114 lines
402 KiB
HTML
114 lines
402 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[2001]='Cheese`chez.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FOOD">FOOD</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MILK">MILK</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[2002]='Chelal`ke\'-lal (kelal, "perfection"): One of the bene Pachath-Mo\'abh who took "strange wives" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,30);">Ezr 10:30</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[2003]='Chelcias`kel\'-si-as.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HELKIAS">HELKIAS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HILKIAH">HILKIAH</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[2004]='Chellians`kel\'-i-anz: The people of "<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHELLUS">Chellus</a>" (Judith 2:23) (which see).``1';
|
||
isbe[2005]='Chelluh`kel\'-u.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHELUHI">CHELUHI</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[2006]='Chellus`kel\'-us (Chellous), a place named (Judith 1:9) among those west of the Jordan to which Nebuchadnezzar sent his summons. It is mentioned along with "Kades," and as it lay north of the "children of Ishmael" it may with some probability be taken as lying southwest of Jerusalem. It has been conjectured that it may be Chalutzah (Reland, Palestine, 717), a place under the form Elusa well known to the ancient geographers.``1';
|
||
isbe[2007]='Chelod`ke\'-lod (Cheleoud, Cheleoul): In Judith 1:6 it is said that "many nations of the sons of Chelod assembled themselves to the battle." They are mentioned as obeying the summons of Nebuchadnezzar to his war against Arphaxad. No very probable suggestion has been made as to the meaning of Chelod.``1';
|
||
isbe[2008]='Chelub`ke\'-lub:<P>(1) kelubh, father of Mehir (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,11);">1Ch 4:11</a>); the name is probably a variation of Caleb. Wellhausen (De gentibus et familiis Judaeis) reads kalebh ben chezron.<P>(2) Father of Ezri (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',27,26);">1Ch 27:26</a>), one of the officers of David.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GENEALOGY">GENEALOGY</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[2009]='Chelubai`ke-loo\'-bi (kelubhay): Another form of Caleb used in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,9);">1Ch 2:9</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,18,42);">1Ch 2:18, 42</a>. Caleb is here described as the brother of Jerahmeel, and son of Hezron, a remote ancestor, instead of as the son of Jephunneh.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CALEB">CALEB</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[2010]='Cheluhi`kel\'-oo-hi (keluhi, Kt.; keluhu, Qere; the Revised Version, margin Cheluhu; the King James Version Chelluh): Mentioned in the list of persons with foreign wives (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,35);">Ezr 10:35</a> = 1Esdras 9:34).``1';
|
||
isbe[2011]='Chemarim`kem\'-a-rim (kemarim, a plural whose singular komer is not found in the Old Testament): Occurs only once in the text of English Versions of the Bible (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',1,4);">Ze 1:4</a>, the King James Version Chemarims), though the Hebrew word is found also in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,5);">2Ki 23:5</a> (English Versions "idolatrous priests") and <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',10,5);">Ho 10:5</a> (English Versions "priests," English Versions margins, however, having "Chemarim" in both places). Some regard the word as an interpolation in <a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',1,4);">Ze 1:4</a>, since the Septuagint omits it and its presence disturbs the parallelism. The word, which is of Aramaic origin (kumra, priest), is used in the Old Testament only in an unfavorable sense, its origin and associations naturally suggesting Syriac affinities. In the Syriac, however, no such connotation is involved. In the Peshitta version of the Old Testament it is used indifferently of idolatrous priests and of priests of Yahweh, while in the same version of the New Testament it is used of the Levitical priests and of our Lord (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,17);">Heb 2:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',3,1);">3:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',4,14,15);">4:14-15</a>, and often) and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,35);">Ac 19:35</a> it is the rendering of neokoros (the Revised Version (British and American) "temple-keeper," the King James Version "worshipper"). The question of the root idea of the word remains unsettled. The traditional supposition, which finds some support even among modern scholars, is that the verbal form means "to be black," the priests being supposed to have been clad in black. But it is doubtful whether the root had this meaning. Another conjecture takes the root to mean "to be sad," the priest being a man of a sad countenance, an ascetic. Cheyne would relate the word to the Assyrian kummaru, having the sense of "a clean vesture." It is at all events probable that the priests, both in Israel and in the surrounding nations, employed white vestments, rather than black, when in the performance of their official functions. According to the Mishna, Middoth, verse 4, a Levitical priest who had become disqualified for service put on black garments and departed, while the others put on white garments and went in and ministered. The reference to the Baal worship in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',10,22);">2Ki 10:22</a> seems more congruous with this view; hence, probably blackrobed priests (Chemarim) of Baal and the unfaithful priests of Yahweh shall be cut off together. G. A. Smith (BTP, II, 56) reads "the priestlings with the priests."``134';
|
||
isbe[2012]='Chemosh`ke\'-mosh (kemosh; Chamos):<P>1. Moabites, the People of Chemosh<P>2. Solomon and Chemosh Worship<P>3. Josiah Putting Down Chemosh Worship<P>4. Chemosh and Ammonites<P>5. Moabite Stone<P>6. Mesha\'s Inscription and the Old Testament<P>7. Chemosh in the Inscription<P>8. Parallels between Inscription and Old Testament Record<P>9. Ethical Contrast<P>LITERATURE<hr /><P>1. Moabites, the People of Chemosh:<P>The national God of the Moabites, as Baal of the Zidonians, or Milcom (Moloch, Malcam) of the Ammonites. The Moabites are apostrophized in an old Hebrew song as the "people of Chemosh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,29);">Nu 21:29</a>). Jeremiah in his oracle of doom upon Moab has recourse to the same old song and calls the people "the people of Chemosh." The impotence of the god to deliver his people is described by the prophet in figures representing him as going into captivity with them, his priests and princes together, and Moab is to be ashamed of him as Israel was of the Golden Calf of Bethel, which did not avail to save the Northern Kingdom from the conquering Assyrian power (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',48,7,13,16);">Jer 48:7, 13-16</a>).<P>2. Solomon and Chemosh Worship:<P>For Chemosh, "the abomination of Moab," as for Moloch, "the abomination of the children of Ammon," Solomon, under the influence of his idolatrous wives, built a high place in the mount before Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,7);">1Ki 11:7</a>). It was natural that they should desire to worship still after the manner of the gods of their native land, but although the effect of all this was seen in the moral and spiritual deterioration of Solomon himself there is no indication that the immoralities and cruelties associated with such worship were then practiced in Jerusalem. In the days of Ahaz and Manasseh, even as early as the days of Abijam of Judah, they were (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',15,12,13);">1Ki 15:12-13</a>).<P>3. Josiah Putting Down Chemosh Worship:<P>Josiah found these abominations of alien worship, which had been introduced by Solomon and added to by Ahaz and Manasseh, flourishing when he came to the throne. Moved by the prohibitions of the Book of the Law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,\'29-31\');">De 12:29-31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,10);">18:10</a>), Josiah pulled down and defiled the high places and the altars, and in order to make a clean sweep of the idolatrous figures, "he brake in pieces the pillars," or obelisks, "and cut down the Asherim," or sacred poles, "and filled their places with the bones of men" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,\'1-20\');">2Ki 23:1-20</a>).<P>4. Chemosh and Ammonites:<P>There is one passage where Chemosh is designated the god of the Ammonites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',11,24);">Jud 11:24</a>). Jephthah is disputing the right of the Ammonites to invade territory which belongs to Israel because Yahweh has given it to them by conquest. And he asks: \'Shouldst thou not possess the territory of those whom Chemosh, thy god, dispossesses, and we the territory of all whom Yahweh, our god, dispossesses?\' It may be that he is called here the god of the Ammonites by a mere oversight of the historian; or that Moab and Ammon being kindred nations descended from a common ancestor, Lot, Chemosh may in a sense belong to both. We notice, however, that Jephthah\'s argument in meeting the claim preferred by the king of Ammon passes on to Israel\'s relation to the Moabites and makes mention only of well-known Moabite cities. Chemosh is accordingly named because of his association with Moab, the cities of which are being spoken of, although strictly and literally Milcom should have been named in an appeal addressed as a whole to the Ammonites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',11,\'12-28\');">Jud 11:12-28</a>; compare Moore at the place).<P>5. Moabite Stone:<P>The discovery of the Moabite Stone in 1868 at Dibon has thrown light upon Chemosh and the relations of Moab to its national god. The monument, which is now one of the most precious treasures of the Louvre in Paris, bears an inscription which is the oldest specimen of Semitic alphabetic writing extant, commemorating the successful effort made about 860 or 850 BC by Mesha, king of Moab, to throw off the yoke of Israel. We know from the Old Testament record that Moab had been reduced to subjection by David (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',8,2);">2Sa 8:2</a>); that it paid a heavy tribute to Ahab, king of Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',3,4);">2Ki 3:4</a>); and that, on the death of Ahab, Mesha its king rebelled against Israelite rule (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',3,5);">2Ki 3:5</a>). Not till the reign of Jehoram was any effort made to recover the lost dominion. The king of Israel then allied himself with the kings of Judah and Edom, and marching against Moab by the way of the Red Sea, inflicted upon Mesha a defeat so decisive that the wrath of his god, Chemosh, could be appeased only by the sacrifice of his son (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',3,6);">2Ki 3:6</a>ff).<P>6. Mesha\'s Inscription and the Old Testament:<P>The historical situation described in the Old Testament narrative is fully confirmed by Mesha\'s inscription. There are, however, divergences in detail. In the Book of Kings the revolt of Mesha is said to have taken place after the death of Ahab. The inscription implies that it must have taken place by the middle of Ahab\'s reign. The inscription implies that the subjection of Moab to Israel had not been continuous from the time of David, and says that \'Omri, the father of Ahab, had reasserted the power of Israel and had occupied at least a part of the land.<P>7. Chemosh in the Inscription:<P>It is with what the inscription says of Chemosh that we are chiefly concerned. On the monument the name appears twelve times. Mesha is himself the son of Chemosh, and it was for Chemosh that he built the high place upon which the monument was found. He built it because among other reasons Chemosh had made him to see his desire upon them that hated him. It was because Chemosh was angry with his land that \'Omri afflicted Moab many days. \'Omri had taken possession of the land of Medeba and Israel dwelt in it his days and half his son\'s days, but Chemosh restored it in Mesha\'s days. Mesha took \'Ataroth which the king of Israel had built for himself, slew all the people of the city, and made them a gazing-stock to Chemosh and to Moab. Mesha brought thence the altar-hearth of Dodo, and dragged it before Chemosh in Kerioth. By command of Chemosh, Mesha attacked Nebo and fought against Israel, and after a fierce struggle he took the place, slaying the inhabitants en masse, 7,000 men and women and maidservants, devoting the city to \'Ashtor-Chemosh and dragging the altar vessels of Yahweh before Chemosh. Out of Jahaz, too, which the king of Israel had built, Chemosh drove him before Mesha. At the instigation of Chemosh, Mesha fought against Horonaim, and, although the text is defective in the closing paragraph, we may surmise that Chemosh did not fail him but restored it to his dominions.<P>8. Parallels between Inscription and Old Testament Record:<P>Naturally enough there is considerable obscurity in local and personal allusions. Dodo may have been a local god worshipped by the Israelites east of the Jordan. Ashtor-Chemosh may be a compound divinity of a kind not unknown to Semitic mythology, Ashtor representing possibly the Phoenician Ashtoreth. What is of importance is the recurrence of so many phrases and expressions applied to Chemosh which are used of Yahweh in the Old Testament narratives. The religious conceptions of the Moabites reflected in the inscription are so strikingly like those of the Israelites that if only the name of Yahweh were substituted for that of Chemosh we might think we were reading a chapter of the Books of Kings. It is not in the inscriptions, however, but in the Old Testament narrative that we find a reference to the demand of Chemosh for human sacrifice. "He took his eldest son," says the Hebrew historian, "that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt-offering upon the wall. And there was great wrath against Israel: and they departed from him, and returned to their own land" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',3,27);">2Ki 3:27</a>). This appears to indicate that the Israelites had to give up their purpose to fasten the yoke of bondage again upon Mesha and that they returned empty-handed to their own land. But this fortunate result for Moab was due to the favor of Chemosh, and in particular to the human sacrifice by which he was propitiated.<P>9. Ethical Contrast:<P>If we find in these representations of Chemosh in the Old Testament narrative and in Mesha\'s inscription a striking similarity to the Hebrew conception of Yahweh, we cannot fail to notice the lack of the higher moral and spiritual elements supplied to the religion of Israel by the prophets and indeed from Moses and Abraham downward. "Chemosh," says W. Baudissin, "is indeed the ruler of his people whom he protects as Yahweh the Israelites, whom he chastises in his indignation, and from whom he accepts horrible propitiatory gifts. But of a God of grace whose long-suffering leads back even the erring to Himself, of a Holy God to whom the offering of a pure and obedient heart is more acceptable than bloody sacrifices, of such a God as is depicted in Israel\'s prophets and sweet singers there is no trace in the Moabite picture of Chemosh. While Mesha is represented as offering up his own son in accordance with the stern requirements of his religion, Old Testament law-givers and prophets from the beginning condemned human sacrifice" (RE3, article "Kemosh").<P>LITERATURE.<P>RE3, article "Kemosh"; Cooke, Text-Book of North-Semitic Inscriptions, "Moabite Stone," 1-14; W. Robertson Smith, Prophets of Israel, 49ff; Sayce, Sayce, Higher Criticism and the Monuments, 364ff.``128';
|
||
isbe[2013]='Chenaanah`ke-na\'-a-na (kena\'anah, feminine form of "Canaan," though others explain it as "toward Canaan"): The name of two men:<P>(1) The fourth-named of the seven sons of Bilham, son of Jediael, of the tribe of Benjamin, a leading warrior in the time of David (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,10);">1Ch 7:10</a>).<P>(2) Father of the false prophet Zedekiah, who encouraged Ahab against Micaiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',22,11,24);">1Ki 22:11, 24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',18,10,23);">2Ch 18:10, 23</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[2014]='Chenani`ke-na\'-ni (kenani, "planted"): One of the names mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',9,4);">Ne 9:4</a>, in connection with the constitution of "congregation." If the names represent houses or families, eight Levitical houses probably sang some well-known psalm on this occasion. If they are names of individual representatives, they were probably deputed to recite or chant some special prayer in order to lead the worship of the people.``1';
|
||
isbe[2015]='Chenaniah`ken-a-ni\'-a (kenanyahu, and kenanyah, literally "established by God"): Chief of the Levites who was over "the songs," or "the carrying" (namely, "of the ark") from the house of Obed-edom to Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',15,22,27);">1Ch 15:22, 27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',26,29);">26:29</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[2016]='Chephar-Ammoni`ke-far-am\'-o-ni (the King James Version Chephar-haammoni; kephar ha\'ammoni; Codex Vaticanus, Kepheira kai Monei; A, Kapherammin, "village of the Ammonites"): A place in the territory of Benjamin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',18,24);">Jos 18:24</a>). It may be identical with Kefr \'Ana, a ruined site about two miles to the Northeast of Bethel.``1';
|
||
isbe[2017]='Chephar-Haamoni`ke-far-ha-am\'-o-ni.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHEPHAR+AMMONI">CHEPHAR-AMMONI</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[2018]='Chephirah`ke-fi\'-ra (ha-kephirah; Codex Vaticanus, Kapheira (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',9,\'1-\');">Jos 9</a>); Codex Alexandrinus has Chepheira, Codex Vaticanus has kai Pheira (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',18,\'1-\');">Jos 18</a>)): One of the cities of the Hivites who by guile made alliance with Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',9,17);">Jos 9:17</a>). It was in the lot of Benjamin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',18,26);">Jos 18:26</a>), and was reoccupied after the return from Babylon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,25);">Ezr 2:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,29);">Ne 7:29</a>). It is represented by the modern Kefireh, to the southwest of Gibeon, and north of Karyat el-\'Anab. It stands on high ground, with many ancient remains.``1';
|
||
isbe[2019]='Cheran`ke\'-ran (keran): A Horite clan-name, occurring in the genealogy of Seir, the Horite (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,26);">Ge 36:26</a>), and in the parallel list in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,41);">1Ch 1:41</a>. Dillmann derives it from kar, "a lamb."``1';
|
||
isbe[2020]='Cherethites`ker\'-e-thits (kerethim, ha-kerethi; Chelethi "executioners," "life-guardsmen"): A people in Southern Palestine whose territory bordered upon that of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',30,14);">1Sa 30:14</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',30,16);">1Sa 30:16</a> this land is apparently identical with that of the Philistines. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',25,16);">Eze 25:16</a> the Philistines and the Cherethites are threatened together; while in <a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',2,5);">Zep 2:5</a> the Cherethites are evidently the dwellers in "the land of the Philistines," "the inhabitants of the seacoast." Septuagint in both Ezekiel and Zephaniah renders the name "Cretans." The translators may have been "guided only by the sound." But Zeus Cretagenes in Gaza suggests a connection with the island of Crete. See, however, <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CAPHTOR">CAPHTOR</a>. It may be taken as certain that the Cherethites were a Philistine clan. In conjunction with the Pelethites they are frequently named as forming the guard of David (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',8,18);">2Sa 8:18</a>, etc.). It was the custom of many ancient monarchs to have a guard of foreign mercenaries.``54';
|
||
isbe[2021]='Cherish`cher\'-ish (cakhan; thalpo): Cakhan, "to act the friend," "to be useful," is translated "cherish" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',1,2,4);">1Ki 1:2, 4</a>); thalpo, "to warm," "to make warm," "to foster" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,29);">Eph 5:29</a>), said of the regard the husband should have for his wife, even as his own flesh which he "nourisheth and cherisheth, even as Christ also the church," and in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',2,7);">1Th 2:7</a>, of Paul amongst his converts, "as when a nurse cherisheth her own children."``1';
|
||
isbe[2022]='Cherith, the Brook`ke\'-rith (nachal kerith; Cheimarrhous Chorrhath): The place where Elijah hid and was miraculously fed, after announcing the drought to Ahab (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',17,3);">1Ki 17:3</a>). It is described as being "before," that is "east," of Jordan. It cannot therefore be identified with Wady el-Kelt, to the west of Jericho. The retreat must be sought in some recess of the Gilead uplands with which doubtless Elijah had been familiar in his earlier days.``1';
|
||
isbe[2023]='Cherub`ke\'-rub (kerubh, Cheroub, Charoub): A place in Babylonia from which people whose genealogies had fallen into confusion went up at the return from exile (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,59);">Ezr 2:59</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,61);">Ne 7:61</a>); unidentified. In 1Esdras 5:36 we read "Charaathalan leading them, and Allar," a phrase that seems to have arisen through confusion of the names in the passages cited above.``1';
|
||
isbe[2024]='Cherubic, Forms in the Constellations`che-roo\'-bik.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASTRONOMY">ASTRONOMY</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[2025]='Cherubim (1)`cher\'-u-bim, cher\'-oo-bim (kerubhim, plural of cherub, kerubh): Through the influence of the Septuagint, "cherubim" was used in the earlier English versions, also as a singular, hence, the plural was made to sound "cherubims." The etymology of the word cannot be ascertained.<P>1. As Guardians of Paradise:<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,24);">Ge 3:24</a> the cherubim are placed by God, after the expulsion of Adam from the garden of Eden, at the east thereof, together with the flaming sword "to keep the way of the tree of life." In their function as guardians of Paradise the cherubim bear an analogy to the winged bulls and lions of Babylonia and Assyria, colossal figures with human faces standing guard at the entrance of temples (and palaces), just as in Egypt the approaches to the sanctuaries are guarded by sphinxes. But the Babylonian colossi go by the name of lamassu, or shedu; no designation at all approaching the Hebrew kerubh has so far been found in the Assyrian language. Nor are thus named the winged figures, half human and half animal, which in Babylonian and Persian art are found on both sides of the "sacred tree." Thus, a Babylonian origin of the Hebrew cherubim is neither proved nor disproved. If we look for further analogies which, of course, do not indicate a borrowing on the part of the Hebrews, we may mention the fabulous griffins (grupes), usually represented as having the heads and wings of an eagle and the body and hind quarters of a lion; they were believed by the Greeks to inhabit Scythia, and to keep jealous watch over the gold of that country.<P>2. The Garden as the Abode of the Gods:<P>If we read between the lines of the Paradise account in Genesis (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,8);">Ge 3:8</a>), the garden of Eden, the primeval abode of man, reveals itself as more than that: it was apparently the dwelling-place of God. In the polytheistic story of the creation of the world and early life of man, which, while in several respects analogous (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,22);">Ge 3:22</a>), is devoid of the more spiritual notions of Hebraism, the garden was the abode of the gods who alone had access to the tree of life from the fruit of which they derived their immortality. Adam, before the fall, is conceived as a superhuman being; for while he is forbidden to taste of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, the way to immortality is open to him; for it is only after transgressing the Divine command that he merits death and becomes mortal. The choice of immortal innocence and mortal knowledge lay before him; he elected death with knowledge.<P>3. The Cherubim as Attendants of the Deity:<P>The mythical elements of the Paradise story are still more patent in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',28,13);">Eze 28:13</a>ff, where the fall of the king of Tyre is likened to that of primeval man. The garden is situated on a holy mountain of Elohim(= God to Ezekiel, but gods in the primitive source), the \'mountain of assembly\' of <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',14,13);">Isa 14:13</a>, high above the stars in the recesses of the North. It is a wonderful place, adorned with all manner of precious stones. There man, perfect from the day he was created, resplendent with beauty, excelling in wisdom, walks among the fiery stones, like a cherub with outstretched wings. The cherubs are apparently the attendants of the Deity, beauteous angels, of whom man was to be one: but he fell from glory and was hurled from the sanctuary which he had polluted. Some of the angelic attendants of the Deity within are placed in Genesis without, to do service as guardians of the unapproachable holy garden.<P>4. As Bearers of the Throne:<P>As attendants of God, they bear the throne upon which He descends from His high abode. Thus in the description of a theophany in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',18,\'1-\');">Ps 18</a>, we read: " He bowed the heavens also, and came down; And thick darkness was under his feet. And he rode upon a cherub and did fly; Yea, he soared upon the wings of the wind." (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',18,9,10);">Ps 18:9-10</a>) Hence, the Lord, or, as the fuller title goes, the Lord of Hosts, is repeatedly styled "He that sitteth (throned) above the cherubim" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',80,1);">Ps 80:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',99,1);">99:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',4,4);">1Sa 4:4</a>, and elsewhere). There is certainly no trace here of bull figures: bulls do not fly. The underlying conception is, it seems, rather that of the storm cloud. Compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',104,3);">Ps 104:3</a>: " Who maketh the clouds his chariot; Who walketh upon the wings of the wind." The Hebrew for "chariot" is rekhubh, a sort of inverted kerubh. 5. In the Vision of Ezekiel:<P>But the function of the cherubim as bearers and movers of the Divine throne is brought out most clearly in the vision of Ezekiel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,\'1-\');">Eze 1</a>, with which compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',10,\'1-\');">Eze 10</a>). In chapter 1 the prophet designates them as "living creatures" (chayyoth); but upon hearing God\'s words addressed to the "man clothed in linen" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',10,2);">Eze 10:2</a>) he perceives that the living creatures which he saw in the first vision were cherubim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',10,20);">Eze 10:20</a>); hence, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',9,3);">Eze 9:3</a> the chariot or throne, from which the glory of God went up, is spoken of as a cherub. The following is a description in detail of the cherubim as seen by Ezekiel. They are represented as four living creatures, each with four faces, man, lion, ox (replaced in the parallel chapter by cherub), and eagle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,10);">Eze 1:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',10,14);">10:14</a>), having the figure and hands of men (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,5,8);">Eze 1:5, 8</a>), and the feet of calves (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,7);">Eze 1:7</a>). Each has four wings, two of which are stretched upward (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,11);">Eze 1:11</a>), meeting above and sustaining the "firmament," that is, the bottom of the Divine throne (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,22);">Eze 1:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',10,1);">10:1</a>), while two are stretched downward, conformable the one to the other, so as to cover their bodies (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,11,23);">Eze 1:11, 23</a>). In appearance, the living creatures resemble coals of fire (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',10,2,6);">Eze 10:2, 6</a>f; where the "man clothed in linen" is bidden fill both his hands with coals of fire from between the cherubim), burning like torches, the fire flashing up and down among the creatures, a bright fire out of which lightning goes forth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,13);">Eze 1:13</a>). Thus the creatures run and vanish as the appearance of a flash of lightning (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,14);">Eze 1:14</a>). The cherubim do not turn as they change direction, but always go straight forward (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,9,17);">Eze 1:9, 17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',10,11);">10:11</a>), as do the wheels of the cherubic chariot with rings full of eyes round about (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,18);">Eze 1:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',10,12);">10:12</a>). The cherubim represent the spirit, or will, in the wheels: at the direction of the spirit, the wheels are lifted up from the bottom and the chariot moves upward (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,19);">Eze 1:19</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',10,16);">10:16</a>f). The cherubim are thus the moving force of the vehicle.<P>6. Relation to Seraphim and Other Angels:<P>Ezekiel\'s cherubim are clearly related to the seraphim in Isaiah\'s inaugural vision (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',6,\'1-\');">Isa 6</a>). Like the cherubim, the seraphim are the attendants on God as He is seated upon a throne high and exalted; they are also winged creatures: with twain they cover their faces, and with twain they cover their feet, and with twain they fly. Like the Levites in the sanctuary below, they sing a hymn of adoration: "Holy, holy, holy, is Yahweh of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory." In the Book of Enoch, the cherubim, seraphim, and ophannim (wheels), and all the angels of power constitute the "host of God," the guardians of His throne, the singers of praise ascribing blessedness to "the Lord of Spirits," with the archangel Gabriel at their head (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',61,10);">Isa 61:10</a>f;). And so in the Jewish daily liturgy the seraphim, ophannim, and "living creatures" constitute the heavenly choir who, the elect ministers of the Living God, ready to do the will of their maker with trembling, intone in sweet harmony the Thrice-holy. In the Talmud, the cherubim are represented as having the likeness of youths (with a fanciful etymology, ke plus rubh, "like a youth"; Cukk 5b; Chag 13b), while, according to the Midrash, they have no definite shape, but appear indifferently as men or women, or as spirits and angelic beings (Ge rabba\' 21).<P>7. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',4,\'1-\');">Revelation 4</a>:<P>The "four living creatures" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',4,6);">Re 4:6</a>ff are clearly modeled upon Ezekiel, with supplementary touches from Isaiah. Full of eyes before and behind, they are in the midst of the throne, and round about it. One resembles a lion, the other a calf, and the third a man, and the fourth a flying eagle. Each of the creatures has six wings. "They have no rest day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God, the Almighty, who was and who is and who is to come."<P>8. Ornamental Cherubim in the Temple of Solomon:<P>In the temple of Solomon, two gigantic cherubic images of olive-wood plated with gold, ten cubits high, stood in the innermost sanctuary (the debhir) facing the door, whose wings, five cubits each, extended, two of them meeting in the middle of the room to constitute the throne, while two extended to the walls (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',6,\'23-28\');">1Ki 6:23-28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',8,6,7);">8:6-7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',3,\'10-13\');">2Ch 3:10-13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',5,7,8);">5:7-8</a>). The Chronicler represents them as the chariot of the Lord (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',28,18);">1Ch 28:18</a>). There were also images of the cherubim carved on the gold-plated cedar planks which constituted the inner walls of the temple, and upon the olive-wood doors (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',6,29,35);">1Ki 6:29, 35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',3,7);">2Ch 3:7</a>); also on the bases of the portable lavers, interchanging with lions and oxen (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',7,\'29-36\');">1Ki 7:29-36</a>). According to the Chronicler, they were also woven in the veil of the Holy of Holies (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',3,14);">2Ch 3:14</a>).<P>9. In the Temple of Ezekiel:<P>Ezekiel represents the inner walls of the temple as carved with alternating palm trees and cherubim, each with two faces, the lion looking on one side, the man on the other (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',41,\'18-25\');">Eze 41:18-25</a>).<P>10. In the Tabernacle:<P>In the Tabernacle, there were two cherubim of solid gold upon the golden slab of the "lid," or "mercy-seat," facing each other, with wings outstretched above, so as to constitute a throne on which the glory of the Lord appeared, and from which He spake (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,\'18-22\');">Ex 25:18-22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',37,\'7-9\');">37:7-9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',7,89);">Nu 7:89</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,5);">Heb 9:5</a>). There were also cherubim woven into the texture of the inner curtain of the Tabernacle and the veil (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,1,31);">Ex 26:1, 31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',36,8,35);">36:8, 35</a>). There were no cherubim in the temple of Herod, but the walls were painted with figures of them (see Talmud Yoma\' 54a). In the times of Josephus no one knew what the Scriptural cherubim looked like (Ant., VIII, iii, 3).<P>LITERATURE.<P>Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, under the word; KAT3, 529f; and references; commentaries on Genesis and Ezekiel.``115';
|
||
isbe[2026]='Cherubim (2)`The cherubic forms in the constellation figures.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASTRONOMY">ASTRONOMY</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[2027]='Chesalon`kes\'-a-lon (kecalon; Chaslon, Chasalon): One of the cities on the Northern boundary of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,10);">Jos 15:10</a>). In the 4th century it was a "very large village." It is now Kesla, 2,087 ft. above sea-level, a small village perched on a mountain ridge to the south of Wady el Humar. See Palestine Exploration Fund, III, 25, 26; Sh XVII.``1';
|
||
isbe[2028]='Chesed`ke\'-sed, kes\'-ed (kasdim; Chaszad): One of the sons of Nahor and Milcah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,22);">Ge 22:22</a>); was probably the father of the Casdim. The early Babylonian form Kasdu appears in Assyrian as Kaldu or Kaldu. English Versions of the Bible follows the Assyrian and Greek style of writing the name and uses Chaldees or Chaldeans instead of Casdim. The Chaldeans dwelt in the lower valley of the Euphrates, at the head of the Persian Gulf. Abram came from Ur of the Chaldees (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,28,31);">Ge 11:28, 31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,7);">15:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',9,7);">Ne 9:7</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',1,17);">Job 1:17</a> the Casdim are described as invading the land of Uz, the eldest brother of Chesed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,21,22);">Ge 22:21-22</a>). In the days of Nebuchadrezzar the Casdim overran Syria and Palestine and carried the people of Judah in successive deportations into captivity (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',24,\'1-10\');">2Ki 24:1-10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',25,1);">25:1</a>ff). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',2,2,5);">Da 2:2, 5</a> the Casdim are named with the magicians and astrologers as a learned class, skilled in interpretations. Casdim is sometimes used in Hebrew for the land of Chaldea (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',23,15);">Eze 23:15</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',11,24);">11:24</a>).``156';
|
||
isbe[2029]='Chesil`ke\'-sil, kes\'-il (kecil; A, Chaseir): A town in the extreme south of Judah named with Eltolad, Hormah and Ziklag (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,30);">Jos 15:30</a>). The name does not occur again. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,4);">Jos 19:4</a> it is replaced by Bethul (Septuagint Baithel), and in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,30);">1Ch 4:30</a> by Bethuel. "Chesil" may have arisen from a misreading of the text.``1';
|
||
isbe[2030]='Chesnut`ches\'-nut.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHESTNUT">CHESTNUT</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[2031]='Chest`chest (\'aron, genazim; kibotos):<P>(1) The ark of the covenant in Old Testament is invariably denoted by the word \'aron, elsewhere rendered the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) "chest."<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ARK">ARK</a>.<P>(2) \'Aron is also the word rendered "coffin" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',50,26);">Ge 50:26</a>: "and he was put in a coffin in E.").<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=COFFIN">COFFIN</a>.<P>(3) In Kings and Chronicles (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',12,9,10);">2Ki 12:9-10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',24,8,10,11);">2Ch 24:8, 10-11</a>) \'aron stands uniformly for a money chest. It is the "chest" that Jehoiada, the priest, placed in the court "beside the altar" and "bored a hole in the lid of" that the priests might "put therein all the money that was brought into the house of Yahweh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',12,9);">2Ki 12:9</a>); and "the chest" that King Joash commanded to be made and set "without at the gate of the house of Yahweh" to receive "the tax that Moses the servant of God laid upon Israel" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',24,8,10,11);">2Ch 24:8, 10-11</a>). One feature is common to the thing meant in all these applications<6E>the chest was rectangular in shape, and, most probably in every instance, made of wood.<P>(4) Josephus (Ant., VI, 1,2) uses the equivalent of the word to denote the "coffer" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',6,8);">1Sa 6:8</a>ff English Versions), or small chest, in which the princes of Philistia deposited the gold mice.<P>(5) In New Testament times the "chests" that were provided in the court of the women, in the temple of Herod, to receive the various kinds of money gifts had the exceptional shape of a trumpet (if Sheqalim, vi.5 may be trusted)<29>wide at the bottom and gradually narrowing toward the top, hence, called shopharoth. It was into these that the Master was watching the multitude casting in their money when He saw the poor widow cast in her two mites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,41,42);">Mr 12:41-42</a>).<P>(6) In <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,24);">Eze 27:24</a>, where the prophet is giving an inventory of the merchandise of Tyre, another word entirely is used (genazim), and it is rendered in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) "chests" ("chests of rich apparel, bound with cords and made of cedar"). According to Cornill, Davidson, Smend and others this rendering is without sufficient support (see Smith, Dictionary of the Bible and commentary in the place cited.).``47';
|
||
isbe[2032]='Chestnut, Tree`ches\'-nut.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PLANE+TREE">PLANE TREE</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[2033]='Chesulloth`ke-sul\'-oth (ha-keculloth; B, Chasaloth, A, Achesaloth): A town on the border of Zebulun (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,18);">Jos 19:18</a>), the same as Chisloth-tabor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,12);">Jos 19:12</a>). It is represented by the modern village Iksal on the northern edge of Esdraelon, circa 3 miles west of Mt. Tabor.``1';
|
||
isbe[2034]='Cheth`khath.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHETH">CHETH</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[2035]='Chettiim`ket\'-i-im, ket-i\'-im (kittim).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KITTIM">KITTIM</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[2036]='Chew; Cud`choo, chu, (ma\'aleh gerah, literally "bringing up" (American Revised Versions margin), i.e. "chewing the cud," from garar, "to roll," "ruminate"): One of the marks of cleanliness, in the sense of fitness for food, of a quadruped, given in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,3);">Le 11:3</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,6);">De 14:6</a>, is the chewing of the cud. Among the animals considered clean are therefore included the ox, the sheep, the goat, the hart, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the pygarg, the antelope and the chamois. Several of the forbidden animals are expressly named in the passages, e.g. the camel, the rock-badger, the hare and the swine. In addition to the distinctions between clean and unclean animals mentioned in the Bible, the Talmud points out that the clean animals have no upper teeth, that their horns are either forked, or if not forked they are clear of splinters, notched with scales and round, and that certain portions of the meat of clean animals tear lengthwise as well as across. Many theories have been advanced as to the reasons for the distinctions with regard to the chewing of the cud and the cloven hoof. See the Jewish Encyclopedia under the word "Clean." The most obvious is that ruminating animals and animals without claws were apparently cleaner-feeding animals than the others.``81';
|
||
isbe[2037]='Chezib`ke\'-zib.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ACHZIB">ACHZIB</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[2038]='Chicken`chik\'-\'-n, chik\'-in (Anglo-Saxon, cicen or cycen; Latin, Gallus ferrugineus; alektruon, masculine and fem.): A barnyard fowl of any age. The record is to be found in the books of the disciples, but Jesus is responsible for the only direct mention of chickens in the Bible. <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,37);">Mt 23:37</a>, contains this: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her! how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" Luke\'s version of the same scene says: "Even as a hen gathereth her own brood under her wings" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',13,34);">Lu 13:34</a>). There is no reference to chickens in the Old Testament sufficiently clear to specify our common domestic bird. The many references to "fatted fowl" in these older records, in accordance with the text and the history of the other nations, were pigeons, guineas, ducks, geese and swans. The importation of peafowl by Solomon is mentioned. The cock and hen are distinctive birds and would have been equally a marvel worth recording had they been introduced at that time. From the history of the bird in other countries it is a safe estimate to place their entrance into Palestine between five and six hundred years BC. That would allow sufficient time for them to increase and spread until they would be well known and common enough to be used effectively in the ministry of Jesus Christ. Every historical fact and indication points to the capture and domestication of the red jungle fowl in Burma. The Chinese records prove that they first secured imported fowl from the West in 1400 BC. Their use for food dated from 1200 to 800 BC, in the Book of Manu, but it was specified that only those that ran wild were to be eaten. From these countries they were imported to Greece and Italy, and from there carried south into Palestine Homer ([?] 10; compare also alektruon, P 602) names a man Cock, alektor, which seems to indicate that he knew the bird. Pindar gives them slight mention; Aristophanes wrote of them as "Persian birds," which indicates that they worked their way westward by importation. I cannot find them in the records of Aristotle, but Aristophanes advanced the idea that not the gods, but the birds were rulers of men in ancient times, and compared the comb of the cock with the crown of a king, and pointed out that when he "merely crows at dawn all jump up to their work" (Aves, 489-90). They were common in Italy in the days of Pliny, who was ten years old at the time of the crucifixion of Christ. Pliny gave many rules for raising chickens, proving that much was known of their habits in his time. Yet so credulous was he and so saturated with superstition, that, mixed with his instructions for preserving eggs, brooding and raising chickens, is the statement that on account of the fighting power of the cocks the lions feared them. He wrote that a man named Galerius in the time of the consuls, Lepidus and Catulus, owned a barnyard fowl that spoke. He names Lenius Strabo as the first man to devise a "coupe" to keep fowl in and "cram" them to fatness. He gave the laws governing the use of fowl at table and recorded that in Egypt eggs were hatched in manure beds, which is conclusive proof that birds had been carried across the Mediterranean several centuries previous. The records of Babylon, 600 BC, contain figures undoubtedly intended for cocks, and they were reproduced in marble in Lycia at that time, In all these reproductions the birds have the drooping tail of the wild, and there is no record of the date at which they erected the tail, lifted the head and assumed the upright bearing of today.``167';
|
||
isbe[2039]='Chide`chid: Only in the Old Testament, translating Hebrew ribh, a word which is more frequently rendered "strive." Since in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,36);">Ge 31:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,1);">Jud 8:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',103,9);">Ps 103:9</a>, the strife is one of words, it means in these passages, "scold," or "sharply censure," and is applied either to mutinous protests and reproaches of inferiors to a superior, or, as in the last of these passages, to rebukes administered by a superior to inferiors.``1';
|
||
isbe[2040]='Chidon, the Threshing-Floor of`ki\'-don, (goren kidhon; Septuagint B, omits; A has Cheilo): The place where Uzza perished because he touched the ark (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',13,9);">1Ch 13:9</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',6,6);">2Sa 6:6</a> it is called the threshing-floor of Nachon. No name resembling either of these has been discovered.``1';
|
||
isbe[2041]='Chief`chef: The English word is in the King James Version of Old Testament the translation of some 17 different Hebrew words, most frequently of ro\'sh, "head," sar, "prince," and re\'shith, "beginning." The principal changes made by the Revised Version (British and American) are:<P>(1) Hebrew beth\'abh, "house of a father," being recognized as a technical term denoting a subdivision of a tribe, ro\'sh is rendered literally "head," when it occurs in connection with this phrase, so that "chief fathers" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',31,26);">Num 31:26</a>) and "chief of the fathers" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',1,5);">Ezr 1:5</a>) become "heads of fathers\' houses";<P>(2) Hebrew naghidh and nasi\' are more accurately translated "prince" in such passages as <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',5,2);">1Ch 5:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',3,32);">Nu 3:32</a>;<P>(3) the misinterpretations which brought about the translation "chief" for \'atsilim, "corners," <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',41,9);">Isa 41:9</a>, and for ma\'aleh, "ascent," in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',32,33);">2Ch 32:33</a>, are corrected.<P>In the New Testament "chief" is in most of its appearances the translation of Greek protos, "first"; the Revised Version (British and American) reads "first" for the King James Version "chief," "chiefest," in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,27);">Mt 20:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,44);">Mr 10:44</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,12);">Ac 16:12</a>. The reading in the latter passage is a difficult one, but the King James Version "Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia," seems to imply a political authority which Philippi did not possess; the Revised Version (British and American) "a city of Macedonia, the first of the district." Greek archon, "prince," "ruler," is rendered by the King James Version "chief," by the Revised Version (British and American) "prince," in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',11,15);">Lu 11:15</a>; the King James Version "chief Pharisees," the Revised Version (British and American) "rulers of the Pharisees," in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',14,1);">Lu 14:1</a>.<P>The original meaning of "chief" having been weakened, the comparative and superlative were admitted into English, the latter only appearing in the King James Version or the Revised Version: <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',2,29);">1Sa 2:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',5,10);">So 5:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',11,5);">2Co 11:5</a>, etc. On "chief of Asia" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,31);">Ac 19:31</a> the King James Version)`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASIARCH">ASIARCH</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[2042]='Chief Friends; Good Men``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHIEF+FRIENDS">CHIEF FRIENDS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GOOD,+CHIEF">GOOD, CHIEF</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHIEF">CHIEF</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[2043]='Chief Musician`mu-zish\'-an.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASAPH">ASAPH</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[2044]='Chief Seats`chef sets (protokathedria): It was one of the reproaches urged by our Lord against the scribes and Pharisees that they loved the chief seats in the synagogues (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,6);">Mt 23:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,39);">Mr 12:39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',11,43);">Lu 11:43</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',20,46);">20:46</a>). These were special seats set in front of the ark containing the Scriptures and of the reader\'s platform, and facing the congregation. They were specially reserved for those who were held in the highest honor in the congregation. There were seventy-one such seats in the great synagogue of Alexandria, which were occupied by the members of the great Council in that city (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SYNAGOGUE">SYNAGOGUE</a>).``195';
|
||
isbe[2045]='Child-Bearing`child\'-bar-ing: Only in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',2,15);">1Ti 2:15</a>: "She shall be saved through her (m "the") child-bearing" (dia tes teknogonias). The reference is to the calling of woman as wife and mother, as her ordinary lot in life, and to the anxieties, pains and perils of maternity, as the culmination and representation of the penalties woman has incurred because of the Fall (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,16);">Ge 3:16</a>). "She shall be saved by keeping faithfully and simply to her allotted sphere as wife and mother" (Dummelow). The preposition dia is not used here instrumentally, as though child-bearing were a means of her salvation, but locally, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',3,15);">1Co 3:15</a>, "saved so as through fire," where life is saved by rushing through the flames. The explanation by reference to the incarnation, with an appeal to <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,4);">Ga 4:4</a>, favored by Ellicott and others, seems very mechanical.``84';
