
||
isbe[5955]='Mephibosheth`me-fib\'-o-sheth (mephibhosheth, "idol-breaker," also <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MERIB-BAAL">MERIB-BAAL</a> (which see); Memphibosthe):<P>(1) Son of Saul by his concubine <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RIZPAH">RIZPAH</a> (which see), daughter of Aiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,8);">2Sa 21:8</a>).<P>See also <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ARMONI">ARMONI</a>.<P>(2) Grandson of Saul, son of Jonathan, and nephew of Mephibosheth (1) (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',4,4);">2Sa 4:4</a>). He was 5 years old when his father and grandfather were slain. He was living in charge of a nurse, possibly because his mother was dead. Tidings of the disaster at Jezreel and the onsweep of the Philistines terrified the nurse. She fled with her charge in such haste that a fall lamed the little prince in both feet for life. His life is a series of disasters, disappointments, and anxieties. It is a weary, broken, dispirited soul that speaks in all his utterances. The nurse carried him to Lo-debar among the mountains of Gilead, where he was brought up by Machir, son of Ammiel (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',9,4);">2Sa 9:4</a>). There he evidently married, for he had a son Mica when he returned later at David\'s request. When David had settled his own affairs and subdued his enemies, he turned his inquiries to Saul\'s household to see whether there were any survivors to whom he might show kindness for Jonathan\'s sake (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',9,1);">2Sa 9:1</a>). The search caused the appearance of Ziba, a servant of Saul\'s house (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',9,2);">2Sa 9:2</a>), who had meanwhile grown prosperous by some rapid process which can only be guessed at (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',9,9,10);">2Sa 9:9,10</a>). From him David learned about Mephibosheth, who was sent for. His humble bearing was consistent with his chronically broken spirit. David put Ziba\'s property (which had belonged to Saul) at Mephibosheth\'s disposal and made Ziba steward thereof. Mephibosheth was also to be a daily guest at David\'s table (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',9,\'11-13\');">2Sa 9:11-13</a>). Seventeen years pass, during which Mephibosheth seems to have lived in Jerusalem. Then came Absalom\'s rebellion. David determined to flee, so distraught was he by the act of his son. At the moment of flight, in great depression and need, he was opportunely met by Ziba with food, refreshment and even means for travel. Naturally, the king inquired for Ziba\'s master. The treacherous reply was made (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',16,\'1-4\');">2Sa 16:1-4</a>) that Mephibosheth had remained behind for his own ends, hoping the people would give him, Saul\'s grandson, the kingdom. David believed this and restored to Ziba the property lost. Not till many days after did the lame prince get his chance to give David his own version of the story. He met David on his return from quelling Absalom\'s rebellion. He had not dressed his feet, trimmed his beard nor washed his clothes since the hour of David\'s departure (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',19,24);">2Sa 19:24</a>). At David\'s anxious request Mephibosheth told his story: his servant had deceived him; he wanted to go with David, had even asked for his beast to be saddled; but Ziba had left him, and had slandered him to the king. But he would not plead his cause any more; David is "as an angel of God"; whatever he decides will be well! (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',19,26,27);">2Sa 19:26,27</a>). Thus characteristically continued the speech of this lame, broken, humble man, son of a proud family (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',19,28);">2Sa 19:28</a>). David wearily settled the matter by dividing the property between the prince and his servant, the prince expressing utmost content that Ziba should take all so long as David remained friendly (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',19,29,30);">2Sa 19:29,30</a>). That David accepted Mephibosheth\'s explanation and was drawn out in heart toward the character of the broken man is shown by the fact that when some expiation from Saul\'s household was considered necessary to turn away the famine sent by an offended deity, Mephibosheth is spared when other members of Saul\'s household were sacrificed (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,7);">2Sa 21:7</a>). The character of Mephibosheth well illustrates the effect of continued disaster, suspicion and treachery upon a sensitive mind.``186';
|
||
isbe[5956]='Merab`me\'-rab (merabh "increase"; Merob): The elder daughter of Saul (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,49);">1Sa 14:49</a>), promised, though not by name, to the man who should slay the Philistine Goliath (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',17,25);">1Sa 17:25</a>). David did this and was afterward taken by Saul to court (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,2);">1Sa 18:2</a>), where he was detained in great honor. Merab was not, however, given to him as quickly as the incident would lead one to expect, and the sequel showed some unwillingness on the part of some persons in the contract to complete the promise. The adulation of the crowd who met David on his return from Philistine warfare and gave him a more favorable ascription than to Saul (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,\'6-16\');">1Sa 18:6-16</a>) awoke the angry jealousy of Saul. He "eyed David from that day and forward" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,9);">1Sa 18:9</a>). Twice David had to "avoid" the "evil spirit" in Saul (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,11);">1Sa 18:11</a>). Saul also feared David (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,12);">1Sa 18:12</a>), and this led him to incite the youth to more dangerous deeds of valor against the Philistines by a renewed promise of Merab. He will have David\'s life, but rather by the hand of the Philistines than his own (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,17);">1Sa 18:17</a>). Merab was to be the bait. But now another element complicated matters<72>Michal\'s love for David (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,20);">1Sa 18:20</a>), which may have been the retarding factor from the first. At any rate Merab is finally given to Adriel the Meholathite (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,19);">1Sa 18:19</a>). The passage in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,8);">2Sa 21:8</a> doubtless contains an error<6F>Michal\'s name occurring for that of her sister Merab<61>though the Septuagint, Josephus, and a consistent Hebrew text all perpetuate it, as well as the concise meaning of the Hebrew word Yaladh, which is a physiological word for bearing children, and cannot be translated "brought up." A Targum explanation reads: "The 5 sons of Merab (which Michal, Saul\'s daughter brought up) which she bare," etc. Another suggestion reads the word "sister" after Michal in the possessive case, leaving the text otherwise as it stands. It is possible that Merab died comparatively young, and that her children were left in the care of their aunt, especially when it is said she herself had none (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',6,23);">2Sa 6:23</a>). The simplest explanation is to assume a scribal error, with the suggestion referred to as a possible explanation of it. The lonely Michal (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',6,\'20-23\');">2Sa 6:20-23</a>) became so identified with her (deceased) sister\'s children that they became, in a sense, hers.``186';
|
||
isbe[5957]='Meraiah`me-ra\'-ya, me-ri\'-a (merayah, "contumacious"): A priest in the time of Joiakim son of Jeshua, and head of the priestly house of Seraiah to which Ezra belonged (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,12);">Ne 12:12</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',7,1);">Ezr 7:1</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[5958]='Meraioth`me-ra\'-yoth, me-ri\'-oth (merayoth): The name varies much in the Greek.<P>(1) A Levite, a descendant of Aaron (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,6);">1Ch 6:6</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',7,3);">Ezr 7:3</a>), called "Memeroth" in 1Esdras 8:2; and "Marimoth" in 2Esdras 1:2.<P>(2) The son of Ahitub and father of Zadok (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,11);">1Ch 9:11</a>).<P>(3) A priestly house of which, in the days of Joiakim, Helkai was head (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,15);">Ne 12:15</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,3);">Ne 12:3</a> the name is given as "Meremoth."``1';
|
||
isbe[5959]='Meran`me\'-ran.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MERRAN">MERRAN</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5960]='Merari`me-ra\'-ri (merari, "bitter"; Mararei):<P>(1) The 3rd son of Levi, his brothers, Gershon and Kohath, being always mentioned together with him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,11);">Ge 46:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,16);">Ex 6:16</a>). He was among those 70 who went down to Egypt with Jacob (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,8,11);">Ge 46:8,11</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,26);">46:26</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,5);">Ex 1:5</a>).<P>(2) The family of Merari, descendants of above, and always (with one exception, for which see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MERARITES">MERARITES</a>) spoken of as "sons of Merari" in numerous references, such as <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,1,16,19,29);">1Ch 6:1,16,19,29</a>, which only repeat without additional information the references to be found in the body of this article. We early find them divided into two families, the Mahli and Mushi (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,19);">Ex 6:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',3,17,20,33);">Nu 3:17,20,33</a>). At the exodus they numbered, under their chief Zuriel, 6,200, and they were assigned the north side of the tabernacle as a tenting-place (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',3,34,35);">Nu 3:34,35</a>), thus sharing in the honor of those who immediately surrounded the tabernacle<6C>the south side being given to the Kohathites, the west to the Gershonites, and the east<73>toward the sun-rising<6E>being reserved for Moses, Aaron and his sons (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',3,23,29,35,38);">Nu 3:23,29,35,38</a>). To the Merarites was entrusted the care of the boards, bars, pillars, sockets, vessels, pins and cords of the tabernacle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',3,36,37);">Nu 3:36,37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',4,\'29-33\');">4:29-33</a>). They and the Gershonites were "under the hand" of Ithamar, son of Aaron, the sons of Gershon having charge of the softer material of the tabernacles<65>curtains, covers, hangings, etc. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',3,25,26);">Nu 3:25,26</a>). When reckoned by the number fit for service, i.e. between 30 and 50 years, the sons of Merari were 3,200 strong (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',4,\'42-45\');">Nu 4:42-45</a>). Because of the weight of the material in their charge they were allowed 4 wagons and 8 oxen for carriage (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',7,8);">Nu 7:8</a>). In marching, when the tabernacle was taken down, the standard of Judah went first (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',10,14);">Nu 10:14</a>); then followed the Merarites bearing the tabernacle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',10,17);">Nu 10:17</a>), and after them came the standard of Reuben (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',10,18);">Nu 10:18</a>). After the settlement in Canaan they had 12 cities assigned them out of Gad, Reuben and Zebulun (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,7);">Jos 21:7</a>,<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,\'34-40\');">34-40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,63);">1Ch 6:63</a>,<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,\'77-81\');">77-81</a>), just as the other two branches of Levi\'s family had their 12 cities respectively assigned out of the other tribes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,\'1-\');">Jos 21</a>). The names of these Merarite cities are given (loc. cit.), and among them is Ramoth-gilead, one of the cities of refuge (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,38);">Jos 21:38</a>). It is evident from <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,\'44-47\');">1Ch 6:44-47</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',16,41);">16:41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',25,1,3,6,9,11,15,19,21);">25:1,3,6,9,11,15,19,21</a>f; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',15,6,17,18,19);">15:6,17-19</a> that they had charge under Ethan or Jeduthun of the temple music in the service. In David\'s time Asaiah was their chief (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',15,6);">1Ch 15:6</a>). Himself and 220 of the family helped David to bring up the Ark. David divided the Levites into courses among the Gershonites, Kohathites and Merarites (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',23,6);">1Ch 23:6</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',23,21,22,23);">23:21-23</>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',24,\'26-30\');">24:26-30</a>). The functions of certain Merarites are described in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',26,\'10-19\');">1Ch 26:10-19</a>. They also took part in cleansing the temple in Hezekiah\'s time (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',29,12);">2Ch 29:12</a>) as well as in the days of Josiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',34,12);">2Ch 34:12</a>), helping to repair the house of the Lord. Among the helpers of Ezra, too, we find some of them numbered (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,18,19);">Ezr 8:18,19</a>). The family seems to have played a very important part in keeping steady and true such faithfulness as remained in Israel.<P>(3) The father of Judith (Judith 8:1; 16:7).``186';
