exlim/blb
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
blb/BLB/study/isbe/8900.html

114 lines
280 KiB
HTML
Raw Blame History

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<script src="../../js/basepath.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./js/nav.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./js/MainHeader.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
isbe = [];
isbe[8901]='Travail`trav\'-al (yaladh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,16);">Ge 35:16</a>, etc.), chul, chil (properly "writhe," <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',15,20);">Job 15:20</a>, etc.); odin (classical odis) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,8);">Mt 24:8</a>, etc.), odino (Sirach 19:11, etc.; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,19);">Ga 4:19</a>, etc.)): "Travail" and its derivatives are used in the primary sense of the labor of childbirth, descriptive of the actual cases of Rachel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,16);">Ge 35:16</a>), Tamar (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',38,27);">Ge 38:27</a>), Ichabod\'s mother (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',4,19);">1Sa 4:19</a>), and the apocalyptic woman clothed with the sun (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',12,2);">Re 12:2</a>). In the majority of passages, however, "travail" is used figuratively, to express extreme and painful sorrow (9 times in Jeremiah), "as of a woman in travail." It is also employed in the sense of irksome and vexatious business (6 times in Ecclesiastes, where it is the rendering of the word \'inyan). In the same book "travail" is used to express the toil of one\'s daily occupation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',4,4,6);">Ecclesiastes 4:4,6</a>), where it is the translation of \'amal. In three places (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,8);">Ex 18:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',20,14);">Nu 20:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',3,5);">La 3:5</a>) where the King James Version has "travel" the Revised Version (British and American) has changed it to "travail," as in these passages the word tela\'ah refers to the sense of weariness and toil, rather than to the idea of journeying (in the King James Version the spellings "travel" and "travail" were used indiscriminately; compare Sirach 19:11; 31:5). The sorrows which are the fruits of wickedness are compared to the pain of travail in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',15,20);">Job 15:20</a> (chul) and <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',7,14);">Ps 7:14</a> (chabhal), the word used here meaning the torture or twisting pains of labor; see also the fanciful employment of "travail" in Sirach 19:11.<P>In the New Testament the travail of childbirth is used as the figure of the painful and anxious struggle against the evils of the world in the soul\'s efforts to attain the higher ideals of the Christian life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,21);">Joh 16:21</a> (tikto); <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,22);">Ro 8:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,27);">Ga 4:27</a>); twice, however, it is the rendering of mochthos, the ordinary word for "toil," "hardship" or "distress" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',2,9);">1Th 2:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',3,8);">2Th 3:8</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=birth">BIRTH</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=labor">LABOR</a>`107';
isbe[8902]='Traveller`trav\'-el-er: <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,6);">Jud 5:6</a> for halakh nethibhah, "goers on paths"; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',12,4);">2Sa 12:4</a> for helekh, literally, "a going"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',31,32);">Job 31:32</a> for \'arach, participle of a verb meaning "to wander"; Sirach 26:12; 42:3 for hodoiporos, "one making a way."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WAYFARING+MAN">WAYFARING MAN</a>`1';
isbe[8903]='Tread`tred.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WINE+PRESS">WINE PRESS</a>`1';
isbe[8904]='Treason`tre\'-z\'-n: The translation of qesher, in English Versions of the Bible <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',16,20);">1Ki 16:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',11,14);">2Ki 11:14</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',23,13);">2Ch 23:13</a>. Qesher (from qashar, "to bind") means "a conspiracy" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',15,12);">2Sa 15:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',12,20);">2Ki 12:20</a>, etc.), and the translation "treason" is due to the King James Versions\' love of variety.``1';
isbe[8905]='Treasure; Treasurer; Treasury`trezh\'-ur, trezh\'-ur-er, trezh\'-ur-i (otsar, genaz, genez, ganzakh, chocen matmon, mickenah, mikhman, \'athudh, saphan; gaza, thesauros):<P>I. In the Old Testament.<P>1. Treasure<P>The English word "treasure" has in the Old Testament at least five somewhat distinct meanings as expressed in the words: "treasure," genaz (Aramaic) or genez (Hebrew), usually meaning "the thing stored"; translated "treasures" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',6,1);">Ezr 6:1</a>, but in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',5,17);">5:17</A> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',7,20);">7:20</A> translated "treasure-house": "search made in the king\'s treasure-house." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',3,9);">Es 3:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',4,7);">4:7</a> the Hebrew form is translated "treasury," as is ganzakh in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',28,11);">1Ch 28:11</a>.<P>2. Storehouse:<P>"Storehouse," not the thing stored but the place of storage; \'otsar means depository, cellar, garner, armory, store or treasure-house. In several places it ought to be translated by some of these words. It is the most frequent word for treasure. the English Revised Version and the American Standard Revised Version both translate in some instances by other words, e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',7,51);">1Ki 7:51</a>, "treasuries of the house of Yahweh," so also <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',5,1);">2Ch 5:1</a>; "treasury" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,70,71);">Ne 7:70,71</a>, "gave to the treasury a thousand darics of gold"; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',38,22);">Job 38:22</a>, "treasuries of the snow" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',8,21);">Pr 8:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',10,13);">Jer 10:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,16);">51:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,69);">Ezr 2:69</a>).<P>3. Hidden Riches:<P>"Treasure" or something concealed. There are 3 Hebrew words with this meaning and all in the King James Version translated "treasure." (1) Matmon, which literally means "a secret storehouse" and so a secreted valuable, usually money buried, and so hidden riches of any kind, hid treasures: "treasure in your sacks" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',43,23);">Ge 43:23</a>); "dig for it more than for hid treasures" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',3,21);">Job 3:21</a>); "search for her as for hid treasures" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',2,4);">Pr 2:4</a>); "We have stores hidden in the field, of wheat," etc. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',41,8);">Jer 41:8</a>). (2) Mikhman, treasure as hidden, used only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',11,43);">Da 11:43</a>: "have power over the treasures of gold and silver." (3) Saphan, meaning hidden treasure or valuables concealed: "hidden treasures of the sand" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,19);">De 33:19</a>).<P>4. Strength:<P>Perhaps the strength of riches and so treasure, the Hebrew word being chocen, from a root meaning to hoard or lay up: "In the house of the righteous is much treasure" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',15,6);">Pr 15:6</a>); "They take treasure and precious things" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',22,25);">Eze 22:25</a>).<P>5. Something Prepared:<P>"Something prepared," made ready, the Hebrew word being \'athudh, meaning "prepared," "ready," therefore something of value and so treasure: "have robbed their treasures," fortifications or other things "made ready" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,13);">Isa 10:13</a>).<P>In the Old Testament the Hebrew word most often translated "treasure" is \'otsar. It occurs in the sing. as follows: <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',28,12);">De 28:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',29,8);">1Ch 29:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,38);">Ne 10:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',17,14);">Ps 17:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',135,4);">135:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',15,16);">Pr 15:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',21,20);">21:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',2,8);">Ec 2:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',33,6);">Isa 33:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',1,2);">Da 1:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',13,15);">Ho 13:15</a>; in the pl.: <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,34);">De 32:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',14,26);">1Ki 14:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',15,18);">15:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',12,18);">2Ki 12:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',14,14);">14:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',16,8);">16:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',18,15);">18:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',20,13,15);">20:13,15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',24,13);">24:13</a>, etc.<P>The same word is in the King James Version translated "treasuries" in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,26);">1Ch 9:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',28,12);">28:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',32,27);">2Ch 32:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',13,12,13);">Ne 13:12,13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',135,7);">Ps 135:7</a>; and "treasury" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',6,19,24);">Jos 6:19,24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',38,11);">Jer 38:11</a>.<P>II. In the New Testament.<P>1. Gaza:<P>There are two words translated "treasure": Gaza is of Persian origin, meaning "treasure." Found only once in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',8,27);">Ac 8:27</a> concerning the Ethiopian "who was over all her (Queen Candace\'s) treasure." In the compound gazophulakion, "guarding of gaza," the same word appears and the compound is translated "treasury" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,41,43);">Mr 12:41,43</a> parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,1);">Lu 21:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,20);">Joh 8:20</a>.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TEMPLE">TEMPLE</A>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TREASURY+(OF TEMPLE)">TREASURY (OF TEMPLE)</A>.<P>2. Thesauros:<P>The word thesauros means literally, a "deposit," so wealth and treasure. Evidently throughout the New Testament it has a twofold usage as describing<P>(1) material treasure, either money or other valuable material possession, and<P>(2) spiritual treasure, e.g. "like unto treasure hid in a field" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,44);">Mt 13:44</a>); "good treasure of the heart" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,35);">Mt 12:35</a>).<P>Other references to material treasure are <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,21);">Mt 6:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,52);">13:52</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,21,34);">Lu 12:21,34</a>, etc. References to spiritual treasure are <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,21);">Mt 19:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,21);">Mr 10:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,45);">Lu 6:45</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,33);">12:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,22);">18:22</a>; plural <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,20);">Mt 6:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,3);">Col 2:3</a>.<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,6);">Mt 27:6</a> the word for "treasury" is korbanas; compare the Revised Version margin.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CORBAN">CORBAN</A>.``142';
isbe[8906]='Treasurer`(\'atsar, gedhabhar, gizbar, cakhan; oikonomos):<P>(1) \'Atsar, meaning primarily "to store up," and hence, one who lays up in store, i.e. a "treasurer": "I made treasurers over the treasuries" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',13,13);">Ne 13:13</a>).<P>(2) Gedhabhar (Aramaic), used only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',3,2,3);">Da 3:2,3</a>: "treasurers," named with judges and counselors as recognized officials.<P>(3) Gizbar, used in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',7,21);">Ezr 7:21</a> (Aramaic) and equivalent in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',1,8);">Ezr 1:8</a> (Hebrew): "treasurers beyond the river" and "Mithredath the treasurer."<P>(4) Cakhan, primarily meaning "one who ministers to," and hence, a keeper of treasure, treasurer: "Get thee unto this treasurer" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',22,15);">Isa 22:15</a>). Perhaps the idea of steward is here intended.<P>(5) Oikonomos, by the King James Version translated "chamberlain," more properly in the American Standard Revised Version translated "treasurer": "Erastus the treasurer of the city saluteth you" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,23);">Ro 16:23</a>).``142';
isbe[8907]='Treasury, (of Temple)`trezh\'-ur-i (\'otsar, usually; ganzakh, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',28,11);">1Ch 28:11</a>; gazophulakion, korbanas):<P>1. Origin of the Treasury:<P>The need of a "treasury" in connection with the house of Yahweh would early be felt for the reception of the offerings of the people, of tithes, and of the spoils of war dedicated to Yahweh. Already in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',6,19,24);">Jos 6:19,24</a>, therefore, we read of a "treasury of the house of Yahweh," into which "the silver and gold, and vessels of brass and iron," taken at Jericho, were brought. In the reign of David, and in his plans for the future temple, great prominence is given to the "treasuries." In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',26,20);">1Ch 26:20</a>ff are given the names of those who were over "the treasures of the house of God," and over "the treasures of the dedicated things" ("the spoil won in battles," <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',26,27);">26:27</a>), the latter being applied "to repair the house of Yahweh."<P>2. The Solomonic Temple:<P>In David\'s plans for Solomon the "treasuries" (ganzakkim) are mentioned with the "porch," "the houses," the "upper rooms," the "inner chambers" of the Temple (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',28,11);">1Ch 28:11</a>); and the same distinction is made of "the treasuries (\'otsroth) of the house of God," and "the treasuries of the dedicated things" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',28,12);">1Ch 28:12</a>). In the accounts of the actual building of the Temple, "treasuries" are not mentioned, but subsequent notices give ample evidence of their existence. In the narratives of the repeated plunderings of the Temple (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TEMPLE">TEMPLE</A>), constant allusion is made to the carrying away of "the treasures of the house of Yahweh" and "the treasures of the king\'s house" or palace (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',14,26);">1Ki 14:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',15,15,18);">15:15,18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',12,18);">2Ki 12:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',14,14);">14:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',16,8);">16:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',18,15);">18:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',24,13);">24:13</a>). In the episode of Jehoash\'s repair of the Temple (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',12,1);">2Ki 12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',24,\'1-\');">2Ch 24</a>), we have a refreshing glimpse of the presence and uses of the treasury; but this brighter gleam is soon swallowed up again in darkness. Of the larger store-chambers we get a glance in Jeremiah, where we are told that "the house of the king" was "under the treasury" (38:11), i.e. on a lower level under the south wall.<P>3. The Second Temple:<P>The Book of Nehemiah introduces us to treasury-chambers in the second temple<6C>now used for the voluntary offerings (tithes) of the people<6C>grain, and wine, and oil (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',13,4);">Ne 13:4</a>ff; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',3,10);">Mal 3:10</a>). A certain Meshullam had repaired the city wall "over against his chamber" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',3,30);">Ne 3:30</a>), and he, with other Levites, kept "the watch at the storehouses of the gates" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,25);">Ne 12:25</a>). These gates were probably gates of exit on the southern side, as in the Herodian temple.<P>4. Herod\'s Temple in the New Testament:<P>In Herod\'s temple the name "treasury" was specially given to the "court of the women" (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TEMPLE,+HEROD\'S">TEMPLE, HEROD\'S</a>), where were 13 trumpet-shaped boxes for the reception of the offerings of the worshippers. It was here that Jesus saw the poor widow cast in her two mites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,41);">Mr 12:41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,\'1-4\');">Lu 21:1-4</a>), and the court is expressly named the "treasury" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,20);">Joh 8:20</a>: "These words spake he in the treasury, as he taught in the temple." It is a legitimate deduction that this court was the ordinary scene of the Lord\'s ministry when teaching in the temple.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TREASURE,+TREASURER,+TREASURY">TREASURE, TREASURER, TREASURY</a>`17';
isbe[8908]='Treaty`tre\'-ti (berith, karath berith, "make a covenant," "league," "treaty"): Although the Israelites were forbidden to make treaties, or enter into covenant, with the Canaanites because of the risk thereby involved of religious apostasy and moral contamination (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,32);">Ex 23:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,12);">34:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',7,2);">De 7:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',2,2);">Jud 2:2</a>), they were so situated in the midst of the nations that treaty relations of some sort with their neighbors were from time to time inevitable. After the rise of the monarchy, treaties were common. David and Solomon had friendly relations with Hiram, king of Tyre (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',5,15);">1Ki 5:15</a>); Asa, to rid himself of the hostile approaches of Baasha, king of Israel, entered into a league with Ben-hadad of Syria, which the prophet Hanani denounced (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',16,1);">2Ch 16:1</a>); Ahab entered into a similar compact with Ben-hadad\'s son and successor, and set him at liberty when he was his prisoner of war (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',20,34);">1Ki 20:34</a>); and at a later time Jehoshaphat joined Ahab in an expedition against Ben-hadad II to Ramoth-gilead in which Ahab lost his life (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',22,\'1-\');">1Ki 22</a>). Sometimes with Syria and neighboring states against the terrible Assyrian power, and sometimes with Egypt against Assyria or Babylon, the kings of Israel and Judah entered into treaty to resist their advances and to preserve their own independence (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,4);">2Ki 17:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',7,11);">Ho 7:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,1);">Isa 30:1</a>). Against such alliances the prophets raised their testimony (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',31,1);">Isa 31:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',27,3);">Jer 27:3</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WAR">WAR</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ROME">ROME</a>`128';
isbe[8909]='Tree`tre.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BOTANY">BOTANY</a>`1';
isbe[8910]='Tree of Life`(\'ets chayyim; xulon tes zoes): The expression "tree of life" occurs in four groups or connections: (1) in the story of the Garden of Eden, (2) in the Proverbs of the Wise Men, (3) in the apocryphal writings, and (4) in the Apocalypse of John.<P>1. The Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden:<P>The tree was in the midst of the Garden, and its fruit of such a nature as to produce physical immortality (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,9);">Ge 2:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,22);">3:22</a>). After guiltily partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the sinful tendency having thus been implanted in their natures, the man and woman are driven forth from the Garden lest they should eat of the tree of life and live forever (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,22);">Ge 3:22</a>). The idea seems to be that, if they should eat of it and become immortalized in their sinful condition, it would be an unspeakable calamity to them and their posterity. For sinful beings to live forever upon earth would be inconceivably disastrous, for the redemption and development of the race would be an impossibility in that condition. Earth would soon have been a hell with sin propagating itself forever. To prevent such a possibility they were driven forth, cherubim were placed at the entrance of the Garden, the flame of a sword revolving every way kept the way of the tree of life, and this prevented the possibility of man possessing a physical immortality. It is implied that they had not yet partaken of this tree and the opportunity is now forever gone. Immortality must be reached in some other way.<P>The interpretation of the story is a standing problem. Is it mythical, allegorical, or historical? Opinions vary from one of these extremes to the other with all degrees of difference between. In general, interpreters may be divided into three classes:<P>(1) Many regard the story as a myth, an ancient representation of what men then conceived early man to have been, but with no historical basis behind it. All rationalistic and modern critical scholars are practically agreed on this. Budde in his Urgeschichte says there was but one tree, that is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the intimation of a tree of life is an interpolation. Barton has endeavored to show that the tree of life was really the date-palm, and the myth gathered around this tree because of its bisexual nature. He holds that man came to his self-realization through the sexual relation, and therefore the date-palm came to be regarded as the tree of life, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But this difference came in later when the knowledge of its origin became obscured. He calls attention to the fact that the sacred palm is found in the sanctuary of Ea at Eridu. All such interpretations are too obviously based upon a materialistic evolution hypothesis.<P>(2) There are those who regard the entire story as literal: one tree would actually impart physical immortality, the other the knowledge of evil. But this involves endless difficulties also, requires tremendous differences between the laws of Nature then and now, vast differences in fruits, men and animals, and an equally vast difference in God\'s dealings with man.<P>(3) We prefer to regard it as a pictorial-spiritual story, the representing of great spiritual facts and religious history in the form of a picture. This is the usual Bible method. It was constantly employed by the prophets, and Jesus continually "pictured" great spiritual facts by means of material objects. Such were most of His parables. John\'s Apocalypse is also a series of pictures representing spiritual and moral history. So the tree of life is a picture of the glorious possibilities which lay before primitive man, and which might have been realized by him had not his sin and sinful condition prevented it. God\'s intervention was a great mercy to the human race. Immortality in sin is rendered impossible, and this has made possible an immortality through redemption; man at first is pictured as neither mortal nor immortal, but both are possible, as represented by the two trees. He sinned and became mortal, and then immortality was denied him. It has since been made possible in a much higher and more glorious way.<P>2. A Common Poetic Simile:<P>This picture was not lost to Israel. The "tree of life," became a common poetic simile to represent that which may be a source of great blessing. In the Book of Proverbs the conception deepens from a physical source of a mere physical immortality to a moral and spiritual source of a full life, mental moral and spiritual, which will potentially last forever. Life, long life, is here attributed to a certain possession or quality of mind and heart. Wisdom is a source and supply of life to man. This wisdom is essentially of a moral quality, and this moral force brings the whole man into right relations with the source of life. Hence, a man truly lives by reason of this relationship (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',3,18);">Pr 3:18</a>). The allusion in this verse is doubtless to <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,9);">Ge 2:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,22);">3:22</a>. An expression very similar is <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',10,11);">Pr 10:11</a>, where the mouth of the righteous is declared to be a fountain of life. Good words are a power for good, and hence, produce good living. <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',11,30);">Pr 11:30</a> has a like thought: "The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life," i.e. the good life is a source of good in its influence on others. <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',13,12);">Pr 13:12</a> says: "Hope deferred maketh the heart sick; but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life." The meaning seems to be that the gratification of good and lawful desires produces those pleasures and activities which make up life and its blessings. <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',15,4);">Pr 15:4</a> says: "A gentle tongue is a tree of life," i.e. its beneficent influences help others to a better life.<P>3. The Apocryphal Writings:<P>The apocryphal writings contain a few references to the tree of life, but use the phrase in a different sense from that in which it is used in the canonical books: "They shall have the tree of life for an ointment of sweet savour" (2Esdras 2:12). Ecclesiasticus 1:20 has only an indirect reference to it. Ethiopic Enoch, in his picture of the Messianic age, uses his imagination very freely in describing it: "It has a fragrance beyond all fragrances; its leaves and bloom and wood wither not forever; its fruit is beautiful and resembles the date-palm" (24:4). Slavonic Enoch speaks thus: "In the midst there is the tree of life...and this tree cannot be described for its excellence and sweet odor" (8:3). 2Esdras describing the future says: "Unto you is paradise opened, the tree of life is planted" (8:52).<P>4. The Book of Revelation:<P>The Apocalypse of John refers to the tree of life in three places (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,7);">Re 2:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,2,14);">22:2,14</a>). These are pictures of the glorious possibilities of life which await the redeemed soul. In Ezekiel\'s picture of the ideal state and the Messianic age, there flows from the sanctuary of God a life-giving river having trees upon its banks on either side, yielding fruit every month. The leaf of this tree would not wither, nor its fruit fail, because that which gave moisture to its roots flowed from the sanctuary. This fruit was for food and the leaves for medicine (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',47,12);">Eze 47:12</a>). Very similar to this and probably an expansion of it is John\'s picture in Revelation: "To him that overcometh, to him will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the Paradise of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,7);">2:7</A>). This means that all the possibilities of a complete and glorious life are open to the one that overcomes, and by overcoming is prepared to become immortal in a vastly higher sense than was possible to primitive man. In his picture of the few Jerusalem, the river of water of life has the tree of life on either side (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,2);">22:2</A>). Its leaf never fades and its monthly fruitage never fails. Food and medicine these are to be to the world, supplied freely to all that all may enjoy the highest possibilities of activity and blessedness which can come to those who are in right relationships with God and Jesus Christ. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,14);">22:14</A> John pronounces a blessing on those who wash their robes, who lead the clean and pure Christ life, for they thereby have the right and privilege of entering into the gates of the City and partaking of the tree of life. This means not only immortal existence, but such relations with Jesus Christ and the church that each has unrestricted access to all that is good in the universe of God. The limit is his own limited capacity.``146';
isbe[8911]='Trees, Goodly``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GOODLY+TREES">GOODLY TREES</a>`1';
isbe[8912]='Trees, Shady`sha\'-di.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LOTUS+TREES">LOTUS TREES</a>`1';
isbe[8913]='Trees, Thick``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=THICK+TREES">THICK TREES</a>`1';
isbe[8914]='Trench`trench, trensh.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SIEGE">SIEGE</a>`1';
isbe[8915]='Trespass`tres\'-pas: To pass over, to go beyond one\'s right in place or act; to injure another; to do that which annoys or inconveniences another; any violation of law, civil or moral; it may relate to a person, a community, or the state, or to offenses against God. The Hebrew \'asham ("sin"), is used very frequently in the Old Testament when the trespass is a violation of law of which God is the author. The Greek word is paraptoma.<P>In the Old Testament an offering was demanded when the offense was against God: a female lamb; in other cases, according to the magnitude of the wrong, a ram or a goat; the offering was to be preceded by a confession by the one committing the trespass. If the trespass was against a human being, the wrong-doer must make it right with the person, and when reconciliation should have been effected, then the offering for sin was to be made. See under <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SACRIFICE">SACRIFICE</A>, "Trespass Offering." If a person\'s property has been injured, then the trespasser shall add a fifth to the value of the property injured and give that to the injured party (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,5);">Le 6:5</a>). Zaccheus, wanting to make full restitution, went beyond the demands of the Law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',19,\'1-9\');">Lu 19:1-9</a>).<P>The New Testament teaching on the subject is, first to be reconciled to the brother and then offer, or worship (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,23,24);">Mt 5:23,24</a>). In all cases, also, the offended party must forgive if the offender shall say, "I repent" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,14);">Mt 6:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,32);">Eph 4:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,13);">Col 3:13</a>). We have been alienated by our trespasses from God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,1);">Eph 2:1</a>). It was the Father\'s good will to reconcile all to Himself through Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,\'20-22\');">Col 1:20-22</a>). We must be reconciled to God (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,20,21);">2Co 5:20,21</a>). This being done, our trespasses shall be forgiven and we shall be justified.``45';
isbe[8916]='Trespass offering``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SACRIFICE">SACRIFICE</a>`1';
isbe[8917]='Trial`tri\'-al.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=COURTS,+JUDICIAL">COURTS, JUDICIAL</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SANHEDRIN">SANHEDRIN</a>`1';
isbe[8918]='Trial of Jesus``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JESUS+CHRIST,+THE+ARREST+AND+TRIAL+OF">JESUS CHRIST, THE ARREST AND TRIAL OF</a>`1';
isbe[8919]='Tribe`trib (in the Old Testament always for matteh, 183 times, or shebhet, 145 times, also spelled shebhet; Aramaic shebhat (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',6,17);">Ezr 6:17</a>)): Both words mean "staff," and perhaps "company led by chief with staff" (OHL, 641) is the origin of the meaning "tribe." In the Apocrypha and New Testament always for phule, from phuo, "beget," with dodekaphulon, "twelve tribes," in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',26,7);">Ac 26:7</a>. Of the two Hebrew words, shebhet appears to be considerably the older, and is used in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',74,2);">Ps 74:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',10,16);">Jer 10:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,19);">51:19</a> of the whole people of Israel, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',4,18);">Nu 4:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',20,12);">Jud 20:12</a> (Revised Version margin); <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',9,21);">1Sa 9:21</a> (Revised Version margin) of subdivisions of a tribe (but the text of most of these six verses is suspicious). Further, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',19,13);">Isa 19:13</a>, shebhet is used of the "tribes" (nomes?) of Egypt and phule in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,30);">Mt 24:30</a> of "all the tribes of the earth," but otherwise shebhet, matteh and phule refer exclusively to the tribes of Israel. In <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',7,7);">2Sa 7:7</a> for shibhete, "tribes," read shophete, "judges" (of the Revised Version margin).``48';