|
||
isbe[2046]='Child; Children`child, chil\'-dren (ben, "son," yeledh, "child" na\'ar, "lad"; teknon, paidion): The Hebrews regarded the presence of children in the family as a mark of Divine favor and greatly to be desired (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,2);">Ge 15:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,1);">30:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',1,11,20);">1Sa 1:11, 20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',127,3);">Ps 127:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,7,28);">Lu 1:7, 28</a>). The birth of a male child was especially a cause for rejoicing (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',128,3);">Ps 128:3</a>, Hebrew); more men, more defenders for the tribe. If there were no sons born to a household, that family or branch became lost. If the wife proved childless, other wife or wives might be added to the family (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,\'1-\');">Ge 16</a>f). Further, each Jewish mother, at least in later times, hoped that her son might prove to be the Messiah. The custom of Levirate marriage, which was not limited to the Hebrew people, rested on the principle that if a man died childless his brother should marry his widow, the children of such union being considered as belonging to the brother whose name and line were thus preserved from extinction (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',25,5);">De 25:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',38,26);">Ge 38:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,24);">Mt 22:24</a>).<P>Children were sometimes dedicated to God, even before their birth (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',1,11);">1Sa 1:11</a>). Names often were significant: Moses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,10);">Ex 2:10</a>); Samuel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',1,20);">1Sa 1:20</a>); Ichabod (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',4,21);">1Sa 4:21</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,\'1-\');">Ge 30</a>) (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PROPER+NAMES">PROPER NAMES</a>). The firstborn son belonged to God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',3,44);">Nu 3:44</a>ff). The ceremony of redeeming the firstborn occurred on the thirtieth day. Friends of the family were invited to a feast, the rabbi also being present. The child was placed in the hands of the priest. The father carried some gold or silver in a cup or vessel. The priest asked the mother whether this was her firstborn, and, on being answered in the affirmative, claimed the child as Yahweh\'s. The father offered the redemption money, which was accepted in exchange for the child (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,18);">1Pe 1:18</a>). See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FIRSTBORN">FIRSTBORN</a>. Other stages in the life of the child were celebrated with fitting ceremonies. In the fourth year, in Palestine, on the second day of the Passover occurred the ceremony of the first cutting of the boy\'s hair, the friends sharing the privilege. Sometimes, as in the case of the wealthy, the weight of the child in currency was given as a donation to the poor. In common with the custom of other eastern peoples, male children were circumcised (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,12);">Ge 17:12</a>), the rite being performed on the eighth day.<P>Early education was cared for in the home, the children growing up more or less with the mother (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',6,20);">Pr 6:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',31,1);">31:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',1,5);">2Ti 1:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',3,14,15);">3:14-15</a>), and the girl continuing with her mother until her marriage. In wealthier families tutors were employed (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',27,32);">1Ch 27:32</a>). Schools for children are first mentioned by Josephus (Ant., XV, x, 5). According to the Talmud the first school for children was established about 100 BC, but in the time of Jesus such schools were common. Children were taught to read and to write even in families of moderate means, these arts being widely diffused as early as 600 BC, if not earlier (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',8,1);">Isa 8:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,19);">10:19</a>). Great stress was laid on the Torah, i.e. the law of Moses. Boys were trained also in farming, the tending of cattle, and in the trades. The religious training of the boy began in his fourth year, as soon as he could speak distinctly. The religious life of the girl also began early. In later times at least children took part in the Sabbath and Passover festivals and boys attended synagogue and school regularly.<P>Children were subject to the father (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',5,5);">Ne 5:5</a> marks the extreme), who in turn was bound to protect them, though he himself had the power of life and death (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,21);">Le 18:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,2);">20:2</a>ff). Respect for and obedience to parents were stoutly upheld by public opinion (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,12);">Ex 20:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',5,16);">De 5:16</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',6,20);">Pr 6:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',7,6);">Mic 7:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',21,\'18-21\');">De 21:18-21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,15);">Ex 21:15</a>).<P>Both the Old Testament and New Testament afford abundant evidence of the strength of the bond that bound the Hebrew family together (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,16);">Ge 21:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',18,33);">2Sa 18:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',3,23);">1Ki 3:23</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',4,19);">2Ki 4:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',8,4);">Isa 8:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',29,5);">Job 29:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,13);">Mt 19:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,20);">20:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,24);">Mr 9:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,48);">Lu 2:48</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,47);">Joh 4:47</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,13);">Heb 2:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,23);">11:23</a>). The gift of a son from Yahweh was the height of joy; the loss of a child marked the depth of woe. A hint occurs in the custom of naming a man as the father of his firstborn son (Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, I, 382), or even the use of the father\'s name as a surname (Bar-jonah, Bartimeus) and such continues in Syria at the present day. This idea is further instanced in the use, in both Old Testament and New Testament, of the terms to express the relation between God and men (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,22);">Ex 4:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,1);">De 14:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,6);">32:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',3,4);">Jer 3:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',12,10);">Zec 12:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',1,6);">Mal 1:6</a>).<P>See also <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FAMILY+RELATIONSHIPS">FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SONS">SONS</a>.<P>LITERATURE. Benzinger, Hebraische Archaologie, 2nd edition,1907,112-23; for rabbinical lore, Friedenberg in Jewish Encyclopedia, IV, 27 f.<P>W. N. Stearns<P>Figurative: Child is the English Versions of the Bible rendering of the Greek teknon. The corresponding Hebrew words (ben, and yeledh), are usually translated "son," but they have practically the same significance in the figurative use of the term. Child is used figuratively to describe:<P>(1) An affectionate greeting. Jesus addressed the sick of the palsy as "child" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,5);">Mr 2:5</a> the Revised Version, margin).<P>(2) The disciples, or followers, of a teacher. Jesus addressed His disciples as children (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,24);">Mr 10:24</a>). Paul referred to Timothy as his child (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,2);">1Ti 1:2</a>), and also to Onesimus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phm\',1,10);">Phm 1:10</a>). John also designated the disciples to whom he was writing as his children (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Jo\',1,4);">2Jo 1:4</a>). The same use of "children" or "sons" is common in the Old Testament (see <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',20,35);">1Ki 20:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',2,3,5,7);">2Ki 2:3, 5, 7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',4,38);">4:38</a>). As a term of special endearment, disciples are sometimes called "little children" (teknia). Jesus thus addressed His disciples when He was speaking about His departure (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,33);">Joh 13:33</a>). Paul thus addressed the Galatians (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,19);">Ga 4:19</a>), and that was a favorite expression with John (see <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,1);">1Jo 2:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,4);">4:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,21);">5:21</a>). A term that was even more endearing was paidia, which means "little ones" or "babes." Jesus used this term once in addressing His disciples after His resurrection (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',21,5);">Joh 21:5</a>), and John also used this term occasionally in saluting those to whom he was writing (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,18);">1Jo 2:18</a>).<P>(3) Those who belong to God. Children of God is a common expression in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. It is based on the relation between parents and children, and in general describes God\'s affection for His own, and their dependence upon Him, and moral likeness to Him. The term is sometimes used of those who are disloyal to God, and they are designated as "rebellious children" (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,1);">Isa 30:1</a>).<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHILDREN+OF+GOD">CHILDREN OF GOD</a>.<P>(4) Those who belong to the devil. Those who are like the devil in thought and action are designated as "children of the devil" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,10);">1Jo 3:10</a>).<P>(5) One\'s relation to something to which he belongs, or by which he is dominated in his affection for it. Thus we have:<P>(a) the children of a city or country (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',2,16);">Jer 2:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,37);">Mt 23:37</a>), and this designates those who belong to that particular city or country;<P>(b) children of wisdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,19);">Mt 11:19</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,35);">Lu 7:35</a>), and these are the ones whose lives are dominated by wisdom. Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek adopted ergon for teknon in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,19);">Mt 11:19</a>, but this seems to be without any good reason;<P>(c) children of obedience (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,14);">1Pe 1:14</a>), and these are the ones who are eager to obey;<P>(d) children of light (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,8);">Eph 5:8</a>), and this designates those whose souls are illumined by the light.<P>(6) Those who are liable to some particular fate. Thus, we have<P>(a) children of cursing, or those who are exposed to cursing (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,14);">2Pe 2:14</a>), and<P>(b) children of wrath or those who are exposed to wrath (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,3);">Eph 2:3</a>).<P>(7) Moral likeness or spiritual kinship (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,7);">Ga 3:7</a> the King James Version; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,39);">Joh 8:39</a>; "the children of Abraham"). See secs. (3), (4).``62';
|
||
isbe[2047]='Childhood, Gospels of the`child\'-hood.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCRYPHAL+GOSPELS">APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[2048]='Children of Eden`e\'-d\'-n (bene \'edhen): In <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',19,12);">2Ki 19:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',37,12);">Isa 37:12</a> "the children of Eden that were in Telassar" are mentioned in connection with "Gozan, and Haran, and Rezeph" as having been destroyed by the Assyrians who were before the time of Sennacherib. The expression, "the children of Eden that were in Telassar," undoubtedly referred to a tribe which inhabited a region of which Telassar was the center. Telassar means "the hill of Asshur" and, according to Schrader, it was a name that might have been given to any place where a temple had been built to Asshur. Inasmuch as Gozan, and Haran, and Rezeph were in Mesopotamia it would seem probable that "the children of Eden that were in Telassar" belonged to the same locality. The "children of Eden" is quite probably to be identified with the Bit \'Adini of the inscriptions and this referred to a district on the middle Euphrates. According to the inscriptions Gozan, Haran, Rezeph, and Bit \'Adini were destroyed by Sennacherib\'s forefathers, and this is in accord with the account in 2 Kings and Isaiah.<P>The "Eden" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,23);">Eze 27:23</a> is usually taken as the name of a place in Mesopotamia with which Tyre had commercial relations, and probably belongs to the region of "the chilrden of Eden," discussed above.<P>Some writers think the "Beth-eden" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',1,5);">Am 1:5</a> the Revised Version, margin (the American Standard Revised Version "Aven") is to be identified with the Bit \'Adini of the inscriptions and hence, with "the children of Eden," but this is doubtful. This was perhaps in Syria in the neighborhood of Damascus.``62';
|
||
isbe[2049]='Children of God`Introduction: Meaning of Terms<P><b>I. OLD TESTAMENT TEACHING</b><P class="in15">1. Mythological Survivals<P class="in15">2. Created Sonship<P class="in15">3. Israel\'s Collective Covenant Sonship<P class="in15">4. Individual and Personal Relation<P class="in15">5. Universalizing the Idea<P><b>II. NEW TESTAMENT TEACHING</b><P class="in15">1. Physical and Limited Sonship Disappears<P class="in15">2. As Religious Experience, or Psychological Fact<P class="in30">(1) Filial Consciousness of Jesus<P class="in30">(2) Communicated to Men<P class="in15">3. As Moral Condition, or Ethical Fact<P class="in15">4. As State of Being, or Ontological Fact<P class="in30">(1) Essence of Christ\'s Sonship<P class="in30">(2) Men\'s Sonship<P class="in15">5. As Relation to God, or Theological Fact<P class="in30">(1) Eternal Generation<P class="in30">(2) The Work of Grace<P><hr />Introduction: Meaning of Terms:<P>Children (Sons and Daughters) of God (bene and benoth \'elohim, literally "sons and daughters of God"; tekna theou, and huioi theou): so the King James Version; but the Revised Version (British and American) translates the latter Greek phrase more accurately "sons of God." Tekna contains the idea of origin or descent, but also that of personal relation, and is often used metaphorically of "that intimate and reciprocal relationship formed between men by the bonds of love, friendship, trust, just as between parents and children" (Grimm-Thayer). Huioi, too, conveys the ideas of origin, and of personal relation, but the latter in the fuller form in which it appears in mature age. "The difference between huios and teknon appears to be that whereas teknon denotes the natural relationship of child to parent, huios implies in addition to this the recognized status and legal privileges reserved for sons" (Sanday and Headlam, on <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,14);">Ro 8:14</a>). This difference obtains, however, only in a very general sense.<P>The above phrases denote the relation in which men are conceived to stand to God, either as deriving their being from Him and depending upon Him, or as standing in that personal relation of intimate trust and love toward Him which constitutes the psychological fact of sonship. The exact significance of the expression depends upon the conception of God, and particularly of His Fatherhood, to which it corresponds. It therefore attains to its full significance only in the New Testament, and its meaning in the Old Testament differs considerably, even though it marks stages of development up to the New Testament idea.<P>I. Old Testament Teaching.<P>The most primitive form of the idea appears in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,\'1-4\');">Ge 6:1-4</a>, where the sons of God by marrying the fair daughters of men become the fathers of the giants.<P>1. Mythological Survivals:<P>These were a subordinate order of Divine beings or demi-gods, and the title here may mean no more, although it was probably a survival of an earlier idea of the actual descent of these gods from a higher God. The idea of a heavenly court where the sons of God come to present themselves before Yahweh is found in quite late literature (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',1,6);">Job 1:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',2,1);">2:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',38,7);">38:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',29,1);">Ps 29:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',89,6);">89:6</a>). In all these cases the phrase implies a certain kinship with God and dependence upon Him on the part of the Divine society around Him. But there is no evidence to show whether the idea of descent of gods from God survived to any extent, nor is there any indication of a very close personal relationship. Satan is unsympathetic, if not hostile. In one obviously polytheistic reference, the term implies a similarity of appearance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',3,25);">Da 3:25</a>). In a secondary sense the titles "gods," and "sons of the Most High" are given to magistrates, as exercising God\'s authority (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',82,6);">Ps 82:6</a>).<P>2. Created Sonship:<P>The idea of creation has taken the place of that of procreation in the Old Testament, but without losing the sense of sonship. "Saith Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker: Ask me...concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',45,11);">Isa 45:11</a>). Israel acknowledges the absolute sovereignty of God as her Father and Maker (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',64,8);">Isa 64:8</a>). Israel\'s Maker is also her Husband, and by inference the Father of her children (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',54,5);">Isa 54:5</a>). Since all Israel has one Father, and one God created her, the tribes owe brotherly conduct to one another (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',2,10);">Mal 2:10</a>). Yahweh upbraids His sons and daughters whom He as their Father bought, made and established. "He forsook God who made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation....Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that gave thee birth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,6,15,18);">De 32:6, 15, 18</a>ff). These passages reveal the transition from the idea of original creation to that of making and establishing Israel as a nation. All things might be described as children of God if creation alone brought it to pass, but Israel stands in a unique relation to God.<P>3. Israel\'s Collective Covenant Sonship:<P>The covenant relation of God with Israel as a nation is the chief form in which man\'s sonship and God\'s fatherhood appear in the Old Testament. "Israel is my son, my firstborn" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,22);">Ex 4:22</a>); "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',11,1);">Ho 11:1</a>). And to be children of God involves the obligation to be a holy people (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,1,2);">De 14:1-2</a>). But Israel has proved unworthy of her status: "I...have brought up children, and they have rebelled against me" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,2,4);">Isa 1:2, 4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,1,9);">30:1, 9</a>). Yet He will have pity upon them: "for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,9,20);">Jer 31:9, 20</a>). Israel\'s unworthiness does not abolish the relation on God\'s side; she can therefore return to Him again and submit to His will (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',63,16);">Isa 63:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',64,8);">64:8</a>); and His pity exceeds a mother\'s love (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',49,15);">Isa 49:15</a>). The filial relation of Israel to God is summed up and symbolized in a special way in the Davidic king: "I will be his father, and he shall be my son" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',7,14);">2Sa 7:14</a> = <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',17,13);">1Ch 17:13</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',22,10);">1Ch 22:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',28,6);">28:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',2,7);">Ps 2:7</a>).<P>4. Individual and Personal Relation:<P>God\'s fatherhood to collective Israel necessarily tends to develop into a personal relation of father and son between Him and individual members of the nation. The children of Israel, whatever their number, shall be called "the sons of the living God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',1,10);">Ho 1:10</a>). Yahweh\'s marriage relation with Israel as a nation made individual Israelites His children (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',2,19,20);">Ho 2:19-20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',3,14,22);">Jer 3:14, 22</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',50,1);">Isa 50:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',16,20,21);">Eze 16:20-21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',23,37);">23:37</a>), and God\'s ownership of His children, the individual members of the nation, is asserted (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',127,3);">Ps 127:3</a>). Chastisement and pity alike God deals forth as Father to His children (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',1,31);">De 1:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',8,5);">8:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',103,13);">Ps 103:13</a>), and these are intimate personal relations which can only obtain between individuals.<P>5. Universalizing the Idea:<P>In another direction the idea of God as the father of Israel tends to be modified by the inclusion of the Gentiles. The word "first-born" (in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,22);">Ex 4:22</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,9,20);">Jer 31:9, 20</a>) may be only an emphatic form of expressing sonship, or it may already suggest the possibility of the adoption of the Gentiles. If that idea is not present in words, it is an easy and legitimate inference from several passages, that Gentiles would be admitted some day into this among the rest of Israel\'s privileges (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',19,25);">Isa 19:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',65,1);">65:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',14,16);">Zec 14:16</a>).<P>II. New Testament Teaching.<P>1. Physical and Limited Sonship Disappears:<P>As the doctrine of Divine fatherhood attains its full spiritual and moral significance in the New Testament, so does the experience and idea of sonship. All traces of physical descent have disappeared. Paul\'s quotation from a heathen poet: "For we are also his offspring" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,28);">Ac 17:28</a>), whatever its original significance, is introduced by the apostle for the purpose of enforcing the idea of the spiritual kinship of God and men. The phrase "Son of God" applied to Christ by the Roman centurion (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,54);">Mt 27:54</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,39);">Mr 15:39</a>) may or may not, in his mind, have involved the idea of physical descent, but its utterance was the effect of an impression of similarity to the gods, produced by the exhibition of power attending His death. The idea of creation is assumed in the New Testament, but generally it is not prominent in the idea of sonship. The virgin birth of Jesus, however, may be understood as implying either the creative activity of the Holy Spirit, or the communication of a preexistent Divine being to form a new human personality, but the latter idea also would involve creative activity in the physical realm (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,38);">Lu 3:38</a>: "Adam (son) of God"). The limitations of the Old Testament conception of sonship as national and collective disappear altogether in the New Testament; God is father of all men, and of every man. In potentiality at least every man and all men are sons of God. The essence of sonship consists in a personal experience and moral likeness which places man in the most intimate union and communion with God.<P>2. As Religious Experience, or Psychological Fact:<P>(1) Filial Conciousness of Jesus.<P>Divine sonship was first realized and made manifest in the consciousness of Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,27);">Mt 11:27</a>). For Him it meant unbroken personal knowledge of God and communion with Him, and the sense of His love for Him and of His satisfaction and delight in Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,17);">Mt 3:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',17,5);">17:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,11);">Mr 1:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,7);">9:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,22);">Lu 3:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,35);">9:35</a>). Whether the "voice out of the heavens saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" was objective or not, its message always dwelt in the filial consciousness of Jesus. The Father\'s love was to Him a source of knowledge and power (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,20);">Joh 5:20</a>), the reward of His self-sacrifice (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,17);">Joh 10:17</a>) and the inspiration of His love for men (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',15,9);">Joh 15:9</a>).<P>Sonship meant for Him His Messianic mission (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,16,17);">Mt 16:16-17</a>). It involved His dependence on the Father and His obedience to Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,19,30);">Joh 5:19, 30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,29);">8:29</a>), and a resulting confidence in His mission (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,36);">Joh 5:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,36,37);">10:36-37</a>). It filled Him with a sense of dignity, power and glory which the Father gave Him, and would yet give in larger measure (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,63,64);">Mt 26:63-64</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,27);">16:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,5);">Joh 17:5</a>).<P>(2) Communicated to Men.<P>Jesus communicated His own experience of God to men (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,9);">Joh 14:9</a>) that they also might know the Father\'s love and dwell in it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,26);">Joh 17:26</a>). Through Him and through Him alone can they become children of God in fact and in experience (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,12);">Joh 1:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,6);">14:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,27);">Mt 11:27</a>). It is therefore a distinctively Christian experience and always involves a relation of faith in Christ and moral harmony with Him. It differs from His experience in one essential fact, at least in most men. It involves an inner change, a change of feeling and motive, of ideal and attitude, that may be compared to a new birth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,3);">Joh 3:3</a>). Man must turn and return from disobedience and alienation through repentance to childlike submission (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',15,\'18-20\');">Lu 15:18-20</a>). It is not the submission of slaves, but the submission of sons, in which they have liberty and confidence before God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,6);">Ga 4:6</a>), and a heritage from Him for their possession (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,6,7);">Ga 4:6-7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,17);">Ro 8:17</a>). It is the liberty of self-realization. As sons they recognize their kinship with God, and share his mind and purpose, so that His commands become their pleasure: "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,3);">1Jo 5:3</a>). They have boldness and access to God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,18);">Eph 2:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,12);">3:12</a>). With this free union of love with God there comes a sense of power, of independence of circumstances, of mastery over the world, and of the possession of all things necessary which become the heirs of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,26,32);">Mt 6:26, 32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,11);">7:11</a>). "For whatsoever is begotten of God overcometh the world" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,4);">1Jo 5:4</a>). They learn that the whole course and destiny of creation is for the "revealing of the sons of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,19,21);">Ro 8:19, 21</a>).<P>3. As Moral Condition, or Ethical Fact:<P>Christ\'s sonship involved His moral harmony with the Father: "I have kept my Father\'s commandments, and abide in his love" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',15,10);">Joh 15:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,53);">8:53</a>). He accomplished the work which the Father gave Him to do (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,4);">Joh 17:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,19);">5:19</a>), "becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,8);">Php 2:8</a>). And sonship makes the same demand upon men. The peacemakers and those who forgive like God are His children (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,9,45);">Mt 5:9, 45</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,35);">Lu 6:35</a>). "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these (and these only) are sons of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,14);">Ro 8:14</a>). God will be Father to the holy (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',6,18);">2Co 6:18</a>). The test and mark of the children of God is that they do righteousness and love the brethren (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,10);">1Jo 3:10</a>). They are blameless and harmless, without blemish, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,15);">Php 2:15</a>). Therefore their ideal of life is to be "imitators of God" and to walk in love even as Christ did (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,1);">Eph 5:1</a>). Sonship grows to its consummation as the life grows in the likeness of Christ, and the final destiny of all sons is to be ever like Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,2);">1Jo 3:2</a>).<P>4. As State of Being, or Ontological Fact:<P>Sonship is properly and primarily a relation, but it may so dominate and transform the whole of a man\'s life, thought and conduct as to become his essential being, the most comprehensive category under which all that he is may be summed up.<P>(1) Essence of Christ\'s Sonship.<P>It is so that the New Testament comprehends the person of Christ. Everything that He did, He did as God\'s son, so that He is the Son, always and ever Son. In the beginning, in the bosom of the Father, He is the <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ONLY+BEGOTTEN">ONLY BEGOTTEN</a> (which see) Son (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,1,18);">Joh 1:1, 18</a>). He is born a Son of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,35);">Lu 1:35</a>). He begins life in the things of His Father (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,49);">Lu 2:49</a>). His whole life is that of the beloved Son (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,17);">Mt 3:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',17,5);">17:5</a>). As Son of God He dies (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,63);">Mt 26:63</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,70);">Lu 22:70</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,40,43);">Mt 27:40, 43</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,18);">Joh 5:18</a>). In His resurrection He was declared to be the Son of God with power (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,4);">Ro 1:4</a>); as Jesus the Son of God He is our great high priest in heaven (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',4,14);">Heb 4:14</a>), and in the glory of His father He will come to judge in the last day (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,27);">Mt 16:27</a>).<P>(2) Men\'s Sonship.<P>Unlike Him, men\'s moral sonship is neither eternal nor universal. Are they therefore sons in any sense always and everywhere? All children are heirs of the kingdom of God and objects of the Father\'s care (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,16);">Lu 18:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,10);">Mt 18:10</a>). But men may turn away from the Father and become unworthy to be called His sons (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',15,13,19);">Lu 15:13, 19</a>). They may become children of the devil (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,10);">1Jo 3:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,44);">Joh 8:44</a>), and children of wrath (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,3);">Eph 2:3</a>). Then they lose the actuality, but not the potentiality, of sonship. They have not the experience or character of sons, but they are still moral and rational beings made in the image of God, open to the appeal and influence of His love, and able to "rise and go to their Father." They are objects of God\'s love (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',15,13);">Joh 15:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,8);">Ro 5:8</a>) and of His gracious search and seeking (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',15,4);">Lu 15:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,52);">Joh 11:52</a>). But they are actual sons only when they are led by the Spirit of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,14);">Ro 8:14</a>); and even so their sonship will only be consummated in the resurrection (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,23);">Ro 8:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',20,36);">Lu 20:36</a>).<P>5. As Relation to God, or Theological Fact:<P>In the relation of father and son, fatherhood is original and creative. That does not necessarily mean priority in time.<P>(1) Eternal Generation.<P>Origen\'s doctrine of the eternal generation of Christ, by which is meant that God and Christ always stood in the relation of Father and Son to one another, is a just interpretation of the New Testament idea that the Son "was in the beginning with God" (pros ton Theon). But Jesus was conscious of His dependence upon the Father and that His sonship was derived from Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,19,36);">Joh 5:19, 36</a>). Still more manifest is it that men derive their sonship from God. He made them for Himself, and whatever in human nature qualifies men to become sons of God is the free gift of God. But men in their sin and disobedience could not come to a knowledge of the Father, had He not "sent forth his Son...that we might receive the adoption of sons" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,4,5);">Ga 4:4-5</a>): "Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called children of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,1);">1Jo 3:1</a>); "God so loved the world, that he gave his <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ONLY+BEGOTTEN">only begotten son</a>" (which see) who gave men "the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,16);">Joh 3:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,12);">1:12</a>). It is not the children of the flesh but the children of the promise who are children of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,4);">Ro 9:4</a>). The mere act of birth does not constitute men into children of God, but His covenant of free grace must be added. God being essentially Father made men and the universe, sent His Son and His Spirit, "for the revealing of the sons of God." But they can only know the Father, and realize their sonship when they respond to His manifestation of fatherly love, by faith in God and obedience to Him.<P>(2) The Work of Grace.<P>The question whether sonship is natural and universal or conditional upon grace working through faith, does not admit of a categorical answer. The alternatives are not strict antitheses. God does all things as Father. To endow man with rational and moral nature capable of his becoming a son was an act of love and grace, but its whole purpose can be communicated only in response to faith in Christ. But a natural sonship which is not actual is meaningless. A man\'s moral condition and his attitude toward God are the most essential elements of his nature, for a man\'s nature is just the sum total of his thoughts, acts and states. If these are hostile or indifferent to God, there is nothing left that can have the reality or bear the name of son. For if the word son be used of mere creaturehood and potentiality, that is to give it a meaning entirely different from New Testament usage. All men by nature are potential sons, because God has made them for sonship and does all things to win them into their heritage. Men may be sons of God in a very imperfect and elementary manner. The sharp transitions of Pauline and Johannine theology are rather abstract distinctions for thought than actual descriptions of spiritual processes. But Paul and John also contemplate a growth in sonship, "till we all attain unto the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a full-grown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,13);">Eph 4:13</a>). For lit. and further discussion, see special articles on <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ADOPTION">ADOPTION</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GOD">GOD</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JESUS+CHRIST">JESUS CHRIST</a>.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SONS+OF+GOD">SONS OF GOD</a>`145';
|
||
isbe[2050]='Children of Israel`iz\'-ra-el (bene yisra\'el): A very common term in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, and it refers to the Israelites as the descendants of a common ancestor, Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',32,\'24-32\');">Ge 32:24-32</a>). It was customary to designate the members of the various tribes as the children of the one from whom the tribe originated (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',1,\'20-43\');">Nu 1:20-43</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,\'3-61\');">Ezr 2:3-61</a>), and it was natural that the people who boasted of Israel as their ancestor should be designated as his children. The first reference to the descendants of Jacob is found in the account of the changing of Jacob\'s name to Israel, and the purpose is to connect them with the experience in Jacob\'s life which led to the change in his name: "Therefore the children of Israel eat not the sinew of the hip, which is upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this day: because he touched the hollow of Jacob\'s thigh in the sinew of the hip." At the time when this was written "the children of Israel" was a phrase that was commonly applied to the Israelites. In <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,34);">2Ki 17:34</a> they are called "the children of Jacob," and this occurs in connection with the account of the changing of Jacob\'s name to Israel and is intended to connect them closely with their father Jacob, who was favored of God.<P>After a time, it is quite likely that the phrase "children of Israel" lost its peculiar significance and was simply one of the popular terms designating the inhabitants of Palestine, but at first it was intended to connect these people with their ancestor Jacob whose name was changed to Israel. The Jews of the New Testament times connected themselves with Abraham rather than with Jacob (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,39);">Joh 8:39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,7);">Ro 9:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,7);">Ga 3:7</a>, tekna, or, huioi Abraam).``62';
|
||
isbe[2051]='Children of the Bridechamber``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BRIDE-CHAMBER,+SONS+(CHILDREN)+OF+THE">BRIDE-CHAMBER, SONS</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[2052]='Children of the East`est (bene qedhem): A term which in a general way designated the inhabitants of the country east of Palestine The Hebrews thought of their own country as occupying the central place, and of the other parts of the world in relation to this. They spoke of the "queen of the south" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,42);">Mt 12:42</a>), and of the "king of the south" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',11,5,6);">Da 11:5-6</a>). They spoke of people coming from "the east and the west" and sitting down with the patriarchs (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',8,11);">Mt 8:11</a>).<P>The term "children of the east" seems to have been applied to the inhabitants of any part of the country east of Palestine It is stated that Jacob, when he fled from Esau, "came to the land of the children of the east" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',29,1);">Ge 29:1</a>), and the place to which he came was Haran in Mesopotamia. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',49,28);">Jer 49:28</a> the inhabitants of Kedar are called "the children of the east," and in later Jewish literature, Kedar is identified with the Arabs (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KEDAR">KEDAR</a>). Job was designated as "the greatest of all the children of the east" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',1,3);">Job 1:3</a>), and the land of Uz was mentioned as his home (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',1,1);">Job 1:1</a>). While it is impossible absolutely to locate the land of Uz, it must have been on the edge of the desert which was east of Palestine. The children of the east seem to have been famous for their wisdom. It is said that "Solomon\'s wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,30);">1Ki 4:30</a>), and "Wise-men from the east" came to Jerusalem seeking the one that was born king of the Jews (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',2,1);">Mt 2:1</a>).<P>Many of the inhabitants of the east country were regarded as descending from Abraham (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,6);">Ge 25:6</a>), and hence, they were related to Israel.``62';
|
||
isbe[2053]='Chileab`kil\'-e-ab (kil\'abh; Dalouia, "restraint of father"): A son of David, born to him at Hebron. His mother was Abigail, whom David married after the death of her husband Nabal, the Carmelite (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',3,3);">2Sa 3:3</a>). In the corresponding account (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',3,1);">1Ch 3:1</a>) he is called "Daniel," the meaning of which name ("God is my judge") points to its having been given in order to commemorate God\'s judgment upon Nabal (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',25,39);">1Sa 25:39</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,6);">Ge 30:6</a>). Some suppose that he bore both names, but the Septuagint reading here Dalouia (Ch Damniel), and the identity of the last three letters of the Hebrew word "Chileab" with the first three of the following word, seems to indicate that the text of Samuel is corrupt.``197';
|
||
isbe[2054]='Chilion`kil<69>-i-on (kilyon, "pining," "wasting away"): One of the two sons of Elimelech and Naomi, "Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehem-judah" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rth\',1,2);">Ru 1:2</a>). With his mother and brother he came into Moab and there both married Moabite women, Orpah being the name of Chilion<6F>s wife and Ruth that of the wife of Mahlon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rth\',4,9,10);">Ru 4:9-10</a>). Both died early and Orpah remained in Moab while Ruth accompanied Naomi back to Bethlehem. When Boaz married Ruth he "bought all that was Elimelech<63>s, and all that was Chilion<6F>s, and Mahlon<6F>s, of the hand of Naomi" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rth\',4,9);">Ru 4:9</a>).``185';
|
||
isbe[2055]='Chilmad`kil\'-mad (kilmadh; Charman): A city or district mentioned after Sheba and Asshur as supplying merchandise to Tyre (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,23);">Eze 27:23</a>). By changing "m" into "w" (common in Assytoprian-Babylonian) this has been compared with Kalwadha near Bagdad (G. Smith, Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, I, 61; Delitzsch, Paradies, 206), but the identification seems improbable. Though regarded as the name of a country in the Septuagint and the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A. D.) (Charman; Chelmad), there is some doubt whether this view of the word is correct. The Targum substitutes Madhai, "Media," and on this account Mez (Stadt Harran, 24) amends to Kol Madhai, "all Media." The absence of the copula "and" has caused others to further modify the vocalization, and by reading kelimmudh instead of Chilmad, the sense "Asshur was as the apprentice of thy trading" (Qimchi, Hitzig, Cornill) is obtained, but is not satisfactory. Probably both text and translation are susceptible of improvement.``136';
|
||
isbe[2056]='Chimham`kim\'-ham (kimham (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',19,37,38);">2Sa 19:37-38</a>) or kimhan (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',19,40);">2Sa 19:40</a>) or kemohem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',41,17);">Jer 41:17</a> Kt.); this reading, however, may probably be safely ignored): One of the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite, who supported David while the latter was in exile in Mahanaim (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',19,37);">2Sa 19:37</a>). After the death of Absalom, Barzillai was invited to spend the remainder of his life with the king; but he refused, and sent his son Chimham in his stead. From the mention of "the habitation of Chimham, which is by Beth-lehem" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',41,17);">Jer 41:17</a> the King James Version), it has been inferred that Chimham received a grant of land from David\'s patrimony at Bethlehem, which retained his name for at least four centuries. It has been suggested that his name was probably Ahinoam (\'achino\'am).``197';
|
||
isbe[2057]='Chimney`chim\'-ni.<P>kin\'-e-reth, kin\'-e-roth (kinnereth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',3,17);">De 3:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,35);">Jos 19:35</a>, etc.)), (kinaroth; Codex Vaticanus, Kenereth, Codex Alexandrinus, Cheneroth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',11,2);">Jos 11:2</a>)): Taking the order in which the towns are mentioned, this city seems to have lain north of Rakkath (?Tiberias). It may have occupied the site of el-Mejdel, at the southwest corner of the plain of Gennesaret. From this city the sea took its Old Testament name (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',34,11);">Nu 34:11</a>, etc.).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HOUSE">HOUSE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHINNERETH">CHINNERETH</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[2058]='Chios`ke\'-os, ki\'-os (Chios): An island belonging to Turkey in the Aegean Sea, south of Lesbos, and very near the mainland of Asia Minor. Paul\'s vessel passed it on his last voyage to Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,15);">Ac 20:15</a>). The channel here is very picturesque. From Luke\'s expression, "we came the following day over against Chios," it has been conjectured that they were becalmed; more probably it simply means that, because of the dark moon, they lay at anchor for the night on the Asian coast opposite the island (Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, under the word). Herod, when on his way to Agrippa at the Bosphorus, "continued many days at Chios" and conferred many royal benefactions upon the inhabitants (Josephus, Ant, XVI, ii, 2).<P>The soil is sterile (though well cultivated), the climate mild. Earthquakes are frequent. In the mountains (highest 4,000 ft.) beautiful blue marble with white veins, and excellent potter\'s clay, were quarried in antiquity. In modern times large quantities of ochre are mined. The chief industry is the culture of the silkworm, the cocoons being sent to Lyons. Oranges, lemons, almonds, brandy, anise, mastich and leather are also exported. The inhabitants, who are almost entirely Greeks, number about 60,000. The capital, Castro, has a population of 15,000. The place where Homer is said to have collected his pupils around him is still pointed out to the traveler at the foot of Mt. Epos, near the coast. It is in reality (probably) a very old sanctuary of Cybele, the Mother of the Gods. The tragic poet Ion, the historian Theopompus and the sophist Theocritus were natives of Chios. The Chians were especially famous for their skill in telling stories, and for their levity. A familiar proverb says that "it is easier to find a green horse than a sober- minded Sciot" (Conybeare and Howson, XX, 549).<P>The oldest inhabitants of the island were Leleges, Cretans and Carians, who were conquered by the Ionians. The latter made Chios one of the most flourishing states in Ionia. When the Persians overran Asia Minor and oppressed the Greek colonies, the Chians showed a Pan-Hellenic spirit. They surrendered, however, to Cyrus in 546 BC. Nevertheless, 46 years later they joined in the rebellion of Aristagoras against the Persians. In the naval engagement off the island Lade they fought with 100 ships and displayed great bravery. Again they fell into the power of Persia; but after the battle of Mycale (479) the Chians joined the Athenian confederacy. In 412 they sided with the Peloponnesians, in the 19th year of the war which Athens had been waging against Sparta and her allies. For this act of treason the Athenians devastated the island. At the end of the war the Chians revolted from Sparta and, after the battle of Naxos (376), became an ally of Athens once more. Oppressed now by Athens, as she had been by Sparta, Chios made an alliance with Thebes in 363 and defended herself successfully against the Athenian general, Chares; and in 355 Athens was forced to recognize the island\'s independence. Later the Chians became friends of the Romans and in the war with Mithridates were obliged to surrender their ships to the Pontic king and in addition pay him 2,000 talents.<P>In 1307 AD Turkish pirates subjugated and laid waste the island. The Turks themselves became masters of Chios in 1566. In the war of the Greek revolution the Chians joined the Greeks (February 1821) but were overpowered by the Turks. The Pasha decreed that the island should be utterly devastated; 23,000 Chians were massacred and 47,000 sold into slavery. Only 5,000 escaped. A second attempt to regain their freedom was made in 1827, but met with failure. When the kingdom of Greece was established two years later, Chios was not included. On April 3,1881,the island was visited by a terrible earthquake, the city of Castro being almost entirely destroyed.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Conybeare and Howson, The Life and Epistles of Paul; W. M. Ramsay, Paul the Traveler; G. H. Gilbert, The Student\'s Life of Paul (chiefly concerned with the chronology and order of events in Paul\'s life); Eckenbrecher, Die Insel Chios (1845); Pauli, same person (in the Mitteilungen der Geogr. Gesellschaft in Hamburg, 1880-81).``71';
|
||