|
||
isbe[5961]='Merarites`me-ra\'-rits (merari, "bitter"): The descendants of <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MERARI">MERARI</A> (which see), son of Levi. The only place where this form of the word occurs is <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,57);">Nu 26:57</a>. Elsewhere they are always referred to as "sons of Merari."``1';
|
||
isbe[5962]='Merathaim`mer-a-tha\'-im (merathayim "double rebellion"): A name used for Babylon in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',50,21);">Jer 50:21</a>. According to Delitzsch it may be equivalent to the Babylonian Marratun, i.e. land by the nar Marratu, "the bitter river" (Persian Gulf) = Southern Babylonia (OHL, under the word).``1';
|
||
isbe[5963]='Merchandise`mur\'-chan-diz<P>(1) \'amar<P>(2) cachar,<P>(3) cachar,<P>(4) cechorach,<P>(5) rekhullah,<P>(6) ma\'arabh,<P>(7) markoleth;<P>(8) emporia<P>(9) emporion,<P>(10) gomos):<hr /><p>There seem to be 4 distinct meanings of the word according to the Revised Version (British and American), namely:<p>(1) The products, i.e. goods or things sold or exchanged, and so merchandise in the present-day usage:<P class="in15">(a) cachar is translated thus in <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',31,18);">Pr 31:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',23,18);">Isa 23:18</a>;<P class="in15">(b) cachar is translated thus in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',45,14);">Isa 45:14</a>; these two are from a root meaning "to travel around as a peddler";<P class="in15">(c) rekhullah, translated thus in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',26,12);">Eze 26:12</a>, from a root meaning "to travel for trading purposes";<P class="in15">(d) ma\'arabh, translated thus in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,9,27,33,34);">Eze 27:9,27,33,34</a>, from a root meaning "to intermix, to barter";<P class="in15">(e) markoleth, translated thus in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,24);">Eze 27:24</a> (the above 5 Hebrew words are all used to designate the goods or wares which were bartered);<P class="in15">(f) \'amar, occurring in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',21,14);">De 21:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',24,7);">24:7</a>, translated in the King James Version "make merchandise of," but in the Revised Version (British and American) "deal with as a slave," or the Revised Version margin "deal with as a chattel";<P class="in15">(g) emporia, translated "merchandise" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,5);">Mt 22:5</a>;<P class="in15">(h) emporion, likewise in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',2,16);">Joh 2:16</a> (the same Greek word is used in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,3);">2Pe 2:3</a> for the American Standard Revised Version "make merchandise of you");<P class="in15">(i) gomos, "merchandise," margin "cargo."<P>(2) The process of trade itself, i.e. the business: rekhullah has in it the root meaning of "itinerant trading", and so in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',28,16);">Eze 28:16</a> the correct translation is not "merchandise," as in the King James Version, but "traffic," "abundance of thy traffic," i.e. doing a thriving business: "trade was good."<P>(3) The place of trading, i.e. emporium, mart, etc.: cechorah in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,15);">Eze 27:15</a> is translated "mart." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',2,16);">Joh 2:16</a> reference is made to the "house of merchandise."<P>(4) The profits of trading: In <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',3,14);">Pr 3:14</a>, cachar is translated "gaining." Referring to wisdom, "For the gaining of it is better than the gaining of silver, and the profit thereof than fine gold"; the King James Version "merchandise."``142';
|
||
isbe[5964]='Merchant; Merchantman`mur\'-chant, mur\'-chant-man.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=COMMERCE">COMMERCE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html??string=MERCHANDISE">MERCHANDISE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html??string=TRADE">TRADE</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5965]='Mercury; Mercurius`mur\'-ku-ri, mer-ku\'ri-us: The translation of Hermes, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,12);">Ac 14:12</a>: "They called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercury, because he was the chief speaker." Hermes was the god of eloquence (and also of theft), the attendant, messenger and spokesman of the gods. The more commanding presence of Barnabas (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',10,10);">2Co 10:10</a>) probably caused him to be identified with Zeus (the Roman Jupiter), while his gift of eloquence suggested the identification of Paul with Hermes (the Roman Mercury). The temple of Jupiter was before Lystra, and to him the Lycaonians paid their chief worship. Compare the legend of Baucis and Philemon (Ovid, Metam. viii.611f).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HERMES">HERMES</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html??string=JUPITER">JUPITER</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html??string=GREECE,+RELIGION+IN+ANCIENT">GREECE, RELIGION IN ANCIENT</a>`91';
|
||
isbe[5966]='Mercy-Seat, the`mur\'-si-set (kapporeth; New Testament hilasterion, <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,5);">Heb 9:5</a>): The name for the lid or covering of the ark of the covenant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,17);">Ex 25:17</a>, etc.). The Old Testament term means "covering," then, like the New Testament word, "propitiatory" (compare kipper, "to cover guilt," "to make atonement"). The ark contained the two tables of stone which witnessed against the sin of the people. The blood of sacrifice, sprinkled on the mercy-seat on the great day of atonement, intercepted, as it were, this condemning testimony, and effected reconciliation between God and His people. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ATONEMENT">ATONEMENT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ATONEMENT,+DAY+OF">ATONEMENT, DAY OF</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PROPITIATION">PROPITIATION</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ARK+OF+THE+COVENANT">ARK OF THE COVENANT</a>. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,25);">Ro 3:25</a>, Jesus is said to be set forth as "a propitiation (literally, "propitiatory"), through faith, in his blood," thus fulfilling the idea of the mercy-seat (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,5,7,11,12);">Heb 9:5,7,11,12</a>, etc.).``17';
|
||
isbe[5967]='Mercy; Merciful`mur\'-si, mur\'-si-fool (checedh, racham, chanan; eleos, eleeo, oiktirmos): "Mercy" is a distinctive Bible word characterizing God as revealed to men.<P>In the Old Testament it is most often the translation of checedh, "kindness," "loving-kindness" (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LOVINGKINDNESS">LOVINGKINDNESS</a>), but rachamim, literally, "bowels" (the sympathetic region), and chanan, "to be inclined to," "to be gracious," are also frequently translated "mercy"; eleos, "kindness," "beneficence," and eleeo, "to show kindness," are the chief words rendering "mercy" in the New Testament; oiktirmos, "pity," "compassion," occurs a few times, also oiktirmon, "pitiful," eleemon, "kind," "compassionate," twice; hileos, "forgiving," and anileos, "not forgiving," "without mercy," once each (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',8,12);">Heb 8:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',2,13);">Jas 2:13</a>).<P>(1) Mercy is<P class="in15">(a) an essential quality of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,6,7);">Ex 34:6,7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',4,31);">De 4:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',62,12);">Ps 62:12</a>, etc.); it is His delight (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',7,18,20);">Mic 7:18,20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',52,8);">Ps 52:8</a>); He is "the Father of mercies" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',1,3);">2Co 1:3</a>), "rich in mercy" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,4);">Eph 2:4</a>), "full of pity, and merciful" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',5,11);">Jas 5:11</a>);<P class="in15">(b) it is associated with forgiveness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,7);">Ex 34:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,18);">Nu 14:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,13,16);">1Ti 1:13,16</a>);<P class="in15">(c) with His forbearance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',145,8);">Ps 145:8</a>, "Yahweh is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and of great lovingkindness"; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,4);">Roman 2:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',11,32);">11:32</a>);<P class="in15">(d) with His covenant (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',8,23);">1Ki 8:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',1,5);">Ne 1:5</a>), with His justice (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',101,1);">Ps 101:1</a>), with His faithfulness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',89,24);">Ps 89:24</a>), with His truth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',108,4);">Ps 108:4</a>); mercy and truth are united in <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',3,3);">Pr 3:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',14,22);">14:22</a>, etc. (in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',85,10);">Ps 85:10</a> we have "Mercy and truth are met together");<P class="in15">(e) it goes forth to all (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',145,9);">Ps 145:9</a>, "Yahweh is good to all; and his tender mercies are over all his works"; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',145,16);">145:16</a>, "Thou openest thine hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living thing," the Revised Version margin "satisfiest every living thing with favor");<P class="in15">(f) it shows itself in pitying help (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,7);">Ex 3:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',9,9);">Ezr 9:9</a>f), supremely in Christ and His salvation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,50,54,58);">Lu 1:50,54,58</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,4);">Eph 2:4</a>);<P class="in15">(g) it is abundant, practically infinite (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',86,5,15);">Ps 86:5,15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,64);">119:64</a>);<P class="in15">(h) it is everlasting (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',16,34,41);">1Ch 16:34,41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',3,11);">Ezr 3:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',100,5);">Ps 100:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',136,\'1-\');">136</a> repeatedly).<P>(2) "Mercy" is used of man as well as of God, and is required on man\'s part toward man and beast (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',25,4);">De 25:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',37,21);">Ps 37:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',109,16);">109:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',12,10);">Pr 12:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',4,27);">Da 4:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',6,8);">Mic 6:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,7);">Mt 5:7</a>, "Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,\'31-46\');">25:31-46; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,36);">Lu 6:36</a>, "Be ye merciful, even as your Father is merciful"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,30);">Lu 10:30</a>f; the Good Samaritan; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',14,\'12-16\');">Lu 14:12-16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',3,17);">Jas 3:17</a>).<P>(3) In the New Testament "mercy" (eleos, usually the Septuagint translation of checedh) is associated with "grace" (charis) in the apostolical greetings and elsewhere. Trench points out that the difference between them is that the freeness of God\'s love is the central point of charis, while eleos has in view misery and its relief; charis is His free grace and gift displayed in the forgiveness of sins<6E>extended to men as they are guilty; His eleos (is extended to them) as they are miserable. The lower creation may be the object of His mercy (eleos), but man alone of His grace (charis); he alone needs it and is capable of receiving it (Synonyms of the New Testament, 163f).<P>(4) From all the foregoing it will be seen that mercy in God is not merely His pardon of offenders, but His attitude to man, and to the world generally, from which His pardoning mercy proceeds. The frequency with which mercy is enjoined on men is specially deserving of notice, with the exclusion of the unmerciful from sonship to the all-merciful Father and from the benefits of His mercifulness. Shakespeare\'s question, "How canst thou hope for mercy rendering none?" is fully warranted by our Lord\'s teaching and by Scripture in general; compare especially the parable of the Unmerciful Servant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,\'21-35\');">Mt 18:21-35</a>).<P>(5) As the rule, the American Standard Revised Version has "lovingkindness" for "mercy" when checedh is used of God, and "kindness" when it is used of men in relation to each other. "Compassion" (translation of racham) is also in several instances substituted for "mercy" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',9,17);">Isa 9:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',14,1);">14:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',27,11);">27:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',13,14);">Jer 13:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',30,18);">30:18</a>), also "goodness" (translation of checedh referring to man) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',4,1);">Ho 4:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',6,6);">6:6</a>).``185';