isbe[8920]='Tribulation`trib-u-la\'-shun (tsar, tsar, "staid," "narrow," "pent up"; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',22,26);">Nu 22:26</a>):<P>1. In the Old Testament:<P>Closely pressed, as of seals (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',41,15);">Job 41:15</a> (7)); of streams pent up (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',59,9);">Isa 59:9</a> margin); of strength limited (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',24,10);">Pr 24:10</a>, "small"). Hence, figuratively, of straitened circumstances; variously rendered "affliction," "tribulation," "distress" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',4,30);">De 4:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',15,24);">Job 15:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',30,12);">30:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',4,2);">Ps 4:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',18,7);">18:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',32,7);">32:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',44,11);">44:11</a>, etc.; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',78,42);">Ps 78:42</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',102,3);">102:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',106,44);">106:44</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,143);">119:143</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',26,16);">Isa 26:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,20);">30:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',5,15);">Ho 5:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',30,16);">Eze 30:16</a>). Frequently, the feminine form (tsarah) is similarly rendered "tribulation" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',10,14);">Jud 10:14</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,19);">1Sa 10:19</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',26,24);">1Sa 26:24</a>); in other places "distress," "affliction" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',42,21);">Ge 42:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',120,1);">Ps 120:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',11,8);">Pr 11:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',20,9);">2Ch 20:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',63,9);">Isa 63:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',15,11);">Jer 15:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jon\',2,2);">Jon 2:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Nah\',1,9);">Na 1:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',10,11);">Zec 10:11</a>).<P>2. In the New Testament:<P>The Greek is thlipsis, a "pressing together" (as of grapes), squeezing or pinching (from verb thlibo); used figuratively for "distress," "tribulation"; Septuagint for tsar and tsarah; Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) tribulatio pressura (from tribulum, "a threshing sledge"). The verb form is rendered "suffer tribulation" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',3,4);">1Th 3:4</a> the King James Version, "suffer affliction" the Revised Version (British and American)); "trouble" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',1,6);">2Th 1:6</a> the King James Version, "afflict" the Revised Version (British and American); compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',1,6);">2Co 1:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',4,8);">4:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',7,5);">7:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',5,10);">1Ti 5:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,37);">Heb 11:37</a>). The noun form is rendered in the King James Version variously as "tribulation," "affliction," "persecution," though more uniformly "tribulation" in the Revised Version (British and American). The word is used generally of the hardships which Christ\'s followers would suffer (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,21);">Mt 13:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,9,21,29);">24:9,21,29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',4,17);">Mr 4:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,19,24);">13:19,24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,33);">Joh 16:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',7,28);">1Co 7:28</a>); or which they are now passing through (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,3);">Ro 5:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',12,12);">12:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',4,17);">2Co 4:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,14);">Php 4:14</a>); or through which they have already come (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,19);">Ac 11:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',2,4);">2Co 2:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',7,14);">Re 7:14</a>).``137';
isbe[8921]='Tribute`trib\'-ut (mac, "tribute," really meaning "forced laborers," "labor gang" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,6);">1Ki 4:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',9,15,21);">9:15,21</a>); also "forced service," "serfdom"; possibly "forced payment" is meant in <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',10,1);">Es 10:1</a>; the idea contained in the modern word is better given by middah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',6,8);">Ezr 6:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',5,4);">Ne 5:4</a>)): Words used only of the duty levied for Yahweh on acquired spoils are mekhec, "assessment" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',31,28,37,38,39,40,41);">Nu 31:28,37,38,39,40,41</a>), belo, "excise" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,13,20);">Ezr 4:13,20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,24);">Ne 7:24</a>), massa\', "burden" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',17,11);">2Ch 17:11</a>), and \'onesh, "fine" or "indemnity" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,33);">2Ki 23:33</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',19,19);">Pr 19:19</a>). The translation "tribute" for miccath, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',16,10);">De 16:10</a> is wrong (compare the Revised Version margin). kensos (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,17);">Mt 22:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,14);">Mr 12:14</a>) = "census," while phoros (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',20,22);">Lu 20:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,2);">23:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',13,6,7);">Ro 13:6,7</a>), signifies an annual tax on persons, houses, lands, both being direct taxes. The phoroi were paid by agriculturists, payment being made partly in kind, partly in money, and are contrasted with the tele of the publicans, while kensos is strictly a poll tax. The amount of tribute required as a poll tax by the Romans was the didrachmon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',17,24);">Mt 17:24</a>), the King James Version "tribute," the Revised Version (British and American) "half-shekel." The stater (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',17,27);">Mt 17:27</a>), was a tetradrachm, "one shekel," or pay for two. After the destruction of Jerusalem, the Jews were required to pay this poll tax toward the support of the worship of Jupiter Capitolinus. Different kinds of personal taxes were raised by the Romans:<P>(1) an income tax,<P>(2) the poll tax.<P>The latter must be paid by women and slaves as well as by free men, only children and aged people being exempted. The payment exacted began with the 14th year in the case of men and the 12th in the case of women, the obligation remaining in force up to the 65th year in the case of both. For purposes of assessment, each person was permitted to put his own statement on record. After public notice had been given by the government, every citizen was expected to respond without personal visitation by an official (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,1);">Lu 2:1</a>ff). On the basis of the records thus voluntarily made, the tax collectors would enforce the payment of the tribute.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TAX,+TAXING">TAX, TAXING</a>`77';
isbe[8922]='Tribute Money`(to nomisma tou kensou (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,19);">Mt 22:19</a>), "the coin used in payment of the imperial taxes"): Lit. "the lawful money of the tax," which, in the case of the poll tax, had to be paid in current coin of the realm (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',17,27);">Mt 17:27</a>).``1';
isbe[8923]='Triclinium`tri-klin\'-ti-um (Latin from Greek triklinion, from tri and kline, "a couch"): A couch for reclining at meals among the ancient Romans, arranged along three sides of a square, the fourth side being left open for bringing in food or tables, when these were used. In the larger Roman houses the dining-rooms consisted of small alcoves in the atrium arranged to receive triclinia. In early Old Testament times people sat at their meals (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,19);">Ge 27:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',19,6);">Jud 19:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',20,5);">1Sa 20:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',13,20);">1Ki 13:20</a>). Reclining was a luxurious habit imported from foreign countries by the degenerate aristocracy in the days of the later prophets (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',2,8);">Am 2:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',6,4);">6:4</a>). Still, we find it common in New Testament times (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',9,10);">Mt 9:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,7);">26:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,22,39);">Mr 6:22,39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,3,18);">14:3,18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',5,29);">Lu 5:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,36,37);">7:36,37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',14,10);">14:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',17,7);">17:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,2);">Joh 12:2</a>; in these passages, though English Versions of the Bible read "sat," the Greek words are anakeimai, sunanakeimai, anapipto, katakeimai and anaklino, all indicating "reclining"; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,23);">Joh 13:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',21,20);">21:20</a>; here the King James Version translates these words "lean," probably with reference to the Jewish custom of leaning at the Passover feast). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',2,8,9);">Joh 2:8,9</a> the ruler or governor of the feast is called architriklinos, that is, the master of the triclinium.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MEALS">MEALS</a>`81';
isbe[8924]='Trim`The only non-modern use is in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',2,33);">Jer 2:33</a>, "How trimmest thou thy way to seek love!" used for yatabh, "to make good," here "to study out," and the whole phrase means "to walk in an artificial manner," "like a courtesan."``1';
isbe[8925]='Trine Immersion; Triune Immersion`trin tri\'-un i-mur\'-shun:<P><b>I. LINGUISTIC BASIS</b><P class="in15">1. Immersion<P class="in15">2. Triple Action<P><b>II. DOCTRINAL ARGUMENT</b><P><b>III. HISTORICAL PRACTICE</b><P class="in15">1. The Jews<P class="in15">2. John the Baptist<P class="in15">3. The Didache<P class="in15">4. Justin Martyr<P class="in15">5. Tertullian<P class="in15">6. Eunomius<P class="in15">7. Greek Church<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. Linguistic Basis.<P>1. Immersion:<P>The meaning of the word baptizo, is "to dip repeatedly," "to sub-merge" (Thayer, Greek Lexicon of the New Testament). It is probably the frequentative of bapto, "to dip," meaning "to dip repeatedly." The word baptizo (and baptisma) in the New Testament is "used absolutely, \'to administer the rite of ablution,\' \'to baptize\'" (same place). It is "an immersion in water, performed as a sign of the removal of sin," etc. (same place);" Baptizo, to dip in or under water" (Liddell and Scott, Greek Lexicon).<P>2. Triple Action:<P>The threefold immersion is based upon the Trinity into which the believer is to be baptized "into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (eis to onoma tou patros kal tou huiou kai tou hagiou pneumatos, <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,19);">Mt 28:19</a>). (On the genuineness of this passage see Plummer, Commentary on Matthew.)<P>II. Doctrinal Argument.<P>Whether Jesus spoke the words of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,19);">Mt 28:19</a> as a baptismal formula or not does not affect the question. The passages in Acts, "in the name of Jesus Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,38);">2:38</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,48);">10:48</A>), and "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',8,16);">8:16</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,5);">19:5</A>), are not baptismal formulas, but mean the confession of Christ with all that Christ stands for, namely, the fullness of God and His salvation. The idea of the Trinity pervades the New Testament and many of the earliest writings (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',12,\'4-6\');">1Co 12:4-6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',13,14);">2Co 13:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,18);">Eph 2:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,\'14-17\');">3:14-17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,\'4-6\');">4:4-6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,\'13-15\');">2Th 2:13-15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',6,\'4-6\');">Heb 6:4-6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,23,27);">1Joh 3:23,24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,2);">4:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,20,21);">Jude 1:20,21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,4,5);">Re 1:4,5</a>). "Baptized into Christ" has the same religious content as <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,19);">Mt 28:19</a>. Triune immersion is the symbol of baptism into the Triune God. All believers in the Trinity should see the consistency of this symbol. Baptism is the symbol<P>(1) of a complete cleansing,<P>(2) of death,<P>(3) of burial,<P>(4) of resurrection, and<P>(5) of entering into full union and fellowship with the Triune God as revealed by Christ.<P>Triune immersion is the only symbol that symbolizes all that baptism stands for. Note the words of Sanday on <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,\'1-14\');">Ro 6:1-14</a> (comm. on Romans, ICC, 153): "Baptism has a double function:<P>(1) It brings the Christian into personal contact with Christ, so close that it may fitly be described as personal union with Him.<P>(2) It expresses symbolically a series of acts corresponding to the redeeming acts of Christ. Immersion = Death. Submersion = Burial (the ratification of Death). Emergence = Resurrection. All these the Christian has to undergo in a moral and spiritual sense, and by means of his union with Christ." Hence, the psychological need of a true symbol, triune immersion, to teach and impress the significance of the new life.<P>III. Historical Practice.<P>1. The Jews: The Jews received proselytes by circumcision, baptism (complete immersion) and sacrifice (Schurer, HJP, II,2,pp. 319f; Edersheim, LTJM, II,745,and I, 273). John the Baptist, baptized "in the river Jordan" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,6);">Mt 3:6</a>) and "in AEnon near to Salim, because there was much water there" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,23);">Joh 3:23</a>).<P>2. John the Baptist:<P>Philip and the eunuch "both went down into the water" and they "came up out of the water." All New Testament baptisms were by immersion (see also <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,\'1-11\');">Ro 6:1-11</a>).<P>3. The Didache:<P>The Didache (100-150 AD) chapter vii: "Baptize into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living (running) water. But if they have not living water, baptize into other water; and if thou canst not in cold, in warm" (baptisate eis to onoma tou patos kai tou huiou kai tou hagiou pneumatos en hudati zonti). "But if thou have not either, pour out water thrice (tris) upon the head into the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit." Here the triple action is maintained throughout, even in clinical baptism, while immersion is the rule.<P>Justin Martyr (Apology i.61) describes baptism which can only be understood as triune immersion.<P>4. Justin Martyr:<P>Tertullian (De Corona, iii) says, "Hereupon we are thrice immersed" (dehinc ter mergitamur). Again (Ad Praxeam, xxvi), "And lastly he commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, not into a unipersonal God.<P>5. Tertullian:<P>And indeed it is not only once but three times that we are immersed into the Three Persons, at each several mention of their names" (nam nec semel, sed ter, ad singula nomina, in personas singulos, tinguimur).<P>6. Eunomius:<P>Eunomius (circa 360) introduced single immersion "into the death of Christ." This innovation was condemned. Apostolical Constitutions,50,says, "If any presbyter or bishop does not perform the one initiation with three immersions, but with giving one immersion only into the death of the Lord, let him be deposed." Single immersion was allowed by Gregory the Great (circa 691) to the church in Spain in opposition to the Arians who used a trine (not triune) immersion (Epis., i.43). This was exceptional.<P>7. Greek Church:<P>The Greek church has always baptized by triune immersion. The historical practice of the Christian church may well be summed up in the words of Dean Stanley: "There can be no question that the original form of baptism<73>the very meaning of the word<72>was complete immersion in the deep baptismal waters; and that for at least four centuries, any other form was either unknown, or regarded, unless in the case of dangerous illness, as an exceptional, almost monstrous case....A few drops of water are now the western substitute for the threefold plunge into the rushing river or the wide baptisteries of the East" (History of Eastern Church, 28). "For the first three centuries the most universal practice of baptism was...that those who were baptized, were plunged, submerged, immersed into the water" (Christian Institutions, p. 21).<P>See further, <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BAPTISM">BAPTISM</A>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LITERATURE,+SUB-APOSTOLIC">LITERATURE, SUB-APOSTOLIC</A>, II, 5.<P>LITERATURE.<P>James Quinter, Triune Immersion as the Apostolic Form of Christian Baptism; C. F. Yoder, God\'s Means of Grace, Brethren Pub. House, Elgin, Ill., U.S.A.; Smith, Dict. of Christian Antiquities; Hastings, ERE; Bible Dicts.; Church Fathers; Church Histories, and Histories of Baptism.``92';
isbe[8926]='Trinity, 1`trin\'-i-ti<P>1. The Term "Trinity"<P>2. Purely a Revealed Doctrine<P>3. No Rational Proof of It<P>4. Finds Support in Reason<P>5. Not Clearly Revealed in the Old Testament<P>6. Prepared for in the Old Testament<P>7. Presupposed Rather Than Inculcated in the New Testament<P>8. Revealed in Manifestation of Son and Spirit<P>9. Implied in the Whole New Testament<P>10. Conditions the Whole Teaching of Jesus<P>11. Father and Son in Johannine Discourses<P>12. Spirit in Johannine Discourses<P>13. The Baptismal Formula<P>14. Genuineness of Baptismal Formula<P>15. Paul\'s Trinitarianism<P>16. Conjunction of the Three in Paul<P>17. Trinitarianism of Other New Testament Writers<P>18. Variations in Nomenclature<P>19. Implications of "Son" and "Spirit"<P>20. The Question of Subordination<P>21. Witness of the Christian Consciousness<P>22. Formulation of the Doctrine<P>LITERATURE<P><hr />1. The Term "Trinity":<P>The term "Trinity" is not a Biblical term, and we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine that there is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence. A doctrine so defined can be spoken of as a Biblical doctrine only on the principle that the sense of Scripture is Scripture. And the definition of a Biblical doctrine in such un-Biblical language can be justified only on the principle that it is better to preserve the truth of Scripture than the words of Scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity lies in Scripture in solution; when it is crystallized from its solvent it does not cease to be Scriptural, but only comes into clearer view. Or, to speak without figure, the doctrine of the Trinity is given to us in Scripture, not in formulated definition, but in fragmentary allusions; when we assemble the disjecta membra into their organic unity, we are not passing from Scripture, but entering more thoroughly into the meaning of Scripture. We may state the doctrine in technical terms, supplied by philosophical reflection; but the doctrine stated is a genuinely Scriptural doctrine.<P>2. Purely a Revealed Doctrine:<P>In point of fact, the doctrine of the Trinity is purely a revealed doctrine. That is to say, it embodies a truth which has never been discovered, and is indiscoverable, by natural reason. With all his searching, man has not been able to find out for himself the deepest things of God. Accordingly, ethnic thought has never attained a Trinitarian conception of God, nor does any ethnic religion present in its representations of the divine being any analogy to the doctrine of the Trinity.<P>Triads of divinities, no doubt, occur in nearly all polytheistic religions, formed under very various influences. Sometimes, as in the Egyptian triad of Osiris. Isis and Horus, it is the analogy of the human family with its father, mother and son which lies at their basis. Sometimes they are the effect of mere syncretism, three deities worshipped in different localities being brought together in the common worship of all. Sometimes, as in the Hindu triad of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, they represent the cyclic movement of a pantheistic evolution, and symbolize the three stages of Being, Becoming and Dissolution. Sometimes they are the result apparently of nothing more than an odd human tendency to think in threes, which has given the number three widespread standing as a sacred number (so H. Usener). It is no more than was to be anticipated, that one or another of these triads should now and again be pointed to as the replica (or even the original) of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Gladstone found the Trinity in the Homeric mythology, the trident of Poseidon being its symbol. Hegel very naturally found it in the Hindu Trimurti, which indeed is very like his pantheizing notion of what the Trinity is. Others have perceived it in the Buddhist Triratna (Soderblom); or (despite their crass dualism) in some speculations of Parseeism; or, more frequently, in the notional triad of Platonism (e.g. Knapp); while Jules Martin is quite sure that it is present in Philo\'s neo-Stoical doctrine of the "powers," especially when applied to the explanation of Abraham\'s three visitors. Of late years, eyes have been turned rather to Babylonia; and H. Zimmern finds a possible forerunner of the Trinity in a Father, Son, and Intercessor, which he discovers in its mythology. It should be needless to say that none of these triads has the slightest resemblance to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity embodies much more than the notion of "threeness," and beyond their "threeness" these triads have nothing in common with it.<P>3. No Rational Proof of It:<P>As the doctrine of the Trinity is indiscoverable by reason, so it is incapable of proof from reason. There are no analogies to it in Nature, not even in the spiritual nature of man, who is made in the image of God. In His trinitarian mode of being, God is unique; and, as there is nothing in the universe like Him in this respect, so there is nothing which can help us to comprehend Him. Many attempts have, nevertheless, been made to construct a rational proof of the Trinity of the God head. Among these there are two which are particularly attractive, and have therefore been put forward again and again by speculative thinkers through all the Christian ages. These are derived from the implications, in the one case, of self-consciousness; in the other, of love. Both self-consciousness and love, it is said, demand for their very existence an object over against which the self stands as subject. If we conceive of God as self-conscious and loving, therefore, we cannot help conceiving of Him as embracing in His unity some form of plurality. From this general position both arguments have been elaborated, however, by various thinkers in very varied forms.<P>The former of them, for example, is developed by a great 17th-century theologian<61>Bartholomew Keckermann (1614)<29>as follows: God is self-conscious thought; and God\'s thought must have a perfect object, existing eternally before it; this object to be perfect must be itself God; and as God is one, this object which is God must be the God that is one. It is essentially the same argument which is popularized in a famous paragraph (section 73) of Lessing\'s The Education of the Human Race. Must not God have an absolutely perfect representation of Himself<6C>that is, a representation in which everything that is in Him is found? And would everything that is in God be found in this representation if His necessary reality were not found in it? If everything, everything without exception, that is in God is to be found in this representation, it cannot, therefore, remain a mere empty image, but must be an actual duplication of God. It is obvious that arguments like this prove too much. If God\'s representation of Himself, to be perfect, must possess the same kind of reality that He Himself possesses, it does not seem easy to deny that His representations of everything else must possess objective reality. And this would be as much as to say that the eternal objective coexistence of all that God can conceive is given in the very idea of God; and that is open pantheism. The logical flaw lies in including in the perfection of a representation qualities which are not proper to representations, however perfect. A perfect representation must, of course, have all the reality proper to a representation; but objective reality is so little proper to a representation that a representation acquiring it would cease to be a representation. This fatal flaw is not transcended, but only covered up, when the argument is compressed, as it is in most of its modern presentations, in effect to the mere assertion that the condition of self-consciousness is a real distinction between the thinking subject and the thought object, which, in God\'s case, would be between the subject ego and the object ego. Why, however, we should deny to God the power of self-contemplation enjoyed by every finite spirit, save at the cost of the distinct hypostatizing of the contemplant and the contemplated self, it is hard to understand. Nor is it always clear that what we get is a distinct hypostatization rather than a distinct substantializing of the contemplant and contemplated ego: not two persons in the Godhead so much as two Gods. The discovery of the third hypostasis<69>the Holy Spirit<69>remains meanwhile, to all these attempts rationally to construct a Trinity in the Divine Being, a standing puzzle which finds only a very artificial solution.<P>The case is much the same with the argument derived from the nature of love. Our sympathies go out to that old Valentinian writer<65>possibly it was Valentinus himself<6C>who reasoned<65>perhaps he was the first so to reason<6F>that "God is all love," "but love is not love unless there be an object of love." And they go out more richly still to Augustine, when, seeking a basis, not for a theory of emanations, but for the doctrine of the Trinity, he analyzes this love which God is into the triple implication of "the lover," "the loved" and "the love itself," and sees in this trinary of love an analogue of the Triune God. It requires, however, only that the argument thus broadly suggested should be developed into its details for its artificiality to become apparent. Richard of Victor works it out as follows: It belongs to the nature of amor that it should turn to another as caritas. This other, in God\'s case, cannot be the world; since such love of the world would be inordinate. It can only be a person; and a person who is God\'s equal in eternity, power and wisdom. Since, however, there cannot be two divine substances, these two divine persons must form one and the same substance. The best love cannot, however, confine itself to these two persons; it must become condilectio by the desire that a third should be equally loved as they love one another. Thus love, when perfectly conceived, leads necessarily to the Trinity, and since God is all He can be, this Trinity must be real. Modern writers (Sartorius, Schoberlein, J. Muller, Liebner, most lately R. H. Grutzmacher) do not seem to have essentially improved upon such a statement as this. And after all is said, it does not appear clear that God\'s own all-perfect Being could not supply a satisfying object of His all-perfect love. To say that in its very nature love is self-communicative, and therefore implies an object other than self, seems an abuse of figurative language.<P>Perhaps the ontological proof of the Trinity is nowhere more attractively put than by Jonathan Edwards. The peculiarity of his presentation of it lies in an attempt to add plausibility to it by a doctrine of the nature of spiritual ideas or ideas of spiritual things, such as thought, love, fear, in general. Ideas of such things, he urges, are just repetitions of them, so that he who has an idea of any act of love, fear, anger or any other act or motion of the mind, simply so far repeats the motion in question; and if the idea be perfect and complete, the original motion of the mind is absolutely reduplicated. Edwards presses this so far that he is ready to contend that if a man could have an absolutely perfect idea of all that was in his mind at any past moment, he would really, to all intents and purposes, be over again what he was at that moment. And if he could perfectly contemplate all that is in his mind at any given moment, as it is and at the same time that it is there in its first and direct existence, he would really be two at that time, he would be twice at once: "The idea he has of himself would be himself again." This now is the case with the Divine Being. "God\'s idea of Himself is absolutely perfect, and therefore is an express and perfect image of Him, exactly like Him in every respect....But that which is the express, perfect image of God and in every respect like HIm is God, to all intents and purposes, because there is nothing wanting: there is nothing in the Deity that renders it the Deity but what has something exactly answering to it in this image, which will therefore also render that the Deity." The Second Person of the Trinity being thus attained, the argument advances. "The Godhead being thus begotten of God\'s loving (having?) an idea of Himself and showing forth in a distinct Subsistence or Person in that idea, there proceeds a most pure act, and an infinitely holy and sacred energy arises between the Father and the Son in mutually loving and delighting in each other....The Deity becomes all act, the divine essence itself flows out and is as it were breathed forth in love and joy. So that the Godhead therein stands forth in yet another manner of Subsistence, and there proceeds the Third Person in the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, namely, the Deity in act, for there is no other act but the act of the will." The inconclusiveness of the reasoning lies on the surface. The mind does not consist in its states, and the repetition of its states would not, therefore, duplicate or triplicate it. If it did, we should have a plurality of Beings, not of Persons in one Being. Neither God\'s perfect idea of Himself nor His perfect love of Himself reproduces Himself. He differs from His idea and His love of Himself precisely by that which distinguishes His Being from His acts. When it is said, then, that there is nothing in the Deity which renders it the Deity but what has something answering to it in its image of itself, it is enough to respond<6E>except the Deity itself. What is wanting to the image to make it a second Deity is just objective reality.<P>4. Finds Support in Reason:<P>Inconclusive as all such reasoning is, however, considered as rational demonstration of the reality of the Trinity, it is very far from possessing no value. It carries home to us in a very suggestive way the superiority of the Trinitarian conception of God to the conception of Him as an abstract monad, and thus brings important rational support to the doctrine of the Trinity, when once that doctrine has been given us by revelation. If it is not quite possible to say that we cannot conceive of God as eternal self-consciousness and eternal love, without conceiving Him as a Trinity, it does seem quite necessary to say that when we conceive Him as a Trinity, new fullness, richness, force are given to our conception of Him as a self-conscious, loving Being, and therefore we conceive Him more adequately than as a monad, and no one who has ever once conceived Him as a Trinity can ever again satisfy himself with a monadistic conception of God. Reason thus not only performs the important negative service to faith in the Trinity, of showing the self-consistency of the doctrine and its consistency with other known truth, but brings this positive rational support to it of discovering in it the only adequate conception of God as self-conscious spirit and living love. Difficult, therefore, as the idea of the Trinity in itself is, it does not come to us as an added burden upon our intelligence; it brings us rather the solution of the deepest and most persistent difficulties in our conception of God as infinite moral Being, and illuminates, enriches and elevates all our thought of God. It has accordingly become a commonplace to say that Christian theism is the only stable theism. That is as much as to say that theism requires the enriching conception of the Trinity to give it a permanent hold upon the human mind<6E>the mind finds it difficult to rest in the idea of an abstract unity for its God; and that the human heart cries out for the living God in whose Being there is that fullness of life for which the conception of the Trinity alone provides. 5. Not Clearly Revealed in the Old Testament:<P>So strongly is it felt in wide circles that a Trinitarian conception is essential to a worthy idea of God, that there is abroad a deep-seated unwillingness to allow that God could ever have made Himself known otherwise than as a Trinity. From this point of view it is inconceivable that the Old Testament revelation should know nothing of the Trinity. Accordingly, I. A. Dorner, for example, reasons thus: "If, however<65>and this is the faith of universal Christendom<6F>a living idea of God must be thought in some way after a Trinitarian fashion, it must be antecedently probable that traces of the Trinity cannot be lacking in the Old Testament, since its idea of God is a living or historical one." Whether there really exist traces of the idea of the Trinity in the Old Testament, however, is a nice question. Certainly we cannot speak broadly of the revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity in the Old Testament. It is a plain matter of fact that none who have depended on the revelation embodied in the Old Testament alone have ever attained to the doctrine of the Trinity. It is another question, however, whether there may not exist in the pages of the Old Testament turns of expression or records of occurrences in which one already acquainted with the doctrine of the Trinity may fairly see indications of an underlying implication of it. The older writers discovered intimations of the Trinity in such phenomena as the plural form of the divine name \'Elohim, the occasional employment with reference to God of plural pronouns ("Let us make man in our image," <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,26);">Ge 1:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,22);">3:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,7);">11:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',6,8);">Isa 6:8</a>), or of plural verbs (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,13);">Ge 20:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,7);">35:7</a>), certain repetitions of the name of God which seem to distinguish between God and God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,27);">Ge 19:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',45,6,7);">Ps 45:6,7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',110,1);">110:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',1,7);">Ho 1:7</a>), threefold liturgical formulas (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',16,4);">De 16:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',6,24,26);">Nu 6:24,26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',6,3);">Isa 6:3</a>), a certain tendency to hypostatize the conception of Wisdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',8,\'1-\');">Pr 8</a>), and especially the remarkable phenomena connected with the appearances of the Angel of Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,\'2-13\');">Ge 16:2-13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,11,16);">22:11,16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,11,13);">31:11,13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',48,15,16);">48:15,16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,2,4,5);">Ex 3:2,4,5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',13,\'20-22\');">Jud 13:20-22</a>). The tendency of more recent authors is to appeal, not so much to specific texts of the Old Testament, as to the very "organism of revelation" in the Old Testament, in which there is perceived an underlying suggestion "that all things owe their existence and persistence to a threefold cause," both with reference to the first creation, and, more plainly, with reference to the second creation. Passages like <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',33,6);">Ps 33:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',61,1);">Isa 61:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',63,\'9-12\');">63:9-12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hag\',2,5,6);">Hag 2:5,6</a>, in which God and His Word and His Spirit are brought together, co-causes of effects, are adduced. A tendency is pointed out to hypostatize the Word of God on the one hand (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,3);">Ge 1:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',33,6);">Ps 33:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',107,20);">107:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,87);">119:87</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',147,\'15-18\');">147:15-18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',55,11);">Isa 55:11</a>); and, especially in Ezekiel and the later Prophets, the Spirit of God, on the other (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,2);">Ge 1:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',48,16);">Isa 48:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',63,10);">63:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',2,2);">Eze 2:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',8,3);">8:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',7,12);">Zec 7:12</a>). Suggestions<6E>in Isaiah for instance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',7,14);">7:14</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',9,6);">9:6</a>)<29>of the Deity of the Messiah are appealed to. And if the occasional occurrence of plural verbs and pronouns referring to God, and the plural form of the name \'Elohim, are not insisted upon as in themselves evidence of a multiplicity in the Godhead, yet a certain weight is lent them as witnesses that "the God of revelation is no abstract unity, but the living, true God, who in the fullness of His life embraces the highest variety" (Bavinck). The upshot of it all is that it is very generally felt that, somehow, in the Old Testament development of the idea of God there is a suggestion that the Deity is not a simple monad, and that thus a preparation is made for the revelation of the Trinity yet to come. It would seem clear that we must recognize in the Old Testament doctrine of the relation of God to His revelation by the creative Word and the Spirit, at least the germ of the distinctions in the Godhead afterward fully made known in the Christian revelation. And we can scarcely stop there. After all is said, in the light of the later revelation, the Trinitarian interpretation remains the most natural one of the phenomena which the older writers frankly interpreted as intimations of the Trinity; especially of those connected with the descriptions of tile Angel of Yahweh, no doubt, but also even of such a form of expression as meets us in the "Let us make man in our image" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,26);">Ge 1:26</a><3E>for surely <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,27);">1:27</a>: "And God created man in his own image," does not encourage us to take the preceding verse as announcing that man was to be created in the image of the angels. This is not an illegitimate reading of New Testament ideas back into the text of the Old Testament; it is only reading the text of the Old Testament under the illumination of the New Testament revelation. The Old Testament may be likened to a chamber richly furnished but dimly lighted; the introduction of light brings into it nothing which was not in it before; but it brings out into clearer view much of what is in it but was only dimly or even not at all perceived before. The mystery of the Trinity is not revealed in the Old Testament; but the mystery of the Trinity underlies the Old Testament revelation, and here and there almost comes into view. Thus, the Old Testament revelation of God is not corrected by the fuller revelation which follows it, but only perfected, extended and enlarged.