isbe[2059]='Chirp`cherp (tsaphaph): "Chirp" occurs in the King James Version marginand the Revised Version, margin of <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',29,4);">Isa 29:4</a>, "Thy voice shall be as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper (margin, "chirp") out of the dust." The reference is to "the sounds made by wizards and ventriloquists, who imitated the chirping of the bats which was supposed to proceed from the Iower world"; hence, for "peep" of the King James Version in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',8,19);">Isa 8:19</a> we have "chirp"<22>"wizards, that chirp and that mutter."<P>Figurative: We have also in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,14);">Isa 10:14</a> the Revised Version (British and American), in a figurative allusion to young birds, "chirped" instead of "peeped."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHATTER">CHATTER</a>`185';
|
||
isbe[2060]='Chisleu; Chislev`kis\'-lu, kis\'-lev.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KISLEV">KISLEV</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[2061]='Chislon`kis\'-lon, kiz\'-lon (kiclon, "strength"): A prince of Benjamin, the father of Elidad (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',34,21);">Nu 34:21</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[2062]='Chisloth-Tabor`kis-loth-ta\'-bor, kiz\'-loth.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHESULLOTH">CHESULLOTH</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[2063]='Chitlish`kit\'-lish (kithlish, "separation"; the King James Version Kithlish, the English Revised Version "Chithlish," kith\'lish): An unidentified town named with Lahman and Gederoth in the Shephelah of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,40);">Jos 15:40</a>).``1';
|
||
isbe[2064]='Chittim`kit\'-im.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KITTIM">KITTIM</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[2065]='Chiun (1)`ki\'-un: Thus Hebrew kiyun, is transliterated in <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',5,26);">Am 5:26</a> the King James Version. The vowels represent an assimilation to some such word as shiqquts, "detestable thing," or gillul, "idol" (properly "a filthy thing"), in consonance with the well-known habit of the punctuators (compare molekh, Molech with the vowels of bosheth, "shame"). The Syriac version has preserved the correct vocalization; apparently also the Septuagint, albeit the consonants have suffered corruption (so particularly in the Greek manuscripts of <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,43);">Ac 7:43</a>). There can be no doubt that we should vocalize kewan = the Assyrian Kai(a)-wanu = Kaiamanu by which at least in late Babylonian Saturn was indicated. The passage in Amos refers to the Saturn worship which appears to have been in vogue in the prophet\'s days. The Israelites shall carry with them into exile the images of their gods (render with the margin of the Revised Version (British and American): "Yea, ye shall take up," etc.). The received vocalization is as old as Aquila and Symmachus.``115';
|
||
isbe[2066]='Chiun (2)`ki\'-un (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',5,26);">Am 5:26</a> the King James Version): Called in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,43);">Ac 7:43</a> "Rephan" (Rhemphan) the planet Saturn.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASTROLOGY">ASTROLOGY</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[2067]='Chloe`klo\'-e (Chloe, "a tender shoot"): A woman, presumably a Christian, mentioned only in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,11);">1Co 1:11</a>. She was a resident either of Corinth or of Ephesus. Paul had been informed by some of her household, probably Christian slaves, of the dissensions in the church at Corinth. Nothing more is known of her.``1';
|
||
isbe[2068]='Choba; Chobai`ko\'-ba, ko\'-ba-i (Choba, Judith 4:4; Chobai, 15:4f): A place named along with Jericho, Asora, and the valley of Salem (Judith 4:4; 15:4f). Reland\'s (Pal, 721) suggestion of Choabis, which the Peutinger Tables give as 12 Roman miles from Scythopolis, seems probable. It may be identical with el-Mekhubby, about 11 miles from Beisan (Scythepolis), and 3 miles from Tubas.``1';
|
||
isbe[2069]='Choenix`ke\'-niks (choinix): A Greek dry measure, almost equal to one quart. Mentioned in the New Testament only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,6);">Re 6:6</a>, where the Revised Version, margin would read "choenix" instead of the indefinite translation "measure." The verse is then obviously a threat of famine.``1';
|
||
isbe[2070]='Choice`chois.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHOOSE">CHOOSE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WILL">WILL</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[2071]='Choke`chok (pnigo, and its compounds): Is used in its primary sense of "to strangle," or "to suffocate," in describing the fate of the swine (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',8,33);">Lu 8:33</a> the King James Version). The Revised Version (British and American) has "drowned," but "choked" is the correct rendering of the Greek word.<P>Figurative: It is used in the sense of "to strangle" "smother," "suffocate," as if by depriving of breath, in describing the fate of the young grain growing in the midst of thorns (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,7);">Mt 13:7</a>). The figurative is carried a little farther still in describing the way the word, planted in the heart, is overcome by the care of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,22);">Mt 13:22</a>).``62';
|
||
isbe[2072]='Chola`ko\'-la (Chola; the King James Version, Cola): This names occurs only with that of Chobai (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHOBA">CHOBA</a>) in Judith 15:4. It may be identical with the modern Ka\'un, between el- Mekhubby and Beisan.``1';
|
||
isbe[2073]='Choler`kol\'-er: Lit. "bile," is used in the sense of a disease (cholera) (Sirach 31:20; 37:30), and in the sense of bitter anger (marar) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',8,7);">Da 8:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',11,11);">11:11</a> English Versions of the Bible, the American Standard Revised Version "anger").``1';
|
||
isbe[2074]='Choose; Chosen`chooz, cho\'-z\'-n (bachar, qabhal, bara\', barah; ek-lego):<P><B>I. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT</B><P class="in15">1. Human Choice<P class="in15">2. God Chooses King of Israel<P class="in15">3. God Chooses Jerusalem<P class="in15">4. Election of Israel<P class="in15">5. Yahweh\'s Grace<P class="in30">(1) An Act of Sovereignty<P class="in30">(2) For Mankind\'s Sake<P><b>II. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT</b><P class="in15">1. Various Meanings<P class="in15">2. Of God\'s Free Grace<P class="in15">3. Ultimate Antinomies<P class="in15">4. Election Corresponds to Experience<hr /><P>The words denote an act of comparison of two or more objects or persons, the preference and selection of one, or of a few out of a larger number for a certain purpose, function, position or privilege.<P>I. In the Old Testament.<P>1. Human Choice:<P>For bachar and its derivatives: men choosing wives (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,2);">Ge 6:2</a>); Lot choosing the cities of the Plain (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,11);">Ge 13:11</a>); often of kings and generals choosing soldiers for their prowess (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,9);">Ex 17:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',8,3);">Jos 8:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,2);">1Sa 13:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',10,9);">2Sa 10:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',17,1);">17:1</a>). The word bachar is often used for "young men," as being choice, in the prime of manhood. The most important uses of bachar are these: of Israel choosing a king (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',8,18);">1Sa 8:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',12,13);">12:13</a>); of moral and religious choice: choosing Yahweh as God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',24,15,22);">Jos 24:15, 22</a>), or other gods (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,8);">Jud 5:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',10,14);">10:14</a>); the way of truth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,30);">Ps 119:30</a>); to refuse the evil and choose the good (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',7,15,16);">Isa 7:15-16</a>); compare David\'s choice of evils (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',24,12);">2Sa 24:12</a>).<P>2. God Chooses King of Israel:<P>A leading idea is that of God choosing Moses as leader (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',16,5,7);">Nu 16:5, 7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',17,5);">17:5</a>); the Levites to the priesthood (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',2,28);">1Sa 2:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',29,11);">2Ch 29:11</a>); Saul as king (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,24);">1Sa 10:24</a>), David (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',6,21);">2Sa 6:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,34);">1Ki 11:34</a>), Solomon (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',28,5);">1Ch 28:5</a>). All this follows from theocratic idea that God rules personally over Israel as His chosen people.<P>3. God Chooses Jerusalem:<P>A more important, but still subsidiary, idea is that of Yahweh choosing Jerusalem as the place of His habitation and worship (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,5);">De 12:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',20,\'1-\');">20</a> other times, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',9,27);">Jos 9:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',8,44,48);">1Ki 8:44, 48</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',132,13);">Ps 132:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',1,17);">Zec 1:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',2,12);">2:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',3,2);">3:2</a>). This was the ruling idea of Josiah\'s reformation which was instrumental in putting down polytheistic ideas and idolatrous practices in Israel, and was therefore an important factor in the development of Hebrew monotheism; but it was an idea that Hebrew monotheism had to transcend and reject to attain its full growth. "The hour cometh, when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,21);">Joh 4:21</a>).<P>4. Election of Israel:<P>But the fundamental idea of choosing, which governs all others in the Old Testament, is that of God choosing Israel to be His peculiar people. He chose Abraham, and made a covenant with him, to give him the land of Canaan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',9,7);">Ne 9:7</a>ff): "For thou art a holy people unto Yahweh thy God: Yahweh thy God hath chosen thee to be a people for his own possession, above all peoples that are upon the face of the earth...because Yahweh loveth you, and because he would keep the oath which he sware unto your fathers" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',7,\'6-8\');">De 7:6-8</a>). Historically this idea originated in the old conception of Yahweh as the tribal God of Israel, bound to her by natural and indissoluble ties (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GOD">GOD</a>). But as their conception of Yahweh became more moral, and the idea of His righteousness predominated, it was recognized that there was no natural and necessary relation and harmony between Israel and Yahweh that accounted for the favor of a righteous God toward her, for Israel was no better than her neighbors (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',1,\'1-\');">Am 1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',2,\'1-\');">2</a>). Why then was Yahweh Israel\'s God, and Israel His people?<P>5. Yahweh\'s Grace:<P>It was by an act of free choice and sovereign grace on God\'s part. "You only have I known of all the families of the earth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',3,2);">Am 3:2</a>). In Ho the relation is described under the figure of a marriage tie. Yahweh is Israel\'s husband: and to realize the force of the figure, it is necessary to recall what ancient and oriental marriage customs were. Choice and favor were almost entirely made by the husband. The idea of the covenant which Yahweh out of His free grace made with Israel comes to the forefront in Deuteronomy and Jeremiah. Because He loved her, and for no other reason, He has chosen Israel to be His peculiar people. In <span class="noTag">Isa 40-66</span> the idea is carried farther in two directions:<P>(1) An Act of Sovereignty:<P>Yahweh\'s gracious choice of Israel rests ultimately on His absolute sovereignty: "O Jacob my servant, and Israel, whom I have chosen: thus saith Yahweh that made thee, and formed thee from the womb" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',44,1,2);">Isa 44:1-2</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',29,16);">Isa 29:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',18,6);">Jer 18:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',64,8);">Isa 64:8</a>). For Israel\'s deliverance Cyrus and his world-empire are in Yahweh\'s hands as clay in the potter\'s hands (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',45,9,10);">Isa 45:9-10</a>).<P>(2) For Mankind\'s Sake:<P>"Israel is elect for the sake of mankind." This is the moral interpretation of a choice that otherwise appears arbitrary and irrational. God\'s purpose and call of salvation are unto all mankind. "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',45,22);">Isa 45:22</a>). And Israel is His servant, chosen, the messenger He sends, "to bring forth justice to the Gentiles" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',42,1,19);">Isa 42:1, 19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',43,10,12);">43:10, 12</a>). The idea is further developed in the conception of the <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SERVANT+OF+JEHOVAH">SERVANT OF JEHOVAH</a> (which see) as the faithful few (or one) formed "from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him," "for a light to the Gentiles," God\'s "salvation unto the end of the earth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',49,\'1-6\');">Isa 49:1-6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',52,\'13-\');">52:13-53:12</a>) (compare Isaiah\'s doctrine of the Remnant: Shearjashub; also, the righteous, the godly, the meek, in Pss; and see Skinner, Isaiah, II, xxxff). As the conception of personality and of individual relation and responsibility to God developed from Ezekiel onward, together with the resulting doctrine of personal immortality, the conditions were prepared for the application of the idea of election to individuals (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',65,4);">Ps 65:4</a>).<P>Coordinate with the idea of God choosing Israel runs the complementary idea that Israel should prove faithful to the covenant, and worthy of the choice. God has chosen her, not for any merit in her, but of His free grace, and according to His purpose of salvation, but if Israel fails to respond by faithful conduct, fitting her to be His servant and messenger, He may and will cast her off, or such portion of her as proves unworthy. See Oehler, Old Testament Theology, I, 256ff, 287 f.<P>Three other Hebrew words expressing choice in minor matters are: qabhal, for David\'s choice of evils (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',21,11);">1Ch 21:11</a>); bara\', to mark out a place (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',21,19);">Eze 21:19</a>), to select singers and porters for the temple (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,22);">1Ch 9:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',16,41);">16:41</a>); barah, to choose a man to represent Israel against Goliath (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',17,8);">1Sa 17:8</a>).<P>II. In the New Testament.<P>1. Various Meanings:<P>The whole conception of God, of His relation to Israel, and of His action in history indicated above, constituted the religious heritage of Jesus Christ and His disciples. The national conciousness had to a considerable extent given place to that of the individual; and salvation extended beyond the present life into a state of blessedness in a future world. But the central ideas remain, and are only modified in the New Testament in so far as Jesus Christ becomes the Mediator and Agent of God\'s sovereign grace. Eklego and its derivatives are the words that generally express the idea in the New Testament. They are used<P>(1) of the general idea of selecting one out of many (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',14,7);">Lu 14:7</a>);<P>(2) of choosing men for a particular purpose, e.g. of the church choosing the seven (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',6,5);">Ac 6:5</a>); of the choice of delegates from the Council of Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,22,25);">Ac 15:22, 25</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,19);">2Co 8:19</a>), cheirotoneo; choose by vote (the Revised Version (British and American) "appoint") (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,41);">Ac 10:41</a>), procheirotoneo;<P>(3) of moral choice (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,20);">Mr 13:20</a>): "Mary hath chosen the good part" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,42);">Lu 10:42</a>);<P>(4) of Christ as the chosen Messiah of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,35);">Lu 23:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,4);">1Pe 2:4</a> the King James Version);<P>(5) of Christ choosing His apostles (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,13);">Lu 6:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,70);">Joh 6:70</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,18);">13:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',15,16,19);">15:16, 19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,2,24);">Ac 1:2, 24</a>); Paul (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,15);">Ac 9:15</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,14);">Ac 22:14</a> the King James Version), procheirizomai; Rufus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,13);">Ro 16:13</a>); and Paul chose Silas (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,40);">Ac 15:40</a>), epilego;<P>(6) of God<P>(a) choosing Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,17);">Ac 13:17</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,11);">Ro 9:11</a>),<P>(b) choosing the Christian church as the new Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,9);">1Pe 2:9</a> the King James Version),<P>(c) choosing the members of the church from among the poor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',2,5);">Jas 2:5</a>), the foolish, weak and despised (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,\'27-28\');">1Co 1:27-28</a>),<P>(d) choosing into His favor and salvation a few out of many: "Many are called, but few are chosen"\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,16);">Mt 20:16</a> (omitted in the Revised Version (British and American)); <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,14);">Mt 22:14</a>); God shortens the days of the destruction of Jerusalem "for the elect\'s sake, whom he chose" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,20);">Mr 13:20</a>).<P>2. Of God\'s Free Grace:<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,\'4-6\');">Eph 1:4-6</a> every phrase tells a different phase of the conception:<P>(1) God chose (and foreordained) the saints in Christ before the foundation of the world;<P>(2) according to the good pleasure of His will;<P>(3) unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto Himself;<P>(4) to be holy and without blemish before Him in love;<P>(5) to the praise of the glory of His grace;<P>(6) which He freely bestowed on them in the Beloved. And in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',17,14);">Re 17:14</a>, the triumphant church in heaven is described as "called and chosen and faithful." God\'s sovereign choice governs the experience and testing of the saints at every point from beginning to end.<P>Thus in the New Testament as in the Old Testament<P>(1) God\'s covenant of grace is free and unconditional. It is unto all men, now as individuals rather than nations, and without distinction of race or class. It is no less free and sovereign, because it is a father\'s grace.<P>(2) Israel is still a chosen race for a special purpose.<P>(3) The church and the saints that constitute it are chosen to the full experience and privileges of sonship.<P>(4) God\'s purpose of grace is fully revealed and realized through Jesus Christ.<P>3. Ultimate Antinomies:<P>This doctrine raises certain theological and metaphysical difficulties that have never yet been satisfactorily solved.<P>(1) How can God be free if all His acts are preordained from eternity? This is an antinomy which indeed lies at the root of all personality. It is of the essence of the idea of personality that a person should freely determine himself and yet act in conformity with his own character. Every person in practice and experience solves this antinomy continually, though he may have no intellectual category that can coordinate these two apparently contradictory principles in all personality.<P>(2) How can God be just, if a few are chosen and many are left? And<P>(3) How can man be free if his moral character proceeds out of God\'s sovereign grace? It is certain that if God chose all or left all He would be neither just nor gracious, nor would man have any vestige of freedom.<P>4. Election Corresponds to Experience:<P>The doctrine describes accurately (a) the moral fact, that some accept salvation and others reject it; (b) the religious fact that God\'s sovereign and unconditional love is the beginning and cause of salvation. The meeting-point of the action of grace, and of man\'s liberty as a moral and responsible being, it does not define. Nor has the category as yet been discovered wherewith to construe and coordinate these two facts of religious experience together, although it is a fact known in every Christian experience that where God is most sovereign, man is most free.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ELECTION">ELECTION</a>`145';
|
||
isbe[2075]='Chop`(paras):<P>Figurative: This word, meaning "to cut in pieces," "to distribute," often translated "spread," is rendered "chop" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',3,3);">Mic 3:3</a>, they "chop them in pieces, as for the pot," figuratively for the destruction of God\'s people through the cruel exactions of their rulers.``1';
|
||
isbe[2076]='Chorashan`kor-ash\'-an, ko-ra\'-shan.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=COR-ASHAN">COR-ASHAN</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[2077]='Chorazin`ko-ra\'-zin (Chorazin, <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,21);">Mt 11:21</a>; Chorazin, <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,13);">Lu 10:13</a>; Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek Chorazein): A city whose name appears only in the woe pronounced against it by Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,21);">Mt 11:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,13);">Lu 10:13</a>). Its appearance there, however, shows that it must have been a place of some importance, and highly privileged by the ministry of Jesus. It was already deserted in the time of Eusebius, who places it 2 miles from Capernaum (Onomasticon, under the word). We can hardly doubt that it is represented by the extensive ruins of Kerazeh, on the heights to the north of Tell Chum. It is utterly desolate: a few carved stones being seen among the heaps. There are traces of a Roman road which connected the ancient city with the great highway between north and south which touched the lake shore at Khan Minyeh.``54';
|
||
isbe[2078]='Chorbe`kor\'-be (Chorbe; the King James Version Corbe): Head of a family which returned with Zerubbabel (1Esdras 5:12). The name apparently corresponds to Zaccai in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,9);">Ezr 2:9</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,14);">Ne 7:14</a>.``1';
|
||
isbe[2079]='Chosamaeus`kos-a-me\'-us (A, Simon Chosamaios; B, Chosamaos): Occurs in 1Esdras 9:32 as the name of one of the sons of Annas. But in the parallel passage (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,31);">Ezr 10:31</a>) the name is simply Shimeon followed by "Benjamin, Malluch, Shemariah," which are omitted in 1Esdras. The Septuagint of <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,31);">Ezr 10:31</a> has Semeon, followed by the three omitted names. The difference may have arisen from a mistake of a copyist, or from the use of an imperfect MS.``1';
|
||
isbe[2080]='Chosen`cho\'-z\'-n.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHOOSE">CHOOSE</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[2081]='Chozeba`ko-ze\'-ba (kozebha\', "deceitful"): Same as <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ACHZIB">ACHZIB</a> and <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHEZIB">CHEZIB</a> (which see).``1';
|
||
isbe[2082]='Christ As King, Priest, Prophet``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHRIST,+OFFICES+OF">CHRIST, OFFICES OF</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[2083]='Christ, Humanity of``[<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PERSON+OF+CHRIST">PERSON OF CHRIST</a>]; [<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MEDIATION;+MEDIATOR">MEDIATION; MEDIATOR</a>]; [<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KENOSIS">KENOSIS</a>]`1';
|
||
isbe[2084]='Christ, Intercession of``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=INTERCESSION+OF+CHRIST">INTERCESSION OF CHRIST</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[2085]='Christ, Jesus``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JESUS+CHRIST">JESUS CHRIST</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[2086]='Christ, Offices of`of\'-is-is.<P><b>General Titles of our Lord</b><P><b>I. CHRIST\'S MEDIATION EXPRESSED IN THE SPECIFIC OFFICES</b><P class="in15">Historical Review of the Theory<P><b>II. THE THREEFOLD OFFICE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT</b><P class="in15">The Failure of the Offices to Secure Their Desired Ends<P><b>III. THE PROPHET</b><P class="in15">The Forecast of the True Prophet<P><b>IV. CHRIST THE PROPHET</b><P class="in15">1. Christ\'s Manner of Teaching<P class="in15">2. Christ as Prophet in His Church<P><b>V. THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST</b><P class="in15">1. Judaic Priesthood<P class="in15">2. Sacrificial Relations of Christ in the Gospels<P class="in15">3. Christ\'s Ethical Teaching Affected by Sacrificial Ideas<P class="in15">4. Mutual Confirmations of the Synoptics<P class="in15">5. The Dual Outgrowth of Sacrifice, the Victim and Sacrificer<P class="in15">6. Christ\'s Priesthood in the Apostolic Ministry and Epistles<P class="in15">7. The Crowning Testimony of the Epistle to the Hebrews<P class="in15">8. Christ\'s Relation to Sin Expressed in Sacrificial Terms<P><b>VI. CHRIST\'S KINGLY OFFICE</b><P class="in15">The Breakdown of the Secular Monarchy<P><b>VII. THE MESSIANIC BASIS OF THE THREEFOLD OFFICE OF THE LORD</b><P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>General Titles of our Lord:<P>This term has been used by theologians to describe the various characters of our Lord\'s redemptive work. Many appellative and metaphorical titles are found in Scripture for Christ, designative of His Divine and human natures and His work: God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,28);">Joh 20:28</a>); Lord (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,43,44);">Mt 22:43-44</a>); Word (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,1,14);">Joh 1:1, 14</a>); Son of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,17);">Mt 3:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,35);">Lu 1:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,15);">Col 1:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,20);">1Joh 5:20</a>); Firstborn from the dead (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,18);">Col 1:18</a>); Beginning of the Creation of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',3,14);">Re 3:14</a>); Image of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',4,4);">2Co 4:4</a>); Express Image of His Person (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,3);">Heb 1:3</a> the King James Version); Alpha and Omega (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,8);">Re 1:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,13);">22:13</a>); Son of Man (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',8,20);">Mt 8:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,51);">Joh 1:51</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,56);">Ac 7:56</a>); Son of David (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',9,27);">Mt 9:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',21,9);">21:9</a>); Last Adam (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,45,47);">1Co 15:45, 47</a>); Captain of Salvation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,10);">Heb 2:10</a> margin); Saviour (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,11);">Lu 2:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,42);">Joh 4:42</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,31);">Ac 5:31</a>); Redeemer (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',59,20);">Isa 59:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',2,14);">Tit 2:14</a>); Author and Perfecter of Faith (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,2);">Heb 12:2</a>); Light of the World (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,12);">Joh 8:12</a>); Lamb of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,29,36);">Joh 1:29, 36</a>); Creator of all things (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,3,10);">Joh 1:3, 10</a>); Mediator (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',2,5);">1Ti 2:5</a>); Prophet (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,15);">De 18:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,19);">Lu 24:19</a>); Great High Priest (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',4,14);">Heb 4:14</a>); King (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,33);">Lu 1:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',17,14);">Re 17:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,16);">19:16</a>); Way, Truth and Life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,6);">Joh 14:6</a>). These and many others express the mediatorial office of the Lord. As mediator, He stands between God and Man, revealing the Father to man, and expressing the true relation of man to God. The term (Greek mesites), moreover, signifies messenger, interpreter, advocate, surety or pledge in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,19,19);">Ga 3:19-20</a>, where a covenant is declared to be assured by the hand of one who intervenes. Thus the covenant is confirmed and fulfilled by Him who secures that its stipulations should be carried out, and harmony is restored where before there had been difference and separation (<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>). Thus is expressed the purpose of God to redeem mankind by mediation.<P>I. Christ\'s Mediation Expressed in the Specific Offices.<P>In presenting a systematic idea of this Redemptive Work of Christ by Mediation, Christian thought gave to it a harmonious character by choosing the most general and familiar titles of the Lord as the most inclusive categories expressive of the mode of Redemption. These were prophetic, priestly and regal.<P>Historical Review of the Theory:<P>The first trace of this division is found in Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, I,3,and his Demonstratio Evangelica, IV, 15. It was accepted very largely in the Greek church, and continues to be used by Russian ecclesiastical writers. The Roman church has not so generally followed it, though it is found in the writings of many Roman theologians. The earlier reformers, especially Lutheran, ignored it. But Gerhard employed it and the Lutheran theologians followed his example, although some of these repudiated it, as Ernesti, Doderlein and Knapp. Calvin employed the division in his Institutes, II, 15. It was incorporated in the Heidelberg Catechism and has been adopted by most theologians of the Reformed church and by English and American divines. In Germany most theological writers, such as De Wette, Schleiermacher, Tholuck, Nitzsch, Ebrard, adopt it, affirming it as expressive of the essential quality of the work of redemption, and the most complete presentment of its contents. The justification of this position is found in the important place occupied in the progress of revelation by those to whom were entrusted the duties of teaching and leading men in relation to God in the offices of priest, prophet and king. Even the modern development of Christian thought which extends the view of Divine dealing with man over the entire race and its religious history, not excluding those who would find in the most recent conditions of the world\'s life the outworking of the will of God in the purposes of human salvation, cannot discover any better form of expressing Christ\'s relation to man than in terms of the prophetic, the priestly and the governmental offices. The prophet is the instrument of teaching: the priest expresses the ethical relation of man to God; while the king furnishes the typical form of that exercise of sovereign authority and Providential direction which concerns the practical life of the race.<P>II. The Threefold Office in the Old Testament.<P>From the close relation which Jesus in both His person and work bore to the Old Testament dispensation, it is natural to turn to the preparatory history of the early Scriptures for the first notes of these mediatorial offices. That the development of the Jewish people and system ever moved toward Christ as an end and fulfillment is universally acknowledged. The vague and indeterminate conditions of both the religious and national life of Israel manifest a definite movement toward a clearer apprehension of man\'s relationship to God. Nothing is more clear in Israel\'s history than the gradual evolution of official service both of church and state, as expressed in the persons and duties of the prophet, the priest and the king. The early patriarch contained in himself the threefold dignity, and discharged the threefold duty. As the family became tribal, and the tribe national, these duties were divided. The order of the household was lost for a while in the chaos of the larger and less homogeneous society. The domestic altar was multiplied in many "high places." Professional interpreters of more or less religious value began to be seers, and here and there, prophets. The leadership of the people was occasional, ephemeral and uncertain. But the men of Divine calling appeared from time to time; the foundation work of Moses was built on; the regular order of the worship of Yahweh, notwithstanding many lapses, steadily prevailed. Samuel gave dignity to his post as judge, and he again beheld the open vision of the Lord; he offered the appointed sacrifices; he established the kingly office; and although he was not permitted to see the family of David on the throne, like Moses he beheld afar off the promised land of a Divinely appointed kingdom. With the accession of the Davidic house, the three orders of God\'s service were completely developed. The king was seated on the throne, the priest was ministering at the one altar of the nation, the prophet with the Divine message was ever at hand to teach, to guide and to rebuke.<P>The Failure of the Offices to Secure Their Desired Ends:<P>Notwithstanding this growth of the special institutions<6E>prophet, priest and king<6E>the religious and national condition was by no means satisfactory. The kingdom was divided; external foes threatened the existence of the nation; idolatry was not extinguished, and the prophets who were true to Yahweh were compelled to warn and rebuke the sins of the rulers and the people, and even to testify against the priests for their unfaithfulness to the truth and purity of the religion which they professed. The best hopes of Israel and the Divine promises seem thus to be contradicted by the constant failure of the people to realize their best ideals. Hence, slowly arose a vague expectation of reform. The idea of the better condition which was coming grew ever more distinct, and settled down at length to Israel\'s Messianic hope, expressed in various forms, finally converging to the looking for of one who should in some mysterious way gather into himself the ideas which belonged especially to the three great offices.<P>III. The Prophet.<P>In this article we are concerned only with the offices as they tend to their fulfillment in Christ. For the more general treatment of each office, reference must be made to the special articles.<P>The Forecast of the True Prophet:<P>The first appearance of the idea of the special prophet of Yahweh is in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,15);">De 18:15</a>. Moses had been sent by the people to hear the Lord\'s words on their behalf (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,19);">Ex 20:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',5,27);">De 5:27</a>); and this incident in the later passage of <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,\'15-22\');">De 18:15-22</a> is connected with the promise of a prophet, while at the same time reference is made to the general fact of prophecy and the conditions of its validity and acceptance. Here we find the germ of the expectation of the Prophet, which occupied so large a place in the mind of Israel. In the act of the people sending Moses to receive the word, and Yahweh\'s promise to send a prophet whom they would accept, we see also the suggestion of a distinction between the first dispensation and the latter. The Divine promise was to the effect that what was given by Moses God would consummate in a prophetic revelation through a person. The conception of this personality is found in the second part of <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,\'1-\');">Isa (40-66)</a>. Isaiah\'s mission was vain, <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',49,4);">Isa 49:4</a>, but the coming one shall prevail, <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',49,\'1-\');">49-53</A> (passim). But the success of this servant of Yahweh was not to be only as a prophet, but by taking on himself the penalty of sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,5);">Isa 53:5</a>), and by being made an offering for sin; and as Mighty Victor triumphing over all foes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,\'10-12\');">Isa 53:10-12</a>), the dignities of whose kingship are set forth in various parts of the prophetic writings. Thus the general effect of the course of the earlier revelation may be summed up in this prophetic ministry with which has been combined a priestly and a royal character. It was an ever-advancing manifestation of the nature and will of God, delivered by inspired men who spake at sundry times and in divers manners, but whose message was perfected and extended by Jesus Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,1);">Heb 1:1</a>), who thus became the Prophet of the Lord.<P>IV. Christ the Prophet.<P>Christ\'s ministry illustrates the prophetic office in the most extensive and exalted sense of the term. He was designed and appointed by the Father (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',61,1,2);">Isa 61:1-2</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,\'16-21\');">Lu 4:16-21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',17,5);">Mt 17:5</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,30);">1Co 1:30</a>, Christ is declared to be made to us wisdom. His intimate knowledge of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,18);">Joh 1:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,27);">Mt 11:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,15);">Joh 16:15</a>), the qualities of His teaching dependent upon His nature, both Divine and human (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,34);">Joh 3:34</a>); His authority (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,9,17,18);">Joh 1:9, 17-18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,\'18-21\');">Lu 4:18-21</a>); His knowledge of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,29);">Mr 12:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,24);">Joh 4:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,25);">Mt 11:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,11,25);">Joh 17:11, 25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,35);">Mt 18:35</a>)<29>these all peculiarly fitted Christ to be the Revealer of God. Besides His doctrine of God, His ministry included the truth concerning Himself, His nature, claims, mission, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, and the religious life of man. He taught as none other the foundation of religion, the facts on which it was based, the essence of Divine service, the nature of sin, the grace of God, the means of atonement, the laws of the kingdom of God and the future state. By the acknowledgment of even those who have denied His Divine nature and redemptive work, He has been recognized as the Supreme Moral Teacher of the world. His claim to be the Prophet is seen in that He is the source of the ever-extending revelation of the eternal. His own words and works He declared were only part of the fuller knowledge which would be furnished by the system which He established (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,45);">Lu 9:45</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,34);">18:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,16);">Joh 12:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,26);">14:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',15,26);">15:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,12,13,14);">16:12-14</a>).<P>1. Christ\'s Manner of Teaching:<P>How remarkable was His method of teaching! Parable, proverb, absolute affirmation, suggestion, allusion to simple objects, practical life<66>these all made His teaching powerful, easily understood, living; sometimes His action was His word<72>and all with a commanding dignity and gracious winsomeness, that was felt by His hearers and has ever been recognized (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,29);">Mt 7:29</a>). So perfect and exalted was the teaching of Jesus that many have supposed that revelation ceased with Him, and the immediate followers whom He especially inspired to be His witnesses and interpreters. Certainly in Him the prophetic ministry culminated.<P>2. Christ as Prophet in His Church:<P>An important aspect of Christ\'s prophetic office is that of His relation to the church as the source, through the instrumentality of His Spirit, of ever-enlarging knowledge of Divine truth which it has been able to gain. This is the real significance of the claim which some churches make to be the custodians and interpreters of the tradition of faith, with which has also gone theory of development<6E>not as a human act but as a ministration of the Lord through His Spirit, which is granted to the church. Even those who hold that all Divine truth is to be found in the sacred Scriptures have yet maintained that God has much truth still to bring out of His word by the leading and direction of the Spirit of Jesus. The Scripture itself declares that Christ was the light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,9);">Joh 1:9</a>). He Himself promised that the Spirit which He would give would guide His followers into all truth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,13);">Joh 16:13</a>). The apostles claimed to receive their teaching and direction of the church from the Lord (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,23);">1Co 11:23</a>). The testimony of Jesus is definitely declared to be the spirit of prophecy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,10);">Re 19:10</a>). Indeed, all the apostolic writings in almost every line affirm that what they teach is received from the Spirit, who is the Spirit of the Lord.<P>V. The Priesthood of Christ.<P>1. Judaic Priesthood:<P>For the history of the development of the priesthood of Israel on which our Lord\'s High-Priesthood is ideally based, reference must be made to the article especially dealing of with that subject. The bearings of that institution upon the work of Jesus as Redeemer alone fall under this section. Judaism like all religions developed an extensive system priestly service. As the moral sense of the people enlarged and became more distinct, the original simplicity of sacrifice, especially as a commensal act, in which the unity of the celebrants with each other and with God was expressed, was expanded into acts regularly performed by officials, in which worship, thanksgiving, covenant and priestly expiation and atonement were clearly and definitely expressed. The progress of sacrifice may be seen in the history of the Old Testament from Cain and Abel\'s (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,3,4);">Ge 4:3-4</a>), Noah\'s (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',8,20);">Ge 8:20</a>), Abraham\'s covenant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,\'9-18\');">Ge 15:9-18</a>), etc., to the elaborate services of the Mosaic ritual set forth in Leviticus, the full development of which is found only in the later days of Israel. When Christ appeared, the entire sacerdotal system had become incorporated in the mind, customs and language of the people. They had learned more or less distinctly the truth of man\'s relation to God in its natural character, and especially in that aspect where man by his sin had separated himself from God and laid himself open to the penalty of law. The conception of priesthood had thus grown in the consciousness of Israel, as the necessary instrument of mediation between man and God. Priestly acts were performed on behalf of the worshipper. The priest was to secure for man the Divine favor. This could only be gained by an act of expiation. Something must be done in order to set forth the sin of man, his acknowledgment of guilt, the satisfaction of the law, and the assurance of the Divine forgiveness, the restored favor of God and finally the unity of man and God.<P>2. Sacrificial Relations of Christ in the Gospels:<P>That the work of Christ partook of the nature of priestly service is already indicated by references in the Gospels themselves. He was called "Jesus; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,21);">Mt 1:21</a>). Salvation from sin, in the habit of thought at which the Jew had arrived, must have expressed itself most clearly in the symbolic signification of the sacrifices in the temple. Thus in the very name which our Lord received His priesthood is suggested. The frankincense of the Magi\'s offering is not without its mystical meaning (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',2,11);">Mt 2:11</a>). Some may find in the Baptist\'s words, "baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,11);">Mt 3:11</a>), a suggestion of priestly action, for the understanding of John\'s declaration must be found in the conventional ideas of the Jewish thought of the period, determined as they undoubtedly were by the history of priestly service in the past and the fully developed ritual of the temple. The baptizing of the proselyte was not necessarily a priestly act, as indeed we cannot be certain that the baptism was always necessary at the introduction of a proselyte into the Jewish church. But the association of circumcision with the initiation of the proselyte certainly introduced the priest, and the sprinkling of the congregation by the priest was a familiar part of his official duties. It is quite probable therefore that John\'s use of the expression carried with it something of the sacerdotal idea.<P>3. Christ\'s Ethical Teaching Affected by Sacrificial Ideas:<P>The spirit of our Lord\'s teaching, as seen in the Sermon on the Mount, etc., as it reflects the thought of the Galilean ministry, may be regarded as prophetic rather than priestly. Still the end of the teaching was righteousness, and it was impossible for a Jew to conceive of the securing of righteousness without some reference to priestly administration and influence. The contrast of the effect of Christ\'s teaching with that of the scribes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,29);">Mt 7:29</a>) keeps us in the vicinity of the law as applied through the sacerdotal service of which the scribes were the interpreters and teachers, and surely therefore a hint of our Lord\'s relation to priesthood may have found its way into the minds of His immediate hearers. He was careful to recognize the authority of the priest (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',8,4);">Mt 8:4</a>). The doctrine of sacrifice emerges somewhat more distinctly in the reference to the cross, which our Lord associates with the thought of finding life by losing it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,24,25);">Mt 16:24-25</a>), and when the taking up the cross is interpreted by following Christ, and this hint is soon followed by Christ\'s distinct reference to His coming sufferings (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',17,9, 12);">Mt 17:9, 12</a>), more definitely referred to in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',17,22,23);">Mt 17:22-23</a>. Now the object of the work of the Lord takes clearer form. The Son of Man is come to save that which was lost (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,11);">Mt 18:11</a> the American Revised Version, margin). As the time of the catastrophe drew nearer, the Lord became still more distinct in His references to His coming death (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,18,19);">Mt 20:18-19</a>), and at length declares that "the Son of man came...to give his life a ransom for many" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,28);">Mt 20:28</a>). our Lord\'s quotations (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',21,42);">Mt 21:42</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,39);">23:39</a>) concerning the rejected "corner stone," and the Blessed One "that cometh in the name of the Lord" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',118,22,26);">Ps 118:22, 26</a>), are drawn from a psalm filled with the spirit of the priestly service of the temple, and in their reference to Himself again illustrate the ever-increasing recognition of His priesthood. He also uses the official term "Christ" (Messiah, the anointed one) more frequently (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,5,23,24);">Mt 24:5, 23-24</a>). On the eve of the betrayal and trial the crucifixion is clearly foretold (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,2);">Mt 26:2</a>); and the death (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,12);">Mt 26:12</a>). The full significance of the death is asserted at the institution of the Lord\'s Supper. The bread is "my body," the wine is "my blood of the new covenant," and it is declared to be "poured out for many unto remission of sins" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,\'26-28\');">Mt 26:26-28</a> margin).<P>4. Mutual Confirmations of the Synoptics:<P>A similar succession of ideas of our Lord\'s priestly work may be found in the other gospels (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,8,44);">Mr 1:8, 44</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,29);">8:29</a>; see below on the significance of the term Christ; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,31,34);">Mr 8:31, 34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,9,10);">9:9-10</a>). The inability of the disciples to understand the life that was to follow death here is indicated<65>the truth of the gospel of death and resurrection so closely bound up with the conception of sacrifice, where the blood is the life which given becomes the condition of the new union with God, being thus revealed by Christ as the initial doctrine to be continuously enlarged (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,31);">Mr 9:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,21,33,34,45);">10:21, 33-34, 45</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',11,9);">11:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,10);">12:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,21,22);">13:21-22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,8,\'22-25\',61,62);">14:8, 22-25, 61-62</a>). In Luke the priestly "atmosphere" is introduced in the earliest part of the narrative, the history of Zacharias and Elisabeth giving emphasis to the setting of John\'s own mission (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,\'1-\');">Lu 1</a>). The name Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,31);">Lu 1:31</a>); the special relation of the new kingdom to sin, necessarily connected with sacrifice in the mind of a priest, found in Zacharias\' psalm (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,77,78);">Lu 1:77-78</a>); the subtle suggestion of the Suffering One in the "also" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,35);">Lu 2:35</a> the King James Version (the American Standard Revised Version omits) shows that the third Gospel is quite in line with the two other Synoptics (see also <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,3);">Lu 3:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',5,14);">5:14</a>). The claim to forgive sins must have suggested the sacrificial symbol of remission (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',5,24);">Lu 5:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,23);">9:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',13,35);">13:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',14,27);">14:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,31);">18:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',20,14);">20:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,19,20);">22:19-20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,7,26,46,47);">24:7, 26, 46-47</a>). In the Fourth Gospel, we have the word of the Baptist, "Behold, the Lamb of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,29,36);">Joh 1:29, 36</a>), where Christ\'s relation to sin is distinctly expressed (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LAMB+OF+GOD">LAMB OF GOD</a>)<29>the baptism in the Spirit (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,33);">Joh 1:33</a>). It is highly probable that the apostle John was the "other" of the two disciples, (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,40);">Joh 1:40</a>) and, having heard the Baptist\'s words, is the only evangelist who records them, thus introducing from his personal knowledge the sacrificial idea earlier into his history than the Synoptics. Christ declares that He will give His life for the life of the world (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,51);">Joh 6:51</a>). The entire passage (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,\'47-65\');">Joh 6:47-65</a>) is suffused with the conception of "life for life," one of the elements constituting the conception of the sacrificial act. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,28);">Joh 8:28</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,14);">Joh 3:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,32);">12:32</a>) Christ predicts His crucifixion. The Good Shepherd gives His life for the sheep (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,15);">Joh 10:15</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,17,18);">Joh 10:17-18</a>, Christ claims the power to lay down His life and to take it again. He is the sacrifice and the Sacrificer.<P>5. The Dual Outgrowth of Sacrifice, the Victim and Sacrificer:<P>Here appears for the first time the double relation of Christ to the sacrificial idea, worked out in the later thought of the church into the full significance of our Lord\'s priestly office. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,25,26);">Joh 11:25-26</a> Christ is the source of life, and life after death. It is hardly possible that this conception should not have, even if remotely suggested, some reference to the significance of sacrifice; for in the sacrifices the Divine claim for the blood, as specially to be set apart as the Divine portion, was ever present. God ever claimed the blood as His; for to Him the life was forfeited by sin. And moreover He alone possesses life and gives it. Of that forfeit and that Divine sovereignty of life, sacrifice is the expression. This is fully realized and made actual in Christ\'s life and death for man, in which man shares by His unity with Christ. Man at once receives the penalty of sin in dying with Christ, and rises again into the new life which our Lord opened, and of which He is the ceaseless energy and power through the spirit of God. The emergence of this idea is illustrated by the evangelist in the sayings of Caiaphas, where as the high priest of the nation he gives, though unconsciously, a significant expression to the truth that it was "expedient" that Jesus \'should die for the nation and for the children of God everywhere scattered\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,\'47-52\');">Joh 11:47-52</a>). Here the symbolic significance of sacrifice is practically realized: death in the place of another and the giving of life to those for whom the sacrifice was offered. The vitalizing power of Christ\'s death is asserted in the discourse following the visit of the Greeks (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,\'24-33\');">Joh 12:24-33</a>). The idea of life from the dying seed is associated with the conception of the power of attraction and union by the cross. The natural law of life through death is thus in harmony with the gift of life through sacrifice involving death. That sacrifice may be found much more widely than merely in death, is shown by the law of service illustrated in the washing of the disciples\' feet (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,\'14-17\');">13:14-17</a>); and this is declared to spring out of love (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',15,13);">Joh 15:13</a>). For the priestly ideas of our Lord\'s prayer (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,\'1-\');">Joh 17</a>) see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=INTERCESSION">INTERCESSION</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=INTERCESSION+OF+CHRIST">INTERCESSION OF CHRIST</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PRAYERS+OF+CHRIST">PRAYERS OF CHRIST</a>.<P>6. Christ\'s Priesthood in the Apostolic Ministry and Epistles:<P>Christ\'s priestly office finds illustration in the Acts of the Apostles, in the apostolic declaration of Christ\'s Messianic office, not only Lord, but also Christ the Anointed One (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,36);">Ac 2:36</a>). Peter\'s reference to the stone which completed the temple, the service of which was essentially sacrificial, as the Symbol of Christ, the Crown of that Spiritual Temple (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',4,11);">Ac 4:11</a>); Philip\'s application of the passage in Isaiah of the sheep led to the slaughter (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,7,8);">Isa 53:7-8</a>) to our Lord (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',8,32,35);">Ac 8:32, 35</a>); Peter\'s discourse to Cornelius, culminating in the remission of sins through Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,43);">Ac 10:43</a>)<29>all indicates the steady growth in the apostolic ministry of the conception of our Lord\'s priestly office. The idea takes its most distinct form in Paul\'s sermon at Antioch (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,38,39);">Ac 13:38-39</a>). The necessity of Christ\'s death and resurrection was the essence of Paul\'s message (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,3);">Ac 17:3</a>). And in the address to the elders, the church is declared to have been purchased by God with His own blood (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,28);">Ac 20:28</a>).<P>As the epistles express the more elaborated thought of the apostolic ministry, the sacrifice of our Lord naturally finds more definite exposition, and inasmuch as He was both active and passive in the offering of Himself, the conception of sacrifice branches into the twofold division, the object offered, and the person offering. It must never be forgotten, however, that the thought of Christ\'s sacrifice even when thus separated into its two great divisions necessarily involves in each conception the suggestion of the other: God setting Him forth as a propitiation through faith in His blood (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,25);">Ro 3:25</a>). He was delivered for our offenses and raised for our justification (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',4,25);">Ro 4:25</a>). Through Him we have access to the conditions of justification and peace (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,2);">Ro 5:2</a>). Christ died for the ungodly, and we are justified by His blood (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,8,9);">Ro 5:8-9</a>). The conception of life both as forfeit from man and gift by God, expressed by sacrifice, runs through the reasoning of <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,\'1-\');">Ro 8</a> (see especially <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,11,32,33,34);">Ro 8:11, 32-34</a>, where Christ who died for man rises from the dead, and becomes the intercessor; the victim and the High Priest are thus united in the Lord, and thus He becomes full expression and supplier of the love of God which is the perfect life). In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,23);">1Co 1:23</a> Paul affirms the preaching of the cross as the center of his message. The subject of his teaching was not merely Christ, but Christ and Him crucified (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',2,2);">1Co 2:2</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,7);">1Co 5:7</a> Christ is declared to be the Passover, and sacrificed for us (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,\'16-18\');">1Co 10:16-18</a>). The manifestation of the death of the Lord by the bread and wine is given in the account of the institution of the Supper (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,26);">1Co 11:26</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,3);">1Co 15:3</a> Christ is said expressly to have died for our sins. Christ\'s sacrifice lies at the basis of all the thought of the Galatian epistle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,4);">Gal 1:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,20);">2:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,13);">3:13</a>). In Eph we have the definite statement of redemption through the blood of Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,7);">Eph 1:7</a>). Christ\'s humiliation to the cross is given in <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,8);">Php 2:8</a>; community with Christ\'s death, one of the important elements of sacrifice, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,10,11);">Php 3:10-11</a>. Forgiveness, the essence of redemption, is declared to be through the blood of Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,14);">Col 1:14</a>). Peace is secured through the blood of the cross, and reconciliation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,20);">Col 1:20</a>); the presentation of us in Christ\'s flesh through death, holy and unblamable and unreprovable to God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,22);">Col 1:22</a>). The community of sacrifice sets forth the oneness of believers with Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,\'1-4\');">Col 3:1-4</a>). Christ is declared to be the one Mediator between God and man, who gave Himself a ransom for all (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',2,5,6);">1Ti 2:5-6</a>).<P>7. The Crowning Testimony of the Epistle to the Hebrews:<P>The chief source of the priestly conception of our Lord is the Epistle to the Hebrews. Christ is declared to have by Himself purged our sins (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,3);">Heb 1:3</a>); to taste of death for every man (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,9);">Heb 2:9</a>); that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest to make reconciliation for the sins of the people (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,17);">Heb 2:17</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',3,1);">Heb 3:1</a>); the community of sacrifice (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',3,14);">Heb 3:14</a>); our great High Priest has passed into the heavens (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',4,14);">Heb 4:14</a>); His pitifulness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',4,15);">Heb 4:15</a>); the authority and power of Christ\'s priesthood fully set forth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',5,\'1-\');">Heb 5</a>). Christ was made a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',5,6);">Heb 5:6</a>). The priesthood of Christ being of the order of Melchizedek is more excellent than the Aaronic priesthood (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',7,\'1-\');">Heb 7</a>). Christ\'s priesthood being eternal, that of the Aaronic is abolished (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',8,\'1-\');">Heb 8</a>). Christ\'s high-priesthood is made effectual by His own blood; and He entered once for all into the holy place, and has become the Mediator of a New Covenant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,\'11-15\');">Heb 9:11-15</a>). Christ is forever the representative of man in heaven (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,\'24-28\');">Heb 9:24-28</a>). Christ by the sacrifice of Himself forever takes away sin, and has consecrated the new and living way to God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,\'1-\');">Heb 10</a>). He is the Mediator of the New Covenant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,24);">Heb 12:24</a>). The entire Epistle is steeped in the conception of Christ\'s priesthood.<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,2);">1Pe 1:2</a> the sacrificial element appears in the "sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." The sufferings of the Lord were prophesied, the spirit of the Anointed One signifying what the prophets desired to know (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,11);">1Pe 1:11</a>); the redemption by the precious blood of Christ is of "a lamb without blemish and without spot" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,19);">1Pe 1:19</a>); the priesthood of believers was through Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,5);">1Pe 2:5</a>), who carried up our sins in his body to the tree (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,24);">1Pe 2:24</a> the Revised Version, margin).<P>In the Johannine writings we have the cleansing from sin by the blood of Jesus Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,7);">1Jo 1:7</a>). Christ is said to have laid down His life for us (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,16);">1Jo 3:16</a>). The sacrifice as well as the teaching of Christ is insisted on in the coming by blood as well as by water (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,6);">1Jo 5:6</a>).<P>The appearance of Christ in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,13);">Re 1:13</a> is high-priestly; His robe is the talar, the high-priestly garment. The sacrificial place of Christ is indicated by "a Lamb...as though it had been slain" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',5,6,9,12);">Re 5:6, 9, 12</a>). The repeated title of Christ throughout the Apocalypse is The Lamb.<P>8. Christ\'s Relation to Sin Expressed in Sacrificial Terms:<P>This review of the Scripture teaching on priesthood clearly indicates the development of thought which led to the affirmation of our Lord\'s priestly office. He came to put away sin. The doctrine of sin was intimately associated with the priestly service of the temple. The sacrifices were in some cases sin offerings, and in these there ever appeared, by the function of the blood which is the life, the fatal loss of life by sin, the punishment of which was the withdrawal of the Divine gift of life. The life was always in the sacrifice reserved for God. It was natural therefore when Christ appeared that His work in taking away sin should have been interpreted in the light of sacrificial thought. We find the idea steadily developed in the New Testament. He was the sacrifice, the Lamb of God. The question as to who offered the sacrifice was answered<65>Himself. Then He became in the conception of apostolic teaching, especially emphasized in the Epistle to the He, the priest as well as the sacrifice. This was at length completely defined in theology of the church, and has generally been accepted as setting forth an important aspect of our Lord\'s redemptive work.<P>VI. Christ\'s Kingly Office.<P>The Breakdown of the Secular Monarchy:<P>The association of rule with the redemption of mankind was early found in Divine revelation. It is in the Protevangelium of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,15);">Ge 3:15</a>; the covenant with Abraham contains it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,17,18);">Ge 22:17-18</a>); the blessing of Jacob reflects it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,10);">Ge 49:10</a>). After the successive attempts to establish a visible and earthly monarchy, its settlement in the family of David was associated with Divine premonitions of continued and gracious royalty (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',7,\'18-29\');">2Sa 7:18-29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,\'1-7\');">23:1-7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',2,\'1-\');">Psalms 2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',45,\'1-\');">45</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',72,\'1-\');">72</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',110,\'1-\');">110</a>). The failure of the earthly monarchy and the fatal experiences of the kingdom turned the thought of the devout, especially guided by prophetic testimony, to a coming king who should restore the glory of the Davidic house and the people of Israel. Here and there the conception appears of the more extended reign of the Coming One, and the royal authority finds a growing place in the prophetic Scriptures (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',2,\'1-4\');">Isa 2:1-4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',9,6,7);">9:6-7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',11,\'1-10\');">11:1-10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',42,\'1-4\');">42:1-4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',52,\'13-15\');">52:13-15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,12);">53:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',60,1);">60:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',23,5,6);">Jer 23:5-6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',30,\'18-24\');">30:18-24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',2,44);">Da 2:44</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',7,\'9-14\',27);">7:9-14, 27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',5,\'1-4\');">Mic 5:1-4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',3,\'1-\');">Zec 3</a>). The postexilic conception of the king became one of the supreme and most active ideas in the Jewish mind. The reign of the Messiah was to be earthly, and all nations were to be subject to the Jew. The Jews of Palestine seem to have retained the more patriotic and the more material form of the idea (see 1Macc 14:41), while the Egyptian and dispersed Jews began to regard the more spiritual character of the coming Messiah. References to the future blessedness of Israel under the restored royalty do not appear so largely in the Apocrypha writings which it must be remembered reflect chiefly their Egyptian-Jewish sources. Still there are some passages of interest (Baruch 4:21-5; Tobit 13; Ecclesiasticus 35:18,19; 36:11-16; 47:11,22). In the New Testament we have references to the strong ex pectation of the restored royalty and kingdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,49);">Joh 1:49</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,15);">6:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,\'12-15\');">12:12-15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,6);">Ac 1:6</a>). Christ\'s kingship was speedily recognized by those who saw His works of power, and acknowledged His authority. He Himself clearly claimed this authority (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,\'43-45\');">Mt 22:43-45</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,36,37);">Joh 18:36-37</a>). It was however not a kingdom based upon material and external power and rule, but on the foundation of truth and righteousness. The Kingdom of Heaven or of God is familiar to every reader of the words of Jesus. It was thus He described the new order which He had come to establish, of which He was to be the Lord and Administrator; not an earthly dominion after the fashion of this world\'s kingdoms; it was to be the rule of mind and of spirit. It was to be extended by ethical forces, and the principle of its authority was centered in Christ Himself. It was to be developed on earth but perfected in the future and eternal life. Some divines have distinguished Christ\'s regal power as that of nature, that of grace, that of glory. Many believe that there is to be a personal visible reign of Christ upon the earth. Some hold that this will be produced by His advent prior to an age of millennial glory. Other views regard the advent as the close of earthly conditions and the final judgment.<P>VII. The Messianic Basis of the Threefold Office of the Lord.<P>That the developments of Jewish thought centered round what may conveniently be called the idea of the Messiah is plain to any student of the Old Testament and other Jewish writings. They sprang from the ethical and theological ideas of this people, interpreted by and expressed in their political and religious forms, and continually nurtured by their experiences in the varied course of their national life. The essence of Messianic belief was a personal deliverer. Jewish history had always been marked by the appearance and the exploits of a great man. The capacity of the production of exceptional and creative individuals has been the characteristic of the race in all its ages. A judge, a lawgiver, a teacher, a seer, a king<6E>each had helped, or even saved the people in some critical period. Each had added to the knowledge of God, whether received or rejected by the people. The issues of such service had remained, enshrined in a growing liturgy, or made permanent in a finally centralized and unified ritual, recorded in chronicle and lyric. The hope of Israel at one time did not take the completely personal form; indeed, it is probably easy to exaggerate the Messianic element as we look back from the perfect realization of it, in the Christian revelation and history. Much that has been called Messianic has been the result of reading into the Old Testament what has been derived from Christian thought and experience. Zephaniah has been described as a picture of Israel\'s restoration and triumph. Yet apparently it has no reference to the personal element. Still the "Messiah" begins to appear in the prophetic writings (see above), especially in the royal elements of His office. It is at this point that the meaning of the term is to be considered. "Yahweh\'s anointed" is found as applied to a king, and is familiar in this use in the Old Testament. But anointing belonged to the priesthood and to the prophetic order, if not actually, at least metaphorically, as sett ing apart (see <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',19,16);">1Ki 19:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',105,15);">Ps 105:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',61,1);">Isa 61:1</a>). And the word Messiah (Christ) the Anointed, came to be used for that conception of a person, perhaps first employed definitely (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',9,\'24-26\');">Da 9:24-26</a>), who should be the Deliverer of the Jews and even still more widely, a Redeemer. In the age immediately preceding the Christian, the idea had taken possession not only of the Jews, but also of the Samaritans (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,25);">Joh 4:25</a>); and was not altogether unknown in Gentile thought; e.g. Sib Or, iii.97; Virgil Ecl. iv. It involves certainly the prophetic and royal offices and, in the idea of a Suffering Servant, was closely allied to the objects of the sacrificial order.<P>The claim of Jesus to be the Christ, and the recognition of this claim by His followers and apostles, gave a new meaning to the teaching of the Old Testament, and the writings lying outside the canon, but which were familiar to the people. Especially was the suffering and death of the Lord and its relation to sin the occasion of a new Understanding of the Mosaic and later-developed sacrificial system. Jesus as the Offerer of Himself perfected the function of the priest, as He became the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world. He thus completed the threefold ministry of the Messiah as the Prophet who reveals, the Priest who offers and intercedes, the King who rules. In Him the offices are commingled. He rules by His sacrifice and His teaching; He reveals by His Kingship and His offering. The offices spring from both His person and His work, and are united in the final issue of the salvation of the world.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Euseb., HE, I, 3; Aug., De civ. Dei, x. 6; Catech. Council of Trent; Calvin, Instit., II, 15; Heidelb. Catech. Ans. 31 and Reformed Liturg; Thanksgiving aft. Inft. Bapt.; J. Gerhard, Loci Theolog; Spener, Catechism.; Ernesti, De officio Christi triplici; Knapp, Theology, section 107; Ebrard, Herzog Realencyc., under the word Further discussion is found in the standard theologies, as Pye Smith, First Lines, and Scrip. Teatim. to the Messiah; Hodge, Shedd, Weiss, Biblical Theol. of the New Testament, Van Oosterzee, Christian Dogmatics. See also Higginson, Ecce Messias; Moule\'s brief but suggestive statement in Outlines of Christian Doctrine; Ritschl, A Critical History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation, especially Introduction; Dorner, The Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ.``14';
|
||
isbe[2087]='Christ, Person of``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PERSON+OF+CHRIST">PERSON OF CHRIST</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[2088]='Christ, Temptation of``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TEMPTATION+OF+CHRIST">TEMPTATION OF CHRIST</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[2089]='Christ, the Exaltation of`egz-ol-ta\'-shun:<P><b>I. THE RESURRECTION</b><P class="in15">1. Its Glorification of Christ<P class="in15">2. Resurrection Body<64>Identity, Change, Present Locality<P class="in15">3. The Agent of the Resurrection<P><b>II. ASCENSION OF OUR LORD</b><P class="in15">1. Its Actuality<P class="in15">2. General Doctrine of the Church<P class="in15">3. Lutheran Doctrine<P class="in15">4. Theory of Laying Aside the Existence-Form of God<P class="in15">5. Necessity<P><b>III. EXALTATION TO THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD</b><P class="in15">1. Its Significance<P class="in15">2. Its Essential Necessity<P><b>V. THE SECOND ADVENT</b><P class="in15">1. Reality<P class="in15">2. Judgment<hr /><P>This term is given to that condition of blessedness, glory and dominion into which our Lord entered after the completion of His earthly career of humiliation and suffering, and which is to be regarded as the reward of His meritorious obedience, and the issue of His victorious struggle, and at the same time the means of His prosecution and completion of His work as Redeemer and Saviour of the world. The classic passage of Scripture, rich in suggestion, and the source of much controversy in the development of Christian theology, is <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,\'5-11\');">Php 2:5-11</a>. The word "exalted" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,9);">Php 2:9</a>, huperupsoo, occurs only in this place in the New Testament and, like its Latin representative, is limited to ecclesiastical use. Compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',14,9);">Ro 14:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,\'19-23\');">Eph 1:19-23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,21,22);">1Pe 3:21-22</a>.<P>Christ\'s Exaltation includes His Resurrection, Ascension, Session at the right hand of God, and Advent as Judge and Consummator of the world\'s redemption.<P>I. The Resurrection.<P>1. Its Glorification of Christ:<P>The historic place and validity of this event will be found under other heads; our concern is with the event as it relates to the glorification of our Lord.<P>(1) It revealed His power over death.<P>(2) It confirms all His claims to Divine Sonship.<P>(3) It attests His acceptance and that of His work by God.<P>(4) It crowns the process of the redemption of the world.<P>(5) It forms the beginning of that new creation which is life eternal, and over which death can have no power.<P>(6) It is the entrance of the Son of God into the power and glory of the New Kingdom, or the restored Kingdom of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe.<P>The following Scriptures among many others may be consulted: <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,18);">Re 1:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,24);">Ac 2:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,4);">Ro 1:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,20);">1Co 15:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,25);">Joh 5:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',4,25);">Ro 4:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,4,5);">Ro 6:4-5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,12);">Col 2:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,10);">Php 3:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,9);">Ro 6:9</a>.<P>2. Resurrection Body<64>Identity, Change, Present Locality:<P>An interesting and important question arises in connection with Christ\'s exaltation, relating to the nature of the body of the risen Lord. It was clearly identical with that of His natural life. It was recognized by the marks which were upon it: <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,39,40);">Lu 24:39-40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,\'24-29\');">Joh 20:24-29</a>. It received food: <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,43);">Lu 24:43</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,30);">Lu 24:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',21,12,13);">Joh 21:12-13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,41);">Ac 10:41</a>). Nevertheless it was changed. After the resurrection, it was not at once recognized: <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,15);">Joh 20:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',21,7);">21:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,31);">Lu 24:31</a>. It appeared under apparently new conditions of relation to material substance: <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,19);">Joh 20:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,36);">Lu 24:36</a>. It suddenly became visible, and as suddenly vanished. These facts suggest what reverently may be surmised as to its exalted condition. The apostle\'s declaration as to the resurrection-body of the redeemed furnishes some hints: <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,\'35-49\');">1Co 15:35-49</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,21);">Php 3:21</a>. We may cautiously, from the history of the resurrection and the Pauline doctrine, conclude, that our Lord still possesses a human body. It is of material substance, with new properties. It occupies space. It was seen by Paul, by Stephen, by the seer of the Apocalypse. It is glorious, incorruptible, spiritual.<P>3. The Agent of the Resurrection:<P>By whom was the resurrection effected? It is referred by some Scriptures to God. See <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',16,10);">Ps 16:10</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,27,31);">Ac 2:27, 31</a>); and the distinct affirmation by Peter (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,32);">Ac 2:32</a>). Paul declares that Christ was "raised...through the glory of the Father" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,4);">Ro 6:4</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,19,20);">Eph 1:19-20</a>, it was the mighty power of God which was wrought in Christ "when he raised him from the dead." Elsewhere it is ascribed to Christ Himself. He declared: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',2,19);">Joh 2:19</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,17,18);">Joh 10:17-18</a>, our Lord declares: "I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one taketh it away from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." The efficient agent is said, according to the generally received reading of <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,2);">Ro 8:2</a>, to have been the Spirit of God, and thus the resurrection is referred to each person of the Godhead. The doctrine of the Lutheran church refers the act to the human power of the Lord Himself, which by incarnation had been endowed with attributes of Deity. This view consists with their teaching of the omnipresence of the body of Jesus (see below on the section "Ascension").<P>II. The Ascension of our Lord.<P>1. Its Actuality:<P>The exaltation of Christ consisted further in His ascension. Some have held that the resurrection and ascension of Jesus ought to be regarded as aspects of the same event. But Mary saw the risen Lord, though she was forbidden to touch Him, for "I am not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend," etc. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,17);">Joh 20:17</a>). This, compared with the invitation to Thomas to touch Him, eight days later, suggests something in the ascension added to that which the resurrection implied, and the general thought of the church has consistently regarded the latter as a further step in the exaltation of the Lord.<P>2. General Doctrine of the Church:<P>The fact of ascension is recorded in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',16,19);">Mr 16:19</a>, and <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,50,51);">Lu 24:50-51</a>, and with greater detail in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,9,10,11);">Ac 1:9-11</a>. According to these accounts, the ascension was seen by the disciples, and this suggests that heaven is a locality, where are the angels, who are not ubiquitous, and where Christ\'s disciples will find the place which He declared He was going to prepare for them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,2);">Joh 14:2</a>). Heaven is also undoubtedly referred to as a state (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,6);">Eph 2:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,20);">Php 3:20</a>), but Christ\'s body must be in some place, and where He is, there is Heaven.<P>3. Lutheran Doctrine:<P>This is certainly the doctrine of the church in general, and seems to be consistent with the Scriptural teaching. But the Lutherans have maintained that the ascension of the Lord merely involved a change of state in the human nature of Christ. He possessed during His life on earth the Divine attributes of omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience, but He voluntarily abstained from their exercise. But at His ascension He returned to the full use of these powers. The ascension is Christ\'s return to immensity. The community of natures gave these Divine qualities to the humanity of Jesus, which Luther declared involved its ubiquity, and that as He was at the right hand of God, and God was everywhere, so Christ in His human personality was in no specific place but everywhere. This omnipresence is not of the infinite extension of the body of the Lord, but He is present as God is everywhere present in knowledge and power.<P>4. Theory of Laying Aside the Existence-Form of God:<P>Another theory of the ascended humanity-of the Lord depends upon the conception of the Son of God laying aside at incarnation the "existence-form of God," and while affirming that Christ\'s body is now in a definite place, it proceeds to hold that at the ascension the accidental and variable qualities of humanity were laid aside, and that He dwells in heaven as a glorified man. Ebrard says: "He has laid aside forever the existence form of God, and assumed that of man in perpetuity, in which form by His Spirit He governs the church and the world. He is thus dynamically present to all His people." This form of doctrine seems to involve as the result of the incarnation of the Son of God His complete and sole humanity. He is no more than a man. The Logos is no longer God, and as the ascension did not involve the reassumption of the "existence-form of God," Christ in glory is only a glorified man.<P>5. Necessity:<P>The ascension was necessary, in conformity with the spiritual character of the kingdom which Christ founded. Its life is that of faith, not sight. A perpetual life of even the resurrected Christ on earth would have been wholly inconsistent with the spiritual nature of the new order. The return of Christ to the special presence of God was also part of His high-priestly service (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHRIST,+OFFICES+OF">CHRIST, OFFICES OF</a>) and His corporal absence from His people was the condition of that gift of the Spirit by which salvation was to be secured to each believer and promulgated throughout the world, as declared by Himself (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,7);">Joh 16:7</a>). Finally, the ascension was that physical departure of the Lord to the place which He was to prepare for His people (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,2,3);">Joh 14:2-3</a>). The resurrection was this completion of the objective conditions of redemption. The ascension was the initial step in the carrying out of redemptive work in the final salvation of mankind.<P>III. Exaltation Completed at the Right Hand of God.<P>1. Its Significance:<P>The term "the right hand of God" is Scriptural (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,55,56);">Ac 7:55-56</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,34);">Ro 8:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,20);">Eph 1:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,3);">Heb 1:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,12);">10:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,2);">12:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,22);">1Pe 3:22</a>) and expresses the final step in the Lord\'s exaltation. Care must be taken in the use of the expression. It is a figure to express the association of Christ with God in glory and power. It must not be employed as by Luther to denote the relation of the body of Christ to space, neither must it be limited to the Divine nature of the Logos reinstated in the conditions laid aside in incarnation. Christ thus glorified is the God-man, theanthropic person, Divine and human.<P>2. Its Essential Necessity:<P>This exaltation is based upon the essential glory of the Son of God, who "being the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person...sat down on the right hand" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,3);">Heb 1:3</a> the King James Version). It is the claim which the Lord makes for Himself in His prayer (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,4,5);">Joh 17:4-5</a>), and is thus specifically declared in <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,\'6-11\');">Php 2:6-11</a>: "God highly exalted Him." But in His glory Christ received the power universal and Divine. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,\'20-22\');">Eph 1:20-22</a> His supreme dignity and power are affirmed "far above...every name," "all things...under His feet" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,8);">Heb 2:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,27);">1Co 15:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,22);">1Pe 3:22</a>). Christ at the "right hand of God" is the highly suggestive picture of His universal dominion asserted by Himself (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,18);">Mt 28:18</a>): "All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth." It is vain to speculate upon the relation of Christ\'s nature in this exalted state. We cannot distinguish between the human and Divine. We can only believe in, and trust and submit to the One Glorified Person who thus administers the kingdom in perfect harmony with its Divine laws in all the ages, and His own revelation of the will of God, as given to man in His own earthly career: pitiful, tender, serving, helping, restoring, saving, triumphant. The exaltation is for His mediatorial and finally saving work. He is the Head of His church; He is the Lord of angels and men; He is the Master of the ages.<P>IV. The Second Advent.<P>The exaltation of Christ is to be completed by His coming again at the close of the dispensation, to complete His redemptive work and judge the world, and so to establish the final Kingdom of God. This belief has found a place in all the ecumenical symbols. Theology has ever included it in its eschatology. It is clear that the apostles and the early church expected the second coming of the Lord as an immediate event, the significance of which, and especially the effect of the nonfulfillment of which expectation, does not fall within the province of this article to consider. The various theories of the Parousia, the different ideas as to the time and the form of the second Advent, do not concern its relation to the exaltation of the Lord. Whenever and however He may return; whether He is ever coming to the church and to the world, His visible or His spiritual presence, do not affect the fact that He has been exalted to the position of ultimate Lord and final judge of men. We may therefore define this crowning condition of exaltation as:<P>1. Reality:<P>An advent, real, personal and visible. We must guard against the extremes of limiting this advent on the one side to a final particular event, on the other to those critical and catastrophic movements in world history which have led to the extension of God\'s kingdom and a virtual judgment of men. The Lord is ever coming, and also He will return. See <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,11);">Ac 1:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',17,24);">Lu 17:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,30);">Mt 24:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,31);">25:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',19,12);">Lu 19:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,40,41,49);">Mt 13:40-41, 49</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,8);">Lu 18:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,28,29);">Joh 5:28-29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,40,54);">6:40, 54</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',21,22);">21:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',3,20);">Ac 3:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',1,10);">2Th 1:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,28);">Heb 9:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',5,8);">Jas 5:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,14);">Jude 1:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,28);">1Jo 2:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,7);">Re 1:7</a>. The reality and visibility of the advent depend upon the personal and abiding relation of the Lord to the world-redemption. Christianity is not merely a spiritual dynamic drawn from a series of past events. It is the living relation of the complete humanity of the redeemed to the God man, and must therefore be consummated in a spiritual and material form. The ultimate of Christianity is no more docetic than was its original. A reverent faith will be satisfied with the fact of the glory whenever it shall arrive. The form and time are unrevealed. Preparation and readiness are better than speculation and imaginary description.<P>2. Judgment:<P>The Judgment is clearly taught by Scripture. our Lord declares that He is appointed Judge. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,22);">Joh 5:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',9,39);">9:39</a>). Paul teaches that we must "all stand before the judgment- seat of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',14,10);">Ro 14:10</a>). Here again there is the suggestion of the judgment which is ever being made by the Lord in His office as Sovereign and Administrator of the kingdom; but there is also the expectation of a definite and final act of separation and discernment. Whatever may be the form of this judgment (and here again a wise and reverent silence as to the unrevealed is a becoming attitude for the believer), we are sure that He who will make it, is the glorified Word incarnate, and it will be the judgment of a wisdom and justice and love that will be the complete glory of the Christ.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASCENSION">ASCENSION</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUDGMENT">JUDGMENT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PAROUSIA">PAROUSIA</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RESURRECTION">RESURRECTION</a>`14';
|
||
isbe[2090]='Christian`kris\'-chan, kris\'-ti-an (Christianos):<P>1. Historicity of <span class="noTag">Ac 11:26</span><P>2. Of Pagan Origin<P>3. The Christian Attitude to the Name<P>4. Was "Christian" the Original Form?<P>5. The Christians and the Empire<P>6. Social Standing of the Early Christians<P>7. Christian Self-Designations<P>LITERATURE<hr /><P>1. Historicity of <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,26);">Ac 11:26</a>:<P>The word Christian occurs only three times in the New Testament (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,26);">Ac 11:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',26,28);">26:28</a>; and <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,16);">1Pe 4:16</a>). The first passage, <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,26);">Ac 11:26</a>, gives the origin of the term, "The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." The older generation of critical scholars disputed the historicity of this statement. It was argued that, had the term originated so early, it must have been found far more frequently in the records of early Christianity; sometimes also that the termination -ianus points to a Latin origin. But there is general agreement now that these objections are groundless. The historicity of the Lukan account is upheld not only by Harnack, but by the more radical Knopf in Die Schriften des New Testament, edited by Johannes Weiss. In early imperial times, the adjectival termination -ianos was widely diffused throughout the whole empire. Originally applied to the slaves belonging to the great households, it had passed into regular use to denote the adherents of an individual or a party. A Christian is thus simply an adherent of Christ. The name belongs, as Ramsay says, to the popular slang, as indeed sect and party names generally do. It is only after a considerable interval, and very often under protest, that such names are accepted as self-designations.<P>2. Of Pagan Origin:<P>The name, then, did not originate with the Christians themselves. Nor would the Jews have applied it to the followers of Jesus, whose claim to be the Christ they opposed so passionately. They spoke of the Christians as "the sect of the Nazarenes" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',24,5);">Ac 24:5</a>); perhaps also as "Galileans," a term which the emperor Julian attempted later vainly to revive. The word must have been coined by the heathen population of Antioch, as the church emerged from the synagogue, and a Christianity predominantly Gentile took its place among the religions of the world.<P>3. The Christian Attitude to the Name:<P>Perhaps the earliest occurrence of Christian as a self-designation is in Didache 12:4. In the Apologists and Ignatius on the other hand the word is in regular use. 1 Peter simply takes it over from the anti-Christian judicial procedure of the law courts, without in any way implying that the Christians used it among themselves. There is every probability, however, that it was the danger which thus began at an early date to attach to the name which commended it to the Christians themselves as a title of honor. Deissmann (Licht vom Osten, 286) suggests that Christian means slave of Christ, as Caesarian means slave of Caesar. But the word can scarcely have had that fullness of meaning till the Christians themselves had come to be proud of it.<P>According to tradition, Luke himself belonged to Antioch. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,27,28);">Ac 11:27-28</a> Codex Bezae (D) reads "There was much rejoicing, and when we had assembled, there stood up," etc. In view of the greater authority now so frequently accorded to the so-called Western text, we cannot summarily dispose of such a reading as an interpolation. If the historian was not only an Antiochene, but a member of the original GentileChristian church, we have the explanation alike of his interest in the origin of the name Chris tian, and of the detailed precision of his information.<P>4. Was "Christian" the Original Form?:<P>In all three New Testament passages the uncorrected Codex Sinaiticus reads "Chrestian." We know from many sources that this variant was widely current in the 2nd century. Blass in his edition of Acts not only consistently reads "Chrestian," but conjectures that "Chrestian" is the correct reading in Tacitus (Annals, xv.44), the earliest extra- Biblical testimony to the word. The Tacitus manuscript has since been published in facsimile. This has shown, according to Harnack (Mission and Expansion (English translation), I, 413, 414), that "Chrestian" actually was the original reading, though the name "Christ" is correctly given. Harnack accordingly thinks that the Latin historian intended to correct the popular appellation of circa 64 AD, in the light of his own more accurate knowledge. "The common people used to call them \'Chrestians,\' but the real name of their founder was Christ." Be this as it may, a confusion between "Christos" (Christos) and the familiar Greek slave name "Chrestos" (chrestos is more intelligible at an early date than late r, when Christianity was better known). There must have been a strong tendency to conform the earlier witnesses to the later, familiar, and etymologically correct, usage. It is all the more remarkable, therefore, that the original scribe of Codex Sinaiticus retains "Chrestian." On the whole it seems probable that this designation, though bestowed in error, was the original one.<P>5. The Christians and the Empire:<P>The fuller discussion of this subject more appropriately falls under the articles dealing with the relation of the church and empire. Suffice it here to say that Paul apparently hoped that by his acquittal the legal position of Christianity as a religio licita would be established throughout the empire, and that 1 Peter belongs to a time when the mere profession of Christianity was a crime in the eyes of the state, but that in all probability this was a new position of affairs.<P>6. Social Standing of the Early Christians:<P>That early Christianity was essentially a movement among the lower non-literary classes has been rightly emphasized<65>above all by Deissmann. This is a circumstance of the utmost importance for the correct understanding of the early history of our faith, though probably Deissmann in some degree exaggerates and misplaces the significance. Is it correct to say, for example, that "primitive Christianity was relatively indifferent to politics, not as Christianity, but as a movement of the humbler folks, whose lot on the whole had certainly been lightened by the Empire" (Licht vom Osten, 254)? Very probably however the difficulties of the Pauline Gentile mission were appreciably increased by the fact that he touched a lower social stratum than that of the original Jewish Christianity of Palestine. No class more resents being associated in any way with the "submerged masses" than the self-respecting peasant or artisan, who seems to have formed the backbone of the Palestine church. The apostle had conseq uently to fight against social, no less than racial and religious, prejudices.<P>7. Christian Self-Designations:<P>The Christians originally called themselves "Disciples," a term afterward restricted to personal hearers of the Lord, and regarded as a title of high distinction. The ordinary self-designations of the apostolic age are "believers" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,14);">Ac 5:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',4,12);">1Ti 4:12</a>), "saints" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,13,32,41);">Ac 9:13, 32, 41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,7);">Ro 1:7</a>), "brethren" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',6,3);">Ac 6:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,23);">10:23</a>, etc.), "the elect" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,12);">Col 3:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',2,10);">2Ti 2:10</a>), "the church of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,28);">Ac 20:28</a> margin), "servants (slaves) to God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,22);">Ro 6:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,16);">1Pe 2:16</a>). The apostolic authors refer to themselves as "servants (slaves) of Christ Jesus" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,1);">Php 1:1</a>). Other expressions are occasionally met with, of which perhaps the most significant is: Those "that call upon the name of the Lord" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,14);">Ac 9:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',10,12,13);">Ro 10:12-13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,2);">1Co 1:2</a>). Compare Pliny\'s report to Trajan (Epistles, X, 97): "They affirmed that...they had been wont to assemble and address a hymn to Christ as to a god."<P>LITERATURE.<P>The most recent discussion of the names of Christian believers, including "Christian," is in Harnack\'s Mission and Expansion of Christianity, English translation (2nd edition, 1908), I, 399ff. See also EB, HDB, DCG, with the lit. there cited. On the social status of the early Christians, compare Orr\'s Neglected Factors in the Study of the Early Progress of Christianity; on the religious significance of the name.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHRISTIANITY">CHRISTIANITY</a>`40';