|
||
isbe[5968]='Mered`me\'-red (meredh, "rebellion"; Septuagint has at least four variants in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,17,18);">1Ch 4:17,18</a>): A descendant of Judah through Caleb, and mentioned as a "son of Ezrah" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,17);">1Ch 4:17</a>).<P>Revised Version, rightly following the orthography of the Hebrew which has here the Hebrew letter he (h) instead of \'aleph (\'), as in the name of the well-known Ezra, saves us from confusing this Ezrah with the other by giving him the correct terminal letter. Moreover, even if the question of spelling were waived, the absence of the mention of children in any known passages of the life of the scribe Ezra should settle the question, since this passage (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,17);">1Ch 4:17</a>) is associated with progeny.<P>A difficulty meets us in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,18);">1Ch 4:18</a>, where Mered is mentioned as taking to wife "Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh." That Pharaoh is not the proper name of some individual but the official title of Egypt\'s sovereign seems evident from the fact that the King James Version margin and the Revised Version (British and American) text agree in translating the other wife of Mered as "the Jewess," rather than as a proper name Jehudijah, as if to distinguish the "Jewess" from the Egyptian. Probably "Hodiah" also is a corruption of Jehudijah in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,19);">1Ch 4:19</a>, and should be translated again "the Jewess." Targums and traditions have so changed and transposed and "interpreted" this passage that a sufficiently confused text has become worse confounded, and the only solid fact that emerges is that once a comparatively obscure Judahite (though the founder of several towns<6E>Gedor, Soco, Eshtemoa, etc., <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,18);">4:18</a>) married an Egyptian princess, whether as a captive or a freewoman we do not know.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BITHIAH">BITHIAH</a>`186';
|
||
isbe[5969]='Meremoth`mer\'-e-moth, me-re\'-moth (meremoth, "heights"; Mereimoth):<P>(1) Son of Uriah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,33);">Ezr 8:33</a>), who was head of the 7th course of priests appointed by David (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',24,10);">1Ch 24:10</a>, Hakkoz = Koz; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',3,4,21);">Ne 3:4,21</a>). The family of Koz were among those unable to prove their pedigree on the return from Babylon, and were therefore deposed as polluted (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,61,62);">Ezr 2:61,62</a>). Meremoth\'s division of the family must, however, have been scatheless, for he is employed in the temple after the return as weigher of the gold and the vessels (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,33);">Ezr 8:33</a>), a function reserved for priests alone (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,\'24-28\');">Ezr 8:24-28</a>). He takes a double part in the reconstruction under Nehemiah, first as a builder of the wall of the city (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',3,4);">Ne 3:4</a>), then as a restorer of that part of the temple abutting on the house of Eliashib the priest (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',3,21);">Ne 3:21</a>); "Marmoth" in 1Esdras 8:62.<P>(2) A member of the house of Bani, and, like so many of that house, among those who married and put away foreign wives (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,36);">Ezr 10:36</a>). He seems to be named Carabasion (!) in the corresponding list of 1Esdras 9:34.<P>(3) The name occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,5);">Ne 10:5</a> among those who "seal the covenant" with Nehemiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,1);">Ne 10:1</a>). It may there be the name of an individual (in which case there were 4 of the name), or it may be a family name. Certainly a "Meremoth" came back under Zerubbabel 100 years before (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,3);">Ne 12:3</a>), and the signatory in question may be either a descendant of the same name or a family representative. The name recurs later in the same list (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,15);">Ne 12:15</a>) as "Meraioth" through a scribal error confusing the two Hebrew letters yodh (y) and cholem (o) for mem (m). A comparison of <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,\'1-3\');">Ne 12:1-3</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,\'12-15\');">12:12-15</a> shows clearly that it is the same person. Note that in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,15);">12:15</A> "Helkai" is the name of the contemporary leader.<P>(4) For Meremoth (1Esdras 8:2 the King James Version).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MEMEROTH">MEMEROTH</a>`186';
|
||
isbe[5970]='Merib-Baal`mer-ib-ba\'-al (meribhba\'al; also meri-bha\'al, "Baal contends"): The spelling varies in a single verse; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,40);">1Ch 9:40</a> contains the name twice: first, in the first form above; second, in the second form. The name is given also in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,34);">1Ch 8:34</a>. It is the other name of <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MEPHIBOSHETH">MEPHIBOSHETH (2)</a> (which see).<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',11,13);">Jer 11:13</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',9,10);">Ho 9:10</a> the terms "Baal" and "Bosheth" seem to stand in apposition, the latter form being a slightly contemptuous alternative rendered "shame." This is akin to other like changes, such as Esh-baal for Ish-bosheth, Jerub-besheth for Jerub-baal, etc. The change in the first part of the name could occur through a clerical confusion of the Hebrew aspirate pe (p) and resh (r) in Hebrew.``186';
|
||
isbe[5971]='Meribah`mer\'-i-ba, me-re\'-ba.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MASSAH+AND+MERIBAH">MASSAH AND MERIBAH</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5972]='Meribath-Kadesh; Meriboth-Kadesh`mer\'-i-bath-ka\'-desh, mer\'-i-both-k (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',48,28);">Eze 48:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',47,19);">47:19</a>): The southern limit of Ezekiel\'s ideal land of Israel.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MERIBAH">MERIBAH</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5973]='Merodach`me-ro\'-dak, mer\'-o-dak (merodhakh): The supreme deity of the Babylonians (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',50,2);">Jer 50:2</a>); the Nimrod of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'8-12\');">Ge 10:8-12</a>; and among the constellations, Orion.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASTRONOMY">ASTRONOMY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html??string=BABYLONIA+AND+ASSYRIA,+RELIGION+OF">BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA, RELIGION OF</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html??string=NIMROD">NIMROD</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5974]='Merodach-Baladan`me-ro\'-dak-bal\'-a-dan, mer\'-o-dak-b. (mero\'dhakh bal\'adhan; Marodach Baladan): The son of Baladan, is mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',39,1);">Isa 39:1</a>, as a king of Babylon who sent an embassy to Hezekiah, king of Judah, apparently shortly after the latter\'s illness, in order to congratulate him on his recovery of health, and to make with him an offensive and defensive alliance. This Merodach-baladan was a king of the Chaldeans of the house of Yakin, and was the most dangerous and inveterate foe of Sargon and his son Sennacherib, kings of Assyria, with whom he long and bitterly contested the possession of Babylon and the surrounding provinces. Merodach-Baladan seems to have seized Babylon immediately after the death of Shalmaneser in 721 BC; and it was not till the 12th year of his reign that Sargon succeeded in ousting him. From that time down to the 8th campaign of Sennacherib, Sargon and his son pursued with relentless animosity Merodach-Baladan and his family until at last his son Nabushumishkun was captured and the whole family of Merodach-Baladan was apparently destroyed. According to the monuments, therefore, it was from a worldly point of view good politics for Hezekiah and his western allies to come to an understanding with Merodach-Baladan and the Arameans, Elamites, and others, who were confederated with him. From a strategical point of view, the weakness of the allied powers consisted in the fact that the Arabian desert lay between the eastern and western members of the confederacy, so that the Assyrian kings were able to attack their enemies when they pleased and to defeat them in detail.``196';
|
||
isbe[5975]='Merom, Waters of`me\'-rom (me-merom; hudor Marron or hudor Merron): The place which was the scene of Joshua\'s victory over Jabin and his confederates (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',11,7);">Jos 11:7</a>), commonly identified with Lake Huleh in the upper part of the Jordan valley, but with doubtful propriety. Josephus says (Ant., V, i, 18) that the camp of the allies was at Beroth in upper Galilee, and that Beroth was not far from Kadesh, which is upon the summit of the Galilean hills. According to the Scriptural account, the pursuit was to Sidon and Hazor on the west of the mountains (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HAZOR">HAZOR</A>), while the names of the confederates are those of places in lower Galilee and the maritime plain. It seems improbable that a force of chariots should be brought over to be hemmed in by the rugged mountains which border the narrow plain of Huleh on both sides, plains that are made still narrower by the swamps surrounding the lake (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JORDAN+VALLEY">JORDAN VALLEY</a>) in Joshua\'s time, when they were much larger than they are now after having been filled with the accumulation of sediment brought down by mountain streams for 3,000 years. Conder, with much reason, supposes the "waters of Merom" to be the perennial stream Wady el-Melek, near Shimrom-Merom (Semunieh), 5 miles west of Nazareth. Were Lake Huleh referred to, the proper phrase would be Sea (yam) of Merom, rather than waters (mayim).``198';
|
||
isbe[5976]='Meronothite`me-ron\'-thit, me-ro\'-no-thit (meronothi, root meaning "fertility"): The designation of two persons in the Old Testament:<P>(1) Jehdeiah, who was in charge of the royal asses under David (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',27,30);">1Ch 27:30</a>).<P>(2) Jadon who was among the repairers of the wall under Nehemiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',3,7);">Ne 3:7</a>). No place of the name Meronoth can be identified. That Jadon worked on the wall near Gibeonites and Mizpahites affords no clear clue to the place, unless it be shown that there was some geographical rota in the wall repairers.``1';
|
||