<P>6. Prepared for in the Old Testament:<P>It is an old saying that what becomes patent in the New Testament was latent in the Old Testament. And it is important that the continuity of the revelation of God contained in the two Testaments should not be overlooked or obscured. If we find some difficulty in perceiving for ourselves, in the Old Testament, definite points of attachment for the revelation of the Trinity, we cannot help perceiving with great clearness in the New Testament abundant evidence that its writers felt no incongruity whatever between their doctrine of the Trinity and the Old Testament conception of God. The New Testament writers certainly were not conscious of being "setters forth of strange gods." To their own apprehension they worshipped and proclaimed just the God of Israel; and they laid no less stress than the Old Testament itself upon His unity (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,3);">Joh 17:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',8,4);">1Co 8:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',2,5);">1Ti 2:5</a>). They do not, then, place two new gods by the side of Yahweh, as alike with Him to be served and worshipped; they conceive Yahweh as Himself at once Father, Son and Spirit. In presenting this one Yahweh as Father, Son and Spirit, they do not even betray any lurking feeling that they are making innovations. Without apparent misgiving they take over Old Testament passages and apply them to Father, Son and Spirit indifferently. Obviously they understand themselves, and wish to be understood, as setting forth in the Father, Son and Spirit just the one God that the God of the Old Testament revelation is; and they are as far as possible from recognizing any breach between themselves and the Fathers in presenting their enlarged conception of the Divine Being. This may not amount to saying that they saw the doctrine of the Trinity everywhere taught in the Old Testament. It certainly amounts to saying that they saw the Triune God whom they worshipped in the God of the Old Testament revelation, and felt no incongruity in speaking of their Triune God in the terms of the Old Testament revelation. The God of the Old Testament was their God, and their God was a Trinity, and their sense of the identity of the two was so complete that no question as to it was raised in their minds.<P>7. Presupposed Rather Than Inculcated in the New Testament:<P>The simplicity and assurance with which the New Testament writers speak of God as a Trinity have, however, a further implication. If they betray no sense of novelty in so speaking of Him, this is undoubtedly in part because it was no longer a novelty so to speak of Him. It is clear, in other words, that, as we read the New Testament, we are not witnessing the birth of a new conception of God. What we meet with in its pages is a firmly established conception of God underlying and giving its tone to the whole fabric. It is not in a text here and there that the New Testament bears its testimony to the doctrine of the Trinity. The whole book is Trinitarian to the core; all its teaching is built on the assumption of the Trinity; and its allusions to the Trinity are frequent, cursory, easy and confident. It is with a view to the cursoriness of the allusions to it in the New Testament that it has been remarked that "the doctrine of the Trinity is not so much heard as overheard in the statements of Scripture." It would be more exact to say that it is not so much inculcated as presupposed. The doctrine of the Trinity does not appear in the New Testament in the making, but as already made. It takes its place in its pages, as Gunkel phrases it, with an air almost of complaint, already "in full completeness" (vollig fertig), leaving no trace of its growth. "There is nothing more wonderful in the history of human thought," says Sanday, with his eye on the appearance of the doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament, "than the silent and imperceptible way in which this doctrine, to us so difficult, took its place without struggle<6C>and without controversy<73>among accepted Christian truths." The explanation of this remarkable phenomenon is, however, simple. Our New Testament is not a record of the development of the doctrine or of its assimilation. It everywhere presupposes the doctrine as the fixed possession of the Christian community; and the process by which it became the possession of the Christian community lies behind the New Testament.<P>8. Revealed in Manifestation of Son and Spirit:<P>We cannot speak of the doctrine of the Trinity, therefore, if we study exactness of speech, as revealed in the New Testament, any more than we can speak of it as revealed in the Old Testament. The Old Testament was written before its revelation; the New Testament after it. The revelation itself was made not in word but in deed. It was made in the incaration of God the Son, and the outpouring of God the Holy Spirit. The relation of the two Testaments to this revelation is in the one case that of preparation for it, and in the other that of product of it. The revelation itself is embodied just in Christ and the Holy Spirit. This is as much as to say that the revelation of the Trinity was incidental to, and the inevitable effect of, the accomplishment of redemption. It was in the coming of the Son of God in the likeness of sinful flesh to offer Himself a sacrifice for sin; and in the coming of the Holy Spirit to convict the world of sin, of righteousness and of judgment, that the Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Godhead was once for all revealed to men. Those who knew God the Father, who loved them and gave His own Son to die for them; and the Lord Jesus Christ, who loved them and delivered Himself up an offering and sacrifice for them; and the Spirit of Grace, who loved them and dwelt within them a power not themselves, making for righteousness, knew the Triune God and could not think or speak of God otherwise than as triune. The doctrine of the Trinity, in other words, is simply the modification wrought in the conception of the one only God by His complete revelation of Himself in the redemptive process. It necessarily waited, therefore, upon the completion of the redemptive process for its revelation, and its revelation, as necessarily, lay complete in the redemptive process.<P>From this central fact we may understand more fully several circumstances connected with the revelation of the Trinity to which allusion has been made. We may from it understand, for example, why the Trinity was not revealed in the Old Testament. It may carry us a little way to remark, as it has been customary to remark since the time of Gregory of Nazianzus, that it was the task of the Old Testament revelation to fix firmly in the minds and hearts of the people of God the great fundamental truth of the unity of the Godhead; and it would have been dangerous to speak to them of the plurality within this unity until this task had been fully accomplished. The real reason for the delay in the revelation of the Trinity, however, is grounded in the secular development of the redemptive purpose of God: the times were ripe for the revelation of the Trinity in the unity of the Godhead until the fullness of the time had come for God to send forth His Son unto redemption, and His Spirit unto sanctification. The revelation in word must needs wait upon the revelation in fact, to which it brings its necessary explanation, no doubt, but from which also it derives its own entire significance and value. The revelation of a Trinity in the divine unity as a mere abstract truth without relation to manifested fact, and without significance to the development of the kingdom of God, would have been foreign to the whole method of the divine procedure as it lies exposed to us in the pages of Scripture. Here the working-out of the divine purpose supplies the fundamental principle to which all else, even the progressive stages of revelation itself, is subsidiary; and advances in revelation are ever closely connected with the advancing accomplishment of the redemptive purpose. We may understand also, however, from the same central fact, why it is that the doctrine of the Trinity lies in the New Testament rather in the form of allusions than in express teaching, why it is rather everywhere presupposed, coming only here and there into incidental expression, than formally inculcated. It is because the revelation, having been made in the actual occurrences of redemption, was already the common property of all Christian hearts. In speaking and writing to one another, Christians, therefore, rather spoke out of their common Trinitarian consciousness, and reminded one another of their common fund of belief, than instructed one another in what was already the common property of all. We are to look for, and we shall find, in the New Testament allusions to the Trinity, rather evidence of how the Trinity, believed in by all, was conceived by the authoritative teachers of the church, than formal attempts, on their part, by authoritative declarations, to bring the church into the understanding that God is a Trinity.<P>9. Implied in the Whole New Testament:<P>The fundamental proof that God is a Trinity is supplied thus by the fundamental revelation of the Trinity in fact: that is to say, in the incarnation of God the Son and the outpouring of God the Holy Spirit. In a word, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are the fundamental proof of the doctrine of the Trinity. This is as much as to say that all the evidence of whatever kind, and from whatever source derived, that Jesus Christ is God manifested in the flesh, and that the Holy Spirit is a Divine Person, is just so much evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity; and that when we go to the New Testament for evidence of the Trinity we are to seek it, not merely in the scattered allusions to the Trinity as such, numerous and instructive as they are, but primarily in the whole mass of evidence which the New Testament provides of the Deity of Christ and the divine personality of the Holy Spirit. When we have said this, we have said in effect that the whole mass of the New Testament is evidence for the Trinity. For the New Testament is saturated with evidence of the Deity of Christ and the divine personality of the Holy Spirit, Precisely what the New Testament is, is the documentation of the religion of the incarnate Son and of the outpoured Spirit, that is to say, of the religion of the Trinity, and what we mean by the doctrine of the Trinity is nothing but the formulation in exact language of the conception of God presupposed in the religion of the incarnate Son and outpoured Spirit. We may analyze this conception and adduce proof for every constituent element of it from the New Testament declarations. We may show that the New Testament everywhere insists on the unity of the Godhead; that it constantly recognizes the Father as God, the Son as God and the Spirit as God; and that it cursorily presents these three to us as distinct Persons. It is not necessary, however, to enlarge here on facts so obvious. We may content ourselves with simply observing that to the New Testament there is but one only living and true God; but that to it Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are each God in the fullest sense of the term; and yet Father, Son and Spirit stand over against each other as I, and Thou, and He. In this composite fact the New Testament gives us the doctrine of the Trinity. For the doctrine of the Trinity is but the statement in wellguarded language of this composite fact. Through out the whole course of the many efforts to formulate the doctrine exactly, which have followed one another during the entire history of the church, indeed, the principle which has ever determined the result has always been determination to do justice in conceiving the relations of God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit, on the one hand to the unity of God, and, on the other, to the true Deity of the Son and Spirit and their distinct personalities. When we have said these three things, then<65>that there is but one God, that the Father and the Son and the Spirit is each God, that the Father and the Son and the Spirit is each a distinct person<6F>we have enunciated the doctrine of the Trinity in its completeness.<P>That this doctrine underlies the whole New Testament as its constant presupposition and determines everywhere its forms of expression is the primary fact to be noted. We must not omit explicitly to note, however, that it now and again also, as occasion arises for its incidental enunciation, comes itself to expression in more or less completeness of statement. The passages in which the three Persons of the Trinity are brought together are much more numerous than, perhaps, is generally supposed; but it should be recognized that the formal collocation of the elements of the doctrine naturally is relatively rare in writings which are occasional in their origin and practical rather than doctrinal in their immediate purpose. The three Persons already come into view as Divine Persons in the annunciation of the birth of our Lord: \'The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,\' said the angel to Mary, \'and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is to be born shall be called the Son of God\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,35);">Lu 1:35</a> margin; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,18);">Mt 1:18</a>ff). Here the Holy Ghost is the active agent in the production of an effect which is also ascribed to the power of the Most High, and the child thus brought into the world is given the great designation of "Son of God." The three Persons are just as clearly brought before us in the account of Matthew (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,18);">1:18</A>ff), though the allusions to them are dispersed through a longer stretch of narrative, in the course of which the Deity of the child is twice intimated (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,21);">1:21</a>: \'It is He that shall save His people from their sins\'; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,23);">1:23</a>: \'They shall call His name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God-with-us\') In the baptismal scene which finds record by all the evangelists at the opening of Jesus\' ministry (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,16,17);">Mt 3:16,17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,10,11);">Mr 1:10,11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,21,22);">Lu 3:21,22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,\'32-34\');">Joh 1:32-34</a>), the three Persons are thrown up to sight in a dramatic picture in which the Deity of each is strongly emphasized. From the open heavens the Spirit descends in visible form, and \'a voice came out of the heavens, Thou art my Son, the Beloved, in whom I am well pleased.\' Thus care seems to have been taken to make the advent of the Son of God into the world the revelation also of the Triune God, that the minds of men might as smoothly as possible adjust themselves to the preconditions of the divine redemption which was in process of being wrought out.<P>10. Conditions the Whole Teaching of Jesus:<P>With this as a starting-point, the teaching of Jesus is conditioned throughout in a Trinitarian way. He has much to say of God His Father, from whom as His Son He is in some true sense distinct, and with whom He is in some equally true sense one. And He has much to say of the Spirit, who represents Him as He represents the Father, and by whom He works as the Father works by Him. It is not merely in the Gospel of John that such representations occur in the teaching of Jesus. In the Synoptics, too, Jesus claims a Sonship to God which is unique (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,27);">Mt 11:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,36);">24:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,32);">Mr 13:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,22);">Lu 10:22</a>; in the following passages the title of "Son of God" is attributed to Him and accepted by Him: <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',4,6);">Mt 4:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',8,29);">8:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',14,33);">14:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,40,43,44);">27:40,43,44</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,11);">Mr 3:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,\'6-8\');">12:6-8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,39);">15:39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,41);">Lu 4:41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,70);">22:70</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,34,49);">Joh 1:34,49</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',9,35);">9:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,27);">11:27</a>), and which involves an absolute community between the two in knowledge, say, and power: both Matthew (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,27);">11:27</A>) and Luke (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,22);">10:22</A>) record His great declaration that He knows the Father and the Father knows Him with perfect mutual knowledge: "No one knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither doth any know the Father, save the Son." In the Synoptics, too, Jesus speaks of employing the Spirit of God Himself for the performance of His works, as if the activities of God were at His disposal: "I by the Spirit of God"<22>or as Luke has it, "by the finger of God<6F>cast out demons" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,28);">Mt 12:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',11,20);">Lu 11:20</a>; compare the promise of the Spirit in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,11);">Mr 13:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,12);">Lu 12:12</a>).<P>11. Father and Son in Johannine Discourses:<P>It is in the discourses recorded in John, however, that Jesus most copiously refers to the unity of Himself, as the Son, with the Father, and to the mission of the Spirit from Himself as the dispenser of the divine activities. Here He not only with great directness declares that He and the Father are one (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,30);">10:30</A>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,11,21,22,25);">17:11,21,22,25</A>) with a unity of interpenetration ("The Father is in me, and I in the Father," <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,38);">10:38</A>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,10,11);">16:10,11</a>), so that to have seen Him was to have seen the Father (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,9);">14:9</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',15,21);">15:21</a>); but He removes all doubt as to the essential nature of His oneness with the Father by explicitly asserting His eternity ("Before Abraham was born, I am," <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,58);">Joh 8:58</a>), His co-eternity with God ("had with thee before the world was," <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,5);">17:5</A>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,18);">17:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,62);">6:62</a>), His eternal participation in the divine glory itself ("the glory which I had with thee," in fellowship, community with Thee "before the world was," <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,5);">17:5</A>). So clear is it that in speaking currently of Himself as God\'s Son (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,25);">5:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',9,35);">9:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,4);">11:4</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,36);">10:36</a>), He meant, in accordance with the underlying significance of the idea of sonship in Semitic speech (founded on the natural implication that whatever the father is that the son is also; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,15);">16:15</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,10);">17:10</A>), to make Himself, as the Jews with exact appreciation of His meaning perceived, "equal with God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,18);">5:18</A>), or, to put it brusquely, just "God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,33);">10:33</a>). How He, being thus equal or rather identical with God, was in the world, He explains as involving a coming forth (exelthon) on His part, not merely from the presence of God (apo, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,30);">16:30</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,3);">13:3</A>) or from fellowship with God (para, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,27);">16:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,8);">17:8</a>), but from out of God Himself (ek, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,42);">8:42</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,28);">16:28</A>). And in the very act of thus asserting that His eternal home is in the depths of the Divine Being, He throws up, into as strong an emphasis as stressed pronouns can, convey, His personal distinctness from the Father. \'If God were your Father,\' says Hebrews (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',8,42);">8:42</A>), \'ye would love me: for I came forth and am come out of God; for neither have I come of myself, but it was He that sent me.\' Again, He says (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,26,27);">Joh 16:26,27</a>): \'In that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you that I will make request of the Father for you; for the Father Himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that it was from fellowship with the Father that I came forth; I came from out of the Father, and have come into the world.\' Less pointedly, but still distinctly, He says again (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,8);">Joh 17:8</a>): They know of a truth that it was from fellowship with Thee that I came forth, and they believed that it was Thou that didst send me.\' It is not necessary to illustrate more at large a form of expression so characteristic of the discourses of our Lord recorded by John that it meets us on every page: a form of expression which combines a clear implication of a unity of Father and Son which is identity of Being, and an equally clear implication of a distinction of Person between them such as allows not merely for the play of emotions between them, as, for instance, of love (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,24);">Joh 17:24</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',15,9);">15:9</a> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,35);">3:35</a>); <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,31);">14:31</a>), but also of an action and reaction upon one another which argues a high measure, if not of exteriority, yet certainly of exteriorization. Thus, to instance only one of the most outstanding facts of our Lord\'s discourses (not indeed confined to those in John\'s Gospel, but found also in His sayings recorded in the Synoptists, as e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,43);">Lu 4:43</a> (compare parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,38);">Mr 1:38</a>); <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,48);">Lu 9:48</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,16);">10:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,34);">4:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',5,32);">5:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,19);">7:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',19,10);">19:10</a>), He continually represents Himself as on the one hand sent by God, and as, on the other, having come forth from the Father (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,42);">Joh 8:42</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,36);">10:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,3);">17:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,23);">5:23</a>, et saepe).<P>12. Spirit in Johannine Discourses:<P>It is more important to point out that these phenomena of interrelationship are not confined to the Father and Son, but are extended also to the Spirit. Thus, for example, in a context in which our Lord had emphasized in the strongest manner His own essential unity and continued interpenetration with the Father (" If ye had known me, ye would have known my Father also"; "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father"; "I am in the Father, and the Father in me"; "The Father abiding in me doeth his works," <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,7,9,10);">Joh 14:7,9,10</a>), we read as follows (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,\'16-26\');">Joh 14:16-26</a>): \'And I will make request of the Father, and He shall ive you another (thus sharply distinguished from Our lord as a distinct Person) Advocate, that He may be with you forever, the Spirit of Truth...He abideth with you and shall be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I come unto you....In that day ye shall know that I am in the Father....If a man love me, he will keep my word; and my Father will love him and we (that is, both Father and Son) will come unto him and make our abode with him....These things have I spoken unto you while abiding with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you.\' It would be impossible to speak more distinctly of three who were yet one. The Father, Son and Spirit are constantly distinguished from one another<65>the Son makes request of the Father, and the Father in response to this request gives an Advocate, "another" than the Son, who is sent in the Son\'s name. And yet the oneness of these three is so kept in sight that the coming of this "another Advocate" is spoken of without embarrassment as the coming of the Son Himself (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,\'18-21\');">Joh 14:18,19,20,21</a>), and indeed as the coming of the Father and the Son (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,23);">Joh 14:23</a>). There is a sense, then, in which, when Christ goes away, the Spirit comes in His stead; there is also a sense in which, when the Spirit comes, Christ comes in Him; and with Christ\'s coming the Father comes too. There is a distinction between the Persons brought into view; and with it an identity among them; for both of which allowance must be made. The same phenomena meet us in other passages. Thus, we read again (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',15,26);">Joh 15:26</a>): But when there is come the Advocate whom I will send unto you from (fellowship with) the Father, the Spirit of Truth, which goeth forth from (fellowship with) the Father, He shall bear witness of me.\' In the compass of this single verse, it is intimated that the Spirit is personally distinct from the Son, and yet, like Him, has His eternal home (in fellowship) with the Father, from whom He, like the Son, comes forth for His saving work, being sent thereunto, however, not in this instance by the Father, but by the Son.<P>This last feature is even more strongly emphasized in yet another passage in which the work of the Spirit in relation to the Son is presented as closely parallel with the work of the Son in relation to the Father (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,5);">Joh 16:5</a>).\' But now I go unto Him that sent me...Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away; for, if I go not away the Advocate will not come unto you; but if I go I will send Him unto you. And He, after He is come, will convict the world...of righteousness because I go to the Father and ye behold me no more....I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth is come, He shall guide you into all the truth; for He shall not speak from Himself; but what things soever He shall hear, He shall speak, and He shall declare unto you the things that are to come. He shall glorify me: for He shall take of mine and shall show it unto you. All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine: therefore said I that He taketh of mine, and shall declare it unto you.\' Here the Spirit is sent by the Son, and comes in order to complete and apply the Son\'s work, receiving His whole commission from the Son<6F>not, however, in derogation of the Father, because when we speak of the things of the Son, that is to speak of the things of the Father.<P>It is not to be said, of course, that the doctrine of the Trinity is formulated in passages like these, with which the whole mass of our Lord\'s discourses in John are strewn; but it certainly is presupposed in them, and that is, considered from the point of view of their probative force, even better. As we read we are kept in continual contact with three Persons who act, each as a distinct person, and yet who are in a deep, underlying sense, one. There is but one God<6F>there is never any question of that<61>and yet this Son who has been sent into the world by God not only represents God but is God, and this Spirit whom the Son has in turn sent unto the world is also Himself God. Nothing could be clearer than that the Son and Spirit are distinct Persons, unless indeed it be that the Son of God is just God the Son and the Spirit of God just God the Spirit.<P>13. The Baptismal Formula:<P>Meanwhile, the nearest approach to a formal announcement of the doctrine of the Trinity which is recorded from our Lord\'s lips, or, perhaps we may say, which is to be found in the whole compass of the New Testament, has been preserved for us, not by John, but by one of the synoptists. It too, however, is only incidentally introduced, and has for its main object something very different from formulating the doctrine of the Trinity. It is embodied in the great commission which the resurrected Lord gave His disciples to be their "marching orders" "even unto the end of the world": "Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,19);">Mt 28:19</a>). In seeking to estimate the significance of this great declaration, we must bear in mind the high solemnity of the utterance, by which we are required to give its full value to every word of it. Its phrasing is in any event, however, remarkable. It does not say, "In the names (plural) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost"; nor yet (what might be taken to be equivalent to that), "In the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Ghost," as if we had to deal with three separate Beings. Nor, on the other hand does it say, "In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost," as if "the Father, Son and Holy Ghost" might be taken as merely three designations of a single person. With stately impressiveness it asserts the unity of the three by combining them all within the bounds of the single Name; and then throws up into emphasis the distinctness of each by introducing them in turn with the repeated article: "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (the King James Version). These three, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, each stand in some clear sense over against the others in distinct personality: these three, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, all unite in some profound sense in the common participation of the one Name. Fully to comprehend the implication of this mode of statement, we must bear in mind, further, the significance of the term, "the name," and the associations laden with which it came to the recipients of this commission. For the Hebrew did not think of the name, as we are accustomed to do, as a mere external symbol; but rather as the adequate expression of the innermost being of its bearer. In His Name the Being of God finds expression; and the Name of God<6F>"this glorious and fearful name, Yahweh thy God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',28,58);">De 28:58</a>)<29>was accordingly a most sacred thing, being indeed virtually equivalent to God Himself. It is no solecism, therefore, when we read (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,27);">Isa 30:27</a>), "Behold, the name of Yahweh cometh"; and the parallelisms are most instructive when we read (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',59,19);">Isa 59:19</a>): \'So shall they fear the Name of Yahweh from the west, and His glory from the rising of the sun; for He shall come as a stream pent in which the Spirit of Yahweh driveth.\' So pregnant was the implication of the Name, that it was possible for the term to stand absolutely, without adjunction of the name itself, as the sufficient representative of the majesty of Yahweh: it was a terrible thing to \'blaspheme the Name\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,11);">Le 24:11</a>). All those over whom Yahweh\'s Name was called were His, His possession to whom He owed protection. It is for His Name\'s sake, therefore, that afflicted Judah cries to the Hope of Israel, the Saviour thereof in time of trouble: \'O Yahweh, Thou art in the midst of us, and Thy Name is called upon us; leave us not\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',14,9);">Jer 14:9</a>); and His people find the appropriate expression of their deepest shame in the lament, \'We have become as they over whom Thou never barest rule; as they upon whom Thy Name was not called\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',63,19);">Isa 63:19</a>); while the height of joy is attained in the cry, \'Thy Name, Yahweh, God of Hosts, is called upon me\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',15,16);">Jer 15:16</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',7,14);">2Ch 7:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',9,18,19);">Da 9:18,19</a>). When, therefore, our Lord commanded His disciples to baptize those whom they brought to His obedience "into the name of...," He was using language charged to them with high meaning. He could not have been understood otherwise than as substituting for the Name of Yahweh this other Name "of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"; and this could not \'possibly have meant to His disciples anything else than that Yahweh was now to be known to them by the new Name, of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The only alternative would have been that, for the community which He was rounding, Jesus was supplanting Yahweh by a new God; and this alternative is no less than monstrous. There is no alternative, therefore, to understanding Jesus here to be giving for His community a new Name to Yahweh, and that new Name to be the threefold Name of "the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost." Nor is there room for doubt that by "the Son" in this threefold Name, He meant just Himself with all the implications of distinct personality which this carries with it; and, of course, that further carries with it the equally distinct personality of "the Father" and "the Holy Ghost," with whom "the Son" is here associated, and from whom alike "the Son" is here distinguished. This is a direct ascription to Yahweh, the God of Israel, of a threefold personality, and is therewith the direct enunciation of the doctrine of the Trinity. We are not witnessing here the birth of the doctrine of the Trinity; that is presupposed. What we are witnessing is the authoritative announcement of the Trinity as the God of Christianity by its Founder, in one of the most solemn of His recorded declarations. Israel had worshipped the one only true God under the Name of Yahweh; Christians are to worship the same one only and true God under the Name of "the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost." This is the distinguishing characteristic of Christians; and that is as much as to say that the doctrine of the Trinity is, according to our Lord\'s own apprehension of it, the distinctive mark of the religion which He founded.