|
||
isbe[2091]='Christianity`kris-chan\'-i-ti, kris-chi-an\'-i-ti, kris-ti-an\'-i-ti (Christianismos):<P><b>I. IN PRINCIPLE AND ESSENCE</b><P class="in15">1. Early Use of Term<P class="in15">2. New Testament Implications:<P class="in60">Messiahship<69>Resurrection<6F>Redemption<P class="in60">Pauline Summaries<P class="in15">3. Did Jesus Claim to Be Christ?<P class="in15">4. The Resurrection<P class="in30">Its Evidence<P class="in15">5. Two Contrasted Estimates of our Lord\'s Person<P class="in30">(1) The Non-Believing Estimate<74>not Truly Historical<P class="in30">(2) The Believing Estimate<74>Relation to Experience<P class="in15">6. Christianity an Experience of Salvation<P class="in15">7. Jesus and the Gospel<P class="in15">8. New Testament Types of Doctrines<P class="in15">9. Naturalistic Interpretations<6E>the Religio-Historic School<P><b>II. HISTORICAL AND DOCTRINAL</b><P class="in15">1. "Religion of Christ" and "The Christian Religion"<P class="in30">(1) The Historical Jesus Is Supernatural<P class="in30">(2) Essence of Christianity in Redemption<P class="in15">2. Modern Definitions<P class="in30">(1) Schleiermacher<P class="in30">(2) Ritschl<P class="in15">3. Place in Historical Religions<P class="in30">(1) This Place Unique<P class="in30">(2) Universality of Christianity<P class="in30">(3) The Absolute Religion<P class="in30">(4) Religion of Redemption<P class="in15">4. Development and Influence<P class="in30">(1) Expansion of Christianity <P class="in60">(a) Apostolic Age<P class="in60">(b) Succeeding Period<P class="in60">(c) Modern Missions<P class="in30">(2) Doctrinal Shaping<P class="in60">(a) Gnosticism<P class="in60">(b) Monarchianism<P class="in60">(c) Arianism<P class="in60">(d) Sin and Grace<P class="in60">(e) Person of Christ<P class="in60">(f) The Atonement<P class="in60">(g) The Reformation<P class="in60">(h) Lutheran and Reformed<P class="in30">(3) Its Influence<P class="in60">(a) The Ancient World<P class="in60">(b) The Modern World<P class="in60">(c) Testimony of Professor Huxley<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. In Principle and Essence.<P>1. Early Use of Term:<P>Unlike "Christian" (the King James Version), the term "Christianity," so far as is known, was first used by the Christians themselves, but does not occur in the New Testament. It is exactly parallel to Judaism ("the Jews\' religion"), found not only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,13,14);">Ga 1:13-14</a>, but in 2Macc 2:21, etc. Our earliest authority for the word "Christianism" is Ignatius of Antioch. Christian is now a title of honor, and the Christian\'s glory is "to live according to Christianism" (Ignatius, Ad magnes, 10).<P>2. New Testament Implications: Messiahship<69>Resurrection<6F>Redemption: While, however, the name is foreign to the New Testament, the New Testament is by universal consent our most important source of information regarding the thing. Christianity arose out of the life and work of Jesus of Nazareth, who claimed to be "the Christ." During Jesus\' lifetime this claim was admitted by a circle of adherents, in whose view, afterwards, it was triumphantly vindicated by His resurrection from the dead. By resurrection He "was declared to be the Son of God with power" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,4);">Ro 1:4</a>). With this was united from the first the recognition of Christ as the God-sent Redeemer, through whom has come to the world forgiveness, reconciliation with God and Divine spiritual power.<P>Pauline Summaries.<P>One of the oldest summaries of Christianity is that of Paul in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,3,4);">1Co 15:3-4</a>: "For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;...and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures." Of similar purport are the apostle\'s words in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,18,19);">2Co 5:18-19</a>: "God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses." From this reconciliation springs the new life of believers (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,\'1-\');">Ro 6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,\'14-17\');">2Co 5:14-17</a>).<P>3. Did Jesus Claim to Be Christ?:<P>More recently some have denied that Jesus advanced any such claim to Messiahship, but always upon purely arbitrary and subjective grounds. On the one hand these writers have been profoundly impressed by the grandeur of Jesus\' character; on the other they have looked upon the claim to stand in such a unique relation to God and man as unfounded or meaningless. They have sought, accordingly, to escape the difficulty by denying that Jesus regarded Himself as the Anointed of the Lord (thus, e.g. Wrede). Sometimes they have gone the length even of affirming that Jesus was not so regarded by His personal disciples. Divine honors were accorded Him only gradually, as the memory of what He actually was faded away, and an idealization begotten of Christian faith took its place. The notion of Messiah is merely a piece of Jewish folklore. This position in its distinctively modern form has been answered, it seems to us, with absolute conclusiveness, by Professor James Denney in his Jesus and the Gospel. In a historical point of view, nothing in Jesus\' life is more certain than that He regarded Himself as the Christ, the culmination and fulfillment of the Divine revelation given to Israel. This conviction of His is the point round which His whole message revolves. The most recent New Testament theology, that, e.g. of Dr. Paul Feine (1910), rightly starts from Jesus\' Messianic consciousness, and seeks to understand His whole teaching in the light of it. Doubtless, like everything else which Jesus touched, the concept of Messiahship becomes transmuted and glorified in His hands. Our Lord was in no way dependent upon current beliefs and expectations for the content of His Messianic consciousness. But is it likely that His followers, without His authority, would have attributed Messiahship to one so utterly unlike the Messiah of popular fancy?<P>4. The Resurrection:<P>The New Testament proves not only that the Christians from the very outset were fully persuaded, on what they regarded as adequate grounds in history and experience, that their Lord had risen from the dead, but also that this conviction mastered them, giving direction and purpose to their whole lives. Historical Christianity was erected on the foundation of a Risen Lord.<P>Its Evidence.<P>On this point Professor Denney says (Jesus and the Gospel, 111): "The real historical evidence for the resurrection is the fact that it was believed, preached, propagated, and produced its fruit and effect in the new phenomenon of the Christian church, long before any of our gospels were written....Faith in the resurrection was not only prevalent but immensely powerful before any of our New Testament books were written. Not one of them would ever have been written but for that faith. It is not this or that in the New Testament<6E>it is not the story of the empty tomb, or of the appearing of Jesus in Jerusalem or in Galilee<65>which is the primary evidence for the resurrection: it is the New Testament itself. The life that throbs in it from beginning to end, the life that always fills us again with wonder, as it beats upon us from its pages, is the life which the Risen Saviour has quickened in Christian souls. The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is the existence of the church in that extraordinary spiritual vitality which confronts us in the New Testament. This is its own explanation of its being."<P>5. Two Contrasted Estimates of our Lord\'s Person:<P>The best Christian thought of our day has no more difficulty than had the apostles in holding and establishing what Principal Forsyth fitly calls "the superhistoric finality of Christ." In the very nature of the case, wherever the problem of our Lord\'s person has been seriously faced, there have always been two distinct estimates of His value, that of assured faith, based upon personal experience of His redemptive power, and that of mere externalism.<P>(1) The Non-Believing Estimate<74>not Truly Historical:<P>The latter or non-believing estimate has no more right now to call itself "historical" or "scientific," than it had, nearly nineteen hundred years ago, to crucify the Lord of glory. The priests doubtless thought that they understood Jesus better than the ignorant, deluded Galileans. Yet the boldest champion of "the religio-historic method" would scarcely claim that theirs was the correct judgment. As a matter of fact, the so-called critical school are no more free from presuppositions than is the most thoroughgoing traditionalist. Nor have they a monopoly either of historical knowledge or of critical acumen. No truths are accessible to them which are not equally available for the Christian believer. No proof exists, beyond their own unsupported assertions, that they are better interpreters of the common truth. On the other hand, that whole range of experience and conviction intop which the Christian believer finds the supreme assurance of the truth of his religion is to them a sealed book. Surely, then, it is the height of absurdity to maintain that the external, non-believing, estimate of our Lord\'s person is likely to be the more correct one. From the standpoint of Christian faith, such an external estimate is necessarily inadequate, whether it finds expression in a mechanical acceptance of the whole ecclesiastical Christology, or in the denial that such a person as Jesus of Nazareth ever lived.<P>(2) The Believing Estimate<74>Relation to Experience:<P>The believing estimate of our Lord\'s person is the essence of Christianity as a historical religion. But according to the New Testament this estimate is itself Divinely- inwrought and Divinely attested (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,17);">Mt 16:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',12,3);">1Co 12:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,2,3);">1Jo 4:2-3</a>). It presupposes the perfect objective self-manifestation of God in Jesus Christ on the one hand, and the subjective appropriation of this revelation by faith on the other. No argument against the reality of the revelation can be built upon the fact, generally acknowle dged by Christian theologians nowadays, that the Deity of our Lord and the supernatural origin of our religion can neither be proved nor disproved independently of one\'s personal attitude to Christianity. This follows necessarily from the nature of the apprehension of Divine truth. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. There can be no impersonal knowledge of religious, any more than of ethical and aesthetic, truth. In these realms another\'s knowledge has no real meaning for anyone till he has felt its power and tested it in his own experience. Evangelical Christians do not accept the Deity of the Lord as the cardinal article of their religious faith on any merely external authority whether of Scripture or of tradition, or even of His own recorded words apart from experience of Christ. They accept it precisely as they accept the authority of Scripture itself, because of the witness of the Spirit with their spirits. The combined testimony of Scripture and tradition is confirmed in their religious life, when by receiving Jesus as our Lord and Saviour they experience the Christian power. This power is the great experienced reality in the light of which alone the other realities become intelligible. "One thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',9,25);">Joh 9:25</a>). "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,68);">Joh 6:68</a>).<P>6. Christianity an Experience of Salvation:<P>The true church of Christ consists of all who have experienced the power of Christ, delivering them from the guilt, the stain, and the dominion of sin and bringing the peace of God into their souls. Nothing less than this is either the gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, or the historic faith of Christendom, or a religion adequate to human need. The Christian doctrine is partly the assertion of the reality of this power, partly its interpretation. Facts of history and theological propositions are vital to our faith, just in proportion as they are vitally related to this power. The Christian essentials are those elements, historical and dogmatic, without which Christianity would lose in whole or in part its living power to reconcile sinful man to the all-righteous, loving God.<P>7. Jesus and the Gospel:<P>Thus Jesus Himself belongs to His gospel. He is the heart and core of it. Christianity is both a rule of life and a doctrine. But in its inmost nature and being it is neither an ethic, nor a theology, but a religion<6F>a new relation to God and man, Divinely mediated through Jesus Christ in His life, death and resurrection. As many as receive Him, to them gives He the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on His name, who are born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,12);">Joh 1:12</a>). He brings man to God by bringing God to man, and the power of God into man\'s sin-stained life.<P>8. New Testament Types of Doctrines:<P>It can scarcely be claimed that New Testament Christianity was in a theological point of view absolutely homogeneous. Various types can be distinguished with more or less clearness; even the ordinary reader feels a difference of theological atmosphere between e.g. Romans and James. This is inevitable, and need occasion no perplexity to Christian faith. All theology is partly interpretation<6F>the relation of universal and eternal reality to personal thought. Hofmann rightly says that genuine Christian faith is one and the same for all, but that everyone must have his own theology, if he is to have any at all. In all genuine serious thought there is a personal element not precisely the same for any two individuals. It is possible to find in the New Testament foreshadowings of all the great distinctive types of historic Christianity. But the essential purpose of the New Testament is to make Christ real to us, to proclaim reconciliation to God through Him, and to convey the Christian power to our lives. The New Testa ment everywhere exhibits the same Christ, and bears witness to the same redeeming, life-transforming power.<P>9. Naturalistic Interpretations<6E>the Religio-Historic School:<P>The attempt has often been made to explain Christianity as the natural product of contemporary forces intellectual and religious<75>most recently by the so-called "religio- historic school." But at most they have only shown that the form in which the religious concepts of primitive Christianity found articulate expression was to some extent influenced ab extra, and that the earliest Christians were in their general intellectual outlook the children of their own time. They have not proved that the distinctive content of Christianity was derived from any external source. They have not even realized what they have to prove, in order to make good their contention. They have done nothing to account for the Christian power on their principles.<P>LITERATURE.<P>See the New Testament Theologies, especially that of Feine (1910); Seeberg, Fundamental Truths of the Christian Religion (English translation very incorrect, 1908); Seeberg\'s Lehrbuch d. Dogmengeschichte, 2nd edition I, 1908; Brown, Essence of Christianity, New York, 1902; W. N. Clarke, What Shall We Think of Christianity? New York, 1899; above all Denney, Jesus and the Gospel (1909), and Forsyth, Person and Place of Jesus Christ (1909).<P>John Dickie<P>II. Historical and Doctrinal.<P>In its historical and doctrinal relations, developments, and influence, and its connection with the successive phases of human thought, Christianity presents many points of interest, only the more prominent of which can here briefly be touched upon.<P>1. "Religion of Christ" and "The Christian Religion":<P>A convenient starting-point is the well-known distinction of Lessing (Fragment in Works, XI, 242ff) between "the religion of Christ" and "the Christian religion"<22>a distinction which still exactly marks the attitude to Christianity of the modern so-called "historical" school. By "the religion of Christ" is meant the religion which Christ Himself acknowledged and practiced as man; by "the Christian religion" is meant the view which regards Christ as more than man, and exalts Him as an object of worship. From this standpoint the problem for the historian is to show how the religion of Christ came to develop into the Christian religion<6F>in modern speech, how the "Jesus of history" became the "Christ of faith."<P>(1) The Historical Jesus Is Supernatural.<P>It has already been pointed out (under I above) that the view of Jesus on which the assumed contrast rests is not one truly historical. The fallacy lies in regarding the Jesus of history as simply a man among men<65>holier, diviner in insight, but not essentially distinguished from the race of which He was a member. This is not the Christ of apostolic faith, but as little is it the picture of the historical Jesus as the Gospels actually present it. There, in His relations alike to God and to man, in His sinlessness, in His origin, claims, relation to Old Testament revelation, judgeship of the world, in His resurrection, exaltation, and sending of the Spirit, Jesus appears in a light which it is impossible to confine within natural or purely human limits. He is the Saviour who stands over against the race He came to save. It is the same fallacy which under-lies the contrast frequently sought to be drawn between the religious standpoints of Christ and Paul. Pau l never for an instant dreamed of putting himself on the same plane with Christ. Paul was sinner; Christ was Saviour. Paul was disciple; Christ was Lord. Paul was weak, struggling man; Christ was Son of God. Jesus achieved redemption; Paul appropriated it. These things involved the widest contrasts in attitude and speech.<P>(2) Essence of Christianity in Redemption.<P>Though, therefore, Christ, in His relations of love and trust to the Father, and perfection of holy character, necessarily ever remains the Great Exemplar to whose image His people are to be conformed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,29);">Ro 8:29</a>), in whose steps they are to follow (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,21);">1Pe 2:21</a>), it is not correct to describe Christianity simply as the religion which Christ practiced. Christianity takes into account also the work which Christ came to do, the redemption He achieved, the blessings which, through Him, are bestowed on those who accept Him as their Saviour, and acknowledge Him as their Lord. Essentially Christianity is a religion of redemption; not, therefore, a religion practiced by Jesus for Himself, but one based on a work He has accomplished for others. Experimentally, it may be described as consisting, above all, in the joyful consciousness of redemption from sin and reconciliation to God through Jesus Christ, and in the possession of a new life of sonship and holiness through Christ\'s Spirit. Everything in the way of holy obedience is included here. This, at least, reduced to its simplest terms, is undeniably what Christianity meant for its first preachers and teachers, and what historically it has meant for the church ever since.<P>2. Modern Definitions:<P>Definitions of Christianity are as numerous as the writers who treat of the subject; but one or two definitions may be glanced at as illustrative of the positions above assumed. As modern types, Schleiermacher and Ritschl may be selected in preference to writers of more conspicuous orthodoxy.<P>(1) Schleiermacher:<P>Schleiermacher, in his Der Christliche Glaube, has an interesting definition of Christianity. Christianity he speaks of as "a form of monotheistic faith, of the teleological order of religion (i.e. in which the natural is subordinated to the moral), the peculiarity of which, in distinction from other religions of this type, essentially is, that in it everything is referred to the redemption accomplished through Jesus of Nazareth" (section 11). As, in general, Schleiermacher\'s merit is recognized to lie in his bringing back, in a time of religious decay, the person of Christ to a central place in His religion, so here his true religious feeling is manifested in his fixing on the reference to redemption by Christ as the distinctive thing in Christianity.<P>(2) Ritschl:<P>Ritschl\'s definition is more complicated, and need not here be cited in full (compare his Justification and Reconciliation, III; English translation, 13). The important point is that, like Schleiermacher, Ritschl gives, together with the idea of the kingdom of God, an essential place to the idea of redemption in the conception of Christianity. "Christianity," he says, "so to speak, resembles not a circle described from a single center, but an ellipse which is determined by two foci" (Jb., 11). The idea of the kingdom of God furnishes the teleological, the idea of redemption the religious, element in Christianity. There is truth in this; only it is to be remembered that the kingdom of God, as representing the end, can only, in a world of sin, be into existence through a redemption. Redemption, therefore, still remains the basal conception.<P>3. Place in Historical Religions:<P>In the enlarged view of modern knowledge, Christianity can be no longer regarded in isolation, but is seen to take its place in the long series of historical religions. It appears, like these other religions, in a historical context; has, like some of them, a personal founder; claims, as they also do, or did, the allegiance of multitudes of the population of the world; presents in externals (e.g. the possession of Scriptures), sometimes in ideas, analogies to features in these religions. For this reason, an influential modern school is disposed to treat Christianity, as before it, the religion of Israel, as simply one of these historical religions<6E>"nothing less, but also nothing more"<22>explaining it from the inherent laws of religious development, and rejecting the idea of any special, authoritative revelation. Sacred books are pitted against sacred books; moral codes against moral codes; Jesus against founders of other religions; gospel stories against legends of the Buddha; ideas like those of the virgin birth, the incarnation, the resurrection, against seeming parallels on other soils. For examination of the principal of these alleged resemblances, see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=COMPARATIVE+RELIGION">COMPARATIVE RELIGION</a>.<P>(1) This Place Unique.<P>Here it is desirable to look at the place of Christianity in the series of historical religions in certain of its wider aspects. The uniqueness of Christ\'s religion, and justification of its claim to a special, Divine origin, will only appear the more clearly from the comparison. In general, it need only be remarked that no other religion in the world has ever even professed to present a plain, historically developed, progressive revelation, advancing through successive stages in the unfolding of a Divine purpose of grace, till it culminates in the appearance of a person, life, character and work, like that of Jesus Christ; not in one single instance.<P>(2) Universality of Christianity.<P>A distinction is commonly made between national and universal religions, and Christianity is classed as one of the three universal religions<6E>the other two being Buddhism and Mohammedanism (compare e.g. Kuenen\'s Hibbert Lectures on National Religions and Universal Religions). There is certainly agreement in the fact that the two religions named with Christianity are not "national" religions; that they are "universal," in the sense in which Christianity is, may be denied. Neither Buddhism nor Mohammedanism has any fitness to become a religion for the world, nor, with all their remarkable extension, have they succeeded in establishing themselves, as Christianity has done, in East and West, in Old World and in New. Mohammed boasted that he would plant his religion wherever the palm tree grew (Palgrave), and this still marks very nearly the range of its conquests. It is not a revivifying influence, but a blight on all higher civilization. It degrades woman, perpetuates slavery, fosters intolerance, and brings no real healing for the spiritual woes of mankind. Buddhism, again, notwithstanding its wide spread in China and neighboring lands, has in it no real spring of moral progress, and is today withering up at the root. Its system of "salvation"<22>attainment of Nirvana<6E>is not for the many but the few. It has not a message for all men alike. Buddha does not profess that all can accept his method, or ought to be asked to do so. For the multitude it is impossible of attainment. In practice, therefore, instead of one, he has three codes of duty<74>one for the laity, who continue to live in the world; one for the monks, who do not aspire to Arahatship or sainthood: and one for those who would reach the goal of Nirvana. These last are very few; only two cases are specified, besides Buddha himself, of success in this endeavor. In contrast with these Christianity approves itself as a strictly universal religion<6F>the only religion of its kind in the world. In its doctrines of the one God and Father, and of the brotherhood of all mankind; its teaching on universal need through sin, and universal provision for salvation in Christ; its gospel of reconciliation addressed to all; its pure spirituality in worship and morality; its elevating and emancipating tendency in all the relations of human life, it approves itself as a religion for all sections and races of mankind, for all grades of civilization and stages of culture, appealing to that which is deepest in man, capable of being understood and received by all, and renewing and blessing each one who accepts and obeys it. The history of missions, even among the most degraded races, in all parts of the globe, is the demonstration of this truth. (On the universalism of Christianity, compare Baur, Church History of the First Three Centuries, I, Pt 1.)<P>(3) The Absolute Religion.<P>It is the custom, even in circles where the full supernatural claims of Christianity are not admitted, to speak of Christ\'s religion as, in comparison with others, "the absolute religion," meaning by this that in Christianity the true idea of religion, which in other faiths is only striven after, attains to complete and final expression. Hegel, e.g. speaks of Christianity as the "Absolute or Revealed Religion" in the sense that in it the idea is discovered of the essential unity of God and man (thus also T. H. Green, E. Caird, etc.); others (e.g. Pfleiderer) in the meaning that it expresses the absolute "principle" of religion<6F>a Divine sonship. Christianity also claims for itself, though in a more positive way, to be the absolute religion. It is the final and perfect revelation of God for which not only revelation in Israel, but the whole providential history of the race, was a Divinely ordained preparation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,4);">Ga 4:4</a>). It is absolute in the sense that a larger and fulle r revelation than Christ has given is not needed, and is not to be looked for. Not only in this religion is all truth of Nature about God\'s being, attributes and character, with all truth of Old Testament revelation, purely gathered up and preserved, but in the person and work of the incarnate Son a higher and more complete disclosure is made of God\'s Fatherly love and gracious purposes to mankind, and a redemption is presented as actually accomplished adequate to all the needs of a sinful world. Mankind can never hope to attain to a higher idea of God, a truer idea of man, a profounder conception of the end of life, of sin, of duty, a Diviner provision for salvation, a more perfect satisfaction in fellowship with God, a grander hope of eternal life, than is opened to it in the gospel. In this respect again, Christianity stands alone (compare W. Douglas Mackenzie, The Final Faith, a Statement of the Nature and Authority of Christianity as the Religion of the World).<P>(4) Religion of Redemption.<P>A third aspect in which Christianity as a historical religion is sometimes regarded is as a religion of redemption. In this light a comparison is frequently instituted between it and Buddhism, which also in some sort is a religion of redemption. But the comparison brings out only the more conspicuously the unique and original character of the Christian system. Buddhism starts from the conception of the inherent evil and misery of existence, and the salvation it promises as the result of indefinitely prolonged striving through many successive lives is the eternal rest and peace of non-being; Christianity, on the other hand, starts from the conception that everything in its original nature and in the intent of its Creator is good, and that the evil of the world is the result of wrong and perverted development<6E>holds, therefore, that redemption from it is possible by use of appropriate means. And redemption here includes, not merely deliverance from existing evils, but restoration of the Divine likeness which has been lost by man, and ultimate blessedness of the life everlasting. Dr. Boyd Carpenter sums up the contrast thus: "In Buddhism redemption comes from below; in Christianity it is from above; in Buddhism it comes from man; in Christianity it comes from God" (Permanent Elements in Religion, Introduction, 34).<P>4. Development and Influence:<P>Christianity, as an external magnitude, has a long and chequered history, into the details of which it is not the purpose of this article to enter. Ecclesiastical developments are left untouched. But a little may be said of its outward expansion, of the influences that helped to mould its doctrinal forms, and of the influence which it in turn has exercised on the thought and life of the peoples into whose midst it came.<P>(1) Expansion of Christianity.<P>From the first Christianity aimed at being a world-conquering principle. The task it set before itself was stupendous. Its message was not one likely to commend it to either Jew or Greek (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,23);">1Co 1:23</a>). It renounced temporal weapons (in this a contrast with Mohammedanism); had nothing to rely on but the naked truth. Yet from the beginning (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,\'1-\');">Ac 2</a>) it had a remarkable reception. Its universal principle was still partially veiled in the Jewish-Christian communities, but with Paul it freed itself from all limitations, and entered on a period of rapid and wide diffusion.<P>(a) Apostolic Age:<P>It is the peculiarity of the Pauline mission, as Professor W. M. Ramsay points out, that it followed the great lines of Roman communication, and aimed at establishing itself in the large cities<65>the centers of civilization (Church in Roman Empire, 147, etc.). The Book of Acts and the Epistles show how striking were the results. Churches were planted in all the great cities of Asia Minor and Macedonia. In Rome Tacitus testifies that by the time of Nero\'s persecution (64 AD) the Christians were a "great multitude" ("ingens multitudo" (Annals xv.44)).<P>(b) Succeeding Period:<P>Our materials for estimating the progress of Christianity in the post-apostolic age are scanty, but they suffice to show us the church pursuing its way, and casting its spell alike on East and West, in centers of civilization and dim regions of barbarism. In the last quarter of the 2nd century great churches like those of Carthage and Alexandria burst into visibility, and reveal how firm a hold the new religion was taking of the empire. Deadly persecution could not stop this march of the church to victory. From the middle of the 3rd century there is no question that it was progressing by leaps and bounds. This is the period in which Harnack puts its great expansion (Expansion, II, 455, English Translation). On the back of the most relentless persecution it had yet endured, the Diocletian, it suddenly found itself raised by the arms of Constantine to a position of acknowledged supremacy. By this time it had penetrated into all ranks of society, and reckoned among its adherents many of noblest birth.<P>(c) Modern Missions:<P>It is unnecessary to trace the subsequent course of Christianity in its conquest of the northern nations. For a time the zeal for expansion slumbered, but, with the revival of the missionary spirit at the close of the 18th century, a new forward movement began, the effects of which in the various regions of the heathen world are only now beginning to be realized. It is impossible to read without a thrill what was accomplished by the pioneers of Christian missions in the South Seas and other early fields; now the tidings of what is being done in India, China, Japan, Korea, Africa and elsewhere, by Christian preaching and education, awaken even more astonishment. Countries long closed against the gospel are now opened, and the standard of the cross is being carried into all. The church is arousing to its missionary obligations as never before. Still, with all this progress, immense obstacles remain to be overcome. Including all the populations of nominally Christian lands, the adherents of the Christian religion are reckoned to amount only to some 560,000,000, out of a total of over 1,600,000,000 of the population of the world (Hickmann). This looks discouraging, but it is to be remembered that it is the Christian peoples that represent the really progressive portion of the human race.<P>(2) Doctrinal Shaping:<P>The doctrinal shaping of Christianity has taken place largely as the result of conflict with opposing errors. First, as was inevitable, its conflict was waged with that narrowest section of the Jewish-Christian community<74>the Ebionites of early church history<72>who, cleaving to circumcision, disowned Paul, and insisted that the Gentiles should observe the law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,13,14);">Ga 5:13-14</a>; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EBIONITES">EBIONITES</a>). These, as a party of reaction, were soon left behind, and themselves fell under heretical (Essenian) influences.<P>(a) Gnosticism:<P>A more formidable conflict was that with Gnosticism<73>the distinctive heresy of the 2nd century, though its beginnings are already within the apostolic age (compare Lightfoot, Colossians). This strange compound of oriental theosophy and ideas borrowed from Christianity (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GNOSTICISM">GNOSTICISM</a>) would have dissolved Christ\'s religion into a tissue of fantasies, and all the strength and learning of the Church were needed to combat its influence. Its opposition was overruled for good in leading to a fixing of the earliest creed (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOSTLES\'+CREED">APOSTLES\' CREED</a>), the formation of an authoritative New Testament canon (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BIBLE">BIBLE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CANON+OF+THE+NEW+TESTAMENT">CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CANON+OF+THE+OLD+TESTAMENT">CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT</a>), and the firm assertion of the reality of Christ\'s humanity.<P>(b) Monarchianism:<P>Christianity had now entered the world of Greek thought, and ere long had contests to sustain within its own borders. First came assaults (3rd century) on the idea of the Trinity in what are known as the Monarchian heresies<65>the assertion that the Father Himself was incarnate and suffered in Christ (Patripassianism), or that the Trinity consisted only in "modes" of the Divine self-revelation (Sabellianism).<P>(c) Arianism:<P>These were hardly repelled when a yet greater danger overtook the church in the outbreak (318 AD) of the violent Arian controversy, the Son Himself being now declared to be a creature, exalted, before all worlds, but not truly of the nature of God. The commotion produced by this controversy led to the summoning of the first ecumenical council--that of Nicea (325 AD), and the framing of the Nicene Creed, affirming the full deity of the Son. A like controversy about the Spirit (the Macedonian, 4th century), led to the confirming of this creed, and adoption of additional clauses, at the Council of Constantinople (381 AD).<P>(d) Sin and Grace:<P>The doctrine of the Trinity was now settled, but new controversies speedily sprang up<75>in the West on sin and grace (Pelagius and Augustine) (411-18 AD), and in the East in the long series of controversies known as the Christological, bearing on the right apprehension of the person of Christ (4th to 7th centuries): as against Pelagius, who denied original sin, and affirmed man\'s natural ability to keep the whole law of God, Augustine vindicated the complete dependence of man on the grace of God for his salvation.<P>(e) Person of Christ:<P>And as against errors successively denying the reality of a human soul in Jesus (Appollinarianism), dissolving the unity of His person (Nestorianism, condemned at Ephesus, 431 AD), or conversely, fusing together the Divine and human into one nature (Eutychianism, Monophysitism), the church maintained, and embodied in a Creed at Chalcedon (451 AD), the integrity of the two natures, Divine and human, in the one Divine person of the Lord. These decisions are upheld by all branches of the church<63>Greek, Latin, Protestant.<P>(f) The Atonement:<P>The medieval scholastic period made one great advance in the attempt of Anselm in his Cur Deus Homo (1089) to lay deep the foundations of a doctrine of atonement in the idea of the necessity of a satisfaction for human sin: Abelard, on the other hand, denied the need of satisfaction, and became the representative of what are known as moral theories of the atonement. It was reserved for the Protestant Reformers, however, to bring this doctrine to its true bearing, as furnishing the ground for man\'s free justification before God in his union with Christ, who had made full satisfaction for his guilt. There have been many theories of atonement, but the idea that Christ has "satisfied Divine justice" is too firmly imbedded in all the Reformation creeds, and has too profound a Scriptural support, to be removed.<P>(g) The Reformation:<P>The 16th century Reformation, on its outward side, was a revolt against the errors and corruptions of the papacy, but in its positive aspect it may be described as the reassertion of the sole mediatorship of Christ (as against priestly intervention), the sole authority of Scripture (as against tradition), and justification by faith alone (as against salvation by works of merit). The schism meant a separation of the great Protestant communities and nations from the church of Rome, which, by its claim of papal supremacy, had already separated from itself the great Greek communion.<P>(h) Lutheran and Reformed:<P>Within Protestantism itself a difference of genius between the Swiss and German Reformers, with divergences of view on the sacraments, led to the formation of two main types<65>the Lutheran (German) and the Reformed (Swiss)<29>and between these two, as respects theology and church order, later Protestantism has mostly been divided. Luther represented the one; Calvin for long was the chief name in the other. With the rise of Arminianism and other forms of dissent from the peculiarities of Calvinism, the aspect of Protestantism became more variegated. Of the later divisions, producing the numerous modern sects which yet own allegiance to the common head (Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodists, Baptists, Congregationalists, etc.), it is not necessary here to speak. The unity of spirit revealed in creed, worship and combined endeavors in Christ\'s service goes deeper than all outward differences.<P>(3) Its Influence.<P>Christianity preaches a kingdom of God, or supremacy of God\'s will in human hearts and human affairs, by which is meant, on its earthly side, nothing less than a complete reconstruction of society on the two great bases of love to God and love to man<61>"Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,10);">Mt 6:10</a>). The influence of Christianity is paramount in all the great advances that have been made in the moral and social amelioration of the state of mankind.<P>(a) The Ancient World:<P>It was so undoubtedly in the ancient world. The world into which Christianity came was one fast sinking into dissolution through the weight of its own corruptions. Into that world Christianity brought a totally new idea of man as being of infinite dignity and immortal worth. It restored the well-nigh lost sense of responsibility and accountability to God; breathed into the world a new spirit of love and charity, and created that wealth of charitable and beneficent institutions with which Christian lands are now full (Lecky speaks of it as "covering the globe with countless institutions of mercy, absolutely unknown in the whole pagan world," History of Morals, II, 91); set up a new moral ideal and standard of integrity which has acted as an elevating force on moral conceptions till the present hour; restored woman to her rightful place as man\'s helpmeet and equal; created the Christian home; gave the slave an equal place with his master in the kingdom of God, and struck at the foundations of slavery by its doctrines of the natural brotherhood and dignity of man; created self-respect, and a sense of duty in the use of one\'s powers for self-support and the benefit of others; urged to honest labors; and in a myriad other ways, by direct teaching, by the protest of holy lives, and by its general spirit, struck at the evils, the malpractices, the cruelties of the time.<P>(b) The Modern World:<P>Despite many failures, and gross backslidings in the church itself, these ideas, implanted in the world, and liberating other forces, have operated ever since in advancing the progress of the race. They exist and operate far beyond the limits of the church. They have been taken up and contended for by men outside the church<63>by unbelievers even<65>when the church itself had become unfaithful to them. None the less they are of Christian parentage. They lie at the basis of our modern assertion of equal rights, of justice to the individual in social and state arrangements, of the desire for brotherhood, peace and amity among classes and nations. It is Christian love which is sustaining the best, purest and most self-sacrificing efforts for the raising of the fallen, the rescue of the drunkard, the promotion of enlightenment, virtues, social order and happiness. It is proving itself the grand civilizing agency in other regions of the world. Christian missions, with their benign effects in the spread of education, the checking of social evils and barbarities, the creation of trade and industry, the change in the status of women, the advance in social and civilized life, generally, is the demonstration of it (see Dennis, Christian Missions and Social Progress).<P>(c) Testimony of Professor Huxley:<P>Professor Huxley will not be regarded as a biased witness on behalf of Christianity. Yet this is what he writes on the influence of the Christian Scriptures, and his words may be a fitting close to this article: "Throughout the history of the western world," he says, "the Scriptures, Jewish, and Christian, have been the great instigators of revolt against the worst forms of clerical and political despotism. The Bible has been the Magna Charta of the poor, and of the oppressed; down to modern times no state has had a constitution in which the interests of the people are so largely taken into account, in which the duties, so much more than the privileges, of rulers are insisted upon, as that drawn up for Israel in Deuteronomy and Leviticus; nowhere is the fundamental truth that the welfare of the State, in the long run, depends upon the uprightness of the citizen so strongly laid down. Assuredly the Bible talks no trash about the rights of man; but it insists upon the equality of duties, on the liberty to bring about that righteousness which is somewhat different from struggling for \'rights\'; on the fraternity of taking thought for one\'s neighbor as for one\'s self."<P>LITERATURE.<P>See works cited in Part I above; also Kuenen, Hibbert Lectures for 1882, National Religions and Universal Religions; W. M. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire; M. Dods, Mohammed, Buddha, and Christ; on early expansion of Christianity, Harnack, Mission and Expansion of Christianity, and Orr, Neglected Factors in the Study of the Early Progress of Christianity; on the essence of Christianity, W. Douglas Mackenzie, The Final Faith; on the influence of Christianity, C. L. Brace, Gesta Christi; Uhlhorn, Christian Charity in the Ancient Church; C. Schmidt, Social Results of Early Christianity; Lecky, History of European Morals; Dennis, Christian Missions and Social Progress; Reports of World Miss. Conference, 1910.``132';
|
||
isbe[2092]='Christology`kris-tol\'-o-ji.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PERSON+OF+CHRIST">PERSON OF CHRIST</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[2093]='Christs`krists.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHRISTS,+FALSE">CHRISTS, FALSE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MESSIAH">MESSIAH</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[2094]='Christs, False`fols (pseudo-christoi).<P>1. Christ\'s Warnings:<P>In His discourse on the last things, uttered by Him on the Tuesday of the week of His Passion, Jesus solemnly forewarned His disciples that many would come in His name, saying "I am the Christ," who would deceive many; that there would arise false Christs and false prophets, who would show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect; that, therefore, if any man said to them, "Lo, here is the Christ," or "Lo, there," they were not to believe it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,5,11,23,24,25);">Mt 24:5, 11, 23-25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,6,21,22,23);">Mr 13:6, 21-23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,8);">Lu 21:8</a>).<P>2. Early Notices:<P>The warning was needed. De Wette, Meyer, and others have, indeed, pointed out that there is no historical record of anyone expressly claiming to be the Christ prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. This, however, is probably only in appearance (compare Lange, Commentary on <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,3);">Mt 24:3</a>). Edersheim remarks: "Though in the multitude of impostors, who, in the troubled time between the rule of Pilate and the destruction of Jerusalem, promised Messianic deliverance to Israel, few names and claims of this kind have been specially recorded, yet the hints in the New Testament, and the references, however guarded, in the Jewish historian, imply the appearance of many such seducers" (Jesus the Messiah, V, chapter vi; in 1906 edition, II, 446). The revolts in this period were generally connected with religious pretensions in the leaders (Josephus, BJ, II, xiii, 4<>"deceived and deluded the people under pretense of Divine inspiration"), and, in the fevered state of Messianic expectation, can hardly have lacked, in some instances, a Messianic character. Judas of Galilee (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,37);">Ac 5:37</a>; Josephus, Ant, XVIII, i, 1, 6; BJ, II, viii, 1) founded a numerous sect (the Gaulonites) by many of whom, according to Origen (Hom on Luke, 25), he was regarded as the Messiah (compare DB, under the word). The Theudas of <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,36);">Ac 5:36</a>, "giving himself out to be somebody," may or may not be the same as the Theudas of Josephus (Ant., XX, v, 1), but the latter, at least, made prophetic claims and deluded many. He promised to divide the river Jordan by a word. Another instance is the "Egyptian" for whom Paul was mistaken, who had made an "uproar" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,38);">Ac 21:38</a>; the Revised Version (British and American) "sedition")<29>one of a multitude of "impostors and deceivers," Josephus tells us, who persuaded multitudes to follow them into the wilderness, pretending that they would exhibit wonders and signs (Ant., XX, viii, 6). This Egyptian was to show them that, at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down (BJ, II, xiii, 5). Of another class was the Samaritan Dositheus, with whom Simon Magus was said to be connected (see refs to Eusebius, Origen, Hippolytus, Clementine writings, etc., in DB, under the word). He is alleged to have been regarded as "the prophet like unto Moses," whom God was to raise up.<P>3. Bar-Cochba:<P>The most celebrated case of a false Christ is that of Bar-Cochba (to give the name its usual form), the leader of the great insurrection under Hadrian in 132 AD (Eus., HE, IV, 6; for Jewish and other authorities, see the full account in Schurer, HJP, I, 2, pp. 297ff, English Translation). The insurrection was on a scale which it required the whole force of the Roman empire to put down (compare Schurer). The leader\'s own name was Simon, but the title, "Bar-Cochba" ("son of a star"), was given him with reference to the pr ophecy in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',24,17);">Nu 24:17</a> of the star that should come out of Jacob. Rabbi Akiba, the most celebrated doctor of his time, applied this prophecy, with that in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hag\',2,6,7);">Hag 2:6-7</a>, to Simon, and announced him as the Messiah. He is commonly known in Jewish literature as Barcosiba, probably from his birthplace. Immense multitudes flocked to his standard, and the Christians in Palestine were severely persecuted. Coins were issued in his name. After tremendous efforts the rebellion was crushed, and Jerusalem was converted into a Roman colony (Aelia Capitolina), which Jews were forbidden to enter.<P>4. Jewish Pseudo-Messiahs:<P>Among the Jews themselves, in later times, many pseudo-Messiahs have arisen. An interesting account of some of these is given by Mr. Elkan Adler in his Introduction to the volume, Aspects of the Hebrew Genius (London, Routledge, 1910). "Such there had been," this writer says, "from time to time ever since the destruction of the Temple." In the 16th and 17th centuries, however, the belief in pseudo-Messiahs took new and remarkable shapes. Among the names mentioned is that of David Reubeni, or David of the tribe of Reuben (1524), who ultimately fell a sacrifice to the Inquisition. Under his influence a Portuguese royal secretary, Diego Pires, adopted the Jewish faith, changed his name to Solomon Molko, and finally proclaimed himself the Messiah. In 1529 he published some of his addresses under the title of The Book of Wonder. He was burned at the stake at Mantua. "Other Kabbalists, such as Isaac Luria and Chajim Vital and Abraham Shalom, proclaimed themselves to be Messiahs or forerunners of the Messiah, and their works and manuscripts are still piously studied by many oriental Jews." The chief of all these false Messiahs was Sabbatai Zevi, born at Smyrna in 1626. "His adventures," it is said, "created a tremendous stir in western Europe." He ultimately became an apostate to Islam; notwithstanding which fact he had a line of successors, in whom the sect of Donmeh, in Salonica, continue to believe. Another mentioned is Jacob Frank, of Podolia, who revealed himself in 1755 as the Holy Lord, in whom there dwelt the same Messiah-soul that had dwelt in David, Elijah, Jesus, Mohammed, Sabbatai Zevi, and his followers. Jewish literature in the 18th century is full of controversial writing connected with Sabbatianism. As a special source of information on modern false Messiahs among the Jews, Lange mentions the serial Dibhre \'emeth, or Words of Truth (Breslau, 1853-54).``132';
|
||