isbe[5977]='Meroz`me\'-roz (meroz; Codex Vaticanus, Meroz; Codex Alexandrinus, Mazor): This name occurs only once in Scripture. The angel of the Lord is represented as invoking curses upon Meroz because the inhabitants "came not to the help of Yahweh" on the day of Deborah and Barak\'s victory (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,23);">Jud 5:23</a>). It is a strange fate, shared with Chorazin, to be preserved from oblivion only by the record of a curse. The bitterness in the treatment of Meroz, not found in the references to any of the other delinquents, must be due to the special gravity of her offense. Reuben, Gilead and Dan were far away. This, however, is not true of Asher, who was also absent. Perhaps Meroz was near the field of battle and, at some stage of the conflict, within sight and hearing of the strife. If, when Zebulun "jeopardized their lives unto the death, and Naphtali, upon the high places of the field," they turned a deaf ear and a cold heart to the dire straits of their brethren, this might explain the fierce reproaches of Deborah.<P>Meroz may possibly be identified with el-Murussus, a mud-built village about 5 miles northwest of Beisan, on the slopes to the north of the Vale of Jezreel. If the Kedesh where Heber\'s tent was pitched be identical with Qadish to the west of the Sea of Galilee, Sisera\'s flight, avoiding the Israelites in the neighborhood of Mt. Tabor, may have carried him past el-Murussus. If the inhabitants had it in their power to arrest him, but suffered him to escape (Moore, "Judges," ICC, 163), such treachery to the nation\'s cause might well rouse the indignation of the heroic prophetess.``54';
|
||
isbe[5978]='Merran`mer\'-an (Merran; the King James Version Meran): Many identifications have been suggested on the assumption that the text as it stands is correct. Some of these are the Sidonian Meareh (Grotius), Marane, a city of which Pliny speaks as being near the Red Sea (Keil), and the desert of Mahrah in Arabia (Fritzsche). It is very probable, however, that the name represents an error in transcription from the original Semitic text, confusing the Hebrew letter daleth ("d") with the Hebrew letter resh ("r"), so that we should read Meddan, or Medan, i.e. Midian. The phrase will then run, "the merchants of Midian and Teman" (Baruch 3:23). The merchants of Midian are referred to in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,28);">Ge 37:28</a>.``54';
|
||
isbe[5979]='Meruth`me\'-ruth.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EMMERUTH">EMMERUTH</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5980]='Mesaloth`mes\'-a-loth (Messaloth, Maisaloth): A place mentioned in the account of the march of Bacchides and Alcimus into Judah, as "in Arbela" (1Macc 9:2). If Arbela be identical with Irbil or Irbid on the southern lip of Wady el-Chamam, west of the Sea of Galilee, this fixes the locality; but no name resembling Mesaloth has been found.``1';
|
||
isbe[5981]='Mesech`me\'-sek.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MESHECH">MESHECH</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5982]='Mesha`me\'-sha:<P>(1) (mesha\'; Codex Vaticanus, Marisa; Codex Alexandrinus, Marisas): Caleb\'s firstborn son, the father of Ziph, probably the ancestor of the Ziphites (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,42);">1Ch 2:42</a>).<P>(2) (mesha\'; Codex Vaticanus, Misa; Codex Alexandrinus, Mosa): A Benjamite, son of Shaharaim by his wife Hodesh, born in the land of Moab (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,9);">1Ch 8:9</a>).<P>(3) (mesha\'; Mosa): A king of Moab. All the Biblical information regarding this monarch is contained in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',3,\'1-\');">2Ki 3</a>. Here we gather that Mesha was contemporary with Ahab, Ahaziah and Jehoram. He was tributary to Israel, his annual contribution consisting of 100,000 lambs and 100,000 rams. after the death of Ahab he asserted his independence. Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, and the king of Edom joined forces with Jehoram in an attempt to quell the rebellion at the instance of Elisha, who accompanied the host, water was miraculously provided when the army of the allies was ready to perish of thirst. Mesha came out against them and fell upon the camp. His attack was repulsed with heavy slaughter, and the defeated king was chased by the victors until he took refuge in the great fortress of Kir-hareseth. A vigorous siege was begun. Seeing that his case was desperate, Mesha attempted, with 700 men, to break through the lines. Failing in this, he offered his firstborn as a burnt offering upon the wall. Then "there came great wrath upon Israel" (by which, probably, panic is meant), and the besiegers retired, leaving their conquest incomplete.<P>In his inscription (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MOABITE+STONE">MOABITE STONE</a>) Mesha gives an account of his rebellion, naming the places captured and fortified by him. It is not surprising that he says nothing of his defeat by Jehoram and his allies. There is, however, one serious discrepancy. The time Moab was under the supremacy of Israel, during the reign of Omri and half the reign of Ahab, he puts at 40 years. According to Biblical chronology, Omri and Ahab together reigned only 34 years. If, with Mesha, we deduct half the reign of Ahab, the period is reduced to 23 years. It is impossible to add to the length of either reign. So great a difference cannot be explained by the use of round numbers. Why Mesha should wish to increase the time of his people\'s subjection is not clear, unless, indeed, he thought in this way to magnify the glory of their deliverer.<P>In Mesha the sentiment of patriotism was wedded to some measure of military capacity. Judging by his inscription, he was also a deeply religious man according to his lights. Substitute "Yahweh" for "Chemosh," and his phraseology might be that of a pious Hebrew king. The sacrifice of his son is at once the mark of the heathen and an index of the strength of his devotion.<P>(4) (mesha\'; Masse): This appears to mark the western boundary of the land occupied by the descendants of Joktan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,30);">Ge 10:30</a>). No certain identification is possible, but several more or less probable have been suggested: e.g.<P class="in15">(a) The Greek Mesene, on the Persian Gulf, not far from the mouth of the Tigris and the Euphrates;<P class="in15">(b) the Syro-Arabian desert, called Mashu in the Assyrian inscriptions; the name here, however, could hardly cover such a vast tract as this; more probably it denoted a place;<P class="in15">(c) Dillmann would alter the vowels and identify it with Massa\', a branch of the Ishmaelite stock (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,14);">Ge 25:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,30);">1Ch 1:30</a>). This, however, furnishes no clue to the locality, the territory of that tribe being also unidentified.``54';
|
||
isbe[5983]='Meshach`me\'-shak (meshakh): Possibly the Sumerian form of the Babylonian Cil-Asharidu, "the shadow of the prince," just as Shadrach probably means "the servant of Sin," and Abednego the "servant of Ishtar." Meshach was one of the three Hebrew companions of Daniel, whose history is given in the first chapters of the Book of Daniel.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHADRACH">SHADRACH</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5984]='Meshech; Mesech`me\'-shek, me\'-sek (meshekh, "long," "tall"; Mosoch): Son of Japheth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,2);">Ge 10:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,5);">1Ch 1:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,17);">1:17</a> is a scribal error for "Mash"; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,22,23);">Ge 10:22,23</a>). His descendants and their dwelling-place (probably somewhere in the neighborhood of armenia (Herodotus iii.94)) seem to be regarded in Scripture as synonyms for the barbaric and remote (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',120,5);">Ps 120:5</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',66,19);">Isa 66:19</a>, where Meshech should be read instead of "that draw the bow"). It is thought that the "Tibareni and Moschi" of the classical writers refer to the same people. Doubtless they appear in the annals of Assyria as enemies of that country under the names Tabali and Mushki<6B>the latter the descendants of Meshech and the former those of Tubal to whom the term "Tibareni" may refer in the clause above. This juxtaposition of names is in harmony with practically every appearance of the word in Scripture. It is seldom named without some one of the others<72>Tubal, Javan, Gog and Magog. It is this which forms a good justification for making the suggested change in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',66,19);">Isa 66:19</a>, where Meshech would be in the usual company of Tubal and Javan. Ezekiel mentions them several times, first, as engaged in contributing to the trade of Tyre (Tiras of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,2);">Ge 10:2</a>?), in "vessels of brass" and<6E>very significantly<6C>slaves; again there is the association of Javan and Tubal with them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,13);">Eze 27:13</a>); second, they are included in his weird picture of the under-world: "them that go down into the pit" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',32,18,26);">Eze 32:18,26</a>). They are mentioned again with Gog and Magog twice as those against whom the prophet is to "set his face" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',38,2,3);">Eze 38:2,3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',39,1);">39:1</a>).``186';
|
||
isbe[5985]='Meshelemiah`me-shel-e-mi\'-a (meshelemyah, "Yah repays"): Father of Zechariah, one of the porters of the tabernacle (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,21);">1Ch 9:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',26,1,2,9);">26:1,2,9</a>). In the latter passage Meshelemiah, with a final "-u", is credited with "sons and brethren, valiant men, 18." He is the "Shelemiah" of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',26,14);">1Ch 26:14</a>, the "Shallum" of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,17,19,31);">1Ch 9:17,19,31</a>, and the "Meshullam" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,25);">Ne 12:25</a>.``1';
|
||
isbe[5986]='Meshezabel`me-shez\'-a-bel (meshezebhe\'el, "God a deliverer"; the King James Version Meshezabeel, me-shez\'-a-bel):<P>(1) A priest, ancestor of Meshullam, who assisted Nehemiah in rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',3,4);">Ne 3:4</a>).<P>(2) One of the chiefs of the people giving name to the family which sealed the covenant with Nehemiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,21);">Ne 10:21</a>).<P>(3) A descendant of Judah through Zerah, and father of Pethahiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,24);">Ne 11:24</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[5987]='Meshillemith`me-shil\'-e-mith (meshillemith, "retribution"): A priest, son of Immer, ancestor, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,12);">1Ch 9:12</a>, of Adaiah and Pashhur, and according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,13);">Ne 11:13</a>, of Amashai. In the latter passage this name is spelled <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MESHILLEMOTH">MESHILLEMOTH</a> (which see).``1';
|
||
isbe[5988]='Meshillemoth`me-shil\'-e-moth, me-shil\'-e-moth (meshillemoth, "recompense"):<P>(1) An Ephraimite ancestor of Berechiah, chief of the tribe, in the reign of Pekah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',28,12);">2Ch 28:12</a>).<P>(2) The "Meshillemith" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,13);">Ne 11:13</a>.``1';
|
||
isbe[5989]='Meshobab`me-sho\'-bab (meshobhabh): A Simeonite (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,34);">1Ch 4:34</a>). This name heads the list of those who, for the sake of wider pasturelands, occupied a Hamitic settlement in the neighborhood of Gerar (Mount <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GEDOR">GEDOR</a> (which see)), and a Maonite settlement in Edomite territory (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,\'39-41\');">1Ch 4:39-41</a>). The latter event is dated in the days of Hezekiah (see Curtis, Chronicles, in the place cited.).``1';
|
||
isbe[5990]='Meshullam`me-shul\'-am (meshullam, "resigned" or "devoted"; compare Arabic Muslim; Mesollam): An Old Testament name very common in post-exilic times.<P>(1) The grandfather of Shaphan (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',22,3);">2Ki 22:3</a>).<P>(2) A son of Zerubbabel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',3,19);">1Ch 3:19</a>).<P>(3) A Gadite (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',5,13);">1Ch 5:13</a>).<P>(4) (5) (6) Three Benjamites (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,17);">1Ch 8:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,7,8);">9:7,8</a>).<P>(7) The father of Hilkiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,11);">1Ch 9:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,11);">Ne 11:11</a>).<P>(8) A priest, son of Meshillemith (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,12);">1Ch 9:12</a>); the parallel list (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,13);">Ne 11:13</a>) omits the name.<P>(9) A Kohathite appointed by Josiah as one of the overseers to direct the repairs of the temple (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',34,12);">2Ch 34:12</a>).<P>(10) One of the chief men sent by Ezra to procure Levites to go up with him to Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,16);">Ezr 8:16</a>; compare 1Esdras 8:44).<P>(11) A Levite opposed to Ezra\'s regulations anent marriage with foreigners (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,15);">Ezr 10:15</a>; 1Esdras 9:14).<P>(12) One of those who had married foreign wives (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,29);">Ezr 10:29</a>; compare 1Esdras 9:30).<P>(13) One of the repairers of the wall (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',3,4,30);">Ne 3:4,30</a>). His daughter was married to Jehohanan, the son of Tobiah the Ammonite (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',6,18);">Ne 6:18</a>).<P>(14) One of the repairers of the Old Gate (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',3,6);">Ne 3:6</a>).<P>(15) A supporter of Ezra at the reading of the Law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,4);">Ne 8:4</a>).<P>(16) One of those who subscribed the Covenant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,20);">Ne 10:20</a>).<P>(17) A priest who subscribed the Covenant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,7);">Ne 10:7</a>).<P>(18) (19) Two priests at the time of the high priest Joiakim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,13,16);">Ne 12:13,16</a>).<P>(20) A porter at the time of the high priest Joiakim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,25);">Ne 12:25</a>).<P>(21) A processionist at the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,33);">Ne 12:33</a>).``95';