<P>14. Genuineness of Baptismal Formula:<P>A passage of such range of implication has, of course, not escaped criticism and challenge. An attempt which cannot be characterized as other than frivolous has even been made to dismiss it from the text of Matthew\'s Gospel. Against this, the whole body of external evidence cries out; and the internal evidence is of itself not less decisive to the same effect. When the "universalism," "ecclesiasticism," and "high theology" of the passage are pleaded against its genuineness, it is forgotten that to the Jesus of Matthew there are attributed not only such parables as those of the Leaven and the Mustard Seed, but such declarations as those contained in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',8,11,12);">8:11,12</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',21,43);">21:43</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,14);">24:14</A>; that in this Gospel alone is Jesus recorded as speaking familiarly about His church (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,18);">16:18</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,17);">18:17</A>); and that, after the great declaration of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,27);">11:27</A> if, nothing remained in lofty attribution to be assigned to Him. When these same objections are urged against recognizing the passage as an authentic saying of Jesus own, it is quite obvious that the Jesus of the evangelists cannot be in mind. The declaration here recorded is quite in character with the Jesus of Matthew\'s Gospel, as has just been intimated; and no less with the Jesus of the whole New Testament transmission. It will scarcely do, first to construct a priori a Jesus to our own liking, and then to discard as "unhistorical" all in the New Testament transmission which would be unnatural to such a Jesus. It is not these discarded passages but our a priori Jesus which is unhistorical. In the present instance, moreover, the historicity of the assailed saying is protected by an important historical relation in which it stands. It is not merely Jesus who speaks out of a Trinitarian consciousness, but all the New Testament writers as well. The universal possession by. His followers of so firm a hold on such a doctrine requires the assumption that some such teaching as is here attributed to Him was actually contained in Jesus\' instructions to His followers. Even had it not been attributed to Him in so many words by the record, we should have had to assume that some such declaration had been made by Him. In these circumstances, there can be no good reason to doubt that it was made by Him, when it is expressly attributed to Him by the record.<P>15. Paul\'s Trinitarianism:<P>When we turn from the discourses of Jesus to the writings of His followers with a view to observing how the assumption of the doctrine of the Trinity underlies their whole fabric also, we naturally go first of all to the letters of Paul. Their very mass is impressive; and the definiteness with which their composition within a generation of the death of Jesus may be fixed adds importance to them as historical witnesses. Certainly they leave nothing to be desired in the richness of their testimony to the Trinitarian conception of God which underlies them. Throughout the whole series, from 1 Thessalonians, which comes from about 52 AD, to 2 Timothy, which was written about 68 AD, the redemption, which it is their one business to proclaim and commend, and all the blessings which enter into it or accompany it are referred consistently to a threefold divine causation. Everywhere, throughout their pages, God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit appear as the joint objects of all religious adoration, and the conjunct source of all divine operations. In the freedom of the allusions which are made to them, now and again one alone of the three is thrown up into prominent view; but more often two of them are conjoined in thanksgiving or prayer; and not infrequently all three are brought together as the apostle strives to give some adequate expression to his sense of indebtedness to the divine source of all good for blessings received, or to his longing on behalf of himself or of his readers for further communion with the God of grace. It is regular for him to begin his Epistles with a prayer for "grace and peace" for his readers, "from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ," as the joint source of these divine blessings by way of eminence (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,7);">Ro 1:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,3);">1Co 1:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',1,2);">2Co 1:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,3);">Ga 1:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,2);">Eph 1:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,2);">Php 1:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',1,2);">2Th 1:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,2);">1Ti 1:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',1,2);">2Ti 1:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phm\',1,3);">Phm 1:3</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',1,1);">1Th 1:1</a>). It is obviously no departure from this habit in the essence of the matter, but only in relative fullness of expression, when in the opening words of the Epistle to the Colossians, the clause "and the Lord Jesus Christ" is omitted, and we read merely: "Grace to you and peace from God our Father." So also it would have been no departure from it in the essence of the matter, but only in relative fullness of expression, if in any instance the name of the Holy Spirit had chanced to be adjoined to the other two, as in the single instance of <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',13,14);">2Co 13:14</a> it is adjoined to them in the closing prayer for grace with which Paul ends his letters, and which ordinarily takes the simple form of, "the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,20);">Ro 16:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',16,23);">1Co 16:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',6,18);">Ga 6:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,23);">Php 4:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',5,28);">1Th 5:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',3,18);">2Th 3:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phm\',1,25);">Phm 1:25</a>; more expanded form, <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,23,24);">Eph 6:23,24</a>; more Compressed, <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,18);">Col 4:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,21);">1Ti 6:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,22);">2Ti 4:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',3,15);">Tit 3:15</a>). Between these opening and closing passages the allusions to God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are constant and most intricately interlaced. Paul\'s monotheism is intense: the first premise of all his thought on divine things is the unity of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,30);">Ro 3:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',8,4);">1Co 8:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,20);">Ga 3:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,6);">Eph 4:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',2,5);">1Ti 2:5</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,22);">Ro 16:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,17);">1Ti 1:17</a>). Yet to him God the Father is no more God than the Lord Jesus Christ is God, or the Holy Spirit is God. The Spirit of God is to him related to God as the spirit of man is to man (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',2,11);">1Co 2:11</a>), and therefore if the Spirit of God dwells in us, that is God dwelling in us (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,10);">Ro 8:10</a>), and we are by that fact constituted temples of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',3,16);">1Co 3:16</a>). And no expression is too strong for him to use in order to assert the Godhead of Christ: He is "our great God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',2,13);">Tit 2:13</a>); He is "God over all" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,5);">Ro 9:5</a>); and indeed it is expressly declared of Him that the "fulness of the Godhead, that is, everything that enters into Godhead and constitutes it Godhead, dwells in Him. In the very act of asserting his monotheism Paul takes our Lord up into this unique Godhead. "There is no God but one" he roundly asserts, and then illustrates and proves this assertion by remarking that the heathen may have "gods many, and lords many," but "to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',8,6);">1Co 8:6</a>). Obviously, this "one God, the Father," and "one Lord, Jesus Christ," are embraced together in the one God who alone is. Paul\'s conception of the one God, whom alone he worships, includes, in other words, a recognition that within the unity of His Being, there exists such a distinction of Persons as is given us in the "one God, the Father" and the "one Lord, Jesus Christ."``187';
isbe[8927]='Trinity, 2`16. Conjunction of the Three in Paul:<P>In numerous passages scattered through Paul\'s Epistles, from the earliest of them (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',1,\'2-5\');">1Th 1:2-5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,13,14);">2Th 2:13,14</a>) to the latest (<a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',3,\'4-6\');">Tit 3:4-6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',1,3,13,14);">2Ti 1:3,13,14</a>), all three Persons, God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, are brought together, in the most incidental manner, as co-sources of all the saving blessings which come to believers in Christ. A typical series of such passages may be found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,18);">Eph 2:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,\'2-5\',14,17);">3:2-5,14,17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,\'4-6\');">4:4-6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,\'18-20\');">5:18-20</a>. But the most interesting instances are offered to us perhaps by the Epistles to the Corinthians. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',12,\'4-6\');">1Co 12:4-6</a> Paul presents the abounding spiritual gifts with which the church was blessed in a threefold aspect, and connects these aspects with the three Divine Persons. "Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are diversities of ministrations, and the same Lord. And there are diversities of workings, but the same God, who worketh all things in all." It may be thought that there is a measure of what might almost be called artificiality in assigning the endowments of the church, as they are graces to the Spirit, as they are services to Christ, and as they are energizings to God. But thus there is only the more strikingly revealed the underlying Trinitarian conception as dominating the structure of the clauses: Paul clearly so writes, not because "gifts," "workings," "operations" stand out in his thought as greatly diverse things, but because God, the Lord, and the Spirit lie in the back of his mind constantly suggesting a threefold causality behind every manifestation of grace. The Trinity is alluded to rather than asserted; but it is so alluded to as to show that it constitutes the determining basis of all Paul\'s thought of the God of redemption. Even more instructive is <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',13,14);">2Co 13:14</a>, which has passed into general liturgical use in the churches as a benediction: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all." Here the three highest redemptive blessings are brought together, and attached distributively to the three Persons of the Triune God. There is again no formal teaching of the doctrine of the Trinity; there is only another instance of natural speaking out of a Trinitarian consciousness. Paul is simply thinking of the divine source of these great blessings; but he habitually thinks of this divine source of redemptive blessings after a trinal fashion. He therefore does not say, as he might just as well have said, "The grace and love and communion of God be with you all," but "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all." Thus he bears, almost unconsciously but most richly, witness to the trinal composition of the Godhead as conceived by Him.<P>17. Trinitarianism of Other New Testament Writers:<P>The phenomena of Paul\'s Epistles are repeated in the other writings of the New Testament. In these other writings also it is everywhere assumed that the redemptive activities of God rest on a threefold source in God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit; and these three Persons repeatedly come forward together in the expressions of Christian hope or the aspirations of Christian devotion (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,3,4);">Heb 2:3,4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',6,\'4-6\');">6:4-6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,\'29-31\');">10:29-31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,2);">1Pe 1:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,\'3-12\');">2:3-12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,\'13-19\');">4:13-19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,\'4-8\');">1Joh 5:4-8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,20,21);">Jude 1:20,21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',14,1);">Re 1:4-6</a>). Perhaps as typical instances as any are supplied by the two following: "According to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,2);">1Pe 1:2</a>); "Praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,20,21);">Jude 1:20,21</a>). To these may be added the highly symbolical instance from the Apocalypse: \'Grace to you and peace from Him which is and was and which is to come; and from the Seven Spirits which are before His throne; and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,4,5);">Re 1:4,5</a>). Clearly these writers, too, write out of a fixed Trinitarian consciousness and bear their testimony to the universal understanding current in apostolical circles. Everywhere and by all it was fully understood that the one God whom Christians worshipped and from whom alone they expected redemption and all that redemption brought with it, included within His undiminished unity the three: God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, whose activities relatively to one another are conceived as distinctly personal. This is the uniform and pervasive testimony of the New Testament, and it is the more impressive that it is given with such unstudied naturalness and simplicity, with no effort to distinguish between what have come to be called the ontological and the economical aspects of the Trinitarian distinctions, and indeed without apparent consciousness of the existence of such a distinction of aspects. Whether God is thought of in Himself or in His operations, the underlying conception runs unaffectedly into trinal forms.<P>18. Variations in Nomenclature:<P>It will not have escaped observation that the Trinitarian terminology of Paul and the other writers of the New Testament is not precisely identical with that of our Lord as recorded for us in His discourses. Paul, for example<6C>and the same is true of the other New Testament writers (except John)<29>does not speak, as our Lord is recorded as speaking, of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, so much as of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. This difference of terminology finds its account in large measure in the different relations in which the speakers stand to the Trinity. our Lord could not naturally speak of Himself, as one of the Trinitarian Persons, by the designation of "the Lord," while the designation of "the Son," expressing as it does His consciousness of close relation, and indeed of exact similarity, to God, came naturally to His lips. But He was Paul\'s Lord; and Paul naturally thought and spoke of Him as such. In point of fact, "Lord" is one of Paul\'s favorite designations of Christ, and indeed has become with him practically a proper name for Christ, and in point of fact, his Divine Name for Christ. It is naturally, therefore, his Trinitarian name for Christ. Because when he thinks of Christ as divine he calls Him "Lord," he naturally, when he thinks of the three Persons together as the Triune God, sets Him as "Lord" by the side of God<6F>Paul\'s constant name for "the Father"<22>and the Holy Spirit. Question may no doubt be raised whether it would have been possible for Paul to have done this, especially with the constancy with which he has done it, if, in his conception of it, the very essence of the Trinity were enshrined in the terms "Father" and "Son." Paul is thinking of the Trinity, to be sure, from the point of view of a worshipper, rather than from that of a systematizer. He designates the Persons of the Trinity therefore rather from his relations to them than from their relations to one another. He sees in the Trinity his God, his Lord, and the Holy Spirit who dwells in him; and naturally he so speaks currently of the three Persons. It remains remarkable, nevertheless, if the very essence of the Trinity were thought of by him as resident in the terms "Father," "Son," that in his numerous allusions to the Trinity in the Godhead, he never betrays any sense of this. It is noticeable also that in their allusions to the Trinity, there is preserved, neither in Paul nor in the other writers of the New Testament, the order of the names as they stand in our Lord\'s great declaration (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,19);">Mt 28:19</a>). The reverse order occurs, indeed, occasionally, as, for example, in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',12,\'4-6\');">1Co 12:4-6</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,\'4-6\');">Eph 4:4-6</a>); and this may be understood as a climactic arrangement and so far a testimony to the order of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,19);">Mt 28:19</a>. But the order is very variable; and in the most formal enumeration of the three Persons, that of <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',13,14);">2Co 13:14</a>, it stands thus: Lord, God, Spirit. The question naturally suggests itself whether the order Father, Son, Spirit was especially significant to Paul and his fellow-writers of the New Testament. If in their conviction the very essence of the doctrine of the Trinity was embodied in this order, should we not anticipate that there should appear in their numerous allusions to the Trinity some suggestion of this conviction?<P>19. Implications of "Son" and "Spirit":<P>Such facts as these have a bearing upon the testimony of the New Testament to the interrelations of the Persons of the Trinity. To the fact of the Trinity<74>to the fact, that is, that in the unity of the Godhead there subsist three Persons, each of whom has his particular part in the working out of salvation<6F>the New Testament testimony is clear, consistent, pervasive and conclusive. There is included in this testimony constant and decisive witness to the complete and undiminished Deity of each of these Persons; no language is too exalted to apply to each of them in turn in the effort to give expression to the writer\'s sense of His Deity: the name that is given to each is fully understood to be "the name that is above every name." When we attempt to press the inquiry behind the broad fact, however, with a view to ascertaining exactly how the New Testament writers conceive the three Persons to be related, the one to the other, we meet with great difficulties. Nothing could seem more natural, for example, than to assume that the mutual relations of the Persons of the Trinity are revealed in the designations, "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit," which are given them by our Lord in the solemn formula of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,19);">Mt 28:19</a>. Our confidence in this assumption is somewhat shaken, however, when we observe, as we have just observed, that these designations are not carefully preserved in their allusions to the Trinity by the writers of the New Testament at large, but are characteristic only of our Lord\'s allusions and those of John, whose modes of speech in general very closely resemble those of our Lord. Our confidence is still further shaken when we observe that the implications with respect to the mutual relations of the Trinitarian Persons, which are ordinarily derived from these designations, do not so certainly lie in them as is commonly supposed.<P>It may be very natural to see in the designation "Son" an intimation of subordination and derivation of Being, and it may not be difficult to ascribe a similar connotation to the term "Spirit." But it is quite certain that this was not the denotation of either term in the Semitic consciousness, which underlies the phraseology of Scripture; and it may even be thought doubtful whether it was included even in their remoter suggestions. What underlies the conception of sonship in Scriptural speech is just "likeness"; whatever the father is that the son is also. The emphatic application of the term "Son" to one of the Trinitarian Persons, accordingly, asserts rather His equality with the Father than His subordination to the Father; and if there is any implication of derivation in it, it would appear to be very distant. The adjunction of the adjective "only begotten" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,14);">Joh 1:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,\'16-18\');">3:16-18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,9);">1Joh 4:9</a>) need add only the idea of uniqueness, not of derivation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',22,21);">Ps 22:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',25,16);">25:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',35,17);">35:17</a>; <span class="noTag">The Wisdom of Solomon 7:22</span> margin); and even such a phrase as "God only begotten" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,18);">Joh 1:18</a> margin) may contain no implication of derivation, but only of absolutely unique consubstantiality; as also such a phrase as \'the first-begotten of all creation\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,15);">Col 1:15</a>) may convey no intimation of coming into being, but merely assert priority of existence. In like manner, the designation "Spirit of God" or "Spirit of Yahweh," which meets us frequently in the Old Testament, certainly does not convey the idea there either of derivation or of subordination, but is just the executive name of God<6F>the designation of God from the point of view of His activity<74>and imports accordingly identity with God; and there is no reason to suppose that, in passing from the Old Testament to the New Testament, the term has taken on an essentially different meaning. It happens, oddly enough, moreover, that we have in the New Testament itself what amounts almost to formal definitions of the two terms "Son" and "Spirit," and in both cases the stress is laid on the notion of equality or sameness. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,18);">Joh 5:18</a> we read: \'On this account, therefore, the Jews sought the more to kill him, because, not only did he break the Sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal to God.\' The point lies, of course, in the adjective "own." Jesus was, rightly, understood to call God "his own Father," that is, to use the terms "Father" and "Son" not in a merely figurative sense, as when Israel was called God\'s son, but in the real sense. And this was understood to be claiming to be all that God is. To be the Son of God in any sense was to be like God in that sense; to be God\'s own Son was to be exactly like God, to be "equal with God." Similarly, we read in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',2,10,11);">1Co 2:10,11</a>: \'For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For who of men knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God.\' Here the Spirit appears as the substrate of the divine self-consciousness, the principle of God\'s knowledge of Himself: He is, in a word, just God Himself in the innermost essence of His Being. As the spirit of man is the seat of human life, the very life of man itself, so the Spirit of God is His very life-element. How can He be supposed, then, to be subordinate to God, or to derive His Being from God? If, however, the subordination of the Son and Spirit to the Father in modes of subsistence and their derivation from the Father are not implicates of their designation as Son and Spirit, it will be hard to find in the New Testament compelling evidence of their subordination and derivation.<P>20. The Question of Surbordination:<P>There is, of course, no question that in "modes of operation," as it is technically called<65>that is to say, in the functions ascribed to the several persons of the Trinity in the redemptive process, and, more broadly, in the entire dealing of God with the world<6C>the principle of subordination is clearly expressed. The Father is first, the Son is second, and the Spirit is third, in the operations of God as revealed to us in general, and very especially in those operations by which redemption is accomplished. Whatever the Father does, He does through the Son (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,16);">Ro 2:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,22);">3:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,1,11,17,21);">5:1,11,17,21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,5);">Eph 1:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',5,9);">1Th 5:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',3,5);">Tit 3:5</a>) by the Spirit. The Son is sent by the Father and does His Father\'s will (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,38);">Joh 6:38</a>); the Spirit is sent by the Son and does not speak from Himself, but only takes of Christ\'s and shows it unto His people (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,7);">Joh 17:7</a>); and we have our Lord\'s own word for it that \'one that is sent is not greater than he that sent him\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,16);">Joh 13:16</a>). In crisp decisiveness, our Lord even declares, indeed: \'My Father is greater than I\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,28);">Joh 14:28</a>); and Paul tells us that Christ is God\'s, even as we are Christ\'s (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',3,23);">1Co 3:23</a>), and that as Christ is "the head of every man," so God is "the head of Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,3);">1Co 11:3</a>). But it is not so clear that the principle of subordination rules also in "modes of subsistence," as it is technically phrased; that is to say, in the necessary relation of the Persons of the Trinity to one another. The very richness and variety of the expression of their subordination, the one to the other, in modes of operation, create a difficulty in attaining certainty whether they are represented as also subordinate the one to the other in modes of subsistence. Question is raised in each case of apparent intimation of subordination in modes of subsistence, whether it may not, after all, be explicable as only another expression of subordination in modes of operation. It may be natural to assume that a subordination in modes of operation rests on a subordination in modes of subsistence; that the reason why it is the Father that sends the Son and the Son that sends the Spirit is that the Son is subordinate to the Father, and the Spirit to the Son. But we are bound to bear in mind that these relations of subordination in modes of operation may just as well be due to a convention, an agreement, between the Persons of the Trinity<74>a "Covenant" as it is technically called<65>by virtue of which a distinct function in the work of redemption is voluntarily assumed by each. It is eminently desirable, therefore, at the least, that some definite evidence of subordination in modes of subsistence should be discoverable before it is assumed. In the case of the relation of the Son to the Father, there is the added difficulty of the incarnation, in which the Son, by the assumption of a creaturely nature into union with Himself, enters into new relations with the Father of a definitely subordinate character. Question has even been raised whether the very designations of Father and Son may not be expressive of these new relations, and therefore without significance with respect to the eternal relations of the Persons so designated. This question must certainly be answered in the negative. Although, no doubt, in many of the instances in which the terms "Father" and "Son" occur, it would be possible to take them of merely economical relations, there ever remain some which are intractable to this treatment, and we may be sure that "Father" and "Son" are applied to their eternal and necessary relations. But these terms, as we have seen, do not appear to imply relations of first and second, superiority and subordination, in modes of subsistence; and the fact of the humiliation of the Son of God for His earthly work does introduce a factor into the interpretation of the passages which import His subordination to the Father, which throws doubt upon the inference from them of an eternal relation of subordination in the Trinity itself. It must at least be said that in the presence of the great New Testament doctrines of the Covenant of Redemption on the one hand, and of the Humiliation of the Son of God for His work\'s sake and of the Two Natures in the constitution of His Person as incarnated, on the other, the difficulty of interpreting subordinationist passages of eternal relations between the Father and Son becomes extreme. The question continually obtrudes itself, whether they do not rather find their full explanation in the facts embodied in the doctrines of the Covenant, the Humiliation of Christ, and the Two Natures of His incarnated Person. Certainly in such circumstances it were thoroughly illegitimate to press such passages to suggest any subordination for the Son or the Spirit which would in any manner impair that complete identity with the Father in Being and that complete equality with the Father in powers which are constantly presupposed, and frequently emphatically, though only incidentally, asserted for them throughout the whole fabric of the New Testament.<P>21. Witness of the Christian Consciousness:<P>The Trinity of the Persons of the Godhead, shown in the incarnation and the redemptive work of God the Son, and the descent and saving work of God the Spirit, is thus everywhere assumed in the New Testament, and comes to repeated fragmentary but none the less emphatic and illuminating expression in its pages. As the roots of its revelation are set in the threefold divine causality of the saving process, it naturally finds an echo also in the consciousness of everyone who has experienced this salvation. Every redeemed soul, knowing himself reconciled with God through His Son, and quickened into newness of life by His Spirit, turns alike to Father, Son and Spirit with the exclamation of reverent gratitude upon his lips, "My Lord and my God!" If he could not construct the doctrine of the Trinity out of his consciousness of salvation, yet the elements of his consciousness of salvation are interpreted to him and reduced to order only by the doctrine of the Trinity which he finds underlying and giving their significance and consistency to the teaching of the Scriptures as to the processes of salvation. By means of this doctrine he is able to think clearly and consequently of his threefold relation to the saving God, experienced by him as Fatherly love sending a Redeemer, as redeeming love executing redemption, as saving love applying redemption: all manifestations in distinct methods and by distinct agencies of the one seeking and saving love of God. Without the doctrine of the Trinity, his conscious Christian life would be thrown into confusion and left in disorganization if not, indeed, given an air of unreality; with the doctrine of the Trinity, order, significance and reality are brought to every element of it. Accordingly, the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of redemption, historically, stand or fall together. A Unitarian theology is commonly associated with a Pelagian anthropology and a Socinian soteriology. It is a striking testimony which is borne by E. Koenig (Offenbarungsbegriff des Altes Testament,1882,I, 125): "I have learned that many cast off the whole history of redemption for no other reason than because they have not attained to a conception of the Triune God." It is in this intimacy of relation between the doctrines of the Trinity and redemption that the ultimate reason lies why the Christian church could not rest until it had attained a definite and well-compacted doctrine of the Trinity. Nothing else could be accepted as an adequate foundation for the experience of the Christian salvation. Neither the Sabellian nor the Arian construction could meet and satisfy the data of the consciousness of salvation, any more than either could meet and satisfy the data of the Scriptural revelation. The data of the Scriptural revelation might, to be sure, have been left unsatisfied: men might have found a modus vivendi with neglected, or even with perverted Scriptural teaching. But perverted or neglected elements of Christian experience are more clamant in their demands for attention and correction. The dissatisfied Christian consciousness necessarily searched the Scriptures, on the emergence of every new attempt to state the doctrine of the nature and relations of God, to see whether these things were true, and never reached contentment until the Scriptural data were given their consistent formulation in a valid doctrine of the Trinity. Here too the heart of man was restless until it found its rest in the Triune God, the author, procurer and applier of salvation.<P>22. Formulation of the Doctrine:<P>The determining impulse to the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity in the church was the church\'s profound conviction of the absolute Deity of Christ, on which as on a pivot the whole Christian conception of God from the first origins of Christianity turned. The guiding principle in the formulation of the doctrine was supplied by the Baptismal Formula announced by Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,19);">Mt 28:19</a>), from which was derived the ground-plan of the baptismal confessions and "rules of faith" which very soon began to be framed all over the church. It was by these two fundamental principia<69>the true Deity of Christ and the Baptismal Formula<6C>that all attempts to formulate the Christian doctrine of God were tested, and by their molding power that the church at length found itself in possession of a form of statement which did full justice to the data of the redemptive revelation as reflected in the New Testament and the demands of the Christian heart under the experience of salvation.