isbe[2095]='Chronicles, Books of`kron\'-i-k\'-ls (dibhere ha-yamim), "The Words of the Days"; Septuagint paraleipomenon:<P>1. The Name<P>2. The Position of Chronicles in the Old Testament<P>3. Two Books, or One?<P>4. The Contents<P>5. Sources Biblical and Extra-Biblical<P>6. Nehemiah\'s Library<P>7. The Way of Using the Biblical Sources<P>8. Additions by the Chronicler<P>9. Omissions by the Chronicler<P>10. The Extra-Biblical Sources<P>11. The Object in Writing the Books of Chronicles<P>12. The Text<P>13. Critical Estimates<P>14. Date and Authorship<P>15. Evidence as to Date and Authorship<P class="in15">Arguments for a Later Date<P>16. Truthfulness and Historicity<P class="in15">(1) Alleged Proofs of Untruthfulness<P class="in15">(2) Truthfulness in the Various Parts<P>17. The Values of the Chronicles<P>LITERATURE<hr /><P>1. The Name:<P>The analogy of this title to such English words as diary, journal, chronicle, is obvious. The title is one which frequently appears in the Hebrew of the Old Testament. It is used to denote the records of the Medo-Persian monarchy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',2,23);">Es 2:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',6,1);">6:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',10,2);">10:2</a>), and to denote public records, either Persian or Jewish, made in late postexilian times (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,23);">Ne 12:23</a>), and to denote public records of King David (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',27,24);">1Ch 27:24</a>). But its most common use is to denote the Judahite and Israelite records referred to in the Books of Kings as sources (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',14,19);">1Ki 14:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',15,7);">15:7</a> and about 30 other places). The references in Kings are not to our present Books of Chronicles, for a large proportion of them are to matters not mentioned in these. Either directly or indirectly they refer the reader to public archives.<P>As applied to our present Books of Chronicles this title was certainly not intended to indicate that they are strictly copies of public documents, though it may indicate that they have a certain official character distinguishing them from other contemporary or future writings. The Greek title is Paraleipomenon, "Of Things that have been Left Untold." Some copies add "concerning the kings of Judah," and this is perhaps the original form of the title. That is, the Greek translators thought of Chronicles as a supplement to the other narrative Scriptural books. Jerome accepted the Greek title, but suggested that the Hebrew title would be better represented by a derivative from the Greek word chronos, and that this would fit the character of the book, which is a chronicle of the whole sacred history. Jerome\'s suggestion is followed in the title given to the book in the English and other languages.<P>2. The Position of Chronicles in the Old Testament:<P>In most of the VSS, as in the English, the Books of Chronicles are placed after the Books of Kings, as being a later account of the matters narrated in Kings; and Ezra and Nehemiah follow Chronicles as being continuations of the narrative. In the Hebrew Bibles the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah and 1 and 2 Chronicles are placed last. By common opinion, based on proof that is entirely sufficient, the three books constitute a single literary work or group of works, by one author or school of authors. It is co nvenient to use the term "the Chronicler" to designate the author, or the authors if there were more than one.<P>3. Two Books, or One?:<P>It is the regulation thing to say that 1 and 2 Chronicles were originally one book, which has been divided into two. The fact is that Chronicles is counted as one book in the count which regards the Old Testament as 22 or 24 books, and as two books in the count which regards the whole number of books as 39; and that both ways of counting have been in use as far back as the matter can be traced. Both ways of counting appear in the earliest Christian lists, those of Origen and Melito, for example. 1 Chronicles closes with a summary which may naturally be regarded as the closing of a book.<P>4. The Contents:<P>With respect to their contents the Books of Chronicles are naturally divided into three parts. The first part is preliminary, consisting mostly of genealogical matters with accompanying facts and incidents (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,\'1-\');">1Ch 1-9</a>). The second part is an account of the accession and reign of David (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',10,\'1-\');">1Ch 10-29</a>). The third part is an account of the events under David\'s successors in the dynasty (2 Chronicles).<P>The genealogies begin with Adam (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,1);">1Ch 1:1</a>) and extend to the latest Old Testament times (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,\'1-\');">1Ch 9</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,\'1-\');">Ne 11</a>, and the latest names in the genealogical lines, e. g. <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',3,19);">1Ch 3:19</a>ff). The events incidentally mentioned in connection with them are more numerous and of more importance than the casual reader would imagine. They are some dozens in number. Some of them are repeated from the parts of the Old Testament from which the Chronicler draws as sources<65>for example, such statements as that Nimrod was a mighty one, or that in the time of Peleg the earth was divided, or the details concerning the kings of Edom (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,10,19,43);">1Ch 1:10, 19, 43</a>ff; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,8,25);">Ge 10:8, 25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,31);">36:31</a>ff). Others are instances which the Chronicler has taken from other sources than the Old Testament<6E>for instance, the story of Jabez, or the accounts of the Simeonite conquests of the Meunim and of Amalek (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,9,10,\'38-43\');">1Ch 4:9-10, 38-43</a>).<P>The account in Chronicles of the reign of David divides itself into three parts. The first part (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',10,\'1-\');">1Ch 10-21</a>) is a series of sections giving a general view, including the death of Saul, the crowning of David over the twelve tribes, his associates, his wars, the bringing of the ark to Jerusalem, the great Davidic promise, the plague that led to the purchase of the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite. The second part (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',22,\'1-\');">1Ch 22-29:22</a>) deals with one particular event and the preparations for it. The event is the making Solomon king, at a great public assembly (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',23,1);">1Ch 23:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',28,1);">28:1</a>ff). The preparations for it include arrangements for the site and materials and labor for the temple that is to be built, and the organizing of Levites, priests, singers, doorkeepers, captains, for the service of the temple and the kingdom. The third part (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',29,\'22-30\');">1Ch 29:22-30</a>) is a brief account of Solomon\'s being made king "a second time" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',1,\'1-\');">1Ki 1</a>), with a summary and references for the reign of David.<P>The history of the successors of David, as given in 2 Chronicles, need not here be commented upon.<P>5. Sources Biblical and Extra-Biblical:<P>The sources of the Books of Chronicles classify themselves as Biblical and extra-Biblical. Considerably more than half the contents come from the other Old Testament books, especially from Samuel and Kings. Other sources mentioned in the Books of Chronicles are the following:<P>(1) The Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',16,11);">2Ch 16:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',25,26);">25:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',28,26);">28:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',32,32);">32:32</a>).<P>(2) The Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',27,7);">2Ch 27:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',35,27);">35:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',36,8);">36:8</a>).<P>(3) The Book of the Kings of Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',20,34);">2Ch 20:34</a>).<P>(4) The Book of the Kings (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',24,27);">2Ch 24:27</a>).<P>It is possible that these may be four variant forms of the same title. It is also possible that they may be references to our present Books of Kings, though in that case we must regard the formulas of reference as conventional rather than exact.<P>(5) The Book of the Kings of Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,1);">1Ch 9:1</a>), a genealogical work.<P>(6) The Midrash of the Book of the Kings (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',24,27);">2Ch 24:27</a>).<P>(7) The Words of the Kings of Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',33,18);">2Ch 33:18</a>), referred to for details concerning Manasseh.<P>Observe that these seven are books of Kings, and that the contents of the last three do not at all correspond with those of our Biblical books. In the seventh title and in several of the titles that are yet to be mentioned it is commonly understood that "Words" is the equivalent of "acts" or "history"; but it is here preferred to retain the form "Words," as lending itself better than the others to the syntactical adjustments.<P>(8) The Words of Samuel the Man of Vision and the Words of Nathan the Prophet and the Words of Gad the Seer (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',29,29);">1Ch 29:29</a>) are perhaps to be counted as one work, and identified with our Books of Judges and Samuel.<P>(9) The Words of Nathan the Prophet (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',9,29);">2Ch 9:29</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,41,42,43);">1Ki 11:41-43</a>). Source concerning Solomon.<P>(10) The Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',9,29);">2Ch 9:29</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,29);">1Ki 11:29</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',14,2);">14:2</a>ff, etc.). Solomon.<P>(11) The Visions of Jedo the Seer (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',9,29);">2Ch 9:29</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',13,\'1-\');">1Ki 13</a>). Solomon.<P>(12) The Words of Shemaiah the Prophet (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',12,15);">2Ch 12:15</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',12,22);">1Ki 12:22</a>ff). Rehoboam.<P>(13) "Shemaiah wrote" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',24,6);">1Ch 24:6</a>). David.<P>(14) Iddo the Seer in Reckoning Genealogies (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',12,15);">2Ch 12:15</a>). Rehoboam.<P>(15) "The Words (The History) of Jehu the son of Hanani, which is inserted in the Book of the Kings of Israel" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',20,34);">2Ch 20:34</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',16,1,7,12);">1Ki 16:1, 7, 12</a>). Jehoshaphat.<P>(16) "The rest of the acts of Uzziah, first and last, did Isaiah the Prophet, the son of Amoz, write" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',26,22);">2Ch 26:22</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,1);">Isa 1:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',6,\'1-\');">6</a>).<P>(17) "The Vision of Isaiah...in the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',32,32);">2Ch 32:32</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',18,\'1-\');">2Ki 18-20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',36,\'1-\');">Isa 36-39</a>, etc.). Hezekiah.<P>(18) The Words of the Seers (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',33,19);">2Ch 33:19</a> margin). Manasseh.<P>(19) References to "Lamentations," and to "Jeremiah" etc. (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',35,25);">2Ch 35:25</a>). Josiah.<P>(20) The Midrash of the Prophet Iddo (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',13,22);">2Ch 13:22</a>). Abijah. These numbers, from 12 to 20, are referred to as works of prophets. At first thought there is plausibility in the idea that the references may be to the sections in Samuel and Kings where these several prophets are mentioned; but in nearly all the cases this explanation fades out on examination. The Chronicler had access to prophetic writings not now known to be in existence.<P>(21) Liturgical writings of David and Solomon (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',35,4);">2Ch 35:4</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',3,10);">Ezr 3:10</a>). Josiah.<P>(22) Commandments of David and Gad and Nathan (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',29,25);">2Ch 29:25</a>). Hezekiah.<P>(23) The Commandment of David and Asaph and Heman and Jeduthun (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',35,15);">2Ch 35:15</a>). Josiah.<P>(24) Chronicles of King David (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',27,24);">1Ch 27:24</a>).<P>(25) Last Words of David (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',23,27);">1Ch 23:27</a>).<P>Add to these many mentions of genealogical works, connected with particular times, those for example of David, Jotham, Jeroboam II (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,22);">1Ch 9:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',5,17);">5:17</a>), and mentions of matters that imply record-keeping, from Samuel and onward (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',26,\'26-28\');">1Ch 26:26-28</a>). Add also the fact that the Chronicler had a habit, exhibited in Ezra and Nehemiah, of using and quoting what he represents to be public documents, for example, letters to and from Cyrus and Artaxerxes and Darius and Artaxerxes Longimanus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',1,1);">Ezr 1:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',6,3);">6:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,7,17);">4:7, 17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',5,6);">5:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',6,6);">6:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',7,11);">7:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',2,7);">Ne 2:7</a>). It is no exaggeration to say that the Chronicler claims to have had a considerable library at his command.<P>6. Nehemiah\'s Library:<P>If such a library as this existed we should perhaps expect to find some mention of it somewhere. Such a mention I think there is in the much discussed passage in 2Macc 2:13-15. It occurs in what purports to be a letter written after 164 BC by the Maccabean leaders in Jerusalem to Aristobulus in Egypt. The letter has a good deal to say concerning Nehemiah, and among other things this: "And how he, founding a library, gathered together the books about the kings and prophets, and the (books) of David, and letters of kings about sacred gifts." It says that these writings have been scattered by reason of the war, but that Judas has now gathered them again, and that they may be at the service of Aristobulus and his friends.<P>This alleged letter contains statements that seem fabulous to most modern readers, though they may not have seemed so to Judas and his compatriots. Leaving out of view, however, the intrinsic credibility of the witness, the fitting of the statement into certain other traditions and into the phenomena presented in Chronicles is a thing too remarkable to neglect. In the past, men have cited this passage as an account of the framing of a canon of Scripture<72>the canon of the Prophets, or of the Prophets and the Hagiographa. But it purports to be an account of a library, not of a body of Scripture; and its list of contents does not appear to be that of either the Prophets or the Hagiographa or both. But it is an exact list of the sources to which the author (or authors) of Chronicles and Ezra and Nehemiah claim to have access<73>"books about the kings" (see above, <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',1,\'1-\');">Numbers 1-7</a>), "and prophets" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',8,\'1-\');">Numbers 8-20</a>), "and of David" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,\'1-\');">Numbers 21-25</a>ff), "and letters of kings about sacred gifts" (those cited in Ezra and Nehemiah). The library attributed to Nehemiah corresponds to the one which the Chronicler claims to have used; and the two independent pieces of evidence strongly confirm each the other.<P>7. The Way of Using the Biblical Sources:<P>The method in which the Biblical sources are used in Chronicles presents certain remarkable features. As a typical instance study <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',10,\'1-\');">1Ch 10</a> in comparison with <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',31,\'1-\');">1Sa 31</a>. <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',10,\'1-12\');">1Ch 10:1-12</a> is just a transcription, with slight changes, of the passage in Samuel. A large part of Chronicles is thus made up of passages transcribed from Samuel and Kings. The alternative is that the Chronicler transcribed from sources which had earlier been transcribed in Samuel and Kings, and this alternative may in some cases be the true one.<P>This phenomenon is interesting for many reasons. It has its bearings on the trustworthiness of the information given; a copy of an ancient document is of higher character as evidence than a mere report of the contents of the document. It has a bearing on questions concerning the text; are the texts in Kings and Chronicles to be regarded as two recensions? It is especially interesting as illustrating the literary processes in use among the writers of our Scriptures.<P>It is sometimes said that they used their sources not by restating the contents as a modern compiler would do, but by just copying. It would be more correct to say that they do this part of the time. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',10,\'1-\');">1Ch 10</a> the copying process ceases with <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',10,12);">1Ch 10:12</a>. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',10,13,14);">1Ch 10:13-14</a> the Chronicler condenses into a sentence a large part of the contents of 1 Samuel; one clause in particular is a condensation of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',28,\'1-\');">1Sa 28</a>. So it is with other parts. <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,\'1-4\');">1Ch 1:1-4</a> is abridged from <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,\'1-\');">Ge 5</a> at the rate of a name for a section; so is <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,\'24-27\');">1Ch 1:24-27</a> from <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,\'10-26\');">Ge 11:10-26</a>. In the various parts of Chronicles we find all the methods that are used by any compiler; the differentiating fact is simply that the method of transcribing is more used than it would be by a modern compiler.<P>In the transcribed passages, almost without exception, there has been a systematic editorial revision. Words and clauses have been pruned out, and grammatical roughness smoothed away. Regularly the text in Chronicles is somewhat briefer, and is more fluent than in Samuel or Kings. If we give the matter careful attention we will be sure that this revisional process took place, and that it accounts for most of the textual differences between Chronicles and the earlier writings, not leaving many to be accounted for as corruptions.<P>8. Additions by the Chronicler:<P>Of course the most significant changes made by the Chronicler are those which consist in additions and omissions. It is a familiar fact that the added passages in Chronicles which bulk largest are those which deal with the temple and its Worship and its attendants<74>its priests, Levites, musicians, singers, doorkeepers. Witness for example the added matter in connection with the bringing of the ark to Jerusalem, the preparations for the temple, the priests\' joining Rehoboam, the war between Abijah and Jeroboam, the reforms under Asa and Jehoshaphat, details concerning Uzziah, Hezekiah\'s passover, the reform of Manasseh, the passover of Josiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',15,\'1-\');">1Ch 15</A>-<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',16,\'1-\');">16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',22,\'1-\');">22-29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',11,\'13-17\');">2Ch 11:13-17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',13,\'1-\');">13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',14,\'1-\');">14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',15,\'1-\');">15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',17,\'1-\');">17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',19,\'1-\');">19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',20,\'1-\');">20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',26,\'16-21\');">26:16-21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',29,\'1-\');">29-31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',33,\'10-20\');">33:10-20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',35,\'1-\');">35</a>). It has been less noticed than it should be that while the Chronicler in these passages magnifies the ceremonial laws of Moses, he magnifies those of David yet more.<P>Next in bulk comes the added genealogical and statistical matter, for example, the larger part of the preliminary genealogies, details as to David\'s followers, Rehoboam\'s fortified cities and family affairs with details concerning the Shishak invasion, Asa\'s military preparations and the invasion by Zerah, with numbers and dates, Jehoshaphat\'s military arrangements, with numbers, Jehoram\'s brothers and other details concerning him, Uzziah\'s army and his business enterprises (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,\'1-\');">1Ch 2-9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',12,\'1-\');">12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',27,\'1-\');">27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',11,\'5-12\',\'18-23\');">2Ch 11:5-12, 18-23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',12,\'3-9\');">12:3-9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',14,\'3-15\');">14:3-15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',17,\'1-5\',\'10-19\');">17:1-5, 10-19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',26,\'6-15\');">26:6-15</a>).<P>The Chronicler is sometimes spoken of as interested in priestly affairs, and not in the prophets. That is a mistake. He takes particular pains to magnify the prophets (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',20,20);">2Ch 20:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',36,12,16);">36:12, 16</a>). He uses the word "prophet" 30 times, and the two words for "seer" (chozeh and ro\'eh) respectively 5 and 11 times. He gives us additional information concerning many of the prophets<74>for example, Samuel, Gad, Nathan, Ahijah, Shemaiah, Hanani, Jehu, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah. He has taken pains to preserve for us a record of many prophets concerning whom we should otherwise be ignorant<6E>Asaph, Heman, Jeduthun, Jedo (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',9,29);">2Ch 9:29</a>), Iddo, the Oded of Asa\'s time, Jahaziel the son of Zechariah, Eliezer the son of Dodavah, two Zechariahs (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',24,20);">2Ch 24:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',26,5);">26:5</a>), unnamed prophets of the time of Amaziah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',25,\'5-10\',15,16);">2Ch 25:5-10, 15-16</a>), Oded of the time of Ahaz (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',28,9);">2Ch 28:9</a>).<P>In addition, however, to the materials that can be thus classified, it is the method of the Chronicler to preserve interesting incidents of all kinds by working them into his narrative. When he reaches Jair in his genealogical list, he finds himself in possession of a bit of information not contained in the older writings, and he inserts it (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,21);">1Ch 2:21</a>ff). He is interested to keep alive the memory of the "families of scribes which dwelt at Jabez" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,55);">1Ch 2:55</a>). He has found items concerning craftsmen, and concerning a linen industry, and a potters\' industry, and he connects these with names in his list (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,14,21,23);">1Ch 4:14, 21, 23</a>). He has come across a bit of a hymn in the name of Jabez, and he attaches the hymn to his list of names as an annotation (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,9,10);">1Ch 4:9-10</a>). There are matters concerning the sickness and the burial of Asa, and concerning the bad conduct of Joash after the death of Jehoiada, and concerning constructions by Hezekiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',16,12,13);">2Ch 16:12-13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',24,\'15-27\');">24:15-27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',32,\'27-30\');">32:27-30</a>), that seem to the Chronicler worth preserving, though they are not recorded in the earlier writings. The fruits of the habit appear, in many scores of instances, in all parts of the Books of Chronicles.<P>9. Omissions by the Chronicler:<P>As the Books of Chronicles thus add matters not found in the older books, so they leave out much that is contained in the Books of Samuel and Kings. Here, however, the question should rather be as to what the Chronicler has retained from his sources than as to what he has omitted. He writes for readers whom he assumes to be familiar with the earlier books, and he retains so much of the older narrative as seems to him necessary for defining the relations of his new statements of fact to that narrative. From the point where the history of David begins he has omitted everything that is not strictly connected with David or his dynasty<74>the history of Northern Israel as such, the long narratives concerning the prophets, such distressing affairs as those of Amnon and Absalom and Adonijah and the faithlessness of Solomon, and a multitude of minor particulars. We have already noticed his systematic shortening of the passages which he transcribes.<P>10. The Extra-Biblical Sources:<P>There are two marked phenomena in the parts of Chronicles which were not taken from the other canonical books. They are written in later Hebrew of a pretty uniform type; many parts of them are fragmentary. The Hebrew of the parts that were copied from Samuel and Kings is of course the classical Hebrew of those books, generally made more classical by the revision to which it has been subjected. The Hebrew of the other parts is presumably that of the Chronicler himself. The difference is unmistakable. An obvious way of accounting for it is by supposing that the Chronicler treated his Scriptural sources with especial respect, and his other sources with more freedom. We will presently consider whether this is the true account.<P>There are indications that some of the non-Biblical sources were in a mutilated or otherwise fragmentary condition when the Chronicler used them. Broken sentences and passages and constructions abound. In the translations these are largely concealed, the translators having guessed the meanings into shape, but the roughnesses are palpable in the Hebrew. They appear less in the long narratives than in the genealogies and descriptive passages. They are sometimes spoken of as if they were characteristic of the later Hebrew, but there is no sense in that.<P>For example, most of the genealogies are incomplete. The priestly genealogies omit some of the names that are most distinguished in the history, such names as those of Jehoiada and two Azariahs (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',11,9);">2Ki 11:9</a>, etc.; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',26,17);">2Ch 26:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',31,10);">31:10</a>). Many of the genealogies are given more than once, and in variant forms, but with their incompleteness still palpable. There are many breaks in the lists. We read the names of one group, and we suddenly find ourselves in the midst of names that belong to another group, and with nothing to call attention to the transition. The same phenomena appear in the sections in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',23,\'2-27\');">1Ch 23:2-27</a>. These contain a succession of matters arranged in absolutely systematic order in classes and subclasses, while many of the statements thus arranged are so fragmentary as to be hardly intelligible. The most natural explanation of these phenomena assumes that the writer had a quantity of fragments in writing<6E>clay tablets, perhaps, or pottery or papyrus, or what not, more or less mutilated, and that he copied them as best he could, one after another. A modern writer, doing such work, would indicate the lacunae by dots or dashes or other devices. The ancient copyist simply wrote the bits of text one after another, without such indications. In regard to many of the supposable lacunae in Chronicles scholars would differ, but there are a large number in regard to which all would agree. If someone would print a text of Chronicles in which these should be indicated, he would make an important contribution to the intelligibility of the books.<P>11. The Object in Writing the Books of Chronicles:<P>On the basis of these phenomena what judgment can we form as to the purposes for which the Books of Chronicles were written? There are those who find the answer to this question a very simple one. They say that the interests of the writer were those of the temple priesthood, that it seemed to him that the older histories did not emphasize these interests as they ought, and that he therefore wrote a new history, putting into it the views and facts which he thought should be there. If this statement were modified so as not to impugn the good faith of the Chronicler, it would be nearly correct as a statement of part of his purpose. His purpose was to preserve what he regarded as historical materials that were in danger of being lost, materials concerning the temple-worship, but also concerning a large variety of other matters. He had the historian\'s instinct for laying hold of all sorts of details, and putting them into permanent form. His respiration from God (we do not here discuss the nature of that inspiration) led him this way. He wanted to save for the future that which he regarded as historical fact. The contents of the book, determined in part by his enthusiasm for the temple, were also determined in part by the nature of the materials that were providentially at his disposal. There seems also to have been present in his consciousness the idea of bringing to completion the body of sacred writings which had then been accumulating for centuries.<P>As we have seen, the Greek translators gave to the Books of Chronicles a title which expressed the idea they had of the work. They regarded it as the presentation of matters which had been omitted in the earlier Scriptures, as written not to supersede the older books, but to supplement them, as being, along with Ezra and Nehemiah, a work that brought the Scriptures up to date, and made them complete.<P>12. The Text:<P>The text of the Books of Chronicles has been less carefully preserved than that of some other parts of the Old Testament. Witness for example the numbers 42 and 8 for the ages of Ahaziah and Jehoiachin (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',22,2);">2Ch 22:2</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',8,26);">2Ki 8:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',36,9);">2Ch 36:9</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',24,8);">2Ki 24:8</a>). There is no proof, however, of important textual corruption. As we have seen, the fragmentary character of certain parts is probably in the main due to exactness in following fragmentary sources, and not to bad text; and the differences between Samuel or Kings and Chronicles, in the transcribed passages, are mostly due to intended revision rather than to text variations.<P>13. Critical Estimates:<P>In critical discussions less semblance of fair play has been accorded to Chronicles than even to most of the other Scriptures. It is not unusual to assume that the Chronicler\'s reference to sources is mere make-believe, that he "has cited sources simply to produce the impression that he is writing with authority." Others hurry to the generalization that the Books of Kings mentioned in Chronicles (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',1,\'1-\');">Numbers 1-7</a> above) are all one work, which must therefore have been an extensive Midrash (commentary, exe getical and anecdotal) on the canonical Books of Kings; and that the references to prophetic writings are to sections in this Midrash; so that practically the Chronicler had only two sources, the canonical books and this midrashic history of Israel; and that "it is impossible to determine" whether he gathered any bits of information from any other sources.<P>Into the critical theories concerning Chronicles enters a hypothesis of an earlier Book of Kings that was more extensive than our present canonical books. And in recent publications of such men as Buchler, Benzinger and Kittel are theories of an analysis of Chronicles into documents<74>for example, an earlier writing that made no distinction between priests and Levites, or an earlier writing which dealt freely with the canonical books; and the later writing of the Chronicler proper.<P>What we know in the matter is that three sets of authors combined in producing the Books of Chronicles<65>first, the men who produced the canonical sources, second, the men who produced the other sources, and third, the man or men who directly or indirectly put the contents of these sources together into the book which we have. We have no means of knowing what most of the intermediate processes were, and it is superlatively useless to guess. It is gratuitous to say that the mention of sources in Chronicl es is not made in good faith. It is probable that among the sources were Midrashim that were nearly contemporaneous. It is exceedingly improbable that none of the sources mentioned were genuine and ancient. All probabilities agree to the effect that the returned exiles and their near descendants were likely to study the ancient history of their race, and to gather materials for that purpose. As we have seen, the phenomena of the book indicate the presence of an antiquarian motive which was sure to be interested in genuine items of evidence from the remote past.<P>14. Date and Authorship:<P>The current opinion sixty years ago was that the Books of Chronicles and the whole Old Testament were completed about 404 BC, near the time when Artaxerxes Mnemon succeeded Darius Nothus. The statement now fashionable is that the Books of Chronicles were completed not later than about 250 BC, and this constantly degenerates into the statement that they were written about 250 BC or later. In fact, they were completed within the lifetime of Nehemiah, not later or not much later than 400 BC.<P>In discussing this we cannot ignore the fact that Chronicles and Ezra and Nehemiah are one work, or, if you prefer, one series. The closing verses of 2 Chronicles duplicate the opening verses of Ezr. This is not, probably, an inadvertent repetition. The Books of Chronicles were written later than the other parts of the series. The closing verses are the Chronicler\'s notification to his readers that he has brought up the earlier history to the point at which he had previously begun the narrative in Ezr. The testimony concerning Ezra and the "men of the Great Synagogue" and Nehemiah and their work on the Scriptures does not deserve the contempt with which some persons treat it. We know nothing concerning the Great Synagogue as an organization, but we know much concerning the succession of men, from Daniel to Simon the Just, who are called the men of the Great Synagogue. The old traditions do not say that Ezra was the founder of the succession, but they make him the typical person in it. Two bits of tradition are not necessarily inconsistent if one attributes work to Ezra which the other attributes to the men of the Great Synagogue. The regulation remark that tradition attributes Biblical work to Ezra and not to Nehemiah is untrue. Nehemiah was one of the men of the Great Synagogue, and prominent as such. He is introduced to us as a handsome boy, a king\'s favorite, coming to Jerusalem in 444 BC. In 433 BC he returned to the king. After an unknown interval of time he came back to Judea, and presumably spent the remainder of his long life there, dying some years or sortie decades after 400 BC.<P>15. Evidence as to Date and Authorship:<P>The placing of the work of the Chronicles at the close of the Hebrew Scriptures is in itself of the nature of testimony. The men who placed it there testify thereby to their belief that these are the latest writings of the Old Testament aggregate. We are familiar with the testimony of Babha\' Bathra\' to the effect that most of the later books of the Old Testament were due to the men of the Great Synagogue and to Ezra, but that Nehemiah completed the Books of Chronicles. We cannot avoid including the Chronicles among the 22 books which Josephus says were written before the death of Artaxerxes Longimanus (Apion, I, 8). Of course the limit of time here really intended by Josephus is not the death of Artaxerxes, but the lifetime of men who were contemporary with him<69>that of Nehemiah, for example. We have already noted the testimony concerning Nehemiah\'s library (2Macc 2:13-15). The time when the library was being gathered was the most likely time for it to be used as the Chronicler has used it. Add the recapitulation in Ecclesiasticus (44-49), which m entions Nehemiah latest in its list of Old Testament worthies.<P>Internal marks, also, justify the conclusion that the work of the Chronicler was complete before Nehemiah died. The abundant presence of Persian words and facts, with the absence of Greek words and facts, seems conclusive to the effect that the work was done before the conquests of Alexander rendered the Greek influence paramount. In some of the sections (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',7,28);">Ezr 7:28</a>ff; Nehemiah passim) Ezra and Nehemiah speak in the first person. The whole work makes the impression of being written up to date. The latest situation in Chronicles is the same with that in Nehemiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,\'1-\');">1Ch 9</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,\'3-\');">Ne 11:3-12:26</a>). The latest event mentioned is the differentiating of the Samaritan schism. A certain enrollment was made (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,\'22-26\');">Ne 12:22-26</a>) in the reign of Darius, up to the high-priesthood of Johanan (elsewhere called Jonathan and John), but including Jaddua the son of Johanan in the high-priestly succession. Ezra and Nehemiah were still in office (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,26);">Ne 12:26</a>). This enrollment naturally connects itself with the expulsion of Jaddua\'s bro ther Manasseh for marrying into the family of Sanballat (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',13,28);">Ne 13:28</a>; Josephus, Ant, XI, 7-8). Jaddua belongs to the fifth generation from Jeshua, who was high priest 538 BC. Josephus says that Sanballat held a commission from Darius. He mentions a certain Bagoas, "general of another Artaxerxes\' army," as in relations with the high priest John.<P>Arguments for a Later Date.<P>Josephus, however, apparently regards the Darius who commissioned Sanballat as the last of the kings of that name, and says that Jaddua was contemporary with Alexander the Great, thus dating the Samaritan schism a little before 331 BC. All scholars reject these statements when they are used for dating the Samaritan schism, but some scholars eagerly accept them for the purpose of proving the late date of the last books of the Hebrew Bible. The argument never was valid, and it is completely exploded by the Aramaic papyri recently discovered in Egypt, which show that Bagoas and the high priest Johanan and the sons of Sanballat were contemporaries in 407 BC, the 17th year of Darius Nothus, and for some years earlier.<P>Dr. Driver (LOT, edition 1897, 518) expresses an opinion very commonly held concerning the Chronicles: "The only positive clue which the book contains as to the date at which it was composed is the genealogy in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',3,\'17-24\');">1Ch 3:17-24</a>,...carried down to the sixth generation after Zerubbabel. This would imply a date not earlier than about 350 BC." Turn to the passage and do your own arithmetic on it. Jeconiah was born 614 BC (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',24,8);">2Ki 24:8</a>). If as an average each of the sons in the succession was born when his fat her was about 25 years old, that would bring the first birth in the 6th generation from Zerubbabel to about 414 BC, and not 350 BC. This is not an improbable showing.<P>Dr. Driver suggests, however, that in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',3,21);">1Ch 3:21</a> we should follow the Greek reading instead of the Hebrew. This would give us: "And the sons of Hananiah: Pelatiah, and Jeshaiah his son, Rephaiah his son, Arnan his son, Obadiah his son, Shecaniah his son." The meaning here is ambiguous. It may be understood to be that each of the six men named after Hananiah was the son of the man named before him (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',3,\'10-14\');">1Ch 3:10-14</a>, or <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,\'20-30\',\'50-53\');">1Ch 6:20-30, 50-53</a>); or as counting the six as the sons of Hananiah (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',3,16);">1Ch 3:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,20,21);">7:20-21</a>, etc.). Understanding it in the first of these two ways the number of generations after Zerubbabel would be increased to eleven. So many generations before the early decades of the 4th century BC would be exceptional, though not impossible. But the statement that there were 11 generations is weak, being based on a conjectural interpretation of an unproved text emendation, and standing unconfirmed in opposition to credible proof.<P>16. Truthfulness and Historicity:<P>"The Books of Chronicles are a tendency writing of little historical value"; "a distorted picture in the interest of the later institutions of postexilic Judaism"; "some ancient facts, having trickled down through oral or written tradition, are doubtless preserved....They are few indeed compared with the products of the imagination, and must be sifted like kernels of wheat from a mass of chaff." These statements, taken at random from the book that happens to be handiest, fairly represent the opinion held by many. They regard the Chronicles as a fabrication made in the interest of a religious party, a fabrication in which the history has been intentionally falsified.<P>A principal motive for this opinion is to discredit the testimony of Chronicles against certain critical theories, the said testimony being more full and detailed than that in Samuel and Kings and the prophets. But on the whole question the testimony of Chronicles is to the same effect with that of the other books. The testimony of the other books supports that of the Chronicles. The discrediting of Chronicles is part of a theory which denies the historical trustworthiness of practically all parts of the Old Testament and New Testament.<P>(1) Alleged Proofs of Untruthfulness.<P>Against the Chronicles it is alleged that they sometimes contradict the older books; but nearly all the instances are capable of satisfactory solution. The large numerals in Chronicles, for example those concerning the armies of David, Abijah, Jeroboam, Asa, Zerah, Jehoshaphat, Amaziah, Uzziah, are adduced as extravagant and incredible. Most of the difficulty in connection with such numbers, whether in Chronicles or Exodus or Numbers or Judges or Samuel, disappears when we observe that they clearly belong to an artificial way of counting. These numbers are given in even thousands or even hundreds (even fifties or tens in a very few instances), which would not be the case if the hundreds and thousands were merely numerical. It is alleged that the Chronicler views the glories of the past as on a larger scale than that in which they are presented in the earlier books, but this is not uniformly the case. On the basis of these allegations the Chronicler is charged with an extravagance that is inconsistent with sober truthfulness, but this charge follows the fate of the others. It is said that the Chronicler lacked trustworthy sources, but that is a thing to be proved, not taken for granted, and we have seen that it is improbable. It is alleged that the text is in such bad shape as to render the contents unreliable. This may be balanced against the counter conjecture that, since the Books of Chronicles have not been so often copied as the Books of Kings, their text is in the transcribed passages to be preferred to that of Kings. In fine, the reasons alleged against the historicity of Chronicles dwindle on examination, though there remain some problems that cannot be so easily disposed of.<P>(2) Truthfulness in the Various Parts.<P>Different parts of the Chronicles have their own separate problems of historicity. Take the genealogies, for example. If anyone had fabricated them, he would not have put them into their present fragmentary form, in which they have no story interest, and are of no direct use to anybody. On the other hand it is reasonable to account for their present form by the hypothesis that the writer used such materials as he had. This hypothesis is not derogatory to the inspiration of the writer. Deity saw fit to have these materials placed in the Scriptures, and to this end He influenced men of different generations through providential leadings and through impulses of the Spirit. No one thinks that the Spirit-guided man who put the genealogies in their final form received them as miraculous revelations. He received them as the product of effort in study<64>his own efforts and those of his predecessors. He is entitled to be counted as truthful if he used good judgment and fidelity in selecting and recording his materials.<P>Similar statements would be true in regard to the other statistical matter, and in regard to the many incidents that are mentioned in connection with the genealogies and other matters. To think of them as inventions by the Chronicler is not congruous with human experience. They are too brief and broken to have interest by themselves as stories. You can assign no possible reason that one could have for inventing them. They bear the marks of being genuine antiquarian discoveries. The final writer believed that he had come across facts which would be of interest if put into connection with the history as currently narrated. These matters are much more reasonably accounted for as facts than as inventions. And furthermore, a good many of them, first and last, have been corroborated by exploration. Take, for example, Manasseh\'s being carried to Babylon by the captains of the king of Assyria, or the account of Uzziah\'s military greatness (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',33,11);">2Ch 33:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',26,6);">26:6</a>ff), or the references to industries in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,\'14-23\');">1Ch 4:14-23</a> (compare PEFS, 1905, 243, 328; or Bible Sidelights from Gezer, 150ff).<P>Possibly on a different footing is such a passage as the account of Abijah and Jeroboam (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',13,\'3-18\');">2Ch 13:3-18</a>). It says that Abijah had 400,000 men and Jeroboam 800,000, of whom 500,000 were slain in the battle. One might plausibly argue that these numbers were intended as a notice to the reader that he is to understand the story, not as fact, but as a work of the imagination, a religious parable, a midrashic narrative sermon, taken from the Midrash of Iddo (verse 22). Whether or no one finds this argument convincing, anyone can see that it does not accuse the Books of Chronicles of being untruthful. If the passage is a parable it is true in the sense in which it was intended to be understood. A similar case is the account of Jehoshaphat\'s peril from the invading nations and his wonderful rescue (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',20,\'1-\');">2Ch 20</a>).<P>On still a different footing are such narratives as those concerning the bringing up of the ark, the first making of Solomon king, the reforms under Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah. These are sober narratives, with nothing in them to suggest flights of the imagination. Probably no one doubts that the Chronicler intended them to be understood as historical fact. If one is under bondage to the modern tradition which dates Deuteronomy from the time of Josiah and the priestly laws from after the exile, he must needs count these parts of Chronicles as falsified history; but if he is free from that bondage he will see no strong reason for counting them so.<P>17. The Values of the Chronicles:<P>In fine men are correct when they say that the greatest values of the Books of Chronicles lie in their availability for vividly illustrating the great truths of religion. They are correct when they assign great value to these books as depicting the ideas of the time when they were written. But they are none the less of great value as repeating from the other Scriptures the outline of the history of the religion of Yahweh, and presenting additional material for the filling in of that outline.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Among the older commentaries on Chronicles see that of Keil in the Keil-Delitzsch series, published in English in 1872; that of Zockler in the Lange series, 1876; that of Barker in the Pulpit Commentary, after 1880. Among more recent works, from the point of view which denies the historicity of Chronicles, see R. Kittel in the Polychrome Bible, 1895, and Curtis and Masden in the International Critical Commentary, 1910. A brilliant characterization from that point of view is that by Torrey, "The Chronicler as Editor and as Independent Narrator" in AJSL, January, 1909, and subsequent numbers. On the other side see Beecher, Reasonable Biblical Criticism,1911, chapters xviii and xxii; "Is the Chronicler a Veracious Historian?" in Bible Student (October, 1899 and subsequent numbers), is a defense of the historicity. All works on Old Testament Introduction discuss the questions concerning Chronicles. In view of the many proper names in Chronicles, such a book as Gray, Studies in Hebrew Proper Names, has its uses. For the chronological facts, especially in connection with the closing of the Old Testament history, see Beecher, Dated Events of the Old Testament, 1907. For the Egyptian papyri see Drei Aramaische Papyrusurkunden aus Elephantine, Sachau, Berlin, 1907, or the Appendix to Toffteen, Historic Exodus. Also Sprengling\'s article in AJSL, April, 1911. As to light on the Chronicles from explorations, see "The Excavations of Gezer, 1902-5, and 1907-9," PEF; or Bible Sidelights from the Mounds of Gezer, 1906. For other books see the lists in Encyclopedia Biblica and HDB.``11';
|
||