|
||
isbe[5991]='Meshullemeth`me-shul\'-e-meth (meshullemeth): The wife of King Manasseh and mother of Amon (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',21,19);">2Ki 21:19</a>). She is further designated "daughter of Haruz of Jotbah." This is the earliest instance of the birthplace being added to the designation of the queen mother. The name is properly the feminine of the frequently occurring <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MESHULLAM">MESHULLAM</a> (which see).``1';
|
||
isbe[5992]='Mesobaite`me-so\'-ba-it.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MEZOBAITE">MEZOBAITE</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5993]='Mesopotamia`mes-o-ta\'-mi-a.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SYRIA">SYRIA</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5994]='Mess`mes (mas\'eth): Any dish of food sent (Latin missum; French messe) to the table. It occurs in the Old Testament in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',43,34);">Ge 43:34</a> (twice); <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',11,8);">2Sa 11:8</a> English Versions of the Bible, and in the New Testament in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,16);">Heb 12:16</a>, translating brosis.``1';
|
||
isbe[5995]='Messenger`mes\'-en-jer: The regular Hebrew word for "messenger" is mal\'akh, the Greek aggelos. This may be a human messenger or a messenger of God, an angel. The context must decide the right translation. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Hag\',1,13);">Hag 1:13</a> the prophet is called God\'s messenger; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',33,23);">Job 33:23</a> changes the King James Version to "angel" (margin "messenger"); and <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',3,1);">Mal 3:1</a> margin, suggests "angel" instead of "messenger." <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',2,7);">Mal 2:7</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',3,1);">Mal 3:1</a> (twice) have caused a great deal of comment. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MALACHI">MALACHI</a>. The Greek apostolos, "apostle," is rendered "messenger" in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,23);">2Co 8:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,25);">Php 2:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',4,17);">1Sa 4:17</a> translations literally, from Hebrew basar, "to tell good news," "he that brought the tidings." <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',50,16);">Ge 50:16</a> reads "message" instead of "messenger."``16';
|
||
isbe[5996]='Messiah`me-si\'-a (mashiach; Aramaic meshicha\'; Septuagint Christos, "anointed"; New Testament "Christ"):<P>1. Meaning and Use of the Term<P>2. The Messianic Hope<P><b>I. THE MESSIAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT</b><P class="in15">1. The Messianic King<P class="in30">(1) Isaiah<P class="in30">(2) Jeremiah and Ezekiel<P class="in30">(3) Later Prophets<P class="in15">2. Prophetic and Priestly Relations<P class="in15">3. Servant of Yahweh<P class="in15">4. Transformation of the Prophetic Hope into the Apocalyptic<P><b>II. THE MESSIAH IN THE PRE-CHRISTIAN AGE</b><P class="in15">1. Post-prophetic Age<P class="in15">2. Maccabean Times<P class="in15">3. Apocalyptic Literature<P><b>III. THE MESSIAH IN THE NEW TESTAMENT</b><P>1. The Jewish Conception<P class="in30">(1) The Messiah as King<P class="in30">(2) His Prophetic Character<P class="in30">(3) The Title "Son of God"<P class="in15">2. Attitude of Jesus to the Messiahship<P class="in15">3. The Christian Transformation<P class="in15">4. New Elements Added<P class="in30">(1) Future Manifestation<P class="in30">(2) Divine Personality<P class="in30">(3) Heavenly Priesthood<P class="in15">5. Fulfillment in Jesus<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>1. Meaning and Use of the Term:<P>"Messias" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,41);">Joh 1:41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,25);">4:25</a> the King James Version) is a transcription of Messias, the Greek representation of the Aramaic. "Messiah" is thus a modification of the Greek form of the word, according to the Hebrew.<P>The term is used in the Old Testament of kings and priests, who were consecrated to office by the ceremony of anointing. It is applied to the priest only as an adjective<76>"the anointed priest" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',4,3,5,16);">Le 4:3,5,16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,22);">6:22 (Hebrew 15)</a>). Its substantive use is restricted to the king; he only is called "the Lord\'s anointed," e.g. Saul (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',24,6,10);">1Sa 24:6,10 (Hebrew 7,11)</a>, etc.); David (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',19,21);">2Sa 19:21 (Hebrew 22)</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,1);">2Sa 23:1</a>, "the anointed of the God of Jacob"); Zedekiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',4,20);">La 4:20</a>). Similarly in the Psalms the king is designated "mine," "thine," "his anointed." Thus also even Cyrus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',45,1);">Isa 45:1</a>), as being chosen and commissioned by Yahweh to carry out His purpose with Israel. Some think the singular "mine anointed" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',3,13);">Hab 3:13</a> denotes the whole people; but the Hebrew text is somewhat obscure, and the reference may be to the king. The plural of the substantive is used of the patriarchs, who are called "mine anointed ones" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',105,15);">Ps 105:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',16,22);">1Ch 16:22</a>), as being Yahweh\'s chosen, consecrated servants, whose persons were inviolable.<P>It is to be noted that "Messiah" as a special title is never applied in the Old Testament to the unique king of the future, unless perhaps in <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',9,25);">Da 9:25</a>f (mashiach naghidh, "Messiah-Prince"), a difficult passage, the interpretation of which is very uncertain. It was the later Jews of the post-prophetic period who, guided by a true instinct, first used the term in a technical sense.<P>2. The Messianic Hope:<P>The Messiah is the instrument by whom God\'s kingdom is to be established in Israel and in the world. The hope of a personal deliverer is thus inseparable from the wider hope that runs through the Old Testament. The Jews were a nation who lived in the future. In this respect they stand alone among the peoples of antiquity. No nation ever cherished such strong expectations of a good time coming, or clung more tenaciously amid defeat and disaster to the certainty of final triumph over all enemies and of entrance upon a state of perfect peace and happiness. The basis of this larger hope is Yahweh\'s covenant with Israel. "I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,7);">Ex 6:7</a>). On the ground of this promise the prophets, while declaring God\'s wrath against His people on account of their sin, looked beyond the Divine chastisements to the final era of perfect salvation and blessedness, which would be ushered in when the nation had returned to Yahweh.<P>The term "Messianic" is used in a double sense to describe the larger hope of a glorious future for the nation, as well as the narrower one of a personal Messiah who is to be the prominent figure in the perfected kingdom. It may be remarked that many writers, both prophetic and apocalyptic, who picture the final consummation, make no allusion whatever to a coming deliverer.<P>This article will treat of the personal Messianic hope as it is found in the Old Testament, in the pre-Christian age, and in the New Testament.<P>I. The Messiah in the Old Testament.<P>1. The Messianic King:<P>The chief element in the conception of the Messiah in the Old Testament is that of the king. Through him as head of the nation Yahweh could most readily work out His saving purposes. But the kingdom of Israel was a theocracy. In earlier times Moses, Joshua, and the judges, who were raised up by Yahweh to guide His people at different crises in their history, did not claim to exercise authority apart from their Divine commission. Nor was the relation of Yahweh to the nation as its real ruler in any way modified by the institution of the monarchy. It was by His Spirit that the king was qualified for the righteous government of the people, and by His power that he would become victorious over all enemies. The passage on which the idea of the Messianic king who would rule in righteousness and attain universal dominion was founded is Nathan\'s oracle to David in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',7,11);">2Sa 7:11</a>ff. In contrast to Saul, from whom the kingdom had passed away, David would never want a descendant to sit on the throne of Israel. How strong an impression this promise of the perpetuity of his royal house had made on David is seen in his last words (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,\'1-\');">2Sa 23</a>); and to this "everlasting covenant, and sure," the spiritual minds in Israel reverted in all after ages.<P>(1) Isaiah.<P>Isaiah is the first of the prophets to refer to an extraordinary king of the future. Amos (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',9,11);">9:11</A>) foretold the time when the shattered fortunes of Judah would be restored, while Hosea (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',3,5);">3:5</A>) looked forward to the reunion of the two kingdoms under David\'s line. But it is not till we reach the Assyrian age, when the personality of the king is brought into prominence against the great world-power, that we meet with any mention of a unique personal ruler who would bring special glory to David\'s house.<P>The kings of Syria and Israel having entered into a league to dethrone Ahaz and supplant him by an obscure adventurer, <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',7,\'10-17\');">Isaiah 7:10-17</a> announces to the king of Judah that while, by the help of Assyria, he would survive the attack of the confederate kings, Yahweh would, for his disobedience, bring devastation upon his own land through the instrumentality of his ally. But the prophet\'s lofty vision, though limited as in the case of other seers to the horizon of his own time, reaches beyond Judah\'s distress to Judah\'s deliverance. To the spiritual mind of Isaiah the revelation is made of a true king, Immanuel, "God-with-us," who would arise out of the house of David, now so unworthily represented by the profligate Ahaz. While the passage is one of the hardest to interpret in all the Old Testament, perhaps too much has been made by some scholars of the difficulty connected with the word \'almah, "virgin." It is the mysterious personality of the child to which prominence is given in the prophecy. The significance of the name and the pledge of victory it implies, the reference to Immanuel as ruler of the land in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',8,8);">8:8</A> (if the present rendering be correct), as well as the parallelism of the line of thought in the prophecy with that of <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',9,\'1-\');">Isa 9</a>, would seem to point to the identity of Immanuel with the Prince of the four names, "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',9,6);">9:6</A> the Revised Version margin). These Divine titles do not necessarily imply that in the mind of the prophet the Messianic king is God in the metaphysical sense<73>the essence of the Divine nature is not a dogmatic conception in the Old Testament<6E>but only that Yahweh is present in Him in perfect wisdom and power, so that He exercises over His people forever a fatherly and peaceful rule. In confirmation of this interpretation reference may be made to the last of the great trilogy of Isaianic prophecies concerning the Messiah of the house of David (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',11,2);">11:2</A>), where the attributes with which He is endowed by the Spirit are those which qualify for the perfect discharge of royal functions in the kingdom of God.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=IMMANUEL">IMMANUEL</a>.<P>A similar description of the Messianic king is given by Isaiah\'s younger contemporary Micah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',5,2);">5:2</a>ff), who emphasizes the humble origin of the extraordinary ruler of the future, who shall spring from the Davidic house, while his reference to her who is to bear him confirms the interpretation which regards the virgin in Isaiah as the mother of the Messiah.