<P>In the nature of the case the formulated doctrine was of slow attainment. The influence of inherited conceptions and of current philosophies inevitably showed itself in the efforts to construe to the intellect the immanent faith of Christians. In the 2nd century the dominant neo-Stoic and neo-Platonic ideas deflected Christian thought into subordinationist channels, and produced what is known as the Logos-Christology, which looks upon the Son as a prolation of Deity reduced to such dimensions as comported with relations with a world of time and space; meanwhile, to a great extent, the Spirit was neglected altogether. A reaction which, under the name of Monarchianism, identified the Father, Son, and Spirit so completely that they were thought of only as different aspects or different moments in the life of the one Divine Person, called now Father, now Son, now Spirit, as His several activities came successively into view, almost succeeded in establishing itself in the 3rd century as the doctrine of the church at large. In the conflict between these two opposite tendencies the church gradually found its way, under the guidance of the Baptismal Formula elaborated into a "Rule of Faith," to a better and more well-balanced conception, until a real doctrine of the Trinity at length came to expression, particularly in the West, through the brilliant dialectic of Tertullian. It was thus ready at hand, when, in the early years of the 4th century, the Logos-Christology, in opposition to dominant Sabellian tendencies, ran to seed in what is known as Arianism, to which the Son was a creature, though exalted above all other creatures as their Creator and Lord; and the church was thus prepared to assert its settled faith in a Triune God, one in being, but in whose unity there subsisted three consubstantial Persons. Under the leadership of Athanasius this doctrine was proclaimed as the faith of the church at the Council of Nice in 325 AD, and by his strenuous labors and those of "the three great Cappadocians," the two Gregories and Basil, it gradually won its way to the actual acceptance of the entire church. It was at the hands of Augustine, however, a century later, that the doctrine thus become the church doctrine in fact as well as in theory, received its most complete elaboration and most carefully grounded statement. In the form which he gave it, and which is embodied in that "battle-hymn of the early church," the so-called Athanasian Creed, it has retained its place as the fit expression of the faith of the church as to the nature of its God until today. The language in which it is couched, even in this final declaration, still retains elements of speech which owe their origin to the modes of thought characteristic of the Logos-Christology of the 2nd century, fixed in the nomenclature of the church by the Nicene Creed of 325 AD, though carefully guarded there against the subordinationism inherent in the Logos-Christology, and made the vehicle rather of the Nicene doctrines of the eternal generation of the Son and procession of the Spirit, with the consequent subordination of the Son and Spirit to the Father in modes of subsistence as well as of operation. In the Athanasian Creed, however, the principle of the equalization of the three Persons, which was already the dominant motive of the Nicene Creed<65>the homoousia<69>is so strongly emphasized as practically to push out of sight, if not quite out of existence, these remanent suggestions of derivation and subordination. It has been found necessary, nevertheless, from time to time, vigorously to reassert the principle of equalization, over against a tendency unduly to emphasize the elements of subordinationism which still hold a place thus in the traditional language in which the church states its doctrine of the Trinity. In particular, it fell to Calvin, in the interests of the true Deity of Christ<73>the constant motive of the whole body of Trinitarian thought<68>to reassert and make good the attribute of self-existence (autotheotos) for the Son. Thus Calvin takes his place, alongside of Tertullian, Athanasius and Augustine, as one of the chief contributors to the exact and vital statement of the Christian doctrine of the Triune God.<P>LITERATURE.<P>F. C. Baur, Die christliche Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit Gottea, 3 volumes, Tubingen, 1841-43; Dionysius Petavius, De Trinitate (vol II, of De Theologicis Dogmaticis, Paris, 1647); G. Bull, A Defence of the Nicene Creed (1685), 2 volumes, Oxford, 1851; G. S. Faber, The Apostolicity of Trinitarianism, 2 volumes, 1832; Augustine, On the Holy Trinity (Volume III of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 1-228), New York, 1887; Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, I, chapter xiii; C. Hodge, Systematic Theology and Index, I, New York,1873,442-82; H. Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatick(2), II, Kampen,1908,260-347 (gives excellent references to literature); S. Harris, God, Creator, and Lord of All, New York, 1896; R. Rocholl, Der christliche Gottesbegriff, Gottingen, 1900; W. F. Adeney, The Christian Conception of God, London,1909,215-46; J. Lebreton, Lea origines du dogme de la Trinite, Paris, 1910; J. C. K. Hofmann, Der Schriftbeweis(2), Nordlingen, 1857-60, I, 85-111; J. L. S. Lutz, Biblische Dogmatik, Pforzheim,1817,319-94; R. W. Landis, A Plea for the Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity, Philadelphia, 1832; E. H. Bickersteth, The Rock of Ages, etc., London,1860,New York, 1861; E. Riggenbach, "Der trinitarische Taufbefehl, <span class="noTag">Mt 28:19</span>" (in Schlatter and Cremer, Beitrage zur Forderung christlicher Theologie,1903,VII; also 1906, X); F. J. Hall, The Trinity, London and New York,1910,100-141; J. Pearson, An Exposition of the Creed, edition Chevallier and Sinker, Cambridge, 1899; J. Howe," Calm Discourse on the Trinity," in Works, edition Hunt, London, 1810-22; J. Owen, \'Vindication of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity," and "Saint\'s Fellowship with the Trinity," in Works, Gould\'s edition, London, 1850-55; J. Edwards, Observations concerning the Scripture Economy of the Trinity, etc., New York,1880,also An Unpublished Essay on the Trinity, New York, 1903; J. R. Illingworth, The Doctrine of the Trinity Apologetically Considered, London and New York, 1907; A. F. W. Ingrain, The Love of the Trinity, New York, 1908.<P>(NOTE: In this article the author has usually given his own renderings of original passages, and not those of any particular version --EDITORS.)``187';
isbe[8928]='Tripolis`trip\'-o-lis (Tripoils, "triple city"): Demetrius the son of Seleucus, having fled from Rome, collected "a mighty host and fleet," sailed into the haven of Tripoils, took the city, obtained possession of the country, and put to death his cousin, Antiochus V, along with his guardian Lysias (2Macc 14:1ff; Josephus, Ant, XII, x, 1). After a period of unsuccessful guerrilla warfare against Hyrcanus in Samaria, Antiochus Cyzicenus retired to Tripells (Ant., XII, x, 2). The city was founded by the Phoenicians and was a member of the Phoenician league. It was divided into 3 quarters by walls<6C>hence, the name "triple city"<22>and these were occupied by settlers from Tyre, Sidon, and Aradus, respectively. The federal council of these states sat here. Its position on the Phoenician seacoast, with easy access to the interior, gave it many advantages from the commercial point of view. The Seleucid monarchs, the Romans, and Herod the Great did much to beautify the city; the last-named building a gymnasium (Josephus, BJ, I, xxi, 11). When attacked by the Arabs the inhabitants took ship and escaped. Later their places were taken by Jews and Persians. Captured by the Crusaders in 1109, it was taken by the Egyptians in 1289. The ancient city was surrounded on three sides by the sea. The site is now occupied by el-Mina, the harbor of the modern city, Tarabulus, which stands on the bank of Nahr Kadisha, about 2 miles away. The inhabitants number about 23,000. The town gives its name to a district under the vilayet of Beirut, which has always been famous for its fruitfulness.``54';
isbe[8929]='Triumph`tri\'-umf (thriambeuo, "to lead in triumph"): The word is used by Paul to express an idea very familiar to antiquity, and to the churches at Corinth and Colosse: "But thanks be unto God, who always leadeth us in triumph in Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',2,14);">2Co 2:14</a>); "Having despoiled the principalities and the powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,15);">Col 2:15</a>).<P>A triumph in Rome was a magnificent procession in honor of a victorious general, and the highest military distinction which he could obtain. It was granted by the senate only to one who had held the office of dictator, consul, or praetor, and after a decisive victory in the complete subjugation of a province. In a Roman triumph the victorious general entered the city in a chariot drawn by four horses. He was crowned with laurel, having a scepter in one hand and a branch of laurel in the other. He was preceded by the senate and magistrates, musicians, the spoils of his victory, and the captives in fetters; and followed by his army on foot, in marching order. The procession thus advanced along the Via Sacra to the Capitol, where a bull was sacrificed to Jupiter, and the laurel wreath deposited in the lap of the god. During the triumphal entry the priests burned incense, and hence, the reference of the apostle: "For we are a sweet savor of Christ unto God, in them that are saved, and in them that perish; to the one a savor from death unto death; to the other a savor from life unto life" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',2,15,16);">2Co 2:15,16</a>). The incense that was to the victor the "savor" of his triumph would be to the wretched captives the "savor," or intimation, of a rapidly approaching death in the Roman arena or in the damp vaults of the Tullianum. Thus the "incense," or influence, of the apostolic gospel would be to the believer the assurance of redemption through Christ, and to the unbeliever the assurance of spiritual death.<P>After the suicide of Antony in Alexandria (30 BC) Augustus Caesar succeeded in getting Cleopatra into his power. She had hoped to subdue him by her charms, but without avail. Aware that she was doomed, she revolted against the thought of being led in triumph to Rome, and, as tradition states, took her own life by allowing an asp to bite her, saying, "I will not be led in triumph"; see Shakespeare\'s Antony and Cleopatra, V, ii:<P>"He\'ll lead me, then, in triumph?...<P>Thou, an Egyptian puppet, shalt be shown<P>In Rome as well as I: mechanic slaves,<P>With greasy aprons, rules, and hammers shall<P>Uplift us to the view....``52';
isbe[8930]='Troas`tro\'-as (Troas): The chief city in the northwest of Asia Minor, on the coast of Mysia in the Roman province of Asia. From here, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,8);">Ac 16:8</a>, Paul sailed. Here, also, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,\'5-12\');">Ac 20:5-12</a>, Paul raised Eutychus from the dead. The name Troas was not confined to the town itself, but it was also applied to the surrounding district, or to that part of the coast which is now generally known as the Troad. In its early history it bore the name of Antigona Troas, which was given it by its founder Antigonus, but after 300 BC it was generally known to the classical writers as Alexander Troas, a name given to it by Lysimachus. For a time the Seleucid kings made their homes at Troas. Later, when the city became free, it struck its own coins, of which vast numbers are found; a common type is one upon which is stamped a grazing horse. In 133 BC Troas came into the possession of the Romans, and later, during the reign of Augustus, it was made a Roman colonia, independent of the Roman governor of the province of Asia. Its citizens were then exempt from poll and land tax. During Byzantine times Troas was the seat of a bishopric.<P>The ruins of Troas, now bearing the name of Eski Stambul, are extensive, giving evidence of the great size and importance of the ancient city. They have, however, long been used as a quarry, and the columns of the public buildings were taken to Constantinople for use in the construction of the mosque known as the Yeni Valideh Jami. The site is now mostly overgrown with oaks, but from the higher portions of the ruins there is an extensive view over the sea and the neighboring islands. It is only with difficulty that one may now trace the city walls and locate the square towers which flanked them at intervals. Within the walls are the remains of theater, the temple and the gymnasium, which was provided with baths. The port from which Paul sailed was constructed by means of a mole, with an outer and an inner basin. The most imposing of the ruins, however, is a large aqueduct which was built in the time of Trajan.``7';
isbe[8931]='Trogyllium`tro-jil\'-i-um, tro-gil\'-i-um (Trogullion): According to <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,15);">Ac 20:15</a> the King James Version, the American Revised Version margin, the ship in which Paul sailed to Caesatea on his return from his 3rd missionary journey tarried at Trogyllium. Several of the early manuscripts omit the words, "tarried at Trogyllium" (Westcott and Hort omit as "Western" interpolation); yet, whether the words belonged to the text or not, Paul evidently passed the promontory, and probably stopped there. From the coast near Miletus the promontory projects into the sea toward the island of Samos; the strait separating the mainland from the island is scarcely a mile wide. It was in this strait which is now called Kutchuk Boghaz by the Turks that the battle of Mycale was fought in 479 BC. The promontory now bears the name of Santa Maria, and the place of anchorage is called Saint Paul\'s port.``7';
isbe[8932]='Troop`troop.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ARMY">ARMY</a>`1';
isbe[8933]='Trophimus`trof\'-i-mus (Trophimos, literally, "a foster child" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,4);">Ac 20:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,29);">21:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,20);">2Ti 4:20</a>)): An Asiatic Christian, a friend and companion-in-travel of the apostle Paul.<P>1. An Ephesian:<P>In the first of the three passages in which Trophimus is mentioned, he and Tychicus are called Asianoi, that is, natives of the Roman province of Asia; and making it still more definite, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,29);">Ac 21:29</a>, he is termed an "Ephesian." Trophimus was one of eight friends, who accompanied Paul at the close of his 3rd missionary journey, and traveled with him from Greece through Macedonia into Asia, and onward by sea until Jerusalem was reached (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TYCHICUS">TYCHICUS</a>). Trophimus went with Paul all the way, for, in the second of the passages referred to, he is mentioned as being with Paul in Jerusalem immediately on the close of this journey.<P>2. Cause of Paul\'s Arrest:<P>He was the innocent cause of Paul being assaulted, in the courts of the temple by the Jewish mob, and then of his being arrested and imprisoned by the Romans. The occasion of this outrage was that the Jews supposed that Paul had "brought Greeks also into the temple, and...defiled this holy place" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,28);">Ac 21:28</a>). The modicum of fact lying at the root of this false accusation was that they had seen Paul and Trophimus in each other\'s company in the city. On this slender basis "they supposed" that Paul had brought Trophimus past the barrier or middle wall of partition (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,14);">Eph 2:14</a>; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PARTITION">PARTITION</a>), beyond which no Gentile was allowed to penetrate on pain of death. They supposed that Trophimus who was neither a Jew nor a proselyte, but Gentile Christian, had been introduced into the temple itself by Paul<75>which would have been profanation. Hence, their fury against the apostle.<P>How strongly they insisted on the crime which Trophimus was falsely alleged to have committed on that occasion, is seen again in the way in which the orator Tertullus repeated the charge against Paul before the Roman governor Felix, who moreover assayed to profane the temple" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',24,6);">Ac 24:6</a>).<P>3. At Miletus:<P>The third reference to Trophimus is in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,20);">2Ti 4:20</a>, "Trophimus I left at Miletus sick." This final notice shows that he was again<69>several years after the date indicated in the previous passages<65>traveling with Paul on one of the missionary journeys which the apostle undertook after being liberated from his first imprisonment in Rome. It is exceedingly difficult, perhaps impossible, to trace the course of the different journeys which Paul now made, as there is no such narrative as is given in Acts for the former journeys, but merely incidental notices of his later travels, in the Pastoral Epistles. In this, the last of all his letters<72>2 Timothy<68>Paul indicates various places which he had visited, and also the names of friends who traveled with him on this the last of his apostolic journeys.<P>Among other places, he had visited Miletus, a city on the coast of the province of Asia; and there his old friend Trophimus had been laid down with illness, so severe that he could travel no farther, but Paul left him "at Miletus sick." It is to be noted that Miletus was not far from Ephesus, which was Trophimus\' native city. There would be much intercourse between the two cities (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,\'1-\');">Ac 17</a>, where Paul sends for the elders of the church at Ephesus to come to him at Miletus, which they did). Trophimus therefore, in his sickness, could easily reach Ephesus, or his friends from that city could quickly come to him at Miletus, and give him whatever attention and nursing he might require.<P>4. The Description of <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,18);">2 Corinthians 8:18</a>:<P>It has been conjectured that Trophimus is to be identified with the person mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,\'16-24\');">2Co 8:16-24</a>. Paul there speaks in the highest terms of one of his companions<6E>but without giving his name<6D>whom he sent with Titus. Titus and this disciple were evidently those to whose care Paul entrusted the carrying of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians to its destination. The apostle says of this unnamed brother, not only that his praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches, but also that he was chosen by the churches to travel with him, i.e. with Paul, with this grace, i.e. with the contribution of money collected in the Gentile churches for the poor saints in Jerusalem.<P>Now it is certain that at the close of his 3rd missionary journey Paul carried these gifts to Jerusalem ("I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings," <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',24,17);">Ac 24:17</a>); and some of the eight friends who accompanied him on the journey (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,4);">Ac 20:4</a>) were those who had been entrusted by the churches with the safe conveyance of the money. Speaking of these collections, Paul writes (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',16,\'3-4\');">1Co 16:3-4</a>). "Whomsoever ye shall approve, them will I send with letters to carry your bounty unto Jerusalem: and if it be meet for me to go also, they shall go with me." These conditions were fulfilled, when Paul and his eight friends traveled from Greece to Jerusalem, carrying the money with them. There is therefore certainty that one of the eight is the brother referred to in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,18);">2Co 8:18</a>, whose praise in the gospel was in all the churches, and whom the churches had appointed to travel with Paul for the purpose of carrying the money contribution, and whom Paul had "many times proved earnest in many things" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,18,19,22);">2Co 8:18,19,22</a>). The eight were Sopater of Berea, Aristarchus and Secundus, both from Thessalonica, Gaius of Derbe, Timothy, Tychicus and Trophimus, both "Asians," and lastly Luke.<P>There is certainly the possibility that the unnamed brother was Trophimus: if not Trophimus, then he was one of the other seven. Of these seven, by the process of elimination, the unnamed brother could only be one of those who traveled with Paul the whole distance as far as Jerusalem, for this was the work which "the brother" had been appointed by the churches to do. Now it is certain that Luke and Trophimus were with him on his arrival in Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,17,29);">Ac 21:17,29</a>). Therefore the brother whose praise in the gospel was in all the churches may very well have been Trophimus: if not Trophimus, then possibly Luke or Aristarchus. Gaius and Aristarchus are termed "Paul\'s companions in travel" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,29);">Ac 19:29</a>); and Aristarchus was afterward with Paul in Palestine, and sailed with him to Rome. It is quite remarkable that the same word, sunekdemos, "companion in travel," is applied to the unnamed brother (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,19);">2Co 8:19</a>), and to Gaius and Aristarchus in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,29);">Ac 19:29</a>.<P>As the conditions do not seem to be satisfied in Sopater, Secundus or Timothy, the brother so highly commended must have been either Luke or Gaius or Aristarchus or Tychicus or Trophimus.``155';
isbe[8934]='Trough`trof.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHEEP+TENDING">SHEEP TENDING</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BREAD">BREAD</a>`1';
isbe[8935]='Trow`tro: An obsolete verb meaning "to believe"; compare "trust" and the German trauen. It occurs only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',17,9);">Lu 17:9</a>, the King James Version "Doth he thank that servant...? I trow not," as a translation of ou doko, "I believe not." The words ou doko, however, are not part of the original text, but are a later gloss to supply an answer to the question, and hence, "I trow not" is omitted by the Revised Version (British and American).``1';
isbe[8936]='Trucebreaker`troos\'-brak-er: The King James Version rendering in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',3,3);">2Ti 3:3</a> of aspondos, literally, "without a libation." As a libation always accompanied the making of a treaty in Greek lands, the lack implied that no treaty had been made, or, by a natural extension of meaning, could be made. Hence, the word came to mean "implacable" (Revised Version).``1';
isbe[8937]='Trump; Trumpet`trump, trum\'-pet, trum\'pit.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MUSIC">MUSIC</a>`1';
isbe[8938]='Trumpets, Feast of`1. Description:<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,\'23-25\');">Le 23:23-25</a> the first day (new moon) of the seventh month is set apart as a solemn rest, "a memorial of blowing of trumpets" (the Hebrew leaves "of trumpets" to be understood), signalized further by "a holy convocation," abstinence from work, and the presentation of "an offering made by fire." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',29,\'1-6\');">Nu 29:1-6</a> these directions are repeated, with a detailed specification of the nature of the offering. In addition to the usual daily burnt sacrifices and the special offerings for new moons, there are to be offered one bullock, one ram, and seven he-lambs, with proper meal offerings, together with a he-goat for a sin offering.<P>2. Significance:<P>The significance of the feast lay in the fact that it marked the beginning of the new year according to the older calendar. Originally the "revolution" of the year was reckoned in the fall (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,16);">Ex 23:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,22);">34:22</a>), and the change to the spring never thoroughly displaced the older system. In fact the spring New Year never succeeded in becoming a specially recognized feast, and to Jewish ears "New Year\'s Day" (ro\'sh ha-shanah) invariably signifies an autumnal festival. So the Mishna (Ro\'sh ha-shanah, i.1): "There are four periods of commencement of years: On the 1st of Nisan is a new year for kings and for festivals; the 1st of Elul is a new year for the tithe of cattle....The 1st of Tishri is new year\'s (day) for the ordinary or civil year, for the computation of 7th years, and of the jubilees; also for the planting of trees, and for herbs. On the 1st of Shebat is the new year for trees."<P>3. Ritual:<P>The ritual for the day consequently needs little explanation. All new moons were heralded by trumpeting (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',10,10);">Nu 10:10</a>), and so the custom was of course observed on this feast also. There is nothing in the language of either <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,\'1-\');">Le 23</a> or <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',29,\'1-\');">Nu 29</a> to require a prolongation of the music on this special new moon, but its special distinction was no doubt marked by special trumpeting at all times, and at a later period (see below) elaborate rules were laid down for this feature. The additional sacrifices simply involved an increase of those prescribed for new moons (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',28,\'11-15\');">Nu 28:11-15</a>), without changing their type. Perhaps <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',81,\'1-\');">Ps 81</a> was especially written for this feast (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',81,3);">81:3</a>).<P>4. Origin:<P>Mentions of a special observance of the 1st of Tishri are found also in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',45,20);">Eze 45:20</a> (reading, as is necessary, "first day of seventh month" here for "seventh day") and <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,\'1-12\');">Ne 8:1-12</a>. In the former passage, the day is kept by offering a bullock as a sin offering and sprinkling its blood in a way that recalls the ritual of the Day of Atonement. In Nehemiah an assembly of the people was held to hear Ezra read the Law. The day was kept as a festival on which mourning was forbidden (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,9);">Ne 8:9</a>). Apart from these references there is no mention of the feast elsewhere in the Old Testament, and, indeed, there is some reason to think that at one time the 10th, and not the 1st, of Tishri was regarded as the beginning of the year. For <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,1);">Eze 40:1</a> specifically calls this day ro\'sh hashanah, and <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,9);">Le 25:9</a> specifies it as the opening of the Jubilee year (contrast the Mishna passage, above). Consequently scholars generally are inclined to assign <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,\'23-25\');">Le 23:23-25</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',29,\'1-6\');">Nu 29:1-6</a> to the latest part of the Pentateuch (Ps). This need not mean that the observance of the 1st (or 10th) of Tishri was late, but only that the final adoption of the day into Israel\'s official calendar, with a fixed ritual for all Israelites, was delayed. If the original New Year\'s Day fell on the 10th of Tishri, its displacement ten days earlier was certainly due to the adoption of the 10th for the Day of Atonement. An explanation of the date of the latter feast would be gained by this supposition.<P>5. Later History:<P>The instrument to be used in the trumpeting is not specified in the Bible, but Jewish tradition decided in favor of the horn and not the metal trumpet, permitting for synagogue use any kind of horn except a cow\'s, but for temple use only a straight (antelope\'s) horn and never a crooked (ram\'s) horn (Ro\'-sh ha-shanah, iii. 2-4). According to iv. 1, when the new year began on a Sabbath the horns were blown only in the temple, but after its destruction they were blown in every synagogue. Every Israelite was obliged to come within hearing distance of the sound (iii.7). In the synagogue liturgy of iv.5-9 (which forms the basis of the modern Jewish practice), four sets of "benedictions" were read, and after each of the last three sets the horn blown nine times. Modern Judaism sees in the signals a call to self-examination and repentance, in view of the approaching Day of Atonement.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TRUMPET">TRUMPET</a>`48';
isbe[8939]='Trust, Breach of`The clearest reference to the crime designated by this modern expression is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,\'2-7\');">Le 6:2-7</a>, where the transgression is defined and the penalty set forth. Breach of covenant or contract and the removal of landmarks (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',19,14);">De 19:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',27,17);">27:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',22,28);">Pr 22:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',23,10);">23:10</a>) may be included.`<a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=CRIMES">CRIMES</A>`1';
isbe[8940]='Truth`trooth (\'emeth, emunah, primary idea of "firmness," "stability" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,12);">Ex 17:12</a>), hence "constancy," "faithfulness," etc.; the Septuagint\'s Apocrypha and the New Testament, aletheia (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,7);">Ro 3:7</a>), pistis (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,3);">Ro 3:3</a>); in adjectival and adverbial sense, "in truth," "of a truth," "faithful," etc.; alethos (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,3);">Lu 21:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,14);">Joh 6:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',7,40);">7:40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',2,13);">1Th 2:13</a>); alethinos (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,3);">Joh 17:3</a>); ontos (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',14,25);">1Co 14:25</a>); pistos (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',3,1);">1Ti 3:1</a>); in the King James Version; the Revised Version (British and American), the American Standard Revised Version, as generally, "faithful"; Anglo-Saxon: treow, tryw with Teutonic stem, trau-," to believe," "to keep faith"):<P><b>I. TERMS</b><P><b>II. GENERAL VIEW</b><P class="in15">1. Aspects of Truth<P class="in30">(1) Ontological<P class="in30">(2) Logical<P class="in30">(3) Moral<P class="in30">(4) Religious<P class="in15">2. Standards of Truth<P class="in15">3. Special Features in Biblical Writings<P><b>III. ANALYTICAL SUMMARY</b><P class="in15">1. Truth in God<P class="in15">2. Truth in Man<P class="in15">3. Truth in Religion<hr /><P>I. Terms.<P>The English word has developed and maintained the broadest, most general and varied usage, going beyond both Hebrew and Greek, which were already extended in connotation. It is possible to analyze and classify the special applications of the term almost indefinitely, using other terms to indicate specific meanings in special connections, e.g. loyalty (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',9,15);">Jud 9:15</a>); honesty (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,21);">Ex 18:21</a>); fidelity (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,4);">De 32:4</a>); justice (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,2);">Ro 2:2</a>); uprightness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',38,3);">Isa 38:3</a>); faith (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',26,2);">Isa 26:2</a>); righteousness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',85,10);">Ps 85:10</a>); reality (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,19);">Joh 17:19</a>); veracity (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',42,16);">Ge 42:16</a>). It is unfortunate that translators have generally adhered to single terms to represent the original words. On the other hand, they have sometimes introduced words not represented in the original, and thus unduly limited the meaning. An example is <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,15);">Eph 4:15</a>, where the original meaning "being true," i.e. in all respects, is narrowed to "speaking the truth."<P>II. General View.<P>No term is more familiar and none more difficult of definition.<P>With applications in every phase of life and thought the word has varying general senses which may be classified as:<P>1. Aspects of Truth:<P>(1) Ontological<P>Ontological truth, i.e. accurate and adequate idea of existence as ultimate reality. In this sense it is a term of metaphysics, and will be differently defined according to the type of philosophical theory accepted. This aspect of truth is never primary in Scripture unless in the question of Pilate (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,38);">Joh 18:38</a>). He had so far missed the profound ethical sense in which Jesus used the word that Jesus did not at all answer him, nor, indeed, does Pilate seem to have expected any reply to what was probably only the contemptuous thrust of a skeptical attitude. In Proverbs where, if at all, we might look for the abstract idea, we find rather the practical apprehension of the true meaning and method of life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',23,23);">23:23</a>). Ontological reality and possible ideas of reality apprehending it are obviously presupposed in all Scripture. There is objective reality on which subjective ideas depend for their validity; and all knowing is knowledge of reality. There is also in the whole of Scripture a subjective idea, the product of revelation or inspiration in some form of working, that constitutes an ideal to be realized objectively. The Kingdom of God, for example, is the formative idea of Scripture teaching. In a definite sense the kingdom exists and still it is to be created. It must be kept in mind, however, that only vaguely and indirectly does truth have abstract, meta-physical meaning to the Biblical writers. For John it approaches this, but the primary interest is always concrete.<P>(2) Logical<P>Logical truth is expressive of the relation between the knower and that which is known, and depends upon the arrangement of ideas with reference to a central or composite idea. Truth in this sense involves the correspondence of concepts with facts. While this meaning of truth is involved in Scripture, it is not the primary meaning anywhere, save in a practical religious application, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,21);">Eph 4:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,4,21);">1Joh 2:4,21</a>.<P>(3) Moral<P>Moral truth is correspondence of expression with inner conception. Taken in its full meaning of correspondence of idea with fact, of expression with thought and with intention, of concrete reality with ideal type, this is the characteristic sense of the word in the Scriptures. Here the aim of religion is to relate man to God in accordance with truth. In apprehension man is to know God and His order as they are in fact and in idea. In achievement, man is to make true in his own experience the idea of God that is given to him. Truth is thus partly to be apprehended and partly to be produced. The emphatically characteristic teaching of Christianity is that the will to produce truth, to do the will of God, is the requisite attitude for apprehending the truth. This teaching of Jesus in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',7,17);">Joh 7:17</a> is in accord with the entire teaching of the Bible. <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,18);">Eph 1:18</a> suggests the importance of right attitude for learning, while <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,18);">4:18</A> shows the effect of a wrong attitude in ignorance of vital truth.<P>(4) Religious<P>Religious truth is a term frequently met in modern literature, but it has no sound basis in reason and it has none at all in the Bible. All truth is ultimately religious and only in a superficial way can religious truth be spoken of as an independent conception. Least of all can religious truth and scientific truth be at variance.<P>2. Standards of Truth:<P>Philosophy has continuously tried to find tests for truth, and so has wrought out theories of knowledge<67>epistemologies, Not to go back into the Greek philosophy, we have in modern times such theories as (1) the Kantian, (2) the scholastic, (3) the Hegelian, (4) the pragmatic, (5) that of the "new realism"; and these include only such as may be defined with some clearness, for the tendencies of current thought have been toward confusion concerning all standards of truth and reality, and so toward widespread agnosticism and skepticism. This temper has, naturally, reacted on thinking in practical ethics and upon the sanctions of religion. There is thus in religion and morals a tendency to obscure the distinction between what is and what ought to be.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=AUTHORITY">AUTHORITY</A>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ETHICS">ETHICS</A>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PHILOSOPHY">PHILOSOPHY</A>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RIGHT">RIGHT</A>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RIGHT">SIN</A>.<P>In the Bible, the known will of God is final for man as a standard of truth, not as arbitrary, but as expressive of God\'s nature. God\'s nature is all-comprehensive of fact and goodness, and so is, all and in all, the source, support and objective of all concrete being. The will of God thus reveals, persuades to and achieves the ideals and ends of complete existence. The term "truth" is sometimes, therefore, nearly equivalent to the revealed will of God.<P>3. Special Features in Biblical Writings:<P>(1) The Old Testament uses the term "truth" primarily of God and applies the principle to man. The practical objective is ever prominent.