isbe[2096]='Chronology of the New Testament` <P><b>I. CHRONOLOGY OF THE LIFE OF JESUS</b><P class="in15">1. Birth of Jesus<P class="in30">(1) Death of Herod<P class="in30">(2) Census of Quirinius<P class="in30">(3) Star of the Magi<P class="in30">(4) Course of Abijah<P class="in30">(5) Day and Month<P class="in30">(6) Summary<P class="in15">2. Baptism of Jesus<P class="in15">3. First Passover<P class="in15">4. Death of John the Baptist<P class="in15">5. Length of Jesus\' Ministry<P class="in15">6. Death of Jesus<P class="in15">7. Summary of Dates<P><b>LITERATURE</b><P><b>II. CHRONOLOGY OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE</b><P class="in15">1. Paul\'s Conversion<P class="in15">2. Death of Herod Agrippa I<P class="in15">3. Famine under Claudius<P class="in15">4. Sergius Paulus<P class="in15">5. Edict of Claudius<P class="in15">6. Gallio<P class="in15">7. Festus<P class="in15">8. Relative Chronology of Acts<P class="in15">9. Pauline Epistles<P class="in15">10. Release and Death of Paul<P class="in15">11. Death of Peter<P class="in15">12. Death of James the Just<P class="in15">13. The Synoptic Gospels, etc.<P class="in15">14. Death of John<P class="in15">15. Summary of Dates<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>The current Christian era is reckoned from the birth of Jesus and is based upon the calculations of Dionysius (6th century). Subsequent investigation has shown that the Dionysian date is at least four years too late. Several eras were in use in the time of Jesus; but of these only the Varronian will be used coordinately with the Dionysian in the discussion of the chronology of the life of Jesus, 753 A. U. C. being synchronous with 1 BC and 754 A. U. C. with 1 A. D.<P>I. Chronology of the Life of Jesus.<P>1. Birth of Jesus:<P>Jesus was born before the death of Herod the Great (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',2,1);">Mt 2:1</a>ff) at the time of a census or enrollment made in the territory of Herod in accordance with a decree of Augustus when Quirinius (Revised Version; Cyrenius, the King James Version) was exercising authority in the Roman province of Syria (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,1);">Lu 2:1</a>f). At the time of Jesus\' birth a star led the Magi of the East to seek in Jerusalem the infant whom they subsequently found in Bethlehem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',2,1);">Mt 2:1</a>ff). John the Baptist was six months older than Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,36);">Lu 1:36</a>) and he was born in the days of Herod (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,5);">Lu 1:5</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,1);">Lu 2:1</a>) after his father, Zacharias, of the priestly course of Abijah, had been performing the functions of his office in the temple.<P>(1) Death of Herod. <P>The death of Herod the Great occurred in the spring of 750/4. (NOTE: The alternative numbers are BC or AD, i. e, 750 A.U.C. = 4 BC, etc.) He ruled from his appointment in Rome 714/40 (Ant., XIV, xiv, 4-5, in the consulship of Caius Domitius Calvinus and Caius Asinius Pollio) 37 years, and from his accession in Jerusalem after the capture of the city 717/37 (Ant., XIV, xvi, 1-3; BJ, I, xvii, 9; I, xviii, 1-3; Dio Cassius xlix.22; compare Schurer, GJV3, I, 358,note 11) 34 years (Ant, XVII, xviii, 1; BJ, I, xxxiii, 7-8; compare Schurer, op. cit., I,415,note 167 where it is shown that Josephus reckons a year too much, probably counting from Nisan 1 and including partial years). Just before Herod\'s death there was an eclipse of the moon (Ant., XVII, vi, 4). According to astronomical calculations an eclipse was visible in Palestine on March 23 and September 15, 749/5, March 12, 750/4 and January 9, 753/1. Of these the most probable is that of March 12, 750/4. Soon after the eclipse Herod put to death his son Antipater and died five days later (Ant., XVII, vii; BJ, I, xxxiii, 7). Shortly after Herod\'s death the Passover was near at hand. (Ant., XVII, vi, 4 through ix, 3). In this year Passover (Nisan 15) fell on April 11; and as Archelaus had observed seven days of mourning for his father before this, Herod\'s death would fall between March 17 and April 4. But as the 37th (34th) year of his reign was probably reckoned from Nisan 1 or March 28, his death may be dated between March 28 and April 4, 750/4.<P>This date for Herod\'s death is confirmed by the evidence for the duration of the reigns of his three sons. Archelaus was deposed in 759/6 (Dio Cassius lv.27 in the consulship of Aemilius Lepidus and Lucius Arruntius) in the 10th year of his reign (Ant., XVII, xiii, 2; compare BJ, II, vii, 3 which gives the year as the 9th). Antipas was deposed most probably in the summer of 792/39 (Ant., XVIII, vii, 1-2; compare XVIII, vi, 11; XIX, viii, 2; BJ, II, ix, 6; Schurer, op. cit., I, 448, note 46 and 416, note 167). There are coins of Antipas from his 43rd year (Madden, Coins of the Jews, 121ff). The genuineness of a coin from the 44th year is questioned by Schurer but accepted by Madden. The coin from the 45th year is most probably spurious (Schurer, op. cit., I, 417, note 167). Philip died after reigning 37 years, in the 20th year of Tiberius<75>August 19, 786/33-787/34 (Ant., XVIII, iv, 6). There is also a coin of Philip from his 37th year (Madden, op. cit., 126). Thus Archelaus, Antipas and Philip began to reign in 750/4.<P>(2) Census of Quirinius.<P>The census or enrollment, which, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,1);">Lu 2:1</a>f; was the occasion of the journey of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem where Jesus was born, is connected with a decree of Augustus embracing the Greek-Roman world. This decree must have been carried out in Palestine by Herod and probably in accordance with the Jewish method<6F>each going to his own city<74>rather than the Roman (Dig. 15,4,2; Zumpt, Das Geburtsjahr Christi, 195; Kenyon, Greek Papyri in the British Museum, III, 124f; Schurer, Theol. Ztg, 1907, 683f; and on the other hand, Ramsay, Expositor,1908,I,19,note). Certainly there is no intimation of an insurrection such as characterized a later census (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,37);">Ac 5:37</a>; Ant, XVIII, i, 1; BJ, II, xvii, 7; compare Tac. Ann. vi.41; Livy Epit. cxxxvi, cxxxvii; Dessau, Inscrip. lat. Sel. number 212, col. ii, 36) and this may have been due in no small measure to a difference in method. Both Josephus and Luke mention the later census which was made by Quirinius on the deposition of A rchelaus, together with the insurrection of Judas which accompanied it. But while Josephus does not mention the Herodian census<75>although there may be some intimation of it in Ant, XVI, ix, 3; XVII, ii, 4; compare Sanclemente, De vulg. aerae emend., 438f; Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Beth.1, 178ff<66>Luke carefully distinguishes the two, characterizing the census at the time of Jesus\' birth as "first," i.e. first in a series of enrollments connected either with Quirinius or with the imperial policy inaugurated by the decree of Augustus. The Greek-Roman writers of the time do not mention this decree and later writers (Cassiodor, Isidor and Suidas) cannot be relied upon with certainty as independent witnesses (Zumpt, Geburtsjahr, 148ff). Yet the geographical work of Agrippa and the preparation of a breviarium totius imperil by Augustus (Tac. Ann. i. 11; Suet. Aug. 28 and 101; Dio Cassius liii. 30; lvi. 33; compare Mommsen, Staatsrecht, II,1025,note 3), together with the interest of the emperor in the organization and finances of the empire and the attention which he gave to the provinces (Marquardt, Rom. Staatsverwaltung, II, 211f; compare 217), are indirectly corroborative of Luke\'s statement. Augustus himself conducted a census in Italy in 726/28, 746/8, 767/14 (Mommsen, Res Ges., 34ff) and in Gaul in 727/27 (Dio Cassius liii. 22, 5; Livy Epit. cxxxiv) and had a census taken in other provinces (Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyc., under the word "Census," 1918f; Marquardt, op. cit., II, 213). For Egypt there is evidence of a regular periodic census every 14 years extending back to 773/20 (Ramsay, op. cit., 131 if; Grenfell and Hunt, Oxy. Papyri, II, 207ff; Wilcken, Griech. Ostraka, I, 444ff) and it is not improbable that this procedure was introduced by Augustus (Schurer, op. cit., I, 515). The inference from Egyptian to similar conditions in other provinces must indeed be made cautiously (Wilcken, op. cit., 449; Marquardt, op. cit., 441); yet in Syria the regular tributum capitis seems to imply some such preliminary work (Dig, 1. 15, 3; Appian, Syriac., 50; Marquardt, op. cit., II, 200, note 2; Pauly-Wissowa, op. cit., 1921; Ramsay, op. cit., 154). The time of the decree is stated only in general terms by Luke, and it may have been as early as 727/27 (Zumpt, op. cit., 159; Marquardt, op. cit., II, 212) or later in 746-8 (Huschke, Census, 34; Ramsay, op. cit., 158ff), its execution in different provinces and subject kingdoms being carried out at different times. Hence, Luke dates the census in the kingdom of Herod specifically by connecting it with the administrative functions of Quirinius in Syria. But as P. Quintilius Varus was the legate of Syria just before and after the death of Herod from 748/6-750/4 (Ant., XVII, v, 2; XVII, ix., 3; XVII, x, 1 and 9; XVII, xi, 1; Tac. Hist. v.9; and coins in Eckhel, Doctr. num. vet., III, 275) and his predecessor was C. Sentius Saturninus from 745/9-748/6 (Ant; XVI, ix, 1; x, 8; xi, 3; XVII, i, 1; ii, 1; iii, 2), there seems to be no place for Quirinius during the closing years of Herod\'s reign. Tertullian indeed speaks of Saturninus as legate at the time of Jesus\' birth (Adv. Marc., iv.9). The interpretation of Luke\'s statement as indicating a date for the census before Quirinius was legate (Wieseler, Chron. Syn., 116; Lagrange, Revue Biblique, 1911, 80ff) is inadmissible. It is possible that the connection of the census with Quirinius may be due to his having brought to completion what was begun by one of his predecessors; or Quirinius may have been commissioned especially by the emperor as legatus ad census accipiendos to conduct a census in Syria and this commission may have been connected temporally with his campaign against the Homonadenses in Cilicia (Tac. Ann. iii.48; compare Noris, Cenotaph. Pis., 320ff; Sanclemente, op. cit., 426 passim; Ramsay, op. cit., 238). It has also been suggested by Bour (L\'Inscription de Quirinius, 48ff) that Quirinius may have been an imperial procurator specially charged with authority in the matter of the Herodian census. The titulus Tiburtinus (CIL, XIV, 3613; Dessau, Inscr. Latin Sel., 918)<29>if rightly assigned to him<69>and there seems to be no sufficient reason for questioning the conclusiveness of Mommsen\'s defense of this attribution (compare Liebenam, Verwaltungsgesch., 365)<29>proves that he was twice legate of Syria, and the titulus Venetus (CIL, III, 6687; Dessau, op. cit., 2683) gives evidence of a census conducted by him in Syria. His administration is dated by Ramsay (op. cit., 243) in 747/7; by Mommsen in the end of 750/4 or the beginning of 751/3 (op. cit., 172ff). Zahn (Neue kirch. Zeitschr.,1893, IV, 633ff), followed by Spitta (Zeitschr. f. d. neutest. Wiss., 1906, VII, 293ff), rejects the historicity of the later census connected by Josephus with the deposition of Archelaus, basing his view on internal grounds, and assigns the Lucan census to a time shortly after the death of Herod. This view however is rendered improbable by the evidence upon which the birth of Jesus is assigned to a time before the death of Herod (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',2,1);">Mt 2:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,5);">Lu 1:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,1);">2:1</a>f); by the differentiation of the census in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,1);">Lu 2:1</a>f and <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,37);">Ac 5:37</a>; by the definite connection of the census in Josephus with Syria and the territory of Archelaus (compare also the tit. Venet.); and by the general imperial policy in the formation of a new province (Marquardt, op. cit., II, 213). Moreover there seems to be no adequate ground for identifying the Sabinus of Josephus with Quirinius as urged by Weber, who regards the two accounts (Ant., XVII, viii, 1ff and XVII, iv, 5; XVIII, i, 2; ii, 1ff) as due to the separation by Josephus of parallel accounts of the same events in his sources (Zeitschr. f. d. neutest. Wiss.,1909, X, 307ff)<29>the census of Sabinus-Quirinius being assigned to 4 BC, just after the death of Herod the Great. The synchronism of the second census of Quirinius with the periodic year of the Egyptian census is probably only a coincidence, for it was occasioned by the deposition of Archelaus; but its extension to Syria may be indicative of its connection with the imperial policy inaugurated by Augustus (Tac. Ann. vi.41; Ramsay, op. cit., 161f).<P>(3) Star of the Magi.<P>The identification of the star of the Magi (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',2,2);">Mt 2:2</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',2,7,9,11);">Mt 2:7,9,16</a>; Macrobius, Sat., II, 4; Sanclemente, op. cit., 456; Ramsay, op. cit., 215ff) and the determination of the time of its appearance cannot be made with certainty, although it has been associated with a conjunction in 747/7 and 748/6 of Saturn and Jupiter in the sign of Pisces—a constellation which was thought to stand in close relation with the Jewish nation (Ideler, Handbuch d. math. u. tech. Chron., II, 400ff). When the Magi came to Jerusalem, however, Herod was present in the city; and this must have been at least several months before his death, for during that time he was sick and absent from Jerusalem (Ant., XVII, vi, 1ff; BJ, I, xxxiii, 1ff).<P>(4) Course of Abijah.<P>The chronological calculations of the time of the service of the priestly course of Abijah in the temple, which are made by reckoning back from the time of the course of Jehoiarib which, according to Jewish tradition, was serving at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, are uncertain (Schurer, op. cit., II, 337, note 3; compare Lewin, Fasti Sacri, 836).<P>(5) Day and month.<P>The day and month of Jesus\' birth are also uncertain. December 25 was celebrated by the church in the West as early as the 2nd century<72>if the date in Hippolytus on Dan., IV, 23, be genuine (compare Ehrhardt, Altchr. Lit., 1880-1900, 383); but January 6 was celebrated in the East as the anniversary both of the birth and of the baptism. The fact that shepherds were feeding their flocks at night when Jesus was born (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,8);">Lu 2:8</a>) makes it improbable that the season of the year was winter.<P>(6) Summary.<P>The birth of Jesus may therefore be assigned to the period 747/7 to 751/5, before the death of Herod, at the time of a census made by Herod in accordance with a decree of Augustus and when Quirinius was exercising extraordinary authority in Syria<69>Varus being the regular legate of the province, i.e. probably in 748/6.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JESUS+CHRIST">JESUS CHRIST</a>.<P>2. Baptism of Jesus:<P>The Synoptic Gospels begin their description of the public ministry of Jesus with an account of the ministry of John the Baptist (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,1);">Mt 3:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,1);">Mr 1:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,1);">Lu 3:1</a>ff; compare of in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,19);">Joh 1:19</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,24);">Joh 4:24</a>; Josephus, Ant, XVIII, iii, 3) and Luke definitely dates the baptism of Jesus by John in the 15th year of Tiberius. Luke also designates this event as the beginning of Jesus\' ministry, and by stating Jesus\' age approximately brings it into connection with the date of His birth. If Luke reckoned the reign of Tiberius fro m the death Augustus, August 19, 767/14, the 15th year would extend from August 19, 781/28 to August 18, 782/29; and if Jesus was about thirty years old at this time, His birth would fall 751//3 to 752/2<>or sometime after the death of Herod, which is inconsistent with Luke\'s own and Matthew\'s representation. This indeed was one of the common modes of reckoning the imperial reigns. The mode of reckoning from the assumption of the tribunician power or from the designation as imperator is altogether unlikely in Luke\'s case and intrinsically improbable, since for Tiberius the one began in 748/6 and the other in 743/11 (Dio Cassius Iv. 9; liv. 33; Vell. ii. 99; Suet. Tib. ix.11). But if, as seems likely, the method of reckoning by imperial years rather than by the yearly consuls was not definitely fixed when Luke wrote, it is possible that he may have counted the years of Tiberius from his appointment in 764/11 or 765/12 to equal authority with Augustus in the provinces (Veil. ii 121; Suet. Tib. xx. 21; Tac. Ann. i.3). This method seems not to have been employed elsewhere (Lewin, op. cit., 1143f; compare Ramsay, op. cit., 202f). The coins of Antioch in which it is found are regarded as spurious (Eckhel, op. cit., III, 276), the genuine coins reckoning the reign of Tiberins from the death of Augustus (ibid., III, 278). If Luke reckoned the reign of Tiberins from 764/11 or 765/12, the 15th year would fall in 778/25 or 779/26, probably the latter, and Jesus\' birth about thirty years earlier, i.e. about 748/6 or 749/5.<P>3. First Passover:<P>At the time of the first Passover in Jesus\' ministry the Herodian temple had been building 46 years (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',2,20);">Joh 2:20</a>). Herod began the temple in the 18th year of his reign (Ant., XV, xi,1,which probably corrects the statement in BJ, I, xxi, I that it was the 15th year; compare Schurer, op. cit., I, 369f; note 12). As Josephus reckons from the accession of Herod in 717/37, the 18th year would be 734/20 to 735/21 and 46 years later would be 780/27 to 781/28. The interval implied in John between this Passover an d the beginning of Jesus\' ministry agrees well with the Lucan dating of the baptism in 779/26.<P>4. Death of John the Baptist:<P>The imprisonment of John the Baptist, which preceded the beginning of Jesus\' Galilean work, was continued for a time (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,\'2-19\');">Mt 11:2-19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,\'18-35\');">Lu 7:18-35</a>) but was finally terminated by beheading at the order of Herod Antipas. Announcement of the death was made to Jesus while in the midst of His Galilean ministry (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',14,\'3-12\');">Mt 14:3-12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,\'14-29\');">Mr 6:14-29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,\'7-9\');">Lu 9:7-9</a>). Josephus reports that the defeat of Antipas by Aretas, in the summer of 789/36, was popularly regarded as a Divine punishment for the murder of John (Ant., XVIII, v, 2); But although Josephus mentions the divorce of Aretas daughter by Antipas as one of the causes of hostilities, no inference can be drawn from this or from the popular interpretation of Antipas\' defeat, by which the int erval between John s death and this defeat can be fixed (Schurer, op. cit., I, 443f).<P>5. Length of Jesus\' Ministry:<P>The Synoptic Gospels mention the Passion Passover at which Jesus\' ministry was terminated, but they contain no data by which the interval between the imprisonment of John the Baptist and this Passover can be fixed with certainty. Yet indications are not wanting that the interval consisted of at least two years. The Sabbath controversy broke out in Galilee when the grain was still standing in the fields (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,1);">Mt 12:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,23);">Mr 2:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,1);">Lu 6:1</a>) and the condition of the grass when the Five Thousand were fed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',14,15);">Mt 14:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,39);">Mr 6:39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,12);">Lu 9:12</a>) points to the springtime, the Passion Passover marking the return of still another springtime (compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',13,7);">Lu 13:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,37);">Mt 23:37</a>). But the Gospel of John mentions explicitly three Passovers (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',2,23);">Joh 2:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,4);">6:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,55);">11:55</a>) and probably implies a fourth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,1);">Joh 5:1</a>), thus necessitating a ministry of at least two years and making probable a ministry of three years after the first Passover. The Passover of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,4);">6:4</a> cannot be eliminated on textual grounds, for the documentary evidence is conclusive in its favor and the argument against it based on the statements of certain patristic writers is unconvincing (compare Turner, HDB, I, 407f; Zahn, Kom., IV, 708ff). The indications of time from <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,4);">Joh 6:4</a><3E>the Passover when the Five Thousand were fed in Galilee<65>to <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,55);">Joh 11:55</a><3E>the Passion Passover<65>are definite and clear (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',7,2);">Joh 7:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,22);">10:22</a>). But the interval between the first Passover (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',2,23);">Joh 2:23</a>) and the Galilean Passover (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,4);">Joh 6:4</a>) must have been one and may have been two years. The following considerations favor the latter view: Jesus was present in Jerusalem at a feast (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,1);">Joh 5:1</a>) which is not named but is called simply "a" or "the" feast of the Jews. The best authorities for the text are divided, some supporting the insertion, others the omission of the definite article before "feast." If the article formed part of the original text, the feast may have been either Tabernacles<65>from the Jewish point of view<65>or Passover<65>from the Christian point of view. If the article was wanting in the original text, the identification of the feast must be made on contextual and other grounds. But the note of time in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,35);">Joh 4:35</a> indicates the lapse of about nine months since the Passover of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',2,23);">Joh 2:23</a> and it is not likely that the Galilean ministry which preceded the feeding of the Five Thousand lasted only about three months. In fact this is rendered impossible by the condition of the grain in the fields at the time of the Sabbath controversy. The identification of the feast of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,1);">Joh 5:1</a> with Purim, even if the article be not genuine, is extremely improbable; and if so, a Passover must have intervened between <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',2,23);">Joh 2:23</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,4);">Joh 6:4</a>, making the ministry of Jesus extend over a period of three years and the months which preceded the Passover of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',2,23);">Joh 2:23</a>. While the identification cannot be made with certainty, if the feast was Passover the subject of the controversy with the Jews in Jerusalem as well as the season of the year would harmonize with the Synoptic account of the Sabbath controversy in Galilee which probably followed this Passover (compare the variant reading in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,1);">Lu 6:1</a>).<P>6. Death of Jesus:<P>Jesus was put to death in Jerusalem at the time of the Passover when Pontius Pilate was procurator of Judea (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,2);">Mt 27:2</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,1);">Mr 15:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,1);">Lu 23:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,29);">Joh 18:29</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,1);">Joh 19:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',3,13);">Ac 3:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',4,27);">4:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,28);">13:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,13);">1Ti 6:13</a>; Tac. Ann. xv.44), Caiaphas being the high priest (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,3,17);">Mt 26:3, 17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,49);">Joh 11:49</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,13);">18:13</a>ff) and Herod Antipas the tetrarch of Galilee and Perea (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,7);">Lu 23:7</a>ff). Pilate was procurator from 779/26 to 789/36 (Ant., XVIII, iv, 3; v, 3; compare Schurer, op. cit., I,487,note 141); Caiaphas was high priest from 771/18 to 789/36 (Ant., XVIII, ii, 2; iv, 3; compare Schurer, op. cit., II, 271) and Antipas was tetrarch from 750/4 to 792/39. If the first Passover of Jesus\' ministry was in 780/27, the fourth would fall in 783/30. The gospels name Friday as the day of the crucifixion (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,62);">Mt 27:62</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,42);">Mr 15:42</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,54);">Lu 23:54</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,14,31,42);">Joh 19:14, 31, 42</a>) and the Synoptic Gospels represent this Friday as Nisan 15<31>the day following (or according to Jewish reckoning from sunset to sunset, the same day as) the day on which the paschal supper was eaten (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,17);">Mt 26:17</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,12);">Mr 14:12</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,7);">Lu 22:7</a>ff). But the Fourth Gospel is thought by many to represent the paschal meal as still uneaten when Jesus suffered (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,28);">Joh 18:28</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,29);">Joh 13:29</a>); and it is held that the Synoptic Gospels also contain traces of this view (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,5);">Mt 26:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,2);">Mr 14:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,21);">15:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,26);">Lu 23:26</a>). Astronomical calculations show that Friday could have fallen on Nisan 14 or 15 in 783/30 according to different methods of reckoning (von Soden, EB, I, 806; compare Bacon, Journal of Biblical Literature, XXVIII, 2, 1910, 130ff; Fotheringham, Jour. of Theol. Studies, October, 1910, 120ff), but the empirical character of the Jewish calendar renders the result of such calculations uncertain (Schurer, op. cit., I, 749f). In the year 783/30 Friday, Nican 15, would fall on April 7. There is an early patristic tradition which dates the death of Jesus in the year 782/29, in the consulship of the Gemini (Turner, HDB, I, 413f), but its origin and trustworthy character are problematical.<P>7. Summary of Dates:<P>1. Birth of Jesus, 748/6.<P>2. Death of Herod the Great, 750/4.<P>3. Baptism of Jesus, 779/26.<P>4. First Passover of Jesus\' ministry, 780/27.<P>5. Death of Jesus, 783/30.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Schurer, Geschichte des Judischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 3. und 4. Aufl., 1901-9, 3 volumes, English translation of the 2nd edition, in 5 volumes, 1885-94; Ideler, Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie, 1825-26, 2 volumes; Wieseler, Chronologische Synopse der Evangelien,1843,English translation; Lewin, Fasti Sacri, 1865; Turner, article "Chronology of the NT" in HDB, 1900, I. 403-25; von Soden, article "Chronology" in Cheyne and Black, EB, 1899, I, 799-819; Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? 1898; F. R. Montgomery Hitchcock, article "Dates" in Hastings, Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels; Mommsen, Res Gestae Divi Augusti2.<P>II. Chronology of the Apostolic Age.<P>The chronology of the apostolic age must be based on the data in Acts and the epistolary literature of the New Testament which afford contacts with persons or events of the Greek-Roman world. From the fixed points thus secured a general outline of the relative chronology may be established with reasonable probability.<P>1. Paul\'s Conversion:<P>Paul was converted near Damascus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,3);">Ac 9:3</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,5);">Ac 22:5</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',26,12);">Ac 26:12</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,17);">Ga 1:17</a>). After a brief stay in that city (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,19);">Ac 9:19</a>ff) he went to Arabia and then came again to Damascus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,17);">Ga 1:17</a>). When he left Damascus the second time, he returned to Jerusalem after an absence of three years (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,18);">Ga 1:18</a>). The flight of Paul from Damascus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,24);">Ac 9:24</a>) probably terminated his second visit to the city. At that time the ethnarch of Aretas, the king of the Nabateans, acting with the resident Jews (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,23);">Ac 9:23</a>f), guarded the city to seize him (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',11,32);">2Co 11:32</a>). Aretas IV succeeded Obodas about 9 BC, and reigned until about 40 AD Damascus was taken by the Romans in 62 BC and probably continued under their control until the death of Tiberius (March 37 AD). Roman coins of Damascus exist from the time of Augustus, Tiberius and Nero, but there are no such coins from the time of Caligula and Claudius (Schurer, op. cit., I, 737; II, 153). Moreover the relations of Aretas to Augustus and Tiberius make it extremely improbable that he held Damascus during their reign as part of his kingdom or acquired it by conquest. The statement of Paul however seems to imply Nabatean control of the city, and this is best explained on the supposition that Damascus was given to Aretas by Caligula, the change in the imperial attitude being due perhaps to the influence primarily of Agrippa and possibly also of Vitellius (Steinmann, Aretas IV, 1909, 34ff). But if Paul\'s escape from Damascus was not earlier than 37 AD, his conversion cannot be placed earlier than 34 or 35 AD, and the journey to Jerusalem 14 years later (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,1);">Ga 2:1</a>) not earlier than 50 or 51 AD.<P>2. Death of Herod Agrippa I:<P>Herod Agrippa I died in Caesarea shortly after a Passover season (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',12,23);">Ac 12:23</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',12,3,19);">Ac 12:3, 19</a>). Caligula had given him the tetrarchy of Philip and of Lysanias in 37 AD<41>the latter either at this time or later<65>with the title of king (Ant., XVIII, vi, 10; BJ, II, ix, 6) and this was increased in 40 AD by the tetrarchy of Antipas (Ant., XVIII, vii, 1f; BJ, II, ix, 6). Claudius gave him also Judea and Samaria (Ant., XIX, v, 1; BJ, II, xi, 5) thus making his territory even more extensive than that of his grandfather, Herod the Great. Agrippa reigned over "all Judea" for three years under Claudius (Ant., XIX, viii, 2; BJ, II, xi, 6), his death falling in the spring of 44 AD, in the 7th year of his reign. The games mentioned by Josephus in this connection are probably those that were celebrated in honor of the return of Claudius from Britain in 44 AD. There are coins of Agrippa from his 6th year, but the attribution to him of coins from other years is questioned (Schurer, op. cit., 560, note 40; Madden, op. cit., 132).<P>3. Famine under Claudius:<P>The prophecy of a famine and its fulfillment under Claudius (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,28);">Ac 11:28</a>) are associated in Acts with the death of Herod Agrippa I (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,30);">Ac 11:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',12,23);">12:23</a>). Famines in Rome during the reign of Claudius are mentioned by Suetonius (Claud. xviii), Dio Cassius (lx. 11), Tacitus (Annals xii. 43), and Orosius (vii. 6). Josephus narrates in the time of Fadus the generosity of Helena during a famine in Palestine (Ant., XX, ii, 5), but subsequently dates the famine generally in the time of Fadus and Alexander. The famine in Palestine would fall therefore at some time between 44 and 48 (Schurer, op. cit., I, 567, note 8).<P>4. Sergius Paulus:<P>When Paul visited Cyprus with Barnabas the island was administered by Sergius Paulus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,7);">Ac 13:7</a>ff), a proprietor with the title proconsul (Marquardt, op. cit., I, 391). There is an inscription from Cyprus (Cagnat, Inscr. graec. ad res rom. pertin., III; 930) dating from the 1st century, and probably from the year 53 (Zahn, Neue kirch. Zeitschr.,1904, XV, 194) in which an incident in the career of a certain Apollonius is dated in the proconsulship of Paulus (epi Palilou (anth)upatou). From another inscription (CIG, 2632), dated in the 12th year of Claudius, it appears that L. Annins Bassus was proconsul in 52. If the Julius Cordus mentioned by Bassus was his immediate predecessor, the proconsulship of Sergius Paulus may be dated at some time before 51.<P>5. Edict of Claudius:<P>When Paul came to Corinth for the first time he met Aquila and Priscilla, who had left Rome because of an edict of Claudius expelling the Jews from the city (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,2);">Ac 18:2</a>). Suetonius mentions an expulsion of the Jews from Rome by Claudius but gives no date (Claud. xxv; compare Dio Cassius lx.6). Orosius however dates the edict in the 9th year of Claudius or 49 AD (Hist. vii. 6, 15); and though Josephus, from whom he quotes, does not mention this edict. but records the favor shown by Claudius to the Jews and to Herod Agrippa I (Ant., XIX, v, 1-3; compare Dio Cassius LX. 6, 6, 9, 10; 8, 2), it is not improbable that the date is approximately accurate (Schurer, op. cit., III, 62, note 92).<P>6. Gallio:<P>During Paul\'s first sojourn in Corinth the apostle was brought before the proconsul Gallio (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,12);">Ac 18:12</a>). This could not have been earlier than the year 44 when Claudius gave Achaia back to the Senate and the province was administered by a proprietor with the title of proconsul (Dio Cassius lx.24; Marquardt, op. cit., I, 331f; Ramsay, The Expositor.,1897, I, 207). Moreover the career of Seneca makes it improbable that his brother would be advanced to this position before 49 or 50 (Harnack, Chron., I, 237; Wieseler, Chron. d. apos. Zeitalters, 119). There is a fragmentary inscription from Delphi containing a letter from the emperor Claudius in which mention is made of Gallio. The inscription is dated by the title of the emperor which contains the <span class="noTag">number 26</span>. This is referred naturally to the acclammatio as "imperator" and dated in the year 52 before August, after which time the <span class="noTag">number 27</span> occurs in the title of Claudian inscriptions. Gallio may therefore have been proconsul from the spring or summer of the year 51-52 or 52-53. The latter seems the more probable time (compare Aem. Bourguet, De rebus Delphicis,1905,63f; Ramsay, The Expositor.,1909, I, 467f; Princeton Theological Review, 1911, 290f; 1912, 139f; Deissmann, Paulus, 1911, 159-177; Lietzmann, Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1911, 345-54).<P>7. Festus:<P>When Paul had been for two years a prisoner in Caesarea Felix was succeeded by Festus as procurator of Judea (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',24,27);">Ac 24:27</a>). The accession of Festus, which is placed by Eusebius in the Church History in the reign of Nero (Historia Ecclesiastica, II, 22, 1), is dated in the Chronicle in the version of Jerome in the 2nd year of Nero, 56 AD, and in the Armenian version in the 14th year of Claudius, 54 AD. The excerpts from the Chronicle in Syncellus apparently follow the text underlying the version of Jerome, but state simply that Festus was sent as successor of Felix by Nero (ed. Schoene, II, 154). After his removal from office Felix was tried in Rome, but escaped punishment through the influence of his brother Pallas, who, according to Josephus, was in favor with Nero at that time (Ant., XX, viii, 9). Pallas was removed from office before February 13, 55 AD (Tac. Ann. xiii. 14, 1; compare 15, 1), but apparently continued to have influence with the emperor; for he fixed the terms of his removal and was permitted to enjoy his fortune for several years (Tac. Ann. xiii.14, 1f; 23, 1-3). His death occurred in 62 AD (Tac. Ann. xiv.65, 1). The trial of Felix must therefore have occurred before 62; but it is impossible to place it before the removal of Pallas, for this would necessitate the removal of Felix in 54 AD, and this is excluded by the fact that the first summer of Nero\'s reign fell in 55 AD. But if Eusebius reckoned the imperial years from September 1st after the accession (Turner, Jour. of Theol. Studies, 1902, 120f; HDB, I, 418f), the summer of the second year of Nero would fall in 57. In any event the removal and trial of Felix must have fallen after the removal of Pallas. The date of the Eusebian Chronicle is thus without support from Tacitus or Josephus, and its value depends on the character of the source from which it was obtained<65>if there was such a source, for it is at least possible that the definite date owes its origin solely to the necessities imposed on Eusebius by the form of the Chronicle. It is not unlikely that the error of 5 years made by Eusebius in the reign of Agrippa II may be the source of a similar error in regard to Festus in spite of the fact that the framework of the Chronicle is generally furnished not by the years of the Jewish kings but by the imperial years (Erbes in Gebhardt u. Harnack, Texte und Untersuchungen, N. F., IV, 1, 1899; Die Todestage d. Apos. Paulus u. Petrus; Turner, Jour. of Theol. Studies,1902,III, 120f; Ramsay, Pauline and Other Studies, 1906, 350ff). There is evidence however in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,38);">Ac 21:38</a> that Paul\'s arrest could not have been earlier than the spring of 55 AD. For Paul was supposed by the chief captain to be the Egyptian who had led an insurrection that had been suppressed by Felix during the reign of Nero (Ant., XX, viii, 6; BJ, II, 13, 5). Thus the accession of Festus, two years later (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',24,27);">Ac 24:27</a>), could not have been earlier than 57 AD.<P>But if the summer of 57 AD is the earliest date possible for the accession of Festus, the summer of 60 AD is the latest date that is possible. Albinus, the successor of Festus, was present in Jerusalem in October, 62 AD (Ant., XX, ix, 1ff), and while the administration of Festus was probably shorter than that of Felix (compare Ant, XX, viii, 9-11; BJ, II, xiv, 1 with Ant, XX, vii, 1-8, 8; BJ, II, 12-13), it is not likely that it lasted less than two years. But as between 57 AD and 60 AD, probability favo rs the latter. For greater justice is thus done to the words of Paul to Felix: "Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a judge unto this nation," etc. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',24,10);">Ac 24:10</a>). Felix was appointed by Claudius in 52 AD (Tac. Ann. xii. 54; Ant, XX, v, 2) and was continued in office by Nero. Most of the events of his administration are narrated by Josephus under Nero (Ant., XX, viii, 5ff); and although Tacitus mentions an administration of Felix in Samaria when Cumanus was administering Galilee (Ann. xii.54), the omission of any direct reference to Judea, the unusual character of such a double administration and the explicit statement of Josephus that Claudius sent Felix as successor of Cumanus, make it unlikely that Paul\'s statement is to be understood of an administration beginning earlier than 52 AD. If Festus succeeded in the summer of 60 AD, Paul\'s arrest would fall in 58 and the "many years" of Felix\' administration would cover a period of 6 years, from 52 AD to 58 AD (compare Schurer, op. cit., I, 577f; note 38). Ramsay argues in favor of 57 AD as the year of Paul\'s arrest and 59 AD as the year of the accession of Festus (Pauline and Other Studies, 1906, 345ff).<P>8. Relative Chronology of Acts:<P>If Festus succeeded Felix in the summer of 60 AD, Paul would reach Rome in the spring of 61 AD, and the narrative in Acts would terminate in 63 AD (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',28,30);">Ac 28:30</a>). Paul\'s arrest in Jerusalem 2 years before the accession of Festus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',24,27);">Ac 24:27</a>) would fall in the spring of 58 AD. Previous to this Paul had spent 3 months in Corinth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,3);">Ac 20:3</a>) and 3 years in Ephesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,31);">Ac 20:31</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,10);">Ac 19:10</a>), which would make the beginning of the third missionary journey fall about 54 AD. There was an interval between the second and the third journeys (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,23);">Ac 18:23</a>), and as Paul spent 18 months at Corinth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,11);">Ac 18:11</a>) the beginning of the second journey would fall about 51 AD. The Apostolic Council preceded the second journey and may be dated about 50 AD<41>14 years subsequent to Paul\'s first visit to Jerusalem (37 AD) in the third year after his conversion in 35 AD. The first missionary journey was made after the visit of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem with the alms from the church at Antioch (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,30);">Ac 11:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',12,25);">12:25</a>), about the time of the death of Herod Agrippa I, and would fall between 44 AD and 50 AD. The growth of the early church in Jerusalem previous to Paul\'s conversion would thus extend over a period of about 5 years from 30 AD to 35 AD.<P>9. Pauline Epistles:<P>Ten of the thirteen Pauline epistles were written during a period of about ten years between Paul\'s arrival in Corinth and the close of his first Roman imprisonment. These epistles fall into three groups, each possessing certain distinctive characteristics; and although each reflects the difference in time and occasion of its production, they all reveal an essential continuity of thought and a similarity of style which evidences unity of authorship. The earliest group consists of the Thessalonian epistles, both of which were written from Corinth on the second missionary journey about 52 or 53 AD, while Silas (Silvanus) was still in Paul\'s company and shortly after Paul\'s visit to Athens (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',1,1);">1Th 1:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',3,1,2,6);">3:1-2, 6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',1,1);">2Th 1:1</a>). The major epistles belong to the third missionary journey. 1 Corinthians was written from Ephesus about 55 AD; Galatians probably from Ephesus, either before or after 1 Corinthians, for Paul had been twice in Galatia (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,13);">Ga 4:13</a>); 2 Corinthians from Macedonia about 57 AD; and Romans from Corinth about 57 or 58 AD. The imprisonment epistles were written from Rome: Colossians, Ephesians and Philemon about 62 AD, and Philippians about 63 AD.<P>10. Release and Death of Paul:<P>When Paul wrote to Philemon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phm\',1,22);">Phm 1:22</a>) and to the Philippians (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,24);">Php 2:24</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,25);">Php 1:25</a>), he expected a favorable issue of his trial in Rome and was looking forward to another visit to the East. Before his arrest he had planned a journey to Spain by way of Rome (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,28);">Ro 15:28</a>), and when he bade farewell to the Ephesian elders at Miletus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,25);">Ac 20:25</a>) he must have had in mind not only the dangers of his journey to Jerusalem, but also his determination to enter another field of labor. 1 Clement 5, the Muratori Canon and the Apocryphal Acts of Peter (Zahn, Einltg.3, I, 444f) witness to the Spanish journey, and the Pastoral Epistles to a journey to the East and to another imprisonment in Rome. The two lines of evidence for Paul\'s release are independent and neither can be explained as derived merely from the statement of Paul\'s intention in Romans and in Philemon and Philippians. The historical situation implied in the Pastoral Epistles can be charged with artificiality only on the hypothesis that Paul was not released from his first Roman imprisonment. The data of these epistles cannot be fitted into any period of Paul\'s life previous to his imprisonment. But these data are embodied in just those parts of the Pastoral Epistles which are admitted to be Pauline by those who regard the epistles as containing only genuine fragments from Paul but assign the epistles in their present form to a later writer. On any hypothesis of authorship, however, the tradition which these epistles contain cannot be much later than the first quarter of the 2nd century. It is highly probable therefore that Paul was released from his first Roman imprisonment; that he visited Spain and the East; and that he was imprisoned a second time in Rome where he met his death in the closing years of Nero\'s reign, i.e. in 67 or 68 AD. According to early tradition Paul suffered martyrdom by beheading with the sword (Tert., De praescr. haer., xxxvi), but there is nothing to connect his death with the persecution of the Christians in Rome by Nero in 64 AD.<P>Little is known of Peter beside what is recorded of him in the New Testament. The tradition of his bishopric of 20 or 25 years in Rome (compare Harnack, Gesch. d. altchr. Lit., II; Die Chronologie, I, 243f) accords neither with the implications of Acts and Galatians nor with Paul\'s silence in Rom.<P>11. Death of Peter:<P>But 1 Peter was probably written from Rome (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,13);">1Pe 5:13</a>; compare Euseb., HE, ii.15, 2) and the testimony to Peter\'s martyrdom (implied in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',21,18);">Joh 21:18</a>f) under Nero in Rome by crucifixion (Tert., De praes. haer., xxxvi; compare 1 Clem 5:1ff) is early and probably trustworthy. Tradition also associates Peter and Paul in their Roman labors and martyrdom (Dionysius in Euseb., HE, ii. 25, 8; Iren., Adv. haer., iii.1, 2; iii. 3, 1). The mention of the Vatican as the place of Peter\'s interment (Caius in Euseb., HE, ii. 25, 6f) may indicate a connection of his martyrdom with the Neronian persecution in 64 AD; but this is not certain. Peter\'s death may therefore be dated with some probability in Rome between 64 and 67 AD. His two epistles were written at some time before his death, probably the First about 64 and the Second at some time afterward and subsequent to the Epistle of Jude which it apparently uses. (The arguments against the Roman sojourn and martyrdom of Peter are stated fully by Schmiedel in the Encyclopedia Biblica, under the word "Simon Peter," especially col. 458ff; on the other hand compare Zahn, Einleitung3, II, 17ff, English translation, II, 158ff.)<P>12. Death of James the Just:<P>James the Just, the brother of the Lord, was prominent in the church of Jerusalem at the time of the Apostolic Council (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,13);">Ac 15:13</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,9);">Ga 2:9</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,19);">Ga 1:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,12);">2:12</a>) and later when Paul was arrested he seems still to have occupied this position (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,18);">Ac 21:18</a>ff), laboring with impressive devotion for the Jewish people until his martyrdom about the year 66 AD (Ant., XX, ix, 1; Euseb., HE, ii.23, 3ff; HRE3, VIII, 581; Zahn, Einltg.3, I, 76). The Epistle of James contains numerous indications of its early origin and equally clear evidence that it was not written during the period when the questions which are discussed in the major epistles of Paul were agitating the church. It is probably the earliest book of the New Testament, written before the Apostolic Council.<P>13. The Synoptic Gospels, etc.:<P>In the decade just preceding the fall of Jerusalem, the tradition of the life and teaching of Jesus was committed to writing in the Synoptic Gospels. Early tradition dates the composition of Matthew\'s Gospel in the lifetime of Peter and Paul (Iren., Adv. haer., ill. l, 1; Eusebius, HE, v.8, 2ff), and that of the Gospel of Mark either just before or after Peter\'s death (Clement in Euseb., HE, vi.14, 7; compare ii.15; and Irenaeus, Adv. haer., iii.11, 1; Presbyter of Papias in Euseb., HE, iii. 39, 15; compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,15);">2Pe 1:15</a>). The Lucan writings<67>both the Gospel and Acts<74>probably fall also in this period, for the Gospel contains no intimation that Jesus\' prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem had been fulfilled (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,21);">Lu 21:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,28);">Ac 11:28</a>), and the silence of Acts about the issue of Paul\'s trial is best explained on the hypothesis of an early date (Jerome, De vir. illustr., vii; Harnack, Neue Untersuch. zur Apostelgesch., 1911; compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,7);">Lu 10:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',5,18);">1Ti 5:18</a>). To this period belong also the Epistle of Jude and the Epistle to the He (if addressed to Jewish Christians of Palestine; but later, about 80 AD, if addressed to Jewish Christians of Rome (Zahn, Einltg.3, II, 152)), the former being used in 2 Peter and the latter in 1 Clement.<P>14. Death of John:<P>Early tradition connects John with Ephesus and mentions his continuing in life until the time of Trajan (Irenaeus, Adv. haer., ii.22, 5 (Eusebius, HE, v.24); iii. l, 1; v.30, 3; v.33, 4; Clement in Eusebius, HE, iii.23, 5-19; Polycrates in Eusebius, HE, iii. 31, 3; v.24, 3; Justin, Dialogue, lxxxi; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,1,4,9);">Re 1:1, 4, 9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,8);">22:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',21,22,23,24);">Joh 21:22-24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,35);">19:35</a>). He died probably about the end of the 1st century. There is another but less well-attested tradition of martyrdom based chiefly on the De Boor fragment of Papias (Texte u. Unters., 1888), a Syriac Martyrology of the 4th century (Wright, Jour. of Sacred Lit., 1865-66, VIII, 56ff, 423ff), the Codex Coislinianus 305 of Georgius Hamartolus. This tradition, it is thought, finds confirmation in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,\'35-40\');">Mr 10:35-40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,\'20-23\');">Mt 20:20-23</a> (compare Bousset, Theologische Rundschau, 1905, 225ff, 277ff). During the closing years of his life John wrote the Revelation, the Fourth Gospel and the three Epistles.<P>15. Summary of Dates:<P>LITERATURE.<P>In addition to the literature mentioned in section 8: Anger, De temporum in actis apostolorum ratione. 1833; Wieseler, Chronologie des apos. Zeitalters, 1848: Hoennicke, Die Chronologie des Lebens des Apostels Paulus, 1903; Harnack, Gesch. d. altchr. Lit. bis Euseb., II,1,Die Chronologie bis Iren., 1897; Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, 1893; Zahn, Einleitung, II, 1907 (Eng. translation, 1909).``6';
|
||