<P>(2) Jeremiah and Ezekiel.<P>After the time of Isaiah and Micah the throne of David lost much of its power and influence, and the figure of the ideal king is never again portrayed with the same definiteness and color. Zephaniah, Nahum, and Habakkuk make no reference to him at all. By the great prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel, however, the hope of a Davidic ruler is kept before the people. While there are passages in both of these writers which refer to a succession of pious rulers, this fact should not dominate our interpretation of other utterances of theirs which seem to point to a particular individual. By Jeremiah the Messiah is called the "righteous Branch" who is to be raised unto David and be called "Yahweh (is) our righteousness," that is, Yahweh as the one making righteous dwells in him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',23,5);">Jer 23:5</a>f; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',30,9);">30:9</a>). In Ezekiel he is alluded to as the coming one "whose right it is" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',21,27);">21:27</a>), and as Yahweh\'s "servant David" who shall be "prince" or "king" forever over a reunited people (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',34,23);">34:23</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',37,24);">37:24</a>). It is difficult to resist the impression which the language of Ezekiel makes that it is the ideal Messianic ruler who is here predicted, notwithstanding the fact that afterward, in the prophet\'s vision of the ideal theocracy, not only does the prince play a subordinate part, but provision is made in the constitution for a possible abuse of his authority.<P>(3) Later Prophets.<P>After Ezekiel\'s time, during the remaining years of the exile, the hope of a preeminent king of David\'s house naturally disappears. But it is resuscitated at the restoration when Zerubbabel, a prince of the house of David and the civil head of the restored community, is made by Yahweh of hosts His signet-ring, inseparable from Himself and the symbol of His authority (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hag\',2,23);">Hag 2:23</a>). In the new theocracy, however the figure of the Messianic ruler falls into the background before that of the high priest, who is regarded as the sign of the coming Branch (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',3,8);">Zec 3:8</a>). Still we have the unique prophecy of the author Of <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',9,9);">Zec 9:9</a>, who pictures the Messiah as coming not on a splendid charger like a warrior king, but upon the foal of an ass, righteous and victorious, yet lowly and peaceful, strong by the power of God to help and save. There is no mention of the Messianic king in Joel or Malachi; but references in the later, as in the earlier, Psalms to events in the lives of the kings or the history of the kingdom prove that the promise made to David was not forgotten, and point to one who would fulfill it in all its grandeur.<P>2. Prophetic and Priestly Relations:<P>The Messianic king is the central figure in the consummation of the kingdom. It is a royal son of David, not a prophet like unto Moses, or a priest of Aaron\'s line, whose personal features are portrayed in the picture of the future. The promise in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,\'15-20\');">De 18:15-20</a>, as the context shows, refers to a succession of true prophets as opposed to the diviners of heathen nations. Though Moses passed away there would always be a prophet raised up by Yahweh to reveal His will to the people, so that they would never need to have recourse to heathen soothsayers. Yet while the prophet is not an ideal figure, being already fully inspired by the Spirit, prophetic functions are to this extent associated with the kingship, that the Messiah is qualified by the Spirit for the discharge of the duties of His royal office and makes known the will of God by His righteous decisions (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',11,\'2-5\');">Isa 11:2-5</a>).<P>It is more difficult to define the relationship of the priesthood to the kingship in the final era. They are brought into connection by Jeremiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',30,9,21);">30:9,21</a>) who represents the new "David" as possessing the priestly right of immediate access to Yahweh, while the Levitical priesthood, equally with the Davidic kingship, is assured of perpetuity on the ground of the covenant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',33,18);">Jer 33:18</a>). But after the restoration, when prominence is given to the high priest in the reconstitution of the kingdom, Joshua becomes the type of the coming "Branch" of the Davidic house (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',3,8);">Zec 3:8</a>), and, according to the usual interpretation, receives the crown<77>a symbol of the union of the kingly and priestly offices in the Messiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',6,11);">Zec 6:11</a>). Many scholars, however, holding that the words "and the counsel of peace shall be between them both" can only refer to two persons, would substitute "Zerubbabel" for "Joshua" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',6,11);">Zec 6:11</a>, and read in <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',6,13);">6:13</a>, "there shall be a priest upon his right hand" (compare the Revised Version (British and American), Septuagint (Septuagint). The prophet\'s meaning would then be that the Messianic high priest would sit beside the Messianic king in the perfected kingdom, both working together as Zerubbabel and Joshua were then doing. There is no doubt, however, that the Messiah is both king and priest in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',110,1);">Ps 110</a>.<P>3. Servant of Yahweh:<P>The bitter experiences of the nation during the exile originated a new conception, Messianic in the deepest sense, the Servant of Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',40,\'1-\');">Isa 40<34>66</a>; chiefly <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',41,8);">41:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',42,\'1-7\',19);">42:1-7,19</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',43,8,10);">43:8,10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',44,1,21);">44:1f; 21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',49,\'3-6\');">49:3-6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',50,\'4-9\');">50:4-9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',52,\'13-\');">52:13</a><3E><a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,\'1-\');">53</a>). As to whom the prophet refers in his splendid delineation of this mysterious being, scholars are hopelessly divided. The personification theory<72>that the Servant represents the ideal Israel, Israel as God meant it to be, as fulfilling its true vocation in the salvation of the world<6C>is held by those who plead for a consistent use of the phrase throughout the prophecy. They regard it as inconceivable that the same title should be applied by the same prophet to two distinct subjects. Others admit that the chief difficulty in the way of this theory is to conceive it, but they maintain that it best explains the use of the title in the chief passages where it occurs. The other theory is that there is an expansion and contraction of the idea in the mind of the prophet. In some passages the title is used to denote the whole nation; in others it is limited to the pious kernel; and at last the conception culminates in an individual, the ideal yet real Israelite of the future, who shall fulfill the mission in which the nation failed.<P>What really divides expositors is the interpretation of <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',52,\'13-\');">Isa 52:13</a><3E><a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,\'1-\');">53</A>. The question is not whether this passage was fulfilled in Jesus Christ<73>on this all Christian expositors are agreed<65>but whether the "Servant" is in the mind of the prophet merely the personification of the godly portion of the nation, or a person yet to come.<P>May not the unity argument be pressed too hard? If the Messiah came to be conceived of as a specific king while the original promise spoke of a dynasty, is it so inconceivable that the title "Servant of Yahweh" should be used in an individual as well as in a collective sense? It is worthy of note, too, that not only in some parts of this prophecy, but all through it, the individuality of the sufferer is made prominent; the collective idea entirely disappears. The contrast is not between a faithful portion and the general body of the people, but between the "Servant" and every single member of the nation. Moreover, whatever objections may be urged against the individual interpretation, this view best explains the doctrine of substitution that runs through the whole passage. Israel was Yahweh\'s elect people, His messenger of salvation to the Gentiles, and its faithful remnant suffered for the sins of the mass; even "Immanuel" shared in the sorrows of His people. But here the "Servant" makes atonement for the sins of individual Israelites; by his death they are justified and by his stripes they are healed. To this great spiritual conception only the prophet of the exile attains.<P>It may be added that in the Suffering Servant, who offers the sacrifice of himself as an expiation for the sins of the people, prophetic activity and kingly honor are associated with the priestly function. After he has been raised from the dead he becomes the great spiritual teacher of the world<6C>by his knowledge of God and salvation which he communicates to others he makes many righteous (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,11);">Isa 53:11</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',42,1);">42:1</A>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',49,2);">49:2</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',50,4);">50:4</a>); and as a reward for his sufferings he attains to a position of the highest royal splendor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',52,15);">Isa 52:15 b</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,12);">53:12a</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',49,7);">49:7</a>).<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SERVANT+OF+JEHOVAH">SERVANT OF JEHOVAH</a>.<P>4. Transformation of the Prophetic Hope into the Apocalyptic:<P>In the Book of Daniel, written to encourage the Jewish people to steadfastness during the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, the Messianic hope of the prophets assumes a new form. Here the apocalyptic idea of the Messiah appears for the first time in Jewish literature. The coming ruler is represented, not as a descendant of the house of David, but as a person in human form and of super-human character, through whom God is to establish His sovereignty upon the earth. In the prophet\'s vision (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',7,13);">Da 7:13</a>f) one "like unto a son of man," kebhar \'enash (not, as in the King James Version, "like the son of man"), comes with the clouds of heaven, and is brought before the ancient of days, and receives an imperishable kingdom, that all peoples should serve him.<P>Scholars are by no means agreed in their interpretation of the prophecy. In support of the view that the "one like unto a son of man" is a symbol for the ideal Israel, appeal is made to the interpretation given of the vision in <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',7,18,22,27);">Da 7:18,22,27</a>, according to which dominion is given to "the saints of the Most High." Further, as the four heathen kingdoms are represented by the brute creation, it would be natural for the higher power, which is to take their place, to be symbolized by the human form.<P>But strong reasons may be urged, on the other hand, for the personal Messianic interpretation of the passage. A distinction seems to be made between "one like unto a son of man" and the saints of the Most High in <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',7,21);">Da 7:21</a>, the saints being there represented as the object of persecution from the little horn. The scene of the judgment is earth, where the saints already are, and to which the ancient of days and the "one like unto a son of man" descend (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',7,13,22);">7:13,22</A>). And it is in accordance with the interpretation given of the vision in <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',7,17);">7:17</A>, where reference is made to the four kings of the bestial kingdoms, that the kingdom of the saints, which is to be established in their place, should also be represented by a royal head.<P>It may be noted that a new idea is suggested by this passage, the pre-existence of the Messiah before His manifestation.<P>II. The Messiah in the Pre-Christian Age.<P>1. Post-prophetic Age:<P>After prophetic inspiration ceased, there was little in the teaching of the scribes, or in the reconstitution of the kingdom under the rule of the high priests, to quicken the ancient hope of the nation. It would appear from the Apocrypha that while the elements of the general expectation were still cherished, the specific hope of a preeminent king of David\'s line had grown very dim in the consciousness of the people. In Ecclesiasticus (47:11) mention is made of a "covenant of kings and a throne of glory in Israel which the Lord gave unto David"; yet even this allusion to the everlasting duration of the Davidic dynasty is more of the nature of a historical statement than the expression of a confident hope.