<P>(2) The Synoptic Gospels and Acts use the term chiefly in popular idiomatic phrases "of a truth," "in truth," "surely" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,59);">Lu 22:59</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',4,27);">Ac 4:27</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,16);">Mt 22:16</a> there is a more serious and comprehensive application, but it is in the flattering words of Pharisaic hypocrisy (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,14);">Mr 12:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',20,21);">Lu 20:21</a>). To be sure, we are to understand that even in the phrases of common speech Jesus employed the term in all seriousness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,25);">Lu 4:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,27);">9:27</a>).<P>(3) In Paul the sense of divine faithfulness, as in the Old Testament, is occasionally met (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,3,7);">Ro 3:3,7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,8);">15:8</a>). Again the term emphasizes sincerity (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,8);">1Co 5:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',7,14);">2Co 7:14</a>). Generally it has direct or clearly implied reference to God\'s revelation in Jesus Christ with a view to redeeming men. In a general way the term is thus equivalent to the gospel, but there is never identification of the two terms (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,8);">Ro 2:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,13);">Eph 1:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',3,15);">1Ti 3:15</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,5);">Ga 2:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,7);">5:7</a>, "the truth of the gospel" is its content in the purpose of God, in contrast with misconceptions of it: the true gospel as against false representations of the gospel.<P>(4) In the Johannine writings we find occasionally the emphatic phrase of genuineness (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,18);">1Joh 3:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Jo\',1,1);">2Joh 1:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'3Jo\',1,1);">3Joh 1:1</a>) and emphatic reality (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,46);">Joh 8:46</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,7);">16:7</a>). In Revelation we have "true" in the sense of trustworthy, because ultimately real or in accord with ultimate reality (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',3,7,14);">3:7,14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,10);">6:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',15,3);">15:3</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,9,11);">19:9,11</a>, etc.). Generally, as in the Gospel, we approach more nearly than elsewhere in Scripture a metaphysical use, yet always with the practical religious end dominant. Truth is reality in relation to the vital interests of the soul. It is primarily something to be realized and done, rather than something to be learned or known. In the largest aspect it is God\'s nature finding expression in His creation, in revelation, in Jesus Christ in whom "grace and truth came" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,17);">Joh 1:17</a>), and finally in man apprehending, accepting and practically realizing the essential values of life, which are the will of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,14);">Joh 1:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,32);">8:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,19);">17:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,37);">18:37</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,21);">1Joh 2:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,19);">3:19</a>). Truth is personalized in Jesus Christ. He truly expresses God, presents the true ideal of man, in Himself summarizes the harmony of existence and becomes the agent for unifying the disordered world. Hence, He is the Truth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,6);">Joh 14:6</a>), the true expression (Logos, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,1);">Joh 1:1</a>) of God. See the same idea without the terminology in Paul (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,14);">Col 1:14</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,9);">2:9</a>). Similarly, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth because His function is to guide into all truth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,13);">Joh 16:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,27);">1Joh 2:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,7);">5:7</a>).<P>(5) It is understood by many that in James, Peter, Hebrews, and possibly the Pastoral Epistles, the term connotes "the body of Christian teaching" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,18);">Jas 1:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',3,14);">3:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,22);">1Pe 1:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,2);">2Pe 2:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,26);">Heb 10:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',3,15);">1Ti 3:15</a>). The use of the article here cannot be conclusive, and instead of "the body of Christian teaching," it seems more correct to understand the reality of life values as represented in the gospel plan of salvation and of living. In a general way this would include "the body of Christian teaching," but the reference would be less concrete. James is too early a writing to employ the term in this so specific a sense.<P>III. Analytical Summary.<P>1. Truth in God:<P>(1) Truth is presented in Scripture as a chief element in the nature of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',31,5);">Ps 31:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',65,16);">Isa 65:16</a>).<P>(2) But this quality is never given as an abstract teaching, but only as qualifying God in His relations and activities. So it is a guaranty of constancy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,4);">De 32:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',100,5);">Ps 100:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',146,6);">146:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,17);">Jas 1:17</a>); especially a ground of confidence in His promises (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,6);">Ex 34:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',91,4);">Ps 91:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',146,6);">146:6</a>); of right dealing with men without reference to any explicit pledges (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',85,11);">Ps 85:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',89,14);">89:14</a>); a basis of security in the correctness of His teachings (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',9,13);">Ne 9:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,142);">Ps 119:142</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',25,1);">Isa 25:1</a>); of assurance within His covenant relations (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',89,5);">Ps 89:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',55,3);">Isa 55:3</a>).<P>(3) God\'s truth is especially noteworthy as a guaranty of merciful consideration of men. This is an important element in theology of the Old Testament, as it is a point guarded also in the New Testament (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',25,10);">Ps 25:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',31,5);">31:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',61,7);">61:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',85,10);">85:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',98,3);">98:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,16);">Joh 3:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,\'23-26\');">Ro 3:23-26</a>).<P>(4) Equally is the truth of God an assurance to men of righteous judgment in condemnation of sin and sinners (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',15,29);">1Sa 15:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',96,13);">Ps 96:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,2,8);">Ro 2:2,8</a>). In general the truth of God stands for the consistency of His nature and guarantees His full response in all the relations of a universe of which He is the Maker, Preserver, and End.<P>2. Truth in Man:<P>As related to God in origin and obligation, man is bound morally to see and respond to all the demands of his relations to God and to the order in which he lives under God.<P>(1) Truthfulness in speech, and also in the complete response of his nature to the demand upon it, is urged as a quality to be found in man and is commended where found, as its lack is condemned. It is essential to true manhood. Here, as in the case of truth in God, truth is regarded as revealed in social relations and responsibilities. Truth is not merely in utterance, nor is it only response to a specific command or word, but lies in the response of the will and life to the essential obligations of one\'s being (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',15,2);">Ps 15:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,30);">119:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',12,19);">Pr 12:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',23,23);">23:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',59,4,14,15);">Isa 59:4,14,15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',7,28);">Jer 7:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',9,3);">9:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',4,1);">Ho 4:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,18,25);">Ro 1:18,25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,15);">Eph 4:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,10,12);">2Th 2:10,12</a>).<P>(2) Truth in man is in response to truth in God, and is to be acquired on the basis of a gift from God. This gift comes by way of teaching and also by way of the working of the Divine Spirit in the life of man. Highest truth in correspondence to ideal is possible only by the working of "the God of truth" in the spirit of the man. Man\'s freedom to realize his being is dependent upon his receptive attitude toward the Son of God. Hence salvation in its fullest idea is stated in terms of truth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,3);">Joh 11:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,10);">Php 3:10</a>ff). See in general, <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',51,6);">Ps 51:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',25,1);">Isa 25:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,21);">Joh 3:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,32);">8:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,13);">16:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,19);">17:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,37);">18:37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,21,24);">Eph 4:21,24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,9);">5:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,26);">Heb 10:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,27);">1Joh 2:27</a>.<P>3. Truth in Religion:<P>The modern study of religion on an evolutionary hypothesis and the comparative study of religions have contributed to an extensive questioning whether there is any absolute truth in religion, or at least any standards by which truth in religion may be known. <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',43,1);">Isa 43</a> and 44 and Paul in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,\'1-\');">Ac 17</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,\'1-\');">Ga 3</a> accord with modern findings that there is an element of truth in religions generally, and that God\'s faithfulness pledges Him to bring the light of fuller truth to all men. This He does through the religion and the testimony of them to whom He has already come with this fuller light. This light is contained in the revealed word of the Old Testament prophets and of the New Testament witnesses to Jesus. In a definite way the Scriptures preserve these standards of religious truth. But always the attitude of the individual, as also of the group, determines the measure of apprehension of the truth and the certainty with which it is held. It is always important to keep in mind that truth in religion is not primarily an intellectualistic affair, to be cognized, but is essentially a voluntaristic experience and a duty to be done for the glory of God in the realization of the complete truth of God. Jesus Christ as the truth of God becomes the standard and test for truth in the religion of men. And this not in any objective and formal way of a series of propositions, to be accepted and contended for, but in the subjective way of experience, in a series of ideals to be realized and propagated. If anyone wishes to do God\'s will, he shall be able to decide the truth of religious teaching, and the Son who is true will give the freedom of truth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',7,17);">Joh 7:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,32);">8:32</a>).``21';
isbe[8941]='Tryphaena`tri-fe\'-na (Truphaina; the King James Version, Tryphena): Tryphaena is coupled with "Tryphosa"<22>among those members of the Christian community at Rome to whom Paul sends greetings (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,12);">Ro 16:12</a>). He describes them as those "who labor in the Lord." "The names, which might be rendered \'Dainty\' and \'Disdain\' (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',5,5);">Jas 5:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',66,11);">Isa 66:11</a>), are characteristically pagan, and unlike the description" (Denney). They were probably sisters or near relatives, for "it was usual to designate members of the same family by derivatives of the same root" (Lightfoot, Phil, 175). Both names are found in inscriptions connected with the imperial household, "Tryphosa" occurring more frequently than "Tryphaena."``78';
isbe[8942]='Tryphon`tri\'-fon (Truphon): The surname of Diodotus, a usurper of the Syrian throne. He was a native of Apamea, and had been in the service of Alexander Balas. On the death of Balas (145 BC), Tryphon, taking advantage of the complaints of discontent among the troops of Demetrius II (Nicator), set up the younger son of Balas, Antiochus VI, as claimant to the throne against Demetrius (1Macc 11:39). The Jews under Jonathan came to the assistance of Demetrius in his difficulties against his revolting subjects. But Demetrius, when confirmed on his throne, soon made it apparent that he did not intend to fulfill his promises to his Jewish allies (1Macc 11:53). Consequently, Jonathan and Simon joined Tryphon and Antiochus VI, securing many advantages for their country (1Macc 11:54ff). Jonathan inflicted a severe defeat on the forces of Demetrius. The successes of the Jewish leaders awakened the jealousy and suspicion of Tryphon, who determined to thwart the further plans of Jonathan and to remove him as an obstacle in the way of his securing the crown for himself. By an act of shrewd treachery, Tryphon captured Jonathan at Ptolemais and butchered all his followers (1Macc 12:48). Simon, brother of Jonathan, now undertook the conduct of affairs and thwarted Tryphon in his attempts upon Jerusalem, whereupon the latter murdered Jonathan at Bascama (1Macc 13:1ff) in 143 BC. Tryphon next murdered the young Antiochus VI (1Macc 13:31) and claimed the throne of Syria for himself (143 BC) (but see the chronology as given in Schurer, HJP, 4th edition, I, 172). Simon now went over to the side of Demetrius on condition that Judea should be free from tribute to Syria<69>a privilege that was rather in the power of Tryphon than of Demetrius to give, and so "in the 170th year (143 BC) was the yoke of the heathen taken away from Israel" (1Macc 13:41). In 138 BC Demetrius was captured by Mithridates I (Arsaces), king of Parthia (1Macc 14:2). His brother, Antiochus VII (Sidetes), continued the struggle against Tryphon, first with the aid of Simon, but later repudiating it. Tryphon was obliged to flee before Sidetes to Dor (1Macc 15:11), where Antiochus refused the assistance of Simon (1Macc 15:26). He next escaped to Ptolemais, then to Orthosia, and finally to his native Apamea, where he was driven to suicide (Josephus, Ant, XIII, vii, 2; Strabo, 668; Appian, Syriac, 68). (The best account is given in Schurer, 4th edition, I, 172ff; compare also Speaker\'s Commentary in the place cited.)`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ANTIOCHUS">ANTIOCHUS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DEMETRIUS">DEMETRIUS</a>`5';
isbe[8943]='Tryphosa`tri-fo\'-sa (Truphosa): Greetings are sent by Paul to "Tryphaena and Tryphosa, who labor in the Lord" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,12);">Ro 16:12</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TRYPHAENA">TRYPHAENA</a>`1';
isbe[8944]='Tsadhe`tsa-tha\' ("ts"): The eighteenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and as such employed in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,1);">Ps 119</a> to designate the 18th part, every verse of which begins with this letter. It is transliterated in this Encyclopedia as "ts". It came also to be used for the number 90.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ALPHABET">ALPHABET</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TSADHE">TSADHE</a>`1';
isbe[8945]='Tubal`tu\'-bal (tubhal, tubhal; Septuagint Thobel, Codex Alexandrinus in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',39,1);">Eze 39:1</a>, Thober): As the text stands, Tubal and Meshech are always coupled, except in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',66,19);">Isa 66:19</a> (Massoretic Text) and <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',120,5);">Ps 120:5</a>. In the former passage Tubal is yoked with Javan; in the latter Meshech occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',120,5);">120:5</a> and Kedar in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',120,6);">120:6</A>. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,2);">Ge 10:2</a> parallel, they are sons of Japheth. In Ezekiel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,3);">27:13</a>) the two are mentioned as exporters of slaves and copper, as a warlike people of antiquity (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',32,26);">32:26</a>), in the army of Gog (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',38,2);">38:2</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',39,1);">39:1</a>). Josephus identifies them with the Iberians and Cappadocians respectively; but they are most probably the Tibarenoi, and Moschoi, first mentioned in Herodotus iii.94 as belonging to the 19th satrapy of Darius, and again (vii.78) as furnishing a contingent to the host of Xerxes. Equally obvious is their identity with the Tabali and Muski of the Assyrian monuments, where the latter is mentioned as early as Tiglath-pileser I, and the former under Shalmaneser II; both are described as powerful military states. They appear together in Sargon\'s inscriptions; and during this entire period their territory must have extended much farther south and west than in Greek-Roman times. They are held (Winckler and Jeremias) to have been remnants of the old Hittite population which were gradually driven (probably by the Cimmerian invasion) to the mountainous district southeast of the Black Sea.``197';
isbe[8946]='Tubal-Cain`tu\'-bal-kan (tubhal qayin): One of the sons of Lamech (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,22);">Ge 4:22</a>). He is a brother of Jabal and Jubal, who appear to have been the founders of several industries and articles The text (lotesh kol choresh nechosheth u-bharzel) has been the cause of endless dispute. Holzinger and Gunkel hold that latash was a marginal gloss to charash, and that, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,20,21);">Ge 4:20 and 21</a>, there stood before kal originally hu hayah \'abhi. This would make Tubal-cain the founder of the metal industry, and place him in a class similar to that of his brothers. The Septuagint, however, has no equivalent of qayin. This omission leads Dillmann, Wellhausen, and others to the position that "Tubal" originally stood alone, and qayin, being a later addition, was translated "smith." Many commentators identify Tubal with the Assyrian Tubal, a people living southwest of the Black Sea; in later times they were called "Tibareni" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,13);">Eze 27:13</a>). Tubal may be the eponymous ancestor of these people, whose principal industry seems to have been the manufacture of vessels of bronze and iron.``197';
isbe[8947]='Tubias`tu\'-bi-as (en tois Tobiou; the King James Version "in the places of Tobie," the Revised Version (British and American) "in the land of Tubias"): A place in Gilead where 1,000 men of the Jews were slaughtered by the Gentiles, their wives and children being carried away captive (1Macc 5:13). It is identified with the land of <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TOB">TOB</a> (which see).``1';
isbe[8948]='Tubieni`tu-bi-e\'-ni (pros tous legomenous Toubienous Ioudaious, "unto the Jews that are called Tubieni"): Men of <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TOB">TOB</a> (which see) who had occupied the town of Charax (2Macc 12:17).``1';
isbe[8949]='Tumor`tu\'-mer, tu\'-mor (\'ophel): the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes this word for "emerods" in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',5,12);">1Sa 5:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',6,4);">6:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',28,27);">De 28:27</a> margin.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EMERODS">EMERODS</a>`1';
isbe[8950]='Turban`tur\'-ban (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,4);">Le 16:4</a> margin).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DRESS+V">DRESS, V</a>`1';
isbe[8951]='Turpentine Tree`tur\'-pen-tin.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TEREBINTH">TEREBINTH</a>`1';
isbe[8952]='Turtle-Dove`tur\'-t\'-l-duv.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DOVE">DOVE</a>`1';
isbe[8953]='Tutor`tu\'-ter: In modern English an "instructor," more particularly a private instructor, but the word properly means a "guardian." Hence its use in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,2);">Ga 4:2</a> the King James Version for epitropos, here "guardian" (so the Revised Version (British and American)), and <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',4,15);">1Co 4:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,24,25);">Ga 3:24,25</a> the Revised Version (British and American) for paidagogos.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SCHOOLMASTER">SCHOOLMASTER</a>`1';
isbe[8954]='Twelve`twelv (shenem \'asar; dodeka).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOSTLE">APOSTLE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NUMBER">NUMBER</a>`1';
isbe[8955]='Twelve Apostles, Gospels of the``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCRYPHAL+GOSPELS">APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS</a>`1';
isbe[8956]='Twelve Patriarchs; Testaments of the``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCALYPTIC+LITERATURE">APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE</a>`1';
isbe[8957]='Twelve Stars``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASTRONOMY">ASTRONOMY</a>`1';
isbe[8958]='Twenty`twen\'-ti.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NUMBER">NUMBER</a>`1';
isbe[8959]='Twilight`twi\'-lit (nesheph): The twilight of Palestine is of short duration, owing to the low latitude, there being scarcely more than an hour between sunset and complete darkness. It is a distinct boundary between daytime and the darkness. The people of Palestine still give the time of an event as so many hours before or after sunrise or sunset: "David smote them from the twilight even unto the evening of the next day" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',30,17);">1Sa 30:17</a>), and "They rose up in the twilight to go" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',7,5);">2Ki 7:5</a>). The word is evidenly used in the sense of darkness in "the stars of twilight" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',3,9);">Job 3:9</a>) and "The adulterer waiteth for the twilight" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',24,15);">Job 24:15</a>). the King James Version has "twilight" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',12,6);">Eze 12:6</a>ff, but the Revised Version (British and American) has "dark."``85';
isbe[8960]='Twin Brothers`(<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',28,11);">Ac 28:11</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DIOSCURI">DIOSCURI</a>`1';
isbe[8961]='Twine`twin (shazar, "to be twined"): The word is used in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,1);">Ex 26:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',36,8);">36:8</a>ff, etc., of the "fine twined linen" used for the curtains and hangings of the tabernacle, and for parts of the priests\' dress. It denotes linen the finely spun threads of which consisted of two or more smaller threads twined together.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LINEN">LINEN</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TABERNACLE">TABERNACLE</a>`1';
isbe[8962]='Two`too.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NUMBER">NUMBER</a>`1';
isbe[8963]='Tychicus`tik\'-i-kus (Tuchikos, lit. "chance"): Mentioned 5 times in the New Testament (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,4);">Ac 20:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,21);">Eph 6:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,7);">Col 4:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,12);">2Ti 4:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',3,12);">Tit 3:12</a>); an Asiatic Christian, a friend and companion of the apostle Paul.<P>(1) In the first of these passages his name occurs as one of a company of the friends of Paul. The apostle, at the close of his 3rd missionary journey, was returning from Greece through Macedonia into Asia, with a view to go to Jerusalem. This journey proved to be the last which he made, before his apprehension and imprisonment. It was felt, both by himself and by his friends, that this journey was a specially important one. He was on his way to Jerusalem, "bound in the spirit" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,22);">Ac 20:22</a>). But another cause which gave it particular importance was that he and his friends were carrying the money which had been collected for several years previous in the churches of the Gentiles, for the help of the poor members of the church in Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',24,17);">Ac 24:17</a>). No fewer than eight of his intimate friends companied him into Asia, and one of these was Tychicus Luke uses the word "Asian" (English Versions of the Bible "of Asia," <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,4);">Ac 20:4</a>) to describe Tychicus. He was with Paul at Troas, and evidently journeyed with him, as one of "Paul\'s company" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,8);">Ac 21:8</a> the King James Version), all the way to Jerusalem.<P>(2) The 2nd and 3rd passages in which the name of Tychicus occurs (see above) give the information that he was with Paul in Rome during his first imprisonment. In Colossians Paul writes, "All my affairs shall Tychicus make known unto you, the beloved brother and faithful minister and fellow-servant in the Lord: whom I have sent unto you for this very purpose, that ye may know our state, and that he may comfort your hearts" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,7,8);">4:7,8</a>). In almost identical words he writes in Ephesians, "But that ye also may know my affairs, how I do, Tychicus, the beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord, shall make known to you all things: whom I have sent unto you for this very purpose, that ye may know our state, and that he may comfort your hearts" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,21,22);">6:21,22</A>).<P>Paul had entrusted Tychicus with a very important mission. He was to deliver the Epistle to the Ephesians, that is, "the circular letter" (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LAODICEANS,+EPISTLE+TO+THE">LAODICEANS, EPISTLE TO THE</a>) to the churches in proconsular Asia, to which it was sent, giving a copy of it to the church in Laodicea. He was then to proceed to Colosse, with the Epistle to the church there. In Colosse Tychicus would plead the cause of Onesimus, who accompanied him from Rome. "Under his shelter Onesimus would be safer than if he encountered Philemon alone" (Lightfoot, Commentary on Colossians, 314). In Laodicea and Colosse Tychicus would not only deliver the Epistles from Paul, but he would also, as the apostle had written to the churches in those places, Communicate to them all information about his "state," that is, how things were going with him in regard to his appeal to the emperor, and his hope of being soon set at liberty. Tychicus would make known to them all things.<P>(3) The passages in the Epistles to Titus and to Timothy show that Tychicus was again with Paul, after the appeal to the emperor had resulted in the apostle regaining his freedom. The passage in Titus evidently refers to the interval between Paul\'s first and second Roman imprisonments, and while he was again engaged in missionary journeys. The apostle writes to Titus, who was in Crete in charge of the churches there, that he intended to send either Artemas or Tychicus to him, so as to take the oversight of the work of the gospel in that island, that Titus might be free to come to be with the apostle at Nicopolis.<P>(4) The last passage where Tychicus is mentioned occurs in 2 Timothy, which was written in Rome not long before Paul\'s execution. To the very end Paul was busy as ever in the work of the gospel; and though it would have been a comfort to him to have his friends beside him, yet the interests of the kingdom of Christ are uppermost in his thoughts, and he sends these friends to help the progress of the work. To the last, Tychicus was serviceable as ever: "Tychicus I sent to Ephesus" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,12);">4:12</a>). As Timothy was in charge of the church in Ephesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,3);">1Ti 1:3</a>), the coming of Tychicus would set him free, so as to enable him to set off at once to rejoin Paul at Rome, as the apostle desired him (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,9,21);">2Ti 4:9,21</a>).<P>It should also be noted that at Ephesus Tychicus would be able to visit his old friend Trophimus, who was, at that very time, only a few miles away, at Miletus, sick (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,20);">2Ti 4:20</a>).<P>It is possible that Tychicus is the brother referred to in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,22,23);">2Co 8:22,23</a> as one "whom we have many times proved earnest in many things...(one of) the messengers of the churches...the glory of Christ."<P>(5) The character and career of Tychicus are such as show him altogether affectionate, faithful and worthy of the confidence reposed in him by Paul, who, as already seen, sent him again and again on important work, which could be performed only by a man of ability and of high Christian worth and experience. Thus, all that is known regarding Tychicus fully bears out the description of his character given by the apostle himself, that he was a beloved brother, a faithful minister and fellow-servant in the Lord.``155';
isbe[8964]='Type`tip:<P>1. Definition of Type<P>2. Distinctive Features<P>3. Classification of Types<P>4. How Much of the Old Testament Is Typical?<P>LITERATURE<hr /><P>The Bible furnishes abundant evidence of the presence of types and of typical instruction in the Sacred Word. The New Testament attests this fact. It takes up a large number of persons and things and events of former dispensations, and it treats them as adumbrations and prophecies of the future. A generation ago a widespread interest in the study of typology prevailed; latterly the interest has largely subsided, chiefly because of the vagaries and extravagances which attended its treatment on the part of not a few writers. Pressing the typical teaching of Scripture so far as to imperil the historical validity of God\'s word is both dangerous and certain to be followed by reaction and neglect of the subject.<P>1. Definition of Type:<P>The word "type" is derived from a Greek term tupos, which occurs 16 times in the New Testament. It is variously translated in the King James Version, e.g. twice "print" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,25);">Joh 20:25</a>); twice "figure" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,43);">Ac 7:43</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,14);">Ro 5:14</a>); twice "pattern" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',2,7);">Tit 2:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',8,5);">Heb 8:5</a>); once "fashion" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,44);">Ac 7:44</a>); once "manner" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',23,25);">Ac 23:25</a>); once "form" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,17);">Ro 6:17</a>); and 7 times "example" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,6,11);">1Co 10:6,11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,17);">Php 3:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',1,7);">1Th 1:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',3,9);">2Th 3:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',4,12);">1Ti 4:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,3);">1Pe 5:3</a>). It is clear from these texts that the New Testament writers use the word "type" with some degree of latitude; yet one general idea is common to all, namely, "likeness." A person, event or thing is so fashioned or appointed as to resemble another; the one is made to answer to the other in some essential feature; in some particulars the one matches the other. The two are called type and antitype; and the link which binds them together is the correspondence, the similarity, of the one with the other.<P>Three other words in the New Testament express the same general idea. One is "shadow" (skia, <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,1);">Heb 10:1</a>), "For the law having a shadow of the good things to come"<22>as if the substance or reality that was still future cast its shadow backward into the old economy. "Shadow" implies dimness and transitoriness; but it also implies a measure of resemblance between the one and the other.<P>The 2nd term is "parable" (parabole, <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,9);">Heb 9:9</a>); the tabernacle with its services was an acted parable for the time then present, adumbrating thus the blessed reality which was to come.<P>The 3rd term is "copy." or "pattern" (hupodeigma), a word that denotes a sketch or draft of something future. invisible (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,23);">Heb 9:23</a>); the tabernacle and its furniture and services were copies, outlines of heavenly things.<P>Types are pictures, object-lessons, by which God taught His people concerning His grace and saving power. The Mosaic system was a sort of kindergarten in which God\'s people were trained in divine things, by which also they were led to look for better things to come. An old writer thus expresses it: "God in the types of the last dispensation was teaching His children their letters. In this dispensation He is teaching them to put the letters together, and they find that the letters, arrange them as they will, spell Christ, and nothing but Christ."<P>In creation the Lord uses one thing for many purposes. One simple instrument meets many ends. For how many ends does water serve! And the atmosphere: it supplies the lungs, conveys sound, diffuses odors, drives ships, supports fire, gives rain, fulfills besides one knows not how many other purposes. And God\'s Word is like His work, is His work, and, like creation, is inexhaustible. Whatever God touches, be it a mighty sun or an insect\'s wing, a vast prophecy or a little type, He perfects for the place and the purpose He has in mind.<P>2. Distinctive Features:<P>What are the distinctive features of a type? A type, to be such in reality, must possess three well-defined qualities.<P>(1) It must be a true picture of the person or the thing it represents or prefigures. A type is a draft or sketch of some well-defined feature of redemption, and therefore it must in some distinct way resemble its antitype, e.g. Aaron as high priest is a rough figure of Christ the Great High Priest, and the Day of Atonement in Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,\'1-\');">Le 16</a>) must be a true picture of the atoning work of Christ.<P>(2) The type must be of divine appointment. In its institution it is designed to bear a likeness to the antitype. Both type and antitype are preordained as constituent parts of the scheme of redemption. As centuries sometimes lie between the type and its accomplishment in the antitype, of course infinite wisdom alone can ordain the one to be the picture of the other. Only God can make types.<P>(3) A type always prefigures something future. A Scriptural type and predictive prophecy are in substance the same, differing only in form. This fact distinguishes between a symbol and a type. A symbol may represent a thing of the present or of the past as well as of the future, e.g. the symbols in the Lord\'s Supper. A type always looks to the future; an element of prediction must necessarily be in it.<P>3. Classification of Types:<P>Another thing in the study of types should be borne in mind, namely, that a thing in itself evil cannot be the type of what is good and pure. It is somewhat difficult to give a satisfactory classification of Biblical types, but broadly they may be distributed under three heads:<P>(1) Personal types, by which are meant those personages of Scripture whose lives and experiences illustrate some principle or truth of redemption. Such are Adam, who is expressly described as the "figure of him that was to come" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,14);">Ro 5:14</a>), Melchizedek, Abraham, Aaron, Joseph, Jonah, etc.<P>(2) Historical types, in which are included the great historical events that under Providence became striking foreshadowings of good things to come, e.g. the Deliverance from the Bondage of Egypt; the Wilderness Journey; the Conquest of Canaan; the Call of Abraham; Deliverances by the Judges, etc.<P>(3) Ritual types, such as the Altar, the Offerings, the Priesthood, the Tabernacle and its furniture. There are typical persons, places, times, things, actions, in the Old Testament, and a reverent study of them leads into a thorough acquaintance with the fullness and the blessedness of the word of God.<P>4. How Much of the Old Testament Is Typical?:<P>How much of the Old Testament is to be regarded as typical is a question not easily answered. Two extremes, however, should be avoided. First, The extravagance of some of the early Fathers, as Origen, Ambrose, Jerome (revived in our time by Andrew Jukes and his imitators). They sought for types, and of course found them, in every incident and event, however trivial, recorded in Scripture. Even the most simple and commonplace circumstance was thought to conceal within itself the most recondite truth. Mystery and mysticism were seen everywhere, in the cords and pins of the tabernacle, in the yield of herds, in the death of one, in the marriage of another, even in the number of fish caught by the disciples on the night the risen Saviour appeared to them<65>how much some have tried to make of that number, 153! The very serious objection to this method is, that it wrests Scripture out of the sphere of the natural and the historical and locates it in that of the arbitrary and the fanciful; it tends to destroy the validity and trustworthiness of the record.<P>Second, the undue contraction of the typical element. "Professor Moses Stuart expresses this view as follows: "Just so much of the Old Testament is to be accounted typical as the New Testament affirms to be so, and no more." This opinion assumes that the New Testament writers have exhausted the types of the Old Testament, while the fact is that those found in the later Scripture are but samples taken from the storehouse where many more are found. If they are not, then nothing is more arbitrary than the New Testament use of types, for there is nothing to distinguish them from a multitude of others of the same class. Further, the view assumes that divine authority alone can determine the reality and import of types<65>a view that applies with equal force against prophecy. This rule may be safely followed: wherever the three characteristics of types are found which have been already mentioned, there is the type.<P>Weighty are the words of one equally eminent for his piety as for his learning: "That the Old Testament is rich in types, or rather forms in its totality one type, of the New Testament, follows necessarily from the entirely unique position which belongs to Christ as the center of the history of the world and of revelation. As we constantly see the principle embodied in the vegetable and animal kingdoms, that the higher species are already typified in a lower stage of development, so do we find, in the domain of saving revelation, the highest not only prepared for, but also shadowed forth, by that which precedes in the lower spheres" (Van Oosterzee).<P>LITERATURE<P>P. Fairbairn, Typology of Scripture, 2 volumes; Angus, The Bible HandBook; Andrew Jukes, Law of Offerings in Leviticus; Mather, Gospel of Old Testament, Explanation of Types; McEwen, Grace and Truth: Types and Figures of the Old Testament; Soltau, Tabernacle, Priesthood and Offerings.``123';