isbe[2097]='Chronology of the Old Testament`kro-nol\'-o-ji:<P><b>I. INTRODUCTORY</b><P class="in15">1. Difficulties of the Subject<P class="in15">2. Plan of Treatment<P class="in15">3. Bible to be Regarded as Highest Authority<P><b>II. THE AGES BETWEEN THE TESTAMENTS</b><P><b>III. PERSIAN PERIOD</b><P><b>IV. BABYLONIAN PERIOD</b><P><b>V. ASSYRIAN PERIOD AND JUDAH AFTER FALL OF SAMARIA</b><P><b>VI. PERIOD OF DIVIDED KINGDOM</b><P class="in15">1. Causes of Variation in Systems<P class="in15">2. Some Important and Pivotal Dates<P class="in15">3. Difficulties to Be Removed<P class="in15">4. Overlappings<P><b>VII. FROM THE DISRUPTION TO THE EXODUS</b><P class="in15">Indications of Overlapping<P><b>VIII. FROM THE EXODUS TO BIRTH OF ABRAHAM</b><P class="in15">Main Points at Issue<P><b>IX. FROM ABRAHAM TO THE CREATION</b><P class="in15">A Suggested Interpretation<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. Introductory.<P>1. Difficulties of the Subject:<P>For evident reasons the student of Biblical chronology must meet many difficulties, and must always be severely handicapped. First of all, the Old Testament is not purely nor intentionally a book of history. Nor does it present a formulated system of chronology, its many numbers and dates being used principally with a view to the spiritual facts and truths with which the authors were concerned. We are not, therefore, to expect to find a perfectly arranged order of periods and dates, though happily for us in our investigation we shall indeed find many accurately dated events, frequent consecutions of events, and orderly success ions of officials; as, for example, the numerous genealogical tables, the succession of judges and the lists of kings.<P>Furthermore, there is not to be found in the Old Testament one particular and definitely fixed era, from which all of its events are dated, as is the case in Christian history. The points of departure, or reckoning, are found to vary in different periods of the advancing history; being at one stage the Creation, at another the migration of Abraham, or the Exodus, or again the disruption of the kingdom. Ordinarily dates and all time-allusions are comparative, i.e. they are related to the reign of some contemporary monarch, as the vision of Isaiah "in the year that king Uzziah died" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',6,1);">Isa 6:1</a>), or to some unusual occurrence, historical or natural, as the great earthquake (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',1,1);">Am 1:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',14,5);">Zec 14:5</a>). Only occasional reference is found to some event, which marks an era-beginning; such as the Exodus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',11,16,26);">Jud 11:16, 26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',6,1);">1Ki 6:1</a>).<P>The general lack of uniformity among writers on Biblical chronology contributes further toward increase of the already perplexing confusion. It is almost possible to say that no two writers agree; and proposed harmonies are with each other most inharmonious. The two articles on Old Testament chronology in a recent work (Murray, Illus. Bible Dictionary, 1908), for example, are several hundred years apart at certain points. Wide diversity of opinion exists about the most prominent events, such as the call of Abraham and the age of his famous contemporary Hammurabi, the year of the Exodus, and the beginning of Solomon\'s temple. Naturally there is less variance of opinion about later dates, some of which, e.g. the fall of Samaria and the destruction of Jerusalem, may be considered as fixed. A like wide range of opinion prevails among archaeologists with regard to events in contemporaneous history, the difference between Goodspeed and Hommel in the dates of early Babylonian history being five hundred years, and the beginning and extent of the Hyksos period in Egypt varying in different "authorities" by hundreds of years. Nor should the difference in the various and total numbers of the Hebrew, Samaritan and Septuagint texts of the pre-Abrahamic ages be left out of sight in any statement of the difficulties attending the discussion of this subject.<P>2. Plan of Treatment:<P>These difficulties, and others as serious, have determined the plan of this article. The usual method of development has been to begin with the sources of Old Testament history, and to follow its course downward. While such a system may have its advantages, there is, however, this serious disadvantage connected with it: that the least certain dates are confessedly those at the beginning of the records, and the use of them at the foundation renders the whole structure of the discussion more or less uncertain. Archaeology and comparative history have done much to fix dates from the Exodus downward, bringing these later centuries by discovery and translation almost into the position of attested history. But the ages before the Exodus, and particularly before Abraham, still lie from the very nature of the ease in great obscurity. And thus any system beginning with the indistinct early past, with its compacted numbers and their uncertain interpretation, is much like a chain hung on thin air. The writer purposes, therefore, beginning with certain familiar, important and pivotal dates, to gather around and relate to these the events and persons of the Old Testament. Such accepted dates are: the completion of the Second Temple in 516, the fall of Jerusalem in 586, the fall of Samaria in 721, tribute to Shalmaneser II from Jehu in 842, and from a member of Omri\'s dynasty in 854. Such Old Testament events as mark the beginning of eras are the Disruption, Solomon\'s temple, the Exodus and Abraham\'s Call. The material and the plan, then, almost necessarily require that we begin at the end of the history and work logically backward to the earlier stages, at which we may hope to arrive with firm ground under our feet for the disposition of the more uncertain problems. It is hoped that on this plan the system of chronology will not be mere speculation, nor a personal theory, but of some certainty and affording some assurance in days of wild assertion and free manipulation.<P>3. Bible to be Regarded as Highest Authority:<P>It should be remembered that this is a study of Bible chronology, and therefore full value will be given to the explicit and positive statements of the Bible. Surely the time has come, when all fair-minded men should recognize that a clear and straightforward declaration of the Sacred Scriptures is not to be summarily rejected because of its apparent contradiction by some unknown and irresponsible person, who could stamp clay or chisel stone. It has been all too common that archaeological and critical adventurers have doubted and required accurate proof of every Bible statement, but have been ready enough to give credence to any statement from ancient pagan sources. We assume, as we have every reason to do, the trustworthiness of the Bible records, which have been corroborated in countless instances; and we shall follow their guidance in preference to any other. The help of contemporaneous history and the witness of archaeology can be used to advantage, but should not be substituted for the plain facts of the Scriptures, which are full worthy of our trust and regard. The province of a chronology of the Bible is properly to present in system the dates therein given, with an honest effort to harmonize the difficulties, using the external helps, but ever regardful of Scripture authority and rights.<P>II. The Ages between the Testaments.<P>Between the coming of Christ and the end of Old Testament history there lie in round numbers four hundred years. But while these were extra-Biblical ages, they were neither barren nor uneventful years; for in them will be found much of the highest value in the development of Jewish life, and in the preparation for the Messiah. And thus they have their proper place in Bible chronology (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BETWEEN+THE+TESTAMENTS">BETWEEN THE TESTAMENTS</a>). The birth of Jesus could not have been later than 4 BC, since Herod the Great died in April of that year. Herod became king of Judea in 37 BC. Palestine had been conquered and Jerusalem entered by the Romans under Pompey in 56 BC, the Jews coming in this way under the power of Rome. The Roman age was preceded by the government of priest-kings, with which the Idumean Antipater became identified by marriage, so that Herod, whom Rome made king, was both Jew and alien.<P>The period of the Maccabees, which ended in 39 BC with the removal of Antigonus by the Romans in favor of Herod, began 168 BC with Judas. Antipater, who had been appointed procurator of Judea in 47, was assassinated in 43 BC. The period of the Seleucids stretches from its close with the regency of Antiochus VII in 128 back to its founder, Seleucus, 312 BC. The most notable of these monarchs from the Jewish point of view was Antiochus Epiphanes, who reigned from 175 to 164, and in 168 gave occasion to the rise of the Maccabees by his many acts of impiety and oppression, particularly the desecration of the Jerusalem temple. In 203 BC Antiochus the Great, who had become king of Syria in 223, took Jerusalem, and later, in 198, annexed Judea to Syria. Previous to this Judea had been an Egyptian dependency, as after the death of Alexander the Great, 323 BC, and the division of his empire, it had been annexed by Ptolemy Soter to Egypt. Ptolemy Philadelphus, becoming king 280 BC, encouraged the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, the result being the Septuagint version, and all it meant by way of preparation for the spread of Christianity. Alexander\'s defeat of Darius III, or Codomannus, at Arbela in 331 brought the Persian empire to an end, fulfilling the long-cherished ambition of the Greeks for mastery of Asia. The long reign of the Biblical king of Persia, Artaxerxes Longimanus, extended from 465 to 424 BC, and in reaching his reign we find ourselves in the region of the Old Testament history. Reversing the order of this brief review and setting out from Old Testament point of view, we have the following table for the centuries between the Testaments:<P>III. Persian Period.<P>Entering now the last period of Old Testament history, which may be called the Persian period, we find that the activities of Ezra, Nehemiah and other Jewish leaders are dated by the regnal years of the kings of Persia (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Hag\',1,1);">Hag 1:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',1,1);">Zec 1:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',1,1);">Ezr 1:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',2,1);">Ne 2:1</a>); and consequently the difficulties in the chronology of this period are not great. Recently a fanciful effort has been made to place the events narrated in Esther, Ezra and Nehemiah in the time of the Babylonian Captivity, claiming Scripture warrant from the occurrence of these names, with Mordecai, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,2);">Ezr 2:2</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,7);">Ne 7:7</a>; but altogether without success (see Prince of Judah, or Days of Nehemiah Redated). These names were doubtless of common occurrence, and their appearance among those returning with Zerubbabel is not sufficient to affect the historical evidence for the accepted dates of Ezra and Nehemiah. The attempt to move back these dates into the 6th century, to associate Nehemiah with Daniel and Mordecai and to place his work before Zerubbabel may be dismissed as pure fancy and impossible of reconciliation with the Old Testament narrative.<P>Artaxerxes I began his reign, which gives date to Ezra and Nehemiah, in 465 BC. In his 7th year,458,Ezra went from Babylon to Jerusalem by the king\'s decree (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',7,7);">Ezr 7:7</a>), taking back with him the vessels of the Temple and much besides for the worship at Jerusalem, accompanied also by a great company of returning Jews. Nehemiah followed from Shushan in the 20th year of the king (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',1,1);">Ne 1:1</a>), having heard of and being distressed by the partial failure of Ezra\'s efforts. Under his wise and courageous leadership, the city walls were speedily restored, and many reforms accomplished. He returned after twelve years (433) to the service of the king in Shushan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',13,6);">Ne 13:6</a>), but in a short time, hearing evil tidings from Jerusalem, went back to complete his reforms, and apparently spent the rest of his life in that work. Although the Bible is silent, such is the testimony of Josephus. The Book of Malachi, reflecting the difficulties and evils of this time, is evidently to be placed here, but not with exactness, as it might have been written as early as 460 or as late as 420.<P>The period from the return under Ezra (458) back to the completion of the Temple in the reign of Darius I (516) is, with the exception of incidental references and the assignment of undated books and incidents, practically a blank. Here belong, we believe, the Book of Esther, possibly Malachi, some of the Psalms, and those social and religious tendencies among the returned exiles, which made the vigorous reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah so necessary. But the Old Testament does not draw the curtain from the mystery of that half-century, that we may know the happenings and watch the development. Beyond this blank we come again to explicit dates. The second temple, begun with the Return under Zerubbabel, was completed in the 6th year of Darius, i.e. 516. The building of it, which had been early abandoned for selfish reasons, was resumed in the 2nd year of Darius under the exhortation of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hag\',1,1);">Hag 1:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',1,1);">Zec 1:1</a>). Darius the Great began his reign in 521. Cambyses succeeded Cyrus in 527. Babyl on was taken by the Persians in 538, and shortly after the Jews, under the edict of Cyrus, began their return to Jerusalem, reaching their destination by 536 at the latest. Cyrus overthrew Lydia in 545, the Medes five years earlier, and must have come to the Persian throne not later than 555. His conquest of Asia Minor opened the contest between Persia and Greece for supremacy, to be continued by Darius and. Xerxes, resulting finally at Arbela (331) in Greek triumph under Alexander, and the inauguration of a new age.<P>The table for the Persian period of Old Testament history, following the stream upward, is therefore as follows:<P>IV. Babylonian Period.<P>Just preceding the Persian is the Babylonian period of Old Testament chronology, overlapping, of course, the former, and finally superseded by it in Cyrus\' conquest of Babylonia. This period may properly be said to begin with the death in 626 BC of Ashurbanipal, the last great ruler of Assyria. At this time Nabopolassar had been made governor of Babylonia, subject to the supremacy of Assyria. With Ashurbanipal\'s death Nabopolassar became independent sovereign of Babylonia, and shortly entered into league with the Medes to overthrow the rule of Assyria, and then to divide its empire between them. This was accomplished in the fall of Nineveh (606) which brought the end of the mighty Assyrian empire, the last king being Sinsharishkun (the historic Saracus), a son of Ashurbanipal. Some years before his death in 604 Nabopolassar associated with him on the throne of Babylonia his son Nebuchadnezzar, most illustrious ruler of the new Babylonian empire, and intimately connected with the history of Judah in the last years of that kingdom. His long reign came to an end in 562.<P>While the conflict, which brought Assyria to its end, and the attendant confusion, were absorbing the attention of Mesopotamian countries, Egypt under a new and virile dynasty was reviving her ambitions and intrigues for dominion in Asia. Pharaoh-necoh II taking advantage of the confusion and helplessness of Assyria invaded Palestine in 609, intending to march on through Palestine to attack Mesopotamia. King Josiah in loyalty to his Assyrian overlord opposed him, but was defeated and slain at the battle of Megiddo, after a reign of 31 years; apparently an unnecessary and foolish opposition on Josiah\'s part, as the plan of Necoh\'s march shows that Judah was not directly affected. After the victory at Megiddo, Necoh continued his march north-eastward, subduing Syria and hoping to have a hand in Mesopotamian affairs. But in 606 or 607 BC he was defeated at Carchemish and driven back to Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar, fresh from victory over Nineveh. In the same year Nebuchadnezzar marched against Egypt, receiving the submission of Jerusalem as he passed through Palestine, and sending noble hostages back to Babylon, among whom were Daniel and his three friends. The death of his father and his endangered succession recalled Nebuchadnezzar suddenly to Babylon, where he became sole ruler in 604. It appears that Necoh must have returned to Egypt after Megiddo and before the battle of Carchemish, as he made Jehoiakim, king in place of Jehoahaz, whom he carried captive to Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar\'s victory at Carchemish and his march southward brought Judah in close relations with Babylon, and opened up the dramatic chapter of Jerusalem\'s fall and exile. These historic events fix the dates of the last kings and the closing incidents of the kingdom of Judah, as shown in the following table:<P>V. Assyrian Period and Judah after Fall of Samaria.<P>This section, which may for convenience be treated as a division, is the chronology of Judah under Assyria after the fall of the Northern Kingdom in 721. As the Scripture time-references are frequent and explicit, and the contemporaneous Assyrian records are full, and explicit also, the problems of this period are neither many nor insoluble. One difficulty is found in the fact that the aggregate years of the reigns of Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon and Josiah fall one or two years short of the period between Hezekiah\'s accession in 726 and Josiah\'s death in 609. But there is evidence of anarchical conditions at the close of Amon\'s reign (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',21,23,24);">2Ki 21:23-24</a>), and it is probable that at least a year should be counted for the interregnum. The chief difficulty is with the invasions of Sennacherib in Hezekiah\'s reign. The confusion is caused by the apparent dating of Sennacherib\'s famous and disastrous invasion of 701 in the 14th year of Hezekiah\'s reign (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',18,13);">2Ki 18:13</a>). Various attempts reconciliation have been made; one attempt has been to place the beginning of Hezekiah\'s reign in 715, which is out of the question entirely, as it disregards the exact terms in which the beginning of his reign is placed before the fall of Samaria (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',18,10);">2Ki 18:10</a>). Another suggestion has been that "24th" be read instead of "14th"; but this is pure conjecture. There is a simple and satisfactory solution: in the chapters which contain the record (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',18,\'1-\');">2Ki 18</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',36,\'1-\');">Isa 36</a>) it is evident that two invasions are described. Frequently in the Scriptures records are topical rather than chronological, and just so in this instance the topic is Sennacherib\'s menace of Judah, and the ultimate deliverance by Yahweh. The story includes two invasions: the first in the 14th year of Hezekiah (713) when Sennacherib led the armies of his father Sargon, the end of which, so far as Jerusalem was concerned, was the payment of tribute by Hezekiah, as is accurately stated in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',18,16);">2Ki 18:16</a>. The second invasion, the description of which begins with the following verse (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',18,17);">2Ki 18:17</a>), was the more serious, and is probably identified as that of 701, when Sennacherib had become king. The necessary insertion of a paragraph indicator between <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',18,16);">2Ki 18:16</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',18,17);">2Ki 18:17</a> satisfies every demand for harmony.<P>From 609 BC, the year of Josiah\'s death, we count back 31 years to the beginning Of his reign in 639; he attained his majority in the 8th year (632; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',34,3);">2Ch 34:3</a>); the reformation in his 12th year, at the time of the Scythian irruption, would fall in 628 (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',34,3);">2Ch 34:3</a>); in the following year Jeremiah began to prophecy; and in Josiah\'s 18th year (621) the temple was cleansed and the Book of the Law found (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',34,8);">2Ch 34:8</a>). Allowing a year of confusion, Amon began his short reign in 642, and Manasseh his long reign of 55 years in 697, Hezekiah\'s reign of 29 years dating back to 726. Some fixed important dates of contemporaneous history are: death of Ashurbanipal, Assyria\'s last great king, in 626, with the consequent independence of Babylon and beginning of the 2nd Babylonian empire. Ashurbanipal\'s long reign began in 668 on the death of his father Esarhaddon; who succeeded his father Sennacherib in 681. Sargon usurped the Assyrian throne in 722, and died in 705. Shalmaneser IV, successor of Tiglath-pileser III, reigned for the brief space between 727 and 722. In Egypt the XXVth, or Ethiopian Dynasty, was in power from circa 720 to 667, two of its kings, So and Tirhakah, having mention in the Old Testament (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,4);">2Ki 17:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',19,9);">19:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',37,9);">Isa 37:9</a>), and after this the XXVIth (a native) Dynasty appeared, Pharaoh-necoh being one of its kings. The dates of this period we may summarize in the following table:<P>VI. Period of Divided Kingdom.<P>The most complex, but most interesting, problems of Old Testament chronology are found in the period of the Divided Kingdom. In the literature of this period are found larger number of dates and historical references than in that of any other. We have the assistance of several important sources and factors in arranging these dates:<P>(1) The parallel records of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah serve as checks to each other, since the accession and death of the kings in each nation are fixed by reference to reigns of those of the other. Many other events are similarly related.<P>(2) The history of the two kingdoms, or parts of it, at least, is given in three parallel authorities: the Books of Kings, of Chronicles, and of the Prophets.<P>(3) The Assyrian records are fullest and are practically continuous in this period, the limu lists extending unbroken from 893 to 650 BC.<P>1. Causes of Variation in Systems:<P>But while this apparently should be the most satisfactory field for the chronologist, it has been found impossible to arrive at anything approaching certainty, and consequently there is considerable divergence among individuals and schools. One cause of variation is the difference between the Assyrian royal lists and the total of the Old Testament numbers for this period, the Old Testament aggregate being 51 years greater then the Assyrian lists. Two common methods of harmonizing this difference have bee n adopted:<P>(1) to accept the Old Testament aggregate as correct and to assume that the 51 years have been omitted from the Assyrian lists (see W. J. Beecher, Dated Events of Old Testament, 18, 19);<P>(2) to harmonize the Old Testament numbers with the Assyrian lists by taking into account the overlapping of reigns of kings who were, for brief periods, associated on the throne.<P>Instances of such overlapping are the co-regency of Uzziah and Jotham in Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',15,5);">2Ki 15:5</a>), and possibly the reign of Pekah contemporaneously with Menahem and Pekahiah in Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,\'1-\');">2Ki 23-28</a>). The latter method yields the most satisfactory results, and will be adopted in this article. The chief point of difference will be the age of Solomon and the foundation-laying of the Temple. This may be found according to the former method by adding 51 years to the dates as given below. That the method of following the aggregate of the Old Testament numbers must assume arbitrarily that there have been omissions from the Assyrian lists, and that it also must resort to some overlapping and justment of the numb ers as they are given in the text, are sufficient reasons against its adoption. And in meeting the difficulties of this period it should always be borne in mind that the Old Testament is not a book of annals merely, and that dates are given not for any special interest in them, but to correlate and emphasize events. Ordinarily dates are given with reference to local situations and contemporary persons, and not as fixed by some great epoch-marking event; e.g. Uzziah\'s reign is fixed not with reference to the Disrupti on nor the Temple building, but by relation to his Israelite contemporary, Jeroboam II.<P>2. Some Important and Pivotal Dates:<P>However, there are some fixed dates, which are so by reason of their international significance, and upon these we may rest with reasonable assurance. Such are the fall of Samaria (721 BC); the accession of Tiglath-pileser III (745); tribute paid to Shalmaneser II by Jehu in 842, and by Ahab, or one of his dynasty, in 854; and the invasion of Judah by Pharaoh-shishak in the fifth year of Rehoboam (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',14,25);">1Ki 14:25</a>). There are also certain coincident dates, fixed with fair accuracy, in the parallel history of the two kingdoms, which serve both as starting-points and as checks upon each other. The most prominent of these are: the beginning of Hezekiah\'s reign, 5 years before the fall of Samaria (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',18,10);">2Ki 18:10</a>); the synchronism of the reigns of Jeroboam II and Jotham (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',5,17);">1Ch 5:17</a>), Jotham\'s accession being used as a basis of calculation for the reigns of Israelite kings (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',15,30);">2Ki 15:30</a>); the coincidence of the end of the Omri Dynasty and the death of Ahaziah, king of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',9,\'1-\');">2Ki 9</a>), Jehu and Athaliah therefore beginning their reigns at the same time; and, primarily, the division of the kingdom and the synchronous beginning of the reigns of Jeroboam I and Rehoboam. Using these fixed dates and coincidences, we must find the summaries of the reigns of Israelite and Jewish kings between 721, the 9th year of Hoshea and the 6th of Hezekiah, and 843, the beginning of the reigns of Jehu add Athaliah, to be 122 years each; and likewise the summaries from 843 back to the Disruption to be the same.<P>3. Difficulties to Be Removed:<P>The most serious difficulties are found near the end of the period, when conditions in the Northern Kingdom were becoming anarchical, and, also evident co-regencies, the extent of which is not evident, occurred in the Southern Kingdom. Pekah is said to have reigned 20 years (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',15,27);">2Ki 15:27</a>); and yet Menahem paid tribute to Assyria in 738, and he was succeeded for two years by his son Pekahiah, from whom Pekah seized the kingdom. This would allow Pekah only 6 years of sovereignty. The explanation lies in the context: in the confusion which followed the death of Jeroboam, Pekah established his authority over the section east of the Jordan, and to that year the numbers in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',15,27,32);">2Ki 15:27, 32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',16,1);">2Ki 16:1</a> refer. Uzziah was leprous the last 16 years of his life, and Jotham his son was over the kingdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',15,5);">2Ki 15:5</a>). The length of Jotham\'s reign was just 16 years, not additional to the 16 of the co-regency, as this would result in the absurdity of making him co-regent at the age of 9 years (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',15,33);">2Ki 15:33</a>). Therefore nearly his whole reign is included in the 52 years of his father. For some reason Ahaz was associated with his father Jotham before the death of the latter, since the 16 years of his reign plus the 5 of Hezekiah before the fall of Samaria bring his accession before the death of Uzziah and Jotham, i.e. in 741. So that for approximately 6 years the three reigns were contemporaneous. That these 6 years may not be accounted for by a co-regency with Hezekiah at the other end of Ahaz\' reign is evident from the age of Hezekiah at his accession (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',18,2);">2Ki 18:2</a>), and from the radical difference in the policy of the two kings. <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',7,1);">2Ki 7:1</a> may suggest that Uzziah and Jotham died about the same time, and that Ahaz was regarded as succeeding both directly.<P>Another difficulty is found at the beginning of Uzziah\'s reign, where he is said to have succeeded his father Amaziah at the age of 16, but is also said to have accomplished certain notable things after his father\'s death (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',14,21,22);">2Ki 14:21-22</a>). Evidently, then, he became king before the death of Amaziah. When did this co-regency begin? No better time is suggested than Amaziah\'s ignominious defeat by Jehoash of Israel in the 15th year of his reign, after which the people arose and put Uzziah in his place, Amaziah living on for 15 years (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',14,17);">2Ki 14:17</a>), so that 15 of Amaziah\'s 29 years were contemporaneous with Uzziah. Further, in the last years of Joash of Judah there may have been a co-regency, since he was "very sick" in those years (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',24,25);">2Ch 24:25</a>). Thus the totals of 146 years for the reigns of the kings of Israel and of 165 for the reigns of the kings of Judah between 721 and 842 are reduced to the actual 121 by the overlappings, which are suggested in the narrative itself.<P>4. Overlappings:<P>For the first division of this period, from the rise of Jehu, circa 843, to the division of the kingdom, the totals of the reigns of the kings of Israel is 98 years, and of the kings of Judah is 95. But there must be some overlappings. The interval between Ahab and Jehu, as shown by mention of them in the Assyrian records, <span class="noTag">is</span> 12 years; but the two sons of Ahab reigned 14 years, Ahaziah 2 and Jehoram 12. Evidently the last year of Ahab, in which came the defeat at Karkar, was the 1st of Ahaziah, and the 2nd of Ahaziah, who suffered in that year serious accident (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',1,2);">2Ki 1:2</a>), was the first of Jehoram. It is probable that the long reign of Asa closed with Jehoshaphat as co-regent (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',15,23);">1Ki 15:23</a>), so the above totals of both kingdoms must be reduced to some extent, probably to 90 years, and the disruption of the kingdom placed about 933 BC. Shishak, founder of the XXIId Dynasty, invaded Palestine in the 5th year of Rehoboam (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',14,25);">1Ki 14:25</a>), and in, or shortly before, the 21st year of his own reign, so that he must have bec ome sovereign of Egypt about 950 BC. Jeroboam fled to Egypt after Solomon had reigned more than 20 years, as is shown by the connection of Jeroboam with the building of Millo; and so Jeroboam\'s flight must have been about the beginning of Shishak\'s reign. This is in accord with the Old Testament records, since the hostile Shishak Dynasty must have arisen in the reign of Solomon, the dynasty which was ruling at the beginning of his reign having been in alliance with him. So we place the accession of Shishak about 950, his invasion of Judah in 929, and the Disruption in 933 BC.<P>An interesting instance of co-regency in this period is that of Jehoshaphat and Jehoram, for while Ahaziah of Israel began to reign in the 17th year of Jehoshaphat (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',22,51);">1Ki 22:51</a>) and died in the 2nd year of Jehoram (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',1,17);">2Ki 1:17</a>), the year of his death was also the 18th of Jehoshaphat, so that the father and son reigned together about 5 years. It is evident also that Jehoshaphat ruled before his father\'s death, as the total of his reign is counted from the co-regency\'s beginning (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',22,41);">1Ki 22:41</a>), but certain events are dated from his sole reign on the death of Asa (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',22,51);">1Ki 22:51</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',3,1);">2Ki 3:1</a>). It is probable that the 6 years of Athaliah were included in the 40 years of the reign of Joash, the legitimate king. The age of his son, Amaziah, at his accession (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',25,1);">2Ch 25:1</a>) does not operate against this probability, since the precocious Jewish sovereigns attained their majority at 15 years of age (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',34,3);">2Ch 34:3</a>). The co-regency for 2 years of Joash and Amaziah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',24,25);">2Ch 24:25</a>) brings the aggregate years of the reigns of the kings of both kingdoms down to the accession of Jeroboam II, three years before Uzziah\'s accession, into exact accord. Finally, the difference of three years in the totals of reigns in the two kingdoms from Jehu\' to the Disruption is explained by the fact that in Israel the first year of a king was coincident with the last of his predecessor, whereas in Judah, certainly at the beginning of this period, the first year of a king followed the death of his predecessor; e.g. while Asa began to reign in the 20th year of Jeroboam (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',15,9);">1Ki 15:9</a>), Jeroboam, who reigned 22 years, died three years later in the second year of Asa (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',15,25);">1Ki 15:25</a>). Observation of this principle in the accessions of the first three kings after Jeroboam removes the difference, the long numbers of the reign of Asa being found to corroborate. The preceding table will illustrate these facts of the records, as harmonizing the dates of the two contemporaneous kingdoms.<P>VII. From the Disruption to the Exodus.<P>The period now to be considered extends from the disruption of the kingdom back to the Exodus. The reasons for combining the Biblical events within these widely separated dates into one period of such length are evident, namely,<P>(1) the regular sequence of the history;<P>(2) the occurrence of comprehensive numbers for the period as a whole, e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',11,26);">Jud 11:26</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',6,1);">1Ki 6:1</a>; the chronological data of the Book of Judges, which lead directly up to the developments in the time of the united kingdom, e.g. the narrative of Ruth preparing the way for the reign of David. Characteristic of this period is the frequent occurrence of the general numbers 80, 40 and 20, which are not necessarily to be taken always as exact, but possibly at times indicating a round, or generation, number.<P>In order to get the time limits of this period, it is necessary to count back 37 years from the end of Solomon\'s reign in 933 BC, and this brings us to that epoch-marking event, the laying of the foundations of the Temple in 969 or 970, the 4th year of his reign (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',6,1);">1Ki 6:1</a>); and from this event we are brought by the addition of the comprehensive number 479, given in the same verse, back to the year of the Exodus, approximately 1448 BC, making the total length of the period about 516 years.<P>Indications of Overlapping:<P>But the addition of the numbers given for the various reigns and administrations of the period yields a total which is much greater than 516, and therefore one must seek in the text indications of overlapping, which will bring the narrative into harmony with itself. The reigns of Solomon (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,42);">1Ki 11:42</a>), David (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',2,11);">1Ki 2:11</a>) and Saul (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,21);">Ac 13:21</a>), are given as 40 years each; and here there may be some overlapping, Solomon, e.g. becoming king before David\'s death (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',1,\'43-48\');">1Ki 1:43-48</a>). We are rather surprised to find that there is no statement of the length of Samuel\'s ministry, such as its important place in the national life would lead us to expect. The probable reason for this is that his life was paralleled largely by the reign of Saul and the administration of Eli. A period of 40 years is assigned to Eli (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',4,18);">1Sa 4:18</a>); the aggregate of numbers given for the Judges is 410 years; Joshua ruled for 40 years (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',2,8);">Jud 2:8</a>); and finally the wilderness wanderings covered another 40-year period. The sum total of all these numbers is 670<37>far beyond the comprehensive reckonings of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',11,26);">Jud 11:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',6,1);">1Ki 6:1</a>, and <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,19);">Ac 13:19</a>. It is evident from <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',10,7,8);">Jud 10:7-8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',13,1);">13:1</a> that the periods of Ammonite and Philistine oppression were either contemporaneous or very near together, and therefore that the comprehensive number, 300 years, of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',11,26);">Jud 11:26</a>, reaches from the entrance into Canaan under Joshua down to the age of Samson, as well as of Jephthah. The administrations of Ibzan, Elon and Abdon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',12,\'8-13\');">Jud 12:8-13</a>) should then be regarded as practically synchronous with Jephthah and Samson, and the number of their years should, in part at least, be left out of account. The numbers from Samson and Eli to Solomon are approximately fixed, 20 to Samson, 40 to Eli, 40 to Saul and 40 to David; and their total accords with the 300 before Jephthah, and the 40 of wilderness wanderings in making up the grand total (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',6,1);">1Ki 6:1</a>) from Solomon to the Exodus. This proportion before and after Jephthah, or Samson, and the Philistine oppression, approximately 330 and 150 years, is in agreement with the genealogies of <a onClick="return mV(\'Rth\',4,\'18-22\');">Ru 4:18-22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,3);">1Sa 14:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',22,9);">22:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,\'1-\');">1Ch 2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,\'1-\');">6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',24,\'1-\');">24</a>. The shortening therefore of the excessive aggregate of 670 years must be sought in the records from Samson back to Joshua. Assuming that the oppressions may be synchronous with the administrations of preceding or succeeding judges, that Abimelech\'s abortive attempt to become king (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',9,\'1-\');">Jud 9</a>) should be included in Gideon\'s 40 years, and that parallelings are possible in the three judges just after Jephthah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',12,\'8-13\');">Jud 12:8-13</a>) and the two just before (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',10,\'1-5\');">Jud 10:1-5</a>), it is possible to bring the detailed time-references of the Book of Judges into satisfactory agreement with the comprehensive numbers. That the period of the Judges is shorter than the aggregate of the numbers assigned to each is further indicated by the manner in which the brief narratives at the end of the book<6F>the migration of the Danites, the sin and punishment of Benjamin<69>and the Book of Ruth, bring the earlier generations into close touch with the later; compare the genealogy of David (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rth\',4,\'18-22\');">Ru 4:18-22</a>).<P>The preceding table (p. 641) shows the dates of events according to the longer reckoning, and also according to the suggested shortening by taking into account the possible synchronisms. It should be remembered that these figures are not indisputable, but merely tentative and suggestive.<P>VIII. From the Exodus to Birth of Abraham.<P>The period of Old Testament chronology now to receive our attention is that which extends from the Exodus in circa 1448 BC back to the call and migration of Abraham. This may be called the period of the patriarchal wanderings, the formative or infancy period of the nation, and therefore of the highest interest historically and religiously. But it is not possible to fix its dates with indisputable accuracy, since, with rare exceptions, the events of the Old Testament record are not related in their narration to eras or definite persons of the contemporary nations; and since also the chronology of these nations is much in dispute among historians and archaeologists, with variations of hundreds of years.<P>Main Points at Issue:<P>The chief points at issue here for determination of the chronological problems are the time of the Exodus, the duration of Israel\'s sojourn in Egypt and the date of Hammurabi. Considering these in their order:<P>(1) As to the Exodus, opinions have been divided among the XVIIIth, XIXth and XXth dynasties as the time of the Oppression and Exodus of Israel, and there are plausible arguments for, and serious objections to, each of these periods. When all things have been considered it seems best to fix upon the XVIIIth Dynasty as the age of the Oppression and Exodus, Thothmes III as the Pharaoh of the Oppression, and the years immediately following his death as the time of the Exodus, for the following reasons:<P>(a) This is in harmony with the time-reckoning from the Temple of Solomon back to the Exodus (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',6,1);">1Ki 6:1</a>), and fully satisfies the Biblical numbers for the intervening period, as shown above; while either later dynastic period would necessitate either unnatural cramping or ruthless rejection of the Biblical numbers. To place the Exodus so late as Ramses III, after 1200 BC, is in the light of the Biblical reckoning an evident absurdity.<P>(b) In the XVIIIth Dynasty we can look best for the Pharaoh "that knew not Joseph," as it was the leader of this dynasty, Ahmes I, who conquered and drove out the Hyksos, and left to his followers as a legacy cordial hatred of the Asiatics.<P>(c) Thothmes III was a great builder, and the heavy tasks of the Hebrews would fit well into his reign. He was also the champion of Amon, the god of Thebes, having been a priest of that god; therefore the religious significance of the Exodus and the struggle preceding it were most natural in his age.<P>(d) An inscription of Menephthah, son of Ramses II, indicates that Israel was in Palestine in his time, therefore he could not have been the Pharaoh of the Exodus, nor his father the oppressor.<P>(e) The objection that Pharaohs of the XIXth and XXth dynasties invaded and claimed sovereignty over Palestine is of little consequence, since these invasions usually involved only the sea-plain, and any city or district might secure immunity and maintain its status quo by payment of tribute. In later centuries many foreign invasions swept through Israel without disturbing the national integrity. As for the objection that the cities Ramses and Pithom indicate the age of Ramses II, it is altogether probable that they were built long before his time, and only restored by him. For these reasons the earlier date is assigned to the Exodus.<P>(2) Whether the duration of the sojourn in Egypt was 430 or 215 years will depend upon the interpretation of the comprehensive 430, or roundly 400, which is of frequent occurrence in the Bible as indicating the extent of the period of the Hebrews\' wanderings among, and oppression by, the nations (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,13);">Ge 15:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,40);">Ex 12:40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,6);">Ac 7:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,17);">Ga 3:17</a>). These passages have been, and may properly be, interpreted as indicating the time of the actual sojourn in Egypt, or the time from the entrance of Abraham into Canaan to the Exodus. Modern archaeological discoveries and the logical conclusions from them, our better knowledge of the history and conditions of contemporaneous Egypt, the shortening of the Hyksos period, as by Meyer, Mahler and Breasted, and the acceptance of a later date for Hammurabi, all seem to favor the shorter, or 215-year, view of the sojourn. The remaining 215 years cover the period from Jacob\'s descent into Egypt back to the migration of Abraham. The shorter period is adopted here for the reasons alread y given; but by the addition of 215 the dates from the death of Joseph backward may be conformed to theory of the longer period.<P>(3) Accepting the almost universal and well-grounded judgment that the Amraphel of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,\'1-\');">Ge 14</a> is the famous Hammurabi of the 1st Babylonian Dynasty, we should have assistance in determining the date of his Biblical contemporary Abraham, if the opinions of scholars about the age of Hammurabi were not so divergent. Goodspeed (Hist Babylonian and Assyrian.) places his reign at 2297-2254 BC; Hommel (art. on "Babylonia," HDB) fixes the probable date at 1772-1717, an astonishing divergence of 500 years, and suggestive of the spend-thrift manner in which chronologists are accustomed to dispose of the past ages of man. The difference in this instance is caused by the disposition of the IId Babylonian Dynasty, Goodspeed making its more than 360 years follow the Hammurabi Dynasty, and adding the years of the two; Hommel on the other hand regarding the IId, or Southern Dynasty as contemporaneous with the Ist, or Northern. But it is more probable that the truth lies between these extremes, since the IId Dynasty must have had some independent standing, and must have ruled alone for a time, in order to secure consideration as a dynasty. This moderate reckoning is now commonly adopted, Breasted placing Hammurabi at 1900 BC, Davis (in DB) about 1975, and Pinches (in Murray\'s Illus. B. Dict.) later than 2000 BC. It is in accord with the Bible numbers, as the following table shows, and does not vary materially from the reckoning of Ussher, which was based upon those numbers. Therefore the age of Hammurabi and Abraham may be considered as about 1900 BC, or 2100, if one estimates the sojourn in Egypt at 430 years. The former is more reasonable. The Tell el- Amarna Letters, preserving correspondence of the 14th and 15th centuries between the Pharaohs of the XVIIIth Dynasty and Palestine and Babylon, by showing the contemporary sovereigns of the empires of the Nile and the Euphrates, contribute confirmation to the Biblical reckoning. It is possible that increased knowledge of the Hittite empire and its dealings with Egypt, Palestine and Babylonian may in the near future contribute further confirmation. The foregoing conclusions may be summarized in the following table:<P>IX. From Abraham to the Creation.<P>One other general period of Old Testament chronology remains for consideration: from the age of Abraham back to the creation of the world, about which in the nature of the case there can be no absolute certainty, and in which there is neither reason nor need for inflexible accuracy. The system, or succession, of numbers in the early chapters of Genesis (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,\'1-\');">Ge 5</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,\'10-26\');">Ge 11:10-26</a>) has given rise, in the effort to explain these numbers, to several theories.<P>(1) The literal interpretation, the best known advocate of which was Archbishop Ussher (died 1656), whose literal arrangement was introduced into the margin of the King James Version after his death. This theory takes the birth- and death-numbers just as they are, and by addition of the time intervals between the birth of the various patriarchs, together with Adam\'s age at the birth of Seth, shows that 1,656 years elapsed from the Creation to the Flood, and 290 years from the Flood to Abraham\'s birth, accor ding to the Massoretic Text. But it must be apparent at the very outset, that, on the most liberal arrangement of the numbers and the most conservative geological and anthropological estimate, this reckoning is not sufficiently long to satisfy the known facts of the age of the earth, of the life of man upon the earth, and of established historic dates. Even the conservative system of Professor Breasted (Ancient Egypt) places the first certain date of Egyptian history, namely, the introduction of the Sothic calendar, as early as 4241 BC, which is more than two centuries beyond Ussher\'s beginning of the world. Moreover, at that time an astronomical basis of reckoning time was in existence, implying an age of culture already gone before. This difficulty was appreciated by the earliest interpreters, as indicated by the variations of the Samaritan and Septuagint texts, the latter increasing the total of the age about 1,500 years and inserting a new name into the genealogical list of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,\'1-\');">Ge 11</a>. An interesting commentary on the literal method is that it make s Noah live until Abraham was seventy years old, and prolongs the life of Shem to within the lifetime of Jacob.<P>(2) A second theory is the dynastic: that the long number of a patriarch\'s lifetime indicates the era during which his house or dynasty prevailed, to be followed by the long number of the next dynasty; e.g. the 930 years of Adam were followed by the 912 of Seth, and so on until the period is stretched to cover thousands of years. But there are evident objections to this view: it does not account for the invariable origin of each succeeding dynasty so near the beginning of its predecessor, and it disregards the manifest plan of the inspired author to narrate the descent of the human race through families and not by eras or empires.<P>(3) By others it has been conjectured that the units of time have been different in the ancient ages of man; that originally the time-unit was the lunar cycle, by which the 969 lunar cycles of Methuselah\'s life really should be reduced to a little more than 80 years of more recent times; and that in the days of Abraham a year measured from equinox to equinox had superseded the lunar time-measurement. It is possible that the Septuagint variations were based upon this idea, since it increased the age at which every father begat a son to at least 162 in the generations before the Flood. But even this expedient would not remove all difficulties from the physical side; nor have we the slightest indication of the points at which these radical changes of the time-units were made. On the contrary the decrease of man\'s years seems to have come by somewhat gradual process, and not by sharp and tremendous breaks.<P>(4) Others have thought to meet the difficulties by suggesting the omission of links in the chain of descent, in accordance with Hebrew custom of omitting inconsequential names from a genealogical list. The omission by Matthew of certain names from his genealogy of Jesus Christ, in order to preserve his symmetrical scheme of fourteens (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,8);">Mt 1:8</a>), is an illustration in point. As corroborative of this it might be urged that the Septuagint does insert a name between Arpachshad and Shelah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,12);">Ge 11:12</a>). It may be said confidently that whatever theory of the genealogies before Abraham one may adopt, it is altogether reasonable to suppose that one name, or many, may have been omitted from the line of descent.<P>The dates resulting from the literal and exact interpretation of the genealogical lists of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,\'1-\');">Ge 5</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,\'1-\');">Ge 11</a> may be tabulated as follows:<P>If the 130 years of Kainan, whom the Septuagint inserts between Shelah and Arpachshad, be added, the date for Adam\'s creation is increased to 4031 BC. The exhibit of this table is most interesting and suggestive. Noah, Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg were contemporaries of Abraham. Shem, Shelah and Eber were living after Jacob\'s birth. Adam, Enoch, Methuselah and Lamech were contemporary; and Methuselah\'s long life came to an end in the year of the Flood.<P>A Suggested Interpretation:<P>These genealogical lists of the early chapters of Genesis appear therefore not to have been given as an exact and exclusive system of chronology; but it is more probable that they were written to present a general, compact, or mere outline statement of the origin, early experience and apostasy of the human race, given without the purpose of recording every possible link in the chain of descent, or every incident in the early racial experience. There are many indications, or suggestions at least, that this is the sensible and Divinely intended interpretation, some of which have been stated: the variant items and summaries of the Massoretic Text, Septuagint and Sam; the frequent omission in Hebrew genealogies of one or more generations, the third, or later, descendant being truly regarded as a son; the age of the world; the comparative antiquity of man; and the more ancient dates disclosed by archaeology. It should be noticed further that the inspired writer gives ten generations from Adam to the Flood, and ten also from the Flood to Abraham, as if by the use of the decimal, or representatively human, number he would indicate to us that he is dealing with comprehensively complete numbers and not with those that are minutely complete, arranging in symbolic form the account of man\'s descent.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ANTEDILUVIAN+PATRIARCHS">ANTEDILUVIAN PATRIARCHS</a>.<P>But while the age of man may be greater than the mechanical and exact sum of the Genesis numbers, we should not be deluded into the belief that it is so great as some anthropologists and geologists, who are prodigal of their numbers, would have us think. The numbers of Geneisi are much nearer the facts than these dreary stretches and wastes of time. The formation of the Nile and the Euphrates valleys, which furnished historic man\'s first home, is quite recent, possibly not antedating 7000 BC; the account of the Flood is the record of a great cataclysm which came upon historic man within these millenniums; we have the records of the presence of intelligent man in these fertile and recently formed centers without traces of his origin and development in, and movement from, other homes. Archaeology and ancient history bring civilized man upon us with somewhat of suddenness, well established in homelands of recent formation. Whence came these peoples whose great works and thoughts are found near the beginning of an era so clearly limited by history and geography? If they came from elsewhere and developed tediously, why have they left no trail of their movement and no trace of the evolution? So late as the 3rd millennium BC Mesopotamia was sparsely settled, and Palestine in the first half of the 2nd millennium was still thinly settled. It is a legitimate conclusion, then, that intelligent man\'s life on the earth does not extend far beyond the total of the Bible numbers (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ANTEDILUVIANS">ANTEDILUVIANS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DELUGE+OF+NOAH">DELUGE OF NOAH</a>). At the same time it is far from necessary to force a literal and exact interpretation on these numbers, which were given rather to trace lineage, keep relationships, show development under the Divine purpose, and fix responsibility, than to mark particular years.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Ussher, Chronologia Sacra; G. Smith, Assyrian Eponym Canon; Maspero, The Dawn of Civilization; The Struggle of the Nations; The Passing of the Empires; Goodspeed, A History of the Babylonians and Assyrians; Breasted, Ancient Egypt; History of Egypt, Mesopotamia and Israel in Hist of World; Hommel, Ancient Hebrew Tradition; L. W. King, Chronology of the Babylonian Kings; Beecher, Dated Events of Old Testament; Auchinloss, Chronology of the Holy Bible; various commentaries; Driver, Book of Genesis; Skinner, Genesis; Moore, Commentary on Judges; G. A. Smith, "Isaiah" in Expositor\'s Bible, etc. Magazines: James Orr, "Assyrian and Hebrew Chronology" in Presbyterian Review, 1889; "Israel and the Exodus" in Expositor, 1897; J. D. Davis. "Chronology of the Divided Kingdom" in Presbyterian and Reformed Review, 1891. Bible Dictionaries: J. D. Davis in Dict. of the Bible, Westminster Press; Hommel, articles on "Assyria" and "Babylonia" in HDB. Of interest also, Franke Parker, Chronology, 1858.``109';
|
||
isbe[2098]='Chrysolite`kris\'o-lit.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=STONES,+PRECIOUS">STONES, PRECIOUS</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[2099]='Chrysoprase; Chrysoprasus`kris\'-o-praz, kri-sop\'ra-sus.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=STONES,+PRECIOUS">STONES, PRECIOUS</a>`1';
|
||
isbe[2100]='Chub`chub (kubh).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CUB">CUB</a>`1';
|
||
</script>
|
||
<script src="./study/isbe/author.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
|
||
<script src="./study/isbe/isbeDisplay.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
|
||
<script src="./js/MainFooter.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
|
||
|