<P>2. Maccabean Times:<P>In the earlier stages of the Maccabean uprising, when the struggle was for religious freedom, the people looked for help to God alone, and would probably have been content to acknowledge the political supremacy of Syria after liberty had been granted them in 162 BC to worship God according to their own law and ceremonial. But the successful effort of the Maccabean leaders in achieving political independence, while it satisfied the aspirations of the people generally "until there should arise a faithful prophet" (1Macc 14:41; compare 2:57), brought religious and national ideals into conflict. The "Pious" (chacidhim), under the new name of Pharisees, now became more than ever devoted to the Law, and repudiated the claim of a Maccabean to be high priest and his subsequent assumption of the royal title, while the Maccabees with their political ambitions took the side of the aristocracy and alienated the people. The national spirit, however, had been stirred into fresh life. Nor did the hope thus quickened lose any of its vitality when, amid the strife of factions and the quarrels of the ruling family, Pompey captured Jerusalem in 63 BC. The fall of the Hasmonean house, even more than its ascendancy, led the nation to set its hope more firmly on God and to look for a deliverer from the house of David.<P>3. Apocalyptic Literature:<P>The national sentiment evoked by the Maccabees finds expression in the Apocalyptic literature of the century and a half before Christ.<P>In the oldest parts of the Sibylline Oracles (3:652-56) there occurs a brief prediction of a king whom God shall send from the sun, who shall "cause the whole earth to cease from wicked war, killing some and exacting faithful oaths from others. And this he will do, not according to his own counsel, but in obedience to the beneficent decrees of God." And in a later part of the same book (3:49) there is an allusion to "a pure king who will wield the scepter over the whole earth forever." It may be the Messiah also who is represented in the earlier part of the Book of Enoch (90:37f) as a glorified man under the symbol of a white bull with great horns, which is feared and worshipped by all the other animals (the rest of the religious community) and into whose likeness they are transformed.<P>But it is in the Psalms of Solomon, which were composed in the Pompeian period and reveal their Pharisaic origin by representing the Hasmoneans as a race of usurpers, that we have depicted in clear outline and glowing colors the portrait of the Davidic king (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',17,18);">Ps 17:18</A>). The author looks for a personal Messiah who, as son of David and king of Israel, will purge Jerusalem of sinners, and gather together a holy people who will all be the "sons of their God." He shall not conquer with earthly weapons, for the Lord Himself is his King; he shall smite the earth with the breath of his mouth; and the heathen of their own accord shall come to see his glory, bringing the wearied children of Israel as gifts. His throne shall be established in wisdom and justice, while he himself shall be pure from sin and made strong in the Holy Spirit.<P>It is evident that in these descriptions of the coming one we have something more than a mere revival of the ancient hope of a preeminent king of David\'s house. The repeated disasters that overtook the Jews led to the transference of the national hope to a future world, and consequently to the transformation of the Messiah from a mere earthly king into a being with supernatural attributes. That this supernatural apocalyptic hope, which was at least coming to be cherished, exercised an influence on the national hope is seen in the Psalter of Solomon, where emphasis is laid on the striking individuality of this Davidic king, the moral grandeur of his person, and the Divine character of his rule.<P>We meet with the apocalyptic conception of the Messiah in the Similitudes of Enoch (chapters 37<33>71) and the later apocalypses. Reference may be made at this point to the Similitudes on account of their unique expression of Messianic doctrine, although their pre-Christian date, which Charles puts not later than 64 BC, is much disputed. The Messiah who is called "the Anointed," "the Elect one" "the Righteous one" is represented, though in some sense man, as belonging to the heavenly world. His pre-existence is affirmed. He is the supernatural Son of Man, who will come forth from His concealment to sit as Judge of all on the throne of His glory, and dwell on a transformed earth with the righteous forever.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCALYPTIC+LITERATURE+(JEWISH)">APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE (JEWISH)</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ESCHATOLOGY+OF+THE+OLD+TESTAMENT">ESCHATOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT</a>.<P>III. The Messiah in the New Testament.<P>To the prevalence of the Messianic hope among the Jews in the time of Christ the Gospel records bear ample testimony. We see from the question of the Baptist that "the coming one" was expected (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,3);">Mt 11:3</a> and parallel), while the people wondered whether John himself were the Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,15);">Lu 3:15</a>).<P>1. The Jewish Conception:<P>(1) The Messiah as King.<P>In the popular conception the Messiah was chiefly the royal son of David who would bring victory and prosperity to the Jewish nation and set up His throne in Jerusalem. In this capacity the multitude hailed Jesus on His entry into the capital (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',21,9);">Mt 21:9</a> and parallel); to the Pharisees also the Messiah was the son of David (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,42);">Mt 22:42</a>). It would seem that apocalyptic elements mingled with the national expectation, for it was supposed that the Messiah would come forth suddenly from concealment and attest Himself by miracles (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',7,27,31);">Joh 7:27,31</a>).<P>But there were spiritual minds who interpreted the nation\'s hope, not in any conventional sense, but according to their own devout aspirations. Looking for "the consolation of Israel," "the redemption of Jerusalem," they seized upon the spiritual features of the Messianic king and recognized in Jesus the promised Saviour who would deliver the nation from its sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,25,30,38);">Lu 2:25,30,38</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,\'68-79\');">1:68-79</a>).<P>(2) His Prophetic Character.<P>From the statements in the Gospels regarding the expectation of a prophet it is difficult to determine whether the prophetic function was regarded as belonging to the Messiah. We learn not only that one of the old prophets was expected to reappear (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',14,2);">Mt 14:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,14);">16:14</a> and parallel), but also that a preeminent prophet was looked for, distinct from the Messiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,21,25);">Joh 1:21,25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',7,40);">7:40</a>f). But the two conceptions of prophet and king seem to be identified in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,14);">Joh 6:14</a>f; where we are told that the multitude, after recognizing in Jesus the expected prophet, wished to take Him by force and make Him a king. It would appear that while the masses were looking forward to a temporal king, the expectations of some were molded by the image and promise of Moses. And to the woman of Samaria, as to her people, the Messiah was simply a prophet, who would bring the full light of Divine knowledge into the world (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,25);">Joh 4:25</a>). On the other hand, from Philip\'s description of Jesus we would naturally infer that he saw in Him whom he had found the union of a prophet like unto Moses and the Messianic king of the prophetical books (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,45);">Joh 1:45</a>).<P>(3) The Title "Son of God."<P>It cannot be doubted that the "Son of God" was used as a Messianic title by the Jews in the time of our Lord. The high priest in presence of the Sanhedrin recognized it as such (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,63);">Mt 26:63</a>). It was applied also in its official sense to Jesus by His disciples: John the Baptist (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,34);">Joh 1:34</a>), Nathaniel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,49);">Joh 1:49</a>), Mary (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,27);">Joh 11:27</a>), Peter (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,16);">Mt 16:16</a>, though not in parallel). This Messianic use was based on <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',2,7);">Ps 2:7</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',7,14);">2Sa 7:14</a>. The title as given to Jesus by Peter in his confession, "the Son of the living God," is suggestive of something higher than a mere official dignity, although its full significance in the unique sense in which Jesus claimed it could scarcely have been apprehended by the disciples till after His resurrection.<P>2. Attitude of Jesus to the Messiahship:<P>(1) His Claim.<P>The claim of Jesus to be the Messiah is written on the face of the evangelic history. But while He accepted the title, He stripped it of its political and national significance and filled it with an ethical and universal content. The Jewish expectation of a great king who would restore the throne of David and free the nation from a foreign yoke was interpreted by Jesus as of one who would deliver God\'s people from spiritual foes and found a universal kingdom of love and peace.<P>(2) His Delay in Making It.<P>To prepare the Jewish mind for His transformation of the national hope Jesus delayed putting forth His claim before the multitude till His triumphal entry into Jerusalem, which, be it noted, He made in such a way as to justify His interpretation of the Messiah of the prophets, while He delayed emphasizing it to His disciples till the memorable scene at Caesarea Philippi when He drew forth Peter\'s confession.<P>(3) "The Son of Man."<P>But he sought chiefly to secure the acceptance of Himself in all His lowliness as the true Messianic king by His later use of His self-designation as the "Son of Man." While "Son of Man" in Aramaic, bar nasha\', may mean simply "man," an examination of the chief passages in which the title occurs shows that Jesus applied it to Himself in a unique sense. That He had the passage in Daniel in His mind is evident from the phrases He employs in describing His future coming (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,38);">Mr 8:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,26);">13:26</a> and parallel; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,62);">14:62</A> and parallel). By this apocalyptic use of the title He put forward much more clearly His claim to be the Messiah of national expectation who would come in heavenly glory. But He used the title also to announce the tragic destiny that awaited Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,31);">Mr 8:31</a>). This He could do without any contradiction, as He regarded His death as the beginning of His Messianic reign. And those passages in which He refers to the Son of Man giving His life a ransom "for many" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,28);">Mt 20:28</a> and parallel) and going "as it is written of him" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,24);">Mt 26:24</a> and parallel), as well as <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,37);">Lu 22:37</a>, indicate that He interpreted <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,\'1-\');">Isa 53</a> of Himself in His Messianic character. By His death He would complete His Messianic work and inaugurate the kingdom of God. Thus, by the help of the title "Son of Man" Jesus sought, toward the close of His ministry, to explain the seeming contradiction between His earthly life and the glory of His Messianic kingship.<P>It may be added that our Lord\'s use of the phrase implies what the Gospels suggest (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,34);">Joh 12:34</a>), that the "Son of Man," notwithstanding the references in Daniel and the Similitudes of Enoch (if the pre-Christian date be accepted), was not regarded by the Jews generally as a Messianic title. For He could not then have applied it, as He does, to Himself before Peter\'s confession, while maintaining His reserve in regard to His claims to be the Messiah. Many scholars, however, hold that the "Son of Man" was already a Messianic title before our Lord employed it in His conversation with the disciples at Caesarea Philippi, and regard the earlier passages in which it occurs as inserted out of chronological order, or the presence of the title in them either as a late insertion, or as due to the ambiguity of the Aramaic.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SON+OF+MAN">SON OF MAN</a>.