isbe[8965]='Tyrannus`ti-ran\'-us (Turannos): When the Jews of Ephesus opposed Paul\'s teaching in the synagogue, he withdrew, and, separating his followers, reasoned daily in the school of Tyrannus. "This continued for the space of two years" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,9,10);">Ac 19:9,10</a>). D Syriac (Western text) adds after Tyrannus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,9);">Ac 19:9</a>), "from the 5th hour unto the 10th." Schole is the lecture-hall or teaching-room of a philosopher or orator, and such were to be found m every Greek city. Tyrannus may have been<P>(1) a Greek rhetorician or<P>(2) a Jewish rabbi.<P>(1) This is the common opinion, and many identify him with a certain Tyrannus, a sophist, mentioned by Suidas. Paul would thus appear to be one of the traveling rhetors of the time, who had hired such a hall to proclaim his own peculiar philosophy (Ramsay, Paul the Traveler, 246, 271).<P>(2) Meyer thinks that as the apostle had not passed wholly to the Gentiles, and Jews still flocked to hear him, and also that as Tyrannus is not spoken of as a proselyte (sebomenos ton Theon), this schole is the beth Midrash of a Jewish rabbi. "Paul with his Christians withdrew from the public synagogue to the private synagogue of Tyrannus, where he and his doctrine were more secure from public annoyance" (Meyer in the place cited.).<P>(3) Another view (Overbeck) is that the expression was the standing name of the place after the original owner.``78';
isbe[8966]='Tyre`tir (tsowr. tsor, "rock"\' Turos, "Tyrus"; modern Sur):<P>1. Physical Features:<P>The most noted of the Phoenician cities situated on the coast, lat. 33<33> 17 minutes, about 20 miles south of Sidon and about 35 north of Carmel. The date of its foundation is uncertain, but it was later than that of Sidon. It is mentioned in the travels of the Egyptian Mohar, dating probably from the 14th century BC, and in the Tell el-Amarna Letters of about the same period. Herodotus describes the temple of Hercules at Tyre and says it was built 2,300 years before his time, which would carry back the beginning of the city to more than 2700 BC. It was a double city, one part on an island, a short distance from the shore, and the other on the mainland opposite. The island city had two harbors, connected by a canal, one looking north and the other south. The island was rocky and the city was fortitled on the land side by a wall 150 ft. high, the wall being of less elevation on the other sides. It was an exceedingly strong position, and is referred to in the Bible as the "strong" or "fortitled" city (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,29);">Jos 19:29</a>). The space within the walls was crowded with buildings, and is said to have contained 40,000 inhabitants. The town on the mainland was situated in a plain extending from the Ras el-\'Abyad, on the south to Sarepta on the north, a distance of about 20 miles. It was fertile and well watered, the river Leontes (Litany) passing through it to the sea, about 5 miles N. of Tyre, and the copious fountain of Ras el-\'Ain, 3 miles to the south, furnishing an abundant supply both for the city and the gardens.<P>2. History:<P>(1) Tyre was for centuries subordinate to Sidon, but when the Philistines subdued the latter city, probably in the 12th century. (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SIDON">SIDON</a>), Tyre received an accession of inhabitants from the fugitives which gave it the pre-eminence. From this time dates its great commercial and colonial activity. Its mariners pushed boldly out to the West and founded colonies in Spain and North Africa, some of which, like Gades, Abdera and Carthage, became famous. They extended their commerce more widely than Sidon had ever done and ventured into the Atlantic and reached the coasts of Britain and West Africa. They reached out to the East also, and had their ships in the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean, and their land routes threaded all Western Asia (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PHOENICIA">PHOENICIA</a>). Tyre, like all the Phoenician cities, became subject to Egypt under Thothmes III in the first half of the 15th century BC, and remained so for some 300 years, but it enjoyed practical autonomy under native kings, being only subject to tribute and to furnishing contingents of ships when the Egyptian kings made their expeditions to the north. In the Tell el-Amarna Letters, dating from the first half of the 14th century, we find a certain Abi-melek (or Abi-milki) writing from Tyre to the king of Egypt asking for aid against the Amorite leader, Aziru, and the king of Sidon, who had joined the rebels. The name is Phoenician, and we know that it was the policy of the Egyptian kings to leave the native dynasts on the throne.<P>(2) After the decline of Egypt, Tyre regained her independence and exercised the hegemony over most of the Phoenician towns, at least as far north as Gebal (Byblus), as appears in the control that Hiram had over the Lebanon forests in the time of David and Solomon. Hiram was evidently desirous of an alliance with Israel, since he sent messengers to David and furnished cedar and workmen to build him a house, apparently without solicitation. The friendly connection between the two kingdoms was advantageous to both, since David and Solomon needed the timber and the skilled artisans that Hiram could furnish, and Hiram needed the food products of the land of Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',5,\'1-\');">1Ki 5</a>). Tyre was at this time noted for the skill of its artificers, and its manufactured products were famous throughout the world (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PHOENICIA">PHOENICIA, 4)</a>. The purple dye and works in bronze were especially famous, and Hiram, the Tyrian artisan, was engaged by Solomon to cast the bronzes required for the temple (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',7,13);">1Ki 7:13</a>). Hiram, the king, enlarged and beautified his capital. He united the two small islands on which the city was built by filling up the space between, where he made an open square and built a splendid temple to Melkarth and Astarte. He engaged in commercial enterprises with Solomon (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',9,\'26-28\');">1Ki 9:26-28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,22);">10:22</a>), both in pursuance of the friendly alliance and also for the advantage of having the use of the port of Ezion-geber on the Red Sea. His brilliant reign lasted 43 years.<P>(3) The list of kings who succeeded him contains the names of Baal-azar, Abd-ashtoreth, murdered by his brothers, the eldest of whom succeeded him, followed by Astartus and Aserymus murdered by his brother, Pheles, who was overthrown by the high priest Eth-baal, showing how disturbed the period was. Eth-baal, or Ithobal, was the king who made an alliance with Ahab and gave him Jezebel, his daughter, in marriage, which proved most disastrous both to her and the country because of the introduction of the Baal-worship into Israel. Eth-baal was an energetic monarch, and is said to have rounded Botrys (Batrun). He reigned 32 years, and was followed by Badezor and Mattan, who gave his daughter, Elissa (Dido), in marriage to her uncle Sicharbas and transferred the throne to them; but they were set aside by an uprising of the people, and Pygmalion, son of Mattan, was placed on the throne, and Sicharbas put to death. Elissa fled with a party of nobles, by sea, to Africa and founded the city of Carthage. This happened about the middle of the 9th century BC, Josephus putting it at 860 BC.<P>(4) In the first half of this century Tyre became subject to Assyria, and her hegemony in Phoenicia came to an end, but her prosperity was not seriously checked as we may infer from <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',23,8);">Isa 23:8</a>, which was written a century or so later. Assyria was satisfied with the payment of tribute until the time of Tiglath-pileser III (745-727), who laid a heavier hand upon her, and this led Elulaeus, king of Tyre, to form a confederacy of the Phoenician cities against Assyria. Shalmaneser IV subdued all except Tyre, which he distressed by cutting off her water-supply. But the people dug wells and obtained enough to subsist upon for five years, when Shalmaneser was killed and Elulaeus recovered control of his territory. He was not molested by Sargon, but Sennacherib advanced against him with 200,000 men, and Elulaeus fled to Cyprus. The citizens made a successful resistance and Sennacherib did not take Tyre, but it submitted to Esar-haddon, and its king, Baal, obtained the special favor of the Assyrian king, who made him ruler of all the coast cities from Dor to Gebal, and the Lebanon was placed under his control (680-673 BC). It is rather surprising that Baal refused to assist him in his attack upon Egypt and that Esar-haddon did not punish him, probably because he was too much occupied with Egypt. Ashur-banipal, however, did compel him to submit and to give him his daughter, and those of his brothers, as secondary wives, but left him as king of Tyre.<P>(5) On the decline of Assyria, Tyre regained its independence, and its greatness is indicated by the fact that it resisted Nebuchadnezzar 13 years (598-585); it is uncertain whether the island city was taken, but it evidently came to terms with the king of Babylon (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,26);">Eze 27:26</a>; Josephus, Ant, X, xi, 1 and see The Expository Times,1899, pp. 378, 430, 475, 520). After this siege Sidon took the lead and Tyre was in a disturbed state: the monarchy was overthrown and suffetes, or judges, took its place for six years, when the old order was restored. The decline of Babylon enabled Tyre to regain her independence for a short period until its submission to the Persians about 525 BC, and thenceforth it was a vassal state during the continuance of the Persian empire.<P>(6) It was by no means hindered in its commercial prosperity, and its great strength is seen in the brave and energetic resistance it made to Alexander the Great. All Phoenicia submitted to him without resistance, and Tyre was willing to admit his suzerainty, but declined to receive him into the city. This so angered Alexander that he at once commenced a siege that proved the most difficult undertaking in all his wars. He had no fleet and was obliged to build a mole (causeway) from the mainland to the island, but before he could finish it the Tyrians destroyed it and beat back their assailants handily. Alexander had to do the work all over again, and since he was convinced that without a fleet he would not be able to take the city, he procured ships from the Phoenician towns that had submitted, and with the aid of these was able to blockade the port and prevent the besieged from issuing forth to destroy the new causeway. This was at length pushed up to the very wall of the city, which was finally breached, and the troops of Alexander forced their way in. But even then the defenders would not yield, and the king himself had to lead the assault upon them with his bodyguard and put them all to the sword. Those who died with arms in their hands were 8,000, and the survivors, women, children and slaves, to the number of 30,000, were sold in the open market. He placed over the ruined city, into which he introduced some colonists, a certain Abd-elonim, and left it after having spent about seven months in subduing it.<P>(7) After the death of Alexander, Tyre passed into the hands of Ptolemy Lagi, and when Antigonus, in 314 BC, took Phoenicia from him, Tyre resisted, and he had to blockade it 15 months before it would yield, showing how quickly it had recovered from its previous disaster. It became a part of the Seleucid kingdom when Antiochus III drove the Ptolemies from Syria (198 BC), and the Seleucid kings regarded it of importance and gave it the right of asylum, and it was allowed the status of a free city by the Romans, Antony recognizing the magistrates and council of Tyre as allies. When the Parthians attacked and took Syria, in 40 BC, Tyre would not submit and was left untouched, being too strong for them. Augustus deprived it of its freedom, but it was given the status of a "metropolis" by Hadrian, and this title appears on its coins.<P>(8) Tyre is mentioned in the New Testament several times: Christ visited its territory (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',15,21);">Mt 15:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,24);">Mr 7:24</a>), and people from there came to hear Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,17);">Lu 6:17</a>). Herod Agrippa I had trouble with Tyre, and a deputation came to visit him at Caesarea (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',12,20);">Ac 12:20</a>). Paul visited Tyre on his journey from Asia to Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,\'6-7\');">Ac 21:6-7</a>).<P>Christianity was accepted by the people of Tyre, so that the 2nd century AD saw a bishopric established there, and in the 4th a council was held there to consider charges against Athanasius, by the party of Arius; he was condemned, a decision which brought the Tyrian church into disrepute. Tyre was already obnoxious to Christians because the anti-Christian philosopher Porphyry was from there. Tyre continued a commercial center, and Jerome says that it was the noblest and most beautiful of the Phoenician cities and an emporium of commerce for almost the whole world (Commentary on Ezekiel). It was of considerable importance in the Crusades and continued so until toward the end of the 13th century, when its trade declined, and it has now dwindled to a town of some 5,000 inhabitants.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PHOENICIA">PHOENICIA</a>`138';
isbe[8967]='Tyre, Ladder of`(klimakos Turou): Given. in 1Macc 11:59 as the northern limit of the territory placed under the authority of Simon Thassi the Maccabee by Antiochus VI (Theos), in the year 143 BC. The statement of Josephus (B J, II, x, 2) that it was 100 furlongs north of Ptolemais, and a similar indication of position in the Jerusalem Talmud (Ab Zar 19) lead us to identify it with Ras-en-Naqurah and not with Ras-el-\'Abyad (Promontorium Album of Pliny), as has been done. Here the rugged hills of Upper Galilee descend in bold precipices to the sea and leave no beach between. A natural barrier is thus formed which prevented the histories of Israel and Tyre from ever touching one another except in peaceful relations.``23';
isbe[8968]='Tyropoeon, the`ti-ro-pe\'-on.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JERUSALEM">JERUSALEM</a>`1';
isbe[8969]='Tyrus`ti\'-rus.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TYRE">TYRE</a>`1';
isbe[8970]='Tzaddi`tza-de\'.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TSADHE">TSADHE</a>`1';
isbe[8971]='Ucal`u\'-kal (\'ukhal (see below)): This name occurs along with that of Ithiel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',30,1);">Pr 30:1</a>), both being taken by older interpreters as those of ancient sages. Some have suggested (see Toy, Proverbs, 519f) that Ucal might be the "Caleol" of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,31);">1Ki 4:31 (Hebrew 5:11)</a>. Ucal was also explained as "I can," i.e. "I can maintain my obedience to God," just as Ithiel was taken to be "signs of God." Septuagint, Aquila, Theodotion do not take the words as proper names, and so BDB with others point this word as a vb., "(and) I am consumed" (wa\'ekhel, for we\'ukhal). The last three words of the verse are then translated "I have wearied myself, O God, I have wearied myself, O God, and am consumed."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ITHIEL">ITHIEL</a>`149';
isbe[8972]='Uel`u\'-el, \'u\'el, "will of God"): One of the sons of Bani who had taken foreign wives (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,34);">Ezr 10:34</a>). The name in 1Esdras 9:35 is "Juel" (Codex Vaticanus Ouel; Codex Alexandrinus Iouel).``1';
isbe[8973]='Uknaz`uk\'-naz (uqenaz, "and Kenaz," probably): Found in the King James Version margin of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,15);">1Ch 4:15</a> for the King James Version "even Kenaz," the Revised Version (British and American) "and Kenaz," whereas the Septuagint omits "and." It is probable that some name has dropped out after Elah. Curtis suggests reading "and these are the sons of Kenaz," i.e. those mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,13);">1Ch 4:13</a>f.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KENAZ">KENAZ</a>`1';
isbe[8974]='Ulai`u\'-li, u\'-lai (\'ubhal \'ulay, "river Ulai"; Theodotion <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',8,2);">Da 8:2</a>, Oubal, the Septuagint and Theodotion in <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',8,16);">8:16</A>, Oulai Latin, Eulaeus):<P>1. The Name and Its Forms:<P>A river which, running through the province of Elam, flowed through Shushan or Susa. It was from "between" this river that Daniel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',8,16);">8:16</a>) heard a voice, coming apparently from the waters which flowed between its two banks.<P>2. Present Names and Course:<P>Notwithstanding that the rivers of Elam have often changed their courses, there is but little doubt that the Ulai is the Kerkhah, which, rising in the Persian plain near Nehavend (there called the Gamas-ab), is even there a great river. Turned by the mountains, it runs northwest as far as Bisutun, receiving all the waters of Southern Kurdistan, where, as the Sein Merre, it passes through the inaccessible defiles of Luristan, its course before reaching the Kebir-Kuh being a succession of rapids. Turned aside by this mountain, it follows for about 95 miles the depression which here exists as far as the foothills of Luristan, reaching the Susian plain as a torrent; but it becomes less rapid before losing itself in the marshes of Hawizeh. The course of the stream is said to be still doubtful in places.<P>3. Changed Bed at Susa:<P>In ancient times it flowed at the foot of the citadel of Susa, but its bed is now about 1 1/4 miles to the west. The date of this change of course (during which a portion of the ruins of Susa was carried away) is uncertain, but it must have been later than the time of Alexander the Great. The stream\'s greatest volume follows the melting of the snows in the mountains, and floods ensue if this coincides with the advent of heavy rain. Most to be dreaded are the rare occasions when it unites with the Ab-e-Diz.<P>4. Assyrian References:<P>The Ulai (Assyrian Ulaa or Ulaia) near Susa is regarded as being shown on the sculptures of the Assyrian king Ashur-bani-pal (British Museum, Nineveh Gal.) illustrating his campaign against Te-umman. Its rapid stream bears away the bodies of men and horses, with chariots, bows and quivers. The bodies which were thrown into the stream hindered its course, and dyed its waters with their blood.<P>LITERATURE<P>See Delegation en Perse: Memoires, I, Recherches Archeologiques, 25ff.``136';
isbe[8975]='Ulam`u\'-lam (\'ulam, "preceding"):<P>(1) A "son"of Peresh; a Manassite clan (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,16,17);">1Ch 7:16,17</a>). Lucian reads Elam.<P>(2) A descendant of Benjamin who had sons, "mighty men of valor" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,39,40);">1Ch 8:39,40</a>). The Septuagint\'s Codex Vaticanus has Ailam in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,39);">1Ch 8:39</a> and Aileim in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,40);">8:40</A>; Codex Alexandrinus has Oulam in both verses, and so Lucian.``1';
isbe[8976]='Ulla`ul\'-a (\'ulla\' meaning unknown): An Asherite (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,39);">1Ch 7:39</a>).``1';
isbe[8977]='Ummah`um\'-a (\'ummah; Archob, Amma): One of the cities allotted to the tribe of Asher (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,30);">Jos 19:30</a>). By a slight emendation of the text it would read Acco, the name of the place subsequently known as Ptolemais, the modern \'Akka. This emendation is generally adopted by scholars, although it is at best a conjecture. No other identification is yet possible.``1';
isbe[8978]='Umpire`um\'-pir.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DAYSMAN">DAYSMAN</a>`1';
isbe[8979]='Unbelief`un-be-lef\':The word (the King James Version) represents two Greek words, apeitheia, "disobedience" (only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',11,30,32);">Ro 11:30,32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',4,6,11);">Heb 4:6,11</a>), and apistia, "distrust," the antithesis to "<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FAITH">faith</a>" (which see). The two words are not only akin etymologically but run into one another by mental connection, certainly where spiritual relations are concerned, as between man and God. For when God has spoken, in precept and yet more in promise, distrust involves, at least potentially, an element of disobedience. His supreme claim is to be trusted to command only what is right, and to promise only what is true. He is infinitely sympathetic in His insight, and infallibly knows where distrust comes only of the dim perceptions and weak mis-givings of our mortal nature, and where, on the other hand, a moral resistance lies at the back of the non-confidence. But the presence of that darker element is always to be suspected, at least, and searched for in serious self-examination.<P>We may remark that it is a loss in our language that "unbelief" is the only word we can use as the antithesis to "faith"; for "<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FAITH">faith</a>" and "<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BELIEF">belief</a>" (which see) are not exactly synonyms. "Unfaith" would be a welcome word for such use, if it were generally so understood.``46';
isbe[8980]='Unbeliever`un-be-lev\'-er: This word follows closely the lines of "<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=UNBELIEF">unbelief</a>" (which see) in its relation to originals. Once only (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,2);">Ac 14:2</a>) it represents the participle apeithountes, "disobeying (ones)." Elsewhere (nine cases) it represents apistos, "faithless," "without faith." In six of these passages (all in 1 and 2 Corinthians) it denotes the unconverted pagan as distinguished from the convert. In the other passages (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,46);">Lu 12:46</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,15);">Tit 1:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',21,8);">Re 21:8</a>) the reference is to the unbelief which comes of moral resistance to God.``1';
isbe[8981]='Uncertain; Uncertainty`un-sur\'-tin, un-sur\'-tin-ti: Adjective adelos, 2Macc 7:34; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',14,8);">1Co 14:8</a>; adverb adelos, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',9,26);">1Co 9:26</a>; noun adelotes, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,17);">1Ti 6:17</a>; adelos means "not clear," and so "uncertain." Also the King James Version The Wisdom of Solomon 9:14 for episphales, "unsteady," the Revised Version (British and American) "prone to fall."``1';
isbe[8982]='Unchangeable; Unchangeableness`un-chanj\'-a-bl, un-chanj\'-a-bl-nes:<P><b>I. UNCHANGEABLENESS OF GOD A TRUTH OF NATURAL THEOLOGY</b><P><b>II. SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE OF THE UNCHANGEABLENESS OF GOD</b><P class="in15">1. Not Lifeless Immobility<P class="in15">2. As Contrasted with the Finite<P class="in15">3. God\'s Knowledge, Will and Purpose<P class="in15">4. In His Relation to the World<P class="in15">5. His Relations to Men<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>The unchangeablehess or immutability of God is that divine attribute which expresses the truth that in His nature and perfections, in His knowledge, will and purpose, He always remains the same in the fullness of His infinite and perfect Being; infinitely exalted above change, becoming and development, which are the specific characteristics of all finite existence. This is one of what theologians have called the incommunicable attributes of God, that is, one of those specific characteristics of the divine nature which make God to be God in distinction from all that is finite. These attributes have also been called negative attributes. By calling them negative, however, it is not meant that they express the nature of God in so far as He is unknowable and incomprehensible by the finite mind, while the positive attributes, such as love and righteousness, express God\'s nature as revealed and known. Both kinds of attributes can be known only in so far as God reveals Himself, and furthermore the so-called negative attributes involve a positive idea, while the positive ones in turn imply the negation of all finite limitations. Moreover, since the finite mind cannot comprehend the infinite God, back of all that God has revealed of Himself, back even of His absoluteness, eternity and unchangeability, lies the fullness of His infinite Being, unsearchable, unknowable, and incomprehensible alike in His nature and attributes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',145,3);">Ps 145:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',147,5);">147:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',11,\'7-9\');">Job 11:7-9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,28);">Isa 40:28</a>).<P>It is these incommunicable attributes, including unchangeableness, which make God to be God, and mark the specific difference between Him and all finite existence. Unchangeableness is, therefore, the characteristic of God\'s entire nature and of all His attributes. It cannot be limited to His ethical nature or to His love, and, while it is true that these incommunicable attributes are revealed with especial richness in God\'s saving activity, they cannot be limited to marks of God\'s saving action or purpose. It is true that God is unchangeable in His love and grace and power to save, but that is only because it is the love and grace and power of the absolute, infinite and immutable God.<P>I. Unchangeableness of God a Truth of Natural Theology.<P>As the One infinitely perfect and absolute or self-existent Being, God is exalted far above the possibility of change, because He is independent, self-existent and unlimited by all the causes of change. As uncaused and self-existent, God cannot be changed from without; as infinitely perfect, He cannot suffer change from within; and as eternal and independent of time, which is the "form" of change and mutability, He cannot be subject to any change at all. God\'s unchangeablehess, therefore, follows from His self-existence and eternity.<P>II. Scriptural Doctrine of the Unchangeableness of God.<P>The Scripture doctrine of God reaffirms this truth. It conceives of God as a living Person in relation to the world and man, and at the same time as absolutely unlimited by the world and man, and as absolutely unchangeable. The God who has revealed Himself in the Old Testament and the New Testament is never identified with, or merged in, the processes of Nature. He is complete and perfect in Himself, and is not the result of any process of self-realization. He is so great that His relations to the created universe cannot begin to exhaust His Being, and yet He stands in the closest relations to man and the world as Creator, Preserver, Governor, and Saviour.<P>1. Not Lifeless Immobility:<P>On the one hand, then, the Bible never represents the unchangeableness of God as a dead immobility out of all relation to man and the world. This tendency of thought, fearing anthropomorphism, proceeds on the principle that to make any definite predications about God is to limit Him. The logical result of this is to conceive of God as abstract Being or Substance, so that the word "God" becomes only a name for the Unknowable. Over against this error, the Scripture represents God concretely as a Person in relation to the world and man. In the beginning He created the heavens and the earth, and from that time on He is the life of the world, especially of Israel, His chosen people. To bring out this truth anthropomorphisms are employed. God comes and goes, reveals Himself and hides Himself. He repents (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,6);">Ge 6:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',15,11);">1Sa 15:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',7,3);">Am 7:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',2,13);">Joe 2:13</a>); He becomes angry (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,1);">Nu 11:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',106,40);">Ps 106:40</a>); and lays aside His anger (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',13,17);">De 13:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',14,4);">Ho 14:4</a>). He sustains a different relation to the godly and the wicked (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',11,20);">Pr 11:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',12,22);">12:22</a>). In the fullness of time He became incarnate through the Son, and He dwells in His people by His Spirit, their experience of His grace being greater at some times than at others.<P>But on the other hand, the Scripture always asserts in unmistakable terms the unchangeableness of God. He is unchangeable in His nature. Although the name \'El Shadday, by which He made Himself known in the patriarchal period of revelation, denotes especially God\'s power, this name by no means exhausts the revelation of God in that period. His unchangeableness is involved in His eternity as made known to Abraham (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,33);">Ge 21:33</a>). This attribute finds its clearest expression in the name Yahweh as revealed to Moses, the significance of which is unfolded in the passage <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,\'13-15\');">Ex 3:13-15</a>. God here reveals Himself to His people as "I AM THAT I AM," using the future tense of the verb "to be," which, as the context shows, is given as the meaning of the name Yahweh. Some recent writers would derive these words from the Hiphil stem of the verb, and affirm that it signifies that God is the giver of life. The verb, however, is in the Qal stem, the tense denoting the changeless continuity of the life and nature of God. The idea expressed is not merely that of self-existence, but also of unchangeableness, and this unchangeableness, as the context clearly indicates (especially <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,15);">Ex 3:15</a>), is here set forth not simply as belonging to the nature of God in Himself, but is brought into closest connection with His covenant relation to His people, so that the religious value of God\'s unchangeableness is most clearly implied in this fundamental assertion of the attribute. The same idea of God\'s immutability is reaffirmed in the prophecy of Isaiah. It is connected with the name Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',41,4);">Isa 41:4</a>; compare also 48:12), where Yahweh affirms that He is the first and, with the last, the same God, thereby asserting not merely His eternity, but also that He is the same in His divine existence throughout all ages. This attribute, moreover, is claimed by Yahweh, and set forth as an especial mark of His Godhead in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',44,6);">Isa 44:6</a>. The unchangeableness of the divine nature is also asserted by the prophet Malachi in a difficult passage (3:6). This is a clear affirmation of the unchangeableness of God, the only question being whether it is set forth as the ground of Israel\'s confidence, or in contrast with their fickleness, a question which depends partly on that of the text.<P>In the New Testament the thought of the passage in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,1);">Exodus 3</a> is reiterated in the Apocalypse where God is described as He who is and was and is to come (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,4);">Re 1:4</a>). This is an expansion of the covenant name Yahweh in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,\'13-15\');">Ex 3:13-15</a>, denoting not merely eternity but also immutability. The phrases "the Alpha and the Omega" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,8);">Re 1:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',21,6);">21:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,13);">22:13</a>); and "the first and the last" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,17);">Re 1:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,13);">22:13</a>); and "the beginning and the end" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',21,6);">Re 21:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,13);">22:13</a>) bring out the same idea, and are applied to Christ as well as to God, which is a clear indication of our Lord\'s Deity. The apostle Paul likewise asserts the incorruptibility, eternity and immortality of the divine nature, all of which ideas imply the unchangeableness of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,23);">Ro 1:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,17);">1Ti 1:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,16);">6:16</a>).