<P>3. The Christian Transformation:<P>The thought of a suffering Messiah who would atone for sin was alien to the Jewish mind. This is evident from the conduct, not only of the opponents, but of the followers of Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,22);">Mt 16:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',17,23);">17:23</a>). While His disciples believed Him to be the Messiah, they could not understand His allusions to His sufferings, and regarded His death as the extinction of all their hopes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,34);">Lu 18:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,21);">24:21</a>). But after His resurrection and ascension they were led, by the impression His personality and teaching had made upon them, to see how entirely they had misconceived His Messiahship and the nature and extent of His Messianic kingdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,31);">Lu 24:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,36,38);">Ac 2:36,38</a>f). They were confirmed, too, in their spiritual conceptions when they searched into the ancient prophecies in the light of the cross. In the mysterious form of the Suffering Servant they beheld the Messianic king on His way to His heavenly throne, conquering by the power of His atoning sacrifice and bestowing all spiritual blessings (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',3,13);">Ac 3:13</a>,<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',3,\'18-21\',26);">18-21,26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',4,27,30);">4:27,30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',8,35);">8:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,\'36-43\');">10:36-43</a>).<P>4. New Elements Added:<P>(1) Future manifestation.<P>New features were now added to the Messiah in accordance with Jesus\' own teaching. He had ascended to His Father and become the heavenly king. But all things were not yet put under Him. It was therefore seen that the full manifestation of His Messiahship was reserved for the future, that He would return in glory to fulfill His Messianic office and complete His Messianic reign.<P>(2) Divine Personality.<P>Higher views of His personality were now entertained. He is declared to be the Son of God, not in any official, but in a unique sense, as coequal with the Father (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,1);">Joh 1:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,4,7);">Ro 1:4,7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,3);">1Co 1:3</a>, etc.). His pre-existence is affirmed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,1);">Joh 1:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,9);">2Co 8:9</a>); and when He comes again in his Messianic glory, He will exercise the Divine function of Universal Judge (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,42);">Ac 10:42</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,30);">17:30</a>f; etc.).<P>(3) Heavenly Priesthood.<P>The Christian conception of the Messianic king who had entered into His glory through suffering and death carried with it the doctrine of the Messianic priesthood. But it took some time for early Christian thought to advance from the new discovery of the combination of humiliation and glory in the Messiah to concentrate upon His heavenly life. While the preaching of the first Christians was directed to show from the Scriptures that "Jesus is the Christ" and necessarily involved the ascription to Him of many functions characteristic of the true priest, it was reserved for the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews to set forth this aspect of His work with separate distinctness and to apply to Him the title of our "great high priest" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',4,14);">Heb 4:14</a>). As the high priest on the Day of Atonement not only sprinkled the blood upon the altar, but offered the sacrifice, so it was now seen that by passing into the heavens and presenting to God the offering He had made of Himself on earth, Jesus had fulfilled the high-priestly office.<P>5. Fulfillment in Jesus:<P>Thus the ideal of the Hebrew prophets and poets is amply fulfilled in the person, teaching and work of Jesus of Nazareth. Apologists may often err in supporting the argument from prophecy by an extravagant symbolism and a false exegesis; but they are right in the contention that the essential elements in the Old Testament conception<6F>the Messianic king who stands in a unique relation to Yahweh as His "Son," and who will exercise universal dominion; the supreme prophet who will never be superseded; the priest forever<65>are gathered up and transformed by Jesus in a way the ancient seers never dreamed of. As the last and greatest prophet, the suffering Son of Man, and the sinless Saviour of the world, He meets humanity\'s deepest longings for Divine knowledge, human sympathy, and spiritual deliverance; and as the unique Son of God, who came to reveal the Father, He rules over the hearts of men by the might of eternal love. No wonder that the New Testament writers, like Jesus Himself, saw references to the Messiah in Old Testament passages which would not be conceded by a historical interpretation. While recognizing the place of the old covenant in the history of salvation, they sought to discover in the light of the fulfillment in Jesus the meaning of the Old Testament which the Spirit of God intended to convey, the Divine, saving thoughts which constitute its essence. And to us, as to the early Christians, "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,10);">Re 19:10</a>). To Him, hidden in the bosom of the ages, all the scattered rays of prophecy pointed; and from Him, in His revealed and risen splendor, shine forth upon the world the light and power of God\'s love and truth. And through the history and experience of His people He is bringing to larger realization the glory and passion of Israel\'s Messianic hope.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Drummond, The Jewish Messiah; Stanton, The Jewish and the Christian Messiah; Riehm, Messianic Prophecy; Delitzsch, Messianic Prophecies; von Orelli, Old Testament Prophecy; A. B. Davidson, Old Testament Prophecy; Schultz, Old Testament Theology; Schurer, HJP, div II, volume II, section 29, "The Messianic Hope"; Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, chapter ii, "The Jewish Doctrine of Messiah"; Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, book II, chapter v, "What Messiah Did the Jews Expect?"; E. F. Scott, The Kingdom and the Messiah; Fairweather, The Background of the Gospels; articles in DB, HDB, EB, DCG. For further list see Riehm and Schurer.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCALYPTIC+LITERATURE">APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE</a>`32';
|
||
isbe[5997]='Metal`met\'-al (chashmal; elektron; the King James Version amber; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',8,2);">Eze 8:2</a>, the Revised Version margin "amber"): The substance here intended is a matter of great uncertainty. In Egypt bronze was, called chesmen, which may be connected with the Hebrew chashmal; the Greek elektron too has generally been accepted as an alloy of gold or silver or other metals, but this is far from certain. Professor Ridgeway (EB, I, cols. 134-36) has conclusively shown, however, that amber was well known in early times and that there is nothing archaeologically improbable in the reading of the King James Version.<P>Amber is a substance analogous to the vegetable resins, and is in all probability derived from extinct coniferous trees. The best or yellow variety was obtained by the ancients from the coasts of the Baltic where it is still found more plentifully than elsewhere. A red amber has been found in south Europe and in Phoenicia. From earliest times amber has been prized as an ornament; Homer apparently refers to it twice. Amber bracelets and necklaces are highly prized by the Orientals<6C>especially Jewesses<65>today, and they are credited with medicinal properties.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ELECTRUM">ELECTRUM</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html??string=STONES,+PRECIOUS">STONES, PRECIOUS</a>`117';
|
||
isbe[5998]='Metal Working``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CRAFTS">CRAFTS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html??string=MINING">MINING</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[5999]='Metallurgy`met\'-al-ur-ji: There are numerous Biblical references which describe or allude to the various metallurgical operations. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',28,1);">Job 28:1</a> occurs zaqaq, translated "refine," literally, "strain." This undoubtedly refers to the process of separating the gold from the earthy material as pictured in the Egyptian sculptures (Thebes and Beni Hassan) and described by Diodorus. The ore was first crushed to the size of lentils and then ground to powder in a handmill made of granite slabs. This powder was spread upon a slightly inclined stone table and water was poured over it to wash away the earthy materials. The comparatively heavy gold particles were then gathered from the table, dried, and melted in a closed crucible with lead, salt and bran, and kept in a molten condition for 5 days, at the end of which time the gold came out pure.<P>The alloying of gold and silver with copper, lead or tin, and then removing the base metals by cupellation is used figuratively in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',22,18,22);">Eze 22:18,22</a> to denote the coming judgment of Yahweh. Again in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,25);">Isa 1:25</a> it indicates chastening. The fact that the prophets used this figure shows that the people were familiar with the common metallurgical operations.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=REFINER">REFINER</a>`133';
|
||
isbe[6000]='Metals`met\'-alz (Latin metallum, "metal," "mine"; Greek metallon, "mine"): The metals known by the ancients were copper, gold, iron, lead, silver and tin. Of these copper, gold and silver were probably first used, because, occurring in a metallic state, they could be separated easily from earthy materials by mechanical processes. Evidence is abundant of the use of these three metals by the people of remotest antiquity. Lead and tin were later separated from their ores. Tin was probably used in making bronze before it was known as a separate metal, because the native oxide, cassiterite, was smelted together with the copper ore to get bronze. Because of the difficulties in getting it separated from its compounds, iron was the last in the list to be employed. In regard to the sources of these metals in Bible times we have few Biblical references to guide us. Some writers point to <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',8,9);">De 8:9</a>, "a land whose stones are iron," etc., as referring to Palestine. Palestine can be disregarded, however, as a sourc e of metals, for it possesses no mineral deposits of any importance. If it was expected that Israel would possess Lebanon also, then the description would be more true. There is some iron ore which was in ancient times worked, although present-day engineers have declared it not to be extensive enough to pay for working. There is a little copper ore (chalcopyrite, malachite, azurite). In the Anti-Lebanon and Northern Syria, especially in the country east of Aleppo now opened up by the Bagdad Railroad and its branches, there are abundant deposits of copper. This must have been the land of Nuhasse referred to in the Tell el-Amarna Letters. If <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',6,1);">Zec 6:1</a> is really a reference to copper, which is doubtful, then the last-mentioned source was probably the one referred to. No doubt Cyprus (Alasia in Tell el-Amarna Letters (?)) furnished the ancients with much copper, as did also the Sinaitic peninsula.<P>Tarshish is mentioned (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,12);">Eze 27:12</a>) as a source of silver, iron, tin, and lead. This name may belong to Southern Spain. If so it corresponds to the general belief that the Phoenicians brought a considerable proportion of the metals used in Palestine from that country. Havilah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,11);">Ge 2:11</a>), Ophir (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,11);">1Ki 10:11</a>), Sheba (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',72,15);">Ps 72:15</a>) are mentioned as sources of gold. These names probably refer to districts of Arabia. Whether Arabia produced all the gold or simply passed it on from more remote sources is a question.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GOLD">GOLD</a>.<P>From the monuments in Egypt we learn that that country was a producer of gold and silver. In fact, the ancient mines and the ruins of the miners\' huts are still to be seen in the desert regions of upper Egypt. In the Sinaitic peninsula are deposits of copper, lead, gold, and silver. The most remarkable of the ancient Egyptian mines are situated here (J. Sarabit el Khadim, U. Sidreh, W. Magharah). The early Egyptian kings (Sneferu, Amenemhat II, and others) not only mined the metals, but cut on the walls of the mines inscriptions describing their methods of mining. Here, as in upper Egypt, are remains of the buildings where miners lived or carried out their metallurgical operations. It is hardly to be conceived that the large deposits of lead (galena) in Asia Minor were unworked by the ancients. No nearer deports of tin than those in southeastern Europe have yet been found. (For further information on metals see separate articles.)``133';
|
||
</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>
|
||
|