<P>2. As Contrasted with the Finite:<P>Not only is the unchangeableness of God\'s nature asserted in Scripture, and placed in relation to His dealings with men, but also it is declared to be the distinctive characteristic of God\'s nature as contrasted with the entire universe of finite being. While the heavens and the earth change and are passing away, God endures forever and forever the same God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',102,\'26-28\');">Ps 102:26-28 (Hebrew 27-29)</a>). The application of the language of this psalm to Christ by the author of the Epistle to the <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,\'10-12\');">Heb 1:10-12</a> involves the unchangeableness of Christ, which is again explicitly asserted in this Epistle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',13,8);">Heb 13:8</a>), being another clear indication of the way in which the Deity of Jesus Christ pervades the New Testament. This idea of God\'s immutability, as contrasted with the mutability of finite existence which is His creation, is given expression in the New Testament by the apostle James. As Creator of the heavenly bodies, God is called the Father of lights. While their lights, however, are intermittent, God\'s light is subject to neither change nor obscuration (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,17);">Jas 1:17</a>).<P>In accordance with this idea of the unchangeableness of God\'s nature, the Scripture, in ascribing life and personality to Him, never regards God as subject to any process of becoming or self-realization, and the views which so conceive of God are unscriptural whether they proceed upon a unitarian or a trinitarian basis.<P>3. God\'s Knowledge, Will and Purpose:<P>God is also represented in Scripture as unchangeable in His knowledge, will and purpose. He is not a man that He should repent (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',15,29);">1Sa 15:29</a>). His purposes, therefore, are unchangeable (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',23,19);">Nu 23:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',46,11);">Isa 46:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',19,21);">Pr 19:21</a>); and His decrees are accordingly likened to "mountains of brass" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',6,1);">Zec 6:1</a>). His righteousness is as immutable as mountains (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',36,6);">Ps 36:6 (Hebrew 7)</a>); and His power also is unchangeable (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',26,4);">Isa 26:4</a>). Hence, while the Scripture represents God as sustaining living relations to His creatures, it does not conceive of Him as conditioned or determined in any way by men\'s acts, in either His knowledge, will, purpose or power. God knows eternally the changing course of events, and He acts differently upon different occasions, but all events, including human actions, are determined by God\'s unchangeable purpose, so that God\'s knowledge and actions are not contingent upon anything outside Himself.<P>Although, therefore, the idea of God as pure abstract Being, out of all relation to the world, is unscriptural, it is no less true that conception of God which represents a reaction from this, and which conceives of God anthropomorphically and as conditioned and determined by the world and man, is also quite contradictory to the Scripture conception of God. This latter tendency goes too far in the opposite direction, and falls into the error of conceiving God\'s knowledge, will, purpose and power too anthropomorphically, and as limited by the free acts of man. While the opposite tendency kept God out of all relation to the world, this one erects God\'s relation to the world into something which limits Him. This way of conceiving of God, which is the error of Rationalism, Socinianism and Arminianism, is as unscriptural as that which conceives of God as abstract Being, unknowable, and entirely out of relation to the world.<P>4. In His Relation to the World:<P>Unchangeable in His nature and attributes, God is likewise unchangeable in His relation to the world, which relation the Scripture represents as creation and providence, and not as emanation. Hence while everything finite changes, God remains ever the same (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',102,\'26-28\');">Ps 102:26-28</a>). Consequently, the pantheistic idea is also unscriptural, which idea, going farther than the anthropomorphic and dualistic conception which places the world over against God, completely merges God\'s Being in the world and its processes of change, affirming that God comes to self-realization in the evolution of the world and man. In its reaction from the denial of God\'s living relation to the world, this view does not stop with limiting God by reason of this relation, but merges Him completely in the world-development. The Scripture, on the contrary, always conceives of God as immutably free and sovereign in His relation to all the creation.<P>In accordance with this idea of the unchangeableness of God\'s nature and attributes, the Bible always maintains God\'s absoluteness and transcendence of Nature and her processes in all of the relations which He sustains to the finite universe. It came into being by His creative fiat, not by any process of emanation from His Being. He sustains it in existence, and governs it, not by any process of Self-realization in the series of second causes, but from without, by His sovereign will and power. And He intrudes into the series of finite causes miraculously, producing events in Nature which are due solely to His power. When for man\'s salvation the Son of God became incarnate, it was not by any change of His nature in laying aside some or all of the attributes of Deity, but by assuming a human nature into personal union with the divine nature. The Scripture passages which speak of the incarnation of our Lord clearly indicate that the Son retained His full Deity in "becoming flesh" (compare especially the prologue to John\'s Gospel and <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,\'6-8\');">Php 2:6-8</a>). Moreover, the Old Testament doctrine of the Spirit of God as the source of life to the world is always at pains to avoid any mingling of the Spirit with the processes of Nature, and the same thing is true of the New Testament doctrine of the indwelling of the Spirit in the believer, always keeping the Spirit distinct from the spirit of man (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,16);">Ro 8:16</a>).<P>5. His Relations to Men:<P>Finally, God is unchangeable not only in relation to the universe, but in His relations to men and especially to His people. This follows from His unchangeable ethical nature. The Scripture often connects the unchangeableness of God with His goodness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',100,5);">Ps 100:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,17);">Jas 1:17</a>); with His truthfulness and mercy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',100,5);">Ps 100:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',117,2);">117:2</a>); and with His covenant promises (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,13);">Ex 3:13</a>). In connection with His covenant promises, God\'s unchangeableness gives the idea of His faithfulness which is emphasized in the Old Testament to awaken trust in God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',7,9);">De 7:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',36,5);">Ps 36:5 (Hebrew 6)</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',92,2);">Ps 92:2 (Hebrew 3)</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',11,5);">Isa 11:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',3,23);">La 3:23</a>). This idea of God\'s unchangeableness in His covenant promises or His faithfulness is repeated and emphasized in the New Testament. His gifts or graces and election are without repentance (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',5,24);">1Th 5:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',11,29);">Ro 11:29</a>); He is faithful toward men because unchangeably true to His own nature (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',2,13);">2Ti 2:13</a>); His faithfulness abides in spite of men\'s lack of faith (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,5);">Ro 3:5</a>), and is in many places represented as the basis of our confidence in God who is true to His election and gracious promises (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,9);">1Co 1:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,13);">10:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',3,3);">2Th 3:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,23);">Heb 10:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,11);">11:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,19);">1Pe 4:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,9);">1Joh 1:9</a>). See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FAITHFULNESS">FAITHFULNESS</a>. It is thus the religious significance and value of God\'s unchangeableness which is especially emphasized throughout the Scripture. Because He is unchangeably true to His promises, He is the secure object of religious faith and trust, upon whom alone we can rely in the midst of human change and decay. It is this idea to which expression is given by calling God a rock, the rock of our strength and of our salvation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,15);">De 32:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',18,2);">Ps 18:2 (Hebrew 3)</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',42,9);">42:9 (Hebrew 10)</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',71,3);">71:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',17,10);">Isa 17:10</a>). God is even eternally a rock, the never-failing object of confidence and trust (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',26,4);">Isa 26:4</a>).<P>It appears, therefore, that the Scripture idea of the unchangeableness of God lays emphasis upon four points. First, it is not lifeless immobility, but the unchangeableness of a living Person. Second, it is, however, a real unchangeableness of God\'s nature, attributes and purpose. Third, this unchangeableness is set forth as one of the specific characteristics of Deity in distinction from all that is finite. Fourth, God\'s unchangeableness is not dealt with in an abstract or merely theoretic manner, but its religious value is invariably emphasized as constituting God the one true object of religious faith.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Besides the commentaries on appropriate passages, and the discussion of the divine attributes in the general works on systematic theology, see Dillmann, Handbuch der alttest. Theol.,1895,215-20, 243-44; Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament, English translation,1883,95, 100; Schultz, Alttest. Theol.,1896,419; Davidson, The Theology of the Old Testament,1904,45-58, 165. For a fuller discussion see Charhock, "The Immutability of God," Works, volume I, 374-419; Dorner, Ueber die richtige Fassung des dogmatischen Begrifts der Unverdnderlichkeit Gottea, u.s.w.; Article I, "Die neueren Laugnungen der Unveranderlichkeit des personlichen Gottes, u.s.w.," JDT, I, 201-77; II, "Die Geschichte der Lehre von der Unveranderlichkeit Gottea bis auf Schleiermacher," JDT, II, 440-500; III, "Dogmatische Erorterung der Lehre von der Unveranderlichkeit Gottes," JDT, III, 579-660; H. Cremer, Die christliche Lehre von den Eigenschaften Gottea,1897,pub. in the Beitrage zur Forderung christlicher Theol., I, 7-111; see pp. 10ff, and especially pp. 102-9.``72';
isbe[8983]='Unchastity`un-chas\'-ti-ti.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CRIMES">CRIMES</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PUNISHMENTS">PUNISHMENTS</a>`1';
isbe[8984]='Uncircumcised; Uncircumcision`un-sur\'-kum-sizd, un-sur-kum-sizh\'-un: The adjective in the Old Testament is \'arel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,14);">Ge 17:14</a>, etc.), from a root of uncertain meaning, with the noun \'orlah, "uncircumcised (person)" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,23);">Le 19:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',9,25);">Jer 9:25</a>), and the verb \'aral, "count as uncircumcised" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,23);">Le 19:23</a>; the Revised Version (British and American) <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',2,16);">Hab 2:16</a>). In the Apocrypha and the New Testament the noun is akrobustia (a physiological term, 1Macc 1:15; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,3);">Ac 11:3</a>, etc.), and the adjective aperitmetos (Additions to Esther 14:15; 1Macc 1:48; 2:46; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,51);">Ac 7:51</a>), with the verb epispaomai, "become uncircumcised" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',7,18);">1Co 7:18</a>). The language of 1Macc 1:15 suggests the performance of some surgical operation, but no such operation appears to be possible, and "behaved like uncircumcised persons" (as in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',7,18);">1Co 7:18</a>) is the probable meaning.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CIRCUMCISION">CIRCUMCISION</a>`48';
isbe[8985]='Uncle`un\'-k\'l (dodh, "beloved," "uncle," "relation").`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RELATIONSHIPS+FAMILY">RELATIONSHIPS, FAMILY</a>`1';
isbe[8986]='Unclean Spirit`un-klen\'.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SPIRIT+UNCLEAN">SPIRIT, UNCLEAN</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DEMON,+DEMONIAC">DEMON, DEMONIAC</a>`1';
isbe[8987]='Uncleanness`un-klen\'-nes:<P><b>I. TERMS</b><P class="in15">1. In the Old Testament (Hebrew)<P class="in15">2. In the New Testament<P class="in15">3. In the Septuagint<P><b>II. POSSIBLE RELATION OF ISRAEL\'S LAWS ON UNCLEANNESS WITH THE LAWS OF TABOO AMONG THE NATIONS</b><P><b>III. TEACHING AS TO UNCLEANNESS</b><P class="in15">1. In the Old Testament<P class="in15">2. In the Apocrypha<P class="in15">3. In the New Testament<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. Terms.<P>1. In the Old Testament (Hebrew):<P>Tum\'ah, "uncleanness," "defilement," occurs 26 times (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',7,20,21);">Le 7:20,21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,19);">14:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,3,15,26,30,31);">15:3,15,26,30,31</a>, etc.). niddah, "separation," "impurity," occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,21);">Le 20:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',9,11);">Ezr 9:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',13,1);">Zec 13:1</a>. \'erwah, occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',23,14);">De 23:14</a>. \'erwath dabhar, "unclean thing" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',24,1);">De 24:1</a>) is translated "uncleanness" in the King James Version. The adjective Tame\', "defiled," "unclean," occurs 72 times (over half in Leviticus), but is never translated "uncleanness," but always "unclean." The verb Tame\', "to make" or "declare unclean," occurs often. Other Hebrew verbs "to defile" are ga\'al, chalal, chaneph, Tanaph, \'alal, \'anah.<P>2. In the New Testament:<P>The Greek word for "uncleanness" is akatharsia, which occurs 10 times (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,27);">Mt 23:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,24);">Ro 1:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,19);">6:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',12,21);">2Co 12:21</a>, etc.). miasmos, "pollution," occurs only in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,10);">2Pe 2:10</a>. The adjective akathartos, "unclean," occurs 31 times, 23 times in reference to unclean spirits (Luke once using the expression "unclean demon," <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,33);">4:33</A>), 4 times to ceremonial uncleanness (thee by Peter and one by John the revelator), and 4 times to moral uncleanness (three by Paul and one by John the revelator). Koinos, "common," "unclean," occurs 8 times in the sense of "unclean" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,2,5);">Mr 7:2,5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,14,28);">Ac 10:14,28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,8);">11:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',14,14);">Ro 14:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',21,27);">Re 21:27</a>). The verb koinoo, "to defile," occurs 11 times (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',15,1118,20);">Mt 15:11,18,20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,15);">Mr 7:15</a>, etc.). miaino, "to defile," occurs 5 times (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,28);">Joh 18:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,15);">Tit 1:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,15);">Heb 12:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,8);">Jude 1:8</a>). moluno, "to make filthy," occurs 3 times (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',8,7);">1Co 8:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',3,4);">Re 3:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',14,4);">14:4</a>). spiloo, occurs twice (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',3,6);">Jas 3:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,23);">Jude 1:23</a>) and phtheiro, "to corrupt," occurs 7 times in Greek, once in English Versions of the Bible (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',3,17);">1Co 3:17</a>).<P>3. In the Septuagint:<P>Akatharsia, "uncleanness," occurs 59 times in Septuagint (including many instances in apocryphal books) (1 and 2Esdras, Tobit, 1 and 2Maccabees, etc.). Akathartos, "unclean," occurs 134 times in the Septuagint (including one example in 1Maccabees). Koinos, "unclean," and koinoo, "to make unclean," occur in Esther, Proverbs, Wisdom,1, 2, 3 and 4 Maccabees). Miaino, "to defile," occurs over 100 times. Moluno, "to make filthy," occurs 18 times (both in the Old Testament and in the Apocrypha).<P>II. Possible Relation of Israel\'s Laws on Uncleanness with the Laws of Taboo among the Nations:<P>W. R. Smith (Lectures on the Religion of the Semites, 152-55) thinks there is a kinship between Israel\'s laws of uncleanness and the heathen taboo. Frazer, in The Golden Bough, shows numerous examples of the taboo among various tribes and nations which present striking similarity to some of Israel\'s laws on uncleanness. But does this diminish our respect for the Old Testament laws on uncleanness? Might not Yahweh use this natural religious perception of men as to an intrinsic distinction between clean and unclean in training Israel to a realization of a higher conception<6F>the real difference between sin and holiness, i.e. between moral defilement and moral purification? The hand of Yahweh is visible even in the development of Israel\'s rudimentary laws on ceremonial uncleanness. They are not explicable on purely naturalistic grounds, but Yahweh is training a people to be holy, and so He starts on the lower plane of ceremonial uncleanness and cleanness (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,44);">Le 11:44</a> as to the purpose of Yahweh in establishing these laws respecting clean and unclean animals).<P>III. Teaching as to Uncleanness.<P>1. In the Old Testament:<P>Each term above for uncleanness is used in two senses:<P>(a) to signify ceremonial uncleanness, which is the most usual significance of the term in the Old Testament;<P>(b) but, in the Prophets, to emphasize moral, rather than ceremonial, uncleanness. There are four principal spheres of uncleanness in the Old Testament:<P>(1) Uncleanness in the Matter of Food.<P>The law as to clean and unclean beasts is laid down in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,\'1-23\');">Le 11:1-23</a>. Notice that the law does not extend to vegetable foods, as does a similar law in the Egyptian religion. Four kinds of beasts are named as fit for food:<P>(a) among quadrupeds, those that both chew the cud and part the hoof;<P>(b) among fishes, only those having both fins and scales;<P>(c) most birds or fowls, except, in the main, birds of prey and those noted for uncleanness of habits, are permitted;<P>(d) of insects those that have legs above the feet to leap withal (e.g. the cricket, the grasshopper, etc.), but those that go on all four, or have many feet, or go upon the belly (e.g. worms, snakes, lizards, etc.), are forbidden.<P>See, further, <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FOOD">FOOD</A>.<P>(2) Uncleanness Connected with the Functions of Reproduction (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',12,1);">Leviticus 12</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',12,1);">15</a>).<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,\'2-18\');">Le 15:2-18</a>, we find the laws applied to issues of men; in 15:19ff, to the issues of women. Not only is the man or woman unclean because of the issue, whether normal or abnormal, but the bed on which they lie, or whatever or whoever is touched by them while they are in this state, is unclean. The uncleanness lasts seven days from the cessation of the issue. To become clean men must wash their clothes and batheir bodies (though this requirement is not made of women), and both men and women must offer through the priest a pair of turtle-doves, or two young pigeons (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,\'1-\');">Le 15</a>). According to <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',13,\'1-\');">Le 13</a>, the woman who conceives and bears a child is unclean. This uncleanness lasts seven days if the child born is a male, but 14 days if the child is a female. However, there is a partial uncleanness of the mother that continues 40 days from the birth of a male, 80 days from the birth of a female, at the end of which period she is purified by offering a lamb and a young pigeon (or turtle-dove), or if too poor to offer a lamb she may substitute one of the birds for the lamb.<P>(3) Uncleanness Connected with Leprosy.<P>According to <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',14,\'1-\');">Le 14</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,\'1-\');">15</A>, the leper was regarded as under the stroke of God, and so was deemed unclean. The leper (so adjudged by the priest) must separate himself from others, with torn clothes, disheveled hair, and crying with covered lips, "Unclean! Unclean!" That is, he was regarded as a dead man, and therefore unclean and so must live secluded from others.<P>See, further, <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LEPER,+LEPROSY">LEPER, LEPROSY</a>.<P>(4) Uncleanness Associated with Death.<P>According to <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,\'24-\');">Le 15:24-40</a>, anyone who touched a dead beast, whether unclean or clean, was rendered unclean. According to <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',19,\'11-22\');">Nu 19:11-22</a>, anyone touching the corpse of a human being is unclean. Likewise, everyone in the tent, or who enters the tent, where lies a dead man, is unclean seven days. Even the open vessels in the tent with a dead person are unclean seven days. Whoever, furthermore, touched a dead man\'s bone or grave was unclean seven days. Purification, in all these cases of uncleanness as related to death, was secured by sprinkling the ashes of a red heifer with living water upon the unclean person, or object, on the 3rd and 7th days.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PURIFICATION">PURIFICATION</A>.<P>2. In the Apocrypha:<P>In Tobit 3:7-9; 6:13,14; 7:11; 8:1-3; 1Macc 1:41-53, and in other books, we find the same laws on uncleanness recognized by the descendants of Abraham. It was regarded as abominable to sacrifice other animals (swine for instance) than those prescribed by Yahweh. There is a growing sense in Israel during this period, that all customs and all conduct of the heathen are unclean. Witness the resistance of the loyal Jews to the demands of Antiochus Epiphanes (1Macc 1; 2; 6; 7). The sense of ceremonial uncleanness was still a conspicuous element in the religious consciousness of the Jews in the inter-Biblical period. But the training of God in ceremonial purification and in the moral and spiritual teachings of the prophets had prepared the way for an advance in moral cleanness (both in thought and in practice).<P>3. In the New Testament:<P>By the days of Jesus the scribes and rabbis had wrought out a most cumbrous system of ceremonial uncleanness and purification. Nor did they claim that all their teachings on this subject were found in the Old Testament. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TRADITION">TRADITION</A>. This is fitly illustrated in the New Testament in the washing of hands. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=UNWASHEN">UNWASHEN</a>. When the Mishna (the collection of rabbinic teachings) was produced, the largest book was devoted to the laws of purification, 30 chapters being used to describe the purification of vessels alone.<P>See <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',2,\'1-11\');">Joh 2:1-11</a>, and note how the Jews had six stone waterpots for purification at the wedding in Cana. See <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,25);">Joh 3:25</a> as to the controversy on purification between John\'s disciples and the Jews. This question of cleanness and uncleanness was a tremendous issue with every Jew. He must keep himself ceremonially clean if he would be righteous and win the approval of God.<P>Jesus utterly disregarded for Himself these laws of purification, though He orders the cleansed leper to return to the priest and secure his certificate of cleansing. He did not wash His hands before eating, and His disciples followed His example. Therefore, the Pharisees challenged Him to give an account of His course and that of His disciples (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',15,\'3-20\');">Mt 15:3-20</a> = <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,\'6-23\');">Mr 7:6-23</a>). Jesus then enunciated the great principle that there is no ceremonial, but only moral and spiritual, uncleanness. Not what goes into a man from hands that touch unclean things defiles the man, but the things that come out of his heart, evil thoughts, hatred, adultery, murder, etc., these defile the man.<P>Paul likewise regarded nothing as unclean of itself (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',14,14,20);">Ro 14:14,20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,15);">Tit 1:15</a>), yet no man should violate the scruples of his own conscience or that of his brother (and thus put a stumblingblock in his way). Love, not ceremonialism is the supreme law of the Christian. Paul, in submitting to the vow of purification in Jerusalem, set an example of this principle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,26);">Ac 21:26</a>).<P>See also <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CRIMES">CRIMES</A>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PUNISHMENTS">PUNISHMENTS</A>.<P>LITERATURE.<P>W. R. Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (especially pp. 152-55, on taboo, and pp. 455,456,on the uncleanness of sexual intercourse); Frazer, The Golden Bough (examples of taboo and similar laws and customs among various nations); Frazer, article "Taboo" in Encyclopedia Britannica, 9th edition; Benzinger, Hebrew Archaeology; Nowack, Hebrew Archaeology; Kellogg, commentary on "Leviticus" (Expositor\'s Bible); Kalisch, Leviticus; Dillmann-Ryssel, Leviticus; Schultz, Dillmann, Smend, Marti, Davidson, in their Old Testament Theologies, give useful hints on this subject; article "Casuistry" (Hebrew) in ERE, III, is valuable.``194';
isbe[8988]='Unclothed`un-klothd\'.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CLOTHED+UPON">CLOTHED UPON</a>`1';
isbe[8989]='Unction`unk\'-shun: The the King James Version translation of chrisma (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,20);">1Joh 2:20</a>), which the Revised Version (British and American) renders "anointing," as the King James Version renders the same word in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,27);">1Joh 2:27</a>.``1';
isbe[8990]='Undefiled`un-de-fild\':In the Old Testament tam, "perfect," presents the positive side. Hence, <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,1);">Ps 119:1</a> is translated in the Revised Version: "Blessed are they that are perfect in the way." In the New Testament amiantos, presents the negative side, "unstained" "unsullied" "without taint." Used to describe the sinlessness of Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',7,26);">Heb 7:26</a>), to declare the marriage act free from all guilt, disgrace or shame (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',13,4);">Heb 13:4</a>), to contrast the heavenly inheritance with earthly possessions (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,4);">1Pe 1:4</a>).``1';
isbe[8991]='Undergirding`un-der-gurd\'-ing.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHIPS+AND+BOATS">SHIPS and BOATS</a>`1';
isbe[8992]='Underneath`un-der-neth\' (tachath, "the bottom (as depressed)"): "Underneath are the everlasting arms" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,27);">De 33:27</a>). In these words Moses sums up the history of Israel and gives expression to his final thought about life and time and all things visible. Underneath all phenomena and all the chances and changes of life and time there is unchanging law, everlasting principle, an all-enfolding power, an all-embracing love.``1';
isbe[8993]='Undersetter`un\'-der-set-er (katheph): The word, used in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',7,30,34);">1Ki 7:30,34</a> of supports of the laver, means lit. "shoulder," and is so rendered in the Revised Version margin.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LAVER">LAVER</a>`1';
isbe[8994]='Undertake`un-der-tak\':"To take upon one\'s self," "assume responsibility," and so in Elizabethan English "be surety." In this sense in the King James Version <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',38,14);">Isa 38:14</a>, "O Lord,...undertake for me" (\'arabh, the Revised Version (British and American) "be thou my surety"). Perhaps in the same sense in Sirach 29:19, although the idea is scarcely contained in the Greek verb dioko, "pursue." In the modern sense in 1Esdras 1:28; 2Macc 2:29; 8:10; the King James Version 2:27.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SURE">SURE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SURETY">SURETY</a>`1';
isbe[8995]='Unequal`un-e\'-kwal: <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',18,25,29);">Eze 18:25,29</a> for lo\' thakhan, "not weighed," "illogical." "Unequally" in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',6,14);">2Co 6:14</a>, in the phrase "unequally yoked," heterozugeo, is used of the yoking together of two animals of different kinds (compare the Septuagint of <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,19);">Le 19:19</a>).``1';
isbe[8996]='Unfeigned`un-fand\' (anupokritos, "unfeigned," "undisguised"): The Greek word occurs only in the New Testament (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,5);">1Ti 1:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',1,5);">2Ti 1:5</a>) and is designative of the moral quality of faith as "the mark of transparency and simplicity of soul<75>the most complete and distinct exponent of a man\'s character<65>the natural hypothesis of a pure and good heart<72>a readiness to believe in goodness" (Martineau, Hours of Thought, First Series, 86ff). Compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',6,6);">2Co 6:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,22);">1Pe 1:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',3,17);">Jas 3:17</a>.``1';
isbe[8997]='Ungodly`un-god\'-li (rasha\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',1,1);">Ps 1:1</a>), "wicked," beliya\'al (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',22,5);">2Sa 22:5</a>), "worthless"; in the New Testament asebes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,6);">Ro 5:6</a>), e.g. indicating that the persons so called are both irreverent and impious): Trench says that the idea of active opposition to religion is involved in the word, that it is a deliberate withholding from God of His dues of prayer and of service; a standing, so to speak, in battle array against God and His claims to respect, reverence and obedience. Those whose sins are particularly aggravating and deserving of God\'s wrath are the "ungodly." And yet it is for such that Jesus Christ died (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,6);">Ro 5:6</a>).``53';
isbe[8998]='Unicorn`u\'-ni-korn (re\'em (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',23,22);">Nu 23:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',24,8);">24:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,17);">De 33:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',39,9,10);">Job 39:9,10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',22,21);">Ps 22:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',29,6);">29:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',92,10);">92:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,7);">Isa 34:7</a>)): "<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=UNICORN">Unicorn</a>" occurs in the King James Version in the passages cited, where the Revised Version (British and American) has "<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WILD+OX">wild-ox</A>" (which see).``1';
isbe[8999]='Unity`u\'-ni-ti: <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',133,1);">Ps 133:1</a> for (yachadh, "unitedness," and <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,3,13);">Eph 4:3,13</a> for henotes "oneness." Also Sirach 25:1 the King James Version for homonoia "concord" (so the Revised Version (British and American)).``1';
isbe[9000]='Unknown God`un-non\', (agnostos theos): In <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,23);">Ac 17:23</a> (St. Paul\'s speech in Athens) the American Standard Revised Version reads: "I found also an altar with this inscription, To AN UNKNOWN GOD. What therefore ye worship in ignorance, this I set forth unto you." the King James Version and the English Revised Version margin translate "to the Unknown God," owing to the fact that in Greek certain words, of which theos is one, may drop the article when it is to be understood. In the present case the use of the article. is probably right (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,24);">Ac 17:24</a>). In addition, the King James Version reads "whom" and "him" in place of "what" and "this." The difference here is due to a variation in the Greek manuscripts, most of which support the King James Version. But internal probability is against the King James Version\'s reading, as it would have been very easy for a scribe to change neuters (referring to the divine power) into masculines after "God," but not vice versa. Hence, modern editors (except yon Soden\'s margin) have adopted the reading in the Revised Version (British and American).<P>Paul in Athens, "as he beheld the city full of idols," felt that God was truly unknown there. Hence the altar with the inscription struck him as particularly significant. Some Athenians, at any rate, felt the religious inadequacy of all known deities and were appealing to the God who they felt must exist, although they knew nothing definite about Him. No better starting-point for an address could be wished. What the inscription actually meant, however, is another question. Nothing is known about it. Altars dedicated "to unknown gods" (in the plural) seem to have been fairly common (Jerome on <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,12);">Tit 1:12</a>; Pausanias, i.1,4; Philaster, Vita Apoll., vi.3), and Blase (Commentary ad loc.) has even suggested that the words in Acts were originally in the plural. But this would spoil the whole point of the speech, and the absence of references to a single inscription among thousands that existed can cause no surprise. Those inscriptions in the plural seem to have been meant in the sense "to the other deities that may exist in addition to those already known," but an inscription in the sing. could not have this meaning. Perhaps a votive inscription is meant, where the worshipper did not know which god to thank for some benefit received. That a slur on all the other Athenian objects of worship was intended is, however, most improbable, but Paul could not of course be expected to know the technical meaning of such inscriptions.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ATHENS">ATHENS</a>`48';
</script>
<script src="./study/isbe/author.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./study/isbe/isbeDisplay.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./js/MainFooter.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink